Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 66 references

Identities for nonlinear memory kernels

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under a single local-balance condition, nonlinear response kernels are fixed by covariance and higher cumulants.

desk verdict The third-order identity (4) omits the cubic term D''' of the time-symmetric action, so the general claim is unsupported; the second-order identity (3) is the solid new result. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10179 v1 pith:TMYCT54P submitted 2025-02-14 cond-mat.stat-mech

Juliana Caspers , Matthias Krüger This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech PACS 05.40.-a05.70.Ln
keywords nonlinearmemorykernelsVolterraseriesfluctuation-dissipationtheoremlocaldetailedbalanceresponsenon-equilibriumcumulantsdrivenBrownianparticles
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

This paper aims to show that the nonlinear response of a system driven by a time-dependent protocol is not free: order by order, the memory kernels that appear in a Volterra expansion of response are fixed by covariances and higher cumulants of the observable conjugate to the driving. The two new identities, Eqs. (3) and (4), relate the second- and third-order response kernels to symmetrized combinations of the covariance kernels and equilibrium third and fourth cumulants, with the fluctuation-dissipation theorem as the first-order case. They hold whenever local detailed balance applies, even when the protocol couples nonlinearly to the system, and they can be rewritten as a direct series relation between nonequilibrium cumulants. The authors verify the identities in simulations of driven overdamped and underdamped Brownian particles in a nonlinear bath, using both equilibrium cumulants and directly measured force statistics.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a Volterra expansion of nonequilibrium cumulants in powers of the protocol velocity $\dot{x}_s$ around the equilibrium state at the final protocol value, combined with a decomposition of the path action into a time-antisymmetric part $S$ and a time-symmetric part $D$. Local detailed balance identifies $S$ with the entropy production from the first law, Eq. (13), which is known explicitly in terms of the conjugate observable $F(y_s,x_s)$; $D$ is not known in general but cancels when the response expressions are compared. The explicit kernel formulas in Appendix A, together with the identities (23)-(26) for equilibrium correlations of $S$ and $D$, then give Eqs. (2)-(4). Because the cancellations do not require an explicit form of $D$, the identities are insensitive to dynamical details. The definition of the kernels includes the case $m=0$ (mean response), and the observable $B$ may equal $F$.

What would settle it

A direct test would use a driven probe in a bath whose hidden degrees of freedom are not equilibrated, such as a colloidal particle in an active or sheared suspension: extract the memory kernels from force cumulants under a constant-speed protocol and check whether Eq. (3) holds to within sampling error; a systematic mismatch that grows with protocol velocity would refute the universality of the identities, while a nonzero second-order deviation for Gaussian observables would challenge Eq. (31).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that under local detailed balance the memory kernels $\Gamma^{(m,n)}$ defined by Eq. (1) are constrained by exact identities, so that every order of nonlinear response is expressible through lower-order response kernels and equilibrium fluctuation cumulants. Explicitly, $\Gamma^{(0,1)}=\Gamma^{(1,0)}$ (the fluctuation-dissipation theorem), $\Gamma^{(0,2)}_{s_1,s_2}=\frac12\sum_{\pi\in S_2}\Gamma^{(1,1)}_{s_{\pi(1)};s_{\pi(2)}}-\frac12\Gamma^{(2,0)}_{s_1,s_2}$, and $\Gamma^{(0,3)}$ is the corresponding symmetrized combination of $\Gamma^{(1,2)}$, $\Gamma^{(2,1)}$, and $\Gamma^{(3,0)}$. In cumulant form, the mean $\beta\langle B_t\rangle$ equals $\beta\langle B\rangle_{\rm eq}$ plus integrals of the covariance, third, and fourth cumulants of the conjugate observable $F$, Eq. (28), and the deviation from the fluctuation-dissipation form starts at second order and is controlled by non-Gaussian fluctuations, Eq. (31). This remains true when the energy $U(y,x)$ depends nonlinearly on the protocol $x$, because the expansion includes the resulting derivatives of $F$ in the action. The identities are tested for $B\equiv F$ in a two-particle model with a periodic interaction potential, for overdamped and underdamped dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is local detailed balance—that the energy lost by the driven system is dissipated into hidden degrees of freedom that remain equilibrated, so the antisymmetric part of the action equals the entropy production of the first law—and, secondarily, that the Volterra expansion in protocol velocity converges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fluctuation-dissipation theorem is the first term of a hierarchy; the second and third response orders become measurable from covariance and cumulant data, including equilibrium third and fourth cumulants.
  • For any observable $B$, the mean response can be reconstructed without knowing the dissipative time-symmetric part of the dynamics, since only equilibrium averages and cumulants of the conjugate force enter.
  • Equations (31) and (39) give a quantitative measure of the failure of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem at second order, tied to the equilibrium third cumulant, so non-Gaussian fluctuations are directly responsible for the breakdown.
  • If $B$ and $F$ have Gaussian statistics, the displayed higher-order corrections vanish, so the mean response equals the integrated covariance to the stated order; non-Gaussianity is the source of the discrepancy.
  • The pattern of Eqs. (2)-(4) suggests a general-order identity, Eq. (40), although the paper explicitly verifies only up to third order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if these identities survive at higher orders and in multidimensional protocols, the response functions of a driven system cease to be independent material properties; each order is slaved to fluctuation statistics at the same total order, giving nonequilibrium thermodynamics a predictive closure similar to equilibrium fluctuation relations.
  • Editorial inference: the identities can serve as a fluctuation-based detector of local equilibration — in a system with hidden degrees of freedom that are themselves driven, Eq. (3) should fail in a velocity-dependent way, so measuring the mismatch gives a quantitative probe of how far the hidden bath is from equilibrium.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same cumulant relation to a multidimensional protocol, such as several trap coordinates or time-dependent particle interactions, would test whether the scalar time-ordering in Eqs. (15) is the only structure needed, since the symmetrization over time arguments would have to be supplemented by rotations in protocol space.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives identities for nonlinear memory kernels appearing in Volterra expansions of non-equilibrium cumulants, with the stated goal of covering protocols that couple nonlinearly to the system. The identities, Eqs. (2)-(4), relate the nonlinear response of a mean observable to cumulants of the conjugate force and to each other, generalizing the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. The derivation uses a path-integral expansion around the equilibrium state at the final protocol value, assuming local detailed balance and taking the initial time to minus infinity with x_{t0}=x_t. The authors test the identities numerically for overdamped and underdamped coupled Brownian particles with a harmonic trap potential U_ext = (1/2) κ (y-x)^2.

