Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Numerical Estimation of Limiting Large-Deviation Rate Functions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that limiting large-deviation rate functions can be estimated without histograms and without committing to one sampling algorithm, by combining multi-histogram reweighting with power-law extrapolation in system size.

desk verdict Useful methods paper for large-deviation rate functions, with honest validation, but the parametric LF transform has an internal consistency issue that needs attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04206 v1 pith:EWCHOZ4Y submitted 2024-12-05 physics.data-an cond-mat.stat-mech

Peter Werner , Alexander K. Hartmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.data-ancond-mat.stat-mech PACS 05.10.-a02.50.-r
keywords largedeviationsratefunctionrareeventsimportancesamplingmulti-histogramreweightingscaledcumulantgeneratingfinite-sizescalingErdős–Rényirandomgraphs
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

Rare events are exponentially unlikely, so estimating their probabilities requires specialized sampling, and numerical estimates are always made at finite system size. This paper demonstrates a recipe that estimates the infinite-size rate function—the exponential decay rate of those probabilities—without ever building a histogram and without tying the user to one rare-event algorithm. The recipe combines multi-histogram reweighting of biased samples with a power-law extrapolation in system size, then applies a Legendre-Fenchel transform to the extrapolated scaled cumulant generating function. Tests on a binomial variable and on the largest connected component of Erdős–Rényi random graphs reproduce the known exact rate functions, except where a phase transition in the biased ensemble breaks the assumed scaling and leaves a gap in the estimate.

What carries the argument

The machine is a four-step chain. Step one is exponentially biased sampling: for each bias value $q$, data are drawn from the tilted distribution $\tilde p(S;N,q)\propto p(S;N)e^{qS}$. Step two is histogram-free multi-histogram reweighting, which recombines all biased data to estimate $\langle e^{qS}\rangle_{p(S;N)}$ and the tilted mean $\mu(q;N)=\langle S\rangle_{\tilde p}/N$ at any $q$. Step three is a per-$q$ power-law fit $g(N;q)=C(q)+A(q)N^{-B(q)}$ that extrapolates both $\Psi(q;N)$ and $\mu(q;N)$ to $N=\infty$. Step four is the parametric Legendre-Fenchel transform $I(\mu(q))=q\mu(q)-\Psi(q)$, which converts each extrapolated pair into one point of the rate function with arbitrary density in $s$. The load-bearing identity is $\Psi'(q)=\mu(q)$, which makes the transform parametric and avoids solving a supremum for every $s$.

What would settle it

Run the identical pipeline on the binomial model with $r(N)=r_\infty+c/\ln N$, where the exact finite-size and limiting rate functions are known analytically and the finite-size correction is logarithmic rather than power-law. If the power-law extrapolation returns a rate function that deviates from the exact one by more than the propagated errors, the general claim fails; if it still converges, the power-law requirement is weaker than the paper assumes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the limiting rate function $I(s)$ can be obtained from finite-size biased samples through the chain: estimate the scaled cumulant generating function $\Psi(q;N)$ and its derivative $\mu(q;N)$ at many bias values $q$ via histogram-free reweighting; fit each to a power law $C(q)+A(q)N^{-B(q)}$; take $C(q)$ as the $N\to\infty$ value; and evaluate the parametric Legendre-Fenchel transform $I(\mu(q))=q\mu(q)-\Psi(q)$. Because the reweighting is done on raw data points rather than binned data, the resolution in $s$ is limited only by the number of $q$ values and by how well the biased samples cover the support. The binomial test and the Erdős–Rényi random graph test show agreement with exact analytical rate functions when the power-law scaling holds. At connectivity $c=0.5$, a biased-ensemble phase transition near $q\approx0.317$ produces a double-peaked distribution, the power-law fit breaks down, and the estimated rate function acquires a gap; at $c=2.0$, the transform correctly returns the convex envelope but not concave parts of the rate function.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme depends on the assumption that the finite-size corrections of the two extrapolated quantities shrink as a power of the system size; the paper gives no general proof of this and shows a case where it breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No binning is needed: the resolution of the estimated rate function is set by the number of bias values $q$, so any region of $s$ can be refined with extra $q$ values rather than new histograms.
  • The power-law extrapolation separates finite-size effects from the limiting result, so the returned rate function describes $N\to\infty$ rather than the largest simulated system.
  • Because the reweighting step consumes only raw data points, any algorithm that generates exponentially biased samples can feed the same post-processing pipeline.
  • The paper's error-propagation formulas turn the final rate function into an estimate with variances, so output can be quoted with confidence intervals.
  • A biased-ensemble phase transition is a detectable failure mode: the power-law fit deteriorates exactly where the reweighted distribution becomes bimodal, so the affected range of $q$ can be identified and excluded.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the power-law assumption holds for a new model, the same pipeline should apply to any intensive observable satisfying a large-deviation principle, such as time-averaged currents in driven lattice gases, because the reweighting step never uses the model's dynamics.
  • The failure at biased-ensemble phase transitions could be turned into a diagnostic: a double-peaked reweighted distribution at some $q$ warns that the power-law fit at that $q$ will not extrapolate, so the gap could be forecast before fitting.
  • Since the Legendre-Fenchel transform always returns the convex envelope, the method cannot see concave regions of a non-convex rate function; combining it with a direct extrapolation of empirical rate functions would separate true concavity from numerical failure.
  • The error propagation currently ignores the correlation between $\mu(q)$ and $\Psi(q)$; accounting for that correlation is a straightforward extension that should tighten the quoted error bars, especially near the transition.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a numerical method to estimate infinite-size large-deviation rate functions from finite-size simulation data. The method combines biased importance sampling with multi-histogram (Ferrenberg–Swendsen) reweighting to compute the scaled cumulant generating function (SCGF) and its derivative, the tilted mean, as functions of the bias parameter q. These finite-size quantities are then extrapolated to the thermodynamic limit using a power-law fit (Eq. 13), and the rate function is obtained via a parametric Legendre–Fenchel transform (Eq. 14). The approach is demonstrated on a scale-dependent binomial model and on the largest connected component of Erdős–Rényi random graphs at connectivities c = 0.5 and c = 2.0, with comparisons to exact analytical rate functions. The paper also derives a detailed error-propagation scheme for the reweighted estimators in Appendix B.

