Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 11 cited by

Decoherence effects in entangled fermion pairs at colliders

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-22 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Radiation decoherence in entangled top-quark pairs at colliders is captured by mapping Kraus operators to integrated Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions.

desk verdict The paper maps radiation decoherence in entangled ttbar spins to integrated Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions via Kraus operators, but the abstract leaves the key derivation unshown. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.07030 v2 submitted 2025-04-09 quant-ph hep-exhep-ph

Rafael Aoude , Alan J. Barr , Fabio Maltoni , Leonardo Satrioni This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-exhep-ph
keywords entanglementdecoherencefermionpairscollidersKrausoperatorsAltarelli-ParisiBellstateradiationeffects
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

The paper calculates how radiation causes loss of spin entanglement in maximally entangled fermion pairs produced at colliders. It treats the pair as an open quantum system in a Bell state and shows that the evolution operators can be identified with the integrated Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions that describe parton radiation. A sympathetic reader cares because recent LHC measurements have reported spin entanglement in top-antitop pairs, yet those analyses usually omit the radiation that is expected to reduce the observed entanglement. If the identification holds, collider experiments can incorporate a concrete, calculable correction for decoherence instead of ignoring it.

What carries the argument

Identification of the Kraus operators for the open-system evolution of the Bell-state fermion pair with the integrated Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions.

What would settle it

A precision measurement of spin correlations in ttbar events at the LHC that compares the observed entanglement witness with and without the radiation-induced Kraus correction and finds a statistically significant mismatch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The effects of radiation on a maximally entangled pair of fermions in a Bell state can be modeled as an open quantum system in which the Kraus operators that govern the system's evolution are identified with the integrated Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions.

Load-bearing premise

The decoherence induced by radiation on the entangled fermion pair can be fully captured by identifying Kraus operators with integrated Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions without additional collider-specific kinematic corrections or higher-order interference terms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Different radiation processes (gluon emission, photon emission, etc.) produce quantitatively different reductions in the entanglement measure.
  • The model supplies a concrete, process-dependent correction factor that can be folded into existing spin-correlation analyses at colliders.
  • The same mapping supplies a way to predict the scale at which entanglement visibility drops below a detectable threshold as a function of radiated energy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same identification may extend to other entangled particle pairs produced in high-energy collisions once appropriate splitting functions are substituted.
  • Including next-to-leading-order splitting or interference terms could reveal whether the leading-order Kraus map remains a good approximation or requires refinement.
  • Experimental programs could test the prediction by binning entanglement measures in events with varying amounts of additional radiation.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims to calculate the effects of radiation-induced decoherence on maximally entangled fermion pairs (a bipartite qubit system in a Bell state) at colliders such as the LHC, where ttbar spin entanglement has been measured. It proposes to identify the Kraus operators governing the open quantum system evolution directly with the integrated Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions for the relevant parton splittings.

Significance. If the proposed mapping holds after proper derivation, the result would supply a concrete, collider-physics-grounded channel for incorporating decoherence into entanglement observables, addressing an effect that is currently neglected in LHC analyses of top-quark spin correlations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim equates the Kraus operators of the open-system channel to the integrated Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions P_{q→q}(z) and P_{q→g}(z) for a Bell state, yet supplies no derivation from the interaction Hamiltonian, no explicit partial trace over radiation degrees of freedom, and no demonstration that spin-dependent helicity amplitudes and joint phase-space measures leave no residual off-diagonal coherences after tracing. This identification is load-bearing for the entire result.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'various different types of radiation' without enumerating which emissions (collinear, soft, non-collinear) are treated or how their contributions are combined.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and for recognizing the potential significance of incorporating radiation-induced decoherence into collider studies of top-quark spin entanglement. We address the major comment below and commit to revisions that will strengthen the presentation of the central mapping.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim equates the Kraus operators of the open-system channel to the integrated Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions P_{q→q}(z) and P_{q→g}(z) for a Bell state, yet supplies no derivation from the interaction Hamiltonian, no explicit partial trace over radiation degrees of freedom, and no demonstration that spin-dependent helicity amplitudes and joint phase-space measures leave no residual off-diagonal coherences after tracing. This identification is load-bearing for the entire result.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract states the identification concisely without reproducing the full technical steps. The manuscript motivates the mapping by noting that the integrated splitting functions encode the probability of emitting radiation carrying away momentum fraction z, which entangles the fermion spin with the unobserved radiation degrees of freedom; tracing over the latter then yields an effective channel on the spin qubits. To make this rigorous and address the referee’s valid concern, the revised manuscript will include a new dedicated section (or appendix) that begins from the relevant QED/QCD interaction Hamiltonian, computes the spin-dependent helicity amplitudes for the splitting processes, integrates over the radiation phase space with the appropriate joint measures, performs the partial trace explicitly, and demonstrates that residual off-diagonal coherences vanish for the symmetric integration employed. This will establish that the resulting operators are indeed the Kraus operators of a valid decoherence channel. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: central identification uses external standard results

