Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Statistical permutation quantifiers in the classical transition of conservative-dissipative systems

T0 review · 2 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 Permutation entropy and statistical complexity divide the semiclassical transition into three sharply delimited energy zones, locating boundaries more precisely than Poincaré sections.

desk verdict A clean follow-up application of permutation quantifiers to a specific semiclassical model; the three-zone structure is plausible, but the quoted boundaries need uncertainty quantification and an initial-condition invariance check before they can be taken literally. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13761 v1 pith:DGTFRCQ4 submitted 2024-11-21 quant-ph

Gaspar Gonzalez , Andrés M. Kowalski This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords semiclassicalsystemsclassicallimitBandt-PompepermutationentropystatisticalcomplexityLMCJensen-Shannondissipativedynamicsrelativeenergy
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 studies a semiclassical model in which a quantum oscillator interacts nonlinearly with two classical variables, and asks how its dynamics becomes classical as a motion invariant linked to the uncertainty principle shrinks to zero. The authors compute three information-theoretic measures—permutation entropy and two statistical complexities—from the time series $\langle \hat{x}^2\rangle(t)$ using the Bandt–Pompe ordinal-pattern method, in both conservative and dissipative regimes. All three quantifiers partition the classicality parameter $E_r$ into the same three regions: a quasi-quantum zone, a transitional (mesoscopic) zone, and a convergence zone where the semiclassical values reach the classical analog values. The paper's claim is that these information quantifiers locate the zone boundaries more precisely than the Poincaré sections used in earlier work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bandt–Pompe permutation method: each window of $d$ consecutive time-series values (here $d=5$, $\tau=1$) is replaced by the permutation of indices that sorts the values, yielding a probability distribution over the $d!$ ordinal patterns. From this distribution the paper builds the normalized permutation entropy $H(P)=S(P)/\log(d!)$, the LMC complexity $C_{\mathrm{LMC}}=H\cdot D_2(P,P_e)$ with the Euclidean disequilibrium, and the Jensen–Shannon complexity $C_{\mathrm{JS}}=H\cdot D_{\mathrm{JS}}(P,P_e)/D_{\mathrm{max}}$. The classicality parameter is the relative energy $E_r=E/(I^{1/2}\omega_q)$ built from the motion invariant $I$, which encodes the uncertainty-principle deviation from classicality; $E_r=1$ is the fully quantum case and $E_r\to\infty$ is the classical limit. The mechanism that carries the argument is that ordinal-pattern statistics of the single observable $\langle\hat{x}^2\rangle(t)$ respond sharply to the qualitative change in dynamics as $I\to0$, even though the underlying dynamics is regular.

What would settle it

Take the same model and the same three quantifiers, but scan to the classical limit along a different one-parameter family of initial conditions that still satisfies $I\to0$—for example, starting with nonzero $\langle\hat{L}\rangle(0)$ or redistributing the initial energy between $\langle\hat{x}^2\rangle$ and $\langle\hat{p}^2\rangle$—and check whether the zone boundaries in $E_r$ remain at 2.8 and 104.8 (conservative) and 3.6 and 123.0 (dissipative).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for the Hamiltonian $\hat H = \tfrac{1}{2}[\omega_q(\hat{x}^2+\hat{p}^2) + \omega_{\mathrm{cl}}(A^2+P_A^2)\hat I + e_{\mathrm{cl}}^q A^2 \hat{x}^2]$, the approach to the classical limit is not featureless when viewed through information quantifiers. With the relative energy $E_r = E/(I^{1/2}\omega_q)$, where $I=\langle\hat{x}^2\rangle\langle\hat{p}^2\rangle - \langle\hat{L}\rangle^2/4$ is a motion invariant obeying $I\ge\hbar^2/4$, the classical limit is $I\to0$, i.e. $E_r\to\infty$. The paper computes the normalized permutation entropy $H$ and the LMC and Jensen–Shannon complexities $C_{\mathrm{LMC}}$ and $C_{\mathrm{JS}}$ from Bandt–Pompe ordinal distributions of $\langle\hat{x}^2\rangle(t)$, scanning $E_r$ through a one-parameter family of initial conditions. Each quantifier shows three zones in $E_r$: a quasi-quantum regime near $E_r\approx1$, a transitional (mesoscopic) regime ($2.8<E_r<104.8$ conservative; $3.6<E_r<123.0$ dissipative), and a classical-convergence regime where the quantifiers saturate at the values of the purely classical analog, such as $H_{\mathrm{cl}}^c=0.17676$ and $H_{\mathrm{cl}}^d=0.17207$. The same boundaries appear for all three quantifiers, and the near-constancy of the disequilibrium terms explains why $H$ and $C_{\mathrm{JS}}$ share their shape. The paper concludes that these information quantifiers confirm the three zones earlier found with Poincaré sections, but with greater precision.

Load-bearing premise

The reported zone boundaries in $E_r$ (2.8 and 104.8 conservative; 3.6 and 123.0 dissipative) rest on the assumption that the particular one-parameter family of initial conditions used to scan $I\to0$—with $\langle\hat{L}\rangle(0)=A(0)=0$ and a fixed split of energy between $\langle\hat{x}^2\rangle$ and $\langle\hat{p}^2\rangle$—is representative of the classical transition; if the boundaries shift when that path through phase space is changed, the stated numbers are an artifact of the chosen scan.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All three information quantifiers give the same transition boundaries in $E_r$, so the three-zone structure is not specific to one complexity measure.
  • The semiclassical quantifiers already match the classical analog values at finite $E_r$ (about 104.8 conservative, 123.0 dissipative), so the classical limit is effectively reached before $E_r\to\infty$.
  • The near-constancy of the disequilibrium factors means $H$ and $C_{\mathrm{JS}}$ differ mainly by scale, while $C_{\mathrm{LMC}}$ is noisier but shows the same global pattern.
  • Convergence starts at a smaller $E_r$ in the conservative case than in the dissipative case, so dissipation delays the onset of the classical regime in this model.
  • The low values of all quantifiers are consistent with the regularity of the underlying dynamics seen in the Poincaré sections.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the boundaries are robust to the scan path, the same Bandt–Pompe protocol could be used to locate decoherence crossovers in other semiclassical models with a conserved uncertainty-bound invariant, even where Poincaré sections are too dense to read by eye.
  • Because the disequilibrium is nearly constant in $E_r$, the complexity measures mostly rescale the entropy for this system; an implication is that the entropy alone may carry the zone information, and the choice of complexity measure is secondary.
  • A testable extension is to vary the dissipation strength $\eta$ (the paper fixes $\eta=0.05$) and check whether the 3.6 and 123.0 boundaries shift monotonically, which would tie the delay of classicality to the dissipation rate.
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. This paper investigates the classical transition in a nonlinear semiclassical system described by a Hamiltonian with quantum operators (x,p) and classical variables (A,PA), with a coupling term ecl_q A^2 x^2. The authors compute the normalized permutation entropy H, the LMC statistical complexity, and the Jensen-Shannon statistical complexity from time series of ⟨x^2⟩(t) using the Bandt-Pompe method, for both conservative (η=0) and dissipative (η=0.05) regimes. They define a relative energy Er = |E|/(I^{1/2}ωq) based on the motion invariant I, which measures the deviation from classicality, and study the limit Er→∞ (I→0). They report three zones in Er: a quasi-quantum zone (Er≈1–2.8 conservative), a transitional/mesoscopic zone (2.8<Er<104.8 conservative; 3.6<Er<123.0 dissipative), and a classical zone where the quantifiers converge to values computed from the classical analog system. They conclude that these information quantifiers provide more precise characterization of the classical transition than the Poincaré sections of Ref. [30].

