Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Thermodynamic Irreversibility in Underdamped Brownian Motion with Spatial Temperature Gradients

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a force-free underdamped Brownian particle in a spatial temperature gradient, the entropy production and extraction rates decay to zero at long times, yet their time-integrated totals stay finite—so a vanishing rate does not certify equ

desk verdict The central claim is a category error: the finite 'totals' are state-function differences, not time integrals of the vanishing rates, and the steady-state ansatz drops the spatial gradient that is supposed to drive irreversibility. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07272 v1 pith:OEKUFJ76 submitted 2025-09-08 cond-mat.stat-mech

Mesfin Taye This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech MSC 82C31
keywords underdampedBrownianmotionentropyproductionrateextractionspatialtemperaturegradientnonequilibriumsteadystatekineticenergyheattransferratchetthermophoreticdrift
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 asks whether a vanishing entropy-production rate guarantees thermodynamic equilibrium, and answers no. For an underdamped (inertia-retaining) Brownian particle moving in a non-uniform temperature landscape with no external force, the instantaneous entropy production and entropy extraction rates decay to zero at long times even though heat continues to flow from hot to cold regions. The time-integrated amounts of entropy produced and extracted remain finite and positive, and the paper attributes this persistent irreversibility to heat exchange carried by kinetic energy rather than by external driving. If the claim is right, rate-based diagnostics of equilibrium are incomplete in non-isothermal underdamped systems; cumulative heat transfer is the quantity that reveals the system's nonequilibrium character. The same framework also yields a Brownian ratchet whose velocity depends on particle mass, so thermal gradients alone can produce directed, sortable motion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the steady-state probability distribution P(x,v), approximated as a local Maxwellian (a Gaussian velocity distribution whose temperature varies with position) while the spatial-derivative term v∂P/∂x in the Fokker–Planck equation (the evolution equation for P) is dropped. From this ansatz the paper derives closed-form expressions for the entropy production rate and entropy extraction rate, both equal to f^2/(γT(x)), and for the integrated heat exchange Hd = −⟨(mv^2/2 + U(x))⟩, which stays nonzero in the force-free limit. The mechanism credited with irreversibility is heat exchange via kinetic energy: a particle crossing the temperature landscape carries kinetic ene

What would settle it

Numerically solve the full underdamped Fokker–Planck equation for a linear temperature gradient at zero external force without dropping the v∂P/∂x term, and check whether the integrated entropy production and extraction stay positive; if they vanish, the local-Maxwellian approximation, not the kinetic-energy heat-flow mechanism, is producing the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the zero-force limit of the underdamped Langevin dynamics with a spatially varying temperature, the local entropy production rate and entropy extraction rate vanish—scaling as f^2/(γT(x))—because both are computed from a current that disappears with the external force. But the time- or space-integrated totals of entropy production and extraction remain strictly positive: for linear, quadratic, and piecewise-constant temperature profiles the integrated heat exchange reduces to the same ΔHd = (Th − Tc)/2, with equal positive total entropy production. The paper concludes that entropy conservation on this model does not settle the equilibrium question; the system kee

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the Fokker–Planck term describing how the probability distribution changes along the temperature gradient can be dropped because the particle mass is small and the boundaries are periodic; if that term is not negligible, the predicted vanishing rates and finite integrated totals no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a force-free underdamped system with a sustained temperature gradient, checking instantaneous entropy production or extraction rates alone would falsely indicate equilibrium; integrated measures are the meaningful diagnostic.
  • The total heat exchange over one spatial period takes the same value, ΔHd = (Th − Tc)/2, for linear, quadratic, and piecewise-constant temperature profiles, so the result is insensitive to the profile shape.
  • Adding a periodic ratchet potential to the thermal gradient produces unidirectional motion even at zero load, with velocity dependent on mass, barrier height, and noise intensity—supporting particle sorting along a reaction coordinate.
  • Spatially varying viscous friction of exponential temperature-dependent form increases entropy production and extraction rates, making inhomogeneous friction an additional driver of nonequilibrium behavior.
  • The distinction between vanishing rates and nonzero integrated quantities implies that systems can sit in a nonequilibrium steady state while standard rate-based order parameters vanish.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test whether the finite integrated totals survive a full solution of the Fokker–Planck equation that retains the v∂P/∂x term; a numerical check of that term would separate the physical conclusion from the local-Maxwellian approximation.
  • The same rate-versus-integral distinction may apply to overdamped systems with temperature-dependent mobility, where a noise-induced drift can produce nonzero cumulative dissipation with zero applied force.
  • The predicted mass dependence of ratchet velocity suggests a concrete microfluidic separation experiment: a binary colloid mixture in a periodic thermal landscape should split by mass, with direction and speed controlled by load and barrier height.
  • An experimental test could measure integrated heat exchange of a Brownian particle cyclically driven through a temperature gradient; the claim predicts positive totals even at instants when the entropy production rate crosses zero.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies underdamped Langevin dynamics with position-dependent temperature, deriving entropy production and extraction rates for quadratic, linear, and piecewise-constant temperature profiles, and for a ratchet potential. The central claim is that for a free particle (no external force) in a spatial temperature gradient, the instantaneous entropy production and extraction rates vanish, yet the time-integrated totals remain finite, implying that a zero entropy production rate does not certify equilibrium. The paper also discusses ratchet transport, multiplicative noise, and temperature-dependent friction.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, it would challenge the standard stochastic-thermodynamics identification of vanishing entropy production rate with equilibrium and would have broad implications for non-isothermal systems. The paper also attempts to provide exact analytical formulas for several temperature profiles, which is useful in principle. However, the central result rests on an invalid stationary ansatz and on a category error in which spatial differences of a state function are presented as time integrals of vanishing rates. The ratchet section contains additional unverified ansätze. Thus the main conclusions are not established, and the paper in its current form does not provide a sound basis for the advertised conceptual claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (22)] The steady-state distribution in Eq. (22) is not a solution of the Fokker-Planck equation Eq. (2) for general γ. Substituting P ∝ exp[-mγ(v-f/γ)^2/(2T)] into Eq. (2) gives a v^2 coefficient proportional to γ-1 in the stationary equation, and the exponent is not dimensionless for a friction coefficient with physical units. The v-integral is 1/√γ, so the claimed normalization to unity also fails unless γ=1. Because Eqs. (24), (27), (41), and (56) all follow from Eq. (22), the central rates are not predictions of the stated model. In addition, with Eq. (22), J'=-f P/m, so Eq. (12) gives ˙ep<0, contradicting the positive values reported in Eq. (24).
  2. [Sec. II vs Secs. III-IV] The paper defines Δep(t)=∫0^t ˙ep dt and Δhd(t)=∫0^t ˙hd dt in Sec. II. For f=0, Eqs. (24), (27), and (41) give ˙ep=˙hd=0 identically, so any time integral is zero. The finite quantities reported in Eqs. (31)-(33), (36)-(38), and (48)-(50) are spatial differences of the state function Hd(x)=-T(x)/2, not time integrals. The abstract and Sec. VII explicitly claim 'time-integrated values remain finite,' but no such time integral is ever evaluated. This is internally inconsistent with the paper's own definitions.
  3. [Sec. II, NESS criterion] The paper states that a nonequilibrium steady state requires ˙ep=˙hd>0, while equilibrium corresponds to ˙ep=˙hd=0. At f=0 the derived rates vanish, so by the paper's own criterion the system is at equilibrium, not in a nonequilibrium steady state. The proposed alternative indicator, a finite Hd, is not part of the entropy balance and is not shown to be a valid measure of irreversibility; a state-function difference does not by itself imply dissipative dynamics. The conclusion 'zero entropy production rate does not signify equilibrium' is therefore not supported by the framework used.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (39)] The 'more rigorous' distribution Eq. (39) is presented without verification that it satisfies Eq. (2); it appears to be another local ansatz obtained by neglecting ∂(vP)/∂x. The sentence 'We now integrate the entropy production and extraction rates over x and t' is misleading: Eq. (41) is a rate, and the subsequent totals, e.g., Eq. (49), are again state-function differences, not time integrals. No time integration is actually performed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (9)] The Fokker-Planck equation is rewritten as ∂P/∂t = k + ∂J'/∂v, but from Eq. (2) the k-term enters with a minus sign. This sign error should be corrected, although it does not affect the later results if k=0 is imposed.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (24)] The notation ˙hd(x)=˙ep(x,t) is confusing: the right-hand side contains t but no t-dependence, and the left-hand side is a function of x only.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'as a function of the rescaled temperature τ and mass U0'; U0 is the barrier height, not a mass. Please correct the caption and the corresponding axis labels.
  4. [Sec. VI A, Eq. (67)] The multiplicative-noise temperature T(x)=√D |x|^{-z/2} is singular at x=0 and is not dimensionally a temperature. No regularization or domain restriction is given, so integrals over x may diverge.
  5. [Sec. III, piecewise profile] For the piecewise-constant profile Eq. (35), the derivation of ΔHd=(Th-Tc)/2 is not shown. Interface contributions at x=L0/2 need to be addressed explicitly.
  6. [Throughout] The text contains numerous typos and OCR-like artifacts (e.g., '⣨' for angle brackets, 'Tome et. at.'), duplicated sentences in Sec. II, and inconsistent notation such as ˙Hd vs Hd and ˙Ep vs ˙ep. A careful copyedit is needed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The claimed finite time-integrated entropy is not a time integral: it is the spatial difference of -T(x)/2, so the central result is forced by the local-Maxwellian ansatz and the definition of Hd rather than derived from the dynamics.

  1. self definitional [Section III, 'The role of the heat exchange via kinetic energy', Eqs. (30)-(32) and (36)]
    "From the above equation, it follows that Hd = −⟨mv2/2 + U(x)⟩. In the absence of a ratchet potential, this expression can be further manipulated as: Hd(x) = −∫∞−∞(mvdv + U′(x)dx) P(x, v) = −1/2(2fx + f2m/γ2 + T(x)). (31) In the absence of load, Hd(x) = −∫∞−∞(mvdv + U′(x)dx) P(x, v) = −T(x)/2. (32) ... while jumping from hot to cold heat bath, ∆Hd = Th−Tc/2. (36) as expected."

    The quantity named 'total entropy extraction' Hd is defined here as the average kinetic plus potential energy, not as the time integral ∆hd(t)=∫0^t ˙hd dt introduced in Sec. II. With the local-Maxwellian ansatz Eq. (22), ⟨mv²/2⟩=T(x)/2 by equipartition, so Hd(x)=−T(x)/2 is an algebraic identity, and ΔHd across the sample is (Th−Tc)/2 for every profile. The finite 'total' is therefore built into the definition of Hd and the ansatz, not accumulated by the stochastic dynamics. It cannot support the claim of finite time-integrated entropy production, especially because Eqs. (24)/(27) give ˙hd=˙ep=0 at f=0.

  2. other [Abstract; Section II time-integral definitions; Section III Eqs. (24), (27)]
    "both the entropy production and extraction rates decrease to zero, even in the presence of a spatially varying temperature gradient. However, the total entropy production (EP > 0) and total entropy extraction (Hd > 0) remain finite [Abstract]; ∆ hd(t) = ∫ t 0 ˙hd(t)dt, ∆ep(t) = ∫ t 0 ˙ep(t)dt [Sec. II]; In the limit f → 0, ˙hd(x) = ˙ep(x) → 0 as anticipated [Sec. III]."

