Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 83 references

This paper establishes that quantum spin-correlation observables in ℓ⁺ℓ⁻→tt̄ (ℓ=e,μ) with γ, Z, and Z′ exchange discriminate chiral charge assignments of anomaly-free U(1) extensions, most sharply near the Z′ pole and with polarized electro

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

2026-08-01 23:59 UTC pith:OVDAYDRH

load-bearing objection A clean, standard LO study of t-tbar spin observables for general U(1)_X Z' at lepton colliders; the polarized-beam maps are genuinely useful, but the near-pole benchmark curves rest on an unstated scalar-mass assumption in the Z' width. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15153 v1 pith:OVDAYDRH submitted 2026-07-16 hep-ph

Quantum spin correlations in Z^prime-mediated tbar{t} production at future lepton colliders

ShivaSankar K.A. , Arindam Das , Sanjoy Mandal This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords top quark pair productionquantum spin correlationsZ′ bosongeneral U(1) extensionsspin density matrixentanglement markerBell nonlocality CHSHlepton colliders
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 argues that the spin-density matrix of top-quark pairs produced at future lepton colliders carries information about the chiral couplings of a hypothetical new Z′ boson that ordinary cross sections miss. Building the production density matrix for ℓ⁺ℓ⁻→tt̄ including γ, Z, and Z′ exchange and their interference, it shows that the entanglement marker D_min, concurrence, purity, and the CHSH parameter all respond differently to the left- and right-handed charge assignments of anomaly-free U(1)_X models. The largest separations between charge scenarios appear as the collision energy approaches the Z′ pole, and with polarized e⁻e⁺ beams the two surviving initial helicity channels can be weighted separately, exposing q_ℓL and q_ℓR. If true, this gives a new, quantum-information-based handle on chiral neutral currents at future colliders, complementary to rates and angular distributions.

Core claim

For ℓ⁺ℓ⁻→tt̄ through s-channel γ, Z, and Z′, the normalized two-qubit spin density matrix ρ is determined by helicity amplitudes whose chiral couplings encode the U(1)_X charges of left- and right-handed fermions. The central discovery is that diagnostics built from ρ—the sufficient entanglement marker D_min (from the diagonal spin correlations C_kk, C_rr, C_nn), concurrence from the full 4×4 matrix, purity, and the maximal CHSH parameter—vary with the charge assignment x_H in patterns not reducible to rate effects. Beam polarization, parametrized by the effective angle sin²Φ that weights the e⁻_R e⁺_L versus e⁻_L e⁺_R channels, makes the left- and right-handed lepton charges separately visi

What carries the argument

The production spin-density matrix ρ for the tt̄ pair—a 4×4 two-qubit state expanded in the Pauli basis with polarization vectors B₁, B₂ and correlation matrix C—built from helicity amplitudes that include γ, Z, and Z′ propagators with finite widths. The quantum observables are functions of ρ: D_min = min of four diagonal-correlation combinations (with D_min < −1/3 a sufficient entanglement criterion), concurrence from the spin-flipped matrix, purity Tr ρ², and B_CHSH = 2√(e₁+e₂) from the two largest eigenvalues of CᵀC. Beam polarization enters through weights w(λ;P) = (1+λP)/2, equivalently through the single parameter sin²Φ that uniquely fixes the normalized spin observables; this lets the

Load-bearing premise

The central separation between charge assignments near the resonance assumes the Z′ total width is set only by decays to SM fermions and light neutrinos, with the heavy-neutrino channel closed and no U(1)_X–U(1)_Y kinetic mixing; if either assumption changes, the apparent chiral handles would shift.

What would settle it

Recalculate the polarized D_min, concurrence, and CHSH maps with a Z′ width that includes the Z′→NN channel (M_N < M_Z′/2) or with nonzero kinetic mixing; if the x_H benchmarks no longer separate, the paper's central handle fails. Experimentally, a future e⁻e⁺ run near √s = M_Z′ = 5 TeV with two different beam-polarization settings could directly test whether the predicted charge-dependent spin patterns appear in the reconstructed tt̄ spin density matrix.

