MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7085497409 · doi:10.1103/f7dh-5xht

Distinguishing quantum causal scenarios with indistinguishable classical analogs: The significance of intermediate latents

2025· article· en· W7085497409 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsGeneralizationHierarchyQuantumObservableLatent variableCausal modelVariety (cybernetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of graphical models to represent causal hypotheses has enabled revolutionary progress in the study of the foundations of quantum theory. Here we consider directed acyclic graphs each of which contains both nodes representing observed variables as well as nodes representing latent or hidden variables. When comparing distinct causal structures, a natural question to ask is if they can explain distinct sets of observable distributions or not. Statisticians have developed a great variety of tools for resolving such questions under the assumption that latent nodes are interpreted classically. Here we highlight how the change to a quantum interpretation of the latent nodes induces distinctions between causal scenarios that would be classically indistinguishable. We especially concentrate on quantum scenarios containing latent nodes with at least one latent parent, a.k.a. possessing intermediate latents. This initial survey demonstrates that many such quantum processes can be operationally distinguished by considerations related to monogamy of nonlocality, especially when computationally aided by a hierarchy of semidefinite relaxations which we tailor for the study of such scenarios. We conclude by clarifying the challenges that prevent the generalization of this work, calling attention to open problems regarding observational (in)equivalence of quantum causal structures with intermediate latents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207