Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Entanglement Autodistillation in Baryon Pair Decays

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Parity-violating baryon decays can increase the spin entanglement of an initially entangled baryon–antibaryon pair, a probabilistic autodistillation effect that depends only on the initial state and the decay parameter $\alpha_D$.

desk verdict A genuinely new alphaD-only autodistillation mechanism in baryon-pair decays, but the quantitative claims are undermined by an unnormalized density matrix and an inconsistent analytic example. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15798 v2 pith:4YB7KAL4 submitted 2025-04-22 hep-ph hep-exquant-ph

Hai-Long Feng , Hao Tang , Wu-zhong Guo , Qin Qin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exquant-ph
keywords entanglementautodistillationspinbaryon–antibaryonproductionparity-violatingweakdecaysSLOCCfilteringnegativityconcurrencee+e-colliderexperiments
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 argues that the spin entanglement of a baryon–antibaryon pair can increase after both particles undergo weak decays of the form $B\to b+M$ and $\bar B\to \bar b+\bar M$, where the mesons $M,\bar M$ are spinless. The increase is a probabilistic 'autodistillation': observing the daughter baryons selects a sub-ensemble that can be more entangled than the parent pair, even though ordinary local operations cannot create entanglement. The effect is driven by parity violation in the decay, encoded in the single measurable parameter $\alpha_D$, and is independent of the phase parameter $\phi_D$. The authors verify the effect in an analytic example and in realistic $\Xi$ decays with measured parameters, and they propose reconstructing the spin correlations from angular distributions of the final decay products at $e^+e^-$ colliders. If correct, weak decays act as local probabilistic filters that amplify spin entanglement in a way that can be tested experimentally.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the decay matrix $a_{\mu\nu}(\alpha_D,\phi_D)$, a $4\times4$ matrix that maps the Pauli-basis coefficients of the mother baryon's spin density matrix to those of the daughter baryon, with the spinless meson traced out and the decay angles held fixed. Equivalently, it is the standard polarization formula relating mother and daughter polarization vectors. The matrix is non-unitary exactly when the parity-violating parameter $\alpha_D$ is nonzero; that non-unitarity is what allows local operations to increase entanglement after post-selection, and the way $\phi_D$ enters the matrix—as a common azimuthal phase of two spin states—makes it a local unitary that leaves entanglement invariant.

