Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physics

Wigner Quasiprobability of Coherent Phase States

Alfred Wünsche

Published Apr 8, 2026• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

The Wigner quasiprobability, along with some of its essentialproperties, is introduced and discussed in two versions, first covering real canonical variables such as W(q,p) and second a pair of complex conjugate coordinates such as W(α,α*). The reconstruction of the density operator ϱ of states is also given. Building upon the Susskind–Glogower concept of quantum phase operators, further aspects of phase operator algebras in the quantum optics of a harmonic oscillator are discussed in relation to the realization of the su(1,1) Lie algebra. Coherent phase states |ε⟩ are introduced in analogy to the common coherent states |α⟩ in two ways, as both eigenstates of certain operators and as states generated from a ground state |0⟩ by operators of the Lie group SU(1,1). The limiting transition to the non-normalizable Fritz London phase states |eiφ⟩ on the unit circle and an (over)-completeness relation for the coherent phase states are derived. The Wigner quasiprobability W(q,p) for the coherent phase states is calculated and graphically represented. From the Wigner quasiprobability, a phase distribution W(φ) is calculated by integrating over the radius, and its uncertainty is defined and presented. The Hilbert–Schmidt distance is discussed as a measure of the non-classicality of states, where most of our with Viktor Dodonov work was carried out.

DOI
10.3390/physics8020037

Related papers

The Wigner Quasiprobability and Its Integration over the Radius for Coherent States

Alfred Wünsche

The first part is a systematical representation of the Wigner quasiprobability in representations by canonical variables and pairs of complex conjugate variables with particular attention to the reconstruction of the density operator from the Wigner quasiprobability to show their equivalence. All formulae are derived from basic postulates of quantum mechanics. Problems of operator orderings are touched. The second part considers the integration over the amplitude in the Wigner quasiprobability and its specialization for coherent states and for even and odd coherent states and provides phase distributions which are presented in graphics that are new in their kind. It is demonstrated that the Heitler number phase uncertainty relation is incorrect. The problem of the transition from quantum to classical distribution functions by ℏ→0 is discussed with the conjecture that the inertial point of the distributions plays a basic role.

Journal of Modern Physics•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations

Wigner Quasiprobability with an Application to Coherent Phase States

Alfred Wünsche

Starting from Wigner's definition of the function named now after him we systematically develop different representation of this quasiprobability with emphasis on symmetric representations concerning the canonical variables ( ) , q p of phase space and using the known relation to the parity operator.One of the representations is by means of the Laguerre 2D polynomials which is particularly effective in quantum optics.For the coherent states we show that their Fourier transforms are again coherent states.We calculate the Wigner quasiprobability to the eigenstates of a particle in a square well with infinitely high impenetrable walls which is not smooth in the spatial coordinate and vanishes outside the wall boundaries.It is not well suited for the calculation of expectation values.A great place takes on the calculation of the Wigner quasiprobability for coherent phase states in quantum optics which is essentially new.We show that an unorthodox entire function plays there a role in most formulae which makes all calculations difficult.The Wigner quasiprobability for coherent phase states is calculated and graphically represented but due to the involved unorthodox function it may be considered only as illustration and is not suited for the calculation of expectation values.By another approach via the number representation of the states and using the recently developed summation formula by means of Generalized Eulerian numbers it becomes possible to calculate in approximations with good convergence the basic expectation values, in particular, the basic uncertainties which are additionally represented in graphics.Both considered examples, the square well and the coherent phase states, belong to systems with ( ) 1,1 SU symmetry with the same index 1 2 k = of unitary irreducible representations.

Advances in Pure Mathematics•Jan 1, 2018•2 citations

Quasiprobability distributions

Ulf Leonhardt

Wigner representation In classical optics (Born and Wolf, 1999), the state of the electromagnetic oscillator is perfectly described by the statistics of the classical amplitude α . The amplitude may be completely fixed (then the field is coherent), or α may fluctuate (then the field is partially coherent or incoherent). In classical optics as well as in classical mechanics, we can characterize the statistics of the complex amplitude?or, equivalently, the statistics of the components position q and momentum p introducing a phase space distribution W ( q , p ). (As explained in Section 3.1, the real and the imaginary part of the complex amplitude α can be regarded as the position and the momentum of the electromagnetic oscillator.) The distribution W ( q , p ) quantifies the probability of finding a particular pair of q and p values in their simultaneous measurement. Knowing the phase space probability distribution, all statistical quantities of the electromagnetic oscillator can be predicted by calculation. In this sense the phase space distribution describes the state in classical physics. All this is much more subtle in quantum mechanics. First of all, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prevents us from observing position momentum simultaneously and precisely. So it seems there is no point in thinking about quantum phase space. But wait! In quantum mechanics we cannot directly observe quantum states either. Nevertheless, we are legitimately entitled to use the concept of states as if they were existing entities (whatever they are). We use their properties to predict the statistics of observations.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Feb 18, 2010•1 citation

A Wigner Quasiprobability Distribution of Work

Federico Cerisola, Franco Mayo, Augusto J. Roncaglia

In this article, we introduce a quasiprobability distribution of work that is based on the Wigner function. This proposal rests on the idea that the work conducted on an isolated system can be coherently measured by coupling the system to a quantum measurement apparatus. In this way, a quasiprobability distribution of work can be defined in terms of the Wigner function of the apparatus. This quasidistribution contains the information of the work statistics and also holds a clear operational definition that can be directly measured in a real experiment. Moreover, it is shown that the presence of quantum coherence in the energy eigenbasis is related with the appearance of features related to non-classicality in the Wigner function such as negativity and interference fringes. On the other hand, from this quasiprobability distribution, it is straightforward to obtain the standard two-point measurement probability distribution of work and also the difference in average energy for initial states with coherences.

arXiv:2303.08755•Entropy•Oct 11, 2023•5 citations

Phase Space Representations of the Density Operator

Z. Ficek, Mohamed Ridza Wahiddin

In Chapter 4, we introduced the concept of the photon number representation of the electromagnetic (EM) field that is based on the number states, the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian of the EM field. However, this is not the only possible representation, in fact not always the most convenient. In this chapter, we introduce the concept of phase space representations of a quantum system which is in a state described by the density operator ρˆ. The density operator of a given system encodes classical as well as non-classical (quantum) properties of the system. How to distinguish these two kinds of properties is of basic importance in quantum optics. Therefore, we shall address this issue by using representations of the density operator that are based on the parametric space of complex eigenvalues of the annihilation operator aˆ in a coherent state |α〉. We first determine what we mean by the density operator of a quantum system and discuss its basic properties. Next, we introduce different representations of the density operator in terms of coherent state projectors |α〉〈α|. The representations show that a state of the EM field or of an arbitrary quantum system may be regarded as a mixture of coherent states. Along the way, we will learn how to find the P , Q and Wigner representations of the density operator, what are their properties, how to interpret the properties and how to calculate relations between the different representations. Most importantly, certain field states exhibit non- classical features and these non-classical features can be manifested in the phase space representations. Accordingly, we will learn how the representations are very convenient tools to describe quantum states of simple systems.