Significance. If the reported three-zone structure is robust, the paper offers a concrete demonstration that permutation-based information quantifiers can serve as sensitive probes of the semiclassical-to-classical crossover, complementing dynamical methods. Strengths include the explicit specification of the model and initial conditions, the use of the established ordpy package, and the parallel treatment of conservative and dissipative regimes. The convergence to the classical analog values is visually coherent and the qualitative distinction between zones is consistent across the three quantifiers. However, because the central quantitative claims (zone boundaries and classical-limit values) are tied to a single, non-unique family of initial states, the significance is provisional pending sensitivity analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Eqs. (2)–(6)] The paper selects ⟨x^2⟩(0)=E/ωq−0.98√((E/ωq)^2−I) with ⟨L⟩(0)=A(0)=0. For fixed E and I, this does not uniquely specify the initial state: one may choose the complementary branch with the plus sign, or states with L(0)≠0, and for I=0 there is a continuum of partitions of E between x^2 and the A-reservoir satisfying I=0 and energy conservation. The dynamics depend on this partition through the coupling term ecl_q A^2⟨x^2⟩. Consequently, the reported boundaries (2.8<Er<104.8, 3.6<Er<123.0) and the classical-limit values H_cl, C_cl may be artifacts of the particular branch chosen. The paper does not provide any invariance argument or numerical evidence that the three-zone structure is independent of this choice. Please test the sensitivity of the curves and boundary values to: (i) the plus branch, (ii) the coefficient 0.98 varied over a range, (iii) nonzero L(0), and (iv) the sign of PA(0). If the zones shift or disappear, the central claim needs to be reformulated.
  2. [Figs. 1 and 2; Section 5] The boundaries are identified visually from single curves with no quantitative criterion, no error bars, and no bootstrap over initial conditions or time-window choices. Given that the curves are nearly flat over large Er intervals, small numerical noise or finite-length effects could shift the apparent "jump" points. The reported precision (e.g., 104.8, 123.0) is not supported without a defined threshold or a statistical measure of the transition. Please provide a reproducible criterion (e.g., crossing of a tolerance band around the classical value, or a derivative-based change point) and report the resulting uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4), third line] There is a typographical comma in "(ωq + ecl_q , A^2) x^2"; it should read "(ωq + ecl_q A^2) x^2".
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] "Er0" should be "Er" for consistency with the rest of the text.
  3. [Section 4.1] "Smax = log(nπ) y 0 ≤ H ≤ 1" contains a Spanish "y"; it should be "and".
  4. [Throughout] The paper uses both "mesoscopic" and "mezoscopic"; please standardize the spelling.
  5. [Section 5] The choice of the factor 0.98 in the initial condition is not justified; if no derivation is available, state explicitly that it is an arbitrary but fixed choice and discuss its role in the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quantifier curves and classical benchmarks are independently computed; the three-zone classification is an empirical reading of those curves, not a derivation from the definitions.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters and then rename them as predictions. The classical benchmark values H_cl and C_cl are computed from the explicit classical Hamiltonian (3)-(4) with I=0, i.e., from the same external system the semiclassical model is supposed to approach; they are not obtained from the semiclassical H/C curves. The three-zone intervals (2.8<Er<104.8 conservative; 3.6<Er<123.0 dissipative) are descriptive boundaries read off the computed H, C_JS, and C_LMC vs Er plots, not quantities derived from those plots' inputs. The equations of motion and I-invariant are quoted from the same group's earlier work, but that prior work is the model under study, not a substitute for the new numerical experiment. The conclusion's appeal to Ref. [30] is a point of comparison and is therefore self-citational in framing but not load-bearing: the current paper's own figures 1-4 contain the evidence for the reported zones. The only noteworthy caveats are that the classical-limit path is a single explicitly chosen branch of initial conditions and that the zone boundaries are selected by inspection; these are robustness and precision concerns, not circular reductions of the kind defined in the rubric.

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

The central numeric contribution rests on two hand-chosen analysis parameters (d, τ), one hand-picked initial-condition path (the 0.98 factor), model inputs such as E and η, and four domain assumptions about the mean-field equations, the Er coordinate, and the adequacy of single time series. No fitted constants or invented entities appear.

free parameters (5)
  • model parameters ωq, ωcl, ecl_q = 1, 1, 1
    Set to unity in Section 5. All reported Er boundaries and quantifier values are computed at these values.
  • initial energy E = 0.6
    Fixed for all runs in Section 5. The relative energy Er and the initial conditions depend on this value.
  • dissipation strength η = 0.05
    Chosen for the dissipative runs in Section 5. The dissipative boundaries (3.6<Er<123.0) depend on this value.
  • Bandt-Pompe embedding dimension d and delay τ = d=5, τ=1
    Chosen by hand in Section 5. The paper says results were conceptually confirmed with d=6, so the reported boundary values can shift with d.
  • initial condition parameter 0.98 = 0.98
    Defines ⟨x²⟩(0)=E/ωq−0.98√((E/ωq)²−I_L). This chooses one specific path to the classical limit, and the resulting zone boundaries depend on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The semiclassical equations (2) correctly describe the quantum-classical dynamics of Hamiltonian (1).
    Invoked throughout Section 2 and derived in Appendix A.1 via canonical operator evolution plus Hamilton equations for the classical variables, assuming finite Lie semialgebra closure.
  • domain assumption The classical limit is captured by the invariant I and relative energy Er, with I→0 (Er→∞).
    Section 2, Eqs. (5)-(7). The paper assumes that scaling Er via I monotonically connects the quantum and classical regimes for the chosen observables.
  • domain assumption Ordinal distributions from a single 20000-point time series of ⟨x²⟩(t) are adequate for entropy and complexity estimation.
    Section 3 and Section 5. Finite-sample convergence and stationarity are not demonstrated; the permutation probabilities are treated as exact.
  • domain assumption The classical analog equations (4), with matched initial energy and damping, give the correct reference values H_cl and C_cl.
    Section 5. These reference values are used to judge convergence, but no error bars are attached to them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Statistical permutation quantifiers in the classical transition of conservative-dissipative systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DGTFRCQ4

@misc{pith2026241113761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Statistical permutation quantifiers in the classical transition of conservative-dissipative systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DGTFRCQ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13761}
}
read the original abstract

We study the behavior of a nonlinear semiclassical system using Shannon entropy and two approaches to statistical complexity. These systems involve the interaction between classical variables (representing the environment) and quantum ones. Both conservative and dissipative regimes are explored. To calculate the information metrics, probability distributions are derived from the temporal evolution via the Bandt-Pompe permutation method. Additionally, we describe the classical limit in terms of a motion invariant linked to the uncertainty principle. Our analysis reveals three distinct regions, including a mesoscopic one, along with other notable findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13761 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Normalized Shannon permutation entropy H as a function of the relative energy of the system Er. The insets on the right are an up-scaling of the original graph, showing the transitions zones with more details. The blue curve corresponds to the entropy of the conservative case an the orange to the dissipative one. Hcl c = 0.17676 and Hcl d = 0.17207 are the corresponding entropies of the classical analogous in both r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We plot the two definitions of the statistical complexity vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparative figure between CLMC and CJS as a function of the relative energy Er. (a) Conservative dynamics. The blue and red curves exhibit the Jensen-Shannon and Lopez￾Ruiz et al. statistical complexities, respectively. The gray dashed vertical lines indicate the transition zone (between 2.8 < Er < 104.8). (b) Dissipative case. The orange and green curves display the Jensen-Shannon and Lopez-Ruiz et al. complexitie… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparative figure between CLMC and CJS vs. Er. In this case we have changed the scale of CLMC by a factor of 1.196. (a) Conservative regime and (b) dissipative one. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Poincar´e sections corresponding to the conservative dynamics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Projections of the 3d Poincar´e sections corresponding to the dissipative case. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Gonzalez Acosta, G., Plastino, A., & Kowalski, A. M. (2023). Dynamical classic limit: Dissipative vs conservative systems. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 33(1), 013126

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Struyve, W. (2020). Semi-classical approximations based on Bohmian mechanics. Inter- national Journal of Modern Physics A, 35(14), 2050070

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Brack, M., & Bhaduri, R. (2018). Semiclassical physics. CRC Press

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Arndt, M., Hornberger, K., & Zeilinger, A. (2005). Probing the limits of the quantum world. Physics world, 18(3), 35

    work page 2005

  5. [4]

    Q., Luo, J., Yang, Y

    Li, X. Q., Luo, J., Yang, Y. G., Cui, P., & Yan, Y. (2005). Quantum master-equation approach to quantum transport through mesoscopic systems. Physical Review B, 71(20), 205304

    work page 2005

  6. [5]

    S., & Milburn, G

    Goan, H. S., & Milburn, G. J. (2001). Dynamics of a mesoscopic charge quantum bit under continuous quantum measurement. Physical Review B, 64(23), 235307

    work page 2001

  7. [6]

    Barker, J., & Bauer, G. E. (2019). Semiquantum thermodynamics of complex ferrimag- nets. Physical Review B, 100(14), 140401

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    D., Kiefer, C., Giulini, D

    Joos, E., Zeh, H. D., Kiefer, C., Giulini, D. J., Kupsch, J., & Stamatescu, I. O. (2013). Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory. Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2013

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    Das, M. P. (2010). Mesoscopic systems in the quantum realm: fundamental science and applications. Advances in Natural Sciences: Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 1(4), 043001

    2010

  2. [9]

    Brandes, T. (2005). Coherent and collective quantum optical effects in mesoscopic sys- tems. physics reports, 408(5-6), 315-474

    2005

  3. [10]

    Iachello, F., & Zamfir, N. V. (2004). Quantum phase transitions in mesoscopic systems. Physical review letters, 92(21), 212501

    2004

  4. [11]

    Z., Zheng, Z

    Guo, L. Z., Zheng, Z. G., & Li, X. Q. (2010). Quantum dynamics of mesoscopic driven Duffing oscillators. Europhysics Letters, 90(1), 10011

    2010

  5. [12]

    Bloch, F. (1946). Nuclear induction. Physical review, 70(7-8), 460

    1946

  6. [13]

    W., Shih, M

    Milonni, P. W., Shih, M. L., & Ackerhalt, J. R. (1987). Chaos in laser-matter interactions (Vol. 6). World Scientific Publishing Company

    1987

  7. [14]

    Nielsen, S., Kapral, R., & Ciccotti, G. (2001). Statistical mechanics of quantum-classical systems. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(13), 5805-5815

    2001

  8. [15]

    Micklitz, T., & Altland, A. (2013). Semiclassical theory of chaotic quantum resonances. Physical Review E, 87(3), 032918

    2013

  9. [16]

    G., & Fialko, O

    Cosme, J. G., & Fialko, O. (2014). Thermalization in closed quantum systems: Semiclas- sical approach. Physical Review A, 90(5), 053602

    2014

  10. [17]

    Prants, S. V. (2017). Quantum–classical correspondence in chaotic dynamics of laser- driven atoms. Physica Scripta, 92(4), 044002

    2017

  11. [18]

    F., & Burke, K

    Ribeiro, R. F., & Burke, K. (2018). Deriving uniform semiclassical approximations for one-dimensional fermionic systems. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 148(19). 14

    2018

  12. [19]

    M., H¨ oning, M., & Korsch, H

    Graefe, E. M., H¨ oning, M., & Korsch, H. J. (2010). Classical limit of non-Hermitian quan- tum dynamics—a generalized canonical structure. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 43(7), 075306

    2010

  13. [20]

    A., Lerma-Hern´ andez, S., & Hirsch, J

    Bastarrachea-Magnani, M. A., Lerma-Hern´ andez, S., & Hirsch, J. G. (2014). Compara- tive quantum and semiclassical analysis of atom-field systems. II. Chaos and regularity. Physical Review A, 89(3), 032102

    2014

  14. [21]

    Allori, V., & Zangh ` ı, N. (2009). On the classical limit of quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 39, 20-32

    2009

  15. [22]

    Kurchan, J. (2018). Quantum bound to chaos and the semiclassical limit. Journal of statistical physics, 171(6), 965-979

    2018

  16. [23]

    C., Nemes, M

    Oliveira, A. C., Nemes, M. C., & Romero, K. F. (2003). Quantum time scales and the clas- sical limit: Analytic results for some simple systems. Physical Review E, 68(3), 036214

    2003

  17. [24]

    M., Plastino, A., & Proto, A

    Kowalski, A. M., Plastino, A., & Proto, A. N. (1995). Semiclassical model for quantum dissipation. Physical Review E, 52(1), 165

    1995

  18. [25]

    M., Plastino, A., & Proto, A

    Kowalski, A. M., Plastino, A., & Proto, A. N. (1997). A semiclassical statistical model for quantum dissipation. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 236(3-4), 429-447

    1997

  19. [26]

    M., Plastino, A., & Proto, A

    Kowalski, A. M., Plastino, A., & Proto, A. N. (2002). Classical limits. Physics Letters A, 297(3-4), 162-172

    2002

  20. [27]

    M., & Rossignoli, R

    Kowalski, A. M., & Rossignoli, R. (2018). Nonlinear dynamics of a semiquantum Hamil- tonian in the vicinity of quantum unstable regimes. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 109, 140-145

    2018

  21. [28]

    Thorsen (Ed.)

    Kowalski, A.M.; Plastino, A., Asger S. Thorsen (Ed.). (2020), Semiquantum Time evolu- tion. Classical limit. Nova

    2020

  22. [29]

    M., Plastino, A., & Gonzalez, G

    Kowalski, A. M., Plastino, A., & Gonzalez, G. (2021). Classical chaos described by a Density matrix. Physics, 3(3), 739-746

    2021

  23. [31]

    M., Mart ´ ın, M

    Kowalski, A. M., Mart ´ ın, M. T., Plastino, A., & Rosso, O. A. (2007). Bandt–Pompe approach to the classical-quantum transition. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 233 (1), 21-31

    2007

  24. [32]

    M., Mart ´ ın, M

    Kowalski, A. M., Mart ´ ın, M. T., & Plastino, A. (2015). Generalized relative entropies in the classical limit. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 422, 167-174

    2015

  25. [33]

    L., & Calbet, X

    Lopez-Ruiz, R., Mancini, H. L., & Calbet, X. (1995). A statistical measure of complexity. Physics letters A, 209(5-6), 321-326

