Null-Result Weak Measurements

• Null-result weak measurements are quantum protocols that extract information from the absence of a detector click, revealing forbidden transition channels through pre- and postselection.
• The methodology employs a strong, rarely triggered partial-collapse measurement followed by a non-invasive postselection, leading to a distinct conditional probability ratio.
• This approach enhances signal-to-noise ratios in quantum state discrimination and metrological amplification while fueling debates on the interpretational meaning of quantum properties.

Null-result weak measurements refer to quantum measurement protocols in which information about a system is extracted from the absence of a detector click or pointer shift—i.e., a “null” outcome—often following a pre- and postselection procedure. These protocols play a central role both in the foundational analysis of quantum trajectories and in the development of alternative measurement amplification techniques. Null weak values, the hallmark signal of such measurements, arise when the underlying transition amplitude connecting pre- and postselected states through a measured observable vanishes. The phenomenon reveals forbidden quantum transitions or the absence of particular system properties in a conditional sense, and its interpretation is the subject of significant debate and operational research (Duprey et al., 2016, Duprey et al., 2017, Zilberberg et al., 2013, Zilberberg et al., 2013, Palma et al., 8 Dec 2025).

1. Theoretical Foundations: Weak Values and the Null Limit

A weak value $A_w$ is defined for a quantum system initially in state $|\psi_i\rangle$ at $t_i$, subject to a weak coupling to an observable $A$ at time $t_w$, and finally postselected in $|\chi_f\rangle$ at $t_f$. The weak value reads

$$A_w = \frac{\langle\chi_f|A|\psi_i\rangle}{\langle\chi_f|\psi_i\rangle}.$$

If $A$ is a projector $P = |X\rangle\langle X|$, the numerator $\langle\chi_f|P|\psi_i\rangle$ equals the transition amplitude passing through $X$. When this amplitude vanishes ($\langle\chi_f|P|\psi_i\rangle=0$), the corresponding weak value is zero and the weakly coupled pointer shows no mean shift. This is termed a null weak value. In this scenario, the local component of the evolving quantum state at $X$ cannot contribute to the postselected outcome, and the absence of a pointer response encodes a forbidden transition channel (Duprey et al., 2016, Duprey et al., 2017).

The mathematical equivalence between null weak values and vanishing transition amplitudes applies generally: $A_w = 0 \iff \langle\chi_f|A|\psi_i\rangle = 0.$ For general observables $A$ (not just projectors), $A_w=0$ signifies that whatever component of $|\psi_i\rangle$ couples through $A$ cannot evolve into $|\chi_f\rangle$; therefore, the system property measured by $A$ is effectively absent given the postselection.

2. Measurement Protocols and Operational Distinctions

Standard weak-value protocols (Aharonov–Albert–Vaidman, or AAV) weakly couple a pointer to the observable and postselect; the pointer’s mean shift is read out over many repetitions. Null-result weak measurement (sometimes termed “null weak values” or NWV protocol) instead employs a two-step architecture (Zilberberg et al., 2013, Zilberberg et al., 2013):

• A partial-collapse (formally strong, but rarely triggered) measurement is performed, which with small probability “clicks” and removes the system from further consideration.
• In the much more probable null outcome (“no click”), the state is only weakly disturbed.
• The system then evolves and is subject to a strong postselection measurement; the null weak value is obtained as a conditional probability ratio.

This approach differs in both backaction and data statistics from standard weak-value measurements:

• In AAV, the pointer is present and couples infinitesimally at every run; in NWV, runs with detector clicks are discarded, and amplification arises from the conditionalization on null postselection.
• The null weak value for projector $A$ in a two-level system is

$$A_{NWV} = \frac{\langle i|A|i\rangle}{|\langle f|i\rangle|^{2}}$$

where $|i\rangle$ is the initial state, $|f\rangle$ is the final postselection (Zilberberg et al., 2013).

3. Vanishing Weak Values in Quantum Interferometry

A concrete illustration appears in Duffrey and Matzkin’s three-path, spin-1 interferometer (Duprey et al., 2016, Duprey et al., 2017). Here, branching spatially via Stern–Gerlach fields, a quantum particle evolves along distinct alternatives. Strategic pre- and postselection allows weak values of spatial projectors $\Pi_X$ to take values $0$ (null) or $\pm1$ at prescribed locations and times. For instance, at time $t_2$, $\Pi_O^w=0$ due to vanishing $\langle\chi_f|\Pi_O|\psi\rangle$. A pointer weakly coupled at $O$ is never shifted, indicating a null result. Importantly, this also predicts that a strong pointer, if sufficiently non-disturbing, will never “click” at $O$—the null weak value and null-result strong measurement are underpinned by the same transition amplitude cancellation.

If multiple strong acquisitions are added so as to disrupt quantum interference, the cancellation can fail and the pointer at $O$ may click. The coincidence of null weak values and zero-click strong measurements is thus contingent on non-disruptive measurement configurations (Duprey et al., 2017, Duprey et al., 2016).

