pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04112 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🪐 quant-ph

Emergent Quantum Dynamics as a Bayesian Inference Problem: A Critical Analysis

Thales B. S. F. Rodrigues , Lucas L. Brugger , Vinicius G. Valle , Bruno F. Rizzuti , Cristhiano Duarte This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 19:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords emergent quantum dynamicsBayesian inferencequantum conditional statessemidefinite programmingcoarse-grainingrobustness measureeffective dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Coarse-grained quantum dynamics emerge from Bayesian inference when represented in the quantum conditional states formalism.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes that effective descriptions of quantum processes with information loss can be connected to the quantum conditional states formalism, allowing necessary and sufficient conditions for emergent dynamics to be derived from a subjective Bayesian viewpoint. This framing turns the existence question into a convex optimization problem that admits both analytical and numerical solutions. Although the derived dynamics remain limited to individual states rather than a single map for all inputs, semidefinite programming is used to test existence in four standard scenarios. The analysis also defines a robustness measure that quantifies the maximum noise tolerable by a microscopic dynamics while preserving compatibility with a chosen coarse-grained description.

Core claim

Emergent dynamics exist precisely when a given coarse-grained quantum description can be expressed as a valid quantum conditional state; the resulting semidefinite program supplies both necessary and sufficient conditions from the Bayesian perspective, although the resulting dynamics apply state by state and therefore remain analytically restricted.

What carries the argument

The quantum conditional states formalism, which encodes any coarse-grained description as a conditional quantum state and converts the search for a compatible emergent dynamics into a convex semidefinite program.

If this is right

  • Existence of effective dynamics can be decided by semidefinite programming in any of the four paradigmatic scenarios examined.
  • The new robustness measure supplies a quantitative bound on how much noise may be added to the microscopic dynamics before compatibility with the coarse-grained description is lost.
  • Explicit analytical expressions for valid emergent descriptions can be obtained whenever the coarse-graining is simple enough to permit closed-form solution of the optimization problem.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The state-by-state limitation implies that a single universal dynamical map may require additional structure beyond the current Bayesian setup.
  • The robustness measure could be applied to compare the stability of different coarse-graining choices in concrete physical models.
  • Because the method works whenever a conditional-state representation exists, it may be used to test emergence in any open-system dynamics that admits a well-defined coarse-graining.

Load-bearing premise

Any coarse-grained description can always be represented inside the quantum conditional states formalism, so that the existence of emergent dynamics reduces to a well-posed semidefinite program without further hidden constraints from the underlying Hilbert space or measurement model.

What would settle it

A concrete coarse-grained description together with a microscopic dynamics for which the associated semidefinite program returns infeasible, even though the formal representation inside the conditional-states formalism appears satisfied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04112 by Bruno F. Rizzuti, Cristhiano Duarte, Lucas L. Brugger, Thales B. S. F. Rodrigues, Vinicius G. Valle.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The coarse-graining problem diagrammatically. To view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: , where we can see arrows that directly connect the quantum regions while ignoring the squeezed classical region between them. Once again, we establish the emergence of an effective dynamics. Nevertheless, the scenario addressed here is particularly interesting. In section IV B, we will argue that whenever a diagram involves four quantum regions, the problem becomes far from trivial to solve. In that conte… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Explicit emergent dynamics for different coarse view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Performance of the solution Γ view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Histograms showing the commutativity performance of Γ view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Boxplots of the best 10 view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Time varying effects on the commutativity performance of Γ view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Performance of Γ view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17 view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18 view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19 view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20 view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Coarse-grained descriptions can be used to account for physical processes in which information is lost or not entirely accessible. In this paper, we start by proposing a connection between effective, coarse-grained descriptions of quantum dynamics and the quantum conditional states formalism. In doing so, we address necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of emergent dynamics from a subjective Bayesian point of view. Although our solution is (quasi-)optimal, the dynamics it determines are shown to be analytically limited -- it solves the problem in a state-by-state case. Due to this limitation, we then implement semidefinite programming techniques to investigate the existence of effective dynamics in four paradigmatic scenarios. The existence of such an effective dynamics motivates the introduction of a new robustness measure that quantifies how much noise can be added to a microscopic dynamics without compromising its compatibility with a given coarse-grained description. Finally, we also show how one can analytically determine a valid emergent description in several examples.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a connection between coarse-grained quantum dynamics and the quantum conditional states formalism from a subjective Bayesian viewpoint. It derives necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of emergent dynamics, acknowledges that the analytical solution is limited to state-by-state cases, deploys semidefinite programming to check existence in four paradigmatic scenarios, introduces a robustness measure for noise tolerance of microscopic dynamics, and provides analytical constructions for valid emergent descriptions in examples.

