Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Quantum statistical functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single purification-based construction yields all four quantum statistical functions, with operator ordering selecting the quasiprobability distribution.

desk verdict A useful unifying framework for quantum statistical functions, but the KD-ordering section has a real internal inconsistency and the Ising example has a factor error. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.05821 v2 pith:RAHYOS2Z submitted 2026-02-05 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechmath-phmath.MP

Haruki Emori This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechmath-phmath.MP PACS 03.65.Ta
keywords quantumstatisticalfunctionsmoment-generatingfunctioncanonicalpurificationquasiprobabilitydistributionsweakvaluesKirkwood-DiracdistributionBochner'stheoremmethodofmoments
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

The paper's central aim is to give quantum mechanics a vocabulary of statistical functions—moment-generating, characteristic, cumulant-generating, and second characteristic—that works despite operator noncommutativity. It defines each function as an expectation value of an operator exponential in the canonical purification of the state, so that differentiating once gives the ordinary expectation value, twice gives variance, and mixed derivatives give covariance; including a post-selection term in the same construction makes the first derivative the weak value and the second derivative the weak variance. A generalized operator-ordering function, built from weighted products of exponentials, is the mechanism that defuses noncommutativity: at one extreme it yields the sequentially ordered Kirkwood-Dirac quasiprobability, at another the symmetrized Margenau-Hill distribution, and in the N→∞ limit the Wigner distribution. The paper also proves an extension of Bochner's theorem that uses positive definiteness of the characteristic function as the dividing line between genuine probability and quasiprobability. If the framework holds, standard quantum statistics, weak values, and quasiprobability distributions become different faces of a single generating-function structure, and classical econometric estimation methods transplant into quantum parameter estimation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized operator ordering function f_A^{(N,w)}(θ) = [Σ_{σ∈S_n} w(σ) ∏_{j=1}^n e^{(θ_{σ(j)}/N)A_{σ(j)}}]^N, with a unitary analogue for the characteristic function. It resolves the noncommutativity problem by blending products of exponentials with exponentiated sums: N=1 with a deterministic permutation gives the Kirkwood-Dirac ordered product, a symmetrized weight gives the Margenau-Hill distribution, and N→∞ gives the Wigner (Weyl-symmetric) exponential of the sum. A second essential piece is the canonical purification |Ψ⟩=Σ_i √λ_i |α_i⟩⊗⟨α_i|, which turns every statistical function into a single inner product and makes the derivatives evaluate to trace express

What would settle it

Compute the inverse Fourier transform of a multivariable quantum characteristic function for two noncommuting qubit observables with an asymmetric ordering and check whether any support falls outside the rectangle of their eigenvalues; mass outside that rectangle would falsify the spectral-support assumption behind Theorem 1. A second check: measure the three moment conditions in a few-qubit transverse-field Ising simulator and compare the two-step QGMM estimator's variance with the predicted 1/[Nβ²(1 + μ₁²)] reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

All four classical statistical functions acquire quantum counterparts when evaluated on the canonical purification of a state: M_A(θ,ρ)=Tr(e^{θA}ρ), C_A(θ,ρ)=Tr(e^{iθA}ρ), and their logarithms. A generalized operator-ordering function resolves noncommutativity, and specific orderings reproduce the Kirkwood-Dirac, Margenau-Hill, and Wigner distributions. Post-selection inserted into the same expectation value makes the conditional function's first and second derivatives the weak value and weak variance. An extended Bochner theorem says each characteristic function is the Fourier transform of a unique compactly supported distribution on the joint spectrum, a probability measure exactly when th

