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

Foundations of Physics

Analogs of de Finetti's theorem and interpretative problems of quantum mechanics

R. L. Hudson

Published Oct 1, 1981• 31 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/bf00726951

Related papers

Quantum de Finetti Theorems Under Local Measurements with Applications

Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, Aram W. Harrow

Communications in Mathematical Physics•Apr 19, 2017•38 citations

ON QUANTUM DE FINETTI'S THEOREMS

Vitonofrio Crismale, Yun Gang Lu

Quantum Probability and Infinite Dimensional Analysis•Feb 1, 2010•0 citations

Unknown Quantum States and Operations, a Bayesian View

Christopher A. Fuchs, Ruediger Schack

The classical de Finetti theorem provides an operational definition of the concept of an unknown probability in Bayesian probability theory, where probabilities are taken to be degrees of belief instead of objective states of nature. In this paper, we motivate and review two results that generalize de Finetti's theorem to the quantum mechanical setting: Namely a de Finetti theorem for quantum states and a de Finetti theorem for quantum operations. The quantum-state theorem, in a closely analogous fashion to the original de Finetti theorem, deals with exchangeable density-operator assignments and provides an operational definition of the concept of an "unknown quantum state" in quantum-state tomography. Similarly, the quantum-operation theorem gives an operational definition of an "unknown quantum operation" in quantum-process tomography. These results are especially important for a Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanics, where quantum states and (at least some) quantum operations are taken to be states of belief rather than states of nature.

arXiv:quant-ph/0404156•Apr 27, 2004•183 citations

A note on "The dilemma of quantum mechanics"

Willis H. Truitt

•Jan 1, 1987•0 citations

Unknown quantum states: The quantum de Finetti representation

Carlton M. Caves, Christopher A. Fuchs, Rüdiger Schack

We present an elementary proof of the quantum de Finetti representation theorem, a quantum analog of de Finetti’s classical theorem on exchangeable probability assignments. This contrasts with the original proof of Hudson and Moody [Z. Wahrschein. verw. Geb. 33, 343 (1976)], which relies on advanced mathematics and does not share the same potential for generalization. The classical de Finetti theorem provides an operational definition of the concept of an unknown probability in Bayesian probability theory, where probabilities are taken to be degrees of belief instead of objective states of nature. The quantum de Finetti theorem, in a closely analogous fashion, deals with exchangeable density-operator assignments and provides an operational definition of the concept of an “unknown quantum state” in quantum-state tomography. This result is especially important for information-based interpretations of quantum mechanics, where quantum states, like probabilities, are taken to be states of knowledge rather than states of nature. We further demonstrate that the theorem fails for real Hilbert spaces and discuss the significance of this point.

arXiv:quant-ph/0104088•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Sep 1, 2002•445 citations

Variations on quantum de Finetti theorems and operator valued Martin boundaries: A Choquet–Deny approach

Benoı̂t Collins, Thierry Giordano, Ryosuke Sato

We revisit the quantum de Finetti theorem. We state and prove a couple of variants thereof. In parallel, we introduce an operator version of the Martin boundary on quantum groups and prove generalizations of Biane’s theorem. Our proof of the de Finetti theorem is new in the sense that it is based on an analogy with the theory of operator-valued Martin boundary that we introduce.

arXiv:2402.09713•Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society•Jan 15, 2026•0 citations
The classical de Finetti theorem provides an operational definition of the concept of an unknown probability in Bayesian probability theory, where probabilities are taken to be degrees of belief instead of objective states of nature. In this paper, we motivate and review two results that generalize de Finetti's theorem to the quantum mechanical setting: Namely a de Finetti theorem for quantum states and a de Finetti theorem for quantum operations. The quantum-state theorem, in a closely analogous fashion to the original de Finetti theorem, deals with exchangeable density-operator assignments and provides an operational definition of the concept of an "unknown quantum state" in quantum-state tomography. Similarly, the quantum-operation theorem gives an operational definition of an "unknown quantum operation" in quantum-process tomography. These results are especially important for a Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanics, where quantum states and (at least some) quantum operations are taken to be states of belief rather than states of nature.
We present an elementary proof of the quantum de Finetti representation theorem, a quantum analog of de Finetti’s classical theorem on exchangeable probability assignments. This contrasts with the original proof of Hudson and Moody [Z. Wahrschein. verw. Geb. 33, 343 (1976)], which relies on advanced mathematics and does not share the same potential for generalization. The classical de Finetti theorem provides an operational definition of the concept of an unknown probability in Bayesian probability theory, where probabilities are taken to be degrees of belief instead of objective states of nature. The quantum de Finetti theorem, in a closely analogous fashion, deals with exchangeable density-operator assignments and provides an operational definition of the concept of an “unknown quantum state” in quantum-state tomography. This result is especially important for information-based interpretations of quantum mechanics, where quantum states, like probabilities, are taken to be states of knowledge rather than states of nature. We further demonstrate that the theorem fails for real Hilbert spaces and discuss the significance of this point.