Noise-induced quantum synchronization of spin chain with periodic boundary

Fu-Quan Dou; Gao-Ying Bo; Zhan-Ting Zhang

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 110 references

Noise-induced quantum synchronization of spin chain with periodic boundary

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Local Gaussian white noise forces a periodic-boundary XX spin chain into stable in-phase and antiphase oscillations when the chain length and the noise sites are multiples of 3.

desk verdict A useful extension of noise-induced synchronization to periodic spin chains, but the analytic derivation uses the wrong parity sector—the central synchronization condition is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18064 v1 pith:4TU3HDWB submitted 2025-06-22 quant-ph

Zhan-Ting Zhang , Gao-Ying Bo , Fu-Quan Dou This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumsynchronizationspinchainperiodicboundaryconditionsGaussianwhitenoiseJordan-WignertransformationLiouvillespacedecoherence-freesubspaceentanglementofformation

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 asks whether local Gaussian white noise, usually a source of decoherence, can drive a quantum XX spin chain with periodic boundary conditions into stable synchronized motion. It claims this happens when $N$ is even, divisible by 3, and at least 6, and the noise is applied at sites that are multiples of 3. Then exactly one magnetization mode survives, with wave numbers $k=N/3$ and $l=2N/3$, and the local magnetizations split into two groups, sites $6d+1$ with $6d+5$ and sites $6d+2$ with $6d+4$, which oscillate in antiphase. For $N=6$ the paper finds synchronized pairs with Pearson correlation near 1, a single shared Fourier frequency, and steady nonzero entanglement between the synchronized spins. The studied parameter dependence shows that coupling changes frequencies but not synchronization, and that larger noise shortens the synchronization time up to an optimal amplitude, after which the quantum Zeno effect slows it.

What carries the argument

The engine is the set of decay rates $m^u_{kl}$ (Eqs. 18-19), computed as expectations of the noise superoperator in the sine-vector eigenbasis of the single-particle matrix $\Omega$. Nondegenerate and degenerate eigenfrequencies are treated separately, with the degenerate case containing an extra cross-term factor of 2 in the second term. The no-decay condition $\sin(uk\pi/N)=\sin(ul\pi/N)=0$ picks $k=N/3$, $l=2N/3$ when $N$ and $u$ are multiples of 3, and that pair generates the six-periodic magnetization pattern defining the synchronized and antisynchronized groups.

What would settle it

Numerically diagonalize the exact single-particle matrix $\Omega$ for a periodic chain with $N=6$, including the corner couplings imposed by the periodic boundary condition, and compare its eigenvectors with the sine vectors of Eq. (15); if the sine vectors are not the eigenvectors, or if the no-decay mode for noise at site 3 is not $(k,l)=(2,4)$, then the predicted synchronization pairs would not appear in the exact averaged dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a single non-decaying magnetization mode can be selected by local Gaussian white noise in a periodic-boundary XX chain. Starting from the Jordan-Wigner fermionized form, the noise-averaged evolution is written in Liouville space, and first-order perturbation theory gives decay rates $m^u_{kl}$ for each magnetization mode. Setting $\sin(uk\pi/N)=\sin(ul\pi/N)=0$ makes the selected mode decoherence-free; for $N\ge 6$ even with $N/3$ an integer and $u$ a multiple of 3, the only surviving pair is $k=N/3$, $l=2N/3$. The corresponding eigenmode has the six-periodic pattern $(1,-1,0,-1,1,0,\ldots)$ up to normalization, so spins $6d+1$ and $6d+5$ oscillate in phase, spins $6d+2$ and $6d+4$ oscillate in phase, the two groups are antisynchronized, and sites that are multiples of 3 remain time-independent. Thus the paper concludes that local noise alone induces stable synchronization and antisynchronization of local observables, with one common oscillation frequency, and that entanglement between synchronized and antisynchronized spins survives the decoherence.

