© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:1704.00958 · Foundations of Physics

What Weak Measurements and Weak Values Really Mean: Reply to Kastner

Eliahu Cohen

Published Jun 16, 2017• 12 citations

Abstract

Despite their important applications in metrology and in spite of numerous experimental demonstrations, weak measurements are still confusing for part of the community. This sometimes leads to unjustified criticism. Recent papers have experimentally clarified the meaning and practical significance of weak measurements, yet in Kastner (Found Phys 47:697-707, 2017), Kastner seems to take us many years backwards in the the debate, casting doubt on the very term "weak value" and the meaning of weak measurements. Kastner appears to ignore both the basics and frontiers of weak measurements and misinterprets the weak measurement process and its outcomes. In addition, she accuses the authors of Aharonov et al. (Ann Phys 355:258-268, 2015) in statements completely opposite to the ones they have actually made. There are many points of disagreement between Kastner and us, but in this short reply I will leave aside the ontology (which is indeed interpretational and far more complex than that described by Kastner) and focus mainly on the injustice in her criticism. I shall add some general comments regarding the broader theory of weak measurements and the two-state-vector formalism, as well as supporting experimental results. Finally, I will point out some recent promising results, which can be proven by (strong) projective measurements, without the need of employing weak measurements.

DOI: 10.1007/s10701-017-0107-2

Related papers

Role of weak values in strong measurements

F. De Zela

The physical meaning of the quantum weak value still remains a matter of debate. Originally introduced by Aharonov et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351 (1988).] as another counterintuitive feature of quantum mechanics, it eventually evolved into a practical tool that is widely used. The theoretical framework in which weak values were introduced was given by von Neumann's model of quantum measurements. In this model, a system is submitted to measurement by coupling it to a ``pointer,'' or meter. In the weak-coupling regime, one may perform a low-order Taylor expansion for the evolution operator of the system and meter. This standard approach ties weak values with weak couplings and weak measurements. We report closed-form expressions that can be used to untie weak values from weak measurements. The regime of strong measurements thereby becomes accessible to weak values, without leaving the framework in which the latter were originally introduced. The reported results should also help us to better understand the physical meaning of weak values.

Physical Review A•Apr 4, 2022•12 citations

Colloquium : Understanding quantum weak values: Basics and applications

Justin Dressel, Mehul Malik, Filippo M. Miatto +2 more

Since its introduction 25 years ago, the quantum weak value has gradually transitioned from a theoretical curiosity to a practical laboratory tool. While its utility is apparent in the recent explosion of weak value experiments, its interpretation has historically been a subject of confusion. Here a pragmatic introduction to the weak value in terms of measurable quantities is presented, along with an explanation for how it can be determined in the laboratory. Further, its application to three distinct experimental techniques is reviewed. First, as a large interaction parameter it can amplify small signals above technical background noise. Second, as a measurable complex value it enables novel techniques for direct quantum state and geometric phase determination. Third, as a conditioned average of generalized observable eigenvalues it provides a measurable window into nonclassical features of quantum mechanics. In this selective review, a single experimental configuration to discuss and clarify each of these applications is used.

arXiv:1305.7154•Reviews of Modern Physics•Mar 28, 2014•700 citations

Weak-value amplification: state of play

George C. Knee, Joshua Combes, Christopher Ferrie +1 more

Abstract Weak values arise in quantum theory when the result of a weak measurement is conditioned on a subsequent strong measurement. The majority of the trials are discarded, leaving only very few successful events. Intriguingly those can display a substantial signal amplification. This raises the question of whether weak values carry potential to improve the performance of quantum sensors, and indeed a number of impressive experimental results suggested this may be the case. By contrast, recent theoretical studies have found the opposite: using weak-values to obtain an amplification generally worsens metrological performance. This survey summarises the implications of those studies, which call for a reappraisal of weak values’ utility and for further work to reconcile theory and experiment.

arXiv:1410.6252•Quantum Measurements and Quantum Metrology•Jan 1, 2016•28 citations

The Trouble with Weak Values

Jacob A. Barandes

In quantum theory, a weak value is a complex number with a somewhat technical definition: it is a ratio whose numerator is the matrix element of a self-adjoint operator and whose denominator is the inner product of a corresponding pair of state vectors. Weak values first appeared in the research literature in a pair of papers in 1987 and 1988, and were originally defined as the results of a special kind of experimental protocol involving non-disturbing measurements combined with an explicit form of post-selection. In the years since, subsequent papers on weak values have produced a number of important practical spin-offs, including new methods for signal amplification and quantum-state tomography. The present work is not concerned with those practical spin-offs, but with historical and ongoing attempts to assign weak values a transparent, single-system interpretation, as well as efforts that invoke weak values to make a number of exotic claims about the properties and behavior of individual quantum systems. This paper challenges these interpretational claims by arguing that they involve several forms of fallacious reasoning.

quant-pharXiv:2602.09380•Feb 11, 2026•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements' ”

Alice M. Aredes, Pablo L. Saldanha

Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.

Physical Review A•Jun 2, 2025•1 citation

What do quantum "weak" measurements actually measure?

Stephen Parrott

A precise definition of "weak [quantum] measurements" and "weak value" (of a quantum observable) is offered, and simple finite dimensional examples are given showing that weak values are not unique and therefore probably do not correspond to any physical attribute of the system being "weakly" measured, contrary to impressions given by most of the literature on weak measurements. A possible mathematical error in the seminal paper introducing "weak values" is explicitly identified. A mathematically rigorous argument obtains results similar to, and more general than, the main result of that paper and concludes that even in the infinite-dimensional context of that paper, weak values are not unique. This implies that the "usual" formula for weak values is not universal, but can apply only to specific physical situations. The paper is written in a more pedagogical and informal style than is usual in the research literature in the hope that it might serve as an introduction to weak values.

arXiv:0908.0035•Aug 3, 2009•6 citations

Despite their important applications in metrology and in spite of numerous experimental demonstrations, weak measurements are still confusing for part of the community. This sometimes leads to unjustified criticism. Recent papers have experimentally clarified the meaning and practical significance of weak measurements, yet in Kastner (Found Phys 47:697-707, 2017), Kastner seems to take us many years backwards in the the debate, casting doubt on the very term "weak value" and the meaning of weak measurements. Kastner appears to ignore both the basics and frontiers of weak measurements and misinterprets the weak measurement process and its outcomes. In addition, she accuses the authors of Aharonov et al. (Ann Phys 355:258-268, 2015) in statements completely opposite to the ones they have actually made. There are many points of disagreement between Kastner and us, but in this short reply I will leave aside the ontology (which is indeed interpretational and far more complex than that described by Kastner) and focus mainly on the injustice in her criticism. I shall add some general comments regarding the broader theory of weak measurements and the two-state-vector formalism, as well as supporting experimental results. Finally, I will point out some recent promising results, which can be proven by (strong) projective measurements, without the need of employing weak measurements.

The physical meaning of the quantum weak value still remains a matter of debate. Originally introduced by Aharonov et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351 (1988).] as another counterintuitive feature of quantum mechanics, it eventually evolved into a practical tool that is widely used. The theoretical framework in which weak values were introduced was given by von Neumann's model of quantum measurements. In this model, a system is submitted to measurement by coupling it to a ``pointer,'' or meter. In the weak-coupling regime, one may perform a low-order Taylor expansion for the evolution operator of the system and meter. This standard approach ties weak values with weak couplings and weak measurements. We report closed-form expressions that can be used to untie weak values from weak measurements. The regime of strong measurements thereby becomes accessible to weak values, without leaving the framework in which the latter were originally introduced. The reported results should also help us to better understand the physical meaning of weak values.

Since its introduction 25 years ago, the quantum weak value has gradually transitioned from a theoretical curiosity to a practical laboratory tool. While its utility is apparent in the recent explosion of weak value experiments, its interpretation has historically been a subject of confusion. Here a pragmatic introduction to the weak value in terms of measurable quantities is presented, along with an explanation for how it can be determined in the laboratory. Further, its application to three distinct experimental techniques is reviewed. First, as a large interaction parameter it can amplify small signals above technical background noise. Second, as a measurable complex value it enables novel techniques for direct quantum state and geometric phase determination. Third, as a conditioned average of generalized observable eigenvalues it provides a measurable window into nonclassical features of quantum mechanics. In this selective review, a single experimental configuration to discuss and clarify each of these applications is used.

Abstract Weak values arise in quantum theory when the result of a weak measurement is conditioned on a subsequent strong measurement. The majority of the trials are discarded, leaving only very few successful events. Intriguingly those can display a substantial signal amplification. This raises the question of whether weak values carry potential to improve the performance of quantum sensors, and indeed a number of impressive experimental results suggested this may be the case. By contrast, recent theoretical studies have found the opposite: using weak-values to obtain an amplification generally worsens metrological performance. This survey summarises the implications of those studies, which call for a reappraisal of weak values’ utility and for further work to reconcile theory and experiment.

In quantum theory, a weak value is a complex number with a somewhat technical definition: it is a ratio whose numerator is the matrix element of a self-adjoint operator and whose denominator is the inner product of a corresponding pair of state vectors. Weak values first appeared in the research literature in a pair of papers in 1987 and 1988, and were originally defined as the results of a special kind of experimental protocol involving non-disturbing measurements combined with an explicit form of post-selection. In the years since, subsequent papers on weak values have produced a number of important practical spin-offs, including new methods for signal amplification and quantum-state tomography. The present work is not concerned with those practical spin-offs, but with historical and ongoing attempts to assign weak values a transparent, single-system interpretation, as well as efforts that invoke weak values to make a number of exotic claims about the properties and behavior of individual quantum systems. This paper challenges these interpretational claims by arguing that they involve several forms of fallacious reasoning.

Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.

A precise definition of "weak [quantum] measurements" and "weak value" (of a quantum observable) is offered, and simple finite dimensional examples are given showing that weak values are not unique and therefore probably do not correspond to any physical attribute of the system being "weakly" measured, contrary to impressions given by most of the literature on weak measurements. A possible mathematical error in the seminal paper introducing "weak values" is explicitly identified. A mathematically rigorous argument obtains results similar to, and more general than, the main result of that paper and concludes that even in the infinite-dimensional context of that paper, weak values are not unique. This implies that the "usual" formula for weak values is not universal, but can apply only to specific physical situations. The paper is written in a more pedagogical and informal style than is usual in the research literature in the hope that it might serve as an introduction to weak values.