Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Disorder induced time crystal in athermal random field Ising model with non-reciprocal interactions

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read Disorder and non-reciprocal interactions alone can produce a time crystal in a classical athermal spin model, without any external periodic driving.

desk verdict Interesting model and honest numerics, but the analytic phase diagram rests on an uncontrolled mean-field closure, so the time-crystal claim is not yet established for the actual dynamics. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28781 v1 pith:AGFIUTGW submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.stat-mech

Aldrin B E , Sumedha This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech MSC 82C2082C2682D30
keywords timecrystalrandomfieldIsingmodelnon-reciprocalinteractionsgreedyGlauberdynamicsHopfbifurcationlimitcycleathermalquencheddisorder
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies a two-species random field Ising model with non-reciprocal interactions under athermal greedy Glauber dynamics. It claims that the combination of quenched random-field disorder and non-reciprocal coupling is sufficient to generate a time crystal — sustained, synchronized oscillations whose autocorrelation time grows with system size — even though no external drive is applied. On a complete graph the dynamics are solved exactly, yielding a phase diagram with a chaotic oscillatory phase; the same phase appears in three dimensions, but not in two. If correct, this provides a new route to time-crystalline order in a simple classical disordered system.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the mean-field closure for the interspecies coupling, replacing the local term K s_iB by K m_B (and similarly for A), which turns the greedy Glauber dynamics on a complete graph into a pair of coupled ordinary differential equations with error-function nonlinearities. These equations admit a Hopf bifurcation at the disordered-phase boundary and a transition to an ordered steady state; the phase boundaries in the K–σ plane are derived by analyzing the polar-coordinate flow and the existence of nontrivial fixed points.

What would settle it

Simulate greedy Glauber dynamics on a complete graph at, say, K = 0.5, σ = 0.4 for N up to a few thousand and compare the measured oscillation amplitude and period with the numerical solution of dm_α/dt = −m_α + erf((J m_α ± K m_β)/√(2σ²)). If the autocorrelation time fails to grow with N while the closure predicts a limit cycle, or if the limit cycle disappears when the closure is relaxed (e.g., by solving the full set of spin equations), the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a two-species random field Ising model with non-reciprocal interactions, evolving under greedy Glauber dynamics, exhibits a time-crystal phase at intermediate values of the non-reciprocal coupling K and disorder strength σ. On a complete graph, the exact mean-field dynamics reduce to dm_α/dt = −m_α + erf((J m_α ± K m_β)/√(2σ²)), which undergo a Hopf bifurcation at σ = √(2/π)J, producing a stable limit cycle with collective oscillations. The autocorrelation time τ diverges with system size as τ ∼ N^0.35 on the complete graph and as τ ∼ L^1.55 on a cubic lattice, while in two dimensions τ saturates and no time crystal forms.

