Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

A theory for diffusion-controlled reactions within nonequilibrium steady states

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For an ergodic nonequilibrium steady state, the mean first-passage time and mean transition-path time are exactly $\langle q_-\rangle_\xi/\nu_{AB}(\xi)$ and $\langle q_+q_-\rangle_\xi/\nu_{AB}(\xi)$, generalizing the Hill and…

desk verdict Exact NESS generalizations of the Hill relation and transition path time formula, cleanly derived; validation is conditional on a fitted steady state but the theory stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22623 v2 pith:ZUTVRQTC submitted 2025-05-28 physics.chem-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Seokjin Moon , David T. Limmer This is my paper
classification physics.chem-phcond-mat.stat-mech PACS 82.20.Db05.40.-a
keywords nonequilibriumsteadystatediffusion-controlledreactionstransitionpaththeorycommittorreactivefluxmeanfirstpassagetimestochasticthermodynamics
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

Diffusion-controlled reactions often take place in systems driven out of equilibrium, such as electrolytes under applied electric fields, ions in nanofluidic channels, or adhesion under shear, where textbook rate formulas that assume detailed balance do not apply. This paper claims that for any ergodic nonequilibrium steady state described by an overdamped Langevin equation, the two central reaction-time measures remain exact functions of the reactive probability flux: the mean first-passage time is the steady-state average of the backward committor divided by the reactive flux, and the mean transition-path time is the average of the product of forward and backward committors divided by the same flux. These identities generalize the equilibrium Hill and Berezhkovskii-Szabo relations. The paper also derives a stochastic-thermodynamics work bound on how much an applied field can enhance the reactive flux, and validates the whole construction on an analytically solvable ion-pairing model under a strong electric field. If correct, the formulas give a way to extract rate constants and transition-path times in driven systems without assuming timescale separation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is transition path theory built on two committors: $q_+(r)$, the probability that a trajectory starting at $r$ reaches the product boundary before the reactant boundary, and $q_-(r)$, the probability that it came from the reactant boundary rather than the product boundary in the past. In a nonequilibrium steady state these two probabilities are not complementary because detailed balance is broken, so the analysis introduces the time-dual dynamics, a conjugate drift with inverted Fokker-Planck current, to capture backward probabilities. The central object connecting the committors to kinetics is the reactive flux $\nu_{AB}(\xi)$, the integrated probability current through any dividing surface. The key manipulations multiply the differential equations for the mean first-passage time and the transition-path time by $\rho q_-$ and $\rho q_+$ respectively, then apply the divergence theorem so that volume integrals become surface fluxes equal to $\nu_{AB}(\xi)$ times the desired reaction time.

