MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396939303 · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad4c2c

Thermodynamic work of partial resetting

2024· article· en· W4396939303 on OpenAlexaff
Kristian Stølevik Olsen, Deepak Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIon-surface interactions and analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsWork (physics)Computer scienceThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Partial resetting, whereby a state variablex(t) is reset at random times to a value ax(t) , 0⩽a⩽1 , generalizes conventional resetting by introducing the resetting strengthaas a parameter. Partial resetting generates a broad family of non-equilibrium steady states (NESS) that interpolates between the conventional NESS at strong resetting (a = 0) and a Gaussian distribution at weak resetting (a → 1). Here such resetting processes are studied from a thermodynamic perspective, and the mean cost associated with maintaining such NESS are derived. The resetting phase of the dynamics is implemented by a resetting potential Φ(x) that mediates the resets in finite time. By working in an ensemble of trajectories with a fixed number of resets, we study both the steady-state properties of the propagator and its moments. The thermodynamic work needed to sustain the resulting NESS is then investigated. We find that different resetting traps can give rise to rates of work with widely different dependencies on the resetting strengtha. Surprisingly, in the case of resets mediated by a harmonic trap with otherwise free diffusive motion, the asymptotic rate of work is insensitive to the value ofa. For general anharmonic traps, the asymptotic rate of work can be either increasing or decreasing as a function of the strengtha, depending on the degree of anharmonicity. Counter to intuition, the rate of work can therefore in some cases increase as the resetting becomes weaker (a→1) although the work vanishes ata = 1. Work in the presence of a background potential is also considered. Numerical simulations confirm our findings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicIon-surface interactions and analysisFrench-language works237,207