Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Partitions in quantum theory

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that every partition of a finite-dimensional $C^*$ algebra into possibly non-factor subsystems can be represented by a routed quantum circuit, and that the local-mode partition of an $N$-mode fermionic system with $N\geq…

desk verdict Read this for the multipartition framework and the fermionic no-go example, but the proof of the main representation theorem has a missing factorization lemma that needs fixing before the results can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22218 v2 pith:LHDAA7VD submitted 2025-06-27 quant-ph

Augustin Vanrietvelde , Octave Mestoudjian , Pablo Arrighi This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords non-factorsub-C*algebraspartitionsofquantumsystemsroutedcircuitscentresC*failurelocaltomographyfermionicmodesfullrepresentabilitydephasings
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 subsystems are usually taken to be tensor factors of a Hilbert space, a choice that excludes subsystems forced by symmetries, superselection rules, or particle-number conservation. The paper argues for modelling subsystems as sub-$C^*$ algebras, which may be non-factor, and defines a partition of a system into arbitrarily many such parts along with the joint algebras describing actions on several parts at once. Its main theorem shows that every partition of a finite-dimensional $C^*$ algebra can be represented as a routed quantum circuit: each individual part acts on its own Hilbert space, and each joint part acts locally up to a dephasing in the classical centre. The companion result identifies a limit to this picture: the partition of an $N$-mode fermionic system into local modes, for $N\geq 3$, is not fully representable, because some parity-preserving joint operation must act on modes outside its support. A sympathetic reader would take away a general representability theorem and a precise statement of when Hilbert-space locality fails.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the centre-and-route decomposition of subalgebras. Each centre $Z(A_n)$ has a unique set of atomic projectors, and the global centre $Z(\omega)$ organises their joint projectors into equivalence classes; a route is a Boolean relation on sector indices that says which sector-to-sector connections a linear map may use, and routed circuits are maps following such routes. Theorem 5.1 shows that the route $\eta_S$ for a joint system is obtained from the global route $\eta_X$ by tracing out the complementary indices, and that the atomic projectors of $Z(A_S)$ are sums of the relevant joint projectors. Theorem 5.2 then builds the representation sector by sector, using the fact that each jointly non-null sector is a factor isomorphic to the full operator algebra on a tensor product of the individual Hilbert spaces; the residual freedom shows up exactly as the dephasing unitaries $\varphi_S$. The fermionic no-go is carried by the operators $B_{ij}=(a_i+a_i^\dagger)(a_j+a_j^\dagger)$, whose anticommutation and product relations force a contradiction in any supposed fully local representation.

