Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Higgs-decay entanglement peaks near the observed Higgs and W masses

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

2026-08-03 20:56 UTC pith:NOOAM5ID

load-bearing objection SM parameters sit near the maximum of a specific spin/color-weighted decay entropy — a genuinely new observation, but the inference is only as strong as an un-derived extremality postulate and a post hoc threshold. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.17321 v2 pith:NOOAM5ID submitted 2025-11-21 hep-ph quant-ph

Parameter Inference from Final-State Entanglement in Higgs Decays

Jia Liu , Masanori Tanaka , Xiao-Ping Wang , Jing-Jun Zhang , Zifan Zheng This is my paper
classification hep-ph quant-ph
keywords Higgs decaysentanglement entropylinear entropyStandard Model parametersparameter inferencespin and color entanglementkappa frameworkdecay out-states
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 claims that the quantum entanglement between spin and color degrees of freedom in the final state of a Higgs decay, computed after averaging away all decay kinematics, is a sharply peaked function of the Standard Model parameters, and that its maximum sits at the observed values. Concretely, a near-maximal entanglement-entropy criterion selects a Higgs mass of about 126 GeV, a W mass of about 80.5 GeV (equivalently the SU(2)_L gauge coupling), and an SM-like ratio of vector to fermion Higgs couplings, each within a few tenths of a percent of measurement. If correct, this would give a purely quantum-information route to pinning down parameters normally extracted from collider rates and kinematics, and it would suggest the Standard Model sits at an entanglement-extremal point of its own decay landscape. The authors present the criterion as a phenomenological principle rather than a derived law, and they show that simpler classical-entropy alternatives fail, which they take as evidence that the spin- and color-entanglement weights are doing the essential work.

Core claim

From the decay out-state of a single Higgs, the authors trace out all final-state momenta, keeping spin, color, and particle-type of one daughter. The linear entropy collapses to EE = 1 − Σ_i (P_i/N_c^i) BR_i^2, with channel-dependent spin factors P_i and color suppression. This observable has a global maximum at m_h = 126.08 ± 0.28 GeV and m_W = 80.506 ± 0.376 GeV, within about 1% and 0.2% of measurements; the near-maximal region then forces κ_V/κ_f = 1.00^{+0.08}_{−0.06}. Branching-ratio-only and classical multinomial entropies fail to reproduce these numbers, and an application to Z decays yields a wrong weak mixing angle, which the authors take to mean the criterion needs a process probi

What carries the argument

The central object is the reduced density matrix ρ_R of the decay out-state, built by tracing out all kinetic degrees of freedom and one daughter's intrinsic quantum numbers (Eq. (11)). The measure is the Tsallis-2 linear entropy, and the working identity is EE = 1 − Σ_i (P_i/N_c^i) BR_i^2: it turns the entanglement computation into branching-ratio-weighted sums of channel-specific spin factors P_i (1/2 for fermion pairs, mass-dependent integrals for WW/ZZ), with color multiplicity N_c suppressing colored channels. This closed form makes the entropy a smooth computable function of the Higgs mass, gauge-boson masses, and κ couplings, which is what lets a near-maximal criterion single out para

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the imposed near-maximal entanglement-entropy criterion — the postulate that Nature maximizes this particular spin/color linear entropy of the Higgs decay out-state (with one chosen bipartition and entropy measure); the paper introduces it as a principle rather than deriving it from dynamics or information theory.

What would settle it

Recompute the same entropy with the von Neumann entropy instead of the linear (Tsallis-2) entropy, or with the full four-body h→V*V*→4f amplitudes included, and see whether the global maximum still sits at m_h ≈ 126 GeV and m_W ≈ 80.5 GeV. Alternatively, scan the entropy over the top-quark mass and the strong coupling α_s: if the maxima in those directions deviate from the measured values, the criterion is not a general selector of SM parameters but a coincidence in the two variables the authors varied.

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

If this is right

  • If the near-maximal criterion is trusted, the Higgs mass is constrained to m_h = 126.08 ± 0.28 GeV, falling inside the observed 1σ window.
  • The W mass (equivalently the SU(2)_L gauge coupling) is fixed at m_W = 80.506 ± 0.376 GeV, again matching measurement within error.
  • Deviations of κ_V/κ_f beyond about +0.08/−0.06 move the decay out-state away from maximal entanglement, giving a quantum-information constraint on BSM coupling patterns.
  • The approach transfers to other unstable particles: because decay kinematics are fixed by the parent mass, no two-particle in-state preparation is needed, making it a minimal intrinsic probe of any model's parameter space.
  • The spin and color entanglement weights are indispensable: a branching-ratio-only entropy or the classical multinomial Shannon entropy predicts different, mostly wrong, parameter values, so the spin/color structure is what carries the information.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Read as a clue about what selects the SM parameters, the result suggests an 'entanglement-extremality' principle — but the paper does not derive such a principle, and the specific bipartition (trace over kinematics and one daughter) is a choice; whether the maximum is a genuine law or a coincidence is an open question.
  • A direct experimental test is possible: the spin/color entanglement content of H→WW*/ZZ* events is in principle reconstructible from angular and helicity correlations at a future Higgs factory, which would confirm whether the SM point is indeed near-maximal without assuming the criterion.
  • The criterion's failure for Z decays implies it is not a universal selector; applying the same entropy to BSM scalar decays (e.g., a heavy 2HDM-like state) would show whether the Higgs success generalizes or is special to a process that simultaneously touches scalar, gauge, and Yukawa sectors.
  • The analysis neglects four-body h→V*V*→4f decays and relies on HDECAY branching ratios; a follow-up with full four-body amplitudes and matched higher-order corrections could shift the predicted maximum by more than the quoted uncertainties, a concrete place to test robustness.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript defines an entanglement entropy for Higgs decay out-states: after tracing out all kinematics and the second final-state particle's Hilbert space, the reduced state over one particle's spin, color, and species is used to compute the Tsallis-2 linear entropy (Eq. (10)), which reduces to EE = 1 - Σ_i (P_i / N_i^c) BR_i^2 (Eq. (13)). Using HDECAY branching ratios and analytically derived spin factors, the authors find that this EE has a global maximum at m_h ≈ 126.1 GeV and m_W ≈ 80.5 GeV, within 0.8% and 0.17% of measured values, and that a two-parameter kappa-fit maximum lies near κ_V/κ_f ≈ 1.0. Appendices provide analytic decay-width formulae, a comparison with a BR-only linear entropy and with the Gibbs-Shannon entropy, and a Z-decay application. The central inference is that Nature approximately maximizes this particular decay-out-state entanglement entropy, thereby selecting SM parameters.

Significance. If the extremality postulate were independently motivated, this would be a novel and thought-provoking route to SM parameters. The paper's concrete strengths are the explicit analytic derivation of spin factors (Apps. A and B), the reproducible computation from public HDECAY output, and the honest comparisons with alternative entropy constructions (Apps. D and E), which demonstrate that the specific entropy functional matters. The numerical observation that a particular linear entropy of the Higgs decay reduced state is maximal near SM parameter values is nontrivial and potentially publishable. However, the inference claim rests on an un-derived near-maximality criterion and a post hoc 0.1% threshold, and the m_W prediction shifts by ~0.8 GeV between the two width calculations, so the quantitative claim is not yet robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [Near-Maximal EE in Higgs Decays, Eq. (24)] The 0.1% near-maximal band is introduced only after observing that the measured m_h lies within it; no independent argument fixes this tolerance. The inferred ranges for m_h, m_W, and κ_V/κ_f are directly controlled by this threshold, so the agreement is a consistency check rather than a prediction. Please either derive the criterion from a principle or reframe the result as 'the SM point lies near the maximum of this observable' and show how the ranges change with ε (e.g., ε = 0.05%, 0.5%, 1%).
  2. [Entanglement Entropy from Decays, Eqs. (10) and (13)] The paper adopts Tsallis-2 linear entropy rather than the standard von Neumann entropy. For the block-diagonal ρ_R, the two differ: S_vN = -Σ_i BR_i ln BR_i + Σ_i BR_i S(ρ_i). The authors' own App. E shows that a Shannon-type functional (essentially the classical BR term) peaks at m_W ≈ 81.86 GeV and κ_V/κ_f ≈ 1.3, far from the Tsallis-2 results. Thus the claimed m_W ≈ 80.5 GeV and κ_V/κ_f ≈ 1.0 are specific to the measure choice. A physical argument for why Nature extremizes this particular functional is needed; otherwise the numerical agreement may be an artifact of the linear-entropy choice.
  3. [Appendix C, Eqs. (72) vs (25)] Using analytic widths, the EE maximum gives m_W = 79.726 ± 0.148 GeV, whereas HDECAY gives m_W = 80.506 ± 0.376 GeV. The ~0.8 GeV shift is larger than the quoted 0.17% deviation from the measured m_W and also larger than the 0.1% EE band used for the near-maximal region. Since both calculations are presented as evaluations of the same SM EE, the m_W maximum is not robust to higher-order corrections. Please quantify the scheme dependence and state which calculation is the physical prediction.
  4. [Discussions, fourth paragraph (bipartition)] The bipartition H_A = spin_a ⊗ color_a ⊗ particle_a, with all kinematics and particle b traced out, is justified by well-posedness (avoiding V/T divergences). However, this makes EE a single-particle mixedness rather than entanglement between the two decay products. Different partitions define different observables and would generically shift the maxima; the inference depends entirely on this choice. A physical or operational justification for this specific bipartition is needed, or at least a demonstration that the main conclusions are stable under natural alternative partitions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The vertical axis label 'i' appears to be a typo; it should be the spin factor P_i.
  2. [Eq. (14)] The index conventions in Γ_{s1s2;s3s4} are not fully defined before use; please spell out the helicity labels and the summation ranges.
  3. [Footnote 52] The treatment of the Zγ channel as non-interfering is an approximation; please state the numerical size of the neglected cross-channel terms beyond 'BR_Zγ is negligible'.
  4. [Appendix F, Eq. (85)] The text compares sinθ_W = 0.615 to 'sin²θ_W(m_Z) = 0.231' but the 28% deviation refers to sinθ_W versus sqrt(0.231) ≈ 0.481. Please make the comparison consistent.
  5. [General] The acknowledgements section contains the typo 'Acknowlegements'. Also, the main text refers to 'the measured m_W' without quoting a PDG value; please give the value used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the EE maxima are genuine outputs of Eq. (13); the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Eq. (13) defines the linear entropy as 1 - sum_i (P_i / N_i^c) BR_i^2, with spin/color weights P_i/N_i^c computed from decay amplitudes (Eq. (14), App. A) and branching ratios taken from HDECAY as functions of the SM parameters. The subsequent maximization over m_h, m_W, and kappa_V/kappa_f is performed on this fixed functional; no parameter is fitted to the observed masses before the maximization, and no equation identifies the outputs with the inputs. The global maxima (23), (25), and (26) are numerical consequences of the SM branching-ratio structure, not reductions of the criterion to the target values. The near-maximal criterion is a postulate, but a postulate is not a circular reduction; the paper even shows that alternative measures (BR-only and Gibbs-Shannon, Apps. D/E) yield different parameter values, confirming that the chosen observable is not tautologically aligned with the SM. The only self-citation, Ref. [22], appears in the discussion of why a symmetric bipartition is ill-posed; the argument is supported by the stated volume/time scaling, so the citation is not load-bearing. Therefore there is no significant circularity; the score reflects the single non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central EE formula has no fitted constants; the only hand-chosen number is the 0.1% near-maximal threshold, and the SM inputs (masses, α_s, etc.) are external data rather than free parameters of the paper. The main axiom is the criterion itself: that maximizing this entropy should tell us about fundamental parameters. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • near-maximal threshold epsilon = 0.1%
    The band |EE−EE_max|/EE_max < 0.1% in Eq. (24) is chosen by hand and appears calibrated so that the observed m_h lies inside it; changing the threshold changes the compatibility claim.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Near-maximal EE criterion selects fundamental parameters
    Section 'Near-Maximal EE in Higgs Decays': 'we ... impose a near-maximal entanglement-entropy criterion'; all inferences (Eqs. 23, 25, 26) follow from it. It is not derived.
  • domain assumption Branching ratios from HDECAY (with analytic cross-check) describe the decay out-state
    Section 'Higgs Decays in Two- and Three-Body Channels': BRs are taken from HDECAY [54,55]; analytic widths in App. B are used as a consistency check.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear entropy (Tsallis-2) after tracing out kinematics is the right entanglement measure
    Eq. (10) defines the linear entropy; it is chosen for finiteness and simplicity. No argument is given that this measure, rather than von Neumann entropy or another bipartition, should be the extremized quantity.
  • domain assumption Plane-wave box normalization artifacts are cured by tracing out kinematics
    Eqs. (5)-(10) and Discussion; the authors argue that a symmetric bipartition leaves V and T factors that make EE ill-defined, so tracing out kinematics is the 'well-posed choice'.
  • domain assumption Four-body h→V*V* decays can be neglected
    Discussions: 'off-shell four-body decays ... numerically subleading'; HDECAY does not include the full W W/ZZ interference.
  • domain assumption Final-state fermions in V* decays are massless
    App. B: mass effects enter at O(m_f^2/m_V^2), below the quoted input uncertainties.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18880 in / 15880 out tokens · 155082 ms · 2026-08-03T20:56:44.506782+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The decay out-states of unstable Standard Model (SM) particles provide a unique, well-defined intrinsic quantum-information probe of the SM parameter space. We use Higgs decays as a test case: after tracing out kinematics, we compute entanglement among final-state spins and colors across all decay channels and impose a near-maximal entanglement-entropy criterion. This criterion yields quantitative indications for fundamental parameters. Within the SM, the entanglement entropy exhibits a global maximum close to the observed Higgs mass and the measured $W$ mass, the latter being equivalent to the $SU(2)_L$ gauge coupling. In a two-parameter kappa framework, applying the same criterion points to an SM-like balance between vector and fermion couplings, constraining the ratio of the sector-wide rescalings. These results suggest that entanglement extremality can serve as a complementary handle on fundamental parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.17321 by Jia Liu, Jing-Jun Zhang, Masanori Tanaka, Xiao-Ping Wang, Zifan Zheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: For mh < 2mV , PV V is smaller than 1/2, which reduces its weight compared to fermion channels. At the threshold mh = 2mV , the two- and three-body descrip￾tions coincide and yield PV V = 1/3. Near threshold, the vector bosons are non-relativistic, suppressing helicity in￾formation and equalizing contributions from all three he￾licities. In the heavy-Higgs limit, the vector bosons are highly boosted, and t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Entanglement entropy of Higgs decays as a function of the Higgs mass (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. EE in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Distributions of the entanglement entropy using analytical formulae for the Higgs decay widths. Upper left: Depen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Entanglement entropy distribution for Standard Model parameters using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Gibbs-Shannon entropy (Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dependence of the entanglement entropy on the weak mixing angle for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.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 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Entangling Power: A Probe of Symmetry and Integrability in Quantum Many-Body Systems

