Back to search
2203.08531

Random periodic solutions of nonautonomous stochastic feedback systems with multiplicative noise

Zhao Dong, Weili Zhang, Zuohuan Zheng

correctmedium confidence
Category
Not specified
Journal tier
Specialist/Solid
Processed
Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM

Audit review

The paper proves existence, uniqueness, periodicity, and pullback attraction of a positive random periodic solution for the nonautonomous stochastic feedback system by (i) establishing contractivity of the gain operator Kh on a complete metric space (Lemma 4.2) under (R) and (H1), with contraction factor L d^2 sup_{t≥0} E R(t)/λ < 1, and (ii) combining a monotone/anti-monotone squeezing argument with the Banach fixed-point theorem to obtain a unique fixed point u ∈ M and Y = K(u) that satisfies φ(t,s,ω)Y(s,ω)=Y(t,ω) and Y(t+T,ω)=Y(t,θ_T ω), plus a.s. pullback convergence along s = −nT (Theorem 4.3) . The candidate solution follows a streamlined but different route: it relies directly on Banach’s fixed point theorem for Kh, identifies Y = K(u) as a solution via the variation-of-constants formula, proves periodicity using the shift covariance of Φ, and derives pullback attraction via a Volterra-type inequality and Borel–Cantelli. These steps are logically sound and consistent with the paper’s assumptions and preliminaries, including the linear-flow estimate (L) and the variation-of-constants formula (2.5) for the flow ϕ (and Φ’s cocycle/positivity under (A)) . Minor issues: the model incorrectly states the multiplicative noise is “scalar (identity direction)”—the paper allows diagonal/noise-structured matrices—but this does not affect the argument’s validity; and the model omits the paper’s (anti-)monotonicity hypotheses, which are used in the paper’s squeezing lemmas but are not needed for the model’s direct contraction-based proof. Overall, both are correct; the proofs differ in technique.

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid

\textbf{Justification:}

The main theorem is correct, assumptions are reasonable, and the argument is rigorous. Presentation can be improved by clarifying the noise structure and the independence arguments used in the contraction estimate. The examples are appropriate and demonstrate the scope of the result.