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

If this is right

  • At a 3 TeV e⁻e⁺ collider with M_Z′ = 5 TeV, the polarized maps of D_min, concurrence, and CHSH differ among the U(1)_X charge benchmarks, so measuring these observables can distinguish chiral charge assignments that yield similar unpolarized rates.
  • Electron-beam polarization provides a direct handle on q_ℓL versus q_ℓR: tuning sin²Φ selects the e⁻_R e⁺_L or e⁻_L e⁺_R initial channel, exposing the corresponding Z′ couplings.
  • The entanglement and Bell-violation observables identify kinematic windows near the Z′ pole where the new interaction produces the strongest spin correlations, complementing conventional rate and angular-distribution searches.
  • The unpolarized results for muon-pair and electron-pair beams map out the entangled and Bell-violating regions up to multi-TeV energies, extending the search reach for a chiral Z′.
  • The x_H = 0 benchmark reproduces the vector-like B−L limit and matches known SM/B−L lepton-collider entanglement behavior, providing a cross-check of the calculation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted spin patterns hold, quantum-information observables could serve as a discovery trigger independent of rate: a localized shift in D_min, concurrence, or CHSH at a specific energy and beam polarization might flag a chiral Z′ before a resonance bump becomes statistically significant.
  • The technique should generalize beyond the three charge assignments studied here, for example to flavored U(1) models or Z′ bosons with different anomaly-free charge combinations; the paper's benchmarks are a sample, not an exhaustive scan.
  • A direct testable extension is to recompute the same observables with additional Z′ decay channels, such as an open heavy-neutrino mode or nonzero U(1)_X–U(1)_Y kinetic mixing; if the chiral separation weakens under those assumptions, the method's practical reach would be narrower than the benchmark scenarios suggest.
  • The next step toward experiment is to fold in top-decay spin analyzers, detector effects, and statistical uncertainties; the paper notes this is required for a realistic assessment, so the present results should be read as a proof of principle for the observable, not a sensitivity projection.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies t tbar production at future lepton colliders with s-channel gamma, Z, and Z' exchange in minimal anomaly-free U(1)_X extensions. It constructs the production spin-density matrix from analytic helicity amplitudes and evaluates the quantum-information observables D_min, concurrence, purity, and B_CHSH for unpolarized e+e-/mu+mu- collisions and for polarized e-e+ beams. Four representative x_H charge assignments are considered at M_Z' = 5 and 7.5 TeV, with benchmark couplings from existing collider constraints. The central claim is that these spin observables, especially near the Z' pole and with beam polarization, discriminate the chiral charge structure of U(1)_X and provide information complementary to rate measurements. The calculation is validated by reproducing the SM and B-L limits and by comparing with a MadGraph implementation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a genuinely new observable channel for chiral Z' searches at future lepton colliders: instead of relying on rates or angular distributions, one can use quantum spin correlations encoded in the t tbar density matrix. The analytic derivation is explicit and the numerical implementation is independently cross-checked against MadGraph and against existing SM/B-L results (Refs. [36,40]), which is a notable strength. The paper also makes concrete, falsifiable predictions for benchmark U(1)_X models and is transparent about the code lineage. The main caveat is that the near-pole quantitative results depend on model assumptions about the scalar sector and kinetic mixing that are not spelled out; these need to be clarified before the quantitative claims can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (2)-(3), Table I] The total width used in the Z' propagator omits the decay Z'->Phi Phi, although the scalar Phi carries U(1)_X charge 2 x_Phi = 2 and is part of the model. The manuscript states M_N > M_Z'/2 for heavy neutrinos but gives no analogous assumption on M_Phi. If M_Phi < M_Z'/2, the scalar partial width is nonzero and increases Gamma_Z', broadening the Breit-Wigner and suppressing the near-pole spin-observable deviations that are the central visual results (Figs. 6, 9, 10). Please either state M_Phi > M_Z'/2 explicitly or include the scalar partial width in Eqs. (2)-(3); otherwise the near-pole plots are conditional on an unstated mass assumption.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (1), Tables I-III] The phenomenological maps assume vanishing U(1)_X - U(1)_Y kinetic mixing, but this is not stated. Kinetic mixing is allowed by the gauge structure and is radiatively generated even if set to zero at tree level; it modifies the effective chiral couplings entering the helicity amplitudes (50)-(53) and hence every spin observable shown. Since the paper aims to discriminate chiral charge assignments in general U(1)_X, the zero-mixing assumption should be stated explicitly and its impact estimated, for example by a small-epsilon scan or an order-of-magnitude argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (11)] The sin^2 Phi parametrization is singular when P_e- = P_e+ = +/-1 (same-helicity beams), since W_RL + W_LR = 0. It would be helpful to state that these configurations give vanishing amplitudes in the massless-lepton limit and are excluded from the parameter maps.
  2. [Section V, text before Fig. 8] Fig. 8 is evaluated at sqrt(s)=3 TeV with M_Z'=5 TeV, i.e., sqrt(s)/M_Z' = 0.6, which is off-resonance. A one-sentence reminder would prevent the reader from confusing the polarization response with the resonance-proximity effect shown in Fig. 9.
  3. [Eq. (15) and Fig. 10] The notation R_{U(1)_X sigma} is typographically awkward; suggest R_sigma^{U(1)_X} or an unambiguous subscript/superscript.
  4. [Table III caption] Please state explicitly that the quoted g_X values are the upper bounds used in the numerical scans (or the values actually adopted). The text calls them 'benchmark values' but does not say whether the maximum allowed coupling is used.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. VI] The abstract promises that beam polarization provides a 'direct handle' on left/right charges, but the paper does not compute statistical sensitivities; the conclusions acknowledge this. Consider softening 'direct handle' to 'potentially direct handle' or adding a sentence in the introduction about the lack of sensitivity projections.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular step found: model parameters are scanned rather than fitted, and the few self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is fully exposed in the paper: Table I defines the U(1) charge assignments; Eqs. (45)-(53) give the helicity amplitudes for gamma, Z, and Z' exchange; Eqs. (5)-(7) build the production matrix R and normalized density matrix rho; Eqs. (24)-(37) define purity, D_min, concurrence, and B_CHSH from rho. The x_H, g_X, and M_Z' values used in the numerical maps are pre-existing model parameters scanned over representative benchmarks, not parameters fitted to the spin observables. The Z' width in Eqs. (2)-(3) is computed from the same charges and used as an input to the propagator; this is a model assumption, not an output fitted to D_min, concurrence, or B_CHSH. The stated omission of the heavy-neutrino channel (M_N > M_Z'/2) and the unmentioned scalar-decay channel / kinetic mixing affect the numerical width near resonance, but they are modeling choices, not circular reductions. The constraints in Tables II-III are attributed to external LEP and LHC data, with Refs. [110,111] providing the derivation; these constraints are not the target observables, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The independent MadGraph validation (Ref. [27] plus the FeynRules code of Ref. [79]) checks the analytic implementation against an automated tool and does not enter the predictions. The x_H=0 limit is explicitly cross-checked against the independent B-L analysis of Ref. [40]. No equation or observable is defined in terms of the quantity it is said to predict; there is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no uniqueness theorem invoked to force the chosen benchmarks. Thus no significant circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central calculations do not introduce new parameters fitted to data; they map existing model parameters (x_H, g_X, M_Z′) onto observables. The main choices are benchmark values and the stated width assumption M_N > M_Z′/2.

free parameters (4)
  • x_H = -2, -0.5, 0, 2
    U(1)_X charge parameter chosen by hand to span vector-like and chiral benchmark scenarios; not fitted to the ttbar observables.
  • x_Phi = 1
    Fixed to 1 in the U(1)_X numerical scan; standard but restricts the explored parameter subspace.
  • g_X = Upper bounds in Tab. III (0.06-0.75)
    Z′ gauge coupling; benchmark values are set at the allowed upper bounds from LEP/LHC constraints, not fitted to the predicted observables.
  • M_Z' = 5 and 7.5 TeV
    Z′ mass benchmarks chosen to satisfy existing collider bounds; controls the resonance location emphasized in the analysis.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The general U(1)_X model with three RHNs and one singlet scalar is anomaly-free, with Z′ couplings following Tab. I and Eq. (1).
    Sec. II; defines the model space and implicitly assumes zero kinetic mixing with U(1)_Y.
  • domain assumption Initial-state leptons are massless, so only e−R e+L and e−L e+R channels contribute.
    Sec. III/IV; standard for s-channel neutral-current production at collider energies.
  • domain assumption Z′→NN is closed because M_N > M_Z′/2.
    Sec. II; controls the Z′ total width in the propagator and therefore the resonance-region observables.
  • domain assumption Leading-order amplitudes are sufficient for the central claim.
    Sec. IV; no NLO QCD/EW corrections are included, which could matter for future precision comparisons.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed-x_Φ=1 benchmark x_H values are representative of general anomaly-free U(1) models.
    Sec. II/V; the benchmarks are chosen to illustrate chiral vs vector-like patterns, not derived from a UV completion.
  • standard math Standard quantum-information results (Peres-Horodecki criterion, Wootters concurrence formula, Horodecki CHSH bound) are correct.
    Sec. III; used without proof as background mathematics.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17705 in / 19479 out tokens · 172973 ms · 2026-08-01T23:59:35.607159+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study quantum spin correlations in top-quark pair production at future lepton colliders in the presence of a neutral gauge boson from anomaly-free general $U(1)$ extensions of the Standard Model. The process $\ell^+\ell^-\to t\bar t$, with $\ell=e,\mu$, is analyzed through the spin-density matrix including $\gamma$, $Z$ and $Z^\prime$ exchange and their interference. We focus on quantum-information observables such as the sufficient entanglement marker $\mathcal{D}_{\min}$, concurrence, purity and the maximal Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) parameter, and compare their behavior with conventional rate information. Within the $U(1)_X$ framework, we consider several representative charge assignments to investigate how different chiral structures influence these observables, with particular emphasis on the $Z^\prime$ resonance region and polarized $e^-e^+$ collisions, where the two allowed initial-state helicity configurations can be selectively enhanced. We show that electron-beam polarization provides a direct handle on the left- and right-handed lepton charges of various $U(1)_X$ scenarios. These results demonstrate that quantum spin observables provide information complementary to cross sections and angular distributions in searches for chiral neutral gauge interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15153 by Arindam Das, Sanjoy Mandal, ShivaSankar K.A..

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spin basis used for the tt¯ density matrix in the pair rest frame. The beam and top directions define the scattering plane, while ˆn is normal to it. |1⟩ = |+, −⟩, |2⟩ = |+, +⟩, |3⟩ = |−, −⟩, |4⟩ = |−, +⟩, (23) where the entries label top and antitop helicity. Because the antitop moves opposite to ˆk, its helicity sign is opposite to its spin projection on the common ˆk axis. We use four complementary func… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Feynman diagrams for tt¯production at e −e + and µ −µ + colliders through s-channel exchange. The first two diagrams show the SM photon and Z contributions, while a general U(1) extension adds Z ′ exchange. We work in the center-of-mass (CM) frame with massless incoming leptons and an outgoing tt¯ pair whose con￾stituents have mass mt. The four-momenta are p µ 1 = √ s 2 (1, 0, 0, 1), p µ 2 = √ s 2 (1, 0, 0… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Variation of Dmin in the √ s–cos θ plane for the four xH benchmarks in the U(1)X scenario. The upper and lower rows correspond to MZ′ = 5 and 7.5 TeV, respectively, with the couplings from Tab. III. Black dashed lines with white outlines indicate the representative e −e + and µ −µ + collider energies. The fixed-angle scan in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Concurrence in the √ s–cos θ plane for the four xH benchmarks. The upper and lower rows correspond to MZ′ = 5 and 7.5 TeV, respectively, with the couplings from Tab. III. Dashed white lines indicate the representative e −e + and µ −µ + collider energies. The xH scan in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Bell-CHSH parameter BCHSH in the √ s–cos θ plane for the four xH benchmarks. The upper and lower rows correspond to MZ′ = 5 and 7.5 TeV, respectively, with the couplings from Tab. III. Dashed white lines indicate the representative e −e + and µ −µ + collider energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependence of Dmin (left), concurrence (middle), and the maximal CHSH parameter (right) on √ s/MZ′ at cos θ = 0. The upper and lower rows correspond to MZ′ = 5 and 7.5 TeV, respectively, with the couplings from Tab. III. Vertical dotted lines indicate representative lepton-collider energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Polarized-beam spin-state landscapes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: U(1)X polarization response at √ s = 3 TeV for MZ′ = 5 TeV. The columns correspond to representative xH values, and the rows show Dmin, concurrence, and BCHSH. Beam polarization separates the qℓR - and qℓL -weighted amplitudes, making the xH dependence more visible than in the unpolarized average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Polarized U(1)X response as a function of √ s/MZ′ and sin2 Φ at fixed MZ′ = 5 TeV and cos θ = 0. The columns show representative xH choices and the rows show Dmin, concurrence, and BCHSH. This plot isolates the resonance-proximity effect that controls how strongly the polarized observables separate different chiral charge assignments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Polarized deviations at √ s = 3 TeV and MZ′ = 5 TeV. Rows correspond to xH = −2, −0.5, 0, 2, and columns show ∆Dmin, ∆C, ∆BCHSH and ∆rate, following Eq. (15). Each column uses a common color range across the four charge assignments. Black zero contours separate enhancements from suppressions relative to the SM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗

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

83 extracted references · 54 linked inside Pith

  1. [14]

    On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,

    J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,”Physics Physique Fizika1(1964) 195–200

    1964

  2. [15]

    Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New violation of Bell’s inequalities,

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, “Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New violation of Bell’s inequalities,”Phys. Rev. Lett.49(1982) 91–97

    1982

  3. [16]

    Quantum simulations with ultracold quantum gases,

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb` ene, “Quantum simulations with ultracold quantum gases,”Nature Phys.8(2012) 267–276

    2012

  4. [17]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [18]

    Entanglement and quantum tomography with top quarks at the LHC,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [19]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [20]

    Quantum information with top quarks in QCD,

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova, “Quantum information with top quarks in QCD,”Quantum6(2022) 820, arXiv:2203.05582 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [21]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [22]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [23]

    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,” JHEP07(2024) 192,arXiv:2310.17696 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [24]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [25]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [26]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [27]

    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,”JHEP04(2026) 103,arXiv:2510.17730 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [28]

    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

  16. [29]

    A collider as a quantum computer,

    W. Xie and J.-C. Yang, “A collider as a quantum computer,”arXiv:2605.06907 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [30]

    Bell-type inequalities for systems of relativistic vector bosons,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [31]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [32]

    Does the Weinberg angle allow a local hidden-variable description for the leptonic decays of an entangledZZ pair?,

    J. Pei, “Does the Weinberg angle allow a local hidden-variable description for the leptonic decays of an entangledZZ pair?,”arXiv:2606.10737 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [33]

    Tripartite Entanglement ine+e− →t ¯tZ,

    D. Gon¸ calves, A. Navarro, and K. Sakurai, “Tripartite Entanglement ine+e− →t ¯tZ,”arXiv:2606.11296 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [34]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [35]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [36]

    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

  24. [37]

    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

  25. [38]

    Measuring quantum discord at the LHC,

    T. Han, M. Low, N. McGinnis, and S. Su, “Measuring quantum discord at the LHC,”JHEP05(2025) 081, arXiv:2412.21158 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [39]

    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

  27. [40]

    Disentangling new physics with quantum entanglement int ¯tproduction at future lepton colliders,

    M. Arai, K. Mawatari, and N. Okada, “Disentangling new physics with quantum entanglement int ¯tproduction at future lepton colliders,”arXiv:2604.21332 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [41]

    Probing entanglement and testing Bell inequality violation with e+e-→τ+τ- at Belle II,

    K. Ehat¨ aht, M. Fabbrichesi, L. Marzola, and C. Veelken, “Probing entanglement and testing Bell inequality violation with e+e-→τ+τ- at Belle II,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 3, (2024) 032005,arXiv:2311.17555 [hep-ph]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [42]

    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

  30. [43]

    Entanglement measures and Bell-type spin-correlation observables in tau-lepton pairs at the Super Tau-Charm Facility,

