Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Maximal entanglement plus minimal magic uniquely recovers gauge-invariant gluon and graviton interactions

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 ↗

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.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection The core calculation is solid, the gravity-side extension is new, and the spurious-root removal by MinMagic is genuine; but the 'singles out' claim only holds for a hand-picked one-parameter deformation and the interpretive leap outruns the evidence. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.04358 v2 pith:I43U4ABL submitted 2025-11-06 hep-th hep-phquant-ph

Gauge and diffeomorphism invariance from quantum information principles

Claudia N\'u\~nez , Miguel Pardina , Manuel Asorey , Jos\'e Ignacio Latorre , Alba Cervera-Lierta This is my paper
classification hep-th hep-phquant-ph
keywords entanglementmagic statesStabilizer Rényi entropygauge invariancediffeomorphism invariancegluon scatteringgraviton scatteringmaximal entanglement
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

Tree-level two-particle scattering of massless gluons or gravitons gives a final state that can be viewed as a two-qubit pure state in the helicity basis, so both entanglement (concurrence) and magic (second Stabilizer Rényi entropy) are well defined. The paper breaks gauge invariance by rescaling only the four-point vertex by a factor k and asks which information-theoretic conditions single out the physical value k=1. It finds that maximal entanglement alone admits multiple solutions, including unphysical ones. Adding the requirement that the maximum magic generated over scattering angles be minimal, but nonzero, selects k=1 uniquely for both QCD and perturbative gravity. The broader claim is a dual principle: nature favors maximal quantum correlation with low, yet nonzero, non-Cliffordness.

Core claim

For gluon-gluon and graviton-graviton scattering at tree level in the massless high-energy limit, the paper considers the one-parameter deformation M = M_s + M_t + M_u + k M_4. It shows that the physically correct gauge-invariant and diffeomorphism-invariant value k=1 is the unique point where the opposite-helicity concurrence reaches its maximum (Δ=1) at θ_CM=π/2 while the same-helicity concurrence vanishes (Δ=0), and, simultaneously, the maximal-over-angle magic M2^max(k) attains its global minimum, M2^max(1)=log(4/3)≈0.288, for both gluons and gravitons. Thus MaxEnt+MinMagic is a strictly sharper selector than MaxEnt alone.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a one-parameter family of deformed interactions in which only the quartic vertex is multiplied by k, leaving the s, t, and u channels and the color/tensor structure unchanged. The post-scattering state is read from the tree-level amplitudes and reduced to a normalized two-qubit pure state in the transverse-helicity subspace; entanglement is measured by the concurrence Δ=2|αδ−βγ| and magic by the second Stabilizer Rényi entropy M2. The central computation is the extremization of Δ(k) at fixed angle and of M2^max(k) over angles, showing that k=1 is the unique simultaneous MaxEnt point with zero same-helicity entanglement and the global magic minimum.

Load-bearing premise

The uniqueness result rests on the assumption that breaking gauge invariance can be adequately captured by a single real rescaling of the quartic vertex; if three-point deformations or independent helicity components of the four-point vertex were allowed, the extremal point could shift away from k=1.

What would settle it

Compute M2^max and the concurrence for a two-parameter deformation that independently weights the independent helicity structures of the quartic vertex (or a separate three-gluon coupling); if a nonphysical point with k≠1 achieves MaxEnt and a magic value below log(4/3), the claimed uniqueness of k=1 is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • If MaxEnt+MinMagic is the correct selection principle, gauge invariance and diffeomorphism invariance are not fundamental inputs but emergent consequences of quantum information optimization.
  • Both QCD and perturbative gravity saturate the same minimum magic value log(4/3), hinting at a universal low-magic bound for interactions that still support universal quantum computation.
  • The unphysical MaxEnt solutions (k=-3, 11/3 for gluons; k=3 for gravitons) are excluded because they have higher magic and nonzero same-polarization entanglement, so the physical point is a strict extremum, not a boundary artifact.
  • The k=1 solution is the only one whose entanglement and magic are independent of the color-structure constants, so the principle predicts color universality of these quantum resources.
  • The magic generated at k=1 is nonzero yet small (0.288, well below the two-qubit maximum 0.827), meaning the interactions are both maximally correlated and near-classically simulable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same extremality holds beyond the single-parameter family, any independent deformation of the four-point vertex's helicity components should be pushed away by the joint MaxEnt+MinMagic condition; this is a testable multi-parameter direction the paper does not explore.
  • Because the magic measure is applied to a two-qubit reduced state, the 'close to classical simulability' conclusion is strictly about this reduced subsystem; extrapolating to full QCD or gravity would require multipartite magic measures.
  • A concrete phenomenological probe: at a future high-energy collider or in precision gluon-scattering data, measuring the concurrence and magic of the final helicity state could test whether the physical coupling lies at the minimal-magic point among nearby gauge-breaking deformations.
  • The same dual principle might constrain higher-point vertices (e.g., five-gluon) or other gauge groups, but the two-qubit reduction would need a multipartite generalization, which the paper acknowledges as open.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies tree-level gluon-gluon and graviton-graviton scattering in the high-energy limit, mapping the final polarization states onto a two-qubit pure state. It introduces a one-parameter family of deformations of the quartic vertex, parameterized by k, where k=1 corresponds to the gauge-invariant/diffeomorphism-invariant theory. For each k, the authors compute the concurrence for initial opposite (RL) and same (RR) polarizations and the second-order Stabilizer Rényi entropy (magic) M2 as a function of the scattering angle. They find that requiring maximal entanglement (MaxEnt) alone leaves several possible k values, but additionally minimizing the maximal-over-angle magic M2^max selects k=1 for both gluons and gravitons, with M2^max(1)=log(4/3). The paper concludes that nature favors maximal entanglement and low, nonzero magic, and suggests that this dual informational principle may underlie gauge and diffeomorphism invariance.

Significance. If the claimed uniqueness holds, this is an interesting and original connection between quantum information resources (entanglement and magic) and the structure of fundamental interactions. The paper is carefully presented: explicit scattering amplitudes are provided in the appendices, the color-dependence of the gluon results is analyzed in detail, and the central formulas are concrete enough to be independently checked. The computation of M2^max as a global minimum over k is a non-tautological result within the considered family. However, the central claim is conditional on a very restricted deformation space, and the logical role of the various selection conditions is not fully clarified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (12)] The central claim that k=1 is 'singled out' is established only within the one-parameter family M = M_s + M_t + M_u + k M_4, in which the three-point vertices, s/t/u channels, color contractions, and graviton tensor structures are all frozen. Gauge-breaking deformations form an infinite-dimensional space; a natural two-parameter extension M = g3 (M_s + M_t + M_u) + k M_4 would yield two MaxEnt equations in (g3,k), and non-physical solutions are not excluded a priori. The paper calls its approach 'minimal' (Sec. IV) but does not quantify how much of the uniqueness depends on this restriction. To support the unqualified statement in the abstract, the authors should either test such directions or explicitly soften the conclusion to 'within the family (12)'.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (13)-(16); Abstract] The article states that 'MaxEnt alone does not uniquely recover' the physical point, and that 'adding the condition of minimal, but nonzero, magic' singles it out. However, the text also introduces a separate selection rule: 'if MaxEnt is generated in opposite polarizations, it has to be zero for the same polarization scheme.' This zero-same-polarization condition already uniquely selects k=1 (for both gluons and gravitons) before the magic criterion is applied. The abstract omits this condition, making the logical structure of the argument ambiguous. The authors should clarify whether the zero-same-polarization condition is part of the MaxEnt principle (in which case the uniqueness is immediate and minimal magic is not the selecting agent) or an independent postulate whose role must be acknowledged.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II] Typographical errors: 'Haddamard' should be 'Hadamard'; 'hapens' should be 'happens'; 'Renyi' would better be 'Rényi'.
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 2 caption] 'Magic has a local minima' should be 'Magic has a local minimum'.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (17)] The figure of merit M2^max is defined as the maximum over the scattering angle for each k. The text later refers to 'minimal, but nonzero, magic' as a condition, but it is not discussed whether there exist k values for which M2^max = 0 (i.e., stabilizer states). If such k exist, the 'nonzero' clause is a separate postulate rather than a consequence of the minimization; a brief comment would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (1)] The reduction to a two-qubit pure state ignores color and momentum degrees of freedom. The paper acknowledges this in Sec. V, but it would be helpful to state this limitation more prominently when interpreting the 'fundamental interactions' claim, since the generalization of concurrence and SRE to these settings is not straightforward.
  5. [Sec. IV, after Eq. (14)] The statement that for other values of θ_COM the concurrence depends on color, but MaxEnt is achieved for all color configurations for different k, is not elaborated. A reference to Appendix B or a brief explanation would improve readability.
  6. [References] Reference [8] is a related paper by the same group; the present text relies on it for the gluon amplitudes. It would be appropriate to explicitly specify which amplitudes are taken from Ref. [8] and which are new.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the k=1 magic minimum is computed from the deformed amplitudes, not fitted; the main caveat is the explicit one-parameter deformation ansatz.

full rationale

The extremization is not circular. The paper constructs a one-parameter deformation M = M_s + M_t + M_u + k M_4 (Eq. 12) with k=1 the gauge-invariant point by construction, but the central claim is that MaxEnt plus minimal nonzero magic selects k=1 as the global minimum of M2^max(k). That minimum is a computed fact, not an input: the MaxEnt analysis alone yields spurious roots (k=-3 and 11/3 for gluons; k=3 for gravitons; Eqs. 13-16 and Fig. 1), and the paper then shows these roots are not extremal in the magic profile ('The non-physical solutions obtained by imposing MaxEnt are not extremal points in M2^max'; Fig. 3). This is a checkable, non-tautological statement. The magic formulas (Eqs. 7, 9 and the k-dependent generalizations in Apps. B and C) are evaluated from the deformed amplitudes rather than constructed to force k=1. The main limitation—that the deformation family is a one-dimensional slice of the infinite-dimensional space of gauge-breaking operators, leaving three-point vertices and fixed color/tensor structures untouched—is an acknowledged scope restriction ('There are many ways of breaking gauge invariance. We chose what we consider a minimal approach'), not a circular reduction. The gluon amplitudes are taken from self-cited Ref. [8], but the new load-bearing step is the magic extremization performed here, and the relevant expressions are displayed explicitly in App. B; the result does not reduce to the citation. Thus no circularity is present, and the derivation is self-contained up to the stated one-parameter ansatz and two-qubit reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The argument is parametric, not fitted: one deformation knob k plus one stipulated optimization convention (min of max-over-angle magic) carry the entire selection. There is no tuning to data — the spurious MaxEnt solutions (k=-3, 11/3, 3) are genuine outputs that the extra condition eliminates. The costs the reader must pay are (1) the reduction of scattering to a two-qubit pure state in the massless high-energy limit (Sec. III), (2) the restriction of 'gauge breaking' to rescaling only the quartic vertex (Sec. IV), and (3) trust in the FeynGrav-computed graviton amplitudes (App. A) and the companion preprint [8] for gluon amplitudes. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • 4-vertex rescaling k = k=1 (global min of M₂^max; MaxEnt point)
    Eqs. (10)-(12): single parameter multiplying the quartic vertex via λ_QCD=(k-1)g², λ_GR=(k-1). The entire derivation is an extremization in k; the output k=1 is the physical point. It is a deformation knob rather than a fit to data, but the whole argument consists of optimizing in k.
  • M₂^max ≡ max_θ M₂(θ,k) as the magic figure of merit = max over scattering angle; then min over k
    Eq. (17) stipulates minimizing the maximal-over-angle magic rather than, e.g., magic at the MaxEnt angle θ=π/2 (which vanishes identically for k=1). This convention is load-bearing: which k gets selected depends on this statistic, and the 'nonzero magic' feature of the answer depends on it.
axioms (5)
  • standard math SRE M₂ is a faithful magic monotone for two-qubit pure states; pure two-qubit states violate Bell inequalities iff entangled
    Sec. II relies on this via refs. [31,32,37,38]; background resource-theory results the analysis leans on.
  • domain assumption High-energy, massless, tree-level reduction: gluons/gravitons are two-level systems with only transverse helicities; initial states are product states; the final state is the normalized pure two-qubit state of Eq. (1)
    Sec. III and Eq. (1). This truncation is what makes both monotones well-defined; it excludes color from the Hilbert space and all mass/loop effects.
  • ad hoc to paper Rescaling only the 4-vertex by k (λ_QCD=(k-1)g², λ_GR=(k-1)) faithfully represents 'explicitly breaking gauge and diffeomorphism invariance' for the purpose of the test
    Sec. IV, Eqs. (10)-(12). The authors call this 'minimal' and acknowledge other breakings exist; the uniqueness conclusion is family-relative.
  • ad hoc to paper The operative principle is 'maximize concurrence; then minimize maximal-over-angle magic'
    Sec. IV, Eq. (17). The order of application and the choice of the max-over-θ statistic are stipulated, not derived from the information principles themselves.
  • domain assumption Graviton amplitudes (App. A) computed in transverse-traceless gauge with on-shell s+t+u=0 via FeynGrav are correct
    App. A, refs. [42,43]. Computational tooling assumption; the amplitudes are quoted, not derived in the paper.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gauge and diffeomorphism invariance from quantum information principles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I43U4ABL

