Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

A Classical Analogue of Entanglement for a Kicked Top

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Classical mutual information mimics entanglement's chaos signature

desk verdict A clean numerical demonstration that classical mutual information in the kicked top tracks entanglement signatures of chaos, but the scalar projection used to compute it is an unverified bottleneck and the Lyapunov proportionality claim is weak. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08857 v3 pith:ELA7OPM5 submitted 2024-11-13 quant-ph

Bilal Khalid , Sabre Kais This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81Q5037D4594A17 PACS 05.45.Mt03.67.-a
keywords classicalanalogueofentanglementmutualinformationkickedtopquantumchaossignaturesphase-spacedistributionsLyapunovexponentnonseparabilityentanglement-chaoscorrespondence
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

The paper argues that a purely classical quantity—mutual information between phase-space distributions of two subsystems of a kicked top—exhibits the same three chaos signatures that bipartite entanglement exhibits in the quantum version. If the argument is right, chaotic dynamics makes classical mutual information grow linearly at a rate proportional to the Lyapunov exponent, while regular dynamics makes it grow with a steadily decreasing rate; and initial conditions in chaotic regions reach a higher equilibrium mutual information than those in regular regions. The reason to care is that this would show these signatures are not intrinsically quantum: they are statistical signatures of any Liouvillian dynamics on phase space, and they expose the classical machinery behind entanglement generation.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the classical kicked-top map on the unit sphere, obtained as the $j\to\infty$ limit of the kicked-top Hamiltonian. The paper partitions the angular momentum into a small subsystem $J_1$ (the analogue of a single spin-$1/2$) and the rest $J_2$, so the nonlinear kick term $e^{-i\kappa(X_1+X_2)}$ couples the two sides. Nonseparability is measured by the mutual information $I_{12}$ between $X_1$ and $X_2$, estimated from sampled trajectories with a $k$-nearest-neighbor estimator, while the Lyapunov exponent is computed by a tangent-space orthogonalization algorithm. This combination—a bipartite classical map plus an information-theoretic correlation measure—converts entanglement dynamics into a classical statistical phenomenon.

What would settle it

Compute $I_{12}$ between other component pairs ($Y_1$ and $Y_2$, or $Z_1$ and $Z_2$) for the same initial conditions and compare growth rates and equilibrium maps with the $\sim 0.5\lambda$ scaling; if the signatures change qualitatively, the scalar-projection shortcut fails. Alternatively, estimate the mutual information between the full marginal densities $\rho_1(\theta_1,\phi_1)$ and $\rho_2(\theta_2,\phi_2)$ and check whether the reported chaos signatures persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that classical nonseparability, quantified by mutual information, reproduces the chaos signatures of bipartite entanglement in the kicked top. The authors bipartition the total angular momentum as $J = J_1 + J_2$, initialize a product of uniform phase-space patches around the same direction $(\theta_0,\phi_0)$, and evolve sampled trajectories under the classical kicked-top map. They estimate the Shannon mutual information $I_{12}$ between the rescaled components $X_1 = J_{1x}/j$ and $X_2 = J_{2x}/j$ and report three findings: $I_{12}$ grows approximately linearly at a rate of about half the positive Lyapunov exponent for chaotic initial conditions, and with a decaying rate for regular ones; the equilibration time scales as $O(\sqrt{j})$ for regular and $O(\ln j)$ for chaotic dynamics; and the equilibrium value $I_{12}^{\mathrm{eq}}$ as a function of $(\theta_0,\phi_0)$ mirrors the classical phase-portrait structure, with higher values concentrated in chaotic regions. Each of these is a standard signature of entanglement in the quantum kicked top, so the paper offers a purely classical statistical analogue of entanglement dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analogy rests on the unproven assumption that the scalar mutual information between $X_1$ and $X_2$ faithfully represents the nonseparability of the full phase-space distributions $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$; a different projection could give different growth rates and equilibrium maps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mutual information becomes a practical classical diagnostic for chaos in phase-space distributions, complementing trajectory-based Lyapunov exponents.
  • The distinct equilibration-time scalings ($\sqrt{j}$ vs $\ln j$) give a classical statistical analogue of the speed of information spreading in regular versus chaotic dynamics.
  • Equilibrium mutual-information maps can be used to reconstruct classical phase-portrait structure directly from correlation data.
  • Because the construction uses only Liouvillian evolution, the three chaos signatures are shown to be statistical, not inherently quantum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test the paper leaves open: compute $I_{12}$ between the full marginal densities $\rho_1(\theta_1,\phi_1)$ and $\rho_2(\theta_2,\phi_2)$ instead of the scalar components, and check whether the growth rate and equilibrium map survive.
  • Equal-sized partitions ($j_1 = j_2$) would reveal whether the $\sim 0.5\lambda$ factor and the scaling laws are general or an artifact of the strongly asymmetric split.
  • If the scalar-projection result is robust, it suggests a classical analogue of information scrambling in which coarse-grained mutual information growth rate plays the role of a quantum OTOC growth rate.
  • The authors' closing remark about charged particles in tilted magnetic wells offers a concrete experimental venue: monitor longitudinal-cyclotron energy exchange as a possible laboratory signature of classical nonseparability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a classical analogue of bipartite entanglement based on the mutual information between phase-space distributions of two subsystems of the kicked top. The authors define nonseparability of the joint classical distribution and compute mutual information between variables on the two sides of a bipartition, finding: (i) logarithmic growth of mutual information for regular dynamics and linear growth at a rate approximately half the positive Lyapunov exponent for chaotic dynamics; (ii) equilibration time scaling as O(√j) for regular and O(ln j) for chaotic dynamics; and (iii) equilibrium mutual information maps that visually resemble classical phase portraits and quantum entanglement entropy maps. The paper argues that these are completely analogous signatures to those of quantum entanglement in the kicked top.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a concrete classical statistical analogue of entanglement that reproduces three well-known chaos signatures, potentially clarifying the classical-quantum correspondence in chaotic systems. The paper is well-structured, includes reproducible numerical procedures (codes and data are provided), and the qualitative features in Figs. 6 and 9 are visually clear. However, the quantitative claims—especially the proportionality between mutual-information growth rate and Lyapunov exponent—rest on a narrow set of numerical experiments and on an unverified projection from full phase-space distributions to scalar x-components. The conceptual contribution is valuable, but the current support for the quantitative part is weak.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4, Fig. 6] The mutual information that is actually computed is I(X1;X2) for the scalar variables X1 = J1x/j and X2 = J2x/j, not the mutual information between the full marginal phase-space densities ρ1(θ1,φ1) and ρ2(θ2,φ2) that the Introduction defines as the classical analogue of entanglement and that the Summary claims to report. For deterministic functions f and g, I(f(A);g(B)) ≤ I(A;B), so the scalar quantity is only a lower bound on the distribution-level mutual information. The paper provides no argument that this lower bound is tight or that its growth rate and equilibrium values track the full quantity. This is load-bearing because the central claim of 'completely analogous signatures' concerns the distribution-level measure.
  2. [Sec. 4, Fig. 7] The claim that the growth rate of I12 is proportional to the Lyapunov exponent, specifically ~0.5×λ, is weakly supported. In Fig. 7, the four chaotic cases at κ=6.0 have Lyapunov exponents 0.974, 0.976, 0.978, and 0.976—nearly identical values. Consequently, the data demonstrate a single growth rate in an almost-uniform chaotic phase space, but cannot establish proportionality to λ. The same issue affects Fig. 8, where the four exponents at κ=2.5 (0.139–0.167) vary by only about 20%. To support the proportionality claim, the authors should present results across a range of λ values (e.g., different κ or different phase-space regions with greater Lyapunov-exponent contrast) and provide quantitative fits with uncertainties.
  3. [Sec. 4, Fig. 9] The equilibrium mutual information I12_eq is estimated by averaging I12 over the fixed window 400≤T≤500 for both κ=0.5 and κ=2.5. The paper does not demonstrate that this window corresponds to a true equilibrium for all initial conditions, nor does it provide error bars or tests of stationarity. Since the equilibration time scales differently for regular and chaotic dynamics (O(√j) vs. O(ln j)), using the same window for both cases may bias the comparison. The qualitative resemblance to Figs. 3 and 4 is suggestive, but the quantitative claim that equilibrium values are systematically higher in chaotic regions requires evidence of convergence.
  4. [Sec. 4, Fig. 5] The initial angular spread of subsystem 1 is set to sinθ0 Δθ Δφ = 1/4, while subsystem 2 uses the quantum-analogous spread 1/j. This choice is arbitrary and is a free parameter in the model. The paper does not test how the reported growth rates, equilibration times, or equilibrium maps depend on this spread. Since the analogy to a spin-1/2 subsystem motivates ∥J1∥=1/2 but not a specific phase-space area, a robustness study varying this spread (while keeping j fixed) is needed to establish that the observed signatures are not artifacts of this particular choice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (9) and (14)] In both equation groups, the three recursion relations are all labeled with J'_1x; the second and third lines should be J'_1y and J'_1z, respectively.
  2. [Throughout] The paper consistently spells 'Lyapunov' as 'Lyuapunov' (e.g., in the Abstract, Sec. 3, and Figs. 7–8). This should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 1, Introduction] The mutual information is first defined for random variables X1 and X2 generically, then later used specifically for X1 = J1x/j and X2 = J2x/j. The notation is confusing because the Introduction describes full marginal densities ρ1(θ1,φ1) and ρ2(θ2,φ2). Please clarify explicitly that the numerical implementation uses the scalar projection and explain why this is a valid proxy, or revise the definition to match the computed quantity.
  4. [Figs. 7 and 8] The plots show growth rates but no confidence intervals or error bars for the slope estimates. Given that the proportionality factor ~0.5 is a quantitative claim, providing standard errors or bootstrap intervals would strengthen the result.
