Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Quantum Entanglement Theory and Its Generic Searches in High Energy Physics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single determinant decides two-fermion entanglement, and generalized discriminants define entanglement spaces for higher-spin collider systems.

desk verdict A clean two-fermion result and some promising collider observables sit inside a paper whose general algebraic claim does not survive contact with a rank-two 3x3 matrix. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09280 v2 pith:PKPRYD3A submitted 2025-05-14 hep-ph hep-th

Junle Pei , Yaquan Fang , Lina Wu , Da Xu , Mustapha Biyabi , Tianjun Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords quantumentanglementdiscriminantcriterioncomplexprojectivespaceBellnon-localitycolliderobservablestopquarkpairsangularcorrelationsbeyondStandardModel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes an exact algebraic characterization of quantum entanglement. For a pure multi-particle state, it identifies the full polarization space with complex projective space $\mathbb{CP}^{J-1}$ and the factorizable (classical) states with the product $\mathbb{CP}^{2s_1}\times\cdots\times \mathbb{CP}^{2s_N}$, so the entanglement space is the difference of the two. The authors define degree-2 discriminants, namely two-by-two determinants of the coefficient array, and claim that their vanishing defines the classical space for the $ff$, $AA$, $Af$, $fff$, and $ffA$ systems. For the two-fermion $ff$ case they prove the discriminant criterion is equivalent to the Peres-Horodecki criterion and to the CHSH criterion, so every entangled pure fermion-pair state is Bell non-local. On the collider side, the paper builds angular observables from decay amplitudes that measure these discriminants, including the azimuthal observable $D'$ that detects top-pair entanglement at $e^+e^-$ colliders where the standard $D$ criterion fails, and uses them to propose searches for new scalars and heavy quarks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the discriminant, a degree-2 holomorphic function formed as a two-by-two minor of the amplitude coefficient array, for example $\Delta_{ij,kl}=\alpha_{i,k}\alpha_{j,l}-\alpha_{i,l}\alpha_{j,k}$. A product state has a rank-one coefficient matrix, so every such minor vanishes on the classical space; the paper's defining move is to take the discriminant locus $\Delta=0$ (or the simultaneous zero locus of a chosen independent set) as the complete characterization of separable pure states. For the $ff$ system this is proven by showing that the eigenvalues of the partially transposed density matrix are $-|\Delta|,\,|\Delta|,\,\frac12(1\pm\sqrt{1-4|\Delta|^2})$, and that the CHSH variable is $2\sqrt{1+4|\Delta|^2}$. The collider machinery is the master formula for factorized angular observables, built from Wigner $d$-functions and phase-space integrals, which expresses expectation values such as $\langle\cos(\phi_{e^+}-\phi_{e^-})\rangle$ as quadratic forms in $\alpha$ and lets experimenters reconstruct the discriminants from measured angular correlations.

