Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Superexponential dissipation enhancement on $\mathbb{T}^d$

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bounded incompressible flows on the torus can drive chosen smooth solutions of the advection-diffusion equation to decay at a double-exponential rate — matching the known lower bound and refuting the conjecture that superexponential decay i

desk verdict A genuinely new construction of superexponential dissipation on the torus, but as written the velocity field is complex-valued and the 4D step is under-verified; worth refereeing after a fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02081 v1 pith:SU45CFYZ submitted 2025-09-02 math.AP

Keefer Rowan This is my paper
classification math.AP MSC 35B4035Q3576F25
keywords advection-diffusionequationenhanceddissipationsuperexponentialdecaydoubleexponentialratepassivescalarincompressibleflowFouriermodecontrolBatchelorscale
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 studies how fast a passively advected, diffusing scalar (a solution θ of ∂tθ = Δθ + u·∇θ on the torus, with u divergence-free) can be made to decay in L2 by choosing the stirring flow u. It proves that on the torus, faster-than-exponential decay is attainable: in two dimensions a merely bounded velocity field drives a carefully chosen smooth initial datum to vanish at the double-exponential rate e^{−C⁻¹e^{C⁻¹t}}, in three dimensions a Lipschitz flow gives e^{−C⁻¹t²}, and in four dimensions a C∞ flow gives some superexponential rate. The 2D rate is essentially optimal, matching a known double-exponential lower bound, and it disproves the standing conjecture that no superexponential decay is possible for time-dependent incompressible flows on compact domains. The construction works by shuttling all Fourier mass from one pure mode to a larger pure mode, then outward to infinity, so the scalar's gradient-to-mass ratio grows without bound and the instantaneous exponential decay rate accelerates.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the infinite Fourier-ODE system żk = −dk zk + i Σj vj zk−j (equation (3.1)), with damping coefficients dk = |a+kb|²/L − A; it arises because flows of the form ut(x) = vt(b·x) keep a solution starting at mode fa supported on the line fa+kb. The paper's main technical theorem, Theorem 3.2, is a control result for this system: under Assumption 3.1 — a spectral gap M ≥ 2²⁶ between the two active modes and all others, total weight S ≤ 6, and adjacent damping gaps dk+1 − d1−k ≥ 1 — there is a coefficient field v with v−k = vk that steers δk,0 to βδk,1. The steering splits into two moves: an explicit amplifier (Proposition 3.4) that empties z0 into z1 in unit time, and a Newt

What would settle it

For the 4D 'downhill' move of Proposition 2.5, compute M = min_{k≠0,1} dk, S = Σk (1+dk)^{-1}, and Δk = dk+1 − d1−k from dk = |a+kb|²/L − A with a = (m,n,ℓ,−p−1), b = (x,y,z,p) − a; failure of M ≥ 2²⁶, S ≤ 6, or Δk ≥ 1 for any k would break the C∞ construction. A more direct check: numerically integrate the ODE system (3.1) with the controls of Theorem 3.2 and see whether the transfer from δk,0 to βδk,1 actually occurs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is Theorem 1.1: there exists C > 0, a divergence-free velocity field u ∈ L∞([0,∞)×T²), and nonzero smooth initial data such that the solution of the advection-diffusion equation satisfies ‖θt‖L² ≤ C e^{−C⁻¹e^{C⁻¹t}}‖θ0‖L² for all t. Theorem 1.2 upgrades the flow to Lipschitz regularity in 3D with decay e^{−C⁻¹t²}, and Theorem 1.3 gives a C∞ flow in 4D with a non-explicit superexponential rate. The proof reduces the PDE to an infinite linear ODE system in Fourier space, restricted to modes a + kb for a fixed transition vector b, and then solves a control problem: design the coefficients vj so that the solution passes from δk,0 to βδk,1 (Theorem 3.2)

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on the quantitative hypotheses of Assumption 3.1 — a spectral gap M ≥ 2²⁶ separating the two active Fourier modes from all others, a bounded total weight S ≤ 6 of inactive modes, and adjacent-mode damping gaps of at least 1 — which are verified explicitly for the 2D and 3D steps but merely asserted for the 4D 'downhill' step that the qualitative C∞ result depends on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, Theorem 1.1 closes the gap between the best known decay (exponential) and the best known obstruction (double exponential) on the 2D torus: superexponential decay is attainable with only L∞-bounded velocity, and the rate is essentially optimal.
  • The rate–regularity ladder (L∞ → double exponential, Lipschitz → e^{−C⁻¹t²}, C∞ → qualitative superexponential) shows flow smoothness is a genuine cost: smoother mixers get worse guaranteed decay.
  • For the exhibited solutions, the dissipation rate ‖∇θt‖L²/‖θt‖L² grows without bound in time, so the scalar repeatedly outruns the Batchelor-scale saturation believed to cap dissipation rates — though only for specially prepared, mode-concentrated data.
  • Since the PDE preserves real signals, taking real and imaginary parts of the complex solutions yields real-valued smooth data with the same superexponential decay rates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Stress test: the construction feeds on data concentrated on a single Fourier mode, and the cleanup step assumes mass is already almost entirely on one mode; testing whether the double-exponential rate survives small broadband perturbations of the initial datum would show how far the mechanism reaches beyond the paper's special data.
  • Threshold question: since the 2D rate matches the lower bound up to constants, the natural next classification is which time-exponent functions are attainable for each regularity class of flows; the paper's three-rung ladder is plausibly part of a complete hierarchy.
  • Transferability: the mode-to-mode control is a general recipe — a spectral-gap inequality plus unequal damping on paired modes — so analogues for fractional dissipation, advection–reaction systems, or anisotropic diffusion are plausible testbeds.
  • Practical check: the constants (e.g., M ≥ 2²⁶) are far beyond numerical simulation of the PDE, but the reduced ODE system (3.1) can be integrated directly at moderate parameters, offering a cheap test of the claimed δk,0 → βδk,1 transfer.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs divergence-free velocity fields on the torus that force a particular smooth Fourier-mode solution of the advection-diffusion equation to decay superexponentially. In 2D a bounded velocity field gives double-exponential decay e^{-C^{-1}e^{C^{-1}t}}; in 3D a Lipschitz velocity field gives decay e^{-C^{-1}t^2}; in 4D a C^\infty velocity field gives some superexponential rate. The mechanism is to move the Fourier mass from a mode a to a larger mode a+b in finite time using a control velocity field built from a one-dimensional ODE system, then iterate while using the energy identity to convert the growing wavenumber into accelerated decay.

Significance. If the proof were correct, the paper would settle a natural open question: on the compact torus, with uniformly bounded velocity, dissipation can be much faster than exponential, matching the double-exponential lower bound of Miles and Doering and disproving the conjecture that no faster-than-exponential decay is possible. The architecture is self-contained: the reduction to an ODE control problem, the dyadic Newton-type error removal, and the use of the energy identity are clearly laid out, and there are no fitted parameters. The explicit construction of different regularity regimes in dimensions 2, 3, and 4 is an interesting contribution in itself. However, I find several load-bearing gaps in the control-theoretic core, detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Corollaries 4.3–4.4; §2.1] The claim that the constructed v is real-valued because v_{-k}=v_k is false. A real-valued function on the torus satisfies \hat v(-k)=\overline{\hat v(k)}, not \hat v(-k)=\hat v(k). The controls a_k,b_k in Proposition 3.5 are complex (they solve a complex 2x2 system), so Theorem 3.2 and Proposition 3.3 produce complex coefficients. Hence w_{a,b,v,L} is complex-valued and the reduction in §2.1 to real/imaginary parts does not apply because the PDE is solved with a complex drift. This affects Theorems 1.1–1.3. The gap is repairable by imposing Hermitian symmetry v_{-k}=\overline{v_k}; Assumption 3.1(4) should make the resulting control problem well-posed, but the proof as written is invalid.
  2. [§3, Proposition 3.4] Substituting the displayed definition a_t = -i2^8 z0|z1|/(z1|z0|) into the equation for z0 gives i a_t z_1 = +2^8 z0|z1|/|z0|, not the negative term appearing in the subsequent system. With d0=0 this term drives |z0| upward, so the claimed conclusion z0(1)=0 and the lower bound |z1(1)|≥1/96 do not follow. A mere sign change may not be enough: the single complex control must simultaneously produce the desired real-part effects on both z0 and z1, which imposes phase constraints that are not addressed. Proposition 3.4 is the first step of Theorem 3.2 and therefore is load-bearing for all later results.
  3. [§3, Proposition 3.5, energy estimate] The line 'using that v_k=v_{-k} to show the final term is 0' is incorrect. For complex coefficients and the standard ℓ2 inner product, \sum_{k,j} v_{k-j} \psi_j \overline{\psi_k} is not generally zero under v_{-k}=v_k; the term Re⟨i v*\psi,\psi⟩ vanishes only when v corresponds to a real-valued function, i.e. v_{-k}=\overline{v_k}, after taking the real part. Since the controls are complex, the displayed estimate leading to (3.11) is not established. This invalidates the error-reduction bound used in Corollary 3.6 and Theorem 3.2.
  4. [§4.2, Proposition 2.5] The proof asserts that the verification of Item 3 of Corollary 4.4 (the condition d_{k+1}-d_{1-k}≥1 and the support condition |a+kb|≥|a+b|) is obtained by 'combining the arguments' from Propositions 2.3 and 2.4, but no explicit computation or lemma is supplied. Since Proposition 2.5 is needed for Theorem 1.3, this omitted verification should be written out, ideally as a lemma analogous to Lemma 4.5 for the downhill configuration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, proof of Proposition 2.3] The use of Legendre's three-square theorem should explicitly state that one selects an integer n in [|(m,n,ℓ)|^2+1, |(m,n,ℓ)|^2+8] with n≡1 mod 4, then represents n as a sum of three squares.
  2. [§2.1.6] The phrase 'giving the e^{-C^{-1}t^2} decay of Theorem 1.3' should refer to Theorem 1.2.
  3. [§2.3, proof of Theorem 1.3] The conclusion from Proposition 2.7 is stated as immediate, but the proof should record that the time increments T_n in Proposition 2.5 grow at most polynomially in |a_n| (indeed T_n=O(log(1/η_n))=O(|a_n|) in the construction) so that f(t)→∞ as t→∞. Without such a bound, the claimed superexponential rate is not justified.
  4. [§4.1, Definition 4.1 and Corollary 4.4] Definition 4.1 requires strict |a·b|<|a||b|, while Corollary 4.4 states the hypothesis with ≤. Please make the strict inequality explicit in Corollary 4.4 and confirm that the applications satisfy it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the construction is self-contained; the decay rates are derived from an explicit PDE-to-ODE control argument and the energy identity, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain doing load-bearing work.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (Theorems 1.1-1.3) are proved by explicitly constructing velocity fields that move Fourier mass from one pure mode to another, then applying the energy identity (Proposition 2.7) to convert the growth of the active Fourier scale into a decay rate. The key PDE-to-ODE translation (Proposition 4.2) is an exact identity, not a definition of the target decay rate: it expresses solutions to the advection-diffusion equation in terms of the ODE system (3.1), and the ODE control results (Theorem 3.2, Proposition 3.3, and their supporting propositions) are proven internally with explicit controls. The diffusion coefficients d_k in Assumption 3.1 are selected by choosing lattice vectors a, b, and the hypotheses of the control theorem are verified case-by-case for Propositions 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4 with explicit estimates; Proposition 2.5 states that its verification combines previous arguments, and although the verification is compressed, this is a missing-detail/correctness concern, not a circularity. No parameter is fitted to the stated decay rate, and no claimed prediction is used to define its own input. The cited works by the same author (e.g., [Row24], [CR24], [HCR25]) appear in the literature review and are not used as load-bearing support for the main theorems. The skeptical concern about real-valuedness (the paper writes v_{-k}=v_k where a real Fourier coefficient requires v_{-k}=\overline{v_k}) is a potential mathematical gap in the proof, but it does not make the derivation circular: it concerns whether the constructed velocity is admissible as a real vector field, not whether the conclusion is assumed as an input. Therefore no circular step is identified, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The argument's input is the existence of sufficiently separated lattice directions a,b (guaranteed by geometry and Legendre's theorem) and the standard well-posedness of the PDE. No numbers are fitted to data; the constants are universal. The only non-explicit part is the sketched verification of the separation hypotheses in the 4D downhill step.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Well-posedness of the advection-diffusion equation with L^infinity_t divergence-free velocity fields and the representation of solutions through the Fourier ODE system (3.1).
    Used throughout Section 2.1 and Proposition 4.2 to justify reducing PDE movement to an infinite ODE system; standard in the literature but not proved in the paper.
  • standard math Legendre's three-square theorem: every integer congruent to 1 mod 4 is a sum of three squares.
    Invoked in the proof of Proposition 2.3 to guarantee target modes with |c|^2 in [|a|^2+1, |a|^2+8]; this is the number-theoretic input that forces dimension 3 for the Lipschitz result.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.1: the transferred-mode diffusion coefficients satisfy d0,d1 in [0,1], M >= 2^26, S <= 6, and d_{k+1} - d_{1-k} >= 1 for k in N\{0}.
    The control theorem Theorem 3.2 requires these; Propositions 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4 verify them explicitly, while Proposition 2.5 only sketches the verification, which is the weakest point of the proof.
  • standard math Standard analytical tools: Poincare's inequality on the torus, Gronwall's inequality, Young's convolution inequality, and Duhamel's principle.
    Used in the energy identity and in the error estimates of Propositions 3.4 and 3.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superexponential dissipation enhancement on $\mathbb{T}^d$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SU45CFYZ

@misc{pith2026250902081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superexponential dissipation enhancement on $\mathbbT^d$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SU45CFYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02081}
}
abstract

We construct incompressible velocity fields that exhibit faster than exponential dissipation for particular solutions to the advection-diffusion equation on $\mathbb{T}^d$. In 2D, we construct a velocity field in $L^\infty_{t,x}$ and exhibit a solution that decays with double exponential rate $e^{-C^{-1} e^{C^{-1}t}}$. In 3D, we construct a velocity field in $L^\infty_t W^{1,\infty}_x$ and exhibit a solution that decays with rate $e^{-C^{-1} t^2}$. In 4D, we construct a velocity field in $L^\infty_t C^\infty_x$ and exhibit a solution that decays with *some* superexponential rate.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

  1. Mixing at the Batchelor Scale for White-In-Time Flows

    math.PR 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For the four-mode white-in-time advection-diffusion model on T², the exponential dissipation rate stays bounded below as κ→0, confirming Batchelor scaling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Enhanced dissipation and H\"ormander 's hypoellipticity

    Dallas Albritton, Rajendra Beekie, and Matthew Novack. Enhanced dissipation and H\"ormander 's hypoellipticity. Journal of Functional Analysis , 283(3):109522, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Exponential self-similar mixing by incompressible flows

    Giovanni Alberti, Gianluca Crippa, and Anna Mazzucato. Exponential self-similar mixing by incompressible flows. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 32(2):445--490, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Anomalous diffusion by fractal homogenization

    Scott Armstrong and Vlad Vicol. Anomalous diffusion by fractal homogenization. Annals of PDE , 11(1):2, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Small-scale variation of convected quantities like temperature in turbulent fluid

    George Batchelor. Small-scale variation of convected quantities like temperature in turbulent fluid. Part 1. General discussion and the case of small conductivity. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 5:113--133, 1959

    work page 1959

  5. [5]

    Almost-sure enhanced dissipation and uniform-in-diffusivity exponential mixing for advection–diffusion by stochastic Navier – Stokes

