Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A unified framework for classical and quantum uncertainty relations using stochastic representations

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that thermodynamic and kinetic uncertainty relations in Markovian systems, classical and quantum, follow from one Cauchy–Schwarz inequality applied to the dynamics' own noise, with no auxiliary perturbation and no…

desk verdict New quantum TUR/KUR from unravelling, no coherence term, tighter in strong-driving regimes; classical part cleanly reproduces known bounds, but Eq. (38) has a missing factor of 2 and the Sigma_tot version rests on local detailed balance. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04988 v2 pith:5Q7MN3TG submitted 2024-12-06 cond-mat.stat-mech quant-ph

Euijoon Kwon , Jae Sung Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords thermodynamicuncertaintyrelationkineticstochasticrepresentationMarkovjumpprocessLangevindynamicsLindbladmasterequationquantumtrajectoryunravelingentropyproduction
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

Thermodynamic uncertainty relations (TURs) and kinetic uncertainty relations (KURs) state that the relative variance of a measured current is bounded below by a thermodynamic cost such as entropy production or activity. This paper claims that all such relations for Markovian systems, classical and quantum, are direct consequences of the stochastic noise that already generates the trajectory, and need no auxiliary perturbation. For classical Markov jump processes and overdamped Langevin systems, the same stochastic-representation argument recovers every previously known TUR and KUR, including those with time-dependent protocols. For Markovian open quantum systems, unraveling the Lindblad master equation into quantum trajectories yields quantum TURs and KURs that carry no coherence correction term; the paper demonstrates that these are tighter than earlier bounds precisely where quantum effects are strongest. If the claim is right, precision-cost tradeoffs are intrinsic properties of stochasticity itself, not artifacts of the Cramér–Rao proof strategy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the auxiliary stochastic observable $Z^\zeta_\tau = \int_0^\tau \sum_k \zeta_k(z_t,t)d\tilde N_k(t)$, a centered integral over the same white noise that drives the trajectory. Its mean is zero by construction, and its variance $R^\zeta_\tau$ is chosen to be a thermodynamic cost: the total dynamical activity $A_\tau$ when $\zeta_k=1$, and half the pseudo entropy production $\Sigma_{\rm ps}/2$ when $\zeta$ is the normalized difference of forward and reverse jump probabilities. The inequality is carried by the identity $\langle J_\tau Z^\zeta_\tau\rangle = \langle J_\tau\rangle(1+\delta)$, where in classical systems $\delta = (-1+\tau\partial_\tau - \omega\partial_\omega)\langle J_\tau\rangle/\langle J_\tau\rangle$; this identity converts abstract Cauchy–Schwarz into a concrete precision–cost tradeoff. In the quantum setting, the same construction uses the unraveled Belavkin equation, with $d\tilde N_k$ the centered Poisson process for jumps through channel $k$, and the $\delta$ terms encode genuine two-time quantum correlations.

What would settle it

Choose a Markovian open quantum system with engineered jump operators that violate $L_k = e^{s_k/2}L_{k'}^\dagger$, compute $\Sigma_{\rm ps}$ from Eq. (48) and $\Sigma_{\rm tot}$ from Eq. (49) in steady state, and check whether $\Sigma_{\rm ps}\le\Sigma_{\rm tot}$ survives. If a single model gives $\Sigma_{\rm ps}>\Sigma_{\rm tot}$, the second inequality in Eq. (51) is refuted; if local detailed balance is retained, one can instead test Eq. (51) directly by exact full-counting-statistics evaluation of $\operatorname{Var}(J_\tau)$, $\langle J_\tau\rangle$, and $\Sigma_{\rm ps}$ for the driven two-level system at strong driving.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that Eq. (50) and Eq. (51) hold for Markovian open quantum systems, and that classical TURs and KURs are the same statement. The proof writes any jump-counting observable as $J_\tau = \int \Lambda_k d\tilde N_k + \int \Lambda_k \operatorname{tr}(L_k\rho_c)dt$ and introduces an auxiliary centered noise integral $Z_\zeta = \int \zeta_k d\tilde N_k$. Cauchy–Schwarz turns $\langle J_\tau Z_\zeta\rangle^2 \le \operatorname{Var}(J_\tau)\operatorname{Var}(Z_\zeta)$ into $\operatorname{Var}(J_\tau)/\langle J_\tau\rangle^2 \ge (1+\delta)^2/R_\zeta$ whenever the chosen $\zeta$ makes $\langle J_\tau^{(1)} Z_\zeta\rangle = \langle J_\tau\rangle$. The variance $R_\zeta$ is the activity for $\zeta=1$ and half the pseudo entropy production for the antisymmetric choice $\zeta_k = [\operatorname{tr}(L_k\rho) - \operatorname{tr}(L_{k'}\rho)]/[\operatorname{tr}(L_k\rho)+\operatorname{tr}(L_{k'}\rho)]$; and since $\Sigma_{\rm ps}\le \Sigma_{\rm tot}$, the entropy-production version follows. The quantum corrections $\delta_{\rm KUR}$ and $\delta_{\rm TUR}$ are computed from two-time correlations of the unraveled noise; in a driven two-level system and a three-level quantum clock they make the bound tighter than the Vu–Saito and $\psi$-KUR bounds in the strong-driving regime.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest load-bearing assumption is that the bath is in equilibrium, so each jump channel is paired with an inverse channel by local detailed balance; without that pairing, $\Sigma_{\rm ps}$ is not a thermodynamic cost and the $\Sigma_{\rm tot}$ version of the quantum TUR does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same inequality reproduces all known classical TURs and KURs for Markov jump processes and overdamped Langevin systems, including time-dependent protocols, so the previous perturbation-based results become corollaries of the stochastic representation.
  • Quantum TURs and KURs can be stated and computed without the coherence term $Q$: the cost is total dynamical activity for the KUR and pseudo/total entropy production for the TUR, both accessible from jump statistics.
  • In the strong-driving regime of the two examples, the new bounds are tighter than the Vu–Saito bound and the $\psi$-KUR, so they give sharper precision limits for coherently driven quantum devices and quantum clocks.
  • The quantum clock example shows the Fano factor can drop below one, so the quantum KUR sets a fundamental precision limit that the classical KUR would not capture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit: the activity-based quantum KUR does not use local detailed balance, so it should remain valid for non-equilibrium or engineered baths; only the entropy-production version of Eq. (51) would break.
  • A testable corollary of the same construction is that any observable saturating the Cauchy–Schwarz step is linearly related to the auxiliary noise integral, which would let one identify optimal currents from two-time correlation data alone.
  • Because the proof relies only on zero-mean noise and a Cauchy–Schwarz step, similar bounds should hold for diffusive unravellings of the Lindblad equation, not only jump unravellings; this is not checked in the paper.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified framework, termed the 'stochastic representation approach,' for deriving thermodynamic and kinetic uncertainty relations (TURs and KURs) in Markovian classical and quantum systems. Instead of using the Cramér–Rao inequality with an auxiliary perturbation, the authors apply the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality directly to the stochastic noise representation of the dynamics, with an auxiliary zero-mean observable Z^ζ whose variance encodes the thermodynamic cost (entropy production or activity). They derive classical TURs and KURs for Markov jump processes and overdamped Langevin dynamics, obtaining correction terms δ = (−1 + τ∂_τ − ω∂_ω)⟨J⟩/⟨J⟩, and extend the framework to Markovian open quantum systems via quantum unraveling, obtaining quantum TUR and KUR bounds that contain no explicit coherence contribution Q. The quantum bounds are illustrated on a driven two-level system and a three-level quantum clock, where they are compared with the Vu–Saito bound and the ψ-KUR.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a conceptual unification: TURs and KURs are direct consequences of stochasticity rather than of auxiliary perturbation constructions. The classical derivations in Appendix A are self-contained and the correction-term formula is an independent derivation of known Cramér–Rao results. The quantum bounds are new inequalities that are, in the examples, tighter than the Vu–Saito and ψ-KUR bounds in strong-driving regimes and are expressed in terms of physically accessible quantities (activity, pseudo entropy production, and total entropy production). The paper also provides explicit analytic expressions for quantum corrections in quantum reset processes and numerical benchmarks. The main caveat concerns the step from the pseudo entropy production bound to the total entropy production bound, which is imported from the literature under a local detailed balance assumption, and a technical error in the Langevin TUR formula.