Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

This paper claims that local properties of a relativistic quantum field can be sensed non-destructively through weakly coupled pointers whose postselected shifts are governed by effective weak values, with the field's causal structure encod

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

2026-08-01 16:39 UTC pith:WDSLVVK4

load-bearing objection The framework is new and worth discussing, but the central effective weak value is defined inconsistently (K_S† vs K_S†K_S) across the paper, so the applications as written do not rest on a unique quantity. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17920 v1 pith:WDSLVVK4 submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph hep-phhep-th

Sensing relativistic quantum fields with minimally perturbing local measurements

F. Daem , L. Ballesteros Ferraz , A. Zampeli , A. Matzkin This is my paper
classification quant-ph hep-phhep-th
keywords relativistic quantum field theoryweak measurementsweak valuesKraus operatorsnon-destructive measurementPauli-Jordan functioncausal structureentanglement detection
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.

The paper proposes a framework for non-destructive local measurements in relativistic quantum field theory. Coupling a field observable weakly to a pointer in a small region, then postselecting the field through a Kraus update, leaves the pointer shifted by an 'effective weak value' — a smeared conditional expectation of the field observable. The paper claims this gives causal, minimally perturbing access to local field properties, and demonstrates it with three applications: mapping the lightcone of a local 'kick', monitoring particle-creation densities in a supercritical potential, and distinguishing entangled field states from classical mixtures without destroying them.

Core claim

The central claim is that the state of a weakly coupled pointer, postselected by a causally admissible Kraus update K̂_S = αI + β∫Γ_S Ô_s, ends as exp(−iλ∫Λ_Wj [⟨ψ|K̂†_S Ô_j(x)|ψ⟩/⟨ψ|K̂†_S|ψ⟩] P̂_j), so the pointer's mean position shifts by λ Re(O_w_j), the effective weak value. This makes local field properties readable without collapsing the field. The paper's central result is the spacelikeness detector: for a coherent-field 'kick' generated by the quadrature X̂, the effective weak value change ΔO_w_j(κ) is zero when the probe region W_j lies outside the kick's forward lightcone and nonzero inside, because the kick's action enters through the Pauli-Jordan kernel Δ(x−y), which vanishes on

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective weak value O_w_j = ∫ d^{n+1}x Λ_Wj(x) ⟨ψ|K̂†_S Ô_j(x)|ψ⟩ / ⟨ψ|K̂†_S|ψ⟩ (Eq. 5), with K̂_S the Kraus update of Eq. (3). It converts a postselected weak interaction into a pointer shift λ Re(O_w_j). The causal content is carried by the Pauli-Jordan function Δ(x−y), whose vanishing for spacelike separations makes the kick-induced contribution in Eq. (7) vanish when probe and kick are spacelike, and by the choice of a kick-invariant postselection observable (the Y quadrature) that keeps the Kraus operator commuting with the kick. For mixed states the formula generalizes to Tr(ρ K̂†_S K̂_S Ô_j)/Tr(ρ K̂†_S K̂_S), where the positive operator E_S = K̂†_S K̂_S

Load-bearing premise

The postselection step is always modeled to first order in the detector coupling g, although the paper says g need not be small; if a genuinely strong postselection is used, the linear Kraus operator K̂_S = αI + β∫Γ_S Ô_s — on which all three applications rest — is not justified.

What would settle it

Compute the effective weak value shift (Eq. 7) for a probe region W_j placed strictly spacelike to the kick region K, using explicit compactly supported smearing functions; any nonzero κ-dependence in ΔO_w_j(κ) would refute the causal-mapping claim. Alternatively, for the entanglement example, choose wavepackets and postselection observables such that the non-diagonal terms ⟨φ_L η_R|K̂†_S K̂_S O_j(x)|η_L φ_R⟩ vanish exactly; then the predicted discrimination between entangled state and mixture disappears.

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

If this is right

  • The spacelikeness detector turns microcausality into an observable: a single run of an array of weakly coupled pointers simultaneously maps which sensors lie in the forward lightcone of a kick, without collapsing the field.
  • The pair-creation application shows that by postselecting on a specific detector state, the correlated part of the effective weak value vanishes, leaving the local particle-number density as a directly readable pointer shift — enabling time-resolved monitoring of the pair-creation process.
  • Entangled two-particle field states and their classical mixtures produce different pointer shifts whenever non-diagonal matrix elements of the form ⟨φ_L η_R|K̂†_S K̂_S Ô_j(x)|η_L φ_R⟩ are nonzero, providing a non-destructive route to entanglement detection.
  • Because the weak couplings are independent to first order, the protocol supports simultaneous multi-region sensing with no intermediate update of the field state, a step toward a toolbox for relativistic quantum information.
  • The framework sidesteps the Sorkin-type 'impossible measurement' signaling problem by using weak unitary local interactions and causally admissible Kraus updates, rather than projective measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One could turn the spacelikeness detector into a direct probe of the Pauli-Jordan commutator: the measured pointer shifts effectively reconstruct the support of Δ(x−y), giving an experimental signature of microcausality in field theory.
  • The entanglement discrimination could likely be strengthened into a quantitative entanglement witness by evaluating the shift difference for explicit Gaussian wavepackets and smearing functions; the paper asserts the non-diagonal terms are generically nonzero but does not provide bounds or a threshold.
  • A natural stress test is to extend the formalism beyond first order in the postselection coupling g: if the effective weak value formula survives non-perturbative Kraus updates, the protocol would become applicable in the strong-postselection regime that is most useful for metrology.
  • The same effective-weak-value machinery should transfer to other local observables, such as currents, stress-energy components, or chiral densities, so long as a smeared local observable and a causal postselection region can be defined.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a framework for minimally perturbing, non-destructive local measurements of a relativistic quantum field. The field is prepared in a pure state; weak pointers couple locally to field observables in spacetime regions W_j; a later postselection is modeled as a Kraus update K_S = αI + β∫Γ_S O_s. The authors define an 'effective weak value' (Eq. (5)) that is claimed to govern the pointer shift, and they illustrate the framework with three applications: a spacelikeness detector based on the Pauli–Jordan function, monitoring pair-creation density from a supercritical potential, and distinguishing an entangled two-particle field state from a classically correlated mixture. Detailed derivations are provided in Appendices A–D.

Significance. If the framework were correct, it would be a useful addition to relativistic measurement theory and relativistic quantum information: it would allow local field information to be extracted without destroying the state, and the lightcone-mapping application gives a crisp causal-structure criterion in terms of the Pauli–Jordan function. The paper is well situated in the recent literature on 'impossible measurements' and contains substantial calculations. The main obstacle is that the central pointer-shift formula is not consistent with the stated postselection protocol: the two definitions of the effective weak value disagree for the same pure state, and two of the three applications use the version that does not follow from a Kraus update. The entanglement application, which uses the density-matrix formula (Eq. (10)), is more robust but still under-supported at the final step.

major comments (4)
  1. [App. A3, Eqs. (4)–(5) vs. App. D2, Eq. (10)/D9] This is the central issue and the basis for the recommendation.
  2. [App. A2, Eq. (3)]
  3. [App. B2 and App. D1]
  4. [App. D3, Eqs. (D10)–(D12)]
minor comments (5)
  1. [App. B1, Eq. (B1)]
  2. [Eq. (B10)]
  3. [App. C, text before Eq. (8)]
  4. [Eq. (9)]
  5. [General]

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Central effective weak value is defined twice (K_S† vs K_S†K_S) and the entanglement application's difference is built into its state definitions.

specific steps
  1. other [Main text Eq. (5) and Eq. (10); App. A3 (Eq. A7) vs App. D2 (Eq. D9)]
    "For a pure state, the effective weak value Ow_j takes the form given by Eq. (5), while the generalization for a density matrix ρ_mix takes the form (see App. D2) Ow_j = ∫ d^{n+1}x Λ_Wj (x) Tr_Φ(ρ_mix K_S† K_S O_j(x)) / Tr_Φ(ρ_mix K_S† K_S). (10)"

