Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Searching Quantum Entanglement in $p\ p\to Z\ Z$ process

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ZZ pairs at the LHC are entangled: simulated data show a positive concurrence lower bound, reaching 3.75σ at HL-LHC luminosity.

desk verdict ZZ entanglement sensitivity study with a solid LO pipeline but unsupported significance claims due to a biased quadratic estimator and inconsistent pseudo-experiment counts. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16077 v1 pith:3PFBVLAV submitted 2025-06-19 hep-ph

Alim Ruzi , Youpeng Wu , Ran Ding , Qiang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords quantumentanglementconcurrenceZZproductionstatetomographyLHCspindensitymatrixGell-Mannmatricespseudo-experiments
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 ZZ pairs produced in proton-proton collisions at the LHC carry a quantum-entangled spin state, and that the entanglement can be seen in data. Using quantum state tomography on simulated pp→ZZ→4ℓ events at 13 TeV, the authors reconstruct the two-qutrit spin density matrix from lepton angular distributions and compute the lower bound of concurrence C²_MB. They find C²_MB converges to about 0.375 as luminosity grows, with significance 2σ for combined Run 2+3 data and 3.75σ for the HL-LHC sample of 3 ab⁻¹. If correct, this would make di-boson production a new experimental platform for quantum information tests in high-energy collisions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-qutrit spin density matrix of the ZZ pair, parametrized with Gell-Mann matrices and reconstructed through quantum state tomography from the angular distribution of the decay leptons. The entanglement observable is the analytic lower bound of concurrence for mixed states, C² = 2(Tr[ρ²] - Tr[ρ_A²] - Tr[ρ_B²]), expressed in terms of the extracted polarization and correlation coefficients. The extraction uses Wigner P-symbol angular functions, and statistical sensitivity is assessed by dividing one million simulated events into 1000 pseudo-experiments at three luminosity benchmarks.

What would settle it

Run a closure test on the same 1000 pseudo-experiments: generate events from a known density matrix, reconstruct its C², and compare the mean to the known value. If the reconstructed mean exceeds the maximum possible value of one at 137 fb⁻¹, the estimator is biased and the quoted 2σ and 3.75σ significances do not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At leading order in the Standard Model, the spin state of the on-shell ZZ system produced in pp collisions is not a classical mixture: the reconstructed lower bound of concurrence is positive, meaning the two Z bosons are entangled. The authors obtain this by writing the density matrix with Gell-Mann matrices, extracting the polarization and correlation coefficients A_i, B_i, C_ij from the angular distribution of the final leptons, and applying the analytic lower bound C² = -4/9 - 6∑A_i² - 6∑B_i² + 8∑C_ij². Averaged over 1000 pseudo-experiments, C²_MB approaches 0.375, and the statistical significance grows from about 2σ at 137-300 fb⁻¹ to 3.75σ at 3 ab⁻¹. The paper also notes that at lower luminosity the reconstructed value can exceed the physical maximum of one, which it attributes to statistical fluctuation.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed significances assume that the reconstructed spin-correlation coefficients are unbiased estimates of the true values; because the same procedure produces physically impossible values above one at low luminosity, that assumption has not been demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A positive measurement of C²_MB in real HL-LHC data would establish entanglement between massive gauge bosons without relying on Bell-inequality assumptions.
  • The same tomography pipeline can be applied to other boson-pair channels, such as WW and ZH, to compare their quantum-correlation content.
  • The convergence of C²_MB with luminosity provides a direct, background-suppressed measurement of Standard Model ZZ spin correlations at 13 TeV.
  • If the 3.75σ significance holds with detector-level effects included, the ZZ channel becomes a second high-energy platform for entanglement, complementing top-quark pairs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A closure test on the reconstruction, injecting events from a known density matrix, would show whether the physically impossible values above one seen at low luminosity are a bias or a fluctuation; if biased, the quoted significances would need downward revision.
  • Because the extraction uses leading-order angular distributions, higher-order QCD and electroweak corrections could shift C²_MB, so the HL-LHC sensitivity estimate likely overstates the reach until those corrections are folded in.
  • The same lower-bound observable could be used to search for anomalous ZZ couplings, since such couplings would alter the correlation coefficients and hence the measured concurrence.
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 studies quantum entanglement in pp -> ZZ -> 4l at 13 TeV. The authors parametrize the two-Z spin density matrix with Gell-Mann matrices, reconstruct the polarization and correlation coefficients from simulated lepton angular distributions via quantum state tomography, and compute the lower bound of concurrence c^2_MB (Eq. 9). Using MadGraph5 aMC@NLO at LO and MadSpin, they generate simulated events, split them into 1000 pseudo-experiments, and report that the reconstructed c^2_MB converges to about 0.375 with increasing luminosity. They claim a 2 sigma sensitivity with LHC Run 2+3 luminosity (300/fb) and 3.75 sigma with HL-LHC luminosity (3/ab).

