Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A time-domain Kirkwood–Dirac quasiprobability distribution—built from sequential projective measurements and reconstructed by Bloch tomography—is claimed to unify the main temporal and spatiotemporal quantum state formalisms.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 11:57 UTC pith:KEPEGKUW

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful temporal KD unification with a correctable typo in Eq. (9) and an unproven spatiotemporal consistency extension; worth a serious referee. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.05294 v2 pith:KEPEGKUW submitted 2026-01-08 quant-ph hep-th

Temporal Kirkwood-Dirac Quasiprobability Distribution and Unification of Temporal State Formalisms through Temporal Bloch Tomography

Zhian Jia , Kavan Modi , Dagomir Kaszlikowski This is my paper
classification quant-ph hep-th
keywords Kirkwood-Dirac quasiprobabilityMargenau-Hill distributiontemporal quantum statesspatiotemporal quantum processestemporal Bloch tomographypseudo-density operatordoubled density operatornonclassicality measure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the Kirkwood–Dirac (KD) quasiprobability distribution, extended to sequential time steps, gives one common operational backbone for the many apparently different ways quantum states have been defined over time. It defines left, right, and doubled temporal KD distributions from a multi-time process (initial state plus CPTP maps), shows the doubled one is informationally complete, and identifies its real part with the Margenau–Hill (MH) distribution. Reconstructing states from these distributions by temporal Bloch tomography produces objects that coincide with, or reduce to, the pseudo-density operator in the two-time case and the doubled density operator in general. If the framework is right, the various temporal-state formalisms are not competing pictures but different faces of a single KD-based construction, and temporal KD non-classicality (negative or complex values) becomes the common marker of temporal quantumness. The authors also give an interferometric measurement scheme that makes the construction experimentally realizable.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the temporal KD distribution—defined by inserting CPTP maps between projective measurements at successive times—carries the full dynamical content of a multi-time process, and that the doubled version, which lets different measurement bases act on the ket and bra sides, is informationally complete: the left and right KD distributions are its marginals, the Lüders–von Neumann (LvN) distribution is its diagonal, and its real part gives the MH distribution. Tomography built on these distributions yields temporal states for which a spatiotemporal Born rule holds, the fixed-time density operators are recovered by partial trace, and the two-t

What carries the argument

The engine is the temporally doubled Kirkwood–Dirac quasiprobability, Q_KD(a_n..a0; b_n..b0) = Tr[ Π_{a_n} E_{n←n-1}( ... E_{1←0}( Π_{a0} ρ Π_{b0}) ... ) Π_{b_n} ], where each Π is a projective outcome at a chosen time and the E's are CPTP evolutions. It is informationally complete because the left/right marginals and the diagonal reproduce the other distributions. Reconstructing the associated 'temporal state' from Pauli correlators via Bloch tomography converts the quasiprobability into an operator; for the right KD state this operator is built by chaining Jamiołkowski operators of the channels with the initial state through the ⋆ (link-product) operation. The real part (MH distribution) H

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Kolmogorov-consistency and reduced-state results, proved for purely temporal CPTP processes, also hold for spatiotemporal processes where tracing out subsystems makes the effective reduced evolution non-CPTP; this extension is asserted without proof in the main text and Supplemental Remark 1.

