Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 109 references

A structure theorem for complex-valued quasiprobability representations of physical theories

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every complex-valued quasiprobability representation of a tomographically local GPT is fixed by its action on states and the identity channel.

desk verdict Genuinely new structure theorem for complex-valued quasiprobability representations, with clean explicit proofs and one important caveat (tomographic locality); deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10949 v1 pith:MA45H7NE submitted 2025-09-13 quant-ph

Rafael Wagner , Roberto D. Baldijão , Matthias Salzger , Yìlè Yīng , David Schmid , John H. Selby This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quasiprobabilityrepresentationscomplex-valuedquasiprobabilitiesKirkwood–Diracdistributionsgeneralizedprobabilistictheoriesstructuretheoremsemi-functorstomographiclocalityframe
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

Quasiprobability representations, especially complex-valued Kirkwood–Dirac distributions, are widely used tools, but their structural constraints were previously known only in the real-valued, identity-preserving case. This paper proves that any complex-valued quasiprobability representation of a finite-dimensional, tomographically local generalized probabilistic theory factors system-by-system as $Q(T) = \chi_B \circ C(T) \circ \phi_A$, where $\chi_A$ is an injective complex-linear map fixed by the representation's action on states and $\phi_A$ is fixed by its action on the identity. In quantum theory this recovers the familiar frame-and-dual-frame description, and in the functorial case it forces the codomain dimension to match the complexified system dimension. If correct, the entire freedom in such representations is concentrated in per-system choices of states and identity images.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the complexification functor $C:\mathrm{Vect}_{\mathbb{R}}\to\mathrm{Vect}_{\mathbb{C}}$, which sends a real vector space $W$ to $W\oplus W$ with $i(w_1,w_2)=(-w_2,w_1)$ and an $\mathbb{R}$-linear map $f$ to its unique $\mathbb{C}$-linear extension $f^{\mathbb{C}}$. The paper also uses a semi-functor as the notion of representation: a map between process theories that preserves sequential composition but not necessarily the identity, so the image of each identity is an idempotent. Tomographic locality, stated as Lemma II.1, supplies a resolution of the identity as a finite linear combination of measure-and-prepare processes; this resolution lets the authors define $\chi_A$ and $\phi_A$ from states and effects alone, and the complexification functor lets those real-data maps be read as $\mathbb{C}$-linear maps. The key identity is the factorization $Q(T)=\chi_B\circ C(T)\circ\phi_A$, with $\phi_A=\overline{\chi_A}^{-1}\circ Q(\mathrm{id}_A)$, where $\overline{\chi_A}$ is the invertible corestriction of $\chi_A$ onto its image.

