pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18833 · v2 · pith:7WT2R3OKnew · submitted 2026-04-20 · 🪐 quant-ph

Bargmann Scenarios

Rafael Wagner This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 00:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Bargmann invariantsquantum coherenceresource theorypolytopeswitnessingquantum statesmultivariate traces
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bargmann scenarios and polytopes fully characterize how invariants witness coherence in sets of quantum states.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a unified formalism for understanding how Bargmann invariants can detect different kinds of quantum coherence in collections of states. It defines Bargmann scenarios as specific tuples of these invariants and Bargmann polytopes as the geometric regions that incoherent states must occupy. This approach organizes the witnessing capabilities and connects to practical uses in quantum resource theories. A reader would care because it provides a systematic way to choose which measurements to make for certifying coherence without relying on full state tomography.

Core claim

The authors introduce Bargmann scenarios that specify relevant tuples of Bargmann invariants and Bargmann polytopes that bound the values these invariants can take for incoherent states, thereby fully determining the capability of any chosen tuple to witness coherence manifestations.

What carries the argument

Bargmann scenarios and Bargmann polytopes, where scenarios are tuples of invariants and polytopes are the convex sets bounding incoherent state values.

If this is right

  • It enables systematic organization of coherence witnessing power for different manifestations.
  • It connects the invariants to existing resource theory formalisms.
  • It supports certification of quantum devices through targeted invariant measurements.
  • It paves the way for a complete quantum resource theory based on multivariate traces of states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This framework might allow for dimension-independent certification protocols.
  • Similar polytopes could be constructed for other quantum resources like entanglement.
  • Experimental tests could involve preparing incoherent states and checking if their invariant values stay within the predicted bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The geometric bounds of the Bargmann polytopes are assumed to be both necessary and sufficient to determine the witnessing capability without extra constraints from the Hilbert space dimension.

What would settle it

A counterexample would be a set of incoherent states whose Bargmann invariant tuple lies outside the proposed polytope or a coherent state inside it despite the bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18833 by Rafael Wagner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the main contribution. Bargmann scenarios and their associated polytopes unify and generalize several previously studied constructions. The figure shows the quantum set B(W) and the classical set C(W) for W = {(1, 2),(1, 3),(2, 3),(1, 2, 3)} first investigated in Refs. [59, 68]. The orthogonal projection onto binary words (left) reproduces the sets of Refs. [26, 31, 48], while the projectio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Quantum and classical sets for W = {(1, 1, 2, 2),(1, 2, 1, 2)}. C(W) is the diagonal x = y within [0, 1] (solid line), B(W) is given by 0 ≤ y 2 ≤ x ≤ y ≤ 1 (shaded region), and Q(W) is the convex cone generated by B(W). The OBG family of tuples from Eq. (10) (dashed curve) realizes the boundary x = y 2 . The family of tu￾ples from Designolle et al. [49] from Eq. (11) realizes a curve (dash-dotted) which li… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Considerable effort has been devoted to developing techniques for witnessing and characterizing quantum resources that emerge from collective properties of a set of states. In this context, Bargmann invariants play a central role: they witness coherence and related resources, and underpin important applications. In this work, we introduce a unified formalism that fully characterizes and organizes the capability of Bargmann invariants to witness different manifestations of coherence in sets of states. It is formulated around the construction of Bargmann scenarios, which specify relevant tuples of Bargmann invariants, and Bargmann polytopes, which bound the values that said invariants can have when the states are incoherent. We study their basic geometry, connect them to existing formalisms, and illustrate their physical relevance. Our construction opens new opportunities for the certification of quantum devices and lays the path toward a full quantum resource theory based entirely on multivariate traces of states.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a unified formalism to characterize and organize the capability of Bargmann invariants for witnessing different manifestations of coherence in sets of quantum states. Central elements are Bargmann scenarios (tuples of invariants) and Bargmann polytopes (bounds on those invariants for incoherent states), with analysis of their geometry, connections to prior work, and illustrations of physical relevance for quantum device certification.

Significance. If the geometric bounds and characterization hold, the framework could unify disparate coherence-witnessing techniques under a single polytope-based organization and support a resource theory grounded in multivariate traces. The explicit construction of scenarios and polytopes, together with their physical illustrations, would be a constructive contribution to quantum resource theories.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 (Bargmann polytopes)] The definition and derivation of Bargmann polytopes (likely §3–4) must be checked against the finite-dimensional simplex of incoherent states. The skeptic concern is valid: if the polytope is obtained from linear inequalities without incorporating the rank/support constraints of a d-dimensional Hilbert space, then for d smaller than the scenario size the actual convex hull is a proper subset, so violation of the reported polytope does not necessarily certify coherence.
  2. [Abstract and §2] The abstract asserts a 'full characterization' of witnessing capability via scenarios and polytopes, yet the provided text contains no explicit derivations, proofs, or constructions of the polytopes from the multilinear map on the incoherent simplex. This gap is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the tuples in a Bargmann scenario should be introduced with an explicit example (e.g., three states, two invariants) before the general definition.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure captions for the polytope illustrations should state the Hilbert-space dimension used in the numerical examples.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The major comments raise important points about the treatment of finite-dimensional constraints and the explicitness of our constructions. We address each comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the updated version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 (Bargmann polytopes)] The definition and derivation of Bargmann polytopes (likely §3–4) must be checked against the finite-dimensional simplex of incoherent states. The skeptic concern is valid: if the polytope is obtained from linear inequalities without incorporating the rank/support constraints of a d-dimensional Hilbert space, then for d smaller than the scenario size the actual convex hull is a proper subset, so violation of the reported polytope does not necessarily certify coherence.

    Authors: We agree that this is a substantive point. Our initial derivation of the Bargmann polytopes relied on linear inequalities over the convex set of incoherent states without explicitly folding in the rank and support restrictions imposed by a fixed Hilbert-space dimension d. We will revise §3 to incorporate these constraints, adding a discussion of dimension-dependent polytopes together with explicit comparisons between the unrestricted polytope and the actual convex hull for d smaller than the scenario size. This will clarify when a violation certifies coherence and when additional checks are required. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and §2] The abstract asserts a 'full characterization' of witnessing capability via scenarios and polytopes, yet the provided text contains no explicit derivations, proofs, or constructions of the polytopes from the multilinear map on the incoherent simplex. This gap is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge the gap. While §2 introduces the general framework and later sections contain illustrative constructions, we did not supply fully explicit derivations that start from the multilinear map and arrive at the polytope facets for arbitrary scenarios. In the revision we will expand §2 with step-by-step constructions, including the explicit mapping from the incoherent simplex to the bounding inequalities for representative Bargmann scenarios, thereby substantiating the characterization claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in Bargmann scenarios and polytopes construction

full rationale

The paper defines Bargmann scenarios as tuples of invariants and polytopes as their bounds for incoherent states, building directly from the established definition of Bargmann invariants and the convex set of diagonal density operators. This geometric organization is presented as a new formalism without any reduction of a claimed prediction or witnessing power back to a fitted parameter or self-referential definition. Connections to prior formalisms are cited as external context rather than load-bearing justifications, and the derivation remains self-contained against the independent mathematical properties of multilinear maps on the incoherent simplex. No step equates a derived bound to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; new terms like scenarios and polytopes appear to be definitional constructs rather than postulated physical entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5654 in / 1049 out tokens · 37571 ms · 2026-05-21T00:19:31.924541+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A low order Bargmann invariant hierarchy for set coherence

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Fourth-order ordering-sensitive Bargmann invariants supply the first universal pairwise criterion for set coherence, and applying it to all pairs yields a complete test for any finite family of states.

  2. Commutativity from a single Bargmann invariant equality

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Two quantum states ρ₁ and ρ₂ commute exactly when tr(ρ₁²ρ₂²) = tr(ρ₁ ρ₂ ρ₁ ρ₂).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    As a last example, if we consider the Bargmann sce- nariosW d ≡ {(1),(1,1),

    +Tr(ρ2 2)−2Tr(ρ 1ρ2) =∥ρ 1 −ρ 2∥2 2 where∥ · ∥ 2 is the Schatten-2 norm. As a last example, if we consider the Bargmann sce- nariosW d ≡ {(1),(1,1), . . . ,(1,1, . . . ,1)}, where the last word hasdelements. These are of relevance for quantum spectroscopy[4, 62, 79–85]. In this context, the set of all Bargmann invariants is given by B(Wd) ={(Tr(ρ k))d k=1...

