Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Strong unitary uncertainty relations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For two unitary operators, a full chain of variance bounds improves on the Gram-determinant bound.

desk verdict A genuinely tighter two-operator unitary uncertainty relation, built on a monotone sequence of partial Cauchy-Schwarz bounds, but the printed proof of monotonicity has a fixable algebraic error. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05053 v1 pith:3XNLPROK submitted 2019-08-14 quant-ph

Bing Yu , Naihuan Jing , Xianqing Li-Jost This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P1515A45
keywords unitaryuncertaintyrelationsvariance-basedCauchy-Schwarzinequalitygeometric-arithmeticmeanpartialGramdeterminantboundquantumstatevectorization
topics The Measurement Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to show that the product of variances of two unitary operators, taken in any quantum state, is bounded below not by a single number but by a descending sequence of bounds, each at least as tight as the previous one. The tightest member of the sequence reproduces and then improves the Gram-determinant bound previously obtained from a positive-semidefinite Gram matrix. The same construction yields an explicit product-form bound for three unitary operators, and a permutation trick strengthens the two-operator bounds further. If correct, the paper replaces the coarse Cauchy-Schwarz step behind earlier unitary uncertainty relations with a term-by-term refinement and supplies strictly better lower bounds in explicit examples.

What carries the argument

The central object is the family of partial sums $I_k$ in Eq. (5): one starts with the full product of variances and selectively folds pairs of cross terms into squares $(\sum_{i\le k} x_i y_i)^2$, leaving the remaining terms as explicit sums. The paper claims the sequence is descending, $I_1 \ge I_2 \ge \dots \ge I_N$, so that the raw variance product $I_1 = \Delta A^2\Delta B^2$ is connected to the Cauchy-Schwarz bound $I_N$ through a chain of ever-tighter inequalities. The supporting devices are the geometric-arithmetic mean inequality applied term by term, the vectorization identity $|M^T\rangle = (I\otimes M)|T\rangle$ used to treat mixed states as pure states of dimension $n^2$, and the permutation action of the symmetric group used in Theorem 2 to strengthen the bounds.

What would settle it

Sample random unitary pairs and random states numerically, compute $\Delta A^2\Delta B^2$ and each $I_k$ from Eq. (5), and check whether any $I_k$ exceeds $\Delta A^2\Delta B^2$; such an instance would disprove Theorem 1. Separately, expanding $I_{k+1}-I_k$ symbolically yields a nonpositive identity, so a correct expansion must be supplied to repair the proof's displayed step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for two unitary operators $A$ and $B$ on an $n$-dimensional Hilbert space and any state $\rho$, the product of variances satisfies $\Delta A^2\Delta B^2 \ge I_k$ for every $k=1,\dots,N$, where $N=n$ for pure states and $N=n^2$ for mixed states, and $I_k$ is the partial sum defined in Eq. (5). Because the chain ends at $I_N = (\sum_i |\alpha_i||\beta_i|)^2$, which is at least $|\langle A^\dagger B\rangle - \langle A^\dagger\rangle\langle B\rangle|^2$, every bound in the sequence is as strong as the Gram-determinant bound, and the paper's examples show the improvement can be strict. For three unitary operators, the paper claims $\Delta A^2\Delta B^2\Delta C^2 \ge (I_kJ_kK_k)^{1/2}$, and for mixed states the analysis proceeds by vectorizing the square root of the density matrix. The whole construction rests on a fine-grained replacement of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality by a sequence of partial inequalities built from the geometric-arithmetic mean inequality.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sequence $I_1 \ge I_2 \ge \dots \ge I_N$ truly descends, because every claimed improvement over the Gram bound uses this chain; the paper's displayed proof of this step contains an algebraic slip, so the descent must be established by a corrected calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 1 holds, the two-operator bound $\Delta A^2\Delta B^2 \ge I_k$ is at least as strong as the Gram-determinant bound for every $k$, and strictly stronger whenever $I_k > I_N$.
  • Corollary 1 gives an explicit product-form lower bound $(I_kJ_kK_k)^{1/2}$ for three unitary operators, replacing the implicit determinant of the Gram matrix with readily computable sums.
  • Theorem 2's permutation-optimized bounds are at least as tight as the unoptimized $I_k$, and the paper's Example 1 shows the strengthening can be strict.
  • For mixed states, the same chain of bounds applies in dimension $n^2$ via vectorization, so the improvement over the Gram-determinant bound is not limited to pure states.
  • For four unitary operators, the paper notes that the product of two two-operator bounds $I_kJ_k$ can remain tighter than the Gram-determinant bound in an explicit five-dimensional example.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not stated in the paper, the dependence of $I_k$ on the ordering of coefficient magnitudes suggests that optimizing the ordering beyond the two-sided permutation in Theorem 2 could yield a canonical, ordering-independent bound with even better constants.
  • An extension, not explored here, would apply the same partial Cauchy-Schwarz sequence to sum-form uncertainty relations; if the improvement carries over, experimental comparisons along the lines of existing photonic qutrit tests could separate the bounds.
  • The mixed-state vectorization makes the bounds depend on the chosen computational basis through the coefficients $\alpha_i,\beta_i$; a basis-independent reformulation of $I_k$ would be a natural follow-up and could clarify exactly when the chain saturates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a sequence of lower bounds I_k (k=1,...,N) on the product of variances ΔA²ΔB² for two unitary operators, obtained by refining the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality via the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality; for pure states N=n, and for mixed states N=n². The authors claim that every I_k is at least as large as the Gram-determinant lower bound of Bong et al. (PRL 120, 230402 (2018)), that the bounds can be strengthened by independent permutations of the coordinate indices, and that analogous product-form bounds can be derived for three and four unitary operators. Numerical examples for qudit and qubit states are provided to illustrate the claimed improvements.