What would settle it

For the $AA$ system, set $\alpha_{1,j}=0$ for all $j$ and choose the residual $2\times3$ block with rows $j=0$ and $j=-1$ to be a rank-2 matrix, for instance row 0 equal to $(1,0,1)$ and row $-1$ equal to $(0,1,1)$ over columns $k=-1,0,1$, then normalize. All four independent discriminants $\Delta_1,\Delta_2,\Delta_3,\Delta_4$ vanish because they involve the zero first row, but the amplitude matrix has rank 2 and is therefore not a product state, directly contradicting the proposed classical-space definition for $AA$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that entanglement, for pure states, is an exact algebraic property rather than an inequality. For a two-fermion state with coefficients $\alpha_{kj}$, the paper proves that the state is separable if and only if the single determinant $\Delta=\alpha_{++}\alpha_{--}-\alpha_{+-}\alpha_{-+}$ vanishes, and that this same condition matches the Peres-Horodecki positive-partial-transpose criterion and the CHSH criterion, with Bell variable $B=2\sqrt{1+4|\Delta|^2}$ taking values from 2 to $2\sqrt2$. The paper then generalizes the construction to $AA$, $Af$, $fff$, and $ffA$ systems by listing independent discriminants and asserting that their common zero locus is the factorizable (Segre) locus, so that non-vanishing of at least one discriminant certifies entanglement. In the collider part, it uses Wigner $d$-function phase-space integrals to express angular correlation observables as quadratic forms in the coefficients, yielding criteria such as $D'\in[-1,-1/2)\cup(1/2,1]$ for top pairs and triple-product criteria for $ttt$ and $t\bar t W^-$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the selected independent discriminants' common zero set exactly describes all separable pure states for the $AA$, $Af$, $fff$, and $ffA$ systems; the $ff$ case is proven, but for $AA$ this assumption is false, since a state whose first helicity row vanishes and whose remaining two rows form a rank-2 block has all four independent discriminants zero yet is not a product state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For pure two-fermion states, the discriminant criterion is exact and is equivalent to both the Peres-Horodecki and CHSH criteria, so entanglement and Bell non-locality coincide and there is no Werner-type gap in this pure-state setting.
  • At $e^+e^-$ colliders, the leading-order Standard Model prediction $D=1/3$ makes the usual $D<-1/3$ criterion useless for top pairs, while $D'=32/\pi^2\langle\cos(\phi_{e^+}-\phi_{e^-})\rangle$ outside $[-1/2,1/2]$ certifies entanglement in dedicated angular regions.
  • For $W^+W^-$ pairs from a scalar $h'$ with $m_{h'}<254.1$ GeV, $\langle\cos\theta_{e^-e^+}\rangle>1/4$ certifies entanglement, and for $W^-t$ from a heavy quark $b'$ with $m_{b'}<319.5$ GeV, $D'_{W^-t}>1$ does.
  • Triple-product correlations $\langle(\hat e_1\times\hat e_2)\cdot\hat e_3\rangle$ certify genuine tripartite entanglement in $ttt$ and $t\bar t W^-$ when they fall outside the product-state bounds.
  • The formalism recasts entanglement detection as a finite set of algebraic zero-checks, so model-independent exact tests replace inequality-based sufficient conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the 2-by-2 minor idea will not survive with the same discriminant list for every bipartite system, since the paper's $AA$ criterion already admits a non-product state with all four independent discriminants zero; a complete theory needs either extra discriminants or a different defining set.
  • Inference: collider spin density matrices are mixed after averaging, so the pure-state discriminant criterion must be lifted to a statement about existence of a separable decomposition before direct application to data, while the linear angular observables remain valid as entanglement witnesses under mixing.
  • Inference: observables such as $D'$ isolate specific off-diagonal elements of the production density matrix, so the same measurements also constrain production amplitudes and anomalous couplings, not only entanglement.
  • Inference: the exact $ff$ equivalence between entanglement and Bell non-locality is a two-qubit fact; for the $AA$, $fff$, and $ffA$ systems, Bell non-locality requires separate inequalities and should not be read off from the discriminants alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a general formalism in which the pure spin-polarization state of an N-particle system is identified with complex projective space CP^{J-1}, the "classical space" with the Segre product of single-particle spaces, and the "quantum entanglement space" with their set-theoretic difference. For the ff, AA, Af, fff, and ffA systems it introduces quadratic "discriminants" and claims that the classical space is exactly the discriminant locus Delta=0 (for ff) or the intersection of the discriminant loci Delta_i=0 (for the others). For the ff system it proves equivalence of the discriminant criterion with the Peres-Horodecki criterion and with the CHSH Bell-variable condition. For the specific collider approach it derives angular-correlation observables for t tbar, tau+ tau-, W+ W-, W- t, ttt, and t tbar W- systems and states entanglement criteria, including BSM scenarios with h' and b'. The central mathematical claim, however, is proven only for ff; for AA it is demonstrably false, and for the remaining systems it is asserted without proof.

Significance. If the discriminant characterization were correct, the ff part would provide an exact algebraic criterion equivalent to the Peres-Horodecki and CHSH criteria for pure two-fermion states, and the specific angular observables would be useful additions to the collider-entanglement toolbox. The paper contains a number of explicit analytic results, especially the ff derivation in Section 2.1 and the azimuthal observable D' in Section 4.3, and those parts are internally consistent. The significance of the broader program, however, depends on the false or unproved claims that the chosen discriminant loci cut out the classical space for AA, Af, fff, and ffA, and on the assumption that collider-produced systems can be treated as pure states. Since those assumptions are load-bearing for the paper's main claims of an "exact level" theory and for the multi-particle criteria, the significance of the paper as a whole is substantially reduced.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (46)] The claimed characterization of the classical space for the AA system is false. Take the normalized state with alpha_{0,1}=alpha_{-1,0}=1/sqrt(2) and all other alpha_{j,k}=0. The coefficient matrix has first row zero and the remaining 2x3 block has rank 2, so the state is not a product state. Nevertheless, Delta1=Delta2=Delta3=Delta4=0, because every one of these discriminants contains the factor alpha_{1,1}, alpha_{1,0}, or alpha_{1,-1}. Thus the intersection of the four chosen discriminant loci contains non-product states, and the statement that this intersection is the classical space is incorrect. The reduction relations such as "with Delta1 and Delta2 we can obtain Delta8" require division by the pivot alpha_{1,1} and fail exactly on the locus alpha_{1,1}=0, which is where the counterexample lives.
  2. [Sections 2.2-2.6, Eqs. (8) and (63)-(74)] The paper's central generalization is asserted rather than proven. The NID count in Eq. (8) is only a dimension count of the expected codimension of the Segre variety; it does not show that the selected quadratic forms generate the ideal of that variety. The AA counterexample above shows that the dimension count is not sufficient. In fact, the Segre embedding of CP2 x CP2 has codimension 4 but is not a complete intersection, so no four quadratic equations can cut it out scheme-theoretically. The same unsupported pivot-based construction is used for Af, fff, and ffA in Sections 2.3-2.5 and for general systems in Section 2.6, with no proof that the selected discriminants define the separable set. These assertions are load-bearing for the paper's central claim that the quantum entanglement space is characterized exactly by the discriminant loci.
  3. [Section 4.1-4.2, Eqs. (97)-(99) and (116)] The paper treats the t tbar system as a pure state with a single amplitude vector alpha_{k,j} obtained from production amplitudes via Eq. (98). In an actual collider experiment the spin state is a density matrix obtained after averaging over beam polarizations, production angles, and unobserved quantum numbers; it is generically mixed rather than pure. The derived criterion that Delta != 0 is necessary and sufficient for entanglement is valid for the pure state of Eq. (97), but no argument is given that the same criterion applies to the mixed collider density matrix. This affects the claimed "exact level" reconstruction of Delta from measurements and the necessity part of the entanglement criteria in Sections 4 and 5.
  4. [Sections 5.4-5.5, Eqs. (181)-(184) and (191)-(194)] The triple-product observables are used to claim a criterion for "genuine tripartite entanglement." The derivation bounds the observable for fully separable product states, but a state that is entangled only in one bipartition and product with respect to the third party (biseparable) is not covered by this bound. To certify genuine tripartite entanglement one must also exclude biseparable states. Since no biseparable bounds are derived, the criteria in Eqs. (184) and (194) at most detect non-full-separability, not genuine tripartite entanglement as claimed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1, around Eq. (12)] The displayed inequality after Eq. (12) appears garbled: the term |alpha_{1/2,-1/2}|^2|alpha_{-1/2,1/2}|^2 should evidently be |alpha_{1/2,-1/2}|^2 + |alpha_{-1/2,1/2}|^2 in the intended application of 2|ab| <= |a|^2 + |b|^2.
  2. [Sections 5.4-5.5] There are unresolved placeholders "Section ??" in the definitions of the spherical coordinates for the ttt and t tbar W- analyses; these should be replaced by the correct section references.
  3. [Section 2.1, Werner-state discussion] The statement that Werner states with w in (1/3, 1/sqrt(2)) "cannot be realized" is only a statement about the pure-state parametrization used in the paper; it does not address whether such mixed states arise from collider ensembles, so the conclusion that the classical space equals the Bell-local parameter space is limited to pure states.
  4. [Section 1 and throughout] The notation CP^{s1} \otimes CP^{s2} for the Segre product is nonstandard; the Segre variety is the image of the cartesian product CP^{s1} x CP^{s2}, and using \otimes for the space rather than the embedding may confuse readers.
  5. [Section 4.3, Eq. (129)] The criterion D' in [-1,-1/2) union (1/2,1] is stated as "conclusively demonstrated" entanglement; because the derivation in Eqs. (125)-(128) uses the pure-state amplitude parametrization, this should be labeled as a criterion for pure or coherently produced states unless the mixed-state extension is supplied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the ff discriminant proof is self-contained, the specific observables are derived by integration, and the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing example.

