Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 105 references

The paper claims that cross-Wigner functions of Laguerre-Gaussian modes form an orthogonal, complete basis for the Wigner function of any galaxy image, and that the resulting phase-space 'band structure' separates morphology from rotation,

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 05:44 UTC pith:WMTKX772

load-bearing objection A mathematically sound phase-space shapelet formalism whose central observable is not accessible from intensity-only images—worth refereeing as a formalism paper, but the authors must confront the phase-recovery problem before any astronomical estimator can be taken seriously. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.01141 v2 pith:WMTKX772 submitted 2026-02-01 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAquant-ph

Wigner function shapelets: Symplectic representation of astronomical images

Shun Arai This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAquant-ph
keywords Wigner functionshapeletsphase spaceLaguerre-Gaussian modesweak gravitational lensingcosmic shearparity violationHopf fibration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper extends the familiar shapelet decomposition of galaxy images from separate position and Fourier spaces into a single four-dimensional phase space. It argues that the cross-Wigner functions of Laguerre-Gaussian modes form an orthogonal and complete basis for the Wigner function of a galaxy image, so every square-integrable image can be expanded in them, with coefficients equal to products of the usual Laguerre-Gaussian mode amplitudes. From this basis the paper builds a two-dimensional observable, W_kℓ(Q0,Q2), a kind of 'band structure' labelled by torus winding numbers that separates morphological charge from rotational charge and turns weak-lensing and parity-violating effects into explicit selection rules. If the formalism is correct, it would give galaxy image analysis, cosmic shear measurement, and parity tests on the sky a symmetry-preserving phase-space representation with rigorous completeness.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the set of cross-Wigner functions of Laguerre-Gaussian modes, W^LG_{(j,s),(j',s')}, is an orthogonal and complete basis for the Hilbert–Schmidt space of Wigner functions in the four-dimensional phase space of an image. Therefore any quadratically integrable Wigner function can be expanded in this basis, and the expansion coefficients coincide with products of the LG-mode expansion coefficients of the image field. It further introduces Hopf-torus observables W_kℓ(Q0,Q2), which project the Wigner function onto torus harmonics labelled by winding numbers (k,ℓ), with selection rules: statistical isotropy forces k=ℓ, parity forces even k+ℓ, and chirality imposes W_kℓ(Q0

What carries the argument

The central object is the cross-Wigner function of two Laguerre-Gaussian modes, defined as W_ab(θ,p) = (2πλ)^{-2} ∫ d²ξ ψ_a(θ+ξ/2) ψ_b*(θ−ξ/2) e^{-ip·ξ/λ}; the collection {W^LG_{(j,s),(j',s')}} spans the Hilbert–Schmidt space of phase-space functions. The load-bearing identity is the Moyal–Plancherel relation, which converts mode orthogonality into orthogonality of the cross-Wigner basis. The Hopf spinor parametrisation (u,v) of phase space, with the level-set invariants Q0 (harmonic energy) and Q2 (axial angular momentum), organizes the phase space into Hopf tori; the torus harmonics χ_kℓ(φ_u,φ_v) and the projected observables W_kℓ(Q0,Q2) carry the gauge charges that separate morphology (J=

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the full complex image field ψ(θ), or equivalently its phase correlations, is accessible from observations, since the Wigner function is defined from ψ(θ) while ordinary detectors record only the intensity |ψ(θ)|².

