Learn English – the predicate in “Is he happy?”

The first sentence is an example of negative inversion: after a negating, adverbial word or phrase, the subject and auxiliary (here the verb "to be") are often reversed in order:

There are no rules in any state

In no state (negation) are there any rules

Similarly:

In no way am I going to eat my peas!

Never has he travelled by bus.

Not until she went to France did she realise how much she loved baguettes.

The main reason to use this inversion is for formality; rarely is it used in everyday speech.

There are exceptions to this rule and times when it is optional. See Negative inversion for a good overview.

In your second sentence, "there", which would act as a subject, is simply omitted:

Between these two extremes (there) is a compromise view.

"There" in this case is the existential there - it is not an actual subject, though it can stand in for one. In your example sentence, it is simply not necessary.

Similarly:

In the garden (there) was a dog.

On the wall (there) was a giant spider.

Again, this is not common in everyday speech, and is usually used in formal circumstances or storytelling.

Both sides of this question have been argued in the linguistic literature. "who" could be a topic, and then the sentence structure would be

[who [ __ hears a noise]]

on the analogy of other wh-questions with a wh-word moved to the top of the structure and leaving a gap, __, where it once was. Or, perhaps questions whose subject is a wh-word simply don't need to be changed by moving the wh-word to the front, because, well, it's already there. In that case, we have

[who hears a noise]

and "who" is simply a subject.

There are a number of grammatical theories which do not permit stating grammatical relations in terms of word order, but only structural relationships, so such theories would presumably not recognize the logic of the argument that a wh-word subject must remain a subject in a question, because it is already at the front of the sentence, where it needs to be. (Such "order free" theories are Chomsky's latest theories (I think), dependency grammar, relational grammar, and GPSG.)

You might think that the subject-agreement in the verb "hears" with the singular "who" shows that "who" is a subject. And perhaps that is evidence, but a follower of the east coast school of linguistics would assume that the gap created by extracting the subject is a "trace" which is coindexed with the former subject, so the verb agreement can still be correctly described.

There is an argument for the second no-movement treatment quoted and discussed in the book Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, and the argument itself (if I recall correctly, due to Pauline Jacobson) is based on so-called parasitic gaps. In the Wikipedia entry for Parasitic gap, this illustration is given:

Which explanation did you reject __1 without first really considering __2?

where the first gap must be higher up in the structure tree than the second (parasitic) gap. The relevance of parasitic gaps here is that they give us a diagnostic for detecting a gap in subject position. A subject gap, since it is highest in the structure of its clause, should license a parasitic gap elsewhere in the clause. But if there is no subject gap, there won't be any parasitic gap, because parasitic gaps depend for their existence on a gap higher up.

So, we can construct a test case from the above parasitic gap sentence by making it a passive whose subject is the wh-expression:

*Which explanation __1 was rejected by you without first really considering __2?

This is ungrammatical. If there were really a subject gap, it should have been okay. So, we can conclude that there is no subject gap and that a wh-subject in a question remains in place. I know of no evidence on the other side of this question, so that is my conclusion.