Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for generalized time-reversal observables

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that thermodynamic uncertainty relations extend to observables that only flip sign — not magnitude — under time reversal, yielding Var[φ]/⟨φ⟩² ≥ 1/e^{f(⟨σ⟩)} whenever the trajectory-level detailed fluctuation theorem holds

desk verdict Generalizes TURs to observables that only flip sign under time reversal; the core result is likely correct but the paper overstates its scope and has a sign-handling slip in the derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01981 v2 pith:GMVYGIWJ submitted 2025-09-02 cond-mat.stat-mech

Tetta Indo , Yoshihiko Hasegawa This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech PACS 05.70.Ln05.40.-a
keywords thermodynamicuncertaintyrelationgeneralizedtime-reversalobservablefluctuationtheorementropyproductionCantelliinequalityprecision–dissipationtrade-offquantumthermalmachineone-sidedobservables
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

Standard thermodynamic uncertainty relations (TURs) only apply to observables that are exactly antisymmetric under time reversal, which excludes one-sided quantities such as rectified heat currents or positive work. This paper relaxes that condition to a minimal parity requirement — forward and time-reversed trajectories may never share a sign — and proves that any observable satisfying it obeys the precision bound Var[φ]/⟨φ⟩² ≥ 1/e^{f(⟨σ⟩)}, where f inverts s tanh(s/2) and ⟨σ⟩ is the mean entropy production. The derivation uses only the trajectory-level fluctuation relation, so it covers stochastic and deterministic dynamics alike, and it remains finite in the near-equilibrium limit where conventional bounds diverge. The paper demonstrates the bound on a three-level quantum refrigerator, where one-sided cold-heat extraction violates earlier TURs but obeys this one. A reader should care because it ties the precision of functionally relevant 'one-way' observables to dissipative cost, a regime existing bounds cannot address.

What carries the argument

Three ingredients carry the argument. First, Cantelli's one-sided Chebyshev inequality converts any lower bound on the tail probability Pr(φ ≤ 0) into a lower bound on Var[φ]/⟨φ⟩². Second, the trajectory space is decomposed into time-reversal pairs (Γ+, Γ†+); the fluctuation relation forces the pair's lower-probability member to carry the non-positive observable value, so the conditional tail probability within each pair is at least 1/(1+e^σ). Third, the map y(s) = 1/(1+e^s) composed with the inverse of x(s) = s tanh(s/2) is convex, so Jensen's inequality collapses the pair-averaged lower bound to a function of the mean entropy production alone, 1/(1+e^{s*}) with x(s*) = ⟨σ⟩. The extremal ca

What would settle it

Numerically, enumerate ordinary multi-point distributions satisfying the two defining conditions — P(σ,φ) = e^σ P(-σ,φ†) and φφ† ≤ 0 — with fixed means ⟨σ⟩ and ⟨φ⟩, and check whether any gives Var[φ]/⟨φ⟩² below e^{-f(⟨σ⟩)}; a single instance would refute Eq. (17). Experimentally, run a long trajectory ensemble of a two- or three-state machine with a rectified observable, measure the joint distribution P(σ,φ) directly to confirm the fluctuation relation, and compare the observed relative variance with the bound using error bars small enough to resolve the gap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result, Eq. (17), states that for any observable with φ(Γ†)φ(Γ) ≤ 0 whose joint distribution with entropy production obeys the detailed fluctuation relation P(σ,φ) = e^σ P(-σ,φ†), the relative uncertainty satisfies Var[φ]/⟨φ⟩² ≥ 1/e^{f(⟨σ⟩)} = e^{-s*}, with x(s*) := s* tanh(s*/2) = ⟨σ⟩. The proof bounds the probability that φ is non-positive: in each time-reversal pair the lower-probability trajectory must carry the non-positive value, giving a per-pair lower bound 1/(1+e^σ); convexity of the composite map y∘x^{-1} and Jensen's inequality turn the average of these pair bounds into a function of ⟨σ⟩ alone; and Cantelli's inequality converts the tail bound into the variance bound.