Load-bearing premise

The whole derivation leans on the assumption that the periodic-boundary single-particle matrix $\Omega$ is diagonalized by sine-shaped modes $\sin(k\pi j/N)$ with eigenvalues $2g-2J\cos(k\pi/N)$, a spectrum the paper takes from [80]; if that spectrum is not actually the spectrum of $\Omega$, the decay rates and the no-decay condition $k=N/3$, $l=2N/3$ do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every even $N\ge 6$ with $N$ divisible by 3, noise at one site or two sites divisible by 3 leaves a single non-decaying magnetization mode, so the chain settles into a single-frequency oscillation after a synchronization time.
The surviving mode fixes the spatial pattern: sites $6d+1$ and $6d+5$ oscillate together, sites $6d+2$ and $6d+4$ oscillate together with the opposite phase, and sites that are multiples of 3 are stationary.
Synchronization survives changes in the coupling $J$ (which only shifts frequencies), and the synchronization time decreases with noise amplitude up to an optimal value, after which the quantum Zeno effect slows it down.
In the synchronized regime the system reaches a steady mixed state with constant purity and an oscillating Loschmidt echo, and the reduced states of synchronized spins become indistinguishable as their trace distance goes to zero.
Mutual information and entanglement of formation between synchronized and antisynchronized spins persist with non-zero oscillating values, so noise-induced synchronization does not require the complete destruction of quantum correlations.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct generalization, which the paper only sketches, is that any collection of noise sites all divisible by 3 should leave the same surviving mode $k=N/3$, $l=2N/3$, so the synchronization pattern would be independent of which of those sites are perturbed.
Because the sine-vector spectrum is the fragile step, an exact numerical diagonalization of $\Omega$ for $N=12$ (predicting pairs 1-5-7-11 and 2-4-8-10, with 3,6,9,12 frozen) would test whether the six-periodic pattern is generic; the paper shows numerics only for $N=6$.
The Arnold-tongue-shaped synchronization region in noise strength versus detuning suggests a possible sensing scheme: a local frequency shift large enough to leave the tongue would destroy synchronization, so loss of synchronization could act as a detector of local detuning.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know up front. The paper is a genuine extension of the Schmolke-Lutz noise-induced synchronization mechanism to periodic boundary conditions, with explicit divisibility conditions and a concrete prediction for which spins synchronize. And the numerical work is transparent and easy to follow. But the analytic core is not sound: the sine-mode spectrum in Eqs. (14)-(15) is not the spectrum of the matrix Ω in the sector that the initial state actually propagates in. That's a load-bearing gap, not a cosmetic one.

What's new: prior work covered open chains and short periodic chains of length 3 and 4. Here they handle arbitrary even N and derive conditions N/3 and u/3 integer, with the surviving mode giving two synchronized groups (sites 6d+1, 6d+5) and (6d+2, 6d+4), mutually antisynchronized. That's a useful subfield contribution if it holds. The numerics (Pearson coefficients, FFT, entanglement) are clearly presented and would be valuable to check independently.

The problem: the initial state |1>_1 has one fermion, so parity odd, and the JW Hamiltonian (Eq. (8)) has boundary hopping with opposite sign in that sector. The correct single-particle eigenvalues are 2g - 2J cos((2m+1)π/N), not Eq. (14). The set in Eq. (15) is not even a basis—k=N gives the zero vector. The claimed surviving mode k=N/3, l=2N/3 has even k for N=6, i.e., it sits in the even-parity sector, which is inaccessible from the odd-parity initial state. So the decay rates, the no-decay condition, and the synchronization condition all inherit this error. The paper itself states the parity block structure in Eq. (10), so this is an internal contradiction.

Minor issues: the text says two-site noise synchronizes faster, but Fig. 3 reports τ_s ≈ 4.5π for one-site and ≈ 11.2π for two-site—the opposite. And calling the conditions "necessary" is not established; they are sufficiency conditions.

If the numerics are correct, there may be a real phenomenon here that needs a different explanation. But as written, the derivation doesn't support it. The paper deserves a serious referee because the question is relevant and the flaw is specific and potentially fixable—but I'd expect major revision or rejection if the authors can't supply a correct spectral treatment. I'd bring this to a reading group as a cautionary example of parity-sector pitfalls in Jordan-Wigner mappings.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies noise-induced quantum synchronization in a transverse-field XX spin chain with periodic boundary conditions, subject to local Gaussian white noise. The authors map the spin chain to free fermions via the Jordan-Wigner transformation, then use Liouville-space perturbation theory to derive decay rates of magnetization eigenmodes. They claim that when the chain length N is a multiple of 3 and noise is applied at sites that are multiples of 3, all but one mode decay, leaving synchronized groups of spins: for N=6, sites 1 and 5 oscillate in phase, sites 2 and 4 oscillate in phase but with a π phase shift relative to the first group, and sites 3 and 6 become time-independent. They verify this with numerical simulations for N=6, use Pearson correlation coefficients and FFT to characterize synchronization, and study synchronization time, Loschmidt echo, purity, trace distance, mutual information, and entanglement of formation.

