Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Reciprocal symmetry of multiplicity data implies a tower of exact constraints at the mean; the second member survives locally but the symmetry fails globally at 13 TeV.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 14:34 UTC pith:NHYVBOKM

load-bearing objection Formal tower and entropy formula are correct and worth preserving, but the δ3 test is interpolation-dominated and the abstract's closure test is missing from the body. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.08736 v2 pith:NHYVBOKM submitted 2026-05-09 hep-ph

Higher-order local constraints from reciprocal symmetry and entanglement entropy of charged-particle multiplicity distributions in pp collisions

Mustapha Ouchen , Alex Prygarin , Claudelle Capasia Madjuogang Sandeu This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords KNO scaling violationreciprocal symmetrymultiplicity distributionslocal constraintsentanglement entropyproton-proton collisionsShannon entropycascade models
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 starts from the observed reciprocal symmetry f_s(z)=f_s(1/z) of the KNO-violating term in proton-proton multiplicity distributions and shows that it is equivalent to an evenness condition in log z. This forces every odd derivative of the related function to vanish at the mean, generating an infinite tower of local algebraic constraints on P(n) and its derivatives at n=⟨n⟩. The second member, an unconditional residual δ₃=0, is tested against 7, 8 and 13 TeV data: it holds locally at the widest fit window (δ₃=−0.02±0.11), but a global test across 1/3

Core claim

The central discovery is that the reciprocal symmetry f_s(z)=f_s(1/z) is an evenness condition on h(u)=f_s(e^u), so all odd derivatives h^{(2k+1)}(0) vanish. Using Stirling numbers of the second kind, the paper converts these conditions into algebraic constraints among P(⟨n⟩) and its derivatives; the first new member is ⟨n⟩³P'''(⟨n⟩)+6⟨n⟩²P''(⟨n⟩)=5P(⟨n⟩), equivalently δ₃≡1−2ρ₀+ρ₁=0. The paper tests δ₃ in proton-proton data at 7, 8 and 13 TeV, finding δ₃=−0.02±0.11 at 13 TeV with the widest fit window (consistent with zero) and less conclusive values at lower energies, while a global χ² test across 1/3<z<3 rejects the exact symmetry at 13 TeV. Independently, the paper derives S=ln⟨n⟩+I₀−½∫_S

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the change of variables u=ln z, which turns the reciprocal symmetry f_s(z)=f_s(1/z) into the evenness of h(u)=f_s(e^u). The vanishing of every odd derivative at u=0 generates the infinite tower of local constraints; the chain rule and Stirling numbers of the second kind translate these into linear algebraic relations among the dimensionless quantities ξ_j=⟨n⟩^j P^{(j)}(⟨n⟩)/P(⟨n⟩). For the entropy, the derivation expands ψ ln ψ in powers of f_s and uses the two identies ∫_S e^{-z}f_s dz=1−I₀ and ∫_S z e^{-z}f_s dz=1−I₁, which cancel the constant and linear terms, leaving only the quadratic correction −½∫_S e^{-z}f_s² dz.

Load-bearing premise

The tower of constraints stands on the assumption that f_s(z)=f_s(1/z) is exact, so that odd derivatives at z=1 truly vanish; the 13 TeV global test suggests this is only approximate, and the empirical extraction of δ₃ additionally depends on treating binned data as a smooth function near the non-integer mean.

What would settle it

A high-statistics measurement of charged-particle multiplicity distributions with fine binning around n=⟨n⟩ and full bin-bin covariances that yields δ₃ consistent with zero only in a narrow window but differing from zero by more than 5σ in a wide window, or a direct observation that f_s(z)−f_s(1/z) is systematically nonzero in another collision system, would falsify the exact reciprocal-symmetry tower.