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that, for any operator ordering, the joint quasiprobability behind the characteristic function is supported only on the product of the observables' possible measurement outcomes; the paper proves the characteristic function defines a tempered distribution but does not prove this spectral-support property for noncommuting ordered exponentials, and the classicality test depends on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The single-variable generating functions give a compact calculus: first derivative at zero is the expectation value, second derivative is the variance, and the symmetrized multivariable function gives the covariance.
  • Conditional generating functions make weak values and weak variances conditional moments of the same hierarchy, so they inherit the usual rules of conditional expectations rather than appearing as separate anomalous quantities.
  • The extended Bochner theorem provides a sharp dividing line: a positive-definite characteristic function corresponds to a genuine joint probability measure; a failure of positive definiteness marks the distribution as a quasiprobability, locating nonclassicality.
  • Because the Kirkwood-Dirac ordering's higher derivatives decompose n-point correlation functions into chains of probabilities and weak values, measurement schemes can assemble correlation functions from weak-value sequences.
  • The quantum method of moments and its generalized version import classical econometric estimators into quantum metrology, including an analytical covariance weighting that can beat the unweighted estimator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the spectral-support assumption can be proved for noncommuting orderings, positive-definiteness testing becomes a practical, sampleable witness of nonclassicality in any finite-dimensional system.
  • Editorial inference: the ordering parameter N suggests a continuous family of statistical models interpolating between sequential measurements (N=1) and fully symmetrized phases (N→∞); testing whether quantities like full counting statistics vary monotonically along this family would connect the framework to nonequilibrium thermodynamics.
  • Editorial inference: viewing weak values as conditional expectations in a purified state invites a direct comparison with classical Bayesian conditioning and could clarify whether anomalous weak values are reproducible by any hidden-variable model.
  • Editorial inference: the two-step QGMM variance formula for the transverse-field Ising model is a concrete, testable prediction on small quantum simulators, including the claimed (1 + μ₁²)⁻¹ reduction relative to QMM.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for quantum analogues of the classical moment-generating, characteristic, cumulant-generating, and second characteristic functions. The single-variable functions are defined through canonical purification, and multivariable functions are built from a generalized operator-ordering function with parameters (N,w). The authors claim that specific orderings reproduce the Kirkwood-Dirac, Margenau-Hill, and Wigner quasiprobability distributions; that conditional versions generate weak values and weak variance; and that an extended Bochner theorem provides a classicality criterion. As an application, they introduce quantum method-of-moments and generalized method-of-moments estimators and work through a transverse-field Ising example.

