Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Entropy production of active matter systems as indicator for computing performance

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Entropy production tracks reservoir computing performance—but only the driver-induced part, not the absolute value.

desk verdict A serious, transparent empirical study: driven/undriven entropy contrast tracks reservoir performance, but the headline heat metric rests on an unvalidated passive-bath split. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29434 v1 pith:WIQB7XDZ submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.stat-mech nlin.AOnlin.CDphysics.comp-ph

Patrick Egenlauf , Hannes A. Kröninger , Arnulf Kung , Mario U. Gaimann , Miriam Klopotek This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.AOnlin.CDphysics.comp-ph
keywords entropyproductionreservoircomputingactivematterswarmphase-spacecontractionheatflowLorenz-63predictionnear-criticaldamping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether entropy production (EP) can serve as a physical indicator of computing performance in a driven active-matter reservoir. Simulating a swarm of particles that must predict a Lorenz-63 chaotic signal, the authors compute two separate entropy channels: the system's internal EP from phase-space contraction and the bath EP from heat flow. They find that performance does not track the absolute magnitude of EP, but rather the driver-induced change in the thermodynamic response—specifically the ratios η_sys and η_bath between driven and undriven system entropy and heat. The near-critically damped dynamical regime, already known to be the best-performing reservoir, is exactly where this driver-induced dissipation is sharpest and where the entropy metrics are most robust to initial conditions. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that EP-derived quantities, especially relative driven-undriven contrasts and driver work, offer a task-agnostic screening metric for physical reservoir substrates.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two entropy estimators plus a work measure. First, a Monte-Carlo estimator based on the generalized Liouville equation computes the system EP rate as the phase-space contraction rate, i.e., the sum of Lyapunov exponents, using only the deterministic flow field. Second, the bath EP is computed from a heat-flow identification in which only non-conservative forces opposing a particle's velocity—those with ˙qi·Bi < 0—count as heat delivered to a passive bath. The central comparative quantities are the relative differences η_sys and η_bath (Eqs. 39–40), the driver work W_d, and the coefficient of variation CV of the entropy metrics. The sharp contrast between driven and undri

What would settle it

Replace the passive-bath heat-flow rule with a thermodynamically consistent bath coupling, e.g., a Langevin thermostat with an Einstein-relation diffusion constant, or explicitly model the constituents' internal entropy production ˙Scons. If the η_bath peak in the near-critically damped band disappears or its correlation with prediction performance drops below significance across both parameter scans, the paper's central claim is falsified. Alternatively, an experiment with synthetic active particles and controlled drag could measure whether the driven-undriven heat-flow contrast actually trac

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a driven active-swarm reservoir performing Lorenz-63 prediction, computational performance is not set by the absolute entropy production rate. Instead, the predictive signature is the driver-induced change in the thermodynamic response: the relative difference in system entropy (η_sys) and in transferred heat (η_bath) between driven and undriven conditions peaks in the near-critically damped band, coinciding with peak prediction performance. In the undriven system this band is actually a minimum of transferred heat; under driving it becomes a maximum, indicating that the near-critical regime is distinguished by sensitivity to the driver, not by intrinsic dissipation. Driver work W_d also

Load-bearing premise

The heat-flow identification in Eq. (9) assumes only the decelerating part of the non-conservative forces transfers entropy to a passive bath that never couples back; if accelerating forces also exchange entropy with the environment, or the bath feeds back, then the computed bath entropy rate is not the true physical entropy flow and the central association may reduce to 'input work correlates with performance.'

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Entropy ratios and driver work could flag good computational regimes in physical reservoirs without running the full training and prediction task.
  • The near-critically damped band is shown to be special thermodynamically only under driving, not intrinsically—so thermodynamic diagnostics must compare driven and undriven states, not just measure dissipation.
  • Robustness to initial conditions, quantified by low CV of system entropy and heat flow, is itself a predictor of high reservoir performance.
  • The generalized-Liouville system-entropy estimator applies to any system of first-order ODEs, independent of the swarm model, making phase-space contraction a broadly usable diagnostic.
  • The same qualitative associations hold for four additional attractor-based driver signals, suggesting the effect is not specific to Lorenz-63 inputs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this holds, entropy-based screening could be applied to other physical reservoir candidates—photonic, mechanical, or chemical—where a clean Hamiltonian/non-Hamiltonian split exists, potentially replacing brute-force task sweeps.
  • The near-critical damping band may be an operational realization of 'edge of chaos': the entropic contrast between driven and undriven response could serve as a measurable edge-of-chaos detector for physical substrates.
  • A testable extension is to use η_bath or driver work as an online control signal, dynamically tuning K_sc or the driver coupling to keep the reservoir near the peak-entropy-response regime during operation.
  • The passive-bath assumption means the bathentropy estimate is only valid where the driver dominates dissipation; in weakly driven regimes the neglected internal constituent entropy likely becomes relevant, so a full entropy balance would be needed to sharpen the screening metric.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes a deterministic active-swarm reservoir studied previously in the reservoir-computing literature and asks whether entropy-production observables can serve as screening metrics for computational performance. It introduces a Monte-Carlo estimator for the Gibbs entropy rate Ṡ_sys based on the generalized Liouville equation (Eqs. 24–31), proposes a heat flow Q̇ into a passive bath via sign-selected non-Hamiltonian work (Eq. 9), and performs two parameter scans: the speed-controller scan (K_sc, s) and the driver-force scan (K_d, r_d). The results compare driven vs undriven entropy, driver work, and coefficients of variation to Lorenz-63 prediction performance, with additional reproducibility checks on four other attractor drivers (Appendix B). The central claim is that the driver-induced contrast in entropy production, rather than absolute dissipation, marks the near-critically damped band as the best computational regime, making EP-derived quantities candidate screening metrics for physical reservoirs.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper would provide practical thermodynamic diagnostics for physical reservoir computers and a general, parameter-free estimator for phase-space contraction in deterministic ODE systems. Strengths include: the generalized-Liouville estimator derivation is clean and machine-checkable; data are openly available; the correlation analysis is repeated across five driver signals; and the paper is unusually explicit about its own limitations. The main weakness is that the bath heat flow in Eq. (9) is an unvalidated Heaviside projection that makes Q̇ positive by construction, and the paper itself admits in Sec. V that the total entropy balance in Eq. (2) is negative when driving is weak or absent. Because η_bath, CV(Q), and the headline 'dissipation coincides with peak performance' rely on identifying this Q̇ with physical heat, the current thermodynamic language overstates what is established. With validation or a careful re-scoping of Q̇ as a deceleration-work diagnostic, the empirical associations may still be useful; as written, a load-bearing assumption remains unproven.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (9), Sec. V] The heat flow Q̇ is defined by a Heaviside projection keeping only non-Hamiltonian force components that oppose a particle's velocity, so Q̇ ≥ 0 by construction and the bath never feeds back. The authors concede in Sec. V that Eq. (2) 'is positive only where the driver dominates the system's dissipative response, turning negative when driving is weak or absent (small K_d, small r_d, undriven case, overdamped regime)', and the rescue via neglected constituent entropy Ṡ_cons is an added assumption rather than a derivation. Since η_bath (Eq. 40), CV(Q) (Fig. 4), and the central claim that 'dissipation coincides with peak performance' all depend on Q̇ being a physical heat flow, this decomposition is load-bearing. Please either validate Eq. (9) in a thermodynamically consistent coupling (e.g., a Langevin limit or Nose–Hoover-style thermostat) or remove the thermodynamic interpretation and de
  2. [Tabs. III–IV, Sec. IV D] The empirical core of the paper is the Pearson/Spearman correlations between performance and thermodynamic metrics, but no sample sizes, confidence intervals, or p-values are reported. Several entries are weak, e.g., W_d has Pearson r = 0.0301 in Table IV while Spearman ρ = 0.7001, and the text describes correlations as 'strong' without uncertainty quantification. Given a two-dimensional scan, a post-hoc capper filter, and multiple metrics, these correlations need N (number of parameter configurations retained), bootstrap intervals or p-values, and some awareness of multiple comparisons. Without this, the relative ranking of metrics in the tables cannot be assessed.
  3. [Eq. (41), Sec. IV D] W_d is the work performed by the input channel on the reservoir, so a correlation between W_d and task performance is partly built in: a reservoir whose drive does no work cannot respond to the input. The paper partly acknowledges this by showing W_d alone fails in the driver-force scan and by introducing the heuristic W_d(1−c_d). To support the stronger conclusion that entropy-based metrics add predictive value beyond input power, the authors should provide a control (e.g., random or power-matched drive) or a partial-correlation analysis controlling for W_d. Otherwise the claim that EP, rather than input-coupling strength, tracks performance remains underdetermined.
  4. [Sec. II B, Eqs. (4)–(6), Fig. 2] The quantity called the 'system entropy production' Ṡ_sys is the time derivative of the Gibbs entropy and is negative for every undriven and driven configuration shown in Fig. 2. A negative rate may be a legitimate open-system entropy change, but it is not an entropy-production rate. The paper's own second-law bookkeeping is left unresolved, and the title/abstract advertise 'entropy production' for an object that is negative. Please either rename the observable (e.g., phase-space contraction rate) or provide a full bookkeeping in which Ṡ_sys + Ṡ_env ≥ 0. The current ambiguity affects the interpretation of η_sys in Eq. (39), whose denominator is negative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (32)] The symbol D appears in Eqs. (32a)–(32b) without an explicit definition; if it is the spatial dimension, state this before the equation. The expression 'D Ka' in Eq. (32a) also appears garbled and should be typeset as a product or dimension factor.
  2. [Fig. 5, Eqs. (39)–(40)] The figure plots |η_sys| and |η_bath|, but the text discusses signs and directions. Please define the sign convention for η_sys and η_bath and explain why absolute values are used, especially because S_sys is negative over most of the parameter space.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (15)] The replacement of the tanh wrapper by the force capper and the global force rescaling by 20 shifts the K_sc axis relative to prior work. The text says this 'slightly shifts' the axis, but for reproducibility it would help to give an explicit mapping or a table of equivalent parameters.
  4. [Appendix B] The robustness tables in Appendix B report correlations without the same N and uncertainty information as the main tables. Please either include the same statistical details or note explicitly that the appendix is only a qualitative consistency check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: EP and performance are measured independently; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The system-entropy estimator (Sec. III C 1, Eqs. 29-32) is an exact Monte-Carlo evaluation of the generalized Liouville divergence of the flow field, and the heat flow (Eqs. 9, 34) is a transparent modeling choice, explicitly labeled "we propose the following, physically motivated identification." Reservoir performance is computed independently by training the linear readout (Eq. 20, Fig. 7). No EP quantity is fit to the readout or to the Lorenz-63 target, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior papers. The self-citations [4,7] identify the near-critical regime, but the paper recomputes the performance landscape and reports higher maximum performance than those works, so the citations are contextual, not load-bearing. The admitted limitation that Eq. (2) can be negative unless the driver dominates, and the passive-bath assumption behind Eq. (9), are thermodynamic-consistency caveats: they weaken the physical interpretation of "entropy production" but do not make the measured association between the defined η_bath, CV(Q), W_d and performance circular. W_d is indeed the energy injected by the input channel, so some correlation with a prediction task is expected in the weak-coupling limit; the paper's own driver-force scan shows W_d alone is insufficient, and its central claim concerns driven-undriven contrasts, which are empirical and not definitionally tied to performance.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central diagnostics rest on two pillars: a clean, standard derivation of phase-space contraction as an ensemble-averaged divergence (no free parameters), and a model-specific heat-flow split (Eq. 9) that is ad hoc and unverified thermodynamically. No parameters are fitted to the performance target in the EP computation itself; the only post-hoc construct is the distributed-work metric W_d(1-c_d). The performance-relevant free choices are the regime anchor points and inherited model parameters from the same group's earlier work.