4. Null-Result Weak Measurement Dynamics and Information-Theoretic Analysis

Continuous quantum monitoring with null outcomes leads to nontrivial, conditional state evolution, especially for bosonic modes and multilevel systems. The absence of a “jump” event (e.g., photon detection) updates the system density matrix via Kraus operators

$$M_0(t) = \exp\left(-\frac{\gamma t}{2}\hat n\right)$$

where $\hat n$ is the occupation number operator, $\gamma$ is the monitoring rate, and $t$ is the elapsed time (Palma et al., 8 Dec 2025). After a null result, the conditional probabilities over Fock basis elements update as

$$p_n(t) = \frac{p_n\,e^{-\gamma t\,n}}{\sum_{m=0}^N p_m\,e^{-\gamma t\,m}}$$

for initial probabilities $\{p_n\}$. Operationally, the information gain can be quantified by reduction in Shannon entropy $H(t)$, increase in mutual information $I(X:Y)$, fidelity decay $F(t)$, and increase in Kullback–Leibler divergence $D[p(t)\|p(0)]$. The protocol admits a partial reversal—attempts to “undo” the measurement backaction are only probabilistically successful, with success probability decaying rapidly as $t$ or system dimension increases (Palma et al., 8 Dec 2025).

5. Comparative Summary: Null Weak Values Versus Standard Weak Values

Both standard weak-value (AAV) and null-result weak-value (NWV) protocols involve two measurements with postselection, but the mathematical and operational underpinning differ (Zilberberg et al., 2013, Zilberberg et al., 2013):

• AAV weak values are complex and depend on the off-diagonal transition $\langle f|A|i\rangle$, whereas NWVs are real, depending on initial expectation values $\langle i|A|i\rangle$ and the squared postselection overlap.
• AAV amplification is statistical and requires significant data discarding in rare postselection regimes; NWV amplification leverages the abundance of null outcomes at the first stage and loses less data during postselection.
• AAV weak values reflect pointer shifts in standard von Neumann meters; NWVs arise from conditioning on classical “no-click” events and yield direct probability ratios.
• In both approaches, amplification—potentially of anomalous magnitude—occurs when $|\langle f|i\rangle|\to 0$.

Feature	AAV (Standard Weak Value)	NWV (Null Weak Value)
First measurement	Infinitesimal, always runs	Strong, rare “partial collapse,” runs mostly “null”
Meter type	Quantum pointer	Classical detector (“click/no-click”)
Amplification basis	Small denominator (postsel overlap)	Conditional probability ratio
Complex-valued?	Yes	No (real, direct)

6. Interpretational Debates and Conceptual Significance

The meaning of null weak values is interpretationally contested (Duprey et al., 2017, Duprey et al., 2016):

• Under a statistical (operationalist) view, a null weak value is merely a calculation artifact—a consequence of transition amplitude cancellation, encoding which virtual paths are permitted under pre- and postselection, but not implying absence of physical properties.
• Under an “extended undulatory entity” (wavefunction-realist) stance, a null weak value indicates genuine local absence of the property measured by $A$ in the specified region and time, justifying statements such as “the system was not there” in a conditionalized, non-classical sense.

Experimental protocols do not distinguish these interpretations; both agree that when the relevant transition amplitude vanishes, the pointer is never shifted and, for non-disturbing strong measurements, there is also no detector click. The operational coincidence of null weak values and no-click strong measurements is robust to all technical implementation choices that leave quantum interference intact (Duprey et al., 2017).

7. Applications, Extensions, and Practical Considerations

Null-result weak measurement protocols provide distinctive advantages for quantum state discrimination, metrological amplification under quantum noise, and the study of quantum trajectories without wavefunction collapse (Zilberberg et al., 2013, Zilberberg et al., 2013). Because null results dominate in their data streams, NWVs can achieve better signal-to-noise in Poissonian-limited measurements compared to conventional weak value schemes. Various experimental platforms—including quantum optics (beamsplitter reflection), solid-state (quantum dot/tunnel barriers), and multilevel atomic systems—have implemented or can implement NWV protocols.

With the ability to generalize to arbitrary $d$-level systems and to connect to continuous monitoring and information-theoretic analyses, null-result weak measurements form a technical framework for both foundational and applied quantum measurement science (Palma et al., 8 Dec 2025, Zilberberg et al., 2013).

---

References:

• (Duprey et al., 2016) Null weak values and the past of a quantum particle
• (Duprey et al., 2017) Reply to Comment on "Null weak values and the past of a quantum particle"
• (Zilberberg et al., 2013) Standard and Null Weak Values
• (Zilberberg et al., 2013) Null weak values in multi-level systems
• (Palma et al., 8 Dec 2025) Information-Theoretic Analysis of Weak Measurements and Their Reversal