Quantum-Inspired Approach to Analyzing Complex System Dynamics
Extracted source text · arXiv 2512.14169
\documentclass[aps,prl,reprint,floatfix,footinbib,notitlepage,grouppedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4-2}
\usepackage{graphicx,graphics,times,bm,bbm,bbold,amssymb,amsmath,amsfonts,mathtools,dsfont,xcolor,color,cancel}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true,citecolor=purple,linkcolor=purple,urlcolor=purple]{hyperref}
\urlstyle{same}
\usepackage{soul}
\setstcolor{red}
%\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{braket}
\newcommand{\credit}[1]{{#1}}
\def\x{}
\newcommand*\diff{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}\hspace{0.3pt}}
\newcommand{\dt}{\diff t}
\newcommand{\dG}{\diff G}
\newcommand{\dx}{\diff x}
\newcommand{\dy}{\diff y}
\newcommand{\dW}{\diff W}
\newcommand{\dB}{\diff B}
\newcommand{\dJ}{\diff J}
\newcommand{\du}{\diff u}
\newcommand{\pks}{$p_{{\rm KS}}$\xspace}
\newcommand{\dks}{$D_{{\rm KS}}$\xspace}
\newcommand{\dU}{\diff U}
\newcommand{\dP}{\diff P}
\newcommand{\dOmega}{\diff \Omega}
\makeatletter
\def\@bibinfo#1#2{%
\ifx#1volume\textnormal{#2}%
\else\ifx#1issue\textnormal{#2}%
\else\ifx#1pages\textnormal{#2}%
\else\ifx#1year\textnormal{(#2)}%
\else #2%
\fi\fi\fi\fi
}
\makeatother
\usepackage{textcomp}
%\usepackage{colortbl}
%\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage[percent]{overpic}
\usepackage{xspace}
\usepackage{hhline}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{blkarray}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{chngcntr}
\usepackage{textgreek}
\usepackage{flushend}
\usepackage{academicons}
\usepackage{eufrak}
%\usepackage{dcolumn}
%\usepackage{chngcntr}
\usepackage{textgreek}
%\usepackage{orcidlink}
\definecolor{Order0}{rgb}{0.85,0.85,0.85} % Light gray
\definecolor{Order1}{rgb}{1.0,1.0,0.8} % Light yellow
\definecolor{Order2}{rgb}{0.85,0.92,1.0} % Light blue
\definecolor{Order3}{rgb}{0.85,1.0,0.85} % Light green
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\DeclareFontFamily{OT1}{pzc}{}
\DeclareFontShape{OT1}{pzc}{m}{it}
{<-> s * [1.25] pzcmi7t}{}
\DeclareMathAlphabet{\mathpzc}{OT1}{pzc}
{m}{it}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath,wasysym}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newcommand{\ignore}[1]{}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{document}
%Stability of High-dimensional Complex Systems: Data-Driven Approach}
%from Measured Multivariate Time Series}
\title{Quantum-Inspired Approach to Analyzing Complex System Dynamics}
\author{P. Kafashi}
\affiliation{Department of Physics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 14588, Iran}
\author{M. Orujlu}
\affiliation{Department of Physics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 14588, Iran}
%\author{A. T. Rezakhani}
%\affiliation{Department of Physics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 14588, Iran}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{abstract}
We present a quantum information-inspired framework for analyzing complex systems through multivariate time series. In this approach the system's state is encoded into a density matrix, providing a compact representation of higher-order correlations and dependencies. This formulation enables precise quantification of the relative influence among time series, tracking of their response to external perturbations and also the definition of a \emph{recovery timescale} without need for dimensional reduction.
%\textcolor{cyan}{[AR: you should explain in the text why obviating ``dimensional reduction'' is favorable---and important.]}.
By leveraging tools such as fidelity from quantum information theory, our method naturally captures higher-order co-fluctuations beyond pairwise statistics, offering a holistic characterization of resilience and similarity in high-dimensional dynamics. We validate this approach on synthetic data generated by a 9-dimensional modified Lorenz-96 model and demonstrate its utility on real-world climate data, analyzing global temperature anomalies across nine regions, quantifying the dissimilarity of each 288-month time window up to July 2025 relative to the 1850–1874 baseline period.
%The results show that the proposed framework provides a powerful lens for detecting structural changes, quantifying recovery timescales, and characterizing collective responses in complex systems, while remaining fully compatible with both classical and quantum computational implementations.
%We present a quantum information-inspired framework for analyzing complex systems through multivariate time series, designed to be fully compatible with quantum computing architectures. In this approach, the system’s state is represented by a density matrix that compactly and rigorously captures higher-order correlations and dependencies among time series. This representation enables efficient tracking of how different time series respond to external perturbations and provides a precise quantification of their relative influence. Furthermore, it allows characterization of a \emph{recovery timescale} for \emph{multivariate time series} under external stimuli without dimensional reduction. We illustrate the method using synthetic data from a 7-dimensional modified Lorenz-96 model and real-world global temperature anomalies across nine regions, quantifying the dissimilarity of each 500-month time window up to July 2025 relative to the 1850–1891 baseline period.
%region’s response to external disturbances. % Our results show that this framework facilitates detailed characterization of the dynamics and interdependencies of complex systems, as well as their response timescales to external or internal perturbations, leveraging structures naturally suited for quantum computational implementation.
%We introduce a new approach to studying complex systems such as financial markets using techniques inspired by quantum information theory. In this framework, we define a density matrix representing the state of a system of currencies that captures the correlation between them in a more fundamental way.
%This density matrix is then used to analyze the behavior of currencies in response to external stimuli, allowing us to quantify the impact of each part of the system. We first validate our method using synthetic data generated by a modified Lorenz 96 model and subsequently apply it to real cryptocurrency data.
\end{abstract}
\date{\today}
%\pacs{ \textcolor{cyan}{xxxx}}
\maketitle
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\textit{Introduction.---}Complex systems, such as biological networks, neural systems, climate dynamics, and turbulence comprise numerous interacting components whose collective behavior is nonlinear, multistable, and sensitive to perturbations \cite{Phys-Rep}. Their dynamics are influenced not only by pairwise interactions but also by high-dimensional correlations that involve multiple components simultaneously \cite{Sagdeev1988,PRX}. Typically far-from-equilibrium and governed by unobservable or high-dimensional microscale processes, these systems are best described stochastically. In this view, noise is an inherent aspect of the dynamics, and the stochastic features observed in time series reflect the system’s underlying nonlinear interactions, far beyond being artifacts of measurement. The macroscopic degrees of freedom, representing the collective behavior of many interacting components, are encoded as multivariate time series. These time series capture the system’s emergent dynamics, revealing how large-scale patterns and structures evolve over time as a result of underlying microscopic interactions.
%The macroscopic degrees of freedom manifest as multivariate time series, capturing the emergent dynamics of the system.
Building on this perspective, advancements in \textit{quantum information theory} have provided powerful tools for probing high-dimensional, strongly correlated systems. These tools offer new opportunities that extend beyond the boundaries of quantum physics. A particularly compelling direction is the application of these tools to multivariate time series, which arise in diverse areas such as neuroscience, finance, climate science, and systems biology. These datasets are often characterized by high-dimensional and nonlinear interdependencies that pose significant challenges to classical analytical techniques \cite{Sahimi2024}, thereby motivating the development of more expressive and principled frameworks \cite{whdb-2lgl}.
%Building on this perspective, recent advancements in \textit{quantum information theory} have provided powerful tools for probing high-dimensional, strongly correlated systems. These tools offer new opportunities that transcend the domain of quantum physics, particularly in analyzing complex multivariate time series. Such datasets, common in neuroscience, finance, climate science, and systems biology, are often characterized by nonlinear interdependencies and high dimensionality that render classical analysis inadequate \cite{Sahimi2024}. This motivates the development of more expressive and principled frameworks for capturing the rich structure of dynamics in complex systems.
To address these challenges, we introduce a quantum-inspired approach that leverages tools such as density matrices and fidelity. The tools are widely used in quantum information science \cite{Nielsen2010Quantum, Wilde2013Quantum, Vedral2002Role, Horodecki2009Quantum, Giovannetti2004Quantum, Adami1997Information, cor-pic}. We demonstrate that these tools are naturally suited to analyzing complex correlations in multivariate time series. By representing the states of multivariate time series as artificial quantum states, we employ concepts such as inseparability, correlations and coherence \cite{Modi2012Classical} to reveal higher-order dependencies and dynamic behaviors in time series. We demonstrate utility of our approach on synthetic data from a modified Lorenz 96 model and apply it to global temperature anomalies across nine regions to quantify regional responses to external disturbances.\\
%Finally, we discuss potential applications in fields where multivariate dependencies are crucial.
%To address these challenges, we are interested in to propse a \textit{quantum-inspired approaches}, such as density matrices, entropy measures, and mutual information have been applied to uncover hidden structures, causal relationships ~\cite{Sagdeev1988, Nielsen2010Quantum, Wilde2013Quantum, Vedral2002Role, Horodecki2009Quantum, Giovannetti2004Quantum, Adami1997Information}, which can be usable in analysing complex correlations within multivariate time series. Encoding time series into \textit{quantum states} allows the use of concepts such as \textit{entanglement} and \textit{coherence} to reveal higher-order dependencies and dynamic behaviors~\cite{Modi2012Classical}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\textit{Methods.---}Effective analysis of a complex system necessitates the initial definition of a set of distinguishable \textit{states} that comprehensively represent the system’s dynamical properties of interest. Each state must encapsulate salient features that meaningfully differentiate the system's behavior, thereby capturing its most critical characteristics. Subsequently, a rigorous quantitative metric is required to evaluate the degree of dissimilarity or similarity between these states. Establishing both a well-defined state representation and an appropriate similarity measure enables a systematic and rigorous characterization of changes in the system's dynamics.
%\textit{Defining the state of the system}:
%Consider an $N$-dimensional state variable
%\(\mathbf{x} = (x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_N)\), where at a given instant $t$, each component of the multivariate time series may be increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant.
%We systematically map this $N$-dimensional state to a binary vector
%\(\mathbf{c}(t) \in \{0,1\}^N\) as follows:
%\[
%\mathbf{x}(t) \;\;\longmapsto\;\;
%\mathbf{c}(t) =
%\begin{bmatrix}
%c_1(t) \\
%c_2(t) \\
%\vdots \\
%c_N(t)
%\end{bmatrix},
%\]
%with \(c_i(t) \in \{0,1\}\) for \(i=1,\dots,N\).
%The total number of possible configurations of the vector \(\mathbf{c}(t)\) is \(2^N\).
%\paragraph\textit{Defining the state of the system.}
Consider an $N$-dimensional state variable $\mathbf{x}(t) = \bigl(x_1(t), x_2(t), \ldots, x_N(t)\bigr)$, where each component may be increasing, decreasing, or remaining approximately constant at a given time $t$. To obtain a uniform representation across heterogeneous variables, we assign to each component a binary label $a_i(t) \in \{0,1\}$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, indicating, e.g., whether $x_i(t)$ is increasing ($a_i=1$) or not increasing ($a_i=0$), relative to their previous time step. Collecting these labels into the vector
\[
\mathbf{a}(t) =\big( a_1(t), a_2(t), \ldots,a_N(t)\big)^{T} \in \{0,1\}^N,
\]
we obtain a compact encoding of the system at time $t$, with $2^N$ possible configurations. This coarse-graining discards magnitude information but ensures comparability across variables of different scales, ranges, or physical meanings. Small and large changes within the same qualitative regime are mapped to the same binary value, and the framework can be extended to multi-level encodings if more detailed qualitative states are required.
To embed this representation into a (virtual) ``Hilbert space,'' we define the virtual single-qubit space $\mathcal{H}_2 = \operatorname{span}\{\ket{0}, \ket{1}\}$, with $\ket{0} = (1,0)^{T}$ and $\ket{1}=(0,1)^{T}$. The full $N$-qubit Hilbert space is then $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_2^{\otimes N} \cong \mathds{C}^{2^N}$ , with the computational basis vectors given by $\ket{\phi(t)} = \otimes_{i=1}^N \ket{a_i(t)} = \ket{a_1(t), a_2(t), \ldots, a_N(t)}$. By construction, these $2^N$ vectors are mutually orthonormal, $\braket{\phi_k|\phi_{k'}} = \delta_{kk'}$. Interpreting the bit string $a_1 a_2 \cdots a_N$ as a binary number in big-endian order provides the 1-based index of $\ket{\phi(t)}$ in the computational basis: $\mathrm{index}(a_1 a_2 \cdots a_N) = 1 + \sum_{i=1}^N a_i \, 2^{\,N-i}$. As an example, the all-zero configuration is $\ket{00\cdots0} = \ket{0}^{\otimes N} = (1,0,\ldots,0)^{T}$.
To characterize the system's behavior over a finite observation interval $[t, t+\tau_0]$, we define the Hilbert-space state
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi(t)} = \textstyle{\sum_{k=1}^{2^N}} \sqrt{P_k(t)} |\phi_k\rangle,
\label{coding}
\end{equation}
where $P_k(t)$ denotes the probability of observing configuration $\ket{\phi_k}$ within the interval. When multiple ensemble realizations are available, $P_k(t)$ can be estimated from their frequencies; otherwise, it can be approximated using time averages. For a single trajectory of a multivariate time series, the window size $\tau_0$ is chosen to correspond to the second-order stationarity timescale, ensuring representative sampling of the system's dynamics.
The state $\ket{\psi(t)}$ provides a \emph{quantum-inspired embedding} of classical probabilities rather than a true quantum state. While we employ the formalism of Hilbert spaces and superposition, the underlying system is entirely classical, and no physical quantum superposition or interference occurs in that level. This framework offers a compact and structured way to encode the distribution over all possible configurations into a single vector, enabling the use of tools from quantum information theory.
From this embedding, we construct the density matrix
\begin{equation}
\varrho(t) = |\psi(t) \rangle \langle \psi(t)|,
\end{equation}
which is a positive semidefinite matrix with trace 1, representing the probabilities of each configuration in a unified matrix form.
%The off-diagonal elements of $\varrho(t)$ arise from the square-root embedding of the probabilities and reflect the Hilbert-space geometry of the distribution. These elements should not be interpreted as cross correlations between the original variables $x_i(t)$, but rather as encoding similarity relations among different configurations. This structure enables the application of similarity measures, such as fidelity, to compare states.
By construction, the diagonal elements of the density matrix satisfy $\varrho_{kk} = P_k(t)$, directly encoding the probabilities of each configuration, whereas the offdiagonal elements $\varrho_{kk'} = \sqrt{P_k(t) P_{k'}(t)}$ depend only on the probabilities and not on the actual values of the original variables $x_i(t)$. To explore interdependencies in the Hilbert-space embedding, one can compare $\varrho(t)$ with density matrices derived from shuffled or surrogate time series, employing appropriate distance measures to detect non-random structure.
The similarity between two density matrices corresponding to consecutive observation windows provides a quantitative measure of the \emph{temporal similarity of state distributions} in the time series. Specifically, for windows $[t_1, t_1+\tau_0]$ and $[t_2, t_2+\tau_0]$, with density matrices $\varrho(t_1)$ and $\varrho(t_2)$, a suitable similarity measure such as the fidelity $F(\varrho(t_1),\varrho(t_2))$ yields a single number that captures the collective similarity between the two $N$-dimensional segments.
%The similarity between two density matrices corresponding to consecutive observation windows provides a quantitative measure of the \emph{non-separability of states} of the time series. Specifically, for windows $[t_1, t_1+\tau_0]$ and $[t_2, t_2+\tau_0]$, with density matrices $\varrho(t_1)$ and $\varrho(t_2)$, a suitable similarity measure such as the fidelity $F(\varrho(t_1),\varrho(t_2))$ yields a single number that captures the collective similarity between the two $N$-dimensional segments.
Unlike conventional pairwise correlation coefficients, which are limited to capturing linear relationships between individual variables, the Hilbert-space embedding retains higher than pairwise dependencies of the system without any dimensional reduction. As a result, it is intrinsically sensitive to higher-order co-fluctuations and joint dependencies among all variables, offering a substantially richer and more holistic characterization of the system’s temporal dynamics.
%Unlike conventional pairwise correlation coefficients, which capture only linear relationships between individual variables, this Hilbert-space approach preserves the full combinatorial structure of the system without requiring dimensional reduction. Consequently, it is sensitive to higher-order co-fluctuations and interdependencies among all variables, providing a richer, more holistic characterization of the system's temporal dynamics.
%When the distributions of configurations across consecutive windows differ substantially, the corresponding density matrices are nearly orthogonal, resulting in a low fidelity.
%This reflects minimal collective structure or interdependence between the windows, analogous to statistical independence in classical probability.
%Conversely, a high fidelity indicates strong structural similarity or persistence of coordinated dynamics across the windows, capturing nontrivial correlations in the Hilbert-space embedding.
%In the case of \emph{separability}, the density matrices from consecutive windows are nearly orthogonal, leading to a low fidelity.
%This indicates minimal collective structure or interdependence between the windows, analogous to statistical independence in classical terms. High fidelity, in contrast, signals significant structural similarity or persistence of coordinated dynamics across the windows, reflecting nontrivial correlations in the Hilbert-space embedding.
%Thus, the Hilbert-space approach offers a richer, quantum-inspired mathematical structure that facilitates the analysis of collective dynamics and similarity between states while remaining fully compatible with the classical nature of the data.
To analyze the temporal evolution of the system, we employ fidelity between density matrices \cite{Nielsen2010Quantum}
\begin{equation}
\label{fidelity definition}
F(\varrho, \sigma) = \big( \textstyle{\mathrm{Tr} \sqrt{\sqrt{\varrho} \, \sigma \, \sqrt{\varrho}} }\big)^2,
\end{equation}
which reduces to $F = |\langle \psi|\phi\rangle|^2$ for pure states $\varrho = |\psi\rangle \langle \psi|$ and $\sigma = |\phi\rangle \langle \phi|$. Fidelity ranges from $0$ to $1$, with $F=1$ for identical states and lower values indicating increasing dissimilarity.
Classically, if the system occupies a single configuration with probability one during the observation window ($P_k = 1$ for one configuration, $P_{k'} = 0$ for all others), the embedded state reduces to a single basis vector, and the density matrix has support only on that configuration.
More generally, when several configurations carry nonzero probability ($0 < P_k < 1$), the embedding still yields a \emph{pure state}, as in $\mathrm{Tr}[\varrho^2]=1$, yet it corresponds to a \emph{classically mixed distribution} over configurations. This distinction highlights that the purity of $\varrho(t)$ arises from the square-root embedding rather than from physical superposition.\\
%Classically, if the system occupies a single configuration with probability one in the observation window ($P_k=1$ for one configuration, $P_{k'}=0$ for all others), the embedded state corresponds to a single basis vector, and the density matrix has support only on that configuration. More generally, when multiple configurations have nonzero probabilities ($0 < P_k < 1$), the embedded state can be still a \emph{pure state} in the Hilbert-space sense, but it represents a \emph{classically mixed distribution} over configurations, see End Matter.
%Fidelity between such states still lies in $[0,1]$, with $F=1$ if the configuration distributions are identical. Lower fidelity reflects differences in configuration probabilities, capturing higher-order co-fluctuations and collective dynamics beyond pairwise correlations. Thus, fidelity offers a natural measure of similarity between states across windows, allowing the detection of transitions and periods of persistence in multivariate time series without resorting to dimensional reduction.
%{\bf up to here}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\textit{Recovery Time Scale.---}In complex systems, sudden external perturbations or shifts in control parameters can induce pronounced changes in the dynamical behavior. Such responses may persist over certain timescales, relax back to the original state after a characteristic recovery period, or drive the system into qualitatively new regimes---such as alternative stable equilibria, sustained oscillations, or even chaotic trajectories.
%A hallmark of systems approaching a critical transition is critical slowing down-the progressive loss of resilience to perturbations. As recovery from small fluctuations becomes slower, the system develops stronger temporal dependencies and exhibits larger excursions from its equilibrium state. Traditionally, critical slowing down is detected from a \emph{single time series} by monitoring statistical indicators such as the variance, which grows with amplified fluctuations, and the lag-1 autocorrelation, which quantifies the persistence of deviations across successive observations. These early-warning measures rely only on single-variable data and have proven useful in many empirical contexts.
