Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 106 references

Spin coherence scale: operator-ordering sensitivity beyond the Heisenberg-Weyl group

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The spin coherence scale, an SU(2)-invariant number built from commutators with angular momentum, certifies nonclassicality, bounds distance to classical states, and sets rotation-sensing precision.

desk verdict The SU(2) spin coherence scale is a solid, genuinely new generalization of the QCS that deserves a serious referee; the SU(n) uniqueness claim is overbroad and the abstract overpromises, but these are fixable rather than fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.09747 v2 pith:57WNET2J submitted 2025-10-10 quant-ph

Aaron Z. Goldberg , Andre J. Rodrigues , Y. Batuhan Yilmaz , Aephraim M. Steinberg , Anaelle Hertz This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords spincoherencescalequadratureSU(2)nonclassicalitywitnesscoherentstatesdepolarizationchannelrotationsensingquantumFisherinformation
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 introduces the spin coherence scale, a single number that measures how much coherence a spin state carries. The scale is built from the state's commutators with the three angular momentum operators, making it invariant under rotations, and it directly generalizes the quadrature coherence scale from continuous-variable optics. The central claim is that a spin coherence scale greater than one witnesses nonclassicality, and the scale bounds the Hilbert-Schmidt distance to the set of classical spin-coherent states from both sides. This same number also predicts how well a state can sense rotations, how rapidly its purity decays under depolarizing noise, and how its quasiprobability distributions behave. The framework is then extended from SU(2) to SU(n), with the claim that the generator-based depolarization channel is the unique SU(n)-invariant one.

What carries the argument

The central object is A^2(rho), the spin coherence scale, which is a Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the noncommutativity between the state and the angular momentum generators. Its two equivalent forms, one in terms of off-diagonal density-matrix elements weighted by (m-m')^2 and one as -(1/(2P)) dP/dt under the depolarization channel, let it simultaneously serve as a nonclassicality witness, a distance bound via the triangle inequality, and a metrological figure of merit. The proof that classical states have A^2 <= 1 rests on an inequality for pairs of spin-coherent states, while the distance bounds use the fact that the set of states with norm <= 1 is convex.

What would settle it

Find an SU(n)-invariant completely positive trace-preserving map that is not of the form rho -> rho + nu * sum_i [J_i,[J_i,rho]] for small times. For instance, check whether the standard depolarizing channel rho -> (1-p) rho + (p/dim) I, when applied to a symmetric representation of SU(n) with n>2 and N>1, can be matched to the generator-based channel under any monotone time rescaling; if it cannot, the asserted uniqueness fails in that representation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The spin coherence scale, defined as A^2(rho) = (1/(2J P)) * sum_i Tr([rho,J_i][J_i,rho]) for total spin J and purity P, is the spin analogue of the quadrature coherence scale. For pure states it reduces to the sum of variances of the three angular momentum operators divided by J, and for all states it equals the rate of purity loss under the isotropic depolarization channel whose Lindblad operators are J_1, J_2, J_3. The paper proves that classical spin-coherent states have A^2 <= 1, that A^2 > 1 witnesses nonclassicality, and that the Hilbert-Schmidt distance D(rho) to the set of classical states satisfies A(rho)-1 <= D(rho) <= A(rho). For pure states, A^2 is directly proportional to the d

Load-bearing premise

The strongest assumption is that every SU(n)-invariant depolarization channel must be generated by isotropic random SU(n) operations in small time steps, so that the generator-based double-commutator form is the unique depolarizing evolution; other SU(n)-invariant channels, such as the standard global depolarization in non-fundamental representations, are not ruled out by the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If A^2(rho) > 1, the state cannot be written as a convex mixture of spin-coherent states, providing an experimentally accessible nonclassicality witness for spins.
  • The double inequality A(rho)-1 <= D(rho) <= A(rho) means the coherence scale gives both lower and upper bounds on the Hilbert-Schmidt distance to the classical set, turning a single number into a geometric certificate of quantumness.
  • For pure states, A^2 is proportional to the direction-averaged quantum Fisher information for rotation-angle estimation, so maximizing A^2 directly improves rotation-sensing precision in all directions.
  • Under SU(2)-invariant depolarization, purity decays completely monotonically and the spin coherence scale itself decreases monotonically, showing that depolarization noise monotonically erases the nonclassical signature.
  • The extension to SU(n) carries the same threshold and distance bounds, giving a unified recipe for coherence scales for symmetric states of n-level particles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The spin coherence scale could be measured with a two-copy interferometric scheme analogous to the quadrature-coherence-scale implementation, since it is a trace of products of the state and generators; a concrete protocol is not presented in this paper.
  • The connection between A^2 and sums of variances suggests that spin-squeezed states, which are known to saturate variance-based inequalities, will have A^2 values directly tied to their squeezing parameter; this testable relation is not explicitly worked out here.
  • The claimed uniqueness of the SU(n)-invariant depolarization channel is the load-bearing extension to higher groups: if another SU(n)-invariant channel exists that is not generated by the generators, the generality of the SU(n) results would need reassessment, even though the SU(2) main results stand on the specific noise model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a spin coherence scale A²(ρ) = (1/2JP) Σ_i Tr([ρ,J_i][J_i,ρ]) for spin systems, as the SU(2) analogue of the quadrature coherence scale (QCS). It proves several equivalent definitions, including a weighted sum of off-diagonal coherences in angular-momentum eigenbases (Eq. 3.2) and a purity-decay formula under isotropic depolarization (Eqs. 3.7–3.8). For pure states A² reduces to J^{-1} Σ Var(J_i). The authors show that spin-coherent states have A²=1, that all convex mixtures of spin-coherent states satisfy A²≤1 (Eq. 4.6), and hence A²>1 witnesses nonclassicality. They also prove two-sided bounds A(ρ)−1 ≤ D(ρ) ≤ A(ρ) on the Hilbert–Schmidt distance to the classical set (Eq. 4.10), relate A² to rotation sensing (Section V.A), establish complete monotonicity and log-convexity of purity under the depolarization channel (Section V.B), and connect A² to SU(2) quasiprobability distributions, including a large-spin ordering-parameter evolution (Section V.C). The framework is then extended to SU(n) symmetric irreducible representations, with a coherence scale A²_n and a claimed unique SU(n)-invariant depolarization channel (Section VI, Appendix B).

