Arxiv:2002.08201V2 [Quant-Ph] 18 May 2020

Teleporting Quantum Information Encoded in Fermionic Modes

Tiago Debarba,1 Fernando Iemini,2, 3 Geza Giedke,4, 5 and Nicolai Friis6, 1Departamento Acadêmico de Ciências da Natureza, ∗ Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), Campus Cornélio Procópio, Avenida Alberto Carazzai 1640, Cornélio Procópio, Paraná 86300-000, Brazil 2Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal Fluminense, 24210-346 Niterói, Brazil 3ICTP, Strada Costiera 11, 34151 Trieste, Italy 4Donostia International Physics Center, Paseo Manuel de Lardizabal 4, E-20018 San Sebastián, Spain 5Ikerbasque Foundation for Science, Maria Diaz de Haro 3, E-48013 Bilbao, Spain 6Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information - IQOQI Vienna, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, 1090 Vienna, Austria (Dated: 7 May 2020) Quantum teleportation is considered a basic primitive in many quantum information processing tasks and has been experimentally confirmed in various photonic and matter-based setups. Here, we consider teleportation of quantum information encoded in modes of a fermionic field. In fermionic systems, superselection rules lead to a more differentiated picture of entanglement and teleportation. In particular, one is forced to distinguish between single-mode entanglement swapping, and qubit teleportation with or without authentication via Bell inequality violation, as we discuss here in detail. We focus on systems subject to parity superselection where the particle number is not fixed, and contrast them with systems constrained by particle number superselection which are relevant for possible practical implementations. Finally, we analyze the consequences for the operational inter- pretation of fermionic mode entanglement and examine the usefulness of so-called mixed maximally entangled states for teleportation.

I. INTRODUCTION frequency traps [21] or optical lattices [22]) are electrons, i.e., fermions or even the more elusive Majorana fermi- Quantum teleportation refers to the transference of ons [23–27]. Fermionic systems are described by anti- quantum information encoded in the complex amplitu- commuting operators and are subject to superselection des of an unknown quantum state of a localized system rules [28–31], both of which require a careful approach to to a remote system solely via initially entangled, local questions concerning correlations and entanglement [31– operations, and exchange of classical information. First 41], in particular, with regards to definition of mode sub- proposed in [1], quantum teleportation was experimen- systems [42, 43]. Nonetheless, many features known from tally confirmed in [2], followed soon thereafter by furt- bosonic quantum optics settings can be successfully car- her experiments refining various aspects of teleportation ried over to fermions, for instance, phase-space methods using photon polarization [3,4], optical coherence [5], and for the description of Gaussian states and channels [44– nuclear magnetic resonance [6]. Since then, teleportation 51]. Research in this direction has previously mostly been has become a conceptual cornerstone of many tasks in confined to the domain of theoretical analysis, but impre- quantum communication and quantum information pro- ssive technological advances in the control and manipu- cessing. Among other methods [7], teleportation can be lation of individual electrons [52–56], as well as in the seen as a way of detecting and certifying the usefulness of generation of electronic mode-entangled states [57] moti- entanglement, because the latter is necessary to achieve vate further studies of fermionic entanglement also from a nontrivial teleportation fidelity. Practical teleporta- a practical perspective. tion protocols have been developed for photonic degrees of freedom, e.g., in the context of long-distance high- A key open problem in this area concerns the assig- fidelity communication [8–11], chip-to-chip teleportation arXiv:2002.08201v2 [quant-ph] 18 May 2020 nment of clear operational meaning to fermionic mode with applications to integrated photonic quantum tech- entanglement and its quantifiers. That is, fermionic sys- nologies [12], or multi-party settings [13] relevant, e.g., tems with variable or indefinite numbers of particles (but for measurement-based quantum computation [14, 15]. subject to superselection rules) allow for different ways In parallel to advances in photonic setups, much proof quantifying entanglement, see, e.g., [30, 31]. But what gress has been made for teleportation in matter-based do these quantifiers tell us about the usefulness of the systems [16–19]. corresponding states in practical tasks? Consider a single Information carriers that are typically used for quan- fermionic excitation in an equally weighted superposition tum information processing in solid-state and atomic sys- of two different field modes in analogy to a single pho- tems (for instance, quantum dots [20], and ions in radio- ton that is delocalized in a two-path interferometer. For- mally, such a state can be seen as being maximally entangled: The state of either mode is maximally mixed. But is this type of entanglement operationally meaningful? [email protected] For instance, can one use it to violate a Bell inequality? ∗ 2

If a quantum state allows such a violation then it can rimental implementations (in particular, using state-of- be unambiguously concluded that the state is entangled. the-art methods in electron quantum optics [65]). Fi- For fermionic mode entanglement it was shown in [58] nally, we apply our findings to understand the wider that this is indeed possible provided that two locally pro- implications for the quantification of fermionic entangle- cessed copies of a maximally entangled two-mode state ment, especially with a view to the notion of ‘mixed maxi- (four modes in total) are used. While this can be seen as mally entangled’ (MME) fermionic states [66] and their a device-independent certification of the entanglement of usefulness for teleportation. the state, one may nonetheless wonder to what (further) The paper is structured as follows. In Sec.II, we briefly practical use this fermionic mode entanglement can be discuss the mathematical framework of fermionic modes put. Here, we therefore investigate teleportation using and their entanglement. In Sec.III, we then turn to te- fermionic mode entanglement as a resource. leportation. First, we review the standard protocol for Inspired by initial work in this direction [59], we review qubit teleportation as a backdrop and discuss how fer- and more closely examine the different ways of interpre- mionic teleportation deviates from this well-established ting the standard teleportation protocol [1] for the task paradigm in Sec. III.1. We then analyze protocols for te- of teleporting fermionic quantum information in the pre- leporting the state of a single fermionic mode in Sec. III.2, sence of superselection rules (SSRs). Previous proposals as well as their implementation via fermionic Gaussian and experiments [60–64] leave no doubt that teleporta- operations in Sec. III.3, before we turn to teleportation tion using fermionic quantum systems is indeed possible. of states of several modes in Sec. III.4. In Sec.IV, we then However, here we aim to identify the minimal resources discuss how the presented teleportation schemes (and po- for fermionic teleportation in order to better understand tential practical implementations in electron quantum the operational meaning of the fundamental unit of fermi- optics [65]) are influenced by the additional constraint onic mode entanglement. In particular, we are interested of a SSR for the particle number. The implications on in the subtle consequences that SSRs imply for the use- the quantification of fermionic (mode) entanglement are fulness of fermionic entangled states as resources for te- analyzed in Sec.V, with a special view to MME states. leportation. As we discuss, the parity superselection rule (P-SSR) imposes restrictions that require a more diffe- II. FRAMEWORK rentiated specification of what is meant by ‘teleporting quantum information’ in the first place. II.1. Fermionic modes For a single fermionic mode that is not entangled with any other mode(s), the parity SSR implies that the en- We consider quantum information encoded in the mo- coded information is classical. Consequently, teleporting des of a fermionic field1. To each mode labelled i we † such a state requires no shared entanglement in princi- associate a pair of fermionic mode operators bi and bi , ple. However, when the mode in question is entangled which satisfy with an another (auxiliary) mode, an entangled resource † state is necessary for teleportation-based entanglement bi , bj δij , bi , bj 0 i, j, (1) swapping. When more than one mode is considered, the + + equivalent of one qubit of quantum information can be where {.,. denotes} = the anticommutator.{ } = ∀ The corres- directly encoded in the teleported state (e.g., dual-rail ponding Fock space is constructed by the action of the { }+ † encoding in two modes). However, we find that the cor- creation operators bi on the vacuum state 0 , which responding protocols require more resources as compared itself is annihilated by all annihilation operators bi, i.e., † SS ⟩⟩ to standard qubit teleportation. To transfer the complex bi 0 0 i. The creation operators bi populate the † amplitudes of a single qubit, one can make do with sha- vacuum with single fermions, that is, bi 0 1i . Due ring a single maximally entangled fermionic mode pair toSS the⟩⟩ indistinguishability= ∀ of the particles the tensor pro- and two bits of classical information (a fermionic single- duct of single-particle states needs to be antisymmetrizedSS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩ mode teleportation channel), but one also needs to tran- when two or more fermions are created. Here, we use the sfer additional information about the teleported state convention (the state of the second mode) via a fermionic quantum † † channel. This channel may be realized by another fer- bkbk 0 1k 1k 1k 1k , (2) mionic single-mode teleportation channel, increasing the ′ ′ ′ where we use double-lined notation to indicate the an- required resources to two copies of maximally entangled SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩ ∧ SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ tisymmetrized wedge product “ " between two or more two-mode states, along with the usual two bits of classical single-mode state vectors with particle content (in con- information. trast to the notation ∧ for a tensor product), Within the framework of these variations of standard teleportation we discuss the consequences of further res- S⋅⟩S⋅⟩ = S⋅⟩⊗S⋅⟩ trictions. In particular, we consider the potential of fermionic Gaussian states and operations for teleportation, 1 For now, we impose no further constraints such as a particular as well as the limitations imposed by particle number su- (half-integer) spin, fixed mass or charge on the field excitations, perselection, which is highly relevant for potential expe- but we discuss such restrictions in Sec.IV. 3

i.e., we have 1k 1k 1k 1k , whereas com- states Φ AB and Ψ AB given by binations of states with′ and without′ particle content sati- ± ± sfy 0 1 SS ⟩⟩SS1 ⟩⟩0 = − SS 1 ⟩⟩SS. With⟩⟩ this definition SS ⟩⟩ SS 1 ⟩⟩ k k k Φ AB 0 1A 1B , (7a) at hand, arbitrary pure states on the Fock space can be 2 ± √ writtenSS ⟩⟩SS as ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩ Ψ 1 1 1 . (7b) SS ⟩⟩AB = 2 SS B⟩⟩ ± SS A⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ ± n √ SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩ ± SS ⟩⟩ Ψ γ0 0 γi 1i γjk 1j 1k .... (3) The parity superselection rule leads to some interesting i 1 j,k differences with respect to the corresponding two-qubit states. First, one notes that measurements in any local SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩ + Q= SS ⟩⟩ + Q SS ⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ + However, the parity superselection rule (see, e.g., [28– single-mode basis other than the ‘computational’ basis 31]) implies that coherent superpositions of even and odd 0 , 1A are prevented by parity superselection. At numbers of fermions cannot exist. For instance, a general the same time, measurements in a single product basis pure state of two modes A and A of the form are{SS not⟩⟩ SS sufficient⟩⟩} to distinguish entanglement from purely ′ classical correlations. Consequently, two copies of each

Ψ AA γ0 0 γA 1A γA 1A state need to be processed simultaneously to allow for the ′ ′ ′ γ 1 1 , (4) violation of a Bell inequality [58] (see also Ref. [71]). Se- SS ⟩⟩ = AASS ⟩⟩ +A SS A ⟩⟩ + SS ⟩⟩ ′ ′ cond, the superselection rule also restricts the physically must be an even- or+ odd-paritySS ⟩⟩SS state,⟩⟩ i.e., the probability allowed pure-state decompositions for any given mixed amplitudes must satisfy either state, which enters in convex-roof entanglement measu- res. For instance, consider the entanglement of formation 2 2 (EOF) [72], defined as γA γA 0 , γ0 γAA 1 (even parity), ′ ′ 2 2 i or γ0 γAA 0 , γA γA 1 (odd parity). ρ inf p S ρ , (8) = = S S + S S = oF i A ′ ′ ρ i ( ) While coherent= = superpositionsS S + S S of= states with different E ( ) ∶= D( ) Q ( ) parity are thus forbidden, incoherent mixtures are still where S ρ tr ρ log ρ is the von Neumann entropy possible. In particular, this implies that any fermionic and the infimum is taken over all pure-state decompo- single-mode state must be of the form sitions,( that) = is,− ρ (is) normally taken to be the set of all sets pi, ψi i for which ρ i pi ψi ψi , with ρA p 0 0 1 p 1A 1A , (5) i pi 1 and 0 Dpi( )1. For fermionic modes it can now be argued{( [66] thatS ⟩)} the set ρ should= ∑ beS restricted⟩⟨ S to for 0 p 1.= SS ⟩⟩⟨⟨ SS + ( − ) SS ⟩⟩⟨⟨ SS allow∑ = only pure≤ state≤ decompositions pi, ψi i where the states ψi satisfy the parityD( ) superselection rule. This ≤ ≤ assumption leads to the notion of mixed{( maximallyS ⟩)} en- II.2. Entanglement of fermionic modes tangled (MME)S ⟩ states [66], i.e., mixtures of maximally entangled pure states from different parity subspaces that The parity superselection rule also has interesting con- are still as entangled (according to the value of the super- sequences for defining entanglement between fermionic selected EOF) as the individual pure states. The ques- mode subsystems. In principle, one can define sub- tion that remains is, what is the operational significance systems containing complementary, non-overlapping sets of the value of the fermionic EOF? of fermionic modes and consider (quantum) correlations Here, we therefore want to investigate the role of su- between them, see, for instance [30, 31, 35, 38, 42, 67]. In perselection rules and fermionic entanglement in telepor- particular, the ‘local’ operators assigned to different sub- tation protocols. More specifically, we aim to extend pre- systems need not commute as one would usually assume, vious work [59] in this direction and identify if and how but they can also anticommute. In fact, there is no par- quantum information encoded in fermionic modes can be ticular reason why the modes in question need to be spa- teleported, which resources need to be shared and which tially separated. For instance, one may consider two spa- information needs to be communicated, before we return tially overlapping (but orthogonal) field modes with dif- to a discussion of the implications for fermionic entangle- ferent frequencies. In any case, particular care must be ment in Sec.V. taken to deal with the definition of partial traces [42, 43] to avoid ambiguities such as those discussed in [68–70]. In other words, two-mode states like III. FERMIONIC TELEPORTATION

e even: ψ AA α 0 β 1A 1A , (6a) III.1. Fermionic versus qubit teleportation ′ odd: ψo ′ α 1 β 1 , (6b) SS ⟩⟩AA = SS A⟩⟩ + SS A⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ ′ ′ To set the stage for explaining fermionic teleportation can be regardedSS ⟩⟩ as entangled= SS ⟩⟩ (for+ αβSS 0⟩⟩). In particular, scenarios, let us brieﬂy sketch the standard protocol for we can deﬁne a basis of maximally entangled two-mode teleporting a single qubit between two observers called =~ 4

n1, n2 ψ ˜ χn1n2 ψ BA C Un1n2 B ′ { } n1, n2 SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ S ⟩ Un1n2 { }

A˜ A B

A˜ A˜ A B C ψ A˜ ϕ AB ′ Figure 1. Qubit teleportation. Teleporting one qubit of qu- S ⟩ S ⟩ ψ ˜ ˜ ϕ 0 ψ AA AB C antum information, encoded in the single-qubit state A˜ ′ A˜ B SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ from qubit to qubit , requires sharing one maximally en- Figure 2. Fermionic single-mode teleportation. In this sce- tangled two-qubit state ϕ (1 ‘ebit’) and communicatingS ⟩ AB nario, quantum information encoded mode A˜ is teleported to n n two bits of classical information with bit values 1 and 2, mode B by sharing one maximally entangled two-mode state respectively. S ⟩ ϕ AB (1 ‘fbit’) and communicating two bits of classical information with bit values n1 and n2. The four possible values SSof these⟩⟩ bits correspond to the four possible measurement out-

comes of a measurement in the basis Φ AA˜ , Ψ AA˜ . Alice and Bob, as illustrated in Fig.1. There, to tele- Finally, a unitary Un n that depends on the± bit values± n1 ˜ 1 2 port an unknown state ψ A˜ of qubit A, held by Alice, a and n2 is applied to the modes B and{SSC to⟩⟩ recoverSS the⟩⟩ te-} maximally entangled two-qubit state Φ AB of qubits A leported state in mode B. Due to the parity superselection and B is shared betweenS ⟩ Alice and Bob. Then, a pro- rule, some of the unitaries Un1n2 require changing the state ˜ jective measurement in a maximally entangledS ⟩ two-qubit of the auxiliary mode C from 0 to 1C . Mode A may basis is performed on qubits A and A˜ by Alice. The re- initially be in an entangled pure state ψ AÃ˜ or an arbitrary ˜ SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ sult of the measurement, encoded in two classical bits mixed state ρAÃ˜ with mode A , as we discuss′ in more detail in Sec. III.4. The′ details of the′ teleportationSS ⟩⟩ protocol do not with values n1 and n2, is then sent to Bob, who applies a depend on the parity sector of the state ψ AÃ˜ . corresponding unitary Un1n2 on qubit B, recovering the state ψ . ′ B SS ⟩⟩ The basic observation to understand where telepor- tationS of⟩ fermionic quantum information deviates from quantum information, then we either have to relax the standard teleportation of qubits [1] is that parity superse- rules of the teleportation protocol (see Sec. III.4) or con- lection implies that single-mode states of fermionic fields sider the teleportation of an entangled two-mode state are of the form of Eq. (5). On the one hand, this means from Eq. (6), since this definition implies that a single that a single mode can locally only encode classical infor- fermionic mode cannot contain quantum information. mation (the equivalent of a classical bit). Consequently, As in the teleportation using qubits, the teleportation teleportation of the quantum information stored solely in of fermionic quantum information of any kind requires a single fermionic mode state is trivial: One can simply two resources: measure the state, send the result as one bit of classical information via a classical channel and prepare the cor- (i) Shared entangled states: For qubits, one usually responding state at the other end. On the other hand, considers the number of ‘ebits’, i.e., shared maxi- the entropy of the single-mode state can arise from lack mally entangled qubit pairs. Here, we consider the of information but also from entanglement with another number of required fermionic ebits, i.e., maximally entangled two-mode states, which we call ‘fbits’. mode. That is, the state ρA˜ that is to be teleported and which is of the form of Eq. (5) may be the marginal of a (ii) Sending classical information (in bits). two-mode state ρAÃ˜ , for instance, as in Eqs. (6a) or (6b) 2 with p α , or even′ an incoherent mixture of the two. In For qubits, the minimal amount of resources for telepor- this case, a purely classical ‘measure and prepare’ proto- tation of 1 qubit is 1 ebit and 2 bits. For the teleportation col would= S transferS classical information stored locally in of fermionic quantum information, the minimally requ- mode A˜, but would not be able to preserve entanglement ired resources depend on the particular scenario one con- with mode A˜ . siders. In the following, we will discuss these different To consider′ teleportation of quantum information scenarios and the corresponding resources, advantages, using fermionic modes in any nontrivial way, we hence and drawbacks. first have to decide what we mean by ‘quantum information’: If by ‘quantum information’ we mean the state of a system that itself contains only classical information but III.2. Fermionic single-mode teleportation which might be entangled with another system, then we can consider teleporting the state of a single fermionic For the teleportation of fermionic quantum informa- mode, as we discuss in Sec. III.2. If, on the other hand, tion, we explore a situation where Alice wishes to tele- we require the transfer of the equivalent of one qubit of port the state of a single mode labelled A˜ to Bob, as 5 illustrated in Fig.2. The mode A˜ may (potentially) be Φ AB Φ AB Ψ AB Ψ AB entangled with another mode A˜ that is itself not necessa- + − + − 1 rily teleported and whose role we′ discuss in more detail in Φ AA˜ SS ⟩⟩ SS Uπ⟩⟩ SS UP⟩⟩ SS UPU⟩⟩π Sec. III.4. For simplicity, let us for now assume that the + Φ U 1 UPU UP two modes are prepared in the state ψ as in Eq. (6). SS ⟩⟩AA˜ π π AÃ˜ − We further assume that Alice and Bob share′ one maxi- 1 SS Ψ ⟩⟩AA˜ UPUπ UP Uπ + mally entangled fermionic two-modeSS state⟩⟩ ϕ AB , i.e., 1 Ψ UP UPU 1 U fbit, as a resource to teleport the state of mode A˜ from SS ⟩⟩AA˜ π π SS ⟩⟩ − Alice to Bob. Alice then performs a projective measu- SS ⟩⟩ rement with respect to the basis Φ , Ψ on Table 1. Correction operations for even- and odd-parity reso- AA˜ AA˜ urce states. Depending on which of the four outcomes (rows) the modes A˜ and A. ± ± 1 U UP {SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ } is obtained, one of the four unitary corrections , π, , or UPUπ needs to be applied, depending on the resource state (columns) used. 1. Even-parity resource states

With the mentioned choice of measurement basis in such that † UP 1B b b 1B 1C , (12a) mind, we can write the joint initial state ψ AÃ˜ ϕ AB C B e ′ † † for the specific case where ψ AÃ˜ ψ AÃ˜ and ˜ ˜ ˜ UP 1A bC bB 1A 1B 1A 1C . (12b) ′ ′ SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩ ϕ AB Φ AB , i.e., both states haveSS even⟩⟩ SS parity.⟩⟩ ′ ′ ′ † Then, we have± SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩ OneSS can⟩⟩ confirm= − thatSS ⟩⟩ the= unitarity− SS ⟩⟩SS condition⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ UP UP SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩ † 1 UPUP is satisfied using the anticommutation rela- e 1 ψ Φ Φ α 0 β 1 1 ˜ tions of (1). Bob may thus obtain the desired state= AÃ˜ AB 2 AA˜ B A e ′ ˜ ′ ± + ψ B=A˜ α 0 β 1B 1A by applying the uni- ˜ ′ SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ = SSΦ AA⟩⟩˜ α SS0 ⟩⟩ ±β SS1B ⟩⟩SS1A ⟩⟩ tary UPU′ π or just UP, if the measurement outcome is − ′ SS Ψ ⟩⟩ AA˜ =or SSΨ ⟩⟩ +AA˜ ,SS given⟩⟩SS that⟩⟩ the resource state was Ψ α 1 β 1 ˜ + SS ⟩⟩AA˜ SS B⟩⟩ ∓ SS A⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ Φ± AB . ∓ + ′ SS When± ⟩⟩ theSS state⟩⟩ to be teleported has odd parity, ˜ ± SS Ψ ⟩⟩AA˜ α SS 1B ⟩⟩ ± β SS 1A ⟩⟩ . (9) o SS ψ A⟩⟩Ã˜ ψ AÃ˜ , we have − ′ ′ ′ ± SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ ∓ SS ⟩⟩ o 1 The measurement with respect to the basis ψ Φ Φ α 1 ˜ β 1 SS ⟩⟩ AÃ˜ = SS ⟩⟩AB 2 AA˜ A B Φ AA˜ , Ψ AA˜ results in one of four possible ′ ± + ′ outcomes± corresponding± to the four orthogonal basis ˜ SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ = SSΦ AA⟩⟩˜ α SS1A ⟩⟩ ±β SS1B ⟩⟩ states.{SS ⟩⟩ AliceSS ⟩⟩ encodes} the outcome in two classical − ′ Ψ α 1 1 ˜ β 0 bits, n1 and n2, and communicates them to Bob via + SS ⟩⟩AA˜ SS B ⟩⟩ ∓ A SS ⟩⟩ a classical channel. If the outcome suggests that the + ′ ˜ modes A˜ and A have been projected onto the state ± SS Ψ ⟩⟩AA˜ α SS 1B ⟩⟩SS 1A ⟩⟩ ± β SS 0 ⟩⟩ . − ′ Φ ˜ , i.e., the initially shared resource state, then (13) AA ± SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ ∓ SS ⟩⟩ the± modes B and A˜ are left in the ‘correct’ state e For outcomes in the same parity sector as the resource SS ψ ⟩⟩ α 0 β ′ 1 1 ˜ , without any further BA˜ B A state, the applied corrections are either trivial or corres- ′ action.′ If the obtained outcome is Φ ˜ , i.e., an AA pond to Uπ from Eq. (10). When the outcomes are in outcomeSS ⟩⟩ in= theSS same⟩⟩ + (even)SS ⟩⟩SS parity⟩⟩ sector as∓ the resource the odd-parity sector, we have to apply UP in addition, state but with a relative phase of π,SS then⟩⟩ a phase flip which acts as transformation is required which can be represented by † † the unitary UP 0 bC bB 0 1B 1C , (14a) † † UP 1B 1A˜ b b 1B 1A˜ 1A˜ 1C . Uπ exp iπb b , (10) SS ⟩⟩ = −C B SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ B B ′ ′ ′ (14b) SS ⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ = − SS ⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ which maps 1B to = 1B and leaves all other modes Crucially, the combinations of outcomes and corrections, invariant. When the outcome corresponds to a state in summarized in Table1, are exactly the same as for the e the oppositeSS (odd)⟩⟩ parity− SS sector,⟩⟩ i.e., Ψ ˜ , then Bob AA even-parity state ψ AÃ˜ , such that Bob is not required needs to apply a unitary UP to switch the± parity of the to have information about′ the parity of the unknown state in the modes B and A˜ . Due to paritySS ⟩⟩ superselection state to successfullySS teleport⟩⟩ it. this is of course only possible′ via a parity conserving operation on a larger Hilbert space. We therefore append an auxiliary mode C that is initially not populated and 2. Odd-parity resource states define the unitary UP as We can of course also consider the cases where the U b b† b b† , (11) P C C B B entangled resource state for the teleportation is an odd- = + − 6

parity state, ϕ AB Ψ AB . For a teleported state since the Bell states are Gaussian [49] the Bell measure- with even parity we then have± ment is a fermionic Gaussian operation [45]. We thus see SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩ that teleportation can be carried out by Gaussian means: e 1 ψ Ψ Φ α 1 β 1 ˜ sharing 1 fbit, performing a Gaussian measurement, sen- A˜A˜ AB 2 AA˜ B A ′ ± + ′ ding classical information (2 bits encoding the outcome

˜ of Alice’s measurement) from Alice to Bob, and applying SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ = SSΦ AA⟩⟩˜ α SS1B ⟩⟩ ∓β SS1A ⟩⟩ − ′ fermionic Gaussian corrections depending on the bit va- Ψ α 0 β 1 1 ˜ + SS ⟩⟩AA˜ SS ⟩⟩ ± SSB ⟩⟩A lues. + ′ Here, we note that the latter correction operations also Ψ α 0 β 1 1 ˜ , ± SS ⟩⟩AA˜ SS ⟩⟩ ∓ SS B ⟩⟩SS A ⟩⟩ require the availability of an auxiliary mode C. We have − ′ (15) assumed this mode to be in the ground state initially, ± SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ ± SS ⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ but no part of the teleportation protocol depends on the while an odd-parity state to be teleported results in particular initial state and final state of this mode, or whether one even knows which state it is. The prepa- o 1 ψ Ψ Φ α 1 1 ˜ β 0 AÃ˜ AB 2 AA˜ B A ration of this mode hence does not require similar levels ′ ± + ′ of control as the preparation of the entangled resource ˜ SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ = −ΦSS AA˜⟩⟩ α 1BSS ⟩⟩SS1A ⟩⟩ ∓β 0SS ⟩⟩ states. At the same time, this means that the auxiliary − ′ mode can be reused arbitrarily many times without re- Ψ α 1 ˜ β 1 − SS ⟩⟩AA˜ SS A ⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ ±B SS ⟩⟩ setting it to a particular state in between. Consequently, + ′ we do not consider the availability of this mode to be a ∓ SS Ψ ⟩⟩ α SS 1 ˜ ⟩⟩ ∓ β SS 1 ⟩⟩ . AA˜ A B resource requirement on the same footing as the other − ′ (16) resources used for teleportation. ∓ SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ ± SS ⟩⟩ From Eqs. (12) and (14), we see that the corresponding combinations of outcomes and corrections (for both III.4. Teleporting ‘one qubit of quantum e o ˜ ψ AÃ˜ and ψ AÃ˜ ) are the same regardless of the pa- information’ – the role of mode A ′ rity of the′ teleported′ state but of course depend on the specificSS ⟩⟩ resourceSS state⟩⟩ used, as summarized in Table1. Let us now more carefully discuss the purpose of the explicit inclusion of the mode A˜ in our previous calcula- tions. As we have already mentioned′ in Sec. III.1, using III.3. Implementation via fermionic Gaussian the teleportation protocol as outlined above just to tran- operations sfer information about mode A˜ could be considered to be a waste of resources. Parity superselection constrains the It is interesting to note that the whole teleportation state of mode A˜ to be of the form of Eq. (5), i.e., diago- protocol can be implemented via fermionic Gaussian ope- nal in the occupation number basis, and hence a classical rations. For the correction operation Uπ this is easy to state. However, there are two ways in which the protocol see since its generator b† b is quadratic in the mode ope- above can nonetheless be seen as transferring quantum B B information, both of which rely on the mode A˜ . rators (of mode B). For the operator UP, this is also the case, which can be seen in the following way. First, On the one hand, the fermionic single-mode′ telepor- note that U is Hermitian, U † U . Since this implies tation protocol can be considered as entanglement swap- P P P ˜ ˜ ˜ that U 2 1, the unitary U can be considered to coin- ping from the modes A and A to the modes B and A , P P ˜ ˜ cide with the Hamiltonian generating= the unitary up to regardless of who is controlling′ mode A . If the modes A′ ˜ a global= phase. That is, we can define H π U 1 and A are initially in an entangled state,′ then the modes P 2 P ˜ and calculate B and′ A are in that very same entangled state after the ∶= ( − ) teleportation′ protocol. More generally, this is true for n π π n i HP i i UP any arbitrary state ρAÃ˜ of these modes, since the details e i HP e 2 2 ∞ n! ∞ n! of the protocol (for fixed′ resource state) do not depend − n 0 n 0 (− ) (− ) on the parity of the teleported state, and any state ρ ˜ ˜ π 2n π 2n 1 AA = Q= = Q= i UP i UP must be a convex mixture of even- and odd-parity states′ i 2 2 ∞ ∞ + ˜ ˜ n 0 2n ! n 0 2n 1 ! of A and A . A fully classical information transfer whe- (− ) (− ) ′ ˜ π 2n π 2n 1 reby the mode A is measured and the result is sent to = Q= i + Q= i i 1 ( 2) U ( 2+ ) Bob via a classical channel cannot achieve this, despite ∞ P ∞ + n 0 2n ! n 0 2n 1 ! the fact that such a procedure would be able to tran- (− ) (− ) smit all locally available information about the mode A˜. = 1 Q= π + πQ= i cos 2( )iUP sin 2 ( UP+. ) (17) The described fermionic entanglement swapping protocol can thus be considered to transfer the equivalent of one Since both operators= Uπ and− UP are quadratic = in the mode qubit of quantum information in the sense of being able operators, each individually, and hence also their com- to transfer one half of a mode pair in an arbitrary (un- bination UPUπ are fermionic Gaussian operations. And known and potentially entangled) state. The resources 7

ψ BB χU C One mode Two modes ′ n1n2n3n4 SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ fbits 1 1 2 Un1n2n3n4 { } classical bits 2 2 2 quantum channel no 1 mode no

˜ ˜ A B C A A A B Table 2. Resources and features of fermionic teleportation ′ ′ ′ protocols for transmitting states of one or two modes.

