Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Two imaginarity monotones induced by unified $(\alpha,\beta)$-relative entropy

T0 review · 6 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs two families of imaginarity monotones from the unified $(\alpha,\beta)$-relative entropy and proves they satisfy the resource-theory axioms, along with direct-sum, tensor-product, partial-trace, and ordering properties.

desk verdict A natural two-parameter imaginarity construction whose monotonicity proofs are sound but whose property theorems contain a load-bearing sign error that reverses the direct-sum inequality. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09799 v1 pith:2E4224FG submitted 2025-06-11 quant-ph

Chuanfa Wu , Zhaoqi Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P45
keywords imaginarityresourcetheorymonotoneunified(αβ)-relativeentropyTsallisrelativeRényiquantumoperationsfreestatesqubit
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

Quantum states are described by complex numbers, and imaginarity resource theory treats the non-real part of a state as a resource that real quantum operations cannot create. This paper sets out to build two families of imaginarity monotones from the unified $(\alpha,\beta)$-relative entropy: one that compares a state with its own conjugate, and one that minimizes the same relative entropy over all real states. For both families it claims the three defining axioms—nonnegativity, monotonicity under real operations, and convexity—together with direct-sum superadditivity, tensor-product subadditivity, partial-trace monotonicity, and parameter monotonicity. It also gives explicit closed forms for qubits and for modified Werner and isotropic states, and it conjectures that the conjugate-comparison measure always dominates the minimization measure. A reader should care because these are tunable two-parameter quantifiers that interpolate among existing imaginarity measures and may sharpen state-conversion and state-ordering results.

What carries the argument

The central object is the unified $(\alpha,\beta)$-relative entropy $D^\beta_\alpha(\rho\|\sigma)$ from Definition 4, a two-parameter family of quantum relative entropies that specializes to the R\'enyi relative entropy as $\beta\to0$, to the Tsallis relative entropy at $\beta=1$, and to the standard relative entropy as $\alpha\to1$. The argument is carried by Lemma 1, quoted from [60], which states that for all $\alpha\in(0,1)$ and $\beta\in(0,1]$ the quantity $D^\beta_\alpha$ is nonnegative, vanishes only for equal arguments, is nonincreasing under every quantum operation, is jointly convex, is nondecreasing under partial trace, and is monotone in both parameters. Substituting $\sigma=\rho^*$ converts those properties directly into the axioms for $M^H_{\alpha,\beta}$, and minimizing over $\sigma\in F$ does the same for $M^E_{\alpha,\beta}$; Lemma 2 is what lets real operations commute with complex conjugation, while Lemmas 3 and 4 handle the qubit minimization and the direct-sum optimizer respectively.

What would settle it

Numerically scan the Bloch ball for $\alpha=\beta=1/2$ using Eq. (23) and a fixed real operation such as the computational-basis dephasing channel; the first state for which $M^H_{\alpha,\beta}(E(\rho))>M^H_{\alpha,\beta}(\rho)$ would refute Theorem 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two quantities $M^H_{\alpha,\beta}(\rho)=\frac{1}{(\alpha-1)\beta}[(\operatorname{tr}(\rho^\alpha(\rho^*)^{1-\alpha}))^\beta-1]$ and $M^E_{\alpha,\beta}(\rho)=\min_{\sigma\in F}\frac{1}{(\alpha-1)\beta}[(\operatorname{tr}(\rho^\alpha\sigma^{1-\alpha}))^\beta-1]$, defined for $\alpha\in(0,1)$ and $\beta\in(0,1]$, are imaginarity monotones: they are nonnegative and vanish exactly on real states, they do not increase under real quantum operations, and they are convex. The first quantity measures the unified relative entropy between a state and its conjugate, so no minimization is needed; the second minimizes the same relative entropy over the set $F$ of real states. The paper further shows that $M^H_{\alpha,\beta}$ is superadditive under direct sums (with equality for all states if and only if $\beta=1$), subadditive under tensor products, monotone under partial tracing, and monotone in $\alpha$ and $\beta$; $M^E_{\alpha,\beta}$ is shown to have the analogous direct-sum, tensor-product, partial-trace, and $\beta$-monotonicity properties. In the pure-state case $M^H_{\alpha,\beta}$ reduces to a function of $|\langle\psi|\psi^*\rangle|^2$, and the paper derives explicit qubit formulas and treats modified Werner and isotropic families. It also conjectures that $M^H_{\alpha,\beta}\ge M^E_{\alpha,\beta}$ for all states, verifying this for a class of qubit states.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the quoted Lemma 1 of [60]—that the unified $(\alpha,\beta)$-relative entropy is nonnegative, monotone under every quantum operation, jointly convex, and monotone in $\alpha$ and $\beta$ on the full range $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $\beta\in(0,1]$—and the paper relies on it without proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For pure states, $M^H_{\alpha,\beta}(|\psi\rangle)$ equals $((|\langle\psi|\psi^*\rangle|^{2\beta}-1)/((\alpha-1)\beta))$, so the monotone can be read off the overlap between the state and its conjugate; the paper points to the network of [61] as a way to measure it.
  • Because $M^H_{\alpha,\beta}$ reduces to the Tsallis relative-entropy imaginarity at $\beta=1$ and $M^E_{\alpha,\beta}$ reduces to the relative entropy of imaginarity as $\alpha\to1$, the new theorems give a unified account of several previously separate quantifiers.
  • The ordering $M^R_\alpha \le M^R_{\alpha,z} \le M^T_\alpha \le M^H_{\alpha,\beta}$ means that any resource-conversion statement proved for a weaker measure automatically applies to the stronger ones.
  • Direct-sum superadditivity and tensor-product subadditivity put both families in the same structural class as the relative entropy of imaginarity, so they can be used in many-copy and distributed imaginarity settings.
  • The explicit qubit formulas make the conjectured inequality $M^H_{\alpha,\beta}\ge M^E_{\alpha,\beta}$ checkable by direct numerical evaluation over the Bloch ball.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same construction should work in any resource theory equipped with an involution that commutes with free operations—coherence with respect to a fixed basis is an obvious candidate—giving two-parameter monotones by comparing a resource state to its image under the involution and by minimizing over the free set.
  • Beyond the paper: if the conjectured dominance $M^H_{\alpha,\beta}\ge M^E_{\alpha,\beta}$ holds, the gap between the two measures would quantify how much the closest real state differs from the conjugate, which could serve as a geometric probe of the free-state set.
  • Beyond the paper: the equality condition that direct-sum additivity holds if and only if $\beta=1$ suggests that $\beta$ controls whether the quantifier sees imaginarity additively across independent branches; tuning $\beta$ might therefore interpolate between statewise and global resource counting in multipartite protocols.
  • Beyond the paper: the qubit minimization in Appendix C effectively solves a constrained optimization over the Bloch ball; adapting that calculation to symmetric higher-dimensional families could yield closed-form $M^E_{\alpha,\beta}$ for states beyond the Werner and isotropic families.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two imaginarity monotones built from the unified (α,β)-relative entropy: M^H_{α,β}(ρ) = 1/((α−1)β)[(tr(ρ^α(ρ*)^{1−α}))^β−1] (Eq. 13) and M^E_{α,β}(ρ) = min_{σ∈F} 1/((α−1)β)[(tr(ρ^ασ^{1−α}))^β−1] (Eq. 20), with α∈(0,1) and β∈(0,1]. The authors claim these satisfy the imaginarity axioms (M1), (M2), (M4), and they derive a list of additional properties: direct-sum superadditivity, tensor-product subadditivity, partial-trace monotonicity, ordering relations, and additivity at β=1 (Theorems 2–9). The paper also provides analytic formulas for qubit states and for modified Werner and isotropic states, together with figures and a conjecture on the ordering M^H≥M^E.

Significance. The explicit construction of two parameter-dependent imaginarity monotones is a reasonable contribution if the proofs are correct. The definitions are simple, reduce to known Tsallis-relative-entropy imaginarity when β=1, and the analytic qubit expression in Eq. (24) is a useful explicit result. The monotonicity arguments are short and transparently conditional on a published lemma (Lemma 1 of Ref. [60]), and the authors honestly flag an unproved conjecture. However, the paper advertises direct-sum superadditivity that is in fact false, and several proofs contain convexity/sign errors. The significance of the paper is therefore contingent on a careful revision that corrects the inequality directions and re-establishes the affected theorems.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 3, Theorem 3 (Eqs. (13) and (15))] The proof of Theorem 3 contains a sign error. Since c=(α−1)β<0 and x↦x^β is concave on [0,∞) for 0<β≤1, substituting the concavity inequality (15) into the definitions of M^H yields M^H_{α,β}(pρ1⊕(1−p)ρ2) ≤ pM^H_{α,β}(ρ1)+(1−p)M^H_{α,β}(ρ2), not the stated ≥. For example, take α=β=1/2, p=1/2, and pure states with X1=tr(ρ1^α(ρ1*)^{1−α})=1/4, X2=9/16; then the left-hand side equals (√(13/32)−1)/(−1/4)≈1.450 while the right-hand side is 1.5, contradicting the theorem. The statement should be corrected to subadditivity under direct sum. The same error invalidates Corollary 1, and the additional claim that tr(ρ1^α(ρ1*)^{1−α})=tr(ρ2^α(ρ2*)^{1−α}) cannot hold for any states is false because all real states give value 1.
  2. [Section 3, Theorem 9(1)] Theorem 9(1) repeats the same sign error and additionally asserts that f(x)=x^β is convex, whereas it is concave for 0<β≤1. The claimed superadditivity M^E_{α,β}(pρ1⊕(1−p)ρ2) ≥ pM^E_{α,β}(ρ1)+(1−p)M^E_{α,β}(ρ2) is therefore unproved; the same counterexample structure as in Theorem 3 applies. The correct universal inequality is the reverse one. Theorem 9(2), which is derived by imitating Corollary 1, inherits the proof defect and must be re-established independently.
  3. [Section 3, Theorem 7 proof, Eq. (19)] The proof of Theorem 7 asserts M_T^α(ρ)=M^H_{α,1}(ρ), but Eq. (13) with β=1 gives M^H_{α,1}(ρ)=(1/(1−α))M_T^α(ρ), not equality. The ordering conclusion M_T^α≤M^H_{α,β} can still be recovered because M_T^α≤M^H_{α,1} and M^H_{α,1}≤M^H_{α,β} for β≤1, but the proof as written contains a false equality and must be corrected.
  4. [Appendix B, Lemma 4] The proof of Lemma 4 is not rigorous. For a free state σ0 on H⊕H, the off-diagonal blocks U and V do not contribute to tr((pρ⊕(1−p)τ)^α σ0^{1−α}), but they are not irrelevant: block-positivity and real-symmetry constraints on σ0 couple the diagonal blocks S and W. The assertion that the maximum is attained at S=(pσρ)^{1−α} and W=((1−p)στ)^{1−α} is made without a supporting argument. Since Lemma 4 is used only to prove Theorem 9(1), and that theorem's inequality direction is wrong, the lemma should be either proved carefully or removed from the paper.
  5. [Section 4, Example 2] The reported linear entropy of the modified Werner state is incorrect. Direct calculation from Eq. (25) gives tr(ρ_w^2)=(1+2k+5k^2)/4 and hence L(ρ_w)=(3−2k−5k^2)/4, not 3/4(1−k^2) as stated. Consequently the green curve in Figure 2 does not represent the linear entropy. The endpoint statements (k=0 gives L=3/4 and k=1 gives L=0) are unaffected, but the intermediate values and the figure must be corrected.
  6. [Section 3, Theorems 1 and 8] The monotonicity proofs of Theorems 1 and 8 are valid conditional on Lemma 1 of Ref. [60], but that lemma is quoted, not proved, and its precise parameter range is not stated in the paper. The authors should verify that the unified (α,β)-relative entropy satisfies the quoted joint-convexity, data-processing, and partial-trace monotonicity properties for all α∈(0,1), β∈(0,1], and they should state the reference conditions explicitly. This is a support concern rather than a fatal flaw, but it is load-bearing for the central claim that M^H and M^E are imaginarity monotones.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Theorem 9(5)] The proof of Theorem 9(5) writes M^E_{α,β2}(ρ)=D^{β2}_α(ρ||σ̂) for the β1-minimizer σ̂, which is generally false because σ̂ need not minimize for β2. A valid argument is M^E_{α,β2}(ρ)≤D^{β2}_α(ρ||σ̂)≤D^{β1}_α(ρ||σ̂)=M^E_{α,β1}(ρ), using Lemma 1(vi).
  2. [Section 3, proof of Theorem 8] The step min_{σ∈F}D(E(ρ)||E(σ))≤min_{σ∈F}D(ρ||σ) should be justified by noting that E(F)⊆F for real operations; as written, the inequality is not immediate.
  3. [Section 1 and references] There are several typos and corrupted strings: 'Nancha ng' in the affiliation, 'Pucha/suppress La Z' in Ref. [61], and 'fixs' in the caption of Figure 2. These should be corrected.
  4. [Section 3, after Eq. (14)] The remark that M^H_{α,β} for pure states can be measured using the scheme of Ref. [61] is plausible but not developed; either a brief explanation or a reference to a specific measurement procedure should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: M^H and M^E are explicit evaluations of the externally defined unified (α,β)-relative entropy, and their monotonicity is imported from a cited lemma (Ref. [60]) rather than from a fitted parameter or self-referential definition.

