pith. sign in

arxiv: 2211.13433 · v5 · submitted 2022-11-24 · 🪐 quant-ph

Limitations of Quantum Measurements and Operations of Scattering Type under the Energy Conservation Law

Ryota Katsube , Masanao Ozawa , Masahiro Hotta This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 10:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum measurementenergy conservationscattering processcontrolled unitary gategate fidelityWigner-Araki-Yanase theoremenergy fluctuationquantum operations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Energy conservation imposes a lower bound on the error of quantum measurements realized through scattering processes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes quantitative limits on how accurately quantum measurements and unitary operations can be performed when realized exactly via scattering processes that conserve total energy. This extends prior results on conservation-law restrictions, which focused mainly on additive quantities, to the non-additive case of energy that applies universally. The authors derive an explicit lower bound on measurement error, necessary Hamiltonian conditions for perfect controlled gates under the scattering model, and a direct relation between maximum gate fidelity and energy fluctuations for one-qubit target and control systems. A sympathetic reader would care because many proposed quantum devices rely on controlled interactions that can be modeled as scattering, so these bounds identify unavoidable accuracy trade-offs.

Core claim

We present a lower bound for the error of a quantum measurement using a scattering process satisfying the energy conservation law. We obtain conditions that a control system Hamiltonian must fulfill in order to implement a controlled unitary gate with zero error when a scattering process is considered. We also show the quantitative relationship between the upper bound of the gate fidelity of a controlled unitary gate and the energy fluctuation of systems when a target system and a control system are both one qubit.

What carries the argument

Scattering process obeying the energy conservation law, serving as the physical mechanism that realizes the measurement or controlled unitary operation.

If this is right

  • Quantum measurements implemented by energy-conserving scattering processes cannot achieve arbitrarily small error.
  • A control-system Hamiltonian must satisfy explicit conditions to allow a controlled unitary gate of zero error under the scattering model.
  • For one-qubit target and control systems the maximum achievable gate fidelity is quantitatively limited by the energy fluctuations present in the two systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The derived bounds may constrain accuracy in quantum-computing architectures whose entangling operations are mediated by particle scattering.
  • Similar limits could be derived for other non-additive conservation laws once the scattering model is adapted.
  • Numerical or analytic checks of the one-qubit fidelity-fluctuation relation in concrete physical platforms would test the quantitative predictions directly.

Load-bearing premise

The quantum measurement or operation is realized exactly via a scattering process that obeys the energy conservation law.

What would settle it

An experimental demonstration of a scattering-based quantum measurement whose error falls below the derived lower bound, or of a controlled unitary gate whose fidelity exceeds the predicted upper bound set by the observed energy fluctuations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2211.13433 by Masahiro Hotta, Masanao Ozawa, Ryota Katsube.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Conceptual figure of a setting of the swapping operation. The red arrow represents the spin of the photon. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

It is important to improve the accuracy of quantum measurements and operations both in engineering and fundamental physics. It is known, however, that the achievable accuracy of measurements and unitary operations are generally limited by conservation laws according to the Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem (WAY theorem) and its generalizations. Although many researches have extended the WAY theorem quantitatively, most of them, as well as the original WAY theorem, concern only additive conservation laws like the angular momentum conservation law. In this paper, we explore the limitation incurred by the energy conservation law, which is universal but is one of the non-additive conservation laws. We present a lower bound for the error of a quantum measurement using a scattering process satisfying the energy conservation law. We obtain conditions that a control system Hamiltonian must fulfill in order to implement a controlled unitary gate with zero error when a scattering process is considered. We also show the quantitative relationship between the upper bound of the gate fidelity of a controlled unitary gate and the energy fluctuation of systems when a target system and a control system are both one qubit.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims to present a lower bound for the error of a quantum measurement using a scattering process satisfying the energy conservation law. It obtains conditions that a control system Hamiltonian must fulfill in order to implement a controlled unitary gate with zero error when a scattering process is considered. It also shows the quantitative relationship between the upper bound of the gate fidelity of a controlled unitary gate and the energy fluctuation of systems when a target system and a control system are both one qubit.

