Time-energy tradeoff in stochastic resetting using optimal control

Hartmut L\"owen; Kristian St{\o}levik Olsen; R\'emi Goerlich; Yael Roichman

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Time-energy tradeoff in stochastic resetting using optimal control

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A straight trap ramp achieves the optimal time-energy tradeoff in stochastic resetting.

desk verdict Solid OT protocol, but the universal SR bound rests on an untested no-hit assumption—referee it with a request for x0-dependent checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19387 v2 pith:Q4HAWVUV submitted 2025-07-25 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.soft

Rémi Goerlich , Kristian St{o}levik Olsen , Hartmut Löwen , Yael Roichman This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.soft

keywords stochasticresettingoptimaltransportthermodynamicsmeanfirst-passagetimetime-energytradeoffcontrolharmonictrapBrownianparticle

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

Stochastic resetting speeds up a search, but every return of the particle to the origin costs work and takes time. This paper asks whether one can prescribe the return motion so that the search is as fast as possible for a given energy budget. It derives an optimal-transport protocol, $\lambda_{\mathrm{OT}}(t)=\lambda_i+\Delta\lambda(\omega_0 t+1)/(\omega_0 t_f)$, which moves the mean position at constant velocity along a straight line, lands exactly in the final equilibrium state after time $t_f$, and spends work $\Delta W_{\mathrm{OT}}=\gamma\Delta\lambda^2/t_f$ that is independent of trap stiffness. When every resetting event follows this protocol, the mean first-passage time obeys $\langle T\rangle=\langle T_{\mathrm{inst}}\rangle(1+2\alpha k_B T/W^{\mathrm{rst}}_{\mathrm{OT}})$, and the paper's central claim is that this curve is a lower bound for any finite-time implementation of stochastic resetting: all other protocols lie above it in the time-energy plane. The practical consequence is that optical-trap experiments can implement near-optimal resetting with a simple, prescribable trap motion and a single calculable speed-versus-energy relation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a variational optimal-transport construction. The functional $J=\int_0^{t_f}[\dot W+\mu(\dot u-\omega_0(\lambda-u))]dt$ combines the mean work rate with the overdamped equation of motion enforced by a Lagrange multiplier; Euler-Lagrange minimization gives $\ddot u=0$, so the mean position follows the straight geodesic $u_{\mathrm{OT}}(t)=\lambda_i+\Delta\lambda\,t/t_f$. The protocol $\lambda_{\mathrm{OT}}(t)=u_{\mathrm{OT}}(t)+\Delta\lambda/(\omega_0 t_f)$ is the geodesic plus a counterdiabatic jump term, so the trap exerts a constant force $\kappa\Delta\lambda/(\omega_0 t_f)$ that exactly cancels viscous drag and yields the stiffness-independent work $\gamma\Delta\lambda^2/t_f$. Geometrically this is the geodesic of the $L^2$-Wasserstein metric on Gaussian states, giving minimal entropy production $\Sigma=\gamma\Delta\lambda^2/(T t_f)$ and hence $\Delta W_{\mathrm{OT}}=T\Sigma$. For resetting, the absorbing boundary at the target modifies the average return work through the factor $\alpha$, obtained from the second moment of the quasi-stationary solution of the resetting Fokker-Planck equation.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to fix the trap stiffness $\kappa$ and resetting rate $r$, implement returns with the optimal-transport protocol, and sweep the target distance $x_0$ from values much larger than $\zeta=(2D/r)^{1/2}$ down to $x_0\approx\zeta$, measuring the mean first-passage time. Equation (5) predicts all data fall on the universal curve $\langle T\rangle=\langle T_{\mathrm{inst}}\rangle(1+2\alpha k_B T/W)$; any data point below that curve — most plausibly at small $x_0$ or long reset durations, where mid-return target hits matter — would falsify the claimed lower bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the constrained optimal-transport return protocol — a linear ramp plus two instantaneous jumps of amplitude $\Delta\lambda/(\omega_0 t_f)$ — saturates a minimal time-energy relation for finite-time stochastic resetting. For a single transport between equilibrium states its cost is $\Delta W_{\mathrm{OT}}=\gamma\Delta\lambda^2/t_f$; this sits between two protocol families: it is a lower bound on the cost of swift state-to-state transformations that enforce final equilibrium, and an upper bound on unconstrained optimal-control protocols that stop driving before relaxation is complete. In the resetting application, the per-event work is $W^{\mathrm{rst}}_{\mathrm{OT}}=2\alpha k_B T/(r t_{\mathrm{rst}})$, where the factor $\alpha<1$ accounts for the absorbing target at $x_0$ by removing return trajectories that start beyond it. The resulting relation $\langle T\rangle=\langle T_{\mathrm{inst}}\rangle(1+2\alpha k_B T/W^{\mathrm{rst}}_{\mathrm{OT}})$ is claimed as the optimal time-energy tradeoff: it defines the excluded low-cost/fast-search region, and SST, unconstrained optimal-control, and step-protocol implementations of resetting all fall above the curve at equal resetting duration (Fig. 4b).

