Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 47 references

Minimal s-tight informationally complete measurements are, after a unique rescaling, exactly the vertices of an acute orthocentric simplex with orthocentre at the origin—equivalently, of a homothetically self-dual simplex.

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

2026-08-05 00:12 UTC pith:NC6YSS4Q

load-bearing objection The core equivalence is solid and worthwhile; the advertised classification of directions is deferred, so the abstract oversells the scope. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00809 v1 pith:NC6YSS4Q submitted 2026-08-01 quant-ph

From minimal informationally complete measurements to orthocentric simplices and back again

Piotr Bereza , Wojciech S\l{}omczy\'nski , Anna Szymusiak This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 42C1551M2081P16 PACS 03.65.Wj
keywords minimal informationally complete measurementss-tight IC measurementsorthocentric simpliceshomothetic self-dualityscalable framesgeneralised probabilistic theoriesquantum state tomographyskeleton classification
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.

Minimal informationally complete measurements (MICs)—smallest sets of measurement outcomes whose statistics pin down a state—are central to quantum tomography, but their geometry has been hard to see. The paper's central claim is that a MIC is s-tight (its measurement vectors can be individually rescaled to form a tight frame) if and only if, after one specific reshaping, those vectors are the vertices of an acute orthocentric simplex, a higher-dimensional analogue of a triangle whose altitudes all meet at one point. It proves this as a three-way equivalence: s-tightness, acute orthocentricity with orthocentre at the origin, and homothetic self-duality of the simplex are one and the same property. The payoff is operational: measurement design reduces to choosing directions constrained by two simple angle rules, and all valid direction patterns are encoded by a single probability vector plus an orientation. If right, the result converts a statistical condition deep in the foundations of quantum state reconstruction into a classical Euclidean object that can be constructed, classified, and anchored in concrete state spaces.

Core claim

Let (Ψ,c) be a minimal IC measurement in any geometric generalised probabilistic theory. Theorem 12 states: (Ψ,c) is s-tight iff there exists a probability vector p such that conv((c/p)Ψ) is an acute orthocentric simplex with orthocentre at 0, iff the same simplex is homothetic to its dual set. The p is unique, determined by the scalability constants s by p_j=(c_j/s_j)^2 normalized, and the Gram matrix is ⟨ψ_j,ψ_k⟩=A(δ_jk/√(p_j p_k)−1), with A the frame bound, the negated obtuseness, and the homothety ratio. From this, the tight IC case is p=c (no rescaling), and the morphophoric case is p uniform (the rescaled simplex is regular). Theorem 20 gives a purely angular test: the measurement is s

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rescaling Φ_j=(c_j/p_j)ψ_j together with the probability vector p giving barycentric coordinates of the origin. Lemma 11 shows for any Φ satisfying the closure condition Σ p_j φ_j=0 that √p Φ being a tight frame, conv Φ being an acute orthocentric simplex with orthocentre at 0, and conv Φ being homothetically self-dual are equivalent; in that case the Gram matrix is A(δ_jk/√(p_j p_k)−1). The skeleton p encodes the angular structure: in unit directions η_i the off-diagonal inner products are −t_i t_j with t_i=√(p_i/(1−p_i)), so the cross-ratio rule factorises the Gram entries and the normalization Σ p_i=1 is exactly the rank condition that makes such unit vector

Load-bearing premise

The classification of all valid direction patterns rests on an external scalable-frame criterion and on the claim that unit vectors with inner products determined by a skeleton exist in R^d exactly when the skeleton's probabilities sum to one; if either premise fails, the claimed moduli space of directions could be wrong.

What would settle it

Attempt to construct d+1 unit vectors in R^d with inner products −t_i t_j, t_i=√(p_i/(1−p_i)), for a probability vector p whose entries do not sum to 1; the paper's classification says such vectors cannot exist. Producing them, or failing to produce them for a p with Σp_i=1, would refute the moduli-space claim.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Tight IC measurements (p=c) have conv Ψ itself acute orthocentric at the origin; no rescaling is needed.
  • Morphophoric measurements (p uniform) are exactly those whose rescaled simplex conv(cΨ) is regular.
  • A MIC is s-tight iff its directions satisfy the obtuse-angle condition and the cross-ratio rule; in dimension 2 the cross-ratio rule is vacuous, so obtuse angles alone suffice.
  • Modulo rotations, s-tight MIC directions are classified by a skeleton p∈Δ°_{d+1} and an orientation sign; near white-noise measurements the same families occur in every generalised probabilistic theory of the same dimension.
  • Every acute orthocentric simplex with orthocentre at the origin generates a family of minimal s-tight IC measurements, and within each family exactly one member is tight IC up to overall scaling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: because the paper shows the same minimal IC measurement becomes tight IC under one choice of inner product and morphophoric under another, orthocentricity should be read not as an intrinsic property of the measurement vectors alone but as a joint property of the measurement and the Euclidean structure one chooses.
  • Inference: the direction classification is state-space independent; this suggests tomography designs derived from skeletons in the quantum case could be transplanted to other generalised probabilistic theories of the same dimension, provided the resulting vector lengths are small enough to fit in the dual state set.
  • Inference: the realisability question of which skeletons can actually be anchored in a given state space turns a longstanding existence problem such as SIC-POVMs into a geometric constraint problem; the maximally symmetric skeleton is the regular one, and its anchoring is exactly the SIC case.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper establishes a correspondence between minimal s-tight informationally complete measurements in geometric generalised probabilistic theories and acute orthocentric simplices. The central result, Theorem 12, gives a three-way equivalence: a MIC is s-tight iff, after a unique rescaling, its measurement vectors form an acute orthocentric simplex with orthocentre at the origin, which is also equivalent to homothetic self-duality of that simplex. The authors also state an angular characterisation of s-tightness (Theorem 20) and, in Section 8.2, advertise a complete classification of admissible direction configurations by a skeleton vector p in the open probability simplex and an orientation sign, so that the moduli space is claimed to be Δ°_{d+1}×{±1}. The converse direction, from an acute orthocentric simplex to a family of s-tight MICs containing a unique tight IC measurement, is also proved.

Significance. If the results are fully established, this is a significant and elegant contribution. Theorem 12 and its consequences provide a concrete geometric dictionary for a class of measurements that includes tight IC and morphophoric measurements, and the explicit qubit analysis in Section 7.4 gives a useful testbed. The proof of Lemma 11 and the variational argument in Theorem 12 are presented in sufficient detail to be checkable, and the paper is careful about the distinction between measurement-to-simplex and simplex-to-measurement directions. The classification claim, if completed, would be a strong result: it would reduce the angular structure of all minimal s-tight IC measurements to a single probability vector and an orientation. However, as explained in the major comments, the classification portion is currently only sketched and deferred to a forthcoming paper, and Theorem 20's sufficiency direction relies on an external criterion whose hypotheses are not stated. These are load-bearing gaps for the advertised main results.

major comments (3)
  1. [§8.2, Eq. (28)] The abstract and Section 8.2 advertise a complete classification of direction configurations by Δ°_{d+1}×{±1}. The subsection itself states "Full details of the arguments sketched in this subsection will be given in a forthcoming work." In particular, the key realization step — that for every skeleton p there exist d+1 unit vectors in R^d with ⟨η_i,η_j⟩ = -t_i t_j — is compressed into a matrix-determinant-lemma remark, with no proof that the Gram matrix is positive semidefinite of rank d exactly when ∑p_i=1. This step is essential to the claimed bijection. As written, the classification is an unproved assertion, not a theorem; it should either be proved in this paper or the claim should be re-scoped.
  2. [Theorem 20, (b)⇒(a)] The sufficiency direction of the angular characterisation rests entirely on [30, Cor. 2.9], but the hypotheses of that external criterion are not stated and are not explicitly verified beyond condition (18). Since Theorem 20 is presented as a full angular characterisation and Section 8.2 builds the skeleton classification on the same criterion, the reader cannot check whether the cited corollary applies (e.g., whether it requires a particular frame cardinality, linear independence, or extra positivity assumptions). The proof should state the criterion and confirm all hypotheses, or provide a self-contained proof of (b)⇒(a).
  3. [§8.2, orientation class] The claim that configurations with a fixed skeleton p form exactly two orbits under O(d), distinguished by ε = sgn det(η_1,…,η_d), is asserted without proof. A complete moduli-space statement requires (i) existence of a realization for every p, (ii) transitivity of O(d) on realizations of the same Gram matrix, and (iii) a consistent treatment of the orientation sign under the relabellings and permutations that preserve p. None of these is demonstrated in the manuscript. This is load-bearing for the advertised classification result.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Proof of Theorem 12] In the implication (b)⇒(a), the definition of s is typeset as "s := c√p"; from the surrounding identities it must be s_j = c_j/√p_j. Please correct the display to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section 8.2] The sentence "every tuple of length below r is therefore admissible in one GGPT exactly when it is admissible in another" is imprecise: admissibility of a tuple of lengths depends on the radial function of the dual body S^⋆ through the box Σ(g), not only on a uniform ball radius. Consider rewording.
  3. [Table 2] The flat-limit column lists p_1=0, which lies outside the open simplex Δ°_{d+1}; the table is otherwise clearly labelled as a limit, but it may help to add a footnote that the limiting value is not an admissible skeleton.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central equivalences are proven from frame theory and orthocentric-simplex geometry; self-citations are definitional and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main claim, Theorem 12, is a genuine mathematical derivation rather than a restatement of definitions. The equivalence (a) s-tight IC ↔ (b) rescaled vectors form an acute orthocentric simplex is obtained from Lemma 11, which is proved directly: tightness of √pΦ is checked via the variational characterisation of tight frames (Theorem 5), and the orthocentric-simplex property is verified using the classical criterion of Edmonds--Hajja--Martini (Theorem 7). The homothetic self-duality direction in Lemma 11 is also proved by explicit facet/hyperplane duality. No parameter is fitted: the skeleton p is constructed from the measurement data via eq. (14) and its uniqueness follows from the external uniqueness result [9, Thm 3.1] for scalability constants. Theorem 20's angular criterion invokes the external scalable-frame criterion [30, Cor. 2.9]; while the paper does not reproduce that criterion's hypotheses in full, this is a dependence on an independent, non-self-cited result, not a circular reduction. Section 8.2's moduli-space classification is admittedly sketched and deferred to a forthcoming work, but the argument given is a standard Gram-matrix realisation argument: cross-ratio factorization yields off-diagonal entries -−t_i t_j, and the matrix determinant lemma is used to translate existence of unit vectors into a condition on the t_i. Even if this sketch later needs additional verification, that is a correctness/completeness risk, not circularity. The paper's self-citations to [44] and [45] supply the definition of s-tight IC measurements and prior morphophoric context; they do not carry the load of the new equivalence theorems. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no 'prediction' reduces by construction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard frame theory, classical orthocentric simplex geometry, and the GGPT modeling framework from prior work. No new entities, particles, or forces are introduced. No free parameters are fitted; the skeleton p and scale A are derived, not postulated.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Finite frame theory: variational characterization of tight frames (Theorem 5) and scalable-frame criterion of Kutyniok et al. [30, Cor. 2.9].
    Used in Lemma 11 and Theorem 20 to connect tightness with geometric conditions.
  • standard math Orthocentric simplex geometry: Theorem 7, Proposition 9, and equations (8), (9) from Edmonds et al. [15].
    Used throughout Section 3 and in Lemma 11 to characterize orthocentric simplices and their barycentric coordinates.
  • domain assumption GGPT framework: states as a convex body S in a finite-dimensional real inner product space with 0 in int S, effects as pairs (ψ,c), measurements as (Ψ,c) with the closure condition (Props. 1 and 2).
    Foundational modeling from [45]; the paper builds on this internal-geometry representation of generalized probabilistic theories.
  • domain assumption Tightness is relative to a fixed inner product; the classification is stated for a fixed Euclidean structure.
    Stated at the outset; the entire classification depends on the chosen inner product, for example the Hilbert-Schmidt structure in quantum theory.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32255 in / 23096 out tokens · 231967 ms · 2026-08-05T00:12:49.569878+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From minimal informationally complete measurements to orthocentric simplices and back again." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NC6YSS4Q

@misc{pith2026260800809,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From minimal informationally complete measurements to orthocentric simplices and back again},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NC6YSS4Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00809}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The reconstruction of unknown quantum states via minimal informationally complete measurements (MICs) is a cornerstone of quantum tomography. Although the statistical properties of these measurements are well-understood, their geometric structure has remained elusive. In this work, we establish a correspondence between the class of minimal $s$-tight informationally complete measurements, encompassing, among others, tight IC and morphophoric measurements, and the classical geometry of orthocentric simplices. In particular, we prove a three-way equivalence: a MIC is $s$-tight if and only if its measurement vectors, upon suitable rescaling, form the vertices of an acute orthocentric simplex with the orthocentre at the origin, and such simplices are precisely the homothetically self-dual ones. This geometric manifestation of operational ''tightness'' provides a bridge between the physical world and Euclidean geometry. Furthermore, the $s$-tight class is fully characterised by its measurement directions: the angles between them must be obtuse and satisfy a cross-ratio condition. We determine the space of admissible direction configurations: modulo rotations, every such configuration is encoded by a single probability vector, the ''skeleton'' of the measurement, together with an orientation class, so that the moduli space of $s$-tight MIC directions is $\Delta^{\circ}_{d+1}\times\{\pm 1\}$. Conversely, every acute orthocentric simplex with the orthocentre at the origin can be anchored in the state space, generating a class of minimal $s$-tight IC measurements that contains exactly one tight IC measurement up to overall rescaling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00809 by Anna Szymusiak, Piotr Bereza, Wojciech S\l{}omczy\'nski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual geometric representation of states and measurements in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Above: The standard description of states is by a convex base [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The vertices of the green triangle conv Ψ, whose orthocentre does not coincide with the origin, can be rescaled to obtain the purple triangle conv( s 2 c Ψ) with the orthocentre at 0. The altitudes of the initial (green) triangle are represented with dashed green lines, while the altitudes of the transformed (purple) triangle are solid purple lines – as can be seen, they intersect at the origin, and the ve… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three examples of axially symmetric measurements, represented as the tetrahedra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Anatomy of the family of minimal s-tight IC measurements generated by a fixed acute orthocentric simplex (Theorem 16), drawn schematically in the lengths λ1, . . . , λd+1 of the measurement vectors (two of the coordinates shown). For a fixed anchoring g of the directions the admissible lengths fill a box Σ(g) determined by S ⋆ (shaded); the tight IC measurements (c = p, Corollary 18) form a ray, which leav… 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

47 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    D. M. Appleby, Symmetric informationally complete measurements of arbitrary rank, Opt. Spectrosc. 103 (2007), 416–428. doi:10.1134/s0030400x07090111

    work page doi:10.1134/s0030400x07090111 2007

  2. [2]

    Barrett, Information processing in generalised probabilistic theories, Phys

    J. Barrett, Information processing in generalised probabilistic theories, Phys. Rev. A 75 (2007), 032304. doi:10.1103/physreva.75.032304

    doi:10.1103/physreva.75.032304 2007

  3. [3]