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Entangling power in Heisenberg spin chains shows a monotonic decrease with growing symmetry in small models, sharp dips at SU(2) and free-fermion points in finite chains, and vanishes at SU(2) points but maximizes at ...

  2. Local Minimum of Spin-Sector Magic at the CP-Conserving Point in Low-Energy Neutron-Proton Scattering

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Within a restricted low-energy spin-sector ansatz for n-p scattering, direction-averaged magic is locally minimized at the CP-conserving point heta-bar=0 when the effective phase equals heta/4 or lies in specific windows.

  3. Quantum Resources and Wigner Symmetry in Nucleon-Nucleon Scattering from Effective Field Theory

    nucl-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Under Wigner's SU(4) symmetry the neutron-proton scattering amplitude generates no new quantum resources while same-nucleon channels do due to identical-particle constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 51 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J. S. Bell,On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika1(1964) 195

    1964

  2. [2]

    A. J. Barr, M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli and L. Marzola,Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation at colliders,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 139(2024) 104134 [2402.07972]. [3]ATLAScollaboration,Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Nature633(2024) 542 [2311.07288]. [4]CMScollaboration,Observation of q...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Higgs Properties,1307.1347

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Monogr.2(2017) 1 [1610.07922]

    Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector,CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2(2017) 1 [1610.07922]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Afik et al.,Quantum information meets high-energy physics: input to the update of the European strategy for particle physics,Eur