What would settle it

Compute the spatiotemporal KD quasiprobability for a two-qubit system in an entangled initial state with a local non-unitary channel acting on one qubit only; then trace out the other qubit and compare the marginals of the KD distribution with the temporal KD distribution of the reduced (non-CPTP) evolution. If the marginals disagree on any overlapping spacetime subset, the claimed spatiotemporal unification collapses.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the doubled temporal KD distribution is as complete as claimed, then any multi-time process can be tomographically reconstructed from it, and all other temporal distributions (left/right KD, MH, LvN) are read off as marginals, real parts, or diagonals.
  • The identity between the two-time MH temporal state and the pseudo-density operator means the PDO's usual Hermitian but non-positive structure is exactly the cost of taking the real part of a KD state.
  • Temporal KD non-classicality—negativity or complex values—is a measure that is convex in the initial state and channels, decreases under coarse-graining and marginalization, and is multiplicative/additive for product processes; it therefore behaves like a resource monotone for temporal correlations.
  • The spatiotemporal Born rule for these states (inner product with projectors reproduces the quasiprobabilities) gives a single measurement rule that covers KD, MH, and LvN statistics.
  • The interferometric scheme for the temporal characteristic functions provides a concrete experimental route, via Stinespring dilation, to measure KD and MH distributions for general CPTP processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the unification is correct, results proved in one temporal-state language (say, the recursive Jordan-product PDO) should translate directly into KD/MH language; one could use this dictionary to import entanglement or nonlocality tools into temporal settings.
  • Editorial inference: The spatiotemporal extension is the fragile part; a natural test is a two-qubit entangled initial state with local noise on one qubit, checking whether the spatiotemporal KD marginal over a traced-out subsystem still satisfies Kolmogorov consistency. If it fails, the operational unification holds only for purely temporal CPTP processes.
  • Editorial inference: The product additivity of the log nonclassicality measure suggests that temporal KD quantumness could serve as a resource for sequential metrology or Leggett–Garg-type tests, similar to spatial KD nonclassicality in postselected metrology.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces left, right, and doubled temporal/spatiotemporal Kirkwood–Dirac (KD) quasiprobability distributions for multi-time quantum processes, along with their real (Margenau–Hill, MH) counterparts. From these distributions, the authors construct 'temporal states' via Bloch tomography and show relations to the pseudo-density operator (PDO), the doubled density operator, and related process formalisms. The paper also defines a nonclassicality measure, proves basic properties of this measure, gives a classicality criterion for the temporal KD distribution, and proposes interferometric characteristic-function circuits for experimental access. The main text is concise; most proofs and the spatiotemporal extension are in the Supplemental Material.

Significance. If the claims are fully established, the paper offers a useful conceptual unification: the two-time MH state coincides with the PDO, and the doubled KD state is identified with the doubled density operator, giving a common quasiprobabilistic underpinning to several temporal/spatiotemporal formalisms. The explicit interferometric circuits and the classicality criterion are concrete, testable contributions, and the examples with replacement and measure-and-replace channels are instructive. The paper is largely definitional, but the definitions are principled and the temporal CPTP part is supported by Lemma 1 and Theorem 1. However, the headline claim about 'general spatiotemporal settings' is broader than what is actually proved, and the central spatiotemporal consistency step is deferred rather than demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [SM Sec. I.C, Remark 1; Theorem 3 (SM); main-text Theorem 2 and Eq. (26)] The central claim of a 'general spatiotemporal' framework is not proved. Lemma 1 establishes Kolmogorov consistency only for a chain of CPTP maps in purely temporal processes. SM Sec. I.C itself notes that tracing out subsystems in a spatiotemporal circuit can produce non-CPTP reduced evolutions. Theorem 3 nonetheless asserts consistency for spatiotemporal states and says the proof follows from Lemma 1, while Remark 1 defers the detailed discussion to 'elsewhere.' Because the unification with PDO/doubled-density-operator/process formalisms and the spatiotemporal Bloch-tomography claim rely on these reduced states, this is a load-bearing gap. Please add a proof for fixed-causal-order process-tensor/comb settings or explicitly restrict the claims to purely temporal CPTP processes.
  2. [Theorem 2, Eq. (25); SM Sec. V] The identification that the doubled KD state ↔ϒ coincides with the doubled density operator [34] is a load-bearing step for the claimed unification, but the SM only says it is 'easy to verify' and cites [34]. Since Eq. (25)/(S53) defines the doubled KD state through a specific Bloch expansion, the equality with the published construction should be either demonstrated in one paragraph or stated together with the precise definition of the object in [34]. As written, the central identity is imported rather than proved in this manuscript.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (9)] The product rule for N has an extra '+1'. From N = Σ|Q| − 1, the correct relation is N(P1⊗P2) = N(P1)N(P2) + N(P1) + N(P2), not with a final '+1'. This is also consistent with Example 1, Eq. (16), and with the additivity of N' = log Σ|Q| in Eq. (10).
  2. [SM Sec. II, Fig. S2(c)] The circuit definitions of G2 use e^{iB_n u_n}, whereas the characteristic function in Eq. (S34) and Eq. (S40) contains e^{-iB_n u_n}. Please reconcile the sign convention.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and garbled fragments: 'overle f trightarrowϒ' after Eq. (29), 'doueld' in SM Theorem 3, 'poof' after Eq. (32), and the proof of Theorem 4 contains a poorly formatted expression involving Tr_{tA}. These should be cleaned up.
  4. [SM Sec. V] The sentence 'From the definition, it is easy to verify that ↔ϒ coincides with the doubled density operator' would be more useful if expanded into a short derivation or an explicit definitional equivalence, especially since this identity is central to the unification claim.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

