Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

The trace distance between density matrices, a nifty tool in new-physics searches

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Full density-matrix distance gives the sharpest bounds on new physics in spin measurements at colliders.

desk verdict Useful methodology paper with an oversold headline: the trace distance is a sensible new tool for NP searches via quantum tomography, but the quoted bounds are sensitivity projections, not calibrated observed limits. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03311 v2 pith:EUGEWEQE submitted 2025-01-06 hep-ph hep-exquant-ph

Marco Fabbrichesi , Matthew Low , Luca Marzola This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exquant-ph
keywords tracedistancefidelityquantumtomographynewphysicssearchestopchromomagneticdipolemomenttauanomalouscouplingsmagic(stabilizerRényientropy)colliderspincorrelations
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

New-physics searches at colliders usually combine cross sections and kinematic distributions, but the spin state of produced particles is itself a quantum observable. This paper introduces the trace distance and the fidelity distance, two standard ways of comparing density matrices, and uses them to test whether measured spin states agree with the Standard Model. The main claim is that the trace distance between the Standard-Model density matrix and the density matrix modified by an anomalous coupling outperforms concurrence, magic, and fidelity distance, and that when combined with the production cross section it gives the strongest bounds on possible new physics. The method is demonstrated on the chromomagnetic dipole moment of the top quark with existing LHC data and on anomalous τ-lepton couplings with projected Belle and LEP3 statistics. The paper also reports the first determinations of magic in collider data, in top-quark pairs and charmonium decays, both with significance above 5σ.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the trace distance $D_T(\rho,\varsigma)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\sqrt{(\rho-\varsigma)^\dagger(\rho-\varsigma)}$, together with the fidelity distance $D_F=\sqrt{1-F^2}$, evaluated on two Bell-diagonal density matrices reconstructed from measured Fano coefficients. For these states Eq. (2.9) expresses $D_T$ as a sum of absolute-value combinations of differences of the three diagonal correlation coefficients, so the observable is a genuine metric on spin states rather than a single entanglement witness. The χ² test $\chi^2(\lambda)=\left(D_T[\rho_{\mathrm{NP}}(\lambda),\rho_{\mathrm{SM}}]/\sigma_{D_T}\right)^2 + \left((\sigma_{\mathrm{NP}}-\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}})/\sigma_\sigma\right)^2$ converts that distance into a bound on a new-physics parameter $\lambda$, with the uncertainty $\sigma_{D_T}$ propagated from the measured Fano coefficients.

