arxiv: 2604.02873 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 🪐 quant-ph · gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Frame perspectives for process matrices: from coordinate parametrization to spacetime representation

Luca Apadula , Alexei Grinbaum , \v{C}aslav Brukner

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 20:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph gr-qc

keywords process matricescausal reference framestime-delocalized subsystemsquantum switchquantum reference framesoperational foliationperspective neutrality

0 comments

The pith

Pure quantum processes share a single perspective-neutral core object

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

The paper establishes that causal reference frames and time-delocalized subsystems are different coordinate parametrizations of one underlying perspective-neutral object in the process-matrix formalism. A true perspective requires adding frame data by selecting an operational foliation that divides the process into circuit fragments. This distinction shows that no-go results limit only those unitary transformations that keep the time foliation and fragment boundaries fixed. By constructing explicit maps for the quantum switch, the authors demonstrate unitary perspective changes that either reshuffle past and future or preserve them through added reference-frame subsystems. This view helps assess how abstract process matrices can be realized in experiments.

Core claim

For pure processes, the causal reference frames (CRF) and time-delocalized subsystems (TDS) formalisms should be understood as coordinate parametrizations of a single perspective-neutral higher-order object. A genuine perspective arises when one endows the process with additional frame data by choosing an operational foliation into circuit fragments. With this distinction, existing no-go results acquire a clear scope: they rule out unitary transformations that preserve time foliation, attempting to switch perspectives while keeping the fragment boundaries fixed. Focusing on the quantum switch, explicit maps transform perspectives unitarily at the price of reshuffling past and future, or by a

What carries the argument

The perspective-neutral higher-order object in the process-matrix formalism, parametrized by CRF and TDS coordinates, with genuine perspectives obtained by adding frame data through operational foliation into circuit fragments

Load-bearing premise

No-go results constrain only unitary transformations preserving time foliation and fragment boundaries, with reference-frame extensions producing unitary relations between perspectives while preserving global past and future

What would settle it

An experiment on the extended quantum switch with added reference-frame subsystems that fails to find a unitary map between complementary perspectives while keeping global past and future intact

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02873 by Alexei Grinbaum, Luca Apadula, \v{C}aslav Brukner.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Superposition of physically inequivalent configurations. Events A and B are defined as intersections of the world-lines of the target system (black arrow), Alice’s laboratory (blue line), and Bob’s laboratory (red line). The state preparation and the final measurement are represented by the yellow atom-shaped symbol and the detector symbol, respectively. Each configuration is specified by the tuple of the … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Quantum coordinatization. The quantum-controlled diffeomorphism allows one to take the perspective of the geometric scaffolding—i.e. quantum coordinates—depicted as the gray grid. The transformed state on the right is expressed in those quantum coordinates, such that Alice’s worldline is localized (configuration 2), whereas Bob’s worldline is spacetime delocalized (superposition of configurations 2 and 3).… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Quantum coordinate transformations. Two different coordinate representations of the same process: (left) Bob’s causal reference frame; (right) Alice’s causal reference frame. One can change representation via a suitable quantum-controlled diffeomorphism. IV.3. Spacetime scaffold for a switch-like process We now aim to bridge the gap between the diagrammatic description of the bare switch in Eq. (10) and it… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We study how to implement and transform frame perspectives for quantum processes in the process-matrix formalism. We argue that, for pure processes, the causal reference frames (CRF)and time-delocalized subsystems (TDS) formalisms should be understood as coordinate parametrizations of a single perspective-neutral higher-order object. A genuine perspective arises when one endows the process with additional frame data by choosing an operational foliation into circuit fragments (events). With this distinction, existing no-go results acquire a clear scope: they rule out unitary transformations that preserve time foliation, attempting to switch perspectives while keeping the fragment boundaries -- hence the global past/future partition -- fixed. Focusing on the quantum switch, we construct explicit maps that transform perspectives unitarily at the price of reshuffling the notions of past and future. We then show that unitary transformations between perspectives can also be achieved in a different way, namely by extending the process with subsystems that define quantum reference frames and provide a shared spatiotemporal scaffold. In this extended setting, complementary CRF/TDS perspectives become unitarily related while preserving global past and future. We discuss how this frame-perspectival approach informs the broader question of empirical realizability of abstract process matrices.

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 reinterprets CRF and TDS as coordinate parametrizations of one neutral process and supplies explicit unitary maps for the quantum switch, but the neutral object itself is not exhibited in a foliation-free form.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that the authors treat causal reference frames and time-delocalized subsystems as two different ways to parametrize the same underlying pure process by picking different operational foliations into events. They then give concrete unitary maps that relate perspectives in the quantum switch, either by letting the past/future partition reshuffle or by adding extra subsystems that serve as quantum reference frames and supply a shared scaffold so the global partition stays fixed. This makes the reach of earlier no-go theorems explicit: those results apply when you demand that the foliation and fragment boundaries remain unchanged during the switch. The constructions are the clearest part of the work and go beyond prior statements by showing two distinct routes to unitary relations. The paper does a reasonable job staying inside the process-matrix setting and citing the relevant literature on reference frames without obvious circularity. The softer spot is the claimed perspective-neutral higher-order object. The text distinguishes parametrization from genuine perspective via the choice of foliation, but it does not display an independent, coordinate-free representation from which both formalisms are recovered by explicit maps. The transformations shown are between already-foliated descriptions rather than derivations from a single neutral starting point, so the unification remains more interpretive than demonstrated. If the full paper contains the actual operators and checks for the maps, that would strengthen the case; the abstract alone leaves the central claim resting on the distinction rather than on exhibited equivalence. This is for people already working on process matrices, the quantum switch, or quantum reference frames. A reader who knows the no-go results will find the scope clarification and the two construction methods useful. It is coherent enough on its own terms to merit referee time, even if the neutral-object step needs more explicit support.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that, for pure processes, the causal reference frames (CRF) and time-delocalized subsystems (TDS) formalisms are coordinate parametrizations of a single perspective-neutral higher-order object in the process-matrix formalism. A genuine perspective is obtained by endowing the process with additional frame data through an operational foliation into circuit fragments (events). Existing no-go results are reinterpreted as applying only to unitary transformations that preserve the time foliation and fragment boundaries. For the quantum switch, the paper constructs explicit unitary maps that transform between perspectives either by reshuffling the global past/future partition or by extending the process with quantum reference-frame subsystems that supply a shared spatiotemporal scaffold while preserving the global past/future. The work closes with a discussion of implications for the empirical realizability of abstract process matrices.

Significance. If the central unification holds, the paper would supply a coherent conceptual framework that clarifies the relationship between existing formalisms for indefinite causal order and delimits the scope of no-go theorems on frame transformations. The explicit constructions for the quantum switch and the distinction between coordinate parametrization and genuine perspective could facilitate future work on physical implementations of process matrices. The manuscript receives credit for attempting to ground the discussion in concrete examples rather than purely abstract claims.

major comments (3)

[Introduction / central claim] The core claim (abstract and opening sections) that CRF and TDS are merely coordinate parametrizations of a single perspective-neutral higher-order object is not supported by an explicit, foliation-independent construction of that object. No coordinate-free representation (e.g., a higher-order tensor or operator on the process space) is exhibited from which both formalisms are recovered via explicit maps; the argument therefore rests on interpretive re-labeling rather than demonstrated equivalence.
[Quantum switch constructions] In the quantum-switch constructions (the sections presenting the unitary maps), it is stated that perspectives can be transformed while reshuffling past/future or via reference-frame extension, but the text supplies no explicit equations, operator definitions, or verification that the resulting maps preserve process purity and correctly relate the CRF and TDS representations. Without these derivations the scope of the no-go results cannot be rigorously assessed.
[Reference-frame extension] The extension with reference-frame subsystems (the section on shared spatiotemporal scaffolds) asserts that complementary perspectives become unitarily related while preserving global past and future, yet the definition of the scaffold and the precise embedding of the original process are not given in sufficient detail to confirm that the construction avoids reintroducing the foliation dependence it claims to circumvent.

minor comments (2)

[Notation] Notation for the perspective-neutral object and the operational foliation should be introduced with a clear symbol or diagram early in the text to aid readability.
[Discussion] The discussion of empirical realizability would benefit from a brief comparison table contrasting the two transformation routes (reshuffling vs. extension) in terms of required resources and preserved quantities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and insightful report. The comments help clarify the presentation of our central claims. We will revise the manuscript to include the explicit constructions and definitions requested, which will strengthen the rigor of the arguments without altering the core results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The core claim (abstract and opening sections) that CRF and TDS are merely coordinate parametrizations of a single perspective-neutral higher-order object is not supported by an explicit, foliation-independent construction of that object. No coordinate-free representation (e.g., a higher-order tensor or operator on the process space) is exhibited from which both formalisms are recovered via explicit maps; the argument therefore rests on interpretive re-labeling rather than demonstrated equivalence.

Authors: We appreciate this point. The perspective-neutral object is the process matrix W itself, which is defined without reference to any foliation. The CRF and TDS representations correspond to different ways of decomposing the same W into local operations and a global process, depending on the choice of operational foliation. To make this explicit, we will add a new subsection in the introduction that defines the general map from the process matrix to the parametrized forms, showing how both CRF and TDS arise as different coordinate choices on the same W. This will include the explicit tensorial expressions. revision: yes
Referee: In the quantum-switch constructions (the sections presenting the unitary maps), it is stated that perspectives can be transformed while reshuffling past/future or via reference-frame extension, but the text supplies no explicit equations, operator definitions, or verification that the resulting maps preserve process purity and correctly relate the CRF and TDS representations. Without these derivations the scope of the no-go results cannot be rigorously assessed.

Authors: We agree that the derivations should be more explicit. In the revised manuscript, we will include the full operator definitions for the unitary maps U that transform between the CRF and TDS perspectives for the quantum switch. We will also provide the step-by-step verification that these maps preserve the purity of the process (i.e., that the transformed W' remains a pure process matrix) and correctly map the representations. This will allow a precise assessment of how they circumvent the no-go theorems by reshuffling the past/future partition. revision: yes
Referee: The extension with reference-frame subsystems (the section on shared spatiotemporal scaffolds) asserts that complementary perspectives become unitarily related while preserving global past and future, yet the definition of the scaffold and the precise embedding of the original process are not given in sufficient detail to confirm that the construction avoids reintroducing the foliation dependence it claims to circumvent.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this. In the revision, we will provide a detailed definition of the shared spatiotemporal scaffold as an additional quantum system with its own process matrix component that encodes the reference frame. We will explicitly construct the embedding map that incorporates the original process into the extended one, showing that the global past and future remain fixed while the internal perspectives are unitarily related. This will include the mathematical expressions for the extended process matrix and the unitary transformation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation builds on established process-matrix and quantum-reference-frame formalisms without self-referential reductions or fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's core distinction between coordinate parametrizations (CRF/TDS) and genuine perspectives (via operational foliation) is presented as an interpretive clarification rather than a derivation from equations that reduce to inputs by construction. No load-bearing step equates a claimed prediction or uniqueness result to a self-citation or fitted parameter; the quantum-switch maps and extended reference-frame constructions are described as explicit and independent of the target unification. The work references prior formalisms without invoking author-overlapping uniqueness theorems as external facts or smuggling ansatzes. This is the standard case of a self-contained analysis on existing structures.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the pre-existing process-matrix formalism and quantum reference frame constructions; the perspective-neutral higher-order object is introduced conceptually without independent evidence supplied in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard axioms of the process-matrix formalism for quantum processes
The entire analysis presupposes the process-matrix framework as background.

invented entities (1)

perspective-neutral higher-order object no independent evidence
purpose: Unifying CRF and TDS descriptions as coordinate choices
Introduced in the abstract as the single underlying object for pure processes; no independent falsifiable handle is stated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5522 in / 1349 out tokens · 34237 ms · 2026-05-13T20:08:01.252861+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We argue that, for pure processes, the causal reference frames (CRF) and time-delocalized subsystems (TDS) formalisms should be understood as coordinate parametrizations of a single perspective-neutral higher-order object. A genuine perspective arises when one endows the process with additional frame data by choosing an operational foliation into circuit fragments (events).
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the quantum switch... construct explicit maps that transform perspectives unitarily at the price of reshuffling the notions of past and future... extending the process with subsystems that define quantum reference frames and provide a shared spatiotemporal scaffold.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Higher-order quantum processes respecting closed labs in a spacetime have quantum controlled causal order
quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

Higher-order quantum processes respecting closed labs in classical spacetime are exactly those realizable as quantum circuits with quantum control of causal order.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

[1]

This publication was also made possible through financial support of WOST (WithOutSpaceTime) grant from the John Templeton Foundation

This research was also funded in part by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [10.55776/F71] (BeyondC), and [10.55776/COE1]. This publication was also made possible through financial support of WOST (WithOutSpaceTime) grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the...

work page doi:10.55776/f71
[2]

Aharonov and T

Y. Aharonov and T. Kaufherr, Phys. Rev. D30, 368 (1984)

work page 1984
[3]

S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Reviews of Modern Physics79, 555–609 (2007)

work page 2007
[4]

Gour and R

G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens, New J. Phys.10, 033023 (2008)

work page 2008
[5]

Giacomini, E

F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090404 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Vanrietvelde, P

A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Höhn, F. Giacomini, and E. Castro-Ruiz, Quantum4, 225 (2020)

work page 2020
[7]

Vanrietvelde, P

A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Höhn, and F. Giacomini, Quantum7, 1088 (2023)

work page 2023
[8]

P. A. Höhn and A. Vanrietvelde, New J. Phys.22, 123048 (2020)

work page 2020
[9]

Castro-Ruiz, F

E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, A. Belenchia, and Č. Brukner, Nature Communications11, 2672 (2020)

work page 2020
[10]

L. F. Streiter, F. Giacomini, and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 230403 (2021)

work page 2021
[11]

Castro Ruiz, F

E. Castro Ruiz, F. Giacomini, and Č. Brukner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, E2303–E2309 (2017)

work page 2017
[12]

Einstein’s Equivalence principle for superpositions of gravitational fields,

F. Giacomini and Č. Brukner, “Einstein’s Equivalence principle for superpositions of gravitational fields,” (2021), arXiv:2012.13754 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[13]

Apadula, E

L. Apadula, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Č. Brukner, Quantum8, 1440 (2024)

work page 2024
[14]

L. C. Barbado, E. Castro-Ruiz, L. Apadula, and Č . Brukner, Phys. Rev. D102(2020), 10.1103/physrevd.102.045002

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.045002 2020
[15]

de la Hamette, T

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

work page arXiv 2021
[16]

de la Hamette, V

A.-C. de la Hamette, V. Kabel, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Č. Brukner, Communications Physics6, 231 (2023)

work page 2023
[17]

Quantum reference frames on homogeneous spaces,

J. Głowacki, “Quantum reference frames on homogeneous spaces,” (2024), arXiv:2409.07231 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[18]

Głowacki, L

J. Głowacki, L. Loveridge, and J. Waldron, Int. J. Theor. Phys.63, 137 (2024)

work page 2024
[19]

Carette, J

T. Carette, J. Glowacki, and L. Loveridge, Quantum9, 1680 (2025)

work page 2025
[20]

Cepollaro, A

C. Cepollaro, A. Akil, P. Cieśliński, A.-C. de la Hamette, and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 010201 (2025)

work page 2025
[22]

Kabel, A.-C

V. Kabel, A.-C. de la Hamette, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Č. Brukner, Quantum8, 1547 (2024)

work page 2024
[23]

Kabel, A.-C

V. Kabel, A.-C. de la Hamette, L. Apadula, C. Cepollaro, H. Gomes, J. Butterfield, and Č. Brukner, Communications Physics8(2025), 10.1038/s42005-025-02084-3

work page doi:10.1038/s42005-025-02084-3 2025
[24]

Castro-Ruiz and O

E. Castro-Ruiz and O. Oreshkov, Communications Physics8, 187 (2025)

work page 2025
[25]

de la Hamette and T

A.-C. de la Hamette and T. D. Galley, Quantum4, 367 (2020)

work page 2020
[26]

Quantum limits of a space-time reference frame,

D. Mattei and E. Castro-Ruiz, “Quantum limits of a space-time reference frame,” (2026), arXiv:2512.11407 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[27]

The perspectives of non-ideal quantum reference frames,

S. C. Garmier, L. Hausmann, and E. Castro-Ruiz, “The perspectives of non-ideal quantum reference frames,” (2025), arXiv:2512.19343 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

Quantum reference frames in arbitrary charge sectors: Accessibility of global properties from internal perspectives,

A.-C. de la Hamette, V. Kabel, and Č. Brukner, “Quantum reference frames in arbitrary charge sectors: Accessibility of global properties from internal perspectives,” (2025), arXiv:2510.09100 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

What can we do in a symmetry-constrained perspective? the importance of the total charge’s status in quantum reference frame frameworks,

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

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

Interpreting quantum reference frame transformations through a simple example,

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

work page arXiv 2025
[31]

Oreshkov, F

O. Oreshkov, F. Costa, and Č. Brukner, Nature Communications3, 1092 (2012)

work page 2012
[32]

Araújo, C

M. Araújo, C. Branciard, F. Costa, A. Feix, C. Giarmatzi, and Č. Brukner, New J. Phys.17, 102001 (2015)

work page 2015
[33]

Branciard, M

C. Branciard, M. Araújo, A. Feix, F. Costa, and Č. Brukner, New J. Phys.18, 013008 (2015)

work page 2015
[34]

Oreshkov and C

O. Oreshkov and C. Giarmatzi, New J. Phys.18, 093020 (2016)

work page 2016
[35]

Baumeler and S

Ä. Baumeler and S. Wolf, New J. Phys.18, 013036 (2016). 14

work page 2016
[36]

Zych and v

M. Zych and v. Brukner, Nature Phys.14, 1027 (2018), arXiv:1502.00971 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2018
[37]

M. Zych, F. Costa, I. Pikovski, and Č. Brukner, Nature Communications10, 3772 (2019)

work page 2019
[38]

de la Hamette, V

A.-C. de la Hamette, V. Kabel, M. Christodoulou, and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 10.1103/bnkn-4p3f

work page doi:10.1103/bnkn-4p3f
[39]

Kabel, Č

V. Kabel, Č. Brukner, and W. Wieland, Phys. Rev. D108, 106022 (2023)

work page 2023
[40]

Events and their localisation are relative to a lab,

V. Vilasini, L.-Q. Chen, L. Ye, and R. Renner, “Events and their localisation are relative to a lab,” (2025), arXiv:2505.21797 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[41]

Bisio and P

A. Bisio and P. Perinotti, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences475, 20180706 (2019)

work page 2019
[42]

Apadula, A

L. Apadula, A. Bisio, and P. Perinotti, Quantum8, 1241 (2024)

work page 2024
[43]

Bavaresco, M

J. Bavaresco, M. Murao, and M. T. Quintino, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 200504 (2021)

work page 2021
[44]

On the structure of higher order quantum maps

A. Jenčová, “On the structure of higher order quantum maps,” (2024), arXiv:2411.09256 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[45]

Higher-order quantum operations, 2025

P. Taranto, S. Milz, M. Murao, M. T. Quintino, and K. Modi, “Higher-order quantum operations,” (2025), arXiv:2503.09693 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[46]

L. M. Procopio, A. Moqanaki, M. Araújo, F. Costa, I. Alonso Calafell, E. G. Dowd, D. R. Hamel, L. A. Rozema, Č. Brukner, and P. Walther, Nature Communications6, 7913 EP (2015)

work page 2015
[47]

Rubino, L

G. Rubino, L. A. Rozema, A. Feix, M. Araú jo, J. M. Zeuner, L. M. Procopio, Č. Brukner, and P. Walther, Science Advances3(2017), 10.1126/sciadv.1602589

work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602589 2017
[48]

Wechs, C

J. Wechs, C. Branciard, and O. Oreshkov, Nature Communications14(2023), 10.1038/s41467-023-36893-3

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36893-3 2023
[49]

Baumeler and S

Ä. Baumeler and S. Wolf, in2014 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory(2014) pp. 526–530

work page 2014
[50]

Baumeler, A

Ä. Baumeler, A. Feix, and S. Wolf, Phys. Rev. A90, 042106 (2014)

work page 2014
[51]

Parker and F

L. Parker and F. Costa, Quantum6, 865 (2022)

work page 2022
[52]

P. A. Guérin and Č. Brukner, New J. Phys.20, 103031 (2018)

work page 2018
[53]

Oreshkov, Quantum3, 206 (2019)

O. Oreshkov, Quantum3, 206 (2019)

work page 2019
[54]

Abbott, and Cyril Branciard

J. Wechs, H. Dourdent, A. A. Abbott, and C. Branciard, PRX Quantum2(2021), 10.1103/prxquantum.2.030335

work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.030335 2021
[55]

Wechs and O

J. Wechs and O. Oreshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 190201 (2025)

work page 2025
[56]

Agency under indefinite causality: operational eternalism in higher-order quantum theory,

A. Grinbaum, “Agency under indefinite causality: operational eternalism in higher-order quantum theory,” (2025), arXiv:2512.22879 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[57]

In Ref. [55], the author develops a derived notion of an agent–—emerging from a choice of subsystem factorization and from the grouping of input–output data—–that aligns with the present notion of agent perspective

work page
[58]

Vilasini and R

V. Vilasini and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. A110, 022227 (2024)

work page 2024
[59]

Vilasini and R

V. Vilasini and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024), 10.1103/physrevlett.133.080201

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.080201 2024
[60]

quantum coordinates,

Ref. [22] constructs a relational parametrization of spacetime using scalar fields; the resulting physical local chart is termed “quantum coordinates,” to be distinguished from standard coordinate charts defined independently of any physical system

work page
[61]

Tselentis and Ä

E.-E. Tselentis and Ä. Baumeler, PRX Quantum4(2023), 10.1103/prxquantum.4.040307

work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.040307 2023
[62]

The möbius game: A quantum-inspired test of general relativity,

E.-E. Tselentis and Ä. Baumeler, “The möbius game: A quantum-inspired test of general relativity,” (2025), arXiv:2407.17203 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[63]

N. S. Móller, B. Sahdo, and N. Yokomizo, Quantum8, 1248 (2024)

work page 2024
[64]

Baumeler and S

Ä. Baumeler and S. Wolf, inInformation Theory (ISIT), 2014 IEEE International Symposium on(IEEE, 2014) pp. 526–530

work page 2014