Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Two-body scattering entanglement is governed by SU(N) representation theory, and in Yang-Mills at right angles it reaches a universal maximum: 3/4 for SU(2), about 0.91 for SU(3).

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:39 UTC pith:F6ZBMS37

load-bearing objection The SU(2) result is real and checkable, but the 'universal' E_* is contingent on the double-f span and the SU(3) value is numerical—worth refereeing, with the abstract needing a softer claim. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.09623 v2 pith:F6ZBMS37 submitted 2025-11-12 hep-ph hep-thquant-ph

Entanglement, Yang-Mills, and the Scattering Matrix as an SU(N)-equivariant Kernel

Kun-Feng Lyu , Rahul Muraleedharan , Kuver Sinha This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-thquant-ph
keywords entanglementscattering amplitudesSU(N) equivariancecolor-kinematics dualityYang-Mills theoryeffective field theorylinear entropytwo-to-two scattering
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.

Treating the 2-to-2 scattering matrix as an SU(N)-equivariant kernel separates group structure from dynamics. The paper shows that adjoint-adjoint scattering is intrinsically entangling because the invariant operator algebra contains singlet and d-tensor projectors, whereas fundamental-fundamental scattering is minimally entangling with only identity and swap. In Yang-Mills, color-kinematics duality forces the color kernel at scattering angle θ=π/2 onto a single fixed ray, so the maximum entanglement over product inputs is a group invariant: 3/4 for SU(2), about 0.9067 for SU(3), approaching 1 as N grows. Dimension-six F^3 operators leave this value untouched, while dimension-eight operators shift it, making color-space entanglement a tomographic probe of effective operators. In helicity space, requiring maximally entangled inputs to stay maximally entangled uniquely selects the Yang-Mills quartic coupling and the color Jacobi identity.

Core claim

The central claim is that the entanglement produced by two-body scattering is fixed, at the level of group structure, by the SU(N)-equivariant algebra of the scattering kernel. For adjoint-adjoint scattering this algebra is large enough that scattering is intrinsically entangling; in Yang-Mills, color-kinematics duality pins the color kernel at θ=π/2 to a single ray of the invariant-operator space, making the maximum product-input entanglement E* a function of N alone: 3/4 for SU(2), about 0.9067 for SU(3), and tending to 1 at large N. Dimension-six F^3 deformations preserve this universal value, while dimension-eight F^4 deformations populate new color sectors and shift E* in a calculable w

What carries the argument

The central object is the SU(N)-equivariant scattering kernel K in End_SU(N)(R⊗R'), a map on two-particle in-states that commutes with the diagonal SU(N) action and therefore lives in the commutant algebra generated by representation projectors. For adjoint representations the algebra is spanned by the identity, the swap, the singlet projector, and (for N≥3) d-tensor combinations such as D_t−D_u and D_u−D_s; this large algebra is what makes adjoint scattering intrinsically entangling. Color-kinematics duality is the mechanism that, at θ=π/2 with t=u, collapses the coefficients onto a single ray of that algebra; in helicity space the MaxE-to-MaxE behavior is carried by the MHV structure of th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Lemma 1's assumption (iii): at tree level the four-point color kernel carries only the double-f color structures and never the excluded off-diagonal octet (df-type) intertwiners — if higher-order or EFT corrections pollute that sector, the right-angle ray and with it E*'s universality collapse.

What would settle it

Compute the color kernel at θ=π/2 for SU(3) at one loop, or with a dimension-eight operator that generates an off-diagonal octet (df-type) color structure, and evaluate E* = max over product inputs of the linear entropy of the normalized output; if the maximum differs measurably from about 0.9067, the claimed group-invariant universality fails.

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

If this is right

  • For SU(2) adjoint-adjoint scattering at right angles, every product input yields exactly 3/4 entanglement; for SU(3) the maximum over product inputs is about 0.9067, and in the large-N limit it approaches 1.
  • Color-space entanglement at θ=π/2 is blind to dimension-six F^3 operators but shifts under dimension-eight F^4 operators, giving a calculable, cutoff-dependent probe of effective-field-theory corrections.
  • Fundamental-fundamental scattering is minimally entangling: only the identity and swap directions preserve separability, and the maximum entanglement never exceeds 1/2 in the large-N limit.
  • In helicity space, Yang-Mills maps every maximally entangled two-gluon state to a maximally entangled state at every scattering angle; deformations away from the Yang-Mills locus (κ≠1 or violation of the color Jacobi identity) lower the entanglement quadratically.
  • Whenever color-kinematics duality holds, the scattering matrix keeps color and helicity Hilbert spaces separable, so color-space and helicity-space entanglement can be studied independently.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If E* at θ=π/2 is truly a group invariant, measuring color entanglement at right angles in a suitable process could in principle identify the effective gauge group from scattering data alone, without knowing the Lagrangian.
  • The universality is established only at the special angle θ=π/2; at generic angles the kernel direction depends on s/t and u/t, so scanning angles and checking for a crossing at θ=π/2 would be a sharper test of the color-kinematics structure.
  • The MaxE-to-MaxE selection of the Yang-Mills locus is a tree-level statement; at one loop, rational terms and double-trace color structures should generically break it, potentially turning entanglement into a diagnostic of loop corrections.
  • The same equivariant-kernel logic extends naturally to other representations (e.g., baryon or adjoint-Higgs scattering) or to graviton scattering, where the analogous condition would select the couplings that preserve maximal entanglement.

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 develops a representation-theoretic framework in which the two-body scattering matrix is viewed as an SU(N)-equivariant map on R⊗R', and studies the bipartite entanglement (linear entropy) it generates. For adjoint-adjoint scattering, the color kernel is decomposed into invariant operators {I,S,P_singlet,D_t−D_u,D_u−D_s}. Using color-kinematics duality, the authors show that at θ=π/2 the normalized kernel lies on a fixed ray in this operator space, so the product-input peak entanglement E_*^(N) is a group-theoretic quantity: 3/4 for SU(2) (constant over all product inputs), ≈0.9067 for SU(3), and →1 for large N. They further argue that dimension-six F^3 operators preserve this universality while dimension-eight F^4 operators shift it, and that in helicity space the property "maximally entangled in → maximally entangled out" uniquely selects the Yang-Mills locus (κ=1 and the color Jacobi identity).

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a clean separation of group-theoretic and dynamical aspects of scattering entanglement, and the identification of E_*^(N) as a kinematic-independent invariant is appealing. The exact SU(2) result, with the explicit check in Appendix C, is solid and convincing; the factorization of color and helicity via color-kinematics duality is also clearly presented. The idea of using color-space entanglement as a tomographic probe of higher-dimension operators is timely and potentially interesting. However, the main universality theorem is conditional on a block-diagonal operator restriction, and the SU(3) headline value rests on a numerical scan over a restricted (real) state space, so the advertised group-invariant status is not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.4 / Theorem 1] The SU(3) value E_*^(3)≈0.9067 in Fig. 2 is obtained from a random scan of 10^5 real vectors u,v∈S^7. The maximization in Theorem 1 is over product states in the physical Hilbert space, which is complex; no proof is given that the supremum is attained on the real subspace. Since K(π/2) does not allow independent unitary rotations of u and v (only the diagonal subgroup acts), complex phases in v cannot be gauged away. The claimed group invariant may therefore be underestimated. Please supply an analytic treatment or a complex-state scan with convergence guarantees, or state the result as a numerical lower bound.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 / Lemma 1 / footnote 3] The fixed-ray Lemma 1 is stated for kernels obeying condition (iii), i.e., with no dd color tensors beyond those generated by the double-f factors. Footnote 3 notes that the full End_SU(3)(8⊗8) ≅ C^4⊕M_2(C) contains fd-type intertwiners. The paper does not show that locality and crossing exclude such tensors from a tree-level four-point amplitude (or from the dimension-8 operators considered in Sec. 3.6). An fd term would add a component to K(π/2) not proportional to Eq. (3.10), invalidating Theorem 1. The universality should be explicitly stated as a property of the double-f Yang-Mills color structure, not of SU(N)-equivariance alone.
  3. [Sec. 3.6 / Eq. (3.33)] The dimension-8 shift formula (3.33) is not a calculable prediction: the coefficients C_j and D_j are not given, and the dependence on interference between dim-8 and lower-dim amplitudes is not exhibited. Since the abstract advertises E_* as a tomographic probe of effective operators, please include at least one explicit tree-level computation of a dimension-8 shift, or provide concrete expressions for C_j and D_j, to substantiate the claim.
  4. [Sec. 4.2.3 / Eqs. (4.36)-(4.42)] The uniqueness of the Yang-Mills locus from MaxE→MaxE rests on the positivity of C_κ(θ;χ) and C_ξ(θ) in the expansions (4.36)-(4.42). These coefficients are asserted to be positive but are not computed; they are inferred from numerical scans. Without an analytic proof of positivity (or at least a statement of exceptional angles or χ values), the claim that only κ=1 and the Jacobi identity satisfy MaxE→MaxE remains numerical rather than established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.5] The large-N argument is heuristic ('each trace gives one factor of N'). A more precise counting, ideally with explicit scaling of the singular values of the output matrix, would strengthen the claim that E→1.
  2. [Sec. 2.2 / Eq. (2.7)] The definition of E assumes the bipartition into individual particle spaces; it would help to state explicitly in Sec. 2.2 that for adjoint scattering the 'two legs' are the two scattering particles, and that the initial product states u⊗v are taken in the complex Hilbert space unless otherwise stated.
  3. [Eq. (3.10)] The notation 'α1 I+α2 S+α3 P_singlet+α4(Dt−Du)+α5(Du−Ds)' is missing displayed multiplication signs, which makes the ray ratio less readable. Minor typographical issue.
  4. [Sec. 5] In the Conclusion, 'adjoin scattering' should read 'adjoint scattering' (appears once). Also, the statement 'dimension-six operators preserve this universality' should cite the argument in Sec. 3.6 so that the reader can locate the proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: E_* is computed from standard BCJ-form YM kernel, and the helicity 'restatement' is explicitly labeled as such.

full rationale

The color-space derivation is not circular. Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 (Sec. 3.2) are conditional on stated assumptions (tree level, locality/crossing, double-f color structure plus CKD used to obtain Eq. (3.5)); the fixed-ray direction at theta=pi/2 is an algebraic consequence, and E_*^(2)=3/4 (Eq. 3.12) and E_*^(3) approximately 0.9067 (Sec. 3.4, from a 10^5-point scan) are computed from the standard YM kernel, not fitted to any target prediction. The dim-6 blindness relies on external CKD results [21-23], and the dim-8 shifts are explicit deformations. There are no load-bearing self-citations (reference list contains no author self-citations). The one caveat is the helicity section: Sec. 4.2.3 states 'The Jacobi identity is invisible unless we test the on-shell Ward shift,' and the unique-selection claim requires xi-invariance, which is the Ward identity; the abstract's 'uniquely selects' is therefore a restatement, which the paper itself acknowledges ('restating the on-shell Ward constraints'). This is an overstatement or equivalence, not an identity-by-construction or fitted-input-as-prediction. The SU(3) numerical maximum is an omitted analytic supremum proof, a rigor gap, not circularity. Overall the central claim is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 9 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard representation-theoretic facts (Schur's lemma, Haber's SU(N) tensor identities — external, parameter-free) and standard gauge-theory structures (double-f color kernel, BCJ/CKD, MHV, on-shell Ward identities). No number is fitted to data; the only empirical-looking number, E_*^(3)≈0.9067, is a Monte Carlo estimate. The genuinely paper-specific premises are the restriction to the block-diagonal invariant subspace (Lemma 1(iii), footnote 3) and the 'purely formal' deformed Lagrangian with YM numerators (Sec. 4.2). No invented entities — no new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities.

free parameters (4)
  • θ = π/2 (right-angle benchmark) = π/2
    The universality theorem is defined only at t=u; at generic angles the kernel ray depends on kinematic ratios u/t, s/t (Eq. 3.5), so E_* is not a group invariant away from π/2.
  • E_*^(3) (SU(3) peak color entanglement) = ≈0.9067 (10^5-sample Monte Carlo max)
    Headline value ≃0.91 quoted in the abstract; numerical estimate without error bars or proof of global maximum (Sec. 3.4, Fig. 2).
  • C_κ(θ;χ), C_ξ(θ) (quadratic-drop coefficients) = unspecified; only positivity asserted
    Appear in E = 1 − C_κ(κ−1)² − C_ξ ξ²δJ² (Eqs. 4.36–4.43); never computed in closed form, so the claimed quantitative drops cannot be checked without re-derivation.
  • ξ_max = 10 = 10
    Range of the polarization-shift scan in Fig. 3C; affects displayed magnitudes of ΔE_ξ but not the vanishing locus χ_u = −1−χ_t.
axioms (9)
  • standard math Schur's lemma: End_SU(N)(R⊗R′) is fixed by the irrep decomposition of R⊗R′
    Secs. 2.3–2.6 use the commutant algebra of projectors; standard representation theory, no fit.
  • standard math SU(N) tensor identities: f_abe f_cde = (2/N)(δδ − δδ) + (dd − dd) and the d-tensor relation Ds+Dt+Du = (1/3)(NA·Psinglet + I + S)
    Eqs. (2.20)–(2.22), credited to Haber [43]; external parameter-free result.
  • domain assumption Tree-level 4-pt YM amplitude equals n_s c_s/s + n_t c_t/t + n_u c_u/u with double-f color factors c_s, c_t, c_u
    Eq. (3.1) and App. B; standard gauge-theory input that fixes the invariant-operator content.
  • domain assumption Color-kinematics duality (BCJ): s A_s + t A_t + u A_u = 0
    Eq. (3.2), cited to [20]; drives the single-function reduction of the kernel (Eqs. 3.4–3.5) and hence the θ=π/2 ray.
  • domain assumption MHV/Parke-Taylor amplitudes are the only non-vanishing helicity amplitudes at 4 points
    Eq. (4.3), cited [25,48,49]; underpins the MaxE→MaxE block-structure argument in Sec. 4.1.1.
  • domain assumption On-shell Ward identities (ε → ε + ξp per leg) + locality force antisymmetric f, κ=1, and the color Jacobi identity (the 'YM locus')
    Sec. 4.2.2, cited [25]; the constraint whose entanglement reformulation is the paper's Sec. 4.2.3.
  • domain assumption Dim-6 F³ operators satisfy CKD and have the same double-f color span as YM
    Sec. 3.6, cited [21–23]; the basis of the claim that dim-6 deformations are invisible to color-space entanglement.
  • ad hoc to paper The color kernel is restricted to the block-diagonal subspace Span{I, S, Psinglet, Dt−Du, Du−Ds}; off-diagonal octet intertwiners (df-type) are excluded
    Footnote 3 (p.7) and Lemma 1 assumption (iii) (Sec. 3.2); the load-bearing restriction that makes the single-ray universality go through.
  • ad hoc to paper The deformed theory keeps the YM kinematic numerators and deforms only f (via χ_t, χ_u), κ, and the polarization shift ξ
    Eqs. (4.23)–(4.34), Sec. 4.2; the authors call the deformed setup 'purely formal', so the MaxE→MaxE→YM-locus result inherits that caveat.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29886 in / 46530 out tokens · 434694 ms · 2026-08-03T22:39:22.083438+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study two-body scattering as an SU(N)-equivariant map acting on tensor-product representation spaces and analyze the entanglement generated by the $S$-matrix. This representation-theoretic perspective separates group structure from dynamics: the decomposition of $R\!\otimes\!R'$ fixes the invariant operator algebra and therefore the qualitative entangling power of the process. For particles in the fundamental representation, $\mathrm{End}_{\mathrm{SU}(N)}(N\!\otimes\!N)=\mathrm{Span}\{\mathbb{I},\mathbb{S}\}$, so only the identity and swap directions preserve separability, whereas generic combinations generate entanglement. Adjoint-adjoint scattering involves a larger invariant algebra involving $d$-tensors and is intrinsically entangling. In Yang-Mills theory one can use color-kinematics duality to show that the color kernel lies on a fixed ray of this operator space, yielding a universal maximum of the outgoing entanglement for scattering at right angles, $E_\star^{(2)}=\tfrac{3}{4}$ for $SU(2)$ and $E_\star^{(3)}\simeq0.91$, independent of kinematics. Dimension-six operators preserve this universality, while dimension-eight deformations populate new color sectors and shift $E_\star^{(N)}$, suggesting that entanglement in color space functions as a tomographic probe of effective operators. In helicity space, requiring maximally entangled inputs to scatter into maximally entangled outputs uniquely selects the Yang-Mills quartic coupling and enforces the color Jacobi identity, restating the on-shell Ward constraints as conditions on entanglement preservation. Our results suggest that the information-theoretic viewpoint unifies algebraic, geometric, and dynamical aspects of scattering.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Characterizing entanglement dynamics in QED scattering processes

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    QED scattering processes modeled as quantum maps from discrete symmetries preserve maximal entanglement for fermions and converge iterations to pure maximally entangled states.

  2. Characterizing entanglement dynamics in QED scattering processes

    quant-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    The spectrum of a QED scattering matrix predicts which maximally entangled fixed points repeated fermion scattering approaches, and how quickly.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    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.127(2021) no. 16, 161801,arXiv:2102.11883 [hep-ph]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    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. C82(2022) no. 4, 285,arXiv:2110.10112 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    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. C82(2022) no. 8, 666,arXiv:2205.00542 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    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. D111(2025) no. 3, 033004,arXiv:2407.01672 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    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. Plus136(2021) no. 9, 907,arXiv:2003.02280 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Entanglement and Bell inequalities with boosted tt¯,

    Z. Dong, D. Gon¸ calves, K. Kong, and A. Navarro, “Entanglement and Bell inequalities with boosted tt¯,”Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no. 11, 115023,arXiv:2305.07075 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    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

  9. [9]

    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. C83(2023) no. 2, 162,arXiv:2208.11723 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    New physics in spin entanglement,

    M. Duch, A. Strumia, and A. Titov, “New physics in spin entanglement,”Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) no. 2, 151,arXiv:2403.14757 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    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. D112(2025) no. 1, 013003,arXiv:2501.03311 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    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. D106(2022) no. 5, 055007,arXiv:2203.05619 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    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

  17. [17]

    Entanglement Suppression and Emergent Symmetries of Strong Interactions,

    S. R. Beane, D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, “Entanglement Suppression and Emergent Symmetries of Strong Interactions,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) no. 10, 102001, arXiv:1812.03138 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Symmetry from entanglement suppression,

    I. Low and T. Mehen, “Symmetry from entanglement suppression,”Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no. 7, 074014,arXiv:2104.10835 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Symmetry, entanglement, and theS-matrix,

    N. McGinnis, “Symmetry, entanglement, and theS-matrix,”arXiv:2504.21079 [hep-th]. – 38 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    New Relations for Gauge-Theory Amplitudes,

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson, “New Relations for Gauge-Theory Amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 085011,arXiv:0805.3993 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    Testing gluon selfinteractions in three jet events at hadron colliders,

    L. J. Dixon and Y. Shadmi, “Testing gluon selfinteractions in three jet events at hadron colliders,”Nucl. Phys. B423(1994) 3–32,arXiv:hep-ph/9312363. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 452, 724–724 (1995)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  22. [22]

    MHV rules for Higgs plus multi-gluon amplitudes,

    L. J. Dixon, E. W. N. Glover, and V. V. Khoze, “MHV rules for Higgs plus multi-gluon amplitudes,”JHEP12(2004) 015,arXiv:hep-th/0411092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  23. [23]

    Color-kinematics duality and double-copy construction for amplitudes from higher-dimension operators,

    J. Broedel and L. J. Dixon, “Color-kinematics duality and double-copy construction for amplitudes from higher-dimension operators,”JHEP10(2012) 091,arXiv:1208.0876 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  24. [24]

    Universality of entanglement in gluon dynamics,

    C. N´ u˜ nez, A. Cervera-Lierta, and J. I. Latorre, “Universality of entanglement in gluon dynamics,”arXiv:2504.15353 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  25. [25]

    TASI lectures on scattering amplitudes.,

    C. Cheung, “TASI lectures on scattering amplitudes.,” inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Anticipating the Next Discoveries in Particle Physics, pp. 571–623. 2018.arXiv:1708.03872 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Entanglement suppression and low-energy scattering of heavy mesons,

    T.-R. Hu, S. Chen, and F.-K. Guo, “Entanglement suppression and low-energy scattering of heavy mesons,”Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no. 1, 014001,arXiv:2404.05958 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Minimal entanglement and emergent symmetries in low-energy QCD,

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and T. Mehen, “Minimal entanglement and emergent symmetries in low-energy QCD,”Phys. Rev. C107(2023) no. 2, 025204,arXiv:2210.12085 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Hints of entanglement suppression in hyperon-nucleon scattering,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Entanglement suppression and emergent symmetries in hadron scatterings,

    T.-R. Hu, S. Chen, K. Sone, F.-K. Guo, T. Hyodo, and I. Low, “Entanglement suppression and emergent symmetries in hadron scatterings,” in21st International Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy and Structure. 7, 2025.arXiv:2507.22694 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Entanglement suppression, enhanced symmetry, and a standard-model-like Higgs boson,

    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) no. 5, L051901, arXiv:2307.08112 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Entanglement in flavored scalar scattering,

    K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo, “Entanglement in flavored scalar scattering,”JHEP07(2024) 156,arXiv:2404.13743 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Consequences of minimal entanglement in bosonic field theories,

    S. Chang and G. Jacobo, “Consequences of minimal entanglement in bosonic field theories,” Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no. 9, 096020,arXiv:2409.13030 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Emergent symmetry in a two-Higgs-doublet model from quantum information and nonstabilizerness,

    G. Busoni, J. Gargalionis, E. N. V. Wallace, and M. J. White, “Emergent symmetry in a two-Higgs-doublet model from quantum information and nonstabilizerness,”Phys. Rev. D112 (2025) no. 3, 035022,arXiv:2506.01314 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Entanglement features in scattering mediated by heavy particles,

    C. M. Sou, Y. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Entanglement features in scattering mediated by heavy particles,”JHEP10(2025) 003,arXiv:2507.03555 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    An Area Law for Entanglement Entropy in Particle Scattering,

    I. Low and Z. Yin, “An Area Law for Entanglement Entropy in Particle Scattering,” arXiv:2405.08056 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Elastic cross section is entanglement entropy,

    I. Low and Z. Yin, “Elastic cross section is entanglement entropy,”Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no. 6, 065027,arXiv:2410.22414 [hep-th]. – 39 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Flavor patterns of fundamental particles from quantum entanglement?,

    J. Thaler and S. Trifinopoulos, “Flavor patterns of fundamental particles from quantum entanglement?,”Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no. 5, 056021,arXiv:2410.23343 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    A Quantum Computational Determination of the Weak Mixing Angle in the Standard Model,

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, “A Quantum Computational Determination of the Weak Mixing Angle in the Standard Model,”arXiv:2509.18251 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  39. [39]

    Scattering entanglement entropy and its implications for electroweak phase transitions,

    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) no. 1, 015028, arXiv:2505.06001 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Maximal Entanglement in High Energy Physics,

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli, “Maximal Entanglement in High Energy Physics,”SciPost Phys.3(2017) no. 5, 036,arXiv:1703.02989 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Spin versus Magic: Lessons from Gluon and Graviton Scattering,

    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,”arXiv:2508.14967 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Gauge invariance from quantum information principles,

    C. N´ u˜ nez, M. Pardina, M. Asorey, J. I. Latorre, and A. Cervera-Lierta, “Gauge invariance from quantum information principles,”arXiv:2511.04358 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Useful relations among the generators in the defining and adjoint representations of SU(N),

    H. E. Haber, “Useful relations among the generators in the defining and adjoint representations of SU(N),”SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes21(2021) 1,arXiv:1912.13302 [math-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,

    C. W. Murphy, “Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,”JHEP 10(2020) 174,arXiv:2005.00059 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory,

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, “Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory,”Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no. 1, 015026,arXiv:2005.00008 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Dimension-eight operator basis for universal standard model effective field theory,

    T. Corbett, J. Desai, O. J. P. Eboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, “Dimension-eight operator basis for universal standard model effective field theory,”Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no. 3, 033003,arXiv:2404.03720 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Dimension-8 SMEFT contact-terms for vector-pair production via on-shell Higgsing,

    J. M. Goldberg, H. Liu, and Y. Shadmi, “Dimension-8 SMEFT contact-terms for vector-pair production via on-shell Higgsing,”JHEP12(2024) 057,arXiv:2407.07945 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    An Amplitude fornGluon Scattering,

    S. J. Parke and T. R. Taylor, “An Amplitude fornGluon Scattering,”Phys. Rev. Lett.56 (1986) 2459

    1986

  49. [49]

    Scattering Amplitudes,

    H. Elvang and Y.-t. Huang, “Scattering Amplitudes,”arXiv:1308.1697 [hep-th]. – 40 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv