Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Photon-nucleon entanglement in Compton scattering at low and high energies

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In polarized Compton scattering, the outgoing photon and nucleon can be entangled, and the pattern of that entanglement encodes the nucleon's polarizabilities and partonic structure.

desk verdict First study of photon-nucleon entanglement in Compton scattering; novel and thorough, but the no-go theorem proof and an acknowledged O(ω²) amplitude discrepancy need fixing before the quantitative maps are credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05330 v1 pith:YQDAD227 submitted 2026-08-05 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-thquant-ph

Yoshitaka Hatta , Víctor Martínez-Fernández This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-thquant-ph
keywords Comptonscatteringphoton-nucleonentanglementBellstatesnucleonpolarizabilitieswide-anglegeneralizedpartondistributionshelicityamplitudesPeres-Horodeckicriterion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes that elastic Compton scattering off a spin-1/2 target can generate spin entanglement between the outgoing photon and nucleon, two qubits, and that the entanglement pattern carries information about the nucleon's internal structure. It proves a no-go theorem: when the six helicity amplitudes are real, unpolarized scattering can never entangle the final photon and target, so polarization of the incoming beams is the route to entanglement. At low energy below the pion threshold, polarized Compton scattering off the proton produces entanglement everywhere in the kinematic plane, with wide regions of maximally entangled Bell states, while the neutron shows a strikingly different pattern whose very existence depends on the electric and magnetic polarizabilities. At high energy in wide-angle kinematics, the photon-proton pair is entangled everywhere in the acceptance region but never maximally, the strongest entanglement sitting near $\theta \approx 120^\circ$. The authors propose measuring final-state spin correlations, a coincidence asymmetry of the form $\sin(2\phi_\gamma \pm \phi_N)$, as a new experimental probe.

What carries the argument

The central object is the final-state spin density matrix $\rho(\vec{s}_N,\vec{s}_\gamma)=\frac{1}{4}(I\otimes I+B_N^a\,\sigma_a\otimes I+B_\gamma^b\,I\otimes\tau_b+C^{ab}\,\sigma_a\otimes\tau_b)$ of the two-qubit photon-nucleon system, constructed from the six helicity amplitudes $\phi_1,\dots,\phi_6$ through the $4\times 4$ transition matrix $T$ in the center-of-mass frame with the $x'z'$ scattering-plane convention. Entanglement is quantified by the minimum eigenvalue $\lambda_{\min}$ of the partially transposed density matrix (the Peres-Horodecki criterion), where $-0.5$ signals a maximally entangled Bell state; the no-go theorem is carried by the real-amplitude identity that blocks the negative-eigenvalue condition. At low energy the amplitudes are the Born graphs with anomalous magnetic moment couplings plus the $O(\omega^2)$ electric and magnetic polarizability terms, while at high energy they are the next-to-leading-order wide-angle Compton amplitudes built from quark and gluon helicity amplitudes times soft form factors, which are moments of generalized parton distributions.

What would settle it

Measure the double-polarization coincidence asymmetry in low-energy polarized proton Compton scattering for the $(\hat{y},\hat{y})$ polarization configuration: the paper predicts $\lambda_{\min}\approx -0.5$, a maximal Bell state, over a broad region of $(\theta,\omega)$; observing no spin-spin correlation there would contradict the low-energy amplitudes. Independently, a recalculation of the $O(\omega^2)$ amplitudes that agrees with reference [54] rather than with Eq. (43) would invalidate the specific Bell-state maps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a two-part result. First, for any spin-1/2 target, unpolarized Compton scattering cannot produce a photon-target entangled state whenever the helicity amplitudes are real; this no-go theorem is proved via the Peres-Horodecki criterion, which reduces to an inequality, $(C^{x'z'})^2+(C^{z'z'})^2+(B_\gamma^{x'})^2-1\le 0$, that is always satisfied for real amplitudes. Second, once the incoming beams are polarized, entanglement is generic: at low energies below the pion threshold, the proton and neutron yield distinct landscapes of Bell states and their unitary equivalents across the $(\theta,\omega)$ plane, with the neutron pattern dramatically reshaped by the electric and magnetic polarizabilities; at high energies in wide-angle kinematics, the photon-proton pair is entangled everywhere in the acceptance region but saturates at $\lambda_{\min}\approx -0.36$, never reaching maximal Bell-state entanglement. The no-go theorem also has a high-energy corollary: with circularly polarized photons, entanglement vanishes at leading order and stays weak at next-to-leading order.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the low-energy helicity amplitudes of Eq. (43) are correct at second order in the photon energy: the authors compute them from Born diagrams with anomalous magnetic moment couplings plus electric and magnetic polarizability terms, neglect spin polarizabilities, and note in footnote 3 that their $O(\omega^2)$ terms disagree with an existing chiral perturbation theory calculation, reference [54].

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In low-energy polarized Compton scattering off the proton, every 100% polarized initial configuration studied produces entanglement throughout the allowed kinematic plane, with large regions of maximal Bell-state entanglement described by $|\Phi^\pm\rangle$, $|\Psi^\pm\rangle$, and their local-unitary variants.
  • The neutron is a switch: with $\alpha_n=\beta_n=0$ the $(\hat{x},\hat{x})$ configuration becomes separable, while with the physical polarizabilities the system is entangled almost everywhere, so the existence and pattern of entanglement acts as a polarizability meter.
  • At high energy, the photon-proton pair is always entangled within the wide-angle acceptance, but never maximally; the strongest entanglement ($\lambda_{\min}\approx -0.36$) sits near $\theta\sim 120^\circ$ for transverse proton polarization and linearly polarized photons.
  • Circularly polarized photons yield almost no entanglement at high energy because at leading order all nonzero helicity amplitudes are real, a high-energy echo of the no-go theorem.
  • A double-polarization experiment could see a coincidence asymmetry $A_N A_\gamma \sin(2\phi_\gamma\pm\phi_N)$ whose sign pattern identifies the Bell-state type realized in the scattering.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the neutron pattern is as sensitive to polarizabilities as the plots suggest, entanglement measurements could provide constraints on $\alpha_n$ and $\beta_n$ that are qualitatively independent of unpolarized cross-section data, because entanglement responds to the relative phases and interference of helicity amplitudes rather than to their squares.
  • The no-go theorem likely generalizes beyond Compton scattering: any elastic $2\to 2$ process off a spin-1/2 target with real amplitudes and unpolarized beams cannot entangle the final spins, which would explain why polarization assistance is the generic route to spin entanglement in low-energy hadronic scattering.
  • The authors leave the intermediate-energy region ($\omega\sim$ a few hundred MeV) unexplored; there the amplitudes are complex, so entanglement should appear even without polarization, and the $\Delta$-resonance bump might imprint a characteristic pattern in $\lambda_{\min}$ that a future study could map.
  • Since the density matrix is frame- and basis-dependent, a practical measurement would need to fix the quantization convention; an experimental analysis that compares the predicted correlation-matrix elements rather than $\lambda_{\min}$ alone might be more robust.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the spin-spin entanglement of the final photon-nucleon system in Compton scattering, covering both the low-energy region below the pion threshold and high-energy wide-angle Compton scattering in perturbative QCD at NLO. It first proves a no-go theorem: for any spin-1/2 target, unpolarized Compton scattering with real amplitudes cannot generate entanglement. It then considers polarized Compton scattering off electrons, protons, and neutrons. At low energy, using helicity amplitudes that combine Born terms, anomalous magnetic moments, and nucleon polarizabilities, the authors find a rich pattern of maximally entangled Bell states and unitary equivalents, with distinct proton and neutron maps and a claimed strong sensitivity of the neutron pattern to the polarizabilities. At high energy, using GPD-model soft form factors at NLO, they find the photon-proton pair is entangled over the accessible phase space but never maximally, with the strongest entanglement near theta ~ 120 degrees. The paper closes with a proposed experimental measurement of the relevant spin correlations.

Significance. If the central results are correct, the paper opens a genuinely new connection between quantum information theory and nucleon structure: entanglement measures become observables that are sensitive to nucleon polarizabilities at low energy and to GPDs at high energy. The work has several concrete strengths: a clean analytic no-go theorem that generalizes an earlier numerical observation; complete analytic expressions for the spin density matrix in the appendices; a systematic Bell-state classification; and falsifiable predictions for specific polarization configurations. The electron-target section reproduces and extends Ref. [40], which is a useful consistency check. The main reservation is that the low-energy predictions rest on an amplitude set whose O(omega^2) terms are acknowledged to disagree with a standard chiral perturbation theory calculation; until that discrepancy is resolved, the specific Bell-state maps and polarizability-sensitivity claims are not firmly established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (43) and footnote 3] The central low-energy predictions are computed from the helicity amplitudes in Eq. (43), yet footnote 3 concedes that the O(omega^2) Born terms in these amplitudes do not agree with those of Ref. [54], a standard chiral perturbation theory calculation, and that only A1 agrees with Ref. [66]. This is not a peripheral issue: the Bell-state maps in Figs. 4-6, the proton-neutron contrast, and the claimed sensitivity of the neutron pattern to alpha_E and beta_M all depend on the numerical coefficients of the O(omega^2) terms. If the amplitudes of Ref. [54] are correct, the boundaries of the red regions, the Bell-state labels, and the polarizability dependence could all change. The authors need to resolve the discrepancy explicitly, for example by showing it is a convention or frame artifact through a term-by-term comparison, or by recomputing the entanglement maps with amplitudes consistent with the established low-energy expansion. As written, this acknowledged mismatch leaves the main low-energy claim unverified.
  2. [Sec. IV, text after Eq. (43)] The authors state that they prefer to use the full Born expressions while consistently neglecting the O(omega^3) spin polarizabilities. The difference between the full Born amplitudes and their O(omega^2) truncation is formally O(omega^3), and no numerical estimate of this difference is given. In the upper part of the plotted range (omega up to 140 MeV, omega/m approximately 0.15), this uncontrolled contribution may be comparable to the polarizability effects that the neutron plots are designed to expose, especially for the neutron where the leading Born terms vanish. The truncation error should be quantified, or the amplitudes should be expanded consistently to O(omega^2), before drawing quantitative polarizability-sensitivity conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (20) and Eq. (24)] The potential concern that Eq. (20) contains correlation terms beyond those appearing in Eq. (24) does not survive inspection: the entries C_{x'y'}, C_{y'x'}, and C_{z'y'} are all proportional to imaginary parts of products of the phi_i, so they vanish when the amplitudes are real. A brief sentence noting this fact would help readers avoid misreading the matrix.
  2. [Footnote 3] Because the disagreement with Ref. [54] directly affects the main figures, it should be discussed in the main text with a quantitative comparison rather than confined to a footnote.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4] The statement that lambda_min is everywhere negative for the proton is broad, since the plots show many regions where lambda_min is very close to zero. Reporting the minimum value and the area fraction of the near-maximal red regions would make the claim more quantitative.
  4. [Sec. V, Eq. (74)] The GPD model parameters a2, b, c2, and d are quoted only at one scale, mu^2 = 8 GeV^2. Since the high-energy entanglement eigenvalues depend on the relative phases of the soft form factors, it would be useful to state the full parameter range used over the kinematic plane and the sensitivity of lambda_min to the form-factor fit.
  5. [Sec. VI, Eq. (79)] The proposed experimental correlation in Eq. (79) assumes a specific relation between the Bell-state type and the azimuthal phases; a brief derivation or reference for the sign convention would help experimental readers connect the observable to the entanglement classification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entanglement predictions are derived from independently determined amplitudes and GPD inputs, with no fitted parameter reused as a predicted observable.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: low-energy helicity amplitudes (43) are built from Born diagrams with anomalous magnetic moment couplings plus polarizability terms (45), and the numerical values of alpha_E and beta_M are taken from the independent extraction of Ref. [67], not fitted to any entanglement observable. The predicted Bell-state maps, eigenvalue plots, and polarizability sensitivity (e.g., setting alpha_n = beta_n = 0 in Fig. 6) are outputs of the amplitudes, not inputs. At high energy, the NLO helicity amplitudes are taken from Refs. [17,70], and the GPD model (74) is adopted transparently as a model following Refs. [72,75,76], with its parameters fitted to proton electromagnetic form-factor data from Ref. [80] as stated in the text; the entanglement predictions are new observables computed from those independent inputs. The no-go theorem is proven algebraically from real amplitudes via Eq. (26), not assumed. Self-citations such as Refs. [32,33,71,72] are methodological and not load-bearing in a circular way, and the electron-target section is explicitly a consistency check reproducing Ref. [40]. Footnote 3 flags an O(omega^2) disagreement with Ref. [54]; that is a correctness or input-validity concern, not a circularity, because the paper does not use the disputed terms to define the predicted quantities. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on experimental polarizability inputs, a GPD model fitted to form factors, and a low-energy amplitude truncation. The no-go theorem proof relies on an unshown reduction of the real-amplitude density matrix to the form (24).

free parameters (6)
  • Proton electric polarizability alpha_E^p = 12.7e-4 fm^3 (1.65e-10 MeV^-3)
    Input from Ref. [67] used in the low-energy amplitudes (43).
  • Proton magnetic polarizability beta_M^p = 2.1e-4 fm^3 (3.1e-11 MeV^-3)
    Input from Ref. [67] used in the low-energy amplitudes (43).
  • Neutron electric polarizability alpha_E^n = 11.6e-4 fm^3 (1.5e-10 MeV^-3)
    Input from Ref. [67] used in the low-energy amplitudes (43).
  • Neutron magnetic polarizability beta_M^n = 3.7e-4 fm^3 (4.8e-11 MeV^-3)
    Input from Ref. [67] used in the low-energy amplitudes (43).
  • GPD model parameters a2, b, c2, d = a2=1.072 GeV^-2, b=0.239, c2=0.917 GeV^-2, d=0.340 at mu^2=8 GeV^2
    Fitted to proton electromagnetic form factors in the range 2.07<|t|<11.99 GeV^2 (Ref. [80]); used in Eq. (74) to build soft form factors.
  • Anomalous magnetic moments kappa_p, kappa_n = 1.79, -1.91
    Standard inputs in the nucleon Compton vertex (44).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Below the pion threshold omega < m_pi, the six Compton helicity amplitudes are real
    Used to establish the no-go theorem and throughout the low-energy analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The low-energy amplitudes can be truncated at O(omega^2) while retaining full Born expressions; spin polarizabilities at O(omega^3) are negligible for omega < m_pi
    Stated in Section IV before Eq. (43); not quantitatively justified with error bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper For real amplitudes the spin density matrix reduces to the form (24) with only I tensor tau_x', sigma_x' tensor tau_z' and sigma_z' tensor tau_z' terms
    Not shown in the paper; the general expression (20) appears to contain a sigma_x' tau_y' term, so this reduction is an unproven step in the no-go theorem proof.
  • domain assumption QCD factorization for wide-angle Compton scattering and the GPD model (74) with parameters fitted to form factors
    Standard framework for WACS; the model uncertainty is not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of polarized gluon GPD eH^g, E-type gluon GPD E^g, and gluon helicity-flip amplitudes
    Stated in Section V with the expectation that they are small, but no numerical check is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photon-nucleon entanglement in Compton scattering at low and high energies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQDAD227

@misc{pith2026260805330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photon-nucleon entanglement in Compton scattering at low and high energies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQDAD227}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05330}
}
abstract

We study spin-spin entanglement in the final state photon-nucleon system in Compton scattering, both at low energy below the pion threshold and at high energy in perturbative QCD to next-to-leading order. We first establish a no-go theorem showing that, for any spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ target, entanglement cannot be generated in unpolarized Compton scattering if the scattering amplitudes are real. We then consider polarized Compton scattering off the electron, the proton and the neutron. At low energy, we uncover a rich variety of maximally entangled Bell states and their unitary equivalents realized across different regions of the kinematic plane. Interestingly, the proton and neutron targets exhibit distinct patterns of entanglement. In the neutron case, the electric and magnetic polarizabilities dramatically influence the pattern and even the existence of entanglement. This suggests that entanglement can serve as a novel tool for investigating the detailed electromagnetic properties of the nucleons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05330 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Compton scattering in the CM frame. Scattering takes place in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Contour plot of the minimum eigenvalue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Minimal eigenvalue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The lowest eigenvalue of the partially transposed density matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Same as the (ˆy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Soft form factors for quarks and gluons weighted by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The lowest eigenvalue of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [54]

    A. C. Hearn and E. Leader, Phys. Rev.126, 789 (1962)

    1962

  2. [40]

    Entangled electron-photon pair production by channel-exchange in high-energy Compton scattering

    B. Nag Chowdhury and S. Chattopadhyay, Quant. Inf. Proc.20, 179 (2021), 1909.11429

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  3. [66]

    Ragusa, Phys

    S. Ragusa, Phys. Rev. D47, 3757 (1993)

    1993

  4. [1]

    Dispersion relations in real and virtual Compton scattering

    D. Drechsel, B. Pasquini, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rept.378, 99 (2003), hep-ph/0212124

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  5. [2]

    Polarizability of the Nucleon and Compton Scattering

    M. Schumacher, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.55, 567 (2005), hep-ph/0501167

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  6. [3]

    Hagelstein, R

    F. Hagelstein, R. Miskimen, and V. Pascalutsa, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.88, 29 (2016), 1512.03765

    arXiv 2016

  7. [4]

    J. L. Powell, Phys. Rev.75, 32 (1949)

    1949

  8. [5]

    Gell-Mann and M

    M. Gell-Mann and M. L. Goldberger, Phys. Rev.96, 1433 (1954)

    1954

Show all 96 references
  1. [6]

    sinθ +Im[2A 1A∗ 3 + (A4 −A 2)A∗ 5 + 4(A1 +A 3)A∗ 6] sin(2θ) (A16) +Im[A 2A∗ 3 +A 3A∗ 4 + (A1 +A 3)A∗ 5 + (A2 −A 4 + 2A5)A∗ 6] sin(3θ) + 1 2 Im[(A 2 −A 4)A∗ 5] sin(4θ) # . ˜C x′y′ lin = 1 4 " −Re[3A 2A∗ 3 + 5A3A∗ 4 + (3A1 −A 3)A∗ 5 + 3(A2 +A 4 −2A 5)A∗ 6] sinθ + 2 |A5|2 − |A3|2...

  2. [7]

    F. E. Low, Phys. Rev.96, 1428 (1954)

    1954

  3. [8]

    A. M. Baldin, Nucl. Phys.18, 310 (1960)

    1960

  4. [9]

    V. A. Petrun’kin, Soviet Physics JETP13, 808 (1961)

    1961

  5. [10]

    Bernard, N

    V. Bernard, N. Kaiser, and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 1515 (1991)

    1991

  6. [11]

    R. P. Hildebrandt, H. W. Griesshammer, T. R. Hemmert, and B. Pasquini, Eur. Phys. J. A20, 293 (2004), nucl-th/0307070

    2004 arXiv

  7. [12]

    S. R. Beane, M. Malheiro, J. A. McGovern, D. R. Phillips, and U. van Kolck, Nucl. Phys. A747, 311 (2005), nucl- th/0403088

    2005

  8. [13]

    Lensky, J

    V. Lensky, J. McGovern, and V. Pascalutsa, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 604 (2015), 1510.02794

    2015 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Hagelstein, Symmetry12, 1407 (2020), 2006.16124

    F. Hagelstein, Symmetry12, 1407 (2020), 2006.16124

    2020 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Babusci, G

    D. Babusci, G. Giordano, A. I. L’vov, G. Matone, and A. M. Nathan, Phys. Rev. C58, 1013 (1998), hep-ph/9803347

    1998 arXiv

  11. [16]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D58, 114008 (1998), hep-ph/9803316

    1998 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Diehl, T

    M. Diehl, T. Feldmann, R. Jakob, and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C8, 409 (1999), hep-ph/9811253

    1999 arXiv

  13. [18]

    H. W. Huang, P. Kroll, and T. Morii, Eur. Phys. J. C23, 301 (2002), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 31, 279 (2003)], hep- ph/0110208

    2002

  14. [19]

    Diehl, Phys

    M. Diehl, Phys. Rept.388, 41 (2003), hep-ph/0307382

    2003 arXiv

  15. [20]

    A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept.418, 1 (2005), hep-ph/0504030

    2005 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Lamehi-Rachti and W

    M. Lamehi-Rachti and W. Mittig, Phys. Rev. D14, 2543 (1976)

    1976

  17. [22]

    Sakai, T

    H. Sakai, T. Saito, T. Ikeda, K. Itoh, T. Kawabata, H. Kuboki, Y. Maeda, N. Matsui, C. Rangacharyulu, M. Sasano, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 150405 (2006)

    2006

  18. [23]

    S. R. Beane, D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 102001 (2019), 1812.03138

    2019 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and T. Mehen, Phys. Rev. C107, 025204 (2023), 2210.12085

    2023 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Bai and Z

    D. Bai and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C106, 064005 (2022), 2212.11092

    2022 arXiv

  21. [26]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C108, L031002 (2023), 2306.03239

    2023 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Bai, Phys

    D. Bai, Phys. Rev. C109, 034001 (2024), 2308.12327

    2024 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Oishi, Phys

    T. Oishi, Phys. Lett. B862, 139361 (2025), 2407.11136

    2025 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Z. X. Shen, H. Y. Shang, Y. G. Ma, D. Bai, S. M. Wang, Z. C. Xu, Y. Ayyad, and C. Filgueira (2025), 2510.24325

    2025

  25. [30]

    Oishi and M

    T. Oishi and M. Kimura, Phys. Lett. B877, 140439 (2026), 2512.15879

    2026 arXiv

  26. [31]

    Wita la, J

    H. Wita la, J. Golak, and R. Skibi´ nski, Phys. Rev. C112, 044002 (2025), 2505.14401

    2025 arXiv

  27. [32]

    W. Qi, Z. Guo, and B.-W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D113, 054048 (2026), 2506.12889

    2026

  28. [33]

    Fucilla and Y

    M. Fucilla and Y. Hatta, Phys. Rev. D113, L031504 (2026), 2509.05267

    2026

  29. [34]

    Hatta and J

    Y. Hatta and J. Schoenleber, Phys. Rev. D113, 094016 (2026), 2511.04537

    2026

  30. [35]

    Fucilla, Y

    M. Fucilla, Y. Hatta, and B.-W. Xiao (2026), 2604.11697

    2026 arXiv

  31. [36]

    Agrawal, M

    S. Agrawal, M. Zahoor, and R. Abir (2026), 2606.29944

    2026 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Hentschinski, K

    M. Hentschinski, K. Kutak, W. Placzek, and M. Rohrmoser (2026), 2607.18464

    2026 arXiv

  33. [38]

    Cervera-Lierta, J

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli, SciPost Phys.3, 036 (2017), 1703.02989

    2017 arXiv

  34. [39]

    Ahrens and C.-P

    S. Ahrens and C.-P. Sun, Phys. Rev. A96, 063407 (2017), 1708.09606

    2017 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Fedida and A

    S. Fedida and A. Serafini, Phys. Rev. D107, 116007 (2023), 2209.01405

    2023 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Blasone, S

    M. Blasone, S. De Siena, G. Lambiase, C. Matrella, and B. Micciola, Phys. Rev. D111, 016007 (2025), 2402.09195

    2025 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Smeets, P

    J. Smeets, P. Asenov, and A. Serafini, Comput. Phys. Commun.324, 110127 (2026), 2509.12127

    2026 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Blasone, S

    M. Blasone, S. De Siena, G. Lambiase, C. Matrella, and B. Micciola, Chaos Solitons Fractals195, 116305 (2025), 2604.10136

    2025 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and S. Trifinopoulos (2025), 2510.23773

    2025

  40. [46]

    M. M. Altakach, P. Lamba, F. Maltoni, and K. Sakurai (2026), 2601.09558

    2026

  41. [47]

    Zhang, X

    H.-W. Zhang, X. Cao, and T.-F. Feng (2026), 2602.10389

    2026 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Y.-J. Fang, A. Bhoonah, K. Cheng, T. Han, Y. Liu, and H. Zhang (2026), 2604.11887

    2026 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Bloss, T

    H. Bloss, T. J. Hobbs, and N. McGinnis (2026), 2607.28724

    2026 arXiv

  44. [50]

    P. P. Martel et al. (A2), Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 112501 (2015), 1408.1576

    2015 arXiv

  45. [51]

    D. J. Hamilton et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 242001 (2005), nucl-ex/0410001

    2005 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl. Phys. A1026, 122447 (2022), 2103.05419

    2022 arXiv

  47. [53]

    R. P. Hildebrandt, H. W. Griesshammer, and T. R. Hemmert, Eur. Phys. J. A20, 329 (2004), nucl-th/0308054

    2004 arXiv

  48. [55]

    T. R. Hemmert, B. R. Holstein, J. Kambor, and G. Knochlein, Phys. Rev. D57, 5746 (1998), nucl-th/9709063

    1998 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, Annals Phys.7, 404 (1959)

    1959

  50. [57]

    Leader,Spin in Particle Physics, vol

    E. Leader,Spin in Particle Physics, vol. 15 (Cambridge University Press, 2001), ISBN 978-1-009-40204-0, 978-1-009-40199- 26 9, 978-1-009-40201-9, 978-0-511-87418-5, 978-0-521-35281-9, 978-0-521-02077-0

    2001

  51. [58]

    W.-Y. Tsai, L. L. Deraad, and K. A. Milton, Phys. Rev. D6, 1428 (1972), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 11, 703–703 (1975)]

    1972

  52. [59]

    V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii,QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS, vol. 4 ofCourse of Theoretical Physics(Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1982), ISBN 978-0-7506-3371-0

    1982

  53. [60]

    G. B. Rybicki and A. P. Lightman,Radiative Processes in Astrophysics(Wiley, New York, 1979), ISBN 978-0471827597

    1979

  54. [61]

    Peres, Phys

    A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996), quant-ph/9604005

    1996 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A223, 1 (1996), quant-ph/9605038

    1996 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Zyczkowski, P

    K. Zyczkowski, P. Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A58, 883 (1998), quant-ph/9804024

    1998 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Y.-X. Liu, W. Qi, L.-T. He, and B.-W. Xiao (2026), 2604.17756

    2026 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Asenov, W

    P. Asenov, W. Zhang, and A. Serafini, Phys. Rev. D113, 016015 (2026), 2506.23197

    2026 arXiv

  59. [67]

