Williamson majorization theory of fermionic non-Gaussianity

Piotr Sierant; Poetri Sonya Tarabunga; Xhek Turkeshi

Williamson majorization theory of fermionic non-Gaussianity

T0 review · 0 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Williamson spectra obey a majorization law under Gaussian protocols

desk verdict A genuinely new majorization law for fermionic non-Gaussianity, with far-reaching consequences; the only serious risk is the intricate Lemma S3 in the SM, which deserves independent checking. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10140 v1 pith:WVMDDKW5 submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph

Xhek Turkeshi , Piotr Sierant , Poetri Sonya Tarabunga This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 15A4281P4081P4581P68

keywords fermionicnon-GaussianityWilliamsonspectrumweakmajorizationGaussianprotocolsstrongmonotonesMajoranacovariancematrixstateconversionmagic

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Fermionic non-Gaussianity is the resource that elevates free-fermion (matchgate) computation to universal quantum computation, and this paper claims it too is governed by a single ordering principle. Under any fermionic Gaussian protocol whose outputs are pure states, the Williamson spectrum of the input pure state's Majorana covariance matrix is weakly majorized by the ensemble-averaged Williamson spectrum of the outputs: $S_\ell(\Gamma_\psi) \le \sum_s p_s S_\ell(\Gamma_{\phi_s})$ for every $\ell=1,\dots,N$. This is the fermionic mirror of Schmidt-spectrum majorization in pure-state entanglement theory. If the claim is right, every convex Williamson deficit—including fermionic antiflatness and occupation entropies—is a strong monotone, deterministic and probabilistic conversion bounds follow, parity-preserving catalysis is forbidden, and asymptotic pure-state interconversion is irreversible. Because all involved quantities are built from two-point Majorana correlators, the ordering is experimentally observable on present-day devices.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Williamson spectrum of the $2N\times 2N$ real antisymmetric Majorana covariance matrix $\Gamma_\rho$, whose canonical values $1\ge r_1\ge\dots\ge r_N\ge0$ quantify how far a pure state is from fermionic Gaussian (all $r_j=1$). The proof turns these spectral partial sums into linear witnesses through the variational formula $S_\ell(\Gamma)=\max_J \tfrac12\operatorname{tr}(J^T\Gamma)$ over rank-$2\ell$ partial complex structures $J$, so that $S_\ell$ becomes the expectation of a sum of commuting quadratic reflections. A localization lemma confines an optimal witness around the measured occupation mode to at most three modes, and a Gaussian-code operator inequality $Q_J \le I+\sum_s |s\rangle\langle s|\otimes h_s$ closes the rank-two case, giving the one-mode measurement inequality $S_\ell(\Gamma_\rho)\le 1+\sum_s p_s S_{\ell-1}(\Gamma'_{\rho_s})$. An induction over the protocol tree lifts this single-mode inequality to Theorem 1, while the convex-function characterization of weak majorization ($x\prec_w y$ iff $\sum_j f(x_j)\le\sum_j f(y_j)$ for every nondecreasing convex $f$) converts the spectral law into monotones, conversion bounds, and additivity statements.

What would settle it

Check the one-mode measurement inequality numerically for three-mode pure states of the form $\sqrt{p}\,|0\rangle|\varphi_0\rangle+\sqrt{1-p}\,|1\rangle|\varphi_1\rangle$ by computing $S_2(\Gamma_\psi)$ and the branch spectra exactly; a single instance with $S_2(\Gamma_\psi)>1+p_0S_1(\Gamma'_{\psi_0})+p_1S_1(\Gamma'_{\psi_1})$ would refute Lemma S4 and with it Theorem 1. A still more localized test is to search random two-plane witnesses $J$ and random local states for a violation of the rank-two Gaussian-code inequality $Q_J\le I+\sum_s|s\rangle\langle s|\otimes h_s$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: for any pure $N$-mode state $\psi$ and any ensemble $\{(p_s,\phi_s)\}$ produced by a Gaussian protocol, the partial sums of the unit-padded Williamson spectrum satisfy $S_\ell(\Gamma_\psi) \le \sum_s p_s S_\ell(\Gamma_{\phi_s})$ for all $\ell$, i.e. $\mathrm{er}(\Gamma_\psi) \prec_w \sum_s p_s\,\mathrm{er}(\Gamma_{\phi_s})$. This is the fermionic analogue of Nielsen's majorization condition for deterministic LOCC transformation of bipartite pure states, with the Schmidt spectrum replaced by the Williamson values of the Majorana covariance matrix. From this ordering law the authors derive a complete characterization of spectral monotones (a nondecreasing generator $f$ makes $\Phi_f$ a strong monotone if and only if $f$ is convex), necessary conditions and optimal single-shot bounds for state conversion under Gaussian protocols, monotonicity of the Gaussian nullity even under postselection, a no-go result for catalysis with parity-definite catalysts, a universal bound of one maximally non-Gaussian mode on any catalytic gain, and asymptotic irreversibility of pure-state interconversion in the parity-conserving sector.