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Bargmann, Note on Wigner’s theorem on symmetry operations, J

    V. Bargmann, Note on Wigner’s theorem on symmetry operations, J. Math. Phys.5, 862 (1964)

    work page 1964

  3. [3]

    J. G. Kirkwood, Quantum statistics of almost classical assemblies, Phys. Rev.44, 31 (1933)

    work page 1933

  4. [4]

    P. A. M. Dirac, On the analogy between classical and quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.17, 195 (1945)

    work page 1945

  5. [5]

    Wagner, Z

    R. Wagner, Z. Schwartzman-Nowik, I. L. Paiva, A. Te’eni, A. Ruiz-Molero, R. S. Barbosa, E. Cohen, and E. F. Galvão, Quantum circuits for measuring weak values, Kirkwood–Dirac quasiprobability distributions, and state spectra, Quantum Science and Technology9, 015030 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, W. F. Braasch Jr, S. De Bièvre, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, C. Langrenez, M. Lostaglio, J. S. Lundeen, and N. Y. Halpern, Prop- erties and applications of the Kirkwood–Dirac distribu- tion, New Journal of Physics26, 121201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Schmid, R

    D. Schmid, R. D. Baldijão, Y. Y¯ ıng, R. Wagner, and J. H. Selby, Kirkwood–Dirac representations beyond quantum states and their relation to noncontextuality, Phys. Rev. A110, 052206 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Liu and S

    L. Liu and S. Cheng, The boundary of Kirkwood–Dirac quasiprobability (2025), arXiv:2504.09238 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    De Bièvre, Complete Incompatibility, Support Uncer- tainty, and Kirkwood-Dirac Nonclassicality, Phys

    S. De Bièvre, Complete Incompatibility, Support Uncer- tainty, and Kirkwood-Dirac Nonclassicality, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 190404 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Yunger Halpern, B

    N. Yunger Halpern, B. Swingle, and J. Dressel, Quasiprobability behind the out-of-time-ordered corre- lator, Physical Review A97, 042105 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    J. R. González Alonso, N. Yunger Halpern, and J. Dressel, Out-of-time-ordered-correlator quasiproba- bilities robustly witness scrambling, Physical Review Letters122, 040404 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    J. S. Pedernales, R. Di Candia, I. L. Egusquiza, J. Casanova, and E. Solano, Efficient Quantum Al- gorithm for Computingn-time Correlation Functions, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 020505 (2014)

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    Wagner and E

    R. Wagner and E. F. Galvão, Simple proof that anoma- lous weak values require coherence, Phys. Rev. A108, L040202 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    H. F. Hofmann, Complex Joint Probabilities as Expres- sions of Reversible Transformations in Quantum Me- chanics, New Journal of Physics14, 043031 (2012)

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    Chiribella, K

    G. Chiribella, K. Simonov, and X. Zhao, Dimension- independent weak value estimation via controlled swap operations, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043043 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    D. Yang, M. Ketkar, K. Audenaert, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum Cramér-Rao Precision Limit of NoisyContinuousSensing,Phys.Rev.Lett.136,070802 (2026)

    work page 2026

  17. [17]

    Ban, On sequential measurements with indefinite causal order, Physics Letters A403, 127383 (2021)

    M. Ban, On sequential measurements with indefinite causal order, Physics Letters A403, 127383 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    N. Gao, D. Li, A. Mishra, J. Yan, K. Simonov, and G. Chiribella, Measuring Incompatibility and Cluster- ing Quantum Observables with a Quantum Switch, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 170201 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    P. C. Azado, R. Wagner, R. S. Barbosa, and E. F. Galvão, Measuring unitary invariants with the quantum switch (2025), arXiv:2508.02345 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    A. J. Menssen, A. E. Jones, B. J. Metcalf, M. C. Tichy, S. Barz, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Distin- guishability and many-particle interference, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 153603 (2017)

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    A. E. Jones, A. J. Menssen, H. M. Chrzanowski, T. A. W. Wolterink, V. S. Shchesnovich, and I. A. Walmsley, Multiparticle Interference of Pairwise Distin- guishablePhotons,Phys.Rev.Lett.125,123603(2020)

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    A. M. Minke, A. Buchleitner, and C. Dittel, Charac- terizing four-body indistinguishability via symmetries, New Journal of Physics23, 073028 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Corrielli, A