KD 'Born rule' is the inverse of the defining Bloch transform, and the doubled-KD/doubled-density-operator identity and LvN Born rule are inherited from the authors' own Ref. [34]; spatiotemporal consistency is asserted rather than proved.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Main text, Eqs. (24)-(25) and Theorem 2, property 3 (Eq. 29)]
    "Right KD measurements give the right KD temporal correlators −→T μn,...,μ0 = ∑ an,...,a0 an · · ·a0 −→Q KD (an, . . . ,a0 | σμn, . . . ,σμ0) ... Temporal states follow from the Bloch representation ... 3. Spatiotemporal Born rule: For the KD states ... the take the inner product of measurements and state gives the corresponding distributions, e.g., for right KD temporal state −→Q KD(bn, . . . ,b0) = Tr[(Πbn ⊗ · · · ⊗Πb0) −→ϒ]."

    The temporal state is not independently defined: Eq. (24) defines the correlators as outcome moments of the KD distribution, and Eq. (25) constructs the state as the Bloch expansion in exactly those correlators. Eq. (29) then 'recovers' the KD distribution by projecting onto the same projectors, which is just the inverse Fourier/Bloch transform of the defining moments. The 'Born rule' is therefore the inverse of the defining equation by construction, not a derivation of the KD distribution from an independently characterized state.

  2. self citation load bearing [Supplemental Material Sec. V, Eqs. (S53)-(S66) and Theorem 3 proof; also main text Theorem 2.1/3]
    "Notice that ←→T ... is the same as doubled correlation tensor in Ref. [34] ... From the definition, it's easy to verify that doubled KD temporal state ←→ϒ coincides with the doubled density operator [34]. ... Since ←→ϒ coincides with the doubled density operator, a detailed account of the spatiotemporal Born rule (for the LvN distribution) can be found in Ref. [34]."

    The unification claim requires the KD reconstruction to reproduce the doubled density operator and its LvN Born rule. Instead of a self-contained proof, the paper cites Ref. [34]—by the same first and last authors—for both the coincidence and the LvN Born rule. Because the paper also states that the doubled correlation tensor is 'the same' as the one in Ref. [34], the claimed equivalence amounts to importing the authors' prior doubled-density-operator framework into the KD language. The self-citation is thus load-bearing for the central unification result.

full rationale

The core KD construction is mathematically self-contained: the definitions of left, right, and doubled temporal KD distributions, Lemma 1 (for CPTP temporal processes), the characteristic-function measurement scheme, and Theorem 1's classicality criterion are all derived from explicit definitions and standard completeness relations. There is no fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. However, two steps prevent a clean 0-2 score. First, the 'Spatiotemporal Born rule' in Theorem 2/3 is the inverse of the Bloch transform used to define the temporal state from the KD correlators, so that property is a consistency loop rather than an independent result. Second, the identification of the doubled KD state with the doubled density operator, and the associated LvN Born rule, are explicitly deferred to Ref. [34], a prior paper by the same first and last authors; the paper even says the relevant tensor is 'the same' as in Ref. [34]. This is load-bearing self-citation for the advertised unification. Additionally, per the reviewing rule, a limitation should be flagged: the spatiotemporal extension is asserted rather than proved. Lemma 1 is proven only for temporal CPTP processes, while Supplemental Remark 1 concedes that tracing out subsystems 'goes beyond the purely temporal setting' and says 'A more detailed discussion of this perspective will be presented elsewhere.' The main text nevertheless states 'As we have shown, the spatiotemporal KD quasiprobability distribution satisfies the Kolmogorov axioms.' This is an unproven load-bearing step, though not itself a circularity. These issues make the framework partially definitional and partially dependent on the authors' earlier work, while substantial independent content (temporal KD nonclassicality, interferometric measurement, classicality criterion) remains. Score 4.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

