Is stochastic thermodynamics the key to understanding the energy costs of computation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the thermodynamic and computational properties of physical systems has been a major theoretical interest since at least the 19th century. It has also become of increasing practical importance over the last half-century as the energetic cost of digital devices has exploded. Importantly, real-world computers obey multiple physical constraints on how they work, which affects their thermodynamic properties. Moreover, many of these constraints apply to both naturally occurring computers, like brains or Eukaryotic cells, and digital systems. Most obviously, all such systems must finish their computation quickly, using as few degrees of freedom as possible. This means that they operate far from thermal equilibrium. Furthermore, many computers, both digital and biological, are modular, hierarchical systems with strong constraints on the connectivity among their subsystems. Yet another example is that to simplify their design, digital computers are required to be periodic processes governed by a global clock. None of these constraints were considered in 20th-century analyses of the thermodynamics of computation. The new field of stochastic thermodynamics provides formal tools for analyzing systems subject to all of these constraints. We argue here that these tools may help us understand at a far deeper level just how the fundamental thermodynamic properties of physical systems are related to the computation they perform.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".