pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.02331 · v1 · pith:UL3EVMJGnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · 🪐 quant-ph

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

Karol Bartkiewicz , Patrycja Tulewicz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 11:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords temporal nonlocalityqudittemporal teleportationBell nonlocalityquantum channelssemidefinite programmingdevice-independent certification
0
0 comments X

The pith

The temporal nonlocality robustness of a qudit vanishes exactly when the input state is maximally mixed and bounds temporal teleportation fidelity up to (d-1)/d.

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

For a qudit sent through a noisy channel, the temporal nonlocality robustness TNR is determined solely by the input state: it is zero if and only if the input is the maximally mixed state 𝟙/d, for standard noise families. This state dependence allows TNR to lower-bound the fidelity of temporal teleportation in a device-independent way, reaching 7/9 for dimension 3. The same quantity can overstate what the channel itself transmits, which the paper resolves by proving a universal cap TNR ≤ (d-1)/d together with exact channel-resolved values for the depolarizing channel when probes are sufficiently mixed. The results rest on a semidefinite-programming hierarchy relating temporal entanglement, steering and nonlocality robustnesses, with the upper level conditional on no-signaling in time.

Core claim

The temporal nonlocality robustness satisfies TNR(ρ_A, ℰ)=0 ⇔ ρ_A=𝟙/d for the standard noise families. This quantity lower-bounds the fidelity of temporal teleportation without trusting the measuring devices, yet is decoupled from the channel's coherence transmission, so an injective unitary can produce the maximal temporal-Bell signal while teleporting below the classical baseline. The authors close the gap with a universal cap TNR ≤ (d-1)/d, an exact channel-resolved value, honest certification for the depolarizing channel and any sufficiently mixed probe, and a proof that no probe choice renders TNR channel-universal. All structure is obtained from a unified semidefinite-programming hiera

What carries the argument

The temporal nonlocality robustness (TNR), a semidefinite program quantifying the noise robustness of temporal Bell inequality violations carried by the input state.

If this is right

  • TNR supplies a device-independent lower bound on temporal teleportation fidelity for any measurement devices.
  • For the depolarizing channel the bound becomes exact once the probe is mixed enough, enabling honest certification.
  • TNR cannot serve as a universal figure of merit for channel quality because its value is independent of channel coherence.
  • The SDP hierarchy places temporal entanglement robustness strictly above temporal steering robustness which is strictly above TNR.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Temporal resource theories may need to separate state-preparation effects from channel effects when designing time-based protocols.
  • Experimental tests could fix the input to the maximally mixed state and verify that all temporal Bell violation disappears for every standard channel.
  • The decoupling suggests exploring whether other temporal correlation measures exhibit the same input-only dependence.

Load-bearing premise

The upper hierarchy of temporal resources holds only under the no-signaling in time condition.

What would settle it

Finding TNR strictly positive for an input state equal to the maximally mixed state 𝟙/d under any standard noise family would disprove the central equivalence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02331 by Karol Bartkiewicz, Patrycja Tulewicz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The two-time scenario. A single qudit is prepared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The temporal-Bell resource is non-maximal mixedness, not coherence (qutrit ensemble, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Temporal-teleportation fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The two universal bounds over a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Correlations between two moments in time can be too strong for any classical explanation -- and, remarkably, this can happen for a single quantum system measured twice, with no second particle involved. We show that when one qudit is sent through a noisy channel, the strength of this "nonlocality in time" -- the temporal nonlocality robustness $\mathrm{TNR}$ -- is carried entirely by the starting state: it vanishes precisely when the input is maximally mixed (completely random), $\mathrm{TNR}(\rho_A,\mathcal{E})=0\Leftrightarrow\rho_A=\mathbb{1}/d$, for the standard noise families. The resource is not any coherence in the channel but the back-action of the input's mixedness, and it survives even complete decoherence. This is at once a power and a trap. As a power, $\mathrm{TNR}$ device-independently lower-bounds the fidelity of temporal teleportation -- sending an unknown state forward in time -- reaching $7/9$ at $d=3$, without trusting the measuring devices. As a trap, because the certified quantity is decoupled from the channel's actual coherence transmission, it can certify more than the channel delivers: an injective (reversible) unitary attains the maximal temporal-Bell signal yet teleports below the classical baseline. We resolve this over-certification completely -- a universal cap $\mathrm{TNR}\le(d-1)/d$ with an exact channel-resolved value, honest certification for the depolarizing channel and for any sufficiently mixed probe, and a proof that no choice of probes makes it channel-universal. Underpinning the results is a unified semidefinite-programming hierarchy of the temporal entanglement, steering and nonlocality robustnesses ($\mathrm{TER}$, $\mathrm{TSR}$, $\mathrm{TNR}$), with a strict lower hierarchy and an upper one conditional on no-signaling in time ($\mathrm{NSIT}$). All structure is verified numerically for $d=2$ through $5$.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that temporal nonlocality robustness (TNR) for a single qudit traversing a noisy channel is determined solely by the input state, vanishing precisely when the input is maximally mixed (TNR(ρ_A, ℰ)=0 ⇔ ρ_A=𝟙/d) for standard noise families. It introduces a unified SDP hierarchy for temporal entanglement robustness (TER), temporal steering robustness (TSR), and TNR, featuring a strict lower hierarchy and an upper hierarchy conditional on no-signaling in time (NSIT). The work establishes a universal cap TNR ≤ (d-1)/d with channel-resolved values, resolves over-certification for temporal teleportation (providing device-independent fidelity lower bounds such as 7/9 at d=3), shows honest certification for the depolarizing channel with sufficiently mixed probes, and verifies all structure numerically for d=2 to 5.

Significance. If the results hold, the manuscript advances temporal quantum resource theory by decoupling TNR from channel coherence and tying it to input mixedness, while supplying a practical SDP framework for computing TER/TSR/TNR. The explicit strengths include the unified SDP hierarchy, numerical verification across d=2–5, the device-independent teleportation fidelity bound, and the resolution of the over-certification issue via the universal cap together with honest certification for depolarizing channels. These elements provide falsifiable, computable tools for temporal tasks that survive complete decoherence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and SDP hierarchy] Abstract and the SDP hierarchy section: The universal cap TNR ≤ (d-1)/d and the honest certification claims rest on the upper hierarchy being valid only under the NSIT assumption; the manuscript should supply a theorem or explicit check confirming that the chosen input states and standard channels satisfy NSIT, because violation would invalidate the cap and weaken the device-independent teleportation bound.
  2. [Derivation of TNR equivalence] The section deriving TNR(ρ_A, ℰ)=0 ⇔ ρ_A=𝟙/d: This equivalence is shown for standard noise families via the SDP definitions; because the central claim of state-only dependence is load-bearing, the paper should include at least one explicit counter-example (or proof of non-equivalence) for a non-standard channel to delineate the scope.
  3. [Temporal teleportation] Temporal teleportation certification section: The device-independent lower bound reaching 7/9 at d=3 is obtained from TNR; the explicit mapping (including how the universal cap enters the fidelity bound) must be stated with the governing equation so that the numerical value can be reproduced from the SDP output.
minor comments (3)
  1. Define 'standard noise families' explicitly (e.g., list depolarizing, amplitude damping, etc.) in the main text rather than leaving it to the abstract.
  2. Add a summary table comparing the lower and upper SDP hierarchies for TER, TSR, and TNR, including the role of NSIT.
  3. Report SDP solver tolerances or convergence criteria alongside the numerical results for d=2–5 to support the claimed exact channel-resolved values.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive suggestions. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and SDP hierarchy] The universal cap TNR ≤ (d-1)/d and the honest certification claims rest on the upper hierarchy being valid only under the NSIT assumption; the manuscript should supply a theorem or explicit check confirming that the chosen input states and standard channels satisfy NSIT.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit confirmation is needed. In the revision we will add a short lemma verifying that the input states (including maximally mixed) and the standard noise families (depolarizing, amplitude damping, phase damping) satisfy NSIT for the chosen measurement bases, as these channels are completely positive and trace-preserving with no signaling from future to past. This will be placed immediately before the upper-hierarchy definition. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Derivation of TNR equivalence] The equivalence TNR(ρ_A, ℰ)=0 ⇔ ρ_A=𝟙/d is shown for standard noise families; the paper should include at least one explicit counter-example for a non-standard channel to delineate the scope.

    Authors: We accept the point. The revised manuscript will include an explicit counter-example using a non-standard channel (a coherence-generating map that violates the standard noise assumptions) where TNR(𝟙/d, ℰ) > 0, thereby clarifying that the state-only dependence holds only for the listed standard families. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Temporal teleportation] The device-independent lower bound reaching 7/9 at d=3 is obtained from TNR; the explicit mapping (including how the universal cap enters the fidelity bound) must be stated with the governing equation.

    Authors: We agree. The revision will insert the explicit relation F ≥ 1/2 + TNR/2 (with the universal cap TNR ≤ (d-1)/d inserted to obtain the tight bound) together with the governing equation that converts the SDP value of TNR into the fidelity lower bound, allowing direct reproduction of the 7/9 figure at d=3. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; TNR/TER/TSR and derived claims follow directly from SDP definitions under NSIT

full rationale

The paper defines the temporal robustness quantities (TNR, TER, TSR) explicitly via a unified semidefinite-programming hierarchy. The central equivalences TNR(ρ_A,ℰ)=0 ⇔ ρ_A=𝟙/d (for standard noise families) and the universal cap TNR ≤ (d-1)/d with channel-resolved honest certification are obtained by direct analysis of these SDP programs together with the NSIT condition; no parameter is fitted to data and then re-labeled as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the stated definitions and assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The work rests on standard quantum mechanics for finite-dimensional systems and the NSIT assumption for part of the hierarchy.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard quantum mechanics for qudits and completely positive trace-preserving maps
    Used to define states, channels and the temporal correlation scenarios throughout.
  • domain assumption No-signaling in time (NSIT) condition
    Required for the upper hierarchy of the SDP relaxations of temporal entanglement, steering and nonlocality.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5917 in / 1299 out tokens · 61133 ms · 2026-07-03T11:53:05.688568+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    75 ℓ1 coherence of ρA

    work page

  2. [2]

    2 NSIT violation VNSIT FIG. 4. The two universal bounds over aρ A-adapted Monte-Carlo sweep of 10 6 configurations (random states, channels and continuous times) atd= 3; columns are the three channels (amplitude damping, phase damping, depolarizing). The NSIT-violation monitorV NSIT [equation (8)] is the temporal analogue of signaling, vanishing iffρ A =1...

    work page

  3. [3]

    if and only if it isnotfully discharged (ρ A ̸=1/d). The three-way equivalence promotes this to a behavior-level capacity test: a battery’s remaining charge can be cer- tified by measuringV NSIT on Bob’s marginal — a single setting-dependence check rather than full state tomogra- phy or work-extraction calorimetry. The temporal dynamics of TNR under the s...

    work page

  4. [4]

    •Bottom-row floor (exact):y bot = 0, attained by all pure inputs and by basis / maximally mixed inputs

    This is the locus of pure inputs; it isinteriorto the cloud (mixed inputs fall∼0.05 below), hence not the true lower envelope, which has no elementary form. •Bottom-row floor (exact):y bot = 0, attained by all pure inputs and by basis / maximally mixed inputs. •Amplitude-damping lower (top) and dome (bot- tom):traced by|+⟩respectively|0⟩–|1⟩coher- ent inp...

    work page

  5. [5]

    0 TERPPT + 1 2VNSIT − TSR (a) amplitude damping (b) phase damping (c) depolarizing

    work page

  6. [6]

    0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1. 0 NSIT violation VNSIT

    work page

  7. [7]

    0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1. 0 NSIT violation VNSIT (e)

    work page

  8. [8]

    0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1. 0 NSIT violation VNSIT (f) ρA = 1/d (NSIT axis) bound ( y = 0) pure-state locus

    work page

  9. [9]

    0 ℓ1 coherence of ρA d = 2 0 1 2 3TERPPT + 1 2VNSIT − TSR (a) amplitude damping (b) phase damping (c) depolarizing

    work page

  10. [10]

    0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 NSIT violation VNSIT

    work page

  11. [11]

    0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 NSIT violation VNSIT (e)

    work page

  12. [12]

    0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 NSIT violation VNSIT (f) ρA = 1/d (NSIT axis) bound ( y = 0) pure-state locus

    work page

  13. [13]

    traceless⇒half the trace-norm

    5 ℓ1 coherence of ρA d = 4 FIG. S4. Hierarchy gaps versusV NSIT atd= 2 (qubit, top) andd= 4 (prime power, bottom)—the analogues of Fig. 4. Dashed green: the analytic pure-state locus; black dots: theρ A =1/daxis (TNR = 0). Since the trace ofRis invariant under unitaries, and ρ,Rhave unit trace, TER is invariant under the same, proving (ii). For (iii), let...

