Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Characterizing maximally many-body entangled fermionic states by using $M$-body density matrix

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Random fermionic states asymptotically become absolutely maximally entangled, with their M-body density matrix spectra governed by the trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre ensemble.

desk verdict Solid combinatorial core on hypergraph designs; the random-matrix claim is a well-supported conjecture that the abstract overstates. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09576 v2 pith:YQK5DIJE submitted 2024-12-12 quant-ph

Irakli Giorgadze , Haixuan Huang , Jordan Gaines , Elio J. König , Jukka I. Väyrynen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords fermionicentanglementM-bodyreduceddensitymatrixabsolutelymaximallyentangledstatesrandomWishart-LaguerreensemblehypergraphdesignsSteinersystemsvonNeumannentropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks when an $N$-fermion state is maximally entangled at the level of its $M$-body reduced density matrix, and what typical random fermionic states look like in that respect. The authors show that the answer is controlled by the hypergraph of Slater determinants making up the state: $M$-designs give maximally $M$-body entangled states, and at equal particle split $M=N/2$ only Steiner systems do. For random states they identify the eigenvalue statistics of the $M$-body reduced density matrix with the trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre ensemble, with matrix sizes $\binom{D}{M}$ and $\binom{D}{N-M}$. In the large single-particle dimension limit with dilute filling this makes the spectrum a sharp semicircle around the maximally mixed value, so random states become absolutely maximally entangled, up to a constant entropy deficit at equal bipartition for even $N$. This matters for fermionic quantum simulation because the $M$-body density matrix is the natural basis-independent entanglement measure for fermionic hardware and is the object optimized in reduced-density-matrix and bootstrap methods.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $M$-body reduced density matrix $\rho^{(M)}=\Gamma^{(M)}\Gamma^{(M)\dagger}$ together with the hypergraph whose edges are the Slater determinants in the state. Its $M$th incidence matrix $A^{(M)}$ converts maximal entanglement into a convex-hull condition $A^{(M)}x = \binom{N}{M}/\binom{D}{M}\mathbf{1}$, with $x_k=|\alpha_k|^2$; $t$-designs, meaning hypergraphs in which every $t$-vertex subset appears in exactly $\lambda$ edges, satisfy it with equal weights, and Steiner systems with $\lambda=1$ are exactly the $M=N/2$ case. On the random-state side the machinery is the trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre ensemble, $W=HH^\dagger$ with $H$ an $n\times m$ complex Gaussian matrix and $\mathrm{Tr}\,W$ fixed, with $n=\binom{D}{M}$ and $m=\binom{D}{N-M}$; its spectral density is the Marcenko-Pastur law, reducing to a semicircle in the $c=n/m\to0$ limit. This ensemble supplies the quantitative predictions for eigenvalue histograms and mean von Neumann entropy that the numerics are compared against.

