Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 5 cited by

This paper proves that scalar h→ΛΛbar decays cannot be mimicked by any local hidden-variable theory, while the pseudoscalar channel can be mimicked only if CPT symmetry is given up.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 08:48 UTC pith:JAZIUWZ2

load-bearing objection The scalar impossibility proof is real but narrower than claimed; the pseudoscalar CPT result is the solid part. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.15747 v2 pith:JAZIUWZ2 submitted 2026-01-22 hep-ph

Excluding Local Hidden Variables in Λbar{Λ} Production: The Incompatibility with Angular-Momentum Conservation and CPT Invariance

Junle Pei , Lina Wu , Tianjun Li , Xiqing Hao This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords local hidden variablesLambda-antilambda entanglementhyperon decaysangular momentum conservationCPT invariancespin correlationsanalyzing powersBell nonlocality in particle physics
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 paper asks whether the spin correlations of ΛΛbar pairs produced in two-body decays of spin-zero particles can be reproduced by local hidden-variable theories, given angular-momentum conservation and CPT invariance. For scalar production, the answer is no: the QFT angular distribution forces two incompatible moment conditions, so no such LHVT can match it, independent of CPT assumptions. For pseudoscalar production, a CPT-symmetric LHVT is excluded because it would require negative single-particle decay probabilities; however, dropping CPT allows an explicit LHVT to reproduce the QFT distribution exactly. The result is a pair of experimental discriminators: scalar decays test locality directly, while pseudoscalar decays test CPT within any local-realistic framework.

Core claim

The central result is the derivation of the joint QFT angular distributions for h→ΛΛbar, where the pair is in the helicity state (|++⟩ − |−−⟩)/√2, and for a→ΛΛbar, where it is (|++⟩ + |−−⟩)/√2, followed by the demonstration that the former is not LHVT-realizable while the latter is realizable only if CPT is abandoned. The scalar impossibility follows from moment identities relating the measured angular correlations to the hidden-variable parameters: matching W_h requires b1c1⟨cos²x⟩ = αΛαΛbar and b1c1⟨sin²x⟩ = −2αΛαΛbar, which cannot both hold when ⟨cos²x⟩ and ⟨sin²x⟩ are nonnegative and the analyzing powers are nonzero. For pseudoscalar production, exact matching requires b1c1 = 3αΛαΛbar; w

What carries the argument

The carrying device is the LHVT parameterization of Eq. (3.12): each event is assigned a hidden spin direction Ŝ, with ŜΛbar = −Ŝ by angular-momentum conservation, drawn from a joint density G(x,y), and the two decay angular responses factor as FΛ(Ŝ·e_p) FΛbar(−Ŝ·e_pbar), expanded in Legendre polynomials with coefficients b_l and c_l. The moment identities ⟨cosθ1 cosθ2⟩ = −(b1c1/9)⟨cos²x⟩ and ⟨sinθ1 sinθ2 cos(φ1−φ2)⟩ = −(b1c1/9)⟨sin²x⟩ turn the QFT distributions into constraints on b1c1 times nonnegative expectation values, which is what drives both the impossibility proof and the explicit CPT-violating construction.

Load-bearing premise

The impossibility proof assumes every local hidden-variable model can be represented by a single hidden spin direction, opposite for Λ and Λbar, with decay responses factorized as FΛ(S·e_p) FΛbar(−S·e_pbar); a more general local model with richer hidden variables could in principle evade it, and this restriction is not flagged in the abstract's sweeping 'no LHVT' language.

What would settle it

Construct an explicit local hidden-variable model—one whose hidden variables are not equivalent to a single spin direction, or whose decay responses depend on additional variables—that reproduces the QFT angular distribution W_h(θ1,θ2,φ1,φ2) of Eq. (2.6) with nonzero αΛαΛbar; such a model would refute the scalar impossibility claim without requiring new data.

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

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, scalar h→ΛΛbar production is a direct locality and realism test independent of CPT, since no LHVT respecting locality and angular-momentum conservation can reproduce the QFT angular distribution.
  • For pseudoscalar a→ΛΛbar production, a CPT-symmetric LHVT is excluded by positivity; the measured analyzing powers imply b1² = −3αΛαΛbar > 1, forcing the single-particle decay functions negative.
  • If CPT is relaxed, the pseudoscalar channel is classically simulable: an explicit LHVT with uniform hidden-variable measure and response functions satisfying b1c1 = 3αΛαΛbar reproduces the QFT result exactly.
  • The scalar and pseudoscalar channels therefore play complementary roles: scalar decays test locality itself, while observing the QFT distribution in pseudoscalar decays would force any local hidden-variable theory to abandon CPT invariance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the scalar no-go is stronger than a Bell-inequality violation: it rules out an entire model class by moment matching rather than by a correlation bound, so a future scalar-hyperon measurement could serve as a CPT-free locality test with no inequality gap.
  • The explicit non-CPT model suggests that, taken alone, pseudoscalar hyperon data cannot discriminate QFT from local realism; the discriminating power is delegated to CPT, effectively turning the same angular measurement into a CPT test.
  • The family of response functions FΛ(z) = u e^{uz}/(4π sinh u), with b1 ranging over [−3,3], likely extends to a continuum of non-CPT LHVT realizations; this family could be used to quantify how much CPT violation is needed to simulate other spin-zero mixing distributions.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the spin correlations of ΛΛbar pairs produced in the decays of a scalar h and a pseudoscalar a, using the self-analyzing weak decays Λ→pπ− and Λbar→pbarπ+. It derives QFT joint angular distributions W_h and W_a, then asks whether local hidden-variable theories (LHVTs) can reproduce these distributions under constraints of locality, angular-momentum conservation, and CPT invariance. The central claims are: (i) for scalar production h→ΛΛbar, no LHVT can reproduce the QFT distribution; (ii) for pseudoscalar production a→ΛΛbar, a CPT-symmetric LHVT is excluded by positivity given the measured analyzing powers, but an explicit non-CPT LHVT can match the QFT result; (iii) the abstract also promises an analysis for arbitrary scalar-pseudoscalar mixing. The paper uses moment matching between the QFT distributions and a spin-direction LHVT ansatz, deriving conditions on the response-function coefficients b1, c1 and the hidden-variable measure G(x,y).