    M.Pont, R.Albiero, S.E.Thomas, N.Spagnolo, F.Cec- carelli, G. Corrielli, A. Brieussel, N. Somaschi, H. Huet, A. Harouri, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, N. Belabas, F. Scia- rrino, R. Osellame, P. Senellart, and A. Crespi, Quanti- fyingn-Photon Indistinguishability with a Cyclic Inte- grated Interferometer, Phys. Rev. X12, 031033 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Rodari, C

    G. Rodari, C. Fernandes, E. Caruccio, A. Suprano, F. Hoch, T. Giordani, G. Carvacho, R. Albiero, N. D. Giano, G. Corrielli, F. Ceccarelli, R. Osellame, D. J. Brod, L. Novo, N. Spagnolo, E. F. Galvão, and F. Scia- rrino, Experimental observation of counter-intuitive fea- tures of photonic bunching (2024), arXiv:2410.15883 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Rodari, L

    G. Rodari, L. Novo, R. Albiero, A. Suprano, C. T. 6 Tavares, E. Caruccio, F. Hoch, T. Giordani, G. Car- vacho, M. Gardina, N. Di Giano, S. Di Giorgio, G. Corrielli, F. Ceccarelli, R. Osellame, N. Spag- nolo, E. F. Galvão, and F. Sciarrino, Semi-device- independent characterization of multiphoton indistin- guishability, PRX Quantum6, 020340 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Seron, L

    B. Seron, L. Novo, and N. J. Cerf, Boson bunching is not maximized by indistinguishable particles, Nature Pho- tonics17, 702 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Giordani, C

    T. Giordani, C. Esposito, F. Hoch, G. Carvacho, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galvão, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Witnesses of coherence and dimension from multipho- ton indistinguishability tests, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023031 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Giordani, D

    T. Giordani, D. J. Brod, C. Esposito, N. Viggianiello, M. Romano, F. Flamini, G. Carvacho, N. Spagnolo, E. F. Galvão, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental quantifi- cation of four-photon indistinguishability, New Journal of Physics22, 043001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    A. E. Jones, S. Kumar, S. D’Aurelio, M. Bayerbach, A. J. Menssen, and S. Barz, Distinguishability and mixedness in quantum interference, Phys. Rev. A108, 053701 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    D. J. Brod, E. F. Galvão, N. Viggianiello, F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Witnessing Genuine Multiphoton Indistinguishability, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 063602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Annoni and S

    E. Annoni and S. C. Wein, Incoherent behavior of par- tially distinguishable photons, arXiv:2502.05047 [quant- ph] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    K.-W. Bong, N. Tischler, R. B. Patel, S. Wollmann, G. J. Pryde, and M. J. W. Hall, Strong Unitary and Overlap Uncertainty Relations: Theory and Experi- ment, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 230402 (2018)

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    Gherardini and G

    S. Gherardini and G. De Chiara, Quasiprobabilities in Quantum Thermodynamics and Many-Body Systems, PRX Quantum5, 030201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Lostaglio, A

    M. Lostaglio, A. Belenchia, A. Levy, S. Hernández- Gómez, N. Fabbri, and S. Gherardini, Kirkwood-Dirac quasiprobability approach to the statistics of incompat- ible observables, Quantum7, 1128 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Levy and M

    A. Levy and M. Lostaglio, Quasiprobability distribu- tion for heat fluctuations in the quantum regime, PRX Quantum1, 010309 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Hernández-Gómez, S

    S. Hernández-Gómez, S. Gherardini, A. Belenchia, M. Lostaglio, A. Levy, and N. Fabbri, Projective mea- surements can probe nonclassical work extraction and time correlations, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023280 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Santini, A

    A. Santini, A. Solfanelli, S. Gherardini, and M. Collura, Work statistics, quantum signatures, and enhanced work extraction in quadratic fermionic models, Phys. Rev. B108, 104308 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Donati, F

    L. Donati, F. S. Cataliotti, and S. Gherardini, Ener- getics and quantumness of Fano coherence generation, Scientific Reports14, 20145 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    T. J. Elliott, Strict advantage of complex quantum the- ory in a communication task, Phys. Rev. A111, 062401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Samuel and R

    J. Samuel and R. Bhandari, General Setting for Berry’s Phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 2339 (1988)

    work page 1988

  41. [41]

    K. S. Akhilesh, Arvind, S. Chaturvedi, K. S. Mallesh, and N. Mukunda, Geometric phases for finite- dimensional systems—The roles of Bargmann invari- ants, null phase curves, and the Schwinger–Majorana SU(2) framework, Journal of Mathematical Physics61, 072103 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Mukunda, P

    N. Mukunda, P. K. Aravind, and R. Simon, Wigner rotations, Bargmann invariants and geometric phases, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General36, 2347 (2003)

    work page 2003

  43. [43]

    Mukunda, Arvind, E

    N. Mukunda, Arvind, E. Ercolessi, G. Marmo, G. Morandi, and R. Simon, Bargmann invariants, null phase curves, and a theory ofthe geometric phase, Phys. Rev. A67, 042114 (2003)

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    E. M. Rabei, N. Mukunda, R. Simon,et al., Bargmann invariants and geometric phases: A generalized connec- tion, Phys. Rev. A60, 3397 (1999)

    work page 1999

  45. [45]

    Zhang, B

    L. Zhang, B. Xie, and Y. Tao, Bargmann-invariant framework for local unitary equivalence and entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. A112, 052426 (2025)

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Foulds, V

    S. Foulds, V. Kendon, and T. Spiller, The controlled SWAP test for determining quantum entanglement, Quantum Science and Technology6, 035002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Bancal, Entanglement for any definition of two subsystems, Phys

    Y.Cai, B.Yu, P.Jayachandran, N.Brunner, V.Scarani, and J.-D. Bancal, Entanglement for any definition of two subsystems, Phys. Rev. A103, 052432 (2021)

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    B. Yu, P. Jayachandran, A. Burchardt, Y. Cai, N. Brun- ner, and V. Scarani, Absolutely entangled sets of pure states for bipartitions and multipartitions, Phys. Rev. A104, 032414 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    E. F. Galvão and D. J. Brod, Quantum and classical boundsfortwo-stateoverlaps,Phys.Rev.A101,062110 (2020)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Designolle, R

    S. Designolle, R. Uola, K. Luoma, and N. Brunner, Set Coherence: Basis-Independent Quantification of Quan- tum Coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 220404 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Wagner, A

    R. Wagner, A. Camillini, and E. F. Galvão, Coherence and contextuality in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, Quantum8, 1240 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Wagner, R

    R. Wagner, R. S. Barbosa, and E. F. Galvão, Inequal- ities witnessing coherence, nonlocality, and contextual- ity, Phys. Rev. A109, 032220 (2024)

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Giordani, R

    T. Giordani, R. Wagner, C. Esposito, A. Camillini, F. Hoch, G. Carvacho, C. Pentangelo, F. Ceccarelli, S. Piacentini, A. Crespi, N. Spagnolo, R. Osellame, E. F. Galvão, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental certifi- cation of contextuality, coherence, and dimension in a programmable universal photonic processor, Science Advances9, eadj4249 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Fernandes, R

    C. Fernandes, R. Wagner, L. Novo, and E. F. Galvão, Unitary-invariant witnesses of quantum imaginarity, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 190201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Miyazaki and K

    J. Miyazaki and K. Matsumoto, Imaginarity-free quan- tum multiparameter estimation, Quantum6, 665 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Bargmann invariants of Gaussian states

    J. Xu, Bargmann invariants of Gaussian states (2025), arXiv:2508.07155 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Wagner, F

    R. Wagner, F. C. R. Peres, E. Zambrini Cruzeiro, and E. F. Galvão, Unitary-invariant method for witness- ing nonstabilizerness in quantum processors, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical58, 285302 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Zamora, R

    S. Zamora, R. A. Macêdo, T. S. Sarubi, M. Alves, D. Poderini, and R. Chaves, Semi-device-independent nonstabilizerness certification in the prepare-and- measure scenario, Phys. Rev. A112, 042410 (2025)

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    Y. Quek, E. Kaur, and M. M. Wilde, Multivariate trace estimation in constant quantum depth, Quantum8, 7 1220 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Oszmaniec, D

    M. Oszmaniec, D. J. Brod, and E. F. Galvão, Measur- ing relational information between quantum states, and applications, New Journal of Physics26, 013053 (2024)

