- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Weak continuous measurements require more work than strong ones

Lorena Ballesteros Ferraz1,2,* and Cyril Elouard1,†

  • *Contact author: lorena.ballesteros-ferraz@cyu.fr
  • †Contact author: cyril.elouard@univ-lorraine.fr
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013305 – Published 19 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/6p2c-nbg5

Abstract

Understanding the energy cost of quantum measurement process and its connection to the measurement performance faces the challenge of modeling the objectification process. The latter turns the measurement result into an objective fact, available to independent observers, and is responsible for the measurement irreversibility. To address this issue, we propose and analyze a dynamical model of quantum measurement, able to capture nonideal (weak and inefficient) measurements. In this model, the objectification is induced by a contact with a macroscopic reservoir at equilibrium that is responsible for the redundant broadcast of the measurement outcome (producing a spectrum broadcast structure state) while inducing decoherence in the pointer basis, in the line of the theory of quantum Darwinism. We analyze the performance of the obtained measurement process by introducing figures of merit to quantify the strength of the measurement and its efficiency. We also derive a lower bound on the measurement work cost that we can relate to the measurement quality. We take as an illustration the readout of a qubit via its coupling to a harmonic oscillator. We investigate the long sequences of extremely short and weak measurements (also known as continuous measurements), to find under which conditions they converge to an ideal (projective) measurement and analyze their work cost. Surprisingly, we find that a sequence converging to projective measurement has a much larger work cost than an equivalent strong measurement obtained from a single intense interaction with the apparatus. We extend this result to a large class of models owing to scaling arguments. Our analysis offers insights into the trade-offs between measurement strength, energy consumption, and information extraction in quantum measurement protocols.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (44)

  1. V. B. Braginsky and F. Y. Khalili, Quantum Measurement (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995).
  2. A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Understanding quantum measurement from the solution of dynamical models, Phys. Rep. 525, 1 (2013).
  3. Č. Brukner, On the quantum measurement problem, Quantum [Un]Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell’s Theorem (Springer International Publishing, New York, 2017), pp. 95–117.
  4. R. B. Griffiths, What quantum measurements measure, Phys. Rev. A 96, 032110 (2017).
  5. P. Busch, P. Lahti, J.-P. Pellonpää, and K. Ylinen, Quantum Measurement (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016), Vol. 23.
  6. H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Measurement and Control (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
  7. A. N. Jordan and I. A. Siddiqi, Quantum Measurement: Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2024).
  8. A. Auffèves and P. Grangier, A generic model for quantum measurements, Entropy 21, 904 (2019).
  9. P. Warszawski, H. M. Wiseman, and H. Mabuchi, Quantum trajectories for realistic detection, Phys. Rev. A 65, 023802 (2002).
  10. J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1955).
  11. E. Joos, H. D. Zeh, C. Kiefer, D. J. W. Giulini, J. Kupsch, and I.-O. Stamatescu, Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013).
  12. W. H. Zurek, Quantum darwinism, Nat. Phys. 5, 181 (2009).
  13. J. M. R. Parrondo, J. M. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa, Thermodynamics of information, Nat. Phys. 11, 131 (2015).
  14. C. Elouard and A. N. Jordan, Efficient quantum measurement engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 260601 (2018).
  15. L. Buffoni, A. Solfanelli, P. Verrucchi, A. Cuccoli, and M. Campisi, Quantum measurement cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 070603 (2019).
  16. A. N. Jordan, C. Elouard, and A. Auffèves, Quantum measurement engines and their relevance for quantum interpretations, Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 7, 203 (2020).
  17. P. Fadler, A. Friedenberger, and E. Lutz, Efficiency at maximum power of a Carnot quantum information engine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 240401 (2023).
  18. M. Fellous-Asiani, J. H. Chai, Y. Thonnart, H. K. Ng, R. S. Whitney, and A. Auffèves, Optimizing resource efficiencies for scalable full-stack quantum computers, PRX Quantum 4, 040319 (2023).
  19. S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, et al., Advances in quantum cryptography, Adv. Opt. Photon. 12, 1012 (2020).
  20. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017).
  21. K. Jacobs, Second law of thermodynamics and quantum feedback control: Maxwell’s demon with weak measurements, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012322 (2009).
  22. T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Minimal energy cost for thermodynamic information processing: Measurement and information erasure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 250602 (2009).
  23. S. Deffner, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, Quantum work and the thermodynamic cost of quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. E 94, 010103 (2016).
  24. T. Debarba, G. Manzano, Y. Guryanova, M. Huber, and N. Friis, Work estimation and work fluctuations in the presence of non-ideal measurements, New J. Phys. 21, 113002 (2019).
  25. M. H. Mohammady, Thermodynamically free quantum measurements, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55, 505304 (2022).
  26. N. Piccione, M. Maffei, X. Linpeng, A. N. Jordan, K. W. Murch, and A. Auffèves, Fundamental mechanisms of energy exchanges in autonomous measurements based on dispersive qubit-light interaction, Phys. Rev. A 109, 063707 (2024).
  27. C. L. Latune and C. Elouard, Thermodynamically reversible quantum measurements and related work costs, Quantum 9, 1614 (2025).
  28. Y. Guryanova, N. Friis, and M. Huber, Ideal projective measurements have infinite resource costs, Quantum 4, 222 (2020).
  29. K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck, A straightforward introduction to continuous quantum measurement, Contemp. Phys. 47, 279 (2006).
  30. M. H. Mohammady, Classicality of the heat produced by quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062202 (2021).
  31. S. Engineer, T. Rivlin, S. Wollmann, M. Malik, and M. P. E. Lock, Equilibration of objective observables in a dynamical model of quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A 113, 032205 (2026).
  32. R. Horodecki, J. K. Korbicz, and P. Horodecki, Quantum origins of objectivity, Phys. Rev. A 91, 032122 (2015).
  33. E. Flurin, The Josephson mixer: Aswiss army knife for microwave quantum optics, Ph.D. thesis, Ecole normale supérieure (ENS), Paris, France, 2014.
  34. M. Popovic, M. T. Mitchison, and J. Goold, Thermodynamics of decoherence, Proc. R. Soc. A 479, 20230040 (2023).
  35. R. Landauer, Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process, IBM J. Res. Dev. 5, 183 (1961).
  36. M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Entropy production as correlation between system and reservoir, New J. Phys. 12, 013013 (2010).
  37. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010).
  38. M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013).
  39. H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum theory of field-quadrature measurements, Phys. Rev. A 47, 642 (1993).
  40. Q. Ficheux, S. Jezouin, Z. Leghtas, and B. Huard, Dynamics of a qubit while simultaneously monitoring its relaxation and dephasing, Nat. Commun. 9, 1926 (2018).
  41. K. W. Murch, S. J. Weber, C. Macklin, and I. Siddiqi, Observing single quantum trajectories of a superconducting quantum bit, Nature (London) 502, 211 (2013).
  42. J. Preskill, Quantum Shannon theory, arXiv:1604.07450.
  43. This remains true for any model as those conditions imply that the conditional postmeasurement state is captured by a single measurement operator ρ̂S|r∝M̂rρ̂S(0)M̂r†.
  44. L. Mancino, M. Sbroscia, E. Roccia, I. Gianani, F. Somma, P. Mataloni, M. Paternostro, and M. Barbieri, The entropic cost of quantum generalized measurements, npj Quantum Inf. 4, 20 (2018).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013305– Published 19 March, 2026
  • Received 5 March 2025
  • Accepted 13 February 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation