Entanglement through high-energy scattering in noncommutative quantum electrodynamics

Carmelo P. Martin

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Entanglement through high-energy scattering in noncommutative quantum electrodynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In noncommutative QED, opposite-helicity photon scattering gives the same maximal-entanglement condition as QCD gluon scattering.

desk verdict First scattering-entanglement computation in noncommutative gauge theory with an interesting fermion channel, but the headline photon concurrence is not derived as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15350 v2 pith:Q5BP3UHV submitted 2025-06-18 hep-th hep-phquant-ph

Carmelo P. Martin This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thhep-phquant-ph

keywords noncommutativequantumelectrodynamicsentanglementconcurrencehelicityamplitudesspace-spacenoncommutativitygluonscatteringtree-level

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 studies entanglement produced by tree-level scattering in quantum electrodynamics on a canonical noncommutative spacetime, where spacetime coordinates do not commute and there is a minimum effective length. It focuses on processes that ordinary QED forbids: photon-photon scattering and scattering of massless zero-charge fermions. The main result is that for two incoming photons of opposite helicity, the concurrence is $\Delta = 2\tan^4(\theta/2)/(1+\tan^8(\theta/2))$, the same expression as for gluon scattering in ordinary Minkowski spacetime, so maximal entanglement is reached exactly at polar angle $\theta = \pi/2$ and is independent of the noncommutativity matrix. Head-on collisions of opposite-helicity fermions give the same formula, while a right-angle collision gives a concurrence that depends on energy, the noncommutativity matrix, and both scattering angles, with zeros for certain azimuths even at $\theta = \pi/2$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gluing formula of Ref. [46]: every tree-level four-photon amplitude on canonical noncommutative spacetime is a sum over permutations of the symmetric group $S_3$ of a phase factor $e^{-\frac{i}{2}\sum_{i<j} q_i\cdot\omega\cdot q_j}$ times the corresponding colour-ordered gluon amplitude. This imports the standard Parke-Taylor helicity selection rules of QCD: same-helicity configurations vanish and only the two opposite-helicity configurations survive. After summing the $s$-, $t$-, and $u$-channel diagrams together with the four-photon contact term, the two surviving amplitudes share the factor $C_1+C_2+(C_1-C_2)\cos\theta$ multiplying $e^{-2i\varphi}\cot(\theta/2)$ and $e^{-2i\varphi}\tan(\theta/2)$, respectively; the common factor cancels in the concurrence ratio and yields the gluon formula.

What would settle it

Evaluate the four tree-level diagrams in Eq. (3.6) for a noncommutativity matrix with all three spatial components nonzero, for example $c_1=c_2=c_3=1/\sqrt{3}$, and check whether the same-helicity amplitudes are exactly zero and whether $|\mathcal{M}(+-;+-)|/|\mathcal{M}(+-;-+)|$ equals $\tan^2(\theta/2)$ for several $\theta$ and $E/\Lambda_{\mathrm{nc}}$ values; any deviation falsifies the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at tree level in noncommutative QED with space-space noncommutativity, opposite-helicity photon scattering produces the concurrence $\Delta = 2\tan^4(\theta/2)/(1+\tan^8(\theta/2))$, exactly the expression obtained for gluon scattering in ordinary QCD. The paper shows that the only nonvanishing amplitudes are $\mathcal{M}(+-;+-)$ and $\mathcal{M}(+-;-+)$; they share a common factor that cancels in the concurrence, leaving the QCD expression. Thus maximal entanglement is achieved if and only if the polar angle $\theta = \pi/2$, independently of the noncommutativity matrix. The same expression is obtained for head-on laboratory-frame collisions of zero-charge fermions of opposite helicity, because in that frame the two phase factors are equal. In a right-angle collision, that equality fails and the concurrence depends on $E/\Lambda_{\mathrm{nc}}$, $\theta$, and $\phi$; at $\theta = \pi/2$ there are values of $\phi$ for which no entanglement is generated.

Load-bearing premise

The photon result rests on the gluing theorem of Ref. [46] that every tree-level four-photon amplitude in this theory is a phase factor times a colour-ordered gluon amplitude; if that identity does not hold for the two-in/two-out crossed amplitudes used in Section 3, or if the phases alter which helicity configurations cancel, the concurrence formula does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the photon result is right, measuring the concurrence of opposite-helicity photon scattering cannot distinguish noncommutative QED from ordinary QCD in this channel, because the expression is identical.
The same maximal-entanglement condition $\theta = \pi/2$ known from gluon scattering survives the noncommutative deformation for photons and for head-on zero-charge fermions, so the optimal scrambling angle is unchanged.
Massless zero-charge fermions, which are free particles in ordinary QED, scatter and become entangled in noncommutative spacetime; this is a purely geometric effect of spacetime noncommutativity.
In the right-angle fermion channel, the concurrence vanishes at four azimuths when $\theta = \pi/2$ and the energy is below a threshold, giving robust dead directions in which no entanglement is generated.

Reading between the lines

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

If the gluing theorem of Ref. [46] extends beyond four external photons, the same method would give entanglement measures for five-point and higher processes in noncommutative QED by mapping them onto known QCD amplitudes; this is a direct extension I would test next.
The cancellation of the noncommutativity-dependent factor in the photon concurrence suggests the ratio of the two surviving amplitudes is fixed by helicity conservation alone; a spinor-helicity proof might derive it without computing phase factors.
In the right-angle fermion collision, the azimuthal positions of the entanglement zeros rotate with the spatial orientation of the noncommutativity matrix, so those dead directions could in principle map the matrix $c_{ij}$ experimentally at energies near the noncommutativity scale.
A similar two-term final-state structure should appear in photon-fermion scattering in this theory; if so, the same ratio-symmetric concurrence formulas would follow, but this is not computed in the paper.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is the first computation of scattering-generated entanglement in a noncommutative gauge theory, and the idea of importing the concurrence machinery from Refs. [25,40] into NC QED is sensible. The head-on fermion result and the right-angle fermion channel with energy/matrix/angle dependence are original, and the paper cites the relevant literature honestly, with no self-citation in the chain.

The central photon claim, though, does not hold as written. Equation (3.10) has a typo—the second amplitude is labelled M(+−;+−) again—and, taken literally, gives |M(+−;+−)|/|M(+−;−+)| = cot(θ/2)/tan(θ/2) = t^−2. Feeding that into Eq. (3.5) yields Δ = 2t^2/(1+t^4), not the advertised Δ = 2t^4/(1+t^8). So the advertised equality with the gluon concurrence is not derived by the displayed equations. The typo might be harmless, but then the correct amplitudes that lead to the t^4 ratio are never shown. I also tried summing the printed contributions in Eq. (3.6) in the C1=C2 case and did not recover the claimed simple ratio; either there is a nontrivial identity omitted or there is an algebraic slip. This is the load-bearing step of the paper, so it has to be fixed before the photon result can be used.

The rest is more secure. The decomposition into color-ordered gluon amplitudes follows Huang–Huang–Jia, and the use of external benchmarks is clean. The right-angle fermion section is exploratory; showing zeros of Δ for one representative c-matrix is acceptable for a "there exist" claim, though the abstract's phrasing is a bit broader than what is actually demonstrated.

Who should read it: people working on entanglement in scattering and on noncommutative gauge theory phenomenology. The paper is clearly written and the author is honest about limitations. I would not cite the photon concurrence formula in its current form, but desk rejection would be wrong. This deserves serious referee time, with the referee asked to check the Section 3 algebra carefully.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies tree-level entanglement generation in noncommutative QED on a canonical noncommutative spacetime with space-space noncommutativity. The processes considered are photon-photon scattering and scattering of massless zero-charge fermions, both of which do not occur in ordinary QED. The author characterizes entanglement through the concurrence and claims: (i) opposite-helicity photon scattering gives the same concurrence as gluon scattering, Δ = 2 tan^4(θ/2)/(1+tan^8(θ/2)), with maximal entanglement iff θ = π/2; (ii) head-on fermion scattering gives the same Δ; and (iii) a right-angle fermion scattering setup yields a concurrence depending on energy, the noncommutativity matrix, and the polar and azimuth angles, with zeros at θ = π/2 for certain φ. The paper relies on the known decomposition of noncommutative four-photon amplitudes into color-ordered gluon amplitudes and on spinor-helicity methods.

Significance. If the photon result were correct, it would be an elegant and timely statement: entanglement generation in the photon channel would be independent of the noncommutativity matrix and identical to the ordinary gluon result, with maximal entanglement exactly at θ = π/2. The head-on fermion section is internally consistent, and the right-angle fermion section contains explicit formulas and numerical checks. The strategy of importing the noncommutative four-photon amplitude decomposition from Ref. [46] is appropriate, and I find no circularity: the target concurrence is not fed into the computation. However, the central photon calculation does not close as written. The displayed amplitudes do not imply the claimed concurrence, and direct summation of the displayed Feynman contributions gives a different angular dependence. Since the headline claim rests on this derivation, the manuscript in its current form does not establish its main result.

major comments (3)

[§3, Eq. (3.10)] Equations (3.10) and (3.5) are inconsistent. Interpreting the second line of (3.10) as M(+−;−+), as the notation requires, the two amplitudes are A cot(θ/2) and A tan(θ/2) up to a common factor. Substituting these into (3.5) gives Δ = 2 tan^2(θ/2)/(1 + tan^4(θ/2)), not the stated Δ = 2 tan^4(θ/2)/(1 + tan^8(θ/2)). The printed expression corresponds instead to a modulus ratio of tan^4(θ/2), whereas (3.10) gives a ratio of cot^2(θ/2). This step is the entire derivation of the paper's headline claim, so the claim is unsupported as written.
[§3, Eqs. (3.6)–(3.11)] The displayed Feynman amplitudes in (3.6) do not sum to the compact factors in (3.10). With C1 and C2 defined in (3.11) and t = tan(θ/2), the t-, u-, and four-point contributions combine to M(+−;+−) = e^{-2iφ}[2C1/(t^2(1+t^2)) + 2C2/(1+t^2)] and M(+−;−+) = e^{-2iφ}[C1(2t^2+2t^4) + C2(3t^4+t^6)]/(1+t^2)^2. For C1 = C2 = C these reduce to M(+−;+−) = 2C e^{-2iφ}/t^2 and M(+−;−+) = C e^{-2iφ} t^2(2+5t^2+t^4)/(1+t^2)^2, giving the modulus ratio |M(+−;−+)|/|M(+−;+−)| = t^4(2+5t^2+t^4)/(2(1+t^2)^2), which equals t^4 only at t = 1. Thus the claimed cancellation of the C1,C2 dependence and the equality with the gluon concurrence do not follow from the equations as printed. The missing spinor-helicity simplification needs to be supplied, or the displayed amplitudes corrected.
[§4.2, choice of c1,c2,c3] The footnote to the choice c1 = 1/√3, c2 = −1/√3, c3 = 1/√3 states that this choice is no loss of generality because ω_ij can be rotated appropriately. However, the paper itself emphasizes that active Lorentz transformations are not symmetries of the fixed-ω theory. A passive rotation that brings c to the chosen form also changes the coordinate components of the fixed incoming momenta p1 and p2. Unless the rotation is simultaneously applied to the momenta, the resulting scattering setup is not equivalent to the original one. Please state the symmetry being used explicitly, or present the chosen c as a representative configuration rather than as a general parametrization.

minor comments (5)

[§3, Eq. (3.8)] The two displayed equalities both read p̃1; the second should be p̃2.
[§3, Eq. (3.10)] The second amplitude in (3.10) is labelled M(+−;+−) again; it should be M(+−;−+).
[§4.2, first paragraph] The opening sentence refers to 'scattering process of two photons', but the section is about fermion scattering; this should read 'two fermions'.
[§4.2, text after Eq. (4.4)] The displayed value of xc is garbled ('2 ˆ 61{4 c π 2 `? 2'); please typeset the formula correctly.
[References] Reference [40] is cited only by arXiv identifier; if a journal version exists, it should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the photon concurrence result is an application of an external amplitude decomposition, not a fit or self-citation.

full rationale

No load-bearing circular step was found. The central photon-scattering computation proceeds from the Feynman rules (2.2), the explicit tree-level diagrams (3.6), and an external result [46] that expresses any tree-level four-photon amplitude on canonical noncommutative spacetime as a sum of phase factors times color-ordered gluon amplitudes. The helicity-selection vanishings are imported from [44], and the final comparison with the gluon concurrence is made against [40]; none of these citations is self-citational, and none embeds the target concurrence formula as an input. The equality with the gluon expression follows because the phase factors cancel in the modulus ratio, which is a legitimate derivation from an independent theorem rather than a renaming of the known result. Similarly, the fermion concurrence computations in Section 4 are direct Feynman-rule evaluations with no fitted parameters and no quantity defined in terms of the result being predicted. The manuscript does contain assertions that would need independent verification, such as the omitted explicit computations behind the helicity vanishings and the claim in footnote 5 that a particular choice of the noncommutativity matrix is no loss of generality; the skeptic's algebraic inconsistency in Eq. (3.10) and the printed concurrence (3.12) is also a correctness risk. However, these are verification or consistency issues, not circularity: the derivation chain is not reducing to its own inputs, and there is no self-citation chain doing load-bearing work. The correct circularity finding is therefore a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main results rest on the standard NC QED action, the external gluon-amplitude decomposition of Ref. [46], and one ad hoc representative choice of the noncommutativity matrix for the right-angle example. No new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameters are model inputs Λ_nc and c_i; they are not fitted to data, but the right-angle concurrence depends on them explicitly.

free parameters (2)

Noncommutativity scale Λ_nc
Introduced in Section 4.2 via ω=c/Λ_nc^2. It sets the ratio x=E/Λ_nc that controls the right-angle fermion concurrence. It is a model input, not fitted to data.
Dimensionless noncommutativity components c1,c2,c3 = c1=1/√3, c2=-1/√3, c3=1/√3 in the example
The right-angle concurrence is exhibited for this explicit choice of the noncommutativity matrix. The claim that this is representative is unproved and the text has a normalization typo.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The Moyal star product and the noncommutative U(1) action in Eq (2.1) with adjoint zero-charge fermions define the theory under study.
Standard NC QED model from references [6,10,11-23]; the paper does not derive it.
domain assumption Unitarity requires space-space noncommutativity, so ω0i=0, and the laboratory frame is defined so this condition holds.
Section 2, citing Refs. [42,43]; all amplitudes are computed in this frame.
domain assumption Every tree-level four-photon amplitude on canonical noncommutative spacetime equals a sum over S3 of phase factors times the corresponding color-ordered gluon amplitude (Ref. [46]).
Section 3; this external result is the main input that fixes which helicity amplitudes vanish.
standard math Helicity amplitudes with fewer than two positive and two negative helicities vanish (Parke-Taylor selection rules).
Section 3; standard spinor-helicity result from Ref. [44] used to restrict the nonzero matrix elements.
standard math For a pure two-particle final state, the concurrence Δ=2|ab-cd| correctly measures entanglement.
Section 3, Eq (3.3); standard definition used in Refs. [25,40].
domain assumption Passive Lorentz transformations can move to the zero-momentum frame while active Lorentz transformations are not symmetries.
Section 2 and Eq (3.7); this justifies defining the scattering angles in the boosted frame and rotating the noncommutativity matrix.
ad hoc to paper In the right-angle fermion setup, the choice c1=1/√3, c2=-1/√3, c3=1/√3 loses no generality.
Section 4.2; stated without proof, and the surrounding normalization text is inconsistent, so this premise is fragile.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement through high-energy scattering in noncommutative quantum electrodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5BP3UHV

@misc{pith2026250615350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement through high-energy scattering in noncommutative quantum electrodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5BP3UHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15350}
}

abstract

We analyze the tree-level generation of entanglement through some key scattering processes in massless quantum electrodynamics on canonical noncomutative spacetime with space-space type of noncommutativity. The fermions in the noncommutative theory will be zero charge fermions. The scattering processes we shall study do not occur in ordinary Minkowski spacetime. We shall use the concurrence to characterize the amount of entanglement generated through a given scattering process. We shall show that, at tree-level, the concurrence for the scattering of two photons of opposite helicity is given by the same expression as in the case of the scattering of gluons in ordinary Minkowski spacetime. Thus, maximal entanglement is achieved if and only if the polar scattering angle is equal to $\pi/2$. We also compute the concurrence for the head-on collision in the laboratory reference frame of two fermions of opposite helicity to obtain the same result as in the case of photon scattering. Finally, we shall study a type of collision at right angles in the laboratory frame of fermions with opposite helicity. We show that in the latter case the concurrence depends on energy of the incoming fermions, the noncommutativity matrix $\theta^{ij}$, the polar, $\theta$, and azimuth angle, $\phi$, of the zero-momentum frame of the incoming fermions. In this latter case we see that when $\theta=\pi/2$ there are values of $\phi$ for which no entanglement is generated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15350 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** x “ 3 and θ “ π{2 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 ϕ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Δ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** x “ 3.1 and θ “ π{2 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 ϕ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Δ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: ∆p1, φq ´ ∆p10´7 , φq. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[46]

J. H. Huang, R. Huang and Y. Jia, J. Phys. A 44 (2011), 425401 doi:10.1088/1751- 8113/44/42/425401 [arXiv:1009.5073 [hep-th]]. 21

work page Pith review arXiv 2011
[1]

Doplicher, K

S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J. E. Roberts, Commun. Math . Phys. 172 (1995), 187-220 doi:10.1007/BF02104515 [arXiv:hep-th/0303037 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1995
[2]

Ardalan, H

F. Ardalan, H. Arfaei and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, JHEP 02 (1999), 016 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/1999/02/016 [arXiv:hep-th/9810072 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1999
[3]

C. S. Chu and P. M. Ho, Nucl. Phys. B 550 (1999), 151-168 doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(99)00199-6 [arXiv:hep-th/9812219 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1999
[4]

Schomerus, JHEP 06 (1999), 030 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/06/030 [arXiv:hep- th/9903205 [hep-th]]

V. Schomerus, JHEP 06 (1999), 030 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/06/030 [arXiv:hep- th/9903205 [hep-th]]

work page arXiv 1999
[5]

Seiberg and E

N. Seiberg and E. Witten, JHEP 09 (1999), 032 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/09/032 [arXiv:hep-th/9908142 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1999
[6]

R. J. Szabo, Phys. Rept. 378 (2003), 207-299 doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00059-0 [arXiv:hep-th/0109162 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2003
[7]

Gayral, J

V. Gayral, J. M. Gracia-Bondia, B. Iochum, T. Schucker and J. C . Varilly, Commun. Math. Phys. 246 (2004), 569-623 doi:10.1007/s00220-004-1057-z [arXiv:hep-th/ 0307241 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/s00220-004-1057-z 2004

Show all 46 references

[8]

Connes, doi:10.1017/9781108854399.002 [arXiv:1910.10407 [ma th.QA]]

A. Connes, doi:10.1017/9781108854399.002 [arXiv:1910.10407 [ma th.QA]]

1910 arXiv
[9]

J. M. Gracia-Bondia, J. C. Varilly and H. Figueroa,
[10]

Hersent, P

K. Hersent, P. Mathieu and J. C. Wallet, Phys. Rept. 1014 (2023), 1-83 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.03.002 [arXiv:2210.11890 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[11]

Hayakawa, Phys

M. Hayakawa, Phys. Lett. B 478 (2000), 394-400 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00242-2 [arXiv:hep-th/9912094 [hep-th]]

2000 arXiv
[12]

J. L. Hewett, F. J. Petriello and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001), 075012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.075012 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010354 [hep-ph]]

2001 arXiv
[13]

I. F. Riad and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, JHEP 08 (2000), 045 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2000/08/045 [arXiv:hep-th/0008132 [hep-th]]. 18

2000 arXiv
[14]

S. Baek, D. K. Ghosh, X. G. He and W. Y. P. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001), 056001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.056001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0103068 [hep-ph]]

2001 arXiv
[15]

Schupp, J

P. Schupp, J. Trampetic, J. Wess and G. Raﬀelt, Eur. Phys. J. C 36 (2004), 405-410 doi:10.1140/epjc/s2004-01874-5 [arXiv:hep-ph/0212292 [hep-ph ]]

2004 arXiv
[16]

Minkowski, P

P. Minkowski, P. Schupp and J. Trampetic, Eur. Phys. J. C 37 (2004), 123-128 doi:10.1140/epjc/s2004-01969-y [arXiv:hep-th/0302175 [hep-th ]]

2004 arXiv
[17]

Horvat, D

R. Horvat, D. Kekez, P. Schupp, J. Trampetic and J. You, Phy s. Rev. D 84 (2011), 045004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.045004 [arXiv:1103.3383 [hep-ph]]

2011 arXiv
[18]

Canfora, M

F. Canfora, M. Kurkov, L. Rosa and P. Vitale, JHEP 01 (2016), 014 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)014 [arXiv:1505.06342 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[19]

Horvat, J

R. Horvat, J. Trampetic and J. You, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.7, 572 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6052-1 [arXiv:1711.09643 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[20]

Horvat, D

R. Horvat, D. Latas, J. Trampeti´ c and J. You, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.9, 095035 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.095035 [arXiv:2002.01829 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[21]

Trampeti´ c and J

J. Trampeti´ c and J. You, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.7, 075016 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.075016 [arXiv:2111.04154 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[22]

Trampeti´ c and J

J. Trampeti´ c and J. You, Eur. Phys. J. ST 232 (2023) no.23-24, 3723-3731 doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-023-00837-1 [arXiv:2209.06636 [hep-th ]]

2023 arXiv
[23]

Trampeti´ c and J

J. Trampeti´ c and J. You, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) no.3, 268 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 025-13951-2 [arXiv:2301.06343 [hep-ph]]

2025 arXiv
[24]

Blasone, F

M. Blasone, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena and F. Illuminati, EPL 85 (2009), 50002 doi:10.1209/0295-5075/85/50002 [arXiv:0707.4476 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[25]

Cervera-Lierta, J

A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo and L. Rottoli, SciP ost Phys. 3 (2017) no.5, 036 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.3.5.036 [arXiv:1703.02989 [hep-th]]

2017 arXiv
[26]

A. J. Barr, Phys. Lett. B 825, 136866 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136866 [arXiv:2106.01377 [hep-ph]]

2022
[27]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.7, 076016 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.076016 [arXiv:2209.14033 [hep-ph]]. 19

2023 arXiv
[28]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, A. Bernal, J. A. Casas and J. M. Moren o, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.1, 016012 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.016012 [arXiv:2209.1 3441 [hep-ph]]

2023 doi
[29]

Fabbrichesi, R

M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli and L. Marzola, Eur. Ph ys. J. C 83 (2023) no.9, 823 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11935-8 [arXiv:2302.0068 3 [hep-ph]]

2023
[30]

Severi, C

C. Severi, C. D. Boschi, F. Maltoni and M. Sioli, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.4, 285 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10245-9 [arXiv:2110.10112 [hep-ph ]]

2022 arXiv
[31]

Fabbrichesi, R

M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini and G. Panizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) no.16, 16 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.161801 [arXiv:2102.11883 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[32]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. A. Casas, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.8, 666 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10630-4 [arXiv:2205.00542 [hep-ph ]]

2022 arXiv
[33]

Aﬁk and J

Y. Aﬁk and J. R. M. de Nova, Quantum 6 (2022), 820 doi:10.22331/q-2022-09-29-820 [arXiv:2203.05582 [quant-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[34]

Fedida and A

S. Fedida and A. Seraﬁni, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.11, 116007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.116007 [arXiv:2209.01405 [quant-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[35]

Fedida, A

S. Fedida, A. Mazumdar, S. Bose and A. Seraﬁni, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.6, 065028 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.065028 [arXiv:2401.10332 [hep-th]]

2024
[36]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. A. Casas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) no.11, 111801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.111801 [arXiv:2401.06854 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[37]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.11, 113004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.113004 [arXiv:2403.13942 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[38]

Kowalska and E

K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo, JHEP 07 (2024), 156 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)156 [arXiv:2404.13743 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[39]

Blasone, S

M. Blasone, S. De Siena, G. Lambiase, C. Matrella and B. Micciola, C haos Solitons Fractals 195 (2025), 116305 doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2025.116305

2025
[40]

N´ u˜ nez, A

C. N´ u˜ nez, A. Cervera-Lierta and J. I. Latorre, [arXiv:2504.15353 [hep-th]]
[41]

System Modeler, Version 14.2, https://www.wolfram.com/system-modeler, Champaign, IL, 2024

Wolfram Research, Inc. System Modeler, Version 14.2, https://www.wolfram.com/system-modeler, Champaign, IL, 2024. 20

2024
[42]

Gomis and T

J. Gomis and T. Mehen, Nucl. Phys. B 591, 265-276 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(00)00525-3 [arXiv:hep-th/0005129 [hep-th]]

2000 arXiv
[43]

Alvarez-Gaume, J

L. Alvarez-Gaume, J. L. F. Barbon and R. Zwicky, JHEP 05 (2001), 057 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2001/05/057 [arXiv:hep-th/0103069 [hep-th]]

2001 arXiv
[44]

Badger, J

S. Badger, J. Henn, J. C. Plefka and S. Zoia, Lect. Notes Phys . 1021, pp. (2024) doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46987-9 [arXiv:2306.05976 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[45]

Srednicki, Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-5 21-86449-7, 978-0-511- 26720-8 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813917

M. Srednicki, Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-5 21-86449-7, 978-0-511- 26720-8 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813917

2007 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [46]

J. H. Huang, R. Huang and Y. Jia, J. Phys. A 44 (2011), 425401 doi:10.1088/1751- 8113/44/42/425401 [arXiv:1009.5073 [hep-th]]. 21

work page Pith review arXiv 2011

[2] [1]

Doplicher, K

S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J. E. Roberts, Commun. Math . Phys. 172 (1995), 187-220 doi:10.1007/BF02104515 [arXiv:hep-th/0303037 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1995

[3] [2]

Ardalan, H

F. Ardalan, H. Arfaei and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, JHEP 02 (1999), 016 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/1999/02/016 [arXiv:hep-th/9810072 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1999

[4] [3]

C. S. Chu and P. M. Ho, Nucl. Phys. B 550 (1999), 151-168 doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(99)00199-6 [arXiv:hep-th/9812219 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1999

[5] [4]

Schomerus, JHEP 06 (1999), 030 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/06/030 [arXiv:hep- th/9903205 [hep-th]]

V. Schomerus, JHEP 06 (1999), 030 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/06/030 [arXiv:hep- th/9903205 [hep-th]]

work page arXiv 1999

[6] [5]

Seiberg and E

N. Seiberg and E. Witten, JHEP 09 (1999), 032 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/09/032 [arXiv:hep-th/9908142 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1999

[7] [6]

R. J. Szabo, Phys. Rept. 378 (2003), 207-299 doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00059-0 [arXiv:hep-th/0109162 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2003

[8] [7]

Gayral, J

V. Gayral, J. M. Gracia-Bondia, B. Iochum, T. Schucker and J. C . Varilly, Commun. Math. Phys. 246 (2004), 569-623 doi:10.1007/s00220-004-1057-z [arXiv:hep-th/ 0307241 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/s00220-004-1057-z 2004