Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 11 cited by

Two-particle scattering of gluons and gravitons generically creates quantum magic, and the amount of magic falls as the spin of the scattered qubits rises.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

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.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid case study with a reproducible typo: the spin-3/2 gravitino magic formula in Eq. (4.9) is dimensionally inconsistent as printed, so the headline monotonic-decrease claim rests on a datapoint you cannot yet trust. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2508.14967 v1 pith:GBGO3DWH submitted 2025-08-20 hep-th hep-phquant-ph

Spin versus Magic: Lessons from Gluon and Graviton Scattering

John Gargalionis , Nathan Moynihan , Sokratis Trifinopoulos , Ewan N. V. Wallace , Chris D. White , Martin J. White This is my paper
classification hep-th hep-phquant-ph
keywords magicnon-stabilisernessstabilizer Renyi entropyscattering amplitudesgluonsgravitonsdouble copyKLT relations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 asks whether ordinary particle scattering can manufacture quantum magic—the resource that lets quantum circuits beat classical ones—and whether the spin of the scattered particles controls how much magic appears. Using tree-level scattering amplitudes for gluons, gravitons, gluinos, and gravitinos, it shows that a two-qubit helicity state with zero initial magic generically picks up nonzero magic, with maximal values around 0.53 for gluons and 0.42 for gravitons. Averaged over all 60 stabilizer initial states, the integrated magic power falls monotonically with spin: 0.407 for spin 1/2, 0.245 for spin 1, 0.220 for spin 3/2, and 0.208 for spin 2. Because gravity amplitudes are squares of gauge-theory amplitudes via the KLT relations, the graviton magic profile is concentrated toward forward angles and the Mandelstam powers double, which explains why higher-spin scattering makes less magic. The result supplies a concrete, calculable family of physical systems in which magic generation can be studied and compared across theories.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that non-stabiliserness (magic) is generically produced by 2 to 2 scattering of massless particles with two helicity states, and that the typical amount produced decreases as the spin of the scattered qubits increases. Working with tree-level helicity amplitudes, the paper derives closed-form expressions for the second stabilizer Renyi entropy M2 as a function of Mandelstam invariants: for the |+−> initial state, gluons give −log2[(t^16+14t^8u^8+u^16)/(t^4+u^4)^4] and gravitons the same expression with all powers doubled. Averaging over all 60 two-qubit stabilizer initial states defines the magic power, whose integral over scattering angle is 0.407 for spin-1/2 g

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the helicity-basis amplitude matrix built from Parke-Taylor MHV amplitudes, decomposed in the Del Duca–Dixon–Maltoni colour basis, with the KLT relation turning gluon amplitudes into graviton amplitudes. Magic is measured by the second stabilizer Renyi entropy of the normalized final two-qubit helicity state. Supersymmetric Ward identities map gluon amplitudes to gluino amplitudes and then, via the same KLT product, to gravitino amplitudes, completing a spin ladder from 1/2 to 2. This chain reduces scattering data to closed-form functions of s, t, and u whose powers double at each step up the spin ladder.

Load-bearing premise

All reported magic numbers assume the scattered particles' final spin state does not depend on which colour labels are chosen—a property the paper says it verified for the 60 stabilizer initial states, but whose proof it does not reproduce, and which fails for superpositions of colour states.