    By the paper's own definitions, ∆hd and ∆ep are time integrals of ˙hd and ˙ep. At f=0 those integrands are identically zero (Eqs. (24), (27), (41)), so the time integrals vanish exactly. The positive values reported as ∆Hd=(Th−Tc)/2 in Eqs. (36)-(38) and (48)-(50) are spatial differences of the state function Hd(x)=−T(x)/2, not time integrals of any rate. Thus the central inference—that zero rates coexist with finite accumulated entropy—is not derived from the dynamics; it is obtained by switching from a time-integrated quantity to a state-function difference under the same symbol.

full rationale

The paper's thermodynamic formalism is mostly standard (Seifert, Sekimoto, Tomé–de Oliveira), and the self-citations to prior work by the author are not the load-bearing problem. The central collapse is internal. The main conclusion—finite entropy production and extraction when the rates vanish—requires the 'totals' to be time integrals of ˙ep and ˙hd, but the paper never evaluates those integrals. Instead, Section III defines Hd=−⟨mv²/2+U⟩, evaluates it with the local-Maxwellian ansatz Eq. (22), and obtains Hd=−T(x)/2. The subsequent ΔHd=(Th−Tc)/2 is just the spatial boundary difference of this state function, and it equals the equipartition value of the kinetic energy difference. Because the rates ˙ep and ˙hd are proportional to f² and vanish identically at f=0, their time integrals are zero; the reported positive 'totals' therefore come from a different definition and do not measure accumulated irreversibility. The derivation also relies on dropping the ∂x(vP) term in the Fokker–Planck equation—the term that couples the spatial temperature gradient to the distribution—so the finite ΔHd is an artifact of the ansatz rather than a prediction from the full dynamics. Under the paper's own equilibrium criterion (˙ep=˙hd=0), the f=0 state would be classified as equilibrium; the claim that it is nevertheless irreversible is a definitional renaming of kinetic-energy equipartition as entropy extraction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results rest on a handful of modeling choices: the neglected spatial derivative, the specific Maxwellian ansatz, and the identification of average mechanical energy with entropy extraction. None of these is independently derived, and the first two contradict standard Fokker-Planck analysis for underdamped motion in a temperature gradient. The multiplicative-noise and exponential-friction sections add ad hoc parameters (D, z, A, B) that are not connected to the main claim.

free parameters (3)
  • Implicit unit convention gamma=1 = gamma=1 (not stated)
    Eq. (22) exponent m*gamma*v^2/(2T) is only dimensionless and only satisfies the stationary Fokker-Planck equation if gamma=1 in the chosen units; without this hidden choice the distribution is not a solution.
  • Noise amplitude parameters D and z (multiplicative noise section) = unspecified
    Introduced ad hoc in Sec. VI as T(x)=sqrt(D |x|^{-z/2}) to study multiplicative noise; not derived and not used in the main results.
  • Friction parameters A and B (exponential gamma model) = unspecified
    Introduced in Sec. VI B as gamma(T)=B e^{-A T}; chosen to model temperature-dependent friction, not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Dropping v*dP/dx in the Fokker-Planck equation
    Sec. III and IV drop the spatial derivative term to obtain Eq. (22), justified by small mass and periodic boundaries. This is load-bearing because the temperature gradient enters through dT/dx in that term.
  • ad hoc to paper Local Maxwellian ansatz Eq. (22)
    P(v,x)=sqrt(m/(2*pi*T)) exp[-m*gamma*(v-f/gamma)^2/(2T)] is not the stationary solution of Eq. (2) for gamma != 1 and has a dimensionally inconsistent exponent unless gamma=1 is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Identification of Hd = -<mv^2/2 + U> with entropy extraction
    Eqs. (30)-(32) identify the average mechanical energy with heat dissipation and entropy extraction, which is the basis for claiming finite total entropy extraction at f=0.
  • domain assumption Steady state with periodic boundary conditions and normalized local velocity distribution
    Invoked before Eq. (22) and in Sec. IV; the model is assumed to have reached steady state with periodic spatial boundary conditions.
  • domain assumption Ito convention with <xi v> = 0
    Section II first says no stochastic interpretation is required, then says Ito is crucial. With position-dependent T, the choice of stochastic convention changes drift terms and thermodynamic quantities.
  • domain assumption Equipartition <mv^2/2> = T/2
    Used to evaluate Hd = -T(x)/2 and hence Delta Hd = (Th-Tc)/2; it is an equilibrium-like assumption applied inside a claimed nonequilibrium steady state.
invented entities (1)
  • ST (energy-based entropy-like quantity)
    purpose: To rewrite the entropy balance in energy units so that free-energy dissipation can be written as F_dot = Ein_dot - Ep_dot + Hd_dot
    Introduced in Sec. II after Eq. (16); the paper itself notes it is not identical to system entropy S. It has no falsifiable handle outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamic Irreversibility in Underdamped Brownian Motion with Spatial Temperature Gradients." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OEKUFJ76

@misc{pith2026250907272,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamic Irreversibility in Underdamped Brownian Motion with Spatial Temperature Gradients},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OEKUFJ76}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07272}
}
read the original abstract

We analyze underdamped Brownian motion in non-isothermal media with quadratic, linear, and piecewise-constant temperature profiles. Exact identities for entropy production and entropy extraction are derived, addressing whether a vanishing rate implies equilibrium. For a free particle (no external forces or ratchets), the instantaneous entropy production and extraction rates decay to zero at long times despite a spatial temperature gradient. However, their time-integrated values remain finite, demonstrating intrinsic irreversibility arising from kinetic-energy-mediated heat flow from hot to cold regions. Hence, zero entropy-production rate does not certify equilibrium in non-isothermal underdamped systems. Without loads/potentials, most thermodynamic rates vanish asymptotically while irreversibility persists via cumulative heat transfer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07272 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) Contour plot of the steady-state ve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) Contour plot of the steady-state ve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For the isothermal case, in the stationary state (ap- proaching equilibrium), ˙ep = ˙hd = 0. Note that in our analysis, the underdamped Langevin equation is interpreted in the It¯ osense, as is standard in stochastic energetics for systems with multiplicative noise where the noise amplitude depends on position but not on velocity. This choice is crucial i...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Ge and H

    H. Ge and H. Qian, Phys. Rev. E 81, 051133 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Tome and M

    T. Tome and M. J. de Oliveira, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 020601 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Schnakenberg, Rev

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

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    Tome and M.J

    T. Tome and M.J. de Oliveira, Phys. Rev. E 82, 021120 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Zia and B

    R.K.P. Zia and B. Schmittmann, J. Stat. Mech. P07012 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    M. A. Taye, Phys. Rev. E 103, 042132 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Seifert, Phys

    U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 040602 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Tome, Braz

    T. Tome, Braz. J. Phys. 36, 1285 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Szabo, T

    G. Szabo, T. Tome and I. Borsos, Phys. Rev. E 82, 011105 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Gaveau, M

    B. Gaveau, M. Moreau and L.S. Schulman, Phys. Rev. E 79, 010102 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Lebowitz and H

    J.L. Lebowitz and H. Spohn, J. Stat. Phys. 95, 333 (1999)

    1999

  5. [13]

    Andrieux and P

    D. Andrieux and P. Gaspar, J. Stat. Phys. 127, 107 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Harris and G.M

    R.J. Harris and G.M. Schutz, J. Stat. Mech. P07020 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Tom´ e and M

    T. Tom´ e and M. J. de Oliveira, Phys. Rev. E 91, 042140 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    J.-L. Luo, C. Van den Broeck, and G. Nicolis, Z. Phys. B 56, 165 (1984)

    1984

  9. [17]

    Mou, J.-L

    C.Y. Mou, J.-L. Luo, and G. Nicolis, J. Chem. Phys. 84, 7011 (1986)

