An order-theoretic circuit syntax and characterisation of the concept lattice

Tein van der Lugt

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 24 references

An order-theoretic circuit syntax and characterisation of the concept lattice

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that for any binary relation of input-output connections, the concept lattice from formal concept analysis is, up to circuit isomorphism, the unique smallest circuit shape that admits a rewrite morphism from every other…

desk verdict The concept-lattice theorem holds up, but the dual 'basic circuit' construction is broken on the smallest possible relation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05428 v1 pith:FFGZ3HUL submitted 2025-07-07 quant-ph cs.LOmath.CO

Tein van der Lugt This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcs.LOmath.CO MSC 06A0606A1506B23

keywords circuitsyntaxstringdiagramspartialordersformalconceptanalysislatticemorphismsconnectivitycausaldecompositions

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Circuits—string diagrams describing parallel and sequential composition of processes—can be viewed as partial orders whose elements are gates and whose input and output wires are marked points. The paper defines morphisms between such circuits and proves that every morphism factorises into a quotient map (gate composition), plus adding isolated gates, adding wires, and moving inputs and outputs. It then isolates the connectivity of a circuit, the relation telling which inputs can reach which outputs, and proves that the concept lattice—a complete lattice built from any binary relation by a Galois connection—is the unique smallest circuit with a given connectivity that receives morphisms from all other circuits with the same or smaller connectivity. This gives a canonical, most expressive shape for any connectivity pattern, which matters for quantum causality because causal decompositions of unitaries are circuit decompositions whose connectivity reflects no-influence conditions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the concept lattice from formal concept analysis. Given $G \subseteq A \times B$, the maps $c: \mathcal{P}(A) \to \mathcal{P}(B)$ and $p: \mathcal{P}(B) \to \mathcal{P}(A)$ form an antitone Galois connection; the pairs $\langle \alpha, \beta \rangle$ with $\alpha = p(\beta)$ and $\beta = c(\alpha)$ form a complete lattice $L_G$, ordered by $\alpha \subseteq \alpha'$. Equipping $L_G$ with input map $a \mapsto \langle pc(\{a\}), c(\{a\})\rangle$ and output map $b \mapsto \langle p(\{b\}), cp(\{b\})\rangle$ makes it a circuit whose connectivity is exactly $G$. The uniqueness proof uses three ingredients: reconstruction of every concept as a join of inputs and meet of outputs, triviality of the endomorphism monoid of $L_G$ (Proposition 27), and a construction sending every circuit $P$ with connectivity $G_P \subseteq G$ to the map $p \mapsto \bigvee\{\lambda_{L_G}(a) : \lambda_P(a) \leq p\}$ into $L_G$ (Proposition 28).

What would settle it

A concrete way to test the expressivity claim is to exhibit a symmetric monoidal category and two circuits $P$ and $Q$ with a circuit morphism $P \to Q$ such that some morphism of the category is expressible by $P$ but not by $Q$; in quantum theory this would be a quantum channel realisable with the smaller circuit shape but not with the syntactically larger one, contradicting the interpretation of circuit morphisms as guaranteeing at least as much expressivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 29, is that for any sets $A$ and $B$ and any relation $G \subseteq A \times B$, the concept lattice $L_G$—the complete lattice of formal concepts $\langle \alpha, \beta \rangle$ with $\alpha$ and $\beta$ closed under the maps $c(\alpha) = \bigcap_{a\in\alpha} G(a)$ and $p(\beta) = \bigcap_{b\in\beta} G^{-1}(b)$—is, up to circuit isomorphism, the unique circuit with connectivity $G$ such that every circuit $P$ with connectivity $G_P \subseteq G$ admits a morphism into $L_G$, and any other circuit with these properties admits an injective morphism from $L_G$. Since circuit morphisms are interpreted as syntactical rewrites valid in any symmetric monoidal category, $L_G$ is the most expressive circuit shape for connectivity $G$: any process expressible with a circuit whose connectivity is contained in $G$ can be expressed with $L_G$. The paper also proves the dual statement, Theorem 34: the basic circuit $B_G$ is the unique smallest circuit with connectivity $G$ admitting morphisms into every circuit with the same or larger connectivity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the existence of a circuit morphism $P \to Q$ really means $Q$ is at least as expressive as $P$ in any symmetric monoidal category; the paper states this correspondence informally and does not prove it, so if it fails for a particular theory—say quantum mechanics—the causal-significance claims weaken, although the order-theoretic theorems stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any relation $G$, the concept lattice $L_G$ is the canonical target for rewrites of all circuits with connectivity contained in $G$; Corollary 30 gives $G_P \subseteq G$ if and only if $P \preceq L_G$.
For causal decompositions of unitaries, any existing decomposition with connectivity $G$ can be syntactically rewritten into the concept lattice shape $L_G$, and any other circuit with the same universality properties must contain an embedded copy of $L_G$.
The dual circuit $B_G$ from Theorem 34 is the unique smallest shape with connectivity $G$ that maps into every circuit with larger connectivity, so every circuit with connectivity exactly $G$ sits syntactically between $B_G$ and $L_G$.
Every circuit morphism factorises into quotient maps plus trivial additions, additions of wires, and moving inputs and outputs, so syntactical rewrites never decrease connectivity and circuits with different connectivity are syntactically inequivalent.
The concept lattice has no nontrivial self-rewrites, so it serves as a unique minimal representative of its syntactic class rather than one among many equivalent shapes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the expressivity correspondence with symmetric monoidal categories holds, then $L_G$ gives a universal syntactic target for causal decompositions: instead of designing each unitary decomposition by hand, one could fix the concept lattice shape and ask which quantum gates realise the target unitary on it.
The interval $B_G \preceq P \preceq L_G$ suggests a Galois-connection classification of circuit shapes by connectivity; one could try to enumerate, for finite $A$ and $B$, whether the syntactic equivalence classes contain intermediate minimal representatives beyond $B_G$ and $L_G$.
The factorisation theorem suggests a concrete rewriting system with four elementary moves; a natural testable question is whether this rewrite system is confluent or terminating for finite circuits, which would connect it to existing rewriting theory for string diagrams.
A computational experiment could check, for small relations $G$ and small sets of quantum channels, whether the set of channels expressible by circuits $P$ with connectivity $G$ is contained in the set expressible by $L_G$, testing the paper's expressivity interpretation directly.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Tein's paper has one genuinely good result and one flawed construction that the abstract advertises as the closing feature. I agree with the reader that Theorem 29 is the real contribution: the order-theoretic circuit syntax, the factorization theorem (Theorem 20), and the proof that L_G is the unique smallest circuit with connectivity G that receives morphisms from all others. Propositions 26-28 are careful, the endomorphism argument in Proposition 27 is neat, and the proof of Theorem 29 is sound as far as I can tell. The formal concept analysis background is well integrated. That part deserves refereeing.

The soft spot is the dual. The stress-test note is right. In Definition 31, for the relation G={(a,b)} with A={a}, B={b}, both \bar A and \bar B are empty, so B_G has empty carrier. But Eq. (23) defines lambda(a)=b and mu(b)=a, values that do not lie in the carrier. So B_G is not a circuit at all. That means Theorem 34, Corollary 35, and the compact equivalence Eq. (25) fail as stated for relations with singleton connected components. This is not a subtle semantic gap; it is an inconsistency inside the construction. It can be repaired, for instance by retaining one gate per unique pair, but as written the dual half of the paper does not hold.

Second, the paper is honest that it does not formalize the link between circuit morphisms and SMC expressibility. The 'most expressive' language in the introduction and the quantum-causality significance claim rest on that informal bridge. That is a scope limitation, not a fatal flaw, but it should be stated more carefully.

The citation pattern looks fine. The overlap with Salzger and Selby is acknowledged explicitly, and Theorem 29 is genuinely new relative to the cited literature.

