Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 6 cited by

Quantum Tomography in Neutral Meson and Antimeson Systems

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Meson-pair quantum states are fully readable from four decay rates

desk verdict A solid tomography method that overclaims 'high precision' for B_s^0 Cxx and leaves K^0 biased by unquantified CP-violating mixing; deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12513 v1 pith:MSHOZSOG submitted 2025-07-16 hep-ph hep-exquant-ph

Kun Cheng , Tao Han , Matthew Low , Tong Arthur Wu This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exquant-ph
keywords quantumtomographyBlochvectorFanocoefficientsneutralmesonmixingflavorentanglementB_s^0mesonsK^0information
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

The paper's claim is that the complete quantum state of a neutral meson--antimeson pair in flavor space can be measured. It proposes a Bloch-vector tomography method in which four time-dependent distributions---the total semi-leptonic decay rate, the same-flavor versus opposite-flavor asymmetry, and the two single-meson flavor asymmetries---are fitted to extract all fifteen Fano coefficients (three Bloch vector components per meson and the $3\times3$ correlation matrix). By simulating $10^{7}$ events, the paper shows that for $B_s^0$ and $K^0$ pairs the full density matrix, and therefore any quantum-information observable derived from it, can be reconstructed to high precision. A sympathetic reader would care because this would make the flavor degree of freedom a practical laboratory for entanglement, discord, steerability, and magic, and would connect collider physics to quantum information.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Bloch-vector (Fano-coefficient) parametrization of the two-qubit flavor density matrix, $\rho = (\mathbb{1}\otimes\mathbb{1} + b^A_i \sigma_i\otimes\mathbb{1} + b^B_i \mathbb{1}\otimes\sigma_i + C_{ij}\sigma_i\otimes\sigma_j)/4$, together with the non-unitary time evolution of the meson pair under the effective Hamiltonian $H = M - i\Gamma/2$. The argument rests on a mapping between density-matrix components and decay observables: the flavor asymmetry $N_f - N_{\bar f}$ oscillates with $\Delta m\, t$ and probes the $y$ and $z$ components, while the sum $N_f + N_{\bar f}$ varies with the lifetime difference $\Delta\Gamma$ and probes the $x$ components. In the CP-conserving limit, the four decay-rate distributions factor into products of single-meson oscillatory factors times the Fano coefficients, so a binned fit in $(t_1,t_2)$ extracts each coefficient. The simulation uses a Bell state and a Werner state with $\kappa = 0.2$ as benchmarks, with binning patterns taken from existing experimental analyses.

What would settle it

Take a $K^0\bar K^0$ sample at the statistics of Table I and reconstruct the Fano coefficients both with the CP-conserving formulas and with the $O(\varepsilon)$ terms included in the time evolution; if the central values shift by more than the quoted statistical uncertainties, the CP-conserving extraction is biased at that precision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that flavor-space quantum tomography of an $M\bar M$ pair is feasible without assuming any particular initial state, provided the system has both sizable flavor oscillations ($\Delta m/\Gamma$) and a decay-width difference ($\Delta\Gamma/\Gamma$). The central result is that the Bloch-vector components along $y$ and $z$ are read off from the oscillating flavor asymmetry, while the $x$ components are read off from the time dependence of the total semi-leptonic decay rate induced by the lifetime difference. Measuring the four distributions in Eqs. (19)--(22) therefore reconstructs all Fano coefficients $b^A_i$, $b^B_i$, and $C_{ij}$, i.e., the complete single- and two-meson flavor density matrix at arbitrary times. The demonstration uses Monte Carlo pseudo-experiments with $10^{7}$ events for $B_s^0$ and $K^0$ pairs, reporting statistical uncertainties of order $10^{-3}$ for most coefficients; the $C_{xx}$ coefficient is the least constrained for $B_s^0$ because of its small $\Delta\Gamma/\Gamma$, while for $K^0$ the near-maximal $\Delta\Gamma/\Gamma$ makes all coefficients measurable with comparable accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction formulas are derived in the CP-conserving limit where $p/q = 1$, dropping corrections of order $\varepsilon$; for $K^0$ pairs, where $\varepsilon$ is about $10^{-3}$, these dropped corrections are of the same size as the quoted statistical uncertainties and could bias the extracted Fano coefficients, especially the correlation matrix.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $B_s^0$ pairs produced in high-luminosity collider environments, the full flavor density matrix can be extracted from the four distributions, making flavor-space concurrence, quantum discord, steerability, and stabilizer R\'enyi entropy measurable.
  • For $K^0$ pairs produced at $\phi$-factories, all Fano coefficients are reconstructed with comparable precision, and $C_{xx}$ is not suppressed because $\Delta\Gamma/\Gamma \approx 2$.
  • Deviations between the reconstructed density matrix and the general parametrization of Eq. (14) would signal decoherence phenomena in the meson-pair evolution.
  • Because the initial flavor state from hadronization cannot be computed from first principles, tomography provides a direct experimental handle on production and hadronization mechanisms.
  • If CP-violating mixing is present, the precession pattern changes and the flavor asymmetries mix more of the correlation-matrix elements, so precision tomography becomes a probe of new sources of CP violation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The CP-conserving approximation is safe for $B_s^0$ (where $\varepsilon \sim 10^{-5}$) but borderline for $K^0$ (where $\varepsilon \sim 10^{-3}$); at the quoted statistical precision the extracted $K^0$ correlation-matrix elements could carry an $O(\varepsilon)$ bias unless the fit includes the CP-violating terms.
  • The same observable-to-component mapping could be combined with spin tomography of the same meson pair to reconstruct the joint flavor-spin density matrix, a direction the paper does not pursue.
  • Because the four observables are linear in the Fano coefficients, the formalism extends to density-matrix models with Lindblad-type decoherence terms as long as the effective evolution is known.
  • For $K^0$, events at times beyond several $K_S$ lifetimes are mentioned as potentially useful; a dedicated late-time analysis using $K_L$ decays could cross-check the early-time tomographic reconstruction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Bloch-vector formalism for quantum-state tomography of neutral meson-antimeson pairs, parameterizing the flavor density matrix by single-particle Fano coefficients bA_i, bB_i and the correlation matrix C_ij. It derives four decay-time observables (Ntot, Aff, AA_f, AB_f) whose distributions, given in Eqs. (19)-(22), depend on the Fano coefficients in the CP-conserving limit, and it demonstrates with 10^7-event pseudo-experiments that a fit to these distributions reconstructs the input state for Bs0 and K0. The paper then evaluates quantum-information quantifiers (concurrence, Bell variable, discord, steerability, conditional entropy, SSRE) for the reconstructed states.

Significance. If the method is realized experimentally, it would provide a practical route to full flavor-space tomography of meson pairs and to studying production mechanisms, decoherence, and CP violation. The analytic derivation is clear and transparent, and the Monte Carlo self-check demonstrates internal consistency. The main caveats are that the feasibility demonstration is a closed-loop simulation that generates pseudo-data with the same equations used for the fit, so it confirms internal consistency rather than external validity, and that the K0 precision claim rests on neglecting CP-violating mixing at the 10^-3 level.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eqs. (19)-(22) and text following Table I] The K0 reconstruction is derived in the exact CP-conserving limit, but the quoted statistical precision is comparable to the dropped CP-violating terms. In Eqs. (19)-(22) the O(epsilon) terms are dropped after defining epsilon via p/q = (1+epsilon)/(1-epsilon); for K0, epsilon is about 2e-3, while the statistical errors in Table I for the K0 Fano coefficients are 0.001-0.003. Because the pseudo-experiments are generated and fitted with epsilon=0 templates, the analysis does not bound the resulting systematic shifts; a realistic CP-violating evolution would mix additional correlation-matrix elements into the flavor-asymmetry observables, as the Conclusion itself acknowledges. The statement that the complete K0 density matrix is reconstructed at the precision shown in Table I is therefore not yet established. This is fixable by including epsilon as a fit parameter or by quantifying the shifts with an epsilon-inclusive simulation.
  2. [Table I and Conclusion] The Bs0 reconstruction does not achieve uniform precision across the full density matrix. Cxx is recovered as -1 +/- 0.36 for the Bell input, an uncertainty of about one-third of the signal, because sensitivity to Cxx is suppressed by two factors of sinh(DeltaGamma t/2). The paper acknowledges this in the text, but the conclusion that 'the full density matrices can be precisely reconstructed' is too strong for Bs0 at the simulated sample size, and the practical reach of the method depends on event yields and reconstruction efficiencies that are not folded into the simulation. A quantitative statement about which applications remain viable with the achieved Cxx precision would be useful.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Text after Eq. (14)] In the sentence following Eq. (14), there is a typo: 'mesonsA and B' should be 'mesons A and B'.
  2. [Eqs. (19)-(22)] The variable epsilon is defined only after Eq. (22), although it already appears in the O(epsilon) notation of Eqs. (19)-(22); defining epsilon before Eq. (19) would improve readability.
  3. [Fig. 1] The axis labels in Fig. 1 use Bs0Bs0 and K0K0 without overline or bar notation; using B_s^0 \bar B_s^0 and K^0 \bar K^0 in the panel labels would avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reconstruction formulas are derived from the stated density-matrix and time-evolution assumptions, and the Monte Carlo demonstration is a self-consistency check rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Equations (19)-(22) are obtained from the explicit definitions of the four decay-count observables (Eqs. (15)-(18)) and the two-meson time-evolution formula (Eq. (A10)), using the Pauli/Fano parametrization of Eq. (14); the linear map from {b^A, b^B, C_ij} to the four distributions is algebraically invertible in the CP-conserving limit, with each distribution sensitive to four independent template functions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the pseudo-experiments generate Monte Carlo data from these same equations and fit them back, which validates internal consistency and statistical precision, not external model validity. That is a calibration test, not a circular derivation. The only overlapping-author self-citation, Ref. [86] for the closed-form quantum discord, is not load-bearing: the formula is also attributed to the independent Refs. [85] and is an application, not an input to the reconstruction. The O(epsilon) CP-violating corrections noted after Eqs. (19)-(22) are an approximation error and an appropriateness risk for K0, not a circularity. Overall, the central reconstruction claim stands on the paper's own derivation and standard density-matrix identities.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation assumes standard open-quantum-system evolution for neutral mesons, CP-conserving mixing, and independent evolution of the two mesons. No new entities are introduced. The only fitted nuisance parameter is the overall event normalization N0; all other coefficients are measurement targets, not inputs.

free parameters (1)
  • N0, total event normalization = extracted from fit to Ntot distribution in each pseudo-experiment
    Appears in all four observables and is estimated from the data before fitting the other Fano coefficients. It is a nuisance parameter rather than a physics input.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-level effective Hamiltonian H = M - i Gamma/2 with common mass and width, and CP-conserving mixing H21 = H12 = Delta m/2 + i Delta Gamma/4.
    Used to derive U(t) and the Bloch vector evolution; enters Eqs. (2) and (10).
  • domain assumption Pair time evolution is a tensor product U(t1) otimes U(t2), so the two mesons do not interact after production.
    Used in Eq. (A10). Standard for neutral meson pairs but an idealization.
  • domain assumption Semileptonic decays act as projective flavor measurements with equal partial widths for M to f and Mbar to fbar.
    Used in Eqs. (11)-(13) to connect decay rates to Bloch vector components.
  • domain assumption CP violation in mixing is neglected, with p/q set to 1 and observables truncated at O(epsilon).
    Introduced after Eq. (22). For K^0, epsilon about 1e-3 is comparable to the quoted statistical precision.
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics: density operator formalism, Pauli decomposition, and trace rules.
    Underlies all equations in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Tomography in Neutral Meson and Antimeson Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MSHOZSOG

