Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Combining spin, kinematic, and quantum-information observables in one multivariate classifier gives the best handle on toponium at the LHC.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 20:19 UTC pith:ER6WKCNM

load-bearing objection The abstract overstates the gain from the quantum-information observables, but the paper itself is a clean, honest simulation study whose real message is that those variables add little statistical sensitivity while improving interpretability. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.23426 v2 pith:ER6WKCNM submitted 2026-02-26 hep-ph hep-ex

Extracting a Toponium Signal at the LHC with Spin and Quantum Information Tools

Laura Antozzi , Esteban Chalbaud , Fr\'ed\'eric D\'eliot , Federica Fabbri , Miguel C.N. Fiolhais , Benjamin Fuks , Ant\'onio Onofre , Martin White
show 1 more author
Pengxuan Zhu
This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords toponiumtop-antitop productionspin correlationsquantum informationentanglementquantum tomographyLHCnon-relativistic QCD
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.

Toponium, the fleeting would-be bound state of a top-antitop pair, never fully forms because the top quark decays before binding completes, but its residue survives near threshold as enhanced production and distorted spin correlations. This paper treats the t-tbar pair as a mixed two-qubit state, reconstructs its spin density matrix from simulated 13 TeV LHC events, and asks which observables best separate toponium-influenced events from ordinary continuum t-tbar production. The answer is that no single variable suffices: kinematic quantities (the top momentum in the pair rest frame, the lepton separations Delta R and Delta phi) dominate individually, while quantum-information-inspired observables (concurrence, normalised purity, logarithmic negativity, trace distance, magic) add complementary, weakly-correlated information. The boosted-decision-tree combination of all observables yields the best separation, S/sqrt(B) about 37.6 versus 37.1 without the quantum variables, and a significance of about 4.96 including a 20% signal systematic, essentially unchanged at 4.95 without them. The authors read this as showing that quantum-information observables sharpen the physical interpretability of a toponium search and provide a small but genuine complementary boost, even though their marginal statistical gain is modest.

Core claim

The central claim is that toponium formation changes the spin quantum state of the t-tbar system in a distinctive way — the diagonal spin-correlation coefficients in the helicity basis move strongly toward -1, the signature of a coherent quasi-bound two-particle state with well-defined quantum numbers — and that this change is best extracted by combining conventional kinematics with quantum-information observables. From the reconstructed density matrix, the paper finds pure toponium has C_kk about -0.96, C_rr about -0.90, C_nn about -0.92, versus about -0.39 to -0.55 for continuum events, and every derived entanglement measure separates the two samples dramatically: concurrence 0.89 versus 0

What carries the argument

Two ingredients carry the argument. On the physics side, toponium events are generated by reweighting standard NLO t-tbar events with weights built from the non-relativistic QCD Green's function of the S-wave Coulomb potential; this encodes ladder-gluon resummation and threshold bound-state effects while preserving full spin correlations and decay kinematics. On the analysis side, the central object is the spin density matrix, reconstructed by quantum tomography from the angular distributions of the charged leptons in the helicity basis; expanding it in Pauli matrices (Fano-Bloch form) yields the spin-correlation matrix C_ij and all the quantum-information observables — D coefficients, concu

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that toponium is faithfully modelled by reweighting standard t-tbar events with the non-relativistic QCD Green's function at tree-level Coulomb order, using a fixed 6.43 pb cross section and ignoring any interference between the continuum and bound-state amplitudes; if this model misrepresents the real signal, the reported sensitivities do not transfer to LHC data.

What would settle it

Reconstruct the helicity-basis spin-correlation matrix C_ij from real 13 TeV LHC events with m_t-tbar < 355 GeV and compare with the pure-toponium prediction (C_kk about -0.96, C_rr about -0.90, C_nn about -0.92). If the measured values sit near the continuum prediction (about -0.5) with uncertainties smaller than about 0.1, the toponium interpretation is falsified. Alternatively, a higher-order NRQCD computation or an interference-aware simulation that changes the toponium cross section or binding dynamics substantially would rescale the significance and overturn the reach claim.

