Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 118 references

Converted GeV photons at Belle II can measure Bell nonlocality and other quantum correlations of diphotons at high significance.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 06:29 UTC pith:DF3EKHU7

load-bearing objection Solid, concrete proposal for real-photon QI measurements at Belle II; the 6σ claim is an existence proof under optimistic track resolution, not a demonstrated reach. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08816 v1 pith:DF3EKHU7 submitted 2026-07-09 hep-ph hep-ex

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

Carlos Henrique de Lima , Navin McGinnis , David McKeen This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords photon polarimetryBethe-Heitler conversionBell inequalityquantum discordsteerabilitydiphoton correlationsBelle IIanalyzing power
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.

This paper argues that high-energy photons produced at a lepton collider, when they convert into electron-positron pairs inside the detector material, act as polarimeters that can extract quantum information about photon polarization. Single conversions let experimenters calibrate the detector's analyzing power in place using polarized samples from radiative processes, while double conversions of diphoton events measure the joint polarization correlations. Focusing on Belle II's vertex detector, the authors show that if the tiny opening angle of each conversion pair can be reconstructed well enough, the experiment can test Bell inequality violations, quantum discord, concurrence, nonstabilizerness (magic), and steerability for pairs of real GeV photons that are centimeters apart. The claim matters because it turns routinely collected collider data and existing silicon layers into a macroscopic test of quantum correlations without new hardware, and it supplies an in-situ calibration of material analyzing powers useful beyond particle physics.

Core claim

Depending on the reconstruction resolution of the conversion-pair opening angle, Belle II can probe the polarization correlations of the real diphoton system from e^{+}e^{-} o γγ; with sufficient resolution, Bell inequality violation, discord, concurrence, nonstabilizerness, and steerability of spatially separated GeV-scale photons can be measured at high statistical significance using double conversions, while single conversions from e^{+}e^{-} o e^{+}e^{-}γ calibrate the analyzing power in situ.

What carries the argument

Modeling photon conversion as an imperfect linear polarimeter whose analyzing power A multiplies the Stokes and correlation terms in the joint azimuthal distribution of the two conversion planes; A is calibrated against a five-dimensional polarized Bethe-Heitler simulation and is limited by the track angular resolution that reconstructs the pair's opening angle.

Load-bearing premise

That Belle II can reconstruct the opening angle of nearly collinear GeV electron-positron pairs at the 0.1–0.5 milliradian level after nuclear recoil and multiple scattering, so the analyzing powers needed for high-significance quantum measurements are actually achieved.

What would settle it

A full Belle II reconstruction study (or early data) of conversion pairs that shows the effective opening-angle resolution is worse than about 1 mrad, driving the analyzing power too low for a clear CHSH violation or percent-level extraction of the correlation matrix at the design luminosity.

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

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a framework for extracting photon polarization and bipartite quantum-information observables at Belle II by treating detector conversions (Bethe–Heitler pair production) as imperfect linear polarimeters. Analytic Stokes vectors and the correlation matrix Cij are obtained for e^{+}e^{-}\to\gamma\gamma; the single-photon density matrix for e^{+}e^{-}\to e^{+}e^{-}\gamma is evaluated numerically from helicity amplitudes. Analyzing powers A are calibrated with a five-dimensional polarized Geant4 generator and three benchmark opening-angle cuts (0.1–1.0 mrad). Single conversions furnish an in-situ A measurement from polarized e^{+}e^{-}\gamma samples; double conversions reconstruct the linear correlation E_{+}/2 = |Cxx| = |Cyy| and thereby CHSH, concurrence (under the SM Czz = –1 assumption), discord, Rényi magic and steerability. With 10 ab^{-1} and the most optimistic cut the authors project a 6\sigma CHSH violation and percent-level precision on the other observables for spatially separated GeV photons.

Significance. If the projected analyzing powers are realized, the work would constitute the first high-precision extraction of Si/Be analyzing powers for multi-GeV photons and the first collider measurement of Bell nonlocality, discord, magic and steerability with macroscopically separated real photons. The in-situ A calibration and the explicit mapping from azimuthal modulations to the two-qubit density matrix are clean, falsifiable and complementary to the virtual-photon approach of Ref. [93]. Even if only the more conservative 0.5–1 mrad resolutions prove attainable, the paper still supplies a useful experimental roadmap and identifies the dominant systematic (track separation of tens of µm).

major comments (2)
  1. [§V, Table II, Table IV] §V (esp. the paragraph beginning “We do not simulate the Belle II trigger…”) and Table II: the headline 6\sigma CHSH claim and the sub-percent uncertainties quoted in Table IV for the 0.1 mrad benchmark rest on an analyzing power A \approx 0.25 that is obtained only after an idealized opening-angle cut. Nuclear recoil is already included in the Geant4 generator, but multiple scattering, finite hit resolution and pattern recognition for ~10–50 µm track separations between L3 and L6 are not. Without a quantitative estimate (or a citation to existing Belle II tracking studies) of the effective resolution after full reconstruction, the optimistic column of Table IV cannot be regarded as a demonstrated experimental reach; it remains an existence proof under an unvalidated assumption. A more prominent caveat or a realistic resolution floor is required for the central claim to hold.
  2. [§VII B, Eq. (11)] §VII B and Eq. (11): the concurrence is reconstructed by inserting the SM value Czz = –1. While the paper correctly notes that conversion is blind to circular polarization, the resulting “full tomography” is therefore model-dependent. The CHSH witness E\pm itself is model-independent, but any claim that concurrence is measured at high significance should be qualified by the size of the systematic associated with the Czz assumption (or the measurement should be restricted to the directly accessible linear correlators).
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V B] Fig. 4 (right) and the accompanying text: the figure-of-merit \sqrt\epsilon cut A is shown only for E\gamma = 5 GeV. A brief statement of how the optimum cut migrates for the 1–2 GeV photons used in the e^{+}e^{-}\gamma analysis would help the reader.
  2. [§IV B] The neural-network selection that produces the high-purity Bx/By samples (§IV B) is described only schematically. A short appendix with the architecture, training sample size and ROC-like purity-versus-efficiency curve would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Table I] Table I lists conversion fractions that already include the 1/sin \theta lab path-length factor; the caption should state this explicitly so that the numbers can be cross-checked against Eq. (28).
  4. [§III B] Typographical: “R´ enyi” appears with a misplaced accent; “nonstabilizerness” is used interchangeably with “magic”—a single term should be chosen after first definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: SM correlation matrix and Geant4 analyzing powers are external inputs; resolution benchmarks are varied explicitly rather than fitted and re-predicted.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The diphoton Stokes vectors and correlation matrix Cij (Eqs. 20–23) are obtained from the SM production amplitude R (Eq. 3) for e+e−→γγ; they are not fitted to the conversion data that later measure them. The analyzing power A is either taken from a five-dimensional polarized Bethe-Heitler Geant4 simulation (Sec. V) or extracted in situ from independently polarized e+e−γ samples whose Bx, By are predicted by the same SM amplitudes (Sec. IV B, VI B). The three opening-angle cuts of Table II are free experimental parameters that are scanned; the resulting A values and the Table IV uncertainties are therefore conditional statements of the form “if resolution X is achieved then significance Y,” not circular predictions. Self-citations (e.g., to the complementary virtual-photon proposal [93]) are comparative and non-load-bearing. The only residual weakness is the unvalidated 0.1 mrad resolution assumption, which is an experimental risk, not a circularity of the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central reach claims rest on standard QED amplitudes, the known Bethe-Heitler differential cross section, the two-qubit density-matrix formalism, and a simplified geometric model of Belle II material. No new particles or forces are introduced. The only free experimental parameters are the three benchmark track-resolution cuts that set the analyzing power; everything else is either a Standard-Model prediction or a calibrated detector response.

free parameters (2)
  • track angular resolution cuts (0.1, 0.5, 1.0 mrad) = 0.1 / 0.5 / 1.0 mrad
    Chosen by hand as three representative values that map onto analyzing powers A = 0.248, 0.193, 0.137 (Table II); the entire significance claim scales with these numbers.
  • energy-balance cut |β_E| < 0.8 and θ_± < 5 mrad = |β_E|<0.8, θ_±<5 mrad
    Kinematic selection that trades efficiency for analyzing power; values chosen to keep both tracks reconstructible while retaining usable A.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Standard-Model QED helicity amplitudes for e^{+}e^{-}→γγ and e^{+}e^{-}→e^{+}e^{-}γ correctly give the Stokes vectors and correlation matrix Cij (Eqs. 20–23).
    Used throughout §§IV, VI, VII; any BSM interference would alter the predicted polarization but is not required for the reach estimate.
  • domain assumption The five-dimensional polarized Bethe-Heitler differential cross section implemented in Geant4 correctly describes nuclear recoil and the azimuthal modulation that defines analyzing power A.
    Calibration of A in §V rests entirely on this generator.
  • ad hoc to paper Simplified concentric cylindrical shells (Table I) plus path-length factor 1/sinθ_lab adequately model conversion probability and lever-arm for track separation.
    Explicitly adopted in §V to avoid full GEANT4 detector simulation; acknowledged as an approximation.
  • standard math Two-qubit density-matrix formalism and the definitions of concurrence, CHSH, discord, Rényi magic and the steering integral S (Eqs. 10–19) correctly quantify the quantum correlations of interest.
    Standard quantum-information definitions applied to the reconstructed Cij.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 24676 in / 3087 out tokens · 28816 ms · 2026-07-13T06:29:12.071334+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study high-energy photons produced at a lepton collider that convert into an $e^+e^-$ pair in the detector, as a tool for measuring quantum information observables. We consider single- and double-conversion processes in $e^+e^- \to \gamma\gamma$ and $e^+e^- \to e^+e^-\gamma$. Single conversions enable an in situ extraction of the spin-analyzing power, while double conversions probe polarization correlations. Focusing on the Belle-II detector, we show that, depending on the reconstruction resolution of the opening angle of the conversion $e^+e^-$ pair, quantum correlations of the diphoton system can be probed. In particular, measurements of violations of the Bell inequality, quantum discord, concurrence, nonstabilizerness, and steerability with spatially separated GeV-scale photons can be made at high significance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08816 by Carlos Henrique de Lima, David McKeen, Navin McGinnis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Diphoton conversion into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Normalized 2D Histograms of the linear Stokes parameters of the photon from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Kinematics of a 5 GeV photon conversion from the Bethe-Heitler simulation. Left: the distribution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: This is by no means optimized, but it is enough [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Note that because the probability of conversion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Extraction of the analyzing power using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Expected number of double conversions per 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 81 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Bethe and W

    H. Bethe and W. Heitler, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A146, 83 (1934)

    1934

  2. [2]

    Bernard (HARPO), Nucl

    D. Bernard (HARPO), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A729, 765 (2013), arXiv:1307.3892 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Gros and D

    P. Gros and D. Bernard (HARPO), Astropart. Phys. 88, 60 (2017), arXiv:1612.06239 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Gros and D

    P. Gros and D. Bernard (HARPO), Astropart. Phys. 88, 30 (2017), arXiv:1611.05179 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Bishara, Y

    F. Bishara, Y. Grossman, R. Harnik, D. J. Robin- son, J. Shu, and J. Zupan, JHEP04, 084 (2014), arXiv:1312.2955 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Y. Pan, Y. Wang, L. Gao, Q. Li, and C. Zhou, (2026), arXiv:2607.00971 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Bishara and D

    F. Bishara and D. J. Robinson, JHEP09, 013 (2015), arXiv:1505.00376 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Jaeckel and A

    J. Jaeckel and A. V. Phan, JHEP08, 062 (2024), arXiv:2312.12522 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Altmannshoferet al.(Belle-II), PTEP2019, 123C01 (2019), [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    W. Altmannshoferet al.(Belle-II), PTEP2019, 123C01 (2019), [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Aiharaet al., (2024), arXiv:2406.19421 [hep-ex]

    H. Aiharaet al., (2024), arXiv:2406.19421 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136, 907 (2021), arXiv:2003.02280 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and G. Panizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 161801 (2021), arXiv:2102.11883 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Severi, C

