Typical Positivity of Nonequilibrium Entropy Production for Pure States

Joseph Schindler; Philipp Strasberg

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 103 references

Typical Positivity of Nonequilibrium Entropy Production for Pure States

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Typical pure states inherit the ensemble's entropy production when the effective Hilbert space dimension is large.

desk verdict Promising typicality argument for a pure-state second law, but the energy-to-entropy step has a real gap that needs fixing before the main claim is proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08850 v2 pith:MJZ73W4G submitted 2024-11-13 cond-mat.stat-mech quant-ph

Philipp Strasberg , Joseph Schindler This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph MSC 82C0582C10 PACS 05.30.-d05.70.Ln

keywords nonequilibriumentropyproductionpurestatesecondlawdynamicaltypicalityScroogemeasureeffectivedimensioncanonicalheatexchangeconcentration

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that for two finite systems exchanging energy, most pure states drawn from the Scrooge measure associated with a product Gibbs state produce an entropy production almost identical to the ensemble entropy production, provided the effective dimension is large enough. The discrepancy is controlled by a double-exponential concentration bound in the effective dimension $d_A d_B$, and the bound holds for every time $t$. Because of this, positivity of entropy production is typical for pure states in a broad class of transient nonequilibrium settings. The result matters because it supplies a pure-state second law without assuming non-integrability, equilibrium initial or final states, or eigenstate thermalization, and because it explains why a single experimental run can reproduce ensemble thermodynamics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Scrooge measure $\mu_\rho$, the most spread-out ensemble of pure states with density matrix $\rho$; sampling $|\psi\rangle\propto\sqrt{\rho}|\phi\rangle$ with Haar-random $|\phi\rangle$ realizes it. The argument is carried by a concentration lemma: for any bounded operator $B$ and any $\epsilon>0$, $\mu_\rho(|\langle\psi|B|\psi\rangle-\mathrm{tr}(B\rho)|>\epsilon)\le 12\exp(-C\epsilon^2/(\|B\|^2\|\rho\|))$. Taking $B=U^\dagger(t)H_XU(t)$ makes the energy typical for every time $t$, and the mean value theorem with an extensive heat capacity converts that into typicality of temperature and then of canonical entropy, producing the double-exponential bound in $d_A d_B$. The effective dimension $d_{\rm eff}=1/\|\rho\|$ controls the concentration, so large baths or many non-interacting modes make the typicality extremely strong.

What would settle it

Take the heat-exchange model, place the initial temperatures at a critical point where the heat-capacity density diverges, or very close to $T=0$ where it vanishes, and sample pure states from the Scrooge measure for increasing subsystem dimension; if the fraction of trajectories with $\sigma^\psi_{\rm can}<0$ does not decay at least exponentially with $d_A d_B$, or if the deviation threshold diverges with the heat-capacity ratio, then the uniform heat-capacity assumption fails and the stated theorem does not apply.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Let $\rho(0)=\pi_A(0)\otimes\pi_B(0)$ be a product of Gibbs states, and sample $|\psi(0)\rangle$ from the Scrooge measure $\mu_{\rho(0)}$. The authors define the stochastic entropy production $\sigma^\psi_{\rm can}=\sum_X \Delta S^\psi_X$, where $S^\psi_X(t)$ is the canonical entropy evaluated at the temperature matching the pure-state energy $E^\psi_X(t)$. Using a concentration lemma for the Scrooge measure, they show that $E^\psi_X(t)$, $T^\psi_X(t)$, and $S^\psi_X(t)$ are close to their ensemble values with probability exponentially close to one, for any fixed time. The key estimate is Eq. (8): the probability that $|S^\psi_X(t)-S_X(t)|$ exceeds a threshold of order $N_X$ is bounded by $12\exp(-C\epsilon^2 N_X^2 d_A d_B/\|H_X\|^2)$. Consequently $\sigma^\psi_{\rm can}$ is close to $\Sigma$ with overwhelming probability, so negative entropy production is exponentially rare whenever the effective dimension is large. The numerical random-matrix study confirms the shrinking fluctuations, and a comparison with the two-point measurement scheme shows that the latter has much larger fluctuations that do not concentrate with Hilbert-space dimension.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the heat-capacity density $C_X(T)/N_X$ stays within fixed positive bounds over the whole accessible temperature range, because the mean-value-theorem step treats this density as a constant even though the intermediate temperature depends on the sampled pure state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any fixed observation time, the fraction of Scrooge-sampled pure states whose entropy production differs from the ensemble value by more than a small extensive amount is bounded by $12\exp(-C\epsilon^2 N_X^2 d_A d_B/\|H_X\|^2)$, so violations are exponentially rare in the effective dimension.
The pure-state second law holds for transient dynamics and nonequilibrium steady states without assuming non-integrability or equilibrated initial or final states.
A single run of an experiment can serve as a faithful surrogate for the ensemble: time-of-flight measurements give $T^\psi_X(t)$ and hence $\sigma^\psi_{\rm can}$, whereas the ensemble entropy production $\Sigma$ would require many repetitions.
The two-point measurement scheme satisfies an integral fluctuation theorem but has fluctuations that do not shrink with Hilbert-space dimension; the canonical Scrooge prescription has the opposite trade-off, concentrating around $\Sigma$ while lacking an integral fluctuation theorem.
When the ensemble entropy production $\Sigma$ is itself very small, typicality alone cannot guarantee positivity of the pure-state entropy production, so the arrow of time is established only for dynamics that produce a macroscopic entropy change.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension is that in ultracold-atom heat-transport experiments the single-run canonical entropy production should concentrate around the ensemble value as the atom number grows, whereas two-point-measurement outcomes should keep a much wider spread at the same sample size.
Because the proof only uses operator boundedness and continuity of thermodynamic functions, the same three-step chain should apply to observables other than energy, such as particle number or multiple conserved charges, including noncommuting ones; the paper mentions this direction without developing it.
Near a critical point the heat-capacity density can diverge, so the bound's constants become scale-dependent; one concrete prediction is that the exponential suppression of negative single-shot entropy production is weaker at a phase transition than off criticality for the same effective dimension.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a worthwhile paper with a genuine gap. The central idea is that if you sample pure states from the Scrooge measure of a product Gibbs state, the subsystem energy stays close to the ensemble average, and by continuity so does the canonical entropy. That would give a pure-state second law without non-integrability or equilibrium endpoint assumptions, which is a real advance. The numerics support the qualitative picture, and the comparison with the two-point measurement scheme is useful and honest.

The problem is in the continuity step, Eqs. (5)–(8). They use the mean value theorem to write the energy difference as heat capacity times temperature difference, then set c = C_X(xi)/N_X and treat it as a constant. But xi depends on the sampled state, so the event transformation in Eq. (6) is not a valid set equality. To make the argument rigorous you need a uniform bound on the heat capacity density over all temperatures with non-negligible Scrooge weight, with a lower bound that isn't too small. They mention phase transitions and zero temperature as caveats but don't state or prove such a bound. This is load-bearing: without it, the exponential bound on entropy deviations doesn't follow. The claim may well be true, but the proof as written doesn't establish it.

Minor points: no code or data shipped, which is a pity for a numerical demonstration; and the abstract says “establishes” when the proof has this hole. The self-citation of their own ensemble second law is fine, since that result has independent standing.

Who should read this: anyone working on the foundations of statistical mechanics or quantum thermodynamics, and experimentalists who want a justification for reading a single run as giving the ensemble entropy production. It's not a finished theorem, but it's a clear, interesting proposal.

If this crossed my desk as an editor, I'd send it to peer review and tell the referees to focus on the heat-capacity regularity. The authors need to add a uniform bound or restrict the theorem to regimes where it holds. That's a major revision, but worth doing.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that for pure states sampled from the Scrooge measure of a product Gibbs state, the nonequilibrium entropy production is, with probability exponentially close to one, arbitrarily close to the ensemble entropy production. The argument combines a concentration inequality for quantum expectation values (dynamical typicality) with continuity bounds that convert energy typicality into temperature and entropy typicality. The authors apply this to two coupled finite systems exchanging energy, compare with the two-point measurement scheme, and provide numerical histograms. They also sketch an extension to driven isolated systems using observational entropy.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the result is significant because it provides a route to pure-state second laws without assuming non-integrability or equilibrium initial and final states, and it identifies a clear condition (large effective dimension) under which an ensemble description is representative. The paper's reliance on an external concentration theorem (Ref. [46]) and its absence of fitted parameters are strengths. However, the proof as written contains a gap in the passage from energy typicality to entropy typicality, and the numerical demonstration is not accompanied by code or data, so the claim is not fully established in the present form.

major comments (3)

[Heat exchange setup, Eqs. (5)-(8)] The chain of inequalities in Eqs. (5)-(8) is invalid as written because the mean value theorem point xi depends on the sampled pure state. In Eq. (5), xi lies between T^psi_X(t) and T_X(t), so c = C_X(xi)/N_X in Eq. (6) is a random variable that varies with psi. Consequently, the set equality in Eq. (6) stating that {|T^psi_X - T_X| > epsilon/c} equals {|E^psi_X - E_X| > N_X epsilon} is not a valid identity of events: the same psi determines both c and the deviation |T^psi_X - T_X|. A correct proof requires a uniform bound c_min <= C_X(T)/N_X <= c_max over all temperatures accessible with non-negligible Scrooge weight, with c_min not too small. The paper flags phase transitions and zero temperature only as caveats; it does not state or prove such a bound, and the caveat that 'the heat capacity density might diverge' does not resolve the gap. Because Eq. (8) is the sole bridge from energy typicality to the entropy typicality used for sigma^psi_can, this issue is load-bearing.
[Heat exchange setup, Eq. (8)] Even if one grants a uniform lower bound on c, the bound in Eq. (8) contains the ratio c'/c, where c' = C_X(xi')/N_X with xi' another state-dependent point. The derivation provides no control on c'/c; if c' is much larger than c, the threshold N_X epsilon c'/c * 1/T_X(t) may be small or even not scale extensively, undermining the claimed double-exponential suppression of deviations of S^psi_X(t)/N_X. The proof needs a uniform two-sided bound on the heat capacity density over the relevant temperature interval, not only a lower bound on c.
[Generalizability and Conclusions] The paper's own limitation statements in the 'Generalizability' section acknowledge that heat capacity can diverge at phase transitions and that non-analyticities of entropy can occur, but these caveats are not incorporated into the formal theorem. In particular, the claim that 'special care is only required' does not suffice for a mathematical theorem: if a uniform bound on C_X(T)/N_X is absent, the probability estimate (8) may fail, and hence the paper's central conclusion about rarity of second-law violations is not established for the regimes that the paper itself identifies as problematic. The manuscript should either prove the needed uniform bound under stated assumptions or explicitly restrict the theorem to a class of systems where such a bound holds.

