Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 9 cited by

Symmetry, entanglement, and the $S$-matrix

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Constraining the 2-to-2 S-matrix to minimally entangling operators forces an emergent SU(N) global symmetry.

desk verdict A useful operator-basis toolkit and exact selection rules, but the advertised emergence of SU(N) is built into the span ansatz rather than derived from entanglement suppression. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21079 v1 pith:TTNHE3HR submitted 2025-04-29 hep-th hep-phquant-ph

Navin McGinnis This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-phquant-ph
keywords S-matrixentanglementsuppressionSU(N)symmetryquditscatteringquantumgatesminimallyentanglingoperatorsselectionrules
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

Relativistic 2-to-2 scattering can be viewed as a quantum gate acting on two N-dimensional flavor spaces, and this paper asks which symmetries follow from requiring that gate to produce no entanglement when applied to product states. The central claim is that restricting the amplitude to the linear span of the two canonical minimally entangling operators—the identity gate and the SWAP gate—is equivalent to the amplitude commuting with every simultaneous SU(N) rotation of the two flavors. The paper derives the selection rules for such amplitudes using Schur's lemma, and shows that they match and extend earlier results obtained from entanglement measures in specific scattering models. If the claim is correct, global symmetries of particle interactions can be understood as emergent from an information-theoretic principle rather than assumed from the outset.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the operator span{SI, SW}: $S_I = I\otimes I$ (the identity gate) and $S_W = \frac{1}{N}(I\otimes I + \frac{2N}{N^2-1} \sum_a T^a\otimes T^a)$ (the SWAP gate, which exchanges the two flavor states). The argument proceeds by decomposing any amplitude in the tensor-product basis of SU(N) generators, Eq. (19), so that the correlation coefficients $C_{ab}$ isolate non-local operations. Setting $C_{ab}=0$ yields the identity-class selection rules; restricting to span{SI, SW} makes the amplitude commute with the diagonal action $U\otimes U$, and Schur's lemma converts that commutation into block diagonality over the irreducible subspaces (singlet/adjoint for $N\otimes \bar{N}$; symmetric/antisymmetric for $N\otimes N$). This machinery turns the abstract condition of entanglement suppression into concrete amplitude patterns and selection rules.