ψ AÃ˜ ϕ AB ϕ A B 0 C ′ ′ ′ Indeed, one can even perform the two-mode teleporta- Figure 3. FermionicSS ⟩⟩ two-modeSS ⟩⟩ teleportation.SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ In this sce- tion protocol sharing only 2 bits of classical information, nario, teleporting quantum information encoded in the two- if non-Gaussian operation are allowed, as Alice and Bob ˜ ˜ mode state ψ ˜ ˜ , from modes A and A to the modes B AA each locally perform a projective measurement of the pa- and B requires two′ maximally entangled states′ ϕ and AB rity of the resource state. For instance, if the resource ϕ ′ (2 fbits)SS ⟩⟩ and communicating four bits of classical in- A B state is Φ Φ , then an ‘even’ outcome pro- formation′ ′ with values n1, n2, n3, and n4, where theSS bit⟩⟩ pairs AB A B 1 SS ⟩⟩ jects into + 0 + 1 ′, 1′ , 1 , 1 , whereas an ‘odd’ n1, n2 and n3, n4 encode the outcomes of the (indepen- 2 A B A B dent) measurements on the mode pairs A,˜ A and A˜ ,A , SS ⟩⟩ SS 1 ⟩⟩ ′ ′ outcome results√ in 1A, 1B 1A , 1B . In either { } { } ′ ′ 2 respectively. To complete the protocol a unitary operation SS ⟩⟩ + SS ⟩⟩′ ′ case, Alice may then√ perform teleportation with a Bell Un n n n that depends on the bit values{ ni }for i {1, 2, 3,}4 1 2 3 4 measurement adapted toSS the measured⟩⟩ + SS parity⟩⟩ and sen- is applied to the modes B and B , and to an auxiliary mode ding the usual 2 classical bits (see, e.g., the example in C. This may be realized as two consecutive′ operations= Un n 1 2 Sec. IV.3 for comparison), while Bob learns the relevant and Un3n4 acting on the mode pairs B,C and B ,C , respectively, and the state of mode C does not need to′ be reset parity from his local measurement. Thus it may seem as inbetween. The output state of the{ auxiliary} mode{ C }is de- if an fbit is only half as powerful as an ebit, since two are noted as χU C and depends on the local unitary operation needed to teleport a single qubit. However, this difference Un1n2n3n4 but remains separable from the other modes. The (almost) disappears if one allows us to teleport many fer- number ofSS classical⟩⟩ bits communicated from Alice to Bob can mionic modes at once. Then the even-parity sector of n be reduced from 4 to 2, if non-Gaussian operations are used. modes spans a 2n 1-dimensional Hilbert space uninhibi- ted by parity superselection− in which n 1 qubits can be encoded, and which can be faithfully teleported using n fbits (whereas n 1 ebits would suffice− without SSR). for this transfer are 1 fbit of shared fermionic entangle- The resource costs of all three variants are summarized ment and communicating 2 bits of classical information. in Table2. − In this sense, even individually accessible fbits are more useful than the corresponding classical mixtures, despite the fact that any number of consecutive local measure- IV. FERMIONIC TELEPORTATION SUBJECT ments restricted to single copies of fbits cannot distingu- TO PARTICLE NUMBER SUPERSELECTION ish between the two. On the other hand, one may argue that the equivalent IV.1. Non-fundamental superselection rules of one qubit of quantum information should be defined in terms of the ability to encode the same complex am- This far, we have viewed the task of fermionic tele- plitudes α and β (with α 2 β 2 1) as in a single-qubit portation as a fundamental problem, i.e., we have taken state α 0 β 1 . Clearly, a single fermionic mode does into account parity superselection but no other limita- not provide this ability,S butS + S twoS = modes do. Therefore, tions. However, in practice, other restrictions such as one canS realize⟩ + S the⟩ above single-mode protocol on both non-fundamental SSRs typically do apply. In particu- modes A˜ and A˜ at once, in the way that ‘one qubit of lar, we now want to discuss the influence of the particle quantum information’′ can be combined into full-fledged number superselection rule (N-SSR). two-mode teleportation by the iteration of the initially Let us begin by noticing that it is less clear than with described entanglement swapping protocol. That is, by the P-SSR (see, e.g,. the discussion in [28]), if the N- using 2 fbits entanglement, transferring 4 bits of classical SSR is a fundamental restriction of Nature or not. On information and performing Gaussian operations (as dis- the one hand, we note that superpositions of different cussed in Sec. III.3), one may teleport the modes A˜ and fermion numbers are not ruled out by charge conserva- A˜ as illustrated in Fig.3. In this way, the complex am- tion, much like superpositions of different energy eigens- plitudes′ α and β of any unknown two-mode state ψ AÃ˜ tates are not excluded by energy conservation. Instead, ′ (or, likewise, single-qubit state ψ AÃ˜ in a dual-rail en- this can be viewed as an issue of not having available an coding) can be transferred. ′ SS ⟩⟩ appropriate reference frame; see, e.g., the discussion in S ⟩ Ref. [73, Sec. IV] or the argument by Aharonov and Su- 8

sskind [74]. At the same time, there does not appear to if either Ψ AA˜ or Ψ AA˜ is obtained as the out- exist any process (to the best of our knowledge) that co- come on Alice’s+ side, resulting− in an average single-mode uld result in a superposition of different electric charges. teleportationSS fidelity⟩⟩ thatSS is⟩⟩ reduced by 50% with res- An example for a state with indefinite particle number pect to the case where no N-SSR applies. In princi- sometimes referred to in this context is the BCS ground ple, one may consider a more general scenario, where state [75]. However, the BCS ground state with inde- a measurement corresponding to a three-element POVM finite electron number can be understood as convenient PΨ ,PΨ ,Peven parity is performed. In the case of the approximation of the actual physical state with fixed elec- third+ outcome,− the quantum information might still be tron number [76]. Here, we therefore cannot conclusively present.{ However, it} is delocalized between Alice and answer the question if superpositions of different charges Bob, and we are not aware of any way to complete the exist or not. transfer if particle number superselection applies. However, even if one were to adopt charge superselection axiomatically [77], one may of course consider species IV.3. Two-mode teleportation & particle number of uncharged fermions (both composite and fundamen- superselection tal). There, the question of the existence of pure states with indefinite particle number is tied to the question Let us now consider two-mode teleportation in the pre- of the existence (or not) of Majorana fermions as fun- sence of particle superselection. The state to be telepor- damental objects in Nature. Although we cannot direc- ted in this scenario is a two-mode state containing a single tly answer this question either, admittedly, the prospects fermion, which can be considered as dual-rail encoding of of creating coherent superpositions of different numbers a qubit. If we combine two fbits in the odd-parity sec- of fermions useful for quantum information processing tor (two single-fermion states as in the implementations are nevertheless daunting (to say the least) either way. proposed in Ref. [65] and as discussed in Sec. III.4) as For practical purposes, particle number superselection is resource states and naively perform the teleportation for hence a sensible restriction for practical implementations each mode separately as before, then we see that the te- of fermionic teleportation such as in Ref. [65]. leportation fidelity is further reduced to 25%, since the teleportation of either mode is only successful half the time (on average). However, as we shall see shortly, par- IV.2. Single-mode teleportation & particle number ticle superselection does not intrinsically limit the fide- superselection lity in this way. Using the same resource state (a pair To begin, it is interesting to put into perspective the of two single-fermion fbits), the fidelity can be increased usefulness of fbits as resource states for teleportation to 50%, and for other resource states (subject to particle when constraints due to the N-SSR apply. In the con- superselection) one may even achieve 100% teleportation text of the single-mode teleportation protocol discussed fidelity. in Sec. III.2, particle number superselection implies that To see, this, let us consider a different resource state it is not possible to create or project into even-parity sta- for the modes A, B, A and B in a setup subject to tes of two fermionic modes A˜ and A other than 0 and particle superselection. Take,′ for′ instance, the state

1 ˜ 1 . More specifically, this means that the outset A A Ψ 1 1 1 1 1 , (19) of the single-mode teleportation protocol is theSS restric-⟩⟩ R ABA B 2 A B B A + ′ ′ SStion⟩⟩SS to the⟩⟩ odd-parity state ψo as the state to be ′ ′ √ AÃ˜ andSS let⟩⟩ Alice carry= outSS a projective⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ + SS measurement⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ on the teleported, and Ψ as the shared′ resource state to AB modes A˜, A˜ , A, and A in the ‘basis’ given by the four achieve this. In addition,± let usSS assume⟩⟩ that the Bell me- states ′ ′ asurement carriedSS out⟩⟩ by Alice can only result in states with definite particle number, i.e., the state of modes A˜ 1 ΦR ˜ ˜ 1A˜ 1A 1A˜ 1A , (20a) and A will be projected into either Ψ , 0 , or AA AA 2 AA˜ AA˜ ± ′ ′ ′ ′ √1 1A˜ 1A . Consequently, it is instructive± to write the Ψ 1 ˜ 1 1 ˜ 1 . (20b) SS R ⟩⟩AÃ˜ AA = 2 SS A ⟩⟩SS A ⟩⟩ ± SS A ⟩⟩SS A ⟩⟩ initial joint state w.r.t. this choice ofSS basis⟩⟩ as SS ⟩⟩ ′ ′ ± ′ ′ √ SS ⟩⟩SS ⟩⟩ Here,SS we⟩⟩ have put= ‘basis’SS ⟩⟩SS in quotation⟩⟩ ± SS marks,⟩⟩SS since⟩⟩ these o 1 ψ Ψ 0 2 α 1 1 ˜ four states form a basis only of that subspace of the 2- AÃ˜ AB 2 AA˜ B A 2 ′ ± √ ′ fermion subspace of the four modes in question where ˜ ˜ ˜ SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ = −1ASS ⟩⟩1A 2SSβ 0⟩⟩SSA˜ B ⟩⟩ there is exactly 1 fermion in the modes A and A . Con- o ′ sequently, when a single-fermion state ψ ′ψ √ AÃ˜ AÃ˜ ˜ ± SS Ψ ⟩⟩SSAA˜ α⟩⟩ 1A SS β⟩⟩ 1B ′ ′ + ′ SS ⟩⟩ = SS ⟩⟩ ˜ ∓ SS Ψ ⟩⟩AA˜ α SS 1A ⟩⟩ ∓ β SS 1B ⟩⟩ . − ′ (18) 2 The 2-particle sector of the Fock space of 4 fermionic modes ∓ SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ ± SS ⟩⟩ is 6-dimensional, but for two of these states, SS 1A˜ ⟩⟩SS 1A˜ ⟩⟩ and ˜ As one can clearly see from this decomposition, single- SS 1A ⟩⟩SS 1A ⟩⟩, the particle content of the subspace of modes′ A ˜ mode teleportation can in this case only be successful and A is different′ from 1. ′ 9 is prepared for the modes A˜ and A˜ , we can write V. IMPLICATIONS FOR FERMIONIC ′ ENTANGLEMENT ψ Ψ 1 Ψ α 1 β 1 AÃ˜ R ABA B 2 R AÃ˜ AA B B ′ + ′ ′ + ′ ′ ′ In this section, we want to relate our previous obser-

SS ⟩⟩ SS ⟩⟩ = SSΨR ⟩⟩AÃ˜ AA α SS1B ⟩⟩ −β SS1B ⟩⟩ vations about fermionic teleportation with the quantifi- − ′ ′ ′ cation of entanglement subject to SSRs. In particular, Φ α 1 β 1 − SS R ⟩⟩AÃ˜ AA SS B ⟩⟩ + SS B ⟩⟩ we aim here to contrast the notion of superselected en- + ′ ′ ′ Φ α 1 β 1 . tanglement of formation (EOF, as discussed in Sec. II.2) − SS R ⟩⟩AÃ˜ AA SS B ⟩⟩ − SS B ⟩⟩ with a state’s usefulness for teleportation. − ′ ′ ′ We thus see that the encoding+ SS ⟩⟩ of the teleportedSS ⟩⟩ + state,SS ⟩⟩ the For pure states, i.e., 1 or 2 fbits, this appears to be rat- preparation of the resource state, the Bell measurements, her straightforward. The superselected EOF of n (pure) as well as any correction operations required on the mo- fbits is equal to n, and we can refer to Table2 for the des B and B can all in principle be carried out while corresponding resources for different tasks. However, the respecting particle′ number (and charge) superselection, superselected EOF allows for the notion of ‘mixed maxi- both globally and locally (with respect to the partition mally entangled’ (MME) fermionic states [66]. Take, for AÃ˜ AA BB ), achieving a teleportation fidelity of 100%. instance, the MME state However,′ ′ we′ observe that the resource (state) for this ρMME 1 Φ Φ 1 Ψ Ψ . (21) teleportationS S is not a pair of fbits anymore. This can AB 2 2 be understood in a simple way: Although both resource + + + + Because the two= paritySS ⟩⟩⟨⟨ subspacesSS + SS do not⟩⟩⟨⟨ mix,SS one fbit states, ΨR ABA B and Ψ AB Ψ A B , are pure sta- MME is required per copy to create ρAB and the (parity) su- tes with the+ same′ particle′ content+ (2+ fermions),′ ′ and can perselected EOF evaluates3 to ρMME log 2 1. hence beSS transformed⟩⟩ intoSS each⟩⟩ otherSS by⟩⟩ global (on A, B, oF AB The entanglement of ρMME can thus be considered to be A , B ) particle-number conserving unitaries, this cannot AB maximal in this sense. But areE MME( states) = useful( ) = for be′ achieved′ by unitaries acting locally with respect to teleportation? In the following, we will discuss this qu- the bipartition AA BB . To see this, simply note that estion in more detail for the P-SSR and the N-SSR. the reduced states′ of the′ modes A and A have different ranks for the differentS resource states. That′ is, both states are entangled w.r.t. this cut, but (it seems) not V.1. Teleportation using mixed maximally equally strongly (w.r.t. to an entanglement measure su- entangled states for P-SSR itable to the applicable SSR). Nevertheless, if two fbits Ψ Ψ are used as a resource, one may still AB A B Let us consider fermionic teleportation using the state achieve+ 50%+fidelity.′ ′ If Alice performs a projective me- ρMME as a resource state for teleporting the state of asurementSS ⟩⟩ SS of⟩⟩ the total particle number in modes A and AB ˜ A before performing the Bell measurement, this will re- mode A as illustrated in Fig.2. Note that the mode A˜ may be entangled with another single mode A˜ (or sult′ in the state ΨR ABA B in half the cases (when there even with multiple other modes). If the state of′ mo- is 1 particle in the+ modes′ ′A and A ), and in separable des A˜ and A˜ has even parity and is given by ψe , states 1B , 1B (whenSS ⟩⟩ there are no particles′ in the modes AÃ˜ ′ and the outcome′ of the Bell-measurement in the basis′ A and A ) and 1A, 1A (two particles in the modes A and ASS) otherwise.′ ⟩⟩ ′ Φ AA˜ , Ψ AA˜ gives the outcome Φ AA˜ SS, Eqs.⟩⟩ (9) In other′ words,SS problems⟩⟩ arise from using resource sta- and± (15) allow± us to conclude that the state+ of modes B tes whose marginals have support in different superselec- and{SS A˜⟩⟩ priorSS to⟩⟩ any} corrections is anSS equally⟩⟩ weighted tion sectors. All restrictions disappear, of course, if all mixture′ of α 0 β 1B 1A˜ and α 1B β 1A˜ . logical qubits are locally supported in a subspace of fixed In particular, this means that the′ reduced state of mode′ 1 1 particle number. Then N-SSR does not restrict any logi- B is given bySS2 ⟩⟩0+ 0SS 2⟩⟩SS1B ⟩⟩ 1B andSS is⟩⟩ hence− SS maxi-⟩⟩ cal operations, the projection on each of the four logical mally mixed. This means, no information whatsoever Bell states is permitted, and standard teleportation (of about the teleportedSS ⟩⟩⟨⟨ stateSS+ SS is locally⟩⟩⟨⟨ SS available in mode logical qubits) works as usual. The limitation of the fi- B. However, if we consider the joint state of modes B delity due to particle number superselection in potential and A˜ , we see that all information about the telepor- experimental settings as discussed in detail in Ref. [65] ted state′ is still available. That is, a joint parity me- is hence more a practical (but nonetheless very challen- asurement on both modes projects either into the state ging) problem of determining ways to prepare states like α 0 β 1B 1A˜ , if the result was ‘even’, or into ′ the state α 1B β 1A˜ , if the result was ‘odd’. In ΨR ABA B from Eq. (19) directly (rather than by post- ′ selection+ after′ ′ preparing two fbits). In particular, the theSS former⟩⟩ + SS case,⟩⟩SS one⟩⟩ has already retrieved the desired SS ⟩⟩ − SS ⟩⟩ preparationSS ⟩⟩ of states like ΨR ABA B for spin systems is challenging when the interaction+ ′ between′ individual spins is weak. Nevertheless,SS this⟩⟩ limitation can be over- come, for instance, in experiments based on pseudo-spins 3 Here, we choose the logarithm to base 2 in the von Neumann in double-well quantum dots, e.g., as in Refs. [78–80]. entropy. 10 state. In the latter case, one applies the unitary cor- ment transformations. Note, however, that both tasks rection UP to complete the teleportation. However, if are feasible locally in the qubit setting, but both require the mode A˜ is under Alice’s control, then the required operations forbidden by the SSR to achieve them locally global parity′ measurement is itself a non-local operation and the 2MMES allows us to lift these parity-imposed which can create entanglement and thus the MME state restrictions without violating the SSR. is not necessary for teleportation in this scenario. But if the mode to be teleported is known to be only entangled Another way to interpret the second task is to note with modes under Bob’s control, then the parity measu- that the four-mode state ρMME ϕ ϕ , where rement can be implemented locally and the teleportation AB A B ϕ is a pure fbit, can be converted to an′ ebit′ enco- can be completed using the shared MME state. We refer A B ded in′ four′ fermionic modes by LOCC.∧ SS ⟩⟩⟨⟨ (NoteSS that this is to this process as ‘subsystem swap’ in the following. As notSS ⟩⟩reversible, as by the Schmidt-vector argument used this example illustrates (and as can easily be confirmed before the fbit and the fermionic ebit are incompara- for other combinations of resource states and teleported ble.) Moreover, we observe that the latter resource state states), MME states can indeed be useful for ‘teleporta- ρMME ϕ ϕ is itself an MME state of 4 modes, tion’, if only for very specific tasks and keeping in mind AB A B i.e., a mixture of 2′ pure′ two-fbit states in the two diffe- important caveats that we discuss in the following. rent parity∧ SS ⟩⟩⟨⟨ sectors.SS The first difference to using pure maximally entangled states manifests in the amount of information that is available locally about the teleported state. That is, the The second difference between pure and mixed maxi- teleportation protocol using the two-mode MME state mally entangled fermionic states lies in the security of the (2MMES) becomes useful only if the joint parity of the teleportation. That is, two (pure) fbits allow for viola- modes AÃ˜ is known, and one has access also to the se- ting a Bell inequality [58], and hence for authentication, whereas any number of copies of 2-mode MME states as cond mode′ A˜ to perform a joint (and non-destructive in Eq. (21) alone does not. To see this more clearly, note as well as non-particle′ number resolving) parity measu- ˜ that the two-qubit equivalent ρÃB (not subject to any rement on the modes A and B. MME SSRs) of ρAB is separable (which can easily be checked Besides the subsystem′ swap, there is a second, more via the Peres-Horodecki criterion [83, 84]), and therefore standard teleportation related task that the 2MMES also are two copies of ρ˜ . Therefore, no Bell inequality can lows us to perform, proving its value as a non-local reso- AB be violated by ρÃB , or by any number of copies of ρÃB . urce. That is, it allows us to locally convert an fbit into This is so because SSRs further restrict the measurable an ebit. This state transformation from, say, ρMME and AB operators that may appear in a Bell inequality. Consequ- MME Ψ A B to 0101 AA BB 1010 AA BB 2, is re- ently, the superselected state ρAB (or two copies of it) alized+ if′ both′ Alice and Bob′ ′ measure their′ respective′ √ lo- can also not violate a Bell inequality. calSS parity⟩⟩ and(SS obtain an⟩⟩ even+ result.SS (For⟩⟩ the) other ~ outcomes, the resulting final state is also an ebit.) That such a transformation is not possible by local parity-constrained Nevertheless, authentication is possible (albeit, at a operations is confirmed by their respective Schmidt co- higher price) if one uses the 4-mode MME state for tele- efficients. As analyzed by [81], for states subject to lo- portation, one simply has to sacrifice twice as many (as cal and global SSRs, the vector of Schmidt coefficients compared to the situation using 2 fbits per teleported governing local state transformations for bipartite pure qubit) of the resource states for authentication to retri- states of distinguishable quantum systems [82] must be eve the same number of fbit pairs. Just recall that, also replaced by a set of several vectors, one for each SSR- with pure states one has to collect statistics on measu- sector at A, and state transformations are only possible rements of sufficiently many entangled resource states to if all (in our case: both) Schmidt vectors of the target violate a Bell inequality. The choice between pure and state majorize those of the source state. But for the case mixed maximally entangled states hence comes down to at hand the source state has two one-dimensional vec- a matter of efficiency of the authentication. tors 1 2 , 1 2 , while the target state has one two- dimensional Schmidt vector 1 2, 1 2 , and thus A comparison of the usefulness of MME states and the transformation{( ~ ) ( ~ )} is impossible with local means (res- fbits is shown in Table3. In summary, we can say that pecting the SSR). Note that{( the~ 2MMES~ ) (∅)} allows us to for some very specific tasks, MME states seem to have implement both tasks (single-mode teleportation and co- some usefulness comparable with fbits, and this is reflec- nversion of an fbit into an ebit) exactly and with proba- ted in the matching values of EOF. However, in general bility 1 (as before, provided that one is able to perform they are clearly less useful. In particular, the difference in non-Gaussian operations.) the potential to violate Bell inequalities is not captured The remarkable aspect here is not that mixed states by the (superselected) EOF. Nevertheless, MME states can be used for (special-purpose) teleportation but that allow us to perform some tasks made locally impossi- a state which could — in the absence of SSRs — be ble by superselection. Finally, let us briefly discuss the generated by local operations and classical communica- extension of the ideas of MME states and MME-based tion (LOCC) allows us to realize non-trivial entangle- teleportation to other SSRs. 11

