Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Lattice QCD now has a first-principles observable for hadron spatial entanglement

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

2026-08-02 19:11 UTC pith:ND6HV7YC

load-bearing objection A clean, honest construction of a lattice-QCD source-sink replica identity for momentum-projected hadrons; the exact part is solid, but the main physics target F(R) rests on an untested L^-3 scaling ansatz that has to be measured before the observable is anchored. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.03064 v4 pith:ND6HV7YC submitted 2026-03-03 hep-ph hep-lathep-thnucl-th

Momentum-projected hadron entanglement from lattice-QCD replica correlators

Kiminad A. Mamo This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-lathep-thnucl-th
keywords lattice QCDRényi entanglement entropyhadron structurereplica trickmomentum projectionfinite-volume scalingvacuum subtraction
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 tries to establish that the vacuum-subtracted Rényi response of a spatial region to a momentum-projected hadron can be measured directly in finite-volume lattice QCD as the logarithm of a ratio of replicated to ordinary hadron correlators. The ratio is exact after standard source-sink projection: all absolute partition functions and overlap factors cancel, leaving the replicated cut-and-glue graph as the only new object. The paper's physics target is the coefficient F(R)=lim L^3 ΔS, which encodes how a delocalized one-hadron state changes the reduced density matrix of a ball of radius R. The L^-3 scaling is an ansatz to be tested, not a theorem. A two-dimensional QCD benchmark shows the analogous inverse-volume law holds after vacuum subtraction in an interacting confining theory.

Core claim

The central result is a source-sink replica identity: for fixed regulator, cut prescription, integer Rényi index n>1, and a spatial ball B_R, the vacuum-subtracted Rényi response equals 1/(1-n) times the logarithm of the ratio between (a) the replicated hadron correlator on the n-sheeted cut geometry and (b) the nth power of the ordinary one-sheet correlator. After the double-sided source-sink projection, all absolute partition functions and hadron overlap factors cancel exactly. What remains is a lattice-measurable ratio whose numerator must be evaluated on the replicated cut ensemble, with identical source-sink operators inserted on every sheet. The paper's physics target is the infinite-v

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the Euclidean replica cut-and-glue construction: n copies of the lattice, with the spatial complement B glued across the time cut within each sheet and the region A cyclically glued between adjacent sheets. Temporal gauge links and fermion hoppings crossing the cut are assigned sheet-permuted values via an explicit map. The same hadron source-sink operator is inserted on every sheet; the product over sheets implements the nonlinear trace Trρ^n, not an n-hadron state. The ordinary correlator in the denominator cancels overlap factors and the common exponential propagation, isolating the replica matrix element of the normalized one-hadron reduced density matrix. The compan

Load-bearing premise

The whole physics program rests on the assumption that the hadron-induced change of the reduced density matrix begins at order L^-3, so that L^3 ΔS has a finite infinite-volume limit; if the true leading power differs, the response function F(R) is not the appropriate observable.

What would settle it

Measure the n=2 response for a pion or nucleon on at least three lattice volumes at fixed physical R and fit ΔS = A L^{-p}. If p is not consistent with 3, or if L^3 ΔS does not flatten with L, the central physics target fails. As an exact check of the identity itself, the two limiting cases A=∅ and A=full spatial volume must give zero response up to statistics.

