Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1201.4390 · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences

The operator tensor formulation of quantum theory

Lucien Hardy

Published Jun 18, 2012• 63 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In this paper, we provide what might be regarded as a manifestly covariant presentation of discrete quantum theory. A typical quantum experiment has a bunch of apparatuses placed so that quantum systems can pass between them. We regard each use of an apparatus, along with some given outcome on the apparatus (a certain detector click or a certain meter reading for example), as an operation. An operation (e.g. B(b(2)a(3))(a(1))) can have zero or more quantum systems inputted into it and zero or more quantum systems outputted from it. The operation B(b(2)a(3))(a(1)) has one system of type a inputted, and one system of type b and one system of type a outputted. We can wire together operations to form circuits, for example, A(a(1))B(b(2)a(3))(a(1))C(b(2)a(3)). Each repeated integer label here denotes a wire connecting an output to an input of the same type. As each operation in a circuit has an outcome associated with it, a circuit represents a set of outcomes that can happen in a run of the experiment. In the operator tensor formulation of quantum theory, each operation corresponds to an operator tensor. For example, the operation B(b(2)a(3))(a(1)) corresponds to the operator tensor B(b(2)a(3))(a(1)). Further, the probability for a general circuit is given by replacing operations with corresponding operator tensors as in Prob(A(a(1))B(b(2)a(3))(a(1))C(b(2)a(3))) = Â(a(1))B(b(2)a(3))(a(1))C(b(2)a(3)). Repeated integer labels indicate that we multiply in the associated subspace and then take the partial trace over that subspace. Operator tensors must be physical (namely, they must have positive input transpose and satisfy a certain normalization condition).

DOI
10.1098/rsta.2011.0326

Related papers

The operator tensor formulation of quantum theory

Lucién Hardy

A typical quantum experiment has a bunch of apparatuses placed so that quantum systems can pass between them. We regard each use of an apparatus, along with some given outcome on the apparatus (a certain detector click or a certain meter reading for example), as an operation. An operation can have zero or more quantum systems inputted into it and zero or more quantum systems outputted from it. We can wire together operations to form circuits. In the standard framework of quantum theory we must foliate the circuit then calculate the probability by evolving a state through it. This approach has three problems. First, we must introduce an arbitrary foliation of the circuit (such foliations are not unique). Second, we have to pad our expressions with identities every time two or more foliation hypersurfaces intersect a given wire. And third, we treat operations corresponding to preparations, transformations, and results in different ways. In this paper we present the operator tensor formulation of quantum theory which solves all these problems. Corresponding to every operation is an operator tensor. The probability for a circuit is given by simply replacing the operations in the circuit with the corresponding operator tensors. Wires between operator tensors correspond to multiplying the tensors in the associated subspace and then taking the partial trace over that subspace. Operator tensors must be physical (namely, they must have positive input transpose and satisfy a certain normalization condition).

•Aug 17, 2016•42 citations

Quantum theory with bold operator tensors

Lucién Hardy

In this paper, we present a formulation of quantum theory in terms of bold operator tensors. A circuit is built up of operations where an operation corresponds to a use of an apparatus. We associate collections of operator tensors (which together comprise a bold operator) with these apparatus uses. We give rules for combining bold operator tensors such that, for a circuit, they give a probability distribution over the possible outcomes. If we impose certain physicality constraints on the bold operator tensors, then we get exactly the quantum formalism. We provide both symbolic and diagrammatic ways to represent these calculations. This approach is manifestly covariant in that it does not require us to foliate the circuit into time steps and then evolve a state. Thus, the approach forms a natural starting point for an operational approach to quantum field theory.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Jun 29, 2015•8 citations

