Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Maximal complementarity in the n-qubit Pauli group

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read The n-qubit Pauli group admits maximal complementary sets of degenerate observables, which force pure-state purity equalities and strong entropic uncertainty bounds.

desk verdict Clean algebraic extension of maximal complementarity to degenerate Pauli observables; main theorems stand, existence for m=n−1 rides on the companions. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24988 v1 pith:T22DY7LH submitted 2026-07-27 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Markus Frembs , Giovanni Natale , Christopher S.P. Wever , Philipp A. Hoehn This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP PACS 03.65.Ta03.67.-a03.65.Ud
keywords complementarityPauligroupAbeliansubgroupsmutuallyunbiasedbasespurityinvariantsentropicuncertaintyrelationsdegenerateobservablesstabiliserformalism
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

Complementarity in its strongest form means that certainty about one observable forces total ignorance about another. For non-degenerate measurements this is the familiar story of mutually unbiased bases, which exist maximally in n-qubit systems. This paper asks whether the same exclusive trade-off survives when the observables are allowed to be degenerate—equivalently, when one works with non-maximal Abelian subgroups of the Pauli group. It gives a clean algebraic criterion for two such subgroups to be complementary, proves that any largest set of them defines a pure-state purity invariant, and shows that those sets produce collision-entropy uncertainty relations whose bound is essentially as strong as the classical MUB case. A sympathetic reader cares because cryptographic and foundational arguments that rely on exclusive information trade-offs can now be run with coarser, fewer-outcome measurements that are still maximally complementary.

What carries the argument

Complementary Abelian subgroups of the Pauli group, characterised by the commutant intersection criterion and realised as bi-regular cuts of the Pauli frustration graph; these cuts are exactly the sets that make the Brukner-Zeilinger information measure constant on pure states.

What would settle it

Exhibit a pure state on n qubits for which the summed squared Pauli expectations over any candidate collection of 2^n+1 Abelian subgroups of size 2^{n-1} fails to equal 2^{n-2}, or show that no such collection satisfies the pairwise commutant condition of Theorem 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Two Abelian subgroups of the Hermitian n-qubit Pauli group are complementary if and only if each intersects the commutant of the other only at the identity. Any maximal collection of 2^n+1 such subgroups of fixed dimension m defines a purity invariant: the sum of squared expectation values over their non-identity elements equals 2^{m-1} for every pure state. Such collections exist at least for m=n-1, and they obey the averaged collision-entropy bound (1/(2^n+1)) sum H_2 >= log((2^n+1)/(2^{n-m}+1)).

Load-bearing premise

The concrete existence of maximal complementary sets at dimension m equals n minus 1 is imported from a companion construction of purity invariants rather than proved from scratch inside this paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Coarse-grained Pauli measurements can still realise the exclusive certainty-ignorance trade-off required by Def. 1.
  • Maximal complementary sets of fixed dimension m automatically yield purity invariants equal to 2^{m-1}.
  • Those sets produce averaged collision-entropy lower bounds that match the strength of the full MUB case up to the reduced outcome size.
  • The same algebraic structure supplies candidate measurement arrangements for locking and key-distribution protocols that use fewer outcomes.
  • Anti-commutator-closed purity invariants are precisely the sources of such maximal complementary sets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The commutant criterion suggests a purely symplectic-geometric classification of all unextendible complementary sets inside the Pauli group, independent of any purity calculation.
  • If analogous bi-regular cuts exist for n-qudit Pauli groups at prime power dimension, the same purity-invariant and uncertainty-relation pipeline should transfer with only notational change.
  • Protocols that currently lock classical bits with full MUBs could be rewritten with the m=n-1 sets, trading one bit of outcome resolution for potentially simpler experimental settings.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies complementarity (in the strong sense of Def. 1: certainty about one observable implies maximal uncertainty about the other) for degenerate observables associated with Abelian subgroups of the n-qubit Pauli group. The main results are: (i) Thm. 1, a complete characterization of pairwise complementarity of two (not necessarily maximal) Abelian subgroups via the commutant criterion à ∩ C(B̃) = {1} = B̃ ∩ C(Ã); (ii) Lm. 2, an upper bound K ≤ 2^n+1 on complementary sets of Abelian subgroups of fixed dimension m; (iii) Thm. 3, showing that every maximal (K = 2^n+1) complementary set defines a purity invariant I_ψ(⊍ Ã_k°) = 2^m − 1 for all pure states, proved via a bi-regular-cut lemma (Lm. 11) applied to the Pauli frustration graph; and (iv) Thm. 4, a collision-entropy uncertainty relation derived from the purity invariant by concavity. Cor. 3 asserts existence of maximal complementary sets for m = n−1, importing the anti-commutator-closed purity invariants from a simultaneous companion paper [19].