    1986

  10. [18]

    Maes and K

    C. Maes and K. Netocny, J. Stat. Phys. 110, 269 (2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    Crochik and T

    L. Crochik and T. Tome, Phys. Rev. E 72, 057103 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Asfaw, Phys

    M. Asfaw, Phys. Rev. E 89, 012143 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Asfaw, Phys

    M. Asfaw, Phys. Rev. E 92, 032126 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Brandner, M

    K. Brandner, M. Bauer, M. Schmid and U. Seifert, New. J. Phys. 17, 065006 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Gaveau, M

    B. Gaveau, M. Moreau and L. S. Schulman, Phys. Rev. E 82, 051109 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Boukobza and D.J

    E. Boukobza and D.J. Tannor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 240601 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Bameta, D

    T. Bameta, D. Das, R. Padinhateeri and M. M. Inamdar, ArXiv:1503.06529 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Oriola and J

    D. Oriola and J. Casademunt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 048103 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Campa, Y

    O. Campa, Y. Kafri, K.B. Zeldovich, J. Casademunt and J.-F. Joanny, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 038101 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    M. A. Taye, Phys. Rev. E 94, 032111 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    G. A. L. For˜ ao, F. S. Filho, B. A. N. Akasaki, and C. E. Fiore, Phys. Rev. E 110, 054125 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    I. N. Mamede, P. E. Harunari, B. A. N. Akasaki, K. Proesmans, and C. E. Fiore, Phys. Rev. E 105(2), 024106 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    B. A. N. Akasaki, M. J. de Oliveira, and C. E. Fiore, Phys. Rev. E 101, 012132 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    C. E. Fiore and M. J. de Oliveira, Phys. Rev. E 99(5), 052131 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Proesmans and C

    K. Proesmans and C. Van den Broeck, Chaos 27(10), 104601 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Giordano, G

    S. Giordano, G. Bonfanti, and C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. E 103, 052116 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Defaveri, C

    L. Defaveri, C. Olivares, and C. Anteneodo, Phys. Rev. E 105(5), 054149 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    M. A. Taye, Phys. Rev. E 101, 012131 (2020). 16

    2020

  29. [37]

    Ge, Phys

    H. Ge, Phys. Rev. E 89, 022127 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    H. K. Lee, C. Kwon, and H. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 050602 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    T. V. Vu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19546 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    K.-W. Kim, E. Kwon, and Y. Baek, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16958 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    F. J. Cao, Quantum BioSystems , 7, 75–90 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    del Campo, J

    A. del Campo, J. Goold, and M. Paternostro, Sci. Rep. , 4, 1–7 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    C. E. Fern´ andez Noa, P. E. Harunari, M. J. de Oliveira, and C. E. Fiore, Phys. Rev. E 100, 012104 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Ro et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.12707 (2021)

    S. Ro et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.12707 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. M. Sancho, M. S. Miguel and D. Duerr, J. Stat. Phys. 28, 291 (1982)

    1982

  38. [46]

    A. M. Jayannavar and M. C. Mahato, Pramana J. Phys. 45, 369, (1995)

    1995

  39. [47]

    Sekimoto, J

    K. Sekimoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 66, 1234 (1997)

    1997

  40. [48]

    Sekimoto, Prog

    K. Sekimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 130, 17 (1998)

    1998

  41. [49]

    Hottovy, A

    S. Hottovy, A. McDaniel, G. Volpe, and J. Wehr, Com- mun. Math. Phys. 336, 1259 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Bauermann and B

    J. Bauermann and B. Lindner, Biosystems 178,25 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Carrillo, M

    O. Carrillo, M. Ib´ a˜ nez, J. Garc ´ ıa-Ojalvo, J. Casademunt, and J. M. Sancho, Phys. Rev. E 67, 046110 (2003)

    2003

  44. [52]

    Reynolds, Phil

    O. Reynolds, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 177, 157 (1886)

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.