Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Imaginarity as a Resource within Quantum Coherence: Geometric Decomposition and Operational Conversion

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Imaginarity is a convertible constituent of quantum coherence, and a qubit circuit converts one into the other exactly.

desk verdict A mostly correct but over-sold paper: the core inequality is a triangle inequality baked into the definition of C_R, and the conversion protocol uses a non-real measurement, but the explicit equality and the residual-coherence framing justify a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14435 v1 pith:3M2X2GJG submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph

Meng-Li Guo , Nannan Guan , Bo Li , Bin Hu , Shao-Ming Fei This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P68 PACS 03.67.-a03.65.Ta
keywords imaginarityquantumcoherenceresidualresourcetheorygeometricdecompositiontracedistanceconversiondiagonalHamiltoniandynamics
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 sets out to show that imaginarity—the part of a quantum state that cannot be written with real numbers—is not a separate resource from quantum coherence but a constituent of it, and that the two can be converted into each other. It introduces a geometric quantity called residual coherence, the distance between the closest real state and the closest incoherent state, and proves that total coherence is always bounded by imaginarity plus this residual term. For bipartite systems it derives a bound on how much coherence one subsystem can acquire, expressed through correlations, local coherence, and the partner's imaginarity-residual split. The central operational result is an explicit qubit circuit that consumes imaginarity in one qubit and produces an exactly equal amount of coherence in another. If the picture is right, resource accounting in distributed quantum tasks should track the composition of coherence rather than its total, and imaginarity can be activated into the broader resource of coherence.

What carries the argument

The central object is residual coherence C_R(ρ), defined as the metric distance between the closest real state and the closest incoherent state of ρ. It is the term that makes coherence larger than imaginarity, and it does the work of capturing basis misalignment between the real and incoherent reference frames. The main inequalities follow from the triangle inequality on state space, and the operational result rides on an explicit circuit: a controlled-Z gate, a Hadamard on subsystem A, a Y-basis projective measurement on subsystem B, and a conditional Z correction, which together yield the exact equality C′_tr(ρ_final^A) = M_tr(ρ_B).

What would settle it

Run the Theorem 3 circuit on subsystem B prepared in the real coherent state |+⟩⟨+|: Theorem 3(a) predicts the final state of A is exactly I/2, so any measurable coherence in A would refute the claimed conversion condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that imaginarity is a genuine sub-resource of coherence, not merely a coexisting one. It defines residual coherence as the metric distance between the closest real state and the closest incoherent state, then proves the universal hierarchy C ≤ M + C_R for any metric satisfying positivity, symmetry, and the triangle inequality. For bipartite systems it bounds the coherence accessible in one subsystem by a combination of correlations, local coherence, the partner's imaginarity, and the partner's residual coherence. The operational centerpiece is an explicit protocol—controlled-Z, Hadamard on A, Y-basis measurement on B, conditional Z—that yields the exact equality between the

Load-bearing premise

The exact conversion equality C′_tr(ρ_final^A) = M_tr(ρ_B) rests on the availability of a Y-basis projective measurement, which is not a free operation in the resource theory of imaginarity; if the protocol must use only free real operations, the equality does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the conversion equality is exact, imaginarity produced or stored in one node of a distributed quantum system can be transformed into coherence usable for phase estimation and metrology in another node.
  • The decomposition gives a diagnostic: any shortfall in converted coherence directly measures the residual-coherence overhead, i.e., the reference-frame mismatch between the real and incoherent bases.
  • The bound in Theorem 5 implies that no real operation can produce more coherence than the initial imaginarity plus what that operation generates from a real state, so operation-induced coherence must be charged separately.
  • Under a diagonal Hamiltonian, total coherence is constant while imaginarity and residual coherence oscillate on a circle, giving predictable timing windows for extracting one resource from the other.
  • Two states with identical total coherence can have very different conversion potential; resource management must track the imaginarity/residual split, not just the total.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A strict reading would note that the conversion protocol uses a Y-basis projective measurement, which is itself not a free operation in the resource theory of imaginarity; the result is better described as measurement-assisted activation than as free interconversion.
  • Re-expressing the paper's modified trace-distance coherence in the standard trace norm would shift the numerical values, so cross-paper comparisons need a stated convention before quoting the equality.
  • A natural testable extension is to prepare pairs of states with equal coherence but different (M, C_R) splits and verify that they behave differently under real operations, which would confirm that the split is operationally meaningful.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 'residual coherence' C_R as the metric distance between the closest real and closest incoherent states, and claims a 'geometric decomposition' of total coherence into imaginarity plus residual coherence, expressed as the inequality C ≤ M + C_R (Theorem 1). It generalizes this to bipartite settings (Theorem 2), presents a qubit protocol converting imaginarity in one subsystem into coherence in another (Theorem 3), analyzes single-qubit dynamics under a diagonal Hamiltonian (Theorem 4), and derives an upper bound on coherence generation under real operations (Theorem 5). The abstract and discussion claim a partition of coherence, an operational interconvertibility of imaginarity and coherence, and an interpretation of C_R as an irreducible conversion cost.

