Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 85 references

Bounds for Apparent Second-Law Violations in Quantum Trajectories

T0 review · 0 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Negative entropy events in quantum trajectories obey a universal probability floor

desk verdict A clean proof of a new sign-frequency bound for quantum trajectories; the transfer step is the real contribution, and the paper deserves refereeing despite a minor slip in one median bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10118 v1 pith:3DWTFP2A submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Domingos S. P. Salazar This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords quantumtrajectoriesstochasticentropyproductiondetailedfluctuationtheoremsecond-lawviolationscompletedcollisionmodelssignstatisticsintegral
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 proves a quantitative lower bound on the probability that a quantum trajectory produces negative physical entropy, the event usually called an apparent violation of the second law. Even when physical entropy production $\sigma$ does not obey a detailed fluctuation theorem, the paper shows that its sign statistics are controlled by a completed entropy $\Omega$ that does obey one. The main inequality is $\Pi_\sigma \ge \Pi_\Omega \ge L(\langle\Omega\rangle)$, with $L(\langle\Omega\rangle)=[1-\langle\Omega\rangle/g(\langle\Omega\rangle)]/2$, so in particular the probability of $\sigma\le 0$ is at least that floor. The result makes apparent violations a predictable, frequency-bounded feature rather than an unexplained exception, and it turns measured sign statistics into a witness for hidden dynamical asymmetry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the completed entropy production $\Omega(\gamma)=\ln[P(\gamma)/P(\gamma')]$, the log-likelihood ratio of a record against its time-reversed record under the same forward law, which decomposes as $\Omega=\sigma+\sigma^*$ with $\sigma^*$ the forward-backward dynamical-asymmetry term. The argument relies on the product identity $\tilde P(\gamma')\tilde P(\gamma)=P(\gamma)P(\gamma')$ linking forward and physically backward laws, which makes $\sigma$ reversal-odd and gives $\Omega$ its detailed fluctuation theorem. The transfer step is an inequality on signs: for any reversal-odd observable $X$, $\langle\operatorname{sgn} X\rangle\le\langle\operatorname{sgn}\Omega\rangle$, with the difference equal to a distinguishability-weighted penalty for sign disagreement; this proves $\Pi_\sigma\ge\Pi_\Omega$. The frequency floor $\Pi_\Omega\ge L(\langle\Omega\rangle)$ comes from applying Jensen's inequality to the concave function $\psi(y)=\tanh[g(y)/2]$ in the DFT relation, with equality only for a binary flipped-coin law.

What would settle it

Enumerate every record in a finite-collision model that satisfies the product identity of Eq. (5) and the physical integral fluctuation theorem, and search for a model with $P(\sigma\le 0)<[1-\langle\Omega\rangle/g(\langle\Omega\rangle)]/2$; finding one would refute the universal floor. Equivalently, run the paper's random-collision ensemble but with a deterministic backward protocol that is not the time-reversal partner (for instance, reversing only the time order of ancilla interactions but not their state preparations) and check whether $\Pi_\sigma$ drops below $L(\langle\Omega\rangle)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a transfer theorem: the tie-corrected sign statistic $\Pi_\sigma=P(\sigma<0)+P(\sigma=0)/2$ for physical entropy production is bounded below by the same sharp floor that the completed entropy $\Omega=\ln[P(\gamma)/P(\gamma')]$ satisfies via its detailed fluctuation theorem. The proof shows that the sign of $\Omega$ is optimal among all reversal-odd trajectory observables, so $\Pi_\sigma\ge\Pi_\Omega$, and the DFT for $\Omega$ gives $\Pi_\Omega\ge L(\langle\Omega\rangle)$ where $L(\langle\Omega\rangle)=[1-\langle\Omega\rangle/g(\langle\Omega\rangle)]/2$ and $g$ inverts $a\mapsto a\tanh(a/2)$. Consequently $P(\sigma\le 0)\ge L(\langle\Omega\rangle)$, and the two-sided form $1-L(\langle\Omega\rangle)\ge\Pi_\sigma\ge L(\langle\Omega\rangle)$ holds under the same assumptions. Combining this floor with the integral fluctuation theorem $\langle e^{-\sigma}\rangle=1$ yields a "frequent but mild" law: negative $\sigma$ events are bounded below in frequency but their conditional magnitude is exponentially suppressed, and the observed sign imbalance certifies a minimum hidden mean $\Sigma^*$.

Load-bearing premise

The bound collapses unless the forward trajectory law and the physically backward trajectory law are linked by the product identity $\tilde P(\gamma')\tilde P(\gamma)=P(\gamma)P(\gamma')$, meaning the backward protocol must be the exact time-reversal of the forward one in the sense that the completed entropy $\Omega$ is a proper log-likelihood ratio; if that identity fails, $\sigma$ need not be reversal-odd and the transfer $\Pi_\sigma\ge\Pi_\Omega$ has no basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Negative physical entropy production cannot become rare faster than the square root of the completed dissipation near reversibility: $L(\langle\Omega\rangle)=1/2-\sqrt{\langle\Omega\rangle/8}+O(\langle\Omega\rangle^{3/2})$.
  • When $\sigma$ has no forward detailed fluctuation theorem, the completed entropy still supplies a sharp sign floor, so the bound applies in arbitrary-coupling and driven settings including the coherently driven qubit model.
  • The integral fluctuation theorem converts the floor into a quantitative "frequent but mild" law: $P(-a<\sigma<0)+\tfrac12 P(\sigma=0)\ge[L(\langle\Omega\rangle)-e^{-a}]_+$, and the conditional severity satisfies $P(-\sigma\ge a\mid\sigma<0)\le e^{-a}/L(\langle\Omega\rangle)$.
  • A measured sign imbalance $q_\sigma$ certifies a minimum hidden asymmetry: $\langle\Omega\rangle\ge I(q_\sigma)$ and $\Sigma^*\ge[I(q_\sigma)-\Sigma]_+$, using only sign statistics plus the mean physical entropy.
  • The bound extends to continuous monitoring whenever the forward path measure and its composition with record reversal are mutually absolutely continuous.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The sign-optimality result means the probability of apparent second-law violation is at least the error of the optimal equal-prior classifier deciding whether a record came from the forward or reversed law, suggesting fluctuation-theorem sign bounds can be read as thermodynamic performance guarantees for an arrow-of-time decision rule.
  • In experiments that already measure endpoint populations and ancilla energy changes, the inequality turns a simple count of negative-$\sigma$ records into an estimate of the unmeasured dynamical asymmetry $\Sigma^*$, offering a probe of hidden driving or non-Markovianity without full trajectory reconstruction.
  • Near reversibility the two-sided bound forces both signs of $\sigma$ close to equal frequency, so a measured imbalance away from $1/2$ implies a completed-entropy cost at least proportional to the square of that imbalance; this could serve as a model-free consistency check for entropy estimators.
  • The paper leaves finite-sample confidence bounds on $q_\sigma$ open; deriving them from binomial tail inequalities would make the sign-witness inequality directly applicable to experimental runs of finite length.
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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives universal bounds on the frequency of negative physical entropy production ("apparent second-law violations") in monitored quantum trajectories. It works with the completed entropy Ω=ln(P/P'), the log-likelihood ratio against the reversed record; the physical entropy σ=ln(P/\tilde P'); and their difference σ*=Ω−σ. The main theorem is the chain Π_σ ≥ Π_Ω ≥ L(⟨Ω⟩), where Π_X = P(X<0)+P(X=0)/2 and L(⟨Ω⟩)=[1−⟨Ω⟩/g(⟨Ω⟩)]/2 with g the inverse of a↦a tanh(a/2). The proof combines (i) reversal-oddness of σ under the microreversibility identity \tilde P(γ')\tilde P(γ)=P(γ)P(γ') (Eq. 5), (ii) sign optimality of the likelihood ratio among reversal-odd observables (Eq. 7), and (iii) the DFT floor for Ω (Eq. 6 plus Jensen). This yields Eq. (3) and the two-sided form Eq. (9). The paper also derives a frequency–severity law (Eqs. 20–21) and an inference witness for the hidden dynamical-asymmetry term Σ* (Eq. 22). Applications are exact enumerations over random finite-coupling collision models and a coherently driven qubit with thermal ancillas, all consistent with the bounds. The central derivation is clean; the only external input is Eq. (5), with proof deferred to the Supplemental Material.

Significance. If correct, the result is significant: it extends sharp fluctuation-theorem control to the sign frequency of physical entropy production in regimes where σ itself has no forward detailed fluctuation theorem, and it identifies the completed entropy ⟨Ω⟩ as the controlling cost. The bound is parameter-free and sharp, and the frequency–severity law converts the physical integral fluctuation theorem into a quantitative "frequent but mild" statement. The sign-imbalance witness provides an operational lower bound on Σ* that is testable from paired record frequencies. The paper is unusually transparent: Eq. (7) is a short self-contained proof, Eq. (6) plus Jensen is explicit, and the numerics are exact enumerations with no fitted parameters or post-hoc exclusions. I found no load-bearing flaw; the main proof chain is sound.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (21)] The displayed conditional tail bound P(−σ≥a|σ<0) ≤ e^{-a}/L yields, upon setting e^{-a}/L = 1/2, the upper bound median(−σ|σ<0) ≤ ln(2/L). The stated bound with (ln 2)/L is weaker, though still true for L≤1/2 because ln(2/L) ≤ (ln 2)/L in that range; please state the tighter form or at least correct the derivation to avoid the appearance of an algebraic slip.
  2. [Eq. (6) and surrounding text] The function h(a)=a tanh(a/2) is invoked in ψ(E[h(A)]) but is never explicitly defined in the main text; please define h before Eq. (6) so that the Jensen step is unambiguous.
  3. [Formalism, Eq. (5)] The product identity in Eq. (5) is the only nontrivial imported assumption, and its pathwise proof is deferred to the Supplemental Material. Because the central theorem rests on this identity, please clarify in the main text whether the proof is taken verbatim from Ref. [11] or derived in the Supplement, and ensure the Supplement is self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central inequality chain is derived in-text from the product identity and a Jensen argument; self-citations are provenance, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained for the main claim. The floor ΠΩ≥L(⟨Ω⟩) is derived in the text itself: the DFT in Eq. (5) gives ⟨Ω⟩=E[A tanh(A/2)] and ΠΩ=1/2[1−E(tanh(A/2))], and the stated concavity of ψ(y)=tanh(g(y)/2) with ψ″<0 yields E[tanh(A/2)]≤⟨Ω⟩/g(⟨Ω⟩) by Jensen. The transfer Πσ≥ΠΩ is likewise proven in Eq. (7): for any reversal-odd X, ⟨sgn X⟩≤(1/2)Σ|P−P′|=⟨sgn Ω⟩, so the physical sign statistic cannot beat the likelihood-ratio sign statistic. The needed reversal-oddness of σ follows algebraically from the product identity P~(γ′)P~(γ)=P(γ)P(γ′) in Eq. (5), which is imported from the external arbitrary-coupling construction of Ref. [11], not from the present author's prior work; the paper states pathwise derivations appear in its Supplemental Material. Ref. [29] is cited as provenance for the DFT floor, but the floor is re-derived in-text, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The numerical applications are exact enumerations and audits, not fits to the target bound. A non-circular correctness note: the median bound in Eq. (21) is looser than the directly derivable one (ln(2/L) rather than ln 2/L), but the printed inequality remains valid and does not affect the central theorem.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Free parameters: none. The bound depends on the measured statistic ⟨Ω⟩ but does not fit it; the only input functions are derived, not tuned. Axioms: the trajectory-level microreversibility/product identity, the DFT for Ω, the physical IFT, concavity of the Jensen function, and absolute continuity for the continuous extension. Invented entities: none; the dynamical-asymmetry term σ* is a defined observable, not a new physical entity.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Record reversal is an involution, and likelihood ratios are taken on the common support of P and P'.
    Technical foundation for Ω=ln(P/P') and for handling ties and singular pairs; stated in the Formalism section.
  • domain assumption The forward and physically backward laws obey P~(γ')P~(γ)=P(γ)P(γ') (Eq. 5).
    Imported from the arbitrary-coupling construction of Ref. [11]; makes σ reversal-odd and supplies the DFT for Ω. If this microreversibility relation fails, the transfer theorem does not follow.
  • domain assumption The completed entropy Ω satisfies the detailed fluctuation theorem p_Ω(ω)=e^ω p_Ω(-ω) (Eq. 5).
    Used to derive the floor ΠΩ≥L(⟨Ω⟩) through Eq. (6) and Jensen; it follows from pairing records with reverses.
  • domain assumption The physical entropy production σ obeys the integral fluctuation theorem ⟨e^{-σ}⟩=1.
    Used for the severity bounds in Eqs. (19)-(21); follows from the definition of σ and normalization of the backward law.
  • standard math The function ψ(y)=tanh[g(y)/2] is concave on [0,∞).
    The paper computes ψ''<0; Jensen's inequality is applied to obtain the floor.
  • domain assumption For continuous monitoring, P and P∘m are mutually absolutely continuous under an involutive reversal m.
    Needed for the extension to jump and diffusive trajectories; the construction is deferred to Supplemental Material.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bounds for Apparent Second-Law Violations in Quantum Trajectories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DWTFP2A

