Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 49 references

Consequences of a dynamical no-signaling condition for classical-quantum interactions

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single no-signaling requirement dictates the possible form of classical-quantum dynamics.

desk verdict A careful, internally sound paper that proves a useful equivalence between a dynamical no-signaling condition and convex-linearity for hybrid classical-quantum dynamics; the main caveat is the imported state-space framework and the physical postulate status of the condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07245 v1 pith:ZWUWD4SR submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph

S. Camalet This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords hybridclassical-quantumsystemsno-signalingconvex-linearityprobabilitymeasuresquantumback-reactionclassicaltrajectoriessuperluminalcommunicationfinite-timeevolutions
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

Hybrid classical-quantum theories are used whenever part of a system is treated classically and part quantum-mechanically, from measurement theory to semiclassical gravity and quantum chemistry. This paper asks what follows if such a theory must obey a dynamical no-signaling condition: a pre-measurement on an ancillary system, made before two systems evolve independently, cannot change the outcome probabilities of a later measurement on the system of interest. The central result is that, on the full space of hybrid probability measures, this condition is equivalent to convex-linearity of the finite-time evolution map. Once convex-linearity is in hand, the paper shows that no-signaling hybrid dynamics with classical trajectories take the form $(x,\rho)\mapsto(\phi(x),T_x(\rho))$: the classical variable can steer the quantum state, but the quantum state cannot react back on the classical trajectory. The same reasoning excludes classical reaction when pure quantum states stay pure, and excludes genuine interaction in no-signaling dynamics that never create classical-quantum correlations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hybrid probability measure $w(A,E)=\int_A \mathrm{tr}(\eta(x)E)\,dp(x)$, which packages a classical probability measure $p$ together with a density-operator-valued map $\eta(x)$ for each classical configuration $x$. The load-bearing step is Proposition 1: on the full set of such measures, the dynamical no-signaling conditions (3), (4), and (5) are each equivalent to convex-linearity of the finite-time transformation $T$. From that equivalence, convexity arguments (Propositions 2 through 6) convert no-signaling into statements about the classical and quantum marginals, yielding the one-way coupling form for trajectory dynamics and the constancy results for pure-state and correlation-free dynamics.

What would settle it

One concrete check is to exhibit a finite-time transformation $T$ that satisfies condition (3) on the full set of hybrid probability measures but fails convex-linearity, for example by computing $T((w_1+w_2)/2)$ and $(T(w_1)+T(w_2))/2$ for two valid measures with a two-point classical space and a qubit. Proposition 1 asserts no such example exists, so even one counterexample would refute the equivalence; a systematic numerical search in that minimal setting would confirm or break the equivalence in the smallest non-trivial case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the static no-signaling condition for hybrid probability measures can be promoted to a dynamical requirement, and that this requirement is strong enough to dictate the form of all finite-time evolutions. Writing hybrid states as measures $w(A,E)=\int_A \mathrm{tr}(\eta(x)E)\,dp(x)$, the dynamical condition is that for any bipartite state and any pre-measurement on the ancilla, applying the transformation $T$ after the pre-measurement gives the same probabilities as applying $T$ without the pre-measurement; equations (3), (4), and (5) encode this for quantum, classical, and hybrid ancillas. Proposition 1 states that on the full state space these three conditions are equivalent to convex-linearity of $T$. The paper then derives structural consequences: with classical trajectories (Dirac measures), every no-signaling evolution has the form $(x,\rho)\mapsto(\phi(x),T_x(\rho))$; if pure quantum states evolve to pure states, the classical side cannot react to the quantum side; and if no-signaling dynamics preserve uncorrelated states, then on any fixed classical or quantum marginal the other marginal is constant, so genuine interaction requires correlation. The proof apparatus builds bipartite probability measures from convex combinations and uses the representation theorem to convert convex-linearity into statements about the classical and quantum marginals.

Load-bearing premise

The results presuppose that every allowed hybrid state is representable as a probability measure of the form $w(A,E)=\int_A \mathrm{tr}(\eta(x)E)\,dp(x)$ with $p$ a classical probability measure and $\eta(x)$ a density operator, and that the dynamical no-signaling equalities (3)-(5) are the correct formalization of the requirement that instantaneous communication is impossible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any finite-time evolution of a no-signaling hybrid theory with classical trajectories has the form $(x,\rho)\mapsto(\phi(x),T_x(\rho))$: the classical trajectory may steer the quantum state, but the quantum state cannot alter the trajectory.
  • If pure states of the quantum subsystem remain pure, the dynamical no-signaling condition implies that the classical side cannot react to the quantum state; with only pure quantum states allowed, any finite-time evolution reads $(p,\psi)\mapsto(T_\psi(p),\Phi(\psi))$, so the quantum state can steer the classical probability measure but not vice versa.
  • For no-signaling dynamics that never create classical-quantum correlations and that allow all uncorrelated hybrid states, no genuine interaction is possible: on any fixed classical marginal the final quantum state is constant, and on any fixed quantum marginal the final classical measure is constant.
  • A violation of the dynamical no-signaling condition is a usable faster-than-light signaling resource: the paper constructs deterministic one-bit signaling transformations for classical, quantum, and hybrid ancillas, all of which are non-linear.
  • In every case considered, the dynamical no-signaling condition is equivalent to convex-linearity of the finite-time probability-measure transformation, so any non-linear map of this kind is itself a signaling resource.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's framework is adopted, the results suggest that the usual trajectory-based mixed quantum-classical schemes, in which the classical trajectory follows its own equation of motion while the quantum system feels a time-dependent Hamiltonian, are not just convenient approximations but the unique no-signaling form for such state spaces.
  • The equivalence between dynamical no-signaling and convex-linearity also supplies a unified reason why non-linear modifications of quantum mechanics are unstable: any non-linear finite-time map on the full state space violates the same pre-measurement protocol, connecting the hybrid result to the known quantum-mechanical signaling argument.
  • The correlation measure defined in the appendix, bounded by twice the von Neumann entropy of the quantum state, could be used in concrete hybrid models to test the predicted tradeoff: no-signaling interactions that do generate correlations must consume some of the quantum system's available entanglement.
  • A natural next step is to probe whether the equivalence survives when the ancilla's state space is restricted: the paper proves the full-state and density-restricted versions, so the boundary between those cases and the trajectory-only or pure-state-only cases remains the place where the result could change.
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. This paper proposes a dynamical no-signaling condition for finite-time transformations of hybrid classical-quantum probability measures. The condition states that, for a bipartite system consisting of the hybrid system and an ancilla (quantum, classical, or hybrid), the evolved state of the hybrid system is unaffected by a pre-measurement performed on the ancilla. The main result, Proposition 1, proves that this condition is equivalent to convex-linearity of the transformation, for all three types of ancilla. The paper then derives structural no-go consequences: for dynamics with classical trajectories (Dirac measures) the classical degrees of freedom are not influenced by the quantum state (no quantum reaction); if pure quantum states remain pure, the quantum degrees of freedom are not influenced by the classical state (no classical reaction); and for dynamics that do not generate classical-quantum correlations, there are no genuine interactions between the two subsystems. The paper also gives examples of nonlinear transformations that violate the condition and lead to superluminal signaling, and it defines a classical-quantum correlation measure with a monotonicity proof.

Significance. If the central equivalence is accepted, this is a strong and general result: the requirement of no superluminal signaling is shown to be mathematically equivalent to convex-linearity of the dynamics, which then yields clean structural constraints on hybrid classical-quantum dynamics. The proofs are careful and constructive, and the derivation is parameter-free. The no-go theorems are concrete and falsifiable within the stated framework. The paper also provides illustrative signaling examples and a correlation measure in the appendix. The main limitation is that all results are conditional on the probability-measure representation of hybrid states imported from Ref. [23]; if a hybrid theory admits states outside this representation, the theorems do not apply. This is a natural scope condition rather than an internal inconsistency.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV] The word 'wether' appears several times in Section IV and should be 'whether'; 'analoguous' should be 'analogous' and 'straigthforwardly' in the Introduction should be 'straightforwardly'.
  2. [Proposition 5 proof] In the proof of Proposition 5, the assertion that the eigenvectors of τ(A) do not depend on A is made with minimal justification; expanding the argument to show that this follows from the spectral representation of the initial state would improve readability.
  3. [Section II] It would be helpful to state explicitly that all results are conditional on the representation theorem of Ref. [23] and that the restricted sets of states considered later are assumed to be closed under the conditional states that appear in conditions (3)-(5).
  4. [Section V] The sentence 'We discuss in the following transformations T with non-convex domains W' is ambiguous and could be rephrased as 'We now discuss transformations T whose domain W is not convex.'
  5. [Appendix] In the Appendix, the notation 'S(ˆω∥ρ⊗ P x∈X fx|x⟩⟨x|)' would be clearer as 'S(ˆω∥ρ⊗∑_x f_x |x⟩⟨x|)' with parentheses around the summation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Proposition 1 is a genuine derivation from the stated no-signaling conditions; reliance on Ref. [23] is a framework premise, not a circular support.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in any of the relevant senses. The paper's central result, Proposition 1, claims equivalence between the dynamical no-signaling conditions (3)-(5) and convex-linearity of transformations T. The proof of (i)⇒(iv) does not assume convex-linearity; it constructs a legitimate hybrid bipartite state w=t v1+(1−t)v2 from two arbitrary hybrid states w1,w2 and a qubit ancilla, computes w_Iq=t w1+(1−t)w2, w_q(F_n)=t+(1−2t)(n−1), and w_Fn=w_n, and then applies condition (3) to obtain T(tw1+(1−t)w2)=tT(w1)+(1−t)T(w2). This is a genuine derivation, not a restatement of the conclusion. The classical-ancilla construction (ii)⇒(iv) similarly builds a product sigma-algebra and applies condition (4). The later results (Propositions 2-6) are conditional theorems: they take convex-linearity plus explicit structural assumptions such as Dirac classical states, pure-state preservation, or uncorrelatedness, and derive restrictions on the dynamics; those restrictions are not used as assumptions. The only imported ingredient is the hybrid-state representation w(A,E)=∫_A tr(eta(x)E)dp(x) from the author's earlier Ref. [23]. That is a cited theorem, not an assumption of the target conclusions; it is the framework within which the no-signaling conditions are formulated. Its presence is a normal antecedent, not a circular step, because the prior work does not assume convex-linearity of evolutions or the absence of back-reaction. No fitted parameters, normalization choices, or renaming of known empirical patterns occur. Thus no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are present. The axioms are the hybrid probability-measure framework from Ref. 23, the physical no-signaling postulate, the convexity and closure of allowed state sets, and the specific dynamic assumptions in Sections VI-VIII.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Hybrid states are probability measures w on A×E satisfying countable additivity in events and effects, w(X,I)=1, and the representation w(A,E)=∫_A tr(η(x)E)dp(x); all such measures (or the stated restricted subsets) are valid states.
    Imported from the author's prior paper Ref. 23, Section II. Every proof in the paper operates inside this state space; if this representation fails, none of the theorems apply.
  • domain assumption The dynamical no-signaling conditions (3), (4), and (5) correctly express the statement that a pre-measurement on a non-interacting ancillary system cannot change later outcome probabilities on the system of interest.
    This is the paper's new physical postulate. Section IV supplies examples where violations allow superluminal signaling, but the condition is not derived from other principles.
  • domain assumption In Proposition 1, all hybrid probability measures are allowed and the relevant sets are convex (and sequentially closed where needed, e.g., Lemma 3).
    The equivalence proof constructs bipartite states from arbitrary pairs of initial states, which requires the full state space.
  • domain assumption Classical trajectories are exactly Dirac measures and remain Dirac under evolution (Section VI); in Prop. 3 localized classical states are described by Dirac sequences.
    This defines the classical-trajectory hybrid approach for which the no-quantum-reaction result is proved.
  • domain assumption Pure quantum states remain pure under evolution (Section VII); Proposition 5 additionally assumes pure states evolve unitarily.
    This restricts to approaches such as pilot-wave dynamics; without it, the no-classical-reaction conclusion does not follow.
  • domain assumption For time-translation-symmetric dynamics, for sufficiently short times both marginals depend on their own initial conditions (Section VIII).
    This 'natural assumption' is used to convert Proposition 6 into the statement that genuine interaction forces correlation generation.
  • standard math Background mathematical results: Gleason/Busch theorem, Bochner integrals, Radon-Nikodym theorem, relative entropy monotonicity under positive trace-preserving maps.
    Used implicitly throughout, cited as Refs. 26-29 and 45.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Consequences of a dynamical no-signaling condition for classical-quantum interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWUWD4SR