2-mode 4-mode 4-mode following states can be used for teleportation: MME 1 fbit ferm. ebit MME 2 fbits

EOF 1 1 2 2 2 1 2; 1, 1 1A, 1B 1A , 1B 1A , 1B , (22a) subsystem † † 3 1 mode 1 mode — 2 modes 2 modes ′ ′ ′′ ′′ swap √1 teleportation SS 3; 1, 2 ⟩⟩ = SS1A, 1B ,⟩⟩1B+ SS 1A ,⟩⟩1B+,SS1B ⟩⟩ 0 0 1 1† 1 3 # of qubits ′ ′ ′′ √ 1 , 1 , 1 , (22b) Bell inequ. No Yes Yes Yes † Yes SS ⟩⟩ = SS A B B⟩⟩ + SS ⟩⟩ violation ′′ ′ ′′ ∗ ∗ 3; 2, 1 1 1 , 1 , 1 1 , 1 , 1 3+ SS A A B ⟩⟩ A A B Table 3. Comparison of ebits (maximally entangled state of ′ ′′ ′ √ 1 , 1 , 1 , (22c) four fermionic modes with fixed local parity), fbits, and MME SS ⟩⟩ = SS A A B⟩⟩ + SS ⟩⟩ states in terms of entanglement of formation [EOF (in units ′ ′′ ′′ 4; 2, 2 1 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 of fbits)], subsystem swapping capacity in terms of the num- 3+ SS A A B B⟩⟩ A A B B ′ ′ ′′ ′′ ber of modes whose state can be swapped (as described in the √ 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , (22d) ˜ SS ⟩⟩ = SS A A B B⟩⟩ + SS ⟩⟩ text, cf. also Fig.2, but with mode A already in Bob’s po- ′ ′′ ′ ′′ ′ ssession), number of qubits (two-dimensional subspaces) that + SS ⟩⟩ can be teleported, and potential for Bell inequality violation While any of these states can be used to teleport 1 qu- (given sufficiently many copies). Superscripts denote that the trit, we can also consider an arbitrary incoherent mixture required operations are non-Gaussian (†) or have to be per- of any of these four states as a mixed entangled reso- formed coherently on two copies of the state ( ), requiring urce state for teleportation. Such a teleportation pro- a quantum memory. The states are strictly more∗ entangled tocol works in the following way: Alice and Bob share from left to right, since fermionic LOCC allow us to go to the the mixed entangled resource state, Alice receives the A- left neighbour but not to the right – except that the fermionic modes, and Bob receives the B-modes. Alice then per- ebit is incomparable with the fbit and 2MMES (no conversion forms a projective measurement of the particle number possible either way). on the A-modes before performing an appropriate Bell measurement on the 3 3-dimensional subspace of the A˜ and A-modes corresponding to the particle number of V.2. Teleportation using mixed maximally her encoded state and the× result of the initial projective entangled states for N-SSR measurement on the A-modes. The result of the Bell measurement is communicated to Bob, who makes a si- An obvious question that arises then concerns the use- milar projective measurement of the particle number on fulness (and existence) of MME states for other SSRs, the B-modes and applies a correction depending on the in particular, for particle numbers superselection. The classically communicated outcome of the Bell measure- four-mode MME states encountered in the previous sec- ment. tion allow for a 100% teleportation fidelity when only pa- As before for the parity SSR, the remarkable aspect rity superselection applies. The crucial element is a final lies not in the fact that mixed states can be used for te- projective measurement of the system’s parity. However, leportation in this way, but in the fact that there is no MME when the N-SSR is in place, the state ρAB is no lon- pure state of 6 modes subject to particle number super- ger allowed by the SSR. Replacing the even Bell state selection that could do better than teleporting a single by the statistical mixture of its two components 0 qutrit (or log2 3 qubits) with unit fidelity (whereas a 6- MME and 1A 1B turns ρAB into a state that is neither qubit state could be used to teleport 3 qubits with the maximally entangled, nor useful for teleportation.SS Ne-⟩⟩ same fidelity). The maximum of log2 3 qubits is simply vertheless,SS ⟩⟩SS this⟩⟩ does not mean one cannot consider other max the maximum dimension dSSR of any subspace of 3 mo- states that correspond to MME states in the presence of des with fixed particle number. In general, the subspace the N-SSR (or, indeed, any SSR). n dimension corresponding to k particles in n modes is k Let us consider a scenario where particle number su- and hence perselection applies and we wish to teleport the state of ˜ 1 qutrit encoded in three fermionic modes labelled A, n if n even A˜ and A˜ . This can be done by encoding the qutrit in dmax n 2 . (23) SSR n the′ single-particle′′ sector, spanned by the vectors 1 ˜ , ⎧ ~ if n odd A ⎪ n 1 2 1 ˜ , and 1 ˜ , or in the two-particle sector, span- = ⎨ A A ⎪ ( − )~ ′ ′′ ⎪ ned by the vectors 1A˜1A˜ , 1A˜ 1A˜ , and 1A˜ SS1A˜ ⟩⟩. We thus see also for⎩ N-SSR that there exist MME sta- AsSS a⟩⟩ resourceSS for⟩⟩ teleportation′ we′ can′′ then use′ any′′ 6- tes, and that these can also be useful for teleportation in mode state (say, ofSS modes ⟩⟩A,SSB, A , ⟩⟩B , A ,SS and B⟩⟩) terms of the number of transferred qubits, albeit with a whose particle number is fixed both′ globally′ ′′ (to 2, 3,′′ or reduced ability to violate Bell inequalities, as discussed 4 particles) and locally (to either 1 or 2 particles). in Sec. V.1. Moreover, analogous arguments can be made For instance, let us adopt the notation n; j, k for a for any SSR. It is further interesting to remark that for max state of n particles of which j particles are in the subspace n even and large, log2 dSSR approaches n (by Stirling’s of A-modes A, A , A , and k particles in theSS subspace⟩⟩ of formula), i.e., n modes allow for n not-SSR-inhibited qu- the B-modes B, ′B , ′′B . Then, for example, one of the bits asymptotically [up( to log) n corrections]. ′ ′′ ( ) 12

VI. DISCUSSION artefact of evaluating convex-roof entanglement measu- res under the restriction of superselection rules, but they do have limited usefulness for teleportation as well. We have reviewed quantum teleportation in a setting In comparison to usual qubit-based quantum informa- where quantum information is encoded in the modes of tion processing, fermionic systems hence provide a more a fermionic quantum field. As we have discussed, diffe- differentiated picture of entanglement, non-locality, and rences to standard qubit-based teleportation arise due to teleportation. In this context, it may be of future in- parity superselection, which influences both the encoding terest to identify a suitably diverse set of entanglement of quantum information in the state space, as well as the quantifiers that can capture these different notions of use- allowed operations on given quantum states. In particu- ful entanglement. Such developments may further moti- lar, we have focused on understanding the usefulness of vate revisiting previous observations about the energetic pure entangled states of two modes (‘fbits’), which are costs of creating correlations and entanglement [85, 86]. known to allow for Bell inequality violation only when Moreover, one may even go as far as to speculate whet- at least two copies can be jointly processed [58]. Here, her further differentiation of fermionic entanglement and we find that single copies of such states can be useful correlations could become relevant to account for other for swapping the state of a single mode via teleportation. applications, e.g., entanglement as a resource for fermi- However, this procedure in itself is only useful (beyond onic measurement-based computation [87] or correlations classical notions of state transfer) when the latter mode relevant in molecular problems [88]. is part of an entangled two-mode state itself. Once two fbits are available as a shared resource, one may teleport the entire two-mode state encoding the complex proba- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS bility amplitudes usually encoded in a single qubit. We are grateful to Nicolas Brunner, Edvin Olofsson, We have further considered how these teleportation Patrick Potts, and Peter Samuelsson for fruitful discussi- protocols are influenced by particle-number superselec- ons and valuable comments. N.F acknowledges support tion. Although not a fundamental restriction of Nature, from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P 31339-N27. it is of practical relevance for many applications, see, e.g., T.D. acknowledges support from the Brazilian agency Ref. [65]. Here, we conclude that also this stronger super- CNPq INCT-IQ through the project (465469/2014-0). selection rule allows for teleportation with unit fidelity, F.I. acknowledges the financial support of the Brazi- when an appropriate four-mode resource state is shared, lian funding agencies CNPQ (Grant No. 308205/2019-7) but using two fbits instead reduces the fidelity by 50%, and FAPERJ (Grant No. E-26/211.318/2019). GG ac- provided that no other practical restrictions limit the se- knowledges support by the Spanish Ministerio de Cien- tup. Finally, we have discussed the peculiar notion of cia y Innovación through the Project No. 2017-83780-P mixed maximally entangled states in the context of te- and by the EU through the FET-OPEN project SPRING leportation. Interestingly, such states are not merely an (#863098).

[1] Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crépeau, [6] Michael A. Nielsen, Emanuel Knill, and Raymond Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K. Wootters, Laflamme, Complete quantum teleportation using nu- Teleporting an Unknown Quantum State via Dual Classi- clear magnetic resonance, Nature 396, 52–55 (1998), cal and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels, Phys. Rev. arXiv:quant-ph/9811020. Lett. 70, 1895–1899 (1993). [7] Nicolai Friis, Giuseppe Vitagliano, Mehul Malik, and [2] Dik Bouwmeester, Jian-Wei Pan, Klaus Mattle, Manfred Marcus Huber, Entanglement Certification From The- Eibl, Harald Weinfurter, and Anton Zeilinger, Expe- ory to Experiment, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 72 (2019), rimental Quantum Teleportation, Nature 390, 575–579 arXiv:1906.10929. (1997), arXiv:1901.11004. [8] Jian-Wei Pan, Matthew Daniell, Sara Gasparoni, Gre- [3] D. Boschi, S. Branca, Francesco De Martini, Lucien gor Weihs, and Anton Zeilinger, Experimental De- Hardy, and Sandu Popescu, Experimental Realization monstration of Four-Photon Entanglement and High- of Teleporting an Unknown Pure Quantum State via Fidelity Teleportation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4435 (2001), Dual Classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels, arXiv:quant-ph/0104047. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1121–1125 (1998), arXiv:quant- [9] I. Marcikic, H. de Riedmatten, W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, ph/9710013. and N. Gisin, Long-Distance Teleportation of Qubits at [4] Y. H. Kim, S. P. Kulik, and Y. Shih, Quantum Telepor- Telecommunication Wavelengths, Nature 421, 509–513 tation of a Polarization State with a complete Bell State (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0301178. Measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1370–1373 (2001). [10] R. Ursin, T. Jennewein, M. Aspelmeyer, R. Kaltenbaek, [5] Akira Furusawa, Jens L. Sørensen, Samuel L. Braunstein, M. Lindenthal, P. Walther, and Anton Zeilinger, Qu- Christopher A. Fuchs, H. Jeff Kimble, and Eugene S. antum Teleportation Across the Danube, Nature 430, Polzik, Unconditional Quantum Teleportation, Science 849–849 (2004). 282, 706–709 (1998). [11] X.-S. Ma, T. Herbst, T. Scheidl, D. Wang, S. Kropat- 13

schek, W. Naylor, A. Mech, B. Wittmann, J. Kofler, arXiv:1501.02813. E. Anisimova, V. Makarov, T. Jennewein, R. Ursin, and [26] Roman M. Lutchyn, Erik P. A. M. Bakkers, Leo P. Ko- Anton Zeilinger, Quantum Teleportation over 143 Kilo- uwenhoven, Peter Krogstrup, Charles M. Marcus, and meters Using Active Feed-Forward, Nature 489, 269–273 Yuval Oreg, Majorana zero modes in superconductor- (2012), arXiv:1205.3909. semiconductor heterostructures, Nat. Rev. Mater. 3, 52 [12] Daniel Llewellyn, Yunhong Ding, Imad I. Faruque, Ste- (2018), arXiv:1707.04899. fano Paesani, Davide Bacco, Raffaele Santagati, Yan- [27] Catherine Laflamme, Mikhail A. Baranov, Peter Zoller, Jun Qian, Yan Li, Yun-Feng Xiao, Marcus Huber, Me- and Christina V. Kraus, Hybrid topological quantum com- hul Malik, Gary F. Sinclair, Xiaoqi Zhou, Karsten putation with Majorana fermions: A cold-atom setup, Rottwitt, Jeremy L. O’Brien, John G. Rarity, Qihu- Phys. Rev. A 89, 022319 (2014), arXiv:1312.6583. ang Gong, Leif K. Oxenlowe, Jianwei Wang, and [28] Nicolai Friis, Reasonable fermionic quantum informa- Mark G. Thompson, Chip-to-chip quantum teleportation tion theories require relativity, New J. Phys. 18, 033014 and multi-photon entanglement in silicon, Nat. Phys. 16, (2016), arXiv:1502.04476. 148 (2020), arXiv:1911.07839. [29] Grigori G. Amosov and Sergey N. Filippov, Spectral pro- [13] Zhi Zhao, Yu-Ao Chen, An-Ning Zhang, Tao Yang, perties of reduced fermionic density operators and parity Hans J. Briegel, and Jian-Wei Pan, Experimen- superselection rule, Quantum Inf. Process. 16, 2 (2017), tal demonstration of five-photon entanglement and arXiv:1512.01828. open-destination teleportation, Nature 430, 54 (2004), [30] Pawel Caban, Krzysztof Podlaski, Jakub Rembieliński, arXiv:quant-ph/0402096. Kordian A. Smolińksi, and Zbigniew Walczak, Entan- [14] Robert Raussendorf and Hans J. Briegel, A One-Way glement and tensor product decomposition for two fermi- Quantum Computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001), ons, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, L79 (2005), arXiv:quant- arXiv:quant-ph/0010033. ph/0405108. [15] Hans J. Briegel, Dan E. Browne, Wolfgang Dür, Robert [31] Mari-Carmen Bañuls, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Michael M. Raussendorf, and Maarten Van den Nest, Measurement- Wolf, Entanglement in fermionic systems, Phys. Rev. A based quantum computation, Nat. Phys. 5, 19 (2009), 76, 022311 (2007), arXiv:0705.1103. arXiv:0910.1116. [32] John Schliemann, J. Ignacio Cirac, Marek Kuś, Maciej [16] M. Riebe, H. Häffner, C. F. Roos, W. Hänsel, M. Ruth, Lewenstein, and Daniel Loss, Quantum correlations in J. Benhelm, G. P. T. Lancaster, T. W. Körber, C. Bec- two-fermion systems, Phys. Rev. A 64, 022303 (2001), her, F. Schmidt-Kaler, D. F. V. James, and R. Blatt, arXiv:quant-ph/0012094. Deterministic Quantum Teleportation with Atoms, Na- [33] Paolo Zanardi, Quantum entanglement in fermionic lat- ture 429, 734–737 (2004). tices, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042101 (2002), arXiv:quant- [17] S. Olmschenk, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, D. Hayes, ph/0104114. L. M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Quantum Teleportation [34] GianCarlo Ghirardi and Luca Marinatto, General crite- between Distant Matter Qubits, Science 323, 486–489 rion for the entanglement of two indistinguishable par- (2009), arXiv:0907.5240. ticles, Phys. Rev. A 70, 012109 (2004), arXiv:quant- [18] Christian Nölleke, Andreas Neuzner, Andreas Reiserer, ph/0401065. Carolin Hahn, Gerhard Rempe, and Stephan Ritter, Ef- [35] Lin Chen, Dragomir Ž. Ðoković, Markus Grassl, and Bei ficient Teleportation between Remote Single-Atom Qu- Zeng, Four-qubit pure states as fermionic states, Phys. antum Memories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 140403 (2013), Rev. A 88, 052309 (2013), arXiv:1309.0791. arXiv:1212.3127. [36] Fernando Iemini, Thiago O. Maciel, Tiago Debarba, and [19] Wolfgang Pfaff, Bas Hensen, Hannes Bernien, Su- Reinaldo O. Vianna, Quantifying quantum correlations zanne B. van Dam, Machiel S. Blok, Tim H. Taminiau, in fermionic systems using witness operators, Quantum Marijn J. Tiggelman, Raymond N. Schouten, Matthew Inf. Process. 12, 733 (2013), arXiv:1206.0024. Markham, Daniel J. Twitchen, and Ronald Hanson, Un- [37] Fernando Iemini, Tiago Debarba, and Reinaldo O. conditional quantum teleportation between distant solid- Vianna, Quantumness of correlations in indistingu- state qubits, Science 345, 532 (2014), arXiv:1404.4369. ishable particles, Phys. Rev. A 89, 032324 (2014), [20] R. Hanson, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha, arXiv:1312.0839. and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Spins in few-electron quan- [38] Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano, Franco Manessi, Paolo Pe- tum dots, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 1217 (2007), arXiv:cond- rinotti, and Alessandro Tosini, The Feynman problem mat/0610433. and Fermionic entanglement: Fermionic theory versus [21] D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Qu- qubit theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1430025 (2014), antum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys. arXiv:1403.2674. 75, 281 (2003). [39] Nicolás Gigena and Raúl Rossignoli, Entanglement in [22] Tobias Schaetz, Trapping ions and atoms optically, J. fermion systems, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042326 (2015), Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 50, 102001 (2017). arXiv:1509.05970. [23] Alexei Kitaev, Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum [40] Fabio Benatti, Roberto Floreanini, and Ugo Marzolino, wires, Phys. Usp. 44, 131 (2001), arXiv:0010440. Entanglement in fermion systems and quantum metro- [24] Chetan Nayak, Steven H. Simon, Ady Stern, Michael logy, Phys. Rev. A 89, 032326 (2014), arXiv:1403.1144. Freedman, and Sankar Das Sarma, Non-Abelian Anyons [41] Antônio C. Lourenço, Tiago Debarba, and Eduardo I. and Topological Quantum Computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. Duzzioni, Entanglement of indistinguishable particles: A 80, 1083 (2008), arXiv:0707.1889. comparative study, Phys. Rev. A 99, 012341 (2019), [25] Sankar Das Sarma, Michael Freedman, and Che- arXiv:1905.05883. tan Nayak, Majorana zero modes and topological quan- [42] Nicolai Friis, Antony R. Lee, and David Edward Bruschi, tum computation, npj Quantum Inf. 1, 15001 (2015), Fermionic mode entanglement in quantum information, 14

Phys. Rev. A 87, 022338 (2013), arXiv:1211.7217. J. Phys. 18, 043036 (2016), arXiv:1511.04450. [43] Aiyalam Parameswaran Balachandran, Thupil R. Go- [59] O. Morgenshtern, Benni Reznik, and I. Zalzberg, Qu- vindarajan, Amilcar R. de Queiroz, and Andrés Fer- antum information with single fermions: teleportation nando Reyes-Lega, Entanglement and Particle Identity: and fermion-boson entanglement conversion, (2008), A Unifying Approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 080503 arXiv:0807.0850. (2013), arXiv:1303.0688. [60] P. Samuelsson, E. V. Sukhorukov, and M. Büttiker, [44] Alonso Botero and Benni Reznik, BCS-like modewise en- Two-Particle Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Entanglement tanglement of fermion Gaussian states, Phys. Lett. A in the Electronic Hanbury Brown–Twiss Setup, Phys. 331, 39 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0404176. Rev. Lett. 92, 026805 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0307473. [45] Sergey Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic [61] C. W. J. Beenakker and M. Kindermann, Quantum Te- linear optics, Quantum Inf. Comput. 5, 216 (2005), leportation by Particle-Hole Annihilation in the Fermi arXiv:quant-ph/0404180. Sea, Phys.Rev.Lett. 92, 056801 (2004), arXiv:cond- [46] Joel F. Corney and Peter D. Drummond, Gaussian mat/0307103. phase-space representations for fermions, Phys. Rev. B [62] M. Riebe, T. Monz, K. Kim, A. S. Villar, P. Schindler, 73, 125112 (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0411712. M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Deterministic [47] Viktor Eisler and Zoltán Zimborás, On the partial tran- entanglement swapping with an ion-trap quantum com- spose of fermionic Gaussian states, New J. Phys. 17, puter, Nat. Phys. 4, 839 (2008). 053048 (2015), arXiv:1502.01369. [63] L. Steffen, Y. Salathe, M. Oppliger, P. Kurpiers, [48] Eliška Greplová and Géza Giedke, Degradability of Fer- M. Baur, C. Lang, C. Eichler, G. Fedorov A. Puebla- mionic Gaussian Channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 200501 Hellmann, and A. Wallraff, Deterministic quantum tele- (2018), arXiv:1604.01954. portation with feed-forward in a solid state system, Na- [49] Cornelia Spee, Katharina Schwaiger, Géza Giedke, ture 500, 319 (2013), arXiv:1302.5621. and Barbara Kraus, Mode-entanglement of Gaussian [64] Haifeng Qiao, Yadav P. Kandel, Sreenath K. Manikan- fermionic states, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042325 (2018), dan, Andrew N. Jordan, Saeed Fallahi, Geoffrey C. Gard- arXiv:1712.07560. ner, Michael J. Manfra, and John M. Nichol, Conditi- [50] Marvellous Onuma-Kalu, Daniel Grimmer, Robert B. onal teleportation of quantum-dot spin states, (2019), Mann, and Eduardo Martín-Martínez, A classification arXiv:1908.08306. of open fermionic Gaussian dynamics, J. Phys. A: Math. [65] Edvin Olofsson, Peter Samuelsson, Nicolas Brunner, Theor. 52, 435302 (2019), arXiv:1902.02239. and Patrick P. Potts, Quantum teleportation of single- [51] Martin Hebenstreit, Richard Jozsa, Barbara Kraus, Ser- electron states, Phys. Rev. B 101, 195403 (2020), gii Strelchuk, and Mithuna Yoganathan, All pure fer- arXiv:2002.08134. mionic non-gaussian states are magic states for match- [66] Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano, Franco Manessi, Paolo Pe- gate computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 080503 (2019), rinotti, and Alessandro Tosini, Fermionic computa- arXiv:1905.08584. tion is non-local tomographic and violates monogamy [52] R. P. G. McNeil, M. Kataoka, C. J. B. Ford, C. H. W. of entanglement, Europhys. Lett. 107, 20009 (2014), Barnes, D. Anderson, G. A. C. Jones, I. Farrer, arXiv:1307.7902. and D. A. Ritchie, On-demand single-electron transfer [67] Tiago Debarba, Reinaldo O. Vianna, and Fernando between distant quantum dots, Nature 477, 439 (2011), Iemini, Quantumness of correlations in fermionic sys- arXiv:1107.3886. tems, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022325 (2017), arXiv:1611.01473. [53] Sylvain Hermelin, Shintaro Takada, Michihisa Yama- [68] Miguel Montero and Eduardo Martín-Martínez, Fer- moto, Seigo Tarucha, Andreas D. Wieck, Laurent Sa- mionic entanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames, minadayar, Christopher Bäuerle, and Tristan Meunier, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011), arXiv:1104.2307. Electrons surfing on a sound wave as a platform for quan- [69] Kamil Brádler and Rocio Jáuregui, Comment on "Fer- tum optics with flying electrons, Nature 477, 435 (2011), mionic entanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames", arXiv:1107.4759. Phys. Rev. A 85, 016301 (2012), arXiv:1201.1045. [54] B. Bertrand, S. Hermelin, S. Takada, M. Yamamoto, [70] Miguel Montero and Eduardo Martín-Martínez, Reply S. Tarucha, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, C. Bäuerle, and to “Comment on ‘Fermionic entanglement ambiguity in T. Meunier, Fast spin information transfer between dis- noninertial frames’", Phys. Rev. A 85, 016302 (2012), tant quantum dots using individual electrons, Nat. Nano- arXiv:1108.6074. technol. 11, 672 (2016), arXiv:1508.04307. [71] Nicolai Friis, Unlocking fermionic mode entanglement, [55] Christopher J. B. Ford, Transporting and manipulating New J. Phys. 18, 061001 (2016). single electrons in surface-acoustic-wave minima, Phys. [72] Charles H. Bennett, D. P. Di Vincenzo, J. A. Smolin, Status Solidi B 254, 1600658 (2017), arXiv:1702.06628. and William K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and [56] Takafumi Fujita, Timothy Alexander Baart, Christian quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996), Reichl, Werner Wegscheider, and Lieven Mark Koen- arXiv:quant-ph/9604024. raad Vandersypen, Coherent shuttle of electron-spin sta- [73] Stephen D. Bartlett, Terry Rudolph, and Robert W. tes, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 22 (2017), arXiv:1701.00815. Spekkens, Reference frames, superselection rules, and qu- [57] Patrick P. Hofer, David Dasenbrook, and Christian antum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 555 (2007), Flindt, On-demand entanglement generation using dyna- arXiv:quant-ph/0610030. mic single-electron sources, Phys. Status Solidi B 254, [74] Yakir Aharonov and Leonard Susskind, Charge Superse- 1600582 (2017), arXiv:1608.06455. lection Rule, Phys. Rev. 155, 1428 (1967). [58] David Dasenbrook, Joseph Bowles, Jonatan Bohr Brask, [75] John Bardeen, Leon N. Cooper, and John Robert Schri- Patrick P. Hofer, Christian Flindt, and Nicolas Brun- effer, Theory of Superconductivity, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 ner, Single-electron entanglement and nonlocality, New (1957). 15

[76] Christina V. Kraus, Michael M. Wolf, J. Ignacio Ci- [82] Michael A. Nielsen, Conditions for a Class of Entangle- rac, and Géza Giedke, Pairing in fermionic systems: ment Transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 436 (1999), A quantum-information perspective, Phys. Rev. A 79, arXiv:quant-ph/9811053. 012306 (2009), arXiv:0810.4772. [83] Asher Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matri- [77] Franco Strocchi and Arthur S. Wightman, Proof of the ces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996), arXiv:quant- charge superselection rule in local relativistic quantum fi- ph/9604005. eld theory, J. Math. Phys. 15, 2198 (1974). [84] Michał Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, and Ryszard Ho- [78] Danny Kim, Samuel G. Carter, Alex Greilich, Allan rodecki, Separability of mixed states: necessary and Bracker, and Daniel Gammon, Ultrafast optical con- sufficient conditions, Phys. Lett. A 223, 25 (1996), trol of entanglement between two quantum dot spins, Nat. arXiv:quant-ph/9605038. Phys. 7, 223 (2011), arXiv:1007.3733. [85] David E. Bruschi, Martí Perarnau-Llobet, Nicolai Friis, [79] Aymeric Delteil, Zhe Sun, Wei-bo Gao, Emre Togan, Ste- Karen V. Hovhannisyan, and Marcus Huber, The ther- fan Faelt, and Ataç Imamoğlu, Generation of heralded modynamics of creating correlations: Limitations and entanglement between distant hole spins, Nat. Phys. 12, optimal protocols, Phys. Rev. E 91, 032118 (2015), 218 (2016), arXiv:1507.00465. arXiv:1409.4647. [80] John M. Nichol, Lucas A. Orona, Shannon P. Harvey, [86] Nicolai Friis, Marcus Huber, and Martí Perarnau- Saeed Fallahi, Geoffrey C. Gardner, Michael J. Man- Llobet, Energetics of correlations in interacting systems, fra, and Amir Yacoby, High-fidelity entangling gate for Phys. Rev. E 93, 042135 (2016), arXiv:1511.08654. double-quantum-dot spin qubits, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 1 [87] Yu-Ju Chiu, Xie Chen, and Isaac L. Chuang, Fermionic (2017), arXiv:1608.04258. measurement-based quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A [81] Norbert Schuch, Frank Verstraete, and J. Ignacio Ci- 87, 012305 (2013), arXiv:1207.5846. rac, Nonlocal Resources in the Presence of Superselection [88] Lexin Ding and Christian Schilling, Correlation Para- Rules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 087904 (2004), arXiv:quant- dox of the Dissociation Limit: Formal Discussion and ph/0310124. Quantitative Resolution based on Quantum Information Theory, (2020), arXiv:2001.04858