Significance. The SU(2) core of the paper is valuable and, as far as I can verify, correct. The spin coherence scale is a simple, rotationally invariant, operational witness of spin nonclassicality that comes with quantitative distance bounds and a direct metrological interpretation. The proofs are largely self-contained: Eq. (4.6) is a genuine argument for the classical bound, Eq. (4.10) follows cleanly from the norm construction, and the noise-susceptibility results in Section V.B are established with an explicit multipole expansion. The generalization to SU(n) is a natural and potentially useful extension, and the paper is honest about the open problems in the quasiprobability part. However, the abstract overstates two things: a two-copy experimental scheme that is never described in the body, and a bound on Wigner negativity that is never derived. The SU(n) uniqueness claim is also too strong as stated. These are advertised contributions and need to be corrected before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section VI; Appendix B] The abstract and Section VI claim that the double-commutator channel ∂ρ/∂t ∝ Σ_i [J_i,[J_i,ρ]] is the unique SU(n)-invariant depolarization channel. Appendix B derives this form only from the extra assumption of isotropic random SU(n) operations with infinitesimal support near θ=0 (Eqs. B1–B4). This does not establish uniqueness: the standard global depolarizing channel Φ_p(ρ)=(1−p)ρ+pI/D is SU(n)-invariant in every representation and is not of the double-commutator form in higher irreps. For example, in the spin-1 representation of SU(2), Eq. (5.12) gives multipole decay rates K(K+1)/J, i.e. 2 and 6 for K=1,2, while global depolarization decays all K>0 at a common rate; no time rescaling identifies the two spectra. The uniqueness assertion should be restricted to the diffusive class generated by infinitesimal isotropic random unitaries, or removed from the abstract.
  2. [Abstract (experimental realizability)] The abstract states that, like the QCS, the spin coherence scale has 'experimental realizability with a two-copy scheme.' No such scheme appears in the body. Section II describes two-copy interferometric measurements only for the quadrature QCS (Refs. [23,24]); Sections III–V define A²(ρ) via commutators, purity derivatives, and quasiprobability overlaps, but never give a protocol for estimating A²(ρ) from two copies of a spin state. The authors should either supply the promised scheme or explicitly limit the abstract to the properties that are actually demonstrated.
  3. [Abstract; Section V.C] The abstract advertises that the spin coherence scale 'bounds the Wigner negativity of a spin state,' but no such bound is stated or proven in the body. Section V.C discusses Wigner negativity only qualitatively (spin-coherent states have negative Wigner functions) and derives relations between A² and quasiprobability overlaps, not an inequality controlling negativity. Either add a quantitative statement, e.g. a bound on a negativity measure in terms of A(ρ), or remove this claim from the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (3.2)] The range for m is written as '−J,−J−1,···,J'; this should be '−J,−J+1,···,J'.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (4.9)] The distance D(ρ) is defined as an infimum over classical states; the proof of the lower bound in Eq. (4.10) assumes the existence of a minimizing classical state. A brief compactness argument, or use of an ε-approximation, would make the proof fully rigorous.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A8)] The displayed chain from the first equality to the inequality is hard to follow and appears to contain a typo in the overlap factor (θ2 vs θ1). Please spell out how the sum over i is invariant under the unitary U(θ2,n2) and correct the notation.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B1)] The integration measure 'θ^{d−1}dθ dn' is not defined precisely; the normalization of the angular measure dn and the domain of θ should be stated.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. (A7)] The ket '|N,0,···,0| {z }...' contains a LaTeX artifact; the underbrace/overbrace should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin coherence-scale derivations are self-contained, with the overbroad SU(n) uniqueness claim being a correctness/scope gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central chain of the paper is derived explicitly rather than being fitted or assumed. The spin coherence scale is defined by Eq. (3.2) and shown by direct trace manipulation to equal the double-commutator form in Eq. (3.4). SU(2) invariance follows from the orthogonal transformation property Eq. (3.6), not from a self-citation. The nonclassicality threshold is not put in by hand: the paper proves that every spin-coherent state has A^2=1 and, through the term-by-term inequality in Eqs. (4.5)-(4.6), that every convex mixture of such states has A^2<=1. The Hilbert-Schmidt distance bounds in Eq. (4.10) follow from the triangle inequality. The metrology and noise-susceptibility connections are direct identities with quantum Fisher information and purity decay (Eqs. (5.4)-(5.6), (5.12)-(5.15)). The SU(n) extension has the same algebraic structure and achieves the classical threshold by choosing the normalization J_n, which is a convention, not a fitted prediction. The only questionable assertion is the advertised 'unique SU(n)-invariant depolarization channel' in the Abstract, Section VI, and Appendix B. Appendix B derives the double-commutator master equation from an explicit assumption: random SU(n) operations with an isotropic distribution and small-angle support for small t. The standard global depolarizing channel is also SU(n)-invariant and is not obtained by this derivation outside the fundamental representation, so the uniqueness claim is overbroad. This is a genuine correctness/scope gap, but it is not circularity: no predicted quantity is made equal to an input by construction, and no load-bearing conclusion relies on the uniqueness assertion. The paper's self-citations concern QCS background and prior technical context; the spin-coherence derivations themselves are reproduced in the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on the physically standard definition of classical spin states, the choice of depolarization as the noise model, and standard representation theory. The only hand-chosen number is the normalization that fixes the classical threshold at unity. The SU(n) uniqueness claim further assumes a specific class of depolarizing evolutions.

free parameters (1)
  • Threshold normalization for coherence scale = 1/(2J) in SU(2); J_n = N(n-1)/2 in SU(n)
    Chosen so that spin-coherent states have coherence scale exactly 1, making A²>1 the nonclassicality witness. The threshold value 1 is a convention; rescaling the measure would move the threshold. Introduced in Section III and Section VI.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Spin coherent states are the most classical states; convex mixtures of them are 'classical'.
    Required for the witness statement in Section IV; standard in the literature (Refs. 32-38) but an input, not proven here.
  • domain assumption The depolarization channel Eq. (3.8) with Lindblad operators J_i is the relevant noise model for spins.
    Used in Sections III and V.B; taken from Ref. [31].
  • domain assumption For SU(n), the analysis is restricted to symmetric irreps (N,0,...,0).
    Section VI focuses on N n-level particles; results for other irreps are not claimed.
  • domain assumption The SU(n)-invariant depolarization channel arises from isotropic random SU(n) operations with small angles.
    Appendix B assumes this to derive the double-commutator generator and its uniqueness; other covariant depolarizing channels are not considered.
  • standard math Large-J asymptotic expansion of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients.
    Used in Section V.C, Eq. (5.22), to approximate quasiprobability evolution.
  • standard math Standard representation theory of SU(2) and spherical tensor decomposition.
    Used throughout, e.g., Eqs. (5.9)-(5.13).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin coherence scale: operator-ordering sensitivity beyond the Heisenberg-Weyl group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/57WNET2J

@misc{pith2026251009747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin coherence scale: operator-ordering sensitivity beyond the Heisenberg-Weyl group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/57WNET2J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.09747}
}
abstract

We introduce the spin coherence scale as a measure of quantum coherence for spin systems, generalizing the quadrature coherence scale (QCS) previously defined for quadrature observables. This SU($2$)-invariant measure quantifies the off-diagonal coherences of a quantum state in angular momentum bases, weighted by the classical distinguishability of the superposed states. It serves as a witness of nonclassicality, provides both upper and lower bounds on the Hilbert-Schmidt distance to the set of classical (spin coherent) states, and bounds the Wigner negativity of a spin state. We demonstrate that many hallmark properties of the QCS carry over to the spin setting, including its links to noise susceptibility of a state and moments of quasiprobability distributions and its experimental realizability with a two-copy scheme. The spin coherence scale has direct implications for quantum metrology in the guise of rotation sensing. We also generalize the framework to SU($n$) systems, identifying the unique SU($n$)-invariant depolarization channel and outlining a broad, Lie-algebraic approach to defining and characterizing the properties of coherence scale beyond harmonic oscillators.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    hidden polarization

    Then𝐷≤|||˜𝜌−1/ √ 2𝐽+1|||≤|||˜𝜌|||+|||1/ √ 2𝐽+1|||= |||˜𝜌|||. The spin coherence scale thus bounds the distance to the set of classical states and, whenA 2≫1, it almost exactly equals that distance. It is natural to ask which states are the most quantum accord- ing to the spin coherence scale. For pure states, the answer is any state with⟨𝐽𝑖⟩=0 for all𝑖: A...

  2. [2]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf.,Optical coherence and quantum optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  3. [3]

    Born and E

    M. Born and E. Wolf,Principles of optics: Electromagnetic theory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light., 7th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1999)

    1999

  4. [4]

    Schr ¨odinger, Die gegenw ¨artige situation in der quanten- mechanik, Naturwissenschaften23, 807 (1935)

    E. Schr ¨odinger, Die gegenw ¨artige situation in der quanten- mechanik, Naturwissenschaften23, 807 (1935)

    1935

  5. [5]

    Aberg, Quantifying Superposition, arXiv e-prints , quant- ph/0612146 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0612146 [quant-ph]

    J. Aberg, Quantifying Superposition, arXiv e-prints , quant- ph/0612146 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0612146 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying co- herence, Physical Review Letters113, 140401 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Hertz and S

    A. Hertz and S. De Bi `evre, Quadrature coherence scale driven fast decoherence of bosonic quantum field states, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 090402 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Hillery, Total noise and nonclassical states, Phys

    M. Hillery, Total noise and nonclassical states, Phys. Rev. A 39, 2994 (1989)

    1989

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    A. Z. Goldberg, A. B. Klimov, G. Leuchs, and L. L. S ´anchez- Soto, Rotation sensing at the ultimate limit, Journal of Physics: Photonics3, 022008 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Lupu-Gladstein, A

    N. Lupu-Gladstein, A. Hertz, K. Heshami, and A. Z. Goldberg, Entanglement, loss, and quantumness: When balanced beam splitters are best, Phys. Rev. A112, 033722 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Gong and P

    J. Gong and P. Brumer, Chaos and quantum-classical corre- spondence via phase-space distribution functions, Phys. Rev. A68, 062103 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    A. Z. Goldberg, P. de la Hoz, G. Bj¨ork, A. B. Klimov, M. Grassl, G. Leuchs, and L. L. S´anchez-Soto, Quantum concepts in op- tical polarization, Adv. Opt. Photon.13, 1 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    M. R. Dennis and M. A. Alonso, Swings and roundabouts: optical poincar&#xe9; spheres for polarization and gaus- sian beams, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences375, 20150441 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Albiez, R

    M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. F ¨olling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cristiani, and M. K. Oberthaler, Direct observation of tunneling and nonlinear self-trapping in a single bosonic josephson junction, 10 Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 010402 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Kolenderski and R

    P. Kolenderski and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, Optimal state for keeping reference frames aligned and the platonic solids, Phys. Rev. A78, 052333 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    J. K. Stockton, K. Takase, and M. A. Kasevich, Absolute geode- tic rotation measurement using atom interferometry, Physical Review Letters107, 133001 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Chryssomalakos and H

    C. Chryssomalakos and H. Hern ´andez-Coronado, Optimal quantum rotosensors, Phys. Rev. A95, 052125 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Bouchard, P

    F. Bouchard, P. de la Hoz, G. Bj ¨ork, R. Boyd, M. Grassl, Z. Hradil, E. Karimi, A. Klimov, G. Leuchs, J. ˇReh´aˇcek, and L. S´anchez-Soto, Quantum metrology at the limit with extremal majorana constellations, Optica4, 1429 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Martin, S

    J. Martin, S. Weigert, and O. Giraud, Optimal Detection of Rotations about Unknown Axes by Coherent and Anticoherent States, Quantum4, 285 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    A. Z. Goldberg, A. B. Klimov, M. Grassl, G. Leuchs, and L. L. S ´anchez-Soto, Extremal quantum states, A VS Quantum Science2, 044701 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Hertz, N

    A. Hertz, N. Lupu-Gladstein, K. Heshami, and A. Z. Goldberg, Equalities and inequalities from entanglement, loss, and beam splitters (2025), arXiv:2501.02047 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    De Bi `evre, D

    S. De Bi `evre, D. B. Horoshko, G. Patera, and M. I. Kolobov, Measuring nonclassicality of bosonic field quantum states via operator ordering sensitivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 080402 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    U. M. Titulaer and R. J. Glauber, Correlation functions for coherent fields, Phys. Rev.140, B676 (1965)

    1965

  16. [24]

    Griffet, M

    C. Griffet, M. Arnhem, S. De Bi `evre, and N. J. Cerf, Interfer- ometric measurement of the quadrature coherence scale using two replicas of a quantum optical state, Phys. Rev. A108, 023730 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    A. Z. Goldberg, G. S. Thekkadath, and K. Heshami, Measuring the quadrature coherence scale on a cloud quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A107, 042610 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    C. M. Caves and D. D. Crouch, Quantum wideband traveling- wave analysis of a degenerate parametric amplifier, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B4, 1535 (1987)

    1987

  19. [27]

    J. R. Jeffers, N. Imoto, and R. Loudon, Quantum optics of traveling-wave attenuators and amplifiers, Phys. Rev. A47, 3346 (1993)

    1993

  20. [28]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2000)

    2000

  21. [29]

    Leonhardt, Quantum physics of simple optical instruments, Reports on Progress in Physics66, 1207 (2003)

    U. Leonhardt, Quantum physics of simple optical instruments, Reports on Progress in Physics66, 1207 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    K. E. Cahill and R. J. Glauber, Density operators and quasiprobability distributions, Phys. Rev.177, 1882 (1969)

    1969

  23. [31]

    Gu, Evidences of classical and quantum chaos in the time evolution of nonequilibrium ensembles, Physics Letters A149, 95 (1990)

    Y. Gu, Evidences of classical and quantum chaos in the time evolution of nonequilibrium ensembles, Physics Letters A149, 95 (1990)

    1990

  24. [32]

    Rivas and A

    A. Rivas and A. Luis, Su(2)-invariant depolarization of quan- tum states of light, Physical Review A88, 052120 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    J. M. Radcliffe, Some properties of coherent spin states, Journal of Physics A: General Physics4, 313 (1971)

    1971

  26. [34]

    F. T. Arecchi, E. Courtens, R. Gilmore, and H. Thomas, Atomic coherent states in quantum optics, Physical Review A6, 2211 (1972)

    1972

  27. [35]

    R. J. Glauber and F. Haake, Superradiant pulses and directed angular momentum states, Phys. Rev. A13, 357 (1976)

    1976

  28. [36]

    G. S. Agarwal, Relation between atomic coherent-state repre- sentation, state multipoles, and generalized phase-space distri- butions, Phys. Rev. A24, 2889 (1981)

    1981

  29. [37]

    A. M. Perelomov,Generalized coherent states and their ap- plications, Texts and monographs in physics (Springer, Berlin, 1986)

    1986

  30. [38]

    Giraud, P

    O. Giraud, P. Braun, and D. Braun, Classicality of spin states, Phys. Rev. A78, 042112 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Gazeau,Coherent states in quantum physics(Wiley, Wein- heim, 2009)

    J.-P. Gazeau,Coherent states in quantum physics(Wiley, Wein- heim, 2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Delbourgo, Minimal uncertainty states for the rotation and allied groups, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 10, 1837 (1977)

    R. Delbourgo, Minimal uncertainty states for the rotation and allied groups, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 10, 1837 (1977)

    1977

  33. [41]

    H. F. Hofmann and S. Takeuchi, Violation of local uncertainty relations as a signature of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A68, 032103 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    Dammeier, R

    L. Dammeier, R. Schwonnek, and R. F. Werner, Uncertainty relations for angular momentum, New Journal of Physics17, 093046 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    V. V. Dodonov, Variance uncertainty relations without covari- ances for three and four observables, Phys. Rev. A97, 022105 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Luis, Degree of polarization in quantum optics, Physical Review A66, 013806 (2002)

    A. Luis, Degree of polarization in quantum optics, Physical Review A66, 013806 (2002)

    2002

  37. [45]

    Anticoherent

    J. Zimba, “ Anticoherent ” Spin States via the Majorana Rep- resentation, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics3, 143 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Baguette, F

    D. Baguette, F. Damanet, O. Giraud, and J. Martin, Anticoher- ence of spin states with point-group symmetries, Phys. Rev. A 92, 052333 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Giraud, D

    O. Giraud, D. Braun, D. Baguette, T. Bastin, and J. Martin, Tensor representation of spin states, Physical Review Letters 114, 080401 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    Baguette and J

    D. Baguette and J. Martin, Anticoherence measures for pure spin states, Phys. Rev. A96, 032304 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    J. H. Hannay, The berry phase for spin in the majorana repre- sentation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General31, L53 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    A. R. Usha Devi, Sudha, and A. K. Rajagopal, Majorana repre- sentation of symmetric multiqubit states, Quantum Information Processing11, 685 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    Bruno, Quantum geometric phase in majorana’s stellar repre- sentation: Mapping onto a many-body aharonov-bohm phase, Physical Review Letters108, 240402 (2012)

    P. Bruno, Quantum geometric phase in majorana’s stellar repre- sentation: Mapping onto a many-body aharonov-bohm phase, Physical Review Letters108, 240402 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    C. Yang, H. Guo, L.-B. Fu, and S. Chen, Characterization of symmetry-protected topological phases in polymerized models by trajectories of majorana stars, Phys. Rev. B91, 125132 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Bj ¨ork, A

    G. Bj ¨ork, A. B. Klimov, P. de la Hoz, M. Grassl, G. Leuchs, and L. L. S´anchez-Soto, Extremal quantum states and their Majo- rana constellations, Physical Review A92, 031801 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    H. D. Liu and L. B. Fu, Berry phase and quantum entanglement in majorana’s stellar representation, Phys. Rev. A94, 022123 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Chryssomalakos, E

    C. Chryssomalakos, E. Guzm ´an-Gonz´alez, and E. Serrano- Ens´astiga, Geometry of spin coherent states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical51, 165202 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    C. T. Lee, Wehrl’s entropy of spin states and lieb’s conjecture, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General21, 3749 (1988)

    1988

  49. [57]

    E. H. Lieb and J. P. Solovej, Proof of an entropy conjecture for bloch coherent spin states and its generalizations, Acta Mathematica212, 379 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Baecklund and I

    A. Baecklund and I. Bengtsson, Four remarks on spin coherent states, Physica Scripta2014, 014012 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Giraud, P

    O. Giraud, P. Braun, and D. Braun, Quantifying quantumness and the quest for queens of quantum, New Journal of Physics 11 12, 063005 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    J. K. Stockton, J. M. Geremia, A. C. Doherty, and H. Mabuchi, Characterizing the entanglement of symmetric many-particle spin- 1 2 systems, Phys. Rev. A67, 022112 (2003)

    2003

  53. [61]

    H¨ ubener, M

    R. H¨ ubener, M. Kleinmann, T.-C. Wei, C. Gonz´alez-Guill´en, and O. G¨ uhne, Geometric measure of entanglement for sym- metric states, Phys. Rev. A80, 032324 (2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    T ´oth and O

