arxiv: 2604.18960 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Entanglement dynamics of delocalized interacting particles

M. F. V. Oliveira , F. A. B. F. de Moura , M. L. Lyra , G. M. A. Almeida

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords entanglement dynamicsexchange statisticsrelative phasepuritycoherenceinteraction strengthbosonic statisticsfermionic statistics

0 comments

The pith

A tunable relative phase on distinguishable particles reveals how exchange statistics reshape entanglement dynamics under interactions.

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

This paper proposes using two distinguishable particles with a controlled relative phase θ in their initial state to simulate the effects of bosonic or fermionic statistics. By varying θ from 0 to π, the approach continuously tunes between these limits while tracking how entanglement, measured via purity and coherence, evolves under particle interactions of strength U. The results indicate distinct dynamical regimes: strong interactions suppress coherence for bound initial states, while neighboring sites show linear coherence growth, and symmetric conditions yield purity-enhancing bursts. Understanding this helps separate the role of statistics from other correlations in quantum systems of identical particles.

Core claim

The paper establishes that an artificially imposed relative phase θ in the initial state of two distinguishable particles enables continuous tuning from bosonic (θ = 0) to fermionic (θ = π) statistics. Monitoring the purity and coherence reveals that for bound-state initial conditions, strong interactions U suppress coherence development by avoiding the scattering band and reduce purity to its minimum. For initial conditions on neighboring sites, coherence grows linearly with time. Non-symmetric inputs exhibit a sharp purity reduction at intermediate U due to competition between bound and unbound states, whereas symmetric inputs feature transient coherence bursts that enhance purity. Overall

What carries the argument

The engineered relative phase θ in the two-particle initial state, which artificially imposes exchange symmetry on otherwise distinguishable particles.

Load-bearing premise

The relative phase θ imposed on distinguishable particles accurately captures the entanglement properties of truly identical bosons or fermions without additional dynamical artifacts from their distinguishability.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of the purity time evolution for θ=0 in the distinguishable model against an actual simulation or experiment with identical bosons under the same interaction Hamiltonian, checking for any discrepancies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18960 by F. A. B. F. de Moura, G. M. A. Almeida, M. F. V. Oliveira, M. L. Lyra.

read the original abstract

Quantum entanglement in systems of identical particles is often obscured by the interplay between exchange-induced correlations and the operational framework used to define entanglement. To study the role of exchange statistics, we propose a scheme using two \textit{distinguishable} particles where an exchange symmetry is artificially engineered via a relative phase $\theta$ in the initial state. This approach allows continuous tuning from bosonic ($\theta = 0$) to fermionic ($\theta = \pi$) statistics. By monitoring the interplay between purity and coherence, we uncover distinct dynamical regimes dictated by the interaction strength $U$ and the phase $\theta$. For particles initially loaded in a bound state, strong $U$ suppresses coherence development by avoiding the scattering band, reducing the purity toward its minimum. For particles initially on neighboring sites, coherence grows linearly in time. While non-symmetric inputs feature a sharp purity reduction at intermediate $U$, due to the competition between bound and unbound states, symmetric initial conditions produce transient coherence bursts that significantly enhance the purity. More generally, tuning the phase $\theta$ reveals a high-purity region over a range of $\theta$ at intermediate interactions, with the purity collapsing to $1/2$ as $\theta$ approaches the fermionic limit. Our results show that the imposed statistics, or lack thereof, reshapes the entanglement dynamics and its response to the interaction $U$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The phase-tuning trick on distinguishable particles is a practical new handle on statistics effects in two-particle entanglement, but the mapping to identical particles needs explicit validation to rule out labeling artifacts.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper proposes tuning exchange statistics continuously with a phase θ on distinguishable particles and reports resulting changes in entanglement dynamics for different interaction strengths. What is new is the scheme itself: starting with |L,R⟩ + e^{iθ}|R,L⟩ for two particles on a lattice, they scan θ to interpolate between bosons and fermions. They describe how this affects purity and coherence, with things like linear coherence growth for neighboring sites, suppression at strong U for bound states, and transient bursts for symmetric cases. The high-purity region at intermediate U for certain θ is an interesting observation. This approach has the advantage of being straightforward to implement numerically, allowing them to isolate statistics effects without full identical-particle formalism. However, the concern about whether the distinguishability introduces artifacts in the entanglement measures is legitimate. The partial trace for purity could behave differently when particles are labeled versus symmetrized, and without explicit comparisons in the paper, it's unclear if the collapse to 1/2 or the bursts are accurate for true identical particles. The presentation is mostly qualitative, lacking specific quantitative results or error analysis from the abstract, which weakens the ability to assess the claims fully. This is for specialists in quantum many-body entanglement who might use the technique for further studies. It shows clear thinking on the problem and engages with the literature on identical particles, so it deserves peer review to sort out the details and validate the method.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a scheme to simulate the effects of particle exchange statistics on entanglement by using two distinguishable particles initialized in a state with tunable relative phase θ (|ψ(θ)⟩ = |L,R⟩ + e^{iθ}|R,L⟩), continuously interpolating between bosonic (θ=0) and fermionic (θ=π) limits. It examines the resulting dynamics of purity and coherence under an interaction U for different initial configurations (bound states vs. neighboring sites), identifying regimes such as coherence suppression for strong U, linear coherence growth, transient purity-enhancing bursts for symmetric inputs, and a high-purity region at intermediate U that collapses to 1/2 near θ=π. The central conclusion is that imposed statistics reshape entanglement evolution and its dependence on U.

Significance. If the proxy construction is shown to be free of labeling artifacts, the work supplies a practical, continuously tunable handle on statistics that is otherwise discrete in identical-particle treatments. This could facilitate targeted studies of symmetry-protected entanglement dynamics in quantum simulators and many-body systems, with qualitative predictions (e.g., purity collapse at the fermionic limit) that are potentially testable in ultracold-atom or photonic platforms. The absence of quantitative benchmarks or direct comparisons to exact symmetrized calculations currently limits the strength of these implications.

major comments (2)

[Proposed scheme (initial state |ψ(θ)⟩)] Initial-state construction: The claim that the relative phase θ on distinguishable particles faithfully reproduces the entanglement properties of true identical bosons/fermions requires explicit verification. The partial trace defining purity and coherence in the labeled basis can retain cross terms that are projected out after proper symmetrization; without a derivation or numerical comparison showing that the operational measures coincide exactly, the reported reshaping of dynamics (including purity bursts and the collapse to 1/2) may partly reflect distinguishability artifacts rather than statistics alone.
[Results on dynamical regimes] Dynamical regimes: The abstract and results describe qualitative behaviors (coherence growing linearly, purity reduction at intermediate U, transient bursts, collapse to 1/2) without quantitative data, error estimates, or derivation details. For the central claim that statistics reshape the U-dependence to be robust, at least one regime should be supported by explicit plots, analytical expressions, or convergence checks.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The abstract refers to 'monitoring the interplay between purity and coherence' without defining the precise measures or the Hilbert-space partitioning used for the partial trace; a short definition or reference to standard entanglement quantifiers would improve accessibility.
[Discussion of symmetric inputs] The statement that 'symmetric initial conditions produce transient coherence bursts' would benefit from a specific figure or equation reference in the main text to allow readers to locate the supporting evidence.
[Methods] No mention is made of the numerical method (exact diagonalization, Trotterization, etc.) or system size used to obtain the reported dynamics; adding this information would aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major points below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications and supporting material.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Initial-state construction: The claim that the relative phase θ on distinguishable particles faithfully reproduces the entanglement properties of true identical bosons/fermions requires explicit verification. The partial trace defining purity and coherence in the labeled basis can retain cross terms that are projected out after proper symmetrization; without a derivation or numerical comparison showing that the operational measures coincide exactly, the reported reshaping of dynamics (including purity bursts and the collapse to 1/2) may partly reflect distinguishability artifacts rather than statistics alone.

Authors: We agree that explicit verification of the proxy is essential. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection (II.C) containing a step-by-step derivation showing that, for two particles, the purity Tr(ρ_A²) and the coherence measures obtained from the partial trace over the labeled basis with imposed phase θ are identical to those computed after explicit symmetrization. The derivation proceeds by applying the symmetrizer to the two-particle state and demonstrating that the cross terms surviving in the distinguishable case are precisely those retained by the bosonic or fermionic projector; all other cross terms vanish identically. We further include direct numerical comparisons for representative values of U and θ (new Figure S1 in the supplement) that confirm agreement to machine precision. These additions establish that the reported dynamical features arise from the imposed exchange statistics. revision: yes
Referee: Dynamical regimes: The abstract and results describe qualitative behaviors (coherence growing linearly, purity reduction at intermediate U, transient bursts, collapse to 1/2) without quantitative data, error estimates, or derivation details. For the central claim that statistics reshape the U-dependence to be robust, at least one regime should be supported by explicit plots, analytical expressions, or convergence checks.

Authors: We acknowledge that the original presentation emphasized the identification of regimes over quantitative detail. In the revision we have added an analytical derivation, based on time-dependent perturbation theory, for the linear-in-time coherence growth observed when particles start on neighboring sites at weak U; the leading-order expression is now stated explicitly in Section III.B. We have also augmented the figures with error estimates obtained from finite-size scaling (lattice sizes up to 30 sites) and ensemble averaging, and we have inserted a new panel (Figure 3c) that plots purity versus U for several fixed θ values, quantifying the high-purity window and the collapse to 1/2 at θ = π. These quantitative elements directly support the claim that the U-dependence is reshaped by the imposed statistics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation is self-contained numerical simulation of engineered initial states

full rationale

The paper constructs an initial state |ψ(θ)⟩ for two distinguishable particles with tunable relative phase θ to interpolate between symmetric and antisymmetric cases, then evolves it under a Hubbard-like Hamiltonian and computes purity and coherence from the resulting density matrix. All reported regimes (purity suppression for bound states at large U, linear coherence growth, transient bursts, collapse to 1/2 at θ=π) are direct numerical outcomes of this time evolution; no parameter is fitted to the target entanglement measures, no result is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or prior ansatz by the same authors. The method is explicitly presented as a proxy scheme whose limitations are acknowledged rather than hidden, so the central claim that imposed statistics reshape entanglement dynamics follows from the simulation rather than from definitional equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard quantum mechanics for two particles on a lattice with on-site interaction; no new axioms or invented entities are introduced beyond the artificial phase θ, which is treated as an externally imposed control parameter.

free parameters (2)

interaction strength U
Tunable parameter varied across regimes; its specific values are not fitted but scanned to reveal qualitative changes.
phase θ
Control parameter engineered in the initial state; continuously varied from 0 to π.

axioms (1)

standard math Standard two-particle Schrödinger evolution on a lattice with nearest-neighbor hopping and on-site repulsion
Invoked implicitly when describing bound states, scattering band, and time evolution of purity and coherence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5560 in / 1389 out tokens · 27524 ms · 2026-05-10T03:12:38.235148+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

BCS-BEC crossover in trapped one-dimensional Fermi-Hubbard chains: entanglement and correlation signatures from DMRG and effective-pairing theory
cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

DMRG and effective-pairing theory show insulating regions with persistent superfluid correlations in trapped 1D Fermi-Hubbard chains, with conditioned correlation functions distinguishing BCS-like from BEC-like behavior.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

1(a)] and a linear growth of coherenceC L1(t) [Fig

bound particles, the system remains in a pure state, reflected in a constant purityγ a = 1 [Fig. 1(a)] and a linear growth of coherenceC L1(t) [Fig. 1(d)] due to bal- listic delocalization [35]. Introducing interaction (U >0) changes this picture, since the other particle act as an ef- fective environment, resulting in an interaction-induced decoherence p...
[2]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010
[3]

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

2014
[4]

Pirandola, J

S. Pirandola, J. Eisert, C. Weedbrook, A. Furusawa, and S. L. Braunstein, Advances in quantum teleportation, Nature Photonics9, 641 (2015)

2015
[5]

Osterloh, L

A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition, Na- ture416, 608 (2002)

2002
[6]

Vidal, J

G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. Kitaev, Entan- glement in quantum critical phenomena, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003)

2003
[7]

Gu, S.-S

S.-J. Gu, S.-S. Deng, Y.-Q. Li, and H.-Q. Lin, Entan- glement and quantum phase transition in the extended hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 086402 (2004)

2004
[8]

Islam, R

R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner, Measuring entanglement en- tropy in a quantum many-body system, Nature528, 77 (2015)

2015
[9]

Lo Franco and G

R. Lo Franco and G. Compagno, Indistinguishability of elementary systems as a resource for quantum informa- tion processing, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 240403 (2018)

2018
[10]

Morris, B

B. Morris, B. Yadin, M. Fadel, T. Zibold, P. Treutlein, and G. Adesso, Entanglement between identical parti- cles is a useful and consistent resource, Phys. Rev. X10, 041012 (2020)

2020
[11]

Killoran, M

N. Killoran, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Extracting entanglement from identical particles, Physical Review Letters112, 150501 (2014)

2014
[12]

Lo Franco and G

R. Lo Franco and G. Compagno, Quantum entanglement of identical particles by standard information-theoretic notions, Scientific Reports6, 20603 (2016)

2016
[13]

Ghirardi and L

G. Ghirardi and L. Marinatto, General criterion for the entanglement of two indistinguishable particles, Phys. Rev. A70, 012109 (2004)

2004
[14]

M. C. Tichy, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, Essential entanglement for atomic and molecular physics, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics44, 192001 (2011)

2011
[15]

Sasaki, T

T. Sasaki, T. Ichikawa, and I. Tsutsui, Entanglement of indistinguishable particles, Physical Review A83, 012113 (2011)

2011
[16]

A. P. Balachandran, T. R. Govindarajan, A. R. de Queiroz, and A. F. Reyes-Lega, Entanglement and particle identity: a unifying approach, Physical Review Letters110, 080503 (2013)

2013
[17]

Benatti, R

F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and K. Titimbo, Entanglement of identical particles, Open Systems and Information Dy- namics21, 1440003 (2014)

2014
[18]

Veldhorst, C

M. Veldhorst, C. H. Yang, J. C. C. Hwang, W. Huang, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, S. Simmons, A. Laucht, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, A two-qubit logic gate in silicon, Nature526, 410 (2015)

2015
[19]

W. H. Zurek, S. Habib, and J. P. Paz, Coherent states via decoherence, Physical Review Letters70, 1187 (1993)

1993
[20]

Manfredi and M

G. Manfredi and M. R. Feix, Entropy and wigner func- tions, Physical Review E62, 4665 (2000)

2000
[21]

Morelli, C

S. Morelli, C. Kl¨ ockl, C. Eltschka, J. Siewert, and M. Hu- ber, Dimensionally sharp inequalities for the linear en- tropy, Linear Algebra and its Applications584, 294 (2020)

2020
[22]

Pauletti, M

T. Pauletti, M. Silva, G. Canella, and V. Fran¸ ca, Lin- ear entropy fails to predict entanglement behavior in low-density fermionic systems, Physica A: Statistical Me- chanics and its Applications644, 129824 (2024)

2024
[23]

Lahini, Y

Y. Lahini, Y. Bromberg, D. N. Christodoulides, and Y. Silberberg, Quantum correlations in two-particle an- derson localization, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 163905 (2010)

2010
[24]

Lahini, M

Y. Lahini, M. Verbin, S. D. Huber, Y. Bromberg, R. Pu- gatch, and Y. Silberberg, Quantum walk of two interact- ing bosons, Phys. Rev. A86, 011603 (2012)

2012
[25]

M. F. V. Oliveira, F. A. B. F. de Moura, A. M. C. Souza, M. L. Lyra, and G. M. A. Almeida, Non-rayleigh signal of interacting quantum particles, Phys. Rev. A108, 023520 (2023)

2023
[26]

D. L. Shepelyansky, Coherent propagation of two inter- acting particles in a random potential, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2607 (1994)

1994
[27]

Bromberg, Y

Y. Bromberg, Y. Lahini, R. Morandotti, and Y. Silber- berg, Quantum and classical correlations in waveguide 8 lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 253904 (2009)

2009
[28]

C. Lee, A. Rai, C. Noh, and D. G. Angelakis, Probing the effect of interaction in anderson localization using linear photonic lattices, Phys. Rev. A89, 023823 (2014)

2014
[29]

D. L. B. Ferreira, T. O. Maciel, R. O. Vianna, and F. Iem- ini, Quantum correlations, entanglement spectrum, and coherence of the two-particle reduced density matrix in the extended hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B105, 115145 (2022)

2022
[30]

Peruzzo, M

A. Peruzzo, M. Lobino, J. C. F. Matthews, N. Matsuda, A. Politi, K. Poulios, X.-Q. Zhou, Y. Lahini, N. Ismail, K. W¨ orhoff, Y. Bromberg, Y. Silberberg, M. G. Thomp- son, and J. L. OBrien, Quantum walks of correlated pho- tons, Science329, 1500 (2010)

2010
[31]

D. O. Krimer and R. Khomeriki, Realization of discrete quantum billiards in a two-dimensional optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A84, 041807 (2011)

2011
[32]

Longhi and G

S. Longhi and G. D. Valle, Tunneling control of strongly correlated particles on a lattice: a photonic realization, Opt. Lett.36, 4743 (2011)

2011
[33]

Corrielli, A

G. Corrielli, A. Crespi, G. Della Valle, S. Longhi, and R. Osellame, Fractional bloch oscillations in photonic lat- tices, Nature Communications4, 1555 (2013)

2013
[34]

Baumgratz, M

T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantify- ing coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140401 (2014)

2014
[35]

W. S. Dias, E. M. Nascimento, M. L. Lyra, and F. A. B. F. de Moura, Frequency doubling of bloch oscillations for interacting electrons in a static electric field, Phys. Rev. B76, 155124 (2007)

2007
[36]

W. Dias, M. Lyra, and F. de Moura, The role of hubbard- like interaction in the dynamics of two interacting elec- trons, Physics Letters A374, 4554 (2010)

2010
[37]

Buchleitner and A

A. Buchleitner and A. R. Kolovsky, Interaction-induced decoherence of atomic bloch oscillations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 253002 (2003)

2003
[38]

Rapedius and H

K. Rapedius and H. J. Korsch, Interaction-induced de- coherence in non-hermitian quantum walks of ultracold bosons, Phys. Rev. A86, 025601 (2012)

2012
[39]

Benatti, R

F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, F. Franchini, and U. Mar- zolino, Entanglement in indistinguishable particle sys- tems, Physics Reports878, 1 (2020), entanglement in indistinguishable particle systems

2020
[40]

Calabrese and J

P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Time dependence of correla- tion functions following a quantum quench, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 136801 (2006)

2006
[41]

Streltsov, U

A. Streltsov, U. Singh, H. S. Dhar, M. N. Bera, and G. Adesso, Measuring quantum coherence with entan- glement, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 020403 (2015)

2015
[42]

Salath´ e, M

Y. Salath´ e, M. Mondal, M. Oppliger, J. Heinsoo, P. Kurpiers, A. Potoˇ cnik, A. Mezzacapo, U. Las Heras, L. Lamata, E. Solano, S. Filipp, and A. Wallraff, Digital quantum simulation of spin models with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. X5, 021027 (2015)

2015
[43]

Yan, Y.-R

Z. Yan, Y.-R. Zhang, M. Gong, Y. Wu, Y. Zheng, S. Li, C. Wang, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, C. Guo, L. Sun, C.- Z. Peng, K. Xia, H. Deng, H. Rong, J. Q. You, F. Nori, H. Fan, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Strongly correlated quan- tum walks with a 12-qubit superconducting processor, Science364, 753 (2019)

2019
[44]

Bloch, Ultracold quantum gases in optical lattices, Na- ture Physics1, 23 (2005)

I. Bloch, Ultracold quantum gases in optical lattices, Na- ture Physics1, 23 (2005)

2005
[45]

Gross and I

C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Science357, 995 (2017)

2017
[46]

H. T. Quan and W. H. Zurek, Testing quantum adia- baticity with quench echo, New Journal of Physics12, 093025 (2010)

2010