Skip to content

Author

John W. Paisley

2 papers indexed here

We haven’t gathered this author’s papers yet. Follow them and we’ll fetch their work.

Not the right person? Other researchers publish under this name.

Preprint Jul 2026

Entanglement as a Structural Complexity Axis: A PAC-Bayesian View of Generalization in Quantum Policies and Value Functions

Parameterized quantum circuits (PQCs) are increasingly used as policies and value functions in quantum reinforcement learning, yet it remains unclear when and why quantum policies generalize. We give a PAC-Bayesian account in which generalization is governed not by the raw number of circuit parameters, but by the effective dimension of the Fisher geometry induced by the circuit. This quantity is inflated by entanglement, making entangling connectivity an independent axis of complexity.In controlled experiments that fix the number of trainable rotations and vary only entanglement, we find that circuits with larger Fisher effective dimension exhibit larger train-test gaps, while parameter count is a weak predictor. The resulting bound acts primarily as a ranking certificate: it correctly orders circuits with identical parameter count, which parameter-counting bounds cannot do. We validate this mechanism across supervised classification, quantum contextual bandits, and value-function generalization, where entangled circuits consistently generalize worse than non-entangled circuits of equal parameter count, with gaps shrinking as sample size increases.Our strongest evidence comes from low-variance decision models, including single-observable classifiers, value heads, and one-step policies. In end-to-end multi-step policy learning, entanglement effects remain statistically significant but high return variance leaves the full ordering only partially resolved. Partial-correlation analysis shows that Fisher effective dimension screens off entangling pattern, and controls for training accuracy, readout, and optimizer rule out major optimization confounders. The effect also persists on an IBM Heron quantum processor under real noise. Overall, our results reframe quantum policy design around an entanglement--generalization trade-off rather than expressivity alone.

Jian Xu, Delu Zeng, John W. Paisley et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

When Can You Debias an LLM Judge? Identifiability Limits, a Test, and Designs for Top-k Ranking

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise. Because such judges prefer verbose or well-formatted answers, the natural fix is to add bias covariates to a Bradley--Terry model and estimate the bias away. We show this cannot work as advertised: the quality/bias split is \emph{not identified} by pairwise comparisons, and the failure is exact -- across $48$ real judge-pools the profile likelihood over the coefficient is flat to $\mathbf{0.0000}$ \textbf{nats}, and scaling the comparisons $26\times$ buys none. A ``debiased''score is selected by the prior, not recovered from data. Our contribution is accordingly not a better estimator but a characterization of \emph{when prior-based correction is justified}, plus designs that supply the missing information when it is not. The assumption the prior encodes -- quality is a priori uncorrelated with the covariate -- pays only while $\mathrm{corr}(\theta,x)$ stays below a crossing point (configuration-dependent, $0.22$--$0.60$), which is what makes the same model help on LLMBar and hurt on SummEval and Nectar. We give two escapes: a \textbf{trusted-anchor gate} that decides per (judge, covariate, task) (no false enables in $6{,}000$ decisions at $K\ge10$ anchors, a rate our sample bounds at $\le6\%$), and a \textbf{paired rendering design}. Across fifteen real LLM judges bias is heterogeneous and capability-dependent: correction improves \topk{} recall by $0.20$--$0.32$ on five biased-but-competent cheap judges and is a no-op on frontier ones (Spearman $\rho{=}{-}0.84$ between competence and gain over the $14$ competent judges, $p{<}10^{-3}$), concentrating the benefit where at-scale evaluation happens.

Jian Xu, Delu Zeng, John W. Paisley et al. · 0 citations