full rationale

The paper's key step is an identification of Kraus operators for the open-system decoherence channel with integrated Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions, which are established QCD results external to this work. No equation or claim reduces by construction to a quantity fitted inside the paper, a self-definition, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The derivation applies standard open-quantum-system formalism to a Bell state and imports the splitting functions as inputs rather than deriving them from the target entanglement observables, leaving the central claim independent of its own outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation relies on the standard framework of open quantum systems and the established Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions from QCD; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Radiation processes can be modeled as the environment causing decoherence in the open quantum system of the entangled fermion pair.
    This premise is required to apply the Kraus-operator formalism to the collider setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoherence effects in entangled fermion pairs at colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2504.07030

@misc{pith2026250407030,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoherence effects in entangled fermion pairs at colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2504.07030}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.07030}
}
abstract

Recent measurements at the Large Hadron Collider have observed entanglement in the spins of $t\bar t$ pairs. The effects of radiation, which are expected to lead to quantum decoherence and a reduction of entanglement, are generally neglected in such measurements. In this work we calculate the effects of decoherence from various different types of radiation for a maximally entangled pair of fermions -- a bipartite system of qubits in a Bell state. We identify the Kraus operators describing the evolution of the open quantum system with the integrated Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.07030 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Scalar boson decay to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Concurrence for a scalar decay to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 11 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. Quantum decoherence of hyperon spin correlations in QCD hadronization

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A model of quantum decoherence from string breaking explains hyperon spin correlations by linking vacuum entanglement to observed data in non-perturbative QCD.

  3. Automated computation of spin-density matrices and quantum observables for collider physics

    hep-ph 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    An automated framework in MadGraph5_aMC@NLO computes tree-level production spin-density matrices and quantum observables for generic collider processes, with validation on ttbar and VV and new applications to multi-to...

  4. 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...

  5. 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.

  6. Soft-Radiation-Induced Decoherence of Heavy-Quark Spin Entanglement at the Electron-Ion Collider

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Subleading soft-gluon recoil rotates the heavy-quark spin-correlation plane; tracing over unresolved radiation dephases in-plane coherences while protecting the normal-axis correlation.

  7. Tripartite Entanglement in $e^+ e^- \to t \bar{t} Z$

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Computes entanglement negativities for the tripartite spin system in e+e- -> ttZ and projects that collective entanglement is accessible but genuine multipartite entanglement has limited sensitivity at a polarized ILC...

  8. Experimental prospects for quantum decoherence measurements at colliders

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hard final-state radiation measurably destroys the spin entanglement of fermion-antifermion pairs, and the effect should already be visible in LHC ttbar+jet and Belle II tau+tau-gamma data.

  9. Quantum tomography beyond the leading order

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    NLO corrections to angular distributions can be subtracted as a background, allowing quantum tomography of H to ZZ to four leptons to be performed with the well-defined leading-order spin interpretation.

  10. Probing new physics in the top sector using quantum information

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In top-pair production at the LHC, the quantum-information measures magic, concurrence, trace distance, and fidelity distance each respond most strongly to new physics in different kinematic regions, so no single meas...

  11. Understanding Bell locality tests at colliders

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Under mild assumptions, local hidden variable theories become testable at colliders and can be disproved via Bell-like inequalities for muon and tau pairs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 11 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Parti- cle Theory at the Higgs Centre

    R.A. is supported by UK Research and In- novation (UKRI) under the UK government’s Hori- zon Europe Marie Sklodowska-Curie funding guarantee grant [EP/Z000947/1] and by the STFC grant “Parti- cle Theory at the Higgs Centre”. The work of AJB is funded in part through STFC grants ST/R002444/1 and ST/S000933/1. F.M. is partially supported by the PRIN2022 Gra...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Quantum entanglement

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. n. de Nova, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 907 (2021), arXiv:2003.02280 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Severi, M

    C. Severi, C. D. E. Boschi, F. Maltoni, and M. Sioli, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 285 (2022), arXiv:2110.10112 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, Phys. Rev. D 106, 055007 (2022), arXiv:2203.05619 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. n. de Nova, Quantum 6, 820 (2022), arXiv:2203.05582 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. n. de Nova, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 221801 (2023), arXiv:2209.03969 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    A. J. Barr, P. Caban, and J. Rembieli´ nski, Quantum 7, 1070 (2023), arXiv:2204.11063 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Severi and E

