Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/0612159

Weak Measurements and Counterfactual Computation

Onur Hosten, Paul G. Kwiat

Published Dec 19, 2006• 7 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0612159

Related papers

Counterfactual computation revisited

Onur Hosten, Matthew T. Rakher, Julio T. Barreiro +2 more

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.

arXiv:quant-ph/0607101•Jul 14, 2006•5 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

Where is the Quantum Particle between two Position Measurements?

Lev Vaidman A

A controversy about counterfactual computation [Hosten et al., Nature, 439, 949 (2006), Vaidman, PRL 98, 160403 (2007)] reveals a paradoxical feature of a pre- and post-selected quantum particle: it can reach a certain location without being on the path that leads to and from this location.

International Conference on Quantum Information•Jan 1, 2008•0 citations

Comment on "Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements"

Juan José Seoane, Xabier Oianguren-Asua, Albert Solé +1 more

In their paper (arXiv:2402.09879), Aredes and Saldanha analyze several paradoxes related to weak values and present a "general argument" that aims to show that "realistic interpretations ...of weak values lead to inconsistencies". Although we agree with the identified inconsistencies for the specific weak values analyzed there, in this Comment we demonstrate that the origin of these inconsistencies is not their general argument, which is formally incorrect. We use Bohmian mechanics as a counterexample to confirm that their conclusions are not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. In particular, we show that weak values postselected in position can in fact be interpreted within Bohmian mechanics as properties of quantum systems, detached from any measuring devices, in a consistent and meaningful way.

quant-pharXiv:2603.18713•Physical Review A•Mar 20, 2026•3 citations

Weak measurements in quantum mechanics

Lajos Diósi

The article recapitulates the concept of weak measurement in its broader sense encapsulating the trade between asymptotically weak measurement precision and asymptotically large measurement statistics. Essential applications in time-continuous measurement and in postselected measurement are presented both in classical and in quantum contexts. We discuss the anomalous quantum weak value in postselected measurement. We concentrate on the general mathematical and physical aspects of weak measurements and we do not expand on their interpretation. Particular applications, even most familiar ones, are not subject of the article which was written for Elsevier's Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0505075•May 10, 2005•9 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
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.
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 their paper (arXiv:2402.09879), Aredes and Saldanha analyze several paradoxes related to weak values and present a "general argument" that aims to show that "realistic interpretations ...of weak values lead to inconsistencies". Although we agree with the identified inconsistencies for the specific weak values analyzed there, in this Comment we demonstrate that the origin of these inconsistencies is not their general argument, which is formally incorrect. We use Bohmian mechanics as a counterexample to confirm that their conclusions are not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. In particular, we show that weak values postselected in position can in fact be interpreted within Bohmian mechanics as properties of quantum systems, detached from any measuring devices, in a consistent and meaningful way.
The article recapitulates the concept of weak measurement in its broader sense encapsulating the trade between asymptotically weak measurement precision and asymptotically large measurement statistics. Essential applications in time-continuous measurement and in postselected measurement are presented both in classical and in quantum contexts. We discuss the anomalous quantum weak value in postselected measurement. We concentrate on the general mathematical and physical aspects of weak measurements and we do not expand on their interpretation. Particular applications, even most familiar ones, are not subject of the article which was written for Elsevier's Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics.