Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

A Path Integral Model of Cognition

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that all cognitive optimization, whether unconscious or conscious, is governed by imaginary-time evolution on a projector Hamiltonian, and that the unconscious-to-conscious transition is merely a continuous change in the s

desk verdict Clean formal core (ITE=DBF, exact path integral, GKSL), but the indirect-measurement model in Sec. IV.D is not a measurement, so the conscious 'Aha' continuum is a stipulated identification rather than a derived result. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24807 v1 pith:VBCWQTBY submitted 2026-07-10 q-bio.NC cs.AIquant-ph

Haruki Emori , Kazunori Kondo , Atsushi Iriki , Andrei Khrennikov This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCcs.AIquant-ph
keywords imaginary-timeevolutiondouble-bracketflowpathintegralprojectorHamiltonianmeasurementstrengthGKSLdecoherenceunconscious-to-conscioustransitionquantum-likecognition
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

The paper tries to establish that a single dynamical law underlies all goal-directed cognition: imaginary-time evolution on a projector Hamiltonian that rewards mental configurations matching a target concept. Because the Hamiltonian is a projector and the starting state is the uniform superposition, this non-unitary cost descent is exactly equivalent to a unitary evolution generated by the commutator of the projector and the initial state. That unitary has an exact discrete path-integral representation on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, with the target oracle playing the role of potential energy and the initial-state diffusion projector playing the role of kinetic energy. The paper then argues that conscious versus unconscious processing is not a matter of different dynamics but of the strength of the coupling between the cognitive system and a neural-environment probe: weak coupling preserves interference (unconscious), strong coupling collapses the optimized state into a reportable thought (insight, or 'Aha'). If correct, this unifies known decoherence models of cognition as a weak-coupling limit and gives a concrete, finite-dimensional path-integral framework for cognitive cost optimization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Lemma 3: for a projector Hamiltonian H_f and the uniform superposition |ψ0>, the normalized imaginary-time evolution equals a unitary generated by the commutator — e^{τH_f}|ψ0>/||e^{τH_f}|ψ0>|| = e^{s[H_f,ψ0]}|ψ0>. This reduces non-unitary cost descent to a unitary evolution with Hermitian Hamiltonian H_eff = i[H_f, ψ0], which in turn yields an exact discrete path integral on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space (Main Result 1) in which the oracle H_f acts as potential energy and the initial-state diffusion projector ψ0 acts as kinetic energy, with the action S_eff[x] = Σ_k [β_k f(x_{k-1}) - i Log(δ_{x_k,x_{k-1}} + (e^{iα_k}-1)/N)].

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier: take a task with graded reward (e.g., semantic similarity ratings between concepts rather than category membership), construct the normalized imaginary-time evolution numerically, and compare the resulting trajectory to the unitary evolution e^{s[H_f,ψ0]}|ψ0> for the same start state. If the fidelity between the two states deviates significantly from 1 as s grows, then the exact Wick-rotation identity (Eq. 20 / Lemma 3) fails for graded concepts, undermining the paper's claim that the same exact dynamics governs all cognitive optimization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that cognitive optimization is governed by imaginary-time evolution under a projector Hamiltonian H_f, the 'oracle of meaning' that assigns unit reward to configurations consistent with a target concept. Starting from the uniform superposition |ψ0>, the normalized ITE state |Ψ(τ)> = e^{τH_f}|ψ0> / ||e^{τH_f}|ψ0>|| coincides, via Lemma 3, with a unitary evolution generated by the commutator [H_f, ψ0] — that is, |Ψ(τ)> = e^{s[H_f,ψ0]}|ψ0>. This identity lets the authors Wick-rotate a non-unitary descent into an equivalent unitary dynamics on the same Hilbert space, generated by the Hermitian Hamiltonian H_eff = i[H_f, ψ0]. This unitary admits an exact discrete path-integra

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the assumption that the target concept is a projector (binary reward—a configuration either matches or it does not) and that the initial state is the uniform superposition; if rewards are graded or priors are non-uniform, the exact unitary/path-integral representation and its geodesic corollaries no longer hold exactly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, there is exactly one dynamical law for cognitive optimization—imaginary-time evolution on a projector Hamiltonian—appearing in both unconscious and conscious processing, with only the measurement coupling strength varying.
  • The exact discrete path integral provides a finite-dimensional, measure-theoretically clean substitute for the continuum Feynman integral, making the model implementable in principle via product-formula Hamiltonian simulation on quantum hardware.
  • The Markovian weak-coupling limit recovers the GKSL decoherence model of Asano et al., so known quantum-like decision models become a special case of the path-integral framework.
  • The strong-coupling limit predicts that conscious insight ('Aha') is a projective measurement outcome: the optimized superposition collapses to a single reportable thought, an endpoint that should leave distinctive behavioral and neural signatures as report demand increases.
  • The Hilbert–Schmidt cost expansion shows why the process converges exponentially fast to the solution state, with rate set by the spectral gap of H_f; hence performance on concept search should track this gap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: If the binary-reward and uniform-prior assumptions are relaxed—graded target concepts or non-uniform priors—the exact Wick-rotation identity (Lemma 3) fails. A natural testable extension is to construct the ITE numerically for graded reward functions and compare its trajectory with the unitary e^{s[H_f,ψ0]}|ψ0>; the fidelity decay would delimit how far the framework's exact cl
  • Editorial extension: The model implies that conscious access should vary continuously with task pressure (a proxy for λ), so no-report versus report paradigms should show graded, not threshold-like, differences in measurable variables such as decision-time distributions or confidence ratings.
  • Editorial extension: The same commutator-plus-path-integral structure could be borrowed for AI interpretability, where attention layers or in-context learning might be modeled as imaginary-time descent on a projector reward, yielding a path-integral account of transformer reasoning that the paper does not address.
  • Editorial extension: Because the exact representation relies on a projector with eigenvalues 0 and 1, the framework's strongest empirical predictions are for binary category tasks; semantic similarity judgments with graded rewards would be the natural falsification domain.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mathematical framework in which cognitive cost optimization is modeled as imaginary-time evolution (ITE) under a projector Hamiltonian H_f ('oracle of meaning'), starting from the uniform superposition |ψ0⟩. It proves that this ITE coincides with a double-bracket flow and is the Riemannian gradient flow of a Hilbert–Schmidt cost, then Wick-rotates the evolution to a unitary generated by the commutator i[H_f, ψ0] and derives an exact discrete path integral on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space. A dictionary maps the oracle and diffusion operator to potential and kinetic energy. The paper then introduces a measurement-strength continuum via an indirect measurement model with system–probe coupling λ, derives a GKSL master equation in the Markovian weak-coupling limit, and identifies the strong-coupling limit with projective, reportable fixation ('Aha'). The central interpretive claim is that unconscious and conscious cognition share the same ITE/path-integral skeleton and differ only in the coupling strength λ.

Significance. The formal core of the paper — the ITE–DBF equivalence, the Hilbert–Schmidt cost expansion, the exact finite-dimensional path integral, and the GKSL limit under stated Markovian assumptions — is clean, self-contained, and presented with unusual honesty (especially Remark 3). There is no parameter fitting, and the path-integral representation is an algebraic identity rather than a continuum-limit formal manipulation. If the strong-coupling measurement claim can be made rigorous, the framework would provide a genuinely unifying language for relating optimization dynamics, decoherence, and the unconscious/conscious distinction. However, the manuscript's main interpretive result, Main Result 2, currently rests on an internally inconsistent indirect measurement protocol, so the central claim cannot be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.D (Main Result 2); Sec. IV.E, Eq. (34)] The claimed strong-coupling endpoint is not derived. With U_int(λ) = exp(−iλ O⊗P), the unitary is a function of I⊗P and is diagonal in the eigenbasis of P. For an initial probe state Σ_p c_p |p⟩, the outcome probabilities are |c_p|² at every λ and carry no information about O; the post-measurement system state is e^{−iλ O p}|ψ⟩, a unitary rotation, not an eigenstate of O. Thus λ→∞ does not produce the projective collapse or reportable fixation asserted in Main Result 2. The same coupling U_λ = e^{−iλ A⊗B} appears in Eq. (34); Theorem 1's GKSL limit is a valid decoherence result, but with a P-readout it is not a sequence of weak measurements of A. A correct indirect measurement requires reading a probe observable conjugate to P (or a different interaction Hamiltonian), and the strong-coupling limit of that protocol must then be analyzed. The manuscript also needs to state what O is relati
  2. [Sec. IV.E, Corollary 1] The claim that the Asano et al. model is 'recovered' is stronger than what is shown. Theorem 1 holds for an arbitrary self-adjoint A and gives a single-channel GKSL generator with L = √γ A. The Asano model has specific cognitive observables and parameters; no mapping from A, H_f, γ, and the probe state σ to the quantities in Ref. [23] is provided. Without such a mapping, Corollary 1 establishes only that the weak-coupling limit has GKSL form, not that it is the Asano model. Please provide the identification or soften the claim to structural similarity.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (20) and Main Result 1; Table I] The exact Wick-rotation identity (20) and the exact path-integral local amplitudes (27) depend essentially on H_f being a projector and |ψ0⟩ being the uniform superposition. For graded rewards or non-uniform priors, Lemma 3 is not exact and the potential/kinetic dictionary in Table I holds only approximately, if at all. The interpretive statements in Main Result 2 and the surrounding text present this structure as the universal dynamics of cognitive processing. The paper should state this scope limitation explicitly at the point where Main Result 2 is formulated, and avoid 'all cognition' phrasing unless the approximate extension is analyzed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.A and Appendix D, Eq. (D3)] Eq. (D3) is referenced as giving the reparameterized duration s_τ, but Eq. (D3) defines only the optimal duration s*. Please provide the explicit τ ↦ s mapping or state that only existence is needed for Lemma 3.
  2. [Main Result 2, λ→∞ bullet] Even with a corrected indirect measurement, collapse is to an eigenstate of the measured observable O. If O is not related to H_f, the post-measurement state need not be the cost-minimizing solution |ψ*⟩. The relationship between O and the 'readout basis' should be clarified.
  3. [Sec. V / Refs. [6,7]] The empirical predictions, including the discriminating inequalities, are deferred to companion papers [6,7]. These papers are not available to the reader. Consider stating at least one concrete, self-contained prediction or making the dependency on unpublished work more prominent.
  4. [Table I] The entry 'Classical limit: stationary phase under cost minimization' is metaphorical in the cognitive setting. Since the paper correctly avoids a physical ℏ→0 claim elsewhere, the metaphor should be disambiguated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core ITE/DBF/path-integral/GKSL derivations are self-contained identities; minor circularity from self-cited companion papers [6,7] that supply the measurement-strength axis.

  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction (three-paper program), Sec. IV.D, Conclusion; Refs. [6,7]]
    "This paper is one component of a three-paper measurement-strength program. Ref. [6] introduces measurement strength as a coordinate axis for translating between IIT, GNW, RPT, HOT, PP, and related theories. Ref. [7] supplies the contextual and orthomodular foundation... This coupling strength λ is the dynamical realization of measurement strength in Ref. [6]."

    The paper's central organizing axis and its empirical significance are deferred to the authors' own unpublished companion papers [6,7]: the main text repeatedly states that λ is the 'dynamical realization' of the axis defined in [6] and that experimental handles and theory comparison are developed there. This is a self-citation load-bearing for the framework's empirical reach. However, the mathematical construction of λ and the GKSL limit are derived independently in the present paper, so the self-citation is not the sole support for the core algebra.

full rationale

The central mathematical chain is not circular. ITE and double-bracket flow are shown to be the same Riemannian gradient flow by explicit differentiation (Sec. II.B); Lemma 3 / Eq. (20) is an exact identity for projector Hamiltonians and uniform initial states; Main Result 1 is an algebraic identity for the discrete propagator U_N, with the approximation layer cleanly separated in Remark 1; and Theorem 1 derives the GKSL generator from an explicit second-order expansion under stated Markovian and weak-coupling assumptions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the recovery of the Asano et al. model is a derivation rather than an input. The only genuine circularity burden is the self-citation of the authors' companion papers [6,7], which supply the measurement-strength axis, the theory-comparison program, and the contextual-logic foundation; the present paper imports that axis as the framework's empirical interface. Because λ itself is constructed here and the path-integral/GKSL results stand independently, this is minor (score 2), not load-bearing for the formal identities. Separately, the indirect-measurement model in Sec. IV.D is formally inconsistent: U_int = exp(-iλ O⊗P) commutes with I⊗P, so a projective readout of P carries no information about O; the strong-coupling 'Aha' endpoint is therefore not supported by the stated unitary. That is a correctness flaw, not a circularity, and is not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