Significance. If the results hold, the paper identifies a previously unnoticed coarse-grained complementarity structure in the Pauli group, generalizing the well-known MUB/partition picture (m = n) to degenerate observables, and connects it to quadratic purity invariants with concrete entropic-uncertainty consequences. The core proofs are self-contained and I verified them in detail: Thm. 1 follows cleanly from the Fourier duality between outcome distributions and Pauli expectations (Lms. 12–13, Eq. (B5)); Thm. 3 rests on a transparent double-counting argument (Lms. 14–17, including the variance argument forcing c_A = 2^m − 1 in Lm. 16) combined with the bi-regular-cut identity of Lm. 11 — I checked the arithmetic in the proof of Thm. 3, e.g. N₁+N₂ = 2^{n−1}(2^n+1)−1, and the collision-probability sum in Thm. 4 giving (2^n + 2^m)/2^m = 2^{n−m}+1, which correctly reduces to the standard MUB bound log((2^n+1)/2) at m = n. Thm. 4 is a falsifiable, parameter-free consequence. The one soft point is that the existence statement (Cor. 3) is not proved within this manuscript but imported from a simultaneous companion submission.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix C, proof of Cor. 3] App. C, proof of Cor. 3: the existence claim for m = n−1 is load-bearing for the paper's central message ("the n-qubit Pauli group hides other complementarity structures"), yet the proof is three sentences and rests entirely on Ref. [19], which is cited only as "simultaneously on the arXiv." Two nontrivial steps are asserted without argument or precise citation: (a) that J ∩ A_k has dimension exactly n−1 for every maximal Abelian subgroup A_k of a partition, and (b) that the resulting subgroups satisfy the commutant criterion of Thm. 1 "by means of being a purity invariant." If the family in [19] failed either property, Cor. 3 (and the converse claim about anti-commutator-closed invariants) would collapse while Thms. 1 and 3 stand. Since [19] is not yet a stable, checkable reference, the manuscript should at minimum (i) state the precise lemma/theorem numbers in [19] being invoked, (ii)
  2. [§III / App. C] §III, paragraph after Cor. 3, and App. C final paragraph: the converse statement — "every anti-commutator closed purity invariant gives rise to a maximal complementary set of Abelian subgroups" — is asserted as following from "the proof of Cor. 1 in App. C." Cor. 1 is stated and proved in Sec. III, not App. C; presumably Cor. 3 is meant. More substantively, this converse is a nontrivial claim (it requires showing that anti-commutator closure forces the invariant to be a disjoint union of 2^n+1 isotropic subspaces of dimension m), and the argument given ("the last argument proves that any purity invariant that is closed under anti-commutators ... gives rise to a maximal set") is too compressed to check. Either expand it into a lemma with proof or state it explicitly as a result of Ref. [20].
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3) vs Eq. (D1) / App. E] Notation inconsistency for the Brukner-Zeilinger measure: Eq. (3) defines I_ρ(S) = Σ tr[Pρ]² without the +1, and Thm. 3 states I_ψ(⊍ Ã_k°) = 2^m − 1; Eq. (D1) defines I_ρ({A_k}) = 1 + Σ, and the proof of Thm. 4 in App. E then invokes "I_ψ({Ã_k}) = 2^m by Thm. 3." The two conventions differ by 1 and the cross-reference conflates them. The arithmetic in Thm. 4 is nonetheless correct, but the notation should be harmonized.
  2. [App. C, proof of Lm. 2] App. C, proof of Lm. 2: it should be remarked explicitly that for m = n the bound K ≤ 2^n+1 already follows from the partition property (Cor. 2), since the counting contradiction derived there (using Lm. 17 versus the Lm. 15-type count) is formulated for general m but the setup with Q ∉ S presupposes elements outside a putative partition.
  3. [Global] Throughout: "then-qubit" appears repeatedly (missing space, "the n-qubit"), including in the title as rendered. Also, the first author's affiliation block lists both Hannover and OIST addresses under affiliation 1, which looks like a formatting error.
  4. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 is purely illustrative, as the authors note, but it would help to state in the caption that the depicted parameters (N₁=3, N₂=4) do not correspond to an actual maximal complementary set for any n, to avoid confusion with the realizable families.
  5. [App. C, Lm. 14] Lm. 14's counting statement ("commutes with 2^n(2^{n−1}−1)+2^n−1 elements in S") is specialized to l = 1 in the displayed formula while the lemma is stated for general l; consider giving the general-l count 2^n − 1 + 2^n(2^{n−l}−1) for clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Main characterizations (Thms. 1, 3, 4) are self-contained from Pauli structure; only existence for m=n−1 is imported from simultaneous same-author companions.

