Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 127 references

An exactly solvable macroscopic fluctuation theory of single-file diffusion

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single canonical transformation turns the Brownian hard-rod gas into non-interacting point particles, making its macroscopic fluctuation theory exactly solvable.

desk verdict The canonical transformation is the real new thing, and it checks out; the quenched SCGF is the one piece I wouldn't sign off without seeing the derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14073 v1 pith:QDTLOVXS submitted 2026-07-15 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.softmath-phmath.MP

Sandeep Jangid , Soumyabrata Saha , Kapil Sharma , Jitendra Kethepalli , Benjamin Guiselin , Jacopo De Nardis , Tridib Sadhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.softmath-phmath.MP MSC 82C2282C3160F10
keywords Brownianhardrodssingle-filediffusionmacroscopicfluctuationtheorycanonicaltransformationlargedeviationstracerpositionintegratedcurrentannealedandquenchedensembles
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 works with Brownian hard rods, the natural continuum model of single-file diffusion, and tries to show that the macroscopic fluctuation theory (MFT) describing their large-scale fluctuations is exactly solvable. The route is a canonical change of variables from rod coordinates to free-volume point-particle coordinates. With that map, the full large-deviation statistics of the tracer position and integrated current can be written down explicitly in both the annealed and quenched initial ensembles. If correct, continuum single-file systems join the very small class of interacting models for which the entire large-deviation function, not just typical fluctuations, is known exactly. The same transformation extends to lattice exclusion models with finite-size particles, linking them to the standard symmetric exclusion process.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the canonical transformation (13): free-volume coordinate $X = x - a\int_{z(s)}^{x} \rho dx$, renormalized density $r = \rho/(1-a\rho)$, and conjugate response field $\hat{r}$. It maps the BHR action and free energy onto the point-particle MFT exactly. There, the exponential change of variables $Q = r e^{-\hat{r}}, P = e^{\hat{r}}$ turns the MFT equations into linear diffusion equations solved by Gaussian convolution. Observables transform non-trivially: tracer position keeps its functional form in $r$, while integrated current becomes a local-height observable constrained at $Z = a Q_t[r]$ — the source of the extra $a$-terms in (2b).

What would settle it

Measure the SCGFs for Brownian hard rods via rare-event simulation for a specific case (e.g., $a=1$, $\bar\rho_\mp=0.25$) and compare the empirical large-deviation function with the Legendre transform of (2) over a range of $\lambda$; a systematic discrepancy in the curvature or in the predicted $\lambda^{3/2}$ tails would falsify the exactness claim. A second check: simulate both Brownian rods and ballistic hard rods with matched densities and compare the annealed integrated-current SCGF, which the paper predicts to be identical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: the MFT of the Brownian hard-rod gas is exactly solvable through the coordinate-field transformation (13a)-(13c). Under this free-volume map the dynamical action and initial free energy become exactly those of zero-length Brownian particles, rod length absorbed into renormalized densities $\bar r_\mp = \bar\rho_\mp/(1-a\bar\rho_\mp)$. A further exponential change of variables linearizes the point-particle MFT. The SCGFs (2a)-(2d) then give exact large-deviation statistics of tracer position and integrated current in both ensembles, and (5) gives the optimal density trajectory for a prescribed fluctuation. The tracer and current SCGFs differ in rod-length dependence: only the cur

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the canonical transformation (13) being exact at the path-integral level: the spatial boundary term of the kinetic part must vanish at infinity, the noise must transform with no extra stochastic-correction term from the coordinate-dependent rescaling, and the free-energy integrand must reduce to $(r-w)/w$ without residue; if any of these steps acquire corrections, formulas (2) are approximate rather than exact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full large-deviation functions for tracer position and integrated current become available for arbitrary step density profiles, not just typical Gaussian fluctuations.
  • The annealed integrated-current SCGF is predicted to coincide exactly with that of ballistic hard rods, extending a recently observed universality between Brownian and ballistic single-file dynamics.
  • The annealed tracer SCGF has finite support, while the current SCGFs and the quenched tracer SCGF display λ^{3/2} tails, giving quantitatively distinct far-tail statistics.
  • The same canonical transformation solves the annealed tracer and current statistics for multi-site exclusion processes by reducing them to the symmetric simple exclusion process, including a previously open integrated-current result.
  • Optimal density trajectories are explicit at all intermediate times, not only at initial and final times, so the route by which the system produces a rare fluctuation can be visualized and quantitatively described.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same transformation may yield explicit multi-time and conditional statistics in the Brownian setting, since the map effectively linearizes the MFT equations; the paper points toward but does not prove this.
  • Because optimal trajectories are now given at every intermediate time, they become measurable in colloidal-rod experiments: record the density profile of a channel conditioned on a large tracer displacement and compare with (5).
  • For multi-site exclusion in the quenched ensemble, the paper's explicit results stop at the uniform half-filled case; closing that gap likely requires a quenched local-height SCGF for the symmetric simple exclusion process at arbitrary density.
  • The predicted equality of annealed integrated-current statistics between Brownian and ballistic rods suggests that the MFT may exhibit universality across different microscopic dynamics for other observables as well; this is a testable conjecture rather than a proven result.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims to solve the macroscopic fluctuation theory (MFT) of a one-dimensional gas of Brownian hard rods (BHR) exactly, through a canonical transformation that maps the BHR onto point particles. The central results are closed-form expressions for the scaled cumulant-generating functions (SCGFs) of the tracer position and the integrated current, in both annealed and quenched ensembles (Eqs. (2a)-(2d)), together with explicit optimal density trajectories (Eqs. (5a)-(5c)). The construction is based on a free-volume coordinate transformation (13), which the supplement shows maps the BHR action, initial free energy, and observables onto those of the point-particle limit. The paper also extends the method to finite-size lattice exclusion processes (multi-site SEP) and validates the formulas with rare-event simulations.

Significance. If the central formulas are correct, this is a substantial advance: it provides one of the few fully explicit MFT solutions for a continuum single-file model, going beyond the handful of previously solved lattice cases. The derivation of the canonical transformation in the supplement is careful and internally consistent: the action mapping, the free-energy transform, the noise convention, and the observable maps all pass direct check. The agreement with importance-sampling simulations for both ensembles and observables is a genuine strength, and the formulas contain no fitted parameters. The main weakness is that the point-particle SCGF χ — in particular the quenched expression χ_Q — is asserted rather than derived in this paper; the supplement stops short of evaluating the saddle-point action. Because all quenched results in (2) and (5) depend on χ_Q, this is a load-bearing gap that needs to be closed or precisely traced to prior work.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eqs. (2c)-(2d); Supplement §3.a] The SCGFs χ_A and χ_Q are the building blocks of the main results, but their derivation is not included. The Cole-Hopf solution (64)-(68) gives the optimal fields r and ˆr, yet the action integral that would produce (2c)-(2d) is never evaluated. This is most consequential for the quenched expression (2d), which is quoted from the literature: all quenched SCGFs (2a)-(2b), the variance relations (E.13), and the optimal profiles (5b) inherit its correctness. Please add a self-contained derivation of (2c)-(2d) in the supplement, or if they are taken from [66], state the precise theorem/equation there and explicitly verify that the renormalized densities and the H(u) convention coincide. Without this, the exact-solvability claim for the quenched ensemble cannot be checked from the manuscript.
  2. [Eqs. (2a)-(2b)] The SCGFs are defined through extrema over (ξ,B), but the paper does not address uniqueness or the identification of the physical branch. The later discussion of exponential tails (λ^{3/2}) and the finite support of μ_tp_A indicates non-trivial λ-dependence; a spurious stationary point could change the result. Since the Legendre transform is used to produce the large-deviation functions in Fig. 2, an argument for the convexity of (2a)-(2b) in λ, or at least a statement that the extremum is a maximum, is needed for the claim of a complete explicit computation. The numerical checks cover a limited region and do not rule out multiple stationary points.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1)] As printed, μ_A and μ_Q are identical: both are written as (1/√t) ln −̅{e^{λ O_t}}. Please fix the typesetting to distinguish the annealed average −̅{⟨e^{λ O_t}⟩} from the quenched average −̅{ln ⟨e^{λ O_t}⟩}, or otherwise clarify the placement of the disorder average.
  2. [Point-particle mapping] The notation Ṣ_t[ρ] for the transformed observable is not defined in the Letter; it appears as 'Ṣ_t' in the sentence 'O_t[ρ] ≡ Ṣ_t[r]'. Please define it (e.g., τ̃ O_t) and use it consistently, as in the supplement.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption lists parameters and ensembles but does not clearly identify which curve in panels (c) and (d) is annealed versus quenched. The text mentions upper/lower panels, but the caption should state it explicitly.
  4. [End Matter, SSTEP] The claimed coincidence of the annealed integrated-current SCGF with the Hamiltonian hard-rod result [84] is stated without demonstration. A one-sentence indication of how it follows from (2b)-(2c) and the cited work would help the reader assess this connection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BHR-to-point-particle mapping is derived in the Supplement, and the point-particle SCGF χ is an independent, simulation-validated input rather than a fitted or self-defined output.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The canonical transformation (Letter eq. 13; Supplement §1.a, §3.a) is derived directly from the fluctuating hydrodynamic equation (Supplement eqs. 9–14) and from the MSRJD action (Supplement eqs. 51–58), with the boundary term (55) vanishing because fields become time-independent constants at spatial infinity, and the free-energy functional transforming exactly to (58). The BHR SCGFs (2a,2b) are then expressed through the point-particle local-height SCGF χ, which is an earlier result for the a→0 model; the renormalized densities r∓ = ρ∓/(1−aρ∓) are derived from the coordinate map (Supplement eq. 3), not fitted. The a-dependent shift in (2b) arises from the nontrivial mapping of the integrated-current to a local-height observable (Supplement eqs. 20, 23), not from a renaming. No parameter is tuned to the target data: the rare-event simulations in Fig. 2 are external checks with fixed parameters (a=1, ρ̄=0.25). The self-citations [58,84] for the duality/coordinate map are not load-bearing because the transformation is re-derived in the Supplement. A minor provenance gap is that the quenched point-particle χ_Q (2d) is stated without evaluating the action integral in the Supplement (the Cole–Hopf solution (64)–(68) gives optimal trajectories but not the SCGF itself); this is a missing-derivation/correctness risk for the input, not a circular reduction, and the final prediction is independently supported by the simulation comparison.