What would settle it

Build a finite-dimensional GPT whose two-party state space strictly contains the span of product states (so tomographic locality fails), define a linearity-preserving, empirically adequate complex-valued quasiprobability representation of it, and check whether every process matrix factors as $Q(T)=\chi_B\circ C(T)\circ\phi_A$ with $\phi_A=\overline{\chi_A}^{-1}\circ Q(\mathrm{id}_A)$; a single non-factorizing example would refute Corollary III.4 as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Corollary III.4, states that every empirically adequate, linearity-preserving complex-valued quasiprobability representation $Q:\mathcal{G}\to\mathrm{FinQuasiSubStoch}_{\mathbb{C}}$ of a tomographically local, finite-dimensional GPT can be written as $Q(T)=\chi_B\circ C(T)\circ\phi_A$ for every process $T:A\to B$, where $C$ is the complexification functor from real to complex vector spaces. For each system $A$, $\chi_A$ is an injective $\mathbb{C}$-linear map uniquely determined by the action of $Q$ on states, and $\phi_A = \overline{\chi_A}^{-1}\circ Q(\mathrm{id}_A)$, with $\overline{\chi_A}$ the invertible corestriction onto the image of $\chi_A$. Consequently the representation is fully determined by its values on states and on the identity. In the quantum case this says each system's representation is exactly a choice of frame and dual frame: states pick out $\chi_A$, while effects, equivalently the identity's representation, pick out $\phi_A$. The theorem covers semi-functors that need not preserve the identity, extends to complex-valued codomains, and allows infinite-dimensional target spaces; in the narrower functorial case, $\chi_A$ becomes invertible and the representation is determined by states alone.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is tomographic locality: every composite system's behaviour is fully determined by local measurements on its parts, so the identity process can be expanded as a finite linear combination of measure-and-prepare processes; the paper itself notes that if this fails, composite systems have holistic degrees of freedom invisible to product effects, and the factorization proof does not go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For quantum theory, every complex-valued quasiprobability representation is a frame representation: the action on states fixes a frame for the operator space, and the action on the identity fixes the dual frame.
  • Any functorial, identity-preserving representation must map each finite-dimensional system to a complex vector space of the same dimension, ruling out infinite-dimensional target spaces in the functorial case.
  • The full freedom in choosing a representation of a tomographically local GPT is per-system: choose the images of the states and the image of the identity, and the representation of every process is determined.
  • Classification questions for complex-valued quasiprobability representations, such as which ones are Kirkwood–Dirac-like, reduce to classifying admissible frames, dual frames, and the idempotents arising from the identity.
  • The semi-functorial version applies to representations that do not preserve the identity, so the theorem covers broader classes of complex-valued representations than earlier real-valued functorial results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence is that two representations of the same tomographically local GPT that agree on all states and on the identity must agree on every process, so discrepancies in process representations can be detected from those data alone.
  • If the factorization survives weaker categorical assumptions than symmetric monoidal categories, the structure would appear to be driven by tomographic resolution rather than by the full tensor-product calculus; if it fails, the monoidal structure is load-bearing in a way the current proof does not expose.
  • The idempotent $Q(\mathrm{id}_A)$ appearing in the semi-functorial case is a natural candidate for quantifying how far a representation departs from being identity-preserving, which could be connected to overcompleteness of the associated frames.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proves a structure theorem for complex-valued quasiprobability representations of finite-dimensional, tomographically-local generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs). Working in the process-theoretic framework of Schmid et al., the authors define a complex-valued quasiprobability representation as an empirically adequate, linearity-preserving semi-functor Q from a GPT into the process theory FinQuasiSubStoch_C. The main result (Corollary III.4, with Theorems III.1 and III.3 for the functorial and semi-functorial cases respectively) states that any such representation factorizes as Q(T) = chi_B ∘ C(T) ∘ phi_A, where for each system A the map chi_A is an injective complex-linear map fixed by the action of Q on states, and phi_A = chi_A^{-1} ∘ Q(id_A) is fixed by the action of Q on the identity. In the functorial case this reduces to Q(T) = chi_B ∘ C(T) ∘ chi_A^{-1} with chi_A invertible. For quantum theory the authors show that the pair (chi_A, phi_A) corresponds to a choice of frame and dual frame, and that the representation of the identity is an idempotent matrix, reducing to the identity exactly in the functorial case. The proof is constructive and diagrammatic, building on a real-coefficient resolution of the identity supplied by tomographic locality (Lemma II.1) and on a detailed development of the complexification functor, including proofs that it is faithful and strong monoidal.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a significant structural characterization: the content of any complex-valued quasiprobability representation of a finite-dimensional tomographically-local GPT is fully contained in the representation's action on states and on the identity. This unifies previously disparate examples, including Kirkwood-Dirac representations, and extends the earlier structure theorem of Schmid et al. in three directions: complex-valued targets, semi-functorial rather than only functorial maps, and codomains that may be infinite-dimensional. The paper gives explicit constructive proofs of the auxiliary categorical facts (the complexification functor is a faithful strong monoidal functor, and complexification preserves generating sets of states and effects), which strengthens confidence in the main claims. I checked the central steps: the definition of chi_A and phi_A from resolutions of the identity, the left-inverse argument establishing injectivity, the right-inverse argument in the functor case, and the idempotent-splitting argument in the semi-functor case all cohere, and I found no circularity.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section II.B] There are typographical errors in proper names: 'Eugine Wigner' should be 'Eugene Wigner' and 'Kolmogovo's axioms' should be 'Kolmogorov's axioms'.
  2. [Theorems III.3 and Corollary III.4] The notation for the surjective corestriction is confusing: in the text both chi_A and its corestriction are written with the same symbol, although the PDF appears to use an overline for the corestriction. Please introduce overline-chi_A explicitly and write phi_A = (overline-chi_A)^{-1} ∘ N(id_A) consistently throughout the statements and proofs.
  3. [Lemma II.1] Lemma II.1 is the load-bearing bridge from tomographic locality to the resolution of the identity used throughout the proof, but it is quoted without proof. Since the lemma carries so much weight, adding a proof sketch or a precise statement of the version proved in Ref. [26] would substantially improve the paper's self-containedness.
  4. [Section III.D] The sentence containing '|Λ| = d^2 > d' is slightly inaccurate for d = 1; it should be written as '|Λ| = d^2 (and |Λ| > d for d > 1)' or simply '|Λ| = d^2'.
  5. [Definition II.18] The phrase 'acts as the composition of the standard embedding and the identity' is awkward; the intended meaning is simply M(p) = e_C(p) for every closed diagram p in G(I,I), and this could be stated more directly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the factorization is proved by direct expansion from the defining axioms, with no fitted parameter or conclusion assumed.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain of Theorems III.1 and III.3 and Corollary III.4. The proof begins from the tomographic-locality expansion T = Σ r_ij s_i ∘ e_j (Lemma II.1), applies the semi-functor axiom to commute Q past sequential composition, and uses empirical adequacy to evaluate the resulting closed diagrams. This yields Q(T) = χ_B ∘ C(T) ∘ ϕ_A, with χ_A and ϕ_A defined in Eqs. (72) and (74), respectively. Eq. (75) proves ϕ_A ∘ χ_A = id, and for semi-functors Eq. (80) gives D_A = χ_A ∘ ϕ_A, so ϕ_A = χ̄_A^{-1} ∘ D_A. Each displayed equality is a proof step rather than an assumption of the conclusion. The only externally quoted input, Lemma II.1 (adapted from Ref. [26], which shares authors Schmid and Selby), is a parameter-free characterization of tomographic locality and does not contain the factored form, so it functions as independent support rather than a self-citation loop. The paper explicitly notes the assumption boundary when tomographic locality fails ('there are global (holistic) degrees of freedom in AB invisible to product effects'), which is a limitation of the theorem's scope, not a circularity. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no prior uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the result; the use of Ref. [49] for the KD example is illustrative, not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard GPT assumptions (tomographic locality, spanning by states/effects, finite-dimensionality of domain systems) and on the paper's own definitions of what counts as a quasiprobability representation. No numerical parameters are fitted, and no new physical entities are postulated; the maps χ_A and φ_A are constructed from the representation itself, so the proof is a direct structural classification rather than a fit.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Tomographic locality of the GPT gives a decomposition of every process, including the identity, as a finite linear combination of measure-and-prepare processes (Lemma II.1, adapted from Ref. [26]).
    Used in the proof of Theorem III.1 to expand arbitrary processes and to obtain a finite resolution of the identity; without it, the maps χ_A and φ_A cannot be constructed.
  • domain assumption States of a system span the underlying real vector space and effects span its dual, so that every process is in the linear span of composed states and effects (Sec. II.A).
    This is part of the GPT definition used to interpret the diagrammatic resolution of the identity and to extend by linearity.
  • domain assumption The representation is empirically adequate and linearity-preserving, meaning it preserves probabilities and convex combinations (Defs. II.16-II.19).
    These are the defining conditions for a quasiprobability representation; they are hypotheses of the theorem rather than consequences, and they enter explicitly in the proof when replacing the represented closed diagram by the complexified scalar.
  • standard math Standard results: Riesz-Frechet representation theorem, finiteness of dimension, and the universal property of complexification (Theorem II.23, after Ref. [88]).
    Used in Theorem II.12 to identify faithful complex-valued distributions with frame representations, and throughout to justify existence and uniqueness of complex-linear extensions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A structure theorem for complex-valued quasiprobability representations of physical theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MA45H7NE

@misc{pith2026250910949,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A structure theorem for complex-valued quasiprobability representations of physical theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MA45H7NE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10949}
}
read the original abstract

Quasiprobability representations are well-established tools in quantum information science, with applications ranging from the classical simulability of quantum computation to quantum process tomography, quantum error correction, and quantum sensing. While traditional quasiprobability representations typically employ real-valued distributions, recent developments highlight the usefulness of complex-valued ones -- most notably, via the family of Kirkwood--Dirac quasiprobability distributions. Building on the framework of Schmid et al. [Quantum 8, 1283 (2024)], we extend the analysis to encompass complex-valued quasiprobability representations that need not preserve the identity channel. Additionally, we also extend previous results to consider mappings towards infinite-dimensional spaces. We show that, for each system, every such representation can be expressed as the composition of two maps that are completely characterized by their action on states and on the identity (equivalently, on effects) for that system. Our results apply to all complex-valued quasiprobability representations of any finite-dimensional, tomographically-local generalized probabilistic theory, with finite-dimensional quantum theory serving as a paradigmatic example. In the quantum case, the maps' action on states and effects corresponds to choices of frames and dual frames for the representation. This work offers a unified mathematical framework for analyzing complex-valued quasiprobability representations in generalized probabilistic theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10949 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    P. A. M. Dirac, On the analogy between classical and quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.17, 195 (1945)

    1945

  2. [26]

    Husimi, Some formal properties of the density ma- trix, Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan

    K. Husimi, Some formal properties of the density ma- trix, Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan. 3rd Series22, 264 (1940)