Significance. The central two-operator claim, if properly proved, is a useful and elegant result: it provides an explicit, parameter-free family of lower bounds that interpolate between the trivial product bound and the known Gram bound, and each member of the family is at least as tight as the best published bound. The method is elementary, and the extension to three and four operators is natural. The paper is self-contained in that the relevant inequalities are re-derived rather than assumed. However, the current manuscript contains a key algebraic error in the monotonicity proof and a misstated permutation action, so the main theorems are not fully established as written. These issues are correctable, but they are load-bearing and require revision before the claims are fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, Eq. (6)] The identity I_{k+1}-I_k = -(∑_{i=1}^k x_i y_{k+1} + y_i x_{k+1})² is algebraically incorrect. From definition (5) the exact difference is I_{k+1}-I_k = -∑_{i=1}^k (x_i y_{k+1} - x_{k+1} y_i)² ≤ 0. The printed formula already fails for n=2 with x=(1,1), y=(1,1), where I_2-I_1=0 but the printed right-hand side equals -4. Since the descending chain and Eq. (12) depend on this step, the proof of Theorem 1 is incomplete as written. The monotonicity itself is true, so the gap is repairable, but the identity must be corrected.
  2. [II, Eq. (6) and Theorem 1] The strict inequalities I_1 > I_2 > ... > I_N and ΔA²ΔB² > I_k are too strong. Equality occurs whenever x_i y_j = x_j y_i for all 1 ≤ i < j ≤ k, as the equality condition in Theorem 1 itself states. The theorems and the chain (12) should be formulated with ≥, or with strictness only under an explicit non-proportionality assumption. The current strict formulation is also self-contradictory for k=1, where I_1 = ΔA²ΔB².
  3. [II B, Eq. (13)] The formula for the permutation action (π_1,π_2)I_k is not the expression obtained by permuting the coordinates of X and Y independently. The second and third sums should contain the symmetric pairing x_{π_1(i)} y_{π_2(j)} with x_{π_1(j)} y_{π_2(i)}; as printed, the terms mix π_1 and π_2 incorrectly (using x_{π_2(j)} y_{π_1(i)}). Consequently Theorem 2 is not proven as stated. The correction is straightforward, but the statement and proof must be updated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 1 and Eq. (10)] The theorem states k=1,...,N, but for k=1 the claimed strict inequality is an equality by definition; please restrict to 2 ≤ k ≤ N or use ≥ instead of >.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The strict inequality before |∑ α_i^* β_i|² is too strong; equality is possible, for example when A=B.
  3. [II C, Example 1] The d=3 example appears to contain a factor error: x_1 and x_3 should involve |1+ω²| (whose modulus is 1), not |1-e^{-2πi/3}| (whose modulus is √3); please verify Eqs. (19)-(22) and the corresponding figures.
  4. [Figs. 2-4] The captions do not fully identify which curve corresponds to which I_k; please add a legend or clarify the curve labels so the numerical comparisons can be checked.
  5. [I, related work] The relation to the earlier work [21] by the same group should be stated more explicitly; the present paper uses the partial Cauchy-Schwarz idea from [21], and the new contribution beyond that method should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the I_k bounds are re-derived in Sec. II, the comparison with Bong et al. is an independent inequality, and the sole self-citation [21] is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. After fixing a computational basis, the product of variances is written as ΔA²ΔB² = Σ_{i,j} x_i² y_j² = I_1, and each I_k in Eq. (5) is an explicit positive combination of the same nonnegative terms, with in-principal-square cross terms replaced by their AGM lower bounds 2x_i y_i x_j y_j; hence ΔA²ΔB² ≥ I_k follows from the displayed definition and the AGM inequality rather than from any fitted parameter or imported result. The monotonicity chain in Eq. (6) is asserted with an algebraic expression that is not the exact difference, since I_{k+1} − I_k is correctly −Σ_{i=1}^k (x_i y_{k+1} − x_{k+1} y_i)², but the true difference is indeed nonpositive, so the printed error is an internal proof typo rather than a circular step. The improvement over Bong et al. is also derived independently: |⟨A†B⟩ − ⟨A†⟩⟨B⟩|² = |Σ α_i* β_i|² ≤ (Σ |α_i||β_i|)² = I_N ≤ I_k uses only the triangle inequality and the partial-sum chain, not the Gram-matrix result of Bong et al. The examples contain no fitted inputs; the x_i and y_i are computed explicitly from the stated states and operators. Reference [21], whose authors overlap with the present paper, supplies the fine-grained inequality technique, but Sec. II reproduces the relevant inequalities, so the central claim does not reduce to that self-citation. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, no new physical entities, and no ad hoc assumptions beyond the mathematical framework. The key new content is the sequence I_k, which is proven (with a typo) and then applied. The most substantive axiom is the monotonicity of I_k, which is the paper's own lemma rather than a background result.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Finite-dimensional Hilbert space with a fixed computational basis {|ψ_i⟩}
    The proof expands δA|ψ⟩ in this basis; mixed states are handled by vectorization to C^{n²}.
  • domain assumption Variance identity ΔA² = ⟨√ρ|(I⊗δA†δA)|√ρ⟩ for mixed states
    This identity, based on vectorization property |MT⟩ = (I⊗M)|T⟩, reduces mixed states to pure states on a larger space (Eq. (9)).
  • standard math Geometric-arithmetic mean inequality holds for nonnegative reals
    Used to derive the partial Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities forming the sequence I_k (Eq. (4)).
  • ad hoc to paper The sequence I_k is monotone decreasing
    This is the paper's key lemma; it is stated in Eq. (6) but the printed proof contains an algebraic error.
  • standard math For the three-operator case, the pair-wise inequalities can be combined by taking the square root of the product
    If ∆A²∆B² > I_k, etc., then multiplying and taking square roots gives (I_kJ_kK_k)^(1/2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong unitary uncertainty relations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3XNLPROK

