Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 78 references

Characterising extremal decoherence by quantum measurement incompatibility

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single Gram-matrix determinant determines how much measurement incompatibility an extremal decoherence channel destroys, and SIC-POVMs maximize it, recasting the SIC existence problem as a joint measurability question.

desk verdict Solid, technically careful extension of the compatibility-region framework; the imported reduction from [22] is the main caveat, but it is explicit and the new results stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21169 v1 pith:KHCIQUE2 submitted 2026-07-23 quant-ph

Daniel McNulty , William Townsend , Jukka Kiukas This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Ta03.65.Yz
keywords decoherencemeasurementincompatibilityjointmeasurabilityextremalquantumchannelscompatibilityregionSIC-POVMoperatorframemutuallyunbiasedbases
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

Extremal decoherence channels—the extreme points of the convex set of phase-damping maps—have a rigid operator-frame structure that turns the question of which measurements become jointly measurable after noise into a direct positivity test. An incoherent observable belongs to the channel's compatibility region if and only if an explicitly constructed dilation-space operator is positive semidefinite for each outcome, with no search over joint measurements required. The volume of this region depends only on the determinant of the frame's Gram matrix, and among maximal-rank extremals it is uniquely maximized by symmetric informationally complete (SIC) POVMs. This makes SIC-extremal channels the strongest destroyers of measurement incompatibility among extremals, and reformulates the long-standing SIC existence problem as a joint measurability statement for noisy mutually unbiased bases.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gram matrix G_ξ of the rank-one operator frame {Π_ξ^n} built from the structure vectors of a maximal-rank extremal decoherence channel. Invertibility of G_ξ (extremality) means the frame is an operator basis, so the inverse Gram matrix converts an incoherent observable's conditional probabilities into unique candidate effects on the dilation space; joint measurability reduces to positivity of these effects. The determinant of G_ξ controls the volume of the compatibility region via an affine map, and a determinant bound (from informationally complete POVM theory) singles out SIC frames as the unique volume maximizers.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifying test: find a decoherence channel ξ and an incoherent observable P such that P is jointly measurable with ξ∘Q_MUB but not with ξ∘Q for some other observable Q; this would break the imported reduction theorem. Alternatively, for a non-SIC extremal in E(r), numerically compute the depolarized-basis threshold α*(ξ); if any such channel exceeds 1/(r+1), Proposition 7 is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that maximal-rank extremal decoherence channels are governed by a rank-one operator frame in the dilation space, giving a one-to-one correspondence between incoherent observables and candidate dilation-space effects. For any incoherent observable P with outcome probabilities p(j|n), the candidate effects F^P_ξ(j) = Σ_n [G_ξ^{-1} p(j)]_n Π_ξ^n are uniquely determined; P is compatible with every decohered observable precisely when all these effects are positive. From this, the volume of the compatibility region for m-outcome observables is c_{m,r} (det G_ξ)^{(m-1)/2}. A determinant inequality identifies SIC frames as the unique maximizers of det G_ξ, hence of c

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes as a black box a previously proved theorem that for every decoherence channel, an incoherent observable is in the compatibility region if and only if it is jointly measurable with a single decohered mutually unbiased observable; if that theorem were false for even one decoherence channel, the positivity criteria and volume formulas would not describe genuine joint measurability with all observables.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two maximal-rank extremal channels with the same Gram determinant have the same compatibility-region volume, so det G_ξ is a complete scalar summary of incompatibility loss within this class.
  • SIC-extremal channels destroy the most incompatibility among maximal-rank extremals: no other extremal makes as large a fraction of incoherent observables compatible with all noisy observables.
  • The SIC existence conjecture is equivalent to a joint measurability statement: a SIC in dimension r exists iff some extremal ξ in E(r) makes the pair (P_{1/(r+1)}, ξ∘Q_MUB) jointly measurable.
  • Phase relations, not just damping magnitudes, determine incompatibility loss; along the depolarized-basis line a SIC-extremal preserves more incompatibility than a phase-insensitive uniform channel with the same damping rates.
  • Compatibility volume is a finer discriminator than scalar robustness measures: it distinguishes SIC-extremals from other extremals whose associated informationally complete POVMs are unbiased but not SIC.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The volume formula could be used as a diagnostic in dephasing experiments: estimating which incoherent observables have become compatible with all noisy observables would yield det G_ξ and reveal whether the noise is near an extremal or SIC-like regime.
  • The equivalence between SIC existence and a joint measurability threshold at α = 1/(r+1) suggests a potential numerical route: optimizing over extremal channels to reach this threshold is equivalent to constructing a SIC, which could give a new computational handle on the existence problem.
  • The framework deliberately treats only maximal-rank extremals; as the rank of the coherence matrix drops, the operator frame ceases to be a basis and the positivity test degenerates, so one may expect a dimensional collapse of the compatibility region—a possible phase transition in incompatibility loss.
  • Because compatibility regions grow monotonically along divisible dynamics, departures from monotone volume growth in time-dependent decoherence could serve as a witness of non-Markovianity; the analytically tractable extremal families here provide concrete models for testing this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies decoherence channels in the Heisenberg picture, i.e. Schur multiplication by a coherence matrix ξ, and their compatibility regions Cξ, consisting of incoherent observables that become jointly measurable with every ξ-decohered observable. For extremal coherence matrices of maximal rank r^2, the paper proves that membership in Cξ reduces from a semidefinite completion problem to an explicit positivity condition on operators constructed from the associated rank-one operator frame (Theorem 3). It then derives the volume formula vol(Cξ[I_d^{(m)}]) = c_{m,r} (det Gξ)^{(m-1)/2} (Proposition 6), shows that SIC-extremals maximize this volume among all maximal-rank extremals (Lemma 1 and Theorem 5), proves that the depolarized-basis threshold satisfies α*(ξ)≤1/(r+1) with equality iff ξ is a SIC-extremal (Proposition 7), and recasts the SIC existence problem as a joint measurability question for a noisy mutually unbiased pair (Theorem 6). The general results are illustrated by three analytic families in d=4 (Heisenberg–Weyl MICs, semi-SICs, and a non-MIC family).

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial contribution: it connects extremal decoherence to rank-one operator frames, MIC/SIC geometry, and measurement incompatibility, and it provides a new operational reformulation of the SIC existence problem. The paper is strong on explicit, parameter-free derivations: Theorem 3 gives a closed positivity test, Proposition 6 gives an analytic volume formula, and Theorems 5–6 give sharp statements whose equality cases are exactly the SIC-extremals. The d=4 examples with closed-form ellipsoidal compatibility regions are a useful concrete illustration. The main caveat is that the operational interpretation of Cξ relies on the theorem from [22] quoted as Eq. (8), which is not re-derived here; this is a published result, so I do not treat it as a defect, but it should be acknowledged as a standing dependency.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III C, Eq. (8)] The equivalence P∈Cξ ⇔ P compatible with ξ∘Q_MUB is imported from [22] and not proved in this manuscript. All subsequent criteria (Theorems 3–6, Propositions 6–7, and the volume comparisons) depend on this reduction. I do not think this is incorrect, but the authors should state this dependency explicitly in a remark, so the reader understands that the operational content of the compatibility region is inherited from [22].
  2. [Appendix D] The appendix contains a 'Proposition 7' (Schur robustness formula) that collides with the main-text Proposition 7 in Sec. VI B (the α* bound). Please renumber the appendix result, e.g. as Proposition D.1.
  3. [Abstract and Appendix F] There are minor typos: 'thar' should be 'that' in the abstract, and 'desribed' should be 'described' at the beginning of Appendix F. These should be corrected in a final pass.
  4. [Sec. V B, Proposition 6] The constant c_{m,r} is defined abstractly as a ratio of volumes. A brief sentence noting that it is finite, positive, and independent of the chosen orthonormal operator basis (or giving its value for m=2) would improve readability and make the 'parameter-free' nature of the volume formula more transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central derivations are self-contained given the cited [22] theorem, which is a prior published result rather than a fitted or definitional input.

full rationale

I walked the main chain: C_ξ is defined operationally in Sec. III B; the reduction to a single MUB test (Eq. (8)) and the matrix-completion criterion (Theorem 2) are quoted from the authors' prior work [22]. This is a load-bearing self-citation, but it is a parameter-free theorem with stated assumptions that do not include the new results, so under the rules it counts as real evidence and does not make the derivation circular. Theorem 3 then derives the unique candidate F^P_ξ(j)=Σ[G_ξ^{-1}p(j)]_n Π_ξ^n by inverting the Gram matrix; positivity of these operators is equivalent to existence of a POVM, so the criterion is a genuine equivalence, not a restatement of an input. Proposition 6 computes the volume as a Jacobian determinant of the linear map from POVM space to probe space; this is a direct calculation. Theorem 5 uses the external determinant bound of [37] (no author overlap), so the SIC-maximization has independent support. Theorem 6's SIC-existence reformulation follows from Proposition 7, whose proof derives the equality case from the trace saturation condition, again a self-contained argument. I find no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no definition that assumes a conclusion. The only caveat is that the operational content of the whole chain depends on the un-re-derived [22] reduction; that is a correctness/trust-in-citation issue, not a circularity. Hence score 2 for the self-citation dependence, with no identified circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fit to data; the paper is purely theoretical. The central claims rely on three imported results: the general compatibility-region characterization from [22] (Theorem 2 / Eq. (8)), the Landau-Streater extremality characterization (Eq. (15)), and the DeBrota-Fuchs-Stacey determinant bound used in Lemma 1. These are published and cited. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Theorem 2 of [22]: For any decoherence channel, P ∈ C_ξ iff P is jointly measurable with ξ∘Q_MUB (Eq. 8).
    Used in Sec. III C (Eq. 8) and in the proofs of Thm 1 and Thm 3; it reduces the 'for every observable Q' condition to a single mutually unbiased basis test. If this fails, the compatibility region definition and all volume computations change.
  • domain assumption Landau-Streater characterization: a coherence matrix ξ is extremal iff its structure vectors' projectors span B(K) (Eq. 15).
    Used in Sec. IV A to associate extremals with rank-one operator frames and to prove Props. 3-5.
  • domain assumption DeBrota-Fuchs-Stacey determinant bound (Lemma 1 from [37]): det G_ξ ≤ r (r/(r+1))^{r^2-1}, equality iff SIC-extremal.
    Used in Sec. VI A to prove Theorem 5 that SIC-extremals maximize compatibility volume.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterising extremal decoherence by quantum measurement incompatibility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHCIQUE2

@misc{pith2026260721169,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterising extremal decoherence by quantum measurement incompatibility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHCIQUE2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21169}
}
read the original abstract

Decoherence, when viewed in the Heisenberg picture, can turn incompatible measurements into jointly measurable ones. This provides an observable-level description of emergent classicality in terms of the incompatibility destroyed by a noise channel. The corresponding loss of incompatibility can be captured by the channel's \emph{compatibility region}---the observables in a probe class that become jointly measurable with every noisy observable. The geometry and volume of this region provide a refined operational way to compare noise channels. We apply this framework to decoherence channels, each of which acts by Schur multiplication with extreme points of the convex set of unit-diagonal positive semidefinite matrices. Restricting to extremals eliminates convex mixing and reveals subtle phase-dependent decoherence effects thar are not captured by damping rates or conventional coherence quantifiers. Such channels have a rigid dilation structure described by a rank-one operator frame, which reduces joint measurability to a positivity test, making the compatibility region analytically tractable, and its volume computable from the frame's Gram matrix. If the frame can be normalised to a minimal informationally complete (MIC) POVM, the compatibility region acquires a geometric interpretation in the associated probability representation of the quantum state space, familiar with Qbism. Among maximal-rank extremals, those associated with symmetric informationally complete (SIC) POVMs maximise the compatibility volume and hence destroy the greatest amount of incompatibility, providing an operational characterisation of the special role of SICs in terms of joint measurability. This leads to a new formulation of the well-known SIC existence problem as a joint measurability question for noisy mutually unbiased bases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21169 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Correspondence between symmetric extremal decoherence and SIC-POVMs. A SIC-POVM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Characterising noise through the compatibility region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. illustrates Cξ[I sc 4 ] for several choices of the parameters (s, ϑ). A simple shift-covariant example is the depolarised-basis observable Pα ∈ I dep 4 defined in Eq. (35), corresponding to the seed distribution rα = 1 4 (1 + 3α, 1 − α, 1 − α, 1 − α). Its nontrivial Fourier coordinates are (ˆr01, rˆ10, rˆ11) = α(1, 1, 1), so the family appears as the diagonal line segment in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates these intersections for several choices of β. The SIC endpoint is recovered when the two ellipsoids coincide and become the sphere of the pre￾ceding Heisenberg–Weyl SIC case. D. A non-MIC family Finally, we demonstrate that our framework is more general tha…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Compatibility regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The compatibility volume of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [22]