What would settle it

Measure the angular distribution of the $\Lambda\bar\Lambda$ (or $p\bar p$) pair in $e^+e^-\to J/\psi\to\Xi^-\bar\Xi^+\to\Lambda\bar\Lambda\pi^+\pi^-$ at a scattering angle in the window $\theta_1\in[0.22\pi,0.42\pi]$ with the optimal decay angles $(\theta_b,\phi_b;\theta_{\bar b},\phi_{\bar b})=(\pi/2,3\pi/2;\pi/2,3\pi/2)$, reconstruct the spin-correlation coefficients $C_{\mu\nu}$, and compute the concurrence; if it does not exceed the concurrence of the initial $\Xi^-\bar\Xi^+$ state within uncertainties, the autodistillation claim is falsified. As a sharper control, comparing with a decay having $\alpha_D=0$ should show no entanglement increase at all.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a parity-violating weak decay of a spin-1/2 baryon into another spin-1/2 baryon and a spin-0 meson acts as a non-unitary local filter on the mother particle's spin. Because the pseudoscalar meson carries no spin information, tracing it out leaves a $4\times4$ map $a_{\mu\nu}(\alpha_D,\phi_D)$ from the mother's spin-correlation coefficients to the daughter's, and when $\alpha_D\neq 0$ this map is not proportional to a unitary. Applied to both members of an entangled pair, it implements a stochastic local operation that can increase the negativity and concurrence of the mixed two-qubit spin state. The paper shows this increase explicitly for $e^+e^-\to J/\psi,\psi(3686)\to \Xi^-\bar\Xi^+$ (and $\Xi^0\bar\Xi^0$) followed by $\Xi\to\Lambda\pi$ decays, using measured production and decay parameters; in a constructed example the concurrence rises from $1/4$ before decay to $3/4$ after. The paper also proves that the change depends only on the initial state and on $\alpha_D$: the parameter $\phi_D$ enters only through a local phase rotation, which cannot change entanglement.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a two-body weak decay of a spin-1/2 baryon into a spin-1/2 baryon and a spin-0 meson is fully described by a local $4\times4$ map on the mother's spin alone, with the meson carrying no spin information and no final-state interactions disturbing the daughter spins; if the true decay dynamics couples the daughters to something beyond this map, the predicted entanglement increase would not be physical.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the $J/\psi\to\Xi^-\bar\Xi^+$ channel there are scattering-angle intervals where the post-decay $\Lambda\bar\Lambda$ state has both higher negativity and higher concurrence than the initial $\Xi^-\bar\Xi^+$ state.
  • The same signature appears for $J/\psi\to\Xi^0\bar\Xi^0\to\Lambda\bar\Lambda\pi^0$, with the optimal decay angles unique in the same scattering-angle windows.
  • If $\alpha_D=0$, the decay is a local unitary and entanglement cannot change, so the effect is a direct probe of parity violation in the decay.
  • The predicted increase is independent of $\phi_D$, so the $\phi_D$ uncertainties in the measured decay parameters do not affect the claim.
  • The spin configuration of the intermediate and final states can be reconstructed from momentum correlations of the final decay products, giving a concrete experimental protocol for $e^+e^-$ colliders.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not developed in the paper, is to compute the post-selection success probability and the entanglement–probability tradeoff; the amplified states are obtained only for the sub-ensemble in which the daughter pair is observed at the chosen angles.
  • If the mechanism is generic, one could rank decay channels by their measured $|\alpha_D|$ and use larger values to get stronger amplification, making autodistillation a design tool for producing entangled hyperon pairs.
  • The claimed $\phi_D$ independence suggests a clean cross-check: prepare the same initial $B\bar B$ state and compare two decay channels with different $\alpha_D$ but different $\phi_D$; the ordering of final entanglement should track $|\alpha_D|$ and ignore $\phi_D$.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the spin entanglement of a baryon-antibaryon pair produced in e+e−→J/ψ,ψ′→BBbar and claims that after both baryons undergo weak two-body decays B→b+M and Bbar→bbar+Mbar, with M and Mbar spin-0 mesons, the spin entanglement of the daughter bbbar system can increase. This is presented as entanglement autodistillation, a probabilistic SLOCC-type amplification. The authors give an analytical example, numerical studies of three BESIII-accessible channels (J/ψ→Ξ−Ξbar+, ψ(3686)→Ξ−Ξbar+, and J/ψ→Ξ0Ξbar0 followed by Ξ decays to Λπ), a reconstruction method based on angular distributions of the final baryons, and a mechanism argument in Section 6 identifying parity violation (αD≠0) as the source of non-unitarity and showing independence from φD.

Significance. If the effect survives proper normalization of the final density matrix, this is a valuable hadronic realization of entanglement autodistillation: because the accompanying mesons are pseudoscalars, the decay acts as a genuine local filter on the spin degrees of freedom, and the predicted increase is tied to measured production and decay parameters rather than to fitted quantities. The mechanism argument in Section 6 is plausible, and the consistency check of the initial concurrence against Ref. [6] is a useful validation. The manuscript also proposes a concrete experimental route through momentum correlations at e+e− colliders. The main risk is that the numerical entanglement gains in Figures 3, 5, and 7 may be inflated if the final-state density matrix is not trace-normalized before computing concurrence and negativity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3); Sec. 5, Eq. (11)] The object in Eq. (3) is called the density matrix of the daughter bbbar pair, but it is not trace-normalized, and Section 5 explicitly calls the identical expression an 'unnormalized density matrix' and states that normalization is required to extract the spin state. Since concurrence is homogeneous of degree one, C(λρ)=λC(ρ), and negativity also depends on the trace, computing entanglement measures directly on Eq. (3) can artificially amplify the entanglement whenever Tr(ρ_bbbar)>1. The manuscript nowhere states that the numerical results in Figs. 2–7 were obtained from ρ_norm=ρ_un/Tr(ρ_un), nor does it quote the trace factors at the chosen decay angles. I ask the authors to state explicitly that all entanglement values in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 are computed with normalized final states and to rerun the numerical scans with the normalization factor included. The analytic optimum θb=θ̄b=π/2 happens to give trace 1 in the hypothetical example, so the analytic example can survive, but the size and even the existence of the numerical effect in Figs. 3, 5, and 7 depend on this clarification.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] There is an internal inconsistency in the initial concurrence value. The text states that at θ1=π/4 the initial concurrence is 1/4, immediately after giving the formula C(ρB,Bbar)=1/2(1−|cos2θ1|), which evaluates to 1/2 at this angle; the displayed explicit density matrix also corresponds to a normalized state with concurrence 1/2, not 1/4. The comparison 'final maximum 3/4 is greater than the initial 1/4' should therefore read '3/4 is greater than 1/2' unless some additional averaging is intended. This error is local and does not by itself destroy the analytic demonstration, but it must be corrected because it signals the same normalization ambiguity that affects Eq. (3).
  3. [Sec. 4.2 and Figs. 3, 5, 7] The numerical maximization over the decay angles (θb,φb;θ̄b,φ̄b) is presented as finding the 'most appropriate' final density matrix, but the figures do not show the trace of the unnormalized final state at the maximizing angles. Because the autodistillation claim is a quantitative comparison of entanglement before and after decay, the trace factor Tr(ρ_bbbar) must be reported for every scattering angle θ1 shown in the figures, and the plotted quantities must be the entanglement of the normalized state. Without this information, the reader cannot distinguish a genuine SLOCC enhancement from a normalization artifact.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, final concurrence formula] The displayed formula for C(ρ_bbbar) is ambiguous as printed: '3 sqrt(1/(...)^2)' should be written as 3/|cosθb cosθ̄b − 2(−4+sinθb+sinθ̄b)|, with an explicit absolute value in the denominator.
  2. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 4.1] There are typographical errors: 'refered' should be 'referred' in the last paragraph of Section 3, and 'scarttering' should be 'scattering' in Section 4.1.
  3. [Sec. 5, Eq. (11)] Equation (11) is explicitly called an 'unnormalized density matrix' while Eq. (3) in Section 3 is called 'the density matrix'; since the two expressions are identical in form, the paper should state once and for all that Eq. (3) is also unnormalized and that all entanglement calculations use the normalized version.
  4. [Sec. 6] The argument that φD introduces only a common phase and hence a local unitary would be easier to verify if the paper specified that the local unitary U acts in the helicity frame of the daughter baryon and noted that the same U applies to both spin-up and spin-down mother states; as written, the step from equal azimuthal angles to a local unitary is compressed.
  5. [Figs. 3, 5, 7] The description of the gray uncertainty band mentions Monte Carlo sampling, but the number of sampling points and the treatment of the maximization over decay angles inside the uncertainty estimate are not given; adding these details would make the numerical results reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the entanglement increase is computed from measured production and decay parameters via standard quantum mechanics, not fitted or defined into the result.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The initial density matrix (Eq. (1)) is built from measured helicity amplitudes, and the decay map (Eq. (2)) is the standard helicity-amplitude matrix a_mu_nu(alpha_D, phi_D) taken from the literature; the final state (Eq. (3)) is obtained by a direct application of that map to the measured initial state. No parameter is fitted to the entanglement increase, and there is no load-bearing self-citation. The phi_D-independence argument in Sec. 6 is derived rather than assumed: the two mother-spin basis states are mapped to daughter states with the same azimuthal angle, so phi_D enters only through a local unitary, which cannot change entanglement. The paper also checks its initial-state concurrence against an external result (Ref. [6]). A non-circular correctness caveat should be noted: Sec. 5 explicitly calls the analogous density matrix in Eq. (11) unnormalized, and if the Sec. 4 entanglement numbers were computed without trace normalization, the reported increases could be a normalization artifact rather than a physical entanglement gain. That would be a calculational error, not a circularity, because the omitted normalization factor is not an input defined in terms of the target result. There is also an internal arithmetic inconsistency in Sec. 4.1 (the formula gives C = 1/2 at theta1 = pi/4, not 1/4), but the corrected initial value still lies below the reported final maximum, so the analytic example is not rescued or destroyed by circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on measured production and decay parameters from BESIII and PDG, the standard helicity formalism, and the assumption that pseudoscalar mesons do not carry spin information. The analytic example in Sec. 4.1 uses deliberately chosen parameters, not fits.