What would settle it

The ranking of observables can be tested directly by recomputing the χ² curves of Sec. 6.2 with a full covariance matrix for the Fano coefficients at Belle or LEP3 instead of independent errors; if the trace-distance curve shifts relative to the concurrence and magic curves, the claimed advantage is an artifact of the diagonal-error assumption. A concrete experiment is to use Belle II data on $\tau^+\tau^-$ angular distributions to measure the Fano coefficients and their correlations, then check whether the 95% CL bound on $a_\tau$ actually reaches $|a_\tau|\le 1.0\times 10^{-3}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that comparing full reconstructed density matrices is more powerful than comparing single quantum-information functionals. For Bell-diagonal two-qubit states, the trace distance reduces to a closed form in the three diagonal Fano coefficients, Eq. (2.9), and the fidelity distance to Eq. (2.10); the paper builds a χ² test from these distances plus a cross-section term. In the top-quark case, using actual CMS spin-correlation data in the bin $m_{t\bar t}>800$ GeV and $|\cos\Theta|<0.4$, the trace distance yields the 95% CL interval $-0.046\le \mu_t \le 0.040$, comparable to the cross-section benchmark $-0.025\le \mu_t \le 0.037$ from [33], and the authors call it the first bound on this parameter from quantum tomography with actual experimental data. For the τ lepton, projected bounds at Belle give $|a_\tau|\le 1.0\times 10^{-3}$ and $|d_\tau|\le 1.5\times 10^{-17}\, e\,\mathrm{cm}$, and at LEP3 the trace distance improves two of the four form-factor limits by about 30% relative to the benchmark. Comparing observables one at a time, the trace distance gives the most stringent limits, closely followed by the fidelity distance; the paper also extracts magic from top-pair and $J/\psi\to\Lambda\bar\Lambda$ data with values $M_2=0.54\pm0.06$ and $M_2=0.658\pm0.002$, both stated to be above 5σ significance.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted bounds assume that the uncertainty on the trace distance, $\sigma_{D_T}$, is a Gaussian, uncorrelated propagation of the uncertainties on the Fano coefficients, and the paper states that no correlation information is provided; if correlations among those coefficients are significant, the limits could move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Top-quark spin-correlation measurements at the LHC already constrain the chromomagnetic dipole moment almost as strongly as the combination of cross-section measurements, making quantum tomography a competitive channel for this anomalous coupling.
  • At Belle, the trace-distance analysis with 1 ab⁻¹ of data projects limits on $a_\tau$ and $d_\tau$ roughly an order of magnitude stronger than current PDG values.
  • At LEP3, adding the trace distance sharpens the projected limits on the $Z\tau\tau$ form factors $F_2(m_Z^2)$ and $C_1^V$ by about 30% relative to using entanglement plus cross section alone.
  • Concurrence and magic, which are not distance measures, are weaker probes for these particular couplings, though magic occupies a complementary kinematic region.
  • Magic is an experimentally accessible resource at high-energy colliders, with the first determinations in top-pair and charmonium data sitting above 5σ significance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same trace-distance χ² construction applies to any pair of tomographically reconstructed states, so it could be carried over to Higgs decays, diboson production, or B-meson decays as soon as Fano-coefficient uncertainties are available.
  • The paper leaves implicit that the trace distance's advantage partly rests on treating Fano-coefficient uncertainties as independent; if a full covariance matrix becomes public, the relative ranking of trace distance, fidelity distance, and a direct coefficient χ² could shift.
  • A testable extension is to use the helicity-amplitude method on Belle II data without angular cuts, converting the projected $|a_\tau|\le 6.4\times10^{-4}$ into a measured bound and testing whether the formalism's gain survives real systematics.
  • Because concurrence and magic peak in complementary kinematic regions, a future simultaneous fit of both observables may be more sensitive to anomalous couplings than either alone; the paper does not make this proposal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the trace distance and the fidelity distance between spin density matrices as tools for new-physics searches at colliders, supplementing the density-matrix comparison with cross-section information. The method is applied to three cases: the top-quark chromomagnetic dipole moment using CMS spin-correlation data, anomalous electromagnetic couplings of the tau lepton in a Belle-like simulation, and anomalous Z-tau couplings in a LEP3-like simulation. A final section compares the constraining power of the trace distance with that of concurrence, magic, and the fidelity distance, and reports first determinations of magic in LHC top-quark and charmonium data. The paper claims that the trace distance provides the most stringent limits among the quantum-information observables considered.

Significance. If the statistical procedure were fully justified, the paper would make a useful contribution: it brings standard quantum-information distance measures into collider new-physics searches, gives a compact analytic expression for the trace distance of Bell-diagonal states (Eq. 2.9), uses actual CMS data in the top-quark example, and provides the first magic determinations from collider data. The comparison of several quantum-information observables on the same Fano-coefficient uncertainties is informative. However, the central quantitative claims rest on a chi-square statistic whose calibration is not established, and the top-quark example is a sensitivity projection rather than an observed bound. These issues affect the headline limits and the claimed superiority of the trace distance.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.11); also Eqs. (3.8), (4.9), (5.6), (6.15)] The test statistic (D_T[rho_NP, rho_SM] / sigma_DT)^2 is asserted to follow a chi-square distribution with thresholds 3.84 and 5.99, but no derivation or calibration is given. D_T is a non-negative, piecewise-linear function of the Fano coefficients (Eq. 2.9), and at the SM point D_T = 0 the gradient entering first-order error propagation is not well defined because of the absolute values. If sigma_DT is obtained by Monte Carlo propagation, the sampling distribution of D_T is one-sided and (D_T/sigma_DT)^2 is not chi-square distributed, so the nominal 68% and 95% confidence levels are not automatically correct. The authors should either derive the distribution of the statistic or calibrate the thresholds with pseudo-experiments; without this, the numerical intervals in Tables 1, 2, and 4 and the comparison in Sec. 6.2 are not quantitatively established.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.8)] The claimed 'first bound computed by means of quantum tomography and actual experimental data' is, as written, a sensitivity projection rather than an observed bound. The numerator D_T[rho_NP(mu_t), rho_SM] compares two theory density matrices; the measured central values of the Fano coefficients enter only through sigma_DT. Thus the quoted 95% interval for mu_t does not use the experimental central values as a measurement of the SM density matrix. If this is intended as an observed exclusion, the test should include the experimentally reconstructed density matrix (or its central values) in the numerator; if it is a projection, the abstract and Sec. 3.2 should state this explicitly.
  3. [Sec. 6.1, Eq. (6.14)] The claim that magic is established 'well above the 5 sigma level' is not supported by a proper significance test. The quoted value M2 = 0.658 ± 0.002 is computed from alpha and Delta-Phi whose uncertainties are given separately with statistical and systematic components, and the caption of Fig. 7 explicitly notes that no correlation in the uncertainties is provided. The significance of a nonzero magic depends on the null distribution of the estimator and on the full covariance of alpha and Delta-Phi; a simple ratio to the quoted uncertainty is not a valid 5-sigma test. This comment applies both to the charm data and to the LHC top-quark magic value in Eq. (6.8).
  4. [Secs. 4.1 and 5.1, Eqs. (4.9) and (5.6)] The uncertainty sigma_DT is said to be obtained by propagating the uncertainties of the Fano coefficients taken from Monte Carlo simulations in Refs. [8] and [22], but the propagation method is not described and correlations among the Fano coefficients are not provided. Since D_T is a nonlinear, piecewise-linear function of several C_ij entries, the result can depend strongly on these correlations. The authors should specify the covariance matrix of the reconstructed Fano coefficients and the exact propagation procedure, or provide the resulting sigma_DT values and clarify whether correlations are included.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] There is a typo 'in the the paper' in the paragraph following Eq. (2.12).
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.12)] The subscript 'textSM' in the sentence defining sigma_SM appears to be an editing artifact; 'sigma_SM = sigma_NP(lambda=0)' should be written cleanly.
  3. [Sec. 6.1, Eq. (6.6)] The process is written as 'p bar p -> t bar t', but the LHC discussed in the text is a proton-proton collider; this should be 'p p -> t bar t'.
  4. [Sec. 6, first paragraph] The phrase 'remarkably different form that of the concurrence' should read 'remarkably different from that of the concurrence'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the trace-distance bounds are direct comparisons of SM and NP density matrices with no fitted parameters; self-citations are independent supporting calculations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: the trace distance and fidelity are defined by standard quantum-information formulas (Eqs. 2.1–2.10) and then used to compare a Standard Model density matrix to a new-physics density matrix via a chi-square statistic (Eqs. 2.11–2.12). No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction; the limits on µt, aτ, dτ, C1, and the LEP3 form factors are obtained by scanning the new-physics parameter and finding where the distance between the NP and SM density matrices exceeds the propagated uncertainty. The claim that the trace distance 'outperforms' concurrence and magic is an empirical finding from Figs. 8–9, not a consequence of the definition of the distance. Self-citations appear (Refs. [8], [15], [21], [22], [33]), but they are used as sources of analytic coefficients, Monte Carlo uncertainties, or benchmark limits that are parameter-free, externally falsifiable, and do not themselves assume the paper's target conclusion. The top-quark bound uses CMS experimental uncertainties but compares two theory density matrices, so it is better characterized as a sensitivity projection than a fitted bound; this is an interpretive caveat, not circularity. The uncalibrated chi-square thresholds noted by a skeptic are a statistical validity concern, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum information mathematics and on a set of domain assumptions about the experimental reconstruction of density matrices and the validity of the linear SMEFT expansion. No free parameters are fitted to data; the paper constrains physical parameters.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard properties of trace distance and fidelity (metric property, unitary invariance, Fuchs-van de Graaf inequalities)
    Invoked in Sec 2 to define the distance measures and the chi-square test; these are textbook quantum information results.
  • domain assumption Validity of the linear SMEFT expansion for the chromomagnetic dipole at LHC energies
    Sec 3.1 estimates the NP correction at about 1% for m_tt~1 TeV and |mu_t|~0.01; if quadratic or higher-order terms were significant, the density-matrix shift and the resulting bounds would change.
  • domain assumption Gaussian, uncorrelated propagation of Fano-coefficient uncertainties into sigma_DT
    Used in the chi-square tests of Eqs (2.11), (3.8), (4.9), and (5.6); the paper does not include correlations among the Fano coefficients.
  • domain assumption Quantum tomography reconstructs the true spin state from angular distributions
    The entire method assumes the reconstructed density matrix from measured angular distributions accurately represents the ensemble spin state.
  • domain assumption Uncertainties from the Monte Carlo simulations of Refs [8] and [22] are representative of the Belle and LEP3 experiments
    Used to set sigma_DT and sigma_sigma for the projected tau limits in Secs 4 and 5; detector effects are not modeled in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The trace distance between density matrices, a nifty tool in new-physics searches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUGEWEQE

@misc{pith2026250103311,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The trace distance between density matrices, a nifty tool in new-physics searches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUGEWEQE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03311}
}
abstract

Quantum information methods have been brought to bear on high-energy physics, including the study of entanglement and Bell nonlocality in collider experiments. Quantum information observables have also been employed to constrain possible new physics effects. We improve on this point by introducing quantum information tools routinely used to compare quantum states: the trace distance and the fidelity. We find that the former outperforms other quantum information observables considered in the literature and, together with the cross section, yields the strongest bounds on possible departures from the Standard Model. The power of the proposed methodology is demonstrated with three examples of new physics searches. The first concerns the chromomagnetic dipole moment of the top quark and yields the first bound computed by means of quantum tomography and actual experimental data. The other two examples use Monte Carlo simulations and set the projected limits on the anomalous couplings of the $\tau$ leptons at Belle and at a future collider, which is taken to be LEP3. For these new physics searches we also compare the sensitivity of the trace distance to those of other quantum information quantities like concurrence, magic, and the fidelity distance. In passing, we provide the first determinations of magic in colliders data by analyzing the top-quark pair production at the LHC and the charmonium decays. The significance is well above the $5\sigma$ level in both the cases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03311 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (left panel) χ 2 test for the chromomagnetic dipole moment of the top quark µt obtained through the trace distance. For the sake of reference, in the right panel we show the constraining power of the fidelity distance (red line), concurrence (blue solid line, see Eq. (6.2)) and magic (blue dashed line, see Eq. (6.5)). Though the relative uncertainties in the CMS measurement of the top-quark pair spin correlations ar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Limits on the electromagnetic anomalous couplings of the τ lepton at Belle obtained with the test in Eq. (4.9). PDG (2022) This work −1.9 × 10−17 ≤ dτ ≤ 6.1 × 10−18 e cm |dτ | ≤ 1.5 × 10−17 e cm −5.2 × 10−2 ≤ aτ ≤ 1.3 × 10−2 |aτ | ≤ 1.0 × 10−3 |C1| ≤ 1.0 × 10−5 |C1| ≤ 1.0 × 10−4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The χ 2 confidence intervals obtained for the parameter aτ by using the helicity amplitude method to compute the density matrix at a scattering angle Θ = π/2. An an example of the helicity amplitude method, we now constrain the anomalous magnetic dipole moment, aτ , of the τ pairs described by the density matrix in Eq. (4.11) for a scattering angle Θ = π/2 that maximizes new physics effects. In place of the experime… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Limits on the four form factors entering the coupling of the τ lepton to the Z boson obtained from the e +e − → Z → τ +τ − process at the Z peak via quantum tomography. The shown joint confidence intervals use the test in Eq. (5.6), albeit the replacement of the trace …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Concurrence and magic profiles over the entire kinematic space spanned by √ s and cos Θ for the process e +e − → τ +τ −. The dashed white horizontal lines mark the center of mass energies of Belle (lower line) and LEP3 (upper line). The insets show the dependence on th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Concurrence (left panel) and magic (right panel) as a function of cos Θ for the process e +e − → J/ψ → ΛΛ. ¯ No correlation in the uncertainties is provided. The density matrix is given in Eq. (4.11) in terms of the helicity amplitudes. After writing the helicity ampli…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of χ 2 tests obtained for C , M2, D T , and D F as we vary individually the F2 and F3 form factors of the τ lepton in the setup of the Belle experiment. -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0 1 2 3 4 5 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0 1 2 3 4 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of χ 2 tests obtained for C , M2, D T , and D F as we vary individually the F2 and F3 form factors of the τ lepton in the setup of the LEP3 experiment. We can see by inspection that the trace distance provides the most stringent limits, closely followed by t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Qubit-qubit-qutrit quantum correlations in $H \to f \bar f V$

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In h→τ^-τ^+ Z decays, the spin state is genuinely qubit-qubit-qutrit entangled almost everywhere, violates Bell inequalities throughout, and carries up to 1.95 bits of non-local magic.

  2. High Energy Photon Polarimetry at Lepton Colliders: Quantum Information from Converted Photons

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Converted photons in Belle II enable high-significance measurements of Bell nonlocality, discord, concurrence, magic and steerability for macroscopically separated GeV diphotons, provided opening-angle resolution reac...

  3. Hadron Structure from the Hierarchy of Quantum Correlations in Deep-Inelastic Scattering

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quantum-information measures of the DIS final electron-quark state are shown to be sensitive to transversity PDFs and can discriminate between different tensor-charge extractions.

  4. Entanglement, Yang-Mills, and the Scattering Matrix as an SU(N)-equivariant Kernel

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SU(N) symmetry fixes the entangling power of 2→2 scattering: Yang-Mills adjoint scattering has a group-only entanglement maximum at 90° (3/4 for SU(2), ≈0.91 for SU(3)), and maximal-entanglement preservation selects t...

  5. Spin versus Magic: Lessons from Gluon and Graviton Scattering

    hep-th 2025-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    For 2 to 2 scattering of massless spin-1/2 to spin-2 particles, the averaged generated magic decreases monotonically with spin, with maxima well below the two-qubit upper bound.

  6. Bell Inequality Violation of Light Quarks in Back-to-Back Dihadron Pair Production at Lepton Colliders

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using dihadron fragmentation functions as spin analyzers, the paper shows that Bell inequality violation in massless quark pairs can be probed through azimuthal correlations, with projected discovery significance from...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [8]

    Ehat¨ aht, M

    K. Ehat¨ aht, M. Fabbrichesi, L. Marzola, and C. Veelken, Probing entanglement and testing Bell inequality violation with e+e- →τ +τ - at Belle II , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 3 032005, [arXiv:2311.17555]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [22]

    Fabbrichesi and L

    M. Fabbrichesi and L. Marzola, Quantum tomography with τ leptons at the FCC-ee: Entanglement, Bell inequality violation, sin θW, and anomalous couplings , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 7 076004, [ arXiv:2405.09201]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    A. J. Barr, M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation at colliders, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 139 (2024) 104134, [arXiv:2402.07972]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [2]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 (2009) 865–942, [ quant-ph/0702225]

    arXiv 2009

  5. [3]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova, Entanglement and quantum tomography with top quarks at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136 (2021), no. 9 907, [arXiv:2003.02280]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [4]

    Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox , Physics Physique Fizika 1 (1964) 195

    J. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox , Physics Physique Fizika 1 (1964) 195

    work page 1964

  7. [5]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and G. Panizzo, Testing Bell Inequalities at the LHC with Top-Quark Pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021), no. 16 161801, [ arXiv:2102.11883]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [6]

    A. J. Barr, Testing Bell inequalities in Higgs boson decays, Phys. Lett. B 825 (2022) 136866, [arXiv:2106.01377]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [7]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, A. Bernal, J. A. Casas, and J. M. Moreno, Testing entanglement and Bell inequalities in H →ZZ, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 1 016012, [ arXiv:2209.13441]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Bell inequality is violated in B0 → J/ψK ∗(892)0 decays, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 3 L031104, [ arXiv:2305.04982]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Bell inequality is violated in charmonium decays, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 5 053008, [ arXiv:2406.17772]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Aad et al., Observation of quantum entanglement in top-quark pairs using the ATLAS detector , Nature 633 (2024) 542, [ arXiv:2311.07288]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of quantum entanglement in top-quark pairs using the ATLAS detector , Nature 633 (2024) 542, [ arXiv:2311.07288]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Hayrapetyan et al., Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Rept