Significance. If the SDP constraints are shown to faithfully encode the Bayesian conditions and the robustness measure is well-defined without hidden dependencies, the work could offer a practical framework for analyzing effective quantum dynamics under information loss. The explicit acknowledgment of the state-by-state analytical limitation and the provision of both numerical SDP checks and analytical examples are strengths that support reproducibility and clarity.

major comments (1)
  1. [section on semidefinite programming techniques and paradigmatic scenarios] The abstract states that SDP techniques are implemented to investigate existence in four paradigmatic scenarios, yet without an explicit derivation or verification (e.g., showing that the SDP feasibility constraints match the necessary and sufficient Bayesian conditions derived from the quantum conditional states formalism), it is not possible to confirm that the numerical results correctly support the existence claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. The parenthetical '(quasi-)optimal' in the abstract and any corresponding discussion should be accompanied by a precise definition of the optimality criterion or a reference to the relevant equation or optimization objective.
  2. Notation for the robustness measure (introduced after the SDP checks) should be defined consistently with the earlier Bayesian conditions to avoid ambiguity in how noise is quantified.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the major comment below and will incorporate the requested clarification to strengthen the connection between the theoretical conditions and the numerical SDP implementation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [section on semidefinite programming techniques and paradigmatic scenarios] The abstract states that SDP techniques are implemented to investigate existence in four paradigmatic scenarios, yet without an explicit derivation or verification (e.g., showing that the SDP feasibility constraints match the necessary and sufficient Bayesian conditions derived from the quantum conditional states formalism), it is not possible to confirm that the numerical results correctly support the existence claims.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation linking the SDP feasibility constraints to the necessary and sufficient conditions obtained from the quantum conditional states formalism is important for confirming the validity of the numerical results. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection (or appendix) that derives the SDP formulation step by step from the Bayesian existence conditions for emergent dynamics. This will include showing how the semidefinite constraints encode the compatibility requirements between the microscopic dynamics and the coarse-grained description, thereby verifying that the SDP feasibility directly corresponds to the theoretical conditions. We will also provide the explicit SDP matrices and solver parameters used for the four paradigmatic scenarios to enhance reproducibility. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper connects coarse-grained quantum dynamics to the quantum conditional states formalism and derives necessary and sufficient existence conditions from a subjective Bayesian viewpoint. It explicitly acknowledges the analytical limitation to state-by-state cases, then deploys semidefinite programming as an external numerical solver to check concrete scenarios and defines a robustness measure from those checks. No step reduces by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the SDP and examples function as independent verification rather than tautological outputs. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of the quantum conditional states formalism to coarse-grained dynamics and on the assumption that existence of emergent dynamics can be decided by semidefinite programming without further domain-specific constraints.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard axioms of quantum mechanics and the quantum conditional states formalism
    The paper builds directly on these established structures to define coarse-grained descriptions.
  • domain assumption Subjective Bayesian interpretation of quantum probabilities
    The necessary and sufficient conditions are derived from this viewpoint.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5480 in / 1308 out tokens · 33905 ms · 2026-05-08T19:04:45.402996+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. F. Haase, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, J. Ko lodynski, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, Precision limits in quantum metrology with open quantum systems, Quantum Mea- surements and Quantum Metrology5, 13–39 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Benavoli, A

    A. Benavoli, A. Facchini, and M. Zaffalon, Quantum me- chanics: The bayesian theory generalized to the space of hermitian matrices, Phys. Rev. A94, 042106 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Pitowsky, Quantum Probability - Quantum Logic, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer-Verlag Springer e-books, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005)

    I. Pitowsky, Quantum Probability - Quantum Logic, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer-Verlag Springer e-books, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S...

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Budroni, A

    C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. G¨ uhne, M. Kleinmann, and J.-A. Larsson, Kochen-specker contextuality, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045007 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality for preparations, trans- formations, and unsharp measurements, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052108 (2005)

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, A single quantum cannot be cloned, Nature (London)299, 802 (1982)

    work page 1982

  11. [11]

    Barnum, J

    H. Barnum, J. Barrett, M. Leifer, and A. Wilce, Gen- eralized no-broadcasting theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 240501 (2007)

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    G¨ uhne, E

    O. G¨ uhne, E. Haapasalo, T. Kraft, J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and R. Uola, Colloquium: Incompatible measurements in quantum information science, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 011003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cam- bridge university press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Rivas, S

    A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum non- markovianity: characterization, quantification and detec- tion, Reports on Progress in Physics77, 094001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    E. R. MacQuarrie, C. Simon, S. Simmons, and E. Maine, The emerging commercial landscape of quantum comput- ing, Nature Reviews Physics2, 596–598 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Duarte, G

    C. Duarte, G. D. Carvalho, N. K. Bernardes, and F. de Melo, Emerging dynamics arising from coarse- grained quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A96, 032113 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Silva Correia and F

    P. Silva Correia and F. de Melo, Spin-entanglement wave in a coarse-grained optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A100, 22 022334 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Duarte, B

    C. Duarte, B. Amaral, M. T. Cunha, and M. Leifer, Investigating coarse-grainings and emergent quantum dynamics with four mathematical perspectives (2020), arXiv:2011.10349 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    R. O. Vallejos, P. S. Correia, P. C. Obando, N. M. O’Neill, A. B. Tacla, and F. de Melo, Quantum state inference from coarse-grained descriptions: Analysis and an application to quantum thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. A106, 012219 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Duarte, Compatibility between agents as a tool for coarse-grained descriptions of quantum systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 395301 (2020)

    C. Duarte, Compatibility between agents as a tool for coarse-grained descriptions of quantum systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 395301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Kofler and i

    J. Kofler and i. c. v. Brukner, Classical world arising out of quantum physics under the restriction of coarse- grained measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 180403 (2007)

    work page 2007

  22. [22]

    Kabernik, Quantum coarse graining, symmetries, and reducibility of dynamics, Phys

    O. Kabernik, Quantum coarse graining, symmetries, and reducibility of dynamics, Phys. Rev. A97, 052130 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    M. S. Leifer and R. W. Spekkens, A bayesian approach to compatibility, improvement, and pooling of quantum states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- ical47, 275301 (2014)

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    M. S. Leifer, Quantum dynamics as an analog of condi- tional probability, Phys. Rev. A74, 042310 (2006)

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    Leifer and C

    M. Leifer and C. Duarte, Generalising aumann’s agree- ment theorem (2022), arXiv:2202.02156 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    M. S. Leifer and R. W. Spekkens, Towards a formula- tion of quantum theory as a causally neutral theory of bayesian inference, Physical Review A88, 052130 (2013)

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    Petz, Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von neumann algebra, Communications in Mathematical Physics105, 123 (1986)

    D. Petz, Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von neumann algebra, Communications in Mathematical Physics105, 123 (1986)

    work page 1986

  28. [28]

    Barenco, A

    A. Barenco, A. Berthiaume, D. Deutsch, A. Ek- ert, R. Jozsa, and C. Macchiavello, Stabilization of quantum computations by symmetrization, SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1541 (1997), https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539796302452

    work page doi:10.1137/s0097539796302452 1997

  29. [29]

    H. Nishimura, A survey: Swap test and its applications to quantum complexity theory, Algorithmic Foundations for Social Advancement: Recent Progress on Theory and Practice , 243 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions, Physics World 12, 33 (1999)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions, Physics World 12, 33 (1999)

    work page 1999

  31. [31]