  1. self citation load bearing [Corollary 3 and its proof (App. C); also Intro ¶ linking Thm. 3 to Refs. [19, 20]]
    "The purity invariants J in Ref. [19] satisfy I_ψ(J)=2^{n−1} and are closed under anti-commutators (see Lm. 3 in Ref. [19]). Consequently, their intersection with any partition {A_i^○}_{k=1}^{2^n+1} of P̃_n^○ into maximal Abelian subgroups A_k ∈ A_n, defines a set of Abelian subgroups {Ã_k}_{k=1}^{2^n+1} with Ã_k = J ∩ A_k of dimension n−1. Moreover, any two different subgroups in this set satisfy the condition in Thm. 1 by means of being a purity invariant."

    Existence of maximal complementary sets for non-maximal dimension m=n−1 is not constructed inside this paper; it is obtained by importing the family of purity invariants from the simultaneous same-author companion [19] and intersecting them with MUB partitions. The step is load-bearing only for Cor. 3 (and the abstract’s existence claim), not for the conditional statements of Thms. 1, 3, or 4, which remain independently proved.

full rationale

Theorem 1 is proved from the definitions of maximal-information and unbiased states (Lms. 12–13) plus the Pauli (anti)commutation relations; the commutant criterion is not assumed. Theorem 3 derives the purity value I_ψ(S)=2^{m−1} from the bi-regular-cut counting (Lms. 15, 17 → Lm. 11) that follows from any maximal complementary set of size 2^n+1; the target constant is an output of that calculation, not an input. Theorem 4 then feeds that constant into the collision-entropy average by concavity. The only load that sits outside this manuscript is Corollary 3’s existence claim for m=n−1, which intersects the anti-commutator-closed purity invariants of the simultaneous companion [19] with ordinary MUB partitions and invokes that those intersections meet Thm. 1. That is ordinary cross-paper dependence among concurrent works by the same authors, not a reduction of the central equalities to their own inputs. No fitted parameters, no self-definitional loop, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern appear.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper is pure finite-dimensional quantum information theory. It takes the n-qubit Pauli group, its symplectic form over Z_2, the Clifford action, and the standard dictionary between Abelian subgroups and isotropic subspaces as given. Complementarity is defined operationally (certainty ↔ deterministic outcome distribution; maximal uncertainty ↔ uniform distribution) without choosing a specific entropy until App. E. No numerical free parameters are fitted. The only external load-bearing inputs beyond textbook Pauli theory are (i) existence of MUB partitions of the Pauli group and (ii) the family of anti-commutator-closed purity invariants constructed in the companion Ref. [19].

