Optimal Remainder Estimates in the Quantization of Complex Projective Spaces

B{\l}a\.zej Ruba; Jan Philip Solovej; Tommaso Aschieri

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 61 references

Optimal Remainder Estimates in the Quantization of Complex Projective Spaces

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that, on complex projective spaces, the remainder in the semiclassical expansions of the Berezin transform and of products of Toeplitz operators is controlled by the next term of the expansion, with asymptotically sharp co

desk verdict The Berezin-transform remainder estimates are sharp and clean, but the product theorem and the Opm Hm Schatten bound are mis-stated with sign/conjugation errors; the underlying proofs look fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19968 v1 pith:ZPQARX5N submitted 2025-08-27 math-ph math.MPmath.QAmath.RTmath.SP

Tommaso Aschieri , B{l}ażej Ruba , Jan Philip Solovej This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.MPmath.QAmath.RTmath.SP MSC 53D5081S1047B3522E46

keywords Berezin–ToeplitzquantizationcomplexprojectivespaceremainderestimatesstarproductmajorizationToeplitzoperatorssemiclassicalasymptoticssharpconstants

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

On the complex projective space CP^{d-1}, quantization sends functions to operators on symmetric tensor spaces, with 1/m as the semiclassical parameter. The paper proves two sharp remainder theorems. First, the Berezin transform B_m[f] approximates f by an N-term expansion in powers of the Laplacian, and the error in any L^p norm is no larger than the next term, υ_{m,N}‖(Δ/4)^N f‖_{L^p}; the constant is asymptotically sharp by Lemma 15. Second, the product of two Toeplitz operators Op_m[f]Op_m[g] approximates the truncated star product with an error that factors as a constant times A*B, where A*A and B*B are each bounded by the next star-product term, yielding sharp Schatten-norm estimates. The proofs run through positivity: remainders are related to the next term by doubly stochastic operators or by an explicit operator inequality for an interpolating polynomial. If correct, these results show that one derivative per order of the expansion is genuinely sufficient and that the classical constants are optimal.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on two explicit objects. The entire function Υ_m(z)=∏_{n≥1}(1−z/((m+n)(m+n+d−1)))=Σ υ_{m,n}(−z)^n encodes the Berezin transform exactly: B_m=Υ_m(−Δ/4), so the coefficients υ_{m,n} are the expansion coefficients and the remainder is produced by the tail of this product. For products of Toeplitz operators, the key object is the interpolating polynomial q_{m,N}(x)=∏_{i=1}^N (μ_{m,i}−x)/μ_{m,i}, which approximates the spectral projection 1_{0}(D_m) onto the lowest eigenspace of the operator D_m; Lemma 21's inequality (5.36), 0≤(−1)^N[1_{0}(D_m)−q_{m,N−1}(D_m)]≤∏_{i=1}^N(D_m−μ_{m,i−1})/μ_{m,i}, is what converts polynomial interpolation into an operator inequality and hence into

What would settle it

Take a vector in the spectral subspace of D_m with eigenvalue μ_{m,N+1} and check Lemma 21's inequality (5.17b) numerically: for fixed small d, m, N the asserted matrix inequality involves only finite-dimensional representations, so a direct computation could disprove (5.36) and with it Theorem 2. Alternatively, for p=2 compute the optimal constant in (4.21) on the first nonzero Laplacian eigenspace; Lemma 15 pins it between υ_{m,N}(1−d/(N+m+1)) and υ_{m,N}, and any value outside that interval would refute the sharpness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the two basic semiclassical expansions in Berezin–Toeplitz quantization of CP^{d-1} are optimal in both regularity and constants. Theorem 14 shows that for f with Δ^j f ∈ L^1, j≤N, the remainder R_N = B_m[f] − Σ_{n=0}^{N−1} υ_{m,n}(Δ/4)^n f obeys the majorization R_N ≺ υ_{m,N}(−Δ/4)^N f (real f) and the weak majorization |R_N| ≺_w υ_{m,N}|(Δ/4)^N f| (complex f), so ‖R_N‖_{L^p} ≤ υ_{m,N}‖(Δ/4)^N f‖_{L^p} for all p. Lemma 15 establishes asymptotic sharpness of υ_{m,N}: the optimal constant lies between υ_{m,N}(1−d/(N+m+1)) and υ_{m,N}. Theorem 2 treats products: E_{m,N}[f,g] factors as ((m+d−1)!/(N!(N+m+d−1)!)) A*B with A*A ≤ Op_m[f⋆_N f] and

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the operator inequality (5.36), which says the spectral projection onto the lowest eigenspace of D_m sits between an interpolating polynomial and the next shifted product; if that comparison fails, the remainder of the product expansion no longer factors as A*B with the claimed positive bounds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Theorem 14 makes the Berezin-transform expansion quantitative for symbols that are only finitely differentiable: one L^1 derivative per order, with all p∈[1,∞] covered by a single majorization.
Theorem 2 plus Hölder's inequality yields Schatten-norm remainder bounds for products of Toeplitz operators with explicit constants, and the trace of the controlling operator Op_m[g⋆_N g] is computed by (5.10) in terms of g and the Laplacian.
For g=f the signed operator inequality (1.13) shows the remainder has a fixed sign up to order N and is dominated by the next star-product term, so every monotone function of the remainder inherits the same bound.
The star product is exactly associative on the algebra A of regular functions and reproduces the operator product there, giving a deformation quantization that depends rationally on m outside the exceptional set.
Lemma 15's two-sided bound identifies υ_{m,N} as the asymptotically sharp constant in the Berezin expansion, up to a relative error d/(N+m+1).

Reading between the lines

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

The same interpolating-polynomial strategy should extend to other compact homogeneous Kähler manifolds (flag manifolds) whose relevant spectral operators have arithmetic eigenvalue sequences; the missing ingredient would be an analogue of Lemma 21's inequalities.
Because Theorem 14 is proved by expressing the remainder through a doubly stochastic operator, it likely implies rearrangement-invariant norm bounds beyond L^p—such as Lorentz norms—although the paper states only L^p estimates.
The sharpness of the product constants is demonstrated inside the algebra A; examples outside A could have strictly smaller constants, so the sharpness statement is a worst-case statement within A rather than a universal lower bound.
Via the block decomposition (1.17), these sharp bounds transfer to anti-Wick quantization on C^d, which would give optimal semiclassical remainder estimates for the Gaussian Fock space; the paper notes the connection but does not develop these estimates there.

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

Short version: this is a useful paper with a real mistake problem in two statements. The main positive result, Theorem 14 on the Berezin transform, is solid and I think correct: the telescoping argument with doubly stochastic operators gives an Lp remainder bound that is exactly the next term, and Lemma 15 makes the sharpness rigorous. The constants come from the spectral decomposition of the Laplacian, not from fitting. That part deserves to be in the literature.

The product theorem (Theorem 2) and the parallel Opm Hm result (Theorem 17) are where the trouble is. The factorization in (5.38)/(1.14) has a sign and conjugation inconsistency: as written, A*B gives (-1)^N times the remainder times a constant, not the remainder itself; and for complex symbols, A*A is controlled by Opm[\bar f ⋆_N f], not Opm[f ⋆_N f]. The theorem silently assumes real f. In Theorem 17, (4.39) has the wrong sign in the expansion—it should be (-1/2 Q)^n, not (1/2 Q)^n—and the stress-test's numerical check (d=2, m=10, N=2) shows the printed inequality is actually violated. These are not typos in an incidental sense; the statements as printed are false. The proofs, which rest on the inequality (5.36) for the interpolating polynomial, appear to go through once the signs and conjugates are repaired. So this is a fixable problem, not a fatal one.

The weaker point in the reader's report—(5.36) as the load-bearing assumption—turns out not to be the issue; the polynomial inequality is fine. The issue is the algebra of putting f or \bar f in the factorization and the sign in the Schatten display.

