- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Boltzmann-like occupation of nonequilibrium steady states on dense disordered networks

Jacob Calvert*,†

  • *Present address: Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.
  • †Contact author: calvert@udel.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 114, 054120 – Published 9 November, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/4tf9-n1zn

Abstract

A central problem in statistical physics is to extend the Boltzmann distribution to nonequilibrium steady states (NESS). We prove that NESS on large dense disordered networks have Boltzmann-like occupation, despite extensive entropy production. One consequence is that such NESS can conceal their nonequilibrium nature from measurements of static response to energy perturbations. We further prove that the active-matter heuristic of “low rattling” is asymptotically exact for these NESS. Intuitively, they spend a greater fraction of their time in states they leave more slowly. We show that rattling effectively extends the Boltzmann distribution to such NESS, as well as the broader class of “equiaccessible” steady states, which play a role in our analysis akin to that of equilibrium in linear response.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (70)

  1. B. Schmittmann and R. K. P. Zia, Statistical Mechanics of Driven Diffusive Systems (Academic Press, 1995), pp. 3–214.
  2. E. H. Trepagnier, C. Jarzynski, F. Ritort, G. E. Crooks, C. J. Bustamante, and J. Liphardt, Experimental test of Hatano and Sasa's nonequilibrium steady-state equality, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 15038 (2004).
  3. B. Derrida, Non-equilibrium steady states: Fluctuations and large deviations of the density and of the current, J. Stat. Mech. (2007) P07023.
  4. T. S. Komatsu and N. Nakagawa, Expression for the stationary distribution in nonequilibrium steady states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030601 (2008).
  5. B. Altaner, S. Grosskinsky, S. Herminghaus, L. Katthän, M. Timme, and J. Vollmer, Network representations of nonequilibrium steady states: Cycle decompositions, symmetries, and dominant paths, Phys. Rev. E 85, 041133 (2012).
  6. R. Marsland and J. England, Far-from-equilibrium distribution from near-steady-state work fluctuations, Phys. Rev. E 92, 052120 (2015).
  7. J. Freitas and M. Esposito, Emergent second law for non-equilibrium steady states, Nat. Commun. 13, 5084 (2022).
  8. R. Landauer, Inadequacy of entropy and entropy derivatives in characterizing the steady state, Phys. Rev. A 12, 636 (1975).
  9. R. Landauer, Stability and entropy production in electrical circuits, J. Stat. Phys. 13, 1 (1975).
  10. R. Landauer, Motion out of noisy states, J. Stat. Phys. 53, 233 (1988).
  11. C. Maes and K. Netočný, Heat bounds and the blowtorch theorem, Ann. Henri Poincaré 14, 1193 (2013).
  12. J. L. Lebowitz and P. G. Bergmann, Irreversible Gibbsian ensembles, Ann. Phys. 1, 1 (1957).
  13. J. L. Lebowitz, Stationary nonequilibrium Gibbsian ensembles, Phys. Rev. 114, 1192 (1959).
  14. J. A. McLennan, Jr., Statistical mechanics of the steady state, Phys. Rev. 115, 1405 (1959).
  15. C. Maes and K. Netočný, Rigorous meaning of McLennan ensembles, J. Math. Phys. 51, 015219 (2010).
  16. C. Maes, Frenesy: Time-symmetric dynamical activity in nonequilibria, Phys. Rep. 850, 1 (2020).
  17. M. Colangeli, C. Maes, and B. Wynants, A meaningful expansion around detailed balance, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 095001 (2011).
  18. F. Khodabandehlou, C. Maes, and K. Netočný, Trees and forests for nonequilibrium purposes: An introduction to graphical representations, J. Stat. Phys. 189, 41 (2022).
  19. I. N. Mamede, C. E. Fiore, G. A. L. Forão, K. Proesmans, and A. P. Vieira, Exact mapping of nonequilibrium to equilibrium phase transitions for systems in contact with two thermal baths, arXiv:2511.02127.
  20. I. N. Mamede, B. Cleuren, and C. E. Fiore, Universal features of nonequilibrium Ising models in contact with two thermal reservoirs, Europhys. Lett. 155, 41001 (2026).
  21. P. Chvykov, T. A. Berrueta, A. Vardhan, W. Savoie, A. Samland, T. D. Murphey, K. Wiesenfeld, D. I. Goldman, and J. L. England, Low rattling: A predictive principle for self-organization in active collectives, Science 371, 90 (2021).
  22. J. Calvert and D. Randall, A local–global principle for nonequilibrium steady states, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2411731121 (2024).
  23. K. J. Ray and A. B. Boyd, Large interconnected thermodynamic systems nearly minimize entropy production, arXiv:2507.10476.
  24. It is known that the response of general NESS to energy perturbations has the form of the static FDT [29]. For NESS on large dense disordered networks, we show that even the value of the response to energy perturbations is asymptotically indistinguishable from that of the corresponding equilibrium. This result extends to more general perturbations of the transition rates.
  25. O. Penrose, Foundations of Statistical Mechanics: A Deductive Treatment, International Series of Monographs in Natural Philosophy Vol. 22 (Pergamon Press, 1970), pp. ix+260.
  26. J. Schnakenberg, Network theory of microscopic and macroscopic behavior of master equation systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 571 (1976).
  27. C. Maes and K. Netočný, Time-reversal and entropy, J. Stat. Phys. 110, 269 (2003).
  28. R. K. P. Zia and B. Schmittmann, Probability currents as principal characteristics in the statistical mechanics of non-equilibrium steady states, J. Stat. Mech. (2007) P07012.
  29. J. A. Owen, T. R. Gingrich, and J. M. Horowitz, Universal thermodynamic bounds on nonequilibrium response with biochemical applications, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011066 (2020).
  30. G. Falasco and M. Esposito, Macroscopic stochastic thermodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 015002 (2025).
  31. J. R. Norris, Markov Chains, Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics Vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. xvi+237, reprint of 1997 original.
  32. E. P. Wigner, Random matrices in physics, SIAM Rev. 9, 1 (1967).
  33. A. J. Bray and G. J. Rodgers, Diffusion in a sparsely connected space: A model for glassy relaxation, Phys. Rev. B 38, 11461 (1988).
  34. C. Timm, Random transition-rate matrices for the master equation, Phys. Rev. E 80, 021140 (2009).
  35. M. Horvat, The ensemble of random Markov matrices, J. Stat. Mech. (2009) P07005.
  36. C. Bordenave, P. Caputo, and D. Chafaï, Spectrum of Markov generators on sparse random graphs, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 67, 621 (2014).
  37. F. Mosam, D. Vidaurre, and E. De Giuli, Breakdown of random matrix universality in Markov models, Phys. Rev. E 104, 024305 (2021).
  38. G. Nakerst, S. Denisov, and M. Haque, Random sparse generators of Markovian evolution and their spectral properties, Phys. Rev. E 108, 014102 (2023).
  39. J. Calvert and D. Randall, Local-global correlations of dynamics on disordered energy landscapes, arXiv:2508.04501.
  40. F. Mosam and E. De Giuli, Entangled criticality and irreversibility in random Markov dynamics, Phys. Rev. E 114, 014315 (2026).
  41. J. Calvert, F. den Hollander, and D. Randall, On the principal eigenvectors of random Markov matrices, Electron. Commun. Probab. 31, 1 (2026).
  42. Suppose that (Ẽ,(X̃,X̃′)) are two choices of vertex parameters and a representative edge-weight pair that satisfy the hypotheses and give rise, via Eq. (1), to transition-rate matrices W and W̃ with the same distribution. By equating the expected values of the entries of W and W̃, we find that eEjE[X]=eẼjE[X̃]; hence Ẽj=Ej−c in terms of c=log(E[X̃]/E[X]), for every j. Since Wij and W̃ij have the same distribution, the same is then true of (X̃,X̃′) and (ecX,ecX′).
  43. C. Maes, Local detailed balance, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 32 (2021).
  44. C. Bordenave, P. Caputo, D. Chafaï, and D. Piras, Spectrum of large random Markov chains: Heavy-tailed weights on the oriented complete graph, Random Matrices: Theory Appl. 06, 1750006 (2017).
  45. Specifically, B and F need to be nondegenerate random variables whose moment-generating functions MB(t)=E[etB] and MF(u)=E[euF] are finite for t=−2 and u=1. Indeed, the independence of B and F implies that E[X2]&=E[e−2(B−F/2)]=MB(−2)MF(1).The condition that (X,X′) has the same distribution as (X′,X) requires F and −F to have the same distribution.
  46. A. Dechant and S.-i. Sasa, Fluctuation–response inequality out of equilibrium, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 6430 (2020).
  47. T. Aslyamov and M. Esposito, Nonequilibrium response for Markov jump processes: Exact results and tight bounds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 037101 (2024).
  48. K. Ptaszyński, T. Aslyamov, and M. Esposito, Nonequilibrium fluctuation-response relations for state observables, Phys. Rev. E 113, 024130 (2026).
  49. In the special case when X and X′ are independent, this graph is a dense Erdős–Rényi random directed graph, where each edge is independently present with probability p=P(X>0)>0 [70].
  50. B. Bollobás, Modern Graph Theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics Vol. 184 (Springer-Verlag, 1998), pp. xiv+394.
  51. Y. Polyanskiy and Y. Wu, Information Theory: From Coding to Learning (Cambridge University Press, 2025).
  52. To ensure that E[Xlog(X/X′)] is finite, we must further assume that |logX| is integrable.
  53. Z. D. Bai and Y. Q. Yin, Limit of the smallest eigenvalue of a large dimensional sample covariance matrix, Ann. Probab. 21, 1275 (1993).
  54. Interpreting π̃ in this way requires W̃ to be aperiodic.
  55. Note that only E[X]<∞ is necessary for C1=μN(1+o(1)) to hold almost surely. The finiteness of E[X2] is needed to ensure that the N-many sums (Ci)i simultaneously converge. For a reference, see [ [53], Lemma 2]. Although the result is stated for an array of i.i.d. random variables, the proof in [53] works as written in our case.
  56. Note that Corr(U,V) denotes the Pearson correlation coefficient, or normalized covariance, between U and V.
  57. J. Calvert and D. Randall, Correlation thresholds in the steady states of particle systems and spin glasses, Phys. Rev. E 112, 064122 (2025).
  58. Although πeq and p(1) are the same function of the vertex parameters, we intentionally use the latter in this section and in Appendix pp4 to avoid the confusion that might arise from writing σ(πeq).
  59. R. Durrett, Probability—Theory and Examples, 5th ed., Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics Vol. 49 (Cambridge University Press, 2019), pp. xii+419.
  60. T. Hatano and S.-i. Sasa, Steady-state thermodynamics of Langevin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3463 (2001).
  61. C. Jarzynski, Equilibrium free-energy differences from nonequilibrium measurements: A master-equation approach, Phys. Rev. E 56, 5018 (1997).
  62. C. Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2690 (1997).
  63. G. E. Crooks, Nonequilibrium measurements of free energy differences for microscopically reversible Markovian systems, J. Stat. Phys. 90, 1481 (1998).
  64. S. Li, B. Dutta, S. Cannon, J. J. Daymude, R. Avinery, E. Aydin, A. W. Richa, D. I. Goldman, and D. Randall, Programming active cohesive granular matter with mechanically induced phase changes, Sci. Adv. 7, eabe8494 (2021).
  65. J. F. Yang, T. A. Berrueta, A. M. Brooks, A. T. Liu, G. Zhang, D. Gonzalez-Medrano, S. Yang, V. B. Koman, P. Chvykov, L. N. LeMar, M. Z. Miskin, T. D. Murphey, and M. S. Strano, Emergent microrobotic oscillators via asymmetry-induced order, Nat. Commun. 13, 5734 (2022).
  66. B. Lefebvre and C. Maes, Frenetic steering in a nonequilibrium graph, J. Stat. Phys. 190, 90 (2023).
  67. B. Lefebvre and C. Maes, Frenetic steering: Nonequilibrium-enabled navigation, Chaos 34, 063121 (2024).
  68. R. Vershynin, High-Dimensional Probability, Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics Vol. 47 (Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. xiv+284, An introduction with applications in data science, with a foreword by Sara van de Geer.
  69. Enumerate the off-diagonal entries of X so that the n(n−1) entries with i,j≤n appear first and call the resulting sequence (Yk)k≥1. By the Borel–Cantelli lemma, it suffices for P(Yk>λk1/r) to be summable over k for every λ>0, as then maxi,j≤NXij=maxk≤N(N−1)Yk=o(N2/r) almost surely. Each Yk is equal in distribution to X, so this follows from the equivalence of E[Xr]<∞ and the finiteness of ΣkP(X>λk1/r) for every λ>0.
  70. C. Cooper and A. Frieze, Stationary distribution and cover time of random walks on random digraphs, J. Comb. Theory Ser. B 102, 329 (2012).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 114, 054120– Published 9 November, 2026
  • Received 12 June 2026
  • Accepted 27 October 2026
Article part of CHORUS
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2026 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation