Quantum Bayesian Networks

May 13, 2014

Blatant Plagiarism By Joe Henson, Raymond Lal, Matthew F. Pusey

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 2:43 am

To whom it may concern and for the record, I would like to point out that the following paper is blatant plagiarism.

Theory-independent limits on correlations from generalised Bayesian networks (http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2572) by
Joe Henson (Imperial College London),
Raymond Lal (University of Oxford),
Matthew F. Pusey (Perimeter Institute)

I wrote my first paper on Quantum Bayesian Networks (qbnets) in 1995. Since then, I have written quite a few papers about qbnets. This blog, which has been going on for 6 years, is named Quantum Bayesian Networks. And yet, these people claim to be the inventors of qbnets. They don’t cite a single paper of mine. They also claim to be the first to extend d-separation to the quantum regime, but I did that long ago in this paper.


  1. This is getting really peculiar.

    Comment by Quax — May 13, 2014 @ 3:18 am

  2. Quax, whether these guys get punished or not by their respective universities is out of my hands, but I refuse to remain silent while they STEAL from me. What are these guys going to teach their students if they get tenure? How to steal and cheat?

    Comment by rrtucci — May 13, 2014 @ 4:21 am

  3. Lots of peculiarities await us in an increasingly Darwinian environment..

    Comment by Elangel Exterminador — May 13, 2014 @ 3:10 pm

  4. I…am…so…mad! Those academic jerks! Quantum Bayesian Basterds! I say, sue the Perimeter Institute, they have deep pockets. Or at least they used to.

    Comment by Max Born — May 13, 2014 @ 5:01 pm

  5. Max, thanks for the support, but I don’t think suing would accomplish much, even if I were capable of suing which I’m not. I just hope these people are not allowed to continue to pursue academic careers. I would be very upset if these lowlifes were teaching my children at a university.

    Comment by rrtucci — May 13, 2014 @ 6:00 pm

  6. You ought to d-separate their heads from their necks. Sack their cities and sow their quantum fields with salt.

    Comment by Max Born — May 13, 2014 @ 7:36 pm

  7. Hi Bob: I was extremely disappointed to hear that a member of the Perimeter Institute may have resorted to plagiarism, with his two colleagues, in their recent paper on the arXiv. I, however, took it upon myself to lodge a complaint on your behalf to Dr. Neil Turok, Director of the Perimeter Institute, regarding this particular paper. I hope to hear their side of the story, and if I do, I shall fully inform you. I’m hoping for the best. I’m solely responsible for this complaint and it does NOT involve you directly. I’m doing this, because I found it outrageous that a member of world-renowned Institute, partly funded with my tax money, should resort to this kind of behavior. I thank you.

    Comment by Sol Warda — May 14, 2014 @ 1:11 am

  8. Can you reference some of the instances of plagiarism in the paper (i.e what parts of the paper were copied)?

    Comment by dwin — May 14, 2014 @ 2:44 am

  9. dwin, plagiarism doesn’t mean copying verbatim.

    They went through linguistic gymnastics to avoid using the words “quantum” and “bayesian networks” adjacently.

    They did not cite, let alone compare, my paper on generalizing d-separation to quantum mechanics. Generalizing d-separation to quantum mechanics is the MAIN goal of their paper and only I have done it before in a paper. Try Googling “quantum” AND “d-separation”.

    They do not mention any of my papers on quantum Bayesian networks since 1995, although they cite 30 references which according to them inspired their work on “generalised Bayesian networks”. Are you going to seriously claim that it was necessary to cite all those 30 references but not any of my almost 20 years of papers and software on quantum Bayesian networks, most especially my paper specifically on quantum d-separation?

    Comment by rrtucci — May 14, 2014 @ 4:10 am

  10. Lucien Hardy has sent me the following email. I hope he doesn’t send me any more private messages because they are going to end up here. My accusation of blatant plagiarism stands. When a woman has been raped, is it reasonable to ask why she didn’t try to reason amiably with the rapist before first contacting the police.

    Dear Robert,

    your recent blog entry accusing Henson, Lal, and Pusey of plagiarism was brought to my attention by our administrators here. I contacted Matt Pusey and he says that you did not contact him or any of his coauthors before making this accusation. I understand that it is frustrating when one’s work is not cited but the appropriate response in such situations is to write a polite email to the authors (I have done this many times).

    From my reading of the situation, it is much too strong for you to accuse them of plagiarism in that, first, there are significant differences between the way you set up the framework and the way they do, and second, they were not working from your paper when they prepared theirs. However, it is reasonable for you to request that they cite your work as it deals with some of the same issues. Matt tells me that they do intend to cite your work in the next version of the paper.

    You have an interesting body of research which I was unaware of and I am hoping to get time to read your papers more carefully!

    Best wishes,

    Lucien Hardy

    Comment by rrtucci — May 15, 2014 @ 11:57 pm

  11. Okay, the show must go on, and so too must this blog. I promise to come back and add future comments to this blog post describing any new developments, if any, in the case. If anyone besides me wants to say anything further, they can post a comment either here or in the scirate entry for the Henson-Lal-Pussey paper:


    It will be very interesting if this paper is allowed to go on with superficial modifications. It would be as if someone was caught cheating in a test, and the teacher said, “We know you cheated to get this A. Our penalty is to ignore that you cheated and let you keep the A.”

    Let me answer two comments that I already see being made by the Henson-Lal-Pussey apologists:

    (1)“It was just an unintentional omission of a reference of minor importance”. No it wasn’t.

    It is very obvious that they were trying to avoid using the term “quantum bayesian network”

    Only a two year old could believe that they missed almost 20 years of papers and software on quantum bayesian networks plus a blog with that name. These were extremely relevant to their paper.

    Only a two year old could believe that they missed the only previous paper on quantum d-separation, a paper that comes up as one of the first hits in a Google or arXiv search of the obvious keywords “quantum” AND “d-separation”.

    These guys were very intentionally stealing.

    (2)“You are such a nasty crybaby Tucci. Only you would accuse someone of plagiarism because they didn’t cite just one of your papers. They have apologized for not citing your crappy paper on d-separation. Isn’t that enough?” This is like what the apologists of a rapist say: “You are such a nasty crybaby Susan. Only you would go to the police because John raped you. He didn’t really mean it, and it was just a nice, friendly rape. He has apologized for raping you. Isn’t that enough?”

    Comment by rrtucci — May 18, 2014 @ 3:47 pm

  12. You google the terms ‘quantum’ ‘bayesian’ and ‘network’ and you’ll find this blog. I understand that academia is somewhat secluded, ivory tower and all that, but I am surprised that they apparently don’t know about Google. Then again it fits the profile, they ignored 20 years of your work and Google didn’t exist 20 years ago either.

    Comment by Quax — May 19, 2014 @ 5:01 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: