Annual Foundations Research Map
Comparing foundations research across years means identifying a changed assumption, a stronger result, or a more discriminating experiment. Publication counts alone do not measure those changes. The 2026 research map provides a selective dated assessment with explicit source cutoffs; the method below explains how to compare such assessments without treating them as complete year-end surveys.
An annual comparison needs a baseline
Section titled “An annual comparison needs a baseline”A claim of improvement requires a previous result, a new result, and a common comparison basis. For an experimental constraint, the model, parameter conventions, confidence level, and included backgrounds must be comparable. For a theorem, record which assumption was removed, weakened, or added.
For example, a lower bound on a Bell score and a lower detection-efficiency requirement describe different advances. A new apparatus may improve one while leaving the other unchanged. Neither alone establishes a new interpretation of quantum theory.
Read developments by the question they answer
Section titled “Read developments by the question they answer”| Development type | Compare across years | Stable background |
|---|---|---|
| Bell or contextuality experiment | Scenario, loopholes, statistics, operational assumptions | Experiment index |
| Collapse constraint | Model variant, parameter plane, noise attribution | Collapse-model questions |
| Reconstruction theorem | Framework, independent axioms, reconstructed objects | Program map |
| Observer theorem | Consistency assumptions and agent-relative statements | Frauchiger–Renner |
| Classical-record study | Observable, fragments, accessible information, disturbance | Classical emergence |
| Gravity proposal or test | Interaction controls and inference about the mediator | Gravity interface |
Three dates with different meanings
Section titled “Three dates with different meanings”The preprint date marks public disclosure; the journal date marks a publication event; the experimental acquisition date identifies when data were collected. They need not coincide. A review published in one year may summarize a literature search ending earlier.
Likewise, a new version can correct an assumption without providing new experimental data. A careful annual comparison identifies the version and explains whether the change affects the result, its interpretation, or only presentation.
What to retain from a comparison
Section titled “What to retain from a comparison”For each meaningful development, retain a concise statement of the result, its assumptions, the supporting source, and the limitation that matters for interpretation. Label whether the contribution is established under assumptions, active, conjectural, speculative, or controversial.
A null result can be substantial progress if it excludes a well-defined model region. An unresolved debate can still become clearer through a sharper theorem. Conversely, repeated discussions of the same premise should not be reported as successive empirical discoveries.
The Living Review Archive provides published reviews with different historical scopes. Use their publication dates and cited sources to decide which comparisons they can support.
References
Section titled “References”- Brunner, Nicolas, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner, “Bell nonlocality,” Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 419–478 (2014) — an example of a field review whose evidence has a publication-era scope. Review.
- Carlesso, Matteo, Sandro Donadi, Luca Ferialdi, Mauro Paternostro, Hendrik Ulbricht, and Angelo Bassi, “Present status and future challenges of non-interferometric tests of collapse models,” Nature Physics 18, 243–250 (2022) — an example of a model-specific experimental assessment. Review.