Significance. If the identities held as stated, they would be a substantial extension of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem to nonlinear response, connecting each order of response to equilibrium and non-equilibrium cumulants of the conjugate observable, and would be applicable to a broad class of driven systems with nonlinear coupling. The paper also provides explicit kernel expressions in Appendix A and simulation tests for both overdamped and underdamped dynamics, which are useful. However, as detailed below, the central third-order identity is not established for the claimed generality, because the derivation omits the cubic term of the time-symmetric action. Since the numerical tests use a potential for which this term vanishes, they do not probe the problem, and the main claim is therefore unsupported in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.B and Appendix A, Eq. (4) vs Eq. (A4)] The derivation of the third-order identity (4) ignores the cubic term D''' of the time-symmetric action. The expansion of D is truncated at second order in Eqs. (16)-(17), and the explicit kernel Γ(0,3) in Eq. (A4) contains no contribution from D'''. This is not a harmless truncation: for a generic potential U(y_s,x_s) that is nonlinear in x_s, the symmetric part of the Onsager-Machlup action contains a term of third order in \dot{x}. For example, in the underdamped action of Appendix B, the difference of (∂_y U)^2 between x_s and x_t produces terms cubic in x_s - x_t when U has third derivatives in x, such as U = y^4/4 + (g/2) x^2 y^2. This D''' term contributes directly to Γ(0,3) through the expansion of e^{-D+S/2}, but it is absent from Eq. (A4) and from Eq. (22). Since the right-hand side of Eq. (4) contains only kernels Γ(1,2), Γ(2,1), Γ(3,0), which are of lower order in \dot{x}, no cancellation can remove this contribution. Thus Eq. (4) appears false for generic nonlinear coupling. The numerical tests use U_ext = (1/2) κ (y-x)^2, for which dU_ext/dy is linear in x and hence D''' = 0, so the simulations do not detect the problem.
  2. [§III.B, Eq. (22) and Eqs. (23)-(26)] The expansion of the mean response to third order is incomplete for the same reason: it includes the term (1/3)⟨S''' ; O_t⟩_eq but no analogous ⟨D''' ; O_t⟩_eq term. The identities (23)-(26) for equilibrium correlation functions also omit any D''' contribution. The paper asserts that the form of D is not needed to obtain the identities, but at third order the form of D is essential. This missing term propagates to the cumulant relations in Section IV, in particular Eqs. (29) and (39), which therefore are not justified for the stated general setting.
  3. [§III.B, 'The derivation follows from the kernel expressions given in Appendix A'] The algebraic steps leading from the kernel expressions in Appendix A to the identities (2)-(4) are not shown. Because the identities rest on delicate cancellations of the symmetric action, and because the kernel expressions themselves appear to omit D''' (see above), a step-by-step verification is necessary. Without it, the claim that the identities 'follow from the kernel expressions' cannot be checked, and the reader cannot distinguish a genuine cancellation from an accidental omission.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§II, text before Eq. (2)] There is a typo: 'indentities' should be 'identities'.
  2. [Eqs. (3) and (4)] The notation for symmetrization over time arguments on the left-hand side is not spelled out: the kernels are symmetric in their s-arguments by construction, but the identities as written require an explicit symmetrization with respect to interchanges of s and t indices. This should be defined precisely to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [§V.B, figure captions] The description 'kernels with all time arguments integrated over' is imprecise; it would be clearer to state that the Laplace-transformed kernels are evaluated at z=0 for all arguments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the identities are derived from local detailed balance and the path-weight expansion, not fitted or assumed; simulations are independent tests. Score 1 reflects only routine self-citation of prior expansion machinery.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in any of the enumerated senses. The target identities (2)-(4) are not assumed; they are obtained by expanding the path weight under local detailed balance (Eq. (11)) into symmetric and antisymmetric parts, writing the Volterra series (Eqs. (27)) and the explicit kernel expressions (Appendix A), and then comparing kernels at equal m+n. The simulation tests compare independently extracted force cumulants with explicit microscopic kernel expressions; no constants are fitted, and the tests are external to the derivation. Self-citations (Refs. [50,56,64]) supply the prior Volterra-expansion technique and earlier overdamped kernel forms, but those references do not contain the new identities, and the identities would remain nontrivial if those citations were replaced by an independent derivation. The paper explicitly flags its own scope limitations: local detailed balance is an assumption with known counterexamples (footnote [63]), and the identities are verified only up to third order ('we have only explicitly verified the three identities given above'). The compactly stated auxiliary identities (23)-(26) are asserted rather than derived in detail; that is an omitted derivation step, not a circular reduction. A possible omission of D''' terms, if valid, would be a correctness or derivation error, not an equivalence-by-construction. Accordingly, there is no significant circularity.

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

The central derivation introduces no fitted constants and no new physical entities. The identities are parameter-free consequences of local detailed balance plus the formal Volterra expansion. The simulation model parameters (U0, d1, d2, gamma, kappa, m) are chosen for illustration and are not fitted to the identities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Local detailed balance: the antisymmetric part of the action equals the entropy production, S = ln[Peq e^{-A}/(Peq e^{-A(theta X, theta omega)})] = A(theta X, theta omega) - A(X, omega).
    Eq. (11). This is the load-bearing physical input; without it the time-symmetric part D does not cancel and identities (2)-(4) do not follow. The paper notes systems where LDB is broken in Ref. [61].
  • domain assumption Existence of a Volterra series expansion for the cumulants in powers of the protocol velocity.
    Used throughout Section III and Eq. (27). No convergence or remainder estimate is provided, so the identities are formal in the expansion parameter.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial protocol value in the infinite past equals the final value, xt0 = xt, with t0 -> -infinity.
    Introduced in Section III B before Eq. (13) to remove boundary terms in the entropy S. The authors argue it has no influence on the state at time t, but it sets the expansion point for the kernels.
  • domain assumption The time-symmetric part D of the action admits an expansion in powers of the protocol velocity with coefficients D_s, D_{s,s'}, ...
    Eqs. (16)-(17). The coefficients are left unspecified and cancel in the final identities, which is the reason the identities are universal under LDB.
  • standard math Equilibrium path weights satisfy Peq(xt0, theta omega) = Peq(xt0, omega).
    Used in deriving Eq. (12) from Eq. (11); holds for canonical equilibrium distributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identities for nonlinear memory kernels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TMYCT54P

@misc{pith2026250210179,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identities for nonlinear memory kernels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TMYCT54P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10179}
}
read the original abstract

Perturbing a system far away from equilibrium via a time dependent protocol can formally be described by a nonlinear Volterra series expansion. Here we derive identities for the nonlinear memory kernels arising in such nonlinear expansion, including the possibility of a nonlinear coupling between perturbation and system. These identities rely on local detailed balance, and they include the fluctuation dissipation theorem as the lowest order identity. We test them in simulations for driven over- and underdamped Brownian particles. These identities for memory kernels can be recast in a series relation for the non-equilibrium cumulants of the observable conjugate to the driving and the observable described by the Volterra series.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10179 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Kernels for the symmetric overdamped model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Second order kernels with all time arguments in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Difference of mean force and force covariance for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Onsager, Phys

    L. Onsager, Phys. Rev. 37, 405 (1931)

    work page 1931

  2. [2]

    Kawasaki, Prog

    T. Kawasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 39, 331 (1968)

    work page 1968

  3. [3]

    D. J. Evans and G. Morriss, Statistical Mechanics of Nonequilibrium Liquids, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Fuchs and M

    M. Fuchs and M. E. Cates, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17, S1681 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Dhont, An Introduction to Dynamics of Colloids(El- sevier Science, 1996)

    J. Dhont, An Introduction to Dynamics of Colloids(El- sevier Science, 1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Zwanzig, Phys

    R. Zwanzig, Phys. Rev. 124, 983 (1961)

    work page 1961

  7. [7]

    Mori, Prog

    H. Mori, Prog. Theor. Phys. 33, 423 (1965)

    1965

  8. [8]

    Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics (Ox- ford University Press, 2001)

    R. Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics (Ox- ford University Press, 2001)

    2001

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Grabert, Projection Operator Techniques in Nonequi- librium Statistical Mechanics(Springer, 1982)

    H. Grabert, Projection Operator Techniques in Nonequi- librium Statistical Mechanics(Springer, 1982)

    1982

  2. [10]

    G¨ otze, Complex Dynamics of Glass-Forming Liq- uids: A Mode-Coupling Theory(Oxford University Press, 2008)

    W. G¨ otze, Complex Dynamics of Glass-Forming Liq- uids: A Mode-Coupling Theory(Oxford University Press, 2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    L. M. C. Janssen, Front. Phys. 6 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Fuchs, W

    M. Fuchs, W. G¨ otze, and M. R. Mayr, Phys. Rev. E58, 3384 (1998). 11

    1998

  5. [13]

    J. H. van Zanten and K. P. Rufener, Phys. Rev. E 62, 5389 (2000)

    2000

  6. [14]

    Lu and M

    Q. Lu and M. J. Solomon, Phys. Rev. E 66, 061504 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    Van Der Gucht, N

    J. Van Der Gucht, N. A. M. Besseling, W. Knoben, L. Bouteiller, and M. A. Cohen Stuart, Phys. Rev. E 67, 051106 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Caspers, N

    J. Caspers, N. Ditz, K. Krishna Kumar, F. Ginot, C. Bechinger, M. Fuchs, and M. Kr¨ uger, J. Chem. Phys. 158, 024901 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 211 (1981)

    1981

  10. [18]

    T. J. Doerries, S. A. M. Loos, and S. H. L. Klapp, J. Stat. Mech. 2021, 033202 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Venturelli and A

    D. Venturelli and A. Gambassi, New J. Phys. 25, 093025 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    T. M. Squires and J. F. Brady, Phys. Fluids 17, 073101 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Gazuz, A

    I. Gazuz, A. M. Puertas, T. Voigtmann, and M. Fuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 248302 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    C. J. Harrer, D. Winter, J. Horbach, M. Fuchs, and T. Voigtmann, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24, 464105 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Jayaraman and A

    A. Jayaraman and A. Belmonte, Phys. Rev. E 67, 065301 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    N. Z. Handzy and A. Belmonte, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 124501 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Berner, B

    J. Berner, B. M¨ uller, J. R. Gomez-Solano, M. Kr¨ uger, and C. Bechinger, Nat. Commun. 9, 999 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    R. Jain, F. Ginot, J. Berner, C. Bechinger, and M. Kr¨ uger, J. Chem. Phys.154, 184904 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Winter, J

    D. Winter, J. Horbach, P. Virnau, and K. Binder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 028303 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    B´ enichou, A