minor comments (5)

[Numerical demonstration] The numerical results in Fig. 1 are presented without code or data availability, and the description of the random matrix model is incomplete; for reproducibility, the authors should provide the full Hamiltonian construction and sampling details, or a link to the code.
[Acknowledgements] There is a typo in the acknowledgements: 'Finanical support' should be 'Financial support'.
[Supplemental material, 'Other samplings and definitions'] The phrase 'samplinges' in the sentence describing the supplemental material should be 'samplings'.
[Heat exchange setup, Eq. (4)] The statement 'since ||H_X|| ~ N_X' is a heuristic scaling assertion; for a rigorous argument this should be stated as an assumption with a precise constant, because the concentration bound (4) depends on the actual operator norm of H_X.
[Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'most pure states' is used loosely; the theorem applies to states drawn from the Scrooge measure of a specific initial ensemble. The authors should clarify in the abstract or introduction that the claim is measure-theoretic with respect to the Scrooge ensemble, not a statement about arbitrary pure-state preparations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the concentration bound is external and the ensemble second law is an independently published input; the state-dependent heat-capacity issue is a proof gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Eq. (4) applies the external concentration lemma of Teufel-Tumulka-Vogel (Ref. [46]) to B = U^dagger(t) H_X U(t); no parameter is fitted and the lemma's assumptions do not contain the target entropy-typicality statement. Eqs. (5)-(8) are analytic changes of variables via the mean value theorem and the definition of T^psi_X(t) as the temperature of the Gibbs state matching E^psi_X(t); they do not define S^psi_X(t) to equal S_X(t) by construction. The state-dependence of xi (hence c and c') is a genuine uniformity gap, and the paper itself flags heat-capacity divergences at phase transitions and vanishing at zero temperature only as caveats. But this is a rigor or correctness concern, not circularity: the claimed bound is not obtained by renaming a fitted quantity, nor does it assume the conclusion. The ensemble inequality Sigma >= 0 is imported from Refs. [7,60]; one of these is the present first author's prior work, but it is a published, parameter-free derivation whose stated assumptions do not include pure-state typicality, so under the review rules it counts as independent support and does not raise the circularity score. The numerical demonstration is a check rather than a fit, and the TPMS comparison is a separate construction. No step reduces a prediction to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the constants C, c, and c' are either fixed by the concentration theorem or are properties of the system. The main load-bearing input is the external ensemble second law plus a regularity assumption on the heat capacity that is not stated as a formal hypothesis.

assumptions (7)

standard math Scrooge measure concentration bound of Teufel, Tumulka, and Vogel (Eq. 1): mu_rho(|<psi|B|psi> - Tr{B rho}| > epsilon) <= 12 exp(-C epsilon^2 / (||B||^2 ||rho||)).
Imported from Ref. 46; the entire dynamical typicality argument rests on this published theorem.
standard math Ensemble-picture Clausius inequality Sigma = sum_X integral dt beta_X(t) dE_X/dt >= 0 (Eq. 2).
Taken from Refs. 7 and 60; the paper does not rederive it. Pure-state positivity is obtained by proving typical closeness to this quantity.
domain assumption Heat capacity densities c and c' are extensive and can be treated as fixed constants when converting energy deviations into temperature and entropy deviations.
Used in Eqs. (5)-(8) without proving uniform bounds; can fail at critical points (divergence) and near zero temperature (vanishing), as acknowledged in the Generalizability section.
domain assumption The initial state is a product of two Gibbs states at different temperatures and the Scrooge measure is the relevant distribution over pure states.
The theorem is about this specific preparation; 'most pure states' means typical with respect to mu_{rho(0)}, not with respect to other distributions such as fixed-energy microcanonical states.
domain assumption Thermodynamic (canonical) entropy is defined by matching the energy of the true reduced state to a Gibbs state pi_X(t).
This definition uniquely fixes T_X(t) and underlies both Eq. (2) and the stochastic entropy sigma^psi_can; it assumes the canonical ensemble is the correct thermodynamic description.
standard math Observational entropy continuity bound |S^psi_E - S_E| <= g(Delta) + Delta ln D from Ref. 86, used in the supplemental material.
Published result; used for the driven-system example.
domain assumption Positivity of temperatures T_X(t) > 0 in the heat-exchange derivation.
Eq. (7) uses ln(1+x) <= x and divides by T_X(t); the authors note negative temperatures would require an inverse-temperature formulation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Typical Positivity of Nonequilibrium Entropy Production for Pure States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MJZ73W4G

@misc{pith2026241108850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Typical Positivity of Nonequilibrium Entropy Production for Pure States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MJZ73W4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08850}
}

read the original abstract

We establish that the nonequilibrium dynamics of most pure states gives rise to the same entropy production as that of the corresponding ensemble, provided the effective dimension of the ensemble is large enough. This establishes the positivity of entropy production under a wide variety of nonequilibrium situations. Our results follow from dynamical typicality and suitable continuity properties alone, without relying on non-integrability, and they complement other recent efforts to establish "pure state second laws". An explicit comparison with the distinctively different two-point measurement scheme is also provided.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08850 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Histograms of the stochastic EP for 10000 samples arranged into 50 bins for different initial conditions and system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Histograms of the stochastic EP for 10000 samples arranged into 50 bins for different initial conditions and system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

[46]

Relaxation Theory for Per- turbed Many-Body Quantum Systems versus Numerics and Experiment,

L. Dabelow and P. Reimann, “Relaxation Theory for Per- turbed Many-Body Quantum Systems versus Numerics and Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 120602 (2020)

work page 2020
[1]

⟩tpms the average over the TPMS sampling) whereas Σ ̸= ⟨σψ can⟩Scrooge,

Σ = ⟨σϵ st⟩tpms (with ⟨. . .⟩tpms the average over the TPMS sampling) whereas Σ ̸= ⟨σψ can⟩Scrooge,
[2]

σϵ st obeys an integral fluctuation theorem ⟨exp(−σϵ st)⟩tpms = 1 (derived in [56] by ex- tending a trick of Tasaki [69]) whereas σψ can does not,
[3]

single shot

σϵ st can only be computed after knowing the ensem- ble averaged dynamics whereas σψ can remains mean- ingful for a “single shot” experiment,
[4]

σϵ st requires to precisely measure microscopic en- ergies whereas σψ can only requires to measure the overall energy or temperature of X,
[5]

special care

it is unclear how to define σϵ st if ρ(0) has coherences (at least points 1. and 2. above can no longer both hold [70]) whereas σψ can remains well defined. In addition to these properties, Fig. 1 reveals that σϵ st has much larger fluctuations than σψ can, which do not de- crease with increasing Hilbert space dimension. Those are necessary to ensure the ...

2017
[6]

Deffner and S

S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Quantum Thermodynamics: An Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Quantum In- formation (Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael, CA, 2019)

2019
[7]

Nonequi- librium fluctuations, fluctuation theorems and counting statistics in quantum systems,

M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, “Nonequi- librium fluctuations, fluctuation theorems and counting statistics in quantum systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1665 (2009)

2009

Show all 103 references

[8]

Equalities and inequalities: irreversibility and the second law of thermodynamics at the nanoscale,

C. Jarzynski, “Equalities and inequalities: irreversibility and the second law of thermodynamics at the nanoscale,” Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 2, 329–351 (2011)

2011
[9]

Colloquium: Quantum fluctuation relations: Foundations and appli- cations,

M. Campisi, P. H¨ anggi, and P. Talkner, “Colloquium: Quantum fluctuation relations: Foundations and appli- cations,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 771 (2011)

2011
[10]

Second law-like inequalities with quan- tum relative entropy: An introduction,

T. Sagawa, “Second law-like inequalities with quan- tum relative entropy: An introduction,” in Lectures on Quantum Computing, Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics (2012) pp. 125–190

2012
[11]

Binder, L

F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso, eds., Thermodynamics in the Quan- tum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2018)

2018
[12]

Entanglement and thermody- namics after a quantum quench in integrable systems,

V. Alba and P. Calabrese, “Entanglement and thermody- namics after a quantum quench in integrable systems,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 114, 7947–7951 (2017)

2017
[13]

First and Second Law of Quantum Thermodynamics: A Consistent Derivation Based on a Microscopic Definition of Entropy,

P. Strasberg and A. Winter, “First and Second Law of Quantum Thermodynamics: A Consistent Derivation Based on a Microscopic Definition of Entropy,” PRX Quantum 2, 030202 (2021)

2021
[14]

Strasberg, Quantum Stochastic Thermodynamics: Foundations and Selected Applications (Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 2022)

P. Strasberg, Quantum Stochastic Thermodynamics: Foundations and Selected Applications (Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 2022)

2022
[15]

Quantum Thermodynamics,

P. P. Potts, “Quantum Thermodynamics,” arXiv 2406.19206 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[16]

Entropy of Isolated Quantum Systems after a Quench,

L. F. Santos, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, “Entropy of Isolated Quantum Systems after a Quench,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 040601 (2011)

2011
[17]

Eigenstate thermaliza- tion hypothesis and quantum Jarzynski relation for pure initial states,

F. Jin, R. Steinigeweg, H. De Raedt, K. Michielsen, M. Campisi, and J. Gemmer, “Eigenstate thermaliza- tion hypothesis and quantum Jarzynski relation for pure initial states,” Phys. Rev. E 94, 012125 (2016)

2016
[18]

Ensemble dependence of information-theoretic contributions to the entropy pro- duction,

K. Ptaszy´ nski and M. Esposito, “Ensemble dependence of information-theoretic contributions to the entropy pro- duction,” Phys. Rev. E 107, L052102 (2023)

2023
[19]

Quan- tum coarse-grained entropy and thermodynamics,

D. ˇSafr´ anek, J. M. Deutsch, and A. Aguirre, “Quan- tum coarse-grained entropy and thermodynamics,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 010101 (2019)

2019
[20]

Quan- tum coarse-grained entropy and thermalization in closed systems,

D. ˇSafr´ anek, J. M. Deutsch, and A. Aguirre, “Quan- tum coarse-grained entropy and thermalization in closed systems,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 012103 (2019). 6

2019
[21]

Work extraction from a single energy eigenstate,

K. Kaneko, E. Iyoda, and T. Sagawa, “Work extraction from a single energy eigenstate,” Phys. Rev. E99, 032128 (2019)

2019
[22]

Typical and extreme entropies of long-lived isolated quantum systems,

D. Faiez, D. ˇSafr´ anek, J. M. Deutsch, and A. Aguirre, “Typical and extreme entropies of long-lived isolated quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. A 101, 052101 (2020)

2020
[23]

Integral fluctuation theorem and generalized Clau- sius inequality for microcanonical and pure states,