•Apr 19, 2016•0 citations

Coherent states: a contemporary panorama

S. Twareque Ali, Jean-Pierre Antoine, Fabio Bagarello +1 more

Coherent states (CS) of the harmonic oscillator (also called canonical CS) were introduced in 1926 by Schrödinger in answer to a remark by Lorentz on the classical interpretation of the wave function. They were rediscovered in the early 1960s, first (somewhat implicitly) by Klauder in the context of a novel representation of quantum states, then by Glauber and Sudarshan for the description of coherence in lasers. Since then, CS have grown into an extremely rich domain that pervades almost every corner of physics and have also led to the development of several flourishing topics in mathematics. Along the way, a number of review articles have appeared in the literature, devoted to CS, notably the 1985 reprint volume of Klauder and Skagerstam [1], the 1990 review paper by Zhang et al [2], the 1993 Oak Ridge Conference [3] and the 1995 review paper by Ali et al [4]. Textbooks also have been published, among which one might mention the ground breaking text of Perelomov [5] focusing on the group-theoretical aspects, that of Ali et al [6] 1 analyzing systematically the mathematical structure beyond the group-theoretical approach and also the relation to wavelet analysis, that of Dodonov and Man'ko [7] mostly devoted to quantum optics, that of Gazeau [8] more oriented towards the physical, probabilistic and quantization aspects, and finally the very recent one by Combescure and Robert [9]. In retrospect, one can see that the development of CS has gone through a two-phase transition. First, the (simultaneous) discovery in 1972 by Gilmore and Perelomov that CS were rooted in group theory, then the realization that CS can be defined in a purely algebraic way, as an eigenvalue problem or by a series expansion (Malkin and Man'ko 1969, Barut and Girardello 1971, Gazeau and Klauder 1999; references to the original articles may be found in the textbooks quoted above). Both facts resulted in an explosive expansion of the CS literature. We thought, therefore, that the time was ripe to devote a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical to CS. However, because of limitations of space and time, it would have been impossible to get a fully representative cross-section of papers, covering all the different facets of the subject. Consequently, we have selected 37 articles, including some by a few of the originators of the field. We thank all the authors for submitting their up-to-date thoughts on this fascinating subject. The contents of this special issue are subdivided into five categories: (1) review papers; (2) physics-oriented CS; (3) physics and quantum information; (4) mathematics, general topics; and (5) mathematics, particular problems. (1) Review papers We start with five review papers. The first paper, by Klauder, surveys the many possible applications of affine variables, both in classical and quantum physics. The second, by Sanders, proposes a grand tour of entangled CS, which are present in many fields, such as quantum optics, quantum information processing, etc. The next paper, by Rowe, surveys the field of vector CS and the attendant group representation problems (including induced representations). Then Oriti et al describe a particular class of CS relevant to (loop) quantum gravity. Finally, Combescure and Robert present a comprehensive review of fermionic CS, including all mathematical details. (2) Physics-oriented CS The six contributions in this section deal with specific physical problems: (i) Dajka–Luczka study Gazeau–Klauder cat states associated with a nonlinear Kerr oscillator, instead of the usual canonical CS leading to Schrödinger cat states; (ii) Angelova et al discuss squeezed CS associated with a 1D Morse potential, used in molecular physics; (iii) Bagrov et al study CS in a magnetic solenoid field and prove their completeness; (iv) Blasone–Jizba treat Nambu–Goldstone dynamics in spontaneously broken symmetries, using CS functional integrals; (v) Calixto et al describe accelerated relativistic particles in the context of spontaneous breakdown of conformal SU(2,2) symmetry, using SU(2,2) CS; and (vi) Mortazavi–Tavassoly study f -deformed charge CS and their physical properties (nonclassical features, sub-Poissonian statistical behavior, etc). (3) Physics and quantum information The second group of physically related CS contains four contributions with a distinct quantum information theoretic flavor. First, Thilagam describes the dynamical behavior of entanglement of a pair of qubits (excitons), using a CS basis. Next, Lavoie–de Guise study SU(3) intelligent states (i.e., minimal uncertainty states), of interest in the quantum information community. Then Muñoz constructs discrete CS for n qubits. Finally, Wagner–Kendon explore the continuous variable Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm known in quantum computing in a discrete formulation. (4) Mathematics, general topics In this subgroup, there are eight papers dealing with general properties of CS, independently of any particular system or application. A whole series discusses the interaction between CS and various mathematical objects: pseudodifferential operators and Weyl calculus (Unterberger); induced representations of the affine group and intertwining operators (Elmabrok–Hutnik); measure-free CS and reproducing kernels (Horzela–Szafraniec); extremal POV measures (Heinosaari–Pellonpää); Hilbert