pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25598 · v1 · pith:JA5HNLOAnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🪐 quant-ph

The Cost of Removing Tunability in Quantum Data Re-Uploading

Anthony Yuezhang Liu , Lirand\"e Pira This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 21:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum data re-uploadingfixed upload circuitstunable upload circuitscircuit depth scalingquantum signal processingGevrey classJackson theoremapproximation complexity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Tunable quantum data re-uploading circuits can be approximated by fixed ones with polylogarithmic depth scaling.

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

The paper establishes that a tunable upload circuit can be approximated by a fixed upload circuit with depth D scaling as O_σ[(log(1/ε))^σ] for every σ > 1, plus a target-dependent constant overhead. This improves prior polynomial-in-1/ε bounds while preserving the same overhead. The result is obtained by constructing an auxiliary extension of the target that stays inside the Gevrey class, then applying Jackson's theorem followed by generalized quantum signal processing. A matching lower bound of Ω(log(1/ε)) is proved for targets in a mismatch class using Turán-Nazarov inequalities. The analysis therefore quantifies how expressivity removed by fixing the upload frequencies is recovered through increased circuit depth.

Core claim

A tunable upload circuit can be approximated by a fixed upload circuit using depth D = O_σ[(log(1/ε))^σ] for every σ>1, with a target dependent constant overhead. The proof relies on an auxiliary extension approximation mechanism that combines Gevrey class construction, Jackson's theorem and the generalized quantum signal processing theorem. Fixed upload approximations also face a periodic mismatch obstruction that forces a logarithmic lower bound D = Ω(log(1/ε)) for targets in the mismatch class.

What carries the argument

Auxiliary extension approximation mechanism combining Gevrey class construction, Jackson's theorem, and generalized quantum signal processing theorem.

If this is right

  • Expressive power lost by removing tunability is recovered using only polylogarithmic growth in circuit depth with target-dependent constant overhead.
  • A periodic mismatch obstruction is intrinsic to fixed-upload approximations and forces logarithmic lower bounds for certain targets.
  • Expressivity transfers from tunable frequencies into circuit depth under the stated scaling.
  • The same auxiliary-extension technique yields a quantitative framework for approximation complexity in related quantum signal-processing models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The polylogarithmic upper bound may be improvable to a true logarithmic scaling for broader classes of targets.
  • Mismatch obstructions could appear in other fixed-parameter quantum learning architectures and limit their expressivity independently of depth.
  • The Gevrey-class route may extend to approximation questions in classical neural networks that use fixed nonlinearities.

Load-bearing premise

The target function belongs to a class for which the auxiliary extension stays inside the Gevrey class and the generalized quantum signal processing theorem applies without additional restrictions on the spectrum.

