Symmetry-resolved fermionic correlations in iron-oxide ground spaces

Daniel N. Blaschke; Daniel Staros; Federico Petrovich; Jian-Xin Zhu; M. Cerezo

REVIEW

Symmetry-resolved fermionic correlations in iron-oxide ground spaces

Federico Petrovich, Daniel Staros, Daniel N. Blaschke, Jian-Xin Zhu, M. Cerezo

Quantum Physics · Submitted 26 Oct 2026 · 46 references

Pith's verdict: A clean demonstration that correlation diagnostics can disagree inside degenerate ground spaces, but the headline orbit-dimension numbers depend on unpublished companion machinery and deserve referee scrutiny.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on October 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 4 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2610.36047 (version 1)

Pith IDZ2CWRZNW, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationDaniel N. Blaschke, Daniel Staros, Federico Petrovich, Jian-Xin Zhu, M. Cerezo. "Symmetry-resolved fermionic correlations in iron-oxide ground spaces." arXiv:2610.36047 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z2CWRZNW

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this is a well-organized illustration of a point that is already familiar in the degenerate-ground-space literature, but it makes the point sharper with concrete model data. What is actually new is the set of specific results for these FeO and Fe2O2 Hamiltonians: natural occupations, spin-mode entropies, cumulant norms, and conserved-operator orbit dimensions, plus the closed-form treatment of the Hubbard FeO quintet. The general message, that different correlation measures can disagree and that degenerate subspaces do not have a unique correlation structure, is not new; the paper is an application of known diagnostics to new models.

The paper does several things well. The symmetry decomposition is careful, and the particle-hole reduction of the Hubbard FeO problem to independent one-hole blocks is clean and internally consistent. The formulas for S(1), M[1], M[2], and delta(1) in the quintet check out, and the contrast between the local-magnetization resolution (exact Slater determinants) and the total-spin resolution (states with S(up|down) = log2(6) at M = 0) is a nice concrete illustration. Table I also contains a useful internal check: the M = ±2 rows match the analytic Slater stabilizer dimension 208.

There are two addressable soft spots. First, the Hamiltonians themselves, including the one-body matrices in the appendices, come from a companion paper listed as in preparation. No code or data is shipped, so the ground-space energies, occupations, and orbit dimensions are not independently reproducible as presented. That is a reproducibility gap, not evidence of error. Second, the conserved-operator orbit dimensions, which carry the strongest claim of the paper, are computed using the method of Ref. [34], a same-group preprint. The paper does not report the null-space threshold choices or a sensitivity analysis. With two-body cumulants around 1e-4, distinguishing genuine zero eigenvalues of the covariance matrix from small nonzero ones requires care. The M = ±2 check helps, so I would not call the method unvalidated, but the numbers 152 and 610 are the load-bearing ones and need independent verification before I would lean on them.

Who gets value from this: people working on fermionic correlation diagnostics, and those thinking about state preparation for quantum simulation of correlated materials. It is also a usable teaching example. It deserves a serious referee, but acceptance should be conditional on the companion Hamiltonian being available and on code or data, or at least a threshold-stability analysis, being supplied. Send it out.

Referee report

Significance

If the numerical results are correct, the paper makes a valuable and somewhat counterintuitive point: a state whose one-body RDM is within 10^-7 of a Slater determinant can have a conserved-operator algebra and orbit dimension that are far from the Slater values, and different symmetry resolutions of one degenerate ground space can lie on different GL(n,C) orbits. This is relevant for state-preparation and simulation choices in strongly correlated materials. The strength of the paper is its explicit analytic treatment of the Hubbard FeO ground space: the particle-hole reduction, the derivation of the 16-fold degeneracy, the Slater basis, and the closed-form expressions for S(1), M[1], M[2], and δ(1) are internally consistent and constitute a clean, checkable result. There is no parameter fitting to a target prediction, so the central claim is not circular. The main weakness is that the Hubbard-Hund and Fe2O2 numerical claims, including the headline orbit dimensions, rest on unpublished companion work and on a same-group preprint method, without a reported self-consistency test of the numerical null-space computation.

Major objections (3)

[§V.B and §V.C, Eqs. (111) and (112)] The orbit dimensions 152 and 610 are the quantitative core of the claim that near-Slater natural occupations do not imply near-Slater transformation classes. The computation is not shown: the criterion that the null space of the covariance matrix in Eq. (109) equals the stabilizer algebra in Eq. (103) is imported from Ref. [34], a same-group preprint, and no self-consistency check is reported, such as applying the same routine to a known Slater determinant and recovering Eq. (107), or to the exactly solvable M=0 quintet in Table I. Because the natural occupations deviate from 0 or 1 at the 10^-7 to 10^-9 level while the two-body cumulant norms are around 10^-4, the distinction between an exact kernel and a numerical near-kernel depends on cutoff choices that are not described. Without such a sensitivity analysis, the reported orbit dimensions are not independently verifiable, and the headline numerical contrast rests on an unproved algorithmic step.
[§II.B, §III, §IV.B.2] The quantitative results for the Hubbard-Hund models—the ground-state energies in Eqs. (34) and (52), the natural-occupation parameters α and β in Eqs. (94) and (99), the cumulant norms, and the stabilizer dimensions—are reported without code, data, or diagonalization details. The one-body matrices in Appendices A and B and the Hubbard-Hund parameters are imported from companion paper [35], listed as 'Manuscript in preparation'. Since the paper's stronger claims about FeO and Fe2O2 are numerical rather than analytic, the argument is only as strong as that unpublished construction. The same applies to the asserted reduction of the Fe2O2 ground-state block to dimension 72 and the occupation and parity assignment in Eqs. (56)–(58), which is stated after exact diagonalization but not derived or independently checked. The revision should either ship reproducible code and data or make the companion material available in a checkable form.
[§IV.B.1, Eq. (94)] The Hubbard-Hund FeO entropy and correlation numbers are built from natural occupations α++=6.22919×10^-10, β++=9.67×10^-17, α+−=1.91384061×10^-7, and α−+=1.91342574×10^-7. These are reported to seven or more significant figures without an estimate of the numerical accuracy of the exact diagonalization or of the eigenvector extraction from the 12-dimensional effective block. Since the paper distinguishes orbit dimensions 152 from 208 on the basis of near-zero covariance eigenvalues, it would be useful to state the precision to which the Hamiltonian matrix elements and diagonalization are known; the current precision of the α values suggests a numerical certainty that is not documented.

Minor objections (4)

[§II.B, text after Eq. (33)] The sentence 'The fermionic correlations of |ψ(3)↓⟩ (which is not a SD)' appears to refer to the state |ψ4↓⟩ defined in Eq. (33); the subscript should be made consistent.
[§IV.B.2] The notation M(1)[1] and M(1)[2] in the Fe2O2 results is inconsistent with the definitions M[1] and M[2] in Eq. (77); the superscript should be removed or defined.
[§V] The term 'stabilizer dimension' may be confused with Pauli stabilizer dimension used in quantum error correction; since the paper uses conserved-operator algebras, a phrase such as 'conserved-operator algebra dimension' would be less ambiguous.
[References] Ref. [35] is listed as 'Manuscript in preparation' and Ref. [34] is a same-group preprint; the main text should flag explicitly which numerical inputs depend on these two sources.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Different symmetry resolutions of the same degenerate ground space in iron-oxide models can select states with qualitatively different correlation properties—ranging from Slater determinants to entangled, non-Gaussian states.

The reading

This paper studies how the choice of symmetry operators used to resolve a degenerate ground manifold affects the correlation structure of the selected states. Using Hubbard and Hubbard-Hund models of FeO and Fe2O2, the authors show that resolving the ground space by local magnetizations yields exact Slater determinants, while resolution by total spin produces entangled, non-Gaussian states. Adding Hund interactions reduces the degeneracy but leaves a pair of states whose natural occupations are extremely close to those of a Slater determinant (deviations ~10⁻⁷), yet whose conserved-operator algebras place them on fermionic orbits very different from the Slater one. In Fe2O2, substantial spatial mode entanglement coexists with weak fermionic non-Gaussianity. The central message is that four complementary diagnostics—symmetry resolution, mode entanglement, reduced-density-matrix correlations, and conserved-operator structure—can disagree sharply and provide independent information about a degenerate ground space.

