Linear fluctuation of interfaces in Glauber-Kawasaki dynamics

Claudio Landim; Sunder Sethuraman; Tadahisa Funaki

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Linear fluctuation of interfaces in Glauber-Kawasaki dynamics

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the space-time mass fluctuation field of Glauber-Kawasaki particle dynamics near a stationary flat interface converges, in dimensions one and two, to a Gaussian field whose normal-direction profile is the normalized…

desk verdict Genuinely new entropy machinery, but the spectral lemma that produces the e-shape is likely false on the periodic two-kink torus, so the main fluctuation theorem is not established as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04015 v1 pith:KUQFRS44 submitted 2024-12-05 math.PR cond-mat.stat-mech

Tadahisa Funaki , Claudio Landim , Sunder Sethuraman This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PRcond-mat.stat-mech MSC 60K3582C2260H1535K57

keywords Glauber-KawasakidynamicsmassfluctuationfieldinterfacefluctuationsstandingwaveSturm-LiouvillesemigroupstochasticheatequationBoltzmann-Gibbsprinciplenonequilibrium

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes the scaling limit of the space-time mass fluctuation field of a Glauber+Kawasaki particle system around a stationary flat interface, in dimensions one and two. It shows that, when the Glauber rate $K_N$ diverges no faster than $\sqrt{\log N}$ and the normal coordinate is rescaled by $\sqrt{K_N}$, the fluctuation field converges to a Gaussian field. The limit is not an arbitrary Gaussian noise: it is the normalized derivative $e$ of the standing wave $\varphi$ multiplying, in $d=1$, a Brownian motion, and in $d=2$, the solution of a one-dimensional stochastic heat equation with additive white noise. The result matters because it is a rigorous microscopic-to-macroscopic derivation of linear interface fluctuations, showing that the interface keeps the shape of the transition layer.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Sturm-Liouville operator $A_K=\partial_\vartheta^2-V''(\rho_K)$ acting on $\sqrt{K}\,\mathbb{T}$, for which $\partial_\vartheta\rho_K$ is the ground state. The argument shows that the semigroup $e^{tK A_K}$ converges to the rank-one projection $F\mapsto \langle F,e\rangle e$, where $e$ is the normalized derivative of the standing wave $\varphi$. This projection is what turns the microscopic stochastic differential of the fluctuation field into a martingale whose only remaining spatial dependence is tangential: in $d=1$ there is no tangential space, so the limiting martingale is a Brownian motion; in $d=2$ the tangential variable carries the stochastic heat equation. The convergence is fed by a relative-entropy bound for the inhomogeneous product measure $\nu^N$ and a Boltzmann-Gibbs principle that homogenizes the microscopic Glauber rates, with the required spectral-gap and semigroup estimates supplied by the Sturm-Liouville analysis of the companion paper.

What would settle it

Take $d=1$, choose a smooth compactly supported $F$ with $\int_{\mathbb{R}}F(\vartheta)e(\vartheta)\,d\vartheta=0$, and simulate the particle system on a large torus with $K_N\asymp\delta_0\sqrt{\log N}$; the theorem predicts $\operatorname{Var}_{\nu^N}(X_t^N(F))\to0$ for each $t$, and in $d=2$ the covariance must factor as $e(\vartheta)e(\vartheta')$ times the heat-kernel covariance of $Z_t(\theta)$. A simulation that sees a nonzero variance for $F\perp e$, or a non-factorized two-point correlation, would falsify the rank-one projection at the core of the argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 2.4: under $\nu^N$ and the growth conditions (2.17), (2.18), the random vector $(X^N_{t_1}(F_1),\dots,X^N_{t_p}(F_p))$ converges in distribution to a centered Gaussian vector whose covariance is given by (2.29). Equivalently, for $d=1$ the limit field is $X_t(\vartheta)=e(\vartheta)\sqrt{\varpi}B_t$ with $B$ a standard Brownian motion, and for $d=2$ it is $X_t(\vartheta,\theta)=e(\vartheta)Z_t(\theta)$, where $Z$ solves $\partial_t Z_t=\Delta_\theta Z_t+\sqrt{\varpi}\xi$ with $Z_0=0$ and $\xi$ space-time white noise on $\mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{T}$. Here $e=\partial_\vartheta\varphi/\|\partial_\vartheta\varphi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R})}$ is the normalized derivative of the decreasing standing wave $\varphi$ of $\partial_\vartheta^2\varphi-V'(\varphi)=0$, and $\varpi$ is the positive constant built from the static compressibility and the Glauber rate. The appearance of $e(\vartheta)$ as a deterministic factor means the fluctuation field inherits the shape of the transition layer $\varphi$ in the direction normal to the interface.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the linearized reaction-diffusion operator near the interface losing all but one effective mode fast enough: the semigroup $e^{tK A_K}$ must converge to the projection onto $e$ at a rate uniform enough for the martingale estimates; if this one-mode collapse is too slow or non-uniform, the Gaussian limit would not have the shape $e$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In $d=1$, the mass fluctuation at the flat interface is statistically a single Brownian motion whose spatial profile is frozen as $e(\vartheta)$; no nontrivial SPDE emerges in the normal direction.
In $d=2$, the normal profile is again frozen as $e(\vartheta)$, while the tangential coordinate evolves by the linear stochastic heat equation $\partial_t Z_t=\Delta_\theta Z_t+\sqrt{\varpi}\xi$.
Fluctuations have largest amplitude at the interface and decay away from it, because $e$ decays exponentially; the stable phases far from the interface do not fluctuate in the limit.
The convergence holds for Glauber rates $K_N$ up to order $\sqrt{\log N}$; within this regime the limit is Gaussian, and nonlinear terms in the fluctuation SPDE would require a faster growth of $K_N$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the $K_N$-growth restriction were pushed to polynomial growth, the same homogenization machinery could plausibly produce nonlinear SPDE limits (with a genuine reaction-diffusion nonlinearity) rather than the linear Gaussian field; the paper notes this possibility but does not carry it out.
The one-mode factorization suggests that on these macroscopic time scales the interface profile is effectively fixed, consistent with the exponential metastability time scale of interface motion; on time scales short compared with that, no interface displacement is seen.
A numerical test of the factorization is feasible: measure the two-point covariance of the fluctuation field in $d=2$ and check that it separates as $e(\vartheta)e(\vartheta')$ times a heat-kernel covariance in $\theta-\theta'$; the paper proves this only after taking $N\to\infty$, so a finite-size check would be an independent extension.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper is worth knowing about, and the first half is genuinely good. The entropy production bound for inhomogeneous product measures (Theorem 2.2) and the Boltzmann-Gibbs principle (Theorem 6.1) are new and look carefully done; the two-block replacement arguments with the flows and the inhomogeneity-dependent constants are substantial. The martingale identification in Lemma 7.2 is also clean, and the paper is honest about limitations: tightness only for the time-integrated field, the reference measure nu^N_0 rather than the unknown stationary one, and the growth restriction K_N ≤ delta0 sqrt(log N).

The trouble is concentrated exactly where the reader suspected: the Sturm-Liouville projection onto e. Lemma B.3 is likely false. The profile rho_K on sqrt(K)T has two transition layers, so the operator A_K has a zero eigenfunction dϑ rho_K with two separated bumps of opposite sign. The normalized eigenfunction g_K is approximately (e_1 - e_2)/sqrt(2), not the single-bump e_K. The antisymmetric mode (relative translation of the two kinks) has eigenvalue O(K e^{-c sqrt(K)}), so on the fixed time interval [0,T] it neither decays nor relaxes; e^{t K A_K} F converges to g_K , which has an O(1) component at the second interface. Thus the L^2(sqrt(K)T) error in Lemma B.3 does not vanish, and Lemma 7.6's replacement of T^K_{t-s}H by e_K S_{t-s} is not justified. The covariance (2.29) and the factorization X_t = e(vartheta) sqrt(varrho) B_t / e(vartheta) Z_t(theta) rest on that replacement. If the projection is onto the two-bump mode, the first-interface observable picks up independent noise from the second interface, which changes the covariance constant (by a factor of 2, on the back of an envelope) and breaks the claim that the limit is exactly e times a single tangential noise.