    1940

  3. [1]

    For any pair of processesT 1,T 2 that can be sequen- tially composed, the map preserves sequential com- position: T1 T2 M A1 A2 A3 M(A3) M(A1) = T1 T2 A1 A2 A3 M(A3) M(A1) A2 M M M(A2) .(36)

  4. [2]

    II.13 a functor is defined by its ac- tion on systemsandprocesses

    For every systemA, the map preserves the identity map idA :A→A: M = .(37) Note that from Def. II.13 a functor is defined by its ac- tion on systemsandprocesses. We denote the processes in the target with different color and thickness of wires for clarity. Moreover, whenever necessary, we also label the box representing the map in the bottom right corner s...

  5. [3]

    Consequently, the resulting representa- tion can be complex-valued

    The frame and its dual may contain non-Hermitian elements ofB(H) (hence elements lying outside FinQT). Consequently, the resulting representa- tion can be complex-valued

  6. [4]

    (26), the product at the representation level reproduces the Born rule, so the representation is empirically adequate

    As reviewed above in Eq. (26), the product at the representation level reproduces the Born rule, so the representation is empirically adequate

  7. [5]

    real part

    As is well-known, the frame representation respects sequential composition: the representation of a composition of two maps equals the composition of their representations. Moreover, as shown in Eq. (29), the generic representation of the identity channel is an idempotent, which motivates consid- ering semi-functorial representations. To conclude, we note...

    2020

  8. [6]

    Pl´ avala, General probabilistic theories: An introduc- tion, Physics Reports1033, 1–64 (2023)

    M. Pl´ avala, General probabilistic theories: An introduc- tion, Physics Reports1033, 1–64 (2023)

    2023

Show all 109 references
  1. [7]

    M¨ uller, Probabilistic theories and reconstructions of quantum theory, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , 28 (2021)

    M. M¨ uller, Probabilistic theories and reconstructions of quantum theory, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , 28 (2021)

    2021

  2. [8]

    Hardy, Reformulating and reconstructing quantum theory (2011), arXiv:1104.2066 [quant-ph]

    L. Hardy, Reformulating and reconstructing quantum theory (2011), arXiv:1104.2066 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Hardy, Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Ax- ioms (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0101012 [quant-ph]

    L. Hardy, Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Ax- ioms (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0101012 [quant-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Barrett, Information processing in generalized prob- abilistic theories, Phys

    J. Barrett, Information processing in generalized prob- abilistic theories, Phys. Rev. A75, 032304 (2007)

    2007

  5. [11]

    R. W. Spekkens, Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: A toy theory, Phys. Rev. A75, 032110 (2007)

    2007

  6. [12]

    Barnum, J

    H. Barnum, J. Barrett, M. Leifer, and A. Wilce, Gener- alized No-Broadcasting Theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 240501 (2007)

    2007

  7. [13]

    M. Erba, P. Perinotti, D. Rolino, and A. Tosini, Mea- surement incompatibility is strictly stronger than dis- turbance, Phys. Rev. A109, 022239 (2024)

    2024

  8. [14]

    Aubrun, L

    G. Aubrun, L. Lami, C. Palazuelos, and M. Pl´ avala, En- tanglement and superposition are equivalent concepts in any physical theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 160402 (2022)

    2022

  9. [15]

    Aubrun, L

    G. Aubrun, L. Lami, C. Palazuelos, and M. Pl´ avala, En- tangleability of cones, Geometric and Functional Anal- ysis31, 181–205 (2021)

    2021

  10. [16]

    Aubrun, A

    G. Aubrun, A. M¨ uller-Hermes, and M. Pl´ avala, Monogamy of entanglement between cones, Mathema- tische Annalen391, 1591–1609 (2024)

    2024

  11. [17]

    G. M. D’Ariano, M. Erba, and P. Perinotti, Classical theories with entanglement, Phys. Rev. A101, 042118 (2020)

    2020

  12. [18]

    Hardy, Disentangling Nonlocality and Teleportation (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9906123 [quant-ph]

    L. Hardy, Disentangling Nonlocality and Teleportation (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9906123 [quant-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Barnum, J

    H. Barnum, J. Barrett, M. Leifer, and A. Wilce, Teleportation in General Probabilistic Theories (2008), arXiv:0805.3553 [quant-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermody- namic equilibrium, Phys

    E. Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermody- namic equilibrium, Phys. Rev.40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  15. [21]

    A. N. Kolmogorov,Foundations of the theory of proba- bility: Second English Edition(Courier Dover Publica- tions, 2018)

    2018

  16. [22]