    G. T ´oth and O. G¨ uhne, Entanglement and permutational sym- metry, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 170503 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    Kiesel, W

    N. Kiesel, W. Wieczorek, S. Krins, T. Bastin, H. Weinfurter, and E. Solano, Operational multipartite entanglement classes for symmetric photonic qubit states, Phys. Rev. A81, 032316 (2010)

    2010

  56. [64]

    Martin, O

    J. Martin, O. Giraud, P. A. Braun, D. Braun, and T. Bastin, Mul- tiqubit symmetric states with high geometric entanglement, Phys. Rev. A81, 062347 (2010)

    2010

  57. [65]

    Aulbach, D

    M. Aulbach, D. Markham, and M. Murao, The maximally entangled symmetric state in terms of the geometric measure, New Journal of Physics12, 073025 (2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    Ribeiro and R

    P. Ribeiro and R. Mosseri, Entanglement in the symmetric sector of𝑛qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 180502 (2011)

    2011

  59. [67]

    D. J. H. Markham, Entanglement and symmetry in permutation-symmetric states, Physical Review A83, 042332 (2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    Baguette, T

    D. Baguette, T. Bastin, and J. Martin, Multiqubit symmetric states with maximally mixed one-qubit reductions, Phys. Rev. A90, 032314 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    Sperling, A

    J. Sperling, A. Perez-Leija, K. Busch, and C. Silberhorn, Mode- independent quantum entanglement for light, Phys. Rev. A100, 062129 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    A. Z. Goldberg, M. Grassl, G. Leuchs, and L. L. S´anchez-Soto, Quantumness beyond entanglement: The case of symmetric states, Phys. Rev. A105, 022433 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138 (1993)

    1993

  64. [72]

    Luis and N

    A. Luis and N. Korolkova, Polarization squeezing and non- classical properties of light, Physical Review A74, 043817 (2006)

    2006

  65. [73]

    A. B. Klimov, G. Bj ¨ork, J. S ¨oderholm, L. S. Madsen, M. Lassen, U. L. Andersen, J. Heersink, R. Dong, C. Mar- quardt, G. Leuchs, and L. L. S´anchez-Soto, Assessing the po- larization of a quantum field from stokes fluctuations, Physical Review Letters105, 153602 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeezing, Physics Reports509, 89 (2011)

    2011

  67. [75]

    Y. Jing, M. Fadel, V. Ivannikov, and T. Byrnes, Split spin- squeezed bose–einstein condensates, New Journal of Physics 21, 093038 (2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    de la Hoz, A

    P. de la Hoz, A. B. Klimov, G. Bj ¨ork, Y.-H. Kim, C. M¨ uller, C. Marquardt, G. Leuchs, and L. L. S´anchez-Soto, Multipolar hierarchy of efficient quantum polarization measures, Phys. Rev. A88, 063803 (2013)

    2013

  69. [77]

    J. S. BELL, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.38, 447 (1966)

    1966

  70. [78]

    Kochen and E

    S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 59 (1967)

    1967

  71. [79]

    N. D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of john bell, Rev. Mod. Phys.65, 803 (1993)

    1993

  72. [80]

    D. M. Klyshko, Polarization of light: Fourth-order effects and polarization-squeezed states, Journal of Experimental and The- oretical Physics84, 1065 (1997)

    1997

  73. [81]

    P. A. Bushev, V. P. Karassiov, A. V. Masalov, and A. A. Putilin, Biphoton light with hidden polarization and its polarization tomography, Optics and Spectroscopy91, 526 (2001)

    2001

  74. [82]

    Usachev, J

    P. Usachev, J. S ¨oderholm, G. Bj ¨ork, and A. Trifonov, Experi- mental verification of differences between classical and quan- tum polarization properties, Optics Communications193, 161 (2001)

    2001

  75. [83]

    Z. Hou, Z. Zhang, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, H. Chen, L. Liu, and H. Yuan, Minimal tradeoff and ultimate precision limit of multiparameter quantum magnetometry under the par- allel scheme, Physical Review Letters125, 020501 (2020)

    2020

  76. [84]

