Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 56 references

A Complexity-Based Approach to Quantum Observable Equilibration

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A product of entropy and disequilibrium tracks how closed quantum systems equilibrate.

desk verdict A modest but real new diagnostic for observable equilibration, with one proof gap and an internal inconsistency between the introduction and Figure 4a that need fixing before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03447 v2 pith:5XGTKHMW submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph

Marcos G. Alpino , Tiago Debarba , Reinaldo O. Vianna , André T. Cesário This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords observableequilibrationstatisticalcomplexityeffectivedimensionquantumthermalizationentropyboundsclosedsystemsspinchaindynamics
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 tries to establish that a statistical complexity measure, built from the entropy of an observable's measurement outcomes and their distance from equilibrium, can serve as a quantitative diagnostic of equilibration in closed quantum systems. The measure, called the Observable Equilibration Complexity Measure (OECM), is defined as $C(\mathbf{p}(t)) = H_O(\mathbf{p}(t))\,\lVert \mathbf{p}(t)-\mathbf{p}_\infty \rVert_1$, and it is designed to be large only in the intermediate regime where the outcome distribution has both uncertainty and residual memory of the initial state. The paper proves a time-averaged upper bound in terms of effective dimension and a spectral factor, and it argues numerically that the measure separates quasi-periodic, low-effective-dimension behavior from genuinely equilibrating high-effective-dimension dynamics. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a way to watch equilibrium emerge from unitary dynamics using only observable statistics, without needing the full quantum state.

What carries the argument

The central object is the product $C(\mathbf{p}(t)) = H_O(\mathbf{p}(t))\,\lVert \mathbf{p}(t)-\mathbf{p}_\infty \rVert_1$, which adapts the classical statistical complexity formula 'entropy times disequilibrium' by replacing the uniform reference distribution with the dephased equilibrium distribution $\mathbf{p}_\infty$. The argument is carried by three ingredients: the entropy cap $H_O \le \log r$, the squared $\ell^1$ equilibration bound $\langle \lVert \mathbf{p}(t)-\mathbf{p}_\infty \rVert_1^2\rangle_T \le \frac{r}{4 d_{\mathrm{eff}}} f(\epsilon,T)$ quoted from [14], and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, which together yield the time-averaged bound in Theorem 1. The effective dimension $d_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is the control parameter: it enters both the bound and the physical interpretation, since low effective dimension means the state explores only a small region of Hilbert space and retains coherence.