What would settle it

For an overdamped Langevin dynamics in a driven periodic potential with no analytic steady state, estimate $q_+$, $q_-$, and $\nu_{AB}$ from long trajectories, then compare the directly measured mean first-passage time and mean transition-path time with the quotients in Eqs. 21 and 27; any systematic disagreement beyond statistical error would contradict the claimed exact generality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For an ergodic nonequilibrium steady state described by an overdamped Langevin equation, the central claim is that $$\langle\tau_\xi\rangle=\frac{\langle q_-\rangle_\xi}{\nu_{AB}(\xi)},\qquad \langle\tau_\xi^c\rangle=\frac{\langle q_+q_-\rangle_\xi}{\nu_{AB}(\xi)}$$ hold exactly. Here $\nu_{AB}(\xi)$ is the reactive flux across any dividing surface separating reactant and product states, $q_+$ is the forward committor, $q_-$ is the backward committor, and the angle brackets denote steady-state averages at field strength $\xi$; the second identity also carries a hitting-point weighting supplied by the time-dual dynamics, a conjugate dynamics whose probability current is reversed everywhere. In equilibrium, $q_+=1-q_-$ and the steady-state current vanishes, so the first identity becomes the Hill relation, the equilibrium statement that the inverse mean first-passage time is the reactive flux over the reactant population, and the second becomes the Berezhkovskii-Szabo relation for transition-path times. The paper further claims that the reactive-flux enhancement is bounded by a Jensen-inequality work average and, in the nearly free-ion limit, is controlled by $\exp(\beta^2\xi^2 D\tau_\xi^c/4)$. The proof works by converting the backward Kolmogorov equations for the two times into surface fluxes through the divergence theorem.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the analytic steady-state density, patched with fitted boundary conditions and masking functions, faithfully represents the simulated ion-pair system, so the quantitative agreement validates the general formulas rather than an artifact of the fitted corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any overdamped, ergodic diffusion in a steady state, the mean first-passage time from a reactant set to a product set is exactly the steady-state average of the backward committor divided by the reactive flux, with no detailed-balance or timescale-separation assumption needed.
  • The mean transition-path time is exactly the steady-state average of the product of forward and backward committors divided by the same reactive flux, reducing to the Berezhkovskii-Szabo formula when the steady state is equilibrium.
  • The enhancement of the reactive flux under a driving field is bounded by a work average over reactive trajectories, giving a thermodynamic cost interpretation of rate acceleration in driven diffusion.
  • In the nearly free-ion limit, the flux enhancement is approximately $\exp(\beta^2\xi^2 D\tau_\xi^c/4)$, so only the field work accumulated over one mean transition-path time controls the rate increase.
  • Steady-state correlation functions can be constructed that faithfully report these averaged times even when persistent probability currents corrupt naive side-side correlation functions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The identities should be directly testable in a driven periodic potential with no analytic steady-state density, because the formulas involve only committors and reactive flux; a clean numerical check would separate the general theorem from the paper's fitted ion-pair validation.
  • Inference: The work bound suggests that rate enhancement in driven diffusion is limited by dissipative work accumulated on reactive paths, and the bound may become tight for strongly biased, nearly free diffusion, giving a parameter-free estimate of effects such as the Wien effect in electrolytes.
  • Inference: In single-molecule or single-particle experiments, $\langle\tau_\xi\rangle=\langle q_-\rangle_\xi/\nu_{AB}(\xi)$ offers a route to infer the reactive flux from measured first-passage times and a modeled backward committor, without resolving the full time-dependent mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies diffusion-controlled reactions in nonequilibrium steady states. It derives two identities: Eq. (21) expresses the mean first passage time averaged over the reactive flux on ∂A as ⟨q−⟩ξ/νAB(ξ), and Eq. (27) expresses the mean transition path time as ⟨q+q−⟩ξ/νAB(ξ). The derivations in Appendices D–F rely on standard transition path theory and time-dual dynamics. The authors validate these relations on a model of ion-pair recombination under an external electric field, using an analytic solution of the Smoluchowski equation with fitted boundary conditions and masking functions, molecular dynamics simulations, and trajectory reweighting to bound the flux enhancement thermodynamically.

Significance. Equations (21) and (27) are potentially valuable exact relations for ergodic overdamped Langevin dynamics in NESS, extending Hill’s relation and the Berezhkovskii–Szabo result to driven systems. The appendices give careful derivations, and the paper correctly identifies the time-dual dynamics needed for the transition-path-time identity. If the numerical validation is made statistically robust, this is a useful contribution to nonequilibrium rate theory. The current demonstration is conditional, however, because the analytic steady state is calibrated to the same MD data used for the test, and no error bars are reported.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, Eqs. (3)–(4), and Figs. 2–3] The validation of Eqs. (21) and (27) is not fully independent: the analytic steady-state ρ(r) is constructed by imposing boundary conditions with fitted constants A, A′ and by applying radial masking functions to reproduce the MD radial histogram, and the same ρ is then used to compute νAB(ξ), ⟨q−⟩ξ, and ⟨q+q−⟩ξ that are compared with MD estimates. This overlap between calibration and test data can inflate the apparent agreement. Please report error bars (e.g., bootstrapped over the 32 trajectories) and, if possible, cross-validate by fitting the analytical density on a subset of the data or field values and testing on the remainder.
  2. [Appendix A and Fig. 2a] No statistical uncertainties are given for any simulation-derived quantity. The central consistency statement in Section II.A (ν^{-1}_{AB}(ξ∗)=5.68 ns vs ⟨tAB⟩ξ∗=5.68 ns and k^{-1}_{ξ∗}=5.56 ns) is reported without error bars, although it is based on 32 independent trajectories with rare reactive events. Please provide the number of reactive events, block-averaged or bootstrap standard errors, and confidence intervals for all quantities in Figs. 2 and 3.
  3. [II.B, Eq. (18)] The thermodynamic bound in Eq. (18) is derived after dropping the excess dynamical activity term, with the justification that conservative forces are small near ∂B. Since this approximation is used to convert Eq. (16) into the bound displayed in Fig. 2b, please provide a numerical estimate of the omitted term for the actual F(r), including the Lennard-Jones contribution, over the range of ξ considered.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II.A, Eq. (14)] The expansion in Eq. (14) is stated without derivation, and the evaluation time for h0 is ambiguous (the same absolute τ*=2τ_cξ for both ensembles, or each ensemble’s own 2τ_c). Please derive the expression explicitly or define the evaluation protocol.
  2. [III (Acknowledgments)] The unnumbered acknowledgments section contains a typo: “ACKOWLEDGMENTS” should be “ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.”
  3. [II.C, Eq. (23)] The value of δ used in the simulations to define ∂A+ is not specified; please provide it, since Eq. (25) depends on this choice.
  4. [General] No data/code availability statement is provided. Please state whether LAMMPS input files, analysis scripts, and processed trajectory data will be made available, as this would substantially improve reproducibility.
  5. [II.C, Eq. (21)] The notation ⟨q−⟩ξ in Eq. (21) is defined in the text as an average over the steady-state distribution, but it would help to state explicitly that the integration domain is the complement of B, since q− vanishes on B.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Exact identities derived self-contained from the equations of motion; the ion-pair validation partly inherits a fit of the analytic density to the MD radial histogram, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II, paragraph after Eq. 4; validation claims around Figs. 2b and 3b–c]
    "Moreover, we modified the solution by applying radial masking functions in short and long radii regions to reproduce the radial histogram obtained from molecular dynamics simulations. ... In Fig. 3b, we confirm that Eq. 21 is valid by comparing ⟨τξ⟩ which computed from τξ(r) measured from simulations and the analytic weighting factor, with the analytic mean backward committor and νAB(ξ)."

    The 'analytic' validation curves are not parameter-free: the steady-state density ρ that fixes q+, q−, and νAB is adjusted by radial masking functions to match the same MD radial histogram to which the validated times are compared. Therefore the numerical agreement of ⟨q−⟩/νAB (Eq. 21) and ⟨q+q−⟩/νAB (Eq. 27) with simulation in Figs. 3b–c is partly built in at the level of the radial measure over which the committors are averaged. The circularity is only partial: the angular (µ) dependence of ρ is fixed by the boundary conditions of Eq. 4 rather than fit to data, and τξ(r) in Fig. 3a is a dynamically measured observable, so the validation retains independent content.

full rationale

The central results are not circular. Eq. 21 is derived in Appendix D by multiplying the mean-first-passage-time equation (Eq. 20) by q−ρ, applying the backward-committor equation and a divergence identity, and using the divergence theorem with the boundary values q−|∂A = 1 and q−|∂B = 0; the input is the generator L, not the target relation. Eq. 27 is derived in Appendix F from Eq. 26 by the same route using the time-dual flux, with the normalization ν̃AB = νAB taken from standard TPT (Ref. 6, an external citation). The thermodynamic bound (Eqs. 15–18) is re-derived in-text from the Girsanov transform and Jensen's inequality, so the self-citations to the authors' prior work (Refs. 7 and 30) supply interpretation and context, not load-bearing premises. The equilibrium reductions to the Hill and Berezhkovskii–Szabo relations are consistent with external Refs. 37 and 46. The only partial fit-dependence is in the model application: the analytic ρ is modified by radial masking functions to reproduce the MD radial histogram, and the same fitted ρ generates the 'analytic' committors and fluxes whose ratios are compared with simulation in Figs. 2b and 3b–c. That agreement is thus partly built in radially, though the angular structure and the measured τξ(r) are independently determined. No error bars or input files are provided, so the quantitative validation is conditional, but this affects the strength of the demonstration, not the exactness of the derived identities. Overall circularity is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory proper introduces no free parameters; the fitted items listed are specific to the validation on the ion-pair model. The main extra-mathematical assumption is that the analytic steady-state solution with imposed boundary conditions and masking functions accurately represents the simulated NESS.

free parameters (4)
  • Boundary constants A and A' in Eq. 4 = Not reported
    Constants in the boundary conditions for the analytic steady-state density; fixed by normalization and flux conditions, effectively fit to the model.
  • Radial masking functions = Not given quantitatively
    Introduced after Eq. 4 to reproduce the MD radial histogram; a post hoc adjustment of the analytic solution to match simulation.
  • Delayed exponential fit parameters kξ and τξ^c = kξ^{-1}(ξ*)=5.56 ns, τξ^c(ξ*) not explicit; νAB^{-1}(ξ*)=5.68 ns
    Fitted to the simulated correlation function (Eq. 12) and used for the log-ratio and bound comparisons.
  • Series truncation order and coefficients αj, βj in Eq. 3 = Not specified
    Truncated angular/radial basis determined by boundary conditions; the truncation and coefficient determination are computational choices.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ion-pair dynamics is overdamped Langevin (Eq. 1) with constant D and additive white noise, so the Smoluchowski and backward Kolmogorov equations apply.
    Invoked at Eq. 1 and throughout; if memory effects or position-dependent D matter, the committor equations change.
  • domain assumption The periodic-box dynamics reaches a unique nonequilibrium steady state with divergence-free flux Jss.
    Needed for the TPT flux expressions and the divergence identities in Appendices D-F.
  • standard math TPT definitions of reactive trajectories and committors hold for the stationary Markov process, including the time-dual generator L̃ in Eq. 6.
    Basis for Eqs. 5-7 and the flux identities; standard in TPT (Ref. 6).
  • standard math Girsanov reweighting applies to the path measures of the overdamped diffusion in Ito sense (Eq. 15).
    Used for Eq. 16; requires the two path measures to be mutually absolutely continuous.
  • ad hoc to paper The boundary ∂B near the Bjerrum length makes the excess dynamical activity term negligible in Eq. 18.
    Stated after Eq. 18; if the conservative force on ∂B is not small, the bound changes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A theory for diffusion-controlled reactions within nonequilibrium steady states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZUTVRQTC

@misc{pith2026250522623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A theory for diffusion-controlled reactions within nonequilibrium steady states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZUTVRQTC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22623}
}
read the original abstract

We study diffusion-controlled processes in nonequilibrium steady states, where standard rate theory assumptions break down. Using transition path theory, we generalize the relations between reactive probability fluxes and measures of the rate of the reaction. Stochastic thermodynamics analysis reveals how work constrains the enhancement of rates relative to their equilibrium values. An analytically solvable ion pairing model under a strong electric field illustrates and validates our approach and theory. These findings provide deeper insights into diffusion-controlled reaction dynamics beyond equilibrium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a) A nonequilibrium free energy surface of an anion in cation-centered frame with the external field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. a) Reactive flux correlation function with and with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. a) Angle-dependent mean first passage time mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peters ,\ @noop title Reaction rate theory and rare events \ ( publisher Elsevier ,\ year 2017 ) NoStop

    author author B. Peters ,\ @noop title Reaction rate theory and rare events \ ( publisher Elsevier ,\ year 2017 ) NoStop

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    author author A. N. \ Singh , author A. Das ,\ and\ author D. T. \ Limmer ,\ @noop journal journal Annual Review of Physical Chemistry \ volume 76 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    author author P. G. \ Bolhuis , author D. Chandler , author C. Dellago ,\ and\ author P. L. \ Geissler ,\ @noop journal journal Annual review of physical chemistry \ volume 53 ,\ pages 291 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Valsson , author P

    author author O. Valsson , author P. Tiwary ,\ and\ author M. Parrinello ,\ @noop journal journal Annual review of physical chemistry \ volume 67 ,\ pages 159 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Dickson \ and\ author A

    author author A. Dickson \ and\ author A. R. \ Dinner ,\ @noop journal journal Annual review of physical chemistry \ volume 61 ,\ pages 441 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Vanden-Eijnden et al

    author author E. Vanden-Eijnden et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of statistical physics \ volume 123 ,\ pages 503 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Kuznets-Speck \ and\ author D

    author author B. Kuznets-Speck \ and\ author D. T. \ Limmer ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences \ volume 118 ,\ pages e2020863118 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    author author D. T. \ Limmer ,\ @noop title Statistical mechanics and stochastic thermodynamics: A textbook on modern approaches in and out of equilibrium \ ( publisher Oxford University Press ,\ year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page 2024

