Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 100 references

Brownian motion and beyond: first-passage, power spectrum, non-Gaussianity, and anomalous diffusion

T0 review · 0 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that modern single-particle tracking demands diagnostics beyond ensemble means: full first-passage-time densities, fluctuation spectra of time-averaged displacements, and diffusing-diffusivity models that produce…

desk verdict A clear, honest review that consolidates recent stochastic-process results without adding new ones; worth refereeing as a survey, not as a research contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06233 v1 pith:GFAMS7DB submitted 2019-08-17 cond-mat.stat-mech physics.bio-ph

Ralf Metzler This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.bio-ph
keywords Brownianmotionfirst-passagetimestime-averagedmeansquareddisplacementsingle-trajectorypowerspectrumdiffusingdiffusivityyetnon-Gaussiandiffusionanomalousergodicitybreaking
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

This review, aimed at a physics audience, gathers recent theoretical advances triggered by superresolution microscopy and single-particle tracking. Its core message is that ensemble means are no longer enough: reaction kinetics at the low molecular concentrations inside cells require full first-passage-time densities, and single-trajectory data should be read through their fluctuations as well as their averages. The review argues that amplitude scatter in time-averaged mean squared displacements and in single-trajectory power spectra carries process-specific signatures that distinguish subdiffusion, Brownian motion, and superdiffusion. It also argues that apparently Brownian motion with non-Gaussian displacement distributions is naturally produced by a diffusion coefficient that fluctuates along the trajectory, with a predictable crossover back to Gaussian statistics. If these claims hold, standard data-analysis practice for tracking experiments would shift from averaging many particles toward making fluctuation statistics the primary diagnostic.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a set of exactly solvable stochastic-process models and their fluctuation statistics. For first passage, the paper uses eigenfunction expansions of the diffusion equation in confining domains, which split reaction-time densities into geometry-controlled, process-controlled, and domain-controlled regimes. For time averages, the central objects are the time-averaged mean squared displacement, the dimensionless amplitude measuring how far an individual trajectory's time average deviates from the ensemble mean, the ergodicity-breaking parameter, and the ageing factor for scale-free continuous time random walks. For spectra, the central object is the single-trajectory power spectrum together with its amplitude distribution and coefficient of variation as a function of the product of frequency and observation time. For non-Gaussian diffusion, the load-bearing mechanism is the diffusing-diffusivity model: a coupled pair of stochastic equations in which the particle position follows white-noise driving with amplitude proportional to the square root of the time-dependent diffusivity, while that diffusivity is the square of a mean-reverting auxiliary process; a subordination formulation makes the short-time superstatistical Laplace regime and the long-time Gaussian crossover analytically tractable.

What would settle it

Recompute the key formulas from first principles or simulation: simulate a scale-free continuous time random walk and test whether the ageing time-averaged mean squared displacement equals the non-aged value times the predicted ageing factor, and simulate the minimal diffusing-diffusivity equations and check whether the one-dimensional kurtosis crosses from 9 to 3 at the correlation time. If either prediction fails, the review's central benchmarks are wrong. Alternatively, measure the coefficient of variation for a known subdiffusive system at high frequency; theory says it tends to 1, so a conflicting plateau would refute the spectral classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that four recent lines of work form a coherent upgrade of diffusion analysis. First, for a particle diffusing in a bounded domain toward a partially reactive target, the full reaction-time density—not just its mean—has a three-regime structure: a short-time hump set by direct trajectories, an intermediate process-dependent power-law decay, and a terminal exponential shoulder set by the confining domain; lowering the target reactivity widens a plateau of nearly equiprobable reaction times, so the mean reaction time can be atypical. Second, for scale-free continuous time random walks the time-averaged mean squared displacement remains a random quantity even in the long-measurement limit, and its scatter, quantified by the amplitude distribution and the ergodicity-breaking parameter, distinguishes such non-ergodic processes from ergodic ones. Third, the single-trajectory power spectrum is proportional to the ensemble-averaged spectrum but carries a random amplitude, and its coefficient of variation tends in the high-frequency limit to the square root of 2 for superdiffusion, the square root of 5/2 for Brownian motion, and 1 for subdiffusion, allowing regime identification from few short tracks. Fourth, a minimal diffusing-diffusivity model—a particle driven by white noise whose diffusivity is the square of a mean-reverting auxiliary process—produces a linear mean squared displacement with Laplace-distributed displacements at short times and a crossover to Gaussian displacements at long times, quantified by a kurtosis drop from 9 to 3 in one dimension.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the formulas and model predictions quoted from earlier papers—the reaction-time density, the ageing factor, the coefficient-of-variation limits, and the diffusing-diffusivity crossover—were transcribed correctly and that those models describe the single-particle-tracking experiments to which the review compares them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At nanomolar concentrations, reaction kinetics should be described by the full first-reaction-time density; the mean reaction time can be unrepresentative, and both geometry-control and reaction-control set the typical times.
  • Amplitude scatter and the ergodicity-breaking parameter give model-selection fingerprints: different stochastic mechanisms leave distinct scatter patterns in finite-time trajectories.
  • Single-trajectory power spectra can classify subdiffusion, normal diffusion, and superdiffusion from few, short tracks via the coefficient of variation, with distinct high-frequency limits and quantitative agreement with telomere, agarose-gel, vacuole, and amoeba data.
  • The diffusing-diffusivity model explains the coexistence of a linear mean squared displacement with non-Gaussian displacement statistics, and the kurtosis crossover provides a direct experimental estimate of the diffusivity correlation time.
  • Bayesian and machine-learning parameter estimators, together with newer statistical tools, are positioned as the natural next step for identifying the underlying stochastic mechanism from measured time series.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If fluctuation diagnostics are as informative as the review suggests, the same quantities could be used to infer spatial or temporal heterogeneity of the environment from a single trajectory, a step beyond the model-class identification the review emphasizes.
  • The diffusing-diffusivity structure is mathematically the same stochastic-volatility structure used in financial mathematics; the first-passage and spectral diagnostics reviewed here could transfer to time-series analysis of volatility and returns.
  • A testable extension follows directly: in any Brownian-yet-non-Gaussian experimental system, measure the kurtosis as a function of lag time; if the short-time value and crossover time do not match the diffusing-diffusivity prediction, then alternative mechanisms such as quenched-disorder heterogeneity are needed.
  • The three-regime reaction-time structure suggests that search-and-reaction optimization should target the most probable reaction time rather than the mean; comparing the mean and mode of measured first-reaction-time distributions could reveal whether geometry-control or reaction-control dominates.
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.

Referee Report

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. This invited-style review surveys recent developments in stochastic processes, organized around four areas: full first-passage-time densities in confined domains and for partially reactive targets; single-trajectory time-averaged mean squared displacements, ageing, and ergodicity breaking; single-trajectory power spectral densities and their amplitude fluctuations; and Brownian-yet-non-Gaussian diffusion via superstatistics and diffusing diffusivity. The review frames these developments by the new experimental possibilities of superresolution microscopy and single-particle tracking, and argues that the fluctuations of single-trajectory observables carry diagnostic information that complements ensemble averages. The paper contains no new derivations or data; its contribution is the selection, synthesis, and transcription of published results, with Figures 2 and 3 reproducing experimental and simulation data from the cited literature.

Significance. If the summary is accurate, the review has pedagogical and practical value for experimentalists entering single-particle tracking and for theorists seeking a compact map of recent developments. Its strengths are the clear separation of ensemble and time-averaged observables, the emphasis on amplitude fluctuations as model-selection tools, and the visual documentation in Figures 2 and 3. The equations and qualitative statements I spot-checked are consistent with standard results: the Lévy-Smirnov first-passage density, the ageing factor in Eq. (11), and the diffusing-diffusivity crossover and kurtosis behaviour in Section 5 are all recognizable from the cited literature. No free parameters or fitted quantities enter the presentation, and no new falsifiable prediction is made, so the paper should be judged as a review rather than as a primary research contribution.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Introduction] The roadmap in the Introduction misstates the section order: it assigns single-trajectory power spectra to Section 3 and non-Gaussian diffusion to Section 4, whereas the actual headings are Section 3 for time-averaged MSD, Section 4 for power spectra, Section 5 for non-Gaussian diffusion, and Section 6 for conclusions. Please correct the roadmap.
  2. [Equation (4)] As rendered, the prefactor in Eq. (4) appears to be x0/(4πDt)^{3/2}, but the normalized one-dimensional Lévy-Smirnov first-passage density requires the prefactor x0/√(4πDt^3). If the original PDF contains the square root, please ensure the typeset version is unambiguous; otherwise correct the prefactor.
  3. [Section 4, paragraph after Eq. (13)] The sentence "As function of ω=fT, γ has the unique value √2 independent of the anomalous diffusion exponent α" should be qualified as the small-frequency (ω→0) limit; in its present form it appears to contradict the three distinct large-ω limits stated immediately after Eq. (14).
  4. [Section 4, paragraph after Eq. (13)] The statement "For subdiffusion, the coefficient is negative" is ambiguous because the coefficient of variation γ is a nonnegative quantity. If the intended statement concerns the sign of the prefactor α(α−1)Kα in the noise autocorrelation written just before, please say so explicitly rather than referring to "the coefficient".
  5. [Section 5, around Figure 3] The caption says the kurtosis crosses over "from the value K=9 for a one-dimensional Laplace distribution", but a standard one-dimensional Laplace distribution has kurtosis 6. The value K=9 is consistent with a squared-Gaussian diffusivity distribution at short times. Please reconcile the wording with the actual model distribution shown in Figure 3.
  6. [Section 3, paragraph after Eq. (7)] In the sentence beginning "Thus, from a random walk perspective", the kernel is written as [r²(t′+t)−r²(t′)]²; the superscript on r inside the square brackets is inconsistent with Eq. (7) and should read [r(t′+t)−r(t′)]².
  7. [References] Reference [90] is listed as "unpublished". Because it is used to support a comparison in Section 5, it should be replaced by a published account or explicitly labelled as a personal communication so that the reader can assess the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a self-labeled review summarizing externally published results, not a derivation whose predictions reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

This is a review article, not a derivation paper. It explicitly frames itself as a summary: 'Here we provide a summary of some of the recent developments highlighting both the experimental findings and theoretical frameworks.' The displayed results—Eq. (4) for the Lévy–Smirnov first-passage density, Eq. (5) for the mean reaction time, Eq. (11) for the ageing factor, Eq. (14) for the coefficient of variation, and the diffusing-diffusivity model (16a)–(16c)—are presented as previously published findings with citations, not as new predictions derived from fitted constants. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction; no quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it is said to explain. The paper does rely heavily on the author's own prior work (e.g., [21], [23], [38], [49], [50], [72]), but those are external peer-reviewed publications, and in several cases the review notes direct comparison with experimental data, as in Figure 2 taken from [50]. The unpublished reference [90] is used only in a passing comparative sentence and is not load-bearing for any stated claim. The review invokes no uniqueness theorem from the author's own work to forbid alternative models, and it does not present an ansatz under the cover of a citation: the diffusing-diffusivity model is attributed to Chubinsky and Slater and then analyzed in [72], with the review explicitly describing the model rather than claiming it is derived from first principles. Because the paper's central claim is descriptive rather than predictive, there is no constructed equivalence between inputs and outputs, and no circular step can be identified.

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

The review introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. All model constants such as D, alpha, kappa, and tau come from cited models. It relies on standard mathematical results from stochastic process theory and on modeling assumptions inherited from the cited literature. The main epistemic weight is carried by external references, several of which are authored by the same researcher.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Gaussian propagator (2) and linear MSD (1) describe the reference Brownian motion behavior.
    Invoked in Section 1 as the baseline for all subsequent discussion of anomalous and non-Gaussian processes.
  • standard math The Sparre Andersen theorem gives a universal t^(-3/2) tail for first-passage densities of Markovian symmetric random walks.
    Used in Section 2 to argue universality of the long-time first-passage asymptote.
  • standard math The central limit theorem ensures convergence of properly scaled sums of independent identically distributed random variables to a Gaussian distribution.
    Used in Section 5 to frame the Brownian yet non-Gaussian observations as a contrast to standard convergence.
  • domain assumption The diffusing diffusivity model in Eqs. (16a)-(16c) captures the physical mechanism of a fluctuating diffusion coefficient.
    Presented in Section 5 as a valid description of heterogeneous environments; it is a modeling choice inherited from [72], not derived in this review.
  • domain assumption The single-trajectory power spectral density at finite observation time, Eq. (12), is a meaningful observable whose fluctuations carry information.
    Adopted in Section 4 without derivation, following references [49] and [50].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Brownian motion and beyond: first-passage, power spectrum, non-Gaussianity, and anomalous diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFAMS7DB