    H. W. Griesshammer, J. A. McGovern, D. R. Phillips, and G. Feldman, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.67, 841 (2012), 1203.6834

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Mornacchi, S

    E. Mornacchi, S. Rodini, B. Pasquini, and P. Pedroni, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 102501 (2022), 2204.13491

    2022

  61. [69]

    Kossert et al., Phys

    K. Kossert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 162301 (2002), nucl-ex/0201015

    2002 arXiv

  62. [70]

    L. S. Myers et al. (COMPTON@MAX-lab), Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 262506 (2014), 1409.3705

    2014 arXiv

  63. [71]

    H. W. Huang and T. Morii, Phys. Rev. D68, 014016 (2003), hep-ph/0305132

    2003 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Bhattacharya, Y

    S. Bhattacharya, Y. Hatta, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D108, 014029 (2023), 2305.09431

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Hatta and J

    Y. Hatta and J. Schoenleber, JHEP12, 058 (2025), 2508.01529

    2025

  66. [74]

    Diehl, Eur

    M. Diehl, Eur. Phys. J. C19, 485 (2001), hep-ph/0101335

    2001 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Kroll and K

    P. Kroll and K. Passek-Kumeriˇ cki, Phys. Rev. D104, 054040 (2021), 2107.04544

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Burkardt, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Phys. Lett. B595, 245 (2004), hep-ph/0401159

    2004 arXiv

  69. [77]

    O. V. Selyugin and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. D79, 033003 (2009), 0901.1786

    2009 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Kroll, H

    P. Kroll, H. Moutarde, and F. Sabatie, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2278 (2013), 1210.6975

    2013 arXiv

  71. [79]

    S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C50, 829 (2007), hep-ph/0611290

    2007 arXiv

  72. [80]

    S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C59, 809 (2009), 0809.4126

    2009 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Arrington, W

    J. Arrington, W. Melnitchouk, and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. C76, 035205 (2007), 0707.1861

    2007 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Hoodbhoy, X.-d

    P. Hoodbhoy, X.-d. Ji, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 012003 (2004), hep-ph/0309085

    2004 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Berthou et al., Eur

    B. Berthou et al., Eur. Phys. J. C78, 478 (2018), 1512.06174

    2018 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Brandenburg, M

    A. Brandenburg, M. Flesch, and P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. D59, 014001 (1999), hep-ph/9806306

    1999 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Bernreuther, A

    W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg, Z. G. Si, and P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 242002 (2001), hep-ph/0107086

    2001 arXiv

  78. [86]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 969 (2025), 2505.11870

    2025 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Del Gratta, F

    M. Del Gratta, F. Fabbri, M. Grossi, F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, G. Pelliccioli, and A. Vicini, JHEP02, 056 (2026), 2509.20456

    2026

  80. [88]

    Jiang, Z.-G

    J. Jiang, Z.-G. Si, H. Zhang, and X.-Y. Zhang (2026), 2606.21152

    2026 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Gon¸ calves, A

    D. Gon¸ calves, A. Kaladharan, and A. Navarro (2026), 2604.16218

    2026 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Lv, Y.-T

    X.-R. Lv, Y.-T. Liang, B. Gou, C.-X. Lin, and A.-Q. Guo (2026), 2601.21325

    2026

  83. [91]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han, G. Li, and B. Yan (2026), 2606.30759

    2026 arXiv

  84. [92]

    C. H. de Lima, N. McGinnis, and D. McKeen (2026), 2607.08816

    2026 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Jiang et al

    X. Jiang et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 182302 (2007), nucl-ex/0702002

    2007 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Bessidskaia Bylund, M

    O. Bessidskaia Bylund, M. Defurne, and P. A. M. Guichon, Phys. Rev. D107, 014020 (2023), 2209.04313

    2023 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII) (2026), 2607.19927

    2026 arXiv

  88. [96]

    C. S. Wu and I. Shaknov, Phys. Rev.77, 136 (1950)

    1950

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.