Maximally $\psi-$epistemic models cannot explain gambling with two qubits

Anubhav Chaturvedi; Debashis Saha; Sagnik Ray

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Maximally $\psi-$epistemic models cannot explain gambling with two qubits

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that no maximally $\psi$-epistemic ontological model can reproduce the statistics of a three-outcome betting game played with two pure qubit states and their equal mixture, closing the qubit loophole left by existing…

desk verdict Novel two-qubit gambling game gives a real constraint on psi-epistemic models, but the no-go claim is broader than the proof and the numerical part needs artifacts. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10437 v1 pith:NXGWKDD2 submitted 2025-09-12 quant-ph

Sagnik Ray , Anubhav Chaturvedi , Debashis Saha This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumfoundationspsi-epistemicmodelsontologicalepistemicoverlapgamblingqubitnon-projectivePOVMtracialnoncommutingpolynomialoptimization

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 sets out to show that the strongest form of $\psi$-epistemic interpretation, in which the indistinguishability of two quantum states is fully explained by overlapping distributions over hidden variables, fails even for the smallest quantum system: a single qubit. It does this by designing a three-answer betting game, Quantum Gambling, in which guessing right earns a reward, guessing wrong costs a penalty, and a third abstention answer pays a fixed reward $\alpha$. The paper generalizes the standard quantum and epistemic overlaps to this game and proves that their difference is bounded below by an operational quantity $B_Q$. It then shows numerically that two pure qubit states and their equal mixture maximize $B_Q$, reaching about $0.0639$ at $\alpha\approx0.7124$, $\beta=1$. If correct, this closes the qubit loophole: no maximally $\psi$-epistemic model that respects preparation convexity can explain the gambling statistics, and the gap is operational enough to be probed experimentally.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized epistemic overlap $\omega_\Lambda(\psi_1,\psi_2;\alpha,\beta)$, built from three unnormalized distributions $\tilde{\mu}_1=(1+\beta)\mu(\lambda|\psi_1)$, $\tilde{\mu}_2=(1+\beta)\mu(\lambda|\psi_2)$, and $\tilde{\mu}_3=(\alpha+\beta)(\mu(\lambda|\psi_1)+\mu(\lambda|\psi_2))$, combined through min-integrals $T_1,T_2,T_3,T_4$. This quantity is the best average reward available to a gambler who knows the ontic state, and the corresponding quantum value $S^{\mathrm{Gam}}_Q$ is computed by a semidefinite program. The argument's load-bearing step is Theorem 2, which lower-bounds the quantum-epistemic gap by $B_Q$; its proof uses the preparation-convexity identity $\mu(\lambda|\rho)=\frac12(\mu(\lambda|\psi_1)+\mu(\lambda|\psi_2))$ for the equal mixture. The numerical part maximizes $B_Q$ by alternating semidefinite programs for dimension-dependent lower bounds and a level-2 tracial noncommuting polynomial hierarchy for dimension-independent upper bounds; wherever the two match, the value is certified.

What would settle it

Check the next level of the tracial noncommuting polynomial hierarchy for the states $|0\rangle$ and $\cos(\pi/3)|0\rangle+\sin(\pi/3)|1\rangle$ at $\alpha=0.7124$, $\beta=1$; if the upper bound on $B_Q$ falls below the claimed 0.0639, Theorem 3's numerical certification fails. Alternatively, construct an explicit ontological model satisfying the preparation-convexity condition whose generalized epistemic overlap equals the generalized quantum overlap at these parameters, which would refute the no-go theorem directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that no maximally $\psi$-epistemic ontological model can explain Quantum Gambling with two pure qubits. The proof works by defining generalized overlaps $\omega_Q(\psi_1,\psi_2;\alpha,\beta)$ and $\omega_\Lambda(\psi_1,\psi_2;\alpha,\beta)$ from the best average reward in the game, then showing $\omega_Q-\omega_\Lambda \ge B_Q(\psi_1,\psi_2,\rho;\alpha,\beta)$, where $\rho$ is the equal mixture. The gap $B_Q$ is strictly positive for a range of $\alpha$: its maximum value is approximately $0.0639$, attained for $|\psi_1\rangle=|0\rangle$ and $|\psi_2\rangle=\cos(\pi/3)|0\rangle+\sin(\pi/3)|1\rangle$ at $\alpha\approx0.7124$ with $\beta=1$. Because the gap is positive, the epistemic overlap cannot fully account for the quantum statistics, so any model that tries to do so must be non-maximally $\psi$-epistemic. The paper also reads the same gap as a communication advantage: two qubit messages outperform classical messages in a constrained communication task with bounded gambling reward.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a mixed preparation's epistemic state is the convex mixture of the epistemic states of its preparations, $\mu(\lambda|\rho)=\frac12(\mu(\lambda|\psi_1)+\mu(\lambda|\psi_2))$; if a model is preparation-contextual and violates this equality, the no-go theorem's bound need not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every $\alpha\in(\approx0.49,1]$ with $\beta=1$, the qubit pair achieves the maximum of $B_Q$, so the no-go theorem applies to an entire interval of game parameters, not just a single point.
Since two pure qubit states and their equal mixture suffice, the minimum resources for a no-go theorem of this kind are two states in dimension two, improving on earlier constructions that needed many four-dimensional states.
The gap $\omega_Q-\omega_\Lambda\ge B_Q$ is an operational lower bound, so an experiment that estimates the success probabilities of Quantum Gambling can certify the absence of maximally $\psi$-epistemic models without needing to characterize the hidden-variable distributions.
In the communication reading, the same construction shows that two qubit messages achieve a quantum advantage over classical messages under a bounded-reward gambling constraint.

Reading between the lines

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

The no-go theorem is conditional on the preparation-convexity condition of Eq. (15); dropping that condition restores a possible escape route for maximally $\psi$-epistemic models, so the result is most naturally read as ruling out convexity-respecting ontological models.
The same three-answer gambling game with tunable $(\alpha,\beta)$ gives a quantitative scale for 'how epistemic' a model can be: measuring the gambling success of a physical implementation would place an upper bound on the epistemic overlap actually realized.
A natural next test is to apply Quantum Gambling to higher-dimensional state pairs; if the gap grows toward the theoretical maximum $\omega_{\max}=1-2\alpha-\beta+\min(1+\beta,2(\alpha+\beta))$, the approach could produce a dimension-independent no-go theorem for all maximally $\psi$-epistemic models.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's my read. The genuinely new thing is the Quantum Gambling game and the generalized epistemic overlap built from it. For the parameter region alpha > (1-beta)/2, the overlap is not just weighted distinguishability, and the paper shows that two pure qubit states plus their equal mixture give a positive gap between the quantum and epistemic overlaps. If correct, this is the first constraint on maximally psi-epistemic models for single qubits, where the Kochen-Specker model had previously blocked progress. Theorems 1 and 2 are analytically clean given the standard ontological-models framework, and the operational lower bound B_Q is a nice construction.

The soft spots are in proportion. The main one is Eq. (15), the preparation-convexity condition. The proof of Lemma 1 uses it to rewrite the game's third distribution as 2(alpha+beta) mu(rho). That is not a consequence of the usual ontological-models axioms; it is an extra assumption about how the model represents mixed preparations. A preparation-contextual model could assign a different epistemic state to the same density operator, and then the bound B_Q need not hold. The paper states (15) as if it were automatic and cites prior work, but it should be framed as a restriction on the class of models being ruled out. The title and abstract say "no maximally psi-epistemic model" without that qualification. The communication scenario in the main text does define x=3 as a random mixture, so for that particular procedure Eq. (15) is just probability calculus; but the theorem itself is stated for rho as a density operator and the proof applies the identity globally. That scope mismatch is fixable, but it is real.

Second, Theorem 3 is numerical. The authors use a seesaw SDP for lower bounds and a level-2 tracial NPA hierarchy for upper bounds, and the two match to machine precision over a range of alpha. No code or certificates are included, and the appendix has typos (e.g., Eq. 34). Matching bounds is good evidence, but it is not the same standard of proof as the analytic theorems. The paper should either ship the code, or label Theorem 3 as a numerical result that would need an analytic proof or certified bounds for full rigor.

The citation pattern is fine; prior no-go results are acknowledged, and the point about ratio vs difference of overlaps is well-taken. This is a serious paper with a novel idea and mostly solid analytic core under an explicit assumption. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to peer review, though not accept it as is. The authors need to fix the no-go scope and make the numerics reproducible.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a penalized three-outcome distinguishability game ('Quantum Gambling') between two quantum states, defines generalized quantum and epistemic overlaps from the optimal reward in this game, and proves (Theorem 1) that the quantum value is upper bounded by the ontic-state value. Lemma 1 and Theorem 2 provide a lower bound B_Q on the difference between the generalized quantum and epistemic overlaps, expressed in terms of quantum distinguishability quantities. Theorem 3 claims, via numerical semidefinite programming, that the maximum of B_Q over all pairs of states is approximately 0.0639, achieved by a pair of qubit states at alpha approximately 0.7124. The authors conclude that no maximally psi-epistemic model (in their generalized sense) can explain the gambling statistics, and they relate the gap to a quantum advantage in a constrained communication scenario.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides the first no-go theorem for maximally psi-epistemic models using only two pure qubit states, which is minimal both in dimension and in the number of preparations. The proof of Theorem 1 is clean and the derivation of the operational bound in Theorem 2 is elegant given the preparation-convexity condition. The numerical finding that qubits achieve the maximum gap is falsifiable and potentially testable. However, the generality of the no-go statement is limited by the unstated convexity assumption behind Eq. (15), and the maximality claim rests on a numerical hierarchy that is not independently certified in the manuscript.

major comments (2)

[Theorem 2, Lemma 1 (Appendix), Eq. (15)] The proof of Lemma 1 uses the identity mu(lambda|rho) = (mu(lambda|psi1)+mu(lambda|psi2))/2 as a general fact, citing reference [19]. This equality is guaranteed for the specific preparation procedure that generates rho as an equal random mixture, but it is not a consequence of the standard ontological models framework for an arbitrary preparation of the density operator rho. Since Theorem 2 is stated for a density operator rho without specifying its preparation, the no-go theorem is presently proven only for models satisfying this preparation-convexity assumption (or, equivalently, for the communication scenario in which x=3 is explicitly defined as the random mixture). The statement that 'no maximally psi-epistemic model can explain Quantum Gambling with qubits' is therefore narrower than the proof supports. Please restate the theorem's scope explicitly, or reformulate it directly for the communication task where Eq. (15) is operationally guaranteed by the protocol.
[Theorem 3 and Appendix: numerical upper bounds, Eqs. (36)-(43)] The maximality claim, namely that B_Q(alpha) is achieved by a pair of qubit states and that max_alpha B_Q(alpha) is approximately 0.0639, is justified only by the matching of seesaw SDP lower bounds and level-2 tracial noncommuting polynomial hierarchy upper bounds 'up to machine precision'. No code, certificates, or explicit convergence argument are provided, and the level-2 hierarchy is not exact in general. The lower-bound part of the seesaw computation, which evaluates B_Q for a specific qubit pair, is sufficient to establish a positive gap and hence a no-go result for those states, but the stronger statement that qubits achieve the maximum gap requires a rigorous upper bound. Please provide reproducible code and formal error bounds, or explicitly weaken the maximality statement to a conjecture.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (42)] The displayed objective function for the tracial noncommuting polynomial optimization has a missing '+' before the (1-alpha) term and the subscript 'I' in [Gamma_rho2]_{I,M^3_1} should be '1'; the expression would benefit from a cleaner typeset.
[Theorem 3] The theorem states the interval alpha in (approximately 0.49, 1] but the origin of the approximate threshold 0.49 is not explained; a precise bound or a note on how it is obtained would improve clarity.
[Introduction and Discussion] The paper uses the term 'maximally psi-epistemic' to refer to equality of the generalized overlaps defined through the gambling game, which differs from the standard definition based on distinguishability (alpha=beta=0). A sentence explicitly clarifying this generalization and its relation to the standard notion would avoid potential misinterpretation.
[Eq. (15) and reference [19]] If reference [19] itself assumes preparation convexity rather than deriving it from the ontological-models axioms, this should be stated in the text so that readers understand that Eq. (15) is an additional condition.
[Abstract and Discussion] The phrase 'experimentally robust' may overstate the case given the relatively small gap of approximately 0.0639; a comment on the required experimental precision would be appropriate.
[Figure 1 caption] The regions Lambda'_3, Lambda''_3, and Lambda'''_3 are used in the caption but are not defined before the figure; adding a sentence with their definitions would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the gap bound is derived from quantum theory and a standard convexity property, with no parameter fitted as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1 is a direct bound: S_Q^Gam <= S_Lambda^Gam = 1 - omega_Lambda/2 follows from replacing response schemes by the maximum over ontic states and from the min/max identity; no model parameter is fitted. Theorem 2's gap bound B_Q is an operational expression computed entirely within quantum theory (weighted distinguishabilities and the gambling value); the epistemic side is bounded, not chosen. The only non-quantum input is the convexity identity Eq. (15) for the equal-mixture preparation rho. For the specific procedure that randomly prepares |psi1> or |psi2> with equal probability, this identity is a definitional property of an ontological model's treatment of a classically randomized preparation, not an extra fitted assumption, so the self-citation [19] is not load-bearing in a circular sense. Theorem 3 is a numerical optimization over quantum states and measurements using SDP and tracial NPA hierarchies, with upper and lower bounds matched up to machine precision; alpha and beta are optimized, not fitted to hidden data. The reliance on the level-2 tracial hierarchy being exact is a technical certification concern, not a circularity. Any concern about preparation-contextuality affecting the scope of Eq. (15) is an assumption-clarity issue, not a reduction of the derived result to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard ontological-model axioms plus the preparation-convexity property (Eq. 15), which is the main physical assumption. The numerical proof of Theorem 3 also leans on the cited tracial NC hierarchy. The game parameters alpha and beta are tunable knobs, not fitted to external data, but the maximum gap is attained at specific values, so they are listed as free parameters.

