Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 98 references

Thermodynamic Cost of Recurrent Erasure

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

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

Pith's one-line read Repeatedly erasing a resetting particle's memory can cost less than the equilibrium free-energy difference.

desk verdict Solid result on finite-time erasure below Landauer cost, but the printed mean-work formula has a factor-2 slip that needs correcting; worth refereeing after the fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06014 v2 pith:X7WHDRZY submitted 2025-02-09 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.soft

Deepak Gupta , Kristian St{o}levik Olsen , Supriya Krishnamurthy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.soft MSC 82C3182C41 PACS 05.40.-a05.70.Ln
keywords stochasticresettingthermodynamiccostofinformationerasureLandauerprincipleoptimalfinite-timeprotocolsharmonictrapsworkfluctuationsnon-equilibriumsteadystate
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 analyzes the thermodynamic cost of repeatedly “erasing” a Brownian particle by switching a harmonic trap from a stiff potential $V$ to a shallow potential $U$ for a random exploration time, then back to $V$ over a finite duration $\tau$, so that the particle is restored to the Boltzmann distribution in $V$. The authors derive the moment generating function of the work per erasure cycle and use it to compute the mean and variance for a hyperbolic-tangent protocol and for the protocol that minimizes mean work. Their central result is that in the long-time limit the optimal mean erasure cost equals $\Delta F_{U\to V}^{\mathrm{eq}} + (k_B T/2)(\ln \zeta^2 + 1 - \zeta^2)$, which is strictly below the equilibrium free-energy difference whenever the time-averaged state at the start of the protocol has not equilibrated in $U$ ($\zeta^2 < 1$). A sympathetic reader would care because this quantifies how much of the information stored in a non-equilibrium state can be converted into negative work, and it extends Landauer-style erasure bounds to the recurrent, steady-state setting used in resetting experiments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the per-cycle work moment generating function $C(k,\tau) = \langle e^{k w}\rangle$, assembled by averaging the instantaneous-switch work $U - V$ over the equilibrium distribution in the stiff trap, the exploration-phase propagator, the exploration-time density $f(t)$, and the work moment generating function of the finite-time stiffness protocol. For harmonic potentials, the mean and variance reduce to quadratures involving $G(t,s) = e^{-2\beta D \int_s^t \lambda(t') dt'}$, organized by the dimensionless length $\zeta^2 = 1 - (1 - t_V/t_U)\tilde{f}(2/t_U)$, which measures how far the time-averaged initial state $P_{\mathrm{ta},U}$ is from equilibrium in $U$. The paper minimizes the work functional $W_2[\lambda(t)]$ by the Euler–Lagrange method on the variance dynamics, giving the variance trajectory $V_t = c_1(1 + c_2 t)^2$, and from it a closed-form optimal work for all $\tau$. The generalized Landauer bound of Eq. (21) and the Gaussian $m$-projection of Eq. (27) supply the information-geometric interpretation that identifies the work shortfall with accessible information.

What would settle it

Measure the per-cycle mean work in an optical-trap resetting experiment with exponentially distributed exploration times and a slow, optimal stiffness protocol in a regime with $\zeta^2 < 1$, e.g., $t_U = 4$, $t_V = 0.5$ in units of $r^{-1}$. Equation (24) predicts that the long-time work falls below $\Delta F_{U\to V}^{\mathrm{eq}}$ by $(k_B T/2)(\ln \zeta^2 + 1 - \zeta^2)$; observing $W_2 \ge \Delta F_{U\to V}^{\mathrm{eq}}$ in that limit would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting each cycle from the equilibrium distribution in the stiff trap $V$, the particle jumps instantaneously to $U$, evolves for a time drawn from $f(t)$, and then the stiffness is switched back to $V$ by a protocol $\lambda(t)$ of duration $\tau$. Because the cycle repeats, the state at the start of the finite-time erasure is the time-averaged, generally non-Gaussian distribution $P_{\mathrm{ta},U}(x)$, and the paper's aim is to compute the true work of that erasure rather than the ideal Landauer cost. For harmonic traps the paper obtains explicit formulas for the mean and variance of the per-cycle work for any protocol, and for the optimal protocol it obtains a closed-form expression valid for all $\tau$. The long-time limit gives Eq. (24): $\lim_{\tau\to\infty} W_2^{\mathrm{opt}} = \Delta F_{U\to V}^{\mathrm{eq}} + (k_B T/2)(\ln \zeta^2 + 1 - \zeta^2)$. Since $\ln \zeta^2 + 1 - \zeta^2$ is non-positive for $\zeta^2 \le 1$, the cost falls below the equilibrium free-energy difference whenever $\zeta^2 < 1$, i.e., whenever the shallow-trap exploration is too short for full equilibration. The paper interprets the shortfall through the Gaussian $m$-projection: only the KL divergence between the projected state and the $U$-equilibrium, $k_B T\, D_{\mathrm{KL}}(\pi[P_{\mathrm{ta},U}]\,\|\,P_{\mathrm{eq},U})$, can be harvested as work; the rest of the non-equilibrium information is inaccessible under harmonic-trap control.

Load-bearing premise

The cycle model assumes that after each resetting protocol the particle is held in the stiff potential $V$ long enough to reach exactly the Boltzmann distribution before the next instantaneous jump to $U$; if the hold is finite or the relaxation incomplete, the steady-state initial distribution and all the work formulas change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Eq. (24) is correct, a resetting trap operated cyclically from a non-equilibrium initial state can erase information in the quasistatic limit at strictly less than the equilibrium free-energy cost, with the saving set by $\zeta^2$.
  • The optimal protocol's mean work is monotonic in duration, so longer protocols always cost less, unlike the hyperbolic-tangent protocol, which can be non-monotonic in some parameter regions.
  • The generalized Landauer bound (21) is valid but not tight; Eq. (29) locates the gap precisely as the information lost when the true initial state is projected onto the Gaussian family compatible with harmonic traps.
  • In the vanishing-exploration-duration limit, the two instantaneous-switch contributions cancel to leading order, so the total cycle work can vanish, meaning erasure can be nearly free in that limit.
  • At large but finite $\tau$, the excess cost takes the form $(k_B T/2\tau)(\sqrt{2t_V} - \zeta\sqrt{2t_U})^2$, a squared $L^2$-Wasserstein distance between the Boltzmann state in $V$ and the Gaussian projection of the initial state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is whether the “replacement by a Gaussian with matching variance” works for other parametric trap families; one could test this with quartic traps, where the projection argument predicts the accessible-information formula would need modification.
  • The moment generating function formalism invites optimizing higher cumulants or Pareto fronts of mean work versus work variance for recurrent erasure; the paper notes the possibility but does not carry it out.
  • If the post-protocol hold in the stiff trap is shortened from “a few relaxation times” to a finite time, residual non-equilibrium correlations will enter the steady-state initial condition, and one would expect extra corrections to Eq. (24) that could be probed experimentally.
  • The Gamma-distribution analysis suggests a practical design rule: allowing stochastic exploration durations with more sub-mean mass lowers the erasure cost, because such fluctuations push $\zeta^2$ down toward $t_V/t_U$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the thermodynamic cost of a recurrent resetting protocol in which a Brownian particle in a harmonic trap is switched instantaneously from a stiff trap V to a shallow trap U, explores U for a random time drawn from f(t), and is then returned to V by a finite-time stiffness protocol λ(t). The authors derive a moment generating function for the work per cycle, compute mean and variance for a tanh-type protocol, and derive an optimal protocol that minimizes the mean work for any duration τ. The central result is Eq. (24): in the long-time limit the optimal erasure cost is ΔF_{U→V}^{eq} + (k_B T/2)(ln ζ² + 1 − ζ²), which lies below the equilibrium free-energy difference whenever the recurrently prepared initial state is not equilibrated in U. The authors explain this deficit via an information-geometric projection of the non-Gaussian initial state onto Gaussian trap-compatible states, and connect the finite-time corrections to Wasserstein distances.

Significance. If the main results are correct, the paper makes a useful contribution to finite-time information erasure and stochastic resetting. The explicit moment generating function and the closed-form optimal work for all τ are nontrivial, and the result that recurrent erasure from an out-of-equilibrium state can cost less than the equilibrium free-energy difference is physically interesting and consistent with the generalized Landauer bound of Esposito and Van den Broeck. The paper contains no fitted parameters: Eq. (24) is derived from the work functional, and the generalized Landauer bound is rederived in Appendix C from the non-negativity of entropy production. The interpretation of the shortfall as the KL divergence between the Gaussian projection of the time-averaged initial state and the Boltzmann state in U is plausible and testable. The central long-time formula and the ζ²=1 and δ(t) limits check out; the reported numerical simulations are a further strength, provided they are run with the corrected version of the mean-work formula (see major comments).

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D, Eq. (D9)] The coefficient of the noise integral in the mean work is printed as 4, but the correct coefficient is 2. In Eq. (A5) the authors themselves write ⟨x²⟩ = x0² G(t,0) + 2D ∫_0^t ds G(t,s); substituting this into W2 = (1/2)∫ dt λ̇ ⟨x²⟩ gives W2 = (D/2)∫ dt λ̇ [t_U ζ² G(t,0) + 2∫_0^t ds G(t,s)]. The factor 4 therefore contradicts Eq. (A5) and also contradicts Appendix B, Eq. (B5)/(B9), where the factor 2 is used. Because Eq. (7) is the central general-protocol moment formula and is applied to the tanh protocol, this inconsistency must be fixed and the numerical comparisons in Fig. 2 must be checked against the corrected expression.
  2. [Eq. (30) and Eq. (D13)] The action term in the expression for W2 is misprinted. From the Euler–Lagrange solution Vt = c1(1+c2t)² with c1 = D t_U ζ², the integral (γ/4)∫ dt (V̇²/V) equals k_B T t_U ζ² c2² τ, not the printed term involving c2 linearly. As printed, the last term is dimensionally inconsistent (it has dimensions of energy times time), and it cannot lead to the quadratic equation whose solution is the c2 given in Eq. (D10). The intended term is k_B T t_U ζ² c2² τ, which corresponds to the factor 2(c2τ)²ζ² t_U/τ appearing inside the brackets of Eq. (22).
  3. [Eq. (30) and Eq. (D13)] The final τ-dependent correction term is printed without a square on the bracket, but consistency with Eq. (22) and with the large-τ expansion in Eq. (31) requires that the bracket be squared. With the printed un-squared bracket, the large-τ coefficient of the correction is t_U(1 − √(t_V/t_U)) rather than the water-square term (1/2)(√(2t_V) − ζ√(2t_U))² of Eq. (31); the two disagree numerically. Since Eq. (30) is advertised as the closed-form optimal work for all protocol durations, this typo should be corrected in both the main text and the appendix.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B44)] In the displayed expression for the O(α¹) term, the combination r²t_V²/(r²λ_U²) is dimensionally inconsistent and should read t_V²/t_U² (as in Eq. (B45)).
  2. [Sec. II A, Fig. 1] The model assumes that after a finite holding time in V the system is exactly at the Boltzmann distribution P_eq,V before the next instantaneous jump. This is a standard idealization, but since all subsequent formulas depend on P_ta,U through Eq. (13), a brief quantitative statement about the exponential smallness of the correction for finite holding times would be helpful.
  3. [Sec. II D 2, Eq. (22)] The notation for the optimal work switches between W_2^opt, W_2^{opt}, and W₂^* in Eqs. (22), (24), and the surrounding text; please standardize it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central results are derived in-paper from the work functional and the second law.

full rationale

The paper's main results are self-contained. The moment generating function (Eq. 5) is constructed from the model's explicit trajectory probabilities; the mean and variance (Eqs. 7 and 8) follow from Gaussian integrals over the harmonic-trap dynamics; the generalized Landauer bound (Eq. 21) is rederived in Appendix C from the non-negativity of total entropy production; and the optimal protocol (Eq. 22) is obtained by Euler-Lagrange minimization of the work functional W2[lambda(t)] following the external Schmiedl-Seifert method (Ref. 41), with the initial variance c1 = DtU zeta^2 computed directly from the model. No parameter is fitted to data; all quantities are fixed by the trap stiffnesses and the exploration-time distribution f(t). The numerical simulations in Fig. 2 are independent checks, not inputs. Self-citations (Refs. 23, 24, 25, 27) appear only as background on prior resetting-cost studies and do not enter the derivations. The m-projection interpretation (Sec. II D 3) is an ex post facto rewriting of Eq. (24) using standard Gaussian KL formulas; it does not feed back into the central equations. The long-time optimal work (Eq. 24) is a prediction of the variational calculation, not an assumed input. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted free parameters; D, gamma, lambda_U, lambda_V, and r are physical inputs. The dimensionless zeta is a derived combination of these inputs and the Laplace transform of f(t). The m-projection pi[Pta,U] is a mathematical construct, not a new physical entity. The assumptions are standard domain assumptions in stochastic thermodynamics and optimal control.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Overdamped Langevin dynamics, Eq. (1), governs the particle in time-dependent harmonic traps.
    The entire work calculation is built on this equation of motion; inertial effects and non-Markovian baths are ignored.
  • domain assumption The instantaneous quench work w1 = U(x) - V(x) captures the full work of switching from V to U.
    Standard for sudden changes of the potential; dissipative transients during the quench are neglected.
  • domain assumption Exploration durations are drawn independently from f(t), and each cycle starts from Peq,V after full relaxation in the stiff trap.
    The renewal structure and the time-averaged initial distribution Eq. (13) rely on this; incomplete relaxation would break the steady-state cycle.
  • domain assumption The optimal protocol minimizes the unconstrained work functional delta W2 / delta lambda = 0 with endpoint stiffnesses fixed.
    Follows Schmiedl and Seifert [41]; no positivity bound on lambda is imposed during the minimization, though the resulting lambda_opt is positive in the resetting regime considered.
  • standard math Standard second-law and KL-divergence manipulations used in Appendix C are valid.
    Used to derive the generalized Landauer bound Eq. (21).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamic Cost of Recurrent Erasure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X7WHDRZY

@misc{pith2026250206014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamic Cost of Recurrent Erasure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X7WHDRZY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06014}
}
read the original abstract

Recent experiments have implemented resetting by means of a time-varying external harmonic trap whereby the trap stiffness is changed from an initial to a final value in finite-time and then the system is reset when it relaxes to an equilibrium distribution in the final trap. Such setups are very similar to those studied in the context of the finite-time Landauer erasure principle. We analyze the thermodynamic costs of such a setup by deriving a moment generating function for the work cost of recurrently changing the trap stiffness in finite-time, thereby maintaining a non-equilibrium steady state. We analyze the mean and variance of the work required for a specific experimentally viable protocol and also obtain an optimal protocol which minimizes the mean cost. For both these procedures, our analysis captures both the large-time and short-time corrections. For the optimal protocol, we obtain a closed form expression for the mean cost for all protocol durations, thereby making contact with earlier work on geometric measures of dissipation-minimizing optimal protocols that implement information erasure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06014 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic for an erasing cycle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Harmonic exploration and resetting potentials. Mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Harmonic exploration and resetting potentials with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a shows that the GL work-bound (21) clearly bounds the average work cost W2 of implementing the protocol (11). Tighter bounds may be found by mini￾mizing W2 as a functional of the protocol λ(t) to obtain an optimal protocol as discussed below. 2. Optimal protocol: long…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Projection of the true state at the beginning of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. a) Work for a scenario where the exploration du [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    NM” or monotonic “M

    An instantaneous jump from the resetting (or stiff) potential V (x) to an exploration (or shallow) potential U (x) at time t = 0, after which the system stays in the potential U (x) for a time distributed according to some temporal distribution f (t). We call this phase the explo- ration phase. 2) After the completion of the exploration phase, a time vary...

  2. [2]

    Since W1 does not depend on the pro- tocol λ(t), it suffices to consider W2

    Optimal protocol: long-time bounds We search for the optimal protocol of varying the con- trol parameter λ(t) that minimizes the average work W = W1 + W2. Since W1 does not depend on the pro- tocol λ(t), it suffices to consider W2. Optimal protocols 7 for harmonic traps have been studied in a wide range of contexts, including overdamped and underdamped Br...

  3. [3]

    It is in- teresting to understand nevertheless if there are bounds on the total average work even in this case

    Long-time limit Even though the above results hold for a specific proto- col, it is clear that the equilibrium free energy difference is no longer in general a lower bound on the average work required for performing our erasure cycle, when the sys- tem starts from an out-of-equilibrium state (as was also noticed in the context of bit erasure in [70]). It ...

  4. [4]

    Optimal protocol: Finite-time results The manner in which the bound in Eq. (24) is reached can be better understood in the light of recent work on geometrical measures of optimal minimum-work or minimum-disspation protocols (see [83] for a recent re- view on some of these aspects). To understand these re- sults in our context, we first get the full τ -dep...

  5. [5]

    Since our initial state deviates from the Boltzmann state, we expect the information content of this non-equilibrium state to contribute to the work [71, 81]

    Information-geometric interpretation Equation (24) has a natural information-geometric in- terpretation. Since our initial state deviates from the Boltzmann state, we expect the information content of this non-equilibrium state to contribute to the work [71, 81]. However, the full information content may not 8 FIG. 5. Projection of the true state at the b...

  6. [6]

    Gupta, Stochastic resetting in underdamped brownian motion, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2019, 033212 (2019)

    D. Gupta, Stochastic resetting in underdamped brownian motion, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2019, 033212 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Partial versus total resetting for L\'evy flights in d dimensions: similarities and discrepancies

    C. Di Bello, A. Chechkin, T. Grzywny, K. Szczypkowski, B. Trojan, and Z. Palmowski, Partial versus total reset- ting for l \’evy flights in d dimensions: similarities and discrepancies, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01139 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Reuveni, Optimal stochastic restart renders fluctua- tions in first passage times universal, Physical review let- ters 116, 170601 (2016)

    S. Reuveni, Optimal stochastic restart renders fluctua- tions in first passage times universal, Physical review let- ters 116, 170601 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    (6)] of the work: ⟨w⟩ = ⟨w1⟩ + ⟨w2⟩

    First cumulant In this section, we provide the detailed calculation of the computation of the first moment [i.e., n = 1 in Eq. (6)] of the work: ⟨w⟩ = ⟨w1⟩ + ⟨w2⟩ . (A1) Since the erasing protocol involves an instantaneous jump at time t = 0, the average work W1 ≡ ⟨w1⟩ is comp...

  2. [10]

    Now using Eq

    Second cumulant The variance of the total work can be written as⟨w2⟩−⟨w⟩2 = (⟨w2 1⟩−⟨w1⟩2)+(⟨w2 2⟩−⟨w2⟩2)+2(⟨w1w2⟩−⟨w1⟩⟨w2⟩), where the average work ⟨w⟩ ≡W is discussed in the previous subsection A 1. Now using Eq. (6) we can compute the second moment of the total work w. This...

  3. [11]

    Henceforth, we will replace t∗ by τ (since these are the same for a linear protocol)

    Long-time expansion of the average work for thetanh protocol The specific protocol we consider, motivated by recent experiments [16] is λ(t) = λU + (λV − λU ) tanh[t/t∗] (B1) In the slowest protocol limit ( t∗ → ∞), we can write λ(t) ≈ λU + (λV − λU )t/t∗ = λU (1 + αt) (B2) α ...

  4. [12]

    These are given by the integrals I1, I2 and I3 respectively, in Appendix A 2

    Asymptotic value of the variance of the total work for thetanh protocol The second moment of the total work has three contributions resulting from the second moment of w1, the second moment of w2 and the correlations between w1 and w2. These are given by the integrals I1, I2 a...

  5. [13]

    M. R. Evans and S. N. Majumdar, Diffusion with opti- mal resetting, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 44, 435001 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    M. R. Evans, S. N. Majumdar, and G. Schehr, Stochastic resetting and applications, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical 53, 193001 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Pal, Diffusion in a potential landscape with stochastic resetting, Physical Review E 91, 012113 (2015)

    A. Pal, Diffusion in a potential landscape with stochastic resetting, Physical Review E 91, 012113 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Nagar and S

    A. Nagar and S. Gupta, Diffusion with stochastic reset- ting at power-law times, Physical Review E 93, 060102 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    S. N. Majumdar, S. Sabhapandit, and G. Schehr, Dynam- ical transition in the temporal relaxation of stochastic processes under resetting, Physical Review E 91, 052131 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    B´ erut, A

    A. B´ erut, A. A. Arakelyan, A. Petrosyan, S. Ciliberto, R. Dillenschneider, and E. Lutz, Experimental verifica- tion of landauer’s principle linking information and ther- modynamics, Nature 483, 187 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    B´ erut, A

    A. B´ erut, A. Petrosyan, and S. Ciliberto, Detailed jarzyn- ski equality applied to a logically irreversible procedure, Europhysics Letters 103, 60002 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    B´ erut, A

    A. B´ erut, A. Petrosyan, and S. Ciliberto, Information and thermodynamics: experimental verification of landauer’s erasure principle, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: The- ory and Experiment 2015, P06015 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    M. R. Evans and S. Ray, Stochastic resetting prevails over sharp restart for broad target distributions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01941 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Landauer, Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process, IBM Journal of Research and Devel- opment 5, 183 (1961)

    R. Landauer, Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process, IBM Journal of Research and Devel- opment 5, 183 (1961)

    1961

  15. [23]

    C. H. Bennett, The thermodynamics of computation—a review, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 905 (1982)

    1982

  16. [24]

    Fuchs, S

    J. Fuchs, S. Goldt, and U. Seifert, Stochastic thermo- dynamics of resetting, Europhysics Letters 113, 60009 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    D. M. Busiello, D. Gupta, and A. Maritan, Entropy pro- duction in systems with unidirectional transitions, Phys- ical Review Research 2, 023011 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Besga, A

    B. Besga, A. Bovon, A. Petrosyan, S. N. Majumdar, and S. Ciliberto, Optimal mean first-passage time for a brow- nian searcher subjected to resetting: Experimental and theoretical results, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 032029 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Faisant, B

    F. Faisant, B. Besga, A. Petrosyan, S. Ciliberto, and S. N. Majumdar, Optimal mean first-passage time of a brownian searcher with resetting in one and two dimen- sions: experiments, theory and numerical tests, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2021, 113203 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Measuring and Manipulating Non-Equilibrium Systems

    for our case. The nature of optimal protocols in the presence of absorbing barriers is also very interesting to understand [26, 28]. IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENT All the authors are very grateful to Satya Majum- dar and Sergio Ciliberto for inspiring discussions on this problem during t...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Goerlich, M

    R. Goerlich, M. Li, L. B. Pires, P.-A. Hervieux, G. Man- fredi, and C. Genet, Taming a maxwell’s demon for ex- perimental stochastic resetting (2024), arXiv:2306.09503 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tal Friedman, A

    O. Tal Friedman, A. Pal, A. Sekhon, S. Reuveni, and Y. Roichman, Experimental realization of diffusion with stochastic resetting, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 11 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Saira, M

    O.-P. Saira, M. H. Matheny, R. Katti, W. Fon, G. Wim- satt, J. P. Crutchfield, S. Han, and M. L. Roukes, Nonequilibrium thermodynamics of erasure with super- conducting flux logic, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013249 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Proesmans, J

    K. Proesmans, J. Ehrich, and J. Bechhoefer, Finite-time landauer principle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 100602 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Y. Jun, M. c. v. Gavrilov, and J. Bechhoefer, High- precision test of landauer’s principle in a feedback trap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 190601 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    M. c. v. Gavrilov and J. Bechhoefer, Erasure without work in an asymmetric double-well potential, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 200601 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    K. S. Olsen, D. Gupta, F. Mori, and S. Krishnamurthy, Thermodynamic cost of finite-time stochastic resetting, Physical Review Research 6, 033343 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    K. S. Olsen and D. Gupta, Thermodynamic work of par- tial resetting, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 57, 245001 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    F. Mori, K. S. Olsen, and S. Krishnamurthy, Entropy pro- duction of resetting processes, Physical Review Research 5, 023103 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Singh, Emerging cost-time pareto front for diffu- sion with stochastic return, New Journal of Physics 26, 103014 (2024)

    P. Singh, Emerging cost-time pareto front for diffu- sion with stochastic return, New Journal of Physics 26, 103014 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Gupta and C

    D. Gupta and C. A. Plata, Work fluctuations for diffusion dynamics submitted to stochastic return, New Journal of Physics 24, 113034 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    P. S. Pal, A. Pal, H. Park, and J. S. Lee, Thermodynamic trade-off relation for first passage time in resetting pro- cesses, Physical Review E 108, 044117 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    P. R. Zulkowski and M. R. DeWeese, Optimal finite-time erasure of a classical bit, Phys. Rev. E 89, 052140 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    A. B. Boyd, A. Patra, C. Jarzynski, and J. P. Crutchfield, Shortcuts to thermodynamic computing: The cost of fast and faithful erasure (2018), arXiv:1812.11241 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

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

    2012

  36. [44]

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

    2019

  37. [45]

    L. T. Giorgini, R. Eichhorn, M. Das, W. Moon, and J. S. Wettlaufer, Thermodynamic cost of erasing information in finite time, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023084 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    Aurell, K

    E. Aurell, K. Gawedzki, C. Mej ´ ıa-Monasterio, R. Mo- hayaee, and P. Muratore-Ginanneschi, Refined second law of thermodynamics for fast random processes, Jour- nal of statistical physics 147, 487 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Zhang, Work needed to drive a thermodynamic sys- tem between two distributions, Europhysics Letters 128, 30002 (2020)

    Y. Zhang, Work needed to drive a thermodynamic sys- tem between two distributions, Europhysics Letters 128, 30002 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Dechant and Y

    A. Dechant and Y. Sakurai, Thermodynamic interpre- tation of wasserstein distance (2019), arXiv:1912.08405 [cond-mat.stat-mech]. 22

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Y. Chen, T. T. Georgiou, and A. Tannenbaum, Stochas- tic control and nonequilibrium thermodynamics: Funda- mental limits, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 65, 2979 (2020)

    2020

  43. [52]

    Chennakesavalu and G

    S. Chennakesavalu and G. M. Rotskoff, Unified, geomet- ric framework for nonequilibrium protocol optimization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 107101 (2023)

    2023

  44. [53]

    Schmiedl and U

    T. Schmiedl and U. Seifert, Optimal finite-time processes in stochastic thermodynamics, Physical review letters98, 108301 (2007)

    2007

  45. [54]

    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

  46. [55]

    Blickle and C

    V. Blickle and C. Bechinger, Realization of a micrometre- sized stochastic heat engine, Nature Physics 8, 143 (2011)

    2011

  47. [56]

    I. A. Mart ´ ınez,´E. Rold´ an, L. Dinis, D. Petrov, J. M. Par- rondo, and R. A. Rica, Brownian carnot engine, Nature physics 12, 67 (2016)

    2016

  48. [57]

    Nakazato and S

    M. Nakazato and S. Ito, Geometrical aspects of en- tropy production in stochastic thermodynamics based on wasserstein distance, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043093 (2021)

    2021

  49. [58]

    Abiuso, V

    P. Abiuso, V. Holubec, J. Anders, Z. Ye, F. Cerisola, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Thermodynamics and optimal pro- tocols of multidimensional quadratic brownian systems, Journal of Physics Communications 6, 063001 (2022)

    2022

  50. [59]

    Zhong and M

    A. Zhong and M. R. DeWeese, Limited-control optimal protocols arbitrarily far from equilibrium, Phys. Rev. E 106, 044135 (2022)

    2022

  51. [60]

    X. Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, S. Schmidt, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Fast optimal friction- less atom cooling in harmonic traps: Shortcut to adia- baticity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 063002 (2010)

    2010

  52. [61]

    X. Chen, I. Lizuain, A. Ruschhaupt, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Shortcut to adiabatic passage in two- and three-level atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 123003 (2010)

    2010

  53. [62]

    J.-F. m. c. Schaff, X.-L. Song, P. Vignolo, and G. Labeyrie, Fast optimal transition between two equi- librium states, Phys. Rev. A 82, 033430 (2010)

    2010

  54. [63]

    Schaff, P

    J.-F. Schaff, P. Capuzzi, G. Labeyrie, and P. Vignolo, Shortcuts to adiabaticity for trapped ultracold gases, New Journal of Physics 13, 113017 (2011)

    2011

  55. [64]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Short- cuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applica- tions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  56. [65]

    to our system and expand the average workW2 in the slow-switching limit ( t∗ → ∞) to first order in 1 /t∗(see Appendix B 1 for a detailed derivation). We show that the difference of average work W2 from the equilibrium free-energy difference in this limit is given by the corre...

  57. [66]

    I. A. Mart ´ ınez, A. Petrosyan, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, E. Trizac, and S. Ciliberto, Engineered swift equilibration of a brownian particle, Nature physics 12, 843 (2016)

    2016

  58. [67]

    D. M. Carberry, J. C. Reid, G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, D. J. Searles, and D. J. Evans, Fluctuations and irre- versibility: An experimental demonstration of a second- law-like theorem using a colloidal particle held in an op- tical trap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 140601 (2004)

    2004

  59. [68]

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

    2018

  60. [69]

    Chupeau, B

    M. Chupeau, B. Besga, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, E. Trizac, A. Petrosyan, and S. Ciliberto, Thermal bath engineering for swift equilibration, Phys. Rev. E 98, 010104 (2018)

    2018

  61. [70]

    Rosales-Cabara, G

    Y. Rosales-Cabara, G. Manfredi, G. Schnoering, P.-A. Hervieux, L. Mertz, and C. Genet, Optimal protocols and universal time-energy bound in brownian thermodynam- ics, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 012012 (2020)

    2020

  62. [71]

    Speck and U

    T. Speck and U. Seifert, Distribution of work in isother- mal nonequilibrium processes, Phys. Rev. E 70, 066112 (2004)

    2004

  63. [72]

    Engel, Asymptotics of work distributions in nonequi- librium systems, Phys

    A. Engel, Asymptotics of work distributions in nonequi- librium systems, Phys. Rev. E 80, 021120 (2009)

    2009

  64. [73]

    D. D. L. Minh and A. B. Adib, Path integral analysis of jarzynski’s equality: Analytical results, Phys. Rev. E 79, 021122 (2009)

    2009

  65. [74]

    T. Speck, Work distribution for the driven harmonic os- cillator with time-dependent strength: exact solution and slow driving, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 44, 305001 (2011)

    2011

  66. [75]

    Nickelsen and A

    D. Nickelsen and A. Engel, Asymptotics of work distribu- tions: the pre-exponential factor, The European Physical Journal B 82, 207–218 (2011)

    2011

  67. [76]

    Abreu and U

    D. Abreu and U. Seifert, Extracting work from a sin- gle heat bath through feedback, Europhysics Letters 94, 10001 (2011)

    2011

  68. [77]

    C. Kwon, J. D. Noh, and H. Park, Work fluctuations in a time-dependent harmonic potential: rigorous results beyond the overdamped limit., Physical review. E, Sta- tistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics 88 6, 062102 (2013)

    2013

  69. [78]

    Ryabov, M

    A. Ryabov, M. Dierl, P. Chvosta, M. Einax, and P. Maass, Work distribution in a time-dependent log- arithmic–harmonic potential: exact results and asymp- totic analysis, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 46, 075002 (2013)

    2013

  70. [79]

    S. K. Manikandan and S. Krishnamurthy, Asymptotics of work distributions in a stochastically driven system, The European Physical Journal B 90, 1 (2017)

    2017

  71. [80]

    Gupta, S

    D. Gupta, S. H. L. Klapp, and D. A. Sivak, Efficient con- trol protocols for an active ornstein-uhlenbeck particle, Phys. Rev. E 108, 024117 (2023)

    2023

  72. [81]

    S. K. Manikandan and S. Krishnamurthy, Exact results for the finite time thermodynamic uncertainty relation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 51, 11LT01 (2018)

    2018

  73. [82]

    M. A. Ciampini, T. Wenzl, M. Konopik, G. Thalham- mer, M. Aspelmeyer, E. Lutz, and N. Kiesel, Experimen- tal nonequilibrium memory erasure beyond landauer’s bound, arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.04429 (2021)

    2021

  74. [83]

    Esposito and C

    M. Esposito and C. V. den Broeck, Second law and lan- dauer principle far from equilibrium, Europhysics Letters 95, 40004 (2011)

    2011

  75. [84]

    first-passage resetting

    which connects in this context, the expected value of the work to the variance [59]. It is interesting that Eq. (31) has this form for any value of ζ whereas the Jarzynski equality holds strictly when starting from equi- librium. In the opposite limit of ζ 2 = tV tU it is easy...

  76. [85]

    Watanabe and Y

    G. Watanabe and Y. Minami, Finite-time thermodynam- ics of fluctuations in microscopic heat engines, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L012008 (2022)

    2022

  77. [86]

    Rolandi, M

    A. Rolandi, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and H. J. Miller, Op- timal control of dissipation and work fluctuations for rapidly driven systems, New Journal of Physics 25, 073005 (2023)

    2023

  78. [87]

    For n cycles, the moment generating function is ⟨ekw⟩n

  79. [88]

    DKL[p(x)||q(x)] ≡ R dx p(x) ln p(x) q(x)

  80. [89]

    Gomez-Marin, T

    A. Gomez-Marin, T. Schmiedl, and U. Seifert, Optimal protocols for minimal work processes in underdamped 23 stochastic thermodynamics, The Journal of chemical physics 129 (2008)

    2008

  81. [90]

    Gupta, S

    D. Gupta, S. J. Large, S. Toyabe, and D. A. Sivak, Opti- mal control of the f1-atpase molecular motor, The Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry Letters 13, 11844 (2022)

    2022

  82. [91]

    Chatterjee, V

    M. Chatterjee, V. Holubec, and R. Marathe, Optimal constrained control for generally damped brownian heat engines (2025), arXiv:2501.19124 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2025 arXiv

  83. [92]

    L. K. Davis, K. Proesmans, and ´E. Fodor, Active matter under control: Insights from response theory, Physical Review X 14, 011012 (2024)

    2024

  84. [93]

    J. M. Parrondo, J. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa, Thermody- namics of information, Nature Physics 11, 131 (2015)

    2015

  85. [94]

    Kolchinsky and D

    A. Kolchinsky and D. H. Wolpert, Work, entropy produc- tion, and thermodynamics of information under protocol constraints, Physical Review X 11, 041024 (2021)

    2021

  86. [95]

    Blaber and D

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

    2023

  87. [96]

    Jarzynski, Equilibrium free-energy differences from nonequilibrium measurements: A master-equation ap- proach, Phys

    C. Jarzynski, Equilibrium free-energy differences from nonequilibrium measurements: A master-equation ap- proach, Phys. Rev. E 56, 5018 (1997)

    1997

  88. [97]

    N. S. Wadia, R. V. Zarcone, and M. R. DeWeese, Solution to the fokker-planck equation for slowly driven brownian motion: Emergent geometry and a formula for the cor- responding thermodynamic metric, Phys. Rev. E 105, 034130 (2022)

    2022

  89. [98]

    S. Ito, Geometric thermodynamics for the fokker–planck equation: stochastic thermodynamic links between in- formation geometry and optimal transport, Information Geometry 7, 441–483 (2023)

    2023

  90. [99]

    Van Vu and K

    T. Van Vu and K. Saito, Thermodynamic unification of optimal transport: Thermodynamic uncertainty relation, minimum dissipation, and thermodynamic speed limits, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011013 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.