Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 50 references

What meter interference can tell us about the statistics of weak measurements

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the second-order change of the meter interference pattern in a post-selected weak measurement decomposes into a Bayesian update from back action and a negative diffusion term, so the readout fluctuations carry the…

desk verdict A clean new decomposition of meter interference into Bayesian update and negative diffusion, with the scope limited to pure symmetric meters. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05494 v1 pith:F37TXYZB submitted 2026-08-06 quant-ph

Holger F. Hofmann , Tomonori Matsushita , Masayoshi Isobe , Jonte R. Hance This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords weakmeasurementpost-selectionmeterinterferenceOzawa–HalluncertaintynegativediffusionBayesianupdatequasi-probabilityvalues
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

This paper tries to establish what the fluctuating readout of a post-selected weak measurement actually tells us about the measured system. Its central claim is that the second-order change of the meter interference pattern separates into two universal pieces: a Bayesian update caused by measurement back action, and a negative diffusion term that represents the intrinsic conditional fluctuation of the observable. The negative diffusion term converts the quasi-probability variance, which can be negative, into the always-positive Ozawa–Hall uncertainty. If the paper is right, weak values are not statistical artifacts of post-selection, and the full meter readout distribution is a physical record of the system rather than a noisy by-product.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized interference pattern $$ I(a,a',x) = \frac{\$\varphi$(x - s(A_a-A_{a'})/2)\,\phi^*(x + s(A_a-A_{a'})/2)}{1-R(a,a')}, $$ the overlap of two meter wavefunctions displaced by different eigenvalues, divided by the decoherence factor $1-R(a,a')$. The load-bearing identity is its second derivative in $s$ at $s=0$, which splits every interference term into the Bayesian update $B(x)$ and the negative diffusion. The meter-state characteristic $K_Q$, fixed by the correlation between squared position and squared momentum, determines which operator ordering of the conditional variance appears; for Gaussian meters $K_Q=0$, while for cosine meters $K_Q=-1$ and $B(x)=0$, exposing the diffusion term as a visibility reduction.

What would settle it

Measure the readout distributions of a post-selected weak measurement for a cosine meter and independently infer the Bayesian update from the $\hat{p}^2$-dependence of the post-selection probability; Eq. (29) predicts that the remaining shape change is exactly the negative diffusion $-\frac12\partial_x^2 P(x)$ for every eigenvalue pair. If the residual shape change differs, or if the cosine-meter visibility does not follow $\nu = 1 - 2(\pi/L)^2 s^2 \varepsilon_A^2(f)$, the claimed decomposition is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the normalized interference pattern $I(a,a',x)$ of two meter wavefunctions shifted by $sA_a$ and $sA_{a'}$ changes with measurement strength $s$ according to $$ \frac12 \$partial_s^{2}$ I(a,a',x) = \left(B(x) - \frac12 \$partial_x^{2}$ P(x)\right) \left(\frac{A_a-A_{a'}}2\right)^2, $$ where $B(x)$ is a Bayesian update set by the weak value of the squared meter momentum and $-\frac12\partial_x^2 P(x)$ is a state-independent negative diffusion. Carrying this identity into the readout variance shows that the post-selected meter fluctuations are not the variance $V_Q$ of the quasi-probability $Q(a,a'|f)$ but the Ozawa–Hall uncertainty $\varepsilon_A^2(f)$, plus a meter-dependent Bayesian correction. For pure input states with real weak values the negative diffusion removes all intrinsic fluctuation, so the weak value is the dispersion-free conditional value of the observable. With a cosine meter wavefunction, $B(x)=0$ and the negative diffusion appears directly as a loss of contrast in the readout distribution, giving an explicit observable signature of $\varepsilon_A^2(f)$.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the meter starts in a pure, position-symmetric wavefunction and that a second-order expansion in the measurement strength is valid; if the meter is mixed, asymmetric, or initially correlated with the system, the clean separation into a Bayesian update and a negative diffusion term is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The readout variance of a post-selected weak measurement has a well-defined decomposition: its $s^2$ coefficient is the Ozawa–Hall uncertainty plus a meter-dependent Bayesian correction.
  • Gaussian meters cancel the Bayesian update against the negative diffusion, so their apparent agreement with the quasi-probability variance $V_Q$ is a special property of the meter, not evidence that $V_Q$ is the physical fluctuation.
  • For pure input states with real weak values, the intrinsic conditional fluctuation is zero: the weak value is the dispersion-free value of the observable in that post-selection context.
  • A cosine meter with $B(x)=0$ turns the negative diffusion into a measurable loss of visibility, providing a direct experimental route to $\varepsilon_A^2(f)$.
  • The operator-ordering ambiguity of conditional weak uncertainties is resolved: the physically relevant fluctuation is the Ozawa–Hall form, and quasi-probability variance is only one member of an ordering family.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the proof does not cover mixed or asymmetric meter states; a natural test is whether a generalized decomposition exists for such meters, or whether the clean two-term split is peculiar to pure symmetric meters.
  • Editorial extension: the negative diffusion compensates negative quasi-probability variance exactly, which suggests that negativity of quasi-probabilities is not directly readable as negative noise in the meter; it may be observable only through the difference between $V_Q$ and $\varepsilon_A^2(f)$.
  • Editorial extension: if correct, the result gives a metrological recipe — choose a meter with $B(x)=0$ to measure conditional uncertainty directly from contrast, avoiding the feedback-compensation method used previously.
  • Editorial extension: the analysis strengthens the contextual-values reading of weak measurements, since it says the set of fluctuation-free conditional values depends on the post-selected final measurement context and is recorded in the meter distribution.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the second-order (in measurement strength) change of the meter interference pattern in post-selected weak measurements. It decomposes this change into a Bayesian update term B(x) arising from back action and a universal negative diffusion term, and uses this to identify the conditional variance of the observable with the Ozawa-Hall uncertainty for meter states with K_Q = -1. It illustrates the decomposition with Gaussian and cosine meter states, showing that the cosine meter yields a direct visibility signature of the Ozawa-Hall uncertainty. The derivation is explicit and self-contained for pure meter states symmetric about x=0.

