Phase Space Representation of the Density Operator: Bopp Pseudodifferential Calculus and Moyal Product

Maurice de Gosson

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Phase Space Representation of the Density Operator: Bopp Pseudodifferential Calculus and Moyal Product

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Bopp phase-space image of a density operator becomes a true density operator on the wavepacket subspace.

desk verdict A compact review of the author's own Bopp calculus with a genuinely new corollary about density operators that is true in substance but has a flawed trace-class proof in Proposition 8. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14391 v2 pith:IQS2QM6Q submitted 2024-11-21 math-ph math.MPmath.OAquant-ph

Maurice de Gosson This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.MPmath.OAquant-ph MSC 81S3053D5535S0547G30

keywords BoppquantizationMoyalproductdensityoperatorWignertransformwavepacketdeformationphasespacepseudodifferential

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

This paper argues that the Bopp phase-space version of a quantum density operator is not a density operator on the whole phase space, but becomes a genuine one when restricted to the Hilbert space of wavepacket transforms with a fixed window. The central result is that the restricted Bopp operator has the same eigenvalues as the original mixed state, and its eigenfunctions are exactly the wavepacket-transported eigenfunctions of the original operator. This matters because it provides a concrete phase-space picture of mixed states inside deformation quantization: the Bopp operator acts on phase-space functions precisely as left Moyal multiplication does, so the same calculus that handles pure states also handles density operators once the restriction is made. The paper also derives a deformation-quantization series expressing the restricted density operator through Poisson brackets of the Wigner distribution with the window transform.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the wavepacket transform $U_{\varphi}\psi = (2\pi\hbar)^{n/2} W(\psi,\varphi)$, a partial isometry from $L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ onto a closed subspace $H_{\varphi}$ of $L^2(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$; the Bopp operator $\tilde{A} = \operatorname{Op}_{\mathrm{Bopp}}(a)$ is the pseudodifferential operator on phase space whose action is left Moyal multiplication by the symbol $a$. The argument runs through the intertwining relation $\tilde{A} U_{\varphi} = U_{\varphi} \hat{A}$ (Proposition 5), which lets every positivity, trace, and spectral statement about the Weyl operator be pulled back to the Bopp operator, together with the Moyal identity that makes $U_{\varphi}$ an isometry. Proposition 10 then converts the transported action into a formal series of Poisson-bracket terms, tying the density operator to deformation quantization.

What would settle it

A direct check would settle it: pick a window $\varphi$ and a mixed state $\hat{\rho}$ with a non-smooth or unbounded Wigner distribution, form the restricted Bopp operator $\tilde{\rho}_{\varphi} = U_{\varphi}^* \tilde{\rho} U_{\varphi}$, and compute its trace; if the trace is not 1 or if the operator is not trace class, Proposition 8 fails. A second check is to test the intertwining relation $\tilde{\rho} U_{\varphi} = U_{\varphi} \hat{\rho}$ on such a state and see whether the Moyal product $(2\pi\hbar)^n \rho \star_{\hbar} W(\psi,\varphi)$ is finite and bounded for all $\psi$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Proposition 8: for every window $\varphi$, the restriction $\tilde{\rho}_{\varphi}$ of the Bopp operator $\tilde{\rho}$ to the closed subspace $H_{\varphi} = \operatorname{Im} U_{\varphi}$ is a density operator on $H_{\varphi}$. When the quantum state has spectral decomposition $\hat{\rho} = \sum_j \lambda_j \hat{\Pi}_{\psi_j}$, the restricted Bopp operator takes the form $\tilde{\rho}_{\varphi} = \sum_j \lambda_j \tilde{\Pi}_{\Psi_j}$, where $\Psi_j = U_{\varphi} \psi_j$ and $U_{\varphi}$ is the wavepacket transform; the eigenvalues $\lambda_j$ are unchanged and the eigenprojections are carried by $U_{\varphi}$. The surrounding results extend this: Proposition 7 states that compact Weyl operators and their Bopp counterparts have the same spectrum, with eigenfunctions transported by $U_{\varphi}$, and Proposition 10 expresses the action of the restricted density operator as $(2\pi\hbar)^{3n/2} \sum_r (\hbar^r/r!) P_r(\rho, W(\psi,\varphi))$, a deformation-quantization expansion in Poisson brackets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the intertwining relation between Bopp and Weyl operators, and the partial-isometry basis properties of the wavepacket transform, hold for every window and for every density operator, including the symbol-class and trace-class conditions the paper leaves unspecified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any fixed window $\varphi$, the phase-space object $\tilde{\rho}_{\varphi}$ is a genuine density operator: positive, self-adjoint, trace class, with trace one.
Bopp and Weyl operators with the same symbol have the same eigenvalues, and every eigenfunction of the Bopp operator is the wavepacket transform of an eigenfunction of the Weyl operator.
The phase-space Hilbert spaces $H_{\varphi}$ are strictly smaller than the full $L^2(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$: Gaussians that are too concentrated violate the relevant uncertainty-principle obstruction and are not of the form $U_{\varphi}\psi$, so the density-operator statement is inherently window-dependent.
On states $\Psi = U_{\varphi}\psi$, the restricted density operator acts by the Moyal product series $(2\pi\hbar)^{3n/2} \sum_r (\hbar^r/r!) P_r(\rho, W(\psi,\varphi))$, giving a deformation-quantization description of mixed states.

Reading between the lines

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

As an editorial extension, the window-dependence suggests that a single phase-space density operator is replaced by a family $\{\tilde{\rho}_{\varphi}\}$, so any window-independent observable must be a covariant combination of these restrictions.
As an editorial extension, the same intertwining logic could be applied to non-Weyl quantizations such as the Born–Jordan procedure mentioned in the paper, likely producing a restriction theorem on a different subspace with altered spectral behavior.
As an editorial extension, because $U_{\varphi}$ is essentially a short-time Fourier transform, the theorem connects mixed-state density operators to time-frequency analysis, where different windows are standard degrees of freedom.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a compact review of de Gosson's Bopp pseudodifferential calculus, and it does add one new thing: Proposition 8, which states that the Bopp image of a density operator, restricted to the image of a wavepacket transform, is a bona fide density operator on that subspace. That is a clean observation and it follows from the intertwining relation, though the proof as written has a real gap. Proposition 10, the deformation-quantization expansion for the restricted Bopp density operator, is also new. Both are honest corollaries of the established framework, not fitted or hand-waving.

The review parts are genuinely useful. The intertwining relations between Bopp and Weyl operators, the partial isometry properties of the wavepacket transforms, and the basis result are stated clearly. A reader who wants the essentials of Bopp calculus in one place will find a decent summary.

Where it gets soft: the trace-class proof in Proposition 8 is wrong as written. The paper claims that for a trace-class operator ρ̂, the double series Σ_{j,k}|(ρ̂ψ_j|φ_k)| converges for any orthonormal bases. That is false. A rank-one projection and a poorly chosen basis give a counterexample; the stress-test note has one. The statement of Proposition 8 is still true and can be rescued immediately: on H_φ, ρ̃_φ = U_φ ρ̂ U_φ*, which is trace class with trace one because U_φ is a partial isometry. The paper should present that argument instead of the invalid double series. There are also domain and regularity issues: the Wigner symbol ρ of a general density operator may be a distribution, and the Bopp operator acting on S(R^{2n}) requires symbol classes that are never specified. This is not fatal, but it needs to be said. The manuscript also has many typos and OCR artifacts—“nitration” for “definition,” “rainstorms” for “transforms,” a garbled statement of Proposition 7—that make it harder to read than needed.

Bottom line: the central claim holds up, but the proof has a genuine gap and the presentation needs polish. If you work on phase-space quantization or deformation quantization, this is worth a look; otherwise it is a modest addition to an established program. It deserves peer review, with the expectation that the trace-class argument and symbol class conditions get fixed.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops Bopp pseudodifferential calculus as a phase-space quantization scheme, reviews its relation to Weyl calculus and the Moyal star product, and applies it to density operators. The central new claim is Proposition 8: for a density operator ρ on L^2(R^n), the Bopp operator ~ρ, restricted to the image H_φ of the wavepacket transform U_φ, is a density operator on H_φ with the same eigenvalues as ρ and transported eigenvectors U_φψ_j. Sections 2–3 review the intertwining identity ~A U_φ = U_φ Â and the basis property of the transforms U_φ, mostly importing proofs from the author's previous work [7,9]. Section 4 rewrites the Bopp action on a density operator as a Moyal-star expansion, and Section 5 lists possible extensions. The paper is therefore a synthesis of the author's prior Bopp calculus with one new density-operator statement.

Significance. If the gaps identified below are repaired, Proposition 8 is a clean and useful statement: although the global Bopp image of a mixed state is not a density operator, its restriction to the image of any wavepacket transform is a bona fide density operator with the same eigenvalues and transported eigenvectors. This gives a precise phase-space interpretation of mixed states within Bopp's scheme and connects to deformation quantization through Proposition 10. The work is not a parameter-fitting or empirical paper; it is a mathematically derived result, and its main value is conceptual and structural. Its weakness is the heavy dependence on the author's own prior results without a full statement of the underlying symbol and domain hypotheses.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2, Proposition 8] The trace-class proof of Proposition 8 is invalid as written. The displayed chain of equalities asserts that Σ_{j,k} |(U_φ(ˆρψ_j) | U_φ(φ_k))| equals Σ_{j,k} |(ˆρψ_j | φ_k)| and that this is finite because ˆρ is trace class. The second half of this assertion is false: for a trace-class operator, the double series of absolute matrix elements with respect to arbitrary orthonormal bases need not converge. A rank-one projection whose single nonzero vector has a non-absolutely convergent expansion in the chosen basis is a counterexample. This is load-bearing, because trace class is what makes ~ρ_φ a density operator. The claim itself is nevertheless correct and can be repaired by observing that ~ρ_φ = U_φ ˆρ U_φ^* on H_φ, which is automatically positive, trace class, and of trace one, with the eigen-decomposition following from U_φ^* U_φ = I and U_φψ_j = Ψ_j. The proof should be replaced by this argument.
[Sections 2.3 and 3.2] The symbol classes for which the basic intertwining relation holds are never stated. Proposition 5 (Eq. (32)) is asserted for "some suitable function space," and it is then applied in Section 3.2 to the symbol (2πℏ)^n ρ, where ρ is defined by the infinite spectral sum (36). For a general density operator, ρ need not be in S(R^{2n}) or even in L^1(R^{2n}); the manuscript itself only obtains the trace normalization under the additional assumption ρ ∈ L^1. Thus the object ~ρ and the identity ~ρ U_φ = U_φ ˆρ are not justified for the general density operators appearing in Proposition 8. The same gap affects the proof of Proposition 6, which identifies an arbitrary Ψ ∈ L^2(R^{2n}) with a Weyl operator and uses the identity (Ψ | W(ψ_j,φ_k)) = (Â_Ψ ψ_j | φ_k). The manuscript should state a precise symbol and domain class, with a proof or a precise reference, that covers Wigner distributions of trace-class operators, or should prove Proposition 8 for a dense set of density operators and pass to the limit, or should define ~ρ_φ directly by U_φ ˆρ U_φ^*.
[Section 4, Proposition 10] The displayed formula (47) has the wrong prefactor: the derivation in the proof gives (2πℏ)^{n/2} ρ⋆_ℏ W(ψ,φ), not (2πℏ)^{3n/2}. In addition, the expansion Σ_r ℏ^r P_r(...)/r! is used as an infinite series in ℏ without stating the smoothness or convergence assumptions on ρ and W(ψ,φ); at the level of formal deformation quantization this should be said explicitly. These points do not invalidate Proposition 8, but they need correction.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (19)] The inequality |a⋆_ℏ b(z)| ≤ ||a||_{L^1} ||b||_{L^1} is missing the multiplicative constant (1/πℏ)^{2n} that appears in Eq. (17).
[Proposition 8, Eq. (41)] There are several typographical errors: the eigenvalue λ_j is written without its index, and the projection formula near the end of the proof should be U_φ(Π_{ψ_j}ψ) = (Ψ | Ψ_j) Ψ_j, not (Ψ | Ψ_j) Ψ.
[Proposition 8, proof] The notation is inconsistent: the text uses φ_k both for a basis of L^2(R^n) and for the window φ, and the expression U_φ(ˆρφ_k) should be U_φ(φ_k) or U_φ(κ_k).
[Proposition 6, proof] The proof says "let (φ_j) and (κ_k) be orthonormal bases of L^2(R^{2n})"; these should be bases of L^2(R^n), since U_{φ_j}κ_k is then a basis of L^2(R^{2n}).
[Eq. (34) and throughout] The text refers to "Gabor (or short-time Fourier) rainstorms"; this should be "transforms." There are also numerous smaller typos, e.g. "λ ar4e" in Proposition 8 and "nitration" in Section 1, which should be corrected in a careful revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the density-operator restriction theorem is derived from prior Wigner–Moyal identities and is not an input in disguise.

full rationale

The central new claim (Proposition 8) is that the Bopp image of a density operator, restricted to H_φ = Im U_φ, is a bona fide density operator with the same eigenvalues and transported eigenvectors. This is derived, not assumed, through the chain ~ρ_φ U_φψ = U_φ(ˆρψ), positivity via the partial-isometry property of U_φ, and eigenvalue transport via the intertwining relation ~A U_φ = U_φ Â (Proposition 5). Those inputs are prior mathematical identities from the Wigner–Moyal calculus; they are stated and partially proved in the paper, and they do not contain the density-operator conclusion. The repeated citations to the author's own books [7,9] are load-bearing as sources for standard facts, but they are not circular: the cited facts are independent of the target theorem and are invoked as lemmas, not as the conclusion. The basis property (Proposition 6) is proved in the paper, and Moyal's identity (31) is an externally standard result. I find no step where an equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported to force the conclusion. I do flag a separate correctness gap in the trace-class part of Proposition 8: the text claims that the double series of absolute matrix elements converges because ˆρ is trace class. That inference is not valid for arbitrary orthonormal bases. The statement is repairable by observing that ~ρ_φ = U_φ ˆρ U_φ^* on H_φ, which is automatically trace class with trace one. This is a proof gap, not circularity, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

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

The central claim depends on the standard Moyal/Weyl calculus (associativity, cyclicity, cross-Wigner star products) and on the author's own Bopp calculus framework: the intertwining relation (Prop. 5) and the basis property (Prop. 6) are taken from [9] and [7] rather than proved here. No free parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are postulated. The main technical premise is that the Wigner distribution ρ of a density operator yields a well-behaved Bopp symbol (2πℏ)^n ρ(z - ½Jς).

assumptions (4)

standard math Moyal star product associativity and cyclicity (Eq. 18, Prop. 2)
Classical results from deformation quantization (Groenewold, Moyal), cited to [19,22,20].
domain assumption Intertwining relation ~A U_φ = U_φ Â (Eq. 32, Prop. 5)
Imported from the author's earlier work ([9] Thm. 4.2, [7] Prop. 44); the density operator results rest on this.
standard math The functions U_φ ψ_j form an orthonormal basis of L^2(R^{2n}) (Prop. 6)
Simplified version of Thm. 441 in [9]; needed for the eigenvalue correspondence in Prop. 7.
domain assumption Weyl symbol of a density operator exists and is (2πℏ)^n ρ with ρ a quasi-probability distribution (Eq. 36)
Assumes ρ ∈ L^1(R^{2n}) and that the Bopp symbol (2πℏ)^n ρ(z - ½Jς) is a well-defined tempered distribution; domain and regularity conditions are not fully specified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase Space Representation of the Density Operator: Bopp Pseudodifferential Calculus and Moyal Product." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IQS2QM6Q