Operations and channels

Teiko Heinosaari, Mário Ziman

In Chapters 2 and 3 we assumed a model according to which an experiment is split into two parts – preparation and measurement. This led us to the associated concepts of states and observables, respectively. On the basis of this picture we can think about two types of apparatus, which can be characterized abstractly as follows. Preparators are devices producing quantum states. No input is required, but a quantum output is produced. Measurements are input–output devices that accept a quantum system as their input and produce a classical output in the form of measurement outcome distributions. This setting is summarized in Figure 2.2. Furthermore, in subsection 3.5.2 we discussed coarse-graining relations; coarse-graining can be depicted as a box with a classical input and a classical output. This line of thought indicates that at least one type of input–output box is so far missing from our discussion – a device taking a quantum input and producing a quantum output. Hence, we say that • quantum channels are input–output devices transforming quantum states into quantum states. Each quantum channel can be placed between arbitrary preparation and measurement devices (Figure 4.1). Channels, and a slightly more general concept, that of operations , are the topics of this chapter. Transforming quantum systems In this section we discuss the mathematical definition of operations and channels. The notion of an operation was introduced by Haag and Kastler [70] within the framework of algebraic quantum field theory. Later Kraus [88], Lindblad [93] and Davies [51] discussed the requirement for operations to be completely positive.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 15, 2011•0 citations

Operationalism, Causality, and Quantum Theory: a mostly time symmetric perspective

Lucien Hardy

This is a book about operational probabilistic theories. The standard approach in such theories is from a time forward perspective. In this book we mostly take a time symmetric perspective. This presents a branding problem. Is this a niche book merely about time symmetry? No. This is a comprehensive book about operational probabilistic theories, but mostly from a time symmetric perspective. In fact, this book consists of (1) a simple book about simple operations having simple causal structure (where all the inputs are before all the outputs), and (2) a complex book about complex operations that can have complicated causal structure (a complex operation is equipped with a causal diagram). For the simple case we are able to show that the time symmetric perspective is equivalent to the time forward perspective. In each book we set up (A) operational probabilistic theories (OPTs) in terms of operations, (B) Operational Quantum Theory (OQT) in terms of operator tensors which correspond to operations, and (C) the theory of Hilbert objects which can be doubled up to give operator tensors. Operations are required to be physical which guarantees that circuits built out of operations have probabilities between 0 and 1 and that certain causality conditions are met. We prove that when we wire together operations the resulting networks are also physical. We model Sorkin's impossible measurements with complex operations and show that physicality prevents anomalous signalling. We develop diagrammatic notation for Hilbert objects. This includes mirrors for doubling up and mirror theorems. We use this framework to prove time symmetric causal dilation theorems for various causal diagrams.

quant-pharXiv:2603.12076•Mar 13, 2026•0 citations

Reformulating and Reconstructing Quantum Theory

Lucién Hardy

We provide a reformulation of finite dimensional quantum theory in the circuit framework in terms of mathematical axioms, and a reconstruction of quantum theory from operational postulates. The mathematical axioms for quantum theory are the following: [Axiom 1] Operations correspond to operators. [Axiom 2] Every complete set of physical operators corresponds to a complete set of operations. The following operational postulates are shown to be equivalent to these mathematical axioms: [P1] Sharpness. Associated with any given pure state is a unique maximal effect giving probability equal to one. This maximal effect does not give probability equal to one for any other pure state. [P2] Information locality. A maximal measurement on a composite system is effected if we perform maximal measurements on each of the components. [P3] Tomographic locality. The state of a composite system can be determined from the statistics collected by making measurements on the components. [P4] Compound permutability. There exists a compound reversible transformation on any system effecting any given permutation of any given maximal set of distinguishable states for that system. [P5] Sturdiness. Filters are non-flattening. Hence, from these postulates we can reconstruct all the usual features of quantum theory: States are represented by positive operators, transformations by completely positive trace non-increasing maps, and effects by positive operators. The Born rule (i.e. the trace rule) for calculating probabilitieso follows. A more detailed abstract is provided in the paper.

arXiv:1104.2066•Apr 11, 2011•124 citations

Discrete Quantum Mechanics I: Quantum Covariance

Charles Francis

Classically general covariance is found from the idea that a vector is a physical quantity which exists independently of choice of coordinate system and is unchanged by a change of coordinate system. It is often assumed that there exists some form of absolute mathematical space or space-time, and that in a flat space approximation vectors can be imagined between defined points in this space-time, much as we can imagine an arrowed line drawn on a piece of paper. However, while classical vector quantities can be represented on paper, in the quantum domain physical quantities do not in general exist with precise values except in measurement; a change of apparatus, for example by rotating it, may affect the outcome of the measurement, so the condition for general covariance does not apply. The purpose of this paper is to re-examine covariance within the context of an orthodox, Dirac-Von Neumann interpretation of quantum mechanics, to replace it with a new condition, here called quantum covariance, and to show that quantum covariance is the required condition for the unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics for non-interacting particles.

arXiv:gr-qc/0205001•Apr 30, 2002•0 citations
In this paper, we provide what might be regarded as a manifestly covariant presentation of discrete quantum theory. A typical quantum experiment has a bunch of apparatuses placed so that quantum systems can pass between them. We regard each use of an apparatus, along with some given outcome on the apparatus (a certain detector click or a certain meter reading for example), as an operation. An operation (e.g. B(b(2)a(3))(a(1))) can have zero or more quantum systems inputted into it and zero or more quantum systems outputted from it. The operation B(b(2)a(3))(a(1)) has one system of type a inputted, and one system of type b and one system of type a outputted. We can wire together operations to form circuits, for example, A(a(1))B(b(2)a(3))(a(1))C(b(2)a(3)). Each repeated integer label here denotes a wire connecting an output to an input of the same type. As each operation in a circuit has an outcome associated with it, a circuit represents a set of outcomes that can happen in a run of the experiment. In the operator tensor formulation of quantum theory, each operation corresponds to an operator tensor. For example, the operation B(b(2)a(3))(a(1)) corresponds to the operator tensor B(b(2)a(3))(a(1)). Further, the probability for a general circuit is given by replacing operations with corresponding operator tensors as in Prob(A(a(1))B(b(2)a(3))(a(1))C(b(2)a(3))) = Â(a(1))B(b(2)a(3))(a(1))C(b(2)a(3)). Repeated integer labels indicate that we multiply in the associated subspace and then take the partial trace over that subspace. Operator tensors must be physical (namely, they must have positive input transpose and satisfy a certain normalization condition).
A typical quantum experiment has a bunch of apparatuses placed so that quantum systems can pass between them. We regard each use of an apparatus, along with some given outcome on the apparatus (a certain detector click or a certain meter reading for example), as an operation. An operation can have zero or more quantum systems inputted into it and zero or more quantum systems outputted from it. We can wire together operations to form circuits. In the standard framework of quantum theory we must foliate the circuit then calculate the probability by evolving a state through it. This approach has three problems. First, we must introduce an arbitrary foliation of the circuit (such foliations are not unique). Second, we have to pad our expressions with identities every time two or more foliation hypersurfaces intersect a given wire. And third, we treat operations corresponding to preparations, transformations, and results in different ways. In this paper we present the operator tensor formulation of quantum theory which solves all these problems. Corresponding to every operation is an operator tensor. The probability for a circuit is given by simply replacing the operations in the circuit with the corresponding operator tensors. Wires between operator tensors correspond to multiplying the tensors in the associated subspace and then taking the partial trace over that subspace. Operator tensors must be physical (namely, they must have positive input transpose and satisfy a certain normalization condition).
In this paper, we present a formulation of quantum theory in terms of bold operator tensors. A circuit is built up of operations where an operation corresponds to a use of an apparatus. We associate collections of operator tensors (which together comprise a bold operator) with these apparatus uses. We give rules for combining bold operator tensors such that, for a circuit, they give a probability distribution over the possible outcomes. If we impose certain physicality constraints on the bold operator tensors, then we get exactly the quantum formalism. We provide both symbolic and diagrammatic ways to represent these calculations. This approach is manifestly covariant in that it does not require us to foliate the circuit into time steps and then evolve a state. Thus, the approach forms a natural starting point for an operational approach to quantum field theory.
In Chapters 2 and 3 we assumed a model according to which an experiment is split into two parts – preparation and measurement. This led us to the associated concepts of states and observables, respectively. On the basis of this picture we can think about two types of apparatus, which can be characterized abstractly as follows. Preparators are devices producing quantum states. No input is required, but a quantum output is produced. Measurements are input–output devices that accept a quantum system as their input and produce a classical output in the form of measurement outcome distributions. This setting is summarized in Figure 2.2. Furthermore, in subsection 3.5.2 we discussed coarse-graining relations; coarse-graining can be depicted as a box with a classical input and a classical output. This line of thought indicates that at least one type of input–output box is so far missing from our discussion – a device taking a quantum input and producing a quantum output. Hence, we say that • quantum channels are input–output devices transforming quantum states into quantum states. Each quantum channel can be placed between arbitrary preparation and measurement devices (Figure 4.1). Channels, and a slightly more general concept, that of operations , are the topics of this chapter. Transforming quantum systems In this section we discuss the mathematical definition of operations and channels. The notion of an operation was introduced by Haag and Kastler [70] within the framework of algebraic quantum field theory. Later Kraus [88], Lindblad [93] and Davies [51] discussed the requirement for operations to be completely positive.
This is a book about operational probabilistic theories. The standard approach in such theories is from a time forward perspective. In this book we mostly take a time symmetric perspective. This presents a branding problem. Is this a niche book merely about time symmetry? No. This is a comprehensive book about operational probabilistic theories, but mostly from a time symmetric perspective. In fact, this book consists of (1) a simple book about simple operations having simple causal structure (where all the inputs are before all the outputs), and (2) a complex book about complex operations that can have complicated causal structure (a complex operation is equipped with a causal diagram). For the simple case we are able to show that the time symmetric perspective is equivalent to the time forward perspective. In each book we set up (A) operational probabilistic theories (OPTs) in terms of operations, (B) Operational Quantum Theory (OQT) in terms of operator tensors which correspond to operations, and (C) the theory of Hilbert objects which can be doubled up to give operator tensors. Operations are required to be physical which guarantees that circuits built out of operations have probabilities between 0 and 1 and that certain causality conditions are met. We prove that when we wire together operations the resulting networks are also physical. We model Sorkin's impossible measurements with complex operations and show that physicality prevents anomalous signalling. We develop diagrammatic notation for Hilbert objects. This includes mirrors for doubling up and mirror theorems. We use this framework to prove time symmetric causal dilation theorems for various causal diagrams.
We provide a reformulation of finite dimensional quantum theory in the circuit framework in terms of mathematical axioms, and a reconstruction of quantum theory from operational postulates. The mathematical axioms for quantum theory are the following: [Axiom 1] Operations correspond to operators. [Axiom 2] Every complete set of physical operators corresponds to a complete set of operations. The following operational postulates are shown to be equivalent to these mathematical axioms: [P1] Sharpness. Associated with any given pure state is a unique maximal effect giving probability equal to one. This maximal effect does not give probability equal to one for any other pure state. [P2] Information locality. A maximal measurement on a composite system is effected if we perform maximal measurements on each of the components. [P3] Tomographic locality. The state of a composite system can be determined from the statistics collected by making measurements on the components. [P4] Compound permutability. There exists a compound reversible transformation on any system effecting any given permutation of any given maximal set of distinguishable states for that system. [P5] Sturdiness. Filters are non-flattening. Hence, from these postulates we can reconstruct all the usual features of quantum theory: States are represented by positive operators, transformations by completely positive trace non-increasing maps, and effects by positive operators. The Born rule (i.e. the trace rule) for calculating probabilitieso follows. A more detailed abstract is provided in the paper.
Classically general covariance is found from the idea that a vector is a physical quantity which exists independently of choice of coordinate system and is unchanged by a change of coordinate system. It is often assumed that there exists some form of absolute mathematical space or space-time, and that in a flat space approximation vectors can be imagined between defined points in this space-time, much as we can imagine an arrowed line drawn on a piece of paper. However, while classical vector quantities can be represented on paper, in the quantum domain physical quantities do not in general exist with precise values except in measurement; a change of apparatus, for example by rotating it, may affect the outcome of the measurement, so the condition for general covariance does not apply. The purpose of this paper is to re-examine covariance within the context of an orthodox, Dirac-Von Neumann interpretation of quantum mechanics, to replace it with a new condition, here called quantum covariance, and to show that quantum covariance is the required condition for the unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics for non-interacting particles.