Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 92 references

Modelling quantum measurement dynamics: from decoherence to redundancy with site-hopping indistinguishable particles

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In an environment of indistinguishable particles, the quantum mutual information depends on how a fraction is defined, and fermions can reach a redundancy plateau more readily than bosons.

desk verdict First QD study to take indistinguishable-particle environments seriously, with a solid site-trace result—but the headline fermion advantage largely comes from an unnormalized entropy convention the paper never justifies. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11319 v1 pith:RRMWX7TU submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph

Katja Schneeweiss , Tom Rivlin , Maximilian P. E. Lock , Marcus Huber , Iva Březinová This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumDarwinismdecoherenceindistinguishableparticlesmutualinformationredundancyplateaufermionshard-corebosonsultracoldatoms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces a numerically exact one-dimensional lattice model in which an impurity, initially in a superposition of two end positions, is measured by an environment of indistinguishable hopping particles. It establishes how to define a fraction of such an environment for quantum-Darwinism purposes: trace out a fixed number of particles to obtain p-particle reduced density matrices, or trace out a set of sites and average over all site subsets of a given size. The paper's central claim is that this choice controls the results: the particle-trace quantum mutual information depends on whether the particles are fermions or hard-core bosons, whereas the site-trace mutual information does not. For parameter sets with strong impurity-environment attraction and no environment-environment interaction, fermionic environments develop a clearly more developed redundancy plateau than hard-core bosonic or site-averaged environments. This matters because it gives an experimentally accessible route, such as ultracold atoms in optical lattices, to test how indistinguishability shapes decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum mutual information $I[I:F]$ computed with two inequivalent partial traces. The particle-based trace yields p-particle reduced density matrices $\hat{D}_{I,1...p}$ (including the impurity) and $\hat{D}_{1...p}$ (after tracing out the impurity), with $I_{\mathrm{part}}[I:\hat{D}_{1...p}] = S(\hat{\rho}_I)+S(\hat{D}_{1...p})-S(\hat{D}_{I,1...p})$, and the fraction is $F=p/N_E$. The site-based trace yields Fock-space reduced density matrices $\hat{\rho}_{I,X}$ and $\hat{\rho}_X$ for a chosen subset $X$ of sites, averaged over all subsets of cardinality $|X|$, with fraction $F=|X|/M_S$. The argument turns on the spectra of these reduced states: for site traces the fermionic and bosonic blocks are unitarily equivalent, so $I_{\mathrm{site}}$ is statistics-independent; for particle traces the creation- and annihilation-operator algebra makes the spectra different. The named mechanism that explains the fermionic advantage is the Fermi edge in the spectrum of $\hat{D}_{I,1}$: the left- and right-conditioned natural orbitals become saturated, flattening the eigenvalue distribution only slightly compared with $\hat{D}_1$, which increases the particle-based mutual information.

What would settle it

Numerically evaluate the entropies $S(\hat{D}_{I,1...p})$ and $S(\hat{D}_{1...p})$ from explicitly normalised p-particle reduced density matrices (dividing by $\binom{N_E}{p}$) and recompute the particle-based QMI curves; if the reported mirror symmetry $I_{\mathrm{part}}(F)+I_{\mathrm{part}}(1-F)=2$ breaks or the plateau heights shift, the fermionic redundancy advantage is an artefact of the unnormalised definition. A second check is to recompute the R and R-LR curves at generic post-decoherence times rather than the hand-selected times in Table IV and see whether the fermion-boson difference persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that indistinguishability is not a side detail in quantum Darwinism but changes what the central observable means. For particle-based partial traces, the reduced density matrices $\hat{D}_{I,1...p}$ and $\hat{D}_{1...p}$ inherit the exchange symmetry of the environment, so fermionic and bosonic mutual information curves $I^{\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{part}}$ and $I^{\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{part}}$ differ. For site-based partial traces, the fixed-particle-number blocks of the reduced state are equal for fermions and bosons up to a global sign that is removed by unitary equivalence of their spectra, so $I_{\mathrm{site}}$ is identical for both species. In the parameter sets called R and R-LR (strong impurity-environment attraction, no environment-environment interaction), the fermionic particle-trace QMI approaches the ideal quantum-Darwinism plateau, while the hard-core bosonic curve and the average over all site subsets stay closer to linear. The paper attributes this to a Fermi edge in the impurity-conditioned one-particle reduced density matrix: fermionic anti-bunching saturates the natural orbitals of the left and right branches, and the resulting entropy difference $S(\hat{D}_{I,1})-S(\hat{D}_1)$ is smaller for fermions than for bosons.

Load-bearing premise

The particle-based redundancy curves are well defined only if the unnormalised p-particle reduced density matrices may be inserted into the standard mutual-information formula with the binomial normalisation factors cancelling, and only if averaging over particle subsets is accepted as the operational meaning of a Darwinism fraction; the paper uses both without proving them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For indistinguishable-particle environments, a single QMI-versus-fraction curve is not meaningful without specifying whether fractions are particles or sites and which statistics the particles obey; the two definitions can disagree qualitatively.
  • Fermionic environments with strong impurity coupling and no environment-environment interaction can redundantly encode the impurity pointer position even though hard-core exclusion prevents particles from fully gathering near the impurity; the plateau is close to ideal for the R and R-LR parameter sets.
  • Hard-core bosonic environments store pointer information less redundantly than fermionic ones in the same parameter regimes, because the impurity disturbs bosonic bunching in natural-orbital space and flattens the eigenvalue distribution.
  • Site-based averaging over all subsets washes out the information stored near the impurities, so whether a redundancy plateau appears depends on which sites an observer can access; corner subsets show plateaus while central subsets show the opposite.
  • The particle-statistics difference is in principle observable in ultracold-atom simulators, where fermionic and bosonic species with the same lattice parameters can be compared directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same particle-versus-site ambiguity should affect other objectivity quantifiers, such as spectrum broadcast structures or strong quantum-Darwinism redundancy, whenever the environment is indistinguishable; any definition that labels particles will need the same normalisation and operational justification.
  • The Fermi-edge mechanism suggests a finite-size prediction the paper does not make: as $N_E$ grows, the fermionic plateau should remain limited by natural-orbital saturation, so the fermion-boson gap should shrink once the hard-core blocking effect dominates over statistics.
  • A direct testable extension is to replace the hand-selected QMI times with an ensemble average over many post-decoherence times; if the fermionic plateau is a robust feature, it should survive that average, and if not, the advantage is time-selection dependent.
  • The site-averaging result connects to known fraction-averaging ambiguities for distinguishable environments; the paper's construction effectively provides the indistinguishable-particle version of that averaging, which could be used to define a species-independent measure of objectivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a numerically exact one-dimensional lattice model in which a static impurity in a spatial superposition interacts with an environment of indistinguishable fermions or hard-core bosons, and studies decoherence and quantum Darwinism by exact diagonalization. The central methodological contribution is a proposal for defining 'fractions of the environment' for indistinguishable particles: particle-based p-particle reduced density matrices (pRDMs) versus site-based reduced density matrices. The paper reports that the particle-based QMI depends on particle statistics, while the site-based QMI does not, and it claims that for certain parameter sets (R and R-LR) fermionic environments develop markedly more developed redundancy plateaus than bosonic or site-averaged ones. Those claims are carried by the particle-based QMI defined in Eq. (14) and by the numerical curves in Figs. 3 and 5.

