© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/0607101

Counterfactual computation revisited

Onur Hosten, Matthew T. Rakher, Julio T. Barreiro, Nicholas A. Peters, Paul G. Kwiat

Published Jul 14, 2006• 5 citations

Abstract

Mitchison and Jozsa recently suggested that the "chained-Zeno" counterfactual computation protocol recently proposed by Hosten et al. is counterfactual for only one output of the computer. This claim was based on the existing abstract algebraic definition of counterfactual computation, and indeed according to this definition, their argument is correct. However, a more general definition (physically adequate) for counterfactual computation is implicitly assumed by Hosten et. al. Here we explain in detail why the protocol is counterfactual and how the "history tracking" method of the existing description inadequately represents the physics underlying the protocol. Consequently, we propose a modified definition of counterfactual computation. Finally, we comment on one of the most interesting aspects of the error-correcting protocol.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0607101

Related papers

Weak Measurements and Counterfactual Computation

Onur Hosten, Paul G. Kwiat

Vaidman, in a recent article adopts the method of 'quantum weak measurements in pre- and postselected ensembles' to ascertain whether or not the chained-Zeno counterfactual computation scheme proposed by Hosten et al. is counterfactual; which has been the topic of a debate on the definition of counterfactuality. We disagree with his conclusion, which brings up some interesting aspects of quantum weak measurements and some concerns about the way they are interpreted.

arXiv:quant-ph/0612159•Dec 19, 2006•7 citations

The limits of counterfactual computation

Graeme Mitchison, Richard Jozsa

We show that the protocol recently proposed by Hosten et al. does not allow all possible results of a computation to be obtained counterfactually, as was claimed. It only gives a counterfactual outcome for one of the computer outputs. However, we confirm the observation that the protocol gives some protection against decoherence. In some situations, though, it may be more effective simply to run the computer several times.

arXiv:quant-ph/0606092•Jun 10, 2006•10 citations

Impossibility of the Counterfactual Computation for All Possible Outcomes

Lev Vaidman A

A recent proposal for counterfactual computation [O. Hosten et al. Nature (London) 439, 949 (2006) is analyzed. It is argued that the method does not provide counterfactual computation for all possible outcomes. The explanation involves a novel paradoxical feature of pre- and postselected quantum particles: The particle can reach a certain location without being on the path that leads to this location.

arXiv:quant-ph/0610174•Physical Review Letters•Apr 18, 2007•58 citations

Reply to "Comment on Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication"

Hatim Salih, Li, Zheng-Hong, M. Al-Amri +1 more

In reply to Vaidman's Comment [arXiv:1304.6689], we show that his claim that our Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication [PRL 110, 170502 (2013), arXiv:1206.2042] is counterfactual only for one type of information bit is wrong.

arXiv:1404.5392•Apr 22, 2014•4 citations

Comment on “Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication”

Lev Vaidman A

I argue that recent "Protocol for Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication" by Salih et al. [PRL 110, 170502 (2013), arXiv:1206.2042] is counterfactual only for one type of the information bit.

arXiv:1304.6689•Physical Review Letters•May 23, 2014•64 citations

Comment on “Multitime quantum communication: Interesting but not counterfactual”

Lev Vaidman A

In a recent paper, Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)] analyzed a protocol for transmission of information between two parties introduced by Salih et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170502 (2013)]. There is a considerable controversy about the counterfactuality of this protocol, and Griffiths suggested to resolve it by introducing a new measure of channel usage, which he called ``Cost.'' I argue that this measure is not appropriate because the original interaction-free measurement protocol which triggered the definition of the concept of counterfactuality is not counterfactual according to this measure.

arXiv:2306.16756•Physical Review A•Nov 8, 2023•2 citations

Mitchison and Jozsa recently suggested that the "chained-Zeno" counterfactual computation protocol recently proposed by Hosten et al. is counterfactual for only one output of the computer. This claim was based on the existing abstract algebraic definition of counterfactual computation, and indeed according to this definition, their argument is correct. However, a more general definition (physically adequate) for counterfactual computation is implicitly assumed by Hosten et. al. Here we explain in detail why the protocol is counterfactual and how the "history tracking" method of the existing description inadequately represents the physics underlying the protocol. Consequently, we propose a modified definition of counterfactual computation. Finally, we comment on one of the most interesting aspects of the error-correcting protocol.

In a recent paper, Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)] analyzed a protocol for transmission of information between two parties introduced by Salih et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170502 (2013)]. There is a considerable controversy about the counterfactuality of this protocol, and Griffiths suggested to resolve it by introducing a new measure of channel usage, which he called ``Cost.'' I argue that this measure is not appropriate because the original interaction-free measurement protocol which triggered the definition of the concept of counterfactuality is not counterfactual according to this measure.