Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 59 references

One operator-algebraic mechanism — pullback of the dual GNS Hermitian product along a canonical lift — produces the Fisher–Rao, Fubini–Study, and SLD geometries as the real and imaginary parts of a single Hermitian tensor.

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 ↗

The real and imaginary parts of the dual GNS Hermitian product, pulled back by a canonical lift, yield the Fisher–Rao, Fubini–Study, and SLD geometries plus a two-form whose closedness is governed by the covariant derivative of the lift.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection GNS fibration unifies Fisher–Rao, Fubini–Study, and SLD metrics with a two-form; the main caveat is a case-by-case regularity condition in infinite dimensions.

arxiv 2607.15800 v1 pith:63Z2XJO3 submitted 2026-07-17 math-ph math.MP

Metric tensors and two-forms in information geometry from the GNS construction

Marco Castrill\'on L\'opez , Florio M. Ciaglia , Laura Gonz\'alez-Bravo , Alberto Ibort This is my paper
classification math-ph math.MP MSC 46L3053C0562B0581P45
keywords GNS constructioninformation geometryquantum Fisher informationSLD metricFubini–Study metrictwo-formmean Uhlmann curvatureHilbert fibration
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.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the central metric tensors of classical and quantum information geometry are different faces of one object: the Hermitian inner product carried by the GNS Hilbert space of each state. For any parametric model satisfying a boundedness condition, each tangent vector has a canonical representative in the GNS fiber, and pulling back the dual inner product yields a Hermitian tensor K on the complexified tangent bundle. Its real part is a weak Riemannian metric G and its imaginary part is a two-form Ω. The construction recovers the Fisher–Rao metric, the Fubini–Study metric together with its symplectic form, and the SLD metric, and it identifies Ω with the mean Uhlmann curvature in finite dimensions. A careful reader should care because the construction does not require the state space to be a manifold, works in genuine infinite-dimensional examples, and explains when the two-form is closed or not.

Core claim

The central claim is that pulling back the dual GNS Hermitian product along a canonically defined lift—the vector in the realified GNS fiber selected by the Riesz representation theorem from the derivatives of expectation values—defines a Hermitian tensor K on the complexified tangent bundle of any GNS-smooth parametric model. Under regularity, its real and imaginary parts are a smooth weak Riemannian metric G and a smooth two-form Ω. In the commutative dominated case G is the Fisher–Rao metric and Ω=0; for pure states G=4g_FS and Ω=−4ω_FS; for faithful finite-dimensional states G is the SLD (Bures–Helstrom) metric and Ω is proportional to the mean Uhlmann curvature. The paper also shows tha

What carries the argument

The GNS fibration and its dual: the Hilbert spaces H_ρ attached to each state ρ, topologized as a non-locally-trivial Hilbert fibration over the state space, together with the canonical real dual GNS lift L^R_m : T_mM → (H^R_{i(m)})*. The lift is obtained by applying the real Riesz theorem to the derivative functional v_m ↦ ⟨v_m, dℓ_a(m)⟩, which is bounded exactly when the GNS-smoothness condition (Definition 2, Eq. 19) holds. Pulling back the dual Hermitian product along this lift gives the Hermitian tensor K, whose real and imaginary parts produce G and Ω.

Load-bearing premise

For every tangent vector of the model, the derivative of every observable's expectation value must be bounded by a constant times the GNS norm of that observable's vector — a Hilbert–Schmidt integrability condition in infinite-dimensional faithful models that is genuine and not automatic.

What would settle it

Construct an infinite-dimensional faithful parametric model, such as a family of displaced thermal states with a tangent direction that changes temperature, in which the bound (19) diverges for some self-adjoint observable. If the expectation-value derivatives remain smooth and finite while the bound fails, the model is not GNS-smooth and the canonical lift—and hence G and Ω—does not exist, demonstrating that the construction's scope is exactly the bounded-models class.

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

If this is right

  • The Fisher–Rao metric, the Fubini–Study metric plus symplectic form, and the SLD metric all emerge from one operator-algebraic pullback mechanism.
  • The two-form Ω vanishes in commutative models, is the Fubini–Study symplectic form (up to sign and normalization) for pure states, and equals −2 times the mean Uhlmann curvature for faithful finite-dimensional states.
  • Ω is not closed in general: faithful qubits and displaced thermal states provide explicit models with dΩ ≠ 0.
  • For bundle-regular models, the fiberwise symplectic form admits closed extensions to the total space, but closedness of Ω on the base is governed by the covariant exterior derivative d^∇ L^R.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same pullback formalism may extend to other operator-monotone metrics (the Morozova–Čencov–Petz family), with each field of covariances producing its own G and Ω; the paper itself suggests this direction.
  • Because Ω measures noncommutativity of the SLD operators, its closedness or non-closedness could serve as a global geometric obstruction to simultaneous quantum parameter estimation, a claim that existing multiparameter quantum metrology experiments could test.
  • The construction may be adaptable to non-faithful states by passing to the GNS ideal quotient, potentially covering rank-changing models where the metric is discontinuous—an issue the paper flags in a remark.
  • The connection-dependent closed extensions on the total space are analogous to minimal-coupling forms in symplectic fibrations, suggesting a possible link to quantum holonomy and mixed-state geometric phases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified operator-algebraic construction of geometric tensors on parametric statistical models over C*-algebras. For a model satisfying the GNS-smoothness condition (Definition 2, in particular the boundedness inequality (19)), each tangent vector is shown to admit a canonical lift to the dual GNS fibration; pulling back the dual GNS Hermitian product along this lift yields a Hermitian tensor K on the complexified tangent bundle, whose real and imaginary parts give a metric G and a two-form Ω. The construction is shown to reproduce the Fisher–Rao metric in the commutative dominated case (Section 4), the Fubini–Study metric and symplectic form for pure states up to normalization and sign (Section 5), and the SLD metric for faithful finite-dimensional states (Section 6). For faithful finite-dimensional models Ω is proportional to the mean Uhlmann curvature. Examples of faithful qubits and displaced thermal states show Ω need not be closed; Section 7 gives a structural closedness criterion in terms of the covariant exterior derivative of the canonical real dual GNS lift.

Significance. If the results stand, the paper provides a genuinely common origin for several central objects of classical and quantum information geometry, avoiding any reliance on an ambient manifold structure on the state space. The construction is original and the conditional statement is clearly formulated. The paper is also honest about its main limitation: the machinery applies only to GNS-smooth models, and in infinite dimensions Definition 2(2) is a genuine analytic restriction, verified here only for displaced thermal states and left as a case-by-case check in Remark 3. The examples are worked in detail and the non-closedness of Ω is a useful new observation. The authors do not overclaim: the recovery of Fisher–Rao/SLD/Fubini–Study is explicitly conditional on the regularity assumptions. These strengths outweigh the presentation issues noted below.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Proposition 1, proof] The displayed linearity formula for dual tautological sections is wrong: because the Riesz map R_ρ is conjugate-linear, one should have λΨ*_a + μΨ*_b = Ψ*_{\bar λ a + \bar μ b}, not Ψ*_{λa+μb}. The conclusion that Γ*_GNS is a complex vector space still holds, but the proof as written is incorrect.
  2. [Proposition 5, Eqs. (103)–(106)] There is a sign/conjugation inconsistency. Equation (103) gives K_ψ(v,w)=4⟨φ̇_h,ψ̇_h⟩=4 \overline{⟨ψ̇_h,φ̇_h⟩}=4\overline{h_FS(v,w)} with h_FS as defined in (100). Therefore the statement K=4h_FS in (106) is incompatible with the also stated Ω=-4ω_FS; the correct identity is K=4\bar h_FS (equivalently, G=4g_FS, Ω=-4ω_FS, which is what the subsequent text uses). This affects Remark 10, where K=4Q should read K_{μν}=4\overline{Q_{μν}} or an equivalent index/ordering convention.
  3. [Proposition 7 and Example 1, Eqs. (173), (174), (208)] The notation for the complexified SLD is self-contradictory: first L_z:=L_v+iL_w and then, two lines later, L_z:=L_v−iL_w. The Hilbert–Schmidt Riesz representative is correctly given by X_v−iX_w, so in a coordinate basis it should be Σ \bar z_i X_i, not Σ z_i X_i. Consequently the complexified K formula (208) is not Hermitian as written: it should involve z'_i \bar z_j-type terms (e.g. z'·\bar z, r·(z'×\bar z)). The real-tangent formulas (212)–(219), which are the ones used for the SLD metric and Ω, are correct.
  4. [Proposition 8, Eqs. (291)–(292)] The same conjugation issue appears in the displaced thermal model: equation (291) should be \hat X_{z_m}=Σ \bar z_j X_j, and equation (292) should be a sesquilinear expression in z and z'. The real-tangent metric and two-form in (293)–(294) are unaffected and correct.
  5. [Equation (21) and Proposition 2] V_ρ is used as a closed real subspace (D_ρ is said to be dense in V_ρ), but the notation span_R without an overline suggests the algebraic span. Please define V_ρ explicitly as the closure, as is done in (133), to avoid ambiguity.
  6. [Remark 11, Eq. (164)] The claim that 'GNS-boundedness is equivalent to finiteness of the right-hand side of (164)' is terse. It holds when the weak SLD representative is the canonical one, i.e. when condition 2 of Definition 2 is in force; a sentence clarifying the role of the symmetry of L_v would help.
  7. [Throughout] Minor typos and presentation issues: 'for all 3 Z,W' in Definition 3 should be 'for all Z,W'; 'SinceHRi(m) as in' in Proposition 2 should be 'Since H^R_{i(m)} is as in'; the reference format in [7] is incomplete; the phrase in Example 1 about 'not L_zρ^{1/2} but rather \hat X_z=L_zρ^{1/2}' should be reworded to avoid the contradictory notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the GNS construction derives G and Ω from explicit regularity assumptions and proves the recoveries of Fisher–Rao, Fubini–Study, and SLD metrics as theorems, without fitting or relying on load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Definition 2 introduces GNS-smoothness via a boundedness condition (Eq. 19) on tangent functionals; Proposition 2 constructs the canonical real GNS lift from the real Riesz representation theorem. The Hermitian tensor K (Eq. 40) and its real and imaginary parts G and Ω (Eq. 42) are then defined by pulling back the dual GNS Hermitian product along this lift. No external metric is used as input and no parameter is fitted to a target output. The recoveries are proven directly: Proposition 4 shows that in the commutative dominated case the canonical GNS representative is the classical score and that the induced tensor is the Fisher–Rao metric; Proposition 5 shows that for pure states the canonical representative is twice the horizontal component, yielding K = 4h_FS; Proposition 7 derives the weak SLD relation (143) from the canonical representative and obtains the SLD quantum Fisher metric; Remark 13 identifies Ω with the mean Uhlmann curvature up to normalization and sign. In each case the known geometry appears as the computed output, not as an assumption. The paper cites the authors' own work, especially [56] on fields of covariances, but this citation is contextual: the GNS field is described as distinguished and the paper as a geometric study of it, yet none of the theorems depends on the classification or uniqueness results in [56]. The central claim is also tested against nontrivial examples, including the non-closedness of Ω for faithful qubits and displaced thermal states, which are computed from the construction rather than imposed. The main limitation is the analytic restrictiveness of Definition 2(2), which the paper itself acknowledges in Remark 3: in infinite dimensions it is a genuine Hilbert–Schmidt integrability condition (Eq. 164) and must be verified case by case. This is a verification burden and a restriction on scope, not a circularity: the conditional theorem is internally consistent and the condition is verified for the displaced thermal model. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the central claim is a theorem. The main load-bearing assumptions are the GNS-smoothness and regularity conditions (Definitions 2, 3, and 5), which the paper checks case-by-case. Standard functional analysis and GNS theory supply the background. No new physical entities are introduced.