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    author author M. I. \ Freidlin , author A. D. \ Wentzell , author M. Freidlin ,\ and\ author A. Wentzell ,\ @noop title Random perturbations \ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 1998 ) NoStop

    1998

  2. [10]

    Chandler ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 68 ,\ pages 2959 ( year 1978 ) NoStop

    author author D. Chandler ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 68 ,\ pages 2959 ( year 1978 ) NoStop

    1978

  3. [11]

    Frenkel \ and\ author B

    author author D. Frenkel \ and\ author B. Smit ,\ @noop title Understanding molecular simulation: from algorithms to applications \ ( publisher Elsevier ,\ year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  4. [12]

    author author D. T. \ Limmer , author C. Y. \ Gao ,\ and\ author A. R. \ Poggioli ,\ @noop journal journal The European Physical Journal B \ volume 94 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  5. [13]

    author author C. Y. \ Gao \ and\ author D. T. \ Limmer ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volume 151 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  6. [14]

    Vanden-Eijnden \ and\ author W

    author author E. Vanden-Eijnden \ and\ author W. E ,\ @noop journal journal Annual review of physical chemistry \ volume 61 ,\ pages 391 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  7. [15]

    Helfmann , author E

    author author L. Helfmann , author E. Ribera Borrell , author C. Sch \"u tte ,\ and\ author P. Koltai ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of nonlinear science \ volume 30 ,\ pages 3321 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  8. [16]

    author author M. C. \ Anderson , author A. Dodin , author T. P. \ Fay ,\ and\ author D. T. \ Limmer ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 161 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  9. [17]

    author author M. C. \ Anderson , author E. J. \ Woods , author T. P. \ Fay , author D. J. \ Wales ,\ and\ author D. T. \ Limmer ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters \ volume 14 ,\ pages 6888 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  10. [18]

    author author C. A. \ Brown , author K. Macieszczak ,\ and\ author R. L. \ Jack ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review A \ volume 109 ,\ pages 022244 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  11. [19]

    Bocquet \ and\ author E

    author author L. Bocquet \ and\ author E. Charlaix ,\ @noop journal journal Chemical Society Reviews \ volume 39 ,\ pages 1073 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  12. [20]

    Bocquet ,\ @noop journal journal Nature materials \ volume 19 ,\ pages 254 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    author author L. Bocquet ,\ @noop journal journal Nature materials \ volume 19 ,\ pages 254 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  13. [21]

    Toquer , author L

    author author D. Toquer , author L. Bocquet ,\ and\ author P. Robin ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 162 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025

  14. [22]

    Onsager ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volume 2 ,\ pages 599 ( year 1934 ) NoStop

    author author L. Onsager ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volume 2 ,\ pages 599 ( year 1934 ) NoStop

    1934

  15. [23]

    Onsager \ and\ author S

    author author L. Onsager \ and\ author S. K. \ Kim ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry \ volume 61 ,\ pages 198 ( year 1957 ) NoStop

    1957

  16. [24]

    Lesnicki , author C

    author author D. Lesnicki , author C. Y. \ Gao , author D. T. \ Limmer ,\ and\ author B. Rotenberg ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volume 155 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  17. [25]

    Lesnicki , author C

    author author D. Lesnicki , author C. Y. \ Gao , author B. Rotenberg ,\ and\ author D. T. \ Limmer ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 124 ,\ pages 206001 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  18. [26]

    Kaiser , author S

    author author V. Kaiser , author S. T. \ Bramwell , author P. C. \ Holdsworth ,\ and\ author R. Moessner ,\ @noop journal journal Nature materials \ volume 12 ,\ pages 1033 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  19. [27]