@misc{pith2026250712513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Tomography in Neutral Meson and Antimeson Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MSHOZSOG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12513}
}
abstract

The flavor space of particles produced in collider environments contains informative quantum correlations. We present a systematic approach for constructing the complete flavor density matrix for a meson and antimeson system ($M \bar M$) in the Bloch vector space at a given time $t$, which can be at or after production. We point out that the $B_s^0$ and $K^0$ systems are superior to the $B^0_d$ and $D^0$ systems for quantum tomography because of their flavor oscillation and decay properties. Performing quantum tomography for the $M \bar M$ system can facilitate the study of production mechanisms, decoherence phenomena, quantum information variables, and potential new sources of CP violation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Monte Carlo results and fitted distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Representative quantum information quantities versus the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 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 of 10

    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. Leggett-Garg Inequality Violation in Muon $g-2$ Experiments

    hep-ph 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Analysis of ~10 billion muon decays from Fermilab g-2 data shows 5.5σ Leggett-Garg inequality violation via reconstructed temporal polarization correlators.

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

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Converted photons in Belle II enable high-significance measurements of Bell nonlocality, discord, concurrence, magic and steerability for macroscopically separated GeV diphotons, provided opening-angle resolution reac...

  4. Hadron Structure from the Hierarchy of Quantum Correlations in Deep-Inelastic Scattering

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quantum-information measures of the DIS final electron-quark state are shown to be sensitive to transversity PDFs and can discriminate between different tensor-charge extractions.

  5. Trajectories of Critical Unstable Qubits in and on the Bloch Sphere

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Critical unstable qubits exhibit indefinite anharmonic oscillations and coherence-decoherence cycles in a co-decaying frame, with first-time explicit geometric constructions for pure and mixed state trajectories on th...

  6. Spin Correlation and Quantum Entanglement of Fermion Pairs in Transversely Polarized $e^-e^+$ Collisions

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Transverse polarization in e+e- collisions generates maximally entangled fermion pairs in QED processes and boosts entanglement in electroweak and Bhabha scattering.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The time evolution of the density matrix is given by ρM(t) ρM(t) = U (t)ρMU (t)† tr U (t)ρMU (t)†

    The Time Evolution of Single Meson Consider the density matrix ρMfor a single meson at time t = 0. The time evolution of the density matrix is given by ρM(t) ρM(t) = U (t)ρMU (t)† tr U (t)ρMU (t)† . (A1) The Pauli decomposition of the density matrix parametrizes the quantum state in terms of the Bloch vector bi(t) ρM(t) = 12 + bi(t)σi 2 . (A2) Inverting t...

  2. [2]

    In the Bloch vector space, the flavor eigenstates |M ⟩ and ¯M are described by ⃗b = (0 , 0, ±1) while the mass eigenstates |M1⟩ and |M2⟩ are described by ⃗b = ( ±1, 0, 0)

    We adopt the convention CP |M ⟩ = ¯M , implying that |M1⟩ is a CP- even eigenstate and |M2⟩ is CP-odd. In the Bloch vector space, the flavor eigenstates |M ⟩ and ¯M are described by ⃗b = (0 , 0, ±1) while the mass eigenstates |M1⟩ and |M2⟩ are described by ⃗b = ( ±1, 0, 0). When CP is not conserved the eigenstates of CP and of mass no longer coincide. Sin...

  3. [3]

    The samples are distributed in the two-dimensional space (t1, t2) where t1 and t2 are the decay times of the first and second mesons, respectively

    The second is the Werner stateρκ [57] given by ρκ = (1 − κ)ρBell + κ 14 4 , (24) where 14/4 is a maximally mixed state and we use κ = 0.2. The samples are distributed in the two-dimensional space (t1, t2) where t1 and t2 are the decay times of the first and second mesons, respectively. For each of the two states ρBell and ρκ, we consider the binned distri...

  4. [4]

    The Time Evolution of a Pair of Mesons Defining the unnormalized density matrix for a pair of mesons at time ( t1, t2) as RM M(t1, t2) ≡ U (t1) ⊗ U (t2) ρM MU †(t1) ⊗ U †(t2), (A10) we can write down the meson number distributions similar to Eq. (A7) - (A8) NMM + N ¯MM + NM ¯M + N ¯M ¯M N0 = tr ( 1 ⊗ 1 ) · RM M(t1, t2) , (A11) NMM − N ¯MM − NM ¯M + N ¯M ¯...

  5. [5]

    Quantum discord D is the difference between the total mutual information and the classical mutual information

    (B3) 9 With this normalization, − √ 2 < B ≤0 indicates a Bell local state and 0 < B < 2 − √ 2 indicates a Bell nonlocal state. Quantum discord D is the difference between the total mutual information and the classical mutual information. The latter requires an extremization over all possible directions, however, for states where only the correlation matri...

  6. [6]

    Gell-Mann and A

    M. Gell-Mann and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. 97, 1387 (1955). [2] S. Navas et al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 10 Concurrence Bell Variable Discord Steerability Variable Conditional Entropy SSRE 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 κ Observable FIG. 2. Representative quantum information quantities versus the parameter κ for Werner ...

    1955

  7. [7]

    Apostolakis et al.(CPLEAR), Phys

    A. Apostolakis et al.(CPLEAR), Phys. Lett. B 422, 339 (1998)

    1998

  8. [8]

    Ambrosino et al

    F. Ambrosino et al. (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B 642, 315 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0607027

    arXiv 2006

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Babusci et al

    D. Babusci et al. (KLOE-2), JHEP 04, 059 (2022), [Er- ratum: JHEP 04, 169 (2022)], arXiv:2111.04328 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Go (Belle), J

    A. Go (Belle), J. Mod. Opt. 51, 991 (2004), arXiv:quant- ph/0310192

    2004

  3. [11]

    Go et al

    A. Go et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 131802 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0702267

    2007 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Six, Phys

    J. Six, Phys. Lett. B 114, 200 (1982)

    1982

  5. [13]

    Selleri, Lett

    F. Selleri, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 36, 521 (1983)

    1983

  6. [14]

    P. H. Eberhard, Nucl. Phys. B 398, 155 (1993)

    1993

  7. [15]

    Di Domenico, Nucl

    A. Di Domenico, Nucl. Phys. B 450, 293 (1995)

    1995

  8. [16]

    Uchiyama, Phys

    F. Uchiyama, Phys. Lett. A 231, 295 (1997)

    1997

  9. [17]

    Selleri, Phys

    F. Selleri, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3493 (1997)

    1997

  10. [18]

    Foadi and F

    R. Foadi and F. Selleri, Phys. Lett. B 461, 123 (1999)

    1999

  11. [19]

    Foadi and F

    R. Foadi and F. Selleri, Phys. Rev. A 61, 012106 (2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    Benatti and R

    F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Phys. Rev. D 57, R1332 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9712274

    1998 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Benatti and R

    F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Eur. Phys. J. C 13, 267 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9912348

    2000 arXiv

  14. [22]

    R. A. Bertlmann, W. Grimus, and B. C. Hiesmayr, Phys. Rev. D 60, 114032 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902427

    1999 arXiv

  15. [23]

    R. A. Bertlmann, W. Grimus, and B. C. Hiesmayr, Phys. Lett. A 289, 21 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0107022

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. A. Bertlmann and B. C. Hiesmayr, Phys. Rev. A 63, 062112 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0101356

    2001 arXiv

  17. [25]

    R. A. Bertlmann, K. Durstberger, and B. C. Hies- mayr, Phys. Rev. A 68, 012111 (2003), arXiv:quant- ph/0209017

    2003

  18. [26]

    R. A. Bertlmann, Lect. Notes Phys. 689, 1 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0410028

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Li and C.-F

    J. Li and C.-F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. D 74, 076003 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0608077

    2006 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ding, J.-l

    Y.-B. Ding, J.-l. Li, and C.-F. Qiao, (2007), arXiv:hep- ph/0702271

    2007

  21. [29]

