Fluctuation theorems for multiple co-evolving systems David H. Wolpert Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico Complexity Science Hub, Vienna Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona http://davidwolpert.weebly.com All previously derived thermodynamic fluctuation theorems (FTs) that concern multiple co- evolving systems have required that each system can only change its state during an associated pre- fixed, limited set of times. However, in many real-world cases the times when systems change their states are randomly determined, e.g., in almost all biological examples of co-evolving systems. Such randomness in the timing drastically modifies the thermodynamics. Here I derive FTs that apply whether or not the timing is random. These FTs provide new versions of the second law, and of all conventional thermodynamic uncertainty relations (TURs). These new results are often stronger than the conventional versions, which ignore how an overall system may decompose into a set of co-evolving systems. In addition, the new TURs often bound entropy production (EP) of the overall system even if none of the criteria for a conventional TUR (e.g., being a nonequilibrium steady state) hold for that overall system. In some cases the new FTs also provide a new type of speed limit theo- rem, and in some cases they also provide nontrivial upper bounds on expected EP of systems. I use a standard example of ligand detectors in a cell wall to illustrate these results. I. INTRODUCTION In many real-world scenarios however — arguably in almost all biological scenarios — the timings are T Some of the most important results in stochastic ther- random. Moreover, the thermodynamics changes dras- modynamics are the fluctuation theorems (FTs) [4, 8, tically depending on whether is random or fixed. For example, in a fixed- scenario,T there is a pre- 33, 38, 46]. These govern the probability distribution T of the total entropy production (EP) generated over any determined time-interval assigned to each system, spec- time interval by a system that evolves according to a ifying when its state can change. The global rate matrix continuous-time Markov chain (CTMC). As an exam- must change from any one such interval to the next. So ple of their power, the FTs provide bounds strictly more thermodynamic work must be done on any such fixed- powerful than the second law, leading them to be iden- system, simply to enforce the sequence . No such workT is required when is random — suchT systems can tified as the “underlying thermodynamics ... of time’s T arrow” [32]. In addition, an FT can be used to derive have time-homogeneous rate matrices. a thermodynamic uncertainty relation (TUR) [14], i.e., Here I fill in this gap in stochastic thermodynamics, an upper bound on how precise any current can be in an by deriving FTs that hold for arbitrary MPPs, whether or not is random. These FTs provide new versions of evolving system in terms of the expected EP it generates. T Many evolving systems decompose into a set of mul- the second law and of (all) conventional TURs (includ- tiple co-evolving systems. Examples include a digi- ing, e.g., [2, 9, 14, 15, 23]), which are often stronger than tal circuit, which decomposes into a set of interacting those earlier, conventional TURs. In particular, I derive gates [46, 50], and a cell, which decomposes into a set of TURs that bound EP of the full system in terms of cur- many organelles and biomolecule species, jointly evolv- rent precision(s) of its constituent co-evolving systems. ing as a multipartite process (MPP) [16, 17]. The early These TURs apply even if the full system does not meet work on FTs did not consider the thermodynamic impli- the criteria for a conventional TUR (e.g., being an NESS), cations of such a decomposition. While some recent pa- so long as at least one of the constituent systems meets pers have considered those implications [13, 17, 19, 40, one of those criteria. Moreover, in some cases different 44], they have not derived FTs. (One exception is [12], TURs apply to different constituent systems, and can be which does derive an FT — but that FT only applies to combined to lower-bound the EP of the full system in bipartite systems, and only if the system is in a nonequi- terms of current precisions of those systems. In addi- librium stationary state (NESS) [25].) tion, in some cases the new FTs provide a new type of arXiv:2003.11144v5 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 14 Apr 2021 There has also been a line of papers