free parameters (3)
  • Production parameters alpha_psi, Delta_Phi = J/psi to Xi- Xi+: alpha=0.586+-0.012, Delta_Phi=1.213+-0.046; psi(3686): alpha=0.693+-0.048, Delta_Phi=0.667+-0.111…
    External BESIII measurements used as inputs to construct the initial density matrix; not fitted by this paper.
  • Decay parameters alphaD, phiD = Xi- to Lambda pi-: alphaD=-0.390+-0.007, phiD=-1.2+-1.0 deg; Xi0 to Lambda pi0: alphaD=-0.349+-0.009; corresponding…
    PDG inputs; the alphaD dependence is the paper's central mechanism, not a new fit.
  • Hypothetical example parameters = alpha_psi=0, Delta_Phi=pi/2, alphaD=1/2, phiD=pi/2, theta1=pi/4
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 4.1 to construct an analytic demonstration; not data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The production spin density matrix of e+e- to J/psi, psi' to B barB is given by Eq. (1) with the eight listed C_mu_nu coefficients
    Taken from Perotti et al. and BESIII parameter measurements; invoked in Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption Each weak decay B to b+M is described by the 4x4 helicity-amplitude matrix a_mu_nu(alphaD, phiD), with the spin-0 meson carrying no spin information and traced out
    Introduced in Sec. 3, Eqs. (2)-(3); load-bearing for the local-filter interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper No CP violation in the analytic example, giving alpha_barD = -alphaD
    Stated in Sec. 4.1; used to set antibaryon decay parameters in the hypothetical example.
  • standard math Negativity and concurrence are valid entanglement measures for 2x2 systems and are invariant under local unitary transformations
    Standard quantum information results used in Sec. 2 and Sec. 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Entanglement Autodistillation in Baryon Pair Decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4YB7KAL4

@misc{pith2026250415798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Entanglement Autodistillation in Baryon Pair Decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4YB7KAL4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15798}
}
read the original abstract

We study the spin-entangled mixed state of a spin-1/2 baryon-antibaryon pair produced in the process e+e- to J/psi, psi(2S) to BBbar. We demonstrate that the spin entanglement of the system can increase following the decays B to b + M and Bbar to bbar + Mbar, where b and bbar are spin-1/2 baryons and M, Mbar are spin-0 mesons. This phenomenon, known as entanglement autodistillation, represents a probabilistic amplification of entanglement during the decay process. We analyze the underlying mechanism and show that it depends only on the initial state of the BBbar system and the decay parameter alphaD, but not on the phase parameter phiD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15798 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Orientation of the axes in baryon B and antibaryon B¯ helicity frame. The initial density matrix of two spin-1/2 baryon-antibaryon pair from the e +e − → BB¯ process can be expressed as[41]: ρB,B¯ = 1 4 X 3 µ,ν=0 Cµν(θ1; αψ, ∆Φ)σ B µ ⊗ σ B¯ ν , (1) where σ B 0 = I2, σ B 1 = σx, σ B 2 = σy, and σ B 3 = σz represent the identity and Pauli matrices. The parameter θ1 represents the scattering angle, while αψ and ∆Φ are … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Negativity of Ξ−Ξ¯+ from e +e − → J/ψ → Ξ − + Ξ¯+ process and Negativity of ΛΛ after Ξ ¯ − → Λπ − and Ξ¯+ → Λ¯π + with the most appropriate decay angle to maximize negativity. (b) Concurrence of Ξ−Ξ¯+ from e +e − → J/ψ → Ξ − + Ξ¯+ process and Concurrence of ΛΛ after Ξ ¯ − → Λπ − and Ξ¯+ → Λ¯π + with the most appropriate decay angle to maximize concurrence. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Increase of negativity after Ξ− → Λπ − and Ξ¯+ → Λ¯π + with the most appropriate decay angle to maximize negativity. (b) Increase of concurrence after Ξ− → Λπ − and Ξ¯+ → Λ¯π + with the most appropriate decay angle to maximize concurrence. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Negativity of Ξ−Ξ¯+ from e +e − → ψ(3686) → Ξ − + Ξ¯+ process and Nega￾tivity of ΛΛ after Ξ ¯ − → Λπ − and Ξ¯+ → Λ¯π + with the most appropriate decay angle to maximize negativity. (b) Concurrence of Ξ−Ξ¯+ from e +e − → ψ(3686) → Ξ − +Ξ¯+ process and Concurrence of…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Increase of negativity after Ξ− → Λπ − and Ξ¯+ → Λ¯π + with the most appropriate decay angle to maximize negativity. (b) Increase of concurrence after Ξ− → Λπ − and Ξ¯+ → Λ¯π + with the most appropriate decay angle to maximize concurrence. 4.2.3 J/ψ → Ξ 0 + Ξ¯0 the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Negativity of Ξ0Ξ¯0 from e +e − → J/ψ → Ξ 0 + Ξ¯0 process and Negativity of ΛΛ after Ξ ¯ 0 → Λπ 0 and Ξ¯0 → Λ¯π 0 with the most appropriate decay angle to maximize negativity. (b) Concurrence of Ξ0Ξ¯0 from e +e − → J/ψ → Ξ 0 + Ξ¯0 process and Concur￾rence of ΛΛ aft…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Increase of negativity after Ξ0 → Λπ 0 and Ξ¯0 → Λ¯π 0 with the most appropriate decay angle to maximize negativity. (b) Increase of concurrence after Ξ0 → Λπ 0 and Ξ¯0 → Λ¯π 0 with the most appropriate decay angle to maximize concurrence. As discussed earlier, the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Entanglement redistribution of hyperon-antihyperon pair via sequential decay

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In e+e−→ψ→Ξ(→Λπ)Ξ̄(→Λ̄π), the ΛΛ̄ pair's concurrence and negativity can decrease relative to the mother pair yet stay nonzero except at θ=0 and π, while quantum discord can always increase.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [6]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Phys. Rev. D 110, 053008 (2024), arXiv:2406.17772 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Horodecki, P

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

    arXiv 2009

  3. [2]

    Rosenfeld, D

    W. Rosenfeld, D. Burchardt, R. Garthoff, K. Redeker, N. Ortegel, M. Rau, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 010402 (2017). 15

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    S. Wu, C. Qian, Q. Wang, and X.-R. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054012 (2024), arXiv:2406.16298 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Li and C.-F

    J. Li and C.-F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. D 74, 076003 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0608077

    arXiv 2006

  6. [5]

    Ehat¨ aht, M

    K. Ehat¨ aht, M. Fabbrichesi, L. Marzola, and C. Veelken, Phys. Rev. D109, 032005 (2024), arXiv:2311.17555 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Y. Guo, X. Liu, F. Yuan, and H. X. Zhu, Research 2025, 0552 (2025), arXiv:2406.05880 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Phys. Rev. D 109, L031104 (2024), arXiv:2305.04982 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    K. Chen, Y. Geng, Y. Jin, Z. Yan, and R. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 580 (2024), arXiv:2404.06221 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Y. Geng, M. Cao, and R. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 109, L071301 (2024), arXiv:2310.03425 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bernal, P

    A. Bernal, P. Caban, and J. Rembieli´ nski, Sci. Rep. 15, 23410 (2025), arXiv:2405.16525 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chen, Z.-P

    K. Chen, Z.-P. Xing, and R. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. A 1063, 123199 (2025), arXiv:2407.19242 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Zhang, B.-H

    Y. Zhang, B.-H. Zhou, Q.-B. Liu, S. Li, S.-C. Hsu, T. Han, M. Low, and T. A. Wu, (2025), arXiv:2504.01496 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Afik et al., (2025), arXiv:2504.00086 [hep-ph]

    Y. Afik et al., (2025), arXiv:2504.00086 [hep-ph]

    2025

  7. [15]