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.C, Eq. (38)] The TUR for overdamped Langevin dynamics is missing the factor 2. Equation (34) states that R^{ζ_E} = ⟨(Z^{ζ_E})²⟩ = Σ_tot/2, so substituting into the general inequality (7) yields Var(J_τ)/⟨J_τ⟩² ≥ 2(1+δ)²/Σ_tot, not (1+δ)²/Σ_tot as written in Eq. (38). This is also inconsistent with the classical Markov-jump TUR in Eq. (26) and with the standard TURs cited from Refs. [6,7,10,25]. Please correct the formula and check that the surrounding discussion matches the corrected bound.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (51)] The second inequality in Eq. (51), Var(J_τ)/⟨J_τ⟩² ≥ 2(1+δ_TUR)²/Σ_tot, relies on Σ_ps ≤ Σ_tot, which the paper imports from Ref. [30] and which is justified only under the local detailed balance condition L_k = e^{s_k/2} L_{k'}^† stated in Sec. IV.A. The stochastic-representation derivation itself establishes only the Σ_ps form. If local detailed balance fails, the thermodynamic-cost interpretation of the bound in terms of Σ_tot, and the comparison with the Vu–Saito bound in Fig. 1(a), are not consequences of the framework. The authors should either prove Σ_ps ≤ Σ_tot within the setup (or state it as an explicit assumption with the minimal conditions) or restrict the advertised claim to the Σ_ps form.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. V] The abstract claims that 'all previously discovered uncertainty relations' are derived, but first-passage-time TURs and KURs (Refs. [43–46]) are not treated and are explicitly listed as future work in Sec. V. Please qualify the scope of the claim.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (49)] The total entropy production rate in Eq. (49) involves the von Neumann entropy change of the system, but the bound (51) and the example in Fig. 1(a) use the long-time steady-state form. It would be helpful to state explicitly that Eq. (51) is applied in the steady-state limit when comparing with the Vu–Saito bound.
  3. [Appendix B.2, Eq. (B14)] In Eq. (B14), the action of the Drazin inverse L_d on the bracket is given in a compressed trace notation. Please spell out the superoperator convention (e.g., L_d acting on the operator inside the curly braces) so the formula is unambiguous for readers.
  4. [Sec. IV.C, Fig. 1(b)] The text says the bound 'eventually vanishes at Δ=0'; since D, J, Σ_tot ~ Δ² and Σ_ps ~ Δ⁴, the bound tends to zero in that limit. It would be clearer to state that the bound becomes trivial, not that the uncertainty relation itself vanishes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stochastic-representation derivation is self-contained, and the cited external bound is independent prior work, not a self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation uses only the stochastic representation, a Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, and an explicit computation of the correction terms delta, with no fitted parameters and no prediction that is identical to an input by construction. The classical TUR and KUR are obtained by verifying Eq. (9) directly from the definitions of the auxiliary observable Z^zeta, and delta is computed from the dynamics rather than imposed. The quantum results in Eqs. (50) and (51) follow the same structure after unraveling, and the comparison with the Vu–Saito and psi-KUR bounds treats those as independent benchmarks. The one imported ingredient, the inequality Sigma_ps <= Sigma_tot, is attributed to Ref. [30] by Van Vu and Saito, which is not an author self-citation and is an external mathematical result, not an assumption that already contains the target inequality. The local detailed balance condition L_k = e^{s_k/2} L_{k'}^dagger is an explicitly stated modeling assumption about the bath and jump channels; it is a limitation or correctness risk for the thermodynamic interpretation of Sigma_tot, but it is not a circular step, because the paper never uses that condition to define or enforce the variance bound itself. Self-citations present in the reference list are not load-bearing for the derivation, and no ansatz is smuggled in through a citation. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to the claims it establishes, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the ζ fields are auxiliary observables, not entities. The central costs (A, Σ_ps, Σ_tot) and corrections (δ) are computed from the dynamics, not adjusted to match the bounds. The main external inputs are the standard Markovian/Lindblad assumptions and the local detailed balance condition.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Markovian dynamics can be represented by stochastic differential equations with delta-correlated noise (Langevin, Markov jump, Belavkin unraveling), as in Eqs (3), (14), and (41).
    The whole framework rests on the existence and validity of a stochastic representation that reproduces the same statistics as the deterministic master equation.
  • domain assumption Local detailed balance L_k = e^{s_k/2} L_{k'}^† for quantum jump operators, stated in Section IV.A.
    Needed so that Σ_ps is a thermodynamic cost and Σ_ps ≤ Σ_tot; without it the second inequality in Eq (51) may fail.
  • standard math Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and standard Itô calculus rules for white noise and Poisson processes.
    Used in Eq (7) and throughout the appendices for noise correlations.
  • domain assumption The centered noise autocorrelations in Eqs (13) and (43) hold for the ensemble-averaged density matrix rather than only conditionally.
    Derived in Appendices A1 and B1, but the derivation assumes the jump rates depend only on the current state and the unraveling is Markovian.
  • standard math Drazin inverse manipulations of the Lindbladian in the steady state are well-defined, as used in Appendix B2.
    Needed for the steady-state and reset-process formulas for δ_TUR and δ_KUR; assumes the Lindbladian has a unique steady state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A unified framework for classical and quantum uncertainty relations using stochastic representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5Q7MN3TG

@misc{pith2026241204988,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A unified framework for classical and quantum uncertainty relations using stochastic representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5Q7MN3TG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04988}
}
read the original abstract

Thermodynamic uncertainty relations (TURs) and kinetic uncertainty relations (KURs) provide tradeoff relations between measurement precision and thermodynamic cost such as entropy production and activity. Conventionally, these relations are derived using the Cram\'er-Rao inequality, which involves an auxiliary perturbation in deterministic differential equations governing the time evolution of the system's probability distribution. In this study, without relying on the previous formulation based on deterministic evolving equation, we demonstrate that all previously discovered uncertainty relations can be derived solely through the stochastic representation of the same dynamics. For this purpose, we propose a unified method based on stochastic representations for general Markovian dynamics. Extending beyond classical systems, we apply this method to Markovian open quantum systems by unraveling their dynamics, deriving quantum uncertainty relations that are physically more accessible and tighter in regimes where quantum effects play a significant role. This fully establishes uncertainty relations for both classical and quantum systems as intrinsic properties of their stochastic nature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04988 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Plot of quantum TURs for the driven two-level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plot of quantum KURs for the three-level quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relations for Coherent Transport

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A universal inequality (S/J) sinh[sigma/(2 k_B J)] >= 1 is derived for time-reversal-symmetric coherent fermionic transport, with a weakened factor for broken time-reversal symmetry.

  2. Effects of noise-induced coherence on the performance of a four-level laser heat engine

    quant-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Noise-induced coherence breaks the left-right symmetry needed for the universal eta_C^2/8 efficiency term, except in high- and low-temperature limits or with additional symmetry constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [30]

    Dechant and S.-i

    A. Dechant and S.-i. Sasa, Entropic bounds on currents in langevin systems, Phys. Rev. E 97, 062101 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    (13) Without loss of generality, we set t ≥ t′

    Derivation of Eq. (13) Without loss of generality, we set t ≥ t′. Using Eq. (12), the autocorrelation function expands as ⟨d ˜Nnm(t)d ˜Nn′m′(t′)⟩ = ⟨dNnm(t)dNn′m′(t′)⟩ −Rn′m′(ωt′)⟨dNnm(t)ηm′(t′)⟩dt′ − Rnm(ωt)⟨ηm(t)dNn′m′(t′)⟩dt + Rnm(ωt)Rn′m′(ωt′)⟨ηm(t)ηm′(t′)⟩dtdt′ . (A1) For t > t′, the first term in Eq. (A1) can be written as ⟨dNnm(t)dNn′m′(t′)⟩ = P(dN...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Derivation of Eq. (24) For both choices of ζ, the numerator can be expressed as ⟨J Λ,2 τ Z ζ τ ⟩ = Z τ 0 dt Z τ 0 dt′ X n̸=m n′̸=m′ Λnm(ωt)Rnm(ωt)ζn′m′(t′)⟨ηm(t) ˙˜Nn′m′(t′)⟩ (A8) For t < t′, ⟨ηm(t) ˙˜Nn′m′(t′)⟩ vanishes since ⟨ ˙˜Nn′m′(t′)ηm(t)⟩ = ⟨ ˙Nn′m′(t′)ηm(t)⟩ −Rn′m′(ωt′)⟨ηm′(t′)ηm(t)⟩ = 0. (A9) In Eq. (A9), ⟨ ˙Nn′m′(t′)ηm(t)⟩ = Rn′m′(ωt′)Um′m(t′, ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    (37) The first step in deriving Eq

