## Comment on 'Exact fluctuation theorem without ensemble quantities'

J.S. Lee , 1 S. Lahiri 1 , and Chulan Kwon 2 ∗

1 School of Physics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul 130-722, Korea 2 Department of Physics, Myongji University, Yongin, Gyeonggi-Do 449-728, Korea (Dated: August 5, 2014)

In a recent work by Cuetara et al. (Phys. Rev. E 89 , 052119 (2014)), the authors claimed that if a system is prepared under suitable initial conditions, then the total entropy production (EP) for the system and reservoirs can be expressed in terms of physically measurable quantities. However, the backward protocol used in their work is not time-reversed of the forward protocol so that the quantity obtained from the ratio of the forward and backward path probabilities is neither the total EP nor any measurable quantity. We propose a suitable setup which satisfies their pursuit. We also provide a theoretical background as to what quantity satisfies the fluctuation theorem depending on the initial conditions chosen for the forward and backward processes.

Cuetara et al. [1] argued that for a system that may be in contact with several heat and particle reservoirs but has been prepared under suitable initial conditions, the total entropy production (EP) can be expressed in terms of measurable physical quantities such as work, heat flow, and particle flow. The key idea lies in the preparation of the system in an equilibrium state at the beginning of both the forward and backward processes.

The proposed protocol change is depicted in Fig. 1(a). In the forward process (red solid line), the system is initially prepared in equilibrium with the reservoir 1 only (whose inverse temperature and chemical potential are β 1 and µ 1 , respectively) at the initial protocol value λ 0 . The initial distribution is denoted by p eq ( x 0 ; λ 0 ), where x 0 is the initial state of the system. At time t = 0, the system is simultaneously connected to all the reservoirs and the driving protocol λ t ( ) is varied with time, up to the time instant t = τ , when it reaches its final value λ τ . The ν th reservoir is described by the inverse temperature β ν and the chemical potential µ ν . After t = τ , all the reservoirs except reservoir 1 are disconnected and the system is allowed to relax until t = τ + τ r ≡ τ ′ at the fixed value λ τ . By then the system is assumed to reach the final equilibrium distribution p eq ( x τ ′ ; λ τ ).

However, in the backward process described in [1] (green dashed line in Fig. 1(a)) the protocol used is not exactly the time-reversed one of the forward protocol. The system is initially in the final equilibrium distribution, p eq ( x τ ′ ; λ τ ), of the forward process. At time t = 0 in the backward process, the system is simultaneously connected to all the reservoirs and is driven by a time-dependent protocol λ ∗ ( ) = t λ τ ( -t ), that is not the time-reversed one λ τ ( ′ -t ), until t = τ . Then, all other reservoirs are disconnected from the system except reservoir 1 and the protocol is fixed at λ ∗ ( ) t = λ 0 for τ &lt; t &lt; τ ′ . In this time interval, the system relaxes and reaches the final equilibrium distribution p eq ( x 0 ; λ 0 ).

In this comment, we will show that the total EP cannot be obtained by measuring observable quantities from the

∗ Electronic address: ckwon@mju.ac.kr

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0648v1-figure-988abd63-d38d-411f-a282-dd7dd874d250.jpg)

glyph[negationslash]

FIG. 1: Forward (red solid line) and backward (green dashed line) protocols are depicted. (a) They are used in the reference [1]. They are not time-reversed to each other, i.e., λ ∗ t = λ τ ′ -t . (b) They are time-reversed to each other and the initial distribution for the backward process is chosen to be the final distribution reached at the end of the forward process. (c) A proper choice of the protocols that satisfies the involution condition.

proposed experiment. To keep our explanation lucid and simple, we now consider a system connected with a single heat reservoir (with no particle exchange) at an inverse temperature β , and set the Boltzmann constant k B to unity. The extension to the case of multiple reservoirs exchanging heat and particle with the system can be done by following [1].