    O. B´ enichou, A. Bodrova, D. Chakraborty, P. Illien, A. Law, C. Mej ´ ıa-Monasterio, G. Oshanin, and R. Voi- turiez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 260601 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    L. G. Wilson and W. C. K. Poon, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 10617 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    D´ emery and E

    V. D´ emery and E. Fodor, J. Stat. Mech. 2019, 033202 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    L. F. Cugliandolo, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 483001 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Puglisi, A

    A. Puglisi, A. Sarracino, and A. Vulpiani, Phys. Rep. 709-710, 1 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    J. M. Brader, M. E. Cates, and M. Fuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 138301 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Gazuz and M

    I. Gazuz and M. Fuchs, Phys. Rev. E 87, 032304 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Gruber, G

    M. Gruber, G. C. Abade, A. M. Puertas, and M. Fuchs, Phys. Rev. E 94, 042602 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Meyer, T

    H. Meyer, T. Voigtmann, and T. Schilling, J. Chem. Phys. 147, 214110 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    te Vrugt and R

    M. te Vrugt and R. Wittkowski, Phys. Rev. E 99, 062118 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Meyer, T

    H. Meyer, T. Voigtmann, and T. Schilling, J. Chem. Phys. 150, 174118 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Glatzel and T

    F. Glatzel and T. Schilling, EPL 136, 36001 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Vroylandt and P

    H. Vroylandt and P. Monmarch´ e, J. Chem. Phys. 156, 244105 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Schilling, Phys

    T. Schilling, Phys. Rep. 972, 1 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    R. R. Netz, Phys. Rev. E 110, 014123 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Penna, J

    F. Penna, J. Dzubiella, and P. Tarazona, Phys. Rev. E 68, 061407 (2003)

    2003

  36. [44]

    Rauscher, A

    M. Rauscher, A. Dom ´ ınguez, M. Kr¨ uger, and F. Penna, J. Chem. Phys. 127, 244906 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    De Las Heras and M

    D. De Las Heras and M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 028001 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Schmidt, Rev

    M. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015007 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Leitmann and T

    S. Leitmann and T. Franosch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 190603 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Leitmann, O

    S. Leitmann, O. B´ enichou, and T. Franosch, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 51, 375001 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Asheichyk, M

    K. Asheichyk, M. Fuchs, and M. Kr¨ uger, J. Phys.: Con- dens. Matter 33, 405101 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Kr¨ uger and C

    M. Kr¨ uger and C. Maes, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29, 064004 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    M¨ uller, Brownian Particles in Nonequilibrium Sol- vents, Ph.D

    B. M¨ uller, Brownian Particles in Nonequilibrium Sol- vents, Ph.D. thesis, Georg-August-Universit¨ at G¨ ottingen (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Seifert, Rep

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

    2012

  45. [53]

    Colangeli, C

    M. Colangeli, C. Maes, and B. Wynants, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 095001 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    U. Basu, M. Kr¨ uger, A. Lazarescu, and C. Maes, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17, 6653 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    Maes, Front

    C. Maes, Front. Phys. 8 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Caspers and M

    J. Caspers and M. Kr¨ uger, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 124109 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    M¨ uller, J

    B. M¨ uller, J. Berner, C. Bechinger, and M. Kr¨ uger, New J. Phys. 22, 023014 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    It will be detailed below why the expansion is performed around the equilibrium state corresponding to xt

  51. [59]

    H. B. Callen and T. A. Welton, Phys. Rev. 83, 34 (1951)

    1951

  52. [60]

    Kubo, Rep

    R. Kubo, Rep. Prog. Phys. 29, 255 (1966)

    1966

  53. [61]

    Maes, SciPost Phys

    C. Maes, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 32 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Baiesi, C

    M. Baiesi, C. Maes, and B. Wynants, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 010602 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    Consider, for example, a driven Brow- nian particle in a fluid

    Local detailed balance amounts to assuming that all hid- den degrees of freedom are equilibrated and in contact with heat baths. Consider, for example, a driven Brow- nian particle in a fluid. In a good approximation, the fluid molecules remain in thermal equilibrium [66]. For...

  56. [64]

    Holsten and M

    T. Holsten and M. Kr¨ uger, Phys. Rev. E 103, 032116 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Onsager and S

    L. Onsager and S. Machlup, Phys. Rev. 91, 1505 (1953)

    1953

  58. [66]

    Falasco and M

    G. Falasco and M. Esposito, Phys. Rev. E 103, 042114 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.