axioms (7)
  • standard math GNS construction: each state ρ gives a Hilbert space Hρ with dense vectors ψ_a^ρ and GNS representation.
    Used throughout Section 2; standard operator-algebra background.
  • standard math Fell–Doran Theorem 1: a dense family of continuous sections builds a unique Banach/Hilbert fibration topology.
    Used in Proposition 1 to construct the GNS and dual GNS fibrations.
  • standard math Riesz representation theorem on real Hilbert spaces.
    Provides the canonical vector Ξ_m(v_m) in Proposition 2.
  • domain assumption Definition 2 GNS-smoothness: boundedness condition (19) and nondegeneracy condition (20).
    Load-bearing regularity class; ensures each tangent vector has a canonical dual GNS representative and the induced metric is positive definite.
  • domain assumption Definition 3 Hermitian/symmetric/skew-symmetric regularity: smoothness of the pulled-back pairings.
    Ensures G and Ω are smooth tensor fields; verified case-by-case in the examples.
  • domain assumption Definition 5 bundle-regularity: pullback real dual GNS bundle is a smooth real Hilbert bundle with a compatible connection preserving g and I.
    Used only in Section 7 to construct closed extensions of the vertical symplectic form.
  • domain assumption Hilbert–Schmidt integrability condition (164): finiteness of the GNS bound for faithful infinite-dimensional models.
    Required for infinite-dimensional faithful models to be GNS-smooth; explicitly verified for displaced thermal states.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Metric tensors and two-forms in information geometry from the GNS construction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63Z2XJO3

@misc{pith2026260715800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Metric tensors and two-forms in information geometry from the GNS construction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63Z2XJO3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15800}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We develop a GNS-based construction of geometric tensors on smooth parametric statistical models over $C^*$-algebras. Since the state space of a $C^*$-algebra is generally not a smooth manifold, the construction does not rely on pulling back tensors from an ambient state manifold. Instead, the GNS Hilbert spaces and their duals are organized into non-locally-trivial Hilbert fibrations over the state space. For models satisfying a compatibility condition expressing derivatives of expectation values as continuous functionals on the realified GNS fibers, each tangent vector admits a canonical dual GNS representative. Pulling back the dual GNS Hermitian product along the corresponding canonical lift produces a Hermitian tensor $K$ on the complexified tangent bundle of the model, whose real and imaginary parts define, under suitable regularity assumptions, a smooth weak Riemannian metric tensor $G$ and a smooth two-form $\Omega$. In finite-dimensional parameter manifolds the metric is, of course, strong. The construction recovers the Fisher--Rao metric in the commutative dominated case, the Fubini--Study geometry for pure states up to the normalization and sign convention imposed by the dual GNS pairing, and the SLD metric for faithful quantum states. In finite-dimensional faithful models, the two-form $\Omega$ is proportional, up to convention, to the expected commutator of the SLD representatives, equivalently to the mean Uhlmann curvature. We show through faithful qubits and displaced thermal states that $\Omega$ need not be closed. For bundle-regular models, the associated fiberwise symplectic form on the real dual GNS bundle admits connection-dependent closed extensions to the total space, while closedness of $\Omega$ on the parameter manifold is controlled by the covariant exterior derivative of the canonical real dual GNS lift.

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

59 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics

    R. A. Fisher. “On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics”. In:Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A222.594-604 (1922), pp. 309–368.doi: 10.1098/rsta.1922.0009 (↓p. 2)

    arXiv 1922

  2. [2]

    On the generalized distance in statistics

    P. C. Mahalanobis. “On the generalized distance in statistics”. In:Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India2.1 (1936), pp. 49–55.doi:10.1007/s13171-019- 00164-5(↓p. 2)

    work page doi:10.1007/s13171-019- 1936

  3. [3]

    Coherent and Incoherent States of the Radiation Field

    R. J. Glauber. “Coherent and Incoherent States of the Radiation Field”. In:Physical Review131.6 (Sept. 15, 1963), pp. 2766–2788.doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.131.2766 (↓p. 36)

    doi:10.1103/physrev.131.2766 1963

  4. [4]

    Equivalence of Semiclassical and Quantum Mechanical Descriptions of Statistical Light Beams

    E. C. G. Sudarshan. “Equivalence of Semiclassical and Quantum Mechanical Descriptions of Statistical Light Beams”. In:Physical Review Letters10.7 (Apr. 1, 1963), pp. 277–279. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.277(↓p. 36)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.10.277( 1963

  5. [5]