What would settle it

An explicit target function in the mismatch class for which any fixed-upload approximation requires depth super-polylogarithmic in 1/ε.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25598 by Anthony Yuezhang Liu, Lirand\"e Pira.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. depth-error scaling picture for the fixed upload approximation of tunable upload circuits. The mismatch obstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fixed encoding data re-uploading quantum circuits provide a striking example of universality emerging from a highly constrained architecture. However, universality alone is insufficient for assessing the theoretical and practical value of fixed and tunable upload circuits. The resource cost of removing tunability remains poorly understood. In this work, we establish quantitative depth-error scaling for approximating tunable upload circuits with fixed upload circuits. We show that a tunable upload circuit can be approximated by a fixed upload circuit using depth \( D = O_\sigma\!\left[(\log(1/\varepsilon))^\sigma\right] \) for every \(\sigma>1\), with a target dependent constant overhead, thereby improving the previously known polynomial dependence on \(1/\varepsilon\) with the same overhead. Our proof is based on an auxiliary extension approximation mechanism that combines Gevrey class construction, Jackson's theorem and generalized quantum signal processing theorem. Thus, the expressive power lost by removing tunability can be recovered using only polylogarithmic growth in circuit depth with a target dependent constant overhead. We further identify a periodic mismatch obstruction intrinsic to fixed upload approximations and use Tur\'an-Nazarov inequalities to prove logarithmic lower bounds \( D = \Omega(\log(1/\varepsilon)) \) for the approximation of mismatch class target tunable upload circuits. Conceptually, our analysis reveals two structural mechanisms underlying approximation in fixed upload architectures: auxiliary extensions and mismatch obstructions. These results provide a quantitative understanding of how expressivity is transferred from tunable frequencies into circuit depth, and suggest a broader framework for studying approximation complexity in quantum signal processing and related quantum learning models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript claims that a tunable quantum data re-uploading circuit can be approximated by a fixed upload circuit to error ε using depth D = O_σ[(log(1/ε))^σ] for every σ>1 (with target-dependent constant overhead), improving on prior polynomial scaling in 1/ε. The upper bound is obtained via an auxiliary extension construction that keeps the target in a Gevrey class, invoking Jackson's theorem and a generalized quantum signal processing result. A matching lower bound D = Ω(log(1/ε)) is proved for a mismatch class of targets using Turán-Nazarov inequalities, with the analysis identifying auxiliary extensions and periodic mismatch obstructions as the two structural mechanisms transferring expressivity from tunable frequencies into depth.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the result supplies the first quantitative, polylogarithmic characterization of the cost of removing tunability in data re-uploading architectures, tightening the gap between upper and lower bounds and furnishing a concrete example of how classical approximation theory (Gevrey classes, Jackson, Turán-Nazarov) can be combined with generalized QSP to analyze quantum learning models. The explicit separation of auxiliary-extension and mismatch-obstruction mechanisms offers a reusable conceptual framework beyond the specific setting.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (proof mechanism paragraph): the assertion that the auxiliary extension keeps the target inside the Gevrey class 'without additional restrictions on the spectrum' is load-bearing for the claimed polylog depth bound. The construction (periodic mismatch, frequency re-mapping, extension operator) can change the effective spectrum support; the manuscript must verify that the resulting eigenvalues continue to satisfy the decay or isolation hypotheses required by the generalized QSP theorem, otherwise the reduction to Jackson's theorem fails and one reverts to polynomial scaling.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (lower-bound paragraph): the invocation of Turán-Nazarov inequalities to obtain D = Ω(log(1/ε)) for mismatch-class targets requires an explicit statement of how the periodic mismatch obstruction is formalized as a function on the circle and why the inequality applies directly to the approximation error of the quantum circuit (rather than to a classical trigonometric polynomial).
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The σ-dependent big-O notation and the precise meaning of 'target dependent constant overhead' should be defined at first use rather than left implicit in the abstract.
  2. A short related-work paragraph contrasting the new polylog bound with the previously known polynomial dependence would help readers assess the improvement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback. Below we respond point-by-point to the two major comments. We will incorporate the requested clarifications and verifications into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (proof mechanism paragraph): the assertion that the auxiliary extension keeps the target inside the Gevrey class 'without additional restrictions on the spectrum' is load-bearing for the claimed polylog depth bound. The construction (periodic mismatch, frequency re-mapping, extension operator) can change the effective spectrum support; the manuscript must verify that the resulting eigenvalues continue to satisfy the decay or isolation hypotheses required by the generalized QSP theorem, otherwise the reduction to Jackson's theorem fails and one reverts to polynomial scaling.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's identification of this load-bearing step. The auxiliary extension is constructed via a frequency re-mapping that preserves the exponential decay of Fourier coefficients, thereby keeping the target in the same Gevrey class. Nevertheless, to make the preservation of the required spectral isolation and decay hypotheses fully explicit, we will add a short lemma in the revised manuscript that directly verifies the eigenvalues satisfy the hypotheses of the generalized QSP theorem. This addition will confirm that the reduction to Jackson's theorem remains valid and the polylogarithmic bound is not compromised. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (lower-bound paragraph): the invocation of Turán-Nazarov inequalities to obtain D = Ω(log(1/ε)) for mismatch-class targets requires an explicit statement of how the periodic mismatch obstruction is formalized as a function on the circle and why the inequality applies directly to the approximation error of the quantum circuit (rather than to a classical trigonometric polynomial).

