Internal quantum reference frames for finite Abelian groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employing internal quantum systems as reference frames is a crucial concept in quantum gravity, gauge theories, and quantum foundations whenever external relata are unavailable. In this work, we give a comprehensive and self-contained treatment of such quantum reference frames (QRFs) for the case when the underlying configuration space is a finite Abelian group, significantly extending our previous work [M. Krumm, P. A. Höhn, and M. P. Müller, Quantum 5, 530 (2021)]. The simplicity of this setup admits a fully rigorous quantum information–theoretic analysis, while maintaining sufficient structure for exploring many of the conceptual and structural questions also pertinent to more complicated setups. We exploit this to derive several important structures of constraint quantization with quantum information–theoretic methods and to reveal the relation between different approaches to QRF covariance. In particular, we characterize the “physical Hilbert space”—the arena of the “perspective-neutral” approach—as the maximal subspace that admits frame-independent descriptions of purifications of states. We then demonstrate the kinematical equivalence and, surprising, dynamical inequivalence of the “perspective-neutral” and the “alignability” approach to QRFs. While the former admits unitaries generating transitions between arbitrary subsystem relations, the latter, remarkably, admits no such dynamics when requiring symmetry-preservation. We illustrate these findings by example of interacting discrete particles, including how dynamics can be described “relative to one of the subystems.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".