REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 72 references
Active particles in moving traps: minimum work protocols and information efficiency of work extraction
T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Minimum-work dragging of an active particle is open-loop passive; one measurement per cycle converts activity into extracted work at efficiency up to $1/(4\ln 2)$.
desk verdict Solid exact results on active-particle control, but the 'universal' information-efficiency bound depends on a demon-temperature assumption the paper states but does not justify. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The argument is carried by a variational cost functional over mean trajectories, $W[\langle x\rangle_\alpha]$, together with the Euler-Lagrange equation $\langle \ddot x\rangle_\alpha=\tfrac{1}{2}\langle \dot v\rangle_\alpha$ that fixes the closed-loop optimum. Activity enters only through the mean self-propulsion $\langle v(t)\rangle_\alpha=v_0e^{-t/\tau}$, which is identical for run-and-tumble and active Ornstein-Uhlenbeck particles under the matching $D_v/\tau=\omega^2$; hence the optimal protocols are model-independent at the level of first moments. The closed-loop benefit is carried by the effective distance $d_{v_0}=\lambda_f-v_0/(k+1/\tau)-\tfrac{\tau v_0}{2}(1-e^{-t_f/\tau})$, whose squared term represents the boundary cost, balanced against two extraction terms, and by the nonnegative excess-work identity $\Delta w\ge 0$ that becomes Eq. (62) in the presence of measurement noise.
What would settle it
In a feedback-trap experiment on a run-and-tumble or active Ornstein-Uhlenbeck particle, measure the mean work extracted per engine cycle as a function of measurement error $\epsilon$: Eqs. (62) and (80) predict a strict $(\omega^2-\epsilon^2)$ dependence with zero extraction at $\epsilon=\omega$, so observing extraction beyond $\epsilon=\omega$ — or a demon whose measurement cost is set by the thermal temperature rather than $D_v$ — would falsify the central claim.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that the elementary task of dragging an active particle in a harmonic trap has exact optimal-control solutions that differ sharply between open- and closed-loop operation. Minimizing the average external work $$\langle W\rangle_\$\alpha$=\tfrac{k}{2}[(\$\lambda$-\langle x\rangle_\$\alpha$)^2]$_0^{{t_f}}$+\$int_0^{{t_f}}$dt\,(\langle \dot x\rangle_\$alpha^{2}$-\langle \dot x\rangle_\$\alpha$\langle v\rangle_\$\alpha$)$$ over trap-center protocols with fixed endpoints, the open-loop minimizer is the passive-particle protocol with symmetric jumps, so activity does not change the average cost but increases the work variance. If the controller first measures the initial self-propulsion $v_0$, the optimal protocol acquires linear and exponential pieces with asymmetric jumps, and the measurement-averaged work becomes $\langle W\rangle_{ss}-\tau\omega^2\Delta w$ with $\Delta w\ge 0$, so the information lowers the external work for finite persistence time and, under Gaussian measurement error $\epsilon$, remains beneficial for $\epsilon<\omega$. Applied periodically with a re-optimized target, the protocol extracts $(\omega^2-\epsilon^2)\tau\Delta w_{\rm engine}$ per cycle; dividing by the information-acquisition cost $D_v I$ gives an information efficiency bounded by $1/(4\ln 2)$, with run-and-tumble particles approaching the bound in the quasistatic, zero-error limit because their discrete self-propulsion costs only one bit of information, whereas the Gaussian AOUP cost diverges as $\epsilon\to 0$.
Load-bearing premise
The efficiency bound assumes the information-gathering step is priced by the strength of the particle's self-propulsion noise rather than by the ordinary heat-bath temperature, and that the controller pays only external work; if either premise gives way, the quoted work reduction and the $1/(4\ln 2)$ bound change.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Without feedback, activity buys nothing on average: the cheapest open-loop protocol and its mean work are the passive ones, so the only signature of activity is increased work fluctuations.
- With a single self-propulsion measurement, the average external work is reduced whenever the measurement error stays below the self-propulsion amplitude, and the reduction is largest at a finite persistence time; neither passive nor ballistic particles benefit.
- The periodic information engine extracts work from self-propulsion for any nonzero measurement outcome, with mean extraction $(\omega^2-\epsilon^2)\tau\Delta w_{\rm engine}$ per cycle, and the run-and-tumble version has higher information efficiency than the active Ornstein-Uhlenbeck version.
- Because only first moments enter the cost functional, the optimal protocols coincide for RTPs and AOUPs; non-Gaussianity shows up in the work distribution shape and in the information cost rather than in the protocol.
- If the cost functional is extended to include the internal dissipation of the active particle, self-propulsion measurements no longer reduce the total work; instead, a finite dragging time minimizes the total cost.
Reading between the lines
- The one-bit saturation of the run-and-tumble information cost suggests that any active particle with discrete self-propulsion states will beat Gaussian swimmers in information efficiency at low measurement error, not just the RTP studied here.
- The same Euler-Lagrange machinery could be applied to protocols with time-dependent trap stiffness or with more than one measurement per cycle; the paper's closing remarks point toward such machines exceeding the $1/(4\ln 2)$ bound.
- If the measurement cost is set by the ordinary thermal temperature rather than by $D_v$, the numerical efficiencies and the quoted bound change, but the qualitative RTP-over-AOUP ordering is likely to survive because it stems from the one-bit saturation of the RTP mutual information.
- Because the mean-work predictions depend only on first moments, any active model with the same conditional mean dynamics should exhibit the same optimal protocols, which is a direct, testable robustness prediction across models.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This manuscript studies the finite-time dragging of a harmonically trapped active particle in one dimension, comparing an Active Ornstein-Uhlenbeck particle (AOUP) and a run-and-tumble particle (RTP). The authors derive exact optimal trap-motion protocols for open-loop control and for closed-loop control based on a single initial measurement of the self-propulsion. They show that the open-loop optimal protocol and mean work coincide with the passive-particle result, while activity increases work fluctuations; that a self-propulsion measurement reduces the mean external work by an amount proportional to (omega^2 - epsilon^2) tau Delta w (Eq. (62)); and that the resulting active information engine has higher information efficiency for RTPs than for AOUPs, with a claimed upper bound eta <= 1/(4 ln 2) (Eq. (84)). An alternative cost functional that includes internal dissipation is analyzed in Sec. VI, where the closed-loop advantage disappears.
Significance. The analytic treatment is a clear strength: the Euler-Lagrange optimization, the work-variance computation, the measurement-uncertainty correction, and the total-work functional are all developed in closed form, with simulations supporting the work distributions. If the assumptions are accepted, the paper provides exact reference results for optimal control of active matter and a concrete demonstration that finite persistence time is beneficial under feedback. The main caveat is that the universal efficiency bound and the quoted efficiencies depend on assigning the information-acquisition cost a temperature T=Dv; this assumption is not derived from the model. The qualitative RTP-over-AOUP ordering may survive, but the quantitative headline result needs adjustment or justification.
major comments (2)
- [Sec. IV D, Eq. (63); Sec. V D, Eqs. (82), (84)] The information-efficiency bound Eq. (84) rests on the assumption made in Sec. IV D that the demon operates at temperature T=Dv, so that the information-acquisition cost is Dv I[vm_0; vr_0]. This is an extra modeling assumption, not a consequence of the dynamics: the heat bath in Eq. (2) has temperature D, and the measurement device is not part of the model. The choice is consequential. If Dv is replaced by D in Eq. (82), the small-error RTP efficiency becomes eta_RTP approximately (tau omega^2 Delta w_engine)/(D ln 2), while eta_AOUP tends to 0 because I_AOUP diverges; for fixed large tau omega^2/D, eta_RTP can exceed 1/(4 ln 2). The paper should either justify T=Dv from a physical model of the measurement process or present Eq. (84) as a convention-dependent expression rather than a universal bound. In particular, the numerical efficiencies in Fig. 7 and the headline bound are not robust to this choice.
- [Abstract and Sec. VI] The closed-loop reduction in Eq. (62) and the engine work extraction in Eq. (80) are computed for the external-work functional W_ext. Section VI shows that the total-work functional W_ext+int leads to an optimal closed-loop work that is independent of the self-propulsion measurement (Eq. (93)), so the measurement advantage is not a property of the total energy cost. The abstract and conclusion should consistently state that the closed-loop benefit and the information engine refer to external work, because the paper's own Sec. VI is presented as a qualification rather than as part of the main claims.
minor comments (4)
- [Sec. II and throughout] The notation Dv for the active-noise coefficient is easily misread as the product D times v; please use D_v or another unambiguous symbol.
- [Sec. V B, Eq. (76)] The quantity xvn used for cycles n>0 is defined only in App. C; the main text should state at least briefly that xvn is the expected initial position given the partially relaxed measurement, so the reader is not forced to consult the appendix.
- [Sec. V D, Fig. 7] The comparison in Fig. 7 is presented as eta/Delta w_engine, which removes the model-dependent factor; this normalization is important and should be explained in the main text near the figure reference as well as in the caption.
- [Sec. V D, Eq. (84)] The derivation of the upper bound uses Delta w_engine <= 1/4 and I_RTP >= ln 2; these two facts are stated nearby but should be assembled explicitly in the text preceding Eq. (84) so the bound is transparent.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the optimal protocols, closed-loop work reduction, and the information-efficiency bound are derived from the stated model equations and explicit assumptions, not fitted to the target conclusions.
full rationale
The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The open-loop protocol (Sec. III A) is obtained by minimizing the exact average-work functional with ⟨v⟩_ss = 0, giving the same Euler-Lagrange solution as the passive case; this is a derived equivalence, not an assumed one. The closed-loop protocols (Secs. IV A-B) follow from the same variational problem in the conditional and partial-conditional ensembles, and the average work reduction, Eq. (62), is an exact algebraic consequence of the Gaussian measurement-error model in Eq. (B1) and the protocol in Eq. (59). No parameter is fitted to the quantities being predicted. The information efficiency, Eq. (82), is defined using the explicitly stated modeling assumption that the demon operates at temperature T = Dv (Sec. IV D); the resulting bound η ≤ 1/(4 ln 2), Eq. (84), is a mathematical consequence of that definition together with Δw_engine ≤ 1/4 and I_RTP → ln 2. Whether the T = Dv identification is physically appropriate is a modeling/correctness question, not a circularity, because the assumption is disclosed and the bound is derived from the paper's own definitions rather than imported from a self-citation or constructed by definitional sleight of hand. The companion paper [1] is cited only as a summary of results, while the full derivations appear in this manuscript, so the self-citation is not load-bearing.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption The particle follows overdamped Langevin dynamics with a harmonic trap (Eqs. (1)-(3)).
- domain assumption At t=0 the system is in the steady state of the uncontrolled dynamics.
- domain assumption Measurement error is Gaussian with variance ε^2 (Eq. (B1)).
- ad hoc to paper The information acquisition cost is Dv I, i.e., the demon operates at temperature T = Dv (Sec. IV D).
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Active particles in moving traps: minimum work protocols and information efficiency of work extraction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TGCVUHDY
@misc{pith2026250118613,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Active particles in moving traps: minimum work protocols and information efficiency of work extraction},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TGCVUHDY}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18613}
}
read the original abstract
We revisit the elementary problem of moving a particle in a harmonic trap in finite time with minimal work cost, and extend it to the case of an active particle. By comparing the Gaussian case of an Active Ornstein-Uhlenbeck particle and the non-Gaussian run-and-tumble particle, we establish general principles for thermodynamically optimal control of active matter beyond specific models. We show that the open-loop optimal protocols, which do not incorporate system-state information, are identical to those of passive particles but result in larger work fluctuations due to activity. In contrast, closed-loop (or feedback) control with a single (initial) measurement changes the optimal protocol and reduces the average work relative to the open-loop control for small enough measurement errors. Minimum work is achieved by particles with finite persistence time. As an application, we propose an active information engine which extracts work from self-propulsion. This periodic engine achieves higher information efficiency with run-and-tumble particles than with active Ornstein-Uhlenbeck particles. Complementing a companion paper that gives only the main results [arXiv:2407.18542], here we provide a full account of our theoretical calculations and simulation results. We include derivations of optimal protocols, work variance, impact of measurement uncertainty, and information-acquisition costs.
