Two-state generator extraction: property currents and a two-layer arrow of time in pre- and post-selected quantum dynamics

Seiki Saito

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Two-state generator extraction: property currents and a two-layer arrow of time in pre- and post-selected quantum dynamics

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Conditioning on past and future splits measured friction into a reversible boundary arrow and an irreversible inference artifact, so the arrow of time has two layers.

desk verdict Clean theorem-plus-numerics paper: the γ_A/γ_S split is real and useful; the portable “both layers reverse under exact derivative” claim is only fully checked for the involution-preserving ensemble at N=8. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26999 v1 pith:OD74H7ZH submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Seiki Saito This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech

keywords weakvaluestwo-statevectorformalismdynamicmodedecompositionarrowoftimequantumCheshirecatpre-andpost-selectionpropertycurrentssmoothing

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

An observer who knows both the start and the end of a quantum run assigns intermediate properties that a purely causal observer never sees. This paper shows those assignments obey an exact reflection symmetry and can be read off trajectory data with the same generator-extraction tools used for ordinary dynamics. Every measured friction splits uniquely into an antisymmetric part fixed by the boundary conditions and a symmetric part injected by the finite-difference estimator; both parts come from the same forward and backward fits. At fixed resolution, coherent modes reverse their arrow at the midpoint while the fluctuation layer does not, because the estimator bias is far larger there—yet with the exact derivative both layers reverse, so the second layer’s immunity is a property of the description, not of the ensemble. The same machinery makes a Cheshire-cat separation of particle and polarization emerge from port-only conditioning as a pair of conservation laws, and the whole structure holds from 256 to a million dimensions.

What carries the argument

Two-state gEDMD plus the reflection involution: because weak values obey dA_w/dt = i⟨[H,A]⟩_w exactly, generator regression applies unchanged and supplies an exact-derivative baseline; the involution then forces the unique split γ_fwd = γ_A + γ_S and makes the physical and inferential arrows operationally separable.

What would settle it

On a reflection-paired ensemble with independent conditioning, check whether the half-window mode friction reverses while the dictionary-layer forward friction stays positive at the stated coarse-graining interval, and whether both reverse when the exact derivative replaces finite differences; failure of the sample-level identity O'_w(t) = ε_O O_w(T−t) to machine precision would kill the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A reflection involution on the pre-/post-selected ensemble forces every window-fitted friction to decompose uniquely as γ_fwd = γ_A + γ_S, with γ_A antisymmetric about the midpoint and carrying the boundary-condition physics of coherent modes, and γ_S symmetric and generated by the differencing scheme; both are obtained from the same data as (γ_fwd ± γ_bwd)/2. At fixed inference resolution the arrow of time therefore has two layers: modes reverse, fluctuations do not, because γ_S is roughly 34 times larger at the fluctuation layer—yet with the exact derivative both reverse. Independently, port-only conditioning on a lattice interferometer produces unimposed Cheshire-cat property currents, wi

Load-bearing premise

The exact symmetry proof needs a real-symmetric Hamiltonian and independently drawn, conjugation-invariant boundary seeds; a complex Hamiltonian or a post-selection built from the evolved state breaks the argument as written.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Whether a conditioned observer sees a reversing arrow is decided by the measurable inequality |γ_A| ≷ γ_S at that layer and resolution, not by interpretation.
The brightest post-selection class sharing the same boundary modulation can be used at large N without changing the physics, removing the exponential overlap obstruction.
Cheshire-cat separation is a dynamical pair of conservation laws readable from trajectories, not only a single-instant assignment.
Apparent friction that scales with the differencing interval and vanishes under the exact derivative is an estimator artifact, not a property of the ensemble.
The same decomposition applies wherever effective dynamics is inferred from trajectories with both-end boundary conditions, including classical fluctuation paths.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Experiments that report friction or dissipation under pre- and post-selection should publish both forward and backward estimators so readers can separate γ_A from γ_S.
The factor-of-two phase response to a local field is a clean weak-measurement signature that could be sought in existing Cheshire-cat neutron or photon setups.
If the sketched time-reversal extension for complex Hamiltonians holds, the two-layer split would apply to systems with magnetic fluxes and driven interferometers.
Self-averaging at large dimension suggests that boundary modulation design matters more than fine subspace structure for scalable two-state inference.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing worth knowing is the operational split. Once you have the reflection involution on independent pre/post ensembles (real-symmetric H, conjugation-invariant seeds), every window-fitted friction decomposes uniquely into antisymmetric boundary physics and symmetric scheme bias, both readable from the same forward/backward pair. That is not just a rewrite of the companion causal-friction story; it is a measurable criterion for when a conditioned arrow reverses. The Cheshire half is also clean: port-only conditioning, separate continuity equations, 2B phase response, rigid imaginary generator shift, particle density frozen to machine precision. No ontology fight required.