Load-bearing premise

The bound rests on the forward and reverse time evolutions being observationally indistinguishable (equal initial and final ensembles), which is what makes entropy production equal ln(P[Γ]/P[Γ†]) and yields the joint fluctuation relation; if that condition fails, the detailed fluctuation relation need not hold and the bound is unproven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rectified and one-way observables — positive work, cold-heat extraction, erasure heat — now have a precision limit set by dissipation, extending TURs to the functionally relevant quantities that exact antisymmetry excludes.
  • Because only the detailed fluctuation theorem is assumed, the bound holds across continuous-time Markov chains, Langevin dynamics, and deterministic Hamiltonian evolution under cyclic driving.
  • The bound is always looser than the standard continuous-time TUR (e^{-f(⟨σ⟩)} ≤ 2/⟨σ⟩ for all ⟨σ⟩ > 0), so where both apply it costs nothing to use.
  • In the near-equilibrium limit ⟨σ⟩ → 0 the bound approaches 1 instead of diverging, keeping a meaningful precision statement exactly where conventional TURs lose theirs.
  • In the modeled quantum refrigerator, the one-sided cold-heat observable violates the 2/⟨σ⟩ and FTUR bounds but respects Eq. (17), as does the antisymmetric heat current.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The observationally-indistinguishable assumption (P = P†) is almost certainly stronger than necessary: the pair-wise argument should survive time-asymmetric protocols if the joint fluctuation relation is written against the reverse protocol's distribution, at the price of a protocol-dependent entropy definition — a testable extension.
  • The sharp two-point extremal distribution describes a two-state flip-flop fluctuation pattern; engineering a device that approximates it would realize a system whose precision exactly saturates the dissipation bound, giving a clean experimental target.
  • For bit-erasure observables that vanish on reversed trajectories, the bound becomes a statement about how many reset cycles are needed to estimate the erasure heat at a given relative precision — directly measurable in feedback-controlled single-electron or colloidal experiments.
  • The method — a one-sided concentration inequality plus an explicit extremal distribution — is generic; the same pattern should yield tight uncertainty relations for observables governed by other joint symmetries, such as exchange-fluctuation-theorem settings, which the paper leaves for future work.
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. The paper proposes a thermodynamic uncertainty relation (TUR) for observables satisfying the generalized time-reversal condition φ(Γ†)φ(Γ) ≤ 0, relaxing the usual strict antisymmetry φ(Γ†) = -φ(Γ). The main result, Eq. (17), states that Var[φ]/⟨φ⟩² ≥ exp(-f(⟨σ⟩)), where f is the inverse of x(s) = s tanh(s/2). The derivation combines Cantelli's inequality with a minimization over joint distributions of entropy production σ and observable φ that obey the trajectory-level fluctuation relation P(σ,φ) = e^σ P(-σ,φ†). The extremal distribution is shown to be supported on two points, yielding the bound. The result is applied to a three-level quantum refrigerator in a nonequilibrium steady state, where the one-sided heat-extraction observable φ = max{Q1,0} is shown to satisfy the generalized condition, and the bound is verified numerically. The paper argues this extends TURs to observables that are asymmetric or one-sided under time reversal.

Significance. If the proof is made rigorous, the paper extends the scope of TURs beyond strictly antisymmetric observables, covering quantities such as one-sided work or heat extraction. The use of Cantelli's inequality in this context is novel, and the derivation is free of fitted parameters, with an explicit extremal two-point distribution establishing tightness. The numerical demonstration on a quantum thermal machine is a useful check. However, the bound is considerably looser than existing TURs, and its proven validity is restricted to processes where forward and reverse path probabilities coincide (P = P†), i.e., steady-state or observationally indistinguishable dynamics, rather than the broad class of driven protocols that the abstract appears to advertise. The central proof also contains a sign-handling gap around the use of Cantelli's inequality, though it appears fixable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eq. (8)] The derivation of Eq. (8) is not valid for negative mean. Cantelli's inequality, Eq. (5), holds for t > 0, so setting t = ⟨φ⟩ in Eq. (6) requires ⟨φ⟩ > 0. The statement that replacing φ → -φ leaves the bound invariant is misleading: the inequality then involves Pr(φ ≥ 0), not Pr(φ ≤ 0). Since the later minimization (Eqs. (10)-(16)) produces a lower bound on Pr(φ ≤ 0), the substitution into Eq. (8) is unjustified when ⟨φ⟩ < 0. The fix is to state explicitly a WLOG assumption ⟨φ⟩ > 0, noting that the class of generalized FT distributions is closed under φ → -φ and the left-hand side of the target inequality is unchanged. As written, the proof of the main theorem has a logical gap for negative-mean observables.
  2. [§II and §III, Eq. (17)] The advertised scope is broader than what is proven. Equation (1) is not the general detailed fluctuation theorem but the specialized form P[Γ] = e^{σ[Γ]}P[Γ†] that holds only when the forward and reverse evolutions are observationally indistinguishable (P = P†), as acknowledged in Section II. The abstract and introduction state that the result 'holds for both deterministic and stochastic dynamics' and is 'broadly applicable' without this caveat. The remark after Eq. (17) that the inequality holds 'for arbitrary stochastic dynamics, as long as the DFT of Eq. (1) is satisfied' is technically correct but could mislead, since Eq. (1) is a steady-state or stationary condition, not the standard DFT for time-asymmetric protocols. The abstract and conclusion should explicitly state this restriction.
  3. [Appendix D] The convexity proof of y ∘ x^{-1}(a) is incomplete. The text claims that 'the positive term, proportional to e^{2s}-1, dominates' the negative contribution, but no proof or quantitative bound is given. Since Jensen's inequality in Eq. (15) is load-bearing for the main result, a rigorous demonstration that f''(a) > 0 for all a > 0 is needed. This can be supplied by a closed-form factorization or by a careful asymptotic argument separate from the large-s regime.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III, after Eq. (17)] The notation 'f := x^{-1} = (z tanh(z/2))^{-1}' is confusing and appears to mix the inverse function with the reciprocal. It should read f = x^{-1}, where x(s) = s tanh(s/2); the superscript -1 denotes functional inversion, not reciprocal.
  2. [§III, Eq. (16)] There is a bracket typo: the displayed equation has 'EΓ+ [Pr(ϕ ≤ 0 | Γ+)]' with an unmatched parenthesis. Also, the expectation is over time-reversal pairs; this should be clarified.
  3. [§IV, Fig. 3 caption] The caption does not specify how the parameters are sampled (uniformly? independently?) nor the physical units of the trajectory length (1000.0). Please specify the sampling procedure and units.
  4. [§II] The notation ϕ† = ϕ†(Γ) = ϕ(Γ†) is introduced briefly and could be confused with the adjoint; suggest defining it more prominently, e.g., as ϕ^R(Γ).
  5. [§III, Eq. (12)] The summation over Γ+ is not explicitly tied to a partition of the support into time-reversal pairs. Defining the pair probability P+(Γ+) = P(Γ+) + P(Γ†_+) earlier would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main TUR bound is derived self-containedly from Cantelli's inequality, the trajectory-level fluctuation relation, Jensen's inequality, and an explicit extremal two-point construction; self-citations are background or comparison only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The starting point, Eq. (1) P[Γ] = e^{σ[Γ]}P[Γ†], is presented explicitly as a consequence of the chosen definition of entropy production under the stated observational-indistinguishability condition P = P†. That is an assumption, not a circular reuse of the target result. The paper then derives the TUR via: (i) Cantelli's one-sided concentration inequality applied to the observable φ, giving Eq. (8), a purely statistical relation between the tail probability Pr(φ≤0) and the scaled variance; (ii) the trajectory-level FT and the generalized parity φ(Γ†)φ(Γ)≤0, which together imply that in each time-reversal pair the probability mass on the non-positive value of φ is at least the smaller of the two paired probabilities, Eq. (10); (iii) Jensen's inequality applied to the convex composite y∘x^{-1}, giving the global lower bound Pr(φ≤0) ≥ 1/(1+e^{s*}) for fixed ⟨σ⟩; and (iv) an explicit two-point generalized FT distribution P* with parameters chosen to match any prescribed ⟨σ⟩ and ⟨φ⟩, demonstrating that the bound is tight. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction; the two-point distribution is an existence argument, not an input. The cited works by the authors ([11], [16], [20], [35]) are used as background, comparison bounds, or for the numerical model, but none supplies a load-bearing premise for Eq. (17). The convexity proof in Appendix D is carried out directly. The main limitation—that Eq. (1) requires forward and reverse evolutions to be observationally indistinguishable (P = P†), excluding some time-asymmetric protocols—is an explicitly stated condition of the theorem, not a circular step. Thus no circularity is present; the paper's central claim has independent mathematical content.

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

The bound itself contains no free parameters. The axioms are the detailed fluctuation theorem with time-symmetric protocols, the generalized parity condition on the observable, and standard concentration inequalities. The convexity of the composite function is a mathematical lemma that is asserted with a partial proof.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The dynamics satisfy the detailed fluctuation theorem with P = P†, so σ[Γ] = ln(P[Γ]/P[Γ†]) and P[Γ] = e^σ P[Γ†].
    Section II: 'we focus on the situations where the forward and reverse evolutions are observationally indistinguishable' and Eq. (1). This is required for the joint FT used throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper The observable φ is a real-valued trajectory functional whose time reversal φ† = φ(Γ†) satisfies φφ† ≤ 0.
    Section II, Eq. (4): the definition of generalized time reversal. This is the paper's central premise, not a standard physical input.
  • domain assumption The joint distribution P(σ, φ) satisfies the trajectory-level fluctuation relation P(σ, φ) = e^σ P(-σ, φ†).
    Section III, definition of a generalized FT distribution, condition (i). This must hold for the physical model in question.
  • standard math Cantelli's inequality applies to the variance of the observable.
    Section III: used to link the tail probability to the signal-to-noise ratio.
  • standard math The composite function y∘x⁻¹ is strictly convex on (0,∞).
    Section III and Appendix D rely on Jensen's inequality over the convex function; the proof of convexity is sketched but incomplete.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for generalized time-reversal observables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GMVYGIWJ

@misc{pith2026250901981,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for generalized time-reversal observables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GMVYGIWJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01981}
}
read the original abstract

Time-reversal symmetry plays an essential role in the thermodynamic uncertainty relations, which bound the fluctuations of observables in terms of the associated dissipation. In fact, thermodynamic uncertainty relations are typically derived under the assumption that the observable of interest is antisymmetric under time reversal. This also suggests that existing thermodynamic uncertainty relations are restricted to a limited class of observables. In this paper, we mitigate this restriction by introducing a new class of observables that do not exhibit the exact antisymmetry but change the sign under time reversal. We call it generalized time reversal and derive a broadly applicable thermodynamic uncertainty relation for observables with this condition. The generalization is achieved by direct statistical arguments on the observable distributions and holds for both deterministic and stochastic dynamics. We demonstrate the derived thermodynamic uncertainty relation with observables subjected to rectifications, showing that the precision of generalized observables remains expressible in terms of the dissipative cost. The result extends the scope of thermodynamic uncertainty relations beyond the reach of previous frameworks relying on the exact antisymmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01981 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Conceptual image of a generalized FT distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic diagram of a three-level quantum ther [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Results of computer simulation for the thermal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Compensating random transition-detection blackouts in Markov networks

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A post-processing scheme recovers transition rates and entropy-production bounds from Markov-network trajectories even when forward and backward transitions are randomly missed with unknown, asymmetric probabilities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    We show that the minimum is attained in a distribution supported on exactly two points

    For fixed expectation values ⟨σ⟩ and ⟨ϕ⟩, we min- imize the probability Pr( ϕ ≤ 0) regarding all the generalized FT distributions. We show that the minimum is attained in a distribution supported on exactly two points

    work page

  2. [2]

    Hence, the corresponding two-point distribution al- ways exists, and the bound is valid for any gener- alized FT distribution

    We prove that for any desired expectation values (⟨σ⟩, ⟨ϕ⟩), there exist parameter choices for the minimizing distribution that achieve those values. Hence, the corresponding two-point distribution al- ways exists, and the bound is valid for any gener- alized FT distribution

    work page

  3. [3]

    (8), we ob- tain a universal lower bound on the uncertainty

    Finally, by substituting this minimum form of Pr(ϕ ≤ 0) into the SNR bound in Eq. (8), we ob- tain a universal lower bound on the uncertainty. It is expressed in the language of dissipative cost, namely entropy production. Γ† + σ ϕ† −σ ϕ Γ+ FIG. 1. Conceptual image of a generalized FT distribu- tion. The support is composed of three time-reversal pairs. T...

    work page

  4. [4]

    For clarity, we assumed the baths share an identical de- cay rate γ

    − eθ1+θ2 ]/Zπ, πeA = [e2θ2 (eθ1 − 2) +eθ3 (2eθ2 − 1)]/Zπ, and πeB = [ eθ3 + eθ1+θ2 − 2]/Zπ, where θr := βrℏωr, and Zπ = e2θ2 (−2 + eθ1 ) − 2 + eθ3 [2eθ2 (1 + eθ1 ) − 1]. For clarity, we assumed the baths share an identical de- cay rate γ. Then the heat currents at each bath can be denoted as ˙Qr = ℏωr Γ(r) ↑ π− − Γ(r) ↓ π+ , [23, 24, 34] where π− (π+) is ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy dif- ferences, Phys

    C. Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy dif- ferences, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2690 (1997)

    1997

  6. [6]

    G. E. Crooks, Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy dif- ferences, Phys. Rev. E 60, 2721 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Gallavotti and E

    G. Gallavotti and E. G. D. Cohen, Dynamical ensembles in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2694 (1995)

    1995

  8. [8]

    Esposito, K

    M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Three detailed fluctuation theorems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 090601 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Rep

    U. Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 126001 (2012). 9

    2012

  2. [10]

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

    2015

  3. [11]

    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. [12]

    J. M. Horowitz and T. R. Gingrich, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations constrain non-equilibrium fluctua- tions, Nature Physics 16, 15 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Manzano, J

    G. Manzano, J. M. Horowitz, and J. M. R. Parrondo, Thermodynamics of weakly measured quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E 98, 032129 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    G. T. Landi and D. Poletti, Nonequilibrium entropy pro- duction in open quantum systems: An overview, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035008 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Hasegawa and T

    Y. Hasegawa and T. V. Vu, Fluctuation theorem uncer- tainty relation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 110602 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    R. J. Harris and G. M. Sch¨ utz, Fluctuation theorems for stochastic dynamics, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. , P07020

  9. [17]

    Merhav and Y

    N. Merhav and Y. Kafri, Statistical properties of entropy production derived from fluctuation theorems, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. , P12022

  10. [18]

    Ziyin and M

    L. Ziyin and M. Ueda, Universal thermodynamic uncer- tainty relation in nonequilibrium dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013039 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Di Terlizzi and M

    I. Di Terlizzi and M. Baiesi, Kinetic uncertainty relation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52, 02LT03 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    V. T. Vo, T. V. Vu, and Y. Hasegawa, Unified thermodynamic–kinetic uncertainty relation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55, 405004 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    Monnai, Kinetic equality for susceptibility and dy- namical activity, Phys

