Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Quantum reference frames mean measurements by a lab whose position can be superposed, and those outcomes can be broadcast without collapsing the superposition.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 02:37 UTC pith:I7D7OLPF

load-bearing objection Clean conceptual clarification of perspectival QRFs: spells out the superposed-lab reading, cleanly separates it from Wigner's friend, and gives a correct elementary broadcast protocol. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03417 v1 pith:I7D7OLPF submitted 2026-07-03 quant-ph

Specifying the operational meaning of quantum reference frames

Augustin Vanrietvelde This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum reference framesoperational meaningposition-superposed labmeasurement broadcastingWigner's friendrole-play of superposed framesquantum foundations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper specifies what it means operationally to talk about quantum reference frames of spatial position: the quantities described from such a frame are those that would be measured inside a laboratory whose absolute position may be in superposition. The author builds the idea from single particles up to planet-scale systems that remain superposed in centre-of-mass position while their internal degrees of freedom perform ordinary measurements and record definite outcomes. Those position-superposed observers are sharply distinguished from the outcome-superposed observers of Wigner's-friend scenarios; in particular, their measurement results can be copied out to a well-localised agent without decohering the original position superposition. The paper also argues that, under ordinary physical assumptions, such superposed labs can be role-played from ordinary classical labs, so that predictions about quantum frames can be tested without waiting for macroscopic superpositions. A sympathetic reader cares because this makes the strongest claims of the quantum-reference-frame programme concrete and experimentally approachable rather than merely formal.

Core claim

Physical quantities described from within a quantum reference frame of spatial position are the ones that would be measured by measurements performed within a corresponding lab whose absolute position may be superposed. Such a lab stores outcomes in registers that are themselves position-superposed, yet those outcomes remain definite in the registers' internal states and can be broadcast to a well-localised agent without collapsing the lab's position superposition; the construction therefore raises no greater interpretive difficulty than ordinary quantum measurement and is free of the characteristic Wigner's-friend paradoxes.

What carries the argument

The controlled two-step copying protocol: an external register is brought first next to one possible location of the superposed lab and then next to the other, each time interacting so that the lab's internal outcome is copied only if the lab is present; after both steps the external register holds a definite copy of the outcome while remaining unentangled with the lab's absolute position.

Load-bearing premise

There is no fundamental size limit that would prevent a macroscopic system from remaining in a controlled spatial superposition while its internal degrees of freedom perform measurements.

What would settle it

A concrete calculation or experiment showing that any interaction capable of copying an internal measurement outcome from a position-superposed lab necessarily entangles that outcome with absolute position (or decoheres the superposition) would refute the broadcasting claim; conversely, laboratory demonstration of the two-location copy protocol on a mesoscopic system would support it.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Position-superposed laboratories can send measurement records to ordinary, well-localised agents (or to infinity) while remaining superposed, so their results are ordinary public data.
  • Quantum reference frames of position are free of the characteristic paradoxes that afflict outcome-superposed observers.
  • Under standard physical assumptions, predictions of quantum-frame theories can be checked by ordinary measurements performed in classical labs that role-play the superposed frame.
  • The same operational reading extends, with stated caveats, to quantum frames for velocity, orientation and (with further work) time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the broadcasting protocol works for position, analogous controlled interactions may allow other internal quantum-frame degrees of freedom (spin, clock readings) to be exported without destroying the frame superposition.
  • The role-play argument implies that existing mesoscopic interference experiments already supply partial empirical content for quantum-frame transformation rules, once the relevant physical equivalences are fixed.
  • Making the operational meaning of position frames precise clarifies which parts of the larger quantum-reference-frame programme can be tested before full macroscopic superpositions exist.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper specifies an operational meaning for quantum reference frames (QRFs) of spatial position: quantities described from within a QRF are those measured by a laboratory whose absolute position may be superposed. It constructs this notion by scaling from a single particle to a planet-scale system whose centre-of-mass position remains coherent while internal degrees of freedom (including measurement registers) evolve and can decohere. It argues that such position-superposed observers raise no greater interpretive difficulty than ordinary measurements, that their registers are themselves position-superposed yet still encode definite outcomes in their internal states (Section 3.1 and Appendix A), that those outcomes can be broadcast to a well-localised agent without collapsing the position superposition via a two-step copy protocol (Section 3.2, eqs. 6–10), and that this distinguishes them from outcome-superposed Wigner’s-friend observers. It further defends the possibility of role-playing a QRF from a classical frame by analogy with early tests of relativistic time dilation (Section 3.3).

Significance. If the operational reading is accepted, the paper supplies a clear, non-exotic target for what QRF formalisms are supposed to describe, and it cleanly separates position-superposed observers from the more paradoxical outcome-superposed observers of Wigner’s-friend scenarios. The constructive broadcast protocol is a concrete, elementary result that shows measurement outcomes obtained inside a QRF need not remain internal. The role-play argument, if sound, lowers the experimental bar for testing QRF predictions. These contributions are conceptual rather than technical, but they address a genuine source of ambiguity and criticism in the literature and could serve as a useful prerequisite for more ambitious claims about covariance under QRF transformations.

major comments (2)
  1. Section 2.1 and footnote 6: the planet-scale construction that makes the operational meaning vivid rests on the working hypothesis that there is no fundamental size limit on macroscopic spatial superpositions (e.g., from unscreenable gravitational decoherence). The paper flags this honestly, and the narrower technical claims (register analysis, broadcast protocol, distinction from Wigner’s friend) do not require planet-scale systems. Still, the manuscript would be stronger if it stated more explicitly which of its conclusions survive under a finite coherence-size bound, so that readers who reject the unrestricted premise can still extract the load-bearing results.
  2. Section 3.2, eqs. (6)–(10): the two-step copy protocol is correct under the stated idealizations (Eve knows the support of Alice’s position superposition; interactions are perfectly position-selective and leave no residual entanglement). A short remark on robustness—e.g., imperfect localization of the interaction or residual which-path information—would make the claim that outcomes “may be broadcast \ldots without decohering the superposition” more precise for experimental or foundational readers.
minor comments (4)
  1. Introduction and Section 2.3: the phrase “quantum reference frame of a particle” is helpfully clarified as a shortcut; a single sentence cross-referencing the analogous usage in special-relativity textbooks would make the parallel even clearer.
  2. Section 3.1: the density-matrix form (5) is written with a pure-state ket on the left-hand side; a pure density-matrix notation would avoid a minor notational inconsistency.
  3. Appendix A: the trading of absolute-position reference is standard and useful; a brief pointer to the literature on centre-of-mass vs. relative coordinates would help non-specialist readers.
  4. References: a few recent works that already discuss operational or perspectival aspects of QRFs (beyond those cited) could be added for completeness, but this is not essential.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: operational meaning is stipulated and defended; broadcast protocol and Wigner distinction are independent constructive arguments.

full rationale

This is a conceptual paper that stipulates an operational reading of QRFs (measurements by a lab whose absolute position may be superposed) and then defends it and draws consequences. There is no parameter fitting, no prediction that is forced by a fit, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the author's prior work that forces the conclusion. The broadcast protocol (Section 3.2, eqs. 6–10) is an elementary constructive two-step interaction that does not reduce to its inputs by definition; the distinction from Wigner's-friend observers follows from locating the Heisenberg cut on internal registers rather than on outcomes. Self-citations (e.g. to Giacomini et al. and to the author's earlier QRF papers) are used only as background for the existing QRF literature, not as load-bearing premises that make the operational claim true by construction. The working hypothesis of no fundamental size limit on macroscopic superpositions is stated explicitly and is not smuggled into the protocol. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum mechanics plus three domain-level assumptions: that absolute position can remain factorized from internal degrees of freedom under controlled interactions, that there is no fundamental size limit on spatial superpositions, and that measurement outcomes are encoded in internal register states rather than in absolute position. No free parameters are fitted. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced; 'position-superposed lab' is a composite of ordinary quantum systems.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics: composite systems admit tensor-product Hilbert spaces and unitary interactions that can copy internal register states conditionally on spatial proximity.
    Used throughout Sections 2-3 and in the intermediate and final states of the broadcast protocol (Eqs. 6-10).
  • domain assumption Absolute centre-of-mass position can remain uncorrelated with internal degrees of freedom under suitably controlled external interactions (or perfect shielding).
    Stated in Section 2.1 as the condition that keeps the state of the form (2) or (3); required for the lab to stay 'superposed' while measuring.
  • domain assumption No fundamental upper bound on the size of spatial superpositions (gravitational or other decoherence does not force collapse at macroscopic scales).
    Explicitly adopted in Section 2.1 and footnote 6; without it the planet-scale construction fails.
  • domain assumption A measurement outcome is encoded in the internal state of a register, not in the register's absolute spatial position; collapse of the internal state need not collapse absolute position.
    Core of Section 3.1; allows the paper to claim that position-superposed registers still hold definite outcomes.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17472 in / 2724 out tokens · 19937 ms · 2026-07-12T02:37:22.052826+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In their strongest usage, quantum reference frames have been described as referring to "the measurements performed by a superposed lab", "the perspective of a quantum particle", "the point of view of a superposed observer", etc. While exciting, these operational proposals have remained brief and ambiguous, leading to misinterpretations and criticism. Here, we provide a detailed specification and defense of the notion of a position-superposed lab or observer. We argue that this requires no exotic claims about quantum physics and raises no greater interpretive difficulty than ordinary quantum measurements. We then derive several consequences of taking this operational meaning seriously. We stress that the position-superposed observers that define quantum references frames are different from, and considerably less problematic than, the outcome-superposed observers considered in Wigners' friend scenarios. In particular, we show that outcomes obtained by a position-superposed observer may (without decohering the superposition) be broadcast to a well-localised one, in contrast with Wigner's friend scenarios, which require the outcomes to remain internal to the system at hand. Finally, we defend the possibility to roleplay a quantum reference frame from a classical reference frame.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames,

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and ˇC. Brukner, “Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames,”Nature Communications 10no. 1, (2019) 494,arXiv:1712.07207 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Physics within a quantum reference frame,

    R. M. Angelo, N. Brunner, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and P. Skrzypczyk, “Physics within a quantum reference frame,”Journal of Physics A44no. 14, (2011) 145304, arXiv:1007.2292 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Relativistic Quantum Reference Frames: The Operational Meaning of Spin,

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and ˇC. Brukner, “Relativistic Quantum Reference Frames: The Operational Meaning of Spin,”Phys. Rev. Lett.123no. 9, (2019) 090404,arXiv:1811.08228 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    The group structure of dynamical transformations between quantum reference frames,

    A. Ballesteros, F. Giacomini, and G. Gubitosi, “The group structure of dynamical transformations between quantum reference frames,”Quantum5(2021) 470, arXiv:2012.15769 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Spacetime Quantum Reference Frames and superpositions of proper times,

    F. Giacomini, “Spacetime Quantum Reference Frames and superpositions of proper times,”Quantum5(2021) 508,arXiv:2101.11628 [quant-ph]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Relative subsystems and quantum reference frame transformations,

    E. Castro-Ruiz and O. Oreshkov, “Relative subsystems and quantum reference frame transformations,”Communications Physics8no. 1, (2025) 187, arXiv:2110.13199 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Communicating without shared reference frames,

    A. R. H. Smith, “Communicating without shared reference frames,”Physical Review A99(2019) 052315,arXiv:1812.08053 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    The resource theory of quantum reference frames: manipulations and monotones,

    R. W. Spekkens and G. Gour, “The resource theory of quantum reference frames: manipulations and monotones,”New Journal of Physics.10no. 3, (2008) 033023, arXiv:0711.0043 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    Measuring the quality of a quantum reference frame: The relative entropy of frameness,

    G. Gour, I. Marvian, and R. W. Spekkens, “Measuring the quality of a quantum reference frame: The relative entropy of frameness,”Physical Review A80no. 1, (2009) 012307,arXiv:0901.0943 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  10. [10]

    Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information,

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, “Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information,”Reviews of Modern Physics79(2007) 555–609, arXiv:quant-ph/0610030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  11. [11]

    Relativity of quantum states and observables,

    L. Loveridge, P. Busch, and T. Miyadera, “Relativity of quantum states and observables,”Europhysics Letters117no. 4, (2017) 40004,arXiv:1604.02836 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Symmetry, Reference Frames, and Relational Quantities in Quantum Mechanics,

    L. Loveridge, T. Miyadera, and P. Busch, “Symmetry, Reference Frames, and Relational Quantities in Quantum Mechanics,”Foundations of Physics48no. 2, (2018) 135–198,arXiv:1703.10434 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Operational Quantum Reference Frame Transformations,

    T. Carette, J. G lowacki, and L. Loveridge, “Operational Quantum Reference Frame Transformations,”Quantum9(2025) 1680,arXiv:2303.14002 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Quantum Reference Frames on Finite Homogeneous Spaces,

    J. G lowacki, L. Loveridge, and J. Waldron, “Quantum Reference Frames on Finite Homogeneous Spaces,”International Journal of Theoretical Physics63no. 5, (2024) 137,arXiv:2302.05354 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    A change of perspective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework,

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn, F. Giacomini, and E. Castro-Ruiz, “A change of perspective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework,”Quantum4(2020) 225,arXiv:1809.00556 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Quantum reference frames for general symmetry groups,

    A.-C. de la Hamette and T. D. Galley, “Quantum reference frames for general symmetry groups,”Quantum4(2020) 367,arXiv:2004.14292 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general symmetry groups,

    A.-C. de la Hamette, T. D. Galley, P. A. Hoehn, L. Loveridge, and M. P. Mueller, “Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general symmetry groups,”arXiv:2110.13824 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Trinity of relational quantum dynamics,

    P. A. Hoehn, A. R. H. Smith, and M. P. E. Lock, “Trinity of relational quantum dynamics,”Physical Review D104no. 6, (2021) 066001,arXiv:1912.00033 [quant-ph]. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Internal quantum reference frames for finite Abelian groups,

    P. A. Hoehn, M. Krumm, and M. P. Mueller, “Internal quantum reference frames for finite Abelian groups,”Journal of Mathematical Physics63no. 11, (2022) 112207,arXiv:2107.07545 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Quantum reference frame transformations as symmetries and the paradox of the third particle,

    M. Krumm, P. A. Hoehn, and M. P. Mueller, “Quantum reference frame transformations as symmetries and the paradox of the third particle,”Quantum5 (2021) 530,arXiv:2011.01951 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Quantum Frame Relativity of Subsystems, Correlations and Thermodynamics,

    P. A. Hoehn, I. Kotecha, and F. M. Mele, “Quantum Frame Relativity of Subsystems, Correlations and Thermodynamics,”arXiv:2308.09131 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Interpreting quantum reference frame transformations through a simple example,

    E. Castro-Ruiz, T. D. Galley, and L. Loveridge, “Interpreting quantum reference frame transformations through a simple example,”arXiv:2508.09540 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  23. [23]

    What can we do in a symmetry-constrained perspective? The importance of the total charge’s status in quantum reference frame frameworks,

    G. Doat and A. Vanrietvelde, “What can we do in a symmetry-constrained perspective? The importance of the total charge’s status in quantum reference frame frameworks,”Quantum10(2026) 2126,arXiv:2510.13607 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Watching the Clocks: Interpreting the Page–Wootters Formalism and the Internal Quantum Reference Frame Programme,

    E. Adlam, “Watching the Clocks: Interpreting the Page–Wootters Formalism and the Internal Quantum Reference Frame Programme,”Found. Phys.52no. 5, (2022) 99,arXiv:2203.06755 [physics.hist-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Relational superposition measurements with a material quantum ruler,

    H. Wang, F. Giacomini, F. Nori, and M. P. Blencowe, “Relational superposition measurements with a material quantum ruler,”Quantum8(2024) 1335, arXiv:2306.00347 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Quantum switch in the gravity of Earth,

    N. S. M´ oller, B. Sahdo, and N. Yokomizo, “Quantum switch in the gravity of Earth,”Physical Review A104no. 4, (2021) 042414,arXiv:2012.03989 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Time-delocalized quantum subsystems and operations: on the existence of processes with indefinite causal structure in quantum mechanics,

    O. Oreshkov, “Time-delocalized quantum subsystems and operations: on the existence of processes with indefinite causal structure in quantum mechanics,” Quantum3(2019) 206,arXiv:1801.07594 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Indefinite causal order and quantum coordinates,

    A.-C. de la Hamette, V. Kabel, M. Christodoulou, and ˇC. Brukner, “Indefinite causal order and quantum coordinates,”Physical Review Letters135(2025) 141402,arXiv:2211.15685 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Causal structure in the presence of sectorial constraints, with application to the quantum switch,

    N. Ormrod, A. Vanrietvelde, and J. Barrett, “Causal structure in the presence of sectorial constraints, with application to the quantum switch,”Quantum7(June,

  30. [30]

    Events and their Localisation are Relative to a Lab,

    V. Vilasini, L.-Q. Chen, L. Ye, and R. Renner, “Events and their Localisation are Relative to a Lab,”arXiv:2505.21797 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Frame perspectives for process matrices: from coordinate parametrization to spacetime representation,

    L. Apadula, A. Grinbaum, and ˇC. Brukner, “Frame perspectives for process matrices: from coordinate parametrization to spacetime representation,” arXiv:2604.02873 [quant-ph]. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Soft edges: the many links between soft and edge modes,

    G. Araujo-Regado, P. A. Hoehn, F. Sartini, and B. Tomova, “Soft edges: the many links between soft and edge modes,”Journal of High Energy Physics07(2025) 180, arXiv:2412.14548 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Edge modes as reference frames and boundary actions from post-selection,

    S. Carrozza and P. A. Hoehn, “Edge modes as reference frames and boundary actions from post-selection,”Journal of High Energy Physics02(2022) 172, arXiv:2109.06184 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Edge modes as dynamical frames: charges from post-selection in generally covariant theories,

    S. Carrozza, S. Eccles, and P. A. Hoehn, “Edge modes as dynamical frames: charges from post-selection in generally covariant theories,”SciPost Physics17 no. 2, (2024) 048,arXiv:2205.00913 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Quantum reference frames at the boundary of spacetime,

    V. Kabel, ˇC. Brukner, and W. Wieland, “Quantum reference frames at the boundary of spacetime,”Physical Review D108no. 10, (2023) 106022, arXiv:2302.11629 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Quantum Superposition of Massive Objects and the Quantization of Gravity,

    A. Belenchia, R. M. Wald, F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, ˇC. Brukner, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Quantum Superposition of Massive Objects and the Quantization of Gravity,”Physical Review D98no. 12, (2018) 126009,arXiv:1807.07015 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Quantum conformal symmetries for spacetimes in superposition,

    V. Kabel, A.-C. de la Hamette, E. Castro-Ruiz, and ˇC. Brukner, “Quantum conformal symmetries for spacetimes in superposition,”Quantum8(2024) 1547, arXiv:2207.00021 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Quantum coordinates, localisation of events, and the quantum hole argument,

    V. Kabel, A.-C. de la Hamette, L. Apadula, C. Cepollaro, H. Gomes, J. Butterfield, and ˇC. Brukner, “Quantum coordinates, localisation of events, and the quantum hole argument,”Communications Physics8no. 1, (2025) 185,arXiv:2402.10267 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Quantum generalisation of Einstein’s equivalence principle can be verified with entangled clocks as quantum reference frames,

    C. Cepollaro and F. Giacomini, “Quantum generalisation of Einstein’s equivalence principle can be verified with entangled clocks as quantum reference frames,” Classical and Quantum Gravity41no. 18, (2024) 185009,arXiv:2112.03303 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Quantum Effects in Gravity Beyond the Newton Potential from a Delocalized Quantum Source,

    L.-Q. Chen and F. Giacomini, “Quantum Effects in Gravity Beyond the Newton Potential from a Delocalized Quantum Source,”Physical Review X15no. 3, (2025) 031063,arXiv:2402.10288 [quant-ph]. A Trading one absolute position of reference for an- other In equations such as (2), we describe our systems in a way that splits their degrees of freedom between the a...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025