full rationale

Step-by-step check: (1) For the ff system, the discriminant Δ is defined directly from the amplitude coefficients (Eq. 11), and the paper derives the partial-transpose eigenvalues (Eq. 19) and the C^T C eigenvalues (Eq. 38), obtaining Δ=0 exactly as the Peres-Horodecki condition and as the CHSH boundary B=2. This is a mathematical derivation, not a fitted input. (2) The specific observables (D, D′, D″) are obtained from the master formula Eq. (88) by explicit phase-space integration (e.g., Eqs. 108, 125, 130); the separable-state bounds in Eqs. (119) and (128) are constraints on factorized coefficients, not fitted parameters. (3) For AA, Af, fff, and ffA, the paper explicitly defines the classical space as the intersection of discriminant loci (Section 2.2: 'The classical space is the intersection of the discriminant loci Δi=0'), so the claimed classification is a definitional assertion rather than a derived equivalence. The failure of this assertion for AA is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction, because no quantity is fitted to the target conclusion. (4) The only self-citation [26] is used as an example of reconstructing Δ in ΛΛ̄ production and is not load-bearing for any derivation in this paper. Overall, no prediction is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central formalism assumes pure states and assumes the chosen discriminants define the separable set; these are domain assumptions and ad hoc constructions rather than derived statements. No numerical free parameters are fitted to data; BSM masses are scanned inputs.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math A spin-s particle's pure polarization state is a point of CP^{2s}.
    This is the standard description of a spin state as a ray in Hilbert space; used in Section 2 to set up the projective geometry.
  • domain assumption The collider-produced N-particle system is in a pure state described by a single amplitude vector alpha.
    Used throughout Sections 2 and 4; real collider samples are statistical mixtures after averaging, so Delta != 0 is not the correct separable criterion for the experimental density matrix.
  • standard math The decay products' angular distribution factorizes through Wigner d-functions with the stated orthogonality relations.
    This is textbook quantum mechanics; used in Section 3 to derive angular observables.
  • ad hoc to paper For AA, Af, fff, and ffA, the intersection of the chosen discriminant loci equals the separable pure-state set.
    The paper asserts this definition without proof, and it is false for AA: a rank-2 3x3 coefficient matrix with a zero first row satisfies the four chosen discriminants but is not a product state.
invented entities (2)
  • Higgs-like scalar h' independent evidence
    purpose: Illustrates enhanced W+W- entanglement signals with the m_h' < 254.1 GeV threshold; not needed for the central formalism.
    The mass threshold produces a falsifiable angular-correlation prediction in W+W- events, though the entity itself is a toy model extension.
  • Heavy bottom-like quark b' independent evidence
    purpose: Illustrates W-t entanglement signals with the m_b' < 319.5 GeV threshold.
    The threshold yields a falsifiable D'_Wt > 1 prediction, but the particle is hypothetical.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Entanglement Theory and Its Generic Searches in High Energy Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PKPRYD3A

@misc{pith2026250509280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Entanglement Theory and Its Generic Searches in High Energy Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PKPRYD3A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09280}
}
abstract

