Counterfactual Local Friendliness: An epsilon-Bounded Interaction-Free Paradox and a Disturbance-Robust Three-Box Inequality

Maximilian Ralph Peter von Liechtenstein

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 20 references

Counterfactual Local Friendliness: An epsilon-Bounded Interaction-Free Paradox and a Disturbance-Robust Three-Box Inequality

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new paradox, Counterfactual Local Friendliness, shows that interaction-free flags with arbitrarily small but nonzero disturbance can force incompatible certainties about a single upstream variable; the same logic yields a three-box inequa

desk verdict The CLF paradox contradicts its own explicit encoding and the three-box inequality is a known result with an epsilon slack; the paper's main claims are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01290 v1 pith:DORUQ3YD submitted 2025-09-01 quant-ph

Maximilian Ralph Peter von Liechtenstein This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P0581P15 PACS 03.65.Ta

keywords counterfactuallocalfriendlinessinteraction-freemeasurementWigner'sfriendthree-boxparadoxepsilon-counterfactualitycontextualitydisturbanceboundsingle-worldfacts

topics The Measurement Problem

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

The paper argues that the defining puzzle of interaction-free measurement is not the residual disturbance it leaves on the probed object, but the way agent-level facts collide in a single-world narrative. It builds a Wigner's-friend scenario—an outside observer models a friend's measurement unitarily—with two friends who each use an ε-counterfactual IFM oracle, a unitary flag that certifies a bomb state while changing it by at most ε in trace distance, and the outside Wigners post-select on both flags being Dark. Under universal unitarity, single-outcome facts, cross-agent consistency, and ε-counterfactuality, the two Dark flags entail opposite values for one upstream coin, a logical collision named Counterfactual Local Friendliness. The same ε framework yields a three-box noncontextual inequality: single-world noncontextual models with exclusivity and ε-stability satisfy PA+PB ≤ 1+Kε, while quantum predictions give PA=PB=1 and violate it for arbitrarily small ε. If the construction is sound, it closes the "maybe it interacted a little" escape route and gives a disturbance-robust, quantitative witness of nonclassicality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ε-counterfactual IFM oracle: a unitary gadget, described as a mediator qubit passing through H–controlled-Z–H with a forwarded flag, whose Dark outcome certifies that the bomb was live while changing the bomb's reduced state by at most ε in trace distance. Each lab uses such an oracle, and the flags are chained through a coherent isometry U that maps one upstream coin qubit into two lab registers, so the two Dark flags inherit opposite conclusions about the same coin. For the three-box result, the same unitaries are paired with ε-stability, a total-variation bound on how much the post-selected ontic distribution changes when the probe context is switched; that

What would settle it

Evaluate the explicit Appendix A circuit with the Section 3 assignments bA=CA and bB=X-basis of CB: compute the probability of {WA=D, WB=D} and the coin value each Dark flag entails. The claim collapses if that probability is zero, or if both flags entail the same C value under the printed Eq. (9).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1, the CLF No-Go: under assumptions (Q) universal unitarity, (S) single-outcome facts, (C) cross-agent consistency, and (IF-ε) ε-counterfactuality of the friends' internal modules, there is a unitary-only protocol and a threshold ε0>0 such that for every 0≤ε<ε0 the post-selected event {WA=D, WB=D} has nonzero probability and forces logically incompatible certainties about a single upstream coin C. One chain of reasoning makes C=0 certain; the other makes C=1 certain. The proof uses a coherent coin-to-register isometry and unitary IFM oracles so that all decisive inferences come from interaction-free flags rather than absorptive or projective in-lab measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The construction works only if the explicit mapping from the coin to the lab registers (Eq. 9) really yields both a nonzero joint Dark-Dark probability and opposite inferred coin values; with the mapping as printed, both Dark flags can be read as pointing to the same coin value, and changing the mapping to force the contradiction can make the Dark-Dark event impossible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The "it interacted a little" escape route is closed: the CLF collision persists for every ε below a threshold, so the paradox cannot be resolved by noting that the flag slightly disturbs the bomb.
Any single-world theory that reproduces the Dark-flag certainties with ε-bounded disturbance must abandon universal unitarity or cross-agent consistency; the three-box inequality puts a quantitative price on the trade-off.
The three-box effect becomes a device-agnostic, disturbance-robust witness: measured PA+PB should approach 2 against a classical cap of 1+Kε even as ε→0.
The contradiction does not depend on exact numerical probabilities: the modal version works with possibility and necessity only, so it remains stable under small errors of order √ε.
The ε-composition and visibility-to-ε relations give a practical route to ε-certified low-dose imaging and to scheduling low-back-action quantum error-correction checks.

