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:2105.06445

A no-go theorem for $Ψ-$anomic models under the restricted ontic indifference assumption

Aurélien Drezet

Published May 13, 2021• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We address the question of whether a non-nomological (i.e., anomic) interpretation of the wavefunction is compatible with the quantum formalism. After clarifying the distinction between ontic, epistemic, nomic and anomic models we focus our attention on two famous no-go theorems due to Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph (PBR) on the one side and Hardy on the other side which forbid the existence of anomic-epistemic models. Moreover, we demonstrate that the so called restricted ontic indifference introduced by Hardy induces new constraints. We show that after modifications the Hardy theorem actually rules out all anomic models of the wavefunction assuming only restricted ontic indifference and preparation independence.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2105.06445

Related papers

Reality of the quantum state: Towards a stronger ψ -ontology theorem

Shane Mansfield

The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) no-go theorem provides an argument for the reality of the quantum state by ruling out $\ensuremath{\psi}$-epistemic ontological theories, in which the quantum state is of a statistical nature. It applies under an assumption of preparation independence, the validity of which has been subject to debate. We propose two plausible and less restrictive alternatives: a weaker notion allowing for classical correlations, and an even weaker, physically motivated notion of independence, which merely prohibits the possibility of superluminal causal influences in the preparation process. The latter is a minimal requirement for enabling a reasonable treatment of subsystems in any theory. It is demonstrated by means of an explicit $\ensuremath{\psi}$-epistemic ontological model that the argument of PBR becomes invalid under the alternative notions of independence. As an intermediate step, we recover a result which is valid in the presence of classical correlations. Finally, we obtain a theorem which holds under the minimal requirement, approximating the result of PBR. For this, we consider experiments involving randomly sampled preparations and derive bounds on the degree of $\ensuremath{\psi}$ epistemicity that is consistent with the quantum-mechanical predictions. The approximation is exact in the limit as the sample space of preparations becomes infinite.

arXiv:1412.0669•Physical Review A•Oct 24, 2016•22 citations

Is the Quantum State Real? An Extended Review of ψ-Ontology Theorems

Matthew Leifer

Towards the end of 2011, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph derived a theorem that aimed to show that the quantum state must be ontic (a state of reality) in a broad class of realist approaches to quantum theory. This result attracted a lot of attention and controversy. The aim of this review article is to review the background to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem, to provide a clear presentation of the theorem itself, and to review related work that has appeared since the publication of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph paper. In particular, this review: Explains what it means for the quantum state to be ontic or epistemic (a state of knowledge); Reviews arguments for and against an ontic interpretation of the quantum state as they existed prior to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Explains why proving the reality of the quantum state is a very strong constraint on realist theories in that it would imply many of the known no-go theorems, such as Bell's Theorem and the need for an exponentially large ontic state space; Provides a comprehensive presentation of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem itself, along with subsequent improvements and criticisms of its assumptions; Reviews two other arguments for the reality of the quantum state: the first due to Hardy and the second due to Colbeck and Renner, and explains why their assumptions are less compelling than those of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Reviews subsequent work aimed at ruling out stronger notions of what it means for the quantum state to be epistemic and points out open questions in this area. The overall aim is not only to provide the background needed for the novice in this area to understand the current status, but also to discuss often overlooked subtleties that should be of interest to the experts. Quanta 2014; 3: 67–155.

arXiv:1409.1570•Quanta•Nov 5, 2014•306 citations

Could wavefunctions simultaneously represent knowledge and reality?

Jonte R. Hance, JG Rarity, J Ladyman

In discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics the terms ‘ontic’ and ‘epistemic’ are often used in the sense of pertaining to what exists, and pertaining to cognition or knowledge respectively. The terms are also often associated with the formal definitions given by Harrigan and Spekkens for the wavefunction in quantum mechanics to be �ψ-ontic or �ψ-epistemic in the context of the ontological models framework. The formal definitions are contradictories, so that the wavefunction can be either ψ�-epistemic or ψ �-ontic but not both. However, we argue, nothing about the informal ideas of epistemic and ontic interpretations rules out wavefunctions representing both reality and knowledge. The implications of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph theorem and many other issues may be rethought in the light of our analysis.

•Aug 1, 2022•0 citations

From Joint to Single-System Psi-Onticity Without Preparation Independence

Shan Gao

The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem establishes $ψ$-onticity for individual quantum systems, but its standard formulation relies on the Preparation Independence Postulate (PIP). This has led to a prevalent view that rejecting PIP leaves open the possibility of $ψ$-epistemic models for individual systems. In this work, we show that this understanding is incomplete: once the PBR theorem establishes $ψ$-onticity for composite systems prepared in product states, the $ψ$-onticity of the individual subsystems follows directly from the tensor-product structure of quantum mechanics, without invoking PIP or any further auxiliary assumptions. This result removes a key auxiliary assumption from the PBR theorem, closes a persistent loophole for preserving $ψ$-epistemic models, and strengthens the conceptual foundations of $ψ$-ontology.

quant-pharXiv:2601.17662•Foundations of Physics•Jan 27, 2026•1 citation

No-Go Theorems for ψ -Epistemic Models Based on a Continuity Assumption

Manas K. Patra, Stefano Pironio, Serge Massar

The quantum state ψ is a mathematical object used to determine the probabilities of different outcomes when measuring a physical system. Its fundamental nature has been the subject of discussions since the inception of quantum theory. Is it ontic, that is, does it correspond to a real property of the physical system? Or is it epistemic, that is, does it merely represent our knowledge about the system? Assuming a natural continuity assumption and a weak separability assumption, we show here that epistemic interpretations of the quantum state are in contradiction with quantum theory. Our argument is different from the recent proof of Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph and it already yields a nontrivial constraint on ψ-epistemic models using a single copy of the system in question.

arXiv:1211.1179•Physical Review Letters•Aug 26, 2013•49 citations

Should the wave-function be a part of the quantum ontological state?

Aurélien Drezet

We analyze the recent no go theorem by Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) concerning ontic and epistemic hidden variables. We define two fundamental requirements for the validity of the result. We finally compare the models satisfying the theorem with the historical hidden variable approach proposed by de Broglie and Bohm.

arXiv:1209.2565•Sep 12, 2012•7 citations
A no-go theorem for Ψ−Ψ-Ψ−anomic models under the restricted ontic indifference assumption
We address the question of whether a non-nomological (i.e., anomic) interpretation of the wavefunction is compatible with the quantum formalism. After clarifying the distinction between ontic, epistemic, nomic and anomic models we focus our attention on two famous no-go theorems due to Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph (PBR) on the one side and Hardy on the other side which forbid the existence of anomic-epistemic models. Moreover, we demonstrate that the so called restricted ontic indifference introduced by Hardy induces new constraints. We show that after modifications the Hardy theorem actually rules out all anomic models of the wavefunction assuming only restricted ontic indifference and preparation independence.
The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) no-go theorem provides an argument for the reality of the quantum state by ruling out $\ensuremath{\psi}$-epistemic ontological theories, in which the quantum state is of a statistical nature. It applies under an assumption of preparation independence, the validity of which has been subject to debate. We propose two plausible and less restrictive alternatives: a weaker notion allowing for classical correlations, and an even weaker, physically motivated notion of independence, which merely prohibits the possibility of superluminal causal influences in the preparation process. The latter is a minimal requirement for enabling a reasonable treatment of subsystems in any theory. It is demonstrated by means of an explicit $\ensuremath{\psi}$-epistemic ontological model that the argument of PBR becomes invalid under the alternative notions of independence. As an intermediate step, we recover a result which is valid in the presence of classical correlations. Finally, we obtain a theorem which holds under the minimal requirement, approximating the result of PBR. For this, we consider experiments involving randomly sampled preparations and derive bounds on the degree of $\ensuremath{\psi}$ epistemicity that is consistent with the quantum-mechanical predictions. The approximation is exact in the limit as the sample space of preparations becomes infinite.
Towards the end of 2011, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph derived a theorem that aimed to show that the quantum state must be ontic (a state of reality) in a broad class of realist approaches to quantum theory. This result attracted a lot of attention and controversy. The aim of this review article is to review the background to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem, to provide a clear presentation of the theorem itself, and to review related work that has appeared since the publication of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph paper. In particular, this review: Explains what it means for the quantum state to be ontic or epistemic (a state of knowledge); Reviews arguments for and against an ontic interpretation of the quantum state as they existed prior to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Explains why proving the reality of the quantum state is a very strong constraint on realist theories in that it would imply many of the known no-go theorems, such as Bell's Theorem and the need for an exponentially large ontic state space; Provides a comprehensive presentation of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem itself, along with subsequent improvements and criticisms of its assumptions; Reviews two other arguments for the reality of the quantum state: the first due to Hardy and the second due to Colbeck and Renner, and explains why their assumptions are less compelling than those of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem; Reviews subsequent work aimed at ruling out stronger notions of what it means for the quantum state to be epistemic and points out open questions in this area. The overall aim is not only to provide the background needed for the novice in this area to understand the current status, but also to discuss often overlooked subtleties that should be of interest to the experts. Quanta 2014; 3: 67–155.
In discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics the terms ‘ontic’ and ‘epistemic’ are often used in the sense of pertaining to what exists, and pertaining to cognition or knowledge respectively. The terms are also often associated with the formal definitions given by Harrigan and Spekkens for the wavefunction in quantum mechanics to be �ψ-ontic or �ψ-epistemic in the context of the ontological models framework. The formal definitions are contradictories, so that the wavefunction can be either ψ�-epistemic or ψ �-ontic but not both. However, we argue, nothing about the informal ideas of epistemic and ontic interpretations rules out wavefunctions representing both reality and knowledge. The implications of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph theorem and many other issues may be rethought in the light of our analysis.
The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem establishes ψψψ-onticity for individual quantum systems, but its standard formulation relies on the Preparation Independence Postulate (PIP). This has led to a prevalent view that rejecting PIP leaves open the possibility of ψψψ-epistemic models for individual systems. In this work, we show that this understanding is incomplete: once the PBR theorem establishes ψψψ-onticity for composite systems prepared in product states, the ψψψ-onticity of the individual subsystems follows directly from the tensor-product structure of quantum mechanics, without invoking PIP or any further auxiliary assumptions. This result removes a key auxiliary assumption from the PBR theorem, closes a persistent loophole for preserving ψψψ-epistemic models, and strengthens the conceptual foundations of ψψψ-ontology.
The quantum state ψ is a mathematical object used to determine the probabilities of different outcomes when measuring a physical system. Its fundamental nature has been the subject of discussions since the inception of quantum theory. Is it ontic, that is, does it correspond to a real property of the physical system? Or is it epistemic, that is, does it merely represent our knowledge about the system? Assuming a natural continuity assumption and a weak separability assumption, we show here that epistemic interpretations of the quantum state are in contradiction with quantum theory. Our argument is different from the recent proof of Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph and it already yields a nontrivial constraint on ψ-epistemic models using a single copy of the system in question.