This is a load-bearing flaw, not a cosmetic one. The remedy is not obvious because the second layer is a genuine feature of the standing wave on the torus; one would need to either track both layers in the statement, or prove a spectral gap uniform in K despite the exponentially small antisymmetric eigenvalue. I do not see how the current argument can be patched without changing the result.

Should a serious editor send it to referees? Yes. The entropy and BG machinery is substantial and likely reusable, the authors are clearly in control of the probabilistic parts, and the spectral issue is subtle enough to need expert judgment. But the main theorem as stated is not established. I would not cite the fluctuation result in its current form.

Recommendation: engage with the probability estimates, but referee a corrected version with the two-layer spectrum addressed.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a Glauber+Kawasaki particle system on the discrete torus, with Glauber rates scaled by K=K_N and Kawasaki rates by N^2, started from a product measure whose density is a stationary two-layer profile for the reaction-diffusion equation. It proves a relative-entropy bound (Theorem 2.2 and Corollary 2.3), a Boltzmann-Gibbs principle (Theorem 6.1), and then shows that the rescaled density fluctuation field X^N_t converges, for K_N satisfying explicit growth conditions in d=1 or 2, to a Gaussian field. In d=1 the limit is e(ϑ)√̟B_t, and in d=2 it is e(ϑ)Z_t(θ), where e is the normalized derivative of the standing wave φ, B_t is Brownian motion, and Z_t solves the stochastic heat equation on the one-dimensional torus driven by space-time white noise. Tightness is proved for the time-integrated field. The main technical route is: entropy production estimates, two-block replacement and Boltzmann-Gibbs homogenization, approximation of the density field by a Dynkin martingale, and a Sturm-Liouville reduction that projects the field onto the one-bump mode e.

Significance. If the proof is correct, this is a substantial result: it derives, directly from the microscopic Glauber+Kawasaki dynamics, the linear fluctuation of a stationary flat interface and shows that the fluctuation retains the shape of the standing-wave profile. The covariance formula (2.29) is derived from the martingale quadratic variation rather than imposed, and the growth conditions on K_N are stated explicitly. The paper is carefully structured and contains substantial technical work in the entropy production and Boltzmann-Gibbs sections. Its main vulnerability is the spectral reduction to the one-bump mode e, which is imported from the companion paper [14] and is exactly the step that produces the e(ϑ) factorization in the final limit.

major comments (2)

[Appendix B, Lemma B.3; Section 7, Lemma 7.6] There is an inconsistency in the definition of P^K_t, and as written Lemma B.3 is false. In Section 7, P^K_t is defined as the semigroup of K A_K and Lemma 7.6 uses it through T^K_{t-s}F = P^K_{t-s}F S_{t-s}G. In Appendix B, however, Lemma B.3 states that P^K_t is the semigroup of A_K, without the factor K. Taken literally, the lemma cannot hold: for a generic F in C_c^∞(R), the integrand at t=0 is ||∂ϑF − ⟨F,e⟩∂ϑe_K||²_{L²(√KT)}, which is generally bounded away from zero, and the unaccelerated semigroup e^{tA_K} does not erase this contribution over a fixed interval [0,T]. Since Lemma 7.6 is the only step that replaces the semigroup T^K_{t-s} by e_K times the heat semigroup, the version with the factor K is the one needed. The authors should restate Lemma B.3 with the semigroup actually used, prove it, or give a precise statement in [14] that covers exactly that version.
[Appendix B, Lemma B.3 and [14, Proposition B.4]] The reduction to the one-bump mode e is not justified in the periodic two-layer geometry. The operator A_K = ∂ϑ² − V''(ρ_K) on the torus √KT has the exact periodic zero eigenfunction ∂ϑρ_K, which has two separated transition-layer bumps, and, by the Carr–Pego metastability analysis, a near-zero antisymmetric mode with exponentially small eigenvalue. Lemma B.3 and its supporting import from [14] concern a one-layer/one-kink setting and do not by themselves show that the contribution from the second interface cancels or is negligible on the fixed time horizon [0,T]. If the intended semigroup is e^{tK A_K}, then the near-zero mode does not relax on that time scale because K e^{−c√K} T → 0, so the problem may be repairable; but this two-layer spectral reduction is exactly what must be proved. Without it, the factorization X_t = e(ϑ)√̟B_t (or e(ϑ)Z_t(θ)) is unsupported. Please provide a self-contained proof of the two-layer version of Lemma B.3 or an explicit reference in [14] that covers the periodic two-kink operator.

minor comments (4)

[Section 1, paragraph before (2.23)] The text says the field is divided by N^{d/2}K^{1/4}, but the definition (2.23) uses the factor (N^d K)^{−1/2} = N^{−d/2}K^{−1/2}; the martingale computations in (7.7) confirm the latter. Please correct the introductory sentence.
[Appendix B, proof of Lemma B.3] The proof says the time integral converges to 0 as N → ∞, but the limit in the lemma is K ↑ ∞ with N fixed as a lattice parameter. Please correct the variable.
[Section 7 and Appendix B] The notation P^K_t is used with two different meanings: the semigroup of K A_K in Section 7 and the semigroup of A_K in Appendix B. Please unify the notation so that the statement used in Lemma 7.6 is unambiguous.
[Theorems 2.4 and 2.5] The paper proves finite-dimensional convergence for X^N_t and tightness only for the time-integrated process ∫_0^t X^N_s ds. This is stated, but it would be helpful to make the scope explicit in the abstract or introduction so that readers do not infer process-level tightness of X^N_t itself.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the e-shaped Gaussian limit is derived from model data and an externally checkable spectral lemma, not from its own conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the limit field's covariance is computed from the martingale quadratic variation (Lemma 7.2, equation (7.10)) and the homogenized coefficients chi(phi) and c-hat_0(phi); the constant sqrt(vartheta) in (2.29) is defined from model data, not fitted to the answer. The factorization X_t = e(vartheta) sqrt(vartheta) B_t, respectively e(vartheta) Z_t, is an algebraic consequence of the covariance formula via (2.28), and the mode e is fixed before the theorem by (2.26) as the normalized derivative of the standing wave. The one genuinely imported ingredient is the rank-one Sturm-Liouville convergence used in Lemma B.3 and Lemma 7.6, quoted from the companion paper [14] and from Carr-Pego [5]. This is a self-citation and it is load-bearing in the proof; nevertheless, it is not circular. Proposition B.4 of [14] concerns the deterministic operator A_K = partial_vartheta^2 - V''(rho_K) and does not assume the Glauber-Kawasaki fluctuation limit or the Gaussian covariance claimed in Theorem 2.4. It is a parameter-free mathematical statement with explicit hypotheses, so under the stated criteria it counts as independent support rather than an input equivalent to the target result. Whether that spectral convergence is actually valid for the periodic two-layer profile is a correctness issue, not a circularity issue. No step in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on: a specific balanced double-well model (2.6), the flat stationary initial profile, the standing-wave and spectral facts imported from [5] and the companion [14], and the hand-chosen growth window K_N ≤ δ0√(log N). The output constants (√̟, e, covariance formula (2.29)) are computed, not fit. The genuinely unverified input is the spectral convergence from [14].

free parameters (1)

Allowed Glauber growth rate K_N = K_N ≤ δ0 √(log N), with δ0 = δ0(c0, c5, T) > 0 small (see (2.22))
The smallness threshold δ0 is chosen by hand so that the relative entropy bound (Corollary 2.3), the Boltzmann-Gibbs estimates, and the tightness conditions (2.18), (2.19) all close. It is a regime restriction on the model input K_N rather than a fit to data, but the theorem is proved only inside this window.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper The Glauber rates take the specific form (2.6), c0(η) = 1 − γσ0(σ−e1 + σe1) + γ²σ−e1σe1 with |γ| ≤ 1 (and 1/2 < γ ≤ 1 for a balanced double well V with V(ρ−) = V(ρ+)); the results are claimed to extend to any c0 giving a balanced double-well V.
Section 2, 'A model'. The entire analysis is done for this rate; the generality claim is stated without proof.
domain assumption The initial state is the inhomogeneous product measure ν^N with marginals u^N(x) = ρK(x1√K/N) (2.10) to (2.12), a stationary flat-interface profile. The true stationary measure is unknown and ν^N is used as a proxy.
Sections 1 and 2. The result is specifically about fluctuations around this pinned flat profile; the second layer is discarded by symmetry.
standard math Existence, uniqueness and exponential decay of the standing wave φ solving (2.9), and the spectral and semigroup convergence e^{tKA_K} → e⟨F,e⟩ with the rates in Lemma B.3, are taken from Carr-Pego [5] and the companion paper [14].
Appendix B, Lemmas B.1 to B.3, and Section 7, Lemma 7.6; several ingredients are cited as [14, Proposition B.4, Lemma B.7] with overlapping authorship and are not re-proved.
ad hoc to paper The growth conditions (2.17), (2.18), (2.19) restrict the Glauber rate, in particular K_N ≤ δ0√(log N) for a small explicit constant, and force d ≤ 2.
Section 2, 'Growth conditions on K_N'. These hypotheses are chosen so that the entropy and Boltzmann-Gibbs estimates close; the central result only holds in this regime, and the paper notes the method fails in d ≥ 3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Linear fluctuation of interfaces in Glauber-Kawasaki dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KUQFRS44

@misc{pith2026241204015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Linear fluctuation of interfaces in Glauber-Kawasaki dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KUQFRS44}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04015}
}

abstract

In this article, we find a scaling limit of the space-time mass fluctuation field of Glauber + Kawasaki particle dynamics around its hydrodynamic mean curvature interface limit. Here, the Glauber rates are scaled by $K=K_N$, the Kawasaki rates by $N^2$ and space by $1/N$. We start the process so that the interface $\Gamma_t$ formed is stationary that is, $\Gamma_t$ is `flat'. When the Glauber rates are balanced on $T^d$, $\Gamma_t=\Gamma=\{x: x_1=0\}$ is immobile and the hydrodynamic limit is given by $\rho(t,v) = \rho_+$ for $v_1\in (0,1/2)$ and $\rho(t,v)= \rho_-$ for $v_1\in (-1/2,0)$ for all $t\ge 0$, where $v=(v_1,\ldots,v_d)\in T^d$ identified with $[-1/2,1/2)^d$. Since in the formation the boundary region about the interface has width $O(1/\sqrt{K_N})$, we will scale the $v_1$ coordinate in the fluctuation field by $\sqrt{K_N}$ so that the scaling limit will capture information `near' the interface. We identify the fluctuation limit as a Gaussian field when $K_N\uparrow \infty$ and $K_N= O(\sqrt{\log(N)})$ in $d\leq 2$. In the one dimensional case, the field limit is given by ${\bf e}(v_1) B_t$ where $B_t$ is a Brownian motion and ${\bf e}$ is the normalized derivative of a decreasing `standing wave' solution $\phi$ of $\partial^2_{v_1} \phi - V'(\phi)=0$ on $R$, where $V'$ is the homogenization of the Glauber rates. In two dimensions, the limit is ${\bf e}(v_1)Z_t(v_2)$ where $Z_t$ is the solution of a one dimensional stochastic heat equation. The appearance of the function ${\bf e}(\cdot)$ in the limit field indicates that the interface fluctuation retains the shape of the transition layer $\phi$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Critical dynamical fluctuations in reaction-diffusion processes
math.PR 2025-05 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

At the critical point of a Glauber-Kawasaki reaction-diffusion process, the only slow observable is the total density, whose fluctuations converge to a cubic nonlinear SDE, while all other modes are Gaussian and fast.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[14]

Stochastic PDE approach to fluctuating interfaces

T. Funaki , Stochastic PDE approach to ﬂuctuating interfaces. prepri nt arXiv:2412.00708 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[1]

Alfaro, D

M. Alfaro, D. HIlhorst, H. Matano: The singular limit of t he Allen-Cahn equation and the FitzHugh- Nagumo system. J. Diﬀ. Eq., 2 505–565 (2008)

work page 2008
[2]

Bellettini: Lecture Notes on Mean Curvature Flow, Barriers and Singular Perturbations, Lecture Notes

G. Bellettini: Lecture Notes on Mean Curvature Flow, Barriers and Singular Perturbations, Lecture Notes. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, vol. 12, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Bodineau, M

T. Bodineau, M. Lagouge: Large deviations of the empiric al currents for a boundary-driven reaction diﬀusion model. Ann. Appl. Probab. 22, 2282–2319 (2012)

work page 2012
[4]

Bonaventura: Interface dynamics in an interacting sp in system

L. Bonaventura: Interface dynamics in an interacting sp in system. Nonlinear Anal. Theory Methods Appl., 25 799–819 (1995)

work page 1995
[5]

J.Carr, R. L. Pego: Metastable patterns in solutions of ut = ǫ2uxx − f (u). Communications Pure Appl. Math. 42, 523–576. (1989)

work page 1989
[6]

De Masi, E

A. De Masi, E. Presutti: Mathematical methods for hydrodynamic limits. Springer Lecture Notes 1501, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. (1991)

work page 1991
[7]

De Masi, P

A. De Masi, P. Ferrari, J. Lebowitz: Reaction diﬀusion eq uations for interacting particle systems. J. Stat. Phys. 44, 589–644 (1986)

work page 1986

Show all 29 references

[8]

El Kettani, T

P. El Kettani, T. Funaki, D. Hilhorst, H. Park and S. Sethu raman: Singular limit of an Allen-Cahn equation with nonlinear diﬀusion. Tunisian J. Math. 4 719–754 (2022)

2022
[9]

Farf´ an, C

J. Farf´ an, C. Landim, K. Tsunoda; Static large deviatio ns for a reaction-diﬀusion model. Probab. Th. Rel. Fields. 174, 49–101 (2019)

2019
[10]

J. P. Fouque: La convergence en loi pour les processus ` a valeurs dans un espace nucl´ eaire. Ann. IHP Probabilit´ es et statistiques20, 225-245) (1984)

1984
[11]

Funaki, P

T. Funaki, P. van Meurs, S. Sethuraman and K. Tsunoda: Mo tion by mean curvature from Glauber- Kawasaki dynamics with speed change. J. Stat. Phys. 190; 45 (2023)

2023
[12]

Funaki: Interface motion from Glauber-Kawasaki dyn amics of non-gradient type, preprint, arXiv:2404.18364 (2024)

T. Funaki: Interface motion from Glauber-Kawasaki dyn amics of non-gradient type, preprint, arXiv:2404.18364 (2024). 55

2024 arXiv
[13]

Funaki: Lectures on Random Interfaces

T. Funaki: Lectures on Random Interfaces. Springer Bri efs in Probability and Mathematical Statis- tics. Springer, Singapore. (2016)

2016
[15]

Funaki and K

T. Funaki and K. Tsunoda: Motion by mean curvature from G lauber-Kawasaki dynamics. J. Statist. Phys., 177 183–208 (2019)

2019
[16]

Gon¸ calves, M

P. Gon¸ calves, M. Jara, R. Marinho, O. Menezes: CLT for N ESS of a reaction-diﬀusion model. Prob- ability Theory and Related Fields 190, :337–377 (2024)

2024
[17]

Jacod, A

J. Jacod, A. N. Shiryaev: Limit theorems for stochastic processes. Second edition. Gr undlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles o f Mathematical Sciences], 288. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2003

2003
[18]

