Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 33 references

The Many Worlds interpretation cannot, for structural reasons, account for the Born rule

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 19:02 UTC pith:B24LHXUW

load-bearing objection A clear and honest critique of MWI's Born-rule problem, but the impossibility claim outruns the argument; read it for the trilemma framing, not for a refutation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17086 v1 pith:B24LHXUW submitted 2026-07-19 quant-ph physics.hist-ph

Against Many Worlds

Emily Adlam , Jacob A. Barandes This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.hist-ph
keywords Born ruleMany Worlds interpretationquantum probabilitybranch weightsmeasurement problemself-locating uncertaintyaxiomatic-deductive-inductive trichotomyproblem of probability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that no formulation of the Many Worlds interpretation can ever justify the Born rule — the rule that turns quantum states into measurement probabilities and gives quantum theory nearly all its empirical content. The argument rests on a trichotomy: any lawlike ingredient must be supplied as an axiom, deduced from the theory's axioms, or justified inductively from past regularities. Within the Many Worlds picture, the authors claim, all three routes fail: probabilities have nothing fundamental to attach to, any deductive derivation would have to smuggle probability into its premises or rely on unmotivated normative principles, and induction is undercut because the branching ontology realizes every possible pattern somewhere, so no uniformity principle can select the Born rule. If the argument is correct, the Many Worlds interpretation cannot be an empirically adequate interpretation of quantum mechanics, and any attempt to add the rule by brute axiom destroys the parsimony that motivates the interpretation in the first place.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Many Worlds interpretation must obtain the Born rule either axiomatically, deductively, or inductively, and that all three approaches are blocked by the interpretation's own core commitments. Axiomatically, the Born rule cannot be a physical axiom because modern Many Worlds formulations treat branches, observers, and measuring devices as emergent, not fundamental, so the probabilities have nothing fundamental to refer to. Deductively, the standard axioms contain no probabilistic notions, so any valid derivation would need an extra probabilistic or normative premise that is either inconsistent with the ontology or unjustifiable; symmetry-based and decisio

What carries the argument

The load-bearing schema is the axiomatic-deductive-inductive trichotomy for justifying any lawlike ingredient, combined with a 'selection process' condition for probability. The authors maintain that a probability is always a probability of something, and that a merely static measure or branch count is not a probability unless there is a process selecting an outcome; the Many Worlds picture, in which all branches are actual and none is selected, therefore has no referent for the Born rule. The argument then uses two further objects: the non-fundamental status of branches under decoherence, and the existence of 'super-maverick' branches that undermine any sure-loss or robustness argument.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the exhaustive trichotomy — that every admissible justification of the Born rule must be axiomatic, deductive, or inductive, and that no 'fourth way' can succeed; the paper concedes in Section 8 that a fourth way cannot be conclusively ruled out, so if one is viable the central claim fails.

What would settle it

A rigorous, logically valid derivation of the Born rule that starts solely from the Many Worlds physical axioms — a universal wavefunction evolving unitarily, with no probabilistic premise, no normative principle, and no explicit or implicit selection process — would refute the paper's claim; to date no such derivation exists in the literature, but producing one (or a formal proof that none can exist) would settle the question.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the argument holds, no existing Many Worlds formulation can be empirically adequate, and the problem of probability cannot be solved by better decision theory, symmetry reasoning, or self-locating uncertainty.
  • Adding the Born rule as a primitive axiom is not a viable escape, because it would reference emergent branches, force a preferred-basis choice, and reintroduce observers into the fundamental axioms, collapsing the interpretation's parsimony advantage.
  • The same trichotomy appears to apply to other contexts in which all possibilities are actual and no process selects one, such as cosmological multiverse proposals and any philosophy relying on self-locating probabilities.
  • A 'fourth way' based on semantic analysis of 'I' in a branching context cannot be conclusively excluded, but the paper argues that no such reinterpretation can preserve the empirical confirmation of quantum theory and the auxiliary classical theories used to test it.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the argument identifies the Born rule as an essentially non-emergent probabilistic primitive; if correct, any empirically adequate interpretation must posit probabilities or a selection mechanism at the fundamental level, which points toward collapse models or hidden-variable theories rather than pure unitary dynamics.
  • My inference: the trichotomy is a dialectical template that could be pressed against other 'everything happens' ontologies, but its force depends on whether 'selection process' can be replaced by a more permissive, well-defined notion such as a preferred measure; the paper does not explore that formal generalization.
  • My inference: a testable extension is to search for a counterexample — a formulation that introduces branches as fundamental (with a preferred basis) and derives Born-rule probabilities from a clearly non-question-begging principle of indifference over that basis; if such a formulation is consistent and empirically adequate, the structural objection fails.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper argues that no formulation of the Many Worlds interpretation (MWI) can account for the Born rule, and therefore MWI cannot be an empirically adequate interpretation of quantum mechanics. The argument is organized as a trilemma: any justification of a lawlike ingredient such as the Born rule must be axiomatic, deductive, or inductive, and the paper claims that all three routes fail in the MWI context. The axiomatic route fails because branches are emergent and not fundamental; the deductive route fails because probability cannot be derived from non-probabilistic premises and because normative/decision-theoretic additions are either ad hoc or circular; and the inductive route fails because MWI's branching structure undermines any uniformity principle needed for induction. Section 8 briefly considers a 'fourth way' but only offers skepticism, explicitly conceding that no conclusive refutation is available. The paper concludes that MWI should be rejected as a legitimate scientific outcome.