What would settle it

Construct a generic gate of the form $M=(V_A\otimes V_B)\, S_W\, (W_A\otimes W_B)$ with single-qudit unitaries chosen randomly, and check whether $[M, U\otimes U]=0$ for all $U\in SU(N)$ or whether its matrix elements satisfy the SU(N)-symmetric selection rules; for generic choices they will not, which would disprove the claim that entanglement suppression alone implies the emergent symmetry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a single information-theoretic constraint—demanding the S-matrix lie in span{SI, SW}, the span of the identity gate and the SWAP gate—realizes an emergent SU(N) global symmetry for the scattering of two N-dimensional qudits. Writing a general amplitude as $M = \tilde{M}\, I\otimes I + A_a\, T^a\otimes I + B_a\, I\otimes T^a + C_{ab}\, T^a\otimes T^b$, the paper shows that setting $C_{ab}=0$ produces exact selection rules of the form $M_{il,ij}=M_{kl,kj}$ and the index-symmetric sum $M_{ij,ij}+M_{kl,kl}=M_{il,il}+M_{kj,kj}$. The stronger ansatz $M = A(s,t,u)\, S_I + B(s,t,u)\, S_W$ automatically satisfies $[M, U\otimes U]=0$ for all $U\in SU(N)$, and Schur's lemma then forces the amplitude to be block diagonal with one coefficient per irreducible representation: $M_1 P_1 + M_{Adj} P_{Adj}$ for $N\otimes \bar{N}$ scattering and $M_S P_S + M_A P_A$ for $N\otimes N$ scattering. The paper presents this as equivalent to the realization of an SU(N) global symmetry, recovering the known identity-class results and extending them to the SWAP class.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the only minimally entangling S-matrices are the linear combinations of the identity and SWAP gates, rather than the much larger family of operators obtained by conjugating those two gates with arbitrary independent local rotations on each side.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any amplitude of the form $M(s,t,u)=A(s,t,u)\, S_I + B(s,t,u)\, S_W$ is automatically SU(N)-symmetric, so the information-theoretic ansatz and the global symmetry impose exactly the same constraints on scattering.
  • The selection rules $M_{il,ij}=M_{kl,kj}$ and $M_{ij,ij}+M_{kl,kl}=M_{il,il}+M_{kj,kj}$, previously found in specific models by computing entanglement measures, are exact consequences of $C_{ab}=0$ and hold to all orders in perturbation theory.
  • For scattering of two fundamentals in the t-channel, the SU(N)-symmetric amplitude decomposes as $M_S P_S + M_A P_A$, while the s/u-channel decomposes as $M_1 P_1 + M_{Adj} P_{Adj}$, with the two bases related by recoupling coefficients.
  • If the condition is imposed at all momentum transfers, it forces relations among the positions of poles in different scattering channels, connecting the entanglement principle to the analytic S-matrix program.
  • The framework extends to Hilbert spaces of unequal dimensions $H_N\otimes H_M$, giving $SU(N)\times SU(M)$ symmetry for the identity class and a diagonal $SU(\min(N,M))$ for the SWAP class.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The equivalence is proven for the linear span of the two canonical gates, not for the full family of minimally entangling operators defined by local equivalence classes $(V_A\otimes V_B) S_I (W_A\otimes W_B)$ and $(V_A\otimes V_B) S_W (W_A\otimes W_B)$; a generic member of those classes need not commute with $U\otimes U$, so the emergence claim is specifically about span{SI, SW}.
  • If the local-equivalence classes are taken as the definition of entanglement suppression, then the paper's SU(N) conclusion would only follow after also imposing that the in/out bases be chosen to make the gate canonical—an extra assumption about preferred bases that the current argument does not specify.
  • The framework suggests a concrete test for low-energy QCD and other candidate theories: compute the full amplitude including subleading corrections and check whether the deviation from span{SI, SW} correlates with breaking of the emergent SU(N) symmetry.
  • One could extend the calculation to three-particle scattering by looking for the minimal-entanglement span of the three-qudit Hilbert space and checking whether the emergent symmetry group is still SU(N) or becomes a different structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework in which the relativistic S-matrix for 2-to-2 scattering of particles with a discrete flavor quantum number is viewed as a quantum gate on the bipartite Hilbert space H_N⊗H_N. It decomposes the amplitude in an SU(N) generator basis, derives selection rules from the condition C_ab=0, and analyzes the symmetry associated with the identity and SWAP gates. The central claim is that constraining the S-matrix to the span of the two canonical minimally entangling operators, span{I⊗I, SW}, is equivalent to realizing an emergent SU(N) global symmetry. The paper also recovers and extends previous results on entanglement suppression in scattering amplitudes.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would provide a concrete information-theoretic route to deriving global symmetries of the S-matrix, directly addressing a long-standing question in the S-matrix program. The derivation of the selection rules in Eqs. (24)-(28) from C_ab=0 is clean and unifies several earlier results; the projection-operator analysis in the 'Symmetric and symmetry-breaking interactions' section is a useful organizational framework. However, the main 'emergence' claim is not supported by the stated entanglement-suppression premise: the classification of minimally entangling operators gives local-equivalence classes, not the linear span considered in Eq. (45), and the SU(N) invariance of span{I,SW} is a direct restatement of Schur-Weyl duality. The paper also contains a concrete error in the definition of the SWAP operator. These issues prevent the paper from delivering its advertised result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Emergence of SU(N) symmetry, Eq. (45) and abstract] The central claim is a load-bearing overreach. The classification in Eqs. (9)-(10) states that a minimally entangling operator belongs to one of the two local-equivalence classes (V_A⊗V_B) SI (W_A⊗W_B) or (V_A⊗V_B) SW (W_A⊗W_B), with independent local unitaries. The paper, however, restricts to the linear combination M = A SI + B SW in Eq. (45). These are not the same condition. For N=2, take M = (U⊗I) SW with U a non-diagonal SU(2) rotation; this is of the form (10) and hence preserves separability, but it is not in span{I,SW} and does not commute with V⊗V for generic V. Thus the emergent SU(N) symmetry follows from the extra span ansatz, not from minimal entanglement. In fact, span{I,SW} is exactly the commutant of the diagonal U⊗U action by Schur-Weyl duality, so the conclusion restates the ansatz rather than deriving symmetry from an information-theoretic principle. The abstract's 'central result' should be substantially downgraded or the paper reframed.
  2. [Eq. (12), definition of SW] The operator defined in Eq. (12) is not the SWAP gate under the paper's stated normalization Tr(T_a T_b)=δ_ab/2. The standard identity is Σ_a (T_a)_{ki}(T_a)_{lj} = (1/2)(δ_kj δ_li - (1/N)δ_ki δ_lj), so the correct SWAP is P = (1/N) I⊗I + 2 Σ_a T_a⊗T_a. Substituting Eq. (12) gives matrix elements (1/N)[(N^2-2)/(N^2-1) δ_ki δ_lj + N/(N^2-1) δ_kj δ_li], not δ_kj δ_li. The commutator calculation in Eqs. (15)-(16) should be redone with the correct SWAP definition; the final diagonal-subgroup conclusion is likely unchanged, but the canonical representative of the SWAP equivalence class is misidentified.
  3. [Eq. (43), correlation coefficient for SU(N)-symmetric amplitudes] The stated expression C_ab = (M_Adj - M_1)δ_ab/2 appears to have the wrong sign and an incorrect prefactor. Using the projectors of Eq. (34) and the trace formula C_ab = 4 Tr(M T_a⊗T_b) from Eq. (20), a direct calculation gives Tr(P_1 T_a⊗T_b) = δ_ab/4 and Tr(P_Adj T_a⊗T_b) = -δ_ab/4, so for M = M_1 P_1 + M_Adj P_Adj one obtains C_ab = (M_1 - M_Adj)δ_ab, not the expression in the paper. The conclusion that C_ab=0 forces M ∝ I⊗I is unchanged, so this is a correctable technical error rather than a fatal one.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusions] The phrase 'span of minimally entangling operators' is misleading: the paper actually studies the span of the two canonical representatives SI and SW, and generic elements of this span (e.g., SI+SW) are not minimally entangling. The terminology should be adjusted to avoid implying that the span itself consists of entanglement-suppressing operators.
  2. [Footnote 2, Eq. (12)] The footnote claims an 'additional factor of 2N' is due to a different normalization, but the stated normalization Tr(T_a T_b)=δ_ab/2 is the same as in Refs. [3-5]. This footnote should be reconciled with the corrected SWAP formula.
  3. [Perturbative scattering of qudits, Eqs. (24)-(28)] The sentence describing these relations as 'fundamental to the structure of the S-matrix' is too strong, since they follow from the sufficient condition C_ab=0; the paper itself acknowledges this is not necessary. A softer formulation would be more precise.
  4. [Abstract and Eq. (13)] There is a small typo in the abstract ('theS-matrix' should have a space) and in Eq. (13) the notation 'S∼I(W)' is ambiguous; it should be written as 'S∼I' or 'S∼W' separately.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The central 'emergent SU(N)' claim is built into the span ansatz: Eq. (45) is the commutant of U⊗U, so the symmetry is assumed by construction rather than derived from entanglement suppression.