Recommendation: send to a serious referee. The Berezin transform section alone is a genuine contribution, and the product theorem is worth rescuing. The referee should be told to check the A, B factorization and the signs in Theorem 17 carefully. If the authors produce a corrected version, I'd be happy to cite it.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies Berezin–Toeplitz quantization on CP^{d-1} and claims two families of sharp semiclassical remainder estimates. For the Berezin transformation B_m = H_m Op_m, Theorem 14 gives majorization and L^p bounds for B_m[f] minus its first N expansion terms, with remainder controlled by the next term through an explicit constant υ_{m,N}; Lemma 15 shows the constant is asymptotically sharp. For products of Toeplitz operators, Theorem 2 introduces star-product terms f⋆_n g and claims operator inequalities and a factorization E_{m,N}[f,g] = c A^*B, leading to Schatten norm bounds in Corollary 19. Theorem 17 gives parallel majorization and Schatten bounds for Op_m H_m. An algebra of regular functions is introduced on which the star product is exact and associative.

Significance. The intended results are significant: they supply optimal-regularity remainder estimates with explicit, asymptotically sharp constants, in a setting where positivity and majorization are used structurally rather than as technical afterthoughts. The doubly stochastic operator argument for Theorem 14, the explicit coefficient identities for υ_{m,n}, the interpolating-polynomial proof of Lemma 21, and the exact associative algebra A are genuine strengths. If the sign and conjugation errors identified below are corrected, the paper would be a strong contribution to Toeplitz quantization and semiclassical analysis.

major comments (3)

[§5, Theorem 2, Eqs. (1.14), (1.15), (5.38)] The factorization E_{m,N}[f,g]=c A^*B is not what the defined A,B give. With S=(-1)^N[1_0(D_m)-q_{m,N-1}(D_m)] and A=c^{-1/2} S^{1/2} f Π0,m, B=c^{-1/2} S^{1/2} g Π0,m, one obtains A^*B=c^{-1}(-1)^N Π0,m \bar f [1_0-q] g Π0,m, hence c A^*B=(-1)^N E[\bar f,g], not E[f,g]. For odd N this is already a sign error for real f; for complex f the conjugation is also wrong. The proof and Corollary 19 indicate the correct statement should be E=c(-1)^N A^*B with A built from \bar f, and A^*A ≤ Op_m[f⋆_N\bar f], B^*B ≤ Op_m[\bar g⋆_N g]; alternatively Theorem 2(1)–(2) must be restricted to real symbols. As printed, the main product theorem and the derived Schatten bounds are not valid.
[§4, Theorem 17(3), Eqs. (4.37), (4.39), (4.41)] Equation (4.39) states the Schatten norm bound with the expansion Σ_{n=0}^{N-1} υ_{m,n}(1/2 Q)^n[T], but the majorization (4.37) and the proof (4.41) use alternating signs (−1/2 Q)^n. Since Q has nonnegative spectrum on the relevant components, the two expressions are genuinely different; the printed (4.39) is false. For example, taking d=2, m=10, N=2 and T=Π_{1,1}, the left side is about 0.348 while the right-hand bound is at most about 0.030; replacing (1/2Q)^n by (−1/2Q)^n makes the inequality plausible. The correct statement should have (−1/2Q)^n inside the norm.
[§4, Theorem 14, Eq. (4.11)] The signed majorization statement has the wrong sign on the right-hand side. The proof, especially Eqs. (4.16)–(4.20), establishes B_m[f]−Σ_{n=0}^{N-1} υ_{m,n}(1/4Δ)^n f = υ_{m,N} T_N[(1/4Δ)^N f] with T_N doubly stochastic, and hence majorization by υ_{m,N}(1/4Δ)^N f. Equation (4.11) instead asserts majorization by υ_{m,N}(−1/4Δ)^N f; the two disagree for odd N, and the proof does not justify replacing (1/4Δ)^N by its negative. The L^p bound (4.13) is unaffected because it uses absolute values, but the majorization claim as stated should be corrected to (1/4Δ)^N f.

minor comments (3)

[§3, Lemma 7(2)] The identity H_m[T^*]=H_m[f] appears to be a typo; it should read H_m[T^*]=\overline{H_m[T]}.
[§3, Eq. (3.10)] In the definition of majorization, the notation "f ≺_w g" is used where "f ≺ g" is intended; weak majorization was already denoted by ≺_w in (3.9).
[§5, proof of Theorem 2] The sentence "Point 3) follows from Hölder's inequality for operators" is a misnumbering: there is no item 3 in Theorem 2, and the intended consequence is Corollary 19.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main remainder bounds and sharp constants are derived from explicit spectral decompositions and commutator identities, not from fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central results are self-contained derivations. Theorem 14 is proved from the explicit spectral identity B_m = Υ_m(-Δ/4) (Corollary 13) and the recurrence (4.14)–(4.20), which expresses the remainder as υ_{m,N} T_N[(Δ/4)^N f] with T_N a doubly stochastic operator constructed from the B_{m+k}; the coefficient υ_{m,N} is defined explicitly by the Taylor expansion (4.7)–(4.8), not fitted. Lemma 15's sharpness is shown by evaluating the inequality on an explicit Laplace eigenfunction, giving a lower bound, so it is not circular. Theorem 2's product expansion derives the star-product coefficients from the interpolation polynomial q_{m,N}(x) (Definition 20) and the factorization identity Lemma 22, yielding ∏_{i=1}^N μ_{m,i}^{-1} = (m+d-1)!/[N!(N+m+d-1)!]; the key operator inequality (5.36) is proven from polynomial estimates in Lemma 21. No parameter is fitted to the quantity later called a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz result is imported from the authors' prior work. The only self-citation, [27], appears in a contextual literature remark and is not used to justify any theorem. The skeptic's reported sign/conjugation issues are correctness concerns, not circularity, and the paper's own remark that constants are not strictly optimal for p=2 is an honest limitation, not a circular step.

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

No fitted constants or new physical entities. The only introduced objects are mathematical constructions (Υ_m, ⋆_n, algebra A), supported by explicit formulas and proofs.

assumptions (5)

standard math Orthogonal decomposition L2(CP^{d-1},m) = ⊕ H_{n,n+m} and Casimir eigenvalue formulas (2.5)
Used to diagonalize B_m and D_m in Propositions 5, 6, and Section 2.
domain assumption Coherent state quantization Op_m[f] = V_m^* f V_m and H_m = (1/d_m) Op_m^*
Definition of the quantization framework in Section 3.
standard math Doubly stochastic operators and Karamata/majorization theorems map convex-function inequalities to rearrangements
Basis for the majorization proofs in Theorem 14 and Lemma 16, citing [49,54,57].
standard math 2-positive maps satisfy |Φ(T)| ≺_w |T| via Fan and Horn inequalities
Used to prove Theorem 17 in Lemma 16, relying on [58,59].
standard math Gamma function identities (4.5) for Υ_m
Needed to identify B_m = Υ_m(−Δ/4) and to compute the coefficients υ_{m,n}.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Remainder Estimates in the Quantization of Complex Projective Spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZPQARX5N

@misc{pith2026250819968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Remainder Estimates in the Quantization of Complex Projective Spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZPQARX5N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19968}
}

abstract

We study Berezin-Toeplitz quantization of complex projective spaces $\mathbb{CP}^{d-1}$ and obtain full asymptotic expansions of the Berezin transformation and of products of Toeplitz operators. In each case, the remainder is controlled by the next term of the expansion, either through a positivity-preserving transformation or via an operator inequality. This leads to bounds which are optimal in terms of the required regularity and feature sharp or asymptotically sharp constants.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

[1]

Berezin-Toeplitz Quantization for Compact K¨ ahler Manifolds. A Review of Results

M. Schlichenmaier. “Berezin-Toeplitz Quantization for Compact K¨ ahler Manifolds. A Review of Results”. Advances in Mathematical Physics 2010 (Apr. 7, 2010), e927280

work page 2010
[2]

Le Floch

Y. Le Floch. A Brief Introduction to Berezin-Toeplitz Operators on Compact K¨ ahler Manifolds. Springer, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Coherent States for Arbitrary Lie Group

A. M. Perelomov. “Coherent States for Arbitrary Lie Group”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 26 (1972), pp. 222–236

work page 1972
[4]

The classical limit of quantum partition functions

B. Simon. “The classical limit of quantum partition functions”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 71 (Oct. 1980), pp. 247–276

work page 1980
[5]

The asymptotics of a Laplace integral on a K¨ ahler manifold

M. Engliˇ s. “The asymptotics of a Laplace integral on a K¨ ahler manifold”.Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik 2000 (2000), pp. 1–39

work page 2000
[6]

Identification of Berezin-Toeplitz defor- mation quantization

A. V. Karabegov and M. Schlichenmaier. “Identification of Berezin-Toeplitz defor- mation quantization”. Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) 2001 (Jan. 9, 2001)

work page 2001
[7]

L. Ioos, V. Kaminker, L. Polterovich, and D. Shmoish. Spectral aspects of the Berezin transform. Apr. 22, 2020. arXiv: 1811.03155[math-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[8]

General concept of quantization

F. A. Berezin. “General concept of quantization”. Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics 40 (June 1975), pp. 153–174

work page 1975

Show all 61 references

[9]

Quantization in Complex Symmetric Spaces

F. A. Berezin. “Quantization in Complex Symmetric Spaces”. Mathematics of the USSR-Izvestiya 9 (Apr. 30, 1975), p. 341

1975
[10]

Toeplitz Quantization of K¨ ahler Manifolds and gl(N ), N → ∞Limits

M. Bordemann, E. Meinrenken, and M. Schlichenmaier. “Toeplitz Quantization of K¨ ahler Manifolds and gl(N ), N → ∞Limits”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 165 (Oct. 1, 1994), pp. 281–296

1994
[11]

Zwei Anwendungen Algebraisch-Geometrischer Methoden in Der Physik: Berezin-Toeplitz Quanisierung Und Globale Algebren Der Konformen Feldtheorie, Habilitationsschrift

M. Schlichenmaier. “Zwei Anwendungen Algebraisch-Geometrischer Methoden in Der Physik: Berezin-Toeplitz Quanisierung Und Globale Algebren Der Konformen Feldtheorie, Habilitationsschrift”. 1996

1996
[12]

Deformation Quantization of Compact K¨ ahler Manifolds by Berezin-Toeplitz Quantization

M. Schlichenmaier. “Deformation Quantization of Compact K¨ ahler Manifolds by Berezin-Toeplitz Quantization”. In: Conf´ erence Mosh´ e Flato 1999: Quantization, Deformations, and Symmetries Volume II . Ed. by G. Dito and D. Sternheimer. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2000, p...

1999
[13]

Berezin-Toeplitz quantization on K¨ ahler manifolds

X. Ma and G. Marinescu. “Berezin-Toeplitz quantization on K¨ ahler manifolds”. 2012 (Jan. 1, 2012), pp. 1–56

2012
[14]

Deforma- tion theory and quantization. I. Deformations of symplectic structures

F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnerowicz, and D. Sternheimer. “Deforma- tion theory and quantization. I. Deformations of symplectic structures”. Annals of Physics 111 (Mar. 1, 1978), pp. 61–110

1978
[15]

Deforma- tion theory and quantization. II. Physical applications

F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnerowicz, and D. Sternheimer. “Deforma- tion theory and quantization. II. Physical applications”. Annals of Physics 111 (Mar. 1, 1978), pp. 111–151

1978
[16]

Existence of star-products and of formal deformations of the Poisson Lie algebra of arbitrary symplectic manifolds

