Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 38 references

For any two Gaussian modes in a bosonic system or quantum field, entanglement is exactly determined by whether the symmetric partner overlap D_sym exceeds a threshold D_c.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:00 UTC pith:B6WGUKLJ

load-bearing objection The central entanglement criterion is a correct algebraic restatement of Simon's PPT condition, and the small-entanglement relation checks out; the main weaknesses are reproducibility and packaging, not the math.

arxiv 2512.18410 v2 pith:B6WGUKLJ submitted 2025-12-20 quant-ph gr-qchep-th

Partner-mode overlap as a symplectic-invariant measure of correlations in Gaussian quantum field theories

Ivan Agullo , Eduardo Mart\'in-Mart\'inez , Sergi Nadal-Gisbert , Koji Yamaguchi This is my paper
classification quant-ph gr-qchep-th MSC 81P4081P4581T0581S10
keywords Gaussian statesentanglement criterionpurification partner modescomplex structuressymplectic invariantsquantum field theorylogarithmic negativitylocalized modes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper introduces D_sym, a locally symplectic-invariant quantifier of correlations between two bosonic Gaussian modes, defined as the symmetric overlap of each mode with the purification partner of the other. Its main theorem is a necessary and sufficient entanglement criterion: for mutually correlated modes A and B, A and B are entangled if and only if D_sym > D_c, where D_c is a threshold fixed by the purities of A, B, and the joint system. This places on quantitative footing the intuition that entanglement with a localized mode resides in the spatial support of its partner. The paper also proves that in the weak-entanglement regime logarithmic negativity is proportional to D_sym - D_c, with a purity-dependent slope, and demonstrates the criterion numerically for ball-and-shell wavepacket modes of a scalar field in the Minkowski vacuum.

Core claim

The core claim is a theorem about the complex-structure description of Gaussian states: two single-mode subsystems A and B of a Gaussian bosonic system, in a Gaussian state (pure or mixed), are entangled if and only if D_sym > D_c, with D_sym = (1/(det J_A - 1) + 1/(det J_B - 1))(-det J_C) and D_c = 1/2((det J_AB - det J_A)/(det J_B - 1) + (det J_AB - det J_B)/(det J_A - 1)) - 1. Here J_A, J_B, and J_AB are restricted complex structure matrices of the reduced states and J_C encodes their cross-correlations. Because only the four determinant invariants of the 4x4 matrix J_AB appear, the criterion is manifestly invariant under local unitaries and applies unchanged to quantum field theory, wher

What carries the argument

The central object is the restricted complex structure matrix J_AB of the two-mode subsystem, a 4x4 matrix built from ten symplectic products of basis vectors of the two modes with the state's complex structure J. Its determinant invariants det J_AB, det J_A, det J_B, and det J_C are unchanged by local symplectic transformations. The partner-mode formula Γ_Ap = Π⊥_A(J Γ_A) yields the purification partner of each mode, and D_sym combines the overlaps of A with B_p and B with A_p. The Simon/PPT separability criterion, applied to the partially transposed restricted complex structure, is then recast as a threshold inequality on D_sym, producing D_c.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise for the QFT application is that the smearing functions defining the modes are genuine elements of the phase space on which the Minkowski vacuum complex structure acts, so that the ten symplectic products entering J_AB are finite without regularization; the paper states this holds for its non-smooth ball and shell functions but does not display an explicit verifier for the shell smearing function.

What would settle it

Take any two-mode Gaussian state, compute the four determinants from its covariance matrix, evaluate D_sym and D_c, then apply the PPT test to the same state; a single state with D_sym > D_c that is PPT-separable, or D_sym ≤ D_c that is entangled, would refute the theorem. For the QFT numbers, reproducing the ball–shell calculation with a smooth approximation to f_B and checking that D_sym - D_c and LogNeg keep the same sign and near-threshold behavior would test whether the non-smoothness matters.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The criterion D_sym > D_c is a complete two-mode Gaussian entanglement test that needs only four symplectic invariants, so it is as easy to evaluate as the PPT criterion and gives a geometric interpretation of the result.
  • Because D_sym depends only on the reduced state of A and B, it extends to mixed Gaussian states and to mode subsystems of any finite size, with no need to construct a full purification.
  • In quantum field theory, a large D_sym between a localized mode and the partner of another mode indicates that the entanglement is concentrated in the spatial support of that partner, making the abstraction 'entanglement lives where the partner is' quantitative.
  • In the small-entanglement regime, E_N ≈ w(Δ)(D_sym - D_c) with a positive purity-dependent weight, so D_sym - D_c can be used as a reliable proxy for logarithmic negativity whenever localized field modes are only weakly entangled.
  • The ball-shell example shows that the region of parameters where D_sym - D_c > 0 coincides exactly with the region where logarithmic negativity is nonzero for a scalar field vacuum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: Because D_sym is built from local invariants, one could use it as a numerical diagnostic in lattice or discretized field theories to map, without constructing partner modes explicitly, where a chosen mode's entanglement is distributed.
  • Editorial extension: The threshold structure suggests a testable conjecture for multi-mode subsystems: a generalized D_sym defined via multimode partners may detect entanglement beyond pairwise PPT, and comparing it with multi-mode negativity could clarify how partner overlap distributes across a network of modes.
  • Editorial extension: The linear relation between E_N and D_sym - D_c in the weak regime could be probed in a tabletop continuous-variable experiment: prepare two-mode squeezed states mixed through a beam splitter, reconstruct the covariance matrix, and check that the entanglement decision and the slope match the theorem.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces D_sym, a locally symplectic-invariant quantifier of correlations between two bosonic Gaussian modes, defined as the symmetric overlap of each mode with the purification partner of the other. Working in the complex-structure formulation, the authors derive a closed expression for D_sym in terms of the symplectic invariants det J_A, det J_B and det J_C (Sec. III.B, Eq. (36)), extend it to mixed states (Sec. III.C), and prove a necessary and sufficient entanglement criterion: two Gaussian modes are entangled iff D_sym > D_c, with D_c given in Eq. (49). They also derive a weak-entanglement linear relation E_N ≈ w(Δ) D_T, Eq. (90), and illustrate the framework with numerical ball–shell modes of a scalar field in the Minkowski vacuum (Secs. V–VI). The central theorem is an algebraic reformulation of Simon's PPT criterion for two-mode Gaussian states, and the paper presents it as a geometric diagnostic for where entanglement with a local mode is spatially located.

Significance. If correct, the main theorem is a parameter-free, exact criterion for two-mode Gaussian entanglement expressed in terms of partner-mode overlaps. This gives quantitative substance to the intuition that entanglement with a localized mode is encoded in the spatial support of its purification partner, and it provides a practical diagnostic for QFT applications. The derivation is self-contained and checkable: I verified that D_sym > D_c is algebraically equivalent to violation of the PT physicality inequality, and the slope w(Δ) in Eq. (89) matches a direct Taylor expansion of -log_2 ν̃_- near threshold. No fitted parameters or state-dependent calibrations enter the criterion. The numerical QFT example is a useful illustration, though its reproducibility is limited by the omissions noted below.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (83)] The normalization constant K_B for the shell smearing function is omitted ("relatively lengthy"). Without K_B, the numerical values in Figs. 3–11 cannot be reproduced. Please include the explicit expression or provide a supplementary code/data file with the numerical integrations.
  2. [Sec. IV.A and Sec. V] The claim that the C^1 smearing functions f_A and f_B lie in Γ_σM and that all symplectic products with J_M are finite is deferred to Ref. [39], which is listed as "To appear". This is a technical point for the QFT application; a short self-contained finiteness argument (e.g., Fourier falloff k^{-3} for C^1 compactly supported functions) would remove the dependence on an unpublished companion paper.
  3. [Sec. III.D, Theorem statement] The theorem assumes A and B are "mutually correlated", but this condition is not formally defined. Please define it precisely (e.g., det J_C ≠ 0 or nonvanishing cross-covariance) and clarify the limiting cases det J_A = 1 or det J_B = 1, where the denominators in D_sym vanish. In those cases the state cannot be mutually correlated in the intended sense, but the statement should say so explicitly.
  4. [Sec. V] The numerical procedure is described only verbally. For reproducibility, specify the quadrature method, tolerances, and the way the ten symplectic products in Eq. (73) are evaluated, or release the code used to produce Figs. 3–11.
  5. [Various] Minor typos and wording: "a a subsystem" in Sec. II.B; "Let’s assume" in the Theorem statement is too informal; Eq. (15) and Eq. (73) would benefit from a consistent notation for the off-diagonal blocks. Also, Ref. [39] should be updated if it has appeared, and Refs. [2] and [21] appear to be the same work and should be unified.
  6. [Sec. III.D, proof of necessity] The second case of the necessity proof states that D_sym ≤ D_c implies the PT state is physical and separable; the algebra is correct but the link is compressed. Spell out that D_sym ≤ D_c is exactly the non-violation of Eq. (52) under the change det J_C → −det J_C, so that the PT state satisfies the first PPT inequality while the second and third conditions are inherited as stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the entanglement criterion is an algebraic reformulation of Simon's PPT condition, and the partner-mode self-citation is upstream rather than definitional.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained against an external benchmark: Simon's PPT criterion for two-mode Gaussian states. The symmetric overlap D^sym is computed from symplectic invariants in Eq. (36), and the threshold D_c in Eq. (49) is obtained algebraically, not fitted to data. Multiplying D^sym > D_c by the positive factor (detJ_A-1)(detJ_B-1)/(detJ_A+detJ_B-2) reproduces exactly the PT physicality violation -2 detJ_C > detJ_AB + 1 - detJ_A - detJ_B, i.e. Eq. (53). This is a proof of equivalence, not a definitional coincidence: the threshold is solved from the inequality, and the physical constraints in Eq. (47) exclude the spurious root in the converse direction. The numerical ball-shell example compares LogNeg and D^sym - D_c computed from the same restricted complex structure, which is a consistency check of the proven theorem rather than a fitted prediction. The companion-paper citation [1] supplies the partner-mode construction used to give D^sym its geometric interpretation; that is an upstream derivation, not a restatement of this paper's target result. Even if Eq. (36) were taken as the definition of D^sym, the entanglement criterion would stand independently. Remaining gaps (omitted K_B expression, unpublished [39], absence of code/data) are reproducibility and completeness issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted: D_c and w(Δ) are derived from the state's symplectic invariants, not calibrated to data. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced; D^sym is a new constructed observable, not a physical degree of freedom. The main load-bearing inputs are standard Gaussian-state/PPT theorems and the domain assumptions for the QFT mode construction.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Simon's PPT criterion is necessary and sufficient for separability of two-mode Gaussian states.
    Invoked in Section III.D to convert the entanglement question into an inequality on symplectic invariants; standard result from [36], used as an external benchmark.
  • standard math Gaussian states are fully characterized by their covariance tensor σ (or complex structure J), with symplectic eigenvalues ν_I ≥ 1 and purity iff ν_I = 1.
    Section II.C assumes the standard characterization of Gaussian states from [4-6,33]; needed to define J and the invariants.
  • domain assumption Subsystems correspond to symplectic subspaces of phase space; independent subsystems are symplectically orthogonal.
    Section II.B and IV.A: the identification of a mode with a two-dimensional symplectic subspace and the algebraic notion of independence. This is the standard algebraic QFT view, but it is a modelling assumption.
  • domain assumption For pure Gaussian states, the purification partner of A is Γ_Ap = Π⊥_A(J Γ_A), and J leaves Γ_A ⊕ Γ_Ap invariant.
    Eq. (20) in Section II.E, established in the authors' companion paper [1]; the present paper uses it as the input to define D^sym. This is prior work but not machine-checked or independently reproduced here.
  • domain assumption For the QFT example, the Minkowski vacuum is a pure Gaussian state with complex structure J_M, and the chosen non-smooth smearing functions lie in the domain Γ_σM.
    Section V, Eqs. (75)-(84): the numerical example assumes the ball and shell smearing functions belong to the domain where J_M and the symplectic products are well-defined; justification is only sketched and deferred to [39].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28980 in / 26351 out tokens · 221901 ms · 2026-08-03T15:00:14.246454+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce a locally symplectic-invariant quantifier of correlations between arbitrary bosonic Gaussian modes, with particular emphasis on quantum field theory. The quantity, denoted by~$\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{sym}}$, admits a simple geometric interpretation as the symmetric overlap between each mode and the purification partner of the other, providing a direct geometric characterization of how correlations are distributed between modes. We derive a necessary and sufficient criterion for two-mode Gaussian entanglement in terms of $\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{sym}}$, placing on firm quantitative footing the intuition that the entanglement of a localized mode is encoded in the spatial support of its purification partner. We demonstrate the framework for wavepacket modes of a scalar quantum field in Minkowski spacetime (illustrating how the geometry of partner modes reveals the spatial structure of quantum correlations) and discuss extensions to multimode systems and mixed Gaussian states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.18410 by Eduardo Mart\'in-Mart\'inez, Ivan Agullo, Koji Yamaguchi, Sergi Nadal-Gisbert.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Entanglement between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Illustration of the regions of support for the field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Logarithmic negativity between modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Logarithmic negativity as a function of the shell width [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Asymptotic fall-off of the functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Logarithmic negativity versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Entanglement related quantities as functions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Agullo, E