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

If this is right

  • Using the full observable set at 140 inverse femtobarns, a toponium signal at the 13 TeV LHC could be claimed at roughly 5 sigma significance, provided signal systematics stay near 20%.
  • The p* variable is the leading discriminant in the low-momentum region; removing it costs more sensitivity than removing all the quantum-information observables.
  • Because the two density matrices are nearly collinear, the toponium signal is essentially a rescaling of spin-correlation strength; any measurement of that strength directly constrains the toponium fraction.
  • The weak correlations between quantum-information variables and kinematic variables guarantee that, in a multivariate analysis, the former add value even though their standalone ROC curves are close to the random classifier.
  • The CP-sensitive angular variables (b1-b4) built into the analysis also allow the same framework to distinguish toponium from scalar or pseudoscalar resonances decaying to t-tbar pairs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if a toponium excess is eventually confirmed, the kinematic variables will likely do the heavy lifting; the quantum-information observables will serve as a cross-check and as a measurement of the spin-correlation strength, not as the primary discovery channel.
  • Editorial inference: at detector level, lepton reconstruction and b-tagging inefficiencies will degrade the reconstructed density matrix more than the simple kinematic variables, so the claimed complementarity should be re-tested after full detector simulation.
  • Editorial inference: the trace distance D_T between the data density matrix and the no-toponium prediction is a natural, unbinned test statistic for toponium-ness, since the paper shows it is driven almost entirely by the distance from the maximally mixed state.
  • Editorial inference: the same observable suite could be applied to identify any near-threshold bound-state or resonance effect in t-tbar production, since the framework is agnostic to the origin of the enhanced spin correlations.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether toponium formation in near-threshold top-antitop production at the LHC can be distinguished from conventional continuum ttbar production using spin-correlation and quantum-information-inspired observables. The authors simulate a toponium sample by reweighting standard ttbar events with weights derived from a non-relativistic QCD Green's function with a tree-level Coulomb potential, while the continuum is simulated with Powheg+Pythia. They reconstruct the spin density matrix via quantum tomography, define a set of angular, kinematic, spin-correlation and quantum-information observables, and train boosted decision trees (BDTs) in several configurations: with all variables, without the quantum-information variables, without the p* variable, and with only two spin-correlation variables. The central claim, stated in the abstract and Section IV.2, is that combining these variables 'significantly enhance[s] sensitivity to toponium effects'. The paper reports in Table II that the full BDT configuration gives S/sqrt(S+B+sigma_S^2)=4.955, whereas the configuration without the quantum-information variables gives 4.954, and S/sqrt(B)=37.619 versus 37.092, respectively.

