Pith. Sign in

RECORD

On the Status of Quantum State Realism

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Wayne C. Myrvold

Quantum Physics · Submitted 25 Nov 2019

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim I argue that we have good reason for being realist about quantum states.

how it is stated · asserted 0.84 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1911.10874 (version 1)
Pith ID47U2SJFU, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationWayne C. Myrvold. "On the Status of Quantum State Realism." arXiv:1911.10874 (2019). https://pith.science/paper/47U2SJFU
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,914 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.82 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.70 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

I argue that we have good reason for being realist about quantum states. Though a research programme of attempting to construct a plausible theory that accounts for quantum phenomena without ontic quantum states is well-motivated, that research programme is confronted by considerable obstacles. Two theorems are considered that place restrictions on a theory of that sort: a theorem due to Barrett, Cavalcanti, Lal, and Maroney, and an extension, by the author, of the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem, that employs an assumption weaker than their Cartesian Product Assumption. These theorems have assumptions, of course. If there were powerful evidence against the conclusion that quantum states correspond to something in physical reality, it might be reasonable to reject these assumptions. But the situation we find ourselves in is the opposite: there is no evidence at all supporting irrealism about quantum states.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 I argue that we have good reason for being realist about quantum states. contribution 0.56 0.57 0.95 asserted 0.84
s1 Though a research programme of attempting to construct a plausible theory that accounts for quantum phenomena without ontic quantum states is well-motivated, that research programme is confronted by considerable obstacles. background 0.95 0.09 0.05 asserted 0.98
s2 Two theorems are considered that place restrictions on a theory of that sort: a theorem due to Barrett, Cavalcanti, Lal, and Maroney, and an extension, by the author, of the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem, that employs an assumption weaker than their Cartesian Product Assumption. contribution 0.90 0.79 0.03 asserted 0.97
s3 These theorems have assumptions, of course. limitation 0.95 0.17 0.02 asserted 0.97
s4 If there were powerful evidence against the conclusion that quantum states correspond to something in physical reality, it might be reasonable to reject these assumptions. limitation 0.78 0.07 0.03 speculative 0.81
s5 But the situation we find ourselves in is the opposite: there is no evidence at all supporting irrealism about quantum states. interpretation 0.85 0.24 0.28 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: position or commentary 0.86 · evidence from argument 0.70.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

I argue that we have good reason for being realist about quantum states. Though a research programme of attempting to construct a plausible theory that accounts for quantum phenomena without ontic quantum states is well-motivated, that research programme is confronted by considerable obstacles. Two theorems are considered that place restrictions on a theory of that sort: a theorem due to Barrett, Cavalcanti, Lal, and Maroney, and an extension, by the author, of the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem, that employs an assumption weaker than their Cartesian Product Assumption. These theorems have assumptions, of course. If there were powerful evidence against the conclusion that quantum states correspond to something in physical reality, it might be reasonable to reject these assumptions. But the situation we find ourselves in is the opposite: there is no evidence at all supporting irrealism about quantum states.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.