What would settle it

Simulate a galaxy image with a known complex field, apply a small shear γ, compute the Wigner function, expand it in WFS, and check whether the coefficients W_kℓ change exactly as Eq. (128) predicts; then repeat using only intensity data, attempting phase retrieval or forward-model fitting. If the intensity-only route cannot recover W_kℓ, the observable loses its observational handle regardless of the mathematical completeness of the basis.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any galaxy image whose Wigner function is square-integrable can be represented exactly in the WFS basis, with coefficients inherited directly from the Laguerre-Gaussian expansion of the image field.
  • The (Q0,Q2) band map gives a sharp diagnostic: on a statistically isotropic, parity-symmetric ensemble only even-k diagonal modes W_kk survive, so off-diagonal or odd-k power flags systematics, anisotropy, or parity violation.
  • Cosmic shear and flexion act on the basis through explicit selection rules (Δs=±2 for shear; Δs=±1,±3 for flexion), so lensing responses can be computed locally in phase space rather than through global shape moments.
  • The parity-odd correlator ⟨W^E W^B*⟩ has zero disconnected contribution for parity-symmetric skies, making the connected four-point function a direct, contamination-free probe of parity-violating physics.
  • PSF convolution is represented as a quantum channel, and the entanglement-fidelity kernel M identifies which morphology and rotation charges can be recovered, guiding optimal deconvolution in a symmetry-adapted basis.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the same cross-Wigner machinery suggests a natural way to combine multi-band or polarised images, since mixed-index cross-Wigner functions could capture colour or polarisation coherence that single-band intensity analysis integrates out; the paper sketches but does not pursue this.
  • Editorial inference: the W_kℓ band map could serve as a compact morphological summary statistic for large surveys, analogous to power spectra; a testable extension would be to measure W_kℓ from image simulations and check whether it separates morphology classes more cleanly than current shapelet coefficients.
  • Editorial inference: because real detectors record intensity only, the formalism's observational reach depends on recovering phase information; a concrete practical test would be to reconstruct ψ(θ) from intensity-plus-speckle data and see whether the measured W_kℓ reproduces the predicted shear and flexion responses.
  • Editorial inference: framing PSF deconvolution as a quantum channel suggests that optimal image reconstruction could be posed as a quantum error-correction problem; the next step would be to construct the Petz–Wiener recovery map from the fidelity kernel and benchmark its shear recovery against existing methods in simulated surveys.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Wigner Function Shapelets (WFS), an orthogonal and complete basis for the Wigner function of a galaxy image, built from the cross-Wigner functions of Laguerre-Gaussian modes. It develops the Hopf-torus projection W_kℓ(Q0,Q2), derives closed forms for the basis, and connects the formalism to BiPoSHs and FPFS. It also derives linear weak-lensing shear and flexion responses, a cosmic-birefringence response, and parity-violating galaxy-shape correlators, and it frames PSF convolution and noise as quantum channels. The stated aim is to make quantum-information phase-space methods available for astronomical image analysis.

