↓ Skip to main content

Maximum one-shot dissipated work from Rényi divergences

Overview of attention for article published in Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Maximum one-shot dissipated work from Rényi divergences
Published in
Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, May 2018
DOI 10.1103/physreve.97.052135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole Yunger Halpern, Andrew J. P. Garner, Oscar C. O. Dahlsten, Vlatko Vedral

Abstract

Thermodynamics describes large-scale, slowly evolving systems. Two modern approaches generalize thermodynamics: fluctuation theorems, which concern finite-time nonequilibrium processes, and one-shot statistical mechanics, which concerns small scales and finite numbers of trials. Combining these approaches, we calculate a one-shot analog of the average dissipated work defined in fluctuation contexts: the cost of performing a protocol in finite time instead of quasistatically. The average dissipated work has been shown to be proportional to a relative entropy between phase-space densities, to a relative entropy between quantum states, and to a relative entropy between probability distributions over possible values of work. We derive one-shot analogs of all three equations, demonstrating that the order-infinity Rényi divergence is proportional to the maximum possible dissipated work in each case. These one-shot analogs of fluctuation-theorem results contribute to the unification of these two toolkits for small-scale, nonequilibrium statistical physics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Researcher 3 27%
Professor 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 7 64%
Chemical Engineering 1 9%
Engineering 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,758,670
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics
#1,028
of 21,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,317
of 345,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics
#14
of 376 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 376 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.