Thermodynamic closure of quantum measurements and the limits of the indirect measurement model

Francesco Buscemi; M. Hamed Mohammady

arxiv: 2502.14136 · v2 · submitted 2025-02-19 · 🪐 quant-ph

Thermodynamic closure of quantum measurements and the limits of the indirect measurement model

M. Hamed Mohammady , Francesco Buscemi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 02:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum measurementthermodynamic closureindirect measurement modelefficient measurementunitary dilationKraus operatorquantum thermodynamics

0 comments

The pith

Imposing thermodynamic closure at the level of the indirect measurement process categorically forbids efficient quantum measurements.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Quantum measurements require an adiabatic enclosure to admit a genuine thermodynamic description that resolves energy exchange into work and heat. The paper distinguishes two inequivalent places where this closure can be imposed: on the measurement instrument acting on the system, or on the full indirect process consisting of the unitary interaction between system, apparatus, and environments. Every instrument admits a unitary dilation, yet these dilations do not generally yield an admissible thermodynamic closure at the process level. The prohibition is absolute for efficient measurements, which are completely purity-preserving and described by a single Kraus operator. The finding exposes a direct conflict between thermodynamic consistency and the assumption that all quantum instruments can be realized through unitary interactions.

Core claim

Although every quantum instrument admits a unitary dilation, such constructions do not in general supply an admissible thermodynamic closure when the enclosure is required at the level of the full measurement process. Efficient measurements, including von Neumann-Lüders and square-root state-update rules, remain compatible with thermodynamics only when closure is imposed solely at the instrument level; they are forbidden when the closure condition is applied to the process.

What carries the argument

Thermodynamic closure imposed at the level of the indirect measurement process, requiring an adiabatic enclosure around the unitary interaction of system, apparatus, and environments.

If this is right

Efficient measurements cannot receive a genuine thermodynamic description when closure applies at the process level.
The standard indirect measurement model cannot realize all instruments without violating thermodynamic laws.
Instruments with multiple Kraus operators or explicit environmental coupling become necessary for thermodynamic admissibility at the process level.
Unitary dilations must be further constrained by the first and second laws to serve as valid thermodynamic closures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Some quantum operations may only be physically realizable if the environment is modeled explicitly as an open system that exchanges heat.
The result may limit how closed-system quantum information processing can be reconciled with thermodynamic accounting.
Alternative non-unitary or explicitly dissipative models could be needed to describe measurements that remain efficient yet thermodynamically consistent.

Load-bearing premise

Thermodynamic closure must be imposed at the level of the indirect measurement process rather than solely at the resulting instrument.

What would settle it

An explicit unitary dilation for an efficient measurement that satisfies both energy conservation and the second law during the closed interaction without external heat exchange.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.14136 by Francesco Buscemi, M. Hamed Mohammady.