free parameters (2)

alpha (reward for answer 3) = approx 0.7124 at the maximum
Reward parameter of Quantum Gambling; the gap B_Q is optimized over alpha, with the maximum at alpha approx 0.7124.
beta (penalty for wrong guess) = 1
Penalty parameter; the paper finds numerically that the maximum gap is attained at beta=1 and that varying beta does not change the optimal states.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The ontological model framework (Harrigan-Spekkens) with response schemes reproducing quantum statistics.
The entire no-go theorem is stated within this framework; Eq. (2) requires exact reproduction of all quantum predictions.
domain assumption Preparation convexity: mu(lambda|sigma)=sum_i q_i mu(lambda|phi_i) for any convex decomposition of a mixed preparation.
Used in the proof of Lemma 1 (Appendix) to relate tilde-mu_3(lambda) to mu(lambda|rho). A preparation-contextual model that violates this could evade the bound on omega_Lambda.
standard math The level-2 tracial noncommuting polynomial optimization hierarchy from [14,15] provides valid dimension-independent upper bounds on B_Q.
Theorem 3 relies on the soundness of this hierarchy; the paper cites [14,15] for the method but does not prove the relaxation is exact at the chosen level.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximally $\psi-$epistemic models cannot explain gambling with two qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXGWKDD2

@misc{pith2026250910437,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximally $\psi-$epistemic models cannot explain gambling with two qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXGWKDD2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10437}
}

abstract

We investigate the minimal proof for ruling out maximally $\psi-$epistemic interpretations of quantum theory, in which the indistinguishable nature of two quantum states is fully explained by the epistemic overlap of their corresponding distributions over ontic states. To this end, we extend the standard notion of epistemic overlap by considering a penalized distinguishability game involving two states and three possible answers, named as Quantum Gambling. In this context, using only two pure states and their equal mixture, we present an experimentally robust no-go theorem for maximally $\psi-$epistemic models, showing that qubit states achieve the maximal difference between quantum and epistemic overlaps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10437 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Computational investigation of the gap between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Semi-Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution from Operational Assumptions
quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.5 of 10

Operational bounds on state exclusion (not only identification) plus a three-setting retained-key protocol certify positive SDI-QKD rates down to nearly vanishing preparation visibility.
Nonlocality without entanglement in exclusion of quantum states
quant-ph 2026-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

Three bipartite product states are globally antidistinguishable yet not LOCC antidistinguishable under the paper's restricted one-pass LOCC model, giving a claimed minimal example of exclusion-based nonlocality.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[19]

No epistemic model can ex- plain anti-distinguishability of quantum mixed prepara- tions,

S. Ray, V . R, and D. Saha, “No epistemic model can ex- plain anti-distinguishability of quantum mixed prepara- tions,” (2024), arXiv:2401.17980 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2024
[1]

Quantum theory at the crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 solvay confer- ence,

G. Bacciagaluppi and A. Valentini, “Quantum theory at the crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 solvay confer- ence,” (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0609184 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2009
[2]

Einstein, B

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev.47, 777 (1935)

1935
[3]

The einstein-podolsky-rosen argument in quan- tum theory,

A. Fine, “The einstein-podolsky-rosen argument in quan- tum theory,” InThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition)

work page 2020
[4]

Relational quantum mechanics,

C. Rovelli, “Relational quantum mechanics,” InThe Stan- ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Spring 2025 Edition)

work page 2025
[5]

Copenhagenish interpretations of quantum mechanics

D. Schmid, Y. Y ¯ıng, and M. Leifer, “Copenhagen- ish interpretations of quantum mechanics,” (2025), arXiv:2506.00112 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[6]

Harrigan and R

N. Harrigan and R. W. Spekkens, Foundations of Physics 40, 125–157 (2010)

work page 2010
[7]

M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, Nature Physics8, 475–478 (2012)

2012

Show all 29 references

[8]

P . G. Lewis, D. Jennings, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 150404 (2012)

2012
[9]