What would settle it

Sample enough Haar-random $N$-fermion states at moderately large $D$ and measure the mean $\frac{N}{2}$-body entanglement entropy minus the maximum; the trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre prediction requires this deficit to approach the $D$-independent constant $\mathrm{Tr}\,\rho^{(N/2)}/2$ for even $N$. A deficit that drifts with $D$, or an eigenvalue histogram that deviates from the predicted Marcenko-Pastur or semicircle shape beyond finite-size fluctuations, would falsify the ensemble identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $M$-body reduced density matrix $\rho^{(M)}=\Gamma^{(M)}\Gamma^{(M)\dagger}$ of an $N$-fermion pure state, with $\Gamma^{(M)}$ the $\binom{D}{M}\times\binom{D}{N-M}$ matrix of antisymmetrized amplitudes, carries a complete basis-independent account of many-body fermionic entanglement, and that maximal entanglement, meaning $\rho^{(M)}\propto I$, is a combinatorial condition on the state's Slater-determinant hypergraph. For a fixed set of $b$ Slater determinants the condition is solvability of $A^{(M)}x = \binom{N}{M}/\binom{D}{M}\mathbf{1}$, where $A^{(M)}$ is the $M$th incidence matrix of the hypergraph; $t$-designs solve it with uniform coefficients, yielding the theorem that $M$-designs are exactly the equal-weight maximally $M$-body entangled states. Random $N$-fermion states are then argued to have $\rho^{(M)}$ spectra distributed according to the trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre ensemble, which in the $D\gg N$ limit becomes a semicircle peaked at the maximally mixed eigenvalue for $M<N/2$, so generic states saturate the entanglement bound; at $M=N/2$ the distribution instead stays broad, with a mean entropy deficit of $\mathrm{Tr}\,\rho^{(N/2)}/2$ because only Steiner systems saturate the bound there.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the eigenvalue statistics of an $M$-body density matrix drawn from a Haar-random $N$-fermion state coincide with the trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre ensemble with $n=\binom{D}{M}$ and $m=\binom{D}{N-M}$; the paper demonstrates this numerically but states that a rigorous proof of the connection has not been formally established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Maximal $M$-body entanglement can exist only in the triangular band $2M \le N \le D-2M$; outside it no $N$-fermion state has $\rho^{(M)}\propto I$, and on the boundary lines the condition is exactly equivalent to a Steiner system.
  • A state whose hypergraph is an $M$-design with equal edge weights is maximally $M$-body entangled, and conversely; this includes the $M=N/2$ Steiner case.
  • For Haar-random $N$-fermion states with $D\gg N>2M$, the eigenvalues of $\rho^{(M)}$ follow a semicircular law sharply peaked about the maximally mixed value, so for odd $N$ random states are absolutely maximally entangled in the large-$D$ limit.
  • At equal bipartition $M=N/2$ the spectrum obeys a broad Marcenko-Pastur-type law and the mean entropy falls short of the maximum by the constant $\mathrm{Tr}\,\rho^{(N/2)}/2$, independent of $D$.
  • The trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre ensemble with $n=\binom{D}{M}$, $m=\binom{D}{N-M}$ quantitatively predicts the eigenvalue distribution and mean entanglement entropy of random fermionic states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Wishart-Laguerre identification survives a rigorous proof, then the spectral statistics of arbitrary fermionic reduced density matrices would be universal for Haar-random states, giving a null model against which interaction-induced entanglement structure can be detected in small fermionic devices.
  • The same identification suggests replacing the hard $N$-representability optimization over valid $\rho^{(2)}$ by an approximate optimization over the trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre ensemble, which could speed up bootstrap computations for strongly correlated electrons.
  • A direct testable extension is to prepare Haar-random fermionic states on fermionic atom arrays and measure the $M$-body density matrix eigenvalue histogram; the predicted semicircle-to-Marcenko-Pastur crossover as $c$ varies could be observed at modest $D$.
  • The hypergraph-and-design classification points to a fermionic analogue of absolutely maximally entangled states that may serve as resources for multipartite quantum protocols; connecting these states to fermionic matchgate circuits would be a natural next step.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the many-body entanglement structure of fermionic N-particle states via M-body reduced density matrices (RDMs). It derives upper bounds on M-body entanglement entropy, relates maximally entangled states to hypergraph t-designs, proves that t-designs satisfying an overlap criterion yield maximally M-body entangled states, establishes a nesting property, and proves particle-hole symmetry. For random fermionic states, the paper proposes that the eigenvalue statistics of the M-body RDM are described by the trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre (WL) ensemble with n = C(D,M) and m = C(D,N-M), and from this it concludes that in the large-D, non-zero filling limit random states become absolutely maximally entangled for odd N and nearly so for even N. The random-state results are presented as a semianalytical demonstration despite the absence of a rigorous derivation.

Significance. If the random-matrix identification were rigorously established, the paper would provide a useful statistical characterization of fermionic M-body entanglement in the large-D limit, with potential applications to N-representability-constrained optimization. The rigorous combinatorial and existence results are a genuine contribution: Theorem 1 (t-designs), the Steiner-system condition for M = N/2, the nesting property, and particle-hole symmetry are carefully proved and appear sound. The paper also ships reproducible numerical evidence and makes falsifiable predictions (the semi-circular and Marchenko-Pastur shapes, the entropy deficit in the equal-bipartition case). These strengths are substantial. However, the central random-state claim is an unproven conjecture, explicitly acknowledged in Section V, and the abstract overstates the AME claim for even N. The paper therefore needs revision to either prove or clearly reclassify the random-matrix results.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV B–IV C, V] The central claim that the eigenvalue statistics of M-body RDMs of Haar-random N-fermion states are described by the trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre ensemble with n=C(D,M) and m=C(D,N-M) is not derived. The coefficient tensor Γ(M) in Eq. (7) comes from a fully antisymmetric Gaussian tensor; its entries are sums of C(N,M) Gaussian variables and are correlated across rows and columns, unlike the iid entries of H in the WL model. The paper concedes in Section V that 'the rigorous proof of the connection ... has not been formally established.' Because the AME conclusion and the entropy formulas in Eqs. (46) and (48) rest on this identification, the main random-state results are conditional on an unproven ansatz. Please either provide a derivation or a rigorous asymptotic equivalence, or explicitly present these results as a numerically supported conjecture in the abstract and in Section IV.
  2. [Abstract; Section IV D] The abstract states that 'in the limit of large single-particle dimension D and a non-zero filling fraction, random states asymptotically become absolutely maximally entangled.' This is inconsistent with Section IV D, which concludes that only random states with odd N become absolutely maximally entangled, while for even N the N/2-body RDM is not maximally entangled and the states are only 'nearly' absolutely maximally entangled. The abstract should state the parity condition or phrase the claim as 'for odd N.'
  3. [IV C, Eqs. (39)-(42)] Equation (42) for the trace-fixed WL spectral density at general c is obtained by rescaling the unconditional Marchenko-Pastur density, replacing x by z = x Trρ(M)/<TrW>WL. This is not a consequence of the trace-fixed jpdf in Eq. (30) except in the c->0 limit, where the linearization leading to Eq. (31) is justified. Conditioning a Wishart matrix on its trace changes the joint eigenvalue density beyond a simple scale transformation, so the derivation of Eq. (42) is a heuristic extrapolation. This point should be stated explicitly, and the numerical evidence in Fig. 4 should be accompanied by a goodness-of-fit statement for the conditioned ensemble.
  4. [I A, III D, Appendix B] The statement that t-designs correspond to maximally M-body entangled fermionic states (abstract and Section I A) omits the overlap criterion that any two Slater determinants share fewer than N-M orbitals. Without this condition the statement is false: the complete N-uniform hypergraph is an M-design for any M≤N but violates the overlap criterion, and the corresponding equal-weight state has non-zero off-diagonal elements in ρ(M). The rigorous statement, correctly given in Section III D and Appendix B, includes the overlap criterion; the abstract and the introductory summary should be amended to match the precise claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [I] In the Introduction, 'ultacold atoms' should read 'ultracold atoms.'
  2. [Fig. 3(b)] The dashed curve is obtained by fitting α/D^2 to the D=50 green triangle, so α is a fitted free parameter, not a prediction; the caption should state this explicitly so that the plot is not read as an ab initio curve.
  3. [IV B] Equation (31) expands ln W assuming ||δW|| ≪ Trρ(M)/n; the text should note explicitly that this is the c->0 limit, since the subsequent general-c formula in Eq. (42) is not justified by this expansion.
  4. [II A] The notation ρ(M)_n for the normalized DM is introduced but not consistently used; in particular, the subadditivity inequalities in Eqs. (17)-(18) would benefit from a reminder of which normalization is employed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the random-state results rely on an explicitly unproved ensemble identification, but nothing is fitted, self-cited, or defined into its conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central random-state claim is that the eigenvalue statistics of M-body reduced DMs of Haar-random N-fermion states match the trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre ensemble with n=C(D,M) and m=C(D,N-M). This identification is presented as a conjecture, not derived: the paper states in Section V that 'the rigorous proof of the connection between the ensemble of M-body DMs derived from random fermionic states and the trace-fixed WL ensemble has not been formally established.' The parameters mu, sigma, and c are fixed by D, N, M, and by the normalization Tr rho(M)=C(N,M); no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The numerical comparisons in Figs. 3-5 are external checks of the assumed model. The absolute-maximal-entanglement conclusion in the large-D limit is a consequence of the trace-fixed WL model, so it inherits the unproved identification, but this is a correctness/justification gap rather than circular reasoning: the paper does not define the random-state DM distribution to be the WL distribution. The t-design results are proven from the overlap criterion and Eq. (23) in Theorem 1, Theorem 2, and Appendices B-C, and are not circular. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations; Refs. [34], [56], and [62] supply independent prior results. The only fitted curve (Fig. 3(b), alpha/D^2) is explicitly labeled as a fit and is not used to generate the main predictions.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard linear algebra (rho^(M)=Gamma Gamma^dagger), hypergraph design identities, and the trace-fixed WL ansatz. The only genuinely ad hoc assumption is the WL ansatz for random fermionic RDMs, which the paper flags as unproven. No new physical entities are introduced, and no parameters are fitted to obtain the main random-matrix predictions.

free parameters (1)
  • Alpha coefficient in D^{-2} scaling fit = alpha approximately 9.95
    In Fig. 3(b), the scaling sigma(D) ~ alpha/D^2 is fitted to the D=50 numerical point (alpha=9.95) to compare with the analytic coefficient 9.78; this is an illustrative consistency check, not used to derive the central results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fixed particle number N: the fermionic Hilbert space is restricted to the N-particle sector of Fock space.
    Assumed throughout (see footnote [16]); the BCS state is excluded.
  • standard math The M-body reduced density matrix rho^(M) = Gamma Gamma^dagger with Gamma the antisymmetrized coefficient matrix (Eq. 7) is the correct entanglement measure for fermions.
    Follows from [34]; standard in reduced density matrix theory.
  • standard math Overlap criterion: off-diagonal elements of rho^(M) vanish iff every pair of Slater determinants shares fewer than N-M orbitals (Sec III A).
    Used throughout to reduce the search; argued in Sec III A and not separately proven.
  • ad hoc to paper Trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre ensemble ansatz for random fermionic M-body RDMs (Sec IV).
    Assumed to describe the RDM eigenvalue statistics of Haar-random N-fermion states; paper states no rigorous proof exists (Sec V).
  • standard math Known results in hypergraph design theory, e.g., the counting relation lambda = b C(N,M)/C(D,M) (Eq. B3) and existence of Steiner systems.
    Used in Theorem 1 and in Sec III D; cited to [63,64].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterizing maximally many-body entangled fermionic states by using $M$-body density matrix." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQK5DIJE

@misc{pith2026241209576,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterizing maximally many-body entangled fermionic states by using $M$-body density matrix},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQK5DIJE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09576}
}
abstract