What would settle it

Compute the time-averaged squared $\ell^1$ deviation in Eq. (22) directly for the Up state ($d_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx 2.95$) on the $N=10$ spin chain at times satisfying $T \gg 8\log_2(n)/\epsilon$; if it ever exceeds $\frac{r}{4d_{\mathrm{eff}}} f(\epsilon,T)$, the quoted bound on which Theorem 1 rests is violated. A second test targets Theorem 2: sample Haar-random initial states, group them by fixed effective dimension, and compare the empirical frequency of $\lVert \langle \mathbf{p}(t)\rangle_T - \mathbf{p}_\infty \rVert_2 \ge \epsilon$ with the promised $\frac{r}{d_{\mathrm{eff}}\epsilon^2} f(\epsilon,T)$; the proof samples Haar states without conditioning on $d_{\mathrm{eff}}$, so this test probes exactly that gap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the statistical complexity of an observable's measurement statistics, rather than the global quantum state, can serve as a quantitative diagnostic of equilibration in a closed system. It defines the Observable Equilibration Complexity Measure as $C(\mathbf{p}(t)) = H_O(\mathbf{p}(t))\,\lVert \mathbf{p}(t)-\mathbf{p}_\infty \rVert_1$, where $H_O$ is the Shannon entropy of the outcome probabilities and $\mathbf{p}_\infty$ is the dephased, infinite-time distribution. The paper proves that the time average of this measure is bounded by $\frac{\log r}{2}\sqrt{\frac{r}{d_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\,f(\epsilon,T)$, and it shows numerically, on a non-integrable spin chain with $N=10$ spins, that the bound is obeyed while the two time-averaging variants of the measure respond differently to low- and high-effective-dimension initial states. The Up state, with $d_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx 2.95$, remains quasi-periodic and coherent: its instantaneous-average complexity stays high while its time-averaged complexity is low. The Dw state, with $d_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx 93.74$, equilibrates in distribution yet retains sizable structural complexity because dephasing is slow. The discovery is the complementarity: $\langle C(\mathbf{p}(t))\rangle_T$ records temporal non-equilibrium, while $C(\langle \mathbf{p}(t)\rangle_T)$ records structural memory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the squared $\ell^1$ equilibration bound quoted from [14], $\langle \lVert \mathbf{p}(t)-\mathbf{p}_\infty \rVert_1^2\rangle_T \le \frac{r}{4 d_{\mathrm{eff}}} f(\epsilon,T)$, remains valid in the low-effective-dimension regime where Theorem 1 is applied numerically; the paper takes this bound on faith rather than re-deriving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the bound in Theorem 1 holds, then for any observable of rank $r$ and any initial state with effective dimension $d_{\mathrm{eff}}$, the time-averaged OECM must decay at least as $\frac{1}{2}\log r\,\sqrt{r/d_{\mathrm{eff}}}$ in the long-time regime where the spectral factor $f(\epsilon,T)$ approaches 1.
  • The two variants of the measure can be read together: $\langle C(\mathbf{p}(t))\rangle_T$ is a witness of persistent temporal fluctuations away from equilibrium, while $C(\langle \mathbf{p}(t)\rangle_T)$ is a witness of structural memory retained in the time-averaged distribution; this separates quasi-periodic from genuinely equilibrating dynamics.
  • Since the measure vanishes both for perfectly ordered (pure) outcome distributions and for fully equilibrated distributions, a nonzero value flags the transient co-existence of uncertainty and order, giving a finite-time signature of the approach to equilibrium.
  • On the non-integrable spin chain, high-effective-dimension initial states (Dw and Pm) show OECM suppression toward zero in the time-averaged sense, while the low-effective-dimension Up state keeps a non-vanishing instantaneous complexity, demonstrating the diagnostic power on a concrete model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the measure uses only the probability distribution of measurement outcomes, it could be estimated from repeated projective measurements on a quantum simulator, making it a tomography-free experimental witness of equilibration; the paper does not discuss this route.
  • Editorial inference: the same construction with the equilibrium reference $\mathbf{p}_\infty$ replaced by a generalized Gibbs ensemble would test whether complexity tracks equilibration to non-thermal stationary states; the paper only gestures at extensions to other settings.
  • Editorial inference: the observed complementarity between the two time-averaging variants hints at a general two-time diagnostic of memory in quantum dynamics, one that might also apply to open systems, although the paper restricts its claims to closed unitary evolution.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a statistical complexity measure for observable equilibration, C(p_t) = H_O(p_t) ||p_t - p_∞||_1 (Eq. 16), together with a time-averaged variant C(⟨p_t⟩_T) (Eq. 24), intended to track equilibration and to distinguish irregular, complex dynamics from simpler quasi-periodic behavior. It proves an upper bound on the time-averaged complexity in terms of the effective dimension (Theorem 1), a probabilistic deviation bound (Theorem 2), and supports the analysis with exact-diagonalization simulations of a non-integrable N = 10 Ising spin chain for three initial states (Up, Dw, and Pm). The paper claims that the measure is sensitive to non-complex, coherence-preserving quasi-periodic dynamics.

Significance. If the presentation can be made internally consistent, the proposed two-function diagnostic is a useful contribution: the instantaneous time-average ⟨C(p_t)⟩_T and the complexity of the time-averaged distribution C(⟨p_t⟩_T) are complementary witnesses of temporal non-equilibrium and structural memory. The numerical study explicitly acknowledges that the effective dimension alone does not order the complexities, and Appendix A is candid that the bound in Eq. (23) is generally not tight. The proof of Theorem 1 is a clean Cauchy-Schwarz step conditional on the quoted squared-L1 equilibration bound. However, as written the manuscript's central claim is contradicted by its own Figure 4, and the proof of Theorem 2 has an ensemble mismatch; these issues must be repaired before the contribution can be fully assessed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 1 and Section 4 (Fig. 4a)] The introduction states that for the Up state 'the Observable Equilibration Complexity Measure displays a comparatively faster decay, indicative of a less complex trajectory,' and the abstract and Section 3 make the same separation claim for Eq. (16). Yet Section 4, Figure 4a, reports that 'the Up state exhibits the highest average observable equilibration complexity, remaining persistently, i.e. pointwise, far from equilibrium.' Since Figure 4a plots ⟨C(p_t)⟩_T for the same measure defined in Eq. (16), these statements are mutually contradictory. The numerical results locate the claimed separation in C(⟨p_t⟩_T) (Definition 2, Fig. 4b), where the Up state is indeed low. The abstract, introduction, and Section 3 must be restated so that 'low complexity' of quasi-periodic dynamics refers to the time-averaged distribution, not to the instantaneous OECM of Eq. (16).
  2. [Section 3, Theorem 2] The theorem states that ρ0 is drawn from an ensemble with effective dimension d_eff, but the proof samples |ψ(0)⟩ according to the Haar measure. Under the Haar measure, d_eff is a random variable, so the step E_{ρ0}[f(ε,T)/d_eff] = f(ε,T)/d_eff in Eq. (29) is not justified. If the intended ensemble is Haar-random states conditioned on a fixed d_eff, that ensemble and the corresponding expectation must be defined explicitly; alternatively, the theorem should be formulated for Haar states with d_eff replaced by its typical or averaged value. As written, the proof of Theorem 2 is incomplete.
  3. [Section 3, Theorem 1 and Eq. (22)] The proof of Theorem 1 relies on the squared L1 equilibration bound ⟨||p_t - p_∞||_1^2⟩_T ≤ (r/4d_eff) f(ε,T), attributed without derivation to Appendix 1 of Ref. [14]. This is load-bearing because the advertised 1/√d_eff suppression does not follow from the first-moment bound in Eq. (13) alone; the latter gives ⟨X⟩_T ≤ ..., not ⟨X^2⟩_T ≤ .... Please quote the exact theorem and hypotheses from Ref. [14], or provide a self-contained derivation of Eq. (22), so that Theorem 1 is not conditional on an unstated result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3, after Definition 1] The sentence beginning 'However, it is essential to note that even when the observable exhibits substantial oscillations...' is grammatically incomplete and obscures the intended distinction between instantaneous and time-averaged complexity; it should be rewritten.
  2. [Section 3, Lemma 1] The proof invokes a 'Schur-convex function f(t)' that plays no role in the statement; the inequality is Jensen's inequality for the temporal average, and removing the extraneous terminology would improve clarity.
  3. [Section 3, Definition 2] The sentence 'which is zero for p_t that are pure probability vectors or when they approach equilibrium' should refer to the time-averaged vector ⟨p_t⟩_T, since C(⟨p_t⟩_T) vanishes when ⟨p_t⟩_T is pure or equals p_∞, not when the instantaneous p_t is pure.
  4. [Section 3 and References] Reference [2] is malformed ('J. L. L.') and should be completed, and the nonstandard name 'Riemann's bound' in the proof of Theorem 2 should be replaced by a citation to the specific equilibration result being used.
  5. [Appendix A] The claim that the bound for C(⟨p_t⟩_T) follows from 'Theorem 3 of Ref. [49]' is made without stating that theorem; please include the precise statement or derive the bound directly.
  6. [Section 3, Eq. (24)] The statement that Definition 2 is 'a particular instance of Definition 1' is potentially misleading if meant to transfer Theorem 1's time-average bound directly; the bound for C(⟨p_t⟩_T) needs its own one-line argument using ||⟨p_t⟩_T - p_∞||_1 ≤ ⟨||p_t - p_∞||_1⟩_T.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the only self-definitional element is that OECM vanishes at equilibrium by construction; the distinguishing diagnostic and bounds rest on independent numerical and external results.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, after Definition 1 (Eq. 16), paragraph beginning 'The Observable Equilibration Complexity Measure thus serves...']
    "The Observable Equilibration Complexity Measure thus serves as a quantitative diagnostic for tracking this equilibration process through the joint analysis of entropy production and disequilibrium decay, while also distinguishing between complex, irregular dynamics and simpler, quasi-periodic behaviors."

    Equation (16) defines C(p)=H_O(p)||p-p_infinity||_1, so 'disequilibrium decay' is literally the second factor of the product. Saying the measure tracks disequilibrium decay is therefore a restatement of the definition rather than an independently derived diagnostic. However, the second clause about distinguishing complex from quasi-periodic dynamics is not contained in the definition; it is supported by the numerical comparison of the Up, Dw, and Pm states. Hence the self-definitional character is partial and does not make the central diagnostic circular.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is largely self-contained. Theorem 1 obtains an upper bound by multiplying the bounded observable entropy log r with an external squared-L1 equilibration bound (Eq. 22), cited from Ref. [14]; that bound is a standard equilibration result, not fitted or derived from OECM, so the self-citation (Ref. [14] shares an author) is not load-bearing. Definition 2's C(<p_t>_T) is explicitly a particular instance of Definition 1, so no independent claim is smuggled in. The only genuine circularity is mild: because C(p) is defined with ||p-p_infinity||_1 as a factor, the statement that the complexity vanishes at equilibrium, or tracks disequilibrium decay, is true by construction. The paper does not present this as a numerical discovery, and the distinguishing power claimed for the measure comes from simulations, not from the definition. The internal inconsistency between the introduction's statement that the Up state shows comparatively faster OECM decay and Fig. 4a's opposite ordering is a consistency/correctness problem, not a circular reduction. Similarly, Theorem 2's proof gap (conditioning on fixed d_eff while sampling Haar-random states) is a proof defect rather than circularity. Overall, the central diagnostic content is independent of the definitional tautology, so the circularity score is low.

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

No new physical entities are postulated; the OECM is a functional of the existing probability distribution, not an independent entity. Free parameters are none: the Hamiltonian parameters g, h, J are fixed inputs from Ref. [51] to set the non-integrable regime, not fitted to the OECM behavior. The entropy normalization base is a presentational choice and does not enter the theoretical bounds.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The dephased state ω = Σ_i Π_i ρ0 Π_i is the equilibrium state of the unitary dynamics (Eq. 9).
    Standard result from the equilibration literature, cited to Ref. [9].
  • domain assumption The squared L1 equilibration bound ⟨||p(t)-p∞||_1^2⟩_T ≤ (r/4d_eff) f(ε,T), from Appendix 1 of Ref. [14], is valid for the initial states and times studied.
    This is the key quantitative input for Theorem 1; the paper does not re-derive it, and Ref. [14] shares an author with this paper.
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian has non-degenerate energy gaps in the regime where Theorem 2 is applied.
    Stated in Theorem 2; needed for the Riemann bound on oscillatory terms.
  • ad hoc to paper The random initial state ensemble has a fixed effective dimension d_eff, while the proof samples Haar-random states.
    This mismatch is the main gap in the proof of Theorem 2.
  • domain assumption Past hypothesis: H_O(p(0)) ≤ H_O(p(t≠0)).
    Mentioned in Section 3 to argue complexity tends to zero; not used in the theorems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Complexity-Based Approach to Quantum Observable Equilibration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5XGTKHMW

@misc{pith2026250603447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Complexity-Based Approach to Quantum Observable Equilibration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5XGTKHMW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03447}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the role of a statistical complexity measure to assign equilibration in isolated quantum systems. While unitary dynamics preserve global purity, expectation values of observables often exhibit equilibration-like behavior, raising the question of whether complexity can track this process. In addition to examining observable equilibration, we extend our analysis to study how the complexity of the quantum states evolves, providing insight into the transition from initial coherence to equilibrium. We define a classical statistical complexity measure based on observable entropy and deviation from equilibrium, which captures the dynamical progression towards equilibration and effectively distinguishes between complex and non-complex trajectories. In particular, our measure is sensitive to non-complex dynamics, such as the quasi-periodic behavior exhibited by low effective dimension initial states, where the systems explore a limited region of the Hilbert space as they oscillate in an informational coherence-preserving manner. These findings are supported by numerical simulations of an Ising-like non-integrable Hamiltonian spin-chain model. Our work provides new insight into the emergence of equilibrium behavior from unitary dynamics and advances complexity as a meaningful tool in the study of the emergence of classicality in microscopic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03447 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. presents the temporal evolution of the magnetization per particle Mz(t) for different initial states: the fully polarized up state (Up), the fully polarized down state (Dw), and an alternating paramagnetic configuration (Pm). In Figure 2a, we observe that each initial condition evolves distinctly, exhibiting characteristic oscillations before tending towards stabilization around a mean value. Figure 2b shows the con… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    A. J. Short, New Journal of Physics 13, 053009 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [1]

    A Complexity-Based Approach to Quantum Observable Equilibration

    INTRODUCTION Understanding equilibration in quantum systems - how a system evolves from an initial pure state to an apparent equilibrium - is a central problem in the foundations of quantum mechanics. Traditionally, this process is linked to the system reaching a state of maximal disorder or entropy. But what happens to the complexity of the quantum state...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    The total system dimension satisfies ∑n i=1 di = d

    FRAMEWORK We consider a finite-dimensional quantum system of dimension d, governed by a Hamiltonian H ∈ B(H) with spectral decomposition H = n ∑ i=1 EiΠi, (1) where n is the number of distinct eigenvalues (with n ≤ d), and tr(Πi) = di corresponds to the degeneracy of energy level Ei. The total system dimension satisfies ∑n i=1 di = d. The system evolves a...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Unlike typical complexity measures that use the maximally mixed state as a reference, we redefine the classical statistical complexity by considering the equilibrium state instead

    OBSER V ABLE EQUILIBRA TION COMPLEXITY MEASURE Our primary interest lies in quantifying the degree of order and disorder relative to the equilibrium state ω. Unlike typical complexity measures that use the maximally mixed state as a reference, we redefine the classical statistical complexity by considering the equilibrium state instead. This approach allo...

    work page

  5. [4]

    NUMERICAL APPLICA TIONS The Hamiltonian governing the time evolution of the system is a spin- 1 2 Ising-like model incorporating both longi- tudinal and transverse magnetic fields, expressed as H = g N ∑ i=1 ˆσx i + h N−1 ∑ i=2 ˆσz i + J N−1 ∑ i=1 ˆσz i ˆσz i+1+(h− J)( ˆσz 1+ ˆσz N) , (32) where ˆσα i with α = x, y, zdenote the Pauli spin operators acting...

    work page

  6. [5]

    big enough

    CONCLUSIONS In this work, we investigated the role of statistical complexity as a diagnostic tool for analyzing observable equi- libration in isolated quantum systems evolving under unitary dynamics. To this end, we introduced the Observable Equilibration Complexity Measure, defined as the product of the observable entropy and the trace distance to equi- ...

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics, 3rd ed. (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, England, 1980)

    work page 1980

  8. [7]

    J. L. L., Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 194, 1 (1993)

    work page 1993

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Zwanzig, Pure and Applied Chemistry 22, 371 (1970)

    R. Zwanzig, Pure and Applied Chemistry 22, 371 (1970)

    1970

  2. [9]

    H. R. Brown, W. Myrvold, and J. Uffink, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40, 174 (2009)

    2009

  3. [10]

    V. S. Steckline, American Journal of Physics 51, 894 (1983)

    1983

  4. [11]

    Gogolin and J

    C. Gogolin and J. Eisert, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 056001 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    A. S. L. Malabarba, T. Farrelly, and A. J. Short, Phys. Rev. E 94, 032119 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    Linden, S

    N. Linden, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. E 79, 061103 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Reimann, Phys

    P. Reimann, Phys. Rev. E 97, 062129 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Schwarzhans, F

    E. Schwarzhans, F. C. Binder, M. Huber, and M. P. Lock, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11253 https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.11253 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Engineer, T

    S. Engineer, T. Rivlin, S. Wollmann, M. Malik, and M. P. Lock, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18016 https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.18016 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    de Melo, G

    F. de Melo, G. D. Carvalho, P. S. Correia, P. C. Obando, T. R. de Oliveira, and R. O. Vallejos, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07327 https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.07327 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Meier, T

    F. Meier, T. Rivlin, T. Debarba, J. Xuereb, M. Huber, and M. P. Lock, PRX Quantum 6, 010309 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Scarpa, A

    L. Scarpa, A. Alhajri, V. Vedral, and F. Anza, arxiv: 2309.15173 , 1 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Anz` a and V

    F. Anz` a and V. Vedral, Scientific Reports7, 1 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Lostaglio, D

    M. Lostaglio, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Nature communications 6, 6383 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Gour, PRX quantum 3, 040323 (2022)

    G. Gour, PRX quantum 3, 040323 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    G. E. Crooks, Journal of Statistical Physics 90, 1481 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Lopez-Ruiz, H

    R. Lopez-Ruiz, H. L. Mancini, and X. Calbet, arXiv:1009.1498v1 209, 321 (1995)

    1995 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A. T. Ces´ ario, D. L. B. Ferreira, T. Debarba, F. Iemini, T. O. Maciel, and R. O. Vianna, Entropy 24, 1161 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Reimann and M

    P. Reimann and M. K., New Journal of Physics 14, 043020 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Tsallis, J

    C. Tsallis, J. Stat. Phys. 52, 479 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    Gell-Mann and C

    M. Gell-Mann and C. Tsallis, Nonextensive Entropy - Interdisciplinary Applications (Oxford University Press, 2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    R´ enyi, In Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley symposium on mathematics, statistics, and probability , 547 (1961)

    A. R´ enyi, In Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley symposium on mathematics, statistics, and probability , 547 (1961)

    1961

  23. [31]

    R. G. Bartle, The Elements of Real Analysis , 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, 1995)

    1995

  24. [32]

    Bhattacharyya, Bull

    A. Bhattacharyya, Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 35, 99 (1943)

    1943

  25. [33]

    Majtey, P

    A. Majtey, P. W. Lamberti, M. T. Martin, and A. Plastino, Eur. Phys. J. D 32, 413 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Kullback and R

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, Ann. Math. Statist. 22, 79 (1951)

    1951

  27. [35]

    Matus, Statistical Inference 19, 245 (2005)

    I. Matus, Statistical Inference 19, 245 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    Lin, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 37, 145 (1991)

    J. Lin, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 37, 145 (1991)

    1991

  29. [37]

    Nielsen, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21050485 (2019)

    F. Nielsen, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21050485 (2019)

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Anteneodo and A

    C. Anteneodo and A. Plastino, Phys. Lett. A 223, 348 (1996)

    1996

  31. [39]

    R. G. Catal´ an, J. Garay, and R. L´ opez-Ruiz, Phys. Rev. E66, 011102 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    O. A. Rosso, M. T. Martin, H. A. Larrondo, A. M. Kowalski, and A. Plastino, Concepts and Recent Advances in Generalized Information Measures and Statistics 1, 169 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    L´ opez-Ruiz, A

    R. L´ opez-Ruiz, A. Nagy, E. Romera, and J. Sa˜ nudo, J. Math. Phys.50, 123528 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Sa˜ nudo and R

    J. Sa˜ nudo and R. L´ opez-Ruiz, Phys. Lett. A372, 5283 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Montgomery and K

    H. Montgomery and K. Sen, Phys. Lett. A 372, 2271 (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    Sen, Statistical Complexity: Applications in Electronic Structure , 1st ed

    K. Sen, Statistical Complexity: Applications in Electronic Structure , 1st ed. (Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Sa˜ nudo and R

    J. Sa˜ nudo and R. L´ opez-Ruiz, Phys. Lett. A373, 2549 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Moustakidis, K

    C. Moustakidis, K. Chatzisavvas, N. Nikolaidis, and C. Panos, International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics 26, 2 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    S´ anchez-Moreno, J

    P. S´ anchez-Moreno, J. Angulo, and J. Dehesa, J. Eur. Phys. J. D 68, 212 (2014). 15

    2014

  40. [48]

    Calbet and R

    X. Calbet and R. L´ opez-Ruiz, Phys. Rev. E 63, 066116 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    L´ opez-Ruiz, J

    R. L´ opez-Ruiz, J. Sanudo, E. Romera, and X. Calbet, in Statistical Complexity , edited by K. Sen (Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011) 1st ed., pp. 1–21

    2011

  42. [50]

    Kowalski, M

    A. Kowalski, M. Mart ´ ın, A. Plastino, and O. Rosso, International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics 26, 67 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    Klamut, R

    J. Klamut, R. Kutner, and Z. R. Struzik, Entropy 22, 10.3390/e22080866 (2020)

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    Pokharel, M

    B. Pokharel, M. Z. R. Misplon, W. Lynn, P. Duggins, K. Hallman, D. Anderson, A. Kapulkin, and A. K. Pattanayak, Scientific Reports 8, 2108 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    G. H. Hardy, Appendix i, in The inequalities of H¨ older and Minkowski - A Course of Pure Mathematics , Cambridge Mathematical Library (Cambridge University Press, 2008) pp. 487–491

    2008

  46. [54]

    A. J. Short and T. C. Farrelly, New Journal of Physics 14, 013063 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, J. I. Cirac, and M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 050405 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    Yamaguchi, Y

    M. Yamaguchi, Y. Chiba, and N. Shiraishi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02162, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02162 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.