R. Heveling, J. Wang, R. Steinigeweg, and J. Gem- mer, “Integral fluctuation theorem and generalized Clau- sius inequality for microcanonical and pure states,” Phys. Rev. E 105, 064112 (2022)

2022
[24]

Proof of the ergodic theorem and the H-theorem in quantum mechanics,

J. von Neumann, “Proof of the ergodic theorem and the H-theorem in quantum mechanics,” European Phys. J. H 35, 201–237 (2010)

2010
[25]

Work ex- tractability from energy eigenstates under optimized lo- cal operations,

S. Z. Baba, N. Yoshioka, and T. Sagawa, “Work ex- tractability from energy eigenstates under optimized lo- cal operations,” arXiv 2308.03537 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[26]

Boltzmann Entropy of a Freely Expanding Quantum Ideal Gas,

S. Pandey, J. M. Bhat, A. Dhar, S. Goldstein, D. A. Huse, M. Kulkarni, A. Kundu, and J. L. Lebowitz, “Boltzmann Entropy of a Freely Expanding Quantum Ideal Gas,” J. Stat. Phys. 190, 142 (2023)

2023
[27]

Microscopic contributions to the entropy production at all times: from nonequilibrium steady states to global thermalization,

A. Usui, K. Ptaszy´ nski, M. Esposito, and P. Strasberg, “Microscopic contributions to the entropy production at all times: from nonequilibrium steady states to global thermalization,” New J. Phys. 26, 023049 (2024)

2024
[28]

Comparative Microscopic Study of Entropies and their Production,

P. Strasberg and J. Schindler, “Comparative Microscopic Study of Entropies and their Production,” SciPost Phys. 17, 143 (2024)

2024
[29]

Beweis des Ergodensatzes und des H- Theorems in der neuen Mechanik,

J. von Neumann, “Beweis des Ergodensatzes und des H- Theorems in der neuen Mechanik,” Z. Phys. 57, 30–70 (1929)

1929
[30]

Classicality, Markovianity, and local detailed balance from pure-state dynamics,

P. Strasberg, A. Winter, J. Gemmer, and J. Wang, “Classicality, Markovianity, and local detailed balance from pure-state dynamics,” Phys. Rev. A 108, 012225 (2023)

2023
[31]

Quantum statistics of irreversible pro- cesses,

N. Van Kampen, “Quantum statistics of irreversible pro- cesses,” Physica 20, 603–622 (1954)

1954
[32]

The second law of Thermodynamics as a the- orem in quantum mechanics,

H. Tasaki, “The second law of Thermodynamics as a the- orem in quantum mechanics,” arXiv cond-mat/0011321 (2000)

2000 arXiv
[33]

The second law of thermodynamics for pure quantum states,

S. Goldstein, T. Hara, and H. Tasaki, “The second law of thermodynamics for pure quantum states,” arXiv: 1303.6393 (2013)

2013 arXiv
[34]

Fluctuation the- orem for many-body pure quantum states,

E. Iyoda, K. Kaneko, and T. Sagawa, “Fluctuation the- orem for many-body pure quantum states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017)

2017
[35]

Eigenstate fluc- tuation theorem in the short- and long-time regimes,

E. Iyoda, K. Kaneko, and T. Sagawa, “Eigenstate fluc- tuation theorem in the short- and long-time regimes,” Phys. Rev. E 105, 044106 (2022)

2022
[36]

Typical pure nonequilibrium steady states,

T. Monnai and K. Yuasa, “Typical pure nonequilibrium steady states,” Europhys. Lett. 107, 40006 (2014)

2014
[37]

On the generic increase of observational entropy in isolated systems,

T. Nagasawa, K. Kato, E. Wakakuwa, and F. Buscemi, “On the generic increase of observational entropy in isolated systems,” arXiv 2404.11985 (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2404.11985

2024 doi
[38]

Universal bound on Ergotropy and No-Go Theorem by the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis,

A. Hokkyo and M. Ueda, “Universal bound on Ergotropy and No-Go Theorem by the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis,” arXiv 2406.11112 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[39]

Com- ment on:

J. Gemmer, L. Knipschild, and R. Steinigeweg, “Com- ment on: ”Fluctuation theorem for many-body pure quantum states” and reply to ”arxiv:1712.05172”,” arXiv: 1712.02128v2 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[40]

Dynamical Typicality of Quantum Expectation Values,

C. Bartsch and J. Gemmer, “Dynamical Typicality of Quantum Expectation Values,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 110403 (2009)

2009
[41]

Concentration of Measure for Quantum States with a Fixed Expectation Value,

M.P. M¨ uller, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, “Concentration of Measure for Quantum States with a Fixed Expectation Value,” Commun. Math. Phys. 303, 785–824 (2011)

2011
[42]

Typical relaxation of per- turbed quantum many-body systems,

L. Dabelow and P. Reimann, “Typical relaxation of per- turbed quantum many-body systems,” J. Stat. Mech.: Theory and Experiment , 013106 (2021)

2021
[43]

Typical fast thermalization processes in closed many-body systems,

P. Reimann, “Typical fast thermalization processes in closed many-body systems,” Nat. Comm. 7, 10821 (2016)

2016
[44]

Typical Relaxation of Iso- lated Many-Body Systems Which Do Not Thermalize,

B. N. Balz and P. Reimann, “Typical Relaxation of Iso- lated Many-Body Systems Which Do Not Thermalize,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 190601 (2017)

2017
[45]

Dynamical typicality of isolated many- body quantum systems,

P. Reimann, “Dynamical typicality of isolated many- body quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. E97, 062129 (2018)

2018
[47]

Why are macroscopic ex- periments reproducible? Imitating the behavior of an ensemble by single pure states,

P. Reimann and J. Gemmer, “Why are macroscopic ex- periments reproducible? Imitating the behavior of an ensemble by single pure states,” Physica A 552, 121840 (2020)

2020
[48]

V. D. Milman and G. Schechtman, Asymptotic Theory of Finite Dimensional Normed Spaces , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1200 (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2001)

2001
[49]

Typicality of nonequilib- rium quasi-steady currents,

X. Xu, C. Guo, and D. Poletti, “Typicality of nonequilib- rium quasi-steady currents,” Phys. Rev. A 105, L040203 (2022)

2022
[50]

Time Evolution of Typical Pure States from a Macroscopic Hilbert Sub- space,

S. Teufel, R. Tumulka, and C. Vogel, “Time Evolution of Typical Pure States from a Macroscopic Hilbert Sub- space,” J. Stat. Phys. 190, 69 (2023)

2023
[51]

Typical Macro- scopic Long-Time Behavior for Random Hamiltonians,

S. Teufel, R. Tumulka, and C. Vogel, “Typical Macro- scopic Long-Time Behavior for Random Hamiltonians,” arXiv 2303.13242 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[52]

Canonical Typi- cality For Other Ensembles than Micro-Canonical,

S. Teufel, R. Tumulka, and C. Vogel, “Canonical Typi- cality For Other Ensembles than Micro-Canonical,” Ann. Henri Poincar´ e (2024), 10.1007/s00023-024-01466-7

2024 doi
[53]

Emergence of steady quantum trans- port in a superconducting processor,

P. Zhang et al. , “Emergence of steady quantum trans- port in a superconducting processor,” arXiv 2411.06794 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[54]

A Thermoelectric Heat Engine with Ultracold Atoms,

J.-P. Brantut, C. Grenier, J. Meineke, D. Stadler, S. Krinner, C. Kollath, T. Esslinger, and A. Georges, “A Thermoelectric Heat Engine with Ultracold Atoms,” 7 Science 342, 713–715 (2013)

2013
[55]

Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics,

S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, “Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics,” Nat. Phys. 2, 754 – 758 (2006)

2006
[56]

Lower bound for accessible information in quantum mechanics,

R. Jozsa, D. Robb, and W. K. Wootters, “Lower bound for accessible information in quantum mechanics,” Phys. Rev. A 49, 668–677 (1994)

1994
[57]

On the Distribution of the Wave Function for Systems in Thermal Equilibrium,

S. Goldstein, J.L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zangh ` ı, “On the Distribution of the Wave Function for Systems in Thermal Equilibrium,” J. Stat. Phys. 125, 1193 (2006)

2006
[58]

Universal Probability Distribu- tion for the Wave Function of a Quantum System Entan- gled with its Environment,

S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, C. Mastrodonato, R. Tu- mulka, and N. Zangh ` ı, “Universal Probability Distribu- tion for the Wave Function of a Quantum System Entan- gled with its Environment,” Comm. Math. Phys. 342, 965 (2016)

2016
[59]

Conduction of Ultracold Fermions Through a Mesoscopic Channel,

J.-P. Brantut, J. Meineke, D. Stadler, S. Krinner, and T. Esslinger, “Conduction of Ultracold Fermions Through a Mesoscopic Channel,” Science337, 1069–1071 (2012)

2012
[60]

Clau- sius inequality for finite baths reveals universal efficiency improvements,

P. Strasberg, M. G. D ´ ıaz, and A. Riera-Campeny, “Clau- sius inequality for finite baths reveals universal efficiency improvements,” Phys. Rev. E 104, L022103 (2021)

2021
[61]

Interaction-assisted reversal of thermopower with ultracold atoms,

S. H¨ ausler, P. Fabritius, J. Mohan, M. Lebrat, L. Cor- man, and T. Esslinger, “Interaction-assisted reversal of thermopower with ultracold atoms,” Phys. Rev. X 11, 021034 (2021)

2021
[62]

The SM contains a derivation of an integral fluctuation theorem, it numerically compares further definitions and samplinges of the stochastic EP, and it derives dynamical typicality of EP for another example in detail
[63]

Continuity of the entropy of macro- scopic quantum systems,

R. H. Swendsen, “Continuity of the entropy of macro- scopic quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. E 92, 052110
[64]

Comparison of canonical and microcanonical definitions of entropy,

M. Matty, L. Lancaster, W. Griffin, and R. H. Swendsen, “Comparison of canonical and microcanonical definitions of entropy,” Physica A 467, 474–489 (2017)

2017
[65]

Entropy and the second law for driven, or quenched, thermally isolated systems,

U. Seifert, “Entropy and the second law for driven, or quenched, thermally isolated systems,” Physica A 552, 121822 (2020)

2020
[66]

Occur- rence of exponential relaxation in closed quantum sys- tems,

C. Bartsch, R. Steinigeweg, and J. Gemmer, “Occur- rence of exponential relaxation in closed quantum sys- tems,” Phys. Rev. E 77, 011119 (2008)

2008
[67]

Alternative derivation of the classical sec- ond law of thermodynamics,

I. M. Bassett, “Alternative derivation of the classical sec- ond law of thermodynamics,” Phys. Rev. A 18, 2356– 2360 (1978)

1978
[68]