Significance. If the central impossibility claim were established, the paper would be a significant challenge to the Everettian program, synthesizing many existing objections into a compact trilemma. It engages seriously with the main proposals—branch counting, self-locating uncertainty, decision theory, envariance, Dutch-book arguments—and its discussion of the 'Costanza agents' and of emergent-vs-fundamental branches is thought-provoking. The paper is honest about the limits of its own argument, and that honesty is also its main weakness: the impossibility conclusion rests on the exhaustiveness of the axiomatic/deductive/inductive trichotomy, yet Section 8 admits that a fourth way cannot be conclusively ruled out. The paper also relies on an unproven branch-proliferation premise and on a particular reading of 'selection process' that opponents of the argument will contest. As it stands, the paper makes a strong case against existing MWI Born-rule derivations, but not a proof that no such derivation is possible.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 and Section 8] The central claim is a modal impossibility claim, but the exhaustive trichotomy on which it rests is asserted, not proved. Section 8 explicitly states: 'Although it is probably not possible to show conclusively that no such "fourth way" is viable…' and then offers only 'reasons for skepticism.' This is a direct concession that the taxonomy may have a remainder. The discussion of the Saunders–Wallace semantic-continuant analysis addresses only whether that particular candidate yields Born-rule quantification, not whether some other fourth way exists. Without a proof that every possible justification falls under axiomatic, deductive, or inductive, the impossibility conclusion outruns the evidence. This is the load-bearing gap in the paper.
  2. [Section 4.3 and Section 7] The inductive objection relies on the premise that in MWI, 'for almost any conceivable kind of pattern of observable phenomena, there is, somewhere among the infinitely many macro-world branches, a branch that realizes that pattern.' This premise is asserted rather than derived from unitary evolution and decoherence. It is not obvious that the Hilbert-space measure of branches realizing a given pattern is positive, nor that all patterns are realized. If this premise is weakened, the claim that MWI 'confounds any uniformity principle' loses its footing. A rigorous statement of what 'nearly every pattern' means—and an argument for it from the MWI axioms—is needed.
  3. [Section 3 and Section 6] The argument leans heavily on the premise that in MWI there is no selection process, so probabilities cannot be meaningfully assigned. But the MWI proponent's central move is that self-locating uncertainty or decision-theoretic rationality can serve the role of a selection process. The paper's rebuttal—that such principles are unjustified or circular because no notion of probability is yet available—is a substantive philosophical argument, but it is not a proof of impossibility. The symmetry-based and decision-theoretic approaches may be flawed, but showing that their justifications are incomplete is not the same as showing that no such justification could ever be given. This should be stated more carefully.
  4. [Section 5] The axiomatic-route argument claims that because branches are emergent, one cannot assign probabilistic axioms to them—'the properties of the derived structures must themselves be derived from the underlying physical axioms.' This is a methodological or parsimony principle, not a logical impossibility. A theory can contain axioms about high-level, emergent features if the theory also specifies how those features are identified; statistical mechanics routinely does this for phases and order parameters. The paper's stronger claim that the axiomatic route is 'simply impossible' needs additional support, or should be weakened to claim that the route is unattractive on grounds of parsimony and explanatory power.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2] The statement that the Particle Data Group booklet is 'a series of footnotes to the Born rule' is hyperbolic. The booklet contains many results that do not directly depend on Born-rule probabilities, such as symmetry classifications and mass relations. A more precise claim would strengthen the point.
  2. [Section 4.3] The phrase 'almost any conceivable kind of pattern' is used without a precise definition. A formalization—for example, in terms of decoherent histories or Hilbert-space subspaces—would make the branch-proliferation premise testable.
  3. [Section 8] The paper's own concession that a fourth way cannot be conclusively ruled out should be reflected in the abstract and conclusion. As written, the abstract promises a proof of impossibility, while the body concedes an open possibility. The framing should be adjusted to match the actual strength of the argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's impossibility argument is self-contained; the Sec. 8 concession is a proof-strength limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

