Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 61 references

After both mechanics are translated via the Wigner–Weyl dictionary, the only representation-independent distinction left is noncommutativity, encoded as the ⋆-product; Wigner negativity is a representational artifact.

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

2026-08-02 06:05 UTC pith:IL5L4C7X

load-bearing objection A useful operational comparison of classical and quantum measurement rules in the Wigner-Weyl language; the 'representation-independent' framing overreaches because the dictionary itself encodes noncommutativity. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13135 v1 pith:IL5L4C7X submitted 2026-07-14 quant-ph

Classical and quantum mechanics across representations: an operational reading of the Wigner Weyl correspondence

Samuel Schlegel , Borivoje Daki\'c , Flavio Del Santo This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81S3081S1081P05 PACS 03.65.Ca03.65.Ta
keywords Wigner–Weyl correspondenceMoyal star-productnoncommutativityphase-space quantum mechanicsWigner negativityquantum-classical boundaryoperational measurement theorydeformation quantization
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.

Classical mechanics is usually told in phase-space language; quantum mechanics in Hilbert-space language. The Wigner–Weyl correspondence lets each be written in the other's language, and this paper asks what survives the round trip. Its answer: most familiar 'nonclassicality' witnesses, such as Wigner-function negativity, are artifacts of the chosen representation, because positivity fails in both directions under the map. What is not an artifact is the algebraic composition law — pointwise multiplication for classical observables versus the ℏ-dependent Moyal ⋆-product for quantum observables. That noncommutative structure drives the genuine differences: the uncertainty bound, dynamics beyond quadratic Hamiltonians, and non-Bayesian state updates in measurement.

Core claim

Main claim: after translating classical and quantum mechanics through the Wigner–Weyl correspondence, the distinction that survives is noncommutativity — realized in phase space as the ℏ-dependent ⋆-product (Moyal product) and in Hilbert space as operator multiplication. Positivity fails in both directions of the map, so Wigner negativity is a representational artifact. The ⋆-product makes the canonical commutator a consequence rather than an input; it makes classical and quantum dynamics coincide for quadratic Hamiltonians and diverge beyond cubic order; and it makes quantum state-update rules ⋆-deformed while classical updates are pointwise Bayes reweighting.

What carries the argument

Central object: the Wigner–Weyl correspondence, an invertible dictionary between phase-space functions and Hilbert-space operators. Its load-bearing piece is the Moyal ⋆-product, the phase-space image of operator multiplication, (ÂB̂)_W = A_W ⋆ B_W. The ⋆-product deforms pointwise multiplication by ℏ-corrections; its antisymmetric part is the Moyal bracket, which reduces to the Poisson bracket as ℏ→0. It makes the canonical commutator a consequence of the deformed product and forces classical and quantum dynamics to coincide up to quadratic Hamiltonians and diverge beyond, matching the Groenewold–van Hove obstruction.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the Wigner–Weyl map is a fair and neutral dictionary between the two theories; if another equally legitimate dictionary (such as the Koopman–von Neumann embedding, which keeps the algebra commutative) were used as the common language, the conclusion that noncommutativity is the sole surviving distinction could fail.

What would settle it

Construct a counterexample in which classical and quantum predictions differ at the level of outcome statistics alone while (i) the Hamiltonian is quadratic and (ii) all measurements are jointly measurable phase-space observables; the paper's framework says this is impossible because the ⋆-deformation feeds neither the dynamics nor the update in that regime.

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

If this is right

  • Wigner-function negativity is not a representation-independent mark of nonclassicality: a positive phase-space density can map to a non-positive operator, and a positive density operator can map to a negative Wigner function.
  • Classical and quantum time evolutions coincide exactly for Hamiltonians at most quadratic in q and p; the first genuine quantum correction appears at cubic order and is proportional to V‴(q).
  • Outcome probabilities alone do not separate the theories — both can be written as overlap integrals; the difference shows up in the conditional state update, which is pointwise Bayes reweighting classically and generically ⋆-deformed quantum mechanically.
  • Entanglement-like behavior is layered: classical distributions can violate covariance-based entanglement criteria (representational entanglement), positive Wigner-positive states can be truly entangled (hybrid), and only Wigner-negative states are genuinely nonclassical under phase-space access.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's coarse-graining condition (σ Δp ≫ ℏ, where quantum conditioning reduces to Bayes reweighting) could be turned into a quantitative resource: how much a measurement is quantum can be measured by how far the update departs from pointwise reweighting.
  • If noncommutativity is the true boundary, then proposals for witnessing gravity-induced entanglement should be scrutinized: a positive Wigner function and jointly measurable quadratures cannot certify genuine quantumness, so such experiments need an incompatibility or negativity check to carry the conclusion.
  • The same representational logic suggests that resource theories built on Wigner negativity are representation-relative; an invariant resource could instead be the magnitude of the ⋆-corrections that a protocol actually exploits.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the Wigner–Weyl (WW) correspondence as a common language for a side-by-side comparison of classical and quantum mechanics in phase-space and Hilbert-space representations. It analyzes states via positivity and KLM conditions, kinematics via the ⋆-product and Moyal bracket, dynamics via Liouville vs. Wigner–Moyal evolution, measurement via response functions/POVMs and Bayes vs. ⋆-deformed update rules, and entanglement via a hierarchy based on Ref. [13]. The central claim is that the robust, representation-independent classical–quantum distinction is noncommutativity, while signatures such as Wigner negativity are representational artifacts. The paper argues that classical conditioning is pointwise Bayesian reweighting, whereas quantum conditioning is generically ⋆-deformed due to noncommutative multiplication, and that this is the operational content of 'collapse.'

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a clean operational criterion for the classical–quantum boundary and would clarify the representational status of negativity and entanglement-like correlations. It correctly separates positivity constraints from algebraic structure, and the sharp-readout example provides a transparent illustration of the difference between Bayes and ⋆-update. The treatment of KLM conditions, the Moyal expansion, and the coarse-grained recovery of Bayes reweighting in Appendix A are useful and competently presented. However, the strong representation-independence thesis is not yet supported by the evidence offered, because the Wigner–Weyl dictionary itself encodes noncommutativity. The paper is a valuable synthesis, but its main claim needs to be either narrowed to the WW representation or defended against the KvN counterfactual that the authors themselves mention.

