Comments on `Comment on Aurélien Drezet's defense of relational quantum mechanics' by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek Źukowski

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02836v1
• Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:32:59 GMT
• Title: Comments on `Comment on Aurélien Drezet's defense of relational quantum mechanics' by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek Źukowski
• Abstract summary: We respond to a recent comment by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek 'Zukowski regarding our work defending RQM against their previous assessment.<n>We refute the analysis proposed by the authors and rephrase our previous study in order to clarify the remaining ambiguities in our rebuttal.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We respond briefly to the recent comment by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek \'{Z}ukowski [arXiv:2210.09025 and Found. Phys. \textbf{54}, 45 (2024)] regarding our work defending RQM against their previous assessment. We refute the analysis proposed by the authors and rephrase our previous study in order to clarify the remaining ambiguities in our rebuttal.

Related papers

• Rejoinder: The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review [49.43514488610211]
  This article is the rejoinder to The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review''<n>We organize our response around four core themes: (i) formulating peer review as a statistical estimation problem; (ii) mitigating equity and strategic concerns in the deployment of the Isotonic Mechanism; (iii) incorporating complementary signals such as reviewer rankings and structured metadata; and (iv) exploring a human-centered framework for peer review in the era of generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T17:06:47Z)
• Beyond "Not Novel Enough": Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedback [81.0031690510116]
  We present a structured approach for automated novelty evaluation that models expert reviewer behavior through three stages.<n>Our method is informed by a large scale analysis of human written novelty reviews.<n> Evaluated on 182 ICLR 2025 submissions, the approach achieves 86.5% alignment with human reasoning and 75.3% agreement on novelty conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T16:18:37Z)
• Support Evaluation for the TREC 2024 RAG Track: Comparing Human versus LLM Judges [53.12387628636912]
  A crucial factor in RAG evaluation is "support", whether the information in the cited documents supports the answer. We conducted a large-scale comparative study of 45 participant submissions on 36 topics to the TREC 2024 RAG Track. Our results indicate that for 56% of the manual from-scratch assessments, human and GPT-4o predictions match perfectly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T16:20:43Z)
• RevisEval: Improving LLM-as-a-Judge via Response-Adapted References [95.29800580588592]
  RevisEval is a novel text generation evaluation paradigm via the response-adapted references. RevisEval is driven by the key observation that an ideal reference should maintain the necessary relevance to the response to be evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T16:50:47Z)
• Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews [51.453135368388686]
  We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM) Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T21:51:39Z)
• Relaxation of first-class constraints and the quantization of gauge theories: from "matter without matter" to the reappearance of time in quantum gravity [72.27323884094953]
  We make a conceptual overview of an approach to the initial-value problem in canonical gauge theories. We stress how the first-class phase-space constraints may be relaxed if we interpret them as fixing the values of new degrees of freedom.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T19:00:02Z)
• The right to audit and power asymmetries in algorithm auditing [68.8204255655161]
  We elaborate on the challenges and asymmetries mentioned by Sandvig at the IC2S2 2021. We also contribute a discussion of the asymmetries that were not covered by Sandvig. We discuss the implications these asymmetries have for algorithm auditing research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T13:57:41Z)
• Reply to `Comment on "Absence versus Presence of Dissipative Quantum Phase Transition in Josephson Junctions"' [0.0]
  We reply to the comments on our previous paper Physical Review Letters, Vol. 129, 087001 (2022), raised by Th'eo S'epulcre, Serge Florens, and Izak Snyman in arXiv:2210.00742.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-19T08:06:15Z)
• Relative facts do not exist. Relational Quantum Mechanics is Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. Response to the critique by Aur\'elien Drezet [0.0]
  We point out that our critical analysis of RQM was precisely based on the most recent formulation of RQM, and that the theses in the critique are based on neither RQM assumptions nor on our arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T14:13:56Z)
• A critical analysis of `Relative facts do not exist. Relational quantum mechanics is incompatible with quantum mechanics' by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek \'{Z}ukowski [0.0]
  We discuss a recent work by J.Lawrence et al.[arxiv.org/abs/2208.11793] criticizing relational quantum mechanics (RQM) and based on a famous nonlocality theorem. Here, we show that the claims presented in this recent work are unjustified and we debunk the analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-02T18:52:17Z)
• Reply to the comment on "Quantum priniple of relativity" [0.0]
  We refute criticisms by Del Santo and Horvat towards our paper "Quantum principle of relativity" Most of their counterarguments can be dismissed, and the rest provides further evidence to our claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-30T12:52:07Z)
• A response to the Mucino-Okon-Sudarsky's Assessment of Relational Quantum Mechanics [0.0]
  A recent paper by Mucino, Okon and Sudarsky attempts an assessment of quantum mechanics Interpretations. The paper argues that the assumptions that are precisely questioned in Interpretations are undermining the value of the assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-06T18:26:52Z)
• From Nesterov's Estimate Sequence to Riemannian Acceleration [52.99237600875452]
  We develop an alternative analysis for Nesterov's estimate sequence technique that may also be of independent interest. Then, we extend this analysis to the Riemannian setting, localizing the key difficulty due to non-Euclidean structure into a certain metric distortion''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-24T04:17:14Z)
• Quantum-like modeling of the order effect in decision making: POVM viewpoint on the Wang-Busemeyer QQ-equality [77.34726150561087]
  Wang and Busemeyer invented a quantum model and approach as well as non-parametric equality (so-called QQ-equality) This note is to test the possibility to expand the Wang-Busemeyer model by considering questions which are mathematically represented by positive operator valued measures. But, we also showed that, in principle, it is possible to reduce expanded model to the original Wang-Busemeyer model by expanding the context of the questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2018-10-31T18:11:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.