  1. self definitional [Abstract and Section 'Emergence of SU(N) symmetry', Eq. (45)]
    "As a central result, we show that constraining the S-matrix to the span of minimally entangling operators is equivalent to realizing an emergent SU(N) global symmetry. ... To make this precise, consider an amplitude of the form M(s,t,u)=A(s,t,u)SI+B(s,t,u)SW. (45) From our earlier calculation it clearly follows that [M,U⊗U]=0, where U⊗U defines the action of SU(N) on the Hilbert space."

    Eq. (45) is not implied by minimal entanglement; it is the definition of a U⊗U-invariant amplitude. By Schur-Weyl duality, the commutant of the diagonal SU(N) representation on C^N⊗C^N is exactly span{SI,SW} (identity and swap). The subsequent Schur's-lemma argument (Eqs. 46-47) merely proves this standard equivalence. The conclusion 'imposing the S-matrix to be in the span ... provides an information-theoretic way to realize an SU(N) global symmetry' therefore restates the ansatz: the SU(N) symmetry is put in by choosing the commutant, not derived from entanglement suppression. No step in the derivation forces the amplitude to commute with U⊗U; the constraint that does so is the span ansatz itself.

  2. other [Eqs. (9)-(10) and Eq. (45) / concluding paragraph]
    "if S(s,Ω) preserves separability then it must be of the form S∼I = (VA⊗VB)· SI· (WA⊗WB), (9) or S∼W = (VA⊗VB)· SW· (WA⊗WB), (10) ... We conclude that imposing the S-matrix to be in the span of the minimal entanglers, span{SI, SW}, provides an information-theoretic way to realize an SU(N) global symmetry."

    The quoted classification says minimally entangling operators belong to two local-equivalence classes, i.e. products of local unitaries around SI or SW. It does not say they form the linear span of the two canonical representatives. For N=2, (U⊗I)SW with non-diagonal U is in class (10) but is not in span{I,SW}; conversely SI+SW maps |01⟩ to |01⟩+|10⟩, an entangled state, so generic span elements are not separability-preserving. Replacing the actual constraint (the two orbits of local unitaries) by span{SI,SW} is an additional basis-dependent ansatz. That replacement, not entanglement suppression, is what makes the amplitude commute with U⊗U and hence yields the 'emergent' SU(N).

full rationale

The paper contains a genuinely self-contained derivation of selection rules from Cab=0 (Eqs. 21-28) and correctly notes those are exact conditions on the operator structure; that part is not circular. The circularity is confined to the central 'emergence' claim. The classification of separability-preserving gates (Eqs. 9-10), cited from prior work, supports only local-equivalence classes. The paper's leap to Eq. (45), M=A SI+B SW, is exactly the commutant of the diagonal SU(N) action by Schur-Weyl duality, so proving [M,U⊗U]=0 and applying Schur's lemma is a proof of a tautology: the ansatz already is SU(N)-invariance. The abstract's 'equivalent to realizing an emergent SU(N) global symmetry' therefore overstates the result — the symmetry is assumed by the span ansatz, not derived from entanglement suppression. I do not see a load-bearing self-citation issue: the cited classification results are external and not the source of the reduction. Score 7 reflects that the paper's main advertised result is definitionally circular, while other parts (Cab=0 selection rules, projector decompositions) remain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is small: no numerical fits and no invented physical entities. The paper's results rest on standard representation theory (Schur's lemma, completeness of SU(N) generators), two domain assumptions (factorization of one-particle states, the external classification of separability-preserving operators), and one ad hoc assumption that is the true load-bearer: that the physical condition of minimal entanglement can be replaced by membership in the linear span of the identity and swap operators. The ad hoc assumption is where the SU(N) symmetry enters.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption One-particle states factorize as |p,λ;i> = |p,λ>⊗|i> with a finite-dimensional qudit flavor space.
    Footnote 1: decoupling of internal quantum numbers for one-particle states is guaranteed in theories with a mass gap (Coleman-Mandula), assumed implicitly in general (Witten). The entire gate picture depends on this factorization.
  • standard math The S-matrix is a unitary operator on the bipartite flavor Hilbert space, and its kinematic part S(s,Ω) can be decomposed in the operator basis {I⊗I, Ta⊗I, I⊗Ta, Ta⊗Tb}.
    Standard operator-basis expansion for linear maps on HN⊗HN; exact parametrization, Eqs. (7)-(8).
  • domain assumption Operators preserving the set of separable states are exactly those locally equivalent to SI or SW (classification of Alfsen-Shultz, Friedland et al., and others).
    External classification results cited in Refs. [25-27]; used to claim the set of minimally entangling operators has two equivalence classes.
  • ad hoc to paper The physically relevant constraint is S ∈ span{SI, SW}, i.e., M = A SI + B SW.
    This is the central ansatz in Eq. (45). It is not derived from the classification; it is what makes the SU(N) result follow, and generic elements of the span are not separability-preserving operators.
  • standard math Schur's lemma and Schur-Weyl duality: the commutant of the diagonal SU(N) action on N⊗N is spanned by I and SWAP.
    Used in §Emergence of SU(N) symmetry to argue PR M PR'=0 for R≠R' and PR M PR ∝ 1; standard representation theory.
  • standard math Lorentz invariance and the partial-wave expansion with Wigner D-functions.
    Used in Eq. (37) for the kinematic part of the amplitude; standard in helicity amplitude analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry, entanglement, and the $S$-matrix." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TTNHE3HR

@misc{pith2026250421079,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry, entanglement, and the $S$-matrix},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TTNHE3HR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21079}
}
abstract

We present a general framework connecting global symmetries to the relativistic $S$-matrix through the lens of quantum information theory. Analyzing the 2-to-2 scattering of particles of any helicity, we systematically characterize relativistic scattering amplitudes as quantum gates in the bipartite space of states with a discrete quantum number. This formalism naturally recovers and significantly extends previous results on entanglement suppression of the $S$-matrix, providing a comprehensive approach for studying the emergence of symmetries from an information-theoretic perspective. As a central result, we show that constraining the $S$-matrix to the span of minimally entangling operators is equivalent to realizing an emergent $SU(N)$ global symmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21079 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Scattering of qudits, for a pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

  1. Magic without a phase: phase-independent stabilizer R\'enyi entropy in gluon scattering

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A phase-averaged stabilizer Rényi entropy is introduced for tree-level gluon scattering, with color-independent phase-independent magic that is larger in 3→2 than 2→2 and has a soft-limit lower bound in 2→3.