Walking the paper's derivation chain, I find no step in which a claimed prediction or derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs. The paper's central claim is a philosophical impossibility argument, not a numerical prediction: it fits no parameters, derives no empirical quantity from a fitted subset of data, and does not rename a known empirical pattern as a new result. The three-part taxonomy (axiomatic, deductive, inductive) is asserted rather than proven, and Section 8 explicitly concedes that a fourth way cannot be conclusively ruled out ('Although it is probably not possible to show conclusively that no such "fourth way" is viable...'), but this is a limitation in the modal strength of the conclusion, not a circular derivation. The self-citations are not load-bearing: Adlam (2014) appears only in a list of earlier similar criticisms, and Adlam (2025) supports a secondary constraint in the speculative fourth-way discussion, not the main impossibility argument. No equation is fitted to data and renamed a prediction; no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked; no ansatz is imported by self-citation. The central argument is self-contained in the sense that its premises - the structure of MWI, the absence of a selection process, and the inability to derive probabilistic conclusions from non-probabilistic premises - are argued independently of the conclusion. The admitted incompleteness of the trichotomy is a genuine epistemic weakness but does not make the reasoning circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The argument rests on a small set of philosophical premises about the nature of probability and the essential commitments of MWI, plus the unproven trichotomy. No free parameters or physical entities are introduced.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Any lawlike ingredient of a physical theory must be justified by one of three approaches: axiomatic, deductive, or inductive (or mixtures thereof).
    Section 4 presents this trichotomy as exhaustive without a formal proof; the paper's impossibility conclusion relies on it, and Section 8 admits a fourth way cannot be conclusively excluded.
  • domain assumption In the Many Worlds interpretation, the macro-world branches are emergent, not fundamental, and there is no structure selecting a privileged branch (no 'selection process').
    Section 3 asserts this as essential to MWI; it grounds the claim that probabilities have nothing to attach to. This premise is contested by some MWI proponents who take branches or self-locating uncertainty more seriously.
  • domain assumption Probability requires a selection process or a physical symmetry of a picking process; a mere fractional composition (43/100 red marbles) is not yet a probability.
    Section 3 develops this via the marble and dartboard examples. It is a philosophical premise about the nature of probability, central to the deductive obstruction.
  • ad hoc to paper In MWI, every conceivable pattern of observable phenomena occurs in some branch; there are infinitely many macro-world branches realizing all possible regularities.
    Section 4.3 and Section 7 invoke 'infinitely many macro-world branches' and 'for almost any conceivable kind of pattern... a branch that realizes that pattern.' This is asserted without derivation and is not obviously entailed by MWI; the inductive obstruction depends on it.
  • domain assumption No deductively valid argument can yield probabilistic conclusions from non-probabilistic premises.
    Section 6 invokes Norton (2021) to argue that probability cannot be deduced from premises lacking probabilistic concepts; this blocks deductive derivations like Zurek's envariance or Deutsch-Wallace decision theory unless probabilistic or normative principles are added.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15910 in / 10906 out tokens · 102095 ms · 2026-08-01T19:02:17.387283+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Any viable interpretation of quantum theory needs to account for the Born rule, from which the theory gets its probabilistic empirical predictions. In this paper, we give an overview of possible approaches to this problem in the context of the Many Worlds interpretation. We argue that, for structural reasons, none of them can possibly succeed. More precisely, we argue that the Many Worlds interpretation must obtain the Born rule by proceeding either axiomatically, deductively, or inductively, and that all three of these approaches run into general, fundamental obstructions.

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

33 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Problem of Confirmation in the Everett Interpretation

    E. Adlam. “The Problem of Confirmation in the Everett Interpretation”.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 47:21–32, 2014.arXiv:1504.01063,doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.03.004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Adlam.Saving Science from Quantum Mechanics: The Epistemology of the Measure- ment Problem

    E. Adlam.Saving Science from Quantum Mechanics: The Epistemology of the Measure- ment Problem. Oxford University Press, 2025.doi:10.1093/9780197808887.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/9780197808887.001.0001 2025

  3. [3]

    Probability in the Everett Picture

    D. Z. Albert. “Probability in the Everett Picture”, inMany Worlds?: Everett, Quantum Theory, & Reality, pages 355–368. Oxford University Press, 2010.doi:10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199560561.003.0013

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists

    J. S. Bell. “Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists”. In C. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. Sciama, editors,Quantum Gravity II, page 611, January 1981

    1981

  5. [5]

    Against ‘Measurement’

    J. S. Bell. “Against ‘Measurement’”.Physics World, 3(8):33, August 1990.doi:10. 1088/2058-7058/3/8/26

    1990

  6. [6]

    Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge (‘On the Quantum Mechanics of Collision Processes’)

    M. Born. “Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge (‘On the Quantum Mechanics of Collision Processes’)”.Zeitschrift für Physik, 37(12):863–867, 1926.doi:10.1007/ BF01397477

    1926

  7. [7]

    S. M. Carroll.Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Space- time. Dutton, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Laws of Nature

    J. W. Carroll. “Laws of Nature”. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, editors,The Stan- ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Winter 2025 edition, 2025. URL:https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2025/entries/ laws-of-nature/

    2025

  9. [9]

    The Wentaculus: Density Matrix Realism Meets the Arrow of Time

    E. K. Chen. “The Wentaculus: Density Matrix Realism Meets the Arrow of Time”, in A. Bassi, S. Goldstein, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì, editors,Physics and the Nature 20 of Reality: Essays in Memory of Detlef Dürr, pages 87–104. Springer International Publishing, 2024.arXiv:2211.03973,doi:10.1007/978-3-031-45434-9_8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Many Worlds, the Born Rule, and Self-Locating Uncertainty

    S. M. Carroll and C. T. Sebens. “Many Worlds, the Born Rule, and Self-Locating Uncertainty”. In D. C. Struppa and J. M. Tollaksen, editors,Quantum Theory: A Two-Time Success Story, pages 157–169. Springer Milan, 2014.arXiv:1405.7907,doi: 10.1007/978-88-470-5217-8_10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions

    D. E. Deutsch. “Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions”.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 455(1988):3129–3137, February 1999.arXiv:quant-ph/9906015,doi:10.1098/rspa. 1999.0443

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1988

  12. [12]

    Quantum Mechanics and Reality

    B. S. DeWitt. “Quantum Mechanics and Reality”.Physics Today, 23(9):30–35, Septem- ber 1970. URL:https://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/ article/23/9/10.1063/1.3022331,doi:10.1063/1.3022331

    doi:10.1063/1.3022331 1970

  13. [13]

    Principles of Indifference

    B. E. Eva. “Principles of Indifference”.Journal of Philosophy, 116(7):390–411, July 2019. doi:10.5840/jphil2019116724

    work page doi:10.5840/jphil2019116724 2019

  14. [14]

    The Theory of the Universal Wave Function

    H. Everett III. “The Theory of the Universal Wave Function”. Unpublished draft Ph.D. thesis (137 pp.), Princeton University, 1956

    1956

  15. [15]

    ‘Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Mechanics

    H. Everett III. “ ‘Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Mechanics”.Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3):454–462, July 1957.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.29.454 1957

  16. [16]

    Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse. “Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment”.Physical Review Letters, 130(7):071801, February 2023.arXiv: 2209.13084,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.071801

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Goodman.Fact, Fiction, and Forecast

    N. Goodman.Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts, 1955. URL:https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674290716

    arXiv 1955

  18. [18]

    Against Many-Worlds Interpretations

    A. Kent. “Against Many-Worlds Interpretations”.International Journal of Mod- ern Physics A, 5(09):1745–1762, 1990.arXiv:gr-qc/9703089,doi:10.1142/ S0217751X90000805

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1990

  19. [19]

    VI—Is the Best Good Enough?

    P. Lipton. “VI—Is the Best Good Enough?”.Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93(1):89–104, June 1993.doi:10.1093/aristotelian/93.1.89

    work page doi:10.1093/aristotelian/93.1.89 1993

  20. [20]

    Lipton.Inference to the Best Explanation

    P. Lipton.Inference to the Best Explanation. Routledge, London and New York, 2 edition, 2004. URL:https://www.routledge.com/ Inference-to-the-Best-Explanation/Lipton/p/book/9780415242028

    arXiv 2004

  21. [21]

    J. D. Norton.The Material Theory of Induction. University of Calgary Press, 2021. doi:10.2307/j.ctv25wxcb5. 21

    work page doi:10.2307/j.ctv25wxcb5 2021

  22. [22]

    A Philosopher Looks at Quantum Mechanics (Again)

    H. Putnam. “A Philosopher Looks at Quantum Mechanics (Again)”.The British Jour- nal for the Philosophy of Science, 56(4):615–634, December 2005. URL:https://doi. org/10.1093/bjps/axi135;https://www.jstor.org/stable/3541860,doi:10.1093/ bjps/axi135

    arXiv 2005

  23. [23]

    Quantum Probability from Temporal Structure

    M. Ridley. “Quantum Probability from Temporal Structure”.Quantum Reports, 5(2):496–509, 2023.arXiv:2112.10929,doi:10.3390/quantum5020033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Branch-Counting in the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

    S. Saunders. “Branch-Counting in the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 477(2255):20210600, November 2021.arXiv:2201. 06087,doi:10.1098/rspa.2021.0600

    arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Bertrand’sParadoxandthePrincipleofIndifference

    N.Shackel. “Bertrand’sParadoxandthePrincipleofIndifference”.Philosophy of Science, 74(2):150–175, April 2007.doi:10.1086/519028

    work page doi:10.1086/519028 2007

  26. [26]

    Branching and Uncertainty

    S. Saunders and D. Wallace. “Branching and Uncertainty”.The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(3):293–305, September 2008.doi:10.1093/bjps/axn029

    work page doi:10.1093/bjps/axn029 2008

  27. [27]

    On Schizophrenic Experiences of the Neutron or Why We Should Believe in the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory

    L. Vaidman. “On Schizophrenic Experiences of the Neutron or Why We Should Believe in the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory”.International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 12(3):245–261, 1998.arXiv:quant-ph/9609006,doi:10.1080/ 02698599808573600

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  28. [28]

    B. C. van Fraassen.Laws and Symmetry. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989.doi:10.1093/ 0198248601.001.0001

    1989

  29. [29]

    Wallace.The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Inter- pretation

    D. Wallace.The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Inter- pretation. Oxford University Press, 2012

    2012

  30. [30]

    The Sky is Blue, and Other Reasons Quantum Mechanics is Not Underde- termined by Evidence

    D. Wallace. “The Sky is Blue, and Other Reasons Quantum Mechanics is Not Underde- termined by Evidence”.European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 13(4):54, November 2023.arXiv:2205.00568,doi:10.1007/s13194-023-00557-2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Quantum Mechanics on Spacetime I: Spacetime State Realism

    D. Wallace and C. G. Timpson. “Quantum Mechanics on Spacetime I: Spacetime State Realism”.British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61(4):697–727, December 2010. arXiv:0907.5294,doi:10.1093/bjps/axq010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  32. [32]

    Probabilities from Entanglement, Born’s Rule from Envariance

    W. H. Zurek. “Probabilities from Entanglement, Born’s Rule from Envariance”.Phys- ical Review A, 71(5):052105, May 2005.arXiv:quant-ph/0405161,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevA.71.052105

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  33. [33]

    Quantum Darwinism, Classical Reality, and the Randomness of Quantum Jumps

    W. H. Zurek. “Quantum Darwinism, Classical Reality, and the Randomness of Quantum Jumps”.Physics Today, 67(10):44–50, Oct. 2014.arXiv:1412.5206,doi:10.1063/PT. 3.2550. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014