    Bramon and M

    A. Bramon and M. Nowakowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9811406

    1999 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ancochea, A

    B. Ancochea, A. Bramon, and M. Nowakowski, Phys. Rev. D 60, 094008 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9811404

    1999 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gisin and A

    N. Gisin and A. Go, Am. J. Phys. 69, 264 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0004063

    2001 arXiv

  24. [32]

    R. H. Dalitz and G. Garbarino, Nucl. Phys. B 606, 483 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0011108

    2001 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bramon and G

    A. Bramon and G. Garbarino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 040403 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0108047

    2002 arXiv

  26. [34]

    B. C. Hiesmayr, Found. Phys. Lett. 14, 231 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0010108

    2001 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Datta and D

    A. Datta and D. Home, Phys. Lett. A 119, 3 (1986)

    1986

  28. [36]

    Pompili and F

    A. Pompili and F. Selleri, Eur. Phys. J. C 14, 469 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9906347

    2000 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ichikawa, S

    T. Ichikawa, S. Tamura, and I. Tsutsui, Phys. Lett. A 373, 39 (2008), arXiv:0805.3632 [quant-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chen, Z.-P

    K. Chen, Z.-P. Xing, and R. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. A 1063, 123199 (2025), arXiv:2407.19242 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Atwood and A

    D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 82, 036003 (2010), arXiv:0910.0260 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Banerjee, A

    S. Banerjee, A. K. Alok, and R. MacKenzie, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 131, 129 (2016), arXiv:1409.1034 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Shi and J

    Y. Shi and J. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 98, 075019 (2018), arXiv:1612.07628 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Shi and J.-C

    Y. Shi and J.-C. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 861 (2020), arXiv:1909.10626 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Takubo, T

    Y. Takubo, T. Ichikawa, S. Higashino, Y. Mori, K. Nagano, and I. Tsutsui, Phys. Rev. D 104, 056004 (2021), arXiv:2106.07399 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Mar- zola, (2025), arXiv:2506.05464 [hep-ph]

    2025

  37. [45]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 907 (2021), arXiv:2003.02280 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. J. Barr, Phys. Lett. B 825, 136866 (2022), arXiv:2106.01377 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Fabbrichesi, R

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

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Severi, C

    C. Severi, C. D. E. Boschi, F. Maltoni, and M. Sioli, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 285 (2022), arXiv:2110.10112 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    von Kuk, K

    R. von Kuk, K. Lee, J. K. L. Michel, and Z. Sun, (2025), arXiv:2503.22607 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bloch, Phys

    F. Bloch, Phys. Rev. 70, 460 (1946)

    1946

  43. [51]

    R. P. Feynman, J. Vernon, Frank L., and R. W. Hellwarth, Journal of Applied Physics 28, 49 (1957), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/28/1/49/18316298/49 1 online.pdf

    1957

  44. [52]

    Caban, J

    P. Caban, J. Rembielinski, K. A. Smolinski, Z. Wal- czak, and M. Wlodarczyk, Phys. Lett. A 357, 6 (2006), 11 arXiv:quant-ph/0603169

    2006 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Roccati, G

    F. Roccati, G. M. Palma, F. Bagarello, and F. Ciccarello, Open Systems & Information Dynamics 29, 2250004 (2022), arXiv:2201.05367 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Karamitros, T

    D. Karamitros, T. McKelvey, and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D 108, 016006 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 109, 059901 (2024)], arXiv:2212.06031 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A. K. Alok, S. Banerjee, N. R. S. Chundawat, and S. U. Sankar, JHEP 05, 124 (2024), arXiv:2402.02470 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    B. O. Kerbikov, Nucl. Phys. A 975, 59 (2018), arXiv:1704.07117 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Karamitros, T

    D. Karamitros, T. McKelvey, and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D 111, 096020 (2025), arXiv:2502.15625 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Fano, Rev

    U. Fano, Rev. Mod. Phys. 55, 855 (1983)

    1983

  51. [59]

    Pich, ICTP Ser

    A. Pich, ICTP Ser. Theor. Phys. 10, 14 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9312297

    1994 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Buchalla, AIP Conf

    G. Buchalla, AIP Conf. Proc. 412, 49 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9707545

    1997

  53. [61]

    R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989)

    1989

  54. [62]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Nature Phys. 18, 1 (2022), arXiv:2104.04421 [hep-ex]

    2022

  55. [63]

    Apostolakis et al.(CPLEAR), Phys

    A. Apostolakis et al.(CPLEAR), Phys. Lett. B 458, 545 (1999)

    1999

  56. [64]

    Glattauer, PoS EPS-HEP2015, 554 (2015)

    R. Glattauer, PoS EPS-HEP2015, 554 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    Louvot et al

    R. Louvot et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 021801 (2009), arXiv:0809.2526 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Oswald and T

    C. Oswald and T. K. Pedlar, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28, 1330036 (2013), arXiv:1311.3547 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  59. [67]

    d’Enterria and A

    D. d’Enterria and A. M. Snigirev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 122001 (2017), arXiv:1612.05582 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Aaij et al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaij et al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 100, 031102 (2019), arXiv:1902.06794 [hep-ex]

    2019

  61. [69]

    Y. Afik, Y. Kats, J. R. M. n. de Nova, A. Soffer, and D. Uzan, (2024), arXiv:2406.04402 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Di Domenico, Symmetry 12, 2063 (2020)

    A. Di Domenico, Symmetry 12, 2063 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  64. [72]

    J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  65. [73]

    Zurek, Annalen der Physik 512, 855–864 (2000)

    W. Zurek, Annalen der Physik 512, 855–864 (2000)

    2000

  66. [74]

    Ollivier and W

    H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017901 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0105072

    2001 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Horodecki, J

    M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Nature 436, 673 (2005)

    2005

  68. [76]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 050402 (2022), arXiv:2106.12587 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Genovese, C

    M. Genovese, C. Novero, and E. Predazzi, Phys. Lett. B 513, 401 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103298

    2001 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Genovese, C

    M. Genovese, C. Novero, and E. Predazzi, Found. Phys. 32, 589 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0106013

    2002 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Bramon and G

    A. Bramon and G. Garbarino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 160401 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0205112

    2002 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Genovese, Phys

    M. Genovese, Phys. Rev. A 69, 022103 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0305087

    2004 arXiv

  73. [81]

    R. A. Bertlmann, A. Bramon, G. Garbarino, and B. C. Hiesmayr, Phys. Lett. A 332, 355 (2004), arXiv:quant- ph/0409051

    2004

  74. [82]

    Bramon, R

    A. Bramon, R. Escribano, and G. Garbarino, J. Mod. Opt. 52, 1681 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0410122

    2005 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Bramon, R

    A. Bramon, R. Escribano, and G. Garbarino, Found. Phys. 36, 563 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0501069

    2006 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Genovese, Eur

    M. Genovese, Eur. Phys. J. C 42, 25 (2005), arXiv:quant- ph/0501039

    2005

  77. [85]

    T. Jubb, M. Kirk, A. Lenz, and G. Tetlalmatzi- Xolocotzi, Nucl. Phys. B 915, 431 (2017), arXiv:1603.07770 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Y. S. Amhis et al. (HFLA V), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 226 (2021), arXiv:1909.12524 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [87]

    W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9709029

    1998 arXiv

  80. [88]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  81. [89]

    Luo, Phys

    S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A 77, 042303 (2008)

    2008

  82. [90]

    T. Han, M. Low, N. McGinnis, and S. Su, JHEP 05, 081 (2025), arXiv:2412.21158 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Jevtic, M

    S. Jevtic, M. J. W. Hall, M. R. Anderson, M. Zwierz, and H. M. Wiseman, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 32, A40 (2015)

    2015

  84. [92]

    Friis, S

    N. Friis, S. Bulusu, and R. Bertlmann, Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical 50, 125301 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.