Significance. If the result held as stated, the paper would be a useful contribution to toponium searches at the LHC, demonstrating that quantum-information-inspired observables provide complementary information when combined with kinematic variables. The simulation chain is standard and the paper is transparent about its methods, following well-established public codes and published reweighting prescriptions. However, the central quantitative claim is not supported by the paper's own Table II: the quantum-information variables add essentially nothing to the statistical significance once a 20% signal systematic is included. The dominant discriminating power comes from kinematic variables, particularly p*, which is closely aligned with the signal definition. The paper's value therefore lies more in its detailed comparison of observables and the physical interpretability it provides, rather than in the claimed sensitivity enhancement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section IV.2, Table II] The abstract claims that combining the considered variables will 'significantly enhance sensitivity to toponium effects'. Table II shows the opposite: configuration (a) with all variables has S/sqrt(S+B+sigma_S^2)=4.955, while configuration (b) without the quantum-information variables has 4.954, a difference of 0.001. The S/sqrt(B) values are 37.619 and 37.092, and no uncertainties are quoted on any of these metrics. Given the finite test-sample size, such small differences are statistically indistinguishable. The statement in Section V that 'quantum-information-inspired observables ... improve multivariate sensitivity' is therefore not quantitatively supported by the presented evidence. The authors should either provide uncertainty estimates establishing the improvement, or restate the claim to say that the quantum-information variables provide complementary information but no signific
  2. [Section III; Section IV.2] All sensitivity numbers are conditional on the toponium model: a reweighting based on a non-relativistic QCD Green's function with a tree-level Coulomb potential, following Refs. [23,31,33], with sigma_toponium=6.43 pb and an incoherent combination of the toponium and continuum samples with no interference between the two amplitudes. The paper does not quantify how its results depend on these modeling choices, such as higher-order corrections, the form of the potential, the treatment of interference, or the assumed normalization. If the model does not represent physical toponium, the claimed discriminating power will not transfer to LHC data. At minimum, the paper should state this dependence explicitly and ideally test the stability of Table II under model variations.
  3. [Section III; Table II] The analysis is performed at parton level, with observables constructed from generator-level top quarks rather than reconstructed final-state objects, and no detector simulation is included. The only systematic uncertainty considered is a 20% normalization uncertainty on the signal. Consequently, the absolute significance values in Table II are idealized and should not be presented as LHC projections. The abstract's phrasing 'at the LHC' and the claim of 'significantly enhance sensitivity' need to be qualified by these limitations. This is acceptable for a proof-of-principle study, but it is a central caveat for the claimed reach.
  4. [Section IV.2; Figure 4] The dominant input variable in the full BDT is p*, the magnitude of the top-quark momentum in the ttbar rest frame. This variable is kinematically aligned with the signal definition: toponium is modelled as a near-threshold, non-relativistic state and is therefore generated with small p*. Part of the BDT separation is thus built into the signal model rather than being an independent property of the observables. The paper acknowledges p*'s importance, but this observation further weakens the abstract's suggestion that the quantum-information variables are responsible for enhanced sensitivity. The claims should be framed as sensitivity to the adopted toponium model, not to toponium effects in general.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says the continuum ttbar distribution is shown in blue, but the text in Section IV.2 refers to the 'conventional continuum ttbar background (red)'. Please correct the color description so it matches the figure.
  2. [Eq. (4.1)] In the definition of b1, the text states 'pT,t and pT,t denote the transverse momentum of the top and antitop quarks'; the second quantity should clearly be pT,bar-t, not pT,t.
  3. [Section IV.1] The notation for the empirical magic variable is inconsistent: it is introduced as fM2, later appears as fM evt 2, and in Figure 2 as fM evt 2. Please standardize the notation and define it once.
  4. [Table II] No uncertainties are provided for epsilon_S, epsilon_B, or the significance values. Given the moderate event counts and the small differences between configurations, reporting statistical uncertainties or cross-validated error bars would help the reader judge whether the differences are meaningful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; the analysis compares two simulated models and the claimed 'enhancement' is an evidentiary overstatement, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. It defines spin and quantum-information observables from the Fano--Bloch density matrix (Sec. II), generates two simulated event classes -- standard t-tbar and toponium-enhanced t-tbar -- using independent event generators and an NRQCD Green's-function reweighting method (Sec. III), and then trains BDT classifiers on these samples to measure discrimination (Sec. IV.2). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the BDT is trained on simulated signal and background, and the quoted numbers are test-sample performances, not fits to external data. The toponium signal model is an input assumption, not a result derived from the paper's own outputs, so citing the authors' earlier implementation of the reweighting strategy (Refs. [23,31,33]) is methodological self-citation rather than a load-bearing circular proof; the underlying NRQCD Green's-function framework is external (Refs. [1,5,9,10]). The trace distance D_T is zero for the continuum by definition, since it measures distance to the SM density matrix, but the paper uses it as a distance diagnostic, not as a fitted prediction. The central criticism of the paper is that the abstract's claim of 'significantly enhance[d] sensitivity' is not supported by its own Table II: the full variable set gives S/sqrt(S+B+sigma_S^2)=4.955 versus 4.954 without the quantum-information variables, and S/sqrt(B)=37.619 versus 37.092. That is an evidence-versus-claim mismatch, not circularity. Similarly, p* is kinematically aligned with the threshold signal definition, so its strong BDT ranking is physically expected but not tautological. Thus the paper contains no derivation step that is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The paper relies on a chosen toponium signal model (Green's function reweighting), an incoherent combination of signal and continuum, and a parton-level approximation; these are assumptions that the reader does not pay for upstream and that directly shape all numerical results.

free parameters (2)
  • p* split threshold = 35 GeV
    Events are split at p*<35 GeV for two-stage BDT training; the threshold is chosen to avoid unreliable toponium p* spectra and is not derived from first principles (Section III).
  • Signal systematic uncertainty = sigma_S = 0.2 S
    Assumed 20% signal uncertainty in Table II to compute S/sqrt(S+B+sigma_S^2); this choice determines whether the QI observables contribute any significance (they do not at 20%).
axioms (5)
  • standard math Density matrix formalism and Fano-Bloch parametrization of two-qubit states
    Used in Section II to define observables; standard quantum information background.
  • ad hoc to paper Toponium effects are encoded by the non-relativistic QCD Green's function with a tree-level Coulomb potential, as implemented via reweighting in Refs. [23,31,33]
    Central to the signal model; the paper adopts this without independent validation; a different potential or treatment would change results.
  • ad hoc to paper Continuum and toponium samples are combined incoherently with no interference
    Section IV.2 combines samples by weighted sum according to cross sections; physical amplitudes should interfere, which could affect spin correlations.
  • domain assumption Truth-level top quarks and unambiguous lepton assignment survive as a proxy for a real LHC measurement
    Section III analysis is at parton level; detector effects and ambiguities are deferred, potentially weakening the spin observables.
  • domain assumption The spin density matrix is approximately diagonal in the helicity basis so off-diagonal Fano coefficients can be neglected
    Section IV.1 states this simplification preserves dominant spin-correlation information, though Table I reports non-zero off-diagonal coefficients.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19140 in / 11779 out tokens · 99057 ms · 2026-08-02T20:19:55.581629+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate near-threshold top-antitop production at the LHC, focusing on the impact of toponium formation on spin correlations and quantum information properties of the final state. Considering the top-antitop system as a mixed two-qubit state, we reconstruct spin density matrices via quantum tomography and evaluate several observables including some inspired by quantum information. We then compare their sensitivity in discriminating toponium effects from top-antitop production without these effects. Our results demonstrate that combining these variables is expected to significantly enhance sensitivity to toponium effects, bringing new ways to explore these subtle features.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.23426 by Ant\'onio Onofre, Benjamin Fuks, Esteban Chalbaud, Federica Fabbri, Fr\'ed\'eric D\'eliot, Laura Antozzi, Martin White, Miguel C.N. Fiolhais, Pengxuan Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Distribution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Various distributions for conventional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Distributions of the variables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Performance and correlations of the input variables used in our BDT analysis of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. BDT performance for separating the toponium signal from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.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. Quantum detection of CP violation in the $t\bar{t}$ system: tomography

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Polar-angle tomography reconstructs the ttbar production density matrix while b–lepton azimuthal sine modulations linearly probe CP-odd Wtb decay couplings, separating production from decay CP violation.

  2. Quantum detection of CP violation in the $t\bar{t}$ system: production

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    CP-odd SMEFT top interactions appear as ΔB and antisymmetric C_A in the tt̄ production density matrix; direct markers beat most QI measures for CP sensitivity at LHC and FCC-ee.

  3. Spin correlations and quantum entanglement in $\gamma\gamma \to t\bar t$ at polarized photon colliders with NLO QCD corrections

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    NLO QCD corrections enhance the γγ → ttbar cross section while leaving spin observables largely unchanged, with entanglement peaking near threshold and both entanglement and Bell nonlocality depending strongly on beam...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 73 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Fadin and V.A

    V.S. Fadin and V.A. Khoze,Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production in e+ e- Collisions,JETP Lett.46(1987) 525. 15

    1987

  2. [2]

    Fadin and V.A

    V.S. Fadin and V.A. Khoze,Production of a pair of heavy quarks in e+ e- annihilation in the threshold region,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.48(1988) 309. [3]CDFcollaboration,Observation of top quark production in¯ppcollisions,Phys. Rev. Lett.74(1995) 2626 [hep-ex/9503002]. [4]D0collaboration,Observation of the top quark,Phys. Rev. Lett.74(1995) 2632 [hep-ex/9503003]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1988

  3. [5]

    Fadin, V.A

    V.S. Fadin, V.A. Khoze and T. Sjostrand,On the Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production,Z. Phys. C48(1990) 613

    1990

  4. [6]

    Strassler and M.E

    M.J. Strassler and M.E. Peskin,The Heavy top quark threshold: QCD and the Higgs,Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 1500

    1991

  5. [7]

    Jezabek, J.H

    M. Jezabek, J.H. Kuhn and T. Teubner,Momentum distributions in t anti-t production and decay near threshold,Z. Phys. C56(1992) 653

    1992

  6. [8]

    Sumino, K

    Y. Sumino, K. Fujii, K. Hagiwara, H. Murayama and C.K. Ng,Top quark pair production near threshold,Phys. Rev. D 47(1993) 56

    1993

  7. [9]

    Hagiwara, Y

    K. Hagiwara, Y. Sumino and H. Yokoya,Bound-state Effects on Top Quark Production at Hadron Colliders,Phys. Lett. B666(2008) 71 [0804.1014]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  8. [10]

    Sumino and H

    Y. Sumino and H. Yokoya,Bound-state effects on kinematical distributions of top quarks at hadron colliders,JHEP09 (2010) 034 [1007.0075]. [11]ATLAScollaboration,Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector,Nature633 (2024) 542 [2311.07288]. [12]CMScollaboration,Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production i...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [18]

    B. Fuks, K. Hagiwara, K. Ma and Y.-J. Zheng,Signatures of toponium formation in LHC run 2 data,Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 034023 [2102.11281]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [19]

    Maltoni, C

    F. Maltoni, C. Severi, S. Tentori and E. Vryonidou,Quantum detection of new physics in top-quark pair production at the LHC,JHEP03(2024) 099 [2401.08751]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [20]

    Maltoni, D

    F. Maltoni, D. Pagani and S. Tentori,Top-quark pair production as a probe of light top-philic scalars and anomalous Higgs interactions,JHEP09(2024) 098 [2406.06694]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [21]

    Aguilar-Saavedra,Toponium hunter’s guide,Phys

    J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra,Toponium hunter’s guide,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 054032 [2407.20330]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [22]

    C.-T. Lu, K. Cheung, D. Kim, S. Lee and J. Song,Can a pseudoscalar with a mass of 365 GeV in two-Higgs-doublet models explain the CMS tt¯excess?,Phys. Lett. B859(2024) 139121 [2410.08609]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [23]

    B. Fuks, K. Hagiwara, K. Ma and Y.-J. Zheng,Simulating toponium formation signals at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) 157 [2411.18962]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [24]

    Llanes-Estrada,Ensuring that toponium is glued, not nailed,Phys

    F.J. Llanes-Estrada,Ensuring that toponium is glued, not nailed,Phys. Lett. B866(2025) 139510 [2411.19180]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [25]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Ellis and J. Quevillon,Contrasting pseudoscalar Higgs and toponium states at the LHC and beyond,Phys. Lett. B866(2025) 139583 [2412.15138]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [26]

    Garzelli, G

    M.V. Garzelli, G. Limatola, S.O. Moch, M. Steinhauser and O. Zenaiev,Updated predictions for toponium production at the LHC,Phys. Lett. B866(2025) 139532 [2412.16685]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [27]

    Francener, V.P

    R. Francener, V.P. Goncalves and D.E. Martins,Investigating the exclusive toponium production at the LHC and FCC, 2502.03295

    arXiv

  19. [28]

    Nason, E

    P. Nason, E. Re and L. Rottoli,Spin Correlations int ¯tProduction and Decay at the LHC in QCD Perturbation Theory, 2505.00096

    arXiv

  20. [29]

    Fuks,Toponium physics at the Large Hadron Collider,2505.03869

    B. Fuks,Toponium physics at the Large Hadron Collider,2505.03869

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [30]

    Shao and G

    H.-S. Shao and G. Wang,Analytic NNLO transverse-momentum-dependent soft function for heavy quark pair hadroproduction at threshold,2506.23791

    arXiv

  22. [31]

    B. Fuks, K. Hagiwara, K. Ma, L. Munoz-Aillaud and Y.-J. Zheng,Prospects for toponium formation at the LHC in the single-lepton mode,2509.03596

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [32]

    B. Fuks, A. Hossain and J. Keaveney,Statistical Indications of Toponium Formation in Top Quark Pair Production, 2511.02040

    arXiv

  24. [33]

    Flacke, B

    T. Flacke, B. Fuks, D. Kim, J. Kim, S.J. Lee and L. Munoz-Aillaud,New physics in toponium’s shadow?,2512.03220

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [34]

    Balasubramanian, M.B

    V. Balasubramanian, M.B. McDermott and M. Van Raamsdonk,Momentum-space entanglement and renormalization in quantum field theory,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 045014 [1108.3568]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  26. [35]

    Seki, I.Y

    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

  27. [36]

    Peschanski and S

    R. Peschanski and S. Seki,Entanglement Entropy of Scattering Particles,Phys. Lett. B758(2016) 89 [1602.00720]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [37]

    Grignani and G.W

    G. Grignani and G.W. Semenoff,Scattering and momentum space entanglement,Phys. Lett. B772(2017) 699 [1612.08858]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [38]

    Kharzeev and E.M

    D.E. Kharzeev and E.M. Levin,Deep inelastic scattering as a probe of entanglement,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 114008 [1702.03489]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [39]

    J. Fan, Y. Deng and Y.-C. Huang,Variation of entanglement entropy and mutual information in fermion-fermion scattering,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 065017 [1703.07911]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [40]

    Fan and X

    J. Fan and X. Li,Relativistic effect of entanglement in fermion-fermion scattering,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 016011 [1712.06237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [41]

    Cervera-Lierta, J.I

    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

  33. [42]

    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

  34. [43]

    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

  35. [44]

    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,JHEP08(2025) 016 [2505.00873]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [45]

    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

  37. [46]

    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

  38. [47]

    C.M. Sou, Y. Wang and X. Zhang,Entanglement features from heavy particle scattering,2507.03555

    arXiv

  39. [48]

    Afik and J.R.M.n

    Y. Afik and J.R.M.n. de Nova,Entanglement and quantum tomography with top quarks at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136(2021) 907 [2003.02280]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [49]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni and L. Mantani,Quantum SMEFT tomography: Top quark pair production at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 055007 [2203.05619]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [50]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini and G. Panizzo,Testing Bell Inequalities at the LHC with Top-Quark Pairs,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 161801 [2102.11883]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [51]

    Severi, C.D.E

    C. Severi, C.D.E. Boschi, F. Maltoni and M. Sioli,Quantum tops at the LHC: from entanglement to Bell inequalities, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 285 [2110.10112]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [52]

    Afik and J.R.M.n

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [53]

    Aguilar-Saavedra and J.A

    J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J.A. Casas,Improved tests of entanglement and Bell inequalities with LHC tops,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 666 [2205.00542]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [54]

    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

  46. [55]

    Afik and J.R.M.n

    Y. Afik and J.R.M.n. de Nova,Quantum Discord and Steering in Top Quarks at the LHC,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 221801 [2209.03969]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [56]

    Aguilar-Saavedra,Postdecay quantum entanglement in top pair production,Phys

    J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra,Postdecay quantum entanglement in top pair production,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 076025 [2307.06991]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [57]

    T. Han, M. Low and T.A. Wu,Quantum Entanglement and Bell Inequality Violation in Semi-Leptonic Top Decays, 2310.17696

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [58]

    Aguilar-Saavedra,A closer look at post-decayt ¯tentanglement,Phys

    J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra,A closer look at post-decayt ¯tentanglement,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 096027 [2401.10988]. [59]ATLAScollaboration,Observation of quantum entanglement in top-quark pair production usingppcollisions of√s= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, . [60]CMScollaboration,Probing entanglement in top quark production with the CMS detector,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [61]

    S.A. Abel, M. Dittmar and H.K. Dreiner,Testing locality at colliders via Bell’s inequality?,Phys. Lett. B280(1992) 304

    1992

  51. [62]

    White and M.J

    C.D. White and M.J. White,Magic states of top quarks,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 116016 [2406.07321]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [63]

    Q. Liu, I. Low and Z. Yin,Maximal Magic for Two-qubit States,2502.17550

    arXiv

  53. [64]

    Q. Liu, I. Low and Z. Yin,Quantum Magic in Quantum Electrodynamics,2503.03098. [65]CMScollaboration,Observation of magic states of top quark pairs produced in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [66]

    Aoude, H

    R. Aoude, H. Banks, C.D. White and M.J. White,Probing new physics in the top sector using quantum information, 2505.12522

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [67]

    A.J. Barr, P. Caban and J. Rembieli´ nski,Bell-type inequalities for systems of relativistic vector bosons,Quantum7 (2023) 1070 [2204.11063]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [68]

    Ashby-Pickering, A.J

    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

  57. [69]

    Aguilar-Saavedra, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [70]

    Aguilar-Saavedra,Laboratory-frame tests of quantum entanglement inH→W W,Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [71]

    Fabbri, J

    F. Fabbri, J. Howarth and T. Maurin,Isolating semi-leptonicH→W W ∗ decays for Bell inequality tests,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 20 [2307.13783]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [72]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni and L. Mantani,Probing new physics through entanglement in diboson production, JHEP12(2023) 017 [2307.09675]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [73]

    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

  62. [74]

    Altomonte and A.J

    C. Altomonte and A.J. Barr,Quantum state-channel duality for the calculation of Standard Model scattering amplitudes, Phys. Lett. B847(2023) 138303 [2312.02242]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [75]

    Aguilar-Saavedra,Full quantum tomography of top quark decays,Phys

    J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra,Full quantum tomography of top quark decays,Phys. Lett. B855(2024) 138849 [2402.14725]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [76]

    Aguilar-Saavedra,Tripartite entanglement inH→ZZ, W Wdecays,Phys

    J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra,Tripartite entanglement inH→ZZ, W Wdecays,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 113004 [2403.13942]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [77]

    Morales,Tripartite entanglement and Bell non-locality in loop-induced Higgs boson decays,Eur

    R.A. Morales,Tripartite entanglement and Bell non-locality in loop-induced Higgs boson decays,Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) 581 [2403.18023]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [78]

    T. Han, M. Low, N. McGinnis and S. Su,Measuring quantum discord at the LHC,JHEP05(2025) 081 [2412.21158]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [79]

    Horodecki, K

    P. Horodecki, K. Sakurai, A.S. Shaleena and M. Spannowsky,Three-Body Non-Locality in Particle Decays,2502.19470

    arXiv

  68. [80]

    Del Gratta, F

    M. Del Gratta, F. Fabbri, P. Lamba, F. Maltoni and D. Pagani,Quantum properties ofH→V V ∗: precise predictions in the SM and sensitivity to new physics,2504.03841

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  69. [81]

    Grossi, G

    M. Grossi, G. Pelliccioli and A. Vicini,From angular coefficients to quantum observables: a phenomenological appraisal in di-boson systems,JHEP12(2024) 120 [2409.16731]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [82]

    Cheng and B

    K. Cheng and B. Yan,Bell Inequality Violation of Light Quarks in Back-to-Back Dihadron Pair Production at Lepton Colliders,2501.03321

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  71. [83]

    Ghodrati,String scattering amplitudes and mutual information in confining backgrounds: The partonic behavior, Phys

    M. Ghodrati,String scattering amplitudes and mutual information in confining backgrounds: The partonic behavior, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 046011 [2307.13454]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [84]

    Gargalionis, N

    J. Gargalionis, N. Moynihan, S. Trifinopoulos, E.N.V. Wallace, C.D. White and M.J. White,Spin versus Magic: Lessons from Gluon and Graviton Scattering,2508.14967

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [85]

    Durupt, F

    V. Durupt, F. Maltoni and O. Mattelaer,Automated computation of spin-density matrices and quantum observables for collider physics,2510.17730

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  74. [86]

    A.J. Barr, M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli and L. Marzola,Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation at colliders,2402.07972

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  75. [87]

    Afik et al.,Quantum Information meets High-Energy Physics: Input to the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,2504.00086

    Y. Afik et al.,Quantum Information meets High-Energy Physics: Input to the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,2504.00086

    arXiv

  76. [88]

    Mahlon and S

    G. Mahlon and S. Parke,Angular correlations in top quark pair production and decay at hadron colliders,Phys. Rev. D 53(1996) 4886

    1996

  77. [89]

    Plenio and S.S

    M.B. Plenio and S.S. Virmani,An Introduction to Entanglement Theory,Quant. Inf. Comput.7(2007) 001 [quant-ph/0504163]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  78. [90]

    Leone, S.F.E

    L. Leone, S.F.E. Oliviero and A. Hamma,Stabilizer R´ enyi Entropy,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 050402 [2106.12587]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [91]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi,A Positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction,JHEP09(2007) 126 [0707.3088]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  80. [92]

    Nason,A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms,JHEP11(2004) 040 [hep-ph/0409146]

    P. Nason,A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms,JHEP11(2004) 040 [hep-ph/0409146]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

Showing first 80 references.