What would settle it

Compute the magic power for spin-5/2 or spin-3 massless scattering amplitudes built from the same KLT/double-copy product rules; if the integrated magic power does not continue to fall below 0.208, the claimed monotonic decrease of typical magic with spin is false.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Magic is generically created in both Yang–Mills and gravitational 2 to 2 scattering even when the initial helicity state is a stabilizer state with zero magic.
  • The integrated magic power decreases monotonically with spin across gluino, gluon, gravitino, and graviton scattering: 0.407, 0.245, 0.220, and 0.208.
  • Maximal magic in both theories (0.530 for gluons, 0.415 for gravitons) sits well below the conjectured two-qubit upper bound log(16/7) ≈ 0.827.
  • The KLT/double-copy squaring of amplitudes doubles the powers of Mandelstam invariants in the magic formula, concentrating the magic profile toward small scattering angles and lowering typical magic.
  • Magic and entanglement provide different information: for the |+−> initial state, magic vanishes at θ=0 and θ=π/2 while concurrence rises to maximal in the central region.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A reader could extend the same amplitude-to-magic pipeline to other double-copy theories, predicting that every squaring step doubles Mandelstam powers and therefore concentrates and lowers the magic profile.
  • The colour-universality caveat suggests a testable boundary: for initial colour superpositions, magic should become colour-dependent, so a general resource theory of scattering magic would need to track colour rather than trace it out.
  • The magic-power formulas are rational functions of s, t, and u, so they could be folded with parton distribution functions into a collider observable; the paper does not perform that convolution, but the numbers it gives are the required input.
  • If the spin-versus-magic trend is generic, it provides a design heuristic: lower-spin qubit platforms are better targets for generating magic through scattering, which is relevant for tabletop or condensed-matter analogues.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the quantum-information property of magic (non-stabiliserness), measured by the second Stabilizer Rényi entropy, in 2→2 scattering of massless particles of spin 1/2 (gluinos), spin 1 (gluons), spin 3/2 (gravitinos), and spin 2 (gravitons). The helicity states of the two particles are treated as a two-qubit system. Using Parke-Taylor MHV amplitudes, KLT double-copy relations, and supersymmetric Ward identities, the authors compute the final-state magic and concurrence for initial stabilizer states, define a magic power averaged over the 60 two-qubit stabilizer states, and obtain the integrated values 0.407, 0.245, 0.220, and 0.208 for s=1/2,1,3/2,2. They also find maximal magic 0.530 (gluons) and 0.415 (gravitons), below the conjectured two-qubit bound log(16/7)≈0.827. The paper interprets the decreasing magic with increasing spin and the different angular profiles in terms of the KLT/double-copy structure of the amplitudes.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable concrete case study of magic generation in relativistic scattering, complementing existing work on top quarks and QED. The calculations are explicit, based on standard and external inputs (MHV amplitudes, KLT relations, SUSY Ward identities), with no fitted parameters. The paper thus provides well-defined quantitative predictions for magic profiles in gauge theory, gravity, and their supersymmetric extensions, and offers an interesting connection between quantum-information resources and the double copy. The identified dimensional inconsistency in Eq. (4.9) affects one of the central datapoints, so the quantitative spin-dependence claim needs verification after correction.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.9)] The first logarithm in the gravitino magic-power formula contains the term s^8 t^4 (t^3 + u^4)^4. Since s, t, and u all have mass dimension 2, t^3 has mass dimension 6 while u^4 has dimension 8, so t^3+u^4 is dimensionally inconsistent and the argument of the logarithm is not scale-invariant. The same term's denominator uses (t^3+u^3)^2, and the neighboring terms in (4.9) are homogeneous, so the natural correction is t^3+u^3. As printed, Eq. (4.9) cannot be the formula that produces the integrated gravitino value 0.220 in Eq. (4.10), which is the spin-3/2 point of the central monotonicity claim. The authors must correct Eq. (4.9), recompute the integrated value, and update Figs. 8 and 9 if necessary.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.24)] The third term in the Yang-Mills magic power uses '8 log' without the base 2, unlike the other terms in the same expression. If interpreted as a natural logarithm, the numerical values in Eq. (3.26) would change. Please replace with '8 log2'.
  2. [Sec. 2, after Eq. (2.12)] The 'universality' property is load-bearing for the 60-state magic-power average, but the paper only states that it was verified, and that it fails for superpositions of color states. Since this is a key assumption, a short proof or a more explicit reference to the theorem in ref. [113] would make the paper self-contained.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.8)] The formula is introduced as valid 'for massless particles of any spins', but the paper only computes s=1/2,1,3/2,2. If this is a general statement, a derivation or at least a clear scope limitation is needed; otherwise it should be presented as an observed pattern.
  4. [Various] Minor typos: 'Gottesmann-Knill' should be 'Gottesman-Knill' (Sec. 2); 'non-stabliserness' in the Conclusion. Please also check the log base consistency in Eq. (3.24) and the notation in Eq. (4.9).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the magic results follow from independently established QFT amplitudes and standard magic definitions; no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forces the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Inputs are standard, externally established results: Parke-Taylor MHV amplitudes (ref [117], eq (3.4)), KLT double-copy relations (ref [98], eq (3.12)), and SUSY Ward identities (refs [119-122], eqs (4.1)-(4.4)). The final-state helicity state is obtained by normalizing the S-matrix projection (eqs (2.10)-(2.12)), and magic is evaluated using the standard stabilizer Rényi entropy definition from ref [84] (eq (2.6)). None of the target quantities (maximum magic, magic power, integrated magic power) is used as an input or fitted parameter; the coupling constants cancel in the normalization, and the Mandelstam variables are fixed by the external kinematics (eq (3.16)). The color-universality assumption is an external result (ref [113]), explicitly acknowledged and independently verified by the authors for their states, so it is not a self-citation chain. Self-citations (e.g., refs [25,31]) are used only for context/comparison and are not load-bearing. The only notable issue identified in review is a likely typo/dimensional inconsistency in the printed gravitino magic-power formula (eq (4.9), where t^3+u^4 mixes mass dimensions), which affects the reproducibility of the spin-3/2 integrated value but is a correctness concern, not circularity. Under the defined criteria, the central claims—magic is generated and typically decreases with qubit spin—are derived, not definitionally imposed.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; coupling constants cancel after normalization. The calculation rests on standard amplitude theorems (Parke-Taylor, KLT), the SUSY Ward identities, and the external universality theorem of ref [113]. The conjectured two-qubit magic bound of ref [26] is used only as a benchmark.

axioms (7)
  • standard math Parke-Taylor formula for MHV tree amplitudes (eq 3.4)
    Established result from the scattering amplitudes literature; used to evaluate all 4-gluon helicity amplitudes in Section 3.
  • domain assumption KLT relations equating graviton amplitudes to products of color-ordered gauge amplitudes (eq 3.12)
    String-theory-derived relation, standard in the double-copy literature; used to get all graviton amplitudes in Section 3 and gravitino amplitudes in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Supersymmetric Ward identities relating gluino amplitudes to gluon amplitudes (eq 4.1)
    External results (refs [119-122]); used to obtain gluino and gravitino amplitudes in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Universality: the normalized helicity out-state does not depend on the color indices when the initial color state is a computational basis state
    Theorem cited from ref [113], stated in Section 2 after eq (2.12). Needed for color-independent magic formulas; the authors state they verified the non-extension to superpositions.
  • domain assumption Conjectured upper bound log(16/7) for two-qubit SSRE (ref [26])
    Used only as a benchmark in Section 3 (eq 3.27). If the conjecture is wrong, the qualitative statement about maximal magic may need revision, but the spin-scaling pattern is unaffected.
  • standard math Gottesman-Knill theorem and SRE definition (ref [84])
    Background for defining magic; used implicitly in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Tree-level truncation of the S-matrix, so that only four-point MHV amplitudes contribute
    The paper explicitly restricts to leading order (tree level) in Sections 1 and 3; loop corrections could change the magic profile.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin versus Magic: Lessons from Gluon and Graviton Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBGO3DWH

@misc{pith2026250814967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin versus Magic: Lessons from Gluon and Graviton Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBGO3DWH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14967}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The quantum property of non-stabiliserness, also known as magic, plays a key role in designing quantum computing systems. How to produce, manipulate and enhance magic remains mysterious, such that concrete examples of physical systems that manifest magic behaviour are sought after. In this paper, we study two-particle scattering of gluons and gravitons in Yang--Mills theory and General Relativity, as well as their supersymmetric extensions. This provides an interesting case of two-qubit systems, differing only in the physical spin of the qubits. We show that magic is generically produced in both theories, and also show that magic typically decreases as the spin of the qubits increases. The maximal magic in each case is found to be substantially less than the known upper bound. Differences in the profile of magic generation can be traced to the known physics of each theory, as manifested in relations between their respective scattering amplitudes. Our case study may provide useful insights into understanding magic in other systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.14967 by Chris D. White, Ewan N. V. Wallace, John Gargalionis, Martin J. White, Nathan Moynihan, Sokratis Trifinopoulos.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The 2 → 2 scattering of gluons, where {pi}, {ai} and {hi} label momenta, colour indices and helicities respectively. Initial momenta are taken to be incoming, and final state momenta outgoing. space, thus defining the meaning of the states |0⟩ and |1⟩ for each qubit. For both the initial and final states, we will take |0⟩ and |1⟩ to be the gluon states of positive and negative helicity respectively, where … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The magic M2 (solid) and concurrence (dashed) of the final state obtained from the initial gluon state | + −⟩, as a function of the scattering angle θ. research area, and our results confirm the view that magic provides very different information to entanglement in general. In the top panel of figure 3, we compare the magic for gluons and gravitons, for the same final state as above (i.e. that obtained fro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Top) Magic M2 of the final state obtained from initial state | + −⟩ for gluons (blue) and gravitons (orange); (bottom) similar, but for the concurrence. to gravity is also seen for entanglement (for our particular initial state), as shown in the bottom panel of fig. 3. Inspired by ref. [27], we can examine more general cases of magic by taking for the initial state each of the 60 two-qubit stabiliser stat… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magic M2 of the final state arising from the initial stabiliser state of eq. (3.21), for gluons (blue) and gravitons (orange). This leads us to examine the “amount” of magic in Yang–Mills theory and gravity. One way to examine this is to look at the maximum value of magic in the final state, upon cycling over all stabiliser states in the initial state. Numerically, we find values Mmax 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The magic power of eq. (3.23) for gluons (blue) and gravitons (orange), as a function of scattering angle θ. −π/2 −π/4 0 π/4 π/2 θ 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Magic power ( M4) Gluons Gravitons (a) −π/2 −π/4 0 π/4 π/2 θ 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 Magic power ( M10) Gluons Gravitons (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The magic power M4 as a function of scattering angle, for gluons (blue) and gravitons (orange); (b) similar, but for M10. the applicability of supersymmetric gauge theory to our own universe may be an open question, the novelty of such theories in our present context is that they provide additional datapoints for what happens when one changes the spin of a qubit. In order to derive the gluino amplitude… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Top) Magic M2 of the final state obtained from initial state | + −⟩ for gluons (blue), gravitons (orange), gluinos (green) and gravitinos (red); (bottom) similar, but for the concurrence. the half-integer spin profiles are more closely related to each other, than to the integer spin results. The integrated magic power for gluinos and gravitinos is found to be Z π/2 0 M2(θ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The magic power for gluons (blue), gravitons (orange), gluinos (green) and gravitinos (red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The integrated magic power for gluons (blue), gravitons (orange), gluinos (green) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

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

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

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    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. Magic without a phase: phase-independent stabilizer R\'enyi entropy in gluon scattering

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    A phase-averaged stabilizer Rényi entropy is introduced for tree-level gluon scattering, with color-independent phase-independent magic that is larger in 3→2 than 2→2 and has a soft-limit lower bound in 2→3.

  3. Quantum Information of Photon Pairs at Lepton Colliders

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A factorization framework and two-qubit description allow photon pairs at lepton colliders to be treated as qubits for measuring Bell inequality violation, quantum discord, and nonstabilizerness using Belle data.

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

    hep-ph 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    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...

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

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    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...

  6. Exclusive Scattering Channels from Entanglement Structure in Real-Time Simulations

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces an entanglement-based technique using Schmidt decompositions to isolate exclusive scattering channels in Matrix Product State simulations of quantum field theories, demonstrated for heavy particle detection...

  7. Extracting a Toponium Signal at the LHC with Spin and Quantum Information Tools

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Spin and quantum-information observables add only marginal statistical power beyond kinematic variables for isolating toponium in near-threshold top-pair events, but improve interpretability.

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

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    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...

  9. Correlation is magic in electronic structure Hamiltonians

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    For weakly- and moderately-correlated molecular Hamiltonians, 2-stabilizer Renyi entropy of ground states scales linearly with both Hartree-Fock overlap and recovered correlation energy, with the link holding under co...

  10. Quantum Resources and Wigner Symmetry in Nucleon-Nucleon Scattering from Effective Field Theory

    nucl-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Under Wigner's SU(4) symmetry the neutron-proton scattering amplitude generates no new quantum resources while same-nucleon channels do due to identical-particle constraints.

  11. Gauge and diffeomorphism invariance from quantum information principles

    hep-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0

    Within a one-parameter family of quartic-vertex deformations, the gauge- and diffeomorphism-invariant interactions are the only points combining maximal entanglement with minimal nonzero magic.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 11 Pith papers · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

    2012

  2. [2]

    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. Plus136 (2021), no. 9, 907,2003.02280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    When the Machine Chimes the Bell: Entanglement and Bell Inequalities with Boostedt¯t,

    Z. Dong, D. Gonçalves, K. Kong, and A. Navarro, “When the Machine Chimes the Bell: Entanglement and Bell Inequalities with Boostedt¯t,” 2305.07075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    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. D106 (2022), no. 5, 055007,2203.05619

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    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.127 (2021), no. 16, 161801,2102.11883

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    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. C82 (2022), no. 4, 285,2110.10112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Quantum information with top quarks in QCD,

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. n. de Nova, “Quantum information with top quarks in QCD,”Quantum 6 (2022) 820, 2203.05582

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    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. C82 (2022), no. 8, 666,2205.00542

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Constraining new physics in entangled two-qubit systems: top-quark, tau-lepton and photon pairs,

    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. C83 (2023), no. 2, 162, 2208.11723

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    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.130 (2023), no. 22, 221801,2209.03969

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    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 01 (2023) 148, 2210.09330

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Postdecay quantum entanglement in top pair production,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Postdecay quantum entanglement in top pair production,”Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 7, 076025,2307.06991

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    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,”2310.17696

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    E. L. Simpson,A new spin on top-quark physics: using angular distributions to probe top-quark properties, and make the first observation of entanglement between quarks. PhD thesis, Glasgow U., 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    A closer look at post-decayt¯t entanglement,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “A closer look at post-decayt¯t entanglement,” Phys. Rev. D109 (2024), no. 9, 096027,2401.10988

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Quantum tops at circular lepton colliders,

    F. Maltoni, C. Severi, S. Tentori, and E. Vryonidou, “Quantum tops at circular lepton colliders,” 2404.08049. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Observation of quantum entanglement in top-quark pair production using pp collisions of √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    A TLASCollaboration, “Observation of quantum entanglement in top-quark pair production using pp collisions of √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,”

  18. [18]

    Observation of quantum entanglement in top-quark pairs using the ATLAS detector,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Observation of quantum entanglement in top-quark pairs using the ATLAS detector,”2311.07288

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Probing entanglement in top quark production with the CMS detector,

    CMS Collaboration, “Probing entanglement in top quark production with the CMS detector,”

  20. [20]

    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,”2402.07972

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Testing locality at colliders via Bell’s inequality?,

    S. A. Abel, M. Dittmar, and H. K. Dreiner, “Testing locality at colliders via Bell’s inequality?,” Phys. Lett. B280 (1992) 304–312

    1992

  22. [22]

    Colliders are Testing neither Locality via Bell’s Inequality nor Entanglement versus Non-Entanglement,

    S. A. Abel, H. K. Dreiner, R. Sengupta, and L. Ubaldi, “Colliders are Testing neither Locality via Bell’s Inequality nor Entanglement versus Non-Entanglement,”2507.15949

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    A critical appraisal of tests of locality and of entanglement versus non-entanglement at colliders,

    P. Bechtle, C. Breuning, H. K. Dreiner, and C. Duhr, “A critical appraisal of tests of locality and of entanglement versus non-entanglement at colliders,”2507.15947

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Addressing Local Realism through Bell Tests at Colliders,

    M. Low, “Addressing Local Realism through Bell Tests at Colliders,”2508.10979

    arXiv

  25. [25]

    Magic states of top quarks,

    C. D. White and M. J. White, “Magic states of top quarks,”Phys. Rev. D110 (2024), no. 11, 116016, 2406.07321

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Maximal Magic for Two-qubit States,

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, “Maximal Magic for Two-qubit States,”2502.17550

    arXiv

  27. [27]

    Quantum Magic in Quantum Electrodynamics,

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, “Quantum Magic in Quantum Electrodynamics,”2503.03098

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

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

    M. Fabbrichesi, M. Low, and L. Marzola, “The trace distance between density matrices, a nifty tool in new-physics searches,”2501.03311

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Observation of magic states of top quark pairs produced in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of magic states of top quark pairs produced in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,”

  30. [30]

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

    Y. Afiket al., “Quantum Information meets High-Energy Physics: Input to the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,”2504.00086

    arXiv

  31. [31]

    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,”2505.12522

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Bell-type inequalities for systems of relativistic vector bosons,

    A. J. Barr, P. Caban, and J. Rembieliński, “Bell-type inequalities for systems of relativistic vector bosons,” Quantum 7 (2023) 1070, 2204.11063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    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 05 (2023) 020, 2209.13990

    arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Testing entanglement and Bell inequalities inH → ZZ,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, A. Bernal, J. A. Casas, and J. M. Moreno, “Testing entanglement and Bell inequalities inH → ZZ,” Phys. Rev. D107 (2023), no. 1, 016012,2209.13441. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Laboratory-frame tests of quantum entanglement inH → W W,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Laboratory-frame tests of quantum entanglement inH → W W,” Phys. Rev. D107 (2023), no. 7, 076016,2209.14033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Isolating semi-leptonicH → W W∗ decays for Bell inequality tests,

    F. Fabbri, J. Howarth, and T. Maurin, “Isolating semi-leptonicH → W W∗ decays for Bell inequality tests,”Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024), no. 1, 20,2307.13783

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Probing new physics through entanglement in diboson production,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    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,”Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), no. 9, 823,2302.00683

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Three-Body Entanglement in Particle Decays,

    K. Sakurai and M. Spannowsky, “Three-Body Entanglement in Particle Decays,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024), no. 15, 151602,2310.01477

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Quantum state-channel duality for the calculation of Standard Model scattering amplitudes,

    C. Altomonte and A. J. Barr, “Quantum state-channel duality for the calculation of Standard Model scattering amplitudes,”Phys. Lett. B847 (2023) 138303, 2312.02242

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    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,”2406.04402

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Full quantum tomography of top quark decays,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Full quantum tomography of top quark decays,”Phys. Lett. B855 (2024) 138849, 2402.14725

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Tripartite entanglement inH → ZZ, W Wdecays,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Tripartite entanglement inH → ZZ, W Wdecays,” Phys. Rev. D109 (2024), no. 11, 113004,2403.13942

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    An improved Bell-CHSH observable for gauge boson pairs,

    R. Grabarczyk, “An improved Bell-CHSH observable for gauge boson pairs,”2410.18022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Tripartite entanglement and Bell non-locality in loop-induced Higgs boson decays,

    R. A. Morales, “Tripartite entanglement and Bell non-locality in loop-induced Higgs boson decays,” Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024), no. 6, 581,2403.18023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Prospects for quantum process tomography at high energies,

    C. Altomonte, A. J. Barr, M. Eckstein, P. Horodecki, and K. Sakurai, “Prospects for quantum process tomography at high energies,”2412.01892

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Measuring quantum discord at the LHC,

    T. Han, M. Low, N. McGinnis, and S. Su, “Measuring quantum discord at the LHC,”JHEP 05 (2025) 081, 2412.21158

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Quantum Tomography at Colliders: With or Without Decays,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    Looking into the quantum entanglement in H → ZZ ⋆ at LHC within SMEFT framework,

    A. Subba, R. K. Singh, and R. M. Godbole, “Looking into the quantum entanglement in H → ZZ ⋆ at LHC within SMEFT framework,”2411.19171

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    On bipartite and tripartite entanglement at present and future particle colliders,

    A. Subba and R. Rahaman, “On bipartite and tripartite entanglement at present and future particle colliders,” 2404.03292

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Three-Body Non-Locality in Particle Decays,

    P. Horodecki, K. Sakurai, A. S. Shaleena, and M. Spannowsky, “Three-Body Non-Locality in Particle Decays,” 2502.19470. 23

    arXiv

  52. [52]

    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,”2504.03841

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    Spin Correlations int¯t Production and Decay at the LHC in QCD Perturbation Theory,

    P. Nason, E. Re, and L. Rottoli, “Spin Correlations int¯t Production and Decay at the LHC in QCD Perturbation Theory,”2505.00096

    arXiv

  54. [54]

    From angular coefficients to quantum observables: a phenomenological appraisal in di-boson systems,

    M. Grossi, G. Pelliccioli, and A. Vicini, “From angular coefficients to quantum observables: a phenomenological appraisal in di-boson systems,”JHEP 12 (2024) 120, 2409.16731

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    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,”2501.03321

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    Momentum-space entanglement and renormalization in quantum field theory,

    V. Balasubramanian, M. B. McDermott, and M. Van Raamsdonk, “Momentum-space entanglement and renormalization in quantum field theory,”Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 045014, 1108.3568

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    Variation of Entanglement Entropy in Scattering Process,

    S. Seki, I. Y. Park, and S.-J. Sin, “Variation of Entanglement Entropy in Scattering Process,” Phys. Lett. B743 (2015) 147–153, 1412.7894

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  58. [58]

    Entanglement Entropy of Scattering Particles,

    R. Peschanski and S. Seki, “Entanglement Entropy of Scattering Particles,”Phys. Lett. B758 (2016) 89–92, 1602.00720

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Scattering and momentum space entanglement

    G. Grignani and G. W. Semenoff, “Scattering and momentum space entanglement,”Phys. Lett. B 772 (2017) 699–702, 1612.08858

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    Deep inelastic scattering as a probe of entanglement,

    D. E. Kharzeev and E. M. Levin, “Deep inelastic scattering as a probe of entanglement,”Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017), no. 11, 114008,1702.03489

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Variation of entanglement entropy and mutual information in fermion-fermion scattering,

    J. Fan, Y. Deng, and Y.-C. Huang, “Variation of entanglement entropy and mutual information in fermion-fermion scattering,”Phys. Rev. D95 (2017), no. 6, 065017,1703.07911

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    Relativistic effect of entanglement in fermion-fermion scattering,

    J. Fan and X. Li, “Relativistic effect of entanglement in fermion-fermion scattering,”Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018), no. 1, 016011,1712.06237

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  63. [63]

    Maximal Entanglement in High Energy Physics,

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli, “Maximal Entanglement in High Energy Physics,”SciPost Phys. 3 (2017), no. 5, 036,1703.02989

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    Entanglement Suppression and Emergent Symmetries of Strong Interactions,

    S. R. Beane, D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, “Entanglement Suppression and Emergent Symmetries of Strong Interactions,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019), no. 10, 102001, 1812.03138

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    Entanglement generation in (1+1)D QED scattering processes,