Significance. If the central derivation were correct, the paper would provide a clean analytic example of noise-induced synchronization with periodic boundary conditions, making falsifiable predictions about which spins synchronize and antisynchronize. The analytic framework (Jordan-Wigner mapping plus Liouville-space perturbation theory) is attractive, and the use of Pearson correlation and FFT provides reproducible numerical diagnostics. However, the key spectral assumption on which the entire no-decay condition rests is not valid for the parity sector that the initial state actually propagates in, and the reported FFT frequency appears consistent with the even-parity (periodic) sector rather than the odd-parity sector required by the initial state. The significance of the result is therefore not established.

major comments (2)

[Sec. III A, Eqs. (14)–(15)] The eigenvalue/eigenvector assignment in Eqs. (14)–(15) is not the spectrum of the single-particle matrix Ω in the parity sector in which the initial state evolves. The initial state |Ψ(0)⟩ = |1⟩_1 ⊗ |0⟩^{N−1} has fermion number one, so it lies entirely in the odd-parity block H_− of Eq. (10). Within that block, the boundary hopping term of Eq. (8) acquires the opposite sign (the factor (-1)^{\hat N} becomes −1), giving antiperiodic single-particle boundary conditions, whose eigenvalues are 2g − 2J cos((2m+1)π/N), m = 0,…,N−1, not 2g − 2J cos(kπ/N). Moreover, the k=N vector in Eq. (15) is identically zero, and for N even the even-k sine vectors are not eigenstates of the odd-parity block; only odd-k sine vectors are, and they provide only half the modes. Consequently, the decay rates in Eqs. (18)–(19) and the no-decay condition in Eq. (21), which for N=6 selects k=2 and l=4 (even labels), do not follow from the model. This is not a technical gap: the reported FFT frequency in Sec. III B (≈0.316) matches the periodic-sector frequency difference 2/(2π), whereas the antiperiodic sector would give a smallest nonzero frequency √3/(2π) ≈ 0.276, suggesting that the numerics also implement the wrong boundary condition. Since the predicted synchronized groups (1,5) and (2,4) for N=6 rest entirely on this spectrum, the central claim is unsupported.
[Abstract and Sec. III A, Eq. (21)] The paper claims in the abstract and in Sec. III A to derive 'necessary conditions' for synchronization. The derivation actually identifies conditions under which exactly one magnetization eigenmode survives; this is sufficient for the observed Pearson-correlation synchronization, but no argument is given that synchronization cannot occur when two or more modes survive (for example, degenerate modes with the same frequency, or modes whose projections onto ⟨σ^z_j⟩ vanish). Thus the 'necessary conditions' wording overstates what is established; the single-mode criterion is a definitional identification of synchronization rather than a derived necessary condition.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. III A vs Sec. III B] The text near Fig. 2 states that the synchronization time τ_s is shorter for two-site noise than for one-site noise, but Sec. III B reports τ_s ≈ 4.5π for one-site noise and τ_s ≈ 11.2π for two-site noise, which is the opposite ordering.
[Eq. (8)] The last term in Eq. (8) appears to be missing the coupling factor J; as written, the boundary hopping amplitude is dimensionless while the bulk hopping amplitude is −J.
[Eq. (15)] The vector for k=N in Eq. (15) is the zero vector, so the index range should be 1 ≤ k ≤ N−1; the orthogonality and completeness of the sine basis for even N also deserve explicit discussion.
[Fig. 5 caption] The caption of Fig. 5 uses the symbol h for the transverse field while the Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) uses g; this should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the synchronization condition is derived from perturbation theory and an external diagonalization result, with independent numerical confirmation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation starts from the Jordan-Wigner representation of the periodic XX chain, converts the noise-averaged evolution into a Liouville-space Schrodinger-like equation, and computes first-order decay rates of the magnetization eigenmodes. Equations (18)-(19) are calculated from the perturbation superoperator, not fitted to the target synchronization pattern. The no-decay condition (20) and the parameter condition (21) follow algebraically from setting those rates to zero. The synchronized spin groups (sites 6d+1/6d+5 and 6d+2/6d+4) are then read off the computed non-decaying magnetization eigenmode (24), so the predicted synchronization pattern is an output of the calculation rather than an input. The Pearson-coefficient and FFT checks in Figs. 3-4 are independent numerical diagnostics of the time-domain data. The diagonalization of the single-particle matrix is attributed to Ref. [80], an external mathematical result, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present; Refs. [22,75,76] supply the standard decoherence-free-subspace criterion but are not by the present authors. The possible objection that Eq. (15) is not the correct spectrum for the odd-parity sector propagated by the chosen initial state, or that k=N gives a zero vector, is a mathematical-correctness concern about the cited spectrum, not a circular reduction of the predictions to their inputs. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no equation is used as both premise and conclusion.