    1995

  26. [34]

    W., Martin, M

    Lamberti, P. W., Martin, M. T., Plastino, A., & Rosso, O. A. (2004). Intensive entropic non-triviality measure. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 334(1-2), 119-131. 15

    2004

  27. [35]

    Bandt, C., & Pompe, B. (2002). Permutation entropy: a natural complexity measure for time series. Physical review letters, 88(17), 174102

    2002

  28. [36]

    Keller, K., & Sinn, M. (2005). Ordinal analysis of time series. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 356(1), 114-120

    2005

  29. [37]

    A., Zunino, L., P´ erez, D

    Rosso, O. A., Zunino, L., P´ erez, D. G., Figliola, A., Larrondo, H. A., Garavaglia, M., & Plastino, A. (2007). Extracting features of Gaussian self-similar stochastic processes via the Bandt-Pompe approach. Physical Review E, 76(6), 061114

    2007

  30. [38]

    M., Carpi, L

    Saco, P. M., Carpi, L. C., Figliola, A., Serrano, E., & Rosso, O. A. (2010). Entropy analysis of the dynamics of El Ni˜ no/Southern Oscillation during the Holocene. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 389(21), 5022-5027

    2010

  31. [39]

    A., Olivares, F., Zunino, L., De Micco, L., Aquino, A

    Rosso, O. A., Olivares, F., Zunino, L., De Micco, L., Aquino, A. L., Plastino, A., & Larrondo, H. A. (2013). Characterization of chaotic maps using the permutation Bandt- Pompe probability distribution. The European Physical Journal B, 86, 1-13

    2013

  32. [40]

    L., Cavalcante, T

    Aquino, A. L., Cavalcante, T. S., Almeida, E. S., Frery, A. C., & Rosso, O. A. (2015). Characterization of vehicle behavior with information theory. The European Physical Journal B, 88, 1-12

    2015

  33. [41]

    Henry, M., & Judge, G. (2019). Permutation entropy and information recovery in non- linear dynamic economic time series. Econometrics, 7(1), 10

    2019

  34. [42]

    W., Gao, J

    Cao, Y., Tung, W. W., Gao, J. B., Protopopescu, V. A., & Hively, L. M. (2004). Detecting dynamical changes in time series using the permutation entropy. Physical review E, 70(4), 046217

    2004

  35. [43]

    C., Fischer, I., Rosso, O

    Zunino, L., Soriano, M. C., Fischer, I., Rosso, O. A., & Mirasso, C. R. (2010). Permutation-information-theory approach to unveil delay dynamics from time-series anal- ysis. Physical Review E, 82(4), 046212

    2010

  36. [44]

    A., & Ribeiro, H

    Pessa, A. A., & Ribeiro, H. V. (2021). ordpy: A Python package for data analysis with permutation entropy and ordinal network methods. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 31(6)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Lopez-Ruiz, R. (2001). Complexity in some physical systems. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 11(10), 2669-2673

    2001

  38. [46]

    Lin, J. (1991). Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information theory, 37(1), 145-151

    1991

  39. [47]

    C., & Rosso, O

    Zunino, L., Soriano, M. C., & Rosso, O. A. (2012). Distinguishing chaotic and stochastic dynamics from time series by using a multiscale symbolic approach. Physical Review E, 86(4), 046210

    2012

  40. [48]

    A., Larrondo, H

    Rosso, O. A., Larrondo, H. A., Martin, M. T., Plastino, A., & Fuentes, M. A. (2007). Distinguishing noise from chaos. Physical review letters, 99(15), 154102

    2007

  41. [49]

    Cooper, F., Dawson, J., Habib, S., & Ryne, R. D. (1998). Chaos in time-dependent variational approximations to quantum dynamics. Physical Review E, 57(2), 1489

    1998

  42. [50]

    Alhassid, Y., & Levine, R. D. (1978). Connection between the maximal entropy and the scattering theoretic analyses of collision processes. Physical Review A, 18(1), 89. 16

    1978

  43. [51]

    D., Napoli, D

    Levine, R. D., Napoli, D. R., Otero, D., Plastino, A., & Proto, A. N. (1986). Maximum entropy approach to nuclear fission processes. Nuclear Physics A, 454(2), 338-358

    1986

  44. [52]

    Arnold, V. I. (2013). Mathematical methods of classical mechanics (Vol. 60). Springer Science & Business Media. 17

    2013

Pith tools

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