    B. Yang, Y. Zhang, Z. S. Wang, and X. Zhou, “Entanglement measures and Bell-type spin-correlation observables in tau-lepton pairs at the Super Tau-Charm Facility,”arXiv:2603.05846 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  31. [44]

    Quantum tomography at colliders: With or without decays,

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and M. Low, “Quantum tomography at colliders: With or without decays,”Phys. Lett. B868(2025) 139675,arXiv:2410.08303 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [45]

    Manipulating Bell nonlocality and entanglement in polarized electron-positron annihilation,

    H.-W. Zhang, X. Cao, and T.-F. Feng, “Manipulating Bell nonlocality and entanglement in polarized electron-positron annihilation,”Phys. Rev. D113no. 11, (2026) 114022,arXiv:2602.10389 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [46]

    Quantum information and CP measurement in H→τ+τ- at future lepton colliders,

    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. D107no. 9, (2023) 093002,arXiv:2211.10513 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [47]

    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,”Eur. Phys. J. Plus140no. 9, (2025) 855,arXiv:2504.00086 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [48]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [49]

    Determining the Spin Density Matrix via Its Rank and Probing the Quantum Entanglement and Bell Non-Locality at the Lepton Colliders,

    L. Liu, X. Hao, D. Wang, L. Wu, and T. Li, “Determining the Spin Density Matrix via Its Rank and Probing the Quantum Entanglement and Bell Non-Locality at the Lepton Colliders,”arXiv:2606.16365 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  37. [50]

    Higgs Scattering and Entanglement in SMEFT,

    H. M. Lee and R. Padhan, “Higgs Scattering and Entanglement in SMEFT,”arXiv:2606.25233 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [51]

    Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report,

    “Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report,”arXiv:1202.5940 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [52]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary,

    “The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary,”arXiv:1306.6327 [physics.acc-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [53]

    Towards a muon collider,

    C. Accetturaet al., “Towards a muon collider,”Eur. Phys. J. C83no. 9, (2023) 864,arXiv:2303.08533 [physics.acc-ph]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 36 (2024)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [54]

    Muon Collider Physics Summary,

    C. Aimeet al., “Muon Collider Physics Summary,”arXiv:2203.07256 [hep-ph]. [55]International Muon ColliderCollaboration, C. Accetturaet al., “Interim report for the International Muon Collider Collaboration (IMCC),”CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2/2024(2024) 176,arXiv:2407.12450 [physics.acc-ph]. [56]CEPC Physics Study GroupCollaboration, H. Chenget al., “The Phy...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [57]

    New physics search at the CEPC: a general perspective,

    X. Aiet al., “New physics search at the CEPC: a general perspective,”Chin. Phys. C49(2025) 123108, arXiv:2505.24810 [hep-ex]. [58]FCCCollaboration, “Collision-energy calibration and monochromatisation studies at FCC-ee,”

    arXiv 2025

  43. [59]

    Polarization and Centre-of-mass Energy Calibration at FCC-ee,

    A. Blondelet al., “Polarization and Centre-of-mass Energy Calibration at FCC-ee,”arXiv:1909.12245 [physics.acc-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  44. [60]

    B−Las the fourth color within an SU(2) L ×U(1) R ×U(1) model,

    A. Davidson, “B−Las the fourth color within an SU(2) L ×U(1) R ×U(1) model,”Phys. Rev. D20(1979) 776

    1979

  45. [61]

    U(1) as the Minimal Horizontal Gauge Symmetry,

    A. Davidson, M. Koca, and K. C. Wali, “U(1) as the Minimal Horizontal Gauge Symmetry,”Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979) 92

    1979

  46. [62]

    Quark - Lepton Symmetry and B-L as the U(1) Generator of the Electroweak Symmetry Group,

    R. E. Marshak and R. N. Mohapatra, “Quark - Lepton Symmetry and B-L as the U(1) Generator of the Electroweak Symmetry Group,”Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 222–224

    1980

  47. [63]

    Local B-L Symmetry of Electroweak Interactions, Majorana Neutrinos and Neutron Oscillations,

    R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, “Local B-L Symmetry of Electroweak Interactions, Majorana Neutrinos and Neutron Oscillations,”Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 1316–1319. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 44, 1643 (1980)]

