Foundations Research Review Archive
A review archive shows how a subject was understood at a particular time. It helps readers trace changing assumptions, experimental capabilities, and terminology. The selected reviews below complement the 2026 research map, a selective dated assessment whose source cutoffs are stated explicitly.
Dated entry points
Section titled “Dated entry points”2005: decoherence and interpretations. Schlosshauer’s review separates calculational decoherence mechanisms from interpretive claims about measurement. Use it to understand the structure of the debate, then consult the measurement bridge before treating an interpretive conclusion as settled.
2013: collapse models. Bassi and collaborators review dynamical models, their motivations, and experimental tests. Its parameter comparisons belong to the evidence then considered; use collapse-model questions to identify which assumptions must be carried into later comparisons.
2014: Bell nonlocality. Brunner and collaborators organize inequalities, correlations, applications, and experimental issues. The review is a structural reference, not an up-to-date list of experimental records.
2021: objectivity mechanisms. Korbicz compares quantum Darwinism, spectrum broadcast structures, and strong quantum Darwinism. It is useful for determining which definition of objectivity is being invoked.
2022: contextuality and collapse tests. Budroni and collaborators review contextuality notions and tests; Carlesso and collaborators review non-interferometric collapse constraints. They concern different model classes and should not be merged into a single “nonclassicality score.”
2025: massive systems and gravity. Bose and collaborators survey proposals and physical interfaces. A proposal’s date and a demonstration date are different facts.
How to use an older assessment
Section titled “How to use an older assessment”Keep stable definitions and derivations separate from dated evidence. A theorem may remain applicable while the best experimental number changes. Conversely, a later conceptual analysis may reveal an implicit assumption even if no apparatus has improved.
Check whether a cited work is a preprint, a revised version, or the final publication. If a later correction alters the inference, preserve the historical role of the older argument while using the corrected one for present reasoning.
The annual comparison method explains how to distinguish a stronger result from a change in terminology or scope. These reviews are selected entry points, not an exhaustive archive.
References
Section titled “References”- Bassi, Angelo, Kinjalk Lochan, Seema Satin, Tejinder P. Singh, and Hendrik Ulbricht, “Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests,” Reviews of Modern Physics 85, 471–527 (2013). Review.
- Bose, Sougato, et al., “Massive quantum systems as interfaces of quantum mechanics and gravity,” Reviews of Modern Physics 97, 015003 (2025). Review.
- Brunner, Nicolas, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner, “Bell nonlocality,” Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 419–478 (2014). Review.
- Budroni, Costantino, Adán Cabello, Otfried Gühne, Matthias Kleinmann, and Jan-Åke Larsson, “Kochen–Specker contextuality,” Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 045007 (2022). 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). Review.
- Korbicz, Jarosław K., “Roads to objectivity: Quantum Darwinism, Spectrum Broadcast Structures, and Strong quantum Darwinism—a review,” Quantum 5, 571 (2021). Review.
- Schlosshauer, Maximilian, “Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 1267–1305 (2005). Review.