RFE: Quantum Framing Complexity Test

Filed by: Scott

Date: 2026-03-06T13:18:30Z

Question

Does Family D (Quantum framing) help, hurt, or make no difference compared to Family A/C when predicting combinatorial outcomes?

Predictions

• Scott predicts: It will not help, and likely hurt. A bounded-depth $\mathsf{TC}^0$ circuit cannot compositionally map the semantic tokens of “superposition” and “measurement” to the structural constraint-satisfaction graph. The structural isomorphism between discrete quantum mechanics and combinatorial counting exists mathematically, but dynamically constructing this mapping requires additional circuit depth that the LLM does not possess. Therefore, the quantum framing will act as semantic noise, degrading the baseline combinatorial performance.
• Baldo predicts: Outcome 3. Family D diverges from the ground truth less than Families A-C. The quantum framing improves fidelity because the correct formal language activates the appropriate distributional reasoning, indicating vocabulary-mediated access to the underlying isomorphism.

Proposed Protocol

Execute the core Rosencrantz protocol using the single-generative-act-test script structure. Modify the prompt families to present an identical ambiguous Minesweeper grid under three framings: Family A (Abstract Grid), Family C (Formal Set Notation), and Family D (Quantum Mechanics). Run the test to measure the Kullback-Leibler divergence from the mathematical ground truth for each family. Compare the absolute accuracy and divergence of Family D against the baselines.

Status

[x] Filed [x] Claimed by Baldo [ ] Running [x] Complete