pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.07405 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 🪐 quant-ph

Commutativity from a single Bargmann invariant equality

Rafael Wagner , Ernesto F. Galv\~ao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 01:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum commutativityBargmann invariantstrace equalitydensity operatorsquantum nonclassicalityPOVM simulabilityphotonic distinguishability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Two quantum states commute if and only if tr(ρ₁²ρ₂²) equals tr(ρ₁ρ₂ρ₁ρ₂).

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

The paper establishes a necessary and sufficient condition for any two quantum states to commute: the equality of two specific traces formed from their products. This condition uses only quantities that can be measured directly and does not require reconstructing the full states. For qubits the equality reduces to a relation among the purities of each state and their overlap. The result supplies a practical test for commutativity that works in any dimension and applies to problems such as measurement simulability.

Core claim

Two quantum states ρ₁ and ρ₂ commute if and only if tr(ρ₁²ρ₂²) = tr(ρ₁ρ₂ρ₁ρ₂). The equality between these two Bargmann invariants is both necessary and sufficient for the commutator to vanish, and it holds for arbitrary finite-dimensional systems.

What carries the argument

The single equality between the two Bargmann invariants tr(ρ₁²ρ₂²) and tr(ρ₁ρ₂ρ₁ρ₂), which is shown to be equivalent to the vanishing of the commutator.

If this is right

  • Commutativity of any pair of states can be tested by measuring the two traces directly, bypassing full tomography.
  • For qubits the test becomes an explicit polynomial equality involving only the two purities and the overlap tr(ρ₁ρ₂).
  • The condition supplies a practical criterion for deciding whether a given set of measurements can be simulated by a single POVM.
  • Partial distinguishability between photonic states can be quantified by checking whether the corresponding density operators satisfy the trace equality.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same style of invariant equality might be adaptable to commutativity checks for three or more states.
  • Direct measurement of these traces could reduce the experimental overhead in verifying nonclassicality for small quantum devices.
  • Analogous trace relations may exist for other algebraic properties such as joint measurability of observables.

Load-bearing premise

Algebraic properties of the trace and of density operators suffice to prove that the difference between the two traces vanishes exactly when the commutator vanishes.

What would settle it

An experiment that prepares two states known to commute yet records unequal values for the two traces, or prepares non-commuting states yet records equal traces, would falsify the claimed equivalence.

read the original abstract

Noncommutativity of states and observables is a fundamental signature of quantum theory, and a minimal requirement for nonclassicality. We provide a universal necessary and sufficient condition for pairwise commutativity of quantum states $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$: they commute if and only if $\mathrm{tr}(\rho_1^2\rho_2^2) = \mathrm{tr}(\rho_1 \rho_2 \rho_1 \rho_2)$. For qubits the identity simplifies to an equality between polynomials of purities and of the two-state overlap $\mathrm{tr}(\rho_1\rho_2)$. These multivariate traces (known as Bargmann invariants) are directly measurable, allowing commutativity tests that bypass full state tomography. We point out possible applications to the analysis of POVM simulability and partial photonic distinguishability.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that two quantum states ρ₁ and ρ₂ commute if and only if tr(ρ₁²ρ₂²) = tr(ρ₁ ρ₂ ρ₁ ρ₂). This is presented as a universal algebraic condition using a single equality of Bargmann invariants. For qubits the condition reduces to an equality between polynomials in the purities of the states and their overlap tr(ρ₁ρ₂). The traces are directly measurable, allowing commutativity tests without full tomography, with suggested applications to POVM simulability and partial photonic distinguishability.

