Quantum Kinetic Uncertainty Relations in Mesoscopic Conductors at Strong Coupling

G\'eraldine Haack; Gianmichele Blasi; Mykhailo Moskalets; Ricard Ravell Rodr\'iguez; Rosa L\'opez

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Kinetic Uncertainty Relations in Mesoscopic Conductors at Strong Coupling

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Generalizing dynamical activity to strong coupling, this paper shows that standard kinetic uncertainty relations fail in coherent conductors and proves a quantum kinetic uncertainty relation, QKUR, that bounds current signal-to-noise at…

desk verdict A promising new activity-based precision bound for coherent conductors, but the proof only covers single-channel local couplings; the paper should either restrict its claims or fix the gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13200 v5 pith:CHMEZPGG submitted 2025-05-19 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Gianmichele Blasi , Ricard Ravell Rodríguez , Mykhailo Moskalets , Rosa López , Géraldine Haack This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

keywords kineticuncertaintyrelationsdynamicalactivitystrongcouplingquantumtransportmesoscopicconductorssignal-to-noiseratiopointcontactdots

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 kinetic uncertainty relations—bounds on how precisely a current can be measured relative to its own fluctuations—survive when a quantum conductor is coupled strongly to its reservoirs. The authors define a generalized dynamical activity from the symmetrized fluctuations of the tunneling Hamiltonian, valid at any coupling, and show that the standard activity-based bound fails once the coupling $\Gamma$ is comparable to the thermal scale $k_B T$. They then prove a new inequality, the Quantum KUR, $I_\alpha^2/S_{\alpha\alpha} \leq (A^{\mathrm{cross}}_\alpha)^2/(A^{\mathrm{cross}}_\alpha - A^{\mathrm{sh}}_\alpha)$, which holds across all coupling strengths in the coherent conductors they analyze. If true, this gives a universal precision bound for quantum-coherent transport that reduces to earlier results at weak coupling and becomes tight far from equilibrium.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized dynamical activity $A_\alpha(t) = \frac{1}{2\hbar^2}\int_{-t}^{t} d\tau\, \langle\langle \{\hat{V}_\alpha(t), \hat{V}_\alpha(t+\tau)\} \rangle\rangle$, a symmetrized two-time fluctuation of the tunneling operator between reservoir $\alpha$ and the system, evaluated in the stationary regime through non-equilibrium Green's functions. Its steady-state form splits into a cross part $A^{\mathrm{cross}}_\alpha$ and a shot part $A^{\mathrm{sh}}_\alpha$; the QKUR proof bounds the current by $A^{\mathrm{cross}}_\alpha$, decomposes the noise as $S_{\alpha\alpha} = S^{\mathrm{cl}}_{\alpha\alpha} - S^{\mathrm{qu}}_{\alpha\alpha}$, and controls the quantum part by the shot activity through a Cauchy–Schwarz step that uses the unitarity condition $\sum_{\beta\neq\alpha} T_{\alpha\beta}(\epsilon) \leq 1$.

What would settle it

Take a two-terminal double quantum dot whose left lead couples to both dot sites (non-diagonal $\Gamma_L$), drive it at strong coupling and high bias, and evaluate $I_L^2/S_{LL}$ against $(A^{\mathrm{cross}}_L)^2/(A^{\mathrm{cross}}_L - A^{\mathrm{sh}}_L)$; a single parameter point where the ratio exceeds the bound would refute the QKUR as stated, since the proof's unitarity condition fails there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a properly generalized dynamical activity—defined as the zero-frequency integrated autocorrelation of the anticommutator of the system–reservoir tunneling operator—extends kinetic uncertainty relations to arbitrary system–reservoir coupling. Starting from this definition, the steady-state activity is expressed through transmission matrices $T_{\alpha\beta}(\epsilon) = \Gamma_\alpha(\epsilon) G^r(\epsilon) \Gamma_\beta(\epsilon) G^a(\epsilon)$, and shown to reduce to the standard master-equation jump rate for any quadratic $N$-dot Hamiltonian in the weak-coupling limit. The paper proves that the traditional bound $I_\alpha^2/S_{\alpha\alpha} \leq A_\alpha$ breaks down at strong coupling, and in its place derives the Quantum KUR $I_\alpha^2/S_{\alpha\alpha} \leq (A^{\mathrm{cross}}_\alpha)^2/(A^{\mathrm{cross}}_\alpha - A^{\mathrm{sh}}_\alpha)$. The bound is demonstrated in single- and double-quantum dots and a quantum point contact, where it remains valid for all coupling strengths and becomes tight in the far-from-equilibrium, large-voltage-bias limit.

Load-bearing premise

The proof requires each reservoir to be coupled to exactly one site of the conductor through a single local channel, so the scattering matrix is unitary and the sum of transmission probabilities into all other reservoirs never exceeds one; if couplings are non-local or dephasing is introduced, the bound's controlling step is no longer established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Standard kinetic uncertainty relations, $I_\alpha^2/S_{\alpha\alpha} \leq A_\alpha$, are not universal: they fail for a single quantum dot once the coupling $\Gamma$ is of order $k_B T$ or larger.
The QKUR bound $I_\alpha^2/S_{\alpha\alpha} \leq (A^{\mathrm{cross}}_\alpha)^2/(A^{\mathrm{cross}}_\alpha - A^{\mathrm{sh}}_\alpha)$ holds at every coupling strength in the single- and double-quantum-dot and quantum-point-contact conductors analyzed.
In the weak-coupling limit the generalized activity coincides with the master-equation jump activity, so the QKUR reproduces previously known kinetic bounds there rather than replacing them.
At large voltage bias the QKUR becomes tight, with $\mathrm{SNR}/\xi_{\mathrm{QKUR}} \to 1$, making it the relevant precision bound for far-from-equilibrium coherent transport.
The shot contribution $A^{\mathrm{sh}}_\alpha$ in the denominator is essential: dropping it, as earlier near-equilibrium bounds do, makes the bound fail out of equilibrium.

Reading between the lines

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

The proof's unitarity condition suggests a testable dividing line: systems with delocalized lead coupling or strong dephasing may evade the bound, and mapping where it breaks would delimit the role of coherence in kinetic uncertainty relations.
Because the activity is defined at the operator level, the same construction may produce heat- and energy-current QKURs—the paper lists such extensions as future work—and the ratio-symmetric structure of the bound is a natural template for them.
In an experiment, $A^{\mathrm{cross}}_\alpha$ and $A^{\mathrm{sh}}_\alpha$ can in principle be extracted from the voltage and temperature dependence of the current noise, so the QKUR is testable without direct access to tunneling-operator fluctuations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — the paper does something real. It defines a generalized dynamical activity from the symmetrized fluctuations of the reservoir-system coupling, works out the steady-state expression in the Green's function/Landauer picture, and proves it reduces to the standard master-equation jump activity for any quadratic N-dot system in the weak-coupling limit. That reduction is a genuine technical result, not a side remark. Building on it, the authors derive the QKUR, Eq. (14), which bounds the SNR of any current by a ratio of two activity components. The bound is new as far as I can tell, and it gives a simple way to see why the standard KUR fails at strong coupling and what replaces it. The numerics for the single dot and QPC are clean and show the bound is tight far from equilibrium.

The soft spot is in the proof of the QKUR, and it is load-bearing. The key step in Eq. (EM10) uses ∑_{β≠α} T_{αβ}(ε) ≤ 1, justified by unitarity of the scattering matrix. That is true for a single-channel lead with local coupling, which is exactly the case where the scalar Fisher-Lee relation holds. For a multi-channel lead or a lead coupled to more than one site, the total transmission from all other leads into lead α can exceed one, and the inequality doesn't follow. The paper presents Eq. (14) as valid at arbitrary coupling, but the proof and every numerical example sit in the local single-channel regime. So the general claim is not established. That is the main issue. There is also a small presentational bug: the current bound in Eq. (EM8) should be on |I_α|, since I_α can be negative; the final bound is fine once that's corrected.

I would not call this a fatal flaw. The restricted version is still useful, because many mesoscopic experiments use single-channel leads or can be modeled that way, and the weak-coupling reduction to ME activity is a solid contribution. But the authors should either prove the multi-channel case or clearly restrict the claim. As it stands, the paper is a good candidate for a serious referee, with the expectation that the scope gets pinned down and the proof tightened. I would send it to review.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a generalized dynamical activity $A_\alpha(t)$ defined through symmetrized fluctuations of the system-reservoir tunneling Hamiltonian (Eq. (1)), derives its steady-state Green's-function expression Eq. (2), and shows that in the weak-coupling limit it reduces to the standard master-equation jump activity for quadratic multi-dot systems. The central result is the Quantum KUR, Eq. (14): $I_\alpha^2/S_{\alpha\alpha} \le (A^{cross}_\alpha)^2/(A^{cross}_\alpha - A^{sh}_\alpha)$, with $A^{cross}$ and $A^{sh}$ defined from the generalized activity. The proof in the End Matter bounds the current by $A^{cross}$, splits the noise into $S^{cl}$ and $S^{qu}$, and uses Cauchy-Schwarz together with $\sum_{\beta\ne\alpha}T_{\alpha\beta}\le1$ to show $S^{qu}\le A^{sh}$. The relation is tested on a single quantum dot, a double quantum dot, and a quantum point contact; the numerical examples show that the standard KUR can be violated at strong coupling while the QKUR remains valid and becomes tight far from equilibrium.

Significance. Assuming the proof can be made to match the advertised scope, the QKUR would be a valuable step: it is a parameter-free, analytically derived activity bound for coherent mesoscopic transport, complementing the QTUR program. The weak-coupling consistency check is nontrivial, and the specific predictions, such as the breakdown of the standard KUR in a strongly coupled single quantum dot and the saturation of the QKUR at large voltage bias in a quantum point contact, are falsifiable and quantitative. The paper also usefully decomposes the generalized activity into thermal, shot, auto, and cross contributions. The main caveat is that the proof as written applies to local single-channel couplings, a narrower class than the "arbitrary coupling" advertised in the abstract and main text.

major comments (2)

[End Matter, Eq. (EM10); Supplemental Material Sec. IV] The key inequality $S^{qu}_{\alpha\alpha}\le A^{sh}_\alpha$ is obtained by applying Cauchy-Schwarz and using $\sum_{\beta\ne\alpha}T_{\alpha\beta}(\epsilon)\le1$. This sum rule is derived from unitarity as $1-R_{\alpha\alpha}\le1$, but the scalar transmission and reflection probabilities come from the Fisher-Lee relation (SM39), which Supplemental Material Sec. IV states holds only under the local-coupling condition $[\Gamma_\alpha]_{ij}=\delta_{ij}\delta_{i\alpha}\Gamma_\alpha$. For a lead coupled to several system sites, or for a multi-channel lead, $\Gamma_\alpha$ has rank greater than one, the scalar Fisher-Lee form does not apply, and $\sum_{\beta\ne\alpha}\operatorname{Tr}[T_{\alpha\beta}]$ can exceed 1. The proof therefore does not establish Eq. (14) in the generality stated in the main text, and all numerical examples satisfy the local single-channel condition. Please either provide a proof for the general multichannel/nonlocal case or explicitly restrict the statement of the QKUR to the local single-channel setting.
[End Matter, Eq. (EM8)] The bound is stated as $I_\alpha \le A^{cross}_\alpha$, but the signal-to-noise ratio uses $I_\alpha^2$. For a current that is negative in the chosen convention, this inequality is trivial and the subsequent conclusion $I_\alpha^2\le(A^{cross}_\alpha)^2$ does not follow. The proof should be applied to $|I_\alpha|$, using $|f_\alpha-f_\beta|\le F_{\alpha\beta}+F_{\beta\alpha}$, and the absolute value should be carried through Eq. (EM11).