@misc{pith2026260810118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bounds for Apparent Second-Law Violations in Quantum Trajectories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DWTFP2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10118}
}
abstract

Negative stochastic entropy production is commonly called an apparent violation of the second law. In general quantum-trajectory dynamics, however, the physical entropy production $\sigma$ need not obey a forward detailed fluctuation theorem. A general arbitrary-coupling formulation identifies a dynamical-asymmetry term $\sigma^\ast$ that completes it into $\Omega=\sigma+\sigma^\ast$, whose mean is $\langle\Omega\rangle=\Sigma+\Sigma^\ast$. We prove that the likelihood-ratio sign is optimal among reversal-odd trajectory observables and use this fact to transfer an established sharp fluctuation-theorem floor to the tie-corrected physical sign statistic $\Pi_\sigma=\Pr(\sigma<0)+\Pr(\sigma=0)/2$. When $\Pr(\sigma=0)=0$, the result reads $\Pr(\sigma<0)\ge[1-\langle\Omega\rangle/g(\langle\Omega\rangle)]/2$, where $g$ is the inverse of $a\mapsto a\tanh(a/2)$. The physical integral fluctuation theorem simultaneously suppresses large negative events, producing a quantitative ``frequent but mild'' law, while the sign imbalance lower-bounds the hidden mean $\Sigma^\ast$. We formulate the measured-record protocol explicitly and illustrate and numerically audit the tie-corrected theorem in random finite-coupling collision models and a coherently driven qubit interacting with thermal ancillas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10118 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) shows three relevant features. All realiza￾tions obey Πσ ≥ ΠΩ ≥ L(⟨Ω⟩); a strict orange–blue gap in 741 cases makes sign disagreement common in this ensem￾ble. Scatter at fixed ⟨Ω⟩ shows that the black curve is a universal floor, not a prediction of the frequency. Finally, 17 realizations have Πσ > 1/2 (maximum 0.5481), giving explicit collision examples in which the DFT ceiling for ΠΩ does not transfer to the p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Tie-corrected frequency and severity. (a) Exact negative tails and the standard IFT/Markov baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Van Vu, V

    T. Van Vu, V. T. Vo, and Y. Hasegawa, Entropy produc- tion estimation with optimal current, Physical Review E 101, 042138 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [11]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  3. [1]

    Bounds for Apparent Second-Law Violations in Quantum Trajectories

    This precision bound is therefore controlled by the mean completed entropy⟨Ω⟩, not byΣalone, and belongs to a broader family of current-based entropy-production inference bounds [27, 28]. First main result.—We ask:how does ⟨Ω⟩ control apparent violations of the physical second law?Define Πσ = P(σ < 0) + P(σ = 0)/2and analogouslyΠ Ω; the half weight is unb...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  4. [2]

    Dalibard, Y

    J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer, Wave-function approach to dissipative processes in quantum optics, Phys- ical Review Letters68, 580 (1992)

    1992

  5. [3]

    R. Dum, P. Zoller, and H. Ritsch, Monte carlo simulation of the atomic master equation for spontaneous emission, Physical Review A45, 4879 (1992)

    1992

  6. [4]

    Mølmer, Y

    K. Mølmer, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, Monte carlo wave- function method in quantum optics, Journal of the Optical Society of America B10, 524 (1993)

    1993

  7. [5]

    Gisin and I

    N. Gisin and I. C. Percival, The quantum-state diffusion model applied to open systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General25, 5677 (1992)

    1992

  8. [6]

    H. J. Carmichael,An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics(Springer, Berlin, 1993)

    1993

Show all 85 references
  1. [7]

    M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, The quantum-jump ap- proach to dissipative dynamics in quantum optics, Re- views of Modern Physics70, 101 (1998)

    1998

  2. [8]

    T. A. Brun, A simple model of quantum trajectories, American Journal of Physics70, 719 (2002)

    2002

  3. [9]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Measure- ment and Control(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  4. [10]

    Jacobs and D

    K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck, A straightforward introduc- tion to continuous quantum measurement, Contemporary Physics47, 279 (2006)

    2006

  5. [12]

    Van Vu, R

    T. Van Vu, R. Honma, and K. Saito, Universal precision limits in general open quantum systems, Physical Review Letters136, 190401 (2026)

    2026

  6. [13]

    G. T. Landi and M. Paternostro, Irreversible entropy pro- duction: From classical to quantum, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 035008 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    Ciccarello, S

    F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V. Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated interactions, Physics Reports954, 1 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    Manzano, J

    G. Manzano, J. M. Horowitz, and J. M. R. Parrondo, Quantum fluctuation theorems for arbitrary environments: Adiabatic and nonadiabatic entropy production, Physical Review X8, 031037 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Campbellet al., Roadmap on quantum thermodynam- ics, Quantum Science and Technology11, 012501 (2026)

    S. Campbellet al., Roadmap on quantum thermodynam- ics, Quantum Science and Technology11, 012501 (2026)

    2026

  10. [17]

    Esposito, K

    M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Entropy production as correlation between system and reservoir, New Journal of Physics12, 013013 (2010)

    2010

  11. [18]

    Breuer, Quantum jumps and entropy production, Physical Review A68, 032105 (2003)

    H.-P. Breuer, Quantum jumps and entropy production, Physical Review A68, 032105 (2003)

    2003

  12. [19]

    J. M. Horowitz, Quantum-trajectory approach to the stochastic thermodynamics of a forced harmonic oscillator, Physical Review E85, 031110 (2012)

    2012

  13. [20]

    J. M. Horowitz and J. M. R. Parrondo, Entropy pro- duction along nonequilibrium quantum jump trajectories, New Journal of Physics15, 085028 (2013)

    2013

  14. [21]

    J. M. Horowitz and T. Sagawa, Equivalent definitions of the quantum nonadiabatic entropy production, Journal of Statistical Physics156, 55 (2014)

    2014

  15. [22]

    F. W. J. Hekking and J. P. Pekola, Quantum jump ap- proach for work and dissipation in a two-level system, Physical Review Letters111, 093602 (2013)

    2013

  16. [23]

    J. J. Alonso, E. Lutz, and A. Romito, Thermodynamics of weakly measured quantum systems, Physical Review Letters116, 080403 (2016)

    2016

  17. [24]

    Elouard and A

    C. Elouard and A. Auffèves, Role of quantum measure- ment in stochastic thermodynamics, npj Quantum Infor- mation3, 9 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    Elouard and M