    Chen \ and\ author T

    author author S. Chen \ and\ author T. A. \ Springer ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences \ volume 98 ,\ pages 950 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001

  20. [28]

    author author O. K. \ Dudko , author G. Hummer ,\ and\ author A. Szabo ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences \ volume 105 ,\ pages 15755 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  21. [29]

    author author G. I. \ Bell ,\ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 200 ,\ pages 618 ( year 1978 ) NoStop

    1978

  22. [30]

    Kuznets-Speck \ and\ author D

    author author B. Kuznets-Speck \ and\ author D. T. \ Limmer ,\ @noop journal journal Biophysical Journal \ volume 122 ,\ pages 1659 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  23. [31]

    Seifert ,\ @noop journal journal Reports on progress in physics \ volume 75 ,\ pages 126001 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    author author U. Seifert ,\ @noop journal journal Reports on progress in physics \ volume 75 ,\ pages 126001 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  24. [32]

    Isoda , author N

    author author K. Isoda , author N. Kouchi , author Y. Hatano ,\ and\ author M. Tachiya ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volume 100 ,\ pages 5874 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    1994

  25. [33]

    Hong \ and\ author J

    author author K. Hong \ and\ author J. Noolandi ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 69 ,\ pages 5026 ( year 1978 ) NoStop

    1978

  26. [34]

    Noolandi \ and\ author K

    author author J. Noolandi \ and\ author K. Hong ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 70 ,\ pages 3230 ( year 1979 ) NoStop

    1979

  27. [35]

    author author I. V. \ Girsanov ,\ @noop journal journal Theory of Probability & Its Applications \ volume 5 ,\ pages 285 ( year 1960 ) NoStop

    1960

  28. [36]

    author author B. G. \ Keller \ and\ author P. G. \ Bolhuis ,\ @noop journal journal Annual Review of Physical Chemistry \ volume 75 ,\ pages 137 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  29. [37]

    author author T. L. \ Hill ,\ @noop title Free energy transduction and biochemical cycle kinetics \ ( publisher Courier Corporation ,\ year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  30. [38]

    author author S. D. \ Lotz \ and\ author A. Dickson ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of the American Chemical Society \ volume 140 ,\ pages 618 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  31. [39]

    Turq , author F

    author author P. Turq , author F. Lantelme ,\ and\ author H. L. \ Friedman ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 66 ,\ pages 3039 ( year 1977 ) NoStop

    1977

  32. [40]

    Dellago , author P

    author author C. Dellago , author P. G. \ Bolhuis ,\ and\ author P. L. \ Geissler ,\ @noop journal journal Advances in chemical physics \ volume 123 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    2002

  33. [41]

    Dickson , author A

    author author A. Dickson , author A. Warmflash ,\ and\ author A. R. \ Dinner ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volume 131 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  34. [42]

    author author E. R. \ Heller \ and\ author D. T. \ Limmer ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Research \ volume 6 ,\ pages 043110 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  35. [43]

    Szabo , author K

    author author A. Szabo , author K. Schulten ,\ and\ author Z. Schulten ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volume 72 ,\ pages 4350 ( year 1980 ) NoStop

    1980

  36. [44]

    author author O. K. \ Dudko \ and\ author A. Szabo ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry B \ volume 109 ,\ pages 5891 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  37. [45]

    H \"a nggi , author P

    author author P. H \"a nggi , author P. Talkner ,\ and\ author M. Borkovec ,\ @noop journal journal Reviews of modern physics \ volume 62 ,\ pages 251 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    1990

  38. [46]

    author author A. M. \ Berezhkovskii \ and\ author A. Szabo ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry B \ volume 126 ,\ pages 6624 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  39. [47]

    author author R. W. \ Hockney \ and\ author J. W. \ Eastwood ,\ @noop title Computer simulation using particles \ ( publisher crc Press ,\ year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  40. [48]

    author author A. P. \ Thompson , author H. M. \ Aktulga , author R. Berger , author D. S. \ Bolintineanu , author W. M. \ Brown , author P. S. \ Crozier , author P. J. \ in't Veld , author A. Kohlmeyer , author S. G. \ Moore , author T. D. \ Nguyen , et al. ,\ @noop journal jo...

    2022

Pith tools

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