read the original abstract

We investigate the consequences of requiring that a quantum measurement admit an adiabatic enclosure, so that it can be assigned a genuine thermodynamic description in which energy exchange is meaningfully resolved into work and heat. We identify two inequivalent levels at which such thermodynamic closure can be imposed: at the level of the measurement instrument acting on the system, or at the level of the indirect measurement process realising the instrument, namely the interaction between the system and a measuring apparatus, possibly including arbitrarily large environments. Although every instrument admits a unitary dilation, we show that such a construction does not generally provide an admissible thermodynamic closure. This distinction is especially dramatic for efficient measurements, i.e., measurements that are completely purity-preserving and described by a single Kraus operator, including von Neumann--L\"uders and square-root state-update rules. While efficient measurements are compatible with the laws of thermodynamics when thermodynamic closure is imposed at the level of the instrument, they are categorically forbidden when closure is imposed at the level of the measurement process. Our results therefore reveal a fundamental tension between thermodynamics and the universal applicability of the unitary interaction-based indirect measurement model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper cleanly separates instrument-level from process-level thermodynamic closure and shows efficient measurements are ruled out at the process level, but the strength of that prohibition depends on how adiabatic enclosure is formalized for the full interaction.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that the authors argue unitary dilations fail to deliver thermodynamic closure when the requirement is imposed on the entire indirect measurement process rather than just the instrument. Efficient measurements, which use a single Kraus operator, are allowed under instrument-level closure but forbidden under process-level closure. This is the central claim and it is new in the way it draws the distinction and applies it to the standard dilation construction. The paper does a good job stating the two levels explicitly and showing that the usual Stinespring-type dilation does not automatically satisfy the stronger condition. It works with ordinary definitions of instruments and does not introduce extra fitted parameters. The argument is presented as following directly from requiring an adiabatic enclosure at the level of system plus apparatus plus environments. The soft spot is that the categorical prohibition rests on the specific way adiabatic closure is defined for the process; if environments can be chosen or coupled differently, the prohibition might not hold in full generality. Without seeing the explicit derivations for the efficient case it is difficult to judge whether the steps are tight or whether some implicit assumption about heat exchange is doing the work. The paper is aimed at people who care about the overlap between quantum measurement theory and thermodynamics. A reader who already thinks about work and heat in open quantum systems will find the instrument-versus-process split useful even if they end up disagreeing with how strongly it limits the indirect model. It is worth sending to peer review because the claim is precise enough that referees can check the derivations and the scope of the prohibition.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the consequences of requiring an adiabatic enclosure for quantum measurements to admit a genuine thermodynamic description. It distinguishes two inequivalent levels of thermodynamic closure: at the instrument level (acting on the system) versus at the process level (the full unitary interaction realizing the instrument, including apparatus and environments). The central claim is that every instrument admits a unitary dilation, but such dilations do not generally supply an admissible thermodynamic closure; this is especially acute for efficient measurements (completely purity-preserving, single-Kraus-operator instruments such as von Neumann-Lüders), which are admissible at the instrument level but categorically forbidden at the process level, revealing a tension with the universal applicability of the indirect measurement model.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the result is significant for the foundations of quantum thermodynamics and measurement theory. It supplies a concrete, categorical prohibition for efficient measurements under process-level closure and explicitly credits the logical distinction between the two closure levels together with the focus on purity-preserving instruments. The work identifies a load-bearing incompatibility between standard Stinespring dilations and thermodynamic requirements when closure is imposed at the level of the full interaction.

minor comments (3)

[§2] §2 (or equivalent definitions section): the precise mathematical definition of 'adiabatic enclosure' and the conditions under which a unitary dilation supplies or fails to supply thermodynamic closure should be stated explicitly before the main theorems, to allow readers to verify the distinction between instrument-level and process-level closure without ambiguity.
[Abstract] The abstract and introduction use 'categorically forbidden' for efficient measurements at the process level; a brief forward reference to the specific theorem or proposition establishing this (e.g., the relevant equation or corollary) would improve readability.
Notation for instruments, Kraus operators, and unitary dilations follows standard conventions but should be checked for consistent use of subscripts when distinguishing system, apparatus, and environment degrees of freedom across sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript, their recognition of the significance of the distinction between instrument-level and process-level thermodynamic closure, and their recommendation for minor revision. We are pleased that the central claims are viewed as potentially important for quantum thermodynamics and measurement theory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper distinguishes instrument-level versus process-level thermodynamic closure and shows that unitary dilations fail to supply the latter for efficient measurements. This follows from applying standard thermodynamic accounting (work/heat resolution under adiabatic enclosure) to the definitions of instruments and dilations; no step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain. The central claim is a direct consequence of the stated closure requirement rather than a renaming or imported uniqueness theorem. The argument is self-contained against external benchmarks of quantum measurement theory.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a domain-specific definition of thermodynamic closure at two inequivalent levels and relies on standard quantum-information axioms for instruments and unitary dilations. No free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc mathematical objects are indicated in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Quantum measurements are described by instruments realized via Kraus operators and admit unitary dilations.
Standard framework of quantum information theory invoked throughout the abstract.
domain assumption A genuine thermodynamic description requires an adiabatic enclosure that resolves energy exchange into work and heat.
Definition introduced to impose thermodynamic closure; central to the two-level distinction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5723 in / 1441 out tokens · 75983 ms · 2026-05-23T02:00:53.906333+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