    C. Elouard and M. H. Mohammady, Work, heat and entropy production along quantum trajectories, inTher- modynamics in the Quantum Regime(Springer, 2018) pp. 363–393

    2018

  19. [26]

    Manzano and R

    G. Manzano and R. Zambrini, Quantum thermodynamics under continuous monitoring: A general framework, AVS Quantum Science4, 025302 (2022)

    2022

  20. [27]

    D. S. P. Salazar, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation from involutions, Physical Review E106, L062104 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    S.K.Manikandan, D.Gupta,andS.Krishnamurthy,Infer- ring entropy production from short experiments, Physical Review Letters124, 120603 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    D. S. P. Salazar, Detailed fluctuation theorem bound for apparent violations of the second law, Physical Review E 104, L062101 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for pathwise derivations, the sign-optimality and upper-bound analyses, equality and fixed-Σconstruc- tions, full collision-model definitions and numerical au- dits, the cyclic-qutrit extremizer, and the continuo...

  24. [32]

    D. J. Evans, E. G. D. Cohen, and G. P. Morriss, Proba- bility of second law violations in shearing steady states, Physical Review Letters71, 2401 (1993)

    1993

  25. [33]

    Gallavotti and E

    G. Gallavotti and E. G. D. Cohen, Dynamical ensembles in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics, Physical Review Letters74, 2694 (1995)

    1995

  26. [34]

    D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, The fluctuation theorem, Advances in Physics51, 1529 (2002)

    2002

  27. [35]

    Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences, Physical Review Letters78, 2690 (1997)

    C. Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences, Physical Review Letters78, 2690 (1997)

    1997

  28. [36]

    G. E. Crooks, Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy dif- ferences, Physical Review E60, 2721 (1999)

    1999

  29. [37]

    van Zon and E

    R. van Zon and E. G. D. Cohen, Extension of the fluctua- 7 tion theorem, Physical Review Letters91, 110601 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    R.vanZonandE.G.D.Cohen,Extendedheat-fluctuation theorems for a system with deterministic and stochastic forces, Physical Review E69, 056121 (2004)

    2004

  31. [39]

    Jarzynski, Rare events and the convergence of expo- nentially averaged work values, Physical Review E73, 046105 (2006)

    C. Jarzynski, Rare events and the convergence of expo- nentially averaged work values, Physical Review E73, 046105 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    Esposito, U

    M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Nonequilib- rium fluctuations, fluctuation theorems, and counting statistics in quantum systems, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 1665 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. Hänggi, and P. Talkner, Colloquium: Quantum fluctuation relations: Foundations and applica- tions, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 771 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Seifert, Entropy production along a stochastic trajec- tory and an integral fluctuation theorem, Physical Review Letters95, 040602 (2005)

    U. Seifert, Entropy production along a stochastic trajec- tory and an integral fluctuation theorem, Physical Review Letters95, 040602 (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 126001 (2012)

    U. Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 126001 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, E. Mittag, D. J. Searles, and D. J. Evans, Experimental demonstration of violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems and short time scales, Physical Review Letters89, 050601 (2002)

    2002

  37. [45]

    D. M. Carberry, J. C. Reid, G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, D. J. Searles, and D. J. Evans, Fluctuations and irre- versibility: An experimental demonstration of a second- law-like theorem using a colloidal particle held in an optical trap, Physical Review Letters92, 140601 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    Schuler, T

    S. Schuler, T. Speck, C. Tietz, J. Wrachtrup, and U. Seifert, Experimental test of the fluctuation theorem for a driven two-level system with time-dependent rates, Physical Review Letters94, 180602 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Tietz, S

    C. Tietz, S. Schuler, T. Speck, U. Seifert, and J. Wrachtrup, Measurement of stochastic entropy pro- duction, Physical Review Letters97, 050602 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Speck, V

    T. Speck, V. Blickle, C. Bechinger, and U. Seifert, Dis- tribution of entropy production for a colloidal particle in a nonequilibrium steady state, Europhysics Letters79, 30002 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    J. V. Koski, T. Sagawa, O.-P. Saira, Y. Yoon, A. Kutvo- nen, P. Solinas, M. Möttönen, T. Ala-Nissila, and J. P. Pekola, Distribution of entropy production in a single- electron box, Nature Physics9, 644 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Ciliberto, Experiments in stochastic thermodynamics: Short history and perspectives, Physical Review X7, 021051 (2017)

    S. Ciliberto, Experiments in stochastic thermodynamics: Short history and perspectives, Physical Review X7, 021051 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    K. W. Murch, S. J. Weber, C. Macklin, and I. Siddiqi, Ob- serving single quantum trajectories of a superconducting quantum bit, Nature502, 211 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    J. P. Pekola, P. Solinas, A. Shnirman, and D. V. Averin, Calorimetric measurement of work in a quantum system, New Journal of Physics15, 115006 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    T. B. Batalhão, A. M. Souza, L. Mazzola, R. Auccaise, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, J. Goold, G. De Chiara, M. Paternostro, and R. M. Serra, Experimental recon- struction of work distribution and study of fluctuation relations in a closed quantum system, Physical Review Lett...

    2014

  46. [54]

    T. B. Batalhão, A. M. Souza, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, M. Paternostro, E. Lutz, and R. M. Serra, Irreversibility and the arrow of time in a quenched quantum system, Physical Review Letters115, 190601 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    Brunelli, L

    M. Brunelli, L. Fusco, R. Landig, W. Wieczorek, J. Hoelscher-Obermaier, G. T. Landi, F. L. Semião, A. Fer- raro, N. Kiesel, T. Donner, G. De Chiara, and M. Pater- nostro, Experimental determination of irreversible entropy production in out-of-equilibrium mesoscopic quantum sys...

    2018

  48. [56]

    P. M. Harrington, D. Tan, M. Naghiloo, and K. W. Murch, Characterizing a statistical arrow of time in quantum measurement dynamics, Physical Review Letters123, 020502 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Naghiloo, D

    M. Naghiloo, D. Tan, P. M. Harrington, J. J. Alonso, E. Lutz, A. Romito, and K. W. Murch, Heat and work along individual trajectories of a quantum bit, Physical Review Letters124, 110604 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Rossi, L

    M. Rossi, L. Mancino, G. T. Landi, M. Paternostro, A. Schliesser, and A. Belenchia, Experimental assessment of entropy production in a continuously measured me- chanical resonator, Physical Review Letters125, 080601 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Jayaseelan, S

    M. Jayaseelan, S. K. Manikandan, A. N. Jordan, and N. P. Bigelow, Quantum measurement arrow of time and fluctuation relations for measuring spin of ultracold atoms, Nature Communications12, 1847 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    G. H. Aguilar, T. L. Silva, T. E. Guimarães, R. S. Piera, L. C. Céleri, and G. T. Landi, Two-point measurement of entropy production from the outcomes of a single exper- iment with correlated photon pairs, Physical Review A 106, L020201 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    García-García and D

    R. García-García and D. Domínguez, Duration of local violations of the second law of thermodynamics along single trajectories in phase space, Physical Review E89, 022116 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    Cavina, A

    V. Cavina, A. Mari, and V. Giovannetti, Optimal pro- cesses for probabilistic work extraction beyond the second law, Scientific Reports6, 29282 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Maillet, P

    O. Maillet, P. A. Erdman, V. Cavina, B. Bhandari, E. T. Mannila, J. T. Peltonen, A. Mari, F. Taddei, C. Jarzynski, V. Giovannetti, and J. P. Pekola, Optimal probabilistic work extraction beyond the free energy difference with a single-electron device, Physical Review Letters12...