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

The paper's argument introduces no fitted parameters: the theory is determined by the physical rod length a (set to 1 in the numerics), the densities ρ̄±, and the fugacity λ; the auxiliary variables ξ(λ), B(λ) are determined by the stated saddle-point equations, not tuned. The genuinely 'invented' object is the transformation (13c), which carries the whole derivation's weight and is therefore listed as an ad-hoc axiom. The quenched reduction and the imported χ functions are the other load-bearing premises. Counts: 0 free parameters, 4 axioms, 0 invented entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The BHR dynamics at macroscopic scales is described by the fluctuating hydrodynamics (6) with D(ρ)=(1−aρ)^{-2}, σ(ρ)=2ρ, and the MSRJD action (7) with √t weight, whose saddle point dominates the generating function (11).
    Standard MFT hypothesis (Bertini et al. [40], Spohn [81]). Load-bearing because the claim of 'exactly solvable' is at the MFT level, not a derivation from the microscopic rod model.
  • ad hoc to paper The canonical transformation (13a)-(13c) maps the BHR MFT action exactly onto the point-particle action S_0 (Supplement (57)): kinetic term with boundary term (55) vanishing at ±∞, free energy (45)→(58) exactly, noise η_ρ = η_r/√(1+ar).
    The transformation is the paper's central construction; the response-field form (13c) is the specific new ansatz whose exactness is the load-bearing premise. Verified only at the continuum-action level.
  • domain assumption The point-particle local-height SCGF χ in (2c)/(2d) is imported from prior results (Derrida–Gerschenfeld [66], Imamura–Mallick–Sasamoto [27]) and the authors' recent duality work [58] rather than re-derived in the visible text.
    The BHR SCGFs (2) are expressed entirely through χ; if χ is misapplied at the renormalized densities r̄∓, results (2a)-(2d) fail. The provenance of the quenched form (2d) is the least explicit.
  • domain assumption In the quenched ensemble, the average over initial configurations reduces to the fixed average profile ρ̄ with F_a = 0 ('the smooth logarithmic function ... selects contributions only from around the average initial profile').
    Standard in the field (Krapivsky–Mallick–Sadhu [70]) but load-bearing for the μ_Q results; justification is compressed into one sentence in the Letter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An exactly solvable macroscopic fluctuation theory of single-file diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QDTLOVXS