Who is this for? Order-theoretic circuit syntax people and anyone working on causal decompositions in quantum theory. It deserves a serious referee, because the main theorem is worth publishing, but the author needs to fix the dual construction and state the expressivity claim with its caveats before acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an order-theoretic syntax for circuits, in which a circuit is a partially ordered set equipped with input and output maps. It defines circuit morphisms and proves a factorization theorem (Theorem 20) showing that, in the finite case, every morphism decomposes into quotients, additions of isolated gates and wires, and input advancement/output delay. The paper then studies the connectivity relation of a circuit and constructs the concept lattice L_G as a circuit (Definition 24), proving that L_G is the greatest element of the preorder of circuits with connectivity contained in G (Corollary 30). It further claims a stronger uniqueness of L_G up to circuit isomorphism (Theorem 29) and constructs a dual 'basic circuit' B_G with an analogous claimed uniqueness (Theorem 34), leading to the compact equivalence in Eq. (25).

Significance. The factorization theorem is a useful, self-contained syntactic result, and the Galois adjunction between connectivity and the preorder of circuits (Corollaries 30 and 35) is a clean mathematical contribution with potential relevance to quantum causality. However, the paper's advertised main result—the uniqueness of the concept lattice up to circuit isomorphism—is false, as is the analogous dual uniqueness claim. The correct statements are the preorder adjunctions, which give uniqueness only up to syntactical equivalence, not up to isomorphism. The stress-test concern about Definition 31 leaving the carrier empty for singleton relations does not land, because Eq. (22) includes the output of a singleton edge in \bar{B}; the real defect is in the uniqueness proofs of Theorems 29 and 34, which assume an injective morphism in the wrong direction.

major comments (3)

[Theorem 29] The uniqueness claim in Theorem 29 is false. Let A={a}, B={b}, G={(a,b)}. The concept lattice L_G is a single gate z with λ(a)=μ(b)=z. Consider the circuit K with two gates p<q, λ(a)=p, μ(b)=q. K has connectivity G. For any circuit P with connectivity G_P⊆G, the constant map sending every element of P to p is a circuit morphism P→K: it is order-preserving, respects inputs because p≥p, and respects outputs because p≤q. Hence K satisfies condition (ii). Since L_G has one element, the map z↦p is an injective morphism L_G→K, so K satisfies condition (iii). Yet K is not isomorphic to L_G, contradicting uniqueness up to circuit isomorphism. The proof of uniqueness is invalid: after obtaining f:K→L_G from (ii) and g:L_G→K from (iii), the assertion that both f and g are injective is unjustified; condition (iii) only yields an injective morphism in the direction L_G→K. The composite f∘g being id_L_G implies only that g is injective and f is surjective, not that f is injective. In the example above, the morphism K→L_G is necessarily constant and therefore not injective. The valid statement is the preorder adjunction in Corollary 30, which gives uniqueness up to syntactical equivalence, not circuit isomorphism.
[Theorem 34] The dual uniqueness claim in Theorem 34 fails for the same reason. For G={(a,b)} with A={a}, B={b}, the basic circuit B_G has one gate b (since \bar{A}=∅ and \bar{B}={b}). The two-gate circuit K defined above satisfies Theorem 34(i) and (ii): the map sending the unique gate of B_G to μ_K(b)=q is a morphism from B_G to any circuit P with G_P⊇G. K also satisfies (iii) because B_G has one element, so an injective morphism from B_G to K always exists. Since K has two gates, it is not isomorphic to B_G. The proof of Theorem 34 is therefore not analogous to Theorem 29 in the way claimed: the dual universal property supplies only morphisms of the form B_G→P, and there is no morphism K→B_G to compose with, so Proposition 33 cannot be used to force an isomorphism. The correct dual statement is the Galois adjunction in Corollary 35, which concerns syntactical equivalence rather than circuit isomorphism.
[Section 4.1 (abstract and closing remarks)] Because Theorems 29 and 34 overstate the uniqueness, the paper's central claim—that the concept lattice is 'the unique smallest circuit' with a given connectivity—is not established. The valid and still interesting content is that L_G is the greatest element of the preorder of circuits with connectivity contained in G, and B_G is the least element of the preorder of circuits with connectivity containing G, as expressed in Corollaries 30 and 35. The authors should revise the theorems to claim uniqueness up to syntactical equivalence only, or they should add genuinely stronger hypotheses under which a uniqueness-up-to-isomorphism statement could hold. As written, the counterexample in the singleton case shows that the claimed canonicality fails.

minor comments (2)