major comments (2)
  1. [§I; §III, Eq. (12)] The central conclusion that noncommutativity is the unique representation-independent distinction is underdetermined by the chosen dictionary. The WW map is defined so that operator multiplication becomes ⋆-multiplication (Eq. 12), and the canonical commutator is derived from that deformed product; the classical state set C is likewise defined as the image of nonnegative f under Φ (Eq. 6). The Koopman–von Neumann embedding, which preserves a commutative algebra, is mentioned in Sec. I and dismissed because it 'builds in commutativity from the beginning', but the paper does not analyze it or any other invertible symbol calculus. Without such a counterfactual analysis, the robust distinction may be a property of the WW translation rather than of the theories. To support the strong claim, the authors should either prove invariance of the ⋆-deformed update and the C∩Q overlap across admissib
  2. [Sec. V.B, Eqs. (31)–(37)] The sharp-readout example is used to show that quantum conditioning is not Bayesian. The comparison treats the classical response function ξ(x0|q,p)=δ(q−x0), which causes no back-action, against the quantum projector Π_x0=|x0⟩⟨x0| as 'the same outcome.' But classical instruments allow outcome-dependent disturbance via transition kernels T_m (Eq. 32); a classical kernel that randomizes p for sharp q would produce the same uniform momentum distribution as Eq. (37). The claimed structural difference therefore rests on an unstated assumption that the classical idealization is non-disturbing. The authors should either defend this as the operationally fair classical analogue or compare instruments under matched constraints; otherwise the measurement distinction is about the absence of disturbance, not about noncommutativity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Notation, Eqs. (2) and (5)] The Weyl quantization map Φ and the quantum state set Q use visually similar symbols; consider renaming one (e.g., Ω for the map) to avoid confusion.
  2. [Eq. (34)] The unnormalized post-measurement Wigner function is labeled f_W^m, but the normalization p(m) is introduced only in the following line; clarify the convention for the trace relation and the conjugation of K^W.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A6)] The expansion A⋆W⋆A keeps only terms through order ℏ^2; state explicitly the smoothness and boundary assumptions needed for the '≈' sign, since the Gaussian example is not the only case considered.
  4. [Sec. VI] The RE/HE/GE hierarchy is central to Table I but is summarized from Ref. [13] without enough detail for the paper to stand alone; a brief self-contained statement of the example parameters and criteria would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the Wigner–Weyl dictionary is an interpretive premise, not a fitted input; self-citations are peripheral and not load-bearing for the core noncommutativity claim.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained standard mathematics: the Wigner–Weyl map is defined in Eqs. (1)–(3), the ⋆-product is introduced and identified with operator multiplication in Eq. (12), and the classical/quantum comparisons in kinematics, dynamics, and measurement (Eqs. (9)–(13), (16)–(25), (29)–(37), and Appendix A) follow by exact translation rather than by fitting or by definitional equivalence with the conclusion. No parameter is fitted and no prediction is generated from the data it is supposed to explain. The main conceptual caveat—that the paper selects the Wigner–Weyl correspondence as the common language and explicitly sets aside the Koopman–von Neumann embedding because it 'build[s] in commutativity from the beginning'—is an underdetermination/correctness risk for the strong representation-independence claim, not a circular reduction: the paper does not claim to have surveyed all invertible symbol calculi, and the central algebraic facts are not made true merely by that choice. The self-citations ([13], [49]) are used for the entanglement hierarchy and for the coarse-graining limit, but the latter is re-derived in Appendix A and the former is peripheral to the main noncommutativity argument. This is therefore a case of no significant circularity, with a minor caveat about the chosen dictionary rather than a circular derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

All major mathematical inputs are standard results from the prior literature (WW correspondence, KLM conditions, GvH theorem, Robertson–Schrödinger). No free parameters are fitted. The only paper-specific modeling choice is the sharp-readout comparison and the reuse of Ref. [13]'s entanglement hierarchy, which is a domain assumption imported from the authors' own work.

axioms (7)
  • standard math The Wigner–Weyl transform pair (Eqs. 1–3) gives an exact, invertible translation between phase-space symbols and Hilbert-space operators.
    This dictionary is the foundation of the entire comparison; it is a standard result in phase-space quantum mechanics.
  • domain assumption Classical states are positive phase-space densities and quantum states are positive trace-one operators (Eqs. 5–6).
    The set-theoretic picture (C vs Q) and the claim that positivity fails in both directions depend on these standard state-space postulates.
  • standard math The trace relation Tr(ÂB̂)=∫ A_W B_W (Eq. 4) holds with the chosen normalization for density-observable products.
    Used to write quantum probabilities as phase-space overlaps in Sec. V.
  • standard math The KLM / quantum Bochner conditions (Eq. 7) are necessary and sufficient for a phase-space function to be a legitimate Wigner function.
    Cited from [18-21]; used to make the quantum admissible set mathematically sharp but not re-derived.
  • standard math The Groenewold–van Hove theorem forbids a quantization map that preserves the Poisson algebra exactly.
    Used in Sec. III to motivate why the ⋆-deformation is needed; standard no-go result.
  • domain assumption The entanglement hierarchy RE/HE/GE from Ref. [13] correctly characterizes restricted-access classical/quantum correlations.
    Section VI imports this hierarchy from the authors' own prior preprint; the present paper does not re-derive it and provides no independent verification.
  • ad hoc to paper Modeling a sharp position readout by δ(q−x0) classically and by Π_{x0}=|x0⟩⟨x0| quantum mechanically is the fair comparison of measurement rules.
    The central measurement distinction (Bayes vs ⋆-update) is illustrated with this choice; a different operational model of 'the same measurement' could shift the comparison, so this is a paper-specific modeling choice.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16503 in / 14591 out tokens · 125197 ms · 2026-08-02T06:05:19.492960+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The physical content of a theory is not intrinsically tied to any single mathematical formalism. Both classical and quantum mechanics admit equivalent representations, notably in phase space and in Hilbert space, related by the Wigner-Weyl correspondence. While this correspondence has long been studied in mathematical physics, its foundational and operational implications are often left implicit. Here we give a systematic account of what changes, and what does not, when classical and quantum theories are expressed in each other's native language. This representational viewpoint separates artifacts (such as the appearance of non-positivity or negativity under certain maps) from robust structural distinctions that persist across representations, in particular noncommutativity and its $\hbar$-dependent $\star$-deformation of the classical algebra. We develop the comparison at the level of states, kinematics, and dynamics, and extend it to measurement by formulating both outcome statistics and state-update rules within the same framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13135 by Borivoje Daki\'c, Flavio Del Santo, Samuel Schlegel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Classical and quantum state spaces are partially over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The entanglement hierarchy of Ref. [13] located on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.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

61 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. E. Moyal. Quantum mechanics as a statistical theory. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 45(1):99–124, January 1949

    1949

  2. [2]

    E. Wigner. On the Quantum Correction For Thermo- dynamic Equilibrium.Physical Review, 40(5):749–759, June 1932

    1932

  3. [3]

    H. Weyl. Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 46(1):1–46, November 1927

    1927

  4. [4]

    On the Principles of El- ementary Quantum Mechanics

    Hilbrand Johannes Groenewold. On the Principles of El- ementary Quantum Mechanics. In Hilbrand Johannes Groenewold, editor,On the Principles of Elementary Quantum Mechanics, pages 1–56. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1946

    1946

  5. [5]

    L´ eon Van Hove. Sur le probl` eme des relations en- tre les transformations unitaires de la M´ ecanique quan- tique et les transformations canoniques de la M´ ecanique classique.Bulletins de l’Acad´ emie Royale de Belgique, 37(1):610–620, 1951

    1951

  6. [6]

    George A. Baker. Formulation of quantum mechanics based on the quasi-probability distribution induced on phase space.Physical Review, 109(6):2198–2206, 1958

    1958

  7. [7]

    Bohm and B

    D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley. On a quantum algebraic ap- proach to a generalized phase space.Foundations of Physics, 11(3):179–203, April 1981

    1981

  8. [8]

    Curtright and Cosmas K

    Thomas L. Curtright and Cosmas K. Zachos. Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space.Asia Pacific Physics Newslet- ter, 01(01):37–46, May 2012

    2012

  9. [9]

    Bartlett, Terry Rudolph, and Robert W

    Stephen D. Bartlett, Terry Rudolph, and Robert W. Spekkens. Reconstruction of Gaussian quantum me- chanics from Liouville mechanics with an epistemic re- striction.Physical Review A, 86(1):012103, July 2012. arXiv:1111.5057 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Spekkens

    Robert W. Spekkens. In defense of the epistemic view of quantum states: a toy theory.Physical Review A, 75(3):032110, March 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0401052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  11. [11]

    Physics without Determinism: Alternative Interpretations of Classical Physics.Physical Review A, 100(6):062107, December

    Flavio Del Santo and Nicolas Gisin. Physics without Determinism: Alternative Interpretations of Classical Physics.Physical Review A, 100(6):062107, December

  12. [12]

