Entanglement between identical particles is a useful and consistent resource

Benjamin Morris; Benjamin Yadin; Gerardo Adesso; Matteo Fadel; Philipp Treutlein; Tilman Zibold

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 115 references

Entanglement between identical particles is a useful and consistent resource

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper argues that entanglement between identical particles, long dismissed as a bookkeeping artefact of exchange symmetry, is a genuine quantum resource with well-defined free operations and two concrete operational powers…

desk verdict A strong resource-theoretic resolution of the identical-particle entanglement debate; the metrological monotonicity gap is real but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11735 v2 pith:5VDCDC5X submitted 2019-08-30 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasmath-phmath.MP

Benjamin Morris , Benjamin Yadin , Matteo Fadel , Tilman Zibold , Philipp Treutlein , Gerardo Adesso This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasmath-phmath.MP MSC 81P4081P45

keywords particleentanglementidenticalparticlesresourcetheoryquantumFisherinformationsuperselectionrulemodeBose-Einsteincondensatenonclassicality

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

Entanglement between identical particles has been dismissed by some as an artefact of unphysical particle labels. This paper argues that, on the contrary, it is a bona fide quantum resource, with a precise operational meaning in systems of identical bosons. It defines the class of 'particle-separable' operations — appending vacuum modes, passive linear unitaries such as beam splitters and phase shifters, and destructive number-respecting measurements — and proves these are exactly the operations that cannot create particle entanglement. On that foundation, the paper shows that particle entanglement is the resource behind phase-estimation advantage and can be faithfully activated into ordinary mode entanglement for separated parties who lack a shared phase reference. It also extracts a quantitative estimate of particle entanglement from an existing Bose-Einstein condensate experiment, giving experimenters a practical benchmark.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the set of particle-separable operations, the analogue of LOCC for indistinguishable bosons. A protocol is particle-separable when it consists of appending vacuum modes, applying a passive linear unitary (a beam splitter or phase-shifter network, equivalently a number-conserving non-interacting Hamiltonian), and performing destructive measurements that respect particle-number superselection, with classical conditioning allowed. The paper proves that each ingredient is the most general of its kind that cannot create PE. On top of this, the measure $M^F_{PE}$ — the positive part of the quantum Fisher information above the single-particle variance bound $4V(\rho,h)$ — carries the metrological argument, while the activation operation $E_{C\to AB}$ (attach vacuum modes, mix with passive linear unitaries, distribute, dephase locally) carries the conversion to mode entanglement.

What would settle it

Take a particle-separable state, append vacuum modes, apply an arbitrary passive linear unitary network, and check whether the output violates $\mathcal{F}(\rho,H)\le 4V(\rho,h)$ for some single-particle $h$ or becomes SSR-entangled after local number dephasing. A numerical search over such networks on coherent spin states would find a counterexample if any exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that particle entanglement (PE) — the correlations that appear in the first-quantised description of identical bosons purely because of exchange symmetry — is a consistent and useful resource. The consistency half is a resource theory: free states are mixtures of coherent spin states $|\psi\rangle^{\otimes N}$, and free operations are protocols built from appending vacuum, acting with passive linear unitaries, and performing destructive number-respecting measurements; the paper proves each ingredient is the most general of its type that preserves the free states. The usefulness half is the equivalence between PE and two operational tasks. Theorem 1 shows that the excess quantum Fisher information over the particle-separable bound, $M^F_{PE}(\rho)=\max_{\|h\|=1}[\mathcal{F}(\rho,H)-4V(\rho,h)]_+$, is convex, vanishes on free states, and is monotone under particle-separable operations. Theorems 2 and 4 show that a state can be converted by a particle-separable operation into mode entanglement usable by separated parties subject to a local particle-number superselection rule if and only if it has nonzero PE, and that the maximal amount of such SSR-entanglement is itself a PE measure. Applied to a spin-squeezed BEC experiment, this yields the first quantitative lower bound on a PE measure from real data.

Load-bearing premise

The whole framework rests on the cost asymmetry that appending non-vacuum particles and performing interactions are not free, while passive linear unitaries and number-respecting measurements are; if that asymmetry fails, particle entanglement could be manufactured for free, and the activation results also assume the two parties cannot share a phase reference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Particle-separable operations cannot increase the metrological usefulness of a bosonic state: $M^F_{PE}$ is a monotone, so any protocol that boosts phase-estimation precision beyond the particle-separable limit must use particle-entangling dynamics.
PE is exactly the resource that can be activated into usable mode entanglement: a particle-separable operation produces an SSR-entangled state from $\rho$ if and only if $\rho$ has nonzero PE, and the maximum extractable SSR-entanglement, for any entanglement measure, is itself a valid PE measure.
The first quantitative PE estimate from the BEC experiment of Ref. [61] is a lower bound obtained from the spin-squeezed data, while the coherent spin-state control remains compatible with zero PE.
Non-classicality is weaker than PE: every number-diagonal classical state has zero PE, but two copies of any non-classical pseudo-pure state have nonzero PE, and for finite mean particle number, $k$ particle-separable copies force trace-distance nonclassicality $\le 1/k$.

Reading between the lines

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

If the framework holds, the physicality debate over identical-particle entanglement becomes operational rather than ontological: PE is real wherever it can be spent on metrological advantage or activated into mode entanglement, so the same measures should be testable in any number-conserving bosonic system with passive linear control.
The variance term in $M^F_{PE}$ is what makes the measure invariant under adding vacuum modes; this 'variance compensation' device could be borrowed by other resource quantifiers that allow ancillary modes to prevent spurious resource growth.
The de Finetti-type bound behind Theorem 7 (trace-distance nonclassicality at most $1/k$ when $k$ copies are particle-separable) may be reusable on its own, for instance to estimate how many copies are needed to unlock superselection-hidden resources in other settings.
A fermionic counterpart would probably be much poorer — the discussion notes free fermionic states would reduce to single-particle and vacuum states — so the bosonic resource theory may be the generic case worth developing first.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

This one is worth your time. Morris et al. give particle entanglement a proper resource-theoretic footing: they define particle-separable operations, prove that each elementary free operation is maximally general, and show that PE is exactly the resource that activates into usable mode entanglement under local superselection rules. The activation result fully generalizes Killoran et al. to all particle-separable operations, not just balanced beam splitters, and the faithful "only if" direction is proven. That is a genuine advance, not a repackaging.

The paper also does a few things unusually well. The free operations are physically motivated and the impossibility proofs (appending only vacuum, unitaries only passive linear, nondestructive measurements only number) are careful. The connection to nonclassicality via a de Finetti-type theorem is nice and gives a quantitative bound in terms of copies. The experimental analysis of the Basel BEC data is a welcome concrete application, and the lower bound on trace-distance PE is a reasonable first quantitative estimate.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test note is right: Theorem 1 proves monotonicity of the metrological measure M^F_PE only for a single measurement round without feed-forward, while the set of free operations O explicitly allows feed-forward. So M^F_PE is not a full measure under the paper's own definitions. This is a genuine gap, but it is not a load-bearing flaw: the distance-based measures of Eq. (3) are fully monotone, so the resource theory stands. The metrological measure remains a useful operationally-motivated witness and monotone for the feed-forward-free fragment. The authors are explicit about the restriction, which is honest, but the abstract's claim that metrological advantage "amounts to a measure" should be read with that caveat.

The experimental lower bound is exactly that: a lower bound with witness parameters optimized on the same data. Its statistical properties are not characterized, so "first quantitative estimation" should be understood as a demonstration rather than a rigorous estimator. Minor by comparison.

Overall, the central argument holds up. This is a paper that will be cited and discussed, and it deserves a serious referee. I would send it out.

Recommendation: accept for peer review, with requests to expand the monotonicity proof to feed-forward or else explicitly restrict the claim, and to temper the experimental language.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a resource-theoretic framework for entanglement between identical bosons ('particle entanglement', PE). Free states are defined as mixtures of symmetric product states (decompositions into single-particle modes), and free operations are protocols built from appending vacuum modes, passive linear unitaries (beam splitters and phase shifters), and destructive number-respecting measurements, with the possibility of feed-forward. The paper proves structural results: appending any non-vacuum state creates PE (Theorem 8), free unitaries are exactly single-particle unitaries (Theorem 9), and non-destructive free measurements are trivial while destructive SSR-respecting measurements are free (Theorems 10--11). It then claims three central applications: (i) a metrologically motivated quantity M^F_PE based on the quantum Fisher information is a convex monotone and faithful witness of PE (Theorem 1); (ii) PE can be faithfully activated into mode entanglement accessible under a local particle-number superselection rule, with quantitative bounds (Theorems 2--4); (iii) PE is connected to continuous-variable nonclassicality, with the result that nonclassicality is unlocked into PE in the many-copy limit (Theorems 5--7). The framework is applied to an existing BEC experiment, yielding a lower bound on a trace-distance measure of PE.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this paper offers a substantial resolution of a long-standing debate: PE would be not a mathematical artifact but a consistent quantum resource with direct operational meaning in metrology and in entanglement distribution protocols. The resource theory is carefully constructed from physically motivated free operations, and the proofs are detailed in the appendices. The experimental application provides a quantitative, data-driven illustration and is a clear strength, as is the novel connection to nonclassicality via multiple-copy unlocking. The paper is likely to be influential for both foundations of identical-particle entanglement and practical quantum technologies with bosons. However, several load-bearing proof points—especially the status of M^F_PE as a full monotone under the defined free operations—are not yet established, so the central resource-theoretic claims require revision.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Theorem 1] Theorem 1 proves monotonicity of M^F_PE only for a single measurement round without feed-forward, as stated in the theorem and proven in Appendix F. However, the free operations O defined in Section 3 explicitly include feed-forward: 'including possible conditioning of future operations on the results of measurement outcomes.' For a feed-forward protocol, the final state is a quantum-classical ensemble of the form sum_m p_m E_m(rho_S|m) otimes |m><m|_M, and the inequality M^F_PE(rho) >= M^F_PE(rho_final) requires controlling the inter-branch variance term in Eq. (7) after conditional operations E_m. The proof in Appendix F only handles the case where no operations are applied after the measurement. Thus M^F_PE is not established as a monotone under O, and the abstract claim that the metrological advantage 'amounts to a measure' of PE is not fully supported. This is load-bearing because Section 4 explicitly motivates M^F_PE as a resource measure beyond a witness.
[Appendix H, Theorem 4 proof] The proof of strong (probabilistic) monotonicity invokes 'a general property of entanglement measures ... namely monotonicity under the partial trace over a subsystem' to justify inequality (H16). Monotonicity under partial trace gives E_SSR(sum_i p_i rho_i,AB1 otimes |i><i|_B2) >= E_SSR(sum_i p_i rho_i,AB1); it does not imply E_SSR(sum_i p_i rho_i,AB1 otimes |i><i|_B2) >= sum_i p_i E_SSR(rho_i,AB1), which is a selective-monotonicity property. Not every convex entanglement measure satisfies this property (for example, the relative entropy of entanglement is not generally strongly monotone under selective operations). The theorem's conclusion that M^E_PE is a 'measure of PE' could still hold if deterministic monotonicity is intended, as allowed in Section 3, but the strong-monotonicity proof as written is invalid and the claim is therefore overstated.
[Appendix H, Theorem 2 proof] In the extension of faithfulness to mixed states, the proof writes rho_bullet(N) = sum_i lambda_i |phi_i><phi_i|_NA otimes |chi_i><chi_i|_NB and then states that since rho_bullet(N) has support in the symmetric subspace H_N, 'we must have |phi_i>_NA|chi_i>_NB in H_N for all i.' This does not follow for a convex decomposition of a mixed state: a state in H_N can admit separable decompositions whose individual product terms are not symmetric under particle exchange. The conclusion that rho_bullet(N) is particle-separable may be true (for instance, by invoking the characterization in Appendix A or a symmetric-separability lemma), but the argument as written is incomplete. This affects the faithfulness direction of the central activation theorem for mixed input states, which is a load-bearing point of the paper.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3, Eq. (2)] The definition of free states and the sum in Eq. (2) would benefit from an explicit statement that the index set is arbitrary and that the characterization of symmetric separable states as mixtures of product states is proven in Appendix A; this would make the main text easier to follow.
[Section 6, Eq. (15)] The quantity extracted from experimental data is a lower bound on the trace-distance measure of PE; the text should consistently emphasize that Eq. (15) is a lower bound, not an exact value, since the derivation uses a particular witness and a chain of inequalities.
[Figure 2] The blue dashed line is described as an upper bound for classical correlations, but the caption does not explain how this bound is estimated or what experimental technical limitations it represents; please provide a more detailed caption or a sentence in the main text.
[Appendix F] The invariance of M^F_PE under passive linear unitaries is asserted in one sentence ('explicitly invariant'); a brief derivation would clarify why the maximum over h transforms covariantly and would make the proof self-contained.
[Section 7] The comparison with the resource theory of nonclassicality from Ref. [69] should explicitly state the two differences mentioned in the text (free preparation of any classical state and allowed non-demolition number measurements), as these differences are essential for understanding why the sets of free states differ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the core resource-theoretic derivations are independent of their conclusions.

full rationale

The paper defines particle entanglement (PE) via first-quantised symmetric separable states, then constructs free operations from vacuum appending, passive linear unitaries, and SSR-respecting measurements, and proves rather than assumes the relevant preservation properties. The central theorems are derived from stated assumptions with external, non-self-cited mathematical inputs: Theorem 1's bound rests on Gessner, Pezzè, and Smerzi [80]; Theorem 2's activation faithfulness builds on Killoran et al. [41]; the SSR-entanglement framework follows Wiseman and Vaccaro [34]. The only self-citations, notably Lemma 2 of Yadin et al. [69] used in Appendix H to decompose passive linear unitaries, are parameter-free published results that do not assume PE or the target theorems, so they constitute independent support rather than circularity. The experimental quantification is a lower bound obtained from an external entanglement witness via Theorem 4; it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. One limitation is that Theorem 1 proves monotonicity of M^F_PE only for a single measurement round without feed-forward, even though the free operations O explicitly allow feed-forward; this is a proof-completeness issue, not a circular reduction. No exhibited equation or argument reduces a claimed prediction to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theoretical results are self-contained and introduce no fitted constants; the experimental lower bound involves optimized witness parameters. The main assumptions are the choice of free states and free operations, and the SSR, which together define the resource theory.

free parameters (1)

gy, gz witness parameters = optimized numerically on experimental data
In the experimental application (Section 6, Appendix I), gy and gz are chosen to minimize the left-hand side of the entanglement criterion (14) using the measured data, and the optimized values enter the lower bound (15). The bound itself is valid for any values, so the central theoretical claims do not depend on them.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Particle-number superselection rule: states and operations are block-diagonal or covariant with respect to total particle number N.
Invoked in Section 2 to make particle labels meaningful; excludes superpositions of different particle numbers, which are central to some other approaches.
domain assumption Free states are symmetric separable states (coherent spin states) in first quantization; mixed free states are mixtures of these.
Defined in Section 3 as the resource-free set; this is the foundational choice of the resource theory, justified by exchange symmetry and the ability to prepare such states.
domain assumption Free operations are generated by appending vacuum, passive linear unitaries, and destructive SSR-respecting measurements; these are the physically 'easy' operations.
Section 3; the paper proves each element is maximal in preserving free states, but the choice of this set as the free operations is an assumption about what is cheap in optics and cold atoms.
domain assumption The result of Killoran et al. (PRL 112, 150501 (2014)) that a balanced non-polarizing beam splitter activates particle entanglement of a bipartite Fock state into mode entanglement.
Used in the proof of Theorem 2 (Appendix H) to establish the 'if' direction; the paper generalizes it to all non-trivial beam splitters and mixed states.
standard math The separability criterion of Giovannetti et al. (PRA 67, 022320 (2003)) used as an entanglement witness.
Used in Appendix I to derive the lower bound on the PE measure from experimental data.
standard math Wigner's theorem on inner-product-preserving transformations, used to classify free unitaries as u^⊗N.
Used in Appendix C to prove that any unitary preserving product states must act as a single-particle unitary on each particle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement between identical particles is a useful and consistent resource." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5VDCDC5X

@misc{pith2026190811735,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement between identical particles is a useful and consistent resource},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5VDCDC5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11735}
}

read the original abstract

The existence of fundamentally identical particles represents a foundational distinction between classical and quantum mechanics. Due to their exchange symmetry, identical particles can appear to be entangled -- another uniquely quantum phenomenon with far-reaching practical implications. However, a long-standing debate has questioned whether identical particle entanglement is physical or merely a mathematical artefact. In this work, we provide such particle entanglement with a consistent theoretical description as a quantum resource in processes frequently encountered in optical and cold atomic systems. This leads to a plethora of applications of immediate practical impact. On one hand, we show that the metrological advantage for estimating phase shifts in systems of identical bosons amounts to a measure of their particle entanglement, with a clearcut operational meaning. On the other hand, we demonstrate in general terms that particle entanglement is the property resulting in directly usable mode entanglement when distributed to separated parties, with particle conservation laws in play. Application of our tools to an experimental implementation with Bose-Einstein condensates leads to the first quantitative estimation of identical particle entanglement. Further connections are revealed between particle entanglement and other resources such as optical nonclassicality and quantum coherence. Overall, this work marks a resolutive step in the ongoing debate by delivering a unifying conceptual and practical understanding of entanglement between identical particles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11735 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Based on the measurements [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

[1]

Feynman, R

R. Feynman, R. Leighton, and M. Sands, in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III: The New Millennium Edition: Quantum Mechanics, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Basic Books, 2011) Chap. 4

2011
[2]

Tuckerman, in Statistical mechanics: theory and molecular simulation (Oxford university press, 2010) Chap

M. Tuckerman, in Statistical mechanics: theory and molecular simulation (Oxford university press, 2010) Chap. 11

2010
[3]

Observation of bose-einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor,

M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, “Observation of bose-einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor,” science , 198 (1995)

1995
[4]

Quan- tum correlations in systems of indistinguishable particles,

K. Eckert, J. Schliemann, D. Bruß, and M. Lewenstein, “Quan- tum correlations in systems of indistinguishable particles,” An- nals of Physics 299, 88 (2002)

2002
[5]

Entanglement and properties of composite quantum systems: a conceptual and mathematical analysis,

G. Ghirardi, L. Marinatto, and T. Weber, “Entanglement and properties of composite quantum systems: a conceptual and mathematical analysis,” Journal of Statistical Physics108, 49 (2002)

2002
[6]

This enables us to promptly analyse the ex- perimental data from [ 61] in order to extract a lower bound to a measure of PE

EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURING PE In this section we demonstrate that our resource theory for describing PE and its activation encompasses recent experi- mental investigations [61–63] converting PE into useful mode entanglement. This enables us to promptly analyse the ex- perimental data from [ 61] in order to extract a lower bound to a measure of PE. To the be...
[7]

CONNECTIONS TO NON-CLASSICALITY While coherent spin states are considered classical in cold atoms settings with ﬁxed particle number, continuous-variable coherent states in quantum optics provide the model of classi- cal light. Non-classical states display features such as photon anti-bunching, sub-poissonian statistics and squeezing [ 87], and form the b...
[8]

strictly incoherent opera- tions

DISCUSSION We have shown that entanglement between identical parti- cles, despite its seemingly ﬁctitious nature, is described by a consistent resource theory whose free operations are imple- mentable in a wide range of physical systems. Far from just an abstract quantity, this particle entanglement can be quantiﬁed by virtue of the advantage it yields fo...

Show all 115 references

[9]

General criterion for the entan- glement of two indistinguishable particles,

G. Ghirardi and L. Marinatto, “General criterion for the entan- glement of two indistinguishable particles,” Physical Review A 70, 012109 (2004)

2004
[10]

Essential entan- glement for atomic and molecular physics,

M. C. Tichy, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, “Essential entan- glement for atomic and molecular physics,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 44, 192001 (2011)

2011
[11]

Entanglement of identical particles and the detection process,

M. C. Tichy, F. de Melo, M. Ku ´s, F. Mintert, and A. Buch- leitner, “Entanglement of identical particles and the detection process,” Fortschritte der Physik61, 225 (2013)

2013
[12]

Quantum entanglement for systems of identical bosons: I. General features,

B. J. Dalton, J. Goold, B. M. Garraway, and M. D. Reid, “Quantum entanglement for systems of identical bosons: I. General features,” Physica Scripta 92, 023004 (2017), arXiv:1506.06906

2017 arXiv
[13]

Not to be confused with particle entanglement as named in [39]
[14]

Some simple remarks about quantum nonseparability for systems composed of identical constituents,

G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, T. Weber, and C. Omero, “Some simple remarks about quantum nonseparability for systems composed of identical constituents,” Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-

1971
[15]

Quantum correlations in two-boson wave functions,

R. Paˇskauskas and L. You, “Quantum correlations in two-boson wave functions,” Physical Review A64, 042310 (2001)

2001
[16]

Quantum entanglement of identical particles,

Y . Shi, “Quantum entanglement of identical particles,” Physical Review A 67, 024301 (2003)

2003
[17]

A subsystem-independent generalization of entanglement,

H. Barnum, E. Knill, G. Ortiz, R. Somma, and L. Viola, “A subsystem-independent generalization of entanglement,” Phys- ical Review Letters 92, 107902 (2004)

2004
[18]

Quantum tensor product 10 structures are observable induced,

P. Zanardi, D. A. Lidar, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum tensor product 10 structures are observable induced,” Physical review letters92, 060402 (2004)

2004
[19]

A general- ization of entanglement to convex operational theories: entan- glement relative to a subspace of observables,

H. Barnum, G. Ortiz, R. Somma, and L. Viola, “A general- ization of entanglement to convex operational theories: entan- glement relative to a subspace of observables,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 44, 2127 (2005)

2005
[20]

Useful entanglement from the pauli principle,

D. Cavalcanti, L. Malard, F. Matinaga, M. T. Cunha, and M. F. Santos, “Useful entanglement from the pauli principle,” Physical Review B 76, 113304 (2007)

2007
[21]

Exchange symmetry and multipartite entanglement,

T. Ichikawa, T. Sasaki, I. Tsutsui, and N. Yonezawa, “Exchange symmetry and multipartite entanglement,” Physical Review A 78, 052105 (2008)

2008
[22]

Exchange symmetry and global entanglement and full separability,

T.-C. Wei, “Exchange symmetry and global entanglement and full separability,” Physical Review A81, 054102 (2010)

2010
[23]

Entanglement of indis- tinguishable particles,

T. Sasaki, T. Ichikawa, and I. Tsutsui, “Entanglement of indis- tinguishable particles,” Physical Review A83, 012113 (2011)