@misc{pith2026260807245,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Consequences of a dynamical no-signaling condition for classical-quantum interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWUWD4SR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07245}
}
read the original abstract

Hybrid classical-quantum approaches are instrumental in numerous fields, from condensed matter physics to quantum information science. We recently proposed to describe hybrid systems starting from a set of natural axioms for measurement probabilities without adding any underlying mathematical structure. The so defined probability measures fulfill a no-signaling condition that ensures that instantaneous communication is impossible. We formulate here a dynamical generalization of this condition. It means that, for two independent systems, the outcome probabilities of a measurement made on one of them are not affected by a measurement performed earlier on the other. Analogous requirements are satisfied for usual classical and quantum bipartite systems and violating them would make faster-than-light signaling possible. The dynamical no-signaling condition has important consequences for classical-quantum interactions that depend on the hybrid approach used. For no-signaling hybrid dynamics with classical trajectories, the classical degrees of freedom can influence the quantum ones but the latter cannot react on the former. If pure states of quantum systems remain pure then the dynamical no-signaling condition implies the absence of classical reaction. When all hybrid states are allowed, there are no genuine classical-quantum interactions for no-signaling hybrid dynamics that do not generate correlations between the classical and the quantum degrees of freedom. In all these cases, the proposed condition is equivalent to the convex-linearity of the probability measure transformations describing finite-time evolutions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Elze, Linear dynamics of quantum-classical hy- brids, Phys

    H.-T. Elze, Linear dynamics of quantum-classical hy- brids, Phys. Rev. A85, 052109 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [1]

    Bohr,Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge(Wiley, New York, 1958)

    N. Bohr,Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge(Wiley, New York, 1958)

    work page 1958

  3. [2]

    As seen above, the eigen- vectors ofτ(A) do not depend onA

    The properties ofTand Lemma 2 giveT(w) : (A, E)7→tr(τ(A)U †EU) with τ(A) = ((p ′ 1(A) +p ′ ψ(A))|1⟩⟨1|+ (p ′ 2(A) +p ′ ψ(A))|2⟩⟨2|+ p′ ψ(A)|1⟩⟨2|+p ′ ψ(A)|2⟩⟨1|)/4. As seen above, the eigen- vectors ofτ(A) do not depend onA. WithA=X, one finds the eigenvectors|±⟩=|1⟩ ± |2⟩which are orthogo- nal to each other. It follows from⟨+|τ(A)|−⟩= 0 for any eventAtha...

    work page

  4. [3]

    So, due to Propo- sition 6, the mapA7→ T(w)(A, I) is the same for anyw ofW uc p

    Consequently, for anywofW uc, T(w) is uncorrelated and ˆρ◦ T(w) =Uˆρ(w)U †, see the expression in the previous paragraph. So, due to Propo- sition 6, the mapA7→ T(w)(A, I) is the same for anyw ofW uc p . VIII. NO GENUINE CLASSICAL-QUANTUM INTERACTIONS WITHOUT CORRELA TIONS In the previous sections, classical-quantum approaches were discussed, in which onl...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Anderson, Quantum backreaction on ”classical” vari- ables, Phys

    A. Anderson, Quantum backreaction on ”classical” vari- ables, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 621 (1995)

    work page 1995

  6. [5]

    d’Espagnat,Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Me- chanics(Addison Wesley, Boston, MA 1976)

    B. d’Espagnat,Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Me- chanics(Addison Wesley, Boston, MA 1976)

    work page 1976

  7. [6]

    Boucher and J

    W. Boucher and J. Traschen, Semiclassical physics and quantum fluctuations, Phys. Rev. D37, 3522 (1988)

    1988

  8. [7]

    Crespo-Otero and M

    R. Crespo-Otero and M. Barbati, Recent advances and perspectives on nonadiabatic mixed quantum-classical dynamics, Chem. Rev.118, 7026 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical grav- ity?, Phys

    J. Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical grav- ity?, Phys. Rev. X13, 041040 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    Kapral and G

    R. Kapral and G. Ciccotti, Mixed quantum-classical dy- namics, J. Chem. Phys.110, 8919 (1999)

    1999

  3. [10]

    Callison and N

    A. Callison and N. Chancellor, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era and beyond, Phys. Rev. A106, 010101, (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    B. O. Koopman, Hamiltonian systems and transforma- tions in Hilbert space, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA17, 315 (1931)

    1931

  7. [14]

    D. R. Terno, Classical-quantum hybrid models, arXiv:2309.05014

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    Barcel´ o, R

    C. Barcel´ o, R. Carballo-Rubio, L. J. Garay, and R. Gomez-Escalante, Hybrid classical-quantum formula- tions ask for hybrid notions, Phys. Rev. A86, 042120 (2012)

    2012

  9. [16]

    Gerasimenko, Dynamical equations of quan- tum–classical systems, Theor

    V. Gerasimenko, Dynamical equations of quan- tum–classical systems, Theor. Math. Phys.50, 49 (1982)

    1982

  10. [17]

    E. C. G. Sudarshan, Interaction between classical and quantum systems and the measurement of quantum ob- servables, Pramana6, 117 (1976)

    1976

  11. [18]

    Aleksandrov, The statistical dynamics of a system consisting of a classical and a quantum subsystem

    I.V. Aleksandrov, The statistical dynamics of a system consisting of a classical and a quantum subsystem. Z. Naturforsch.36, 902 (1981)

    1981

  12. [19]

    D. R. Terno, Inconsistency of quantum-classical dynam- ics, and what it implies, Found. Phys.36, 102 (2006)

    2006

  13. [20]

    Blanchard and A

    P. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk, On the interaction between classical and quantum systems, Phys. Lett. A175, 157 (1993)

    1993

  14. [21]

    Peres and D

    A. Peres and D. R. Terno, Hybrid classical-quantum dy- namics, Phys. Rev. A63, 022101 (2001)

    2001

  15. [22]

    D ´ ıosi, Hybrid completely positive Markovian quantum-classical dynamics, Phys

    L. D ´ ıosi, Hybrid completely positive Markovian quantum-classical dynamics, Phys. Rev. A107, 062206 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    J. L. Alonso, C. Bouthelier-Madre, J. Clemente-Gallardo, D. Mart ´ ınez-Crespo and J. Pomar, Effective nonlinear Ehrenfest hybrid quantum-classical dynamics, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, 649 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Kraus, General state changes in quantum theory, Ann

    K. Kraus, General state changes in quantum theory, Ann. Phys.64, 311 (1971)

    1971

  18. [26]

    Camalet, Probability-based approach to hybrid classical-quantum systems of any size: Generalized Glea- son and Kraus theorems, Phys

    S. Camalet, Probability-based approach to hybrid classical-quantum systems of any size: Generalized Glea- son and Kraus theorems, Phys. Rev. A111, 012201 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Brunner, D

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

    2014

  20. [28]

    Bochner, Integration von Funktionen, deren Werte die Elemente eines Vektorraumes sind, Fund

    S. Bochner, Integration von Funktionen, deren Werte die Elemente eines Vektorraumes sind, Fund. Math.20, 262 (1933)

    1933

  21. [29]

    Gleason, Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space, J

    A.M. Gleason, Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space, J. Math. Mech.6, 885 (1957)

    1957

  22. [30]

    Busch, Quantum states and generalized observables: A simple proof of Gleason’s theorem, Phys

    P. Busch, Quantum states and generalized observables: A simple proof of Gleason’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 120403 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    Walters,An Introduction to Ergodic Theory(Springer- Verlag, New York, 1982)

