Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Spectrum Estimation is Almost as Hard as Tomography

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that constant-precision spectrum estimation of a d-dimensional quantum state requires at least d^{2-o(1)} copies, nearly matching the cost of full tomography.

desk verdict First superlinear lower bound for spectrum estimation, and the argument holds up better than the reader's one flagged worry suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29680 v1 pith:VRGCINN6 submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph cs.DS

Marco Fanizza , Ryan O'Donnell , Chirag Wadhwa This is my paper
classification quant-phcs.DS MSC 81P4560B2005E10 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords quantumspectrumestimationsamplecomplexityJucys–MurphyelementsrandomprojectionsvonNeumannentropyranktestingmomentmatchingProuhet–Tarry–Escott
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 learning the eigenvalue spectrum of an unknown d-dimensional quantum state is almost as costly as learning the entire state: at least d^{2-o(1)} copies are needed for any constant-precision spectrum estimate. The same near-quadratic lower bound is proved for von Neumann entropy estimation and for rank testing. Prior to this work, only a linear lower bound was known for spectrum estimation, while the best algorithms achieved only sub-polynomial savings over full tomography. The proof builds a pair of unitarily invariant mixtures of states that are statistically almost indistinguishable with fewer than ~d² copies, yet have typically separated spectra, entropies, and ranks. This closes the gap to near-optimality for the standard Empirical Young Diagram estimation strategy.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the Jucys–Murphy elements J_t=Σ_{i<t}(i t), commuting transposition sums in the symmetric group algebra; their normalized versions J̃_t=J_t/d index the common eigenbasis of unitarily invariant n-copy operators. For a Haar-random rank-r projector Π, E[Π^{⊗n}] = ∏_{t=1}^n (r+J_t)/(d+J_t), and products of random projections have tensor moments ∏ f_a(J̃_t) with f_a(z)=∏(1+a_i z)/(1+z). A tilt with density ∝ Tr(X)^n makes the average n-copy state proportional to these moments. Matching the first k−1 power sums of the two parameter sequences makes the log-likelihood ratio start at degree k, leaving only high-order Jucys–Murphy power sums to control.

What would settle it

For one fixed even k, simulate or analytically compute the sorted-total-variation distance between spectra of states drawn from the two tilted ensembles at dimension d (using the matched-power-sum construction). Proposition 5.8 predicts that separation by a constant occurs with failure probability at most exp(−Ω(d²)); observing failure probability that is not exponentially small, or observing E tr(X_e) that decays with d, would refute the load-bearing concentration step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For every even k≥2 there is a dimension-independent precision ε_k such that distinguishing the two constructed ensembles requires Ω(d^{2−4/(k+4)}) copies, giving the d^{2−o(1)} lower bound for spectrum estimation (Theorem 1.2), entropy estimation (Theorem 1.3), and rank testing (Theorem 1.4). The hard ensembles are tilted versions of sandwiched products of Haar-random projections; the tilt makes the n-fold average state proportional to an explicit rational function of Jucys–Murphy elements. Matching the first k−1 power sums of the two parameter sequences (via a Prouhet–Tarry–Escott construction) makes the log-likelihood ratio begin at degree k, and bounding the resulting triangular discrimin

