Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

A Bell-type consistency test can certify nonclassical latent representations in autoencoders: if decoding statistics across contexts rule out every single positive latent distribution, the representation is nonclassical.

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

2026-08-04 06:20 UTC pith:6DQBUDIE

load-bearing objection The mathematics is clean and the operational mapping of decoder settings to measurement contexts is the genuinely new bit, but the brain application rests on unverified stability assumptions that the authors themselves concede in the final paragraph. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.10588 v2 pith:6DQBUDIE submitted 2026-01-15 quant-ph cs.LGphysics.bio-ph

Searching for Quantum Effects in the Brain: A Bell-Type Test for Nonclassical Latent Representations in Autoencoders

I. K. Kominis , C. Xie , S. Li , M. Skotiniotis , G. P. Tsironis This is my paper
classification quant-ph cs.LGphysics.bio-ph
keywords Bell testcontextualitynonclassicalitylatent representationautoencoderneural computationWigner functionphase space
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 tries to establish that whether neural information processing is classical or quantum can be probed at the level of statistical representations, without assuming any microscopic physical mechanism. To do so, it adapts Bell/contextuality logic to autoencoders: treat the latent variable as a hidden variable, decoder settings as measurement contexts, and ask whether all observed decoding marginals can be projected from one positive latent distribution. The central formal result is a linear witness bound: if the measured statistic c·p exceeds the classical maximum Scl = max_i c·a_i, then no such classical model exists. The paper demonstrates the test numerically with the single-photon Wigner function as the latent distribution, showing detection is feasible under realistic noise, and outlines how the same test could be run on neurophysiological data. A reader should care because it offers a concrete, model-agnostic experiment for quantum-like structure in neural systems.

Core claim

The central claim is that a collection of reconstruction statistics obtained under different decoder settings can be certified as nonclassical exactly when it lies outside the convex polytope C = {Aw | w ≥ 0, Σ w_i = 1}, the set of all statistics producible by some single positive latent distribution through the decoder-induced linear map A. The witness is a linear functional S(p) = c·p; for every classical model, S(p) ≤ Scl = max_i c·a_i. If the measured S(p) exceeds Scl by a margin exceeding statistical error, no positive latent distribution can realize the observed marginals jointly, so the latent representation is nonclassical. The paper further shows this framework applies both to conti

What carries the argument

The central object is the classicality polytope C = {Aw | w ≥ 0, Σ w_i = 1}, where A is the decoder-induced linear map from latent basis regions to (context, outcome) probabilities. The load-bearing identity is the linear witness inequality: for any w ≥ 0, S(p) = c·p = Σ_i w_i (c·a_i) ≤ max_i c·a_i = Scl. Nonclassicality is defined by Δ(c) = c·p − Scl > 0, with the optimal witness obtained by maximizing Δ(c) over unit-norm c. This converts the question 'does a single positive latent distribution exist?' into a convex-geometric membership test.

Load-bearing premise

The test only certifies nonclassicality if the latent distribution is invariant under changing decoder contexts and roughly stable over the measurement period; if changing the decoder itself alters the latent distribution or it drifts in time, an apparent violation is an artifact of nonstationarity or context-dependence, not genuine nonclassicality.

