Full (!) referee report (2024):
Although I work on very similar questions, I could not follow this paper. It is written from the point of view of "decoherent histories", which is a literature with their own specialized language for discussing these questions. The fact that I could not get much out of this paper suggests that it is not written appropriately for PRL.
Editorial assessment (2023):
The changes in the manuscript are minimal and so is, consequently, the change in the opinion of the editors.
Editorial assessment (2023):
This manuscript is mostly about elementary statistics, and I find it of little relevance to any real problem. [...] Ironically, taking this into account [...] would also make it clear that it is trivial.
External expert (2023):
In my opinion, the calculational part is correct. But is it relevant? I do not think so.
Editorial board member (2023):
[Strasberg] advocates for more consistency with traditional thermodynamic notions [...]. Unfortunately, this type of argumentation always has to fall short. [...] [This] only expresses a lack of historic awareness of the author.
Referee report (2023):
The authors substantially edited and extended their manuscript [and] while the manuscript has become substantially longer it did not gain much in clarity and rigor.
Referee report (2021):
While the manuscript is technically correct, the interpretation of the results is overblown.
Referee report (2021):
The Authors seem quite unfamiliar with quantum foundations, and given the mess it is in the Referee can hardly recommend they spend much time there. [...] There are essentially no results which are “independent of any interpretation of quantum theory”. [...] The discipline of Quantum Foundations is in a miserable mess.
Referee report (2020):
Unless the authors can make significant changes to the manuscript, I see no possibility that this manuscript could appear as a tutorial article. [...] [That the entropy production describes the increase in entropy of the universe] is a classical result. It does not mean that it must also be true in the quantum case.
Referee report (2020):
[The paper] is logically weak, incomplete and inconconclusive.
Referee report (2020):
Their presentation does not rise to the generality which would be required to meet the objections of someone of Prof Hänggi’s stature.
Referee report (2019):
Strasberg spends quite some effort to correctly and consistently define all the energies and entropies [...], but there is no particular insights to be gained here apart from how to do it properly in general.
Referee report (2016):
I can only explain it such that the authors intentionally ignore the relevant literature for the purpose of better selling their new scientific results. For me this represents a clear case of severe scientific misconduct.
External expert (2016):
I think this paper will not generate many citations.
(but it did :-p)