Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 84 references

A unifying approach to diffusive transport in annealed heterogeneous media

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Most anomalous-diffusion models reduce to one matrix construction whose first four moments are fixed by three statistical objects.

desk verdict Clean matrix unification of annealed anomalous-diffusion models with closed four-moment formulas that check out against both special cases and large simulations. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.12775 v2 pith:VOU2MAFK submitted 2026-03-13 physics.bio-ph physics.data-an

Yann Lanoiselée , Denis S. Grebenkov , Gianni Pagnini This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phphysics.data-an
keywords anomalousdiffusionrandomlymodulatedGaussianprocessheterogeneousmedianon-Gaussianparameterergodicitybreakingcontinuous-timerandomwalkfractionalBrownianmotiondiffusingdiffusivity
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 claims that the main models of anomalous and non-Gaussian diffusion in heterogeneous media—continuous-time random walks, fractional Brownian motion, random and switching diffusivities, grey Brownian motion, and many hybrids—are special cases of a single discrete construction called a randomly modulated Gaussian process. Positions are obtained by integrating Gaussian increments whose amplitudes are rescaled by a positive random process; the whole trajectory is written as the matrix product of an integrator, a covariance matrix, a diagonal modulation matrix, and a Gaussian noise vector. Once that form is adopted, the mean-squared displacement, non-Gaussian parameter, ergodicity-breaking parameter and covariance of squared increments are all determined by only three objects: the covariance of the increments, the mean of the modulations, and the covariance of the modulations. The authors argue that experimental trajectories should therefore be classified by the statistical properties of those three objects rather than by fitting one named model at a time, and they supply the exact formulas needed to do so.

What carries the argument

Randomly modulated Gaussian process (RMGP): the matrix identity X = L √C √J ξ that separates first-order correlations of displacements (C) from amplitude modulations (J).

What would settle it

Measure the covariance of squared increments on a data set known to be pure fractional Brownian motion (deterministic modulations): the paper predicts that this covariance must equal twice the square of the ordinary covariance of increments; any systematic deviation would falsify the claimed separation of C and J.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A single matrix representation X = L √C √J ξ recovers essentially all standard annealed anomalous-diffusion models as special choices of the covariance matrix C and the random modulation matrix J; the first four moments and the principal diagnostics of non-Gaussianity and ergodicity breaking then follow from the three quantities C, ⟨J⟩ and cov(J_i,J_j).

Load-bearing premise

The random amplitude factors must be independent of the Gaussian noises, and those factors must be interpretable as temperature fluctuations so that the fluctuation-dissipation relation still holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Experimental single-particle trajectories can be classified by estimating only C, ⟨J⟩ and cov(J_i,J_j) rather than by testing a long list of named models.
  • Hybrids such as fractional Brownian motion with exponentially correlated diffusivity become routine special cases of the same matrix construction.
  • Necessary and sufficient conditions for anomalous scaling and for everlasting non-Gaussianity are expressed directly in terms of the three objects.
  • The same formulas immediately yield the non-Gaussian and ergodicity-breaking parameters for any new combination of C and J that an experimentalist may invent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the three-object classification works in practice, atlases of cellular diffusion patterns could be built without committing to a single microscopic mechanism for each molecule.
  • The reconstruction of C and ⟨J⟩ from empirical covariance matrices suggested by the paper would amount to a random-matrix inverse problem that has not yet been solved for trajectory data.
  • Extending the framework from temperature to viscosity fluctuations, as the authors flag for future work, would require a different coupling to any external potential and would change the moment formulas.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Randomly Modulated Gaussian Processes (RMGPs) as a discrete-time matrix framework X = L √C √J ξ that unifies annealed anomalous-diffusion models in heterogeneous media. First-order correlations of increments are encoded in the covariance matrix C, while medium heterogeneity is encoded in positive random modulations J that may themselves be correlated. Most standard models (Brownian motion, fBm, GLE, CTRW-Exp/Pow, DD-Exp, SD-Exp/Pow, ATTM, gBm/ggBm, sBm, and several hybrids) are recovered as special cases of the three objects C, ⟨J⟩ and cov(J_i,J_j). Exact closed-form expressions are derived for the MSD (Eq. 3), non-Gaussian parameter (Eq. 6), ergodicity-breaking parameter (App. D) and covariance of squared increments (Eq. 7). Appendices A–B match CTRW renewal statistics and squared-Gaussian (diffusing-diffusivity) modulations; Fig. 2 shows quantitative agreement between the analytic formulas and 10^6-trajectory simulations for five representative models. The authors argue that experimental trajectories should be classified by the statistical properties of C and J rather than by model name, and they discuss biophysical interpretations (temperature fluctuations) and possible extensions (Lévy flights, codifference).

Significance. If the unification holds, the paper supplies a practical organizing principle for a fragmented literature and a concrete experimental checklist (probe C, ⟨J⟩ and cov(J_i,J_j) via MSD, non-Gaussianity and cov of squared increments). The matrix algebra is elementary yet yields previously scattered results in a single derivation; the appendices recover known CTRW and DD statistics without free parameters; and Fig. 2 provides reproducible, high-statistics validation. The framework is immediately usable for simulation design and for systematic analysis of single-particle trajectories in biophysics. These are genuine strengths that justify publication in a physics journal of this scope.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and concluding paragraphs claim that an expression for the characteristic function and the codifference are obtained and used for Lévy flights and Laplace motion with correlated displacements. The body of the manuscript (through App. E) contains no such derivation or numerical illustration; only a brief forward-looking remark appears near the end. Either supply the promised expressions and special-case analysis, or remove/soften the claim so that the abstract matches the delivered content.
  2. The necessary-and-sufficient conditions for anomalous diffusion are announced in the abstract but are only sketched after Eq. (3): anomalous scaling can arise from power-law structure in C or from non-stationary ⟨J⟩. A short, self-contained statement of the precise conditions (and of any caveats when both mechanisms act simultaneously) would make the central claim fully checkable and would strengthen the paper’s utility as a classification tool.
minor comments (5)
  1. Title and abstract use “annealed heterogeneous media”; the main text occasionally drops “annealed.” Keep the qualifier consistent, since quenched disorder is outside the present scope.
  2. Fig. 1 is a useful three-axis diagram but is dense; a short legend or table mapping each abbreviated model (ATTM, sBm, OU+DD-Exp, …) to the corresponding (C, J, cov(J)) choice would help non-specialist readers.
  3. The temperature-fluctuation interpretation (paragraph after Eq. 7) is offered only when a potential is present; a one-sentence caveat that viscosity fluctuations would rescale the drift differently would avoid over-reading the biophysical claim.
  4. Notation: both α and H appear for the anomalous exponent; a single convention (or an explicit relation α = 2H) stated once would reduce minor confusion.
  5. A few typographical inconsistencies remain (e.g., “diffusive” vs “diffusive” hyphenation, occasional missing spaces after commas in equations). A light copy-edit pass is sufficient.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: moments follow by direct expansion of an openly defined matrix construction; known models are recovered as special cases, not as self-referential predictions.

full rationale

The paper defines the RMGP X = L √C √J ξ and then expands the first four moments, non-Gaussian parameter γ(t), ergodicity-breaking parameter, and cov(Y_i², Y_j²) algebraically in terms of C, ⟨J⟩ and cov(J_i, J_j). That is ordinary derivation from a definition, not a prediction that reduces to a fitted input. Special cases (fBm, CTRW, DD-Exp, SD-Exp, sBm, gBm/ggBm, ATTM, hybrids) are recovered by choosing the statistics of C and J; Appendices A–B supply the matching of renewal counting and squared-Gaussian modulations without importing a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation chain. Figure 2 compares the closed formulas to independent Monte Carlo trajectories of those same models—validation of the algebra, not a circular fit. Self-citations to prior DD/CTRW work are ordinary literature pointers and are not required to force the central moment identities. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; no ansatz is smuggled in as an external theorem. Circularity score is therefore zero.

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

The construction rests on standard Gaussian calculus, the independence of modulations from thermal noise, and the discrete-time matrix representation. No free parameters are fitted to data; model-specific parameters appear only in the illustrative simulations. The sole invented entity is the RMGP itself, introduced as a unifying definition rather than a new physical particle or force.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The random modulations J_i are independent of the Gaussian noises ξ_j for all i,j.
    Stated immediately after the definition of the two sets of random variables; used to factor all moment calculations.
  • standard math Positions are obtained by discrete cumulative summation of increments (matrix L).
    Standard discrete integration; invertible by first differencing.
  • domain assumption When a potential is present, random modulations correspond to temperature fluctuations so that the fluctuation-dissipation theorem continues to hold.
    Explicitly stated in the paragraph discussing physical interpretation of J for correlated displacements.
  • ad hoc to paper Coordinates in higher dimensions are independent (extension is immediate).
    Stated for clarity of presentation; cross-correlated multi-dimensional cases are left for future work.
invented entities (1)
  • Randomly Modulated Gaussian Process (RMGP)
    purpose: Unifying discrete-time matrix representation that simultaneously encodes first-order correlations of increments and second-order correlations of amplitude modulations.
    Defined by Eq. (1); recovers known models as special cases and supplies closed-form four-moment diagnostics. No independent experimental signature beyond the statistics it is designed to reproduce.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A unifying approach to diffusive transport in annealed heterogeneous media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOU2MAFK

@misc{pith2026260312775,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A unifying approach to diffusive transport in annealed heterogeneous media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOU2MAFK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.12775}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce the concept of Randomly Modulated Gaussian Processes as a unifying framework for elaborating, analyzing and classifying anomalous diffusion models in annealed heterogeneous media. This formulation incorporates correlations in the displacements together with correlated fluctuations of their amplitudes. Most known models of anomalous diffusion (including continuous-time random walk, fractional Brownian motion, and L\'evy flights) and random diffusivity can be described and further generalized within this framework. Moreover, the unified view identifies the main statistical properties to be probed experimentally for a reliable classification of diffusive dynamics. The proposed matrix formulation facilitates the computation of the first four moments and allows for a systematic statistical characterization of the considered processes. The necessary and sufficient conditions are provided for the emergence of anomalous diffusion. General expressions for the non-Gaussian parameter, the ergodicity breaking parameter and the covariance of squared increments are derived. An expression for the characteristic function and the codifference (i.e., a generalized measure of correlations) are obtained and used to study the special cases of L\'evy flights and Laplace motion with correlated displacements. Potential applications of this framework for systematic analysis and biophysical interpretations of experimental single-particle trajectories are discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pogany, Polymer 17, 690 (1976)

    G. Pogany, Polymer 17, 690 (1976)

    1976

  2. [2]

    D. A. Stariolo and G. Fabricius, J. Chem. Phys. 125, 064505 (2006)

    2006

  3. [3]

    Chaudhuri, L

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

    2007

  4. [4]

    Y. Sagi, M. Brook, I. Almog, and N. Davidson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 093002 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    J.-H. Jeon, N. Leijnse, L. B. Oddershede, and R. Metzler, New J. Phys. 15, 045011 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

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

    2009

  7. [7]

    Chakraborty and Y

    I. Chakraborty and Y. Roichman, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 022020 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Bronstein, Y

    I. Bronstein, Y. Israel, E. Kepten, S. Mai, Y. Shav-Tal, E . Barkai, and Y. Garini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 018102 (2009)

    2009

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Witzel, M

    P. Witzel, M. G¨ otz, Y. Lanoisel´ ee, T. Franosch, D. S. Gr ebenkov, and D. Heinrich, Biophys. J. 117, 203 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Sabri, X

    A. Sabri, X. Xu, D. Krapf, and M. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 058101 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    B. Wang, S. M. Anthony, S. C. Bae, and S. Granick, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 106, 15160 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    A. V. Weigel, B. Simon, M. M. Tamkun, and D. Krapf, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 108, 6438 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Sungkaworn, M.-L

    T. Sungkaworn, M.-L. Jobin, K. Burnecki, A. Weron, M. J. Lohse, and D. Calebiro, Nature 550, 543 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Grimes, Z

    J. Grimes, Z. Koszegi, Y. Lanoisel´ ee, T. Miljus, S. L. O ’Brien, T. M. Stepniewski, B. Medel- Lacruz, M. Baidya, M. Makarova, R. Mistry, J. Goulding, J. Dr ube, C. Hoffmann, D. M. Owen, A. K. Shukla, J. Selent, S. J. Hill, and D. Calebiro, Cell 186, 2238 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Metzler and J

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

    2000

  8. [16]

    Kutner and J

    R. Kutner and J. Masoliver, Euro. Phys. J. B 90, 50 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    W. Wyss, J. Math. Phys. 27, 2782 (1986)

    1986

  10. [18]

    Hilfer and L

    R. Hilfer and L. Anton, Phys. Rev. E 51, R848 (1995)

    1995

  11. [19]

    Mainardi, Chaos Solit

    F. Mainardi, Chaos Solit. Fract. 7, 1461 (1996)

    1996

  12. [20]

    B. B. Mandelbrot and J. W. Van Ness, SIAM Rev. 10, 422 (1968) . 12

    1968

  13. [21]

    Benelli and M

    R. Benelli and M. Weiss, New J. Phys. 23, 063072 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Zwanzig, J

    R. Zwanzig, J. Stat. Phys. 9, 215 (1973)

    1973

  15. [23]

    J. M. Porr´ a, K.-G. Wang, and J. Masoliver, Phys. Rev. E 53, 5872 (1996)

    1996

  16. [24]

    Bertseva, D

    E. Bertseva, D. S. Grebenkov, P. Schmidhauser, S. Gribk ova, S. Jeney, and L. Forro, Eur. Phys. J. E 35, 63 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Goychuk, Adv

    I. Goychuk, Adv. Chem. Phys. 150, 187 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Beck and E

    C. Beck and E. Cohen, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 322, 267 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    C. Beck, E. G. D. Cohen, and H. L. Swinney, Phys. Rev. E 72, 056133 (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

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

    2014

  21. [29]

    Jain and K

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

    2016

  22. [30]

    Jain and K

    R. Jain and K. L. Sebastian, Phys. Rev. E 98, 052138 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

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

    2017

  24. [32]

    Lanoisel´ ee, N

    Y. Lanoisel´ ee, N. Moutal, and D. Grebenkov, Nat. Commun. 9, 1 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Sposini, A

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

    2018

  26. [34]

    W. Wang, Q. Wei, A. V. Chechkin, and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. E 112, 014108 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    J. H. Jensen, J. A. Helpern, A. Ramani, H. Lu, and K. Kaczy nski, Magn. Res. Med. 53, 1432 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    Fieremans, D

    E. Fieremans, D. S. Novikov, J. H. Jensen, and J. A. Helpe rn, NMR in Biomed. 23, 711 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    D. S. Grebenkov, Phys. Rev. E 99, 032133 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Gu´ eneau, S

    M. Gu´ eneau, S. N. Majumdar, and G. Schehr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 067102 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Miyaguchi, T

    T. Miyaguchi, T. Akimoto, and E. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. E 94, 012109 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Miyaguchi, T

    T. Miyaguchi, T. Uneyama, and T. Akimoto, Phys. Rev. E 100, 012116 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Balcerek, A

    M. Balcerek, A. Wy/suppress loma´ nska, K. Burnecki, R. Metzler, and D. Krapf, New J. Phys. 25, 103031 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Pacheco-Pozo and D

    A. Pacheco-Pozo and D. Krapf, Phys. Rev. E 110, 014105 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    W. R. Schneider, in Stochastic Processes, Physics and Geometry (World Scientific, Teaneck,

  36. [44]

    W. R. Schneider, in Ideas and Methods in Mathematical Analysis, Stochastics, an d Applica- tions, Vol. I (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992) pp. 2 61–282. 13

    1992

  37. [45]

    Mura and G

    A. Mura and G. Pagnini, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 285003 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Barkai and S

    E. Barkai and S. Burov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 060603 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    R. K. Singh and S. Burov, The emergence of laplace universality in correlated proces ses (2024), arXiv:2410.23112 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sliusarenko, S

    O. Sliusarenko, S. Vitali, V. Sposini, P. Paradisi, A. C hechkin, G. Castellani, and G. Pagnini, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52, 095601 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    J. H. P. Schulz, E. Barkai, and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 020602 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Barkai, Phys

    E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 104101 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    Magdziarz, A

    M. Magdziarz, A. Weron, and J. Klafter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 210601 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    Lanoisel´ ee and D

    Y. Lanoisel´ ee and D. Grebenkov, J. Phys. A: Math. Theo. 51, 145602 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Molina-Garc ´ ıa, T

    D. Molina-Garc ´ ıa, T. Minh Pham, P. Paradisi, C. Manzo, and G. Pagnini, Phys. Rev. E 94, 052147 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Runfola and G

    C. Runfola and G. Pagnini, Physica D 467, 134247 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Massignan, C

    P. Massignan, C. Manzo, J. A. Torreno-Pina, M. F. Garc ´ ı a-Parajo, M. Lewenstein, and G. J. Lapeyre, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 150603 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Manzo, J

    C. Manzo, J. A. Torreno-Pina, P. Massignan, G. J. Lapeyr e, M. Lewenstein, and M. F. Garcia Parajo, Phys. Rev. X 5, 011021 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Akimoto and E

    T. Akimoto and E. Yamamoto, J. Stat. Mech.: Theo. Exp. 2016, 123201 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    Vitali, V

    S. Vitali, V. Sposini, O. Sliusarenko, P. Paradisi, G. C astellani, and G. Pagnini, J. R. Soc. Interface 15, 20180282 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Lanoisel´ ee, A

    Y. Lanoisel´ ee, A. Stanislavsky, D. Calebiro, and A. We ron, Phys. Rev. E 106, 064127 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    W. Wang, A. G. Cherstvy, A. V. Chechkin, S. Thapa, F. Seno , X. Liu, and R. Metzler, J. Phys. A: Math. Theo. 53, 474001 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    W. Wang, E. Barkai, and S. Burov, Entropy 22, 10.3390/e22060697 (2020)

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    Lanoisel´ ee and D

    Y. Lanoisel´ ee and D. Grebenkov, J. Phys. A: Math. Theo. 52, 304001 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Alexandre, M

    A. Alexandre, M. Lavaud, N. Fares, E. Millan, Y. Louyer, T. Salez, Y. Amarouchene, T. Gu´ erin, and D. S. Dean, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 077101 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Pagnini and P

    G. Pagnini and P. Paradisi, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 19, 408 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    H. C. Fogedby, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2517 (1994)

    1994

  58. [66]

    Burnecki and A

    K. Burnecki and A. Weron, Phys. Rev. E 82, 021130 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    Wy/suppress loma´ nska, A

    A. Wy/suppress loma´ nska, A. Chechkin, J. Gajda, and I. M. Sokolo v, 14 Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 421, 412 (2015)

    2015

  60. [68]

    Pacheco-Pozo and I

    A. Pacheco-Pozo and I. M. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. E 103, 042116 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Laloux, P

    L. Laloux, P. Cizeau, M. Potters, and J.-P. Bouchaud, Int. J. Theo. Appl. Fin. 03, 391 (2000)

    2000

  62. [70]

    Lamrani, B

    L. Lamrani, B. Collins, and J.-P. Bouchaud, Holdout cross-validation for large non-gaussian covarian ce matrix (2025), arXiv:2509.13923 [q-fin.ST]

    2025

  63. [71]

    Lanoisel´ ee and D

    Y. Lanoisel´ ee and D. S. Grebenkov, Phys. Rev. E 93, 052146 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    D. S. Grebenkov, Phys. Rev. E 84, 031124 (2011)

    2011

  65. [73]

    Lanoisel´ ee, G

    Y. Lanoisel´ ee, G. Pagnini, and A. Wy/suppress loma´ nska,Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 137101 (2025)

    2025

  66. [74]

    J. C. Cox, J. E. Ingersoll, and S. A. Ross, Econometrica 53, 385 (1985) . 15 Appendix A: Modulation statistics from renewal counting process In this section we discuss how to match a Continuous-Time Random Wa lk (CTR W) to a RMGP through the characterization of random modulati...