@misc{pith2026190806233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Brownian motion and beyond: first-passage, power spectrum, non-Gaussianity, and anomalous diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFAMS7DB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06233}
}
read the original abstract

Brownian motion is a ubiquitous physical phenomenon across the sciences. After its discovery by Brown and intensive study since the first half of the 20th century, many different aspects of Brownian motion and stochastic processes in general have been addressed in Statistical Physics. In particular, there now exist a very large range of applications of stochastic processes in various disciplines. Here, we highlight some of the advances in stochastic processes prompted by novel experimental methods such as superresolution microscopy. Here we provide a summary of some of the recent developments highlighting both the experimental findings and theoretical frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reaction time density for a reaction on an inner target of radius ρ/R = 0 01, with starting point r/R =0.2 and r/R = 0.02 for four progressively decreasing (from top to bottom) values of the dimensionless reactivity κR/D defined in the plot. The coloured vertical arrows indicate the mean reaction times for these cases. The vertical black dashed line indicates the crossover time = 2( )2 Dπ above which the contributio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Power spectral analysis of experimental data sets, taken from [50]. (a-d) Single-trajectory PSD of representative trajectories along with the ensemble-averaged PSD for telomeres in the nucleus of HeLa cells, 50-nm nanoparticles in 1.5% agarose gel, intracellular vacuoles within amoeba, and the motion of amoeba. The anomalous diffusion exponent in the panels indicates sub- and superdiffusive dynamics. The dashed thic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Behaviour of the minimal model for diffusing diffusivity, equations (16a) to (16c) in the one-dimensional case, figures reproduced from [72]. Left: PDF P(x, t) at different times, demonstrating the crossover from the short-time exponential to the long-time Gaussian form, shown here for simulations and the theoretical result. Middle: the MSD shows a linear behaviour with constant coefficient, as seen in the lower pan… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [90]

    I. M. Sokolov and A. V. Chechkin (unpublished)

    work page

  2. [1]

    Brown, Phil

    R. Brown, Phil. Mag. 4, 161 (1828); Ann. Phys. Chem. 14, 294 (1828)

  3. [2]

    Einstein, Ann

    A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 322, 549 (1905)

    1905

  4. [3]

    Sutherland, Philos

    W. Sutherland, Philos. Mag. 9, 781 (1905)

    1905

  5. [4]

    von Smoluchowski, Ann

    M. von Smoluchowski, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 21, 756 (1906)

    1906

  6. [5]

    Langevin, C

    P. Langevin, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 146, 530 (1908)

    1908

  7. [6]

    Pearson, Nature 72, 294 (1905)

    K. Pearson, Nature 72, 294 (1905). Rayleigh, Nature 72, 318 (1905)

    1905

  8. [7]

    Perrin, Compt

    J. Perrin, Compt. Rend. (Paris) 146, 967 (1908). J. Perrin, Ann. Chim. Phys. 18, 5 (1909)

    1908

Show all 100 references
  1. [8]

    Nordlund, Z

    I. Nordlund, Z. Phys. Chem. 87, 40 (1914)

    1914

  2. [9]

    Kappler, Ann

    E. Kappler, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 11, 233 (1931)

    1931

  3. [10]

    W. E. Moerner and M. Orrit, Science 238, 1670 (1999). M. J. Saxton and K. Jacobsen, Ann. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Stru ct. 26, 373 (1997). X. S. Xie, P. J. Choi, G.-W. Li, N. K. Lee, and G. Lia, Annu. Rev. Biophys. 37, 417 (2008). C. Bräuchle, D. C. Lamb, and J. Michaelis, Single...

    1999

  4. [11]

    Nørregaard, R

    K. Nørregaard, R. Metzler, C. M. Ritter, K. Berg-Sørens en, and L. B. Oddershede, Chem. Rev. 117, 4342 (2017). F. Höfling and T. Franosch, Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 046602 (2013). Brownian motion and beyond 16

    2017

  5. [12]

    di Rienzo et al , Nature Comm

    C. di Rienzo et al , Nature Comm. 5, 5891 (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    Metzler, J.-H

    R. Metzler, J.-H. Jeon, and A. G. Cherstvy, Biochimica e t Biophysica Acta - Biomembranes 1858, 2451 (2016)

    2016

  7. [14]

    Redner, A Guide to First Passage Processes (Cambridg e University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001)

    S. Redner, A Guide to First Passage Processes (Cambridg e University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001)

    2001

  8. [15]

    Koren, M

    T. Koren, M. A. Lomholt, A. V. Chechkin, J. Klafter, and R . Metzler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 160602 (2007). A. V. Chechkin, R. Metzler, J. Klafter, V. Yu. Gonchar, and L. V. Tanatarov, J. Phys. A 36, L537 (2003)

    2007

  9. [16]

    Bénichou and R

    O. Bénichou and R. Voituriez, Phys. Rep. 539, 225 (2014). S. Condamin, O. Bénichou, V. Tejedor, R. Voituriez, and J. Kl after, Nature 450, 77 (2007). O. Bénichou, C. Chevalier, J. Klafter, B. Meyer, and R. Voitu riez, Nature Chem. 2, 472-477 (2010)

    2014

  10. [17]

    Mejía-Monasterio, G

    C. Mejía-Monasterio, G. Oshanin, and G. Schehr, J. Stat . Mech. P06022 (2011). T. Mattos, C. Mejía-Monasterio, R. Metzler, and G. Oshanin, Phys. Rev. E 86, 031143 (2012)

    2011

  11. [18]

    Kolesov, Z

    G. Kolesov, Z. Wunderlich, O. N. Laikova, M. S. Gelfand, and L. A. Mirny, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 13948 (2007). O. Pulkkinen and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 198101 (2013)

    2007

  12. [19]

    Bauer, E

    M. Bauer, E. S. Rasmussen, M. A. Lomholt, and R. Metzler, Sci. Rep. 5, 10072 (2015)

    2015

  13. [20]

    J. Yu, J. Xiao, X. Ren, K. Lao, and X. S. Xie, Science 311, 1600, (2006)

    2006

  14. [21]

    Godec and R

    A. Godec and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. X 6, 041037 (2016). A. Godec and R. Metzler, Sci. Rep. 6, 20349 (2016)

    2016

  15. [22]

    D. S. Grebenkov, R. Metzler and G. Oshanin, Phys. Chem. C hem. Phys. 20, 16393 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    Grebenkov, R

    D. Grebenkov, R. Metzler, and G. Oshanin, Comm. Chem. 1, 96 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    F. C. Collins and G. E. Kimball, J. Colloid Sci. 4, 425 (1949)

    1949

  18. [25]

    Bouchaud and A

    J.-P. Bouchaud and A. Georges, Phys. Rep. 195, 127 (1990)

    1990

  19. [26]

    Metzler and J

    R. Metzler and J. Klafter, Phys. Rep. 339, 1 (2000)

    2000

  20. [27]

    Metzler, J.-H

    R. Metzler, J.-H. Jeon, A. G. Cherstvy, and E. Barkai, Ph ys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 24128 (2014)

    2014

  21. [28]

    Scher and E

    H. Scher and E. W. Montroll, Phys. Rev. B 12, 2455 (1975)

    1975

  22. [29]

    Schubert, E

    M. Schubert, E. Preis, J. C. Blakesley, P. Pingel, U. Sch erf, and D. Neher, Phys. Rev. B 87, 024203 (2013)

    2013

  23. [30]

    Edery, H

    Y. Edery, H. Scher, A. Guadagnini, and B. Berkowitz, Wat er Res. Res. 50, 1490 (2014). B. Berkowitz, H. Scher, and S. E. Silliman, Water Res. Res. 36, 149 (2000). R. Schumer, D. A. Benson, and M. Meerschaert, Water Res. Res. 39, 13 (2003)

    2014

  24. [31]

    Weiss, M

    M. Weiss, M. Elsner, F. Kartberg, and T. Nilsson, Biophy s. J. 87, 3518 (2004). I. Golding and E. C. Cox, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 098102 (2006). I. Bronstein, Y. Israel, E. Kepten, S. Mai, Y. Shav-Tal, E. Ba rkai and Y. Garini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 018102 (2009). G. Guigas, C. K...

    2004

  25. [32]

    T. H. Solomon, E. R. Weeks, and H. L. Swinney, Phys. Rev. L ett. 71, 3975 (1993). G. M. Zaslavsky, Phys. Rep. 371, 461 (2002). L. F. Richardson, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 110, 709 (1926)

    1993

  26. [33]

    Caspi, R

    A. Caspi, R. Granek, and M. Elbaum. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5655 (2000). G. Seisenberger, M. U. Ried, T. Endreß, H. Büning, M. Hallek, and C. Bräuchle, Science 294, Brownian motion and beyond 17 1929 (2001). D. Robert, T. H. Nguyen, F. Gallet, and C. Wilhelm, PLoS ONE 4, e10046 (...

    2000

  27. [34]

    Tejedor, O

    V. Tejedor, O. Benichou, R. Voituriez, R. Jungmann, F. S immel, C. Selhuber-Unkel, L. Oddershede and R. Metzler, Biophys. J. 98, 1364 (2010)

    2010

  28. [35]

    Y. He, S. Burov, R. Metzler, and E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. Let t. 101, 058101 (2008)

    2008

  29. [36]

    Barkai, Y

    E. Barkai, Y. Garini, and R. Metzler, Phys. Today 65(8), 29 (2012)

    2012

  30. [37]

    A. V. Weigel, B. Simon, M. M. Tamkun, and D. Krapf, Proc. N atl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 6438 (2011). A. V. Weigel, M. M. Tamkun, and D. Krapf, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci . U. S. A. 110, E4591 (2013)

    2011

  31. [38]

    J. H. P. Schulz, E. Barkai, and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. Let t. 110, 020602 (2013). J. H. P. Schulz, E. Barkai, and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011028 (2014)

    2013

  32. [39]

    Barkai, Phys

    E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 104101 (2003). E. Barkai and Y. C. Cheng, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 6167 (2003)

    2003

  33. [40]

    Mardoukhi, J.-H

    Y. Mardoukhi, J.-H. Jeon, and R. Metzler, Phys. Chem. Ch em. Phys. 17, 30134 (2015). Y. Mardoukhi, J.-H. Jeon, A. V. Chechkin, and R. Metzler, Phy s. Chem. Chem. Phys. 20, 20427 (2018)

    2015

  34. [41]

    S. C. Lim and S. V. Muniandy, Phys. Rev. E 66, 021114 (2002). A. Fuliński, J. Chem. Phys. 138, 021101 (2013). J.-H. Jeon, A. V. Chechkin, and R. Metzler, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 15811 (2014)

    2002

  35. [42]

    A. G. Cherstvy, A. V. Chechkin, and R. Metzler, New J. Phy s. 15, 083039 (2013). A. G. Cherstvy and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. E 90, 012134 (2014). A. G. Cherstvy, A. V. Chechkin, and R. Metzler, J. Phys. A 47, 485002 (2014)

    2013

  36. [43]

    A. G. Cherstvy and R. Metzler, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 15, 20220 (2013)

    2013

  37. [44]

    Krüsemann, A

    H. Krüsemann, A. Godec, and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. E 89, 040101(R) (2014). H. Krüsemann, A. Godec, and R. Metzler, J. Phys. A 48, 285001 (2015). H. Krüsemann, R. Schwarzl, and R. Metzler, Transp. Porous Me dia 115, 327 (2016)

    2014

  38. [45]

    B. B. Mandelbrot and J. W. van Ness, SIAM Rev. 10, 422 (1968)

    1968

  39. [46]

    Deng and E

    W. Deng and E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. E 79, 011112 (2009). M. Schwarzl, A. Godec, and R. Metzler, Sci Rep. 7, 3878 (2017)

    2009

  40. [47]

    Goychuk, Phys

    I. Goychuk, Phys. Rev. E 80, 046125 (2009). I. Goychuk, Adv. Chem. Phys. 150 187 (2012)

    2009

  41. [48]

    M. P. Norton and D. G. Karczub, Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration Analysis for Engineers (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 2003)

    2003

  42. [49]

    Krapf, E

    D. Krapf, E. Marinari, R. Metzler, G. Oshanin, X. Xu, and S. Squarcini, New J. Phys. 20, 023029 (2018)

    2018

  43. [50]

    Krapf, N

    D. Krapf, N. Lukat, E. Marinari, R. Metzler, G. Oshanin, C. Selhuber-Unkel, A. Squarcini, L. Stadler, M. Weiss, and X. Xu, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011019 (2019)

    2019

  44. [51]

    Sposini, R

    V. Sposini, R. Metzler, and G. Oshanin, New J. Phys. 21, 073043 (2019)

    2019

  45. [52]

    Feller, An introduction to probability theory and it s application (Wiley, New York, NY, 1970)

    W. Feller, An introduction to probability theory and it s application (Wiley, New York, NY, 1970)

    1970

  46. [53]

    van Kampen, Stochastic processes in physics and chem istry (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1981)

    N. van Kampen, Stochastic processes in physics and chem istry (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1981)

    1981

  47. [54]

    B. Wang, J. Kuo, S. C. Bae, and S. Granick, Nat. Mater. 11, 481 (2012)

    2012

  48. [55]

    B. Wang, S. M. Antony, S. C. Bae, and S. Granick, Proc. Nat l. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 15160 (2009)

    2009

  49. [56]

    K. C. Leptos, J. S. Guasto, J. P. Gollub, A. I. Pesci, and R . E. Goldstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 198103 (2009)

    2009

  50. [57]

    C. Xue, X. Zheng, K. Chen, Y. Tian, and G. Hu, J. Phys. Chem . Lett. 7, 514 (2016)

    2016

  51. [58]

    D. Wang, R. Hu, M. J. Skaug, and D. Schwartz, J. Phys. Chem . Lett. 6 54 (2015)

    2015

  52. [59]

    Dutta and J

    S. Dutta and J. Chakrabarti, EPL 116, 38001 (2016)

    2016

  53. [60]

    Hapca, J

    S. Hapca, J. W. Crawford, and I. M. Young, J. R. Soc. Inter face 6, 111 (2009). Brownian motion and beyond 18

    2009

  54. [61]

    A. G. Cherstvy, O. Günther, C. Beta, and R. Metzler, Phys . Chem. Chem. Phys. 20, 23034 (2018)

    2018

  55. [62]

    Kob and H

    W. Kob and H. C. Andersen, Phys. Rev. E 51, 4626 (1995)

    1995

  56. [63]

    Chaudhuri, L

    P. Chaudhuri, L. Berthier, and W. Kob, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 060604 (2007)

    2007

  57. [64]

    Roldàn-Vargas, L

    S. Roldàn-Vargas, L. Rovigatti, and F. Sciortino, Soft Matt. 13, 514 (2017)

    2017

  58. [65]

    Samanta and R

    N. Samanta and R. Chakrabarti, Soft Matt. 12, 8563 (2016)

    2016

  59. [66]

    M. J. Skaug, L. Wang, Y. Ding, and D. K. Schwartz, ACS Nano 9, 2148 (2015)

    2015

  60. [67]

    Beck and E

    C. Beck and E. D. B. Cohen, Physica A 322, 267 (2003)

    2003

  61. [68]

    Beck, Prog

    C. Beck, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 162, 29 (2006)

    2006

  62. [69]

    van der Straeten and C

    E. van der Straeten and C. Beck, Phys. Rev. E 80, 036108 (2009)

    2009

  63. [70]

    A. Mura, M. S. Taqqu, and F. Mainardi, Physica A 387, 5033 (2008). A. Mura and G. Pagnini, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 285003 (2008). A. Mura and F. Mainardi, Int. Transf. Spe. Funct. 20, 185 (2009). D. Molina-García, T. M. Pham, P. Paradisi, and G. Pagnini, Ph ys. Rev. E 94,...

    2008

  64. [71]

    Sposini, A

    V. Sposini, A. V. Chechkin, F. Seno, G. Pagnini, and R. Me tzler, New J. Phys. 20, 043044 (2018)

    2018

  65. [72]

    A. V. Chechkin, F. Seno, R. Metzler, and I. M. Sokolov, Ph ys. Rev. X 7, 021002 (2017)

    2017

  66. [73]

    Beck, Physica A 365, 96 (2006)

    C. Beck, Physica A 365, 96 (2006)

    2006

  67. [74]

    M. V. Chubynsky and G. W. Slater, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 098302 (2014)

    2014

  68. [75]

    Jain and K

    R. Jain and K. L. Sebastian, J. Phys. Chem. B 120, 3988 (2016). R. Jain and K. L. Sebastian, J. Chem. Sci. 129, 929 (2017)

    2016

  69. [76]

    Tyagi and B

    N. Tyagi and B. J. Cherayil, J. Phys. Chem. B, 121, 7204 (2017)

    2017

  70. [77]

    Lanoiselée and D

    Y. Lanoiselée and D. Grebenkov, J. Phys. A 51, 145602 (2018)

    2018

  71. [78]

    Lanoiselée, N

    Y. Lanoiselée, N. Moutal, and D. Grebenkov, Nature Comm . 9, 4398 (2018)

    2018

  72. [79]

    Sposini, A

    V. Sposini, A. V. Chechkin, and R. Metzler, J. Phys. A 52, 04LT01 (2019)

    2019

  73. [80]

    Fouqué, G

    J.-P. Fouqué, G. Papanicolaou, and K. R. Sircar, Deriva tives in financial markets with stochastic volatility (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 20 00). J. C. Cox, J. E. Ingersoll, and S. A. Ross, Econometrica. 53, 385 (1985). See also S. L. Heston, Rev. Financial Stud...

    1985

  74. [81]

    Lutz, Phys

    E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. E 64, 051106 (2001)

    2001

  75. [82]

    J.-H. Jeon, H. M.-S. Monne, M. Javanainen, and R. Metzle r, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 188103 (2012). G. R. Kneller, K. Baczynski, and M. Pasenkiewicz-Gierula, J . Chem. Phys. 135, 141105 (2011)

    2012

  76. [83]

    J.-H. Jeon, M. Javanainen, H. Martinez-Seara, R. Metzl er, and I. Vattulainen, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021006 (2016)

    2016

  77. [84]

    W. He, H. Song, Y. Su, L. Geng, B. J. Ackerson, H. B. Peng, a nd P. Tong, Nat. Comm. 7, 11701 (2016)

    2016

  78. [85]

    Lampo, S

    T. Lampo, S. Stylianido, M. P. Backlund, P. A. Wiggins, a nd A. J. Spakowitz, Biophys. J. 112, 532 (2017)

    2017

  79. [86]

    van der Straeten and C

    E. van der Straeten and C. Beck, Physica A 390, 951 (2011)

    2011

  80. [87]

    Ślęzak, R

    J. Ślęzak, R. Metzler, and M. Magdziarz, New J. Phys. 20, 023026 (2018)

    2018

  81. [88]

    A. G. Cherstvy and R. Metzler, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 23840 (2016)

    2016

  82. [89]

    Stylianido, T

    S. Stylianido, T. J. Lampo, A. J. Spakowitz, and P. A. Wig gins, Phys. Rev. E 97, 062410 (2018)

    2018

  83. [91]

    Barkai and S

    E. Barkai and S. Burov, E-print arXiv:1908.02916

    1908 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Ślęzak, K

    J. Ślęzak, K. Burnecki, and R. Metzler, New J. Phys. 21, 073056 (2019)

    2019

  85. [93]

    Havlin and D

    S. Havlin and D. Ben-A vraham, Adv. Phys. 36, 695 (1987)

    1987

  86. [94]

    A. H. O. Wada and T. Vojta, Phys. Rev. E 97, 020102(R) (2018). T. Guggenberger, G. Pagnini, T. Vojta, and R. Metzler, New J. Phys 21, 022002 (2019)

    2018

  87. [95]

    Robson, K

    A. Robson, K. Burrage, and M. C. Leake, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120029 (2012). J. Krog and M. A. Lomholt, Phys. Rev. E 96, 062106 (2017). S. Thapa, M. A. Lomholt, J. Krog, A. G. Cherstvy, and R. Metzle r, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 20, 29018 (2018). A. G. Cherstvy, S. Tha...

    2012

  88. [96]

    Granik, E

    N. Granik, E. Nehme, L. E. Weiss, M. Levin, M. Chein, E. Pe rlson, Y. Roichman, and Y. Shechtman, Biophys. J. 117, 185 (2019). G. Muñoz-Gil, M. A. Garcia-March, C. Manzo, J. D. Martín-Gue rrero, and M. Lewenstein, E-print arXiv:1903.02850

    2019 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Magdziarz, A

    M. Magdziarz, A. Weron, K. Burnecki and J. Klafter, Phys . Rev. Lett. 103, 180602 (2009). M. Magdziarz and J. Klafter, Phys. Rev. E 82, 011129 (2010)

    2009

  90. [98]

    Heidernaetsch, M

    M. Heidernaetsch, M. Bauer, and G. Radons, J. Chem. Phys . 139, 184105 (2013)

    2013

  91. [99]

    C. L. Vestergaard, P. C. Blainey, and H. Flyvbjerg, Phys . Rev. E 89, 022726 (2014)

    2014

  92. [100]

    Ślęzak, R

    J. Ślęzak, R. Metzler, and M. Magdziarz, New J. Phys. 21, 053008 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.