    Jacob Bedrossian, Alex Blumenthal, and Sam Punshon-Smith. Almost-sure enhanced dissipation and uniform-in-diffusivity exponential mixing for advection–diffusion by stochastic Navier – Stokes . Probability Theory and Related Fields , 179(3):777--834, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Almost-sure exponential mixing of passive scalars by the stochastic Navier – Stokes equations

    Jacob Bedrossian, Alex Blumenthal, and Samuel Punshon-Smith. Almost-sure exponential mixing of passive scalars by the stochastic Navier – Stokes equations. The Annals of Probability , 50(1):241--303, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Enhanced dissipation, hypoellipticity, and anomalous small noise inviscid limits in shear flows

    Jacob Bedrossian and Michele Coti Zelati. Enhanced dissipation, hypoellipticity, and anomalous small noise inviscid limits in shear flows. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 224(3):1161--1204, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    On the norm equivalence of L yapunov exponents for regularizing linear evolution equations

    Alex Blumenthal and Sam Punshon-Smith. On the norm equivalence of L yapunov exponents for regularizing linear evolution equations. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 247(5):Paper No. 97, 48, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Anomalous dissipation and Euler flows, 2023

    Jan Burczak, László Székelyhidi Jr., and Bian Wu. Anomalous dissipation and Euler flows, 2023. arXiv:2310.02934

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Alex Blumenthal, Michele Coti Zelati, and Rishabh S. Gvalani. Exponential mixing for random dynamical systems and an example of Pierrehumbert . The Annals of Probability , 51(4):1559--1601, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Anomalous dissipation and lack of selection in the Obukhov – Corrsin theory of scalar turbulence

    Maria Colombo, Gianluca Crippa, and Massimo Sorella. Anomalous dissipation and lack of selection in the Obukhov – Corrsin theory of scalar turbulence. Annals of PDE , 9(2):21, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Exponentially mixing flows with slow enhanced dissipation, July 2025

    William Cooperman, Gautam Iyer, Keefer Rowan, and Seungjae Son. Exponentially mixing flows with slow enhanced dissipation, July 2025. arXiv:2507.21305 [math]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Diffusion and mixing in fluid flow

    Peter Constantin, Alexander Kiselev, Lenya Ryzhik, and Andrej Zlatoš. Diffusion and mixing in fluid flow. Annals of Mathematics , 168(2):643--674, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    Exponential scalar mixing for the 2D Navier - Stokes equations with degenerate stochastic forcing, 2024

    William Cooperman and Keefer Rowan. Exponential scalar mixing for the 2D Navier - Stokes equations with degenerate stochastic forcing, 2024. arXiv:2408.02459

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Michele Coti Zelati and Theodore D. Drivas. A stochastic approach to enhanced diffusion. Annali Scuola Normale Superiore - Classe Di Scienze , pages 811--834, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Delgadino, and Tarek M

    Michele Coti Zelati, Matias G. Delgadino, and Tarek M. Elgindi. On the relation between enhanced dissipation timescales and mixing rates. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 73:1205--1244, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Enhanced dissipation and Taylor dispersion in higher-dimensional parallel shear flows

    Michele Coti Zelati and Thierry Gallay. Enhanced dissipation and Taylor dispersion in higher-dimensional parallel shear flows. Journal of the London Mathematical Society , 108(4):1358--1392, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    A Stochastic RAGE Theorem and Enhanced Dissipation for Transport Noise , July 2025

    Michele Coti Zelati, Martin Hairer, and David Villringer. A Stochastic RAGE Theorem and Enhanced Dissipation for Transport Noise , July 2025. arXiv:2507.11422 [math]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Drivas and Gregory L

    Theodore D. Drivas and Gregory L. Eyink. A Lagrangian fluctuation–dissipation relation for scalar turbulence. Part I . Flows with no bounding walls. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 829:153--189, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Elgindi and Kyle Liss