No parameters were fitted to data; all listed numbers are structural degrees of freedom of the model. The axioms are a mix of standard mathematical background (DBF, semigroup convergence) and domain assumptions specific to the cognitive interpretation. The invented entities are mathematical/modeling constructs rather than new physical particles or forces, and none carries independent falsifiable evidence.

free parameters (5)
  • N (conceptual-space dimension)
    Arbitrary model input; sets the size of the Hilbert space over conceptual elements. Not fitted to data.
  • M or E0 = M/N (target-subspace dimension / initial overlap)
    Determines the marked subspace and the spectral gap controlling convergence; a model input, not fitted to data.
  • λ (system–probe coupling strength)
    Central axis of the model; conceptually interpolates weak/unconscious to strong/conscious readout. No data are used to set its value.
  • γ (dissipation strength, λ²/Δt in the weak-coupling limit)
    Effective GKSL dissipation rate in Theorem 1; a free model parameter, not empirically calibrated.
  • {α_k, β_k} (product-formula phase schedules)
    Chosen via Grover or fixed-point schedules; affect accuracy of U_N≈U(s) but not the exact path-integral identity. No fitting to data.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Finite-dimensional Hilbert space over conceptual elements, with uniform initial superposition, faithfully represents cognitive states and targets
    Introduced in Sec. IV A; the central model relies on this representation, and no empirical justification is provided beyond the framing.
  • ad hoc to paper Oracle of meaning H_f is a projector assigning binary reward; target concepts are subspaces
    Sec. IV A: the exact commutator-unitary equivalence and geodesic form rely on H_f being a projector; graded or non-projective rewards would break the exact Wick-rotation identity.
  • domain assumption Indirect measurement model with unitary system–probe interaction applies to neural-environment readout
    Sec. IV D, Eq. (34); adopted from von Neumann/Ozawa, required to define the λ continuum.
  • domain assumption Markovian assumption: the neural environment is a sequence of freshly prepared, independent, identical probes
    Sec. IV E, Assumptions (i)–(ii); needed for Theorem 1. Remark 3 concedes this is not generically physiologically warranted.
  • ad hoc to paper Strong projective readout onto an eigenstate of the readout basis corresponds to reportable conscious fixation ("Aha")
    Sec. IV D, Main Result 2; stipulated interpretive mapping, not derived from data or equations alone.
  • domain assumption Cognitive state transitions exhibit algebraic non-commutativity/contextuality for which Hilbert-space formalism is appropriate
    Introductory caution; supports using quantum formalism despite disclaiming a physical quantum brain.
  • standard math Standard results from literature: Brockett/Helmke–Moore gradient formula, Trotter–Kato/Chernoff semigroup convergence, Grover optimality
    Invoked across Secs. II and IV E; taken as proven background rather than derived in this paper.
invented entities (3)
  • Oracle of meaning H_f
    purpose: Assigns unit reward to concept-consistent configurations; serves as potential energy in the cognitive path integral
    Formal operator introduced as model input; no independent empirical handle outside the model.
  • Initial-state diffusion operator ψ0 = |ψ0⟩⟨ψ0|
    purpose: Uniform diffusion kernel / kinetic energy over conceptual alternatives; defines the starting indeterminate state
    Model construct; no independent evidence that cognitive initial states are uniform superpositions.
  • Neural-environment probe (sequence of independent probe states σ)
    purpose: Implements indirect measurement whose coupling λ interpolates unconscious/conscious processing
    Conceptual measurement apparatus; the i.i.d.-probe version is explicitly admitted as an idealization (Remark 3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Path Integral Model of Cognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VBCWQTBY

@misc{pith2026260724807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Path Integral Model of Cognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VBCWQTBY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24807}
}
read the original abstract

We develop the mathematical and physical formulation of cognitive cost optimization that underlies the path-integral model of consciousness. The goal-directed cognitive process is modeled as imaginary-time evolution (ITE) under a projector Hamiltonian that rewards configurations consistent with a target concept. We establish three results. First, this ITE coincides with a double-bracket flow and is therefore the Riemannian gradient flow of a Hilbert--Schmidt cost whose unique minimum is the solution. Second, a Wick rotation re-expresses this non-unitary descent as an equivalent unitary evolution on the same Hilbert space, which admits an exact discrete path-integral representation in which the oracle and the initial-state diffusion projector play the roles of potential and kinetic energy. Third, we identify the continuum from unconscious to conscious processing with the strength of the unitary interaction between the cognitive system and a neural-environment probe, recovering the Gorini--Kossakowski--Sudarshan--Lindblad (GKSL) decoherence model of Asano \textit{et al.} in the Markovian weak-coupling limit, and the projective, reportable fixation of an optimized state in the strong-coupling limit, an insight-like ``Aha'' endpoint. Both regimes share the same ITE and path-integral structure, and only the measurement-interaction strength varies. The Wick rotation is therefore a technique of re-description, not a physical regime change.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24807 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The equivalence used throughout the paper. Imaginary-time evolution of a pure state, the double-bracket flow of its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Cognitive dynamics along the measurement-strength axis. The same dynamical skeleton, the ITE flow of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [23]

    N. A. McMahon, M. Pervez, and C. Arenz, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 023024 (2026)

    2026

  2. [1]

    It is the Schatten 2-norm, and the inner product⟨A, B⟩= Tr[A †B] makes the operator space a Hilbert space

    TheHilbert–Schmidt normof an operatorAonHis∥A∥ HS = p Tr[A†A]. It is the Schatten 2-norm, and the inner product⟨A, B⟩= Tr[A †B] makes the operator space a Hilbert space. 14

  3. [2]

    For a finite-dimensional self-adjoint operator,∥A∥ op = maxi |λi|

    Theoperator normofAis∥A∥ op = sup ∥ψ∥=1 ∥Aψ∥. For a finite-dimensional self-adjoint operator,∥A∥ op = maxi |λi|. Both norms satisfy the triangle inequality∥A+B∥ ≤ ∥A∥+∥B∥

  4. [3]

    The Taylor expansion offaroundx 0 with Lagrange remainder reads f(x) = n−1X k=0 f (k)(x0) k! (x−x 0)k + f (n)(ξ) n! (x−x 0)n,(A1) for someξbetweenx 0 andx

  5. [4]

    Convergence of ITE is expressed through the infidelityϵ= 1−F

    For pure states|ϕ⟩,|ψ⟩, thefidelityisF(|ϕ⟩,|ψ⟩) =|⟨ϕ|ψ⟩| 2, measuring their overlap. Convergence of ITE is expressed through the infidelityϵ= 1−F. Lemma 1. Let|ψ⟩be a pure state andH= Pd−1 i=0 λi|λi⟩⟨λi|a Hamiltonian with increasingly ordered eigenvalues andλ 0 = 0. If the ground-state fidelity isF= 1−ϵ, then Ek ≥λ 1ϵ, V k ≤λ 2 d−1ϵ,(A2) whereE k =⟨ψ|H|ψ⟩...

  6. [5]

    ITE Solves Unstructured Search Lemma 2 (ITE solves unstructured search). GivenH f and|ψ 0⟩, lim τ→∞ eτ Hf |ψ0⟩ ∥eτ Hf |ψ0⟩∥ =|ψ ∗⟩.(C1) The positive sign reflects that unstructured search seeks the largest-eigenvalue subspace ofH f , and viaH→ −Hf this is the standard ITE convergence statement [68]

  7. [6]

    For projector Hamilto- nians, the first-order approximation|ψ s⟩= e s[H,ψ0]|ψ0⟩is exact

    Grover’s Algorithm as a DBQA The double-bracket quantum algorithm [16, 18] implements DBF on a quantum computer. For projector Hamilto- nians, the first-order approximation|ψ s⟩= e s[H,ψ0]|ψ0⟩is exact. Lemma 3 (Equivalence of ITE and commutator flow for projectors). For the projectorH f and any ITE timeτ, there existss τ such that eτ Hf |ψ0⟩ ∥eτ Hf |ψ0⟩∥ ...

  8. [7]

    Tononi, M

    G. Tononi, M. Boly, M. Massimini, and C. Koch, Nat. Rev. Neurosci.17, 450 (2016)

    2016

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    G. A. Mashour, P. Roelfsema, J.-P. Changeux, and S. Dehaene, Neuron105, 776 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    V. A. F. Lamme, Trends Cogn. Sci.10, 494 (2006)

    2006

  3. [10]

    Lau and D

    H. Lau and D. Rosenthal, Trends Cogn. Sci.15, 365 (2011)

    2011

  4. [11]

    Friston, Nat

    K. Friston, Nat. Rev. Neurosci.11, 127 (2010)

    2010

  5. [12]

    The Theory of Theories of Consciousness: Unification via Measurement Strength and its Evolutionary Implications

    H. Emori, A. Khrennikov, K. Kondo, and A. Iriki (2026), Companion paper “The Theory of Theories of Consciousness: Unification via Measurement Strength and its Evolutionary Implications”

    2026

  6. [13]

    Quantum Logic as the Logic of Contexts

    H. Emori, A. Iriki, A. Khrennikov, and K. Kondo (2026), Companion paper “Quantum Logic as the Logic of Contexts”

    2026

  7. [14]

    Khrennikov,Ubiquitous Quantum Structure: From Psychology to Finance, 1st ed

    A. Khrennikov,Ubiquitous Quantum Structure: From Psychology to Finance, 1st ed. (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    J. R. Busemeyer and P. D. Bruza,Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012)

    2012

  9. [16]

    von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics and Physics (Princeton University Press, 1955) translated by R

    J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics and Physics (Princeton University Press, 1955) translated by R. T. Beyer; original German edition 1932

    1955

  10. [17]

    Ozawa, J

    M. Ozawa, J. Math. Phys.25, 79 (1984)

    1984

  11. [18]

    Ozawa, Quantum Measurement Theory for Systems with Finite Dimensional State Spaces, inThe Quantum-Like Revolution: A Festschrift for Andrei Khrennikov, edited by A

    M. Ozawa, Quantum Measurement Theory for Systems with Finite Dimensional State Spaces, inThe Quantum-Like Revolution: A Festschrift for Andrei Khrennikov, edited by A. Plotnitsky and E. Haven (Springer International Publishing,

  12. [19]

    R. W. Brockett, Linear Algebra Appl.146, 79 (1991)

    1991

  13. [20]

    Helmke and J

    U. Helmke and J. B. Moore,Optimization and Dynamical Systems, 1st ed., Communications and Control Engineering (Springer, London, 2012)

    2012

  14. [21]

    Wiersema and N

    R. Wiersema and N. Killoran, Phys. Rev. A107, 062421 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    Gluza, J

    M. Gluza, J. Son, B. H. Tiang, R. Zander, R. Seidel, Y. Suzuki, Z. Holmes, and N. H. Y. Ng, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 020601 (2026)

    2026

  16. [24]

    Gluza, Quantum8, 1316 (2024)

    M. Gluza, Quantum8, 1316 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, inProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019 (Association for Computing Machinery, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2019) pp. 193–204

    2019

  18. [26]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, PRX Quantum2, 040203 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys.17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  20. [28]

    Lindblad, Commun

    G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  21. [29]

    Asano, M

    M. Asano, M. Ohya, Y. Tanaka, I. Basieva, and A. Khrennikov, J. Theor. Biol.281, 56 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    S. T. Piantadosi, D. C. Y. Muller, J. S. Rule, K. Kaushik, M. Gorenstein, E. R. Leib, and E. Sanford, Trends Cogn. Sci. 28, 844 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    D. Kim, H. Kanazawa, N. Yoshida, and Y. Kuniyoshi, arXiv:2504.11075 10.48550/arXiv.2504.11075 (2025)

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    Nartallo-Kaluarachchi, M

    R. Nartallo-Kaluarachchi, M. L. Kringelbach, G. Deco, R. Lambiotte, and A. Goriely, Phys. Rep.1152, 1 (2026)

    2026

  25. [33]

    L. Zou, Z. Zhang, M. Mavilidi, Y. Chen, F. Herold, K. Ouwehand, and F. Paas, Nat. Hum. Behav.9, 877 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Glimm and A

    J. Glimm and A. Jaffe,Quantum Physics, 2nd ed. (Springer New York, NY, 1987)

    1987

  27. [35]

    Suzuki, B

    Y. Suzuki, B. H. Tiang, J. Son, N. H. Y. Ng, Z. Holmes, and M. Gluza, Quantum9, 1954 (2025)

    1954

  28. [36]

    Deift, T

    P. Deift, T. Nanda, and C. Tomei, SIAM J. Numer. Anal.20, 1 (1983)

    1983

  29. [37]

    M. T. Chu, SIAM Rev.30, 375 (1988)

    1988

  30. [38]

    R. P. Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys.20, 367 (1948)

    1948

  31. [39]

    F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev.75, 486 (1949)

    1949

  32. [40]