What would settle it

If, under the paper's protocol, an autoencoder whose latent variable is known to be classically distributed (e.g., a Gaussian prior) nevertheless yields c·p > Scl at the claimed confidence, the test is not isolating nonclassicality; this can be checked directly with the paper's numerical setup by substituting a positive latent distribution and verifying that the witness bound is never exceeded within error.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If a violation is observed, the autoencoder's latent representation cannot be described by any single positive latent-variable model, regardless of the microscopic physical implementation.
  • The test is model-agnostic: it does not assume a quantum substrate; any system with observable decoding statistics under multiple contexts can in principle be tested.
  • With a detection threshold Sobs > Scl + κσS, the paper derives a closed-form detection probability Pdet(α) that depends on visibility degradation α and noise σ, giving practical sample-size estimates (e.g., σ ∼ 1/√(KM)).
  • The spin-j formulation maps the same witness onto coarse-grained neuron-activation measurements, making the test applicable to thresholded neural readouts.
  • The test shifts the search for quantum-like effects in the brain from microscopic coherence to ensemble-level statistical consistency, a direction that is experimentally more accessible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the decoder is part of the trained autoencoder, changing decoder settings changes the reconstruction task; if the encoder adapts, the latent distribution may shift, so the context-invariance premise could be violated in practice. A positive test would therefore need to rule out task-induced drift by randomizing context order or using a frozen decoder.
  • The same witness could be used to audit any representation-learning system, not just neural data: a variational autoencoder whose latent prior is nonclassical would yield a positive test, potentially linking nonclassicality to the compression–information trade-off.
  • For high-dimensional latent spaces, finding the optimal witness vector c is a convex optimization problem that may be expensive; heuristics such as growing the context set or using random witness vectors could make the test scalable.
  • A stronger falsifier for neural applications: record population activity while cycling readout contexts in random order; if the computed S(p) exceeds Scl only in blocked-order sessions but not randomized ones, nonstationarity rather than nonclassicality is the explanation.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Bell-type, model-agnostic test for nonclassicality of latent representations in autoencoders and, by extension, in neural systems. The formal core is a classical latent-variable model in which decoding statistics across multiple readout contexts are written as p = A w, with w a positive normalized latent distribution. For any linear witness c, the authors prove S = c·p ≤ Scl = max_i c·a_i whenever w ≥ 0, so c·p > Scl certifies that no single positive latent distribution can explain all observed marginals. The authors illustrate the test numerically using the Wigner function of the single-photon Fock state, compute detection probabilities under classical admixture and additive Gaussian noise, and describe a spin-j phase-space analogue. They also propose a neurophysiological implementation using electrode arrays and optogenetic manipulation. The final paragraph explicitly lists two premises on which the neural application rests: context-invariance of the latent distribution and its temporal stability.

