Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper presents a polynomial-time exact method for computing entanglement between two degrees of freedom in permutation-symmetric many-body states, yielding entropy linear in the particle number.

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

2026-08-02 19:58 UTC pith:MDFC2SJY

load-bearing objection Genuinely new polynomial-scaling method for algebraic entanglement entropy, with a surprising linear-in-N entropy law; the core representation theory checks out, but the key trace identity Eq. (20) is asserted more than proved and the paper ships no code. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2603.00464 v3 pith:MDFC2SJY submitted 2026-02-28 quant-ph

Efficient Polynomial-Scaled Determination of Algebraic Entanglement Entropy Between Collective Degrees of Freedom

John Drew Wilson , Jarrod T. Reilly , Murray J. Holland This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081R05 PACS 03.67.Mn03.65.Ud
keywords algebraic entanglement entropycollective degrees of freedompermutation symmetrySU(4) representation theorySU(2) irreducible representationsirrep multiplicitypolynomial-scaling simulationspin-momentum entanglement
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 aims to show that for an ensemble of particles where every particle carries two two-level degrees of freedom — such as an internal electronic state and a momentum state — and where the particles remain symmetric under exchange, the entanglement entropy between those two degrees of freedom can be computed exactly in polynomial time. The method reorganizes the permutation-symmetric state space, which has only O(N^3) states, into layers labeled by ℓ, each layer being an irreducible representation of the two SU(2) symmetry groups. The number of copies of each layer, d^ℓ_N, reproduces the exponentially large eigenvalue spectrum of the reduced density matrix. The central consequence is that this algebraic entanglement entropy can grow linearly with the number of particles, reaching N ln 2 for a maximally entangled product state, even though the compressed Hilbert space is only polynomial in size. If correct, exact simulations with many particles can track intraparticle and interparticle entanglement without ever touching the exponential single-particle basis.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that after tracing out one degree of freedom from a permutation-symmetric state of particles with two two-level degrees of freedom, the reduced density matrix is block-diagonal in a quantum number ℓ labeling irreducible representations of SU(2), and each block carries a known multiplicity d^ℓ_N. The algebraic entanglement entropy is then given by a sum over the eigenvalues of these small blocks, weighted by their multiplicities, in Eq. (29). This reproduces the exact entropy of the full reduced density matrix, including effects that would naively require an exponentially large Hilbert space.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ℓ-layer pyramid: the permutation-symmetric (bosonic) subspace of SU(4) is decomposed into layers labeled by ℓ, where each layer is a (2ℓ+1)-by-(2ℓ+1) grid of states |ℓ, m_j, m_k⟩ with equal Casimir eigenvalues for the two SU(2) subgroups. The multiplicity formula d^ℓ_N counts the number of copies of each SU(2) irrep that appear in the reduced density matrix, and Eq. (20) asserts that tracing out one degree of freedom maps each basis state to a flat mixture over these d^ℓ_N orthogonal copies. This multiplicity, combined with a block-by-block diagonalization of each layer, is what allows entropy linear in N to emerge from a polynomial-sized state space.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation stands or falls on Eq. (20): that tracing out one degree of freedom turns each layer basis state into a perfectly flat mixture over d^ℓ_N identical copies, with no leftover coherences between copies or between layers — a property verified explicitly only for N=3 and indirectly for N=4.

What would settle it

Simulate the BOAT model for N=5 in the full 4^N single-particle basis, compute the reduced density matrix by direct partial trace and diagonalization, and compare its von Neumann entropy with Eq. (29); any deviation beyond numerical precision falsifies the formula. More directly, construct the |ℓ=1/2, m_j=1/2, m_k=1/2⟩ state for N=5 in the single-particle basis and check whether the traced-out density matrix is exactly (1/d^1/2_5) times a sum over orthogonal copies with zero cross-copy and zero cross-ℓ coherences.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Exact algebraic entanglement entropy becomes computable for hundreds of particles, e.g., N=20 in the paper, where the full 4^N dynamics would be infeasible; the largest block that must be diagonalized scales only as O(N^2).
  • For pure states the entropy of the two reduced density matrices is equal, so the method preserves the monogamy relation; for mixed states, the paper uses coherent information to certify genuine algebraic entanglement between degrees of freedom, including in dissipative systems.
  • The method explains how an entropy that grows as N ln 2 can arise in a state space of polynomial dimension: the entropy is carried by the multiplicity of irreps rather than by populating many collective states.
  • The approach extends to SU(m)⊗SU(n) subsystems and to multiple degrees of freedom by tracing out subsystems one by one, pointing to a general combinatorial structure for algebraic entanglement entropy.
  • In open systems such as the leaky BOAT model, a strong symmetry fixes the steady-state entropy of one degree of freedom, giving predictable steady-state entanglement properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Looking beyond the paper: states with small ℓ, i.e., many singlet pairs within each degree of freedom, carry a large amount of built-in algebraic entanglement even when the collective state is simple; this suggests a general link between Young-tableau structure and entanglement resources that could be probed experimentally.
  • Editorial inference: the same multiplicity logic may apply to d-level degrees of freedom, where the analogous SU(d) irrep multiplicities should determine whether algebraic entanglement entropy continues to scale linearly with N or saturates, yielding testable scaling laws for hybrid discrete-continuous entanglement.
  • Editorial inference: because the entropy formula depends on the flat-mixture structure of Eq. (20), a representation-theoretic proof of that identity for all N and ℓ would make the method fully rigorous; such a proof would also clarify when partial permutation symmetry, such as superspin structures, admits an analogous polynomial algorithm.

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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an algorithm for computing the algebraic entanglement entropy between two collective degrees of freedom (both two-level) in permutationally symmetric ensembles of $N$ four-level particles. Using the subgroup structure $\mathrm{SU}(2)\otimes\mathrm{SU}(2)\subset\mathrm{SU}(4)$, the authors decompose the $O(N^3)$-dimensional symmetric subspace into layers labeled by the total spin $\ell$, with each layer giving a $(2\ell+1)\times(2\ell+1)$ block in the reduced density matrix. The key structural claim, Eq. (20), is that tracing out one degree of freedom from an $\ell$-layer basis state produces a flat mixture over the $d^\ell_N$ copies of the $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ irrep; this multiplicity is then used in Eq. (29) to reproduce the exponentially large $2^N$ eigenvalue spectrum of the reduced density matrix in polynomial time. The paper validates the algorithm against the analytic solution of Sec. V.A and against a full $4^N$ simulation at $N=4$, then applies it to the BOAT model, a leaky-cavity extension, and a spin-momentum superradiance model for $N=20$ and larger.

Significance. If the central identity is established, the result is significant: it provides a polynomial-complexity method for an object that naively requires diagonalizing a $2^N$-dimensional reduced density matrix, for a physically natural class of symmetric states. The linear-in-$N$ algebraic entanglement entropy coexisting with a polynomial-sized compressed Hilbert space is a striking and non-obvious consequence of irrep multiplicities. The paper's strengths include concrete pseudocode for pure and mixed states, validation against an analytic solution and a brute-force $4^N$ simulation, and applications to experimentally relevant open quantum systems. The presentation is generally clear and the numerical benchmarks are strong evidence for the claimed behavior.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. III.C, Eq. (20)] Equation (20) is the load-bearing structural identity of the paper: it states that tracing out the $K$ degree of freedom from an $\ell$-layer basis state yields a flat mixture over the $d^\ell_N$ copies of the $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ irrep, with no cross-copy or cross-$\ell$ coherences. This is what makes $\rho_J$ block diagonal in $\ell$ and justifies the multiplicity-weighted entropy formula (29). The manuscript asserts this result via the Young-tableaux/multiplicity argument in Sec. III.B--C and verifies it explicitly only for $N=3$ (Eq. (18)) and indirectly at $N=4$ (Fig. 4(a)). The $N=20$ results in Fig. 4(b) and in Secs. V.C--D inherit this identity, so the general-$N$ statement should be proven in print. A compact proof follows from Schur--Weyl duality: decomposing $(\mathbb{C}^2)^{\otimes N} = \bigoplus_\ell V_\ell \otimes \mathbb{C}^{d^\ell_N}$, the symmetric subspace is spanned by sta
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (29)] The summation index in Eq. (29) runs over $i=0,\ldots,2\ell+1$, which gives $2\ell+2$ terms for a $(2\ell+1)\times(2\ell+1)$ matrix. Please change the range to $i=1,\ldots,2\ell+1$ or use $0,\ldots,2\ell$ consistently with the matrix dimension.
  2. [Sec. VI] The statement that 'the largest block scales as $O(N^2)$' is not literally true for the matrix $M^{(\ell)}$ defined in Eq. (28), which is $(2\ell+1)\times(2\ell+1)$ and hence $O(N)$. The $O(N^2)$ scaling applies to the coefficient tensor of the layer. Please clarify to avoid a misleading complexity claim.
  3. [Sec. III] Typo: 'pertmutationally symmetric particles' should be 'permutationally symmetric particles'.
  4. [References] Reference [94] is cited with incomplete publication data ('Phys. Rev. Lett., (2026)'). Please update if a volume/article number is available. The companion preprint Ref. [67] should also be updated if it has been accepted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation is benchmarked against analytic and full-Hilbert-space simulations; the representation-theoretic inputs are not defined in terms of the entropy output.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that Eq. (29) computes the von Neumann entropy of the reduced state from the block decomposition Eq. (27). The key structural input is Eq. (20), which asserts that tracing one degree of freedom from a permutation-symmetric basis state yields a flat mixture over d^ℓ_N copies. This is not a restatement of the entropy formula or a fitted target: d^ℓ_N is an independent combinatorial multiplicity (Eq. (19), cited to Mandel and Wolf), and the flat mixture is a symmetry statement about the basis states, not a definition of S_E. The algorithm is validated against two external references: the analytic product-state solution of Sec. V.A (Eq. (36), derived from the separable structure of the Hamiltonian without the group machinery) and the full 4^N single-particle-basis simulation for N=4 in Sec. V.B (Fig. 4a), both showing exact agreement. Consequently the polynomial-scaling claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The main rigor concern is that the general-N validity of Eq. (20) is asserted via a Young-tableaux/multiplicity argument rather than fully derived in print, with explicit verification only for N=3 (Eq. (18)) and indirect verification at N=4; this is an omitted-proof/correctness risk, not circularity. Self-citations (Refs. [73], [25], [57], [67]) supply prior basis constructions and model context, but the central derivation does not reduce to them, and the load-bearing benchmarks are independent of these citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim (the entropy algorithm) has no fitted parameters: no number in Eqs. (20), (27)-(29) is tuned to data or chosen to make the derivation close — the multiplicities d^ℓ_N are computed from the standard formula (19), and the example rates (Ω, Δ, χ, Γ_c, W) are physical model inputs chosen for the demonstration plots (Γ_c/χ = 0.05, 0.25, 0.5; W/Γ_c = 0.5, 2), not fitted. The six axioms are the pre-existing commitments the result rests on: the symmetry domain (permutation symmetry; two-level-per-DOF), the momentum truncation, the Schur-Weyl decomposition, the partial-trace structure, and the Lindblad treatment of the open examples. No invented physical entities are introduced; the copy index i in Eq. (20) is the standard S_N multiplicity-space label from Schur-Weyl duality, with independent mathematical grounding.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The many-body state remains in the permutationally symmetric (bosonic) subspace of SU(4)
    Sec. III.B: 'we assume that the atoms remain in a permutationally symmetric subspace'. This defines the method's applicability domain; collective cavity couplings preserve it, inhomogeneous couplings would not.
  • domain assumption Each particle has exactly two two-level degrees of freedom, forming SU(2)_J ⊗ SU(2)_K < SU(4)
    Sec. III: 'constituent degrees of freedom of each particle are themselves two-level systems, such that they admit an SU(2)⊗SU(2)<SU(4) structure'. Generalization to SU(m)⊗SU(n) is claimed in Sec. VI without derivation.
  • domain assumption The momentum degree of freedom is truncated to two momentum states |±ℏk/2⟩
    Sec. II: 'assuming the atoms began with its population completely in these states'. A physical modeling truncation that neglects population leakage to higher momentum states; the paper flags the idealization.
  • standard math Schur-Weyl/Young-tableaux decomposition of the symmetric SU(4) space into matched SU(2) irreps with multiplicity d^ℓ_N
    Sec. III.B-C and Eq. (19): the ℓ_J = ℓ_K matching ('the anti-symmetry of particle exchange in each degree of freedom has to be exactly the same') is argued from the two-particle singlet/triplet case; the multiplicity formula N!(2ℓ+1)/[(N/2+ℓ+1)!(N/2−ℓ)!] is standard and attributed to Ref. [84].
  • standard math Partial-trace structure of Eq. (20): tracing out one degree of freedom from |ℓ,m_j,m_k⟩ yields a flat mixture over d^ℓ_N orthogonal copies with no cross-copy or cross-ℓ coherences
    Sec. III.C: presented as the consequence of the multiplicity structure ('we can now use the d^ℓ_N-fold multiplicity... to establish the following result') with a sketch-level justification; the paper's own N=3 example (Eq. (18)) and the N=4 full-space benchmark (Fig. 4a) corroborate it. This is the load-bearing structural claim of the algorithm.
  • domain assumption Open-system dynamics follow a Born-Markov Lindblad master equation
    Sec. V.C: 'time dynamics are dictated by the Born-Markov master equation' (Eq. (39)); the steady-state and coherent-information conclusions of Secs. V.C-V.D inherit this standard approximation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23982 in / 52164 out tokens · 482285 ms · 2026-08-02T19:58:13.188187+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Polynomial-Scaled Determination of Algebraic Entanglement Entropy Between Collective Degrees of Freedom." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MDFC2SJY

@misc{pith2026260300464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Polynomial-Scaled Determination of Algebraic Entanglement Entropy Between Collective Degrees of Freedom},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MDFC2SJY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.00464}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this work, we explore physical systems which support not only multipartite interparticle entanglement, but also intraparticle entanglement between different degrees of freedom of the constituent particles and entanglement between different degrees of freedom of different particles, i.e., algebraic entanglement. We derive a simple method for calculating the algebraic entanglement entropy between two of the particles' degrees of freedom from collective states of the whole ensemble. Our procedure makes use of underlying symmetries in these systems, in particular permutation symmetry of the particle indices, and shows a connection between the algebraic entanglement entropy in these systems and the irreducible representations of Lie groups which describe the particles' degrees of freedom. Namely, we use the direct sum over irreducible representations to diagonalize the reduced density matrices in a block-by-block manner, then utilize the multiplicity of these irreducible representations to reproduce the results from an exponentially-scaled Hilbert space in only polynomial complexity. We use this to explore a variety of systems where the constituent particles support two degrees of freedom each with two levels, such as atoms with two electronic states and two momentum states. Notably, these systems may be exactly simulated in a polynomial-scaled Hilbert space, yet they support an algebraic entanglement entropy that grows linearly with the particle number which typically requires an exponentially-scaled Hilbert space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.00464 by Jarrod T. Reilly, John Drew Wilson, Murray J. Holland.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) A cartoon of the pyramid structure of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) The state pyramid for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The algebraic entanglement entropy for the collective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The algebraic entanglement entropy for the collective inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Results for the leaky BOAT model Eq. (39). We display the algebraic entanglement entropy for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The dynamics of the spin-momentum superradiance system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The steady-state entropies of the spin-momentum superra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Nonclassical Many-Body Superradiant States with Interparticle and Spin-Momentum Entanglement

    quant-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    A cross-cavity bad-cavity setup reaches steady-state superradiance through collective dissipation alone, yielding bunched light, spin-momentum entanglement, and heralded particle-particle entanglement with quantum-enh...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. T. Reilly, J. D. Wilson, S. B. J ¨ager, C. Wilson, and M. J. Holland, Optimal generators for quantum sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 150802 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Tseet al., Quantum-enhanced advanced ligo detectors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys

    M. Tseet al., Quantum-enhanced advanced ligo detectors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 231107 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Pedrozo-Pe ˜nafiel, S

    E. Pedrozo-Pe ˜nafiel, S. Colombo, C. Shu, A. F. Adiyatullin, Z. Li, E. Mendez, B. Braverman, A. Kawasaki, D. Akamatsu, Y. Xiao, and V. Vuleti `c, Entanglement on an optical atomic- clock transition, Nature588, 414–418 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    J. M. Robinson, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, C. J. Kennedy, T. Both- well, D. Kedar, J. K. Thompson, and J. Ye, Direct comparison of two spin-squeezed optical clock ensembles at the10 −21 level, Nature Physics20, 208 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    K. A. Gilmore, M. Affolter, R. J. Lewis-Swan, D. Barber- ena, E. Jordan, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Quantum- enhanced sensing of displacements and electric fields with two- dimensional trapped-ion crystals, Science373, 673 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    J. T. Reilly, S. B. J ¨ager, J. D. Wilson, J. Cooper, S. Eggert, and M. J. Holland, Speeding up squeezing with a periodically driven dicke model, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033090 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    V. M. Kendon and W. J. Munro, Entanglement and its role in shor’s algorithm, Quantum Info. Comput.6, 630–640 (2006)

    2006

  9. [9]

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via one- and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2881 (1992)

    1992

  10. [10]

    Schaetz, M

    T. Schaetz, M. D. Barrett, D. Leibfried, J. Chiaverini, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland, Quantum dense coding with atomic qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 040505 (2004)

    2004

  11. [11]

    Yin, Y.-H

    J. Yin, Y.-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, M. Yang, Y. Cao, L. Zhang, J.- G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, S.-L. Li, R. Shu, Y.-M. Huang, L. Deng, L. Li, Q. Zhang, N.-L. Liu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, X.-B. Wang, F. Xu, J.-Y. Wang, C.-Z. Peng, A. K. Ekert, and J.-W. Pan, Entanglement-based secure quantum cryptography over 1,120 kilometres, Nature582, 501 (2020)

    2020

  12. [13]

    Garc ´ıa-P´erez, M

    G. Garc ´ıa-P´erez, M. A. C. Rossi, and S. Maniscalco, Ibm q experience as a versatile experimental testbed for simulating open quantum systems, npj Quantum Information6, 1 (2020)

    2020

  13. [14]

    Kokail, R

    C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, A. Elben, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, Entanglement hamiltonian tomography in quantum simulation, Nature Physics17, 936 (2021)

    2021

  14. [15]

    Sundar, D

    B. Sundar, D. Barberena, A. P. n. Orioli, A. Chu, J. K. Thomp- son, A. M. Rey, and R. J. Lewis-Swan, Bosonic pair production and squeezing for optical phase measurements in long-lived dipoles coupled to a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 113202 (2023)

    2023

  15. [16]

    M. K. Joshi, C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, F. Kranzl, T. V. Zache, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Exploring large-scale entan- glement in quantum simulation, Nature624, 539 (2023)

    2023

  16. [17]

    Euler and M

    N. Euler and M. G ¨arttner, Detecting high-dimensional entan- glement in cold-atom quantum simulators, PRX Quantum4, 040338 (2023)

    2023

  17. [18]

    Horodecki, P

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

    2009

  18. [19]

    E. M. Gauger, E. Rieper, J. J. L. Morton, S. C. Benjamin, and V. Vedral, Sustained quantum coherence and entanglement in the avian compass, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 040503 (2011)

    2011

  19. [20]

    M. G. Genoni, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Optical phase estimation in the presence of phase diffusion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 153603 (2011)

    2011

  20. [21]

    T. Ono, R. Okamoto, and S. Takeuchi, An entanglement- enhanced microscope, Nature Communications4, 2426 (2013)

    2013

  21. [22]

    Brunner, M

    N. Brunner, M. Huber, N. Linden, S. Popescu, R. Silva, and P. Skrzypczyk, Entanglement enhances cooling in microscopic quantum refrigerators, Phys. Rev. E89, 032115 (2014)

    2014

  22. [23]

    Apte, Quantum biology: Harnessing nano-technology’s last frontier with modified excipients and food ingredients, Journal of Excipients and Food Chemicals5(2016)

    S. Apte, Quantum biology: Harnessing nano-technology’s last frontier with modified excipients and food ingredients, Journal of Excipients and Food Chemicals5(2016)

    2016

  23. [24]

    Ecker, F

    S. Ecker, F. Bouchard, L. Bulla, F. Brandt, O. Kohout, F. Stein- lechner, R. Fickler, M. Malik, Y. Guryanova, R. Ursin, and M. Huber, Overcoming noise in entanglement distribution, Phys. Rev. X9, 041042 (2019)

    2019

  24. [25]

    Shankar, J

    A. Shankar, J. T. Reilly, S. B. J ¨ager, and M. J. Holland, Subradiant-to-subradiant phase transition in the bad cavity laser, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 073603 (2021)

    2021

  25. [26]

    Liu, Y.-Z

    W.-Z. Liu, Y.-Z. Zhang, Y.-Z. Zhen, M.-H. Li, Y. Liu, J. Fan, F. Xu, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Toward a photonic demonstra- tion of device-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 050502 (2022)

    2022

  26. [27]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr ´epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)

    1993

  27. [28]

    Li, C.-F

    W.-L. Li, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Probabilistic teleportation and entanglement matching, Phys. Rev. A61, 034301 (2000)

    2000

  28. [29]

    X. Chen, Y. Shen, and F.-L. Zhang, Perfect teleportation with a partially entangled quantum channel, Phys. Rev. A106, 032430 (2022)

    2022

  29. [30]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wiec- zorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezz´e, and A. Smerzi, Fisher informa- tion and multiparticle entanglement, Phys. Rev. A85, 022321 (2012)

    2012

  30. [31]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher infor- mation matrix and multiparameter estimation, Journal of Physics 14 A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  31. [32]

    D. T. Smithey, M. Beck, M. G. Raymer, and A. Faridani, Mea- surement of the wigner distribution and the density matrix of a light mode using optical homodyne tomography: Application to squeezed states and the vacuum, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1244 (1993)

    1993

  32. [33]

    D’ Auria, S

    V. D’ Auria, S. Fornaro, A. Porzio, S. Solimeno, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Full characterization of gaussian bipartite entangled states by a single homodyne detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 020502 (2009)

    2009

  33. [34]

    J. Bae, B. C. Hiesmayr, and D. McNulty, Linking entanglement detection and state tomography via quantum 2-designs, New Journal of Physics21, 013012 (2019)

    2019

  34. [35]

    Ekert and P

    A. Ekert and P. L. Knight, Entangled quantum systems and the schmidt decomposition, American Journal of Physics63, 415 (1995)

    1995

  35. [36]

    Nielsen and I

    M. Nielsen and I. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  36. [37]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  37. [38]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory, Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and exper- iment2004, P06002 (2004)

    2004

  38. [39]

    Kitaev and J

    A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Topological entanglement entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 110404 (2006)

    2006

  39. [40]

    Masanes, All bipartite entangled states are useful for infor- mation processing, Phys

    L. Masanes, All bipartite entangled states are useful for infor- mation processing, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 150501 (2006)

    2006

  40. [41]

    R. F. Werner, Quantum states with einstein-podolsky-rosen cor- relations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A40, 4277 (1989)

    1989

  41. [42]

    Girolami and G

    D. Girolami and G. Adesso, Observable measure of bipartite quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 150403 (2012)

    2012

  42. [43]

    Coecke and A

    B. Coecke and A. Kissinger, The compositional structure of mul- tipartite quantum entanglement, inInternational Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming(Springer, 2010) pp. 297–308

    2010

  43. [44]

    T ´oth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrol- ogy, Phys

    G. T ´oth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrol- ogy, Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

  44. [45]

    Z. Ren, W. Li, A. Smerzi, and M. Gessner, Metrological detec- tion of multipartite entanglement from young diagrams, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 080502 (2021)

    2021

  45. [46]

    A. P. Balachandran, T. R. Govindarajan, A. R. de Queiroz, and A. F. Reyes-Lega, Algebraic approach to entanglement and en- tropy, Phys. Rev. A88, 022301 (2013)

    2013

  46. [47]

    A. F. Reyes-Lega, Entanglement entropy in quantum mechanics: An algebraic approach, inParticles, Fields and Topology(World Scientific Publishing Co., 2023) Chap. Chapter 18, pp. 191–199

    2023

  47. [48]

    Pontello, Aspects of entanglement entropy in algebraic quan- tum field theory, arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.13975 (2020)

    D. Pontello, Aspects of entanglement entropy in algebraic quan- tum field theory, arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.13975 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  48. [49]

    Y. Li, M. Gessner, W. Li, and A. Smerzi, Hyper- and hybrid nonlocality, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 050404 (2018)

    2018

  49. [50]

    van Loock, W

    P. van Loock, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. P. Spiller, T. D. Ladd, S. L. Braunstein, and G. J. Milburn, Hybrid quantum computation in quantum optics, Phys. Rev. A78, 022303 (2008)

    2008

  50. [51]

    Takeda, M

    S. Takeda, M. Fuwa, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Entan- glement swapping between discrete and continuous variables, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 100501 (2015)

    2015

  51. [52]

    U. L. Andersen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Hybrid discrete- and continuous-variable quantum information, Nature Physics11, 713 (2015)

    2015

  52. [53]

    A. E. Ulanov, D. Sychev, A. A. Pushkina, I. A. Fedorov, and A. I. Lvovsky, Quantum teleportation between discrete and continu- ous encodings of an optical qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 160501 (2017)

    2017

  53. [54]

    Guccione, T

    G. Guccione, T. Darras, H. L. Jeannic, V. B. Verma, S. W. Nam, A. Cavaill`es, and J. Laurat, Connecting heterogeneous quantum networks by hybrid entanglement swapping, Science Advances 6, eaba4508 (2020)

    2020

  54. [55]

    Shukla, P

    C. Shukla, P. Malpani, and K. Thapliyal, Hierarchical quan- tum network using hybrid entanglement, Quantum Information Processing20, 121 (2021)

    2021

  55. [56]

    F. Xu, M. Wang, C. Qiao, S. Li, H. Wang, and X. Su, Hy- brid entanglement carrying orbital angular momentum, Science Bulletin70, 876 (2025)

    2025

  56. [57]

    J. D. Wilson, S. B. J¨ager, J. T. Reilly, A. Shankar, M. L. Chiofalo, and M. J. Holland, Beyond one-axis twisting: Simultaneous spin-momentum squeezing, Phys. Rev. A106, 043711 (2022)

    2022

  57. [58]

    R. M. Gingrich and C. Adami, Quantum entanglement of mov- ing bodies, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 270402 (2002)

    2002

  58. [59]

    Jeske, T

    F. Jeske, T. St ¨oferle, and M. DeKieviet, Massive spin- momentum entanglement measured in an atomic beam spin echo experiment, The European Physical Journal D63, 25 (2011)

    2011

  59. [60]

    M. T. Manzoni, L. Mathey, and D. E. Chang, Designing exotic many-body states of atomic spin and motion in photonic crystals, Nature Communications8, 14696 (2017)

    2017

  60. [61]

    T. Stav, A. Faerman, E. Maguid, D. Oren, V. Kleiner, E. Hasman, and M. Segev, Quantum entanglement of the spin and orbital angular momentum of photons using metamaterials, Science 361, 1101 (2018)

    2018

  61. [62]

    S. S. Kale, Y. Ding, Y. P. Chen, B. Friedrich, and S. Kais, Spin- momentum entanglement in a bose–einstein condensate, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.22, 25669 (2020)

    2020

  62. [63]

    G. P. Greve, C. Luo, B. Wu, and J. K. Thompson, Entanglement- enhanced matter-wave interferometry in a high-finesse cavity, Nature610, 472 (2022)

    2022

  63. [64]

    Finger, R

    F. Finger, R. Rosa-Medina, N. Reiter, P. Christodoulou, T. Don- ner, and T. Esslinger, Spin- and momentum-correlated atom pairs mediated by photon exchange and seeded by vacuum fluc- tuations, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 093402 (2024)

    2024

  64. [65]

    Chelpanova, K

    O. Chelpanova, K. Seetharam, R. Rosa-Medina, N. Reiter, F. Finger, T. Donner, and J. Marino, Dynamics of spin- momentum entanglement from superradiant phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033193 (2024)

    2024

  65. [66]

    Barkhausen, L

    F. Barkhausen, L. Ares, S. Schumacher, and J. Sperling, Entan- glement between dependent degrees of freedom: Quasiparticle correlations, Phys. Rev. A111, 032404 (2025)

    2025

  66. [67]

    J. T. Reilly, G. W. Harmon, J. D. Wilson, M. J. Holland, and S. B. J ¨ager, Nonclassical many-body superradiant states with interparticle and spin-momentum entanglement, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.00463 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [68]

    A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quantum thermalization through entanglement in an isolated many-body system, Science353, 794 (2016)

    2016

  68. [69]

    Metcalf, Entropy exchange in laser cooling, Phys

    H. Metcalf, Entropy exchange in laser cooling, Phys. Rev. A77, 061401 (2008)

    2008

  69. [70]

    Corder, B

    C. Corder, B. Arnold, and H. Metcalf, Laser cooling without spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 043002 (2015)

    2015

  70. [71]

    J. P. Bartolotta, S. B. J ¨ager, J. T. Reilly, M. A. Norcia, J. K. Thompson, G. Smith, and M. J. Holland, Entropy transfer from a quantum particle to a classical coherent light field, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013218 (2022)

    2022

  71. [72]

    J. T. Reilly,Entropy Removal and Coherence with Lasers, Bach- elor’s thesis, University of Colorado Boulder (2020)

    2020

  72. [73]

    M. Xu, D. A. Tieri, and M. J. Holland, Simulating open quantum systems by applying su(4) to quantum master equations, Phys. Rev. A87, 062101 (2013). 15

    2013

  73. [74]

    Pi ˜neiro Orioli, J

    A. Pi ˜neiro Orioli, J. K. Thompson, and A. M. Rey, Emergent dark states from superradiant dynamics in multilevel atoms in a cavity, Phys. Rev. X12, 011054 (2022)

    2022

  74. [75]

    R. E. F. Silva and J. Feist, Permutational symmetry for identical multilevel systems: A second-quantized approach, Phys. Rev. A 105, 043704 (2022)

    2022

  75. [76]

    D. A. Steck, Quantum and atom optics (2007)

    2007

  76. [77]

    Li and S

    X.-H. Li and S. Ghose, Self-assisted complete maximally hy- perentangled state analysis via the cross-kerr nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. A93, 022302 (2016)

    2016

  77. [78]

    Zeng, Complete analysis of the maximally hyperentangled state via the weak cross-kerr nonlinearity, J

    Z. Zeng, Complete analysis of the maximally hyperentangled state via the weak cross-kerr nonlinearity, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 39, 2272 (2022)

    2022

  78. [79]

    Georgi,Lie Algebras In Particle Physics: from Isospin To Unified Theories, Frontiers in Physics (Avalon Publishing, 1999)

    H. Georgi,Lie Algebras In Particle Physics: from Isospin To Unified Theories, Frontiers in Physics (Avalon Publishing, 1999)

    1999

  79. [80]

    Mathur, I

    M. Mathur, I. Raychowdhury, and R. Anishetty, Su(n) irre- ducible schwinger bosons, Journal of Mathematical Physics51, 093504 (2010)

    2010

  80. [81]

    Pfeifer,The Lie Algebras su(N), An Introduction(Birkh¨auser, 2003)

    W. Pfeifer,The Lie Algebras su(N), An Introduction(Birkh¨auser, 2003)

    2003

Showing first 80 references.