    I. Agullo, E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, S. Nadal-Gisbert, P. Ribes-Metidieri, and K. Yamaguchi, Correlation and Entanglement partners in Gaussian systems (2025), arXiv:2512.11055 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [3]

    L. Gurvits, Classical deterministic complexity of Ed- monds’ problem and quantum entanglement, inProceed- ings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’03 (Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2003) pp. 10–19

    2003

  3. [4]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  4. [5]

    Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables(CRC Press, 2017)

    A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables(CRC Press, 2017)

    2017

  5. [6]

    Adesso, S

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Continuous Vari- able Quantum Information: Gaussian States and Be- yond, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn.21, 1440001 (2014)

    2014

  6. [7]

    Klco and M

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Geometric quantum informa- tion structure in quantum fields and their lattice simula- tion, Phys. Rev. D103, 065007 (2021)

    2021

  7. [8]

    Klco and M

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Entanglement spheres and a UV-IR connection in effective field theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 211602 (2021)

    2021

  8. [9]

    N. Klco, D. H. Beck, and M. J. Savage, Entanglement structures in quantum field theories: Negativity cores and bound entanglement in the vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012415 (2023)

    2023

  9. [10]

    Gao and N

    B. Gao and N. Klco, Partial-transpose-guided entangle- ment classes and minimum noise filtering in many-body Gaussian quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A109, 062413 (2024)

    2024

  10. [11]

    Agullo, B

    I. Agullo, B. Bonga, P. Ribes-Metidieri, D. Kranas, and S. Nadal-Gisbert, How ubiquitous is entanglement in quantum field theory?, Phys. Rev. D108, 085005 (2023)

    2023

  11. [13]

    Trevison, K

    J. Trevison, K. Yamaguchi, and M. Hotta, Spatially over- lapped partners in quantum field theory, J. Phys. A Math. Theor.52, 125402 (2019)

    2019

  12. [14]

    Tomitsuka, K

    T. Tomitsuka, K. Yamaguchi, and M. Hotta, Partner for- mula for an arbitrary moving mirror in$1+1$dimen- sions, Physical Review D101, 024003 (2020)

    2020

  13. [15]

    Nambu and K

    Y. Nambu and K. Yamaguchi, Entanglement partners and monogamy in de Sitter universes, Physical Review D108, 045002 (2023)

    2023

  14. [16]

    B. de S. L. Torres, K. Wurtz, J. Polo-G´ omez, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Entanglement structure of quan- tum fields through local probes, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 58 (2023)

    2023

  15. [17]

    Osawa, K.-N

    Y. Osawa, K.-N. Lin, Y. Nambu, M. Hotta, and P. Chen, Final burst of the moving mirror is unrelated to the part- ner mode of analog Hawking radiation, Physical Review D110, 025023 (2024)

    2024

  16. [18]

    J. M. Montes-Armenteros and J. Olmedo, Quantum en- 22 tanglement of Hawking-Partner modes in expanding cav- ities (2025), arXiv:2508.00423 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [19]

    Trevison, K

    J. Trevison, K. Yamaguchi, and M. Hotta, Pure state en- tanglement harvesting in quantum field theory, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2018, 103A03 (2018)

    2018

  18. [20]

    Hackl and R

    L. Hackl and R. H. Jonsson, Minimal energy cost of en- tanglement extraction, Quantum3, 165 (2019)

    2019

  19. [21]

    Osawa, Y

    Y. Osawa, Y. Nambu, and R. Yoshimoto, Entanglement Harvesting from Quantum Field: Insights via the Partner Formula (2025), arXiv:2504.18129 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [22]

    Ribes-Metidieri, I

    P. Ribes-Metidieri, I. Agullo, and B. Bonga, Entangle- ment and correlations between local observables in de Sitter spacetime (2025), arXiv:2511.17382 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [23]

    Ribes-Metidieri, I

    P. Ribes-Metidieri, I. Agullo, and B. Bonga, Inflation does not create entanglement in local observables (2024), arXiv:2409.16366 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [24]

    Agullo, P

    I. Agullo, P. C. Cabrera, and B. Elizaga Navascu´ es, En- tangled pairs in evaporating black holes without event horizons (2024), arXiv:2407.03031 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [25]

    Hackl and E

    L. Hackl and E. Bianchi, Bosonic and fermionic Gaussian states from K¨ ahler structures, SciPost Physics Core4, 025 (2021)

    2021

  24. [26]

    R. H. Jonsson, L. Hackl, and K. Roychowdhury, Entan- glement dualities in supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023213 (2021), arXiv:2103.09657 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [27]

    Yamaguchi and M

    K. Yamaguchi and M. Hotta, Quantum information cap- sule in multiple-qudit systems and continuous-variable systems, Physics Letters A384, 126447 (2020)

    2020

  26. [28]

    Yamaguchi, A

    K. Yamaguchi, A. Ahmadzadegan, P. Simidzija, A. Kempf, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Superadditivity of channel capacity through quantum fields, Phys. Rev. D 101, 105009 (2020)

    2020

  27. [29]

    Yamaguchi,Quantum Information Capsule and Its Applications to Communication Through Quantum Fields, Ph.D

    K. Yamaguchi,Quantum Information Capsule and Its Applications to Communication Through Quantum Fields, Ph.D. thesis, Tohoku University (2021)

    2021

  28. [30]

    Agullo, B

    I. Agullo, B. Bonga, E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, S. Nadal- Gisbert, T. R. Perche, J. Polo-G´ omez, P. Ribes-Metidieri, and B. de S. L. Torres, Multimode nature of spacetime entanglement in QFT (2025), arXiv:2409.16368 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [31]

    Wald, On Particle Creation by Black Holes, Commun

    R. Wald, On Particle Creation by Black Holes, Commun. Math. Phys.45, 9 (1975)

    1975

  30. [32]

    Hotta, R

    M. Hotta, R. Sch¨ utzhold, and W. G. Unruh, Partner par- ticles for moving mirror radiation and black hole evapo- ration, Phys. Rev. D91, 124060 (2015)

    2015

  31. [33]

    Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods(CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017)

    A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods(CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017)

    2017

  32. [34]

    Peres, Separability criterion for density matri- ces, Phys

    A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matri- ces, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996), arXiv:quant- ph/9604005

    arXiv 1996

  33. [35]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, On the necessary and sufficient conditions for separability of mixed quantum states, Phys. Lett. A223, 1 (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9605038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  34. [36]

    Simon, Peres-Horodecki Separability Criterion for Continuous Variable Systems, Phys

    R. Simon, Peres-Horodecki Separability Criterion for Continuous Variable Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2726 (2000)

    2000

  35. [37]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of en- tanglement, Phys. Rev. A65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  36. [38]

    M. B. Plenio, Logarithmic negativity: A full entangle- ment monotone that is not convex, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 090503 (2005)

    2005

  37. [39]

    Agullo, E

    I. Agullo, E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, S. Nadal-Gisbert, P. Ribes-Metidieri, and K. Yamaguchi, To appear

  38. [40]

    Reeh and S

    H. Reeh and S. Schlieder, Bemerkungen zur unit¨ ar¨ aquivalenz von lorentzinvarianten feldern, Nuovo Cimento22, 1051 (1961)

    1961