One can define a stochastic quantity dependent on a

path x t ( ), a trajectory in the state space of the system and a protocol λ t ( ) for 0 &lt; t &lt; T [2, 3] as

$$R [ x ( t ) ; \lambda ( t ) ] = \ln \frac { p _ { 0 } ( x _ { 0 } ) \Pi [ x ( t ) ; \lambda ( t ) ] } { \tilde { p } _ { 0 } ( \tilde { x } _ { 0 } ) \Pi [ \tilde { x } ( t ) ; \tilde { \lambda } ( t ) ] } \. \quad ( 1 ) \quad \text{DF} ^ { 1 } _ { \text{look} }.$$

Here x t ( ) is a certain path connecting an initial state x 0 and a final state x T . Π[ x t ( ); λ t ( )] is the probability of the system evolving along the path x t ( ) under a protocol λ t ( ) in the forward process. Similarly, Π[˜( ); ˜ ( )] is the x t λ t probability for the time-reversed path ˜( ) = x t x T ( -t ) [10] under a protocol ˜ ( λ t ) conjugate to λ t ( ) in the backward process. p 0 ( x 0 ) (˜ (˜ )) is p 0 x 0 an initial state distribution for the forward (backward) process, where ˜ x 0 = x T . Regardless of the choice for ˜ p 0 and ˜ , λ R satisfies the integral fluctuation theorem (IFT), 〈 e -R 〉 = 1, where 〈· · · 〉 denotes the ensemble average over all possible paths and the initial state of the forward process. The detailed fluctuation theorem (DFT) is written as P R /P ( ) ˜ ( -R ) = e R , where P ( ˜ ) is the probability distribution function of P R for the forward (backward) process by the protocol λ t ( ) ( ˜ ( λ t )). However, the DFT holds only if the involution condition ˜ ( ˜ A t ) = A t ( ) is satisfied, where the superscript tilde denotes the backward operation. Here, ˜( ) = ˜ x t x t ( ) by definition. However, ˜ ˜ ( λ t ) = λ t ( ) is not always true. A special and the most physical choice is given by the time reversal, ˜ ( λ t ) = λ T ( -t ). It is more intriguing to find an involutionary initial distribution for the backward process such that ˜ ˜ p 0 = p 0 , which we will discuss below. Assuming the involution condition is met by ˜ λ and ˜ , p 0 Eq. (1) leads to ˜ [˜( ); ˜ ( R x t λ t )] = -R x t [ ( ); λ t ( )], where the superscript tilde in ˜ denotes that a different R initial distribution ˜ p 0 is given for the backward process. This is an important requirement for deriving the DFT. See Ref. [3, 7] for more detail.

Consider a time-reversed protocol, ˜ ( λ t ) = λ T ( -t ). Then, ln { Π[ x t ( ); λ t ( )] / Π[˜( ); ˜ ( )] x t λ t } gives βQ x t [ ( ); λ t ( )], where Q x t [ ( ); λ t ( )] is the heat flow from the system to the heat reservoir during the forward process [4, 6]. Since the heat production is only path-dependent, Q x [˜ ; ˜ t λ t ] = -Q x [ t ; λ t ]. There are three important choices for initial distributions, p 0 and ˜ , for each of which p 0 R corresponds to a different physical quantity. (i) p 0 and ˜ p 0 are chosen as equilibrium distributions associated with initial and final protocols, respectively. They are involutionary, so R satisfies the DFT. In this case R = β w ( λ -∆ ) F ≡ βw irr λ , where w λ is the work production performed on the system, ∆ F is the difference between the equilibrium free energies for initial and final values of the protocol, and w irr λ is called irreversible work. Note that the relaxation period to equilibrium for the final protocol value λ T is not necessary, which is an interesting feature in the Jarzynski identity and the Crooks DFT [4, 5]. (ii) p 0 is arbitrary and ˜ p 0 = p T (the initial distribution for the backward process is chosen to be the final distribution reached at the end of the forward process), then they are not involutionary, ˜ p T (final distribution in the backward process)

glyph[negationslash]

glyph[negationslash]