Significance. If the claims held as stated, the paper would fill a genuine gap in the quantum-Darwinism literature by treating indistinguishable environments in a tunable, experimentally inspired many-body model, and it would clarify an important ambiguity in defining environment fractions. The exact-diagonalization implementation, the transparent parameter tables, and the structural result that site-based QMI is independent of particle statistics are definite strengths. However, the headline fermion-boson comparison relies on a particle-based QMI whose normalization is not specified and which is not a standard quantum mutual information as written. Because the reported statistics effect is amplified by the trace normalization factor, the quantitative content of the main claim is not established by the present analysis. The paper is likely salvageable, but it requires a substantial reanalysis of the central quantity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III A, Eqs. (12)-(14); Table V; Figs. 3 and 5] The particle-based QMI is not well defined as written. The p-particle reduced density matrices defined in Eq. (12) have trace C(N,p), not 1. Inserting an unnormalized operator D = C σ into the von Neumann entropy gives S(D) = C S(σ) - C log2 C. In Eq. (14) the additive -C log2 C terms cancel between S(D_{1...p}) and S(D_{I,1...p}), but the remaining entropy difference is multiplied by C, so I_part = S(ρ_I) + C [I_norm - S(ρ_I)], where I_norm is the QMI computed with trace-normalized pRDMs. For C=8 and a state with S(ρ_I)=1 and I_norm=0, Eq. (14) gives -7, so the quantity is not nonnegative and is not a standard mutual information. This is not a pedantic point: in Table V, the R-LR fermionic values S(D_{I,1})=4.00 and S(D_1)=3.56 correspond to normalized entropies 3.50 and 3.445, a difference of 0.055, whereas the unnormalized difference is 0.44. The plotted difference between fermions and bosons in Figs. 3 and 5 is therefore substantially a rescaling artifact of the missing normalization. The authors should define I_part with trace-normalized pRDMs, redo Figs. 3 and 5 (and Appendix B) with that definition, and state whether the claimed fermionic redundancy advantage survives.
  2. [Section IV B 1; Table IV; Appendix C] The redundancy curves are evaluated at hand-picked times, and one of the two selection criteria is itself a plateau diagnostic. The text states that the time is chosen so that D(t)≈0 at a local minimum and 'where the QMI has its smallest slope at F=1/2' within the evaluated interval. Minimizing the slope at F=1/2 directly selects a flat, plateau-like curve, so the subsequent interpretation of those curves as evidence of quantum Darwinism is partly circular. Because the criterion is applied separately for each parameter set, the comparison among Sets NE, S, and R, and the long-range versions, may reflect different dynamical instants rather than different redundancy capacities. I ask the authors to adopt a fixed, time-independent selection rule (for example, the first time after τ_QSL with D(t) below a threshold), to show curves at several decohered times, or to average I_part over a decohered time window, and to confirm that the fermion-boson difference is robust under that protocol.
  3. [Section III A, Eq. (14)] The operational meaning of the particle-based fraction is asserted but not derived, and the claimed QMI properties are not proven. In standard quantum Darwinism, a fraction is a subset of physical constituents accessible to an observer; for indistinguishable particles, the pRDM average is a plausible mathematical generalization, but the manuscript does not connect it to a concrete measurement scenario or coarse-graining. In addition, the statements that I_part obeys the mirror symmetry I_part(p)+I_part(N_E-p)=2 and equals 1 at p=N_E/2 are presented without proof. These properties are not automatic for pRDMs of indistinguishable particles, and for the unnormalized quantity they do not follow from the standard properties of mutual information. The authors should either prove these relations for the normalized quantity or explicitly present them as part of the chosen convention; without this, the reader cannot distinguish a property of the quantum state from a property of the averaging prescription.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III A, Eq. (13)] The definition of the projection operator appears to contain a typo: '\hat P_{JK} = \hat C^\dagger_J |0\rangle\langle 0| \hat C_J S_K' should presumably read '\hat C_J \hat C_K' or similar. Please clarify the action of this operator.
  2. [Section IV B 1] In the paragraph discussing long-range sets, the text says 'Sets NE-LR (W_EE=-1, W_IE=-1, i_max=7) and R-LR (W_EE=-1, W_IE=-1, i_max=7)', but Table II gives R-LR as W_IE=-4, W_EE=0, i_max=7. This is a typo, but it is confusing in a section whose conclusions depend on the parameter values.
  3. [Appendix B, Table V] The caption says the table lists entropies 'for each of the six long-range parameter sets', but the table contains three parameter sets (NE-LR, S-LR, R-LR), each with fermionic and bosonic entries. Please reword the caption to avoid implying there are six distinct Hamiltonians.
  4. [Fig. 3] The caption would be easier to use if the line styles or colors for the six parameter sets were explicitly identified. The text refers to individual curves, but the reader currently has to infer the legend.
  5. [Section III B, Eq. (20)] The average in Eq. (20) is written as an average over all X with a given cardinality, but X was introduced as an ordered tuple. Please clarify whether the average is over unordered subsets of sites, which appears to be the intended meaning.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QMI redundancy curves are emergent numerical outputs of exact diagonalization, with no fitted parameter, load-bearing self-citation, or imported uniqueness theorem.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1-4) and initial state (Eqs. 5-6) are specified independently, time evolution is exact diagonalization (Eq. 7), and the QMI curves are computed from the resulting state via Eqs. 12-14 and 15-20. No parameter is fitted to the redundancy plateaus; W_EE, W_IE, and i_max are varied as model inputs, and the plateau structure in Figs. 3-5 is an emergent output. The site-statistics-independence claim is argued from the commutation relations and spectra of the site-reduced density matrices in Sec. III B, not assumed. Citations to the authors' earlier work (Refs. 29 and 31) are contextual remarks about equilibration and scrambling and are not used to justify the central fermion-boson QMI comparison. The unnormalized pRDMs in Eq. 14 raise a possible normalization or operational-interpretation concern, but that is a correctness question about whether I_part is a well-defined mutual information; it is not a step in which a predicted quantity reduces to an input by construction. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on hand-chosen Hamiltonian parameters (W_IE, W_EE, i_max, s_i), a hand-chosen analysis time per parameter set, and several domain assumptions from the quantum-Darwinism literature. These are model inputs rather than fitted constants, but their selection is not derived from first principles. The only genuinely concerning choice is t_QMI, which is selected using a criterion that favors plateaus.

free parameters (5)
  • W_IE = -1 or -4
    Impurity-environment interaction strength; chosen by hand at two values to define weak and strong coupling regimes (Tab. II).
  • W_EE = 0 or -1
    Environment-environment nearest-neighbour interaction; chosen by hand to probe scrambling versus no scrambling.
  • i_max = 3 or 7
    Interaction range in sites; chosen by hand, with a fixed set of s_i values for each range.
  • s_i = 0.8, 0.5, 0.3 or 1 - i/8
    Attenuation coefficients for the impurity-environment interaction; chosen to be near-linear without derivation.
  • t_QMI = 67.2, 69.4, 39.2, 11.8, 37.0, 62.0
    Time at which each QMI curve is evaluated; selected by a criterion that includes minimizing the slope at F=1/2, i.e., optimizing the plateau. This is a data-dependent analysis choice that affects the reported redundancy.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The fermionic and hard-core-bosonic Hamiltonians have identical matrix elements in the common occupation basis, so the spectrum and the occupation-basis eigenstates are equal for both species.
    Sec. II A states this directly; it isolates the effect of exchange symmetry.
  • domain assumption The impurity is distinguishable, static, and initially in an equal superposition of the two end sites; the position basis is the pointer basis because [n_j,H]=0 for every site j.
    Sec. II A/B and II C. The static-impurity assumption restricts the dynamics to times where impurity motion is negligible.
  • ad hoc to paper A fraction of an indistinguishable-particle environment is meaningfully defined by p-particle reduced density matrices or by site subsets, and the QMI of these reduced states is the relevant quantum-Darwinism quantifier.
    Sec. III introduces both trace choices as the resolution of the indistinguishability issue; this operational definition is the paper's own framing.
  • domain assumption The ground state of H_E is the appropriate initial environment state for a decoherence/measurement study.
    Sec. II B.
  • domain assumption A redundancy plateau in the QMI curve is the standard indicator of quantum Darwinism and objectivity.
    Sec. I and IV; this is inherited from the QD literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modelling quantum measurement dynamics: from decoherence to redundancy with site-hopping indistinguishable particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RRMWX7TU

@misc{pith2026260811319,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modelling quantum measurement dynamics: from decoherence to redundancy with site-hopping indistinguishable particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RRMWX7TU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11319}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, new theoretical insights into decoherence and quantum measurements have emerged through the study of many-body dynamics in isolated quantum systems. It is now understood that the parameters and energy scales in system-environment interactions decisively affect how readily information spreads from a quantum system into its surroundings during a decoherence event. A popular choice for studying these effects is the framework of quantum Darwinism (QD), but so far few works have applied this to realistic many-body models. Inspired by experimentally-accessible setups, in this work we introduce a simple, flexible, numerically exact many-body model of a system broadcasting information into an environment: a 1D lattice of sites with hopping particles. We show that different choices of parameters lead to the recovery of known scenarios featuring different decoherence and QD effects, such as equilibration, revivals of coherence, and redundancy. In constructing this model we resolve the crucial issue of indistinguishability: we explain how to calculate the entropy of a fraction of the environment when said environment is composed of indistinguishable fermions or bosons (or lattice sites containing them). We then show that particle statistics can make a notable difference to the QD properties of the setup, with fermionic environments sometimes achieving redundancy much more readily than bosonic or site-based ones. Our work opens the door to much closer alignment between theoretical models and experimental tests of the dynamics of quantum measurements and the quantum-to-classical transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11319 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A sketch of the model consisting of a discrete 1D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of three parameter sets for fermions with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The QMI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The QMI based on traces over sites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison between the averaged QMI based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The eigenvalues of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The eigenvalues [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The QMI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: we show how the revivals in D(t) that we see in Set NE change when the system size changes. We observe that with increasing system size, the time spans over which we observe near perfect decoherence get longer. This is because the environmental particles take longer t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The mutual information with particle tracing The particle-based QMI is obtained by tracing out NE−pparticles, such that the fractionFis defined by F=p/N E (see Eq. 12). In Fig. 3 (a) we plot this QMI Ipart[I : ˆD1...p] as a function ofFfor six of the parameter sets given in Tab. II (besides Sets PC and PC-LR) in the fermionic case. Figs. 3 and 4 also each...

  2. [2]

    In this subsection we will study how the QMI is structured when fractions are defined based on the number of sites considered, rather than the number of particles

    The mutual information with site tracing As discussed before, the way in which a ‘fraction’ of the environment is defined makes an important difference to the structure of the QMI curves. In this subsection we will study how the QMI is structured when fractions are defined based on the number of sites considered, rather than the number of particles. Since...

  3. [3]

    Its results in Fig

    for fermions. Its results in Fig. 3 (a) are an intermedi- ate between the previous two cases – an almost perfectly linear relationship between fraction size and QMI for pe- riods between revivals (i.e. whereD(t)≈0). During these periods, however, we still expect scrambling inter- actions to destroy any redundancy plateau, but we find the scrambling to not...

  4. [4]

    Von Neumann,Mathematical foundations of quan- tum mechanics: New edition(Princeton university press, 2018)

    J. Von Neumann,Mathematical foundations of quan- tum mechanics: New edition(Princeton university press, 2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum measure- ment and control(Cambridge university press, 2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. J. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt,The quantum theory of measurement(Springer, 1996)

    1996

  7. [7]

    Bell, Against ‘measurement’, Physics world3, 33 (1990)

    J. Bell, Against ‘measurement’, Physics world3, 33 (1990)

    1990

  8. [8]

    Frauchiger and R

    D. Frauchiger and R. Renner, Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself, Nature communi- cations9, 3711 (2018)

    2018

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Baumann and ˇC

    V. Baumann and ˇC. Brukner, Wigner’s friend as a ratio- nal agent, inQuantum, probability, logic: the work and influence of Itamar Pitowsky(Springer, 2020) pp. 91–99

    2020

  2. [10]

    Rela˜ no, Decoherence framework for wigner’s-friend ex- periments, Physical Review A101, 032107 (2020)

    A. Rela˜ no, Decoherence framework for wigner’s-friend ex- periments, Physical Review A101, 032107 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Rivlin, S

    T. Rivlin, S. Engineer, and V. Baumann, Emergence of classicality in wigner’s friend scenarios, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21221 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Szilard, ¨Uber die entropieverminderung in einem ther- modynamischen system bei eingriffen intelligenter wesen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik53, 840 (1929)

    L. Szilard, ¨Uber die entropieverminderung in einem ther- modynamischen system bei eingriffen intelligenter wesen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik53, 840 (1929)

    1929

  5. [13]

    Szilard, On the decrease of entropy in a thermody- namic system by the intervention of intelligent beings, Behavioral Science9, 301 (1964)

    L. Szilard, On the decrease of entropy in a thermody- namic system by the intervention of intelligent beings, Behavioral Science9, 301 (1964)

    1964

  6. [14]

    Peres, Can we undo quantum measurements?, Physi- cal Review D22, 879 (1980)

    A. Peres, Can we undo quantum measurements?, Physi- cal Review D22, 879 (1980)

    1980

  7. [15]

    W. H. Zurek, Information transfer in quantum mea- surements: Irreversibility and amplification, inQuantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory (Springer, 1983) pp. 87–116

    1983

  8. [16]

    Hormoz, Quantum collapse and the second law of ther- modynamics, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics87, 022129 (2013)

    S. Hormoz, Quantum collapse and the second law of ther- modynamics, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics87, 022129 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Goold, M

    J. Goold, M. Huber, A. Riera, L. d. Rio, and 19 P. Skrzypczyk, The role of quantum information in ther- modynamics—a topical review, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 143001 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Guryanova, N

    Y. Guryanova, N. Friis, and M. Huber, Ideal projective measurements have infinite resource costs, Quantum4, 222 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    S. M. Carroll and J. Lodman, Energy non-conservation in quantum mechanics, Foundations of Physics51, 83 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    M. H. Mohammady and T. Miyadera, Quantum measure- ments constrained by the third law of thermodynamics, Physical Review A107, 022406 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Elouard, D