    1985

  67. [75]

    Let ˜ψ (s) be the Laplace transform of the waiting time density ψ (t) defined by ˜ψ (s) = ∫ ∞ 0 e− stψ (t)dt

    Expectation and variance of the number of jumps To obtain the expectation and the variance of modulations, we evalu ate the first and second moments of the number N (t) of jumps realized during a time interval (0 ,t ). Let ˜ψ (s) be the Laplace transform of the waiting time den...

  68. [76]

    Two-point moment To compute the fourth moment of a random walker performing RMGP , one needs the covariance cov(J(t1),J (t)) with t1 <t . This requires the computation of the joint statistics of two random variables: the number N1(t1) of jumps in the interval (0 ,t 1), and the...

  69. [77]

    ( A1) and Eq

    Statistics of random modulations The expectation of random modulations can be deduced directly fro m Eq. ( A1) and Eq. ( A5) as ⟨J(t)⟩ = ⟨N (t)⟩ − ⟨N (t − δ)⟩. (A17) For an exponential distribution we have ⟨J(t)⟩ =δ/T, (A18) i.e., the modulations have a constant expectation. F...

  70. [78]

    (6) in the main text

    The non-Gaussian parameter for some special cases In this section we discuss some special cases of the non-Gaussian ( NG) parameter from Eq. (6) in the main text. When displacements are uncorrelated, the matrix C is diagonal with elements Cii =σ 2, where σ is a lengthscale. Th...

  71. [79]

    Ergodicit y-breaking parameter

    Conditions for everlasting non-Gaussianity However, it is also possible that the non-Gaussian parameter does n ot vanish. First when the PDF is obtained by superimposing trajectories where modulation s are constant over time but randomly distributed across trajectories. This i...

  72. [80]

    Continuous-time random walk (CTR W) We consider a CTR W with a Gaussian jump PDF characterized by a diffus ivity D and the Mittag-Leffler distributed waiting times with the parameter α and timescale T (see Sec. I.A). The CTR W has been simulated by taking a diagonal covariance ma...

  73. [81]

    The fBm is obtained by setting C to be the covariance matrix of the fractional Gaussian noise C(i,j ) = Dδ2H ( |i − j − 1|2H − 2|i − j|2H + |i − j + 1|2H)

    F ractional Brownian motion (fBm) We consider a fBm with generalized diffusion coefficient D and Hurst exponent H related to the anomalous diffusion exponent through α = 2H. The fBm is obtained by setting C to be the covariance matrix of the fractional Gaussian noise C(i,j ) = Dδ2...

  74. [82]

    For sBm, the increments are in- dependent so that the covariance matrix is diagonal with the elemen ts Cii = 2D0δ

    Scaled Brownian motion (sBm) We also model sBm, a Markovian process with time dependent diffusivit y D(i) = D0αi α − 1, where D0 is the initial diffusion coefficient. For sBm, the increments are in- dependent so that the covariance matrix is diagonal with the elemen ts Cii = 2D0δ....

  75. [83]

    SD-Exp is simulated by using a diagon al covariance matrix Cii = 2D1δ, the modulations alternate between two values

    Switching Diffusivity (SD-Exp) Diffusion with switching diffusivity alternates between two diffusion coe fficients D1 and D2 with prescribed switching rates. SD-Exp is simulated by using a diagon al covariance matrix Cii = 2D1δ, the modulations alternate between two values. The diag...

  76. [84]

    Diffusing diffusivity (DD-Exp) For DD-Exp we model the diagonal covariance matrix Cii = 2 ¯Dδ, where ¯D is the equi- librium diffusion coefficient. The random modulations are obtained by re scaling the Cox- Ingersoll-Ross (CIR) process from [ 32, 52] by ¯D, from which Jt follows dJ...

Pith tools

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