    R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev.76, 769 (1949)

    1949

  33. [41]

    Schwinger, Proc

    J. Schwinger, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.37, 452 (1951)

    1951

  34. [42]

    Schwinger, Proc

    J. Schwinger, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.37, 455 (1951)

    1951

  35. [43]

    Schwinger, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.82, 914 (1951)

    1951

  36. [44]

    Schwinger, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.91, 713 (1953)

    1953

  37. [45]

    Emori, arXiv.2602.05821 10.48550/arXiv.2602.05821 (2026)

    H. Emori, arXiv.2602.05821 10.48550/arXiv.2602.05821 (2026)

    2026 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    T. J. Yoder, G. H. Low, and I. L. Chuang, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 210501 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    G. Li, S. Feng, and L. Li, Front. Comput. Sci.20, 2010906 (2026)

    2026

  40. [48]

    Y.-A. Chen, A. M. Childs, M. Hafezi, Z. Jiang, H. Kim, and Y. Xu, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013191 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, J. Math. Phys.54, 062202 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    C. M. Dawson and M. A. Nielsen, Quantum Inf. Comput.6, 81 (2006)

    2006

  43. [51]

    L. K. Grover, inProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’96 (Associ- ation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1996) p. 212–219

    1996

  44. [52]

    Attal and Y

    S. Attal and Y. Pautrat, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e7, 59 (2006). 17

    2006

  45. [53]

    E. B. Davies,Quantum Theory of Open Systems(Academic Press, London, 1976)

    1976

  46. [54]

    Bouten, R

    L. Bouten, R. van Handel, and M. R. James, SIAM J. Control Optim.46, 2199 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Aharonov, D

    Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1351 (1988)

    1988

  48. [56]

    Dressel, M

    J. Dressel, M. Malik, F. M. Miatto, A. N. Jordan, and R. W. Boyd, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 307 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Tsuchiya, M

    N. Tsuchiya, M. Wilke, S. Fr¨ assle, and V. A. F. Lamme, Trends Cogn. Sci.19, 757 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    Ferrante, U

    Cogitate Consortium, O. Ferrante, U. Gorska-Klimowska, S. Henin, R. Hirschhorn, A. Khalaf, A. Lepauvre, L. Liu, D. Richter, Y. Vidal, N. Bonacchi, T. Brown, P. Sripad, M. Armendariz, K. Bendtz, T. Ghafari, D. Hetenyi, J. Jeschke, C. Kozma, D. R. Mazumder, S. Montenegro, A. See...

    2025

  51. [59]

    Ozawa, Sci

    M. Ozawa, Sci. Rep.15, 36112 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Khrennikov, Int

    A. Khrennikov, Int. J. Theor. Phys.63, 23 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Khrennikov, Found

    A. Khrennikov, Found. Phys.54, 29 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Iriki and M

    A. Iriki and M. Taoka, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.367, 10 (2012)

    2012

  55. [63]

    Iriki and S

    A. Iriki and S. Tanaka, Glob. Perspect.5, 115651 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    C. H. Bennett, E. Bernstein, G. Brassard, and U. Vazirani, SIAM J. Comput.26, 1510 (1997)

    1997

  57. [65]

    Beals, H

    R. Beals, H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, M. Mosca, and R. de Wolf, inProceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280)(IEEE, 1998) pp. 352–361

    1998

  58. [66]

    Zalka, Phys

    C. Zalka, Phys. Rev. A60, 2746 (1999)

    1999

  59. [67]

    L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 150501 (2005)

    2005

  60. [68]

    Brassard, Science275, 627 (1997)

    G. Brassard, Science275, 627 (1997)

    1997

  61. [69]

    G. L. Long, Phys. Rev. A64, 022307 (2001)

    2001

  62. [70]

    T. Roy, L. Jiang, and D. I. Schuster, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L022013 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Miyake and M

    A. Miyake and M. Wadati, Phys. Rev. A64, 042317 (2001)

    2001

  64. [72]

    Cafaro and S

    C. Cafaro and S. Mancini, Physica A: Stat. Mech. Appl.391, 1610 (2012)

    2012

  65. [73]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. Hoyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Contemp. Math.305, 53 (2002)

    2002

  66. [74]

    Gell-Mann and F

    M. Gell-Mann and F. Low, Phys. Rev.84, 350 (1951)

    1951

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.