Coupling hydrodynamics of several Facilitated Exclusion Processes with closed boundaries

Hugo Da Cunha; Lu Xu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Coupling hydrodynamics of several Facilitated Exclusion Processes with closed boundaries

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For the facilitated exclusion process with closed boundaries, the hydrodynamic limit in the symmetric, weakly asymmetric, and asymmetric vanishing-viscosity regimes is obtained by coupling the process to a simple exclusion process through…

desk verdict Weak-solution cases are in good shape, but the hyperbolic AFEPvv case has a real gap in Lemma 2 that needs fixing before the paper is complete. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00738 v1 pith:NNC2V3ZR submitted 2025-02-02 math.PR

Hugo Da Cunha , Lu Xu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PR MSC 60K3582C2235K5535L65

keywords FacilitatedexclusionprocessHydrodynamiclimitSimpleClosedboundariesFastdiffusionequationConservationlawKineticallyconstrainedmodelEntropysolution

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 proves the hydrodynamic limit of the facilitated exclusion process (FEP) on a finite one-dimensional segment with impermeable walls, in the symmetric, weakly asymmetric, and asymmetric vanishing-viscosity regimes, when the process starts in its high-density ergodic phase. The limit is expressed by a deterministic density profile that solves a specific PDE dictated by the regime: a fast diffusion equation with Neumann boundary conditions, a convection-diffusion equation with Robin boundary conditions, or a scalar conservation law with Dirichlet boundary conditions. The proof does not analyze the kinetically constrained dynamics directly. Instead, it constructs an exact one-to-one map from the ergodic FEP configurations to configurations of the simple exclusion process (SEP), so the FEP becomes a SEP under a simple change of coordinates. Known hydrodynamic limits for SEP with closed boundaries then transfer through the same map to the FEP equations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bijection $\varphi$ from ergodic FEP configurations, meaning configurations with no two adjacent empty sites, to SEP configurations. Starting from a configuration, one adds a fictive particle at each wall, numbers the particles, and marks a SEP site occupied exactly when the corresponding FEP particle has a particle to its right; the SEP lattice has one site per FEP particle. The map is one-to-one and turns the FEP generator with rates $\sigma$ and $\sigma+pN^{-\kappa}$ into the SEP generator with the same rates, so closed boundaries become closed boundaries automatically. At the macroscopic level $\varphi$ lifts to the profile map $\omega = \Phi(\rho) = (2\rho-1)/\rho$ composed with the cumulative-mass reparametrization, and this map sends each known SEP hydrodynamic equation to the FEP equation claimed in Theorem 2.

What would settle it

Simulate the closed symmetric FEP from a smooth ergodic initial profile strictly above $1/2$, with $\sigma=1$, and compare the empirical measure at a fixed time with the unique weak solution of (13) started from the same profile. The theorem predicts convergence in probability for every test function; observing a systematic loss of mass near the walls, which the Neumann condition forbids, or a limiting profile that solves a different PDE would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 2: for initial laws supported on the ergodic component $E_N$ and associated with a continuous density profile $\rho_{\mathrm{ini}}$ with $\inf \rho_{\mathrm{ini}} > 1/2$, the empirical measure of the closed-boundary FEP converges in probability to $\rho_t(u)\,du$, where $\rho_t$ is the unique weak solution of the fast diffusion equation with Neumann boundary conditions for the symmetric and very weakly asymmetric cases, the unique weak solution of the convection-diffusion equation with Robin boundary conditions in the weakly asymmetric case, and the unique entropy solution of the scalar conservation law with Dirichlet boundary conditions for the asymmetric vanishing-viscosity case with $\kappa \in (1/2,1)$. The densities are related to those of the auxiliary SEP through the macroscopic map $\omega = (2\rho-1)/\rho$ after a mass-preserving change of coordinates; this is what turns the heat equation into fast diffusion, viscous conservation laws into convection-diffusion, and the first-order conservation law into the FEP conservation law.

