Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Field-Theoretic Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation -- General formulation exemplified with the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper extends the thermodynamic uncertainty relation from Markov networks and Langevin equations to general field theories, and verifies it for the one-dimensional Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation in a weak-coupling expansion.

desk verdict A worthwhile, cleanly executed extension of the TUR to SPDEs, but (24) is an unproved assertion and the KPZ check, while consistent, is perturbative and cutoff-dependent. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05560 v1 pith:57PUWZPZ submitted 2019-08-15 cond-mat.stat-mech

Oliver Niggemann , Udo Seifert This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech MSC 60H1582C3182C24 PACS 05.40.-a05.70.Ln
keywords thermodynamicuncertaintyrelationfieldtheoryKardar-Parisi-Zhangequationentropyproductioncurrentfluctuationsmodecouplingweak-couplingexpansionstochasticpartialdifferentialequations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a field-theoretic version of the thermodynamic uncertainty relation (TUR), the universal bound $\sigma \ge j^2/D$ connecting entropy production to current and its fluctuations. It defines a projected current, a Green-Kubo diffusivity, and a total entropy production for generic Langevin field theories, and claims the product $\langle\Delta s_{\rm tot}\rangle \epsilon^2 = 2\sigma D_g/J_g^2$ is at least 2 in a non-equilibrium steady state. For the one-dimensional Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation, the paper computes this product to second order in the dimensionless effective coupling and finds $2 + (3 - 1/\Lambda) + O(\lambda_{\rm eff}^2)$, so the inequality holds in that regime. The extra term over 2 is attributed to mode coupling induced by the nonlinearity, with the $k = 0$ part behaving exactly like a forced Edwards-Wilkinson equation that saturates the bound. If correct, this gives a dissipation-fluctuation bound for infinite-dimensional stochastic field dynamics, not just finite-state or single-particle systems.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a field-theoretic dictionary: the local current $j(r,t) = \partial_t \Phi(r,t)$, projected onto a weight function $g$ as $j_g(t) = \int_\Omega j(r,t)\cdot g(r)\,dr$, with diffusivity defined through the Green-Kubo integral, and entropy production obtained from the time-antisymmetric part of the action functional. For the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation, the calculation uses a spectral Galerkin truncation to finite Fourier modes with cutoff $\Lambda$, a mild-solution formulation, and a weak-coupling expansion in $\lambda_{\rm eff}$. The load-bearing input is the stationary distribution $p_s[h] = \exp(-\|\partial_x h\|_0^2)$, which yields the stationary probability current $j_s[h] = (\lambda_{\rm eff}/2)(\partial_x h)^2 p_s[h]$ and hence the entropy production rate $\sigma$. The mode-coupling structure of the nonlinear term, $l(k-l)h_l h_{k-l}$, is what produces the additional $O(1)$ term in the TUR product.

What would settle it

Simulate the one-dimensional KPZ equation with small $\lambda_{\rm eff}$ and periodic boundary conditions, measure $J_g$, $D_g$, and the steady-state entropy production rate, and check whether $2\sigma D_g/J_g^2 = 2 + (3 - 1/\Lambda) + O(\lambda_{\rm eff}^2)$; separately, test whether the functional divergence of $j_s[h] = (\lambda_{\rm eff}/2)(\partial_x h)^2 p_s[h]$ vanishes, which would confirm that $p_s[h]$ is stationary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the thermodynamic uncertainty relation survives the passage to field theory, and for the one-dimensional KPZ equation its tightness is computable: in a perturbation expansion in $\lambda_{\rm eff}$, the TUR product equals $2 + (3 - 1/\Lambda) + O(\lambda_{\rm eff}^2)$, with $\epsilon^2 = [4 + \lambda_{\rm eff}^2 H_\Lambda^{(2)}/(8\pi^2)]/(\lambda_{\rm eff}^2 \Lambda^2 t)$, $J_g = g_0 \lambda_{\rm eff} \Lambda/2$, $D_g = g_0^2[1 + \lambda_{\rm eff}^2 H_\Lambda^{(2)}/(32\pi^2)]/2$, and $\sigma = \lambda_{\rm eff}^2[\Lambda^2 + (3\Lambda^2 - \Lambda)/2]/2$. The value 2 is the saturated bound, recovered when only the action of the nonzero Fourier modes on the constant mode is retained; the $O(1)$ excess is the additional entropy production from mode-mode coupling. The paper also shows that the alternative precision $\epsilon^2 = \langle\|h - \langle h\rangle\|^2\rangle/\|\langle h\rangle\|^2$ is asymptotically equivalent to the projected-current definition for a natural class of one-dimensional scalar stochastic partial differential equations with homogeneous noise.