@misc{pith2026251104358,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gauge and diffeomorphism invariance from quantum information principles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I43U4ABL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.04358}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Entanglement is a hallmark of quantum theory, yet it alone does not capture the full extent of quantum complexity: some highly entangled states can still be classically simulated. Non-classical behavior also requires magic, the non-Clifford component that enables universal quantum computation. Here, we investigate whether the interplay between entanglement and magic-state resources constrains the structure of fundamental interactions. We study gluon-gluon and graviton-graviton scattering at tree level. We focus on the high-energy limit, where mass-dependent terms are negligible, and conformal symmetry is preserved. In this regime, all particles behave as massless degrees of freedom, allowing to isolate their transverse helicities as two-qubit states. We explicitly break gauge and general covariance by modifying the quartic vertices and analyzing the resulting generation of entanglement and magic. We find that imposing maximal entanglement (MaxEnt) alone does not uniquely recover gauge-invariant and diffeomorphism invariant interactions, but adding the condition of minimal, but nonzero, magic-state generation singles it out. Our results indicate that nature favors MaxEnt and low magic: maximal quantum correlations with limited non-Cliffordness, sufficient for universal quantum computing but close to classical simulability. This dual informational principle may underlie the emergence of gauge invariance in fundamental physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.04358 by Alba Cervera-Lierta, Claudia N\'u\~nez, Jos\'e Ignacio Latorre, Manuel Asorey, Miguel Pardina.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Concurrence as a function of the 4 vertex param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Maximum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.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 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Parameter Inference from Final-State Entanglement in Higgs Decays

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    With a spin/color-weighted entanglement entropy built from Higgs branching ratios, the Standard Model Higgs and W masses sit near the global maximum, and the preferred coupling ratio is SM-like.

  2. 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...

  3. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Ac ´ ın, T

    A. Ac ´ ın, T. Durt, N. Gisin, and J. I. Latorre, Quantum nonlocality in two three-level systems, Phys. Rev. A65, 052325 (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    Ac ´ ın, S

    A. Ac ´ ın, S. Massar, and S. Pironio, Randomness versus nonlocality and entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 100402 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quantum computers, arXiv:9807006 [quant-ph] 10.48550/arXiv.quant- ph/9807006 (1998)

    D. Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quantum computers, arXiv:9807006 [quant-ph] 10.48550/arXiv.quant- ph/9807006 (1998)

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant- 1998

  4. [4]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    Iannotti, G

    D. Iannotti, G. Esposito, L. C. Venuti, and A. Hamma, Entanglement and stabilizer entropies of random bipartite pure quantum states, Quantum 9, 1797 (2025).9, 1797 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Cervera-Lierta, J

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli, Maximal Entanglement in High Energy Physics, SciPost Phys.3, 036 (2017). 11

    2017

  7. [7]

    R. A. Morales, Tripartite entanglement and Bell non-locality in loop-induced Higgs boson decays, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 581 (2024), arXiv:2403.18023 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    N´ u˜ nez, A

    C. N´ u˜ nez, A. Cervera-Lierta, and J. I. Latorre, Universality of entanglement in gluon dynamics, arXiv:2504.15353 [hep-th] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.15353 (2025)

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.15353 2025

  9. [9]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Nature633, 542–547 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    CMS Collaboration, Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Reports on Progress in Physics87, 117801 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    CMS Collaboration, 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. D110, 112016 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Bell inequality is violated in charmonium decays, Phys. Rev. D110, 053008 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Bell inequality is violated inB 0 →J/ψK ∗(892)0 decays, Phys. Rev. D109, L031104 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Gabrielli and L

    E. Gabrielli and L. Marzola, Entanglement and Bell Inequality Violation inB→ΦΦ Decays, Symmetry16, 1036 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    S. R. Beane, D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Entanglement Suppression and Emergent Symmetries of Strong Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 102001 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Low and T