    CMS Collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 (2024), no. 11 117801, [ arXiv:2406.03976]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    CMS Collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., Measurements of polarization and spin correlation and observation of entanglement in top quark pairs using lepton+jets events from proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV , arXiv:2409.11067

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, Quantum SMEFT tomography: Top quark pair production at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 5 055007, [ arXiv:2203.05619]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and E. Gabrielli, Constraining new physics in entangled two-qubit systems: top-quark, tau-lepton and photon pairs , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), no. 2 162, [arXiv:2208.11723]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Maltoni, C

    F. Maltoni, C. Severi, S. Tentori, and E. Vryonidou, Quantum detection of new physics in top-quark pair production at the LHC , JHEP 03 (2024) 099, [ arXiv:2401.08751]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    M. M. Altakach, P. Lamba, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, and K. Sakurai, Quantum information and CP measurement in H →τ +τ - at future lepton colliders , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 9 093002, [ arXiv:2211.10513]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Stringent bounds on HWW and HZZ anomalous couplings with quantum tomography at the LHC , JHEP 09 (2023) 195, [arXiv:2304.02403]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Bernal, P

    A. Bernal, P. Caban, and J. Rembieli´ nski, Entanglement and Bell inequalities violation in H → ZZ with anomalous coupling , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), no. 11 1050, [ arXiv:2307.13496]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, Probing new physics through entanglement in diboson production , JHEP 12 (2023) 017, [ arXiv:2307.09675]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Fabbrichesi and L

    M. Fabbrichesi and L. Marzola, Dipole momenta and compositeness of the τ lepton at Belle II , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 9 095026, [arXiv:2401.04449]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. n. de Nova, Quantum Discord and Steering in Top Quarks at the LHC , 22 Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023), no. 22 221801, [arXiv:2209.03969]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    C. D. White and M. J. White, The magic of entangled top quarks , arXiv:2406.07321

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    T. Han, M. Low, N. McGinnis, and S. Su, Measuring Quantum Discord at the LHC , arXiv:2412.21158

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information . Cambridge University Press, 6, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    transition probability

    A. Uhlmann, The “transition probability” in the state space of a ∗-algebra, Rept. Math. Phys. 9 (1976), no. 2 273–279

    1976

  20. [28]

    C. A. Fuchs and J. van de Graaf, Cryptographic distinguishability measures for quantum-mechanical states, IEEE Trans. Info. Theor. 45 (1999), no. 4 1216–1227, [quant-ph/9712042]

    1999 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gilchrist, N

    A. Gilchrist, N. K. Langford, and M. A. Nielsen, Distance measures to compare real and ideal quantum processes, Physical Review A 71 (June, 2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Measurement of the top quark polarization and t¯t spin correlations using dilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), no. 7 072002, [arXiv:1907.03729]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    PDF4LHC W orking GroupCollaboration, R. D. Ball et al., The PDF4LHC21 combination of global PDF fits for the LHC Run III , J. Phys. G 49 (2022), no. 8 080501, [ arXiv:2203.05506]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Severi and E

    C. Severi and E. Vryonidou, Quantum entanglement and top spin correlations in SMEFT at higher orders , JHEP 01 (2023) 148, [arXiv:2210.09330]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Fabbrichesi, M

    M. Fabbrichesi, M. Pinamonti, and A. Tonero, Stringent limits on top-quark compositeness from t¯t production at the Tevatron and the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014), no. 7 074028, [arXiv:1307.5750]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Brivio, S

    I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, F. Maltoni, R. Moutafis, T. Plehn, E. Vryonidou, S. Westhoff, and C. Zhang, O new physics, where art thou? A global search in the top sector , JHEP 02 (2020) 131, [arXiv:1910.03606]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Abdallah et al., Study of tau-pair production in photon-photon collisions at LEP and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of the tau lepton , Eur

    DELPHI Collaboration, J. Abdallah et al., Study of tau-pair production in photon-photon collisions at LEP and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of the tau lepton , Eur. Phys. J. C 35 (2004) 159–170, [hep-ex/0406010]

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Eidelman and M

    S. Eidelman and M. Passera, Theory of the tau lepton anomalous magnetic moment , Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22 (2007) 159–179, [ hep-ph/0701260]

    2007 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Inami et al., An improved search for the electric dipole moment of the τ lepton, JHEP 04 (2022) 110, [arXiv:2108.11543]

    Belle Collaboration, K. Inami et al., An improved search for the electric dipole moment of the τ lepton, JHEP 04 (2022) 110, [arXiv:2108.11543]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and J. M. Roney, Toward testing the magnetic moment of the tau at one part per million , Phys. Rev. D 106 (Nov,

  31. [39]

    Bernabeu, G

    J. Bernabeu, G. A. Gonzalez-Sprinberg, and J. Vidal, Tau spin correlations and the anomalous magnetic moment , JHEP 01 (2009) 062, [arXiv:0807.2366]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bernab´ eu, G

    J. Bernab´ eu, G. Gonz´ alez-Sprinberg, J. Papavassiliou, and J. Vidal, Tau anomalous magnetic moment form factor at super b/flavor factories, Nuclear Physics B 790 (2008), no. 1 160–174

    2008

  33. [41]

    Chen and Y

    X. Chen and Y. Wu, Search for the Electric Dipole Moment and anomalous magnetic moment of the tau lepton at tau factories , JHEP 10 (2019) 089, [ arXiv:1803.00501]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bernreuther, L

    W. Bernreuther, L. Chen, and O. Nachtmann, Electric dipole moment of the tau lepton revisited, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021), no. 9 096011, [arXiv:2101.08071]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Particle Data GroupCollaboration, R. L. Workman and Others, Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  36. [44]

    Banerjee, B

    S. Banerjee, B. Pietrzyk, J. M. Roney, and Z. Was, Tau and muon pair production cross-sections in electron-positron annihilations at s**(1/2) = 10.58-GeV , Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 054012, [ arXiv:0706.3235]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, On the General Theory of Collisions for Particles with Spin , Annals Phys. 7 (1959) 404–428

    1959

  38. [46]

    Leader, Spin in Particle Physics , vol

    E. Leader, Spin in Particle Physics , vol. 15 of Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology . Cambridge University Press, 2023. 23

    2023

  39. [47]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and M. Low, Quantum Tomography at Colliders: With or Without Decays, arXiv:2410.08303

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085, [arXiv:1008.4884]

    2010 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Blondel et al., LEP3: A High Luminosity e+e− Collider to Study the Higgs Boson , arXiv:1208.0504

    A. Blondel et al., LEP3: A High Luminosity e+e− Collider to Study the Higgs Boson , arXiv:1208.0504

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits , Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (Mar, 1998) 2245–2248

    1998

  43. [51]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits , Physical Review A 70 (Nov., 2004)

    2004

  44. [52]

    T. Han, M. Low, and T. A. Wu, Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation in semi-leptonic top decays , JHEP 07 (2024) 192, [arXiv:2310.17696]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and M. Low, Optimizing fictitious states for Bell inequality violation in bipartite qubit systems with applications to the tt¯ system, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 11 116005, [arXiv:2311.09166]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and M. Low, Optimizing Entanglement and Bell Inequality Violation in Top Anti-Top Events, arXiv:2407.01672

  47. [55]

    Ablikim et al., Number of J/ψ events at BESIII , Chin

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Number of J/ψ events at BESIII , Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022), no. 7 074001, [ arXiv:2111.07571]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ablikim et al., Precise Measurements of Decay Parameters and CP Asymmetry with Entangled Λ-¯Λ Pairs, Phys

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Precise Measurements of Decay Parameters and CP Asymmetry with Entangled Λ-¯Λ Pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022), no. 13 131801, [arXiv:2204.11058]. 24

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.