Significance. The mathematical core is a legitimate and explicit extension of Simon & Agarwal: orthogonality/completeness follows from the Moyal/Plancherel identity, and the closed forms in Eqs. (95) and (106) are valuable. The Sp(4)/SU(2)/Hopf-torus structure provides an elegant organizing principle for shape modes and lensing selection rules. However, the astrophysical impact is conditional on an unaddressed observational issue: the Wigner function is defined from a complex field, while CCD images deliver only intensity. The paper itself acknowledges this gap in Sec. V.D. If that gap can be closed, the framework could become a genuinely new phase-space morphology tool; as written, its estimators lack a demonstrated data connection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.A / V.D and Eqs. (2), (15), (69)] The Wigner function in Eq. (2) is defined from the complex amplitude ψ(θ), but astronomical images supply I(θ)=|ψ(θ)|², which is only the θ-marginal (Eq. 15). The WFS coefficients in Eq. (69), c_{js,j's'} = ψ_js ψ*_j's', are not functions of I alone: ψ and ψ* give identical intensity but W(θ,p) versus W(θ,−p), producing different W_kℓ and different shear responses. Section V.D concedes that image reconstruction in this framework is 'non-trivial' and that few practical algorithms exist. Without an explicit phase-retrieval or coherence-measurement prescription, the estimators in Secs. IV.A–C (Eqs. 128, 131, 132) have no observational handle. This is load-bearing for the paper's application claims.
  2. [Sec. II.A, 'Parity' and 'Chirality' bullets] The text asserts as general properties that W is invariant under phase-space reflection and under (θ,p)→(θ,−p), with the justification that W is real. Both claims are false for generic complex ψ: realness does not imply W(θ,p)=W(θ,−p), and a Wigner function is not invariant under spatial reflection unless the underlying field has the corresponding symmetry. The later conditional selection rules in Sec. III.C are derived correctly as symmetry constraints, but they contradict the universal 'invariance' statements in Sec. II.A. The manuscript must correct these property statements, since they bear on the parity-violation discussion.
  3. [Sec. IV.C, Eq. (132)] The cosmic-birefringence response W^I_kℓ − W^S_kℓ = ω(k−ℓ)ρ^S_kℓ is asserted without derivation. The symbol ρ^S_kℓ is undefined (presumably W^S_kℓ), and the physical mechanism is unclear: cosmic birefringence rotates the polarization angle, not the scalar intensity amplitude, so it is not obvious why the scalar Wigner coefficient responds as (k−ℓ)W^S_kℓ. Since this is one of the headline cosmological outputs, it needs a derivation or an explicit reference to a calculation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] Typos: 'inrtoducing' (Sec. III.A), 'Correpspondence' (Contents and Sec. III.F), 'electrocmagnetic' (Sec. II.A), 'Swinger' (Appendix F title should be 'Schwinger'). Section II.A has 'funciton' and other small spelling errors.
  2. [Sec. IV.C] Eq. (132) uses ρ^S_kℓ; define it and keep notation consistent with W_kℓ used elsewhere in the same section.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Table I] Figure 1 is not referenced in the main text; the caption should explain the (Q0,Q2) normalization and the color scale. Table I is large; consider moving to an appendix or summarizing the count formula in the text.
  4. [Sec. V.B] The variable λ is at times called a 'scale' and at others a dimensionless phase-space cell area. The derivation leading to λ≈1.37 is heuristic; clarify that this is an order-of-magnitude estimate, not a precision choice.
  5. [Sec. II.B.1] The discussion of speckle statistics is difficult to follow and arguably tangential to static galaxy imaging. A brief remark distinguishing coherent speckle from incoherent galaxy-intensity statistics would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the WFS basis and its completeness follow from standard Moyal/Plancherel identities and an external LG-mode Wigner result; the paper's own phase-recovery caveat is a feasibility limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained and non-circular. In Sec. III A, the orthogonality of the WFS basis (Eq. 65) is a direct consequence of the Moyal/Plancherel identity Eq. (21), which is proven in Appendix D from the definition of the cross-Wigner function and the LG inner products. The expansion coefficients Eq. (69), c_{(j,s),(j',s')} = ψ_js ψ*_j's', are obtained by substituting the LG-mode expansion of the field into the Wigner definition, not assumed as an input. The closed analytic form Eq. (95) explicitly extends the Wigner function of LG modes from Simon and Agarwal [32], an external reference, and the paper contains no self-citations. The scale parameters σ and λ are prescribed from image second moments, PSF width, and instrument bandwidth (Secs. V A and V B); they are not fitted to a target observable, and no fitted quantity is subsequently renamed as a prediction. The shear, flexion, and parity-violating response formulae in Sec. IV are derived by Lie transport and mode selection rules, not by tuning to a desired output. The paper does flag genuine limitations: Sec. II.A notes that ψ 'is often a real positive function as it loses phase information of electromagnetic fields, but we treat ψ as an arbitrary field that can be complex in general,' and Sec. V.D concedes that reconstructing galaxy images within the quantum-information framework is 'non-trivial' and 'few have addressed similar algorithms in practical image analysis in astronomy.' These statements identify an observational-feasibility gap between intensity-only data and the full complex field needed