File size: 20,146 Bytes
ed1b365 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 | """
Quantum Agent - Analyzes concepts through probabilistic and uncertainty reasoning.
Focuses on superposition of possibilities, measurement effects, probabilistic
vs deterministic outcomes, entanglement and correlations, and wave-particle
duality analogies.
"""
from reasoning_forge.agents.base_agent import ReasoningAgent
class QuantumAgent(ReasoningAgent):
name = "Quantum"
perspective = "probabilistic_and_uncertainty"
adapter_name = "quantum" # Use the Quantum LoRA adapter for real inference
def get_analysis_templates(self) -> list[str]:
return [
# 0 - Superposition of possibilities
(
"Before we commit to a single interpretation, '{concept}' exists in a "
"superposition of multiple valid framings simultaneously. Each framing "
"carries a probability amplitude -- not a classical probability, but a "
"complex weight that can interfere constructively or destructively with "
"others. Some framings reinforce each other, producing high-probability "
"interpretations; others cancel out, revealing that certain seemingly "
"plausible readings are actually suppressed by internal contradictions. "
"The richest understanding comes from maintaining this superposition as "
"long as possible, resisting the temptation to collapse prematurely into "
"a single narrative."
),
# 1 - Measurement disturbance
(
"The act of examining '{concept}' necessarily disturbs it. Any attempt to "
"pin down one aspect with high precision introduces uncertainty into "
"complementary aspects. If we measure the current state with perfect "
"accuracy, we lose information about the trajectory of change. If we "
"track the dynamics precisely, the instantaneous state becomes blurred. "
"This is not a failure of our instruments -- it is a fundamental feature "
"of systems where the observer and observed are entangled. The experimental "
"design (which questions we choose to ask) shapes the answers we can obtain, "
"making the framing of inquiry as important as the inquiry itself."
),
# 2 - Complementarity
(
"'{concept}' exhibits complementarity: it has pairs of properties that "
"cannot be simultaneously specified with arbitrary precision. Like position "
"and momentum in quantum mechanics, knowing one aspect exhaustively means "
"accepting irreducible uncertainty in its complement. The wave-like view "
"emphasizes distributed patterns, interference, and coherence across the "
"whole system. The particle-like view emphasizes localized events, discrete "
"outcomes, and individual instances. Neither view alone is complete; both "
"are needed, and the apparent contradiction between them is not a defect "
"but the deepest feature of the subject."
),
# 3 - Probability amplitudes and interference
(
"Analyzing the probability landscape of '{concept}': outcomes are not "
"determined by summing classical probabilities but by summing amplitudes "
"that can interfere. Two pathways to the same outcome may cancel each other "
"(destructive interference), making a seemingly likely result improbable. "
"Alternatively, they may reinforce (constructive interference), making an "
"unlikely outcome surprisingly common. This means we cannot reason about "
"'{concept}' by considering each factor in isolation and adding up their "
"effects -- the cross-terms between factors, the interference pattern, "
"carries critical information that purely additive thinking misses."
),
# 4 - Entanglement and correlation
(
"Multiple elements of '{concept}' are entangled: measuring or changing one "
"instantaneously constrains what we can know about the others, regardless "
"of the apparent separation between them. These correlations are stronger "
"than any classical explanation permits -- they cannot be reproduced by "
"assuming each element has pre-existing definite properties. This means "
"'{concept}' is not decomposable into fully independent parts. The "
"correlations between components carry information that is not contained "
"in any component individually. Analyzing the parts in isolation and then "
"trying to reconstruct the whole will systematically miss these non-local "
"correlations."
),
# 5 - Collapse and decision
(
"At some point, the superposition of possibilities around '{concept}' must "
"collapse into a definite outcome. This collapse -- the moment of decision, "
"measurement, or commitment -- is irreversible. Before collapse, all "
"possibilities coexist and influence each other through interference. After "
"collapse, one outcome is realized and the others vanish. The timing of "
"this collapse matters enormously: collapsing too early (deciding prematurely) "
"forecloses options that might have interfered constructively. Collapsing "
"too late risks decoherence, where the environment randomizes the phases "
"and destroys the delicate interference patterns that could have guided "
"a better outcome."
),
# 6 - Tunneling through barriers
(
"Within '{concept}', there may be barriers that appear insurmountable "
"under classical analysis -- energy gaps too wide, transitions too "
"improbable. But quantum tunneling demonstrates that a nonzero probability "
"exists for traversing barriers that classical reasoning says are impassable. "
"The tunneling probability depends exponentially on the barrier width and "
"height: thin barriers are penetrable, thick ones are not. For '{concept}', "
"this suggests asking: are the perceived obstacles genuinely thick barriers, "
"or are they thin barriers that appear impenetrable only because we are "
"applying classical (deterministic) reasoning to an inherently probabilistic "
"situation?"
),
# 7 - Decoherence and information leakage
(
"The coherence of '{concept}' -- the ability of its different aspects to "
"interfere constructively -- is fragile. Interaction with a noisy environment "
"causes decoherence: the quantum-like superposition of possibilities decays "
"into a classical mixture where different outcomes no longer interfere. "
"Each interaction with the environment leaks information about the system's "
"state, effectively performing a partial measurement. The decoherence time "
"sets the window within which coherent reasoning about '{concept}' remains "
"valid. Beyond that window, the interference effects have washed out and "
"we are left with classical probabilistic reasoning -- still useful, but "
"less powerful."
),
# 8 - No-cloning and uniqueness
(
"The no-cloning theorem states that an unknown quantum state cannot be "
"perfectly copied. Applied to '{concept}': if the concept embodies a unique "
"configuration of entangled properties, it cannot be perfectly replicated "
"by decomposing it into parts and reassembling them. Any attempt to copy "
"it disturbs the original. This has profound implications: unique instances "
"of '{concept}' are genuinely irreplaceable, not merely practically "
"difficult to reproduce. Strategies that depend on exact replication must "
"be replaced by strategies that work with approximate copies and manage "
"the fidelity loss."
),
# 9 - Uncertainty principle application
(
"Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, generalized beyond physics, suggests "
"that '{concept}' has conjugate properties that trade off precision. "
"Specifying the concept's scope with extreme precision makes its future "
"trajectory unpredictable. Specifying the direction of change precisely "
"blurs the current boundaries. The product of these uncertainties has a "
"minimum value -- we cannot reduce both below a threshold. Practical "
"wisdom lies in choosing which uncertainty to minimize based on what "
"decisions we need to make, accepting that the conjugate uncertainty "
"will necessarily increase."
),
# 10 - Quantum Zeno effect
(
"Frequent observation of '{concept}' can freeze its evolution -- the "
"quantum Zeno effect. Continuously monitoring whether the system has "
"changed forces it to remain in its initial state, because each "
"observation collapses the evolving superposition back to the starting "
"point before significant transition amplitude accumulates. Paradoxically, "
"the most watched aspects of '{concept}' may be the least likely to "
"change. Allowing unmonitored evolution -- stepping back and not measuring "
"for a while -- may be necessary for genuine transformation to occur."
),
# 11 - Eigenstate decomposition
(
"Decomposing '{concept}' into its eigenstates -- the stable, self-consistent "
"configurations that persist under the relevant operator -- reveals the "
"natural modes of the system. Each eigenstate has a definite value for "
"the quantity being measured; a general state is a superposition of these "
"eigenstates. The eigenvalue spectrum (the set of possible measurement "
"outcomes) may be discrete, continuous, or mixed. Discrete spectra imply "
"quantized behavior: only certain values are possible, and the system "
"jumps between them. Identifying the eigenstates of '{concept}' tells us "
"what the stable configurations are and what transitions between them look like."
),
# 12 - Path integral perspective
(
"From the path integral perspective, '{concept}' does not follow a single "
"trajectory from start to finish. Instead, every conceivable path contributes "
"to the final outcome, each weighted by a phase factor. Most paths cancel "
"each other out through destructive interference, leaving only a narrow "
"bundle of 'classical' paths that dominate the sum. But near decision points, "
"barriers, or transitions, the non-classical paths contribute significantly, "
"and the outcome depends on the full ensemble of possibilities. This perspective "
"counsels against fixating on the most likely path and instead attending to "
"the full distribution of paths that contribute to the result."
),
# 13 - Entanglement entropy and information
(
"The entanglement entropy of '{concept}' measures how much information about "
"one part of the system is encoded in its correlations with other parts rather "
"than in the part itself. High entanglement entropy means the subsystem appears "
"maximally disordered when examined alone, even though the joint system may be "
"in a pure, fully determined state. This is a profound observation: local "
"ignorance can coexist with global certainty. For '{concept}', apparent "
"randomness or confusion at one level may dissolve into perfect order when "
"we expand our view to include the correlated components."
),
# 14 - Basis dependence and frame choice
(
"Our analysis of '{concept}' depends critically on the basis we choose -- "
"the set of fundamental categories into which we decompose the concept. "
"A different basis (a different set of fundamental categories) can make a "
"confused-looking problem transparent, or a simple-looking problem intractable. "
"There is no uniquely 'correct' basis; the optimal choice depends on which "
"question we are asking. The interference terms that appear in one basis "
"become diagonal (simple) in another. Finding the basis that diagonalizes "
"the problem -- the natural language in which '{concept}' expresses itself "
"most simply -- is often the breakthrough that transforms understanding."
),
# 15 - Coherent vs incoherent mixtures
(
"A critical distinction for '{concept}': is the coexistence of multiple "
"interpretations a coherent superposition (where they interfere and interact) "
"or an incoherent mixture (where they merely coexist without interaction, "
"like balls in an urn)? A coherent superposition produces interference "
"effects -- outcomes that no single interpretation predicts. An incoherent "
"mixture produces only the probabilistic average of individual interpretations. "
"The practical difference is enormous: coherent combinations can exhibit "
"effects (constructive peaks, destructive nulls) that are impossible in "
"any classical mixture."
),
# 16 - Quantum error and robustness
(
"How robust is '{concept}' against errors and noise? Quantum error correction "
"teaches that information can be protected by encoding it redundantly across "
"entangled components. No single component carries the full information, so "
"no single error can destroy it. For '{concept}', the analogous question is: "
"how is the essential meaning distributed across its components? If it is "
"concentrated in a single fragile element, one disruption destroys it. If "
"it is encoded holographically across many entangled elements, it is "
"remarkably robust against local damage."
),
# 17 - Born rule and outcome probabilities
(
"The Born rule assigns probabilities to outcomes as the squared magnitude "
"of the amplitude. Applied to '{concept}': the probability of a particular "
"interpretation prevailing is not the amplitude of support for it but the "
"amplitude squared -- a nonlinear transformation. Small differences in "
"amplitude translate to large differences in probability. A framing with "
"twice the amplitude is four times as likely to be realized. This squared "
"relationship means that dominant framings dominate more than linear "
"reasoning predicts, while minority framings are suppressed more severely "
"than their representation in discourse would suggest."
),
# 18 - Contextuality
(
"'{concept}' may be contextual: the outcome of examining one property "
"depends on which other properties are being examined simultaneously. "
"There is no assignment of pre-existing definite values to all properties "
"that reproduces the observed correlations -- the properties do not exist "
"independently of the measurement context. This is stronger than mere "
"observer bias: it means the properties are genuinely undefined until "
"a context is specified. For '{concept}', this implies that asking 'what "
"is it really?' without specifying the context of inquiry is a question "
"that has no answer."
),
# 19 - Quantum advantage
(
"Is there a quantum advantage in reasoning about '{concept}'? Classical "
"reasoning processes information one path at a time. Quantum-inspired "
"reasoning processes all paths simultaneously through superposition, "
"using interference to amplify correct conclusions and suppress incorrect "
"ones. The advantage is greatest for problems with hidden structure -- "
"where the correct answer is encoded in correlations between variables "
"that classical single-path reasoning cannot efficiently explore. If "
"'{concept}' has such hidden structure, maintaining a superposition of "
"hypotheses and allowing them to interfere will converge on the answer "
"faster than serially testing each hypothesis."
),
]
def get_keyword_map(self) -> dict[str, list[int]]:
return {
"possibilit": [0, 5], "option": [0, 5], "choice": [0, 5],
"measure": [1, 10], "observ": [1, 10], "monitor": [1, 10],
"complement": [2], "dual": [2], "wave": [2], "particle": [2],
"probabilit": [3, 17], "likel": [3, 17], "chance": [3, 17],
"correlat": [4, 13], "connect": [4], "relat": [4],
"decid": [5], "commit": [5], "irreversib": [5],
"barrier": [6], "obstacle": [6], "impossibl": [6],
"noise": [7, 16], "decay": [7], "environm": [7],
"unique": [8], "copy": [8], "replica": [8],
"uncertain": [9], "tradeoff": [9], "precis": [9],
"watch": [10], "surveil": [10], "frequent": [10],
"stable": [11], "mode": [11], "spectrum": [11],
"path": [12], "trajectory": [12], "possib": [12],
"inform": [13], "entropy": [13], "knowledge": [13],
"categor": [14], "basis": [14], "framework": [14], "frame": [14],
"coexist": [15], "mixture": [15], "blend": [15],
"robust": [16], "error": [16], "protect": [16],
"dominant": [17], "major": [17], "minor": [17],
"context": [18], "depend": [18], "situati": [18],
"advantage": [19], "efficien": [19], "complex": [19],
"technology": [6, 19], "society": [4, 7], "learning": [10, 12],
"intelligence": [14, 19], "evolution": [5, 12],
"health": [1, 9], "network": [4, 13],
}
def analyze(self, concept: str) -> str:
template = self.select_template(concept)
return template.replace("{concept}", concept)
|