@misc{pith2026260714073,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An exactly solvable macroscopic fluctuation theory of single-file diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QDTLOVXS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14073}
}
read the original abstract

Single-file diffusion is a ubiquitous phenomenon in low-dimensional systems, arising in transport inside narrow channels. Its natural continuum model is a one-dimensional gas of extended Brownian hard rods (BHR). Perhaps owing to the perceived intractability of this problem, much of the literature has traditionally focused on lattice exclusion models, where integrability methods have yielded remarkable, albeit limited, exact results. A major recent advance comes from a formal solution of macroscopic fluctuation theory (MFT) for the exclusion process. Yet, despite the formal solution, only a handful of properties have been made explicit. We show that the corresponding MFT of the extended BHR gas is in fact exactly solvable through a canonical transformation. We demonstrate this by explicit computation of the large-deviation statistics of the tracer-position and integrated-current in both annealed and quenched ensembles. We further show that an analogous canonical transformation applies to the MFT of lattice gases with finite-volume exclusion, yielding corresponding tracer and current statistics. We validate our results using rare-event simulations for both the continuum and the lattice models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14073 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic trajectories of Brownian hard rods (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a,b) LDFs for (a) tracer-position and (b) integrated-current, defined by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [66]

    Sadhu and B

    T. Sadhu and B. Derrida, J. Stat. Mech.2015, P09008 (2015)

    2015

  2. [1]

    A. L. Hodgkin and R. D. Keynes, J. Physiol.128, 61–88 (1955)

    1955

  3. [2]

    Classical and Quantum Dynam- ics in Out-of-Equilibrium Systems,

    The local-heighth (Z) t at time tand positionZmeasures the excess of the integrated- current through the origin up to timetover the number of particles contained between0andZat timet[27, 75]. Thestrikinglysimilarstructures(2)ofthetracer-position and integrated-current SCGFs reflect their common con- nectiontothislocal-heightobservable[59,74]. InFigs.2a an...

    2025

  4. [3]

    B. W. Urban and S. B. Hladky, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 554, 410–429 (1979)

    1979

  5. [4]

    Gupta, S

    V. Gupta, S. S. Nivarthi, A. V. McCormick, and H. Ted Davis, Chem. Phys. Lett.247, 596 (1995)

    1995

  6. [5]

    Kulka, J

    V. Kulka, J. Kornatowski, D. Demuth, I. Girnus, H. Pfeifer, L. V. C. Rees, S. Schunk, K. K. Unger, and J. K¨ rger, Science272, 702–704 (1996)

    1996

  7. [6]

    K. Hahn, J. Kärger, and V. Kukla, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 2762 (1996)

    1996

  8. [7]

    Cheng and C

    C. Cheng and C. R. Bowers, ChemPhysChem8, 2077–2081 (2007)

Show all 127 references
  1. [8]

    Dvoyashkin, H

    M. Dvoyashkin, H. Bhase, N. Mirnazari, S. Vasenkov, and C. R. Bowers, Anal. Chem.86, 2200–2204 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    Pagliara, S

    S. Pagliara, S. L. Dettmer, and U. F. Keyser, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 048102 (2014)

    2014

  3. [10]

    Q. Wei, C. Bechinger, and P. Leiderer, Science287, 625–627 (2000)

    2000

  4. [11]

    C. Lutz, M. Kollmann, and C. Bechinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 026001 (2004)

    2004

  5. [12]

    B. Lin, M. Meron, B. Cui, S. A. Rice, and H. Diamant, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 216001 (2005)

    2005

  6. [13]

    Locatelli, M

    E. Locatelli, M. Pierno, F. Baldovin, E. Orlandini, Y. Tan, and S. Pagliara, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 038001 (2016)

    2016

  7. [14]

    Hummer, J

    G. Hummer, J. Rasaiah, and J. Noworyta, Nature414, 188–190 (2001)

    2001

  8. [15]

