Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Mutual Information for particle pair and its application to diagnose Chaos in Curved Spacetime

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mutual information between two nearby orbits can tell chaotic from regular motion around black holes.

desk verdict A plausibly useful but under-specified chaos indicator: the 1-vs-0 dichotomy is a tuned heuristic, not a derived result, and the estimator needs full specification before the claims are verifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16931 v2 pith:WNKSNZ2B submitted 2024-12-22 gr-qc

Wenfu Cao , Yang Huang , Hongsheng Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords mutualinformationchaosdetectionKerrblackholeSchwarzschildspacetimechargedparticlemotionfastLyapunovindicatorsymplecticintegratorWaldmagneticfield
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 proposes a new chaos indicator called mutual information for particle pair (MIPP), defined for two nearby test-particle orbits in curved spacetime. It claims that the normalized mutual information between the two trajectories sits near 1 for regular orbits and near 0 for chaotic orbits, and tests this in Schwarzschild and Kerr spacetimes with an external magnetic field. Compared with the fast Lyapunov indicator (FLI), MIPP matches FLI's classifications across parameter scans and, the authors argue, shows the moment an orbit changes state directly from the scan plot. The practical payoff would be a faster, renormalization-free numerical probe that could screen large ensembles of relativistic orbits without visual inspection.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is MIPP itself: the normalized mutual information $\bar{I}(X;Y) = I(X;Y)/H(X,Y)$ computed from the time series of two nearby trajectories, where $X$ and $Y$ are binned state samples (here the orbital coordinate $r$ along each trajectory). The paper pairs this with the two-particle method, in which the second trajectory is launched at a small separation (chosen as $10^{-8}$), and with a fourth-order partitioned Runge-Kutta symplectic integrator that keeps energy errors near $10^{-9}$. The normalization makes the indicator dimensionless with a nominal 1/0 separation between regular and chaotic motion; the boundary near 0.5 is used to flag intermediate or unreliable cases.

What would settle it

A specific disproof would be an orbit that a high-resolution Poincaré section or spectrum clearly identifies as regular but whose MIPP value falls at or below 0.5 over long integration, or conversely a chaotic orbit with MIPP pinned near 1; a second, easier check is to show that the classification flips when the histogram bin count or the integration window is changed while the trajectory is held fixed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that mutual information, a standard information-theoretic measure, can serve as a dynamical chaos indicator in general relativity. The authors define MIPP as the normalized mutual information between two trajectories started with a small initial separation, so that a value near 1 means the second trajectory's states are statistically determined by the first, and a value near 0 means the trajectories have decorrelated. Using explicit symplectic integration of charged-particle motion around Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes, they report that MIPP reproduces FLI classifications for scans over launch radius, energy, angular momentum, and black hole spin, and that MIPP detects regular-to-chaotic transitions without the case-by-case inspection that FLI's final value demands. The authors conclude that MIPP can accurately indicate transitions in orbital states while FLI requires careful judgment of critical orbits, that MIPP needs no renormalization, and that it uses slightly less CPU time.

Load-bearing premise

The method's power rests on the unproven heuristic that mutual information between two nearby trajectories approaches 1 for regular orbits and 0 for chaotic orbits, an expectation calibrated by choosing the initial separation so that test orbits give these values; if that heuristic fails for a class of orbits, MIPP's classification boundary loses its meaning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If MIPP is reliable, a single scan plot over a parameter such as energy or launch radius shows where order breaks into chaos, removing the need to inspect each orbit's final FLI value.
  • The indicator inherits the two-particle method's advantage of avoiding variational equations and adds the elimination of renormalization, so large parameter-space surveys become cheaper.
  • Because MIPP agrees with FLI in both Schwarzschild and Kerr with an external magnetic field, it is a candidate generic probe for geodesic and charged-particle chaos in other stationary spacetimes.
  • The observed MIPP plateau near 0.5 for high energies in Schwarzschild gives an explicit warning zone where the indicator alone should not be trusted and other methods must be consulted.
  • For gravitational-wave sources such as extreme-mass-ratio inspirals, a fast orbit-state indicator could help identify chaotic phase transitions in waveform modeling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test would replace the ad hoc histogram binning with a data-driven partition, such as fixed quantiles, to see whether MIPP's 1/0 separation survives, since the present estimator's bin parameters are not specified.
  • The 0.5 plateau could be repurposed as a quantitative ambiguity score rather than a failure mode, giving a built-in confidence warning for borderline orbits.
  • The same two-trajectory mutual information could be applied to unbounded dynamics such as three-body escape, where ordinary Lyapunov exponents vanish and MIPP's finite-time normalization might still separate regular from irregular regimes.
  • Because the initial separation of $10^{-8}$ is calibrated by the desired output, an independent test on analytically known integrable and nonintegrable toy systems would clarify whether MIPP inherits its power from the two-particle divergence rate or from the binning procedure.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new chaos indicator named MIPP (Mutual Information for Particle Pair), defined as the normalized mutual information between two nearby trajectories in curved spacetime. The authors integrate charged-particle motion in Schwarzschild and magnetized Kerr spacetimes with an explicit symplectic PRK integrator, and compare MIPP scans over initial radius, energy, angular momentum, and black-hole spin against FLI scans. They report that MIPP values near 1 identify regular orbits and values near 0 identify chaotic orbits, and they claim that MIPP can read orbital-state transitions more directly than FLI. The central claim is that MIPP is a proper chaos indicator.