Significance. This work extends the Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem to non-additive energy conservation laws in the context of scattering-type quantum measurements and operations. The derived bounds and conditions, if rigorously established, offer valuable insights into the fundamental limits imposed by energy conservation, which could inform the development of high-precision quantum technologies. The quantitative fidelity-fluctuation relation for qubit systems is particularly useful as it provides a concrete, testable prediction.

minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract could be expanded slightly to include a brief mention of the key assumptions in the scattering model to aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our manuscript, the accurate summary of its contributions, and the recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives a lower bound on measurement error, Hamiltonian conditions for zero-error controlled unitaries, and a fidelity-energy fluctuation relation, all explicitly scoped to scattering processes obeying energy conservation. These follow from the conservation constraint applied to the scattering model without reduction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. The Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem is invoked only as external background for additive cases, while the non-additive energy case is treated as independently analyzed within the stated assumptions. No quoted steps show a result equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no identifiable free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claims rest on the modeling choice of scattering processes obeying energy conservation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5718 in / 1144 out tokens · 17689 ms · 2026-05-24T10:19:28.041665+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    (40) is provided in appendix D

    The derivation of Eq. (40) is provided in appendix D. In this section, we show that HC must satisfy Eq. (36) and Eq. (38) to implement a non-trivial con- trolled gate whose action is given by Eq.(31) with zero-error using scattering process under energy con- servation law. We also obtain the upper bound of gate fidelity Eq. (40) for a two-qubit controlled...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Next we associate δ2 CC(|ψ⟩) and δ2 TC (|ψ⟩) with the uncertainty relation

    (D19) This expression becomes 0 for θ = π. Next we associate δ2 CC(|ψ⟩) and δ2 TC (|ψ⟩) with the uncertainty relation. The energy conservation law is represented as [U, HT + HC + HA + Hint] = 0, (D20) where HT, HC and HA are the Hamiltonian of T, C and A, respectively, and Hint is the interaction term. From the energy conservation and the triangle inequal...

    work page

  3. [3]

    P. W. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring, in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1994) pp. 124–134

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum com- puter, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1484 (1997)

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quantum computation, Science 279, 342 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    A. Y . Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction, Russ. Math. Surv.52, 1191 (1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate, SIAM J. Comput. 38, 1207 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Fukui, A

    K. Fukui, A. Tomita, A. Okamoto, and K. Fujii, High-threshold fault-tolerant quantum computation with analog quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021054 (2018)

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Schotte, G

    A. Schotte, G. Zhu, L. Burgelman, and F. Verstraete, Quantum error correction thresholds for the universal fibonacci turaev-viro code, Phys. Rev. X12, 021012 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, in Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Computers, Systems & Signal Processing, Bangalore, India, Dec. 9–12, 1984 (IEEE, Indian Institute of Science, 1984) pp. 175–179

    work page 1984

  11. [11]

    Hazumi et al., LiteBIRD: a small satellite for the study of B-mode polarization and inflation from cosmic background radiation detection, in Proc

    M. Hazumi et al., LiteBIRD: a small satellite for the study of B-mode polarization and inflation from cosmic background radiation detection, in Proc. SPIE 8442, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave(SPIE, 2012) pp. 844219-1–844219-9

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    Akrami et al., Planck 2018 results – IV

    Y . Akrami et al., Planck 2018 results – IV. Diffuse component separation, A&A 641, A4 (2020)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Binary black hole mergers in the first advanced LIGO observing run, Phys. Rev. X6, 041015 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    E. P. Wigner, Die Messung quntenmechanischer Operatoren, Z. Phys. 133, 101 (1952)

    work page 1952

  15. [15]