Figures
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Optimal protocol The optimal protocol can be derived from the previous results by using the relationship between the conditional and partial conditional ensembles (see Sec. II C). Specifi- cally, a measurement of v provides information about the average initial position ⟨x(0)⟩v0 = xv0 = v0/(k + 1/τ ), as described by Eq. (18). Together with the law of tot...
-
[2]
This is illustrated in the bottom panels of Fig
Work per measurement The initial jump is energetically costly in general, but it sets up the protocol to enable transient work extraction during the drive. This is illustrated in the bottom panels of Fig. 2(a), which shows the cumulative work up to time t ≤ tf ⟨W (t)⟩v0 = Z t 0 dt′ ˙λv0 (t′) λv0 (t′) − ⟨x(t′)⟩v0 . (46) The cumulative work exhibits positiv...
-
[3]
Work averaged over measurements Averaging over the measurement outcomes v0, we find that the average work of the closed-loop protocol in Eq. (44b) is Ev0 ⟨W ⟩v0 = − kω2 2(k + 1/τ )2 − 1 8 τ ω2 1 − e−2tf/τ + λ2 f + 1 4 ω2 2 k+1/τ + τ (1 − e−tf/τ ) 2 tf + 2/k . (49) We decompose the average work into a contribution that also arises for open-loop control, i....
-
[4]
Optimal persistence time τ An intriguing consequence of the equal limits in Eq. (53) is the existence of a persistence time τ that minimizes the average work 0 < τ∗ = argmin τ Ev0 ⟨W ⟩v0 < ∞ . (54) The optimal τ ∗ is finite for finite k and tf and results in a pronounced minimum in Ev0[⟨W ⟩v0 ], as visible in Fig. 3. Figure 4(a) illustrates the optimal pe...
-
[5]
of the measure- ment outcome vm 0 conditioned on the true value vr 0 is a normal distribution with variance ϵ2 centered at the true value vr
-
[6]
In App. B 1, we discuss the new ensemble ⟨•⟩vr 0,vm 0 in further detail and calculate the joint distribu- tion P (vm 0 , vr
-
[7]
We now consider the case where the controller applies the protocol λv0 in Eq
for AOUPs and RTPs. We now consider the case where the controller applies the protocol λv0 in Eq. (44b) based on the measurement outcome vm 0 instead of the real value vr
-
[8]
[14, 19], but we do not consider this here
If the controller has additional knowledge about the measurement uncer- tainty, it is possible to further reduce the energetic cost by adjusting the protocol to the level of uncertainty, as discussed in Refs. [14, 19], but we do not consider this here. 11 The protocol that the controller applies is λm(t) := vm 0 k + 1/τ + dm vm 0 tf + 2/k t + τ vm 0 2 (1 ...
Show all 72 references
-
[9]
controller
and as a re- sult I[x0; vm 0 |vr 0] = 0. It follows that the lower bound to the information acquisition cost is DvI[vm 0 ; vr 0]. To evaluate I[vm 0 ; vr 0] for AOUPs and RTPs, we insert into Eq. (63) the joint and marginalized probability den- sities [stated in App. B 1, see ...
-
[10]
We assumed that the measured value vm 0 given the true value vr 0 is normal distributed around the true value with error ϵ2 P (vm 0 |vr
Probability density function of the true and the measured system state In the main text, we introduced the quantities vr 0 and vm 0 to denote the true and measured values of v(0), re- spectively. We assumed that the measured value vm 0 given the true value vr 0 is normal distr...
