Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Optimal Response for Hyperbolic Systems by the fast adjoint response method

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A unique optimal perturbation exists for hyperbolic systems, and its Fourier coefficients are linear responses of a basis.

desk verdict First general optimal-response result for hyperbolic systems, with a genuinely high-dimensional numerical demonstration; the abstract overreaches by omitting boundedness, but the core result is sound and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02395 v1 pith:SW4NOG7I submitted 2025-01-04 math.DS math.OCnlin.CD

Stefano Galatolo , Angxiu Ni This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DSmath.OCnlin.CD MSC 37D2037C3037M25
keywords linearresponseuniformlyhyperbolicsystemsAxiomAattractorsoptimalperturbationfastadjointformulaRieszrepresentationtheoremSobolevspacesnumerical
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 paper asks a control question for chaotic systems that have a well-defined statistical steady state: among all small allowed perturbations, which one makes the long-time average of a given observation grow the most? For uniformly hyperbolic (Axiom A) systems, the answer is shown to be unique whenever the set of allowed perturbations is a strictly convex closed subset of a Hilbert space embedded in $C^3$ vector fields. The proof uses the fast adjoint response formula to show the linear response operator is bounded, then represents it by a vector $v$ via Riesz representation; on the unit ball the best perturbation is simply $v/\|v\|_H$. This turns an infinite-dimensional optimization into a Fourier-coefficient computation, and the authors demonstrate it numerically in dimensions 2, 3, and 21.

What carries the argument

The fast adjoint response formula, Eq. (6), $$R(X) = \lim_{W\to\infty} \mu\!\left[ \big(S(d\Phi) + \varphi_W\, S(\operatorname{div}_v f_*)\big) X + \varphi_W\, \operatorname{div}_v X \right],$$ combines the adjoint shadowing operator $S$ (whose fixed-point equation is $\omega = f^*\omega + d\Phi$) with the equivariant divergence formula $\operatorname{div}_v X = \tilde\varepsilon \nabla_{\tilde e} X$. Because every term is a pointwise function on the attractor, this formula converts response estimates into decay-of-correlation estimates, which is what yields the $C^{1,\alpha}$ bound in Lemma 1 and ultimately the Hilbert-space representative $v$ via Riesz representation.

What would settle it

For one of the toral examples, compute $\mu_\gamma(\Phi)$ for several small $\gamma$ by direct long-orbit averages for a perturbation $X$, fit the slope at $\gamma=0$, and compare it with $R(X)$ from the fast adjoint formula; a systematic mismatch beyond the stated sampling error would falsify the representation (6) and hence the computed $v$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the optimal response problem for a uniformly hyperbolic (Axiom A) system has a unique solution under natural convexity assumptions, and that the solution is given explicitly by the Riesz representative of the linear response operator. Lemma 1 shows that the response operator $R$ extends to $C^{1,\alpha}$ and satisfies $|R(X)| \le C\|X\|_{C^{1,\alpha}}$, so $R$ is a continuous linear functional on any Hilbert space $H$ continuously embedded in $C^3$. Riesz representation then yields a unique $v\in H$ with $R(w)=\langle w,v\rangle_H$; when the feasible set is the unit ball, the unique maximizer is $X_{\mathrm{opt}} = v/\|v\|_H$, and its Fourier coefficients are $c_i = R(b_i)$ for an orthonormal basis $\{b_i\}$. The same conclusion holds both for perturbations by composition with a diffeomorphism near the identity and for additive perturbations of the map, and the paper verifies the construction numerically on 2-, 3-, and 21-dimensional toral examples.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fast adjoint response formula exactly represents the linear response of the unperturbed Axiom A system, which requires exponential decay of correlations; for the numerical examples, the required uniform hyperbolicity is asserted rather than rigorously verified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When the feasible set is the unit ball of $H$, the unique optimal perturbation is $v/\|v\|_H$, so computing the optimizer reduces to computing the linear response of each basis element, $c_i = R(b_i)$.
  • The same statement holds for two perturbation mechanisms: composing the map with a diffeomorphism near the identity, and adding a deterministic perturbation to the map, with the additive case represented by $I(X') = X'\circ f^{-1}$.
  • For any strictly convex, bounded, closed feasible set with a nonzero response functional, the optimal perturbation exists and is unique, extending the unit-ball result to constrained control sets such as perturbations acting only on selected coordinates.
  • On the torus, the Fourier expansion of $v$ is explicitly constructed from trigonometric basis functions, and on more general manifolds $v$ solves a high-order Laplacian equation with boundary conditions given in Section 6.
  • The numerical experiments in dimensions 2, 3, and 21 confirm that the computed optimal perturbation produces a larger linear response than every single basis element and matches the finite-difference trend of $\mu_\gamma(\Phi)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether the linear response itself exists for perturbations that are only $C^{1,\alpha}$; if it does, the $C^{1,\alpha}$ bound in Lemma 1 suggests the optimizer could be defined over rougher perturbation classes than $C^3$, but this requires a separate proof.
  • Because each coefficient $c_i = R(b_i)$ is an independent orbit-based computation, the method is embarrassingly parallel; the reported wall-clock times suggest that with enough cores the 21-dimensional example could be pushed to much larger basis sets.
  • The cost of the Fourier approach grows with the number of basis functions, not with the phase-space dimension, so choosing a deliberately small Hilbert space $H$ (e.g., perturbations depending only on one coordinate) is a natural route to control high-dimensional systems, as the 21-dimensional example illustrates.
  • For applied settings with a prescribed family of controls, the strict-convexity result means the optimal infinitesimal control is unique; testing whether that uniqueness survives finite-time or nonlinear effects would be a natural next step.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the optimal linear response problem for uniformly hyperbolic (mixing Axiom A) diffeomorphisms. Given an observable and a convex feasible set P of infinitesimal perturbations contained in a Hilbert space H continuously embedded into C^3 vector fields, it seeks the perturbation maximizing the linear response R. Using the authors' fast adjoint response formula, Lemma 1 establishes a bound on R in the C^{1,α} norm, and Section 4.1 gives existence and uniqueness for bounded strictly convex closed feasible sets. When P is the unit ball, the optimizer is identified with the normalized Riesz representative v of R, and Section 4.3 expands v in a Fourier basis on tori. