MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033537376 · doi:10.1103/physreve.102.032105

Optimal finite-time bit erasure under full control

2020· article· en· W3033537376 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 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
KeywordsErasureComputer scienceState (computer science)Encoding (memory)Upper and lower boundsDistribution (mathematics)Work (physics)MathematicsAlgorithmPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the finite-time erasure of a one-bit memory consisting of a one-dimensional double-well potential, with each well encoding a memory macrostate. We focus on setups that provide full control over the form of the potential-energy landscape and derive protocols that minimize the average work needed to erase the bit over a fixed amount of time. We allow for cases where only some of the information encoded in the bit is erased. For systems required to end up in a local-equilibrium state, we calculate the minimum amount of work needed to erase a bit explicitly, in terms of the equilibrium Boltzmann distribution corresponding to the system's initial potential. The minimum work is inversely proportional to the duration of the protocol. The erasure cost may be further reduced by relaxing the requirement for a local-equilibrium final state and allowing for any final distribution compatible with constraints on the probability to be in each memory macrostate. We also derive upper and lower bounds on the erasure cost.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.277 · 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