Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Characterizing quantum state-space with a single quantum measurement

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single unbiased 3-design measurement determines the full quantum state space through a variance inequality.

desk verdict A genuinely new variance-based characterization of state-space for 3-design references, but the printed pure-state constraints are wrong and the uniqueness claim is unproven; worth refereeing after corrections. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13505 v3 pith:MAHXE46T submitted 2024-12-18 quant-ph

Matthew B. Weiss This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P1681P15 PACS 03.65.Ta03.67.-a
keywords quantumstatespacecomplex-projective3-designreferencemeasurementBornruleuncertaintyprincipleJordanalgebraprobabilityrepresentationsinformationallycompletemeasurements
topics The Measurement Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes that a single reference measurement can do more than identify a quantum state: if the measurement is an unbiased complex-projective 3-design, the set of all valid quantum states can be characterized directly in terms of the probabilities the device itself produces. The characterization is a generalized uncertainty principle: a probability assignment corresponds to a valid state exactly when it lies in the column space of the device's conditional-probability matrix and obeys a variance lower bound for every observable in that space. Pure states are singled out by two simple norm equalities on the probability vector. The result matters because it shows the Hilbert-space formalism can, in this privileged case, be replaced by constraints on probability assignments alone, and it explains why 3-designs are structurally special: for them, the Jordan structure coefficients of the observable algebra can be read off from the reference device's own statistics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an unbiased complex-projective 3-design used as a measure-and-reprepare reference device: an ensemble of pure states whose third-order average matches the Haar average over pure states. From this device one forms the conditional-probability matrix $P_{ij}=P(E_i|\sigma_j)$, its 1-inverse Born matrix $\Phi$ satisfying $P\Phi P=P$, and the derived tensor $\Re[\tr(E_i\sigma_j\sigma_k)]$ that supplies the Jordan algebra structure coefficients. The 3-design condition is what collapses this tensor to an expression in $P_{ij}$ alone, which in turn yields the variance relation of Eq. 4.22 and the operator $L_\rho$ whose positive semidefiniteness tests whether a probability assignment is a valid state.

What would settle it

Take a SIC reference in dimension $d=3$ (a 2-design, not generally a 3-design), compute $P$, and search over $p \in \operatorname{col}(P)$ with $p_i \ge 0$, $\sum_i p_i=1$ for a vector satisfying $\sum_i p_i^2 = (\frac{d}{n})^2\frac{1}{d+1}$ and $\sum_i p_i^3 = (\frac{d}{n})^2\frac{6}{(d+1)(d+2)}$ but whose reconstructed operator $\rho = \sum_{ij}\Phi_{ij}p_j\sigma_i$ has a negative eigenvalue. Finding such a $p$ would show the 3-design assumption is necessary, while repeating the same search on a genuine 3-design and finding no such $p$ would confirm the pure-state characterization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For an unbiased complex-projective 3-design reference device with effects $E_i = \frac{d}{n}\sigma_i$, the paper's central claim is that a probability assignment $P(E_i|\rho)$ corresponds to a valid quantum state if and only if it lies in $\operatorname{col}(P)$ and satisfies, for all $x \in \operatorname{col}(P)$, $$\mathrm{Var}[X]_\rho \ge \frac{d}{d+2}\left(\langle $X^{2}$\rangle_\mu - 2\langle X\rangle_\mu\langle X\rangle_\rho\right) - \langle X\rangle_\$rho^{2}$,$$ where $\langle\cdot\rangle_\rho$ denotes an expectation over reference outcomes and $\mu$ is the maximally mixed state. Pure states are exactly those assignments satisfying $\sum_i P(E_i|\rho)^2 = (\frac{d}{n})^2 \frac{1}{d+1}$ and $\sum_i P(E_i|\rho)^3 = (\frac{d}{n})^2 \frac{6}{(d+1)(d+2)}$, together with positivity and the column-space condition. The same 3-design condition lets the three-index tensor $\Re[\tr(E_i\sigma_j\sigma_k)]$ — the structure coefficients of the Jordan product of observables — be computed from the device's own conditional probabilities $P(E_i|\sigma_j)$, so the entire state space is fixed by the reference device's statistics alone.