full rationale

The central definitions, Eqs. (13) and (20), are explicit expressions D^β_α(ρ||ρ*) and min_{σ∈F} D^β_α(ρ||σ), where D^β_α is taken from Ref. [60]. Theorem 1 and Theorem 8 prove (M1), (M2), and (M4) by substituting σ=ρ* or minimizing over F within Lemma 1 of Ref. [60]; there is no fitted input, no parameter calibrated to data, and no quantity defined in terms of the result it is supposed to establish. The load-bearing Lemma 1 (nonnegativity, monotonicity under quantum operations, joint convexity, partial-trace monotonicity) is quoted rather than reproved, and the present authors are not the authors of Ref. [60]; this is reliance on an external stated assumption, not a self-citation chain. The paper itself flags an unproven gap in Remark 3 ('We have not found a proof of M^H_α,β(ρ) ≥ M^E_α,β(ρ) ... It is also conjectured ...'), which is an honest limitation. Theorems 3 and 9(1) contain a sign error (x^β is concave for 0<β≤1 while (α−1)β<0, so the displayed inequalities reverse), but that is a mathematical correctness issue, not circularity. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input.

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

No free parameters and no invented entities. The work inherits all monotonicity machinery from [60] and [49]; the new content is a direct evaluation of a known function on ρ,ρ*, so the ledger is light but so is the conceptual novelty.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Lemma 1 of [60]: the unified (α,β)-relative entropy D^β_α satisfies nonnegativity, monotonicity under quantum operations, joint convexity, partial-trace monotonicity, and monotonicity in α and β for α∈(0,1), β∈(0,1].
    Quoted without proof and used in Theorems 1, 4, 6, 8 and 9. If any of these properties fails or has a narrower parameter range, the central monotone proofs collapse.
  • standard math Lemma 2 of [49]: real operations commute with complex conjugation, E(ρ*)=E(ρ)*.
    Used in Theorem 1 to rewrite M^H(E(ρ)) as D^β_α(E(ρ)||E(ρ*)).
  • domain assumption Existence of minimizers σρ, στ, σ̃ in Eq. (20) for every input state.
    Needed for Lemma 4 and Theorem 9. The set F is compact and D^β_α is continuous for invertible states, so the assumption is reasonable but not proved.
  • domain assumption The fixed-basis definitions of real states and real operations from [43].
    The entire notion of imaginarity is basis-dependent; the paper adopts the computational basis and the transpose as conjugation, as in Definitions 1 and 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two imaginarity monotones induced by unified $(\alpha,\beta)$-relative entropy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2E4224FG

@misc{pith2026250609799,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two imaginarity monotones induced by unified $(\alpha,\beta)$-relative entropy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2E4224FG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09799}
}
abstract