Significance. If valid, the method gives a generally applicable, histogram-free route to limiting rate functions with propagated statistical errors, provided finite-size scaling of the form of Eq. (13) holds. The paper's strengths include the use of two nontrivial benchmark systems with known analytical solutions, the derivation of error-propagation formulas for the reweighted estimators, and the honest report of failures at biased-ensemble phase transitions and in non-convex regimes. The central methodological assumption—the power-law extrapolation—is clearly stated and its breakdown is demonstrated in one of the test cases, which is informative rather than hidden. However, the validity of the parametric Legendre–Fenchel step rests on an internal consistency condition between the separately extrapolated SCGF and tilted mean that is not checked or enforced in the paper.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II C, Eq. (14)] The parametric Legendre–Fenchel transform in Eq. (14) is only equivalent to the true Legendre–Fenchel transform if the extrapolated μ(q) equals the derivative of the extrapolated Ψ(q). The paper fits μ(q;N) and Ψ(q;N) independently via Eq. (13). If the exponent B(q) is q-dependent, the derivative of a power-law SCGF contains a logarithmic correction term of the form −A(q)B′(q) ln N · N^{−B(q)}, which is not a pure power law. Hence the separate power-law fit for μ is misspecified unless B(q) is constant, and the extrapolated values will not generally satisfy the relation μ(q)=Ψ′(q). In that case, Eq. (14) does not compute the supremum in Eq. (6), and the resulting I(s) is not the convex envelope of the extrapolated SCGF. The paper explicitly ignores the correlation between μ and Ψ in the error propagation (Section II C), so the quoted error bars do not include this systematic inconsistency. The binomial example may not expose the problem because there B(q) is effectively constant, but for generic systems, especially the ER graphs, B(q) is expected to vary. The authors should either enforce consistency (e.g., derive μ from a single fit of Ψ or fit μ and Ψ jointly) or provide a quantitative argument that the inconsistency is negligible in the cases studied.
  2. [Section III B, Eq. (13)] The power-law scaling ansatz in Eq. (13) is adopted without derivation, and the paper itself shows a clear breakdown in the ER c=0.5 case around q≈0.317, where a biased-ensemble phase transition produces a double-peaked distribution (Fig. 5 inset) and makes the power-law fit unreliable (Fig. 6), leading to a gap in the estimated rate function (Fig. 7). No diagnostic is provided to detect such a breakdown when no analytical solution is available. This weakens the claim of 'rather general applicability' of the method: a practitioner applying it to a new system has no way to know whether the extrapolation is trustworthy. The authors should discuss concrete checks, such as comparing fits obtained from different subsets of system sizes, examining the residuals of the fit, or using a model-selection criterion to test the adequacy of the power-law form.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II C, after Eq. (12)] The phrase 'Ψ (s; N is readily obtained' should read 'Ψ(q;N) is readily obtained'.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'the larges connected component' should be 'the largest connected component'.
  3. [Section IV] The phrase 'a a rather large statistical error estimate' contains a doubled article; it should read 'a rather large statistical error estimate'.
  4. [Section II A, Eq. (4)] The condition 'with b(s) ≥ 0' is written on the same line as the equation; consider placing it on a separate line for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the target rate function is never used as a fit input, and analytical results serve only as external validation benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a methodology: combine biased rare-event sampling with multi-histogram reweighting, power-law finite-size extrapolation of the SCGF and tilted mean (Eq. 13), and a parametric Legendre-Fenchel transform (Eq. 14) to estimate limiting rate functions. The target rate function I(s) is never used to fit any parameter; the analytical solutions for the binomial model and the Erdős-Rényi largest component are used only as external benchmarks for comparison. The power-law ansatz in Eq. (13) is explicitly stated as an assumption ('There is no a-priory argument, why a power law is an appropriate choice in all cases'), not derived from or fitted to the target result. The paper's self-citations ([5], [21], [22], [23]) supply the sampling algorithms and prior applications; they are inputs to the numerical experiments, not evidence for the extrapolation claim, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The paper also openly reports limitations: a biased-ensemble phase transition at q ≈ 0.317 for c = 0.5 breaks the power-law scaling and creates a gap in the estimated rate function, and the error propagation for Eq. (14) ignores the correlation between μ(q) and Ψ(q). These are correctness and robustness concerns, not circularity. The skeptic attack regarding q-dependent B(q) would imply a possible misspecification of the independent extrapolations, but the fitted quantities are simulation data, not the claimed rate function, so the output is not equivalent to the input by construction. No equation in the derivation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main burden is the ad hoc power-law extrapolation; the other assumptions are standard large-deviation and statistical mechanics background. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Finite-size extrapolation parameters A(q), B(q), C(q) for SCGF and mu = not reported, fit per q
    For each bias q, Eq. (13) is fitted to simulation data; the limiting SCGF and tilted mean, and thus the rate function, depend on these fitted values.
  • Binomial test model parameters r_infinity, c, gamma = 0.25, 7.4, 1
    Hand-chosen for the synthetic binomial test to create N-dependent drift; not fitted to the analytical target, but they define the test case rather than the method.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The quantity S obeys a large-deviation principle p(s;N) asymptotically exp(-N I(s)) (Eq. 1).
    Required for the rate function to exist and for the Gartner-Ellis transform to be applied.
  • standard math Gartner-Ellis theorem: I(s) = sup_q [q s - Psi(q)] (Eq. 6).
    Underlying mathematical result; yields only the convex envelope if the SCGF is non-convex, as the paper notes.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite-size corrections follow g(N;q) = C(q) + A(q) N^{-B(q)} (Eq. 13).
    The load-bearing modeling assumption; no a priori justification is given, and it is shown to fail near biased-ensemble phase transitions.
  • domain assumption Sampled data points are uncorrelated (Section II C).
    Error propagation in Appendix B assumes uncorrelated samples with a common variance per bias value.
  • standard math Self-consistent reweighting normalization constants f_q from Eq. (11) converge under iteration.
    Standard Ferrenberg-Swendsen approach; assumed to converge for the chosen bias spacings.
  • domain assumption Importance sampling for ER graphs as in Ref. [5] produces samples from the tilted distribution Eq. (7).
    The pipeline relies on the external biased sampling algorithm being unbiased and correct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical Estimation of Limiting Large-Deviation Rate Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWCHOZ4Y

