2505.22996
Jumping for diffusion in random metastable systems
Cecilia González-Tokman, Joshua Peters
correctmedium confidence
- Category
- math.DS
- Journal tier
- Strong Field
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The paper proves (i) a quenched CLT for random metastable systems under (P1)–(P7) by invoking the spectral CLT of Dragičević–Froyland–González-Tokman–Vaienti once uniform covering is guaranteed by (P4), and (ii) the small-ε diffusion-coefficient asymptotics lim_{ε→0} ε(Σε)^2 = 2⟨p⊙E[Ψ], (∫_0^∞ e^{t\bar G}dt)E[Ψ]⟩, with \bar G the generator of the averaged Markov jump process (equation (3) of Theorem 1.3), and illustrates it explicitly for random paired tent maps (equation (72)) . The candidate solution derives the same two assertions. For (i) it uses the same spectral method (twisted operators) as [14] in spirit; for (ii) it uses a macro–micro decomposition and an averaging argument for near-identity random matrices to reach exactly the paper’s formula. Differences are in proof strategy: the paper computes correlations via a jump-process approximation (Theorem 1.2) to obtain p_{jk}(t)=(e^{t\bar G})_{jk} and then (3) , while the candidate sketches a Duhamel/self-averaging route. Minor issues in the candidate solution include: (a) centering is assumed w.r.t. μ^ε in text whereas the paper assumes fibrewise centering w.r.t. the limiting density ϕ^0 and then works with the ε-centred observable ψ̃^ε (Definition 6.1 and (46)) ; (b) it casually claims an O(ε) convergence rate of ϕ^ε_ω→ϕ^0, while the paper uses o(1) from an averaging result ; and (c) it identifies the stable subspace as {1}^⊥ rather than {v: p^T v=0}. These do not affect the final conclusions.
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions \textbf{Journal Tier:} strong field \textbf{Justification:} The manuscript establishes a robust link between quenched limit theorems and metastable jump-process approximations in a random setting, delivering both a general resolvent formula for the diffusion coefficient and an explicit example. The mathematical framework is careful and complete, with detailed technical lemmata. Minor clarifications (centering conventions, the precise stable subspace for the resolvent) would further improve readability.