Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Stochastic Resetting: A Non-Equilibrium Framework for Prediction, Inference and Design

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stochastic resetting is a renewal-based framework that predicts, infers, and designs far-from-equilibrium dynamics.

desk verdict A competent, honest review with a correct renewal-theory core, but the inference half of its central claim is overstated and needs qualification before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16474 v1 pith:GI6HQAHS submitted 2026-07-17 physics.chem-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Tommer D. Keidar , Sagi Meir , Nir Sherf , Rémi Goerlich , Shlomi Reuveni , Yael Roichman , Barak Hirshberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords stochasticresettingrenewaltheoryfirst-passagetimenon-equilibriumsteadystateenhancedsamplingkineticinferenceadaptivethermodynamiccost
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that one mathematical core — renewal theory — turns stochastic resetting into three tools at once: prediction, inference, and design. Given the propagator and first-passage-time distribution of any process without resetting, simple renewal equations give the steady state, kinetics, and first-passage times under resetting. The same equations run backward: reset-accelerated data can be used to infer the original process's kinetics. And by choosing reset protocols — including adaptive, state-dependent rates — one can shape steady states and first-passage statistics on demand. This matters because the same framework spans molecular simulations, colloidal experiments, and machine-learning training.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the renewal equation linking the reset dynamics to the unreset process: p_R(x,t)=p(x,t)Ψ_R(t)+∫ f_R(τ)p_R(x,t−τ)dτ, with a first-passage analogue. Its Laplace-transformed forms produce explicit steady states and FPT distributions; for Poisson resetting at rate r, the identities p_ss_R(x)=r p_tilde(x,r) and ⟨T_R⟩=(1−f_tilde_T(r))/(r f_tilde_T(r)) are central. For adaptive resetting, the survival weight Ψ_{R|{x}}(t)=exp(−∫ r(x(t'),t') dt') along each trajectory extends the renewal idea, and a reweighting of a single unreset trajectory ensemble estimates all reset observables. This machinery does the work of turning resetting from a model into a toolkit.

What would settle it

Run the adaptive-resetting reweighting on a high-dimensional system (e.g., a protein in explicit solvent), compute the steady-state distribution and mean first-passage time, and compare with direct simulations that apply the same adaptive protocol; a systematic deviation in the tails or in FPT statistics would falsify the reweighting claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that stochastic resetting is not just a trick for speeding up searches but a general non-equilibrium framework whose predictive content is carried by renewal equations. For Poisson resetting, the steady-state density is p_ss_R(x)=r p_tilde(x,r) and the mean first-passage time is determined by the Laplace transform of the unreset FPT density; for arbitrary reset-time distributions, Eq. 8 relates the reset mean FPT to min(T,R) and Pr(T≤R). The paper further claims that the same renewal structure permits inference: Eq. 12 extrapolates the mean FPT at higher reset rates from data at lower rates, and sharp-resetting protocols sample short-time unbiased first-passage s

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the trajectory-reweighting scheme estimates observables under arbitrary adaptive resetting without bias and with converging error; the paper demonstrates it on low-dimensional diffusion and a single peptide, with no general error analysis, and the paper itself concedes the framework breaks when the environment retains memory or only part of a many-body system is reset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Resetting-accelerated molecular simulations can recover the unbiased kinetics of rare transitions: extrapolating Eq. 12 to zero reset rate yields the unreset mean first-passage time, and sharp resetting gives direct access to short-time FPT statistics.
  • A single ensemble of unreset trajectories is enough to screen and optimize adaptive resetting protocols (including neural-network-parameterized rates) for target steady states or accelerated first-passage times, avoiding extra simulations.
  • Resetting acts as a stochastic shortcut to equilibration: in harmonic and V-shaped potentials it prepares target distributions faster than thermal relaxation, and it can also drive transitions between non-equilibrium steady states.
  • Global resetting of many-body systems preserves renewal predictivity, while local or batch resetting and environmental memory break renewal and require new theory.
  • Thermodynamic costs are quantifiable and constrain the speedups: resetting experiments show energetic costs above kT, and optimal-return protocols define time-energy trade-offs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's low-dimensional demonstrations, if the trajectory-reweighting estimator is unbiased in high-dimensional settings, adaptive resetting could become a general enhanced-sampling tool: one long unbiased simulation would supply all protocol-dependent observables.
  • The single-frequency linear-response result for training perturbations suggests a practical rule the paper does not fully develop: measuring a neural network's first-passage response to one perturbation frequency could predict the speedup of reset-style training schedules, enabling a priori protocol selection.
  • The paper's examples of environmental memory (trails, viscoelastic baths) hint that the next unifying structure may resemble a hidden-variable renewal theory, where the reset renews only part of the state; testing that hypothesis would connect resetting to generalized Langevin and aging phenomena.
  • The energy-information trade-off in smart resetting suggests a design principle: any feedback that reduces thermodynamic cost must pay an information cost; quantifying that cost from first-passage distributions could yield a resetting-specific Landauer bound.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This review-format manuscript argues that stochastic resetting provides a unified non-equilibrium framework for prediction, inference, and design. Sections 2 and 3.1 present the standard renewal theory: for a known reset-time distribution, the propagator and first-passage-time distribution under resetting are determined by the unreset propagator and FPT distribution (Eqs. 1–9), with the well-known small-rate expansion and speed-up condition (Eqs. 10–11). Section 3.2 extends this to kinetic inference, claiming that the mean FPT of the original process can be inferred from trajectories sampled under resetting at rate r* by extrapolating Eq. 12 to r→0. Section 3.3 applies resetting to machine-learning training and LLM sampling. Sections 4 and 5 review adaptive resetting, including reweighting estimators built from unreset trajectories (Eqs. 13–24) and using those estimators to design steady states and first-passage properties. Section 6 discusses many-body and local resetting, Section 7 thermodynamic costs, and Section 8 concludes with the central claim that 'the same renewal framework that predicts the effect of resetting also allows the properties of the original process to be inferred from the accelerated one.'