Appendix C is short and honest about its hypotheses. Sample-level identities hold at 10^{-14}–10^{-13} out to D=2^{20}. Self-averaging among bright classes that share the boundary modulation is a practical result: it actually removes the 2^{-N/2} obstruction. The factor-of-34 scheme disparity between mode and dictionary layers at fixed Δt_cg is the right way to state the two-layer claim—as degree, not as a metaphysical immunity of fluctuations.

Soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test lands on a real gap, not a quibble: exact-derivative dictionary-layer reversal is shown for the independent class at N=8; the scalable bright classes break measure preservation, and the paper itself flags that combination as the place where conditioning can leave no reversal trace. So the slogan “immunity belongs to the inference, not the ensemble” is fully secured only where the involution holds. Mode-layer reversal under modulation is solid across classes and sizes. Second, half-window depths at N=20 move hard with the ill-conditioned-window threshold q even though the sign is stable—magnitudes are convention-dependent summaries. Code is promised, not shipped. Complex H is left as a sketch.

None of that inverts the central qualitative picture. This is for people who extract effective dynamics from trajectories under two-time boundary conditions—quantum smoothing, weak-value transport, classical fluctuation paths. It deserves a serious referee. I would bring it to reading group and engage; I would not treat the fluctuation-layer exact-derivative slogan as settled for the bright ensembles until that control is run.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces two-state gEDMD, transferring generator extraction to complex weak-value trajectories via the exact identity dA_w/dt = i⟨[H,A]⟩_w. Two main results follow. First, a reflection involution on pre-/post-selected ensembles forces every window-fitted friction to split uniquely as γ_fwd = γ_A + γ_S (antisymmetric boundary-condition part plus symmetric differencing artifact), both measurable as (γ_fwd ± γ_bwd)/2; at fixed inference resolution coherent modes reverse about the midpoint while the fluctuation layer does not, because γ_S is ~34× larger there, yet both reverse under the exact derivative. Second, in a port-conditioned lattice interferometer the Cheshire-cat structure emerges unimposed as separate continuity equations for particle and polarization, with a local field rotating only the polarization phase at exactly 2B and appearing as a rigid imaginary generator shift. The involution identity and two-layer structure are verified from D=2^8 to 2^20, with self-averaging removing the 2^{-N/2} brightness obstruction among classes sharing a boundary modulation.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper supplies an operational, measurable criterion (|γ_A| ≷ γ_S) for when a time-symmetric description exhibits a reversing arrow, separating boundary-condition physics from estimator artifacts. The Appendix C lemma/theorem chain is clean under stated hypotheses; sample-level identities at 10^{-14}–10^{-13} up to D=2^{20}, machine-precision interferometer responses (exact 2B precession, particle density invariant to ~10^{-16}), and the self-averaging route around the overlap obstruction are genuine strengths. The portable methodological half—decompose measured friction before interpreting it as physics—extends beyond the specific models to smoothed estimation and classical fluctuation-path settings. Code availability and labelled numerical checks further raise the evidentiary standard.

major comments (2)

[Sec. IV D, Sec. VI E, Table II, Abstract] The headline claim that fluctuation-layer immunity is a property of the inference (not the ensemble) rests on exact-derivative dictionary-layer friction reversing about the midpoint (Sec. IV D: antisymmetric to 9.6×10^{-13}, half-window averages ±0.274). That control is reported only for the independent, involution-preserving class at N=8. Appendix C and Sec. VI E state that guaranteed antisymmetry of γ_exact requires independent conjugation-invariant seeds and real-symmetric H. The scalable N=20 results (Table II, Fig. 11) use bright classes built from |ψ(T)⟩ that break measure preservation. Sec. IV E already flags that “the dictionary layer of a class that breaks the involution” is “the one place where conditioning leaves no trace of reversal at all,” yet no exact-derivative dictionary-layer run is given for any involution-breaking class at either size (fifth limitation, Sec. VI E). Ei
[Appendix B, Table IV, Table II, Sec. V B] At N=20 the quoted mode-layer reversal depths depend strongly on the post-hoc ill-conditioned-window threshold q. Appendix B, Table IV shows the second-half γ_exact for mask X f=1/16 moving from −0.030 at q=0 to −0.198 at the adopted q=0.15 (and to −0.605 at q=0.30); depths in Table II are therefore convention-dependent summaries even though the sign is stable. The paper already reports threshold-insensitive residuals ρ_A/ρ_S, which is the right diagnostic. The main-text and Table II emphasis should be shifted onto those residuals (and onto P(flip)), with half-window depths clearly labelled as convention-dependent, so that magnitude comparisons across classes and sizes are not over-read.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. IV D, Appendix B] The factor-of-34 comparison of γ_S between layers (Sec. IV D) is quoted at a single Δt_cg=0.04; Appendix B shows γ_S ∝ Δt_cg, so the numerical factor should be stated together with the resolution, as is done for the no-flip inequality elsewhere.
[Fig. 5, Fig. 11] Fig. 5(c)–(d) and Fig. 11 would benefit from an explicit panel or inset of |γ_A|/γ_S versus window center (or versus Δt_cg) so the dominance claim is visible without reading off dashed levels from the text.
[Sec. I] The companion paper [1] is cited as under review (arXiv:2605.05604). For stand-alone readability, a one-paragraph restatement of what causal gEDMD returns (positive forward friction, vanishing time-symmetric friction) would help readers who lack [1].
[Sec. I, Sec. II D] Notation: A_w, (A)_w and ⟨A⟩_w are declared interchangeable, but the text also uses overlines for |g|^2-weighted ensemble means; a short notation table in Appendix A would reduce load.
[Sec. III B] In Sec. III B point 2, P_x is introduced in the same sentence as a warning not to confuse it with the overlap g; breaking that sentence and defining P_x in a displayed equation would help.
[Table III] Table III lists C(Δt_cg) inconsistently across columns (40 / 20 / 10) while physical Δt_cg is 0.4 / 0.04 / 0.04; stating Δt_cg in time units in the table header would avoid misreading.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: equivariance is proved from the involution; the γ_A/γ_S split is then the standard even/odd decomposition, and companion [1] is not required for the new claims.

self definitional [Sec. IV C, Eqs. (3),(16); Appendix C Theorem (unique decomposition)]
"Consequently every measured friction splits uniquely as in Eq. (3), with γ_A = 1/2 (γ_fwd + γ_bwd), γ_S = 1/2 (γ_fwd − γ_bwd), where γ_A(t) = −γ_A(T−t) agrees with the exact-derivative friction ... while γ_S(t) = +γ_S(T−t) is the coarse-graining artifact"

After Lemma 3 establishes γ_fwd(t)=−γ_bwd(T−t), the quoted split is exactly the unique decomposition of any function into antisymmetric plus symmetric parts under t↔T−t. No further dynamical content enters Eqs. (3)/(16). The paper does prove equivariance from the involution rather than assuming the split; the mild circularity is only presentational—treating the automatic even/odd decomposition as a substantive uniqueness theorem beyond the symmetry already shown.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Appendix C proves the reflection involution from stated hypotheses (real-symmetric H, conjugation-invariant independent seeds), then estimator equivariance under that involution, then the unique split γ_fwd = γ_A + γ_S. The only mild self-definitional note is that once γ_fwd(t) = −γ_bwd(T−t) holds, γ_A = (γ_fwd+γ_bwd)/2 and γ_S = (γ_fwd−γ_bwd)/2 are the unique antisymmetric/symmetric parts by linear algebra—not an extra physical input. That is ordinary mathematics, not a fitted or smuggled premise. The exact-derivative identity dA_w/dt = i⟨[H,A]⟩_w is a standard two-state consequence used as a baseline, not fitted. Companion [1] supplies the causal gEDMD/friction backdrop; the involution, two-layer comparison under post-selection, Cheshire continuity/response, and N=20 scaling do not reduce to it or to any fitted parameter renamed as prediction. Cheshire structure and the 2B spectral shift are direct numerical consequences of the port-conditioned dynamics, not ansatz imports. Score 1 only for the presentational elevation of the automatic even/odd split; no step forces the headline physics by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Load-bearing structure is mostly standard quantum mechanics plus data-driven generator regression. The involution theorem needs real-symmetric H and conjugation-invariant independent seeds—domain assumptions the paper states and tests, not hidden. Free parameters (ε, Δt_cg, q, dictionary) affect magnitudes and the no-flip margin but not the algebraic split. No new particles or forces; 'two-layer arrow' and γ_A/γ_S are derived descriptors. Main external dependence is the companion causal-friction/gEDMD pipeline and standard weak-value calculus.