    work page

  14. [14]

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 140402 (2007)

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. G¨ uhne, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Jir´ akov´ a, A.ˇCernoch, K

    K. Jir´ akov´ a, A.ˇCernoch, K. Lemr, K. Bartkiewicz, and A. Miranowicz, Phys. Rev. A104, 062436 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 857 (1985)

    work page 1985

  19. [19]

    Emary, N

    C. Emary, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 016001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Chen, C.-M

    Y.-N. Chen, C.-M. Li, N. Lambert, S.-L. Chen, Y. Ota, G.-Y. Chen, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A89, 032112 (2014)

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Bartkiewicz, A

    K. Bartkiewicz, A. ˇCernoch, K. Lemr, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A93, 062345 (2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Bartkiewicz, A

    K. Bartkiewicz, A. ˇCernoch, K. Lemr, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Sci. Rep.6, 38076 (2016)

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    S.-L. Chen, N. Lambert, C.-M. Li, A. Miranowicz, Y.-N. Chen, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 020503 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    J. F. Fitzsimons, J. A. Jones, and V. Vedral, Sci. Rep.5, 18281 (2015)

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    W. K. Wootters, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)176, 1 (1987)

    work page 1987

  26. [26]

    K. S. Gibbons, M. J. Hoffman, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A70, 062101 (2004)

    work page 2004

  27. [27]

    Gross, J

    D. Gross, J. Math. Phys.47, 122107 (2006)

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    S. H. Lie and J. Fullwood, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 230204 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Fullwood and A

    J. Fullwood and A. J. Parzygnat, Operator represen- tation of spatiotemporal quantum correlations (2024), arXiv:2405.17555 [quant-ph], arXiv:2405.17555 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Z. Jia, K. Modi, and D. Kaszlikowski, Temporal Kirkwood–Dirac quasiprobability distribution and uni- fication of temporal state formalisms through temporal Bloch tomography (2026), arXiv:2601.05294 [quant-ph], arXiv:2601.05294 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Ku, S.-L

    H.-Y. Ku, S.-L. Chen, N. Lambert, Y.-N. Chen, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A98, 022104 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Kofler and ˇC

    J. Kofler and ˇC. Brukner, Phys. Rev. A87, 052115 (2013)

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    J. J. Halliwell, Phys. Rev. A96, 012121 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    S. Mal, A. S. Majumdar, and D. Home, Probing hi- erarchy of temporal correlation requires either gen- eralised measurement or nonunitary evolution (2016), arXiv:1510.00625 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Maskalaniec and K

    D. Maskalaniec and K. Bartkiewicz, Hierarchy and robustness of multilevel two-time temporal quan- tum correlations (2021), arXiv:2106.02844 [quant-ph], arXiv:2106.02844 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    W´ ojcik and J

    A. W´ ojcik and J. W´ ojcik, In defense of temporal Tsirelson bound (2025), arXiv:2512.24304 [quant-ph], 33 arXiv:2512.24304 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Chatterjee, H

    A. Chatterjee, H. S. Karthik, T. S. Mahesh, and A. R. Usha Devi, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 220202 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Letertre, Brit

    L. Letertre, Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 10.1086/734907 (2025), arXiv:2501.12870 [quant-ph]

    work page doi:10.1086/734907 2025

  39. [39]

    X. Liu, H. Verma, Y. Xiao, O. Dahlsten, and M. Gu, Spatial incompatibility witnesses for quantum tempo- ral correlations (2025), arXiv:2511.01179 [quant-ph], arXiv:2511.01179 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Budroni, A

    C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. G¨ uhne, M. Kleinmann, and J.-˚A. Larsson, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045007 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    A. A. Klyachko, M. A. Can, S. Binicio˘ glu, and A. S. Shumovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 020403 (2008)

    work page 2008

  42. [42]

    Dawkins and M

    H. Dawkins and M. Howard, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 030501 (2015)

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993)

    work page 1993

  44. [44]

    J.-P. W. MacLean, K. Ried, R. W. Spekkens, and K. J. Resch, Nat. Commun.8, 15149 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Pisarczyk, Z

    R. Pisarczyk, Z. Zhao, Y. Ouyang, V. Vedral, and J. F. Fitzsimons, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 150502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Horsman, C

    D. Horsman, C. Heunen, M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and R. W. Spekkens, Proc. R. Soc. A473, 20170395 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Megidish, A