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (2)] The notation $\operatorname{Tr}[4T_{\alpha\alpha}(\epsilon)-(\sum_\beta T_{\alpha\beta}(\epsilon))^2]$ is ambiguous; the square should act inside the trace on the matrix sum, i.e. the expression should read $\operatorname{Tr}[4T_{\alpha\alpha}(\epsilon)]-\operatorname{Tr}[(\sum_\beta T_{\alpha\beta}(\epsilon))^2]$ or an equivalent unambiguous form.
[Fig. 1 caption and main text] The quantity $\xi_{\rm KUR}$ used in the lower panel of Fig. 1 is not defined explicitly; the authors should state in the caption or text that it is the standard activity-based bound $A_{\alpha}^{ss}$ (or its master-equation counterpart in the weak-coupling regime) so that the claimed violation is unambiguous.
[End Matter, Eq. (EM7)] The Kramers-Kronig identity (EM7) is applied to the local retarded Green's function $G^r_{\alpha\alpha}$; this should be stated before the identity is used, since the preceding manipulations rely on the local projector structure $\Gamma_\alpha=\Gamma_\alpha\Pi_\alpha$.
[Throughout] The symbol $T_{\alpha\beta}(\epsilon)$ is used both for the matrix $\Gamma_\alpha G^r\Gamma_\beta G^a$ and for its trace; please introduce separate notation for the trace, for example $\mathcal{T}_{\alpha\beta}=\operatorname{Tr}[T_{\alpha\beta}]$, consistently in the main text and Supplement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QKUR is a theorem proved from the stated Hamiltonian via standard Green's-function and scattering identities; weak-coupling reductions are consistency checks, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The QKUR is not defined into existence. The generalized activity is introduced as A_alpha(t) = (1/2 hbar^2) int ... (Eq. 1), and the steady-state expression Eq. (2) is derived from it in Supplemental Material Sec. III rather than assumed. The bound Eq. (14) is then proved in the End Matter: Eq. (EM8) bounds the current by A^cross_alpha using F_alpha beta + F_beta alpha >= |f_alpha - f_beta|; Eq. (EM9) writes the noise as S_alpha alpha = A^cross_alpha - S^qu_alpha alpha, which is the definitional identity S^cl = A^cross (compare Eq. (13) with SM Eq. (SM42)); and Eq. (EM10) proves S^qu_alpha alpha <= A^sh_alpha by Cauchy-Schwarz and unitarity, sum_{beta != alpha} T_alpha beta <= 1. Each step is an inequality or identity from the same Hamiltonian and standard Landauer-Buettiker/Green's-function formalism; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The weak-coupling benchmark (reduction of A^ss_alpha to the master-equation activity A^ME_alpha) is an independent consistency check, computed exactly for the SQD and via Dyson and Kramers-Kronig identities for N dots in Eqs. (EM1)-(EM7), so it is not an input to the QKUR derivation. Self-citations to Ref. [41] occur, but the needed derivations are reproduced in the Supplemental Material and are not load-bearing. The genuine scope limitation is that the scalar Fisher-Lee form used in SM Sec. IV 'holds under the condition [Gamma_alpha]_ij = delta_ij delta_{i alpha} Gamma_alpha, meaning that each terminal couples to a single quantum dot only,' and the proof of Eq. (EM10) uses this to assert sum_{beta != alpha} T_alpha beta <= 1; moreover Eq. (EM8) should use |I_alpha|. These are correctness/scope issues, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a new definition (Eq. 1) plus standard quantum transport machinery (Dyson, Kramers-Kronig, Fisher-Lee, noise formulas). No parameter is fitted to data; all quantities are determined by the Hamiltonian and reservoir distributions. The main structural restriction is local coupling of each lead to one dot site, required for the unitarity bound sum_beta T_{alpha beta} <= 1 used in the QKUR proof.

assumptions (7)

ad hoc to paper Generalized dynamical activity defined in Eq. (1): A_alpha(t) = (1/(2 hbar^2)) integral from -t to t of dtau <<{V_alpha(t), V_alpha(t+tau)}>>.
Postulated as the strong-coupling generalization of jump activity; justified by weak-coupling reduction and QKUR validity in examples.
domain assumption Tunneling-type interactions V_alpha = sum_{jk} (t*_{jk alpha} c^dagger_{k alpha} d_j + t_{jk alpha} d^dagger_j c_{k alpha}) with fermionic reservoirs.
Restricts the framework to fermionic locally coupled models; stated in the main text before Eq. (2).
domain assumption Wide-band limit with local, energy-independent coupling matrices Gamma_alpha(epsilon) = Gamma_alpha Pi_alpha.
Used for the master-equation benchmark and scattering-matrix expressions; stated after Eq. (2).
domain assumption Quadratic system Hamiltonian for the generic N-dot weak-coupling equivalence.
The proof of Eq. (7) assumes H_S = sum_{ij} h_{ij} d^dagger_i d_j with no interactions; stated in the main text before Eq. (4).
domain assumption Fisher-Lee relation and unitarity of the scattering matrix, with each terminal coupled to a single dot site.
Used in Supplemental Material Sec. IV to express activity via reflection and transmission probabilities and in the Cauchy-Schwarz step Eq. (EM10) that requires sum_{beta neq alpha} T_{alpha beta}(epsilon) <= 1.
standard math Kramers-Kronig relation: integral of |G^r_{alpha alpha}(epsilon)|^2 equals twice the integral of (Im G^r_{alpha alpha}(epsilon))^2.
Used in End Matter Eq. (EM7) to prove the weak-coupling equivalence of the diagonal activity terms.
standard math Dyson identity: G^r (sum_beta Gamma_beta) G^a = i (G^r - G^a).
Used in deriving Eq. (7) and Eq. (EM4).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Kinetic Uncertainty Relations in Mesoscopic Conductors at Strong Coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CHMEZPGG