Load-bearing premise

The tilted hard states are assumed to inherit the typical spectrum, entropy, and rank concentration of the underlying untitled random-projector products; if the expected normalized trace E tr(X_e) or the Lipschitz constants of tr(X^j) had a hidden d-dependence, the constant separation between the two ensembles would not hold with high probability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the lower bound is correct, the constant-precision regime of spectrum estimation is characterized up to a d^{o(1)} factor, with the standard Θ(d²)-copy Empirical Young Diagram algorithm near-optimal.
  • Two-stage quantum state learning—first eigenvalues, then eigenvectors—cannot avoid a near-quadratic first stage; the eigenvalue stage alone is as expensive as full tomography.
  • von Neumann entropy estimation, despite being a scalar functional, also requires d^{2−o(1)} copies, matching the upper bound up to sub-polynomial factors.
  • Rank testing with two-sided error becomes almost as hard as rank testing with one-sided error, refining the prior Ω(r) bound to near-optimal Ω(d^{2−γ}).
  • Any algorithm that estimates the spectrum to constant sorted-total-variation error must use nearly the same number of copies as a full tomographic reconstruction, even allowing fully entangled measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The tilting mechanism is likely reusable for other unitarily invariant properties; it supplies a quantum analogue of classical Poissonization/moment-matching and may yield tight lower bounds under restricted (non-entangled) measurements, where a d^{3/2}-to-d^3 gap remains.
  • Editorial inference: The ε-dependence is left open; the warm-up instance already yields Ω(d^{4/3}/ε^{2/3}) for ε ≳ d^{-1/4}, and the framework suggests the conjectured Θ(d²/ε²) dependence might be attainable by extending the moment-matching order to scale with 1/ε.
  • Editorial inference: Because the hard instances are mixtures of Haar-randomized states, the indistinguishability step is measurement-independent, so the d^{2−o(1)} barrier likely applies to any test, not only to the estimators considered here; a testable extension would be to prove the analogous lower bound for incoherent/LOCC measurements.
  • Editorial inference: The rank-separation proof exploits the atom at zero in the free multiplicative convolution of the projector laws; similar free-probability reasoning could give lower bounds for estimating other spectral statistics, such as Rényi entropies or entanglement spectra.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves that constant-precision spectrum estimation, von Neumann entropy estimation, and rank testing of d-dimensional quantum states require nearly as many copies as full tomography. For each even k≥2 it constructs a pair of unitarily invariant mixtures built from tilted products of Haar-random projectors (PRP_d(a), PRP_d(b)), with parameters a,b obtained from the Prouhet–Thue–Morse construction. The n-copy averaged states are shown to be indistinguishable for n=o(d^{2−4/(k+4)}) by expanding the log-likelihood ratio in Jucys–Murphy elements, matching low-order moments, and bounding high-order terms with symmetric-group combinatorics. The same pairs are shown to have separated spectra, entropies (after depolarization), and ranks with probability 1−exp(−Ω_k(d^2)), yielding the claimed Ω(d^{2−o(1)}) lower bounds. The warmup section gives a self-contained Ω(d^{4/3}) proof for rank-d/2 projectors versus Haar-random marginals.

Significance. If correct, this is a major advance: it resolves the long-standing gap between spectrum estimation and full tomography in the constant-precision regime, shows that the EYD algorithm is near-optimal, and improves prior Ω(d) and Ω(d/log d) bounds dramatically. The technical contribution is substantial and largely self-contained: explicit tensor-moment formulas for product-of-random-projections ensembles (Prop. 3.5), the tilted-law normalization trick (Def. 5.4), exact trace computations in the warmup (Thm. 4.4), and a detailed combinatorial analysis of high-order Jucys–Murphy moments (Lemmas 6.5–6.7). I checked the warmup trace computations (Eqs. 4.33–4.35), the tilting identity, and the exponent bookkeeping in Theorem 5.7 and Lemmas 6.3–6.4; they are consistent. The potential weakness in transferring concentration of spectra from the untilted to the tilted law does not materialize: ν_e is a product of dimension-independent constants, the Lipschitz constants in Lemma 7.2 are O_k(j√K/d), and the cost in Prop. 5.5 is only exp(O(n)), which is dominated by exp(−Ω(d^2)) when n=o(d^2). The rank separation relies on standard free-probability results ([CM14], [Bel03]), which is an appropriat

minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Theorem 1.2] The phrase 'constant-precision' should be qualified: the precision ε_k is dimension-independent but may depend on k (equivalently, on γ). Theorem 1.2 states this precisely, but the abstract could be read as claiming a universal fixed ε for every γ. A one-sentence clarification would remove this ambiguity.
  2. [Section 1.2 (Outlook)] The unreported Ω(d^{4/3}/ε^{2/3}) bound and the ChatGPT 5.6 candidate proof are promises rather than results included in this paper. They should be removed or placed in a clearly marked 'Remark (not part of the technical content)' to avoid any ambiguity about what is being claimed and verified.
  3. [Proposition 5.2] The sentence 'One can verify that this preserves the moment-matching guarantees using, say, the binomial theorem' is a missing one-line proof. After shifting by 1, the difference of j-th power sums becomes Σ_{s=0}^j C(j,s)(S_s(E)−S_s(O)), which vanishes for j<k and retains the k-th mismatch. Adding this would make the construction fully self-contained.
  4. [Section 7.2, Eq. (7.16)] The displayed chain in the proof of Lemma 7.2 contains typographical artifacts: stray brackets and a duplicated superscript in the expression for the projection-difference norm. Please proofread this display.
  5. [Section 9 (Lemma 9.1)] The phrase 'Asymptotic freeness of independent Haar conjugates implies...' could state explicitly that the mode of convergence is almost sure, matching the lemma statement. The citation to [CM14] is appropriate, but a brief sentence on the strong asymptotic freeness formulation would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lower-bound derivation is self-contained, with hard instances adversarially engineered and each load-bearing claim proved in-paper or supported by independent external results.