    Ferrie and J

    C. Ferrie and J. Emerson, Frame representations of quantum mechanics and the necessity of negativity in quasi-probability representations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical41, 352001 (2008)

    2008

  17. [23]

    Ferrie and J

    C. Ferrie and J. Emerson, Framed Hilbert space: hang- ing the quasi-probability pictures of quantum theory, New Journal of Physics11, 063040 (2009)

    2009

  18. [24]

    Ferrie, Quasi-probability representations of quantum theory with applications to quantum information sci- ence, Reports on Progress in Physics74, 116001 (2011)

    C. Ferrie, Quasi-probability representations of quantum theory with applications to quantum information sci- ence, Reports on Progress in Physics74, 116001 (2011)

    2011

  19. [25]

    Christensen,An Introduction to Frames and Riesz Bases, Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis (Springer International Publishing, 2016)

    O. Christensen,An Introduction to Frames and Riesz Bases, Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis (Springer International Publishing, 2016)

    2016

  20. [27]

    R. J. Glauber, Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field, Phys. Rev.131, 2766 (1963)

    1963

  21. [28]

    E. C. G. Sudarshan, Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 277 (1963)

    1963

  22. [29]

    Margenau and R

    H. Margenau and R. N. Hill, Correlation between mea- surements in quantum theory, Progress of Theoretical Physics26, 722–738 (1961)

    1961

  23. [30]

    Y. P. Terletsky, The limiting transition from quantum to classical mechanics, J. Exp. Theor. Phys7, 1290 (1937)

    1937

  24. [31]

    Schmid, J

    D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, M. F. Pusey, and R. W. Spekkens, A structure theorem for generalized- noncontextual ontological models, Quantum8, 1283 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    van de Wetering, Quantum Theory is a Quasi- stochastic Process Theory, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science266, 179–196 (2018)

    J. van de Wetering, Quantum Theory is a Quasi- stochastic Process Theory, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science266, 179–196 (2018)

    2018

  26. [33]

    Gheorghiu and C

    A. Gheorghiu and C. Heunen, Ontological models for quantum theory as functors, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science318, 196–212 (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    Fritz, A synthetic approach to Markov kernels, con- ditional independence and theorems on sufficient statis- tics, Advances in Mathematics370, 107239 (2020)

    T. Fritz, A synthetic approach to Markov kernels, con- ditional independence and theorems on sufficient statis- tics, Advances in Mathematics370, 107239 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    Mac Lane,Categories for the working mathematician, Vol

    S. Mac Lane,Categories for the working mathematician, Vol. 5 (Springer Science & Business Media, 1998)

    1998

  29. [36]

    Awodey,Category theory, Vol

    S. Awodey,Category theory, Vol. 52 (OUP Oxford, 2010)

    2010

  30. [37]

    Heunen and J

    C. Heunen and J. Vicary,Categories for Quantum The- ory: an introduction(Oxford University Press, 2019)

    2019

  31. [38]

    J. H. Selby,A process theoretic triptych, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2017)

    2017

  32. [39]

    Coecke and A

    B. Coecke and A. Kissinger,Picturing Quantum Pro- cesses: A First Course in Quantum Theory and Di- agrammatic Reasoning(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  33. [40]

    J. H. Selby, M. E. Stasinou, M. Wilson, and B. Coecke, Generalised Process Theories (2025), arXiv:2502.10368 [math.CT]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Li and N.-K

    C.-K. Li and N.-K. Tsing, Linear preserver problems: A brief introduction and some special techniques, Linear Algebra and its Applications162–164, 217–235 (1992)

    1992

  35. [42]

    Li and S

    C.-K. Li and S. Pierce, Linear preserver problems, The American Mathematical Monthly108, 591–605 (2001)

    2001

  36. [43]

    Foˇ sner, Z

    A. Foˇ sner, Z. Huang, C.-K. Li, and N.-S. Sze, Linear preservers and quantum information science, Linear and Multilinear Algebra61, 1377–1390 (2013)

    2013

  37. [44]

    Frobenius, ¨Uber die Darstellung der endlichen Grup- pen durch lineare Substitutionen, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, G¨ ottingen , 1 (1897)

    G. Frobenius, ¨Uber die Darstellung der endlichen Grup- pen durch lineare Substitutionen, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, G¨ ottingen , 1 (1897)

  38. [45]

    L. B. Beasley, Linear operators on matrices: The invari- 26 ance of rank-kmatrices, Linear Algebra and its Appli- cations107, 161–167 (1988)

    1988

  39. [46]

    Li, B.-S

    C.-K. Li, B.-S. Tam, and N.-K. Tsing, Linear maps pre- serving permutation and stochastic matrices, Linear Al- gebra and its Applications341, 5–22 (2002)

    2002

  40. [47]

    Breˇ sar and P

    M. Breˇ sar and P. ˇSemrl, Linear preservers onB(X), Banach Center Publications38, 49 (1997)

    1997

  41. [48]

    J. G. Kirkwood, Quantum statistics of almost classical assemblies, Phys. Rev.44, 31 (1933)

    1933

  42. [50]

    D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, W. F. Braasch Jr, S. De Bi` evre, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, C. Langrenez, M. Lostaglio, J. S. Lundeen, and N. Y. Halpern, Prop- erties and applications of the Kirkwood–Dirac distribu- tion, New Journal of Physics26, 121201 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Wagner, Z

    R. Wagner, Z. Schwartzman-Nowik, I. L. Paiva, A. Te’eni, A. Ruiz-Molero, R. S. Barbosa, E. Cohen, and E. F. Galv˜ ao, Quantum circuits for measuring weak values, Kirkwood–Dirac quasiprobability distributions, and state spectra, Quantum Science and Technology9, 015030 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Yunger Halpern, B

    N. Yunger Halpern, B. Swingle, and J. Dressel, Quasiprobability behind the out-of-time-ordered corre- lator, Phys. Rev. A97, 042105 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Gherardini and G

    S. Gherardini and G. De Chiara, Quasiprobabilities in quantum thermodynamics and many-body systems, PRX Quantum5, 030201 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Schmid, R

    D. Schmid, R. D. Baldij˜ ao, Y. Y¯ ıng, R. Wagner, and J. H. Selby, Kirkwood–Dirac representations beyond quantum states and their relation to noncontextuality, Phys. Rev. A110, 052206 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, N. Yunger Halpern, H. V. Lepage, A. A. Lasek, C. H. W. Barnes, and S. Lloyd, Quantum advantage in postselected metrology, Nature Communications11, 3775 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Lupu-Gladstein, Y

    N. Lupu-Gladstein, Y. B. Yilmaz, D. R. M. Arvidsson- Shukur, A. Brodutch, A. O. T. Pang, A. M. Steinberg, and N. Y. Halpern, Negative quasiprobabilities enhance phase estimation in quantum-optics experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 220504 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    S. Das, S. Modak, and M. N. Bera, Saturating quantum advantages in postselected metrology with the positive Kirkwood–Dirac distribution, Phys. Rev. A107, 042413 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    J. H. Jenne and D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, Unbounded and lossless compression of multiparameter quantum in- formation, Phys. Rev. A106, 042404 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Burkat and S

    J. Burkat and S. Strelchuk, Structure, Positivity and Classical Simulability of Kirkwood-Dirac Distributions (2025), arXiv:2502.11784 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J. J. Thio, S. Yang, S. D. Bi` evre, C. H. W. Barnes, and D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, Kirkwood-Dirac Nonposi- tivity is a Necessary Resource for Quantum Computing (2025), arXiv:2506.08092 [quant-ph]

    2025

  53. [61]

    Yunger Halpern, Jarzynski-like equality for the out- of-time-ordered correlator, Phys

    N. Yunger Halpern, Jarzynski-like equality for the out- of-time-ordered correlator, Phys. Rev. A95, 012120 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Levy and M

    A. Levy and M. Lostaglio, Quasiprobability distribu- tion for heat fluctuations in the quantum regime, PRX Quantum1, 010309 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Donati, F

    L. Donati, F. S. Cataliotti, and S. Gherardini, Ener- getics and quantumness of Fano coherence generation, Scientific Reports14, 20145 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Hern´ andez-G´ omez, S

    S. Hern´ andez-G´ omez, S. Gherardini, A. Belenchia, M. Lostaglio, A. Levy, and N. Fabbri, Projective mea- surements can probe nonclassical work extraction and time correlations, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023280 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Pezzutto, G

    M. Pezzutto, G. D. Chiara, and S. Gherardini, Non- positive energy quasidistributions in coherent collision models (2025), arXiv:2503.07759 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Santini, A

    A. Santini, A. Solfanelli, S. Gherardini, and M. Collura, Work statistics, quantum signatures, and enhanced work extraction in quadratic fermionic models, Phys. Rev. B108, 104308 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    J. R. Gonz´ alez Alonso, N. Yunger Halpern, and J. Dressel, Out-of-time-ordered-correlator quasiproba- bilities robustly witness scrambling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040404 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    N. Gao, D. Li, A. Mishra, J. Yan, K. Simonov, and G. Chiribella, Measuring incompatibility and cluster- ing quantum observables with a quantum switch, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 170201 (2023)