Significance. If correct, the framework would provide a unifying language connecting standard quantum statistical functions, quasiprobabilities, weak values, and estimation theory. The multivariable ordering construction is a genuinely useful idea, and the appendices contain detailed derivative calculations that are mostly reproducible. However, the paper's headline claims are currently undermined by a concrete operator-ordering inconsistency in the KD case and by an unproved (in fact false as stated) compact-support assertion in Theorem 1. These are load-bearing issues: the weak-value derivation, the quasiprobability correspondence, and the classicality criterion all depend on them. The Ising application also contains an arithmetic error. The framework may be salvageable, but the manuscript needs substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eqs. (33)-(41), (60)-(61), and Appendix C] There is an internal ordering inconsistency in the KD connection. Definition 11 with N=1, w=δ_{id} gives f^KD_A(θ)=∏_{j=1}^n e^{θ_j A_j}, so for n=2, M^KD=Tr(e^{θ1A}e^{θ2B}ρ). But Eq. (40) instead uses f^KD_{A,B}=e^{θ2B}e^{θ1A} and Eq. (41) defines PrKD{A=a,B=b∥ρ}=Tr(P_B(b)P_A(a)ρ). These two orderings are opposite. Equation (43) obtains the weak value only from the reversed order, whereas Eq. (60) differentiates the forward product. The chain-of-weak-values decomposition in Eq. (61) and Appendix C is also written in a forward-order form. This is not a cosmetic convention issue: the same object cannot generate both Tr(A1⋯Anρ) and the KD quasiprobability defined by Eq. (41). The authors must choose one convention and propagate it consistently through Eqs. (34), (40)-(43), (60)-(61), and Appendix C.
  2. [Theorem 1 and Appendix B] The theorem asserts that C_A is the Fourier transform of a unique distribution Pr_A with compact support contained in the product of the spectra of the A_j. Appendix B only proves that C_A defines a tempered distribution; it does not prove compact support or the spectral-support claim. This is not a minor gap: for the Wigner-type ordering with A=X, B=Z (Pauli operators) and ρ=I/2, C_A(θ)=cos(√(θ1²+θ2²)), whose inverse Fourier transform is supported on the circle |x|=1, which is not contained in the four-point product of spectra {±1}². Thus the support assertion is false as stated. Since normalization (Eq. (47)), moment generation (Eq. (48)), and the Bochner criterion (Eq. (50)) all rely on a compactly supported quasiprobability measure, Theorem 1 is not established. A precise definition of 'joint spectrum' and a corrected theorem are needed.
  3. [Sec. IV.C, Eq. (77)] The high-temperature computation of μ3=Exρϕ(O3) has an arithmetic error. In the trace Tr[O3 (Σ_i σz_iσz_{i+1})²], for each site k the cross terms (Σ_i...)(Σ_j...) contain two orderings that yield σz_kσz_{k+2}: A_k A_{k+1} and A_{k+1}A_k. This gives a factor of 2, so μ3=β²J², not (βJ)²/2. The error propagates into the residual and the closed-form QGMM update in Eq. (83). Please verify and correct the calculation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 1, Eq. (49)] The reality condition is missing a complex conjugation. For a real Pr_A, the characteristic function satisfies C_A(-θ)=\overline{C_A(θ)}, not C_A(-θ)=C_A(θ). The same slip appears in Appendix B.
  2. [Eq. (61) and Appendix C, Eq. (C6)] The displayed chain-of-weak-values decomposition has a denominator typo: after Tr[P_A1(a1)α_i], the factor for P_A2 should be divided by ⟨a1|α_i⟩, not ⟨a_{n-2}|α_i⟩. The same typo appears in Appendix C.
  3. [Definition 15] The name 'Conditional characteristic quantum moment-generating function' appears to conflate two functions; the definition is for a conditional multivariable QMGF. Please rename for clarity.
  4. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (35)] For n>2, the MH-type ordering as defined only averages the full forward and full reverse products, not all permutations. If the intended MH distribution for n>2 requires full symmetrization, the definition should be amended or clarified.
  5. [Sec. III.D, Eq. (63)] The inequality M^W≤M^MH is stated to follow from Golden-Thompson, but Golden-Thompson is an unweighted trace inequality. The corresponding inequality with an arbitrary state ρ in the trace does not follow without further conditions. Please supply a proof or restrict the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the moment and weak-value identities follow directly from the stated definitions, and the substantive quasiprobability and Bochner connections are independent of any fitted inputs or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is self-contained rather than circular. The QMGF/QCF/QCGF/QSCF are defined as traces of exponentials (Eqs. 26-30), and the derivative identities for expectation values, variance, covariance, and weak values (Eqs. 55-59) are immediate consequences of d/dθ e^{θA}|_{θ=0}=A together with the explicit insertion of Π_m in Eq. (51). These identities are not presupposed by the definitions; they are properties that the definitions transparently satisfy. The multivariable generalized operator ordering function (Eq. 31) is an explicit construction, and its special cases are shown to correspond to the KD, MH, and Wigner generating forms (Eqs. 33-39); this is a definitional correspondence, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The extended Bochner theorem invokes standard tempered-distribution theory and Bochner's theorem, not a self-citation; the compact-support assertion in Theorem 1 is underproved in Appendix B, but that is an omitted-support concern, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation appears, and the acknowledgment of independent related work by Jordan, Arvidsson-Shukur, and Steinberg is not used to justify the derivation. The KD ordering mismatch between Eq. (34) and Eqs. (40)-(41) noted by the skeptic is a real internal consistency/correctness issue, but it does not reduce the derivation to its own inputs and is therefore not counted as circularity here.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central structure is definitional: N and w are manually chosen ordering knobs, and the canonical purification plus trace identities are standard machinery. No data-fitted parameters appear, but the framework rests on an unproved compact-support assumption and an ad hoc ordering ansatz.

free parameters (2)
  • Generalized ordering exponent N
    Positive integer in f^{(N,w)}_A(θ), chosen by hand to select the quasiprobability ordering: N=1 gives KD/MH, N→∞ gives Wigner.
  • Permutation weight function w
    Arbitrary normalized complex weights on S_n in Definitions 10 and 12; the choice of w determines the operator ordering and is not fixed by any physical principle.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Canonical purification |Ψ⟩ in H⊗H* corresponds to √ρ, so expectation values reduce to Tr(Aρ).
    Used throughout Sec. III; the trace identities in Appendix C rely on this correspondence.
  • standard math Bochner's theorem and Fourier transform automorphism on tempered distributions extend to compactly supported distributions.
    Invoked in Theorem 1 and Appendix B to define the quasiprobability and the classicality criterion.
  • domain assumption For bounded A_j, the map θ↦Tr[∏ e^{iθ_j A_j}ρ] has inverse Fourier transform supported in the product of spectra.
    Asserted in Theorem 1 but not actually proven for noncommuting product-ordered exponentials; load-bearing for the Bochner criterion.
  • ad hoc to paper The generalized Lie-Trotter product formula at first order in 1/N, with normalized weights, yields exp(Σ θ_j A_j).
    Used in Eqs. (37)-(38) to identify the Wigner limit; depends on the specific weighted-permutation form of f^{(N,w)}.
invented entities (1)
  • Generalized operator ordering function f^{(N,w)}_A(θ)
    purpose: Interpolate between product-ordered (KD/MH) and exponentially-summed (Wigner) quantum statistical functions.
    No falsifiable handle outside the paper; it is a definitional device introduced to assemble known distributions into one formula.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum statistical functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RAHYOS2Z

@misc{pith2026260205821,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum statistical functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RAHYOS2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.05821}
}
read the original abstract

Statistical functions such as the moment-generating, characteristic, cumulant-generating, and second characteristic functions are standard tools in classical statistics and probability theory. They provide a systematic means to analyze the statistical properties of a system and find applications in diverse fields. While these functions are ubiquitous in classical theory, a quantum counterpart has remained underdeveloped because of the noncommutativity of operators. The absence of such a framework has obscured the connections between statistical quantities and the nonclassical features of quantum mechanics. Here, we construct a framework for quantum statistical functions that addresses these limitations and unifies the languages of quantum statistics. We show that the functions reproduce standard statistical quantities such as expectation values, variance, and covariance upon differentiation. By extending the framework to include pre- and post-selection, we define conditional functions that generate conditional statistical quantities, including the weak value and the weak variance. We further show that multivariable functions, defined with specific operator orderings, correspond to the Kirkwood--Dirac, Margenau--Hill, and Wigner distributions. By generalizing Bochner's theorem within the theory of compactly supported distributions, we obtain a criterion that separates classical statistics from quantum statistics, linking the failure of positive definiteness of the multivariable function to the emergence of quasiprobability. As an application, we import the classical method of moments and generalized method of moments into quantum estimation, introducing quantum estimators that exploit the proposed functions. Our framework reproduces quantum statistical quantities and incorporates the nonclassical features of quasiprobability, providing a basis for further study of quantum statistics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Cumulant-based quantum relative R\'enyi functional

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Introduces cumulant-based quantum relative Rényi functional with proven properties on its domain and a regularized version that vanishes exactly when states commute.

  2. A Path Integral Model of Cognition

    q-bio.NC 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A mathematical model claims all cognitive optimization is imaginary-time evolution toward a target concept, and consciousness is the strength of the measurement readout.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    This pure state|Ψ⟩is called a purification ofρ

    Conventional purification Any mixed stateρacting on a Hilbert spaceHcan be represented as a pure state|Ψ⟩in an extended Hilbert spaceH ⊗ H′, whereH ′ is an ancillary Hilbert space. This pure state|Ψ⟩is called a purification ofρ. The original density matrix is recovered by tracing out the ancillary system: ρ= Tr H′(|Ψ⟩⟨Ψ|).(16) If the spectral decompositio...

  2. [2]

    We choose the ancillary spaceH ′ to be the dual space of the original Hilbert space H∗

    Canonical purification For our purposes, a specific and natural choice of pu- rification is particularly useful. We choose the ancillary spaceH ′ to be the dual space of the original Hilbert space H∗. This space consists of all bra vectors corresponding to the ket vectors inH. The inner product onH ∗ is defined by (⟨ζ|,⟨η|) =⟨η|ζ⟩(18) for all ket vectors|...

  3. [3]

    Pusz and Woronowicz characterizedA#Bas the solution to a maximization problem within the cone of positive 5 operators

    Variational characterization The significance of the geometric mean extends beyond simple algebra; it possesses a deep variational structure. Pusz and Woronowicz characterizedA#Bas the solution to a maximization problem within the cone of positive 5 operators. Specifically,A#Bis the largest positive oper- atorXsatisfying a block-matrix positivity conditio...

  4. [4]

    Following Uhlmann [40], an ampli- tudeWof a density operatorρis any operator satisfying ρ=W W †

    Relation to amplitudes The geometric mean naturally accommodates the con- cept of amplitudes. Following Uhlmann [40], an ampli- tudeWof a density operatorρis any operator satisfying ρ=W W †. For two statesρandσwith amplitudesW ρ andW σ, the amplitudes are said to be parallel if they satisfy the conditionW † ρ Wσ ≥0. This condition fixes the gauge freedom ...

  5. [5]

    Definition 6 (Quantum moment-generating func- tion)

    Single-variable case We first introduce the single-variable case. Definition 6 (Quantum moment-generating func- tion). For a quantum state|Ψ⟩ ∈ H ⊗ H∗, which is the canoni- cal purification ofρ, and an observableA∈ L sa(H), the quantum moment-generating function (QMGF) is defined by MA(θ, ρ) :=⟨Ψ|(eθA ⊗11H∗ )|Ψ⟩,(26) whereθ∈R. Note that for a self-adjoint...

  6. [6]

    Rosetta Stone,

    Multivariable case Extending these definitions in single-variable case to multivariable case is a non-trivial step in quantum me- chanics due to the non-commutative nature of operators. For classical random variables, the multivariable classical statistical functions are unambiguously defined using the exponential exp(P j θjXj). In the quantum regime, how...

  7. [7]

    Derivation of standard moments We examine the statistical moments generated by our framework. The first derivative of the QMGF (26) at θ= 0 yields the standard quantum expectation value: d dθ MA(θ, ρ) θ=0 = Tr(Aρ) =: Exρ(A).(55) To find the variance, we consider the centered observable A0 :=A−Ex ρ(A). The second derivative of its QMGF gives the variance: ...

  8. [8]

    Derivation of conditional moments The power of the conditional functions becomes appar- ent when we differentiate them. The first derivative of the conditional QMGF (51) yields the weak value [22]: d dθ MA(θ|Πm, ρ) θ=0 = Tr(ΠmAρ) Tr(Πmρ) =: Exρ(A|Πm).(58) Furthermore, the second conditional moment gives the weak variance [10, 59, 60]. For the conditionall...

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Beyond low-order moments, our framework elucidates the structure of generaln-point cor- relation functions

    Structure of general correlation functions We finally investigate the structure of higher-order multivariable moments. Beyond low-order moments, our framework elucidates the structure of generaln-point cor- relation functions. While the algebraic details are re- served for App...

  2. [10]

    The Golden-Thompson hierarchy The transition from the product form (N= 1, cor- responding to the KD distribution) to the exponential sum form (N→ ∞, corresponding to the Wigner dis- tribution) is governed by the convexity properties of the exponential operators. A central resu...

  3. [11]

    •Exponential connection (e-connection):The Wigner limit (N→ ∞) corresponds to the e- connection

    Information geometric connections From the perspective of quantum information geom- etry, the choice of the functionf (N,w) A (θ) corresponds to selecting a specific affine connection on the statisti- cal manifold of density operators. •Exponential connection (e-connection):Th...