    Bengtsson, S

    I. Bengtsson, S. Weis, K. Życzkowski, Geometry of the set of mixed quantum states: An apophatic approach, in: P. Kielanowski, S. T. Ali, A. Odzijewicz, M. Schlichenmaier, T. Voronov (eds), Geometric Methods in Physics. XXX Workshop 2011, Trends in Mathematics, Birkh¨ auser, Basel 2013, 175–197. doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-0448-6 15

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-0448-6 2011

  4. [4]

    Bengtsson, K

    I. Bengtsson, K. Życzkowski, Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement (2nd ed.), Cambridge UP, Cambridge 2017. doi:10.1017/9781139207010

    doi:10.1017/9781139207010 2017

  5. [5]

    Berger, Geometry I, Springer, Berlin 1994

    M. Berger, Geometry I, Springer, Berlin 1994

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    R. A. Bertlmann, P. Krammer, Bloch vectors for qudits, J. Phys. A 41 (2008), 235303. doi:10.1088/1751- 8113/41/23/235303

    doi:10.1088/1751- 2008

  7. [7]

    Bloch, Nuclear induction, Phys

    F. Bloch, Nuclear induction, Phys. Rev. 70 (1946), 460–474. doi:10.1103/physrev.70.460

    doi:10.1103/physrev.70.460 1946

  8. [8]

    Breuer, F

    H.-P. Breuer, F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems, Oxford UP, Oxford 2002. 30

    work page 2002

  9. [9]

    A. Chan, R. Domagalski, Y. H. Kim, S. K. Narayan, H. Suh, X. Zhang, Minimal scalings and structural properties of scalable frames, Operators and Matrices 11 (2017), 1057–1073. doi:10.7153/oam-2017-11-73

    work page doi:10.7153/oam-2017-11-73 2017

  10. [10]

    N. A. Court, Notes on the orthocentric tetrahedron, Amer. Math. Monthly 41 (1934), 499–502. doi:10.1080/00029890.1934.11987633

    work page arXiv 1934

  11. [11]

    Quantum randomness beyond projective measurements

    F. Curran, Quantum randomness beyond projective measurements, 2026, arXiv:2605.18291 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    J. B. DeBrota, Informationally Complete Measurements and Optimal Representations of Quantum Theory, PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Boston 2020

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, B. C. Stacey, Symmetric informationally complete measurements identify the irreducible difference between classical and quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020), 013074. doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013074

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013074 2020

  14. [14]

    J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, B. C. Stacey, The varieties of minimal tomographically complete measure- ments, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 19 (2021), 2040005. doi:10.1142/s0219749920400055

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219749920400055 2021

  15. [15]

    A. L. Edmonds, M. Hajja, H. Martini, Orthocentric simplices and their centers, Results Math. 47 (2005), 266–295. doi:10.1007/bf03323029

    work page doi:10.1007/bf03323029 2005

  16. [16]

    Egerv´ ary, On orthocentric simplexes, Acta Litt

    E. Egerv´ ary, On orthocentric simplexes, Acta Litt. Sci. Szeged 9 (1940), 218–226

    work page 1940

  17. [17]

    Ehler, K

    M. Ehler, K. A. Okoudjou, Probabilistic frames: an overview, in: Finite frames, Appl. Numer. Harmon. Anal., Birkh¨ auser/Springer, New York 2013, 415–436. doi:10.1007/978-0-8176-8373-312

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-8176-8373-312 2013

  18. [18]

    Eltschka, M

    C. Eltschka, M. Huber, S. Morelli, J. Siewert, The shape of higher-dimensional state space: Bloch-ball analog for a qutrit, Quantum 5 (2021), 485. doi:10.22331/q-2021-06-29-485

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-06-29-485 2021

  19. [19]

