Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A measurement is a projective observable exactly when two observers always agree on its outcome at every resolution.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 19:36 UTC pith:2RJWMVG5

load-bearing objection Solid GPT result giving an operational characterization of PVMs via complete intersubjectivity; the classicality theorem is finite-dimensional despite the abstract's unqualified claim, and two proof steps need tightening, but the core is sound and worth refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.01575 v2 pith:2RJWMVG5 submitted 2026-03-02 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Intersubjectivity as a principle determining physical observables and non-classicality

Shun Umekawa , Koki Ono , Hayato Arai This is my paper
classification quant-ph math-phmath.MP
keywords intersubjectivitycomplete intersubjectivityprojective measurementsPOVMsgeneralized probabilistic theoriessharpnesscoarse-grainingclassicality
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 sets out to find an operational principle that singles out projective measurements (PVMs) — the traditional 'physical observables' — from the wider class of positive-operator-valued measures (POVMs). It claims that the principle is complete intersubjectivity: a measurement is a PVM exactly when two observers performing it simultaneously are guaranteed to obtain the same outcome and this guarantee survives every coarse-graining of the outcomes. It further claims that, in finite-dimensional general probabilistic theories, a system is classical if and only if every intersubjective measurement on it remains intersubjective under coarse-graining. If the claims hold, physical observables acquire a purely operational definition, and non-classicality is characterized by the way objective agreement can be lost when measurement resolution is reduced. The paper also quantifies the principle, computing the guaranteed agreement probability for coin-tossing, classical, and qubit measurements, and shows that intersubjective measurements suffice for state tomography and optimal state discrimination.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is a pair of characterizations. In quantum theory, a POVM is a PVM if and only if it is completely intersubjective: every coarse-graining (merged outcome setting) is intersubjective, meaning the only joint measurement of the measurement with itself is the one in which both observers always read the same outcome. The proof uses an equivalence the authors establish between intersubjectivity and sharpness of effects — a measurement is sharp when no nonzero effect lies below two distinct outcome effects — and the fact that sharp effects in quantum theory are projections. In finite-dimensional general probabilistic theories, a system is classical if and onl

What carries the argument

The central object is complete intersubjectivity: a measurement for which the measurement and every coarse-graining are intersubjective, where a measurement is intersubjective when any joint implementation with itself gives identical outcomes to two simultaneous observers (equivalently, its only self-joint measurement is the 'agree always' one). The workhorse is the equivalence between intersubjectivity and sharpness: a measurement is sharp if no nonzero effect can be simultaneously bounded above by two distinct outcome effects; sharp effects are the generalization of projection operators. The proof structure also uses indecomposable effects (the extremal rays of the effect cone) and the str

Load-bearing premise

The classicality characterization depends on cited structural facts about sharp effects and about decomposing the constant effect into indecomposable effects in a particular exact way, and if those facts fail the theorem's conclusion collapses.

What would settle it

Find a qubit POVM that passes the complete-intersubjectivity test but is not a PVM, or find a finite-dimensional non-classical system in which every intersubjective measurement is completely intersubjective; either would refute the paper's two central theorems.