    2023

  61. [69]

    Ban, On sequential measurements with indefinite causal order, Physics Letters A403, 127383 (2021)

    M. Ban, On sequential measurements with indefinite causal order, Physics Letters A403, 127383 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    P. C. Azado, R. Wagner, R. S. Barbosa, and E. F. Galv˜ ao, Measuring unitary invariants with the quantum switch (2025), arXiv:2508.02345 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Wagner and E

    R. Wagner and E. F. Galv˜ ao, Simple proof that anoma- lous weak values require coherence, Phys. Rev. A108, L040202 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    M. A. de Gosson and S. M. de Gosson, Weak values of a quantum observable and the cross-Wigner distribution, Physics Letters A376, 293–296 (2012)

    2012

  65. [73]

    H. F. Hofmann, On the role of complex phases in the quantum statistics of weak measurements, New Journal of Physics13, 103009 (2011)

    2011

  66. [74]

    H. F. Hofmann, Complex joint probabilities as expres- sions of reversible transformations in quantum mechan- ics, New Journal of Physics14, 043031 (2012)

    2012

  67. [75]

    H. F. Hofmann, Derivation of quantum mechanics from a single fundamental modification of the relations be- tween physical properties, Phys. Rev. A89, 042115 (2014)

    2014

  68. [76]

    M. O. T. Cunha, V. I. Man’ko, and M. O. Scully, Quasiprobability and Probability Distributions for Spin-1/2 States, Foundations of Physics Letters14, 103–117 (2001)

    2001

  69. [77]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Prob- abilistic theories with purification, Phys. Rev. A81, 062348 (2010)

    2010

  70. [78]

    G. M. D’Ariano, G. Chiribella, and P. Perinotti,Quan- tum theory from first principles: an informational ap- proach(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  71. [79]

    Lami, Non-classical correlations in quantum mechan- ics and beyond (2018), arXiv:1803.02902 [quant-ph]

    L. Lami, Non-classical correlations in quantum mechan- ics and beyond (2018), arXiv:1803.02902 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Gogioso and C

    S. Gogioso and C. M. Scandolo, Categorical probabilis- tic theories, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Com- puter Science266, 367–385 (2018)

    2018

  73. [81]

    J. H. Selby, C. M. Scandolo, and B. Coecke, Recon- structing quantum theory from diagrammatic postu- lates, Quantum5, 445 (2021)

    2021

  74. [82]

    Coecke and A

    B. Coecke and A. Kissinger,Categorical Quantum Me- chanics I: Causal Quantum Processes(Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2018) p. 286–328

    2018

  75. [83]

    Schmid, J

    D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, and R. W. Spekkens, Un- scrambling the omelette of causation and inference: The framework of causal-inferential theories (2021), 27 arXiv:2009.03297 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Barnum and J

    H. Barnum and J. Hilgert, Strongly symmetric spectral convex bodies are Jordan algebra state spaces (2019), arXiv:1904.03753 [math-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Barnum, M

    H. Barnum, M. A. Graydon, and A. Wilce, Composites and Categories of Euclidean Jordan Algebras, Quantum 4, 359 (2020)

    2020

  78. [86]

    R. D. Baldij˜ aoet al.,Quantum Darwinism and contextu- ality, Ph.D. thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp). Instituto de F´ ısica Gleb Wataghin (2022)

    2022

  79. [87]

    Erba and P

    M. Erba and P. Perinotti, The composition rule for quantum systems is not the only possible one (2024), arXiv:2411.15964 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Barnum, C

    H. Barnum, C. Ududec, and J. van de Wetering, Self- duality and Jordan structure of quantum theory fol- low from homogeneity and pure transitivity (2023), arXiv:2306.00362 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    R. W. Spekkens, Negativity and contextuality are equiv- alent notions of nonclassicality, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 020401 (2008)

    2008

  82. [90]

    Husimi, Some Formal Properties of the Density Ma- trix, Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan

    K. Husimi, Some Formal Properties of the Density Ma- trix, Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan. 3rd Series22, 264 (1940)

    1940

  83. [91]

    J. B. Bru, W. de Siqueira Pedra,et al.,C ∗-Algebras and Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Statistical Mechanics(Springer, 2023)

    2023

  84. [92]

    Schmid, J

    D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, E. Wolfe, R. Kunjwal, and R. W. Spekkens, Characterization of noncontextuality in the framework of generalized probabilistic theories, PRX Quantum2, 010331 (2021)

    2021

  85. [93]

    Conrad, Complexification, Personal website (2014)

    K. Conrad, Complexification, Personal website (2014)

    2014

  86. [94]