M. de Wilde and P. B. A. Lecomte. “Existence of star-products and of formal deformations of the Poisson Lie algebra of arbitrary symplectic manifolds”. Letters in Mathematical Physics 7 (Nov. 1, 1983), pp. 487–496

1983
[17]

A simple geometrical construction of deformation quantization

B. V. Fedosov. “A simple geometrical construction of deformation quantization”. Journal of Differential Geometry 40 (Jan. 1994), pp. 213–238

1994
[18]

Deformation Quantization of Poisson Manifolds

M. Kontsevich. “Deformation Quantization of Poisson Manifolds”. Letters in Math- ematical Physics 66 (Dec. 1, 2003), pp. 157–216

2003
[19]

Deformation quantizations with separation of variables on a K¨ ahler manifold

A. V. Karabegov. “Deformation quantizations with separation of variables on a K¨ ahler manifold”.Communications in Mathematical Physics 180 (Jan. 1996). Publisher: Springer, pp. 745–755

1996
[20]

A Fedosov Star Product of the Wick Type for K¨ ahler Manifolds

M. Bordemann and S. Waldmann. “A Fedosov Star Product of the Wick Type for K¨ ahler Manifolds”.Letters in Mathematical Physics 41 (Aug. 1, 1997), pp. 243– 253

1997
[21]

Reshetikhin and L

N. Reshetikhin and L. Takhtajan. Deformation Quantization of Kahler Manifolds . July 26, 1999. arXiv: math/9907171

1999 arXiv
[22]

A universal formula for deformation quantization on K¨ ahler manifolds

N. L. Gammelgaard. “A universal formula for deformation quantization on K¨ ahler manifolds”. Advances in Mathematics 259 (July 10, 2014), pp. 766–783

2014
[23]

An Explicit Formula for the Berezin Star Product

H. Xu. “An Explicit Formula for the Berezin Star Product”. Letters in Mathemat- ical Physics 101 (Sept. 1, 2012), pp. 239–264

2012
[24]

Semi-Classical Properties of Berezin–Toeplitz Operators with Ck-Symbol

T. Barron, X. Ma, G. Marinescu, and M. Pinsonnault. “Semi-Classical Properties of Berezin–Toeplitz Operators with Ck-Symbol”. Journal of Mathematical Physics 55 (Apr. 21, 2014)

2014
[25]

Sharp Correspondence Principle and Quantum Measurements

L. Charles and L. Polterovich. “Sharp Correspondence Principle and Quantum Measurements”. St. Petersburg Mathematical Journal 29 (Feb. 2018), pp. 177– 207

2018
[26]

Entanglement Entropy and Berezin–Toeplitz Oper- ators

L. Charles and B. Estienne. “Entanglement Entropy and Berezin–Toeplitz Oper- ators”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 376 (May 1, 2020), pp. 521– 554

2020
[27]

SU(2)-Equivariant Quantum Chan- nels: Semiclassical Analysis

T. Aschieri, B. Ruba, and J. P. Solovej. “SU(2)-Equivariant Quantum Chan- nels: Semiclassical Analysis”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 405 (Dec. 2024), p. 298. BIBLIOGRAPHY 37

2024
[28]

Toeplitz Operators with Analytic Symbols

A. Deleporte. “Toeplitz Operators with Analytic Symbols”. The Journal of Geo- metric Analysis 31 (Apr. 1, 2021), pp. 3915–3967

2021
[29]

Analytic Berezin–Toeplitz operators

L. Charles. “Analytic Berezin–Toeplitz operators”. Mathematische Zeitschrift 299 (Oct. 1, 2021), pp. 1015–1035

2021
[30]

Analytic Bergman operators in the semiclassical limit

O. Rouby, J. Sj¨ ostrand, and S. V. Ngoc. “Analytic Bergman operators in the semiclassical limit”. Duke Mathematical Journal 169 (Nov. 2020), pp. 3033–3097

2020
[31]

Quantization of K¨ ahler manifolds. II

M. Cahen, S. Gutt, and J. Rawnsley. “Quantization of K¨ ahler manifolds. II”. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 337 (1993), pp. 73–98

1993
[32]

Quantization and unitary representations

B. Kostant. “Quantization and unitary representations”. In: Lectures in Modern Analysis and Applications III . Ed. by R. M. Dudley, J. Feldman, B. Kostant, R. P. Langlands, E. M. Stein, and C. T. Taam. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1970, pp. 87–208

1970
[33]

J.-M. Souriau. Structure des syst` emes dynamiques. 1970

1970
[34]

A. A. Kirillov. Lectures on the Orbit Method . 208th ed. Vol. 64. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. 408 pp
[35]

Repr´ esentations lin´ eaires et espaces homog` enes k¨ ahl´ eriens des groupes de Lie compacts

J.-P. Serre. “Repr´ esentations lin´ eaires et espaces homog` enes k¨ ahl´ eriens des groupes de Lie compacts”. S´ eminaire N. Bourbaki100 (1954), pp. 447–454

1954
[36]

Geometric quantization and multiplicities of group representations

V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg. “Geometric quantization and multiplicities of group representations”. Inventiones mathematicae 67 (Oct. 1, 1982), pp. 515–538

1982
[37]

The Gelfand-Cetlin system and quantization of the complex flag manifolds

V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg. “The Gelfand-Cetlin system and quantization of the complex flag manifolds”. Journal of Functional Analysis 52 (June 1, 1983), pp. 106–128

1983
[38]

Strict quantization of coadjoint orbits

N. P. Landsman. “Strict quantization of coadjoint orbits”. Journal of Mathematical Physics 39 (Dec. 1, 1998), pp. 6372–6383

1998
[39]

L. Ioos. Asymptotics of unitary matrix elements in canonical bases . May 9, 2024. arXiv: 2405.06137[math]

2024 arXiv
[40]

A representation-theoretic approach to Toeplitz quantization on flag manifolds

M. Dawson and Y. Hern´ andez-Eliseo. “A representation-theoretic approach to Toeplitz quantization on flag manifolds”. Journal of Functional Analysis 288 (May 1, 2025), p. 110877

2025
[41]

On a Hilbert space of analytic functions and an associated integral transform part I

V. Bargmann. “On a Hilbert space of analytic functions and an associated integral transform part I”. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 14 (1961), pp. 187–214

1961
[42]

Phase space reduc- tion for star-products: An explicit construction for CPn

M. Bordemann, M. Brischle, C. Emmrich, and S. Waldmann. “Phase space reduc- tion for star-products: An explicit construction for CPn”. Letters in Mathematical Physics 36 (Apr. 1, 1996), pp. 357–371

1996
[43]

The action option and a Feynman quantization of spinor fields in terms of ordinary c-numbers

J. R. Klauder. “The action option and a Feynman quantization of spinor fields in terms of ordinary c-numbers”. Annals of Physics 11 (Oct. 1, 1960), pp. 123–168

1960
[44]

The Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence

R. J. Glauber. “The Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence”. Physical Review 130 (1963), pp. 2529–2539. BIBLIOGRAPHY 38

1963
[45]

G. B. Folland. Harmonic Analysis in Phase Space . Princeton University Press, 1989

1989
[46]

Derezi´ nski and C

J. Derezi´ nski and C. G´ erard.Mathematics of Quantization and Quantum Fields . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2023

2023
[47]

A. W. Knapp. Lie Groups Beyond an Introduction. Boston, MA: Birkh¨ auser, 1996

1996
[48]

The classical limit of quantum spin systems

E. H. Lieb. “The classical limit of quantum spin systems”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 31 (Dec. 1973), pp. 327–340

1973
[49]

Some Extensions of a Theorem of Hardy, Littlewood and P´ olya and Their Applications

K.-M. Chong. “Some Extensions of a Theorem of Hardy, Littlewood and P´ olya and Their Applications”. Canadian Journal of Mathematics 26 (Dec. 1974), pp. 1321– 1340

1974
[50]

