Back to search
2208.01989

Thermodynamic Formalism on the Skorokhod space: the continuous time Ruelle operator, entropy, pressure, entropy production and expansiveness

J. Knorst, A. O. Lopes, G. Muller, A. Neumann

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

Audit review

The paper’s Theorem 1 asserts that for any strictly positive continuous kernel P on [0,1]^2 with ∫ P(x,y) dx = 1 and any Hölder potential V, there exist strictly positive left/right eigenfunctions ℓ,r that are themselves Hölder. However, the proof’s compactness step on H^α wrongly uses only uniform continuity of P and V; it does not show that (L+V+zI) maps H^α into H^α (no Hölder control of the image unless P is Hölder). Indeed, with P(x,y)=p(x) continuous but non-Hölder, one gets ℓ(x) ∝ p(x)/(1+λ−V(x)), which need not be Hölder, contradicting Theorem 1. The model’s solution delivers the correct existence/positivity of continuous eigenfunctions via a positive compact operator T_θ on C([0,1]) and shows Hölder regularity requires Hölder regularity of P. Hence the paper’s Hölder claim is false as stated; the model is correct and provides a minimal fix.

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} major revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} strong field

\textbf{Justification:}

The core spectral-existence framework is interesting and broadly correct, but the paper’s headline regularity result (Theorem 1) is incorrect under the stated assumptions. The compactness argument on H\^α does not control the Hölder seminorm of the image unless P is Hölder; a simple counterexample shows ℓ need not be Hölder when P is merely continuous. The issue appears fixable by strengthening hypotheses on P to Hölder regularity and revising the proof accordingly.