Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Entropy estimation for partially accessible Markov networks based on imperfect observations: Role of finite resolution and finite statistics

T0 review · 1 major / 6 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 This paper claims that finite observation statistics change entropy-production estimators: waiting-time estimates can exceed the true entropy, and many histogram bins lower variance via self-averaging.

desk verdict Solid comparative simulation study with useful practical trade-offs, but the headline self-averaging claim is undercut by the zero-count bin discarding and needs a control or derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04102 v2 pith:477BVDPW submitted 2024-12-05 cond-mat.stat-mech

Jonas H. Fritz , Benjamin Ertel , Udo Seifert This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech PACS 05.40.-a05.70.Ln
keywords entropyproductionestimationwaiting-timedistributionsthermodynamicuncertaintyrelationpartialobservationfinitestatisticsMarkovnetworksMichaelis-Mentenkineticsstochasticthermodynamics
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

Estimating entropy production from real trajectories of partially observed Markov networks usually assumes perfect data. This paper asks what happens when the data actually have finite temporal and spatial resolution and finite statistics, and it compares three estimators—the thermodynamic uncertainty relation (TUR), a waiting-time estimator for resolved transitions, and a waiting-time estimator for blurred transitions—on a four-state network and an augmented Michaelis-Menten reaction scheme. Its central message is that the best estimator depends on the regime: resolved waiting-times win with ideal statistics, the TUR is tighter near equilibrium, and blurred-transition waiting-times improve far from equilibrium, while coarser resolution can be beneficial when observation time is short. The paper's key new finding is that finite statistics can push empirical waiting-time estimates above the true entropy production, so they no longer provide a strict lower bound, even though the large number of histogram bins produces a self-averaging effect that reduces estimator variance.

What carries the argument

The central objects are waiting-time distributions $\psi_{(ij)\to(kl)}(t)$, the probability density that a registered transition $(kl)$ follows a registered transition $(ij)$ after a lag $t$, and their blurred counterparts $\Psi_{I\to J}(t)$ for lumped transition classes $I,J$. From these, Eq. (8) defines the resolved-transition estimator $\langle\sigma_{\mathrm{WTD}}\rangle$ and Eqs. (12)-(14) define the blurred-transition estimator $\Sigma$ as the average of a waiting-time term and a transition-count term, both of which are needed because blurred waiting-time distributions alone do not satisfy a lower-bound inequality. At finite temporal resolution the continuous densities are replaced by histograms of bin width $\Delta t$, and the log-sum inequality guarantees the binned estimator remains a lower bound only in the ideal-statistics limit. At finite statistics, every histogram bin is treated as an independent, approximately Gaussian fluctuating count, and the fluctuation analysis of these counts is what produces the overestimation and self-averaging conclusions.

What would settle it

Repeat the estimator comparison with an alternative coarse-graining in which at most one transition can be registered per time interval $\Delta t$; if the TUR estimate then exceeds the true entropy production or the ranking of $\langle\sigma_{\mathrm{WTD}}\rangle$, $\Sigma$, and $\langle\sigma_{\mathrm{TUR}}\rangle$ changes, the paper's qualitative conclusions are limited to its specific observation model. For the self-averaging claim, hold the observation time $T$ fixed, vary the bin width $\Delta t$, and plot the variance of $\sigma^{\Delta t,T}_{\mathrm{WTD}}$ against the number of occupied bins: the claim predicts a monotonic variance decrease as bins multiply, with a minimum at the finest resolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At finite observation time $T$ the empirical waiting-time counts $n^{\Delta t,T}_{(ij)\to(kl)}(t_i)$ fluctuate between trajectories, and the paper shows these fluctuations are approximately Gaussian with mean and variance given by the binomial form in Eq. (16). Because the estimators $\sigma^{\Delta t,T}_{\mathrm{WTD}}$ and $\Sigma^{\Delta t,T}$ are sums over these fluctuating bin counts, their ensemble averages over $N$ trajectories need not respect the ideal-statistics bound $\langle\hat\sigma\rangle \le \langle\sigma\rangle$: finite-statistics estimates can overestimate the true entropy production, so they fail to provide a strict lower bound. At the same time, the sum over many independent bins gives a self-averaging effect: the variance of the waiting-time estimators decreases as the number of bins grows, even though the mean estimate at high temporal resolution is worse because most bins are empty and must be discarded. The paper also shows that lower temporal resolution makes histograms converge faster, creating a trade-off between statistical convergence and the quality of the bound that a fully converged estimator would provide.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that finite temporal resolution never causes transitions to be missed or merged: the observer always records the true sequence of events and only the measured waiting times are imprecise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For perfect measurement statistics, the resolved-transition waiting-time estimator $\langle\sigma_{\mathrm{WTD}}\rangle$ outperforms both the TUR and the blurred-transition estimator in every scenario studied, and in the four-state network it recovers the full entropy production independent of temporal resolution whenever one edge of each fundamental cycle is visible.
  • At low driving affinity the thermodynamic uncertainty relation gives a tighter lower bound than the blurred-transition estimator, while at high affinity the blurred estimator is tighter, so estimator choice should be guided by the expected driving regime.
  • Higher temporal or spatial resolution slows the convergence of measurement statistics, so for short observation times a deliberately coarser resolution can yield a better estimate than a fine one.
  • Finite statistics break the strict lower-bound property: a single empirical run can overestimate entropy production, and the probability of overestimation grows as the mean estimate approaches the true value while the maximum size of the overestimation shrinks.
  • Waiting-time estimators show a self-averaging effect: more histogram bins reduce estimator variance at high temporal resolution, and variance is largest at intermediate resolution where neither self-averaging nor statistical convergence dominates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Gaussian bin-count formula in Eq. (16) could be turned into a one-trajectory error bar: propagate the binomial variances through the estimator to report confidence intervals without repeating simulations, a step the paper motivates but does not implement.
  • Because estimator rankings depend on affinity, a hybrid rule that estimates the affinity from the data and then chooses between $\langle\sigma_{\mathrm{TUR}}\rangle$ and $\Sigma$ might outperform either estimator alone; the paper does not propose such a rule.
  • The self-averaging effect suggests that over-resolving waiting-time histograms could be used deliberately as a variance-reduction tool in experiments, at the cost of bias, possibly with a debiasing correction.
  • The overestimation phenomenon implies that published entropy-production lower bounds based on single finite trajectories should be interpreted with caution; the paper notes the need to quantify this overestimation.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies how finite temporal resolution, finite spatial resolution, and finite observation statistics affect three entropy estimators for partially accessible Markov networks: the thermodynamic uncertainty relation (TUR), a waiting-time-based estimator for resolved transitions, and a waiting-time-based estimator for blurred transitions. The authors use two paradigmatic systems, a four-state Markov network and an augmented Michaelis-Menten reaction scheme, and they perform Gillespie simulations. The main analytical ingredients are the log-sum inequality for coarse-grained waiting-time distributions (Eq. (10)) and a binomial fluctuation model for histogram counts (Eq. (16)). The numerical results show that the resolved-transition waiting-time estimator performs best under ideal statistics, that the TUR performs better at low affinities while the blurred-transition estimator performs better at high affinities, that lower resolution can be beneficial at finite statistics, and that finite statistics can lead to empirical estimates exceeding the true entropy production. The paper also claims that a large number of bins in empirical waiting-time distributions introduces a self-averaging effect that reduces estimator variance (Sec. VI).

