Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Information-Optimal Mixing at Low Reynolds Number

Luca Cocconi1,*, Yihong Shi1, and Andrej Vilfan2

  • *Contact author: luca.cocconi@ds.mpg.de

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 037101 – Published 15 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/cl9m-cmhb

Abstract

Mutual information between particle positions before and after mixing provides a universal assumption-free measure of mixing efficiency at low Reynolds number that accounts for the kinematic reversibility of the Stokes equation. For a generic planar shear flow with time-dependent shear rate, we derive a compact expression for the mutual information as a nonlinear functional of the shearing protocol and solve the associated extremization problem exactly to determine the optimal control under both linear and nonlinear constraints, specifically total shear and total dissipation per unit volume. Remarkably, optimal protocols turn out to be universal and time-reversal symmetric in both cases. Our results establish a minimum energetic cost of erasing information in a broad class of nonequilibrium drift-diffusive systems.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (39)

  1. E. M. Purcell, Life at low Reynolds number, Am. J. Phys. 45, 3 (1977).
  2. J. Arrieta, J. H. Cartwright, E. Gouillart, N. Piro, O. Piro, and I. Tuval, Geometric mixing, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20200168 (2020).
  3. National Committee for Fluid Mechanics Films, Illustrated Experiments in Fluid Mechanics: The NCFMF Book of Film Notes (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1972).
  4. J. P. Heller, An unmixing demonstration, Am. J. Phys. 28, 348 (1960).
  5. E. Villermaux, Mixing versus stirring, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 245 (2019).
  6. E. Tang and R. Golestanian, Quantifying configurational information for a stochastic particle in a flow-field, New J. Phys. 22, 083060 (2020).
  7. G. I. Taylor, Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flowing slowly through a tube, Proc. R. Soc. A 219, 186 (1953).
  8. A. D. Stroock, S. K. Dertinger, A. Ajdari, I. Mezic, H. A. Stone, and G. M. Whitesides, Chaotic mixer for microchannels, Science 295, 647 (2002).
  9. C. J. Campbell and B. A. Grzybowski, Microfluidic mixers: From microfabricated to self-assembling devices, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 362, 1069 (2004).
  10. R. O. Grigoriev, M. F. Schatz, and V. Sharma, Chaotic mixing in microdroplets, Lab Chip 6, 1369 (2006).
  11. D. J. Pine, J. P. Gollub, J. F. Brady, and A. M. Leshansky, Chaos and threshold for irreversibility in sheared suspensions, Nature (London) 438, 997 (2005).
  12. H. Aref, J. R. Blake, M. Budišić, S. S. Cardoso, J. H. Cartwright, H. J. Clercx, K. El Omari, U. Feudel, R. Golestanian, E. Gouillart et al., Frontiers of chaotic advection, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025007 (2017).
  13. P. Konopka, Analytical Gaussian solutions for anisotropic diffusion in a linear shear flow, J. Non-Equilib. Thermodyn. 20, 78 (1995).
  14. D. D’Alessandro, M. Dahleh, and I. Mezic, Control of mixing in fluid flow: A maximum entropy approach, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 44, 1852 (1999).
  15. Y. Shi, R. Golestanian, and A. Vilfan, Mutual information as a measure of mixing efficiency in viscous fluids, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L022050 (2024).
  16. Z. Lin, J.-L. Thiffeault, and C. R. Doering, Optimal stirring strategies for passive scalar mixing, J. Fluid Mech. 675, 465 (2011).
  17. O. Gubanov and L. Cortelezzi, Towards the design of an optimal mixer, J. Fluid Mech. 651, 27 (2010).
  18. T. Schmiedl and U. Seifert, Optimal finite-time processes in stochastic thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 108301 (2007).
  19. S. A. M. Loos, S. Monter, F. Ginot, and C. Bechinger, Universal symmetry of optimal control at the microscale, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021032 (2024).
  20. K. Proesmans, J. Ehrich, and J. Bechhoefer, Optimal finite-time bit erasure under full control, Phys. Rev. E 102, 032105 (2020).
  21. R. Garcia-Millan, J. Schüttler, M. E. Cates, and S. A. M. Loos, Optimal closed-loop control of active particles and a minimal information engine, arXiv:2407.18542.
  22. L. Cocconi, B. Mahault, and L. Piro, Dissipation-accuracy tradeoffs in autonomous control of smart active matter, New J. Phys. 27, 013002 (2025).
  23. M. C. Engel, J. A. Smith, and M. P. Brenner, Optimal control of nonequilibrium systems through automatic differentiation, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041032 (2023).
  24. L. K. Davis, K. Proesmans, and E. Fodor, Active matter under control: Insights from response theory, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011012 (2024).
  25. K. Proesmans, Precision-dissipation trade-off for driven stochastic systems, Commun. Phys. 6, 226 (2023).
  26. P. V. Danckwerts, The definition and measurement of some characteristics of mixtures, Appl. Sci. Res. 3, 279 (1952).
  27. J.-L. Thiffeault, Using multiscale norms to quantify mixing and transport, Nonlinearity 25, R1 (2012).
  28. M. Camesasca, M. Kaufman, and I. Manas-Zloczower, Quantifying fluid mixing with the Shannon entropy, Macromol. Theory Simul. 15, 595 (2006).
  29. J.-L. Thiffeault, Nonuniform mixing, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 090501 (2021).
  30. Y.-K. Tsang, T. M. Antonsen Jr, and E. Ott, Exponential decay of chaotically advected passive scalars in the zero diffusivity limit, Phys. Rev. E 71, 066301 (2005).
  31. F. N. M. de Sousa Filho, V. Pereira de Sá, and E. Brigatti, Entropy estimation in bidimensional sequences, Phys. Rev. E 105, 054116 (2022).
  32. N. G. van Kampen, The expansion of the master equation, Adv. Chem. Phys. 34, 245 (1976).
  33. In this case, one of the three coordinates [say, z(t)] reduces to an independent Wiener process and the covariance matrix Σ acquires a block diagonal structure. Its determinant is given by the product of the nontrivial upper block, which accounts for the coupled dynamics in the (x,y) plane and is identical to the covariance for the 2D case and the Σzz(t)=2Dt element, which is protocol-independent.

  34. E. J. Putzer, Avoiding the Jordan canonical form in the discussion of linear systems with constant coefficients, Am. Math. Mon. 73, 2 (1966).
  35. C. Dieball and A. Godec, Coarse graining empirical densities and currents in continuous-space steady states, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033243 (2022).
  36. J. M. T. Thompson and H. B. Stewart, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2002).
  37. A. Salas, J. E. C. Hernández, and L. J. M. Hernández, The Duffing oscillator equation and its applications in physics, Math. Probl. Eng. 2021, 9994967 (2021).
  38. M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, Applied Mathematics Series, (US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1968), Vol. 55.
  39. L. Cocconi, Y. Shi and A. Vilfan, Information-optimal mixing at low Reynolds number [data set] (2025), 10.5281/zenodo.15745302.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation