Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 85 references

A resetting particle embedded in a viscoelastic bath

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 A resetting particle in a viscoelastic bath obeys exact renewal formulas for its mean-square displacement and autocorrelation for any friction kernel.

desk verdict Solid extension of resetting renewal theory to overdamped GLE with memory; the central derivation holds, but Eq. (43) has a factor-of-two error that needs correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09260 v1 pith:MJWAVJWH submitted 2024-12-12 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.soft

Arup Biswas , Johan L.A. Dubbeldam , Trifce Sandev , Arnab Pal This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.soft
keywords stochasticresettinggeneralizedLangevinequationviscoelasticbathJeffreysfluidmodelmeansquareddisplacementautocorrelationfunctionrenewalformalismnon-Markoviandynamics
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

Stochastic resetting, where a diffusing particle is returned to its start at random times, has mostly been studied for memoryless Brownian motion. This paper asks what happens when the bath is viscoelastic, so the environment remembers the particle's history and the governing equation is the generalized Langevin equation. The paper's core claim is that if each reset restores the entire non-Markovian state, the standard renewal formalism still works, producing exact expressions for the mean-square displacement and autocorrelation that are valid for any friction kernel. Applying these to the Jeffreys fluid model, the paper finds that resetting controls an intermediate plateau, shortens the relaxation timescale, and creates a non-equilibrium steady state even without a trapping potential. If correct, these results give quantitative predictions for optical-trap experiments on colloids in polymer solutions.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the relaxation function $I_0(t)=\mathcal{L}^{-1}\bigl[1/(s(s\tilde{\gamma}(s)+\omega^2))\bigr]$, which encodes the bath memory through the Laplace-transformed friction kernel. Its time integrals and products feed the MSD expression (15) and the correlation expression (14), while the renewal vertex, an exponential resetting clock of rate $r$, converts those reset-free expressions into Eqs. (18) and (20). For the Jeffreys kernel, Laplace inversion yields the explicit $I_0(t)$ of Eq. (23); the auxiliary variable $W(t)$ and an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process $\eta(t)$ provide a Markovian embedding used in the simulations.

What would settle it

Measure the MSD of a colloidal particle in a polymer solution after repeated optical-trap jumps back to a fixed point, with resetting times drawn from an exponential distribution at rate $r$, and compare the transient plateau and steady-state value with Eq. (18) and Eq. (A1). If the observed MSD near $t\sim 1/r$ does not level at the predicted function of $\gamma_s$, $\tau_s$, and $\omega$, the full-memory-reset assumption is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the renewal equation $P_r(x,t)=e^{-rt}P(x,t)+r\int_0^t d\tau\, e^{-r\tau}P(x,\tau)$ remains valid for overdamped generalized Langevin dynamics provided resetting restores the entire memory state, not just the particle position. From this, the paper derives Eq. (18), an exact expression for the resetting mean-square displacement in terms of the relaxation function $I_0(t)$ with no restriction on the friction kernel, and Eq. (20), the analogous renewal relation for the autocorrelation. For the Jeffreys friction kernel $\gamma(t)=2\gamma_f\delta(t)+(\gamma_s/\tau_s)e^{-t/\tau_s}$, these formulas become explicit: the reset-free MSD shows a short-time linear regime, an intermediate plateau set by the elastic timescale, a later linear regime, and saturation to $1/\omega^2$; resetting shortens the longest relaxation time to $t_r^{\rm long}$ and, at high rates, sets the steady-state MSD to $1/(\gamma_f r)$. The paper verifies the formulas by Markovian embedding simulations.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that a resetting event restores the entire non-Markovian state, position, friction memory kernel, and correlated noise, back to their initial values so that the renewal equation (16) applies; if the environment's memory survives the move, the formulas no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any friction kernel, the exact mean-square displacement and autocorrelation under resetting can be written down without further approximation beyond the full-memory-reset assumption.
  • In a Jeffreys fluid, a moderate resetting rate $r$ shortens the relaxation to the steady state and suppresses the intermediate plateau; for very high $r$ the plateau disappears and the MSD behaves as $1/(\gamma_f r)$, the familiar diffusive-resetting form.
  • Resetting produces a genuine non-equilibrium steady state even when the harmonic trap is absent, whereas the underlying memory-driven process without resetting does not reach one.
  • The autocorrelation under resetting decays faster than the underlying process, at a rate equal to $r$ plus the intrinsic relaxation rate, providing a measurable signature of resetting-induced stabilization.
  • The resetting timescale $1/r$ is externally controllable and independent of the bath's parameters, so the plateau structure of the MSD can be tuned from outside the system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper assumes a complete restart of the memory kernel at each reset. In a real fluid, moving a colloid with an optical trap would not instantaneously erase the fluid's memory, so an experiment that resets only position should deviate from Eq. (18) at times comparable to the kernel's memory time; the size of that deviation would quantify how much of the viscoelastic state survives a reset.
  • A natural next test is a power-law friction kernel, where the intermediate plateau in Eq. (34) would likely become a power-law shoulder; the same renewal machinery could be applied directly to that kernel.
  • The ratio of the intermediate plateau height to the final saturation value in a Jeffreys fluid gives a direct experimental estimate of the elastic friction coefficient $\gamma_s$, extractable from a single resetting-MSD curve.
  • The high-resetting limit $r\to\infty$, where the MSD becomes $1/(\gamma_f r)$, could serve as a calibration check in experiments: if the measured steady-state value does not fall as $1/r$, some part of the memory is surviving the reset.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a renewal-formalism treatment of a particle in a viscoelastic bath, modeled by the overdamped generalized Langevin equation (GLE), under Poissonian stochastic resetting. The authors derive exact renewal equations for the mean-squared displacement and autocorrelation function, give general expressions valid for arbitrary friction kernels, and then specialize to the Jeffreys fluid model. For the Jeffreys model they identify multiple timescales, transient plateaus, and the steady-state MSD, and they verify the results with numerical simulations based on Markovian embedding. The paper emphasizes that the renewal structure requires resetting of the full non-Markovian state, including the friction kernel and the correlated noise.

Significance. If correct, the paper is a valuable contribution to the stochastic-resetting literature: it extends the renewal approach beyond Markovian Brownian motion to non-Markovian GLE dynamics, provides explicit analytic formulas and timescales for a realistic viscoelastic model, and makes experimentally testable predictions. The central derivation is coherent: the renewal equations follow from standard first principles, the limits r→0 and γs→0 recover known OU and ordinary Langevin results, and no parameters are fitted to the target data. The paper also ships a reproducible Markovian-embedding simulation scheme and is explicit about the crucial assumption that resetting must restart the entire non-Markovian state. These strengths justify publication after a minor revision.

