Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Nonreciprocal Blume-Capel Model with Antisymmetric Single-Ion Anisotropies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A finite antisymmetric single-ion anisotropy restores a stable static ordered phase in the two-dimensional nonreciprocal Blume-Capel model, with the disorder-to-static transition falling in the 2D Ising universality class.

desk verdict The paper's central claim—antisymmetric single-ion anisotropy restores a robust static ordered phase in the 2D nonreciprocal Blume-Capel model—is plausible and mostly well supported, but the thermodynamic-limit stability of that phase is the load-bearing soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.18917 v1 pith:6MVZAISV submitted 2025-12-21 cond-mat.stat-mech

Arjun R , Pratyush Prakash Patra , A. V. Anil Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords nonreciprocalinteractionsBlume-Capelmodelsingle-ionanisotropyswapphaselimitcycle2DIsinguniversalityfinite-sizescalingvacancyenergetics
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 show that a local, experimentally realistic term — an energy penalty for empty sites that has opposite sign for the two spin species — can reverse the destructive effect of nonreciprocal interactions. In a two-dimensional two-species Blume-Capel model (a lattice spin model with values ±1 and 0, the 0 acting as a vacancy), nonreciprocal couplings alone drive the system to disorder: spiral defects kill both the oscillatory 'swap' phase and static order. When the anisotropy ΔA = −ΔB is switched on, one species preferentially occupies vacancies, the nonreciprocal bias on the other species weakens, and a stable static ordered phase appears; the disorder-to-order transition has exponents matching the 2D Ising universality class. Mean-field theory predicts a richer landscape of phases and bifurcations, and the paper shows how fluctuations and defects reshape that picture. The broader claim is that vacancy energetics is a control knob that can restore equilibrium-like critical behavior in an intrinsically non-equilibrium system.

What carries the argument

Two ingredients carry the argument. First, a compact loop-ratio identity: for the elementary two-species spin cycle ↑↑→↑↓→↓↓→↓↑→↑↑, the product of forward transition rates divided by the backward product equals e^{8K̃}, so when the nonreciprocal coupling K̃ is nonzero the Kolmogorov detailed-balance condition is violated and the system runs out of equilibrium with a cycle affinity 8K̃. Second, the vacancy-bias mechanism: the anisotropy ΔA = −ΔB changes the occupancy statistics of the S=0 state so that species A sits in vacancies more often, reducing the effective nonreciprocal field felt by species B and damping the oscillations; this is what allows static order to survive in 2D. Mean-field

What would settle it

Run 2D Monte Carlo at fixed K̃ = 0.3 and Δ = 1.5 with lattice sizes beyond L = 160 and check whether the order parameter R converges to a size-independent nonzero value; and repeat the 3D swap-to-static sequence at Δ = 0.5, J̃ = 2.2 with many independent realisations instead of one. If R decays with L or the 3D intermediate disorder disappears under averaging, the paper's central stabilization claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the two-dimensional nonreciprocal Blume-Capel model with fully antisymmetric interspecies coupling (K_AB = −K_BA > 0), the equal-and-opposite single-ion anisotropy ΔA/kBT = −ΔB/kBT = Δ acts as a vacancy bias that suppresses nonreciprocal swap dynamics and restores a stable statically ordered phase. At Δ = 0, Monte Carlo simulations show that both the synchronisation order parameter R and the angular-momentum-like order parameter S decay with system size, indicating that in the thermodynamic limit spiral defects destroy global swapping and long-range order. At finite Δ (illustrated for Δ = 1.5, K̃ = 0.3), R converges to a nonzero value with increasing lattice size