Load-bearing premise

The bound assumes that during a finite-time resetting event the particle never reaches the absorbing target at $x_0$; the paper states this assumption rather than proving it, and checks it only indirectly by varying the trap stiffness. If a particle can hit the target mid-return, the true mean first-passage time is shorter and the claimed lower bound could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any finite-time resetting protocol that forces return to equilibrium in a fixed time must spend at least $\gamma\Delta\lambda^2/t_f$; the paper's explicit polynomial SST example spends exactly 20% more.
Equation (5) excludes a region of the time-energy plane for finite-time resetting: no implementation can simultaneously have a shorter mean first-passage time and a lower per-event work than the OT curve.
Unconstrained optimal-control protocols can reduce the work per return only by leaving the particle out of equilibrium, which lengthens the effective return time; plotted against the search MFPT they still lie above the OT bound.
The OT work cost does not depend on trap stiffness, so the same tradeoff curve is attainable across the experimental stiffness range (the numerics span $\kappa\in[1,100]\,\mathrm{pN}/\mu\mathrm{m}$).
In the fast-return limit $t_{\mathrm{rst}}\to0$, Eq. (5) reduces to the instantaneous-resetting mean first-passage time $\langle T_{\mathrm{inst}}\rangle$, recovering the original stochastic-resetting speedup.

Reading between the lines

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

The same Lagrangian optimization should carry over to resetting protocols that modulate trap stiffness or temperature rather than trap position, producing analogous $\alpha$-modified time-energy tradeoffs for thermal shortcuts; the moving-trap case is the simplest member of that family.
The paper validates the bound by varying stiffness, not target distance. A dedicated experiment sweeping $x_0$ down to the resetting length scale would map the regime where the no-hit-during-return assumption holds and where it breaks.
Because the OT protocol contains instantaneous jumps, real traps with finite feedback bandwidth will smear them; measuring the added work versus bandwidth would quantify how close practical implementations sit to the ideal curve.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Quick take: the moving-trap OT protocol is derived cleanly and the cost expression ΔW=γΔλ²/tf is verified in simulations, so that part is solid. The genuinely new piece—applying that protocol to stochastic resetting and claiming a universal time-energy lower bound—is more fragile. The bound in Eq. (5) inherits an explicit 'no hitting the target during return' assumption (footnote [57]) that is acknowledged but never tested as a function of target distance x0. Appendix E varies trap stiffness at fixed x0 and shows agreement there, but that does not probe the regime where a resetting trajectory starting near x0 could cross the absorbing boundary mid-return. If such crossings occur, the measured MFPT is shorter than ⟨Tinst⟩(1+r t_rst) and the work per reset is truncated, so the point can fall below the claimed Pareto curve. The reader's conditional verdict is right: the core protocol stands, but the universal 'all protocols lie above' phrasing is not fully supported.

What the paper does well: the Euler-Lagrange derivation in Appendix A is transparent, the comparison with SST/OC/STEP is informative, and the double-bounding role (lower for SST, upper for OC) is a nice unifying picture. The stiffness-independence of the OT cost is a useful experimental handle. The simulations are consistent with the analytics for the parameters shown, though symbols lack error bars and code is not shared—minor issues in a theory paper.

Who benefits: experimental groups working on optical-trap resetting and finite-time thermodynamics get a practical protocol and a benchmark. The OT cost formula alone is worth citing. But the SR bound should be treated as a plausible conjecture with a stated assumption, not a proven theorem.

Recommendation: send it to peer review with a request for either a softened claim or additional simulations varying x0 (and maybe a quantitative estimate of the no-hit probability). A serious referee can sort this out; it is not a desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives an optimal-transport (OT) protocol λ_OT(t) that moves a harmonically trapped overdamped Brownian particle between two equilibrium positions in finite time tf while minimizing the mean work. The protocol is obtained from an Euler-Lagrange minimization in Appendix A and takes the simple form λ_OT(t)=λ_i+Δλ(ω0 t+1)/(ω0 tf), with cost ΔW_OT=γ Δλ²/tf. The authors compare this protocol with constrained-but-unoptimized SST protocols, unconstrained optimal-control protocols, and an abrupt STEP protocol, showing that the OT cost is a lower bound for the former and an upper bound for the latter. They then apply the OT protocol to stochastic resetting, in which each resetting event returns the particle to the origin in a finite time trst. Combining the per-event work cost with the finite-time MFPT formula ⟨T⟩=⟨Tinst⟩(1+r trst), they obtain Eq. (5), ⟨T⟩=⟨Tinst⟩(1+2α kBT/W_rst^OT), and claim that this is a universal minimal time-energy bound for finite-time stochastic resetting. Langevin simulations are used to verify the protocol, the work formula, and the resulting tradeoff relation.

Significance. If the main claim holds, the paper provides a clean, analytically tractable, and experimentally relevant result: a stiffness-independent optimal transport protocol with a sharply defined time-energy cost, and a simple closed-form tradeoff for finite-time stochastic resetting. The derivation is self-contained, the cost formula is checked against Langevin simulations, and the contrast with SST, OC, and STEP protocols clarifies the thermodynamic landscape. The connection between optimal transport in stochastic thermodynamics and the stochastic-resetting literature is timely and likely to be of interest to the readership of cond-mat.stat-mech. The paper would be strengthened if the universality of the bound were supported by a proof or by a clearly delimited regime of validity.

major comments (2)

[Application and Appendix E] The no-hit-during-return assumption is load-bearing and is not tested in the relevant parameter regime. The derivation of Eq. (5) uses both ⟨T⟩=⟨Tinst⟩(1+r trst) and the averaged work W_rst^OT, and both quantities assume that the particle does not reach the absorbing target during a resetting event. If a trajectory hits x0 during the return, the true MFPT is shorter than the formula and the measured point (W,⟨T⟩) can fall below the claimed bound. Footnote [57] explicitly states that this possibility is ignored, but Appendix E tests only the trap stiffness κ at fixed x0=0.1 μm and fixed r=70 s⁻¹, so it does not isolate the assumption as a function of the target distance. Since the analytical α already accounts for absorption only in the distribution of starting positions and not in the return dynamics, agreement at one x0 does not validate the assumption for all target distances. Please either derive a quantitative condition under which hits during resetting are negligible, add simulations varying x0 (and trst) to confirm the bound, or qualify the universality of the bound.
[Lower bound, upper bound; Fig. 4; Appendix F] The claim that Eq. (5) is a bound for 'any finite-time implementation of SR' is not established. The optimality proven in Appendix A is for the mean trajectory under the constraint that the final distribution is in equilibrium at tf; the SR application requires an additional statement that no other finite-time resetting implementation can achieve a lower ⟨T⟩ at the same W. The paper compares with SST, OC, and STEP protocols, but for unconstrained protocols the resetting duration is defined through a threshold (Appendix F) and the comparison is numerical. Consequently, the gray 'excluded' region in Fig. 4(b) is not rigorously excluded for all possible protocols. The authors should either provide a general lower-bound argument for the full class of resetting implementations or reformulate the claim as a bound within the class of equilibrium-constrained finite-time protocols.

minor comments (4)

[Thermodynamics of optimal transport] The phrase 'direct comparaison' in the text before Fig. 2 should be 'direct comparison'.
[Appendix F] The caption contains an incomplete phrase: 'a by of the equilibrium standard deviation' should read 'a fraction of the equilibrium standard deviation'.
[Application section] The formula for α is typeset ambiguously: α = 1−(1−e^z)^2 + z²/4 (1−cosh z/√(1−e^{−z})) needs parentheses and an explicit definition of z = x0√(r/D).
[Appendix E] The statement 'deviations are only observed for slow protocols' should be made quantitative, since it is used to support the validity of the main tradeoff relation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the OT protocol and Eq. (5) follow from constrained minimization and exact stochastic-thermodynamics bookkeeping, not from fitting or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The optimal transport protocol λOT(t) is obtained by minimizing the functional J = ∫[Ẇ + μ(ȧu − ω0(λ − u))]dt via Euler-Lagrange equations, yielding u¨ = 0, then uOT(t) = λi + Δλ t/tf, and finally Eq. (3). The work cost ΔWOT = γΔλ²/tf is computed by summing the three contributions from the two discontinuities and the linear segment, not by fitting. The stochastic-resetting tradeoff Eq. (5) is an algebraic rearrangement of the known finite-time MFPT relation ⟨T⟩ = ⟨Tinst⟩(1 + r trst) combined with the derived average work W_OT^rst = 2αkBT/(r trst), where α is computed from the quasi-stationary distribution with absorbing boundary; eliminating trst gives ⟨T⟩ = ⟨Tinst⟩(1 + 2αkBT/W_OT^rst). No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted, and the comparisons with SST, OC, and STEP protocols are explicit analytical expressions rather than renamed empirical data. The self-citations to the authors' prior experimental implementations (Refs. [9, 11, 14]) are contextual, and the cited optimal-transport-geometry results are external mathematical facts, not uniqueness claims imported to force the present choice. The main caveat is Footnote [57], which states that 'the possibility that the particle reaches the target during the resetting event is ignored,' and Appendix E varies stiffness at fixed x0 rather than target distance. This is a robustness or correctness limitation of the universal bound, but it is not circularity: the tradeoff equation is derived from stated assumptions and is not made true by definition or by a fitted input. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data in the central OT result; the only hand-chosen quantity is the threshold for defining resetting duration of unconstrained protocols, and it is tested for robustness. The main external inputs are standard stochastic thermodynamics and known resetting results. The no-hit-during-return assumption is the only genuinely ad hoc simplification, and it is explicitly acknowledged by the authors.

free parameters (1)

resetting-duration threshold epsilon = sigma_eq/1000
Defines the end of a resetting event for unconstrained OC and STEP protocols. The central OT bound does not depend on it, and Appendix F shows the comparison is robust to the threshold value, but it is a hand-chosen convention.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Overdamped Langevin equation with a harmonic trap of constant stiffness (Eq. 1) is the physical model.
Used for the entire derivation; the reported results apply to this model and not to underdamped or non-harmonic systems.
standard math The ensemble-averaged work is ∫κ(λ-u)λdot dt (Appendix A, Eq. A1), from standard stochastic thermodynamics.
Standard Sekimoto work definition invoked without re-derivation.
domain assumption The mean-position dynamics are linear and the distribution remains Gaussian, so controlling the mean u(t) is sufficient.
Applies because the process is linear and the initial state is at thermal equilibrium; used throughout the main text and Appendices A and B.
domain assumption The instantaneous-resetting MFPT formula ⟨Tinst⟩=r^{-1}(exp[x0/⟨|x|⟩]-1) and the absorbing-boundary correction α are taken from prior resetting literature [1,2].
Basis of Eq. (5); these results are not re-derived in this paper, so the tradeoff inherits their assumptions.
ad hoc to paper A particle never reaches the target during a finite-time resetting event (footnote [57]).
Explicitly stated as an ignored possibility; central to the claim that Eq. (5) is a lower bound for all protocols.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-energy tradeoff in stochastic resetting using optimal control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4HAWVUV

@misc{pith2026250719387,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-energy tradeoff in stochastic resetting using optimal control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4HAWVUV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19387}
}

read the original abstract

Stochastic resetting is a driving mechanism that is known to minimize the first passage time to reach a target, at the cost of energy expenditure. The choice of the physical implementation of each resetting event determines the tradeoff between the acceleration of the search process and its energetic cost. Here, we present an optimal transport protocol that balances the duration and the energetic cost of each resetting event. This protocol drives a harmonically trapped Brownian particle between two equilibrium states within a finite time and with minimal energetic cost. An explicit comparison with other types of finite-time protocols further shows its specific thermodynamic properties. Its cost is both a lower bound on the cost of unoptimized shortcut protocols and an upper bound on the cost of optimal protocols which do not ensure final equilibrium. When applying the optimal transport protocol to implement stochastic resetting, a single lower time-energy bound is reached: this protocol allows to reach the best tradeoff between energetic cost and search time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19387 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Optimal Transport ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Total work cost of the protocols in units of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Typical snapshot of a numerical simulation of SR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Schematic representation of the optimal protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Energetic cost corresponding to each protocols (same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Mean work as a function of the protocol duration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: (e, f). For both protocols, the total integrated work reads ∆W (a) SST,2 = ∆W (b) SST,2 = 4 3∆WOT, larger than both the optimal protocol and the third-order swift equilibration protocol. Interestingly, the simplest case of firstorder polynomial protocol retrieves the…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Upper panels: for one choice of threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[57]

J. C. Sunil, R. A. Blythe, M. R. Evans, and S. N. Majum- dar, The cost of stochastic resetting, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 56, 395001 (2023)

work page 2023
[1]

M. R. Evans and S. N. Majumdar, Diffusion with stochas- tic resetting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 160601 (2011)

2011
[2]

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
[3]

Kundu and S

A. Kundu and S. Reuveni, Stochastic resetting: Theory and applications, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor (2022)

work page 2022
[4]

Gupta and A

S. Gupta and A. M. Jayannavar, Stochastic reset- ting: A (very) brief review, Frontiers in Physics 10, 10.3389/fphy.2022.789097 (2022)

arXiv 2022
[5]

M. R. Evans, S. N. Majumdar, and K. Mallick, Optimal diffusive search: nonequilibrium resetting versus equilib- rium dynamics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 46, 185001 (2013)

2013
[6]

Fuchs, S

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

work page 2016
[7]

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

2020

Show all 65 references

[8]

Gupta, C

D. Gupta, C. A. Plata, and A. Pal, Work fluctuations and jarzynski equality in stochastic resetting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110608 (2020)

2020
[9]

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, 7350 (2020)

2020
[10]

F. Mori, K. S. Olsen, and S. Krishnamurthy, Entropy pro- duction of resetting processes, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023103 (2023)

2023
[11]

Goerlich, M

R. Goerlich, M. Li, L. B. Pires, P.-A. Hervieux, G. Manfredi, and C. Genet, Experimental test of lan- dauer’s principle for stochastic resetting, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09503 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[12]

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

2024
[13]

Gupta, K

D. Gupta, K. S. Olsen, and S. Krishnamurthy, Ther- modynamic cost of steady state erasure, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06014 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[14]

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. Research2, 032029 (2020)

2020
[15]

Besga, F

B. Besga, F. Faisant, A. Petrosyan, S. Ciliberto, and S. N. Majumdar, Dynamical phase transition in the first- passage probability of a Brownian motion, Phys. Rev. E 104, L012102 (2021)

2021
[16]

M. R. Evans and S. N. Majumdar, Effects of refrac- tory period on stochastic resetting, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52, 01LT01 (2018)

2018
[17]

A. Pal, L. Ku´ smierz, and S. Reuveni, Invariants of motion with stochastic resetting and space-time coupled returns, New Journal of Physics 21, 113024 (2019). 10