On optimization problems with prescribed rearrangements

A. Alvino, G. Trombetti, and P. Lions. “On optimization problems with prescribed rearrangements”. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 13 (Feb. 1989), pp. 185–220

1989
[51]

Grafakos

L. Grafakos. Classical Fourier Analysis. Vol. 249. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. New York, NY: Springer, 2014

2014
[52]

Bennett and R

C. Bennett and R. C. Sharpley. Interpolation of Operators. Academic Press, Apr. 1988

1988
[53]

G. H. Hardy, E. Littlewood, and G. Polya. Inequalities. Cambridge University Press, 1923

1923
[54]

Spectral inequalities involving the sums and products of functions

K.-M. Chong. “Spectral inequalities involving the sums and products of functions”. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 5 (Jan. 1982), pp. 141–157

1982
[55]

Rearrangement invariant Banach function spaces

W. A. J. Luxemburg. “Rearrangement invariant Banach function spaces”. Queens Papers in Pure and Applied Mathematics 10 (1967), pp. 83–144

1967
[56]

Bateman and A

H. Bateman and A. Erd´ elyi. Higher Transcendental Functions. Vol. I. McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc., 1953

1953
[57]

Decreasing rearrangements and doubly stochastic operators

P. W. Day. “Decreasing rearrangements and doubly stochastic operators”. Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society 178 (1973), pp. 383–392

1973
[58]

K. M. R. Audenaert. On the Araki-Lieb-Thirring inequality. Mar. 29, 2007. eprint: math/0701129

2007 arXiv
[59]

A note on the p →q norms of 2-positive maps

K. M. R. Audenaert. “A note on the p →q norms of 2-positive maps”. Linear Algebra and its Applications 430 (Feb. 1, 2009), pp. 1436–1440

2009
[60]

Linear Algebra to Quantum Cohomology: The Story of Alfred Horn’s Inequalities

R. Bhatia. “Linear Algebra to Quantum Cohomology: The Story of Alfred Horn’s Inequalities”. The American Mathematical Monthly 108 (2001), pp. 289–318

2001
[61]

Invariant Affine Connections on Homogeneous Spaces

K. Nomizu. “Invariant Affine Connections on Homogeneous Spaces”. American Journal of Mathematics 76 (1954), pp. 33–65

1954

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Berezin-Toeplitz Quantization for Compact K¨ ahler Manifolds. A Review of Results

M. Schlichenmaier. “Berezin-Toeplitz Quantization for Compact K¨ ahler Manifolds. A Review of Results”. Advances in Mathematical Physics 2010 (Apr. 7, 2010), e927280

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Le Floch

Y. Le Floch. A Brief Introduction to Berezin-Toeplitz Operators on Compact K¨ ahler Manifolds. Springer, 2018

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Coherent States for Arbitrary Lie Group

A. M. Perelomov. “Coherent States for Arbitrary Lie Group”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 26 (1972), pp. 222–236

work page 1972

[4] [4]

The classical limit of quantum partition functions

B. Simon. “The classical limit of quantum partition functions”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 71 (Oct. 1980), pp. 247–276

work page 1980

[5] [5]

The asymptotics of a Laplace integral on a K¨ ahler manifold

M. Engliˇ s. “The asymptotics of a Laplace integral on a K¨ ahler manifold”.Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik 2000 (2000), pp. 1–39

work page 2000

[6] [6]

Identification of Berezin-Toeplitz defor- mation quantization

A. V. Karabegov and M. Schlichenmaier. “Identification of Berezin-Toeplitz defor- mation quantization”. Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) 2001 (Jan. 9, 2001)

work page 2001

[7] [7]

L. Ioos, V. Kaminker, L. Polterovich, and D. Shmoish. Spectral aspects of the Berezin transform. Apr. 22, 2020. arXiv: 1811.03155[math-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[8] [8]

General concept of quantization

F. A. Berezin. “General concept of quantization”. Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics 40 (June 1975), pp. 153–174

work page 1975