    Araki and M

    H. Araki and M. M. Yanase, Measurement of quantum mechanical operators, Phys. Rev. 120, 622 (1960)

    work page 1960

  16. [16]

    Ozawa, Does a conservation law limit position measurements?, Phys

    M. Ozawa, Does a conservation law limit position measurements?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1956 (1991)

    work page 1956

  17. [17]

    M. Ozawa, Wigner–Araki–Yanase theorem for continuous observables, in Classical and Quantum Systems: Foundations and Symmetries, Proceedings of the II International Wigner Symposium, edited by H. D. Doeb- ner, W. Scherer, and F. Schroeck, Jr (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993) pp. 224–228. 33

    work page 1993

  18. [18]

    Ozawa, Conservation laws, uncertainty relations, and quantum limits of measurements, Phys

    M. Ozawa, Conservation laws, uncertainty relations, and quantum limits of measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 050402 (2002)

    work page 2002

  19. [19]

    J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton UP, Princeton, NJ, 1955) [Originally published: Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Springer, Berlin, 1932)]

    work page 1955

  20. [20]

    M. M. Yanase, Optimal measuring apparatus, Phys. Rev. 123, 666 (1961)

    work page 1961

  21. [21]

    Ozawa, Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement, Phys

    M. Ozawa, Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042105 (2003)

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Ozawa, Uncertainty principle for quantum instruments and computing, Int

    M. Ozawa, Uncertainty principle for quantum instruments and computing, Int. J. Quantum. Inform. 1, 569 (2003)

    work page 2003

  23. [23]

    Ozawa, Conservative quantum computing, Phys

    M. Ozawa, Conservative quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057902 (2002)

    work page 2002

  24. [24]

    Karasawa and M

    T. Karasawa and M. Ozawa, Conservation-law-induced quantum limits for physical realizations of the quan- tum NOT gate, Phys. Rev. A75, 032324 (2007)

    work page 2007

  25. [25]

    Gea-Banacloche, Some implications of the quantum mature of laser fields for quatum computations, Phys

    J. Gea-Banacloche, Some implications of the quantum mature of laser fields for quatum computations, Phys. Rev. A 65, 022308 (2002)

    work page 2002

  26. [26]

    Gea-Banacloche, Minimum energy requirements for quantum computation, Phys

    J. Gea-Banacloche, Minimum energy requirements for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 217901 (2002)

    work page 2002

  27. [27]

    Gea-Banacloche and L

    J. Gea-Banacloche and L. B. Kish, Comparison of energy requirements for classical and quantum information processing, Fluct. Noise Lett. 3, C3 (2003)

    work page 2003

  28. [28]

    Gea-Banacloche and L

    J. Gea-Banacloche and L. B. Kish, Future directions in electronic computing and information processing, Proc. IEEE 93, 1858 (2005)

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    Gea-Banacloche and M

    J. Gea-Banacloche and M. Ozawa, Constraints for quantum logic arising from conservation laws and field fluctuations, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 7, S326 (2005)

    work page 2005

  30. [30]

    Gea-Banacloche and M

    J. Gea-Banacloche and M. Ozawa, Minimum-energy pulses for quantum logic cannot be shared, Phys. Rev. A 74, 060301(R) (2006)

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    Karasawa, J

    T. Karasawa, J. Gea-Banacloche, and M. Ozawa, Gate fidelity of arbitrary single-qubit gates constrained by conservation laws, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 225303 (2009)

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    Tajima and H

    H. Tajima and H. Nagaoka, Coherence-variance uncertainty relation and coherence cost for quantum mea- surement under conservation laws, arXiv:1909.02904 [quant-ph] (2019)

    work page arXiv 1909

  33. [33]

    Tajima, N

    H. Tajima, N. Shiraishi, and K. Saito, Coherence cost for violating conservation laws, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043374 (2020). 34

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum infor- mation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 555 (2007)

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    An information-theoretic account of the Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem

    I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, An information-theoretic account of the Wigner–Araki–Yanase theorem, arXiv:1212.3378 [quant-ph] (2012)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  36. [36]

    Ahmadi, D

    M. Ahmadi, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, The Wigner–Araki–Yanase theorem and the quantum resource theory of asymmetry, New J. Phys. 15, 013057 (2013)

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    Marvian and R

    I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, The theory of manipulations of pure state asymmetry: I. Basic tools, equiva- lence classes and single copy transformations, New J. Phys. 15, 033001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    Åberg, Catalytic coherence, Phys

    J. Åberg, Catalytic coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 150402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    Marvian and R

    I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, No-broadcasting theorem for quantum asymmetry and coherence and a trade- offrelation for approximate broadcasting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 020404 (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Lostaglio and M

    M. Lostaglio and M. P. M ¨uller, Coherence and asymmetry cannot be broadcast, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 020403 (2019)

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Miyadera and L

    T. Miyadera and L. Loveridge, A quantum reference frame size-accuracy trade-o fffor quantum channels, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1638, 012008 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Takagi and H

    R. Takagi and H. Tajima, Universal limitations on implementing resourceful unitary evolutions, Phys. Rev. A 101, 022315 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Commun

    S. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975)

    work page 1975

  44. [44]

    D. N. Page, Average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1291 (1993)

    work page 1993

  45. [45]

    Hayden and J

    P. Hayden and J. Preskill, Black holes as mirrors: quantum information in random subsystems, J. High Energy Phys. 2007 (09), 120

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    Nakata, E

    Y . Nakata, E. Wakakuwa, and M. Koashi, Black holes as clouded mirrors: the Hayden-Preskill protocol with symmetry, arXiv:2007.00895 [quant-ph] (2020)

    work page arXiv 2007

  47. [47]

    Tajima and K

    H. Tajima and K. Saito, Universal limitation of quantum information recovery: symmetry versus coherence, arXiv:2103.01876 [quant-ph] (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Kimura, B

    G. Kimura, B. K. Meister, and M. Ozawa, Quantum limits of measurements induced by multiplicative con- servation laws: Extension of the Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem, Phys. Rev. A 78, 032106 (2008)

    work page 2008

  49. [49]

    Navascu ´es and S

    M. Navascu ´es and S. Popescu, How energy conservation limits our measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 140502 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    Miyadera and H

    T. Miyadera and H. Imai, Strength of interaction for information distribution, Phys. Rev. A74, 064302 (2006). 35

    work page 2006

  51. [51]

    Tukiainen, Wigner-araki-yanase theorem beyond conservation laws, Phys

    M. Tukiainen, Wigner-araki-yanase theorem beyond conservation laws, Phys. Rev. A 95, 012127 (2017)

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    Chiribella, Y

    G. Chiribella, Y . Yang, and R. Renner, Fundamental energy requirement of reversible quantum operations, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021014 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Parikh, F

    M. Parikh, F. Wilczek, and G. Zahariade, Signatures of the quantization of gravity at gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 104, 046021 (2021)

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Parikh, F

    M. Parikh, F. Wilczek, and G. Zahariade, Quantum mechanics of gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 081602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Kanno, J

    S. Kanno, J. Soda, and J. Tokuda, Indirect detection of gravitons through quantum entanglement, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083516 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Hepp, Quantum theory of measurement and macroscopic observables, Helv

    K. Hepp, Quantum theory of measurement and macroscopic observables, Helv. Phys. Acta. 45, 237 (1972)

    work page 1972

  57. [57]

    V . I. Paulsen, Completely Bounded Maps and Dilations, Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics , V ol. 146 (Longman, New York, 1986)

    work page 1986

  58. [58]

    V . P. Belavkin, G. M. D’Ariano, and M. Raginsky, J. Math. Phys.46, 062106 (2005)

    work page 2005

  59. [59]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Programmable quantum gate arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 321 (1997)

    work page 1997