Significance. The inequality theorems (1, 2, 5) are straightforward consequences of the triangle inequality and contractivity, and the proof of Theorem 4 is an explicit single-qubit calculation; these are correct under a fixed convention. However, the paper's central selling points are not supported: Theorem 1 is not a decomposition but a tautological upper bound; Theorem 3's protocol uses a non-free Y-basis measurement, so it does not demonstrate resource-theoretic interconvertibility under the paper's own free operations; and the claim that C_R is an irreducible conversion cost is contradicted by the paper's own examples. There is also a serious convention inconsistency in the trace-norm normalization that makes all numerical statements ambiguous. If the claims were appropriately reframed, the paper would contain some useful bounds and a concrete measurement-assisted conversion example, but in its current form the headline results are overbroad.

major comments (4)
  1. [Definition 1, Theorem 1, Abstract] The 'geometric decomposition' is not a decomposition: C_R is defined as D(ρ_R, ρ_d), so Theorem 1, C(ρ) ≤ M(ρ)+C_R(ρ), is exactly the triangle inequality with intermediate ρ_R. This is true by construction and carries no independent structural content. The abstract and title claim that coherence is 'partitioned' into imaginarity and residual components, but no lower bound or equality is proven. The residual term also depends on the choice of optimal states; the infimum-over-pairs resolution is not shown to yield a well-defined state-dependent measure.
  2. [Section III, Theorem 3 (Step III)] The conversion protocol uses a projective measurement in the Y-basis, whose effects |±i⟩⟨±i| = (I ± σ_y)/2 have imaginary off-diagonal entries. In the imaginarity resource theory defined in Section II, free operations are channels with real Kraus operators and real POVMs; the Y-measurement is therefore not free. Theorem 3 explicitly includes a 'non-real projective measurement', so it cannot support the abstract's claim of 'direct interconvertibility of these resources under physically admissible operations' in the resource-theoretic sense. The protocol is a measurement-assisted transformation, not a free-operation conversion. To support the resource-theoretic claim, the protocol must use only real operations, or the paper must explicitly limit the claim to a non-free operational setting.
  3. [Section IV Discussion, Section III examples] The Discussion states that 'our explicit protocol achieves exact conversion only when the residual term vanishes.' This is contradicted by the paper's own example in Section III: for ρ_B with x=0.2, y=0.3, the residual coherence is C_Rtr = x = 0.2 (using the formula in Section II), yet the protocol yields C'_tr(ρ_final^A) = M_tr(ρ_B) = 0.3 exactly. Thus C_R does not act as an overhead for this conversion. The interpretation of C_R as an 'irreducible conversion cost' is therefore unsupported; Theorem 5 is only an upper bound and provides no lower bound, and the protocol actually converts all imaginarity even when C_R>0.
  4. [Section II, Appendix B, Section III examples] The trace-norm normalization is used inconsistently. Section II gives M_tr(ρ)=y and C'_tr(ρ)=sqrt(x^2+y^2) for a state with off-diagonal x-iy, which is the half-trace convention. Appendix B computes M_tr(ρ_B)=2|y| via M_tr=1/2||ρ_B-ρ_B^T||_tr and C'_tr=2|y|, which is the standard-trace convention. The examples in Section III use the half-trace values (0.3, 0.5). The equality C'_tr = M_tr may hold in either convention individually, but as written the numerical values and the proof formulas are mutually inconsistent. The paper must state a single convention and apply it throughout.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II, notation] The symbols C_tr and C'_tr are used interchangeably; the modified trace-norm coherence C'_tr is introduced but not clearly distinguished from the usual trace-distance coherence. Please define the convention (standard vs half trace norm) once and use it consistently.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'via real operations and a Y-basis measurement', which is self-contradictory because the Y-basis measurement is not a real operation. This should be rephrased to 'via real operations plus a non-real Y-basis measurement' or similar.
  3. [Theorem 3(b)] Part (b) is stated 'For any ρ_B with non-zero imaginarity', but the proof actually gives equality for all ρ_B, including real ones (where both sides vanish). This restriction is unnecessary and may confuse the reader.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) divides by C'_tr(ρ_0). When C'_tr(ρ_0)=0 (e.g., ρ_0 incoherent), the expression is undefined; the text should state the limiting or separately treated case.
  5. [Section II, example after Theorem 1] There is a typo: 'the trade-off inequalitie (5)' should be 'the trade-off inequality (5)'.
  6. [Section III, theorem statement] The theorem says the protocol consists of 'real operations, single-qubit unitaries, and a non-real projective measurement'. Since every single-qubit unitary is a real operation only if it has real entries, please clarify that the Hadamard is real but the Y-basis measurement is not; the present wording may suggest the whole protocol is real.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central hierarchical inequality in Theorem 1 is the definition of residual coherence plus the metric triangle inequality; other results are independent calculations.