that derive FTs speed limit theorem [28, 35, 41, 51], involving changes for an arbitrary number of co-evolving systems, which in conditional mutual information from the beginning apply without any NESS restriction [20, 21, 47]. How- to the end of a process rather than the distance between ever, these papers all require that the timing sequence initial and final distributions. Finally, the new FTs also specifying when each system changes its state is fixed sometimes provide information-theoretic upper bounds aheadT of time, not randomly determined as the full sys- on expected EP of systems. I end by illustrating these tem evolves. This requirement implicitly assumes a results in a standard example of receptors in a cell wall global clock, which simultaneously governs all the sys- sensing their external environment. All proofs and for- tems, synchronizing their dynamics [26]. mal definitions not in the text are in the Supplemental 2 Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher]. II. MULTIPARTITE STOCHASTIC THERMODYNAMICS ELEMENTARY CONCEPTS is a set of N systems, with finite state spaces Xi : i =N 1;:::N . x is a vector in X, the joint space of ,f and X is the setg of all trajectories x of the joint system.N As in [16, 44], I assume that each system is in contact with its own reservoir(s), and so the probability is zero that any two systems change state simultaneously. Therefore there is a set of time-varying stochastic rate matrices, x0 x0 Kx (i;t): i = 1;:::;N , where for all i, Kx (i;t) = 0 if x0 i = f g − 6 x i, and the joint dynamics is given by [16, 17] − FIG. 1. Four systems, 1 2 3 4 interacting in a MPP. The red dp (t) X X X ; ; ; x x0 x0 f g = Kx (t)px (t) = Kx (i;t)px (t) (1) arrows indicate dependencies in the associated four rate ma- dt 0 0 trices. evolves independently, but is continually observed x x i B 0 0 2N by A and C. So the statistical coupling between A and C could x0 P x0 grow with time, even though their rate matrices do not involve For any A I define Kx (A;t) := i A Kx (i;t): For each⊆ system N i, r(i;t) is any set of2 systems at time t one another. Three examples of units are the sets !;!0;α indi- cated at the bottom: r(1) = r(2) = !, r(4) = α, and r(3) = ! . that includes i such that we can write 0 x0 x0 r(i;t) Kx (i;t) = Kxr(i;t) (i;t)δ(x0 r(i;t);x r(i;t)) (2) receptors. We can extend that scenario, to include a sec- − − ond set of receptors that observe the same medium (with x r0 (i;t) all variables appropriately coarse-grained). Fig. 1 illus- for an appropriate set of functions Kx (i;t). In gen- r(i;t) trates this MPP; system 3 is the concentration level, sys- eral, for any given i, there are multiple such sets r(i;t). tem 2 is the first set of receptors observing that concen- A unit ! (at an implicit time t) is a set of systems such tration level, system 1 is the memory, and system 4 is that i ! implies that r(i;t) !. Any intersection of the second set of receptors. two units2 is a unit, as is any⊆ union of two units. (See Taking kB = 1, I write the inverse temperature of reser- Fig. 1 for an example.) A set of units that covers k and is closed under intersections is a (unit) dependencyN voir k for system i as βi , the associated chemical poten- k k structure, typically written as ∗. Except where stated tials as µi (with µi = 0 if k is a heat bath), and any associ- N k otherwise, I focus on dependency structures which do ated conserved quantities as ni (xi). So the rate matrix of not include itself as a member. From now on I assume x0 P x0 system i is Kx (i;t) = k Kx (i;k;t). Any fluctuations of x there are pre-fixedN time-intervals in which doesn’t N ∗ in which only xi changes are determined by exchanges change, and restrict attention to such an interval. (This between i and its reservoirs. Moreover, since we have a assumption holds in all of the papers mentioned above.) MPP, the rate matrices K(j;t) for j = i must equal zero x!0 P x!0 6 For any unit !, I write Kx! (!;t) := i ! Kx! (i;t). So for such a fluctuation in the state of i. Therefore, writ- x 2 x0 P x0 !0 ing Hx(t) for the global Hamiltonian, thermodynamic Kx (!;t) := i ! Kx (i;t) = Kx! (!;t)δ(x0 !;x !). Cru- 2 − − consistency [30, 39] says that for all i;k;t;x;x0, cially, at any time t, for any unit !, px! (t) evolves as a x!0 x0 self-contained CTMC with rate matrix Kx (!;t): Kx (i;k;t) k k h k k i ! ln = β [H (t) H (t)] + µ n (x ) n (x0) (4) Kx (i;k;t) i x0 − x i i i − i i ( ) X x0 dpx! t x!0 = Kx! (!;t)px!0 (t) (3) x0 dt so long as both x i = x0 i and Kx (i;k;t) = δ(xi0;xi).