    Y. Afik et al.,Quantum information meets high-energy physics: input to the update of the European strategy for particle physics,Eur. Phys. J. Plus140(2025) 855 [2504.00086]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Lykken,Quantum Information for Particle Theorists, PoST ASI2020(2021) 010 [2010.02931]

    J. Lykken,Quantum Information for Particle Theorists, PoST ASI2020(2021) 010 [2010.02931]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova,Quantum information with top quarks in QCD,Quantum6(2022) 820 [2203.05582]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Cervera-Lierta, J

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo and L. Rottoli, Maximal Entanglement in High Energy Physics,SciPost Phys.3(2017) 036 [1703.02989]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    G. M. Quinta, A. Sousa and Y. Omar,Predicting leptonic CP violation via minimization of neutrino entanglement,2207.03303

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Thaler and S

    J. Thaler and S. Trifinopoulos,Flavor patterns of fundamental particles from quantum entanglement?, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 056021 [2410.23343]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Q. Liu, I. Low and Z. Yin,A Quantum Computational Determination of the Weak Mixing Angle in the Standard Model,2509.18251

    arXiv

  12. [12]

    S. R. Beane, D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Entanglement Suppression and Emergent Symmetries of Strong Interactions,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 102001 [1812.03138]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Low and T

    I. Low and T. Mehen,Symmetry from entanglement suppression,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 074014 [2104.10835]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Q. Liu, I. Low and T. Mehen,Minimal entanglement and emergent symmetries in low-energy QCD,Phys. 6 Rev. C107(2023) 025204 [2210.12085]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    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. D109 (2024) L051901 [2307.08112]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Liu and I

    Q. Liu and I. Low,Hints of entanglement suppression in hyperon-nucleon scattering,Phys. Lett. B856(2024) 138899 [2312.02289]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    T.-R. Hu, S. Chen and F.-K. Guo,Entanglement suppression and low-energy scattering of heavy mesons, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 014001 [2404.05958]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Chang and G

    S. Chang and G. Jacobo,Consequences of minimal entanglement in bosonic field theories,Phys. Rev. D 110(2024) 096020 [2409.13030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Kowalska and E

    K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo,Entanglement in flavored scalar scattering,JHEP07(2024) 156 [2404.13743]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    McGinnis,Symmetry, entanglement, and the S-matrix,2504.21079

    N. McGinnis,Symmetry, entanglement, and the S-matrix,2504.21079

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Busoni, J

    G. Busoni, J. Gargalionis, E. N. V. Wallace and M. J. White,Emergent symmetry in a two-Higgs-doublet model from quantum information and nonstabilizerness, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 035022 [2506.01314]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    J. Liu, M. Tanaka, X.-P. Wang, J.-J. Zhang and Z. Zheng,Scattering entanglement entropy and its implications for electroweak phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 015028 [2505.06001]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Carena, G

    M. Carena, G. Coloretti, W. Liu, M. Littmann, I. Low and C. E. M. Wagner,Entanglement maximization and mirror symmetry in two-Higgs-doublet models,JHEP 08(2025) 016 [2505.00873]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    T.-R. Hu, K. Sone, F.-K. Guo, T. Hyodo and I. Low, Entanglement Suppression, Quantum Statistics and Symmetries in Spin-3/2 Baryon Scatterings, 2506.08960

    arXiv

  25. [25]

    N´ u˜ nez, M

    C. N´ u˜ nez, M. Pardina, M. Asorey, J. I. Latorre and A. Cervera-Lierta,Gauge invariance from quantum information principles,2511.04358

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    McGinnis,Crossing Symmetry and Entanglement, 2511.10559

    N. McGinnis,Crossing Symmetry and Entanglement, 2511.10559. [27]ATLAScollaboration,A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery,Nature607(2022) 52 [2207.00092]. [28]CMScollaboration,A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery.,Nature 607(2022) 60 [2207.00043]

    arXiv 2022

  27. [29]

    Shaposhnikov and C

    M. Shaposhnikov and C. Wetterich,Asymptotic safety of gravity and the Higgs boson mass,Phys. Lett. B683 (2010) 196 [0912.0208]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [30]

    C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen,Standard model criticality prediction: Top mass 173 +- 5-GeV and Higgs mass 135 +- 9-GeV,Phys. Lett. B368(1996) 96 [hep-ph/9511371]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  29. [31]

    Degrassi, S

    G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori et al.,Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO,JHEP08 (2012) 098 [1205.6497]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  30. [32]

    Alves, A

    A. Alves, A. G. Dias and R. da Silva,Maximum Entropy Principle and the Higgs Boson Mass,Physica A 420(2015) 1 [1408.0827]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [33]

    A. J. Barr,Testing Bell inequalities in Higgs boson decays,Phys. Lett. B825(2022) 136866 [2106.01377]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [34]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini and E. Gabrielli, Constraining new physics in entangled two-qubit systems: top-quark, tau-lepton and photon pairs,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 162 [2208.11723]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [35]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, A. Bernal, J. A. Casas and J. M. Moreno,Testing entanglement and Bell inequalities in H→ZZ,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 016012 [2209.13441]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [36]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra,Laboratory-frame tests of quantum entanglement in H→WW,Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 076016 [2209.14033]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [37]

    Ashby-Pickering, A

    R. Ashby-Pickering, A. J. Barr and A. Wierzchucka, Quantum state tomography, entanglement detection and Bell violation prospects in weak decays of massive particles,JHEP05(2023) 020 [2209.13990]

    arXiv 2023

  36. [38]

    M. M. Altakach, P. Lamba, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari and K. Sakurai,Quantum information and CP measurement in H→τ+τ- at future lepton colliders, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 093002 [2211.10513]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [39]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli and L. Marzola,Bell inequalities and quantum entanglement in weak gauge boson production at the LHC and future colliders,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 823 [2302.00683]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [40]

    Bernal, P

    A. Bernal, P. Caban and J. Rembieli´ nski,Entanglement and Bell inequalities violation inH→ZZwith anomalous coupling,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 1050 [2307.13496]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [41]

    Ma and T

    K. Ma and T. Li,Testing Bell inequality throughh→τ τ at CEPC*,Chin. Phys. C48(2024) 103105 [2309.08103]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [42]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra,Tripartite entanglement in H→ZZ,WW decays,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 113004 [2403.13942]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [43]

    Bernal, P

    A. Bernal, P. Caban and J. Rembieli´ nski,Entanglement and Bell inequality violation in vector diboson systems produced in decays of spin-0 particles,Sci. Rep.15 (2025) 23410 [2405.16525]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [44]

    Del Gratta, F

    M. Del Gratta, F. Fabbri, P. Lamba, F. Maltoni and D. Pagani,Quantum properties of H→VV ∗: precise predictions in the SM and sensitivity to new physics, JHEP09(2025) 013 [2504.03841]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [45]

    Gon¸ calves, A

    D. Gon¸ calves, A. Kaladharan and A. Navarro, Higher-Order Corrections to Quantum Observables in h→W W ∗,2506.19951

    arXiv

  44. [46]

    Bechtle, C

    P. Bechtle, C. Breuning, H. K. Dreiner and C. Duhr,A critical appraisal of tests of locality and of entanglement versus non-entanglement at colliders,2507.15947

    arXiv

  45. [47]

    S. A. Abel, H. K. Dreiner, R. Sengupta and L. Ubaldi, Colliders are Testing neither Locality via Bell’s Inequality nor Entanglement versus Non-Entanglement, 2507.15949

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [48]

    Lello, D

    L. Lello, D. Boyanovsky and R. Holman,Entanglement entropy in particle decay,JHEP11(2013) 116 [1304.6110]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [49]

    S. Seki, I. Y. Park and S.-J. Sin,Variation of Entanglement Entropy in Scattering Process,Phys. Lett. B743(2015) 147 [1412.7894]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  48. [50]

    Zanardi, C

    P. Zanardi, C. Zalka and L. Faoro,Entangling power of quantum evolutions,Phys. Rev. A62(2000) 030301 [quant-ph/0005031]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  49. [51]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin,Elastic cross section is entanglement entropy,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 065027 [2410.22414]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [52]

    TheZγchannel would introduce cross-channel interference terms in Eq

    All channels involve the same type particle pair except theZγmode. TheZγchannel would introduce cross-channel interference terms in Eq. (13). Since BRZγ is negligible, we ignore these terms and treat 7 Eq. (13) as exact

  51. [53]

    Keung and W

    W.-Y. Keung and W. J. Marciano,HIGGS SCALAR DECAYS: H —>W+- X,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 248

    1984

  52. [54]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira,HDECAY: A Program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension,Comput. Phys. Commun.108(1998) 56 [hep-ph/9704448]. [55]HDECAYcollaboration,HDECAY: Twenty ++ years after,Comput. Phys. Commun.238(2019) 214 [1801.09506]. [56]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phy...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  53. [58]

    Bagnaschi, L

    E. Bagnaschi, L. Biermann and M. Spira,Higgs-Boson Decays: Updates, 10, 2025,2510.24658. [59]ATLAScollaboration,Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass from the H→γγand H→ZZ*→4ℓ Decay Channels with the ATLAS Detector Using s=7, 8, and 13 TeV pp Collision Data,Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 251802 [2308.04775]. [60]CMScollaboration,Measurement of the Higg...

    arXiv 2025

  54. [62]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher and J. P. Silva,Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models,Phys. Rept.516(2012) 1 [1106.0034]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  55. [63]

    Djouadi,The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking

    A. Djouadi,The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. I: The Higgs boson in the standard model, Phys. Rept.457(2008) 1 [hep-ph/0503172]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [64]

    Spira,Higgs Boson Production and Decay at Hadron Colliders,Prog

    M. Spira,Higgs Boson Production and Decay at Hadron Colliders,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.95(2017) 98 [1612.07651]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [65]

    J. Wang, X. Wang and Y. Wang,Analytic decay width of the Higgs boson to massive bottom quarks at order α3 s,JHEP03(2025) 163 [2411.07493]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [66]

    Aparisi et al.,mb at mH: The Running Bottom Quark Mass and the Higgs Boson,Phys

    J. Aparisi et al.,mb at mH: The Running Bottom Quark Mass and the Higgs Boson,Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (2022) 122001 [2110.10202]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [67]

    J. A. M. Vermaseren, S. A. Larin and T. van Ritbergen, The 4-loop quark mass anomalous dimension and the invariant quark mass,Phys. Lett. B405(1997) 327 [hep-ph/9703284]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  60. [68]

    S. A. Larin and J. A. M. Vermaseren,The Three loop QCD Beta function and anomalous dimensions,Phys. Lett. B303(1993) 334 [hep-ph/9302208]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  61. [69]

    van Ritbergen, J

    T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin, The Four loop beta function in quantum chromodynamics,Phys. Lett. B400(1997) 379 [hep-ph/9701390]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  62. [70]

    J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard and D. V. Nanopoulos,A Phenomenological Profile of the Higgs Boson,Nucl. Phys. B106(1976) 292

    1976

  63. [71]

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg and H. B. Thacker,Weak Interactions at Very High-Energies: The Role of the Higgs Boson Mass,Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1519

    1977

  64. [72]

    B. A. Kniehl,Radiative corrections forH→W +W − (γ) in the standard model,Nucl. Phys. B357(1991) 439

    1991

  65. [73]

    Bredenstein, A

    A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and M. M. Weber,Precise predictions for the Higgs-boson decay H —>WW/ZZ —>4 leptons,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 013004 [hep-ph/0604011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  66. [74]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin and V. I. Zakharov,Low-Energy Theorems for Higgs Boson Couplings to Photons,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.30(1979) 711

    1979

  67. [75]

    R. N. Cahn, M. S. Chanowitz and N. Fleishon,Higgs Particle Production by Z —>H Gamma,Phys. Lett. B 82(1979) 113

    1979

  68. [76]

    T. G. Rizzo,Gluon Final States in Higgs Boson Decay, Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 178

    1980

  69. [77]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and A. M¨ uck,PROPHECY4F 3.0: A Monte Carlo program for Higgs-boson decays into four-fermion final states in and beyond the Standard Model,Comput. Phys. Commun.254(2020) 107336 [1912.02010]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  70. [78]

    J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich and B. R. Holstein, Dynamics of the standard model, vol. 2. CUP, 2014, 10.1017/CBO9780511524370. 8 Appendix for Parameter Inference from Final-State Entanglement in Higgs Decays In this appendix, we provide detailed derivations and extended calculations supporting the results presented in the main text. A. The spin factor in th...

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511524370 2014