    C. Severi and E. Vryonidou, JHEP 01, 148 (2023), arXiv:2210.09330 [hep-ph]

    2023

  2. [10]

    Ashby-Pickering, A

    R. Ashby-Pickering, A. J. Barr, and A. Wierzchucka, JHEP 05, 020 (2023), arXiv:2209.13990 [quant-ph]

    2023

  3. [11]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and E. Gabrielli, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 162 (2023), arXiv:2208.11723 [hep-ph]

    2023

  4. [12]

    Fabbri, J

    F. Fabbri, J. Howarth, and T. Maurin, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 20 (2024), arXiv:2307.13783 [hep-ph]

    2024

  5. [13]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, JHEP 12, 017 (2023), arXiv:2307.09675 [hep-ph]

    2023

  6. [14]

    T. Han, M. Low, and T. A. Wu, JHEP 07, 192 (2024), arXiv:2310.17696 [hep-ph]

    2024

  7. [15]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Mar- zola, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 823 (2023), arXiv:2302.00683 [hep-ph]

    2023

  8. [16]

    Sakurai and M

    K. Sakurai and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 151602 (2024), arXiv:2310.01477 [quant-ph]

    2024

  9. [17]

    Altomonte and A

    C. Altomonte and A. J. Barr, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138303 (2023), arXiv:2312.02242 [hep-ph]. 6

    2023

  10. [18]

    Y. Afik, Y. Kats, J. R. M. n. de Nova, A. Soffer, and D. Uzan, (2024), arXiv:2406.04402 [hep-ph]

    2024

  11. [19]

    Grabarczyk, (2024), arXiv:2410.18022 [hep-ph]

    R. Grabarczyk, (2024), arXiv:2410.18022 [hep-ph]

    2024

  12. [20]

    R. A. Morales, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 581 (2024), arXiv:2403.18023 [hep-ph]

    2024

  13. [21]

    C. D. White and M. J. White, Phys. Rev. D 110, 116016 (2024), arXiv:2406.07321 [hep-ph]

    2024

  14. [22]

    Altomonte, A

    C. Altomonte, A. J. Barr, M. Eckstein, P. Horodecki, and K. Sakurai, (2024), arXiv:2412.01892 [hep-ph]

    2024

  15. [23]

    T. Han, M. Low, N. McGinnis, and S. Su, (2024), arXiv:2412.21158 [hep-ph]

    2024

  16. [24]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, (2025), arXiv:2503.03098 [quant-ph]

    2025

  17. [25]

    A. J. Barr, M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 139, 104134 (2024), arXiv:2402.07972 [hep-ph]

    2024

  18. [26]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Nature 633, 542 (2024), arXiv:2311.07288 [hep-ex]

    2024

  19. [27]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), Rept. Prog. Phys. 87, 117801 (2024), arXiv:2406.03976 [hep-ex]

    2024

  20. [28]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), (2024), arXiv:2409.11067 [hep-ex]

    2024

  21. [29]

    Behring, M

    A. Behring, M. Czakon, A. Mitov, A. S. Papanastasiou, and R. Poncelet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 082001 (2019), arXiv:1901.05407 [hep-ph]

    2019

  22. [30]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet, JHEP 05, 212 (2021), arXiv:2008.11133 [hep-ph]

    2021

  23. [31]

    Mazzitelli, P

    J. Mazzitelli, P. F. Monni, P. Nason, E. Re, M. Wiese- mann, and G. Zanderighi, JHEP 04, 079 (2022), arXiv:2112.12135 [hep-ph]

    2022

  24. [32]

    H. D. Zeh, Foundations of Physics 1, 69 (1970)

    1970

  25. [33]

    W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1516 (1981)

    1981

  26. [34]

    W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1862 (1982)

    1982

  27. [35]

    Environment-induced deco- herence and the transition from quantum to classical,

    J. P. Paz and W. H. Zurek, “Environment-induced deco- herence and the transition from quantum to classical,” in Coherent atomic matter waves (Springer Berlin Heidel- berg) p. 533–614

  28. [36]

    Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical – revisited,

    W. H. Zurek, “Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical – revisited,” (2003), arXiv:quant- ph/0306072 [quant-ph]

    2003

  29. [37]

    R. A. Bertlmann, Lect. Notes Phys. 689, 1 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0410028

    2006 arXiv

  30. [38]

    C. P. Burgess, T. Colas, R. Holman, and G. Kaplanek, JHEP 02, 204 (2025), arXiv:2411.09000 [hep-th]

    2025

  31. [39]

    S. A. Salcedo, T. Colas, and E. Pajer, JHEP 10, 248 (2024), arXiv:2404.15416 [hep-th]

    2024

  32. [40]

    S. A. Salcedo, T. Colas, and E. Pajer, JHEP 03, 138 (2025), arXiv:2412.12299 [hep-th]

    2025

  33. [41]

    Carney, L

    D. Carney, L. Chaurette, D. Neuenfeld, and G. W. Semenoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180502 (2017), arXiv:1706.03782 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Carney, L

    D. Carney, L. Chaurette, D. Neuenfeld, and G. W. Semenoff, Phys. Rev. D 97, 025007 (2018), arXiv:1710.02531 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Carney, L

    D. Carney, L. Chaurette, D. Neuenfeld, and G. Semenoff, JHEP 09, 121 (2018), arXiv:1803.02370 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Neuenfeld, JHEP 11, 189 (2021), arXiv:1810.11477 [hep-th]

    D. Neuenfeld, JHEP 11, 189 (2021), arXiv:1810.11477 [hep-th]

    2021

  37. [45]

    G. W. Semenoff, Springer Proc. Math. Stat. 335, 151 (2019), arXiv:1912.03187 [hep-th]

    2019

  38. [46]

    Schlosshauer, Phys

    M. Schlosshauer, Phys. Rept. 831, 1 (2019), arXiv:1911.06282 [quant-ph]

    2019

  39. [47]

    Aolita, F

    L. Aolita, F. de Melo, and L. Davidovich, Reports on Progress in Physics 78, 042001 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    J. C. Collins, Nuclear Physics B 304, 794 (1988)

    1988

  41. [49]

    Knowles, Nuclear Physics B 304, 767 (1988)

    I. Knowles, Nuclear Physics B 304, 767 (1988)

    1988

  42. [50]

    Nagy and D

    Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper, JHEP 09, 114 (2007), arXiv:0706.0017 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Nagy and D

    Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper, JHEP 07, 025 (2008), arXiv:0805.0216 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Nagy and D

    Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper, JHEP 03, 030 (2008), arXiv:0801.1917 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Nagy and D

    Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper, JHEP 06, 044 (2012), arXiv:1202.4496 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Richardson, JHEP 11, 029 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0110108

    P. Richardson, JHEP 11, 029 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0110108

    2001

  47. [55]

    Richardson and S

    P. Richardson and S. Webster, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 83 (2020), arXiv:1807.01955 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Hamilton, A

    K. Hamilton, A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz, and R. Verheyen, JHEP 03, 193 (2022), arXiv:2111.01161 [hep-ph]

    2022

  49. [57]

    Kinoshita, Journal of Mathematical Physics 3, 650 (1962), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/3/4/650/19167464/650 1 online.pdf

    T. Kinoshita, Journal of Mathematical Physics 3, 650 (1962), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/3/4/650/19167464/650 1 online.pdf

    1962

  50. [58]

    T. D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. 133, B1549 (1964)

    1964

  51. [59]

    Braaten and J

    E. Braaten and J. P. Leveille, Phys. Rev. D 22, 715 (1980)

    1980

  52. [60]

    Drees and K

    M. Drees and K. ichi Hikasa, Physics Letters B 240, 455 (1990)

    1990

  53. [61]

    Janot, Phys

    P. Janot, Phys. Lett. B 223, 110 (1989)

    1989

  54. [62]

    B. A. Kniehl, Nucl. Phys. B 376, 3 (1992)

    1992

  55. [63]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nuclear Physics B 126, 298 (1977)

    1977

  56. [64]

    Karlberg, G

    A. Karlberg, G. P. Salam, L. Scyboz, and R. Verheyen, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 681 (2021), arXiv:2103.16526 [hep- ph]

    2021

  57. [65]

    Kublbeck, H

    J. Kublbeck, H. Eck, and R. Mertig, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 29, 204 (1992)

    1992

  58. [66]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun. 207, 432 (2016), arXiv:1601.01167 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun. 256, 107478 (2020), arXiv:2001.04407 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 160, 151 (1979)

    1979

  61. [69]

    Decoherence effects in entangled fermion pairs at colliders

    F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, and S. Tentori, JHEP 09, 098 (2024), arXiv:2406.06694 [hep-ph]. 1 Supplemental Material for “Decoherence effects in entangled fermion pairs at colliders” Rafael Aoude, Alan J. Barr, Fabio Maltoni and Leonardo Satrioni In this Supplemental Material, we pr...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed May 22, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.