Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 60 references

Matrix Elements of Fermionic Gaussian Operators in Arbitrary Pauli Bases: A Pfaffian Formula

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single Pfaffian formula now covers every matrix element of a fermionic Gaussian operator between arbitrary Pauli product states, with phases fixed by a pair of sign-encoding matrices.

desk verdict Useful and likely-correct Pfaffian extension to arbitrary Pauli bases, but the load-bearing sign identity (4.13) is asserted rather than proved and the paper ships no numerical check. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02809 v1 pith:Z5FGHX3E submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph

M. A. Rajabpour , MirAdel Seifi MirJafarlou , Reyhaneh Khasseh This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords fermionicGaussianoperatorsPfaffianPauliproductbasessign-encodingmatricesso(2L)LiealgebramatchgatecircuitsGrassmannvariables
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

Fermionic Gaussian operators—unitaries, mixed-state density matrices, and everything in between—are fully determined by their two-point correlation data, but computing a matrix element $\langle S|G|S'\rangle$ in an arbitrary product Pauli basis previously forced returning to the computational basis or expanding into exponentially many Pauli strings. The paper's central claim is that every such matrix element is, up to one global phase, a single Pfaffian of a $2L\times 2L$ kernel constructed directly from the two-point data and a pair of sign-encoding matrices $\Sigma,\Sigma'$ (Theorem 4). The sign matrices absorb all Grassmann-reordering phases and admit exactly $2^{2L-1}$ consistent pairs, which close under commutation into a Lie algebra isomorphic to $\mathfrak{so}(2L)$. If this claim is right, basis-rotated fermionic tomography, randomized-measurement overlaps, and post-measurement state updates become $O(L^3)$ linear-algebra routines rather than exponential Pauli-string sums.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pair of $2L\times 2L$ antisymmetric sign matrices $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$ with entries in $\{\pm1\}$, specified for each $L \bmod 4$ by the sign rules of Tables 1 and 2. They encode the Grassmann-reordering phase that converts the coherent-state Berezin integral into a Pfaffian: $\Sigma$ multiplies the particle-block entries $A_{mn}$ while $\Sigma'$ multiplies the hole-block entries, and the recursion relations (4.10)–(4.12) together with the general identity (4.13) guarantee that every perfect matching carries the correct sign for any configuration. Because these matrices close under commutation into an algebra isomorphic to $\mathfrak{so}(2L)$ (Theorem 5, proved via the Two-Element Generation Criterion), the same kernel serves every pair of configurations without case-by-case sign bookkeeping.

What would settle it

For $L=2$ and $L=3$, pick a random Gaussian operator and random local Pauli angles, and compare the Theorem 4 Pfaffian value of $\langle S|G|S'\rangle$ with a direct evaluation: expand $G$ in the computational basis, apply the local rotations, and read off the amplitude. A disagreement in phase or magnitude for any configuration with several down spins in both states would disprove Eq. (4.13).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 4: for any Gaussian operator $G_M$ and any pair of local Pauli-basis configurations $S,S'$, the matrix element equals $$\langle S|G_M|S'\rangle_{(\phi,\$\theta$,\$\alpha$)} = $e^{{-i(\sum_{j\in S_-}}$\alpha_j - \sum_{k\in S'_-}\alpha_k)}\, \operatorname{pf}\big($K^{{(\phi,\theta,\alpha)}}$(S,S')\big),$$ with the $2L\times 2L$ antisymmetric kernel $K$ written explicitly in Eq. (5.2) in terms of the angles, the sign matrices $\Sigma,\Sigma'$, and the matrix $A$ encoding the operator's two-point data. The same formula serves unitary Gaussian operators, Gaussian density matrices, and reduced subsystem states, so no detour through the computational basis is needed. Along the way the paper shows that the $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$ matrices generate the full Lie algebra $\mathfrak{so}(2L)$, which is what makes the assignment of Pfaffian signs globally consistent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the general sign-consistency identity, Eq. (4.13) of Section 4.1, which asserts that the global Grassmann-reordering phase factor reduces to the pairwise relations (4.10)–(4.12) for arbitrary spin configurations; the paper justifies this with 'similar calculation leads to' and gives no proof for the general case, so any missed constraint would flip signs in the final Pfaffian formula for generic configurations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any overlap of a Gaussian operator between two arbitrary Pauli product states can be evaluated exactly by one Pfaffian of a $2L\times 2L$ matrix, an $O(L^3)$ computation.
  • The same formula serves unitary Gaussian operators and Gaussian mixed states, so post-measurement updates and subsystem density-matrix overlaps no longer require a computational-basis detour.
  • The $2^{2L-1}$ sign-matrix pairs generate the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{so}(2L)$, connecting the Pfaffian phase structure to the orthogonal-group geometry of matchgate circuits and fermionic linear optics.
  • Specializing the angles reproduces all previously scattered $\sigma^x$-, $\sigma^y$-, and $\sigma^z$-basis formulas, including the pure-state Pfaffian results, as entries of a single kernel (Table 3).

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader can test the formula's true scope by treating it as a likelihood: fitting a covariance matrix from random single-qubit measurements, one Pfaffian per shot, would yield a concrete tomography algorithm that the paper sketches only as a future direction.
  • Because the kernel depends on the angles through simple trigonometric factors, low-rank updates modeling weak non-Gaussian perturbations or error-mitigation channels appear feasible, though the paper does not prove stability or accuracy of such updates.
  • The Lie-algebra result suggests that the $2^{2L-1}$ sign conventions correspond to inequivalent Clifford representations; checking that all conventions give identical Pfaffian values for $L=4,5$ would extend the appendix's explicit $L=2,3$ checks.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper claims to give a fully explicit Pfaffian formula, Theorem 4 (Eqs. (5.1)-(5.2)), for matrix elements <S|G_M|S'> of arbitrary fermionic Gaussian operators in arbitrary local Pauli bases, expressed through two 2L x 2L sign-encoding matrices Sigma and Sigma-prime. The authors start from a computational-basis Pfaffian formula (Theorem 1), pass through a sigma_z-basis generating function (Theorem 3), rotate to arbitrary bases by inserting trigonometric weights and phases, and present the resulting kernel K^(phi,theta,alpha)(S,S'). They also claim that the sign matrices generate a Lie algebra isomorphic to so(2L) (Theorem 5) and embed into a Clifford algebra, with applications to tomography, entanglement statistics, and matchgate simulation.

Significance. If Theorem 4 is correct, it is a significant technical contribution: it replaces exponentially large Pauli-string expansions with an O(L^3) closed-form Pfaffian for pure and mixed Gaussian operators, extending prior pure-state results in [23,24] to the full operator class. The construction is parameter-free and is anchored to the independently derived computational-basis formula of Theorem 1, and the explicit sign tables for L=2,3 are useful. The paper's main weakness is that its central sign-consistency identity is asserted rather than proved, and no numerical validation of the final formula is reported; these issues must be resolved before the main claim is fully reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4.13)] The global sign-consistency identity (4.13) is the load-bearing step of the paper: the proof of Theorem 3 substitutes this identity into Eq. (4.19), and Theorem 4 inherits every rotated-basis sign from it. The text verifies only the cases with zero, one, or two down spins and then states that 'similar calculation leads to' Eq. (4.13) for arbitrary configurations, with no proof for three or more down spins. Since a single missed sign constraint would flip the Pfaffian in Eq. (5.1) for generic configurations, this identity must either be proved or exhaustively checked for small L (all subsets I,J for L=3,4, with both possible L mod 4 classes) before the main claim is established.
  2. [Section 4.3, Theorem 3] The generating function g(lambda) is defined through ordinary products prod_{j in J0 union I0} lambda_j, which suggests commuting variables, but the proof of Theorem 3 works with a Berezin integral and writes prod lambda_j chi_j before 'making the full exponential Berezin integral over Grassmann variables.' The paper never specifies whether the lambda_i are commuting or Grassmann. Under the natural commuting reading, Eq. (4.19) is a sum of polynomials and the passage to pf[Sigma A + Sigma' (lambda lambda^T)] is not derived; under a Grassmann reading, the antisymmetry of the resulting kernel would need to be justified. Please state the algebraic nature of lambda and complete the derivation from Eq. (4.19) to Eq. (4.15).
  3. [Section 5, Theorem 4] Theorem 4 is the main result, yet the paper reports no numerical or symbolic verification of it. This is not merely a presentation issue: because the derivation depends on the unproved identity (4.13), an independent check is the minimal way to certify the sign tables. I suggest testing Eq. (5.1) for L=2 and L=3 against the computational-basis formula in Theorem 1 or against exact diagonalization for random Gaussian operators, over all spin configurations and several choices of (phi,theta,alpha), including the x/y specializations in Table 3.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.12)] For a single mode with G_A = exp(a c^dagger c), <1|G_A|1> = e^a, but the formula with J0 = I0 = empty set gives 1; the minor should apparently be taken over occupied sets J1, I1 rather than complements.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4.3)] The kernel is defined only for up-up and down-down pairs; please state explicitly that K^z_mn = 0 when exactly one of s_m, s_n is up.
  3. [Section 4.3, Eq. (4.14)] The definition I0 = {i in I : mode i is unoccupied} contradicts Theorem 1, where I0 is the complement of I; correct the notation.
  4. [Section 6.1, Eqs. after (6.5)] The generators Sigma_3, ..., Sigma_6 are not defined, and the commutator list contains fractional structure constants (e.g., -16/5, 576/5) for integer matrices; if a non-orthogonal basis is being used, this should be stated.
  5. [Section 6.1 and abstract] The claim that the so(2L) structure 'guarantees consistency of the Pfaffian signs' is not supported, because Theorem 5 proves generation of the Lie algebra but does not establish Eq. (4.13); please soften or substantiate.
  6. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B.3)-(B.4)] The case i > L, j <= L is not covered by either f(i,j); presumably antisymmetry of sgn is intended, but this should be stated.
  7. [Table 3] The row K^(x,y)_mn = K^(y,x)_mn = 1/2(i Sigma_mn A_mn + s_m s_n Sigma'_mn) should be checked, since the two mixed cases are generally different and the phase placement is non-obvious.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the rotated-basis Pfaffian formula is derived from an independently established computational-basis theorem via explicitly constructed sign matrices; the main gap is an unproved sign identity, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from Theorem 1, the computational-basis Pfaffian formula obtained from the Balian–Brezin decomposition and Wick/Berezin integration. The Σ and Σ′ sign matrices are then introduced in Section 4.1 by explicitly matching Eq. (4.2) to the known Eq. (3.7), case by case: the paper states 'The core idea of the proof is to ensure that Equation (4.2) matches Equation (3.7).' This is a self-consistency construction, not circular reasoning, because the target σz-basis formula is the same matrix element re-expressed, and the sign matrices are engineered to reproduce an independently derived result. The general sign-consistency identity Eq. (4.13) is asserted with 'similar calculation leads to' and is not proven for arbitrary configurations; this is a genuine correctness/completeness risk, since Theorem 3 and Theorem 4 inherit any sign error in that identity, but the identity is not assumed from the final rotated-basis formula, so the gap is not circularity. Theorem 4 is obtained by substituting angle-dependent weights into the σz generating function of Theorem 3; no parameters are fitted to the rotated-basis quantities being predicted, and the θ-dependence is inserted through the explicit substitution λj = tan(θj/2) or −cot(θj/2) and the cos/sin prefactors. The self-citations [23,24] are contextual comparisons to prior pure-state Pfaffian methods and are not load-bearing premises in the proofs of Theorem 4 or Theorem 5. The Lie-algebra certification in Appendix B relies on the external Two-Element Generation Criterion Theorem [59,60] and explicit overlap computations, rather than on assuming the Pfaffian formula. Therefore no claimed prediction reduces by construction or by self-citation to its own input; the paper is self-contained against the external computational-basis benchmark and merits a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central formula rests on standard Wick/Balian-Brezin technology plus one asserted sign-consistency identity (Eq. 4.13) that is not fully proven. No parameters are fitted to data. The so(2L) Lie algebra claim of Theorem 5 is an interpretative result that uses an external two-generator criterion and is not needed for the Pfaffian formula.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Wick's theorem / Balian-Brezin decomposition of Gaussian operators
    Used to derive the computational-basis Pfaffian formula (Theorem 1, Step 1, Eqs. 3.7-3.9). Standard many-body technique, treated as background.
  • domain assumption T22 invertible for the Gaussian operator, with a consistent branch of det[T22]^{1/2}
    The Balian-Brezin decomposition requires (T22)^{-1} in Eq. (3.3); singular blocks of e^M are not treated, and the square-root branch is unspecified. Enters in Theorem 1 and propagates to all later theorems.
  • ad hoc to paper General-case sign-consistency identity, Eq. (4.13)
    Asserted via "similar calculation leads to" and "consistent without putting any extra constraints on the matrices". This is the load-bearing bookkeeping identity for all rotated-basis signs and is not proven for generic spin configurations.
  • standard math Two-Element Generation Criterion (Kuranishi / Humphreys)
    Used in Appendix B to prove Theorem 5 that the sign matrices generate so(2L). External to the main matrix-element formula; affects only the algebraic interpretation.
invented entities (1)
  • Sign-encoding matrices Σ and Σ′ independent evidence
    purpose: Bookkeeping of Pfaffian signs for matrix elements of Gaussian operators in rotated Pauli bases
    New combinatorial objects introduced here. They yield falsifiable predictions (explicit matrix-element values checkable by brute-force computation) and are not fitted to data, but they are engineered to satisfy the self-consistency identity (4.13), so their correctness is exactly as reliable as that identity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Matrix Elements of Fermionic Gaussian Operators in Arbitrary Pauli Bases: A Pfaffian Formula." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5FGHX3E

@misc{pith2026250602809,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Matrix Elements of Fermionic Gaussian Operators in Arbitrary Pauli Bases: A Pfaffian Formula},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5FGHX3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02809}
}
abstract

Fermionic Gaussian operators are foundational tools in quantum many-body theory, numerical simulation of fermionic dynamics, and fermionic linear optics. While their structure is fully determined by two-point correlations, evaluating their matrix elements in arbitrary local spin bases remains a nontrivial task, especially in applications involving quantum measurements, tomography, and basis-rotated simulations. In this work, we derive a fully explicit and general Pfaffian formula for the matrix elements of fermionic Gaussian operators between arbitrary Pauli product states. Our approach introduces a pair of sign-encoding matrices whose classification leads to a Lie algebra isomorphic to $\mathfrak{so}(2L)$. This algebraic structure not only guarantees consistency of the Pfaffian signs but also reveals deep connections to Clifford algebras. The resulting framework enables scalable computations across diverse fields -- from quantum tomography and entanglement dynamics to algebraic structure in fermionic circuits and matchgate computation. Beyond its practical utility, our construction sheds light on the internal symmetries of Gaussian operators and offers a new lens through which to explore their role in quantum information and computational models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. J. Thouless, Stability conditions and nuclear rotations in the Hartree-Fock theory, Nuclear Physics21, 225-232 (1960)

    work page 1960

  2. [2]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz and D. Mattis,Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain, Annals of Physics16(3), 407 (1961). 23

    work page 1961

  3. [3]

    Chung and I

    M.-C. Chung and I. Peschel,Density-matrix spectra of solvable fermionic systems, Phys. Rev. B64, 064412 (2001), [arXiv:cond-mat/0103301]

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Vidal, J

    G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. KitaevEntanglement in Quantum Critical Phe- nomena, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 227902 (2003), [arXiv:quant-ph/0211074 ]

    arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    B. M. Terhal, and D. P. DiVincenzo,Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quan- tum circuits, Phys. Rev. A65, 032325 (2002), [arXiv:quant-ph/0108010]

    arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Quantum phase transitions and quantum fidelity in free fermion graphs

    M. Cozzini, P. Giorda, P. Zanardi,Quantum phase transitions and quantum fidelity in free fermion graphs, Phys. Rev. B75, 014439 (2007), [arXiv:quant-ph/0608059]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Surace, and L

    J. Surace, and L. Tagliacozzo,Fermionic Gaussian states: an introduction to numerical approaches, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes., 054(2022) , [arXiv: 2111.08343 ]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Y.Herasymenko, M.Stroeks, J.HelsenandB.Terhal, Optimizing sparse fermionic Hamil- tonians, Quantum7, 1081 (2023), [arXiv:2211.16518]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Peschel,Calculation of reduced density matrices from correlation functions, J

    I. Peschel,Calculation of reduced density matrices from correlation functions, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.36, L205 (2003), [arXiv:cond-mat/0212631]

    2003 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Peschel and V

    I. Peschel and V. Eisler,Reduced density matrices and entanglement entropy in free lattice models, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42, 504003 (2009), [arXiv:0906.1663]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Finster,A Quantum information perspective of fermionic quantum many-body systems, Ph.D

    F. Finster,A Quantum information perspective of fermionic quantum many-body systems, Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität München (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    C. V. Kraus and J. I. Cirac, Generalized Hartree–Fock theory for interacting fermions in lattices: numerical methods, New Journal of Physics 12, 113004 (2010), [arXiv:1005.5284]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset,Complexity of quantum impurity problems, Comm. Math. Phys. 356, 451–500 (2017), [arXiv:1609.00735]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hackl and E

    L. Hackl and E. Bianchi,Bosonic and Fermionic Gaussian States from Kähler Structures, SciPost Phys. Core4, 025 (2021), [arXiv:2010.15518]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Boutin and B

    S. Boutin and B. Bauer,Quantum Impurity Models Using Superpositions of Fermionic Gaussian States,Phys. Rev. Research3, 033188 (2021), [arXiv:2105.01088]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy,Quantum quenches in extended systems, J. Stat. Mech.2007 P06008(2007), [arXiv:0704.1880]

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Calabrese, F

    P. Calabrese, F. H. L. Essler, M. Fagotti,Quantum Quench in the Transverse Field Ising Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 227203 (2011), [arXiv:1104.0154 ]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gaudin,Une démonstration simplifiée du théorème de wick en mécanique statistique, Nuclear Physics15, 89-91 (1960)

    M. Gaudin,Une démonstration simplifiée du théorème de wick en mécanique statistique, Nuclear Physics15, 89-91 (1960)

    1960

  11. [19]

    Balian and E

    R. Balian and E. Brézin,Nonunitary canonical transformations and their use in many- body theory, Nuovo Cim. B64, 37–55 (1969). 24

    1969

  12. [20]

    J. H. H. Perk, H. W. Capel, G. R. W. Quispel, and F. W. Nijhoff,Finite-temperature correlations for the Ising chain in a transverse field, Physica A123, 1-49 (1984)

    1984

  13. [21]

    Pfeuty,The one-dimensional Ising model with a transverse field, Ann

    P. Pfeuty,The one-dimensional Ising model with a transverse field, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 57, 79 (1970)

    1970

  14. [22]

    Barouch and B

    E. Barouch and B. M. McCoy,Statistical mechanics of the XY model. ii. spin-correlation functions, Phys. Rev. A3, 786 (1971)

    1971

  15. [23]