    Amaral, A

    B. Amaral, A. T. Baraviera, and M. O. Terra Cunha, Mecˆ anica quˆ antica para matem´ aticos em forma¸ c˜ ao (IMPA, Rio de Janeiro, 2011)

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    Gamel, Entangled Bloch spheres: Bloch matrix and two-qubit state space, Physical Review A93, 062320 (2016)

    O. Gamel, Entangled Bloch spheres: Bloch matrix and two-qubit state space, Physical Review A93, 062320 (2016)

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Rizzuti, L

    B. Rizzuti, L. Gaio, and C. Duarte, Operational approach to the topological structure of the physical space, Foun- dations of Science25, 711 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    V. G. Valle, L. L. Brugger, B. F. Rizzuti, and C. Duarte, Towards Establishing a Connection Between Two-Level Quantum Systems and Physical Spaces, Brazilian Jour- nal of Physics54, 93 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Grossi, L

    R. Grossi, L. L. Brugger, B. Rizzuti, and C. Duarte, One Hundred Years Later: Stern-Gerlach Experiment and Dimension Witnesses, Revista Brasileira de Ensino de F´ ısica45, e20220227 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    S. M. Carroll and A. Parola, What emergence can possi- bly mean (2024), arXiv:2410.15468 [physics.hist-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    V. G. Valle and B. F. Rizzuti, From rotations to uni- taries: Reversible quantum processes and the emergence of the SU(2)-SO(3) homomorphism, Revista Brasileira de Ensino de F´ ısica48, e20250374 (2026)

    work page 2026

  38. [38]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction, Russian Mathematical Surveys52, 1191 (1997)

    work page 1997

  39. [39]

    2053-2563

    P. Skrzypczyk and D. Cavalcanti, Semidefinite program- ming in quantum information science, IOP Publishing 2053-2563, 10.1088/978-0-7503-3343-6 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1088/978-0-7503-3343-6 2053

  40. [40]

    Benenti and G

    G. Benenti and G. Strini, Computing the distance be- tween quantum channels: usefulness of the fano repre- sentation, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics43, 215508 (2010)

    work page 2010

  41. [41]

    Watrous, Simpler semidefinite programs for completely bounded norms (2012), arXiv:1207.5726 [quant-ph]

    J. Watrous, Simpler semidefinite programs for completely bounded norms (2012), arXiv:1207.5726 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Robustness of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A59, 141 (1999)

    work page 1999

  43. [43]

    Regula, R

    B. Regula, R. Takagi, and M. Gu, Operational applica- tions of the diamond norm and related measures in quan- tifying the non-physicality of quantum maps, Quantum 5, 522 (2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Jiang, K

    J. Jiang, K. Wang, and X. Wang, Physical Imple- mentability of Linear Maps and Its Application in Error Mitigation, Quantum5, 600 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    K. Fang, X. Wang, M. Tomamichel, and M. Berta, Quan- tum channel simulation and the channel’s smooth max- information, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 66, 2129 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    M. Ye, Y. Luo, Z. Li, and Y. Li, Projective robustness for quantum channels and measurements and their op- erational significance, Laser Physics Letters19, 075204 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    A. W. Harrow and M. A. Nielsen, Robustness of quantum gates in the presence of noise, Phys. Rev. A68, 012308 (2003)

    work page 2003

  48. [48]

    Diamond and S

    S. Diamond and S. Boyd, CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization, Journal of Machine Learning Research17, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    ApS, The mosek python fusion api manual

    M. ApS, The mosek python fusion api manual. version 11.0. (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gom- mers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Tay- lor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. Shep- pard, T. Reddy, W. Weckesser, H. Abbasi, C. Gohlke, and T. E. Oliphant, Array ...

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    R. F. Werner, Quantum states with einstein-podolsky- rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A40, 4277 (1989)

    work page 1989

  52. [52]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Po- lat, Y. Feng, E. W. Moore, J. VanderPlas, D. Laxalde, J. Perktold, R. Cimrman, I. Henr...

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    Surace and M

    J. Surace and M. Scandi, State retrieval beyond Bayes’ 23 retrodiction, Quantum7, 990 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Lautenbacher, F

    L. Lautenbacher, F. de Melo, and N. K. Bernardes, Ap- proximating invertible maps by recovery channels: Op- timality and an application to non-markovian dynamics, Phys. Rev. A105, 042421 (2022)

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, International Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 467 (1982)

    work page 1982

  56. [56]

    Perez-Garcia, F

    D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quantum Info. Comput.7, 401–430 (2007)

    work page 2007

  57. [57]

    P. S. Correia, P. C. Obando, R. O. Vallejos, and F. de Melo, Macro-to-micro quantum mapping and the emergence of nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. A103, 052210 (2021)

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    P. C. S. Costa and F. de Melo, Coarse graining of parti- tioned cellular automata, J. Cell. Autom.15, 305 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Silva Correia and F

    P. Silva Correia and F. de Melo, Spin-entanglement wave in a coarse-grained optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A100, 022334 (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices, Linear Algebra Appl.10, 285 (1975)

    M.-D. Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices, Linear Algebra Appl.10, 285 (1975)

    work page 1975

  61. [61]

    Jamio lkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Reports on Mathematical Physics3, 275 (1972)

    A. Jamio lkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Reports on Mathematical Physics3, 275 (1972)

    work page 1972

  62. [62]

    R. Nery, N. K. Bernardes, D. Cavalcanti, R. Chaves, and C. Duarte, Efficient and operational quantifier of nondi- visibility in terms of channel discrimination, Phys. Rev. A111, 022206 (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    J. Watrous, Theory of quantum information, Online (2011), lecture notes CS 766/QIC 820 Theory of Quan- tum Information (Fall 2011), University of Waterloo - Institute for Quantum Computing

    work page 2011

  64. [64]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, B

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Lalo¨ e, Quantum Mechanics, 1st ed., Vol. 1–2 (Wiley-VCH,

    work page

  65. [65]

    Rothman and others

    translated from the French by S. Rothman and others

    work page

  66. [66]

    James, Probabilidade: um curso em n´ ıvel inter- medi´ ario, Instituto de Matem´ atica Pura e Aplicada Pro- jeto Euclides (2004)

    B. James, Probabilidade: um curso em n´ ıvel inter- medi´ ario, Instituto de Matem´ atica Pura e Aplicada Pro- jeto Euclides (2004)

    work page 2004

  67. [67]

    Barnum and E

    H. Barnum and E. Knill, Reversing quantum dynamics with near-optimal quantum and classical fidelity, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 2097 (2002). Appendix A: Coarse-Graining Mechanism and Quantum Conditional States: a brief overview of the formalism This work should be seen as part of a larger project, which advances a particular standpoint: that quant...

    work page 2097

  68. [68]

    The Coarse-Graining Problem From a numerical perspective, a full description of many-body quantum systems seems to be a computationally impossible task [55, 56]. The complexity and the number of parameters of such descriptions grows exponentially with their degrees of freedom, and a typical simulation of a system containing 6×10 23 particles, which takes ...

    work page

  69. [69]

    Channel-Operator Connection This section contains a brief overview of an adapted version of the conditional states formalism developed in ref

    Conditional States F ormalism a. Channel-Operator Connection This section contains a brief overview of an adapted version of the conditional states formalism developed in ref. [26]. The main difference between the two formulations is just a matter of convenience—it is essentially a 25 decision of where to write down a partial trace. Because we wanted to i...

    work page

  70. [70]

    Since we initially have access only toρ X|R, we must determineρ R|X via the Bayes’ rule

    F ully Classical Case As we look critically at the conditional state obtained in expression (7), we notice that the stateρ R|X is required in the composition in order to obtain the full form of the conditional stateρ Y|X —similar to the fully quantum case where we usedϱ A|C. Since we initially have access only toρ X|R, we must determineρ R|X via the Bayes...

    work page