    C. Elouard, D. Herrera-Mart´ ı, B. Huard, and A. Auf- feves, Extracting work from quantum measurement in maxwell’s demon engines, Physical Review Letters118, 260603 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Taranto, F

    P. Taranto, F. Bakhshinezhad, A. Bluhm, R. Silva, N. Friis, M. P. Lock, G. Vitagliano, F. C. Binder, T. De- barba, E. Schwarzhans, M. Huber, and F. Clivaz, Lan- dauer versus nernst: What is the true cost of cooling a quantum system?, PRX Quantum4, 010332 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Debarba, M

    T. Debarba, M. Huber, and N. Friis, Unknown measure- ment statistics cannot be redundantly copied using finite resources, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07660 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M. H. Mohammady and F. Buscemi, Thermody- namic closure of quantum measurements and the lim- its of the indirect measurement model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14136 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Candeloro, T

    A. Candeloro, T. Debarba, and F. C. Binder, Thermo- dynamic constraints on the emergence of intersubjectiv- ity in quantum systems, Physical Review A113, 032201 (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Ballesteros Ferraz and C

    L. Ballesteros Ferraz and C. Elouard, Weak continuous measurements require more work than strong ones, Phys- ical Review Research8, 013305 (2026)

    2026

  19. [27]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Understanding quantum measurement from the solution of dynamical models, Physics Reports525, 1 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Artini and M

    S. Artini and M. Paternostro, Characterizing the spon- taneous collapse of a wavefunction through entropy pro- duction, New Journal of Physics25, 123047 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Artini, G

    S. Artini, G. Lo Monaco, S. Donadi, and M. Pater- nostro, Nonequilibrium thermodynamics of gravitational objective-collapse models, Physical Review Research7, 043017 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    S. M. Walls, A. Bloss, and I. J. Ford, Characterizing quantum measurement through environmental stochas- tic entropy production in a two-spin-1/2 system, Phys. Rev. A112, 032210 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    C. L. Latune and C. Elouard, A thermodynamically con- sistent approach to the energy costs of quantum measure- ments, Quantum9, 1614 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Schwarzhans, F

    E. Schwarzhans, F. C. Binder, M. Huber, and M. P. Lock, Quantum measurements and equilibration: The emer- gence of objective outcomes via entropy maximization, Physical Review Research7, 043279 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Schwarzhans, T

    E. Schwarzhans, T. J. Apollaro, I. Khomchenko, M. P. Lock, M. T. Mitchison, and M. Huber, Quantum detec- tors as autonomous machines: assessing the nonequilib- rium thermodynamics of information acquisition, PRX Quantum7, 033001 (2026)

    2026

  26. [34]

    Engineer, T

    S. Engineer, T. Rivlin, S. Wollmann, M. Malik, and M. P. Lock, Equilibration of objective observables in a dynam- ical model of quantum measurements, Physical Review A113, 032205 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    W. H. Zurek, Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mixture does the wave packet collapse?, Phys. Rev. D24, 1516 (1981)

    1981

  28. [36]

    W. H. Zurek, Environment-induced superselection rules, Phys. Rev. D26, 1862 (1982)

    1982

  29. [37]

    Joos and H

    E. Joos and H. D. Zeh, The emergence of classical proper- ties through interaction with the environment, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter59, 223 (1985)

    1985

  30. [38]

    Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement prob- lem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev

    M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement prob- lem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 1267 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    W. H. Zurek, Quantum theory of the classical: Einse- lection, envariance, quantum darwinism and extantons, Entropy24, 1520 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    L¨ uders, ¨Uber die Zustands¨ anderung durch den Meßprozeß, Annalen der Physik443, 322 (1950)

    G. L¨ uders, ¨Uber die Zustands¨ anderung durch den Meßprozeß, Annalen der Physik443, 322 (1950)

    1950

  33. [41]

    W. H. Zurek, Quantum darwinism, Nature physics5, 181 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Horodecki, J

    R. Horodecki, J. Korbicz, and P. Horodecki, Quantum origins of objectivity, Physical review A91, 032122 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Korbicz, Roads to objectivity: quantum darwin- ism, spectrum broadcast structures, and strong quantum darwinism–a review, Quantum5, 571 (2021)

    J. Korbicz, Roads to objectivity: quantum darwin- ism, spectrum broadcast structures, and strong quantum darwinism–a review, Quantum5, 571 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Ollivier, D

    H. Ollivier, D. Poulin, and W. H. Zurek, Objective Prop- erties from Subjective Quantum States: Environment as a Witness, Physical Review Letters93, 220401 (2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    quantum darwinism

    R. Blume-Kohout and W. H. Zurek, A simple example of “quantum darwinism”: Redundant information storage in many-spin environments, Foundations of Physics35, 1857 (2005)

    2005

  38. [46]

    C. J. Riedel, W. H. Zurek, and M. Zwolak, The rise and fall of redundancy in decoherence and quantum darwin- ism, New Journal of physics14, 083010 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Galve, R

    F. Galve, R. Zambrini, and S. Maniscalco, Non- markovianity hinders quantum darwinism, Scientific re- ports6, 19607 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Mironowicz, J

    P. Mironowicz, J. Korbicz, and P. Horodecki, Monitor- ing of the process of system information broadcasting in time, Physical review letters118, 150501 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    T. P. Le and A. Olaya-Castro, Strong quantum darwin- ism and strong independence are equivalent to spectrum broadcast structure, Physical review letters122, 010403 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    T. P. Le and A. Olaya-Castro, Witnessing non-objectivity in the framework of strong quantum darwinism, Quan- tum Science and Technology5, 045012 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Touil, B

    A. Touil, B. Yan, D. Girolami, S. Deffner, and W. H. Zurek, Eavesdropping on the decohering environment: Quantum darwinism, amplification, and the origin of objective classical reality, Physical review letters128, 010401 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Duruisseau, A

    P. Duruisseau, A. Touil, and S. Deffner, Pointer states and quantum darwinism with two-body interactions, En- tropy25, 1573 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    D. A. Chisholm, L. Innocenti, and G. M. Palma, The meaning of redundancy and consensus in quantum ob- jectivity, Quantum7, 1074 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Doucet and S

    E. Doucet and S. Deffner, Classifying two-body hamil- tonians for quantum darwinism, Physical Review X14, 041064 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    D. A. Chisholm, L. Innocenti, and G. M. Palma, Im- 20 portance of using the averaged mutual information when quantifying quantum objectivity, Physical Review A110, 012218 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    D. A. Chisholm, G. M. Palma, and L. Innocenti, Emer- gence of quantum Darwinism and pointer states for non- commuting evolutions, APS Open Science1, 000024 (2026)

    2026

  49. [57]

    Kiely, D

    A. Kiely, D. A. Chisholm, A. Touil, S. Deffner, G. Landi, and S. Campbell, Metrological approach to the emer- gence of classical objectivity, Physical Review A113, 022403 (2026)

    2026

  50. [58]

    M. A. Ciampini, G. Pinna, P. Mataloni, and M. Pa- ternostro, Experimental signature of quantum darwin- ism in photonic cluster states, Physical Review A98, 10.1103/physreva.98.020101 (2018)

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    Z. Zhu, K. Salice, A. Touil, Z. Bao, Z. Song, P. Zhang, H. Li, Z. Wang, C. Song, Q. Guo,et al., Observation of quantum darwinism and the origin of classicality with superconducting circuits, Science Advances11, eadx6857 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    G. L. Giorgi, F. Galve, and R. Zambrini, Quantum dar- winism and non-markovian dissipative dynamics from quantum phases of the spin-1/2 xx model, Physical Re- view A92, 022105 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    Zwolak, C

    M. Zwolak, C. J. Riedel, and W. H. Zurek, Amplification, decoherence and the acquisition of information by spin environments, Scientific Reports6, 25277 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    Mirkin and D

    N. Mirkin and D. A. Wisniacki, Many-body localization and the emergence of quantum darwinism, Entropy23, 1377 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    E. Ryan, M. Paternostro, and S. Campbell, Quantum darwinism in a structured spin environment, Physics Let- ters A416, 127675 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Kwiatkowski, L

    D. Kwiatkowski, L. Cywi´ nski, and J. K. Korbicz, Ap- pearance of objectivity for nv centers interacting with dynamically polarized nuclear environment, New Jour- nal of Physics23, 043036 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Bloch, Ultracold quantum gases in optical lattices, Na- ture physics1, 23 (2005)

    I. Bloch, Ultracold quantum gases in optical lattices, Na- ture physics1, 23 (2005)

    2005

  58. [66]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb` ene, Quantum sim- ulations with ultracold quantum gases, Nature Physics 8, 267 (2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Science357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, A. D. Deters, M. Lebrat, A. W. Young, and M. Greiner, Pseudogap in a fermi–hubbard quantum simulator, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41586-026-10875-z (2026)

    2026 doi

  61. [69]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems, Nature452, 854 (2008)

    2008

  62. [70]

    Gogolin and J

    C. Gogolin and J. Eisert, Equilibration, thermalisation, and the emergence of statistical mechanics in closed quantum systems, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 056001 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    Meier, T

    F. Meier, T. Rivlin, T. Debarba, J. Xuereb, M. Huber, and M. P. Lock, Emergence of a second law of thermo- dynamics in isolated quantum systems, PRX Quantum 6, 010309 (2025)

    2025

  64. [72]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Advances in Physics65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  65. [73]

    J. M. Deutsch, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Re- ports on Progress in Physics81, 082001 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Cao and Z

    X. Cao and Z. Nussinov, Redundancy from subsys- tem thermalization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15743v1 (2026)

    2026

  67. [75]

    Kuhr, Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold- atom quantum simulators, National Science Review3, 170 (2016)

    S. Kuhr, Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold- atom quantum simulators, National Science Review3, 170 (2016)

    2016

  68. [76]

    Esslinger, Fermi-hubbard physics with atoms in an optical lattice, Annu

    T. Esslinger, Fermi-hubbard physics with atoms in an optical lattice, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.1, 129 (2010)

    2010

  69. [77]

    Kourehpaz, S

    M. Kourehpaz, S. Donsa, F. Lackner, J. Burgd¨ orfer, and I. Bˇ rezinov´ a, Canonical density matrices from eigenstates of mixed systems, Entropy24, 1740 (2022)

    2022

  70. [78]

    Chomaz, I

    L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe- Tolra, B. L. Lev, and T. Pfau, Dipolar physics: a review of experiments with magnetic quantum gases, Reports on Progress in Physics86, 026401 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    J. W. Negele and H. Orland,Quantum many-particle sys- tems(CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    Blume-Kohout and W

    R. Blume-Kohout and W. H. Zurek, Quantum darwin- ism: Entanglement, branches, and the emergent classi- cality of redundantly stored quantum information, Phys- ical Review A73, 062310 (2006)

    2006

  73. [81]

    Touil, F

    A. Touil, F. Anza, S. Deffner, and J. P. Crutchfield, Branching states as the emergent structure of a quan- tum universe, Quantum8, 1494 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    A. J. Short, Equilibration of quantum systems and sub- systems, New Journal of Physics13, 053009 (2011)

    2011

  75. [83]

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

    2010

  76. [84]

    L. Ding, S. Mardazad, S. Das, S. Szalay, U. Schollw¨ ock, Z. Zimbor´ as, and C. Schilling, Concept of Orbital Entan- glement and Correlation in Quantum Chemistry, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation17, 79 (2021)

    2021

  77. [85]

    A. J. Coleman, Structure of fermion density matrices, Rev. Mod. Phys.35, 668 (1963)

    1963

  78. [86]

    G. G. Amosov and S. N. Filippov, Spectral properties of reduced fermionic density operators and parity su- perselection rule, Quantum Information Processing16, 2 (2017)

    2017

  79. [87]

    Galler and P

    A. Galler and P. Thunstr¨ om, Orbital and electronic en- tanglement in quantum teleportation schemes, Physical Review Research3, 033120 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    J. O. Ernst and F. Tennie, Mode entanglement in fermionic and bosonic Harmonium, New Journal of Physics26, 033042 (2024)

    2024

  81. [89]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Quantum speed limits: from heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical50, 453001 (2017)

    2017

  82. [90]

    A. Sen, U. Sen, B. Gromek, D. Bruß, and M. Lewen- stein, Capacities of noiseless quantum channels for mas- sive indistinguishable particles: Bosons versus fermions, Physical Review A75, 022331 (2007)

    2007

  83. [91]

    Haque, O

    M. Haque, O. Zozulya, and K. Schoutens, Entanglement between particle partitions in itinerant many-particle states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theo- retical42, 504012 (2009)

    2009

  84. [92]

    Teng, R.-Y

    X.-W. Teng, R.-Y. Xu, H.-C. Yang, and S.-M. Wu, Bosonic and fermionic mutual information of n-partite systems in dilaton black hole background, Nuclear Physics B , 117559 (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

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