Significance. If the full claim held, the paper would be a useful synthesis for the physical-chemistry community: the forward renewal relations are correct and clearly presented; the review is timely, broad, and honestly flags several settings where renewal breaks down (environmental memory in Sec. 4.3, local/batch resetting in Sec. 6). The paper also benefits from grounding in independently established theory and from citing a wide range of recent experimental and simulation work. However, the distinctive inference and design claims go beyond the standard forward theory. The forward renewal material is textbook-accurate, but the inference half of the abstract/conclusion thesis is supported only by an uncontrolled extrapolation, and the adaptive-resetting/ML claims are asserted without error analysis or stated domain of validity. These are load-bearing for the paper's advertised 'prediction, inference, design' framework, so the manuscript needs revision before the central claim can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (12); Abstract; §8] The abstract and conclusions state that properties of the original process can be inferred from resetting-accelerated dynamics. Eq. (12) is exact only for Δr>0, i.e., for predicting behavior at higher resetting rates. Inferring the r=0 mean FPT requires extrapolating ~f_{T_{r*}}(Δr) from Δr>0 to Δr=-r*, either by analytic continuation or by polynomial fitting. No condition is given under which this continuation is valid, and no consistency theorem, convergence rate, or error bound is provided. For FPT distributions with heavy tails or non-analytic Laplace transforms at s=0, polynomial extrapolation from noisy finite-time estimates is uncontrolled and can be arbitrarily inaccurate. The same issue appears in the sharp-resetting paragraph, where the long-time FPT tail is inferred by fitting. Please supply explicit validity conditions (e.g., analyticity of the Laplace transform near s=0, mom
  2. [§4.1–4.2, Eqs. (18)–(24); §5.2] The paper states that a single set of unreset trajectories suffices to estimate all observables under adaptive resetting and to optimize protocols with a differentiable loss. The estimators in Eqs. (18)–(24) are presented without finite-N or finite-Δt error analysis. Each weight Ψ_i_j in Eq. (19) is a product of many factors, so for large j the estimator variance can grow rapidly and there is no demonstrated unbiasedness/convergence for general high-dimensional processes. Since the design claims in Sec. 5.2 rely on these estimators as training losses, the manuscript should either summarize the known error behavior from Ref. 45 or explicitly state that the estimators are heuristic/demonstrated only on the specific systems shown.
  3. [§3.3.1] The single-frequency response premise — that once unperturbed training dynamics reach a quasi-steady state, a perturbation at one frequency predicts the response across a broad frequency range — is asserted from Ref. 89 without stating its domain of validity. As written, this is a strong claim about high-dimensional, non-equilibrium training dynamics and is load-bearing for the ML-training acceleration claim in the abstract and Fig. 3. Please either state the assumptions under which this linear-response relation holds or present the statement as an empirical observation from the specific datasets/architectures studied, not as a general property.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 and §2] Typographical errors: 'poison resetting' should be 'Poisson resetting'; 'the mean time between resetting evens' should be 'events'.
  2. [Eq. (12)] Please define ~f_{T_{r*}} explicitly as the Laplace transform of the FPT distribution under resetting at rate r*, and clarify that Δr is the additional Poisson resetting rate, so Eq. (12) is a statement about merging two Poisson streams and not about arbitrary r values.
  3. [Eq. (15)] The conditioning notation in the definition of p_Ψ(x,t) is hard to parse. It would help to expand the definition with a sentence clarifying that the survival probability is evaluated along trajectories conditioned to end at x at time t before averaging.
  4. [§7.2, Eq. (25)] The dimensionless factor α is described only verbally. Since this is a review, please either give the explicit formula from Ref. 36 or, if the formula is model-specific and not needed, cite the exact equation in Ref. 36 so the reader does not have to track it down.
  5. [Conclusions, §8] The concluding sentence 'the same renewal framework ... also allows the properties of the original process to be inferred' is broader than the body of the paper, which explicitly notes that renewal breaks for environmental feedback (Sec. 4.3) and local/batch resetting (Sec. 6). Please scope the conclusion to renewal-preserving protocols or explicitly list the exceptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Core renewal framework is independently grounded; no claimed prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

full rationale

The central renewal relations (Eqs. 1-11 and Eqs. 5-9) are standard, externally established identities that map the unreset propagator and first-passage distribution to their reset counterparts; they are input-output mappings, not tautologies. Eq. 12 is a correct composition rule for Poisson resetting (merging two Poisson streams), so predicting higher-rate first-passage statistics from lower-rate data is a genuine out-of-sample prediction. The paper's procedure for inferring the original mean first-passage time by extrapolating to r=0 (Sec. 3.2) is mathematically uncontrolled and lacks error bounds or identifiability conditions, but this is a validity gap rather than circularity: the fitted extrapolation is not secretly equal to the quantity it estimates, and no equation in the paper forces the r=0 value by construction. The adaptive-resetting estimators (Secs. 4.1-4.2, Eqs. 13-24) are importance-sampling identities evaluated on unreset trajectories; they are statistical estimators, not self-referential definitions. While the ML acceleration and ReD sections lean heavily on the authors' own prior results (Refs. 45, 88, 89, 94), these are cited as published work with stated conditions and are not the only support; the review's main renewal framework is independently grounded in the external literature (Evans-Majumdar, Pal-Reuveni, Chechkin-Sokolov, and many non-author follow-ups). No load-bearing 'prediction' or 'inference' step is equivalent to its input by definition, so no circularity is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

A review, so this ledger captures the assumptions and empirical inputs the framework inherits rather than parameters this paper introduces. There are no new invented entities — the adaptive rate r(x,t) is a control function, not a new physical object. The displayed derivation (Eqs. 1-11) is parameter-free apart from the resetting rate r (a control variable). The honest cost entries are: (i) the empirical constants α (Eq. 25) and ν (stretched tail) taken from cited works; (ii) the protocol family r₀|x|^λ and the pass@k exponent that the summarized applications fit or scan; and (iii) the domain assumptions that the renewal and reweighting structure stays valid — the paper itself flags where it does not (Secs. 4.3, 6, 8).

free parameters (4)
  • α (return-distance factor in Eq. 25) = not fixed — measured from trajectories per system
    'α encodes the mean squared return distance of the trajectories that are reset, measured in units of the diffusive length scale between resets' (Sec. 7.2, Eq. 25); an empirical input from Ref. 36.
  • ν (stretched-tail constant) = positive constant, value not derived
    Sec. 4.1: steady-state tails under adaptive resetting scale as e^{−ν|x|^{1+λ/2}}; the exponent 1+λ/2 is derived but ν is asserted positive with no value (Ref. 45).
  • r₀ and λ in r(x) = r₀|x|^λ = scanned values (λ ∈ {0,1,2,3})
    Sec. 4.1: protocol family used to demonstrate the trajectory-reweighting predictions; protocol parameters, not fitted to data in the review.
  • pass@k power-law exponent α = empirical, 0 < α < 1
    Sec. 3.3.2: failure probability 1 − pass@k ~ k^{−α} is taken as an empirical scaling (Refs 91-93) and estimated from data for the ReD inference claim.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Resets are instantaneous, full renewals of the process from the same initial distribution
    Underlies Eqs. 1-11 (Sec. 2). The paper itself states the limit: environmental feedback (Sec. 4.3) and local/batch many-body resetting (Sec. 6) break renewal.
  • standard math The final-value-theorem limit defining the steady state exists
    Sec. 2, just before Eq. 4: p_ss(x) = lim_{s→0+} s p̃_R(x,s) 'provided this limit exists'.
  • domain assumption Adaptive resetting rate r(x,t) depends only on instantaneous state and time (Eq. 13)
    Sec. 4.1 defines survival exp(−∫r(x(t'),t')dt'); history-dependent and environment-memory protocols are excluded and handled separately in Sec. 4.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Reweighting estimators (Eqs. 18-24) are unbiased and converge at finite N and Δt
    Secs. 4.1-4.2 present the estimators without bias, variance, or discretization analysis; the paper calls the underlying path integrals 'the key challenge'.
  • ad hoc to paper Quasi-steady-state single-frequency response predicts training response at all frequencies
    Sec. 3.3.1, attributed to Ref. 89 (authors' own 2026 paper); load-bearing for the ML-training-acceleration claim.
  • domain assumption LLM failure probability follows empirical power law 1 − pass@k ~ k^{−α}, 0 < α < 1
    Sec. 3.3.2, cited to Refs 91-93; the ReD coverage and exponent-inference claims assume this scaling holds at large k.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic Resetting: A Non-Equilibrium Framework for Prediction, Inference and Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GI6HQAHS

@misc{pith2026260716474,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic Resetting: A Non-Equilibrium Framework for Prediction, Inference and Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GI6HQAHS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16474}
}
read the original abstract

Stochastic resetting has evolved from a simple model of diffusive search acceleration into a general framework for predicting, inferring, and controlling stochastic dynamics far from equilibrium. Its defining features, i.e., the creation of non-equilibrium steady states and the acceleration of first-passage kinetics, are increasingly relevant across physical chemistry, from biological restart mechanisms to molecular simulations and colloidal experiments. We review the renewal theory underlying stochastic resetting and show how it enables prediction of reset dynamics from properties of the underlying process, while also allowing the latter to be inferred from the resetting-accelerated dynamics. We then discuss applications to state preparation, enhanced sampling, kinetic inference, and training and sampling of machine learning models. Finally, we review recent advances in adaptive resetting, environmental feedback, many-body dynamics, and thermodynamic costs of resetting. These developments establish new opportunities for controlling stochastic dynamics with resetting across theory, simulations, and experiments.

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. Quantum resetting with memory

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Under quantum resetting with uniform memory, every density-matrix element evolves exactly as a Kummer function of its Bohr frequency, producing algebraic decoherence in gapped systems and logarithmically slow spreadin...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Evans MR, Majumdar SN. 2011. Diffusion with stochastic resetting.Phys. Rev. Lett. 106(16):160601

    2011

  2. [2]

    2001.A guide to first-passage processes

    Redner S. 2001.A guide to first-passage processes. Cambridge university press

    2001

  3. [3]

    2014.First-passage phenomena and their applications, vol

    Metzler R, Redner S, Oshanin G. 2014.First-passage phenomena and their applications, vol. 35. World Scientific

    2014

  4. [4]

    Bray AJ, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2013. Persistence and first-passage properties in nonequi- librium systems.Adv. Phys.62(3):225–361

    2013

  5. [5]

    Pal A, Reuveni S. 2017. First passage under restart.Phys. Rev. Lett.118(3):030603

    2017

  6. [6]

    Chechkin A, Sokolov IM. 2018. Random search with resetting: A unified renewal approach. Phys. Rev. Lett.121(5):050601

    2018

  7. [7]

    Bonomo OL, Pal A, Reuveni S. 2022. Mitigating long queues and waiting times with service resetting.PNAS Nexus1(3):pgac070

    2022

  8. [8]

    Bonomo OL, Yechiali U, Reuveni S. 2025. Queues with service resetting.Eur. J. Oper. Res. 322(3):908–919

    2025

Show all 138 references
  1. [9]

    Roy R, Biswas A, Pal A. 2024. Queues with resetting: a perspective.J. Phys. Complex. 5(2):021001

    2024

  2. [10]

    Luby M, Sinclair A, Zuckerman D. 1993. Optimal speedup of las vegas algorithms.Inf. Process. Lett.47(4):173–180

    1993

  3. [11]

    Alt H, Guibas L, Mehlhorn K, Karp R, Wigderson A. 1996. A method for obtaining randomized algorithms with small tail probabilities.Algorithmica16(4):543–547

    1996

  4. [12]

    Langville AN, Meyer CD. 2004. Deeper inside pagerank.Internet Math.1(3):335–380

    2004

  5. [13]

    2010.Improving Random Walk Estimation Accuracy with Uniform Restarts

    Avrachenkov K, Ribeiro B, Towsley D. 2010.Improving Random Walk Estimation Accuracy with Uniform Restarts. InAlgorithms and Models for the Web-Graph, ed. R Kumar, D Sivaku- mar, pp. 98–109, pp. 98–109. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2010

  6. [14]

    Reuveni S, Urbakh M, Klafter J. 2014. Role of substrate unbinding in michaelis–menten en- zymatic reactions.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA111(12):4391–4396

    2014

  7. [15]

    Scheerer D, Levy D, Casier R, Riven I, Mazal H, Haran G. 2025. Interplay between confor- mational dynamics and substrate binding regulates enzymatic activity: a single-molecule fret study.Chem. Sci.16(7):3066–3077

    2025

  8. [16]

    Halford SE, Marko JF. 2004. How do site-specific dna-binding proteins find their targets? Nucleic Acids Res.32(10):3040–3052

    2004

  9. [17]

    Jangid P, Chaudhury S. 2026. Dna target search in chromatin compartments under stochastic www.annualreviews.org • Resetting: Prediction, Inference, Design 21 resetting.J. Phys. Chem. B130(13):3766–3775

    2026

  10. [18]

    Thirumalai D, Lorimer GH, Hyeon C. 2020. Iterative annealing mechanism explains the func- tions of the groel and rna chaperones.Protein Sci.29(2):360–377

    2020

  11. [19]

    Pal PS, Park JM, Pal A, Park H, Lee JS. 2023. Thermodynamic trade-off relation for first passage time in resetting.Phys. Rev. E108:044117

    2023

  12. [20]

    2012.Animal homing

    Papi F. 2012.Animal homing. Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  13. [21]

    Paramanick S, Biswas A, Soni H, Pal A, Kumar N. 2024. Uncovering universal characteristics of homing paths using foraging robots.PRX Life2(3):033007

    2024

  14. [22]

    Mercado-V´ asquez G, Boyer D. 2018. Lotka–volterra systems with stochastic resetting.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.51(40):405601

    2018

  15. [23]

    Blumer O, Hirshberg B. 2025. Have you tried turning it off and on again? A tutorial on stochastic resetting for molecular simulation.WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci

    2025

  16. [24]

    Blumer O, Reuveni S, Hirshberg B. 2022. Stochastic Resetting for Enhanced Sampling.J. Phys. Chem. Lett.13(48):11230–11236

    2022

  17. [25]

    Blumer O, Reuveni S, Hirshberg B. 2024. Combining stochastic resetting with metadynamics to speed-up molecular dynamics simulations.Nat. Commun.15(1):240

    2024

  18. [26]

    Church MS, Blumer O, Keidar TD, Ploutno A, Reuveni S, Hirshberg B. 2025. Accelerating molecular dynamics simulations through informed resetting.J. Chem. Theory Comput.21

    2025

  19. [27]

    Blumer O, Reuveni S, Hirshberg B. 2024. Short-time infrequent metadynamics for improved kinetics inference.J. Chem. Theory Comput.20(9):3484–3491

    2024

  20. [28]

    Pampel B, Holbach S, Hartung L, Valsson O. 2023. Sampling rare event energy landscapes via birth-death augmented dynamics.Phys. Rev. E107(2):024141

    2023

  21. [29]

    Elber R. 2020. Milestoning: An efficient approach for atomically detailed simulations of kinetics in biophysics.Annu. Rev. Biophys.49(Volume 49, 2020):69–85

    2020

  22. [30]

    Elber R, Fathizadeh A, Ma P, Wang H. 2021. Modeling molecular kinetics with milestoning. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.11(4):e1512

    2021

  23. [31]

    weighted ensemble

    Zhang BW, Jasnow D, Zuckerman DM. 2010. The “weighted ensemble” path sampling method is statistically exact for a broad class of stochastic processes and binning procedures.J. Chem. Phys.132(5):054107

    2010

  24. [32]

    Fuchs J, Goldt S, Seifert U. 2016. Stochastic thermodynamics of resetting.Europhys. Lett. 113(6):60009

    2016

  25. [33]

    Eule S, Metzger JJ. 2016. Non-equilibrium steady states of stochastic processes with intermit- tent resetting.New J. Phys.18(3):033006

    2016

  26. [34]

    Pal A, Rahav S. 2017. Integral fluctuation theorems for stochastic resetting systems.Phys. Rev. E96(6):062135

    2017

  27. [35]

    Pal A, Reuveni S, Rahav S. 2021. Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for systems with uni- directional transitions.Phys. Rev. Res.3:013273

    2021

  28. [36]

    Goerlich R, Olsen KS, L¨ owen H, Roichman Y. 2026. Time-energy trade-off in stochastic re- setting using optimal control.Phys. Rev. E113(1):014103

    2026

  29. [37]

    Tal-Friedman O, Pal A, Sekhon A, Reuveni S, Roichman Y. 2020. Experimental Realization of Diffusion with Stochastic Resetting.J. Phys. Chem. Lett.11(17):7350–7355

    2020

  30. [38]

    Besga B, Bovon A, Petrosyan A, Majumdar SN, Ciliberto S. 2020. Optimal mean first-passage time for a Brownian searcher subjected to resetting: Experimental and theoretical results. Phys. Rev. Res.2(3):032029

    2020

  31. [39]

    Evans MR, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2020. Stochastic resetting and applications.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.53(19):193001

    2020

  32. [40]

    Gupta S, Jayannavar AM. 2022. Stochastic Resetting: A (Very) Brief Review.Front. Phys. 10:789097

    2022

  33. [41]

    Pal A, Kostinski S, Reuveni S. 2022. The inspection paradox in stochastic resetting.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.55(2):021001

    2022

  34. [42]

    Kundu A, Reuveni S. 2024. Preface: stochastic resetting—theory and applications 22 Keidar et al

    2024

  35. [43]

    Altshuler A, Bonomo OL, Gorohovsky N, Marchini S, Rosen E, et al. 2024. Environmental memory facilitates search with home returns.Phys. Rev. Res.6(2):023255

    2024

  36. [44]

    Pal A, Ku´ smierz L, Reuveni S. 2020. Search with home returns provides advantage under high uncertainty.Phys. Rev. Res.2(4):043174

    2020

  37. [45]

    Keidar TD, Blumer O, Hirshberg B, Reuveni S. 2025. Adaptive resetting for informed search strategies and the design of non-equilibrium steady-states.Nat. Commun.16(1):7259

    2025

  38. [46]

    Biroli M, Larralde H, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2023. Extreme statistics and spacing distri- bution in a brownian gas correlated by resetting.Phys. Rev. Lett.130:207101

    2023

  39. [47]

    Biroli M, Ciliberto S, Kulkarni M, Majumdar SN, Petrosyan A, Schehr G. 2025. Exper- imental evidence for strong emergent correlations between particles in a switching trap. arXiv:2508.07199

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Vatash R, Roichman Y. 2025. Many-body colloidal dynamics under stochastic resetting: Competing effects of particle interactions on the steady state distribution.Phys. Rev. Res. 7(3):L032020

    2025

  41. [49]

    Vatash R, Altshuler A, Roichman Y. 2025. Numerical Prediction of the Steady-State Distri- bution Under Stochastic Resetting from Measurements.J. Stat. Phys.192(3):40

    2025

  42. [50]

    Sokolov IM. 2023. Linear response and fluctuation-dissipation relations for brownian motion under resetting.Phys. Rev. Lett.130(6):067101

    2023

  43. [51]

    Mukherjee B, Sengupta K, Majumdar SN. 2018. Quantum dynamics with stochastic reset. Phys. Rev. B98(10):104309

    2018

  44. [52]

    Yin R, Barkai E. 2023. Restart expedites quantum walk hitting times.Phys. Rev. Lett. 130(5):050802

    2023

  45. [53]

    Kulkarni M, Majumdar SN. 2023. Generating entanglement by quantum resetting.Phys. Rev. A108(6):062210

    2023

  46. [54]

    Yin R, Wang Q, Tornow S, Barkai E. 2025. Restart uncertainty relation for monitored quantum dynamics.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA122(1):e2402912121

    2025

  47. [55]

    Sevilla FJ, Vald´ es-Hern´ andez A. 2023. Dynamics of closed quantum systems under stochastic resetting.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.56(3):034001

    2023

  48. [56]

    Dubey V, Chetrite R, Dhar A. 2023. Quantum resetting in continuous measurement induced dynamics of a qubit.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.56(15):154001

    2023

  49. [57]

    Perfetto G, Carollo F, Magoni M, Lesanovsky I. 2021. Designing nonequilibrium states of quantum matter through stochastic resetting.Phys. Rev. B104(18):L180302

    2021

  50. [58]

    Turkeshi X, Dalmonte M, Fazio R, Schir` o M. 2022. Entanglement transitions from stochastic resetting of non-hermitian quasiparticles.Phys. Rev. B105(24):L241114

    2022

  51. [59]

    Pal A, Kundu A, Evans MR. 2016. Diffusion under time-dependent resetting.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.49(22):225001

    2016

  52. [60]

    Gupta S, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2014. Fluctuating interfaces subject to stochastic resetting. Phys. Rev. Lett.112(22):220601

    2014

  53. [61]

    1999.The Laplace transform: theory and applications

    Schiff JL. 1999.The Laplace transform: theory and applications. Springer Science & Business Media

    1999

  54. [62]

    Reuveni S. 2016. Optimal stochastic restart renders fluctuations in first passage times univer- sal.Phys. Rev. Lett.116(17):170601

    2016

  55. [63]

    Rotbart T, Reuveni S, Urbakh M. 2015. Michaelis-menten reaction scheme as a unified ap- proach towards the optimal restart problem.Phys. Rev. E92(6):060101(R)

    2015

  56. [64]

    Mart ´ ınez IA, Petrosyan A, Gu´ ery-Odelin D, Trizac E, Ciliberto S. 2016. Engineered swift equilibration of a Brownian particle.Nat. Phys.12(9):843–846

    2016

  57. [65]

    Patra A, Jarzynski C. 2017. Shortcuts to adiabaticity using flow fields.New J. Phys. 19(12):125009

    2017

  58. [66]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin D, Ruschhaupt A, Kiely A, Torrontegui E, Mart ´ ınez-Garaot S, Muga J. 2019. Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applications.Rev. Mod. Phys.91(4):045001

    2019

  59. [67]

    Majumdar SN, Sabhapandit S, Schehr G. 2015. Dynamical transition in the temporal relax- www.annualreviews.org • Resetting: Prediction, Inference, Design 23 ation of stochastic processes under resetting.Phys. Rev. E91(5):052131

    2015

  60. [68]

    Singh RK, Metzler R, Sandev T. 2020. Resetting dynamics in a confining potential.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.53(50):505003

    2020

  61. [69]

    Singh RK, G´ orska K, Sandev T. 2022. General approach to stochastic resetting.Phys. Rev. E 105(6):064133

    2022

  62. [70]

    Goerlich R, Keidar TD, Roichman Y. 2024. Resetting as a swift equilibration protocol in an anharmonic potential.Phys. Rev. Res.6(3):033162

    2024

  63. [71]

    Evans MR, Majumdar SN, Mallick K. 2013. Optimal diffusive search: nonequilibrium resetting versus equilibrium dynamics.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.46(18):185001

    2013

  64. [72]

    Rold´ an E, Gupta S. 2017. Path-integral formalism for stochastic resetting: Exactly solved examples and shortcuts to confinement.Phys. Rev. E96(2):022130

    2017

  65. [73]

    Sherf N, Goerlich R, Hirshberg B, Roichman Y. 2026. Stochastic resetting vs. thermal Equili- bration: Faster Relaxation, different destination.Phys. Rev. Res

    2026

  66. [74]

    Gupta D, Plata CA, Pal A. 2020. Work Fluctuations and Jarzynski Equality in Stochastic Resetting.Phys. Rev. Lett.124(11):110608

    2020

  67. [75]

    Garc ´ ıa-Valladares G, Gupta D, Prados A, Plata CA. 2024. Stochastic resetting with refractory periods: pathway formulation and exact results.Phys. Scr.99(4):045234

    2024

  68. [76]

    Gupta D, Plata CA, Kundu A, Pal A. 2021. Stochastic resetting with stochastic returns using external trap.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.54(2):025003

    2021

  69. [77]

    Olsen KS, Gupta D, Mori F, Krishnamurthy S. 2024. Thermodynamic cost of finite-time stochastic resetting.Phys. Rev. Res.6(3):033343

    2024

  70. [78]

    Laio A, Gervasio FL. 2008. Metadynamics: a method to simulate rare events and reconstruct the free energy in biophysics, chemistry and material science.Rep. Prog. Phys.71(12):126601

    2008

  71. [79]

    Valsson O, Tiwary P, Parrinello M. 2016. Enhancing important fluctuations: Rare events and metadynamics from a conceptual viewpoint.Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.67(Volume 67, 2016):159–184

    2016

  72. [80]

    Barducci A, Bussi G, Parrinello M. 2008. Well-tempered metadynamics: A smoothly converg- ing and tunable free-energy method.Phys. Rev. Lett.100(2):020603

    2008

  73. [81]

    Barducci A, Bonomi M, Parrinello M. 2011. Metadynamics.WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 1(5):826–843

    2011

  74. [82]

    Sidky H, Chen W, Ferguson AL. 2020. Machine learning for collective variable discovery and enhanced sampling in biomolecular simulation.Mol. Phys.118(5):e1737742

    2020

  75. [83]

    Blumer O, Reuveni S, Hirshberg B. 2024. Inference of non-exponential kinetics through stochastic resetting.J. Chem. Phys.161(22)

    2024

  76. [84]

    2019.Introduction to probability models

    Ross SM. 2019.Introduction to probability models. Amsterdam: Academic Press, twelfth edi- tion. ed

    2019

  77. [85]

    2017.SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restarts

    Loshchilov I, Hutter F. 2017.SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restarts. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2017

  78. [86]

    Bae Y, Song Y, Jeong H. 2025. Stochastic resetting mitigates latent gradient bias of SGD from label noise.Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.6(1):015062

    2025

  79. [87]

    2023.When Does Re-initialization Work?InProceedings on, pp

    Zaidi S, Berariu T, Kim H, Bornschein J, Clopath C, et al. 2023.When Does Re-initialization Work?InProceedings on, pp. 12–26. PMLR

    2023

  80. [88]

    Meir S, Keidar TD, Reuveni S, Hirshberg B. 2025. First-passage approach to optimizing per- turbations for improved training of machine learning models.Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 6(2):025053

    2025

  81. [89]

    Keidar TD, Reuveni S. 2026. Universal linear response of first-passage kinetics: A framework for prediction and inference.Phys. Rev. Res.8(2):023135

    2026

  82. [90]

    2019.SPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Code

    Kulal S, Pasupat P, Chandra K, Lee M, Padon O, et al. 2019.SPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Code. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed. H Wallach, H Larochelle, A Beygelzimer, F d'Alch´ e-Buc, E Fox, R Garnett, vol. 32. Curran Associates, Inc

    2019

  83. [91]

    2025.A Simple Model of Inference Scaling Laws

    Levi NI. 2025.A Simple Model of Inference Scaling Laws. InProceedings of the 42nd Inter- 24 Keidar et al. national Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2025

  84. [92]

    2025.How Do Large Language Monkeys Get Their Power (Laws)?InProceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    Schaeffer R, Kazdan J, Hughes J, Juravsky J, Price S, et al. 2025.How Do Large Language Monkeys Get Their Power (Laws)?InProceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2025

  85. [93]

    Kazdan J, Schaeffer R, Allouah Y, Sullivan C, Yu K, et al. 2025. Efficient prediction of pass@k scaling in large language models.arXiv:2510.05197

    2025

  86. [94]

    Meir S, Keidar TD, Levi N, Reuveni S, Hirshberg B. 2026. More bang for the buck: Improv- ing the inference of large language models at a fixed budget using reset and discard (red). arXiv:2601.21522

    2026 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Evans MR, Majumdar SN. 2011. Diffusion with optimal resetting.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44(43):435001

    2011

  88. [96]

    Berezhkovskii AM, Szabo A, Rotbart T, Urbakh M, Kolomeisky AB. 2017. Dependence of the enzymatic velocity on the substrate dissociation rate.J. Phys. Chem. B121(15):3437– 3442PMID: 28423908

    2017

  89. [97]

    Singh D, Chaudhury S. 2019. Theoretical study of the conditional non-monotonic off rate dependence of catalytic reaction rates in single enzymes in the presence of conformational fluctuations.Chem. Phys.523:150–159

    2019

  90. [98]

    Tucci G, Gambassi A, Gupta S, Rold´ an E. 2020. Controlling particle currents with evaporation and resetting from an interval.Phys. Rev. Res.2(4):043138

    2020

  91. [99]

    Plata CA, Gupta D, Azaele S. 2020. Asymmetric stochastic resetting: Modeling catastrophic events.Phys. Rev. E102(5):052116

    2020

  92. [100]

    Cantis´ an J, Nieto AR, Seoane JM, Sanju´ an MAF. 2024. Energy-based stochastic resetting can avoid noise-enhanced stability.Phys. Rev. E109(2):024201

    2024

  93. [101]

    Pinsky RG. 2020. Diffusive search with spatially dependent resetting.Stoch. Process. Their Appl.130(5):2954–2973

    2020

  94. [102]

    Ye Y, Chen H. 2022. Random walks on complex networks under node-dependent stochastic resetting.J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2022(5):053201

    2022

  95. [103]

    Biswas A, Majumdar SN, Pal A. 2025. Target search optimization by threshold resetting. Phys. Rev. Lett.135(22):227101

    2025

  96. [104]

    Del Vecchio GDV, Kulkarni M, Majumdar SN, Sabhapandit S. 2026. Proxitaxis: An adaptive search strategy based on proximity and stochastic resetting.Phys. Rev. E113(4):L042101

    2026

  97. [105]

    De Bruyne B, Randon-Furling J, Redner S. 2020. Optimization in first-passage resetting.Phys. Rev. Lett.125(5):050602

    2020

  98. [106]

    De Bruyne B, Mori F. 2023. Resetting in stochastic optimal control.Phys. Rev. Res. 5(1):013122

    2023

  99. [107]

    Ali SY, Choudhury N, Mondal D. 2022. Asymmetric restart in a stochastic climate model: A theoretical perspective to prevent the abnormal precipitation accumulation caused by global warming.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.55(30):301001

    2022

  100. [108]

    Tal-Friedman O, Keidar TD, Reuveni S, Roichman Y. 2025. Smart resetting: An energy- efficient strategy for stochastic search processes.Phys. Rev. Res.7(1):013033

    2025

  101. [109]

    Rudyak VY, Shinehorn S, Roichman Y. 2025. Channel formation enhances target consumption by chemotactic active brownian particles.arXiv:2507.11328

    2025 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Santra I, Das D. 2026. Resetting in a viscoelastic bath: the bath remembers.New J. Phys.In press

    2026

  103. [111]

    Pal A, Ku´ smierz L, Reuveni S. 2019. Time-dependent density of diffusion with stochastic resetting is invariant to return speed.Phys. Rev. E100(4):040101

    2019

  104. [112]

    Pal A, Ku´ smierz L, Reuveni S. 2019. Invariants of motion with stochastic resetting and space- time coupled returns.New J. Phys.21(11):113024

    2019

  105. [113]

    Rudyak VY, Roichman Y. 2026. Efficient open-source gpu implementation for multi-agent autochemotactic 2d modeling.Comput. Phys. Commun.327:110285

    2026

  106. [114]

    Sartor M, Schwanekamp J, Halbleib D, Mohamed I, Karyala S, et al. 2004. Microarray results www.annualreviews.org • Resetting: Prediction, Inference, Design 25 improve significantly as hybridization approaches equilibrium.BioTechniques36(5):790–796

    2004

  107. [115]

    Torrie GM, Valleau JP. 1977. Nonphysical sampling distributions in monte carlo free-energy estimation: Umbrella sampling.J. Comput. Phys.23(2):187–199

    1977

  108. [116]

    Tal-Friedman O, Roichman Y, Reuveni S. 2022. Diffusion with partial resetting.Phys. Rev. E 106(5):054116

    2022

  109. [117]

    Pierce JK. 2021. The stochastic movements of individual streambed grains. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia

    2021

  110. [118]

    Di Bello C, Chechkin A V, Hartmann AK, Palmowski Z, Metzler R. 2023. Time-dependent probability density function for partial resetting dynamics.New J. Phys.25(8):082002

    2023

  111. [119]

    Olsen KS, L¨ owen H. 2024. Partial stochastic resetting with refractory periods.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.57:485001

    2024

  112. [120]

    Biroli M, Feld Y, Hartmann AK, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2024. Resetting by rescaling: Exact results for a diffusing particle in one dimension.Phys. Rev. E110(4):044142

    2024

  113. [121]

    Mu˜ noz-Gil G, Briegel HJ, Caraglio M. 2025. Learning to reset in target search problems.New J. Phys.27(9):093701

    2025

  114. [122]

    Nagar A, Gupta S. 2023. Stochastic resetting in interacting particle systems: A review.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.56:283001

    2023

  115. [123]

    Miron A, Reuveni S. 2021. Diffusion with local resetting and exclusion.Phys. Rev. Res. 3:L012023

    2021

  116. [124]

    de Mauro G, Biroli M, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2026. Dynamically emergent correlations in brownian particles subject to simultaneous non-poissonian resetting protocols.Phys. Rev. E 113:014120

    2026

  117. [125]

    Biroli M, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2026. First passage resetting gas.Europhys. Lett.153:31002

    2026

  118. [126]

    de Mauro G, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2026. Tuning the strength of emergent correlations in a brownian gas via batch resetting.arXiv:2601.20077

    2026

  119. [127]

    Bressloff PC. 2024. Global density equations for interacting particle systems with stochastic resetting: From overdamped brownian motion to phase synchronization.Chaos34:043101

    2024

  120. [128]

    Biroli M, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2025. Resetting dyson brownian motion.Phys. Rev. E 112:014101

    2025

  121. [129]

    Mori F, Olsen KS, Krishnamurthy S. 2023. Entropy production of resetting processes.Phys. Rev. Res.5:023103

    2023

  122. [130]

    Sunil M, Blythe RA, Evans MR, Majumdar SN. 2023. The cost of stochastic resetting.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.56:395001

    2023

  123. [131]

    Landauer R. 1961. Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process.IBM J. Res. Dev.5(3):183–191

    1961

  124. [132]

    B´ erut A, Arakelyan A, Petrosyan A, Ciliberto S, Dillenschneider R, Lutz E. 2012. Experi- mental verification of landauer’s principle linking information and thermodynamics.Nature 483(7388):187–189

    2012

  125. [133]

    Gupta D, Olsen KS, Krishnamurthy S. 2025. Thermodynamic cost of recurrent erasure.Com- mun. Phys.8(1):355

    2025

  126. [134]

    Goerlich R, Li M, Pires LB, Hervieux PA, Manfredi G, Genet C. 2025. Taming a Maxwell’s demon for experimental stochastic resetting.Phys. Rev. E

    2025

  127. [135]

    Singh P. 2024. Emerging cost-time Pareto front for diffusion with stochastic return.New J. Phys

    2024

  128. [136]

    Archambault C, Crauste-Thibierge D, Imparato A, Jarzynski C, Ciliberto S, Bellon L. 2025. Information engine fueled by first-passage times.Phys. Rev. Lett.135:147101

    2025

  129. [137]

    Pires LB, Goerlich R, da Fonseca AL, Debiossac M, Hervieux PA, et al. 2023. Optimal time- entropy bounds and speed limits for Brownian thermal shortcuts.Phys. Rev. Lett.131:097101

    2023

  130. [138]

    Goerlich R, Sorkin B, Boriskovsky D, Pires LB, Lindner B, et al. 2026. Consis- tent thermodynamics reconstructed from transitions between nonequilibrium steady-states. arXiv:2601.03245 26 Keidar et al

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.