Load-bearing premise

The analytics assume the local interspecies coupling can be replaced by its mean-field average (K s_iB ≈ K m_B) throughout, but this approximation is checked only for fixed points, not for the oscillatory regime where the time crystal lives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • This predicts a time crystal in a classical, athermal, disordered spin system without periodic driving, so time-translation symmetry is broken spontaneously rather than by an external clock.
  • The phase diagram on a complete graph supplies an exact reference: ordered phase at low σ, chaotic ordered (time-crystal) phase at intermediate σ, and disordered phase at large σ, with the Hopf line at σ = √(2/π)J.
  • The autocorrelation-time scaling τ ∼ N^0.35 on the complete graph and τ ∼ L^1.55 on a cubic lattice imply a genuine many-body time crystal in three dimensions, whereas the absence of scaling in two dimensions indicates a lower critical dimension between 2 and 3.
  • For K > J, all nonzero fixed points vanish, so the model reduces to small-amplitude single-site oscillations for any disorder strength, marking the upper edge of the time-crystal regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mean-field closure replaces the local interspecies field by its spatial average, but the closure is only validated at fixed points; the oscillatory regime may be sensitive to correlations that the closure ignores, so the exact Hopf boundary is not yet fully established for the original dynamics.
  • The same mechanism — disorder replacing thermal noise while non-reciprocity provides the frustration that prevents relaxation — may generalize to other non-reciprocal spin models, perhaps even continuous spins, offering a route to design time crystals with only static randomness.
  • The τ ∼ L^1.55 scaling in 3D, if confirmed with larger system sizes, would be a new dynamic exponent for this disorder-induced limit cycle, and could be compared with the known scaling of the non-reciprocal Ising model without disorder.
  • A testable extension would be to check whether the oscillation amplitude and period are robust to changing the disorder distribution (e.g., bimodal instead of Gaussian), which would distinguish a mechanism based on the shape of the error-function nonlinearity from one relying on rare large fields.
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 paper studies a two-species random-field Ising model with non-reciprocal same-site couplings, evolved with athermal greedy Glauber dynamics. The authors claim an exact solution on the complete graph, leading to a K–σ phase diagram with ordered, disordered, and 'chaotic ordered' phases. They identify the oscillatory phase as a spontaneous time crystal, supported by Monte Carlo simulations on complete graphs and cubic lattices, and report its absence in two dimensions. The central analytic result is Eq. (9), a pair of mean-field ODEs for m_A and m_B, from which a Hopf bifurcation and the phase boundaries are derived.

Significance. If correct, the paper would add a clean classical mechanism—quenched disorder plus non-reciprocity—for spontaneous time-translation symmetry breaking without periodic driving, and the complete-graph exactness would make it analytically tractable. The numerical part provides honest finite-size data, includes order parameters R and L, Fourier transforms, and autocorrelation scaling, and does not appear to fit parameters to force oscillations. However, the analytical derivation of Eq. (9) is not valid as an exact complete-graph result, and the 3D evidence is based on small system sizes; the significance of the paper therefore hinges on a revision that puts the mean-field dynamics on a solid footing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (9); Appendix A] Eq. (9) is not the exact complete-graph GGD dynamics. Since s_iB=±1, averaging sgn(Jm_A+Ks_iB+h) gives dm_A/dt = -m_A + (1+m_B)/2 erf((Jm_A+K)/(√2σ)) + (1-m_B)/2 erf((Jm_A-K)/(√2σ)), not erf((Jm_A+Km_B)/(√2σ)). Replacing Ks_iB by Km_B inside erf is uncontrolled; Fig. 6 validates it only at fixed points. At (0,0) the correct Jacobian has off-diagonal erf(K/(√2σ)) and diagonal -1+(J/σ)√(2/π)exp(-K²/(2σ²)), so the Hopf condition is σ=J√(2/π)exp(-K²/(2σ²)), not Eq. (B3). The analytic phase diagram in Figs. 4/9 is therefore not established.
  2. [Eqs. (8)-(9), Appendix B] The dynamics is asserted as dm_A/dt=-∂f_A/∂m_A with f_A the RFIM free energy, citing Ref. [51]. The coupled non-reciprocal system has no joint free energy; f_A(m_A;m_B) is a single-species functional with m_B as a parameter, and two such gradient flows do not form a gradient system. Ref. [51]'s Model A dynamics therefore does not justify Eq. (9). The equation must be derived from the microscopic update or explicitly treated as a closure and tested in the oscillatory regime.
  3. [Cubic lattice / Figs. 5, 12, 17, 18] The 3D claim rests on small sizes (L=8,10,20 in Fig. 12; L=20,30 in Fig. 17) and τ~L^{1.55} from Fig. 18; the text admits lack of self-averaging, and Fig. 17 selects the 'most prominent peak'. With no valid complete-graph analytic control (see above), the numerical evidence is not strong enough to support the abstract's statement that the autocorrelation time diverges in three dimensions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Discussion] The abstract calls the phase 'chaotic time-oscillatory' while also reporting 'stable time oscillations'; a limit cycle and a chaotic attractor are different objects. Clarify, also in relation to 'time quasi-crystal' in the Discussion.
  2. [Eq. (9); Appendix C] Time unit inconsistency: Eq. (9) sets δ to one Monte Carlo step, Appendix C defines one Monte Carlo run as two sweeps, and Fig. 3 captions use 'Monte Carlo runs'. Define t unambiguously.
  3. [Fig. 17] The figure selects the realization with the most prominent peak; state the selection criterion and how many realizations were used, to avoid peak-selection bias.
  4. [Text near Fig. 7] The sentence 'for K>1 ... system exists in a chaotic state with small amplitude oscillations for all σ' seems to extend the oscillatory phase to all large K, in tension with 'intermediate K' in the abstract. Clarify whether this is the same collective time-crystal phase or single-site oscillations.
  5. [Appendix B(b)] The derivation of the OP/COP boundary K=(J-√(π/2)σ)/(2√2) is compressed; present the steps leading to the bound on sin(4θ)/(3+cos(4θ)) more explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic phase diagram is derived from explicit equations and checked by independent Monte Carlo simulations; residual concerns are about approximation validity, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The analytic phase diagram is obtained from the explicit mean-field dynamic equations (Eqs. B1–B2, equivalently Eq. 9), which are stated rather than fitted: the fixed-point equations follow from the same closure, and the Hopf and ordered–oscillatory boundaries are then solved from those equations (Appendix B). The Monte Carlo simulations of R, L, autocorrelation functions, and time traces are independent checks and are not used to impose the phase boundaries. No parameter is fitted to force the limit cycle or the time-crystal phase. The only self-citation, Ref. [50], supplies the standard complete-graph RFIM free-energy expression Eq. 8; the formula is written explicitly and is parameter-free, so it does not reduce the argument to an unverified self-citation. Ref. [52] is external and supplies only a solution procedure, not the result. The most serious issue — that Eq. 9 replaces the discrete site value s_iB by its mean m_B inside the sign/erf, which is not the exact N→∞ complete-graph GGD drift — is a validity/correctness concern about an uncontrolled closure, not a circularity: the approximation is not fitted from the target prediction, and the paper's own Appendix A checks it only at fixed points. Similarly, the paper's admitted limitations for the 3D claim (small L, lack of self-averaging, need for larger system sizes) weaken the empirical evidence but do not make the derivation circular. The matching of the ordered–oscillatory boundary with the fixed-point existence boundary is internal consistency, not a prediction that reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the mean-field closure for the interspecies coupling and on an assumed relaxation dynamics (Eq. 9), rather than on an exact microscopic solution; the free-energy potential is imported from a self-cited companion paper. No free numerical parameters are fitted to force the phase diagram, and no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • J = 1 (fixed)
    Same-species coupling set to unity; the phase diagram is presented for J=1. A scale choice, not fitted.
  • δ = 1
    Time per Monte Carlo step in Eq. 9, set to 1. A unit choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Greedy Glauber dynamics: a randomly chosen spin flips with probability 1 if δE<0, 1/2 if δE=0, and 0 if δE>0 (Eq. 1).
    Defines the microscopic dynamics; the paper's entire analysis is for this athermal update rule.
  • domain assumption The quenched random fields h_i are i.i.d. Gaussian with mean 0 and variance σ², identical for both species.
    Model input; σ is the control parameter representing disorder.
  • ad hoc to paper In the complete-graph solution, the interspecies coupling is replaced by its mean-field average, K s_iB = K m_B (and K s_iA = K m_A) for all i.
    Appendix A: 'We find that making a mean field assumption ... gives similar behavior. We hence make this assumption here.' This closure is not exact; it is validated only for fixed points, not for dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper The time evolution of the order parameters is ∂_t m_α = −m_α + erf(x_α/√2σ) (Eq. 9, Appendix B).
    Stated as 'These equations are the dynamical equations for the GGD' without derivation from the microscopic update rule; it is the standard relaxation form imported from the non-reciprocal Ising model (Avni et al.).
  • standard math The disorder-averaged free-energy potential f_α (Eq. 8) for the athermal RFIM is taken from Ref. [50].
    Used to justify the dynamics; parameter-free but self-cited and not machine-checked.
  • domain assumption Factorization of single-site probabilities in the Appendix A equations (A3-A4), neglecting correlations between spins and random fields at the same site.
    The conditional probabilities P_A^± are computed as unconditional Gaussian integrals, ignoring that s_B is correlated with h_i. This is a mean-field closure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disorder induced time crystal in athermal random field Ising model with non-reciprocal interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AGFIUTGW

