Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Tests of quantum contextuality in particle physics

T0 review · 4 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 Spin states measured in collider data violate non-contextuality inequalities with significance above 5 sigma for several mesons, baryons, and top-quark pairs.

desk verdict Careful and honest feasibility study, but the >5σ 'ruled out' claim outruns the data: the contexts are computed from tomography, not measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12382 v1 pith:D6NCKDXU submitted 2025-04-16 hep-ph hep-exquant-ph

M. Fabbrichesi , R. Floreanini , E. Gabrielli , L. Marzola This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exquant-ph
keywords contextualityquantumdecaysstatesbosonpairsparticlessigma
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

Quantum contextuality is the idea that the result of a measurement can depend on what other measurements are performed at the same time. A non-contextual theory would say the answer exists independently of the measurement context. Quantum mechanics says this is impossible, and this has been tested in small quantum devices. This paper applies the same tests to particles produced at high-energy colliders. The authors take published measurements of spin and polarization from experiments like ATLAS, LHCb, BESIII and CMS, reconstruct the quantum density matrix of the spin state, and evaluate non-contextuality inequalities. For a single spin-1 particle, they use the five- and nine-operator KCBS inequality. For pairs of spin-1/2 particles, they use a state-dependent form of the Peres-Mermin square. They report violations above five sigma for W bosons from top decays, J/psi and K* mesons from B decays, phi mesons from charmonium decays, Lambda and Sigma baryon pairs, and top-quark pairs. They also run Monte Carlo simulations to show that tau-lepton pairs at Belle II or a future Z-pole collider could be used for the same purpose. The analysis is not a direct measurement of contextuality in the way a dedicated quantum optics experiment would be. The original experiments measured angular distributions, and the authors use quantum state tomography to translate those into the quantities needed for the inequality. They state that the sharpness and compatibility loopholes are closed by this tomography, but this assumes quantum mechanics is the correct theory for the unmeasured contexts. Some significance values also depend on choosing favorable kinematic angles as benchmarks, with no trials factor.
Extended reading notes

Core claim

The polarization states of massive spin-1 particles produced at colliders (W+, J/psi, K*(892)0, phi) are contextual, and the spin states of bipartite spin-1/2 systems (Lambda, Sigma, top-quark pairs) are contextual, with significance exceeding 5 sigma (Abstract, Secs. 3 and 4). If true, non-contextual hidden-variable models are ruled out at high energies, extending low-energy contextuality tests to particle physics.

Load-bearing premise

The program relies on the premise, stated in Secs. 2.1 and 5, that a density matrix reconstructed by quantum state tomography from published angular distributions is sufficient to evaluate state-dependent non-contextuality inequalities, even though the incompatible contextual measurements were never performed and the sharpness and compatibility loopholes are declared closed by that tomography. If tomography does not close these loopholes, the reinterpretations are quantum-model-dependent estimates rather than direct tests of contextuality.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper tests quantum contextuality by evaluating KCBS-type (Eq. 2.8) and Peres-Mermin-type (Eq. 2.13) inequalities on density matrices reconstructed from published collider analyses. For spin-1 particles (W, J/ψ, K*, φ) and two-qubit systems (ΛΛbar, ΣΣbar, ttbar) it reports violations above 5σ; it also gives analytic and Monte Carlo feasibility studies for Z bosons, H→VV, and τ-lepton pairs. Results are presented partly as reinterpretations of ATLAS, LHCb, BESIII, Belle II, and CMS data and partly as prospective estimates. The paper is structured around explicit non-contextuality inequalities, with boxed results separating data reinterpretations from analytic/MC estimates.