INTRODUCTION: MEASUREMENTS AS THERMODYNAMIC PROCESSES Maxwell’s demon is often used to illustrate how measurements can seemingly violate thermodynamic laws. Here, in contrast, we adopt the opposite approach: given the assumed universality of thermodynamic laws, we ask how these laws impose limitations on the types of measurements that can be performed. Ce...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[2]

In other words, any mea- surement allowed by quantum theory (whether efficient or not) can also be implemented in a way that is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics

The second law imposes no restrictions on which measurements can be realized. In other words, any mea- surement allowed by quantum theory (whether efficient or not) can also be implemented in a way that is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. However, the second law does impose constraints on how these measurements can be implemented (Lemma 3...

work page
[3]

If the third law is also required to hold, which demands that the apparatus be prepared in a full-rank state, then no standard unitary interaction model can result in quasicomplete measurements, let alone efficient ones (Theorem 3.1)

work page
[4]

If the mechanism establishing the correlations between the system and the apparatus—the latter pre- pared in a full-rank state—is a strictly positive, non-bistochastic (and thus, non-unitary) channel, then efficient measurements are possible if and only if the corresponding observable is strictly positive (The- orem 4.1). That is, while projective von Neu...

work page
[5]

completely unsharp

PRELIMINARIES 2.1. Operations and channels Here we consider only systems with complex Hilbert spaces H of finite dimension. Let L(H)⊃Ls(H)⊃ Lp(H) be the algebra of linear operators, the real vector space of self-adjoint operators, and the cone of positive semidefinite operators on H, respectively. The symbols 1 and O denote the unit and null operators inL...

work page
[6]

COMP A TIBILITY OF MEASUREMENT PROCESSES WITH THERMODYNAMICS 3.1. Compatibility with the second law As discussed in the introduction, in order to formulate a thermodynamics of quantum measurements, we assume that for each instrument there exists a measurement process during which the compound, consisting of the system to be measured, the measurement appar...

work page
[7]

integrated

GETTING P AST THE NO-GO THEOREM Let us consider again the measurement process in closer detail. Recall from Eq. (1) that for each outcome x, the operations that are implemented by the process M := (HA,ξ,E,J ) read Ix(•S) := [ trA◦(idS⊗Jx)◦E ] (•S⊗ξA). Now note that (idS⊗Jx)◦Eare operations that add up to a channel (id S⊗JX )◦E. That is, the collection of ...

work page
[8]

the square-root instrument, i.e., the one where Ux = U for all x, can be realized in a completely thermodynamically compatible manner, i.e., by means of a model that always obeys the second and third laws, regardless of the states of the system and apparatus

work page
[9]

Proof of Theorem 4.1

other efficient instruments can also be realized, but in general the model will be thermodynamically compatible only for a fixed apparatus state. Proof of Theorem 4.1. To prove the claim, we use the measurement process introduced in Corollary D.1 of Ref. [12], which is as follows: identify the value space as X :={x = 0,...,N −1}where N =|X|is the number o...

work page
[10]

But since E1(ϱ) and K0ϱK∗ 0 are positive, this implies that rank (E1(ϱ)) ⩾ rank (K0ϱK∗

work page
[11]

As such, E1 is a rank non-decreasing channel

= rank (ϱ). As such, E1 is a rank non-decreasing channel. Since the composition of rank non-decreasing channels is also rank non-decreasing, it follows that E =E2◦E1 is a rank non-decreasing channel, and hence strictly positive. Indeed, the full channel (id S⊗JX )◦Eis also strictly positive. This measurement process is therefore compatible with the third ...

work page
[12]

Extreme Universe

THE TRILEMMA FOR MEASUREMENT PROCESSES The combination of Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 4.1 leads to a fundamental trilemma for measurement processes, i.e., three conditions that cannot be simultaneously satisfied in any quantum measurement pro- cess: Corollary 5.1. Let E be a non-trivial observable onHS, and letM := (HA,ξ,E,J ) be a measurement process impleme...

work page 2023
[13]

H. B. Callen, Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics (John Wiley and sons, 1991)

work page 1991
[14]

von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: New Edition (Princeton University Press, 2018)

J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: New Edition (Princeton University Press, 2018)

work page 2018
[15]

Neumark, Spectral functions of a symmetric operator, Izv

M. Neumark, Spectral functions of a symmetric operator, Izv. Math. 4, 227 (1940)

work page 1940
[16]

W. F. Stinespring, Positive Functions on C* -Algebras, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 6, 211 (1955)

work page 1955
[17]

J. P. Gordon and W. H. Louisell, Simultaneous Measurements of Noncommuting Observables, in Phys. Quantum Electron. Conf. Proc., edited by P. Kelley, P.L. and Lax, B. and Tannenwald (McGraw-Hill, 1966) pp. 833–840

work page 1966
[18]

Riesz and B

F. Riesz and B. Sz.-Nagy, Functional Analysis (Dover Publications, 1990)

work page 1990
[19]

Ozawa, Quantum measuring processes of continuous observables, J

M. Ozawa, Quantum measuring processes of continuous observables, J. Math. Phys. 25, 79 (1984)

work page 1984
[20]

Ozawa, On information gain by quantum measurements of continuous observables, J

M. Ozawa, On information gain by quantum measurements of continuous observables, J. Math. Phys. 27, 759 (1986)

work page 1986
[21]

Jacobs, Second law of thermodynamics and quantum feedback control: Maxwell’s demon with weak measure- ments, Phys

K. Jacobs, Second law of thermodynamics and quantum feedback control: Maxwell’s demon with weak measure- ments, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012322 (2009). 15

work page 2009
[22]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

work page 2012
[23]

Guryanova, N

Y. Guryanova, N. Friis, and M. Huber, Ideal Projective Measurements Have Infinite Resource Costs, Quantum 4, 222 (2020)

work page 2020
[24]

M. H. Mohammady and T. Miyadera, Quantum measurements constrained by the third law of thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 107, 022406 (2023)

work page 2023
[25]

Buscemi, M

F. Buscemi, M. Keyl, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and R. F. Werner, Clean positive operator valued measures, J. Math. Phys. 46, 082109 (2005)

work page 2005
[26]

E. B. Davies, Quantum Theory of Open Systems (Academic Press, 1976)

work page 1976
[27]

vom Ende, Strict positivity and D -majorization, Linear Multilinear Algebr

F. vom Ende, Strict positivity and D -majorization, Linear Multilinear Algebr. 70, 4023 (2022)

work page 2022
[28]

H. J. Groenewold, A problem of information gain by quantal measurements, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 4, 327 (1971)

work page 1971
[29]

Lindblad, An entropy inequality for quantum measurements, Commun

G. Lindblad, An entropy inequality for quantum measurements, Commun. Math. Phys. 28, 245 (1972)

work page 1972
[30]

Strasberg, Thermodynamics of Quantum Causal Models: An Inclusive, Hamiltonian Approach, Quantum 4, 240 (2020)

P. Strasberg, Thermodynamics of Quantum Causal Models: An Inclusive, Hamiltonian Approach, Quantum 4, 240 (2020)

work page 2020
[31]

L Latune and C

C. L Latune and C. Elouard, A thermodynamically consistent approach to the energy costs of quantum measure- ments, Quantum 9, 1614 (2025)

work page 2025
[32]

Minagawa, M

S. Minagawa, M. H. Mohammady, K. Sakai, K. Kato, and F. Buscemi, Universal validity of the second law of information thermodynamics, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 18 (2025)

work page 2025
[33]

Purves and A

T. Purves and A. J. Short, Channels, measurements, and postselection in quantum thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E 104, 014111 (2021)

work page 2021
[34]

L. J. Schulman, T. Mor, and Y. Weinstein, Physical Limits of Heat-Bath Algorithmic Cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 120501 (2005)

work page 2005
[35]

A. E. Allahverdyan, K. V. Hovhannisyan, D. Janzing, and G. Mahler, Thermodynamic limits of dynamic cooling, Phys. Rev. E 84, 041109 (2011)

work page 2011
[36]

Freitas, R

N. Freitas, R. Gallego, L. Masanes, and J. P. Paz, Cooling to Absolute Zero: The Unattainability Principle, in Thermodyn. Quantum Regime Fundam. Theor. Phys. , Vol. 195, edited by F. Binder, L. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, 2018) pp. 597–622

work page 2018
[37]

Taranto, F

P. Taranto, F. Bakhshinezhad, A. Bluhm, R. Silva, N. Friis, M. P. Lock, G. Vitagliano, F. C. Binder, T. Debarba, E. Schwarzhans, F. Clivaz, and M. Huber, Landauer Versus Nernst: What is the True Cost of Cooling a Quantum System?, PRX Quantum 4, 010332 (2023)

work page 2023
[38]

G. M. D’Ariano, No Purification Ontology, No Quantum Paradoxes, Found. Phys. 50, 1921 (2020)

work page 1921
[39]

M. E. Cuffaro and S. Hartmann, The Open Systems View, Philos. Phys. 2, 365 (2024)

work page 2024
[40]

Wallace, Quantum systems other than the universe (2024), arXiv:2406.13058 [physics.hist-ph]

D. Wallace, Quantum systems other than the universe (2024), arXiv:2406.13058 [physics.hist-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[41]

E. K. Chen, Density matrix realism (2024), arXiv:2405.01025 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024

[1] [1]

INTRODUCTION: MEASUREMENTS AS THERMODYNAMIC PROCESSES Maxwell’s demon is often used to illustrate how measurements can seemingly violate thermodynamic laws. Here, in contrast, we adopt the opposite approach: given the assumed universality of thermodynamic laws, we ask how these laws impose limitations on the types of measurements that can be performed. Ce...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

In other words, any mea- surement allowed by quantum theory (whether efficient or not) can also be implemented in a way that is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics

The second law imposes no restrictions on which measurements can be realized. In other words, any mea- surement allowed by quantum theory (whether efficient or not) can also be implemented in a way that is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. However, the second law does impose constraints on how these measurements can be implemented (Lemma 3...

work page

[3] [3]

If the third law is also required to hold, which demands that the apparatus be prepared in a full-rank state, then no standard unitary interaction model can result in quasicomplete measurements, let alone efficient ones (Theorem 3.1)

work page

[4] [4]

If the mechanism establishing the correlations between the system and the apparatus—the latter pre- pared in a full-rank state—is a strictly positive, non-bistochastic (and thus, non-unitary) channel, then efficient measurements are possible if and only if the corresponding observable is strictly positive (The- orem 4.1). That is, while projective von Neu...

work page

[5] [5]

completely unsharp

PRELIMINARIES 2.1. Operations and channels Here we consider only systems with complex Hilbert spaces H of finite dimension. Let L(H)⊃Ls(H)⊃ Lp(H) be the algebra of linear operators, the real vector space of self-adjoint operators, and the cone of positive semidefinite operators on H, respectively. The symbols 1 and O denote the unit and null operators inL...

work page

[6] [6]

COMP A TIBILITY OF MEASUREMENT PROCESSES WITH THERMODYNAMICS 3.1. Compatibility with the second law As discussed in the introduction, in order to formulate a thermodynamics of quantum measurements, we assume that for each instrument there exists a measurement process during which the compound, consisting of the system to be measured, the measurement appar...

work page

[7] [7]

integrated

GETTING P AST THE NO-GO THEOREM Let us consider again the measurement process in closer detail. Recall from Eq. (1) that for each outcome x, the operations that are implemented by the process M := (HA,ξ,E,J ) read Ix(•S) := [ trA◦(idS⊗Jx)◦E ] (•S⊗ξA). Now note that (idS⊗Jx)◦Eare operations that add up to a channel (id S⊗JX )◦E. That is, the collection of ...

work page

[8] [8]

the square-root instrument, i.e., the one where Ux = U for all x, can be realized in a completely thermodynamically compatible manner, i.e., by means of a model that always obeys the second and third laws, regardless of the states of the system and apparatus

work page

[9] [9]

Proof of Theorem 4.1

other efficient instruments can also be realized, but in general the model will be thermodynamically compatible only for a fixed apparatus state. Proof of Theorem 4.1. To prove the claim, we use the measurement process introduced in Corollary D.1 of Ref. [12], which is as follows: identify the value space as X :={x = 0,...,N −1}where N =|X|is the number o...

work page

[10] [10]

But since E1(ϱ) and K0ϱK∗ 0 are positive, this implies that rank (E1(ϱ)) ⩾ rank (K0ϱK∗

work page

[11] [11]

As such, E1 is a rank non-decreasing channel

= rank (ϱ). As such, E1 is a rank non-decreasing channel. Since the composition of rank non-decreasing channels is also rank non-decreasing, it follows that E =E2◦E1 is a rank non-decreasing channel, and hence strictly positive. Indeed, the full channel (id S⊗JX )◦Eis also strictly positive. This measurement process is therefore compatible with the third ...

work page

[12] [12]

Extreme Universe

THE TRILEMMA FOR MEASUREMENT PROCESSES The combination of Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 4.1 leads to a fundamental trilemma for measurement processes, i.e., three conditions that cannot be simultaneously satisfied in any quantum measurement pro- cess: Corollary 5.1. Let E be a non-trivial observable onHS, and letM := (HA,ξ,E,J ) be a measurement process impleme...

work page 2023

[13] [13]

H. B. Callen, Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics (John Wiley and sons, 1991)

work page 1991

[14] [14]

von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: New Edition (Princeton University Press, 2018)

J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: New Edition (Princeton University Press, 2018)

work page 2018

[15] [15]

Neumark, Spectral functions of a symmetric operator, Izv

M. Neumark, Spectral functions of a symmetric operator, Izv. Math. 4, 227 (1940)

work page 1940

[16] [16]

W. F. Stinespring, Positive Functions on C* -Algebras, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 6, 211 (1955)

work page 1955

[17] [17]

J. P. Gordon and W. H. Louisell, Simultaneous Measurements of Noncommuting Observables, in Phys. Quantum Electron. Conf. Proc., edited by P. Kelley, P.L. and Lax, B. and Tannenwald (McGraw-Hill, 1966) pp. 833–840

work page 1966

[18] [18]

Riesz and B

F. Riesz and B. Sz.-Nagy, Functional Analysis (Dover Publications, 1990)

work page 1990

[19] [19]

Ozawa, Quantum measuring processes of continuous observables, J

M. Ozawa, Quantum measuring processes of continuous observables, J. Math. Phys. 25, 79 (1984)

work page 1984

[20] [20]

Ozawa, On information gain by quantum measurements of continuous observables, J

M. Ozawa, On information gain by quantum measurements of continuous observables, J. Math. Phys. 27, 759 (1986)

work page 1986

[21] [21]

Jacobs, Second law of thermodynamics and quantum feedback control: Maxwell’s demon with weak measure- ments, Phys

K. Jacobs, Second law of thermodynamics and quantum feedback control: Maxwell’s demon with weak measure- ments, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012322 (2009). 15

work page 2009

[22] [22]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

work page 2012

[23] [23]