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

If this is right

  • In quantum theory, complete intersubjectivity becomes an operational definition of a physical observable, matching the algebraic definition of a projection-valued measure.
  • In any non-classical theory, there exist measurements whose outcome agreement is guaranteed only at full resolution; merging outcomes can destroy the observers' consensus.
  • Classical theories are exactly those in which intersubjectivity is never destroyed by coarse-graining, giving a new operational test for classicality.
  • The α-intersubjectivity value supplies a quantitatively interpretable 'observable-likeness' or 'noiselessness' measure for measurements, with simple closed-form expressions.
  • Intersubjective measurements are abundant enough to support state tomography and single-shot state discrimination in every general probabilistic theory.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If complete intersubjectivity is taken as the definition of an observable in arbitrary probabilistic theories, it may become a tool for deriving or constraining theories from an 'observer agreement' axiom, possibly linking to axiomatic reconstructions of quantum theory.
  • The resolution-dependent loss of agreement resembles contextuality; a resource-theoretic formulation in which complete intersubjectivity measures 'sharpness resources' seems a natural next step, though the paper does not pursue it.
  • An empirical test: implement a qubit POVM known to be intersubjective but not projective, coarse-grain two of its outcomes, and check whether two detectors disagree more often than the projective bound; the paper's formulas predict where the divergence appears.
  • The classicality theorem is proved only for finite-dimensional systems; extending it to infinite-dimensional state spaces, where the decomposition arguments require topological care, is an open problem the paper leaves implicit.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an operational principle, complete intersubjectivity, in the framework of generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs). It defines α-intersubjectivity via the guaranteed agreement of two observers performing the same measurement, proves its equivalence with sharpness (Prop. 1), and gives a quantitative refinement. In quantum theory it characterizes intersubjective POVMs by pairwise trivial support intersections (Thm. 2), provides explicit intersubjective POVMs that are not PVMs, and proves that a POVM is a PVM iff every coarse-graining is intersubjective (Thm. 3). It also derives quantitative formulas for coin-toss, classical, and qubit measurements (Eqs. (4)–(6)), studies the relation between intersubjectivity, elementwise sharpness, extremality, and complete intersubjectivity, and claims that a finite-dimensional GPT is classical iff all intersubjective measurements are completely intersubjective (Thm. 4). Finally, it argues that (completely) intersubjective measurements are sufficient for state tomography and optimal state discrimination.

Significance. If the main theorems hold, this is an elegant and genuinely operational result. Theorem 3 gives a clean, interpretable criterion that bridges the traditional projection-valued formulation of observables with the modern POVM framework, and the quantitative bounds and explicit counterexamples (Examples 1–5) are concrete and useful. The paper makes appropriate use of strong external results (Gudder's sharp-effect theory, the simplex characterization of classicality in [30], and Bauer's maximum principle), and the proofs of Proposition 1 and Theorem 2 are essentially sound. The main advertised claim about classicality, however, is stated more broadly than what is proved: the abstract presents the classicality characterization without a finite-dimensional qualifier, while Theorem 4 is finite-dimensional and the proof uses finite-dimensionality in structurally essential places. Several steps in the End Matter proofs, particularly in Lemmas 6 and 7, are also under-specified. The central ideas are promising and likely repairable, but the manuscript needs a substantial revision before the claims as advertised are fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Theorem 4] The abstract states without qualification that 'a system is classical iff intersubjectivity is preserved under any coarse-graining,' and the introduction says this gap is 'common to all non-classical theories.' Theorem 4, however, is proved only for finite-dimensional systems. The proof uses finite-dimensionality at essential points: the imported simplex characterization from [30] is finite-dimensional, Lemma 7 uses a finite-dimensional Krein–Millman/Carathéodory step and a finite outcome-count bound, and the construction of n+1 indecomposable effects is a finite-dimensional cone argument. No argument is supplied for infinite-dimensional state spaces. Please either prove the infinite-dimensional statement or add the finite-dimensional qualifier to the abstract and introduction.
  2. [End Matter, Lemma 7] The proof contains two unsubstantiated steps. First, the claim that a completely intersubjective measurement on an n-dimensional system has at most n outcomes does not follow from the displayed linear-independence argument: the affine space of effects on an n-dimensional state space has dimension n+1, and the argument as written gives at most n+1 unless an unstated dimension convention is used; moreover, if zero effects are allowed, as they are in Example 2, one can pad a measurement with arbitrarily many zero outcomes. Second, the Krein–Millman step asserts that 1_S − εΣ a_i decomposes as an exact finite sum Σ b_j of indecomposable effects each of which is itself an effect; this is not automatic from Krein–Millman on a cone and requires an argument. Since Lemma 7 is presented as one of the two constructions behind Theorem 4, these gaps must be repaired or the lemma must be removed from
  3. [End Matter, Lemma 6] The key assertion 'Since a and b are indecomposable, the three-outcome measurement A = (λa, μb, 1−λa−μb) is intersubjective' is not proved and is not valid as stated for arbitrary indecomposable effects and arbitrary feasible λ, μ. In particular, if a = b and λ = μ = 1/2, the measurement is not intersubjective because λa is a common lower bound for the first two effects. The argument must use distinctness of a and b and the maximality of λ+μ to rule out a nonzero common lower bound between λa and the residual effect (and similarly for μb). Please supply this argument explicitly; as written, the contrapositive proof is incomplete at exactly the point where the assumption about three-outcome intersubjective measurements is invoked.
minor comments (4)
  1. [End Matter, Lemma 7; Advantage in information processing, item (iii)] Zero-effect outcomes should be explicitly excluded or handled throughout. Lemma 7's outcome-count bound and statement (iii) — that every completely intersubjective measurement admits states it perfectly distinguishes — are false if zero effects are counted as outcomes, since arbitrary zero effects can be added to a PVM or to any completely intersubjective measurement. Please state that the claims concern nonzero effects.
  2. [Supplemental Appendix S4, Lemma S.6] The step 'Summing this inequality over all choices of complements ... both sides add up to 1_S' is quite terse. A more explicit partition argument showing that the diagonal entries equal the coarse-grained effects would improve readability and remove any doubt about the equality claim.
  3. [Theorem 2; Theorem S.1] The symbol 'supp' is used for effects without definition, and the SOT-continuity of the projection meet used in Theorem S.1 is stated without proof. Since these are infinite-dimensional technical points, a brief justification or reference would be helpful.
  4. [Example 4] The statement that the states are 'perfectly distinguished only by A' requires qualification: if zero-effect outcomes are permitted, padding A with zeros yields other measurements that also perfectly distinguish the same states. The intended uniqueness claim should be made precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central characterizations follow from independently defined operational conditions and external GPT/measurement facts, not from the paper's own conclusions.

full rationale

The load-bearing inputs are external, not self-referential: Gudder's sharp-effect characterization ([10-12]), the simplex characterization of finite-dimensional classical GPTs ([30]), and Ozawa's intersubjectivity result ([23]) are all by other authors. The new condition 'complete intersubjectivity' is defined in Definition 3 via joint measurements and coarse-grainings, not in terms of PVMs. Proposition 1 is proved from Definitions 1 and 2. Theorem 3 then follows from the external fact that a quantum effect is sharp iff it is a projection: complete intersubjectivity makes every two-outcome coarse-graining sharp, hence every effect a projection, so the POVM is a PVM; the converse holds because coarse-grainings of PVMs are again PVMs and are intersubjective. Theorem 4 is likewise independent: the classicality direction uses the external [30] characterization, and non-classicality is used only to construct a concrete intersubjective measurement that is not completely intersubjective. Author Arai's self-citations ([37], [48], [49]) appear only in contextual lists (state discrimination and examples of GPTs) and are not load-bearing. Two non-circular caveats should be noted without affecting the circularity score: the abstract states the classicality result without the finite-dimensional qualifier that Theorem 4 explicitly carries, and Lemma 7's finite-sum Krein-Milman step is under-argued. These are rigor/scope gaps, not circular reductions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no theorem is justified solely by the authors' prior work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No data fitting: this is a pure mathematics paper, so there are no fitted parameters. The α in α-intersubjectivity is a quantified property of measurements, computed exactly in simple cases (coin toss, classical, qubit), not tuned to match data. Load-bearing inputs pulled from prior literature are the GPT axioms, Gudder's sharp-effect facts [10–12], and the simplex characterization of classicality [30]; these are external results. The paper's central new definitions (complete intersubjectivity) are stated, not smuggled: Theorem 3's quantum content reduces to the known fact that sharp effects are projections, but the operational statement and the GPT generalization are new.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Finite-dimensional GPT framework: compact convex state space S, affine effects separating states, finite-outcome measurements summing to 1_S.
    Section 'Generalized probabilistic theories' defines the entire setting; Theorem 4 additionally assumes finite dimension.
  • domain assumption A finite-dimensional GPT is classical (simplex state space) iff all unit-norm indecomposable effects are linearly independent (cited to §2.2 of [30]).
    End Matter, Lemma 6/7: used to infer non-classical implies ≥ n+1 indecomposable effects and to conclude S is classical from linear independence.
  • domain assumption Gudder's sharp-effect facts: every nonzero sharp effect takes value 1 on some state; every extremal two-outcome measurement is sharp (cited to [12]).
    Used in the information-processing claims and in Lemma 7 (CIS has ≤ n outcomes).
  • standard math In quantum theory an effect a is sharp iff a is a projection (Gudder).
    Used in Theorem 3: elementwise sharpness of a POVM forces all effects to be projections and hence a PVM.
  • standard math Krein–Milman / cone geometry: 1_S is an interior point of the positive cone of affine functionals, and an interior point decomposes into a finite sum of extreme rays with small coefficients.
    End Matter Lemma 7: the decomposition 1_S − εΣa_i = Σb_j with each b_j an effect is asserted, not proven; the coefficient ≤ 1 bound requires an argument the text omits.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18721 in / 31269 out tokens · 264868 ms · 2026-08-02T19:36:20.181451+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We identify an operational principle that singles out Projection-Valued Measures (PVMs) among general Positive Operator-Valued Measures (POVMs), bridging the modern quantum measurement theory and the traditional formulation based on projective measurements of physical observables. We reformulate Ozawa's intersubjectivity condition, which requires inter-observer agreement of the measurement outcomes, in a quantitative manner within the framework of generalized probabilistic theories. We prove that (i) a POVM is a PVM if and only if its every coarse-graining is intersubjective, and (ii) a system is classical if and only if intersubjectivity is preserved under any coarse-graining, establishing a complete characterization of the physical observables and the classical theory. Furthermore, measurements with intersubjectivity are sufficiently rich for the informational tasks of state tomography and state discrimination, testifying to its operational significance in quantum and beyond information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.01575 by Hayato Arai, Koki Ono, Shun Umekawa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Conceptual diagram of intersubjectivity. Two ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Inclusion relation among the set of intersubjective (IS), completely intersubjective (CIS), and elementwise sharp (ES) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Information Thermodynamics in Generalized Probabilistic Theories

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Information thermodynamics is constructed in generalized probabilistic theories such that entropy-non-decreasing measurements prevent second-law-violating work extraction, with explicit counterexample GPTs when this fails.

  2. Information Thermodynamics in Generalized Probabilistic Theories

    quant-ph 2026-05 accept novelty 7.0

    In GPTs, the second law of information thermodynamics holds whenever a subadditive entropy is nondecreasing under measurement, and explicit square/hexagon GPT cycles extract positive work when that condition fails.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ludwig, Versuch einer axiomatischen grundlegung der quantenmechanik und allgemeinerer physikalischer theo- rien, Z

    G. Ludwig, Versuch einer axiomatischen grundlegung der quantenmechanik und allgemeinerer physikalischer theo- rien, Z. Phys.181, 233 (1964). 6

    1964

  2. [2]

    physical observable

    proved that all PVMs are intersubjective and that not all POVMs are intersubjective, it remained an open question whether there exists an intersubjective POVM other than PVMs. By applying Proposition 1 to quantum theory, we find the following theorem. Theorem 2.A POVMA= (a x)x∈X is intersubjective if and only if, for anyx̸=x ′ ∈X, supp(ax)∩supp(a x′) ={0}...