    C. Severi, C. D. E. Boschi, F. Maltoni, and M. Sioli, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 285 (2022), arXiv:2110.10112 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, Phys. Rev. D106, 055007 (2022), arXiv:2203.05619 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and E. Gabrielli, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 162 (2023), arXiv:2208.11723 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Afik and J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Ashby-Pickering, A

    R. Ashby-Pickering, A. J. Barr, and A. Wierzchucka, JHEP05, 020 (2023), [Erratum: JHEP 03, 166 (2026)], arXiv:2209.13990 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Severi and E

    C. Severi and E. Vryonidou, JHEP01, 148 (2023), arXiv:2210.09330 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    M. M. Altakach, P. Lamba, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, and K. Sakurai, Phys. Rev. D107, 093002 (2023), arXiv:2211.10513 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Z. Dong, D. Gon¸ calves, K. Kong, and A. Navarro, Phys. Rev. D109, 115023 (2024), arXiv:2305.07075 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    R. A. Morales, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, 1157 (2023), arXiv:2306.17247 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, JHEP12, 017 (2023), arXiv:2307.09675 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Ma and T

    K. Ma and T. Li, Chin. Phys. C48, 103105 (2024), arXiv:2309.08103 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Sakurai and M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Bernal, Phys

    A. Bernal, Phys. Rev. D109, 116007 (2024), arXiv:2310.10838 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    T. Han, M. Low, and T. A. Wu, JHEP07, 192 (2024), arXiv:2310.17696 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Altomonte and A

    C. Altomonte and A. J. Barr, Phys. Lett. B847, 138303 (2023), arXiv:2312.02242 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Ehat¨ aht, M

    K. Ehat¨ aht, M. Fabbrichesi, L. Marzola, and C. Veelken, Phys. Rev. D109, 032005 (2024), arXiv:2311.17555 [hep-ph]. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Maltoni, C

    F. Maltoni, C. Severi, S. Tentori, and E. Vryonidou, JHEP03, 099 (2024), arXiv:2401.08751 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Rev. D109, 096027 (2024), arXiv:2401.10988 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Blasone, G

    M. Blasone, G. Lambiase, and B. Micciola, Phys. Rev. D109, 096022 (2024), arXiv:2401.10715 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Subba and R

    A. Subba and R. Rahaman, (2024), arXiv:2404.03292 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Bernal, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Rept

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    S. Wu, C. Qian, Q. Wang, and X.-R. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D110, 054012 (2024), arXiv:2406.16298 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Demina and G

    R. Demina and G. Landi, Phys. Rev. D111, 012013 (2025), arXiv:2407.15223 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Gabrielli and L

    E. Gabrielli and L. Marzola, Symmetry16, 1036 (2024), arXiv:2408.05010 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    A. Ruzi, Y. Wu, R. Ding, S. Qian, A. M. Levin, and Q. Li, JHEP10, 211 (2024), arXiv:2408.05429 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D110, 112016 (2024), arXiv:2409.11067 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Du, X.-G

    Y. Du, X.-G. He, C.-W. Liu, and J.-P. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1255 (2025), arXiv:2409.15418 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Ravina, PoSLHCP2024, 327 (2025), arXiv:2410.04590 [hep-ex]

    B. Ravina, PoSLHCP2024, 327 (2025), arXiv:2410.04590 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and M. Low, Phys. Lett. B868, 139675 (2025), arXiv:2410.08303 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Sullivan, (2024), arXiv:2410.10980 [hep-ph]

    M. Sullivan, (2024), arXiv:2410.10980 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Y. Wu, R. Jiang, A. Ruzi, Y. Ban, X. Yan, and Q. Li, Phys. Rev. D111, 036008 (2025), arXiv:2410.17025 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    A. Ruzi, L. Gao, Q. Li, C. Zhou, L. Chen, X. Zhang, Z. Sun, and Q. Li, J. Phys. G52, 075002 (2025), arXiv:2411.12518 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Altomonte, A

    C. Altomonte, A. J. Barr, M. Eckstein, P. Horodecki, and K. Sakurai, Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 045060 (2025), arXiv:2412.01892 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    T. Han, M. Low, N. McGinnis, and S. Su, JHEP05, 081 (2025), arXiv:2412.21158 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Fabbrichesi, M

    M. Fabbrichesi, M. Low, and L. Marzola, Phys. Rev. D 112, 013003 (2025), arXiv:2501.03311 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Cheng and B

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Lysak (Roman Lysak, ATLAS), SciPost Phys

    R. Lysak (Roman Lysak, ATLAS), SciPost Phys. Proc. 18, 016 (2026), arXiv:2501.03755 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    T. Han, M. Low, and Y. Su, JHEP10, 217 (2025), arXiv:2501.04801 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and L. Marzola, Found. Phys.55, 83 (2025), arXiv:2503.18535 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Aoude, A

    R. Aoude, A. J. Barr, F. Maltoni, and L. Satrioni, Phys. Rev. D113, 076007 (2026), arXiv:2504.07030 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and L. Marzola, JHEP 11, 005 (2025), arXiv:2505.02902 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Gon¸ calves, A

    D. Gon¸ calves, A. Kaladharan, F. Krauss, and A. Navarro, JHEP12, 122 (2025), arXiv:2505.12125 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 969 (2025), arXiv:2505.11870 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Aoude, H

    R. Aoude, H. Banks, C. D. White, and M. J. White, Phys. Rev. D113, 115066 (2026), arXiv:2505.12522 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Y. Afik, Y. Kats, J. R. M. de Nova, A. Soffer, and D. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D111, L111902 (2025), arXiv:2406.04402 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    W. Qi, Z. Guo, and B.-W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D113, 054048 (2026), arXiv:2506.12889 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Gon¸ calves, A

    D. Gon¸ calves, A. Kaladharan, and A. Navarro, JHEP 11, 158 (2025), arXiv:2506.19951 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han, M. Low, and T. A. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 181803 (2026), arXiv:2507.12513 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Bechtle, C

    P. Bechtle, C. Breuning, H. K. Dreiner, and C. Duhr, (2025), arXiv:2507.15947 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    S. A. Abel, H. K. Dreiner, R. Sengupta, and L. Ubaldi, (2025), arXiv:2507.15949 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    S. Wu, C. Qian, Q. Wang, and Y.-G. Yang, Phys. Rev. D113, 056030 (2026), arXiv:2509.14990 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol.5, 100357 (2026), arXiv:2510.03212 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    J. Pei, T. Li, L. Wu, X. Hao, and X. Wang, JHEP07, 33 (2026), arXiv:2510.08031 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Gu, S.-J

    J. Gu, S.-J. Lin, D. Y. Shao, L.-T. Wang, and S.-X. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2510.13951 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Yazgan, PoSEPS-HEP2025, 273 (2026), arXiv:2510.13743 [hep-ex]

    E. Yazgan, PoSEPS-HEP2025, 273 (2026), arXiv:2510.13743 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and S. Trifinopoulos, (2025), arXiv:2510.23773 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Cao and F

    H. Cao and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. D113, 035033 (2026), arXiv:2511.01994 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D113, L051101 (2026), arXiv:2512.17557 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    F. A. Jolly (ATLAS, CMS), J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol. 5, 100358 (2026), arXiv:2601.04649 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    C. D. Pardos (ATLAS, CMS), PoSHQL2025, 004 (2026)

    2026

  75. [75]

    Y.-C. Guo, T. Han, M. Low, and Y. Su, (2026), arXiv:2602.02719 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    Gabrielli and L

    E. Gabrielli and L. Marzola, Eur. Phys. J. Plus141, 331 (2026), arXiv:2602.03960 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  77. [77]

    Zhang, X

    H.-W. Zhang, X. Cao, and T.-F. Feng, Phys. Rev. D 113, 114022 (2026), arXiv:2602.10389 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  78. [78]

    B. Yang, Y. Zhang, Z. S. Wang, and X. Zhou, (2026), arXiv:2603.05846 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and P. P. Giardino, (2026), arXiv:2603.11288 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    Oussarhan, F

    Y. Oussarhan, F. Essaadi, S. Mouslih, M. Ouhammou, M. Jakha, S. Taj, and B. Manaut, Phys. Lett. B876, 140408 (2026)

    2026

Showing first 80 references.