MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412438898 · doi:10.1103/hpmv-15sf

Symmetry-induced failures of tomographic locality: Constructing foil theories by twirling

2025· article· en· W4412438898 on OpenAlexafffund
Marco Erba, Thomas D. Galley, David Schmid, John H. Selby, Robert W. Spekkens, Sina Soltani, Jacopo Surace, Alexander Wilce, Yìlè Yīng

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNarodowe Centrum NaukiOkinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University
KeywordsLocalityProbabilistic logicSymmetry (geometry)Theoretical physicsStatistical physicsMathematicsPhysicsMathematical physicsStatisticsGeometryPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tomographic locality is a principle commonly used in the program of finding axioms that pick out quantum theory within the landscape of possible theories. The principle asserts the sufficiency of local measurements for achieving a tomographic characterization of any bipartite state. In this work, we explore the meaning of the principle of tomographic locality by developing a simple scheme for generating a wide variety of theories that violate the principle. In this scheme, one starts with a tomographically local theory -- which can be classical, quantum or post-quantum -- and a physical symmetry, and one restricts the processes in the theory to all and only those that are covariant with respect to the collective action of that symmetry. We refer to the resulting theories as twirled worlds. We show that failures of tomographic locality are ubiquitous in twirled worlds. From the possibility of such failures in classical twirled worlds, we argue that the failure of tomographic locality (i.e., tomographic nonlocality) does not imply ontological holism. Our results also demonstrate the need for researchers seeking to axiomatize quantum theory to take a stand on the question of whether there are superselection rules that have a fundamental status.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.387 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A→Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→