full rationale

The central derivation chain—PRP tensor-moment formula (Prop. 3.5), Prouhet–Tarry–Escott moment matching (Prop. 5.2), the Taylor expansion of log(f_b/f_a) (Prop. 5.3), statistical indistinguishability (Thm. 5.7), spectral/entropy/rank separation (Props. 5.8–5.10), and the reductions to Theorems 1.2–1.4—does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. The tilted law is deliberately defined so that E[ρ^{⊗n}] ∝ E[X^{⊗n}]; this is a designed property of the hard instance, not a fitted parameter, and the subsequent indistinguishability and separation statements are proved rather than assumed. The moment-matching constants come from the Thue–Morse/PTE construction, not from tuning to the target lower bound. The Ψ_j separation in Lemma 7.1 is derived from Proposition 5.3; the concentration transfer (Prop. 5.5) uses Jensen plus the explicit ν_e = Θ_k(1) from Eq. (3.10); the Lipschitz bound in Lemma 7.2 is proved in-paper and invokes an external concentration theorem [Mec19]. Rank separation invokes external free-probability results [CM14, Bel03], which are independent evidence and not supplied by the authors' own prior work. Self-citations such as [OW21] and [OW26] are contextual or superseded by the new bound, not load-bearing. The self-flagged asides (the ChatGPT 5.6 candidate proof and the unreported Ω(d^{4/3}/ε^{2/3}) bound) are explicitly non-load-bearing. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors; no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 13 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The construction introduces no fitted parameters: the PTE/Thue–Morse sequences are exact combinatorial objects; the constants (ε_k, δ_spec, δ_ent, δ_rank, p_k, B, C_0, δ) are proven to exist as dimension-independent values, not numerically fitted; and the n-dependent tilt is part of the hard-instance design, mirroring Poissonization in classical distribution testing. The mathematics rests on standard theorems (Jucys identity, Collins–Śniady twirl, Meckes concentration, Collins–Male asymptotic freeness, Belinschi atom formula, Marchenko–Pastur/Page asymptotics) plus the paper's own proved lemmas. The invented entities are mathematical devices (the tilted law; the PRP ensembles) that are fully specified and internally justified, with no external falsifiable handle — hence independent_evidence = false for both.

free parameters (3)
  • Depolarizing strength p_k (Prop 5.9) = existence only; chosen small enough that p_k·max{1, B_k−1} < 1 (not numerically specified)
    Hand-chosen to make the centered-moment entropy series (Lemma 8.1) converge and to keep the O_k(p_k^{k+2}) error below the leading −κ_k p_k^{k+1}/k(k+1) mismatch term; dimension-independent; sets the constant precision ε_k in Theorem 1.3.
  • PTE/Thue–Morse sequences a, b ∈ Z_+^K, K = 2^{k−1} = Thue–Morse partition of {0,…,2^k−1}, shifted by +1 (Prop 5.2)
    Design parameters of the hard instances: they set the matched moment degree k−1 and hence the lower-bound exponent 2−4/(k+4); exact combinatorial construction, not fitted to data.
  • Good-set radius δ (Eq 6.18) = any constant < ½ min_i{a_i^{−1}, b_i^{−1}}
    Hand-chosen threshold separating eigenbasis indices where the log-likelihood Taylor expansion (Prop 5.3) is controlled; all constants absorb δ into C_k.
assumptions (13)
  • standard math Jucys identity: ∏_{t=1}^n (z+J_t) = Σ_{π∈S_n} z^{#cyc(π)}π (Eq 2.8, [Juc74])
    Used to compute E[Π^{⊗n}] (Prop 3.2), ρ_Haar^{(n)} (Lemma 4.2), and all PRP moment formulas (Prop 3.5).
  • standard math Collins–Śniady unitary twirl formula E[U^{⊗n} A U^{†⊗n}] = Φ(A)Φ(1)^{−1} ([CŠ06, Prop 2.3])
    Upstream of Proposition 3.2, the paper's central moment formula.
  • standard math Schur–Weyl duality / commutant structure: {U^{⊗n}: U ∈ U(d)}′ is the permutation algebra ([GW09])
    Justifies the Jucys–Murphy polynomial representation of the averaged n-fold states (Section 1.1.2).
  • standard math Meckes concentration for Lipschitz functions of independent Haar unitaries ([Mec19, Thm 5.17], Eq 7.14)
    Load-bearing for Lemmas 7.2–7.3, Lemma 4.1, and all typical-spectrum/entropy/rank separation statements.
  • standard math Prouhet–Tarry–Escott / Thue–Morse: existence of K = 2^{k−1} integers with matched power sums to degree k−1 (Prop 5.2)
    Provides the exact moment matching that makes the log-likelihood ratio start at degree k.
  • standard math Asymptotic freeness of independent Haar-unitarily conjugated projections ([CM14])
    Yields the limiting law and the atom at zero used in the rank separation (Lemma 9.1).
  • standard math Atom formula for free multiplicative convolution (μ⊠ν)({0}) = max{μ({0}), ν({0})} ([Bel03])
    Computes μ_b({0}) = 1 − 1/(2^k − 1), the key input for rank separation.
  • standard math Marchenko–Pastur law and Page-curve entropy asymptotics for Haar-induced states ([Nec07], [Wei17], [VPO16], [Sen96])
    Used in the warmup (Lemma 4.1) to show rank-d/2-projector and Haar-marginal ensembles have separated spectra and entropies.
  • domain assumption Density-matrix model, n-copy access with arbitrary (entangled) measurements, worst-case copy complexity (Sections 1–2)
    Defines the tasks and the quantity being lower-bounded; the standard model for quantum property testing.
  • domain assumption The tester may implement the depolarizing channel 𝒩_p (Eq 8.1) on its copies
    Needed for the entropy lower-bound reduction (Prop 5.9 → Thm 1.3); standard and implementable.
  • domain assumption Dimension divisibility: d divisible by every a_i, b_i; otherwise embed in d′ ≤ d with constant-factor loss (footnote to Def 3.4)
    Keeps the PRP ensembles well-defined for all d up to constant factors.
  • ad hoc to paper The n-tilted law ]PRP_d^{(n)}(a) (Def 5.4) is a valid probability measure whose n-fold moments are exactly E[X^{⊗n}]/E[Tr(X)^n]
    The paper's core methodological device; proven by direct computation (Eq 1.3/5.5), but everything downstream depends on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Sandwiched product form X = Π_1···Π_K···Π_1 yields factorized moments ∏_t f_e(J̃_t) (Prop 3.5)
    The design choice making the log-likelihood analysis tractable; proved but specific to this construction.
invented entities (2)
  • The n-tilted distribution ]PRP_d^{(n)}(a) (Definition 5.4)
    purpose: Produces valid quantum states ρ = X̃/Tr(X̃) whose n-fold tensor moments are exactly proportional to E[X^{⊗n}], decoupling global normalization from the random matrix so that closed-form Jucys–Murphy moment formulas apply
    A new probabilistic object introduced by this paper; all properties used later (Eq 1.3, Prop 5.5, Lemma 7.3) are derived internally, not corroborated externally — but they are fully derived, so this is a specified device rather than a black-box postulate.
  • Sandwiched-product-of-random-projections ensembles PRP_d(a) (Definition 3.4)
    purpose: Hard instances whose n-fold moments factor as ∏_t f_a(J̃_t), enabling moment-matching indistinguishability and, under the tilt, valid state mixtures
    Built from standard constituents (Haar-random projections, [ZS01], [Col05], [CN16]) but the sandwiched form and its use here are novel; its behavior is proven in Prop 3.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectrum Estimation is Almost as Hard as Tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VRGCINN6

@misc{pith2026260729680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectrum Estimation is Almost as Hard as Tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VRGCINN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29680}
}
abstract

We study the sample complexity of estimating and testing fundamental unitarily invariant properties of unknown quantum states; namely, the tasks of spectrum estimation, von Neumann entropy estimation, and rank-testing. For $d$-dimensional states, and for every $\gamma>0$, we prove a sample complexity lower bound of $\Omega(d^{2-\gamma})$ for spectrum estimation to constant sorted total-variation error, entropy estimation to constant additive error, and rank-testing to constant trace distance. Our hard instances are constructed from sandwiched products of Haar-random projectors, suitably normalized using a novel technique that lets us derive explicit expressions for high-order tensor moments of the resultant states. These moments can be expressed as symmetric functions of Jucys--Murphy elements of the symmetric group algebra. To show that two such mixtures are indistinguishable, we analyze the log-likelihood ratio and perform moment-matching, i.e., we set its low-order Jucys--Murphy components to zero. Indistinguishability is then obtained by bounding an $f$-divergence through the high-order components; the non-zero high-order terms and concentration of functions of Haar-random unitaries also imply separations in typical spectra, entropies, and ranks, proving all our lower bounds.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Nearly tight lower bounds for estimating quantum functionals: Uhlmann fidelity, trace distance, and von Neumann entropy

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Estimating Uhlmann fidelity, trace distance, or von Neumann entropy of a d-dimensional quantum state requires Ω̃(d²) samples, matching known upper bounds up to polylog factors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15806 , year=

    Mixed state tomography reduces to pure state tomography , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15806 , year=

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    The American Mathematical Monthly , volume=

    Prouhet's 1851 solution of the Tarry-Escott problem of 1910 , author=. The American Mathematical Monthly , volume=. 1959 , publisher=

    1910

  3. [3]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume=

    Minimax estimation of functionals of discrete distributions , author=. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  4. [4]

    Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , pages=

    Testing symmetric properties of distributions , author=. Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , pages=

  5. [5]

    Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , abstract =

    Karol Zyczkowski and Hans-Jürgen Sommers , title =. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , abstract =. 2001 , month =. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/34/35/335 , url =

    doi:10.1088/0305-4470/34/35/335 2001

  6. [6]

    Journal of Mathematical Physics , volume=

    Random matrix techniques in quantum information theory , author=. Journal of Mathematical Physics , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  7. [7]

    Probability theory and related fields , volume=

    Product of random projections, Jacobi ensembles and universality problems arising from free probability , author=. Probability theory and related fields , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  8. [8]

    The Strong Asymptotic Freeness of

    Beno. The Strong Asymptotic Freeness of. Annales Scientifiques de l'. 2014 , doi =

    2014

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Integral Equations and Operator Theory , volume =

    Serban Belinschi , title =. Integral Equations and Operator Theory , volume =. 2003 , doi =

    2003

  2. [10]

    2009 , doi =

    Roe Goodman and Nolan Wallach , title =. 2009 , doi =

    2009

  3. [11]

    Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Learning Theory , series =

    Yanjun Han and Jiantao Jiao and Tsachy Weissman , title =. Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Learning Theory , series =

  4. [12]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =

    Yihong Wu and Pengkun Yang , title =. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  5. [13]

    Journal of the ACM , volume =

    Gregory Valiant and Paul Valiant , title =. Journal of the ACM , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07460 , year =

    Chirag Wadhwa and Sitan Chen , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07460 , year =

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages =

    Sitan Chen and Jerry Li and Brice Huang and Allen Liu , title =. Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  8. [16]

    Proceedings of the 58th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =

    Ryan O'Donnell and Chirag Wadhwa , title =. Proceedings of the 58th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  9. [17]

    Entanglement is necessary for optimal quantum property testing , booktitle =

    S. Entanglement is necessary for optimal quantum property testing , booktitle =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  10. [18]

    Quantum state certification , booktitle =

    Costin B. Quantum state certification , booktitle =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  11. [19]

    Physical Review Letters , volume =

    Hui Li and Duncan Haldane , title =. Physical Review Letters , volume =. 2008 , doi =

    2008

  12. [20]

    Reviews of Modern Physics , volume =

    Luigi Amico and Rosario Fazio and Andreas Osterloh and Vlatko Vedral , title =. Reviews of Modern Physics , volume =. 2008 , doi =

    2008

  13. [21]

    Physical Review A , volume =

    Charles Bennett and Herbert Bernstein and Sandu Popescu and Benjamin Schumacher , title =. Physical Review A , volume =. 1996 , doi =

    1996

  14. [22]

    Physical Review A , volume =

    Benjamin Schumacher , title =. Physical Review A , volume =. 1995 , doi =

    1995

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:quant-ph/0409113 , year =

    Alexander Klyachko , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:quant-ph/0409113 , year =

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Science , volume =

    Michael Walter and Brent Doran and David Gross and Matthias Christandl , title =. Science , volume =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  17. [25]

    2013 , doi =

    Mark Wilde , title =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  18. [26]

    Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =

    Matthias Christandl and Graeme Mitchison , title =. Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =. 2006 , doi =

    2006

  19. [27]

    Physical Review A , volume =

    Masahito Hayashi and Keiji Matsumoto , title =. Physical Review A , volume =. 2002 , doi =

    2002

  20. [28]

    Physical Review Letters , volume =

    Michael Nielsen , title =. Physical Review Letters , volume =. 1999 , doi =

    1999

  21. [29]

    Nature Reviews Physics , volume =

    Anurag Anshu and Srinivasan Arunachalam , title =. Nature Reviews Physics , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  22. [30]

    Andrew Childs and Aram Harrow and Pawe. Weak. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science , series =. 2007 , doi =

    2007

  23. [31]

    IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory , volume =

    Jayadev Acharya and Ibrahim Issa and Nirmal Shende and Aaron Wagner , title =. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  24. [32]

    John Wright , title =

  25. [33]

    Proceedings of the 2026 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages =

    Angelos Pelecanos and Xinyu Tan and Ewin Tang and John Wright , title =. Proceedings of the 2026 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  26. [34]

    Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =

    Ryan O'Donnell and John Wright , title =. Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  27. [35]

    Proceedings of the 58th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =

    Angelos Pelecanos and Jack Spilecki and John Wright , title =. Proceedings of the 58th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  28. [36]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =

    Jeongwan Haah and Aram Harrow and Zhengfeng Ji and Xiaodi Wu and Nengkun Yu , title =. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  29. [37]

    Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =

    Ryan O'Donnell and John Wright , title =. Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  30. [38]

    Reviews in Mathematical Physics , volume =

    Michael Keyl , title =. Reviews in Mathematical Physics , volume =. 2006 , doi =

    2006

  31. [39]

    Physical Review A , volume =

    Michael Keyl and Reinhard Werner , title =. Physical Review A , volume =. 2001 , doi =

    2001

  32. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.27117 , year =

    Angelos Pelecanos and Jack Spilecki and Ewin Tang and John Wright , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.27117 , year =

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    2019 , doi =

    Elizabeth Meckes , title =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  34. [42]

    Typical entanglement entropy in the presence of a center:

    Eugenio Bianchi and Pietro Don. Typical entanglement entropy in the presence of a center:. Physical Review D , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  35. [43]

    Physical Review E , volume =

    Lu Wei , title =. Physical Review E , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  36. [44]

    Physical Review Letters , volume =

    Siddhartha Sen , title =. Physical Review Letters , volume =. 1996 , doi =

    1996

  37. [45]

    Physical Review E , volume =

    Pierpaolo Vivo and Mauricio Pato and Gleb Oshanin , title =. Physical Review E , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  38. [46]

    Introduction to quantum

    D. Introduction to quantum. Quantum Probability and Related Topics , series =. 2011 , doi =

    2011

  39. [47]

    Journal of Algebra , volume =

    Michel Lassalle , title =. Journal of Algebra , volume =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  40. [48]

    Physical Review Letters , volume =

    Don Page , title =. Physical Review Letters , volume =. 1993 , doi =

    1993

  41. [49]

    Annales Henri Poincar

    Ion Nechita , title =. Annales Henri Poincar. 2007 , doi =

    2007

  42. [50]

    Reports on Mathematical Physics , volume =

    Algimantas Jucys , title =. Reports on Mathematical Physics , volume =. 1974 , doi =

    1974

  43. [51]

    Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =

    Seamus Albion and Eric Rains and Ole Warnaar , title =. Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  44. [52]

    Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , volume =

    Peter Forrester and Ole Warnaar , title =. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , volume =. 2008 , doi =

    2008

  45. [53]

    Compositio Mathematica , volume =

    Kevin Kadell , title =. Compositio Mathematica , volume =. 1993 , url =

    1993

  46. [54]

    Free states of the canonical anticommutation relations , journal =

    Robert Powers and Erling St. Free states of the canonical anticommutation relations , journal =. 1970 , doi =

    1970

  47. [55]

    2001 , doi =

    Michel Ledoux , title =. 2001 , doi =

    2001

  48. [56]

    Essential Mathematics for Convex Optimization , publisher =

    Fatma K. Essential Mathematics for Convex Optimization , publisher =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  49. [57]

    2010 , doi =

    Greg Anderson and Alice Guionnet and Ofer Zeitouni , title =. 2010 , doi =

    2010

  50. [58]

    Michel Ledoux , title =. S. 1999 , doi =

    1999

  51. [59]

    Integration with respect to the

    Beno. Integration with respect to the. Communications in Mathematical Physics , volume =. 2006 , doi =

    2006

  52. [60]

    Eug. M. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des s

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.