What carries the argument

The conserved-operator formalism (Ref. [34]), which constructs the projective stabilizer algebra p[Ïˆ] from the null space of the covariance matrix of one-body operators. For a state |ÏˆâŸ©, the stabilizer dimension dimâ‚š p[Ïˆ] determines the dimension of its GL(n,â„‚) orbit via dimâ‚š GÂ·[Ïˆ] = nÂ² âˆ’ dimâ‚š p[Ïˆ]. States in the same orbit must have conjugate stabilizer algebras and therefore equal stabilizer dimension; a difference rules out interconvertibility. This machinery is applied to the natural orbitals and reduced density matrices obtained from exact diagonalization of the iron-oxide models.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that within the same 16-dimensional degenerate ground space of a Hubbard FeO model, states selected by local magnetization operators are exact Slater determinants, whereas states selected by total-spin quantum numbers are entangled and non-Gaussian. For example, the M = 0 member of the S = 2 quintet has spin-mode entanglement Sâ†‘|â†“ = logâ‚‚(6) and a one-body idempotency defect of 1/âˆš2. In the Hubbard-Hund models, the ground states have natural occupations within 10â»â· of 0 or 1, yet their stabilizer dimensions are 152 (FeO) and 610 (Feâ‚‚Oâ‚‚) versus the Slater values of 208 and 832, respectively. This shows that numerical proximity to Slater determinants in natural occupations does not imply proximity of the corresponding GL(n,â„‚) transformation class. The conserved-operator algebra provides a necessary condition for interconvertibility under invertible one-particle operations and reveals that near-Slater states can lie on much larger fermionic orbits.

Load-bearing premise

The Hamiltonians studied are taken from an unpublished companion paper [35], so the ground spaces, natural occupations, and orbit dimensions depend on the correctness of that DFT-based model construction and the Hubbard-Hund parameters (U = 4.5 eV, U' = 2.7 eV, JH = 0.9 eV) without independent verification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In degenerate ground manifolds, the choice of symmetry sector for state preparation can drastically affect the entanglement and non-Gaussianity of the resulting state, allowing simpler representations for some sectors.
Near-Slater natural occupations are not sufficient to guarantee that a state belongs to the Slater transformation class; conserved-operator diagnostics are needed to determine the true orbit dimension.
The Hubbard-Hund ground states of FeO and Feâ‚‚Oâ‚‚, despite being almost idempotent in their one-body RDMs, have orbit dimensions more than twice the Slater value, meaning they are significantly more convertible under one-particle operations.
The complementary nature of mode entanglement and fermionic non-Gaussianity means that large spatial entanglement can coexist with weak particle entanglement, and vice versa, so both must be considered in characterising a state.

Reading between the lines

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

If the stabilizer dimension is robust to small perturbations of the Hamiltonian, then the near-Slater states studied here belong to distinct GL(n,â„‚) orbits from Slater determinants even in more realistic models, making orbit dimension a more sensitive diagnostic of fermionic structure than natural-occupation proximity.
The conserved-operator approach could be extended to other strongly correlated materials where the ground space is degenerate, such as transition-metal oxides with orbital degeneracy, and used to classify which symmetry sectors yield states that are easier to prepare on quantum hardware.
The fact that dimâ‚š p[Ïˆ] for the Hubbard-Hund FeO ground state (152) is significantly smaller than the Slater value (208) suggests that such near-Slater states may have practical advantages: a larger orbit means more freedom to rotate the state, which could be exploited in variational quantum algorithms or state preparation protocols.

Original abstract

Symmetries of quantum systems provide a natural way to organize the eigenspaces of many-body Hamiltonians. When degeneracies exist, however, they play a more subtle role as different sets of symmetry operators can resolve the same energy subspace into states with very different correlation properties. We study this interplay using a sequence of FeO and Fe$_2$O$_2$ models. For a Hubbard model of FeO, the ground space is 16-fold degenerate. Resolving it by local magnetizations gives a basis of Slater determinants, while total-spin quantum numbers select entangled and non-Gaussian states from the same ground manifold. Adding density-density Hund interactions breaks the independent spin rotations and reduces the ground space to a spin-reversal pair with maximal magnetization. These states are extremely close to Slater determinants in their natural occupations, yet have finite two-body cumulants and conserved-operator algebras whose orbit dimensions differ substantially from the Slater values. Fe$_2$O$_2$ provides a larger example in which spatial mode entanglement can be substantial while fermionic non-Gaussianity remains weak, with the conserved-operator structure again distinguishing the state from the corresponding Slater transformation class. Together, these examples show that symmetry resolution, mode entanglement, reduced-density-matrix correlations, and conserved-operator structure provide complementary information about interacting and degenerate electronic ground states.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-10-28: 1 request, 7,039 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.11 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.15 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.89 · compares with prior results 0.42 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Symmetries of quantum systems provide a natural way to organize the eigenspaces of many-body Hamiltonians. When degeneracies exist, however, they play a more subtle role as different sets of symmetry operators can resolve the same energy subspace into states with very different correlation properties. We study this interplay using a sequence of FeO and Fe$_2$O$_2$ models. For a Hubbard model of FeO, the ground space is 16-fold degenerate. Resolving it by local magnetizations gives a basis of Slater determinants, while total-spin quantum numbers select entangled and non-Gaussian states from the same ground manifold. Adding density-density Hund interactions breaks the independent spin rotations and reduces the ground space to a spin-reversal pair with maximal magnetization. These states are extremely close to Slater determinants in their natural occupations, yet have finite two-body cumulants and conserved-operator algebras whose orbit dimensions differ substantially from the Slater values. Fe$_2$O$_2$ provides a larger example in which spatial mode entanglement can be substantial while fermionic non-Gaussianity remains weak, with the conserved-operator structure again distinguishing the state from the corresponding Slater transformation class. Together, these examples show that symmetry resolution, mode entanglement, reduced-density-matrix correlations, and conserved-operator structure provide complementary information about interacting and degenerate electronic ground states.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Symmetries of quantum systems provide a natural way to organize the eigenspaces of many-body Hamiltonians.	background 1.00	0.04	0.02	asserted 1.00
s1	When degeneracies exist, however, they play a more subtle role as different sets of symmetry operators can resolve the same energy subspace into states with very different correlation properties.	background 0.97	0.06	0.08	asserted 1.00
s2	We study this interplay using a sequence of FeO and Fe$_2$O$_2$ models.	contribution 0.54	0.87	0.02	asserted 0.94
s3	For a Hubbard model of FeO, the ground space is 16-fold degenerate.	result 0.93	0.78	0.03	asserted 1.00
s4	Resolving it by local magnetizations gives a basis of Slater determinants, while total-spin quantum numbers select entangled and non-Gaussian states from the same ground manifold.	result 0.99	0.85	0.08	asserted 1.00
s5	Adding density-density Hund interactions breaks the independent spin rotations and reduces the ground space to a spin-reversal pair with maximal magnetization.	result 0.99	0.87	0.05	asserted 1.00
s6	These states are extremely close to Slater determinants in their natural occupations, yet have finite two-body cumulants and conserved-operator algebras whose orbit dimensions differ substantially from the Slater values.	result 0.99	0.90	0.11	asserted 1.00
s7	Fe$_2$O$_2$ provides a larger example in which spatial mode entanglement can be substantial while fermionic non-Gaussianity remains weak, with the conserved-operator structure again distinguishing the state from the corresponding Slater transformation class.	result 0.99	0.91	0.12	asserted 0.99
s8	Together, these examples show that symmetry resolution, mode entanglement, reduced-density-matrix correlations, and conserved-operator structure provide complementary information about interacting and degenerate electronic ground states.	interpretation 0.99	0.78	0.91	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.58 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.85.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** , the correlation structure assigned to these ground states therefore depends both on how the degenerate manifold is resolved and on which notion of correlation is being considered. II. THE FeO HAMILTONIANS AND THEIR SYMMETRIES In this section, we introduce two Hamiltonians for the FeO molecule, a prototypical strongly correlated system. We begin with a Hubbard model and then incorporate density-density Hund interactions, keeping the same orbital structure and one-body terms. Both Hamiltonians are constructed within a low-energy description based on DFT and projected Wannier functi

Figures reproduced from arXiv:2610.36047 by the authors.

References

Works cited (46)

[1]

L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, En- tanglement in many-body systems, Reviews of modern physics 80, 517 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[2]

J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Reviews of mod- ern physics 82, 277 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[34]

F. Petrovich, R. Rossignoli, and M. Cerezo, Classification of quantum states through conserved operators, arXiv preprint arXiv:2610.20988 10.48550/arXiv.2610.20988 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.20988 2026
[35]

D. Staros, F. Petrovich, A. Kirmani, D. Blaschke, M. Cerezo, and J.-X. Zhu, Towards quantum computa- tion of bulk feo, Manuscript in preparation (2026)

View on Pith 2026
[3]

G. De Chiara and A. Sanpera, Genuine quantum corre- lations in quantum many-body systems: a review of re- cent progress, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 074002 (2018)

View on Pith 2018
[4]

N. Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports 646, 1 (2016)

View on Pith 2016
[5]

P. S. Tarabunga, Critical behaviors of non-stabilizerness in quantum spin chains, Quantum 8, 1413 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[6]

M. Sarkis and A. Tkatchenko, Are molecules magical? non-stabilizerness in molecular bonding, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06673 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06673 (2025)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06673 2025
[7]

P. Sierant, P. Stornati, and X. Turkeshi, Fermionic magic resources of quantum many-body systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00116 10.48550/arXiv.2506.00116 (2025)

View on Pith doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.00116 2025
[8]

C. P. Moca, D. Sticlet, B. D´ ora, A. Valli, D. Szombathy, and G. Zar´ and, Non-stabilizerness generation in a multi- particle quantum walk, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19750 10.48550/arXiv.2504.19750 (2025)

View on Pith doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.19750 2025
[9]

P. S. Tarabunga and T. Haug, Efficient mutual magic and magic capacity with matrix product states, SciPost Phys. 19, 085 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[10]

B. Jasser, J. Odavi´ c, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer entropy and entanglement complexity in the sachdev-ye-kitaev model, Physical Review B 112, 174204 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[11]

J. Cianciulli, R. Rossignoli, M. Di Tullio, N. Gigena, and F. Petrovich, Bipartite representations and many-body entanglement of pure states of n indistinguishable parti- cles, Physical Review A 110, 032414 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[12]

N. Gigena, M. Di Tullio, and R. Rossignoli, Many-body entanglement in fermion systems, Physical Review A 103, 052424 (2021)

View on Pith 2021
[13]

M. Collura, J. De Nardis, V. Alba, and G. Lami, The quantum magic of fermionic gaussian states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05367 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05367 (2024)

View on Pith doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05367 2024
[14]

A. Gu, S. F. Oliviero, and L. Leone, Magic-induced computational separation in entanglement theory, PRX Quantum 6, 020324 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[15]

T. Koma and H. Tasaki, Symmetry breaking and finite- size effects in quantum many-body systems, Journal of statistical physics 76, 745 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[16]

V. Okatev, O. M. Sotnikov, and V. Mazurenko, Explor- ing entanglement in finite-size quantum systems with de- generate ground state, Physical Review B 111, 054443 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[17]

M. Cerezo, R. Rossignoli, and N. Canosa, Nontransverse factorizing fields and entanglement in finite spin systems, Physical Review B 92, 224422 (2015)

View on Pith 2015
[18]

M. Cerezo, R. Rossignoli, N. Canosa, and E. R ´ ıos, Factor- ization and criticality in finite xxz systems of arbitrary spin, Physical Review Letters 119, 220605 (2017)

View on Pith 2017
[19]

F. Petrovich, N. Canosa, and R. Rossignoli, Ground-state separability and criticality in interacting many-particle systems, Physical Review A 105, 032212 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[20]

M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013)

View on Pith 2013
[21]

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of mod- ern physics 81, 865 (2009)

View on Pith 2009
[22]

J. Schliemann, J. I. Cirac, M. Kus, M. Lewenstein, and D. Loss, Quantum correlations in two-fermion systems, Physical Review A 64, 022303 (2001). 14

View on Pith 2001
[23]

N. Gigena and R. Rossignoli, Entanglement in fermion systems, Physical Review A 92, 042326 (2015)

View on Pith 2015
[24]

N. Gigena and R. Rossignoli, Bipartite entanglement in fermion systems, Physical Review A 95, 062320 (2017)

View on Pith 2017
[25]

M. Di Tullio, R. Rossignoli, M. Cerezo, and N. Gigena, Fermionic entanglement in the Lipkin model, Physical Review A 100, 062104 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[26]

N. Gigena, M. Di Tullio, and R. Rossignoli, One-body en- tanglement as a quantum resource in fermionic systems, Physical Review A 102, 042410 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[27]

F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, F. Franchini, and U. Mar- zolino, Entanglement in indistinguishable particle sys- tems, Physics Reports 878, 1 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[28]

J. Garcia, J. Cianciulli, and R. Rossignoli, Fermionic entanglement and quantum correlation measures in molecules, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07633 10.48550/arXiv.2604.07633 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.07633 2026
[29]

L. Bittel, A. A. Mele, J. Eisert, and L. Leone, Opti- mal trace-distance bounds for free-fermionic states: Test- ing and improved tomography, PRX Quantum 6, 030341 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[30]

M. Walter and F. Witteveen, Computable mea- sures of fermionic non-Gaussianity from the co- variance matrix, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02242 10.48550/arXiv.2607.02242 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.02242 2026
[31]

P. Braccia, N. Diaz, M. Larocca, M. Cerezo, and D. Garc ´ ıa-Mart ´ ın, The commutant of fermionic gaussian unitaries, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19210 10.48550/arXiv.2603.19210 (2026)

View on Pith doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.19210 2026
[32]

P. Sierant, T. X., and P. S. Tarabunga, Theory of the matchgate commutant, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12392 10.48550/arXiv.2603.12392 (2026)

View on Pith doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.12392 2026
[33]

M. West, S. Y. Chang, L. Coffman, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, Practical fermionic shadows enabled by improved sample-complexity bounds, arXiv preprint arXiv:2609.40173 10.48550/arXiv.2609.40173 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.40173 2026
[36]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

View on Pith 2000
[37]

N. L. Diaz, D. Garc ´ ıa-Mart ´ ın, S. Kazi, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, Showcasing a barren plateau the- ory beyond the dynamical lie algebra, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11505 10.48550/arXiv.2310.11505 (2023)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.11505 2023
[38]

E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Reviews of modern physics 91, 025001 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[39]

F. G. Brandao and G. Gour, Reversible framework for quantum resource theories, Physical Review Letters 115, 070503 (2015)

View on Pith 2015
[40]

E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Manˇ cinska, M. Ozols, and A. Winter, Everything you always wanted to know about locc (but were afraid to ask), Communications in Math- ematical Physics 328, 303 (2014)

View on Pith 2014
[41]

W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Physical Review A 62, 062314 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[42]

A. Miyake, Classification of multipartite entangled states by multidimensional determinants, Physical Review A 67, 012108 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[43]

F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, B. De Moor, and H. Ver- schelde, Four qubits can be entangled in nine different ways, Physical Review A 65, 052112 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[44]

H. Dietrich, W. A. De Graaf, A. Marrani, and M. Origlia, Classification of four qubit states and their stabilisers un- der slocc operations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55, 095302 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[45]

K.-K. Jia, J.-L. Li, and C.-F. Qiao, Classification of the entangled states of 2 × l × m × n × h, arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.02007 10.48550/arXiv.1505.02007 (2015)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1505.02007 2015
[46]

N. L. Diaz, A. A. Mele, P. Bermejo, P. Brac- cia, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, A unified ap- proach to quantum resource theories and a new class of free operations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10851 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10851 (2025). 15 Appendix A: One-body Hamiltonian of F eO Here we provide the one-body matrices hπyπz of Eq. (4). In the orbital bases defined...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.10851 2025

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, En- tanglement in many-body systems, Reviews of modern physics 80, 517 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[2] [2]

J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Reviews of mod- ern physics 82, 277 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[3] [34]

F. Petrovich, R. Rossignoli, and M. Cerezo, Classification of quantum states through conserved operators, arXiv preprint arXiv:2610.20988 10.48550/arXiv.2610.20988 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.20988 2026

[4] [35]

D. Staros, F. Petrovich, A. Kirmani, D. Blaschke, M. Cerezo, and J.-X. Zhu, Towards quantum computa- tion of bulk feo, Manuscript in preparation (2026)

View on Pith 2026

[5] [3]

G. De Chiara and A. Sanpera, Genuine quantum corre- lations in quantum many-body systems: a review of re- cent progress, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 074002 (2018)

View on Pith 2018

[6] [4]

N. Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports 646, 1 (2016)

View on Pith 2016

[7] [5]

P. S. Tarabunga, Critical behaviors of non-stabilizerness in quantum spin chains, Quantum 8, 1413 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[8] [6]

M. Sarkis and A. Tkatchenko, Are molecules magical? non-stabilizerness in molecular bonding, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06673 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06673 (2025)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06673 2025

[9] [7]

P. Sierant, P. Stornati, and X. Turkeshi, Fermionic magic resources of quantum many-body systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00116 10.48550/arXiv.2506.00116 (2025)

View on Pith doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.00116 2025

[10] [8]

C. P. Moca, D. Sticlet, B. D´ ora, A. Valli, D. Szombathy, and G. Zar´ and, Non-stabilizerness generation in a multi- particle quantum walk, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19750 10.48550/arXiv.2504.19750 (2025)

View on Pith doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.19750 2025

[11] [9]

P. S. Tarabunga and T. Haug, Efficient mutual magic and magic capacity with matrix product states, SciPost Phys. 19, 085 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[12] [10]

B. Jasser, J. Odavi´ c, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer entropy and entanglement complexity in the sachdev-ye-kitaev model, Physical Review B 112, 174204 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[13] [11]

J. Cianciulli, R. Rossignoli, M. Di Tullio, N. Gigena, and F. Petrovich, Bipartite representations and many-body entanglement of pure states of n indistinguishable parti- cles, Physical Review A 110, 032414 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[14] [12]

N. Gigena, M. Di Tullio, and R. Rossignoli, Many-body entanglement in fermion systems, Physical Review A 103, 052424 (2021)

View on Pith 2021

[15] [13]

M. Collura, J. De Nardis, V. Alba, and G. Lami, The quantum magic of fermionic gaussian states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05367 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05367 (2024)

View on Pith doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05367 2024

[16] [14]

A. Gu, S. F. Oliviero, and L. Leone, Magic-induced computational separation in entanglement theory, PRX Quantum 6, 020324 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[17] [15]

T. Koma and H. Tasaki, Symmetry breaking and finite- size effects in quantum many-body systems, Journal of statistical physics 76, 745 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[18] [16]

V. Okatev, O. M. Sotnikov, and V. Mazurenko, Explor- ing entanglement in finite-size quantum systems with de- generate ground state, Physical Review B 111, 054443 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[19] [17]

M. Cerezo, R. Rossignoli, and N. Canosa, Nontransverse factorizing fields and entanglement in finite spin systems, Physical Review B 92, 224422 (2015)

View on Pith 2015

[20] [18]

M. Cerezo, R. Rossignoli, N. Canosa, and E. R ´ ıos, Factor- ization and criticality in finite xxz systems of arbitrary spin, Physical Review Letters 119, 220605 (2017)

View on Pith 2017

[21] [19]

F. Petrovich, N. Canosa, and R. Rossignoli, Ground-state separability and criticality in interacting many-particle systems, Physical Review A 105, 032212 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[22] [20]

M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013)

View on Pith 2013

[23] [21]

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of mod- ern physics 81, 865 (2009)

View on Pith 2009

[24] [22]

J. Schliemann, J. I. Cirac, M. Kus, M. Lewenstein, and D. Loss, Quantum correlations in two-fermion systems, Physical Review A 64, 022303 (2001). 14