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers useful practical guidance for experimental entropy estimation: it identifies a trade-off between resolution and statistical convergence and provides a quantitative warning that empirical estimates from finite data can violate the strict lower-bound property. The analytical bounds are correctly derived, and the simulations are extensive and reproducible in structure. The observation about overestimation at finite statistics, documented in Fig. 5, is practically important. However, the most novel qualitative claim, the self-averaging variance reduction, is not supported by the evidence as presented and requires additional analysis or a control experiment before the central message can be accepted.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. IV.A and Sec. VI] The central claim of a self-averaging variance reduction for waiting-time estimators is not supported by the presented evidence. The empirical estimator in Eq. (17) is evaluated only over bins for which both forward and reverse empirical waiting-time counts are nonzero; the text in Sec. IV.A states that contributions with a zero count are discarded. Under this selection rule, the effective number of summands at small Δt is not 1/Δt as the heuristic "number of bins" suggests, but is controlled by the realized event counts and the probability that forward and reverse events fall in the same bin, which decreases as Δt→0. The variance reduction visible in Figs. 4(d) and 8(d) at fine resolution may therefore be a selection artifact, caused by the estimator degenerating toward a few surviving bins or toward zero, rather than a self-averaging over many independent contributions. To establish the claimed effect, the authors should provide an analytic calculation of the variance of the truncated estimator, or a control experiment that isolates the binning effect from the zero-count truncation (for example, by using a fixed number of bins with a pseudocount or smoothing regularizer that avoids discarding bins). Without such support, the conclusion in Sec. VI that "a large number of bins ... introduces a self-averaging effect" is not justified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (18) and Eq. (19)] The definitions of the empirical average ⟨·⟩_N and variance Var_N appear to be missing the factor 1/N; as written, they are the sum and sum of squared deviations, not the mean and variance. Please include the normalization explicitly or clarify the intended definition.
  2. [Sec. III and Sec. VI] The concluding statement that "the empirical waiting-time distributions have Gaussian fluctuations in general" is stronger than the evidence presented: Eq. (16) treats the waiting-time events as independent and identically distributed, which ignores correlations in a Markov network, and only a single illustrative comparison is shown in Fig. 3(b). Please either restrict the claim to the cases considered or provide additional justification for the independence approximation.
  3. [Sec. II.C and Fig. 3(a)] The text says the coarse-graining is illustrated for ψ_{32→32}(t), while the figure caption and the plot refer to ψ_{43→43}(t); one of these is a typo and should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. IV.A] In the sentence "The network consists of two fundamental cycles C1 and C1 with three edges," the second cycle should be C2, not C1.
  5. [Notation] The symbol N is used both for the normal distribution in Eq. (16) and for the number of realizations in Eqs. (18) and (19); please disambiguate, for example by using a calligraphic or script letter for one of them.
  6. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states "In the limit T → ∞ (black line), the entropy estimator depends on the time resolution and decreases for large Δt" in a way that appears to apply to both panels (c) and (d), but the text says the resolved-transition estimator in panel (d) is independent of Δt in that limit; please clarify which panel each statement refers to.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper uses established estimators as external benchmarks and its new claims are simulation-based observations, not results forced by definitions or fits.

full rationale

This paper does not derive a new estimator from data, fit parameters to reproduce a target quantity, or rename an input as a prediction. The waiting-time estimators and their lower-bound inequalities are imported from prior work (Refs. [69,70,85]), including the authors' own papers, but they are used as fixed benchmark constructions with stated assumptions; the present paper's contribution is to study their behavior under finite resolution and finite statistics in numerical simulations. The analytical fluctuation statement in Eq. (16) is a parameter-free binomial/Gaussian model whose parameters are the known simulation rates, and Fig. 3(b) checks it against simulations rather than using it to force a result. The finite-statistics empirical estimator in Eq. (17) is defined exactly as the sample analog of the bound, and the observation that finite samples can violate the lower bound is a direct consequence of the definitions, not a circular prediction. The 'self-averaging' claim in Sec. VI is a heuristic interpretation of the observed variance decrease at fine temporal resolution; it is not derived by equating the variance with the number of bins by construction, and any weakness in that argument is a statistical-correctness concern rather than circularity. The paper explicitly acknowledges the limitation of its temporal coarse-graining assumption that all transitions remain registered, and notes that other coarse-grainings could change the results; this transparency further supports the absence of a circular load-bearing step. Overall, the reasoning chain is self-contained: simulation inputs are model rates, the compared estimators are externally established, and the reported quality factors are measured outputs.

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

The central claims rest on standard Markov network assumptions, the renewal property of Markov jump processes, and the external proofs of the estimator bounds. The model parameters are hand-chosen simulation inputs, not fitted to data, and no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • κ1, κ2 rate scale parameters = κ1=10, κ2=1
    Chosen rate scales for the four-state network in Sec. IV.A; they set the timescales and influence the quantitative quality factors, though the qualitative trends are robust.
  • Cycle affinities A_C1, A_C2 = A_C1=7.5, A_C2=-4.5 (Figs. 4-5)
    Driving affinities chosen to illustrate the crossover between estimators in the four-state network; the TUR-versus-Σ ranking depends on the affinity regime.
  • Affinity split parameter a = a=0.5
    Parameter in the Michaelis-Menten scheme (Sec. V.A) controlling how the cycle affinity is split between substrate binding and product release; affects the estimator ranking.
  • Michaelis-Menten affinities A_Ci = A_Ci=3 (Figs. 8)
    Driving affinities for the three enzyme cycles; chosen as a representative nonequilibrium regime.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Markov network with bidirectional rates and time-independent transition rates, reaching a NESS.
    Sec. II.A: the stochastic thermodynamics framework requires this structure; the entropy production rate is defined via Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption Each observed transition is a renewal event, making the bin counts in Eq. (16) independent across events and approximately normal.
    Sec. III: this renewal property of Markov jump processes underlies the fluctuation statistics for finite observation time T.
  • standard math Log-sum inequality for coarse-grained waiting-time histograms.
    Eq. (10): used to prove ⟨σ_Δt_WTD⟩ ≤ ⟨σ_WTD⟩.
  • domain assumption The lower-bound properties of TUR, WTD, and blurred-transition estimators from Refs [37-40, 69, 70, 85] hold.
    Sec. II.B: the paper relies on these external proofs to define the quality factor Q and interpret Q ≤ 1 as the ideal lower-bound regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entropy estimation for partially accessible Markov networks based on imperfect observations: Role of finite resolution and finite statistics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/477BVDPW

@misc{pith2026241204102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entropy estimation for partially accessible Markov networks based on imperfect observations: Role of finite resolution and finite statistics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/477BVDPW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04102}
}
read the original abstract

Estimating entropy production from real observation data can be difficult due to finite resolution in both space and time and finite measurement statistics. We characterize the statistical error introduced by finite sample size and compare the performance of three different entropy estimators under these limitations for two different paradigmatic systems, a four-state Markov network and an augmented Michaelis-Menten reaction scheme. We consider the thermodynamic uncertainty relation, a waiting-time based estimator for resolved transitions and a waiting-time based estimator for blurred transitions in imperfect observation scenarios. For perfect measurement statistics and finite temporal resolution, the estimator based on resolved transitions performs best in all considered scenarios. The thermodynamic uncertainty relation gives a better estimate than the estimator based on blurred transitions at low driving affinities, whereas the latter performs better at high driving affinities. Furthermore, we find that a higher temporal and spatial resolution leads to slower convergence of measurement statistics, implying that for short measurement times, a lower resolution may be beneficial. Additionally, we identify a self-averaging effect for the waiting-time based entropy estimators that can reduce their variance for observations with finite statistics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Four-state Markov network with ten possible tran [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Observation of the transitions (12) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Modified waiting-time distributions for the obser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effect of limited temporal and spatial resolution and finite statistics in the observation of the four-state Markov [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Overestimation of entropy production due to finite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Contributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Six-state Markov network for reversible two-substrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The effect of limited temporal and spatial resolution and finite statistics for the observation of substrate binding and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Direct estimates of irreversibility from time series

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Direct estimates of trajectory irreversibility can be made by extrapolating plug-in D_KL estimates to infinite sample size, and single retinal neurons show nonzero irreversibility over 200 ms windows.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Sekimoto, Stochastic Energetics, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010)

    K. Sekimoto, Stochastic Energetics, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Jarzynski, Annu

    C. Jarzynski, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 2, 329 (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    Seifert, Rep

    U. Seifert, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 126001 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    Van den Broeck and M

    C. Van den Broeck and M. Esposito, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 418, 6 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Schmiedl and U

    T. Schmiedl and U. Seifert, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 044101 (2007)

    2007

  6. [6]

    H. Ge, M. Qian, and H. Qian, Phys. Rep.510, 87 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Rao and M

    R. Rao and M. Esposito, Phys. Rev. X 6, 041064 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Qian, Biophys

    H. Qian, Biophys. Chem. 83, 35 (2000)

    2000

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    Andrieux and P

    D. Andrieux and P. Gaspard, Phys. Rev. E 74, 011906 11 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Seifert, Phys

    U. Seifert, Phys. J. E 34 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Chowdhury, Phys

    D. Chowdhury, Phys. Rep. 529, 1 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    A. B. Kolomeisky, Motor Proteins and Molecular Mo- tors (CRC Press., Boca Raton, USA, 2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Speck, J

    T. Speck, J. Chem. Phys. 155, 230901 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Ritort, J

    F. Ritort, J. Condens. Matter Phys. 18, R531–R583 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    K. M. Herbert, W. J. Greenleaf, and S. M. Block, Annu. Rev. Biochem. 77, 149–176 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Veigel and C

    C. Veigel and C. F. Schmidt, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 12, 163–176 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Ariga, M

    T. Ariga, M. Tomishige, and D. Mizuno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 218101 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Bustamante and S

    C. Bustamante and S. Yan, Q. Rev. Biophys. 55, e9 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    J. Mehl, B. Lander, C. Bechinger, V. Blickle, and U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 220601 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Bo and A

    S. Bo and A. Celani, J. Stat. Phys. 154, 1325 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Bo and A

    S. Bo and A. Celani, Phys. Rep. 670, 1 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    M. Uhl, P. Pietzonka, and U. Seifert, J. Stat. Mech. , 023203 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Lucente, A

    D. Lucente, A. Baldassarri, A. Puglisi, A. Vulpiani, and M. Viale, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043103 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Esposito, Phys

    M. Esposito, Phys. Rev. E 85, 041125 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Rahav and C

    S. Rahav and C. Jarzynski, J. Stat. Mech. , P09012 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Gomez-Marin, J

    A. Gomez-Marin, J. M. R. Parrondo, and C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. E 78, 011107 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Polettini and M

    M. Polettini and M. Esposito, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240601 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Bisker, M

    G. Bisker, M. Polettini, T. R. Gingrich, and J. M. Horowitz, J. Stat. Mech. 2017, 093210 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Pigolotti and A

    S. Pigolotti and A. Vulpiani, J. Chem. Phys. 128, 154114 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Puglisi, S

    A. Puglisi, S. Pigolotti, L. Rondoni, and A. Vulpiani, J. Stat. Mech. 2010, P05015 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Teza and A

    G. Teza and A. L. Stella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 110601 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    D. J. Skinner and J. Dunkel, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2024300118 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Ehrich, J

    J. Ehrich, J. Stat. Mech. 2021, 083214 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Nitzan, A

    E. Nitzan, A. Ghosal, and G. Bisker, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043251 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Kawaguchi and Y

    K. Kawaguchi and Y. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. E 88, 022147 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Shiraishi and T

    N. Shiraishi and T. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. E 91, 012130 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    A. C. Barato and U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 158101 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    T. R. Gingrich, J. M. Horowitz, N. Perunov, and J. L. England, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120601 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Pietzonka, A

