- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Efficient polynomial-scaled determination of algebraic entanglement entropy between collective degrees of freedom

John Drew Wilson*, Jarrod T. Reilly*,†, and Murray J. Holland

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †Contact author: Jarrod.Reilly@colorado.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033182 – Published 12 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/sq34-nf4v

Abstract

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

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (112)

  1. J. T. Reilly, J. D. Wilson, S. B. Jäger, C. Wilson, and M. J. Holland, Optimal generators for quantum sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 150802 (2023).
  2. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017).
  3. M. Tse et al., Quantum-enhanced advanced LIGO detectors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231107 (2019).
  4. E. Pedrozo-Peñafiel, S. Colombo, C. Shu, A. F. Adiyatullin, Z. Li, E. Mendez, B. Braverman, A. Kawasaki, D. Akamatsu, Y. Xiao, and V. Vuletić, Entanglement on an optical atomic-clock transition, Nature (London) 588, 414 (2020).
  5. J. M. Robinson, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, C. J. Kennedy, T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, J. K. Thompson, and J. Ye, Direct comparison of two spin-squeezed optical clock ensembles at the 10−21 level, Nat. Phys. 20, 208 (2024).
  6. K. A. Gilmore, M. Affolter, R. J. Lewis-Swan, D. Barberena, E. Jordan, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Quantum-enhanced sensing of displacements and electric fields with two-dimensional trapped-ion crystals, Science 373, 673 (2021).
  7. J. T. Reilly, S. B. Jäger, J. D. Wilson, J. Cooper, S. Eggert, and M. J. Holland, Speeding up squeezing with a periodically driven Dicke model, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033090 (2024).
  8. V. M. Kendon and W. J. Munro, Entanglement and its role in Shor's algorithm, Quantum Info. Comput. 6, 630 (2006).
  9. C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992).
  10. T. Schaetz, M. D. Barrett, D. Leibfried, J. Chiaverini, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland, Quantum dense coding with atomic qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040505 (2004).
  11. J. Yin et al., Entanglement-based secure quantum cryptography over 1,120 kilometres, Nature (London) 582, 501 (2020).
  12. W.-Z. Liu, Y.-Z. Zhang, Y.-Z. Zhen, M.-H. Li, Y. Liu, J. Fan, F. Xu, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Toward a photonic demonstration of device-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 050502 (2022).
  13. G. García-Pérez, M. A. C. Rossi, and S. Maniscalco, IBM Q experience as a versatile experimental testbed for simulating open quantum systems, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 1 (2020).
  14. C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, A. Elben, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, Entanglement Hamiltonian tomography in quantum simulation, Nat. Phys. 17, 936 (2021).
  15. B. Sundar, D. Barberena, A. P. Orioli, A. Chu, J. K. Thompson, A. M. Rey, and R. J. Lewis-Swan, Bosonic pair production and squeezing for optical phase measurements in long-lived dipoles coupled to a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 113202 (2023).
  16. M. K. Joshi, C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, F. Kranzl, T. V. Zache, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Exploring large-scale entanglement in quantum simulation, Nature (London) 624, 539 (2023).
  17. N. Euler and M. Gärttner, Detecting high-dimensional entanglement in cold-atom quantum simulators, PRX Quantum 4, 040338 (2023).
  18. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  19. E. M. Gauger, E. Rieper, John J. L. Morton, S. C. Benjamin, and V. Vedral, Sustained quantum coherence and entanglement in the avian compass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 040503 (2011).
  20. M. G. Genoni, S. Olivares, and Matteo G. A. Paris, Optical phase estimation in the presence of phase diffusion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 153603 (2011).
  21. T. Ono, R. Okamoto, and S. Takeuchi, An entanglement-enhanced microscope, Nat. Commun. 4, 2426 (2013).
  22. N. Brunner, M. Huber, N. Linden, S. Popescu, R. Silva, and P. Skrzypczyk, Entanglement enhances cooling in microscopic quantum refrigerators, Phys. Rev. E 89, 032115 (2014).
  23. S. Apte, Quantum biology: Harnessing nano-technology's last frontier with modified excipients and food ingredients, J. Excipients Food Chem. 5, 117 (2016).
  24. S. Ecker, F. Bouchard, L. Bulla, F. Brandt, O. Kohout, F. Steinlechner, R. Fickler, M. Malik, Y. Guryanova, R. Ursin, and M. Huber, Overcoming noise in entanglement distribution, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041042 (2019).
  25. A. Shankar, J. T. Reilly, S. B. Jäger, and M. J. Holland, Subradiant-to-subradiant phase transition in the bad cavity laser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 073603 (2021).