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

If this is right

  • Any cascade model that respects the reciprocal symmetry must satisfy the tower of constraints at n=⟨n⟩; multiplicative log-symmetric noise on the cascade rate, two-component geometric mixtures, and the negative binomial all fail the symmetry test and are therefore ruled out as its source.
  • The second constraint provides a new, energy-dependent observable (ρ₁ or δ₃) that can be extracted locally near the mean; its strong fit-window dependence shows how sensitive higher-derivative tests are to interpolation choices.
  • The entropy formula offers a model-independent way to compute the Shannon entropy from the KNO-scaled distribution, and it implies that any KNO violation reduces S below ln⟨n⟩+1.
  • The global rejection at 13 TeV signals that the reciprocal symmetry is approximate rather than exact; testing the same constraints in other collision systems or with finer binning near the mean can decide whether it is universal or accidental.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the data show the symmetry holds near z=1 but fails globally, one could parameterise a symmetry-breaking term from the antisymmetric part of h(u); measuring its energy dependence would quantify how approximate the symmetry is and could reveal where the tower starts to fail.
  • The entropy bound S≤ln⟨n⟩+1 could serve as an entanglement witness: a measured entropy noticeably above this bound would signal a breakdown of the continuum KNO description or of the proxy between hadronic and partonic entropy.
  • The paper notes a suggestive but unproven link between the discrete Z₂ inversion and Möbius invariance in QCD evolution; if that connection holds, the antisymmetric part of f_s should have a specific functional form that a dedicated fit could test against alternative symmetry-breaking mechanisms.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper formalizes the reciprocal symmetry f_s(z)=f_s(1/z) of the KNO-violating term by defining h(u)=f_s(e^u). It derives an infinite tower of local constraints from h^{(2k+1)}(0)=0, using Stirling numbers, and obtains the k=1 constraint ⟨n⟩^3 P'''(⟨n⟩)+6⟨n⟩^2 P''(⟨n⟩)=5P(⟨n⟩) (Eq. 14), together with the unconditional residual δ3≡1−2ρ0+ρ1 (Eq. 18). The constraint is tested on ATLAS data at 7, 8, and 13 TeV via local polynomial fits in windows |n−⟨n⟩|≤W. The paper also shows that multiplicative log-symmetric noise on Mueller's cascade yields f_s ∝ z^2−4z+2, which is not invariant under z→1/z, and derives an entropy formula S = ln⟨n⟩ + I0 − ½∫ e^{-z} f_s^2 dz + O(f_s^3) that is verified numerically at the 10^-3 level. The global reciprocal symmetry is reported as rejected at 13 TeV (χ²_sym/N_pairs=33/19).

Significance. The formal derivation of the tower of constraints is a clean, checkable result and, if the symmetry is accepted, provides a useful model-independent filter for cascade models. The entropy formula, with the cancellation of the linear-in-f_s term from normalization and unit mean, is an elegant and potentially useful model-independent statement, and the numerical consistency at the 10^-3 level is reassuring. The negative result for multiplicative noise is also a well-defined no-go for that particular extension. However, the empirical support for the symmetry is fragile: the higher-order local test is interpolation-dominated, the global test rejects the symmetry at 13 TeV, and a claimed closure test is absent from the text. The lasting contribution is the formal tower and the entropy identity, not the data verification as it stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eq. (18), Table I] The extraction of δ3 ≡ 1−2ρ0+ρ1 is interpolation-dominated. The data are binned and ⟨n⟩ is non-integer, so P'''(⟨n⟩) is defined only by a local polynomial fit. The paper's own sweeps show the result is not stable: at 13 TeV δ3 varies from +0.79±0.38 (W=4) to −0.016±0.114 (W=6); at fixed W=6 it varies from +0.31±0.04 (N=3) to +0.87±0.39 (N=6), and 7 TeV gives −0.32±0.18 at the working point. Choosing N=4 by χ²/dof does not turn this spread into a controlled systematic, especially since bin-bin systematic correlations are treated as uncorrelated. The central empirical claim that the k=1 constraint is consistent with data is therefore not load-bearing. The authors should either provide a validated interpolation scheme whose bias is quantified (e.g., splines with covariance or a z-space interpolation) or clearly label the test as inconclusive.
  2. [Abstract and §III (after Eq. (21))] The abstract asserts that a closure test shows the 13 TeV rejection of the reciprocal symmetry (χ²_sym/N_pairs = 33/19) is not a binning artefact. However, no closure test is described anywhere in the body; only the χ²_sym values are given. This is an unsupported, load-bearing claim, because the nature of the 13 TeV discrepancy is central to the conclusion that the symmetry breaks globally. Add the closure-test procedure and its result, or remove the assertion from the abstract.
  3. [§II–III and §VII] The tower is derived from the reciprocal symmetry, which is taken as input from the authors' prior work [1] and not independently established here. The paper's own global test rejects the symmetry at 13 TeV. Meanwhile the k=0 test is weak (as the authors note in §VII, it is automatically passed by any distribution with an extremum near z=1), and the k=1 test is inconclusive or contradictory across energies and windows (e.g., 13 TeV W=6 gives −0.016±0.114, while 7 TeV gives −0.32±0.18 and the W/N dependence is large). Therefore the conclusion that the symmetry 'holds at the leading two non-trivial orders near z=1' is not supported by the presented evidence. The formal tower is unaffected, but the empirical status of the symmetry should be presented more cautiously, and the conclusion should be reworded to reflect that the higher-order test is not under control.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§VI, text after Eq. (35)] The sentence 'In the continuum limit S →(0,∞), I0 →1' is confusing: S denotes the support of the distribution in Eq. (35), not the entropy. Please write 'the support S tends to (0,∞)' or 'the measured range tends to the full positive axis'.
  2. [§III, Eq. (21)] Describing χ²_sym/N_pairs = 33/19 as a 'decisive' rejection is overstated: with 19 degrees of freedom, χ²=33 has p≈0.025. Give a precise p-value or use a goodness-of-fit test with its significance level.
  3. [Abstract and §VII] The abstract's closing statement that the symmetry 'holds at the leading two non-trivial orders near z=1' is too strong given that the k=1 test is reported as inconclusive for 7 and 8 TeV and only consistent with zero at 13 TeV W=6. Please qualify this conclusion with the interpolation systematic discussed in §III.
  4. [§III, first paragraph] The mean multiplicities are recomputed from binned distributions and differ slightly from the ATLAS tabulated values. This is reasonable, but the associated normalization shift and its effect on ρ0, ρ1, and δ3 should be commented on explicitly, since the same binning-consistent values are used in the entropy evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the tower constraints and entropy formula are conditional mathematical consequences, not fitted predictions; the self-cited reciprocal symmetry is transparently treated as input and independently tested here.

full rationale

The tower of local constraints (Eq. 9) follows purely mathematically from the assumed evenness of h(u)=f_s(e^u); the k=1 constraint (Eq. 14) is derived, not fitted, and the paper explicitly tests the unconditional residual δ3=1−2ρ0+ρ1, reporting values such as −0.016±0.114 (13 TeV, W=6) and −0.32±0.18 (7 TeV, W=6) that do not force agreement. The entropy formula (Eq. 35) is a Taylor expansion of the Shannon entropy in f_s about the exponential; its reproduction of S_dir at the 10^-3 level is a self-consistency check of the truncation, not an independent prediction, and the paper states that the linear term cancels by normalisation and ⟨z⟩=1 independently of the symmetry. The reciprocal symmetry itself is taken as input from the authors' prior paper [1], but it is not an unverified load-bearing self-citation: it is tested independently in this paper via χ²_sym, which is consistent at 7 and 8 TeV and rejects the global symmetry at 13 TeV, a result the authors acknowledge. Thus the central derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Non-circular concerns remain: the abstract's asserted 'closure test' is not described in the body, and the δ3 extraction is sensitive to interpolation window and polynomial degree; these are robustness/reproducibility issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's input — the reciprocal symmetry — is its authors' own prior empirical claim ([1]), and the entire tower of constraints rests on it; the paper's own global test rejects it at 13 TeV. The empirical machinery adds interpolation and correlation assumptions that are fragile. No new entities or forces are postulated; the free parameters are the noise variance of a model that fails and the hand-chosen fit hyperparameters that materially shift δ₃.

free parameters (2)
  • σ²_η — variance of multiplicative noise on the cascade rate = not fitted; amplitude matched to the data dip depth for Fig. 3
    Ad hoc knob of the noise model (Sec. IV). The model is rejected as a symmetry generator; the parameter never acquires predictive use.
  • Polynomial fit degree N and window W (central: N=4, W=6) = N=4, W=6; sweeps N=3..6, W=4..6
    Hand-chosen analysis hyperparameters. δ₃ at 13 TeV runs from −0.02 (W=6, N=4) to +0.87 (W=6, N=6), so the choice shapes the headline statement.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Reciprocal symmetry f_s(z)=f_s(1/z) of the KNO-violating term in ATLAS/CMS pp data (from the authors' own [1])
    Stated in the abstract as 'taken here as input'; generates the entire tower of constraints. The paper's own global χ² test rejects it at 13 TeV (Sec. III), so it is at best approximate near z=1.
  • standard math Stirling chain-rule identity (z d/dz)^n = Σ S(n,k) z^k d^k/dz^k
    Used to derive Eqs. (4)-(9); standard and verified.
  • standard math KNO continuum limit: Σ_n → ∫ dn, P_n = ⟨n⟩^-1 ψ(z), z = n/⟨n⟩
    Underlies the entropy integrals (Sec. VI) and the continuous interpolation of P near ⟨n⟩ (Sec. III).
  • domain assumption Shannon entropy of the hadronic multiplicity distribution as proxy for partonic entanglement entropy
    Acknowledged as 'established proxy sense' citing Kharzeev-Levin [4-6]; not derived in this paper (Sec. VI).
  • ad hoc to paper Local polynomial fit interpolates the discrete binned P_n and supplies valid derivatives at non-integer ⟨n⟩
    The k=1 test (Table I) rests entirely on this; the δ₃ swing across windows/degrees shows the assumption is fragile (Sec. III).
  • domain assumption ATLAS systematic uncertainties enter as uncorrelated per-bin quadrature
    Bin-bin correlations are not published; the paper admits this 'possibly underestimating the quoted errors' (Sec. III).
  • domain assumption Mueller's geometric distribution as the noise-free cascade baseline
    Baseline for the multiplicative-noise calculation (Eq. 22, Sec. IV), from [3].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13675 in / 37621 out tokens · 351908 ms · 2026-08-02T14:34:04.565119+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The KNO-violating term $f_s$ of the charged-particle multiplicity distribution in $pp$ collisions measures the relative deviation of $\langle n\rangle P_n$ from $e^{-z}$, with $z=n/\langle n\rangle$, and is reported to obey the reciprocal symmetry $f_s(z)=f_s(1/z)$, taken here as input. Being an evenness condition in $\ln z$, it generates a tower of local constraints on the derivatives of $P_n$ at the mean. The lowest member holds for the ATLAS data at $7$, $8$ and $13$~TeV at the few-per-cent level, while the third-derivative residual testing the next member is not determined with a controlled uncertainty by the present binning and stays inconclusive. The global test is consistent at $7$ and $8$~TeV, while at $13$~TeV a residual deviation remains, which a closure test shows is not a binning artefact. Multiplicative noise in the Mueller colour-dipole cascade, the negative binomial and the dipole cascades with recombination each give an $f_s$ that is not invariant under $z\to1/z$, so none of them carries the symmetry. We further obtain a dynamics-independent entropy in the KNO continuum, $S=\ln\langle n\rangle+I_0-\tfrac12\int e^{-z}f_s^2\,dz$, with $I_0$ a support factor tending to unity in the continuum limit. The linear term cancels by normalisation and unit mean, independently of the symmetry, and the remaining correction is quadratic and negative. It reproduces the Shannon entropy of the ATLAS data at the $10^{-3}$ level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08736 by Alex Prygarin, Claudelle Capasia Madjuogang Sandeu, Mustapha Ouchen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Local-fit determination of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of the multiplicative-noise prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the integrand e −zf 2 s (z) across the mea￾sured z range for the three energies. The largest contri￾butions come from z ∼ 1 and from the high-z tail where f 2 s → 1, with the central window 1/3 < z < 3 contribut￾ing only ∼ 25% of the total ∆S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 z = n/⟨n⟩ 10 −6 10 −5 10 −4 10 −3 10 −2 10 −1 e − z f2 s (z) integrand of ΔS= − 1 2 ∫ ∞ 0 e −z f2 s (z)dz −2ΔS contribution 7 TeV, ΔS= −0.008… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Deep inelastic scattering as a probe of entanglement: the complete QCD dipole cascade

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    The Shannon entropy of dipole multiplicities from the full Levin–Lublinsky equation in DIS reproduces the H1 hadron entropy, growing linearly with ln(1/x) and described by S = ln(2/3⟨n⟩) + 0.85.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 18 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Reciprocal symmetry and KNO scaling violation in proton-proton collisions,

    M. Ouchen and A. Prygarin, “Reciprocal symmetry and KNO scaling violation in proton-proton collisions,” arXiv:2605.00128 [hep-ph] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    KNO scaling, memoryless- ness and maximal entanglement at universal fixed point,

    M. Ouchen and A. Prygarin, “KNO scaling, memoryless- ness and maximal entanglement at universal fixed point,” arXiv:2511.18446 [hep-ph] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Soft gluons in the infinite-momentum wave function and the BFKL Pomeron,

    A. H. Mueller, “Soft gluons in the infinite-momentum wave function and the BFKL Pomeron,” Nucl. Phys. B 415, 373 (1994)

    1994

  4. [4]

    Deep inelastic scatter- ing as a probe of entanglement,

    D. E. Kharzeev and E. M. Levin, “Deep inelastic scatter- ing as a probe of entanglement,” Phys. Rev. D95, no. 11, 114008 (2017) [arXiv:1702.03489 [hep-ph]]. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Deep inelastic scat- tering as a probe of entanglement: Confronting experi- mental data,

    D. E. Kharzeev and E. M. Levin, “Deep inelastic scat- tering as a probe of entanglement: Confronting experi- mental data,” Phys. Rev. D104, no. 3, L031503 (2021) [arXiv:2102.09773 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Quantum information approach to high energy interactions,

    D. E. Kharzeev, “Quantum information approach to high energy interactions,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A380, no. 2216, 20210063 (2022) [arXiv:2108.08792 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen paradox and quantum entanglement at subnucleonic scales,

    Z. Tu, D. E. Kharzeev and T. Ullrich, “Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen paradox and quantum entanglement at subnucleonic scales,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124, no. 6, 062001 (2020) [arXiv:1904.11974 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Measurement of charged particle multiplicity distributions in DIS at HERA and its implication to entanglement en- tropy of partons,

    V. Andreevet al.[H1 Collaboration], “Measurement of charged particle multiplicity distributions in DIS at HERA and its implication to entanglement en- tropy of partons,” Eur. Phys. J. C81, 212 (2021) [arXiv:2011.01812 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Evidence for the max- imally entangled low x proton in deep inelastic scat- tering from H1 data,

    M. Hentschinski and K. Kutak, “Evidence for the max- imally entangled low x proton in deep inelastic scat- tering from H1 data,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, 111 (2022) [arXiv:2110.06156 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Maximally entangled proton and charged hadron multiplicity in deep inelastic scattering,

    M. Hentschinski, K. Kutak and R. Straka, “Maximally entangled proton and charged hadron multiplicity in deep inelastic scattering,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1147 (2022) [arXiv:2207.09430 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Probing the onset of maximal entanglement inside the proton in diffractive deep inelastic scattering,

    M. Hentschinski, D. E. Kharzeev, K. Kutak and Z. Tu, “Probing the onset of maximal entanglement inside the proton in diffractive deep inelastic scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 241901 (2023) [arXiv:2305.03069 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    QCD evolution of entanglement entropy,

    M. Hentschinski, D. E. Kharzeev, K. Kutak and Z. Tu, “QCD evolution of entanglement entropy,” Rep. Prog. Phys.87, no. 12, 120501 (2024) [arXiv:2408.01259 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Entanglement entropy, Monte Carlo event generators, and soft gluons DIScovery,

    M. Hentschinski, H. Jung and K. Kutak, “Entanglement entropy, Monte Carlo event generators, and soft gluons DIScovery,” Phys. Rev. D113, no. 5, 054024 (2026) [arXiv:2509.03400 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Entropy, purity and gluon cascades at high energies with recombinations and transitions to vacuum,

    K. Kutak and M. Praszalowicz, “Entropy, purity and gluon cascades at high energies with recombinations and transitions to vacuum,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1215 (2025) [arXiv:2508.13781 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Entropy and multiplicity of hadrons in the high energy limit within dipole cas- cade models,

    K. Kutak and S. L¨ ok¨ os, “Entropy and multiplicity of hadrons in the high energy limit within dipole cas- cade models,” Phys. Rev. D112, no. 9, 096017 (2025) [arXiv:2509.07898 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Universality of scaling entropy in charged hadron mul- tiplicity distributions at the LHC,

    L. S. Moriggi, F. S. Navarra and M. V. T. Machado, “Universality of scaling entropy in charged hadron mul- tiplicity distributions at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D112, 074019 (2025) [arXiv:2506.09899 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Charged-particle multiplicities inppinteractions measured with the AT- LAS detector at the LHC,

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS Collaboration], “Charged-particle multiplicities inppinteractions measured with the AT- LAS detector at the LHC,” New J. Phys.13, 053033 (2011) [arXiv:1012.5104 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [18]

    Charged-particle distributions in √s= 8 TeVppinteractions at the LHC,

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS Collaboration], “Charged-particle distributions in √s= 8 TeVppinteractions at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C76, no. 7, 403 (2016) [arXiv:1603.02439 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Charged-particle distributions in √s= 13 TeVppinteractions measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS Collaboration], “Charged-particle distributions in √s= 13 TeVppinteractions measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 758, 67 (2016) [arXiv:1602.01633 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Study of the KNO scaling inppcollisions at √sfrom 0.9 to 13 TeV using results of the ATLAS at the LHC,

    Y. Kulchitsky and P. Tsiareshka, “Study of the KNO scaling inppcollisions at √sfrom 0.9 to 13 TeV using results of the ATLAS at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, no. 5, 462 (2022) [arXiv:2202.06697 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Charged particle multiplicities inppinteractions at √s= 0.9, 2.36, and 7 TeV,

    V. Khachatryanet al.[CMS Collaboration], “Charged particle multiplicities inppinteractions at √s= 0.9, 2.36, and 7 TeV,” JHEP01, 079 (2011) [arXiv:1011.5531 [hep- ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    Pomeron evolution, entan- glement entropy and Abramovskii-Gribov-Kancheli cut- ting rules,

    M. Ouchen and A. Prygarin, “Pomeron evolution, entan- glement entropy and Abramovskii-Gribov-Kancheli cut- ting rules,” Phys. Rev. D112, no. 9, 094027 (2025) [arXiv:2508.12102 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    The bare pomeron in quantum chromo- dynamics,

    L. N. Lipatov, “The bare pomeron in quantum chromo- dynamics,” Sov. Phys. JETP63, 904 (1986)

    1986

  24. [24]

    High-energy asymptotics of multicolor QCD and two-dimensional conformal field theories,

    L. N. Lipatov, “High-energy asymptotics of multicolor QCD and two-dimensional conformal field theories,” Phys. Lett. B309, 394 (1993)

    1993

  25. [25]

    Spin-spin entanglement in diffractive heavy-quark production,

    M. Fucilla and Y. Hatta, “Spin-spin entanglement in diffractive heavy-quark production,” Phys. Rev. D113, no. 3, L031504 (2026) [arXiv:2509.05267 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Probing quantum en- tanglement with Generalized Parton Distributions at the Electron-Ion Collider,

    Y. Hatta and J. Schoenleber, “Probing quantum en- tanglement with Generalized Parton Distributions at the Electron-Ion Collider,” arXiv:2511.04537 [hep-ph] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Quantum entan- glement in electron-nucleus collisions: Role of the linearly polarized gluon distribution,

    M. Fucilla, Y. Hatta, and B.-W. Xiao, “Quantum entan- glement in electron-nucleus collisions: Role of the linearly polarized gluon distribution,” arXiv:2604.11697 [hep-ph] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026