    Fiedler, Geometrie simplexu vE n

    M. Fiedler, Geometrie simplexu vE n. III. (Czech) [Geometry of the simplex inE n. III.]. ˇCasopis pro pˇ estov´ an´ ı matematiky 81 (1956), 182–223. doi:10.21136/cpm.1956.117189

    work page arXiv 1956

  20. [20]

    Fiedler, Matrices and Graphs in Geometry (Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Series Number 139), Cambridge UP, Cambridge 2011

    M. Fiedler, Matrices and Graphs in Geometry (Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Series Number 139), Cambridge UP, Cambridge 2011. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511973611

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511973611 2011

  21. [21]

    C. A. Fuchs, R. Schack, Quantum-Bayesian coherence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 (2013), 1693–1715. doi:10.1103/revmodphys.85.1693

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.85.1693 2013

  22. [22]

    Gerber, The orthocentric simplex as an extreme simplex, Pacific J

    L. Gerber, The orthocentric simplex as an extreme simplex, Pacific J. Math. 56 (1975), 97–111. doi:10.2140/pjm.1975.56.97

    work page doi:10.2140/pjm.1975.56.97 1975

  23. [23]

    Hajja, Coincidences of centers in edge-incentric, or balloon, simplices, Results Math

    M. Hajja, Coincidences of centers in edge-incentric, or balloon, simplices, Results Math. 49 (2006), 237–263. doi:10.1007/s00025-006-0222-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s00025-006-0222-4 2006

  24. [24]

    Hajja, H

    M. Hajja, H. Martini, Orthocentric simplices as the true generalizations of triangles, Math. Intelligencer 35 (2013), 16–28. doi:10.1007/s00283-013-9367-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00283-013-9367-7 2013

  25. [25]

    Innocenti, S

    L. Innocenti, S. Lorenzo, I. Palmisano, F. Albarelli, A. Ferraro, M. Paternostro, G. M. Palma, Shadow tomography on general measurement frames, PRX Quantum 4 (2023), 040328. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.040328

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.040328 2023

  26. [26]

    Janotta, C

    P. Janotta, C. Gogolin, J. Barrett, N. Brunner, Limits on nonlocal correlations from the structure of the local state space, New J. Phys. 13 (2011), 063024. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/6/063024

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/6/063024 2011

  27. [27]

    Janotta, H

    P. Janotta, H. Hinrichsen, Generalized probability theories: what determines the structure of quantum theory? J. Phys. A 47 (2014), 323001. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/32/323001

    doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/32/323001 2014

  28. [28]

    Kabluchko, P

    Z. Kabluchko, P. Schange, Angles of orthocentric simplices, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., accepted (2026). doi:10.1090/tran/9812 31

    work page doi:10.1090/tran/9812 2026

  29. [29]

    Kimura, The Bloch vector for N-level systems, Phys

    G. Kimura, The Bloch vector for N-level systems, Phys. Lett. A 314 (2003), 339–349. doi:10.1016/s0375- 9601(03)00941-1

    doi:10.1016/s0375- 2003

  30. [30]

    Kutyniok, K

    G. Kutyniok, K. A. Okoudjou, F. Philipp, E. K. Tuley, Scalable frames, Linear Algebra Appl. 438 (2013), 2225–2238. doi:10.1016/j.laa.2012.10.046

    work page doi:10.1016/j.laa.2012.10.046 2013

  31. [31]

    Lhuilier, De Relatione mutua Capacitatis et Terminorum Figurarum, geometrice considerata: seu de maximis et minimis pars prior, elementaris, Varsoviae 1782

    S. Lhuilier, De Relatione mutua Capacitatis et Terminorum Figurarum, geometrice considerata: seu de maximis et minimis pars prior, elementaris, Varsoviae 1782

    work page

  32. [32]

    de Longchamps, Sur le t´ etra` edre orthocentrique, Mathesis 10 (1890), 49–53, 77–82

    G. de Longchamps, Sur le t´ etra` edre orthocentrique, Mathesis 10 (1890), 49–53, 77–82

    work page

  33. [33]

