Back to search
2201.05859

ON MERGING OF STOCHASTIC FLOW OF SEMI-MARKOV DYNAMICS

Anindya Goswami, Ravishankar Kapildev Yadav

correcthigh confidence
Category
math.DS
Journal tier
Strong Field
Processed
Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM

Audit review

The paper proves eventual merging under A1–A5 by (i) deriving an exact meeting-at-next-transition formula (Theorem 4.4), (ii) ensuring eventual meeting under A4 (Theorem 4.7), (iii) computing the probability that a meeting is a merging time (Theorem 4.9), and (iv) using a product-of-failures argument to show the probability of never merging is zero (Theorem 4.12 via (4.11)–(4.12)) . The candidate solution presents a pathwise coupling with the same structural milestones: infinite jumps/no explosion from A1–A2, uniformly positive probability of meeting at the next jump under A4, a positive “stickiness” probability at meetings under A5 using the shared PRM and block structure from A3, and a geometric-tries argument to conclude a.s. merging. There is one technical slip: at meetings, the union intensity of acceptance intervals is the sum of maxima over targets, ∑k max(λik(r), λik(y+r)), not λi(r)+λi(y+r); however, the candidate only needs an upper bound, and the bound used (≤ 2∥λi∥∞) remains valid, so the overall argument still goes through. Hence both are correct, with the model’s proof differing in style and containing a minor correctable detail.

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} strong field

\textbf{Justification:}

The manuscript establishes a clean PRM-based framework for semi-Markov processes and addresses an underexplored question: merging of coupled semi-Markov flows. The meeting and merging results are correct under A1–A5 and well supported by explicit formulas and careful conditioning arguments. Exposition could be slightly tightened around the interpretation of A3 and the intensity calculations at meetings.