  2. Flavor--Kinetic Entanglement Production from Decay and Scattering at Finite Density

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At finite density, the leading flavor-kinetic entanglement entropy equals twice the occupation-weighted branch-changing collision probability, and this quantity is used to diagnose first-order versus continuous therma...

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

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

  4. Entanglement, Yang-Mills, and the Scattering Matrix as an SU(N)-equivariant Kernel

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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...

  5. Spin versus Magic: Lessons from Gluon and Graviton Scattering

    hep-th 2025-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    For 2 to 2 scattering of massless spin-1/2 to spin-2 particles, the averaged generated magic decreases monotonically with spin, with maxima well below the two-qubit upper bound.

  6. Emergent symmetry in a two-Higgs-doublet model from quantum information and nonstabiliserness

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Imposing magic conservation, equivalent to commutativity of the initial density matrix and the T-matrix, in 2-to-2 two-Higgs-doublet scattering yields SO(8) for arbitrary initial states and SU(2)_R for definite-isospi...

  7. Entanglement Maximization and Mirror Symmetry in Two-Higgs-Doublet Models

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Maximal flavor entanglement in 2HDM Higgs scattering forces a U(2)×U(2)-symmetric potential, six Goldstone bosons, and a Z2-related mirror fermion sector.

  8. Characterizing entanglement dynamics in QED scattering processes

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The spectrum of a QED scattering matrix predicts which maximally entangled fixed points repeated fermion scattering approaches, and how quickly.

  9. Entanglement saturation in quantum electrodynamics scattering processes

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Iterated tree-level QED scattering maps saturate helicity entanglement to maximally entangled Bell states for fermion-fermion processes, except in stated zero-initial-entropy-gain cases, and do so only partially when ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    E. P. Wigner, On Unitary Representations of the Inho- mogeneous Lorentz Group, Annals Math. 40, 149 (1939)

    work page 1939

  2. [2]

    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), arXiv:1812.03138 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Low and T

    I. Low and T. Mehen, Symmetry from entangle- ment suppression, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074014 (2021), arXiv:2104.10835 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and T. Mehen, Minimal entanglement and 4 I thank Ian Low for this point. emergent symmetries in low-energy QCD, Phys. Rev. C 107, 025204 (2023), arXiv:2210.12085 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Liu and I

    Q. Liu and I. Low, Hints of entanglement suppression in hyperon-nucleon scattering, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138899 (2024), arXiv:2312.02289 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    T.-R. Hu, S. Chen, and F.-K. Guo, Entanglement sup- pression and low-energy scattering of heavy mesons, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014001 (2024), arXiv:2404.05958 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    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, Phys. Rev. D 109, L051901 (2024), arXiv:2307.08112 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Kowalska and E

    K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo, Entanglement in flavored scalar scattering, JHEP 07, 156, arXiv:2404.13743 [hep- 6 ph]

    arXiv

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Chang and G

    S. Chang and G. Jacobo, Consequences of minimal en- tanglement in bosonic field theories, Phys. Rev. D 110, 096020 (2024), arXiv:2409.13030 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Thaler and S

    J. Thaler and S. Trifinopoulos, Flavor patterns of fun- damental particles from quantum entanglement?, Phys. Rev. D 111, 056021 (2025), arXiv:2410.23343 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    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), arXiv:1703.02989 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    G. A. Miller, Entanglement maximization in low-energy neutron-proton scattering, Phys. Rev. C 108, L031002 (2023), arXiv:2306.03239 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    R. E. Cutkosky, A Mechanism for the Induction of Sym- metries Among the Strong Interactions, Phys. Rev. 131, 1888 (1963)

    1963

  6. [14]

    R. H. Capps, Prediction of an interaction symmetry from dispersion relations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 312 (1963)

    1963

  7. [15]

    E. C. G. Sudarshan, L. O’Raifeartaigh, and T. S. San- thanam, Origin of unitary symmetry and charge con- servation in strong interactions, Phys. Rev. 136, B1092 (1964)

    1964

  8. [16]

    Leutwyler and G

    H. Leutwyler and G. Sudarshan, Dynamical symmetries and symmetry algebras, Phys. Rev. 156, 1637 (1967)

    1967

  9. [17]

    S. R. Coleman and J. Mandula, All Possible Symmetries of the S Matrix, Phys. Rev. 159, 1251 (1967)

    1967

  10. [18]

    Witten, Introduction to Supersymmetry, in 19th In- ternational School of Subnuclear Physics: The Unity of the Fundamental Interactions (1983) pp

    E. Witten, Introduction to Supersymmetry, in 19th In- ternational School of Subnuclear Physics: The Unity of the Fundamental Interactions (1983) pp. 305–371

    1983

  11. [19]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, On the General Theory of Collisions for Particles with Spin, Annals Phys. 7, 404 (1959)

    1959

  12. [20]

    Georgi, LIE ALGEBRAS IN PARTICLE PHYSICS

    H. Georgi, LIE ALGEBRAS IN PARTICLE PHYSICS. FROM ISOSPIN TO UNIFIED THEORIES , Vol. 54 (1982)

    1982

  13. [21]

    Ramond, Group theory: A physicist’s survey (2010)

    P. Ramond, Group theory: A physicist’s survey (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Khaneja and S

    N. Khaneja and S. Glaser, Cartan Decomposition of SU(2ˆn), Constructive Controllability of Spin sys- tems and Universal Quantum Computing, (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0010100

    2000 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kraus and J

    B. Kraus and J. I. Cirac, Optimal creation of entangle- ment using a two-qubit gate, Phys. Rev. A 63, 062309 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Vala, K. B. Whaley, and S. Sastry, Geometric theory of nonlocal two-qubit operations, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042313 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0209120

    2003 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Alfsen and F

    E. Alfsen and F. Shultz, Unique decomposi- tions, faces, and automorphisms of separable states, Journal of Mathematical Physics 51, 052201 (2010), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.3399808/13302408/052201 1 online.pdf

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    N. J. and, Characterizing operations preserving sep- arability measures via linear preserver problems, Linear and Multilinear Algebra 59, 1171 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1080/03081087.2011.596540

    2011

  19. [27]

    Friedland, C.-K

    S. Friedland, C.-K. Li, Y.-T. Poon, and N.-S. Sze, The automorphism group of separable states in quantum information theory, Journal of Mathematical Physics 52, 042203 (2011), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.3578015/14750704/042203 1 online.pdf

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    J. E. Mandula, DIAGRAMMATIC TECHNIQUES IN GROUP THEORY, (1981)

    1981

  21. [29]

    S. U. Chung, SPIN FORMALISMS 10.5170/CERN- 1971-008 (1971)

    1971 doi

  22. [30]

    Cvitanovic, Group Theory: Birdtracks, Lie’s, and Ex- ceptional Groups (Princeton University Press, 2020)

    P. Cvitanovic, Group Theory: Birdtracks, Lie’s, and Ex- ceptional Groups (Princeton University Press, 2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Cheung, T

    C. Cheung, T. He, and A. Sivaramakrishnan, Entropy growth in perturbative scattering, Phys. Rev. D 108, 045013 (2023), arXiv:2304.13052 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aoude, G

    R. Aoude, G. Elor, G. N. Remmen, and O. Sumensari, Positivity in Amplitudes from Quantum Entanglement, (2024), arXiv:2402.16956 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. D. White and M. J. White, Magic states of top quarks, Phys. Rev. D 110, 116016 (2024), arXiv:2406.07321 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin, An Area Law for Entanglement En- tropy in Particle Scattering, (2024), arXiv:2405.08056 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin, Elastic cross section is entan- glement entropy, Phys. Rev. D 111, 065027 (2025), arXiv:2410.22414 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, Quantum Magic in Quantum Electrodynamics, (2025), arXiv:2503.03098 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Aoude, A

    R. Aoude, A. J. Barr, F. Maltoni, and L. Satrioni, De- coherence effects in entangled fermion pairs at colliders, (2025), arXiv:2504.07030 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    E. P. Wigner, On kinematic and dynamic laws of sym- metry, in Part I: Particles and Fields. Part II: Founda- tions of Quantum Mechanics , edited by A. S. Wightman (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1997) pp. 107–108

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.