@misc{pith2026260728781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disorder induced time crystal in athermal random field Ising model with non-reciprocal interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AGFIUTGW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28781}
}
abstract

A two species random field Ising model with non-reciprocal interactions between the species is studied using the greedy Glauber dynamics. By solving the dynamics exactly on a complete graph, we obtain the phase diagram of the model as a function of the non-reciprocal interaction ($K$) and the variance ($\sigma$) of the quenched random field distribution. The model exhibits a rich phase diagram with the presence of a chaotic time-oscillatory phase for intermediate values of $K$ and $\sigma$. The chaotic phase has stable time oscillations along with the autocorrelation time that diverges with system size on a complete graph and also in three dimensions. We find that the random field disorder along with non-reciprocal interaction alone can produce a time crystal without an external driving. In two dimensions the autocorrelation time does not increase with the system size and the time crystal phase is absent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28781 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The free energy functionals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: The phase diagram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The time-autocorrelation function ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Contour plots obtained from the exact Glauber [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Fixed point solutions to Eqs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The phase diagram in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The phase diagram in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Complete graph with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Cubic lattice with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Square lattice with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Plots of Fourier transform ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Plots of Fourier transform ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: The envelope of the oscillations of the time autocorrelation functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_18.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [51]

    Garc´es, and D.Levis, Phase transitions in single species Ising models with non-reciprocal couplings, J

    A. Garc´es, and D.Levis, Phase transitions in single species Ising models with non-reciprocal couplings, J. of Stat. Mech.: Theory and Experiment2025(4) 043205 (2025)

    2025

  2. [1]

    With mA =rcosθ and mB =rsinθ , we write the dynamic equations (Eqs

    Polar co-ordinates In order to differentiate between an oscillatory phase and a steady state, it is beneficial to write the dynamical equations in terms of the polar co-ordinates. With mA =rcosθ and mB =rsinθ , we write the dynamic equations (Eqs. B1 and B2) in polar co-ordinates as follows: ∂tr=−r+Xcosθ+Ysinθ(B6) r∂tθ=Ycosθ−Xsinθ(B7) where X=erf a(Jcosθ+...

  3. [2]

    Complete graph (Fig

    Results from simulation a. Complete graph (Fig. 11) The phase diagram obtained in Fig. 9, is verified from simulations on a complete graph. For K= 0, as σ increases, 10 (a)a= 1.13 (b)a= 1.14 FIG. 8: Plot of ∂tθ (from Eq. B11) as a function of θ for J= 1;K= 0.1 . We see that there is a critical value of ac such that for a > ac,∂ tθhas non-trivial zeros. FI...

  4. [3]

    14 - 17)

    Time plots for a single realization We plot here the long-time oscillations in magnetisation (mA) and energy ( EA) as functions of time and the plots of the Fourier transform (F(m A)) of mA(t) for a complete graph and cubic lattice (Figs. 14 - 17). Similar behaviour is also seen for mB and EB. The F(m A) plots show the existence of a certain characteristi...

  5. [4]

    Autocorrelation function in time The autocorrelation function in time of a quantity x is de- fined as follows: Cx(t) = D x(t′)− ⟨x(t′)⟩ x(t′ +t)− ⟨x(t′)⟩ E t′,QD x(t′)− ⟨x(t′)⟩ 2E t′,Q where x(t′) is the value ofx at time t′ and ⟨...⟩ is the average over different realizations of random fields, for many different 12 FIG. 11: Complete graph withJ= 1: The p...

  6. [5]

    Alston and L

    H. Alston and L. Cocconi and T. Bertrand, Irreversibility across a Non-reciprocal PT -Symmetry-Breaking Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. Let.131.258301 (2023)

    2023

  7. [6]

    Suchanek, K

    T. Suchanek, K. Kroy, and S. A. M. Loos, Time-reversal and parity-time symmetry breaking in non-Hermitian field theories, Phys. Rev. E108064123 (2023)

    2023

  8. [7]

    Y .B. Shi, R. Moessner, R. Alert, and M. Bukov, Hamiltonian description of non-reciprocal interactions, Nature Phys. 1-10 (2026)

    2026

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    A. T. Mohite, and H. Rieger, Stochastic thermodynamics of non- reciprocally interacting particles and fields, Phys. Rev. E113 064136 (2026)

    2026

  2. [9]

    Fruchart, and V

    M. Fruchart, and V . Vitelli, Non-reciprocal many-body physics, arXiv:2602.11111 (2026)

    2026

  3. [10]

    Morrell, L

    M.C. Morrell, L. Elliott and D.G. Grier, Non-reciprocal wave- mediated interactions power a classical time crystal, Phys. Rev. Let.136(5) 057201 (2026)

    2026

  4. [11]

    Y . Avni, M. Fruchart, D. Martin, D. Seara, and V . Vitelli, Non- reciprocal Ising model, Phys. Rev. Let.,134(11) 117103 (2025)

    2025

  5. [12]

    Weiderpass, M

    G.A. Weiderpass, M. Sharma, and S. Sethi, Solving the kinetic Ising model with nonreciprocity, Phys. Rev. E111(2) 024107 (2025)

    2025

  6. [13]

    Sethi, and G.A

    S. Sethi, and G.A. Weiderpass, Supersymmetry and Non- reciprocity, arXiv:2602.16824 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Zhang, and R

    Z. Zhang, and R. Garcia-Millan, Entropy production of nonre- ciprocal interactions, Phys. Rev. Res.5(2) L022033 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    Fruchart, R

    M. Fruchart, R. Hanai, P.B. Littlewood, and V . Vitelli, Non- reciprocal phase transitions, Nature592(7854) 363-369 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    Hanai, Non-reciprocal frustration: Time crystalline order-by- disorder phenomenon and a spin-glass-like state, Phys

    R. Hanai, Non-reciprocal frustration: Time crystalline order-by- disorder phenomenon and a spin-glass-like state, Phys. Rev. X 14(1) 011029 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Krichevtsov, V .V

    B.B. Krichevtsov, V .V . Pavlov, R.V . Pisarev, and V .N. Gridnev, 13 FIG. 12: Cubic lattice withJ= 1: The plots of order parameterRandLas a function ofσfor different system sizesL= 8,10 and20(denoted in blue, orange, and green respectively), averaged over4×10 4,2×10 4 and10 4...

    1993

  11. [18]

    Rom´an, and J

    J.M. Rom´an, and J. Soto, Spin wave mediated non-reciprocal effects in antiferromagnets, Ann. of Phys.273(1) 37-57 (1999)

    1999

  12. [19]

    Muthukumar, R

    V .N. Muthukumar, R. Valent´ı, and C. Gros, Theory of nonrecip- rocal optical effects in antiferromagnets: The case of Cr 2O3, Phys. Rev. B54(1) 433 (1996)

    1996

  13. [20]

    Dumelow, R.E

    T. Dumelow, R.E. Camley, K.Abraha, and D.R. Tilley, Nonre- ciprocal phase behavior in reflection of electromagnetic waves from magnetic materials, Phys. Rev. B58(2) 897 (1998)

    1998

  14. [21]

    Godreche, and A.J

    C. Godreche, and A.J. Bray, Non-equilibrium stationary states and phase transitions in directed Ising models, J. of Stat. Mech.: Theor. & Expt.2009(12) P12016 (2009)

    2009

  15. [22]

    Kravtsov, and N.N

    N.V . Kravtsov, and N.N. Kravtsov, Non-reciprocal effects in spatially inhomogeneous, nonlinear media, J. of Russ. Laser Res. 17(5) 457-464 (1996)