@misc{pith2026241114391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase Space Representation of the Density Operator: Bopp Pseudodifferential Calculus and Moyal Product},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IQS2QM6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14391}
}

read the original abstract

Bopp shifts, introduced in 1956, played a pivotal role in the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. As demonstrated in our previous work, Bopp's construction provides a phase-space perspective of quantum mechanics that is closely connected to the Moyal star product and its role in deformation quantization. In this paper, we both review and expand on our exploration of Bopp quantization, emphasizing its relationship with the Moyal product and its applications in elementary deformation quantization. Notably, we apply these constructions to the density operator, which represents mixed states in quantum mechanics, offering novel insights into its role within this framework.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Bayen, M

F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnerowicz, and D. S ternheimer, Deformation Theory and Quantization. I. Deformation of Sym plectic Structures, Annals of Physics, 110, 111–151 (1978)

work page 1978
[2]

Bopp, La m´ ecanique quantique est-elle une m´ ecaniqu e statistique particuli` ere? Ann

F. Bopp, La m´ ecanique quantique est-elle une m´ ecaniqu e statistique particuli` ere? Ann. Inst. H.Poincar´ e15, 81–112 (1956)

work page 1956
[3]

Cordero, G

E. Cordero, G. Giacchi, and E. Pucci Understanding of lin ear operators through Wigner analysis[article] J. Math. Anal. Appl ., 543(1), (2025)

work page 2025
[4]

Cordero and L

E. Cordero and L. Rodino, Wigner analysis of operators. P art I: Pseu- dodiﬀerential operators and wave front, Appl.Comput.Harmon.Anal. (2024) [in print]

work page 2024
[5]

Dito, Deformation Quantization on a Hilbert Space, Wo rld Scientiﬁc, pp

G. Dito, Deformation Quantization on a Hilbert Space, Wo rld Scientiﬁc, pp. 139–157 (2005)

work page 2005
[6]

de Gosson

M. de Gosson. Quantum Harmonic Analysis , An Introduction. De Gruyter 2022

work page 2022
[7]

de Gosson

M. de Gosson. The Wigner Transform , World Scientiﬁc, Advanced Texts in Mathematics, 2017

work page 2017
[8]

de Gosson

M. de Gosson. Quantum blobs. Found. Phys. 43(4), 440–457 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 26 references

[9]

de Gosson, Symplectic Methods in Harmonic Analysis and in Math- ematical Physics

M. de Gosson, Symplectic Methods in Harmonic Analysis and in Math- ematical Physics. Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2011

2011
[10]

de Gosson, Spectral Properties of a Class of Generali zed Landau Operators

M. de Gosson, Spectral Properties of a Class of Generali zed Landau Operators. Comm. Partial Diﬀ. Equations 33(11) (2008) 16

2008
[11]

de Gosson

M. de Gosson. Symplectic Geometry and Quantum Mechanics . Birkh¨ auser, 2006

2006
[12]

Operator Theory: Advances and Applica tions

M. de Gosson, Phase-Space Weyl Calculus and Global Hypo elliptic- ity of a Class of Degenerate Elliptic Partial Diﬀerential Ope rators. In Recent Developments in Pseudo-Diﬀerential Operators 2008/09 in the Birkh¨ auser series “Operator Theory: Advances and Applica tions”

2008
[13]

A de Gosson, Symplectically covariant Schr¨ odinger equation in phase space, J

M. A de Gosson, Symplectically covariant Schr¨ odinger equation in phase space, J . Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, 9263–9287 (2005)

2005
[14]

de Gosson and F

M. de Gosson and F. Luef, Born–Jordan Pseudodiﬀerential Calculus, Bopp Operators and Deformation Quantization, Integral Equations Op- erator Theory 84(4), 463–485 (2016)

