Paper detail

Path-wise versus kinetic modeling for equilibrating non-Langevin jump-type processes

We discuss two independent methods of solution of a master equation whose biased jump transition rates account for long jumps of Lévy-stable type and nonetheless admit a Boltzmannian (thermal) equilibrium to arise in the large time asymptotics of a probability density function $ρ(x,t)$. Our main goal is to demonstrate a compatibility of a {\it direct} solution method (an explicit, albeit numerically assisted, integration of the master equation) with an {\it indirect} path-wise procedure, recently proposed in [Physica {\bf A 392}, 3485, (2013)] as a valid tool for a dynamical analysis of non-Langevin jump-type processes. The path-wise method heavily relies on an accumulation of large sample path data, that are generated by means of a properly tailored Gillespie's algorithm. Their statistical analysis in turn allows to infer the dynamics of $ρ(x,t)$. However, no consistency check has been completed so far to demonstrate that both methods are fully compatible and indeed provide a solution of the same dynamical problem. Presently we remove this gap, with a focus on potential deficiencies (various cutoffs, including those upon the jump size) of approximations involved in solution protocols.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.