    I. Low and T. Mehen, Symmetry from entanglement suppression, Phys. Rev. D104, 074014 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and T. Mehen, Minimal entanglement and emergent symmetries in low-energy QCD, Phys. Rev. C107, 025204 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, Quantum magic in quantum electrodynamics, arXiv:2503.03098 [hep-th] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03098 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.03098 2025

  19. [19]

    C. D. White and M. J. White, Magic states of top quarks, Phys. Rev. D110, 116016 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Gargalionis, N

    J. Gargalionis, N. Moynihan, S. Trifinopoulos, E. N. Wallace, C. D. White, and M. J. White, Spin versus magic: Lessons from gluon and graviton scattering, arXiv:2508.14967 [hep-th] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14967 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.14967 2025

  21. [21]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, A quantum computational determination of the weak mixing angle in the standard model, arXiv:2509.18251 [hep-th] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.18251 (2025)

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.18251 2025

  22. [22]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, Quantum SMEFT tomography: Top quark pair production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D106, 055007 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    Severi and E

    C. Severi and E. Vryonidou, Quantum entanglement and top spin correlations in SMEFT at higher orders, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 148 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, Probing new physics through entanglement in diboson production, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 17 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    Bernal, P

    A. Bernal, P. Caban, and J. Rembieli´ nski, Entanglement and Bell inequalities violation inH→ZZwith anomalous coupling, The European Physical Journal C83, 1050 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Stringent bounds on HWW and HZZ anomalous couplings with quantum tomography at the LHC, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 195 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Maltoni, C

    F. Maltoni, C. Severi, S. Tentori, and E. Vryonidou, Quantum detection of new physics in top-quark pair production at the LHC, Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 99 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Maltoni, C

    F. Maltoni, C. Severi, S. Tentori, and E. Vryonidou, Quantum tops at circular lepton colliders, Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 1 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Carena, I

    M. Carena, I. Low, C. E. M. Wagner, and M.-L. Xiao, Entanglement Suppression, Enhanced Symmetry and a Standard- Model-like Higgs Boson, arXiv:2307.08112 [hep-ph] 10.48550/arXiv.2307.08112 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.08112 2023

  30. [30]

    Kowalska and E

    K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo, Entanglement in flavored scalar scattering, Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 156 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, Violating bell inequality by mixed spin-12 states: necessary and sufficient condition, Physics Letters A200, 340 (1995)

    1995

  32. [32]

    M. A. Nielsen, Conditions for a class of entanglement transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 436 (1999)

    1999

  33. [33]

    Helwig and W

    W. Helwig and W. Cui, Absolutely maximally entangled states: existence and applications, arXiv:1306.2536 [quant-ph] 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2536 (2013)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1306.2536 2013

  34. [34]

    Cervera-Lierta, J

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, and D. Goyeneche, Quantum circuits for maximally entangled states, Phys. Rev. A100, 022342 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Multiparty entanglement in graph states, Phys. Rev. A69, 062311 (2004)

    2004

  36. [36]

    Liu and A

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, Many-body quantum magic, PRX Quantum3, 020333 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer r´ enyi entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Stabilizer entropies and nonstabilizerness monotones, Quantum7, 1092 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, Maximal magic for two-qubit states, arXiv:2502.17550 [quant-ph] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.17550 (2025)

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.17550 2025

  40. [40]

    Kawai, D

    H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen, and S. H. H. Tye, A Relation Between Tree Amplitudes of Closed and Open Strings, Nucl. Phys. B269, 1 (1986)

    1986

  41. [41]

    Ac ´ ın, J

    A. Ac ´ ın, J. I. Latorre, and P. Pascual, Three-party entanglement from positronium, Phys. Rev. A63, 042107 (2001)

    2001

  42. [42]

    Latosh, FeynGrav: FeynCalc extension for gravity amplitudes, Class

    B. Latosh, FeynGrav: FeynCalc extension for gravity amplitudes, Class. Quant. Grav.39, 165006 (2022), arXiv:2201.06812 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Sannan, Gravity as the Limit of the Type II Superstring Theory, Phys

    S. Sannan, Gravity as the Limit of the Type II Superstring Theory, Phys. Rev. D34, 1749 (1986)

    1986

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.