Fermionic Hamiltonians play a critical role in quantum chemistry, one of the most promising use cases for near-term quantum computers. However, since encoding nonlocal fermionic statistics using conventional qubits results in significant computational overhead, fermionic quantum hardware, such as fermion atom arrays, were proposed as a more efficient platform. In this context, we here study the many-body entanglement structure of fermionic $N$-particle states by concentrating on $M$-body reduced density matrices (DMs) across various bipartitions in Fock space. The von Neumann entropy of the reduced DM is a basis independent entanglement measure which generalizes the traditional quantum chemistry concept of the one-particle DM entanglement, which characterizes how a single fermion is entangled with the rest. We carefully examine upper bounds on the $M$-body entanglement, which are analogous to the volume law of conventional entanglement measures. To this end we establish a connection between $M$-body reduced DM and the mathematical structure of hypergraphs. Specifically, we show that a special class of hypergraphs, known as $t$-designs, corresponds to maximally entangled fermionic states. Finally, we explore fermionic many-body entanglement in random states. We semianalytically demonstrate that the distribution of reduced DMs associated with random fermionic states corresponds to the trace-fixed Wishart-Laguerre random matrix ensemble. In the limit of large single-particle dimension $D$ and a non-zero filling fraction, random states asymptotically become absolutely maximally entangled.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09576 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Characterizing maximally many-body entangled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Maximally many-body entangled fermionic states. (a) The existence of maximally [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. One-body DM of random states. (a) The eigen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Eigenvalue distributions of two-body DMs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean M-body entanglement entropy of randomly generated states with N = 4 as a function of the single-particle dimension D, for M = 1 and M = 2. In both cases, the numerical results (green crosses), obtained over 104 realizations for each D up to D = 20 and 103 realizat…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    does not contain a state withρ (M) ∝IwhenN < 2Mor, by particle-hole symmetry, whenN > D− 2M,

    work page

  2. [2]

    contains a state withρ (M) ∝Iif and only if the associated hypergraph of the state is a Steiner sys- tem, whenN= 2MorN=D−2M, and

    work page

  3. [3]

    These three statements are corroborated by our results in Fig

    might contain a state withρ (M) ∝Iwhen 2M < N < D−2M. These three statements are corroborated by our results in Fig. 2(a) and sketched in Fig. 1(c). Thus, in theD- Nplane, maximally entangled states may only exist in the triangular region defined by 2M≤N≤D−2M. Thus, the region hostingρ (M) ∝Istates shrinks asM increases, cf.ρ (1) andρ (2) in Fig. 2(a). Fi...

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation,

    Andrew J. Daley, Immanuel Bloch, Christian Kokail, Stuart Flannigan, Natalie Pearson, Matthias Troyer, and Peter Zoller, “Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation,” Nature (London)607, 667–676 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers,

    Markus Reiher, Nathan Wiebe, Krysta M. Svore, Dave Wecker, and Matthias Troyer, “Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science114, 7555–7560 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Solving strongly correlated electron models on a quan- tum computer,

    Dave Wecker, Matthew B. Hastings, Nathan Wiebe, Bryan K. Clark, Chetan Nayak, and Matthias Troyer, “Solving strongly correlated electron models on a quan- tum computer,” Phys. Rev. A92, 062318 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Simulation of many- body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer,

    Daniel S. Abrams and Seth Lloyd, “Simulation of many- body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 2586–2589 (1997)

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Quantum algorithms for fermionic simulations,

    G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, “Quantum algorithms for fermionic simulations,” Phys. Rev. A64, 022319 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Fermionic quantum computation,

    Sergey B. Bravyi and Alexei Yu. Kitaev, “Fermionic quantum computation,” Annals of Physics298, 210–226 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    Simulation of electronic struc- ture hamiltonians using quantum comput- ers,

    Jacob Biamonte James D. Whitfield and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, “Simulation of electronic struc- ture hamiltonians using quantum comput- ers,” Molecular Physics109, 735–750 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1080/00268976.2011.552441

    2011

  3. [11]

    Fermions without fermion fields,

    R. C. Ball, “Fermions without fermion fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 176407 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Mapping local hamiltoni- ans of fermions to local hamiltonians of spins,

    F Verstraete and J I Cirac, “Mapping local hamiltoni- ans of fermions to local hamiltonians of spins,” Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2005, P09012 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    Local spin operators for fermion simulations,

    James D. Whitfield, Vojt ˇ ech Havl ´ ıˇ cek, and Matthias Troyer, “Local spin operators for fermion simulations,” Phys. Rev. A94, 030301 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Fermionic quantum process- ing with programmable neutral atom arrays,

    D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, R. Kaubruegger, N. Maskara, P. Naldesi, T. V. Zache, A. M. Kaufman, M. D. Lukin, H. Pichler, B. Vermer- sch, Jun Ye, and P. Zoller, “Fermionic quantum process- ing with programmable neutral atom arrays,” Proceed- ings of the N...