  3. [3]

    Gudder, Convex structures and operational quantum mechanics, Commun

    S. Gudder, Convex structures and operational quantum mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys.29, 249 (1973)

    1973

  4. [4]

    E. B. Davies and J. T. Lewis, An operational approach to quantum probability, Commun. Math. Phys.17, 239 (1970)

    1970

  5. [5]

    D. J. Foulis and M. K. Bennett, Effect algebras and un- sharp quantum logics, Found. Phys.24, 1331 (1994)

    1994

  6. [6]

    Ozawa, Optimal measurements for general quantum systems, Rep

    M. Ozawa, Optimal measurements for general quantum systems, Rep. Math. Phys.18, 11 (1980)

    1980

  7. [7]

    Lami, Non-classical correlations in quantum mechan- ics and beyond (2018), arXiv:1803.02902 [quant-ph]

    L. Lami, Non-classical correlations in quantum mechan- ics and beyond (2018), arXiv:1803.02902 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Janotta and H

    P. Janotta and H. Hinrichsen, Generalized probability theories: what determines the structure of quantum the- ory?, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.47, 323001 (2014)

    2014

  9. [9]

    Pl´ avala, General probabilistic theories: An introduc- tion, Phys

    M. Pl´ avala, General probabilistic theories: An introduc- tion, Phys. Rep.1033, 1 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    Takakura, Convexity and uncertainty in operational quantum foundations (2022), arXiv:2202.13834 [quant- ph]

    R. Takakura, Convexity and uncertainty in operational quantum foundations (2022), arXiv:2202.13834 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Gudder, Sharp and unsharp quantum effects, Adv

    S. Gudder, Sharp and unsharp quantum effects, Adv. Appl. Math.20, 169 (1998)

    1998

  12. [12]

    Gudder, Examples, problems, and results in effect al- gebras, Int

    S. Gudder, Examples, problems, and results in effect al- gebras, Int. J. Theor. Phys.35, 2365 (1996)

    1996

  13. [13]

    Jenˇ cov´ a and M

    A. Jenˇ cov´ a and M. Pl´ avala, On the properties of spectral effect algebras, Quantum3, 148 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    Gudder, S

    S. Gudder, S. Pulmannov´ a, S. Bugajski, and E. Beltram- etti, Convex and linear effect algebras, Rep. Math. Phys. 44, 359 (1999)

    1999

  15. [15]

    Araki, On a characterization of the state space of quantum mechanics, Commun

    H. Araki, On a characterization of the state space of quantum mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys.75, 1 (1980)

    1980

  16. [16]

    Mielnik, Theory of filters, Commun

    B. Mielnik, Theory of filters, Commun. Math. Phys.15, 1 (1969)

    1969

  17. [17]

    Chiribella and X

    G. Chiribella and X. Yuan, Measurement sharpness cuts nonlocality and contextuality in every physical theory (2014), arXiv:1404.3348 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Kleinmann, Sequences of projective measurements in generalized probabilistic models, J

    M. Kleinmann, Sequences of projective measurements in generalized probabilistic models, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.47, 455304 (2014)

    2014

  19. [19]

    Busch, On the sharpness and bias of quantum effects, Found

    P. Busch, On the sharpness and bias of quantum effects, Found. Phys.39, 712 (2009)

    2009

  20. [20]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinonen, and A. Toigo, Intrinsic un- sharpness and approximate repeatability of quantum measurements, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40, 1303 (2007)

    2007

  21. [21]

    Mitra, Quantifying unsharpness of observables in an outcome-independent way, Int

    A. Mitra, Quantifying unsharpness of observables in an outcome-independent way, Int. J. Theor. Phys.61, 236 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    Liu and S

    Y. Liu and S. Luo, Quantifying unsharpness of measure- ments via uncertainty, Phys. Rev. A104, 052227 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    physical observables

    and reveals a genuine gap between intersubjectivity and projectivity in quantum theory. To fill the gap between intersubjective measurements and PVMs, we introduce the notion of acompletely in- tersubjectivemeasurement, namely, a measurement for which all of its coarse-grainings are intersubjective. We show that complete intersubjectivity provides a compl...