Reading between the lines

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

Going beyond the paper: the contradiction lives or dies with the choice of encoder from the upstream coin to the lab registers; a direct calculation of the printed Appendix A mapping would settle whether both Dark flags can occur together and whether they entail opposite coin values.
Going beyond the paper: the visibility ratio Vdec/V0 suggested in the appendix gives a direct experimental route to bounding ε; combining it with the three-box bound turns the inequality into a quantitative test one could run in a single interference experiment.
Going beyond the paper: if the collision is robust for all small ε, the same flag-based encoding should transfer to other pre/post-selected paradoxes and to fault-tolerant settings, where an additive ε budget across rounds could certify nonclassicality without invoking zero back-action.

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

Thanks for the report. I read the paper against the stress-test note, and the note is right. The primary result, Theorem 1, fails at the level of its own explicit encoding. Appendix A's Eq. (9) sets bA = CA and bB as the X-basis of CB. With U: |0>C -> |0>_CA |+>_CB and |1>C -> |1>_CA |->_CB, both Dark flags imply C=1. So the postselected event, which does occur with probability 1/2 on |+>_C, entails no contradiction. If you redefine bA to force C=0, the Dark-Dark joint probability drops to zero. The paper's Figure 2 chain WA=D -> C=0 contradicts Eq. (9). Appendix A says a 'straightforward calculation' shows p>0 and the inference loop, but no calculation is given, and the continuity argument in Appendix B can't make a zero-probability event nonzero. That is a load-bearing flaw.

What the paper does well: the ABL calculations in Appendix E are correct, and the three-box inequality PA+PB ≤ 1+Kϵ is algebraically valid given the epsilon-stability premise. The authors are also honest in Appendix K that this is a specialization of known noncontextuality inequalities with an epsilon slack. The formalization of epsilon-counterfactual IFM as a trace-distance bound on the bomb is a useful operational notion, and the Zeno scaling discussion in Appendix G is sensible.

Soft spots beyond the CLF failure: the epsilon-stability premise (Def. 3) is justified in Appendix C only as a 'proof idea' sketch that assumes the connection it needs to prove — that bomb disturbance bounds the change in postselected ontic distributions. The paper itself flags this as a sketch, so it can't carry a no-go theorem. The later appendices (GHZ, Peres–Mermin, Leggett–Garg, LF inequality) are templates, not proofs; they add length without adding support.

Who is this for? A reader interested in Wigner's-friend or interaction-free measurement might find the epsilon-counterfactual framing worth a skim, but the core paradox is not established, and the inequality is a minor extension. I would not want to spend referee time on this in its current form. If the authors can provide an actual unitary realization that produces the claimed logical collision with nonzero probability, that would change things — but as it stands, the paper's central claim is unsupported. I'd desk-reject with an invitation to resubmit a corrected version.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims two main results: (i) a new 'Counterfactual Local Friendliness' (CLF) no-go theorem, in which two Wigners postselect on two interaction-free Dark flags and derive contradictory certainties about a single coin under assumptions (Q), (S), (C), and (IF-epsilon); and (ii) an epsilon-stable three-box noncontextual inequality P(A)+P(B) <= 1 + K*epsilon that quantum theory violates for arbitrarily small epsilon. Appendices sketch extensions to GHZ, Peres-Mermin, Leggett-Garg, and local-friendliness inequalities. The ABL computations for the three-box probabilities are correct, and inequality (7) is algebraically valid conditional on its epsilon-stability premise. However, the explicit unitary encoding in Appendix A does not produce the claimed CLF inference loop: with bA=CA and bB the X-basis value of CB, both Dark flags imply C=1, so there is no logical collision; modifying the encoding to force a collision makes the postselected event have zero probability. The three-box inequality's epsilon-stability premise is also not justified for the A/B context switch. Theorem 1 and the quantitative paradox are therefore unsupported.

Significance. If the CLF paradox were correct, it would be a notable conceptual advance, isolating counterfactuality rather than measurement disturbance as the source of Wigner's-friend contradictions, and the epsilon-bounded formalization would be useful. The paper is transparent in stating assumptions and includes some correct technical pieces: the ABL derivation in Appendix E is straightforward and correct, and the bound (7) does follow from its premises. These local strengths do not rescue the central claim. Because the main theorem rests on an encoding that either yields no contradiction or yields zero postselection probability, and because the three-box inequality's key stability premise lacks a valid derivation for the specified experimental switch, the manuscript is not in a publishable state. The novelty claim for CLF cannot be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section 3 / Appendix A / Fig. 2] The explicit encoding does not realize the claimed inference loop. With U in Eq. (9), CA equals C in the computational basis and CB is |+>/|-> according to C. Setting bA=CA makes WA=D imply C=1; setting bB to be the X-basis value of CB (with bB=1 for |->) makes WB=D imply C=1 as well. Both flags Dark occurs with probability 1/2 and entails C=1, so there is no contradiction. Figure 2's branch 'WA=D => C=0' would require bA = NOT CA, which contradicts the stated bA=CA. This is not a presentation issue: Theorem 1 rests entirely on this inference loop.
[Appendix A / Appendix B] If one redefines bA=NOT CA to try to restore Fig. 2, the postselected event becomes empty. The two Dark conditions are CA=0 and CB=|->. But the range of U in Eq. (9) contains only components |0>_CA|+>_CB and |1>_CA|->_CB; no component satisfies both. Hence P(WA=D,WB=D)=0 in the ideal unitary model. Appendix B's O(sqrt(epsilon)) continuity bound cannot make a probability-zero event nonzero at epsilon=0; it only bounds changes around a nonzero value. Thus Theorem 1's 'nonzero probability and contradiction' cannot be achieved by this construction.
[Section 4.3 / Appendix C] The three-box inequality is conditional on epsilon-stability (Def. 3), and the text claims this follows from epsilon-counterfactuality via data-processing, citing Appendix F. But Appendix C's Lemma 1 only covers contexts that differ by insertion/removal of an IFM module on the same target. In the three-box experiment, contexts A and B differ by which arm (A or B) is probed; the bomb is placed in different physical locations, and the postselected ontic distributions mu(·|A), mu(·|B) can differ for reasons unrelated to the epsilon-disturbance of a single module. No argument is given that TV(mu(·|A),mu(·|B)) <= K' epsilon for this operational switch. Since inequality (7) and its claimed violation (8) depend on this premise, the quantitative paradox is not established.

minor comments (4)

[Section 1.1 / Section 2.2] Definition numbering is inconsistent: Section 1.1 refers to '(IF-epsilon) epsilon-counterfactuality (Def. 2.2)', but the definition in Section 2.2 is labeled 'Definition 2'. Please unify.
[Appendix E / Appendix F] Appendix ordering and cross-references are confusing: E.1 and E.2 appear before the heading 'E Full derivation...', and Section 4.3 refers to 'Appendix F' for the epsilon-stability justification, but the actual justification appears in Appendix C. Correct the references.
[Figure 2] The arrow labels 'WA=D => bA=1 => C=0' and 'WB=D => bB=1 => C=1' conflict with the equations in the text. If the intended encoding differs from the one stated, it should be written out explicitly.
[Section 3, Caveat] The 'Caveat' paragraph about earlier drafts speaking of 'two clicks at dark ports' is unexplained and does not address the consistency issue; it should be removed or clarified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Appendix A's explicit encoding makes both Dark flags imply C=1; Theorem 1's C=0 branch is stipulated by redefining bA, so the paradox reduces to the definition rather than to the quantum model.

self definitional [Section 3 (CLF setup) and Appendix A, Eq. (9), Fig. 2]
"In our setup, bA = CA is simply the Z-basis value of the coin (hence bA = 1 corresponds to coin C = 0), while bB is the X-basis value of another coin register CB entangled with C (hence bB = 1 corresponds to coin C = 1). ... U : |0⟩C ↦→ |0⟩CA|+⟩CB, |1⟩C ↦→ |1⟩CA|−⟩CB"

Eq. (9) maps |1⟩C to |1⟩CA|−⟩CB, so bA=CA=1 iff C=1 and bB=− (Dark) iff C=1. Therefore both Dark flags entail C=1; there is no C=0 branch in the stated unitaries. The C=0 inference used in Fig. 2 and Theorem 1 would require bA=NOT CA, i.e. a different encoding. Imposing that encoding is exactly the contradictory certainty the theorem claims to derive, and with it WA=D and WB=D cannot co-occur (probability zero). Thus the claimed nonzero 'logical collision' is not a consequence of the protocol but an input stipulation, making Theorem 1's prediction equivalent to its definition.

full rationale

The paper's primary claim (Theorem 1) reduces by construction to a stipulated inference mapping. With the explicit unitary in Eq. (9) and bA=CA, a Dark flag in lab A means CA=1, hence C=1; a Dark flag in lab B means CB=|−>, also C=1. The 'C=0' branch in Figure 2 contradicts this encoding; it is obtained only by redefining bA as NOT CA, which makes the joint Dark-Dark event probability zero. So the central 'prediction' of a logical collision is equivalent to the paper's input assumption rather than to quantum mechanics. The three-box inequality (Sec. 4) is a conditional consequence of Definition 3's ε-stability, and the ABL computation giving PA=PB=1 is independent; however, the claimed implication from ε-counterfactuality to ε-stability is justified only by a proof sketch (Appendix C) that assumes the relevant ontic distributions are close, and the reference to Appendix F does not supply the promised derivation. This is a support gap rather than a further circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations. Overall, one central 'prediction' reduces by construction, so the circularity score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the operational axioms (Q), (S), (C) and on two definitions introduced by the paper (IF-epsilon and IF-eps-stab) that lack independent grounding. Epsilon and delta are free parameters that are tuned rather than fitted. No new physical entities are introduced. The main technical load is carried by the unproven epsilon-stability premise.

free parameters (3)

epsilon
Tunable disturbance bound for interaction-free measurements; central to all claims and never determined by external data.
delta
Failure probability slack introduced in Lemma 1 (Appendix C) and the LF bound (Appendix J); not measured or derived from first principles.
epsilon_0
Threshold asserted to exist in Theorem 1 but never quantified or constructed.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption (Q) Universal unitarity for outside observers
Assumed in Theorem 1 and throughout the CLF argument.
domain assumption (S) Single-outcome facts
Assumed in the CLF no-go; the contradiction is built on the incompatibility of certainties.
domain assumption (C) Cross-agent consistency
Assumed in the CLF no-go; needed to chain inferences between Wigners and friends.
ad hoc to paper IF-epsilon: epsilon-counterfactuality (Definition 2.2)
Definition introduced by the paper; assumed for all IFM modules without independent test.
ad hoc to paper IF-eps-stab: epsilon-stability (Definition 3)
Definition introduced by the paper; the physical derivation is not established, and it is the load-bearing premise of the three-box bound.
domain assumption Exclusivity: v(A)+v(B)+v(C)=1 in all ontic states
Assumed in the three-box bound, Section 4.3.
standard math ABL rule for pre/post-selected probabilities
Used in Appendix E to compute PA=PB=1; a standard quantum-mechanical rule.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Counterfactual Local Friendliness: An epsilon-Bounded Interaction-Free Paradox and a Disturbance-Robust Three-Box Inequality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DORUQ3YD

@misc{pith2026250901290,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Counterfactual Local Friendliness: An epsilon-Bounded Interaction-Free Paradox and a Disturbance-Robust Three-Box Inequality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DORUQ3YD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01290}
}

abstract

We introduce a new paradox, which we call Counterfactual Local Friendliness (CLF): a Wigner's-friend-type logical collision in which every decisive inference is obtained by interaction-free flags whose disturbance on the probed object is bounded by a tunable parameter $\epsilon$. Under (Q) universal unitarity for outside observers, (S) single-outcome facts, (C) cross-agent consistency, and (IF-$\epsilon$) $\epsilon$-counterfactuality of the friends' internal modules, quantum theory predicts a nonzero post-selected event that forces mutually incompatible certainties about a single upstream variable -- without appealing to absorptive or projective in-lab measurements. We also derive an $\epsilon$-IF three-box noncontextual bound: any single-world, noncontextual model satisfying exclusivity and epsilon-stability must obey $P(A) + P(B) \le 1 + K_\epsilon$, while quantum theory yields $P(A) = P(B) = 1$, violating the bound for arbitrarily small $\epsilon$. Together these results isolate what is paradoxical about counterfactual phenomena: not energy exchange with the probed system, but the incompatibility of agent-level facts in single-world narratives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01290 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** CLF dependency graph. Nodes represent the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements,

A. C. Elitzur and L. Vaidman, “Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements,” Foundations of Physics, vol. 23, pp. 987–997,

work page
[3]

High-efficiency quantum interro- gation via the quantum Zeno effect,

P. G. Kwiat, A. G. White, J. R. Mitchell, O. Nairz, G. Weihs, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, “High-efficiency quantum interro- gation via the quantum Zeno effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 83, pp. 4725–4728, 1999. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4725

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.4725 1999
[5]

Complete description of a quantum system at a given time,

Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman, “Complete description of a quantum system at a given time,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. , vol. 24, pp. 2315–2328, 1991. doi: 10.1088/0305- 4470/24/10/018

doi:10.1088/0305- 1991
[6]

Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself,

D. Frauchiger and R. Renner, “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself,” Nat. Commun. , vol. 9, p. 3711,

work page
[7]

A strong no- go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox,

K.-W. Bong, A. Utreras-Alarc´ on, F. Ghafari, J. Li, N. Tischler, E. G. Cavalcanti, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wiseman, “A strong no- go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox,” Nat. Phys., vol. 16, pp. 1199–1205, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x

doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x 2020
[8]

A “thoughtful

H. M. Wiseman, E. G. Cavalcanti, and E. G. Rieffel, “A “thoughtful” Local Friendli- ness no-go theorem: a prospective experi- ment with new assumptions to suit,” Quan- tum, vol. 7, p. 1112, 2023. doi: 10.22331/q- 2023-09-14-1112

doi:10.22331/q- 2023
[9]

Implications of Local Friendliness violation for quantum causal- ity,

E. G. Cavalcanti, “Implications of Local Friendliness violation for quantum causal- ity,” Entropy, vol. 23, no. 8, p. 925, 2021. doi: 10.3390/e23080925. 9

work page doi:10.3390/e23080925 2021
[10]

Experimental test of local observer independence,

M. Proietti, A. Pickston, F. Graffitti, P. Bar- row, D. Kundys, C. Branciard, M. Ring- bauer, and A. Fedrizzi, “Experimental test of local observer independence,” Sci. Adv. , vol. 5, no. 9, p. eaaw9832, 2019. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832

work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832 2019

Show all 20 references

[11]

Relational Analysis of the Frauchiger–Renner Paradox and Interaction-Free Detection of Records from the Past,

M. Waaijer and J. van Neerven, “Relational Analysis of the Frauchiger–Renner Paradox and Interaction-Free Detection of Records from the Past,” Found. Phys., vol. 51, p. 95,
[12]

From the Kochen–Specker Theorem to Noncontextual- ity Inequalities in the Stabilizer Formalism,

R. Kunjwal and R. W. Spekkens, “From the Kochen–Specker Theorem to Noncontextual- ity Inequalities in the Stabilizer Formalism,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 115, p. 110403, 2015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.110403

2015 doi
[14]

Graph-Theoretic Approach to Quan- tum Correlations,

A. Cabello, S. Severini, and A. Win- ter, “Graph-Theoretic Approach to Quan- tum Correlations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 112, p. 040401, 2014. doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.112.040401

2014 doi
[15]

Shadow tomography of quan- tum states,

S. Aaronson, “Shadow tomography of quan- tum states,” arXiv:1711.01053, 2017

2017 arXiv
[16]

Quantum Event Learning and Gentle Random Mea- surements,

A. B. Watts and J. Bostanci, “Quantum Event Learning and Gentle Random Mea- surements,” in 15th Innovations in Theo- retical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2024), LIPIcs, vol. 287, pp. 97:1–97:22, 2024. doi: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2024.97

2024 doi
[17]

Cryp- tographic distinguishability measures for quantum-mechanical states,

C. A. Fuchs and J. van de Graaf, “Cryp- tographic distinguishability measures for quantum-mechanical states,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1216–1227,
[18]

A sharp continu- ity estimate for the von Neumann en- tropy,

K. M. R. Audenaert, “A sharp continu- ity estimate for the von Neumann en- tropy,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. , vol. 40, pp. 8127–8136, 2007. doi: 10.1088/1751- 8113/40/28/S18

2007 doi
[19]

Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Infor- mation, Cambridge University Press, 2018

J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Infor- mation, Cambridge University Press, 2018. ISBN 9781107180567. 10

2018
[1993]

doi: 10.1007/BF00736012

doi
[1999]

doi: 10.1109/18.761271

doi
[2018]

doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8

doi
[2021]

doi: 10.1007/s10701-021-00413-4

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements,

A. C. Elitzur and L. Vaidman, “Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements,” Foundations of Physics, vol. 23, pp. 987–997,

work page

[2] [3]

High-efficiency quantum interro- gation via the quantum Zeno effect,

P. G. Kwiat, A. G. White, J. R. Mitchell, O. Nairz, G. Weihs, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, “High-efficiency quantum interro- gation via the quantum Zeno effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 83, pp. 4725–4728, 1999. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4725

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.4725 1999

[3] [5]

Complete description of a quantum system at a given time,

Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman, “Complete description of a quantum system at a given time,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. , vol. 24, pp. 2315–2328, 1991. doi: 10.1088/0305- 4470/24/10/018

doi:10.1088/0305- 1991

[4] [6]

Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself,

D. Frauchiger and R. Renner, “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself,” Nat. Commun. , vol. 9, p. 3711,

work page

[5] [7]

A strong no- go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox,

K.-W. Bong, A. Utreras-Alarc´ on, F. Ghafari, J. Li, N. Tischler, E. G. Cavalcanti, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wiseman, “A strong no- go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox,” Nat. Phys., vol. 16, pp. 1199–1205, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x

doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x 2020

[6] [8]

A “thoughtful

H. M. Wiseman, E. G. Cavalcanti, and E. G. Rieffel, “A “thoughtful” Local Friendli- ness no-go theorem: a prospective experi- ment with new assumptions to suit,” Quan- tum, vol. 7, p. 1112, 2023. doi: 10.22331/q- 2023-09-14-1112

doi:10.22331/q- 2023

[7] [9]

Implications of Local Friendliness violation for quantum causal- ity,

E. G. Cavalcanti, “Implications of Local Friendliness violation for quantum causal- ity,” Entropy, vol. 23, no. 8, p. 925, 2021. doi: 10.3390/e23080925. 9

work page doi:10.3390/e23080925 2021

[8] [10]

Experimental test of local observer independence,

M. Proietti, A. Pickston, F. Graffitti, P. Bar- row, D. Kundys, C. Branciard, M. Ring- bauer, and A. Fedrizzi, “Experimental test of local observer independence,” Sci. Adv. , vol. 5, no. 9, p. eaaw9832, 2019. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832

work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832 2019