Guryanova, N

Y. Guryanova, N. Friis, and M. Huber, Ideal Projective Measurements Have Infinite Resource Costs, Quantum 4, 222 (2020)

work page 2020

[24] [24]

M. H. Mohammady and T. Miyadera, Quantum measurements constrained by the third law of thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 107, 022406 (2023)

work page 2023

[25] [25]

Buscemi, M

F. Buscemi, M. Keyl, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and R. F. Werner, Clean positive operator valued measures, J. Math. Phys. 46, 082109 (2005)

work page 2005

[26] [26]

E. B. Davies, Quantum Theory of Open Systems (Academic Press, 1976)

work page 1976

[27] [27]

vom Ende, Strict positivity and D -majorization, Linear Multilinear Algebr

F. vom Ende, Strict positivity and D -majorization, Linear Multilinear Algebr. 70, 4023 (2022)

work page 2022

[28] [28]

H. J. Groenewold, A problem of information gain by quantal measurements, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 4, 327 (1971)

work page 1971

[29] [29]

Lindblad, An entropy inequality for quantum measurements, Commun

G. Lindblad, An entropy inequality for quantum measurements, Commun. Math. Phys. 28, 245 (1972)

work page 1972

[30] [30]

Strasberg, Thermodynamics of Quantum Causal Models: An Inclusive, Hamiltonian Approach, Quantum 4, 240 (2020)

P. Strasberg, Thermodynamics of Quantum Causal Models: An Inclusive, Hamiltonian Approach, Quantum 4, 240 (2020)

work page 2020

[31] [31]

L Latune and C

C. L Latune and C. Elouard, A thermodynamically consistent approach to the energy costs of quantum measure- ments, Quantum 9, 1614 (2025)

work page 2025

[32] [32]

Minagawa, M

S. Minagawa, M. H. Mohammady, K. Sakai, K. Kato, and F. Buscemi, Universal validity of the second law of information thermodynamics, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 18 (2025)

work page 2025

[33] [33]

Purves and A

T. Purves and A. J. Short, Channels, measurements, and postselection in quantum thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E 104, 014111 (2021)

work page 2021

[34] [34]

L. J. Schulman, T. Mor, and Y. Weinstein, Physical Limits of Heat-Bath Algorithmic Cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 120501 (2005)

work page 2005

[35] [35]

A. E. Allahverdyan, K. V. Hovhannisyan, D. Janzing, and G. Mahler, Thermodynamic limits of dynamic cooling, Phys. Rev. E 84, 041109 (2011)

work page 2011

[36] [36]

Freitas, R

N. Freitas, R. Gallego, L. Masanes, and J. P. Paz, Cooling to Absolute Zero: The Unattainability Principle, in Thermodyn. Quantum Regime Fundam. Theor. Phys. , Vol. 195, edited by F. Binder, L. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, 2018) pp. 597–622

work page 2018

[37] [37]

Taranto, F

P. Taranto, F. Bakhshinezhad, A. Bluhm, R. Silva, N. Friis, M. P. Lock, G. Vitagliano, F. C. Binder, T. Debarba, E. Schwarzhans, F. Clivaz, and M. Huber, Landauer Versus Nernst: What is the True Cost of Cooling a Quantum System?, PRX Quantum 4, 010332 (2023)

work page 2023

[38] [38]

G. M. D’Ariano, No Purification Ontology, No Quantum Paradoxes, Found. Phys. 50, 1921 (2020)

work page 1921

[39] [39]

M. E. Cuffaro and S. Hartmann, The Open Systems View, Philos. Phys. 2, 365 (2024)

work page 2024

[40] [40]

Wallace, Quantum systems other than the universe (2024), arXiv:2406.13058 [physics.hist-ph]

D. Wallace, Quantum systems other than the universe (2024), arXiv:2406.13058 [physics.hist-ph]

work page arXiv 2024

[41] [41]

E. K. Chen, Density matrix realism (2024), arXiv:2405.01025 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024