assumptions (5)
  • standard math n-qubit Pauli operators satisfy the standard Weyl commutation relations encoded by a non-degenerate symplectic form ω over Z_2^{2n}; Abelian subgroups ↔ isotropic subspaces.
    Used throughout App. A and for all commutant cardinality counts (Lm. 4, Lm. 5).
  • domain assumption Maximal sets of 2^n+1 mutually unbiased bases exist in dimension 2^n and arise from partitions of the Pauli group into maximal Abelian subgroups (Thm. 2, citing Bandyopadhyay et al., Lawrence et al., Wootters–Fields).
    Invoked to normalize the maximal cardinality K≤2^n+1 (Lm. 2) and to construct the m=n−1 sets in Cor. 3.
  • domain assumption Two observables are complementary iff every minimal-uncertainty state of one is maximally uncertain for the other (Def. 1); for Pauli Abelian subgroups this is equivalent to the associated projective measurements being complementary (Def. 2).
    Load-bearing definitional choice; all theorems are theorems about this notion, not about weaker incompatibility.
  • ad hoc to paper The anti-commutator-closed subsets J constructed in companion Ref. [19] are purity invariants with I_ψ(J)=2^{n−1} and intersect every maximal Abelian subgroup in a subgroup of dimension n−1.
    Sole external input needed for Cor. 3; not re-proved here.
  • standard math Born-rule probabilities for joint eigenprojectors of an Abelian Pauli subgroup are the discrete Fourier transforms of the Pauli expectation values (Eqs. B1–B3).
    Used in Lms. 12–13 to characterize minimal- and maximal-uncertainty states.
invented entities (3)
  • Complementary set of (not necessarily maximal) Abelian subgroups of P̃_n independent evidence
    purpose: Extends Def. 1 from single observables / MUBs to compatible families of degenerate Pauli observables.
    Central organizing object of the paper (Def. 2); characterized by Thm. 1 and maximized in Thm. 3.
  • Bi-regular cut of the Pauli frustration graph independent evidence
    purpose: Graph-theoretic device that forces the Brukner–Zeilinger sum I_ψ(S) to be state-independent (Lm. 11).
    Introduced in App. A (Defs. 3–4) to prove Thm. 3; equivalent to constant commutant intersection sizes N1, N2.
  • Informational pure-state complementarity equality / purity invariant of a complementary set independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes global exclusivity: maximal information about one subgroup implies zero information about all others in the set.
    Thm. 3 identifies maximal complementary sets with these invariants; further studied in companions [19, 20].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximal complementarity in the n-qubit Pauli group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T22DY7LH

@misc{pith2026260724988,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximal complementarity in the n-qubit Pauli group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T22DY7LH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24988}
}
read the original abstract

Observables in quantum mechanics are generally complementary, that is, they reveal mutually incompatible pieces of information about a given system. This property is not only a fundamental tenet of the quantum formalism, but also a key component in quantum cryptographic protocols. As such it has fuelled much research into finding sets of highly complementary observables. In its strongest form -- the one we consider in this work -- the information between complementary observables is not merely incompatible but mutually exclusive: maximal information about one observable implies no information about the other, and vice versa. Maximal sets of non-degenerate complementary observables are known to exist in systems of prime power dimension such as n-qubit systems. Here, we study complementarity of degenerate observables, specifically we prove that observables associated with the n-qubit Pauli group also exhibit complementarity under this restriction: first, we obtain a criterion for two such observables to be complementary and, second, we relate maximal sets of complementary observables with informational pure state complementarity equalities, further studied in two companion papers. Equivalently, these results can be formulated in terms of maximal complementary sets of (not necessarily maximal) Abelian subgroups of the Pauli group linking with (possibly coarse-grained) mutually unbiased bases. Finally, we prove that these complementarity sets entail strong entropic uncertainty relations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24988 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of a bi-regular cut of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Frembs, G

    M. Frembs, G. Natale, C. S. P. Wever, and P. A. H¨ ohn, An algebraically closed family of informationaln-qubit purity invariants (2026), (simultaneously on the arXiv)

    2026

  2. [20]

    Frembs, (in preparation)

    M. Frembs, (in preparation)

  3. [1]

    Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quan- tentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik43, 172 (1927)

    W. Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quan- tentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik43, 172 (1927)

    1927

  4. [2]

    E. H. Kennard, Zur quantenmechanik einfacher bewe- gungstypen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik44, 326 (1927)

    1927

  5. [3]

    Bohr, The quantum postulate and the recent develop- ment of atomic theory, Nature121, 580 (1928)

    N. Bohr, The quantum postulate and the recent develop- ment of atomic theory, Nature121, 580 (1928)

    1928

  6. [4]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: public key distribution and coin tossing, inProceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing(India, 1984) pp. 175–179

    1984

  7. [5]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, Quantum cryptography without Bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 557 (1992)

    1992

  8. [6]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, M. Horodecki, D. W. Leung, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal, Locking classical correlations in quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 067902 (2004)

    2004

Show all 58 references
  1. [7]

    Christandl and A

    M. Christandl and A. Winter, Uncertainty, monogamy, and locking of quantum correlations, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory51, 3159 (2005)

    2005

  2. [8]

    K¨ onig, R

    R. K¨ onig, R. Renner, A. Bariska, and U. Maurer, Small accessible quantum information does not imply security, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 140502 (2007)

    2007

  3. [9]

    I. B. Damg ˚ ard, S. Fehr, L. Salvail, and C. Schaffner, Cryptography in the bounded quantum-storage model, in 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Com- puter Science (FOCS 2005)(IEEE Computer Society, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2005) pp. 449–458

    2005

  4. [10]

    Wehner and A

    S. Wehner and A. Winter, Entropic uncertainty rela- tions—a survey, New J. Phys.12, 025009 (2010)

    2010

  5. [11]

    Bia lynicki-Birula and L

    I. Bia lynicki-Birula and L. Rudnicki, Entropic uncer- tainty relations in quantum physics, inStatistical Com- plexity: Applications in Electronic Structure, edited by K. D. Sen (Springer, Dordrecht, 2011) Chap. 1, pp. 1–34

    2011

  6. [12]

    Berta, M

    M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and R. Renner, The uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory, Nat. Phys.6, 659 (2010)

    2010

  7. [13]

    P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015002 (2017)

    2017

  8. [14]

    Portmann and R

    C. Portmann and R. Renner, Security in quantum cryp- tography, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 025008 (2022)

    2022

  9. [15]

    Maassen and J

    H. Maassen and J. B. M. Uffink, Generalized entropic uncertainty relations, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1103 (1988)

    1988

  10. [16]

    Sanchez-Ruiz, States of minimal joint uncertainty for complementary observables in three-dimensional Hilbert space, J

    J. Sanchez-Ruiz, States of minimal joint uncertainty for complementary observables in three-dimensional Hilbert space, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.27, L843 (1994)

    1994

  11. [17]

    S` anchez-Ruiz, Improved bounds in the entropic uncer- tainty and certainty relations for complementary observ- ables, Phys

    J. S` anchez-Ruiz, Improved bounds in the entropic uncer- tainty and certainty relations for complementary observ- ables, Phys. Lett. A201, 125 (1995)

    1995

  12. [18]

    Siudzi´ nska, All classes of informationally complete symmetric measurements in finite dimensions, Phys

    K. Siudzi´ nska, All classes of informationally complete symmetric measurements in finite dimensions, Phys. Rev. A105, 042209 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    In this work, we will only consider sharp observables

  14. [22]

    P. A. H¨ ohn, Toolbox for reconstructing quantum theory from rules on information acquisition, Quantum1, 38 6 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    P. A. H¨ ohn and C. S. P. Wever, Quantum theory from questions, Phys. Rev. A95, 012102 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    [44, 45]

    This is part of any axiomatisation of entropy, e.g. [44, 45]

  17. [25]

    I. D. Ivanovic, Geometrical description of quantal state determination, J. Phys. A14, 3241 (1981)

    1981

  18. [26]

    W. K. Wootters and B. D. Fields, Optimal state- determination by mutually unbiased measurements, Ann. Phys191, 363 (1989)

    1989

  19. [27]

    We use ‘complementary set of Abelian subgroups’ and ‘set of complementary Abelian subgroups’ synonymously

  20. [28]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    Kueng and D

    R. Kueng and D. Gross, Qubit stabilizer states are complex projective 3-designs (2015), arXiv:1510.02767 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bandyopadhyay, Boykin, Roychowdhury, and Vatan, A new proof for the existence of mutually unbiased bases, Algorithmica34, 512 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Lawrence, ˇC

    J. Lawrence, ˇC. Brukner, and A. Zeilinger, Mutually un- biased binary observable sets on n qubits, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032320 (2002)

    2002

  24. [32]

    Sehrawat and A

    A. Sehrawat and A. B. Klimov, Unitarily inequivalent mutually unbiased bases fornqubits, Phys. Rev. A90, 062308 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    M. A. Ballester and S. Wehner, Entropic uncertainty re- lations and locking: Tight bounds for mutually unbiased bases, Phys. Rev. A75, 022319 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Sarkar and E

    R. Sarkar and E. van den Berg, On sets of maximally commuting and anticommuting Pauli operators, Res. Math. Sci.8, 14 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Mandayam, S

    P. Mandayam, S. Bandyopadhyay, M. Grassl, and W. Wootters, Unextendible mutually unbiased bases from Pauli classes, Quantum Inf. Comput.14, 823–844 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Thas, Unextendible Mutually Unbiased Bases (after Mandayam, Bandyopadhyay, Grassl and Wootters), En- tropy18, 10.3390/e18110395 (2016)

    K. Thas, Unextendible Mutually Unbiased Bases (after Mandayam, Bandyopadhyay, Grassl and Wootters), En- tropy18, 10.3390/e18110395 (2016)

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Brukner and A

    v. Brukner and A. Zeilinger, Operationally invariant in- formation in quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3354 (1999)

    1999

  30. [38]

    Brukner and A

    v. Brukner and A. Zeilinger, Conceptual inadequacy of the shannon information in quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A63, 022113 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    3 constitutes a key motivation to our parallel work in Ref

    In turn, the relation between qubit complementarity and purity invariants in Thm. 3 constitutes a key motivation to our parallel work in Ref. [19], where we generalise the two-qubit purity invariants, first discovered in Ref. [23]

  32. [40]

    Planat and M

    M. Planat and M. Saniga, On the Pauli graphs of N- qudits, Quantum Inf. Comput.8, 127 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Thas, The geometry of generalized Pauli operators of N-qudit Hilbert space, and an application to MUBs, EPL 86, 60005 (2009)

    K. Thas, The geometry of generalized Pauli operators of N-qudit Hilbert space, and an application to MUBs, EPL 86, 60005 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Kalev and G

    A. Kalev and G. Gour, Mutually unbiased measurements in finite dimensions, New J. Phys.16, 053038 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Manˇ cinska and S

    L. Manˇ cinska and S. A. L. Storgaard, The geometry of bloch space in the context of quantum random access codes, Quantum Inf. Process.21, 143 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    A. R´ enyi, On measures of entropy and information, in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Math- ematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 1: Contribu- tions to the Theory of Statistics(University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1961) pp. 547–561

    1961

  37. [45]

    P. J. Coles, R. Colbeck, L. Yu, and M. Zwolak, Uncer- tainty relations from simple entropic properties, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 210405 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    Tomamichel, C

    M. Tomamichel, C. Schaffner, A. Smith, and R. Ren- ner, Leftover hashing against quantum side information, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory57, 5524 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Tomamichel and R

    M. Tomamichel and R. Renner, Uncertainty relation for smooth entropies, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 110506 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    In matrix notation,ω(v, w)=v T σnw,σ n =( 0n 1n −1n 0n ), for 0n (1n) the additive (multiplicative) unit inM n(C)

  41. [49]

    Moreover, in the qubit case, this is equivalent to {Wv, Ww}=0 if and only ifω(v, w)=1

  42. [50]

    G. Nebe, E. M. Rains, and N. J. A. Sloane, The Invariants of the Clifford Groups, Designs, Codes and Cryptography 24, 99 (2001)

    2001

  43. [51]

    Dehaene and B

    J. Dehaene and B. De Moor, Clifford group, stabilizer states, and linear and quadratic operations over gf(2), Phys. Rev. A68, 042318 (2003)

    2003

  44. [52]

    De Beaudrap, A linearized stabilizer formalism for systems of finite dimension, Quantum Info

    N. De Beaudrap, A linearized stabilizer formalism for systems of finite dimension, Quantum Info. Comput.13, 73 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    A maximal isotropic subspace is also calledLagrangian

    Equivalently,V⊂V ⊥ ∶={w∈Z n 2 ∣∀v∈V∶ω(w, v)=0}. A maximal isotropic subspace is also calledLagrangian

  46. [54]

    G. W. Mackey, A theorem of Stone and von Neumann, Duke Math. J.16, 313 (1949)

    1949

  47. [55]

    Wehner and A

    S. Wehner and A. Winter, Higher entropic uncertainty relations for anti-commuting observables, J. Math. Phys. 49, 062105 (2008)

    2008

  48. [56]

    Deutsch, Uncertainty in quantum measurements, Phys

    D. Deutsch, Uncertainty in quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 631 (1983)

    1983

  49. [57]

    in quantum key distribution [46, 47]

    In many cryptographic tasks, one further needs to ac- count for side information [7, 12], and consider vari- ous specific entropies, e.g. in quantum key distribution [46, 47]

  50. [58]

    Klappenecker and M

    A. Klappenecker and M. R¨ otteler, Mutually unbiased bases are complex projective 2-designs, inProceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT 2005)(IEEE, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 2005) pp. 1740–1744. Appendix A: Pauli group We wil...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.