Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Stochastic resetting is a renewal-based framework that predicts, infers, and designs far-from-equilibrium dynamics.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 20:52 UTC pith:GI6HQAHS

load-bearing objection A competent, honest review with a correct renewal-theory core, but the inference half of its central claim is overstated and needs qualification before publication. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16474 v1 pith:GI6HQAHS submitted 2026-07-17 physics.chem-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Stochastic Resetting: A Non-Equilibrium Framework for Prediction, Inference and Design

Tommer D. Keidar , Sagi Meir , Nir Sherf , R\'emi Goerlich , Shlomi Reuveni , Yael Roichman , Barak Hirshberg This is my paper
classification physics.chem-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords stochastic resettingrenewal theoryfirst-passage timenon-equilibrium steady stateenhanced samplingkinetic inferenceadaptive resettingthermodynamic cost
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that one mathematical core — renewal theory — turns stochastic resetting into three tools at once: prediction, inference, and design. Given the propagator and first-passage-time distribution of any process without resetting, simple renewal equations give the steady state, kinetics, and first-passage times under resetting. The same equations run backward: reset-accelerated data can be used to infer the original process's kinetics. And by choosing reset protocols — including adaptive, state-dependent rates — one can shape steady states and first-passage statistics on demand. This matters because the same framework spans molecular simulations, colloidal experiments, and machine-learning training.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that stochastic resetting is not just a trick for speeding up searches but a general non-equilibrium framework whose predictive content is carried by renewal equations. For Poisson resetting, the steady-state density is p_ss_R(x)=r p_tilde(x,r) and the mean first-passage time is determined by the Laplace transform of the unreset FPT density; for arbitrary reset-time distributions, Eq. 8 relates the reset mean FPT to min(T,R) and Pr(T≤R). The paper further claims that the same renewal structure permits inference: Eq. 12 extrapolates the mean FPT at higher reset rates from data at lower rates, and sharp-resetting protocols sample short-time unbiased first-passage s

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the renewal equation linking the reset dynamics to the unreset process: p_R(x,t)=p(x,t)Ψ_R(t)+∫ f_R(τ)p_R(x,t−τ)dτ, with a first-passage analogue. Its Laplace-transformed forms produce explicit steady states and FPT distributions; for Poisson resetting at rate r, the identities p_ss_R(x)=r p_tilde(x,r) and ⟨T_R⟩=(1−f_tilde_T(r))/(r f_tilde_T(r)) are central. For adaptive resetting, the survival weight Ψ_{R|{x}}(t)=exp(−∫ r(x(t'),t') dt') along each trajectory extends the renewal idea, and a reweighting of a single unreset trajectory ensemble estimates all reset observables. This machinery does the work of turning resetting from a model into a toolkit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the trajectory-reweighting scheme estimates observables under arbitrary adaptive resetting without bias and with converging error; the paper demonstrates it on low-dimensional diffusion and a single peptide, with no general error analysis, and the paper itself concedes the framework breaks when the environment retains memory or only part of a many-body system is reset.