free parameters (5)

boundary modulation strength ε = 0.35 (main); scanned 0.15–0.80
Sets conditioning strength and brightness of the ensemble; fixed at 0.35 for main runs and scanned in [0.15,0.80]. Affects amplitude of γ_m but not reversal presence.
coarse-graining interval Δt_cg = 0.04 (chains); 0.4 (interferometer Table I)
Controls size of scheme component γ_S ∝ Δt_cg; no-flip inequality at fluctuation layer is resolution-dependent by construction. Main many-body value 0.04.
ill-conditioned window threshold q = 0.15
Excludes windows where mode velocity norm falls below q of maximum before averaging γ_m. At N=20 changes second-half averages by large factors (Table IV); sign stable.
dictionary content and size = 29 / 77 elements
Mode layer uses {a,b}; fluctuation layer uses 29 (N=8) or 77 (N=20) hydrodynamic observables. Residual γ_A at fluctuation layer depends on dictionary projection (Fig. 9).
ensemble size M and |g| rejection = M=160 (N=8 paired); 128–320 per class at N=20
Finite-M statistics and |g|<10^{-2} rejection at N=8; reflection-paired sampling used to turn symmetries into machine identities.

assumptions (6)

standard math Weak values of time-independent A under shared unitary evolution obey dA_w/dt = i⟨[H,A]⟩_w exactly with constant overlap g.
Sec. II A; standard two-state-vector calculus. Supplies the exact-derivative baseline.
domain assumption Hamiltonian is real symmetric in the computational basis (H^*=H=H^T), so propagators satisfy U(t)^T=U(t).
Appendix C hypothesis (i); required for sample identity of the involution. Broken by complex hoppings/Peierls phases (Sec. VI E).
domain assumption Pre- and post-selection seeds are i.i.d. from a conjugation-invariant measure; independent class draws φ_T independently of ψ.
Appendix C hypothesis (ii) and Eq. (6); needed for measure preservation of R. Future-consistent classes break it and lose antisymmetry protection.
standard math Window-fitting estimators (mode OLS and truncated POD least squares) are fixed linear-algebraic maps of the trajectory segment, equivariant under time reversal of the segment.
Lemma 3, Appendix C; converts ensemble involution into γ_fwd(t)=−γ_bwd(T−t).
domain assumption Markovian truncation of Mori–Zwanzig / finite dictionary gEDMD yields a meaningful reduced generator for the chosen observables.
Sec. II C and companion [1]; standard modeling closure. Does not affect the algebraic split but affects what 'friction' means physically.
domain assumption Observables in the dictionary have definite reflection signatures O^*=ε_O O (time-even densities, time-odd currents).
Appendix C hypothesis (iii); closes the sample-level identity for each dictionary element.

invented entities (2)

two-state gEDMD independent evidence
purpose: Name for applying generator EDMD unchanged to complex weak-value trajectories using the exact weak-value derivative as baseline.
Methodological packaging rather than a new physical entity; content is standard regression plus the weak-value identity. No independent ontological commitment.
two-layer arrow of time (γ_A vs γ_S dominance) independent evidence
purpose: Describes opposite reversal behavior of coherent-mode vs fluctuation-layer friction at fixed differencing resolution.
Derived corollary of the involution plus resolution-dependent scheme bias, not a postulated new law. Falsifiable by measuring (γ_fwd±γ_bwd)/2 at both layers.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-state generator extraction: property currents and a two-layer arrow of time in pre- and post-selected quantum dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OD74H7ZH

@misc{pith2026260726999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-state generator extraction: property currents and a two-layer arrow of time in pre- and post-selected quantum dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OD74H7ZH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26999}
}

abstract

Conditioning on both past and future assigns intermediate-time properties a causal observer does not; these time-symmetric assignments obey exact symmetry theorems and are measurable from trajectories. We use two-state generator extended dynamic mode decomposition (gEDMD): because weak values obey $dA_w/dt=i\langle[H,A]\rangle_w$ exactly, generator extraction, with an exact-derivative baseline, applies unchanged to them. First, a reflection involution on the pre-/post-selected ensemble splits every window-fitted friction uniquely as $\gamma_{fwd}=\gamma_A+\gamma_S$: $\gamma_A$, antisymmetric about the midpoint, carries the modes' boundary-condition physics; $\gamma_S$, symmetric, comes from the differencing scheme; both follow from the same data as $(\gamma_{fwd}\pm\gamma_{bwd})/2$. At a fixed inference resolution the arrow of time has two layers: the coherent-mode arrow reverses at the midpoint, the fluctuation-level one does not, $\gamma_S$ dominating $\gamma_A$ at every size and class. The difference is one of degree: $\gamma_S$ is 34 times larger there than at the mode layer, and with the exact derivative both layers reverse: immunity belongs to the inference, not the ensemble. Second, in a lattice interferometer conditioned only at its ports, the quantum Cheshire-cat structure emerges unimposed: particle and polarization obey separate continuity equations, and a local field in the polarization-carrying arm rotates that phase alone, at exactly twice the field strength, entering the generator as a rigid imaginary shift, while the particle's weak density stays invariant to machine precision. We verify the sample-level identity and the two layers from $2^8$ to $2^{20}$ dimensions: $|\gamma_A|/\gamma_S=0.09$ to $0.27$ across five classes; self-averaging makes it insensitive to class among those sharing a boundary modulation, removing the $2^{-N/2}$ overlap obstruction for $N$ qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26999 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

The particle’s weak density is unchanged to 2.2× 10−16
[2]

(1), the total polarization amplitude in arm D, advances at rate exactly 2B(measured +0.30000 forB= 0.15)

The polarization’s phaseθ≡argP x, withP x =P i∈D (σxni)w, not to be confused with the overlap gof Eq. (1), the total polarization amplitude in arm D, advances at rate exactly 2B(measured +0.30000 forB= 0.15). The factor of two is a two-state effect:|ψ⟩and|φ⟩carry oppositeσ z eigenvalues on rail D and accumulate the phase from both the past and the future boundary
[3]

The rate encodes the present field, the offset the future one

Before the field is switched on, the phase is already offset by−BW; with the field in arm U the offset is +BWand the rate is exactly zero (−1.6×10 −17). The rate encodes the present field, the offset the future one
[4]

cat”) density, confined to arm U. (d) Conditioned polarization (“grin

The response is invisible in the causal description (3.1×10 −15) and in the post-selection probability |g|2. In the language of Sec. II B, the field enters as a source in theproperty’s ownconservation law, d dt (σxni)w =−∇·(j σx )w −2B(σ yni)w ,(9) where (jσx )w is the polarization current, i.e. Eq. (4) with S=σ x, and∇ ·the lattice divergence− P j of Eq....

2001
[5]

S. Saito, Temporal coarse-graining as the origin of macro- scopic friction in quantum spin chains via data-driven liouvillian extraction (2026), under review at Physical Review Research, arXiv:2605.05604 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2026
[6]

Aharonov, P

Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann, and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev.134, B1410 (1964)

1964
[7]

Aharonov, D

Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1351 (1988)

1988
[8]

Tsang, Phys

M. Tsang, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 250403 (2009)

2009

Show all 33 references

[9]

Gammelmark, B

S. Gammelmark, B. Julsgaard, and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 160401 (2013)

2013
[10]

Chantasri, I

A. Chantasri, I. Guevara, K. T. Laverick, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rep.930, 1 (2021)

2021
[11]

Aharonov, S

Y. Aharonov, S. Popescu, D. Rohrlich, and P. Skrzypczyk, New J. Phys.15, 113015 (2013)

2013
[12]

Denkmayr, H

T. Denkmayr, H. Geppert, S. Sponar, H. Lemmel, A. Matzkin, J. Tollaksen, and Y. Hasegawa, Nat. Com- mun.5, 4492 (2014)

2014
[13]

Aharonov, E

Y. Aharonov, E. Cohen, and S. Popescu, A current of the cheshire cat’s smile: Dynamical analysis of weak values (2015), arXiv:1510.03087 [quant-ph]

2015 arXiv
[14]

Aharonov, E

Y. Aharonov, E. Cohen, and S. Popescu, Nat. Commun. 12, 4770 (2021)

2021
[15]

Corrˆ ea, M

R. Corrˆ ea, M. F. Santos, C. H. Monken, and P. L. Sal- 21 danha, New J. Phys.17, 053042 (2015)

2015
[16]

Duprey, S

Q. Duprey, S. Kanjilal, U. Sinha, D. Home, and A. Matzkin, Ann. Phys.391, 1 (2018)

2018
[17]

J. R. Hance, J. Ladyman, and J. Rarity, New J. Phys. 26, 073038 (2024)

2024
[18]

J. R. Hance, M. Ji, and H. F. Hofmann, New J. Phys. 25, 113028 (2023)

2023
[19]

Liu, W.-W

Z.-H. Liu, W.-W. Pan, X.-Y. Xu, M. Yang, J. Zhou, Z.- Y. Luo, K. Sun, J.-L. Chen, J.-S. Xu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Nat. Commun.11, 3006 (2020)

2020
[20]

Waegell, J

M. Waegell, J. Tollaksen, and Y. Aharonov, Quantum8, 1536 (2024)

2024
[21]

M. O. Williams, I. G. Kevrekidis, and C. W. Rowley, J. Nonlinear Sci.25, 1307 (2015)

2015
[22]

S. Klus, F. N¨ uske, P. Koltai, H. Wu, I. Kevrekidis, C. Sch¨ utte, and F. No´ e, J. Nonlinear Sci.28, 985 (2018)

2018
[23]

S. Klus, F. N¨ uske, S. Peitz, J.-H. Niemann, C. Clementi, and C. Sch¨ utte, Physica D406, 132416 (2020)

2020
[24]

Mori, Prog

H. Mori, Prog. Theor. Phys.33, 423 (1965)

1965
[25]

Zwanzig, J

R. Zwanzig, J. Stat. Phys.9, 215 (1973)

1973
[26]

H. M. Wiseman, New J. Phys.9, 165 (2007)

2007
[27]

Kocsis, B

S. Kocsis, B. Braverman, S. Ravets, M. J. Stevens, R. P. Mirin, L. K. Shalm, and A. M. Steinberg, Science332, 1170 (2011)

2011
[28]

J. M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991)
[29]

Srednicki, Phys

M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994)

1994
[30]

Rigol, V

M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Nature452, 854 (2008)

2008
[31]

Bertini, F

B. Bertini, F. Heidrich-Meisner, C. Karrasch, T. Prosen, R. Steinigeweg, and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025003 (2021)

2021
[32]

T. Guff, C. U. Shastry, and A. Rocco, Sci. Rep.15, 3658 (2025)

2025
[33]

Onsager and S

L. Onsager and S. Machlup, Phys. Rev.91, 1505 (1953)

1953

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The particle’s weak density is unchanged to 2.2× 10−16

[2] [2]

(1), the total polarization amplitude in arm D, advances at rate exactly 2B(measured +0.30000 forB= 0.15)

The polarization’s phaseθ≡argP x, withP x =P i∈D (σxni)w, not to be confused with the overlap gof Eq. (1), the total polarization amplitude in arm D, advances at rate exactly 2B(measured +0.30000 forB= 0.15). The factor of two is a two-state effect:|ψ⟩and|φ⟩carry oppositeσ z eigenvalues on rail D and accumulate the phase from both the past and the future boundary

[3] [3]

The rate encodes the present field, the offset the future one

Before the field is switched on, the phase is already offset by−BW; with the field in arm U the offset is +BWand the rate is exactly zero (−1.6×10 −17). The rate encodes the present field, the offset the future one

[4] [4]

cat”) density, confined to arm U. (d) Conditioned polarization (“grin

The response is invisible in the causal description (3.1×10 −15) and in the post-selection probability |g|2. In the language of Sec. II B, the field enters as a source in theproperty’s ownconservation law, d dt (σxni)w =−∇·(j σx )w −2B(σ yni)w ,(9) where (jσx )w is the polarization current, i.e. Eq. (4) with S=σ x, and∇ ·the lattice divergence− P j of Eq....

2001

[5] [5]

S. Saito, Temporal coarse-graining as the origin of macro- scopic friction in quantum spin chains via data-driven liouvillian extraction (2026), under review at Physical Review Research, arXiv:2605.05604 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2026

[6] [6]

Aharonov, P

Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann, and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev.134, B1410 (1964)

1964

[7] [7]

Aharonov, D

Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1351 (1988)

1988

[8] [8]

Tsang, Phys

M. Tsang, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 250403 (2009)

2009