    N. P. Landsman,Mathematical topics between classical and quantum mechanics(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  87. [95]

    Landsman,Foundations of Quantum Theory (Springer International Publishing, 2017)

    K. Landsman,Foundations of Quantum Theory (Springer International Publishing, 2017)

    2017

  88. [96]

    M.-S. Li, R. Wagner, and L. Zhang, Multi-state imaginarity and coherence in qubit systems (2025), arXiv:2507.14878 [quant-ph]

    2025

  89. [97]

    Fernandes, R

    C. Fernandes, R. Wagner, L. Novo, and E. F. Galv˜ ao, Unitary-invariant witnesses of quantum imaginarity, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 190201 (2024)

    2024

  90. [98]

    S. S. Pratapsi, J. Gouveia, L. Novo, and E. F. Galv˜ ao, An Elementary Characterization of Bargmann Invari- ants (2025), arXiv:2506.17132 [quant-ph]

    2025

  91. [99]

    Xu, Numerical ranges of Bargmann invariants (2025), arXiv:2506.13266 [quant-ph]

    J. Xu, Numerical ranges of Bargmann invariants (2025), arXiv:2506.13266 [quant-ph]

    2025

  92. [100]

    Zhang, B

    L. Zhang, B. Xie, and B. Li, Geometry of sets of Bargmann invariants, Phys. Rev. A111, 042417 (2025)

    2025

  93. [101]

    Li and Y.-X

    M.-S. Li and Y.-X. Tan, Bargmann invariants for quan- tum imaginarity, Phys. Rev. A111, 022409 (2025)

    2025

  94. [102]

    J. C. Baez, Division algebras and quantum theory, Foun- dations of Physics42, 819–855 (2011)

    2011

  95. [103]

    Enrico Fermi

    V. V. Albert, Bosonic coding: introduction and use cases, inQuantum Fluids of Light and Matter, Inter- national School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, Vol. 209, edited by A. Bramati, I. Carusotto, and C. Ciuti (IOS Press, NL, 2025) p. 79–107

    2025

  96. [104]

    Davis, N

    J. Davis, N. Fabre, and U. Chabaud, Identifying quantum resources in encoded computations (2024), arXiv:2407.18394 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Brif and A

    C. Brif and A. Mann, Phase-space formulation of quan- tum mechanics and quantum-state reconstruction for physical systems with Lie-group symmetries, Phys. Rev. A59, 971 (1999). Appendix A: Proof that the complexification functor preserves generating sets We denote by span K({s...

    1999

  98. [106]

    Note that this does not mean that for everyfwe must have thatC(f) is injective

    The complexification functor is faithful Let anyf,g∈Vect R(W,V) then C(f) =C(g)⇐⇒ ∀w∈C(W),C(f)(w) =C(g)(w) ⇐⇒ ∀(w1,w 2),(f(w 1),f(w 2)) = (g(w1),g(w 2)) ⇐⇒ ∀w,f(w) =g(w), ⇐⇒f=g. Note that this does not mean that for everyfwe must have thatC(f) is injective. Diagrammatically, t...

  99. [107]

    Recall that the monoidal units areI K =K

    Defining coherent mapsεandµ W,V We need to construct natural isomorphismsεandµ V,W for everyV,Wsatisfying certain coherence conditions. Recall that the monoidal units areI K =K. We define the morphismε:I C→C(I R) via ε(x+iy) = (x,y),(B2) which is clearlyC-linear. 14 Note that ...

  100. [108]

    Let{w i}i⊆W,{v i}i⊆V be arbitrary basis of these vector spaces, then{(w i⊗ vj,0),(0,w i⊗v j)}i,j is a basis forC(W⊗V)

    Showing thatεandµ W,V are isomorphisms Clearly,εis invertible, with inverse given by ε−1(x,y) =x+iy.Now, letV,W∈Vect R, we want to show thatµ W,V is invertible. Let{w i}i⊆W,{v i}i⊆V be arbitrary basis of these vector spaces, then{(w i⊗ vj,0),(0,w i⊗v j)}i,j is a basis forC(W⊗V...

  101. [109]

    unnatural

    Associativity We now need to show that the coherence condition of associativity which is described by the condition that for every objectV,W,Z∈Vect R the following diagram (C(V)⊗C(W))⊗C(Z) C(V)⊗(C(W)⊗C(Z)) (C(V⊗W)⊗C(Z) C(V)⊗C(W⊗Z) (C((V⊗W)⊗Z) C(V⊗(W⊗Z)) ∼= µV,W⊗id id⊗µW,Z µV⊗W...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.