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

Quantum theory of preparation and measurement

David T. Pegg, Stephen M. Barnett, John Jeffers

Published Jan 1, 2002• 33 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

1 Abstract. The conventional postulate for the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is asymmetric in preparation and measurement, making retrodiction reliant on inference by use of Bayes ’ theorem. Here we present a more fundamental symmetric postulate from which both predictive and retrodictive probabilities emerge immediately, even where measurement devices more general than those usually considered are involved. We show that the new postulate is perfectly consistent with the conventional postulate. 2

Related papers

Quantum theory of preparation and measurement

DAVID PEGG, STEPHEN BARNETT, JOHN JEFFERS

The conventional postulate for the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is asymmetric in preparation and measurement, making retrodiction reliant on inference by use of Bayes' theorem. Here, a more fundamental symmetric postulate is presented, from which both predictive and retrodictive probabilities emerge immediately, even where measurement devices more general than those usually considered are involved. It is shown that the new postulate is perfectly consistent with the conventional postulate.

arXiv:quant-ph/0207174•Journal of Modern Optics•Apr 1, 2002•38 citations

Towards a formulation of quantum theory as a causally neutral theory of Bayesian inference

Matthew Leifer, Robert W. Spekkens

Quantum theory can be viewed as a generalization of classical probability theory, but the analogy as it has been developed so far is not complete. Whereas the manner in which inferences are made in classical probability theory is independent of the causal relation that holds between the conditioned variable and the conditioning variable, in the conventional quantum formalism, there is a significant difference between how one treats experiments involving two systems at a single time and those involving a single system at two times. In this article, we develop the formalism of quantum conditional states, which provides a unified description of these two sorts of experiment. In addition, concepts that are distinct in the conventional formalism become unified: Channels, sets of states, and positive operator valued measures are all seen to be instances of conditional states; the action of a channel on a state, ensemble averaging, the Born rule, the composition of channels, and nonselective state-update rules are all seen to be instances of belief propagation. Using a quantum generalization of Bayes' theorem and the associated notion of Bayesian conditioning, we also show that the remote steering of quantum states can be described within our formalism as a mere updating of beliefs about one system given new information about another, and retrodictive inferences can be expressed using the same belief propagation rule as is used for predictive inferences. Finally, we show that previous arguments for interpreting the projection postulate as a quantum generalization of Bayesian conditioning are based on a misleading analogy and that it is best understood as a combination of belief propagation (corresponding to the nonselective state-update map) and conditioning on the measurement outcome.

arXiv:1107.5849•Physical Review A•Nov 27, 2013•287 citations

Quantum probability rule: a generalization of the theorems of Gleason and Busch

Stephen Mark Barnett, James D. Cresser, John Jeffers +1 more

Buschʼs theorem deriving the standard quantum probability rule can be regarded as a more general form of Gleasonʼs theorem. Here we show that a further generalization is possible by reducing the number of quantum postulates used by Busch. We do not assume that the positive measurement outcome operators are effects or that they form a probability operator measure. We derive a more general probability rule from which the standard rule can be obtained from the normal laws of probability when there is no measurement outcome information available, without the need for further quantum postulates. Our general probability rule has prediction–retrodiction symmetry and we show how it may be applied in quantum communications and in retrodictive quantum theory.

New Journal of Physics•Apr 29, 2014•9 citations

Formulating Quantum Theory as a Causally Neutral Theory of Bayesian Inference

Matthew Leifer, Robert W. Spekkens

Quantum theory can be viewed as a generalization of classical probability theory, but the analogy as it has been developed so far is not complete. Classical probability theory is independent of causal structure, whereas the conventional quantum formalism requires causal structure to be fixed in advance. In this paper, we develop the formalism of quantum conditional states, which unifies the description of experiments involving two systems at a single time with the description of those involving a single system at two times. The analogies between quantum theory and classical probability theory are expressed succinctly within the formalism and it unifies the mathematical description of distinct concepts, such as ensemble preparation procedures, measurements, and quantum dynamics. We introduce a quantum generalization of Bayes' theorem and the associated notion of Bayesian conditioning. Conditioning a quantum state on a classical variable is the correct rule for updating quantum states in light of classical data, regardless of the causal relationship between the classical variable and the quantum degrees of freedom, but it does not include the projection postulate as a special case. We show that previous arguments that projection is the quantum generalization of conditioning are based on misleading analogies. Since our formalism is causally neutral, conditioning provides a unification of the predictive and retrodictive formalisms for prepare-and-measure experiments and leads to an elegant derivation of the set of states that a system can be steered to by making measurements on a remote system.