    Tarighi, R

    B. Tarighi, R. Khasseh, and M. A. Rajabpour, Efficient Representation of Gaussian Fermionic Pure States in Non-Computational Bases, Phys. Rev. A.109, 062214 (2024), [arXiv:2403.03289]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M. A. Rajabpour, M. A. Seifi Mirjafarlou, R. Khasseh,Efficient Representation of Gaus- sian Fermionic Pure States in Non-Computational Bases, [arXiv:2502.04857]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum circuits that can be simulated classically in polynomial time, SIAM Journal on Computing31, 1229-1254 (2002)

    2002

  18. [26]

    Knill, Fermionic linear optics and matchgates, Los Alamos Technical Report LAUR- 01-4472 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0108033

    E. Knill, Fermionic linear optics and matchgates, Los Alamos Technical Report LAUR- 01-4472 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0108033

    2001 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bravyi,Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics, Quantum Inf

    S. Bravyi,Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics, Quantum Inf. and Comp. 5, 216 (2005), [arXiv:quant-ph/0404180]

    2005 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Jozsa and A

    R. Jozsa and A. Miyake,Matchgates and classical simulation of quantum circuits, Proc. R. Soc. A464, 3089–3106 (2008), [arXiv:0804.4050]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cai and A

    J.-Y. Cai and A. Gorenstein,Matchgates revisited, Theory Comput.10, 167–197 (2014), [arXiv:1303.6729]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bravyi and R

    S. Bravyi and R. Koenig,Classical simulation of dissipative fermionic linear optics, Quan- tum Inf. Comput.12, 925-943 (2012), [arXiv:1112.2184]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    O’Gorman,Fermionic tomography and learning, [arXiv:2207.14787 ]

    B. O’Gorman,Fermionic tomography and learning, [arXiv:2207.14787 ]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    K. Wan, W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, R. Babbush,Matchgate Shadows for Fermionic Quantum Simulation,Comm. Math. Phys.404, 629-700 (2023), [arXiv: 2207.13723 ]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Heyraud, H

    V. Heyraud, H. Chomet, J. Tilly,Unified Framework for Matchgate Classical Shadows,, npj Quantum Inf.11, 65 (2025), [arXiv: 2409.03836 ]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner,Über das Paulische Äquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys. 47, 631–651 (1928)

    1928

  27. [35]

    Elben, B

    A. Elben, B. Vermersch, C. F. Roos P. Zoller Statistical correlations between locally randomized measurements: A toolbox for probing entanglement in many-body quantum states, Phys. Rev. A99, 052323 (2019), [arXiv:1812.02624 ]. 25

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Brydges, A

    T. Brydges, A. Elben, P. Jurcevic, B. Vermersch, C. Maier, B. P. Lanyon, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, C. F. RoosProbing entanglement entropy via randomized measurements, Science 364, 260 (2019), [arXiv:1806.05747 ]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Elben, S

    A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H-Y Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, P. Zoller The randomized measurement toolbox, Nature Review Physics ( 5, 9 (2023), [arXiv:2203.11374]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bittel, A

    L. Bittel, A. A. Mele, J. Eisert, L. Leone,Optimal trace-distance bounds for free-fermionic states: Testing and improved tomography, [arXiv:2409.17953 ]

  31. [39]

    M. A. Rajabpour, Post measurement bipartite entanglement entropy in conformal field theories , Phys. Rev. B.92, 075108(2015) , [arXiv:1501.07831 ]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Najafi, and M

    K. Najafi, and M. A. Rajabpour,Entanglement Entropy After Selective Measurements in Quantum Chains, JHEP.12, 124 (2016), [arXiv:1608.04074]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Baweja, D

    K. Baweja, D. J. Luitz, and S. J. Garratt, Post-measurement Quantum Monte Carlo,[arXiv:2410.13844 ]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cheng, R

    Z. Cheng, R. Wen, S. Gopalakrishnan, R. Vasseur, A. C. Potter,Universal structure of measurement-induced information in many-body ground states, Phys. Rev. B.109, 195128(2024) , [arXiv:2312.11615 ]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Shiroishi, M

    M. Shiroishi, M. Takahashi, and Y. Nishiyama, Emptiness formation probability for the one-dimensional isotropic XY model , J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 70, 3535 (2001), [arXiv:cond-mat/0106062]

    2001 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Franchini and A

    F. Franchini and A. Abanov,Asymptotics of Toeplitz determinants and the emptiness formation probability for the XY spin chain, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.38, 5069-5095 (2005), [arXiv:cond-mat/0502015]

    2005 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J-M Stéphan,Emptiness formation probability, Toeplitz determinants, and conformal field theory, J. Stat. Mech.2014, 05010 (2014), [arXiv:1303.5499]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Najafi, and M

    K. Najafi, and M. A. Rajabpour,Formation probabilities and Shannon information and their time evolution after quantum quench in the transverse-field XY chain, Physical Re- view B93, 125139 (2016), [arXiv:1511.06401]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    F. Ares, M. A. Rajabpour, J. Viti,Scaling of the formation probabilities and universal boundary entropies in the quantum XY spin chain, J. Stat. Mech.2020, 083111 (2020), [arXiv:2004.10606]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    F. Ares, M. A. Rajabpour, J. Viti,Exact full counting statistics for the staggered magne- tization and the domain walls in the XY spin chain, Phys. Rev. E103, 042107 (2021), [arXiv:2012.14012 ]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. N. Najafi, M. A. Rajabpour,Formation probabilities and statistics of observables as defect problems in free fermions and quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 101, 165415 (2020), [arXiv:1911.04595]. 26

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Stéphan, S

    J-M. Stéphan, S. Furukawa, G. Misguich, and V. Pasquier,Shannon and entanglement entropies of one- and two-dimensional critical wave functions, Physical Review B 80, 184421 (2009), [arXiv:0906.1153]

    2009 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Stéphan, G

    J-M. Stéphan, G. Misguich, and V. Pasquier,Rényi entropy of a line in two-dimensional Ising model, Phys. Rev. B82, 125455 (2010), [arXiv:1006.1605]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    F. C. Alcaraz and M. A. Rajabpour, Universal Behavior of the Shannon Mutual Information of Critical Quantum Chains , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 017201 (2013), [arXiv:1305.1239]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    F. C. Alcaraz, M. A. Rajabpour, Universal behavior of the Shannon and Rényi mutual information of quantum critical chains , Phys. Rev. B 90, 075132 (2014), [arXiv:1405.1074]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Tarighi, R

    B. Tarighi, R. Khasseh, M. N. Najafi, M. A. Rajabpour,Universal logarithmic correction to Rényi (Shannon) entropy in generic systems of critical quadratic fermions, Physical Review B 105 (24), 245109, [arXiv:2203.13124]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Ye and J

    W. Ye and J. Zhang,Shannon entropy in quasiparticle states of quantum chains, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.57, 385001 (2024)[arXiv:2303.14132]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Nazlı Uğur Köylüoğlu, Swarnadeep Majumder, Mirko Amico, Sarah Mostame, Ewout van den Berg, M. A. Rajabpour, Zlatko Minev, Khadijeh Najafi, Measuring central charge on a universal quantum processor, J.Phys. A50 (2017) no.14, 145403 (2017), [arXiv:2408.06342]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    M. A. Rajabpour, Entanglement entropy after a partial projective measurement in 1+1 dimensional conformal field theories: exact results , J. Stat. Mech. (2016) 063109 , [arXiv:1512.03940 ]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Caracciolo, A

    S. Caracciolo, A. D. Sokal, and A. Sportiello,Algebraic/combinatorial proofs of Cayley- type identities for derivatives of determinants and pfaffians, Advances in Applied Math- ematics, 50, 474-594(2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    J.2 (1951), 63–71

    M.Kuranishi, On Everywhere Dense Imbedding of Free Groups in Lie Groups, Nagoya Math. J.2 (1951), 63–71

    1951

  52. [60]

    J.E.Humphreys, Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory, GraduateTexts in Mathematics, Vol.9, Springer, 1972. 27

    1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.