@misc{pith2026190805053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong unitary uncertainty relations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3XNLPROK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05053}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we provide a new set of uncertainty principles for unitary operators using a sequence of inequalities with the help of the geometric-arithmetic mean inequality. As these inequalities are "fine-grained" compared with the well-known Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, our framework naturally improves the results based on the latter. As such, the unitary uncertainty relations based on our method outperform the best known bound introduced in [Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 230402 (2018)] to some extent. Explicit examples of unitary uncertainty relations are provided to back our claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Strengthened bounds vs. the bounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The solid blue curve represents ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In Sec.II B, the bounds are strengthened by symme- try of permutations

    of variance-based unitary uncertainty relations in the product-form is given in Sec.II A for two unitary opera- tors. In Sec.II B, the bounds are strengthened by symme- try of permutations. In Sec.II C, examples are given to show our Theorem.1 provides tighter bounds than those of Bong et al’s. In Sec.III, we investigate product-form variance-based unitar...

    work page

  2. [2]

    sin 2θ 4 √ 3 , cosθ√ 6 , 1√ 6, sinθ√ 6 , (−2 + √

    work page

  3. [3]

    sin 2θ 4 √ 3 , sinθ√ 6 , cos2θ√ 3 + sin2θ√ 6 ) The lower bounds{(IkJkKk)1/2|2 ⩽k ⩽ 8} associated with ρ are then calculated and depicted in Fig.7. The picture shows that our lower bounds {(IkJkKk)1/2|2 ⩽ k ⩽ 6} are always tighter than LB, Bong et al’s bound, (I7J7K7)1/2 and (I8J8K8)1/2 are better than LB in some region, and LB is better than ( I9J9K9)1/2....

    work page

  4. [4]

    sin 2θ 4 √ 3 cosθ√ 6 1√ 6 sinθ√ 6 (−2+ √

    work page

  5. [5]

    (37) By stacking columns of the matrix √ρ on top of one an- other, we have the pure state |√ρ⟩ on the 9-dimensional Hilbert space

    sin 2θ 4 √ 3 sinθ√ 6 cos2θ√ 3 + sin2θ√ 6   . (37) By stacking columns of the matrix √ρ on top of one an- other, we have the pure state |√ρ⟩ on the 9-dimensional Hilbert space. Appendix C To highlight our method, we further consider the strengthened UURs for four unitary operators. LetA,B,C andD be four unitary operators on an n- dimensional Hilbert...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Heisenberg, Z

    W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 43, 172 (1927)

    1927

  7. [7]

    E. H. Kennard, Z. Phys. 44, 326 (1927)

    1927

  8. [8]

    Weyl, Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik (Hirzel, Leipzig, 1928) [English translation, H

    H. Weyl, Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik (Hirzel, Leipzig, 1928) [English translation, H. P. Robertson, The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics (Dover, New York, 1931)]

    work page 1928

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    H. P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929)

    1929

  2. [10]

    Schr¨ odinger, Ber

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Ber. Kgl. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 24, 296 (1930)

    1930

  3. [11]

    H. P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. 35, 667A (1930); 46, 794 (1934)

    1930

  4. [12]

    Aharonov, H

    Y. Aharonov, H. Pendleton, and A. Petersen, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 2, 213 (1969)

    1969

  5. [13]

    Opatrn´ y, V

    T. Opatrn´ y, V. Buˇ zek, J. Bajer, and G. Drobn´ y, Phys. Rev. A 52, 2419 (1995)

    1995

  6. [14]

    Opatrn´ y, D.-G

    T. Opatrn´ y, D.-G. Welsch, and V. Buˇ zek, Phys. Rev. A 53, 3822 (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    Massar and P

    S. Massar and P. Spindel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 190401 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    A. B. Klimov, C. Mu˜ noz, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, Phys. Rev. A 80, 043836 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    M. A. Marchiolli and M. Ruzzi, Ann. Phys. (NY) 327, 1538 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Namiki and Y

    R. Namiki and Y. Tokunaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 230503 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    M. A. Marchiolli and P. E. M. F. Mendon¸ ca, Ann. Phys. (NY) 336, 76 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Maccone and A

    L. Maccone and A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 260401 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Li and C.-F

    J.-L. Li and C.-F. Qiao, Sci. Rep. 5, 12708 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    A. K. Pati, U. Singh, and U. Sinha, Phys. Rev. A 92, 052120 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    M. J. W. Hall, A. K. Pati, and J. Wu, Phys. Rev. A 93, 052118 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Bagchi and A

    S. Bagchi and A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042104 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Y. Xiao, N. Jing, X. Li-Jost, and Shao-Ming Fei, Sci. Rep. 6, 23201 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Y. Xiao, N. Jing, B. Yu, S.-M. Fei, and X. Li-Jost, arXiv:1610.01692 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mondal, S

    D. Mondal, S. Bagchi, and A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. A 95, 052117 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Y. Xiao, C. Guo, F. Meng, N. Jing, and M.-H. Yung, arXiv:1706.05650 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    L. Xiao, K. Wang, X. Zhan, Z. Bian, J. Li, Y. Zhang, P. Xue, and A. K. Pati, Opt. Express 25, 17904 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Qian, J.-L

    C. Qian, J.-L. Li, and C.-F. Qiao, Quantum Inf. Process. 17 84 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Sazim, S

    S. Sazim, S. Adhikari, A. K. Pati, and P. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032123 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Sharma, C

    G. Sharma, C. Mukhopadhyay, S. Sazim, and A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032106 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    K. Bong, N. Tischler, R. B. Patel, S. Wollmann, G. J. Pryde, and M. J. W. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 230402 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Bia lynicki-Birula and J

    I. Bia lynicki-Birula and J. Mycielski, Commun. Math. Phys. 44, 129 (1975)

    1975

  27. [35]

    Deutsch, Phys

    D. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 631 (1983)

    1983

  28. [36]

    M. H. Partovi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1883 (1983)

    1983

  29. [37]

    Kraus, Phys

    K. Kraus, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3070 (1987). 10

    1987

  30. [38]

    Maassen and J

    H. Maassen and J. B. M. Uffink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1103 (1988)

    1988

  31. [39]

    I. D. Ivanovic, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 25, L363 (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    S´ anchez, Phys

    J. S´ anchez, Phys. Lett. A173, 233 (1993)

    1993

  33. [41]

    M. A. Ballester and S. Wehner, Phys. Rev. A 75, 022319 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    S. Wu, S. Yu, and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A 79, 022104 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Huang, Phys

    Y. Huang, Phys. Rev. A 83, 052124 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Tomamichel and R

    M. Tomamichel and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 110506 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    P. J. Coles, R. Colbeck, L. Yu, and M. Zwolak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 210405 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    P. J. Coles and M. Piani, Phys. Rev. A89, 022112 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Y. Xiao, N. Jing, S.-M. Fei, T. Li, X. Li-Jost, T. Ma, and Z.-X. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 93, 042125 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Y. Xiao, N. Jing, S.-M. Fei, and X. Li-Jost, J. Phys. A 49, 49LT01 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Y. Xiao, N. Jing, and X. Li-Jost, Quantum Inf. Process. 16, 104 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015002 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Friedland, V

    S. Friedland, V. Gheorghiu, and G. Gour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 230401 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Pucha la, L

    Z. Pucha la, L. Rudnicki, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46, 272002 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Rudnicki, Z

    L. Rudnicki, Z. Pucha la, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Phys. Rev. A 89, 052115 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Narasimhachar, A

    V. Narasimhachar, A. Poostindouz, and G. Gour, New J. Phys. 18. 033019 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    A. W. Marshall, I. Olkin, and B. C. Arnold, Inequalities: Theory of majorization and its applications , Springer, New York (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    H. F. Hofmann and S.Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. A 68, 032103 (2003)

    2003

  49. [57]

    G¨ uhne, Phys

    O. G¨ uhne, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 117903 (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    D. F. Walls and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 709 (1981)

    1981

  51. [59]

    Eberly, J

    K.W´ odkiewicz and J. Eberly, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 2, 458 (1985)

    1985

  52. [60]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J.Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  53. [61]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A47, 5138 (1993)

    1993

  54. [62]

    J. Ma, X. G. Wang, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rep. 509, 89 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  56. [64]

    S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. J. Milburn, Ann. Phys. (NY) 247, 135 (1996)

    1996

  57. [65]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

    2004

  58. [66]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nat. Photon- ics 5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    Oppenheim, and S

    J. Oppenheim, and S. Wehner, Science 330, 1072 (2010)

    2010

  61. [69]

    Y. Xiao, Y. Xiang, Y. Q. He, B. C. Sanders, arXiv:1807.07829 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, G. Polya, Inequalities, Cambridge Univ. Press, London (1952)

    1952

  63. [71]

    Dhrymes, Mathematics for econometrics , Springer (1978)

    Phoebus J. Dhrymes, Mathematics for econometrics , Springer (1978)

    1978

  64. [72]

    Watrous, Theory of quantum information , Cambridge Univ

    J. Watrous, Theory of quantum information , Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (2011)

    2011

  65. [73]

    S. K. Goyal, B. Neethi Simon, R. Singh, and S. Simon, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 165203 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.