  24. [24]

    Buscemi, K

    F. Buscemi, K. Kobayashi, and S. Minagawa, A complete and operational resource theory of measurement sharp- ness, Quantum8, 1235 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Ozawa, Intersubjectivity and value reproducibility of outcomes of quantum measurements, Sci

    M. Ozawa, Intersubjectivity and value reproducibility of outcomes of quantum measurements, Sci. Rep.15, 36112 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Khrennikov, Relational quantum mechanics: Ozawa’s intersubjectivity theorem as justification of the postulate on internally consistent descriptions, Found

    A. Khrennikov, Relational quantum mechanics: Ozawa’s intersubjectivity theorem as justification of the postulate on internally consistent descriptions, Found. Phys.54, 29 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Candeloro, T

    A. Candeloro, T. Debarba, and F. C. Binder, Thermody- namic constraints on the emergence of intersubjectivity in quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A113, 032201 (2026)

    2026

  28. [28]

    Barnum, J

    H. Barnum, J. Barrett, M. Leifer, and A. Wilce, Gen- eralized no-broadcasting theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 240501 (2007)

    2007

  29. [29]

    Y. Kuramochi, Compact convex structure of measure- ments and its applications to simulability, incompatibil- ity, and convex resource theory of continuous-outcome measurements (2020), arXiv:2002.03504 [math.F A]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Pl´ avala, All measurements in a probabilistic theory are compatible if and only if the state space is a simplex, Phys

    M. Pl´ avala, All measurements in a probabilistic theory are compatible if and only if the state space is a simplex, Phys. Rev. A94, 042108 (2016)

    2016

  31. [31]

    Kuramochi, Compatibility of any pair of 2-outcome measurements characterizes the choquet simplex, Posi- tivity24, 1479 (2020)

    Y. Kuramochi, Compatibility of any pair of 2-outcome measurements characterizes the choquet simplex, Posi- tivity24, 1479 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    Aubrun, L

    G. Aubrun, L. Lami, C. Palazuelos, and M. Pl´ avala, Entangleability of cones, Geom. Funct. Anal.31, 181 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    Aubrun, L

    G. Aubrun, L. Lami, C. Palazuelos, and M. Pl´ avala, En- tanglement and superposition are equivalent concepts in any physical theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 160402 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Shahandeh, Contextuality of general probabilistic the- ories, PRX Quantum2, 010330 (2021)

    F. Shahandeh, Contextuality of general probabilistic the- ories, PRX Quantum2, 010330 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    Hardy, Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0101012 [quant-ph]

    L. Hardy, Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0101012 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  36. [36]

    Masanes and M

    L. Masanes and M. P. M¨ uller, A derivation of quan- tum theory from physical requirements, New J. Phys. 13, 063001 (2011)

    2011

  37. [37]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Infor- mational derivation of quantum theory, Phys. Rev. A84, 012311 (2011)

    2011

  38. [38]

    Barnum, C

    H. Barnum, C. Ududec, and J. van de Wetering, Self- duality and jordan structure of quantum theory fol- low from homogeneity and pure transitivity (2023), arXiv:2306.00362 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Arai and M

    H. Arai and M. Hayashi, Derivation of standard quantum theory via state discrimination, New J. Phys.26, 053046 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Vogel and H

    K. Vogel and H. Risken, Determination of quasiproba- bility distributions in terms of probability distributions for the rotated quadrature phase, Phys. Rev. A40, 2847 (1989)

    1989

  41. [41]

    Christandl and R

    M. Christandl and R. Renner, Reliable quantum state tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 120403 (2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Banaszek, M

    K. Banaszek, M. Cramer, and D. Gross, Focus on quan- tum tomography, New J. Phys.15, 125020 (2013)

    2013

  43. [43]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, J. Stat. Phys.1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  44. [44]

    Bae and L.-C

    J. Bae and L.-C. Kwek, Quantum state discrimination and its applications, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.48, 083001 (2015)

    2015

  45. [45]

    Nuida, G

    K. Nuida, G. Kimura, and T. Miyadera, Optimal observ- ables for minimum-error state discrimination in general probabilistic theories, J. Math. Phys.51, 093505 (2010)

    2010

  46. [46]

    Popescu and D

    S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Quantum nonlocality as an axiom, Found. Phys.24, 379 (1994)

    1994

  47. [47]

