MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Finite-Time Landauer Principle

2020· article· en· W3032991785 on OpenAlexafffund
Karel Proesmans, Jannik Ehrich, John Bechhoefer

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFoundational Questions Institute
KeywordsErasureVariance (accounting)Simple (philosophy)Computer scienceLimit (mathematics)Work (physics)Thermodynamic limitUpper and lower boundsApplied mathematicsHeuristicProtocol (science)Energy (signal processing)Expression (computer science)Statistical physicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsPhysicsStatisticsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the thermodynamic cost associated with the erasure of one bit of information over a finite amount of time. We present a general framework for minimizing the average work required when full control of a system's microstates is possible. In addition to exact numerical results, we find simple bounds proportional to the variance of the microscopic distribution associated with the state of the bit. In the short-time limit, we get a closed expression for the minimum average amount of work needed to erase a bit. The average work associated with the optimal protocol can be up to a factor of 4 smaller relative to protocols constrained to end in local equilibrium. Assessing prior experimental and numerical results based on heuristic protocols, we find that our bounds often dissipate an order of magnitude less energy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations146
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical MechanicsFrench-language works237,207