Load-bearing premise

The entire theorem rests on the one-mode measurement inequality proved in the supplement: when one occupation number of an arbitrary local state is measured, the sum of the $\ell$ largest Williamson values of the input is at most $1$ plus the averaged sum of the $\ell-1$ largest Williamson values of the branches; if that inequality fails for some non-Gaussian state, Theorem 1 and everything built on it collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every $f$-Williamson deficit $\Phi_f$ with nondecreasing convex $f$ is a strong monotone for fermionic non-Gaussianity, which immediately covers the fermionic antiflatness hierarchy and the occupation-number entropies.
Deterministic pure-state conversion by a Gaussian protocol requires $\mathrm{er}(\Gamma_\psi)\prec_w \mathrm{er}(\Gamma_\phi)$, and the best single-shot success probability obeys $p_{\rm succ}\le\min_{\ell:\tilde{V}_\ell(\phi)>0}\tilde{V}_\ell(\psi)/\tilde{V}_\ell(\phi)$; this bound is optimal among all spectral monotones.
The Gaussian nullity $\nu_G$, the number of Williamson values below one, is nonincreasing under postselection on any nonzero branch of a Gaussian protocol.
Under conserved fermion parity, no parity-definite catalyst can turn a forbidden conversion into an allowed one; a parity-coherent catalyst can, but only up to the universal bound $\mathrm{er}(\Gamma_\psi)\sqcup(0)\prec_w \mathrm{er}(\Gamma_\phi)\sqcup(1)$, i.e. at most one maximally non-Gaussian mode.
Asymptotic Gaussian conversion between definite-parity pure states is irreversible: $R(\omega\to\chi)R(\chi\to\omega)\le D_1(\chi)/\nu_G(\chi)\le1$, and the product can be driven arbitrarily close to zero.

Reading between the lines

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

If the majorization law holds, the most consequential open question is its sharpness: because the Williamson spectrum is not a complete invariant (zero-covariance GHZ states are a witness), a natural conjecture is that a full set of monotones based on higher-order Majorana correlators, possibly from the matchgate commutant, would turn the necessary condition into a sufficient one for deterministic
The one-mode measurement inequality has an operational reading that the paper leaves implicit: each recorded occupation outcome contributes at most one unit of Williamson spectral weight, so tracking the partial sums $S_\ell$ through a measurement sequence provides a direct experimental witness of non-Gaussianity generation from two-point correlators alone.
A concrete testable extension is whether the same weak-majorization statement survives for bosonic Gaussian resources, where the Williamson values need not lie in $[0,1]$; if it does not, the fermionic compactness $r_j\le1$ is the structurally essential ingredient, not the covariance-matrix formalism itself.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear Colleague,

The short version: this is the real thing. The paper proves a Williamson majorization law for fermionic non-Gaussianity under Gaussian protocols, and it uses it to derive conversion bounds, a catalysis no-go theorem, a bound on catalytic gain, and an asymptotic irreversibility result for pure states. If the central proof holds, it puts the theory on a spectral footing the way Nielsen's theorem did for entanglement.

What is genuinely new: prior results gave strong monotonicity for two or three specific measures. This paper gives one inequality for the whole padded Williamson spectrum and gets every convex deficit, including the full hierarchies of antiflatness and occupation entropies, as a corollary. The characterization of f-Williamson monotones (Theorem 2) is clean, and the necessity construction in the SM is a nice elementary family. The catalysis results are the most interesting: Williamson spectra concatenate under parity-definite catalysts, so no catalyst can remove a majorization obstruction—but a parity-coherent catalyst can, and the gain is sharply bounded (Theorem 4). The asymptotic irreversibility at the pure-state level is a strong conclusion, and the bounds are all in terms of two-point correlators.

The soft spot, which the reader flagged, is Lemma S3 in the Supplemental Material—the Gaussian-code inequality that carries the whole proof. The main text gives a sketch; the SM gives the full argument, and I went through the chain carefully. I could not find a gap or a circular step. The rank-counting argument works: rank τ_s ≤ 2^{m−2} forces a |ν_j| = 1 factor in the product normal form, and the branch reflection h_s does satisfy the operator inequality. Still, the lemma is intricate and not machine-verified. Given how much of the paper hangs on it, an independent numerical or formal check is warranted. The stress-test note confirms no counterexample for small N, which is reassuring but not a proof. The authors also note AI assistance in the proof development; the proof was independently verified by them, but this makes a referee's independent check even more appropriate.

The paper is for anyone working on fermionic non-Gaussianity, matchgate magic, or Gaussian resource theories. It is experimentally relevant, since all quantities come from covariance matrices. It deserves a serious referee. The claim is important, and the argument is careful enough to justify referee time, even though the SM is not easy reading.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, and instruct the referee to focus on Lemma S3. That is the one load-bearing place that could break. If it survives, this becomes a standard reference.

Best.

Referee Report

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper develops a majorization theory for fermionic non-Gaussianity based on the Williamson spectrum of the Majorana covariance matrix. The central result, Theorem 1, states that for any pure N-mode fermionic state ψ and any fermionic Gaussian protocol with pure-state outcomes {(p_s, φ_s)}, the unit-padded Williamson vector of ψ is weakly majorized by the ensemble-averaged padded spectrum. The authors derive a comprehensive set of consequences: Theorem 2 characterizes all f-Williamson deficits that are strong monotones (convexity of f), establishes additivity on tensor products with at least one parity-definite factor, faithfulness, and asymptotic continuity; Proposition 1 proves that Gaussian nullity is monotone under postselection; Corollaries 1 and 2 give deterministic and single-shot conversion bounds; Proposition 2 shows the single-shot bound is optimal among spectral monotones; Theorems 3 and 4 rule out catalysis with parity-definite catalysts and bound any catalytic gain by one mode; Corollary 3 and Proposition 3 bound asymptotic conversion rates; Theorem 5 establishes strong irreversibility of asymptotic Gaussian conversion.

Significance. If Theorem 1 holds, the paper supplies the long-missing fermionic analog of Nielsen's majorization theorem for entanglement, organizing the resource theory of fermionic non-Gaussianity around a single spectral order. It unifies the previously known quantifiers (fermionic antiflatness and occupation entropies) as members of one convex family, yields conversion bounds and a catalytic no-go theorem whose structure differs sharply from entanglement theory (spectra concatenate rather than multiply), and establishes asymptotic irreversibility at the pure-state level. The paper is careful and honest: the SM proofs are self-contained, the argument chain from Lemma S3 through Lemma S4 to Theorem 1 is internally consistent in my reading, the necessity constructions in Theorem 2 are explicit, and the main text repeatedly flags where its conditions are necessary but not sufficient (Corollaries 1 and 2). The majorization inequalities and conversion bounds are parameter-free and measurable from two-point Majorana correlators, making them falsifiable on present-day matchgate-capable devices.

minor comments (7)

[Main text, Proposition 2 (proof)] The sentence 'u(ψ) is weakly supermajorized by c u(ϕ)' states the order in the wrong direction relative to the displayed inequality Σ_{j≤ℓ} u_j(ψ) ≥ c Σ_{j≤ℓ} u_j(ϕ) for all ℓ; the correct phrasing is that u(ψ) weakly supermajorizes c u(ϕ) (equivalently, c u(ϕ) is weakly supermajorized by u(ψ)), and the subsequent symmetric-increasing-concave monotonicity argument is correct.
[Main text, Theorem 1, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The statement restricts the partial sums to ℓ = 1, ..., N and writes the ensemble-averaged spectrum as an N-dimensional vector, while the proof sketch and the SM compare spectra after unit-padding to a common length that can exceed N when the protocol appends ancillas; please state the padding convention and the common length explicitly in the theorem statement.
[SM S4, Lemma S3, Eq. (S20)] This lemma is the crux of Theorem 1; I read the proof as internally consistent, including the rank-counting argument in the product normal form and the construction of the branch reflection h_s, but given the intricacy of the operator inequality Q_J ≤ I + Σ_s |s⟩⟨s| ⊗ h_s, I recommend adding a small-scale numerical verification for random local states σ and random two-plane structures J on two to three modes.
[Main text, after the proof sketch of Theorem 1] The qualifier that Theorem 1 'also partially holds for arbitrary mixed states' is unexplained in the main text; please add a pointer stating that the mixed-state version (SM Lemma S6) requires protocols that retain the complete classical record, since unrecorded discards can otherwise drive spectral sums down for mixed states.
[Main text, Eq. (19)] The two displayed bounds are of different character: R ≤ N/ν_G(ϕ) is an infimum over the family f(t) = t^{2k} and is not attained by any admissible f, whereas R ≤ D_1(ψ)/N is attained by the affine generator f(r) = r; a sentence making this distinction explicit would prevent a misreading of 'optimal bound'.
[SM S7D, asymptotic continuity proof] The bound ∥Γ_ρ − Γ_σ∥_op ≤ ε with ε = ∥ρ − σ∥_1 is cited to Ref. [82]; since this bound is used to establish asymptotic continuity for every admissible Φ_f, it would be helpful to state the precise lemma and its constant in the SM rather than citing it only indirectly.
[Main text, Corollary 1, Eq. (8)] The non-convertibility claim (GHZ_6^{⊗2} cannot be converted into GHZ_4^{⊗3} by Gaussian protocols) is imported from Ref. [53] rather than proven here; this is acceptable, but the support chain for the claim that the Williamson spectrum is not a complete invariant should be flagged as depending on the companion paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral law is proved from an explicit operator inequality, and known measures enter only as examples.

full rationale

Score 0. No circularity found. The central theorem (Theorem 1) is not assumed or fitted: it is derived from (i) the variational representation S_l(Gamma)=max_J 1/2 tr(J^T Gamma) (Lemma S1), (ii) a localization lemma reducing an optimal witness to at most two planes meeting the measured mode (Lemma S2), and (iii) a Gaussian-code operator inequality Q_J <= I + sum_s |s><s| tensor h_s (Lemma S3), which is proved in the Supplemental Material by rank counting and the product normal form of Gaussian states. The only imported structural fact is standard Gaussianity-preservation under occupation postselection, cited to Bravyi [23]; it is an external, parameter-free result whose assumptions do not include Theorem 1. The iff characterization in Theorem 2 is also non-circular: sufficiency follows from Theorem 1, while necessity is established by an explicit two-mode family whose measured branches have spectra (1,x) and (1,y) and whose input spectrum is (1, px+qy), forcing convexity of f. Known quantifiers (fermionic antiflatness, occupation entropies) enter only as examples of Phi_f, not as inputs to the proof; self-citations [41,42,50,53] supply definitions and context, not load-bearing inference. The remaining verification concern—the intricacy of Lemma S3, which is not machine-checked, and the disclosed use of a language model in developing the proof—is a correctness/verification issue, not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof of Theorem 1 is self-contained except for standard matrix-analysis results and well-known properties of fermionic Gaussian states. No free parameters are fitted. The paper's own prior results appear only as examples. The main technical step, Lemma S3, is proven in the supplemental material and relies on the Gaussian product normal form. The weakest link is the unverified (by this reviewer) correctness of Lemma S3, but no circularity or fitting is present.

assumptions (6)

standard math Williamson normal form: any real antisymmetric matrix is orthogonally equivalent to a direct sum of 2x2 blocks with entries (0 r_j; -r_j 0).
Used in Eq. (S2) to define the Williamson spectrum; standard result from matrix analysis (Refs [51,52]).
domain assumption A pure fermionic state is Gaussian if and only if all Williamson values equal one (Gamma^2 = -I).
Foundation for the Gaussian ceiling and faithfulness in Theorem 2(iii); standard property cited to Refs [23,26] and Eq. (S3) in the SM.
domain assumption Occupation postselection preserves Gaussianity, and normalized conditional blocks of Gaussian states admit a product normal form.
Used in Lemma S3 (Eqs. S16-S18); standard property of fermionic Gaussian states imported from prior literature.
standard math Weak majorization x ≺_w y is equivalent to sum_j f(x_j) <= sum_j f(y_j) for every nondecreasing convex f.
Used in Lemma S5 and Theorems 3 and 4; well-known characterization from Marshall-Olkin [55].
standard math Cauchy interlacing theorem for eigenvalues of Hermitian principal submatrices.
Used in the proof of Theorem 4 in SM S9 (Eq. S43).
domain assumption Covariance stability under trace distance: ||Gamma_rho - Gamma_sigma||_op <= ||rho - sigma||_1.
Used for asymptotic continuity in SM S7D; cited to Ref [82], imported from prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Williamson majorization theory of fermionic non-Gaussianity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVMDDKW5

@misc{pith2026260810140,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Williamson majorization theory of fermionic non-Gaussianity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVMDDKW5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10140}
}

read the original abstract

Pure-state entanglement rests on a single algebraic backbone: majorization of the Schmidt spectrum governs state conversion under local operations and classical communication, and constrains entanglement monotones. Here we establish a corresponding majorization law for fermionic non-Gaussianity, the resource that elevates free fermions to universal quantum computation. Under any fermionic Gaussian protocol with pure state outcomes, the Williamson spectrum of a pure state's Majorana covariance matrix is weakly majorized by its ensemble average. This spectral law mirrors that of entanglement theory. It turns computable non-Gaussianity quantifiers such as fermionic antiflatness and occupation entropies into strong monotones for fermionic non-Gaussianity, and delivers necessary conditions and converse bounds on state conversion under Gaussian protocols. When fermion parity is conserved, no catalyst can remove a majorization obstruction---unless it carries parity coherence---and asymptotic interconversion is irreversible already for pure states. All relevant quantities are accessible from two-point Majorana correlators, turning the theory developed here into experimentally observable properties of quantum matter, testable on present-day quantum devices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Chitambar and G

E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

2019
[2]

Amico, R

L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 517 (2008)

2008
[3]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

2009
[4]

M. A. Nielsen and G. Vidal, Majorization and the inter- conversion of bipartite states, Quantum Inf. Comput.1, 76 (2001)

work page 2001
[5]

M. A. Nielsen, Conditions for a class of entanglement transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 436 (1999)

1999
[6]

Vidal, Entanglement of pure states for a single copy, Phys

G. Vidal, Entanglement of pure states for a single copy, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1046 (1999)

1999
[7]

Jonathan and M

D. Jonathan and M. B. Plenio, Minimal conditions for local pure-state entanglement manipulation, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1455 (1999)

work page 1999
[8]

Jonathan and M

D. Jonathan and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement-assisted local manipulation of pure quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 3566 (1999)

work page 1999

Show all 82 references

[9]

Klimesh, Inequalities that collectively completely characterize the catalytic majorization relation, arXiv:0709.3680 (2007)

M. Klimesh, Inequalities that collectively completely characterize the catalytic majorization relation, arXiv:0709.3680 (2007)

2007 arXiv
[10]

Turgut, Catalytic transformations for bipartite pure states, J

S. Turgut, Catalytic transformations for bipartite pure states, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40, 12185 (2007)

2007
[11]

C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schu- macher, Concentrating partial entanglement by local op- erations, Phys. Rev. A53, 2046 (1996)

1996
[12]

Popescu and D

S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Thermodynamics and the measure of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A56, R3319 (1997)

1997
[13]

M. J. Donald, M. Horodecki, and O. Rudolph, The uniqueness theorem for entanglement measures, J. Math. Phys.43, 4252 (2002)

2002
[14]

S. Du, Z. Bai, and Y. Guo, Conditions for coherence transformations under incoherent operations, Phys. Rev. A91, 052120 (2015), erratum: Phys. Rev. A95, 029901 (2017)

2015
[15]

Streltsov, G

A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017)

2017
[16]

Horodecki and J

M. Horodecki and J. Oppenheim, Fundamental limita- tions for quantum and nanoscale thermodynamics, Nat. Commun.4, 2059 (2013)

2013
[17]

Brandão, M

F. Brandão, M. Horodecki, N. Ng, J. Oppenheim, and S. Wehner, The second laws of quantum thermodynam- ics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.112, 3275 (2015)

2015
[18]

G. Gour, M. P. Müller, V. Narasimhachar, R. W. Spekkens,and N.YungerHalpern,Theresource theoryof informational nonequilibrium in thermodynamics, Phys. Rep.583, 1 (2015), 1309.6586

2015 arXiv
[19]

L. G. Valiant, Quantum circuits that can be simulated classically in polynomial time, SIAM J. Comput.31, 1229 (2002)

2002
[20]

B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A65, 032325 (2002)

2002
[21]

Knill, Fermionic linear optics and matchgates, 7 arXiv:quant-ph/0108033 (2001), quant-ph/0108033

E. Knill, Fermionic linear optics and matchgates, 7 arXiv:quant-ph/0108033 (2001), quant-ph/0108033

2001 arXiv
[22]

Jozsa and A

R. Jozsa and A. Miyake, Matchgates and classical sim- ulation of quantum circuits, Proc. R. Soc. A464, 3089 (2008)

2008
[23]

Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic lin- ear optics, Quantum Inf

S. Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic lin- ear optics, Quantum Inf. Comput.5, 216 (2005), quant- ph/0404180

2005
[24]

D. P. DiVincenzo and B. M. Terhal, Fermionic linear op- tics revisited, Found. Phys.35, 1967 (2005)

2005
[25]

Peschel and V

I. Peschel and V. Eisler, Reduced density matrices and entanglement entropy in free lattice models, J. Phys. A 42, 504003 (2009)

2009
[26]

Surace and L

J. Surace and L. Tagliacozzo, Fermionic Gaussian states: an introduction to numerical approaches, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes54, 1 (2022), 2111.08343

2022 arXiv
[27]

A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka,Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems(Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2003) original edition: McGraw-Hill, 1971

2003
[28]

J. W. Negele and H. Orland,Quantum many-particle sys- tems, Frontiers in Physics (CRC Press, 2018)

2018
[29]

Altland and B

A. Altland and B. D. Simons,Condensed Matter Field Theory, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2010)

2010
[30]

de Gennes,Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (WestviewPress,Boulder, CO,1999)originaledition: W

P.-G. de Gennes,Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (WestviewPress,Boulder, CO,1999)originaledition: W. A. Benjamin, 1966

1999
[31]

Bardeen, L

J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev.108, 1175 (1957)

1957
[32]

Dias and R

B. Dias and R. König, Classical simulation of non- Gaussian fermionic circuits, Quantum8, 1350 (2024)

2024
[33]

Reardon-Smith, M

O. Reardon-Smith, M. Oszmaniec, and K. Korzekwa, Im- proved simulation of quantum circuits dominated by free fermionic operations, Quantum8, 1549 (2024)

2024
[34]

S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum com- putation, Annals of Physics298, 210–226 (2002)

2002
[35]

Hebenstreit, R

M. Hebenstreit, R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, S. Strelchuk, and M. Yoganathan, All pure fermionic non-Gaussian states are magic states for matchgate computations, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 080503 (2019)

2019
[36]

Hebenstreit, R

M. Hebenstreit, R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, and S. Strelchuk, Computational power of matchgates with supplementary resources, Phys. Rev. A102, 052604 (2020)

2020
[37]

Oszmaniec, N

M. Oszmaniec, N. Dangniam, M. E. Morales, and Z. Zim- borás, Fermion sampling: A robust quantum computa- tional advantage scheme using fermionic linear optics and magic input states, PRX Quantum3, 020328 (2022)

2022
[38]

Gluza, M

M. Gluza, M. Kliesch, J. Eisert, and L. Aolita, Fidelity witnesses for fermionic quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 190501 (2018)

2018
[39]

Bittel, A

L. Bittel, A. A. Mele, J. Eisert, and L. Leone, PAC- learning of free-fermionic states is NP-hard, Quantum9, 1665 (2025)

2025
[40]

A. A. Mele and Y. Herasymenko, Efficient learn- ing of quantum states prepared with few fermionic non-Gaussian gates, PRX Quantum6, 010319 (2025), 2402.18665

2025 arXiv
[41]

Sierant, P

P. Sierant, P. Stornati, and X. Turkeshi, Fermionic magic resources of quantum many-body systems, PRX Quan- tum7, 010302 (2026)

2026
[42]

P. S. Tarabunga, B. Jobst, R. Morral-Yepes, M. Langer, B. Kraus, F. Pollmann, and S.-H. Lin, Computable fermionic non-Gaussianity from the covariance matrix, arXiv:2607.02242 (2026), 2607.02242

2026 arXiv
[43]

Gigena, M

N. Gigena, M. Di Tullio, and R. Rossignoli, One-body en- tanglement as a quantum resource in fermionic systems, Phys. Rev. A102, 042410 (2020)

2020
[44]

T. Haug, X. Turkeshi, and P. Sierant, Practical tests and witnesses of fermionic non-Gaussianity, arXiv:2605.26218 (2026), 2605.26218

2026 arXiv
[45]

J. K. Pachos and C. Vlachou, Quantifying fermionic in- teractions from the violation of Wick’s theorem, Quan- tum6, 840 (2022)

2022
[46]

Lumia, E

L. Lumia, E. Tirrito, R. Fazio, and M. Collura, Measurement-induced transitions beyond gaussianity: A single particle description, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023176 (2024)

2024
[47]

Debertolis, Natural super-orbitals representation of many-body operators (2025), arXiv:2507.10690 [cond- mat.str-el]

M. Debertolis, Natural super-orbitals representation of many-body operators (2025), arXiv:2507.10690 [cond- mat.str-el]

2025 arXiv
[48]

Lyu and K

X. Lyu and K. Bu, Fermionic gaussian testing and non-gaussian measures via convolution (2024), arXiv:2409.08180 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[49]

Coffman, G

L. Coffman, G. Smith, and X. Gao, Measuring non- gaussian magic in fermions: Convolution, entropy, and the violation of wick’s theorem and the matchgate iden- tity (2025), arXiv:2501.06179 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[50]

Leone and L

L. Leone and L. Bittel, Fermionic entropy: an effi- ciently measurable strong monotone for non-Gaussianity, arXiv:2607.29670 (2026), 2607.29670

2026 arXiv
[51]

Williamson, On the algebraic problem concerning the normal forms of linear dynamical systems, Am

J. Williamson, On the algebraic problem concerning the normal forms of linear dynamical systems, Am. J. Math. 58, 141 (1936)

1936
[52]

Bhatia,Matrix Analysis(Springer, New York, 1997)

R. Bhatia,Matrix Analysis(Springer, New York, 1997)

1997
[53]

P. S. Tarabunga, Fermionic non-gaussianity via bell sampling: monotones and efficient quantum algorithms, arXiv:2606.05066 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[54]

See Supplemental Material appended to this manuscript for the complete proofs of all statements
[55]

A. W. Marshall, I. Olkin, and B. C. Arnold,Inequali- ties: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, 2011)

2011
[56]

Beverland, E

M. Beverland, E. Campbell, M. Howard, and V. Kli- uchnikov, Lower bounds on the non-clifford resources for quantumcomputations,QuantumSci.Technol.5,035009 (2020)

2020
[57]

F. A. Mele, S. F. Oliviero, V. Upreti, and U. Chabaud, Symplectic rank of non-gaussian quantum states, PRX Quantum7, 020366 (2026)

2026
[58]

D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Going beyond bell’s theorem (2007), arXiv:0712.0921 [quant- ph]

2007 arXiv
[59]

D. J. Brod and E. F. Galvão, Geometries for universal quantum computation with matchgates, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052307 (2012)

2012
[60]

Vidal and J

G. Vidal and J. I. Cirac, Irreversibility in asymptotic ma- nipulations of entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5803 (2001)

2001
[61]

Sierant, X

P. Sierant, X. Turkeshi, and P. S. Tarabunga, Theory of the matchgate commutant (2026), arXiv:2603.12392

2026
[62]

Braccia, N

P. Braccia, N. L. Diaz, M. Larocca, M. Cerezo, and D. García-Martín, The commutant of fermionic gaussian unitaries (2026), arXiv:2603.19210 [quant-ph]

2026
[63]

Lastres and S

M. Lastres and S. Moudgalya, Geometry of free fermion commutants (2026), arXiv:2604.05031 [quant-ph]

2026 arXiv
[64]

Takagi and Q

R. Takagi and Q. Zhuang, Convex resource theory of non- Gaussianity, Phys. Rev. A97, 062337 (2018)

2018
[65]

Albarelli, M

F. Albarelli, M. G. Genoni, A. Serafini, and A. Fer- raro, Resource theory of quantum non-Gaussianity and 8 Wigner negativity, Phys. Rev. A98, 052350 (2018)

2018
[66]

L. Lami, B. Regula, X. Wang, R. Nichols, A. Winter, and G. Adesso, Gaussian quantum resource theories, Phys. Rev. A98, 022335 (2018)

2018
[67]

E.Tirrito, X.Turkeshi,andP.Sierant,Anticoncentration and nonstabilizerness spreading under ergodic quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 220401 (2025)

2025
[68]

Paviglianiti, L

A. Paviglianiti, L. Lumia, E. Tirrito, A. Silva, M. Col- lura, X. Turkeshi, and G. Lami, Emergence of generic en- tanglement structure in doped matchgate circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 020403 (2026)

2026
[69]

F. B. Trigueros, Z.-H. Sun, X. Turkeshi, P. Sierant, and P. S. Tarabunga, Unitary designs from doped matchgate circuits (2026), arXiv:2606.23800 [quant-ph]

2026 arXiv
[70]

G. C. Santra, J. Mildenberger, E. Ballini, A. Bottarelli, M. M. Wauters, and P. Hauke, Quantum resources in non-abelian lattice gauge theories: Nonstabilizer- ness, multipartite entanglement, and fermionic non- gaussianity (2025), arXiv:2510.07385 [quant-ph]

2025
[71]

P. R. N. Falcão, J. Zakrzewski, and P. Sierant, Fermionic magic resources in disordered quantum spin chains (2026), arXiv:2602.00245 [quant-ph]

2026
[72]

F. Ares, S. Murciano, and P. Calabrese, Non-gaussianity of random quantum states (2026), arXiv:2605.18986 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2026 arXiv
[73]

Aditya, X

S. Aditya, X. Turkeshi, and P. Sierant, Growth and spreading of quantum resources under random circuit dy- namics, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 033062 (2026)

2026
[74]

Aditya, A

S. Aditya, A. Summer, P. Sierant, and X. Turkeshi, Mpemba effects in quantum complexity (2025), arXiv:2509.22176 [quant-ph]

2025
[75]

F. Ares, M. Mazzoni, S. Murciano, D. Szász-Schagrin, P. Calabrese, and L. Piroli, An asymmetry lower bound on fermionic non-gaussianity (2026), arXiv:2603.16762 [quant-ph]

2026
[76]

Matsuda, M

R. Matsuda, M. Hoshino, and Y. Ashida, Quantum com- putational resources and conformal field theory: Unify- ing spins, bosons, and fermions (2026), arXiv:2607.05343 [quant-ph]

2026 arXiv
[77]

Bellomia, A

G. Bellomia, A. Amaricci, and M. Capone, Local clas- sical correlations between physical electrons in hubbard systems, Phys. Rev. B113, 155158 (2026)

2026
[78]

Zavatti, G

E. Zavatti, G. Bellomia, and M. Capone, Quantum magic of strongly correlated fermions−the hubbard dimer (2026), arXiv:2605.18494 [quant-ph]

2026 arXiv
[79]

Świętek, M

R. Świętek, M. Kliczkowski, L. Vidmar, and M. Rigol, One-body purity, non-gaussianity, and entanglement in interacting integrable models (2026), arXiv:2607.01326 [quant-ph]

2026 arXiv
[80]

D. S. Bhakuni, G. Cataldi, J. C. Halimeh, and E. Tirrito, Quantum resources in disorder-free localization dynamics of gauge theories (2026), arXiv:2607.28730 [quant-ph]

2026 arXiv
[81]

S. Bera, H. Schomerus, F. Heidrich-Meisner, and J. H. Bardarson, Many-body localization characterized from a one-particle perspective, Physical Review Letters115, 046603 (2015)

2015
[82]

Bittel, A

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 Quantum6, 030341 (2025). 9 Supplemental Material for Williamson majorization theory of fermionic non-Gaussianity Xhek Turkeshi, Pio...

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Chitambar and G

E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

2019

[2] [2]

Amico, R

L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 517 (2008)

2008

[3] [3]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

2009

[4] [4]

M. A. Nielsen and G. Vidal, Majorization and the inter- conversion of bipartite states, Quantum Inf. Comput.1, 76 (2001)

work page 2001

[5] [5]

M. A. Nielsen, Conditions for a class of entanglement transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 436 (1999)

1999

[6] [6]

Vidal, Entanglement of pure states for a single copy, Phys

G. Vidal, Entanglement of pure states for a single copy, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1046 (1999)

1999

[7] [7]

Jonathan and M

D. Jonathan and M. B. Plenio, Minimal conditions for local pure-state entanglement manipulation, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1455 (1999)

work page 1999

[8] [8]

Jonathan and M

D. Jonathan and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement-assisted local manipulation of pure quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 3566 (1999)

work page 1999