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:quant-ph/0610076 · AIP conference proceedings

From Objective Amplitudes to Bayesian Probabilities

Ariel Caticha

Published Jan 1, 2007• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We review the Consistent Amplitude approach to Quantum Theory and argue that quantum probabilities are explicitly Bayesian. In this approach amplitudes are tools for inference. They codify objective information about how complicated experimental setups are put together from simpler ones. Thus, probabilities may be partially subjective but the amplitudes are not.

DOI
10.1063/1.2713447

Related papers

From Objective Amplitudes to Bayesian Probabilities

Ariel Caticha

We review the Consistent Amplitude approach to Quantum Theory and argue that quantum probabilities are explicitly Bayesian. In this approach amplitudes are tools for inference. They codify objective information about how complicated experimental setups are put together from simpler ones. Thus, probabilities may be partially subjective but the amplitudes are not. 1

•Jan 1, 2006•8 citations

Quantum Probabilities Are Objective Degrees of Epistemic Justification

Philipp Berghofer

QBism is currently one of the most widely discussed 'subjective' interpretations of quantum mechanics. Its key move is to say that quantum probabilities are personalist Bayesian probabilities and that the quantum state represents subjective degrees of belief. Even probability-one predictions are considered subjective assignments expressing the agent's highest possible degree of certainty about what they will experience next. For most philosophers and physicists this means that QBism is simply too subjective. Even those who agree with QBism that the wave function should not be reified and that we should look for alternatives to standard Psi-ontic interpretations often argue that QBism must be abandoned because it detaches science from objectivity. The problem is that from the QBist perspective it is hard to see how objectivity could enter science. In this paper, I introduce and motivate an interpretation of quantum mechanics that takes QBism as a starting point, is consistent with all its virtues, but allows objectivity to enter from the get-go. This is the view that quantum probabilities should be understood as objective degrees of epistemic justification.

arXiv:2410.19175•Oct 24, 2024•1 citation

Bayesian Intersubjectivity and Quantum Theory

Marcos Pérez-Suárez

Two of the major approaches to probability, namely, frequentism and (subjectivistic) Bayesian theory, are discussed, together with the replacement of frequentist objectivity for Bayesian intersubjectivity. This discussion is then expanded to Quantum Theory, as quantum states and operations can be seen as structural elements of a subjective nature.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations

Subjective and objective probabilities in quantum mechanics

Mark Srednicki

We discuss how the apparently objective probabilities predicted by quantum mechanics can be treated in the framework of Bayesian probability theory, in which all probabilities are subjective. Our results are in accord with earlier work by Caves, Fuchs, and Schack, but our approach and emphasis are different. We also discuss the problem of choosing a noninformative prior for a density matrix.

arXiv:quant-ph/0501009•Physical Review A•May 31, 2005•15 citations

Bayesian Probability in Quantum Mechanics

Rüdiger Schack

Abstract This paper reviews arguments for the claim that all probabilities arising in quantum mechanics are Bayesian degrees of belief. The starting point is the observation that there is a one-to-one map from quantum states to points on the probability simplex. Bayes’s rule remains valid in quantum theory, provided it is kept in mind that the outcomes of quantum measurements have no preassigned values. The probabilities of quantum measurement outcomes depend explicitly on a quantum prior whose general form will be discussed. Similar to the classical case, the quantum de Finetti theorem simplifies the analysis of repeated quantum trials if the prior is exchangeable. The Bayesian approach to quantum theory described here solves the problem of the ‘collapse of the wave function’. It also provides almost trivial explanations of a number of phenomena in quantum information theory, including the no-cloning theorem and quantum teleportation.

•Jul 19, 2007•2 citations

Quantum probabilities as Bayesian probabilities

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

In the Bayesian approach to probability theory, probability quantifies a degree of belief for a single trial, without any a priori connection to limiting frequencies. In this paper, we show that, despite being prescribed by a fundamental law, probabilities for individual quantum systems can be understood within the Bayesian approach. We argue that the distinction between classical and quantum probabilities lies not in their definition, but in the nature of the information they encode. In the classical world, maximal information about a physical system is complete in the sense of providing definite answers for all possible questions that can be asked of the system. In the quantum world, maximal information is not complete and cannot be completed. Using this distinction, we show that any Bayesian probability assignment in quantum mechanics must have the form of the quantum probability rule, that maximal information about a quantum system leads to a unique quantum-state assignment, and that quantum theory provides a stronger connection between probability and measured frequency than can be justified classically. Finally, we give a Bayesian formulation of quantum-state tomography.

arXiv:quant-ph/0106133•Physical Review A•Jan 4, 2002•481 citations
We review the Consistent Amplitude approach to Quantum Theory and argue that quantum probabilities are explicitly Bayesian. In this approach amplitudes are tools for inference. They codify objective information about how complicated experimental setups are put together from simpler ones. Thus, probabilities may be partially subjective but the amplitudes are not.
QBism is currently one of the most widely discussed 'subjective' interpretations of quantum mechanics. Its key move is to say that quantum probabilities are personalist Bayesian probabilities and that the quantum state represents subjective degrees of belief. Even probability-one predictions are considered subjective assignments expressing the agent's highest possible degree of certainty about what they will experience next. For most philosophers and physicists this means that QBism is simply too subjective. Even those who agree with QBism that the wave function should not be reified and that we should look for alternatives to standard Psi-ontic interpretations often argue that QBism must be abandoned because it detaches science from objectivity. The problem is that from the QBist perspective it is hard to see how objectivity could enter science. In this paper, I introduce and motivate an interpretation of quantum mechanics that takes QBism as a starting point, is consistent with all its virtues, but allows objectivity to enter from the get-go. This is the view that quantum probabilities should be understood as objective degrees of epistemic justification.
Abstract This paper reviews arguments for the claim that all probabilities arising in quantum mechanics are Bayesian degrees of belief. The starting point is the observation that there is a one-to-one map from quantum states to points on the probability simplex. Bayes’s rule remains valid in quantum theory, provided it is kept in mind that the outcomes of quantum measurements have no preassigned values. The probabilities of quantum measurement outcomes depend explicitly on a quantum prior whose general form will be discussed. Similar to the classical case, the quantum de Finetti theorem simplifies the analysis of repeated quantum trials if the prior is exchangeable. The Bayesian approach to quantum theory described here solves the problem of the ‘collapse of the wave function’. It also provides almost trivial explanations of a number of phenomena in quantum information theory, including the no-cloning theorem and quantum teleportation.
In the Bayesian approach to probability theory, probability quantifies a degree of belief for a single trial, without any a priori connection to limiting frequencies. In this paper, we show that, despite being prescribed by a fundamental law, probabilities for individual quantum systems can be understood within the Bayesian approach. We argue that the distinction between classical and quantum probabilities lies not in their definition, but in the nature of the information they encode. In the classical world, maximal information about a physical system is complete in the sense of providing definite answers for all possible questions that can be asked of the system. In the quantum world, maximal information is not complete and cannot be completed. Using this distinction, we show that any Bayesian probability assignment in quantum mechanics must have the form of the quantum probability rule, that maximal information about a quantum system leads to a unique quantum-state assignment, and that quantum theory provides a stronger connection between probability and measured frequency than can be justified classically. Finally, we give a Bayesian formulation of quantum-state tomography.