    P. Walters,An Introduction to Ergodic Theory(Springer- Verlag, New York, 1982)

    1982

  24. [32]

    Billingsley,Probability and Measure(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1995)

    P. Billingsley,Probability and Measure(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1995)

    1995

  25. [33]

    LetM n = P x∈Xn T(ω M )(x)⊗ |x⟩⟨x|and In = P x∈Xn ∥T(ω M )(x)∥whereX n ={x∈X|x≤n}, which are such that lim n→∞ In =∥T(ω M )∥Σ andM n is trace-class, as∥M n∥ ≤In

    and so, asω Pr (x) is positive for anyx, see above, ∥ωM ∥Σ ≤ P x,r tr(PrI⊗ |x⟩⟨x|)≤2∥M∥which implies thatω M ∈Ω. LetM n = P x∈Xn T(ω M )(x)⊗ |x⟩⟨x|and In = P x∈Xn ∥T(ω M )(x)∥whereX n ={x∈X|x≤n}, which are such that lim n→∞ In =∥T(ω M )∥Σ andM n is trace-class, as∥M n∥ ≤In. Si...

  26. [34]

    J. L. Alonso, C. Bouthelier-Madre, A. Castro, J. Clemente-Gallardo and J. A. Jover-Galtier, Hybrid 13 quantum-classical systems: Statistics, entropy, micro- canonical ensemble and its connection to the canonical ensemble, Phys. Rev. E113, 034110 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    Gisin, Weinberg’s non-linear quantum mechanics and supraluminal communications, Phys

    N. Gisin, Weinberg’s non-linear quantum mechanics and supraluminal communications, Phys. Lett. A143, 1 (1990)

    1990

  28. [36]

    Conway,A Course in Functional Analysis(Springer- Verlag, New York, 1990)

    J. Conway,A Course in Functional Analysis(Springer- Verlag, New York, 1990)

    1990

  29. [37]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc and G. Grynberg, Photons et atomes(EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, 2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Marx and J

    D. Marx and J. Hutter,Ab initio Molecular Dynamics: Basic Theory and Advanced Methods(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    This can be shown by writing, forx /∈A,w n(A, E)≤ pn(A) and, forx∈A,|w n(A, E)−p n(A)tr(η(x)E)| ≤R A\{x} |tr((η(x′)−η(x))E)|dp n(x′)≤2p n(A\ {x})

  32. [40]

    O. J. E. Maroney, The density matrix in the de Broglie- Bohm approach, Found. Phys.35, 493 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Camalet, Monogamy inequality for any local quantum resource and entanglement, Phys

    S. Camalet, Monogamy inequality for any local quantum resource and entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 110503 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Camalet, Internal entanglement and external correla- tions of any form limit each other, Phys

    S. Camalet, Internal entanglement and external correla- tions of any form limit each other, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 060504 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Zhu, M.-J

    J. Zhu, M.-J. Hu, Y. Dai, Y.-K. Bai, S. Camalet, C. Zhang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and Y.-S. Zhang, Realiza- tion of the tradeoff between internal and external entan- glement, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043068 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    J. Zhu, Y. Dai, S. Camalet, C.-J. Zhang, B.-H. Liu, Y.- S. Zhang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Observation of the tradeoff between internal quantum nonseparability and external classical correlations, Phys. Rev. A104, 062442 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Bauer,Probability Theory(de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996)

    H. Bauer,Probability Theory(de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996)

    1996

  38. [46]

    Camalet, Existence of maximally correlated states, Phys

    S. Camalet, Existence of maximally correlated states, Phys. Rev. A98, 052306 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Holevo, Some estimates of the information transmit- ted by quantum communication channel, Probl

    A.S. Holevo, Some estimates of the information transmit- ted by quantum communication channel, Probl. Inform. Transm.9, 177 (1973)

    1973

  40. [48]

    M¨ uller-Hermes and D

    A. M¨ uller-Hermes and D. Reeb, Monotonicity of the quantum relative entropy under positive maps, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e18, 1777 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Araki and E

    H. Araki and E. H. Lieb, Entropy inequalities, Commun. Math. Phys.18, 160 (1970)

    1970

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.