    Pedram, V

    A. Pedram, V. R. Besaga, L. Gassab, F. Setzpfandt, and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘glu, Quantum estimation of the stokes vector rota- tion for a general polarimetric transformation, New Journal of Physics26, 093033 (2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, Geometric perspective on quantum pa- rameter estimation, A VS Quantum Science2, 014701 (2020)

    2020

  78. [86]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, International Journal of Quantum Information07, 125 (2009)

    2009

  79. [87]

    A. Z. Goldberg, L. L. S ´anchez-Soto, and H. Ferretti, Intrinsic sensitivity limits for multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 110501 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    Mosonyi and F

    M. Mosonyi and F. Hiai, On the quantum r ´enyi relative en- tropies and related capacity formulas, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory57, 2474 (2011)

    2011

  81. [89]

    J. C. V ´arilly and J. Gracia-Bond ´ıa, The moyal representation for spin, Annals of Physics190, 107 (1989)

    1989

  82. [90]

    A. B. Klimov, Exact evolution equations for su(2) quasidistri- bution functions, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 2202 (2002)

    2002

  83. [91]

    Davis, M

    J. Davis, M. Kumari, R. B. Mann, and S. Ghose, Wigner neg- ativity in spin-𝑗systems, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033134 (2021)

    2021

  84. [92]

    Filip, Gaussian quantum adaptation of non-Gaussian states for a lossy channel, Phys

    R. Filip, Gaussian quantum adaptation of non-Gaussian states for a lossy channel, Phys. Rev. A87, 042308 (2013)

    2013

  85. [93]

    Nemoto, Generalized coherent states for su(n) systems, Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and General33, 3493 (2000)

    K. Nemoto, Generalized coherent states for su(n) systems, Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and General33, 3493 (2000)

    2000

  86. [94]

    Mathur and I

    M. Mathur and I. Raychowdhury, Su(n) coherent states and irreducible schwinger bosons, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical44, 035203 (2010)

    2010

  87. [95]

    Zhang and C

    H. Zhang and C. D. Batista, Classical spin dynamics based on SU(𝑛)coherent states, Phys. Rev. B104, 104409 (2021)

    2021

  88. [96]

    Gnutzmann and M

    S. Gnutzmann and M. Kus, Coherent states and the classi- cal limit on irreducible representations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General31, 9871 (1998)

    1998

  89. [97]

    D. J. Rowe, B. C. Sanders, and H. de Guise, Representations of the weyl group and wigner functions for su(3), Journal of Mathematical Physics40, 3604 (1999)

    1999

  90. [98]

    Mathur and D

    M. Mathur and D. Sen, Coherent states for su(3), Journal of Mathematical Physics42, 4181 (2001)

    2001

  91. [99]

    Nemoto and B

    K. Nemoto and B. C. Sanders, Superpositions of su(3) co- herent states via a nonlinear evolution, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34, 2051 (2001)

  92. [100]

    Chaturvedi and N

    S. Chaturvedi and N. Mukunda, The schwinger su(3) construc- tion. ii. relations between heisenberg–weyl and su(3) coherent states, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 5278 (2002)

    2002

  93. [101]

    Luis, Quantum polarization for three-dimensional fields via stokes operators, Phys

    A. Luis, Quantum polarization for three-dimensional fields via stokes operators, Phys. Rev. A71, 023810 (2005)

    2005

  94. [102]

    Luis, Polarization distribution and degree of polarization for three-dimensional quantum light fields, Phys

    A. Luis, Polarization distribution and degree of polarization for three-dimensional quantum light fields, Phys. Rev. A71, 063815 (2005)

    2005

  95. [103]

    Barchielli, L

    A. Barchielli, L. Lanz, and G. M. Prosperi, A model for the macroscopic description and continual observations in quan- tum mechanics, Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996)72, 79 (1982)

    1971

  96. [104]

    C. M. Caves and G. J. Milburn, Quantum-mechanical model for continuous position measurements, Phys. Rev. A36, 5543 12 (1987)

    1987

  97. [105]

    A. B. Klimov and H. de Guise, General approach to quasi- distribution functions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical43, 402001 (2010)

    2010

  98. [106]

    Tilma and K

    T. Tilma and K. Nemoto, Su(n)-symmetric quasi-probability distribution functions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical45, 015302 (2011). 13 Appendix A: Derivations for SU(𝑛) One physical manifestation of SU(𝑛) is an𝑛-mode system with𝑁photons. This system will be ...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.