Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Within standard quantum theory, quantum reference frames do not evade the extended Wigner's-friend no-go theorems.

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

2026-08-01 15:33 UTC pith:K6LRB7SD

load-bearing objection A sharp, mostly convincing comment that probably lands, but the decisive claim about what Adlam's x=1 measurement actually reads rests on an inference we couldn't check from this review. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18383 v1 pith:K6LRB7SD submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph physics.hist-ph

Adlam's Frame: comment on "Wigner's Frame"

Andrea Di Biagio , Anne-Catherine de la Hamette This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.hist-ph PACS 03.65.Ta
keywords extended Wigner's Friend scenariolocal friendlinessquantum reference framesabsoluteness of observed eventsWigner's friend paradoxno-go theoremTsirelson boundreference frame alignment
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 comment analyzes a recent proposal that claims quantum reference frames dissolve the tension between universal quantum theory and local friendliness. The authors argue that the proposal does not arise from the quantum reference frames formalism but rests on three independent modifications: observers' experiences are always definite, an isolated observer's lab orientation becomes entangled with a measured spin, and the superobservers record spin orientations relative to their own laboratories rather than the friends' reported outcomes. Because of the third modification, the apparent violation of the local friendliness inequalities is a prediction for a different experiment, not the one the no-go theorem constrains. The paper concludes that, within standard quantum theory, quantum reference frames do not provide a way around the extended Wigner's-friend no-go theorems.

Core claim

The central claim of the comment is that the commented proposal's apparent resolution of the extended Wigner's friend paradox is not a result of quantum reference frames at all. The comment reconstructs the proposal as a modified theory with three independent ingredients: (A) the degrees of freedom carrying an observer's experience are always definite; (B) when a sufficiently isolated observer measures a spin, the orientation of their laboratory becomes maximally entangled with the spin; and (C) in the rounds where superobservers are supposed to ask their friends what they saw, they instead record the spin orientation relative to their own laboratory. The authors show that the reported stati

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the decomposition of the proposal into three independent modifications, with modification C—'substituted outcomes'—as the decisive one: the superobserver's recorded variable is the spin orientation relative to their own frame (AE) rather than the friend's outcome (AI). The authors make this precise by distinguishing three variables for each friend (internal outcome, lab orientation, external orientation), by writing the four possible post-measurement states, and by computing a CHSH expression on the resulting mixture that attains 2√2 using observables that act exclusively on the external spin-and-orientation degrees of freedom. A second piece of machinery is a rotational

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reconstruction of the commented protocol is faithful—specifically, that when a superobserver asks a friend what they saw, the recorded outcome is the spin orientation relative to the superobserver's own lab, not the friend's reported result.

What would settle it

Check the commented proposal's own definition of the ask-the-friend measurement: if it reads the friend's memory state, the substitution accusation fails. Alternatively, compute the CHSH value for the four-state mixture using measurements on the friends' memory registers rather than on the external orientation degrees of freedom; the paper's claim predicts no violation, so a value above two would refute it.

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

If this is right

  • If the reconstruction is correct, the apparent LF-violating correlations are predictions of a modified theory for a modified experiment, not of standard quantum theory applied to the EWFS.
  • The local-friendliness no-go theorem remains intact within standard quantum theory; quantum reference frames alone do not dissolve the Wigner's-friend paradox.
  • Asking a friend what they saw is a frame-independent operation, so replacing the friend's outcome with a spin orientation changes the experiment rather than fixing an ambiguity.
  • Friends and superobservers can in principle maintain a shared reference frame during the experiment, since frame entanglement can be made arbitrarily small by using a large reference frame.
  • The stronger principle that symmetry-invariant quantities never superpose runs against atomic physics, so any version of it needs extra hidden symmetries or an expanded substitution postulate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same 'substituted outcomes' criticism could apply to any attempt to preserve absoluteness of observed events by redefining what the superobserver records, since the no-go theorem only requires copying the friend's outcome.
  • Beyond the paper: the large-frame measurement model yields a quantitative prediction—the flipping probability shrinks as the friend's reference frame grows—so experiments with increasingly large isolated labs could discriminate the proposed modification from standard quantum theory.
  • Beyond the paper: one could explicitly compute the local-friendliness bound for the orientation-only experiment; the comment notes it reduces to no-signalling, implying that any excess beyond Bell bounds is not a local-friendliness violation.
  • Beyond the paper: the comment does not rule out future QRF-based constructions that keep the friend's memory quantum and use frame-change maps without substituting outcomes; it only shows the present proposal does not work.

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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper is a critical comment on E. Adlam's 'Wigner's Frame' (arXiv:2512.07101), which proposes that quantum reference frames resolve the extended Wigner's friend (EWFS) no-go theorem. The authors reconstruct Adlam's proposal as three modifications of quantum mechanics and of the protocol: (A) observer experiences are always definite; (B) an isolated observer's frame orientation becomes entangled with a measured spin; and (C) in the rounds where superobservers supposedly ask friends what they saw, the recorded outcome is the spin orientation relative to the superobserver rather than the friend's memory. They show that in this 'AMQM' the correlations expected by the superobservers saturate the CHSH bound (Appendix A, tr Mρ = 2√2), but that this is not a genuine local-friendliness violation because the friends' memories are not involved. They also argue that standard QRF formalism can handle indefinite frame orientations and that shared frames can be maintained during EWFS (Appendix B). They conclude that Adlam's resolution relies on nonstandard modifications and that QRFs within standard quantum theory do not evade the no-go theorems.

Significance. If the reconstruction of Adlam's protocol is correct, this is an important contribution: it clarifies that the apparent LF violation in Adlam's proposal is an artifact of a changed measurement protocol, not a genuine counterexample to Bong et al. The paper includes explicit, verifiable calculations: the CHSH expectation in Appendix A, the von Neumann measurement model with O(1/j) frame degradation in Appendix B, and a concise presentation of QRF transformations in Appendix C. It also corrects several misconceptions about what the LF theorem assumes and about the capabilities of QRF formalism. The main weakness is the load-bearing reliance on a particular reading of Adlam's x=1 measurement, which is not fully pinned down by public text.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section II C] The central modification C—that in Adlam's protocol the x=1 measurement reads the spin orientation A_E rather than the friend's memory A_I—is the load-bearing premise for the conclusion that Adlam analyzes a different experiment. However, the support offered is a quotation ([1, p.10]) that refers to 'measurements in the orientation basis' and private communication [32], while the text concedes 'she does not cover this explicitly' (Sec. II C). This makes the key accusation unverifiable from the cited public text. Please either provide additional direct quotations/arguments from [1] that pin down what the x=1 measurement records, or explicitly state that the central conclusion is conditional on the authors' reconstruction. As it stands, if Adlam's x=1 probe is actually A_I, the keystone of the comment collapses.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A / Sec. II B] The AMQM evolution rule is under-specified: Adlam does not state the probabilities for evolutions (2) and (3), and the paper assumes equal probability 'for concreteness'. The CHSH result (A8) is presented for that equal-weight mixture. If, as appears likely, each of the four states |Ψ_ac> yields the same expectation, the result is independent of the weights and should be stated explicitly; otherwise the apparent LF violation inherits a free parameter not fixed by AMQM.
  2. [Section III B, Eq. (14)] The formula for Cψ(O1|A O2|B) assumes ⟨ψ|O1|A|ψ⟩ = ⟨ψ|O2|B|ψ⟩ = 0. This zero-mean condition should be stated in the main text; otherwise the covariance definition is incomplete.
  3. [Section IV] The hydrogen-atom argument against modification A' is strong but could be supported by a standard reference for the delocalization of the electron relative to the nucleus in stationary states.
  4. [Throughout] There are several formatting artifacts: 'Adlam’s F riend', 'V on Neumann', and 'Extended Adlam’s F riend scenario' in section headings (likely LaTeX problems). Typos such as 'be A E' should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the comment's own derivations are self-contained and benchmarked, though the keystone attribution to Adlam rests partly on inference and private communication.

full rationale

The paper's own derivation chain is self-contained. The central computations—the four post-measurement states in Eq. (8) derived from Adlam's stated evolutions (2)–(3); the CHSH expectation tr(Mρ)=2√2 in Appendix A; the von Neumann measurement model in Appendix B; and the QRF correlation formulas in Appendix C—are carried out explicitly and checked against external benchmarks (Bong et al.'s LF inequalities and standard unitary QT). No parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction: the 2√2 value is an operator expectation on states supplied by Adlam. The assumption that the two evolutions (2)/(3) occur with equal probability is acknowledged as an interpretive choice, but it is not load-bearing for the Tsirelson saturation because each |Ψ_ac⟩ in (8) yields the same CHSH expectation. The self-citations [12], [50], [51] occur only in introductory framing and a closing remark and do no work in the argument. The main caveat is external, not circular: modification C (substituted outcomes) is attributed to Adlam on the strength of quotation and private communication [32], with the authors conceding 'she does not cover this explicitly' (Sec. II C). If that attribution were wrong, the paper's keystone criticism would collapse, but that is a question of fidelity of reconstruction, not of the paper's derivations reducing to their inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No energy or momentum is fitted; the large frame size j and interaction time π/2g are physical choices. One hand-chosen number enters the supporting demonstration: the 1/2 probability for the two unspecified AMQM evolutions, which the authors flag as an assumption. The analysis depends on standard unitary QM, on a specific reading of the Bong et al. theorem, and on the fidelity of the reconstruction of Adlam's protocol. No new physical entities are posited; AMQM is explicitly a reconstruction of the target's modifications.

free parameters (1)
  • probability of aligned vs anti-aligned friend outcome (AMQM frequency rule) = 1/2 each (assumed)
    Adlam leaves the rule unspecified; the authors assume equal probabilities 'for concreteness' (Sec. II C). The equal-weight mixture (A4) is required for the demonstrated tr Mρ = 2√2; other weights would change the apparent-violation bound. This is a reconstructive assumption, not central to the modification-C critique.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Unitary quantum mechanics with the Born rule applies to spin–frame–memory composites.
    Used throughout; the von Neumann model (Appendix B) assumes the rotationally invariant Hamiltonian (16) and unitary evolution.
  • domain assumption The Bong et al. LF theorem constrains superobserver statistics p(bd|xy) with one structural constraint: one measurement choice copies the friend's outcome.
    Section III A, Eqs. (9)–(12); the modification-C critique stands or falls on this reading of the theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper The two AMQM evolutions (2) and (3) occur with equal probability on each round.
    Assumed 'for concreteness' (Sec. II C); produces the mixture (A4) from which the Tsirelson-bound saturation is computed.
  • domain assumption A sufficiently large reference frame (j → ∞) can stay aligned during a spin measurement with vanishing disturbance.
    Derived in Appendix B, Eq. (17); underpins the claim that EWFS can be run with shared frames, contradicting modification B's motivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Adlam's x=1 protocol measures A_E rather than the friend's memory A_I.
    Central reconstruction (Table I, Sec. II C); supported by quotes from [1] and acknowledged private communication, but partly inferred.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20732 in / 17070 out tokens · 144083 ms · 2026-08-01T15:33:20.504014+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent no-go theorems based on extended Wigner's Friend scenarios (EWFS) reveal a deep tension between the universal validity of quantum theory and local friendliness (LF), the conjunction of three natural assumptions: the absoluteness of observed events, locality, and no-superdeterminism. In a recent work, Adlam argues that this tension can be dissolved by appealing to quantum reference frames (QRFs). We present and critically assess her proposal. We show that her proposed resolution does not arise from QRFs, but instead relies on three independent modifications: certain degrees of freedom are always definite, observers can flip upon measuring spins, and the outcomes the superobservers record and use to test the inequalities are not their friends' observed results. The proposal and the arguments for the plausibility of these modifications rest on several misconceptions about QRFs and EWFS, which we rectify. We conclude that, within standard quantum theory, quantum reference frames do not evade the EWFS no-go theorems.

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

52 extracted references · 16 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Adlam, Wigner’s frame (2025), arXiv:2512.07101

    E. Adlam, Wigner’s frame (2025), arXiv:2512.07101

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Schr¨ odinger, Die gegenw¨ artige Situation in der Quantenmechanik, Die Naturwissenschaften23, 807 (1935)

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Die gegenw¨ artige Situation in der Quantenmechanik, Die Naturwissenschaften23, 807 (1935)

    1935

  3. [3]

    E. P. Wigner, Remarks on the mind-body question, inThe scientist speculates, edited by I. J. Good (Basic Books, 1962)

    1962

  4. [4]

    Brukner, On the quantum measurement problem, inQuantum [Un]Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell’s Theorem, edited by R

    ˇC. Brukner, On the quantum measurement problem, inQuantum [Un]Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell’s Theorem, edited by R. Bertlmann and A. Zeilinger (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017) pp. 95–117

    2017

  5. [5]

    Brukner, A No-Go Theorem for Observer-Independent Facts, Entropy20, 350 (2018), arXiv:1804.00749

    ˇC. Brukner, A No-Go Theorem for Observer-Independent Facts, Entropy20, 350 (2018), arXiv:1804.00749

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    K.-W. Bong, A. Utreras-Alarc´ on, F. Ghafari, Y.-C. Liang, N. Tischler, E. G. Cavalcanti, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wiseman, A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox, Nature Physics16, 1199 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    E. G. Cavalcanti and H. M. Wiseman, Implications of Local Friendliness violation for quantum causality, Entropy23, 925 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Wallace,The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014)

    D. Wallace,The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014)

    2014

  9. [9]

    Rovelli, Relational quantum mechanics, International Journal of Theoretical Physics35, 1637 (1996), arXiv:quant- ph/9609002

    C. Rovelli, Relational quantum mechanics, International Journal of Theoretical Physics35, 1637 (1996), arXiv:quant- ph/9609002

    arXiv 1996

  10. [10]

    Brukner, Facts are relative, Nature Physics16, 1172 (2020)

    ˇC. Brukner, Facts are relative, Nature Physics16, 1172 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, Respecting One’s Fellow: QBism’s Analysis of Wigner’s Friend, Foundations of Physics 10.1007/s10701-020-00369-x (2020), arXiv:2008.03572

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Di Biagio and C

    A. Di Biagio and C. Rovelli, Relative Information, Relative Facts (2025), arXiv:2510.11349

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Healey, Perspectives in and on Quantum Theory, Foundations of Physics55, 25 (2025), arXiv:2604.02026

    R. Healey, Perspectives in and on Quantum Theory, Foundations of Physics55, 25 (2025), arXiv:2604.02026

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Adlam, Does science need intersubjectivity? The problem of confirmation in orthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics, Synthese200, 522 (2022), arXiv:2203.16278

    E. Adlam, Does science need intersubjectivity? The problem of confirmation in orthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics, Synthese200, 522 (2022), arXiv:2203.16278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Adlam and C

    E. Adlam and C. Rovelli, Information is Physical: Cross-Perspective Links in Relational Quantum Mechanics, Philosophy of Physics1, 4 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Adlam, What does ‘(non)-absoluteness of observed events’ mean?, Foundations of Physics54, 13 (2024), arXiv:2309.03171

    E. Adlam, What does ‘(non)-absoluteness of observed events’ mean?, Foundations of Physics54, 13 (2024), arXiv:2309.03171

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Adlam, How do we observe relational observables?, Journal for General Philosophy of Science57, 285 (2026), arXiv:2410.05508

    E. Adlam, How do we observe relational observables?, Journal for General Philosophy of Science57, 285 (2026), arXiv:2410.05508. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Adlam, Moderate physical perspectivalism, Philosophy of Science92, 624–645 (2024), arXiv:2410.13819

    E. Adlam, Moderate physical perspectivalism, Philosophy of Science92, 624–645 (2024), arXiv:2410.13819

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Adlam, What kind of relationality does quantum mechanics exhibit?, European Journal for Philosophy of Science16, 8 (2026), arXiv:2502.06991

    E. Adlam, What kind of relationality does quantum mechanics exhibit?, European Journal for Philosophy of Science16, 8 (2026), arXiv:2502.06991

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Brukner and A

    ˇC. Brukner and A. Zeilinger, Information and fundamental elements of the structure of quantum theory, inTime, Quantum and Information, edited by L. Castell and O. Ischebeck (Springer, 2003) pp. 323–354, arXiv:quant-ph/0212084

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  21. [21]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical, Reviews of Modern Physics75, 715 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0105127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  22. [22]

    Zeilinger, The message of the quantum, Nature438, 743 (2005)

    A. Zeilinger, The message of the quantum, Nature438, 743 (2005)

    2005

  23. [23]

    Rovelli, Can Alice do science and have friends, in a relational quantum world? Solipsism and Relational Quantum Mechanics (2024), arXiv:2410.20012

    C. Rovelli, Can Alice do science and have friends, in a relational quantum world? Solipsism and Relational Quantum Mechanics (2024), arXiv:2410.20012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Covoni and C

    N. Covoni and C. Rovelli, Tractatus Quanticus (2026), PhilSci Archive:27713

    2026

  25. [25]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information, Reviews of Modern Physics79, 555–609 (2007)

    2007

  26. [26]

    Giacomini, E

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

    2019

  27. [27]

    Vanrietvelde, P

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

    2020

  28. [28]

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

    2021

  29. [29]

    de la Hamette and T

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

    2020

  30. [30]

    Castro-Ruiz and O

    E. Castro-Ruiz and O. Oreshkov, Relative subsystems and quantum reference frame transformations, Communications Physics8, 187 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Carette, J

    T. Carette, J. Glowacki, and L. Loveridge, Operational Quantum Reference Frame Transformations, Quantum9, 1680 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Adlam, private communication (2026)

    E. Adlam, private communication (2026)

    2026

  33. [33]

    Hameroff and R

    S. Hameroff and R. Penrose, Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory, Physics of Life Reviews11, 39 (2014)

    2014

  34. [34]

    D. J. Chalmers and K. J. McQueen, Consciousness and the Collapse of the Wave Function (2021), arXiv:2105.02314

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Ghirardi, A

    G. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems, Physical Review D34, 470 (1986)

    1986

  36. [36]

    Di´ osi, Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations, Physical Review A40, 1165 (1989)

    L. Di´ osi, Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations, Physical Review A40, 1165 (1989)

    1989

  37. [37]

    Bassi, K

    A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, and H. Ulbricht, Models of Wave-function Collapse, Underlying Theories, and Experimental Tests, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 471 (2013), arXiv:1204.4325

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    Oppenheim, C

    J. Oppenheim, C. Sparaciari, B. ˇSoda, and Z. Weller-Davies, General form of continuous hybrid classical-quantum dynam- ics, Phys. Rev. A113, 052223 (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical gravity?, Physical Review X13, 041040 (2023)

    J. Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical gravity?, Physical Review X13, 041040 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    H. M. Wiseman and E. G. Cavalcanti, Causarum Investigatio and the Two Bell’s Theorems of John Bell, inQuantum [Un]Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell’s Theorem, edited by R. Bertlmann and A. Zeilinger (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017) pp. 119–142

    2017

  41. [41]

    Schmid, Y

    D. Schmid, Y. Y ¯ ıng, and M. Leifer, A review and analysis of six extended Wigner’s friend arguments (2023), arXiv:2308.16220

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Riedel, Is Quantum Relativism Untameable? Revenge Wigner Arguments for Relative Facts, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 732830 (2024), PhilSci:30170

    T. Riedel, Is Quantum Relativism Untameable? Revenge Wigner Arguments for Relative Facts, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 732830 (2024), PhilSci:30170

    2024

  43. [43]

    Fine, Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities, Phys

    A. Fine, Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 291 (1982)

    1982

  44. [44]

    Fine, Joint distributions, quantum correlations, and commuting observables, Journal of Mathematical Physics23, 1306 (1982)

    A. Fine, Joint distributions, quantum correlations, and commuting observables, Journal of Mathematical Physics23, 1306 (1982)

    1982

  45. [45]

    Deutsch, Quantum theory as a universal physical theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics24, 1 (1985)

    D. Deutsch, Quantum theory as a universal physical theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics24, 1 (1985)

    1985

  46. [46]

    Y ¯ ıng, M

    Y. Y ¯ ıng, M. M. Ansanelli, A. D. Biagio, E. Wolfe, D. Schmid, and E. G. Cavalcanti, Relating Wigner’s Friend Scenarios to Nonclassical Causal Compatibility, Monogamy Relations, and Fine Tuning, Quantum8, 1485 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Del Santo, G

    F. Del Santo, G. Manzano, and ˇC. Brukner, Wigner’s friend scenarios: On what to condition and how to verify the predictions, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033279 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Poulin, Toy Model for a Relational Formulation of Quantum Theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics45, 1189 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0505081

    D. Poulin, Toy Model for a Relational Formulation of Quantum Theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics45, 1189 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0505081

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  49. [49]

    Troger, O

    H. Troger, O. Bengyat, T. D. Galley, and M. Christodoulou, Complete relational description of spin in a quantum back- ground (2026), arXiv:2606.15873 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Di Biagio, Perspectives on perspectives (2025), talk at QRF2025

    A. Di Biagio, Perspectives on perspectives (2025), talk at QRF2025

    2025

  51. [51]

    de la Hamette and A

    A.-C. de la Hamette and A. Di Biagio, in preparation

  52. [52]

    the observable Oof systemSinA’s frame

    A.-C. de la Hamette, T. D. Galley, P. A. H¨ ohn, L. Loveridge, and M. P. M¨ uller, Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general symmetry groups (2021), arXiv:2110.13824 [quant-ph]. 15 Appendix A: Apparent violation of LF inequalities in AMQM The correlation polytope defined by the LF inequalities is in general larger than the one d...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021