Back to search
2207.03612

Trajectory Class Fluctuation Theorem

Gregory Wimsatt, Alexander B. Boyd, James P. Crutchfield

correcthigh confidence
Category
math.DS
Journal tier
Strong Field
Processed
Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM

Audit review

The paper states the class decomposition Σ = ΘC + ψC (its Eq. (16)), and proves the Nominal and Exponential Class Fluctuation Theorems: ⟨Σ⟩C = ΘC + ΨC (Eq. (19)) and ⟨e^{−Σ}⟩C = e^{−ΘC} = R(C)/P(C) (Eq. (20)) using class-conditioned densities and the identity ⟨e^{−ψC}⟩C = 1; see the definitions and proofs around Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 in the TCFT section . The candidate solution reproduces exactly these results with a measure-theoretic Radon–Nikodym argument. One minor caveat: in the change-of-measure step it implicitly uses dR/dP (or dR(·|C)/dP(·|C)), which requires mutual absolute continuity that was not stated; the paper avoids this by working with pointwise densities and the ratio R(·|C)/P(·|C). Appendix A of the paper also derives ⟨e^{−Σ}⟩C = R(C)/P(C) directly as a path-ensemble identity . Aside from that minor technical assumption, the approaches are the same in substance and yield the same statements.

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} strong field

\textbf{Justification:}

The manuscript cleanly formulates class-conditioned fluctuation theorems (NCFT and ECFT), demonstrates their utility for strengthening Second-Law-type bounds and for free-energy estimation, and discusses practical considerations like class design and zero-measure issues. The arguments are sound and well-motivated. Minor clarifications on technical assumptions (common reference measure, absolute continuity, a.e. qualifications) would enhance rigor and accessibility, especially for readers with measure-theoretic backgrounds.