pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.27424 · v2 · pith:KHWTR4NBnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🪐 quant-ph

Agreement and Compatibility in Wigner's Friend Paradox

Julio C. F. Silva , B. F. Rizzuti , Cristhiano Duarte This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 17:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Wigner's friend paradoxBayesian inferencequantum foundationsobserver agreementcompatibilitythought experimentinference problembenefit of the doubt
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reframing Wigner's friend paradox as inference shows the descriptions agree with no contradiction.

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

The paper establishes that recasting the original Wigner's friend scenario as a problem of Bayesian inference eliminates any contradiction between Wigner's description and his friend's description. This holds whether the agents reason classically or quantumly. A sympathetic reader would care because the result implies the apparent paradox arises from overlooking compatibility and agreement rather than from any deep conflict in quantum mechanics. The authors also show that a conservative extension they call the benefit of the doubt lets either agent's description be updated to match the other's when the agent remains open-minded.

Core claim

By treating the paradox strictly as an inference problem, a radically Bayesian interpretation shows no contradiction between Wigner's and Wigner's Friend's descriptions, neither classically nor quantumly, and therefore yields no paradoxical conclusion. Compatibility and agreement are fundamental to understanding the thought experiment. Conservatively extending the original setup to incorporate the benefit of the doubt allows either description to be driven to match the other when the agent keeps an open mind.

What carries the argument

Bayesian inference on observer descriptions, with agreement and compatibility as the mechanisms that align Wigner's and his friend's accounts.

If this is right

  • No paradoxical conclusion follows from the original two-agent setup.
  • Either description can be made to match the other when the benefit of the doubt is incorporated and agents keep an open mind.
  • Compatibility and agreement must be considered to understand the thought experiment.
  • The puzzle does not require many-party extensions to be resolved.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same inference-based treatment could be applied to other multi-observer quantum scenarios to check whether apparent inconsistencies dissolve once agreement is required.
  • If open-minded updating is necessary for consistency, then closed-minded interpretations may artificially generate paradoxes in related thought experiments.
  • Classical and quantum inference rules might be compared directly within the same extended setup to test whether the resolution depends on the probability calculus used.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that recasting the paradox strictly as an inference problem preserves its original content and does not remove or alter the source of the apparent inconsistency.

What would settle it

An explicit calculation showing that Wigner's and the friend's probability assignments remain incompatible even after Bayesian updating and after allowing the benefit of the doubt.

read the original abstract

There has been an upsurge of interest in the consequences for quantum physics of the so-called Wigner's Friend Paradox. In its original formulation, the paradox has been turned inside out, and virtually every aspect of it has been looked into. Consequently, it is becoming widely accepted that we can find the potentially puzzling consequences of Wigner's thought experiment only in light of its many-parties extensions. Nonetheless, this contribution returns to the source. Reframing the question as an inference problem, we advance a radically Bayesian interpretation that shows no contradiction between Wigner's and Wigner's Friend's descriptions-neither classically nor quantumly. Therefore, with no paradoxical conclusion. In doing so, we flesh out and expose previously untouched aspects of Wigner's thought experiment, in particular, the fact that compatibility and agreement are fundamental to our understanding of it. Also, by conservatively extending Wigner's original setup and incorporating what we call the 'benefit of the doubt', we see how either Wigner's or his Friend's description can be driven to match one another's -- an impossibility if either agent does not keep an open mind.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reframes Wigner's Friend paradox as a Bayesian inference problem between agents and advances a radically Bayesian interpretation claiming no contradiction exists between Wigner's and the friend's descriptions, neither classically nor quantumly, yielding no paradoxical conclusion. It identifies compatibility and agreement as fundamental, and introduces a conservative extension with 'benefit of the doubt' allowing either description to be driven to match the other.

Significance. If the result holds, the work would clarify that apparent inconsistencies in quantum thought experiments can be resolved via subjective probability assignments and open-minded updating, reducing emphasis on many-party extensions. It gives explicit credit for exposing previously untouched aspects of agreement and compatibility in the original setup.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of 'no contradiction... neither classically nor quantumly' and 'no paradoxical conclusion' is load-bearing on the assumption that the paradox is fully captured by an inference problem. The standard inconsistency is generated by the friend's projective measurement (definite outcome, collapsed state) versus Wigner's unitary evolution (entangled superposition); without explicit update rules, likelihood functions, or derivation showing how the friend's state update remains compatible with the global unitary operator, the Bayesian framing risks restating compatibility by definition rather than resolving the unitary-vs-collapse tension.
  2. [benefit of the doubt extension] § on 'benefit of the doubt' extension: the claim that either agent's description can be driven to match the other's via conservative extension requires showing that this does not alter the original setup's unitary evolution or definite-outcome assignment in a manner that removes the source of the inconsistency; this is load-bearing for the 'impossibility if either agent does not keep an open mind' conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from adding explicit Bayesian update rules and a concrete model (e.g., likelihood functions for the friend's measurement) in the main text to permit verification of the claimed compatibility.
  2. Notation for agent descriptions and probability assignments should be introduced with a dedicated definitions subsection to improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the specific Bayesian framing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our Bayesian reframing of the Wigner's Friend setup. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of 'no contradiction... neither classically nor quantumly' and 'no paradoxical conclusion' is load-bearing on the assumption that the paradox is fully captured by an inference problem. The standard inconsistency is generated by the friend's projective measurement (definite outcome, collapsed state) versus Wigner's unitary evolution (entangled superposition); without explicit update rules, likelihood functions, or derivation showing how the friend's state update remains compatible with the global unitary operator, the Bayesian framing risks restating compatibility by definition rather than resolving the unitary-vs-collapse tension.

    Authors: We model the setup explicitly as Bayesian inference, with the friend's definite outcome entering via a likelihood function conditioned on their local observation and Wigner's description entering as the prior over the global entangled state. Compatibility follows because each agent's posterior is derived from their own information partition; no shared objective state is assumed. The manuscript already sketches these elements in the main text, but we agree the abstract and derivations can be tightened. We will revise the abstract to qualify the claim and add an explicit subsection deriving the update rules and likelihoods to demonstrate compatibility with the unitary operator without redefinition. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [benefit of the doubt extension] § on 'benefit of the doubt' extension: the claim that either agent's description can be driven to match the other's via conservative extension requires showing that this does not alter the original setup's unitary evolution or definite-outcome assignment in a manner that removes the source of the inconsistency; this is load-bearing for the 'impossibility if either agent does not keep an open mind' conclusion.

    Authors: The extension introduces an additional prior uncertainty term ('benefit of the doubt') that allows one agent to assign positive probability to the other's model while leaving the underlying unitary evolution and the friend's local outcome assignment unchanged. The inconsistency is not removed; it is shown to be avoidable only when agents remain open to updating. We will expand the relevant section with a formal statement and a simple worked example confirming that the original unitary and definite-outcome assignments are preserved. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Bayesian reframing of Wigner's Friend uses external conditioning; no self-referential reduction found.

full rationale

The abstract and description present the central move as reframing the paradox strictly as an inference problem and applying standard Bayesian updating to show compatibility of descriptions. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are exhibited in the supplied text that would make any claimed result equivalent to its inputs by construction. The argument therefore rests on external probabilistic machinery rather than a closed loop internal to the paper's own definitions or prior results by the same authors.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the premise that Bayesian inference is the appropriate language for describing both classical and quantum observer statements and that the 'benefit of the doubt' adjustment is a legitimate conservative extension.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Bayesian updating rules apply without modification to both classical and quantum descriptions of measurement outcomes
    The paper states that the interpretation works 'neither classically nor quantumly' and therefore assumes the same probability calculus governs both regimes.
  • ad hoc to paper The original paradox is fully captured by an inference problem between two agents
    The reframing is presented as returning to the source while treating the situation as inference; this choice is introduced by the authors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5731 in / 1309 out tokens · 24496 ms · 2026-06-30T17:51:14.770400+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    System’s and Friend’s states still jointly evolve, from Wigner’s standpoint, as a composition of a Hadamard with a CNOTcontrolled onS

    Wigner assigns the wrong initial state To begin with, consider the case where Wigner as- signs|11⟩ SF for the initial state shared by the Friend and the quantum system inside the laboratory. System’s and Friend’s states still jointly evolve, from Wigner’s standpoint, as a composition of a Hadamard with a CNOTcontrolled onS. |11⟩SF H⊗17− − →1√ 2 (|0⟩S − |1...

  2. [2]

    Disagreement on the inner works of the Friend’s laboratory - NOT gate Now consider the case where Wigner and his Friend disagree on the internal procedure used to prepare the quantum state inside the laboratory. Suppose that Wigner is misinformed (or lacks precise knowledge) about the experimental setup, and believes that, instead of a Hadamard gate appli...

  3. [3]

    Disagreement on the inner works of the Friend’s laboratory - Time-sensitive Compatibility Now consider a more subtle case in which Wigner and his Friend disagree not due to operational impre- cision, but because Wigner adopts an alternative theo- retical model for the state preparation. Suppose he be- lieves that, instead of a discrete Hadamard operation,...

  4. [4]

    WignerL’s description is compatible with the Friend’s description

    Disagreement on the inner works of the Friend’s laboratory - Phase-sensitive Compatibility Finally, consider the case where Wigner does not re- ject the general structure of the Friend’s experimen- tal procedure, but suspects that an additional opera- tion was applied, one that introduces a controlled rela- tive phase after entangling the system and the F...

  5. [5]

    He knows the Friend is conduct- ing an experiment in her laboratory; it involves some uncertainty, and he knows there are two different (clas- sical) possible answers to it

    Wigner does not know quantum theory Among many other sources of disagreement, con- sider the exotic case in which Wigner is completely oblivious to quantum theory and understands only its classical counterpart. He knows the Friend is conduct- ing an experiment in her laboratory; it involves some uncertainty, and he knows there are two different (clas- sic...

  6. [6]

    Subjetivist classical case The proof of the theorem2’s sufficiency provides the intuition on how to construct a hypothetical experiment that compatibilises the probabilistic description of the two agents [22]. We choose an element from the com- mon support,y=ϕ +, and define a likelihood function P(X|Y)for a test outcomeX∈ {0, 1}, whereXrepre- sents the cl...

  7. [7]

    stubborn

    A small detour: Cromwell’s Rule Now, we consider the alternative outcome: the case whereX=1. The observers would also update their results. We analyse how Wigner deals with the fact that the classical pointer showed 1. The calculation will not be performed explicitly because it involves an indeter- mination. A substantial difference is noted in Wigner’s d...

  8. [8]

    is the system in the state|ϕ +⟩?

    Subjectivist’s quantum case As we did in the last Section, in this part we will show what the quantumly agreed-upon state is. Re- call that in this case, the compatibility was verified by analysing the supports of either agent’s quantum as- signments. Wigner’s state is a pure projector, so its support is the space spanned by its only eigenvector with a no...

  9. [9]

    Given the hypoth- esis that the true state of nature isY, what is the prob- ability that the Agent (the ’Expert’) will report to me that their belief isR?

    Improvement of classical distributions Classically, suppose Freddy (a decision-maker and a proxy for the Friend) assigns a prior stateP 0(Y)to the variable of interestY. Lacking specialised knowledge aboutY, his prior state might be something simple, such as a uniform distribution overY’s outputs. To improve this assignment, Freddy consults someone he ass...

  10. [10]

    move away

    Improvement for Quantum States Improving quantum assignments resembles its clas- sical counterpart [22]. The major difference is that we work with hybrid conditional states and the quantum Bayes’ theorem [41]. In our scenario, Freddy is now interested in a quan- tum regionS, to which he assigns a prior stateρ (0) S , and Wanda announces her expert state a...

  11. [11]

    No return to classical reality,

    D. Jennings and M. Leifer, “No return to classical reality,” Contemporary Physics57,60–82(2016)

    2016

  12. [12]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond,” Quantum2,79(2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Dispens- ing of quantum information beyond no-broadcasting the- orem—is it possible to broadcast anything genuinely quantum?

    T. Heinosaari, A. Jencova, and M. Plavala, “Dispens- ing of quantum information beyond no-broadcasting the- orem—is it possible to broadcast anything genuinely quantum?” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical56,135301(2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Quantum computation and quantum information:10th anniversary edition,

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, “Quantum computation and quantum information:10th anniversary edition,” (2010)

    2010

  15. [15]

    Quantum entanglement,

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

    2009

  16. [16]

    Quantum resource theories,

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

    2019

  17. [17]

    Ex- tracting quantum dynamical resources: consumption of non-markovianity for noise reduction,

    G. D. Berk, S. Milz, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, “Ex- tracting quantum dynamical resources: consumption of non-markovianity for noise reduction,” npj Quantum In- formation9,104(2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quan- tum computer using quantum imaginary time evolu- tion,

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and G. K.-L. Chan, “Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quan- tum computer using quantum imaginary time evolu- tion,” Nature Physics16,205–210(2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting pro- cessor,

    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. ...

    2019

  20. [20]

    Remarks on the mind-body question,

    E. P . Wigner, “Remarks on the mind-body question,” in Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses, edited by J. Mehra (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,1995) p. 247–260

    1995

  21. [21]

    The monocracy is broken: Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Wigner’s Case,

    O. Freire Junior, “The monocracy is broken: Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Wigner’s Case,” inThe Quantum Dis- sidents: Rebuilding the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1950-1990)(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg,2015) pp.141–174

    1950

  22. [22]

    The view from a Wigner bubble,

    E. G. Cavalcanti, “The view from a Wigner bubble,” Foundations of Physics51,39(2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Decoherence, the measurement prob- lem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics,

    M. Schlosshauer, “Decoherence, the measurement prob- lem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.76,1267(2005)

    2005

  24. [24]

    Is the quantum state real? an extended review of psi-ontology theorems,

    M. S. Leifer, “Is the quantum state real? an extended review of psi-ontology theorems,” Quanta3,67(2014)

    2014

  25. [25]

    The two-state vector for- malism: An updated review,

    Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman, “The two-state vector for- malism: An updated review,” inTime in Quantum Me- chanics, edited by J. Muga, R. S. Mayato, and I. Egusquiza (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,2008) p.399–447

    2008

  26. [26]

    The resource theory of quantum reference frames: manipulations and mono- tones,

    G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens, “The resource theory of quantum reference frames: manipulations and mono- tones,” New Journal of Physics10,033023(2008)

    2008

  27. [27]

    The role of quantum information in ther- modynamics—a topical review,

    J. Goold, M. Huber, A. Riera, L. D. Rio, and P . Skrzypczyk, “The role of quantum information in ther- modynamics—a topical review,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49,143001(2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    A derivation of quan- tum theory from physical requirements,

    L. Masanes and M. P . Müller, “A derivation of quan- tum theory from physical requirements,” New Journal of Physics13,063001(2011)

    2011

  29. [29]

    Quantum violation of an instrumental test,

    R. Chaves, G. Carvacho, I. Agresti, V . Di Giulio, L. Aolita, S. Giacomini, and F. Sciarrino, “Quantum violation of an instrumental test,” Nature Physics14,291–296(2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    Emerging dynamics arising from coarse- grained quantum systems,

    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)

    2017

  31. [31]

    A strong no-go theorem on the wigner’s friend paradox,

    K.-W. Bong, A. Utreras-Alarcón, F. Ghafari, Y.-C. Liang, N. Tischler, E. G. Cavalcanti, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wise- man, “A strong no-go theorem on the wigner’s friend paradox,” Nature Physics16,1199–1205(2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    A bayesian approach to compatibility, improvement, and pooling of quantum 21 states,

    M. S. Leifer and R. W. Spekkens, “A bayesian approach to compatibility, improvement, and pooling of quantum 21 states,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- ical47,275301(2014)

    2014

  33. [33]

    Compatibility between agents as a tool for coarse-grained descriptions of quantum systems,

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

    2020

  34. [34]

    The original Wigner’s friend paradox within a realist toy model,

    M. Lostaglio and J. Bowles, “The original Wigner’s friend paradox within a realist toy model,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences477,20210273(2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    On compatibility and improvement of differ- ent quantum state assignments,

    F. Herbut, “On compatibility and improvement of differ- ent quantum state assignments,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General37,5243(2004)

    2004

  36. [36]

    How do two observers pool their knowledge about a quantum system?

    K. Jacobs, “How do two observers pool their knowledge about a quantum system?” Quantum Information Pro- cessing1,73(2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0201096

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  37. [37]

    Compatibility of state assignments and pooling of information,

    T. A. Brun, M.-H. Hsieh, and C. Perry, “Compatibility of state assignments and pooling of information,” Physical Review A92(2015),10.1103/physreva.92.012107

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.92.012107 2015

  38. [38]

    Simple formula for pooling knowledge about a quantum system,

    K. Jacobs, “Simple formula for pooling knowledge about a quantum system,” Physical Review A72(2005), 10.1103/physreva.72.044101

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.72.044101 2005

  39. [39]

    A definition of subjec- tive probability,

    F. J. Anscombe and R. J. Aumann, “A definition of subjec- tive probability,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 34,199–205(1963)

    1963

  40. [40]

    L. J. Savage,The Foundations of Statistics(Wiley Publica- tions in Statistics,1954)

    1954

  41. [41]

    Dutch Book Arguments,

    S. Vineberg, “Dutch Book Arguments,” inThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford Uni- versity,2022) Fall2022ed

    2022

  42. [42]

    A possibilistic no-go theorem on the wigner’s friend paradox,

    M. Haddara and E. G. Cavalcanti, “A possibilistic no-go theorem on the wigner’s friend paradox,” New Journal of Physics25,093028(2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    Multi-agent paradoxes beyond quantum theory,

    V . Vilasini, N. Nurgalieva, and L. D. Rio, “Multi-agent paradoxes beyond quantum theory,” New Journal of Physics21,113028(2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    Facts are relative,

    v. Brukner, “Facts are relative,” Nature Physics16, 1172–1174(2020)

    2020

  45. [45]

    A review and anal- ysis of six extended wigner’s friend arguments,

    D. Schmid, Y. Y ¯ıng, and M. Leifer, “A review and anal- ysis of six extended wigner’s friend arguments,” (2023), arXiv:2308.16220[quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    On the significance of Wigner's Friend in contexts beyond quantum foundations

    C. L. Jones and M. P . Mueller, “Thinking twice inside the box: is wigner’s friend really quantum?” (2024), arXiv:2402.08727[quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Generalising aumann’s agree- ment theorem,

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Observers of quantum sys- tems cannot agree to disagree,

    P . Contreras-Tejada, G. Scarpa, A. M. Kubicki, A. Bran- denburger, and P . La Mura, “Observers of quantum sys- tems cannot agree to disagree,” Nature Communications 12,7021(2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    Agreeing to disagree in probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic,

    L. Demey, “Agreeing to disagree in probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic,” Synthese191,409–438(2014)

    2014

  50. [50]

    Bayesian Epistemology,

    H. Lin, “Bayesian Epistemology,” inThe Stanford Encyclo- pedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta and U. Nodel- man (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University,

  51. [51]

    Towards a formula- tion of quantum theory as a causally neutral theory of bayesian inference,

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

    2013

  52. [52]

    Reaching a consensus,

    M. H. Degroot, “Reaching a consensus,” Journal of the American Statistical Association69,118–121(1974)

    1974

  53. [53]

    The impossibility of agreeing to disagree: An extension of the sure-thing principle,

    D. Samet, “The impossibility of agreeing to disagree: An extension of the sure-thing principle,” Games and Eco- nomic Behavior132,390–399(2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    On the logic of “agree- ing to disagree

    A. Rubinstein and A. Wolinsky, “On the logic of “agree- ing to disagree” type results,” Journal of Economic The- ory51,184–193(1990)

    1990

  55. [55]

    A Characterization of the Asymptotic Normality of Linear Combinations of Order Statistics from the Uniform Distribution

    R. J. Aumann, “Agreeing to disagree,” The Annals of Statistics4(1976),10.1214/aos/1176343654

    work page doi:10.1214/aos/1176343654 1976

  56. [56]

    The Complexity of Agreement

    S. Aaronson, “The complexity of agreement,” (2004), arXiv:cs/0406061[cs.CC]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  57. [57]

    Thick Ethical Concepts,

    P . Väyrynen, “Thick Ethical Concepts,” inThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta (Meta- physics Research Lab, Stanford University,2021) Spring 2021ed

    2021

  58. [58]

    Quantum dynamics as an analog of condi- tional probability,

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

    2006

  59. [59]

    D. V . Lindley,Making Decisions,2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, London,1985)

    1985

  60. [60]

    E. T. Jaynes,Probability Theory: The Logic of Science(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge,2003)

    2003

  61. [61]

    Combining probability dis- tributions: A critique and an annotated bibliography,

    C. Genest and J. V . Zidek, “Combining probability dis- tributions: A critique and an annotated bibliography,” Statistical Science1,114(1986)

    1986

  62. [62]

    Methods for combining experts’ probabil- ity assessments,

    R. A. Jacobs, “Methods for combining experts’ probabil- ity assessments,” Neural Computation7,867(1995)

    1995

  63. [63]

    R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa,Decisions with Multiple Ob- jectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs(Wiley, New York, 1976)

    1976

  64. [64]

    Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: A toy theory,

    R. W. Spekkens, “Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: A toy theory,” Physical Review A75, 032110(2007)

    2007

  65. [65]

    How much state assignments can differ,

    T. A. Brun, “How much state assignments can differ,” (2002)

    2002

  66. [66]

    Surpassing the en- ergy resolution limit with ferromagnetic torque sensors,

    D. Poulin and R. Blume-Kohout, “Compatibility of quan- tum states,” Physical Review A67(2003),10.1103/phys- reva.67.010101. Appendix A: Quantum Compatibility: objective and subjective Definition A.1(Quantum Objective Bayesian Compati- bility).Two quantum statesσ W S andσ F S over a quantum regionSarecompatiblewhenever it is possible to find a pair of rand...

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2003

  67. [67]

    First, we demonstrate that we can recover the Friend’s distribution,P F(Y) = P(Y|F=0), from this joint distribution

    (B15) Now, we verify this result. First, we demonstrate that we can recover the Friend’s distribution,P F(Y) = P(Y|F=0), from this joint distribution. The probability of the Friend obtaining result 0 (suc- cess in the mixture) will be the denominatorP(F=0) and the joint probability marginalized overWwill be our numerator so, the conditional is, therefore:...

  68. [68]

    =0); •ρ S|F=1,W=1 =ν S (irrelevant). The joint classical probability distribution overFandW is defined by the weightsp F =1/2 andp W =1: P(F=0,W=0) =p F pW =1/2; (C4) P(F=0,W=1) = (1−p F)pW =1/2; (C5) P(F=1,W=0) =p F(1−p W ) =0; (C6) P(F=1,W=1) = (1−p F)(1−p W ) =0. (C7) The corresponding classical state isρ FW = 1 2 |00⟩⟨00| FW + 1 2 |01⟩⟨01| FW. The joi...

  69. [69]

    Pooling as a agreement method In Bayesian theory, the purpose of states is to pro- vide information for rational decision-making, which, in turn, must be performed based on all relevant avail- able evidence. The fact that another agent assigns a particular state can be relevant evidence and may cause you to alter your state assignment, as we saw in Sec.V ...

  70. [70]

    As previously dis- cussed, Wigner and the Friend do not share a common prior

    Supra-Bayesian pooling Here, we provide the construction of the combined statePvia quantum state pooling. As previously dis- cussed, Wigner and the Friend do not share a common prior. To enable the pooling of their beliefs, we intro- duce a fictional priorP 0(Y), attributed to a hypothet- ical neutral decision-maker, say, Debbie, whereYmay assume the valu...

  71. [71]

    peaked" than that of any of the in- dividual agents’ states. Here,

    Multiplicative or logarithmic pooling Classically, a multiplicative opinion pool (or logarith- mic pool) has the following form, Pmult(Y) =c m ∏ i=1 Pi(Y)wi. (D12) Applying this to the two agents, the component-by- component calculation would be, =c 1 2 wF ·1 wW , 1 2 wF ·0 wW , 0, 0 . (D13) The normalization constantcis defined as c= 1 ∑Y ∏m i=1 Pi(Y)wi ...

  72. [72]

    It works by creating a weighted average of individual be- liefs

    Linear pooling The linear opinion pool method is a straightforward way to combine the probability distributions of dif- ferent agents into a single consensual distribution. It works by creating a weighted average of individual be- liefs. The formula for the linear opinion pool is Plin(Y) = m ∑ i=1 wiPi(Y). (D17) The calculation proceeds component-by-compo...