    1980

  48. [64]

    Neutrino Masses and the Scale of B-L Violation,

    C. Wetterich, “Neutrino Masses and the Scale of B-L Violation,”Nucl. Phys. B187(1981) 343–375

    1981

  49. [65]

    B −l Violating Proton Decay and Late Cosmological Baryon Production,

    A. Masiero, J. F. Nieves, and T. Yanagida, “B −l Violating Proton Decay and Late Cosmological Baryon Production,” Phys. Lett. B116(1982) 11–15

    1982

  50. [66]

    Spontaneous Breaking of GlobalB −l Symmetry and Matter - Antimatter Oscillations in Grand Unified Theories,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Spontaneous Breaking of GlobalB −l Symmetry and Matter - Antimatter Oscillations in Grand Unified Theories,”Phys. Rev. D27(1983) 254

    1983

  51. [67]

    Neutrino masses, neutral vector bosons and the scale of B-L breaking,

    W. Buchmuller, C. Greub, and P. Minkowski, “Neutrino masses, neutral vector bosons and the scale of B-L breaking,” Phys. Lett. B267(1991) 395–399. [68]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navaset al., “Review of particle physics,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 3, (2024) 030001

    1991

  52. [69]

    µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,

    P. Minkowski, “µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,”Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 421–428

    1977

  53. [70]

    Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,

    T. Yanagida, “Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,”Conf. Proc. C7902131(1979) 95–99

    1979

  54. [71]

    Horizontal Symmetry and Masses of Neutrinos,

    T. Yanagida, “Horizontal Symmetry and Masses of Neutrinos,”Prog. Theor. Phys.64(1980) 1103

    1980

  55. [72]

    Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, “Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,”Conf. Proc. C790927(1979) 315–321,arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  56. [73]

    Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.44 (1980) 912

    1980

  57. [74]

    Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,”Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2227. 19

    1980

  58. [75]

    Nonexotic Neutral Gauge Bosons,

    T. Appelquist, B. A. Dobrescu, and A. R. Hopper, “Nonexotic Neutral Gauge Bosons,”Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 035012, arXiv:hep-ph/0212073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  59. [76]

    Vacuum Stability in U(1)-Prime Extensions of the Standard Model with TeV Scale Right Handed Neutrinos,

    C. Coriano, L. Delle Rose, and C. Marzo, “Vacuum Stability in U(1)-Prime Extensions of the Standard Model with TeV Scale Right Handed Neutrinos,”Phys. Lett. B738(2014) 13–19,arXiv:1407.8539 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [77]

    Enhanced pair production of heavy Majorana neutrinos at the LHC,

    A. Das, N. Okada, and D. Raut, “Enhanced pair production of heavy Majorana neutrinos at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D 97no. 11, (2018) 115023,arXiv:1710.03377 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [78]

    Heavy Majorana neutrino pair productions at the LHC in minimal U(1) extended Standard Model,

    A. Das, N. Okada, and D. Raut, “Heavy Majorana neutrino pair productions at the LHC in minimal U(1) extended Standard Model,”Eur. Phys. J. C78no. 9, (2018) 696,arXiv:1711.09896 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  62. [79]

    Probing the minimal U(1)X model at future electron-positron colliders via fermion pair-production channels,

    A. Das, P. S. B. Dev, Y. Hosotani, and S. Mandal, “Probing the minimal U(1)X model at future electron-positron colliders via fermion pair-production channels,”Phys. Rev. D105no. 11, (2022) 115030,arXiv:2104.10902 [hep-ph]. [80]FCCCollaboration, A. Abadaet al., “HE-LHC: The High-Energy Large Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Repor...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [85]

    FCC Integrated Programme Stage 1: The FCC-ee,

    M. Benediktet al., “FCC Integrated Programme Stage 1: The FCC-ee,”. [86]Muon ColliderCollaboration, N. Bartosiket al., “Simulated Detector Performance at the Muon Collider,” arXiv:2203.07964 [hep-ex]. [87]Muon ColliderCollaboration, D. Stratakiset al., “A Muon Collider Facility for Physics Discovery,” arXiv:2203.08033 [physics.acc-ph]. [88]Muon ColliderCo...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [89]