Load-bearing premise

The entropy-production calculation rests on taking the Edwards-Wilkinson stationary distribution $\exp(-\|\partial_x h\|_0^2)$ as the true stationary measure of the nonlinear KPZ equation with periodic boundary conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the field-theoretic TUR holds, every non-equilibrium steady state of a Langevin field theory with current $J_g$ and diffusivity $D_g$ must dissipate at least $J_g^2/D_g$ per unit time.
  • For the one-dimensional KPZ equation in the weak-coupling regime, the bound is $2\sigma D_g/J_g^2 \ge 2 + (3 - 1/\Lambda)$, so the dissipation requirement is strictly stronger than the bare TUR.
  • The forced Edwards-Wilkinson equation, obtained by keeping only the action of nonzero modes on the $k=0$ mode, saturates the bound with product 2, extending the known overdamped-Langevin saturation to a field setting.
  • The asymptotic equivalence between projected-output precision and the $L^2$-norm precision gives a natural fluctuation measure for other field theories.
  • Applying the same framework to other nonlinear Langevin field theories, such as stochastic Burgers or Navier-Stokes dynamics, should yield TUR products whose deviation from 2 quantifies the dissipative cost of mode coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical simulation of the weakly coupled KPZ equation measuring $2\sigma D_g/J_g^2$ and comparing it with $2 + (3 - 1/\Lambda)$ would be a sharp test; a mismatch at small $\lambda_{\rm eff}$ would point to the stationary-distribution assumption as the source.
  • If the Edwards-Wilkinson stationary measure is not exactly stationary for KPZ, corrections would likely appear first at $O(\lambda_{\rm eff}^4)$, so the paper's truncation may be where the assumption's failure shows up.
  • Because the excess constant depends on the cutoff $\Lambda$, the dissipation bound for unregularized white noise may be ultraviolet-sensitive; colored noise or higher-order diffusion operators could yield a renormalized, cutoff-independent bound.
  • The projected current $J_g$ and its fluctuations are experimentally accessible in growing interfaces, so the bound could be tested against measured height profiles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a field-theoretic extension of the thermodynamic uncertainty relation. It defines a projected current, a diffusivity, and an entropy-production rate for Langevin-type field theories, and states the general inequality ⟨Δs_tot⟩ ε² = 2σD_g/J_g² ≥ 2 in Eq. (24). The second half of the paper tests this inequality on the one-dimensional Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation in a weak-coupling regime, using a Fourier cutoff Λ and a perturbation expansion in the dimensionless coupling λ_eff. The authors compute the mean projected current J_g, the diffusivity D_g, and the entropy-production rate σ to lowest non-vanishing order, obtaining 2σD_g/J_g² = 2 + (3 - 1/Λ) + O(λ_eff²), which is consistent with the proposed bound. A comparison with the forced Edwards-Wilkinson model is used to interpret the result.

Significance. If Eq. (24) could be established, this would be a useful extension of the TUR to fluctuating fields, with potential applications to nonlinear SPDEs such as stochastic Burgers and Navier-Stokes-type equations. The KPZ calculation is a meaningful nontrivial test: J_g, D_g, and σ are evaluated independently, the mode sums are performed explicitly, and the limiting forced-Edwards-Wilkinson case saturates the inequality. However, the general field-theoretic inequality is asserted without proof, and the KPZ verification is restricted to second order in the coupling for a fixed cutoff. The paper is therefore best viewed as presenting a plausible conjecture together with a consistent second-order test, rather than a proven general relation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (24)] The central inequality (24) is stated without derivation or an explicit set of assumptions on the drift functional F, the noise kernel K, and the stationary measure. Since the remainder of the paper verifies the inequality only for one model at lowest nontrivial order, the title's claim of a 'field-theoretic thermodynamic uncertainty relation' is currently supported only as a conjecture. I recommend either proving (24), for example by applying the known finite-dimensional TUR for overdamped Langevin dynamics to the truncated spectral dynamics with modes k∈[-Λ,Λ] and then stating the limit carefully, or explicitly reframing the paper as proposing a conjecture and testing it on the KPZ equation.
  2. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (100)-(110)] The entropy-production computation relies on the stationarity of p_s[h]=exp(-‖∂_x h‖²) for the periodic KPZ equation, but the manuscript only cites references for this fact. Since the stationary probability current in Eq. (142) is nonzero, stationarity requires a nontrivial cancellation. This concern is resolvable: with periodic boundary conditions, ∫ dx ∂²_x h = 0 and ∫ dx ∂²_x h (∂_x h)² = 0, so the functional divergence of the nonlinear current vanishes. I ask the authors to include this check explicitly, or at least to specify the finite-cutoff regularization under which the cancellation holds, because Eq. (110) is load-bearing for the TUR product in Eq. (111).
  3. [Section 4, Eqs. (85), (109)-(111)] The perturbative control of the expansion is not stated precisely. The coefficients in the results for D_g and σ grow with the cutoff Λ (through H_Λ^(2) and Λ² respectively), so for a fixed small λ_eff the neglected O(λ_eff^4) terms need not be uniformly small as Λ→∞. Since the paper claims validity 'up to second order', the authors should state the precise condition on λ_eff and Λ under which the truncation is controlled, or restrict the claim explicitly to fixed Λ with λ_eff sufficiently small.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (58)] Please add an explicit dimensional check for λ_eff; since λ in Eq. (25) carries engineering dimensions, a short verification that λ_eff is indeed dimensionless would help readers.
  2. [Section 4.3, Eq. (101)] The symbol sstat appears without definition; it should be identified as the boundary term -ln p_s[h] evaluated at the final and initial times.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (87)-(97)] The claimed equivalence between the projected precision (9) and the L²-norm-based precision (87) is supported by a spectral argument rather than a proof. Please mark this equivalence as a conjecture or provide a proof for the stated class of operators.
  4. [Section 5] The statement that the cutoff should be large enough to guarantee dominance of the diffusive term over the nonlinear term could be quantified; currently the condition relating λ_eff and Λ is not stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the KPZ TUR product is computed from independently defined J_g, D_g, and sigma, with no fitted parameter enforcing the inequality; the unsupported general inequality is a rigor gap, not a circular one.

full rationale

The central KPZ verification is self-contained rather than circular. The current J_g is obtained from the perturbative height-field expansion (Eqs. 76-80), the diffusivity D_g from the variance calculation (Eqs. 81-85), and the entropy-production rate sigma from the stationary entropy production using the stationary distribution p_s[h]=exp(-||d_x h||^2) (Eq. 100), which is imported from external standard references [62,64,31] rather than derived from the TUR. The final product 2 sigma D_g / J_g^2 = 2 + (3 - 1/Lambda) + O(lambda_eff^2) (Eq. 111) is then ordinary arithmetic; no parameter is fitted and no term is defined in terms of the inequality, so the TUR is not enforced by construction. The general field-theoretic relation (Eq. 24) is asserted as an extension rather than proven, and the perturbative check is only to second order, but that is a question of rigor and scope, not circularity. The only self-citations are to the original TUR [1] (the relation being generalized) and, among many standard references, to [37] for the action functional; neither is load-bearing, since the action functional is standard MSRJD theory and the TUR is the target of the extension rather than a fitted input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on the standard machinery of stochastic field theory (action functional, Wick's theorem) plus two domain-specific assumptions: the existence and regularity of mild solutions of KPZ, and the specific stationary distribution p_s[h] = exp(-||∂_x h||²). The paper introduces no new physical entities, only a new inequality. The cutoff Λ is the main hand-chosen parameter.