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the equal-and-opposite anisotropy slice ΔA/kBT = −ΔB/kBT = Δ, plus the particular simulated parameter points, represents the general mechanism; if the vacancy-suppression effect does not persist for arbitrary anisotropies or other couplings, the claimed control-knob interpretation is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the stabilization claim is correct, an antisymmetric single-ion anisotropy is a sufficient control parameter to suppress the time-dependent swap phase and recover equilibrium-like Ising criticality in a 2D nonreciprocal system.
  • The measured exponents (γ ≈ 1.78, ν ≈ 1.01, β ≈ 0.12) mean that at the disorder-to-static transition the model behaves like the ordinary 2D Ising model, so standard equilibrium universality applies despite the absence of detailed balance.
  • The first-order line that emerges inside the static ordered phase at large coupling ends at a critical point; the liquid-gas analogy implies a well-defined endpoint whose location and universality could be probed.
  • The 3D results indicate that a stable swap phase coexists with static order but connects to it only through an intervening disordered state, so any theory of the swap-to-order transition must account for an intermediate fluctuation-dominated regime.
  • At zero anisotropy, the thermodynamic-limit disorder in 2D is driven by spiral defects, which means finite-size simulations that appear to show swapping at Δ = 0 are not evidence of a true phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the vacancy-bias mechanism is generic, the anisotropy strength needed to restore static order should scale with the nonreciprocal coupling; a systematic scan of the critical line Δc(K̃) would provide a direct test.
  • The same mechanism may transfer to other nonreciprocal lattice models with an empty state: adding a species-antisymmetric on-site potential could act as a local 'brake' on nonreciprocity and yield equilibrium-like criticality, without requiring fine-tuned interaction asymmetries.
  • The liquid-gas-like critical point inside the ordered phase may be a generic feature of spin-1 nonreciprocal models; locating it precisely with larger simulations and extracting its exponents would clarify whether it belongs to the Ising or another universality class.
  • Because the 3D conclusions rest on single-realization averages, an independent multi-realization study would settle whether the intermediate disordered regime between swap and static order is a genuine phase or a finite-sample artifact.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a two-species spin-1 Blume–Capel model with fully antisymmetric nonreciprocal onsite coupling (K_AB = -K_BA) and equal-and-opposite single-ion anisotropies (Δ_A/k_BT = -Δ_B/k_BT = Δ). A mean-field theory, Eq. (9), is developed and analyzed by bifurcation theory, yielding disorder, swap (limit-cycle), and static ordered phases separated by Hopf, SNIC, SNLC, pitchfork, and saddle-node bifurcations. The Kolmogorov criterion is shown to be violated with loop affinity 8K̃, Eq. (14). Monte Carlo simulations in 2D show that at Δ=0 spiral defects destroy both swap and static order, while at Δ=1.5, K̃=0.3 a static ordered phase is claimed, with finite-size scaling (Fig. 11) giving exponents close to 2D Ising values. A crossover-to-first-order line within the ordered phase is also reported, ending at a critical point. In 3D, simulations show a stable swap phase for small Δ and a swap→disorder→static sequence as Δ increases.

Significance. If the central 2D claim holds, the paper makes a substantial contribution: it identifies a simple, experimentally plausible local parameter—species-dependent vacancy energetics—that suppresses time-dependent nonreciprocal dynamics and restores equilibrium-like static order and 2D Ising universality in a manifestly non-Hamiltonian model. The mean-field bifurcation analysis is systematic, and the Kolmogorov-criterion calculation (Eq. 14) is clean and explicit. The Monte Carlo evidence for the disorder-to-static transition is strong in the finite-size regime: multiple system sizes, Binder-cumulant crossings, data collapse, and exponents γ=1.779±0.084, ν=1.013±0.047, β=0.120±0.003 are all close to the known 2D Ising values. The authors are also candid about several limitations, including single-realization 3D runs and the open thermodynamic-limit fate of droplet-induced swap regions. The main weakness is that the genuine static nature of the 2D ordered phase at Δ=1.5 is not established as rigorously as the critical scaling itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV, Fig. 7 and Fig. 11] The load-bearing claim is that at Δ=1.5 the 2D ordered phase is genuinely static, not a slow droplet-induced swap. The authors' own Δ=0 analysis (Fig. 6) shows that finite-size behavior of R and S can masquerade as order even when the thermodynamic limit is disordered. At Δ=1.5 the evidence is R converging to a nonzero value while S→0, but S→0 is also observed at Δ=0 in the droplet-induced swap regime. If the swap period grows with L beyond the 4×10^6-sweep observation window, the same diagnostics would look static on accessible timescales. Because the 2D Ising FSS in Fig. 11 is built on the assumption of true static order, please provide a direct test of time-independence: e.g., magnetization autocorrelation functions, the L-dependence of domain-wall or phase-slip times, or runs at least one order of magnitude longer for representative L. A scan in Δ showing an L-independent nonzero R o
  2. [Fig. 14 and surrounding text] The crossover→first-order→critical-point scenario is under-supported. The FSS slope 1.995±0.013 at J̃=7.5 is consistent with a first-order transition, but no Binder-cumulant dip or order-parameter histogram is shown, and the claimed critical point terminating the first-order line is not located. Since the abstract and conclusion feature the liquid-gas analogy prominently, direct evidence for the critical endpoint—such as histogram shapes or scaling of the discontinuity near the terminus—is needed before this part of the phase diagram is accepted.
  3. [IV, 3D simulations] The 3D results are averaged over a single realization (stated in Section IV). This is acceptable for a qualitative illustration, but the negative claim that swap→static ordering never occurs directly relies on the absence of a feature in one run. Multiple independent seeds are needed to rule out a rare direct transition and to justify the 'mirrors mean-field expectations' conclusion. Additionally, Fig. 9(b) is described as showing a direct transition from the droplet-induced swap phase to static order, which appears to contradict the earlier statement that swap→static ordering is indirect; please clarify whether the direct path is a property of the droplet-induced swap region only.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 11(d) and Fig. 12(d)] Captions read 'The provides the value of the critical exponent β'—'This provides' is intended.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The term 'scaling Δ_A/kBt=Δ' appears to be a typo for k_B T.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The label 'IVI' in the first row is confusing; it is likely a typographical artifact for 'IV' or a region label and should be cleaned up.
  4. [IV, FSS methods] The susceptibility maxima used for FSS are obtained from cubic-spline interpolation of already collected data. Please state explicitly how the interpolation error or choice of smoothing affects the reported exponents; for example, show that the results are stable under alternative interpolation or raw-data peak estimates.
  5. [General] All 2D simulations use K̃=0.3 as a single representative value. The mean-field analysis suggests the phase topology is independent of K̃, but the 2D universality claim is verified only on this slice. A sentence placing K̃=0.3 in the context of the full K̃ dependence would help the reader judge generality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central 2D Ising claim is tested against independent benchmarks and no fitted quantity is presented as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's mean-field analysis is derived explicitly from the Glauber transition rates (Eq. 3) and a standard mean-field factorization leading to Eq. (9); the subsequent bifurcation analysis follows from that dynamical system and is not assumed. The order parameters R and S are diagnostic quantities defined in Eq. (10), not fitted parameters. The central claim—that finite antisymmetric anisotropy Δ restores static order in 2D—is supported by direct Monte Carlo data in Fig. 7 (R converges to nonzero values while S vanishes with system size) and, crucially, by a finite-size scaling analysis that is benchmarked against the independent 2D Ising exponents: γ/ν = 1.756 ± 0.007, ν = 1.013 ± 0.047, β = 0.120 ± 0.003, with Binder-cumulant crossings and data collapse. These are external to the model's definition and would fail if the transition were not Ising-like in the measured regime. The first-order-line scaling χmax ~ L^1.995 ± 0.013 is likewise a parameter-free diagnostic. The only self-citation is [29] in the introduction (a random-field extension) and it is not load-bearing for the new model's conclusions. Concerns about the thermodynamic-limit stability of the static phase at Δ = 1.5, single-realization 3D runs, or the qualitative mechanism for vacancy suppression are potential correctness or robustness risks, not circularity: they do not reduce any prediction to the model's inputs by construction. Accordingly, no circular steps are identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model has essentially three control parameters (J̃, K̃, Δ), all scanned rather than fitted. The paper introduces no private constants; its 'free parameters' are choices of parameter-slice. The antisymmetric Δ-slice is the main structural simplification. The invented entities consist of two interpretive labels (droplet swap, spiral defects) and one qualitative mechanism, none of which are directly evidenced beyond order-parameter decay data.

free parameters (3)
  • Single-ion anisotropy Δ (antisymmetric slice ΔA/kBT = −ΔB/kBT = Δ) = Varied; key simulations at Δ = 1.5, 3.0, 4.0–7.5 Δ-region for first-order line
    The central control parameter is not fitted but scanned. However, the choice ΔA = −ΔB is an antisymmetry assumption that selects a codimension-1 slice of the general NR-BCM parameter space; the paper presents no test of whether the vacancy-stabilization mechanism survives when ΔA ≠ −ΔB.
  • Nonreciprocity K̃ = K/kBT = K̃ = 0.3 for most MC; mean-field diagrams at K̃ = 0.7, 1.5
    Fixed in simulations without a systematic scan over K̃. The claim that the topology for any nonzero K̃ is the same is asserted for mean-field but not checked in MC, so the 2D stability conclusion rests on a single K̃ value.
  • Coupling J̃ at which the first-order line and critical point appear = Critical point inferred between J̃ ≈ 5.5 and 7.5 (Fig. 14)
    The existence of the critical point is asserted, and the FSS at J̃ = 7.5 confirms first-order behavior, but the precise location is not determined; it functions as a free qualitative parameter in the phase diagram.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation: ⟨g(x)⟩ = g(⟨x⟩) and spatially uniform magnetization
    Used to derive Eq. (9). Standard for the bifurcation analysis and the authors check it against MC in 2D/3D, but the mean-field comparison is qualitative.
  • domain assumption Glauber single-spin-flip dynamics with a 'selfish' energy per species defines the non-equilibrium steady state
    The entire model rests on the choice that each species minimizes its own energy (Eq. 2) with rates (Eq. 3). This is the standard nonreciprocal Ising construction [27, 32], not derived from a physical Hamiltonian.
  • standard math Kolmogorov criterion and the loop affinity ln(Wfwd/Wbwd) = 8K̃ establish broken detailed balance and entropy production
    The calculation (Eqs. 12–14) is clean and self-contained: the denominator cancels, giving a nonzero cycle affinity for K̃ ≠ 0. This is standard non-equilibrium theory.
  • domain assumption Fluctuations are described by the master equation (Eq. 4) with rates (Eq. 3)
    The MC sampling follows this master equation; this is a modeling assumption matching the nonreciprocal Ising literature.
invented entities (3)
  • Droplet-induced swap phase
    purpose: Explains finite-size oscillatory ordering in 2D that vanishes in the thermodynamic limit
    The paper itself states the thermodynamic-limit fate is unresolved (Section V) and the 'phase' is defined as a finite-size artifact. This is a label for a mechanism rather than an independently observable entity.
  • Spiral defects
    purpose: Mechanism that destroys global swap order and static order in 2D at Δ = 0
    Referenced in the text, but the paper presents no direct visualization or detection of the claimed spiral defects. The evidence is indirect: R and S decay with L. In the movie 'no spiral defects are seen at all' at J̃=2.4, Δ=1.0, so the defect terminology is applied inconsistently.
  • Energy-entropy effect of single-ion anisotropy stabilizing static order
    purpose: Explains the Δ-driven suppression of nonreciprocal dynamics
    The physical mechanism is described verbally but not independently measured. The MC data support the saturation of R at large Δ, but the causal mechanism (vacancy bias weakening the K̃ drive) is not directly verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonreciprocal Blume-Capel Model with Antisymmetric Single-Ion Anisotropies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6MVZAISV

@misc{pith2026251218917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonreciprocal Blume-Capel Model with Antisymmetric Single-Ion Anisotropies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6MVZAISV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.18917}
}
abstract

We investigate the interplay between nonreciprocal interactions and chemical-potential imbalance in a two-species nonreciprocal Blume-Capel model. Combining a systematic mean-field bifurcation analysis with large-scale Monte Carlo simulations in two and three dimensions, we map the model's dynamical regimes and transitions. Mean-field theory predicts a rich phase structure -- disorder, a time-dependent 'swap' (limit-cycle) phase, and static ordered states -- separated by Hopf, saddle-node on invariant circle, saddle-node of limit cycles, pitchfork and saddle-node bifurcations. In two dimensions, Monte Carlo simulations reveal that spiral defects destabilise global swapping and, unless vacancies are strongly favoured, destroy long-range order. Crucially, a finite single-ion anisotropy $\Delta_\alpha = - \Delta_\beta$ promotes vacancy occupation in the $\alpha$ species and suppresses nonreciprocal dynamics, thereby restoring a robust static ordered phase. Finite-size scaling of susceptibility and Binder cumulants places the disorder to static transition firmly in the 2D Ising universality class. Moreover, within the static ordered phase, we observe a crossover that sharpens into a line of first-order phase transitions; these two regimes are separated by a critical point, analogous to the termination of the liquid-gas coexistence curve. In three dimensions, simulations largely mirror mean-field expectations, though swap to static ordering occurs indirectly via a disordered regime. Our results demonstrate that vacancy energetics provide a simple, experimentally relevant control knob that stabilises equilibrium-like order in nonreciprocal systems and that defects can generate novel critical behaviour.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.18917 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a), (b) present the colour maps of the order pa￾rameters R and S in the absence of nonreciprocal inter￾actions (K˜ = 0). Region I denotes the disordered phase, characterised by vanishing magnetisations of both species (MA = 0, MB = 0). Region III represents the fully or￾dered phase, in which both species develop nonzero mag￾netisation (MA ̸= 0, MB ̸= 0). Region IV corresponds to a partially ordered phase, where onl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Phase portraits of the NR-BCM at zero nonreciproc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Shows the eigenvalue flow of the trivial fixed point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Phase portraits of the NR-BCM at nonzero nonre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Phase portrait illustrating the stable limit cy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The simulations were performed for the parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The graphs were plotted for ∆ = 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Variation of the synchronisation order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) Schematic phase diagram showing the differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The results are plotted for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The simulation was performed for the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. (a) Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The graphs are for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. (a) Shows the graphs of order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Dzubiella, H

    J. Dzubiella, H. L¨ owen, and C. Likos, Depletion forces in nonequilibrium, Physical review letters91, 248301 (2003). 12

    2003

  2. [2]

    Golestanian, Collective behavior of thermally active colloids, Physical review letters108, 038303 (2012)

    R. Golestanian, Collective behavior of thermally active colloids, Physical review letters108, 038303 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Schmidt, B

    F. Schmidt, B. Liebchen, H. L¨ owen, and G. Volpe, Light- controlled assembly of active colloidal molecules, The Journal of chemical physics150(2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    C. H. Meredith, P. G. Moerman, J. Groenewold, Y.-J. Chiu, W. K. Kegel, A. van Blaaderen, and L. D. Zarzar, Predator–prey interactions between droplets driven by non-reciprocal oil exchange, Nature Chemistry12, 1136 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Liebchen, D

    B. Liebchen, D. Marenduzzo, and M. E. Cates, Phoretic interactions generically induce dynamic clusters and wave patterns in active colloids, Physical review letters 118, 268001 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Cocconi, H

    L. Cocconi, H. Alston, and T. Bertrand, Active bound states arising from transiently nonreciprocal pair inter- actions, Physical Review Research5, 043032 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Dinelli, J

    A. Dinelli, J. O’Byrne, A. Curatolo, Y. Zhao, P. Sollich, and J. Tailleur, Non-reciprocity across scales in active mixtures, Nature Communications14, 7035 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Localization transitions in non-hermitian quantum mechanics, Physical review let- ters77, 570 (1996)

    1996

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Kawabata, K

    K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, and S. Ryu, Many-body topology of non-hermitian systems, Physical Review B 105, 165137 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Brighi and A

    P. Brighi and A. Nunnenkamp, Nonreciprocal dynamics and the non-hermitian skin effect of repulsively bound pairs, Physical Review A110, L020201 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Y.-X. Wang, C. Wang, and A. A. Clerk, Quantum non- reciprocal interactions via dissipative gauge symmetry, PRX quantum4, 010306 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Li, L.-W

    Z. Li, L.-W. Wang, X. Wang, Z.-K. Lin, G. Ma, and J.-H. Jiang, Observation of dynamic non-hermitian skin effects, Nature Communications15, 6544 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Derrida, E