major comments (1)
  1. [§IV A, Eq. (43)] The high-resetting steady-state MSD is missing a factor of 2. Taking R = rτs in the exact result Eq. (41), the leading behavior as R → ∞ is ⟨x²⟩_ss ~ 2β² R²/[ω² R (R² + 4αR + 4β²)] → 2β²/(ω² R) = 2/(γf r), since β² = ω²τs/γf. This is the standard free-Brownian-resetting value 2D/r with D = 1/γf, and is consistent with the short-time MSD 2t/γf in Eq. (30). The quoted value 1/(γf r) in Eq. (43) and the claim that it equals the free-Brownian result are therefore incorrect. The factor of 2 should be corrected in the equation and in the related sentences in Section IV A and Section VI.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III A, Eq. (17)] The second term in Eq. (17) writes ⟨x²(t)⟩ inside the integral; it should be ⟨x²(τ)⟩, as is used in Eq. (18). Please correct the typo.
  2. [§III B, after Eq. (20)] In the text describing the survival probability for the second renewal term, the exponential is written as e^{-(t−t′+τ)} without the resetting rate; it should be e^{-r(t−t′+τ)} to match Eq. (20).
  3. [§IV A, Eq. (42)] The typesetting of Eq. (42) is ambiguous: as printed it can be read as tlong + rτs, which is dimensionally inconsistent. The surrounding discussion and the limit tr_long ≈ tr make clear that rτs should be added to 2(α−√(α²−β²)) in the denominator. Please re-typeset with explicit parentheses.
  4. [§V, initial condition] The initial condition for η0 states that it has 'variance \sqrt{\gamma/\tau_s}'. With kBT=1, the stationary variance of η is γs/τs, so this should say either 'variance γs/τs' or 'standard deviation \sqrt{\gamma_s/\tau_s}'. The paper should also state explicitly that kBT is set to unity in the simulations, since the theoretical curves assume kBT/m=1.
  5. [§III, after Eq. (16)] In the physical interpretation, 'After the last resetting event at t = τ' should read 'at t − τ', since the remaining interval is τ.
  6. [§VI] A brief comment on the experimental feasibility of the full-memory reset assumption would be helpful; the assumption is stated clearly after Eq. (16), but the discussion of optical-trap experiments does not address how a reset protocol would also reset the fluid memory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the renewal derivation is self-contained and no fitted quantities are renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The renewal equation (16) is the standard last-reset decomposition, and Eqs. (17)-(20) follow from it by direct integration against x² and x(t)x(t'), with the assumption, stated explicitly after Eq. (16), that the full non-Markovian state (position, memory kernel, noise) is reset. No parameter is fitted to the target MSD or correlation function: the Jeffreys kernel parameters γf, γs, τs, ω enter as model inputs, and the derived quantities are explicit functions of them rather than fit-determined outputs. The consistency checks (r→0 giving 1/ω², γs→0 recovering the OU process, and the high-resetting limit claimed in Eq. (43)) are reductions to known results, not inputs imposed on the derivation. The self-citations to prior resetting work by the same authors are bibliographic and methodological, not load-bearing: the renewal structures are re-derived in the text, and the cited autocorrelation-renewal result [58] is by Majumdar and Oshanin, not by the present authors. The only notable defect, an apparent factor-of-2 mismatch between Eq. (41) and the high-resetting statement Eq. (43), is a correctness or internal-consistency concern, not a circularity, because Eq. (43) is presented as a limit of the derived expression rather than used as an input. Thus the circularity score is 0.

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

No parameters are fitted to the target formulas; gamma_f, gamma_s, tau_s, omega, and r are physical control parameters of the Jeffreys model, chosen only for illustrative simulations. No new physical entities are introduced: W(t) and eta(t) in Section V are mathematical auxiliary variables for Markovian embedding, not new forces, particles, or conserved quantities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The overdamped GLE with harmonic trap, Eq. (5), governs the particle's motion.
    Inertial term neglected following experimental studies of colloids in viscoelastic media (Refs. [26,27,52,53]); this is the starting model, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption The thermal noise xi(t) is Gaussian with zero mean and obeys the Kubo fluctuation-dissipation relation Eq. (3).
    Required to pass from the Laplace-domain noise correlator Eq. (12) to the two-time correlation Eq. (14); standard GLE assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Resetting restarts the full non-Markovian state, including the memory kernel and the correlated noise.
    Stated in Section III after Eq. (16) and implemented as resetting (x,W,eta) to (0,0,eta0) in Section V; without this, renewal equations (16) and (20) fail.
  • domain assumption The Jeffreys kernel gamma(t) = 2 gamma_f delta(t) + gamma_s/tau_s exp(-t/tau_s), Eq. (21), represents the viscoelastic bath.
    Taken from the prior literature (Refs. [24-27,29,59]); all explicit Section IV results inherit this model choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A resetting particle embedded in a viscoelastic bath." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MJWAVJWH

@misc{pith2026241209260,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A resetting particle embedded in a viscoelastic bath},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MJWAVJWH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09260}
}
abstract