    Derivation of Eq. (37) The first step in deriving Eq. (37) is to show the following relation for an arbitrary function F and matrix G: F (x(t), t)GT(x(t′), t′) • ξ(t′) = Θ(t − t′) Z dxdx′F (x, t)p(x′, t′; ω)GT(x′, t′)BT(x′, t′)∇x′p(x, t|x′, t′; ω) , (A19) 10 where ξ denotes a Gaussian white noise, and Θ( t) = 1 for t >0 and zero otherwise. The proof of Eq...

    work page

  5. [4]

    (43) Expanding Eq

    Derivation of Eq. (43) Expanding Eq. (43) gives D d ˜Nk(t)d ˜Nk′(t′) E = ⟨dNk(t)dNk′(t′)⟩ − ⟨tr[Lk(t)ρc(t)]dNk′(t′)⟩dt − ⟨dNk(t)tr[Lk′(t′)ρc(t′)]⟩dt′ + ⟨tr(Lk(t)ρc(t))tr(L′k(t′)ρc(t′))⟩dtdt′ . (B1) Without loss of generality, we assume t ≥ t′. The first term in the expansion can be expressed as ⟨dNk(t)dNk′(t′)⟩ = P (dNk(t) = 1, dNk′(t′) = 1) + δ(t − t′)δk...

    work page

  6. [5]

    (B7) Using the same formulation as in Appendix B 1, we ob- tain ∆k,k′(t, t′) = ⟨tr [LkU (t, t′) {Lk′ψt′ − ψt′tr(Lk′ψt′)}]⟩ , (B8) where ψt′ ≡ ρc(t′)

    Calculation of the correction termδ To evaluate the correction term, it is necessary to cal- culate ⟨J Λ,2 τ Z ζ τ ⟩: ⟨J Λ,2 τ Z ζ τ ⟩ = Z τ 0 dt Z t 0 dt′ X k,k′ Λk(t)ζk′(t′)∆k,k′(t, t′) , (B6) where ∆k,k′(t, t′) is defined as ∆k,k′(t, t′) ≡ D tr[Lkρc(t)]( ˙Nk′(t′) − tr[Lk′ρc(t′)]) E . (B7) Using the same formulation as in Appendix B 1, we ob- tain ∆k,k′...

    work page

  7. [6]

    (D1) The steady-state density matrix of this system can be evaluated as ρss = γ2(n+1)(2n+1)+4∆2 γ2(2n+1)2+8∆2 2iγ∆ γ2(2n+1)2+8∆2 − 2iγ∆ γ2(2n+1)2+8∆2 γ2n(2n+1)+4∆2 γ2(2n+1)2+8∆2 !

    Driven two-level system Consider the open quantum system with the following Hamiltonian and jump operators: H = ∆(|0⟩⟨1| + |1⟩⟨0|) , L0 = √γn|1⟩⟨0|, L 1 = p γ(n + 1)|0⟩⟨1| . (D1) The steady-state density matrix of this system can be evaluated as ρss = γ2(n+1)(2n+1)+4∆2 γ2(2n+1)2+8∆2 2iγ∆ γ2(2n+1)2+8∆2 − 2iγ∆ γ2(2n+1)2+8∆2 γ2n(2n+1)+4∆2 γ2(2n+1)2+8∆2 ! . (...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Three-state quantum clock We consider the open quantum system with the following Hamiltonian and jump operators: H = ∆(|0⟩⟨1| + |1⟩⟨0|) L10 = √γns|1⟩⟨0|, L 21 = √γnf |2⟩⟨1|, L 02 = √γnf |0⟩⟨2| . (D7) The steady-state solution of this system is given by ρss =   1 3 + 2(nf −ns)(nf +ns)γ2 3[(nf +2ns)(nf +ns)γ2+12∆2] 2i(nf −ns)γ∆ (nf +2ns)(nf +ns)γ2+12∆2 ...

    work page

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    B 2, Lk|ψ⟩ = |Lk|ψ⟩||ψk⟩, where |ψk⟩ is the ket corresponding to the pure density matrix φk ∈ S

    Simple argument for Q ∼∆2 In the quantum reset process described in Appendix. B 2, Lk|ψ⟩ = |Lk|ψ⟩||ψk⟩, where |ψk⟩ is the ket corresponding to the pure density matrix φk ∈ S. Thus, the quantum coherence contribution in the VS bound can be written as Q = −⟨∂2 θ ln |Uθ(τ, tN )|ψ...

  2. [9]

    A. C. Barato and U. Seifert, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for biomolecular processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 158101 (2015)

    2015

  3. [10]

    T. R. Gingrich, J. M. Horowitz, N. Perunov, and J. L. England, Dissipation bounds all steady-state current fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120601 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

    J. M. Horowitz and T. R. Gingrich, Proof of the finite- time thermodynamic uncertainty relation for steady- state currents, Phys. Rev. E 96, 020103 (2017)

    2017

  5. [12]

    Dechant and S

    A. Dechant and S. ichi Sasa, Current fluctuations and transport efficiency for general langevin systems, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2018, 063209 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    Koyuk and U

    T. Koyuk and U. Seifert, Operationally accessible bounds on fluctuations and entropy production in periodically driven systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 230601 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    Hasegawa and T

    Y. Hasegawa and T. Van Vu, Uncertainty relations in stochastic processes: An information inequality ap- proach, Phys. Rev. E 99, 062126 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    J. S. Lee, J.-M. Park, and H. Park, Universal form of ther- modynamic uncertainty relation for langevin dynamics, Phys. Rev. E 104, L052102 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    V. T. Vo, T. V. Vu, and Y. Hasegawa, Unified thermo- dynamic–kinetic uncertainty relation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55, 405004 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Dieball and A

    C. Dieball and A. c. v. Godec, Direct route to thermody- namic uncertainty relations and their saturation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 087101 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    Kwon, J.-M

    E. Kwon, J.-M. Park, J. S. Lee, and Y. Baek, Unified hi- erarchical relationship between thermodynamic tradeoff relations, Phys. Rev. E 110, 044131 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    J. P. Garrahan, Simple bounds on fluctuations and un- certainty relations for first-passage times of counting ob- servables, Phys. Rev. E 95, 032134 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    I. D. Terlizzi and M. Baiesi, Kinetic uncertainty relation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52, 02LT03 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Maggi, F

    C. Maggi, F. Saglimbeni, V. C. Sosa, R. Di Leonardo, B. Nath, and A. Puglisi, Thermodynamic limits of sperm swimming precision, PRX Life 1, 013003 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    J. Li, J. M. Horowitz, T. R. Gingrich, and N. Fakhri, Quantifying dissipation using fluctuating currents, Na- ture Communications 10, 1666 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Otsubo, S

    S. Otsubo, S. Ito, A. Dechant, and T. Sagawa, Estimat- ing entropy production by machine learning of short-time fluctuating currents, Phys. Rev. E 101, 062106 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    V. T. Vo, T. Van Vu, and Y. Hasegawa, Unified approach to classical speed limit and thermodynamic uncertainty relation, Phys. Rev. E 102, 062132 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    Hasegawa, Unifying speed limit, thermodynamic un- certainty relation and heisenberg principle via bulk- boundary correspondence, Nature Communications 14, 2828 (2023)

    Y. Hasegawa, Unifying speed limit, thermodynamic un- certainty relation and heisenberg principle via bulk- boundary correspondence, Nature Communications 14, 2828 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    Shiraishi, K

    N. Shiraishi, K. Saito, and H. Tasaki, Universal trade-off relation between power and efficiency for heat engines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 190601 (2016)

    2016

  20. [27]

    Pietzonka and U

    P. Pietzonka and U. Seifert, Universal trade-off between power, efficiency, and constancy in steady-state heat en- gines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 190602 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    Shiraishi, K

    N. Shiraishi, K. Funo, and K. Saito, Speed limit for clas- sical stochastic processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 070601 (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