[Definition 31] The stress-test concern that Definition 31 gives an empty carrier for singleton relations does not arise: for G={(a,b)} with A={a} and B={b}, equation (22) places b in \bar{B} because either |G^{-1}(b)|≠1 or every parent of b has exactly one child. Since |G(a)|=1, the second disjunct holds, so \bar{B}={b}; hence the carrier is nonempty and the maps in (23) are well-defined. The genuine defect in Section 4.2 is the uniqueness claim, as described in the major comments.
[Section 1 and Remark after Definition 5] The paper states that the existence of a circuit morphism P→Q corresponds to Q being at least as expressive as P in any symmetric monoidal category, but this link is informal and not proven. The mathematical results do not depend on this semantic claim, but the motivational significance for quantum causality does, so the authors should either provide a formal statement or clearly flag this as a conjecture.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Theorem 29 is proved from external formal concept analysis; self-citations are motivational, and the dual-construction issue is a correctness defect, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central characterization Theorem 29 is self-contained and built on external mathematical benchmarks. The concept lattice LG is constructed by the standard Birkhoff/Ganter-Wille closure operators (Eqs. 7-16), which are not defined in terms of the target characterization. Connectivity GLG = G is then verified directly from Proposition 26 and the FCA Basic Theorem, and the universality property (ii) follows from Proposition 28, whose proof constructs the morphism explicitly by joins in a complete lattice. Uniqueness (iii) is obtained from Proposition 27, which proves End(LG) = id using the order-theoretic properties of LG rather than assuming them. No parameter is fitted, no prediction is a renamed input, and no load-bearing step reduces by definition to its own conclusion. The only self-references are to the author's forthcoming works [7] and [21], used as motivation or future direction, never as premises of Theorem 29. The informal claim that circuit morphisms capture SMC expressibility is explicitly flagged as not formally proven, but that is a scope limitation rather than circularity. The skeptic's concern about Definition 31, where for singleton relations the carrier of BG can be empty while Eq. (23) still names elements not in that carrier, is a genuine correctness gap in the dual half of the paper, but it is not a self-referential or fitted-input reduction; it concerns whether BG is well-defined, not whether its properties are assumed into existence. Therefore the circularity score remains 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters and no invented physical entities. The paper introduces a mathematical definition (circuits as posets) and proves theorems about it; the only non-formal input is the expressivity interpretation.

assumptions (3)

standard math Standard order theory: partial orders, order-preserving maps, quotient posets by compatible congruences, Galois connections.
Used throughout Sections 3 and 4 to define circuits and prove factorization and universal properties; standard background from refs [9-13,22].
standard math Formal concept analysis: the concept lattice construction for a binary relation and its completeness properties.
The object L_G is defined via FCA (Birkhoff [3], Ganter and Wille [4,5]) and its lattice properties are used in Propositions 26-28 and Theorem 29.
domain assumption Expressivity interpretation: existence of a circuit morphism P to Q is taken to mean Q is at least as expressive as P in any symmetric monoidal category.
This bridge from syntax to semantics is stated informally in the Introduction and after Theorem 20, but not proven; it motivates the 'most expressive' significance claim but is not needed for the theorems.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An order-theoretic circuit syntax and characterisation of the concept lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFGZ3HUL

@misc{pith2026250705428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An order-theoretic circuit syntax and characterisation of the concept lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFGZ3HUL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05428}
}

read the original abstract

We take an order-theoretic approach to circuit (string diagram) syntax, treating a circuit as a partial order with additional input-output structure. We define morphisms between circuits and prove a factorisation theorem showing that these can, in the finite case, be regarded as formalising a notion of syntactical circuit rewrites, with quotient maps in particular corresponding to gate composition. We then consider the connectivity of a circuit, expressed as a binary relation between its inputs and outputs, and characterise the concept lattice from formal concept analysis as the unique smallest circuit that admits morphisms from all other circuits with the same connectivity. This has significance for quantum causality, particularly to the study of causal decompositions of unitary transformations. We close by constructing the circuit characterised by the dual statement.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

The Inflation Technique for Causal Inference with Latent Variables

Elie Wolfe, Robert W. Spekkens and Tobias Fritz. “The Inflation Technique for Causal Inference with Latent Variables”. Journal of Causal Inference 7.2 (2019), p. 20170020. arXiv: 1609.00672

arXiv 2019
[2]

Causal Inference by String Diagram Surgery

Bart Jacobs, Aleks Kissinger and Fabio Zanasi. “Causal Inference by String Diagram Surgery”. In: Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures. Ed. by Miko laj Boja´ nczyk and Alex Simpson. Vol. 11425. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 313–329. arXiv: 1811.08338. 15

arXiv 2019
[3]

Lattice Theory

Garrett Birkhoff. Lattice Theory. 3rd ed. Vol. 25. Colloquium Publications. Providence: American Mathematical Society, 1967

work page 1967
[4]

Restructuring Lattice Theory: An Approach Based on Hierarchies of Con- cepts

Rudolf Wille. “Restructuring Lattice Theory: An Approach Based on Hierarchies of Con- cepts”. In: Ordered Sets. Ed. by Ivan Rival. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1982, pp. 445– 470

work page 1982
[5]

Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations

Bernhard Ganter and Rudolf Wille. Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Causal and Compositional Structure of Unitary Transformations

Robin Lorenz and Jonathan Barrett. “Causal and Compositional Structure of Unitary Transformations”. Quantum 5 (2021), pp. 1–46. arXiv: 2001.07774

arXiv 2021
[7]

Unitary causal decompositions: a combinatorial characterisation via lattice theory

Tein van der Lugt and Robin Lorenz. “Unitary causal decompositions: a combinatorial characterisation via lattice theory”. Forthcoming

work page
[8]

Causal Decompositions of 1D Quantum Cellular Automata

Augustin Vanrietvelde, Octave Mestoudjian and Pablo Arrighi. Causal Decompositions of 1D Quantum Cellular Automata . 2025. arXiv: 2506.22219 . url: http://arxiv.org/ abs/2506.22219 (visited on 02/07/2025). Pre-published

arXiv 2025

Show all 24 references

[9]

Verb¨ ande von Kernen Isotoner Abbildungen

Teo Sturm. “Verb¨ ande von Kernen Isotoner Abbildungen”. Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal 22.1 (1972), pp. 126–144

1972
[10]

Einige Charakterisationen von Ketten

Teo Sturm. “Einige Charakterisationen von Ketten”. Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal 23.3 (1973), pp. 375–391

1973
[11]

On the Lattices of Kernels of Isotonic Mappings. II

Teo Sturm. “On the Lattices of Kernels of Isotonic Mappings. II”. Czechoslovak Mathem- atical Journal 27.2 (1977), pp. 258–295

1977
[12]

Congruences and Isotone Maps on Partially Ordered Sets

P´ eter K¨ ortesi, S´ andor Radeleczki and Szilvia Szil´ agyi. “Congruences and Isotone Maps on Partially Ordered Sets”. Mathematica Pannonica 16.1 (2005), pp. 39–55

2005
[13]

A Survey of Congruences and Quotients of Partially Ordered Sets

Nicholas J. Williams. “A Survey of Congruences and Quotients of Partially Ordered Sets”. EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences 11.1 (2024), pp. 153–203. arXiv: 2303.03765

2024 arXiv
[14]

String Diagram Rewrite Theory II: Rewriting with Symmetric Monoidal Structure

Filippo Bonchi, Fabio Gadducci, Aleks Kissinger, Pawel Sobocinski and Fabio Zanasi. “String Diagram Rewrite Theory II: Rewriting with Symmetric Monoidal Structure”. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 32.4 (2022), pp. 511–541. arXiv: 2104 . 14686

2022
[15]

Graphs for Margins of Bayesian Networks

Robin J. Evans. “Graphs for Margins of Bayesian Networks”. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 43.3 (2016), pp. 625–648. arXiv: 1408.1809

2016 arXiv
[16]

Isolation and Information Flow in Quantum Dynamics

Benjamin Schumacher and Michael D. Westmoreland. “Isolation and Information Flow in Quantum Dynamics”. Foundations of Physics 42.7 (2012), pp. 926–931

2012
[17]