Significance. If the scalar no-go result held for all LHVTs, it would provide a Bell-type discriminator in the baryon sector that is independent of CPT assumptions, which would be a significant addition to the hyperon-entanglement program. The paper's moment-matching technique is transparent, the explicit non-CPT LHVT construction is a useful existence proof with a concrete response function, and the derivations are largely reproducible from the equations given. However, the claimed generality goes beyond what is proven, and there is a serious question about the correctness of the QFT input for the scalar channel. These issues affect the paper's main conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 3.1–3.2, Eq. (3.12)] The impossibility proof for h→ΛΛbar is restricted to LHVTs in which the hidden variable is a single spin direction S with S_Λbar = -S and the decay responses factorize as FΛ(S·e_p) FΛbar(-S·e_pbar). This is not the most general local hidden-variable model: a general LHVT would be W(e_p,e_pbar)=∫dλ ρ(λ) pΛ(e_p|λ) pΛbar(e_pbar|λ). Angular-momentum conservation does not by itself force λ to be a spin vector, nor does it force the response functions to have that rotationally-covariant product form. The abstract and conclusion claim 'no LHVT' without this restriction. Either a reduction argument must be supplied showing that the general factorized model can be mapped to Eq. (3.12), or all no-go claims must be qualified to the spin-direction class.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (2.5)–(2.6)] Under the stated convention that helicities are defined along each particle's momentum, the scalar state (|++> − |-->)/√2 is the spin singlet. The joint angular distribution of a spin singlet with weak-decay analyzing powers is 1 − αΛαΛbar e_p·e_pbar, which is the expression attributed to the pseudoscalar in Eq. (2.9), not Eq. (2.6). Conversely, the pseudoscalar state in Eq. (2.8) is the triplet m=0 state, whose distribution is Eq. (2.6). The scalar and pseudoscalar QFT distributions therefore appear to be interchanged. Because the impossibility proof in Sec. 3.2 and the positivity argument in Sec. 3.3 use these distributions, this is load-bearing: after correcting the swap, the claimed 'scalar impossibility' would apply to the pseudoscalar channel, or the relative signs in Eqs. (2.5)/(2.8) must be swapped. Please clarify the helicity convention or correct the distributions.
  3. [Abstract vs. full text] The abstract promises that 'for the most general spin-zero decay with arbitrary scalar-pseudoscalar mixing' the paper identifies regions of parameter space where an LHVT realization exists or not. No section or equation in the manuscript performs such a mixing analysis. This claimed result is absent and should either be added or removed from the abstract.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (3.7)–(3.10)] The normalization ∫_{-1}^1 dz F(z)=1 is inconsistent with the Legendre expansion F=(4π)^{-1}Σ b_l P_l and b0=1. The expansion with b0=1 corresponds to the solid-angle normalization ∫dΩ F=1, i.e., 2π∫_{-1}^1 dz F=1. The moment equations are unaffected, but the text should be corrected to avoid a factor-2π ambiguity.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3.33)] The notation b1^2 = -3αΛαΛbar > 1 should be written as |b1|^2 = -3αΛαΛbar > 1, and the measured sign of αΛαΛbar should be stated explicitly. As written, the inequality is asserted without showing the experimental input.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrase 'Bell-type discriminator' is used, but the paper does not derive a Bell inequality or a CHSH-type expression. It proves an incompatibility with a specific LHVT class. Consider using 'LHVT discriminator' or clarify the relation to Bell tests.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the LHVT impossibility and existence proofs proceed by coefficient matching against independent QFT distributions; the non-CPT model is an explicit construction, not a disguised prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-consistent and non-circular. In Sec. 3.1, the LHVT parametrization (G(x,y), F_Lambda, F_barLambda) is introduced following external Refs. [28,29], not the authors' own work. The moment identities (3.16)-(3.18) are obtained by orthogonality from this parametrization, and the scalar impossibility proof matches these moments to the QFT distribution W_h; the two resulting equations b1c1<cos^2 x>=alpha_Lambda alpha_barLambda and b1c1<sin^2 x>=-2alpha_Lambda alpha_barLambda are incompatible unless alpha_Lambda alpha_barLambda=0. Here alpha_Lambda alpha_barLambda is an external measured input (Ref. [33]), not a fitted parameter, and the target W_h is not used to define the LHVT class. The pseudoscalar CPT-symmetric exclusion and the non-CPT existence model are likewise honest: the model is constructed with response functions satisfying b1c1=3alpha_Lambda alpha_barLambda, which is exactly an existence proof, not a prediction drawn from the same fit. The self-citations [22,30,31] supply the standard QFT joint angular distribution, which is externally falsifiable and parameter-free apart from the measured analyzing powers; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the reason the LHVT exclusion holds. The only caveat is a scope limitation: the impossibility proof covers LHVTs of the spin-direction, factorized-response form (Eq. 3.12), so the abstract's 'no LHVT' wording is broader than the proven statement. This is a generality gap, not circularity. I therefore find no circular step and assign a low score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated. The hidden variable S is a standard LHVT construct, not a novel entity. The free parameters are the response coefficients of the LHVT construction; they are chosen to demonstrate existence, not fitted from data in a predictive sense. The axioms include the assumption that angular-momentum conservation plus locality has the factorized spin-direction form, which is the paper's main structural premise.

free parameters (3)
  • b_1 (Λ decay response coefficient) = in CPT-symmetric case |b_1|>1 required; in non-CPT model b_1 = 3 αΛ α\barΛ / c_1
    Free coefficient in FΛ Legendre expansion; not derived from first principles but constrained by the LHVT matching condition b_1 c_1 = 3 αΛ α\barΛ (Eq. 3.27). The exponential response function in Eq. (3.40) realizes b_1 ∈ [-3,3].
  • c_1 (\barΛ decay response coefficient) = c_1 = 1 in the explicit non-CPT model
    Free coefficient in F\barΛ expansion; constrained by non-negativity |c_1| ≤ 1; chosen together with b_1 to match αΛ α\barΛ.
  • u (exponential response parameter) = not fixed; spans b_1 ∈ [-3,3]
    Ad hoc parameter in FΛ(z)=u e^{uz}/(4π sinh u), introduced solely to provide a manifestly non-negative response function whose first Legendre coefficient covers the full required range.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Angular momentum conservation for a J=0 parent forces S_Λ + S_\barΛ = 0 in the c.m. frame and in the rest frames.
    Sets S_\barΛ = -S (Eqs. 3.1-3.4). Without this, hidden-variable models with non-opposite spins are not considered.
  • domain assumption Every LHVT is represented by a hidden direction S and factorized, rotationally-covariant responses FΛ(S·e_p) F\barΛ(-S·e_\barp).
    Eq. (3.12) defines the model class; more general local hidden variables that do not assign a definite spin direction are not analyzed.
  • domain assumption CPT symmetry relates response coefficients as b_l = c_l (-1)^l.
    Eq. (3.19) in Sec. 3.1; used to obtain b_1^2 = -3αΛα\barΛ for the pseudoscalar exclusion.
  • standard math The QFT helicity states for scalar and pseudoscalar decays are (|++⟩ - |--⟩)/√2 and (|++⟩ + |--⟩)/√2, respectively.
    Eqs. (2.5) and (2.8), taken from standard helicity formalism; they yield the angular distributions (2.6) and (2.9)-(2.10).
  • domain assumption Measured analyzing powers satisfy αΛα\barΛ ≠ 0 and -3αΛα\barΛ > 1 (in particular αΛα\barΛ ≈ -1/√3).
    Used in Secs. 3.2 and 3.3 to conclude scalar exclusion and pseudoscalar CPT exclusion; if future data changed the magnitude, those specific exclusions would need revisiting.
  • standard math Spherical-harmonic and Legendre expansions are complete for square-integrable functions on S² and [-1,1].
    Used throughout Sec. 3 to expand G, FΛ, F\barΛ and to compute overlap integrals (Eqs. 3.6-3.15).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9753 in / 32071 out tokens · 315695 ms · 2026-08-03T08:48:46.460073+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We analyze spin entanglement in $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ pairs produced in the decays of spin-zero particles, contrasting predictions from quantum field theory (QFT) with those of local hidden-variable theories (LHVTs). Using the self-analyzing weak decays $\Lambda \to p\pi^-$ and $\bar{\Lambda} \to \bar{p}\pi^+$, we derive the joint angular distributions within QFT. Our key findings are: For scalar production $h \to \Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$, no LHVT respecting locality and angular-momentum conservation can reproduce the QFT distribution. For pseudoscalar production $a \to \Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$, a CPT-symmetric LHVT is excluded by positivity constraints given the measured analyzing powers; however, if CPT symmetry is relaxed, an explicit LHVT construction -- with uniform hidden-variable measure and response functions satisfying $b_1 c_1 = 3\alpha_{\Lambda}\alpha_{\bar{\Lambda}}$ -- can match the QFT result. For the most general spin-zero decay $s\to \Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ with arbitrary scalar-pseudoscalar mixing, we, under CPT invariance, identify the regions of parameter space where the QFT joint angular distribution does or does not admit an LHVT realization. These distinct signatures provide clear, experimentally testable criteria to discriminate between QFT and LHVT in $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ systems across different production mechanisms.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum Information of Photon Pairs at Lepton Colliders

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

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

  2. Controlling Quantum discord and steering in Electron-Positron Annihilation Using Polarized Beams

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Polarized lepton beams control quantum discord and steering in hyperon-antihyperon pairs from e+e- annihilation, with discord persisting in separable states via transverse polarization.

  3. Entanglement redistribution of hyperon-antihyperon pair via sequential decay

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    In e+e−→ψ→Ξ(→Λπ)Ξ̄(→Λ̄π), the ΛΛ̄ pair's concurrence and negativity can decrease relative to the mother pair yet stay nonzero except at θ=0 and π, while quantum discord can always increase.

  4. Understanding Bell locality tests at colliders

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Under mild assumptions, local hidden variable theories become testable at colliders and can be disproved via Bell-like inequalities for muon and tau pairs.

  5. Does the Weinberg angle allow a local hidden-variable description for the leptonic decays of an entangled $ZZ$ pair?

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Derives algebraic conditions under which an LHVT reproduces QFT angular correlations in ZZ leptonic decays, existing only for a unique state and restricted θ_W when w≠0.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen,Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,Phys. Rev.47(1935) 777

    1935

  2. [2]

    Bell,On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox,Physics Physique Fizika1(1964) 195

    J.S. Bell,On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox,Physics Physique Fizika1(1964) 195

    1964

  3. [3]

    Freedman and J.F

    S.J. Freedman and J.F. Clauser,Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.28(1972) 938

    1972

  4. [4]

    Aspect, P

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G. Roger,Experimental tests of realistic local theories via bell’s theorem,Phys. Rev. Lett.47(1981) 460

    1981

  5. [5]

    Aspect, J

    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard and G. Roger,Experimental test of bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers,Phys. Rev. Lett.49(1982) 1804

    1982

  6. [6]

    Bouwmeester, J.-W

    D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter and A. Zeilinger, Experimental quantum teleportation,Nature390(1997) 575–579

    1997

  7. [7]

    Tittel, J

    W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinden and N. Gisin,Violation of bell inequalities by photons more than 10 km apart,Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 3563

    1998

  8. [8]

    Boschi, S

    D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, L. Hardy and S. Popescu,Experimental realization of teleporting an unknown pure quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,Phys. Rev. Lett.80(1998) 1121

    1998

  9. [9]

    Riebe et al.,Deterministic quantum teleportation with atoms,Nature429(2004) 734

    M. Riebe et al.,Deterministic quantum teleportation with atoms,Nature429(2004) 734

    2004

  10. [10]

    Barrett et al.,Deterministic quantum teleportation of atomic qubits,Nature429(2004) 737

    M.D. Barrett et al.,Deterministic quantum teleportation of atomic qubits,Nature429(2004) 737

    2004

  11. [11]

    Hensen et al.,Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres,Nature526(2015) 682 [1508.05949]

    B. Hensen et al.,Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres,Nature526(2015) 682 [1508.05949]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

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

    arXiv

  13. [13]

    Afik and J.R.M

    Y. Afik and J.R.M. de Nova,Entanglement and quantum tomography with top quarks at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. Plus136(2021) 907 [2003.02280]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini and G. Panizzo,Testing Bell Inequalities at the LHC with Top-Quark Pairs,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 161801 [2102.11883]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    T. Han, M. Low and T.A. Wu,Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation in semi-leptonic top decays,JHEP07(2024) 192 [2310.17696]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector,Nature633(2024) 542 [2311.07288]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han and M. Low,Optimizing fictitious states for Bell inequality violation in bipartite qubit systems with applications to the tt¯system,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 116005 [2311.09166]. [18]CMSCollaboration,Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at √s= 13TeV,Rept. Prog. Phys.87(2024) 117801 [2406.03976]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [19]

    Cheng and B

    K. Cheng and B. Yan,Bell Inequality Violation of Light Quarks in Dihadron Pair Production at Lepton Colliders,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 011902 [2501.03321]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [20]

    Subba, R.K

    A. Subba, R.K. Singh and R.M. Godbole,Looking into the quantum entanglement in H→ZZ ⋆ at LHC within SMEFT framework,2411.19171. – 11 – [21]BESIIICollaboration,Polarization and Entanglement in Baryon-Antibaryon Pair Production in Electron-Positron Annihilation,Nature Phys.15(2019) 631 [1808.08917]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [22]

    J. Pei, X. Hao, X. Wang and T. Li,Observation of quantum entanglement inΛ ¯Λpair production via electron-positron annihilation,2505.09931. [23]BESIIICollaboration,Test of local realism via entangledΛ ¯Λsystem,2505.14988

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [24]

    Lin, M.-J

    S.-J. Lin, M.-J. Liu, D.Y. Shao and S.-Y. Wei,Spin correlations and Bell nonlocality inΛ ¯Λ pair production frome +e− collisions with a thrust cut,2507.15387

    arXiv

  22. [25]

    S. Wu, C. Qian, Q. Wang and Y.-G. Yang,Quantum steering and discord in hyperon-antihyperon system in electron-positron annihilation,2509.14990

    arXiv

  23. [26]

    S. Abel, M. Dittmar and H. Dreiner,Testing locality at colliders via bell’s inequality?, Physics Letters B280(1992) 304

    1992

  24. [27]

    S. Li, W. Shen and J.M. Yang,Can Bell inequalities be tested via scattering cross-section at colliders ?,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 1195 [2401.01162]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [28]

    Bechtle, C

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

    arXiv

  26. [29]

    Abel, H.K

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [30]

    J. Pei, Y. Fang, L. Wu, D. Xu, M. Biyabi and T. Li,Quantum Entanglement Theory and Its Generic Searches in High Energy Physics,2505.09280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [31]

    J. Pei, T. Li, L. Wu, X. Hao and X. Wang,Quantum Entanglement without Spin-Analyzing Power Dependence at the Colliders,2510.08031. [32]BESCollaboration,First evidence of Lambda anti-Lambda in chi(cJ) decays,Phys. Rev. D 67(2003) 112001 [hep-ex/0304012]. [33]BESIIICollaboration,Test ofCPSymmetry in the Neutral Decays ofΛviaJ/ψ→Λ ¯Λ, 2510.24333. – 12 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003