-
[11]
(B1) Here and in the following, we use an index to specify the random variable of a normal density, i.e., NX (Y, ϵ2) = 1√ 2πϵ e−(X−Y )2/(2ϵ2)
= Nvm 0 (vr 0, ϵ2) . (B1) Here and in the following, we use an index to specify the random variable of a normal density, i.e., NX (Y, ϵ2) = 1√ 2πϵ e−(X−Y )2/(2ϵ2) . (B2) This allowed us to introduce the corresponding ensemble ⟨•⟩vr 0,vm 0 . The total average over initial condi...
-
[12]
(B3) We calculate the joint density P (vm 0 , vr
-
[13]
The true values vr 0 are distributed according to the (pre-measurement) steady-state densities, P (vr 0), which are different for AOUPs and RTPs
for both AOUPs and RTPs in the following. The true values vr 0 are distributed according to the (pre-measurement) steady-state densities, P (vr 0), which are different for AOUPs and RTPs. For AOUPs, the self- propulsion is normal-distributed, P (vr
-
[14]
(B2) to specify the density of a normal random variable X
= Nvr 0 (0, ω2), with ω2 = Dv/τ , where we make use of the notation NX (Y, ϵ2) in Eq. (B2) to specify the density of a normal random variable X. Accordingly, the joint probability 20 density of the self-propulsion and its measurement out- come is P (vr 0, vm 0 ) = P (vr 0)P (v...
-
[15]
= 1 2 [δ(vr 0 + ω) + δ(vr 0 − ω)] . (B6) Following the same steps as for AOUPs, the joint proba- bility density for RTPs is P (vr 0, vm 0 ) = P (vr 0)P (vm 0 |vr 0) = 1 2 Nvm 0 (vr 0, ϵ2)[δ(vr 0 + ω) + δ(vr 0 − ω)] , (B7) and the marginalized probability density of the measure...
-
[16]
The explicit expression for this increased aver- age work was given in Eq
Calculation of the additional work input due to the presence of measurement uncertainty Executing the protocol λm from Eq.(59) incurs addi- tional energetic costs compared to the optimal protocol in Eq.(44), as a direct consequence of measurement un- certainty. The explicit ex...
-
[17]
(B1) we find Evr 0,vm 0 [(vm 0 )2] = Evr 0 [(vr 0)2 + ϵ2] = ω2 + ϵ2
in Eq. (B1) we find Evr 0,vm 0 [(vm 0 )2] = Evr 0 [(vr 0)2 + ϵ2] = ω2 + ϵ2 . (B16) As a result, we can obtain Evr 0,vm 0 [⟨W ⟩m vr 0,vm 0 ] from Ev0 [⟨W ⟩v0 ] given in Eq. (50) by substituting ω2 → ω2 + ϵ2, i.e., Evr 0,vm 0 [⟨W ⟩m vr 0,vm 0 ] = ⟨W ⟩ss − (ω2 + ϵ2)τ ∆w . (B17) W...
-
[18]
Optimal closed-loop con- trol of active particles and a minimal information en- gine,
Rosalba Garcia-Millan, Janik Sch¨ uttler, Michael E Cates, and Sarah AM Loos, “Optimal closed-loop con- trol of active particles and a minimal information en- gine,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18542 (2024)
2024 arXiv
-
[19]
Optimal finite-time pro- cesses in stochastic thermodynamics,
Tim Schmiedl and Udo Seifert, “Optimal finite-time pro- cesses in stochastic thermodynamics,” Physical Review Letters 98, 108301 (2007)
2007
-
[20]
Optimal control in stochastic thermodynamics,
Steven Blaber and David A Sivak, “Optimal control in stochastic thermodynamics,” Journal of Physics Commu- nications 7, 033001 (2023)
2023
-
[21]
Optimal control of nonequilibrium systems through au- tomatic differentiation,
Megan C Engel, Jamie A Smith, and Michael P Brenner, “Optimal control of nonequilibrium systems through au- tomatic differentiation,” Physical Review X 13, 041032 (2023)
2023
-
[22]
Demon in the machine: learning to extract work and absorb entropy from fluctuating nanosystems,
Stephen Whitelam, “Demon in the machine: learning to extract work and absorb entropy from fluctuating nanosystems,” Physical Review X 13, 021005 (2023)
2023
-
[23]
Universal symmetry of optimal con- trol at the microscale,
Sarah A. M. Loos, Samuel Monter, Felix Ginot, and Clemens Bechinger, “Universal symmetry of optimal con- trol at the microscale,” Physical Review X 14, 021032 (2024)
2024
-
[24]
Beyond lin- 23 ear response: Equivalence between thermodynamic ge- ometry and optimal transport,
Adrianne Zhong and Michael R DeWeese, “Beyond lin- 23 ear response: Equivalence between thermodynamic ge- ometry and optimal transport,” Physical Review Letters 133, 057102 (2024)
2024
-
[25]
Limited- control optimal protocols arbitrarily far from equilib- rium,
Adrianne Zhong and Michael R DeWeese, “Limited- control optimal protocols arbitrarily far from equilib- rium,” Physical Review E 106, 044135 (2022)
2022
-
[26]
Steps minimize dissipation in rapidly driven stochastic systems,
Steven Blaber, Miranda D Louwerse, and David A Sivak, “Steps minimize dissipation in rapidly driven stochastic systems,” Physical Review E 104, L022101 (2021)
2021
-
[27]
Active matter under control: Insights from response theory,
Luke K Davis, Karel Proesmans, and ´Etienne Fodor, “Active matter under control: Insights from response theory,” Physical Review X 14, 011012 (2024)
2024
-
[28]
Smooth control of active matter,
Sarah AM Loos, “Smooth control of active matter,” Physics 17, 20 (2024)
2024
-
[29]
Learning pro- tocols for the fast and efficient control of active matter,
Corneel Casert and Stephen Whitelam, “Learning pro- tocols for the fast and efficient control of active matter,” Nature Communications 15, 9128 (2024)
2024
-
[30]
Efficient control protocols for an active Ornstein- Uhlenbeck particle,
Deepak Gupta, Sabine HL Klapp, and David A Sivak, “Efficient control protocols for an active Ornstein- Uhlenbeck particle,” Physical Review E 108, 024117 (2023)
2023
-
[31]
Op- timal power extraction from active particles with hidden states,
Luca Cocconi, Jacob Knight, and Connor Roberts, “Op- timal power extraction from active particles with hidden states,” Physical Review Letters 131, 188301 (2023)
2023
-
[32]
Efficiency of an au- tonomous, dynamic information engine operating on a single active particle,
Luca Cocconi and Letian Chen, “Efficiency of an au- tonomous, dynamic information engine operating on a single active particle,” Physical Review E 110, 014602 (2024)
2024
-
[33]
Control of active Brownian particles: An exact solution,
Marco Baldovin, David Gu´ ery-Odelin, and Emmanuel Trizac, “Control of active Brownian particles: An exact solution,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 118302 (2023)
2023
-
[34]
Experiments in stochastic thermody- namics: Short history and perspectives,
Sergio Ciliberto, “Experiments in stochastic thermody- namics: Short history and perspectives,” Physical Re- view X 7, 021051 (2017)
2017
-
[35]
Feedback for physicists: A tutorial essay on control,
John Bechhoefer, “Feedback for physicists: A tutorial essay on control,” Reviews of modern physics 77, 783– 836 (2005)
2005
-
[36]
Extracting work from a single heat bath through feedback,
David Abreu and Udo Seifert, “Extracting work from a single heat bath through feedback,” Europhysics Letters 94, 10001 (2011)
2011
-
[37]
Maximizing power and velocity of an information engine,
Tushar K Saha, Joseph NE Lucero, Jannik Ehrich, David A Sivak, and John Bechhoefer, “Maximizing power and velocity of an information engine,” Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2023356118 (2021)
2021
-
[38]
Thermodynamics of information,
Juan MR Parrondo, Jordan M Horowitz, and Takahiro Sagawa, “Thermodynamics of information,” Nature Physics 11, 131–139 (2015)
2015
-
[39]
In- formation engine in a nonequilibrium bath,
Tushar K Saha, Jannik Ehrich, Momˇ cilo Gavrilov, Su- sanne Still, David A Sivak, and John Bechhoefer, “In- formation engine in a nonequilibrium bath,” Physical Re- view Letters 131, 057101 (2023)
2023
-
[40]
A micrometre- sized heat engine operating between bacterial reservoirs,
Sudeesh Krishnamurthy, Subho Ghosh, Dipankar Chat- terji, Rajesh Ganapathy, and AK Sood, “A micrometre- sized heat engine operating between bacterial reservoirs,” Nature Physics 12, 1134–1138 (2016)
2016
-
[41]
Active Brownian heat engines,
Viktor Holubec, Stefano Steffenoni, Gianmaria Falasco, and Klaus Kroy, “Active Brownian heat engines,” Phys- ical Review Research 2, 043262 (2020)
2020
-
[42]
Active engines: Thermodynamics moves forward,
´Etienne Fodor and Michael E Cates, “Active engines: Thermodynamics moves forward,” Europhysics Letters 134, 10003 (2021)
2021
-
[43]
Efficiency of isothermal active matter engines: Strong driving beats weak driving,
Thomas Speck, “Efficiency of isothermal active matter engines: Strong driving beats weak driving,” Physical Review E 105, L012601 (2022)
2022
-
[44]
Stochastic stirling engine oper- ating in contact with active baths,
Ruben Zakine, Alexandre Solon, Todd Gingrich, and Fr´ ed´ eric Van Wijland, “Stochastic stirling engine oper- ating in contact with active baths,” Entropy 19, 193 (2017)
2017
-
[45]
Single active particle engine utilizing a nonreciprocal coupling between particle position and self-propulsion,
Grzegorz Szamel, “Single active particle engine utilizing a nonreciprocal coupling between particle position and self-propulsion,” Physical Review E 102, 042605 (2020)
2020
-
[46]
Szilard engines and information-based work extraction for active systems,
Paolo Malgaretti and Holger Stark, “Szilard engines and information-based work extraction for active systems,” Physical Review Letters 129, 228005 (2022)
2022
-
[47]
Generalized Jarzynski equality under nonequilibrium feedback con- trol,
Takahiro Sagawa and Masahito Ueda, “Generalized Jarzynski equality under nonequilibrium feedback con- trol,” Physical Review Letters 104, 090602 (2010)
2010
-
[48]
42 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)
Solomon Kullback, John C Keegel, and Joseph H Kull- back, Topics in Statistical Information Theory, Vol. 42 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)
2013
-
[49]
Thermodynamics of feed- back controlled systems,
Francisco J Cao and M Feito, “Thermodynamics of feed- back controlled systems,” Physical Review E 79, 041118 (2009)
2009
-
[50]
Strategies for chemotaxis,
M Schnitzer, S Block, H Berg, and Purcell E, “Strategies for chemotaxis,” Biology of the Chemotactic Response 46, 15 (1990)
1990
-
[51]
Theory of continuum random walks and application to chemotaxis,
Mark J Schnitzer, “Theory of continuum random walks and application to chemotaxis,” Physical Review E 48, 2553 (1993)
1993
-
[52]
Optimal steering of a smart active particle,
Elias Schneider and Holger Stark, “Optimal steering of a smart active particle,” Europhysics Letters 127, 64003 (2019)
2019
-
[53]
Diffusive transport without detailed balance in motile bacteria: does microbiology need sta- tistical physics?
Michael E Cates, “Diffusive transport without detailed balance in motile bacteria: does microbiology need sta- tistical physics?” Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 042601 (2012)
2012
-
[54]
Run- and-tumble motion in a harmonic potential: field theory and entropy production,
Rosalba Garcia-Millan and Gunnar Pruessner, “Run- and-tumble motion in a harmonic potential: field theory and entropy production,” Journal of Statistical Mechan- ics: Theory and Experiment 2021, 063203 (2021)
2021
-
[55]
Effects of the non- Markovianity and non-Gaussianity of active environmen- tal noises on engine performance,
Jae Sung Lee and Hyunggyu Park, “Effects of the non- Markovianity and non-Gaussianity of active environmen- tal noises on engine performance,” Physical Review E 105, 024130 (2022)
2022
-
[56]
Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences,
Christopher Jarzynski, “Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences,” Physical Review Letters 78, 2690 (1997)
1997
-
[57]
Nonequilibrium measurements of free energy differences for microscopically reversible Marko- vian systems,
Gavin E Crooks, “Nonequilibrium measurements of free energy differences for microscopically reversible Marko- vian systems,” Journal of Statistical Physics 90, 1481– 1487 (1998)
1998
-
[58]
Efficiency at maximum power: An analytically solvable model for stochastic heat engines,
Tim Schmiedl and Udo Seifert, “Efficiency at maximum power: An analytically solvable model for stochastic heat engines,” Europhysics Letters 81, 20003 (2007)
2007
-
[59]
High-precision test of landauer’s principle in a feedback trap,
Yonggun Jun, Momˇ cilo Gavrilov, and John Bechhoefer, “High-precision test of landauer’s principle in a feedback trap,” Physical review letters 113, 190601 (2014)
2014
-
[60]
Experimental verification of landauer’s principle linking information and thermodynamics,
Antoine B´ erut, Artak Arakelyan, Artyom Petrosyan, Sergio Ciliberto, Raoul Dillenschneider, and Eric Lutz, “Experimental verification of landauer’s principle linking information and thermodynamics,” Nature 483, 187–189 (2012)
2012
-
[61]
Large work extraction and the landauer limit in a continuous maxwell demon,
Marco Ribezzi-Crivellari and Felix Ritort, “Large work extraction and the landauer limit in a continuous maxwell demon,” Nature Physics 15, 660–664 (2019)
2019
-
[62]
Thermodynamics of information,
Juan MR Parrondo, “Thermodynamics of information,” 24 arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12447 (2023)
2023 arXiv
-
[63]
Second law of thermodynamics with discrete quantum feedback con- trol,
Takahiro Sagawa and Masahito Ueda, “Second law of thermodynamics with discrete quantum feedback con- trol,” Physical Review Letters 100, 080403 (2008)
2008
-
[64]
Colossal power extraction from active cyclic brownian information engines,
Govind Paneru, Sandipan Dutta, and Hyuk Kyu Pak, “Colossal power extraction from active cyclic brownian information engines,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 13, 6912–6918 (2022)
2022
-
[65]
Nonequilibrium detailed fluctuation theorem for repeated discrete feedback,
Jordan M Horowitz and Suriyanarayanan Vaikun- tanathan, “Nonequilibrium detailed fluctuation theorem for repeated discrete feedback,” Physical Review E 82, 061120 (2010)
2010
-
[66]
Lecture notes on in- formation theory,
Yury Polyanskiy and Yihong Wu, “Lecture notes on in- formation theory,” Lecture Notes for ECE563 (UIUC) (2014)
2014
-
[67]
Robert M Gray, Entropy and Information Theory (Springer Science & Business Media, 2011)
2011
-
[68]
Communication: Mechanochemical fluctuation theorem and thermody- namics of self-phoretic motors,
Pierre Gaspard and Raymond Kapral, “Communication: Mechanochemical fluctuation theorem and thermody- namics of self-phoretic motors,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 147 (2017)
2017
-
[69]
Entropy produc- tion of active particles and for particles in active baths,
Patrick Pietzonka and Udo Seifert, “Entropy produc- tion of active particles and for particles in active baths,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 51, 01LT01 (2017)
2017
-
[70]
Active Brownian particles driven by constant affinity,
Thomas Speck, “Active Brownian particles driven by constant affinity,” Europhysics Letters 123, 20007 (2018)
2018
-
[71]
Thermodynamic metrics and optimal paths,
David A Sivak and Gavin E Crooks, “Thermodynamic metrics and optimal paths,” Physical review letters 108, 190602 (2012)
2012
-
[72]
Optimal control with a strong harmonic trap,
Steven Blaber and David A Sivak, “Optimal control with a strong harmonic trap,” Physical Review E 106, L022103 (2022)
2022
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.