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    Simonov, R

    K. Simonov, R. Wagner, and E. F. Galvão, Estimation of multivariate traces of states given partial classical information, Phys. Rev. A112, 062435 (2025)

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    M. S. Leifer, N. Linden, and A. Winter, Measuring poly- nomial invariants of multiparty quantum states, Phys. Rev. A69, 052304 (2004)

    work page 2004

  63. [63]

    M. Shin, J. Lee, S. Lee, and K. Jeong, Resource-efficient algorithm for estimating the trace of quantum state powers, Quantum9, 1832 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    L. Novo, M. Robbio, E. F. Galvão, and N. J. Cerf, Native linear-optical protocol for efficient multivariate trace estimation (2026), arXiv:2601.14204 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Fujii, Exchange gate on the qudit space and Fock space, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics5, S613 (2003)

    K. Fujii, Exchange gate on the qudit space and Fock space, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics5, S613 (2003)

    work page 2003

  66. [66]

    Foulds, O

    S. Foulds, O. Prove, and V. Kendon, Generalizing mul- tipartite concentratable entanglement for practical ap- plications: mixed, qudit and optical states, Philosoph- ical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathemati- cal, Physical and Engineering Sciences382, 20240411 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    Wigderson, Mathematics and computation, inMath- ematics and Computation(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2019)

    A. Wigderson, Mathematics and computation, inMath- ematics and Computation(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2019)

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    Martínez-Cifuentes and N

    J. Martínez-Cifuentes and N. Quesada, Calculating trace distances of bosonic states in krylov subspace (2026), arXiv:2603.05499 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Eggeling and R

    T. Eggeling and R. F. Werner, Separability properties of tripartite states withU N U N Usymmetry, Phys. Rev. A63, 042111 (2001)

    work page 2001

  70. [70]

    Xu, Numerical ranges of Bargmann invariants, Physics Letters A565, 131091 (2026)

    J. Xu, Numerical ranges of Bargmann invariants, Physics Letters A565, 131091 (2026)

    work page 2026

  71. [71]

    Li and Y.-X

    M.-S. Li and Y.-X. Tan, Bargmann invariants for quan- tum imaginarity, Phys. Rev. A111, 022409 (2025)

    work page 2025

  72. [72]

    Zhang, B

    L. Zhang, B. Xie, and B. Li, Geometry of sets of Bargmann invariants, Phys. Rev. A111, 042417 (2025)

    work page 2025

  73. [73]

    S. S. Pratapsi, J. a. Gouveia, L. Novo, and E. F. Galvão, Elementary characterization of bargmann invariants, Phys. Rev. A112, 042421 (2025)

    work page 2025

  74. [74]

    Chefles, R

    A. Chefles, R. Jozsa, and A. Winter, On the Existence of Physical Transformations Between Sets of Quantum States, International Journal of Quantum Information 02, 11–21 (2004)

    work page 2004

  75. [75]

    Rodari, L

    G. Rodari, L. Novo, R. Albiero, A. Suprano, C. T. Tavares, E. Caruccio, F. Hoch, T. Giordani, G. Car- vacho, M. Gardina, N. Di Giano, S. Di Giorgio, G. Corrielli, F. Ceccarelli, R. Osellame, N. Spag- nolo, E. F. Galvão, and F. Sciarrino, Semi-device- independent characterization of multiphoton indistin- guishability, PRX Quantum6, 020340 (2025)

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    F. Hoch, A. Camillini, G. Rodari, E. Caruccio, G. Car- vacho, T. Giordani, R. Albiero, N. D. Giano, G. Cor- rielli, F. Ceccarelli, R. Osellame, M. Robbio, L. Novo, N. Spagnolo, E. F. Galvão, and F. Sciarrino, Opti- mal distillation of photonic indistinguishability (2025), arXiv:2509.02296 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Wagner,Coherence and contextuality as quantum resources, Ph.D

    R. Wagner,Coherence and contextuality as quantum resources, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minho (2025), arXiv:2511.16785 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419 (2014)

    work page 2014

  79. [79]

    T. C. Fraser,An estimation theoretic approach to quan- tum realizability problems, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Waterloo (2023), arXiv:2402.10902 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    Johri, D

    S. Johri, D. S. Steiger, and M. Troyer, Entanglement spectroscopy on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. B96, 195136 (2017)

    work page 2017

Showing first 80 references.