    Masanes, M

    L. Masanes, M. P. M¨ uller, A derivation of quantum theory from physical requirements, New J. Phys. 13 (2011), 063001. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/6/063001

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/6/063001 2011

  34. [34]

    M. P. M¨ uller, Probabilistic theories and reconstructions of quantum theory, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 28 (2021). doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.28

    doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.28 2021

  35. [35]

    Pl´ avala, General probabilistic theories: An introduction, Phys

    M. Pl´ avala, General probabilistic theories: An introduction, Phys. Rep. 1033 (2023), 1–64. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.09.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.09.001 2023

  36. [36]

    P. H. Schoute, Mehrdimensionale Geometrie. I. Teil: Die linearen R¨ aume, G. J. G¨ oschen’sche Ver- lagshandlung, Leipzig 1902

    work page 1902

  37. [37]

    A. J. Scott, Tight informationally complete quantum measurements, J. Phys. A 39 (2006), 13507–13530. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/43/009

    doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/43/009 2006

  38. [38]

    Słomczyński, Dynamical Entropy, Markov Operators, and Iterated Function Systems, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków 2003

    W. Słomczyński, Dynamical Entropy, Markov Operators, and Iterated Function Systems, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków 2003

    work page 2003

  39. [39]

    Słomczyński, Frugal QBism: fiducial measurements in generalised probabilistic theories, in prepa- ration

    W. Słomczyński, Frugal QBism: fiducial measurements in generalised probabilistic theories, in prepa- ration

    work page

  40. [40]

    Słomczyński, A

    W. Słomczyński, A. Szymusiak, Morphophoric POVMs, generalised qplexes, and 2-designs, Quantum 4 (2020), 338. doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-30-338

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-30-338 2020

  41. [41]

    D. M. Y. Sommerville, An Introduction to the Geometry ofNDimensions, Methuen & Co., London 1929

    work page 1929

  42. [42]

    Steiner, Fortsetzung der geometrischen Betrachtungen, J

    J. Steiner, Fortsetzung der geometrischen Betrachtungen, J. Reine Angew. Math. 1 (1826), 252–288

    work page

  43. [43]

    Szczepanek, Quantum Dynamical Entropy of Unitary Operators in Finite-dimensional State Spaces, PhD Thesis, Jagiellonian University, Kraków 2019

    A. Szczepanek, Quantum Dynamical Entropy of Unitary Operators in Finite-dimensional State Spaces, PhD Thesis, Jagiellonian University, Kraków 2019

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    Beyond morphophoricity: $s$-tight IC measurements in geometric generalised probabilistic theories

    A. Szymusiak, Beyond morphophoricity:s-tight IC measurements in geometric generalised probabilistic theories, 2025, arXiv:2507.01745 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Szymusiak, W

    A. Szymusiak, W. Słomczyński, Can QBism exist without Q? Morphophoric measurements in gener- alised probabilistic theories, Quantum 9 (2025), 1598. doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-15-1598

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-15-1598 2025

  46. [46]

    Convexity and uncertainty in operational quantum foundations

    R. Takakura, Convexity and uncertainty in operational quantum foundations, PhD Thesis, Kyoto Uni- versity, Kyoto 2022. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2202.13834

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.13834 2022

  47. [47]

    S. F. D. Waldron, An Introduction to Finite Tight Frames, Birkh¨ auser, New York 2018. doi:10.1007/978- 0-8176-4815-2 32 A Instrument and Bayes’ rule Letx=λx 1 + (1−λ)x 2 ∈Sbe a convex combination (statistical mixture) of two states, withx 1, x2 ∈S, λ∈(0,1), and letj= 1, . . . , n. Asπj is affine, we have πj(x) =λπ j(x1) + (1−λ)π j(x2). Moreover, the requ...

    doi:10.1007/978- 2018