    T. Monnai, Kinetic equality for susceptibility and dy- namical activity, Phys. Rev. E 110, L062101 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    V. V. Petrov, On lower bounds for tail probabilities, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 137, 2703 (2007), 5th St. Petersburg Workshop on Simulation

    2007

  16. [24]

    Hasegawa and T

    Y. Hasegawa and T. Nishiyama, Thermodynamic con- centration inequalities and trade-off relations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 247101 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    H. E. D. Scovil and E. O. Schulz-DuBois, Three-level masers as heat engines, Physical Review Letters 2, 262 (1959)

    1959

  18. [26]

    Geva and R

    E. Geva and R. Kosloff, Three-level quantum amplifier as a heat engine: A study in finite-time thermodynamics, Physical Review E 49, 3903 (1994)

    1994

  19. [27]

    Boukobza and D

    E. Boukobza and D. J. Tannor, Thermodynamics of bipartite systems: Application to light–matter interac- tions, Physical Review A 74, 063823 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Alicki, The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 12, L103 (1979)

    R. Alicki, The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 12, L103 (1979)

    1979

  21. [29]

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

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

    2005

  22. [30]

    R. E. Spinney and I. J. Ford, Fluctuation relations: A pedagogical overview, in Nonequilibrium Statistical Physics of Small Systems: Fluctuation Relations and Be- yond , edited by R. Klages, W. Just, and C. Jarzynski (Wiley–VCH, Weinheim, 2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Boucheron, G

    S. Boucheron, G. Lugosi, and P. Massart, Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    B. K. Ghosh, Probability inequalities related to markov’s theorem, The American Statistician 56, 186 (2002)

    2002

  25. [33]

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

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

    1961

  26. [34]

    K. Y. Tan, M. Partanen, R. E. Lake, J. Govenius, S. Ma- suda, and M. M¨ ott¨ onen, Quantum-circuit refrigerator, Nature Communications 8, 15189 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    A. T. Jones, C. P. Scheller, J. R. Prance, Y. B. Kalyoncu, D. M. Zumb¨ uhl, and R. P. Haley, Progress in cooling na- noelectronic devices to ultra-low temperatures, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 201, 772 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    M. T. Mitchison, Quantum thermal absorp- tion machines: refrigerators, engines and clocks, Contemporary Physics 60, 164 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2019.1631555

    2019

  29. [37]

    A. S. Hegde, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Time-resolved stochastic dynamics of quantum thermal machines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 150402 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Manzano Paule, Thermodynamics and Synchro- nization in Open Quantum Systems , Springer Theses (Springer, Cham, 2018)

    G. Manzano Paule, Thermodynamics and Synchro- nization in Open Quantum Systems , Springer Theses (Springer, Cham, 2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    A. M. Timpanaro, G. Guarnieri, J. Goold, and G. T. Landi, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations from ex- change fluctuation theorems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 090604 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Jarzynski and D

    C. Jarzynski and D. K. W´ ojcik, Classical and quantum fluctuation theorems for heat exchange, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 230602 (2004)

    2004

  34. [42]

    Saito and Y

    K. Saito and Y. Utsumi, Symmetry in full counting statis- tics, fluctuation theorem, and relations among nonlinear transport coefficients in the presence of a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 78, 115429 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    G. T. Landi and D. Karevski, Fluctuations of the heat exchanged between two quantum spin chains, Physical Review E 93, 032122 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Lahiri and A

    S. Lahiri and A. M. Jayannavar, Derivation of not-so- common fluctuation theorems, Indian Journal of Physics 89, 515 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Andrieux, P

    D. Andrieux, P. Gaspard, T. Monnai, and S. Tasaki, The fluctuation theorem for currents in open quantum sys- tems, New Journal of Physics 11, 043014 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Esposito, U

    M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Nonequilib- rium fluctuations, fluctuation theorems, and counting statistics in quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1665 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.