    M. Rigobello, S. Notarnicola, G. Magnifico, and S. Montangero, “Entanglement generation in (1+1)D QED scattering processes,”Phys. Rev. D104 (2021), no. 11, 114501,2105.03445

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Symmetry from entanglement suppression,

    I. Low and T. Mehen, “Symmetry from entanglement suppression,”Phys. Rev. D104 (2021), no. 7, 074014,2104.10835

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    Minimal entanglement and emergent symmetries in low-energy QCD,

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and T. Mehen, “Minimal entanglement and emergent symmetries in low-energy QCD,” Phys. Rev. C107 (2023), no. 2, 025204,2210.12085

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Tree-level entanglement in quantum electrodynamics,

    S. Fedida and A. Serafini, “Tree-level entanglement in quantum electrodynamics,”Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 11, 116007,2209.01405. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  69. [69]

    Entropy growth in perturbative scattering,

    C. Cheung, T. He, and A. Sivaramakrishnan, “Entropy growth in perturbative scattering,” Phys. Rev. D108 (2023), no. 4, 045013,2304.13052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Entanglement suppression, enhanced symmetry, and a standard-model-like Higgs boson,

    M. Carena, I. Low, C. E. M. Wagner, and M.-L. Xiao, “Entanglement suppression, enhanced symmetry, and a standard-model-like Higgs boson,”Phys. Rev. D109 (2024), no. 5, L051901, 2307.08112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Positivity in Amplitudes from Quantum Entanglement,

    R. Aoude, G. Elor, G. N. Remmen, and O. Sumensari, “Positivity in Amplitudes from Quantum Entanglement,” 2402.16956

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  72. [72]

    An Area Law for Entanglement Entropy in Particle Scattering,

    I. Low and Z. Yin, “An Area Law for Entanglement Entropy in Particle Scattering,” 2405.08056

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [73]

    Elastic cross section is entanglement entropy,

    I. Low and Z. Yin, “Elastic cross section is entanglement entropy,”Phys. Rev. D111 (2025), no. 6, 065027,2410.22414

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Flavor patterns of fundamental particles from quantum entanglement?,

    J. Thaler and S. Trifinopoulos, “Flavor patterns of fundamental particles from quantum entanglement?,” Phys. Rev. D111 (2025), no. 5, 056021,2410.23343

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Symmetry, entanglement, and theS-matrix,

    N. McGinnis, “Symmetry, entanglement, and theS-matrix,” 2504.21079

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  76. [76]

    Entanglement maximization and mirror symmetry in two-Higgs-doublet models,

    M. Carena, G. Coloretti, W. Liu, M. Littmann, I. Low, and C. E. M. Wagner, “Entanglement maximization and mirror symmetry in two-Higgs-doublet models,”JHEP 08 (2025) 016, 2505.00873

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Scattering entanglement entropy and its implications for electroweak phase transitions,

    J. Liu, M. Tanaka, X.-P. Wang, J.-J. Zhang, and Z. Zheng, “Scattering entanglement entropy and its implications for electroweak phase transitions,”Phys. Rev. D112 (2025), no. 1, 015028, 2505.06001

    arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Entanglement Suppression, Quantum Statistics and Symmetries in Spin-3/2 Baryon Scatterings,

    T.-R. Hu, K. Sone, F.-K. Guo, T. Hyodo, and I. Low, “Entanglement Suppression, Quantum Statistics and Symmetries in Spin-3/2 Baryon Scatterings,”2506.08960

    arXiv

  79. [79]

    Entanglement features from heavy particle scattering,

    C. M. Sou, Y. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Entanglement features from heavy particle scattering,” 2507.03555

    arXiv

  80. [80]

    Lower bounds on the non-clifford resources for quantum computations,

    M. Beverland, E. Campbell, M. Howard, and V. Kliuchnikov, “Lower bounds on the non-clifford resources for quantum computations,”Quantum Science and Technology5 (may,

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.