    1996

  16. [23]

    Dinelli, J

    A. Dinelli, J. O’Byrne, A. Curatolo, Y . Zhao, P. Sollich, and J. Tailleur, Non-reciprocity across scales in active mixtures, Nature Comm.14(1) 7035 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    Y . Duan, J. Agudo-Canalejo, R. Golestanian, and B. Mahault, Dynamical pattern formation without self-attraction in quorum- sensing active matter: the interplay between non-reciprocity and motility, Phys. Rev. Let.131(14) 148301 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    Kreienkamp, and S.H

    K.L. Kreienkamp, and S.H. Klapp, Clustering and flocking of repulsive chiral active particles with non-reciprocal couplings, New J. of Phys.24(12) 123009 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    A. A. Harraq, R. Patel, J.G. Lee, O. Owoyele, J. Chun, and B. Bharti, Non-Reciprocity, Metastability, and Dynamic Reconfigu- ration in Co-Assembly of Active and Passive Particles, Adv. Sci. 12(4) 2409489 (2025)

    2025

  20. [27]

    Martin, D

    D. Martin, D. Seara, Y . Avni, M. Fruchart, and V . Vitelli, Transi- tion to collective motion in nonreciprocal active matter: Coarse graining agent-based models into fluctuating hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. X15(4) 041015 (2025)

    2025

  21. [28]

    Lipowski, Oscillatory behavior in a lattice prey-predator system, Phys

    A. Lipowski, Oscillatory behavior in a lattice prey-predator system, Phys. Rev. E60(5) 5179 (1999)

    1999

  22. [29]

    U.C. T ¨auber, Stochastic spatial Lotka-V olterra predator-prey models,Order , Disorder and Criticality: Advanced Problems of Phase Transitions and Complex Systems, 67-115, (Word Scien- tific, 2025)

    2025

  23. [30]

    Louis-Sarrola, and V

    T. Louis-Sarrola, and V . Ros, Fragile vs robust Multiple Equi- libria phases in generalized Lotka-V olterra model with non- reciprocal interactions, SciPost Phys.21(1) 014 (2026)

    2026

  24. [31]

    Antal, and M

    T. Antal, and M. Droz, Phase transitions and oscillations in a lattice prey-predator model, Phys. Rev. E63(5) 056119 (2001)

    2001

  25. [32]

    Brandenbourger, X

    M. Brandenbourger, X. Locsin, E. Lerner and C. Coulai, Non-reciprocal robotic metamaterials, Nature Comm.10:4608 (2019)

    2019

  26. [33]

    Sounas, and A

    D.L. Sounas, and A. Al `u, Non-reciprocal photonics based on time modulation, Nature Phot.11(12) 774-783 (2017)

    2017

  27. [34]

    S. Yang, M. Liu, C. Zhao, S. Fan, and C.W. Qiu, Nonreciprocal 14 FIG. 13: Square lattice with J= 1: The plots of order parameter R and L as a function of σ for different system sizes L= 10,20 and50(denoted in blue, orange, and green respectively), averaged over10 5,2×10 4 and1...

    2024

  28. [35]

    Nadolny, C

    T. Nadolny, C. Bruder, and M. Brunelli, Nonreciprocal synchro- nization of active quantum spins, Phys. Rev. X15(1) 011010 (2025)

    2025

  29. [36]

    Lau, and A.A

    H.K. Lau, and A.A. Clerk, Fundamental limits and non- reciprocal approaches in non-Hermitian quantum sensing, Na- ture Comm.9(1) 4320 (2018)

    2018

  30. [37]

    Hanai, D

    R. Hanai, D. Ootsuki, and R. Tazai, Photoinduced non-reciprocal magnetism, Nature Comm.16(1) 8195 (2025)

    2025

  31. [38]

    Shapere, and F

    A. Shapere, and F. Wilczek, Classical time crystals, Phys. Rev. Let.109(16) 160402 (2012)

    2012

  32. [39]

    Wilczek, Quantum time crystals, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Quantum time crystals, Phys. Rev. Let.109(16) 160401 (2012)

    2012

  33. [40]

    Daviet, C.P

    R. Daviet, C.P. Zelle, A. Asadollahi, and S. Diehl, Kardar-Parisi- Zhang scaling in time crystalline matter, Phys. Rev. Let.135(4) 047101 (2025)

    2025

  34. [41]

    Yousefjani, A

    R. Yousefjani, A. Carollo, K. Sacha, S. Al-Kuwari, and A. Bayat, Non-Hermitian discrete time crystals, Phys. Rev. B111(16) 165117 (2025)

    2025

  35. [42]

    Autti, V .B

    S. Autti, V .B. Eltsov, and G.E. V olovik, Observation of a time quasicrystal and its transition to a superfluid time crystal, Phys. Rev. Let.120(21) 215301 (2018)

    2018

  36. [43]

    Giergiel, A

    K. Giergiel, A. Miroszewski, and K. Sacha, Time crystal plat- form: From quasicrystal structures in time to systems with exotic 15 FIG. 15: Plots of Fourier transform (F(m A)) ofm A(t)as a function of frequencyνfor a complete graph: a) shows the plots of N= 1000withK= 0.5;σ= 0...

    2018

  37. [44]

    Yao, and C

    N.Y . Yao, and C. Nayak, Time crystals in periodically driven systems, Phys. Today71(9) 40-47 (2018)

    2018

  38. [45]

    Khemani, R

    V . Khemani, R. Moessner, and S.L. Sondhi, A brief history of time crystals, arXiv:1910.10745 (2019)

    1910 arXiv

  39. [46]

    S. Choi, J. Choi, R. Landig, G. Kucsko, H. Zhou, J. Isoya, F. Jelezko, S. Onoda, H. Sumiya, V . Khemani, and C. V on Keyserlingk, Observation of discrete time crystalline order in a disordered dipolar many-body system, Nature,543(7644) 221- 225 (2017)

    2017

  40. [47]

    M. R. Tavakol and W. Cal, Nonreciprocal Negative Refraction Enabled by Photonic Time Crystal, Nano Let.261569 (2026)

    2026

  41. [48]

    G. G. Lorenzana, A. Altieri, G. Biroli, M. Fruchart, and V . Vitelli, Nonreciprocal spin-glass transition and aging, Phys. Rev. Let. 135(18) 187402 (2025)

    2025

  42. [49]

    Stariolo, and F.L

    D.A. Stariolo, and F.L. Metz, Zero-temperature dynamics of the spherical model with non-reciprocal interactions, J. of Stat. Mech.: Theor. & Expt.2026(3) 033301 (2026)

    2026

  43. [50]

    Guislain, and E

    L. Guislain, and E. Bertin, Collective oscillations in a three- dimensional spin model with non-reciprocal interactions, J. of Stat. Mech.: Theor. & Expt.2024(9) 093210 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    K. Blom, U. Thiele, and A. Godec, Local order controls the onset of oscillations in the nonreciprocal Ising model, Phys. Rev. E111(2) 024207 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    P. L. Krapivsky, S. Redner, and E. Ben-Naim,A kinetic view of statistical physics(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Sumedha, and Aldrin B.E., Glauber dynamics phase transi- tions in athermal random field Blume-Capel and Blume-Emery- Grifitths models, arXiv:2607.16561 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  47. [55]

    P. C. Hohenberg, and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys.49435 (1977)

    1977

  48. [56]

    Y . Avni, M. Fruchart, D. Martin, D. Seara, and V . Vitelli, Dy- namical phase transitions in the nonreciprocal Ising model, Phys. Rev. E 111(3) 034124 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Frontera, and E

    C. Frontera, and E. Vives, Numerical signs for a transition in the two-dimensional random field Ising model at T= 0 , Phys. Rev. E59(2) R1295 (1999). 16 FIG. 17: Plots of Fourier transform (F(m A)) ofm A(t)as a function of frequencyνfor a cubic lattice: a) shows the plots of L...

    1999

Pith tools

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