    Kiukas, D

    J. Kiukas, D. McNulty, and J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, Phys. Rev. A105, 012205 (2022)

    2022

  2. [37]

    J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, and B. C. Stacey, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013074 (2020)

    2020

  3. [1]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(OUP Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  4. [2]

    Schlosshauer,Decoherence and the quantum-to- classical transition(Springer, 2007)

    M. Schlosshauer,Decoherence and the quantum-to- classical transition(Springer, 2007)

    2007

  5. [3]

    Schlosshauer, arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.2635 (2014)

    M. Schlosshauer, arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.2635 (2014)

    arXiv 2014

  6. [4]

    R. Uola, T. Moroder, and O. G¨ uhne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 160403 (2014)

    2014

  7. [5]

    R. Uola, C. Budroni, O. G¨ uhne, and J. P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 230402 (2015)

    2015

  8. [6]

    M. T. Quintino, T. V´ ertesi, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 160402 (2014)

    2014

Show all 78 references
  1. [7]

    Kiukas, C

    J. Kiukas, C. Budroni, R. Uola, and J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, Phys. Rev. A96, 042331 (2017)

    2017

  2. [8]

    Abramsky and A

    S. Abramsky and A. Brandenburger, New J. Phys.13, 113036 (2011)

    2011

  3. [9]

    Xu and A

    Z.-P. Xu and A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. A99, 020103 (2019)

    2019

  4. [10]

    Liu and A

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.04201 (2019)

    1904 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Takagi and B

    R. Takagi and B. Regula, Phys. Rev. X9, 031053 (2019)

    2019

  6. [12]

    Liu and X

    Y. Liu and X. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 012035 (2020)

    2020

  7. [13]

    L. Li, K. Bu, and Z.-W. Liu, Phys. Rev. A101, 022335 (2020)

    2020

  8. [14]

    Theurer, D

    T. Theurer, D. Egloff, L. Zhang, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 190405 (2019)

    2019

  9. [15]

    Hsieh, Quantum4, 244 (2020)

    C.-Y. Hsieh, Quantum4, 244 (2020)

    2020

  10. [16]

    Saxena, E

    G. Saxena, E. Chitambar, and G. Gour, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023298 (2020)

    2020

  11. [17]

    Takahashi, S

    M. Takahashi, S. Rana, and A. Streltsov, Phys. Rev. A 105, L060401 (2022)

    2022

  12. [18]

    H.-Y. Ku, J. Kadlec, A. ˇCernoch, M. T. Quintino, W. Zhou, K. Lemr, N. Lambert, A. Miranowicz, S.-L. Chen, F. Nori,et al., PRX Quantum3, 020338 (2022)

    2022

  13. [19]

    Stratton, C.-Y

    B. Stratton, C.-Y. Hsieh, and P. Skrzypczyk, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 110202 (2024)

    2024

  14. [20]

    Hsieh, B

    C.-Y. Hsieh, B. Stratton, C.-H. Wu, and H.-Y. Ku, Phys. Rev. A111, 022422 (2025)

    2025

  15. [21]

    Heinosaari, J

    T. Heinosaari, J. Kiukas, D. Reitzner, and J. Schultz, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.48, 435301 (2015)

    2015

  16. [23]

    Buscemi, G

    F. Buscemi, G. Chiribella, and G. M. D’Ariano, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 090501 (2005)

    2005

  17. [24]

    J. I. De Vicente and A. Streltsov, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.50, 045301 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Kiukas, P

    J. Kiukas, P. Lahti, and J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn.30, 2350013 (2023)

    2023

  20. [27]

    Gregoratti and R

    M. Gregoratti and R. F. Werner, J. Mod. Opt.50, 915 (2003)

    2003

  21. [28]

    Grone, S

    R. Grone, S. Pierce, and W. Watkins, Linear Algebra Appl.134, 63 (1990)

    1990

  22. [29]

    Li and B.-S

    C.-K. Li and B.-S. Tam, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.15, 903 (1994)

    1994

  23. [30]

    Kiukas and J.-P

    J. Kiukas and J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, Linear Algebra Appl.428, 2501 (2008)

    2008

  24. [31]

    Helm and W

    J. Helm and W. T. Strunz, Phys. Rev. A80, 042108 (2009)

    2009

  25. [32]

    J. Helm, W. T. Strunz, S. Rietzler, and L. E. W¨ urflinger, Phys. Rev. A83, 042103 (2011)

    2011

  26. [33]

    Trendelkamp-Schroer, J

    B. Trendelkamp-Schroer, J. Helm, and W. T. Strunz, Phys. Rev. A84, 062314 (2011)

    2011

  27. [34]

    Pernice, J

    A. Pernice, J. Helm, and W. T. Strunz, J. Phys. B45, 154005 (2012)

    2012

  28. [35]

    Kayser, K

    J. Kayser, K. Luoma, and W. T. Strunz, Phys. Rev. A 92, 052117 (2015)

    2015

  29. [36]

    J. B. DeBrota and B. C. Stacey, Phys. Rev. A100, 062327 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, and B. C. Stacey, Int. J. Quantum Inf.19, 2040005 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    N. Bent, H. Qassim, A. Tahir, D. Sych, G. Leuchs, L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, E. Karimi, and R. Boyd, Phys. Rev. X5, 041006 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, M

    G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, M. A. Rossi, B. Sokolov, F. Tacchino, P. K. Barkoutsos, G. Mazzola, I. Tavernelli, and S. Man- iscalco, PRX Quantum2, 040342 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Acharya, S

    A. Acharya, S. Saha, and A. M. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052418 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Gupta and M

    S. Gupta and M. B. Weiss, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.22111 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    B. Chen, T. Li, and S.-M. Fei, Quantum Inf. Process.14, 2281 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    J. Bae, B. C. Hiesmayr, and D. McNulty, New J. Phys. 21, 013012 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.44, 285304 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, Phys. Rev. A 85, 012109 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    D. M. Appleby, S. T. Flammia, and C. A. Fuchs, J. Math. Phys.52(2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1693 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    D. M. Appleby, ˚A. Ericsson, and C. A. Fuchs, Found. Phys.41, 564 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, Found. Phys.41, 345 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Zauner,Quantendesigns

    G. Zauner,Quantendesigns. Grundz¨ uge einer nichtkom- mutativen Designtheorie, Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at Wien (1999)

    1999

  44. [52]

    C. A. Fuchs, M. C. Hoang, and B. C. Stacey, Axioms6, 21 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    G. M. d’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and M. F. Sacchi, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt.6, S487 (2004)

    2004

  46. [54]

    I. J. Geng, K. Golubeva, and G. Gour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 100401 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Durt, B.-G

    T. Durt, B.-G. Englert, I. Bengtsson, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Int. J. Quantum Inf8, 535 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    McNulty and S

    D. McNulty and S. Weigert, Quantum10, 2051 (2026). 22

  49. [57]

    The term is from Pauli’s well-known 1926 letter to Heisenberg

    1926

  50. [58]

    Busch, M

    P. Busch, M. Grabowski, and P. J. Lahti, Found. Phys. Lett.2, 331 (1989)

    1989

  51. [59]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. Lahti, J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and K. Ylinen,Quan- tum measurement, Vol. 23 (Springer, 2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    G¨ uhne, E

    O. G¨ uhne, E. Haapasalo, T. Kraft, J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and R. Uola, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 011003 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    S. T. Ali, C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, Found. Phys.39, 593 (2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    Busch, Int

    P. Busch, Int. J. Theor. Phys.30, 1217 (1991)

    1991

  55. [63]

    J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M. Caves, J. Math. Phys.45, 2171 (2004)

    2004

  56. [64]

    Appleby, T.-Y

    M. Appleby, T.-Y. Chien, S. Flammia, and S. Waldron, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.51, 165302 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    Appleby, I

    M. Appleby, I. Bengtsson, M. Grassl, M. Harrison, and G. McConnell, J. Math. Phys.63(2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    L. J. Landau and R. F. Streater, Linear Algebra Appl. 193, 107 (1993)

    1993

  59. [67]

    J. P. R. Christensen and J. Vesterstrøm, Math. Ann.244, 65 (1979)

    1979

  60. [68]

    Loewy, Math

    R. Loewy, Math. Ann.253, 227 (1980)

    1980

  61. [69]

    P. G. Casazza, Taiwanese J. Math.4, 129 (2000)

    2000

  62. [70]

    Haapasalo, T

    E. Haapasalo, T. Heinosaari, and J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, Rev. Math. Phys.26, 1450002 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    Guerini and M

    L. Guerini and M. Terra Cunha, J. Math. Phys.59 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Carmeli, G

    C. Carmeli, G. Cassinelli, and A. Toigo, Found. Phys. 49, 532 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Kwapisz, J

    J. Kwapisz, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.52, 115203 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    P. G. Casazza, G. Kutyniok, and F. Philipp, inFi- nite Frames: Theory and Applications, edited by P. G. Casazza and G. Kutyniok (Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 2013) pp. 1–53. Appendix A: Proof of Prop. 4 Proposition 4.The restriction ofΦtoE >(r)is bijective ontoM MIC(r), and satisfies...

    2013

  67. [75]

    Heisenberg–W eyl extremals We recall the construction of the qubit Heisenberg– Weyl MICs used in Sec. VII B. They are generated from the seed state |φ⟩= 1√ 1 +s 2 |0⟩+se iϑ|1⟩ ,(F1) with 0< s <1 and 0< ϑ < π/2, and the unitaries Unm =|0⟩⟨m|+ (−1) n|1⟩⟨m+ 1|, n, m∈ {0,1},(F2) w...

  68. [76]

    Semi-SIC extremals We recall the semi-SIC family used in Sec. VII C. For r= 2, the POVM effects are M(n, m) =eξ nm |anm⟩⟨anm|, n, m= 0,1, where |a00⟩=|0⟩, |a01⟩=γ|0⟩+ p 1−γ 2|1⟩, |a10⟩= 1√ 3 |0⟩ − √ 2e iθ|1⟩ , |a11⟩= 1√ 3 |0⟩ − √ 2e −iθ|1⟩ , with γ= 2√β 1− √1−12β , θ= cos −1 p...

  69. [77]

    VII D, with coherence matrix in Eq

    Non-MIC extremals Here we give the details for the non-MIC extremal fam- ily considered in Sec. VII D, with coherence matrix in Eq. (56). This family is obtained from the example in [23], corresponding toϕ=π/2, by introducing a relative phasee iϕ in one of the structure vector...

  70. [78]

    Thus the compatibility condition is equivalent to 4−c 8c ˆr2 10 − ˆr10 4 + 2−c 8(1−c) (ˆr2 01 + ˆr2 11)− c 4(1−c) ˆr01ˆr11 ≤ 1 8

    + c 4(1−c) ˆr01ˆr11. Thus the compatibility condition is equivalent to 4−c 8c ˆr2 10 − ˆr10 4 + 2−c 8(1−c) (ˆr2 01 + ˆr2 11)− c 4(1−c) ˆr01ˆr11 ≤ 1 8 . (F13) Now observe that (ˆr01 + ˆr11)2 + 1 1−c (ˆr01 −ˆr11)2 = 2−c 1−c (ˆr2 01 + ˆr2 11) − 2c 1−c ˆr01ˆr11. Hence Eq. (F13) ca...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.