Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 114 references

Witnessing non-objectivity in the framework of strong quantum Darwinism

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single comparison of two evolutions lets a photonic experiment witness non-objectivity in strong quantum Darwinism without full state tomography.

desk verdict A useful basis-dependent witness for strong quantum Darwinism with a clean core inequality, but a normalization ambiguity in the objectivity operation needs a patch before this is operational. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08818 v2 pith:Y5YWS3K6 submitted 2019-08-23 quant-ph

Thao P. Le , Alexandra Olaya-Castro This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumDarwinismstrongobjectivitywitnessnon-objectivityspectrumbroadcaststructurephotonicsimulationstatetomographyquantum-to-classicaltransition
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 aims to make the quantum-to-classical transition experimentally testable without full quantum state tomography. It constructs a witness that compares the evolution of a system-environment state with and without an objectivity operation that projects the state into a pre-chosen objective subspace. A non-zero witness value proves the state is non-objective relative to that basis and subspace, and the witness is always a lower bound on a trace-distance measure of non-objectivity. The paper also proposes a photonic implementation and shows numerically that, with sufficiently reliable controlled-NOT gates, the number of measurement runs it needs grows far more slowly with environment size than tomography. A simplified variant for invariant spectrum broadcast structure needs even fewer resources.

What carries the argument

The central object is the objectivity operation $\Gamma^{\mathrm{SQD}}_{SF}(\rho) = \sum_i (|i\rangle\langle i|_S \otimes \Pi_{F|i} \otimes \mathbb{1}_{E\setminus F}) \rho (|i\rangle\langle i|_S \otimes \Pi_{F|i} \otimes \mathbb{1}_{E\setminus F})$, a completely positive map that sends any state into the convex set of states satisfying strong quantum Darwinism in the chosen system basis and environment subspaces. The witness is the absolute difference of two probabilities, one from the untouched evolution and one after applying this operation, with a point channel first deleting correlations with the unaccessed environment: $W_{\mathrm{SQD}}(M_{SE}) = |\mathrm{tr}[ M_{SE} U_\tau ( \rho_{SF}(t) - \Gamma^{\mathrm{SQD}}_{SF}(\rho_{SF}(t)) ) \otimes \rho^{\mathrm{new}}_{E\setminus F} ]|$. The proof of the bound uses the trace-norm variational formula, expressing the supremum over Hermitian operators with norm at most one as exactly $\lVert \rho_{SF}(t) - \Gamma^{\mathrm{SQD}}_{SF}(\rho_{SF}(t)) \rVert_1$; this is what turns the probability difference into a lower bound on the measure.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to take many randomly generated system-fragment states, estimate $M_{\mathrm{SQD}}$ by full state tomography, and run the maximal witness on the same states: the paper's bound predicts the witness never exceeds the measure, so any measured violation of $W_{\mathrm{SQD}} \le M_{\mathrm{SQD}}$ would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that non-objectivity of a system $S$ with respect to an environment fragment $F$, in the framework of strong quantum Darwinism, can be witnessed by a two-branch experiment. In one branch the state $\rho_{SF}(t)$ is left untouched; in the other it is first acted on by a subspace-dependent objectivity operation that dephases the system in a fixed basis and projects each environment subspace into the corresponding objective subspace. After identical unitary evolution and a fixed final measurement, the absolute difference of the two probabilities is the witness $W_{\mathrm{SQD}}$. The paper proves $W_{\mathrm{SQD}}(M_{SE}) \le M_{\mathrm{SQD}}(\rho_{SF}(t))$, where $M_{\mathrm{SQD}}$ is the trace-norm distance from the objective subspace, so any non-zero witness implies non-objectivity relative to the fixed basis and subspaces. The converse is not claimed: a zero reading does not certify full objectivity, because a state objective in another basis can still give a non-zero witness. The scheme is applied to a photonic qubit simulation using parity checks and CNOT gates, and numerical results show it detects non-objectivity under depolarising noise and imperfect gates.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes that a preferred set of system states and a preferred family of environment subspaces are fixed in advance, and it treats 'objective' as meaning 'lying in those subspaces'; a state that is objective in another basis can therefore be reported as non-objective, and a zero witness does not rule out that possibility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A non-zero witness is sufficient to declare the state non-objective relative to the chosen basis and subspaces, without reconstructing the state.
  • The photonic scheme's run count scales as $C + C(1/p_{\mathrm{CNOT}})^{2M}$, versus $C\,3^{1+2M}$ for tomography, so the advantage grows with the number of environment photons once $p_{\mathrm{CNOT}}$ is above about $1/3$ (about $0.42$ at the simulated gate fidelity).
  • For invariant spectrum broadcast structure, which applies when all subsystem dimensions are equal, the objectivity operation needs no CNOT gates and the witness requires roughly a constant number of runs independent of fragment size.
  • The witness gives one combined number for non-objectivity and does not by itself say whether the failure comes from quantum correlations or missing classical correlations; the paper suggests adding a discord witness when the source matters.
  • A zero witness is not a certificate of full objectivity, since the scheme is system-basis and environment-subspace dependent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two-branch comparison is a general template: any non-objectivity or correlation measure defined as a distance to a convex set could be lower-bounded by the same probability-difference construction, so the scheme may transfer to other convex resource theories with minimal changes.
  • Because the witness reports non-objectivity relative to a fixed subspace, using it on a state that is objective in another basis produces a false positive; a practical protocol may need to scan several candidate subspaces or infer the natural objective basis before trusting a non-zero reading.
  • The paper's run-count comparison counts only measurement runs and treats the point channel and unitary evolution as deterministic; including state-preparation overheads and CNOT failures will raise the effective resource cost, and the claimed advantage should be re-tested in an end-to-end estimate.
  • For invariant spectrum broadcast structure, the CNOT-free scheme suggests an immediate experimental test with a five-photon GHZ state: if the witness remains tight for reduced fragments as the paper's simulations show, it would validate the approach at modest scale.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript introduces a subspace-dependent 'objectivity operation' Gamma_SQD and a trace-distance measure M_SQD of non-objectivity, and constructs a witness W_SQD obtained by comparing the evolution of the system-fragment state with and without Gamma_SQD. The central result is the inequality W_SQD <= M_SQD, proven in Eqs. (18)-(23) via trace-norm duality. The paper also proposes a photonic implementation based on CNOT gates and parity checks, reports numerical simulations (including imperfect gates), and gives a scaling argument showing a potential advantage over full tomography. An analogous witness is developed for invariant spectrum broadcast structure in Appendix B.

Significance. The theoretical bound is derived cleanly and the numerical simulations are consistent with the detection claim; the authors also honestly point out limitations (weakness for full-fragment quantum correlations, overshoot under gate errors, basis-dependence). The proposed witness is a potentially useful step toward scalable experimental tests of quantum Darwinism. However, a normalization/postselection issue in the definition of the measure and in the experimental protocol must be resolved before the experimental claim is sound.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (11)] The objectivity operation Gamma in Eq. (10) is trace-nonincreasing for generic choices of the objective subspaces, because the projectors |i><i|_S x Pi_{F|i} need not sum to the identity on SF. Consequently the claim that max_{rho} M_SQD(rho) = 1 is false. For example, with d_S = d_F = 2 and projectors |0><0|_S x |0><0|_F and |1><1|_S x |1><1|_F, the state rho = |0><0|_S x |+><+|_F gives Gamma(rho) = (1/2)|00><00| and ||rho - Gamma(rho)||_1 = sqrt(5)/2 = 1.118 > 1. This should be corrected by either normalizing Gamma so that it is trace-preserving (e.g., by adding a failure outcome) or by explicitly stating that M_SQD is not normalized and can exceed 1.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (15)-(17) and Fig. 4] The witness is defined in terms of unconditional probabilities P1 and PGamma, with PGamma = tr[M_SE U_tau(Gamma(rho_SF(t)) x rho_new)]. The proposed photonic implementation, however, is postselected: only runs in which the parity checks match the system measurement are retained (Fig. 4). If an experimentalist instead estimates the conditional probability PGamma_cond = tr[M_SE U_tau(Gamma(rho) x rho_new)] / Tr[Gamma(rho)], the inequality W <= M can fail, because division by Tr[Gamma(rho)] can amplify the difference. The scaling analysis in Sec. IVD ('in order for there to be a total of C successful runs...') makes clear that the objective branch is treated as conditional. The authors must specify how the unconditional probabilities in Eqs. (15) and (17) are reconstructed from postselected data (e.g., by including failure counts as a null outcome or by multiplying by the success probability), or else provide a modified witness bound valid under postselection.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IVC] The sentence 'Fig. 7 shows the presumes a perfect circuit' should read 'Fig. 7 shows the results for a perfect circuit'.
  2. [Sec. IVD] The expression 'pCNOT & 1/3' should read 'p_CNOT >= 1/3' or 'p_CNOT >~ 1/3'; the ampersand is a typographical artifact.
  3. [Sec. III, after Eq. (11)] Consider stating explicitly that Gamma is not trace-preserving in general and that M_SQD is therefore not a normalized measure; this would prevent a natural misreading of Fig. 7, where M_SQD is plotted against 1.
  4. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4 caption] The phrase 'If the objective operation results in a null state, then all measurement outcomes are zero' is only meaningful if the trace-nonincreasing nature of Gamma is understood; please clarify this sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the witness is defined as a comparison with the objectivity operation, and the lower-bound inequality is proven directly.

full rationale

The derivation of the non-objectivity witness is self-contained. The witness W in Eq. (18) is defined as the absolute difference between measurement probabilities with and without the objectivity operation Γ, and the measure M in Eq. (11) is the trace-norm distance to Γ. The bound W ≤ M is then proven in Eqs. (19)–(23) using the dual form of the trace norm, not assumed. The claim that a non-zero witness implies non-objectivity is a direct corollary of this bound, relative to the stated basis and subspaces. The paper's own acknowledgement that the witness is system-basis and environment-subspace dependent is a limitation, not a circularity. The photonic implementation is a proposal with numerical simulations; no parameter is fitted to make the witness agree with the measure, and the scaling comparison in Sec. IVD is an arithmetic count of runs. The main self-citation, Ref. [3], supplies the definition of strong quantum Darwinism as the framework being used, but no load-bearing argument reduces to that citation: the bound and the numerical simulations stand independently. No fitted input is relabelled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to force the choice of operation. The possible normalization issue with the claimed maximum M = 1 for a trace-nonincreasing Γ is a correctness concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central mathematical derivation uses standard trace-norm duality and the algebraic definition of the objectivity projector. The experimental scaling and implementation add assumptions about non-demolition CNOT/parity gates and about the existence of a preferred objective subspace; these are not fitted to data. The only simulation input chosen from external experiments is the CNOT fidelity F_CNOT≈0.79. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • CNOT gate fidelity F_CNOT = ≈0.79
    Selected to model imperfect gates in Fig. 9; based on approximate experimental CNOT logic tables in Refs. [76-78], so not fitted to the paper's own target.
  • CNOT success probability p_CNOT = ≥1/(3 F_CNOT) ≈ 0.42
    In Sec. IVD this threshold determines whether the witness beats tomography; assumed achievable with cross-Kerr gates, not measured in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Trace-norm dual variational formula: ||A||_1 = sup_{||B||≤1} |tr[BA]|
    Used in Eqs. (20)-(23) to prove W_SQD ≤ M_SQD.
  • domain assumption The projectors Π_{F|i} define an orthogonal partition of the fragment Hilbert space such that the objectivity operation Γ is a valid quantum operation
    Needed for Eq. (10) to act as a projection onto a well-defined objective subspace; completeness is not explicitly stated in the text.
  • domain assumption Bipartite spectrum broadcast structure characterization of strong quantum Darwinism from Ref. [3] is accepted
    Used to justify the projector structure in Eqs. (6)-(9).
  • domain assumption Non-demolition parity checks and CNOT gates can be realized in photonic systems via cross-Kerr nonlinearities with sufficient fidelity and success probability
    Assumed for the experimental proposal in Sec. IVB and for the scaling comparison in Sec. IVD; the authors cite Refs. [72,73,88] for feasibility.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Witnessing non-objectivity in the framework of strong quantum Darwinism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5YWS3K6

@misc{pith2026190808818,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Witnessing non-objectivity in the framework of strong quantum Darwinism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5YWS3K6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08818}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum Darwinism is a compelling theory that describes the quantum-to classical transition as the emergence of objectivity of quantum systems. Spectrum broadcast structure and strong quantum Darwinism are two extensions of this theory with emphasis on state structure and information respectively. The complete experimental verification of these three frameworks, however, requires quantum state tomography over both the system and accessible environments, thus limiting the feasibility and scalability of experimental tests. Here, we introduce a subspace-dependent objectivity operation and construct a witness that detects non-objectivity by comparing the dynamics of the system-environment state with and without the objectivity operation. We then propose a photonic experimental simulation that implements the witnessing scheme. Our work proposes a route to further experimental exploration of the quantum to classical transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08818 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Depiction of Quantum Darwinism: the central system interacts with its surrounding environments. Observers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Protocol for the non-objectivity witness. The system-environment is prepared into some state ρSE(t) = Uprep(ρSE(0)). A point channel R point E\F [Eq. (13)] is applied on the “un-accessed” environment E\F to ensure that the witness does not detect extraneous correlations. We can either leave the system-fragment SF untouched (identity channel ISF ) or apply the objectivity operation Γ SQD SF [Eq. (10)]. The system-env… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualisation of our pre-determined objective subspace. The system and environments must be in a statistical mixture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Circuit for one particular run within the scheme to witness non-objectivity. Each environment consists of two photons. The system-environment is first prepared into the state given in Eq. (24), including 4-photon GHZ state preparation shown in further detail in [PITH_…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Controlled-NOT for two photon polarisation qubits from Ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Initial state preparation. (a) Four-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state preparation: producing two Bell states (via the EPR elements), then combining one photon from each pair at a polarising beam splitter (PBS) to produce a four-photon GHZ state. (b) The EP…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Numerical Simulation of the non-objectivity witness in the strong quantum Darwinism framework. Fragments either consisted of the first environment E1 [(a), (c)] or both environments E1E2 [(b), (d)]. MSQD refers to the subspace-dependent non-objectivity measure defined …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulated CNOT logic table with average gate fidelity of 0.79 used for the numerical simulation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Numerical Simulation of the non-objectivity witness in strong quantum Darwinism framework with imperfect state preparation and gates. Details are given in Sec. IV C 2. Briefly, we have 500 initial states are randomly distributed close to the wanted initial state Eq. (2…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Circuit for one particular run within the scheme to witness non-objectivity in the invariant spectrum broadcast structure framework. The system and each environment consists of one a photon polarisation qubit. The system-environment are first prepared in a five-photon…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Numerical Simulation of the non-objectivity witness in the invariant spectrum broadcast structure framework. Fragments consist of {E1}, {E1, E2}, {E1, E2, E3} and {E1, E2, E3, E4} from left to right. MISBS refers to the basis-dependent measure defined in Eq. (B2); max…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Preparing the states with some non-objectivity that we wish to witness,

  2. [2]

    Applying a point channel onE\F,

  3. [3]

    Applying the objectivity operation onSF, or an identity operation, depending on the run,

  4. [4]

    The unitary evolution,

  5. [5]

    7 Figure 4

    And the final measurement. 7 Figure 4. Circuit for one particular run within the scheme to witness non-objectivity. Each environment consists of two photons. The system-environment is first prepared into the state given in Eq. (24), including 4-photon GHZ state preparation shown in further detail in Fig. 6. In this particular run, we have depolarisation cha...

  6. [6]

    E. J. O’Reilly and A. Olaya-Castro, Nat. Commun.5, 3012 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    (24) and for the parity measurement for the objective operation, both seen in Fig

    Controlled-NOT Operation The experimental procedure uses a number of nondestructive CNOT gates: in the preparation of the initial state in Eq. (24) and for the parity measurement for the objective operation, both seen in Fig. 4. This is also the main limiting factor of the witnessing scheme, and the scalability of the witnessing scheme depends heavily on ...

  8. [8]

    This is shown in the first left-hand box in Fig

    Initial state preparation The system state can be created with a Hadamard H produced with a half wave plate (HWP) at θ = π/2: (|0⟩ +|1⟩)/ √ 2 = H|0⟩. This is shown in the first left-hand box in Fig. 4. We then need to create a four-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state on the environment. This procedure is depicted in Fig. 6, and proceeds as follo...

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    (10) can be implemented with a system polarisation measurement and non- destructive parity checks on the environment

    Objectivity Operation The objectivity operation from Eq. (10) can be implemented with a system polarisation measurement and non- destructive parity checks on the environment. One possible parity check scheme is shown in Fig. 4, which uses an auxiliary photon and two CNOT opera...

  2. [10]

    7 shows the presumes a perfect circuit, while Fig

    Fig. 7 shows the presumes a perfect circuit, while Fig. 9 considers if the state preparation involved controlled-NOT operations with fidelities of approximately0.79. We find that our witness is able to detect non-objectivity in the cases we considered

  3. [11]

    This reflects our motivation that only particular measurements are possible, or preferable, in a realistic system

    Measurement Operators in the Witness The final measurements of the system and fragment are always in the computational basis. This reflects our motivation that only particular measurements are possible, or preferable, in a realistic system. For a particular projective rank-1 mea...

  4. [12]

    In particular, we have employed various CNOT operations which can have fidelityF <1

    Simulation with operation fidelities and noise In a realistic experiment, gate operations are not perfect. In particular, we have employed various CNOT operations which can have fidelityF <1. To simulate such results, we consider a CNOT gate that behaves imperfectly, with the gi...

  5. [13]

    ChooseNρ = 500 random initial statesρi distributed close to the ideal state given in Eq. (24)

  6. [14]

    For eachρi, simulateNc = 1000 stochastic runs of the circuit

  7. [15]

    For each run, simulate measurement with total photon number picked from a Poisson distribution with mean photon numberNp = 100

  8. [16]

    For eachρi, average over all measurement outcomes and calculate the optimal witness,max{MSF}W SQD

  9. [17]

    Thus, the simulation results in Fig

    Calculate the average optimal witness over all random initial states. Thus, the simulation results in Fig. 9 have three primary noise sources: the initial imperfect preparation, the nonzero fidelity into the CNOT gates in the objective operation, and measurement noise. We can s...

  10. [18]

    (B2) The overall witness scheme is identical to that of the strong quantum Darwinism witness scheme in Sec. III. The corresponding non-objectivity witness in this framework is: W ISBS(MSE ) = ⏐⏐⏐tr [ MSEUτ [{ ρSF (t)− ΓISBS SF (ρSF (t)) } ⊗ρnew E\F ]]⏐⏐⏐, (B3) where MSE is a m...

  11. [19]

    The main departure from the scheme with strong quantum Darwinism is the initial state, and the objectivity operation, shown in Fig

    Quantum Photonic Simulation Proposal We take the system as one photon, and consider four environments each comprised of one photon each. The main departure from the scheme with strong quantum Darwinism is the initial state, and the objectivity operation, shown in Fig. 10 (comp...

  12. [20]

    Similarly, coincident detection in the outputs implies that each both photons areH-polarised orV-polarised, and after renormalising the state, the five-photon GHZ state is made [74]

    Then, arrange the path-lengths such that the system photon and the first environment photon arrive at a polarising beam splitter the same time. Similarly, coincident detection in the outputs implies that each both photons areH-polarised orV-polarised, and after renormalising th...

  13. [21]

    W. H. Zurek, Nat. Phys.5, 181 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Horodecki, J

    R. Horodecki, J. K. Korbicz, and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A91, 032122 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    T. P. Le and A. Olaya-Castro, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 010403 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Schlosshauer, (2014), arXiv:1404.2635v1

    M. Schlosshauer, (2014), arXiv:1404.2635v1

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Arndt, T

    M. Arndt, T. Juffmann, and V. Vedral, HFSP Journal3, 386 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Pérez, Phys

    A. Pérez, Phys. Rev. A81, 052326 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    F. G. S. L. Brandão, M. Piani, and P. Horodecki, Nat. Commun.6, 7908 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    P. A. Knott, T. Tufarelli, M. Piani, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 160401 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    J. K. Korbicz, E. A. Aguilar, P. Ćwikliński, and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A96, 032124 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Qi and D

    X. Qi and D. Ranard, (2020), arXiv:2001.01507v1

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Balanesković, Eur

    N. Balanesković, Eur. Phys. J. D69, 232 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Balanesković and M

    N. Balanesković and M. Mendler, Eur. Phys. J. D70, 177 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Ollivier, D

    H. Ollivier, D. Poulin, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 220401 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    Blume-Kohout and W

    R. Blume-Kohout and W. H. Zurek, Found. Phys.35, 1857 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    C. J. Riedel, W. H. Zurek, and M. Zwolak, New J. Phys.14, 083010 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Zwolak, H

    M. Zwolak, H. T. Quan, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 110402 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Zwolak, H

    M. Zwolak, H. T. Quan, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. A81, 062110 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Zwolak, C

    M. Zwolak, C. J. Riedel, and W. H. Zurek, Sci. Rep.6, 25277 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    G. L. Giorgi, F. Galve, and R. Zambrini, Phys. Rev. A92, 022105 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    Zwolak, C

    M. Zwolak, C. J. Riedel, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 140406 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Zwolak and W

    M. Zwolak and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. A95, 030101 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Lampo, J

    A. Lampo, J. Tuziemski, M. Lewenstein, and J. K. Korbicz, Phys. Rev. A96, 012120 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    C. J. Riedel and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 020404 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    C. J. Riedel and W. H. Zurek, New J. Phys.13, 073038 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Korbicz, P

    J. Korbicz, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 120402 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    D. K. Ferry, R. Akis, and R. Brunner, Phys. Scr.T165, 014010 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    T. P. Le and A. Olaya-Castro, Phys. Rev. A98, 032103 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    J. K. Korbicz and J. Tuziemski, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.49, 152 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Tuziemski, P

    J. Tuziemski, P. Witas, and J. K. Korbicz, Phys. Rev. A97, 012110 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Blume-Kohout and W

    R. Blume-Kohout and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. A73, 062310 (2006)

    2006

  43. [51]

    Roszak and J

    K. Roszak and J. K. Korbicz, Phys. Rev. A100, 062127 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Campbell, B

    S. Campbell, B. Çakmak, O. E. Müstecaplıoğlu, M. Paternostro, and B. Vacchini, Phys. Rev. A99, 042103 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    García-Pérez, D

    G. García-Pérez, D. A. Chisholm, M. A. C. Rossi, G. M. Palma, and S. Maniscalco, (2019), arXiv:1907.12447

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Tuziemski, A

    J. Tuziemski, A. Lampo, M. Lewenstein, and J. K. Korbicz, Phys. Rev. A99, 022122 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    S. M. Oliveira, A. L. de Paula, and R. C. Drumond, Phys. Rev. A100, 052110 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Roszak and J

    K. Roszak and J. K. Korbicz, Phys. Rev. A101, 052120 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Milazzo, S

    N. Milazzo, S. Lorenzo, M. Paternostro, and G. M. Palma, Phys. Rev. A100, 012101 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Lorenzo, M

    S. Lorenzo, M. Paternostro, and G. M. Palma, Phys. Rev. Research2, 013164 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    T. P. Le, P. Mironowicz, and P. Horodecki, (2020), arXiv:2006.06364v1

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Tuziemski, (2020), arXiv:2006.07298v2

    J. Tuziemski, (2020), arXiv:2006.07298v2

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Brunner, R

    R. Brunner, R. Akis, D. K. Ferry, F. Kuchar, and R. Meisels, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 024102 (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    A. M. Burke, R. Akis, T. E. Day, G. Speyer, D. K. Ferry, and B. R. Bennett, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 176801 (2010)

    2010

  55. [63]

    D. K. Ferry, A. M. Burke, R. Akis, R. Brunner, T. E. Day, R. Meisels, F. Kuchar, J. P. Bird, and B. R. Bennett, Semicond. Sci. Technol.26, 043001 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    Brunner, D

    R. Brunner, D. K. Ferry, R. Akis, R. Meisels, F. Kuchar, A. M. Burke, and J. P. Bird, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter24, 343202 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    un-accessed

    and quantum coherence [66]. We could alternatively use a combination of a discord witness [65, 67–70] combined with a measurement of the classical information. However, unlike the scheme we will introduce below, this will not produce a single witness value for non-objectivity,...

  58. [66]

    Brunner, R

    R. Brunner, R. Akis, R. Meisels, F. Kuchar, and D. Ferry, Physica E42, 1208 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    M. A. Ciampini, G. Pinna, P. Mataloni, and M. Paternostro, Phys. Rev. A98, 020101 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Chen, H.-S

    M.-C. Chen, H.-S. Zhong, Y. Li, D. Wu, X.-L. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Sci. Bull.64, 580 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Unden, D

    T. Unden, D. Louzon, M. Zwolak, W. Zurek, and F. Jelezko, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 140402 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    Cramer, M

    M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y.-K. Liu, Nat. Commun.1, 149 (2010)

    2010

  63. [71]

    O’Donnell and J

    R. O’Donnell and J. Wright, (2015), 1508.01907v2

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. Haah, A. W. Harrow, Z. Ji, X. Wu, and N. Yu, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , 1 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Aaronson, inACM SIGACT - STOC 2018(ACM Press, 2018) pp

    S. Aaronson, inACM SIGACT - STOC 2018(ACM Press, 2018) pp. 325–338

    2018

  66. [74]

    Gühne and G

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Phys. Rep.474, 1 (2009)

    2009

  67. [75]

    Adesso, T

    G. Adesso, T. R. Bromley, and M. Cianciaruso, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.49, 473001 (2016)

    2016

  68. [76]

    Lewenstein, B

    M. Lewenstein, B. Kraus, J. I. Cirac, and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A62, 052310 (2000)

    2000

  69. [77]

    J. S. Bell, Physics1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  70. [78]

    B. M. Terhal, Phys. Lett. A271, 319 (2000)

    2000

  71. [79]

    Henderson and V

    L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.34, 6899 (2001)

    2001

  72. [80]

    Ollivier and W

    H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 017901 (2001). 18

    2001

  73. [81]

    Zwolak and W

    M. Zwolak and W. H. Zurek, Sci. Rep.3, 1729 (2013)

    2013

  74. [82]

    Egloff, J

    D. Egloff, J. M. Matera, T. Theurer, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. X8, 031005 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    Yadin, J

    B. Yadin, J. Ma, D. Girolami, M. Gu, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. X6, 041028 (2016)

    2016

  76. [84]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017)

    2017

  77. [85]

    Gessner and H.-P

    M. Gessner and H.-P. Breuer, Phys. Rev. A87, 042107 (2013)

    2013

  78. [86]

    G. C. Knee, M. Marcus, L. D. Smith, and A. Datta, Phys. Rev. A98, 052328 (2018)

    2018

  79. [87]

    S. Yu, C. Zhang, Q. Chen, and C. H. Oh, (2011), arXiv:1102.4710v1

    2011 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Rahimi and A

    R. Rahimi and A. SaiToh, Phys. Rev. A82, 022314 (2010)

    2010

  81. [89]

    Maziero and R

    J. Maziero and R. M. Serra, Int. J. Quant. Inf.10, 1250028 (2012)

    2012

  82. [90]

    Zhang, S

    C. Zhang, S. Yu, Q. Chen, and C. H. Oh, Phys. Rev. A84, 032122 (2011)

    2011

  83. [91]

    Gasparoni, J.-W

    S. Gasparoni, J.-W. Pan, P. Walther, T. Rudolph, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 020504 (2004)

    2004

  84. [92]