Significance. If the tomographic route to contextuality were rigorously justified, the paper would be a valuable extension of low-energy contextuality tests to high-energy colliders and would connect contextuality with entanglement in particle systems. The paper is transparent about many assumptions, separates data reinterpretations from analytic/MC estimates, propagates experimental uncertainties by ensemble variation, and uses a broad set of recent experimental inputs. The central physics claim, however, is currently stated more strongly than the evidence supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. 2.1 and 5] The central claim that non-contextual hidden-variable models are ruled out at more than 5σ is not supported by the measurements as presented. In all data-based cases, the expectation values entering Eq. (2.8) or (2.13) are computed as Tr(ρΠ_i) from a density matrix obtained by quantum state tomography of angular distributions, rather than from measurements of the five or nine observables in their respective contexts. The sentence in Sec. 5 that the sharpness and compatibility loopholes "are closed by the full knowledge of the state ... obtained by quantum state tomography [29]" is an assertion, not a demonstrated argument: tomography presupposes the quantum-mechanical map from states to the unmeasured projectors' expectation values, and an NCHV model that reproduces the same angular moments could in principle assign different values to those projectors. The results are therefore quantum-model-dependent consistency estimates, and the abstract/outlook language about ruling out NCHV models should be softened accordingly unless a quantitative loophole analysis is added.
  2. [Sec. 3.1.1] The W-boson test is not a pure reinterpretation of measured helicity fractions. The density matrix used, Eq. (3.10), relies on the SM angular dependence (1±cosθ) and contains an off-diagonal element ρ0− that is not determined by the measured F0, F−, F+; the text first says unknown off-diagonal terms do not contribute and then displays a nonzero ρ0−. Since W is one of the four headline >5σ spin-1 cases, the quoted significance is conditional on these SM/modeling assumptions. Specify how ρ0− was treated (set to zero, fixed to SM, or marginalized), and state the same caveat in the abstract or in the boxed result.
  3. [Sec. 3.5] For χ1c→φφ, the result in Eq. (3.40) is obtained under the assumption of a vanishing relative strong phase and uses only statistical uncertainties for the amplitude ratios in Eq. (3.38). The quoted 5σ violation of CNTXT9 is therefore conditional on an unmeasured phase parameter and on the benchmark choice Θ=π/4. This should be stated wherever the φ meson is listed among the established >5σ cases.
  4. [Sec. 4.3.1] The top-quark results in Eqs. (4.17)–(4.19) are quoted at >5σ while the text notes that error correlations are not included in the evaluation. In addition, the optimized observable (4.15) uses U and V chosen to maximize the violation in the same kinematic region, which introduces a selection bias that is not accounted for in the reported significance. A trials factor or a validation on an independent bin is needed before the top-quark case can be presented as an established contextuality test.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.9)] Please clarify that V implements a maximization over the choice of projectors and that the non-contextuality bound c_N remains valid for the rotated set; the current wording 'implicitly defined' is ambiguous.
  2. [Table 4.1] The entry B−k = 0.003 ± 0.22 appears to contain a typo; the uncertainty is likely ±0.022. Please check the value against the CMS source.
  3. [Sec. 3.1.1] The phrase 'lower bounds for the non-contextuality of the involved particles' is potentially misleading: dropping or setting to zero an unknown off-diagonal element can shift the value of Tr(ρΠ) in either direction, so the quoted numbers are not guaranteed to be lower bounds.
  4. [Sec. 5] The fair-sampling assumption invoked for the detection loophole should be stated as an assumption about the selected event sample, not as a proven closure of the loophole; the current wording overstates what the experiments establish.
  5. [Fig. 4.4 caption] The caption says 'left-hand side' twice; the right panel should be labeled as showing CNTXT′.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Self-cited loophole closure is load-bearing; the central contextuality scores are otherwise computed from external data rather than fitted.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 5, Outlook (p. 24)]
    "Of the three loopholes mentioned in the experimental tests of contextuality—lack of sharpness of the measurements, detection inefficiencies and incompatibility of the sequential measurements—only the one about detection efficiency is relevant in particle physics. The other two loopholes are closed by the full knowledge of the state used in the test, obtained by means of quantum state tomography [29]."

    The claim that the sharpness and incompatibility loopholes are closed is the load-bearing step that converts tomographic reinterpretations into genuine contextuality tests. That assertion is supported only by ref. [29], an arXiv preprint by Fabbrichesi, Floreanini, and Marzola — three of the present authors — and is not machine-checked, code-reproduced, or independently validated in the present paper. No proof or quantitative bound is given for why knowing the state via tomography automatically closes the incompatibility loophole in these collider settings. Absent this self-cited assertion, the results reduce to state-dependent computations of Tr(ρΠ_i) rather than direct measurements of the incompatible projectors required by the KCBS and Peres-Mermin inequalities.

full rationale

The formal derivation chain is largely self-contained against external experimental inputs: ATLAS helicity fractions, LHCb/BESIII amplitudes, and CMS spin-correlation coefficients are taken as inputs, and the contextuality scores are computed from fixed inequalities without fitting a parameter to the target score. The J/ψ case, where the five-projector test does not violate the bound, shows that the computation is not tautological. However, Sec. 2.1 states that only state-dependent inequalities can be used because direct probing of the operator algebra is impossible at current colliders, and Sec. 5 then declares the sharpness and incompatibility loopholes closed by quantum state tomography, citing the authors' own preprint [29]. That self-citation is load-bearing for the paper's central claim that non-contextual hidden-variable models are ruled out at more than 5σ. The tomographic reconstruction also means the projectors were never measured in their incompatible contexts, so the computed violations depend on the quantum-mechanical model used to reconstruct the density matrices; this is a significant limitation bordering on circularity, but because the underlying measured moments and the inequalities are external to the present paper, I score it as partial self-citation-related circularity rather than a fully constructed equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard contextuality theory, on the premise that tomographically reconstructed density matrices capture the contextual correlations, on fair sampling, and, in the W and analytic top cases, on Standard Model input. The benchmark angles and optimization rotations are free choices that inflate quoted significances. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Benchmark angle theta (W+ test) = pi/4
    Chosen in Sec. 3.1 as a benchmark after inspecting the computed curves. The measured W polarization fractions are inclusive, so a single theta value does not correspond to a directly measured sub-sample, and no trials factor is applied.
  • Benchmark scattering angle Theta (chi1c -> phi phi) = pi/4
    Chosen in Sec. 3.5 after Fig. 3.5. The qutrit CNTXT9 value depends on Theta, and the chosen point gives the quoted >5 sigma violation.
  • Off-shell fraction f (H -> VV) = 0.1
    Set in Sec. 3.3 to compute analytic contextuality values for W and Z from Higgs decays, corresponding to off-shell masses MW* about 8.0 GeV and MZ* about 9.1 GeV.
  • Optimizing rotations U, V (ttbar) = Eq. (4.16)
    Unitary rotations chosen in Sec. 4.3 to optimize the non-contextuality operator near the ttbar threshold. They are fixed once and then applied to the CMS data bins, so they are not refit per bin.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Validity of non-contextuality inequality bounds c5=2, c9=3, c13=4 and their quantum upper limits.
    KCBS and Yu-Oh results from Refs. [30-34], used throughout Sections 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption Published angular distributions determine the full spin density matrix via quantum state tomography.
    Invoked in Secs. 2.1 and 5. This assumes quantum mechanics to infer expectation values for contexts that were not directly measured.
  • domain assumption Fair sampling closes the detection loophole in the collider data.
    Sec. 5 states this is always in place in high-energy experiments; it is not experimentally verified in these reinterpretations.
  • ad hoc to paper SM angular dependence (1 +/- cos theta) and zero off-diagonal terms for the W+ polarization matrix when combining measured helicity fractions with the SM structure.
    Sec. 3.1.1, Eq. (3.10). Needed because only inclusive polarization fractions F0, F-, F+ are measured, not the complete theta-dependent matrix.
  • domain assumption Leading-order QCD production of ttbar with PDF4LHC21 PDFs and neglect of NLO corrections.
    Sec. 4.3, Eq. (4.12). The authors state the analytic computation is only qualitative and that NLO corrections mostly affect off-diagonal correlations.
  • domain assumption Helicity amplitude decompositions and symmetry constraints for chi_c -> phi phi and baryon-pair decays are correct.
    Secs. 3.5 and 4.1-4.2. Taken from published BESIII analyses and used to build the density matrices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tests of quantum contextuality in particle physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6NCKDXU

@misc{pith2026250412382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tests of quantum contextuality in particle physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6NCKDXU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12382}
}
abstract

Quantum contextuality refers to the impossibility of assigning a predefined, intrinsic value to a physical property of a system independently of the context in which the property is measured. It is, perhaps, the most fundamental feature of quantum mechanics. The many states with different spin that particle physics provides are the ideal setting for testing contextuality. We verify that the polarization states of single spin-1 massive particles produced at colliders are contextual. We test $W^{+}$ gauge bosons produced in top-quark decays, $J/\psi$ and $K^{*}(892)^0$ mesons in $B$-meson decays and $\phi$ mesons in $\chi^0_c$ and $\chi^1_c$ charmonium decays by reinterpreting the data and the analyses of the ATLAS, LHCb, Belle II and BESIII experimental collaborations, respectively. The polarization states of these four particles show contextuality with a significance larger than $5\sigma$. We also discuss the presence of quantum contextuality in spin states of bipartite systems formed by spin-1/2 particles. We test $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma$ baryons reinterpreting two BESIII data analyses, and pairs of top quarks utilizing a recent analysis of the CMS collaboration. Quantum contextuality is present with a significance exceeding $5\sigma$ also in these cases. In addition, we study the feasibility of testing quantum contextuality by means of $Z$ boson production in association with the Higgs boson, $Z$ and $W$ bosons pairs created in Higgs boson decays and with pairs of $\tau$ leptons. For the latter, we use Monte Carlo simulations that mimic the settings of SuperKEKB and of future lepton colliders. Experiments at high energies, though not designed for the purpose, perform surprisingly well in testing for quantum contextuality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12382 by the authors.

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Graphs of five and nine projector operators showing the classical exclusivity conditions. The dark vertices correspond to the possible values of 1 assigned in a context independent manner. A gray vertex represents the value 0. Non-contextuality is verified if the sum of the expectation values of the N projection operators satisfies the following inequality: CNTXTN ≡ X N i=1 ⟨Πi⟩ = X N i=1 Tr (ρ Πi) ≤ cN , (2.8) in w… view at source ↗
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. The curves plot CNTXT5 and CNTXT9 for the W gauge boson as a function of the cosine of the angle θ defined by the direction of the top-quark momentum and that of its spin. The horizontal, dashed lines mark, respectively, the maximal value achievable assuming non-contextuality (lower line) and the upper limit for contextuality within quantum mechanics (upper line). The coefficients m00 , m−− and m++ (though the latte… view at source ↗
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. CNTXT5 and CNTXT9 for the Z gauge bosons produced in e +e− → HZ as a function of the cosine of the angle θ and its energy EZ . The angle θ is the polar angle between the direction of the Z boson and the momentum of the electron, which is taken to be along the z axis. The coefficient m0 simplifies once the density matrix is normalized and the only uncertainties come from the Weinberg angle, which enters the definitio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3: Contextuality (left-hand side) of the on-shell gauge boson W as a function of MW∗ . Lower points correspond to values of CNTXT5, upper points to CNTXT9. Entanglement (right-hand side) of the bipartite system. 1.1 1.1 1. 0.96 0.87 0.74 0.58 0.4 0.23 0.075 0 3 6 10 13 …
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: Contextuality (left-hand side) of the on-shell Z gauge boson state as a function of MZ∗ . Lower points correspond to values of CNTXT5, upper points to CNTXT9. Entanglement (right-hand side) of the bipartite system. 3.4 J/ψ and K∗ (892)0 mesons in B → J/ψ K∗ decays Al…
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5: Contextuality CNTXT9 of the ϕ spin state. CNTXT5 does not depend on the angle Θ. The expectations value, after the diagonalization of the projector operators, is independent of the angle Θ for CNTXT5; the angular dependence of CNTXT9 is instead shown in [PITH_FULL_I…
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Concurrence (plot on the left-hand side) and CNTXT′ (plot on the right-hand side) as a function of the scattering angle for the Λ-Λ pairs. The horizontal black line at 0 marks the maximal value for non-contextuality. ¯ Of the four helicity amplitudes, only two are in…
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Concurrence (plot on the left-hand side) and CNTXT′ (plot on the right-hand side) as a function of the scattering angle for the Σ+-Σ¯− pairs. The horizontal black line at 0 marks the maximal value for non-contextuality. Similarly to the previous case, also in the pro…
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: CNTXT′ (left-hand side) and CNTXT′ (right-hand side) as function of the invariant mass mtt¯ and the scattering angle Θ for the process p + p → t + t¯. The red, dashed lines mark the vanishing of the expectation values. Whereas top-quark pair spin states show contextu…
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4: Concurrence C [ρ] (left-hand side) and CNTXT′ (left-hand side, see main text for definition) as function of the invariant mass mtt¯ and the scattering angle Θ for the process p + p → t + t¯. Taking as guidance the features we have found in the analytic computations, …
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5: Concurrence C [ρ] and CNTXT′/CNTXT′′′ and as functions of the CM energy, √ s, and of the CM scattering angle, Θ, for the process ℓ + + ℓ− → τ + ¯τ. The energies of SuperKEK and the Z boson peak are shown by the white dashed horizontal lines. The angular dependence of…

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. Experimental characterization of the hierarchy of quantum correlations in top quark pairs

    quant-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LHC top-quark data show quantum discord at >5σ, first evidence for steering at >3σ, no Bell correlations, and nonzero magic.

  2. Quantum tomography beyond the leading order

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [29]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and L. Marzola, About testing Bell locality at colliders , arXiv:2503.18535

    arXiv

  2. [1]

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

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    Horodecki, P

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

    arXiv 2009

  4. [3]

    Benatti, M

    F. Benatti, M. Fannes, R. Floreanini, and D. Petritis, Quantum Information, Computation and Cryptography. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010

    2010

  5. [4]

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

    2012

  6. [5]

    Bruss and G

    D. Bruss and G. Leuchs, Quantum Information: From Foundations to Quantum Technology Applications. Wiley, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

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

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

    1964

  8. [7]

    Scarani, Bell Nonlocality

    V. Scarani, Bell Nonlocality. Oxford University Press, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 82 references
  1. [8]

    J. S. Bell, On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38 (1966) 447–452

    1966

  2. [9]

    Kochen and E

    S. Kochen and E. Specker, The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics , J. Math. Mech. 17 (1968) 59–87

    1968

  3. [10]

    Michler, H

    M. Michler, H. Weinfurter, and M. ˙Zukowski, Experiments towards falsification of noncontextual hidden variable theories , Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (Jun,

  4. [11]

    Huang, C.-F

    Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, Y.-S. Zhang, J.-W. Pan, and G.-C. Guo, Experimental test of the Kochen-Specker theorem with single photons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (Jun, 2003) 250401

    2003

  5. [12]

    Amselem, M

    E. Amselem, M. R˚ admark, M. Bourennane, and A. Cabello, State-independent quantum contextuality with single photons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (Oct, 2009) 160405

    2009

  6. [13]

    Lapkiewicz, P

    R. Lapkiewicz, P. Li, C. Schaeff, N. K. Langford, S. Ramelow, M. Wie´ sniak, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system, Nature 474 (2011), no. 7352 490–493

    2011

  7. [14]

    Zu, Y.-X

    C. Zu, Y.-X. Wang, D.-L. Deng, X.-Y. Chang, K. Liu, P.-Y. Hou, H.-X. Yang, and L.-M. Duan, State-independent experimental test of quantum contextuality in an indivisible system , Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (Oct, 2012) 150401

    2012

  8. [15]

    D’Ambrosio, I

    V. D’Ambrosio, I. Herbauts, E. Amselem, E. Nagali, M. Bourennane, F. Sciarrino, and A. Cabello, Experimental implementation of a kochen-specker set of quantum tests , Phys. Rev. X 3 (Feb, 2013) 011012

    2013

  9. [16]

    Ahrens, E

    J. Ahrens, E. Amselem, A. Cabello, and M. Bourennane, Two fundamental experimental tests of nonclassicality with qutrits , Scientific Reports 3 (2013), no. 1 2170

    2013

  10. [17]

    Hasegawa, R

    Y. Hasegawa, R. Loidl, M. Baron, and H. Rauch, Violation of a bell-like inequality in single-neutron inteferometry, Nature 425 (2003) 45

    2003

  11. [18]

    Bartosik, J

    H. Bartosik, J. Klepp, C. Schmitzer, S. Sponar, A. Cabello, H. Rauch, and Y. Hasegawa, Experimental test of quantum contextuality in neutron interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (Jul,

  12. [19]

    Kirchmair, F

    G. Kirchmair, F. Z¨ ahringer, R. Gerritsma, M. Kleinmann, O. G¨ uhne, A. Cabello, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, State-independent experimental test of quantum contextuality, Nature 460 (2009), no. 7254 494–497

    2009

  13. [20]

    Zhang, M

    X. Zhang, M. Um, J. Zhang, S. An, Y. Wang, D.-l. Deng, C. Shen, L.-M. Duan, and K. Kim, State-independent experimental test of quantum contextuality with a single trapped ion , Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (Feb, 2013) 070401

    2013

  14. [21]

    F. M. Leupold, M. Malinowski, C. Zhang, V. Negnevitsky, A. Cabello, J. Alonso, and J. P. Home, Sustained state-independent quantum contextual correlations from a single ion , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (May, 2018) 180401

    2018

  15. [22]

    P. Wang, J. Zhang, C.-Y. Luan, M. Um, Y. Wang, M. Qiao, T. Xie, J.-N. Zhang, A. Cabello, and K. Kim, Significant loophole-free test of kochen-specker contextuality using two species of atomic ions, Science Advances 8 (2022), no. 6 eabk1660

    2022

  16. [23]

    Moussa, C

    O. Moussa, C. A. Ryan, D. G. Cory, and R. Laflamme, Testing contextuality on quantum ensembles with one clean qubit , Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (Apr, 2010) 160501

    2010

  17. [24]

    Jerger, Y

    M. Jerger, Y. Reshitnyk, M. Oppliger, A. Potoˇ cnik, M. Mondal, A. Wallraff, K. Goodenough, S. Wehner, K. Juliusson, N. K. Langford, and A. Fedorov, Contextuality without nonlocality in a superconducting quantum system, Nature Communications 7 (2016), no. 1 12930

    2016

  18. [25]

    S. B. van Dam, J. Cramer, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Multipartite entanglement generation and contextuality tests using nondestructive three-qubit parity measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (Jul,

  19. [26]

    Thompson, P

    J. Thompson, P. Kurzy´ nski, S.-Y. Lee, A. Soeda, and D. Kaszlikowski, Recent advances in contextuality tests, Open Systems & Information Dynamics 23 (2016), no. 02 1650009

    2016

  20. [27]

    Budroni, A

    C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. G¨ uhne, M. Kleinmann, and J.-r. Larsson, Kochen-Specker contextuality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94 (2022), no. 4 045007, [arXiv:2102.13036]. 25

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Genovese, Research on hidden variable theories: A review of recent progresses, Phys

    M. Genovese, Research on hidden variable theories: A review of recent progresses, Phys. Rept. 413 (2005) 319–396, [quant-ph/0701071]

    2005 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Cabello, S

    A. Cabello, S. Severini, and A. Winter, Graph-theoretic approach to quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (Jan, 2014) 040401

    2014

  23. [31]

    Cabello, M

    A. Cabello, M. Kleinmann, and J. R. Portillo, Quantum state-independent contextuality requires 13 rays, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 49 (aug, 2016) 38LT01

    2016

  24. [32]

    A. A. Klyachko, M. A. Can, S. Binicioglu, and A. S. Shumovsky, Simple Test for Hidden Variables in Spin-1 Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 020403, [arXiv:0706.0126]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kurzy´ nski and D

    P. Kurzy´ nski and D. Kaszlikowski,Contextuality of almost all qutrit states can be revealed with nine observables, Phys. Rev. A 86 (Oct, 2012) 042125

    2012

  26. [34]

    Yu and C

    S. Yu and C. H. Oh, State-Independent Proof of Kochen-Specker Theorem with 13 Rays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (Jan, 2012) 030402

    2012

  27. [35]

    Ahrens, E

    J. Ahrens, E. Amselem, A. Cabello, and M. Bourennane, Two fundamental experimental tests of nonclassicality with qutrits , arXiv:1301.2887

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cabello, Experimentally testable state-independent quantum contextuality, Phys

    A. Cabello, Experimentally testable state-independent quantum contextuality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (Nov,

  29. [37]

    N. D. Mermin, Simple unified form for the major no-hidden-variables theorems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990), no. 27 3373

    1990

  30. [38]

    Peres, Incompatible results of quantum measurements, Phys

    A. Peres, Incompatible results of quantum measurements, Phys. Lett. A 151 (1990) 107–108

    1990

  31. [39]

    Peres, Two simple proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem, J

    A. Peres, Two simple proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem, J. Phys. A 24 (1991), no. 4 L175

    1991

  32. [40]

    Nambu, Proposed Experimental Test for Proving Quantum Contextuality with Non-entangled Photons , arXiv:0805.3398

    Y. Nambu, Proposed Experimental Test for Proving Quantum Contextuality with Non-entangled Photons , arXiv:0805.3398

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (Oct,

  34. [42]

    Cabello, Converting contextuality into nonlocality , Phys

    A. Cabello, Converting contextuality into nonlocality , Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (Aug, 2021) 070401

    2021

  35. [43]

    Abramsky and A

    S. Abramsky and A. Brandenburger, The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality, New Journal of Physics 13 (nov, 2011) 113036

    2011

  36. [44]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Quantum contextuality of spin-1 massive particles, arXiv:2503.14587

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. Bernabeu, W polarisation beyond helicity fractions in top quark decays, Nucl. Phys. B 840 (2010) 349–378, [arXiv:1005.5382]

    2010 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Aad et al., Measurement of the polarisation of W bosons produced in top-quark decays using dilepton events at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment, Phys

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Measurement of the polarisation of W bosons produced in top-quark decays using dilepton events at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Lett. B 843 (2023) 137829, [arXiv:2209.14903]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Nakamura, Polarisations of the Z and W bosons in the processespp→ZH and pp→W±H, JHEP 08 (2017) 008, [ arXiv:1706.01816]

    J. Nakamura, Polarisations of the Z and W bosons in the processespp→ZH and pp→W±H, JHEP 08 (2017) 008, [ arXiv:1706.01816]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    K. Rao, S. D. Rindani, P. Sarmah, and B. Singh, Z polarization at an e+e− collider and properties of decay-lepton angular asymmetries, Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. 90 (2024), no. 3 664–677, [arXiv:2311.13473]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    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, [ arXiv:2302.00683]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

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

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Abulencia et al., Polarization of J/ψ and ψ2S Mesons Produced in p¯p Collisions at√s = 1.96-TeV, Phys

    CDF Collaboration, A. Abulencia et al., Polarization of J/ψ and ψ2S Mesons Produced in p¯p Collisions at√s = 1.96-TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 132001, [arXiv:0704.0638]

    2007 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Aaij et al., Measurement of the polarization amplitudes in B0→J/ψK∗(892)0 decays, Phys

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the polarization amplitudes in B0→J/ψK∗(892)0 decays, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 052002, [arXiv:1307.2782]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, R. L. Workman et al., Review of Particle Physics , PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  46. [54]

    Fabbrichesi, R

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

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Aaij et al., Measurement of CP asymmetries and polarisation fractions in B0 s→K∗0 ¯K∗0 decays, JHEP 07 (2015) 166, [arXiv:1503.05362]