for the Wigner function; however, that is an identifiability or applicability limitation, not a circular reduction of the formalism to its own inputs. There is no load-bearing self-citation and no step in which a prediction is equivalent by construction to a fitted or assumed quantity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard mathematical results (LG completeness, Wigner/Plancherel identities) which are not circular. The main free parameters σ and λ are physical scales chosen from image/instrument properties, not fitted to a target result. The most consequential assumption is the accessibility of the complex field ψ(θ) (phase information) from astronomical images, which the paper acknowledges but does not solve. The WFS basis and W_kℓ are new mathematical constructs without independent experimental evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • σ (image scale) = data-dependent, e.g., σ_g from second moments or argmax of f00(σ)
    Determines the spatial scale of the LG modes; chosen to match the galaxy size, not a universal constant.
  • λ (phase-space cell scale) = λ = σ_θ σ_p, O(1)
    Sets the discretisation scale of phase space; chosen from instrument resolution and bandwidth.
  • α_cut (top-hat scale cut) = 3–5
    Multiplicative factor for the scale-cut radius r_cut = α_cut σ; chosen by hand to isolate the galaxy from surroundings.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Laguerre-Gaussian modes form a complete orthonormal basis of L²(R²)
    Invoked in Sec. III.A to define the WFS basis and in Eq. (65) for orthogonality.
  • standard math Moyal/Plancherel identity for cross-Wigner functions (Eq. 21)
    Used to derive the Hilbert-Schmidt orthogonality of WFS and the coefficient relation c = ψ ψ* in Sec. III.A.
  • domain assumption The image field ψ(θ) is a complex amplitude accessible in phase space
    The Wigner function Eq. (2) uses the full complex field; astronomical images record intensity only. Acknowledged in Sec. II.A and Sec. V.D but not resolved.
  • standard math Stratonovich-Weyl correspondence uniquely fixes the Wigner transform
    Cited in Sec. II.A (Eq. 23) to justify the displaced-parity form of the Wigner kernel.
  • domain assumption Paraxial propagation and symplectic phase-space model of image plane
    The whole framework assumes the image can be described by paraxial optics with phase space (θ,p) ∈ Sp(4,R), introduced in Sec. II.A.
  • domain assumption Galaxy image ensemble can be represented as a density matrix and processed by CPTP channels
    Used in Sec. II.C and V.C to describe PSF and noise as quantum channels; this is a modeling choice specific to the paper's quantum-information framing.
invented entities (2)
  • WFS basis W^{LG}_{(j,s),(j',s')} no independent evidence
    purpose: Complete orthogonal basis for decomposing the Wigner function of galaxy images in phase space.
    A new mathematical construction; no independent falsifiable handle outside the paper yet.
  • Wigner-torus observable W_kℓ(Q0,Q2) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a 'band structure' observable to characterize galaxy morphology and parity-violating correlations.
    Predicted to be sensitive to coherent structure and parity violation, but no data or simulation yet demonstrates this sensitivity.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 38951 in / 9257 out tokens · 99441 ms · 2026-08-03T05:44:47.868399+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We extend shapelets for the analysis of astronomical images to be available in a phase space, introducing \textit{Wigner function shapelets}(WFSs). Whereas conventional shapelets expand images separately in configuration or Fourier space using Hermite-Gaussian or Laguerre-Gaussian modes, WFSs represent images directly in the four-dimensional phase space with symplectic group $\mathrm{Sp}(4,\mathbb{R})$, which is quantized by a phase-space cell $2\pi\lambdabar$ that determines a resolution limit of a telescope. WFSs consist of a bilinear form of the cross-Wigner function of the Laguerre-Gaussian modes as an orthogonal and complete basis for the Wigner function of an image, carrying out $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ irreducible representations of the phase space with the Hopf tori. We introduce a scalar function $\mathcal{W}_{k\ell} (Q_0,Q_2)$ from the $\mathrm{U}(1)\times \mathrm{U}(1)$ - covariant tori to a two-dimensional space of constants of motion $(Q_0,Q_2)$ -- the harmonic energy and axial angular momentum -- thereby yielding a natural phase-space ``band structure'', given a pair of winding number $(k,\ell) \in \mathbb{Z}^2$. % The WFSs leverage key properties of the Wigner function for image analysis: (i) it encodes full information of an image in a symmetry-preserving way; (ii) its trasport equation naturally involves with a Liouville equation at $\lambdabar \rightarrow 0$; (iii) it admits positive/negative oscillatory patterns on $(Q_0,Q_2)$ plane that can be sensitive spatial coherent structure of galaxy morphology and cosmological imprints; and (iv) systematics and noise can be manipulated as a quantum channel operation. This paper aims to bring together all the formulae related to the Wigner function in the context of astrophysics and cosmology, formally organizing them in terminologies of both astronomy and of quantum information theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.01141 by Shun Arai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Analytic band matrix in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 22 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Charge preserva- tion is therefore controlled by commutators with ˆK