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

No parameters are fitted to the target observables; the divisibility condition is derived and then checked numerically. The main extra assumptions are the noise model, the weak-noise perturbative expansion, and the single-mode synchronization criterion. The eigenvalue basis from Ref. [80] is the most fragile input.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Gaussian white noise with zero mean and autocorrelation Gamma*delta(t-t') models local noise.
Section II; the Itô-converted master equation (4) is the starting point of all subsequent derivations.
domain assumption First-order perturbation theory in the noise strength gamma is valid, requiring gamma much less than 1.
Section II, Eq. (6); the numerics use gamma=0.3, which is not a very small parameter.
domain assumption Stable synchronization occurs if and only if a single non-decaying eigenmode remains.
Section II and III A; this criterion defines synchronization and is not independently proven.
standard math The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the single-particle matrix Omega are given by Eqs. (14)-(15) from Ref. [80].
Section III A; the basis is not derived from the boundary terms and appears to mix parity sectors.
standard math The Jordan-Wigner transformation maps the spin chain to free spinless fermions.
Section III A; standard mapping used to reduce the Hilbert space.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Noise-induced quantum synchronization of spin chain with periodic boundary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4TU3HDWB

@misc{pith2026250618064,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Noise-induced quantum synchronization of spin chain with periodic boundary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4TU3HDWB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18064}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum synchronization offers new possibilities for the exploration of collective dynamics in many-body systems. However, achieving synchronization in many-body quantum systems still faces numerous challenges. Here, we focus on the synchronization behavior of quantum spin chain with periodic boundary conditions under the influence of local Gaussian white noise. The necessary conditions for synchronization of local spin observables when noise acts on individual spin and two spins are obtained. The degree of synchronization between the expectation values of the local spin observables is characterized by utilizing the Pearson correlation coefficient, while the frequency of oscillation is determined through the application of fast Fourier transformation. We also discuss qualitatively the effect of system parameters on synchronization time. Despite the presence of noise leading to decoherence in the system, entanglement between synchronous and antisynchronous spins still persists. Our results provide valuable insights toward the realization of quantum synchronization in many-body quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18064 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The dependence of the local magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Time evolution of the Pearson coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The Fourier transform spectrum of the time depen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a), (b) The time evolution of the Loschmidt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

[1]

X. Wu, X. Wu, C. Wang, B. Mao, J. Lu, J. L¨ u, Y. Zhang, and L. L¨ u, Phys. Rep. 1060, 1 (2024)

2024
[2]

Benedetti, F

C. Benedetti, F. Galve, A. Mandarino, M. G. A. Paris, and R. Zambrini, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052118 (2016)

2016
[3]

G. L. Giorgi, F. Plastina, G. Francica, and R. Zambrini, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042115 (2013)

2013
[4]

Nadolny and C

T. Nadolny and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 190402 (2023)

2023
[5]

The value of spin interactions aﬀects the eigenfrequencies of ⟨σz j ⟩, thereby inﬂuencing the time to synchronization

Here, the purple dashed line represents r15 ≈ 1. The value of spin interactions aﬀects the eigenfrequencies of ⟨σz j ⟩, thereby inﬂuencing the time to synchronization. However, the synchronization phenomenon does not van- ish with changes in J. Increasing the noise amplitude correspondingly decreases the synchronization time, but there is an optimal ampli...
[6]

Unlike the Loschmidt echo, the purity remains constant, once the stable oscillation of the magnetization is established [ 58]

Under the inﬂuence of noise, the initial pure state of the system collapses into a mixed state. Unlike the Loschmidt echo, the purity remains constant, once the stable oscillation of the magnetization is established [ 58]. We further analyse the relationship between the states of three pairs of spins: ρ1(τ ) and ρ5(τ ), ρ2(τ ) and ρ4(τ ), as well as ρ1(τ ...
[7]

J. T. Sun, H. D. Liu, and X. X. Yi, Phys. Rev. A 109, 023502 (2024)

2024
[8]

Zhang, Z

L. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, Z. Wu, J. Jie, and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033209 (2023)

2023

Show all 110 references

[9]

Roulet and C

A. Roulet and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 063601 (2018)

2018
[10]

Walter, A

S. Walter, A. Nunnenkamp, and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 094102 (2014)

2014
[11]

Pikovsky, M

A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths, Syn- chronization: A universal concept in nonlinear sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2001)

2001
[12]

N´ eda, E

Z. N´ eda, E. Ravasz, Y. Brechet, T. Vicsek, and A.-L. Barab´ asi, Nature 403, 849 (2000)

2000
[13]

We can employ standard perturbation theory to calculate the decay rates for small noise amplitudes

takes the form of a Schr¨ odinger equation (with Hamiltonian iQ and perturbation −2γY 2). We can employ standard perturbation theory to calculate the decay rates for small noise amplitudes. Ref. [ 80] 4 provides the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the tridiag- onal Toeplitz ma...
[14]

Parra-L´ opez and J

A. Parra-L´ opez and J. Bergli,Phys. Rev. A 101, 062104 (2020)

2020
[15]

Huygens, Oeuvres compl` etes de Christiaan Huygens (M

C. Huygens, Oeuvres compl` etes de Christiaan Huygens (M. Nijhoﬀ, 1916)

1916
[16]

Hermoso de Mendoza, L

I. Hermoso de Mendoza, L. A. Pach´ on, J. G´ omez- Garde˜ nes, and D. Zueco, Phys. Rev. E 90, 052904 (2014)

2014
[17]

P. Tass, M. G. Rosenblum, J. Weule, J. Kurths, A. Pikovsky, J. Volkmann, A. Schnitzler, and H.-J. Freund, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3291 (1998)

1998
[18]

V. N. Belykh, G. V. Osipov, V. S. Petrov, J. A. K. Suykens, and J. Vandewalle, Chaos 18, 037106 (2008)

2008
[19]

J. A. Acebr´ on, L. L. Bonilla, C. J. P´ erez Vicente, F. Ri- tort, and R. Spigler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 137 (2005)

2005
[20]

C. W. W¨ achtler and G. Platero, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 10 023021 (2023)

2023
[21]

and Eq. ( 22). The initial state of the system is |Ψ(0) ⟩ = |1⟩1 ⊗⨂ |0⟩N −1, where |0⟩, |1⟩ correspond to the ground and excited states of qubit j. Figure 2(a) indicates the unperturbed evolution in the absence of noise for comparison. We consider the local magneti- zation spi...
[22]

Brede and A

M. Brede and A. C. Kalloniatis, Phys. Rev. E 93, 062315 (2016)

2016
[23]

Maistrenko, O

Y. Maistrenko, O. Popovych, O. Burylko, and P. A. Tass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 084102 (2004)

2004
[24]

T. E. Lee and H. R. Sadeghpour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 234101 (2013)

2013
[25]

Y. Kato, N. Yamamoto, and H. Nakao, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033012 (2019)

2019
[26]

Schmolke and E

F. Schmolke and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 010402 (2024)

2024
[27]

Schmolke and E

F. Schmolke and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 250601 (2022)

2022
[28]

C. W. W¨ achtler and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 196601 (2024)

2024
[29]

Karpat, i

G. Karpat, i. d. I. Yal¸ c ınkaya, and B. C ¸ akmak, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042121 (2020)

2020
[30]

Cabot, G

A. Cabot, G. L. Giorgi, F. Galve, and R. Zambrini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 023604 (2019)

2019
[31]

Pljonkin, Int

A. Pljonkin, Int. J. Cloud. Appl. Com. 9, 50 (2019)

2019
[32]

Calderaro, A

L. Calderaro, A. Stanco, C. Agnesi, M. Avesani, D. De- qual, P. Villoresi, and G. Vallone, Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 054041 (2020)

2020
[33]

Czartowski, R

J. Czartowski, R. M¨ uller, K. ˙Zyczkowski, and D. Braun, Phys. Rev. A 104, 012410 (2021)

2021
[34]

Heinz and G

I. Heinz and G. Burkard, Phys. Rev. B 104, 045420 (2021)

2021
[35]

Xu and M

M. Xu and M. J. Holland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 103601 (2015)

2015
[36]

G. L. Giorgi, F. Galve, and R. Zambrini, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052121 (2016)

2016
[37]

Jaseem, M

N. Jaseem, M. Hajduˇ sek, V. Vedral, R. Fazio, L.-C. Kwek, and S. Vinjanampathy, Phys. Rev. E 101, 020201 (2020)

2020
[38]

Murtadho, J

T. Murtadho, J. Thingna, and S. Vinjanampathy, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012205 (2023)

2023
[39]

Karpat, i

G. Karpat, i. d. I. Yal¸ c ınkaya, and B. C ¸ akmak, Phys. Rev. A 100, 012133 (2019)

2019
[40]

W. Li, W. Zhang, C. Li, and H. Song, Phys. Rev. E 96, 012211 (2017)

2017
[41]

Quan- tum correlations and synchronization measures,

F. Galve, G. Luca Giorgi, and R. Zambrini, “Quan- tum correlations and synchronization measures,” in Lectures on General Quantum Correlations and their Applications , edited by F. F. Fanchini, D. d. O. Soares Pinto, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017)...

2017
[42]

Jaseem, M

N. Jaseem, M. Hajduˇ sek, P. Solanki, L.-C. Kwek, R. Fazio, and S. Vinjanampathy, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043287 (2020)

2020
[43]

G. M. Vaidya, S. B. J¨ ager, and A. Shankar, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012410 (2025)

2025
[44]

Ghildiyal, Manju, S

J. Ghildiyal, Manju, S. Dasgupta, and A. Biswas, Phys. Lett. A 530, 130123 (2025)

2025
[45]

Dissipative complex quantum net- works,

G. Manzano Paule, “Dissipative complex quantum net- works,” in Thermodynamics and Synchronization in Open Quantum Systems (Springer International Pub- lishing, Cham, 2018) pp. 233–254

2018
[46]

Sharma and M

A. Sharma and M. Haque, Phys. Rev. A 89, 043608 (2014)

2014
[47]

Woynarovich, Phys

F. Woynarovich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 259 (1987)

1987
[48]

H. C. Fogedby and H. H. Jensen, Phys. Rev. B 6, 3444 (1972)

1972
[49]

Mazilu and H

I. Mazilu and H. T. Williams, Phys. Rev. E 80, 061109 (2009)

2009
[50]

Vosk and E

R. Vosk and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 217204 (2014)

2014
[51]

W.-L. You, G. Sun, J. Ren, W. C. Yu, and A. M. Ole´ s, Phys. Rev. B 102, 144437 (2020)

2020
[52]

Hamacher, J

K. Hamacher, J. Stolze, and W. Wenzel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 127202 (2002)

2002
[53]

Niezgoda, M

A. Niezgoda, M. Panﬁl, and J. Chwede´ nczuk, Phys. Rev. A 102, 042206 (2020)

2020
[54]

V. K. Vimal and V. Subrahmanyam, Phys. Rev. A 98, 052303 (2018)

2018
[55]

Maziero, H

J. Maziero, H. C. Guzman, L. C. C´ eleri, M. S. Sarandy, and R. M. Serra, Phys. Rev. A 82, 012106 (2010)

2010
[56]

Wu and M

J. Wu and M. Berciu, Phys. Rev. B 83, 214416 (2011)

2011
[57]

S. J. Thomson, Phys. Rev. B 107, 014207 (2023)

2023
[58]

Bertini, F

B. Bertini, F. Heidrich-Meisner, C. Karrasch, T. Prose n, R. Steinigeweg, and M. ˇZnidariˇ c,Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025003 (2021)

2021
[59]

ˇZnidariˇ c,Phys

M. ˇZnidariˇ c,Phys. Rev. B 88, 205135 (2013)

2013
[60]