  1. self definitional [Section II, Definition 1 and Theorem 1, Eqs. (3)-(4)]
    "We define the residual coherence as C_R(ρ)=D(ρ_R, ρ_d), where ρ_R and ρ_d represent the optimal solutions to Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. ... The triangle inequality satisfied by D yields C(ρ)=D(ρ,ρ_d)≤D(ρ,ρ_R)+D(ρ_R,ρ_d)=M(ρ)+C_R(ρ)."

    C_R is defined as the distance between the optimizers that already define M and C, so the theorem's inequality is nothing more than the triangle inequality for those optimizers. The claimed 'universal hierarchical relationship' is thus true by construction: the residual term was introduced precisely as the geometric gap that makes Eq. (4) hold. No independent physical input or externally fitted quantity enters; the partition of coherence into M and C_R is a restatement of the definition.

full rationale

Aside from the definitional status of Theorem 1, the paper's other derivations are self-contained calculations. The proof of Theorem 3 computes the final state of A from the specified circuit, evaluates the modified trace-distance coherence, and compares it with the trace-distance imaginarity of B; this is an explicit construction, not a fitted input. Theorem 4 is a direct Bloch-vector calculation under a diagonal Hamiltonian, and Theorem 5 follows from contractivity plus the triangle inequality. The paper cites its own earlier work (Ref. [43]) only in the introduction and does not use it as the load-bearing justification for any theorem; the cited imaginarity formula M_tr(ρ)=½||ρ−ρ^T||_tr is from external Ref. [39]. The Y-basis measurement in Theorem 3 is acknowledged by the authors as non-real; whether this invalidates the claimed resource-theoretic interconvertibility is a correctness/free-operations issue, not circularity, so it is not scored here. Overall the score reflects that one central 'prediction' (the universal hierarchy) is definitionally forced, while the operational and dynamical results are independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the ledger is conceptual. The central theorem rests on a new definition chosen so that the triangle inequality yields the desired bound. The conversion protocol assumes a non-real measurement outside the free-operation set, and the claimed operational meaning of residual coherence is not independently established.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The distance D is a metric satisfying positivity, symmetry, and the triangle inequality (Definition 1, properties i–iii).
    Theorems 1, 2, and 5 all rely on the triangle inequality and contractivity of a metric on quantum states; these are standard but not automatic for every resource quantifier.
  • standard math The fixed basis is chosen so that the set of incoherent states I is a subset of the set of real states F.
    Used to infer M ≤ C and to define residual coherence; this is true for the computational basis but is a basis-dependent choice.
  • domain assumption The bipartite distance satisfies tensor consistency: D(ρ_X⊗τ_Y, σ_X⊗τ_Y) = D(ρ_X, σ_X) (Definition 2, property iv).
    Needed for the factoring step in the proof of Theorem 2; true for trace distance but not assumed for all metrics.
  • domain assumption The distance D is contractive under completely positive trace-preserving maps (Theorem 5, property v).
    The proof of Theorem 5 is exactly this contractivity plus the triangle inequality; the bound is only as general as the class of contractive distances.
  • ad hoc to paper A Y-basis projective measurement and conditional Z operations are available in the conversion protocol.
    Step III of Theorem 3. The Y-basis measurement is not a real operation and therefore is not free in the imaginarity resource theory; the protocol depends on this non-free operation.
invented entities (1)
  • Residual coherence C_R
    purpose: Defined as the distance between the closest real state and the closest incoherent state; used to make the triangle inequality appear as a decomposition C ≤ M + C_R.
    It is a mathematical definition with no falsifiable handle outside the paper. Its operational meaning as an 'irreducible conversion cost' is asserted but not proved by a no-go or lower-bound argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imaginarity as a Resource within Quantum Coherence: Geometric Decomposition and Operational Conversion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3M2X2GJG

@misc{pith2026260714435,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imaginarity as a Resource within Quantum Coherence: Geometric Decomposition and Operational Conversion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3M2X2GJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14435}
}
read the original abstract

We establish a rigorous framework that identifies imaginarity as a fundamental resource inherent in quantum coherence. By means of a geometric decomposition, we partition coherence into distinct imaginarity and residual components, thereby revealing a universal hierarchical relationship among these resources. For bipartite systems, this decomposition provides explicit bounds on the extent to which nonlocal correlations and imaginarity limit local coherence generation. Furthermore, we devise an explicit operational protocol that converts imaginarity into usable coherence, demonstrating the direct interconvertibility of these resources under physically admissible operations. The dynamical evolution under diagonal Hamiltonians is fully characterized, showing that while total coherence is conserved, imaginarity and residual coherence exhibit complementary oscillations. Our results provide a rigorous geometric and operational characterization of imaginarity as a fundamental constituent of quantum coherence, offering concrete insights for resource management in distributed quantum technologies. The geometric framework and theoretical bounds established herein are fully general, while the explicit conversion protocol and dynamical analysis serve as a compelling proof-of-principle demonstration in qubit systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14435 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Geometric scheme of quantum resource measures. The total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references

  1. [1]

    ˚Aberg, Catalytic coherence, Phys

    J. ˚Aberg, Catalytic coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 150402 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    The probability for outcome±iis p±i = Tr (IA ⊗M ±i)ρ (2) AB =⟨±i|ρ B|±i⟩

    The corresponding measurement operators areM +i =|+i⟩⟨+i| B andM −i =|−i⟩⟨−i| B. The probability for outcome±iis p±i = Tr (IA ⊗M ±i)ρ (2) AB =⟨±i|ρ B|±i⟩. A direct computation gives ⟨+i|ρB|+i⟩= 1 2 1 +i(α−α ∗) = 1 2 (1−2y), ⟨−i|ρB|−i⟩= 1 2 1−i(α−α ∗) = 1 2 (1 + 2y), so thatp +i = 1 2 −yandp −i = 1 2 +y. The positivity of ρB implies|α| 2 ≤p(1−p)≤ 1 4, henc...

  3. [3]

    Appendix C: Proof of Theorem 4 The initial state in the Bloch representation isρ 0 = 1 2 (I+ x0σx +y 0σy +z 0σz)

    HenceC ′ tr(ρfinal A ) = 0, confirming part (a) of the theorem: no coherence is generated when the initial imaginarity van- ishes. Appendix C: Proof of Theorem 4 The initial state in the Bloch representation isρ 0 = 1 2 (I+ x0σx +y 0σy +z 0σz). Under the HamiltonianH= ω 2 σz, the evolution operatorU t =e −iHt =diag(e −iωt/2, eiωt/2) generates the state ρt...

  4. [4]

    Narasimhachar and G

    V . Narasimhachar and G. Gour, Low-temperature thermo- dynamics with quantum coherence, Nat. Commun.6, 7689 (2015). 10

    2015

  5. [5]

    M. B. Plenio and S. F. Huelga, Dephasing-assisted transport: quantum networks and biomolecules, New J. Phys.10, 113019 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    Lloyd, Quantum coherence in biological systems, J

    S. Lloyd, Quantum coherence in biological systems, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.302, 012037 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Levi and F

    F. Levi and F. Mintert, A quantitative theory of coherent delo- calization, New J. Phys.16, 033007 (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    Karlstr ¨om, H

    O. Karlstr ¨om, H. Linke, G. Karlstr¨om, and A. Wacker, Increas- ing thermoelectric performance using coherent transport, Phys. Rev. B84, 113415 (2011)

    2011

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    R. J. Glauber, Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field, Phys. Rev.131, 2766 (1963)

    1963

  2. [10]

    E. C. G. Sudarshan, Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 277 (1963)

    1963

  3. [11]

    L. Z. Chen, Y . G. Huang, C. J. Jin, and X. H. Wang, Dy- namic and steady control of quantum coherence in photonic crystals via the Zeeman effect, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 55, 2300–2304 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying co- herence, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140401 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Girolami, Observable measure of quantum coherence in finite-dimensional systems, Phys

    D. Girolami, Observable measure of quantum coherence in finite-dimensional systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 170401 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    D. P. Pires, L. C. Celeri, and D. O. Soares-Pinto, Geometric lower bound for a quantum coherence measure, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042330 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Streltsov, U

    A. Streltsov, U. Singh, H. S. Dhar, M. N. Bera, and G. Adesso, Measuring quantum coherence with entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 020403 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Marvian and D

    I. Marvian and D. A. Lidar, Quantum speed limits for leakage and decoherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 210402 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Meng and Z.-Y

    W.-Q. Meng and Z.-Y . Xu, Quantum speed limits in arbitrary phase spaces, Phys. Rev. A107, 022212 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Lostaglio, D

    M. Lostaglio, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Description of quantum coherence in thermodynamic processes requires con- straints beyond free energy, Nat. Commun.6, 6383 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Mi ˇsta Jr., D

    L. Mi ˇsta Jr., D. McNulty, and G. Adesso, No-activation theorem for Gaussian nonclassical correlations by Gaussian operations, Phys. Rev. A90, 022328 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Piani, S

    M. Piani, S. Gharibian, G. Adesso, J. Calsamiglia, P. Horodecki, and A. Winter, All nonclassical correlations can be activated into distillable entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 220403 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    S. Rana, P. Parashar, and M. Lewenstein, Trace-distance mea- sure of coherence, Phys. Rev. A93, 012110 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    C. S. Yu and H. S. Song, Bipartite concurrence and localized coherence, Phys. Rev. A80, 022324 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    J. Ma, B. Yadin, D. Girolami, V . Vedral, and M. Gu, Convert- ing coherence to quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 160407 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Winter and D

    A. Winter and D. Yang, Operational resource theory of coher- ence, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 120404 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Chitambar, A

    E. Chitambar, A. Streltsov, S. Rana, M. N. Bera, G. Adesso, and M. Lewenstein, Assisted distillation of quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 070402 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Chitambar and M.-H

    E. Chitambar and M.-H. Hsieh, Relating the resource theories of entanglement and quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 020402 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Critical examination of incoherent operations and a physically consistent resource theory of quan- tum coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 030401 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Marvian, R

    I. Marvian, R. W. Spekkens, and P. Zanardi, Quantum speed limits, coherence, and asymmetry, Phys. Rev. A93, 052331 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Y . Yao, X. Xiao, L. Ge, and C. P. Sun, Quantum coherence in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A92, 022112 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Singh, L

    U. Singh, L. Zhang, and A. K. Pati, Average coherence and its typicality for random pure states, Phys. Rev. A93, 032125 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    A. E. Rastegin, Quantum-coherence quantifiers based on the Tsallis relativeαentropies, Phys. Rev. A93, 032136 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Piani, M

    M. Piani, M. Cianciaruso, T. R. Bromley, C. Napoli, N. John- ston, and G. Adesso, Robustness of asymmetry and coherence of quantum states, Phys. Rev. A93, 042107 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Radhakrishnan, M

    C. Radhakrishnan, M. Parthasarathy, S. Jambulingam, and T. Byrnes, Distribution of quantum coherence in multipartite sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 150504 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    K. F. Bu, U. Singh, S.-M. Fei, A. K. Pati, and J. Wu, Maxi- mum relative entropy of coherence: An operational coherence measure, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 150405 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement sharing in real-vector-space quantum theory, Found. Phys.42, 19–28 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Hardy and W

    L. Hardy and W. K. Wootters, Limited holism and real-vector- space quantum theory, Found. Phys.42, 454–473 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Aleksandrova, V

    A. Aleksandrova, V . Borish, and W. K. Wootters, Real-vector- space quantum theory with a universal quantum bit, Phys. Rev. A87, 052106 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    M.-C. Chen, C. Wang, F.-M. Liu, et al., Ruling out real-valued standard formalism of quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 040403 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Li, Y .-L

    Z.-D. Li, Y .-L. Mao, M. Weilenmann, et al., Testing real quan- tum theory in an optical quantum network, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 040402 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Renou, D

    M.-O. Renou, D. Trillo, M. Weilenmann, et al., Quantum theory based on real numbers can be experimentally falsified, Nature 600, 625–629 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Hickey and G

    A. Hickey and G. Gour, Quantifying the imaginarity of quan- tum mechanics, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.51, 414009 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    K.-D. Wu, T. V . Kondra, S. Rana, et al., Operational resource theory of imaginarity, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 090401 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    K.-D. Wu, T. V . Kondra, S. Rana, C. M. Scandolo, G.-Y . Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and A. Streltsov, Resource theory of imag- inarity: Quantification and state conversion, Phys. Rev. A103, 032401 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Q. Chen, T. Gao, and F.-L. Yan, Measures of imaginarity and quantum state order, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 280312 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    M.-L. Guo, B. Li, and S.-M. Fei, Geometric-like imaginarity: Quantification and state conversion, Sci. China Phys. Mech. As- tron.68, 220311 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    K.-D. Wu, T. V . Kondra, C. M. Scandolo, S. Rana, G.-Y . Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and A. Streltsov, Resource theory of imag- inarity in distributed scenarios, Commun. Phys.7, 171 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Miyazaki and K

    J. Miyazaki and K. Matsumoto, Imaginarity-free quantum mul- tiparameter estimation, Quantum6, 665 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Wei and S.-M

    Z.-W. Wei and S.-M. Fei, Nonlocal advantages of quantum imaginarity, Phys. Rev. A110, 052202 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    S. Xue, J. Guo, P. Li, M. Ye, and Y . Li, Quantification of re- source theory of imaginarity, Quantum Inf. Process.20, 383 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Xu, Imaginarity of Gaussian states, Phys

    J.-W. Xu, Imaginarity of Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A108, 062203 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Du and Z.-F

    S.-P. Du and Z.-F. Bai, Quantifying imaginarity in terms of pure-state imaginarity, Phys. Rev. A111, 022405 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    X. Zhao, X. Yu, L. Li, W. Zhou, and C.-J. Zhang, Factorization dynamics between quantum Fisher information and quantum coherence, Sci. Adv.11, eadv8132 (2025). 11

    2025

  45. [53]

    Ahnefeld, T

    F. Ahnefeld, T. Theurer, and M. B. Plenio, Coherence as a resource for phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 180201 (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.