W*-modules (Bhattacharyya–Roy); Toeplitz operators (Hutníková–Hutník); and operator localization and homogeneous structure of nilpotent Lie groups (Kisil). In addition, Balazs et al consider multipliers for continuous frames, including CS or wavelet frames. (5) Mathematics, particular problems The second group of mathematically oriented papers contains 14 contributions, devoted to CS in particular systems. We start with a paper by Gilmore, which explores the (sometimes chaotic) evolution of atomic CS under a time-periodic driving field, using sphere maps S 2 → S 2 . Next, we include a paper on CS on the 2-sphere in a magnetic field (Hall–Mitchell); a paper on CS for a quantum particle on a Möbius strip (Cirilo–Lombardo); a discussion of quantization on the circle (Chadzitaskos et al ); SUSY CS for Pöschl–Teller potentials (Bergeron et al ); generalized Bargmann functions and von Neumann lattices (Vourdas et al ); partial reconstruction for a finite CS system, using the Fock–Bargmann representation (Calixto et al ); phase operators for SU(3) irreps, thus for finite quantum systems (de Guise); semiclassical CS in periodic potentials (Carles–Sparber); complexified CS with non-Hermitian Hamiltonians (Graefe–Schubert); minimal uncertainty states in the context of (semisimple) group representation theory (Oszmaniec); localization operators in the time-frequency domain, i.e., in Gabor analysis (Muzhikyan–Avanesyan); and, finally, two papers about fermionic CS (Daoud–Kibler and Trifonov). This brief description illustrates perfectly the extreme versatility of the CS concept. As already stressed, coherent states constitute nowadays a flourishing research topic, with applications to a wide spectrum of domains. Indeed, CS are everywhere in physics: condensed matter physics, atomic physics, nuclear and particle physics, quantum optics, dynamics—both quantum and classical potentials—quantum gravity, quantization and quantum information theory. On the other hand, CS have grown into a fully-fledged domain in mathematics, incorporating many tools such as group representations, POV measures, frames, holomorphic functions, orthogonal polynomials and so on. Interestingly enough, the majority of contributions to this special issue (22 out of 37) are mathematically minded, demonstrating the widespread interest CS have generated in various areas of mathematics. A third field related to CS (but almost not represented in the present collection) is signal processing. Indeed both Gabor analysis and wavelet analysis derive in the first place from CS theory, namely, CS associated to the Weyl–Heisenberg and the ax + b group, respectively. Here too, a tremendous development has taken place in recent years, another testimony to the richness of the notion of CS. We leave it to the jury of public opinion to judge whether the call for a special issue of the journal, devoted to coherent states, has been justified. References [1] Klauder J R and Skagerstam B S 1985 Coherent States—Applications in Physics and Mathematical Physics (Singapore: World Scientific) [2] Zhang W-M, Feng D H and Gilmore R 1990 Coherent states: theory and some applications Rev. Mod. Phys. 62 867–927 [3] Feng D H, Klauder J R and Strayer M (ed) 1994 Coherent States: Past, Present and Future (Singapore: World Scientific) [4] Ali S T, Antoine J-P, Gazeau J-P and Mueller U A 1995 Coherent states and their generalizations: a mathematical overview Rev. Math. Phys. 7 1013–104 [5] Perelomov A M 1986 Generalized Coherent States and Their Applications (New York: Springer) [6] Ali S T, Antoine J-P and Gazeau J-P 2000 Coherent States, Wavelets and Their Generalizations (New York: Springer) [7] Dodonov V V and Man'ko V I (ed) 2003 Theory of Nonclassical States of Light (London: Taylor & Francis) [8] Gazeau J-P 2009 Coherent States in Quantum Physics (Berlin: Wiley) [9] Combescure M and Robert D 2012 Coherent States and Applications in Mathematical Physics (New York: Springer) 1 A second edition of that volume is in preparation.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•May 30, 2012•9 citations
The Wigner quasiprobability, along with some of its essentialproperties, is introduced and discussed in two versions, first covering real canonical variables such as W(q,p) and second a pair of complex conjugate coordinates such as W(α,α*). The reconstruction of the density operator ϱ of states is also given. Building upon the Susskind–Glogower concept of quantum phase operators, further aspects of phase operator algebras in the quantum optics of a harmonic oscillator are discussed in relation to the realization of the su(1,1) Lie algebra. Coherent phase states |ε⟩ are introduced in analogy to the common coherent states |α⟩ in two ways, as both eigenstates of certain operators and as states generated from a ground state |0⟩ by operators of the Lie group SU(1,1). The limiting transition to the non-normalizable Fritz London phase states |eiφ⟩ on the unit circle and an (over)-completeness relation for the coherent phase states are derived. The Wigner quasiprobability W(q,p) for the coherent phase states is calculated and graphically represented. From the Wigner quasiprobability, a phase distribution W(φ) is calculated by integrating over the radius, and its uncertainty is defined and presented. The Hilbert–Schmidt distance is discussed as a measure of the non-classicality of states, where most of our with Viktor Dodonov work was carried out.
