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
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
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.