    T. Han, M. Low, and Y. Su, (2025), arXiv:2501.04801 [hep-ph]

    2025

  8. [16]

    T. Han, M. Low, N. McGinnis, and S. Su, JHEP 05, 081 (2025), arXiv:2412.21158 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bi, Q.-H

    Q. Bi, Q.-H. Cao, K. Cheng, and H. Zhang, PoS ICHEP2024, 342 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Bi, Q.-H

    Q. Bi, Q.-H. Cao, K. Cheng, and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 036022 (2024), arXiv:2307.14895 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bai and Z

    D. Bai and Z. Ren, (2024), arXiv:2404.09116 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bai, Phys

    D. Bai, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034001 (2024), arXiv:2308.12327 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bai, Phys

    D. Bai, Phys. Lett. B 845, 138162 (2023), arXiv:2306.04918 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bai and Z

    D. Bai and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 106, 064005 (2022), arXiv:2212.11092 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Du, X.-G

    Y. Du, X.-G. He, C.-W. Liu, and J.-P. Ma, (2024), arXiv:2409.15418 [hep-ph] . 16

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cheng and B

    K. Cheng and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 011902 (2025), arXiv:2501.03321 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    R. A. Morales, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 1157 (2023), arXiv:2306.17247 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

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

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Aad et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. J. Parke and Y. Shadmi, Phys. Lett. B 387, 199 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9606419

    1996 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bernreuther, A

    W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg, Z. G. Si, and P. Uwer, Nucl. Phys. B 690, 81 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403035

    2004 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Baumgart and B

    M. Baumgart and B. Tweedie, JHEP 03, 117 (2013), arXiv:1212.4888 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Mahlon and S

    G. Mahlon and S. J. Parke, Phys. Rev. D 81, 074024 (2010), arXiv:1001.3422 [hep- ph]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. A. Casas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 111801 (2024), arXiv:2401.06854 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Rev. D 109, 096027 (2024), arXiv:2401.10988 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138409 (2024), arXiv:2308.07412 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Rev. D 108, 076025 (2023), arXiv:2307.06991 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    C. H. Bennett, S. Popescu, D. Rohrlich, J. A. Smolin, and A. V. Thapliyal, Phys. Rev. A 63, 012307 (2000)

    2000

  29. [37]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, and B. DeMoor, Physical Review A 64 (2001), 10.1103/physreva.64.010101

    2001 doi

  30. [38]

    Basic concepts of entan- gled states,

    F. Mintert, C. Viviescas, and A. Buchleitner, “Basic concepts of entan- gled states,” in Entanglement and Decoherence: Foundations and Modern Trends, edited by A. Buchleitner, C. Viviescas, and M. Tiersch (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009) pp. 61–86

    2009

  31. [39]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Physical Review A 65 (2002), 10.1103/phys- reva.65.032314

    2002 doi

  32. [40]

    W. K. Wootters, Physical Review Letters 80, 2245–2248 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    Tabakin and R

    F. Tabakin and R. A. Eisenstein, Phys. Rev. C 31, 1857 (1985)

    1985

  34. [42]

    Perotti, G

    E. Perotti, G. F¨ aldt, A. Kupsc, S. Leupold, and J. J. Song, Phys. Rev. D99, 056008 (2019), arXiv:1809.04038 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Nature 606, 64 (2022), arXiv:2105.11155 [hep-ex]

    2022

  36. [44]

    T. D. Lee and C.-N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 108, 1645 (1957). 17

    1957

  37. [45]

    Batozskaya (BESIII), PoS QNP2024, 072 (2025)

    V. Batozskaya (BESIII), PoS QNP2024, 072 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 106, L091101 (2022), arXiv:2206.10900 [hep-ex]

    2022

  40. [48]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 108, L031106 (2023), arXiv:2305.09218 [hep-ex]

    2023

  41. [49]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, Annals Phys. 7, 404 (1959)

    1959

  42. [50]

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

    2012

  43. [51]

    E. D. Commins and P. H. Bucksbaum, Weak Interactions of Leptons and Quarks (1983). 18

    1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.