Classical and quantum fluctuation theorems for heat exchange,

C. Jarzynski and D. K. W´ ojcik, “Classical and quantum fluctuation theorems for heat exchange,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 230602 (2004)

2004
[69]

Entropy production as correlation between system and reservoir,

M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, “Entropy production as correlation between system and reservoir,” New J. Phys. 12, 013013 (2010)

2010
[70]

Many-body physics with ultracold gases,

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, “Many-body physics with ultracold gases,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885– 964 (2008)

2008
[71]

Selected applications of typicality to real-time dynamics of quantum many-body systems,

T. Heitmann, J. Richter, D. Schubert, and R. Steinigeweg, “Selected applications of typicality to real-time dynamics of quantum many-body systems,” Z.. Naturforsch. A 75, 421–432 (2020)

2020
[72]

Crystal Statistics. I. A Two-Dimensional Model with an Order-Disorder Transition,

L. Onsager, “Crystal Statistics. I. A Two-Dimensional Model with an Order-Disorder Transition,” Phys. Rev. 65, 117–149 (1944)

1944
[73]

Chaos due to symmetry- breaking in deformed Poisson ensemble,

A. K. Das and A. Ghosh, “Chaos due to symmetry- breaking in deformed Poisson ensemble,” J. Stat. Mech. 2022, 063101 (2022)

2022
[74]

First Principles Numerical Demonstration of Emergent Deco- herent Histories,

P. Strasberg, T. E. Reinhard, and J. Schindler, “First Principles Numerical Demonstration of Emergent Deco- herent Histories,” Phys. Rev. X 14, 041027 (2024)

2024
[75]

Jarzynski relations for quantum systems and some applications,

H. Tasaki, “Jarzynski relations for quantum systems and some applications,” arXiv: cond-mat/0009244 (2000), 10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/0009244

2000 doi arXiv
[76]

No-go theorem for the charac- terization of work fluctuations in coherent quantum sys- tems,

M. Perarnau-Llobet, E. B¨ aumer, K. V. Hovhannisyan, M. Huber, and A. Acin, “No-go theorem for the charac- terization of work fluctuations in coherent quantum sys- tems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 070601 (2017)

2017
[77]

Statistical properties of en- tropy production derived from fluctuation theorems,

N. Merhav and Y. Kafri, “Statistical properties of en- tropy production derived from fluctuation theorems,” J. Stat. Mech. P12022 (2010)

2010
[78]

En- tropy production at criticality in a nonequilibrium potts model,

T. Martynec, S. H. L. Klapp, and S. A. M. Loos, “En- tropy production at criticality in a nonequilibrium potts model,” New J. Phys. 22, 093069 (2020)

2020
[79]

Bounded and Inho- mogeneous Ising Models. I. Specific-Heat Anomaly of a Finite Lattice,

A. E. Ferdinand and M. E. Fisher, “Bounded and Inho- mogeneous Ising Models. I. Specific-Heat Anomaly of a Finite Lattice,” Phys. Rev. 185, 832–846 (1969)

1969
[80]

Critical behavior of en- tropy production and learning rate: Ising model with an oscillating field,

Y. Zhang and A. C. Barato, “Critical behavior of en- tropy production and learning rate: Ising model with an oscillating field,” J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 113207 (2016)

2016
[81]

The critical behavior of the entropy production in irreversible models with C3ν symmetry,

O. A. Barbosa and T. Tom´ e, “The critical behavior of the entropy production in irreversible models with C3ν symmetry,” J. Phys. A 52, 385002 (2019)

2019
[82]

Quantum coherence and criticality in irreversible work,

A. D. Varizi, A. P. Vieira, C. Cormick, R. C. Drumond, and G. T. Landi, “Quantum coherence and criticality in irreversible work,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033279 (2020)

2020
[83]

Quantum features of entropy production in driven-dissipative tran- sitions,

B. O. Goes, C. E. Fiore, and G. T. Landi, “Quantum features of entropy production in driven-dissipative tran- sitions,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013136 (2020)

2020
[84]

Unification of observational entropy with maximum entropy principles,

J. Schindler, M. G. Jabbour, N. Galke, P. Strasberg, and A. Winter, “Unification of observational entropy with maximum entropy principles,” to be published (2024)

2024
[85]

Stealth entropy produc- tion in active field theories near ising critical points,

F. Caballero and M. E. Cates, “Stealth entropy produc- tion in active field theories near ising critical points,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 240604 (2020)

2020
[86]

Y. V. Nazarov and Y. M. Blanter, Quantum Trans- port: Introduction to Nanoscience (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 2009)

2009
[87]

Schaller, Open Quantum Systems Far from Equi- librium, Vol

G. Schaller, Open Quantum Systems Far from Equi- librium, Vol. 881 (Lect. Notes Phys., Springer, Cham, 2014)

2014
[88]

Ther- moelectric energy harvesting with quantum dots,

B. Sothmann, R. S´ anchez, and A. N. Jordan, “Ther- moelectric energy harvesting with quantum dots,” Nan- otechnology 26, 032001 (2015)

2015
[89]

Fundamental aspects of steady-state conversion of heat to work at the nanoscale,

G. Benenti, G. Casati, K. Saito, and R. S. Whitney, “Fundamental aspects of steady-state conversion of heat to work at the nanoscale,” Phys. Rep. 694, 1–124 (2017)

2017
[90]