Significance. If the main result holds, it provides a physical picture of meter readout statistics in weak measurements, clarifies the operator-ordering ambiguity in conditional variances, and gives a concrete experimental signature (visibility loss) for Ozawa-Hall uncertainties. The paper's step-by-step derivation from the unitary interaction is a strength, as are the explicit formulas (Eqs.25-32) and the worked examples. However, the significance is tempered by the restricted scope of the proof and by an algebraic error in Eq.33.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Sections IV-VI] The decomposition in Eq.29 is derived for a pure meter state whose wavefunction satisfies the symmetry condition Eq.8, but the abstract and conclusions claim to exclude statistical artefacts in weak measurements generally, citing the Ferrie-Combes objection. That objection concerns classical/mixed meter statistics; for mixed or asymmetric meters the s-linear terms in I(a,a',x) do not vanish and the decomposition into B(x) and a universal negative diffusion term is not shown. Please either extend the derivation to mixed and asymmetric meters or qualify the claims to 'pure symmetric meter states' in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Section IV, Eq.33] Equation 33 is inconsistent with Eqs.24, 30, and 32. Let C = Re⟨ϕ|x^2p^2|ϕ⟩ - ⟨x^2⟩⟨p^2⟩ and D = ∂^2_φ A P(f)/(2P(f)) as defined in Eq.34. From Eq.32, (1+K_Q)/2 = -C/ℏ^2, and from Eq.34, the bracket in Eq.24 equals 2D. Substituting into Eq.24 gives ∆A^2_f = ε^2_A(f) - (C/ℏ^2) D, not ε^2_A(f) + C D. The missing minus sign and the missing 1/ℏ^2 factor make Eq.33 dimensionally incorrect. Please correct the equation and the claim that it confirms the result of Ref. [49].
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo in the first paragraph: 'resulting an an ongoing controversy' should be 'resulting in an ongoing controversy'.
  2. [Section II, Eq.3] The expression for P(f,x) is real because the sum over (a,a') includes both orderings, but this should be stated explicitly; the connection to the real part used in the definition of Q(a,a'|f) in Eq.11 should be clarified.
  3. [Section IV, Eq.33] The notation ∂^2_φ A is used in Eq.33 before it is defined in Eq.34; please define it before first use and explain the meaning of the subscript φ_A.
  4. [Section IV, Eq.36] The notation '∂^2/∂ϕ^2_A' in the text around Eq.36 is unclear; it appears to be a derivative with respect to a parameter, but the quantity being differentiated and the meaning of the subscript should be spelled out.
  5. [Section V, Eqs.39-44] The cosine-meter example assumes that the boundary discontinuities at x=±L/2 are negligible, but because p^2 has singular contributions at hard-wall boundaries, the identity Re(⟨x|p^2|ϕ0⟩/⟨x|ϕ0⟩)=⟨p^2⟩ and the integral relations leading to Eq.44 are not exact. Please quantify the error or state the parameter regime (distance from edges, size of meter shifts) in which the visibility formula is valid.
  6. [General] The paper should explicitly state in the introduction that the meter is assumed to be in a pure state and symmetric about x=0, since these assumptions are essential for Eq.9 and Eq.29.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central B(x)-vs-diffusion decomposition is derived from the unitary meter dynamics, with only a minor self-cited consistency check in Eq. (33).

  1. other [Section IV, Eq. (33) and preceding text]
    "This lets us confirm the result previously obtained in [49] using Eq. (24),"

    Equation (33) is presented as an independent confirmation of the earlier self-cited result [49], but the derivation substitutes Eq. (32) into Eq. (24), and Eq. (24) is itself imported from [49] ('As pointed out in [49], the double commutation relation...'). The confirmation is therefore a rearrangement of the cited result rather than a fresh derivation. This is a minor circularity because it does not support the paper's central result, Eq. (29), which follows algebraically from the second derivative of the meter interference pattern without using Eq. (24).

full rationale

The paper's core decomposition, Eq. (29), is derived by taking the second derivative of the normalized meter interference pattern I(a,a',x) at s=0, Eq. (25), and rewriting the result as B(x) - (1/2) partial^2_x P(x). This is an algebraic identity using the definitions of B(x) and the diffusion term; it does not presuppose the weak-value or Ozawa-Hall result. Likewise, Eqs. (20)-(22) and (30)-(32) are direct consequences of the meter wavefunction and the unitary interaction, with no fitted parameters. The only self-citation that enters the derivation chain is Eq. (24), imported from the authors' previous work [49], which is then used with Eq. (32) to write Eq. (33) as a 'confirmation' of [49]; that confirmation is a rearrangement rather than an independent check and is flagged as a minor circular step. However, the physics conclusions about the negative diffusion term and its relation to Ozawa-Hall uncertainties do not reduce to a fit or to a self-citation: the form of the negative diffusion term is fixed by quantum mechanics, and the identification with epsilon^2_A(f) is an operator-ordering statement that can be checked independently, e.g., in the cosine-meter visibility formula. The paper's assumptions of a pure, symmetric meter and the ideal cosine meter are scope limitations, not circularity. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained apart from the minor self-cited consistency check, so score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data. The quantities K_Q and B(x) are derived from the meter wavefunction rather than chosen to match the system statistics, so the central derivation is parameter-free. The main modeling burden is the set of axioms listed above, especially the symmetric pure meter assumption and the idealized cosine meter.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The system-meter interaction is the unitary displacement U = exp(-i s A x p / hbar) generated by meter momentum (Eq. 1).
    This is the standard weak measurement model; the central claim is only about meters whose readout is generated by momentum translation. It is the starting point of Section II.
  • domain assumption The initial joint state is a product rho x |phi><phi| with a pure, symmetric meter wavefunction satisfying phi(x)=phi*(-x) (Eqs. 3 and 8).
    The symmetry is used to assign each interference term a shift at the average eigenvalue (Eq. 9) and to define the quasi-probability Q(a,a'|f).
  • domain assumption The back action decoherence factor R(a,a') is small enough that a second-order expansion in the measurement strength s is valid (Section III, Eq. 18).
    The entire decomposition of meter interference is a weak-limit perturbative result.
  • domain assumption The Ozawa-Hall uncertainty e2_A(f) (Eq. 23) represents the intrinsic conditional fluctuation of the observable.
    This identification is imported from prior work [40,41,43,49] and is used to interpret the negative diffusion term.
  • ad hoc to paper The cosine meter wavefunction of an infinite square well satisfies B(x)=0 in the interior and the edge discontinuities can be neglected (Eqs. 39-42).
    The paper selects the infinite-well cosine state to satisfy Eq. 39 and achieve K_Q=-1; the visibility prediction in Eq. 44 depends on this specific idealized state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What meter interference can tell us about the statistics of weak measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F37TXYZB

@misc{pith2026260805494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What meter interference can tell us about the statistics of weak measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F37TXYZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05494}
}
read the original abstract

It is widely assumed that the quantum fluctuations of the meter readout in a weak measurement make it impossible to identify the contributions originating from the individual values of the physical property observed in the measurement. Here, we show that a careful analysis of the quantum dynamics of the meter system allows us to identify a universal relation between quantum interference in the post-selection probability, and quantum interference in the statistics of the meter readout. The analysis reveals that quantum interference modifies the readout distribution of the meter in two ways, a diffusion term that identifies the appropriate operator ordering in the post-selected variance of the observed system property, and a wavefunction-dependent update of the initial meter statistics based on the effect of back action on the post-selection probability. Our results show that the statistical patterns described by meter interference provide important details about the physics of post-selection in weak measurements, allowing us to exclude the possibility of statistical artefacts in the experimental observation of weak values.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    Matsushita and H

    T. Matsushita and H. F. Hofmann, Origin of meter fluctuations in weak measurement interactions, Phys. Rev. A109, 022224 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Specker, Die logik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer aussagen, Dialectica14, 239– (1960)

    E. Specker, Die logik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer aussagen, Dialectica14, 239– (1960)

    work page 1960

  3. [2]

    Kochen and E

    S. Kochen and E. Specker, The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Indiana Univ. Math. J.17, 59 (1968)

    work page 1968

  4. [3]

    Budroni, A

    C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. G¨ uhne, M. Kleinmann, and J.-A. Larsson, Kochen-Specker contextuality, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045007 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  6. [5]

    S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 938 (1972)

    1972

  7. [6]

    Aspect, J

    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1804 (1982)

    1982

  8. [7]

    J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental entanglement swapping: Entangling photons that never interacted, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 3891 (1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Virzi, E

    S. Virzi, E. Rebufello, F. Atzori, A. Avella, F. Piacentini, R. Lussana, I. Cusini, F. Madonini, F. Villa, and M. Gramegna, Entanglement-preserving measurement of the Bell parameter on a single entangled pair, Quantum Sci. Technol.9, 045027 (2024)

    2024

  2. [9]

    Aharonov, D

    Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1351 (1988)

    1988

  3. [10]

    Aharonov, A

    Y. Aharonov, A. Botero, S. Popescu, B. Reznik, and J. Tollaksen, Revisiting hardy’s paradox: counterfactual statements, real measurements, entanglement and weak values, Physics Letters A301, 130 (2002)

    2002

  4. [11]

    J. S. Lundeen and A. M. Steinberg, Experimental joint weak measurement on a photon pair as a probe of Hardy’s paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 020404 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    Yokota, T

    K. Yokota, T. Yamamoto, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Direct observation of Hardy’s paradox by joint weak measurement with an entangled photon pair, New Journal of Physics11, 033011 (2009)

    2009

  6. [13]

    J. R. Hance, M. Ji, and H. F. Hofmann, Contextuality, coherences, and quantum Cheshire cats, New Journal of Physics 25, 113028 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    Vaidman, Weak value controversy, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences375, 20160395 (2017)

    L. Vaidman, Weak value controversy, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences375, 20160395 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    Matzkin, Weak values and quantum properties, Foundations of Physics49, 298 (2019)

    A. Matzkin, Weak values and quantum properties, Foundations of Physics49, 298 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    J. R. Hance, J. Rarity, and J. Ladyman, Weak values and the past of a quantum particle, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023048 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    weak values and the past of a quantum particle

    L. Vaidman, Comment on “weak values and the past of a quantum particle”, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 048001 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    comment on ‘weak values and the past of a quantum particle’

    J. R. Hance, J. Rarity, and J. Ladyman, Reply to “comment on ‘weak values and the past of a quantum particle’ ”, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 048002 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100

    A. J. Leggett, Comment on “How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100”, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 2325 (1989)

    1989

  13. [20]

    Peres, Quantum measurements with postselection, Phys

    A. Peres, Quantum measurements with postselection, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 2326 (1989)

    1989

  14. [21]

    Ferrie and J

    C. Ferrie and J. Combes, How the result of a single coin toss can turn out to be 100 heads, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 120404 (2014)

    2014

  15. [22]

    Aharonov and D

    Y. Aharonov and D. Rohrlich, Comment on ’How the result of a single coin toss can turn out to be 100 heads’ (2014), arXiv:1410.0381 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Cohen, A comment on ”How the result of a single coin toss can turn out to be 100 heads” (2014), arXiv:1409.8555 [quant-ph]

    E. Cohen, A comment on ”How the result of a single coin toss can turn out to be 100 heads” (2014), arXiv:1409.8555 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [24]

    H. F. Hofmann, M. Iinuma, and Y. Shikano, Why the ”classical” explanation of weak values by Ferrie and Combes does not work: a comment on Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120404 (2014) (2014), arXiv:1410.7126 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [25]

    How the result of a single coin toss can turn out to be 100 heads

    A. Brodutch, Comment on “How the result of a single coin toss can turn out to be 100 heads”, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 118901 (2015)

    2015

  19. [26]