We examine the behavior of a colloidal particle immersed in a viscoelastic bath undergoing stochastic resetting at a rate $r$. Microscopic probes suspended in viscoelastic environment do not follow the classical theory of Brownian motion. This is primarily because the memory from successive collisions between the medium particles and the probes does not necessarily decay instantly as opposed to the classical Langevin equation. To treat such a system one needs to incorporate the memory effects to the Langevin equation. The resulting equation formulated by Kubo, known as the Generalized Langevin equation (GLE), has been instrumental to describe the transport of particles in inhomogeneous or viscoelastic environments. The purpose of this work, henceforth, is to study the behavior of such a colloidal particle governed by the GLE under resetting dynamics. To this end, we extend the renewal formalism to compute the general expression for the position variance and the correlation function of the resetting particle driven by the environmental memory. These generic results are then illustrated for the prototypical example of the Jeffreys viscoelastic fluid model. In particular, we identify various timescales and intermittent plateaus in the transient phase before the system relaxes to the steady state; and further discuss the effect of resetting pertaining to these behaviors. Our results are supported by numerical simulations showing an excellent agreement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09260 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of a colloidal particle dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Variation of the MSD of the underlying process (the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Variation of MSD with time for the resetting sys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Variation of the correlation function with time under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (24)) andα becomes α0 = α(ω → 0) = γf + γs 2γf

    The case without potential ( ω = 0): Taking ω → 0 is equivalent to β → 0 as can be seen from the expression for β = q ω2τs γf (also given in Eq. (24)) andα becomes α0 = α(ω → 0) = γf + γs 2γf . (27) In this case the MSD takes comparatively simpler form given by ⟨x2(t)⟩w→0 = τs γf 1 α0 − 1 2α2 0 + t α0γf − e−2tα0/τs τs γf 1 α0 − 1 2α2 0 . (28) The above eq...

  2. [2]

    4α2 + 2β4 + rτs p α2 − β2 − β2 4 p α2 − β2 + rτs p α2 − β2 + 2 + 2 + α 4 p α2 − β2 + β2(rτs − 4) + rτs # + et′( 2α τs +r)

    The case with potential ( ω ̸= 0): To find the longest timescaletlong we first note that the MSD saturates to theequilibrium steady state value1/ω2 atlongenoughtimes t ≫ tlong. Thisresultcanbeverified by taking the limitt → ∞in the expression for MSD in Eq.(25). However, onecanalsofindthecorrectiontothis term in the limitt → ∞, the approximate expression ...

  3. [3]

    Langevin, CR Acad

    P. Langevin, CR Acad. Sci. Paris146, 530 (1908)

    1908

  4. [4]

    Mori, Progress of Theoretical Physics33, 423 (1965)

    H. Mori, Progress of Theoretical Physics33, 423 (1965)

    1965

  5. [5]

    Kubo, Reports on Progress in Physics29, 255 (1966)

    R. Kubo, Reports on Progress in Physics29, 255 (1966)

    1966

  6. [6]

    Hänggi, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter 31, 407 (1978)

    P. Hänggi, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter 31, 407 (1978)

    work page 1978

  7. [7]

    Häunggi and P

    P. Häunggi and P. Jung, Advances in chemical physics 89, 239 (1994)

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Lutz, Physical Review E64, 051106 (2001)

    E. Lutz, Physical Review E64, 051106 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    A. D. Viñales and M. A. Desposito, Physical Review E 73, 016111 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    M. A. Desposito and A. D. Viñales, Physical Review E 77, 031123 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Burov and E

    S. Burov and E. Barkai, Physical Review E78, 031112 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    M. A. Desposito and A. D. Viñales, Physical Review E 80, 021111 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Sandev, Ž

    T. Sandev, Ž. Tomovski, and J. L. A. Dubbeldam, Phys- ica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 390, 3627 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    H. Yang, G. Luo, P. Karnchanaphanurach, T.-M. Louie, I. Rech, S. Cova, L. Xun, and X. S. Xie, Science302, 262 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    S. C. Kou and X. S. Xie, Physical Review Letters93, 180603 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    G. R. Kneller, The Journal of Chemical Physics 141 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Goychuk, Advances in Chemical Physics 150, 187 (2012)

    I. Goychuk, Advances in Chemical Physics 150, 187 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    O. F. Lange and H. Grubmüller, The Journal of Chemical Physics 124 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    H. S. Lee, S.-H. Ahn, and E. F. Darve, The Journal of Chemical Physics 150 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Lizana, T

    L. Lizana, T. Ambjörnsson, A. Taloni, E. Barkai, and M. A. Lomholt, Physical Review E81, 051118 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Taloni, A

    A. Taloni, A. Chechkin, and J. Klafter, Physical Review Letters 104, 160602 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    J. L. A. Dubbeldam, A. Milchev, V. G. Rostiashvili, and T. A. Vilgis, Physical Review E76, 010801(R) (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics (Ox- ford university press, 2001)

    R. Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics (Ox- ford university press, 2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    Wang and J

    K.-G. Wang and J. Masoliver, Physica A: Statistical Me- chanics and its Applications231, 615 (1996)

    1996

  17. [25]

    S. A. Adelman, The Journal of Chemical Physics64, 124 (1976)

    1976

  18. [26]

    B. R. Ferrer, J. R. Gomez-Solano, and A. V. Arzola, Physical Review Letters126, 108001 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    J. R. Gomez-Solano and C. Bechinger, New Journal of Physics 17, 103032 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    B. Das, S. Paul, S. K. Manikandan, and A. Banerjee, New Journal of Physics25, 093051 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    S. Paul, N. Narinder, A. Banerjee, K. R. Nayak, J. Steindl, and C. Bechinger, Scientific Reports11, 2023 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    J. R. Gomez-Solano, A. Blokhuis, and C. Bechinger, Physical Review Letters116, 138301 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    J. R. Gomez-Solano, Frontiers in Physics 9, 643333 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Darabi, B

    F. Darabi, B. R. Ferrer, and J. R. Gomez-Solano, New Journal of Physics25, 103021 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    S. Paul, B. Roy, and A. Banerjee, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 345101 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    A. V. Straube and F. Höfling, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12904 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M. R. Evans and S. N. Majumdar, Physical Review Let- 14 ters 106, 160601 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    M. R. Evans, S. N. Majumdar, and G. Schehr, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 193001 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Pal, Physical Review E91, 012113 (2015)

    A. Pal, Physical Review E91, 012113 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Sandev, V

    T. Sandev, V. Domazetoski, L. Kocarev, R. Metzler, and A. Chechkin, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55, 074003 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    W. Wang, A. G. Cherstvy, H. Kantz, R. Metzler, and I. M. Sokolov, Physical Review E104, 024105 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Sandev, L

    T. Sandev, L. Kocarev, R. Metzler, and A. Chechkin, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals165, 112878 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Lenzi, E

    M. Lenzi, E. Lenzi, L. Guilherme, L. Evangelista, and H. Ribeiro, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Ap- plications 588, 126560 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Kuśmierz and E

    Ł. Kuśmierz and E. Gudowska-Nowak, Physical Review E 99, 052116 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Méndez, A

    V. Méndez, A. Masó-Puigdellosas, and D. Campos, Physical Review E105, 054118 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Méndez, A

    V. Méndez, A. Masó-Puigdellosas, T. Sandev, and D. Campos, Physical Review E103, 022103 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    A. Pal, V. Stojkoski, and T. Sandev, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12057 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Méndez and D

    V. Méndez and D. Campos, Physical Review E 93, 022106 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Stojkoski, T

    V. Stojkoski, T. Sandev, L. Kocarev, and A. Pal, Phys- ical Review E104, 014121 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Eule and J

    S. Eule and J. J. Metzger, New Journal of Physics18, 033006 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    O.Tal-Friedman, Y.Roichman, andS.Reuveni,Physical Review E 106, 054116 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Ray and S

    S. Ray and S. Reuveni, The Journal of chemical physics 152 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    S. N. Majumdar, S. Sabhapandit, and G. Schehr, Phys- ical Review E91, 052131 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Singh, R

    R. Singh, R. Metzler, and T. Sandev, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 505003 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    N. G. Van Kampen,Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, 1992)

    1992

  46. [54]

    S. C. Kou, The Annals of Applied Statistics 2, 501 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    W. Min, G. Luo, B. J. Cherayil, S. Kou, and X. S. Xie, Physical Review Letters94, 198302 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    Pottier, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Ap- plications 317, 371 (2003)

    N. Pottier, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Ap- plications 317, 371 (2003)

    2003

  49. [57]

    M. R. Evans and S. N. Majumdar, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 285001 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Masó-Puigdellosas, D

    A. Masó-Puigdellosas, D. Campos, and V. Méndez, Physical Review E99, 012141 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Stojkoski, T

    V. Stojkoski, T. Sandev, L. Kocarev, and A. Pal, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical55, 104003 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    S. N. Majumdar and G. Oshanin, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical51, 435001 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Y. L. Raikher, V. V. Rusakov, and R. Perzynski, Soft Matter 9, 10857 (2013)

    2013

  54. [62]

    M. H. Duong and X. Shang, Journal of Computational Physics 464, 111332 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Wiśniewski, J

    M. Wiśniewski, J. Łuczka, and J. Spiechowicz, Physical Review E 109, 044116 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Bockius, J

    N. Bockius, J. Shea, G. Jung, F. Schmid, and M. Hanke, JournalofPhysics: CondensedMatter 33,214003(2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    A. D. Baczewski and S. D. Bond, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics 139 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    Siegle, I

    P. Siegle, I. Goychuk, P. Talkner, and P. Hänggi, Phys- ical Review E81, 011136 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    P.Siegle, I.Goychuk, andP.Hänggi,EurophysicsLetters 93, 20002 (2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    Gupta, S

    S. Gupta, S. N. Majumdar, and G. Schehr, Physical Review Letters 112, 220601 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    I. M. Sokolov, Physical Review Letters 130, 067101 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Tal-Friedman, A

    O. Tal-Friedman, A. Pal, A. Sekhon, S. Reuveni, and Y. Roichman, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 11, 7350 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Besga, A

    B. Besga, A. Bovon, A. Petrosyan, S. N. Majumdar, and S. Ciliberto, Physical Review Research2, 032029 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    Paramanick, A

    S. Paramanick, A. Biswas, H. Soni, A. Pal, and N. Ku- mar, PRX Life2, 033007 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    A. Pal, S. Kostinski, and S. Reuveni, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical55, 021001 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Gupta and A

    S. Gupta and A. M. Jayannavar, Frontiers in Physics10, 789097 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    Min and X

    W. Min and X. S. Xie, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics73, 010902 (2006)

    2006

  68. [76]

    Sandev, A

    T. Sandev, A. Chechkin, H. Kantz, and R. Metzler, Frac- tional Calculus and Applied Analysis18, 1006 (2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    Ślęzak, R

    J. Ślęzak, R. Metzler, and M. Magdziarz, New Journal of Physics 20, 023026 (2018)

    2018

  70. [78]

    A. Pal, A. Kundu, and M. R. Evans, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 225001 (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    Pal and S

    A. Pal and S. Reuveni, Physical Review Letters 118, 030603 (2017)

    2017

  72. [80]

    Radice, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical 55, 224002 (2022)

    M. Radice, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical 55, 224002 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    A. S. Bodrova and I. M. Sokolov, Physical Review E101, 052130 (2020)

    2020

  74. [82]

    Tucci, A

    G. Tucci, A. Gambassi, S. N. Majumdar, and G. Schehr, Physical Review E106, 044127 (2022)

    2022

  75. [83]

    Biswas, A

    A. Biswas, A. Kundu, and A. Pal, Physical Review E 110, L042101 (2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    A. Pal, Ł. Kuśmierz, and S. Reuveni, Physical Review Research 2, 043174 (2020)

    2020

  77. [85]

    Gupta, C

    D. Gupta, C. A. Plata, A. Kundu, and A. Pal, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical54, 025003 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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