Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Optimal constrained control for generally damped Brownian heat engines

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Optimizing the full cycle of a damped Brownian heat engine under stiffness and temperature bounds, this paper finds maximum power vanishes as damping falls, optimal cycle time diverges, and optimizing temperature markedly lifts efficiency.

desk verdict Solid numerical optimal-control study of generally damped Brownian heat engines, with a real analytic bound and a convincing overdamped check, but the efficiency-temperature optimization is under-supported and no code/data are provided. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19124 v2 pith:6HDWX32O submitted 2025-01-31 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.soft

Monojit Chatterjee , Viktor Holubec , Rahul Marathe This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.soft PACS 05.40.Jc05.70.Ln
keywords Brownianheatengineoptimalcontrolstochasticthermodynamicsfinite-timeunderdampeddynamicspowerandefficiencyoptimizationleakageconstrainedprotocols
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks how a microscopic heat engine—a Brownian particle in a harmonic trap whose stiffness and bath temperature are cyclically varied—should be driven to maximize output power or efficiency when the controls are bounded and the cycle duration is also free. The central claim is that a gradient-ascent algorithm from optimal periodic control solves this full-cycle problem without fixing the engine's state or controls at any intermediate time, which is something the usual geometric and optimal-transport methods cannot do. Applied to a generally damped particle, the method finds that maximum power and efficiency both decrease as the damping rate is reduced, with power vanishing and the optimal cycle time diverging in the underdamped limit. At fixed cycle time the optimal stiffness protocols develop rapid up-down and down-up excursions near the instants of temperature switching, and optimizing the temperature profile—not just the stiffness—significantly improves efficiency in the intermediate-damping regime. If these results hold, the approach provides the first systematic route to constrained full-cycle optimization of cyclic stochastic heat engines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the optimal-periodic-control variational scheme. One forms the Hamiltonian $H = \xi + \lambda \cdot f$ from the objective density $\xi$ (the power integrand, or the efficiency integrand $\xi_\eta = W/Q_+ + \dot W/Q_+ - W\dot Q_+/Q_+^2$) and the moment dynamics $f$, and imposes $\dot\sigma = \partial H/\partial\lambda$, $\dot\lambda = -\partial H/\partial\sigma$, $\partial H/\partial u = 0$, and $\int_0^1 (\partial H/\partial\tau)\,dt = 0$, with periodic boundary conditions on $\sigma$ and $\lambda$. These are solved by forward integration of the moments, backward integration of the adjoint variables, gradient updates of the controls with the bounds $k \in [k_-, k_+]$ and $T \in [T_-, T_+]$ enforced by projection, and a gradient update of $\tau$, iterated until the objective change falls below $10^{-8}$. The dynamics being optimized are the three coupled moment equations derived from the underdamped Langevin equations, from which the work flux $\dot W = -\tfrac{1}{2}\dot k\, \sigma_x$ and heat flux $\dot Q = \tau(\gamma T - m\gamma\sigma_v)$ are computed. Efficiency uses the heat absorbed $Q_+$ with the kinetic contribution included, so the kinetic heat leak $(T_+ - T_-)/2$ plays an explicit role in the generally damped results.

What would settle it

A numerical scan would settle the optimality claim: fix a damping rate and cycle time, run the algorithm from many randomized initial control fields on progressively finer time discretizations, and compare the best objective against the paper's reported maximum—any protocol attaining a strictly higher power or efficiency under the same bounds would falsify the claim. On the physics side, a Paul-trap, cantilever, or circuit realization sweeping $\gamma$ well into the underdamped regime that finds maximum power not vanishing as $\gamma$ is lowered would falsify the predicted $\gamma \to 0$ behavior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated on the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the finite-time optimal-control problem for a cyclic Brownian heat engine can be formulated and solved at the level of three moment variables—position variance $\sigma_x$, position–velocity correlation $\sigma_{xv}$, and velocity variance $\sigma_v$—driven by the periodic controls $k(t)$ and $T(t)$ with free cycle time $\tau$. Power and efficiency are written as functionals of these moments; a variational Hamiltonian $H = \xi + \lambda \cdot f$ yields the state, adjoint, and control-stationarity equations together with a cycle-time condition, all solved by iterative gradient ascent with the control bounds projected onto the feasible interval. The method reproduces the known overdamped analytical protocols (piecewise-constant controls, efficiency $1 - k_-/k_+$) and is then applied across the full damping range. The central quantitative findings are that maximum power vanishes as $\gamma \to 0$ while the optimal cycle time diverges, that at fixed $\tau$ both power and efficiency fall with decreasing $\gamma$, and that the optimal protocols become non-monotonic: stiffness executes brief up-down and down-up pulses at the temperature-switching instants, while the maximum-efficiency temperature profile becomes smooth and decidedly non-Carnot to limit heat leakage through the momentum degrees of freedom. Optimizing temperature in addition to stiffness is shown to raise efficiency substantially at intermediate damping.

Load-bearing premise

The entire optimization rests on the assumption that the gradient-ascent algorithm converges to the global optimum of the objective over protocols and cycle time, rather than to a local or discretization-dependent maximum; the paper's only support is a check that different initial conditions reach the same value of $J$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Maximum power of the cyclically driven engine vanishes as damping tends to zero, with the optimized cycle time diverging; in the deeply overdamped limit both quantities saturate at values computable from the overdamped dynamics.
  • At a fixed cycle time, lowering the damping monotonically reduces both maximum power and maximum efficiency, so the resonant performance enhancement found for underdamped collisional engines does not transfer to cyclically driven harmonic engines with bounded controls.
  • Optimal maximum-power stiffness protocols in the general-damping regime are strongly non-monotonic, with rapid up-down and down-up pulses at the temperature-switching instants that add a few percent to work output and efficiency relative to smoothed protocols.
  • Optimizing the temperature profile rather than fixing a Carnot-type temperature schedule substantially improves efficiency, especially at intermediate damping, because smooth temperature variation suppresses heat leakage through the momentum degrees of freedom.
  • Because the algorithm fixes neither the system state nor the controls at any intermediate time, the same scheme applies to other cyclic machines, such as refrigerators and heat pumps, and to other objectives, such as power fluctuations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the global-optimality claim holds, the vanishing-power and diverging-cycle-time behavior in the underdamped limit is likely a general bound for cyclic harmonic engines with bounded controls, and the reported fit $\tau_{\rm opt} \approx 1.078 + 7.754\gamma^{-0.865}$ invites an analytic derivation in the dimensionless parameter $\omega\tau_v$.
  • Editorial inference: the up-down and down-up stiffness pulses resemble the bang–bang and singular arcs of classical optimal control; a testable extension is whether these pulses approach true discontinuities as the time discretization is refined, which would make them instantaneous strokes in the continuum limit.
  • Editorial inference: the predicted efficiency gain from temperature optimization could be measured directly in existing underdamped platforms—linear Paul traps, mechanical cantilevers, or noisy electric circuits—by comparing engines run with and without optimized temperature protocols at intermediate damping.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. Summary: The manuscript develops a numerical optimal-control algorithm, adapted from Refs. [32,33], to maximize the power or efficiency of a cyclic Brownian heat engine in a harmonic trap with time-periodic stiffness and bath temperature subject to box constraints, and optionally optimizing the cycle time. The method is based on the first-order necessary conditions for periodic optimal control, solved by iterative forward-backward integration and projected gradient updates. The authors validate it in the overdamped limit against known analytical piecewise-constant protocols [20], then apply it to the generally damped moment equations (3). The main reported findings are that maximum power vanishes and the optimal cycle time diverges as damping decreases (with a simple analytic bound P < gamma T_+/2), that at fixed cycle time efficiency follows a similar decreasing trend, that optimal stiffness protocols exhibit non-monotonic features in the general-damping regime, and that optimizing the temperature profile substantially improves efficiency, particularly at intermediate and high damping (Figs. 6-7 and Table I).

Significance. Significance: If the numerical optima are correct, the paper provides a practical demonstration that full-cycle optimal periodic control can solve constrained engine-design problems beyond the scope of fixed-endpoint geometric or mass-transport methods, and it makes falsifiable predictions for underdamped-to-overdamped Brownian engines in Paul traps, cantilevers, and circuits. The overdamped validation, the analytic vanishing-power bound, and the monotone approach to the overdamped results with increasing gamma are credible strengths. The work is less strong on numerical certification and reproducibility: no code or data are released, the global optimality of the gradient-ascent solutions is not established, and the manuscript itself documents a convergence failure for temperature-optimized efficiency in the overdamped case.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, step 6; Figs. 5(d)-(e), 6-7, Table I] The paper's central quantitative claims are stated as 'maximum power' and 'maximum efficiency' results, but the only support for global optimality is the statement that 'the algorithm reaches the same value of J for different initial conditions' (Sec. IV, step 6). The optimization problem is nonconvex, the controls saturate at their bounds, and the method is a first-order projected gradient ascent; no basin analysis, grid-resolution study, convergence-quality metrics, or independent optimizer comparison is provided. Since Figs. 5(d)-(e), 6-7, and Table I are the load-bearing outputs, this is a major gap. I ask for a systematic multi-start study reporting the spread of J, a discretization-refinement test, and, for representative cases, a comparison with a second method such as a coarse exhaustive grid or a direct transcription solver.
  2. [Sec. V B; Sec. VI B; Table I] The manuscript explicitly reports that efficiency optimization with respect to temperature failed to converge in the overdamped case ('we were not able to decipher the source of these numerical problems'), and the corresponding Table I entries are dashes. Yet Sec. VI B presents optimized T(t) for efficiency in the general-damping case with no explanation of how that instability was overcome. The abstract's claim that temperature optimization 'significantly enhances efficiency' rests on those general-damping results. Please provide convergence diagnostics for the efficiency-temperature updates in the general case, describe any additional regularization or adaptive step-size strategy used there, and explain why the overdamped failure does not invalidate Sec. VI B.
  3. [Sec. IV, numerical implementation] The implementation is under-specified: the manuscript does not state the number of time-grid points, the quadrature or integration scheme, the representation of the discontinuous jumps in k(t) and T(t), or the exact learning-rate schedule and stopping criteria beyond Delta J < 10^-8. Without these details or released code, the reported protocols and scalings cannot be reproduced or independently checked. This is especially consequential because the algorithm's convergence to a global optimum is not proven.
  4. [Eqs. (41)-(45)] The efficiency functional contains a Heaviside function theta(gamma T - sigma_v), which makes the integrand non-smooth and produces delta-function contributions upon variation. The update equations (43)-(45) do not account for those contributions, and no smoothing or regularization is described. This is a plausible source of the convergence difficulties reported in Sec. V B and should be analyzed explicitly; as written, the gradient used for efficiency optimization is not well defined at the switching surfaces.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VI A, text before Fig. 5] The phrase 'the generally damped optimal protocols shown in Fig. 2' should refer to Fig. 4, since the generally damped protocols are plotted in Fig. 4.
  2. [Fig. 2(f) inset] The axes of the inset and the definition of the efficiency plotted there are not stated in the main text; please specify whether it is the overdamped efficiency eta_OD or the full efficiency of Eq. (11).
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] Calling the non-convex stiffness-variance diagram 'a universal feature' is stronger than what the paper demonstrates; 'a characteristic feature of the studied regime' would be more cautious.
  4. [Sec. III, Eqs. (8) and (12)] The symbol dot Q is used for the heat flux in Eq. (8) and then for the positive part in Eq. (12); please use a distinct notation for the rectified heat flux to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Sec. VI B, Eq. (46)] The unit conventions in Eq. (46) are implicit: the text states m sigma_v(t) = T(t), but earlier m gamma = 1; please make the reduced units explicit at this point.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the general-damping results are numerical outputs of an externally sourced algorithm, with self-citations used only as contextual benchmarks.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The optimization algorithm is adapted from the external optimal-control literature, Refs. [32,33], and the stationarity conditions in Sec. IV (Eqs. 15-18) are derived from standard calculus of variations, not from the authors' prior results. The overdamped validation in Sec. V compares the algorithm's outputs with analytic protocols from Ref. [20], which shares an author with this paper; this is a benchmark check, not an input into the general-damping optimization. The main new results—maximum power and efficiency protocols in the generally damped regime—are produced by iterating the moment equations (3) together with the adjoint equations (37)-(40) or (42)-(45), rather than by importing or renaming any result from Refs. [20] or [28]. The low-damping power bound is derived analytically from positivity of the velocity variance and the first law, independently of the numerics. The self-citations are not load-bearing for the central claims: Ref. [28] is cited only as a precursor application of the method, and Ref. [20] provides a verification target rather than the basis of the new predictions. The substantive caveats, such as the Sec. V B statement that 'we encountered convergence issues when we allowed the algorithm to optimize also the temperature protocol' and the absence of a proof of global optimality, concern numerical robustness and optimality certification, not circularity. A local optimum is still a computed output rather than an input disguised as a prediction. Accordingly, no equation in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 1 reflects the presence of minor self-citations in validation and context, but no circular dependence.

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

The paper introduces no invented particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities. It relies on standard Langevin and stochastic-thermodynamic modeling plus an unproved numerical convergence assumption. The listed free parameters are chosen constraint values, algorithm hyperparameters, and one fitted curve used for presentation.

free parameters (4)
  • Control constraints T in [1,4], k in [0.2,0.8] = [T-,T+]=[1,4]; [k-,k+]=[0.2,0.8]
    Chosen constraint values used throughout the general-damping results; all quantitative optimal values depend on them. Validation uses [0.45,0.5].
  • Learning rates epsilon1, epsilon2, epsilon3 = 0.01, 0.01, 0.001 for power; adaptive values for efficiency
    Numerical hyperparameters controlling the gradient ascent; convergence speed and possibly the final protocol depend on their values.
  • Convergence threshold = 1e-08
    Stopping criterion for changes in the objective functional; a numerical choice, not a physical parameter.
  • Empirical fit for optimal cycle time = 1.078 + 7.754 * gamma^-0.865
    An approximate curve fitted to numerical maximum-power cycle times in Fig. 5(c); it is not derived and is not used to establish the central claims.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Langevin equations (1)-(2) and moment equations (3) accurately describe a Brownian particle in a harmonic trap.
    Standard model; exact for Gaussian white noise and harmonic potential, so the second-moment closure is not an approximation within this model.
  • domain assumption A time-periodic steady state sigma(t)=sigma(t+1) is reached after long periodic driving.
    Invoked in Sec. II; required for the periodic boundary conditions used in the optimization.
  • ad hoc to paper The gradient ascent over Eqs. (15)-(18) converges to the globally optimal periodic control.
    No proof is given; only local optimality conditions and a remark that different initial conditions were tried. This is the load-bearing numerical premise.
  • domain assumption Standard stochastic thermodynamic definitions of work and heat, Eqs. (7)-(8), apply to this engine.
    Used throughout; follows the energy-balance decomposition of the internal energy in Sec. III.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal constrained control for generally damped Brownian heat engines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HDWX32O

@misc{pith2026250119124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal constrained control for generally damped Brownian heat engines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HDWX32O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19124}
}
read the original abstract

Optimization of cyclic stochastic heat engines, a topic spanning decades of research, commonly assumes fixed control or response parameters at discrete points in the cycle-a limitation that often leads to experimentally impractical protocols. We overcome this with a general algorithm, adapted from optimal control theory, that optimizes full-cycle dynamics under realistic constraints, such as stiffness and temperature bounds, across diverse systems. Unlike geometric or mass transport methods, which rely on fixed endpoints and are unsuitable for unconstrained cycles, our approach simultaneously tunes both cycle time and control variations. Applied to a generally damped Brownian particle in a harmonic potential-an experimentally relevant case-our method is validated in the overdamped regime and extended to arbitrary damping rates. As damping decreases, maximum power vanishes and cycle time diverges; at fixed cycle times, efficiency follows a similar trend, with optimal protocols exhibiting non-monotonic complexity. Notably, optimizing temperature profiles-often overlooked-significantly enhances efficiency in intermediate damping regimes. Our work establishes the first systematic framework for optimizing cyclic stochastic processes under experimental constraints, broadening the scope of power and efficiency optimization in nonequilibrium thermodynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19124 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Protocol for stiffness that yields maximum overdamped efficiency. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (c) with the quasistatic variance T(t)/k(t). The cross-correlation shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) and (b) Total heat absorbed and work done until time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Thermodynamic Cost of Recurrent Erasure

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For recurrent resetting via finite-time harmonic trap stiffness changes, the authors derive the mean and variance of the work and an optimal finite-time protocol whose quasistatic cost falls below the equilibrium free...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [20]

    Y. Chen, T. T. Georgiou, and M. Pavon, Optimal transport in systems and control, Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 4, 89 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Initialize τ , and then u(t), and λ(t) as arbitrary periodic functions obeying the prescribed constraints

    work page

  3. [2]

    (15) for a time-periodic solution σ(t) by forward integration from an initial condition, given the current u(t) and λ(t)

    Solve Eq. (15) for a time-periodic solution σ(t) by forward integration from an initial condition, given the current u(t) and λ(t)

    work page

  4. [3]

    (16) for a time-periodic solution λ(t) by backward integration [33], given the current u(t) and σ(t)

    Solve Eq. (16) for a time-periodic solution λ(t) by backward integration [33], given the current u(t) and σ(t)

    work page

  5. [4]

    This increases both J and J

    Update the control parameters u(t) using the relation u(t) → u(t) + εδu(t), where δu(t) = ∂H ∂u . This increases both J and J. In practice, it is useful to apply different learning rates ε > 0 to different components of u to improve the convergence speed. If any component of u(t) exceeds its imposed bounds at certain times t, it is manually corrected to t...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Update the cycle duration τ using τ → τ + ε2 ∂H ∂τ , ε2 > 0, ensuring a positive change in J

    work page

  7. [6]

    smoothed

    Repeat steps 2–5 until the change in J falls below a prescribed threshold. In our implementation, the algorithm is considered to have converged when the change in J is smaller than 10 −8. In principle, the above algorithm might yield a local maximum of J. To mitigate this risk, we verify that the algorithm reaches the same value of J for different initial...

    work page

  8. [7]

    I. A. Mart ´ ınez, E. Rold´ an, L. Dinis, and R. A. Rica, Colloidal heat engines: a review, Soft Matter13, 22 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    L. M. Cangemi, C. Bhadra, and A. Levy, Quantum engines and refrigerators, Physics Reports 1087, 1 (2024)

    2024

  2. [9]

    Blickle and C

    V. Blickle and C. Bechinger, Realization of a micrometre-sized stochastic heat engine, Nature Physics 8, 143 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    I. A. Mart ´ ınez, E. Rold´ an, L. Dinis, D. Petrov, J. M. R. Parrondo, and R. A. Rica, Brownian carnot engine, Nat. Phys. 12, 67 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

    Krishnamurthy, S

    S. Krishnamurthy, S. Ghosh, D. Chatterji, R. Ganapathy, and A. K. Sood, A micrometre-sized heat engine operating between bacterial reservoirs, Nature Physics 12, 1134 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    Wei and A

    M.-T. Wei and A. Chiou, Three-dimensional tracking of brownian motion of a particle trapped in optical tweezers with a pair of orthogonal tracking beams and the determination of the associated optical force constants, Opt. Express 13, 5798 (2005)

    2005

  6. [13]

    Y. Deng, J. Bechhoefer, and N. R. Forde, Brownian motion in a modulated optical trap, Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics 9, S256 (2007)

    2007

  7. [14]

    Berg-Sørensen and H

    K. Berg-Sørensen and H. Flyvbjerg, Power spectrum analysis for optical tweezers, Review of Scientific Instruments 75, 594 (2004)

    2004

  8. [15]

    Roßnagel, S

    J. Roßnagel, S. T. Dawkins, K. N. Tolazzi, O. Abah, E. Lutz, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and K. Singer, A single-atom heat engine, Science 352, 325 (2016), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aad6320

    2016 doi

  9. [16]

    Message, F

    M. Message, F. Cerisola, J. D. Pritchett, K. O’Flynn, Y. Ren, M. Rashid, J. Anders, and J. Millen, Extreme-temperature single-particle heat engine, https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.03677 (2025)

    2025

  10. [17]

    Holubec and A

    V. Holubec and A. Ryabov, Fluctuations in heat engines, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55, 013001 (2021)

    2021

  11. [18]

    Berry, V

    R. Berry, V. Kazakov, S. Sieniutycz, Z. Szwast, and A. Tsirlin, Thermodynamic Optimization of Finite-Time Processes (Wiley, 2000)

    2000

  12. [19]

    I. C.-D. Martino Bardi, Optimal Control and Viscosity Solutions of Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman Equations (Birkh¨ auser Boston, MA, 2009) pp. 97–110

    2009

  13. [21]

    Aurell, C

    E. Aurell, C. Mej ´ ıa-Monasterio, and P. Muratore-Ginanneschi, Optimal protocols and optimal transport in stochastic thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 250601 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    D. A. Sivak and G. E. Crooks, Thermodynamic metrics and optimal paths, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 190602 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Terr´ en Alonso, P

    P. Terr´ en Alonso, P. Abiuso, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and L. Arrachea, Geometric optimization of nonequilibrium adiabatic thermal machines and implementation in a qubit system, PRX Quantum 3, 010326 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Torrontegui, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045001 (2019). 18

    2019

  17. [25]

    Casert and S

    C. Casert and S. Whitelam, Learning protocols for the fast and efficient control of active matter, Nature Communications 15, 9128 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Z. Ye, F. Cerisola, P. Abiuso, J. Anders, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and V. Holubec, Optimal finite-time heat engines under constrained control, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043130 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Holubec and A

    V. Holubec and A. Ryabov, Cycling tames power fluctuations near optimum efficiency, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 120601 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Polettini and M

    M. Polettini and M. Esposito, Carnot efficiency at divergent power output, Europhysics Letters 118, 40003 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Schmiedl and U

    T. Schmiedl and U. Seifert, Efficiency at maximum power: An analytically solvable model for stochastic heat engines, Europhysics Letters 81, 20003 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    S. A. M. Loos, S. Monter, F. Ginot, and C. Bechinger, Universal symmetry of optimal control at the microscale, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021032 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Blaber and D

    S. Blaber and D. A. Sivak, Optimal control in stochastic thermodynamics, Journal of Physics Communications 7, 033001 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Then and A

    H. Then and A. Engel, Computing the optimal protocol for finite-time processes in stochastic thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. E 77, 041105 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    C. A. Plata, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, E. Trizac, and A. Prados, Optimal work in a harmonic trap with bounded stiffness, Phys. Rev. E 99, 012140 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Majumdar, M

    R. Majumdar, M. Chatterjee, and R. Marathe, Optimizing power and efficiency of a single spin heat engine, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 658, 130278 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Dechant, N

    A. Dechant, N. Kiesel, and E. Lutz, Underdamped stochastic heat engine at maximum efficiency, Europhysics Letters 119, 50003 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    A. G. Frim and M. R. DeWeese, Optimal finite-time brownian carnot engine, Phys. Rev. E 105, L052103 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Brandner and K

    K. Brandner and K. Saito, Thermodynamic geometry of microscopic heat engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 040602 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Craun and B

    M. Craun and B. Bamieh, Optimal Periodic Control of an Ideal Stirling Engine Model, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control 137, 071002 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Paul and K

    R. Paul and K. H. Hoffmann, Cyclic control optimization algorithm for stirling engines, Symmetry, 13(5), 873 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    G. A. L. For˜ ao, F. S. Filho, B. A. N. Akasaki, and C. E. Fiore, Thermodynamics of underdamped brownian collisional engines: General features and resonant phenomena, Phys. Rev. E 110, 054125 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Serra-Garcia, A

    M. Serra-Garcia, A. Foehr, M. Moler´ on, J. Lydon, C. Chong, and C. Daraio, Mechanical autonomous stochastic heat engine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 010602 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences, Phys

    C. Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2690 (1997)

    1997

  35. [43]

    Wiese, K

    R. Wiese, K. Kroy, and V. Holubec, Modeling the efficiency and effective temperature of bacterial heat engines, Phys. Rev. E 110, 064608 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Ginot and C

    F. Ginot and C. Bechinger, Energy recuperation of driven colloids in non-equilibrium baths, https://doi.org/10.21203/ rs.3.rs-5261412/v1 (2024), pREPRINT (Version 1)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Arold, A

    D. Arold, A. Dechant, and E. Lutz, Heat leakage in overdamped harmonic systems, Phys. Rev. E 97, 022131 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Brunt, The Calculus of Variations(Springer New York, NY, 2006) pp

    B. Brunt, The Calculus of Variations(Springer New York, NY, 2006) pp. 73–77

    2006

  39. [47]

    F. J. M. Horn and R. C. Lin, Periodic processes: A variational approach, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development 6, 21 (1967)

    1967

  40. [48]

    Ib´ a˜ nez, C

    M. Ib´ a˜ nez, C. Dieball, A. Lasanta, A. Godec, and R. A. Rica, Heating and cooling are fundamentally asymmetric and evolve along distinct pathways, Nature Physics 20, 135 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Esposito, K

    M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Universality of efficiency at maximum power, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 130602 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    Abiuso and M

    P. Abiuso and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Optimal cycles for low-dissipation heat engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110606 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Barros, S

    N. Barros, S. Whitelam, S. Ciliberto, and L. Bellon, Learning efficient erasure protocols for an underdamped memory, Phys. Rev. E 111, 044114 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Luchinsky, R

    D. Luchinsky, R. Mannella, P. McClintock, and N. Stocks, Stochastic resonance in electrical circuits. i. conventional stochastic resonance, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Analog and Digital Signal Processing 46, 1205 (1999)

    1999

  45. [53]

    Freitas, J.-C

    N. Freitas, J.-C. Delvenne, and M. Esposito, Stochastic and quantum thermodynamics of driven rlc networks, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031005 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    A. P. Solon and J. M. Horowitz, Phase transition in protocols minimizing work fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 180605 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Saha and R

    A. Saha and R. Marathe, Stochastic work extraction in a colloidal heat engine in the presence of colored noise, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2019, 094012 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Holubec, S

    V. Holubec, S. Steffenoni, G. Falasco, and K. Kroy, Active brownian heat engines, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043262 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Holubec and R

    V. Holubec and R. Marathe, Underdamped active brownian heat engine, Phys. Rev. E 102, 060101 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Di Bello, R

    C. Di Bello, R. Majumdar, R. Marathe, R. Metzler, and E. Rold´ an, Brownian particle in a poisson-shot-noise active bath: Exact statistics, effective temperature, and inference, Annalen der Physik 536, 2300427 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    J. S. Lee, S. Lee, H. Kwon, and H. Park, Speed limit for a highly irreversible process and tight finite-time landauer’s bound, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 120603 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.