  4. [12]

    Obtain an initial consistent estimator ¯ϕ(e.g., using W=11). 12

  5. [13]

    Compute the optimal weighting matrixW opt = [Σ( ¯ϕ)]−1 using the derivatives of the multivariable QMGF evaluated at ¯ϕ

  6. [14]

    (68) usingW opt to find the final es- timate

    Minimize Eq. (68) usingW opt to find the final es- timate. The QGMM framework offers a distinct advantage over standard maximum likelihood estimation in situations where the full likelihood function is computationally in- tractable (e.g., requiring full state diagonalization) ...

  7. [15]

    Estimation via QMM In the QMM approach, since there areK= 2 unknown parameters, we require exactly two distinct moment con- ditions. We choose the nearest-neighbor correlation and the transverse magnetization as our observables: O1 = 1 N NX i=1 σz i σz i+1,(72) O2 = 1 N NX i=1...

  8. [16]

    In the first-order high-temperature expansion, Ex ρϕ (O3) vanishes, so we consider the second-order termρ ϕ ≈ 2−N (11−βH+β 2H 2/2)

    Estimation via QGMM Suppose we measure an additional observable, the next-nearest-neighbor correlationO 3 =N −1 P i σz i σz i+2, making the system over-identified (L= 3> K= 2). In the first-order high-temperature expansion, Ex ρϕ (O3) vanishes, so we consider the second-order ...

  9. [17]

    (81) Comparing this to the QMM variance Var( ˆJQMM) = 1/N β2, we observe a variance reduction factor of (1 + ˆµ2 1)−1, demonstrating the gain from including the over- identifying conditionO 3. Finally, the explicit update rule for the QGMM esti- mator is given by ˆϕQGMM ≈ ¯ϕ+ ...

  10. [18]

    Evaluating the operator ordering function atθ=0, we observe that exp(0) =11

    Normalization:By the definition of the Fourier transform on distributions, the integral of Pr A(x, ρ)2 overR n (interpreted as the action of the distribution on the constant function 1, which is the limit of test func- tions) corresponds to the value of its Fourier transform a...

  11. [19]

    For any distributionu∈ S ′, the Fourier trans- form of a derivative isF[∂ αu] = (−ix)αF[u]

    Moment generation:This follows from the deriva- tive property of the Fourier transform on tempered distri- butions. For any distributionu∈ S ′, the Fourier trans- form of a derivative isF[∂ αu] = (−ix)αF[u]. Conversely, derivatives of the Fourier transform correspond to multi-...

  12. [20]

    A distributionuis real-valued if⟨u, φ⟩is real for all real-valuedφ, which impliesu= ¯u

    Reality condition:LetFdenote the Fourier trans- form operator. A distributionuis real-valued if⟨u, φ⟩is real for all real-valuedφ, which impliesu= ¯u. This holds if and only if its Fourier transform satisfies the Hermi- tian symmetry:F[u](−θ) = F[u](θ). Thus, Pr A(x, ρ) is rea...

  13. [21]

    Non-negativity:This is the direct statement of Bochner’s theorem [28] extended to distributions: a posi- tive definite continuous function is the Fourier transform of a positive finite measure. SinceC A(θ, ρ) is continuous andC A(0, ρ) = 1, if it is not positive definite, PrA(...

  14. [22]

    Feller,An introduction to probability theory and its applications, Vol

    W. Feller,An introduction to probability theory and its applications, Vol. 2 (John Wiley & Sons, 1991)

    1991

  15. [23]

    Pistone and C

    G. Pistone and C. Sempi, Ann. Statist.23, 1543 (1995)

    1995

  16. [24]

    Gibilisco and G

    P. Gibilisco and G. Pistone, IDAQP1, 325 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Pistone and M

    G. Pistone and M. P. Rogantin, Bernoulli5, 721 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    Cena and G

    A. Cena and G. Pistone, AISM59, 27 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    Pistone, inGeometric Science of Information, Lec- ture Notes in Computer Science, Vol

    G. Pistone, inGeometric Science of Information, Lec- ture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8085, edited by F. Nielsen and F. Barbaresco (Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013) pp. 5–36

    2013

  20. [28]

    Esposito, U

    M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1665 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. H¨ anggi, and P. Talkner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 771 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Richter and W

    T. Richter and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 283601 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Dressel, Phys

    J. Dressel, Phys. Rev. A91, 032116 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Yunger Halpern, Phys

    N. Yunger Halpern, Phys. Rev. A95, 012120 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    S. Ryl, J. Sperling, and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. A95, 053825 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    P. P. Hofer, Quantum1, 32 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Yunger Halpern, B

    N. Yunger Halpern, B. Swingle, and J. Dressel, Phys. Rev. A97, 042105 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Het´ enyi and P

    B. Het´ enyi and P. L´ evay, Phys. Rev. A108, 032218 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Guarnieri, J

    G. Guarnieri, J. Eisert, and H. J. D. Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 070405 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Schenk, arXiv:2506.10188 (2025)

    S. Schenk, arXiv:2506.10188 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    J. G. Kirkwood, Phys. Rev.44, 31 (1933)

    1933

  32. [40]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys.17, 195 (1945)

    1945

  33. [41]

    Margenau and R

    H. Margenau and R. N. Hill, Prog. Theor. Phys.26, 722 (1961)

    1961

  34. [42]

    E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rev.40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  35. [43]

    Aharonov, D

    Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1351 (1988)

    1988

  36. [44]

    Dressel, M

    J. Dressel, M. Malik, F. M. Miatto, A. N. Jordan, and R. W. Boyd, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 307 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    M. F. Pusey, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 200401 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    A. N. Jordan, J. Mart ´ ınez-Rinc´ on, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. X4, 011031 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    A. M. Steinberg, Phys. Rev. A52, 32 (1995)

    1995

  40. [48]

    A. M. Steinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 2405 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    Bochner,Harmonic Analysis and the Theory of Prob- ability, 1st ed

    S. Bochner,Harmonic Analysis and the Theory of Prob- ability, 1st ed. (Publisher, University of California Press,

  42. [50]

    R. P. Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys.20, 367 (1948)

    1948

  43. [51]

    F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev.75, 486 (1949)

    1949

  44. [52]

    R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev.76, 769 (1949)

    1949

  45. [53]

    Schwinger, Proc

    J. Schwinger, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.37, 452 (1951)

    1951

  46. [54]

    Schwinger, Proc

    J. Schwinger, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.37, 455 (1951)

    1951

  47. [55]

    Schwinger, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.82, 914 (1951)

    1951

  48. [56]

    Schwinger, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.91, 713 (1953)

    1953

  49. [57]

    von Neumann,Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics, Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics and Physics (Princeton university press, Princeton, New Jer- sey, 1955)

    J. von Neumann,Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics, Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics and Physics (Princeton university press, Princeton, New Jer- sey, 1955)

    1955

  50. [58]

    Ozawa, arXiv:1404.3388 (2014)

    M. Ozawa, arXiv:1404.3388 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Pusz and S

    W. Pusz and S. Woronowicz, Rep. Math. Phys.8, 159 (1975)

    1975

  52. [60]

    Kubo and T

    F. Kubo and T. Ando, Math. Ann.246, 205 (1980)

    1980

  53. [61]

    Uhlmann, Rep

    A. Uhlmann, Rep. Math. Phys.9, 273 (1976)

    1976

  54. [62]

    G. C. Wick, Phys. Rev.96, 1124 (1954)

    1954

  55. [63]

    Ferrie, Rep

    C. Ferrie, Rep. Prog. Phys.74, 116001 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    Lee and I

    J. Lee and I. Tsutsui, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2017, 052A01 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Lee and I

    J. Lee and I. Tsutsui, inReality and Measurement in Al- gebraic Quantum Theory, edited by M. Ozawa, J. But- terfield, H. Halvorson, M. R´ edei, Y. Kitajima, and F. Buscemi (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2018) pp. 195–228

    2018

  58. [66]

    D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, J. C. Drori, and N. Y. Halpern, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.54, 284001 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Langrenez, D

    C. Langrenez, D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, and S. De Bi` evre, J. Math. Phys.65, 072201 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    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, New J. Phys.26, 121201 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    Ozawa, Phys

    M. Ozawa, Phys. Lett. A335, 11 (2005)

    2005

  62. [70]

    Ozawa, AIP Conf

    M. Ozawa, AIP Conf. Proc.1363, 53 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    W. K. Wootters, Ann. Phys.176, 1 (1987)

    1987

  64. [72]

    Gross, J

    D. Gross, J. Math. Phys47, 122107 (2006)

    2006

  65. [73]

    J. B. DeBrota and B. C. Stacey, Phys. Rev. A102, 032221 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    Lostaglio, Phys

    M. Lostaglio, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 230603 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, N. Yunger Halpern, H. V. Lepage, C. H. W. Lasek, Aleksander A.and Barnes, and S. Lloyd, Nat. Commun.11, 3775 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Ozawa, J

    M. Ozawa, J. Math. Phys.25, 79 (1984)

    1984

  69. [77]

    Ozawa, Ann

    M. Ozawa, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)311, 350 (2004)

    2004

  70. [78]

    Ozawa, Quantum measurement theory for systems with finite dimensional state spaces, inThe Quantum- Like Revolution: A Festschrift for Andrei Khrennikov, edited by A

    M. Ozawa, Quantum measurement theory for systems with finite dimensional state spaces, inThe Quantum- Like Revolution: A Festschrift for Andrei Khrennikov, edited by A. Plotnitsky and E. Haven (Springer Interna- tional Publishing, 2023) pp. 191–214

    2023

  71. [79]

    Kedem and L

    Y. Kedem and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 230401 (2010)

    2010

  72. [80]

    Ogawa, N

    K. Ogawa, N. Abe, H. Kobayashi, and A. Tomita, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033077 (2021)

    2021

  73. [81]

    Matsushita and H

    T. Matsushita and H. F. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. A109, 022224 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Avdoshkin and F

    A. Avdoshkin and F. K. Popov, Phys. Rev. B107, 22 245136 (2023)

    2023

  75. [83]

    Guo and J

    W.-z. Guo and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D109, 106008 (2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    Dressel, J

    J. Dressel, J. R. Gonz´ alez Alonso, M. Waegell, and N. Yunger Halpern, Phys. Rev. A98, 012132 (2018)

    2018

  77. [85]

    Del Re, B

    L. Del Re, B. Rost, M. Foss-Feig, A. F. Kemper, and J. K. Freericks, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 100601 (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    Ando and F

    T. Ando and F. Hiai, Linear Algebra Appl.197-198, 113 (1994)

    1994

  79. [87]

    L. P. Hansen, Econometrica50, 1029 (1982)

    1982

  80. [88]

    Hradil, Phys

    Z. Hradil, Phys. Rev. A55, R1561 (1997)

    1997

  81. [89]

    Wiebe, C

    N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. G. Cory, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 190501 (2014)

    2014

  82. [90]

    J. Wang, S. Paesani, R. Santagati, S. Knauer, A. A. Gen- tile, N. Wiebe, M. Petruzzella, J. L. OBrien, J. G. Rar- ity, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Nat. Phys.13, 551 (2017)

    2017

  83. [91]

    D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. A64, 052312 (2001)

    2001

  84. [92]

    Paris and J

    M. Paris and J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, eds.,Quantum State Estima- tion, 1st ed., Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 649 (Springer Berlin, Heidelbergr, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004)

    2004

  85. [93]

    Nagaoka and M

    H. Nagaoka and M. Hayashi, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 53, 534 (2007)

    2007

  86. [94]

    K. M. R. Audenaert, J. Calsamiglia, R. Mu˜ noz Tapia, E. Bagan, L. Masanes, A. Acin, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 160501 (2007)

    2007

  87. [95]

    Reed and B

    M. Reed and B. Simon,Functional analysis, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics No. 1 (Academic Press, 1980)

    1980

  88. [96]

    H¨ ormander,The Analysis of Linear Partial Differ- ential Operators I, 2nd ed., Classics in Mathematics (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003) p

    L. H¨ ormander,The Analysis of Linear Partial Differ- ential Operators I, 2nd ed., Classics in Mathematics (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003) p. 440

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.