arxiv: 2604.28137 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Weak-to-Strong Measurement Transition with Thermal Instabilities

Marcos V. S. Lima , Carlos H. S. Vieira , Irismar G. da Paz , Pedro R. Dieguez , Lucas S. Marinho

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 05:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum measurementweak valuesthermal noisedecoherencepost-selectionGaussian statesopen quantum systems

0 comments

The pith

Thermal instabilities and probe temperature modify the statistics of quantum measurements across the weak-to-strong transition in a way that depends on pre- and post-selection.

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

This paper sets out a framework for the continuous transition from weak to strong quantum measurement when both the probe and the system are subject to thermal noise and environmental decoherence. It models the probe explicitly as a thermal Gaussian state whose fluctuations grow with temperature and lets the measured system evolve under open-system dynamics before post-selection. The central result is obtained by computing the apparatus's final state, which shows that the observed statistics shift in a highly sensitive manner according to the temperature regime, the probe's thermal properties, and the chosen pre- and post-selection. A reader would care because every laboratory measurement occurs in a thermal environment, so these modifications determine whether anomalous weak values remain observable and whether the measurement ultimately behaves projectively.

Core claim

By deriving the apparatus's final state after the interaction, the paper shows that measurement statistics are modified in a nontrivial, highly sensitive manner by the temperature regime of the system's thermal instabilities, the probe's thermal properties, and the particular choice of pre- and post-selection. This approach allows characterization of how thermal effects reshape the weak-value condition and influence the emergence of projective behavior across the full measurement crossover.

What carries the argument

The explicit derivation of the probe's final state that incorporates a temperature-dependent thermal Gaussian state for the apparatus together with open-system evolution of the measured system prior to post-selection.

If this is right

Weak-value amplification is suppressed or enhanced by thermal fluctuations in a manner that can be predicted from the probe's temperature and the post-selection choice.
The interaction strength required for the emergence of projective outcomes shifts when thermal noise is included.
Particular pre- and post-selection pairs can be chosen to reduce the impact of thermal instabilities on the observed statistics.
The framework supplies explicit expressions for the final pointer state that can be used to design temperature-compensated measurement protocols.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Temperature control of the probe could serve as an additional experimental knob for tuning or stabilizing weak-value readouts.
The same modeling strategy may apply to other pointer-based measurements, such as those in quantum sensing, where thermal noise limits precision.
Testing the framework with non-Gaussian thermal states would reveal whether the reported modifications are generic or specific to Gaussian noise.

Load-bearing premise

The probe can be modeled as a thermal Gaussian state and the measured system undergoes standard open-system evolution prior to post-selection.

What would settle it

Perform the measurement for controlled temperatures of the probe and system while keeping the interaction strength, pre-selection, and post-selection fixed, then compare the pointer statistics to the zero-temperature prediction; agreement with the derived thermal modifications supports the claim, while temperature-independent statistics would falsify it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.28137 by Carlos H. S. Vieira, Irismar G. da Paz, Lucas S. Marinho, Marcos V. S. Lima, Pedro R. Dieguez.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Weak measurement scheme under thermal instabilities. (a) The microscopic two-level system view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Weak value of ˆσz under the GAD channel as a function of the post-selection angle θf , evaluated for a fixed damping rate γ = 0.1, ϕi = 0, and ϕf = 0.99π. The left and middle columns display the real and imaginary parts, respectively. The gray bands in the real plots indicate the standard eigenvalue range [−1, 1], beyond which anomalous amplification is achieved. Anomalies require near-orthogonal pre- and … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Success probability Psucc across distinct thermodynamic regimes for Southern (θi = 3π/4, left column) and Northern (θi = π/4, right column) initial states. Curves compare the cooling limit (p = 0, solid blue lines), thermal equilibrium (p = 1/4, dashed orange lines), and heating limit (p = 1/2, dotted green lines). (a)-(b) Angular dependence in the weak measurement regime (s = 0.01). Vertical dotted lines … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Thermal effects in the weak-to-strong measurement transition. The quantum overlap view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Squeezing-phase effect in the weak-to-strong measurement transition. The quantum overlap view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Spatial (AX, left column) and momentum (AP , right column) amplifications across distinct thermodynamic regimes. Curves compare the cooling limit (p = 0, solid blue lines), thermal equilibrium (p = 1/4, dashed orange lines), and heating limit (p = 1/2, dotted green lines). Horizontal dashed lines indicate the classical macroscopic bounds (AX = ±1 and AP = 0). (a)-(b) Angular dependence in the weak measurem… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum measurement is physically realized through a finite dynamical interaction between a system and a measuring apparatus, giving rise to a continuous transition from weak to strong regimes. While this crossover is well understood under ideal conditions, the combined role of thermal instabilities and pre- and post-selection open dynamics has not been systematically addressed. Here, we develop a general framework to analyze the weak-to-strong measurement transition in the simultaneous presence of environmental decoherence and thermal noise. We model the probe as a thermal Gaussian state, explicitly incorporating temperature-dependent fluctuations in the measuring device, and include open-system evolution of the measured system prior to post-selection. By deriving the apparatus's final state, we show that the measurement statistics are modified in a nontrivial, highly sensitive manner by the temperature regime of the system's thermal instabilities, the probe's thermal properties, and the particular choice of pre- and post-selection. This approach allows us to characterize how thermal effects reshape the weak-value condition and influence the emergence of projective behavior across the full measurement crossover.

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 sets up a Gaussian thermal probe plus standard open evolution to track how temperature shifts the weak-to-strong crossover under pre- and post-selection, but the modeling choices leave the results sensitive to untested assumptions.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors derive the final apparatus state when a thermal Gaussian probe interacts with a system that undergoes ordinary open evolution before post-selection. They show the measurement statistics pick up nontrivial temperature dependence from both the probe and the system instabilities, and they track how this changes the weak-value regime across the full crossover from weak to strong measurement. That combination has not been treated systematically before, so the framework itself is the new piece.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a general framework for the weak-to-strong quantum measurement transition in the presence of environmental decoherence and thermal noise. It models the probe as a thermal Gaussian state incorporating temperature-dependent fluctuations and includes open-system evolution of the measured system prior to post-selection. By deriving the apparatus final state, the authors claim that measurement statistics are modified in a nontrivial and highly sensitive manner by the temperature regime of the system's thermal instabilities, the probe's thermal properties, and the choice of pre- and post-selection. This is used to characterize how thermal effects reshape the weak-value condition and influence the emergence of projective behavior across the full measurement crossover.

Significance. If the derivations hold under the stated modeling assumptions, the work would provide a useful theoretical extension of ideal weak-to-strong measurement theory into realistic thermal environments, with potential relevance to quantum metrology and weak-value amplification in noisy systems. The explicit incorporation of temperature-dependent effects and pre/post-selection offers a systematic approach that could guide future experiments, though its broader impact is limited by the Gaussian and Markovian approximations.

major comments (1)

[Abstract (modeling description) and derivation of apparatus final state] The central claim that measurement statistics are modified in a nontrivial, highly sensitive manner by thermal instabilities rests on the explicit modeling choice (stated in the abstract) that the probe is a thermal Gaussian state and the system undergoes standard open-system evolution prior to post-selection. Real thermal instabilities frequently involve non-Gaussian fluctuations, position-dependent nonlinear couplings, and non-Markovian bath correlations not reproduced by Gaussian states or standard Lindblad/Caldeira-Leggett forms. This modeling assumption is load-bearing for the derived modifications to the weak-to-strong crossover; without a robustness analysis or justification of the validity regime, the claimed sensitivity does not necessarily follow for physically realistic instabilities.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract is clear but could include a brief statement on the range of validity of the Gaussian approximation to help readers assess applicability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We address the major comment point by point below and indicate the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract (modeling description) and derivation of apparatus final state] The central claim that measurement statistics are modified in a nontrivial, highly sensitive manner by thermal instabilities rests on the explicit modeling choice (stated in the abstract) that the probe is a thermal Gaussian state and the system undergoes standard open-system evolution prior to post-selection. Real thermal instabilities frequently involve non-Gaussian fluctuations, position-dependent nonlinear couplings, and non-Markovian bath correlations not reproduced by Gaussian states or standard Lindblad/Caldeira-Leggett forms. This modeling assumption is load-bearing for the derived modifications to the weak-to-strong crossover; without a robustness analysis or justification of the validity regime, the claimed sensitivity does not necessarily follow for physically realistic instabilities.

Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. Our framework is constructed explicitly within the Gaussian probe state and Markovian open-system dynamics (Lindblad/Caldeira-Leggett) because these permit closed-form derivations of the apparatus final state while incorporating temperature-dependent fluctuations and decoherence. Gaussian states are the exact thermal equilibrium states for quadratic Hamiltonians, which model many common probes (e.g., harmonic oscillators in optical or mechanical systems), and the Markovian approximation captures the leading thermal noise for weak system-bath coupling. Within these standard assumptions, the derivations demonstrate nontrivial sensitivity of the weak-to-strong crossover to temperature, probe properties, and pre/post-selection. We agree that real instabilities can include non-Gaussian, nonlinear, or non-Markovian features not captured here. To address the concern, we will add a new subsection 'Validity and Scope of the Model' (in the Methods or Discussion) that (i) justifies the Gaussian and Markovian choices with literature references, (ii) delineates the validity regime (weak coupling, quadratic probe Hamiltonians), and (iii) states the limitations, noting that extensions beyond these approximations are left for future work. This revision scopes the claims to the model while preserving the analytical results. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation proceeds from explicit modeling assumptions to computed final state

full rationale

The paper models the probe as a thermal Gaussian state and the system via standard open-system evolution (e.g., prior to post-selection), then derives the apparatus final state to obtain modified statistics. No equations, self-citations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work are visible in the provided text. The central result follows from applying standard quantum-optics techniques to these inputs rather than reducing to them by definition or construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and independent of the target claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard quantum open-system modeling choices that are not independently verified in the abstract; temperature enters as a key variable but no specific fitted values are given.

free parameters (2)

probe temperature
Temperature-dependent fluctuations in the measuring device are explicitly incorporated as a parameter controlling the Gaussian state.
system thermal instability temperature
The temperature regime of the system's thermal instabilities is a central variable modifying the statistics.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The probe is modeled as a thermal Gaussian state
Stated directly as the modeling choice for incorporating temperature-dependent fluctuations.
domain assumption Open-system evolution of the measured system prior to post-selection follows standard quantum dynamics with decoherence and thermal noise
Included in the framework without further justification in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5488 in / 1402 out tokens · 46436 ms · 2026-05-07T05:57:01.009217+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

Thec ± 0 coefficients The operator ˆK0 = √1−p(|0⟩ ⟨0|+ √1−γ|1⟩ ⟨1|) describes the conditional evolution of the system in the absence of a decay event. First, we evaluate the term involving the initial state: ⟨ψf | ˆK0 |ψi⟩= p 1−p⟨ψ f | eiϕi sin θi 2 |0⟩+ p 1−γcos θi 2 |1⟩ = p 1−p ei(ϕi−ϕf) sin θf 2 sin θi 2 + p 1−γcos θf 2 cos θi 2 . (B2) 13 Next, the ter...
[2]

Thec ± 1 coefficients The operator ˆK1 = p (1−p)γ|0⟩ ⟨1|corresponds to the spontaneous emission event. For the first term, only the |1⟩component of|ψ i⟩contributes: ⟨ψf | ˆK1 |ψi⟩= p (1−p)γcos θi 2 ⟨ψf |0⟩= p (1−p)γe −iϕf sin θf 2 cos θi 2 .(B5) For the second term, because ˆσz leaves the|1⟩state with a positive sign, we obtain an identical result: ⟨ψf | ...
[3]

The first term is: ⟨ψf | ˆK2 |ψi⟩= √p⟨ψ f | p 1−γe iϕi sin θi 2 |0⟩+ cos θi 2 |1⟩ = √p " p 1−γe i(ϕi−ϕf) sin θf 2 sin θi 2 + cos θf 2 cos θi 2 #

Thec ± 2 coefficients The operator ˆK2 = √p(√1−γ|0⟩ ⟨0|+|1⟩ ⟨1|) accounts for the non-unitary evolution due to the thermal bath when no photon exchange occurs. The first term is: ⟨ψf | ˆK2 |ψi⟩= √p⟨ψ f | p 1−γe iϕi sin θi 2 |0⟩+ cos θi 2 |1⟩ = √p " p 1−γe i(ϕi−ϕf) sin θf 2 sin θi 2 + cos θf 2 cos θi 2 # . (B8) The term acting on ˆσz |ψi⟩introduces a negat...
[4]

Thec ± 3 coefficients The operator ˆK3 = √pγ|1⟩ ⟨0|describes the absorption of a thermal photon. For the first term, only the|0⟩ component of|ψ i⟩contributes: ⟨ψf | ˆK3 |ψi⟩= √pγeiϕi sin θi 2 ⟨ψf |1⟩= √pγcos θf 2 eiϕi sin θi 2 .(B11) 14 For the second term, the ˆσz operator flips the sign of the|0⟩state, yielding: ⟨ψf | ˆK3ˆσz |ψi⟩=− √pγeiϕi sin θi 2 ⟨ψf ...
[5]

Evaluation of the Denominator To determine the denominator, we first calculate the action of the channel on the initial state|ψ i⟩⟨ψi|: ES |ψi⟩⟨ψi| = cos2 θi 2 ES(|1⟩ ⟨1|) + sin2 θi 2 ES(|0⟩ ⟨0|) +e −iϕi cos θi 2 sin θi 2 ES(|1⟩ ⟨0|) + h.c. (D2) The GAD channel modifies the fundamental basis operators according to: ES(|1⟩ ⟨1|) = 1−(1−p)γ |1⟩ ⟨1|+ (1−p)γ|0...
[6]

Expanding this operation gives: ˆσz|ψi⟩⟨ψi|= cos 2 θi 2 |1⟩ ⟨1| −sin 2 θi 2 |0⟩ ⟨0|+e −iϕi cos θi 2 sin θi 2 |1⟩ ⟨0| −h.c

Evaluation of the Numerator For the numerator,⟨ψ f | ES ˆσz|ψi⟩⟨ψi| |ψf ⟩, the observable ˆσz =|1⟩ ⟨1| − |0⟩ ⟨0|acts on the initial state before the interaction with the environment. Expanding this operation gives: ˆσz|ψi⟩⟨ψi|= cos 2 θi 2 |1⟩ ⟨1| −sin 2 θi 2 |0⟩ ⟨0|+e −iϕi cos θi 2 sin θi 2 |1⟩ ⟨0| −h.c. (D9) Notably, ˆσz preserves the diagonal and off-di...
[7]

The decay envelope is determined by eΓ = 1 2¯n+1(cosh 2r−cos 2χsinh 2r), which characterizes the inverse covariance of ˆρ 0

= (2¯n+1)−1 represents the purity of the reference state [32, 72]. The decay envelope is determined by eΓ = 1 2¯n+1(cosh 2r−cos 2χsinh 2r), which characterizes the inverse covariance of ˆρ 0. This term describes the classical spatial overlap, which decays slowly for states with broad spatial support (such as anti-squeezed states). The second identity invo...
[8]

The Heisenberg evolution of the position operator under a general displacement ˆD(γ) is given by ˆD†(γ) ˆX ˆD(γ) = ˆX+2σRe(γ), whereσis the spatial width of the pointer

Diagonal Terms We first evaluate the trace for the diagonal componentρ ++: Tr( ˆXρ++) = Tr( ˆX ˆD+ρ0 ˆD† +).(H1) Using the cyclic property of the trace, this becomes Tr(ˆD† + ˆX ˆD+ρ0). The Heisenberg evolution of the position operator under a general displacement ˆD(γ) is given by ˆD†(γ) ˆX ˆD(γ) = ˆX+2σRe(γ), whereσis the spatial width of the pointer. I...
[9]

Therefore, the trace immediately yields the classical spatial shift: Tr( ˆXρ++) = Tr h ˆX+σs ρ0 i =σs.(H3) By analogy, for the negative displacement component (γ=ib−s/2), we obtain: Tr( ˆXρ −−) = Tr h ˆX−σs ρ0 i =−σs.(H4)
[10]

Using the Weyl displacement relation, we factor out the initial momentum kick as ˆD± = ˆD(ib) ˆD(±s/2)e∓ibs/2

Off-Diagonal Terms Next, we evaluate the contribution of the cross-termρ +−: Tr( ˆXρ+−) = Tr( ˆX ˆD+ρ0 ˆD† −).(H5) 19 Sincex 0 = 0, the initial displacements are purely imaginary: ˆD± = ˆD(ib±s/2). Using the Weyl displacement relation, we factor out the initial momentum kick as ˆD± = ˆD(ib) ˆD(±s/2)e∓ibs/2. Substituting this factorization into the trace y...
[11]

Total Mean Position Shift Because the off-diagonal terms vanish identically in the position basis, the net spatial shift of the pointer is governed entirely by the diagonal elements. By summing these contributions, weighted by their respective coefficients, we arrive at the final analytical result: ∆X=σs(W ++ − W−−).(H13) The quantityσsrepresents the fund...
[12]

By exact analogy, the negative displacement component (γ=ib−s/2) yields the same imaginary part, resulting in Tr( ˆP ρ−−) =P 0

Diagonal Terms We first evaluate the trace for the diagonal componentρ ++: Tr( ˆP ρ++) = Tr( ˆP ˆD+ρ0 ˆD† +) = Tr( ˆD† + ˆP ˆD+ρ0).(I1) Simplifying the Heisenberg evolution ˆD† + ˆP ˆD+, and substitutingγ=ib+s/2, we obtain ˆD† + ˆP ˆD+ = ˆP+ Im (ib+s/2) σ = ˆP+ b σ = ˆP+P 0.(I2) The trace simplifies to: Tr( ˆP ρ++) = Tr h ˆP+P 0 ρ0 i =P 0,(I3) where we ha...
[13]

Off-Diagonal Terms Next, we evaluate the contribution of the cross-termρ +−: Tr( ˆP ρ+−) = Tr( ˆP ˆD+ρ0 ˆD† −).(I4) We factor the total displacements using the Weyl relation, ˆD± = ˆD(ib) ˆD(±s/2)e∓ibs/2. Substituting these and applying the cyclic property to move ˆD†(ib) to the far left yields: Tr( ˆP ρ+−) = Tr ˆP h ˆD(ib) ˆD(s/2)e−ibs/2 i ρ0 h e−ibs/2 ˆ...
[14]

Total Mean Momentum Shift The final mean momentum⟨P⟩ f is the sum of these traces, weighted by the normalized coefficientsW ij of the conditioned state. Factoring outP 0 allows us to group the terms: ⟨P⟩ f =P 0 h W++ +W −− +W +−e−isbe−Γs2 +W −+eisbe−Γs2i −i Γs σ e−Γs2h W+−e−isb − W−+eisb i .(I9) The expression inside the first bracket is precisely the tra...
[15]

To find the net momentum shift ∆P, we subtract this initial momentumP 0

This perfectly isolatesP 0. To find the net momentum shift ∆P, we subtract this initial momentumP 0. Using thatW −+ =W ∗ +−, the remaining term inside the second bracket takes the formz−z ∗ = 2iIm(z). This cancels the imaginary−icoefficient, yielding the final, strictly real expression for the anomalous momentum shift: ∆P= 2 Γs σ e−Γs2 Im W+−e−isb .(I10) ...
[16]

Aharonov, D

Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1351 (1988)

1988
[17]

von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Goldstine Printed Materials (Princeton University Press, 1955)

J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Goldstine Printed Materials (Princeton University Press, 1955)

1955
[18]

Ozawa, Journal of Mathematical Physics25, 79 (1984)

M. Ozawa, Journal of Mathematical Physics25, 79 (1984)

1984
[19]

Y. Pan, J. Zhang, E. Cohen, C.-w. Wu, P.-X. Chen, and N. Davidson, Nature Physics16, 1206 (2020)

2020
[20]

Turek, W

Y. Turek, W. Maimaiti, Y. Shikano, C.-P. Sun, and M. Al-Amri, Phys. Rev. A92, 022109 (2015)

2015
[21]

Araya-Sossa and M

K. Araya-Sossa and M. Orszag, Phys. Rev. A103, 052215 (2021)

2021
[22]

P. R. Dieguez and R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A97, 022107 (2018)

2018
[23]

A. C. Orthey, P. R. Dieguez, O. Makuta, and R. Augusiak, Phys. Rev. A111, 012220 (2025)

2025
[24]

Lustosa, D

F. Lustosa, D. G. Barreto, E. C. Lima, L. S. Cruz, P. R. Dieguez, and B. Marques, New Journal of Physics27, 054503 (2025)

2025
[25]

X. Zhu, Y. Zhang, S. Pang, C. Qiao, Q. Liu, and S. Wu, Phys. Rev. A84, 052111 (2011)

2011
[26]

J. Yi, P. Talkner, and Y. W. Kim, Phys. Rev. E96, 022108 (2017)

2017
[27]

Brandner, M

K. Brandner, M. Bauer, M. T. Schmid, and U. Seifert, New J. of Phys.17, 065006 (2015)

2015
[28]

Lisboa, P

V. Lisboa, P. Dieguez, J. Guimar˜ aes, J. Santos, and R. Serra, Phys. Rev. A106, 022436 (2022)

2022
[29]

P. R. Dieguez, V. F. Lisboa, and R. M. Serra, Phys. Rev. A107, 012423 (2023)

2023
[30]

Vieira, J

C. Vieira, J. de Oliveira, J. Santos, P. Dieguez, and R. Serra, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Open16-17, 100105 (2023)

2023
[31]

Zhang, H

T. Zhang, H. Yang, and S.-M. Fei, Phys. Rev. A109, 042424 (2024)

2024
[32]

V. F. Lisboa, P. R. Dieguez, K. Simonov, and R. M. Serra, Quantum Science and Technology11, 015058 (2026)

2026
[33]

A. H. Malavazi, R. Sagar, B. Ahmadi, and P. R. Dieguez, PRX Energy4, 023011 (2025)

2025
[34]

Elouard, D

C. Elouard, D. A. Herrera-Mart´ ı, M. Clusel, and A. Auffeves, npj Quan. Inf.3, 1 (2017). 22

2017
[35]

C. L. Latune and C. Elouard, Quantum9, 1614 (2025)

2025
[36]

Ballesteros Ferraz and C

L. Ballesteros Ferraz and C. Elouard, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013305 (2026)

2026
[37]

Dressel, M

J. Dressel, M. Malik, F. M. Miatto, A. N. Jordan, and R. W. Boyd, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 307 (2014)

2014
[38]

Yao and Y

X.-X. Yao and Y. Turek, npj Quantum Information12, 30 (2026)

2026
[39]

Sahoo, A

S. Sahoo, A. Yaroshevsky, D. Cheskis, and Y. Gorodetski, Nanoscale18, 2076 (2026)

2076
[40]

Z. Su, W. Zhao, W. Sun, H. Li, Y. Yu, and J. Wang, Chin. Opt. Lett.24, 042601 (2026)

2026
[41]

S.-Y. Yoo, Y. Kim, U.-S. Kim, C.-H. Lee, and Y.-H. Kim, Quantum Science and Technology10, 025054 (2025)

2025
[42]

Huang and X.-Y

J.-H. Huang and X.-Y. Hu, Phys. Rev. A113, 033711 (2026)

2026
[43]

O. A. D. Molitor, A. H. A. Malavazi, R. D. Baldij˜ ao, A. C. Orthey, I. L. Paiva, and P. R. Dieguez, Communications Physics 7, 373 (2024)

2024
[44]

Schwartzman-Nowik, D

Z. Schwartzman-Nowik, D. Aharonov, and E. Cohen, Weak value advantage in overcoming noise (2025), arXiv:2401.05532 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[45]

Olivares, The European Physical Journal Special Topics203, 3 (2012)

S. Olivares, The European Physical Journal Special Topics203, 3 (2012)

2012
[46]

Weedbrook, S

C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

2012
[47]

Marian and T

P. Marian and T. A. Marian, Phys. Rev. A47, 4474 (1993)

1993
[48]

O. R. de Araujo, L. S. Marinho, J. F. G. Santos, and C. H. S. Vieira, Phys. Rev. A113, L020401 (2026)

2026
[49]

J. C. P. Porto, C. H. S. Vieira, P. R. Dieguez, I. G. da Paz, and L. S. Marinho, The European Physical Journal Plus141, 194 (2026)

2026
[50]