    Authors: We agree that an explicit formalization would strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph (or short subsection) that (i) defines the periodic mismatch obstruction as a continuous function on the circle via the mismatch between the tunable frequencies and the fixed upload frequencies, and (ii) explains why the Turán-Nazarov inequality applies directly to the quantum circuit error: the fixed-upload circuit realizes a trigonometric polynomial whose uniform norm is bounded by the circuit approximation error, allowing the inequality to be invoked without intermediate classical reduction steps. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation invokes external theorems without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The claimed polylog depth bound D = O_σ[(log(1/ε))^σ] is obtained by constructing an auxiliary extension that stays in the Gevrey class, then directly applying Jackson's theorem and the generalized quantum signal processing theorem (both presented as external results). The lower bound similarly invokes the external Turán-Nazarov inequalities. No equation or step reduces the target bound to a quantity fitted or defined inside the paper, no self-citation is load-bearing, and no ansatz or uniqueness claim is smuggled via prior author work. The argument is therefore self-contained against the cited external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of Jackson's theorem, the generalized quantum signal processing theorem, Gevrey-class closure under the auxiliary extension, and Turán-Nazarov inequalities; these are standard results imported from analysis and quantum signal processing.

axioms (3)
  • standard math Jackson's theorem supplies polynomial approximation rates for continuous functions on the circle
    Invoked in the auxiliary-extension construction (abstract proof paragraph)
  • domain assumption Generalized quantum signal processing theorem converts smooth function approximations into fixed-frequency quantum circuits
    Central step linking classical approximation to quantum circuit depth (abstract)
  • standard math Turán-Nazarov inequalities bound the depth needed to overcome periodic mismatch obstructions
    Used for the Ω(log(1/ε)) lower bound on mismatch-class targets

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5814 in / 1548 out tokens · 21375 ms · 2026-06-25T21:22:41.264175+00:00 · methodology

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

51 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Single tunable upload gate upper bound 16

  2. [2]

    Choosing the best auxiliary extension function class 19

  3. [3]

    Constructing a Gevrey auxiliary extension function 20

  4. [4]

    Proofs for lower bounds 23

    Circuit wise upper bound 22 C. Proofs for lower bounds 23

  5. [5]

    Single residual tunable upload gate lower bound 23

  6. [6]

    Circuit wise lower bound 24

  7. [7]

    Beyond: Approximating multivariate functions 27 References 29 3 I

    No universal lower bound 27 D. Beyond: Approximating multivariate functions 27 References 29 3 I. INTRODUCTION A central theme in approximation theory and machine learning is that highly expressive models can emerge from remarkably restricted architectures. Classical universal approximation theorems show that simple neural network architectures can approx...

    1918

  8. [8]

    Intuitively, theγcomposition mismatch is a generalization of from one dimensional case to multidimensional case

    Therefore, for multivariate approximation, we need a mismatch condition over these coordinate slice. Intuitively, theγcomposition mismatch is a generalization of from one dimensional case to multidimensional case. Continuous periodicity over[0,4] m requires the boundaries to agree. A coordinate slice mismatch witnesses the mismatch of the boundary. Theref...

  9. [9]

    Notic that our target is eiwxσz = eiwx 0 0e −iwx ,0≤x≤1.(B1) 17 For everywwe can writew=K π 2 +η, separatingwinto a π 2 integer part and a residual part

    Single tunable upload gate upper bound We approximate one tunable upload gate over [0,1] with a fixed upload circuit in this subsection. Notic that our target is eiwxσz = eiwx 0 0e −iwx ,0≤x≤1.(B1) 17 For everywwe can writew=K π 2 +η, separatingwinto a π 2 integer part and a residual part. The integer part can be implemented by simply adding|K|overhead ga...

  10. [10]

    Corollary 23(Single tunable upload gate Jackson theorem).Letw∈R, and choose K∈Z, η=w−K π 2 ,|η| ≤ π 4 .(B17) LetAbe aC r 2[0,2]auxiliary extension fore iηx

    Thus the same bound holds in all cases after replacing √ 12 by 4. Corollary 23(Single tunable upload gate Jackson theorem).Letw∈R, and choose K∈Z, η=w−K π 2 ,|η| ≤ π 4 .(B17) LetAbe aC r 2[0,2]auxiliary extension fore iηx. Then the tunable upload gatee iwxσz can be approximated uniformly on[0,1]to Frobenius error at mostεby a fixed upload circuit with upl...

  11. [11]

    The error toNscaling is determined by the regularity, or explicitly, property of the derivatives of auxiliary extension function, which we can design at our convenience

    Choosing the best auxiliary extension function class The single tunable upload gate theorem reduces the upper bound to controlling δN ≲ A(r) ∞ (2N+ 2) r .(B24) This is a Jackson type approximation argument. The error toNscaling is determined by the regularity, or explicitly, property of the derivatives of auxiliary extension function, which we can design ...

  12. [12]

    Forσ >1, set α= 1 σ−1 .(B30) Thenσ= 1 + 1/α

    Constructing a Gevrey auxiliary extension function In this subsection, we construct a Gevrey class auxiliary extension function by several layers of composition and verify that these compositions preserves the Gevrey property. Forσ >1, set α= 1 σ−1 .(B30) Thenσ= 1 + 1/α. Define ρσ(t) = ( exp(−t−α), t >0, 0, t≤0, (B31) and χσ(t) = ρσ(t) ρσ(t) +ρ σ(1−t) ,0≤...

  13. [13]

    Therefore A(k) η,σ ∞ ≤C σRk σ(k!)σ (B55) with constants depending only onσ

    are bounded uniformly on this compactη-interval, and the analytic composition estimates are uniform on the corresponding bounded range. Therefore A(k) η,σ ∞ ≤C σRk σ(k!)σ (B55) with constants depending only onσ. The identity on [0,1] follows fromχ σ(x−1) = 0 there, and unit modulus is immediate. Proof of Theorem 11.Choose Gevrey class auxiliary extension ...

  14. [14]

    Write the tunable upload circuit and the fixed upload circuit as identical products except that each eiwjk xkσz is replaced by a fixed upload blockR (wjk ) Kjk ,N(xk)

    Circuit wise upper bound Proof of Theorem 12.The Frobenius bound of Theorem 11 implies the same bound in operator norm for each tunable upload gate. Write the tunable upload circuit and the fixed upload circuit as identical products except that each eiwjk xkσz is replaced by a fixed upload blockR (wjk ) Kjk ,N(xk). The telescoping identity for products gi...

  15. [15]

    For delivering the upper bound for a single tunable upload gate we used two structural ingredients

    Single residual tunable upload gate lower bound Here we first prove the depth-error lower bound for approximating a single residual tunable upload gate with fixed upload circuits. For delivering the upper bound for a single tunable upload gate we used two structural ingredients. The first is the restriction of the target domain and 2-periodic auxiliary ex...

  16. [16]

    We can replace each tunable upload gate separately and telescope the product error

    Circuit wise lower bound In the upper bound theorems, once we have an upper bound for single tunable upload gate approximation, we can obtain an upper bound for the circuit wise approximation by a worst case argument. We can replace each tunable upload gate separately and telescope the product error. This separability is not true in general for all possib...

  17. [17]

    One cannot remove this dependence

    No universal lower bound The theorem above applies to any tunable upload circuit with a mismatch obstruction, but the bound depends on the mismatch obstruction ∆ 4(U w L ). One cannot remove this dependence. Proof of Theorem 16.Take two non-integer residual tunable upload gates with opposite signs: U w L (t) =e iηtσz e−iηtσz , η /∈ π 4 Z.(C38) The whole p...

  18. [18]

    Cybenko, Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems2, 303 (1989)

    G. Cybenko, Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems2, 303 (1989)

    1989

  19. [19]

    Hornik, Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks, Neural Networks4, 251 (1991)

    K. Hornik, Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks, Neural Networks4, 251 (1991)

    1991

  20. [20]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, International Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  21. [21]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1484–1509 (1997)

    1997

  22. [22]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  23. [23]

    Arunachalam and R

    S. Arunachalam and R. de Wolf, Guest column: A survey of quantum learning theory, SIGACT News48, 41–67 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    Benedetti, E

    M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models, Quantum Science and Technology4, 043001 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    P´ erez-Salinas, A

    A. P´ erez-Salinas, A. Cervera-Lierta, E. Gil-Fuster, and J. I. Latorre, Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier, Quantum4, 226 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    P´ erez-Salinas, D

    A. P´ erez-Salinas, D. L´ opez-N´ u˜ nez, A. Garc´ ıa-S´ aez, P. Forn-D´ ıaz, and J. I. Latorre, One qubit as a universal approximant, Physical Review A104, 10.1103/physreva.104.012405 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.104.012405 2021

  27. [27]

    T. Goto, Q. H. Tran, and K. Nakajima, Universal approximation property of quantum machine learning models in quantum- enhanced feature spaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 090506 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Dutta, A

    T. Dutta, A. P´ erez-Salinas, J. P. S. Cheng, J. I. Latorre, and M. Mukherjee, Single-qubit universal classifier implemented on an ion-trap quantum device, Phys. Rev. A106, 012411 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Schuld, R

    M. Schuld, R. Sweke, and J. J. Meyer, The effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum-machine- learning models, Physical Review A103, 032430 (2021), arXiv:2008.08605 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Expressibility and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, Advanced Quantum Technologies2, 10.1002/qute.201900070 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1002/qute.201900070 2019

  31. [31]

    Du, M.-H

    Y. Du, M.-H. Hsieh, T. Liu, and D. Tao, Expressive power of parametrized quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033125 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    M. C. Caro and I. Datta, Pseudo-dimension of quantum circuits, Quantum Machine Intelligence2, 10.1007/s42484-020- 00027-5 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1007/s42484-020- 2020

  33. [33]

    M. C. Caro, H.-Y. Huang, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sornborger, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Generalization in quantum machine learning from few training data, Nature Communications13, 10.1038/s41467-022-32550-3 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32550-3 2022

  34. [34]

    Manzano, D

    A. Manzano, D. Dechant, J. Tura, and V. Dunjko, Approximation and Generalization Capacities of Parametrized Quantum Circuits for Functions in Sobolev Spaces, Quantum9, 1658 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    P´ erez-Salinas, M

    A. P´ erez-Salinas, M. Yaghubi Rad, A. Barthe, and V. Dunjko, Universal approximation of continuous functions with minimal quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043282 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    A. R. Barron, Universal approximation bounds for superpositions of a sigmoidal function, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor.39, 930–945 (1993)

    1993

  37. [37]

    H. N. Mhaskar, Neural networks for optimal approximation of smooth and analytic functions, Neural Comput.8, 164–177 (1996)

    1996

  38. [38]

    Yarotsky, Error bounds for approximations with deep relu networks (2017), arXiv:1610.01145 [cs.LG]

    D. Yarotsky, Error bounds for approximations with deep relu networks (2017), arXiv:1610.01145 [cs.LG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    Z. Yu, Q. Chen, Y. Jiao, Y. Li, X. Lu, X. Wang, and J. Z. Yang, Non-asymptotic approximation error bounds of parame- terized quantum circuits, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems(2024) arXiv:2310.07528 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Physical Review Letters118, 10.1103/physrevlett.118.010501 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.010501 2017

  41. [41]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum3, 163 (2019)

    2019

  42. [42]

    Motlagh and N

    D. Motlagh and N. Wiebe, Generalized quantum signal processing, PRX Quantum5, 020368 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, Grand unification of quantum algorithms, PRX Quantum2, 10.1103/prxquantum.2.040203 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.040203 2021

  44. [44]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, inProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’19 (ACM, 2019) p. 193–204

    2019

  45. [45]

    M. J. D. Powell,Approximation Theory and Methods(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981)

    1981

  46. [46]

    K¨ uhn and M

    T. K¨ uhn and M. Petersen, Approximation in periodic gevrey spaces, Journal of Complexity73, 101665 (2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    Gevrey, Sur la nature analytique des solutions des ´ equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles

    M. Gevrey, Sur la nature analytique des solutions des ´ equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles. premier m´ emoire, Annales scien- tifiques de l’ ´Ecole Normale Sup´ erieure 3,35, 129 (1918)

    1918

  48. [48]

    Rodino,Linear Partial Differential Operators in Gevrey Spaces(World Scientific, Singapore, 1993)

    L. Rodino,Linear Partial Differential Operators in Gevrey Spaces(World Scientific, Singapore, 1993)

    1993

  49. [49]

    Rainer and G

    A. Rainer and G. Schindl, Composition in ultradifferentiable classes, Studia Mathematica224, 97 (2014)

    2014

  50. [50]

    F. L. Nazarov, Local estimates for exponential polynomials and their applications to inequalities of the uncertainty principle type, Algebra i Analiz5, 3 (1993), english translation: St. Petersburg Math. J. 5(4), 663–717 (1994)

    1993

  51. [51]

    Friedland and Y

    O. Friedland and Y. Yomdin, An observation on the Tur´ an–Nazarov inequality (2013), arXiv:1107.0039 [math.FA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013