= p 0 , except for quasi-static process or (nonequilibrium) steady state. Then, R is equal to the total EP, ∆ s tot , for the system and the heat reservoir [2]. In this case, the DFT is certainly not satisfied in general, which was overlooked in Ref. [3]. (iii) If both p 0 and ˜ p 0 are uniform, then they are certainly involutionary. In this case R = βQ and the DFT is satisfied. However, it is practically improbable to obtain a uniform distribution in experiment. If ˜ ( λ t ) = λ T ( -t ), R does not correspond to any measurable quantity involving the heat production [6].

glyph[negationslash]

For the protocol presented in Fig. 1(a) [1], it is apparent that ˜ ( λ t ) = λ τ ( ′ -t ), so R is not a desired physical quantity. Extended to the case of multiple reservoirs (that include particle exchange as well), the key equation (9) in [1] does not hold, glyph[negationslash]

$$\underset { e ^ { R }, } { \overset { \cdots } { \text{and} } } \quad R \neq \beta _ { 1 } ( w _ { \lambda } - \Delta \Phi _ { 1 } ) + \tau \sum _ { \nu = 2 } ^ { N } ( A _ { \nu } ^ { \epsilon } j _ { \nu } ^ { \epsilon } + A _ { \nu } ^ { n } j _ { \nu } ^ { n } ) \equiv f ^ { i r r } \. \ ( 2 )$$

Here, A glyph[epsilon1] ν = β 1 -β ν , A n ν = β µ ν ν -β µ 1 1 , j glyph[epsilon1] ν = ∆ glyph[epsilon1] ν /τ and j n ν = ∆ n /τ ν , where ∆ glyph[epsilon1] ν and ∆ n ν are the changes in the energy and the particle number of the ν th reservoir, respectively. We define f irr from this equation, which is an irreversible observable for multiple reservoirs, generalizing the irreversible work for a single heat reservoir.

glyph[negationslash]

glyph[negationslash]

Instead, one can consider a setup for the protocol change as depicted in Fig. 1(b), where the backward protocol is time-reversed, ˜ ( λ t ) = λ τ ( ′ -t ). Here, in the forward process the initial state is prepared in equilibrium distribution and the final state also ends in equilibrium due to the final relaxation process. In the backward process the initial state starts with the final equilibrium state of the forward process, so that R = f irr = ∆ s tot in accordance with the cases (i) and (ii). However, the final state of the backward process generally ends in a non-equilibrium state because there exists no relaxation process. Therefore, the total EP does not satisfy the involution condition, that is typical in the case (ii), i.e. ∆˜ s tot [˜( ); ˜ ( x t λ t )] = -∆ s tot [ x t ( ); λ t ( )], and thus the corresponding DFT does not hold. Note that ˜ f irr = ∆˜ s tot , so the total EP in the backward process cannot be expressed in terms of observables.

A protocol suitable for the purpose of the authors of [1] is presented in Fig. 1(c) [8]. In the forward process, the system is initially connected only to the reservoir 1 and prepared at equilibrium with the protocol fixed at the value λ 0 . This initial distribution is maintained until t = τ r . At t = τ r , all the reservoirs are connected to the system and the driving protocol is changed in time until t = τ + τ r . At t = τ + τ r , all the other reservoirs except reservoir 1 are disconnected from the system. After that, the system relaxes to an equilibrium state at the fixed protocol λ τ ′ until t = τ +2 τ r . In the backward process, the protocol is chosen to be time-reversed to the forward protocol and the process starts with the final distribution of the forward process (as shown in fig. 1 (c)). This setup also belongs to the cases (i) and (ii) simultaneously. Owing to the relaxation periods in both initial and final

stages, the involution condition for the total EP is satisfied, as a special example in the case (ii). Therefore R = ∆ s tot = f irr and ˜ = ∆˜ R s tot = ˜ f irr . Thus the total EP can be expressed in terms of physical observables in both processes and the DFT is satisfied, which is desired in [1].

The authors of [1] also claimed that even if the final relaxation stage is removed from their proposed protocol in Fig. 1(a), Eq. (9) in their paper remains the same because the work w λ , energy current j glyph[epsilon1] ν and the particle current j n ν become zero during the relaxation process. This is the case of Fig. 1(b) without relaxation process for τ &lt; t &lt; τ ′ and with initial and final equilibrium

- [1] G. B. Cuetara, M. Esposito, and A. Imparato, Phys. Rev. E 89 , 052119 (2014).
- [2] U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 , 040602 (2005).
- [3] M. Esposito and C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 , 090601 (2010).
- [4] G. E. Crooks, Phys. Rev. E 60 , 2721 (1999).
- [5] C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 , 2690 (1997); Phys. Rev. E 56 , 5018 (1997).
- [6] For an overdamped Langevin equation, ˙ x = -∂ V x ( x, λ t ) + ξ t with 〈 ξ ξ t t ′ 〉 = 2 β -1 δ t ( -t ′ ) where the friction coefficient γ is set to unity. From the Onsager-Machlup theory, the forward path probability for a transition from x t to x t + dx for an infinitesimal time interval dt is proportional to exp[ -β 4 dt ( dx + dt∂ x V ( x , λ t t )) 2 ] and the backward path probability to exp[ -β 4 dt ( -dx + dt∂ x V ( x t + dx, λ t )) 2 ], which is represented by the prepoint discretization (Ito)

glyph[negationslash]

distributions. It belongs to the case (i), but not to (ii). Thus R = f irr = ∆ s tot . Using the arguments of [9], it can be shown that f irr &gt; ∆ s tot in average.

We finally comment that the total EP does not satisfy the DFT unless the protocol change is quasi-static or the system is in a steady state ( p 0 = p T ). This point was overlooked in Ref. [3] and has not been clearly stated until now, though this is not a main issue of this comment.

This research was supported grant No. 2011-35BC00014 (J.S.L) and by the Basic Science Research Program through NRF Grant No. by the NRF 2013R1A1A2011079 (C.K.).

glyph[negationslash]

convention. The path probability for the whole period 0 &lt; t &lt; τ ′ can be obtained from the product of those for infinitesimal time slices. Then one can show that the logarithm of the ratio of the two path probabilities leads to β ∂ V ( t · ˙ λdt -dV ), which is equal to βdQ as expected. Note that the potential V is given for the same protocol λ t for both paths as a result from the time-reversed ˜ . λ If λ t = ˜ λ T -t , the above result cannot be obtained.

- [7] G. Verley and D. Lacoste, Phys. Rev. E 86 , 051127 (2012).
- [8] R. Spinney and I. Ford, arxiv1201.6381 (2012).
- [9] A. Saha, S. Lahiri and A. M. Jayannavar, Phys. Rev. E 80 , 011117 (2009).
- [10] Here, we only consider the state x having even parity in time reversal for simplicity, though the generalization to the case with mixture of even and odd parities is straightforward.
Jae Sung Lee Sourabh Lahiri Chulan Kwon
Comment on "Exact fluctuation theorem without ensemble quantities"
In a recent work by Cuetara et al. (Phys. Rev. E 89, 052119 (2014)), the
authors claimed that if a system is prepared under suitable initial conditions,
then the total entropy production (EP) for the system and reservoirs can be
expressed in terms of physically measurable quantities. However, the backward
protocol used in their work is not time-reversed of the forward protocol so
that the quantity obtained from the ratio of the forward and backward path
probabilities is neither the total EP nor any measurable quantity. We propose a
suitable setup which satisfies their pursuit. We also provide a theoretical
background as to what quantity satisfies the fluctuation theorem depending on
the intial conditions chosen for the forward and backward processes.