    Nemoto and W

    K. Nemoto and W. J. Munro, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 250502 (2004)

    2004

  85. [93]

    Lin and J

    Q. Lin and J. Li, Phys. Rev. A79, 022301 (2009)

    2009

  86. [94]

    Zhao, Y.-A

    Z. Zhao, Y.-A. Chen, A.-N. Zhang, T. Yang, H. J. Briegel, and J.-W. Pan, Nature430, 54 (2004)

    2004

  87. [95]

    Jeong, J.-C

    Y.-C. Jeong, J.-C. Lee, and Y.-H. Kim, Phys. Rev. A87, 014301 (2013)

    2013

  88. [96]

    Zhao, A.-N

    Z. Zhao, A.-N. Zhang, Y.-A. Chen, H. Zhang, J.-F. Du, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 030501 (2005)

    2005

  89. [97]

    Bao, T.-Y

    X.-H. Bao, T.-Y. Chen, Q. Zhang, J. Yang, H. Zhang, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 170502 (2007)

    2007

  90. [98]

    Zeuner, A

    J. Zeuner, A. N. Sharma, M. Tillmann, R. Heilmann, M. Gräfe, A. Moqanaki, A. Szameit, and P. Walther, npj Quantum Inf. 4, 13 (2018)

    2018

  91. [99]

    He and A

    B. He and A. Scherer, Phys. Rev. A85, 033814 (2012)

    2012

  92. [100]

    B. Fan, A. F. Kockum, J. Combes, G. Johansson, I. chun Hoi, C. M. Wilson, P. Delsing, G. J. Milburn, and T. M. Stace, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 053601 (2013)

    2013

  93. [101]

    Heo, C.-H

    J. Heo, C.-H. Hong, H.-J. Yang, J.-P. Hong, and S.-G. Choi, Quantum Inf. Process.16, 110 (2017)

    2017

  94. [102]

    Heo, M.-S

    J. Heo, M.-S. Kang, C. H. Hong, J.-P. Hong, and S.-G. Choi, Sci. Rep.8, 13843 (2018)

    2018

  95. [103]

    C. Hong, J. Heo, M.-S. Kang, J. Jang, H.-J. Yang, and D. Kwon, Optics Express27, 31023 (2019)

    2019

  96. [104]

    L. M. K. Vandersypen and I. L. Chuang, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 1037 (2005)

    2005

  97. [105]

    Laflamme, E

    R. Laflamme, E. Knill, D. G. Cory, E. M. Fortunato, T. Havel, C. Miquel, R. Martinez, C. Negrevergne, G. Ortiz, M. A. Pravia, Y. Sharf, S. Sinha, R. Somma, and L. Viola, (2002), quant-ph/0207172v1

    2002 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Lee and A

    J.-S. Lee and A. K. Khitrin, Appl. Phys. Lett.89, 074105 (2006)

    2006

  99. [107]

    W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, and T. P. Spiller, New J. Phys.7, 137 (2005)

    2005

  100. [108]

    Venkataraman, K

    V. Venkataraman, K. Saha, and A. L. Gaeta, Nat. Photonics7, 138 (2012)

    2012

  101. [109]

    Tiarks, S

    D. Tiarks, S. Schmidt, G. Rempe, and S. Dürr, Sci. Adv.2, e1600036 (2016)

    2016

  102. [110]

    Ramelow, A

    S. Ramelow, A. Farsi, Z. Vernon, S. Clemmen, X. Ji, J. Sipe, M. Liscidini, M. Lipson, and A. L. Gaeta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 153906 (2019)

    2019

  103. [111]

    Tiarks, S

    D. Tiarks, S. Schmidt-Eberle, T. Stolz, G. Rempe, and S. Dürr, Nat. Phys.15, 124 (2018)

    2018

  104. [112]

    Hacker, S

    B. Hacker, S. Welte, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, Nature536, 193 (2016)

    2016

  105. [113]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  106. [114]

    Takagi and B

    R. Takagi and B. Regula, Phys. Rev. X9, 031053 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.