    Z ′ gauge bosons at the Tevatron,

    M. Carena, A. Daleo, B. A. Dobrescu, and T. M. P. Tait, “Z ′ gauge bosons at the Tevatron,”Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 093009,arXiv:hep-ph/0408098

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  65. [90]

    Radiative symmetry breaking from flat potential in various U(1)’ models,

    M. Hashimoto, S. Iso, and Y. Orikasa, “Radiative symmetry breaking from flat potential in various U(1)’ models,” Phys. Rev. D89no. 5, (2014) 056010,arXiv:1401.5944 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  66. [91]

    Top quark pair production and decay at hadron colliders,

    W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg, Z. G. Si, and P. Uwer, “Top quark pair production and decay at hadron colliders,” Nucl. Phys. B690(2004) 81–137,arXiv:hep-ph/0403035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  67. [92]

    Distributions and correlations for top quark pair production and decay at the Tevatron and LHC.,

    W. Bernreuther and Z.-G. Si, “Distributions and correlations for top quark pair production and decay at the Tevatron and LHC.,”Nucl. Phys. B837(2010) 90–121,arXiv:1003.3926 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  68. [93]

    Top quark spin correlations and polarization at the LHC: standard model predictions and effects of anomalous top chromo moments,

    W. Bernreuther and Z.-G. Si, “Top quark spin correlations and polarization at the LHC: standard model predictions and effects of anomalous top chromo moments,”Phys. Lett. B725(2013) 115–122,arXiv:1305.2066 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 744, 413–413 (2015)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  69. [94]

    A set of top quark spin correlation and polarization observables for the LHC: Standard Model predictions and new physics contributions,

    W. Bernreuther, D. Heisler, and Z.-G. Si, “A set of top quark spin correlation and polarization observables for the LHC: Standard Model predictions and new physics contributions,”JHEP12(2015) 026,arXiv:1508.05271 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [95]

    Separability criterion for density matrices,

    A. Peres, “Separability criterion for density matrices,”Phys. Rev. Lett.77(1996) 1413–1415,arXiv:quant-ph/9604005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  71. [96]

    On the necessary and sufficient conditions for separability of mixed quantum states,

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “On the necessary and sufficient conditions for separability of mixed quantum states,”Phys. Lett. A223(1996) 1,arXiv:quant-ph/9605038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  72. [97]

    Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits,

    S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, “Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits,”Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997) 5022–5025, arXiv:quant-ph/9703041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  73. [98]

    Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits,

    W. K. Wootters, “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits,”Phys. Rev. Lett.80(1998) 2245–2248,arXiv:quant-ph/9709029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  74. [99]

    Proposed experiment to test local hidden variable theories,

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden variable theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.23(1969) 880–884

    1969

  75. [100]

    Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities,

    A. Fine, “Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities,”Phys. Rev. Lett.48no. 5, (1982) 291

    1982

  76. [101]

    On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics,

    J. S. Bell, “On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics,”Rev. Mod. Phys.38(1966) 447–452

    1966

  77. [102]

    Violating Bell inequality by mixed spin-1/2 states: necessary and sufficient condition ,

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, “Violating Bell inequality by mixed spin-1/2 states: necessary and sufficient condition ,”Phys. Lett. A200no. 5, (1995) 340–344

    1995

  78. [103]

    Measurement of qubits,

    D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, “Measurement of qubits,”Phys. Rev. A64no. 5, (2001) 052312,arXiv:quant-ph/0103121

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  79. [104]

    Testing Bell’s Inequality using Charmonium Decays,

    S. Chen, Y. Nakaguchi, and S. Komamiya, “Testing Bell’s Inequality using Charmonium Decays,”PTEP2013no. 6, (2013) 063A01,arXiv:1302.6438 [hep-ph]. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  80. [105]

    QUANTUM GENERALIZATIONS OF BELL’S INEQUALITY,

    B. S. Cirelson, “QUANTUM GENERALIZATIONS OF BELL’S INEQUALITY,”Lett. Math. Phys.4(1980) 93–100

    1980

Showing first 80 references.