Complex systems are inherently multidimensional, and focusing on a single observable or applying dimensional reduction can obscure collective patterns of resilience, i.e., the system’s ability to recover from perturbed states. A more rigorous approach requires analyzing multiple subsystems or observables simultaneously to capture the distributed and emergent nature of resilience in complex dynamics. To this end, we employ \emph{fidelity} between density matrices as a high-dimensional analog of classical early-warning indicators \cite{Scheffer2009}, such as increasing variance or lag-1 autocorrelation. This framework allows us to estimate recovery timescales using the full information contained in an $N$-dimensional time series. \\
% thereby revealing coordinated dynamics across all variables rather than reducing the system to one-dimensional statistics.
%To capture collective dynamics, we model perturbations as the abrupt coupling of an external stimulus to one of the subsystems of the original system. This sudden interaction acts as an instantaneous perturbation, after which the system undergoes an adaptation process analogous to ``thermalization," during which the injected information spreads across its many degrees of freedom.
%Assuming the coupling occurs at time $t=0$, we use the fidelity measure introduced in Eq.~\eqref{fidelity definition} to quantify how the system recovers toward its initial state over time. In this way, fidelity generalizes the notion of recovery and critical slowing down from single-variable indicators to the full $N$-dimensional time series, providing a direct measure of resilience and recovery timescales in high-dimensional complex systems. The phenomenon of thermalization following a perturbation to the system, has been extensively studied in quantum systems, particularly in the context of quantum quenches and scrambling dynamics~\cite{calabrese2007entanglement, vikram2024universal}.
%\subsection*{Partition of the system}\label{Partition of the system}
%Even without direct knowledge of the external system $\varrho_E$ interacting with our system, its influence on the dynamics can be observed.
%By partitioning the system into subsystems, we can assess how an external perturbation on one subsystem affects all components of a multivariate time series.
%We define the \emph{subsystem fidelity} as
%\begin{equation}
%f_A(t) = F\big(\varrho_A(0), \varrho_A(t)\big),
%\end{equation}
%which measures the similarity between a subsystem's initial state $\varrho_A(0)$ and its state at time $t$, quantifying the \emph{recovery dynamics} under perturbation. Subsystems can be analyzed individually or in groups, with the index $A$ labeling different bipartitions of the system.
%\paragraph\textit{Inseparability measure--}
%Partitioning the system allows us to quantify correlations between its different bipartitions.
%To this end, we employ the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix \cite{Calabrese2004}:
%\begin{equation}\label{entropy}
%S(\varrho_A) = -\mathrm{Tr}\!\left( \varrho_A \log \varrho_A \right),
%\end{equation}
%where \(S(\varrho_A) = 0\) if and only if subsystem \(A\) is in a pure state, i.e., it is uncorrelated with its complement \(B\). For a pure state of the full system, the inseparability measure of the full state itself vanishes. However, when part of the system is traced out, the resulting reduced state is generally mixed, and its inseparability measure becomes nonzero.
%The tools introduced above enable a more refined analysis of the system, allowing us to examine each subsystem individually while still accounting for the correlations within the system as a whole. This represents an improvement over classical analysis methods, which lack the ability to distinguish between different parts of the system. In particular, in the case of a purely classical density matrix containing only diagonal elements, the subsystem fidelity would be trivial for all individual subsystems and the inseparability measure would vanish, reflecting the absence of inter-part correlations.
%We can now evaluate the influence of the external system $\varrho_E$ on the subsystem $A$ in a manner distinct from its influence on the total system, by projecting the density matrix at time $t$ onto the initial density matrices as follows:
%\begin{equation}\label{return value}
% f_i(t) = F\left(\varrho(0), \varrho_A(t) \otimes \mathbf{I}_B \right),
%\end{equation}
%where the index $i$ denotes different partitions of the system into two subsystems, with each $i$ corresponding to a unique combination of time series constituting subsystem $A$. \\
%The local minima in the fidelity plots mark the moments when subsystems become most thoroughly mixed and deviate maximally from their initial states. These points, referred to as scrambling times, align with the introduction of external perturbations, highlighting how information propagates and disperses across the subsystems. Scrambling time characterizes the timescale over which information initially localized within a particular region of phase space spreads throughout the entire system, effectively becoming “scrambled” and irretrievable from any small subsystem. For example, an external stimulus targeting a specific subsystem will produce a distinct dip in fidelity for that subsystem at the corresponding scrambling time, see also \cite{Gorin2006}.
%\textit{Adaptation in Response to Sudden Stimuli}:
%\section{Method Validation Through Synthetic Data}\label{synthetic data generation}
%\begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{forcing parameter.png}
% \caption{The plots of the forcing parameters used in \eqref{Modified Lorenz}. The forcing parameter represented by the blue line is used for the first three currencies and the orange line is used for the other three. Both have the same initial and final force but with different ramp ends. We expect this difference to be visible in the fidelity plots.}
% \label{fig: forcing parameters}
%\end{figure}
%To represent our approach, we consider a typical high-dimensional dynamical system to generate synthetic data.
%This way we can validate the integrity of our approach if the final results of the analysis of the synthetic data is compatible with the initial parameters we generate it with.
%We will use a modified Lorenz-96 model \cite{lorenz1996predictability} to generate the synthetic data. The original Lorenz 96 model is an excellent candidate and can produce complex behavior that resembles key characteristics of real world systems, yet there needs to be some modifications to resemble a group of real world data that have been affected by some external stimuli and then recover their own unique behavior in time. \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\textit{Method Illustration using Synthetic and Real-World Time Series.---}To illustrate our approach, we generate synthetic data from a representative high-dimensional dynamical system. Specifically, we employ a modified Lorenz-96 model \cite{lorenz1996predictability}, which captures complex behaviors reminiscent of real-world systems. While the standard Lorenz-96 model already exhibits rich chaotic dynamics, we introduce modifications to simulate scenarios in which the forcing on an individual component is temporarily perturbed by external stimuli and then returns to its preset value over a short time.
The Lorenz-96 model with diffusive coupling is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{Modified Lorenz}
\frac{dx_i}{dt} = \underbrace{(x_{i+1} - x_{i-2}) x_{i-1} - x_i + F_i(t)}_{\text{Lorenz-96 dynamics}} + \underbrace{\gamma \textstyle{\sum_{j=1}^{N}} (x_j - x_i)}_{\text{diffusive coupling}},
\end{equation}
where $i = 1, 2, \ldots, N$, $\gamma$ is the coupling constant, and $F_i(t)$ denotes the external forcing applied to the component $x_i$. A common choice is a constant forcing $F_i(t) = 8$, for which the system exhibits high-dimensional chaotic behavior when uncoupled ($\gamma = 0$) \cite{10.1063/1.3496397}.
In Eq. (\ref{Modified Lorenz}) each $x_i$ interacts with other variables through two mechanisms: (i) the nonlinear term inherited from the original Lorenz-96 dynamics, and (ii) an additional diffusive coupling term proportional to $(x_j - x_i)$, which promotes synchronization among components.
As $\gamma$ increases, the influence of surrounding states grows, driving each $x_i$ closer to the average behavior of the coupled variables and enhancing collective coherence across the system.
We compare two 9-dimensional Lorenz-96 systems simulated with a time step of $\dt = 0.1$. The first system evolves under constant forcing, while in the second, a sudden spike is applied to the forcing of component $x_4$ ($F_4$) at $N = 500$ (Fig.~\ref{fig1}a). Both systems are initialized with the same random seed to ensure a consistent basis for comparison. To quantify their divergence, we construct windowed density matrices, $\varrho(t)$ and $\sigma(t)$, using segments of 50 data points. Within each window, we estimate the probability distributions $P_k$ for each system, which are then used to assemble the corresponding density matrices. The fidelity between $\varrho(t)$ and $\sigma(t)$, computed via Eq.~\eqref{fidelity definition}, provides a quantitative measure of the similarity between the perturbed and unperturbed dynamics.
%This approach enables us to track the system’s response to localized perturbations and to evaluate its recovery dynamics across different coupling strengths $\gamma$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig1}b, the fidelities clearly illustrate the impact of the coupling strength. For larger values of $\gamma$, the perturbed system almost fully returns to its original state, whereas for smaller $\gamma$, recovery remains limited. This highlights the critical role of the diffusive coupling in stabilizing dynamics and preserving the system’s intrinsic state. At the same time, it demonstrates the sensitivity of our fidelity-based framework in detecting and quantifying recovery time scale. We remark that the use of fidelity as a recovery measure has also been emphasized in other related works \cite{7404264, PhysRevA.92.042321}.\\
%In this analysis, we designate the system without the sudden spike in the forcing parameter as the reference system and evaluate its similarity to the system with the spike. In practical applications with real data, where the forcing parameter is typically unknown, the reference system is defined as the system at an initial time. This initial time must be carefully selected to represent a neutral reference state, free from external perturbations. By doing so, we can measure the similarity between the system's state at a given time and its equilibrium state.This serves as the motivation behind the subsystem fidelity defined in equation \eqref{return value}.
%To demonstrate this approach, we will compare two different systems. One system is a lorenz96 model with constant force throughout the data, the other, experiences a sudden spike of force for one of its components. Both of these systems have the same initial random seed. we will construct the density matrices $\varrho(t)$ and $\sigma(t)$ for the systems respectively and calculate the fidelity in \eqref{fidelity definition}. In \ref{fig:average fidelity for different gammas} the fidelities are depicted and we can see how at bigger gammas the system will nearly revert back to its initial status ( to a fidelity of nearly 1) while the other gamma regains little of its original state.\\
%In this analysis, we took the system without a sudden spike in the forcing parameter, as the system of reference, and find the similarity between the same system but with a spike in the forcing parameter. this reference system is taken to be the system at some initial time for real systems with real data, since the forcing parameter for real data is not known. this is the reasoning behind the subsystem fidelity defined in equation \eqref{return value}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[tp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig1A}
\vspace{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig1B}
\vspace{-0.9cm}
\caption{(a) Perturbation applied to the fourth component of the model: the forcing parameter $F_4$ increases from 8 to 90 over 50 time steps starting at $N=500$, and then decreases back to 8 over the following 50 steps. (b) Fidelity between a system with constant forcing (fixed) and one with a sudden spike in the forcing parameter (modulated), shown for different values of $\gamma$ and averaged over 30 independent realizations with different initial conditions. Larger coupling strengths $\gamma$ lead to faster recovery.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%To further solidify our approach, and to show how the non-diagonal elements in the density matrix capture correlations among different parts of the system, we consider the inseparability measure defined in equation \ref{entropy}. For the same system setting as for figure \ref{fig:average fidelity for different gammas} with $\gamma = 0.4$, the entropy of the component of the time series that experiences a sudden spike in its forcing parameter is shown for both the constant-force and spiked-force cases in figure \ref{entropies}.
%In this figure, we see that for a component of the Lorenz-96 model with constant forcing, the inseparability measure remains constant, indicating a steady state in the net information exchange among components of the model\cite{PhysRevLett.99.204101}. When a spike in the forcing parameter is introduced, the entropy decreases, signaling that the subsystem becomes more pure. This behavior can be anticipated from the Lorenz--96 model equation~\ref{Modified Lorenz}, since by significantly increasing the forcing parameter $F_4(t)$, the dynamics become more dominated by this term and less influenced by the interaction terms in the model, causing the inseparability measure, which quantifies correlations among components, to decrease. Analogously, the spike in the forcing acts like a sudden application of a strong external field in a spin system, aligning the spins with the field and rendering them less affected by mutual interactions.
%\begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig2}
% \caption{Average inseparability measure for the 4th component of the Lorenz96 model, for both modulated and constant forcing parameter, with $\gamma=0.4$. The system is at the same setting as for figure \ref{fig:average fidelity for different gammas}, with $\tau$=144. }
% \label{entropies}
%\end{figure}
% Keep in mind that the total number of $X_i$ is the Lorenz system dimension and we only need to use a few of them as the closing prices and the others will act as hidden variables.
%In the following analysis, we fix the system size to $ N = 6 $ and set the coupling strength to $ \gamma = 0.2 $. To explore the system's response to time-varying external forcing, we introduce temporal modulation in selected components of the forcing term $ F_i(t) $. Specifically, for components $ i = 1, 2, 3 $, the forcing increases linearly from 3 to 9 over the first 25 time steps, and then decreases linearly to 5 by time step 70. Similarly, for components $ i = 4, 5, 6 $, the forcing increases linearly from 3 to 9 until time step 100, followed by a linear decrease to 5 at time step 120. The remaining components receive constant forcing $ F_i(t) = 8 $. This setup allows us to simulate and analyze how localized and temporally varying perturbations in the external forcing influence the dynamics of the entire system.\\
%In the following analysis, we fix the system size to $N = 7$ and set the coupling strength to $\gamma = 0.2$. To examine the system's response to time-varying external forcing, we introduce temporal modulation in a single component of the forcing term $F_i(t)$. Specifically, for component $i = 4$, the forcing increases linearly from 3 to 9 over the first 25 (starting from 500) time steps, then decreases linearly to 5 by time step 70. The remaining components receive constant forcing, $F_i(t) = 8$. This setup enables us to investigate how localized and time-dependent perturbations in external forcing affect the global dynamics of the system.
%Fidelity plots for a bipartition of the system into subsystems of size 2 and 5 illustrate how information and influence propagate through the dynamics. By analyzing the rate of fidelity decay following a global perturbation in state variable $4$, one can identify which subsystems are directly affected (exhibiting rapid decay), indirectly coupled (showing delayed decay), or largely isolated (maintaining high fidelity). The timing of local minima in the fidelity curves serves to infer the causal depth and relative influence of each subsystem. Additionally, cross-fidelity measures between subsystems enable the construction of an empirical influence matrix, capturing the directional flow of information across the system.
%The fidelity plots of subsystems with different variables $x_i$ and sizes form the core result of this study. These plots quantify how much each subsystem retains its initial state over time, providing information on the system's dynamic evolution. Subsystems with higher fidelity are more resilient, showing stronger memory of their initial conditions, while lower fidelity indicates greater sensitivity to external influence.
%We focus on the fidelity values at times when the total system reaches its minimum fidelity-referred to as the scrambling time, and compare subsystems based on their fidelity at these critical moments. Although our method is one way to interpret the plots, other approaches could consider, for instance, both the depth and timing of each subsystem’s fidelity minimum.
%In the case of synthetic data, we expect differences in the underlying parameters to be reflected in these plots. For instance, for a system governed by Eq.~\eqref{Modified Lorenz} and external forcings as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig: forcing parameters}, the fidelity curves allow us to distinguish between groups of currencies (e.g., blue vs. orange lines). An example for subsystems of size four is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fidelity size 2}, where such differences are already evident.
%The external stimuli at initial time, is modeled here by varying the forcing parameter $F$ in Lorenz 96. By having $F$ start off at an relatively low value (2-5) and gradually increase it in time to a high value (8-12), we can achieve this effect. This is due to the fact that an external stimuli will in some ways give the varibales $x_i$s a specific trajectory, a trajectory which the external stimuli is trying to get each currency into and since the affect of the external stimuli is for a brief time, much greater than that of random trajectories and nonlinear interactions that make the system complex, the forcing parameter which controls how chaotic the model is, would start off at an low value, resembling how the system will behave less chaotic and tend towards some stable fixed points.\\
%To implement the recovery behavior of currencies in to the data generating model, we will again decrease the forcing parameter to some intermediate state that is non-chaotic and also introduce a new coupling term to the Lorenz model resulting in the whole system further recovering towards its initial state. This is further shown in the fidelity plots defined in the following sections and without the inter-currency coupling term, there will be no significant minimums and no significant recovery of the fidelity value.
%\subsection{Fidelity plots}
%The plots of fidelity of different subsystems with different currencies and sizes is the main result of this paper. They give us an estimate on how much the subsystems have retained their initial state, and we can use this property to understand the evolution of different parts of the system in time. Subsystems that have a higher fidelity, show that they are more resilient towards change in that time and have retained their initial state more, compared to subsystems with a lower fidelity. The fidelity plots themselves have all the information we need about the evolution of the system relative to its initial state, and in the following we will simply provide a way to extract this information out of the plots. The extraction is in no way unique and there can definitely be other approaches of distinguishing the behavior of different parts of the system from the fidelity plots. The approach we have taken looks only at the times the fidelity of the total system is at a minimum (the scrambling values of subsystems at the scrambling time of the total system) and we probe subsystems only at this particular times at distinguish them by the value of their fidelity at that point. Another way could be to use the fidelity value of each subsystem and the time that subsystem is at an minimum, and not only distinguish the subsystems by how much they retain information, but by how fast they lose this information.\\
%In the case of synthetic data, we expect the difference in parameters set in generating the data be manifested in these plots. For example, for a system described by \eqref{Modified Lorenz}, and the forcing parameters for the currencies be as in figure \ref{fig: forcing parameters}, we should be able to distinguish between currencies with forcing parameters of blue and orange lines by studying the fidelity plots. The fidelity plot for subsystems consisting of four currencies is shown in \ref{fig:fidelity size 2} and we can already see a difference between the lines. \\
%To obtain the characteristics of each currency, we will define an impact score for each currency. The impact score of a certain currency, will be the average fidelity of groups, excluding said currency in the time step which the total system fidelity is at a minimum (dip time). Therefore, we will obtain an impact score for each currency, per group size, per dip time \ref{fig:Impact scores}. From the impact scores we can see how our analysis is able to distinguish between the currencies with different forcing parameters, mimicking different reactions to external stimuli.\\\
%To further solidify the ability of the proposed approach, we can find the impact score averaged over 1000 sets of data generated by \eqref{Modified Lorenz} and observe whether it is able to distinguish between the currencies with different forcing parameter. This is shown in \ref{fig:average fidelity plot with error bars}.
\textit{Implementing on a Real Data Set.---}We apply our approach to real monthly climate records from the NOAA Global Time Series dataset, spanning January 1850 to July 2025 \cite{noaa_climate_gla_2025}. The dataset contains temperature anomalies, deviations from a long-term average rather than absolute temperatures. For all regions considered here, anomalies are computed relative to the 1910--2000 mean and expressed in degrees Celsius. Our analysis encompasses nine distinct geographical regions: North America, Europe, the Arctic, Asia, Antarctica, Oceania, South America, Africa, and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MDR) region. The average second-order stationarity of the time series was assessed using the Augmented Dickey-Fuller test, which indicated a window size ranging from approximately 60 to 288 data points with $p < 0.05$. Based on this, we used a window size of 288 for all subsequent analyses.
For this analysis, a reference state needs to be defined as a neutral baseline against which all other states are compared. To identify regions affected by changes in temperature patterns, we take the period preceding the second Industrial Revolution as the reference, representing a state largely free from anthropogenic influences. Accordingly, we use the first window of 288 months, beginning in January 1850, as our reference state, which is second-order stationary.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[tp]
%\begin{minipage}{0.9\linewidth}
% \centering
% \subcaption*{\hspace{0.7cm}(a)}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig2A}
%\end{minipage}
%
%\vspace{-0.7cm}
%
%\begin{minipage}{0.9\linewidth}
% \centering
% \subcaption*{\hspace{0.7cm}(b)}
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig2B}
%\end{minipage}
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\caption{The fidelity of the reference density matrix from the first window compared with the density matrix at each subsequent time, as a function of time. The blue line shows the fidelity for the system of 9 regional temperature series from January 1850 to July 2025, while the orange line corresponds to the fidelity for shuffled (white-noise) time series of the same window length. The shaded red region denotes the standard deviation across 20 shuffled realizations.
%(b) The reversed analysis, where the reference density matrix is taken from the most recent 144 months (July 2025 backward). The moving window is shifted backward in time, and fidelity is computed relative to the recent reference state.
}
\label{Full fidelity Temperature}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The total system fidelity, along with the average fidelity computed from systems driven by shuffled (white-noise) data, is shown in Fig. \ref{Full fidelity Temperature}. To calculate this, we used a moving window of 288 months starting in January 1850. At each step, the window was advanced by one month, the corresponding density matrix was recalculated, and the fidelity with respect to the reference state (the first 288 months) was evaluated. This procedure tracks the system’s evolution over time relative to the baseline and allows comparison with the expected fidelity of purely random (shuffled) data, providing a benchmark for identifying system-specific dynamics. Two distinct intervals, 1910-1920 and 1940-1980, exhibit the highest similarity to the initial 288 months, while after 1980 no significant similarity is observed.
%To assess how recent years compare to earlier periods, we also performed a reversed analysis. In this case, the reference window of 144 months starts in July 2025, and the moving window is shifted backward in one-month steps. Fig. \ref{Full fidelity Temperature}b shows the results of this reversed analysis, where two small intervals, around 1980 and 1968, emerge as exhibiting stochastic characteristics most similar to the recent years.