What would settle it

Run the adaptive-resetting reweighting on a high-dimensional system (e.g., a protein in explicit solvent), compute the steady-state distribution and mean first-passage time, and compare with direct simulations that apply the same adaptive protocol; a systematic deviation in the tails or in FPT statistics would falsify the reweighting claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Resetting-accelerated molecular simulations can recover the unbiased kinetics of rare transitions: extrapolating Eq. 12 to zero reset rate yields the unreset mean first-passage time, and sharp resetting gives direct access to short-time FPT statistics.
  • A single ensemble of unreset trajectories is enough to screen and optimize adaptive resetting protocols (including neural-network-parameterized rates) for target steady states or accelerated first-passage times, avoiding extra simulations.
  • Resetting acts as a stochastic shortcut to equilibration: in harmonic and V-shaped potentials it prepares target distributions faster than thermal relaxation, and it can also drive transitions between non-equilibrium steady states.
  • Global resetting of many-body systems preserves renewal predictivity, while local or batch resetting and environmental memory break renewal and require new theory.
  • Thermodynamic costs are quantifiable and constrain the speedups: resetting experiments show energetic costs above kT, and optimal-return protocols define time-energy trade-offs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's low-dimensional demonstrations, if the trajectory-reweighting estimator is unbiased in high-dimensional settings, adaptive resetting could become a general enhanced-sampling tool: one long unbiased simulation would supply all protocol-dependent observables.
  • The single-frequency linear-response result for training perturbations suggests a practical rule the paper does not fully develop: measuring a neural network's first-passage response to one perturbation frequency could predict the speedup of reset-style training schedules, enabling a priori protocol selection.
  • The paper's examples of environmental memory (trails, viscoelastic baths) hint that the next unifying structure may resemble a hidden-variable renewal theory, where the reset renews only part of the state; testing that hypothesis would connect resetting to generalized Langevin and aging phenomena.
  • The energy-information trade-off in smart resetting suggests a design principle: any feedback that reduces thermodynamic cost must pay an information cost; quantifying that cost from first-passage distributions could yield a resetting-specific Landauer bound.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review-format manuscript argues that stochastic resetting provides a unified non-equilibrium framework for prediction, inference, and design. Sections 2 and 3.1 present the standard renewal theory: for a known reset-time distribution, the propagator and first-passage-time distribution under resetting are determined by the unreset propagator and FPT distribution (Eqs. 1–9), with the well-known small-rate expansion and speed-up condition (Eqs. 10–11). Section 3.2 extends this to kinetic inference, claiming that the mean FPT of the original process can be inferred from trajectories sampled under resetting at rate r* by extrapolating Eq. 12 to r→0. Section 3.3 applies resetting to machine-learning training and LLM sampling. Sections 4 and 5 review adaptive resetting, including reweighting estimators built from unreset trajectories (Eqs. 13–24) and using those estimators to design steady states and first-passage properties. Section 6 discusses many-body and local resetting, Section 7 thermodynamic costs, and Section 8 concludes with the central claim that 'the same renewal framework that predicts the effect of resetting also allows the properties of the original process to be inferred from the accelerated one.'

Significance. If the full claim held, the paper would be a useful synthesis for the physical-chemistry community: the forward renewal relations are correct and clearly presented; the review is timely, broad, and honestly flags several settings where renewal breaks down (environmental memory in Sec. 4.3, local/batch resetting in Sec. 6). The paper also benefits from grounding in independently established theory and from citing a wide range of recent experimental and simulation work. However, the distinctive inference and design claims go beyond the standard forward theory. The forward renewal material is textbook-accurate, but the inference half of the abstract/conclusion thesis is supported only by an uncontrolled extrapolation, and the adaptive-resetting/ML claims are asserted without error analysis or stated domain of validity. These are load-bearing for the paper's advertised 'prediction, inference, design' framework, so the manuscript needs revision before the central claim can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (12); Abstract; §8] The abstract and conclusions state that properties of the original process can be inferred from resetting-accelerated dynamics. Eq. (12) is exact only for Δr>0, i.e., for predicting behavior at higher resetting rates. Inferring the r=0 mean FPT requires extrapolating ~f_{T_{r*}}(Δr) from Δr>0 to Δr=-r*, either by analytic continuation or by polynomial fitting. No condition is given under which this continuation is valid, and no consistency theorem, convergence rate, or error bound is provided. For FPT distributions with heavy tails or non-analytic Laplace transforms at s=0, polynomial extrapolation from noisy finite-time estimates is uncontrolled and can be arbitrarily inaccurate. The same issue appears in the sharp-resetting paragraph, where the long-time FPT tail is inferred by fitting. Please supply explicit validity conditions (e.g., analyticity of the Laplace transform near s=0, mom
  2. [§4.1–4.2, Eqs. (18)–(24); §5.2] The paper states that a single set of unreset trajectories suffices to estimate all observables under adaptive resetting and to optimize protocols with a differentiable loss. The estimators in Eqs. (18)–(24) are presented without finite-N or finite-Δt error analysis. Each weight Ψ_i_j in Eq. (19) is a product of many factors, so for large j the estimator variance can grow rapidly and there is no demonstrated unbiasedness/convergence for general high-dimensional processes. Since the design claims in Sec. 5.2 rely on these estimators as training losses, the manuscript should either summarize the known error behavior from Ref. 45 or explicitly state that the estimators are heuristic/demonstrated only on the specific systems shown.
  3. [§3.3.1] The single-frequency response premise — that once unperturbed training dynamics reach a quasi-steady state, a perturbation at one frequency predicts the response across a broad frequency range — is asserted from Ref. 89 without stating its domain of validity. As written, this is a strong claim about high-dimensional, non-equilibrium training dynamics and is load-bearing for the ML-training acceleration claim in the abstract and Fig. 3. Please either state the assumptions under which this linear-response relation holds or present the statement as an empirical observation from the specific datasets/architectures studied, not as a general property.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 and §2] Typographical errors: 'poison resetting' should be 'Poisson resetting'; 'the mean time between resetting evens' should be 'events'.
  2. [Eq. (12)] Please define ~f_{T_{r*}} explicitly as the Laplace transform of the FPT distribution under resetting at rate r*, and clarify that Δr is the additional Poisson resetting rate, so Eq. (12) is a statement about merging two Poisson streams and not about arbitrary r values.
  3. [Eq. (15)] The conditioning notation in the definition of p_Ψ(x,t) is hard to parse. It would help to expand the definition with a sentence clarifying that the survival probability is evaluated along trajectories conditioned to end at x at time t before averaging.
  4. [§7.2, Eq. (25)] The dimensionless factor α is described only verbally. Since this is a review, please either give the explicit formula from Ref. 36 or, if the formula is model-specific and not needed, cite the exact equation in Ref. 36 so the reader does not have to track it down.
  5. [Conclusions, §8] The concluding sentence 'the same renewal framework ... also allows the properties of the original process to be inferred' is broader than the body of the paper, which explicitly notes that renewal breaks for environmental feedback (Sec. 4.3) and local/batch resetting (Sec. 6). Please scope the conclusion to renewal-preserving protocols or explicitly list the exceptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Core renewal framework is independently grounded; no claimed prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

full rationale

The central renewal relations (Eqs. 1-11 and Eqs. 5-9) are standard, externally established identities that map the unreset propagator and first-passage distribution to their reset counterparts; they are input-output mappings, not tautologies. Eq. 12 is a correct composition rule for Poisson resetting (merging two Poisson streams), so predicting higher-rate first-passage statistics from lower-rate data is a genuine out-of-sample prediction. The paper's procedure for inferring the original mean first-passage time by extrapolating to r=0 (Sec. 3.2) is mathematically uncontrolled and lacks error bounds or identifiability conditions, but this is a validity gap rather than circularity: the fitted extrapolation is not secretly equal to the quantity it estimates, and no equation in the paper forces the r=0 value by construction. The adaptive-resetting estimators (Secs. 4.1-4.2, Eqs. 13-24) are importance-sampling identities evaluated on unreset trajectories; they are statistical estimators, not self-referential definitions. While the ML acceleration and ReD sections lean heavily on the authors' own prior results (Refs. 45, 88, 89, 94), these are cited as published work with stated conditions and are not the only support; the review's main renewal framework is independently grounded in the external literature (Evans-Majumdar, Pal-Reuveni, Chechkin-Sokolov, and many non-author follow-ups). No load-bearing 'prediction' or 'inference' step is equivalent to its input by definition, so no circularity is established.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

A review, so this ledger captures the assumptions and empirical inputs the framework inherits rather than parameters this paper introduces. There are no new invented entities — the adaptive rate r(x,t) is a control function, not a new physical object. The displayed derivation (Eqs. 1-11) is parameter-free apart from the resetting rate r (a control variable). The honest cost entries are: (i) the empirical constants α (Eq. 25) and ν (stretched tail) taken from cited works; (ii) the protocol family r₀|x|^λ and the pass@k exponent that the summarized applications fit or scan; and (iii) the domain assumptions that the renewal and reweighting structure stays valid — the paper itself flags where it does not (Secs. 4.3, 6, 8).

free parameters (4)
  • α (return-distance factor in Eq. 25) = not fixed — measured from trajectories per system
    'α encodes the mean squared return distance of the trajectories that are reset, measured in units of the diffusive length scale between resets' (Sec. 7.2, Eq. 25); an empirical input from Ref. 36.
  • ν (stretched-tail constant) = positive constant, value not derived
    Sec. 4.1: steady-state tails under adaptive resetting scale as e^{−ν|x|^{1+λ/2}}; the exponent 1+λ/2 is derived but ν is asserted positive with no value (Ref. 45).
  • r₀ and λ in r(x) = r₀|x|^λ = scanned values (λ ∈ {0,1,2,3})
    Sec. 4.1: protocol family used to demonstrate the trajectory-reweighting predictions; protocol parameters, not fitted to data in the review.
  • pass@k power-law exponent α = empirical, 0 < α < 1
    Sec. 3.3.2: failure probability 1 − pass@k ~ k^{−α} is taken as an empirical scaling (Refs 91-93) and estimated from data for the ReD inference claim.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Resets are instantaneous, full renewals of the process from the same initial distribution
    Underlies Eqs. 1-11 (Sec. 2). The paper itself states the limit: environmental feedback (Sec. 4.3) and local/batch many-body resetting (Sec. 6) break renewal.
  • standard math The final-value-theorem limit defining the steady state exists
    Sec. 2, just before Eq. 4: p_ss(x) = lim_{s→0+} s p̃_R(x,s) 'provided this limit exists'.
  • domain assumption Adaptive resetting rate r(x,t) depends only on instantaneous state and time (Eq. 13)
    Sec. 4.1 defines survival exp(−∫r(x(t'),t')dt'); history-dependent and environment-memory protocols are excluded and handled separately in Sec. 4.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Reweighting estimators (Eqs. 18-24) are unbiased and converge at finite N and Δt
    Secs. 4.1-4.2 present the estimators without bias, variance, or discretization analysis; the paper calls the underlying path integrals 'the key challenge'.
  • ad hoc to paper Quasi-steady-state single-frequency response predicts training response at all frequencies
    Sec. 3.3.1, attributed to Ref. 89 (authors' own 2026 paper); load-bearing for the ML-training-acceleration claim.
  • domain assumption LLM failure probability follows empirical power law 1 − pass@k ~ k^{−α}, 0 < α < 1
    Sec. 3.3.2, cited to Refs 91-93; the ReD coverage and exponent-inference claims assume this scaling holds at large k.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20537 in / 21122 out tokens · 197273 ms · 2026-08-01T20:52:39.602402+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Stochastic resetting has evolved from a simple model of diffusive search acceleration into a general framework for predicting, inferring, and controlling stochastic dynamics far from equilibrium. Its defining features, i.e., the creation of non-equilibrium steady states and the acceleration of first-passage kinetics, are increasingly relevant across physical chemistry, from biological restart mechanisms to molecular simulations and colloidal experiments. We review the renewal theory underlying stochastic resetting and show how it enables prediction of reset dynamics from properties of the underlying process, while also allowing the latter to be inferred from the resetting-accelerated dynamics. We then discuss applications to state preparation, enhanced sampling, kinetic inference, and training and sampling of machine learning models. Finally, we review recent advances in adaptive resetting, environmental feedback, many-body dynamics, and thermodynamic costs of resetting. These developments establish new opportunities for controlling stochastic dynamics with resetting across theory, simulations, and experiments.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantum resetting with memory

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0

    Under quantum resetting with uniform memory, every density-matrix element evolves exactly as a Kummer function of its Bohr frequency, producing algebraic decoherence in gapped systems and logarithmically slow spreadin...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Evans MR, Majumdar SN. 2011. Diffusion with stochastic resetting.Phys. Rev. Lett. 106(16):160601

    2011

  2. [2]

    2001.A guide to first-passage processes

    Redner S. 2001.A guide to first-passage processes. Cambridge university press

    2001

  3. [3]

    2014.First-passage phenomena and their applications, vol

    Metzler R, Redner S, Oshanin G. 2014.First-passage phenomena and their applications, vol. 35. World Scientific

    2014

  4. [4]

    Bray AJ, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2013. Persistence and first-passage properties in nonequi- librium systems.Adv. Phys.62(3):225–361

    2013

  5. [5]

    Pal A, Reuveni S. 2017. First passage under restart.Phys. Rev. Lett.118(3):030603

    2017

  6. [6]

    Chechkin A, Sokolov IM. 2018. Random search with resetting: A unified renewal approach. Phys. Rev. Lett.121(5):050601

    2018

  7. [7]

    Bonomo OL, Pal A, Reuveni S. 2022. Mitigating long queues and waiting times with service resetting.PNAS Nexus1(3):pgac070

    2022

  8. [8]

    Bonomo OL, Yechiali U, Reuveni S. 2025. Queues with service resetting.Eur. J. Oper. Res. 322(3):908–919

    2025

  9. [9]

    Roy R, Biswas A, Pal A. 2024. Queues with resetting: a perspective.J. Phys. Complex. 5(2):021001

    2024

  10. [10]

    Luby M, Sinclair A, Zuckerman D. 1993. Optimal speedup of las vegas algorithms.Inf. Process. Lett.47(4):173–180

    1993

  11. [11]

    Alt H, Guibas L, Mehlhorn K, Karp R, Wigderson A. 1996. A method for obtaining randomized algorithms with small tail probabilities.Algorithmica16(4):543–547

    1996

  12. [12]

    Langville AN, Meyer CD. 2004. Deeper inside pagerank.Internet Math.1(3):335–380

    2004

  13. [13]

    2010.Improving Random Walk Estimation Accuracy with Uniform Restarts

    Avrachenkov K, Ribeiro B, Towsley D. 2010.Improving Random Walk Estimation Accuracy with Uniform Restarts. InAlgorithms and Models for the Web-Graph, ed. R Kumar, D Sivaku- mar, pp. 98–109, pp. 98–109. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2010

  14. [14]

    Reuveni S, Urbakh M, Klafter J. 2014. Role of substrate unbinding in michaelis–menten en- zymatic reactions.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA111(12):4391–4396

    2014

  15. [15]

    Scheerer D, Levy D, Casier R, Riven I, Mazal H, Haran G. 2025. Interplay between confor- mational dynamics and substrate binding regulates enzymatic activity: a single-molecule fret study.Chem. Sci.16(7):3066–3077

    2025

  16. [16]

    Halford SE, Marko JF. 2004. How do site-specific dna-binding proteins find their targets? Nucleic Acids Res.32(10):3040–3052

    2004

  17. [17]

    Jangid P, Chaudhury S. 2026. Dna target search in chromatin compartments under stochastic www.annualreviews.org • Resetting: Prediction, Inference, Design 21 resetting.J. Phys. Chem. B130(13):3766–3775

    2026

  18. [18]

    Thirumalai D, Lorimer GH, Hyeon C. 2020. Iterative annealing mechanism explains the func- tions of the groel and rna chaperones.Protein Sci.29(2):360–377

    2020

  19. [19]

    Pal PS, Park JM, Pal A, Park H, Lee JS. 2023. Thermodynamic trade-off relation for first passage time in resetting.Phys. Rev. E108:044117

    2023

  20. [20]

    2012.Animal homing

    Papi F. 2012.Animal homing. Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  21. [21]

    Paramanick S, Biswas A, Soni H, Pal A, Kumar N. 2024. Uncovering universal characteristics of homing paths using foraging robots.PRX Life2(3):033007

    2024

  22. [22]

    Mercado-V´ asquez G, Boyer D. 2018. Lotka–volterra systems with stochastic resetting.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.51(40):405601

    2018

  23. [23]

    Blumer O, Hirshberg B. 2025. Have you tried turning it off and on again? A tutorial on stochastic resetting for molecular simulation.WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci

    2025

  24. [24]

    Blumer O, Reuveni S, Hirshberg B. 2022. Stochastic Resetting for Enhanced Sampling.J. Phys. Chem. Lett.13(48):11230–11236

    2022

  25. [25]

    Blumer O, Reuveni S, Hirshberg B. 2024. Combining stochastic resetting with metadynamics to speed-up molecular dynamics simulations.Nat. Commun.15(1):240

    2024

  26. [26]

    Church MS, Blumer O, Keidar TD, Ploutno A, Reuveni S, Hirshberg B. 2025. Accelerating molecular dynamics simulations through informed resetting.J. Chem. Theory Comput.21

    2025

  27. [27]

    Blumer O, Reuveni S, Hirshberg B. 2024. Short-time infrequent metadynamics for improved kinetics inference.J. Chem. Theory Comput.20(9):3484–3491

    2024

  28. [28]

    Pampel B, Holbach S, Hartung L, Valsson O. 2023. Sampling rare event energy landscapes via birth-death augmented dynamics.Phys. Rev. E107(2):024141

    2023

  29. [29]

    Elber R. 2020. Milestoning: An efficient approach for atomically detailed simulations of kinetics in biophysics.Annu. Rev. Biophys.49(Volume 49, 2020):69–85

    2020

  30. [30]

    Elber R, Fathizadeh A, Ma P, Wang H. 2021. Modeling molecular kinetics with milestoning. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.11(4):e1512

    2021

  31. [31]

    weighted ensemble

    Zhang BW, Jasnow D, Zuckerman DM. 2010. The “weighted ensemble” path sampling method is statistically exact for a broad class of stochastic processes and binning procedures.J. Chem. Phys.132(5):054107

    2010

  32. [32]

    Fuchs J, Goldt S, Seifert U. 2016. Stochastic thermodynamics of resetting.Europhys. Lett. 113(6):60009

    2016

  33. [33]

    Eule S, Metzger JJ. 2016. Non-equilibrium steady states of stochastic processes with intermit- tent resetting.New J. Phys.18(3):033006

    2016

  34. [34]

    Pal A, Rahav S. 2017. Integral fluctuation theorems for stochastic resetting systems.Phys. Rev. E96(6):062135

    2017

  35. [35]

    Pal A, Reuveni S, Rahav S. 2021. Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for systems with uni- directional transitions.Phys. Rev. Res.3:013273

    2021

  36. [36]

    Goerlich R, Olsen KS, L¨ owen H, Roichman Y. 2026. Time-energy trade-off in stochastic re- setting using optimal control.Phys. Rev. E113(1):014103

    2026

  37. [37]

    Tal-Friedman O, Pal A, Sekhon A, Reuveni S, Roichman Y. 2020. Experimental Realization of Diffusion with Stochastic Resetting.J. Phys. Chem. Lett.11(17):7350–7355

    2020

  38. [38]

    Besga B, Bovon A, Petrosyan A, Majumdar SN, Ciliberto S. 2020. Optimal mean first-passage time for a Brownian searcher subjected to resetting: Experimental and theoretical results. Phys. Rev. Res.2(3):032029

    2020

  39. [39]

    Evans MR, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2020. Stochastic resetting and applications.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.53(19):193001

    2020

  40. [40]

    Gupta S, Jayannavar AM. 2022. Stochastic Resetting: A (Very) Brief Review.Front. Phys. 10:789097

    2022

  41. [41]

    Pal A, Kostinski S, Reuveni S. 2022. The inspection paradox in stochastic resetting.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.55(2):021001

    2022

  42. [42]

    Kundu A, Reuveni S. 2024. Preface: stochastic resetting—theory and applications 22 Keidar et al

    2024

  43. [43]

    Altshuler A, Bonomo OL, Gorohovsky N, Marchini S, Rosen E, et al. 2024. Environmental memory facilitates search with home returns.Phys. Rev. Res.6(2):023255

    2024

  44. [44]

    Pal A, Ku´ smierz L, Reuveni S. 2020. Search with home returns provides advantage under high uncertainty.Phys. Rev. Res.2(4):043174

    2020

  45. [45]

    Keidar TD, Blumer O, Hirshberg B, Reuveni S. 2025. Adaptive resetting for informed search strategies and the design of non-equilibrium steady-states.Nat. Commun.16(1):7259

    2025

  46. [46]

    Biroli M, Larralde H, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2023. Extreme statistics and spacing distri- bution in a brownian gas correlated by resetting.Phys. Rev. Lett.130:207101

    2023

  47. [47]

    Biroli M, Ciliberto S, Kulkarni M, Majumdar SN, Petrosyan A, Schehr G. 2025. Exper- imental evidence for strong emergent correlations between particles in a switching trap. arXiv:2508.07199

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Vatash R, Roichman Y. 2025. Many-body colloidal dynamics under stochastic resetting: Competing effects of particle interactions on the steady state distribution.Phys. Rev. Res. 7(3):L032020

    2025

  49. [49]

    Vatash R, Altshuler A, Roichman Y. 2025. Numerical Prediction of the Steady-State Distri- bution Under Stochastic Resetting from Measurements.J. Stat. Phys.192(3):40

    2025

  50. [50]

    Sokolov IM. 2023. Linear response and fluctuation-dissipation relations for brownian motion under resetting.Phys. Rev. Lett.130(6):067101

    2023

  51. [51]

    Mukherjee B, Sengupta K, Majumdar SN. 2018. Quantum dynamics with stochastic reset. Phys. Rev. B98(10):104309

    2018

  52. [52]

    Yin R, Barkai E. 2023. Restart expedites quantum walk hitting times.Phys. Rev. Lett. 130(5):050802

    2023

  53. [53]

    Kulkarni M, Majumdar SN. 2023. Generating entanglement by quantum resetting.Phys. Rev. A108(6):062210

    2023

  54. [54]

    Yin R, Wang Q, Tornow S, Barkai E. 2025. Restart uncertainty relation for monitored quantum dynamics.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA122(1):e2402912121

    2025

  55. [55]

    Sevilla FJ, Vald´ es-Hern´ andez A. 2023. Dynamics of closed quantum systems under stochastic resetting.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.56(3):034001

    2023

  56. [56]

    Dubey V, Chetrite R, Dhar A. 2023. Quantum resetting in continuous measurement induced dynamics of a qubit.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.56(15):154001

    2023

  57. [57]

    Perfetto G, Carollo F, Magoni M, Lesanovsky I. 2021. Designing nonequilibrium states of quantum matter through stochastic resetting.Phys. Rev. B104(18):L180302

    2021

  58. [58]

    Turkeshi X, Dalmonte M, Fazio R, Schir` o M. 2022. Entanglement transitions from stochastic resetting of non-hermitian quasiparticles.Phys. Rev. B105(24):L241114

    2022

  59. [59]

    Pal A, Kundu A, Evans MR. 2016. Diffusion under time-dependent resetting.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.49(22):225001

    2016

  60. [60]

    Gupta S, Majumdar SN, Schehr G. 2014. Fluctuating interfaces subject to stochastic resetting. Phys. Rev. Lett.112(22):220601

    2014

  61. [61]

    1999.The Laplace transform: theory and applications

    Schiff JL. 1999.The Laplace transform: theory and applications. Springer Science & Business Media

    1999

  62. [62]

    Reuveni S. 2016. Optimal stochastic restart renders fluctuations in first passage times univer- sal.Phys. Rev. Lett.116(17):170601

    2016

  63. [63]

    Rotbart T, Reuveni S, Urbakh M. 2015. Michaelis-menten reaction scheme as a unified ap- proach towards the optimal restart problem.Phys. Rev. E92(6):060101(R)

    2015

  64. [64]

    Mart ´ ınez IA, Petrosyan A, Gu´ ery-Odelin D, Trizac E, Ciliberto S. 2016. Engineered swift equilibration of a Brownian particle.Nat. Phys.12(9):843–846

    2016

  65. [65]

    Patra A, Jarzynski C. 2017. Shortcuts to adiabaticity using flow fields.New J. Phys. 19(12):125009

    2017

  66. [66]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin D, Ruschhaupt A, Kiely A, Torrontegui E, Mart ´ ınez-Garaot S, Muga J. 2019. Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applications.Rev. Mod. Phys.91(4):045001

    2019

  67. [67]

    Majumdar SN, Sabhapandit S, Schehr G. 2015. Dynamical transition in the temporal relax- www.annualreviews.org • Resetting: Prediction, Inference, Design 23 ation of stochastic processes under resetting.Phys. Rev. E91(5):052131

    2015

  68. [68]

    Singh RK, Metzler R, Sandev T. 2020. Resetting dynamics in a confining potential.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.53(50):505003

    2020

  69. [69]

    Singh RK, G´ orska K, Sandev T. 2022. General approach to stochastic resetting.Phys. Rev. E 105(6):064133

    2022

  70. [70]

    Goerlich R, Keidar TD, Roichman Y. 2024. Resetting as a swift equilibration protocol in an anharmonic potential.Phys. Rev. Res.6(3):033162

    2024

  71. [71]

    Evans MR, Majumdar SN, Mallick K. 2013. Optimal diffusive search: nonequilibrium resetting versus equilibrium dynamics.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.46(18):185001

    2013

  72. [72]

    Rold´ an E, Gupta S. 2017. Path-integral formalism for stochastic resetting: Exactly solved examples and shortcuts to confinement.Phys. Rev. E96(2):022130

    2017

  73. [73]

    Sherf N, Goerlich R, Hirshberg B, Roichman Y. 2026. Stochastic resetting vs. thermal Equili- bration: Faster Relaxation, different destination.Phys. Rev. Res

    2026

  74. [74]

    Gupta D, Plata CA, Pal A. 2020. Work Fluctuations and Jarzynski Equality in Stochastic Resetting.Phys. Rev. Lett.124(11):110608

    2020

  75. [75]

    Garc ´ ıa-Valladares G, Gupta D, Prados A, Plata CA. 2024. Stochastic resetting with refractory periods: pathway formulation and exact results.Phys. Scr.99(4):045234

    2024

  76. [76]

    Gupta D, Plata CA, Kundu A, Pal A. 2021. Stochastic resetting with stochastic returns using external trap.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.54(2):025003

    2021

  77. [77]

    Olsen KS, Gupta D, Mori F, Krishnamurthy S. 2024. Thermodynamic cost of finite-time stochastic resetting.Phys. Rev. Res.6(3):033343

    2024

  78. [78]

    Laio A, Gervasio FL. 2008. Metadynamics: a method to simulate rare events and reconstruct the free energy in biophysics, chemistry and material science.Rep. Prog. Phys.71(12):126601

    2008

  79. [79]

    Valsson O, Tiwary P, Parrinello M. 2016. Enhancing important fluctuations: Rare events and metadynamics from a conceptual viewpoint.Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.67(Volume 67, 2016):159–184

    2016

  80. [80]

    Barducci A, Bussi G, Parrinello M. 2008. Well-tempered metadynamics: A smoothly converg- ing and tunable free-energy method.Phys. Rev. Lett.100(2):020603

    2008

Showing first 80 references.