free parameters (2)
  • cutoff Λ
    An arbitrarily large but finite Fourier cutoff introduced in Section 3.2 to regularize the noise and ensure convergence. The final TUR product depends on Λ, and the limit Λ→∞ is not taken.
  • weight function g(x)
    Appears in the projected current and output, but cancels in the TUR product; any real L2 function with nonzero mean works.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 1D KPZ equation driven by space-time white noise admits a mild solution in C([0,T], L2) and the Fourier expansion converges.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 and Appendix C to justify the spectral treatment and the L2 framework.
  • domain assumption The stationary probability distribution of the KPZ equation is p_s[h] = exp(-||∂_x h||²), the same as the Edwards-Wilkinson model, and the stationary probability current is j_s = (λ_eff/2)(∂_x h)² p_s.
    Used in Section 4.3 and Appendix B to compute the entropy production rate. Cited to Refs. [62,64,31].
  • standard math Wick's theorem applies to the Gaussian zero-order fields h_k^(0).
    Used throughout Section 4 and Appendix A to evaluate multipoint correlation functions.
  • standard math The action functional representation (18) is valid and the Jacobian does not contribute to the medium entropy.
    Used in Section 2 to derive Δs_m; standard in stochastic field theory (Seifert 2012, etc.).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Field-Theoretic Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation -- General formulation exemplified with the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/57PUWZPZ

@misc{pith2026190805560,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Field-Theoretic Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation -- General formulation exemplified with the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/57PUWZPZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05560}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a field-theoretic thermodynamic uncertainty relation as an extension of the one derived so far for a Markovian dynamics on a discrete set of states and for overdamped Langevin equations. We first formulate a framework which describes quantities like current, entropy production and diffusivity in the case of a generic field theory. We will then apply this general setting to the one-dimensional Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation, a paradigmatic example of a non-linear field-theoretic Langevin equation. In particular, we will treat the dimensionless Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation with an effective coupling parameter measuring the strength of the non-linearity. It will be shown that the field-theoretic thermodynamic uncertainty relation holds up to second order in a perturbation expansion with respect to a small effective coupling constant.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Barato, U

    A.C. Barato, U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 158101 (2015). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.158101. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.158101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.158101 2015

  2. [2]

    Gingrich, J.M

    T.R. Gingrich, J.M. Horowitz, N. Perunov, J.L. England, P hys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120601 (2016). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.120601. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.120601

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.120601 2016

  3. [4]

    Pietzonka, A.C

    P. Pietzonka, A.C. Barato, U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. E 93, 052145 (2016). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevE.93.052145. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.93.052145

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.93.052145 2016

  4. [5]

    Polettini, A

    M. Polettini, A. Lazarescu, M. Esposito, Phys. Rev. E 94, 052104 (2016). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevE.94.052104. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.94.052104

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.94.052104 2016

  5. [6]

    Pietzonka, F

    P. Pietzonka, F. Ritort, U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. E 96, 012101 (2017). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevE.96.012101. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.96.012101

    doi:10.1103/physreve.96.012101 2017

  6. [7]

    Proesmans, C.V

    K. Proesmans, C.V. den Broeck, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 119(2), 20001 (2017). DOI 10.1209/0295-5075/119/20001. URL https://doi.org/10.1209%2F0295-5075%2F119%2F20001

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/119/20001 2017

  7. [8]

    Gingrich, G.M

    T.R. Gingrich, G.M. Rotskoff, J.M. Horowitz, Journal of Ph ysics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical 50(18), 184004 (2017). DOI 10.1088/1751-8121/aa672f. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1751-8121%2Faa672f

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aa672f 2017

  8. [9]

    Gingrich, J.M

    T.R. Gingrich, J.M. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 170601 (2017). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.170601. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.170601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.170601 2017

Show all 73 references
  1. [10]

    Garrahan, Phys

    J.P. Garrahan, Phys. Rev. E 95, 032134 (2017). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.032134. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.95.032134

    2017 doi

  2. [11]

    Dechant, S

    A. Dechant, S. ichi Sasa, Journal of Statistical Mechani cs: Theory and Ex- periment 2018(6), 063209 (2018). DOI 10.1088/1742-5468/aac91a. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1742-5468%2Faac91a

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    Dechant, S.i

    A. Dechant, S.i. Sasa, Phys. Rev. E 97, 062101 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE.97. 062101. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.062101

    2018 doi

  4. [13]

    Koyuk, U

    T. Koyuk, U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 230601 (2019). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 122.230601. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.230601

    2019 doi

  5. [14]

    Chun, L.P

    H.M. Chun, L.P. Fischer, U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. E 99, 042128 (2019). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevE.99.042128. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.99.042128

    2019 doi

  6. [15]

    Falasco, M

    G. Falasco, M. Esposito, J.C. Delvenne, arXiv:1906.113 60

    1906

  7. [16]