    Barrett, Information processing in generalized proba- bilistic theories, Phys

    J. Barrett, Information processing in generalized proba- bilistic theories, Phys. Rev. A75, 032304 (2007)

    2007

  48. [48]

    Janotta, C

    P. Janotta, C. Gogolin, J. Barrett, and N. Brunner, Lim- its on nonlocal correlations from the structure of the local state space, New J. Phys.13, 063024 (2011)

    2011

  49. [49]

    Jordan, J

    P. Jordan, J. v. Neumann, and E. Wigner, On an alge- braic generalization of the quantum mechanical formal- ism, Ann. Math.35, 29 (1934)

    1934

  50. [50]

    Sonoda, H

    K. Sonoda, H. Arai, and M. Hayashi, Hypothesis test- ing and stein’s lemma in general probability theories with euclidean jordan algebra and its quantum realiza- tion (2025), arXiv:2505.02487 [quant-ph]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Yoshida, H

    Y. Yoshida, H. Arai, and M. Hayashi, Perfect discrimi- nation in approximate quantum theory of general prob- abilistic theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 150402 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    Pl´ avala and M

    M. Pl´ avala and M. Kleinmann, Operational theories in phase space: Toy model for the harmonic oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 040405 (2022)

    2022

  53. [53]

    See Supplemental Material for further details

  54. [54]

    Heinosaari, T

    T. Heinosaari, T. Miyadera, and M. Ziman, An invitation to quantum incompatibility, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.49, 123001 (2016)

    2016

  55. [55]

    Birkhoff and J

    G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann, The logic of quantum mechanics, Ann. Math.37, 823 (1936)

    1936

  56. [56]

    E. B. Davies,Quantum Theory of Open Systems(Aca- demic Press, 1976)

    1976

  57. [57]

    Heinosaari, D

    T. Heinosaari, D. Reitzner, and P. Stano, Notes on joint measurability of quantum observables, Found. Phys.38, 1133 (2008)

    2008

  58. [58]

    Haapasalo, T

    E. Haapasalo, T. Heinosaari, and J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, When do pieces determine the whole? extreme marginals of a completely positive map, Rev. Math. Phys.s26, 1450002 (2014)

    2014

  59. [59]

    Guerini and M

    L. Guerini and M. Terra Cunha, Uniqueness of the joint measurement and the structure of the set of compati- ble quantum measurements, J. Math. Phys.59, 042106 (2018)

    2018

  60. [60]

    Kimura, K

    G. Kimura, K. Nuida, and H. Imai, Distinguishability measures and entropies for general probabilistic theories, Rep. Math. Phys.66, 175 (2010). 8 END MA TTER Proof of Proposition 1.—Here, we present the proofs of Proposition 1 and its quantitative extension. Lemma 5. (i) If ann-outcome measurement isα-sharp, then it is 1− n2 −n (1−α) -intersubjective. (ii...

    2010

  61. [61]

    Then eacha ′ i must be of the form a′ i(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) =x i +λ ix5 for some constantλ i

    be a measurement that perfectly distinguishes these states. Then eacha ′ i must be of the form a′ i(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) =x i +λ ix5 for some constantλ i. Positivity ofa ′ i impliesλ i ≥0 for eachi. SinceA ′ is a measurement, we haveλ1+λ2+λ3+λ4 = 0. Thereforeλ 1 =λ 2 =λ 3 =λ 4 = 0, which impliesA ′ =A. Appendix S4: Results for continuous-outcome measuremen...

  62. [62]

    For a states∈S, the mapU7→A(U)(s) defines a probability measure onX, representing the outcome statistics of the measurement

    For any countable collection of mutually disjoint sets{U n}n∈N ⊆Σ X , A [ n∈N Un ! = X n∈N A(Un),(S4.1) i.e.,A S n∈N Un (s) = P n∈N A(Un)(s) for every states∈S. For a states∈S, the mapU7→A(U)(s) defines a probability measure onX, representing the outcome statistics of the measurement. Finite-outcome measurements, which we discussed in the main text, corre...