    Berezhkovskii and G

    A. Berezhkovskii and G. Hummer, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 064503 (2002)

    2002

  9. [16]

    A. Das, S. Jayanthi, H. S. M. V. Deepak, K. V. Ra- manathan, A. Kumar, C. Dasgupta, and A. K. Sood, ACS Nano4, 1687–1695 (2010)

    2010

  10. [17]

    P. L. Krapivsky, K. Mallick, and T. Sadhu, J. Stat. Mech.2015, P09007 (2015)

    2015

  11. [18]

    Dandekar, P

    R. Dandekar, P. L. Krapivsky, and K. Mallick, Phys. Rev. E107, 044129 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Poncet, A

    A. Poncet, A. Grabsch, P. Illien, and O. Bénichou, Phys. 6 Rev. Lett.127, 220601 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    Leibovich and E

    N. Leibovich and E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. E88, 032107 (2013)

    2013

  14. [21]

    Poncet, O

    A. Poncet, O. Bénichou, and P. Illien, Phys. Rev. E103, L040103 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    Poncet, A

    A. Poncet, A. Grabsch, and O. Bénichou, arXiv , 2505.21446 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    T. E. Harris, J. Appl. Probab.2, 323–338 (1965)

    1965

  17. [24]

    D. W. Jepsen, J. Math. Phys.6, 405–413 (1965)

    1965

  18. [25]

    Kollmann, Phys

    M. Kollmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 180602 (2003)

    2003

  19. [26]

    P. L. Krapivsky, K. Mallick, and T. Sadhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 078101 (2014)

    2014

  20. [27]

    Hegde, S

    C. Hegde, S. Sabhapandit, and A. Dhar, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 120601 (2014)

    2014

  21. [28]

    Imamura, K

    T. Imamura, K. Mallick, and T. Sasamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 160601 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    Grabsch, P

    A. Grabsch, P. Rizkallah, P. Illien, and O. Bénichou, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 020402 (2023)

    2023

  23. [30]

    Imamura and T

    T. Imamura and T. Sasamoto, J. Stat. Phys.128, 799–846 (2007)

    2007

  24. [31]

    Grabsch, A

    A. Grabsch, A. Poncet, P. Rizkallah, P. Illien, and O. Bénichou, Sci. Adv.8, eabm5043 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    R.RajeshandS.N.Majumdar,Phys.Rev.E64,036103 (2001)

    2001

  26. [33]

    Cividini, A

    J. Cividini, A. Kundu, S. N. Majumdar, and D. Mukamel, J. Stat. Mech.2016, 053212 (2016)

    2016

  27. [34]

    Santra, P

    S. Santra, P. Singh, and A. Kundu, J. Stat. Mech.2024, 063204 (2024)

    2024

  28. [35]

    Lizana and T

    L. Lizana and T. Ambjörnsson, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 200601 (2008)

    2008

  29. [36]

    Barkai and R

    E. Barkai and R. Silbey, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 050602 (2009)

    2009

  30. [37]

    L.Touzo, P.LeDoussal,andG.Schehr,EPL142,61004 (2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    Bertini, A

    L. Bertini, A. De Sole, D. Gabrielli, G. Jona-Lasinio, and C. Landim, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 040601 (2001)

    2001

  32. [39]

    Bertini, A

    L. Bertini, A. De Sole, D. Gabrielli, G. Jona-Lasinio, and C. Landim, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 030601 (2005)

    2005

  33. [40]

    Derrida, J

    B. Derrida, J. Stat. Mech.2007, P07023 (2007)

    2007

  34. [41]

    Bertini, A

    L. Bertini, A. De Sole, D. Gabrielli, G. Jona-Lasinio, and C. Landim, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 593 (2015)

    2015

  35. [42]

    Tailleur, J

    J. Tailleur, J. Kurchan, and V. Lecomte, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 150602 (2007)

    2007

  36. [43]

    Y. Baek, Y. Kafri, and V. Lecomte, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 030604 (2017)

    2017

  37. [44]

    Mallick, H

    K. Mallick, H. Moriya, and T. Sasamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 040601 (2022)

    2022

  38. [45]

    Agranov, M

    T. Agranov, M. E. Cates, and R. L. Jack, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 017102 (2023)

    2023

  39. [46]

    Schütz and S

    G. Schütz and S. Sandow, Phys. Rev. E49, 2726 (1994)

    1994

  40. [47]

    Schönherr and G

    G. Schönherr and G. Schütz, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37, 8215 (2004)

    2004

  41. [48]

    Appert-Rolland, B

    C. Appert-Rolland, B. Derrida, V. Lecomte, and F. van Wijland, Phys. Rev. E78, 021122 (2008)

    2008

  42. [49]

    Derrida, J

    B. Derrida, J. L. Lebowitz, and E. R. Speer, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 150601 (2001)

    2001

  43. [50]

    Derrida and A

    B. Derrida and A. Gerschenfeld, J. Stat. Phys.136, 1–15 (2009)

    2009

  44. [51]

    Gorissen, A

    M. Gorissen, A. Lazarescu, K. Mallick, and C. Van- derzande, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 170601 (2012)

    2012

  45. [52]

    Derrida, O

    B. Derrida, O. Hirschberg, and T. Sadhu, J. Stat. Phys. 182, 15 (2021)

    2021

  46. [53]

    Saha and T

    S. Saha and T. Sadhu, SciPost Phys.17, 033 (2024)

    2024

  47. [54]

    Grabsch, H

    A. Grabsch, H. Moriya, K. Mallick, T. Sasamoto, and O. Bénichou, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 117102 (2024)

    2024

  48. [55]

    Saha and T

    S. Saha and T. Sadhu, arXiv , 2501.03164v2 (2026)

    2026

  49. [56]

    Sharma, S

    K. Sharma, S. Saha, S. Jangid, and T. Sadhu, Phys. Rev. E113, L052101 (2026)

    2026

  50. [57]

    S. Saha, S. Jangid, K. Sharma, and T. Sadhu, arXiv , 2605.26069 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Cambré, B

    S. Cambré, B. Schoeters, S. Luyckx, E. Goovaerts, and W. Wenseleers, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 207401 (2010)

    2010

  52. [59]

    S. Saha, J. Kethepalli, B. Guiselin, J. De Nardis, and T. Sadhu, arXiv , 2604.24741 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Mallick, H

    K. Mallick, H. Moriya, and T. Sasamoto, J. Stat. Mech. 2024, 074001 (2024)

    2024

  54. [61]

    Banerjee, R

    T. Banerjee, R. L. Jack, and M. E. Cates, Phys. Rev. E 106, L062101 (2022)

    2022

  55. [62]

    Grabsch, T

    A. Grabsch, T. Berlioz, P. Rizkallah, P. Illien, and O. Bénichou, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 037102 (2024)

    2024

  56. [63]

    Berlioz, O

    T. Berlioz, O. Bénichou, and A. Grabsch, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 247101 (2025)

    2025

  57. [64]

    Grabsch, D

    A. Grabsch, D. Venturelli, and O. Bénichou, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 137102 (2025)

    2025

  58. [65]

    D. G. Levitt, Phys. Rev. A8, 3050 (1973)

    1973

  59. [67]

    Derrida and A

    B. Derrida and A. Gerschenfeld, J. Stat. Phys.137, 978–1000 (2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    P. L. Krapivsky and B. Meerson, Phys. Rev. E86, 031106 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    D. S. Dean, S. N. Majumdar, and G. Schehr, J. Stat. Mech.2023, 063208 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    L.Lizana, M.A.Lomholt,andT.Ambjörnsson,Physica A395, 148–153 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    P. L. Krapivsky, K. Mallick, and T. Sadhu, J. Stat. Phys.160, 885–925 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    Rana and T

    J. Rana and T. Sadhu, Phys. Rev. E107, L012101 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    A. K. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. E89, 052103 (2014)

    2014

  66. [74]

    Y. R. Yerrababu, S. N. Majumdar, B. Guiselin, and T. Sadhu, Phys. Rev. E113, 064104 (2026)

    2026

  67. [75]

    See Supplemental Materials for details

  68. [76]

    Schütz, J

    G. Schütz, J. Stat. Phys.86, 1265–1287 (1997)

    1997

  69. [77]

    Rizkallah, A

    P. Rizkallah, A. Grabsch, P. Illien, and O. Bénichou, J. Stat. Mech.2023, 013202 (2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    D. J. Evans, E. G. D. Cohen, and G. P. Morriss, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 2401 (1993)

    1993

  71. [79]

    Gallavotti and E

    G. Gallavotti and E. G. D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 2694 (1995)

    1995

  72. [80]

    Kurchan, J

    J. Kurchan, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.31, 3719 (1998)

    1998

  73. [81]

    J. L. Lebowitz and H. Spohn, J. Stat. Phys.95, 333–365 (1999)

    1999

  74. [82]

    Spohn,Large Scale Dynamics of Interacting Parti- cles, 1st ed

    H. Spohn,Large Scale Dynamics of Interacting Parti- cles, 1st ed. (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991)

    1991

  75. [83]

    Grabsch, D

    A. Grabsch, D. Venturelli, and O. Bénichou, Phys. Rev. E113, 054128 (2026)

    2026

  76. [84]

    S. Saha, S. Jangid, T. A. de Pirey, J. U. Klamser, and T. Sadhu, arXiv , 2601.02319 (2026)

    2026

  77. [85]

    Kethepalli, A

    J. Kethepalli, A. Urilyon, T. Sadhu, and J. De Nardis, SciPost Phys.20, 105 (2026)

    2026

  78. [86]

    Meerson and P

    B. Meerson and P. V. Sasorov, Phys. Rev. E89, 010101 (2014)

    2014

  79. [87]

    Barkai and S

    E. Barkai and S. Burov, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 060603 (2020)

    2020

  80. [88]

    A.KrajenbrinkandP.LeDoussal,Phys.Rev.Lett.127, 064101 (2021)

    2021

  81. [89]

    Bettelheim, N

    E. Bettelheim, N. R. Smith, and B. Meerson, Phys. Rev. 7 Lett.128, 130602 (2022)

    2022

  82. [90]

    Bettelheim and B

    E. Bettelheim and B. Meerson, Phys. Rev. E110, 014101 (2024)

    2024

  83. [91]

    Krajenbrink and P

    A. Krajenbrink and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. E113, 014114 (2026)

    2026

  84. [92]

    P. C. Martin, E. D. Siggia, and H. A. Rose, Phys. Rev. A8, 423 (1973)

    1973

  85. [93]

    H. K. Janssen, Z. Physik B23, 377–380 (1976)

    1976

  86. [94]

    De Dominicis, J

    C. De Dominicis, J. Phys. Colloques37, C1 (1976)

    1976

  87. [95]

    De Dominicis and L

    C. De Dominicis and L. Peliti, Phys. Rev. B18, 353 (1978)

    1978

  88. [96]

    Doyon, F

    B. Doyon, F. Hübner, and T. Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 251602 (2024)

    2024

  89. [97]

    Doyon and F

    B. Doyon and F. Hübner, J. Stat. Mech.2026, 043103 (2026)

    2026

  90. [98]

    Urilyon, L

    A. Urilyon, L. Biagetti, J. Kethepalli, and J. De Nardis, Phys. Rev. B113, 014314 (2026)

    2026

  91. [99]

    C. T. MacDonald, J. H. Gibbs, and A. C. Pipkin, Biopolymers6, 1–25 (1968)

    1968

  92. [100]

    C. T. MacDonald and J. H. Gibbs, Biopolymers7, 707–725 (1969)

    1969

  93. [101]

    Lakatos and T

    G. Lakatos and T. Chou, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.36, 2027 (2003)

    2027

  94. [102]

    L. B. Shaw, R. K. P. Zia, and K. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. E 68, 021910 (2003)

    2003

  95. [103]

    Schönherr, Phys

    G. Schönherr, Phys. Rev. E71, 026122 (2005)

    2005

  96. [104]

    S.Gupta, M.Barma, U.Basu,andP.K.Mohanty,Phys. Rev. E84, 041102 (2011)

    2011

  97. [105]

    P. L. Krapivsky, J. Stat. Mech.2013, P06012 (2013)

    2013

  98. [106]

    Bertini, A

    L. Bertini, A. De Sole, D. Gabrielli, G. Jona-Lasinio, and C. Landim, J. Stat. Phys.135, 857–872 (2009)

    2009

  99. [107]