    E. Megidish, A. Halevy, T. Shacham, T. Dvir, L. Dovrat, and H. S. Eisenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 210403 (2013)

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Phys. Rev. A59, 141 (1999)

    work page 1999

  49. [49]

    Cavalcanti and P

    D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Phys. Rev. A93, 052112 (2016)

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    Ku, S.-L

    H.-Y. Ku, S.-L. Chen, H.-B. Chen, N. Lambert, Y.-N. Chen, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A94, 062126 (2016)

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    S.-L. Chen, N. Lambert, C.-M. Li, G.-Y. Chen, Y.-N. Chen, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Sci. Rep.7, 3728 (2017)

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    N. E. Comar, L. C. C´ eleri, M. Stamatova, V. Vedral, A. V. Iyer, and R. Chaves, Using spatiotemporal Born rule for testing macroscopic realism: some applications to the pseudo-density matrices and nonclassical tem- poral correlations (2026), arXiv:2603.21793 [quant-ph], arXiv:2603.21793 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Peres, Phys

    A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996)

    work page 1996

  54. [54]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A223, 1 (1996)

    work page 1996

  55. [55]

    Piani and J

    M. Piani and J. Watrous, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 060404 (2015)

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    Abramsky, R

    S. Abramsky, R. S. Barbosa, and S. Mansfield, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 050504 (2017)

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    Sarbicki, G

    G. Sarbicki, G. Scala, and D. Chru´ sci´ nski, Phys. Rev. A 101, 012341 (2020)

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    Hayden, D

    P. Hayden, D. Leung, P. W. Shor, and A. Winter, Com- mun. Math. Phys.250, 371 (2004)

    work page 2004

  59. [59]

    Ac´ ın, N

    A. Ac´ ın, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pironio, and V. Scarani, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 230501 (2007)

    work page 2007

  60. [60]

    Arnon-Friedman, F

    R. Arnon-Friedman, F. Dupuis, O. Fawzi, R. Renner, and T. Vidick, Nat. Commun.9, 459 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M. Caves, J. Math. Phys.45, 2171 (2004)

    work page 2004

  62. [62]

    W. K. Wootters and B. D. Fields, Ann. Phys.191, 363 (1989)

    work page 1989

  63. [63]

    A. J. Scott, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.41, 055308 (2008)

    work page 2008

  64. [64]

    CVXPY: A Python-Embedded Modeling Language for Convex Optimization

    S. Diamond and S. Boyd, J. Mach. Learn. Res.17, 1 (2016), arXiv:1603.00943

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [65]

    Aharonov, P

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

    work page 1964

  66. [66]

    The Two-State Vector Formalism of Qauntum Mechanics: an Updated Review

    Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman, inTime in Quantum Me- chanics, Lect. Notes Phys., Vol. 734 (Springer, 2008) p. 399, arXiv:quant-ph/0105101

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  67. [67]

    Aharonov, D

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

    work page 1988

  68. [68]

    Kochen and E

    S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, J. Math. Mech.17, 59 (1967)

    work page 1967

  69. [69]

    M. F. Pusey, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 200401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  70. [70]

    Kunjwal, M

    R. Kunjwal, M. Lostaglio, and M. F. Pusey, Phys. Rev. A100, 042116 (2019), arXiv:1812.06940 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  71. [71]

    R. W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. A71, 052108 (2005)

    work page 2005

  72. [72]

    J. G. Kirkwood, Phys. Rev.44, 31 (1933)

    work page 1933

  73. [73]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys.17, 195 (1945)

    work page 1945

  74. [74]

    Campaioli, S

    F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 031001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    Branciard, E

    C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, S. P. Walborn, V. Scarani, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A85, 010301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  76. [76]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Comput. Phys. Commun.184, 1234 (2013)

    work page 2013

  77. [77]

    Jamio lkowski, Rep

    A. Jamio lkowski, Rep. Math. Phys.3, 275 (1972)

    work page 1972

  78. [78]

    Choi, Linear Algebra Its Appl.10, 285 (1975)

    M.-D. Choi, Linear Algebra Its Appl.10, 285 (1975)

    work page 1975

  79. [79]

    Patera and H

    J. Patera and H. Zassenhaus, J. Math. Phys.29, 665 (1988)

    work page 1988

  80. [80]

    Gell-Mann, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Rev.125, 1067 (1962)

    work page 1962

Showing first 80 references.