pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.11296 · v3 · pith:TFJX7BPPnew · submitted 2026-06-09 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex· quant-ph

Tripartite Entanglement in e^+ e^- to t bar{t} Z

Dorival Gon\c{c}alves , Alberto Navarro , Kazuki Sakurai This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 12:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-exquant-ph
keywords tripartite entanglementtop-antitop-Z productionspin density matrixnegativity measureslepton colliderquantum tomographymultipartite negativitypolarised beams
0
0 comments X

The pith

In e+ e- to t tbar Z at future lepton colliders, collective tripartite entanglement is accessible via tomography while genuine multipartite entanglement shows only limited sensitivity.

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

The paper reconstructs the full 12x12 spin density matrix for the tripartite system of top, antitop, and Z spins from Standard Model helicity amplitudes in e+ e- to t tbar Z. It then evaluates one-to-one negativities, one-to-other negativities, and genuine multipartite negativity at three levels of phase space integration to map the entanglement structure. Pairwise entanglement turns out suppressed relative to collective and genuine forms, with all measures falling as more kinematics are integrated away. A sympathetic reader would care because the work positions this process as a concrete laboratory for testing multipartite quantum correlations at high-energy colliders using realistic luminosities and polarisation.

Core claim

Starting from the Standard Model helicity amplitudes, the full 12x12 spin density matrix is reconstructed for the tripartite Hilbert space of the top, antitop, and Z spins. Entanglement is characterised through one-to-one negativities, one-to-other negativities, and the genuine multipartite negativity at three increasingly inclusive levels of phase space integration. Pairwise entanglement is generally suppressed relative to the collective and genuine multipartite measures, and all quantities decrease when more kinematic information is integrated out. Assuming quantum tomography in the fully leptonic decay channel at sqrt(s)=1 TeV, collective entanglement is accessible at a realistic high-lum

What carries the argument

The 12x12 spin density matrix of the tripartite spin system (top, antitop, Z) reconstructed from tree-level SM helicity amplitudes, together with negativity-based entanglement measures evaluated after successive phase-space integrations.

If this is right

  • Pairwise entanglement is suppressed relative to collective and genuine multipartite entanglement.
  • All entanglement measures decrease as more kinematic information is integrated out.
  • Collective entanglement should be accessible via quantum tomography in the fully leptonic decay channel at sqrt(s)=1 TeV with realistic high-luminosity polarised lepton colliders.
  • Certifying genuine multipartite entanglement has only limited sensitivity for a specific polarisation benchmark within expected ILC luminosity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The mixed-state negativity framework developed here can be applied directly to other tripartite final states involving vector bosons or heavy fermions at colliders.
  • Observation of the predicted collective negativity would constitute a direct test of quantum coherence in SM production amplitudes beyond classical spin correlations.
  • Including next-to-leading-order QCD corrections or hypothetical BSM contributions would shift the predicted negativity values and could be constrained by the same tomography setup.
  • The approach suggests that spin tomography at lepton colliders offers a systematic route to quantify multipartite entanglement in any process whose final-state spins span a product of low-dimensional Hilbert spaces.

Load-bearing premise

The spin density matrix reconstructed from tree-level Standard Model helicity amplitudes fully captures the entanglement structure relevant for experimental tomography, without significant contamination from higher-order QCD corrections, beyond-Standard-Model contributions, or decay-channel-specific reconstruction biases.

What would settle it

An experimental reconstruction of the genuine multipartite negativity or one-to-other negativity in the fully leptonic channel at 1 TeV that lies outside the projected sensitivity band for the ILC luminosity benchmark would falsify the accessibility claims.

read the original abstract

Multipartite entanglement is a uniquely quantum form of correlation that captures collective properties of a composite quantum state beyond those encoded in its bipartite subsystems. We investigate this phenomenon in the process $e^+e^-\to t\bar tZ$ at a future lepton collider, where the final state spins span the tripartite Hilbert space $\mathscr{H} = \mathbb{C}^2 \otimes \mathbb{C}^2 \otimes \mathbb{C}^3$. Starting from the Standard Model helicity amplitudes, we reconstruct the full $12\times 12$ spin density matrix and characterise its entanglement structure through one-to-one negativities, one-to-other negativities, and the genuine multipartite negativity, evaluated at three increasingly inclusive levels of phase space integration. Pairwise entanglement is generally suppressed relative to the collective (one-to-other) and the genuine multipartite entanglement, and all measures decrease as more kinematic information is integrated out. Assuming quantum tomography in the fully leptonic decay channel at $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV, we find that collective entanglement should be accessible at a realistic high-luminosity polarised lepton collider. By contrast, certifying genuine multipartite entanglement is more challenging, with only limited sensitivity projected for a specific polarisation benchmark within the expected ILC luminosity. The study establishes $e^+e^-\to t \bar{t}Z$ as an attractive laboratory for probing multipartite entanglement in high-energy collisions and provides a general mixed state framework that applies to any tripartite spin system.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates multipartite entanglement in e⁺e⁻ → t t̄ Z at a future lepton collider. Starting from Standard Model helicity amplitudes, it reconstructs the full 12×12 spin density matrix for the tripartite system (t, t̄, Z) and characterizes its entanglement structure via one-to-one negativities, one-to-other negativities, and genuine multipartite negativity, evaluated at three levels of phase space integration. Pairwise entanglement is suppressed relative to collective and genuine measures, with all quantities decreasing upon integration. Projections assuming quantum tomography in the fully leptonic channel at √s=1 TeV indicate that collective entanglement should be accessible at a realistic high-luminosity polarized lepton collider, while certifying genuine multipartite entanglement has only limited sensitivity for a specific polarization benchmark within expected ILC luminosity. The work provides a general mixed-state framework applicable to any tripartite spin system.

Significance. If the quantitative projections hold, the paper establishes e⁺e⁻ → t t̄ Z as an attractive laboratory for probing multipartite entanglement in high-energy collisions and supplies a reusable mixed-state formalism for tripartite spin systems. The explicit comparison of entanglement measures across integration levels and the experimental accessibility estimates at a polarized ILC add concrete value to the field.

major comments (1)
  1. [reconstruction of the spin density matrix from helicity amplitudes] The reconstruction of the 12×12 spin density matrix (and all derived negativities) begins from tree-level Standard Model helicity amplitudes. NLO QCD corrections are known to modify spin-density-matrix elements at the few-to-ten-percent level in t t̄ production; because genuine multipartite negativity is a nonlinear functional of off-diagonal coherences, even modest corrections can shift the reported accessibility thresholds. The manuscript provides no estimate or bound on these corrections, nor any comparison to NLO amplitudes, leaving the quantitative claims about collective vs. genuine entanglement at √s=1 TeV dependent on an unverified leading-order approximation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] The three increasingly inclusive levels of phase space integration are mentioned but not explicitly defined or labeled in the abstract or summary; a clear enumeration (e.g., fully differential, single-particle integrated, fully integrated) would improve readability.
  2. [introduction or formalism section] The Hilbert space notation ℜ = ℂ² ⊗ ℂ² ⊗ ℂ³ is introduced without an accompanying statement of the chosen basis ordering for the 12-dimensional space; adding this would aid readers reconstructing the density matrix.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and for highlighting the importance of higher-order corrections in assessing the robustness of our quantitative projections. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The reconstruction of the 12×12 spin density matrix (and all derived negativities) begins from tree-level Standard Model helicity amplitudes. NLO QCD corrections are known to modify spin-density-matrix elements at the few-to-ten-percent level in t t̄ production; because genuine multipartite negativity is a nonlinear functional of off-diagonal coherences, even modest corrections can shift the reported accessibility thresholds. The manuscript provides no estimate or bound on these corrections, nor any comparison to NLO amplitudes, leaving the quantitative claims about collective vs. genuine entanglement at √s=1 TeV dependent on an unverified leading-order approximation.

    Authors: We agree that the analysis is performed at leading order and that NLO QCD corrections to the spin-density-matrix elements in tt̄ production are known to reach the few-to-ten-percent level. Because genuine multipartite negativity is a nonlinear functional, such corrections could in principle affect the precise numerical thresholds for experimental accessibility. The present work is an exploratory study that establishes the general mixed-state formalism and demonstrates the qualitative hierarchy (pairwise entanglement suppressed relative to collective and genuine measures) already at tree level. To strengthen the manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the revised version that (i) cites the existing NLO literature on spin correlations in tt̄ and tt̄Z, (ii) provides a conservative estimate of the expected shift in the negativity measures based on those results, and (iii) explicitly states that a full NLO computation lies beyond the scope of this paper but would be a natural follow-up. This addition will make the dependence on the leading-order approximation transparent without altering the central conclusions of the work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation computes density matrix from external SM amplitudes then applies standard negativity measures

full rationale

The paper reconstructs the 12x12 spin density matrix directly from Standard Model helicity amplitudes and evaluates it with the standard definitions of one-to-one, one-to-other, and genuine multipartite negativity. No parameter is fitted to data and then relabeled as a prediction, no entanglement measure is defined in terms of itself, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or ansatz imported from the authors' prior work. The reported accessibility statements follow from the explicit SM calculation plus the usual negativity formulas applied at successive integration levels; the chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies insufficient detail to enumerate free parameters or invented entities; the central construction rests on the domain assumption that SM helicity amplitudes suffice.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard Model helicity amplitudes accurately describe the spin correlations in e+e- -> ttZ
    Used as the starting point to reconstruct the 12x12 density matrix

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5810 in / 1372 out tokens · 21633 ms · 2026-06-27T12:27:42.339561+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 18 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Entanglement and quantum tomography with top quarks at the LHC,

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. n. de Nova, “Entanglement and quantum tomography with top quarks at the LHC,”Eur. Phys. J. Plus136no. 9, (2021) 907,arXiv:2003.02280 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Testing Bell Inequalities at the LHC with Top-Quark Pairs,

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and G. Panizzo, “Testing Bell Inequalities at the LHC with Top-Quark Pairs,”Phys. Rev. Lett.127no. 16, (2021) 161801,arXiv:2102.11883 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Quantum tops at the LHC: from entanglement to Bell inequalities,

    C. Severi, C. D. E. Boschi, F. Maltoni, and M. Sioli, “Quantum tops at the LHC: from entanglement to Bell inequalities,”Eur. Phys. J. C82no. 4, (2022) 285, arXiv:2110.10112 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Quantum Discord and Steering in Top Quarks at the LHC,

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. n. de Nova, “Quantum Discord and Steering in Top Quarks at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. Lett.130no. 22, (2023) 221801,arXiv:2209.03969 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Quantum SMEFT tomography: Top quark pair production at the LHC,

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, “Quantum SMEFT tomography: Top quark pair production at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 5, (2022) 055007, arXiv:2203.05619 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Quantum information with top quarks in QCD,

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova, “Quantum information with top quarks in QCD,”Quantum 6(2022) 820,arXiv:2203.05582 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Improved tests of entanglement and Bell inequalities with LHC tops,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. A. Casas, “Improved tests of entanglement and Bell inequalities with LHC tops,”Eur. Phys. J. C82no. 8, (2022) 666,arXiv:2205.00542 [hep-ph]. – 33 –

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Constraining new physics in entangled two-qubit systems: top-quark, tau-lepton and photon pairs,

    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. C83no. 2, (2023) 162,arXiv:2208.11723 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Quantum entanglement and top spin correlations in SMEFT at higher orders,

    C. Severi and E. Vryonidou, “Quantum entanglement and top spin correlations in SMEFT at higher orders,”JHEP01(2023) 148,arXiv:2210.09330 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Entanglement and Bell inequalities with boostedt t,

    Z. Dong, D. Gonçalves, K. Kong, and A. Navarro, “Entanglement and Bell inequalities with boostedt t,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 11, (2024) 115023,arXiv:2305.07075 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Postdecay quantum entanglement in top pair production,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Postdecay quantum entanglement in top pair production,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 7, (2023) 076025,arXiv:2307.06991 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Quantum Entanglement and Bell Inequality Violation in Semi-Leptonic Top Decays,

    T. Han, M. Low, and T. A. Wu, “Quantum Entanglement and Bell Inequality Violation in Semi-Leptonic Top Decays,”arXiv:2310.17696 [hep-ph]. [13]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector,”Nature633no. 8030, (2024) 542–547,arXiv:2311.07288 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Optimizing fictitious states for Bell inequality violation in bipartite qubit systems with applications to thet¯tsystem,

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and M. Low, “Optimizing fictitious states for Bell inequality violation in bipartite qubit systems with applications to thet¯tsystem,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 11, (2024) 116005,arXiv:2311.09166 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Quantum detection of new physics in top-quark pair production at the LHC,

    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,arXiv:2401.08751 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation at colliders,

    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,arXiv:2402.07972 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Quantum tops at circular lepton colliders,

    F. Maltoni, C. Severi, S. Tentori, and E. Vryonidou, “Quantum tops at circular lepton colliders,”JHEP09(2024) 001,arXiv:2404.08049 [hep-ph]. [18]CMSCollaboration, A. Hayrapetyanet al., “Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13TeV,”Rept. Prog. Phys.87 no. 11, (2024) 117801,arXiv:2406.03976 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Magic states of top quarks,

    C. D. White and M. J. White, “Magic states of top quarks,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 11, (2024) 116016,arXiv:2406.07321 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Hadronic top quark polarimetry with ParticleNet,

    Z. Dong, D. Gonçalves, K. Kong, A. J. Larkoski, and A. Navarro, “Hadronic top quark polarimetry with ParticleNet,”Phys. Lett. B862(2025) 139314,arXiv:2407.01663 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Optimizing entanglement and Bell inequality violation in top antitop events,

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and M. Low, “Optimizing entanglement and Bell inequality violation in top antitop events,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 3, (2025) 033004,arXiv:2407.01672 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Analytical insights on hadronic top quark polarimetry,

    Z. Dong, D. Gonçalves, K. Kong, A. J. Larkoski, and A. Navarro, “Analytical insights on hadronic top quark polarimetry,”JHEP02(2025) 117,arXiv:2407.07147 [hep-ph]. [23]CMSCollaboration, A. Hayrapetyanet al., “Measurements of polarization and spin correlation and observation of entanglement in top quark pairs using lepton+jets events from proton-proton col...

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Measuring Quantum Discord at the LHC,

    T. Han, M. Low, N. McGinnis, and S. Su, “Measuring Quantum Discord at the LHC,” arXiv:2412.21158 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  22. [22]

    Prospects for quantum process tomography at high energies,

    C. Altomonte, A. J. Barr, M. Eckstein, P. Horodecki, and K. Sakurai, “Prospects for quantum process tomography at high energies,”arXiv:2412.01892 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  23. [23]

    Bell Inequality Violation of Light Quarks in Back-to-Back Dihadron Pair Production at Lepton Colliders,

    K. Cheng and B. Yan, “Bell Inequality Violation of Light Quarks in Back-to-Back Dihadron Pair Production at Lepton Colliders,”arXiv:2501.03321 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Quantum Information meets High-Energy Physics: Input to the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,

    Y. Afiket al., “Quantum Information meets High-Energy Physics: Input to the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,”arXiv:2504.00086 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  25. [25]

    Entanglement and Bell nonlocality with bottom-quark pairs at hadron colliders,

    Y. Afik, Y. Kats, J. R. M. de Nova, A. Soffer, and D. Uzan, “Entanglement and Bell nonlocality with bottom-quark pairs at hadron colliders,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 11, (2025) L111902,arXiv:2406.04402 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Decoherence effects in entangled fermion pairs at colliders,

    R. Aoude, A. J. Barr, F. Maltoni, and L. Satrioni, “Decoherence effects in entangled fermion pairs at colliders,”Phys. Rev. D113no. 7, (2026) 076007,arXiv:2504.07030 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Spin Correlations int¯tProduction and Decay at the LHC in QCD Perturbation Theory,

    P. Nason, E. Re, and L. Rottoli, “Spin Correlations int¯tProduction and Decay at the LHC in QCD Perturbation Theory,”arXiv:2505.00096 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  28. [28]

    Local vs. nonlocal entanglement in top-quark pairs at the LHC,

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and L. Marzola, “Local vs. nonlocal entanglement in top-quark pairs at the LHC,”JHEP11(2025) 005,arXiv:2505.02902 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Spin correlations and Bell nonlocality in ΛΛpair production from e+e− collisions with a thrust cut,

    S.-J. Lin, M.-J. Liu, D. Y. Shao, and S.-Y. Wei, “Spin correlations and Bell nonlocality in ΛΛpair production from e+e− collisions with a thrust cut,”JHEP11(2025) 082, arXiv:2507.15387 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Addressing local realism through Bell tests at colliders,

    M. Low, “Addressing local realism through Bell tests at colliders,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 9, (2025) 096008,arXiv:2508.10979 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Automated computation of spin-density matrices and quantum observables for collider physics,

    V. Durupt, F. Maltoni, and O. Mattelaer, “Automated computation of spin-density matrices and quantum observables for collider physics,”arXiv:2510.17730 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Decoherence in high energy collisions as renormalization group flow,

    J. Gu, S.-J. Lin, D. Y. Shao, L.-T. Wang, and S.-X. Yang, “Decoherence in high energy collisions as renormalization group flow,”arXiv:2510.13951 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  33. [33]

    Quantum entanglement and bell nonlocality at future lepton colliders,

    E. Gabrielli and L. Marzola, “Quantum entanglement and bell nonlocality at future lepton colliders,”Eur. Phys. J. Plus141no. 3, (2026) 331,arXiv:2602.03960 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Quantum Tomography of Fermion Pairs ine+e− Collisions: Longitudinal Beam Polarization Effects,

    Y.-C. Guo, T. Han, M. Low, and Y. Su, “Quantum Tomography of Fermion Pairs ine+e− Collisions: Longitudinal Beam Polarization Effects,”arXiv:2602.02719 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  35. [35]

    Spin Correlation and Quantum Entanglement of Fermion Pairs in Transversely Polarizede−e+ Collisions,

    Y.-J. Fang, A. Bhoonah, K. Cheng, T. Han, Y. Liu, and H. Zhang, “Spin Correlation and Quantum Entanglement of Fermion Pairs in Transversely Polarizede−e+ Collisions,” arXiv:2604.11887 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Quantum entanglement and Bell nonlocality in top-quark pair production at a photon linear collider,

    S. Y. Choi, D. W. Kang, J. S. Lee, and C. B. Park, “Quantum entanglement and Bell nonlocality in top-quark pair production at a photon linear collider,”arXiv:2603.12830 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  37. [37]

    Quantum properties of heavy-fermion pairs at a lepton collider with polarised beams,

    M. M. Altakach, P. Lamba, F. Maltoni, and K. Sakurai, “Quantum properties of heavy-fermion pairs at a lepton collider with polarised beams,”arXiv:2601.09558 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  38. [38]

    Radiation effects on the entanglement of fermion pairs at colliders,

    R. Aoude, J. M. Camacho, V. Durupt, G. García-Mir, F. Maltoni, M. Moreno Llácer, L. Satrioni, and M. Vos, “Radiation effects on the entanglement of fermion pairs at colliders,”arXiv:2604.16268 [hep-ph]. – 35 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Quantum information and CP measurement inH→τ +τ − at future lepton colliders,

    M. M. Altakach, P. Lamba, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, and K. Sakurai, “Quantum information and CP measurement inH→τ +τ − at future lepton colliders,”Phys. Rev. D 107no. 9, (2023) 093002,arXiv:2211.10513 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Testing Bell inequality throughh→τ τat CEPC*,

    K. Ma and T. Li, “Testing Bell inequality throughh→τ τat CEPC*,”Chin. Phys. C48 no. 10, (2024) 103105,arXiv:2309.08103 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Probing entanglement and testing Bell inequality violation withe+e− →τ +τ − at Belle II,

    K. Ehatäht, M. Fabbrichesi, L. Marzola, and C. Veelken, “Probing entanglement and testing Bell inequality violation withe+e− →τ +τ − at Belle II,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 3, (2024) 032005,arXiv:2311.17555 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Quantum tomography withτleptons at the FCC-ee: Entanglement, Bell inequality violation,sinθW, and anomalous couplings,

    M. Fabbrichesi and L. Marzola, “Quantum tomography withτleptons at the FCC-ee: Entanglement, Bell inequality violation,sinθW, and anomalous couplings,”Phys. Rev. D 110no. 7, (2024) 076004,arXiv:2405.09201 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Trace distance between density matrices: A nifty tool in new-physics searches,

    M. Fabbrichesi, M. Low, and L. Marzola, “Trace distance between density matrices: A nifty tool in new-physics searches,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 1, (2025) 013003,arXiv:2501.03311 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Entanglement and Bell nonlocality inτ+τ − at the BEPC,

    T. Han, M. Low, and Y. Su, “Entanglement and Bell nonlocality inτ+τ − at the BEPC,” JHEP10(2025) 217,arXiv:2501.04801 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Entanglement and Bell nonlocality inτ+τ − at the LHC using machine learning for neutrino reconstruction,

    Y. Zhang, B.-H. Zhou, Q.-B. Liu, T. A. Wu, S. Li, T. Han, S.-C. Hsu, and M. Low, “Entanglement and Bell nonlocality inτ+τ − at the LHC using machine learning for neutrino reconstruction,”JHEP04(2026) 190,arXiv:2504.01496 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Experimental aspects of the quantum tomography of tau lepton pairs at a Higgs factory collider,

    D. Jeans, “Experimental aspects of the quantum tomography of tau lepton pairs at a Higgs factory collider,”Eur. Phys. J. C86no. 5, (2026) 549,arXiv:2603.12609 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Higgs Boson Spookiness: Probing Quantum Nonlocality with Spacetime-ResolvedH→τ +τ − Decays,

    L. Lee, J. Lawless, and C. Riggall, “Higgs Boson Spookiness: Probing Quantum Nonlocality with Spacetime-ResolvedH→τ +τ − Decays,”arXiv:2603.28868 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  48. [48]

    Testing Bell inequalities in Higgs boson decays,

    A. J. Barr, “Testing Bell inequalities in Higgs boson decays,”Phys. Lett. B825(2022) 136866,arXiv:2106.01377 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Testing entanglement and Bell inequalities in H→ZZ,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, A. Bernal, J. A. Casas, and J. M. Moreno, “Testing entanglement and Bell inequalities in H→ZZ,”Phys. Rev. D107no. 1, (2023) 016012,arXiv:2209.13441 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Laboratory-frame tests of quantum entanglement in H→WW,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Laboratory-frame tests of quantum entanglement in H→WW,” Phys. Rev. D107no. 7, (2023) 076016,arXiv:2209.14033 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Quantum state tomography, entanglement detection and Bell violation prospects in weak decays of massive particles,

    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,arXiv:2209.13990 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Bell inequalities and quantum entanglement in weak gauge boson production at the LHC and future colliders,

    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. C83no. 9, (2023) 823,arXiv:2302.00683 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Stringent bounds on HWW and HZZ anomalous couplings with quantum tomography at the LHC,

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, “Stringent bounds on HWW and HZZ anomalous couplings with quantum tomography at the LHC,”JHEP09(2023) 195,arXiv:2304.02403 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Exploring Bell inequalities and quantum entanglement in vector boson scattering,

    R. A. Morales, “Exploring Bell inequalities and quantum entanglement in vector boson scattering,”Eur. Phys. J. Plus138no. 12, (2023) 1157,arXiv:2306.17247 [hep-ph]. – 36 –

    arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Probing new physics through entanglement in diboson production,

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, “Probing new physics through entanglement in diboson production,”JHEP12(2023) 017,arXiv:2307.09675 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Isolating semi-leptonicH→W W∗decays for Bell inequality tests,

    F. Fabbri, J. Howarth, and T. Maurin, “Isolating semi-leptonicH→W W∗decays for Bell inequality tests,”Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 1, (2024) 20,arXiv:2307.13783 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Entanglement and Bell inequalities violation in H→ZZwith anomalous coupling,

    A. Bernal, P. Caban, and J. Rembieliński, “Entanglement and Bell inequalities violation in H→ZZwith anomalous coupling,”Eur. Phys. J. C83no. 11, (2023) 1050, arXiv:2307.13496 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    New observables for testing Bell inequalities in W boson pair production,

    Q. Bi, Q.-H. Cao, K. Cheng, and H. Zhang, “New observables for testing Bell inequalities in W boson pair production,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 3, (2024) 036022,arXiv:2307.14895 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Entanglement and Bell inequality violation in vector diboson systems produced in decays of spin-0 particles,

    A. Bernal, P. Caban, and J. Rembieliński, “Entanglement and Bell inequality violation in vector diboson systems produced in decays of spin-0 particles,”arXiv:2405.16525 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  60. [60]

    Testing Bell inequalities and probing quantum entanglement at a muon collider,

    A. Ruzi, Y. Wu, R. Ding, S. Qian, A. M. Levin, and Q. Li, “Testing Bell inequalities and probing quantum entanglement at a muon collider,”JHEP10(2024) 211, arXiv:2408.05429 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    From angular coefficients to quantum observables: a phenomenological appraisal in di-boson systems,

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

    arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Testing Bell inequalities and probing quantum entanglement at CEPC,

    Y. Wu, R. Jiang, A. Ruzi, Y. Ban, X. Yan, and Q. Li, “Testing Bell inequalities and probing quantum entanglement at CEPC,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 3, (2025) 036008, arXiv:2410.17025 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Constraining New Physics withh→V VTomography,

    M. Sullivan, “Constraining New Physics withh→V VTomography,”arXiv:2410.10980 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  64. [64]

    H→ZZas a double-slit experiment,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “H→ZZas a double-slit experiment,”arXiv:2411.13464 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  65. [65]

    Quantum Entanglement between gauge boson pairs at a Muon Collider,

    R. Ding, A. Ruzi, S. Qian, A. Levin, Y. Wu, and Q. Li, “Quantum Entanglement between gauge boson pairs at a Muon Collider,”arXiv:2504.09832 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  66. [66]

    Quantum properties of H →VV ∗: precise predictions in the SM and sensitivity to new physics,

    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,arXiv:2504.03841 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Quantum entanglement is quantum: ZZ production at the LHC,

    D. Gonçalves, A. Kaladharan, F. Krauss, and A. Navarro, “Quantum entanglement is quantum: ZZ production at the LHC,”JHEP12(2025) 122,arXiv:2505.12125 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Quantum tomography beyond the leading order,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Quantum tomography beyond the leading order,”Eur. Phys. J. C 85no. 9, (2025) 969,arXiv:2505.11870 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Higher-order corrections to quantum observables in h→WW ∗,

    D. Gonçalves, A. Kaladharan, and A. Navarro, “Higher-order corrections to quantum observables in h→WW ∗,”JHEP11(2025) 158,arXiv:2506.19951 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Searching Quantum Entanglement inp p→Z Z process,

    A. Ruzi, Y. Wu, R. Ding, and Q. Li, “Searching Quantum Entanglement inp p→Z Z process,”arXiv:2506.16077 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  71. [71]

    Momentum entanglement at colliders: theH→W W, ZZcase,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Momentum entanglement at colliders: theH→W W, ZZcase,” arXiv:2512.02104 [hep-ph]. – 37 –

    arXiv

  72. [72]

    Unfolding quantum entanglement fromh→ZZ∗ →jjℓℓat a muon collider,

    S. De, A. Dey, and T. Samui, “Unfolding quantum entanglement fromh→ZZ∗ →jjℓℓat a muon collider,”arXiv:2512.09121 [hep-ph]. [76]CMSCollaboration, “Study of spin correlations in Higgs boson decays to four leptons at CMS,” tech. rep., CERN, Geneva, 2025.https://cds.cern.ch/record/2949823

    arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    SMEFT effects on spin correlations and entanglement at NLO QCD in di-boson production at hadron colliders,

    G. Pelliccioli and E. Re, “SMEFT effects on spin correlations and entanglement at NLO QCD in di-boson production at hadron colliders,”arXiv:2601.09540 [hep-ph]. [78]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Measurements ofZ-boson pair entanglement in decays of Higgs bosons at the ATLAS experiment,”arXiv:2603.26463 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  74. [74]

    Quantum Tomography and Entanglement in Semi-Leptonich→V V ∗ Decays at Higher Orders,

    D. Gonçalves, A. Kaladharan, and A. Navarro, “Quantum Tomography and Entanglement in Semi-Leptonich→V V ∗ Decays at Higher Orders,”arXiv:2604.16218 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  75. [75]

    Three-Body Entanglement in Particle Decays,

    K. Sakurai and M. Spannowsky, “Three-Body Entanglement in Particle Decays,”Phys. Rev. Lett.132no. 15, (2024) 151602,arXiv:2310.01477 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Three-body non-locality in particle decays,

    P. Horodecki, K. Sakurai, A. S. Shaleena, and M. Spannowsky, “Three-body non-locality in particle decays,”JHEP10(2025) 160,arXiv:2502.19470 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Tripartite entanglement in H→ZZ,WW decays,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Tripartite entanglement in H→ZZ,WW decays,”Phys. Rev. D109 no. 11, (2024) 113004,arXiv:2403.13942 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

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

    R. A. Morales, “Tripartite entanglement and Bell non-locality in loop-induced Higgs boson decays,”Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 6, (2024) 581,arXiv:2403.18023 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    On bipartite and tripartite entanglement at present and future particle colliders,

    A. Subba and R. Rahaman, “On bipartite and tripartite entanglement at present and future particle colliders,”arXiv:2404.03292 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  80. [80]

    Quantum-entangled pions,

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, “Quantum-entangled pions,” Phys. Rev. D112no. 9, (2025) L091301,arXiv:2506.05464 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.