Position-Based Quantum Cryptography: Impossibil- ity and Constructions

Harry Buhrman, Nishanth Chandran, Serge Fehr, Ran Gelles, Vipul Goyal, Rafail Os- trovsky and Christian Schaffner. “Position-Based Quantum Cryptography: Impossibil- ity and Constructions”. SIAM Journal on Computing 43.1 (2014), pp. 150–178. arXiv: 1009.2490

2014 arXiv
[18]

Quantum Tasks in Holography

Alex May. “Quantum Tasks in Holography”. Journal of High Energy Physics 2019.10 (2019), p. 233. arXiv: 1902.06845

2019 arXiv
[19]

Two Poset Polytopes

Richard P. Stanley. “Two Poset Polytopes”. Discrete & Computational Geometry 1.1 (1986), pp. 9–23

1986
[20]

Matthias Salzger and John H. Selby. A Decompositional Framework for Process Theories in Spacetime . 2024. arXiv: 2411 . 08266. url: http : / / arxiv . org / abs / 2411 . 08266 (visited on 08/12/2024). Pre-published

2024
[21]

Relativistic constraints on quantum channels

Tein van der Lugt, Robin Lorenz, Jonathan Barrett, Robert W. Spekkens and Augustin Vanrietvelde. “Relativistic constraints on quantum channels”. Forthcoming (title prelim- inary)
[22]

Galois Connexions

Oystein Ore. “Galois Connexions”. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 55.0 (1944), pp. 493–513. 16

1944
[23]

Picturing Quantum Processes: A First Course in Quantum Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning

Bob Coecke and Aleks Kissinger. Picturing Quantum Processes: A First Course in Quantum Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning . 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2017

2017
[24]

Equivalence of Relativistic Causal Struc- ture and Process Terminality

Aleks Kissinger, Matty Hoban and Bob Coecke. Equivalence of Relativistic Causal Struc- ture and Process Terminality . 2017. arXiv: 1708.04118. url: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1708.04118 (visited on 01/04/2024). Pre-published. 17

2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The Inflation Technique for Causal Inference with Latent Variables

Elie Wolfe, Robert W. Spekkens and Tobias Fritz. “The Inflation Technique for Causal Inference with Latent Variables”. Journal of Causal Inference 7.2 (2019), p. 20170020. arXiv: 1609.00672

arXiv 2019

[2] [2]

Causal Inference by String Diagram Surgery

Bart Jacobs, Aleks Kissinger and Fabio Zanasi. “Causal Inference by String Diagram Surgery”. In: Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures. Ed. by Miko laj Boja´ nczyk and Alex Simpson. Vol. 11425. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 313–329. arXiv: 1811.08338. 15

arXiv 2019

[3] [3]

Lattice Theory

Garrett Birkhoff. Lattice Theory. 3rd ed. Vol. 25. Colloquium Publications. Providence: American Mathematical Society, 1967

work page 1967

[4] [4]

Restructuring Lattice Theory: An Approach Based on Hierarchies of Con- cepts

Rudolf Wille. “Restructuring Lattice Theory: An Approach Based on Hierarchies of Con- cepts”. In: Ordered Sets. Ed. by Ivan Rival. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1982, pp. 445– 470

work page 1982

[5] [5]

Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations

Bernhard Ganter and Rudolf Wille. Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Causal and Compositional Structure of Unitary Transformations

Robin Lorenz and Jonathan Barrett. “Causal and Compositional Structure of Unitary Transformations”. Quantum 5 (2021), pp. 1–46. arXiv: 2001.07774

arXiv 2021

[7] [7]

Unitary causal decompositions: a combinatorial characterisation via lattice theory

Tein van der Lugt and Robin Lorenz. “Unitary causal decompositions: a combinatorial characterisation via lattice theory”. Forthcoming

work page

[8] [8]

Causal Decompositions of 1D Quantum Cellular Automata

Augustin Vanrietvelde, Octave Mestoudjian and Pablo Arrighi. Causal Decompositions of 1D Quantum Cellular Automata . 2025. arXiv: 2506.22219 . url: http://arxiv.org/ abs/2506.22219 (visited on 02/07/2025). Pre-published

arXiv 2025