Significance. If the formal claim is taken as a statement about classical latent-variable consistency, the paper is sound and potentially useful: the linear witness bound is elementary but clean, the polytope separation is standard, and the numerical demonstration with a negative-Wigner-function state gives a concrete proof of principle. The connection to Bell/contextuality tests is conceptually well framed, and the authors are transparent that the spin-j example is illustrative only. The real significance for the journal, however, is conditional: the test certifies the impossibility of a single positive latent distribution, not quantum effects in the brain, unless the two stated premises are verified. As an empirical proposal, the paper is therefore more a research program than a demonstrated result. The mathematical method could be valuable for probing consistency of representations in machine-learning models and in biological recordings, but the leap to 'quantum effects in the brain' in the title and abstract overreaches the current support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Final paragraph] The inference from a witness violation to nonclassicality of the latent representation is load-bearing and depends entirely on the two premises stated at the end: (i) changing the decoder context does not change the latent distribution p(z), and (ii) p(z) is stable over the measurement time. The paper concedes these are unverified. In a neurophysiological setting, the proposed readout contexts—optogenetic perturbation, network-state modulation, or closed-loop feedback—are precisely interventions that can classically alter the encoder/network state, so p(z|θ) may depend on θ. Then even a fully classical positive latent distribution can produce statistics that violate the single-p(z) bound. This is the analogue of the free-choice/locality loophole in Bell tests. No control procedure is proposed to test premises (i)/(ii), and they are not directly testable from the decoded marginals alone.
  2. [Operational construction of A] In the passage beginning 'We note for completeness how the forward matrix A is constructed operationally', the authors state that A(j,k),i is estimated empirically from trials conditioned on the latent region z_i. This presupposes access to the latent variable z. But earlier the latent variables are described as unobserved degrees of freedom 'probed indirectly via observable decoding marginals'. If z is directly accessible for calibration, the empirical distribution p(z) is also accessible, and the consistency question changes character; if z is truly hidden, A cannot be estimated from data without additional assumptions. In the numerical example A is the analytic Radon transform of a known Wigner function, which avoids the issue, but the proposed neural implementation requires a clear statement of what z is operationally and how the forward matrix is calibrated without assuming the clas
  3. [Noise model and Pdet formula] The noise model defines pobs as a projection of p_α + ξ onto the set of valid conditional distributions, but all subsequent formulas—µα = c·pα, σS = σ||c||2, and Pdet(α) = 1 − Φ[(Scl + κσS − µα)/σS]—use the unprojected Gaussian random variable. Projection is a nonlinear operation that biases the mean and truncates the noise, especially for probabilities near 0 or 1. For small σ the effect may be negligible, but the paper does not quantify when this approximation is valid, and the detection curves in Fig. 2a,b are therefore not rigorously derived from the stated noise model. The authors should either analyze the projected noise model explicitly or state clearly that Pdet is a small-noise approximation and justify it numerically.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'The heat map again displays Pdet' for panel (b), while panel (a) is a line plot. Please clarify the panel structure and define the line styles/colors for the three values of σ.
  2. [References] Reference [47] has a stray comma before the first author: ', R. Frehner and K. Stockinger' should be 'R. Frehner and K. Stockinger'. Reference [4] lists 'A VS Quantum Sci.'; the journal abbreviation should be 'AVS Quantum Sci.'.
  3. [Spin-j remark] The sentence 'only for j > 1/2 that the outcome space and contextual incompatibility lead to meaningful restrictions' is slightly terse. For spin-1 (j=1, dimension 3) the Kochen–Specker contextuality argument is clear, but for general half-integer j>1/2 the connection could be spelled out more explicitly, including the role of dimension and the chosen POVMs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the witness bound follows directly from the classical polytope definition, and the numerical demonstrations are explicit illustrations, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The core derivation is the finite-dimensional classical model p = A w with w ≥ 0 and Σᵢwᵢ = 1. From this definition the paper proves S(p) = c·p = Σᵢ wᵢ(c·aᵢ) ≤ maxᵢ c·aᵢ = Scl. This is a standalone inequality, not a restatement of any measured statistic or fitted parameter. The witness vector c is optimized over ∥c∥₂ = 1, and Scl is computed from the decoder matrix A; neither is taken from the data being tested. The numerical examples use the externally known Wigner function of the single-photon Fock state, and the spin-j discussion is explicitly labeled as illustration only, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., refs. 7, 8, 10, 44) appear in background or application contexts and are not load-bearing for the formal result. The final paragraph does concede a genuine limitation: 'the implementation of the proposed nonclassicality test in a neurophysiological setting rests on two premises: (i) the change of measurement contexts does not affect the underlying latent (quasi)-probability distribution, and (ii) the latter is roughly stable over the measurement time.' This is an unverified assumption that could make a violation compatible with classical context-dependence, but it is a validity/loophole concern, not circularity: the witness bound does not presuppose those premises, and the paper does not claim to have verified them. No equation-level reduction of the conclusion to the inputs, and no load-bearing self-citation chain, is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on the linear-response structure of Eq. (1), the positivity and normalization of the latent distribution, and two operational premises stated by the authors: context invariance and temporal stability. The numerical example adds standard quantum-optics and spin phase-space assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced as real; the spin-j neuron degree of freedom is explicitly disclaimed as illustrative.

free parameters (2)
  • Witness vector c = Optimized via CVXPY; not reported numerically
    The detection scheme requires choosing c to maximize ∆ for the hypothesized latent statistics. The theoretical bound holds for any c, but the numerical detection curves and the claim that ∆* > 0 depend on this optimized choice.
  • Numerical discretization grid = N = 10^4, J = 25, K = 100, L = 4, ymax = 1.05√2 L
    The finite-dimensional polytope C and the tightness of the witness depend on the chosen grid and binning. These are hand-set simulation choices, not derived from data, and affect the quantitative detection curves.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Existence of a single positive normalized latent distribution p(z) defines classicality.
    This is the assumption under test in Eq. (1); the entire framework defines nonclassicality as the failure of this assumption, so it is a domain assumption, not a theorem.
  • domain assumption The decoder response p(y|z, θ) is a fixed conditional distribution independent of other contexts, giving the linear map p = A w.
    If changing θ changes the latent distribution or the response function, then p(y|θ) cannot be modeled by Eq. (1). The paper's final paragraph admits this as a premise.
  • domain assumption The latent distribution is stable over measurement time and unaffected by context changes.
    Stated in the final paragraph as one of the two operational premises of the neurophysiological implementation.
  • standard math Quantum-optical phase-space rules: quadrature outcome probabilities are integrals of Wigner functions over bins.
    Used to construct the numerical example with the |1⟩ Fock state; cited to Lvovsky & Raymer 2009 and Schleich 2001.
  • standard math SU(2) Stratonovich-Weyl phase-space formalism and the Holstein-Primakoff large-j limit.
    Used in the spin-j illustration; cited to Rundle & Everitt 2021 and Hammerer et al. 2010.
  • standard math Kochen-Specker contextuality requires Hilbert space dimension ≥ 3.
    Invoked to justify that only j > 1/2 spin systems lead to meaningful latent restrictions; cited to Gleason and Kochen-Specker.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective spin-j degree of freedom underlying neuronal activation no independent evidence
    purpose: Illustrative mapping of the phase-space test to a binary neuron-activation readout with spin projections as contexts.
    The paper explicitly says: "We stress that this discussion serves only as an illustration, and no claim is made regarding the physical realization of such degrees of freedom in neural systems." No independent evidence is provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10573 in / 15968 out tokens · 185522 ms · 2026-08-04T06:20:02.616362+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for Quantum Effects in the Brain: A Bell-Type Test for Nonclassical Latent Representations in Autoencoders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DQBUDIE

@misc{pith2026260110588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for Quantum Effects in the Brain: A Bell-Type Test for Nonclassical Latent Representations in Autoencoders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DQBUDIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.10588}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Whether neural information processing is entirely classical or involves quantum-mechanical elements remains an open question. Here we propose a model-agnostic, information-theoretic test of nonclassicality that bypasses microscopic assumptions and instead probes the structure of neural representations themselves. Using autoencoders as a transparent model system, we introduce a Bell-type consistency test in latent space, and ask whether decoding statistics obtained under multiple readout contexts can be jointly explained by a single positive latent-variable distribution. By shifting the search for quantum-like signatures in neural systems from microscopic dynamics to experimentally testable constraints on information processing, this work opens a new route for probing the fundamental physics of neural computation. The proposed test identifies violations of classical latent-variable consistency at the level of statistical representations, without assuming a specific underlying physical mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.10588 by C. Xie, G. P. Tsironis, I. K. Kominis, M. Skotiniotis, S. Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) An autoencoder maps high-dimensional inputs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Nonclassicality detection probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Quantum in Biology, Quantum for Biology, and Biology for Quantum: Mapping the Evidence and the Road Ahead

    quant-ph 2026-04 accept novelty 4.0

    This review structures current evidence for quantum-in-biology, quantum-for-biology, and biology-for-quantum, identifying mature cases like enzymatic tunneling and radical-pair magnetoreception while flagging unresolv...

  2. Quantum in Biology, Quantum for Biology, and Biology for Quantum: Mapping the Evidence and the Road Ahead

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A narrative evidence map of quantum-biology intersections that evaluates mechanistic claims, invoked quantum resources, key experiments, classical confounds, and decisive benchmarks for each of three complementary directions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Hameroff and R

    S. Hameroff and R. Penrose, Orchestrated reduc- tion of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness, Math. Comp. Sim. 40, 453 (1996)

    1996

  2. [2]

    Tegmark, Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes, Phys

    M. Tegmark, Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes, Phys. Rev. E 61, 4194 (2000)

    2000

  3. [3]

    Hagan, S

    S. Hagan, S. R. Hameroff, and J. A. Tuszyński, Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Deco- herence and biological feasibility , Phys. Rev. E 65, 061901 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    Adams and F

    B. Adams and F. Petruccione, Quantum effects in the brain: A review , A VS Quantum Sci. 2, 022901 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Gassab, O