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang,Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, NY, 2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Fermionic linear optics and matchgates,

    E. Knill, “Fermionic linear optics and matchgates,” (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0108033 [quant-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits,

    Barbara M. Terhal and David P. DiVincenzo, “Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits,” Phys. Rev. A65, 032325 (2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics,

    Sergey Bravyi, “Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics,” arXiv e-prints , quant-ph/0404180 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0404180 [quant-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  11. [19]

    We remark in passing, that the Bardeen-Cooper- Schrieffer wavefunction, which clearly is a superposition of many Slater determinants of distinct particle number, can be transformed to a single Slater determinant by the combination of a partial particle-hole transformation and ...

  12. [20]

    Violation of the entropic area law for fermions,

    Michael M. Wolf, “Violation of the entropic area law for fermions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010404 (2006)

    2006

  13. [21]

    Entanglement entropy of fermions in any dimension and the widom conjecture,

    Dimitri Gioev and Israel Klich, “Entanglement entropy of fermions in any dimension and the widom conjecture,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 100503 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    Entan- glement scaling in critical two-dimensional fermionic and bosonic systems,

    T. Barthel, M.-C. Chung, and U. Schollw¨ ock, “Entan- glement scaling in critical two-dimensional fermionic and bosonic systems,” Phys. Rev. A74, 022329 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Scaling behavior of entanglement in two- and three-dimensional free-fermion systems,

    Weifei Li, Letian Ding, Rong Yu, Tommaso Roscilde, and Stephan Haas, “Scaling behavior of entanglement in two- and three-dimensional free-fermion systems,” Phys. Rev. B74, 073103 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Entanglement Entropy and the Fermi Surface,

    Brian Swingle, “Entanglement Entropy and the Fermi Surface,” Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 050502 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Giuliani and Giovanni Vignale,Quantum Theory of the Electron Liquid(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, NY, 2005)

    Gabriele F. Giuliani and Giovanni Vignale,Quantum Theory of the Electron Liquid(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, NY, 2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    On the interaction of electrons in metals,

    E. Wigner, “On the interaction of electrons in metals,” Phys. Rev.46, 1002–1011 (1934)

    1934

  19. [27]

    Ostlund,Modern Quantum Chemistry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic Struc- ture Theory(Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 1996)

    Attila Szabo and Neil S. Ostlund,Modern Quantum Chemistry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic Struc- ture Theory(Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 1996). 23

    1996

  20. [28]

    (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2017)

    Frank Jensen,Introduction to Computational Chemistry, 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Quantum spin liquids: a review,

    Lucile Savary and Leon Balents, “Quantum spin liquids: a review,” Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Stranger than metals,

    Philip W. Phillips, Nigel E. Hussey, and Peter Ab- bamonte, “Stranger than metals,” Science377(2022), 10.1126/science.abh4273

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Observation of fractionally quantized anomalous hall effect,

    Heonjoon Park, Jiaqi Cai, Eric Anderson, Yinong Zhang, Jiayi Zhu, Xiaoyu Liu, Chong Wang, William Holtz- mann, Chaowei Hu, Zhaoyu Liu, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Watanabe, Jiun-Haw Chu, Ting Cao, Liang Fu, Wang Yao, Cui-Zu Chang, David Cobden, Di Xiao, and Xiaodong Xu, “Observat...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Anomalous quantum hall effect: An incompressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations,

    R. B. Laughlin, “Anomalous quantum hall effect: An incompressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1395–1398 (1983)

    1983

  25. [33]

    Entanglement prop- erties of some fractional quantum hall liquids,

    Bei Zeng, Hui Zhai, and Zhan Xu, “Entanglement prop- erties of some fractional quantum hall liquids,” Phys. Rev. A66, 042324 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    Entanglement entropy in fermionic laughlin states,

    Masudul Haque, Oleksandr Zozulya, and Kareljan Schoutens, “Entanglement entropy in fermionic laughlin states,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 060401 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    Real-space en- tanglement spectrum of quantum hall systems,

    J. Dubail, N. Read, and E. H. Rezayi, “Real-space en- tanglement spectrum of quantum hall systems,” Phys. Rev. B85, 115321 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Optimiz- ing strongly interacting fermionic hamiltonians,

    Matthew B. Hastings and Ryan O’Donnell, “Optimiz- ing strongly interacting fermionic hamiltonians,” inPro- ceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2022 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022) p. 776–789

    2022

  29. [37]

    Many- body entanglement in fermion systems,

    N. Gigena, M. Di Tullio, and R. Rossignoli, “Many- body entanglement in fermion systems,” Phys. Rev. A 103, 052424 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Jerzy Cioslowski, ed.,Many-Electron Densities and Re- duced Density Matrices, Mathematical and Computa- tional Chemistry (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2000)

    2000

  31. [39]

    Eigenvalues of den- sity matrices,

    B. C. Carlson and Joseph M. Keller, “Eigenvalues of den- sity matrices,” Phys. Rev.121, 659–661 (1961)

    1961

  32. [40]

    Structure of fermion density matrices,

    A. J. Coleman, “Structure of fermion density matrices,” Rev. Mod. Phys.35, 668–686 (1963)

    1963

  33. [41]

    Properties of fermion density matrices,

    Tsuyoshi Ando, “Properties of fermion density matrices,” Rev. Mod. Phys.35, 690–702 (1963)

    1963

  34. [42]

    Eigenvalues of fermion density matri- ces,

    Fukashi Sasaki, “Eigenvalues of fermion density matri- ces,” Phys. Rev.138, B1338–B1342 (1965)

    1965

  35. [43]

    A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963) reprinted by Courier Corporation, 2012

    1963

  36. [44]

    Complexity of fermionic states,

    Tuomas I. Vanhala and Teemu Ojanen, “Complexity of fermionic states,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023178 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Par- ticle partitioning entanglement in itinerant many-particle systems,

    O. S. Zozulya, Masudul Haque, and K. Schoutens, “Par- ticle partitioning entanglement in itinerant many-particle systems,” Phys. Rev. A78, 042326 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Some formal properties of the density ma- trix,

    Kodi Husimi, “Some formal properties of the density ma- trix,” Nippon Sugaku-Buturigakkwai Kizi Dai 3 Ki22, 264–314 (1940)

    1940

  39. [47]

    Per-Olov L¨ owdin, “Quantum theory of many-particle systems. i. physical interpretations by means of density matrices, natural spin-orbitals, and convergence prob- lems in the method of configurational interaction,” Phys. Rev.97, 1474–1489 (1955)

    1955

  40. [48]

    Electron correlation,

    Joseph E. Mayer, “Electron correlation,” Phys. Rev.100, 1579–1586 (1955)

    1955

  41. [49]

    Density matrix and the many-body problem,

    R. H. Tredgold, “Density matrix and the many-body problem,” Phys. Rev.105, 1421–1423 (1957)

    1957

  42. [50]

    Present state of molecular structure cal- culations,

    C. A. Coulson, “Present state of molecular structure cal- culations,” Rev. Mod. Phys.32, 170–177 (1960)

    1960

  43. [51]

    Quantum computational complexity of then- representability problem: Qma complete,

    Yi-Kai Liu, Matthias Christandl, and F. Ver- straete, “Quantum computational complexity of then- representability problem: Qma complete,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 110503 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    Computational complexity of interacting electrons and fundamental lim- itations of density functional theory,

    Norbert Schuch and Frank Verstraete, “Computational complexity of interacting electrons and fundamental lim- itations of density functional theory,” Nature Physics5, 732–735 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Bootstrapping the quantum hall problem,

