Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

A representation-theoretic method derives state-independent lower bounds on collective spin variance in up to five qubits, including Δ² ≥ 4/11 for three qubits.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 02:17 UTC pith:YMTBTZF3

load-bearing objection The claimed exact multipartite variance bounds are valid lower bounds but not tight; the exactness/sharpness claims fail on inspection, though the algebraic framework is worth a second look after major revision. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14376 v1 pith:YMTBTZF3 submitted 2026-07-15 quant-ph

State-independent uncertainty relations on multipartite spin 1/2-systems

Yiling Wang , Kailash Misra , Naihuan Jing This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081Qxx
keywords state-independent uncertainty relationscollective spinClebsch–Gordan decompositionsu(2) representationvariance-based uncertaintymultipartite qubit systemsspin squeezingparity dichotomy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper develops an algebraic method to derive universal lower bounds on the total variance of collective spin measurements for systems of up to five qubits. Using the Clebsch–Gordan decomposition into irreducible spin sectors, it reduces the problem to minimizing a quadratic function over sector weights. The authors claim exact state-independent bounds, notably Δ² ≥ 4/11 for three qubits and Δ² ≥ 1/8 on the reduced space for four qubits, revealing a parity dichotomy: odd numbers of qubits admit strictly positive floors, while even numbers have trivial sectors where variance vanishes but retain positive reduced-space bounds. If the bounds are exact, they would be the first exact variance-based state-independent uncertainty relations beyond bipartite systems.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the minimal collective spin variance on (C²)⊗n is determined by the multiplicities of irreducible su(2) sectors and can be computed exactly by minimizing a relaxed quadratic form. For n=3 the minimum is claimed to be 4/11, achieved by the absence of any trivial sector; for n=4 the reduced space V(2)⊕3V(1) has minimum 1/8, while the two trivial V(0) sectors allow zero variance. The authors further compute an interior minimum for n=5 but note that the relaxation can overshoot, yielding a negative lower bound, and they conjecture the true quintipartite bound is positive but do not prove it.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Clebsch–Gordan decomposition of (C²)⊗n into irreducible su(2) spin sectors V(j) with multiplicities. The paper then bounds the total variance in any state by a quadratic function f(x) = Σ_k j_k x_k − 2 Σ_{k<k'} j_k j_{k'} x_k x_{k'}, where x_k are the probabilities of the state lying in each sector. Minimizing f over the simplex of x_k provides the claimed universal bounds; the cross terms encode the destructive interference between different spin sectors.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that minimizing the relaxed lower-bound function f(x) gives the true infimum of the collective variance, i.e., that the per-sector lower bound is tight; if the relaxation is not tight, the computed numbers are only valid lower bounds, not exact minima.

What would settle it

Numerically optimize Δ²(su2) over all normalized states in (C²)⊗3 (or in V(3/2)⊕2V(1/2)) and check whether the infimum equals 4/11; if the observed minimum is strictly greater, the exactness claim fails. Similarly, for n=4, search for a state in V(2)⊕3V(1) with variance below 1/8.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For odd numbers of qubits, no state can completely suppress collective spin variance; a strictly positive universal floor always exists.
  • For even numbers of qubits, states confined to trivial sectors have zero variance, but any state with support on non-trivial sectors obeys a positive reduced-space bound.
  • The derived bounds imply intrinsic noise floors for collective spin measurements, which are directly relevant to quantum metrology and spin squeezing.
  • The representation-theoretic structure yields algebraic entanglement witnesses: states violating the variance floors must possess nonclassical correlations.
  • The parity criterion provides a simple way to identify decoherence-free subspaces under collective SU(2) noise: even n offers such subspaces, odd n does not.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The optimization method may extend to other compact Lie algebras, but the authors note that for higher spin su(2) representations only some cases work, so new ideas are needed for a general theory.
  • The negative boundary minimum for n=5 indicates that the quadratic relaxation is not tight; the true infimum is likely higher than the computed interior minimum, and the conjectured positivity may be provable with a tighter bound that accounts for cross-sector covariance.
  • A testable extension is to numerically search for states that achieve the claimed bounds for n=3 and n=4; if the actual infima are strictly higher, the bounds remain valid lower bounds but are not 'exact'.
  • The parity dichotomy might persist for arbitrary n, and a closed analytic formula for the minimum variance in terms of sector multiplicities is a natural conjecture.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a representation-theoretic framework for variance-based state-independent uncertainty relations (SIURs) for collective su(2) generators on n-qubit systems. The authors decompose (C^2)^⊗n into irreducible spin sectors via Clebsch–Gordan decomposition, then derive a quadratic lower bound (Theorem 3.3) on the total variance for states in a direct sum of irreps. They claim exact state-independent bounds for n=3 (4/11) and n=4 (1/8 on the reduced space), and a sharp bound 11/24 for V(3/2)⊕V(1/2) (Example 3.5). For n=5 they report a negative relaxed minimum and restrict to reduced subspaces. The paper also emphasizes a parity dichotomy: even n have trivial sectors allowing zero variance, while odd n have strictly positive floors.

Significance. If the claimed exact bounds were correct, they would constitute the first variance-based SIURs beyond bipartite collective-spin systems. The Clebsch–Gordan decompositions for n=1–5 are correct, and the lower-bound inequality (3.3) is a valid, if weak, universal bound. The paper is notably transparent about the failure of its relaxation for n=5. However, the central exactness and sharpness claims are unsupported and in fact false: the relaxation drops positive terms, and the closed-form minimization formula is algebraically incorrect. The parity observation is interesting but already follows from the decomposition alone. As stated, the main contribution is therefore not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 3.1 and Example 3.5] The relaxation in Lemma 3.1 is not tight. For a subnormalized sector v_k with x=||v_k||^2, the exact variance is x j_k + x(1-x)||<J>_{normalized}||^2, which exceeds x j_k unless x=1. Thus Theorem 3.3 gives only a lower bound, not the infimum. In Example 3.5, a coherent state wholly in V(1/2) has variance 1/2, so the true infimum over V(3/2)⊕V(1/2) is 1/2, not the claimed sharp 11/24. The same issue invalidates the exactness of 4/11 (Theorem 5.1; actual infimum 1/2) and 1/8 (Theorem 6.1; actual reduced-space infimum 1). The abstract's 'exact' and Table 1's 'state-independent bound' are therefore mislabeled.
  2. [Theorem 3.3, Eq. (3.4) and Lemma 9.1, Eq. (9.2)] The closed-form minimization formula is algebraically wrong. For r=2, j=(3/2,1/2), Eq. (3.4) evaluates to 29/96, contradicting the authors' own Example 3.5 (11/24); Eq. (9.2) gives 143/96. For r=3, j=(3/2,1/2,1/2), Eq. (3.4) gives 101/352≈0.2868, not 4/11 as claimed in Theorem 5.1. The correct stationary value is f_min=[(A+2-2r)^2 - rD]/[4(1-r)D] with A=Σ1/j_i, D=A^2-(r-1)Σ1/j_i^2, which reproduces 11/24 and 4/11. Since Corollary 3.4 and all later applications use the stated formula, the numerical constants in Theorems 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 are unreliable.
  3. [Section 7] The paper explicitly concedes that for n=5 the quadratic relaxation 'ceases to be a tight physical bound' and yields negative boundary minima. No criterion is given to decide when the relaxation is tight. The same non-tightness already invalidates the exactness claims for n=3 and n=4 (see above), as the dropped terms x_k(1-x_k)||<J>||^2 are positive whenever a state has support in more than one sector or is not a coherent state. Thus the method, by the authors' own account, does not produce exact variance bounds.
  4. [Theorem 7.1 / Section 7] The constants B=0.2857, 0.091667, and 0.2989 for the subspaces (7.4)–(7.6) are presented without derivation or the optimizing x-distributions. In view of the incorrect formula in Theorem 3.3, these values cannot be reproduced by the reader. The statement 'V/W' is also ambiguous since W is a subspace; the intended reduced space should be defined clearly. These results should be re-derived and stated as lower bounds, not exact minima.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and keywords] The header on the first page is garbled ('MUL TIP AR TITE ST A TE-INDEPENDENT') and the key words contain a typo: 'uncertainly relations' should be 'uncertainty relations'.
  2. [Table 1] Row n=5 says 'No strictly positive (num. ind.)' but the text and Section 7 conjecture a strictly positive bound; the table entry is ambiguous and should be reconciled with the discussion.
  3. [Eq. (3.4) vs Eq. (9.2)] The two displayed formulas differ by '-2(r-1)' vs '-2(r+1)' in the numerator; this is another symptom of the algebraic error and should be corrected once the derivation is fixed.
  4. [Figures 1–3] The captions are repetitive and the figures are not referenced with sufficient explanation of what the radial coordinate and shaded regions represent; adding quantitative annotations would improve clarity.
  5. [Notation] The Lie algebra is denoted variously as 'su2', 'su_2', and '\(\mathfrak{su}_2\)'; please standardize. Also, the paper uses 'V/W' in Theorem 7.1 without defining the quotient.
  6. [References] Reference [44] (Schwarzschild space-time) appears tangential and is not discussed in the text; consider removing it or explaining its relevance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: constants follow from stated decompositions and inequalities; the non-tightness admitted in the paper is a soundness gap, not a definitional/fitted-input circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Theorem 3.3 obtains a universal lower bound by combining the per-sector variance bound (Theorem 2.1/Lemma 3.1) with Cauchy-Schwarz cross-term bounds and minimizes the resulting quadratic f(x) via Lemma 9.1; the constants 4/11 and 1/8 are outputs of that stated optimization for the CG data (j1=3/2,j2=j3=1/2) and (2,1,1,1), not parameters fitted to the quantity being 'predicted.' No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no ansatz is smuggled in by citation. The only self-citation involving an author (ref. [8], X. Xiao, N. Jing et al.) concerns weighted uncertainty relations and is not load-bearing for the multipartite bounds. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked. The paper's own Section 7 concedes that 'the quadratic relaxation employed in Theorem 3.3 is not tight' for n=5, and the same non-tightness (the subnormalized-sector variance exceeds j_k∥v_k∥^2 by x_k(1−x_k)j_k^2) means the claimed 'sharp' 11/24 and exact 4/11 are not the true infima. That is a correctness/attainability defect, not circularity: the lower bound is an honest consequence of the stated inequalities and is not equal by construction to the final claim. Hence the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters or invented entities appear. The paper's derived constants come from a relaxation of the variance optimization; the hidden extra assumption—that equality in Lemma 3.1 is attainable—is false and drives the exactness overclaim.

axioms (4)
  • standard math su(2) irreducible representations are classified by spin j and have Casimir value j(j+1)
    Used throughout Section 2 to bound single-sector variance.
  • standard math The Clebsch–Gordan decompositions for (C²)^{⊗n}, n=1..5, are as stated (e.g., V(3/2)⊕2V(1/2) for n=3)
    Standard representation theory; the table lists the decompositions.
  • standard math The variance of a subnormalized sector component satisfies Δ² ≥ j||v||² (Lemma 3.1)
    Mathematically valid as an inequality, but equality is unattainable except for trivial cases.
  • ad hoc to paper The minimum of the relaxed quadratic f(x) equals the exact state-independent variance lower bound (sharpness)
    Never proven; contradicted by the V(1/2) state in Example 3.5 and by the W-state for n=3, where the true infimum is at least 1/2.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15617 in / 29189 out tokens · 260845 ms · 2026-08-02T02:17:07.309166+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Uncertainty relations quantify fundamental limits on simultaneous measurement of quantum observables. While conventional formulations are state-dependent, state-independent uncertainty relations (SIURs) impose universal bounds determined solely by the algebraic structure of the operators, with applications across metrology, quantum cryptography, and entanglement detection. Despite extensive study, exact analytical variance-based SIURs have so far been established primarily for one- and bi-partite systems, while entropic SIURs have been extended to multipartite and memory-assisted settings through information-theoretic constructions. In contrast, exact variance-based SIURs beyond the bipartite level have remained analytically unresolved.} Here we develop a representation-theoretic framework for multipartite SIURs in collective spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ systems. Using the Clebsch--Gordan decomposition and extremal analysis of total spin variance, we derive exact state-independent bounds up to quintipartite systems. A clear structural dichotomy emerges: odd $n$ systems exhibit strictly positive universal bounds (e.g., $\Delta^2(\mathfrak{su}_2)\!\ge\!4/11$ for $n=3$), whereas even $n$ admit vanishing variance on trivial sectors but retain positive reduced-space bounds (e.g., $\Delta^2(\mathfrak{su}_2)\!\ge\!1/8$ for $n=4$). These results establish the first unified, algebraic framework for multipartite variance-based SIURs in qubit ensembles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14376 by Kailash Misra, Naihuan Jing, Yiling Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Bipartite structure and the corresponding state￾independent variance bound. The radial coordinate encodes the total collective-spin variance ∆2 for ( 1 2 )⊗( 1 2 ) = 1 ⊕ 0. The central subspace V (0) (grey) is fixed at ∆2 = 0, while all states in V (1) (orange region) satisfy ∆2 ≥1. Representative Bell states |Φ ±⟩ and |ψ +⟩ are indicated on the ring. Radius encodes the magnitude of total variance. The bip… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visualization of the tripartite system ( 1 2 ) ⊗3 ∼=V (3/2)⊕ 2V (1/2) and the corresponding state-independent lower bound on the total variance ∆2 . Since no sector V (0) appears at N=3, the total variance cannot vanish. All states obey the uniform bound ∆2 ≥ 4 11 (orange disk), with radius encoding the variance mag￾nitude. Representative entangled states |GHZ⟩ (blue) and |W⟩ (green) are indicated on the r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quadripartite su2 structure and the corresponding state-independent variance bound. The radial coordinate repre￾sents the total variance ∆2 of the collective spin for (C 2 ) ⊗4 . The shaded central disk (scaled to 85% of the original radius) denotes the two-dimensional subspace 2V (0). The orange circle marks the state-independent lower bound ∆2 = 1 8 on the reduced nontrivial space V ′ = V (2) ⊕ 3V (1). R… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik,Z

    W. Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik,Z. Phys.43(1927), 172–198

    1927

  2. [2]

    E. H. Kennard, Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen,Z. Phys.44(1927), 326– 352

    1927

  3. [3]

    H. P. Robertson, The uncertainty principle,Phys. Rev.34(1929), 163–164

    1929

  4. [4]

    Schr¨ odinger, Zum Heisenbergschen Unsch¨ arfeprinzip,Sitzungsber

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Zum Heisenbergschen Unsch¨ arfeprinzip,Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. Kl.19(1930), 296–303

    1930

  5. [5]

    P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications,Rev. Mod. Phys.89(2017), 015002

    2017

  6. [6]

    Maccone and A

    L. Maccone and A. K. Pati, Stronger uncertainty relations for all incompatible observables, Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014), 260401

    2014

  7. [7]

    Schwonnek, L

    R. Schwonnek, L. Dammeier, and R. F. Werner, State-independent uncertainty relations and entanglement detection in noisy systems,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017), 170404

    2017

  8. [8]

    Y. Xiao, N. Jing, X. Li-Jost, S. M. Fei, Weighted uncertainty relations,Sci. Rep.6(2016), 23201

    2016

  9. [9]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. Lahti, and R. F. Werner, Colloquium: Quantum root-mean-square error and measurement uncertainty relations,Rev. Mod. Phys.86(2014), 1261–1281

    2014

  10. [10]

    Dammeier, R

    L. Dammeier, R. Schwonnek, and R. F. Werner, Uncertainty relations for angular momentum, New J. Phys.17(2015), 093046

    2015

  11. [11]

    de Guise, L

    H. de Guise, L. Maccone, B. C. Sanders, and N. Shukla, State-independent uncertainty relations,Phys. Rev. A98(2018), 042121

    2018

  12. [12]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2006

  13. [13]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology,Nature Photon. 5(2011), 222–229

    2011

  14. [14]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atoms and light,Rev. Mod. Phys.90(2018), 035005

    2018

  15. [15]

    M. J. W. Hall, Prior information: How to circumvent the standard joint-measurement uncer- tainty relation,Phys. Rev. A69(2004), 052113

    2004

  16. [16]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states,Phys. Rev. A47(1993), 5138–5143

    1993

  17. [17]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Quantum speed limits: From Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control,J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.50(2017), 453001

    2017

  18. [18]

    L. A. Correa, M. Mehboudi, G. Adesso, and A. Sanpera, Individual quantum probes for optimal thermometry,Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015), 220405. 18

    2015

  19. [19]

    H. F. Hofmann and S. Takeuchi, Violation of local uncertainty relations as a signature of entanglement,Phys. Rev. A68(2003), 032103

    2003

  20. [20]

    G¨ uhne, Characterizing entanglement via uncertainty relations,Phys

    O. G¨ uhne, Characterizing entanglement via uncertainty relations,Phys. Rev. Lett.92(2004), 117903

    2004

  21. [21]

    G¨ uhne and G

    O. G¨ uhne and G. T´ oth, Entanglement detection,Phys. Rep.474(2009), 1–75

    2009

  22. [22]

    T´ oth, C

    G. T´ oth, C. Knapp, O. G¨ uhne, and H. J. Briegel, Optimal spin squeezing inequalities detect bound entanglement in spin models,Phys. Rev. Lett.99(2007), 250405

    2007

  23. [23]

