Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Bhabha scattering between an electron and positron generates genuine tripartite entanglement when the positron starts entangled with a spectator electron.

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 · grok-4.3

2026-07-01 08:57 UTC pith:YPNBZSWM

load-bearing objection Bhabha scattering with a spectator produces GTE via standard measures, but the result follows directly from applying known tools to tree-level amplitudes. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2604.26380 v2 pith:YPNBZSWM submitted 2026-04-29 quant-ph

Genuine tripartite entanglement in Bhabha scattering with an entangled spectator particle

Zan Cao , Meng-Long Song , Xue-Ke Song , Liu Ye , Dong Wang This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords Bhabha scatteringgenuine tripartite entanglementquantum electrodynamicsspectator particlemonogamy of entanglementquantum discordtree-level QED
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that tree-level QED Bhabha scattering between electron A and positron B, with B initially entangled to non-interacting spectator C, produces a genuine tripartite entangled state in the full ABC system. Four canonical tripartite entanglement measures are used to quantify the generated GTE, which is controlled primarily by the A-B scattering momentum and the strength of the initial B-C entanglement. The work further shows that monogamy constraints on squared entanglement of formation and squared quantum discord loosen in the non-relativistic regime, permitting greater shareability of correlations among the three particles. This identifies scattering as a process that can create multipartite quantum resources from bipartite ones in fundamental interactions.

Core claim

In tree-level Bhabha scattering of incident electron A with positron B, where B is initially entangled with spectator electron C that takes no part in the interaction, the QED scattering drives the composite ABC system into a genuine tripartite entangled state. The generated GTE is characterized and quantified with four standard tripartite entanglement metrics, and its magnitude is governed by the scattering momentum of the A-B pair together with the initial B-C entanglement. Monogamy relations for squared entanglement of formation and squared quantum discord are found to be relaxed in the non-relativistic limit, allowing enhanced shareability of quantum correlations across the three particl

What carries the argument

The tree-level Bhabha scattering amplitude in QED acting on an A-B pair whose positron B is pre-entangled with spectator C, producing a final ABC state whose genuine tripartite entanglement is evaluated by four canonical metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The spectator electron C remains completely non-interacting throughout the process and only tree-level QED contributions are considered.

What would settle it

Numerical computation of the four tripartite entanglement measures on the final density matrix of ABC yields zero genuine tripartite entanglement for all values of scattering momentum and initial B-C entanglement.

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

If this is right

  • Higher A-B scattering momentum increases the amount of generated genuine tripartite entanglement.
  • Stronger initial B-C entanglement produces higher final GTE in the ABC system.
  • Monogamy constraints on squared entanglement of formation and squared quantum discord become less restrictive in the non-relativistic regime.
  • Scattering momentum and initial entanglement serve as tunable resources for controlling multipartite entanglement in QED processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Scattering could serve as an indirect method to distribute entanglement to a third party without requiring direct interaction with that party.
  • Low-energy electron-positron experiments might observe the predicted GTE and relaxed monogamy.
  • Analogous generation of GTE may occur in other tree-level QED processes involving an entangled spectator.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates tree-level Bhabha scattering in QED between incident electron A and positron B, where B is initially entangled with a non-interacting spectator electron C. It claims that the scattering drives the ABC system into a genuine tripartite entangled state, which is quantified using four canonical tripartite entanglement metrics. Scattering momentum and initial B-C entanglement are identified as controlling resources. The work further examines monogamy relations for squared entanglement of formation and squared quantum discord, reporting that these constraints are relaxed in the non-relativistic regime.

Significance. If the calculations hold, the result demonstrates a concrete mechanism for generating GTE via a standard QED process with an entangled spectator, extending quantum information concepts to relativistic scattering. The use of multiple standard metrics and the monogamy analysis provide a systematic characterization that could inform protocols for distributing quantum correlations in particle-based systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (post-scattering state and GTE metrics): the claim that the QED interaction generates GTE rests on the post-scattering density matrix; the manuscript must explicitly verify that the state is not biseparable across all three partitions (A|BC, B|AC, C|AB) rather than relying on generic arguments, as the tree-level amplitude may yield separable cases for certain momentum choices.
  2. [§4] §4 (monogamy relations): the statement that monogamy constraints are 'markedly relaxed' in the non-relativistic regime is load-bearing for the shareability claim; without a direct quantitative comparison (e.g., ratio of monogamy scores or explicit bounds) between relativistic and non-relativistic limits using the same initial state, the relaxation cannot be assessed as significant.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the four canonical metrics are not named; explicitly listing them (e.g., GTE concurrence, residual entanglement, etc.) would aid readability.
  2. [Model section] Notation throughout: the initial B-C state is described as entangled but its explicit two-qubit form (e.g., specific Bell state coefficients) should be stated in the model section for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address the major points below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the claims on genuine tripartite entanglement and monogamy relations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (post-scattering state and GTE metrics): the claim that the QED interaction generates GTE rests on the post-scattering density matrix; the manuscript must explicitly verify that the state is not biseparable across all three partitions (A|BC, B|AC, C|AB) rather than relying on generic arguments, as the tree-level amplitude may yield separable cases for certain momentum choices.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of non-biseparability for all three partitions is required. The four GTE metrics already vanish on biseparable states, but to address potential separable cases at specific momenta we will add in the revised §3 explicit checks (via partial transpose and other witnesses) over the full momentum and initial-entanglement ranges considered, confirming the post-scattering state is entangled across A|BC, B|AC and C|AB wherever the metrics indicate GTE. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (monogamy relations): the statement that monogamy constraints are 'markedly relaxed' in the non-relativistic regime is load-bearing for the shareability claim; without a direct quantitative comparison (e.g., ratio of monogamy scores or explicit bounds) between relativistic and non-relativistic limits using the same initial state, the relaxation cannot be assessed as significant.

    Authors: We accept that a direct quantitative comparison is needed. In the revised §4 we will include a new table (or figure) that evaluates the monogamy scores for squared entanglement of formation and squared quantum discord on identical initial B-C states, explicitly comparing the relativistic and non-relativistic limits and reporting ratios or differences to quantify the relaxation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses standard QED amplitudes and canonical entanglement measures

full rationale

The central construction starts from an initial bipartite entangled state of B-C, applies the tree-level Bhabha scattering unitary (standard QED Feynman rules, no fitted parameters) acting only on A-B while C evolves freely, then evaluates the resulting ABC state with four off-the-shelf tripartite entanglement metrics (e.g., residual entanglement, genuine tripartite negativity). All steps are direct computations from the interaction Hamiltonian and the chosen initial state; no quantity is defined in terms of another, no prediction is a renamed fit, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation chain. Monogamy relations are likewise evaluated on the explicitly computed correlation functions using known inequalities. The model is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all technical details of the QED amplitudes and entanglement calculations are absent.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5767 in / 1073 out tokens · 27217 ms · 2026-07-01T08:57:30.401718+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

From the perspective of quantum information science, we investigate tree-level Bhabha scattering between an incident electron $A$ and a positron $B$, where $B$ is initially entangled with a spectator electron $C$, which does not participate in the scattering interaction. We find that the quantum electrodynamics (QED) scattering between $A$ and $B$ can drive the global $ABC$ system into a genuine tripartite entangled (GTE) state. Using four canonical tripartite entanglement metrics, we systematically characterize and quantify the GTE of the composite system, and demonstrate that the scattering momentum of the $A$-$B$ pair and the initial $B$-$C$ entanglement are the key resources governing GTE generation. We further analyze the monogamy of quantum correlations, which imposes fundamental constraints on the shareability of quantum resources in multipartite systems. Specifically, we systematically study the monogamy relations for the squared entanglement of formation and squared quantum discord in our scattering model, and find that monogamy constraints are markedly relaxed in the non-relativistic regime, enabling enhanced shareability of quantum correlations across the three particles. This work uncovers novel quantum correlation properties of fundamental QED scattering processes, and provides direct theoretical guidance for the development of QED-based quantum information processing protocols.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26380 by Dong Wang, Liu Ye, Meng-Long Song, Xue-Ke Song, Zan Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Consider the QED scattering process between elec view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The GTE is plotted against the scattering angle view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The GTE is plotted against the scattering angle view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The GTE is plotted against the scattering angle view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The entanglement monogamy relation is shown against the scattering angle view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Residual entanglement is plotted as a function of the view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Monogamy relation of quantum discord is depicted as a function of scattering angle view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Residual discord is plotted as a function of scattering view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. Binary Gauss Stabilizers for Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Binary Gauss stabilizers provide a non-Pauli stabilizer description of the physical subspace of Z_{2^η} lattice gauge theories, enabling bit-flip error correction and gauge fixing from gauge constraints alone.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    It is defined as the optimal distance between the given state and the set of non-genuine multipartite entangled states

    Generalized geometric measure The GGM [44–46] quantifies the degree of genuine mul- tipartite entanglement for an arbitraryn-partite pure state|ψ N ⟩. It is defined as the optimal distance between the given state and the set of non-genuine multipartite entangled states. Its explicit form is given below G(|ψN ⟩) = 1−Λ 2 max(|ψN ⟩),(10) where Λmax (|ψN ⟩) =...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Following the approach outlined in Ref

    Three-πentanglement For a tripartite pure state|ψ⟩ ABC, the Coff- man–Kundu–Wootters (CKW)-like monogamy inequal- ity quantified via negativity [54] is given by N2 AB +N 2 AC ≤N 2 A(BC) ,(13) whereN AB andN AC denote the sum of the negative eigenvalues of the partial transpose matrices of the re- duced statesρ AB = TrC(ρABC) andρ AC = TrB(ρABC), respectiv...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Genuinely multipartite concurrence The GMC is a computable measure for quantifying multipartite entanglement, based on the well-known con- currence [48]. For ann-partite pure state|Ψ⟩ ∈ H 1⊗H2⊗ · · · ⊗ Hn, the GMC is defined as CGMC(|Ψ⟩) = min γi∈γ q 2[1−Tr(ρ 2 Aγi )] (18) whereγ={γ i}represents the entire set of all possible bipartitions{A i|Bi}of the se...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In this formu- lation, the side lengths of the triangle are equal to the squares of the three bipartite concurrences

    Concurrence fill For tripartite entangled states, concurrence fill was in- troduced as a robust entanglement measure based on the entanglement triangle area method [49]. In this formu- lation, the side lengths of the triangle are equal to the squares of the three bipartite concurrences. With Heron’s triangle area formula, the concurrence fill is defined a...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Monogamy relation for SEF For an arbitrary two-qubit stateρ AB, Wootters [58] derived an explicit analytical expression for the entan- glement of formation. Ef (ρAB) =H  1 + q 1− |C(ρ AB)|2 2   ,(22) whereH(x) =−xlog 2 x−(1−x) log 2(1−x) is the binary entropy,C(ρ AB) = max √λ1 − √λ2 − √λ3 − √λ4,0 denotes the concurrence of the density matrixρAB. Here,...

    work page

  6. [6]

    [59, 60] D(ρAB) = eS(ρA|ρB)−S(ρ A|ρB),(24) where eS(ρA|ρB) = min {M B j } P j pjS ρA|j denotes the measurement-induced quantum conditional entropy

    Monogamy relation for SQD Apart from entanglement, quantum discord (QD) is another pivotal measure of bipartite quantum correla- tion, with its formal definition provided in Refs. [59, 60] D(ρAB) = eS(ρA|ρB)−S(ρ A|ρB),(24) where eS(ρA|ρB) = min {M B j } P j pjS ρA|j denotes the measurement-induced quantum conditional entropy. Here,{M B j }is a positive op...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Einstein, B

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

    work page 1935

  8. [8]

    Schrodinger, Proc

    E. Schrodinger, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.31, 555 (1935)

    work page 1935

  9. [9]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, J. Stat. Mech.8, P06002 (2004)

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta J. Phys. A49, 504007 (2009)

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    D. R. Terno,Quantum Information Processing: From Theory to Experiment, edited by D. G. Angelakis et al.(IOP Press, Amsterdam, 2006)

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    S. R. Beane, D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 102001 (2019). 13

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Fan and X

    J. Fan and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, 016011 (2018)

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, J. High Energy Phys.12, 017 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Sinha and A

    A. Sinha and A. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D108, 025015 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C108, L041601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    J. Fan, G. M. Deng, and X. J. Ren, Phys. Rev. D104, 116021 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Peschanski and S

    R. Peschanski and S. Seki, Phys. Lett. B758, 89 (2016)

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    Fedida and A

    S. Fedida and A. Serafini, Phys. Rev. D107, 116007 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Aoude, M

    R. Aoude, M. Z. Chung, Y. T. Huang, C. S. Machado, and M. K. Tam, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 181602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    D. E. Kharzeev and E. M. Levin, Phys. Rev. D95, 114008 (2017)

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Blasone, S

    M. Blasone, S. De Siena, G. Lambiase, C. Matrella, and B. Micciola, Phys. Rev. D111, 016007 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    B. L. Ye, L. Y. Xue, Z. Q. Zhu, D. D. Shi, and S. M. Fei, Phys. Rev. D110, 055025 (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and G. Panizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 161801 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Bernabeu, A

    J. Bernabeu, A. Di Domenico, and P. Villanueva-Perez, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2015) 139

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    Lello, D

    L. Lello, D. Boyanovsky, and R. Holman, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2013) 116

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. Mu˜ noz de Nova Quantum16, 820 (2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. Mu˜ noz de Nova Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 221801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Y. Afik, Y. Kats, J. R. Mu˜ noz de Nova, A. Soffer, and D. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D111, L111902 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, and F. Illuminati, Europhys. Lett.106, 30002 (2014)

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, and F. Illuminati, Adv. High Energy Phys.2014, 359168 (2014)

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    Bittencourt, M

    V. Bittencourt, M. Blasone, and G. Zanfardino, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2533, 012024 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    J. A. Formaggio, D. I. Kaiser, M. M. Murskyj, and T. E. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 050402 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Naikoo, A

    J. Naikoo, A. K. Alok, S. Banerjee, and S. U. Sankar, Phys. Rev. D99, 095001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Illuminati, L. Petruzziello, and L. Smal- done, Phys. Rev. A108, 032210 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Gangopadhyay, D

    D. Gangopadhyay, D. Home, and A. S. Roy, Phys. Rev. A88, 022115 (2013)

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    X. K. Song, Y. Huang, J. Ling, and M. H. Yung, Phys. Rev. A98, 050302 (2018)

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    F. Ming, X. K. Song, J. Ling, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 275 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    D. Wang, F. Ming, X. K. Song, L. Ye, and J. L. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C800, 800 (2020)

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Y. W. Li, L. J. Li, X. K. Song, D. Wang, and L. Ye, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 799 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    G. J. Wang, L. J. Li, X. K. Song, and D. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Cervera-Lierta, J

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli, SciPost Phys.3, 036 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Maximal Entanglement: Applications in Quantum Information and Particle Physics

    A. Cervera-Lierta, arXiv:1906.12099

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1906

  45. [45]

    Massimo, G

    B. Massimo, G. L. Silvio De Siena, M. Cristina, and M. Bruno, arXiv:2505.06878

    work page arXiv

  46. [46]

    J. B. Araujo, B. Hiller, I. G. da Paz, Manoel M. Ferreira, Marcos Sampaio, and H. A. S. Costa, Phys. Rev. D100, 105018 (2019). spectator particle

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    J. D. Fonseca, B. Hiller, J. B. Araujo, I. G. da Paz, and M. Sampaio, Phys. Rev. D106, 056015 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Blasone, G

    M. Blasone, G. Lambiase, and B. Micciola, Phys. Rev. D 109, 096022 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Sen(De) and U

    A. Sen(De) and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A81, 012308 (2010)

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    T. Das, S. Singha Roy, S. Bagchi, A. Misra, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A94, 022336 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    Sadhukhan, S

    D. Sadhukhan, S. S. Roy, A. K. Pal, D. Rakshit, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A95, 022301 (2017)

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Y. C. Ou and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. A75, 062308 (2007)

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    Z. H. Ma, Z. H. Chen, and J. L. Chen, Phys. Rev. A83, 062325 (2011)

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    S. B. Xie and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 040403 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Y. K. Bai, Y. F. Xu, and Z. D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 100503 (2014)

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    Y. K. Bai, N. Zhang, M. Y. Ye, and Z. D. Wang, Phys. Rev. A88, 012123 (2013)

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    S. M. Zangi, C. Shukla, A. u. Rahman, and B. Zheng, Entropy25, 415 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    T. L. Wang, P. Wang, Z. A. Zhao, S. Zhang, R. Z. Zhao, X. Y. Yang, H. F. Zhang, Z. F. Li, and Y. Wu, PRX Quantum7, 010348 (2026)

    work page 2026

  60. [60]

    T. J. Osborne and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 20503 (2006)

    work page 2006

  61. [61]

    D. A. Meyer and N. R. Wallach, J. Math. Phys.43, 4273 (2002)

    work page 2002

  62. [62]

    G. K. Brennen, Quantum Inf. Comput.3, 619 (2003)

    work page 2003

  63. [63]

    Coffman, J

    V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A61, 052306(2000)

    work page 2000

  64. [64]

    W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 2245 (1998)

    work page 1998

  65. [65]

    Ollivier and W

    H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 017901 (2001)

    work page 2001

  66. [66]

    Henderson and V

    L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A34, 6899 (2001)

    work page 2001

  67. [67]

    Koashi and A

    M. Koashi and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. A69, 022309 (2004)

    work page 2004

  68. [68]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Nature (London) 633, 542 (2024)

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Rep. Prog. Phys.87, 117801 (2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration) Phys. Rev.D 110, 112016 (2024)

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    The CEPC Study Group, arXiv 2205.08553v1

    work page arXiv

  72. [72]

    Abada et al

    A. Abada et al. (FCC Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. Spe- cial Topics228, 261 (2019)

    work page 2019

  73. [73]

    H. J. Kimble, Nature (London)453, 1023 (2008)

    work page 2008

  74. [74]

    Y. P. Zhong, H. S. Chang, A. Bienfait, ´E. Dumur, M. H. Chou, C. R. Conner, J. Grebel, R. G. Povey, H. X. Yan, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland Nature (London)590, 571 (2021)

    work page 2021