2011
[24]

Entanglement and squeezing with identical particles: ultracold atom quan- tum metrology,

F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and U. Marzolino, “Entanglement and squeezing with identical particles: ultracold atom quan- tum metrology,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 44, 091001 (2011)

2011
[25]

Particle and antiparticle bosonic entanglement in noninertial frames,

D. E. Bruschi, A. Dragan, I. Fuentes, and J. Louko, “Particle and antiparticle bosonic entanglement in noninertial frames,” Physical Review D 86, 025026 (2012)

2012
[26]

Entanglement and particle identity: a unifying approach,

A. Balachandran, T. Govindarajan, A. R. de Queiroz, and A. Reyes-Lega, “Entanglement and particle identity: a unifying approach,” Physical review letters110, 080503 (2013)

2013
[27]

Entanglement of identical particles,

F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and K. Titimbo, “Entanglement of identical particles,” Open Systems & Information Dynamics 21, 1440003 (2014)

2014
[28]

Entanglement witnesses for indistinguishable particles,

A. Reusch, J. Sperling, and W. V ogel, “Entanglement witnesses for indistinguishable particles,” Physical Review A91, 042324 (2015)

2015
[29]

Re- marks on entanglement and identical particles,

F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, F. Franchini, and U. Marzolino, “Re- marks on entanglement and identical particles,” Open Systems & Information Dynamics 24, 1740004 (2017)

2017
[30]

Entanglement and extreme spin squeezing for a ﬂuctuating number of indis- tinguishable particles,

P. Hyllus, L. Pezz´e, A. Smerzi, and G. T ´oth, “Entanglement and extreme spin squeezing for a ﬂuctuating number of indis- tinguishable particles,” Physical Review A86, 012337 (2012)

2012
[31]

Entanglement in indistinguishable particle systems,

F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, F. Franchini, and U. Marzolino, “Entanglement in indistinguishable particle systems,” Physics Reports (2020)

2020
[32]

Quantum entanglement,

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Reviews of modern physics81, 865 (2009)

2009
[33]

Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,” Physical Review A 54, 3824 (1996)

1996
[34]

A potentially realizable quantum computer,

S. Lloyd, “A potentially realizable quantum computer,” Science 261, 1569 (1993)

1993
[35]

Simple proof of security of the bb84 quantum key distribution protocol,

P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, “Simple proof of security of the bb84 quantum key distribution protocol,” Physical review letters85, 441 (2000)

2000
[36]

Quantum metrol- ogy,

V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, “Quantum metrol- ogy,” Physical review letters96, 010401 (2006)

2006
[37]

Entanglement of indistinguish- able particles shared between two parties,

H. Wiseman and J. A. Vaccaro, “Entanglement of indistinguish- able particles shared between two parties,” Physical review letters 91, 097902 (2003)

2003
[38]

Nonlocal resources in the presence of superselection rules,

N. Schuch, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, “Nonlocal resources in the presence of superselection rules,” Physical review letters 92, 087904 (2004)

2004
[39]

Entanglement and symmetry: A case study in superselection rules, reference frames, and beyond,

S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, S. Bartlett, J. A. Vaccaro, and D. T. Pope, “Entanglement and symmetry: A case study in superselection rules, reference frames, and beyond,” Physical Review A 74, 062313 (2006)

2006
[40]

Indistinguishability of ele- mentary systems as a resource for quantum information pro- cessing,

R. Lo Franco and G. Compagno, “Indistinguishability of ele- mentary systems as a resource for quantum information pro- cessing,” Physical Review Letters120, 240403 (2018)

2018
[41]

Quantum entanglement of identical particles by standard information-theoretic notions,

R. Lo Franco and G. Compagno, “Quantum entanglement of identical particles by standard information-theoretic notions,” Scientiﬁc reports 6, 20603 (2016)

2016
[42]

Entangle- ment of identical particles and reference phase uncertainty,

J. A. Vaccaro, F. Anselmi, and H. M. Wiseman, “Entangle- ment of identical particles and reference phase uncertainty,” International Journal of Quantum Information 1, 427 (2003)

2003
[43]

Dealing with indistinguishable particles and their entanglement,

G. Compagno, A. Castellini, and R. Lo Franco, “Dealing with indistinguishable particles and their entanglement,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20170317 (2018)

2018
[44]

Extracting entan- glement from identical particles,

N. Killoran, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, “Extracting entan- glement from identical particles,” Physical Review Letters112, 150501 (2014)

2014
[45]

New spin squeezing and other entanglement tests for two mode systems of identical bosons,

B. Dalton, L. Heaney, J. Goold, B. Garraway, and T. Busch, “New spin squeezing and other entanglement tests for two mode systems of identical bosons,” New Journal of Physics 16, 013026 (2014)

2014
[46]

Quantum-enhanced mea- surements without entanglement,

D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Marzolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, “Quantum-enhanced mea- surements without entanglement,” Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 035006 (2018)

2018
[47]

Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles,

L. Pezz `e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, “Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles,” Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 035005 (2018)

2018
[48]

Fisher information and entanglement of non-Gaussian spin states,

H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zibold, D. B. Hume, L. Pezze, A. Smerzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, “Fisher information and entanglement of non-Gaussian spin states,” Science 345, 424 (2014)

2014
[49]

Atom-chip-based generation of entanglement for quantum metrology,

M. F. Riedel, P. B¨ohi, Y . Li, T. W. H¨ansch, A. Sinatra, and P. Treutlein, “Atom-chip-based generation of entanglement for quantum metrology,” Nature464, 1170 (2010)

2010
[50]

Nonlinear atom interferometer surpasses classical precision limit,

C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Esteve, and M. K. Oberthaler, “Nonlinear atom interferometer surpasses classical precision limit,” Nature464, 1165 (2010)

2010
[51]

Metrological advantage at ﬁnite temperature for gaussian phase estimation,

L. Garbe, S. Felicetti, P. Milman, T. Coudreau, and A. Keller, “Metrological advantage at ﬁnite temperature for gaussian phase estimation,” Physical Review A99, 043815 (2019)

2019
[52]

Resource theory of quantum states out of thermal equilibrium,

F. G. Brandao, M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, J. M. Renes, and R. W. Spekkens, “Resource theory of quantum states out of thermal equilibrium,” Physical review letters 111, 250404 (2013)

2013
[53]

Colloquium: Quan- tum coherence as a resource,

A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, “Colloquium: Quan- tum coherence as a resource,” Reviews of Modern Physics89, 041003 (2017)

2017
[54]

Classical and quantum communication without a shared reference frame,

S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, “Classical and quantum communication without a shared reference frame,” Physical review letters 91, 027901 (2003)

2003
[55]

Fisher information and multiparticle entanglement,

P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezz´e, and A. Smerzi, “Fisher information and multiparticle entanglement,” Physical Review A 85, 022321 (2012)

2012
[56]

Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrol- ogy,

G. T´oth, “Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrol- ogy,” Physical Review A85, 022322 (2012)

2012
[57]

Bell’s-inequality experiments using independent-particle sources,

B. Yurke and D. Stoler, “Bell’s-inequality experiments using independent-particle sources,” Physical Review A 46, 2229 (1992)

1992
[58]

The Intrin- sic Parity of Elementary Particles,

G. C. Wick, A. S. Wightman, and E. P. Wigner, “The Intrin- sic Parity of Elementary Particles,” Physical Review 88, 101 (1952)

1952
[59]

Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information,

S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, “Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information,” Re- 11 views of Modern Physics 79, 555 (2007)

2007
[60]

All Nonclassical Correlations Can Be Acti- vated into Distillable Entanglement,

M. Piani, S. Gharibian, G. Adesso, J. Calsamiglia, P. Horodecki, and A. Winter, “All Nonclassical Correlations Can Be Acti- vated into Distillable Entanglement,” Physical Review Letters 106, 220403 (2011)

2011
[61]

Measuring quantum coherence with entanglement,

A. Streltsov, U. Singh, H. S. Dhar, M. N. Bera, and G. Adesso, “Measuring quantum coherence with entanglement,” Physical review letters 115, 020403 (2015)

2015
[62]

Con- verting Coherence to Quantum Correlations,

J. Ma, B. Yadin, D. Girolami, V . Vedral, and M. Gu, “Con- verting Coherence to Quantum Correlations,” Physical Review Letters 116, 160407 (2016)

2016
[63]

Natural entanglement in bose-einstein condensates,

C. Simon, “Natural entanglement in bose-einstein condensates,” Physical Review A 66, 052323 (2002)

2002
[64]

Spatial entanglement patterns and einstein-podolsky-rosen steering in bose-einstein condensates,

M. Fadel, T. Zibold, B. D´ecamps, and P. Treutlein, “Spatial entanglement patterns and einstein-podolsky-rosen steering in bose-einstein condensates,” Science360, 409 (2018)

2018
[65]

Spatially distributed multipartite entanglement enables epr steering of atomic clouds,

P. Kunkel, M. Pr¨ufer, H. Strobel, D. Linnemann, A. Fr ¨olian, T. Gasenzer, M. G ¨arttner, and M. K. Oberthaler, “Spatially distributed multipartite entanglement enables epr steering of atomic clouds,” Science360, 413 (2018)

2018
[66]

Entanglement between two spatially separated atomic modes,

K. Lange, J. Peise, B. L¨ucke, I. Kruse, G. Vitagliano, I. Apel- laniz, M. Kleinmann, G. T´oth, and C. Klempt, “Entanglement between two spatially separated atomic modes,” Science360, 416 (2018)

2018
[67]

The Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence,

R. J. Glauber, “The Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence,” Physical Review 130, 2529 (1963)

1963
[68]

Equivalence of Semiclassical and Quan- tum Mechanical Descriptions of Statistical Light Beams,

E. C. G. Sudarshan, “Equivalence of Semiclassical and Quan- tum Mechanical Descriptions of Statistical Light Beams,” Phys- ical Review Letters 10, 277 (1963)

1963
[69]

Quantum computation over con- tinuous variables,

S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, “Quantum computation over con- tinuous variables,” inQuantum Information with Continuous Variables (Springer, 1999) pp. 9–17

1999
[70]

Quantiﬁcation of non- classicality,

C. Gehrke, J. Sperling, and W. V ogel, “Quantiﬁcation of non- classicality,” Physical Review A86, 052118 (2012)

2012
[71]

Quantifying the coherence between coherent states,

K. C. Tan, T. V olkoﬀ, H. Kwon, and H. Jeong, “Quantifying the coherence between coherent states,” Physical review letters 119, 190405 (2017)

2017
[72]

Operational Resource Theory of Continuous- Variable Nonclassicality,

B. Yadin, F. C. Binder, J. Thompson, V . Narasimhachar, M. Gu, and M. S. Kim, “Operational Resource Theory of Continuous- Variable Nonclassicality,” Physical Review X8, 041038 (2018)

2018
[73]

Nonclassicality as a Quantiﬁable Resource for Quantum Metrology,

H. Kwon, K. C. Tan, T. V olkoﬀ, and H. Jeong, “Nonclassicality as a Quantiﬁable Resource for Quantum Metrology,” Physical Review Letters 122, 040503 (2019)

2019
[74]

Then a stateρS of system S is operationally equivalent to the dephased state ΦS(ρS), unless one has access to a phase reference R such as a BEC or laser

An alternative case can be made: a number superselection rule on operations is often in eﬀect in cold atoms and optics. Then a stateρS of system S is operationally equivalent to the dephased state ΦS(ρS), unless one has access to a phase reference R such as a BEC or laser. But...
[75]

Optimal cloning of pure states, testing single clones,

M. Keyl and R. F. Werner, “Optimal cloning of pure states, testing single clones,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 40, 3283 (1999)

1999
[76]

Quantifying quantumness and the quest for Queens of Quantum,

O. Giraud, P. Braun, and D. Braun, “Quantifying quantumness and the quest for Queens of Quantum,” New Journal of Physics 12, 063005 (2010)

2010
[77]

Nielsen and I

M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, inQuantum Computation and Quan- tum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2010) Chap. 8

2010
[78]

Quantum resource theories,

E. Chitambar and G. Gour, “Quantum resource theories,” Re- views of Modern Physics 91, 025001 (2019)

2019
[79]

Wigner, Gruppentheorie (Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1931)

E. Wigner, Gruppentheorie (Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1931)

1931
[80]

Exper- imental realization of any discrete unitary operator,

M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, “Exper- imental realization of any discrete unitary operator,” Physical Review Letters 73, 58 (1994)

1994
[81]

Measures and applications of quantum correlations,

G. Adesso, T. R. Bromley, and M. Cianciaruso, “Measures and applications of quantum correlations,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 49, 473001 (2016)

2016
[82]

Quantum Estimation For Quantum Technol- ogy,

M. G. A. Paris, “Quantum Estimation For Quantum Technol- ogy,” International Journal of Quantum Information 07, 125 (2009)

2009
[83]

Resolution-enhanced entanglement detection,

M. Gessner, L. Pezz`e, and A. Smerzi, “Resolution-enhanced entanglement detection,” Physical Review A 95, 032326 (2017)

2017
[84]

Quantum entangle- ment theory in the presence of superselection rules,

N. Schuch, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, “Quantum entangle- ment theory in the presence of superselection rules,” Physical Review A 70, 042310 (2004)

2004
[85]

measure-and-forget

This may be written equivalently as a phase average ΦS(ρ) =∫ 2π 0 dθ e−iθ ˆNSρeiθ ˆNS/2π or as a “measure-and-forget” opera- tion of the local number: ΦS(ρ) = Í n Pn,SρPn,S, where Pn,S is the projector onto the subspace of n particles in S
[86]

Ferret- ing out the ﬂuﬀy bunnies: Entanglement constrained by gen- eralized superselection rules,

H. M. Wiseman, S. D. Bartlett, and J. A. Vaccaro, “Ferret- ing out the ﬂuﬀy bunnies: Entanglement constrained by gen- eralized superselection rules,” in Laser Spectroscopy (World Scientiﬁc, 2004) pp. 307–314

2004
[87]

During the expansion of the BEC, the interactions therefore do not aﬀect the spin state and are fur- thermore quickly rendered small due to the decreasing density [97]

The interaction of ultracold 87Rb atoms depends only very weakly on their spin state. During the expansion of the BEC, the interactions therefore do not aﬀect the spin state and are fur- thermore quickly rendered small due to the decreasing density [97]
[88]

Due to technical limitations a fraction of the atomic spins in a gap between the two regions is discarded in the measurement process
[89]

Charac- terizing the entanglement of bipartite quantum systems,

V . Giovannetti, S. Mancini, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, “Charac- terizing the entanglement of bipartite quantum systems,” Physi- cal Review A 67, 022320 (2003)

2003
[90]

Gerry and P

C. Gerry and P. Knight, Introductory Quantum Optics (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

2004
[91]

Entangle- ment by a beam splitter: Nonclassicality as a prerequisite for entanglement,

M. S. Kim, W. Son, V . Buˇzek, and P. L. Knight, “Entangle- ment by a beam splitter: Nonclassicality as a prerequisite for entanglement,” Physical Review A65, 032323 (2002)

2002
[92]

Theorem for the beam-splitter entangler,

X.-b. Wang, “Theorem for the beam-splitter entangler,” Physi- cal Review A 66, 024303 (2002)

2002
[93]

Computable Measure of Nonclassicality for Light,

J. K. Asb ´oth, J. Calsamiglia, and H. Ritsch, “Computable Measure of Nonclassicality for Light,” Physical Review Letters 94, 173602 (2005)

2005
[94]

Converting Nonclassicality into Entanglement,

N. Killoran, F. E. S. Steinhoﬀ, and M. B. Plenio, “Converting Nonclassicality into Entanglement,” Physical Review Letters 116, 080402 (2016)

2016
[95]

Description of quantum coherence in thermodynamic processes requires con- straints beyond free energy,

M. Lostaglio, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, “Description of quantum coherence in thermodynamic processes requires con- straints beyond free energy,” Nature Communications6, 6383 (2015)

2015
[96]

Quantum Processes Which Do Not Use Coherence,

B. Yadin, J. Ma, D. Girolami, M. Gu, and V . Vedral, “Quantum Processes Which Do Not Use Coherence,” Physical Review X 6, 041028 (2016)

2016
[97]

Thermodynamic resources in continuous-variable quantum systems,

V . Narasimhachar, S. Assad, F. C. Binder, J. Thomp- son, B. Yadin, and M. Gu, “Thermodynamic resources in continuous-variable quantum systems,” arXiv:1909.07364 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[98]

Gaussian Thermal Operations and The Limits of Algorithmic Cooling,

A. Seraﬁni, M. Lostaglio, S. Longden, U. Shackerley-Bennett, C.-Y . Hsieh, and G. Adesso, “Gaussian Thermal Operations and The Limits of Algorithmic Cooling,” Physical Review Letters 124, 010602 (2020)

2020
[99]

En- tanglement area law in superﬂuid 4 he,

C. Herdman, P.-N. Roy, R. Melko, and A. Del Maestro, “En- tanglement area law in superﬂuid 4 he,” Nature Physics13, 556 12 (2017)

2017
[100]

Bose-einstein condensates in time dependent traps,

Y . Castin and R. Dum, “Bose-einstein condensates in time dependent traps,” Physical review letters77, 5315 (1996)

1996
[101]

The church of the symmetric subspace,

A. W. Harrow, “The church of the symmetric subspace,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.6595 (2013)

2013 arXiv
[102]

General framework for quantum macroscopicity in terms of coherence,

B. Yadin and V . Vedral, “General framework for quantum macroscopicity in terms of coherence,” Physical Review A 93, 022122 (2016)

2016
[103]

The Schmidt number as a universal entanglement measure,

J. Sperling and W. V ogel, “The Schmidt number as a universal entanglement measure,” Physica Scripta83, 045002 (2011)

2011
[104]

Quantifying entanglement with witness opera- tors,

F. G. Brandao, “Quantifying entanglement with witness opera- tors,” Physical Review A72, 022310 (2005)

2005
[105]

Zur theorie der gesellschaftsspiele,

J. v. Neumann, “Zur theorie der gesellschaftsspiele,” Mathema- tische annalen 100, 295 (1928)

1928
[106]

Sur les quations algbriques ayant toutes leurs racines relles,

T. Popoviciu, “Sur les quations algbriques ayant toutes leurs racines relles,” Mathematica9, 129 to 145 (1935)

1935
[107]

Unknown quan- tum states: the quantum de ﬁnetti representation,

C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, “Unknown quan- tum states: the quantum de ﬁnetti representation,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4537 (2002)

2002
[108]

Rate of Convergence to Pois- son Law in Terms of Information Divergence,

P. Harremoes and P. Ruzankin, “Rate of Convergence to Pois- son Law in Terms of Information Divergence,” IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory 50, 2145 (2004)

2004
[109]

The simplex structure of the classical states of the quantum harmonic oscillator,

A. Bach and U. L¨uxmann-Ellinghaus, “The simplex structure of the classical states of the quantum harmonic oscillator,” Com- munications in Mathematical Physics 107, 553 (1986). Appendix A: FORM OF FREE STATES Here we show that every particle-separable state of N parti- cles i...

1986
[110]

(contractivity) D(E(ρ),E(σ)) ≤ D(ρ,σ) under any channelE
[111]

(joint convexity) D(Í i piρi,Í i piσi)≤ Í i piD(ρi,σ i) for any sets of states ρi,σ i and probabilities pi
[112]

Then it also satisﬁes a

(direct sum concavity) D(É i piρi,É i qiσi) ≥Í i piD(ρi,σ i). Then it also satisﬁes a. (direct sum linearity) D(É i piρi,É i piσi) =Í i piD(ρi,σ i); b. (ensemble contractivity) Í i piD(ρi,σ i) ≤ D(ρ,σ), where{Ei} is any quantum instrument, and Ei(ρ) = piρi,Ei(σ) = qiσi. Proof....
[113]

ρAB is invariant-separable
[114]

ρAB = Í i piψi A⊗ψi B where each ψi A,ψ i B is pure and contains a deﬁnite number of particles
[115]

non-polarising beam-splitter

ρAB is separable and satisﬁes the local SSR constraint (ΦA⊗ ΦB)(ρAB) = ρAB. 4.(ΦA⊗ ΦB)(ρAB) = ρAB and, for each NA, NB, the local- number projected state(PN A⊗ PNB)ρAB(PN A⊗ PNB) is separable. Proof. The equivalence of (1) and (2) is easily seen from the fact that every local-...

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Feynman, R

R. Feynman, R. Leighton, and M. Sands, in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III: The New Millennium Edition: Quantum Mechanics, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Basic Books, 2011) Chap. 4

2011

[2] [2]

Tuckerman, in Statistical mechanics: theory and molecular simulation (Oxford university press, 2010) Chap

M. Tuckerman, in Statistical mechanics: theory and molecular simulation (Oxford university press, 2010) Chap. 11

2010

[3] [3]

Observation of bose-einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor,

M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, “Observation of bose-einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor,” science , 198 (1995)

1995

[4] [4]

Quan- tum correlations in systems of indistinguishable particles,

K. Eckert, J. Schliemann, D. Bruß, and M. Lewenstein, “Quan- tum correlations in systems of indistinguishable particles,” An- nals of Physics 299, 88 (2002)

2002

[5] [5]

Entanglement and properties of composite quantum systems: a conceptual and mathematical analysis,

G. Ghirardi, L. Marinatto, and T. Weber, “Entanglement and properties of composite quantum systems: a conceptual and mathematical analysis,” Journal of Statistical Physics108, 49 (2002)

2002

[6] [6]

This enables us to promptly analyse the ex- perimental data from [ 61] in order to extract a lower bound to a measure of PE

EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURING PE In this section we demonstrate that our resource theory for describing PE and its activation encompasses recent experi- mental investigations [61–63] converting PE into useful mode entanglement. This enables us to promptly analyse the ex- perimental data from [ 61] in order to extract a lower bound to a measure of PE. To the be...

[7] [7]

CONNECTIONS TO NON-CLASSICALITY While coherent spin states are considered classical in cold atoms settings with ﬁxed particle number, continuous-variable coherent states in quantum optics provide the model of classi- cal light. Non-classical states display features such as photon anti-bunching, sub-poissonian statistics and squeezing [ 87], and form the b...

[8] [8]

strictly incoherent opera- tions

DISCUSSION We have shown that entanglement between identical parti- cles, despite its seemingly ﬁctitious nature, is described by a consistent resource theory whose free operations are imple- mentable in a wide range of physical systems. Far from just an abstract quantity, this particle entanglement can be quantiﬁed by virtue of the advantage it yields fo...