    2019

  56. [64]

    H. J. D. Miller and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Finite-time bounds on the probabilistic violation of the second law of thermodynamics, SciPost Physics14, 072 (2023), arXiv:2205.03065 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Y.-H. Liao, Y. Jun, and P.-Y. Lai, Second-law violating events are not rare in nonequilibrium nonsteady states, Physical Review E111, L022103 (2025)

    2025

  58. [66]

    P. V. Paraguassú and T. Guerreiro, Apparent violations of the second law in the quantum-classical dynamics of interacting levitated nanoparticles, Physical Review E 112, 024134 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    Bhattacharya, A

    S. Bhattacharya, A. Misra, C. Mukhopadhyay, and A. K. Pati, Exact master equation for a spin interacting with a spin bath: Non-markovianity and negative entropy production rate, Physical Review A95, 012122 (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    Marcantoni, S

    S. Marcantoni, S. Alipour, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and A. T. Rezakhani, Entropy production and non-markovian dynamical maps, Scientific Reports7, 12447 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Popovic, B

    M. Popovic, B. Vacchini, and S. Campbell, Entropy pro- duction and correlations in a controlled non-markovian setting, Physical Review A98, 012130 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    Strasberg and M

    P. Strasberg and M. Esposito, Non-markovianity and negative entropy production rates, Physical Review E99, 8 012120 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    J. M. R. Parrondo, C. Van den Broeck, and R. Kawai, Entropy production and the arrow of time, New Journal of Physics11, 073008 (2009), arXiv:0904.1573

    2009 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Roldán, I

    E. Roldán, I. Neri, M. Dörpinghaus, H. Meyr, and F. Jülicher, Decision making in the arrow of time, Physical Review Letters115, 250602 (2015), arXiv:1508.02018

    2015 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Benoist, V

    T. Benoist, V. Jakšić, Y. Pautrat, and C.-A. Pillet, On entropy production of repeated quantum measurements i: General theory, Communications in Mathematical Physics 357, 77 (2018), arXiv:1607.00162

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    I. Neri, E. Roldán, S. Pigolotti, and F. Jülicher, Statis- tics of infima and stopping times of entropy production and applications to active molecular processes, Physical Review X7, 011019 (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    Pigolotti, I

    S. Pigolotti, I. Neri, E. Roldán, and F. Jülicher, Generic properties of stochastic entropy production, Physical Re- view Letters119, 140604 (2017)

    2017

  68. [76]

    Manzano, R

    G. Manzano, R. Fazio, and E. Roldán, Quantum mar- tingale theory and entropy production, Physical Review Letters122, 220602 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    Manzano, D

    G. Manzano, D. Subero, O. Maillet, R. Fazio, J. P. Pekola, and E. Roldán, Thermodynamics of gambling demons, Physical Review Letters126, 080603 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Esposito, Stochastic thermodynamics under coarse graining, Physical Review E85, 041125 (2012)

    M. Esposito, Stochastic thermodynamics under coarse graining, Physical Review E85, 041125 (2012)

    2012

  71. [79]

    Degünther, J

    J. Degünther, J. van der Meer, and U. Seifert, Fluctuating entropy production on the coarse-grained level, Physical Review Research6, 023175 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    J. M. R. Parrondo, J. M. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa, Thermodynamics of information, Nature Physics11, 131 (2015)

    2015

  73. [81]

    Hasegawa, Quantum thermodynamic uncertainty rela- tion for continuous measurement, Physical Review Letters 125, 050601 (2020)

    Y. Hasegawa, Quantum thermodynamic uncertainty rela- tion for continuous measurement, Physical Review Letters 125, 050601 (2020)

    2020

  74. [82]

    G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, Current fluctuations in open quantum sys- tems: Bridging the gap between quantum continuous measurements and full counting statistics, PRX Quantum 5, 020201 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    A. S. Hegde, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Time-resolved stochastic dynamics of quantum thermal machines, Phys- ical Review Letters134, 150402 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    Belenchia, M

    A. Belenchia, M. Paternostro, and G. T. Landi, Informa- tional steady states and conditional entropy production in continuously monitored systems: The case of gaussian systems, Physical Review A105, 022213 (2022)

    2022

  77. [85]

    Ferri-Cortés, J

    M. Ferri-Cortés, J. A. Almanza-Marrero, R. López, R. Zambrini, and G. Manzano, Conditional fluctuation theorems and entropy production for monitored quan- tum systems under imperfect detection, Physical Review Research7, 013077 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.