    L. Gassab, O. Pusuluk, M. Cattaneo, and Ö. E. Müstecaplıoğlu, Quantum models of consciousness from a quantum information science perspective , Entropy 27, 243 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    G. D. Scholes et al. , Using coherence to enhance function in chemical and biophysical systems , Na- ture 543, 647 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    I. K. Kominis, The radical-pair mechanism as a paradigm for the emerging science of quantum bi- ology, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 29, 1530013 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    I. K. Kominis and E. Gkoudinakis, Approaching the quantum limit of energy resolution in animal mag- netoreception, PRX Life 3, 013004 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Huelga and M.B

    S.F. Huelga and M.B. Plenio, Vibrations, quanta and biology , Contemp. Phys. 54, 181 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    I. K. Kominis, Quantum relative entropy shows singlet-triplet coherence is a resource in the radical- pair mechanism of biological magnetic sensing , Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023206 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Tegmark, Consciousness as a state of matter , Chaos, Solitons Fractals 76, 238 (2015)

    M. Tegmark, Consciousness as a state of matter , Chaos, Solitons Fractals 76, 238 (2015)

    2015

  12. [12]

    Tononi, M

    G. Tononi, M. Boly, M. Massimini, and C. Koch, Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate , Nature Rev. Neurosci. 17, 450 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    N. D. Theise and J. A. Tuszynski, Non-linearity, complexity, and quantization concepts in biology , Front. Hum. Neurosci. 19, 1695510 (2026)

    2026

  14. [14]

    M. P. A. Fisher, Quantum cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain , Annals Phys. 362, 593 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    Rourk, Y

    C. Rourk, Y. Huang, M. Chen, and C. Shen, In- dication of Strongly Correlated Electron Transport and Mott Insulator in Disordered Multilayer Ferritin Structures (DMFS) , Materials 14, 4527 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    J. J. Torres and D. Manzano, A model of interacting quantum neurons with a dynamic synapse , New J. Phys. 24, 073007 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    Liu, Y.-C

    Z. Liu, Y.-C. Chen, and P. Ao, Entangled biphoton generation in the myelin sheath , Phys. Rev. E 110, 024402 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Neven, A

    H. Neven, A. Zalcman, P. Read, K. S Kosik, T. van der Molen, D. Bouwmeester, E. Bodnia, L. Turin, and C. Koch, Testing the conjecture that quantum processes create conscious experience , Entropy 26, 460 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    J. J. Torres and D. Manzano, Dissipative quan- tum Hopfield network: a numerical analysis , New J. Phys. 26, 103018 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zde- borová, Machine learning and the physical sciences , Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045002 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Mehta, M

    P. Mehta, M. Bukov, C.-H. Wanga, A. G. R. Day, C. Richardson, C. K. Fisher, and D. J. Schwab, A high- bias, low-variance introduction to Machine Learning for physicists , Phys. Rep. 810, 1 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Schuld, I

    M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, An in- troduction to quantum machine learning , Contemp. Phys. 56, 172 (2015)

    2015

  23. [23]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, 6 N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd. Quantum machine learning, Nature 549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    Dunjko and H

    V. Dunjko and H. J Briegel, Machine learning & artificial intelligence in the quantum domain: a re- view of recent progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 074001 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    Lennie, The cost of cortical computation , Current Biol

    P. Lennie, The cost of cortical computation , Current Biol. 13, 493 (2003)

    2003

  26. [26]

    P. Baldi, Autoencoders, unsupervised learning, and deep architectures , in Proceedings of ICML Workshop on Unsupervised and Transfer Learn- ing (JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2012), pp. 37-49

    2012

  27. [27]

    Bengio, A

    Y. Bengio, A. Courville and P. Vincent, Representa- tion learning: A review and new perspectives , IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine In- telligence 35, 1798 (2013)

    2013

  28. [28]

    Michelucci, An Introduction to autoencoders , arXiv:2201.03898

    U. Michelucci, An Introduction to autoencoders , arXiv:2201.03898

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    D. Bank, N. Koenigstein, and R. Giryes, Autoen- coders, in Machine Learning for Data Science Hand- book: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Hand- book, 2023, pp. 353-74

    2023

  30. [30]

    Tishby and N

    N. Tishby and N. Zaslavsky, Deep learning and the information bottleneck principle , 2015 IEEE Infor- mation Theory Workshop (ITW), Jerusalem, Israel, 2015, pp. 1-5

    2015

  31. [31]

    J. M. R. Parrondo, J. M. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa, Thermodynamics of information, Nat. Phys. 11, 131 (2015)

    2015

  32. [32]

    Vinjanampathy and J

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Quantum thermo- dynamics, Contemp. Phys. 57, 545 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    R. W. Spekkens, Negativity and contextuality are equivalent notions of nonclassicality , Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 020401 (2008)

    2008

  34. [34]

    Cabello, Experimentally testable state- independent quantum contextuality , Phys

    A. Cabello, Experimentally testable state- independent quantum contextuality , Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 210401 (2008)

    2008

  35. [35]

    Horodecki, P

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

    2009

  36. [36]

    Brunner, D

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

    2014

  37. [37]

    L. K. Shalm et al. , Strong loophole-free test of local realism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015)

    2015

  38. [38]

    Cavalcanti and P

    D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Quantum steer- ing: a review with focus on semidefinite program- ming, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 024001 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Budroni, A

    C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. Gühne, M. Kleinmann, and J.-A. Larsson, Kochen-Specker contextuality , Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045007 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    Romero, J

    J. Romero, J. P. Olson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum autoencoders for efficient compression of quantum data , Quantum Sci. Technol. 2, 045001 (2017)

    2017

  41. [41]

    Bravo-Prieto, Quantum autoencoders with en- hanced data encoding , Mach

    C. Bravo-Prieto, Quantum autoencoders with en- hanced data encoding , Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 2, 035028 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Sakhnenko, C

    A. Sakhnenko, C. O’Meara, K. J. B. Ghosh, C. B. Mendl, G. Cortiana, and J. Bernabé-Moreno, Hy- brid classical-quantum autoencoder for anomaly de- tection, Quantum Mach. Intell. 4, 27 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    D. F. Locher, L. Cardarelli, and M. Müller, Quan- tum error correction with quantum autoencoders , Quantum 7, 942 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    Chalkiadakis, M

    A. Chalkiadakis, M. Theocharakis, G. D. Barm- paris, and G. P. Tsironis, Quantum neural networks for the discovery and implementation of quantum error-correcting codes, Chaos 33, 113127 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    Ma, C.-J

    H. Ma, C.-J. Huang, C. Chen, D. Dong, Y. Wang, R.-B. Wu, G.-Y. Xiang, On compression rate of quantum autoencoders: Control design, numeri- cal and experimental realization , Automatica 147, 110659 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    J. Wu, H. Fu, M. Zhu, H. Zhang, W. Xie and X.-Y. Li, Quantum circuit autoencoder, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032623 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Frehner and K

    , R. Frehner and K. Stockinger, Applying quan- tum autoencoders for time series anomaly detection , Quantum Mach. Intell. 7, 59 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Makhzani, J

    A. Makhzani, J. Shlens, N. Jaitly, I. Good- fellow, and B. Frey, Adversarial autoencoders , arXiv:1511.05644

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    Morris, L

    B. Morris, L. J. Fiderer, B. Lang, and D. Goldwa- ter, Witnessing Bell violations through probabilistic negativity, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032202 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    A. C. B. Greenwood, L. T. H. Wu, E. Y. Zhu, B. T. Kirby, and L. Qian, Machine-learning-derived en- tanglement witnesses , Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 034058 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Gulati, G

    V. Gulati, G. Singh, and K. Dorai, Using linear and nonlinear entanglement witnesses to generate and detect bound entangled states on an IBM quantum processor, Phys. Scr. 99, 115122 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    2004

  53. [53]

    Efron, Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife, Ann

    B. Efron, Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife, Ann. Statist. 7, 1 (1979)

    1979

  54. [54]

    Efron and R

    B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani, An Introduction to the Bootstrap (Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York, 1994)

    1994

  55. [55]

    Larsson, Bell’s inequality and detector ineffi- ciency, Phys

    J.-Å. Larsson, Bell’s inequality and detector ineffi- ciency, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3304 (1998)