  26. W.-Z. Liu, Y.-B. Zhou, J.-P. Chen, B. Wang, A. Teng, X.-W. Han, G.-C. Liu, Z.-J. Zhang, Y. Yang, F.-G. Liu, C.-H. Xue, B.-W. Yang et al., Long-lived remote ion–ion entanglement for scalable quantum repeaters, Nature 652, 51 (2026).
  27. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
  28. W.-L. Li, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Probabilistic teleportation and entanglement matching, Phys. Rev. A 61, 034301 (2000).
  29. X. Chen, Y. Shen, and F.-L. Zhang, Perfect teleportation with a partially entangled quantum channel, Phys. Rev. A 106, 032430 (2022).
  30. P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Fisher information and multiparticle entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022321 (2012).
  31. J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 023001 (2020).
  32. D. T. Smithey, M. Beck, M. G. Raymer, and A. Faridani, Measurement of the Wigner distribution and the density matrix of a light mode using optical homodyne tomography: Application to squeezed states and the vacuum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1244 (1993).
  33. V. D’Auria, S. Fornaro, A. Porzio, S. Solimeno, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Full characterization of Gaussian bipartite entangled states by a single homodyne detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 020502 (2009).
  34. J. Bae, B. C. Hiesmayr, and D. McNulty, Linking entanglement detection and state tomography via quantum 2-designs, New J. Phys. 21, 013012 (2019).
  35. A. Ekert and P. L. Knight, Entangled quantum systems and the Schmidt decomposition, Am. J. Phys. 63, 415 (1995).
  36. M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th Aanniversary ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010)
  37. J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277 (2010).
  38. P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2004) P06002.
  39. A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Topological entanglement entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110404 (2006).
  40. L. Masanes, All bipartite entangled states are useful for information processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 150501 (2006).
  41. R. F. Werner, Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989).
  42. D. Girolami and G. Adesso, Observable measure of bipartite quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 150403 (2012).
  43. B. Coecke and A. Kissinger, The compositional structure of multipartite quantum entanglement, in International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany, 2010), pp. 297–308.
  44. G. Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022322 (2012).
  45. Z. Ren, W. Li, A. Smerzi, and M. Gessner, Metrological detection of multipartite entanglement from Young diagrams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 080502 (2021).
  46. A. P. Balachandran, T. R. Govindarajan, A. R. de Queiroz, and A. F. Reyes-Lega, Algebraic approach to entanglement and entropy, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022301 (2013).
  47. A. F. Reyes-Lega, Entanglement entropy in quantum mechanics: An algebraic approach, in Particles, Fields and Topology, edited by T. R. Govindarajan, G. Marmo, P. V. Nair, D. O'Connor, R. G. Sarada, and S. Vaidya (World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 2023), Chap. 18, pp. 191–199.
  48. D. E. Pontello, Aspects of entanglement entropy in algebraic quantum field theory, Ph.D. thesis, Instituto Balseiro, San Carlos de Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina, 2019, arXiv:2005.13975.
  49. Y. Li, M. Gessner, W. Li, and A. Smerzi, Hyper- and hybrid nonlocality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 050404 (2018).
  50. P. van Loock, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. P. Spiller, T. D. Ladd, S. L. Braunstein, and G. J. Milburn, Hybrid quantum computation in quantum optics, Phys. Rev. A 78, 022303 (2008).
  51. S. Takeda, M. Fuwa, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Entanglement swapping between discrete and continuous variables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 100501 (2015).
  52. U. L. Andersen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Hybrid discrete- and continuous-variable quantum information, Nat. Phys. 11, 713 (2015).
  53. A. E. Ulanov, D. Sychev, A. A. Pushkina, I. A. Fedorov, and A. I. Lvovsky, Quantum teleportation between discrete and continuous encodings of an optical qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 160501 (2017).
  54. G. Guccione, T. Darras, H. L. Jeannic, V. B. Verma, S. W. Nam, A. Cavaillès, and J. Laurat, Connecting heterogeneous quantum networks by hybrid entanglement swapping, Sci. Adv. 6, eaba4508 (2020).
  55. C. Shukla, P. Malpani, and K. Thapliyal, Hierarchical quantum network using hybrid entanglement, Quantum Info. Proc. 20, 121 (2021).
  56. F. Xu, M. Wang, C. Qiao, S. Li, H. Wang, and X. Su, Hybrid entanglement carrying orbital angular momentum, Sci. Bull. 70, 876 (2025).
  57. J. D. Wilson, S. B. Jäger, J. T. Reilly, A. Shankar, M. L. Chiofalo, and M. J. Holland, Beyond one-axis twisting: Simultaneous spin-momentum squeezing, Phys. Rev. A 106, 043711 (2022).
  58. R. M. Gingrich and C. Adami, Quantum entanglement of moving bodies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 270402 (2002).
  59. F. Jeske, T. Stöferle, and M. DeKieviet, Massive spin-momentum entanglement measured in an atomic beam spin echo experiment, Eur. Phys. J. D 63, 25 (2011).
  60. M. T. Manzoni, L. Mathey, and D. E. Chang, Designing exotic many-body states of atomic spin and motion in photonic crystals, Nat. Commun. 8, 14696 (2017).
  61. T. Stav, A. Faerman, E. Maguid, D. Oren, V. Kleiner, E. Hasman, and M. Segev, Quantum entanglement of the spin and orbital angular momentum of photons using metamaterials, Science 361, 1101 (2018).
  62. S. S. Kale, Y. Ding, Y. P. Chen, B. Friedrich, and S. Kais, Spin-momentum entanglement in a Bose–Einstein condensate, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22, 25669 (2020).
  63. G. P. Greve, C. Luo, B. Wu, and J. K. Thompson, Entanglement-enhanced matter-wave interferometry in a high-finesse cavity, Nature (London) 610, 472 (2022).
  64. F. Finger, R. Rosa-Medina, N. Reiter, P. Christodoulou, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Spin- and momentum-correlated atom pairs mediated by photon exchange and seeded by vacuum fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 093402 (2024).
  65. O. Chelpanova, K. Seetharam, R. Rosa-Medina, N. Reiter, F. Finger, T. Donner, and J. Marino, Dynamics of spin-momentum entanglement from superradiant phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033193 (2024).
  66. F. Barkhausen, L. Ares, S. Schumacher, and J. Sperling, Entanglement between dependent degrees of freedom: Quasiparticle correlations, Phys. Rev. A 111, 032404 (2025).
  67. J. T. Reilly, G. W. Harmon, J. D. Wilson, M. J. Holland, and S. B. Jäger, Nonclassical many-body superradiant states with interparticle and spin-momentum entanglement, arXiv:2603.00463.
  68. A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quantum thermalization through entanglement in an isolated many-body system, Science 353, 794 (2016).
  69. H. Metcalf, Entropy exchange in laser cooling, Phys. Rev. A 77, 061401(R) (2008).
  70. C. Corder, B. Arnold, and H. Metcalf, Laser cooling without spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 043002 (2015).
  71. J. P. Bartolotta, S. B. Jäger, J. T. Reilly, M. A. Norcia, J. K. Thompson, G. Smith, and M. J. Holland, Entropy transfer from a quantum particle to a classical coherent light field, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013218 (2022).
  72. J. T. Reilly, Entropy removal and coherence with lasers, Bachelor's thesis, University of Colorado Boulder, 2020.
  73. M. Xu, D. A. Tieri, and M. J. Holland, Simulating open quantum systems by applying SU(4) to quantum master equations, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062101 (2013).
  74. A. Piñeiro Orioli, J. K. Thompson, and A. M. Rey, Emergent dark states from superradiant dynamics in multilevel atoms in a cavity, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011054 (2022).
  75. Rui, E. F. Silva and J. Feist, Permutational symmetry for identical multilevel systems: A second-quantized approach, Phys. Rev. A 105, 043704 (2022).
  76. D. A. Steck, Quantum and atom optics, 2007, https://atomoptics.uoregon.edu/∼dsteck/teaching/quantum-optics/.
  77. X.-H. Li and S. Ghose, Self-assisted complete maximally hyperentangled state analysis via the cross-Kerr nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. A 93, 022302 (2016).
  78. Z. Zeng, Complete analysis of the maximally hyperentangled state via the weak cross-Kerr nonlinearity, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 39, 2272 (2022).
  79. H. Georgi, Lie Algebras in Particle Physics: From Isospin to Unified Theories, Frontiers in Physics (Avalon Publishing, Boca Raton, FL, 1999).
  80. T. Bastin and J. Martin, Permutationally invariant processes in open multiqudit systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 58, 275301 (2025).
  81. M. Mathur, I. Raychowdhury, and R. Anishetty, SU(N) irreducible Schwinger bosons, J. Math. Phys. 51, 093504 (2010).
  82. W. Pfeifer, The Lie Algebras SU(N), An Introduction (Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland, 2003).
  83. G. Eichmann, Lecture notes: QCD and hadron physics, 2020, http://cftp.ist.utl.pt/∼gernot.eichmann/lecture-notes.
  84. In terms of Young tableaux, the irreps of both SU(2) subgroups must have (N/2−J) many boxes in the second row indicating singlet pairs [79, 82, 83].
  85. L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995).
  86. For a given partition (Young diagram), standard Young tableaux label basis states of the irreps of the permutation group SN, while semistandard Young tableaux (also known as standard Weyl tableaux) encode weight vectors (collective states) of the corresponding irrep of SU(n). The connection between the two is provided by the Schur-Weyl duality. See Ref. [80] for more details.
  87. D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2017).
  88. A. Björck, Numerics of Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization, Linear Algebra Appl. 197–198, 297 (1994).
  89. M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013).
  90. N. J. Cerf and C. Adami, Negative entropy in quantum information theory, in New Developments on Fundamental Problems in Quantum Physics, edited by M. Ferrero and A. van der Merwe (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1997), pp. 77–84.
  91. M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Quantum state merging and negative information, Commun. Math. Phys. 269, 107 (2006).
  92. M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138 (1993).
  93. B. Buča and T. Prosen, A note on symmetry reductions of the Lindblad equation: Transport in constrained open spin chains, New J. Phys. 14, 073007 (2012).
  94. S. Lieu, R. Belyansky, J. T. Young, R. Lundgren, V. V. Albert, and A. V. Gorshkov, Symmetry breaking and error correction in open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240405 (2020).
  95. M. Nairn, B. Olmos, and P. Solanki, Controlling emergent dynamical behavior via phase-engineered strong symmetries, arXiv:2602.18563.
  96. J. T. Reilly, S. B. Jäger, J. Cooper, and M. J. Holland, Fully collective superradiant lasing with vanishing sensitivity to cavity length vibrations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 143803 (2026).
  97. J. T. Lee, S. Cardenas-Lopez, S. J. Masson, R. Trivedi, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Exact many-body quantum dynamics in one-dimensional baths via “superspins”, Phys. Rev. A 113, L061701 (2026).
  98. S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. S. Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Advances in quantum cryptography, Adv. Opt. Photon. 12, 1012 (2020).
  99. J. Tang, S. Wang, B. Liang, and Y. Gong, Research on intraparticle to interparticle entanglement swapping protocols, Appl. Sci. 14, 8035 (2024).
  100. S. Adhikari, A. S. Majumdar, D. Home, and A. K. Pan, Swapping path-spin intraparticle entanglement onto spin-spin interparticle entanglement, Europhys. Lett. 89, 10005 (2010).
  101. I. Bayal and P. Panchadhyayee, A protocol for conversion of path-spin to spin-spin quantum entanglement, J. Quantum Comput. 5, 71 (2023).
  102. S.-B. Yang, W. Ning, R.-H. Zheng, Z.-B. Yang, and S.-B. Zheng, Deterministic entanglement swapping with hybrid discrete- and continuous-variable systems, Photonics 9, 368 (2022).
  103. K. A. Landsman, C. Figgatt, T. Schuster, N. M. Linke, B. Yoshida, N. Y. Yao, and C. Monroe, Verified quantum information scrambling, Nature (London) 567, 61 (2019).
  104. J.-H. Wang, T.-Q. Cai, X.-Y. Han, Y.-W. Ma, Z.-L. Wang, Z.-H. Bao, Y. Li, H.-Y. Wang, H.-Y. Zhang, L.-Y. Sun, Y.-K. Wu, Y.-P. Song, and L.-M. Duan, Information scrambling dynamics in a fully controllable quantum simulator, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043141 (2022).
  105. P. Hayden and J. Preskill, Black holes as mirrors: Quantum information in random subsystems, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2007) 120.
  106. The Legacy of John von Neumann, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematicss, edited by J. Glimm, J. Impagliazzo, and I. Singer (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1990).
  107. P. Zanardi, Quantum entanglement in fermionic lattices, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042101 (2002).
  108. F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, F. Franchini, and U. Marzolino, Entanglement in indistinguishable particle systems, Phys. Rep. 878, 1 (2020).
  109. J. V. Neumann, Zur algebra der funktionaloperationen und theorie der normalen operatoren, Math. Ann. 102, 370 (1930).
  110. J. T. Schwartz, W-* Algebras (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1967).
  111. E. Karimi, J. Leach, S. Slussarenko, B. Piccirillo, L. Marrucci, L. Chen, W. She, S. Franke-Arnold, M. J. Padgett, and E. Santamato, Spin-orbit hybrid entanglement of photons and quantum contextuality, Phys. Rev. A 82, 022115 (2010).
  112. L. Chen and W. She, Spin-orbit-path hybrid Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entanglement and open-destination teleportation with multiple degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. A 83, 032305 (2011).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033182– Published 12 August, 2026
  • Received 4 March 2026
  • Accepted 8 July 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation