Paper detail

Probabilistic View of Explosion in an Inelastic Kac Model

Let $\{μ(\cdot,t):t\geq0\}$ be the family of probability measures corresponding to the solution of the inelastic Kac model introduced in Pulvirenti and Toscani [\textit{J. Stat. Phys.} \textbf{114} (2004) 1453-1480]. It has been proved by Gabetta and Regazzini [\textit{J. Statist. Phys.} \textbf{147} (2012) 1007-1019] that the solution converges weakly to equilibrium if and only if a suitable symmetrized form of the initial data belongs to the standard domain of attraction of a specific stable law. In the present paper it is shown that, for initial data which are heavier-tailed than the aforementioned ones, the limiting distribution is improper in the sense that it has probability 1/2 "adherent" to $-\infty$ and probability 1/2 "adherent" to $+\infty$. It is explained in which sense this phenomenon is amenable to a sort of explosion, and the main result consists in an explicit expression of the rate of such an explosion. The presentation of these statements is preceded by a discussion about the necessity of the assumption under which their validity is proved. This gives the chance to make an adjustment to a portion of a proof contained in the above-mentioned paper by Gabetta and Regazzini.

preprint2014arXivOpen 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.