Aaronson, A

S. Aaronson, A. Bouland, L. Chua, and G. Lowther, Phys. Rev. A88, 032111 (2013)

2013
[10]

Barrett, E

J. Barrett, E. G. Cavalcanti, R. Lal, and O. J. E. Maroney, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 250403 (2014)

2014
[11]

M. S. Leifer, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 160404 (2014)

2014
[12]

Branciard, Phys

C. Branciard, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 020409 (2014)

2014
[13]

Kochen and E

S. Kochen and E. P . Specker, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics17, 59 (1967)

1967
[14]

Tavakoli, E

A. Tavakoli, E. Zambrini Cruzeiro, E. Woodhead, and S. Pironio, Quantum6, 620 (2022)

2022
[15]

Chaturvedi, M

A. Chaturvedi, M. Farkas, and V . J. Wright, Quantum5, 484 (2021)

2021
[16]

Manna, A

S. Manna, A. Chaturvedi, and D. Saha, Physical Review Research6(2024), 10.1103/physrevresearch.6.043269

2024 doi
[17]

Limits of classical correlations and quantum advantages under (anti-) distinguishability constraints in multipartite communication,

A. Pandit, S. Hazra, S. Manna, A. Chaturvedi, and D. Saha, “Limits of classical correlations and quantum advantages under (anti-) distinguishability constraints in multipartite communication,” (2025), arXiv:2506.07699 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[18]

Oszmaniec, L

M. Oszmaniec, L. Guerini, P . Wittek, and A. Ac ´ın, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 190501 (2017)

2017
[20]

Session 7: The wave-functionψ: ontic vs epistemic debate,

G. Kar and M. Leifer, “Session 7: The wave-functionψ: ontic vs epistemic debate,” (2024)

2024
[21]

No-go theorems,

M. Leifer, “No-go theorems,” (2017)

2017
[22]

Chaturvedi and D

A. Chaturvedi and D. Saha, Quantum4, 345 (2020)

2020
[23]

M. S. Leifer, Quanta3, 67 (2014)

2014
[24]

J. R. Hance and S. Hossenfelder, Proceedings of the Royal Society A478, 20210705 (2022)

2022
[25]

O. J. Maroney, arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.6906 (2012)

2012 arXiv
[26]

M. S. Leifer and O. J. E. Maroney, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 120401 (2013)

2013
[27]

Colbeck and R

R. Colbeck and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 150402 (2012)

2012
[28]

R. W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. A75, 032110 (2007). Appendix In this Appendix, we present results concerning Quantum Gambling, and the proofs of the theorems dis- cussed above. SDP formulation of Quantum Gambling—The primal of the task is formulated as follows: SGam Q =max {M1,M2,M...

2007
[29]

For any given Hilbert space dimension, (34) and (35) give a direct way to lower boundB Q(α,β)via an alter- nating SDP

For the second term, we follow the approach of [14], and consider the dual of Quantum Gambling (20), so that our problem of findingB Q(α,β) becomes BQ(α,β) =max {ρ1,ρ2,Y} 2 SComm Q (ρ1,ρ 2)|op−Tr(Y)−2β−1 subject toY⪰ 1 2 Ci,i=1, 2, 3, (35) whereC 1 =ρ 1−βρ 2,C 2 =ρ 2−βρ 1, and...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [19]

No epistemic model can ex- plain anti-distinguishability of quantum mixed prepara- tions,

S. Ray, V . R, and D. Saha, “No epistemic model can ex- plain anti-distinguishability of quantum mixed prepara- tions,” (2024), arXiv:2401.17980 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Quantum theory at the crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 solvay confer- ence,

G. Bacciagaluppi and A. Valentini, “Quantum theory at the crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 solvay confer- ence,” (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0609184 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2009

[3] [2]

Einstein, B

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev.47, 777 (1935)

1935

[4] [3]

The einstein-podolsky-rosen argument in quan- tum theory,

A. Fine, “The einstein-podolsky-rosen argument in quan- tum theory,” InThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition)

work page 2020

[5] [4]

Relational quantum mechanics,

C. Rovelli, “Relational quantum mechanics,” InThe Stan- ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Spring 2025 Edition)

work page 2025

[6] [5]

Copenhagenish interpretations of quantum mechanics

D. Schmid, Y. Y ¯ıng, and M. Leifer, “Copenhagen- ish interpretations of quantum mechanics,” (2025), arXiv:2506.00112 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[7] [6]

Harrigan and R

N. Harrigan and R. W. Spekkens, Foundations of Physics 40, 125–157 (2010)

work page 2010

[8] [7]

M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, Nature Physics8, 475–478 (2012)

2012