Complex numbers play a pivotal role in both mathematics and physics, particularly in quantum mechanics, and are extensively utilized to depict the behavior of microscopic particles. Recognizing the significance of complex numbers, a framework of imaginarity resource theory has recently been established. In this work, we propose two types of imaginarity monotones induced by the unified $(\alpha,\beta)$-relative entropy and investigate their properties. Moreover, we give explicit examples to illustrate our results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09799 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The variations of MH α,β(ρ) and ME α,β(ρ) in Eq. (23) and Eq. (24) for fixed ~r. Red (blue) surface represents the value of MH α,β(ρ) (ME α,β(ρ)). (a) ~r = (0, 1, 0) (ρ is a pure state); (b) ~r = ( 1 2 , 1 4 , 1 2 ) (ρ is a mixed state). Remark 3. From Appendix C, it can be seen that Eq. (20) achieves its minimum value when σ = ¯σ = 1 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The variations of MH α,β(ρw) and L(ρw) with k for fixed α and β. Red solid line fixs α = β = 1 2 in Eq. (26), while blue dashed line fixs α = 1 4 and β = 2 3 in Eq. (26), and green dot-dashed line represents L(ρw). Then consider the modified isotropic state ρiso =   1 6 (2F + 1) 0 0 1 6 (4F − 1)i 0 1 3 (1 − F) 0 0 0 0 1 3 (1 − F) 0 − 1 6 (4F − 1)i 0 0 1 6 (2F + 1)   , (27) where F ∈ [0, 1]. Swapping the po… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [60]

    Wang J, Wu J and Minhyung C 2011 Unified ( r,s )-relative entropy Int. J. Theor. Phys. 50 1282

    2011

  2. [1]

    Namiki M and Pascazio S 1991 Wave-function collapse by measurem ent and its simulation Phys. Rev. A 44 39

    work page 1991

  3. [2]

    Ricardo K 2020 Why are complex numbers needed in quantum mecha nics? Some answers for the introductory level Am. J. Phys. 88 39

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    David G 2018 Connection formulas between Coulomb wave function s J. Math. Phys. 59 112104

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Adler S L and Millard A C 1996 Generalized quantum dynamics as pre-q uantum mechanics Nucl. Phys. B 473 199

    work page 1996

  6. [5]

    Th e generalized Schr¨ odinger equation Adv

    Rochon D and Tremblay S 2004 Bicomplex quantum mechanics: I. Th e generalized Schr¨ odinger equation Adv. Appl. Clifford. Al.14 231

    work page 2004

  7. [6]

    Lahoz-Beltra R 2022 Solving the Schr¨ odinger equation with genetic algorithms: a practical approach Computers. 11 169

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Jumarie G 2001 Schr¨ odinger equation for quantum fractal spa ce-time of order n via the complex-valued fractional Brownian motion Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16 5061

    work page 2001

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    Bernstein S 2006 Factorization of the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation and applications Com- plex. Var. Elliptic. 51 429

    2006

  2. [9]

    Hu Y and Kallianpur G 2000 Schr¨ odinger equations with fractionalLaplacians Appl. Math. Opt. 42 281

    2000

  3. [10]

    Rochon D 2008 On a relation of bicomplex pseudoanalytic functiontheory to the complexified stationary Schr¨ odinger equation Complex. Var. Elliptic.53 501

    2008

  4. [11]

    Math Anal

    Dong J and Xu M 2008 Space-time fractional Schr¨ odinger equa tion with time-independent potentials J. Math Anal. Appl. 344 1005 19

    2008

  5. [12]

    Bialynicki-Birula I 1996 V photon wave function Prog. Optics. 36 245

    1996

  6. [13]

    Karama R 2020 Schr¨ odinger’s original struggles with a complex wave function Am. J. Phys. 88 433

    2020

  7. [14]

    Sawada S I, Heather R, Jackson B and Metiu H 1985 A strategy for time dependent quantum mechanical calculations using a Gaussian wave packet representat ion of the wave function J. Chem. Phys. 83 3009

    1985

  8. [15]

    Aronstein D L and Stroud C R 1997 Fractional wave-function re vivals in the infinite square well Phys. Rev. A 55 4526

    1997

  9. [16]

    Heather R and Metiu H 1987 An efficient procedure for calculating the evolution of the wave function by fast Fourier transform methods for systems wit h spatially extended wave function and localized potential J. Chem. Phys. 86 5009

    1987

  10. [17]

    Shestakova T P 2019 On the meaning of the wave function of the Universe Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 1941009

    2019

  11. [18]

    Abedi A, Maitra N T and Gross E K U 2010 Exact factorization of t he time-dependent electron-nuclear wave function Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 123002

    2010

  12. [19]

    Fried D L 2001 Adaptive optics wave function reconstruction an d phase unwrapping when branch points are present Opt. Commun. 200 43

    2001

  13. [20]

    Huang Z and Balatsky A V 2016 Dynamical quantum phase transit ions: role of topological nodes in wave function overlaps Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 086802

    2016

  14. [21]