    1998

  56. [56]

    R. D. Gill, Statistics, causality and Bell’s theorem , Statist. Sci. 29, 512 (2014)

    2014

  57. [57]

    P. G. Kwiat, A. M. Steinberg, and R. Y. Chiao, High-visibility interference in a Bell-inequality ex- periment for energy and time , Phys. Rev. A 47, R2472 (1993)

    1993

  58. [58]

    Tomasin, E

    M. Tomasin, E. Mantoan, J. Jogenfors, G. Vallone, J.-A. Larsson, and Paolo Villoresi, High-visibility time-bin entanglement for testing chained Bell in- equalities, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032107 (2017)

    2017

  59. [59]

    A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Continuous- variable optical quantum-state tomography , Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 299 (2009)

    2009

  60. [60]

    W. P. Schleich, Quantum optics in phase space (Wiley-VCH Verlag, Berlin 2001)

    2001

  61. [61]

    R. P. Rundle and M. J. Everitt, Overview of the phase space formulation of quantum mechanics with application to quantum technologies , Adv. Quantum 7 Technol. 4, 2100016 (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    A. M. Gleason, Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space , J. Math. Mech. 6, 885 (1957)

    1957

  63. [63]

    Kochen and E

    S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics , J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967)

    1967

  64. [64]

    Hammerer, A

    K. Hammerer, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum interface between light and atomic ensem- bles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1041 (2010)

    2010

  65. [65]

    Ishizaki and G

    A. Ishizaki and G. R. Fleming, Theoretical examina- tion of quantum coherence in a photosynthetic sys- tem at physiological temperature , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 17255 (2009)

    2009

  66. [66]

    Cao et al

    J. Cao et al. , Quantum biology revisited , Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz4888 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    B. B. A verbeck, P. E. Latham, and A. Pouget, Neu- ral correlations, population coding and computation , Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7, 358 (2006)

    2006

  68. [68]

    Paninski, J

    L. Paninski, J. Pillow, and J. Lewi, Statistical mod- els for neural encoding, decoding, and optimal stim- ulus design , Prog. Brain Res. 165, 493 (2007)

    2007

  69. [69]

    I. H. Stevenson and K. P. Kording, How advances in neural recording affect data analysis , Nat. Neurosci. 14, 139 (2011)

    2011

  70. [70]

    Grosenick, J

    L. Grosenick, J. H. Marshel, and K. Deisseroth, Closed-loop and activity-guided optogenetic control , Neuron 86, 106 (2015)

    2015

  71. [71]

    J. J. Jun et al. , Fully integrated silicon probes for high-density recording of neural activity , Nature 551, 232 (2017)

    2017

  72. [72]

    C. A. Trujillo et al.. , Complex oscillatory waves emerging from cortical organoids, Nat. Neurosci. 22, 166–174 (2019)

    2019

  73. [73]

    Sharf et al., Functional neuronal circuitry and os- cillatory dynamics in human brain organoids , Nat

    T. Sharf et al., Functional neuronal circuitry and os- cillatory dynamics in human brain organoids , Nat. Comm. 13, 4403 (2022)

    2022

  74. [74]

    M. E. J. Obien, K. Deligkaris, T. Bullmann, D. J. Bakkum, and U. Frey, Revealing neuronal function through microelectrode array recordings, Front. Neu- rosci. 8, 423 (2015)

    2015

  75. [75]

    C. A. Trujillo et al. , Complex oscillatory waves emerging from cortical organoids model early human brain network development , Cell Stem Cell 25, 558 (2019)

    2019

  76. [76]

    A. M. Packer, L. E. Russell, H. W. P. Dalgleish, and M. Häusser, Simultaneous all-optical manipulation and recording of neural circuit activity with cellular resolution in vivo , Nat. Methods 12, 140 (2015)

    2015

  77. [77]

    Stringer, M

    C. Stringer, M. Pachitariu, N. Steinmetz, C. Reddy, M. Carandini, and K. D. Harris, High-dimensional geometry of population responses in visual cortex , Nature 571, 361 (2019)

    2019