% The fidelity of the shuffled data represents the expected similarity for systems that are purely random, providing a baseline for comparison.
%If the fidelity of the real system falls within the standard-deviation range of the shuffled-data fidelity, its behavior is effectively indistinguishable from random fluctuations and can be attributed to chance. In contrast, fidelity values outside this range reveal system-specific dynamics that cannot be explained by randomness alone.
%In Figure \ref{Full fidelity Temperature}, the fidelity shows periods of recovery over time; however, no significant increase has occurred in the past 60 years. In recent times, the fidelity has remained at a relatively low level, indicating that the system has continued to drift away from the reference state without returning to a high-similarity regime.\\
The tools introduced above allow subsystem-level analysis while preserving interrelations in the full system, enabling us to isolate the contribution of each region. To identify which regions differ most from the reference window (288 months starting in January 1850), we use the reduction via partial tracing, focusing on subsystems $A$ of size 1 (individual regions). The reduced density matrix is obtained by tracing out all other components, $\varrho_A(t) = \mathrm{Tr}_B[\varrho(t)]$, where $B$ is the complement of $A$. The \emph{subsystem fidelity} is defined as
\begin{equation}
f_A(t) = F\big(\varrho_A(0), \varrho_A(t)\big),
\end{equation}
measuring the similarity between a subsystem’s initial state and its state at time $t$. For subsystems of size 1, each $f_i(t)$ quantifies how closely region $i$ follows its initial dynamics. %Regions with low $f_i(t)$ contribute most strongly to deviations in the total system fidelity.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[tp]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Fig3A}
\vskip-3mm
\caption{Bottom: Subsystem fidelity between the reference density matrix (first window) and subsequent windows as a function of time. Each colored line corresponds to a subsystem of size 1 for a given region. The yellow shaded band shows the standard deviation of the fidelity for a white-noise system of equal size and window length, averaged over 20 realizations. Top: Cumulative deviation of fidelity from $y=1$ for the subsystems shown below. At each time $t$, the integrated area between the fidelity curve and $y=1$, from the beginning up to $t$, is plotted as the cumulative area.}
\label{fig:placeholder}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In the bottom panel of Fig. \ref{fig:placeholder}, the fidelities for subsystems of size 1 are shown, along with the average fidelity for systems driven by white noise (yellow shaded area). Fidelity values that fall outside this region indicate that the system is exhibiting behavior distinct from random noise.
%Similar to the full system fidelity, the standard deviation region indicates the range of fidelity values expected for this subsystem size.
From the bottom panel of Fig. \ref{fig:placeholder}, we can examine each region individually to assess its deviation relative to the pre-industrial era. To quantify this, we define the \emph{cumulative fidelity} as the area between the fidelity curve (bottom panel of Fig. \ref{fig:placeholder}) and the line $y = 1$, integrated from the initial time up to time $t$. This measure is displayed as a function of time in the top panel of Fig. \ref{fig:placeholder}. The cumulative fidelity provides a clear metric for evaluating the overall impact on each subsystem. While alternative definitions could be employed depending on the specific goal, here we use it to identify the regions that have experienced the greatest total change over time.
As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:placeholder}, four regions- the Atlantic MDR, Antarctic, North America, and Arctic- display the largest integrated deviations from the 1850 baseline. Notably, the Arctic exhibits a pronounced increase beginning around 1970. In recent years, its rate of change closely parallels that of the Atlantic MDR, indicating that both the Arctic and Atlantic MDR are becoming the regions most strongly diverging from the 1850 baseline conditions.
Similarly, Europe has begun to show a significant increase in dissimilarity.
%we present the state-dependent and time-resolved stochasticity of these regions, covering the period from January 1910 to August 2023. These figures vividly illustrate the highly dynamic and time-varying nature of temperature fluctuations across these areas.
%Figure 5 displays the mean values of $M$ over the most recent 360 months (30 years), with circle sizes scaled according to the mean stochasticity values.
%Notably, regions with the highest stochasticity levels are North America, Europe, the Arctic, and Asia in descending order. They play a significant role
%in the Earth's climate system, as their high temperature fluctuations can influence global weather patterns, ocean currents, and sea-level rise. Higher
%stochasticity $M$ indicates increased activity, making these regions the critical driver nodes in the dynamics of the global temperature system. These
%areas are like key actors in the complex play of global climate dynamics, and changes within them can have cascading effects that reverberate throughout
%the entire Earth.
%In this section we will implement our approach to real data sets of currencies. The data chosen for this section is the daily closing price of 5 crypto currencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Litecoin, Chainlink) from March 12th, to September first of 2021. The reason for this specific date is the sudden crash of crypto currencies due to external stimulus.\\
%\begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fidelity of whole system real.png}
% \caption{The plot of fidelity of density states to their initial state \eqref{fidelity} for the daily closing prices of 5 crypto currencies starting from March 12th of 2021.The time window length $\tau$ is taken to be 30. }
% \label{fig:Similarity of density states Mar12}
%\end{figure}
%In figure \ref{fig:Similarity of density states for Tempratures} the similarity of density of states to their initial state is represented as a function of time. As expected, the similarity decreases to a scrambling value, which is roughly 0.4 in the time step around 35. Another characteristic of this plot that one can look into, is the recovery time and recovery value. After the scrambling, the similarity increases and plateaus to a fidelity of around $0.6$, which we would take as the recovery value, due to the system thermalizing or adapting to the information. \\
%To further understand the injected information and its consequences on the system, we will break the system in to parts, as in the approach introduced in subsection \ref{Partition of the system}. The fidelity for different subsystems that consist of only one currency is shown figure \ref{fig:1-currency subsystem 12 march}. Similar to that of the whole system, the fidelity of each individual currency reaches a scrambling value. The difference between these values and their respective time, shows how each currency is responding to the injected information, though the single currency subsystem fidelity is not enough to assess the impact score of each currency and we would have to incorporate all the fidelity plots, for instance the fidelity of subsystem with size 2 in \ref{fig:2-currency 12march} . The scrambling value which is around the time step 30 for different combination of the 2-currency subsystems, gives us insight on how the combination of two currencies is thermalizing. \\
%Following the same procedure used to obtain the impact scores for the synthetic data, we will compute the impact scores for this real data set, as shown in \ref{fig:real data impact scores dip39}. From this figure we can see that the currencies Doge and ETH, are responsible for the first significant minimum of the fidelity plots, which occurred at the dip time of 37. This means that the effect of the external stimulus has thermalized for these currencies at this time, and they will now begin to partially recover toward their initial state prior to the influence of the stimulus. As for the other currencies, the fidelity plots indicate that the subsystems corresponding to these currencies have later scrambling times. Their effective scrambling will manifest as another fidelity dip at a later time, during which the impact scores of these currencies will be higher.
