Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

This paper claims that in moving-mirror radiation, negative energy flux acts as an information-return channel that increases the entanglement accessible to two local detector modes.

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

2026-08-01 11:44 UTC pith:WUUKBN2M

load-bearing objection The numerical observation that negativity rises during negative-flux episodes is likely real and worth building on, but the paper's monogamy-based mechanism for it has a load-bearing gap: S_A is not the external correlation E(AB:C). the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19763 v2 pith:WUUKBN2M submitted 2026-07-22 gr-qc hep-thquant-ph

Energy Flux as an Entanglement Current in Moving-Mirror Radiation

Yasusada Nambu , Riku Yoshimoto This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-thquant-ph MSC 81P4083C4781P42
keywords moving mirrorHawking radiationentanglement harvestinglogarithmic negativitynegative energy fluxpartner modesentanglement entropyunitarity
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.

The paper studies analog Hawking radiation from a moving mirror and asks how much entanglement two local detector modes can harvest from the emitted field. Its central claim is that the sign of the regularized energy flux controls the flow of quantum information: positive flux suppresses the negativity between the detectors, while negative flux—which unavoidably appears when the mirror's acceleration changes non-monotonically or stops—raises the negativity above its Minkowski-vacuum value. The paper reads this as negative energy flux acting as an 'information return channel' that restores correlations with the partner modes needed for unitary evolution. It supports the reading by showing the local entropy follows the flux, by invoking an entanglement monogamy trade-off, and by exhibiting a Page-curve-like recovery of the partner-mode offset.

Core claim

For mirror trajectories with non-monotonic acceleration—a kink trajectory that accelerates then decelerates, and an asymptotically inertial trajectory that accelerates then moves uniformly—the logarithmic negativity of two detector modes AB exceeds its Minkowski-vacuum value exactly during the intervals where the regularized energy flux F(u) is negative. During positive-flux intervals the negativity declines. The entropy of a single mode drops below its vacuum value during negative flux, consistent with the first law of entanglement δS ∝ F(u)ℓ², so the flux behaves as an entanglement current. A monogamy inequality then converts this drop in external entanglement into growth of internal A–B e

What carries the argument

Two compact-support 'detector modes' A and B, built from sine and cosine window functions on future null infinity, define Gaussian local modes whose covariance matrix yields the logarithmic negativity. The derivation rests on: F(u) = −(1/24π)(p′)¹ᐟ² a′(u), so the flux sign tracks the time derivative of the mirror's proper acceleration; a first-law-of-entanglement relation δS ≈ (8ε(ν)/π³ν) a₂ ℓ² F(u_A); a cited monogamy inequality E(A:B) + E(AB:C) ≤ E_max; and the partner formula—a Hilbert transform that constructs the purifying mode P, whose profile offset ΔP ∝ ℓ κ(u_A) measures long-range correlation and determines how much information lies beyond the detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that the cited monogamy inequality E(A:B) + E(AB:C) ≤ E_max holds for the computed Gaussian state, even though the paper never verifies it for A, B, and the traced-out field complement C.

What would settle it

Compute the full tripartite Gaussian covariance matrix of modes A, B, and a third mode C representing the field complement; if E(A:B) + E(AB:C) exceeds E_max, or if the negativity excess disappears when the UV cutoff ϵ or window width ℓ is changed while the flux stays negative, the paper's interpretation loses its foundation.

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

If this is right

  • Negative energy flux becomes an observable diagnostic for information recovery in analog black-hole systems.
  • The first-law relation makes local energy flux a direct measure of how entanglement flows between a region and its complement.
  • The partner formula gives a constructive way to locate where purifying partner modes are concentrated, potentially transferable to evaporating black-hole models.
  • Entanglement harvesting protocols can serve as operational witnesses for negative flux.
  • The Page-curve-like partner offset provides a concrete signature for tracking information return during evaporation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is generic, entanglement harvesting in other analog spacetimes—such as expanding cosmological boundaries—should show the same sign-locked correlation between flux and negativity; the paper's own announced black-hole application points in this direction.
  • A natural test is to replace the window functions with smoother or narrower profiles and check whether the negativity excess tracks the flux rather than the cutoff; if it persists, the effect is physical, and if it vanishes, the window-function regularization is implicated.
  • The monogamy step could be verified by computing a third mode C that captures the field complement and checking E(A:B) + E(AB:C) ≤ E_max directly, turning the interpretation into a quantitative prediction.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies entanglement harvesting from moving-mirror radiation in (1+1)-dimensional spacetime. Two compactly supported Gaussian detector modes A and B are defined at future null infinity, and their covariance matrix is computed in the in-vacuum state with a UV cutoff. For three mirror trajectories — the eternal mirror p1, the kink mirror p2, and the asymptotically inertial mirror p3 — the logarithmic negativity is plotted as a function of detector position. For p2 and p3, which emit intervals of negative energy flux, the negativity rises above its Minkowski-vacuum value during those intervals. The authors derive a small-interval first-law-like relation δS ≈ (8ε(ν)/(π³ν)) a₂ ℓ² F(u_A) for the entropy of a single local mode, and invoke a monogamy inequality to argue that a decrease in single-mode entropy during negative flux allows an increase in bipartite entanglement between A and B. A partner-mode analysis using the partner formula of Hotta et al. shows that for p3 the offset ΔP has a Page-curve-like return, which is interpreted as information retrieval mediated by negative energy flux.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper offers a concrete quantum-information signature of negative energy flux as a channel for information return in analog Hawking radiation. The analytical part is mostly transparent Gaussian-state calculus, and the small-interval expansion leading to Eq. (56) is coherent and parameter-free apart from the UV cutoff. The numerical computations are cross-checked against symplectic-eigenvalue entropy, and the paper explicitly identifies a recent independent work [24] that finds a similar negativity enhancement. These are genuine strengths. The main interpretive step, however, is not established: the monogamy argument in Sec. V.B.2 rests on a conflation of S_A with the external correlation E(AB:C), and the numerical robustness of the enhancement with respect to the fixed cutoff ε=0.005 and mode width ℓ=1 is not demonstrated. The paper therefore contains an interesting and potentially publishable observation, but the advertised mechanism requires additional work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.B.2, Eq. (57)] The monogamy step is load-bearing and currently unsupported. The authors observe that negative energy flux decreases S_A, the single-mode entropy of A, and invoke E(A:B)+E(AB:C)≤E_max [21] to conclude that internal entanglement E(A:B) can increase. But in the pure global Gaussian state (A,B,C), S_A=E(A:BC), whereas E(AB:C)=S_AB. A decrease in S_A (and S_B) does not imply a decrease in S_AB; by subadditivity, S_AB can change independently. The paper never computes S_AB or any external-correlation measure; the only AB quantity computed is the logarithmic negativity via the partial transpose. Without showing that the external correlation actually drops during the negative-flux interval, Eq. (57) cannot convert the S_A dip into an increase of negativity. This is the stated mechanism for the 'negative energy flux as an information return channel' claim. Please compute S_AB from the 4×4 covari
  2. [Sec. V.A and Figs. 6-7] The central numerical claim is that the negativity exceeds its Minkowski-vacuum value during negative flux. The computation fixes ℓ=1 and ε=0.005, and no convergence or parameter scan is presented. The excess over the vacuum value is a difference of O(0.01) quantities, so the result could in principle be an artifact of the chosen window-function width and UV cutoff. Please vary ε and ℓ over at least a decade, show that the crossing of the vacuum value is stable, and specify in which limit the enhancement disappears. This is necessary to support the conclusion that the enhancement is a physical property of the mirror radiation rather than a numerical artifact.
  3. [Sec. V.B.1, Eq. (56) and Fig. 8] Equation (56) is derived in the limit ℓ≪|p/p'|, but the numerical simulations use ℓ=1 and the plot in Fig. 8 uses the interval-entropy formula (37), not the small-ℓ expression. The agreement between the interval entropy (37) and the symplectic-eigenvalue entropy is interesting, but it does not quantitatively validate Eq. (56). The paper should state this limitation explicitly and, ideally, test the scaling of δS with ℓ and compare with Eq. (56) for several values of ℓ satisfying the small-interval condition. This would make the 'first law of entanglement' connection quantitative rather than qualitative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 8 caption] The lower panels are described as not subtracting the vacuum contribution, but for p2 and p3 the plotted values are negative. For any Gaussian state the single-mode entropy S_A is nonnegative, so these panels must be showing the deviation from the vacuum value (or the axis is mislabeled). Please clarify.
  2. [Sec. V.A, numerical parameters] The pivot point Δu=4.13 in the partner-profile analysis is introduced without justification. A sentence explaining how this value is chosen, or a robustness check, would be helpful.
  3. [Eq. (58a) and Appendix A] In Eqs. (22) and (58a) the derivative ∂_{u1}p(u1) is written; using the standard notation p'(u1) would improve readability and avoid confusion with a functional derivative.
  4. [Reference list] Reference [24] contains a DOI placeholder '10.1103/jmjm-9pqd'; this should be updated to the official DOI or the arXiv identifier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central analytic and numerical results are derived independently rather than fitted, and the cited external results carry the load-bearing steps.

full rationale

The main quantitative relation, δS ≈ (8ε(ν)/(π³ν)) a₂ℓ²F(u_A), is not circular. It follows from the Bianchi–Smerlak interval-entropy formula [12] plus a small-interval expansion of the field correlation functions, with no parameter fitted to the negativity data. The negativity enhancement during negative flux is a numerical output of an independent covariance-matrix calculation, not constructed from the flux. The partner-mode offset ΔP is likewise computed from the partner formula (58a) and its Appendix A expansion, with no fitted input. The monogamy discussion in Sec. V.B.2 does cite [21] (Camalet, external) and [22] (a self-citation), but the inequality E(A:B)+E(AB:C)≤E_max rests on the external reference; the self-citation is not load-bearing. The paper's inference from a decrease in S_A to an increase in E(A:B) contains a logical gap—S_A is not equal to E(AB:C)—but this is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction of a prediction to its inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained; no predicted quantity is defined in terms of another predicted quantity, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, mediators, or forces are introduced. The paper's central claim rests on standard moving-mirror assumptions (massless scalar field, Dirichlet boundary, in-vacuum state), on the specific choice of window-function detectors and UV cutoff, and on a cited monogamy trade-off inequality applied without numerical verification. The detector profiles and cutoff are modeling choices, not free parameters fitted to data, so no fitted constants appear in the ledger.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Mirror boundary condition and massless scalar field in (1+1)-dimensional Minkowski space (Dirichlet condition ϕ(u,p(u))=0), Sec. II.
    The entire calculation is performed in this idealized 1+1-dimensional setting; relevance to 3+1 physics or real analog experiments is not derived.
  • domain assumption The in-vacuum state |0_in⟩ is the physical state on I⁻, with the out-vacuum used for regularization (Sec. II Eq. (10)).
    Standard choice, but an assumption about the physical initial state.
  • domain assumption Compact window functions Q(u)=2√π cos(πu/ℓ), P(u)=2√π sin(πu/ℓ) with ℓ=1 and ε=0.005 faithfully probe radiation entanglement (Sec. IV.A, Eq. (25)).
    The central numerical observation depends on these profile and cutoff choices; no robustness scan is provided.
  • domain assumption Monogamy inequality E(A:B)+E(AB:C)≤E_max cited from Camalet [21] holds for the computed state (Sec. V.B.2).
    Applied without verification on the actual Gaussian bipartite state AB plus complement.
  • ad hoc to paper UV regulator (Δp)₁₂ = p'((u₁+u₂)/2)ε is a legitimate physical cutoff (Eq. (9)).
    The choice ε=0.005 is by hand; cutoff independence is not established.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 31650 in / 7209 out tokens · 58181 ms · 2026-08-01T11:44:55.881857+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we investigate the quantum entanglement properties of analog Hawking radiation produced by a moving mirror. Using two detector modes defined through window functions on a quantum field, we quantify the bipartite entanglement established between these modes. Our results reveal that the amount of entanglement accessible to the detectors increases when the mirror follows trajectories with non-monotonic, time-dependent acceleration, which are accompanied by the emission of negative energy flux. This indicates that the negative energy flux acts as a channel through which information can be returned. To substantiate this perspective, we examine how the recovery or reconstruction of the associated partner modes is related to the negative energy flux emitted by the mirror.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19763 by Riku Yoshimoto, Yasusada Nambu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Profile functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Setup for detecting entanglement of the analog Hawking radiation from a moving mirror. Left panel: We show the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Three classes of trajectories associated with the ray-tracing functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The three velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Behavior of the energy flux and the negativity for the mirror trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Behavior of the energy flux and the negativity for the mirror trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Behavior of the energy flux and the negativity for the mirror trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Upper panels: behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The typical shape of the partner profile functions is illustrated for mirror [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The partner profiles corresponding to mirror [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: shows how ∆P evolves for mirror p1 (left panel) and mirror p3 (right panel). For mirror p1 (the eternal mirror), ∆P asymptotically approaches a finite, non-zero value, indicating that non-local correlations survive and that the information shared between detector A and its partner cannot be retrieved on I +. In this case, the information is effectively lost. By contrast, for mirror p3, ∆P initially increa… 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

40 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Behavior of entanglement entropy and first law of entanglement in moving mirror systems 10

  2. [2]

    Reduction and enhancement of bipartite entanglement 13

  3. [3]

    Discussion 9

    Asymptotically inertial mirrorp 3 9 B. Discussion 9

  4. [4]

    Summary and conclusion 15 Acknowledgments 16 References 16 A

    Relation to Partner Modes 14 VI. Summary and conclusion 15 Acknowledgments 16 References 16 A. Partner formula 17

  5. [5]

    Y5G/pG9/VzcXUEXaPRuTwG6v+7I=

    Profile of partner mode 19 B. Derivation of Tr [ρ0 δlogρ] = 0 20 I. INTRODUCTION The moving-mirror setup has been investigated as a simplified model for Hawking radiation and the evaporation process of black holes [1–3] due to its similarity to quantum radiation from black holes and its straightforward technical ∗ yasusada.nambu@gmail.com † yoshimoto.riku...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    For this trajectory, the energy flux is always positive, corresponding toa ′ <0 (see Eq.(10))

    Eternal mirrorp 1 Figure 5 shows theu-dependence of the energy flux (left panel) and the negativity of the detector state AB (right panel). For this trajectory, the energy flux is always positive, corresponding toa ′ <0 (see Eq.(10)). Negativity decreases monotonically, and entanglement death is observed for theκ= 1 case. We can interpret this behavior as...

  7. [7]

    Kink mirrorp 2 Figure 6 presents theu-dependence of the energy flux and the negativity of the detector state AB. Along this trajectory, the energy flux becomes negative when the time derivative of the acceleration,a ′, changes sign from 9 -10 -5 0 5 100.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 u F(u) κ=1 κ=0.5 -10 -5 0 5 100.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.0...

  8. [8]

    The energy flux turns negative when the acceleration’s magnitude ceases to grow and the motion becomes inertial

    Asymptotically inertial mirrorp 3 Figure 7 depicts how the energy flux and the negativity of the detector pair AB vary withu. The energy flux turns negative when the acceleration’s magnitude ceases to grow and the motion becomes inertial. The negativity initially decreases but later grows and eventually exceeds its initial value, which equals the negativi...

  9. [9]

    peeling factor

    Behavior of entanglement entropy and first law of entanglement in moving mirror systems Following the paper by Bianchi and Smerlak [12], the regularized entropy of the interval [u 0, u] inI + is given by the covariant regularization scheme with broadening of the interval. The formula is S(u0, u) = c 12 log (p(u)−p(u 0))2 p′(u)p′(u0)(u−u 0)2 ,(34) wherecis...

  10. [10]

    information return channel

    Reduction and enhancement of bipartite entanglement We observe that the passage of the negative energy flux reducesSA, which represents a reduction in the entanglement between the local mode A and its complement. For a Gaussian pure system composed of a bipartite system AB and its complement C, the following monogamy inequality holds for entanglement meas...

  11. [11]

    density” of the partner mode is diluted [23]. -4 -2 0 2 40.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 u QP uA=0 -4 -2 0 2 4 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 u PP uA=0 <latexit sha1_base64=

    Relation to Partner Modes To further support our interpretation that the negative energy flux serves as the channel through which information returns, we analyze the previously discussed entanglement property from the viewpoint of the entangled partner. To discuss how information can be extracted from the radiation emitted by the mirror, we analyze the pr...

  12. [12]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum fields in curved space (Cambridge University Press, 1984)

    1984

  13. [13]

    R. D. Carlitz and R. S. Willey, Reflections on moving mirrors, Phys. Rev. D36, 2327 (1987)

    1987

  14. [14]

    Brout, S

    R. Brout, S. Massar, R. Parentani, and P. Spindel, A primer for black hole quantum physics, Phys. Rep.260, 329 (1995), arXiv:0710.4345

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  15. [15]

    Hotta, R

    M. Hotta, R. Sch¨ utzhold, and W. G. Unruh, On the partner particles for moving mirror radiation and black hole evapo- ration, Phys. Rev. D91, 124060 (2015), arXiv:1503.06109

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Tomitsuka, K

    T. Tomitsuka, K. Yamaguchi, and M. Hotta, Partner formula for an arbitrary moving mirror in$1+1$dimensions, Phys. Rev. D101, 24003 (2019), arXiv:1906.05009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Chen and D

    P. Chen and D. H. Yeom, Entropy evolution of moving mirrors and the information loss problem, Phys. Rev. D96, 1 (2017), arXiv:1704.08613

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    R. M. Wald, Particle and energy cost of entanglement of Hawking radiation with the final vacuum state, Phys. Rev. D 100, 65019 (2019), arXiv:1908.06363

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    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 partner mode of analog Hawking radiation, Phys. Rev. D110, 025023 (2024), arXiv:2404.09446

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Agullo, P

    I. Agullo, P. C. Cabrera, and B. E. Navascu´ es, Vacuum-purified hawking radiation from evaporating black holes: Lessons from moving mirrors (2025), arXiv:2512.18354 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    W. Cong, E. Tjoa, and R. B. Mann, Entanglement harvesting with moving mirrors, J. High Energy Phys.2019(6), arXiv:1810.07359

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Tomonaga and Y

    M. Tomonaga and Y. Nambu, Second-Order Coherence as an Indicator of Quantum Entanglement of Hawking Radiation in Moving-Mirror Models, Phys. Rev. D110, 105004 (2024), arXiv:2407.09218

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Bianchi and M

    E. Bianchi and M. Smerlak, Entanglement entropy and negative energy in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. D - Part. Fields, Gravit. Cosmol.90, 1 (2014), arXiv:1404.0602

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. Werner, Computable measure of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  25. [25]

    Plenio, Logarithmic Negativity: A Full Entanglement Monotone That is not Convex, Phys

    M. Plenio, Logarithmic Negativity: A Full Entanglement Monotone That is not Convex, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 090503 (2005)

    2005

  26. [26]

    Nambu and M

    Y. Nambu and M. Hotta, Analog de Sitter universe in quantum Hall systems with an expanding edge, Phys. Rev. D107, 085002 (2023), arXiv:2301.09270

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Yoshimoto and Y

    R. Yoshimoto and Y. Nambu, Hawking radiation in quantum Hall system with an expanding edge: Application of anomaly method, Phys. Lett. A529, 130100 (2025), arXiv:2407.02796

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Barcel´ o, S

    C. Barcel´ o, S. Liberati, S. Sonego, and M. Visser, Minimal conditions for the existence of a Hawking-like flux, Phys. Rev. D - Part. Fields, Gravit. Cosmol.83, 1 (2011), arXiv:1011.5593. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    D. D. Blanco, H. Casini, L. Y. Hung, and R. C. Myers, Relative entropy and holography, J. High Energy Phys.2013(8), arXiv:1305.3182

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Faulkner, M

    T. Faulkner, M. Guica, T. Hartman, R. C. Myers, and M. Van Raamsdonk, Gravitation from entanglement in holographic CFTs, J. High Energy Phys.2014(3), 0, arXiv:1312.7856

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    Banchi, S

    L. Banchi, S. L. Braunstein, and S. Pirandola, Quantum fidelity for arbitrary gaussian states, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 260501 (2015)

    2015

  32. [32]

    Camalet, Internal Entanglement and External Correlations of Any Form Limit Each Other, Phys

    S. Camalet, Internal Entanglement and External Correlations of Any Form Limit Each Other, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 60504 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    Nambu and K

    Y. Nambu and K. Yamaguchi, Entanglement partners and monogamy in de Sitter universes, Phys. Rev. D108, 045002 (2023), arXiv:2305.18662

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Osawa, Y

    Y. Osawa, Y. Nambu, and R. Yoshimoto, Entanglement harvesting from quantum field: Insights via the partner formula, Phys. Rev. D113, 045023 (2026), arXiv:2504.18129

    arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    N. K. Dubey and S. Kolekar, Memory effects and entanglement dynamics of finite time acceleration, Physical Review D 113, 10.1103/jmjm-9pqd (2026)

    work page doi:10.1103/jmjm-9pqd 2026

  36. [36]

    Hackl and R

    L. Hackl and R. H. Jonsson, Minimal energy cost of entanglement extraction, Quantum3, 165 (2019), arXiv:1904.06246

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    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. D101, 105009 (2020). Appendix A: Partner formula

    2020

  38. [38]

    complex structure

    Derivation Consider a pure two-mode Gaussian state (i.e., a system of two harmonic oscillators) characterized by two inde- pendent annihilation operators, ˆa1 and ˆa2. We take the modes associated with ˆa 1 and ˆa2 to be in their respective vacuum states, which satisfy the conditions ˆa1 |01⟩= ˆa2 |02⟩= 0. The combined vacuum state of the system is then |...

  39. [39]

    Using Eqs. (A5a) and (A5b), the resulting action of this map on ˆQA and ˆPA is fψ( ˆQA) =α ˆP1 +β ˆP2, f ψ( ˆPA) =−α ˆQ1 +β ˆQ2.(A12) For pure state operators ˆaj,ˆaj†, fψ(ˆaj) =−iˆaj, f ψ(ˆaj †) =iˆaj †, j= 1,2.(A13) For arbitrary Hermitian operators ˆO1, ˆO2 defined by linear combinations of the pure state basis ( ˆQ1, ˆP1, ˆQ2, ˆP2), it can be shown th...

  40. [40]

    Profile of partner mode To analyze the characteristics of the partner mode predicted by the partner formula (58a), we introduce local mode A, defined via the following simple profile function, which allows us to determine the partner mode profile analytically: QA(u) = r 2 ℓ χ[−ℓ/2,ℓ/2](u−u A), P A(u) = r 2 ℓ (u−u A)χ [−ℓ/2,ℓ/2](u−u A),(A24) 20 whereχ [a,b...