MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412968154 · doi:10.1103/5n4p-bxhm

Quantum Bayes’ Rule and Petz Transpose Map from the Minimum Change Principle

2025· article· en· W4412968154 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Francesco Buscemi, Valerio Scarani

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre for Quantum TechnologiesJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyAgency for Science, Technology and ResearchMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyMinistry of Education - SingaporeNational Research Foundation SingaporeManning Fund
KeywordsTransposeBayes' theoremQuantumMathematicsPhysicsAlgorithmComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsStatisticsBayesian probabilityEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bayes' rule, which is routinely used to update beliefs based on new evidence, can be derived from a principle of minimum change. This principle states that updated beliefs must be consistent with new data, while deviating minimally from the prior belief. Here, we introduce a quantum analog of the minimum change principle and use it to derive a quantum Bayes' rule by minimizing the change between two quantum input-output processes, not just their marginals. This is analogous to the classical case, where Bayes' rule is obtained by minimizing several distances between the joint input-output distributions. When the change maximizes the fidelity, the quantum minimum change principle has a unique solution, and the resulting quantum Bayes' rule recovers the Petz transpose map in many cases.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207