Load-bearing premise

The central result rests on the reference device being an unbiased complex-projective 3-design whose prepared states are proportional to its effects; if the device only realizes a 2-design or an arbitrary informationally-complete measurement, the simplification that lets the structure coefficients and variance bound be computed from the device's own probabilities does not go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Valid probability assignments are recognized by a single variance inequality (Eq. 4.23) plus the column-space condition, making state validation a linear-algebra test on reference probabilities.
  • Pure states are fixed by two norm equalities, so detecting purity becomes checking two scalar equations rather than diagonalizing a density matrix.
  • The Jordan product of observables, and with it the whole state-space geometry, is encoded in the reference device's conditional probabilities whenever the device is a 3-design.
  • The construction suggests a tractable generalization: replace the 3-design condition by arbitrary reference probabilities and study which quantum features survive in the resulting '3-qplex' state spaces.
  • Because the variance inequality parallels results used in classical shadow estimation, the paper links the shape of state space to the known sample-complexity advantages of 3-designs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the characterization is robust, the variance inequality could work in reverse as a device test: a device that satisfies Eq. 4.23 with $\operatorname{col}(P)$ exactly for all valid inputs behaves as a 3-design, offering a probability-only certification route the paper does not itself provide.
  • The pure-state norm constraints depend only on second and third moments, which suggests an experimental shortcut for verifying purity from agreement probabilities across a few copies of the reference device.
  • One could numerically probe the necessity of the 3-design assumption by scanning SIC (2-design) references for vectors in $\operatorname{col}(P)$ that satisfy the pure-state constraints but reconstruct to non-positive operators; the paper leaves this question open.
  • If the Jordan-algebra extraction generalizes, the same device-centric logic could be adapted to other Jordan-algebraic state spaces, such as real or quaternionic quantum theory, where the relevant designs would differ.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that if an informationally complete reference device is built from an unbiased complex-projective 3-design, with effects E_i = (d/n) sigma_i, then the set of valid probability assignments over the device's outcomes can be characterized directly from the device probabilities P(E_i|sigma_j). For pure states, the author proposes scalar norm constraints (Eqs. 4.11-4.13) together with the consistency condition p in col(P); for all states, he proposes a variance-based uncertainty principle (Eq. 4.23). The paper also derives a vector idempotence equation and shows that the Jordan algebra structure coefficients can be extracted from P(E_i|sigma_j), which is used to argue that 3-designs are specially adapted to the QBist program.

Significance. If the stated results are corrected and hold, the paper makes a genuinely useful contribution: it gives an explicit, parameter-free characterization of state space relative to a 3-design reference measurement, connects that characterization to a single-device uncertainty principle, and sharpens the contrast between 2-design and 3-design based reconstructions. The derivation of the variance inequality from the 3-design property is nontrivial, and the final inequality (Eq. 4.23) appears algebraically consistent with Appendix D. The paper is honest that the theorem is conditional on the reference device being a 3-design. However, the pure-state characterization, which is one of the two advertised main results, is stated with an algebraic error in the 2-norm constraint, so the claimed if-and-only-if characterization is not correct as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [IV.A; Eqs. (4.6), (4.12); Appendix B] The pure-state 2-norm constraint is internally inconsistent. Equation (4.5) gives P(agree|rho,rho) = 2 d/[n(d+1)] for a pure state, whereas Eq. (4.6) states the upper bound (d/n)^2/(d+1) and Eq. (4.12) states sum_i P(E_i|rho)^2 = (d/n)^2/(d+1). Appendix B's formula tr(rho^2) = (d+1)(n/d) sum_i x_i^2 - 1 independently implies sum_i x_i^2 = 2d/[n(d+1)] when tr(rho^2)=1. The printed bound can even be impossible: for qubit MUBs, d=2 and n=6 give (d/n)^2/(d+1)=1/27, which is smaller than the stated lower bound d/[n(d+1)]=1/9. Since Eq. (4.12) is the 2-norm input to Lemma IV.1, the claimed if-and-only-if pure-state characterization is not established as written and must be corrected.
  2. [IV.B; Eq. (4.15)] Equation (4.15) is not a well-formed summation as printed: the inner sum is written over the index pair jm, while k remains free and m is already one of the outer indices. Substituting rho = sum_{ab} Phi_{ab} P(E_b|rho) sigma_a into tr(E_i rho^2) requires summing over four independent indices, for example sum_{l,m} P(E_l|rho) P(E_m|rho) sum_{j,k} Phi_{jl} Phi_{km} Re[tr(E_i sigma_j sigma_k)]. Because Eq. (4.19) and the subsequent positivity criterion rest on this expression, the derivation needs to be rewritten and rechecked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV.A] The main-text theorem at the end of Section IV.A should state explicitly that the if direction requires the probability vector to lie in col(P); the text mentions this only after presenting the norm constraints, and Appendix B uses the projection x in col(P) for the converse.
  2. [IV.C] The sentence 'Only for a 3-design is such a simple relationship possible' is not proved. Since the main theorem is conditional on the 3-design property, this only-if claim is not needed for the central result, but it should be either proved or explicitly labeled as a conjecture.
  3. [II-IV] The paper does not provide a procedure for certifying from device statistics P(E_i|sigma_j) that the device is a 3-design. The abstract's 'single measurement' framing should therefore be softened or accompanied by a reference to a certification protocol.
  4. [Eq. (4.15)] Aside from the summation-index issue, the equations in Section IV.B contain several typographical artifacts (e.g., 'P (Ei, E j, E k|M3)' formatting and the inner sum in Eq. 4.15); please proofread the displayed formulas against the final LaTeX source.
  5. [References] Reference [36] has a garbled author name ('W. S/suppress lomczynski') and should be corrected to the proper spelling of S. lomczynski.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 3-design state-space characterization is a conditional theorem, not a fitted prediction or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a conditional theorem rather than a circular derivation. With the explicit assumption of an unbiased complex-projective 3-design (Eq. 3.3) and reference states proportional to effects, E_i = (d/n) sigma_i, the agreement-probability identities (Eqs. 4.5-4.8) and the positivity condition (Eq. 4.22) are derived by direct trace algebra and design identities. No parameter is fitted to data, and no quantity on the right-hand side of the characterization is renamed as a prediction. The resulting inequality (Eq. 4.23) is an equivalent reformulation of rho >= 0 via Eq. 4.20, so it is a mathematical equivalence rather than an empirical prediction that could reduce to its inputs. The only same-author citation is [25], an elementary 1-inverse equivalence used to set up the Born matrix; it is not load-bearing for the 3-design characterization, and no step of the derivation depends on an unverified self-citation. The paper explicitly concedes in Section VI that 'our derivation presumes a prior knowledge of traditional quantum theory,' so the abstract's framing is a conditional statement, not a claim of first-principles reconstruction; this limits scope but is not circular. The unproved assertion that only 3-designs permit such a relation is a support gap, not a circularity. Eq. 4.12 and the upper bound in Eq. 4.6 may be arithmetically inconsistent with Eq. 4.5, but that would be a correctness problem, not a circularity problem.

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

The central claim introduces no fitted numbers. It rests on the assumed 3-design property, the proportionality of reference states to effects, and standard quantum-mechanical background; the paper itself acknowledges that the derivation presumes traditional quantum theory.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Reference device states form an unbiased complex-projective 3-design: (1/n) sum_i sigma_i^{otimes t} = integral |psi><psi|^{otimes t} dpsi for t = 1, 2, 3.
    Central premise used to derive agreement probabilities (Eq 4.2), the triple-product extraction (Eq 4.18/C1), and the variance identity (Eq 4.22).
  • domain assumption Reference states are proportional to reference effects: E_i = (d/n) sigma_i.
    Invoked before Eq 4.2 to rewrite agreement probabilities and to fix the Born matrix Phi = (d+1)I - (d/n)J in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Standard finite-dimensional quantum mechanics: Born rule, positive semidefinite density matrices, Jordan algebra of Hermitian observables.
    The paper explicitly states in Section VI that the derivation presumes prior knowledge of traditional quantum theory; the goal is a probability-only reformulation, not a reconstruction.
  • standard math Moment formula for the t-th power of quantum state-space (Schur-Weyl duality) and self-duality of the positive semidefinite cone.
    Used in Eq 3.1 and Eq 4.20.
  • standard math Lemma IV.1: Hermitian A with tr(A^2) = tr(A^3) = 1 is a rank-1 projector.
    Used to conclude pure states from the scalar constraints; proof given in text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterizing quantum state-space with a single quantum measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MAHXE46T

@misc{pith2026241213505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterizing quantum state-space with a single quantum measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MAHXE46T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13505}
}
abstract

Can the state-space of $d$-dimensional quantum theory be derived from studying the behavior of a single "reference" measuring device? The answer is yes, if the measuring device corresponds to a complex-projective 3-design. In this privileged case, not only does each quantum state correspond to a probability-distribution over the outcomes of a single measurement, but also the probability-distributions which correspond to quantum states can be elegantly characterized as those which respect a generalized uncertainty principle. The latter takes the form of a lower-bound on the variance of a natural class of observables as measured by the reference. We give simple equations which pure-state probability distributions must satisfy, and contextualize these results by showing how 3-designs allow the structure-coefficients of the Jordan algebra of observables to be extracted from the probabilities which characterize the reference measurement itself. This lends credence to the view that quantum theory ought to be primarily understood as a set of normative constraints on probability assignments which reflect nature's lack of hidden variables, and further cements the significance of 3-designs in quantum information science.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bohr, The quantum postulate and the recent develop- ment of atomic theory, Nature 121, 580 (1928)

    N. Bohr, The quantum postulate and the recent develop- ment of atomic theory, Nature 121, 580 (1928)

    work page 1928

  2. [2]

    Baggott, The Quantum Story: A history in 40 mo- ments (OUP Oxford, 2011)

    J. Baggott, The Quantum Story: A history in 40 mo- ments (OUP Oxford, 2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Uncertainty relations for any multi observables

    J. Hou and K. He, Uncertainty relations for any multi observables, (2016), arXiv:1601.06338 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    C. A. Fuchs and B. C. Stacey, QBism: Quantum Theory as a Hero’s Handbook, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ”Enrico Fermi” 197, 133–202 (2019), arXiv:1612.07308 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    J. D. Trimmer, The present situation in quantum me- chanics: A translation of schr¨ odinger’s ”cat paradox” pa- per, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 124, 323 (1980)

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, Unknown quan- tum states: The quantum de finetti representation, Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4537–4559 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    D. M. Appleby, A. Ericsson, and C. A. Fuchs, Proper- ties of QBist State Spaces, Foundations of Physics 41, 564–579 (2010), arXiv:0910.2750 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    M. D. Mazurek, M. F. Pusey, K. J. Resch, and R. W. Spekkens, Experimentally bounding deviations from quantum theory in the landscape of generalized probabilistic theories, PRX Quantum 2, 020302 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    M. J. Grabowecky, C. A. J. Pollack, A. R. Cameron, R. W. Spekkens, and K. J. Resch, Experimentally bound- ing deviations from quantum theory for a photonic three- level system using theory-agnostic tomography, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032204 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    M¨ uller, Probabilistic theories and reconstructio ns of quantum theory, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes 10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.28 (2021)

    M. M¨ uller, Probabilistic theories and reconstructio ns of quantum theory, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes 10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.28 (2021)

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Barnum and A

    H. Barnum and A. Wilce, Post-classical probability theory (2013), arXiv:1205.3833 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    took as their starting place the generalization of the image of quantum state-space within the probability sim- plex induced by a symmetric informationally-complete (SIC) reference measurement. SIC measurements have a host of virtues: the corresponding states form a simplex in...

  5. [13]

    Appleby, C

    M. Appleby, C. A. Fuchs, B. C. Stacey, and H. Zhu, Introducing the qplex: a novel arena for quan- tum theory, The European Physical Journal D 71, 10.1140/epjd/e2017-80024-y (2017)

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics 16, 1050–1057 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    C. Mao, C. Yi, and H. Zhu, The Magic in Qudit Shadow Estimation based on the Clifford Group (2024), arXiv:2410.13572 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kliesch and I

    M. Kliesch and I. Roth, Theory of Quan- tum System Certification, PRX Quantum 2, 10.1103/prxquantum.2.010201 (2021)

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Chen and H

    D. Chen and H. Zhu, Nonstabilizerness enhances thrifty shadow estimation (2024), arXiv:2410.23977 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Maassen and J

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

    1988

  11. [19]

    Faraut and A

    J. Faraut and A. Kor´ anyi,Analysis on Symmetric Cones (Oxford University Press, 1994)

    1994

  12. [20]

    V. Obst, A. Heimendahl, T. Singal, and D. Gross, Wigner’s Theorem for stabilizer states and quan- tum designs, Journal of Mathematical Physics 65, 10.1063/5.0222546 (2024), arXiv:2405.17565 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Heinrich and D

    M. Heinrich and D. Gross, Robustness of Magic and Symmetries of the Stabiliser Polytope, Quantum 3, 132 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    D. M. Appleby, H. B. Dang, and C. A. Fuchs, Symmetric informationally-complete quantum states as analogues to orthonormal bases and minimum-uncertainty states, En- tropy 16, 1484 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Cuffaro and C

    G. Cuffaro and C. A. Fuchs, Quantum states with max- imal magic (2024), arXiv:2412.21083 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, and B. C. Stacey, The Va- rieties of Minimal Tomographically Complete Measure- ments, International Journal of Quantum Information 19, 2040005 (2021), arXiv:1812.08762 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ben-Israel and T

    A. Ben-Israel and T. N. E. Greville, Generalized Inverses, 2nd ed., CMS Books in Mathematics (Springer, New York, NY, 2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    M. B. Weiss, Depolarizing reference devices in gen- eralized probabilistic theories (2024), arXiv:2312.1279 0 [quant-ph]

    2024

  19. [27]

    Ferrie, Quasi-probability representations of quan tum theory with applications to quantum information science, Reports on Progress in Physics 74, 116001 (2011)

    C. Ferrie, Quasi-probability representations of quan tum theory with applications to quantum information science, Reports on Progress in Physics 74, 116001 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Piziak and P

    R. Piziak and P. L. Odell, Full rank factorization of ma- trices, Mathematics Magazine 72, 193 (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    A. W. Harrow, The Church of the Symmetric Subspace (2013), arXiv:1308.6595 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bacon, I

    D. Bacon, I. L. Chuang, and A. W. Harrow, The Quan- tum Schur transform: I. Efficient Qudit Circuits (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0601001 [quant-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. F. D. Waldron, An Introduction to Finite Tight Frames (Springer New York, 2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Seymour and T

    P. Seymour and T. Zaslavsky, Averaging sets: A gener- alization of mean values and spherical designs, Advances in Mathematics 52, 213 (1984)

    1984

  25. [33]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, On discrete structuresin finite Hilbert spaces (2017), arXiv:1701.07902 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, and B. C. Stacey, Symmetric informationally complete measurements identify the irreducible difference between classical and quantum systems, Physical Review Research 2, 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013074 (2020)

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    A. J. Scott, Tight informationally complete quantum measurements, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 39, 13507–13530 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Zhu and B.-G

    H. Zhu and B.-G. Englert, Quantum state tomog- raphy with fully symmetric measurements and product measurements, Physical Review A 84, 10.1103/physreva.84.022327 (2011)

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    S/suppress lomczy´ nski and A

    W. S/suppress lomczy´ nski and A. Szymusiak, Morphophoric POVMs, generalised qplexes, and 2-designs, Quantum 4, 338 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Gross, S

    D. Gross, S. Nezami, and M. Walter, Schur–Weyl Dual- ity for the Clifford Group with Applications: Property Testing, a Robust Hudson Theorem, and de Finetti Rep- resentations, Communications in Mathematical Physics 385, 1325–1393 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    H. Zhu, C. Mao, and C. Yi, Third moments of qudit Clif- ford orbits and 3-designs based on magic orbits (2024), arXiv:2410.13575 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zhu, Multiqubit Clifford groups are unitary 3-designs, Physical Review A 96, 10.1103/physreva.96.062336 (2017)

    H. Zhu, Multiqubit Clifford groups are unitary 3-designs, Physical Review A 96, 10.1103/physreva.96.062336 (2017)

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    N. S. Jones and N. Linden, Parts of quantum states, Physical Review A 71, 10.1103/physreva.71.012324 (2005)

    2005 doi

  34. [42]

    C. A. Fuchs, M. Schlosshauer, and B. C. Stacey, My Struggles with the Block Universe (2015), arXiv:1405.2390 [quant-ph]. 10

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Oszmaniec, D

    M. Oszmaniec, D. J. Brod, and E. F. Galv˜ ao, Measur- ing relational information between quantum states, and applications, New Journal of Physics , 013053 (2024), arXiv:2109.10006 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    B. C. Stacey, Quantum Theory as Symmetry Broken by Vitality (2023), arXiv:1907.02432 [quant-ph]

    2023

  37. [45]

    Wilce, A Royal Road to Quantum Theory (or Thereabouts), Entropy 20, 227 (2018), arXiv:1606.09306 [quant-ph]

    A. Wilce, A Royal Road to Quantum Theory (or Thereabouts), Entropy 20, 227 (2018), arXiv:1606.09306 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    C. A. Fuchs, QBism, Where Next?, in Phenomenol- ogy and QBism (Routledge, 2023) p. 78–143, arXiv:2303.01446 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, Quan- tum Dynamics Happens Only on Paper: QBism’s Ac- count of Decoherence, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052205 (2024), arXiv:2312.14112 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, J. L. Pienaar, and B. C. Stacey, Born’s rule as a quantum exten- sion of Bayesian coherence, Physical Review A 104, 10.1103/physreva.104.022207 (2021). Appendix A: Φ for an unbiased 2-design For an unbiased 2-design {σi}n i=1, 1 n ∑ iσ ⊗ 2 i = 1 d(d...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.