    Deterministic PSF For a deterministic PSF acting coherently on the com- plex field amplitude, the forward map is a single-operator channel ˆρO =E coh(ˆρI ) = ˆKˆρI ˆK †,(110) where ˆK = KPSF( ˆp) is the optical transfer function (OTF) acting multiplicatively in Fourier space, equivalently, a function of the momentum operator ˆp. Charge preserva- tion is t...

  2. [2]

    gauge charges

    Stochastic PSF We describe the other extreme case that a galaxy image is blurred by a non-stationary PSF in position space, re- sulting in stochastic displacements of the image structure by a certain probability ΠP SF(∆). In this case, we obtain the PSF operation as EPSF(ˆρ) = Z d2∆ ΠPSF(∆) ˆT(∆)ˆρˆT †(∆),(61) where ˆT denotes the translation operator. Th...

    2000

  3. [3]

    Stochastic PSF A translationally invariant PSF corresponds to a ran- dom displacement channel, K(ˆρ) = Z d2∆K(∆) ˆT(∆)ˆρˆT †(∆) ˆT(∆) = exp − i λ ∆ ˆπ† + ∆∗ ˆπ ,(113) with ˆπ= i√ 2 (ˆa† u −ˆav). In the Heisenberg picture, K†( ˆO) = Z d2∆K(∆) ˆT †(∆) ˆO ˆT(∆).(114) Applying this map to the morphology generator ˆT0, one finds K†( ˆT0) = ˆT0 + ⟨|∆|2⟩PSF 2λ2 ...

  4. [4]

    Massey, B

    R. Massey, B. Rowe, A. Refregier, D. J. Bacon, and J. Berg´ e, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.380, 229 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0609795 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    endpoint

    and flexions [ 6], cosmic birefringence[ 66], and higher- moment of galaxy shapes [ 59, 67] in the language of the Wigner function and WFS. Throughout this section, we will argue that the response function is well-defined at the local level of the image plane, implying a possibility to handle image systematics and noise at a local level. Note that we repr...

  6. [6]

    Refregier, Mon

    A. Refregier, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.338, 35 (2003)

    2003

  7. [7]

    Refregier and D

    A. Refregier and D. Bacon, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.338, 48 (2003)

    2003

  8. [8]

    Massey and A

    R. Massey and A. Refregier, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.363, 197 (2005)

    2005

  9. [9]

    Mandelbaum, Ann

    R. Mandelbaum, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.56, 393 (2018), arXiv:1710.03235 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [11]

    X. Li, N. Katayama, M. Oguri, and S. More, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.481, 4445 (2018), arXiv:1805.08514 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [12]

    X. Li, Y. Li, and R. Massey, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.511, 4850 (2022), arXiv:2110.01214 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [13]

    J. P. Gardner, J. C. Mather, M. Clampin, R. Doyon, M. A. Greenhouse, H. B. Hammel, J. B. Hutchings, P. Jakobsen, S. J. Lilly, K. S. Long, J. I. Lunine, M. J. McCaughrean, M. Mountain, J. Nella, G. H. Rieke, M. J. Rieke, H.-W. Rix, E. P. Smith, G. Sonneborn, M. Stiavelli, H. S. Stockman, R. A. Windhorst, and G. S. Wright, Space Sci. Rev.123, 485 (2006)

    2006

  13. [14]

    Laureijs et al., arXiv e-prints (2011), arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Laureijs et al., arXiv e-prints (2011), arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  14. [15]

    LSST Science Collaboration, LSST Science Book, Version 2.0 (arXiv e-prints, 2009) arXiv:0912.0201 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [16]

    Braun et al., arXiv e-prints (2019), arXiv:1912.12699 [astro-ph.IM]

    R. Braun et al., arXiv e-prints (2019), arXiv:1912.12699 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [17]

    Spergel, N

    D. Spergel, N. Gehrels, C. Baltay, D. Bennett, J. Breckinridge, M. Donahue, A. Dressler, B. S. Gaudi, T. Greene, O. Guyon, C. Hirata, J. Kalirai, N. J. Kasdin, W. Moos, S. Perlmutter, M. Postman, B. Rauscher, J. Rhodes, Y. Wang, D. Weinberg, D. Benford, M. Hudson, W. Jeong, Y. Mellier, W. Traub, T. Yamada, S. Capak, J. Colbert, D. Masters, M. Penny, D. Sa...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [18]

    Tagore and C

    A. Tagore and C. Keeton, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.445, 694 (2014), arXiv:1408.6297 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [19]

    Ephremidze, C

    N. Ephremidze, C. Chandrashekar, A. C ¸a˘ ganS ¸eng¨ ul, and C. Dvorkin, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.18571 (2025), arXiv:2502.18571 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [20]

    Yatawatta, Astron

    S. Yatawatta, Astron. Astrophys. (2024), open access

    2024

  20. [21]

    Nienhuis, Phys

    G. Nienhuis, Phys. Rev. A48, 656 (1993)

    1993

  21. [22]

    A. R. Edmonds, Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, 1957) foundational text on angular momentum theory; see also review by H. C. Bolton (1959)

    1957

  22. [23]

    D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev, and V. K. Khersonskii, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum (World Scientific, 1988)

    1988

  23. [24]

    E. P. Wigner, Group Theory and its Application to theQuantum Mechanics of Atomic Spectra , Pure and Applied Physics, Vol. 5 (Academic Press, New York, 1959) expanded and improved edition; translated by J. J. Griffin

    1959

  24. [25]

    Allen, M

    L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, Phys. Rev. A45, 8185 (1992)

    1992

  25. [26]

    P. A. M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics , 1st ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1930) landmark text in quantum mechanics; reviewed in Lennard-Jones (1931) Mathematical Gazette

    1930

  26. [27]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, B

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Lalo¨ e,Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1997) standard graduate-level textbook; listed as core text in MIT OCW quantum mechanics syllabus (Fall 2018)

    1997

  27. [28]

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

    1932

  28. [29]

    Ville, Cˆ ables et Transmissions2, 61 (1948), in French; introduces the analytic signal formalism

    J. Ville, Cˆ ables et Transmissions2, 61 (1948), in French; introduces the analytic signal formalism

    1948

  29. [30]

    W. P. Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space (Wiley-VCH, 2001)

    2001

  30. [31]

    Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    U. Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  31. [32]

    A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 299 (2009)

    2009

  32. [33]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  33. [34]

    H. J. Groenewold, Physica12, 405 (1946)

    1946

  34. [35]

    J. E. Moyal, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.45, 99 (1949)

    1949

  35. [36]

    Simon and G

    R. Simon and G. S. Agarwal, Optics Letters25, 1313 (2000)

    2000

  36. [37]

    Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie,

    H. Weyl, The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics (Dover, New York, 1950) english translation by H. P. Robertson of the German original: H. Weyl, “Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie,” Z. Phys. 46, 1 (1927)

    1950

  37. [38]

    R. L. Stratonovich, Sov. Phys. JETP31, 1012 (1956)

    1956

  38. [39]

    J. C. V´ arilly and J. M. Gracia-Bond ´ ıa, Ann. Phys.190, 107 (1989)

    1989

  39. [40]

    Brif and A

    C. Brif and A. Mann, Phys. Rev. A59, 971 (1999)

    1999

  40. [41]

    Hillery, R

    M. Hillery, R. F. O’Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rep.106, 121 (1984)

    1984

  41. [42]

    G. B. Folland, Harmonic Analysis in Phase Space , Annals of Mathematics Studies, Vol. 122 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1989) p. 288, published Mar 21, 1989

    1989

  42. [43]

    Hopf, Math

    H. Hopf, Math. Ann.104, 637 (1931)

    1931

  43. [44]

    Kogelnik and T

    H. Kogelnik and T. Li, Appl. Opt.5, 1550 (1966)

    1966

  44. [45]

    A. E. Siegman, Lasers (University Science Books, 1986)

    1986

  45. [46]

    Born and E

    M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 7th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999)

    1999

  46. [47]

    D. J. Schroeder, Astronomical Optics, 2nd ed. (Academic Press, San Diego, 2000)

    2000

  47. [48]

    Hecht, Optics, 4th ed

    E. Hecht, Optics, 4th ed. (Addison Wesley, San Francisco, 2002)

    2002

  48. [49]

    Manzano, AIP Advances10, 025106 (2020), arXiv:1906.04478 [quant-ph]

    D. Manzano, AIP Advances10, 025106 (2020), arXiv:1906.04478 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [50]

    P. H. van Cittert, Physica1, 201 (1934)

    1934

  50. [51]

    Zernike, Physica5, 785 (1938)

    F. Zernike, Physica5, 785 (1938)

    1938

  51. [52]