Load-bearing premise

The argument runs entirely through the bijection $\varphi$, which is defined only on configurations with no two adjacent empty sites, so the initial measure must live on that set and the initial density profile must stay strictly above $1/2$; at the critical density the map collapses and the claimed PDEs are not the right description.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the closed symmetric FEP, and also the very weakly asymmetric case $\kappa>1$, the macroscopic density obeys the fast diffusion equation $\partial_t \rho = \sigma \partial_u^2((2\rho-1)/\rho)$ with zero flux of $a(\rho)=(2\rho-1)/\rho$ at both walls.
In the weakly asymmetric regime $\kappa=1$, the limit is the convection-diffusion equation $\partial_t \rho = \sigma \partial_u^2 a(\rho) - p \partial_u h(\rho)$ with the Robin-type boundary balance $\sigma\partial_u a(\rho) - p h(\rho) = 0$ at each boundary.
In the asymmetric vanishing-viscosity regime $\kappa\in(1/2,1)$, the limit is the entropy solution of $\partial_t \rho + p \partial_u h(\rho)=0$ with boundary values fixed at $1/2$ on the left and $1$ on the right.
Because the same bijection works for every regime, the boundary conditions at the walls are not imposed by hand; they are forced by the mapping from the closed SEP, whose hydrodynamic limits are already known.
The convergence holds for every time $t\ge 0$ once the process starts inside the ergodic component, so no waiting time for transience enters the statement.

Reading between the lines

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

The same coupling suggests an extension to FEP in contact with reservoirs: any SEP hydrodynamic result with slow or fast boundaries should transfer to a FEP result whenever the reservoir interaction can be expressed in the $\varphi$-coordinates, giving a route to boundary-driven phase diagrams beyond the closed case.
The strict condition $\inf \rho_{\mathrm{ini}} > 1/2$ and the restriction $\kappa>1/2$ look technical rather than structural; a natural next step is to approximate profiles that touch $1/2$, in which case the limiting equation would be expected to develop a free boundary of Stefan type rather than stay in the same PDE class.
One could test numerically whether the entropy-solution boundary values $1/2$ and $1$ in the AFEPvv regime are selected by the vanishing-viscosity limit of the microscopic asymmetric jumps, or whether the finite-rate walls produce a boundary layer that the current leading-order limit does not resolve.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

The paper is a genuine step forward. It proves the hydrodynamic limit for the facilitated exclusion process on a finite interval with impermeable walls, in the symmetric, weakly asymmetric, and (attempted) hyperbolic regimes, by coupling to the simple exclusion process. The weak-solution cases look solid; the hyperbolic case has a proof gap in Lemma 2 that must be addressed.

The microscopic bijection φ is explicit and well-motivated, and the induced macroscopic map Φ is handled with care. Proposition 1 (the macroscopic mapping) is clearly argued, and the computations in Section 5.1 for weak solutions check out: the heat equation maps to the fast diffusion equation, and viscous Burgers maps to the convection-diffusion equation with the correct boundary terms. The paper is also honest about the initial condition being restricted to the high-density ergodic component, and it cites prior work properly, including the coupling ideas from [2] and [10].

The soft spots are these. Theorem 1, the exact mapping of generators, is stated without proof; "straightforward checking" is acceptable for a lemma but a referee will want the transitions spelled out. The SEP hydrodynamic limits are imported from [13] via the slow-reservoir equivalence; that is a legitimate shortcut, but it makes the proof depend on a substantial external result. The main issue is in Lemma 2, the hyperbolic case. The proof that ρ^ε converges to ρ in L1 uses the bound ||ω^ε∘v^ε - ω^ε∘v||_{L1} ≤ ||∂_vω^ε||∞ ||v^ε-v||∞. The derivative ||∂_vω^ε||∞ is not uniformly bounded for the viscous approximation (33); for a smeared shock it blows up like 1/ε, and ||v^ε-v||∞ is only controlled by the L1 error of ω^ε, which is O(ε) at best. The product need not vanish. The sentence "as ω^ε is smooth and v^ε converges uniformly" does not justify the limit. This leaves the AFEPvv case of Theorem 2 unproved as written. The gap is likely fixable—BV estimates or a different composition lemma would probably close it—but it is real.

No signs of fitting or invented entities; the assumptions are explicit and the PDEs are derived from the dynamics. Who is this for? Researchers in hydrodynamic limits for kinetically constrained particle systems. It deserves a serious referee, but the hyperbolic case needs a rigorous fix before acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves hydrodynamic limits for the facilitated exclusion process on a finite segment with closed boundaries, in the symmetric (SFEP), weakly asymmetric (WAFEP), very weakly asymmetric (vWAFEP), and asymmetric with vanishing viscosity (AFEPvv) regimes. The method is a bijection φ from the ergodic component E_N of the FEP to the state space of a simple exclusion process, under which the FEP generator is mapped to the SEP generator. The known hydrodynamic limits of the SEP are then transferred back through the macroscopic version of φ, yielding the fast diffusion equation with Neumann boundary conditions (13), the convection-diffusion equation with Robin boundary conditions (14), and the scalar conservation law with Dirichlet boundary conditions (15). Section 5 contains explicit computations showing that the macroscopic mapping sends the SEP PDEs to the FEP PDEs.

Significance. If completed, the paper would provide a clean and reasonably general transfer principle: hydrodynamic limits for several FEP variants with closed boundaries are deduced from the corresponding SEP results. The explicit microscopic construction of φ, the macroscopic density transformation, and the careful treatment of entropy solutions are valuable and appear correct in the parabolic regimes. The paper does not rely on fitted parameters; the limiting PDEs are derived from the dynamics. However, the hyperbolic case is not rigorously established as written because of a gap in the convergence argument in Lemma 2, and the central microscopic conjugacy Theorem 1 is stated without proof.

major comments (3)

[§5.2, Lemma 2] The proof of L1 convergence uses the estimate ||ω^ε_t ∘ v^ε_t − ω_t ∘ v_t||_{L1([0,1])} ≤ ||∂_v ω^ε_t||_{L∞} ||v^ε_t − v_t||_{L∞} + (1/m)||ω^ε_t − ω_t||_{L1([0,1])}. The paper asserts that the first term vanishes because ω^ε is smooth and v^ε converges uniformly to v. This is not justified: smoothness alone provides no uniform bound on ||∂_v ω^ε||_{L∞}, and for the parabolic regularization (33) the spatial gradients of ω^ε are expected to blow up as ε→0, while ||v^ε−v||_{L∞} is only controlled by ||ω^ε−ω||_{L1}. No estimate is given showing that the product tends to zero. Since this L1 convergence is the step that identifies ρ as an entropy solution and supplies the boundary traces, the proof of Theorem 2 for AFEPvv with κ∈(1/2,1) is incomplete as written.
[§3.1, Theorem 1] The microscopic mapping theorem is stated without proof. This is a load-bearing step: it is the only mechanism by which the FEP dynamics is transferred to the SEP dynamics, and all subsequent hydrodynamic statements depend on it. The construction with fictive boundary particles, the numbering convention, and the treatment of the rate factor N^{−κ} need a full verification, or at least a precise reference that covers the finite-interval closed-boundary setting. The sentence 'proved by straightforwardly checking all possible transitions' and the citation to [2] are not sufficient for a central conjugacy result of this kind.
[§4.2, Proposition 2] The hydrodynamic limits for the SEP are imported via the slow-reservoir equivalence of [13] and the results of [3,7,17]. For the asymmetric case (26) in particular, the paper should verify that the hypotheses of [13] hold for the closed system, namely attractiveness and the precise slow-reservoir scaling, and should state exactly which theorem of [17] applies to the closed-boundary ASEPvv process with the acceleration Θ_N = N^{1+κ}. As written, this transfer input is only cited, not checked, and it is a substantial part of the proof of Theorem 2.

minor comments (4)

[§3.1, Theorem 1, Eq. (11)] The upper limit of the sum in the definition of L^TA_M is written as N−2; it should be M−2.
[References] Reference [8] contains a typographical error: 'arXiv:2401:16535' should be 'arXiv:2401.16535'.
[§5.2, after Eq. (35)] The notation ⟨·,·⟩ is introduced as the scalar product in L²([0,1]), but the test functions in (35) also depend on time; the text should clarify that the time integral is taken separately.
[§4, proof of Theorem 2] The passage from a deterministic sequence of configurations to a random initial law via Skorokhod and dominated convergence is correct in spirit, but the random lattice size M = M(η(0)) should be handled explicitly, since Proposition 2 is stated for a deterministic sequence M_N.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hydrodynamic limit is derived through an explicit microscopic bijection to SEP and prior independent hydrodynamic results; self-citations are not used as unverified premises.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central mechanism is an explicit, configuration-by-configuration bijection φ from the FEP ergodic component to SEP configurations, with the induced dynamics identified by checking all possible jumps (Theorem 1). The macroscopic mapping Φ is then obtained by taking empirical-measure limits, and Lemmas 1 and 2 show by explicit change-of-variables computations that solutions of the SEP hydrodynamic equations map to solutions of the FEP equations. No parameter is fitted to the target result, and the target PDEs are not assumed as inputs. The paper does rely on prior hydrodynamic limits for SEP: [3], [7], and [17, Theorem 2.8]. Of these, [17] is co-authored by one of the present authors, and [8] (same first author) supplies the initial measure concentrated on the ergodic component. However, these are external prior theorems with independent proofs, not restatements of the present conclusion; the SEP limits are standard results, and the existence of the initial measure is a construction, not an assumption of the final PDE. Thus self-citation appears but is not load-bearing in a circular sense. Separately, the proof of Lemma 2 contains a delicate analytic estimate involving ||∂_v ω^ε||_∞ that is not justified as written, and this is a genuine correctness concern for the AFEPvv case, but it is not a circularity: it concerns the validity of a convergence argument, not the identity of an input and an output. Overall, no step reduces by definition or by self-citation chain to its own conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; σ, p, κ are model parameters. The central claim rests on external results: the SEP hydrodynamic limits (with slow/closed boundaries), the equivalence of closed and slow-reservoir dynamics for attractive systems, the existence of the ergodic initial measure, and standard PDE theory for entropy solutions. These are all cited, not proved. The paper's own mapping φ is stated with proof omitted (flagged separately).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The closed-boundary SEP hydrodynamic limits stated in Proposition 2 hold (heat equation (24), viscous Burgers (25), Burgers (26)).
Used as the black-box input; proven in [3,7,17] and summarized in Section 4.2.
domain assumption For attractive particle systems, closed boundaries have the same hydrodynamic limit as slow reservoirs ([13]).
Bridges the closed SEP studied here to the slow-boundary SEP theorems; invoked in the proof of Proposition 2.
domain assumption For every continuous profile ρ_ini bounded away from 1/2 there exists a measure μ_0^N supported on E_N and associated with ρ_ini ([8, Section 2.3.1]).
Needed so the process starts in the ergodic component where φ is defined.
standard math Parabolic perturbations of scalar conservation laws converge to a unique entropy solution ([15, Theorems 3,4], restated as Theorems 3 and 4 here).
Used in Lemma 2 to map entropy solutions and in Section 6 for well-posedness.
standard math Skorokhod representation theorem ([4, Theorem 1.6.7]).
Used in the proof of Theorem 2 to lift convergence from deterministic initial configurations to random initial laws.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coupling hydrodynamics of several Facilitated Exclusion Processes with closed boundaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NNC2V3ZR