The first part is a systematical representation of the Wigner quasiprobability in representations by canonical variables and pairs of complex conjugate variables with particular attention to the reconstruction of the density operator from the Wigner quasiprobability to show their equivalence. All formulae are derived from basic postulates of quantum mechanics. Problems of operator orderings are touched. The second part considers the integration over the amplitude in the Wigner quasiprobability and its specialization for coherent states and for even and odd coherent states and provides phase distributions which are presented in graphics that are new in their kind. It is demonstrated that the Heitler number phase uncertainty relation is incorrect. The problem of the transition from quantum to classical distribution functions by ℏ→0 is discussed with the conjecture that the inertial point of the distributions plays a basic role.
Starting from Wigner's definition of the function named now after him we systematically develop different representation of this quasiprobability with emphasis on symmetric representations concerning the canonical variables ( ) , q p of phase space and using the known relation to the parity operator.One of the representations is by means of the Laguerre 2D polynomials which is particularly effective in quantum optics.For the coherent states we show that their Fourier transforms are again coherent states.We calculate the Wigner quasiprobability to the eigenstates of a particle in a square well with infinitely high impenetrable walls which is not smooth in the spatial coordinate and vanishes outside the wall boundaries.It is not well suited for the calculation of expectation values.A great place takes on the calculation of the Wigner quasiprobability for coherent phase states in quantum optics which is essentially new.We show that an unorthodox entire function plays there a role in most formulae which makes all calculations difficult.The Wigner quasiprobability for coherent phase states is calculated and graphically represented but due to the involved unorthodox function it may be considered only as illustration and is not suited for the calculation of expectation values.By another approach via the number representation of the states and using the recently developed summation formula by means of Generalized Eulerian numbers it becomes possible to calculate in approximations with good convergence the basic expectation values, in particular, the basic uncertainties which are additionally represented in graphics.Both considered examples, the square well and the coherent phase states, belong to systems with ( ) 1,1 SU symmetry with the same index 1 2 k = of unitary irreducible representations.
Wigner representation In classical optics (Born and Wolf, 1999), the state of the electromagnetic oscillator is perfectly described by the statistics of the classical amplitude α . The amplitude may be completely fixed (then the field is coherent), or α may fluctuate (then the field is partially coherent or incoherent). In classical optics as well as in classical mechanics, we can characterize the statistics of the complex amplitude?or, equivalently, the statistics of the components position q and momentum p introducing a phase space distribution W ( q , p ). (As explained in Section 3.1, the real and the imaginary part of the complex amplitude α can be regarded as the position and the momentum of the electromagnetic oscillator.) The distribution W ( q , p ) quantifies the probability of finding a particular pair of q and p values in their simultaneous measurement. Knowing the phase space probability distribution, all statistical quantities of the electromagnetic oscillator can be predicted by calculation. In this sense the phase space distribution describes the state in classical physics. All this is much more subtle in quantum mechanics. First of all, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prevents us from observing position momentum simultaneously and precisely. So it seems there is no point in thinking about quantum phase space. But wait! In quantum mechanics we cannot directly observe quantum states either. Nevertheless, we are legitimately entitled to use the concept of states as if they were existing entities (whatever they are). We use their properties to predict the statistics of observations.
In this article, we introduce a quasiprobability distribution of work that is based on the Wigner function. This proposal rests on the idea that the work conducted on an isolated system can be coherently measured by coupling the system to a quantum measurement apparatus. In this way, a quasiprobability distribution of work can be defined in terms of the Wigner function of the apparatus. This quasidistribution contains the information of the work statistics and also holds a clear operational definition that can be directly measured in a real experiment. Moreover, it is shown that the presence of quantum coherence in the energy eigenbasis is related with the appearance of features related to non-classicality in the Wigner function such as negativity and interference fringes. On the other hand, from this quasiprobability distribution, it is straightforward to obtain the standard two-point measurement probability distribution of work and also the difference in average energy for initial states with coherences.
In Chapter 4, we introduced the concept of the photon number representation of the electromagnetic (EM) field that is based on the number states, the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian of the EM field. However, this is not the only possible representation, in fact not always the most convenient. In this chapter, we introduce the concept of phase space representations of a quantum system which is in a state described by the density operator ρˆ. The density operator of a given system encodes classical as well as non-classical (quantum) properties of the system. How to distinguish these two kinds of properties is of basic importance in quantum optics. Therefore, we shall address this issue by using representations of the density operator that are based on the parametric space of complex eigenvalues of the annihilation operator aˆ in a coherent state |α〉. We first determine what we mean by the density operator of a quantum system and discuss its basic properties. Next, we introduce different representations of the density operator in terms of coherent state projectors |α〉〈α|. The representations show that a state of the EM field or of an arbitrary quantum system may be regarded as a mixture of coherent states. Along the way, we will learn how to find the P , Q and Wigner representations of the density operator, what are their properties, how to interpret the properties and how to calculate relations between the different representations. Most importantly, certain field states exhibit non- classical features and these non-classical features can be manifested in the phase space representations. Accordingly, we will learn how the representations are very convenient tools to describe quantum states of simple systems.
Coherent states (CS) of the harmonic oscillator (also called canonical CS) were introduced in 1926 by Schrödinger in answer to a remark by Lorentz on the classical interpretation of the wave function. They were rediscovered in the early 1960s, first (somewhat implicitly) by Klauder in the context of a novel representation of quantum states, then by Glauber and Sudarshan for the description of coherence in lasers. Since then, CS have grown into an extremely rich domain that pervades almost every corner of physics and have also led to the development of several flourishing topics in mathematics. Along the way, a number of review articles have appeared in the literature, devoted to CS, notably the 1985 reprint volume of Klauder and Skagerstam [1], the 1990 review paper by Zhang et al [2], the 1993 Oak Ridge Conference [3] and the 1995 review paper by Ali et al [4]. Textbooks also have been published, among which one might mention the ground breaking text of Perelomov [5] focusing on the group-theoretical aspects, that of Ali et al [6] 1 analyzing systematically the mathematical structure beyond the group-theoretical approach and also the relation to wavelet analysis, that of Dodonov and Man'ko [7] mostly devoted to quantum optics, that of Gazeau [8] more oriented towards the physical, probabilistic and quantization aspects, and finally the very recent one by Combescure and Robert [9]. In retrospect, one can see that the development of CS has gone through a two-phase transition. First, the (simultaneous) discovery in 1972 by Gilmore and Perelomov that CS were rooted in group theory, then the realization that CS can be defined in a purely algebraic way, as an eigenvalue problem or by a series expansion (Malkin and Man'ko 1969, Barut and Girardello 1971, Gazeau and Klauder 1999; references to the original articles may be found in the textbooks quoted above). Both facts resulted in an explosive expansion of the CS literature. We thought, therefore, that the time was ripe to devote a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical to CS. However, because of limitations of space and time, it would have been impossible to get a fully representative cross-section of papers, covering all the different facets of the subject. Consequently, we have selected 37 articles, including some by a few of the originators of the field. We thank all the authors for submitting their up-to-date thoughts on this fascinating subject. The contents of this special issue are subdivided into five categories: (1) review papers; (2) physics-oriented CS; (3) physics and quantum information; (4) mathematics, general topics; and (5) mathematics, particular problems. (1) Review papers We start with five review papers. The first paper, by Klauder, surveys the many possible applications of affine variables, both in classical and quantum physics. The second, by Sanders, proposes a grand tour of entangled CS, which are present in many fields, such as quantum optics, quantum information processing, etc. The next paper, by Rowe, surveys the field of vector CS and the attendant group representation problems (including induced representations). Then Oriti et al describe a particular class of CS relevant to (loop) quantum gravity. Finally, Combescure and Robert present a comprehensive review of fermionic CS, including all mathematical details. (2) Physics-oriented CS The six contributions in this section deal with specific physical problems: (i) Dajka–Luczka study Gazeau–Klauder cat states associated with a nonlinear Kerr oscillator, instead of the usual canonical CS leading to Schrödinger cat states; (ii) Angelova et al discuss squeezed CS associated with a 1D Morse potential, used in molecular physics; (iii) Bagrov et al study CS in a magnetic solenoid field and prove their completeness; (iv) Blasone–Jizba treat Nambu–Goldstone dynamics in spontaneously broken symmetries, using CS functional integrals; (v) Calixto et al describe accelerated relativistic particles in the context of spontaneous breakdown of conformal SU(2,2) symmetry, using SU(2,2) CS; and (vi) Mortazavi–Tavassoly study f -deformed charge CS and their physical properties (nonclassical features, sub-Poissonian statistical behavior, etc). (3) Physics and quantum information The second group of physically related CS contains four contributions with a distinct quantum information theoretic flavor. First, Thilagam describes the dynamical behavior of entanglement of a pair of qubits (excitons), using a CS basis. Next, Lavoie–de Guise study SU(3) intelligent states (i.e., minimal uncertainty states), of interest in the quantum information community. Then Muñoz constructs discrete CS for n qubits. Finally, Wagner–Kendon explore the continuous variable Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm known in quantum computing in a discrete formulation. (4) Mathematics, general topics In this subgroup, there are eight papers dealing with general properties of CS, independently of any particular system or application. A whole series discusses the interaction between CS and various mathematical objects: pseudodifferential operators and Weyl calculus (Unterberger); induced representations of the affine group and intertwining operators (Elmabrok–Hutnik); measure-free CS and reproducing kernels (Horzela–Szafraniec); extremal POV measures (Heinosaari–Pellonpää); Hilbert W*-modules (Bhattacharyya–Roy); Toeplitz operators (Hutníková–Hutník); and operator localization and homogeneous structure of nilpotent Lie groups (Kisil). In addition, Balazs et al consider multipliers for continuous frames, including CS or wavelet frames. (5) Mathematics, particular problems The second group of mathematically oriented papers contains 14 contributions, devoted to CS in particular systems. We start with a paper by Gilmore, which explores the (sometimes chaotic) evolution of atomic CS under a time-periodic driving field, using sphere maps S 2 → S 2 . Next, we include a paper on CS on the 2-sphere in a magnetic field (Hall–Mitchell); a paper on CS for a quantum particle on a Möbius strip (Cirilo–Lombardo); a discussion of quantization on the circle (Chadzitaskos et al ); SUSY CS for Pöschl–Teller potentials (Bergeron et al ); generalized Bargmann functions and von Neumann lattices (Vourdas et al ); partial reconstruction for a finite CS system, using the Fock–Bargmann representation (Calixto et al ); phase operators for SU(3) irreps, thus for finite quantum systems (de Guise); semiclassical CS in periodic potentials (Carles–Sparber); complexified CS with non-Hermitian Hamiltonians (Graefe–Schubert); minimal uncertainty states in the context of (semisimple) group representation theory (Oszmaniec); localization operators in the time-frequency domain, i.e., in Gabor analysis (Muzhikyan–Avanesyan); and, finally, two papers about fermionic CS (Daoud–Kibler and Trifonov). This brief description illustrates perfectly the extreme versatility of the CS concept. As already stressed, coherent states constitute nowadays a flourishing research topic, with applications to a wide spectrum of domains. Indeed, CS are everywhere in physics: condensed matter physics, atomic physics, nuclear and particle physics, quantum optics, dynamics—both quantum and classical potentials—quantum gravity, quantization and quantum information theory. On the other hand, CS have grown into a fully-fledged domain in mathematics, incorporating many tools such as group representations, POV measures, frames, holomorphic functions, orthogonal polynomials and so on. Interestingly enough, the majority of contributions to this special issue (22 out of 37) are mathematically minded, demonstrating the widespread interest CS have generated in various areas of mathematics. A third field related to CS (but almost not represented in the present collection) is signal processing. Indeed both Gabor analysis and wavelet analysis derive in the first place from CS theory, namely, CS associated to the Weyl–Heisenberg and the ax + b group, respectively. Here too, a tremendous development has taken place in recent years, another testimony to the richness of the notion of CS. We leave it to the jury of public opinion to judge whether the call for a special issue of the journal, devoted to coherent states, has been justified. References [1] Klauder J R and Skagerstam B S 1985 Coherent States—Applications in Physics and Mathematical Physics (Singapore: World Scientific) [2] Zhang W-M, Feng D H and Gilmore R 1990 Coherent states: theory and some applications Rev. Mod. Phys. 62 867–927 [3] Feng D H, Klauder J R and Strayer M (ed) 1994 Coherent States: Past, Present and Future (Singapore: World Scientific) [4] Ali S T, Antoine J-P, Gazeau J-P and Mueller U A 1995 Coherent states and their generalizations: a mathematical overview Rev. Math. Phys. 7 1013–104 [5] Perelomov A M 1986 Generalized Coherent States and Their Applications (New York: Springer) [6] Ali S T, Antoine J-P and Gazeau J-P 2000 Coherent States, Wavelets and Their Generalizations (New York: Springer) [7] Dodonov V V and Man'ko V I (ed) 2003 Theory of Nonclassical States of Light (London: Taylor & Francis) [8] Gazeau J-P 2009 Coherent States in Quantum Physics (Berlin: Wiley) [9] Combescure M and Robert D 2012 Coherent States and Applications in Mathematical Physics (New York: Springer) 1 A second edition of that volume is in preparation.