
TL;DR
This paper examines the challenge of precisely defining wavefunction branches in quantum systems, comparing recent complexity-based approaches and discussing their strengths, weaknesses, and open questions.
Contribution
It analyzes and compares two recent proposals for formalizing wavefunction branches using quantum complexity, highlighting their differences and identifying open research questions.
Findings
Both approaches use quantum complexity to characterize branches.
Branches tend to persist due to linear growth of state complexity.
Open questions remain about the precise definition and practical identification of branches.
Abstract
Under unitary evolution, a typical macroscopic quantum system is thought to develop wavefunction branches: a time-dependent decomposition into orthogonal components that (1) form a tree structure forward in time, (2) are approximate eigenstates of quasiclassical macroscopic observables, and (3) exhibit effective collapse of feasibly measurable observables. If they could be defined precisely, wavefunction branches would extend the theory of decoherence beyond the system-environment paradigm and could supplant anthropocentric measurement in the quantum axioms. Furthermore, when such branches have bounded entanglement and can be effectively identified numerically, sampling them would allow asymptotically efficient classical simulation of quantum systems. I consider a promising recent approach to formalizing branches on the lattice by Taylor & McCulloch [Quantum 9, 1670 (2025),…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