What would settle it

For the general theorem, a written-out partition of a small finite-dimensional $C^*$ algebra satisfying the definition but admitting no routed-circuit representation of the form in Theorem 5.2 would refute it; for the fermionic no-go, an explicit fully local representation of the three-mode local-mode partition would refute Proposition 6.4.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working at the level of finite-dimensional $C^*$ algebras, the paper defines a partition $(A_S)_{S\subseteq X}$ of $\omega$ by requiring every pair of disjoint label sets to form a bipartition of the algebra of their union, where a bipartition means the blockwise commutant condition $\pi_k A'_1=\pi_k A_2$ and the centre condition $Z(\omega)\subseteq Z(A_1)\vee Z(A_2)$. Theorem 5.2 is the central discovery: for any such partition there are Hilbert spaces $H_{A_n}$ and an isomorphism $\iota:\omega\to \mathrm{Lin}_{\eta_X}(\bigotimes_n H_{A_n})$ sending each individual algebra $A_n$ to the local form $(f_{A_n}\otimes 1_{\mathrm{others}})\widetilde{\Pi}$, and each joint algebra $A_S$ to $\varphi_S(f_{A_n,n\in S}\otimes 1)\varphi_S^\dagger\widetilde{\Pi}$, where $\eta_X$ is a partial equivalence relation on sector labels, $\eta_S$ is its partial trace over the complement of $S$, and $\varphi_S$ is a dephasing, a unitary element of the commutative algebra generated by the centres. A partition is fully representable when every $\varphi_S$ can be chosen trivial. Proposition 6.4 shows the local-mode partition of an $N$-mode fermionic system, $N\geq 3$, is not fully representable, so the representability theorem is sharp rather than universal at the level of joint localities.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the main representation theorem imports two technical lemmas from the companion paper, and if those lemmas are wrong or already assume the conclusion of this paper, the representation theorem loses its support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any partition of a finite-dimensional quantum system into possibly non-factor subsystems acquires a concrete routed-circuit form, so decomposition questions can be studied with the routing constraints on tensor-product Hilbert spaces.
  • The centre formula (55) becomes a structural rule: the classical information available to a joint system is exactly what is visible both inside and outside the set of labels, together with the global centre.
  • The fermionic no-go implies that any local Hilbert-space model of $N\geq 3$ fermionic modes carries a residual pseudo-nonlocality for parity-preserving joint operations, no matter how the modes are encoded.
  • The algebraic definition of part lets different partitions of one system be compared without committing to a preferred tensor-product structure, which is the starting point for causal-model and quantum-reference-frame applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be an exhaustive search over small $C^*$ algebras for an algebraic characterisation of full representability, a question the paper leaves open.
  • A connection not drawn in the paper is that the fermionic obstruction should transfer to exactly local encodings of fermionic modes in related settings, such as fermionic cellular automata, ruling out fully local encodings there as well.
  • A further inference is that residual dephasings could serve as a measurable signature of non-representable subsystem structure in quantum causal models, where global phases that are locally inaccessible still affect causal relations.
  • The paper takes the sub-$C^*$ algebra model of a subsystem as a starting point rather than deriving it, so a full physical justification would need a separate operational derivation; the paper points to recent work in that direction without carrying it out.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a decompositional theory of quantum systems in which subsystems are modelled by possibly non-factor sub-C*-algebras of a finite-dimensional C*-algebra ω. It defines bipartitions and multipartitions, proves structural results about their centres (Propositions 4.2-4.3, Theorem 5.1), and states a representation theorem (Theorem 5.2) according to which every partition admits a routed-circuit representation in which each individual algebra acts locally on its own Hilbert space, while joint algebras act up to dephasings. It then shows that the partition of an N-mode fermionic system into local modes is not fully representable for N≥3 (Proposition 6.4). The paper is well structured and provides detailed appendices, but the proofs of the two central results contain serious gaps.

Significance. If the results were established, this would be an important contribution: it provides a general framework for multipartitions with non-factor subsystems, a rigorous representation theorem in terms of routed circuits, and a concrete obstruction to full representability in a physically basic system. The paper also correctly identifies FOLT as a necessary feature of non-factor subsystems and gives a clean algebraic characterisation of centres. The strengths are the explicit definition of partitions, the centre calculus, and the fermionic counterexample. However, because the proof of Theorem 5.2 relies on a false equality and the proof of Proposition 6.4 contains an unjustified removal of the projectors \tildeΠ, the central claims are not currently established. The dependence of the proofs on unstated propositions of a companion paper compounds the problem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A.4, Eq. (78)] Equation (78) states that π_kω = Lin(H^k_Ω) ⊕ (⊕_{q≠k} 0_Ω^q) for the projectors π_k = ∏_n π_{k_n}^{(n)}. This equality is false when the π_k are not central in ω. In the tripartite example of Section 3.3, take π_k = |1⟩⟨1|_C ⊗ 1_P; then |1⟩⟨2|_C ⊗ U belongs to π_kω but not to Lin(H^k_Ω) ⊕ 0. Consequently the isomorphism π_kω ≅ ⊗_n Lin(H^{k_n}_{A_n}) that the proof builds on is not justified, and the later assertion that π_kω = ⋁_n π_kA_n also fails in this example (π_kω contains operators mapping from other sectors into H^k_Ω). The proof of Theorem 5.2 therefore lacks a valid argument for the blockwise factorisation; the authors should either work with the corners π_kωπ_k or provide a different derivation.
  2. [Appendix B.4, Eq. (133)] In the proof of Proposition 6.4, the anticommutator of b_ij and b_jk is transferred to the operators B̃_ij and B̃_jk as {B̃_ij, B̃_jk} = 0. But B_ij = ι(b_ij) = (B̃_ij ⊗ 1_{X\{i,j\}})\tildeΠ, and because \tildeΠ does not commute with arbitrary B̃, the anticommutator of B_ij and B_jk is not equal to the anticommutator of B̃_ij and B̃_jk. The step from (133) to the conclusion that Tr(B^{(ij;j)}_l B^{(jk;j)}_{l'}) = 0 therefore needs an additional argument showing that the \tildeΠ factors can be removed, e.g. by proving that the B̃ are supported on the route and commute with \tildeΠ up to the projection. As written, this part of the proof is incomplete.
  3. [Appendix A.3 and Lemma A.2] The proof of Theorem 5.1 invokes Proposition B.5 of Ref. [38], and Lemma A.2 (used in the proof of Theorem 5.2) invokes Proposition B.1 of Ref. [38]. These propositions are not stated in the present manuscript. Since Ref. [38] is a companion paper by the same authors that is described in the Introduction as making heavy use of the present framework and results, the authors must clarify the dependency: either reproduce the needed statements (and proofs, if the companion paper is not yet published) or demonstrate that no circularity results from using results that themselves rely on the framework being developed here.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Equation (3)] In the definition of Lin_η(H_A,H_B), the right-hand side writes f ∈ Lin_η(H_A,H_B), which is circular; it should read f ∈ Lin(H_A,H_B).
  2. [Appendix B.4] The notation 1_X in the line 'B_ij B_jk B_ki = 1_X' is ambiguous: the unit of Lin_{η_X} is \tildeΠ, not the identity on the full extended Hilbert space; please state this explicitly.
  3. [Section 6.2] The sentence 'because B_ij = (B̃_ij⊗1)\tildeΠ ...' would benefit from a remark that the tensor decomposition of B̃_ij into B^{(ij;i)}_k ⊗ B^{(ij;j)}_k is taken with respect to the fixed Hilbert spaces H_{A_i} and H_{A_j} from the fully representable form (129).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central representation theorem is a constructive derivation from the partition axioms; the companion-paper citations are independent algebraic lemmas, while Eq. (78) is a non-circular proof gap.

full rationale

Walk-through of the derivation chain. Definition 4.1/4.2 fix the meaning of partition; Proposition 4.3 (centre formula) is proved in A.2 self-containedly from Propositions 4.1 and 4.2. Theorem 5.1 in A.3 cites Proposition B.5 of Ref. [38] for the containment Z_S ⊆ Z(ω)∨Z_{bar S}, but this exact containment is already a direct consequence of Proposition 4.2 with A_1=A_S and A_2=A_{bar S}, so the citation is redundant, not load-bearing. Theorem 5.2 in A.4 uses Lemma A.2, deferred to Proposition B.1 of the same authors' companion paper [38]; the lemma (a homomorphism with factor domain is null or injective) is a parameter-free algebraic fact that does not assume the representation theorem, and the introduction's statement that [38] 'makes heavy use of the present framework and results' describes [38] as downstream of this framework, not as the source of Theorem 5.2. Thus the self-citation does not create a circular reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no uniqueness theorem is imported. A separate, non-circular correctness risk is present in A.4: Eq. (78) treats the product of atomic projectors π_k as though it were central; in the paper's own tripartite example π_{(1,0,0)}=|1⟩⟨1|⊗1 and |1⟩⟨2|⊗U belongs to π_kω but not to Lin(H^k)⊕0, so the asserted block decomposition and the subsequent equality π_kω=⋁_n π_k A_n are not justified. This is an omitted proof or error, not a circularity, and it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The central claim rests on standard finite-dimensional C* algebra facts, a domain assumption that subsystems are sub-C* algebras, an unproven equivalence of operational interpretations, and two technical propositions imported from a same-author companion paper. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Subsystems of a quantum system correspond to sub-C* algebras of the operator algebra of the global system.
    Adopted as starting point in Section 2.1; not operationally derived in this paper, and future work is mentioned in Section 7.
  • standard math Finite-dimensional C* algebras (or finite-dimensional von Neumann algebras) are the relevant mathematical setting.
    The paper restricts to finite-dimensional systems throughout; the Wedderburn-Artin theorem (Theorem 2.1) underpins the block decomposition.
  • domain assumption The operational interpretations of a subalgebra in terms of observables, unitaries, and Kraus maps are equivalent.
    Stated in Section 2.1 and footnote 5; the paper does not prove this equivalence.
  • ad hoc to paper Propositions B.1 and B.5 of the companion paper [38] (by the same authors) are valid.
    Used as black boxes in Appendix A.3 (proof of Theorem 5.1) and Appendix A.4 (Lemma A.2, proof of Theorem 5.2).
  • domain assumption The fermionic algebra of physical operators (parity-preserving) is the correct algebra for local modes.
    Section 6.1 defines ω = Span(M_X) and A_S = Span(M_S); this models superselection, standard in fermionic quantum information.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Partitions in quantum theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LHDAA7VD

@misc{pith2026250622218,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Partitions in quantum theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LHDAA7VD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22218}
}
read the original abstract

Decompositional theories describe the ways in which a global physical system can be split into subsystems, facilitating the study of how different possible partitions of a same system interplay, e.g. in terms of inclusions or signalling. In quantum theory, subsystems are usually framed as sub-C* algebras of the algebra of operators on the global system. However, most decompositional approaches have so far restricted their scope to the case of systems corresponding to factor algebras. We argue that this is a mistake: one should cater for the possibility for non-factor subsystems, arising for instance from symmetry considerations. Building on simple examples, we motivate and present a definition of partitions into an arbitrary number of parts, each of which is a possibly non-factor sub-C* algebra. We discuss its physical interpretation and study its properties, in particular with regards to the structure of algebras' centres. We prove that partitions, defined at the C*-algebraic level, can be represented in terms of a splitting of Hilbert spaces, using the framework of routed quantum circuits. For some partitions, however, such a representation necessarily retains a residual pseudo-nonlocality. We provide an example of this behaviour, given by the partition of a fermionic system into local modes.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. The Perspectives of Non-Ideal Quantum Reference Frames

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A framework built on two principles defines the perspective of non-ideal quantum reference frames, predicting superselection of the observed system and back-reaction from successive operations.

  2. What can we do in a symmetry-constrained perspective? The importance of the total charge's status in quantum reference frame frameworks

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A two-observer Z2 toy model is used to argue that internal observers can access the total charge, favoring weak over strong symmetry in quantum reference frame frameworks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [38]

    Causal decompositions of one-dimensional quantum cellular automata,

    A. Vanrietvelde, O. Mestoudjian, and P. Arrighi, “Causal decompositions of one-dimensional quantum cellular automata,” arXiv:2506.22219 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Quantum common causes and quantum causal models,

    J.-M. A. Allen, J. Barrett, D. C. Horsman, C. M. Lee, and R. W. Spekkens, “Quantum common causes and quantum causal models,” Physical Review X 7 (2017) 031021, arXiv:1609.09487 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [2]

    Quantum causal models,

    J. Barrett, R. Lorenz, and O. Oreshkov, “Quantum causal models,” arXiv:1906.10726 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 1906

  4. [3]

    Cyclic quantum causal models,

    J. Barrett, R. Lorenz, and O. Oreshkov, “Cyclic quantum causal models,” Nature Communications 12 no. 1, (2021) 1–15, arXiv:2002.12157 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    Causal structure in the presence of sectorial constraints, with application to the quantum switch,

    N. Ormrod, A. Vanrietvelde, and J. Barrett, “Causal structure in the presence of sectorial constraints, with application to the quantum switch,” Quantum 7 (June,

    work page

  6. [5]

    Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information,

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, “Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information,” Review of Modern Physics 79 (2007) 555–609, arXiv:quant-ph/0610030

    arXiv 2007

  7. [6]

    Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames,

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and ˇC. Brukner, “Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames,” Nature Communications 10 no. 1, (2019) 494, arXiv:1712.07207 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    A change of perspective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework,

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. H¨ ohn, F. Giacomini, and E. Castro-Ruiz, “A change of perspective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework,” Quantum 4 (2020) 225, arXiv:1809.00556 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    Operational Quantum Reference Frame Transformations,

    T. Carette, J. G lowacki, and L. Loveridge, “Operational Quantum Reference Frame Transformations,” Quantum 9 (2025) 1680, arXiv:2303.14002 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Quantum Relativity of Subsystems,

    S. Ali Ahmad, T. D. Galley, P. A. Hoehn, M. P. E. Lock, and A. R. H. Smith, “Quantum Relativity of Subsystems,” Physical Review Letters 128 no. 17, (2022) 170401, arXiv:2103.01232 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Relative subsystems and quantum reference frame transformations,

    E. Castro-Ruiz and O. Oreshkov, “Relative subsystems and quantum reference frame transformations,” Communications Physics 8 no. 1, (2025) 187, arXiv:2110.13199 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Gravitational entropy is observer-dependent,

    J. De Vuyst, S. Eccles, P. A. H¨ ohn, and J. Kirklin, “Gravitational entropy is observer-dependent,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2025 no. 7, (July, 2025) 146, arXiv:2405.00114 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Crossed products and quantum reference frames: on the observer-dependence of gravitational entropy,

    J. De Vuyst, S. Eccles, P. A. H¨ ohn, and J. Kirklin, “Crossed products and quantum reference frames: on the observer-dependence of gravitational entropy,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2025 no. 7, (July, 2025) 63, arXiv:2412.15502 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Relational entanglement entropies and quantum reference frames in gauge theories,

    G. Araujo-Regado, P. A. Hoehn, and F. Sartini, “Relational entanglement entropies and quantum reference frames in gauge theories,” arXiv:2506.23459 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Experimental superposition of orders of quantum gates,

    L. M. Procopio, A. Moqanaki, M. Ara´ ujo, F. Costa, I. Alonso Calafell, E. G. Dowd, D. R. Hamel, L. A. Rozema, ˇC. Brukner, and P. Walther, “Experimental superposition of orders of quantum gates,” Nature Communications 6 (Aug., 2015) 7913, arXiv:1412.4006 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Experimental verification of an indefinite causal order,

    G. Rubino, L. A. Rozema, A. Feix, M. Ara´ ujo, J. M. Zeuner, L. M. Procopio, ˇC. Brukner, and P. Walther, “Experimental verification of an indefinite causal order,” Science Advances 3 no. 3, (Mar., 2017) e1602589, arXiv:1608.01683 [quant-ph]. 28

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Time-delocalized quantum subsystems and operations: on the existence of processes with indefinite causal structure in quantum mechanics,

    O. Oreshkov, “Time-delocalized quantum subsystems and operations: on the existence of processes with indefinite causal structure in quantum mechanics,” Quantum 3 (2019) 206, arXiv:1801.07594 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Causal orders, quantum circuits and spacetime: distinguishing between definite and superposed causal orders,

    N. Paunkovi´ c and M. Vojinovi´ c, “Causal orders, quantum circuits and spacetime: distinguishing between definite and superposed causal orders,” Quantum 4 (2020) 275, arXiv:1905.09682 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Indefinite causal orders from superpositions in time,

    D. Felce, N. T. Vidal, V. Vedral, and E. O. Dias, “Indefinite causal orders from superpositions in time,” Physical Review A 105 no. 6, (2022) 062216, arXiv:2107.08076 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Embedding cyclic information-theoretic structures in acyclic space-times: No-go results for indefinite causality,

    V. Vilasini and R. Renner, “Embedding cyclic information-theoretic structures in acyclic space-times: No-go results for indefinite causality,” Physical Review A 110 no. 2, (2024) 022227, arXiv:2203.11245 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Quantum diffeomorphisms cannot make indefinite causal order definite,

    A.-C. de la Hamette, V. Kabel, M. Christodoulou, and v. Brukner, “Quantum diffeomorphisms cannot make indefinite causal order definite,” arXiv:2211.15685 [quant-ph]

  14. [21]

    Events and their Localisation are Relative to a Lab,

    V. Vilasini, L.-Q. Chen, L. Ye, and R. Renner, “Events and their Localisation are Relative to a Lab,” arXiv:2505.21797 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  15. [22]

    Quantum computations without definite causal structure,

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and B. Valiron, “Quantum computations without definite causal structure,” Physical Review A 88 no. 2, (2013) 022318, arXiv:0912.0195 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Existence of processes violating causal inequalities on time-delocalised subsystems,

    J. Wechs, C. Branciard, and O. Oreshkov, “Existence of processes violating causal inequalities on time-delocalised subsystems,” Nature Commun. 14 no. 1, (2023) 1471, arXiv:2201.11832 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Subsystem decompositions of quantum evolutions and transformations between causal perspectives,

    J. Wechs and O. Oreshkov, “Subsystem decompositions of quantum evolutions and transformations between causal perspectives,” arXiv:2411.16504 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    Constructing qubits in physical systems,

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, “Constructing qubits in physical systems,” Journal of Physics A Mathematical General 34 no. 35, (Sept., 2001) 7067–7079, arXiv:quant-ph/0101090 [quant-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Virtual Quantum Subsystems,

    P. Zanardi, “Virtual Quantum Subsystems,” Physical Review Letters 87 no. 7, (Aug., 2001) 077901, arXiv:quant-ph/0103030 [quant-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Quantum Tensor Product Structures are Observable Induced,

    P. Zanardi, D. A. Lidar, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum Tensor Product Structures are Observable Induced,” Physical Review Letters 92 no. 6, (Feb., 2004) 060402, arXiv:quant-ph/0308043 [quant-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Algebraic quantum field theory,

    H. Halvorson and M. Mueger, “Algebraic quantum field theory,” in Handbook of the philosophy of physics, J. Butterfield and J. Earman, eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2006. arXiv:math-ph/0602036 [math-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Algebraic quantum field theory,

    C. J. Fewster and K. Rejzner, “Algebraic quantum field theory,” in Progress and Visions in Quantum Theory in View of Gravity, F. Finster, D. Giulini, J. Kleiner, and J. Tolksdorf, eds., pp. 1–61. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020. arXiv:1904.04051 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Causal and compositional structure of unitary transformations,

    R. Lorenz and J. Barrett, “Causal and compositional structure of unitary transformations,” Quantum 5 (2021) 511, arXiv:2001.07774 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Quantum influences and event relativity,

    N. Ormrod and J. Barrett, “Quantum influences and event relativity,” 1, 2024. arXiv:2401.18005 [quant-ph] . 29

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Agents, Subsystems, and the Conservation of Information,

    G. Chiribella, “Agents, Subsystems, and the Conservation of Information,” Entropy 20 no. 5, (May, 2018) 358, arXiv:1804.01943 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Operational Quantum Mereology and Minimal Scrambling,

    P. Zanardi, E. Dallas, F. Andreadakis, and S. Lloyd, “Operational Quantum Mereology and Minimal Scrambling,” Quantum 8 (July, 2024) 1406, arXiv:2212.14340 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Long-time quantum scrambling and generalized tensor product structures,