    Sadhu and B

    T. Sadhu and B. Derrida, J. Stat. Mech.2016, 113202 (2016)

    2016

  100. [108]

    P. E. Rouse Jr., J. Chem. Phys.21, 1272–1280 (1953)

    1953

  101. [109]

    D. Lips, A. Ryabov, and P. Maass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 160601 (2018)

    2018

  102. [110]

    S. B. Yuste, A. Baumgaertner, and E. Abad, J. Chem. Phys.162, 224114 (2025)

    2025

  103. [111]

    P. L. Krapivsky, K. Mallick, and T. Sadhu, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.48, 015005 (2015)

    2015

  104. [112]

    Derrida and T

    B. Derrida and T. Sadhu, J. Stat. Phys.177, 151–182 (2019)

    2019

  105. [113]

    Derrida, SciPost Phys

    B. Derrida, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 106 (2025)

    2025

  106. [114]

    Mallick, Physica A418, 17–48 (2015)

    K. Mallick, Physica A418, 17–48 (2015)

    2015

  107. [115]

    S. N. Majumdar and M. Barma, Phys. Rev. B44, 5306 (1991)

    1991

  108. [116]

    J. Krug, H. Kallabis, S. N. Majumdar, S. J. Cornell, A. J. Bray, and C. Sire, Phys. Rev. E56, 2702 (1997)

    1997

  109. [117]

    Giardinà, J

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

    2006

  110. [118]

    V.LecomteandJ.Tailleur,J.Stat.Mech.2007,P03004 (2007)

    2007

  111. [119]

    Sabhapandit, J

    S. Sabhapandit, J. Stat. Mech.2007, L05002 (2007). End Matter Local-height statistics In theLetter, we analyzed the tracer-position and integrated-current. Here, we extend our results to the local-height observable for both ensembles of the BHR that appeared in the context of ...

    2007

  112. [120]

    Transformation of the fluctuating hydrodynamic equation 2 1.b

    The point-particle mapping 1 1.a. Transformation of the fluctuating hydrodynamic equation 2 1.b. Transformation of observables 3

  113. [121]

    Local-height statistics in the BHR 4 2.b

    The relation between local-height and tracer-position 3 2.a. Local-height statistics in the BHR 4 2.b. Tracer-position and integrated-current statistics from the local-height SCGF 5

  114. [122]

    A canonical transformation of the hydrodynamic fields 6

    Solving the MFT equations of the BHR 5 3.a. A canonical transformation of the hydrodynamic fields 6

  115. [123]

    Cumulants for non-equilibrium initial conditions 7

  116. [124]

    THE POINT-PARTICLE MAPPING We use the free-volume coordinate centered on the tracer, defined as X(x, s) =x−a Z x z(s) dy ρ(y, s)(1) The Jacobian of the free-volume coordinate transformation is given by the spatial derivative ∂xX= 1−aρ(x, s)(2) which yieldsdX= (1−aρ)dx. The con...

  117. [125]

    THE RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL-HEIGHT AND TRACER-POSITION The tracer-position (implicitly defined in (15)) follows from the local-height implicitly zt[ρ] =Z⇔h (Z) t [ρ] = 0(24) 4 The LDF governing the local-height fluctuations is defined as P h(Z) t√ t =κ ≍e − √ tϕlh(ζ,κ) (25) whe...

  118. [126]

    A canonical transformation of the hydrodynamic fields Solving these MFT equations is undoubtedly difficult

    SOLVING THE MFT EQUATIONS OF THE BHR The MFT equations govern the optimal evolution of the hydrodynamic fields which are obtained from the saddle- point computation of the generating function of an observable eλOt = Z D[ρ,ˆρ]eλOt[ρ]− √ t(Fa[ρ(x,0)]+Sa[ρ,ˆρ]).(44) For the BHR, ...

  119. [127]

    CUMULANTS FOR NON-EQUILIBRIUM INITIAL CONDITIONS The mean value of the tracer-position is zt √ t =ξ 0,(75) 8 whereξ 0 is the solution of ξ0 = ¯r− −¯r+ ¯r+ Z ∞ ξ0 du H(u).(76) Similarly, the mean value of the integrated-current is Qt √ t =j 0,(77) wherej 0 is the solution of j0...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.