Significance. If the central identity holds, the result supplies a parameter-free, tomography-free criterion for commutativity that is directly testable via measurable Bargmann invariants. The algebraic relation follows from the identity tr(ρ₁²ρ₂²) − tr(ρ₁ρ₂ρ₁ρ₂) = −½ tr([ρ₁, ρ₂]²) together with the positive-definiteness of the Hilbert–Schmidt norm on Hermitian operators; only finite dimensionality and Hermitianness are required. This could be useful in resource-limited experiments in quantum optics and information.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that the qubit case reduces to polynomials in purities and overlap but does not display the explicit polynomials; including them (or a reference to the section where they appear) would improve immediate readability.
  2. The applications to POVM simulability and photonic distinguishability are mentioned only briefly; a short concrete example or calculation in the final section would better illustrate the practical utility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our manuscript and the recommendation for minor revision. The referee's summary correctly captures the central result and its experimental relevance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The core claim is an algebraic identity: for Hermitian operators ρ1, ρ2 the equality tr(ρ1²ρ2²) = tr(ρ1ρ2ρ1ρ2) holds if and only if [ρ1, ρ2] = 0. This follows directly from the expansion tr(ρ1²ρ2²) − tr(ρ1ρ2ρ1ρ2) = −½ tr([ρ1, ρ2]²) together with the fact that tr(K²) = 0 for Hermitian K implies K = 0 via the Hilbert–Schmidt norm. The derivation uses only the cyclic property of the trace and finite-dimensional linear algebra; it does not invoke fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, load-bearing self-citations, or imported uniqueness theorems. The result is therefore self-contained and independent of the paper’s own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on the standard representation of quantum states as density operators and the cyclic property of the trace; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Quantum states are represented by density operators ρ with tr(ρ)=1 and ρ positive semidefinite.
    Invoked implicitly when defining the traces that appear in the commutativity condition.
  • standard math The trace operation is cyclic: tr(ABC) = tr(BCA) = tr(CAB).
    Used in any algebraic manipulation of the given trace expressions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5435 in / 1370 out tokens · 41415 ms · 2026-05-11T01:44:33.560662+00:00 · methodology

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 1 Pith paper

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Commutativity from a single Bargmann invariant equality

    = tr(ρ1ρ2ρ1ρ2). For qubits the identity simplifies to an equality between polynomials of purities and of the two-state overlap tr(ρ 1ρ2). These multivariate traces—known as Bargmann invariants—are directly measurable, allowing commutativity tests that bypass full state tomography. We point out possible applications to the analysis of POVM simulability and...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    The first is a set-incoherent realization inC 5, while the second is a set-coherent realization inC 3

    =⟨0|+⟩⟨+|2⟩⟨2|0⟩= 0, where we have denoted|+⟩= 1/ √ 2(|0⟩+|1⟩). The first is a set-incoherent realization inC 5, while the second is a set-coherent realization inC 3. To give another example, we can consider the Bargmann scenarioW C3 ={(1,2),(1,3),(2,3)}which is an instance of the graph-theoretic formalism from Refs. [32, 39]. In this case, one can show t...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The proof is almost immediate and holds for arbitrary self-adjoint operators acting on a Hilbert space, so we state it in this more general form

    = tr(ρ1ρ2ρ1ρ2). The proof is almost immediate and holds for arbitrary self-adjoint operators acting on a Hilbert space, so we state it in this more general form. LetA 1 andA 2 be any pair of observables acting on a finite-dimensional Hilbert spaceH. Recall that for arbitrary operatorsF, Gsuch thatF−Gis self-adjoint, one has [51] ∥F−G∥ 2 2 := tr(|F−G| 2) =...

    work page

  4. [4]

    This immediately yields a universal, basis-independent criterion for set coherence as introduced by Designolleet al.[26]

    = Tr(ρ 1ρ2ρ1ρ2). This immediately yields a universal, basis-independent criterion for set coherence as introduced by Designolleet al.[26]. Additionally, we also clarify how the required number of invariants can be reduced when additional structure is available, such as prior information on Hilbert space dimension, purity, or whether some reference state h...