We propose a new formalism for quantum entanglement (QE), and study its generic searches at the colliders. For a general quantum system with $N$ particles, we show that the quantum space (the total spin polarization parameter space) is complex projective space, and the classical space (the spin polarization parameter space for classical theory) is the cartesian product of the complex projective spaces. Thus, the quantum entanglement space is the difference of these two spaces. For the $ff$, $AA$, $Af$, $fff$, and $ffA$ systems, we propose their discriminants $\Delta_i$. The corresponding classical spaces are the discriminant locus $\Delta=0$ for $ff$ system, and intersections of the discriminant loci $\Delta_i=0$ for $AA$, $Af$, $fff$, and $ffA$ systems in the quantum space. In particular, for two fermion $ff$ system, we prove that our discriminant criterion is equivalent to the original Peres-Horodecki criterion and the CHSH criterion. And thus our quantum entanglement space is indeed Bell non-local. With the collider searches, we can reconstruct the discriminants from various measurements, and probe the quantum entanglement spaces via a fundamental approach at exact level. In addition, for the specific approach, we present a comprehensive framework to detect quantum entanglement in high-energy multi-particle systems, spanning fermion pairs ($t\bar{t}$, $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$), bosonic pairs ($W^{-}W^{+}$), and hybrid or three-body systems ($W^{-}t$, $ttt$, $t\bar{t}W^{-}$), by diverse observables through angular correlations in decay products. These results establish model-independent methodologies for probing QE across collider experiments, bridging quantum information principles with high-energy phenomenology, while offering novel pathways to explore exotic particles and quantum properties in multi-particle systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Excluding Local Hidden Variables in $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ Production: The Incompatibility with Angular-Momentum Conservation and CPT Invariance

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Scalar h→ΛarΛ decay is incompatible with any angular-momentum-conserving LHVT, while pseudoscalar a→ΛarΛ can be mimicked by an LHVT only if CPT symmetry is relaxed.

  2. Bypassing Spin-Analyzing Power Dependence for Quantum Entanglement at Colliders: A Case Study of $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An entanglement witness for J/ψ→ΛΛ̄ built from angular-correlation ratios can certify entanglement without the parity-violating decay parameters, while angle-only ratio tests are shown to fail.

  3. Observation of quantum entanglement in $\Lambda \bar{\Lambda}$ pair production via electron-positron annihilation

    hep-ph 2025-05 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A derived angular observable O1 that is a rescaling of the published BESIII alpha_psi value is presented as a 124.9-sigma observation of hyperon entanglement, without any new measurement.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195–200 (1964) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    Bell, J.S.: On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195–200 (1964) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    doi:10.1103/physicsphysiquefizika.1.195 1964

  2. [2]

    Werner, R.F.: Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admit- ting a hidden-variable model. Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277–4281 (1989) https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4277

    doi:10.1103/physreva.40.4277 1989

  3. [3]

    Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N.: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

    doi:10.1103/physrev.47.777 1935

  4. [4]

    Freedman, S.J., Clauser, J.F.: Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938–941 (1972) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.28. 938

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.28 1972

  5. [5]

    Aspect, A., Grangier, P., Roger, G.: Experimental tests of realistic local theories via bell’s theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460–463 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.47.460

    1981

  6. [6]

    Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., Roger, G.: Experimental test of bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804–1807 (1982) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.49.1804 1982

  7. [7]

    Tittel, W., Brendel, J., Zbinden, H., Gisin, N.: Violation of bell inequalities by photons more than 10 km apart. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3563–3566 (1998) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3563

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.3563 1998

  8. [8]

    Nature 526, 682–686 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature15759 arXiv:1508.05949 [quant-ph]

    Hensen, B., et al.: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins sep- arated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature 526, 682–686 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature15759 arXiv:1508.05949 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G., Cr´ epeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., Wootters, W.K.: 40 Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky- rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895–1899 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.70.1895

    1993

  2. [10]

    Nature 390(6660), 575–579 (1997) https: //doi.org/10.1038/37539

    Bouwmeester, D., Pan, J.-W., Mattle, K., Eibl, M., Weinfurter, H., Zeilinger, A.: Experimental quantum teleportation. Nature 390(6660), 575–579 (1997) https: //doi.org/10.1038/37539