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

If this is right

  • The n=2 two-sheet measurement is the natural first numerical target: compute the replicated source-sink correlator ratio and compare it with the square of the ordinary correlator.
  • A direct volume test at fixed physical R decides whether ΔS scales as L^-3; if the fitted exponent differs from 3, the response function F_n(R) as defined is not the right observable.
  • The R-dependence of F_n(R) can in principle separate a smooth occupancy-like R^3 contribution from cut-localized QCD correlations of R^2 type, though the split is a data question.
  • Full QCD requires both the replicated sea-quark determinant and valence contractions on the replicated cut graph; quenched and partially quenched calculations are pilots, not the full observable.
  • The two-dimensional benchmark gives an interacting check: after vacuum subtraction, the single-meson response scales as L_box^{-1}, with the short-interval coefficient controlled by the second moment of the light-front momentum distribution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the identity holds numerically and the L^-3 law is confirmed, hadron spatial entanglement becomes a quantity one can map across R and n, giving a nonperturbative anchor that partonic or effective descriptions would have to reproduce after specifying their state preparation and matching limits.
  • A measured violation of the L^-3 law would be informative rather than a null result: it would indicate that cut-localized gauge structures, massless modes, or near-threshold states dominate the finite-volume response, reframing how single-hadron spatial entanglement should be defined.
  • The same replica-ratio construction could be extended to localized wave packets or boosted/infinite-momentum-frame states, yielding different entanglement observables with different finite-volume scalings; the paper notes such states define different observables but leaves the construction to future work.
  • Comparing the same ratio across several cut prescriptions would reveal whether a universal continuum limit exists or whether the observable is intrinsically prescription-dependent, a distinction the current construction deliberately leaves open.

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 proposes a finite-volume lattice-QCD observable for the vacuum-subtracted spatial Rényi response of a momentum-projected hadron state. After the usual double-sided source-sink projection, the central result is the source-sink replica identity (Eq. 24): the hadron-induced, vacuum-subtracted Rényi entropy is expressed as the logarithm of a ratio of a replicated source-sink correlator on the n-sheeted cut geometry to the n-th power of the ordinary single-sheet correlator. The identity is derived from standard replica path-integral manipulations, with absolute partition functions and hadron overlap factors cancelling. The paper then defines the physics output as F_n^C(R;h) = lim_{L→∞} L^3 ΔS_n,L^C(B_R;h), relying on the expectation that the hadron-induced change in the reduced density matrix begins at O(L^{-3}). The lattice implementation is described for n=2, including the sheet map, the replicated fermion determinant in full QCD, and correlated finite-volume fits. An appendix presents a large-N_c two-dimensional QCD benchmark in which the one-meson response scales as L_box^{-1}, with short-interval coefficient controlled by light-front PDF moments. The paper is explicit throughout that the L^{-3} scaling is an ansatz to be tested, not a theorem.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the paper provides a genuinely new first-principles lattice target for hadron spatial entanglement: a density-matrix replica observable that is not a local density profile and not a gravitational-form-factor reconstruction. The exact identity in Eq. (24) is a clean and useful normalization cancellation, and the explicit replicated-lattice map in Appendix B is a practical step toward implementation. The two-dimensional benchmark, when substantiated, gives a nontrivial interacting-gauge-theory example of inverse-volume vacuum-subtracted response. The paper also deserves credit for repeatedly and honestly flagging the status of the L^{-3} assumption, for proposing a free-exponent fit as the decisive test, and for identifying the role of the replicated sea-quark determinant in full QCD. The main weakness is that the central physics output F_n^C(R;h) is conditional on an untested scaling law, and the analytic benchmark that supports it contains an asserted rather than derived key expansion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (2)-(3) and (30)-(34)] The main physics output F_n^C(R;h) is defined as lim_{L→∞} L^3 ΔS. This definition is only meaningful if the hadron-induced change of the reduced density matrix begins at O(L^{-3}) as assumed in Eq. (30). The paper explicitly labels this an ansatz and lists mechanisms that could invalidate p=3: a vanishing linear coefficient in Eq. (31), massless or near-threshold states, cut-localized gauge structures, and L-dependent regions. If the exponent fitted in Eq. (51) is p≠3, then L^3 ΔS either diverges or vanishes and F_n^C as defined is not the appropriate hadron observable. Since Eqs. (2)-(3) and the conclusions present F as the central target, this is load-bearing. I would ask for either a derivation of Eq. (30) from the transfer-matrix representation in Sec. III.C, or a reformulation of the abstract and conclusions so that the primary deliverable is the exact identity (24) plus an exponen
  2. [Appendix E, Eqs. (E18)-(E19)] The two-dimensional benchmark's central result is Eq. (E18), the leading 1/Λ expansion of the replicated matrix element, with the single-constituent kernel f_n(ζ) in Eq. (E19). This expansion is asserted without derivation. The sector decomposition in Eq. (E15) does not by itself imply the factorized form |φ_h(x)|^2 [f_n(xζ)+f_n((1-x)ζ)], and the short-interval closed form (E24) relies on Eq. (E19) without first deriving it. Since this benchmark is the only interacting analytic support for the inverse-volume scaling logic, this omission is load-bearing for the paper's confidence in L^{-3}. A derivation, or a precise reference where Eqs. (E18)-(E19) are obtained, is necessary.
  3. [Sec. III.C, Eq. (25)] The asymptotic factorization of the replicated numerator into |Z_{h,λ,L}|^{2n} e^{-n M_{h,L} T_sep} times the matrix element of the transfer-matrix operator \hat R_n^C(B_R) is stated without proof. This factorization is essential because the cancellation of overlap factors and ordinary Euclidean propagation between numerator and denominator is part of the measurement formula (24). The appendix analog, Eq. (E17), is clearer, but the Euclidean four-dimensional case requires a justification that the transfer-matrix gluing operator reproduces the path-integral boundary conditions, including the treatment of excited states and the non-factorization of the replicated Dirac determinant. Please provide this step or cite a source where it is established.
minor comments (3)
  1. [General notation] The unicode rendering of 'Rényi' appears as 'R´enyi' in several places in the abstract and main text. This is a typesetting artifact, but should be cleaned in the final version.
  2. [References] Several references have incomplete bibliographic data, e.g., [37], [43], [45], [52]-[59], and [61]-[62] lack full volume/article numbers or years. These should be completed before publication.
  3. [Appendix E, after Eq. (E22)] The derivation of the short-interval coefficient (E24) from the kernel (E19) uses the beta-function product (E23) but does not show the intermediate k-sum. Adding a few lines with the sum over k would make the result independently checkable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the source-sink replica identity is an explicitly derived measurement formula, and the L^{-3} response is labeled an ansatz to be tested.

full rationale

The central identity Eq. (24) is obtained from the replica trace definitions in Eqs. (18)-(23): substituting Trρ^n = Z_n[h]/Z_1[h]^n and the analogous vacuum expression gives, after cancellation, the logarithm of the replicated/ordinary correlator ratio. This is a direct rewriting of the replica definition, and the paper itself calls Eq. (24) 'the measurement formula.' It is not a prediction extracted from fitted data. The physics target F(R) = lim L^3 ΔS (Eq. 3) is not claimed as a theorem: Sec. IV.A states that Eqs. (2)-(3) 'should be read as the expected one-particle finite-volume ansatz, not as a theorem derived here from the nonlinear reduced density matrix,' and Eq. (30) is explicitly 'an ansatz' that 'must be tested against the volume dependence of the data.' Thus the untested L^{-3} scaling is an openly flagged modeling assumption, not a fitting step disguised as a prediction. The 2D QCD benchmark imports its leading large-volume expansion, Eq. (E18), from the cited replica light-front framework of Refs. [27,28]; although the derivation of (E18) is not reproduced, that is an omitted-derivation/completeness issue rather than circularity, and the benchmark is explicitly lower-dimensional and not used to prove the 4D L^{-3} law. The only self-citation, Ref. [29], is used to distinguish the present momentum-projected finite-volume state preparation from an infinite-momentum-frame wave-packet construction and is not load-bearing for Eq. (24) or Eq. (3). The paper repeatedly identifies its own limitations—prescription dependence, untested exponent, quenched/partially-quenched pilots—but none of these limitations hides a reduction of the claimed result to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is definitional: it introduces no fitted parameters and no invented physical entities (the replicated n-sheeted lattice graph is a construction of the replica trick, not a new physical entity). Its load-bearing inputs are the prescription-defined replica representation of gauge-theory entanglement, the spectral projection onto a one-hadron state, the L⁻³ finite-volume ansatz, and the benchmark's asserted large-volume expansion. Proposed future fits (Appendix D: F_i, G_i, H_i, ω, p) belong to the analysis strategy, not to the derivation.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Replica cut-and-glue path integral computes Tr ρⁿ_{B_R} in gauge theory at fixed cut prescription C (Sec. II.A, Eqs. 4-5, 19)
    Entanglement entropy in gauge theory is only defined after choosing a cut prescription; the paper adopts the 'electric-center' link prescription as default and acknowledges the scheme dependence.
  • domain assumption Double-sided source-sink projection isolates the finite-volume hadron eigenstate on each sheet (Eqs. 13-15, 25)
    The replicated correlator is assumed dominated by the n-fold hadron |h⟩⊗ⁿ with mass M_h, giving factorized overlaps |Z_h|^{2n} e^{-nM_h T_sep} that cancel in the ratio.
  • domain assumption One-particle finite-volume ansatz: ρ_{B_R,h,λ,L} = ρ_{B_R,0,L} + L⁻³ δρ + O(L^{-3-ω}) (Eq. 30)
    Explicitly labeled an ansatz to be tested; the entire response function F(R) = lim L³ΔS depends on the leading power being exactly L⁻³ (p=3 in Eq. 51).
  • domain assumption 2D benchmark: light-front replica operator U_n(I_ℓ) (E16) and the leading large-volume planar expansion (E18)
    Eq. (E18) is asserted without derivation; it is the load-bearing step connecting the monodromy kernel (E19) to the meson response, following the framework of Refs. [27,28].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17939 in / 21903 out tokens · 201307 ms · 2026-08-02T19:11:08.150865+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We define a finite-volume lattice-QCD density-matrix observable for the vacuum-subtracted spatial R'enyi response of a source-sink-prepared, momentum-projected hadron. At fixed regulator, integer R'enyi index $n>1$, spatial region $B_R$, spin projection, gauge-theory cut prescription $\mathcal{C}$, and after the usual double-sided source-sink projection, the central result is an exact source-sink replica identity: the response is obtained from the logarithm of a replicated hadron correlator on the cut geometry normalized by the corresponding power of the ordinary one-sheet correlator. This identity makes the natural first numerical target the two-sheet $n=2$ measurement of the replicated source-sink correlator ratio, together with a finite-volume test of whether the response scales as $L^{-3}$ at fixed physical $R$. The exponent is a lattice output to be tested, not an input theorem for the nonlinear R'enyi functional. The construction is prescription-defined in gauge theory, and full QCD requires the replicated sea-quark determinant and valence contractions on the replicated cut graph; quenched and partially quenched calculations are therefore pilots. Large-$N_c$ two-dimensional QCD provides an interacting benchmark in which the matched one-meson response is suppressed by the inverse spatial volume, with the short-interval coefficient controlled by light-front PDF moments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03064 by Kiminad A. Mamo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Particle seismology: mechanical and gravitational properties from parton-hadron duality

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A hadronic approach based on dispersion relations and meson dominance achieves a successful description of lattice QCD data for gravitational form factors of pions and nucleons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 51 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Work at fixed integern= 2

  2. [2]

    Use a rest-frame pion or nucleon source and sink with standard momentum projection

  3. [3]

    Use the same cut prescription C in the hadron and vacuum factors

  4. [4]

    Implement the two-sheet cut graph of Section V C and measure the ratio in Eq. (24)

  5. [5]

    Compare matched physical R across at least three spatial volumes for a production scaling study

  6. [6]

    Vary τf and |τi| separately, or use symmetric choices supplemented by multistate analyses

  7. [7]

    Average over ball centers and cubic rotations

  8. [8]

    Extract ∆SC 2,L(BR; h) and L3∆SC 2,L(BR; h) with the full covariance acrossR,L, spin projection, source time, and sink time

  9. [9]

    Use no-hadron, no-cut, full-volume, small-volume, lower-dimensional benchmark, quenched, and par- tially quenched tests to validate the replicated graph, contractions, and finite-volume analysis. The logarithm should be applied to the ensemble- averaged ratio, RC n,L(R;h, λ) = DQn k=1 C (k) h,λ EC n,BR,L ⟨Ch,λ⟩ n 1,L , ∆SC n,L = 1 1−n lnR C n,L.(49) After...