    J. W. Goodman, Statistical Optics (Wiley, New York, 1985)

    1985

  52. [53]

    J. W. Goodman, Journal of the Optical Society of America66, 1145 (1976)

    1976

  53. [54]

    J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics, 3rd ed. (Roberts and Company, Greenwood Village, CO, 2005)

    2005

  54. [55]

    Cerbino, Physical Review A75, 053815 (2007)

    R. Cerbino, Physical Review A75, 053815 (2007)

    2007

  55. [56]

    A. J. F. Siegert, On the Fluctuations in Signals Returned by Many Independently Moving Scatterers , Tech. Rep. 465 (MIT Radiation Laboratory, 1943)

    1943

  56. [57]

    Lax, Reviews of Modern Physics32, 25 (1960)

    M. Lax, Reviews of Modern Physics32, 25 (1960)

    1960

  57. [58]

    Hanbury Brown and R

    R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Nature177, 27 (1956)

    1956

  58. [59]

    Hanbury Brown and R

    R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A242, 300 (1957)

    1957

  59. [60]

    D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev, and V. K. Khersonskii, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum (1988)

    1988

  60. [61]

    Joshi, S

    N. Joshi, S. Jhingan, T. Souradeep, and A. Hajian, Phys. Rev. D81, 083012 (2010), arXiv:0912.3217 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  61. [62]

    L. G. Book, M. Kamionkowski, and T. Souradeep, Phys. Rev. D85, 023010 (2012), arXiv:1109.2910 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  62. [63]

    Kurita, D

    T. Kurita, D. Jamieson, E. Komatsu, and F. Schmidt, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.08787 (2025), arXiv:2509.08787 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [64]

    Heisenberg, Zeitschrift fur Physik43, 172 (1927)

    W. Heisenberg, Zeitschrift fur Physik43, 172 (1927)

    1927

  64. [65]

    E. H. Kennard, Zeitschrift fur Physik44, 326 (1927)

    1927

  65. [66]

    H. P. Robertson, Physical Review34, 163 (1929)

    1929

  66. [67]

    Jordan, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik94, 531 (1935)

    P. Jordan, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik94, 531 (1935)

    1935

  67. [68]

    J. S. Schwinger, On Angular Momentum, Tech. Rep. NYO-3071 (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1952) technical Report; 29 reprinted in L.C.Biedenharn and H.Van Dam (eds.), *Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum* (Academic Press, 1965) and in K.A.Milton (ed.), *A Quantum Legacy* (World Scientific, 2000)

    1952

  68. [69]

    Poh-aun, S.-H

    L. Poh-aun, S.-H. Ong, and H. Srivastava, International Journal of Computer Mathematics78, 303 (2001)

    2001

  69. [70]

    Komatsu, Nature Reviews Physics4, 452 (2022), arXiv:2202.13919 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Komatsu, Nature Reviews Physics4, 452 (2022), arXiv:2202.13919 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  70. [71]

    O. H. E. Philcox, M. J. K¨ onig, S. Alexander, and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D109, 063541 (2024), arXiv:2309.08653 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [72]

    Zhang, Mon

    J. Zhang, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.383, 113 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0612146 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  72. [73]

    D. J. Bacon, D. M. Goldberg, B. T. P. Rowe, and A. N. Taylor, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.365, 414 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0504478 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2006

  73. [74]

    Okura and T

    Y. Okura and T. Futamase, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.516, 668 (2022), arXiv:2109.00155 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [75]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, Astrophys. J. Lett.902, L22 (2020), apJ Lett. 902, L22 (2020)

    2020

  75. [76]

    Naokawa, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.06709 (2025), arXiv:2504.06709 [astro-ph.CO]

    F. Naokawa, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.06709 (2025), arXiv:2504.06709 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [77]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 221301 (2020), arXiv:2011.11254 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  77. [78]

    Hirata and U

    C. Hirata and U. Seljak, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.343, 459 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0301054 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  78. [79]

    A. R. Thompson, J. M. Moran, and G. W. Swenson, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy (Springer, 2017)

    2017

  79. [80]

    J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics (Roberts & Company, 2005)

    2005

  80. [81]

    J. E. Krist, R. N. Hook, and F. Stoehr, PASP117, 594 (2005)

    2005

Showing first 80 references.