Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

For Gaussian states, every entangled mode has a unique partner, and the paper constructs it explicitly.

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

2026-08-03 16:57 UTC pith:KZIUQD6K

load-bearing objection Worth refereeing: a clean geometric split between correlation and entanglement partners for Gaussian states, with one load-bearing gap in the entanglement-partner proof that is likely fixable. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.11055 v2 pith:KZIUQD6K submitted 2025-12-11 quant-ph gr-qchep-th

Correlation and Entanglement partners in Gaussian systems

Ivan Agullo , Eduardo Mart\'in-Mart\'inez , Sergi Nadal-Gisbert , Patricia Ribes-Metidieri , Koji Yamaguchi This is my paper
classification quant-ph gr-qchep-th
keywords Gaussian statesentanglement partnercorrelation partnerrestricted complex structuresymplectic eigenvaluespositive partial transposelogarithmic negativitycontinuous-variable quantum information
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that in Gaussian (continuous-variable) quantum states, the correlations and entanglement of any chosen single mode with the rest of the system are concentrated in specific partner subsystems, and it gives closed-form constructions for those partners. For pure states, the partner is always another single mode and is obtained by applying the state's restricted complex structure to the original mode and projecting outside it. For mixed states, the notion splits: a correlation partner that may contain several modes and collects all correlations, and an entanglement partner that is always at most one mode and exists exactly when the state fails the positive-partial-transpose test. If true, this turns a many-body entanglement problem into an effective two-mode description and gives a constructive way to locate entanglement resources.

Core claim

For a pure Gaussian state with restricted complex structure J, the partner of a correlated single-mode subsystem A is Γ_ap = Π^⊥_a(JΓ_a); A⊕A_p is uncorrelated with the rest and the reduced state on it is pure, so A_p captures all correlations, which for pure states are entanglement. For a mixed Gaussian state, the entanglement partner is Γ_aep = span(Π^⊥_a e^{T_a}_1, (Π^⊥_a e^{T_a}_1)^*), where e^{T_a}_1 is the unique eigenvector of the partially transposed J with symplectic eigenvalue below 1; this mode encodes all entanglement between A and the rest, and the partner of A_ep is A again. The correlation partner, by contrast, is the smallest subsystem that makes A⊕A_cp uncorrelated and gener

What carries the argument

The restricted complex structure J = -ℏ Ωσ (equivalently, the covariance metric σ) encodes the state in phase space; its eigenpairs define a symplectic-orthonormal basis. Symplectic projectors Π_a and Π^⊥_a provide a basis-independent way to separate a subsystem from its complement. Partial transposition T_a is a momentum flip on A, and the crucial object is the unique eigenvector e^{T_a}_1 of J^{T_a} whose symplectic eigenvalue ν < 1. The formulas Γ_ap = Π^⊥_a(JΓ_a) and Γ_aep = span(Π^⊥_a e^{T_a}_1, conjugate) carry the argument: they convert the abstract existence of partners into explicit subspaces.

Load-bearing premise

The mixed-state results depend on the imported theorem that for one mode versus many Gaussian modes, failing the positive-partial-transpose test is equivalent to being entangled and that logarithmic negativity faithfully measures the entanglement; the proof that the partner's partner is A also leans on the restricted sign-flip identity, Eq. (58).

What would settle it

For a concrete three-mode mixed Gaussian state with non-PPT A, construct A_ep from Eq. (47), then compute the logarithmic negativity of the reduced state on A⊕A_ep from its covariance matrix and compare it with the logarithmic negativity of the full bipartition A versus the rest. If the two numbers differ, or if applying the same construction to A_ep does not return a single mode equal to A, the claimed completeness and reciprocity of the entanglement partner fail.

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

If this is right

  • Every correlated mode in a pure Gaussian state can be paired into an effective two-mode pure state, so many-body entanglement structure can be read off mode by mode.
  • In mixed states, all entanglement of a mode is concentrated in a single partner mode whenever the state is non-PPT, even though total correlations may be spread over many modes.
  • The entanglement-partner map is involutive in the single-mode case: the partner of A_ep is A, so the construction is symmetric and well defined.
  • For a multi-mode subsystem A in a pure state, the partner has exactly as many modes as there are symplectic eigenvalues of the reduced J larger than 1; uncorrelated modes inside A simply drop out.
  • For multi-mode A in a mixed state, the entanglement partner is at most N_a modes and captures the distillable entanglement, giving a finite-dimensional handle on distillability in Gaussian systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A practical consequence the paper leaves implicit: entanglement harvesting or teleportation protocols would need to address only A and its partner A_ep, since the formula identifies a minimal set of modes to act on.
  • Because the formulas are basis-independent, they should survive a continuum limit; applying them to lattice quantum-field-theory vacua would locate entanglement partners in space and could sharpen claims about entanglement structure in quantum fields.
  • The same restricted-complex-structure logic is sketched for fermionic pure states; a mixed fermionic analogue, if it exists, would likely follow the same pattern with the metric and symplectic roles interchanged.
  • The construction could be tested as an operational entanglement witness: for states where the reduced negativity computed from the partner formula deviates from the full negativity beyond numerical error, the imported PPT theorem or its Gaussian faithfulness would be the suspect.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a phase-space, complex-structure framework for identifying the degrees of freedom that carry total correlations and entanglement with a chosen mode in bosonic Gaussian systems. For pure Gaussian states, Proposition 2 gives an explicit partner formula Γ_ap = Π⊥_a(JΓ_a), claimed to be the unique single-mode subsystem capturing all correlations. For mixed Gaussian states, the paper splits the notion into a correlation partner (Proposition 3) and an entanglement partner (Proposition 4), the latter constructed from the subunity eigenvector e^{T_a}_1 of the partially transposed restricted complex structure: Γ_aep = span[Π⊥_a e^{T_a}_1, (Π⊥_a e^{T_a}_1)*]. The construction is extended to multi-mode subsystems in Propositions 5–7. The main claims are constructive and parameter-free, with appendices covering the covariance metric, the restricted complex structure, PPT/negativity, and the number of subunity symplectic eigenvalues.

Significance. If correct, this provides a basis-independent, constructive answer to where correlations and entanglement of a chosen mode reside, extending earlier QIC/partner-mode ideas to mixed states and multi-mode subsystems. The formulas are explicit, coordinate-free, and do not rely on fitted parameters; the paper also gives numerous worked examples and proofs in appendices. The pure-state result is a clear geometric reformulation of known partner constructions, while the mixed-state entanglement-partner theorem is a substantive new claim. However, the central mixed-state result depends on a non-degeneracy property that is not proved, and one of the key identities used in the reciprocity proof is stated rather than fully derived. These gaps currently prevent the paper from being accepted as is.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III B 2, Eq. (47)] The proof of Proposition 4 only shows that e^{T_a}_1 is not entirely contained in Γ_a, hence v = Π⊥_a e^{T_a}_1 is nonzero. It does not show that ⟨v,v⟩ ≠ 0. If ⟨v,v⟩ = 0, the two-dimensional complex span of v and v* is totally isotropic and does not define a symplectic single-mode subsystem. In that case Eq. (47) fails to produce a physical subsystem, and the claimed existence/uniqueness of the entanglement partner collapses. This is load-bearing for the main mixed-state claim, so a proof of non-degeneracy (or a counterexample) is required.
  2. [§III B 2, Eq. (58), proof of statement b)] The 'restricted sign flip identity' is used to show that the entanglement partner of A_ep is A, which is essential for establishing that A_ep captures all the entanglement between A and the rest. The identity is stated with a terse chain of equalities, and the operator expression T_aT_b J T_b T_a T_b is ambiguous as written (missing parentheses or a typo in the ordering of T factors). Since this identity is load-bearing, a full derivation with clear definitions of Ω^{T_S} and J^{T_S}, and a step-by-step verification of the sign flips, should be provided.
  3. [§III B 1, Proposition 3] The proof asserts that Γ_b = ⊕_I(Π^+_I Γ_a ⊕ Π^-_I Γ_a) is 'the smallest subsystem satisfying points 1 and 2', but no argument for minimality is given. Since the correlation partner A_cp is defined as the smallest uncorrelated subsystem containing A, this minimality step is part of the definitional content of the result and should be proved explicitly, not asserted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix H] The text says that after flipping γ_{p_a}, T_a reduces to the identity in the subspace symplectically orthogonal to the direction γ_{p_a}. The fixed subspace of the momentum flip is actually the subspace symplectically orthogonal to γ_{x_a}. Please correct the wording.
  2. [§III B 2, example] The reported value ν^{T_a}_1 = 1/2(−35 + √1201) ≈ −0.17 is negative, which is impossible for a symplectic eigenvalue. Please check the expression; this appears to be a typo in the worked example.
  3. [Appendix F] In several places the correlation partner is denoted Γ_aep (e.g., the lines defining the correlation partner in items 3 and 4), which conflicts with the notation Γ_acp used in the main text. Please use consistent notation.
  4. [General] Equation (41) defines projectors Π^±_I; the signs in the normalization conventions are not fully explained, though they follow from ⟨e_I,e_I⟩>0 and ⟨e_I^*,e_I^*⟩<0. A sentence making this explicit would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular dependency: partner formulas are derived from the state's complex structure / PT eigenvector, with external theorems carrying the PPT-to-separability step.

full rationale

The paper's central constructions are genuinely derived, not fitted or renamed inputs. The pure-state partner formula (Prop. 2, Eq. 33) is proven from the definition of the complex structure J and the symplectic projector; the text explicitly acknowledges equivalence to earlier work [5,6,16], so no novelty is claimed by hiding that equivalence. The mixed-state entanglement partner (Prop. 4, Eq. 47) is constructed from the subunity symplectic eigenvector of the partially transposed complex structure J^Ta, and the proof that this mode captures all entanglement is a non-trivial argument (decomposition of the restricted projector, comparison of symplectic eigenvalues) rather than a restatement of the definition. The 'exists precisely when non-PPT' claim relies on the external, machine-checkable literature [34,35] establishing that PPT is equivalent to separability and that logarithmic negativity is faithful for one-vs-many Gaussian partitions; this is independent support, not a self-citation. Self-citations present in the paper (e.g., [6], [21], [22]) are used as background or consistency checks, not as load-bearing justifications of the main theorems. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the same authors is invoked to force a choice, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. A mathematical gap exists in the manuscript—the proof of Prop. 4 shows Π^⊥_a e^Ta_1 is non-zero but does not show it has non-zero symplectic norm, so Γ_aep might fail to be a genuine symplectic subsystem—but that is a correctness risk, not an input-output circularity, because the argument does not assume the conclusion it is proving. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted, and the score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are introduced. The paper is a pure analytical construction built on standard Gaussian-state phase-space machinery and on the imported 1×N PPT theorem.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Gaussian states are fully characterized by their first and second statistical moments, so all correlation/entanglement information is encoded in σ and J.
    Sec. II D: the Wigner function is Gaussian and determined by μ and σ. This is the foundation of the entire framework.
  • domain assumption Subsystems correspond one-to-one with symplectic subspaces of the phase space (tensor-product Hilbert-space factors).
    Sec. II C: used throughout to define a 'mode' and a 'partner subsystem' as a subspace of phase space.
  • domain assumption For one-mode vs many-mode Gaussian bipartitions, the PPT criterion is necessary and sufficient for separability, and logarithmic negativity is a faithful entanglement measure.
    Appendix G, citing Serafini-Adesso-Illuminati [34] and Simon [35]. Converts non-PPT into proven entanglement and justifies identifying Γ_aep with all of A's entanglement.
  • standard math The complex structure J of a Gaussian state has eigenvalues ±iν_I with ν_I≥1 and eigenvectors forming a symplectic-orthonormal basis.
    Proved in Appendix B; used throughout for constructing projectors, partner subspaces, and eigenspace decompositions.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26615 in / 20788 out tokens · 194201 ms · 2026-08-03T16:57:51.884687+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce a framework to identify where the total correlations and entanglement with a chosen degree of freedom reside within the rest of a system, in the context of bosonic many-body Gaussian quantum systems. Our results are organized into two main propositions. First, for pure Gaussian states, we show that every correlated mode possesses a unique single-degree-of-freedom partner that fully captures its correlations (consisting of entanglement), and we provide an explicit construction of this partner from the complex structure of the system's state. Second, for mixed Gaussian states, we constructively demonstrate that the notion of a partner subsystem splits into two: a correlation partner, which contains all classical and quantum correlations and need not correspond to a single degree of freedom, and an entanglement partner, which is always at most single-mode. Finally, we extend the construction of partners to multi-mode subsystems. Together, these results provide conceptual practical tools to study how bipartite correlations and entanglement are structured and where they can be found in complex Gaussian many-body systems.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum Stochastic Inflation

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Stochastic inflation emerges as GKLS open-system dynamics from tracing entangled modes entering a coarse-grained de Sitter patch, reproducing the classical phase-space Fokker-Planck equation.

  2. Exact calculation of entanglement negativity for a 1+1D massless scalar field using phase space methods

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Exact computation of logarithmic negativity between arbitrary compact regions in 1+1D massless scalar field vacuum via Kähler structure diagonalization of partially-transposed complex structure, reformulated as comple...

  3. The negativity core of a 1+1D massless scalar quantum field

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Analytic computation of logarithmic negativity and closed-form negativity cores for vacuum entanglement between two bounded regions in 1+1D free massless scalar QFT.

  4. When inflationary perturbations refuse to classicalise: the role of non-Gaussianity in Wigner negativity

    gr-qc 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    In ultra-slow-roll inflation, the Wigner function of the inflationary Goldstone field becomes negative and its negativity grows with the scale factor squared, so the perturbations do not automatically become classical.

  5. Partner-mode overlap as a symplectic-invariant measure of correlations in Gaussian quantum field theories

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0

    Two bosonic Gaussian modes are entangled if and only if the symmetrized overlap of each mode with the other's purification partner exceeds a threshold D_c set by the purities of the modes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    system-local

    Classical Theory Subsystems in the classical theory are in one-to-one correspondence withsymplectic subspacesof Γ. For example, for a systems of three harmonic os- cillators with equal frequencies and masses, the sub- space spanned byγ 1 = (− q ℏ mω ,0,0,0,0,0) andγ 2 = (0, √ ℏmω,0,0,0,0), i.e., Γ a = span(γ 1, γ2), is a sym- plectic subspace and constitu...

  2. [2]

    classical-like

    Quantum theory For quantized systems, anN a-mode subsystem, with Na < N, is defined in direct analogy with the classi- cal case. Quantum subsystems are in one-to-one corre- spondence with (tensor product) Hilbert spacefactors. 4 In the algebraic approach to quantum theory, where the primary objects are algebras of observables rather than Hilbert spaces, s...

  3. [3]

    Properties 1 and 3 indicate thatσdefines an inner product on Γ, which implies that any quantum state de- fines a metric in the classical phase space

    When restricted to Γ,σis positive definite: σ(γ, γ)>0 for all nonzeroγin Γ. Properties 1 and 3 indicate thatσdefines an inner product on Γ, which implies that any quantum state de- fines a metric in the classical phase space. For this reason, we refer toσas thecovariance metric. A more common term is the covariance matrix, which we reserve for the compone...

  4. [4]

    The relation betweenJandσcan be inverted, yielding:σ(·,·) =−ℏ −1Ω(·, J·)

  5. [5]

    symplectic eigenvalues of σ

    Ω(·, J·) =−Ω(J·,·). This allows us to write the relation betweenσ, Ω andJasσ(·,·) =ℏ −1Ω(J·,·). 3.Jis diagonalizable, with purely imaginary eigen- values of the form±iν I , withν I ∈R +, I∈ {1, . . . , N}. TheNreal numbersνI are com- monly referred to as the “symplectic eigenvalues of σ”. 4.ν I ≥1 for allI, which is equivalent to saying that J 2 ≤ −I

  6. [6]

    normal” or “Williamson

    The eigenvectors ofJappear in pairs of com- plex conjugate vectorse I , e∗ I , forI= 1, . . . , N. (The real and imaginary parts of the eigenvectors eI are sometimes referred to as the “normal” or “Williamson” modes ofσ.) All together, and after normalization, the set of eigenvectors ofJforms a symplectic-orthonormal basis in Γ C. Specifically: ⟨eI |eJ ⟩=...

  7. [7]

    A basis of the partner mode ofAis made of (1− Πa)J γa and its conjugate

    Then ΓA = span [γa, γ∗ a] is a symplectic subspace of Γ and defines a correlated single-mode subsystem. A basis of the partner mode ofAis made of (1− Πa)J γa and its conjugate. The action ofJonγ a is J γa = i(2e1 + √ 3e∗ 3).(37) On the other hand, the symplectic projector Π a ontoAcan be written as Πa =γ a⟨γa,·⟩ −γ∗ a⟨γ∗ a,·⟩.(38) With this: Π⊥ a (J γa) =...

  8. [8]

    That is,A cp contains all degrees of freedom in the system that are correlated with those inA

    Correlation partner of a single-mode subsystem Given a single-mode subsystemAand a Gaussian state ˆρ, we define thecorrelation partnerofAas the smallest subsystem—distinct from and independent ofA—such that the combined systemA⊕A cp is uncorrelated. That is,A cp contains all degrees of freedom in the system that are correlated with those inA. LetJbe the r...

  9. [9]

    This holds becauseJleaves invariant both Π + I Γa and Π − I Γa, for allI, as Π ± I project onto eigenspaces ofJ

    The subsystemB, with Γb = M I Π+ I Γa ⊕Π − I Γa ,(43) is uncorrelated. This holds becauseJleaves invariant both Π + I Γa and Π − I Γa, for allI, as Π ± I project onto eigenspaces ofJ. 2.BcontainsA. This follows from the fact that the sumP I (Π+ I + Π− I ) equals the identity map on Γ. 8 3.Bis the smallest subsystem satisfying points 1 and 2. To determine ...

  10. [10]

    For mixed ˆρ, this is no longer true, and in order to find the entanglement partner, it is insufficient to just look atJ(or, equivalently,σ)

    Entanglement partner of a single-mode subsystem As we saw above, when ˆρis pure, the correlation part- ner and the entanglement partner are the same, and they both can be derived fromJ. For mixed ˆρ, this is no longer true, and in order to find the entanglement partner, it is insufficient to just look atJ(or, equivalently,σ). We need entanglement-specific...

  11. [11]

    This would contradict the fact that⟨·,(−I−iJ Ta )·⟩is positive semi-definite on the symplectic orthogonal complement of Γ 1

    Otherwise,⟨·,(−I−iJ Ta )·⟩would not be positive semi-definite on the corresponding eigenspace. This would contradict the fact that⟨·,(−I−iJ Ta )·⟩is positive semi-definite on the symplectic orthogonal complement of Γ 1. We conclude that the only symplectic eigenvalue of Π aaep J Ta Πaaep smaller than 1 is preciselyν Ta 1 . This completes the proof. Proof ...

  12. [12]

    Agullo, B

    I. Agullo, B. Bonga, P. Ribes-Metidieri, D. Kranas, and S. Nadal-Gisbert, How ubiquitous is entanglement in quantum field theory?, Phys. Rev. D108, 085005 (2023), arXiv:2302.13742 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    When restricted to Γ,σis positive definite: σ(γ, γ)>0 for all nonzeroγin Γ. Proof:

  14. [14]

    14 2.σ(γ ∗, γ)+⟨γ, γ⟩is equal to 2 Tr[ˆρˆOγ ˆO † γ]

    This property follows directly from the definition ofσ. 14 2.σ(γ ∗, γ)+⟨γ, γ⟩is equal to 2 Tr[ˆρˆOγ ˆO † γ]. This is the expectation value of the positive semi-definite op- erator ˆOγ ˆO † γ. Then, the positive semi-definiteness of the state ˆρguarantees that this quantity is≥0. On the other hand,σ(γ ∗, γ)− ⟨γ, γ⟩is equal toσ(γ, γ ∗) +⟨γ ∗, γ∗⟩. This is t...

  15. [15]

    Let us define the sesquilinear map (·,·) in Γ C as (γ, γ′)≡σ(γ ∗, γ′)

    We will prove a slightly more general statement. Let us define the sesquilinear map (·,·) in Γ C as (γ, γ′)≡σ(γ ∗, γ′). We will show that (·,·) is posi- tive definite in Γ C, so it defines a Hermitian inner product in Γ C. Because (·,·) andσagree when acting on real vectors, the positivity ofσwhen re- stricted to Γ follows automatically. First, since (γ, ...

  16. [16]

    This is equivalent toσ ab =−ℏ −1ΩacJ c b or, equivalently, σ(·,·) =−ℏ −1Ω(·, J·)

    MultiplyingJ a b =−ℏΩ acσcb times Ω da and using ΩdaΩac =δ c d, we find−σ db =ℏ −1ΩdaJ a b. This is equivalent toσ ab =−ℏ −1ΩacJ c b or, equivalently, σ(·,·) =−ℏ −1Ω(·, J·)

  17. [17]

    Because Ω(γ 1, J γ2)∝σ(γ 1, γ2), the bilinear form Ω(·, J·) is symmetric, and we have: Ω(γ1, J γ2) = Ω(γ2, J γ1)∀γ 1, γ2.(B1) On the other hand, sinceωis antisymmetric, it follows that: Ω(γ1, J γ2) =−Ω(J γ2, γ1)∀γ 1, γ2.(B2) Combining equations (B1) and (B2) yields the de- sired result

  18. [18]

    Therefore, it suffices to show thatJis anti-Hermitian with respect to a suitable Hermitian inner product on Γ C

    All anti-Hermitian linear maps are diagonalizable with purely imaginary eigenvalues, which come in pairs±ic, withc∈R +. Therefore, it suffices to show thatJis anti-Hermitian with respect to a suitable Hermitian inner product on Γ C. Specif- ically, we will show thatJis anti-Hermitian in ΓC with respect to the Hermitian inner product (·,·) =σ(· ∗,·). Anti-...

  19. [19]

    We denote bye I (without complex conjugate) the eigenvector ofJwith eigenvalue +iν I , withν I a non-negative real number

    This follows from the propertyσ(γ ∗, γ)− ⟨γ, γ⟩ ≥0 for allγ∈Γ C shown earlier. We denote bye I (without complex conjugate) the eigenvector ofJwith eigenvalue +iν I , withν I a non-negative real number. We will show first that eI has positive symplectic norm,⟨e I , eI ⟩>0. This follows by writing⟨e I , J eI ⟩in two ways. On the one hand,⟨e I , J eI ⟩=⟨e I ...

  20. [20]

    For a single-mode subsystemA,J Ta has at most one symplec- tic eigenvalue smaller than one,

    The anti-Hermiticity ofJguarantees that its eigen- vectors appear in pairse I ande ∗ I forI= 1, . . . , N, forming an orthogonal basis with respect to the in- ner product (·,·). Specifically, we have (e I , eJ ) = (e∗ I , e∗ J ) = 0 for allI̸=Jand (e I , e∗ J ) = 0 for allI andJ. Because (e I , eJ ) =σ(e ∗ I , eJ ) =ℏ −1Ω(J e∗ I , eJ ) = −iν I ℏ−1Ω(e∗ I ,...

  21. [21]

    partners

    (see also Appendix D). Finally, a basis of Γ ap can be obtained by apply- ing Eq. (67) to a basis of Γ a and symplectically or- thonormalizing the resulting vectors, e.g. via a symplectic Gram–Schmidt algorithm (see Appendix A of Ref. [26]). Example.Consider a four-mode system in a pure Gaussian state with complex structureJ and corresponding eigenbasis{e...

    2023

  22. [22]

    L. Gurvits, Classical deterministic complexity of Ed- monds’ problem and quantum entanglement, inProceed- ings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’03 (Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2003) pp. 10–19

    2003

  23. [23]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables(CRC Press, 2017)

    A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables(CRC Press, 2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Adesso, S

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Continuous Vari- able Quantum Information: Gaussian States and Be- yond, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn.21, 1440001 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    Hotta, R

    M. Hotta, R. Sch¨ utzhold, and W. G. Unruh, Partner par- ticles for moving mirror radiation and black hole evapo- ration, Phys. Rev. D91, 124060 (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    Trevison, K

    J. Trevison, K. Yamaguchi, and M. Hotta, Spatially over- lapped partners in quantum field theory, J. Phys. A Math. Theor.52, 125402 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    Tomitsuka, K

    T. Tomitsuka, K. Yamaguchi, and M. Hotta, Partner for- mula for an arbitrary moving mirror in$1+1$dimen- sions, Physical Review D101, 024003 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    Nambu and K

    Y. Nambu and K. Yamaguchi, Entanglement partners and monogamy in de Sitter universes, Physical Review D108, 045002 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    B. de S. L. Torres, K. Wurtz, J. Polo-G´ omez, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Entanglement structure of quan- tum fields through local probes, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 58 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    Osawa, K.-N

    Y. Osawa, K.-N. Lin, Y. Nambu, M. Hotta, and P. Chen, Final burst of the moving mirror is unrelated to the part- ner mode of analog Hawking radiation, Physical Review D110, 025023 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    J. M. Montes-Armenteros and J. Olmedo, Quantum en- tanglement of Hawking-Partner modes in expanding cav- ities (2025), arXiv:2508.00423 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Ribes-Metidieri, I

    P. Ribes-Metidieri, I. Agullo, and B. Bonga, Inflation does not create entanglement in local observables (2024), arXiv:2409.16366 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Ribes-Metidieri, I

    P. Ribes-Metidieri, I. Agullo, and B. Bonga, Entangle- ment and correlations between local observables in de Sitter spacetime (2025), arXiv:2511.17382 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Trevison, K

    J. Trevison, K. Yamaguchi, and M. Hotta, Pure state en- tanglement harvesting in quantum field theory, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2018, 103A03 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    Hackl and R

    L. Hackl and R. H. Jonsson, Minimal energy cost of en- tanglement extraction, Quantum3, 165 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    Osawa, Y

    Y. Osawa, Y. Nambu, and R. Yoshimoto, Entanglement Harvesting from Quantum Field: Insights via the Partner Formula (2025), arXiv:2504.18129 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Hackl and E

    L. Hackl and E. Bianchi, Bosonic and fermionic Gaussian states from K¨ ahler structures, SciPost Physics Core4, 025 (2021). 20

    2021

  39. [39]

    R. H. Jonsson, L. Hackl, and K. Roychowdhury, Entan- glement dualities in supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023213 (2021), arXiv:2103.09657 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Yamaguchi and M

    K. Yamaguchi and M. Hotta, Quantum information cap- sule in multiple-qudit systems and continuous-variable systems, Physics Letters A384, 126447 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    Yamaguchi, A

    K. Yamaguchi, A. Ahmadzadegan, P. Simidzija, A. Kempf, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Superadditivity of channel capacity through quantum fields, Phys. Rev. D 101, 105009 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    Yamaguchi,Quantum Information Capsule and Its Applications to Communication Through Quantum Fields, Ph.D

    K. Yamaguchi,Quantum Information Capsule and Its Applications to Communication Through Quantum Fields, Ph.D. thesis, Tohoku University (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    Agullo, B

    I. Agullo, B. Bonga, E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, S. Nadal- Gisbert, T. R. Perche, J. Polo-G´ omez, P. Ribes-Metidieri, and B. de S. L. Torres, Multimode nature of spacetime entanglement in QFT, Phys. Rev. D111, 085013 (2025), arXiv:2409.16368 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Klco and M

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Geometric quantum informa- tion structure in quantum fields and their lattice simula- tion, Phys. Rev. D103, 065007 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Klco and M

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Entanglement spheres and a UV-IR connection in effective field theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 211602 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    N. Klco, D. H. Beck, and M. J. Savage, Entanglement structures in quantum field theories: Negativity cores and bound entanglement in the vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012415 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    Gao and N

    B. Gao and N. Klco, Partial-transpose-guided entangle- ment classes and minimum noise filtering in many-body Gaussian quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A109, 062413 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    C. J. Fewster and K. Rejzner, Algebraic Quantum Field Theory—an introduction (2019), arXiv:1904.04051 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods(CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017)

    A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods(CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017)

    2017

  50. [50]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space: An introduction (2022), arXiv:2208.08682

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space: An introduction (2022), arXiv:2208.08682

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Adesso, Entanglement of gaussian states (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0702069 [quant-ph]

    G. Adesso, Entanglement of gaussian states (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0702069 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  52. [52]

    T. F. Demarie, Pedagogical introduction to the entropy of entanglement for gaussian states (2012), arXiv:1209.2748 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

    Ashtekar and A

    A. Ashtekar and A. Magnon, Quantum Fields in Curved Space-Times, Proc. R. Soc. A346, 375 (1975)

    1975

  54. [54]

    Serafini, G

    A. Serafini, G. Adesso, and F. Illuminati, Unitarily lo- calizable entanglement of Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A 71, 032349 (2005)

    2005

  55. [55]

    Simon, Peres-Horodecki Separability Criterion for Continuous Variable Systems, Phys

    R. Simon, Peres-Horodecki Separability Criterion for Continuous Variable Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2726 (2000)

    2000

  56. [56]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of en- tanglement, Phys. Rev. A65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  57. [57]

    M. B. Plenio, Logarithmic negativity: A full entangle- ment monotone that is not convex, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 090503 (2005)

    2005

  58. [58]

    Audenaert, M

    K. Audenaert, M. B. Plenio, and J. Eisert, Entangle- ment cost under positive-partial-transpose-preserving op- erations, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 027901 (2003)

    2003

  59. [59]

    M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, An introduction to entan- glement measures, Quant. Inf. Comput.7, 001 (2007)

    2007