  5. [Sec. 5, Summary] The summary states that mutual information grows logarithmically for regular dynamics, but Fig. 6(a) shows substantial oscillations superimposed on the growth. The text should acknowledge that the logarithmic behavior is an overall envelope, not a pointwise fit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the classical mutual-information signatures are computed numerically and compared against external quantum benchmarks, not derived from the definition of the measure.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that classical mutual information I12 in the kicked top reproduces entanglement signatures of chaos: logarithmic vs linear growth, equilibration time scalings O(sqrt(j)) vs O(ln j), equilibrium I12 maps resembling phase portraits, and a growth rate about 0.5 times the Lyapunov exponent. None of these is an input to the definition of mutual information. The definition I12 = integral rho(X1,X2) log(rho/(rho1 rho2)) only fixes the measure of nonseparability; the dynamical scalings are obtained by evolving sampled trajectories under the classical map (10) and estimating I12 with k-nearest-neighbor statistics, while Lyapunov exponents are computed independently via the Benettin algorithm. No parameter is fitted to the target signatures and then renamed a prediction. The citations to refs 21-25 are external quantum results used as comparison benchmarks, not self-citations; no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. One non-circular validity concern should be flagged: the Introduction and Summary describe mutual information between full marginal phase-space densities rho1(theta1,phi1) and rho2(theta2,phi2), but Sec. 4 estimates I12 between the scalar projections X1 = J1x/j and X2 = J2x/j ('we estimate the mutual information I12 between the variables X1 = J1x/j and X2 = J2x/j'). Since I(f(A);g(B)) <= I(A;B) for deterministic functions, the reported quantity is at best a lower bound on the distribution-level quantity, and the paper gives no argument that the bound is tight for growth rates or equilibrium values. This is an unverified modeling assumption, not a circular reduction: the computed numbers are not equal to the definition by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation depends on one ad hoc physical parameter (subsystem-1 width), an empirical proportionality factor with no derivation, a hand-chosen averaging window, and the unvalidated scalar projection of full phase-space distributions onto x-components. No new entities are introduced; the main burden is the mapping from a quantum spin-coherent state to uniform angular patches and from the full distribution to scalar variables.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial angular spread of subsystem 1 = sinθ0 ΔθΔφ = 1/4
    Chosen in Sec. 4 'in analogy with the quantum state', but not derived from a spin-1/2 correspondence and no sensitivity analysis is provided; growth rates and equilibrium values may depend on it.
  • Growth-rate proportionality constant = approximately 0.5
    Observed empirically in Figs. 7 and 8; no derivation is given, and the test uses nearly equal Lyapunov exponents, so the factor is effectively fitted.
  • Time-averaging window for equilibrium mutual information = T = 400 to 500
    Chosen by hand for both kappa values; no convergence test or error bars are shown for the resulting equilibrium values.
  • k-nearest neighbors parameter for mutual information estimator = k = 3 (k = 10 in robustness check)
    Numerical hyperparameter of the scikit-learn mutual_info_regression estimator; affects the estimated I12, though the SI robustness check suggests oscillations persist for larger k.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The classical limit of the kicked top is described by the map (4) on the unit sphere.
    Standard large-j limit of the Haake-Kuś-Scharf kicked top, used throughout the paper.
  • domain assumption Uniform distributions on small phase-space patches are classical analogues of spin-coherent states.
    Sec. 4 models the quantum initial state (6) as a product of uniform angular patches; no quantitative correspondence between the quantum state and the patch sizes is established.
  • ad hoc to paper Mutual information between scalar x-components is a faithful measure of subsystem nonseparability.
    Sec. 4 estimates I12 between X1 = J1x/j and X2 = J2x/j although the stated definition is for full marginal distributions; this scalar projection is not justified.
  • ad hoc to paper The Lyapunov exponent of the central trajectory determines the growth rate of mutual information for a finite-width distribution.
    Used in Figs. 7 and 8 to compare growth rates; finite distributions spread over regions with different local Lyapunov exponents, and no averaging over the initial distribution is performed.
  • domain assumption The k-nearest neighbor estimator gives unbiased estimates of mutual information for these evolving distributions.
    Standard estimator, but no validation against known distributions or error bars on the estimates is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Classical Analogue of Entanglement for a Kicked Top." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELA7OPM5

@misc{pith2026241108857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Classical Analogue of Entanglement for a Kicked Top},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELA7OPM5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08857}
}
read the original abstract

It is widely believed that quantum mechanics cannot exhibit chaos, since unitarity of time evolution ensures that distances between quantum states are preserved. However, a parallel argument can be constructed in classical mechanics that would seem to deny the existence of classical chaos too. The argument works by describing classical states as probability distributions in phase space and showing that the inner product between distributions on phase space is preserved under Liouvillian dynamics. Thus, the more faithful classical analogy of a quantum state is not a single phase space trajectory but is instead a phase space distribution, and chaos in such states must be identified by some statistical signatures instead of exponential separation of nearby states. The search for these signatures is the primary goal in quantum chaos research. However, this perspective also naturally motivates the search for classical analogues of these signatures, to reveal the inner machinery of chaos in quantum systems. One widely recognized signature of chaos in quantum systems is the dynamical generation of entanglement. Chaos in the classical system is correlated with a greater entanglement production in the corresponding quantum system. One of the most well-studied examples of this is the kicked top model. In this paper, we construct a classical analogue of bipartite entanglement in terms of the mutual information between phase space distributions of subsystems and find completely analogous signatures of chaos as those found in entanglement for the kicked top Hamiltonian.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08857 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Classical phase portraits for the kicked top. The trajectories of rescaled angular momenta X = J/j in the classical limit j → ∞, represented in terms of the polar and the azimuthal angles on a unit sphere. As κ is tuned from low to high, an order-to-chaos transition occurs in the phase space. Red markers represent the trajectories corresponding to the initial condition θ0 = 3π/4, ϕ0 = 3π/4 (black marker.) Defining t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. von Neumann entropy and linear entropy for spin-1/2 systems. relations (4) for different values of the kick strength κ. As we increase the kick strength κ, chaos emerges in the phase space and islands of regularity begin to shrink. Eventually, for a large enough value of κ, chaos completely takes over. 3 Quantum Entanglement Consider a collection of N spins-1/2 with the corresponding spin operators Si = (Six, Siy, S… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Linear entropy. Linear entropy of a single spin S = 1 − Tr1(ρ 2 1 ) as a function of time steps T and initial orientation (θ0, ϕ0). (a) and (b) show the time dynamics of S with the initial orientation (θ0 = 3π/4, ϕ0 = 3π/4) for κ = 0.5 and κ = 2.5 respectively. (c) and (d) display the equilibrium value Seq of linear entropy as a function of the initial orientation (θ0, ϕ0) for κ = 0.5 and κ = 2.5 respectively. The s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Linear entropy in the thermodynamic limit. We have estimated the equi￾librium value of linear entropy in the thermodynamic limit S ∞ eq as a function of the initial orientation (θ0, ϕ0). For each (θ0, ϕ0), S ∞ = ⟨(∆X) 2 ⟩ /2 is computed classically by evolving 200 traj…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Initial distribution for mutual information calculations. The initial distri￾bution for the total system ρ12(θ1, ϕ1, θ2, ϕ2) = ρ1(θ1, ϕ1) × ρ2(θ2, ϕ2) for (θ0 = 3π/4, ϕ0 = 3π/4) where j = 100. Both ρ1 and ρ2 are uniformly distributed in the corresponding regions shaded…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mutual information growth and system size. Mutual information I12 be￾tween the variables X1 = J1x/j and X2 = J2x/j with initial orientation (θ0 = 3π/4, ϕ0 = 3π/4) for κ = 0.5 [(a) and (c)] and κ = 2.5 [(b) and (d)], respectively. The system starts in a completely separ…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mutual information growth and Lyuapunov exponents for a fully chaotic phase space. A comparison of the growth rate of I12 with the corresponding Lyuapunov exponents for four different cases at κ = 6.0: (a) (θ0 = 3π/4, ϕ0 = 3π/4), λa = 0.978; (b) (θ0 = π/3, ϕ0 = 2π/3), …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mutual information growth and Lyuapunov exponents for a mixed regular-chaotic phase space. A comparison of the growth rate of I12 with the cor￾responding Lyuapunov exponents at κ = 2.5 for four different chaotic initial conditions: (a) (θ0 = 3π/4, ϕ0 = 3π/4), λa = 0.14…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Equilibrium mutual information. Equilibrium value of mutual information I eq 12 is estimated as a function of (θ0, ϕ0) for: (a) κ = 0.5 and (b) κ = 2.5. For each (θ0, ϕ0), 200 trajectories are sampled to compute the statistics and j = 100 is used. To obtain I eq 12, I1…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Oscillatory growth of mutual information. Oscillatory growth of mutual information I12 for regular initial conditions. (a) I12 is replotted for the initial conditions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Convergence of Lyuapunov exponents at κ = 6.0. Convergence of Lyua￾punov exponents for the four scenarios of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Convergence of Lyuapunov exponents at κ = 2.5. Convergence of Lyua￾punov exponents for the four scenarios of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ballentine, L. E. In Fundamental Problems in Quantum Physics; Ferrero, M., van der Merwe, A., Eds.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 1995; pp 15--28

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Berry, M. V. The Bakerian Lecture, 1987. Quantum chaology . Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 1987, 413, 183--198

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    Gutzwiller, M. C. Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics ; Springer New York, NY, 1990

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    Quantum Signatures of Chaos , 3rd ed.; Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010

    Haake, F. Quantum Signatures of Chaos , 3rd ed.; Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    H.; Paz, J

    Zurek, W. H.; Paz, J. P. Decoherence, chaos, and the second law. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1994, 72, 2508--2511

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    H.; Paz, J

    Zurek, W. H.; Paz, J. P. Quantum chaos: a decoherent definition. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 1995, 83, 300--308, Quantum Complexity in Mesoscopic Systems

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Quantum-classical correspondence of entropy contours in the transition to chaos

    Zarum, R.; Sarkar, S. Quantum-classical correspondence of entropy contours in the transition to chaos. Phys. Rev. E 1998, 57, 5467--5471

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    C.; Pellegrino, G

    Furuya, K.; Nemes, M. C.; Pellegrino, G. Q. Quantum Dynamical Manifestation of Chaotic Behavior in the Process of Entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1998, 80, 5524--5527

    work page 1998

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    A.; Sarkar, S

    Miller, P. A.; Sarkar, S. Entropy production, dynamical localization and criteria for quantum chaos in the open quantum kicked rotor. Nonlinearity 1999, 12, 419

    1999

  2. [10]

    A.; Sarkar, S

    Miller, P. A.; Sarkar, S. Signatures of chaos in the entanglement of two coupled quantum kicked tops. Phys. Rev. E 1999, 60, 1542--1550

    1999

  3. [11]

    Pattanayak, A. K. Lyapunov Exponents, Entropy Production, and Decoherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1999, 83, 4526--4529

    1999

  4. [12]

    Monteoliva, D.; Paz, J. P. Decoherence and the Rate of Entropy Production in Chaotic Quantum Systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000, 85, 3373--3376

    2000

  5. [13]

    The classical counterpart of entanglement

    Lakshminarayan, A. The classical counterpart of entanglement. arXiv 2001, quant-ph/0107078

    2001 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Entangling power of quantized chaotic systems

    Lakshminarayan, A. Entangling power of quantized chaotic systems. Phys. Rev. E 2001, 64, 036207

    2001

  7. [15]

    Intrinsic decoherence dynamics in smooth Hamiltonian systems: Quantum-classical correspondence

    Gong, J.; Brumer, P. Intrinsic decoherence dynamics in smooth Hamiltonian systems: Quantum-classical correspondence. Phys. Rev. A 2003, 68, 022101

    2003

  8. [16]

    N.; Lakshminarayan, A

    Bandyopadhyay, J. N.; Lakshminarayan, A. Entanglement production in coupled chaotic systems: Case of the kicked tops. Phys. Rev. E 2004, 69, 016201

    2004

  9. [17]

    Decoherence, entanglement, and chaos in the Dicke model

    Hou, X.-W.; Hu, B. Decoherence, entanglement, and chaos in the Dicke model. Phys. Rev. A 2004, 69, 042110

    2004

  10. [18]

    Quantum linear mutual information and classical correlations in globally pure bipartite systems

    Angelo, R.; Vitiello, S.; de Aguiar , M.; Furuya, K. Quantum linear mutual information and classical correlations in globally pure bipartite systems. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 2004, 338, 458--470

    2004

  11. [19]

    Classical dynamics of quantum entanglement

    Casati, G.; Guarneri, I.; Reslen, J. Classical dynamics of quantum entanglement. Phys. Rev. E 2012, 85, 036208

    2012

  12. [20]

    Bonan c c a, M. V. S. Lyapunov decoherence rate in classically chaotic systems. Phys. Rev. E 2011, 83, 046214

    2011

  13. [21]

    C.; Hu, B

    Wang, X.; Ghose, S.; Sanders, B. C.; Hu, B. Entanglement as a signature of quantum chaos. Phys. Rev. E 2004, 70, 016217

    2004

  14. [22]

    Chaos, entanglement, and decoherence in the quantum kicked top

    Ghose, S.; Stock, R.; Jessen, P.; Lal, R.; Silberfarb, A. Chaos, entanglement, and decoherence in the quantum kicked top. Phys. Rev. A 2008, 78, 042318

    2008

  15. [23]

