Identification of causal influences in quantum processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have seen great interest in extending causal inference concepts developed in the context of classical statistical models to quantum theory. So far, this program has only barely addressed causal identification, a type of causal inference problem concerned with recovering from observational data and qualitative assumptions the causal relationships generating the data, and hence the effects of hypothetical interventions. A major obstacle to a theory of causal identification in the quantum setting is the question of what should play the role of “observational data,” as any means of extracting data at a locus will almost certainly disturb the system. One might think that quantum measurements are already too much like interventions, so that the problem of causal identification is trivialized. This is not the case: when we fix a limited class of quantum measurement instruments (namely, the class of all projective measurements) to play the role of “observations,” there exist scenarios for which causal identification is impossible. In this paper, we present a framework, based on process theories (also known as strict symmetric monoidal categories), for studying quantum causal identification scenarios on the same footing as their classical counterparts. Within this framework, we present sufficient conditions for quantum causal identification in networks with unobserved confounding systems, including quantum analogs of the well-known “back-door” and “front-door” criteria. These results arise from a type of causal model designed to facilitate the transfer of inference techniques from the classical to the quantum setting. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".