    F. Andreadakis, E. Dallas, and P. Zanardi, “Long-time quantum scrambling and generalized tensor product structures,” Physical Review A 109 no. 5, (May, 2024) 052424, arXiv:2312.13386 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Mutual averaged non-commutativity of quantum operator algebras,

    P. Zanardi, “Mutual averaged non-commutativity of quantum operator algebras,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 65 no. 6, (June, 2024) 062202, arXiv:2312.14019 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Routed quantum circuits,

    A. Vanrietvelde, H. Kristj´ ansson, and J. Barrett, “Routed quantum circuits,” Quantum 5 (Jul, 2021) 503, arXiv:2011.08120 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Vanrietvelde, Routed quantum circuits: an extended framework for coherent control and indefinite causal order

    A. Vanrietvelde, Routed quantum circuits: an extended framework for coherent control and indefinite causal order. PhD thesis, University of Oxford ; Imperial college London, Sept., 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Emch, Algebraic Methods in Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory

    G. Emch, Algebraic Methods in Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory. Interscience monographs and texts in physics and astronomy. Wiley-Interscience, 1972

    1972

  32. [40]

    Locality from the Spectrum,

    J. S. Cotler, G. R. Penington, and D. H. Ranard, “Locality from the Spectrum,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 368 no. 3, (June, 2019) 1267–1296, arXiv:1702.06142 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Quantum mereology: Factorizing Hilbert space into subsystems with quasiclassical dynamics,

    S. M. Carroll and A. Singh, “Quantum mereology: Factorizing Hilbert space into subsystems with quasiclassical dynamics,” Physical Review A 103 no. 2, (Feb.,

  34. [42]

    A Search for Classical Subsystems in Quantum Worlds,

    A. Adil, M. S. Rudolph, A. Arrasmith, Z. Holmes, A. Albrecht, and A. Sornborger, “A Search for Classical Subsystems in Quantum Worlds,” arXiv:2403.10895 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Quantum Mereology and Subsystems from the Spectrum,

    N. Loizeau and D. Sels, “Quantum Mereology and Subsystems from the Spectrum,” Foundations of Physics 55 no. 1, (Feb., 2025) 3, arXiv:2409.01391 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    To be or not to be, but where?,

    G. Franzmann, “To be or not to be, but where?,” arXiv:2405.21031 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Generalizations of entanglement based on coherent states and convex sets,

    H. Barnum, E. Knill, G. Ortiz, and L. Viola, “Generalizations of entanglement based on coherent states and convex sets,” Physical Review A 68 no. 3, (Sept.,

  38. [46]

    A Subsystem-Independent Generalization of Entanglement,

    H. Barnum, E. Knill, G. Ortiz, R. Somma, and L. Viola, “A Subsystem-Independent Generalization of Entanglement,” Physical Review Letters 92 no. 10, (Mar., 2004) 107902, arXiv:quant-ph/0305023 [quant-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Entanglement beyond subsystems,

    L. Viola, H. Barnum, E. Knill, G. Ortiz, and R. Somma, “Entanglement beyond subsystems,” in Coding Theory and Quantum Computing, D. Evans, J. J. Holt, C. Jones, K. Klintworth, B. Parshall, O. Pfister, and H. N. Ward, eds., vol. 381

  40. [48]

    A Generalization of Entanglement to Convex Operational Theories: Entanglement Relative to a Subspace of Observables,

    H. Barnum, G. Ortiz, R. Somma, and L. Viola, “A Generalization of Entanglement to Convex Operational Theories: Entanglement Relative to a Subspace of Observables,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 44 no. 12, (Dec., 2005) 2127–2145, arXiv:quant-ph/0506099 [quant-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Schwinger’s picture of quantum mechanics IV: Composition and independence,

    F. M. Ciaglia, F. di Cosmo, A. Ibort, and G. Marmo, “Schwinger’s picture of quantum mechanics IV: Composition and independence,” International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 17 no. 4, (Jan., 2020) 2050058–324, arXiv:2004.02472 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Operational locality in global theories,

    L. Kr¨ amer and L. del Rio, “Operational locality in global theories,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A 376 no. 2123, (July, 2018) 20170321, arXiv:1701.03280 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A Process-Theoretic Church of the Larger Hilbert Space,

    S. Gogioso, “A Process-Theoretic Church of the Larger Hilbert Space,” arXiv:1905.13117 [quant-ph]

    1905 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Quantum networks theory,

    P. Arrighi, A. Durbec, and M. Wilson, “Quantum networks theory,” Quantum 8 (Oct., 2024) 1508, arXiv:2110.10587 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Generalised tensors and traces,

    P. Arrighi, A. Durbec, and M. Wilson, “Generalised tensors and traces,” arXiv:2202.11340 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    A causal derivation of the algebraic approach to quantum systems,

    N. Ormrod, “A causal derivation of the algebraic approach to quantum systems,” arXiv:2508.01111 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    D. R. Farenic, Algebras of Linear Transformations. Springer New York, 2001

    2001

  48. [56]

    Averson, An Invitation to C*-Algebras

    W. Averson, An Invitation to C*-Algebras. Springer New York, 1976

    1976

  49. [57]

    Twirled worlds: symmetry-induced failures of tomographic locality,

    D. Centeno, M. Erba, D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, R. W. Spekkens, S. Soltani, J. Surace, A. Wilce, and Y. Y ¯ing, “Twirled worlds: symmetry-induced failures of tomographic locality,” arXiv:2407.21688 [quant-ph]

  50. [58]

    Quantum Shannon theory with superpositions of trajectories,

    G. Chiribella and H. Kristj´ ansson, “Quantum Shannon theory with superpositions of trajectories,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A 475 (2019) , arXiv:1812.05292 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Consistent circuits for indefinite causal order,

    A. Vanrietvelde, N. Ormrod, H. Kristj´ ansson, and J. Barrett, “Consistent circuits for indefinite causal order,” arXiv:2206.10042 [quant-ph]

  52. [60]

    Fermionic computation is non-local tomographic and violates monogamy of entanglement,

    G. M. D’Ariano, F. Manessi, P. Perinotti, and A. Tosini, “Fermionic computation is non-local tomographic and violates monogamy of entanglement,” Europhysics Letters 107 no. 2, (Jul, 2014) 20009, arXiv:1307.7902 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Fermionic-mode entanglement in quantum information,

    N. Friis, A. R. Lee, and D. E. Bruschi, “Fermionic-mode entanglement in quantum information,” Physical Review A 87 no. 2, (Feb., 2013) 022338, arXiv:1211.7217 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Reasonable fermionic quantum information theories require relativity,

    N. Friis, “Reasonable fermionic quantum information theories require relativity,” New Journal of Physics 18 no. 3, (Mar., 2016) 033014, arXiv:1502.04476 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Quantum cellular automata and quantum field theory in two spatial dimensions,

    T. A. Brun and L. Mlodinow, “Quantum cellular automata and quantum field theory in two spatial dimensions,” Physical Review A 102 no. 6, (Dec., 2020) 062222, arXiv:2010.09104 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    On the locality of qubit encodings of local fermionic modes,

    T. Guaita, “On the locality of qubit encodings of local fermionic modes,” Quantum 9 (Feb., 2025) 1644, arXiv:2401.10077 [quant-ph] . 31 A Proofs A.1 Proof of Theorem 2.2 Proof. LetZ be a commutative algebra. By Theorem 2.1, there exists an isomorphism ι :Z→ ⨁ k∈K Lin(Hk Z), an...

    2025 arXiv

  57. [68]

    We have reached a contradiction, which concludes the proof. 45

  58. [2003]

    032308, arXiv:quant-ph/0207149 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  59. [2005]

    arXiv:quant-ph/0403044 [quant-ph] . 30

    arXiv

  60. [2021]

    022213, arXiv:2005.12938 [quant-ph]

    2005 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.