•Jul 29, 2011•28 citations

Quantum probability rule: a generalisation of the theorems of Gleason and Busch

Stephen Mark Barnett, James D. Cresser, John Jeffers +1 more

Busch's theorem deriving the standard quantum probability rule can be regarded as a more general form of Gleason's theorem. Here we show that a further generalisation is possible by reducing the number of quantum postulates used by Busch. We do not assume that the positive measurement outcome operators are effects or that they form a probability operator measure. We derive a more general probability rule from which the standard rule can be obtained from the normal laws of probability when there is no measurement outcome information available, without the need for further quantum postulates. Our general probability rule has prediction-retrodiction symmetry and we show how it may be applied in quantum communications and in retrodictive quantum theory.

arXiv:1308.0946•Aug 5, 2013•0 citations

Quantum Retrodiction: Foundations and Controversies

Stephen Mark Barnett, John Jeffers, David Thomas Pegg

Prediction is the making of statements, usually probabilistic, about future events based on current information. Retrodiction is the making of statements about past events based on current information. We present the foundations of quantum retrodiction and highlight its intimate connection with the Bayesian interpretation of probability. The close link with Bayesian methods enables us to explore controversies and misunderstandings about retrodiction that have appeared in the literature. To be clear, quantum retrodiction is universally applicable and draws its validity directly from conventional predictive quantum theory coupled with Bayes’ theorem.

arXiv:2103.06074•Symmetry•Apr 2, 2021•19 citations
1 Abstract. The conventional postulate for the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is asymmetric in preparation and measurement, making retrodiction reliant on inference by use of Bayes ’ theorem. Here we present a more fundamental symmetric postulate from which both predictive and retrodictive probabilities emerge immediately, even where measurement devices more general than those usually considered are involved. We show that the new postulate is perfectly consistent with the conventional postulate. 2
The conventional postulate for the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is asymmetric in preparation and measurement, making retrodiction reliant on inference by use of Bayes' theorem. Here, a more fundamental symmetric postulate is presented, from which both predictive and retrodictive probabilities emerge immediately, even where measurement devices more general than those usually considered are involved. It is shown that the new postulate is perfectly consistent with the conventional postulate.
Quantum theory can be viewed as a generalization of classical probability theory, but the analogy as it has been developed so far is not complete. Whereas the manner in which inferences are made in classical probability theory is independent of the causal relation that holds between the conditioned variable and the conditioning variable, in the conventional quantum formalism, there is a significant difference between how one treats experiments involving two systems at a single time and those involving a single system at two times. In this article, we develop the formalism of quantum conditional states, which provides a unified description of these two sorts of experiment. In addition, concepts that are distinct in the conventional formalism become unified: Channels, sets of states, and positive operator valued measures are all seen to be instances of conditional states; the action of a channel on a state, ensemble averaging, the Born rule, the composition of channels, and nonselective state-update rules are all seen to be instances of belief propagation. Using a quantum generalization of Bayes' theorem and the associated notion of Bayesian conditioning, we also show that the remote steering of quantum states can be described within our formalism as a mere updating of beliefs about one system given new information about another, and retrodictive inferences can be expressed using the same belief propagation rule as is used for predictive inferences. Finally, we show that previous arguments for interpreting the projection postulate as a quantum generalization of Bayesian conditioning are based on a misleading analogy and that it is best understood as a combination of belief propagation (corresponding to the nonselective state-update map) and conditioning on the measurement outcome.
Buschʼs theorem deriving the standard quantum probability rule can be regarded as a more general form of Gleasonʼs theorem. Here we show that a further generalization is possible by reducing the number of quantum postulates used by Busch. We do not assume that the positive measurement outcome operators are effects or that they form a probability operator measure. We derive a more general probability rule from which the standard rule can be obtained from the normal laws of probability when there is no measurement outcome information available, without the need for further quantum postulates. Our general probability rule has prediction–retrodiction symmetry and we show how it may be applied in quantum communications and in retrodictive quantum theory.
Quantum theory can be viewed as a generalization of classical probability theory, but the analogy as it has been developed so far is not complete. Classical probability theory is independent of causal structure, whereas the conventional quantum formalism requires causal structure to be fixed in advance. In this paper, we develop the formalism of quantum conditional states, which unifies the description of experiments involving two systems at a single time with the description of those involving a single system at two times. The analogies between quantum theory and classical probability theory are expressed succinctly within the formalism and it unifies the mathematical description of distinct concepts, such as ensemble preparation procedures, measurements, and quantum dynamics. We introduce a quantum generalization of Bayes' theorem and the associated notion of Bayesian conditioning. Conditioning a quantum state on a classical variable is the correct rule for updating quantum states in light of classical data, regardless of the causal relationship between the classical variable and the quantum degrees of freedom, but it does not include the projection postulate as a special case. We show that previous arguments that projection is the quantum generalization of conditioning are based on misleading analogies. Since our formalism is causally neutral, conditioning provides a unification of the predictive and retrodictive formalisms for prepare-and-measure experiments and leads to an elegant derivation of the set of states that a system can be steered to by making measurements on a remote system.
Busch's theorem deriving the standard quantum probability rule can be regarded as a more general form of Gleason's theorem. Here we show that a further generalisation is possible by reducing the number of quantum postulates used by Busch. We do not assume that the positive measurement outcome operators are effects or that they form a probability operator measure. We derive a more general probability rule from which the standard rule can be obtained from the normal laws of probability when there is no measurement outcome information available, without the need for further quantum postulates. Our general probability rule has prediction-retrodiction symmetry and we show how it may be applied in quantum communications and in retrodictive quantum theory.
Prediction is the making of statements, usually probabilistic, about future events based on current information. Retrodiction is the making of statements about past events based on current information. We present the foundations of quantum retrodiction and highlight its intimate connection with the Bayesian interpretation of probability. The close link with Bayesian methods enables us to explore controversies and misunderstandings about retrodiction that have appeared in the literature. To be clear, quantum retrodiction is universally applicable and draws its validity directly from conventional predictive quantum theory coupled with Bayes’ theorem.