    Minimum mean-squared error of estimates in quantum statistics

    C. W. Helstrom. “Minimum mean-squared error of estimates in quantum statistics”. In: Physics Letters A25.2 (July 1967), pp. 101–102.doi:10.1016/0375-9601(67)90366-0 (↓pp. 3, 5, 30)

    doi:10.1016/0375-9601(67)90366-0 1967

  6. [6]

    Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee. “Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states”. In: Commun. Math. Phys.76.3 (1980), pp. 289–301.doi:10.1007/BF02193559(↓p. 24)

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02193559( 1980

  7. [7]

    N. N. Čencov.Statistical decision rules and optimal inference. Vol. 53. Translations of mathematical monographs. American Mathematical Society, 1981 (↓pp. 2, 4)

    1981

  8. [8]

    Closed forms on symplectic fibre bundles

    M. J. Gotay, R. Lashof, J. Śniatycki, and A. Weinstein. “Closed forms on symplectic fibre bundles”. In:Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici58.1 (1983), pp. 617–621.doi: 10.1007/BF02564656(↓pp. 5, 46)

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02564656( 1983

  9. [9]

    Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes

    M. V. Berry. “Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes”. In:Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences392.1802 (Mar. 1984), pp. 45–57.doi:10.1098/rspa.1984.0023(↓p. 24)

    arXiv 1984

  10. [10]

    J. M. G. Fell and R. S. Doran.Representations of *-algebras, locally compact groups, and Banach *-algebraic bundles Vol.1. Pure and applied mathematics 125-126. Boston: Academic Press, 1988 (↓pp. 5, 7, 10)

    1988

  11. [11]

    G. B. Folland.Harmonic analysis in phase space. The Annals of mathematics studies no

  12. [12]

    Quantum mechanics as an infinite-dimensional hamiltonian system with uncertainty structure: Part I

    R. Cirelli, A. Manià, and L. Pizzocchero. “Quantum mechanics as an infinite-dimensional hamiltonian system with uncertainty structure: Part I”. In:Journal of Mathematical Physics31.12 (Dec. 1990), pp. 2891–2897.doi:10.1063/1.528941(↓p. 24)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.528941( 1990

  13. [13]

    Quantum mechanics as an infinite-dimensional hamiltonian system with uncertainty structure: Part II

    R. Cirelli, A. Manià, and L. Pizzocchero. “Quantum mechanics as an infinite-dimensional hamiltonian system with uncertainty structure: Part II”. In:Journal of Mathematical Physics31.12 (Dec. 1990), pp. 2898–2903.doi:10.1063/1.528942(↓pp. 3, 21)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.528942( 1990

  14. [14]

    Markovinvariantgeometryonmanifoldsofstates

    E.A.MorozovaandN.N.Chentsov.“Markovinvariantgeometryonmanifoldsofstates”.In: Journal of Soviet Mathematics56.5 (Oct. 1991), pp. 2648–2669.doi:10.1007/bf01095975 (↓pp. 3, 4)

    doi:10.1007/bf01095975 1991

  15. [15]

    Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves. “Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states”. In:Physical Review Letters72.22 (May 1994), pp. 3439–3443.doi: 10.1103/ physrevlett.72.3439(↓pp. 2, 3). 52

    1994

  16. [16]

    An infinite-dimensional geometric structure on the space of all the probability measures equivalent to a given one

    G. Pistone and C. Sempi. “An infinite-dimensional geometric structure on the space of all the probability measures equivalent to a given one”. In:The Annals of Statistics23.5 (Oct. 1995).doi:10.1214/aos/1176324311(↓p. 51)

    arXiv 1995

  17. [17]

    Monotone metrics on matrix spaces

    D. Petz. “Monotone metrics on matrix spaces”. In:Linear Algebra and its Applications 244 (Sept. 1996), pp. 81–96.doi:10.1016/0024-3795(94)00211-8(↓pp. 2, 3, 50)

    doi:10.1016/0024-3795(94)00211-8( 1996

  18. [18]

    Geometries of quantum states

    D. Petz and C. Sudár. “Geometries of quantum states”. In:Journal of Mathematical Physics37.6 (June 1996), pp. 2662–2673.doi:10.1063/1.531535(↓p. 4)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.531535( 1996

  19. [19]

    Geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics

    A. Ashtekar and T. A. Schilling. “Geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics”. In:On Einstein’s Path. Ed. by A. Harvey. New York, NY: Springer New York, 1999, pp. 23–65. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1422-9_3(↓pp. 21, 24)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1422-9_3( 1999

  20. [20]

    Explicit formulae for the bures metric

    J. Dittmann. “Explicit formulae for the bures metric”. In:Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and General32.14 (Apr. 1999), pp. 2663–2670.doi:10.1088/0305-4470/32/14/007 (↓p. 34)

    work page doi:10.1088/0305-4470/32/14/007 1999

  21. [21]

    Amari and H

    S. Amari and H. Nagaoka.Methods of information geometry. Trans. by D. Harada. Nachdruck. Translations of mathematical monographs 191. Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society, 2000.doi:10.1090/mmono/191(↓p. 2)

    work page doi:10.1090/mmono/191( 2000

  22. [22]

    Geometric quantum mechanics

    D. C. Brody and L. P. Hughston. “Geometric quantum mechanics”. In:Journal of Geometry and Physics38.1 (Apr. 2001), pp. 19–53.doi:10.1016/S0393-0440(00)00052-8 (↓p. 24)

    doi:10.1016/s0393-0440(00)00052-8 2001

  23. [23]

    On quantum statistical inference

    O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen, R. D. Gill, and P. E. Jupp. “On quantum statistical inference”. In:Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology)65.4 (2003), pp. 775–816.doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00415(↓p. 3)

    arXiv 2003

  24. [24]

    Geometry of quantum systems: density states and entanglement

    J. Grabowski, M. Kuś, and G. Marmo. “Geometry of quantum systems: density states and entanglement”. In:Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General38.47 (Dec. 2005), pp. 10217–10244.doi:10.1088/0305-4470/38/47/011(↓pp. 4, 29)

    work page doi:10.1088/0305-4470/38/47/011( 2005

  25. [25]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski.Geometry of quantum states: an introduction to quantum entanglement. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006 (↓pp. 2, 3, 21, 24, 34)

    2006

  26. [26]

    A construction of a nonparametric quantum information manifold

    A. Jenčová. “A construction of a nonparametric quantum information manifold”. In: Journal of Functional Analysis239.1 (Oct. 2006), pp. 1–20.doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2006. 02.007(↓pp. 3, 51)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2006 2006

  27. [27]

    Quantum estimation for quantum technology

    M. G. A. Paris. “Quantum estimation for quantum technology”. In:International Journal of Quantum Information7 (2009), p. 125.doi: 10.1142/S0219749909004839 . arXiv: 0804.2981(↓pp. 3, 5, 30, 32)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    Peter.The orbit method for compact connected lie groups

    M. Peter.The orbit method for compact connected lie groups. June 2009. arXiv:0906.4915 [math](↓p. 3)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    From the equations of motion to the canonical commutation relations

    E. Ercolessi, G. Marmo, and G. Morandi. “From the equations of motion to the canonical commutation relations”. In:La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento33.809 (Dec. 2010), pp. 401–590. doi:10.1393/ncr/i2010-10057-x. arXiv:1005.1164 [quant-ph](↓pp. 21, 24)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    Classical and quantum fisher information in the geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics

    P. Facchi, R. Kulkarni, V. Man’ko, G. Marmo, E. Sudarshan, and F. Ventriglia. “Classical and quantum fisher information in the geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics”. In: Physics Letters A374.48 (Nov. 2010), pp. 4801–4803.doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2010. 10.005(↓p. 3). 53

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2010 2010

  31. [31]

    A. S. Holevo.Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory. Quaderni monographs

  32. [32]

    R. P. Kostecki.Quantum theory as inductive inference. Sept. 2011. arXiv:1009.2423 [math-ph, physics:quant-ph](↓p. 3)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [33]

    della Normale, 2011 (↓pp

    Pisa: Ed. della Normale, 2011 (↓pp. 3, 51)

    2011

  34. [34]