@misc{pith2026250513200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Kinetic Uncertainty Relations in Mesoscopic Conductors at Strong Coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CHMEZPGG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13200}
}

abstract

Kinetic Uncertainty Relations (KURs) set fundamental limits on the precision of nonequilibrium transport by bounding the signal-to-noise ratio of currents in terms of the dynamical activity, a quantity that counts exchange events between a system and its reservoirs. This framework is well established in the weak-coupling regime, where transport occurs via well-defined, particle-like tunneling processes. At strong coupling, however, quantum coherence challenges both the validity of standard KURs and the notion of activity itself. In this Letter, we introduce a generalized definition of dynamical activity valid at arbitrary system-reservoir coupling, and show that it leads to a breakdown of standard KURs at strong coupling. Building on this result, we derive and prove a novel uncertainty relation, denoted Quantum KUR (QKUR), which provides a genuine quantum extension of KUR, accounting for intrinsic quantum coherent contributions of the generalized activity. We demonstrate that the generalized activity reduces to the standard master equation definition in the weak-coupling regime for generic systems of $N$ coupled quantum dots described by a quadratic Hamiltonian, and analyze the resulting QKUR bound in paradigmatic quantum-coherent mesoscopic devices, including single- and double-quantum dot systems and a quantum point contact.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13200 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Uncertainty relations for a perfectly transmit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** shows the behavior of the ratio SNR/ξQKUR as a function of the key parameters of the setup. In the top panel, we observe that the QKUR bound becomes tighter in the regime ∆µ ≳ kBT, and in particular at low temperatures (kBT ≲ Γ), where a range of voltage biases leads to SNR values within 95% of the bound (yellow regions). As in previous setups, the bound is saturated far from equilibrium in the strong-coupling regim… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relations for Coherent Transport
cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A universal inequality (S/J) sinh[sigma/(2 k_B J)] >= 1 is derived for time-reversal-symmetric coherent fermionic transport, with a weakened factor for broken time-reversal symmetry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Jarzynski,Nonequilibrium equality for free energy dif- ferences,Phys

C. Jarzynski,Nonequilibrium equality for free energy dif- ferences,Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2690 (1997)

work page 1997
[2]

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

work page 1999
[3]

Jarzynski,Equalities and inequalities: Irreversibility and the second law of thermodynamics at the nanoscale, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics2, 329 (2011)

C. Jarzynski,Equalities and inequalities: Irreversibility and the second law of thermodynamics at the nanoscale, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics2, 329 (2011)

work page 2011
[4]

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)

work page 2012
[5]

Seifert,From stochastic thermodynamics to thermo- dynamic inference,Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics10, 171–192 (2019)

U. Seifert,From stochastic thermodynamics to thermo- dynamic inference,Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics10, 171–192 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Dechant and S

A. Dechant and S. Sasa,Fluctuation–response inequality out of equilibrium,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 6430–6436 (2020)

work page 2020
[7]

Aslyamov, K

T. Aslyamov, K. Ptaszy´ nski, and M. Esposito,Nonequi- librium fluctuation-response relations: From identities to bounds,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025)

work page 2025
[8]

A. C. Barato and U. Seifert,Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for biomolecular processes,Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 158101 (2015)

work page 2015

Show all 70 references

[9]

T. R. Gingrich, J. M. Horowitz, N. Perunov, and J. L. England,Dissipation bounds all steady-state current fluc- tuations,Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 120601 (2016)

2016
[10]

Pietzonka and U

P. Pietzonka and U. Seifert,Universal trade-off between power, efficiency, and constancy in steady-state heat en- gines,Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 190602 (2018)

2018
[11]

Hasegawa and T

Y. Hasegawa and T. Van Vu,Fluctuation theorem uncer- tainty relation,Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019)