    Dressel, Weak values as interference phenomena, Phys

    J. Dressel, Weak values as interference phenomena, Phys. Rev. A91, 032116 (2015). 13

    2015

  20. [27]

    anomalous weak values

    D. Sokolovski, The meaning of “anomalous weak values”’ in quantum and classical theories, Physics Letters A379, 1097 (2015)

    2015

  21. [28]

    Romito, A

    A. Romito, A. N. Jordan, Y. Aharonov, and Y. Gefen, Weak values are quantum: you can bet on it, Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations3, 1 (2016)

    2016

  22. [29]

    D. F. Mundarain and M. Orszag, Quantumness of the anomalous weak measurement value, Phys. Rev. A93, 032106 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    J. G. Kirkwood, Quantum statistics of almost classical assemblies, Phys. Rev.44, 31 (1933)

    1933

  24. [31]

    P. A. M. Dirac, On the analogy between classical and quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.17, 195 (1945)

    1945

  25. [32]

    D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, W. F. Braasch Jr, S. De Bi` evre, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, C. Langrenez, M. Lostaglio, J. S. Lundeen, and N. Y. Halpern, Properties and applications of the Kirkwood–Dirac distribution, New Journal of Physics26, 121201 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    H. M. Wiseman, Weak values, quantum trajectories, and the cavity-QED experiment on wave-particle correlation, Phys. Rev. A65, 032111 (2002)

    2002

  27. [34]

    Dressel, S

    J. Dressel, S. Agarwal, and A. N. Jordan, Contextual values of observables in quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 240401 (2010)

    2010

  28. [35]

    Dressel and A

    J. Dressel and A. N. Jordan, Contextual-value approach to the generalized measurement of observables, Phys. Rev. A85, 022123 (2012)

    2012

  29. [36]

    Dressel, M

    J. Dressel, M. Malik, F. M. Miatto, A. N. Jordan, and R. W. Boyd, Colloquium: Understanding quantum weak values: Basics and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 307 (2014)

    2014

  30. [37]

    A. C. Ipsen, Disturbance in weak measurements and the difference between quantum and classical weak values, Phys. Rev. A91, 062120 (2015)

    2015

  31. [38]

    Aharonov and A

    Y. Aharonov and A. Botero, Quantum averages of weak values, Phys. Rev. A72, 052111 (2005)

    2005

  32. [39]

    Vaidman, A

    L. Vaidman, A. Ben-Israel, J. Dziewior, L. Knips, M. Weißl, J. Meinecke, C. Schwemmer, R. Ber, and H. Weinfurter, Weak value beyond conditional expectation value of the pointer readings, Phys. Rev. A96, 032114 (2017)

    2017

  33. [40]

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

    M. Ozawa, Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement, Phys. Rev. A67, 042105 (2003)

    2003

  34. [41]

    M. J. W. Hall, Prior information: How to circumvent the standard joint-measurement uncertainty relation, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052113 (2004)

    2004

  35. [42]

    M. J. W. Hall, A. K. Pati, and J. Wu, Products of weak values: Uncertainty relations, complementarity, and incompatibility, Phys. Rev. A93, 052118 (2016)

    2016

  36. [43]

    H. F. Hofmann, Direct evaluation of measurement uncertainties by feedback compensation of decoherence, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, L012011 (2021)

    2021

  37. [44]

    Lemmel, N

    H. Lemmel, N. Geerits, A. Danner, H. F. Hofmann, and S. Sponar, Quantifying the presence of a neutron in the paths of an interferometer, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023075 (2022)

    2022

  38. [45]

    Dvorak, I

    A. Dvorak, I. V. Masiello, Y. Hasegawa, H. Lemmel, H. F. Hofmann, and S. Sponar, Tight qubit uncertainty relations studied through weak values in neutron interferometry, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043334 (2025)

    2025

  39. [46]

    Fukuda, M

    R. Fukuda, M. Iinuma, Y. Matsumoto, and H. F. Hofmann, Experimental evidence for the physical delocalization of individual photons in an interferometer, New J. Phys.28, 034515 (2026)

    2026

  40. [47]

    Matsushita and H

    T. Matsushita and H. F. Hofmann, Dependence of measurement outcomes on the dynamics of quantum coherent interac- tions between the system and the meter, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033064 (2023)

    2023

  41. [48]

    Ogawa, N

    K. Ogawa, N. Abe, H. Kobayashi, and A. Tomita, Complex counterpart of variance in quantum measurements for pre- and postselected systems, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033077 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Patekar and H

    K. Patekar and H. F. Hofmann, The role of system–meter entanglement in controlling the resolution and decoherence of quantum measurements, New J. Phys.21, 103006 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.