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    The witnesses listed were:

    Incomparability of criteria We exhibit tuples of normalized states showing that the three families of necessary conditions listed in Ta- ble I witnessdifferentmanifestations of set coherence of quantum states. The witnesses listed were:

    work page

  6. [6]

    Reality and non-negativity of all Bargmann invari- ants realizable by set incoherent states

    work page

  7. [7]

    Bounds from facet inequalities from event-graph polytopes (Bargmann polytopes for two-letter words (l, k) such thatl̸=k)

    work page

  8. [8]

    We will do so by showing each criterion can witness a form of set coherence that the other criteria cannot

    Given a certain fixed dimensiond, the Gram matrix of the Bloch vectorsG ⃗r⃗ ρ= (⟨⃗rρi ,⃗rρj ⟩)ij has rank smaller than or equal tod−1. We will do so by showing each criterion can witness a form of set coherence that the other criteria cannot. As an important remark, note that these three criteriaare noton equal footing. The first two criteria work regard-...

    work page

  9. [9]

    A direct computation gives tr(ρ 2 i ) = 1/2and tr(ρ iρj) = 1/4 for everyi̸=j∈ {1, . . . ,4}. This implies that these states cannot violate facet-defining inequalities of event graphs since, as before, they are convex combinations of ⃗0 and ⃗1 which are inC(W G) for any event graphG. Moreover, it is also simple to show that every higher- order Bargmann inv...

    work page

  10. [10]

    In the Appendix of Ref

    Criterion for pairs of qubits For a single-qubit stateρwith Bloch vector⃗r ρ ∈R 3 (∥⃗rρ∥ ≤1), we write ρ= 1 2 I2 +⟨⃗rρ, ⃗P⟩ ,(17) so that tr(ρ iρj) = 1 2 1 +⟨⃗rρi ,⃗rρj ⟩ . In the Appendix of Ref. [65], one finds the following expressions for the real and imaginary parts of arbitrary Bargmann invariants ∆1234 = tr(ρ1ρ2ρ3ρ4) for single qubit states: tr(ρ1ρ...

    work page

  11. [11]

    = a(4) 0 8 = 1 +A+B+AB+ 4C 8 = ∆12 + 1 2(∆11∆22 −1).(21) Proceeding similarly for the ordered quadruple (ρ1, ρ2, ρ1, ρ2) we find a(4) 0 = (1 +C) 2 −(1−A)(1−B) + (1 +C) 2 = 1 +A+B+ 4C+ 2C 2 −AB, and therefore tr(ρ1ρ2ρ1ρ2) = a(4) 0 8 = 1 +A+B+ 4C+ 2C 2 −AB 8 = ∆2 12 + 1 2(∆11 + ∆22 −∆ 11∆22 −1). (22)

    work page

  12. [12]

    Let us consider ρ1 = diag(1/2,3/8,1/8,0),(23) ρ2 = diag(4/15,1/3,1/6,7/30) +1/10R,(24) whereR=|1⟩⟨3|+|3⟩⟨1|+|2⟩⟨4|+|4⟩⟨2|is a traceless Hermitian operator

    Irreducibility for higher dimensions Here, we construct a pair of noncommuting statesρ 1 andρ 2 inH=C 4 sharing all lower order Bargmann in- variants with another pair of commuting statesσ 1 and σ2, thus showing that at least ford≥4 one cannot con- clude set coherence without considering higher-order in- variants. Let us consider ρ1 = diag(1/2,3/8,1/8,0),...

    work page

  13. [13]

    = 31 300 , tr(ρ1ρ2) = tr(σ1σ2) = 67 240 ,tr(ρ 2 1ρ2) = tr(σ2 1σ2) = 223 1920 , tr(ρ1ρ2

    work page 1920

  14. [14]

    = 653 7200 , (28) which implies that the set coherence of{ρ 1, ρ2}cannot be witnessed by this set of Bargmann invariants (i.e., it would realize a point inside the Bargmann polytope of the associated list of 2 and 3 letter words)

    work page

  15. [15]

    Heisenberg, ¨Uber quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik33, 879 (1925)

    W. Heisenberg, ¨Uber quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik33, 879 (1925)

    work page 1925

  16. [16]

    E. H. Kennard, Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewe- gungstypen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik44, 326 (1927)

    work page 1927

  17. [17]

    H. P. Robertson, The uncertainty principle, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929)

    work page 1929

  18. [18]

    Maccone and A

    L. Maccone and A. K. Pati, Stronger uncertainty rela- tions for all incompatible observables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 260401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    Catani, M

    L. Catani, M. Leifer, G. Scala, D. Schmid, and R. W. Spekkens, What is Nonclassical about Uncertainty Rela- tions?, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 240401 (2022). 7

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Carollo, B

    A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, and D. Valenti, Uhlmann cur- vature in dissipative phase transitions, Scientific Reports 8, 9852 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Carollo, B

    A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, A. A. Dubkov, and D. Valenti, On quantumness in multi-parameter quantum estima- tion, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Ex- periment2019, 094010 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Miyazaki and K

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

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, W. F. Braasch Jr, S. De Bi` evre, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, C. Langrenez, M. Lostaglio, J. S. Lundeen, and N. Y. Halpern, Proper- ties and applications of the Kirkwood–Dirac distribution, New Journal of Physics26, 121201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    Lostaglio, A

    M. Lostaglio, A. Belenchia, A. Levy, S. Hern´ andez- G´ omez, N. Fabbri, and S. Gherardini, Kirkwood–Dirac quasiprobability approach to the statistics of incompati- ble observables, Quantum7, 1128 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Gherardini and G

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

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Wagner, Z

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

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Schmid, R

    D. Schmid, R. D. Baldij˜ ao, 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

  29. [29]

    Baldij˜ ao, Matthias Salzger, Y` ıl` e Y¯ ıng, David Schmid, and John H

    R. Wagner, R. D. Baldij˜ ao, M. Salzger, Y. Y¯ ıng, D. Schmid, and J. H. Selby, A structure theorem for complex-valued quasiprobability representations of phys- ical theories (2025), arXiv:2509.10949 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    De Bi` evre, C

    S. De Bi` evre, C. Langrenez, and D. Radchenko, The Kirkwood–Dirac Representation Associated to the Fourier Transform for Finite Abelian Groups: Positivity, Annales Henri Poincar´ e , 20 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Langrenez, D

    C. Langrenez, D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, and S. De Bi` evre, Characterizing the geometry of the Kirkwood–Dirac-positive states, Journal of Mathemati- cal Physics65, 072201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    De Bi` evre, Complete Incompatibility, Support Uncer- tainty, and Kirkwood–Dirac Nonclassicality, Phys

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

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    De Bi` evre, Relating incompatibility, noncommuta- tivity, uncertainty, and Kirkwood–Dirac nonclassicality, Journal of Mathematical Physics64, 022202 (2023)

    S. De Bi` evre, Relating incompatibility, noncommuta- tivity, uncertainty, and Kirkwood–Dirac nonclassicality, Journal of Mathematical Physics64, 022202 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Heinosaari, D

    T. Heinosaari, D. Reitzner, and P. Stano, Notes on joint measurability of quantum observables, Foundations of Physics38, 1133 (2008)

    work page 2008

  35. [35]

    Heinosaari, T

    T. Heinosaari, T. Miyadera, and M. Ziman, An Invita- tion to Quantum Incompatibility, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 123001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Andrejic and R

    N. Andrejic and R. Kunjwal, Joint measurability struc- tures realizable with qubit measurements: Incompati- bility via marginal surgery, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043147 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Kunjwal, C

    R. Kunjwal, C. Heunen, and T. Fritz, Quantum real- ization of arbitrary joint measurability structures, Phys. Rev. A89, 052126 (2014)

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quanti- fying Coherence, Physical Review Letters113, 140401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    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

  41. [41]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Reviews of Modern Physics91, 025001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    Zhang, B

    L. Zhang, B. Xie, and Y. Tao, Bargmann-invariant frame- work for local unitary equivalence and entanglement, Phys. Rev. A112, 052426 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    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

  44. [44]

    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

  45. [45]

    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. A 104, 032414 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    E. F. Galv˜ ao and D. J. Brod, Quantum and classical bounds for two-state overlaps, Phys. Rev. A101, 062110 (2020)