  10. [10]

    V acuum interval entropy and what is subtracted For the vacuum reduced density matrix on the interval Iℓ, S(2d) n,0 (Iℓ) = 1 1−n ln Trρ n Iℓ,0.(E4) At short distances, two-dimensional QCD reduces to Nc Dirac colors, and the leading vacuum R´ enyi entropy is the usual interval result S(2d) n,0 (Iℓ) = Nc 6 1 + 1 n ln ℓ a +O(g 2 2Nc ℓ2) +O(N 0 c ),(E5) where...

  11. [11]

    Large-N c meson state Let |h;P +⟩Lbox be a single large- Nc meson with fixed physical light-front momentum P +. Up to conventional normalization factors, its leading Fock component is h;P + Lbox =B † h(P +)|Ω⟩, B† h(P +) = 1√Nc NcX i=1 Z 1 0 dx φh(x) ×b † i (xP +)d† i ((1−x)P +),(E10) 12 with Z 1 0 dx|φ h(x)|2 = 1.(E11) The wave function φh(x) solves the ...

  12. [12]

    ,n−1 2 .(E15) In that basis, the interval replica operator is Un(Iℓ) =Texp " i X k 2πk n Z ℓ 0 dx− j+ k (x−) # ,(E16) where j+ k = ψ† kψk

    Replica representation and leading large-volume expansion The light-front replica construction diagonalizes the fermion monodromy into sectors k=− n−1 2 ,− n−3 2 , . . . ,n−1 2 .(E15) In that basis, the interval replica operator is Un(Iℓ) =Texp " i X k 2πk n Z ℓ 0 dx− j+ k (x−) # ,(E16) where j+ k = ψ† kψk. The vacuum-subtracted R´ enyi re- sponse can be ...

  13. [13]

    Closed short-interval form at fixed integern For P +ℓ≪ 1, the kernel in (E19) has a simple expan- sion. Using sin[ζ(u−v)] u−v =ζ+O(ζ 3),(E22) and Z 1 0 du u−k/n(1−u) k/n Z 1 0 dv vk/n(1−v) −k/n = πk/n sin(πk/n) 2 ,(E23) one obtains fn(ζ) = π 6 n+ 1 n ζ 2 +O(ζ 4).(E24) Equation (E23) follows from the Euler beta function prod- uct B(1 −k/n, 1 + k/n)B(1 + k/...

  14. [14]

    V on Neumann limit The analytic continuation n→ 1 gives the von Neu- mann entropy response. The single-constituent kernel becomes f1(ζ) = lim n→1 fn(ζ) = π 3 ζ 2,(E28) so that ∆S(2d) EE,Lbox (Iℓ;h) = π 3 (P +ℓ)2 P +Lbox M2,h +O(L −2 box) +O(N −1 c ),(E29) and hence Lbox ∆S(2d) EE,Lbox (Iℓ;h)− →π 3 P +ℓ2M2,h.(E30) Thus the leading finite-volume coefficient...

  15. [15]

    fixed P + as Lbox → ∞

    Fixed physical momentum versus fixed longitudinal harmonic The scaling in (E20) assumes a fixed physical external state, i.e. fixed P + as Lbox → ∞. This is the direct analogue of the fixed rest-frame hadron state used in the main text. If instead one holds a discrete light-front harmonic K fixed, so that P + = 2πK Lbox ,(E32) then the same formula gives ...

  16. [16]

    The remaining state-dependent response is O(N 0 c ) for a single large- Nc meson and is suppressed by the inverse spatial volume of the normalized one-particle state

    Lesson for the four-dimensional observable The two-dimensional result may be summarized as ∆S(2d) n,Lbox (Iℓ;h) = 1 Lbox F (2d) n (ℓ;h) +· · ·, F (2d) n (ℓ;h)̸= 0.(E34) The vacuum entropy is O(Nc) and UV dominated, but it is removed by the matched subtraction. The remaining state-dependent response is O(N 0 c ) for a single large- Nc meson and is suppress...

  17. [17]

    Ji, Phys

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. D55, 7114 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9609381 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1997

  18. [18]

    M. V. Polyakov and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D60, 114017 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902451 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  19. [19]

    M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B555, 57 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0210165

    arXiv 2003

  20. [20]

    Pasquini, M

    B. Pasquini, M. V. Polyakov, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Lett. B739, 133 (2014), arXiv:1407.5960 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, and F. X. Girod, Nature 557, 396 (2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Eur. Phys. J. A55, 191 (2019), arXiv:1805.06596 [hep-ph]. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    P. E. Shanahan and W. Detmold, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 072003 (2019), arXiv:1810.07589 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D103, 094010 (2021), arXiv:2103.03186 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Cao, F.-K

    X.-H. Cao, F.-K. Guo, Q.-Z. Li, and D.-L. Yao, Nature Commun.16, 6979 (2025), arXiv:2411.13398 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Lorc´ e and P

    C. Lorc´ e and P. Schweitzer, Acta Phys. Polon. B56, 3 (2025), arXiv:2501.04622 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Broniowski and E

    W. Broniowski and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. D112, 054028 (2025), arXiv:2503.09297 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Hechenberger, K

    F. Hechenberger, K. A. Mamo, and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D113, 034027 (2026), arXiv:2507.18615 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Ji and C

    X. Ji and C. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B1024, 117342 (2026), arXiv:2508.16727 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    D. C. Hackett, D. A. Pefkou, and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 251904 (2024), arXiv:2310.08484 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Aliet al.(GlueX), Phys

    A. Aliet al.(GlueX), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 072001 (2019), arXiv:1905.10811 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Duranet al., Nature615, 813 (2023), arXiv:2207.05212 [nucl-ex]

    B. Duranet al., Nature615, 813 (2023), arXiv:2207.05212 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D101, 086003 (2020), arXiv:1910.04707 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Hatta, A

    Y. Hatta, A. Rajan, and D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D100, 014032 (2019), arXiv:1906.00894 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    D. E. Kharzeev, Phys. Rev. D104, 054015 (2021), arXiv:2102.00110 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Y. Guo, X. Ji, and Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. D103, 096010 (2021), arXiv:2103.11506 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D104, 066023 (2021), arXiv:2106.00722 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D106, 086004 (2022), arXiv:2204.08857 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Y. Guo, X. Ji, Y. Liu, and J. Yang, Phys. Rev. D108, 034003 (2023), arXiv:2305.06992 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Chatagnonet al.(CLAS), Measurement of the near- threshold J/ψ photoproduction cross section with the CLAS12 experiment (2026), arXiv:2602.22128 [hep-ex]

    P. Chatagnonet al.(CLAS), Measurement of the near- threshold J/ψ photoproduction cross section with the CLAS12 experiment (2026), arXiv:2602.22128 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    D. E. Kharzeev and E. M. Levin, Phys. Rev. D95, 114008 (2017), arXiv:1702.03489 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    G¨ ursoy, D

    U. G¨ ursoy, D. E. Kharzeev, and J. F. Pedraza, Phys. Rev. D110, 074008 (2024), arXiv:2306.16145 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Goykhman, Phys

    M. Goykhman, Phys. Rev. D92, 025048 (2015), arXiv:1501.07590 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    Y. Liu, M. A. Nowak, and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D107, 054010 (2023), arXiv:2205.06724 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    K. A. Mamo, Phys. Rev. D112, L111506 (2025), arXiv:2507.00176 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    P. V. Buividovich and M. I. Polikarpov, Phys. Lett. B 670, 141 (2008), arXiv:0806.3376 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

    P. V. Buividovich and M. I. Polikarpov, Nucl. Phys. B 802, 458 (2008), arXiv:0802.4247 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  48. [48]

    Velytsky, PoSLA TTICE2008, 256 (2008), arXiv:0809.4502 [hep-lat]

    A. Velytsky, PoSLA TTICE2008, 256 (2008), arXiv:0809.4502 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [49]

    Nakagawa, A

    Y. Nakagawa, A. Nakamura, S. Motoki, and V. I. Za- kharov, PoSLA T2009, 188 (2009), arXiv:0911.2596 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  50. [50]

    Nakagawa, A

    Y. Nakagawa, A. Nakamura, S. Motoki, and V. I. Zakharov, PoSLA TTICE2010, 281 (2010), arXiv:1104.1011 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  51. [51]

    E. Itou, T. Nagata, Y. Nakagawa, A. Nakamura, and V. I. Zakharov, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2016, 061B01 (2016), arXiv:1512.01334 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  52. [52]

    Rabenstein, N

    A. Rabenstein, N. Bodendorfer, P. Buividovich, and A. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. D100, 034504 (2019), arXiv:1812.04279 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Rindlisbacher, N

    T. Rindlisbacher, N. Jokela, A. P¨ onni, K. Rummukainen, and A. Salami, PoSLA TTICE2022, 031 (2022), arXiv:2211.00425 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Jokela, A

    N. Jokela, A. P¨ onni, T. Rindlisbacher, K. Rummukainen, and A. Salami, JHEP12, 137, arXiv:2304.08949 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    Bombelli, R

    L. Bombelli, R. K. Koul, J. Lee, and R. D. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. D34, 373 (1986)

    1986

  56. [56]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 666 (1993)

    1993

  57. [57]

    C. G. Callan and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B333, 55 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9401072 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  58. [58]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, J. Stat. Mech.2004, P06002 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0405152 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  59. [59]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 181602 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603001 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  60. [60]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, JHEP08, 045, arXiv:hep- th/0605073 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  61. [61]

    I. R. Klebanov, D. Kutasov, and A. Murugan, Nucl. Phys. B796, 274 (2008), arXiv:0709.2140 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  62. [62]

    S. N. Solodukhin, Phys. Lett. B665, 305 (2008), arXiv:0802.3117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  63. [63]

    Casini, M

    H. Casini, M. Huerta, and R. C. Myers, JHEP05, 036, arXiv:1102.0440 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [64]

    Casini, M

    H. Casini, M. Huerta, and J. A. Rosabal, Phys. Rev. D 89, 085012 (2014), arXiv:1312.1183 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  65. [65]

    Donnelly and A

    W. Donnelly and A. C. Wall, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 111603 (2015), arXiv:1412.1895 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

    Huang, Phys

    K.-W. Huang, Phys. Rev. D92, 025010 (2015), arXiv:1412.2730 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  67. [67]

    Agarwal, D

    A. Agarwal, D. Karabali, and V. P. Nair, Phys. Rev. D 96, 125008 (2017), arXiv:1701.00014 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    Donnelly, S

    W. Donnelly, S. Timmerman, and N. Vald´ es-Meller, JHEP 04, 182, arXiv:1911.09302 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1911

  69. [69]

    Anegawa, N

    T. Anegawa, N. Iizuka, and D. Kabat, Phys. Rev. D105, 085003 (2022), arXiv:2111.03886 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  70. [70]

    Panizza, R

    V. Panizza, R. C. de Almeida, and P. Hauke, JHEP09, 196, arXiv:2207.00605 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  71. [71]

    Bulgarelli and M

    A. Bulgarelli and M. Panero, JHEP06, 030, arXiv:2304.03311 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  72. [72]

    T. T. Takahashi and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. D100, 114502 (2019), arXiv:1910.00859 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [73]

    T. T. Takahashi and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. D103, 034504 (2021), arXiv:2011.10950 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    Amorosso, S

    R. Amorosso, S. Syritsyn, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Lett. B868, 139806 (2025), arXiv:2411.12818 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Amorosso, S

    R. Amorosso, S. Syritsyn, and R. Venugopalan, JHEP12, 177, arXiv:2410.00112 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  76. [76]

    Amorosso, S

    R. Amorosso, S. Syritsyn, and R. Venugopalan, PoSLA T- TICE2024, 409 (2025), arXiv:2502.08737 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Grieninger, D

    S. Grieninger, D. E. Kharzeev, and E. Marroquin, Phys. Rev. D113, 036013 (2026), arXiv:2510.23919 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  78. [78]

    D. Horn, B. M¨ uller, and X. Yao, Gluon Entangle- ment Entropy inside a Nucleon: A Toy Model (2026), arXiv:2605.11171 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B75, 461 (1974)

    1974

  80. [80]

    Bars, Nucl

    I. Bars, Nucl. Phys. B111, 413 (1976)

    1976