    G¨ uhne, P

    O. G¨ uhne, P. Hyllus, D. Bruß, A. Ekert, M. Lewenstein, C. Macchiavello, and A. Sanpera, Detection of entanglement with few local measurements,Phys. Rev. A66(2002), 062305

    2002

  24. [24]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezz` e, and A. Smerzi, Fisher information and multiparticle entanglement,Phys. Rev. A85, 022321 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    T´ oth and I

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspec- tive,J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.47(2014), 424006

    2014

  26. [26]

    Z. Ren, W. Li, A. Smerzi, and M. Gessner, Metrological detection of multipartite entangle- ment from Young diagrams,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021), 080502

    2021

  27. [27]

    A. X. Liu, M. C. Yang, and C. F. Qiao, Entanglement criteria based on quantum Fisher information,Phys. Lett. A527(2024), 130003

    2024

  28. [28]

    Jungnitsch, T

    B. Jungnitsch, T. Moroder, and O. G¨ uhne, Taming multiparticle entanglement,Phys. Rev. Lett.106(2011), 190502

    2011

  29. [29]

    Horodecki, L

    P. Horodecki, L. Rudnicki, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Multipartite entanglement, arXiv:2409.04566 [quant-ph] (2024), a chapter in Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics 2nd edition

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Maassen and J

    H. Maassen and J. B. M. Uffink, Generalized entropic uncertainty relations,Phys. Rev. Lett. 60(1988), 1103–1106

    1988

  31. [31]

    Wehner and A

    S. Wehner and A. Winter, Entropic uncertainty relations—a survey,Rev. Mod. Phys.82 (2010), 665–706

    2010

  32. [32]

    Berta, M

    M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and R. Renner, The uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory,Nature Phys.6(2010), 659–662

    2010

  33. [33]

    Renner, N

    R. Renner, N. Gisin, and B. Kraus, Information-theoretic security proof for quantum-key- distribution protocols,Phys. Rev. A72(2005), 012332

    2005

  34. [34]

    Tomamichel and R

    M. Tomamichel and R. Renner, Uncertainty relation for smooth entropies,Phys. Rev. Lett. 106(2011), 110506

    2011

  35. [35]

    Tomamichel, R

    M. Tomamichel, R. Colbeck, and R. Renner, Duality between smooth min- and max-entropies, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory56(2010), 4674–4681

    2010

  36. [36]

    Hayashi, General non-asymptotic and asymptotic formulas in channel resolvability and identification capacity and their application to wire-tap channel,IEEE Trans

    M. Hayashi, General non-asymptotic and asymptotic formulas in channel resolvability and identification capacity and their application to wire-tap channel,IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 52(2006), no. 4, 1562–1575

    2006

  37. [37]

    D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation,Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998), 2594–2597

    1998

  38. [38]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information,Rev. Mod. Phys.79(2007), 555–609

    2007

  39. [39]

    J. M. Renes and J.-C. Boileau, Conjectured strong complementary information tradeoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.103(2009), 020402

    2009

  40. [40]

    Haddadi, M

    S. Haddadi, M. R. Pourkarimi, and S. Haseli, Multipartite uncertainty relation with quantum memory,Sci. Rep.11(2021), 13752

    2021

  41. [41]

    Q. H. Zhang and S. M. Fei, Entropic uncertainty relations with quantum memory in a mul- tipartite scenario,Phys. Rev. A108(2023), 012211

    2023

  42. [42]

    C. Xu, Q. H. Zhang, T. Li, and S. M. Fei, Tightening the entropic uncertainty relations with quantum memory in a multipartite scenario,Phys. Lett. A549(2025), 130570

    2025

  43. [43]

    Z. A. Wang, B. F. Xie, F. Ming, Y. T. Wang, D. Wang, Y. Meng, Z. H. Liu, J. S. Tang, L. Ye, C. F. Li, G. C. Guo, and S. Kais, Experimental test of generalized multipartite entropic uncertainty relations,Phys. Rev. A110(2024), 062220

    2024

  44. [44]

    T. Y. Wang and D. Wang, Entropic uncertainty relations in Schwarzschild space-time,Phys. Lett. B855(2024), 138876. 19 9.Appendix We include the detailed derivation of the optimization used in Theorem 3.3. Lemma 9.1.For positive parametersj k >0(1≤k≤r), let (9.1)f(x) = rX k=1 jkxk −2 X 1≤i<j≤r jijjxixj, be the real function ofx 1, . . . , xr defined on[0,1...

    2024