J. V. Alvarez and C. Gros, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 077203 (2002)

2002
[61]

Buˇ ca, C

B. Buˇ ca, C. Booker, and D. Jaksch, SciPost Phys. 12, 097 (2022)

2022
[62]

X. Li, Y. Li, and J. Jin, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032219 (2023)

2023
[63]

Z. Tao, F. Schmolke, C.-K. Hu, W. Huang, Y. Zhou, J. Zhang, J. Chu, L. Zhang, X. Sun, Z. Guo, et al. , arXiv:2406.10457

arXiv
[64]

Wu, Phys

N. Wu, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014301 (2018)

2018
[65]

Refael and D

G. Refael and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 70, 064409 (2004)

2004
[66]

Wiener process and white gaussian noise,

B. C. Levy, “Wiener process and white gaussian noise,” in Random Processes with Applications to Circuits and Communications (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020) pp. 207–234

2020
[67]

Pirvu, F

B. Pirvu, F. Verstraete, and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B 83, 125104 (2011)

2011
[68]

Calabrese, M

P. Calabrese, M. Campostrini, F. Essler, and B. Nien- huis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 095701 (2010)

2010
[69]

D’Emidio, M

J. D’Emidio, M. S. Block, and R. K. Kaul, Phys. Rev. B 92, 054411 (2015)

2015
[70]

I. J. Junger, D. Ihle, and J. Richter, Phys. Rev. B 72, 064454 (2005)

2005
[71]

L. A. del Pino, P. Troncoso, and S. Curilef, Phys. Rev. B 76, 172402 (2007)

2007
[72]

Zhu, Phys

S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 077206 (2006)

2006
[73]

Monroe, W

C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021)

2021
[74]

D. V. Averin, K. Xu, Y. P. Zhong, C. Song, H. Wang, and S. Han, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 010501 (2016)

2016
[75]

Maier, T

C. Maier, T. Brydges, P. Jurcevic, N. Trautmann, C. Hempel, B. P. Lanyon, P. Hauke, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 050501 (2019)

2019
[76]

J. A. Gyamﬁ, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 063002 (2020)

2020
[77]

Klimontovich, Physica A 163, 515 (1990)

Y. Klimontovich, Physica A 163, 515 (1990)

1990
[78]

N. G. Van Kampen, J. Stat. Phys. 24, 175 (1981)

1981
[79]

D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2594 (1998)

1998
[80]

Decoherence- free subspaces and subsystems,

D. A. Lidar and K. Birgitta Whaley, “Decoherence- free subspaces and subsystems,” in Irreversible Quan- tum Dynamics , edited by F. Benatti and R. Floreanini (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003) pp. 83–120

2003
[81]

C. D. Batista and G. Ortiz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1082 (2001)

2001
[82]

P. R. C. Guimar˜ aes, J. A. Plascak, O. F. d. A. Bonﬁm, and J. Florencio, Phys. Rev. E 92, 042115 (2015)

2015
[83]

Otero, A

D. Otero, A. Plastino, A. N. Proto, and G. Zannoli, 11 Phys. Rev. A 26, 1209 (1982)

1982
[84]

S. M. Grudsky, E. A. Maximenko, and A. Soto- Gonz´ alez, in Operator Theory and Harmonic Analy- sis, edited by A. N. Karapetyants, V. V. Kravchenko, E. Liﬂyand, and H. R. Malonek (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021) pp. 179–202

2021
[85]

Baeriswyl and G

D. Baeriswyl and G. Ferraz, arXiv:1207.6593

arXiv
[86]

G. b. u. Karpat, i. d. I. Yal¸ cinkaya, B. i. e. i. f. m. c. C ¸ akmak, G. L. Giorgi, and R. Zambrini, Phys. Rev. A 103, 062217 (2021)

2021
[87]

Pearson correlation coeﬃcient,

J. Benesty, J. Chen, Y. Huang, and I. Cohen, “Pearson correlation coeﬃcient,” in Noise Reduction in Speech Processing (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2009) pp. 1–4

2009
[88]

Duhamel and M

P. Duhamel and M. Vetterli, Signal Process 19, 259 (1990)

1990
[89]

Chen and S

H. Chen and S. Pang, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062414 (2024)

2024
[90]

Boccaletti, J

S. Boccaletti, J. Kurths, G. Osipov, D. Valladares, and C. Zhou, Phys. Rep. 366, 1 (2002)

2002
[91]