    Nature 2009, 461, 768--771

    Chaudhry, S.; Smith, A.; Anderson, B.; others Quantum signatures of chaos in a kicked top. Nature 2009, 461, 768--771

    2009

  16. [24]

    Nature Phys 2016, 12, 1037--1041

    Neill, C.; Roushan, P.; Fang, M.; others Ergodic dynamics and thermalization in an isolated quantum system. Nature Phys 2016, 12, 1037--1041

    2016

  17. [25]

    Bridging entanglement dynamics and chaos in semiclassical systems

    Lerose, A.; Pappalardi, S. Bridging entanglement dynamics and chaos in semiclassical systems. Phys. Rev. A 2020, 102, 032404

    2020

  18. [26]

    Classical and quantum chaos for a kicked top

    Haake, F.; Ku\'s, M.; Scharf, R. Classical and quantum chaos for a kicked top. Z. Physik B - Condensed Matter 1987, 65, 381--395

    1987

  19. [27]

    Towards the fast scrambling conjecture

    Lashkari, N.; Stanford, D.; Hastings, M.; Osborne, T.; Hayden, P. Towards the fast scrambling conjecture. J. High Energ. Phys. 2013, 2013, 22

    2013

  20. [28]

    A bound on chaos

    Maldacena, J.; Shenker, S.; Stanford, D. A bound on chaos. J. High Energ. Phys. 2016, 2016, 106

    2016

  21. [29]

    A.; Yoshida, B

    Hosur, P.; Qi, X.-L.; Roberts, D. A.; Yoshida, B. Chaos in quantum channels. J. High Energ. Phys. 2016, 2016, 4

    2016

  22. [30]

    B.; Ganeshan, S.; Galitski, V

    Rozenbaum, E. B.; Ganeshan, S.; Galitski, V. Lyapunov Exponent and Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlator's Growth Rate in a Chaotic System. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 118, 086801

    2017

  23. [31]

    A.; Figgatt, C.; Schuster, T.; Linke, N

    Landsman, K. A.; Figgatt, C.; Schuster, T.; Linke, N. M.; Yoshida, B.; Yao, N. Y.; Monroe., C. Verified quantum information scrambling. Nature 2019, 567, 61--65

    2019

  24. [32]

    Mi, X. et al. Information scrambling in quantum circuits. Science 2021, 374, 1479--1483

    2021

  25. [33]

    Deutsch, J. M. Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system. Phys. Rev. A 1991, 43, 2046--2049

    1991

  26. [34]

    Chaos and quantum thermalization

    Srednicki, M. Chaos and quantum thermalization. Phys. Rev. E 1994, 50, 888--901

    1994

  27. [35]

    Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems

    Rigol, M.; Dunjko, V.; Olshanii, M. Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems. Nature 2008, 452, 854--858

    2008

  28. [36]

    M.; Tai, M

    Kaufman, A. M.; Tai, M. E.; Lukin, A.; Rispoli, M.; Schittko, R.; Preiss, P. M.; Greiner, M. Quantum thermalization through entanglement in an isolated many-body system. Science 2016, 353, 794--800

    2016

  29. [37]

    Bounds on Chaos from the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis

    Murthy, C.; Srednicki, M. Bounds on Chaos from the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 123, 230606

    2019

  30. [38]

    Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys

    Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; Rosen, N. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 1935, 47, 777--780

    1935

  31. [39]

    Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems

    Schrödinger, E. Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 1935, 31, 555–563

    1935

  32. [40]

    In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , F all 2022 ed.; Zalta, E

    Myrvold, W. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , F all 2022 ed.; Zalta, E. N., Ed.; Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    A.; Chuang, I

    Nielsen, M. A.; Chuang, I. L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition; Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  34. [42]

    Lecture Notes

    Preskill, J. Lecture Notes. https://www.preskill.caltech.edu/ph219/index.html#lecture

  35. [43]

    F.; Balkin, M

    Styer, D. F.; Balkin, M. S.; Becker, K. M.; others. Nine formulations of quantum mechanics . American Journal of Physics 2002, 70, 288--297

    2002

  36. [44]

    Case, W. B. Wigner functions and Weyl transforms for pedestrians . American Journal of Physics 2008, 76, 937--946

    2008

  37. [45]

    Qian, X.-F.; Eberly, J. H. Entangled states of light in classical polarization theory. arXiv 2011, 1011.0693v2

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.feature_selection.mutual_info_regression.html

    mutual \_ info \_ regression in Python package sklearn. https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.feature_selection.mutual_info_regression.html

  39. [47]

    Kolmogorov entropy and numerical experiments

    Benettin, G.; Galgani, L.; Strelcyn, J.-M. Kolmogorov entropy and numerical experiments. Phys. Rev. A 1976, 14, 2338--2345

    1976

  40. [48]

    Lyapunov Characteristic Exponents for smooth dynamical systems and for hamiltonian systems; a method for computing all of them

    Benettin, G.; Galgani, L.; Giorgilli, A.; Strelcyn, J.-M. Lyapunov Characteristic Exponents for smooth dynamical systems and for hamiltonian systems; a method for computing all of them. Part 1: Theory. Meccanica 1980, 15, 9--20

    1980

  41. [49]

    Lyapunov Characteristic Exponents for smooth dynamical systems and for hamiltonian systems; A method for computing all of them

    Benettin, G.; Galgani, L.; Giorgilli, A.; Strelcyn, J.-M. Lyapunov Characteristic Exponents for smooth dynamical systems and for hamiltonian systems; A method for computing all of them. Part 2: Numerical application. Meccanica 1980, 15, 21--30

    1980

  42. [50]

    In Time in Physics; Renner, R., Stupar, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2017; pp 1--15

    Gisin, N. In Time in Physics; Renner, R., Stupar, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2017; pp 1--15

    2017

  43. [51]

    Physics without determinism: Alternative interpretations of classical physics

    Del Santo, F.; Gisin, N. Physics without determinism: Alternative interpretations of classical physics. Phys. Rev. A 2019, 100, 062107

    2019

  44. [52]

    Mathematical languages shape our understanding of time in physics

    Gisin, N. Mathematical languages shape our understanding of time in physics. Nat. Phys. 2020, 16, 114--116

    2020

  45. [53]

    Real numbers are the hidden variables of classical mechanics

    Gisin, N. Real numbers are the hidden variables of classical mechanics. Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 2020, 7, 197--201

    2020

  46. [54]

    Indeterminism in Physics, Classical Chaos and Bohmian Mechanics: Are Real Numbers Really Real? Erkenn 2021, 86, 1469–1481

    Gisin, N. Indeterminism in Physics, Classical Chaos and Bohmian Mechanics: Are Real Numbers Really Real? Erkenn 2021, 86, 1469–1481

    2021

  47. [55]

    Indeterminism in physics and intuitionistic mathematics

    Gisin, N. Indeterminism in physics and intuitionistic mathematics. Synthese 2021, 199, 13345–13371

    2021

  48. [56]

    Which features of quantum physics are not fundamentally quantum but are due to indeterminism? arXiv 2024, 2409.10601

    Del Santo, F.; Gisin, N. Which features of quantum physics are not fundamentally quantum but are due to indeterminism? arXiv 2024, 2409.10601

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    L.; Stone, A

    Shepelyansky, D. L.; Stone, A. D. Chaotic Landau Level Mixing in Classical and Quantum Wells. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1995, 74, 2098--2101

    1995

  50. [58]

    ֡ERZZKkQQ P Ae c 3a @H +z ovฅ S뷿o:MV I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c5 7ֱ ֧ koZu sMN> > KϰTKϴp_|ukܢ -c 0˚73n

    Data available. https://github.com/mbilalkhalid39/mutualinfo-kickedtop mcitethebibliography main.tex0000664000000000000000000015055515023305321011231 0ustar rootroot [journal=jacsat,manuscript=article] achemso [version=3] mhchem titlesec float [utf8] inputenc graphicx amsmath ...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.