2019
[18]

Gupta, C

D. Gupta, C. A. Plata, A. Kundu, and A. Pal, Stochas- tic resetting with stochastic returns using external trap, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 54, 025003 (2020)

2020
[19]

A. S. Bodrova and I. M. Sokolov, Resetting processes with noninstantaneous return, Physical Review E 101, 052130 (2020)

2020
[20]

Gupta, A

D. Gupta, A. Pal, and A. Kundu, Resetting with stochas- tic return through linear confining potential, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2021, 043202 (2021)

2021
[21]

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
[22]

Bechhoefer, Control theory for physicists (Cambridge University Press, 2021)

J. Bechhoefer, Control theory for physicists (Cambridge University Press, 2021)

2021
[23]

Alvarado, E

J. Alvarado, E. Teich, D. Sivak, and J. Bechhoefer, Op- timal control in soft and active matter, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08676 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[24]

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
[25]

Esposito, R

M. Esposito, R. Kawai, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Efficiency at maximum power of low-dissipation carnot engines, Physical Review Letters 105, 150603 (2010)

2010
[26]

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
[27]

Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart´ ınez-Garaot, and J. Muga, Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applications, Re- views of Modern Physics 91, 045001 (2019)

2019
[28]

optimization is enforced, often resulting in significantly more dissipation

with thermodynamically optimal solutions [32]. optimization is enforced, often resulting in significantly more dissipation. In contrast, the field of optimal con- trol seeks to minimize dissipation without any constraint on the final state of the system [32–36]. These uncon- s...

2025 arXiv
[29]

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
[30]

Gu´ ery-Odelin, C

D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, C. Jarzynski, C. A. Plata, A. Prados, and E. Trizac, Driving rapidly while remaining in con- trol: classical shortcuts from Hamiltonian to stochastic dynamics, Reports on Progress in Physics 86, 035902 (2023)

2023
[31]

Baldovin, D

M. Baldovin, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and E. Trizac, Control of active Brownian particles: An exact solution, Physical Review Letters 131, 118302 (2023)

2023
[32]

Raynal, T

D. Raynal, T. de Guillebon, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, E. Trizac, J.-S. Lauret, and L. Rondin, Shortcuts to equilibrium with a levitated particle in the underdamped regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 087101 (2023)

2023
[33]

Schmiedl and U

T. Schmiedl and U. Seifert, Optimal finite-time pro- cesses in stochastic thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 108301 (2007)

2007
[34]

S. A. Loos, S. Monter, F. Ginot, and C. Bechinger, Uni- versal symmetry of optimal control at the microscale, Physical Review X 14, 021032 (2024)

2024
[35]

Aurell, C

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

2011
[36]

Proesmans, J

K. Proesmans, J. Ehrich, and J. Bechhoefer, Finite-time landauer principle, Physical Review Letters 125, 100602 (2020)

2020
[37]

Proesmans, J

K. Proesmans, J. Ehrich, and J. Bechhoefer, Optimal finite-time bit erasure under full control, Physical Review E 102, 032105 (2020)

2020
[38]

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 thermo- dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 012012 (2020)

2020
[39]

L. B. Pires, R. Goerlich, A. L. da Fonseca, M. Debios- sac, P.-A. Hervieux, G. Manfredi, and C. Genet, Optimal time-entropy bounds and speed limits for Brownian ther- mal shortcuts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 097101 (2023)

2023
[40]

Oikawa, Y

S. Oikawa, Y. Nakayama, S. Ito, T. Sagawa, and S. Toy- abe, Experimentally achieving minimal dissipation via thermodynamically optimal transport, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01200 (2025)

2025
[41]

Baldovin, I

M. Baldovin, I. B. Yedder, C. A. Plata, D. Raynal, L. Rondin, E. Trizac, and A. Prados, Optimal control of levitated nanoparticles through finite-stiffness confine- ment, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00043 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[42]

Blickle and C

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

2012
[43]

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
[44]

Ito, Stochastic thermodynamic interpretation of infor- mation geometry, Physical Review Letters 121, 030605 (2018)

S. Ito, Stochastic thermodynamic interpretation of infor- mation geometry, Physical Review Letters 121, 030605 (2018)

2018
[45]

Nakazato and S

M. Nakazato and S. Ito, Geometrical aspects of en- tropy production in stochastic thermodynamics based on wasserstein distance, Physical Review Research3, 043093 (2021)

2021
[46]

Zhong and M

A. Zhong and M. R. DeWeese, Beyond linear response: Equivalence between thermodynamic geometry and op- timal transport, Physical Review Letters 133, 057102 (2024)

2024
[47]

Sekimoto, Langevin Equation and Thermodynam- ics, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 130, 17 (1998)

K. Sekimoto, Langevin Equation and Thermodynam- ics, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 130, 17 (1998)

1998
[48]

Sekimoto, Stochastic energetics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

K. Sekimoto, Stochastic energetics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

2010
[49]

Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 126001 (2012)

U. Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 126001 (2012)

2012
[50]

Its shape resembles previously reported optimal proto- cols for stiffness changing transitions [37], but features a simpler linear evolution during the overshoot phase
[51]

Postulating a linear evolution suffices to obtain inadvertently the optimal and constrained proto- col

Due to the simplicity of the geodesic uOT(t), the optimal protocol λOT(t) can also be re-derived in the spirit of an SST approach by postulating a linear evolution for the mean position. Postulating a linear evolution suffices to obtain inadvertently the optimal and constraine...
[52]

K. S. Olsen, R. Goerlich, Y. Roichman, and H. L¨ owen, Harnessing non-equilibrium forces to optimize work ex- traction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07049 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[53]

Abdoli, K

I. Abdoli, K. S. Olsen, and H. L¨ owen, Shear-driven dif- fusion with stochastic resetting, Physics of Fluids 36 (2024)

2024
[54]

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

2024
[55]

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). 11

2023
[56]

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
[58]

The possibility that the particle reaches the target during the resetting event is ignored

The influence of the non-zero width of the distribution after resetting, is taken into account by the measured Tinst [15]. The possibility that the particle reaches the target during the resetting event is ignored. The limits of our assumptions are tested in Appendix E
[59]

Villani et al., Optimal transport: old and new, Vol

C. Villani et al., Optimal transport: old and new, Vol. 338 (Springer, 2008)

2008
[60]

Dechant and Y

A. Dechant and Y. Sakurai, Thermodynamic in- terpretation of wasserstein distance, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.08405 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[61]

Seifert, Entropy production along a stochastic tra- jectory and an integral fluctuation theorem, Phys

U. Seifert, Entropy production along a stochastic tra- jectory and an integral fluctuation theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 040602 (2005)

2005
[62]

Faure, C

S. Faure, C. Plata, A. Prados, and D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, Active charge and discharge of a capacitor: scal- ing solution and energy optimization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12028 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[63]

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
[64]

Casert and S

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

2024
[65]

Rengifo, and G

D. Rengifo, and G. T´ ellez, A machine learning approach to fast thermal equilibration (2025), arXiv:2504.08080

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [57]

J. C. Sunil, R. A. Blythe, M. R. Evans, and S. N. Majum- dar, The cost of stochastic resetting, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 56, 395001 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [1]

M. R. Evans and S. N. Majumdar, Diffusion with stochas- tic resetting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 160601 (2011)

2011

[3] [2]

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

[4] [3]

Kundu and S

A. Kundu and S. Reuveni, Stochastic resetting: Theory and applications, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [4]

Gupta and A

S. Gupta and A. M. Jayannavar, Stochastic reset- ting: A (very) brief review, Frontiers in Physics 10, 10.3389/fphy.2022.789097 (2022)

arXiv 2022

[6] [5]

M. R. Evans, S. N. Majumdar, and K. Mallick, Optimal diffusive search: nonequilibrium resetting versus equilib- rium dynamics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 46, 185001 (2013)

2013

[7] [6]

Fuchs, S

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

work page 2016

[8] [7]

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

2020