Significance. If the MIPP dichotomy (regular = 1, chaotic = 0) were established with a fully specified estimator, the method would be a useful complement to FLI, with the advertised advantages of avoiding renormalization and of indicating transitions directly from scan plots. The manuscript has genuine strengths: it uses a high-order explicit symplectic integrator with small energy error (about 1e-9), tests multiple parameter scans in both Kerr and Schwarzschild spacetimes, and reports CPU costs for the comparative scans. The underlying idea of using mutual information between a particle pair as a dynamical probe is interesting and potentially transferable to other relativistic systems. However, the current evidence is largely qualitative: agreement with FLI is shown through visual comparison of scan plots, the estimator is not completely specified, and the key 1/0 classification is calibrated rather than derived.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.C, Eqs. (25)-(26)] The estimator is underdefined. The manuscript does not specify which time series or phase-space coordinates serve as X and Y for the two particles, how the joint distribution rho(x,y) is accumulated during the integration, the number or width of histogram bins, the total integration window, or the sampling rate. Normalized mutual-information estimates from finite time series are known to depend strongly on binning and window choice, so the reported separation between 1 and 0 cannot be reproduced or assessed from the text as it stands. Please provide a complete algorithmic specification, including a pseudocode box, the exact binning rule, the sample count, the integration time, and ideally make the code available.
  2. [Section IV.C, paragraph after Eq. (26)] The dichotomy 'regular orbit gives normalized MI = 1, chaotic orbit gives normalized MI = 0' is asserted rather than derived. Equations (25)-(26) are only the definitions of mutual information and its normalization; the claim that for ordered systems H(X,Y) = H(X) or H(Y) is not generally valid in the two-particle setup. Two nearby trajectories on different invariant tori generally have slightly different frequencies and will dephase over a long time window, so their joint distribution can approach the product of the marginal distributions, driving normalized MI below 1 even for regular orbits. This is a concrete failure mechanism independent of binning. The authors should either derive the asymptotic behavior from the dynamics (for example using action-angle variables) or demonstrate numerically that MIPP stays close to 1 for regular orbits over a range of bin counts and window lengths.
  3. [Section IV.C, last paragraph] The choice of initial separation delta r = 1e-8 is justified circularly. The text states that this value is chosen because 'for order orbits, the MIPP calculation results are close to one, while for chaotic orbits, they are close to zero'; in other words, the parameter is tuned to reproduce the classification that the method is supposed to predict. Because the same scan families are later used to claim agreement with FLI, the validation is only partially independent. Please replace this with an objective selection criterion (for example, a convergence test as a function of delta r on a held-out set of orbits, or a scale set by the geodesic-deviation scale) and show that the classification is stable over a range of delta r and over the threshold value 0.5.
  4. [Section V, Figs. 4-8] The agreement between MIPP and FLI is reported only qualitatively ('align well', 'completely consistent'), with no quantitative measure. The FLI threshold value of 10 is cited as 'experimentally verified' but no reference or criterion is given for that value. To support the claim that MIPP is a proper chaos indicator, the paper should provide a quantitative comparison, for example a classification agreement rate or confusion matrix against FLI over the scanned orbits, and explicitly state how near-boundary orbits with MIPP near 0.5 are counted. This is load-bearing because the paper itself concedes that MIPP values near 0.5 'may indicate a failure of MIPP', leaving the transition-detection claim dependent on the very ambiguity it aims to resolve.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'Our result show that information theory significantly deepen our understanding' should read 'Our results show that information theory significantly deepens our understanding'.
  2. [Section II / Section III] The equation numbering is inconsistent: the Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) is later referred to as 'Eq. (1)' and in Section III the text refers to 'the Hamiltonian (20)' and 'each sub-Hamiltonian in Eq. (20)', while Eq. (20) is actually the time-transformation d tau = T(r,theta) dw. Please renumber the equations consistently.
  3. [Section II] The phrase 'the well-known Wlad potential' should read 'the well-known Wald potential', and the spelling 'Wald' should be used consistently.
  4. [Figure captions] The captions of Figures 3-8 do not explicitly define the vertical axis label for the MIPP panels; please state that the ordinate is the normalized mutual information (bar-I) and the abscissa is the scanned parameter.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

MIPP's central 1-vs-0 dichotomy is partly circular because the initial separation is calibrated to reproduce the regular/chaotic labels, although the FLI parameter-scan comparisons provide independent validation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.C (paragraph following Eq. (26))]
    "Throughout this paper, the initial separation of r is set to 10−8, although other values have been tested, as shown in Fig. 3. The appropriate choice of initial separation is based on the fact that for order orbits, the MIPP calculation results are close to one, while for chaotic orbits, they are close to zero."

    The method's key discriminating behavior (MIPP approaches 1 for regular orbits and 0 for chaotic orbits) is not derived from Eqs. (25)-(26) alone. The free numerical parameter δr is chosen by requiring the estimator to return exactly those values for the known regular and chaotic calibration orbits used in Fig. 3. Thus the 1/0 separation is, for the calibration orbits, true by construction rather than an independent prediction. Because the MI estimator's binning, integration window, and choice of variables X and Y are not specified, the reported separation cannot be separated from this calibration. The FLI comparisons on parameter scans provide partially independent evidence, so the circularity is not total.

full rationale

The only identifiable circular step is the calibration of the initial separation in Section IV.C. The paper fixes δr = 10^-8 because MIPP already gives values close to 1 for order orbits and close to 0 for chaotic orbits; that is, the free parameter is tuned against the same regular/chaotic distinction the indicator is supposed to predict. This makes the asymptotic dichotomy for the calibration orbits a consequence of parameter choice rather than a derivation from mutual information theory. However, the main evidence is the parameter-space scans (r, E, L, and a) in which MIPP is compared with FLI, and those scans include orbits not used to select δr, so the comparison has independent content. The method is also under-specified: the paper does not define which time series serve as X and Y, nor the histogram binning or integration window, so the quantitative MIPP values are not reproducible as stated. The paper itself concedes that values near 0.5 'may indicate a failure of MIPP' and require other indicators, which further limits the strength of the claimed diagnostic. The self-citation to the authors' prior Shannon-entropy paper [2] is not load-bearing, because it only motivates the extension rather than supplying the central dichotomy. Overall, the partial circularity from calibration is real, but the independent FLI validation and the absence of a self-citation chain keep the score moderate.

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

The central claim rests on standard information-theoretic definitions and a domain assumption about non-integrability, but also on an unproven heuristic about mutual-information behavior. The free parameters (initial separation, threshold, binning, integration window) are calibrated or unspecified, which limits the claim's independence.

free parameters (4)
  • initial separation δr0 = 1e-8
    Chosen in Section IV.C because it makes MIPP close to 1 for order orbits and close to 0 for chaotic orbits; this is tuning to the expected result.
  • MIPP order/chaos threshold = 0.5
    The paper uses 0.5 as the boundary between order and chaos, but admits that values near 0.5 may indicate failure and require other methods (Section V).
  • histogram bin width / bin count = not stated
    MIPP requires binning the time series to build probability distributions; the paper does not specify the binning scheme, so the estimator is underdefined.
  • integration time window / sample count = not stated
    The scan plots report CPU costs but not integration duration or samples per orbit; MIPP values depend on these choices.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Shannon entropy and mutual information definitions (Eqs. 25-26) are valid measures of statistical dependence.
    The paper relies on textbook definitions of entropy and mutual information in Section IV.C.
  • domain assumption The Kerr metric with the Wald potential correctly describes charged-particle motion in an external magnetic field, and the system is non-integrable when the field is present.
    Section II sets up the Hamiltonian (Eq. 2) and states that the electromagnetic field breaks integrability, leading to chaos.
  • domain assumption The fast Lyapunov indicator with threshold 10 is a reliable reference standard for classifying orbits as regular or chaotic.
    Section V uses FLI as the benchmark: "the boundary value between chaotic and order states has been experimentally verified as 10."
  • ad hoc to paper Mutual information tends to zero for chaotic trajectories and reaches its maximum for regular trajectories.
    This heuristic is stated in Section IV.C without proof and is the foundation of MIPP's discriminative power.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mutual Information for particle pair and its application to diagnose Chaos in Curved Spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WNKSNZ2B

@misc{pith2026241216931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mutual Information for particle pair and its application to diagnose Chaos in Curved Spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WNKSNZ2B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16931}
}
read the original abstract

We propose the concept of mutual information for particle pair (MIPP) in curved spacetime, and show that MIPP has potential to be a proper chaos indicator. We tested this method in the Schwarzschild and Kerr spacetime and compared it with the fast Lyapunov indicator. The results show that the MIPP effectively identify orbital states and demonstrates prominent performance in recognizing transitions between orbital states. Our result show that information theory significantly deepen our understanding of dynamics of few-body system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16931 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Energy errors and chaos indicators for different orbit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Time series data and chaos indicators from distinct o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: From left to right: MIPP of order orbit (Orbit 1) and ch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: MIPP(Cpu cost: 736s) and FLI(Cpu cost: 740s) scan plo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: MIPP(Cpu cost: 384s) and FLI(Cpu cost: 409s) scan plo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: MIPP(Cpu cost: 555s) and FLI(Cpu cost: 563s) scan plo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: MIPP(Cpu cost: 395s) and FLI(Cpu cost: 399s) scan plo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: MIPP(Cpu cost: 398s) and FLI(Cpu cost: 404s) scan plo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An Introduction To Chaotic Dynamics Sy stems,

    Robert Devaney, “An Introduction To Chaotic Dynamics Sy stems,” The Mathematical Gazette 74 (1990). doi:10.2307/3619398

    work page doi:10.2307/3619398 1990

  2. [2]

    Screen chaotic motion by Shannon entropy in curved spacetimes

    W. Cao, Y. Huang and H. Zhang, “Screen chaotic motion by Sh annon entropy in curved spacetimes,” [arXiv:2410.20870 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    Deterministic nonperiodic flow,

    E. N. Lorenz, “Deterministic nonperiodic flow,” J. Atmos . Sci. 20, 130-141 (1963) doi:10.1175/1520-0469

    work page doi:10.1175/1520-0469 1963

  4. [4]

    The applicability of the third in tegral of motion: Some numerical experiments,

    M. Henon and C. Heiles, “The applicability of the third in tegral of motion: Some numerical experiments,” Astronomical Journal. 69, pp. 73, (1964). doi: 10.1086/109234

    doi:10.1086/109234 1964

  5. [5]

    Numerical Evidence Th at the Motion of Pluto Is Chaotic,

    Gerald Jay Sussman, Jack Wisdom, “Numerical Evidence Th at the Motion of Pluto Is Chaotic,” Science 241,433-437(1988). DOI:10.1126/science.241.4864.433

    work page doi:10.1126/science.241.4864.433 1988

  6. [6]

    Transiti on from Regular to Chaotic Circu- lation in Magnetized Coronae near Compact Objects,

    O. Kopacek, V. Karas, J. Kovar and Z. Stuchlik, “Transiti on from Regular to Chaotic Circu- lation in Magnetized Coronae near Compact Objects,” Astrop hys. J. 722, 1240-1259 (2010) doi:10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1240 [arXiv:1008.4650 [as tro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Chaotic motion of particles in the accelerating and rotating black holes spacetime,

    S. Chen, M. Wang and J. Jing, “Chaotic motion of particles in the accelerating and rotating black holes spacetime,” JHEP 09, 082 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)082 13 [arXiv:1604.02785 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Chaotic motion of neutral and charged par ticles in a magnetized Ernst- Schwarzschild spacetime,

    D. Li and X. Wu, “Chaotic motion of neutral and charged par ticles in a magnetized Ernst- Schwarzschild spacetime,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, no.3, 96 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjp/i2019- 12502-9 [arXiv:1803.02119 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Dynamics of charged particles around a ma gnetically deformed Schwarzschild black hole,

    M. Yi and X. Wu, “Dynamics of charged particles around a ma gnetically deformed Schwarzschild black hole,” Phys. Scripta 95, no.8, 085008 (2020) doi:10.1088/1402- 4896/aba4c2

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Dynamics of charged particles i n the magnetized γ spacetime,

    A. R. Hu and G. Q. Huang, “Dynamics of charged particles i n the magnetized γ spacetime,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, no.12, 1210 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02194- 1

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Applying explicit symp lectic integrator to study chaos of charged particles around magnetized Kerr black hole,

    W. Sun, Y. Wang, F. Liu and X. Wu, “Applying explicit symp lectic integrator to study chaos of charged particles around magnetized Kerr black hole,” Eu r. Phys. J. C 81, no.9, 785 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09579-7 [arXiv:2109.0229 5 [gr-qc]]

    2021

  4. [12]

    Dynam ics of Charged Particles Mov- ing around Kerr Black Hole with Inductive Charge and Externa l Magnetic Field,

    X. Sun, X. Wu, Y. Wang, C. Deng, B. Liu and E. Liang, “Dynam ics of Charged Particles Mov- ing around Kerr Black Hole with Inductive Charge and Externa l Magnetic Field,” Universe 7, no.11, 410 (2021) doi:10.3390/universe7110410 [arXiv:2 111.04900 [gr-qc]]

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Chaotic motion of s calar particle coupling to Chern–Simons invariant in the stationary axisymmetric E instein–Maxwell dilaton black hole spacetime,

    L. Zhang, S. Chen, Q. Pan and J. Jing, “Chaotic motion of s calar particle coupling to Chern–Simons invariant in the stationary axisymmetric E instein–Maxwell dilaton black hole spacetime,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.9, 828 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12008-6 [arXiv:2309.12...

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Electromagnetic field and chaot ic charged-particle motion around hairy black holes in Horndeski gravity,

    W. Cao, X. Wu and J. Lyu, “Electromagnetic field and chaot ic charged-particle motion around hairy black holes in Horndeski gravity,” Eur. Phys. J . C 84, no.4, 435 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12804-8 [arXiv:2404.1922 5 [gr-qc]]

    2024

  7. [15]

    Gravita tional-wave glitches in chaotic extreme-mass-ratio inspirals,

    K. Destounis, A. G. Suvorov and K. D. Kokkotas, “Gravita tional-wave glitches in chaotic extreme-mass-ratio inspirals,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.14, 141102 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141102 [arXiv:2103.05643 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A Comparison Bet ween Methods to Compute Lya- punov Exponents,

    G. Tancredi, A. S´ anchez, and F. Roig, “A Comparison Bet ween Methods to Compute Lya- punov Exponents,” Astron. J. 121, no.2, 1171-1179 (2001) doi:10.1086/318732

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    Computation of Lyapunov exponent s in general relativity,

    X. Wu and T. y. Huang, “Computation of Lyapunov exponent s in general relativity,” Phys. Lett. A 313, 77-81 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(03)00720-5 [arXiv :gr-qc/0302118 [gr-qc]]

    2003 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Invariant spectra of o rbits in dynamical systems,

    N. Voglis and G. J. Contopoulos, “Invariant spectra of o rbits in dynamical systems,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 27, no. 14, pp. 4899, 1994. DOI: 10.1088/0305- 14 4470/27/14/017

    1994 doi

  11. [19]

    Lyapunov indices with tw o nearby trajectories in a curved spacetime,

    X. Wu, T. Y. Huang and H. Zhang, “Lyapunov indices with tw o nearby trajectories in a curved spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D 74, 083001 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.083001 [arXiv:1006.5251 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Spectral stellar dynamics ,

    J. J. Binney and D. Spergel, “Spectral stellar dynamics ,” Astrophys. J. 252, 308-321 (1984), doi:10.1086/159559

    1984 doi

  13. [21]

    A mathematical theory of communication ,

    C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication ,” The Bell System Technical Jour- nal 27, no. 3, pp. 379-423(1948) doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948. tb01338.x

    1948

  14. [22]

    Recurrence plots of dynamical systems,

    Eckmann, J. -P. et al. “Recurrence plots of dynamical systems,” EPL (Europhysics Letters) 4, pp. 973 (1987), doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/4/9/004

    1987 doi

  15. [23]

    On the Implementation of the 0–1 Test for Cha os,

    Gottwald, G. A. and Melbourne, I., “On the Implementation of the 0–1 Test for Cha os,” SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems 8, no. 1, pp. 129–145 (2009), doi: 10.1137/080718851

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    Thermodynami cs of information,

    Parrondo, J., Horowitz, J., Sagawa, T., “Thermodynami cs of information,” Nature Phys 11, 131-139 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3230

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Influence of inhomog eneities on holographic mu- tual information and butterfly effect,

    R. G. Cai, X. X. Zeng and H. Q. Zhang, “Influence of inhomog eneities on holographic mu- tual information and butterfly effect,” JHEP 07, 082 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2017)082 [arXiv:1704.03989 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hamilton-Jacobi and Schrodinger separabl e solutions of Einstein’s equations,

    B. Carter, “Hamilton-Jacobi and Schrodinger separabl e solutions of Einstein’s equations,” Commun. Math. Phys. 10, no.4, 280-310 (1968) doi:10.1007/BF03399503

    1968 doi

  19. [27]

    Integrability of Kerr-Newman s pacetime with cloud strings, quintessence and electromagnetic field,

    W. Cao, W. Liu and X. Wu, “Integrability of Kerr-Newman s pacetime with cloud strings, quintessence and electromagnetic field,” Phys. Re v. D 105, no.12, 124039 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.124039 [arXiv:2206.09518 [gr -qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Black hole in a uniform magnetic field,

    R. M. Wald, “Black hole in a uniform magnetic field,” Phys . Rev. D 10, 1680-1685 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.1680

    1974 doi

  21. [29]

    Construction of Explic it Symplectic Integrators in General Relativity. I. Schwarzschild Black Holes,

    Y. Wang, W. Sun, F. Liu and X. Wu, “Construction of Explic it Symplectic Integrators in General Relativity. I. Schwarzschild Black Holes,” Astr ophys. J. 907, no.2, 66 (2021) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcb8d [arXiv:2102.00373 [gr-qc ]]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Construction of Explic it Symplectic Integrators in General Relativity. II. Reissner–Nordstr¨ om Black Holes,

    Y. Wang, W. Sun, F. Liu and X. Wu, “Construction of Explic it Symplectic Integrators in General Relativity. II. Reissner–Nordstr¨ om Black Holes,” Astrophys. J. 909, no.1, 22 (2021) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd701 [arXiv:2103.02864 [gr-qc ]]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Construction of Explic it Symplectic Integrators in 15 General Relativity. III. Reissner–Nordstr¨ om-(anti)-deSitter Black Holes,

    Y. Wang, W. Sun, F. Liu and X. Wu, “Construction of Explic it Symplectic Integrators in 15 General Relativity. III. Reissner–Nordstr¨ om-(anti)-deSitter Black Holes,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 254, no.1, 8 (2021) doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abf116 [arXiv:210 3.12272 [gr-qc]]

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Construction of Explic it Symplectic Integrators in Gen- eral Relativity. IV. Kerr Black Holes,

    X. Wu, Y. Wang, W. Sun and F. Liu, “Construction of Explic it Symplectic Integrators in Gen- eral Relativity. IV. Kerr Black Holes,” Astrophys. J. 914, no.1, 63 (2021) doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/abfc45 [arXiv:2106.12356 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Explicit Sy mplectic Methods in Black Hole Spacetimes,

    X. Wu, Y. Wang, W. Sun, F. Y. Liu and W. B. Han, “Explicit Sy mplectic Methods in Black Hole Spacetimes,” Astrophys. J. 940, no.2, 166 (2022) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c5d [arXiv:2210.13185 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A Note on the Construc tion of Explicit Symplectic Integrators for Schwarzschild Spacetimes,

    N. Zhou, H. Zhang, W. Liu and X. Wu, “A Note on the Construc tion of Explicit Symplectic Integrators for Schwarzschild Spacetimes,” Astrophys. J. 927, no.2, 160 (2022) [erratum: Astrophys. J. 947, no.2, 94 (2023)] doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac497f [arXiv:2 201.02922 [gr-qc]]

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Explicit Symplec tic Integrators with Adaptive Time Steps in Curved Spacetimes,

    X. Wu, Y. Wang, W. Sun, F. Liu and D. Ma, “Explicit Symplec tic Integrators with Adaptive Time Steps in Curved Spacetimes,” Astrophys. J. Su ppl. 275, no.2, 31 (2024) doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad8351 [arXiv:2412.01045 [gr-qc ]]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Differential Geometry and Gener al Relativity. Volume 1,

    Canbin Liang, Bin Zhou, “Differential Geometry and Gener al Relativity. Volume 1,” Trans- lated by Weizhen Jia, Bin Zhou, Graduate Texts in Physics, Sp ringer Singapore, 2023. doi:10.1007/978-981-99-0022-0. 16 /s48 /s49 /s50 /s51 /s52 /s53 /s54 /s55 /s45/s49/s53 /s45/s49/s50 /s...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.