free parameters (4)
  • Representative regime points (K_sc, s) = K_sc=0.4138, s=0.0483 (near-critical); 0.0011/18.3298 (underdamped); 28.769/0.0007 (overdamped)
    Hand-selected within regimes classified by the authors' prior work (refs [4,7]); used for time-series comparisons in Fig. 2.
  • Driver-force scan anchor (K_sc, s) = K_sc=0.4138, s=0.0483
    Fixes the near-critically damped regime for the K_d-r_d scan (Sec. IV.C); a modeling choice, not fit to data.
  • Simulation parameters = N=200, l_box=16, K_r=K_h=40, K_a=0.2, F_cap=800, dt=0.002
    Inherited from refs [4,7,8]; the paper notes absolute EP values are not comparable to prior work because of the smaller dt (Sec. IV).
  • Distributed-work heuristic weighting (1-c_d) = W_d*(1-c_d)
    Introduced after observing that W_d alone matches performance poorly in the driver-force scan (Sec. IV.D); constructed to raise the correlation, a post-hoc composite metric.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Generalized Liouville equation (25) governs the phase-space density, justifying the entropy estimator (26)-(30).
    Standard transport-equation result (refs [64,65]); the derivation of S_dot as an ensemble average of flow divergence is clean.
  • domain assumption Time-averaged S_dot_sys equals the sum of Lyapunov exponents (Eq. 5).
    Invoked via ref [56] to interpret phase-space contraction as an entropy surrogate; the paper itself cautions against identifying it with thermodynamic entropy (Sec. II.B).
  • ad hoc to paper Passive-bath heat identification (Eq. 9): only force components opposing a particle's velocity transfer heat; the bath never feeds back.
    Defines Q_dot as positive by construction. The paper concedes that the resulting S_dot_tot is not always non-negative (Sec. V), so the 'entropy production' label rests on this unverified choice.
  • domain assumption Bath entropy rate is S_dot_bath = Q_dot / T with an implicit unit-temperature bath (Eq. 7).
    Standard heat/T form, but no thermodynamic model links the bath temperature to the force parameters, unlike a Langevin bath with Einstein relations (acknowledged in Sec. II.B).
  • ad hoc to paper Neglected constituent entropy S_dot_cons accounts for the second-law deficit (Eq. 6).
    Sec. V explains negative S_dot_tot by unresolved internal entropy of active constituents; plausible but unmodeled, so the split cannot be checked.
  • domain assumption Velocity-Verlet integration with dt=0.002 resolves EP rates consistently.
    Paper notes trends are consistent with prior larger-dt runs but absolute values differ (Sec. IV), so quantitative EP values are scheme-dependent.
invented entities (1)
  • Passive heat bath that only absorbs energy
    purpose: Makes Q_dot non-negative by construction (Eq. 9) and enables the heat-flow diagnostic
    The bath is a modeling construct, not an independently verified component; its thermodynamic consistency is explicitly left open in Sec. II.B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entropy production of active matter systems as indicator for computing performance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WIQB7XDZ

@misc{pith2026260729434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entropy production of active matter systems as indicator for computing performance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WIQB7XDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29434}
}
read the original abstract

Physical systems can process information through their natural dynamics, offering alternatives to conventional digital computing. Reservoir computing offers a basic framework by using a nonlinear substrate to map inputs into rich dynamical states read out by a simple linear layer. Active matter substrates are striking examples; they continuously consume energy and produce entropy. Theoretically, entropy production (EP) can describe the irreversibility and distance from equilibrium. But it remains unclear whether it can track computational capabilities. We address this conceptual gap by analyzing a driven swarm reservoir model. The system EP is computed from phase-space contraction and the bath EP from heat flow, separately, and put in direct association to prediction performance on a Lorenz-63 task. Via force parameter scans, we show that dynamical regimes with the strongest response to a driver as well as dissipation coincide with peak performance. Therein, the dynamical discrepancy between innate (minimal dissipation) and driven transferred heat (maximal dissipation) is sharpest. Generally, driver work and relative differences of driven and undriven EP closely mirror the performance landscape. The system EP, derived from a generalized Liouville-equation estimator, and heat flow provide complementary diagnostics and metrics, which are most robust in the best-performing regime. These results extend prior expectations that dissipation matters for computation by identifying when and how it becomes predictive. They also relate inference power to innate dynamics, pointing to generic principles for physical computing and where EP offers a screening metric for reservoirs and other base substrates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29434 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Representative snapshot of the swarm reservoir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Time series of the system entropy rate and heat flow for the undriven and driven system for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: System entropy and transferred heat for the undriven system across the parameter scan of the speed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: System entropy and transferred heat for the driven system across the parameter scan of the speed controller [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Relative difference between the driven and undriven case for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: System entropy and transferred heat for the driven system across the driver force scan (Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Work of the driver on the system and performance across both parameter scans. Gray areas indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Driver force concentration (Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Average number of particles per time step on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    − Z t 0 sX i=1 ∂Fi ∂ξi (ξ(τ), τ)dτ # (26) Since the volume elementdξtransforms as dξ=dξ 0 exp

    Internal EP: The Generalized Liouville Equation approach Numerically computing Eq. (4) for a phase space of large dimension can, in general, be a quite demanding task. Either one has to solve a partial differential equa- tion governing the evolution of the density, or one has to estimateρempirically from a large number of sam- ples [62, 63], becoming agai...

  2. [2]

    K¨ unstliche Intelligenz & Gesellschaft: Re- flecting Intelligent Systems for Diversity, Demography and Democracy

    Entropy flow into the environment Starting with the rate of change of the total energy (8) and using the Hamiltonian (16), one obtains ∂H ∂t = ∂Vext ∂t ,(33) which can be clearly identified as the work performed by the driver on the system. Using the expression (9) for the heat flow into the bath then gives in the ensemble average ˙Q=− Z nX i=1 pi ·B i mi...

    2000

  3. [3]

    Hermans, M

    M. Hermans, M. Burm, T. Van Vaerenbergh, J. Dambre, and P. Bienstman, Trainable hardware for dynamical computing using error backpropagation through physical media, Nature Communications6, 6729 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Jaeger, B

    H. Jaeger, B. Noheda, and W. G. van der Wiel, To- ward a formal theory for computing machines made out of whatever physics offers, Nature Communications14, 4911 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Tanaka, T

    G. Tanaka, T. Yamane, J. B. H´ eroux, R. Nakane, N. Kanazawa, S. Takeda, H. Numata, D. Nakano, and A. Hirose, Recent advances in physical reservoir comput- ing: A review, Neural Networks115, 100 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    M. U. Gaimann and M. Klopotek, Robustly optimal dynamics for active matter reservoir computing (2025), 2505.05420

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Wang and F

    X. Wang and F. Cichos, Harnessing synthetic active par- ticles for physical reservoir computing, Nature Commu- nications15, 774 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Y. Zhou, F. Ye, K.-F. Chu, and F. Iida, Scalable mobile swarm network for reservoir computing using gaussian kernel density estimation, Neural Networks195, 108263 (2026)

    2026

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    M. U. Gaimann and M. Klopotek, Optimal information injection and transfer mechanisms for active matter reser- voir computing (2026), arXiv:2509.01799 [nlin.AO]

    2026

  2. [10]

    Lymburn, S

    T. Lymburn, S. D. Algar, M. Small, and T. J¨ ungling, Reservoir computing with swarms, Chaos: An Interdisci- plinary Journal of Nonlinear Science31, 033121 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Vandoorne, W

    K. Vandoorne, W. Dierckx, B. Schrauwen, D. Ver- straeten, R. Baets, P. Bienstman, and J. V. Campenhout, Toward optical signal processing using photonic reservoir computing, Opt. Express16, 11182 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Duport, B

    F. Duport, B. Schneider, A. Smerieri, M. Haelterman, and S. Massar, All-optical reservoir computing, Opt. Ex- press20, 22783 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    C. H. Marrows, J. Barker, T. A. Moore, and T. Moorsom, Neuromorphic computing with spintronics, npj Spintron- ics2, 12 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    J. Chen, Y. Song, and A. Hirose, Spintronic reservoir computing with interpretable nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013310 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    J. C. Coulombe, M. C. A. York, and J. Sylvestre, Com- puting with networks of nonlinear mechanical oscillators, PLOS ONE12, e0178663 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Kiyabu, D

    S. Kiyabu, D. Nelson, J. Thomson, B. Schultz, T. Vincent, N. Hertlein, A. Gillman, A. Criner, and P. R. Buskohl, Optomechanical reser- voir computing, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2424991122 (2025), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2424991122

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    Perkins, The mechanical duffing adaptive oscillator physical reservoir computer, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing233, 112711 (2025)

    E. Perkins, The mechanical duffing adaptive oscillator physical reservoir computer, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing233, 112711 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Fernando and S

    C. Fernando and S. Sojakka, Pattern recognition in a bucket, inAdvances in Artificial Life, edited by W. Banzhaf, J. Ziegler, T. Christaller, P. Dittrich, and J. T. Kim (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2003) pp. 588–597

    2003

  11. [19]

    O. Obst, A. Trinchi, S. G. Hardin, M. Chadwick, I. Cole, T. H. Muster, N. Hoschke, D. Ostry, D. Price, K. N. Pham, and T. Wark, Nano-scale reservoir computing, Nano Communication Networks4, 189 (2013). [18]Reservoir Computing with Random Chemical Systems, ALIFE 2022: The 2022 ...

    2013

  12. [20]

    C. Zhu, P. J. Ehlers, H. I. Nurdin, and D. Soh, Practical few-atom quantum reservoir computing, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023290 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    D. H. Wolpert, The stochastic thermodynamics of com- putation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical52, 193001 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Chattopadhyay, A

    P. Chattopadhyay, A. Misra, T. Pandit, and G. Paul, Landauer principle and thermodynamics of computation, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 086001 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Nardini, ´E

    C. Nardini, ´E. Fodor, E. Tjhung, F. Van Wijland, J. Tailleur, and M. E. Cates, Entropy Production in Field Theories without Time-Reversal Symmetry: Quantifying the Non-Equilibrium Character of Active Matter, Phys- ical Review X7, 021007 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Landauer, Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process, IBM Journal of Research and De- velopment5, 183 (1961)

    R. Landauer, Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process, IBM Journal of Research and De- velopment5, 183 (1961)

    1961

  17. [25]

    Sagawa, Thermodynamics of Information Processing in Small Systems*), Progress of Theoretical Physics127, 1 (2012)

    T. Sagawa, Thermodynamics of Information Processing in Small Systems*), Progress of Theoretical Physics127, 1 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Sagawa, Thermodynamic and logical reversibilities re- visited, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Ex- periment2014, P03025 (2014)

    T. Sagawa, Thermodynamic and logical reversibilities re- visited, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Ex- periment2014, P03025 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Tom´ e and M

    T. Tom´ e and M. J. De Oliveira, Entropy Production in Nonequilibrium Systems at Stationary States, Physical Review Letters108, 020601 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    C. E. F. Noa, P. E. Harunari, M. J. De Oliveira, and C. E. Fiore, Entropy production as a tool for character- izing nonequilibrium phase transitions, Physical Review E100, 012104 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Martynec, S

    T. Martynec, S. H. L. Klapp, and S. A. M. Loos, Entropy production at criticality in a nonequilibrium Potts model, New Journal of Physics22, 093069 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    N. H. Packard, Adaptation Toward the Edge of Chaos, inDynamic Patterns in Complex Systems. Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Hermann Haken on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday(World Scientific, Fort Lauerdale, 1987)

    1987

  23. [31]

    C. G. Langton, Computation at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computation, Physica D: Non- linear Phenomena42, 12 (1990). 19

    1990

  24. [32]

    Teuscher, Revisiting the edge of chaos: Again?, Biosystems218, 104693 (2022)

    C. Teuscher, Revisiting the edge of chaos: Again?, Biosystems218, 104693 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Boedecker, O

    J. Boedecker, O. Obst, J. T. Lizier, N. M. Mayer, and M. Asada, Information processing in echo state networks at the edge of chaos, Theory in Biosciences131, 205 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Snyder, A

    D. Snyder, A. Goudarzi, and C. Teuscher, Computational capabilities of random automata networks for reservoir computing, Physical Review E87, 042808 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Onsager, Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes

    L. Onsager, Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. i., Physical Review37, 405–426 (1931)

    1931

  28. [36]

    Onsager, Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes

    L. Onsager, Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. ii., Physical Review38, 2265–2279 (1931)

    1931

  29. [37]

    Prigogine, Etude thermodynamique des ph´ enom` enes irr´ eversibles, These d’agregation presentee a la taculte des sciences de I’Universite Libre de Bruxelles 1945 (1947)

    I. Prigogine, Etude thermodynamique des ph´ enom` enes irr´ eversibles, These d’agregation presentee a la taculte des sciences de I’Universite Libre de Bruxelles 1945 (1947)

    1945

  30. [38]

    M. J. Klein and P. H. E. Meijer, Principle of minimum entropy production, Physical Review96, 250–255 (1954)

    1954

  31. [39]

    R. K. Niven, Steady state of a dissipative flow-controlled system and the maximum entropy production princi- ple, Physical Review E80, 10.1103/physreve.80.021113 (2009)

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    Onsager and S

    L. Onsager and S. Machlup, Fluctuations and irreversible processes, Physical Review91, 1505–1512 (1953)

    1953

  33. [41]

    G. W. PALTRIDGE, Climate and thermodynamic sys- tems of maximum dissipation, Nature279, 630–631 (1979)

    1979

  34. [42]

    R. Dewar, Information theory explanation of the fluc- tuation theorem, maximum entropy production and self- organized criticality in non-equilibrium stationary states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General36, 631–641 (2003)

    2003

  35. [43]

    R. C. Dewar, Maximum entropy production and the fluc- tuation theorem, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General38, L371–L381 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    Mandal, K

    D. Mandal, K. Klymko, and M. R. DeWeese, Entropy Production and Fluctuation Theorems for Active Matter, Physical Review Letters119, 258001 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    S. Ro, B. Guo, A. Shih, T. V. Phan, R. H. Austin, D. Levine, P. M. Chaikin, and S. Martiniani, Model- Free Measurement of Local Entropy Production and Ex- tractable Work in Active Matter, Physical Review Let- ters129, 220601 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    N. M. Boffi and E. Vanden-Eijnden, Deep learn- ing probability flows and entropy production rates in active matter, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2318106121 (2024), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2318106121

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Fodor, R

    ´E. Fodor, R. L. Jack, and M. E. Cates, Irreversibility and Biased Ensembles in Active Matter: Insights from Stochastic Thermodynamics, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics13, 215 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Fodor, C

    ´E. Fodor, C. Nardini, M. E. Cates, J. Tailleur, P. Visco, and F. Van Wijland, How Far from Equilibrium Is Active Matter?, Physical Review Letters117, 038103 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    M. E. Cates, ´E. Fodor, T. Markovich, C. Nardini, and E. Tjhung, Stochastic Hydrodynamics of Complex Flu- ids: Discretisation and Entropy Production, Entropy24, 254 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Cocconi, R

    L. Cocconi, R. Garcia-Millan, Z. Zhen, B. Buturca, and G. Pruessner, Entropy Production in Exactly Solvable Systems, Entropy22, 1252 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Seifert, Entropy Production along a Stochastic Tra- jectory and an Integral Fluctuation Theorem, Physical Review Letters95, 040602 (2005)

    U. Seifert, Entropy Production along a Stochastic Tra- jectory and an Integral Fluctuation Theorem, Physical Review Letters95, 040602 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 126001 (2012)

    U. Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 126001 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    J. L. Lebowitz and H. Spohn, A Gallavotti–Cohen-Type Symmetry in the Large Deviation Functional for Stochas- tic Dynamics, Journal of Statistical Physics95, 333 (1999)

    1999

  46. [54]

    Kawai, J

    R. Kawai, J. M. R. Parrondo, and C. V. Den Broeck, Dis- sipation: The Phase-Space Perspective, Physical Review Letters98, 080602 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Monnai, Microscopic reversibility and heat for ther- mostatted systems, Physical Review E87, 042107 (2013)

    T. Monnai, Microscopic reversibility and heat for ther- mostatted systems, Physical Review E87, 042107 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Goldstein, J

    S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghi, Gibbs and Boltzmann Entropy in Classical and Quantum Mechanics(2020) 1903.11870

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Daems and G

    D. Daems and G. Nicolis, Entropy production and phase space volume contraction, Physical Review E59, 4000 (1999)

    1999

  50. [58]

    Esposito and T

    M. Esposito and T. Monnai, Nonequilibrium Thermo- dynamics and Nose–Hoover Dynamics, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B115, 5144 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Maass, T

    W. Maass, T. Natschl¨ ager, and H. Markram, Real-Time Computing Without Stable States: A New Framework for Neural Computation Based on Perturbations, Neural Computation14, 2531 (2002)

    2002

  52. [60]

    Jaeger and H

    H. Jaeger and H. Haas, Harnessing Nonlinearity: Pre- dicting Chaotic Systems and Saving Energy in Wireless Communication, Science304, 78 (2004)

    2004

  53. [61]

    Schrauwen, D

    B. Schrauwen, D. Verstraeten, and J. Van Campenhout, An overview of reservoir computing: theory, applications and implementations, inProceedings of the 15th Euro- pean Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks. p. 471- 482 2007(2007) pp. 471–482

    2007

  54. [62]

    Cucchi, S

    M. Cucchi, S. Abreu, G. Ciccone, D. Brunner, and H. Kleemann, Hands-on reservoir computing: a tutorial for practical implementation, Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering2, 032002 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Verd´ u, Empirical Estimation of Information Measures: A Literature Guide, Entropy21, 720 (2019)

    S. Verd´ u, Empirical Estimation of Information Measures: A Literature Guide, Entropy21, 720 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Valiant and P

    G. Valiant and P. Valiant, Estimating the Unseen: Im- proved Estimators for Entropy and Other Properties, Journal of the ACM64, 1 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Gerlich, Die verallgemeinerte Liouville-Gleichung, Physica69, 458 (1973)

    G. Gerlich, Die verallgemeinerte Liouville-Gleichung, Physica69, 458 (1973)

    1973

  58. [66]

    Steeb, Generalized liouville equation, entropy, and dynamic systems containing limit cycles, Physica A: Sta- tistical Mechanics and its Applications95, 181 (1979)

    W.-H. Steeb, Generalized liouville equation, entropy, and dynamic systems containing limit cycles, Physica A: Sta- tistical Mechanics and its Applications95, 181 (1979)

    1979

  59. [67]

    Pearson, Vii

    K. Pearson, Vii. mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution.—iii. regression, heredity, and panmixia, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character , 253 (1896), https://royalsocietypub...

  60. [68]

    Spearman, The proof and measurement of association between two things, The American Journal of Psychology 15, 72 (1904)

    C. Spearman, The proof and measurement of association between two things, The American Journal of Psychology 15, 72 (1904)

    1904

  61. [69]

    Egenlauf, H

    P. Egenlauf, H. A. Kr¨ oninger, A. Kung, M. U. Gaimann, and M. Klopotek, Replication Data for: Entropy produc- tion of active matter systems as indicator for computing performance (2026). 20 Appendix A: Influence of the F orce Capper To verify that the force capper does not si...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.