View on Pith 2001

[25] [23]

N. Gigena and R. Rossignoli, Entanglement in fermion systems, Physical Review A 92, 042326 (2015)

View on Pith 2015

[26] [24]

N. Gigena and R. Rossignoli, Bipartite entanglement in fermion systems, Physical Review A 95, 062320 (2017)

View on Pith 2017

[27] [25]

M. Di Tullio, R. Rossignoli, M. Cerezo, and N. Gigena, Fermionic entanglement in the Lipkin model, Physical Review A 100, 062104 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[28] [26]

N. Gigena, M. Di Tullio, and R. Rossignoli, One-body en- tanglement as a quantum resource in fermionic systems, Physical Review A 102, 042410 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[29] [27]

F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, F. Franchini, and U. Mar- zolino, Entanglement in indistinguishable particle sys- tems, Physics Reports 878, 1 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[30] [28]

J. Garcia, J. Cianciulli, and R. Rossignoli, Fermionic entanglement and quantum correlation measures in molecules, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07633 10.48550/arXiv.2604.07633 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.07633 2026

[31] [29]

L. Bittel, A. A. Mele, J. Eisert, and L. Leone, Opti- mal trace-distance bounds for free-fermionic states: Test- ing and improved tomography, PRX Quantum 6, 030341 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[32] [30]

M. Walter and F. Witteveen, Computable mea- sures of fermionic non-Gaussianity from the co- variance matrix, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02242 10.48550/arXiv.2607.02242 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.02242 2026

[33] [31]

P. Braccia, N. Diaz, M. Larocca, M. Cerezo, and D. Garc ´ ıa-Mart ´ ın, The commutant of fermionic gaussian unitaries, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19210 10.48550/arXiv.2603.19210 (2026)

View on Pith doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.19210 2026

[34] [32]

P. Sierant, T. X., and P. S. Tarabunga, Theory of the matchgate commutant, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12392 10.48550/arXiv.2603.12392 (2026)

View on Pith doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.12392 2026

[35] [33]

M. West, S. Y. Chang, L. Coffman, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, Practical fermionic shadows enabled by improved sample-complexity bounds, arXiv preprint arXiv:2609.40173 10.48550/arXiv.2609.40173 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.40173 2026

[36] [36]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

View on Pith 2000

[37] [37]

N. L. Diaz, D. Garc ´ ıa-Mart ´ ın, S. Kazi, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, Showcasing a barren plateau the- ory beyond the dynamical lie algebra, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11505 10.48550/arXiv.2310.11505 (2023)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.11505 2023

[38] [38]

E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Reviews of modern physics 91, 025001 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[39] [39]

F. G. Brandao and G. Gour, Reversible framework for quantum resource theories, Physical Review Letters 115, 070503 (2015)

View on Pith 2015

[40] [40]

E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Manˇ cinska, M. Ozols, and A. Winter, Everything you always wanted to know about locc (but were afraid to ask), Communications in Math- ematical Physics 328, 303 (2014)

View on Pith 2014

[41] [41]

W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Physical Review A 62, 062314 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[42] [42]

A. Miyake, Classification of multipartite entangled states by multidimensional determinants, Physical Review A 67, 012108 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[43] [43]

F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, B. De Moor, and H. Ver- schelde, Four qubits can be entangled in nine different ways, Physical Review A 65, 052112 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[44] [44]

H. Dietrich, W. A. De Graaf, A. Marrani, and M. Origlia, Classification of four qubit states and their stabilisers un- der slocc operations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55, 095302 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[45] [45]

K.-K. Jia, J.-L. Li, and C.-F. Qiao, Classification of the entangled states of 2 × l × m × n × h, arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.02007 10.48550/arXiv.1505.02007 (2015)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1505.02007 2015

[46] [46]

N. L. Diaz, A. A. Mele, P. Bermejo, P. Brac- cia, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, A unified ap- proach to quantum resource theories and a new class of free operations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10851 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10851 (2025). 15 Appendix A: One-body Hamiltonian of F eO Here we provide the one-body matrices hπyπz of Eq. (4). In the orbital bases defined...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.10851 2025