    Information geometry and sufficient statistics

    N. Ay, J. Jost, H. V. Lê, and L. Schwachhöfer. “Information geometry and sufficient statistics”. In:Probability Theory and Related Fields162.1-2 (June 2015), pp. 327–364. doi:10.1007/s00440-014-0574-8(↓p. 16)

    work page doi:10.1007/s00440-014-0574-8( 2015

  35. [35]

    R. P. Kostecki.Quantum information geometry. 2014 (↓p. 3)

    2014

  36. [36]

    R. P. Kostecki.Local quantum information dynamics. June 2016. arXiv:1605.02063 (↓p. 3)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    Uniqueness of the Fisher–Rao metric on the space of smooth densities

    M. Bauer, M. Bruveris, and P. W. Michor. “Uniqueness of the Fisher–Rao metric on the space of smooth densities”. In:Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society48.3 (June 2016), pp. 499–506.doi:10.1112/blms/bdw020(↓p. 3)

    work page doi:10.1112/blms/bdw020( 2016

  38. [38]

    N. Ay, J. Jost, H. V. Lê, and L. Schwachhöfer.Information geometry. Vol. 64. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete 34. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56478-4(↓pp. 3, 16)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56478-4( 2017

  39. [39]

    Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology

    S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski. “Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology”. In:Physical Review A94.5 (Nov. 2016), p. 052108.doi:10.1103/ physreva.94.052108. arXiv:1608.02634 [quant-ph](↓pp. 5, 32)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems

    M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P. Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov. “Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems”. In:Physics Reports697 (June 2017), pp. 1–87. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.07.001 . arXiv: 1602.01062 [cond-mat.quant-gas] (↓p. 24)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Dynamical Vector Fields on the Manifold of Quantum States

    F. Ciaglia, F. Di Cosmo, A. Ibort, M. Laudato, and G. Marmo. “Dynamical Vector Fields on the Manifold of Quantum States”. In:Open Systems & Information Dynamics24.03 (Sept. 2017), p. 1740003.doi:10.1142/S1230161217400030(↓p. 29)

    work page doi:10.1142/s1230161217400030( 2017

  42. [42]

    Symmetric Logarithmic Derivative of Fermionic Gaussian States

    A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, and D. Valenti. “Symmetric Logarithmic Derivative of Fermionic Gaussian States”. In:Entropy20.7 (2018), p. 485.doi: 10.3390/e20070485 (↓pp. 5, 32)

    work page doi:10.3390/e20070485 2018

  43. [43]

    Discontinuities of the quantum fisher information and the bures metric

    D. Šafránek. “Discontinuities of the quantum fisher information and the bures metric”. In:Physical Review A95.5 (May 2017), p. 052320.doi: 10.1103/physreva.95.052320 (↓p. 14)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.95.052320 2017

  44. [44]

    Finite-temperature geometric properties of the Kitaev honeycomb model

    F. Bascone, L. Leonforte, B. Spagnolo, D. Valenti, and A. Carollo. “Finite-temperature geometric properties of the Kitaev honeycomb model”. In:Physical Review B99 (2019), p. 205155.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.99.205155(↓pp. 5, 32)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.99.205155( 2019

  45. [45]

    Uhlmann curvature in dissipative phase tran- sitions

    A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, and D. Valenti. “Uhlmann curvature in dissipative phase tran- sitions”. In:Scientific Reports8 (2018), p. 9852.doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27362-9 (↓pp. 5, 32)

    doi:10.1038/s41598-018-27362-9 2018

  46. [46]

    Stratified manifold of quantum states, actions of the complex special linear group

    D. Chruściński, F. Ciaglia, A. Ibort, G. Marmo, and F. Ventriglia. “Stratified manifold of quantum states, actions of the complex special linear group”. In:Annals of Physics400 (Jan. 2019), pp. 221–245.doi:10.1016/j.aop.2018.11.015(↓pp. 4, 29). 54

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2018.11.015( 2019

  47. [47]

    On quantumness in multi- parameter quantum estimation

    A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, A. A. Dubkov, and D. Valenti. “On quantumness in multi- parameter quantum estimation”. In:Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experi- ment2019 (2019), p. 094010.doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ab3ccb(↓pp. 5, 32)

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ab3ccb( 2019

  48. [48]

    Information geometrical characterization of quantum statistical models in quan- tum estimation theory