    Which features of quantum physics are not fundamentally quantum but are due to indeterminism?Quantum, 9:1686, April 2025

    Flavio Del Santo and Nicolas Gisin. Which features of quantum physics are not fundamentally quantum but are due to indeterminism?Quantum, 9:1686, April 2025. arXiv:2409.10601 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    entanglement

    for the full analysis. Note that Bell inequalities can- not be violated by these classical systems, as this would demand incompatible observables [56]. This should not be read as saying that Wigner-positive entangled states are Bell-local. The two-mode squeezed vacuum is Gaus- sian, hence lies inC ∩ Q, yet violates a Bell inequality under displaced parity...

  14. [14]

    Gerry and Peter L

    Christopher C. Gerry and Peter L. Knight.Introductory Quantum Optics. Cambridge University Press, November 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Entanglement without Quantum Mechanics: Opera- tional Constraints on the Quantum Signature, December

    Samuel Schlegel, Borivoje Daki´ c, and Flavio Del Santo. Entanglement without Quantum Mechanics: Opera- tional Constraints on the Quantum Signature, December

  16. [16]

    Hillery, R

    M. Hillery, R. F. O’Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. Wigner. Distribution functions in physics: Fundamen- tals.Physics Reports, 106(3):121–167, April 1984

    1984

  17. [17]

    D. Mauro. Topics in Koopman-von Neumann Theory, January 2003. arXiv:quant-ph/0301172

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  18. [18]

    William B. Case. Wigner functions and Weyl trans- forms for pedestrians.American Journal of Physics, 76(10):937–946, October 2008

    2008

  19. [19]

    The c*-algebras of a free boson field: I

    Daniel Kastler. The c*-algebras of a free boson field: I. discussion of the basic facts.Communications in Mathe- matical Physics, 1(1):14–48, 1965

    1965

  20. [20]

    Loupias and S

    G. Loupias and S. Miracle-Sole. C*-alg` ebres des syst` emes canoniques. I.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 2(1):31–48, 1966

    1966

  21. [21]

    Narcowich

    Francis J. Narcowich. Distributions ofℏ-positive type and applications.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 30(11):2565–2573, November 1989

    1989

  22. [22]

    Narcowich and R

    Francis J. Narcowich and R. F. O’Connell. Necessary and sufficient conditions for a phase-space function to be a Wigner distribution.Physical Review A, 34(1):1–6, July 1986

    1986

  23. [23]

    On distributions in rep- resentation space.Soviet Physics JETP-USSR, 4(6):891– 898, 1957

    Ruslan Leont’evich Stratonovich. On distributions in rep- resentation space.Soviet Physics JETP-USSR, 4(6):891– 898, 1957

    1957

  24. [24]

    S. Bochner. Monotone Funktionen, Stieltjessche Inte- grale und harmonische Analyse.Mathematische Annalen, 108(1):378–410, 1933

    1933

  25. [25]

    Mandilara, E

    A. Mandilara, E. Karpov, and N. J. Cerf. Extending Hudson’s theorem to mixed quantum states.Physical Review A, 79(6):062302, June 2009

    2009

  26. [26]

    R. L. Hudson. When is the wigner quasi-probability den- sity non-negative?Reports on Mathematical Physics, 6(2):249–252, October 1974

    1974

  27. [27]

    Negativity of the Wigner function as an indicator of nonclassicality

    Anatole Kenfack and Karol Zyczkowski. Negativity of the Wigner function as an indicator of nonclassicality. Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics, 6(10):396–404, October 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0406015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  28. [28]

    Dias and Jos´ e N

    Nelson C. Dias and Jos´ e N. Prata. Deformation quanti- zation and wigner functions. 2005

    2005

  29. [29]

    CRC Press, Boca Ra- ton, 2 edition, August 2023

    Alessio Serafini.Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods. CRC Press, Boca Ra- ton, 2 edition, August 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    On the positivity of trace class operators.Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 23(8):2061–2091, 2019

    Elena Cordero, Maurice de Gosson, and Fabio Nicola. On the positivity of trace class operators.Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 23(8):2061–2091, 2019

    2061

  31. [31]

    A New Symmetric Expression of Weyl Ordering.Modern Physics Letters A, 19(11):827–840, April 2004

    Kazuyuki Fujii and Tatsuo Suzuki. A New Symmetric Expression of Weyl Ordering.Modern Physics Letters A, 19(11):827–840, April 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0304094. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    K. E. Cahill and R. J. Glauber. Ordered Expan- sions in Boson Amplitude Operators.Physical Review, 177(5):1857–1881, January 1969

    1969

  33. [33]

    Cerf, Timothy C

    Christian Weedbrook, Stefano Pirandola, Raul Garcia- Patron, Nicolas J. Cerf, Timothy C. Ralph, Jeffrey H. Shapiro, and Seth Lloyd. Gaussian Quantum Informa- tion.Reviews of Modern Physics, 84(2):621–669, May

  34. [34]

    Bayen, M

    F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnerowicz, and D. Sternheimer. Deformation theory and quantization. I. deformations of symplectic structures.Annals of Physics, 111(1):61–110, 1978

    1978

  35. [35]

    Bayen, M

    F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnerowicz, and D. Sternheimer. Deformation theory and quantization. II. physical applications.Annals of Physics, 111(1):111– 151, 1978

    1978

  36. [36]

    Poole Jr, and John L

    Herbert Goldstein, Charles P. Poole Jr, and John L. Safko Sr.Klassische Mechanik. John Wiley & Sons, April 2012. Google-Books-ID: z zmcPqMKMYC

    2012

  37. [37]

    Quantization: History and Problems, February 2022

    Andrea Carosso. Quantization: History and Problems, February 2022. arXiv:2202.07838 [physics]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Eric J. Heller. Wigner phase space method: Analysis for semiclassical applications.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 65(4):1289–1298, August 1976

    1976

  39. [39]

    Jian Liu and William H. Miller. Linearized semiclas- sical initial value time correlation functions using the thermal Gaussian approximation: Applications to con- densed phase systems.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 127(11):114506, September 2007

    2007

  40. [40]

    William H. Miller. Perspective: Quantum or clas- sical coherence?The Journal of Chemical Physics, 136(21):210901, June 2012

    2012

  41. [41]

    Phase space representation of quan- tum dynamics.Annals of Physics, 325(8):1790–1852, Au- gust 2010

    Anatoli Polkovnikov. Phase space representation of quan- tum dynamics.Annals of Physics, 325(8):1790–1852, Au- gust 2010. arXiv:0905.3384 [cond-mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral. Gravitationally Induced En- tanglement between Two Massive Particles is Sufficient Evidence of Quantum Effects in Gravity.Physical Review Letters, 119(24):240402, December 2017

    2017

  43. [43]

    Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity, January 2020

    Tanjung Krisnanda, Guo Yao Tham, Mauro Paternostro, and Tomasz Paterek. Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity, January 2020. arXiv:1906.08808

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    E. B. Davies and J. T. Lewis. An operational approach to quantum probability.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 17(3):239–260, September 1970

    1970

  45. [45]

    Morley, Hendrik Ulbricht, Marko Toroˇ s, Mauro Paternostro, An- drew Geraci, Peter Barker, M

    Sougato Bose, Anupam Mazumdar, Gavin W. Morley, Hendrik Ulbricht, Marko Toroˇ s, Mauro Paternostro, An- drew Geraci, Peter Barker, M. S. Kim, and Gerard Mil- burn. A Spin Entanglement Witness for Quantum Grav- ity, July 2017. arXiv:1707.06050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    ¨Uber die Zustands¨ anderung durch den Meßprozeß.Annalen der Physik, 443(5-8):322–328, 1950

    Gerhart L¨ uders. ¨Uber die Zustands¨ anderung durch den Meßprozeß.Annalen der Physik, 443(5-8):322–328, 1950

    1950

  47. [47]

    Holevo.Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory

    Alexander S. Holevo.Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory. Springer Science & Business Media, May 2011. Google-Books-ID: l7AIDhbWrTIC

    2011

  48. [48]

    Probability, frequency and reasonable expectation.American journal of physics, 14(1):1–13, 1946

    Richard T Cox. Probability, frequency and reasonable expectation.American journal of physics, 14(1):1–13, 1946

    1946

  49. [49]

    In Karl Kraus, A

    6 Coexistent effects and observables. In Karl Kraus, A. B¨ ohm, J. D. Dollard, and W. H. Wootters, editors, States, Effects, and Operations Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory: Lectures in Mathematical Physics at the University of Texas at Austin, pages 103–149. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1983

    1983

  50. [50]

    Quasi-probability representations of quantum theory with applications to quantum in- formation science.Reports on Progress in Physics, 74(11):116001, October 2011

    Christopher Ferrie. Quasi-probability representations of quantum theory with applications to quantum in- formation science.Reports on Progress in Physics, 74(11):116001, October 2011

    2011

  51. [51]

    Classical analog of entangle- ment for a kicked top.Physical Review A, 112(1):012201, 2025

    Bilal Khalid and Sabre Kais. Classical analog of entangle- ment for a kicked top.Physical Review A, 112(1):012201, 2025

    2025

  52. [52]

    Br¨ ocker and R

    T. Br¨ ocker and R. F. Werner. Mixed states with posi- tive Wigner functions.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36(1):62–75, 1995

    1995

  53. [53]

    The clas- sical limit of quantum mechanics through coarse-grained measurements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15642, 2025

    Fatemeh Bibak, Carlo Cepollaro, Nicol´ as Medina S´ anchez, Borivoje Daki´ c, andˇCaslav Brukner. The clas- sical limit of quantum mechanics through coarse-grained measurements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15642, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Giedke, J

    Lu-Ming Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller. In- separability Criterion for Continuous Variable Systems. Physical Review Letters, 84(12):2722–2725, March 2000

    2000

  55. [55]

    R. Simon. Peres-Horodecki separability criterion for continuous variable systems.Physical Review Letters, 84(12):2726–2729, March 2000. arXiv:quant-ph/9909044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  56. [56]

    Wolf, David Perez-Garcia, and Carlos Fer- nandez

    Michael M. Wolf, David Perez-Garcia, and Carlos Fer- nandez. Measurements Incompatible in Quantum Theory Cannot Be Measured Jointly in Any Other No-Signaling Theory.Physical Review Letters, 103(23):230402, Decem- ber 2009

    2009

  57. [57]

    Entanglement in continuous variable systems: Recent advances and current perspectives.Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical, 40(28):7821–7880, July 2007

    Gerardo Adesso and Fabrizio Illuminati. Entanglement in continuous variable systems: Recent advances and current perspectives.Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical, 40(28):7821–7880, July 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0701221

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  58. [61]

    Nonlocal- ity of the einstein-podolsky-rosen state in the wigner rep- resentation.Phys

    Konrad Banaszek and Krzysztof W´ odkiewicz. Nonlocal- ity of the einstein-podolsky-rosen state in the wigner rep- resentation.Phys. Rev. A, 58:4345–4347, Dec 1998. Appendix A: Recovering Bayes reweighting To see how L¨ uder’s rule in phase space Wm = 1 p(m) X α K W m,α ⋆ Wρ ⋆(K W m,α)∗ ,(A1) recovers the Bayes reweighting of Eq. (31), consider, for instan...

    1998

  59. [2012]

    arXiv:1110.3234 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [2019]

    arXiv:1909.03697 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  61. [2025]

    arXiv:2512.14834 [quant-ph]

    arXiv