@misc{pith2026250200738,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coupling hydrodynamics of several Facilitated Exclusion Processes with closed boundaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NNC2V3ZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00738}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we prove the hydrodynamic limit for the ergodic dynamics of the Facilitated Exclusion Process with closed boundaries in the symmetric, asymmetric and weakly asymmetric regimes. For this, we couple it with a Simple Exclusion Process by constructing a mapping that transforms the facilitated dynamics into the simple one. As the hydrodynamic behaviour of the simple exclusion process with closed boundaries has been extensively studied, we can deduce the corresponding hydrodynamics for the facilitated exclusion process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00738 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Illustration of the mapping on a configuration ⌘ 2 E 9 15. The hatched particles represent the fictive ones that we added at both ends of the configuration ⌘. In summary, we have 8y 2 ⇤M, ⇠(y)= y X1 j=1 ⇠j + 2(1 ⇠j ) = y X1 j=1 (2 ⇠j ) (13) with the convention that the sum is zero for y =1. The mapping transforms the dynamics of the Facilitated Exclusion processes into the dynamics of the Simple Exclu… view at source ↗

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

Moderate deviations for the facilitated exclusion process in equilibrium
math.PR 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Moderate deviation principles for the equilibrium fluctuation fields of the one-dimensional facilitated exclusion process are established, with quadratic rate functions in the symmetric case and a purely initial-condi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[2]

Ayyer, S

A. Ayyer, S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz and E. R. Speer, Stationary states of the one- dimensional facilitated asymmetric exclusion process. In Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´e, Probabilit´es et Statistiques, volume 59(2), pages 726-742, 2023

work page 2023
[10]

Erignoux, M

C. Erignoux, M. Simon and L. Zhao, Mapping hydrodynamics for the facilitated exclusion and zero-range processes. In Annales of Applied Probability, volume 34(1B), pages 1524- 1570, 2024

work page 2024
[13]

Weak reservoirs are superexponentially irrelevant for misanthrope processes

J. Kern, Weak reservoirs are superexponentially irrelevant for misanthrope processes, online at arXiv:2310.17038, 2023. 22 Hugo Da Cunha and Lu Xu

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[17]

Xu, Hydrodynamics for One-Dimensional ASEP in Contact with a Class of Reservoirs

L. Xu, Hydrodynamics for One-Dimensional ASEP in Contact with a Class of Reservoirs. In Journal of Statistical Physics, volume 189(1):1, 2022

work page 2022
[1]

Ayre and P

J. Ayre and P. Chleboun, Mixing times for the facilitated exclusion process , online at arXiv:2402.18999, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[3]

Baldasso, O

R. Baldasso, O. Menezes, A. Neumann and R. Souza, Exclusion process with slow boundary. In Journal of Statistical Physics, volume 167(5), pages 1112-1142, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Billingsley, Convergence of Probability Measures

P. Billingsley, Convergence of Probability Measures. Wiley Series in Probability and Statis- tics: Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, second edition, July 1999

work page 1999
[5]

Blondel, C

O. Blondel, C. Erignoux, M. Sasada and M. Simon, Hydrodynamic limit for a facilitated exclusion process. In Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´e, Probabilit´es et Statistiques, volume 56, pages 667-714, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 17 references

[6]

Blondel, C

O. Blondel, C. Erignoux and M. Simon, Stefan problem for a nonergodic facilitated exclusion process. In Probability and Mathematical Physics, volume 2, pages 127-178, 2021

2021
[7]

Capit ˜ao and P

P. Capit ˜ao and P. Gonc ¸alves, Hydrodynamics of weakly asymmetric exclusion with slow boundary. In C. Bernardin, F. Golse, P. Gonc ¸alves, V . Ricci and A.J. Soares, editors,From Particle Systems to Partial Differential Equations, pages 123-148, Cham, 2021. Springer In- tern...

2021
[8]

Da Cunha, C

H. Da Cunha, C. Erignoux and M. Simon, Hydrodynamic limit for an open Facilitated Ex- clusion Process with slow and fast boundaries , online at arXiv:2401:16535 and submitted, 2024

2024
[9]

Erignoux and B

C. Erignoux and B. Massouli ´e, Cutoff for the transience and mixing time of a SSEP with traps and consequences on the FEP, online at arXiv:2403.20010, 2024

2024 arXiv
[11]

Erignoux and L

C. Erignoux and L. Zhao, Stationary fluctuations for the facilitated exclusion process, online at arXiv2305.13853, 2023

2023 arXiv
[12]

Gonc ¸alves, Hydrodynamics for symmetric exclusion in contact with reservoirs , Lecture Notes for the trimester ”Stochastic dynamics out of equilibrium” at IHP, 2017

P. Gonc ¸alves, Hydrodynamics for symmetric exclusion in contact with reservoirs , Lecture Notes for the trimester ”Stochastic dynamics out of equilibrium” at IHP, 2017

2017
[14]

Otto, Initial-boundary value problem for a scalar conservation law

F. Otto, Initial-boundary value problem for a scalar conservation law. In Comptes rendus de l’Acad´emie des Sciences. S´erie 1, Math´ematique, volume 322(1), pages 729-734, 1996

1996
[15]

M ´alek, J

J. M ´alek, J. Neˇcas, M. Rokyra and M.Ruˇziˇcka, Weak and measure-valued solutions to evolu- tionary PDEs. Applied Mathematics and Mathematical Computation 13, Springer, 1996

1996
[16]

Rossi, R

M. Rossi, R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignagni, The universality class of absorbing phase transitions with a conserved field. In Physical Review Letters, volume 85, page 1803, 2000

2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

Ayyer, S

A. Ayyer, S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz and E. R. Speer, Stationary states of the one- dimensional facilitated asymmetric exclusion process. In Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´e, Probabilit´es et Statistiques, volume 59(2), pages 726-742, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [10]

Erignoux, M

C. Erignoux, M. Simon and L. Zhao, Mapping hydrodynamics for the facilitated exclusion and zero-range processes. In Annales of Applied Probability, volume 34(1B), pages 1524- 1570, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [13]

Weak reservoirs are superexponentially irrelevant for misanthrope processes

J. Kern, Weak reservoirs are superexponentially irrelevant for misanthrope processes, online at arXiv:2310.17038, 2023. 22 Hugo Da Cunha and Lu Xu

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[4] [17]

Xu, Hydrodynamics for One-Dimensional ASEP in Contact with a Class of Reservoirs

L. Xu, Hydrodynamics for One-Dimensional ASEP in Contact with a Class of Reservoirs. In Journal of Statistical Physics, volume 189(1):1, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [1]

Ayre and P

J. Ayre and P. Chleboun, Mixing times for the facilitated exclusion process , online at arXiv:2402.18999, 2024

work page arXiv 2024

[6] [3]

Baldasso, O

R. Baldasso, O. Menezes, A. Neumann and R. Souza, Exclusion process with slow boundary. In Journal of Statistical Physics, volume 167(5), pages 1112-1142, 2017

work page 2017

[7] [4]

Billingsley, Convergence of Probability Measures

P. Billingsley, Convergence of Probability Measures. Wiley Series in Probability and Statis- tics: Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, second edition, July 1999

work page 1999

[8] [5]

Blondel, C

O. Blondel, C. Erignoux, M. Sasada and M. Simon, Hydrodynamic limit for a facilitated exclusion process. In Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´e, Probabilit´es et Statistiques, volume 56, pages 667-714, 2020

work page 2020