    J. Suzuki. “Information geometrical characterization of quantum statistical models in quan- tum estimation theory”. In:Entropy21.7 (July 2019), p. 703.doi: 10.3390/e21070703 (↓pp. 3, 32, 51)

    doi:10.3390/e21070703 2019

  49. [49]

    Uhlmann number in translational invariant systems

    L. Leonforte, D. Valenti, B. Spagnolo, and A. Carollo. “Uhlmann number in translational invariant systems”. In:Scientific Reports9 (2019), p. 9106.doi: 10.1038/s41598-019- 45546-9(↓pp. 5, 32)

    doi:10.1038/s41598-019- 2019

  50. [50]

    From the Jordan Product to Riemannian Geometries on Classical and Quantum States

    F. M. Ciaglia, J. Jost, and L. Schwachhöfer. “From the Jordan Product to Riemannian Geometries on Classical and Quantum States”. In:Entropy22.6 (June 2020), p. 637.doi: 10.3390/e22060637(↓p. 3)

    doi:10.3390/e22060637( 2020

  51. [51]

    Differential Geometric Aspects of Parametric Estimation Theory for States on Finite-Dimensional C∗-Algebras

    F. M. Ciaglia, J. Jost, and L. Schwachhöfer. “Differential Geometric Aspects of Parametric Estimation Theory for States on Finite-Dimensional C∗-Algebras”. In:Entropy22.11 (Nov. 2020), p. 1332.doi:10.3390/e22111332(↓pp. 3, 4)

    work page doi:10.3390/e22111332( 2020

  52. [52]

    On the pseudo-manifold of quantum states

    F. D’Andrea and D. Franco. “On the pseudo-manifold of quantum states”. In:Differential Geometry and its Applications78 (Oct. 2021), p. 101800.doi:10.1016/j.difgeo.2021. 101800. arXiv:2011.04488 [math-ph](↓p. 4)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    On the discontinuity of the quantum Fisher information for quantum statistical models with parameter dependent rank

    L. Seveso, F. Albarelli, M. G. Genoni, and M. G. A. Paris. “On the discontinuity of the quantum Fisher information for quantum statistical models with parameter dependent rank”. In:Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53.2 (Jan. 2020), 02LT01. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab599b(↓p. 14)

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab599b( 2020

  54. [54]

    Parametric models and information geometry on W*-algebras

    F. M. Ciaglia, F. Di Nocera, J. Jost, and L. Schwachhöfer. “Parametric models and information geometry on W*-algebras”. In:Information Geometry7.1 (Jan. 2024), pp. 329– 354.doi:10.1007/s41884-022-00094-6. arXiv:2207.09396(↓pp. 3, 10, 18)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Hommage to chentsov’s theorem

    A. Fujiwara. “Hommage to chentsov’s theorem”. In:Information Geometry(Nov. 2022). doi:10.1007/s41884-022-00077-7(↓p. 3)

    work page doi:10.1007/s41884-022-00077-7( 2022

  56. [56]

    F. M. Ciaglia, F. Di Cosmo, and L. E. González-Bravo.Fields of covariances on non- commutative probability spaces in finite dimensions. Oct. 2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2510.24617. arXiv:2510.24617(↓pp. 4, 50)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.24617 2025

  57. [57]

    The exponential Orlicz space in quantum information geometry

    A. Jenčová. “The exponential Orlicz space in quantum information geometry”. In:Infor- mation Geometry7.S1 (Jan. 2024), pp. 377–395.doi: 10.1007/s41884-023-00097-x (↓p. 51)

    work page doi:10.1007/s41884-023-00097-x 2024

  58. [59]

    A coadjoint orbit–like construction for Jordan superalgebras

    F. M. Ciaglia, S. Jiang, J. Jost, and L. Schwachhöfer. “A coadjoint orbit–like construction for Jordan superalgebras”. In:Journal of Geometry and Physics209 (Mar. 2025), p. 105404. doi:10.1016/j.geomphys.2024.105404. arXiv:2311.01333(↓p. 4). 55

    arXiv 2025

  59. [122]

    Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1989. 277 pp. (↓p. 36)

    1989

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.