M. Jara, C. Landim: The stochastic heat equation as the l imit of a stirring dynamics perturbed by a voter model. Ann. App. Probab. 33, 4163–4209 (2023)

2023
[19]

M. Jara, O. Menezes: Non-equilibrium ﬂuctuations for a reaction-diﬀusion model via relative entropy, arXiv:1810.03418 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[20]

M. Jara, O. Menezes: Non-equilibrium ﬂuctuations of in teracting particle systems. arXiv:1810.09526 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[21]

Jona-Lasinio, C

G. Jona-Lasinio, C. Landim, M. E. Vares: Large deviatio ns for a reaction diﬀusion model. Probability Theory Related Fields 97, 339–361 (1993)

1993
[22]

Shreve: Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus Graduate Texts in Mathematics 113, second edition, Springer Verlag, 1991

I, Karatzas, S. Shreve: Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus Graduate Texts in Mathematics 113, second edition, Springer Verlag, 1991

1991
[23]

Katsoulakis and P.E

M.A. Katsoulakis and P.E. Souganidis: Interacting par ticle systems and generalized evolution of fronts. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 127 133–157 (1994)

1994
[24]

Kipnis, C

C. Kipnis, C. Landim : Scaling Limits of Interacting Particle Systems , Grundlheren der mathema- tischen Wissenschaften 320, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York, 1999

1999
[25]

Landim, K

C. Landim, K. Tsunoda: Hydrostatics and dynamical larg e deviations for a reaction-diﬀusion model, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e Probab. Stat. 54, 51–74 (2018)

2018
[26]

G. M. Lieberman: Second order parabolic diﬀerential equations. World Scientiﬁc Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. Singapore (1996)

1996
[27]

Raˇ ckauskas, C

A. Raˇ ckauskas, C. Suquet: Invariance principles for a daptive self-normalized partial sums processes. Stoc. Proc. Appl. 95, 63–81 (2001)

2001
[28]

Spohn: Interface motion in models with stochastic dy namics, J

H. Spohn: Interface motion in models with stochastic dy namics, J. Statist. Phys., 71, 1081–1132. (1993)

1993
[29]

Voigt: A course on topological vector spaces

J. Voigt: A course on topological vector spaces . Compact Textbooks in Mathematics Birkh¨ auser. 2020 56

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

Stochastic PDE approach to fluctuating interfaces

T. Funaki , Stochastic PDE approach to ﬂuctuating interfaces. prepri nt arXiv:2412.00708 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Alfaro, D

M. Alfaro, D. HIlhorst, H. Matano: The singular limit of t he Allen-Cahn equation and the FitzHugh- Nagumo system. J. Diﬀ. Eq., 2 505–565 (2008)

work page 2008

[3] [2]

Bellettini: Lecture Notes on Mean Curvature Flow, Barriers and Singular Perturbations, Lecture Notes

G. Bellettini: Lecture Notes on Mean Curvature Flow, Barriers and Singular Perturbations, Lecture Notes. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, vol. 12, 2013

work page 2013

[4] [3]

Bodineau, M

T. Bodineau, M. Lagouge: Large deviations of the empiric al currents for a boundary-driven reaction diﬀusion model. Ann. Appl. Probab. 22, 2282–2319 (2012)

work page 2012

[5] [4]

Bonaventura: Interface dynamics in an interacting sp in system

L. Bonaventura: Interface dynamics in an interacting sp in system. Nonlinear Anal. Theory Methods Appl., 25 799–819 (1995)

work page 1995

[6] [5]

J.Carr, R. L. Pego: Metastable patterns in solutions of ut = ǫ2uxx − f (u). Communications Pure Appl. Math. 42, 523–576. (1989)

work page 1989

[7] [6]

De Masi, E

A. De Masi, E. Presutti: Mathematical methods for hydrodynamic limits. Springer Lecture Notes 1501, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. (1991)

work page 1991

[8] [7]

De Masi, P

A. De Masi, P. Ferrari, J. Lebowitz: Reaction diﬀusion eq uations for interacting particle systems. J. Stat. Phys. 44, 589–644 (1986)

work page 1986