    Simsarian J E, Denschlag J, Edwards M, Clark C W, Deng L, Hagley E W, Helmerson K, Rolston S L and Phillips W D 2000 Imaging the phase of an evolving Bose -Einstein condensate wave function Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 2040

    2000

  15. [22]

    Wernsdorfer W and Sessoli R 1999 Quantum phase interference and parity effects in magnetic molecular clusters Science 284 133

    1999

  16. [23]

    Pan X, Schwinger J, Huang N, Song P, Chua W, Hanamura F, Josh i A, Valadares F, Filip R and Gao Y 2023 Protecting the quantum interference of cat stat es by phase-space com- pression Phys. Rev. X 13 021004

    2023

  17. [24]

    Zhang Y, Wei K and Xu F 2020 Generalized Hong-Ou-Mandel quan tum interference with phase-randomized weak coherent states Phys. Rev. A 101 033823

    2020

  18. [25]

    Nsofini J, Ghofrani K, Sarenac D, Cory D G and Pushin D A 2016 Q uantum-information approach to dynamical diffraction theory Phys. Rev. A 94 062311

    2016

  19. [26]

    Karan S, Huang H, Padurariu C, Kubala B, Theiler A, Black-Schaff er A M, Morr´ as G, Yeyati A L, Cuevas J C, Ankerhold J, Kern K and Ast C R 2022 Superc onducting quantum interference at the atomic scale Nat. Phys. 18 893

    2022

  20. [27]

    Qian K, Wang K, Chen L, Hou Z, Krenn M, Zhu S and Ma X 2023 Multiph oton non-local quantum interference controlled by an undetected photon Nat. C ommun. 14 1480

    2023

  21. [28]

    Hogg T 1996 Quantum computing and phase transitions in combina torial search J. Artif. Intell. Res. 4 91 20

    1996

  22. [29]

    Troppmann U, Gollub C and Vivie-Riedle R 2006 The Role of phases an d their interplay in molecular vibrational quantum computing with multiple qubits New J. Ph ys. 8 100

    2006

  23. [30]

    Wetering J 2020 ZX-calculus for the working quantum computer scientist arXiv:2012.13966

    2020 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Hu X, Zhang C, Liu B, Cai Y, Ye X, Guo Y, Xing W, Huang C, Huang Y, Li C and Guo G 2020 Experimental high-dimensional quantum teleportation Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 230501

    2020

  25. [32]

    Cacciapuoti A S, Caleffi M, Meter R V and Hanzo L 2020 When entanglement meets classical communications: quantum teleportation for the quantum internet IEEE T. Commun. 68 3808

    2020

  26. [33]

    Chen M, Li R, Gan L, Zhu X, Yang G, Lu C and Pan J 2020 Quantum-teleportation-inspired algorithm for sampling large random quantum circuits Phys. Rev. Let t. 124 080502

    2020

  27. [34]

    Bassi A, Lochan K, Satin S, Singh T P and Ulbricht H 2013 Models ofwave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 471

    2013

  28. [35]

    Tsallis C 1994 What are the numbers that experiments provide Qu im. Nova. 17 468

    1994

  29. [36]

    Procopio L M, Rozema L A, Wong Z J, Hamel D R, O’Brien K, Zhang X, Daki´ c B and Walther P 2017 Single-photon test of hyper-complex quantum theories using a metamaterial Nat. Commun. 8 15044

    2017

  30. [37]

    Wu D, Jiang Y, Gu X, Huang L, Bai B, Sun Q, Zhang X, Gong S, Mao Y , Zhong H, Chen M, Zhang J, Zhang Q, Lu C and Pan J 2022 Experimental refutation of real-valued quantum mechanics under strict locality conditions Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 140401

    2022

  31. [38]

    Adler S L 2017 Peres experiment using photons: no test for hyp ercomplex (quaternionic) quantum theories Phys. Rev. A 95 060101

    2017

  32. [39]

    Jacak M M, J´ owiak P, Niemczuk J and Jacak J E 2021 Quantum gen erators of random numbers Sci. Rep. 11 16108

    2021

  33. [40]

    Raymer M G 1997 Measuring the quantum mechanical wave funct ion Contemp. Phys. 38 343

    1997

  34. [41]

    Remez R, Karnieli A, Trajtenberg-Mills S, Shapira N, Kaminer I, L ereah Y and Arie A 2019 Observing the quantum wave nature of free electrons through sp ontaneous emission Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 060401

    2019

  35. [42]

    Weinberg S 1989 Testing quantum mechanics Ann. Phys. 194 336

    1989

  36. [43]

    Hickey A and Gour G 2018 Quantifying the imaginarity of quantum m echanics J. Phys. A-Math. Theor. 51 414009

    2018

  37. [44]

    Wu K, Kondra T V, Rana S, Scandolo C M, Xiang G, Li C, Guo G and St reltsov A 2021 Operational resource theory of imaginarity Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 090401

    2021

  38. [45]

    Xue S, Guo J, Li P, Ye M and Li Y 2021 Quantification of resource theory of imaginarity Quantum Inf. Process. 20 383

    2021

  39. [46]

    Wu K, Kondra T V, Rana S, Scandolo C M, Xiang G, Li C, Guo G and St reltsov A 2021 Resource theory of imaginarity: quantification and state conversion Phys. Rev. A103 032401 21

    2021

  40. [47]

    China Phys

    Chen Q, Gao T and Yan F 2023 Measures of imaginarity and quantum state order Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66 280312

    2023

  41. [48]

    China Phys

    Guo M, Li B and Fei S-M 2025 Geometric-like imaginarity: quantific ation and state conver- sion Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68 220311

    2025

  42. [49]

    Xu J 2024 Quantifying the imaginarity of quantum states via Tsallis relative entropy Phys. Lett. A 528 130024

    2024

  43. [50]

    Chen X and Lei Q 2024 Imaginarity measure induced by relative en tropy arXiv:2404.00637

    2024 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Xu J 2023 Imaginarity of Gaussian states Phys. Rev. A 108 062203

    2023

  45. [52]

    Fan Y, Guo Z, Liu Y and Cao H 2024 Resource theory of Kirkwood- Dirac imaginarity Phys. Scr. 99 085115

    2024

  46. [53]

    Wu K, Kondra T V, Scandolo C M, Rana S, Xiang G, Li C, Guo G and St reltsov A 2024 Resource theory of imaginarity in distributed scenarios Commun. Ph ys. 7 171

    2024

  47. [54]

    Bromley T R, Cianciaruso M and Adesso G 2015 Frozen quantum co herence Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 210401

    2015

  48. [55]

    Mondal D, Pramanik T and Pati A K 2017 Nonlocal advantage of q uantum coherence Phys. Rev. A 95 010301

    2017

  49. [56]

    B 33 100306

    Han S, Zheng B and Guo Z 2024 Freezing imaginarity of quantum st ates based on l1-norm Chinese Phys. B 33 100306

    2024

  50. [57]

    Wei Z and Fei S-M 2024 Nonlocal advantages of quantum imagina rity Phys. Rev. A 110 052202

    2024

  51. [58]

    Zhang L and Li N 2024 Coherence as maximal imaginarity generat ed by incoherent opera- tions Europhys. Lett. 148 28002

    2024

  52. [59]

    Zhang L and Li N 2024 Can imaginarity be broadcast via real oper ations? Commun. Theor. Phys. 76 115104

    2024

  53. [61]

    Miszczak J A, Pucha/suppress La Z, Horodecki P, Uhlmann A and Zyczkowski K 2009 Sub-and super- fidelity as bounds for quantum fidelity Quantum Inf. Comput. 9 103

    2009

  54. [62]

    Baumgratz T, Cramer M and Plenio M B 2014 Quantifying coherenc e Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 140401

    2014

  55. [63]

    Yu X, Zhang D, Xu G and Tong D 2016 Alternative framework for q uantifying coherence Phys. Rev. A 94 060302

    2016

  56. [64]

    Baek K, Sohbi A, Lee J, Kim J and Nha H 2020 Quantifying coheren ce of quantum mea- surements New J. Phys. 22 093019

    2020

  57. [65]

    Mu H and Li Y 2020 Quantum uncertainty relations of two quantu m relative entropies of coherence Phys. Rev. A 102 022217

    2020

  58. [66]

    Xu C, Wu Z and Fei S-M 2022 Uncertainty of quantum channels via modified generalized variance and modified generalized Wigner-Yanase-Dyson skew infor mation Quantum Inf. Process. 21 292 22

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.