No free parameters or fitted values appear: the paper is a formal construction, not a data-fitting exercise. The axioms are standard quantum mechanics plus a prior result by the same group (doubled density operator). The invented entities are mathematical state objects, not new physical forces or particles, and they lack independent external evidence.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Standard finite-dimensional quantum mechanics: density operators, CPTP maps, projective measurements, and the Born rule.
    Used throughout, e.g., in the definition of the temporal KD distribution in Eq. (2) and the Kolmogorov consistency proof in Lemma 1.
  • domain assumption Fixed causal order with CPTP evolution between time steps.
    The process is assumed to be P=(ρ, E_{t1←t0}, ..., E_{tn←tn-1}) with each E CPTP; indefinite causal order is explicitly deferred in the Discussion and SM Remark 1.
  • domain assumption The doubled density operator formalism of Ref. [34] is taken as established.
    Theorem 2/3 property 1 identifies the doubled KD state with the doubled density operator by citing [34] rather than re-deriving the full formalism.
  • standard math Lemma 4 (Ludwig's theorem) and Lemma 5 (extension of convex-linear functionals on density operators) from the SM.
    Both are proved in the SM and are used in the proof of Theorem 1 to derive the commutativity conditions.
  • domain assumption Stinespring dilations of all CPTP maps can be realised in the proposed interferometric circuits.
    The experimental accessibility of the temporal KD characteristic functions for general CPTP evolutions relies on this dilation construction (SM Sec. II).
invented entities (2)
  • Temporal KD states (left, right, doubled) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide a unified operational representation of multi-time quantum processes via Bloch tomography.
    New mathematical operators defined from KD correlators; no independent external evidence beyond the paper's own consistency arguments.
  • Temporal MH states (left/right and doubled) no independent evidence
    purpose: Hermitianized counterparts of the KD temporal states, connecting to the PDO formalism.
    Derived as real parts of the KD states; no external falsifiable prediction is offered.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 238 in / 10475 out tokens · 158256 ms · 2026-08-03T11:57:50.902311+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Temporal Kirkwood-Dirac Quasiprobability Distribution and Unification of Temporal State Formalisms through Temporal Bloch Tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KEPEGKUW

@misc{pith2026260105294,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Temporal Kirkwood-Dirac Quasiprobability Distribution and Unification of Temporal State Formalisms through Temporal Bloch Tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KEPEGKUW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.05294}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Temporal quantum states generalize the multipartite density operator formalism to the time domain, enabling a unified treatment of quantum systems with both timelike and spacelike correlations. Despite a growing body of temporal state formalisms, their precise operational relationships and conceptual distinctions remain unclear. In this work, we resolve this issue by extending the Kirkwood-Dirac (KD) quasiprobability distribution to arbitrary multi-time quantum processes and, more broadly, to general spatiotemporal settings. We define left, right, and doubled temporal KD quasiprobabilities, together with their real components, which we identify as temporal Margenau-Hill (MH) quasiprobabilities. All of these quantities are experimentally accessible through interferometric measurement schemes. By characterizing their nonclassical features, we show that the generalized KD framework provides a unified operational foundation for a wide class of temporal state approaches and can be directly implemented via temporal or spatiotemporal Bloch tomography.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.05294 by Dagomir Kaszlikowski, Kavan Modi, Zhian Jia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Illustration of a temporal state at two time steps, from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The relationships between different temporal states arising [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Temporal nonlocality of a qudit resides in the input state, not the channel, and certifies temporal teleportation up to a fundamental limit

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Temporal nonlocality robustness TNR of a qudit resides entirely in the input state and certifies temporal teleportation up to the limit (d-1)/d.

  2. Temporal State Tomography via Quantum Snapshotting the Temporal Quasiprobabilities

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Temporal state tomography reconstructs multi-time quantum processes from temporal quasiprobability distributions via a Bloch-type representation and derives the associated sample complexity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 36 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    AndN[ − →Q KD] =0 if and only if− →Q KD is classical

    Non-negativity and faithfulness: N[ − →Q KD]≥0, for all − →Q KD. AndN[ − →Q KD] =0 if and only if− →Q KD is classical

  2. [2]

    For anyλ∈[0,1] N − →Q KD[λ ρt0 + (1−λ)ωt0] ≤λN[ − →Q KD[ρt0]] + (1−λ)N[− →Q KD[ωt0]].(6)

    Convexity over the initial state. For anyλ∈[0,1] N − →Q KD[λ ρt0 + (1−λ)ωt0] ≤λN[ − →Q KD[ρt0]] + (1−λ)N[− →Q KD[ωt0]].(6)

  3. [3]

    Convexity over quantum channels. For anyλ∈[0,1]and evolutionsE t j←tj−1 andK t j←tj−1 from time stept j−1 tot j, we have N h− →Q KD[λE t j←tj−1 + (1−λ)Kt j←tj−1 ] i ≤λN[ − →Q KD[Et j←tj−1 ]] + (1−λ)N[− →Q KD[Kt j←tj−1 ]].(7)

  4. [4]

    The coarse- graining of − →Q KD(bn,· · ·,b0)is defined as − →Q cg KD(Is,· · ·,I0) = ∑{bk∈Il } − →Q KD(bn,· · ·,b0), where{I l}s l=0 denotes a disjoint partition of{b n,· · ·,b0}

    Decreasing under coarse-graining. The coarse- graining of − →Q KD(bn,· · ·,b0)is defined as − →Q cg KD(Is,· · ·,I0) = ∑{bk∈Il } − →Q KD(bn,· · ·,b0), where{I l}s l=0 denotes a disjoint partition of{b n,· · ·,b0}. Then N[ − →Q cg KD(Is,· · ·,I0)]≤ N[− →Q KD(bn,· · ·,b0)].(8)

  5. [5]

    In other words, for an(n+1)-step multi-time quantum process, restricting to anyk-step subset necessarily decreases the non-classicality of the temporal KD distribution

    For the temporal KD quasiprobability − →Q KD(bn,· · ·,b0) and any of its marginals − →Q KD(bik ,· · ·,bi0) = ∑{bn,···,b 0}\{bik ,···,b i0 } − →Q KD(bn,· · ·,b0), the resulting marginals exhibit a reduced degree of non-classicality. In other words, for an(n+1)-step multi-time quantum process, restricting to anyk-step subset necessarily decreases the non-cl...

  6. [6]

    ,b0)|, then the product rule be- comes additive: N ′ − →Q KD(P1 ⊗P 2) =N ′ − →Q KD(P1) +N ′ − →Q KD(P2)

    For a product quantum processP 1 ⊗P 2 (in which both the initial states and the evolutions factorize), together with product measurement settings, the temporal KD negativity satisfies N − →Q KD(P1 ⊗P 2) =N − →Q KD(P1) N − →Q KD(P2) +N − →Q KD(P1) +N − →Q KD(P2) +1.(9) If we instead define the measureN ′ = log ∑bn,...,b0 |− →Q KD(bn, . . . ,b0)|, then the ...

  7. [7]

    convex linearity inρ t0

  8. [8]

    light-touch operators

    correct marginals, ∑ b0, ...,bbk, ...,bn p(bn, . . . ,b0 |P) =Tr ρtk Πtk bk ,∀k, whereρ tk denotes the output state at time tk. Then the temporal joint measurement operators satisfy [Mbn,...,b1,Mb0 ] =0,M bn,...,b0 =M bn,...,b1Mb0 =M b0Mbn,...,b1. If all channels are unitary, then each M bk (marginals of tem- poral joint measurement operators ) is itself ...

  9. [9]

    Quantum entanglement,

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  10. [10]

    Bell nonlocality,

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V . Scarani, and S. Wehner, “Bell nonlocality,” Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419 (2014), arXiv:1303.2849 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [12]

    Colloquium: Incompatible measurements in quan- tum information science,

    O. G ¨uhne, E. Haapasalo, T. Kraft, J.-P. Pellonp ¨a¨a, and R. Uola, “Colloquium: Incompatible measurements in quan- tum information science,” Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 011003 (2023), arXiv:2102.13036 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [13]

    Colloquium: Quan- tum root-mean-square error and measurement uncertainty re- lations,

    P. Busch, P. Lahti, and R. F. Werner, “Colloquium: Quan- tum root-mean-square error and measurement uncertainty re- lations,” Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1261 (2014)

    2014

  13. [14]

    En- tropic uncertainty relations and their applications,

    P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, “En- tropic uncertainty relations and their applications,” Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015002 (2017), arXiv:1511.04857 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [15]

    Quasi-probability representations of quantum the- ory with applications to quantum information science,

    C. Ferrie, “Quasi-probability representations of quantum the- ory with applications to quantum information science,” Reports on Progress in Physics74, 116001 (2011), arXiv:1010.2701 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  15. [16]

    On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium,

    E. Wigner, “On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium,” Phys. Rev.40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  16. [17]

    Quantum statistics of almost classical assem- blies,

    J. G. Kirkwood, “Quantum statistics of almost classical assem- blies,” Phys. Rev.44, 31 (1933)

    1933

  17. [18]

    On the analogy between classical and quantum mechanics,

    P. A. M. Dirac, “On the analogy between classical and quantum mechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.17, 195 (1945)

    1945

  18. [19]

    Properties and applications of the kirkwood–dirac distribution,

    D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, W. F. Braasch Jr, S. De Bi `evre, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, C. Langrenez, M. Lostaglio, J. S. Lundeen, and N. Y . Halpern, “Properties and applications of the kirkwood–dirac distribution,” New Journal of Physics26, 121201 (2024), arXiv:2403.18899 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [20]

    Generalized monogamy of contextual inequalities from the no- disturbance principle,

    R. Ramanathan, A. Soeda, P. Kurzy ´nski, and D. Kaszlikowski, “Generalized monogamy of contextual inequalities from the no- disturbance principle,” Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 050404 (2012)

    2012

  20. [21]

    Monogamy relation in no-disturbance theories,

    Z.-A. Jia, Y .-C. Wu, and G.-C. Guo, “Monogamy relation in no-disturbance theories,” Phys. Rev. A94, 012111 (2016), arXiv:1605.05148 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [22]

    En- tropic no-disturbance as a physical principle,

    Z.-A. Jia, R. Zhai, B.-C. Yu, Y .-C. Wu, and G.-C. Guo, “En- tropic no-disturbance as a physical principle,” Phys. Rev. A97, 052128 (2018), arXiv:1803.07925 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [23]

    The exclusivity principle determines the correlation monogamy,

    Z. Jia, G.-D. Cai, Y .-C. Wu, G.-C. Guo, and A. Cabello, “The exclusivity principle determines the correlation monogamy,” (2017), arXiv:1707.03250 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [24]

    Correlation between measure- ments in quantum theory,

    H. Margenau and R. N. Hill, “Correlation between measure- ments in quantum theory,” Progress of Theoretical Physics26, 722 (1961)

    1961

  24. [25]

    Quasiprobabilities in quantum thermodynamics and many-body systems,

    S. Gherardini and G. De Chiara, “Quasiprobabilities in quantum thermodynamics and many-body systems,” PRX Quantum5, 030201 (2024), arXiv:2403.17138 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [26]

    Kirkwood-Dirac quasiproba- bility approach to the statistics of incompatible observables,

    M. Lostaglio, A. Belenchia, A. Levy, S. Hern ´andez-G´omez, N. Fabbri, and S. Gherardini, “Kirkwood-Dirac quasiproba- bility approach to the statistics of incompatible observables,” Quantum7, 1128 (2023), arXiv:2206.11783 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [27]

    Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity,

    A. I. Larkin and Y . N. Ovchinnikov, “Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity,” Sov Phys JETP28, 1200 (1969)

    1969

  27. [28]

    Quasiproba- bility behind the out-of-time-ordered correlator,

    N. Yunger Halpern, B. Swingle, and J. Dressel, “Quasiproba- bility behind the out-of-time-ordered correlator,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 042105 (2018), arXiv:1704.01971 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [29]

    Out-of-time-ordered-correlator quasiprobabilities robustly witness scrambling,

    J. R. Gonz ´alez Alonso, N. Yunger Halpern, and J. Dres- sel, “Out-of-time-ordered-correlator quasiprobabilities robustly witness scrambling,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 040404 (2019), arXiv:1806.09637 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [30]

    Experimental violation of two-party leggett-garg inequalities with semiweak measurements,

    J. Dressel, C. J. Broadbent, J. C. Howell, and A. N. Jordan, “Experimental violation of two-party leggett-garg inequalities with semiweak measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 040402 (2011), arXiv:1101.4917 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  30. [31]

    Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics,

    R. B. Griffiths, “Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Journal of Statistical Physics36, 219 (1984)

    1984

  31. [32]

    Quantum corre- lations which imply causation,

    J. F. Fitzsimons, J. A. Jones, and V . Vedral, “Quantum corre- lations which imply causation,” Scientific Reports5, 1 (2015), arXiv:1302.2731 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [33]

    Toward a general theory of quantum games,

    G. Gutoski and J. Watrous, “Toward a general theory of quantum games,” inProceedings of the thirty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(2007) pp. 565–574, arXiv:quant-ph/0611234 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  33. [34]

    Theoretical framework for quantum networks,

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, “Theoretical framework for quantum networks,” Phys. Rev. A80, 022339 (2009), arXiv:0904.4483 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  34. [35]

    Non-markovian quantum processes: Complete framework and efficient characterization,

    F. A. Pollock, C. Rodr ´ıguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, M. Pa- ternostro, and K. Modi, “Non-markovian quantum processes: Complete framework and efficient characterization,” Phys. Rev. A97, 012127 (2018)

    2018

  35. [36]

    Quantum correlations with no causal order,

    O. Oreshkov, F. Costa, and ˇC. Brukner, “Quantum correlations with no causal order,” Nature Communications3, 1 (2012), arXiv:1105.4464 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  36. [37]

    Multiple-time states and multiple-time measurements in quantum mechanics,

    Y . Aharonov, S. Popescu, J. Tollaksen, and L. Vaid- man, “Multiple-time states and multiple-time measurements in quantum mechanics,” Phys. Rev. A79, 052110 (2009), arXiv:0712.0320 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  37. [38]

    Towards a formulation of quantum theory as a causally neutral theory of bayesian in- ference,

    M. S. Leifer and R. W. Spekkens, “Towards a formulation of quantum theory as a causally neutral theory of bayesian in- ference,” Phys. Rev. A88, 052130 (2013), arXiv:1107.5849 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [39]

    Superdensity operators for spacetime quantum mechanics,

    J. Cotler, C.-M. Jian, X.-L. Qi, and F. Wilczek, “Superdensity operators for spacetime quantum mechanics,” Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 1 (2018), arXiv:1711.03119 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [40]

    On quantum states over time,

    J. Fullwood and A. J. Parzygnat, “On quantum states over time,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A478, 20220104 (2022), arXiv:2202.03607 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [41]

    From time-reversal symme- try to quantum bayes’ rules,

    A. J. Parzygnat and J. Fullwood, “From time-reversal symme- try to quantum bayes’ rules,” PRX Quantum4, 020334 (2023), arXiv:2212.08088 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [43]

    Unification of spatiotemporal quantum formalisms: mapping between process and pseudo-density matrices via multiple-time states,

    X. Liu, Z. Jia, Y . Qiu, F. Li, and O. Dahlsten, “Unification of spatiotemporal quantum formalisms: mapping between process and pseudo-density matrices via multiple-time states,” New J. Phys.26, Paper No. 033008, 15 (2024), arXiv:2306.05958 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [44]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(OUP Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  43. [45]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum noise: a handbook of Markovian and non-Markovian quantum stochastic methods with applications to quantum optics(Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2004)

    2004

  44. [46]

    Projective mea- surements can probe nonclassical work extraction and time cor- relations,

    S. Hern ´andez-G´omez, S. Gherardini, A. Belenchia, M. Lostaglio, A. Levy, and N. Fabbri, “Projective mea- surements can probe nonclassical work extraction and time cor- relations,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023280 (2024), arXiv:2305.15649 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [47]

    Snapshotting quantum dy- namics at multiple time points,

    P. Wang, H. Kwon, C.-Y . Luan, W. Chen, M. Qiao, Z. Zhou, K. Wang, M. S. Kim, and K. Kim, “Snapshotting quantum dy- namics at multiple time points,” Nature Communications15, 8900 (2024), arXiv:2207.06106 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [48]

    Quantum advantage in postselected metrology,

    D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, N. Yunger Halpern, H. V . Lep- age, A. A. Lasek, C. H. W. Barnes, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum advantage in postselected metrology,” Nature Communications 11, 3775 (2020), arXiv:1903.02563 [quant-ph]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [49]

    Quantum space-time marginal problem: global causal structure from local causal information,

    Z. Jia, M. Song, and D. Kaszlikowski, “Quantum space-time marginal problem: global causal structure from local causal information,” New J. Phys.25, Paper No. 123038, 23 (2023), arXiv:2303.12819 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [50]

    Quantum causal inference with extremely light touch,

    X. Liu, Y . Qiu, O. Dahlsten, and V . Vedral, “Quantum causal inference with extremely light touch,” npj Quantum Informa- tion11, 54 (2025), arXiv:2303.10544 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [51]

    Causal classification of spatiotemporal quantum correlations,

    M. Song, V . Narasimhachar, B. Regula, T. J. Elliott, and M. Gu, “Causal classification of spatiotemporal quantum correlations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 110202 (2024), arXiv:2306.09336 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [52]

    Operator represen- tation of spatiotemporal quantum correlations,

    J. Fullwood and A. J. Parzygnat, “Operator represen- tation of spatiotemporal quantum correlations,” (2025), arXiv:2405.17555 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [53]

    Geometry of quantum correlations in space-time,

    Z. Zhao, R. Pisarczyk, J. Thompson, M. Gu, V . Vedral, and J. F. Fitzsimons, “Geometry of quantum correlations in space-time,” Phys. Rev. A98, 052312 (2018), arXiv:1711.05955 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [54]

    V on Neumann,Mathematical foundations of quantum me- chanics: New edition(Princeton university press, 2018)

    J. V on Neumann,Mathematical foundations of quantum me- chanics: New edition(Princeton university press, 2018)

    2018

  53. [55]

    ¨Uber die zustands¨anderung durch den meßprozeß,

    G. L ¨uders, “ ¨Uber die zustands¨anderung durch den meßprozeß,” Annalen der Physik443, 322 (1950)

    1950

  54. [56]

    Quantum stochastic processes and quan- tum non-markovian phenomena,

    S. Milz and K. Modi, “Quantum stochastic processes and quan- tum non-markovian phenomena,” PRX Quantum2, 030201 (2021), arXiv:2012.01894 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [57]