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Y¯ ıng, and D. Schmid, Quantifiers and wit- nesses for the nonclassicality of measurements and of states (2025), arXiv:2504.02944 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Zhang, D

    Y. Zhang, D. Schmid, Y. Y¯ ıng, and R. W. Spekkens, Reassessing the boundary between classical and non- classical for individual quantum processes (2026), arXiv:2503.05884 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    V. P. Rossi, B. Zjawin, R. D. Baldij˜ ao, D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, and A. B. Sainz, How typical is contextuality? (2025), arXiv:2510.20722 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Wagner, A

    R. Wagner, A. Camillini, and E. F. Galv˜ ao, Coher- ence and contextuality in a Mach-Zehnder interferom- eter, Quantum8, 1240 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Bernal, G

    A. Bernal, G. Cobucci, M. J. Renner, and A. Tavakoli, Absolute Dimensionality of Quantum Ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 240203 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Giordani, C

    T. Giordani, C. Esposito, F. Hoch, G. Carvacho, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galv˜ ao, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Wit- nesses of coherence and dimension from multiphoton in- distinguishability tests, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023031 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Wagner, R

    R. Wagner, R. S. Barbosa, and E. F. Galv˜ ao, Inequali- ties witnessing coherence, nonlocality, and contextuality, Phys. Rev. A109, 032220 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    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. Galv˜ ao, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental certifi- cation of contextuality, coherence, and dimension in a programmable universal photonic processor, Science Ad- vances9, eadj4249 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    H˚ akansson, A

    E. H˚ akansson, A. Piveteau, A. Seguinard, S. Muhammad, M. Bourennane, O. G¨ uhne, and M. Pl´ avala, Experimen- tal implementation of dimension-dependent contextual- ity inequality, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 200202 (2025)

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    A. L. S. Santos Junior, I. Prego, M. Gil de Oliveira, A. C. Barbosa, B. P. da Silva, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galv˜ ao, and 8 A. Z. Khoury, Coherence and dimensionality witnesses for fractional orbital angular momentum modes, Phys. Rev. A113, 043512 (2026)

    work page 2026

  57. [57]

    Fernandes, R

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

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Bargmann invariants of Gaussian states

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Wagner, F

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

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    Zamora, R

    S. Zamora, R. A. Macˆ edo, 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

  61. [61]

    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

  62. [62]

    Oszmaniec, D

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

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    Zhang and B

    L. Zhang and B. Xie, A Survey of Bargmann Invari- ants: Geometric Foundations and Applications (2026), arXiv:2601.01858 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    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

  65. [65]

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

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    Simonov, R

    K. Simonov, R. Wagner, and E. F. Galv˜ ao, Estimation of multivariate traces of states given partial classical in- formation, Phys. Rev. A112, 062435 (2025)

    work page 2025

  67. [67]

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

    work page 2004

  68. [68]

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

    work page 2025

  69. [69]

    P. K. Faehrmann, J. Eisert, and R. Kueng, In the Shadow of the Hadamard Test: Using the Garbage State for Good and Further Modifications, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 150603 (2025)

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

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

    work page 2022

  71. [71]

    A. E. Jones, A. J. Menssen, H. M. Chrzanowski, T. A. W. Wolterink, V. S. Shchesnovich, and I. A. Walmsley, Mul- tiparticle Interference of Pairwise Distinguishable Pho- tons, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 123603 (2020)

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

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

    work page 2023

  73. [73]

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

    work page arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    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

  75. [75]

    Foulds, O

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

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    Bargmann Scenarios

    R. Wagner, Bargmann Scenarios (2026), arXiv:2604.18833 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  77. [77]

    S. S. Pratapsi, J. a. Gouveia, L. Novo, and E. F. Galv˜ ao, Elementary characterization of bargmann invari- ants, Phys. Rev. A112, 042421 (2025)

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    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

  79. [79]

    M.-S. Li, R. Wagner, and L. Zhang, Multistate imaginar- ity and coherence in qubit systems, Phys. Rev. A113, 012428 (2026)

    work page 2026

  80. [80]

    Zhang, B

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

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.