    For ρ=|ψ⟩⟨ψ|, Eq. (10) reduces to ∫Λ ⟨ψ|K_S†K_S O_j|ψ⟩/⟨ψ|K_S†K_S|ψ⟩, which is not Eq. (5)'s ∫Λ ⟨ψ|K_S†O_j|ψ⟩/⟨ψ|K_S†|ψ⟩. The operators inside the expectation values differ by an extra K_S, so the two formulas are not equivalent even for pure states. The paper uses Eq. (5) in the lightcone and pair-creation applications and Eq. (10) in the entanglement application, so the central 'effective weak value' is fixed by the definition chosen per application rather than derived once.

  2. self definitional [Appendix D3, Eqs. (D1)–(D2) and (D10)–(D12)]
    "The conclusion is that the presence of these non-diagonal terms lead to pointer statistics that differ for the states given by Eq. (D1) and (D2)."

    ρ_ent and ρ_mix are defined so that the only difference between them is the off-diagonal coherences c_1^*c_2|φ_Lη_R⟩⟨η_Lφ_R| + c_2^*c_1|η_Lφ_R⟩⟨φ_Lη_R|. Equations (D10)–(D11) then show that the difference in the pointer-shift numerators and denominators is exactly the trace of K_S†K_S O_j and K_S†K_S against those coherences. The claimed discrimination is therefore a restatement of the construction of the two states, not an independent derivation; the nontrivial quantitative estimate is deferred ('an explicit calculation can be done by choosing the wavepacket profiles...').

full rationale

The lightcone-mapping and pair-creation calculations are, by themselves, ordinary self-contained computations using free-field commutators and Bogoliubov coefficients; they do not involve fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations. The circularity score is driven by two definitional issues. First, the paper presents Eq. (5) and Eq. (10) as the same effective weak value, with Eq. (10) called the density-matrix generalization, but for a pure state they differ by an extra K_S in the expectation value; thus the central quantity is not uniquely defined and the applications pick whichever formula yields their result. Second, the entanglement-versus-mixture protocol defines the two states to differ only by off-diagonal coherences and then concludes that the pointer statistics differ because of those coherences; this is the construction itself, and the magnitude/observability is not computed. These are not external benchmark validations or independent empirical predictions, so the central claim is partially circular by construction. Score 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework's honest inputs: standard free-field microcausality, first-order weak-coupling perturbation theory, a first-order-in-g Kraus model of postselection despite g allowed to be large, import of causal admissibility from the contested recent literature (refs. 16–20), treatment of the positive-frequency density as a local observable, and a non-orthogonality condition for postselection. No invented entities; no fitted numbers. The hand-chosen parameters (postselection state |+z⟩, Gaussian/smearing profiles, coherent amplitudes) are unspecified, which blocks quantitative verification of the applications.

free parameters (4)
  • Postselection detector state |d_s⟩ = |+z⟩
    Chosen in App. C so that ⟨+z|σ_y|+z⟩ = 0, zeroing the correction term in Eq. (8) and forcing O_w_j to equal the standard density ρ^j_pa from refs. 42–44; the genuinely new term C_{j,S} is never evaluated.
  • Gaussian wavepacket widths and smearing profiles Λ_Wj, Γ_S, Λ_K = unspecified
    App. D3 states 'an explicit calculation can be done by choosing the wavepacket profiles, e.g. Gaussians, and the smearing functions' but no profiles or parameters are given; the third application's central claim cannot be quantified or checked without them.
  • Coherent-state amplitudes α_p, β_p = unspecified
    The linear kick response in Eq. (7) is proportional to X_w = Φ_cl + Φ*_cl, so the sensor signal depends on the chosen coherent amplitude; no values or signal-to-noise estimates are given.
  • Kick strength κ and weak coupling λ = unspecified (λ small per assumption)
    Protocol knobs: the κ-dependence is the claimed signal and λ controls the perturbation order, but no magnitude estimates are provided for either.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Free-field canonical (anti)commutation relations and the Pauli–Jordan function Δ(x−y) vanishing for spacelike separations (microcausality).
    Invoked in App. B2 (Eqs. B4–B6) to derive the kick transformation of the field operators; carries the entire causal content of application 1.
  • domain assumption Postselection is accurately modeled by the first-order-in-g Kraus operator K̂_S = αI + β∫Γ_S Ô_s, with α, β fixed by detector states.
    App. A2 explicitly truncates at first order in g while allowing g to be large ('is not assumed to be small'); all effective weak values (Eqs. 5, 7, 8, 10) inherit this truncation. Load-bearing for all three applications.
  • domain assumption The protocol's Kraus update is causally admissible in the sense of recent relativistic measurement theories [16–20].
    Assumed, not proven, that the postselection-based update avoids Sorkin-type signaling; the paper cites refs. 16–20 and asserts evasion via ref. 21, but no explicit no-signaling proof is given for this protocol's W_j–S geometry.
  • domain assumption The positive-frequency density ρ_pa = Φ̂†_pa Φ̂_pa is treated as a local observable addressable by a local coupling (Eq. 1 with Ô_j = ρ_pa).
    The positive-frequency part is a global, mode-expansion-dependent object constructed from the vacuum; coupling a 'local' pointer to it is not a strictly local field coupling, which undercuts the 'local measurement' framing of application 2.
  • ad hoc to paper ⟨χ|ψ⟩ ≠ 0 (postselection non-orthogonality to the preselected field state).
    Assumed in App. A3 so that the weak-value denominator is non-vanishing; otherwise Eqs. (4)–(5) are undefined.
  • domain assumption Weak couplings in different regions W_j are independent to first order in λ, so the pointers are uncorrelated and can be read simultaneously.
    Used to justify 'simultaneous lightcone mapping in one run' (main text, after Eq. 5); valid only to first order in λ, and no higher-order corrections are analyzed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14002 in / 29242 out tokens · 267556 ms · 2026-08-01T16:39:15.887178+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We develop a framework for minimally perturbing local measurements in relativistic quantum field theory, with the aim to sense local properties of the field in a non-destructive manner. The field properties are sensed by weakly coupled pointers and encapsulated in conditional expectation values dependent on a postselection of the field state. Our operational protocol uses causally admissible Kraus updates for the field, in line with recent relativistic measurement theories, keeping in mind restrictions related to ``impossible measurements''. We illustrate our approach with three applications: a spacelikeness detector for causal-structure sensing, counting particle-creation densities in a supercritical potential and non-destructive discrimination between entangled states of the field and mixtures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17920 by A. Matzkin, A. Zampeli, F. Daem, L. Ballesteros Ferraz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spacetime geometry of the protocol. The quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Non destructive causal mapping of a local change [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2D spatial setup (x = (x, y)) for discriminating an entangled state from a classical mixture. A 2-particle field state (entangled or mixture) is prepared with a particle in region IL, another in region IR. In region WL, the field is weakly coupled to a pointer. The pointer is moved to region WR and coupled there to the field. Finally the field is posts￾elected in regions SL and SR. (e.g. with Gaussian prof… view at source ↗

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

55 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    (1) of the main text, the associated evolution operator is given in the interaction picture by ˆUj =Texp −iλ Z dn+1xΛ Wj (x) ˆPj(x) ˆOj(x) ,(A1) whereTis the time-ordering operator

    The weak coupling approximation Using the interaction hamiltonian of Eq. (1) of the main text, the associated evolution operator is given in the interaction picture by ˆUj =Texp −iλ Z dn+1xΛ Wj (x) ˆPj(x) ˆOj(x) ,(A1) whereTis the time-ordering operator. The coupling constantλis assumed to be small, and the interaction is assumed to be localized in a spac...

  2. [2]

    Postselection and the Kraus operator We will call|d0⟩the initial state of the detector and|ds⟩the state of the detector when postselection is successful. The normalized postselected state of the field is then given by|χs⟩=p −1/2 s ⟨ds| ˆUS |d0⟩ |ψ⟩whereps is the probability of successful postselection and the unitary evolution is obtained from the detecto...

  3. [3]

    Pointer state after postselection We want to express the state of a weakly coupled pointer after a weak measurement. The initial state of the field |ψ⟩and the pointer ζ 0 j is evolved in the interaction picture with the weak interactionˆUj, then the state of the field is postselected on a state|χ⟩. The final pointer state is thus ζ s j =⟨χ| ˆUj |ψ⟩ |ζ0 j ...

  4. [4]

    Using the kick operatorˆUκ defined in Eq

    Coherent states The initial state of the field can be chosen to be a multicoherent state|α, β⟩. Using the kick operatorˆUκ defined in Eq. (6) of the main text, the state of the field after the kick is |χ⟩= ˆUκ |α, β⟩=Texp −i Z dn+1xΛ K(x) (Φcl(x) + Φ∗ cl(x)) |α, β⟩,(B1) where we used the action of the quadrature operatorˆXon the multicoherent state, which...

  5. [5]

    We want to find an observable of the field invariant under this kick, so that the postselected state is unaffected by the kick

    Kick-transparent postselection observable We consider the specific unitary kick generated byˆX(y) = ˆΦ(y) + ˆΦ†(y)and given by equation (6) of the main text. We want to find an observable of the field invariant under this kick, so that the postselected state is unaffected by the kick. We first derive the transformation of the field operators underˆUκ. Usi...

  6. [6]

    We use the normal- ordered number density ˆOj(x) = : ˆΦ†(x) ˆΦ(x) :and the unitary kick given in Eq

    Effective weak value calculation We want to express the effective weak value of the field observable considered in the main text. We use the normal- ordered number density ˆOj(x) = : ˆΦ†(x) ˆΦ(x) :and the unitary kick given in Eq. (6) of the main text. Using the field transformations derived in App. B2, the transformed normal-ordered observable can be com...

  7. [7]

    instantaneous

    Kraus operator Following the scheme represented in Fig. 4 we have two detectors coupling to the field in the regionsSL andS R defined onΣS. Given that the pointer variable of each detector as well as the number density in each region commute, the unitary operator ˆUS describing the coupling between the field and the detectors inSL andS R commute, and the ...

  8. [8]

    The weak couplings are represented by the unitariesˆUj as expressed in Eq

    Effective weak value expression for a density operator Let the field be preselected in a state described by the general density operatorρand the full initial state be ρ0 =ρ⊗ |ζ0⟩ ⟨ζ0| ⊗ |d0⟩ ⟨d0|,(D5) where|ζ 0⟩and|d 0⟩are the initial pure states of the weak pointer and postselection detector, respectively. The weak couplings are represented by the unitar...

  9. [9]

    (5) of the main text and Eq

    Determination of the pointer shift The effective weak value (Eq. (5) of the main text and Eq. (D9)) is built with two types of amplitudes, TrΦ ρ ˆK † S ˆKS ˆOj(x) andTr Φ (ρ ˆK † S ˆKS ). For the entangled state for instance, the former expression gives TrΦ ρ ˆK † S ˆKS ˆOj(x) =|c 1|2 ⟨φLηR| ˆK † S ˆKS ˆOj(x)|φ LηR⟩+|c 2|2 ⟨ηLφR| ˆK † S ˆKS ˆOj(x)|η LφR⟩ ...

  10. [10]

    Landau and R

    L. Landau and R. Peierls, Erweiterung des Unbestimmtheitsprinzips für die relativistische Quantentheorie, Zeitschrift für Physik69, 56 (1931), english translation reprinted in Wheeler -Zurek, p. 465

    1931

  11. [11]

    Bohr and L

    N. Bohr and L. Rosenfeld, Field and Charge Measurements in Quantum Electrodynamics, Physical Review78, 794 (1950)

    1950

  12. [12]

    K. E. Hellwig and K. Kraus, Formal Description of Measurements in Local Quantum Field Theory, Physical Review D1, 566 (1970)

    1970

  13. [13]

    Aharonov and D

    Y. Aharonov and D. Z. Albert, States and observables in relativistic quantum field theories, Physical Review D21, 3316 (1980)

    1980

  14. [14]

    Peres and D

    A. Peres and D. R. Terno, Quantum information and relativity theory, Reviews of Modern Physics76, 93 (2004)

    2004

  15. [15]

    D. M. T. Benincasa, L. Borsten, M. Buck, and F. Dowker, Quantum information processing and relativistic quantum fields, Classical and Quantum Gravity31, 075007 (2014)

    2014

  16. [16]

    Martín-Martínez, Causality issues of particle detector models in QFT and quantum optics, Physical Review D92, 104019 (2015)

    E. Martín-Martínez, Causality issues of particle detector models in QFT and quantum optics, Physical Review D92, 104019 (2015)

    2015

  17. [17]

    C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, Measurement in Quantum Field Theory, inEncyclopedia of Mathematical Physics (Second Edition), edited by R. Szabo and M. Bojowald (Academic Press, Oxford, 2025) pp. 335–345, arXiv:2304.13356 [math-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    W. G. Unruh, Notes on black-hole evaporation, Physical Review D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  19. [19]

    B. S. DeWitt, Quantum gravity: The new synthesis, inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979) p. 680

    1979

  20. [20]

    B. L. Hu, S.-Y. Lin, and J. Louko, Relativistic quantum information in detectors–field interactions, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 224005 (2012)

    2012

  21. [21]

    A. R. Lee and I. Fuentes, Spatially extended Unruh-DeWitt detectors for relativistic quantum information, Physical Review D89, 085041 (2014)

    2014

  22. [22]

    Simidzija, A

    P. Simidzija, A. Ahmadzadegan, A. Kempf, and E. Martín-Martínez, Transmission of quantum information through quan- tum fields, Physical Review D101, 036014 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Anastopoulos, B.-L

    C. Anastopoulos, B.-L. Hu, and K. Savvidou, Quantum field theory based quantum information: Measurements and correlations, Annals of Physics450, 169239 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Sorkin, Impossible Measurements on Quantum Fields, inDirections in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Vol

    R. Sorkin, Impossible Measurements on Quantum Fields, inDirections in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Vol. 2, edited by B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993) pp. 293–305

    1993

  25. [25]

    Borsten, I

    L. Borsten, I. Jubb, and G. Kells, Impossible measurements revisited, Physical Review D104, 025012 (2021), arXiv:1912.06141 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Bostelmann, C

    H. Bostelmann, C. J. Fewster, and M. H. Ruep, Impossible measurements require impossible apparatus, Physical Review D103, 025017 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Papageorgiou and D

    M. Papageorgiou and D. Fraser, Eliminating the ‘Impossible’: Recent Progress on Local Measurement Theory for Quantum Field Theory, Foundations of Physics54, 26 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Oeckl, Causal measurement in quantum field theory: Spacetime, Physical Review D113, 085002 (2026)

    R. Oeckl, Causal measurement in quantum field theory: Spacetime, Physical Review D113, 085002 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    Oeckl and A

    R. Oeckl and A. Zampeli, Towards local and compositional measurements in quantum field theory (2025), arXiv:2505.10968 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    De Ramón, M

    J. De Ramón, M. Papageorgiou, and E. Martín-Martínez, Relativistic causality in particle detector models: Faster-than- light signaling and impossible measurements, Physical Review D103, 085002 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Bednorz, General quantum measurements in relativistic quantum field theory, Physical Review D108, 056020 (2023)

    A. Bednorz, General quantum measurements in relativistic quantum field theory, Physical Review D108, 056020 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    T. R. Perche, J. Polo-Gómez, B. D. S. L. Torres, and E. Martín-Martínez, Particle detectors from localized quantum field theories, Physical Review D109, 045013 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Simmons, M

    R. Simmons, M. Papageorgiou, M. Christodoulou, and Č. Brukner, Factorisation conditions and causality for local mea- surements in QFT (2025), arXiv:2511.21644 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Aharonov, D

    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, Physical Review Letters60, 1351 (1988)

    1988

  35. [35]

    Hosten and P

    O. Hosten and P. Kwiat, Observation of the Spin Hall Effect of Light via Weak Measurements, Science319, 787 (2008). 12

    2008

  36. [36]

    Kim, S.-Y

    Y. Kim, S.-Y. Yoo, and Y.-H. Kim, Heisenberg-Limited Metrology via Weak-Value Amplification without Using Entangled Resources, Physical Review Letters128, 040503 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    J. S. Lundeen, B. Sutherland, A. Patel, C. Stewart, and C. Bamber, Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction, Nature474, 188 (2011)

    2011

  38. [38]

    G. S. Thekkadath, L. Giner, Y. Chalich, M. J. Horton, J. Banker, and J. S. Lundeen, Direct Measurement of the Density Matrix of a Quantum System, Physical Review Letters117, 120401 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    Y. Pan, J. Zhang, E. Cohen, C.-w. Wu, P.-X. Chen, and N. Davidson, Weak-to-strong transition of quantum measurement in a trapped-ion system, Nature Physics16, 1206 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    Denkmayr, H

    T. Denkmayr, H. Geppert, S. Sponar, H. Lemmel, A. Matzkin, J. Tollaksen, and Y. Hasegawa, Observation of a quantum Cheshire Cat in a matter-wave interferometer experiment, Nature Communications5, 4492 (2014)

    2014

  41. [41]

    Ballesteros Ferraz, J

    L. Ballesteros Ferraz, J. Martin, and Y. Caudano, On the relevance of weak measurements in dissipative quantum systems, Quantum Science and Technology9, 035029 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Dressel, K

    J. Dressel, K. Y. Bliokh, and F. Nori, Classical Field Approach to Quantum Weak Measurements, Physical Review Letters 112, 110407 (2014)

    2014

  43. [43]

    Turok, On quantum tunneling in real time, New Journal of Physics16, 063006 (2014)

    N. Turok, On quantum tunneling in real time, New Journal of Physics16, 063006 (2014)

    2014

  44. [44]

    Georgiev and E

    D. Georgiev and E. Cohen, Probing finite coarse-grained virtual Feynman histories with sequential weak values, Physical Review A97, 052102 (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    Matzkin, Weak values from path integrals, Physical Review Research2, 032048 (2020)

    A. Matzkin, Weak values from path integrals, Physical Review Research2, 032048 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    J. Foo, C. Bellamy, and T. C. Ralph, General-relativistic particle trajectories via quantum mechanical weak values and the Schwarzschild-Alcubierre spacetime, Physical Review A111, 052201 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Brout, S

    R. Brout, S. Massar, R. Parentani, S. Popescu, and Ph. Spindel, Quantum source of the back reaction on a classical field, Physical Review D52, 1119 (1995)

    1995

  48. [48]

    Englert and P

    F. Englert and P. Spindel, The hidden horizon and black hole unitarity, Journal of High Energy Physics2010, 65 (2010)

    2010

  49. [49]

    Jozsa, Complex weak values in quantum measurement, Physical Review A76, 044103 (2007)

    R. Jozsa, Complex weak values in quantum measurement, Physical Review A76, 044103 (2007)

    2007

  50. [50]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Advances in QED with intense background fields, Physics Reports1010, 1 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Cheng, Q

    T. Cheng, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Introductory review on quantum field theory with space–time resolution, Contemporary Physics51, 315 (2010)

    2010

  52. [52]

    Alkhateeb and A

    M. Alkhateeb and A. Matzkin, Space-time-resolved quantum field approach to Klein-tunneling dynamics across a finite barrier, Physical Review A106, L060202 (2022)

    2022

  53. [53]

    C. Gong, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Birth process of electron-positron pairs inside supercritical fields, Europhysics Letters141, 65001 (2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    Reznik, A

    B. Reznik, A. Retzker, and J. Silman, Violating Bell’s inequalities in vacuum, Physical Review A71, 042104 (2005)

    2005

  55. [55]

    B. de S. L. Torres, K. Wurtz, J. Polo-Gómez, and E. Martín-Martínez, Entanglement structure of quantum fields through local probes, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 58 (2023)

    2023