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

    2022

  23. [31]

    Lee, D.-K

    S. Lee, D.-K. Kim, J.-M. Park, W. K. Kim, H. Park, and J. S. Lee, Multidimensional entropic bound: Esti- mator of entropy production for langevin dynamics with an arbitrary time-dependent protocol, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013194 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Dechant and S.-i

    A. Dechant and S.-i. Sasa, Continuous time reversal and equality in the thermodynamic uncertainty relation, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, L042012 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Dechant and S.-i

    A. Dechant and S.-i. Sasa, Improving thermodynamic bounds using correlations, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041061 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Shiraishi, Optimal thermodynamic uncertainty rela- tion in markov jump processes, Journal of Statistical Physics 185, 19 (2021)

    N. Shiraishi, Optimal thermodynamic uncertainty rela- tion in markov jump processes, Journal of Statistical Physics 185, 19 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Kwon, H.-M

    E. Kwon, H.-M. Chun, H. Park, and J. S. Lee, Fluctuation-response inequalities for kinetic and entropic perturbations (2024), arXiv:2411.18108 [cond-mat.stat- mech]

    2024

  28. [36]

    Hasegawa, Quantum thermodynamic uncertainty re- lation for continuous measurement, Phys

    Y. Hasegawa, Quantum thermodynamic uncertainty re- lation for continuous measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 050601 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Hasegawa, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for general open quantum systems, Phys

    Y. Hasegawa, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for general open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 010602 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Van Vu and K

    T. Van Vu and K. Saito, Thermodynamics of precision in markovian open quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 140602 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Prech, P

    K. Prech, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Role of quan- tum coherence in kinetic uncertainty relations (2024), arXiv:2407.14147 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum measure- ment and control(Cambridge university press, 2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    J. M. Horowitz, Quantum-trajectory approach to the stochastic thermodynamics of a forced harmonic oscil- lator, Phys. Rev. E 85, 031110 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Manzano, J

    G. Manzano, J. M. Horowitz, and J. M. R. Parrondo, Quantum fluctuation theorems for arbitrary environ- 16 ments: Adiabatic and nonadiabatic entropy production, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031037 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Carollo, R

    F. Carollo, R. L. Jack, and J. P. Garrahan, Unraveling the large deviation statistics of markovian open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130605 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, Current fluctuations in open quantum sys- tems: Bridging the gap between quantum continuous measurements and full counting statistics, PRX Quan- tum 5, 020201 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    V. P. Belavkin, A stochastic posterior schr¨ odinger equa- tion for counting nondemolition measurement, Letters in Mathematical Physics 20, 85 (1990)

    1990

  38. [46]

    Menczel, E

    P. Menczel, E. Loisa, K. Brandner, and C. Flindt, Ther- modynamic uncertainty relations for coherently driven open quantum systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical 54, 314002 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    A. A. S. Kalaee, A. Wacker, and P. P. Potts, Violating the thermodynamic uncertainty relation in the three-level maser, Phys. Rev. E 104, L012103 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Singh and C

    D. Singh and C. Hyeon, Origin of loose bound of the thermodynamic uncertainty relation in a dissipative two- level quantum system, Phys. Rev. E 104, 054115 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Singh, V

    V. Singh, V. Shaghaghi, O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, and D. Rosa, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation in nonde- generate and degenerate maser heat engines, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032203 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    J. A. Almanza-Marrero and G. Manzano, Quantum- thermodynamic enhancements in continuous ther- mal machines require energetic coherence (2024), arXiv:2403.19280 [quant-ph]

    2024

  43. [51]

    Hiura and S.-i

    K. Hiura and S.-i. Sasa, Kinetic uncertainty relation on first-passage time for accumulated current, Phys. Rev. E 103, L050103 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    A. Pal, S. Reuveni, and S. Rahav, Thermodynamic uncer- tainty relation for first-passage times on markov chains, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, L032034 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Hasegawa, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for quantum first-passage processes, Phys

    Y. Hasegawa, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for quantum first-passage processes, Phys. Rev. E 105, 044127 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Pietzonka and F

    P. Pietzonka and F. Coghi, Thermodynamic cost for pre- cision of general counting observables, Phys. Rev. E 109, 064128 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.