@misc{pith2026241204206,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical Estimation of Limiting Large-Deviation Rate Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWCHOZ4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04206}
}
read the original abstract

For statistics of rare events in systems obeying a large-deviation principle, the rate function is a key quantity. When numerically estimating the rate function one is always restricted to finite system sizes. Thus, if the interest is in the limiting rate function for infinite system sizes, first, several system sizes have to be studied numerically. Here, rare-event algorithms using biased ensembles give access to the low-probability region. Second, some kind of system-size extrapolation has to be performed. Here we demonstrate how rare-event importance sampling schemes can be combined with multi-histogram reweighting, which allows for rather general applicability of the approach, independent of specific sampling algorithms. We study two ways of performing the system-size extrapolation, either directly acting on the empirical rate functions, or on the scaled cumulant generating functions, to obtain the infinite-size limit. The presented method is demonstrated for a binomial distributed variable and the largest connected component in Erd\"os-R\'enyi random graphs. Analytical solutions are available in both cases for direct comparison. It is observed in particular that phase transitions appearing in the biased ensembles can lead to systematic deviations from the true result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04206 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Normalized binomial distributions with scale de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Biased binomial distribution ˜p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Comparison of the exact analytical rate function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: figure 5. This causes a different scaling behavior, making [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. For connectivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Infinite system size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of the analytical rate function in Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Plot of the analytical rate function, the directly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    den Hollander, Large Deviations (American Mathe- matical Society, Providence, 2000)

    F. den Hollander, Large Deviations (American Mathe- matical Society, Providence, 2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Touchette, Physics Reports 478, 1 (2009)

    H. Touchette, Physics Reports 478, 1 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    A basic introduction to large devi- ations: Theory, applications, simulations,

    H. Touchette, “A basic introduction to large devi- ations: Theory, applications, simulations,” (2012), arXiv:1106.4146 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Engel, R

    A. Engel, R. Monasson, and A. K. Hartmann, Journal of Statistical Physics 117, 387 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    A. K. Hartmann, Eur. Phys. J. B 84, 627 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    A. K. Hartmann, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 226, 567 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Giardin` a, J

    C. Giardin` a, J. Kurchan, and L. Peliti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 120603 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Lecomte and J

    V. Lecomte and J. Tailleur, Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment 2007, P03004 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Guevara Hidalgo, T

    E. Guevara Hidalgo, T. Nemoto, and V. Lecomte, Phys. Rev. E 95, 062134 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    K¨ orner, H

    M. K¨ orner, H. G. Katzgraber, and A. K. Hartmann, J. Stat. Mech. 2006, P04005 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    C´ erou and A

    F. C´ erou and A. Guyader, Stochastic Anal- ysis and Applications 25, 417 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1080/07362990601139628

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    Agranov, P

    T. Agranov, P. Zilber, N. R. Smith, T. Admon, Y. Roich- man, and B. Meerson, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013174 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    A. K. Hartmann, S. N. Majumdar, and A. Rosso, Phys. Rev. E 88, 022119 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    A. K. Hartmann and B. Meerson, Phys. Rev. E 109, 014146 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    N. R. Smith and S. N. Majumdar, Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2022, 053212 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Staffeldt and A

    W. Staffeldt and A. K. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. E 100, 062301 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    A. K. Hartmann, P. L. Doussal, S. N. Majumdar, A. Rosso, and G. Schehr, Europhys. Lett. 121, 67004 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    A. K. Hartmann, B. Meerson, and P. Sasorov, Phys. Rev. Research 1, 032043 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    A. K. Hartmann, A. Krajenbrink, and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. E 101, 012134 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    N. R. Smith, Phys. Rev. E 106, L042202 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    A. K. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. E 89, 052103 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Werner and A

    P. Werner and A. K. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. E 104, 034407 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Werner, A

    P. Werner, A. K. Hartmann, and S. N. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. E 110, 024115 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    J. A. Bucklew, Introduction to rare event simulation (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Bouchet, J

    F. Bouchet, J. Rolland, and J. Wouters, Chaos 29, 080402 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Tailleur and V

    J. Tailleur and V. Lecomte, AIP Conference Proceedings 1091, 212 (2009), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article- pdf/1091/1/212/11954017/212 1 online.pdf

    2009

  19. [27]

    Br´ ehier, Latin American journal of probability and mathematical statistics 12 (2015)

    C.-E. Br´ ehier, Latin American journal of probability and mathematical statistics 12 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    C´ erou, A

    F. C´ erou, A. Guyader, and M. Rousset, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 29, 043108 (2019), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/cha/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5082247/14620716/043108 1 online.pdf

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Coghi and H

    F. Coghi and H. Touchette, Phys. Rev. E 107, 034137 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Hartmann, O

    C. Hartmann, O. Kebiri, L. Neureither, and L. Richter, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 29, 063107 (2019), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/cha/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5090271/13534861/063107 1 online.pdf

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Grafke and E

    T. Grafke and E. Vanden-Eijnden, Chaos 29, 063118 (2019), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/cha/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5084025/13536944/063118 1 online.pdf

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Alqahtani and T

    M. Alqahtani and T. Grafke, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical 54, 175001 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Glasserman and Y

    P. Glasserman and Y. Wang, The Annals of Applied Probability 7, 731 (1997)

    1997

  26. [34]

    A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2635 (1988)

    1988

  27. [35]

    A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1195 (1989)

    1989

  28. [36]

    Kumar, J

    S. Kumar, J. M. Rosenberg, D. Bouzida, R. H. Swendsen, and P. A. Kollman, J. Comp. Chem. 13, 1011 (1992)

    1992

  29. [37]

    A. M. Ferrenberg, D. P. Landau, and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. E 51, 5092 (1995)

    1995

  30. [38]

    Bereau and R

    T. Bereau and R. H. Swendsen, J. Comp. Phys. 228, 6119 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Nemoto, E

    T. Nemoto, E. Guevara Hidalgo, and V. Lecomte, Phys. Rev. E 95, 012102 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    E. G. Hidalgo, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2018, 083211 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Edelman, A

    A. Edelman, A. Guionnet, and S. P´ ech´ e, The Annals of Applied Probability 26, 1659 (2016). 11

    2016

  34. [42]

    P. G. Bolhuis, D. Chandler, C. Dellago, and P. L. Geissler, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 53, 291 (2002), pMID: 11972010

    2002

  35. [43]

    A. K. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. E 65, 056102 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    growth factors

    and for importance-sampling estimators in [33]. With the approach explained above, µ(q, N ) can be obtained for basically any desired value of q. Thus, we turn now to the determination of Ψ (q; N ), which can be written as 1 N ln eqS p(S;N ). By comparing with Eq. (10) we obse...

  37. [45]

    C. M. Rohwer, F. Angeletti, and H. Touchette, Phys. Rev. E 92, 052104 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Bhamidi, J

    S. Bhamidi, J. Hannig, C. Y. Lee, and J. Nolen, Elec- tronic Journal of Probability 20, 1 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Peliti and S

    L. Peliti and S. Pigolotti, Stochastic Thermodynamics: An Introduction (Princeton University Press, 2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    O’Connell, Probability Theory and Related Fields 110, 277 (1998)

    N. O’Connell, Probability Theory and Related Fields 110, 277 (1998)

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.