    P. Pietzonka, A. C. Barato, and U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. E 93, 052145 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    J. M. Horowitz and T. R. Gingrich, Nat. Phys. 16, 15 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Rold´ an and J

    E. Rold´ an and J. M. R. Parrondo, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 150607 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Rold´ an and J

    E. Rold´ an and J. M. R. Parrondo, Phys. Rev. E 85, 031129 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    J. W. Biddle and J. Gunawardena, Phys. Rev. E 101, 062125 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Pietzonka, J

    P. Pietzonka, J. Guioth, and R. L. Jack, Phys. Rev. E 104, 064137 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Pietzonka and F

    P. Pietzonka and F. Coghi, Phys. Rev. E 109, 064128 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Di Terlizzi, M

    I. Di Terlizzi, M. Gironella, D. Herraez-Aguilar, T. Betz, F. Monroy, M. Baiesi, and F. Ritort, Science 383, 971–976 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Di Terlizzi, M

    I. Di Terlizzi, M. Baiesi, and F. Ritort, New J. Phys. 26, 063013 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    I. Neri, E. Rold´ an, and F. J¨ ulicher, Phys. Rev. X 7, 011019 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Neri, Phys

    I. Neri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 040601 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    I. Neri, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55, 304005 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Polettini and I

    M. Polettini and I. Neri, J. Stat. Phys. 191, 10.1007/s10955-024-03236-5 (2024)

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Oberreiter, U

    L. Oberreiter, U. Seifert, and A. C. Barato, Phys. Rev. E 106, 014106 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    N. Ohga, S. Ito, and A. Kolchinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 077101 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Dechant, J

    A. Dechant, J. Garnier-Brun, and S.-i. Sasa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 167101 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    A. M. Berezhkovskii and D. E. Makarov, J. Chem. Phys. 151, 065102 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    I. A. Mart ´ ınez, G. Bisker, J. M. Horowitz, and J. M. R. Parrondo, Nat. Commun. 10, 3542 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    D. J. Skinner and J. Dunkel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 198101 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Hartich and A

    D. Hartich and A. Godec, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041047 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Hartich and A

    D. Hartich and A. Godec, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L032017 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Wang and H

    H. Wang and H. Qian, J. Math. Phys.48, 013303 (2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    Esposito and K

    M. Esposito and K. Lindenberg, Phys. Rev. E 77, 051119 (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    C. Maes, K. Netoˇ cn´ y, and B. Wynants, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 365002 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    Ertel, J

    B. Ertel, J. van der Meer, and U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. E 105, 044113 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Hartich and A

    D. Hartich and A. Godec, Nat. Commun. 15, 8678 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Bisker, I

    G. Bisker, I. A. Mart ´ ınez, J. M. Horowitz, and J. M. R. Parrondo, Nat. Commun. 15, 8679 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    van der Meer, J

    J. van der Meer, J. Deg¨ unther, and U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 257101 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Deg¨ unther, J

    J. Deg¨ unther, J. van der Meer, and U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023175 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Deg¨ unther, J

    J. Deg¨ unther, J. van der Meer, and U. Seifert, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 121, e2405371121 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    van der Meer, B

    J. van der Meer, B. Ertel, and U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031025 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    P. E. Harunari, A. Dutta, M. Polettini, and E. Rold´ an, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041026 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Cao and R

    J. Cao and R. J. Silbey, J. Phys. Chem. B 112, 12867–12880 (2008)

    2008

  64. [72]

    Li and A

    X. Li and A. B. Kolomeisky, J. Chem. Phys 139, 10.1063/1.4824392 (2013)

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    Panigrahy, A

    M. Panigrahy, A. Kumar, S. Chowdhury, and A. Dua, J. Chem. Phys. 150, 10.1063/1.5087974 (2019)

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    A. L. Thorneywork, J. Gladrow, Y. Qing, M. Rico- Pasto, F. Ritort, H. Bayley, A. B. Kolomeisky, and U. F. Keyser, Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz4642 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    A. M. Berezhkovskii and D. E. Makarov, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 1682 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Satija, A

    R. Satija, A. M. Berezhkovskii, and D. E. Makarov, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 27116–27123 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Ertel, J

    B. Ertel, J. van der Meer, and U. Seifert, Int. J. Mol. 12 Sci. 24, 7610 (2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    Fersht, Structure and mechanism in protein science: A Guide to Enzyme Catalysis and Protein Folding, 4th ed

    A. Fersht, Structure and mechanism in protein science: A Guide to Enzyme Catalysis and Protein Folding, 4th ed. (W.H. Freeman, New York, NY, 2002)

    2002

  71. [79]

    Illanes, ed., Enzyme Biocatalysis-Principles and Ap- plications (Springer Dordrecht, New York, NY, 2008)

    A. Illanes, ed., Enzyme Biocatalysis-Principles and Ap- plications (Springer Dordrecht, New York, NY, 2008)

    2008

  72. [80]

    Cornish-Bowden, Fundamentals of enzyme kinetics, 4th ed

    A. Cornish-Bowden, Fundamentals of enzyme kinetics, 4th ed. (Wiley-VCH Verlag, Weinheim, Germany, 2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    Godec and D

    A. Godec and D. E. Makarov, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 14, 49–56 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    Baiesi, T

    M. Baiesi, T. Nishiyama, and G. Falasco, Commun. Phys. 7 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    K. Blom, K. Song, E. Vouga, A. Godec, and D. E. Makarov, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 121, e2318333121 (2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    K. Song, D. E. Makarov, and E. Vouga, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 10.1063/5.0218040 (2024)

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    Ertel and U

    B. Ertel and U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. E 109, 054109 (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    P. E. Harunari, Phys. Rev. E 110, 024122 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    Bebon and A

    R. Bebon and A. Godec, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 237101 (2023)

    2023

  80. [88]

    T. L. Hill, Free Energy Transduction and Biochemical Cycle Kinetics (Springer New York, 1989)

    1989

  81. [89]

    Jiang, M

    D.-Q. Jiang, M. Qian, and M.-P. Qian, Mathemati- cal Theory of Nonequilibrium Steady States(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004)

    2004

  82. [90]

    Schnakenberg, Rev

    J. Schnakenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 571 (1976)

    1976

  83. [91]

    Sekimoto, arXiv:2110.02216 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (2021)

    K. Sekimoto, arXiv:2110.02216 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Dechant, J

    A. Dechant, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52, 035001 (2018)

    2018

  85. [93]

    Hasegawa and T

    Y. Hasegawa and T. Van Vu, Phys. Rev. E 99, 062126 (2019)

    2019

  86. [94]

    Dechant and S.-i

    A. Dechant and S.-i. Sasa, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 6430–6436 (2020)

    2020

  87. [95]

    T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas,Elements of Information Theory (Wiley Series in Telecommunications and Signal Processing) (Wiley-Interscience, USA, 2006)

    2006

  88. [96]

    D. T. Gillespie, J. Phys. Chem. 81, 2340 (1977)

    1977

  89. [97]

    Lucente, A

    D. Lucente, A. Puglisi, M. Viale, and A. Vulpiani, Jour- nal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2023, 113202 (2023)

    2023

  90. [98]

    Yu and P

    Q. Yu and P. E. Harunari, J. Stat. Mech. 2024, 103201 (2024)

    2024

  91. [99]

    Lervik, S

    A. Lervik, S. Kjelstrup, and H. Qian, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17, 1317–1324 (2015)

    2015

  92. [100]

    Wachtel, R

    A. Wachtel, R. Rao, and M. Esposito, New J. Phys. 20, 042002 (2018)

    2018

  93. [101]

    A. C. Barato and U. Seifert, J. Phys. Chem. B 119, 6555–6561 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

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