Macr ` ı, A

T. Macr ` ı, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz` e, Phys. Rev. A 94, 010102 (2016)

2016
[92]

H. T. Quan, Z. Song, X. F. Liu, P. Zanardi, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 140604 (2006)

2006
[93]

Andraschko and J

F. Andraschko and J. Sirker, Phys. Rev. B 89, 125120 (2014)

2014
[94]

B. Yan, L. Cincio, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 160603 (2020)

2020
[95]

F. M. Cucchietti, D. A. R. Dalvit, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 210403 (2003)

2003
[96]

Rossini, T

D. Rossini, T. Calarco, V. Giovannetti, S. Montangero, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. A 75, 032333 (2007)

2007
[97]

Jafari and H

R. Jafari and H. Johannesson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 015701 (2017)

2017
[98]

S. Rana, P. Parashar, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012110 (2016)

2016
[99]

Aaronson, R

B. Aaronson, R. L. Franco, G. Compagno, and G. Adesso, New J. Phys. 15, 093022 (2013)

2013
[100]

Suter and G

D. Suter and G. A. ´Alvarez, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 041001 (2016)

2016
[101]

Wang, L.-A

Z.-M. Wang, L.-A. Wu, C. A. Bishop, Y.-J. Gu, and M. S. Byrd, Phys. Rev. A 88, 032303 (2013)

2013
[102]

S. Ryu, R. L´ opez, L. m. c. Serra, D. S´ anchez, and M. Moskalets, Phys. Rev. B 109, 165306 (2024)

2024
[103]

J. M. Martinis, S. Nam, J. Aumentado, K. M. Lang, and C. Urbina, Phys. Rev. B 67, 094510 (2003)

2003
[104]

Cai and Y

X. Cai and Y. Zheng, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042110 (2016)

2016
[105]

Ameri, M

V. Ameri, M. Eghbali-Arani, A. Mari, A. Farace, F. Kheirandish, V. Giovannetti, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. A 91, 012301 (2015)

2015
[106]

Amico, R

L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008)

2008
[107]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

2009
[108]

Sur and A

S. Sur and A. Ghosh, Phys. Lett. A 384, 126176 (2020)

2020
[109]

Bose, Phys

S. Bose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 207901 (2003)

2003
[110]

G. L. Giorgi, F. Galve, and R. Zambrini, Int. J. quan- tum Inf. 09, 1825 (2011)

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

X. Wu, X. Wu, C. Wang, B. Mao, J. Lu, J. L¨ u, Y. Zhang, and L. L¨ u, Phys. Rep. 1060, 1 (2024)

2024

[2] [2]

Benedetti, F

C. Benedetti, F. Galve, A. Mandarino, M. G. A. Paris, and R. Zambrini, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052118 (2016)

2016

[3] [3]

G. L. Giorgi, F. Plastina, G. Francica, and R. Zambrini, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042115 (2013)

2013

[4] [4]

Nadolny and C

T. Nadolny and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 190402 (2023)

2023

[5] [5]

The value of spin interactions aﬀects the eigenfrequencies of ⟨σz j ⟩, thereby inﬂuencing the time to synchronization

Here, the purple dashed line represents r15 ≈ 1. The value of spin interactions aﬀects the eigenfrequencies of ⟨σz j ⟩, thereby inﬂuencing the time to synchronization. However, the synchronization phenomenon does not van- ish with changes in J. Increasing the noise amplitude correspondingly decreases the synchronization time, but there is an optimal ampli...

[6] [6]

Unlike the Loschmidt echo, the purity remains constant, once the stable oscillation of the magnetization is established [ 58]

Under the inﬂuence of noise, the initial pure state of the system collapses into a mixed state. Unlike the Loschmidt echo, the purity remains constant, once the stable oscillation of the magnetization is established [ 58]. We further analyse the relationship between the states of three pairs of spins: ρ1(τ ) and ρ5(τ ), ρ2(τ ) and ρ4(τ ), as well as ρ1(τ ...

[7] [7]

J. T. Sun, H. D. Liu, and X. X. Yi, Phys. Rev. A 109, 023502 (2024)

2024

[8] [8]

Zhang, Z

L. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, Z. Wu, J. Jie, and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033209 (2023)

2023