    Brandner, T

    K. Brandner, T. Hanazato, K. Saito, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 090601 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.090601. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.090601

    2018 doi

  8. [17]

    Macieszczak, K

    K. Macieszczak, K. Brandner, J.P. Garrahan, Phys. Rev. L ett. 121, 130601 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.130601. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.130601

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    Agarwalla, D

    B.K. Agarwalla, D. Segal, Phys. Rev. B 98, 155438 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB. 98.155438. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.155438 32 Oliver Niggemann, Udo Seifert

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    Ptaszy´ nski, Phys

    K. Ptaszy´ nski, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085425 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.085425. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.085425

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    Carrega, M

    M. Carrega, M. Sassetti, U. W eiss, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062111 (2019). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevA.99.062111. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.062111

    2019 doi

  12. [21]

    Guarnieri, G.T

    G. Guarnieri, G.T. Landi, S.R. Clark, J. Goold, arXiv:19 01.10428

  13. [22]

    Carollo, R.L

    F. Carollo, R.L. Jack, J.P. Garrahan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130605 (2019). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.130605. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.130605

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    Nguyen, S

    M. Nguyen, S. Vaikuntanathan, Proceedings of the Nation al Academy of Sciences 113(50), 14231 (2016). DOI 10.1073/pnas.1609983113. URL https://www.pnas.org/content/113/50/14231

    2016 doi

  15. [24]

    Pietzonka, A.C

    P. Pietzonka, A.C. Barato, U. Seifert, Journal of Statis tical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2016(12), 124004 (2016). DOI 10.1088/1742-5468/2016/12/1240 04. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1742-5468%2F2016%2F12%2F124004

    2016 doi

  16. [25]

    Hwang, C

    W. Hwang, C. Hyeon, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Let ters 9(3), 513 (2018). DOI 10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b03197. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b03197. PMID: 29329502

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    Foias (ed.), Navier-Stokes equations and turbulence , 1st edn

    C. Foias (ed.), Navier-Stokes equations and turbulence , 1st edn. Encyclopedia of math- ematics and its applications ; 83 (Cambridge University Pre ss, Cambridge, 2001)

    2001

  18. [27]

    Kardar, G

    M. Kardar, G. Parisi, Y.C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 889 (1986). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.56.889. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.889

    1986 doi

  19. [28]

    De Nardis, P

    J. De Nardis, P. Le Doussal, K.A. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Let t. 118, 125701 (2017). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.125701. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.125701

    2017 doi

  20. [29]

    Halpin-Healy, K.A

    T. Halpin-Healy, K.A. Takeuchi, Journal of Statistical Physics 160(4), 794 (2015). DOI 10.1007/s10955-015-1282-1. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-015-1282-1

    2015 doi

  21. [30]

    Spohn, in Stochastic processes and random matrices

    H. Spohn, in Stochastic processes and random matrices. Lecture notes of the Les Houches summer school. Volume 104, Les Houches, France, Jul y 6–31, 2015 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 177–227

    2015

  22. [31]

    Takeuchi, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Ap plications (2017)

    K. Takeuchi, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Ap plications (2017). DOI 10. 1016/j.physa.2018.03.009

    2017

  23. [32]

    Kubo, Reports on Progress in Physics 29(1), 255 (1966)

    R. Kubo, Reports on Progress in Physics 29(1), 255 (1966). DOI 10.1088/0034-4885/ 29/1/306. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0034-4885%2F29%2F1%2F306

    1966 doi

  24. [33]

    Seifert, Reports on Progress in Physics 75(12), 126001 (2012)

    U. Seifert, Reports on Progress in Physics 75(12), 126001 (2012). URL http://stacks.iop.org/0034-4885/75/i=12/a=126001

    2012

  25. [34]

    Janssen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matte r 23(4), 377 (1976)

    H.K. Janssen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matte r 23(4), 377 (1976). DOI 10.1007/BF01316547. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01316547

    1976 doi

  26. [35]

    De Dominicis, Journal de Physique Colloques 37(C1), C1 (1976)

    C. De Dominicis, Journal de Physique Colloques 37(C1), C1 (1976). DOI 10.1051/ jphyscol:1976138. URL https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00216466

    1976

  27. [36]

    Martin, E.D

    P.C. Martin, E.D. Siggia, H.A. Rose, Phys. Rev. A 8, 423 (1973). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevA.8.423. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.8.423

    1973 doi

  28. [37]

    Niggemann, H

    O. Niggemann, H. Hinrichsen, Phys. Rev. E 97, 062125 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE. 97.062125. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.062125

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    Hochberg, C

    D. Hochberg, C. Molina-Par ´ ıs, J. P´ erez-Mercader, M. V isser, Phys- ica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 280(3), 437 (2000). DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(99)006 11-1. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437199006111

    2000 doi

  30. [39]

    T¨ auber, Critical Dynamics: A Field Theory Approach to Equilibrium a nd Non-Equilibrium Scaling Behavior (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    U. T¨ auber, Critical Dynamics: A Field Theory Approach to Equilibrium a nd Non-Equilibrium Scaling Behavior (Cambridge University Press, 2014). URL https://books.google.de/books?id=qtTSAgAAQBAJ

    2014

  31. [40]

    Altland, B.D

    A. Altland, B.D. Simons, Condensed Matter Field Theory , 2nd edn. (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2010). DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511789984

    2010 doi

  32. [41]

    Seifert, The European Physical Journal B 64(3), 423 (2008)

    U. Seifert, The European Physical Journal B 64(3), 423 (2008). DOI 10.1140/epjb/ e2008-00001-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2008-00001-9

    2008 doi

  33. [42]

    C. Maes, K. Netocny, B. Wynants, Markov Processes And Rel ated Fields 14, 445 (2008)

    2008

  34. [43]

    Y.L. Chou, M. Pleimling, R.K.P. Zia, Phys. Rev. E 80, 061602 (2009). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevE.80.061602. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.061602 Field–Theoretic Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation 33

    2009 doi

  35. [44]

    Y.L. Chou, M. Pleimling, Journal of Statistical Mechani cs: Theory and Experi- ment 2010(08), P08007 (2010). DOI 10.1088/1742-5468/2010/08/p080 07. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1742-5468%2F2010%2F08%2Fp08007

    2010 doi

  36. [45]

    Y.L. Chou, M. Pleimling, Physica A: Statistical Mechani cs and its Applications 391(13), 3585 (2012). DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa. 2012.02.022. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437112001690

    2012 doi

  37. [46]

    Henkel, J.D

    M. Henkel, J.D. Noh, M. Pleimling, Phys. Rev. E 85, 030102 (2012). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevE.85.030102. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.85.030102

    2012 doi

  38. [47]

    Da Prato, J

    G. Da Prato, J. Zabczyk (eds.), Stochastic equations in infinite dimensions , 1st edn. Encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications ; 45 (Camb ridge Univ. Press, Cam- bridge, 1992)

    1992

  39. [48]

    Evans (ed.), Partial differential equations , reprint

    L.C. Evans (ed.), Partial differential equations , reprint. with corr. edn. Graduate studies in mathematics ; 19 (American Mathematical Society, Provid ence, Rhode Island, 2002)

    2002

  40. [49]

    Da Prato, A

    G. Da Prato, A. Debussche, R. Temam, Nonlinear Differenti al Equations and Applications NoDEA 1(4), 389 (1994). DOI 10.1007/BF01194987. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01194987

    1994 doi

  41. [50]

    Da Prato, J

    G. Da Prato, J. Zabczyk (eds.), Ergodicity for infinite dimensional systems . London Mathematical Society lecture note series ; 229 (Cambridge U niversity Press, New York; Cambridge, 1996)

    1996

  42. [51]

    Goldys, B

    B. Goldys, B. Maslowski, Journal of Functional Analysis 226(1), 230 (2005). DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfa.2004.12. 009. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022123605000303

    2005 doi

  43. [52]

    Bl¨ omker, M

    D. Bl¨ omker, M. Kamrani, S.M. Hosseini, IMA Journal of Nu merical Analysis 33(3), 825 (2013). DOI 10.1093/imanum/drs035. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drs035

    2013 doi

  44. [53]

    Fogedby, Phys

    H.C. Fogedby, Phys. Rev. E 57, 4943 (1998). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE.57.4943. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.57.4943

    1998 doi

  45. [54]

    Fogedby, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 14(7), 1557 (2002)

    H.C. Fogedby, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 14(7), 1557 (2002). DOI 10.1088/ 0953-8984/14/7/313. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0953-8984%2F14%2F7%2F313

    2002

  46. [55]

    Fogedby, Phys

    H.C. Fogedby, Phys. Rev. E 73, 031104 (2006). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE.73.031104. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.73.031104

    2006 doi

  47. [56]

    Fogedby, Pramana 71(2), 253 (2008)

    H.C. Fogedby, Pramana 71(2), 253 (2008). DOI 10.1007/s12043-008-0158-1. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s12043-008-0158-1

    2008 doi

  48. [57]

    Forster, D.R

    D. Forster, D.R. Nelson, M.J. Stephen, Phys. Rev. A 16, 732 (1977). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevA.16.732. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.16.732

    1977 doi

  49. [58]

    Frey, U.C

    E. Frey, U.C. T¨ auber, Phys. Rev. E 50, 1024 (1994). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE.50.1024. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.50.1024

    1994 doi

  50. [59]

    Medina, T

    E. Medina, T. Hwa, M. Kardar, Y.C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 39, 3053 (1989). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.39.3053. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.39.3053

    1989 doi

  51. [60]

    Hayot, C

    F. Hayot, C. Jayaprakash, Phys. Rev. E 56, 227 (1997). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE.56.227. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.56.227

    1997 doi

  52. [61]

    McComb, The Physics of Fluid Turbulence

    W. McComb, The Physics of Fluid Turbulence . Oxford Engineering Science Series (Clarendon Press, 1990). URL https://books.google.de/books?id=iF3jaZlMFP8C

    1990

  53. [62]

    Halpin-Healy, Y.C

    T. Halpin-Healy, Y.C. Zhang, Physics Reports 254(4), 215 (1995). DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(94)0008 7-J. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037015739400087J

    1995

  54. [63]

    Frusawa, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theor eti- cal 52(6), 065003 (2019)

    H. Frusawa, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theor eti- cal 52(6), 065003 (2019). DOI 10.1088/1751-8121/aaf65c. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1751-8121%2Faaf65c

    2019 doi

  55. [64]

    Krug, Advances in Physics 46(2), 139 (1997)

    J. Krug, Advances in Physics 46(2), 139 (1997). DOI 10.1080/00018739700101498. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/00018739700101498

    1997 doi

  56. [65]

    W ang, L

    F.Y. W ang, L. Xu, Infinite Dimensional Analysis, Quantum Probability and Related Topics 15 (2010). DOI 10.1142/S0219025712500208

    2010 doi

  57. [66]

    W olf, J

    D.E. W olf, J. Villain, Europhysics Letters (EPL) 13(5), 389 (1990). DOI 10.1209/ 0295-5075/13/5/002. URL https://doi.org/10.1209%2F0295-5075%2F13%2F5%2F002

    1990

  58. [67]

    Chekhlov, V

    A. Chekhlov, V. Yakhot, Phys. Rev. E 52, 5681 (1995). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevE.52

    1995 doi

  59. [68]

    Bl¨ omker, A

    D. Bl¨ omker, A. Jentzen, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analy sis 51(1), 694 (2013). DOI 10.1137/110845756. URL https://doi.org/10.1137/110845756 34 Oliver Niggemann, Udo Seifert

    2013 doi

  60. [69]

    Bl¨ omker, M

    D. Bl¨ omker, M. Kamrani, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1311.220 7 (2013)

    2013

  61. [70]

    Hairer, Annals of Mathematics 178 (2011)

    M. Hairer, Annals of Mathematics 178 (2011). DOI 10.4007/annals.2013.178.2.4

    2011 doi

  62. [71]

    Gubinelli, N

    M. Gubinelli, N. Perkowski, Communications in Mathemat ical Physics 349(1), 165 (2017). DOI 10.1007/s00220-016-2788-3. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-016-2788-3

    2017 doi

  63. [72]

    Cannizzaro, K

    G. Cannizzaro, K. Matetski, Communications in Mathemat ical Physics 358(2), 521 (2018). DOI 10.1007/s00220-018-3089-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-018-3089-9

    2018 doi

  64. [73]

    Hairer, Inventiones mathematicae 198(2), 269 (2014)

    M. Hairer, Inventiones mathematicae 198(2), 269 (2014). DOI 10.1007/ s00222-014-0505-4. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00222-014-0505-4

    2014 doi

  65. [5681]

    URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.52.5681

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.