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of CP asymmetries and polarisation fractions in B0 s→K∗0 ¯K∗0 decays, JHEP 07 (2015) 166, [arXiv:1503.05362]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Belle Collaboration, K. F. Chen et al., Measurement of polarization and triple-product correlations in B0→phiK∗decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 221804, [hep-ex/0503013]

    2005 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Aaij et al., Measurement of polarization amplitudes and CP asymmetries in B0→ϕK∗(892)0, JHEP 05 (2014) 069, [arXiv:1403.2888]

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of polarization amplitudes and CP asymmetries in B0→ϕK∗(892)0, JHEP 05 (2014) 069, [arXiv:1403.2888]. 26

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ablikim et al., Helicity amplitude analysis of χJ c→ϕϕ, JHEP 05 (2023) 069, [arXiv:2301.12922]

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Helicity amplitude analysis of χJ c→ϕϕ, JHEP 05 (2023) 069, [arXiv:2301.12922]

    2023

  51. [59]

    Fabbrichesi, R

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

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

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

    1998

  53. [61]

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

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

    2022

  54. [62]

    Ablikim et al., Measurement of λ transverse polarization in e+-e− collisions at√s = 3.68-3.71 gev, JHEP 10 (2023) 081, [arXiv:2303.00271]

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Measurement of λ transverse polarization in e+-e− collisions at√s = 3.68-3.71 gev, JHEP 10 (2023) 081, [arXiv:2303.00271]. [Erratum: JHEP 12, 080 (2023)]

    2023

  55. [63]

    Ablikim et al., Σ + and ¯Σ− polarization in the J/ψ and ψ(3686) decays, Phys

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Σ + and ¯Σ− polarization in the J/ψ and ψ(3686) decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020), no. 5 052004, [arXiv:2004.07701]

    2020

  56. [64]

    Afik and J

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

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Fabbrichesi, R

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

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Severi, C

    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 82 (2022), no. 4 285, [arXiv:2110.10112]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. A. Casas, Improved tests of entanglement and Bell inequalities with LHC tops, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022), no. 8 666, [arXiv:2205.00542]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Z. Dong, D. Gon¸ calves, K. Kong, and A. Navarro, Entanglement and Bell inequalities with boosted tt, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 11 115023, [arXiv:2305.07075]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    T. Han, M. Low, and T. A. Wu, Quantum Entanglement and Bell Inequality Violation in Semi-Leptonic Top Decays, arXiv:2310.17696

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Aad et al., Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Nature 633 (2024), no

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Nature 633 (2024), no. 8030 542–547, [arXiv:2311.07288]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    CMS Collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., Measurements of polarization and spin correlation and observation of entanglement in top quark pairs using lepton+jets events from proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 11 112016, [arXiv:2409.11067]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Fabbrichesi, R

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

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

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

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bernreuther and Z.-G

    W. Bernreuther and Z.-G. Si, Distributions and correlations for top quark pair production and decay at the Tevatron and LHC , Nucl. Phys. B 837 (2010) 90–121, [arXiv:1003.3926]

    2010 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Czakon, A

    M. Czakon, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet, NNLO QCD corrections to leptonic observables in top-quark pair production and decay, JHEP 05 (2021) 212, [arXiv:2008.11133]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Frederix, I

    R. Frederix, I. Tsinikos, and T. Vitos, Probing the spin correlations of t¯t production at NLO QCD+EW , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021), no. 9 817, [arXiv:2105.11478]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Ehat¨ aht, M

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

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Fabbrichesi and L

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

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Fabbrichesi and L

    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 110 (2024), no. 7 076004, [arXiv:2405.09201]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    T. Han, M. Low, and Y. Su, Entanglement and Bell Nonlocality in τ+τ− at the BEPC , arXiv:2501.04801

  73. [81]

    Fabbrichesi, M

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

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Zhang, B.-H

    Y. Zhang, B.-H. Zhou, Q.-B. Liu, S. Li, S.-C. Hsu, T. Han, M. Low, and T. A. Wu, Entanglement and Bell Nonlocality in τ+τ− at the LHC using Machine Learning for Neutrino Reconstruction, arXiv:2504.01496. 27

    arXiv

Pith tools

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