%The reason we only take the first valleys minimum as the scrambling value, and not the other minimums present in figure \ref{fig:2-currency 12march}, is that the first valley is present for all possible configurations of the subsystem and it is clear that by increasing the number of currencies making a subsystem, the fidelity plots will get more similar to that of the whole system shown in figure \ref{fig:Similarity of density states Mar12}. The complete fidelity plots is shown in \ref{5fidelities}. Another interesting thing is that the scrambling time for different subsystems can be visibly different different to each other and that of the total system in the case of 1-currency systems. however, these differences become negligible in multiple-currency subsystems. Due to this trait, we will mainly focus on the scrambling values rather than scrambling time, for multiple-currency subsystems. Therefore, to find the scrambling value for multi-currency subsystems, we only need to look for the global minimum in some time range close to the scrambling time of the total system $t_*$. For example in figure \ref{fig:2-currency 12march}, we define the scrambling values as the global minimum in the range of time window 20 to 40.
%\subsection{Mapping the position of currencies}
%By looking at the scrambling values for different combination of subsystems consisting of different number of currencies, we are not only able to find the relationship of each currency to the injected information $\varrho_E$, but also the relationship of the currencies to each other. By this we mean that if the scrambling value of subsystems is an indication on how much the subsystem will scramble or differentiate from its original state, we can use these values to map the position of each currency relative to the injected information and other currencies. The way we map the positions is by taking the fidelity of each subsystem, as the distance of the centroid of the currencies in that system from the position of the injected information. By placing the injected information at the origin of the space, each currency's distance from the origin will represent the impact it experiences from the sudden injection. The closer a currency is the origin, the more it is impacted by the injected information and distance from other currencies reflects the dissimilarity of their response patterns. In figure \ref{map} the position of each currency is shown. The numerical values of the figure are pointless and only the relative distances are meaningful. From figure \ref{map} we can see that C1 and C4 are responding similarly to the information and dissimilar to that of C2. Keep in mind that by similar response, we refer to patterns of behavior that exhibit similarity.
%\begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Map.png}
% \caption{Representation of the behavior of each currency due to the injected information. The distance from the origin of each currency, shows its resilience and how much it is able to retain its initial form and the relative distance of the currencies with each other represents the dissimilarity of their response to the information. This figure is constructed based on the scrambling values reported in \ref{tab:min_fidelity}}
% \label{map}
%\end{figure}
%\section{Resolution of states}
%\label{Discussion}
%In this section we would like to discuss some of the parameters that were defined in previous sections that characterize the resolution of the states.\\
%The window duration of defining the state of the system was taken to be some value $\tau$. Depending on the value of $\tau$, the fidelity plots could have a different representation and we should make it clear what the value of $\tau$ will entail. As previously said, having a bigger $\tau$, means a more accurate probability for each base vector, which could subsequently give more accurate fidelity plots and impact scores. Yet if $\tau$ were to be bigger than the thermalization time of some injected information, we will not be able to detect the affects of this information with the fidelity of the system. So we can only detect stimuli with a thermalization time bigger than the window duration $\tau$. Therefore, we can take $\tau$ as some sort of precision with limits on how small it can be for our approach to be meaningful.\\%Furthermore, the window duration impacts the accuracy of the scrambling time we obtain from the data. For instance, the scrambling time for the system described with forcing parameters of figure \ref{fig: forcing parameters}, is expected to fall on the ramp end times 50 and 100 for their respective currencies, however the scrambling time obtained by the fidelity plots, show dip times in time steps 42 and 95. This is because we measure the system in time windows, allowing us to detect events that occur within a time interval of up to $\tau$.
%The definition of state can be more precise and distinguish the system into parts even more, by changing our definition of $a_i$ in \eqref{phi definition}. By this we mean that instead of taking $a_i$ as only 1 or 0, representing increase or decrease, we could incorporate more complex behavior in its definition, such as the amount of increase and the patterns of behavior \cite{bandt_pompe_2002}. Yet, by incorporating more information in $a_i$, we will also need a bigger $\tau$ to evaluate the probability of these new incorporated information and again this would result in a lower resolution for detecting scrambling in the system.\\
%In our approach, we did not apply any additional noise reduction to the raw data, as we expect the method to identify scrambling times and compute impact scores robustly, despite the presence of noise.
%Another matter that seems peculiar is how the average of scrambling value changes for subsystems consisting of different number of currencies. In figure \ref{average n-currency} this is depicted and it seems to be having a specific pattern. It is unclear yet whether it is a natural decrease in the average scrambling values due to increasing size of the system or there is any other meaning and interpretation behind it. This could possibly impact how we interpret the scrambling values for subsystems with different number of currencies, in the construction of the map in figure \ref{map}. Whether we should normalize the scrambling values based on the curve in figure \ref{average n-currency} or take them all as equal weight.
%\begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Average n-currency %scrambling value.png}
% \caption{Plot of average currencies of n-currency subsystems. Daily closing price of 9 crypto currencies were used as the total system, during the time March 12th to September first.}
% \label{average n-currency}
%\end{figure}
%We demonstrate the method on synthetic data generated by a modified Lorenz–96 model and, as a real-world example, apply it to global temperature records from different regions since the 1850s, identifying how each region has been affected over time.
%We introduce a quantum-inspired framework for analyzing complex systems by representing their states as density matrices computed directly from multivariate time series. By applying similarity measures to these states, we can characterize individual subsystems, track their dynamics, and quantify their resemblance to other parts of the system. This approach allows classical datasets to be analyzed in a manner naturally compatible with quantum computing architectures.
Importantly, our framework is fully compatible with the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. Each system state is represented as a density matrix---a positive semidefinite, trace-one Hermitian operator--which encodes the probabilities of all configurations within a single object. This construction ensures that standard quantum information measures, such as fidelity and entropy, are well defined and directly applicable. Moreover, subsystem dynamics can be analyzed via partial traces, and recovery or similarity measures can be interpreted in terms of quantum-state distinguishability. While the underlying system is classical, the formal structure mirrors that of genuine quantum states, making the framework naturally mappable to quantum computing architectures for potential implementation on qubit-based processors.
By bridging techniques from quantum information theory and time series analysis, a compact and principled way is provided to probe the structure and evolution of complex systems. This cross-disciplinary, quantum-inspired approach, drawing on ideas from information theory and data science, opens new avenues for both theoretical investigations and practical applications~\cite{mugel2020dynamic, PhysRevA.111.032409, emmanoulopoulos2022quantum}.\\
\textit{Acknowledgments}.---P.K. and M.O. gratefully acknowledge M. R. Rahimi Tabar and M. Asoudeh for insightful discussions and valuable feedback. \\
%, and broader support throughout this work.
\textit{Code availability.---}All codes developed in this study are publicly available \cite{code}.
%\paragraph\textit{Acknowledgments}
%All computations are performed on a Mac Studio with an Apple M2 Ultra chip (24-core CPU, 128
%GB RAM), and the results are averaged over 20 simulation runs.
\bibliography{refs.bib}
\end{document}