    Qiang Gao, Ryan A. Lanzetta, Patrick Ledwith, Jie Wang, and Eslam Khalaf, “Bootstrapping the quantum hall problem,” (2024), arXiv:2409.10619 [cond-mat.str- el]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Entanglement between particle partitions in itinerant many-particle states,

    Masudul Haque, OS Zozulya, and Kareljan Schoutens, “Entanglement between particle partitions in itinerant many-particle states,” Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical42, 504012 (2009)

    2009

  47. [55]

    Going beyond bell’s theorem,

    Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael A. Horne, and An- ton Zeilinger, “Going beyond bell’s theorem,” (2007), arXiv:0712.0921 [quant-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Naturally, such a state would decohere fast since a local measurement can distinguish the two components

    Physically,|Ψ GHZ⟩may arise, for instance, in a model of spinless fermions described by 1Dt−Vmodel [42], where strong interaction gives rise to a ground state that is in equal superposition of two charge density wave states. Naturally, such a state would decohere fast since a ...

  49. [57]

    [64], along with many other examples of 2-designs

    Some known Steiner systems provide examples of maxi- mally entangled fermionic states with largeD, N, such as the 2-design withD= 1641, N= 41, λ= 1 pro- vided in Ref. [64], along with many other examples of 2-designs. An example of a 3-design Steiner system with D= 22, N= 6, λ...

  50. [58]

    Practical graph isomorphism, ii,

    Brendan D. McKay and Adolfo Piperno, “Practical graph isomorphism, ii,” Journal of Symbolic Computation60, 94–112 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Marc Potters and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud,A First Course in Random Matrix Theory: for Physicists, Engi- neers and Data Scientists(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, NY, 2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    On the entropy of fermionic reduced den- sity matrices,

    Marius Lemm, “On the entropy of fermionic reduced den- sity matrices,” (2017), arXiv:1702.02360 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Proof of the strong subadditivity of quantum-mechanical entropy,

    Elliott H. Lieb and Mary Beth Ruskai, “Proof of the strong subadditivity of quantum-mechanical entropy,” Journal of Mathematical Physics14, 1938– 1941 (1973), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/14/12/1938/19223777/1938 1 online.pdf

    1973

  54. [62]

    Strong subadditivity of the r´ enyi entropies for bosonic and fermionic gaussian states,

    Giancarlo Camilo, Gabriel T. Landi, and Sebas Eli¨ ens, “Strong subadditivity of the r´ enyi entropies for bosonic and fermionic gaussian states,” Phys. Rev. B99, 045155 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    SageMath, the Sage Mathematics Software System (Version 10.4),

    The Sage Developers, “SageMath, the Sage Mathematics Software System (Version 10.4),” (2024), sageMath is available from urlhttps://www.sagemath.org

    2024

  56. [64]

    Giacomo Livan, Marcel Novaes, and Pierpaolo Vivo,In- troduction to Random Matrices(Springer International Publishing, 2018). 24

    2018

  57. [65]

    Livan and P

    G. Livan and P. Vivo, Acta Physica Polonica B42, 1081 (2011)

    2011

  58. [66]

    t-designs and t-wise balanced designs,

    “t-designs and t-wise balanced designs,” inCombinato- rial Designs: Constructions and Analysis(Springer New York, New York, NY, 2004) pp. 201–223

    2004

  59. [67]

    Colbourn and Jeffrey H

    Charles J. Colbourn and Jeffrey H. Dinitz,Handbook of Combinatorial Designs, Second Edition (Discrete Math- ematics and Its Applications)(Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2006)

    2006

  60. [68]

    A characterization of designs re- lated to the witt system s(5, 8, 24),

    Vladimir D. Tonchev, “A characterization of designs re- lated to the witt system s(5, 8, 24),” Mathematische Zeitschrift191, 225–230 (1986)

    1986

Pith tools

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