    Measuring the characteristic function of the work distribution,

    L. Mazzola, G. De Chiara, and M. Paternostro, “Measuring the characteristic function of the work distribution,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 230602 (2013), arXiv:1301.7030 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  56. [58]

    Extracting quantum work statistics and fluctuation theorems by single-qubit interferometry,

    R. Dorner, S. R. Clark, L. Heaney, R. Fazio, J. Goold, and V . Vedral, “Extracting quantum work statistics and fluctuation theorems by single-qubit interferometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 230601 (2013), arXiv:1301.7021 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [59]

    How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100,

    Y . Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, “How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100,” Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1351 (1988)

    1988

  58. [60]

    Certifying quantum signatures in thermo- dynamics and metrology via contextuality of quantum linear response,

    M. Lostaglio, “Certifying quantum signatures in thermo- dynamics and metrology via contextuality of quantum linear response,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 230603 (2020), arXiv:2004.01213 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [61]

    Anomalous weak values are proofs of contextu- ality,

    M. F. Pusey, “Anomalous weak values are proofs of contextu- ality,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 200401 (2014), arXiv:1409.1535 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [62]

    Ludwig,Foundations of quantum mechanics I(Springer Sci- ence & Business Media, 1983)

    G. Ludwig,Foundations of quantum mechanics I(Springer Sci- ence & Business Media, 1983)

    1983

  61. [63]

    The spatiotemporal born rule is quasiprobabilistic,

    J. Fullwood, Z. Ma, and Z. Wu, “The spatiotemporal born rule is quasiprobabilistic,” (2025), arXiv:2507.16919 [quant-ph]. 1 Supplemental Material: Temporal Kirkwood–Dirac Quasiprobability Distribution and Unification of Temporal State Formalisms through Temporal Bloch Tomography In this supplementary material, we provide additional details on the spatiote...

    arXiv 2025

  62. [64]

    Convex-linearity ensures that this extension satisfiesL=fwhen restricted toState(H)

    The extension exists and is unique.We defineL(χ i) =f(χ i)on a basis{χ i} ⊂State(H), and then extendLlinearly to the entire spaceHerm(H). Convex-linearity ensures that this extension satisfiesL=fwhen restricted toState(H)

  63. [65]

    light-touch operators

    There exists a matrix M representing the functional L.This follows from the Riesz representation theorem. We takeMto representLwith respect to the Hilbert–Schmidt inner product ⟨A,B⟩:=Tr(A †B), which reduces to⟨A,B⟩=Tr(AB)on the space of Hermitian operators. SinceLis a bounded linear functional, there exists a matrixMsuch that L(X) =⟨M,X⟩for allX∈Herm(H)....

  64. [66]

    The KD spatiotemporal states satisfy the following relation − →ϒ=Tr L ← →ϒ, ← −ϒ=Tr R ← →ϒ, − →ϒ= ← −ϒ †.(S57) The fixed-time stateρ tk (which is density operators) can be obtained from these spatiotemporal states by taking a partial trace: ρtk =Tr tn,...,btk,...,t0 − →ϒ=Tr tn,...,btk,...,t0 ← −ϒ,(S58) where btk indicates that the partial trace is taken o...

  65. [67]

    The MH spatiotemporal states are the Hermitianized versions of the KD temporal states, ϒMH = 1 2 ← −ϒ+ ← −ϒ † , ← →ϒ MH = 1 2 ← →ϒ+ ← →ϒ † .(S59) 13 From property 1, we see that the fixed-time stateρtk can also be obtained from the MH spatiotemporal states, which additionally satisfy the quantum analogue of the Kolmogorov consistency condition

  66. [68]

    ,b0) =Tr (Πbn ⊗ · · · ⊗Πb0) − →ϒ (S60) ← −Q KD(bn,

    The spatiotemporal Born rule for the KD spatiotemporal state yields (for notational convenience, we focus on the temporal case): − →Q KD(bn, . . . ,b0) =Tr (Πbn ⊗ · · · ⊗Πb0) − →ϒ (S60) ← −Q KD(bn, . . . ,b0) =Tr (Πbn ⊗ · · · ⊗Πb0) ← −ϒ (S61) ← →Q KD(an, . . . ,a0;b n, . . . ,b0) =Tr (Πan ⊗ · · · ⊗Πa0)⊗(Π bn ⊗ · · · ⊗Πb0) ← →ϒ (S62) QLvN(an, . . . ,a0) =T...