Significance. If the numerical sensitivity claim were reliable, the paper would provide a valuable projection of an entanglement measurement in massive gauge-boson pair production at the LHC, complementing the existing top-quark entanglement measurements. The theoretical framework is standard and the use of quantum state tomography for spin-1 systems is well motivated. However, the central statistical argument has serious flaws: the quoted significance is not a test against a separable null hypothesis, the pseudo-experiment construction is internally inconsistent with the stated event counts, and the background and detector effects are not quantitatively treated. These issues directly affect the abstract's main claim, so the significance of the result cannot be assessed from the present manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (9) and Figs. 5-6] The quoted significance is computed as the mean of the pseudo-experiment distribution of c^2_MB divided by its standard deviation, with no reference to the null hypothesis of a separable state. Because c^2_MB is a quadratic function of the reconstructed coefficients A_i, B_i, C_ij (Eq. 9), its expectation value is positively biased at finite statistics by a Jensen-type variance contribution. The paper's own Fig. 4 shows low-luminosity reconstructed values larger than one while the converged high-luminosity value is about 0.375, which is clear evidence of this bias. A separable state with zero true correlations will also give a positive reconstructed mean at low statistics, so the reported 2 sigma at 300/fb may be measuring bias rather than entanglement. A closure test with an injected separable density matrix and a null-hypothesis significance test are required before the sensitivity claim can be accepted.
  2. [Section III, Table I and the text describing one million events] The pseudo-experiment description is internally inconsistent. The paper states that one million events are divided into 1000 pseudo-experiments, each containing events matching the total reachable events at a given luminosity. However, Table I gives 5793 events at 137/fb, 12687 events at 300/fb, and 126870 events at 3000/fb. One thousand pseudo-experiments would require 5.8 million, 12.7 million, and 126.9 million events, respectively, not one million total. Unless a resampling procedure (e.g., bootstrap with replacement) is explicitly described, the standard deviations and significances in Figs. 5 and 6 are not reproducible or validated.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 2 and the background discussion] The background rejection argument is not quantitative. The text asserts that background events do not matter in the signal region based on the invariant-mass distribution, but no selection criteria, signal-region definition, or residual background fraction is given. Moreover, only triboson backgrounds (ZZZ, WWZ, WZZ) are considered; Z+jets and ttbar backgrounds, which can also produce four leptons, are not addressed. Since the sensitivity claim assumes a background-free sample, the impact of background contamination on the quoted significance is not established.
  4. [Section III (all numerical results)] All results are obtained from parton-level leptons without any detector simulation. There is no treatment of lepton reconstruction efficiency, acceptance, momentum resolution, or isolation requirements, which are essential for estimating the event yield and angular reconstruction quality at the LHC. For a paper whose central claim is an LHC sensitivity projection, this is a significant limitation; either a detector-level study, or at minimum a smearing/acceptance model, is needed to support the abstract's quantitative claims about Run 2+3 and HL-LHC data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (8)] The expression 2Tr[ρ]^2 in Eq. (8) appears to be a typo; consistency with Eq. (9) requires 2Tr[ρ^2]. For a normalized state, 2(Tr ρ)^2 = 2, which would not lead to Eq. (9). The authors should correct the formula and re-derive the numerical expressions.
  2. [Fig. 4 and surrounding text] The axis label in Fig. 4 is truncated ("|cos( )|") and the text states that values of C^2 larger than one are "unphysical." For a two-qutrit pure state, C^2 can reach 4/3, so values moderately above one are not necessarily unphysical; this statement should be revised.
  3. [Section II C, paragraph after Eq. (12)] The sentence "The functions given in Eq. A2 and together with the matrix Aj i A3 in Appendix can be used to extract..." is garbled. The notation A_j^i in Eq. (13) is not defined in the main text, and the sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
  4. [Section III, pseudo-experiment description] The paper should specify exactly how the one million generated events are converted into pseudo-experiments: whether events are resampled with replacement, whether the same events are reused for different luminosity points, and how the quoted standard deviations are computed. This is needed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ZZ entanglement analysis is a Monte Carlo sensitivity study whose input (SM spin correlations in simulated events) is not fitted to the output (reconstructed concurrence lower bound).

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: parametrize the ZZ spin density matrix with Gell-Mann coefficients (Eqs. 3–4), use the known angular decay distribution to extract those coefficients from simulated leptonic events (Eqs. 10–14), form the lower bound of concurrence c^2_MB from the reconstructed coefficients (Eq. 9), and then run pseudo-experiments to estimate the statistical significance as a function of luminosity. No free parameter is fitted to a target observable, and no prediction is obtained by inverting the same equations that define it. The simulated events are generated with MadGraph5/MadSpin using Standard Model spin correlations; the recovered positive c^2_MB is a consistency check of the tomography chain, not a derivation of entanglement from an input that already states the answer. The centrality claim is a projection of LHC sensitivity assuming the SM, which is a legitimate Monte Carlo study rather than a circular argument. The statistical concerns raised by the skeptic—such as the Jensen-type bias of the quadratic estimator, the absence of a null-hypothesis separation, and the internal inconsistency in the pseudo-experiment event counts—are correctness and validation issues, not instances of the paper reducing a result to its own inputs by construction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited prior works on ZZ entanglement and quantum tomography are external and do not supply a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the paper's conclusion. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks for the purpose of circularity analysis, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The paper's claim depends on the standard tomography framework, the LO simulation approximation, and the symmetrization procedure. No new particles or forces are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Gell-Mann matrix expansion completeness for two-qutrit density matrices
    Used to parametrize the ZZ spin density matrix in Eq. 3 without loss of generality.
  • standard math Concurrence lower bound formula of Mintert and Buchleitner
    Eqs. 7-9 provide the entanglement witness used to claim entanglement; the paper assumes this bound is valid for the reconstructed state.
  • domain assumption Leading-order QCD with NNPDF23 PDFs describes the ZZ spin density matrix at LHC
    Section III uses MadGraph at LO; NLO corrections and parton shower/detector effects are not modeled.
  • domain assumption Background processes WWZ, WZZ, ZZZ are negligible in the signal region
    Section III states backgrounds can be ignored based on the M4l distribution, but no explicit signal region or cut-based background estimate is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Symmetrization of polarization observables for identical Z bosons (Eq. 14) yields unbiased estimators
    The paper introduces a symmetrization factor for indistinguishable Z bosons without derivation or closure test; small inconsistencies in the reconstruction could bias the concurrence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching Quantum Entanglement in $p\ p\to Z\ Z$ process." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PFBVLAV

@misc{pith2026250616077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching Quantum Entanglement in $p\ p\to Z\ Z$ process},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PFBVLAV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16077}
}
abstract

Recent studies have shown that observing entangled particle states at a particle collider like Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and testing violation of Bell inequality in them can open up new research area for high energy physics study. We examine the presence of quantum entanglement in the $pp\to ZZ\to 4\ell$ process at leading order. We apply generally recognized method, quantum state tomography, to reconstruct spin density matrix of the joint $ZZ$ system, through which all the relevant observables can be obtained. The angular distribution of the final leptons are obtained from simulated events using Monte-Carlo program, which is used to reconstruct spin density matrix. Non-zero value of the lower bound of the concurrence is measured with simulated data. The numerical analysis shows that with the luminosity corresponding to LHC Run 2+3, entanglement can be probed at $2 \sigma$ level and up to 3.75$\sigma$ level for High-Luminosity LHC data ($3 \rm{ab}^{-1}$), revealing the possibility of finding quantum entanglement in real collider experiment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16077 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The Feynman diagram of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The event distribution of the signal and background process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The correlation matrix element extracted from the simulated data of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Concurrence distribution as function of scattering angle cosine cos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 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 Tomography and Entanglement in Semi-Leptonic $h\to VV^*$ Decays at Higher Orders

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Semi-leptonic h→VV* decays retain an effective two-qutrit quantum description under NLO QCD and electroweak corrections, unlike the fully leptonic h→4ℓ channel.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [50]

    Quantum Entanglement is Quantum: ZZ Production at the LHC,

    D. Gon¸ calves, A. Kaladharan, F. Krauss, and A. Navarro, “Quantum Entanglement is Quantum: ZZ Production at the LHC,” 5 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Quantum entanglement,

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 81, pp. 865– 942, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,” Phys. Rev., vol. 47, pp. 777–780, 1935

    work page 1935

  4. [3]

    On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,

    J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,” Physics Physique Fizika, vol. 1, pp. 195–200, 1964

    work page 1964

  5. [4]

    Quantum information with top quarks in QCD,

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. n. de Nova, “Quantum information with top quarks in QCD,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 820, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    Probing new physics in the top sector using quantum information,

    R. Aoude, H. Banks, C. D. White, and M. J. White, “Probing new physics in the top sector using quantum information,” 5 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [6]

    Quantum Information meets High-Energy Physics: Input to the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,

    Y. Afik et al., “Quantum Information meets High-Energy Physics: Input to the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,” 3 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [7]

    Quantum frontiers in high energy physics,

    Y. Fang, C. Gao, Y.-Y. Li, J. Shu, Y. Wu, H. Xing, B. Xu, L. Xu, and C. Zhou, “Quantum frontiers in high energy physics,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., vol. 68, no. 6, p. 260301, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Entanglement and Bell Inequality Violation in B → ϕϕ Decays,

    E. Gabrielli and L. Marzola, “Entanglement and Bell Inequality Violation in B → ϕϕ Decays,” Symmetry, vol. 16, no. 8, p. 1036, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Bell inequality is violated in charmonium decays,

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, “Bell inequality is violated in charmonium decays,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 110, no. 5, p. 053008, 2024

    2024

  3. [10]

    Bell inequality is violated in B0 →J/ψK*(892)0 decays,

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, “Bell inequality is violated in B0 →J/ψK*(892)0 decays,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 109, no. 3, p. L031104, 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    Towards a Quantum Information Theory of Hadronization: Dihadron Fragmentation and Neutral Polarization in Heavy Baryons,

    R. von Kuk, K. Lee, J. K. L. Michel, and Z. Sun, “Towards a Quantum Information Theory of Hadronization: Dihadron Fragmentation and Neutral Polarization in Heavy Baryons,” 3 2025

    2025

  5. [12]

    Entanglement and quantum tomography with top quarks at the LHC,

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. n. de Nova, “Entanglement and quantum tomography with top quarks at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus, vol. 136, no. 9, p. 907, 2021

    2021

  6. [13]

    Entanglement and Bell nonlocality with bottom-quark pairs at hadron colliders,

    Y. Afik, Y. Kats, J. R. M. n. de Nova, A. Soffer, and D. Uzan, “Entanglement and Bell nonlocality with bottom-quark pairs at hadron colliders,” 6 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    Testing Bell Inequalities at the LHC with Top-Quark Pairs,

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and G. Panizzo, “Testing Bell Inequalities at the LHC with Top-Quark Pairs,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 127, no. 16, p. 161801, 2021. 11

    2021

  8. [15]

    Quantum Discord and Steering in Top Quarks at the LHC,

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. n. de Nova, “Quantum Discord and Steering in Top Quarks at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 130, no. 22, p. 221801, 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    Quantum tops at the LHC: from entanglement to Bell inequalities,

    C. Severi, C. D. E. Boschi, F. Maltoni, and M. Sioli, “Quantum tops at the LHC: from entanglement to Bell inequalities,” Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 82, no. 4, p. 285, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Improved tests of entanglement and Bell inequalities with LHC tops,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. A. Casas, “Improved tests of entanglement and Bell inequalities with LHC tops,” Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 82, no. 8, p. 666, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Quantum SMEFT tomography: Top quark pair production at the LHC,

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, “Quantum SMEFT tomography: Top quark pair production at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 106, no. 5, p. 055007, 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation in semi-leptonic top decays,

    T. Han, M. Low, and T. A. Wu, “Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation in semi-leptonic top decays,” JHEP, vol. 07, p. 192, 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    Entanglement and Bell inequalities with boosted t¯t,

    Z. Dong, D. Gon¸ calves, K. Kong, and A. Navarro, “Entanglement and Bell inequalities with boosted t¯t,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 109, no. 11, p. 115023, 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    Quantum entanglement and top spin correlations in SMEFT at higher orders,

    C. Severi and E. Vryonidou, “Quantum entanglement and top spin correlations in SMEFT at higher orders,”JHEP, vol. 01, p. 148, 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    Quantum tops at circular lepton colliders,

    F. Maltoni, C. Severi, S. Tentori, and E. Vryonidou, “Quantum tops at circular lepton colliders,” JHEP, vol. 09, p. 001, 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    A closer look at post-decay t¯t entanglement,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “A closer look at post-decay t¯t entanglement,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 109, no. 9, p. 096027, 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    Full quantum tomography of top quark decays,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Full quantum tomography of top quark decays,” Phys. Lett. B, vol. 855, p. 138849, 2024

    2024

  18. [25]

    Optimizing entanglement and Bell inequality violation in top antitop events,

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and M. Low, “Optimizing entanglement and Bell inequality violation in top antitop events,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 111, no. 3, p. 033004, 2025

    2025

  19. [26]

    Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector,

    G. Aad et al., “Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector,” Nature, vol. 633, no. 8030, pp. 542–547, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

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

    A. Hayrapetyan et al., “Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,” Rept. Prog. Phys., vol. 87, no. 11, p. 117801, 2024

    2024

  21. [28]

    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,

    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,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 110, no. 11, p. 112016, 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    Nonmaximally Entangled States: Production, Charac- terization, and Utilization,

    A. G. White, D. F. V. James, P. H. Eberhard, and P. G. Kwiat, “Nonmaximally Entangled States: Production, Charac- terization, and Utilization,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 83, no. 16, p. 3103, 1999

    1999

  23. [30]

    Measurement of qubits,

    D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, “Measurement of qubits,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 64, no. 5, p. 052312, 2001

    2001

  24. [31]

    Qudit quantum-state tomography,

    R. T. Thew, K. Nemoto, A. G. White, and W. J. Munro, “Qudit quantum-state tomography,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 66, no. 1, p. 012303, 2002

    2002

  25. [32]

    Quantum nonlocality as an axiom,

    S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, “Quantum nonlocality as an axiom,” Found. Phys., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 379–385, 1994

    1994

  26. [33]

    Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation at colliders,

    A. J. Barr, M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, “Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation at colliders,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., vol. 139, p. 104134, 2024

    2024

  27. [34]

    Quantum tomography for collider physics: Illustrations with lepton pair production,

    J. C. Martens, J. P. Ralston, and J. D. Tapia Takaki, “Quantum tomography for collider physics: Illustrations with lepton pair production,” Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 78, no. 1, p. 5, 2018

    2018

  28. [35]

    Quantum tomography of helicity states for general scattering processes,

    A. Bernal, “Quantum tomography of helicity states for general scattering processes,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 109, no. 11, p. 116007, 2024

    2024

  29. [36]

    Breaking down the entire W boson spin observables from its decay,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. Bernabeu, “Breaking down the entire W boson spin observables from its decay,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 93, no. 1, p. 011301, 2016

    2016

  30. [37]

    Laboratory-frame tests of quantum entanglement in H →WW,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Laboratory-frame tests of quantum entanglement in H →WW,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 107, no. 7, p. 076016, 2023

    2023

  31. [38]

    Testing entanglement and Bell inequalities in H →ZZ,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, A. Bernal, J. A. Casas, and J. M. Moreno, “Testing entanglement and Bell inequalities in H →ZZ,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 107, no. 1, p. 016012, 2023

    2023

  32. [39]

    Quantum state tomography, entanglement detection and Bell violation prospects in weak decays of massive particles,

    R. Ashby-Pickering, A. J. Barr, and A. Wierzchucka, “Quantum state tomography, entanglement detection and Bell violation prospects in weak decays of massive particles,” JHEP, vol. 05, p. 020, 2023

    2023

  33. [40]

    Testing Bell inequalities in Higgs boson decays,

    A. J. Barr, “Testing Bell inequalities in Higgs boson decays,” Phys. Lett. B, vol. 825, p. 136866, 2022

    2022

  34. [41]

    General analysis for observing quantum interference at colliders,

    A. J. Larkoski, “General analysis for observing quantum interference at colliders,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 105, no. 9, p. 096012, 2022. 12

    2022

  35. [42]

    Quantum tomography with τ leptons at the FCC-ee: Entanglement, Bell inequality violation, sinθW, and anomalous couplings,

    M. Fabbrichesi and L. Marzola, “Quantum tomography with τ leptons at the FCC-ee: Entanglement, Bell inequality violation, sinθW, and anomalous couplings,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 110, no. 7, p. 076004, 2024

    2024

  36. [43]

    Testing Bell inequality through h→τ τat CEPC*,

    K. Ma and T. Li, “Testing Bell inequality through h→τ τat CEPC*,” Chin. Phys. C, vol. 48, no. 10, p. 103105, 2024

    2024

  37. [44]

    Tree-level entanglement in quantum electrodynamics,

    S. Fedida and A. Serafini, “Tree-level entanglement in quantum electrodynamics,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 107, no. 11, p. 116007, 2023

    2023

  38. [45]

    Stringent bounds on HWW and HZZ anomalous couplings with quantum tomography at the LHC,

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, “Stringent bounds on HWW and HZZ anomalous couplings with quantum tomography at the LHC,” JHEP, vol. 09, p. 195, 2023

    2023

  39. [46]

    Entanglement and Bell Nonlocality in τ +τ − at the BEPC,

    T. Han, M. Low, and Y. Su, “Entanglement and Bell Nonlocality in τ +τ − at the BEPC,” 1 2025

    2025

  40. [47]

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

    K. Cheng and B. Yan, “Bell Inequality Violation of Light Quarks in Back-to-Back Dihadron Pair Production at Lepton Colliders,” 1 2025

    2025

  41. [48]

    Quantum Tomography at Colliders: With or Without Decays,

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and M. Low, “Quantum Tomography at Colliders: With or Without Decays,” 10 2024

    2024

  42. [49]

    Measuring Quantum Discord at the LHC,

    T. Han, M. Low, N. McGinnis, and S. Su, “Measuring Quantum Discord at the LHC,” 12 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Quantum properties of H → V V∗: precise predictions in the SM and sensitivity to new physics,

    M. Del Gratta, F. Fabbri, P. Lamba, F. Maltoni, and D. Pagani, “Quantum properties of H → V V∗: precise predictions in the SM and sensitivity to new physics,” 4 2025

    2025

  44. [52]

    Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions,

    S. L. Glashow, “Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions,” Nucl. Phys., vol. 22, pp. 579–588, 1961

    1961

  45. [53]

    Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,

    P. W. Higgs, “Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 13, pp. 508–509, 1964

    1964

  46. [54]

    Electromagnetic and weak interactions,

    A. Salam and J. C. Ward, “Electromagnetic and weak interactions,” Phys. Lett., vol. 13, pp. 168–171, 1964

    1964

  47. [55]

    A Model of Leptons,

    S. Weinberg, “A Model of Leptons,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 19, pp. 1264–1266, 1967

    1967

  48. [56]

    The muon Smasher’s guide,

    H. Al Ali et al., “The muon Smasher’s guide,” Rept. Prog. Phys., vol. 85, no. 8, p. 084201, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    The future prospects of muon colliders and neutrino factories,

    M. Boscolo, J.-P. Delahaye, and M. Palmer, “The future prospects of muon colliders and neutrino factories,” Rev. Accel. Sci. Tech., vol. 10, no. 01, pp. 189–214, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Concurrence of mixed bipartite quantum states in arbitrary dimensions,

    F. Mintert, M. Ku´ s, and A. Buchleitner, “Concurrence of mixed bipartite quantum states in arbitrary dimensions,”Physical review letters, vol. 92, no. 16, p. 167902, 2004

    2004

  51. [59]

    Introducing Quantum Discord,

    H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, “Introducing Quantum Discord,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 88, no. 1, p. 017901, 2001

    2001

  52. [60]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas,

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, “Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 71, no. 2, p. 022316, 2005

    2005

  53. [61]

    Entropy and area,

    M. Srednicki, “Entropy and area,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 71, pp. 666–669, 1993

    1993

  54. [62]

    Symmetries of baryons and mesons,

    M. Gell-Mann, “Symmetries of baryons and mesons,” Phys. Rev., vol. 125, pp. 1067–1084, 1962

    1962

  55. [63]

    Mixed state entanglement and quantum error correction,

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Mixed state entanglement and quantum error correction,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 54, pp. 3824–3851, 1996

    1996

  56. [64]

    Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits,

    W. K. Wootters, “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 80, pp. 2245–2248, 1998

    1998

  57. [65]

    Observable entanglement measure for mixed quantum states,

    F. Mintert and A. Buchleitner, “Observable entanglement measure for mixed quantum states,” Physical review letters, vol. 98, no. 14, p. 140505, 2007

    2007

  58. [66]

    Breaking down the entire spectrum of spin correlations of a pair of particles involving fermions and gauge bosons,

    R. Rahaman and R. K. Singh, “Breaking down the entire spectrum of spin correlations of a pair of particles involving fermions and gauge bosons,” Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 984, p. 115984, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    The Z boson spin observables as messengers of new physics,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, J. Bernab´ eu, V. A. Mitsou, and A. Segarra, “The Z boson spin observables as messengers of new physics,” Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 77, no. 4, p. 234, 2017

    2017

  60. [68]

    Review of particle physics,

    S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 110, no. 3, p. 030001, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H.-S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,” Journ...

    2014

  62. [70]

    Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations,

    P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk, “Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations,” JHEP, vol. 03, p. 015, 2013

    2013

  63. [71]

    Angular correlations of lepton pairs from vector boson and top quark decays in Monte Carlo simulations,

    S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, and B. R. Webber, “Angular correlations of lepton pairs from vector boson and top quark decays in Monte Carlo simulations,” JHEP, vol. 04, p. 081, 2007

    2007

  64. [72]

    Parton distributions with LHC data,

    R. D. Ball et al., “Parton distributions with LHC data,” Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 867, pp. 244–289, 2013

    2013

  65. [73]

    Bell inequalities and quantum entanglement in weak gauge boson production at the lhc and future colliders,

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, “Bell inequalities and quantum entanglement in weak gauge boson production at the lhc and future colliders,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 83, no. 9, p. 823, 2023. 13

    2023

  66. [74]

    Quantum state tomography, entanglement detection and bell violation prospects in weak decays of massive particles,

    R. Ashby-Pickering, A. J. Barr, and A. Wierzchucka, “Quantum state tomography, entanglement detection and bell violation prospects in weak decays of massive particles,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2023, no. 5, pp. 1–49, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.