    B. Derrida, E. Gardner, and A. Zippelius, An exactly solvable asymmetric neural network model, Europhysics Letters4, 167 (1987)

    1987

  6. [14]

    Sompolinsky and I

    H. Sompolinsky and I. Kanter, Temporal association in asymmetric neural networks, Physical review letters57, 2861 (1986)

    1986

  7. [15]

    Romanczuk, I

    P. Romanczuk, I. D. Couzin, and L. Schimansky-Geier, Collective motion due to individual escape and pursuit response, Physical Review Letters102, 010602 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Barberis and F

    L. Barberis and F. Peruani, Large-scale patterns in a minimal cognitive flocking model: incidental leaders, ne- matic patterns, and aggregates, Physical review letters 117, 248001 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Durve, A

    M. Durve, A. Saha, and A. Sayeed, Active particle con- densation by non-reciprocal and time-delayed interac- tions, The European Physical Journal E41, 49 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Hong and S

    H. Hong and S. H. Strogatz, Kuramoto model of coupled oscillators with positive and negative coupling parame- ters: an example of conformist and contrarian oscillators, Physical Review Letters106, 054102 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Hong and S

    H. Hong and S. H. Strogatz, Conformists and contrari- ans in a kuramoto model with identical natural frequen- cies, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics84, 046202 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Bunin, Ecological communities with lotka-volterra dy- namics, Physical Review E95, 042414 (2017)

    G. Bunin, Ecological communities with lotka-volterra dy- namics, Physical Review E95, 042414 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    J. P. Caulkins, R. F. Hartl, P. M. Kort, and G. Fe- ichtinger, Explaining fashion cycles: Imitators chasing innovators in product space, Journal of Economic Dy- namics and Control31, 1535 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Brandenbourger, X

    M. Brandenbourger, X. Locsin, E. Lerner, and C. Coulais, Non-reciprocal robotic metamaterials, Nature communications10, 4608 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Fruchart, R

    M. Fruchart, R. Hanai, P. B. Littlewood, and V. Vitelli, Non-reciprocal phase transitions, Nature592, 363 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Ghatak, M

    A. Ghatak, M. Brandenbourger, J. Van Wezel, and C. Coulais, Observation of non-hermitian topology and its bulk–edge correspondence in an active mechanical metamaterial, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 29561 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    F. A. Lavergne, H. Wendehenne, T. B¨ auerle, and C. Bechinger, Group formation and cohesion of active particles with visual perception–dependent motility, Sci- ence364, 70 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    B¨ auerle, A

    T. B¨ auerle, A. Fischer, T. Speck, and C. Bechinger, Self- organization of active particles by quorum sensing rules, Nature communications9, 3232 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Y. Avni, M. Fruchart, D. Martin, D. Seara, and V. Vitelli, Dynamical phase transitions in the nonrecip- rocal ising model, Physical Review E111, 034124 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    R. K. Gupta, R. Kant, H. Soni, A. Sood, and S. Ramaswamy, Active nonreciprocal attraction between motile particles in an elastic medium, Physical Review E 105, 064602 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Kumaret al., Kinetic random-field nonreciprocal ising model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.04164 (2025)

    A. Kumaret al., Kinetic random-field nonreciprocal ising model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.04164 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Z. You, A. Baskaran, and M. C. Marchetti, Nonreciproc- ity as a generic route to traveling states, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 19767 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Nasouri and R

    B. Nasouri and R. Golestanian, Exact phoretic interac- tion of two chemically active particles, Physical review letters124, 168003 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Y. Avni, M. Fruchart, D. Martin, D. Seara, and V. Vitelli, Nonreciprocal ising model, Physical Review Letters134, 117103 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    H. Sompolinsky, The theory of neural networks: The hebb rule and beyond, inHeidelberg Colloquium on Glassy Dynamics: Proceedings of a Colloquium on Spin Glasses, Optimization and Neural Networks Held at the University of Heidelberg June 9–13, 1986(Springer,

    1986

  26. [34]

    D. J. Amit and D. J. Amit,Modeling brain function: The world of attractor neural networks(Cambridge university press, 1989)

    1989

  27. [35]

    Fern´ andez-Gracia, K

    J. Fern´ andez-Gracia, K. Suchecki, J. J. Ramasco, M. San Miguel, and V. M. Egu ´ ıluz, Is the voter model a model for voters?, Physical review letters112, 158701 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Masuda, Voter models with contrarian agents, Phys- ical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics88, 052803 (2013)

    N. Masuda, Voter models with contrarian agents, Phys- ical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics88, 052803 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Castellano, S

    C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, and V. Loreto, Statistical physics of social dynamics, Reviews of modern physics 81, 591 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Bagnoli and R

    F. Bagnoli and R. Rechtman, Bifurcations in models of a society of reasonable contrarians and conformists, Phys- ical Review E92, 042913 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Honjo, T

    T. Honjo, T. Sonobe, K. Inaba, T. Inagaki, T. Ikuta, Y. Yamada, T. Kazama, K. Enbutsu, T. Umeki, R. Kasa- hara,et al., 100,000-spin coherent ising machine, Science advances7, eabh0952 (2021). 13

    2021

  32. [40]

    Goto, Bifurcation-based adiabatic quantum computa- tion with a nonlinear oscillator network, Scientific reports 6, 21686 (2016)

    H. Goto, Bifurcation-based adiabatic quantum computa- tion with a nonlinear oscillator network, Scientific reports 6, 21686 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    ´Alvarez, D

    P. ´Alvarez, D. Pittilini, F. Miserocchi, S. Raamamurthy, G. Margiani, O. Ameye, J. Del Pino, O. Zilberberg, and A. Eichler, Biased ising model using two coupled kerr parametric oscillators with external force, Physical Re- view Letters132, 207401 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    C. Han, M. Wang, B. Zhang, M. Dykman, and H. Chan, Coupled parametric oscillators: From disorder-induced current to asymmetric ising model, Physical Review Re- search6, 023162 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Blume, Theory of the first-order magnetic phase change in u o 2, Physical Review141, 517 (1966)

    M. Blume, Theory of the first-order magnetic phase change in u o 2, Physical Review141, 517 (1966)

    1966

  36. [44]

    H. W. Capel, On the possibility of first-order phase tran- sitions in ising systems of triplet ions with zero-field split- ting, Physica32, 966 (1966)

    1966

  37. [45]

    V. R. Nareddy, J. Machta, K. C. Abbott, S. Esmaeili, and A. Hastings, Dynamical ising model of spatially cou- pled ecological oscillators, Journal of the Royal Society Interface17, 20200571 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    H. S. Seung, T. Richardson, J. Lagarias, and J. J. Hop- field, Minimax and hamiltonian dynamics of excitatory- inhibitory networks, Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems10(1997)

    1997

  39. [47]

    D. R. C. Dominguez and E. Korutcheva, Three-state neu- ral network: From mutual information to the hamilto- nian, Physical Review E62, 2620 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Horiike and S

    Y. Horiike and S. Fujishiro, Distinct weak asymmetric interactions shape human brain functions as probability fluxes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.20961 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    R. J. Glauber, Time-dependent statistics of the ising model, Journal of mathematical physics4, 294 (1963)

    1963

  42. [50]

    N. G. Van Kampen,Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, 1992)

    1992

  43. [51]

    Schnakenberg, Network theory of microscopic and macroscopic behavior of master equation systems, Re- views of Modern physics48, 571 (1976)

    J. Schnakenberg, Network theory of microscopic and macroscopic behavior of master equation systems, Re- views of Modern physics48, 571 (1976)

    1976

  44. [52]

    Y. A. Kuznetsov,Elements of applied bifurcation theory (Springer, 1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    M. E. Fisher and M. N. Barber, Scaling theory for finite- size effects in the critical region, Physical Review Letters 28, 1516 (1972)

    1972

  46. [54]

    M. S. Challa, D. P. Landau, and K. Binder, Finite-size ef- fects at temperature-driven first-order transitions, Phys- ical Review B34, 1841 (1986)

    1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.