Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 112 references

Quantum reference frames need not be subsystems: they can be any covariant instrument that breaks gauge symmetry, recovering exact relational clocks and labeling frames for identical particles.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 04:28 UTC pith:HUEDC6GN

load-bearing objection Real generalization of PN to instrument QRFs with useful applications; one technical gap on phase laws for nonabelian stabilizers that does not touch the delivered examples. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24976 v1 pith:HUEDC6GN submitted 2026-07-27 quant-ph gr-qchep-th

Quantum reference frames beyond subsystems: a reconstruction and generalization of the perspective-neutral framework

Stefan L. Ludescher , Manuel Mekonnen , Thomas D. Galley , Markus P. Mueller This is my paper
classification quant-ph gr-qchep-th
keywords quantum reference framesperspective-neutral frameworkcovariant instrumentscomplete covariancerelational clocksindistinguishable particlesconstraint quantizationPage-Wootters
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 reconstructs the perspective-neutral approach to quantum reference frames from a simple operational rule: only completely covariant operations may be performed when no external frame is available. That rule forces physical states onto the charge-zero sector and forces pure-state maps between perspectives. The authors then drop the usual assumption that a frame must be a tensor-factor subsystem. Instead a quantum reference frame is any covariant instrument whose seed has Kraus rank one; the associated isometries jump into internal perspectives and compose to unitary frame changes. The generalization immediately yields two concrete applications. Labeling frames for indistinguishable particles make the symmetrization postulate appear as ordinary gauge fixing and give an operational account of bosonic and fermionic entanglement. Non-local relational clocks (for example the center-of-mass frame) reproduce the exact Schrödinger equation even when every subsystem interacts or when the clock spectrum is degenerate. The same instrument construction also supplies a relationalization map that works beyond the perspective-neutral setting, linking internal-frame research to ordinary quantum-information resource theories.

Core claim

A quantum reference frame in the perspective-neutral sense is a covariant quantum instrument whose density seed has Kraus rank one. The associated family of isometries maps the physical Hilbert space into the kinematical space, implements unitary changes of perspective, and makes the relationalization of observables invertible on the image of each perspective. Subsystem frames with coherent-state POVMs are recovered as the special case in which the instrument factors through a tensor-product reference system.

What carries the argument

Completely covariant operations (every extension to an external, trivially transforming system remains covariant) together with Definition 10: a QRF is a covariant instrument whose seed is a pure isometry Mx satisfying the intertwining law U_g M_x = χ(g) M_{gx}. These isometries are both the Kraus operators of the instrument and the reduction maps that jump into internal perspectives.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the postulate that only completely covariant operations—not merely ordinary covariant ones—can be physically implemented; if ordinary covariance is enough, the forced support on the charge-zero sector and the pure-state phase law across perspectives lose their operational grounding.

What would settle it

Construct an explicit physical scenario in which a purification of a covariant channel lives only on a non-external system that itself transforms under the symmetry, yet the channel is still regarded as free; if the resulting states lie outside the charge-zero sector while remaining physically allowed, the operational derivation of the physical Hilbert space fails.

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

If this is right

  • The symmetrization postulate for bosons and fermions follows automatically once permutation symmetry is imposed as a gauge constraint and complete covariance is required.
  • Exact Page–Wootters evolution is recovered for interacting systems by choosing a non-local instrument (e.g., the center-of-mass frame) aligned with the commuting split of the constraint.
  • Relational Dirac observables and the associated relationalization map extend verbatim to instrument frames and therefore apply to other QRF frameworks that never assumed subsystem structure.
  • Coherently controlled gauge transformations become ordinary QRF changes, supplying a systematic home for earlier ad-hoc “quantum covariance” maps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same instrument language should let one define relational clocks directly on lattice gauge theories or spin chains where no clean tensor-factor clock exists.
  • If complete covariance is accepted as the free operations of a resource theory, the monotones of that theory would quantify residual external-frame dependence after the charge-zero projection.
  • Labeling frames suggest an operational criterion for when two identical-particle states are “really” entangled relative to a laboratory partition, potentially clarifying long-standing debates about particle entanglement.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reconstructs the perspective-neutral (PN) framework of Höhn et al. from an operational, resource-theoretic scenario and generalizes it so that quantum reference frames (QRFs) need not be subsystem tensor factors but are instead covariant instruments with Kraus-rank-1 density seeds (Definition 10). The operational core is Postulate 1 (final): only "completely covariant" operations — those all of whose extensions to external (trivially transforming) systems are covariant — are implementable; Lemma 2 (proved in Appendix A) characterizes these via Kraus operators that intertwine up to a 1-dimensional character. This forces preparable states onto a single charge sector, motivating H_phys and constraint equations C|ψ⟩=0, and explains pure-state (rather than density-matrix) transformation laws across perspectives. The formal development (compact Lie groups, finite dimensions) defines isometric reduction maps M_x, unitary QRF transformations (Definition 16), coherently controlled gauge adjustments (Lemmas 18–20), and an instrument-level relationalization map ê_x (Definition 21) that generalizes the $ and ¥ maps (Lemmas 22–24) and is invertible on the image of H_phys (Lemma 23). Section III recovers the earlier PN framework as the special case of coherent-state subsystem frames. Applications: finite abelian position/momentum spaces including a center-of-mass frame (§IVA), labeling frames for bosons/fermions with the (anti)symmetric subspace as H_phys (§IVB), and Page–W

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial contribution at the interface of operational quantum information and the internal-QRF program. Specific strengths: (i) a genuinely new operational derivation of the physical Hilbert space and of coherent (rather than incoherent) twirling via complete covariance, with Lemma 2's five-way equivalence proved cleanly in Appendix A; (ii) the instrument-level generalization is executed rigorously in the stated scope (compact Lie groups, finite dimensions), with seeds, invariant measures, and covariance handled via standard cited results; (iii) the recovery of prior PN structures is by specialization, not renaming — Section III matches reduction maps and QRF changes to [34], and Lemma 24 recovers the ¥ map; (iv) the applications are concrete and non-trivial: a labeling-frame account in which the symmetrization postulate appears as the H_phys condition, and a center-of-mass "non-local clock" reproducing the Schrödinger equation exactly despite interactions, including a fully rigorous finite abelian analog (Example 32); (v) several results (Definition 21, Lemmas 22–24) transfer to other QRF frameworks, broadening the paper's usefulness beyond the PN

major comments (2)
  1. [§IIB, Lemma 23 and Definition 10] Lemma 23's claim that "by convention, we can choose phases such that M_{gx}=χ(g)U_gM_xU_g†" is false in the paper's full scope. Rank-1 covariance gives only M_{gx}=ω(g,x)U_gM_xU_g† with a U(1)-cocycle ω on G×Ω; rephasing M_x→θ(x)M_x shifts ω by a coboundary but leaves the stabilizer character ω(·,x0) on G_0 invariant, so Eq. (18) is attainable iff that character extends to a 1-dimensional representation of G. Counterexample: G=SU(2), Ω=S²=SU(2)/U(1), H_kin the spin-1 irrep, seed M_{x0}=√3|1,0⟩⟨1,−1| — stabilizer-invariant instrument density, Haar twirl normalized to 1, yet SU(2) has no nontrivial characters, so no phase choice satisfies Eq. (18). The invertibility computation in Lemma 23, Lemma 12, and Definition 16 do not use the phase law and survive; but the conclusion that I′ is a QRF per Definition 10, and the character-based phase laws of Lemmas 17–20, hold only in the extendible r
  2. [§IIA, Postulate 1 (final) and motivating assumptions] The operational reconstruction — one of the paper's three advertised contributions — rests on the assumption that every implementable operation on B admits a purification on an external system carrying the trivial representation, with covariance extending to BE. The conclusions that preparable states are supported on H_phys and that QRF changes act on state vectors (not just density matrices) inherit this assumption. Section V discusses the conditional status candidly (the complete-positivity analogy, the response to [64]'s criticism), but §IIA itself should delineate the class of physical situations in which the assumption is expected to hold and give at least one concrete case where it fails (e.g. systems exchanging charge with an environment, where only weak/ordinary covariance is operational). A short scope statement at the point of use would prevent readers from over-reading the rec
minor comments (6)
  1. [References] Several entries are duplicates: [39]≈[44] (Trinity, PRD 104, 066001), [75]≈[80] (Carmeli–Heinosaari–Toigo, JFA 257, 3353), [100]≈[112] (Höhn–Smith–Lock, Frontiers 2021 — cited once as the source of Example 30 and once as the "ad hoc" precursor), [13]≈[65], [48]≈[98]. Please merge.
  2. [§V and §IIB] Typos: "dicsuss" (§V, first paragraph), "framweork" (§V, Applications), "all Hilbert space are finite-dimensional" (start of §IIB).
  3. [§IIB, Definition 21 / Lemma 22] The relationalization map symbol ê_x renders inconsistently ("the êmap" / "emap" in running text, e.g. after Lemma 22 and in Lemma 24). Please fix the macro so the symbol prints uniformly.
  4. [§IVC, Examples 29–30] These examples use the non-compact group (R,+) on infinite-dimensional L²(R), outside the framework's stated scope; the authors flag this inside each example, but a signpost at the start of §IVC (and a pointer to the rigorous finite analog, Example 32 in Appendix B2) would help.
  5. [§IIB, Lemma 23 proof] The notation Π′_phys is used in the proof before its introduction in Section III (where it denotes the projector convention of [34]); please disambiguate the two uses.
  6. [§IIB, Eqs. (21)–(22)] The remark that the QRF's POVM is "completely uninformative" is correct only on H_phys (outcome probabilities are uniform there); a cross-reference to the §IIA discussion of this point would avoid confusion for readers encountering it first in §IIB.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: operational postulates motivate H_phys and instrument QRFs; recovery of prior PN/¥ is specialization, not renaming-by-construction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. IVB / abstract claim on parastatistics]
    "This inapplicability can be lifted to a general physical argument for the absence of paraparticles in nature, as some of us have shown in [62]."

    The abstract’s stronger claim that the framework suggests explanations for the absence of parastatistics leans on the authors’ own prior paper [62] rather than a self-contained derivation here. This is application-side and not load-bearing for Def. 10, Lemmas 12–23, or the operational reconstruction of H_phys; it does not force the central theorems by construction.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is: (i) define complete covariance via extensions to external systems (Def. 1), prove the Kraus/intertwiner characterization (Lemma 2), and thereby motivate H_phys and pure-state phase laws; (ii) introduce catalytic completely covariant isometries with an ideal frame C (Postulate 2) and derive the family {M_g} and its transformation law; (iii) abstract this to covariant instruments with Kraus-rank-1 seeds (Def. 10) and prove isometry, unitary QRF changes, and invertibility of relationalization on the image (Lemmas 12–23). None of these steps redefine the target as the input: complete covariance is not defined as “support on H_phys,” and Def. 10 is a generalization whose special cases recover subsystem PN (Sec. III) and the ¥/G-twirl maps (Lemmas 22–24) by restriction, which is ordinary specialization rather than renaming a known result as a new prediction. There is no data fitting. Self-citations to Höhn–Müller–Galley PN work and to the authors’ parastatistics paper [62] supply background and an application pointer; the central instrument generalization and the operational scenario in IIA are developed in-place and do not reduce to an unverified self-citation uniqueness claim. The skeptic’s phase/cocycle objection is a correctness issue about the scope of Eq. (18), not a circularity (the claimed properties are not forced by smuggling the conclusion into the premises). Score 1 only for routine non-load-bearing self-citation in the applications narrative.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 3 invented entities

The load-bearing content is definitional and operational rather than parametric. The framework rests on standard representation theory plus two domain-level postulates (complete covariance of free operations; catalytic ideal frame C) and the purity/Kraus-rank-1 restriction that makes QRF changes unitary. No numerical free parameters are fitted.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Only completely covariant operations (all extensions to external systems remain covariant) are physically implementable on the system of interest.
    Postulate 1 (final), Subsection IIA; equivalent characterizations in Lemma 2. Stronger than ordinary covariance used in the resource theory of asymmetry.
  • standard math G is a compact Lie group acting continuously by unitaries on finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces; Haar measure is normalized.
    Standing hypotheses of Subsection IIB; finite groups treated first in IIA. Unimodular non-compact case deferred.
  • ad hoc to paper A QRF instrument density seed has Kraus rank 1, Ix0(ρ)=Mx0 ρ Mx0†, with Mx transforming by a 1-dimensional character χ.
    Definition 10. Needed for pure-state perspectives and unitary QRF changes; dropping it would make perspective changes irreversible.
  • domain assumption Redescriptions are implemented by completely covariant catalytic operations on BC that preserve an ideal reference frame C≅L2(G) in a pure eigenstate |g0⟩.
    Postulate 2 and Eqs. (1)–(4). Ideal frames are known to be infinite asymmetry resources; continuous-group catalysis is only approximate (cited no-go theorems).
  • domain assumption Physical Hilbert space is the invariant subspace Hphys={|ψ⟩: Ug|ψ⟩=|ψ⟩ ∀g}, up to projective redefinition of the representation.
    Definition 3, motivated by complete invariance of preparable states under Lemma 2(iv).
invented entities (3)
  • Completely covariant operation independent evidence
    purpose: Free-operation class that forces support on Hphys and pure-state intertwining of Kraus operators, motivating constraint equations operationally.
    Definition 1 / Lemma 2. Related to ‘strong symmetry’ in many-body literature but used here as a compositional resource-theory primitive for QRFs.
  • Instrument QRF (covariant instrument with Kraus-rank-1 seed as frame) independent evidence
    purpose: Replace subsystem/coherent-state QRFs so frames need not be tensor factors.
    Definition 10; special cases recover subsystem POVMs (Lemma 11) and prior PN reduction maps (Section III).
  • Labeling frame for indistinguishable particles no independent evidence
    purpose: Break permutation symmetry to obtain operational entanglement descriptions and motivate symmetrization / absence of parastatistics.
    Subsection IVB, Example 28; linked to companion work [62,94].

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 53735 in / 3307 out tokens · 65533 ms · 2026-07-31T04:28:46.472866+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We generalize the notion of quantum reference frames (QRFs) to cases where the frame does not necessarily correspond to a tensor factor subsystem, but to a covariant quantum instrument. This unlocks a variety of physical applications: "frames of labeling" for indistinguishable particles, suggesting explanations for the symmetrization postulate and the absence of parastatistics, and yielding a transparent description of the entanglement of bosons and fermions; and relational clocks reproducing the Schr\"odinger equation exactly even when all subsystems are interacting or when there are frequency superselection sectors. Our work generalizes the perspective-neutral approach to QRFs pioneered by H\"ohn and co-authors, which we reconstruct from a simple operational scenario. We give a resource-theoretic grounding of this framework, and show how the notion of completely covariant operations explains the relevance of the charge-zero sector and the pure-state transformation behavior across perspectives. This also suggests operational clarifications of some aspects of constraint quantization, e.g. of the meaning of constraint equations such as $C|\psi\rangle=0$. Some of our results, such as our generalization of relationalization maps to instruments, apply more broadly to other QRF frameworks too, and they contribute to bridging the gap between operational quantum information theory and the internal QRF research program.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24976 by Manuel Mekonnen, Markus P. Mueller, Stefan L. Ludescher, Thomas D. Galley.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. First version of our scenario that motivates the PN framework. Due to the purifications of the operations on our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Extension of the scenario of Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. QRF transformations as changes of perspective, similarly as in earlier formulations of the PN framework [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. As shown in Lemma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The finite Abelian group [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aharonov and T

    Y. Aharonov and T. Kaufherr, Quantum frames of reference, Physical Review D30, 368 (1984)

    1984

  2. [2]

    Mazzucchi, On the observables describing a quantum reference frame, Journal of Mathematical Physics42, 2477 (2001)

    S. Mazzucchi, On the observables describing a quantum reference frame, Journal of Mathematical Physics42, 2477 (2001)

    2001

  3. [4]

    R. M. Angelo, N. Brunner, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and P. Skrzypczyk, Physics within a quantum reference frame, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical44, 145304 (2011)

    2011

  4. [5]

    S. T. Pereira and R. M. Angelo, Galilei covariance and einstein’s equivalence principle in quantum reference frames, Physical Review A91, 022107 (2015)

    2015

  5. [6]

    Pienaar, A relational approach to quantum reference frames for spins, arXiv:1601.07320 [quant-ph] (2016), arXiv: 1601.07320

    J. Pienaar, A relational approach to quantum reference frames for spins, arXiv:1601.07320 [quant-ph] (2016), arXiv: 1601.07320

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [7]

    Giacomini, E

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Č. Brukner, Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames, Nature Communications10, 494 (2019). 34

    2019

  7. [8]

    Vanrietvelde, P

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Höhn, F. Giacomini, and E. Castro-Ruiz, A change of perspective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework, Quantum4, 225 (2020)

    2020

  8. [9]

    de la Hamette and T

    A. de la Hamette and T. D. Galley, Quantum reference frames for general symmetry groups, Quantum4, 367 (2020)

    2020

  9. [10]

    Castro-Ruiz, T

    E. Castro-Ruiz, T. D. Galley, and L. Loveridge, Interpreting quantum reference frame transformations through a simple example (2025), arXiv:2508.09540 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  10. [11]

    Carette, J

    T. Carette, J. Glowacki, and L. Loveridge, Operational quantum reference frame transformations, Quantum9, 1680 (2025)

    2025

  11. [12]

    J. D. Vuyst, P. A. Hoehn, and A. Tsobanjan, On the relation between perspective-neutral, algebraic, and effective quantum reference frames (2025), arXiv:2507.14131 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [14]

    Aharonov and L

    Y. Aharonov and L. Susskind, Charge superselection rule, Physical Review155, 1428 (1967)

    1967

  13. [15]

    G.-C. Wick, A. S. Wightman, and E. P. Wigner, Superselection rule for charge, Physical Review D1, 3267 (1970)

    1970

  14. [16]

    Loveridge, T

    L. Loveridge, T. Miyadera, and P. Busch, Symmetry, reference frames, and relational quantities in quantum mechanics, Foundations of Physics48, 135 (2018)

    2018

  15. [17]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, and P. S. Turner, Degradation of a quantum reference frame, New Journal of Physics8, 58–58 (2006)

    2006

  16. [18]

    Poulin and J

    D. Poulin and J. Yard, Dynamics of a Quantum Reference Frame, New Journal of Physics9, 156 (2007), arXiv:quant- ph/0612126

    arXiv 2007

  17. [19]

    Boileau, L

    J.-C. Boileau, L. Sheridan, M. Laforest, and S. D. Bartlett, Quantum Reference Frames and the Classification of Rotationally-Invariant Maps, Journal of Mathematical Physics49, 032105 (2008), arXiv: 0709.0142

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  18. [20]

    Ahmadi, D

    M. Ahmadi, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Dynamics of a quantum reference frame undergoing selective measurements and coherent interactions (2010), arXiv:1005.0798 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [21]

    Ahmadi, D

    M. Ahmadi, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, The WAY theorem and the quantum resource theory of asymmetry, New Journal of Physics15, 013057 (2013), arXiv:1209.0921 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [22]

    Popescu, A

    S. Popescu, A. B. Sainz, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Quantum Reference Frames and Their Applications to Thermo- dynamics, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences376, 20180111 (2018), arXiv: 1804.03730

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [23]

    Skotiniotis, W

    M. Skotiniotis, W. Dür, and P. Sekatski, Macroscopic superpositions require tremendous measurement devices, Quantum 1, 34 (2017)

    2017

  22. [24]

    S. J. v. Enk, Quantifying the resource of sharing a reference frame, Physical Review A71, 032339 (2005), arXiv:quant- ph/0410083

    arXiv 2005

  23. [25]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, and P. S. Turner, Quantum communication using a bounded-size quantum reference frame, New Journal of Physics11, 063013 (2009)

    2009

  24. [26]

    Faist, S

    P. Faist, S. Nezami, V. V. Albert, G. Salton, F. Pastawski, P. Hayden, and J. Preskill, Continuous symmetries and approximate quantum error correction, Physical Review X10, 041018 (2020), arXiv:1902.07714 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [27]

    M. P. Woods and Á. M. Alhambra, Continuous groups of transversal gates for quantum error correcting codes from finite clock reference frames, Quantum4, 245 (2020), arXiv: 1902.07725

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [28]

    Hayden, S

    P. Hayden, S. Nezami, S. Popescu, and G. Salton, Error Correction of Quantum Reference Frame Information, PRX Quantum2, 010326 (2021), arXiv: 1709.04471

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [29]

    Y. Yang, Y. Mo, J. M. Renes, G. Chiribella, and M. P. Woods, Optimal universal quantum error correction via bounded reference frames, Physical Review Research4, 023107 (2022)

    2022

  28. [30]

    Gour and R

    G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens, The resource theory of quantum reference frames: manipulations and monotones, New Journal of Physics10, 033023 (2008)

    2008

  29. [31]

    G. Gour, I. Marvian, and R. W. Spekkens, Measuring the quality of a quantum reference frame: The relative entropy of frameness, Physical Review A80, 012307 (2009)

    2009

  30. [32]

    Marvian and R

    I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, Modes of asymmetry: The application of harmonic analysis to symmetric quantum dynamics and quantum reference frames, Physical Review A90, 062110 (2014)

    2014

  31. [33]

    Charlot, C

    P. Charlot, C. S. Jacobs, D. Gordon, S. Lambert, A. de Witt, J. Böhm, A. L. Fey, R. Heinkelmann, E. Skurikhina, O. Titov, E. F. Arias, S. Bolotin, G. Bourda, C. Ma, Z. Malkin, A. Nothnagel, D. Mayer, D. S. MacMillan, T. Nilsson, and R. Gaume, The third realization of the international celestial reference frame by very long baseline interferometry, Astrono...

    2020

  32. [34]

    de la Hamette, T

    A. de la Hamette, T. D. Galley, P. A. Höhn, L. Loveridge, and M. P. Müller, Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general symmetry groups (2021), arXiv:2110.13824 [quant-ph], arXiv:2110.13824 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [35]

    Marvian,Symmetry, Asymmetry and Quantum Information, Ph.D

    I. Marvian,Symmetry, Asymmetry and Quantum Information, Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo (2012)

    2012

  34. [36]

    Toller, Quantum reference frames and quantum transformations, Il Nuovo Cimento B112, 1013 (1997)

    M. Toller, Quantum reference frames and quantum transformations, Il Nuovo Cimento B112, 1013 (1997)

    1997

  35. [37]

    S. A. Ahmad, T. D. Galley, P. A. Höhn, M. P. E. Lock, and A. R. H. Smith, Quantum relativity of subsystems, Physical Review Letters128, 170401 (2022)

    2022

  36. [38]

    de la Hamette, Observer-Dependent Entropy and Diagonal Rényi Invariants in Quantum Reference Frames (2026), 2603.23598 [quant-ph]

    A.-C. de la Hamette, Observer-Dependent Entropy and Diagonal Rényi Invariants in Quantum Reference Frames (2026), 2603.23598 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  37. [39]

    P. A. Höhn, A. R. H. Smith, and M. P. E. Lock, Trinity of relational quantum dynamics, Physical Review D104, 066001 (2021)

    2021

  38. [40]

    Castro-Ruiz, F

    E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, A. Belenchia, and Č. Brukner, Quantum clocks and the temporal localisability of events in the presence of gravitating quantum systems, Nature Communications11, 2672 (2020). 35

    2020

  39. [41]

    P. A. Höhn and A. Vanrietvelde, How to switch between relational quantum clocks, New Journal of Physics22, 123048 (2020)

    2020

  40. [42]

    Baumann and M

    V. Baumann and M. P. E. Lock, Time delocalization and causality across temporal quantum reference frames (2026), 2603.08845 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  41. [43]

    Giacomini and Č

    F. Giacomini and Č. Brukner, Einstein’s equivalence principle for superpositions of gravitational fields and quantum reference frames (2020), arXiv:2012.13754 [quant-ph], arXiv:2012.13754 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [44]

    P. A. Höhn, A. R. H. Smith, and M. P. E. Lock, Trinity of relational quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. D104, 066001 (2021)

    2021

  43. [45]

    Araujo-Regado, P

    G. Araujo-Regado, P. A. Hoehn, and F. Sartini, Relational entanglement entropies and quantum reference frames in gauge theories (2025), arXiv:2506.23459 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [46]

    Chen and F

    L.-Q. Chen and F. Giacomini, Quantum reference fields transformations in linearized quantum gravity (2026), arXiv:2606.09344 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  45. [47]

    S. E. Aguilar-Gutierrez, R. Ferrero, P. A. Hoehn, and L. Marchetti, Relational path integral, effective actions and quantum frame covariance in gravity (2026), 2607.21463 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [49]

    Rothlin, C

    E. Rothlin, C. Ferradini, and L.-Q. Chen, Error correction in lattice quantum electrodynamics with quantum reference frames (2026), arXiv:2604.06149 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [50]

    J. P. Lacambra, A. Chatwin-Davies, M. Honda, and P. A. Hoehn, Gauss law codes and vacuum codes from lattice gauge theories (2026), arXiv:2604.06087 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [51]

    Loveridge, P

    L. Loveridge, P. Busch, and T. Miyadera, Relativity of quantum states and observables, EPL (Europhysics Letters)117, 40004 (2017)

    2017

  49. [52]

    Loveridge, A relational perspective on the wigner-araki-yanase theorem, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol

    L. Loveridge, A relational perspective on the wigner-araki-yanase theorem, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1638 (2020) p. 012009

    2020

  50. [53]

    Głowacki, L

    J. Głowacki, L. Loveridge, and J. Waldron, Quantum reference frames on finite homogeneous spaces (2023), arXiv:2302.05354 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [54]

    Jorquera Riera and L

    M. Jorquera Riera and L. Loveridge, Uncertainty relations relative to phase-space quantum reference frames, Physical Review A111, 10.1103/physreva.111.l060201 (2025)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.111.l060201 2025

  52. [55]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information, Reviews of Modern Physics79, 555 (2007)

    2007

  53. [56]

    Poulin, Toy model for a relational formulation of quantum theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics45, 1189–1215 (2006)

    D. Poulin, Toy model for a relational formulation of quantum theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics45, 1189–1215 (2006)

    2006

  54. [57]

    M. C. Palmer, F. Girelli, and S. D. Bartlett, Changing quantum reference frames, Physical Review A89, 052121 (2014)

    2014

  55. [58]

    P. A. Höhn, M. Krumm, and M. P. Müller, Internal quantum reference frames for finite abelian groups, Journal of Mathematical Physics63, 112207 (2022)

    2022

  56. [59]

    Krumm, P

    M. Krumm, P. A. Höhn, and M. P. Müller, Quantum reference frame transformations as symmetries and the paradox of the third particle, Quantum5, 530 (2021)

    2021

  57. [60]

    J. M. Yang, Switching Quantum Reference Frames for Quantum Measurement, Quantum4, 283 (2020)

    2020

  58. [61]

    Hausmann, A

    L. Hausmann, A. Schmidhuber, and E. Castro-Ruiz, Measurement events relative to temporal quantum reference frames, Quantum9, 1616 (2025)

    2025

  59. [62]

    Mekonnen, T

    M. Mekonnen, T. D. Galley, and M. P. Müller, Invariance under quantum permutations rules out parastatistics, Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-026-73064-6 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-026-73064-6 2026

  60. [63]

    W.DonnellyandS.B.Giddings,Observables, gravitationaldressing, andobstructionstolocalityandsubsystems,Physical Review D94, 104038 (2016)

    2016

  61. [64]

    Doat and A

    G. Doat and A. Vanrietvelde, What can we do in a symmetry-constrained perspective? the importance of the total charge’s status in quantum reference frame frameworks (2025), arXiv:2510.13607 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [65]

    S. C. Garmier, L. Hausmann, and E. Castro-Ruiz, The Perspectives of Non-Ideal Quantum Reference Frames (2025), arXiv:2512.19343 [quant-ph] version: 1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [66]

    Paulsen,Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)

    V. Paulsen,Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)

    2003

  64. [67]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Theoretical framework for quantum networks, Physical Review A80, 022339 (2009)

    2009

  65. [68]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Probabilistic theories with purification, Physical Review A81, 062348 (2010)

    2010

  66. [69]

    Keyl, Fundamentals of quantum information theory, Physics Reports369, 431 (2002)

    M. Keyl, Fundamentals of quantum information theory, Physics Reports369, 431 (2002)

    2002

  67. [70]

    A.-C. d. l. Hamette, V. Kabel, and v. Brukner, Quantum Reference Frames in Arbitrary Charge Sectors: Accessibility of Global Properties from Internal Perspectives (2025), arXiv:2510.09100 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  68. [71]

    L. A. Lessa, R. Ma, J.-H. Zhang, Z. Bi, M. Cheng, and C. Wang, Strong-to-Weak Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Mixed Quantum States, PRX Quantum6, 010344 (2025)

    2025

  69. [72]

    P. A. Höhn, I. Kotecha, and F. M. Mele, Quantum frame relativity of subsystems, correlations and thermodynamics (2023), arXiv:2308.09131 [quant-ph], arXiv:2308.09131 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [73]

    Jonathan and M

    D. Jonathan and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement-Assisted Local Manipulation of Pure Quantum States, Physical Review Letters83, 3566 (1999). 36

    1999

  71. [74]

    Lipka-Bartosik, H

    P. Lipka-Bartosik, H. Wilming, and N. H. Ng, Catalysis in quantum information theory, Reviews of Modern Physics96, 025005 (2024)

    2024

  72. [75]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, Covariant quantum instruments, Journal of Functional Analysis257, 3353–3374 (2009)

    2009

  73. [76]

    Janzing and T

    D. Janzing and T. Beth, Quasi-order of clocks and their synchronism and quantum bounds for copying timing information, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory49, 230 (2003)

    2003

  74. [77]

    Lostaglio and M

    M. Lostaglio and M. P. Müller, Coherence and Asymmetry Cannot be Broadcast, Physical Review Letters123, 020403 (2019)

    2019

  75. [78]

    Marvian and R

    I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, No-Broadcasting Theorem for Quantum Asymmetry and Coherence and a Trade-off Relation for Approximate Broadcasting, Physical Review Letters123, 020404 (2019)

    2019

  76. [79]

    Åberg, Catalytic Coherence, Physical Review Letters113, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.150402 (2014)

    J. Åberg, Catalytic Coherence, Physical Review Letters113, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.150402 (2014)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.150402 2014

  77. [80]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, Covariant quantum instruments, Journal of Functional Analysis257, 3353 (2009)

    2009

  78. [81]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Realization schemes for quantum instruments in finite dimensions, Journal of mathematical physics50(2009)

    2009

  79. [82]

    Ziman, T

    M. Ziman, T. Heinosaari,et al.,The Mathematical Language of Quantum Theory(Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  80. [83]

    G. B. Folland,A Course in Abstract Harmonic Analysis(Chapman&Hall, 2015)

    2015

Showing first 80 references.