    Tarek M. Elgindi and Kyle Liss. Norm growth, non-uniqueness, and anomalous dissipation in passive scalars. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 248(6):120, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Elgindi, Kyle Liss, and Jonathan C

    Tarek M. Elgindi, Kyle Liss, and Jonathan C. Mattingly. Optimal enhanced dissipation and mixing for a time-periodic, L ipschitz velocity field on T ^2 . Duke Math. J. , 174(7):1209--1260, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Elgindi and Andrej Zlatoš

    Tarek M. Elgindi and Andrej Zlatoš. Universal mixers in all dimensions. Advances in Mathematics , 356:106807, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Particles and fields in fluid turbulence

    Gregory Falkovich, Krzysztof Gawedzki, and Massimo Vergassola. Particles and fields in fluid turbulence. Reviews of Modern Physics , 73(4):913--975, 2001. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2001

  16. [24]

    Dissipation enhancement by mixing

    Yuanyuan Feng and Gautam Iyer. Dissipation enhancement by mixing. Nonlinearity , 32(5):1810, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Turbulent and intermittent phenomena in a universal total anomalous dissipator, July 2025

    Elias Hess-Childs and Keefer Rowan. Turbulent and intermittent phenomena in a universal total anomalous dissipator, July 2025. arXiv:2508.00115 [math]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Lower bounds on the top Lyapunov exponent for linear PDEs driven by the 2D stochastic Navier -- Stokes equations, 2024

    Martin Hairer, Sam Punshon-Smith, Tommaso Rosati, and Jaeyun Yi. Lower bounds on the top Lyapunov exponent for linear PDEs driven by the 2D stochastic Navier -- Stokes equations, 2024. arXiv:2411.10419

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Anomalous dissipation via spontaneous stochasticity with a two-dimensional autonomous velocity field, 2024

    Carl Johan Peter Johansson and Massimo Sorella. Anomalous dissipation via spontaneous stochasticity with a two-dimensional autonomous velocity field, 2024. arXiv:2409.03599

    2024

  20. [28]

    Miles and Charles R

    Christopher J. Miles and Charles R. Doering. Diffusion-limited mixing by incompressible flows. Nonlinearity , 31(5):2346, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Joe Myers Hill, Rob Sturman, and Mark C. T. Wilson. Exponential mixing by orthogonal non-monotonic shears. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 434:133224, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Exponential mixing by random cellular flows, February 2025

    Víctor Navarro-Fernández and Christian Seis. Exponential mixing by random cellular flows, February 2025. arXiv:2502.17273 [math]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lower bounds on mixing norms for the advection diffusion equation in R ^d

    Camilla Nobili and Steffen Pottel. Lower bounds on mixing norms for the advection diffusion equation in R ^d . NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. , 29(2):Paper No. 12, 32, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Tracer microstructure in the large-eddy dominated regime

    Raymond T Pierrehumbert. Tracer microstructure in the large-eddy dominated regime. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , 4(6):1091--1110, 1994

    1994

  25. [33]

    Unique continuation for parabolic equations

    Chi-Cheung Poon. Unique continuation for parabolic equations. Communications in Partial Differential Equations , 21(3-4):521--539, 1996

    1996

  26. [34]

    On anomalous diffusion in the K raichnan model and correlated-in-time variants

    Keefer Rowan. On anomalous diffusion in the K raichnan model and correlated-in-time variants. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 248(5):93, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Bounds on the rate of enhanced dissipation

    Christian Seis. Bounds on the rate of enhanced dissipation. Comm. Math. Phys. , 399(3):2071--2081, 2023

  28. [36]

    Enhanced dissipation via the M alliavin calculus

    David Villringer. Enhanced dissipation via the M alliavin calculus. Electron. Commun. Probab. , 30:Paper No. 26, 11, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Mixing and un-mixing by incompressible flows

    Yao Yao and Andrej Zlatoš. Mixing and un-mixing by incompressible flows. Journal of the European Mathematical Society , 19(7):1911--1948, 2017

    1911

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.