2507.16764
Extremal Lyapunov exponents in random dynamics
Thirupathi Perumal, Shrihari Sridharan
incompletemedium confidence
- Category
- Not specified
- Journal tier
- Specialist/Solid
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:57 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
Both the paper and the candidate solution correctly set up the word-averaged cocycle and obtain a subadditive structure ensuring existence (a.e.) and L1 convergence of 1/(nN^n)∑_{|ω|=n} log norms (and the analogous “−” side). The paper proves this via an N-subadditive Kingman-type theorem (Theorem 3.10) and then deduces Theorem 3.8 by instantiating Φ_n with the word-sums . The model proves it via the Akcoglu–Krengel subadditive ergodic theorem for positive contractions, using the averaging operator P. However, both arguments fall short at the claimed T_j-invariance step: the paper asserts invariance from equality of integrals ∫Φ∘T_j=∫Φ (which does not imply Φ∘T_j=Φ a.e.) , and the model uses an L1 inequality to conclude that each ∥Λ∘T_j−Λ∥_1=0 from ∥PΛ−Λ∥_1=0, which is not logically valid. Thus, while existence and integral identities are established, the individual T_j-invariance remains unproven in both.
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} major revisions \textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid \textbf{Justification:} The main convergence and integral identities are persuasive and valuable, but the manuscript's proof of individual T\_j-invariance is not justified by the presented argument. Either a different proof is needed or additional assumptions must be stated under which P-harmonic limits coincide with T\_j-invariant limits. Clarify integrability for the negative exponent as well.