    1997 doi

  3. [11]

    Boschi, D., Branca, S., De Martini, F., Hardy, L., Popescu, S.: Experimental realization of teleporting an unknown pure quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1121–1125 (1998) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1121

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    : Deterministic quantum teleportation with atoms

    Riebe, M., et al. : Deterministic quantum teleportation with atoms. Nature 429(6993), 734–737 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02570

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    : Deterministic quantum teleportation of atomic qubits

    Barrett, M.D., et al. : Deterministic quantum teleportation of atomic qubits. Nature 429(6993), 737–739 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02608

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    Kuk, R., Lee, K., Michel, J.K.L., Sun, Z.: Towards a Quantum Information Theory of Hadronization: Dihadron Fragmentation and Neutral Polarization in Heavy Baryons (2025) arXiv:2503.22607 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Subba, A., Rahaman, R.: On bipartite and tripartite entanglement at present and future particle colliders (2024) arXiv:2404.03292 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Subba, A., Singh, R.K., Godbole, R.M.: Looking into the quantum entanglement in H→ ZZ⋆ at LHC within SMEFT framework (2024) arXiv:2411.19171 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Nature 633, 542 (2024) arXiv:2311.07288 [hep-ex]

    ATLAS Collaboration: Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector. Nature 633, 542 (2024) arXiv:2311.07288 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    : Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    Hayrapetyan, A., et al. : Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV. Rept. Prog. Phys.87(11), 117801 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ad7e4d arXiv:2406.03976 [hep- ex]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Physics Letters B 539(3–4), 235–241 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1016/s0370-2693(02)02098-1

    Brandenburg, A., Si, Z.G., Uwer, P.: Qcd-corrected spin analysing power of jets in decays of polarized top quarks. Physics Letters B 539(3–4), 235–241 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1016/s0370-2693(02)02098-1

    2002 doi

  12. [20]

    Bernreuther, W., Flesch, M., Haberl, P.: Signatures of Higgs bosons in the top quark decay channel at hadron colliders. Phys. Rev. D 58, 114031 (1998) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.114031 arXiv:hep-ph/9709284

    1998 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Afik, Y., Nova, J.R.M.n.: Entanglement and quantum tomography with top 41 quarks at the LHC. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136(9), 907 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 1140/epjp/s13360-021-01902-1 arXiv:2003.02280 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Holt, R.A.: Proposed experiment to test local hidden variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880–884 (1969) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880

    1969 doi

  15. [23]

    Peres, A.: Separability criterion for density matrices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413–1415 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1413 arXiv:quant- ph/9604005

    1996

  16. [24]

    Horodecki, P.: Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition. Phys. Lett. A 232, 333 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0375-9601(97)00416-7 arXiv:quant-ph/9703004

    1997 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M.: Violating Bell inequality by mixed spin-1/2 states: necessary and sufficient condition. Phys. Lett. A 200(5), 340–344 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(95)00214-N

    1995 doi

  18. [26]

    Pei, J., Hao, X., Wang, X., Li, T.: Observation of quantum entanglement in Λ¯Λ pair production via electron-positron annihilation (2025) arXiv:2505.09931 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Wu, S., Qian, C., Wang, Q., Zhou, X.-R.: Bell nonlocality and entanglement in e+e-→YY¯ at BESIII. Phys. Rev. D 110(5), 054012 (2024) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.110.054012 arXiv:2406.16298 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Han, T., Low, M., Su, Y.: Entanglement and Bell Nonlocality in τ +τ− at the BEPC (2025) arXiv:2501.04801 [hep-ph]

    2025

  21. [29]

    Leader, E.: Spin in Particle Physics vol. 15. Cambridge University Press, ??? (2001). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009402040

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    Murayama, H., Watanabe, I., Hagiwara, K.: HELAS: HELicity amplitude sub- routines for Feynman diagram evaluations (1992) 42

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.