Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 46 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 54 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 34 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 20 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 100 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 166 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 460 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 35 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Linear and fractional response for the SRB measure of smooth hyperbolic attractors and discontinuous observables (1603.09690v3)

Published 31 Mar 2016 in math.DS, math-ph, math.MP, and nlin.CD

Abstract: We consider a smooth one-parameter family $t \to f_t$ of diffeomorphisms with compact transitive Axiom A attractors. Our first result (corrected) is that for any function $G$ in the Sobolev space $Hr_p$, with $p>1$ and $0<r<1/p$, the map $R(t)$ sending $t$ to the average of $G$ with respect to the SRB measure of $f_t$ is $\alpha$-H\"older continuous for all $\alpha <r- |log \mathcal J|/(p|log \nu_s|$) where $\mathcal J\le 1$ is the strongest volume contraction and $\nu_s<1$ is the weakest contraction. This applies to $\theta(x)=h(x)\Theta(g(x)-a)$ (for all $\alpha <1- |log \mathcal J|/|log \nu_s|$) for $h$ and $g$ smooth and $\Theta$ the Heaviside function, if $a$ is not a critical value of $g$. Our second result says that for any such function so that, in addition, the intersection of the set of points $x$ so that $g(x)=a$ with the support of $h$ is foliated by "admissible stable leaves" of $f_t$, the map $R(t)$ is differentiable. (We provide distributional linear response and fluctuation-dissipation formulas for the derivative.) Obtaining linear response or fractional response for such observables is motivated by extreme-value theory. --- Second version, following the referee's comments: We explain better the cone choices around (2.4). Appendix A contains information on the Banach spaces. We added the paragraph containing (2.6) in the proof of Theorem 2.1. In the proof of Theorem 3.3, we do not need to introduce mollifiers. However, the new argument around (2.6) is not available here, so we must replace the pair $(u-1, |s-1|)$ by $(u-2, |s-2|)$. This is why we now assume that $h$ is $C3$ and that $g$ and the foliations are $C4$. --- Third version: We have added a corrigendum modifying the first result (Theorem 2.1).

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Don't miss out on important new AI/ML research

See which papers are being discussed right now on X, Reddit, and more:

“Emergent Mind helps me see which AI papers have caught fire online.”

Philip

Philip

Creator, AI Explained on YouTube