J. a. C. P. Porto, C. H. S. Vieira, I. G. da Paz, P. R. Dieguez, and L. S. Marinho, Phys. Rev. A112, 042424 (2025)

2025
[51]

J. C. P. Porto, L. S. Marinho, P. R. Dieguez, I. G. da Paz, and C. H. S. Vieira, Physica Scripta100, 015111 (2024)

2024
[52]

L. S. Marinho, P. R. Dieguez, C. H. S. Vieira, and I. G. da Paz, Scientific Reports14, 12223 (2024)

2024
[53]

L. S. Marinho, I. G. da Paz, and M. Sampaio, Phys. Rev. A101, 062109 (2020)

2020
[54]

O. R. de Araujo, L. S. Marinho, H. A. S. Costa, M. Sampaio, and I. G. da Paz, Modern Physics Letters A34, 1950017 (2019)

2019
[55]

T. M. S. Oliveira, L. S. Marinho, F. C. V. de Brito, M. Sampaio, and I. G. da Paz, New Journal of Physics27, 084505 (2025)

2025
[56]

P. P. da Silva, C. H. S. Vieira, L. S. Marinho, M. Sampaio, and I. G. da Paz, The European Physical Journal Plus139, 1042 (2024)

2024
[57]

F. R. Lustosa, P. R. Dieguez, and I. G. da Paz, Phys. Rev. A102, 052205 (2020)

2020
[58]

Upreti and U

V. Upreti and U. Chabaud, Interplay of resources for universal continuous-variable quantum computing (2025), arXiv:2502.07670 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[59]

Upreti and U

V. Upreti and U. Chabaud, Symplectic coherence: a measure of position-momentum correlations in quantum states (2025), arXiv:2507.15738 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

Giulini, E

D. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, J. Kupsch, I. Stamatescu, and H. Zeh,Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, Physics and Astronomy (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013)

2013
[61]

Schlosshauer,Decoherence: And the Quantum-To-Classical Transition, The Frontiers Collection (Springer, 2007)

M. Schlosshauer,Decoherence: And the Quantum-To-Classical Transition, The Frontiers Collection (Springer, 2007)

2007
[62]

L. S. Marinho, H. A. S. Costa, M. Sampaio, and I. G. da Paz, Europhysics Letters122, 50007 (2018)

2018
[63]

L. S. Marinho, O. P. de S´ a Neto, M. Sampaio, H. A. S. Costa, and I. G. da Paz, Europhysics Letters143, 40001 (2023)

2023
[64]

W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

2003
[65]

Kraus, A

K. Kraus, A. B¨ ohm, J. Dollard, and W. Wootters,States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1983)

1983
[66]

Nielsen and I

M. Nielsen and I. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010
[67]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2007)

2007
[68]

H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A65, 032111 (2002)

2002
[69]

Shikano and A

Y. Shikano and A. Hosoya, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical43, 025304 (2009)

2009
[70]

Vaidman, A

L. Vaidman, A. Ben-Israel, J. Dziewior, L. Knips, M. Weißl, J. Meinecke, C. Schwemmer, R. Ber, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. A96, 032114 (2017)

2017
[71]

Aharonov, P

Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann, and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev.134, B1410 (1964)

1964
[72]

Aharonov and L

Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman, The two-state vector formalism: An updated review, inTime in Quantum Mechanics, edited by J. Muga, R. S. Mayato, and ´I. Egusquiza (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008) pp. 399–447

2008
[73]

Baumgratz, M

T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140401 (2014)

2014
[74]

Zhang, A

L. Zhang, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 210801 (2015)

2015
[75]

Tanaka and N

S. Tanaka and N. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A88, 042116 (2013)

2013
[76]

G. C. Knee, G. A. D. Briggs, S. C. Benjamin, and E. M. Gauger, Phys. Rev. A87, 012115 (2013)

2013
[77]

G. C. Knee and E. M. Gauger, Phys. Rev. X4, 011032 (2014)

2014
[78]

Ferrie and J

C. Ferrie and J. Combes, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 040406 (2014)

2014
[79]

Hosten and P

O. Hosten and P. Kwiat, Science319, 787 (2008)

2008
[80]

D. J. Starling, P. B. Dixon, A. N. Jordan, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. A82, 063822 (2010)

2010

Showing first 80 references.