2016
[15]

de Gosson and F

M. de Gosson and F. Luef, A new approach to the ⋆-genvalue equation. Lett. Math. Phys . 85, 173–183 (2008)

2008
[16]

de Gosson and F

M. de Gosson and F. Luef, Quantum States and Hardy’s Form ulation of the Uncertainty Principle: a Symplectic Approach. Lett. Math. Phys . 80, 69–82 (2007)

2007
[17]

de Gosson and F

M. de Gosson and F. Luef, On the usefulness of modulation spaces in deformation quantization. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42(31), 315205 (2009)

2009
[18]

Gr¨ ochenig, Foundations of Time-Frequency Analysis , Birkh¨ auser, Boston, (2000)

K. Gr¨ ochenig, Foundations of Time-Frequency Analysis , Birkh¨ auser, Boston, (2000)

2000
[19]

H. J. Groenewold, On the principles of elementary quant um mechanics, Physics, 12, 405–460 (1946)

1946
[20]

G. B. Folland, Harmonic alysis in Phase space , Annals of Mathematics studies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 1989

1989
[21]

J. Leray, Lagrangian Analysis and Quantum Mechanics , a mathematical structure related to asymptotic expansions and the Maslov i ndex, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., (1981); translated from Analyse Lagrangienne RCP 25, Strasbourg Coll` ege de France, (1976–1977)

1981
[22]

J. E. Moyal, Quantum mechanics as a statistical theory, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 45, 99–124 (1947)

1947
[23]

Voros, Asymptotic h-expansions of stationary quant um states, Ann

A. Voros, Asymptotic h-expansions of stationary quant um states, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e26(4) 343–403 (1977) 17

1977
[24]

Voros, An Algebra of Pseudodiﬀerential Operators and the Asymp- totics of Quantum Mechanics, J.Funct

A. Voros, An Algebra of Pseudodiﬀerential Operators and the Asymp- totics of Quantum Mechanics, J.Funct. Anal. 104–132 (1978)

1978
[25]

M. W. Wong, Partial diﬀerential equations—topics in Fourier analysis , CRC Press, Boca Raton (2022)

2022
[26]

M. W. Wong, Weyl Transforms. Springer, 1998.29 MauriceAlexis.deGossondeVarennes@oeaw.ac.at maurice.de.gosson@univie.ac.at 18

1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bayen, M

F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnerowicz, and D. S ternheimer, Deformation Theory and Quantization. I. Deformation of Sym plectic Structures, Annals of Physics, 110, 111–151 (1978)

work page 1978

[2] [2]

Bopp, La m´ ecanique quantique est-elle une m´ ecaniqu e statistique particuli` ere? Ann

F. Bopp, La m´ ecanique quantique est-elle une m´ ecaniqu e statistique particuli` ere? Ann. Inst. H.Poincar´ e15, 81–112 (1956)

work page 1956

[3] [3]

Cordero, G

E. Cordero, G. Giacchi, and E. Pucci Understanding of lin ear operators through Wigner analysis[article] J. Math. Anal. Appl ., 543(1), (2025)

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Cordero and L

E. Cordero and L. Rodino, Wigner analysis of operators. P art I: Pseu- dodiﬀerential operators and wave front, Appl.Comput.Harmon.Anal. (2024) [in print]

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Dito, Deformation Quantization on a Hilbert Space, Wo rld Scientiﬁc, pp

G. Dito, Deformation Quantization on a Hilbert Space, Wo rld Scientiﬁc, pp. 139–157 (2005)

work page 2005

[6] [6]

de Gosson

M. de Gosson. Quantum Harmonic Analysis , An Introduction. De Gruyter 2022

work page 2022

[7] [7]

de Gosson

M. de Gosson. The Wigner Transform , World Scientiﬁc, Advanced Texts in Mathematics, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [8]

de Gosson

M. de Gosson. Quantum blobs. Found. Phys. 43(4), 440–457 (2013)

work page 2013