Noncommuting conserved charges in quantum thermodynamics and beyond,

S. Majidy, W. F. Braasch Jr., A. Lasek, T. Upadhyaya, A. Kalev, and N. Y. Halpern, “Noncommuting conserved charges in quantum thermodynamics and beyond,” Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 689 (2023)

2023
[91]

A brief introduction to observational entropy,

D. ˇSafr´ anek, A. Aguirre, J. Schindler, and J. M. Deutsch, “A brief introduction to observational entropy,” Found. Phys. 51, 101 (2021)

2021
[92]

Continuity bounds on ob- servational entropy and measured relative entropies,

J. Schindler and A. Winter, “Continuity bounds on ob- servational entropy and measured relative entropies,” J. Math. Phys. 64, 092201 (2023)

2023
[93]

Irreversible entropy production: From classical to quantum,

G. T. Landi and M. Paternostro, “Irreversible entropy production: From classical to quantum,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035008 (2021)

2021
[94]

Extending the laws of thermodynamics for arbitrary autonomous quantum systems,

C. Elouard and C. Lombard Latune, “Extending the laws of thermodynamics for arbitrary autonomous quantum systems,” PRX Quantum 4, 020309 (2023)

2023
[95]

Quantum master equation from the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,

P. O’Donovan, P. Strasberg, K. Modi, J. Goold, and M. T. Mitchison, “Quantum master equation from the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,” arXiv 2411.07706 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[96]

Proba- bilistically Violating the First Law of Thermodynamics in a Quantum Heat Engine,

T. Kerremans, P. Samuelsson, and P. P. Potts, “Proba- bilistically Violating the First Law of Thermodynamics in a Quantum Heat Engine,” SciPost Phys. 12, 168 (2022). Supplemental material Integral fluctuation theorem for Clausius’ inequality Let HX = P ϵ ϵX Π(ϵX ) be the spect...

2022
[97]

Fluc- tuations of work from quantum subensembles: The case against quantum work-fluctuation theorems,

A. E. Allahverdyan and Th. M. Nieuwenhuizen, “Fluc- tuations of work from quantum subensembles: The case against quantum work-fluctuation theorems,” Phys. Rev. E 71, 066102 (2005)

2005
[98]

Time-reversal symmetric work distributions for closed quantum dynamics in the histories framework,

H. J. D. Miller and J. Anders, “Time-reversal symmetric work distributions for closed quantum dynamics in the histories framework,” New J. Phys. 19, 062001 (2017)

2017
[99]

Operational approach to quantum stochas- tic thermodynamics,

P. Strasberg, “Operational approach to quantum stochas- tic thermodynamics,” Phys. Rev. E 100, 022127 (2019)

2019
[100]

Conditional work statistics of quantum measurements,

M. Hamed Mohammady and A. Romito, “Conditional work statistics of quantum measurements,” Quantum 3, 175 (2019)

2019
[101]

Quantum fluctu- ation theorems beyond two-point measurements,

K. Micadei, G. T. Landi, and E. Lutz, “Quantum fluctu- ation theorems beyond two-point measurements,” Phys. 8 Rev. Lett. 124, 090602 (2020)

2020
[103]

Note the difference in scale of the x axes between the first and second or third and fourth column

However, due to the many histograms and the vast differences in scale, we decided to plot σψ can (blue bars as in the main text) and σψ st (golden bars) together but separate from σϵ st (pink bars as in the main text) andσϵ can (green bars). Note the difference in scale of the...
[1127]

la Caixa

are acknowledged. PS is further supported by “la Caixa” Foundation (ID 100010434, fellowship code LCF/BQ/PR21/11840014), the Ram´ on y Cajal program RYC2022-035908-I, the European Commission QuantERA grant ExTRaQT (Spanish MICIN project PCI2022-132965), and the Spanish MINECO ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [46]

Relaxation Theory for Per- turbed Many-Body Quantum Systems versus Numerics and Experiment,

L. Dabelow and P. Reimann, “Relaxation Theory for Per- turbed Many-Body Quantum Systems versus Numerics and Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 120602 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [1]

⟩tpms the average over the TPMS sampling) whereas Σ ̸= ⟨σψ can⟩Scrooge,

Σ = ⟨σϵ st⟩tpms (with ⟨. . .⟩tpms the average over the TPMS sampling) whereas Σ ̸= ⟨σψ can⟩Scrooge,

[3] [2]

σϵ st obeys an integral fluctuation theorem ⟨exp(−σϵ st)⟩tpms = 1 (derived in [56] by ex- tending a trick of Tasaki [69]) whereas σψ can does not,

[4] [3]

single shot

σϵ st can only be computed after knowing the ensem- ble averaged dynamics whereas σψ can remains mean- ingful for a “single shot” experiment,

[5] [4]

σϵ st requires to precisely measure microscopic en- ergies whereas σψ can only requires to measure the overall energy or temperature of X,

[6] [5]

special care

it is unclear how to define σϵ st if ρ(0) has coherences (at least points 1. and 2. above can no longer both hold [70]) whereas σψ can remains well defined. In addition to these properties, Fig. 1 reveals that σϵ st has much larger fluctuations than σψ can, which do not de- crease with increasing Hilbert space dimension. Those are necessary to ensure the ...

2017

[7] [6]

Deffner and S

S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Quantum Thermodynamics: An Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Quantum In- formation (Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael, CA, 2019)

2019

[8] [7]

Nonequi- librium fluctuations, fluctuation theorems and counting statistics in quantum systems,

M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, “Nonequi- librium fluctuations, fluctuation theorems and counting statistics in quantum systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1665 (2009)

2009