2019
[12]

A. M. Timpanaro, G. Guarnieri, J. Goold, and 6 G. T. Landi,Thermodynamic uncertainty relations from exchange fluctuation theorems,Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019)

2019
[13]

Hasegawa and T

Y. Hasegawa and T. Van Vu,Uncertainty relations in stochastic processes: An information inequality approach, Phys. Rev. E99(2019)

2019
[14]

J. M. Horowitz and T. R. Gingrich,Thermodynamic uncertainty relations constrain non-equilibrium fluctua- tions,Nat. Physics16, 15 (2020)

2020
[15]

Falasco, M

G. Falasco, M. Esposito, and J.-C. Delvenne,Unify- ing thermodynamic uncertainty relations,New Journal of Physics22, 053046 (2020)

2020
[16]

K. J. Ray, A. B. Boyd, G. Guarnieri, and J. P. Crutch- field,Thermodynamic uncertainty theorem,Phys. Rev. E 108(2023)

2023
[17]

Ptaszy´ nski, T

K. Ptaszy´ nski, T. Aslyamov, and M. Esposito,Dissipa- tion bounds precision of current response to kinetic per- turbations,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024)

2024
[18]

V. T. Vo, T. Van Vu, and Y. Hasegawa,Unified approach to classical speed limit and thermodynamic uncertainty relation,Phys. Rev. E102(2020)

2020
[19]

Koyuk and U

T. Koyuk and U. Seifert,Thermodynamic uncertainty re- lation for time-dependent driving,Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 260604 (2020)

2020
[20]

H. J. D. Miller, M. H. Mohammady, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and G. Guarnieri,Thermodynamic uncertainty relation in slowly driven quantum heat engines,Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 210603 (2021)

2021
[21]

Hasegawa,Unifying speed limit, thermodynamic un- certainty relation and Heisenberg principle via bulk- boundary correspondence,Nat

Y. Hasegawa,Unifying speed limit, thermodynamic un- certainty relation and Heisenberg principle via bulk- boundary correspondence,Nat. Communications14 (2023)

2023
[22]

Yunoki and Y

H. Yunoki and Y. Hasegawa,Quantum speed limit and quantum thermodynamic uncertainty relation under feed- back control,arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09081 (2025)

2025
[23]

P. P. Potts and P. Samuelsson,Thermodynamic un- certainty relations including measurement and feedback, Phys. Rev. E100, 052137 (2019)

2019
[24]

L´ opez, J

R. L´ opez, J. S. Lim, and K. W. Kim,Optimal super- conducting hybrid machine,Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013038 (2023)

2023
[25]

Taddei and R

F. Taddei and R. Fazio,Thermodynamic uncertainty re- lations for systems with broken time reversal symmetry: The case of superconducting hybrid systems,Phys. Rev. B108, 115422 (2023)

2023
[26]

Manzano and R

G. Manzano and R. L´ opez,Quantum-enhanced perfor- mance in superconducting Andreev reflection engines, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043041 (2023)

2023
[27]

Brandner, T

K. Brandner, T. Hanazato, and K. Saito,Thermo- dynamic bounds on precision in ballistic multiterminal transport,Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 090601 (2018)

2018
[28]

B. K. Agarwalla and D. Segal,Assessing the validity of the thermodynamic uncertainty relation in quantum sys- tems,Phys. Rev. B98, 155438 (2018)

2018
[29]

Ptaszy´ nski,Coherence-enhanced constancy of a quan- tum thermoelectric generator,Phys

K. Ptaszy´ nski,Coherence-enhanced constancy of a quan- tum thermoelectric generator,Phys. Rev. B98(2018)

2018
[30]

Liu and D

J. Liu and D. Segal,Thermodynamic uncertainty relation in quantum thermoelectric junctions,Phys. Rev. E99 (2019)

2019
[31]

L. M. Cangemi, V. Cataudella, G. Benenti, M. Sassetti, and G. De Filippis,Violation of thermodynamics uncer- tainty relations in a periodically driven work-to-work con- verter from weak to strong dissipation,Phys. Rev. B102 (2020)

2020
[32]

K. Liu, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda,Thermodynamic un- certainty relation for arbitrary initial states,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020)

2020
[33]

A. A. S. Kalaee, A. Wacker, and P. P. Potts,Violating the thermodynamic uncertainty relation in the three-level maser,Phys. Rev. E104(2021)

2021
[34]

Menczel, E

P. Menczel, E. Loisa, K. Brandner, and C. Flindt,Ther- modynamic uncertainty relations for coherently driven open quantum systems,Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical54, 314002 (2021)

2021
[35]

Ehrlich and G

T. Ehrlich and G. Schaller,Broadband frequency filters with quantum dot chains,Phys. Rev. B104, 045424 (2021)

2021
[36]

A. M. Timpanaro, G. Guarnieri, and G. T. Landi,Quan- tum thermoelectric transmission functions with minimal current fluctuations,Phys. Rev. B111, 014301 (2025)

2025
[37]

Gerry and D

M. Gerry and D. Segal,Absence and recovery of cost- precision tradeoff relations in quantum transport,Phys. Rev. B105(2022)

2022
[38]

Hasegawa,Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for quantum first-passage processes,Phys

Y. Hasegawa,Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for quantum first-passage processes,Phys. Rev. E105 (2022)

2022
[39]

Guarnieri, G

G. Guarnieri, G. T. Landi, S. R. Clark, and J. Goold, Thermodynamics of precision in quantum nonequilibrium steady states,Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033021 (2019)

2019
[40]

Brandner and K

K. Brandner and K. Saito,Thermodynamic uncertainty relations for coherent transport,Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 046302 (2025)

2025
[41]

Blasi, S

G. Blasi, S. Khandelwal, and G. Haack,Exact finite- time correlation functions for multiterminal setups: Con- necting theoretical frameworks for quantum transport and thermodynamics,Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043091 (2024)

2024
[42]

J. P. Garrahan,Simple bounds on fluctuations and un- certainty relations for first-passage times of counting ob- servables,Phys. Rev. E95(2017)

2017
[43]

Di Terlizzi and M

I. Di Terlizzi and M. Baiesi,Kinetic uncertainty relation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 02LT03 (2018)

2018
[44]

J. Yan, A. Hilfinger, G. Vinnicombe, and J. Paulsson, Kinetic uncertainty relations for the control of stochastic reaction networks,Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019)

2019
[45]

Hiura and S

K. Hiura and S. Sasa,Kinetic uncertainty relation on first-passage time for accumulated current,Phys. Rev. E 103(2021)

2021
[46]

Macieszczak,Ultimate kinetic uncertainty relation and optimal performance of stochastic clocks,arXiv preprint arxiv.2407.09839 (2024)

K. Macieszczak,Ultimate kinetic uncertainty relation and optimal performance of stochastic clocks,arXiv preprint arxiv.2407.09839 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[47]

Van Vu and K

T. Van Vu and K. Saito,Thermodynamics of precision in Markovian open quantum dynamics,Phys. Rev. Lett. 128(2022)

2022
[48]

Van Vu,Fundamental bounds on precision and re- sponse for quantum trajectory observables,PRX Quan- tum6(2025)

T. Van Vu,Fundamental bounds on precision and re- sponse for quantum trajectory observables,PRX Quan- tum6(2025)

2025
[49]

Prech, P

K. Prech, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi,Role of quantum coherence in kinetic uncertainty relations,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025)

2025
[50]

Liu and J

K. Liu and J. Gu,Dynamical activity universally bounds precision of response in Markovian nonequilibrium sys- tems,Communications Physics8(2025)

2025
[51]

Liu and J

K. Liu and J. Gu,Response kinetic uncertainty rela- tion for Markovian open quantum system,arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04895 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[52]

V. T. Vo, T. Van Vu, and Y. Hasegawa,Unified thermo- dynamic–kinetic uncertainty relation,Journal of Physics 7 A: Mathematical and Theoretical55, 405004 (2022)

2022
[53]

Prech, P

K. Prech, P. Johansson, E. Nyholm, G. T. Landi, C. Ver- dozzi, P. Samuelsson, and P. P. Potts,Entanglement and thermokinetic uncertainty relations in coherent meso- scopic transport,Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023155 (2023)

2023
[54]

Palmqvist, L

D. Palmqvist, L. Tesser, and J. Splettstoesser,Com- bining kinetic and thermodynamic uncertainty relations in quantum transport,Quantum Science and Technology 10, 035059 (2025)

2025
[55]

Tesser and J

L. Tesser and J. Splettstoesser,Out-of-equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation bounds,Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 186304 (2024)

2024
[56]

Bourgeois, G

J. Bourgeois, G. Blasi, S. Khandelwal, and G. Haack, Finite-time dynamics of an entanglement engine: cur- rent, fluctuations and kinetic uncertainty relations,En- tropy26, 497 (2024)

2024
[57]

Nishiyama and Y

T. Nishiyama and Y. Hasegawa,Exact solution to quan- tum dynamical activity,Phys. Rev. E109(2024)

2024
[58]

Meir and N

Y. Meir and N. S. Wingreen,Landauer formula for the current through an interacting electron region,Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 2512 (1992)

1992
[59]

Cr´ epieux, T

A. Cr´ epieux, T. Q. Duong, and M. Lavagna,Finite- frequency noise, Fano factor,∆T-noise and cross- correlations in double quantum dots,Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter37, 075302 (2024)

2024
[60]

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 mea- surements and full counting statistics,PRX Quantum5, 020201 (2024)

2024
[61]

G. T. Landi, D. Poletti, and G. Schaller,Nonequilibrium boundary-driven quantum systems: Models, methods, and properties,Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045006 (2022)

2022
[62]

Meier, Y

F. Meier, Y. Minoguchi, G. Blasi, G. Haack, and M. Hu- ber,Exponential gain in clock precision using quantum correlated ticks,(2026), arXiv:2601.10785 [quant-ph]

2026
[63]

Y. M. Blanter and M. B¨ uttiker,Shot noise in mesoscopic conductors,Physics Reports336, 1 (2000)

2000
[64]

D. S. Fisher and P. A. Lee,Relation between conductivity and transmission matrix,Phys. Rev. B23, 6851 (1981)

1981
[65]

L´ opez, R

R. L´ opez, R. Aguado, and G. Platero,Shot noise in strongly correlated double quantum dots,Phys. Rev. B 69, 235305 (2004)

2004
[66]

Balduque and R

J. Balduque and R. S´ anchez,Coherent control of ther- moelectric currents and noise in quantum thermocouples, Phys. Rev. B109, 045429 (2024)

2024
[67]

Palmqvist, L

D. Palmqvist, L. Tesser, and J. Splettstoesser,Kinetic uncertainty relations for quantum transport,Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 166302 (2025)

2025
[68]

Covito, F

F. Covito, F. Eich, R. Tuovinen, M. Sentef, and A. Ru- bio,Transient charge and energy flow in the wide-band limit,Journal of chemical theory and computation14, 2495 (2018)

2018
[69]

Boumrar, M

H. Boumrar, M. Hamidi, H. Zenia, and S. Lounis, Equivalence of wave function matching and Green’s func- tions methods for quantum transport: generalized Fisher– Lee relation,Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter32, 355302 (2020)

2020
[70]

[41, 54, 58, 63–69]

See Supplemental Material, which includes Refs. [41, 54, 58, 63–69]. END MA TTER Proof of equivalence in the weak-coupling regime In this section, we show that the steady-state gener- alized dynamical activity reduces, in the weak-coupling regime, to the jump-rate activity obt...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Jarzynski,Nonequilibrium equality for free energy dif- ferences,Phys

C. Jarzynski,Nonequilibrium equality for free energy dif- ferences,Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2690 (1997)

work page 1997

[2] [2]

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

work page 1999

[3] [3]

Jarzynski,Equalities and inequalities: Irreversibility and the second law of thermodynamics at the nanoscale, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics2, 329 (2011)

C. Jarzynski,Equalities and inequalities: Irreversibility and the second law of thermodynamics at the nanoscale, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics2, 329 (2011)

work page 2011

[4] [4]

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)

work page 2012

[5] [5]

Seifert,From stochastic thermodynamics to thermo- dynamic inference,Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics10, 171–192 (2019)

U. Seifert,From stochastic thermodynamics to thermo- dynamic inference,Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics10, 171–192 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Dechant and S

A. Dechant and S. Sasa,Fluctuation–response inequality out of equilibrium,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 6430–6436 (2020)

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Aslyamov, K

T. Aslyamov, K. Ptaszy´ nski, and M. Esposito,Nonequi- librium fluctuation-response relations: From identities to bounds,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025)

work page 2025

[8] [8]

A. C. Barato and U. Seifert,Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for biomolecular processes,Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 158101 (2015)

work page 2015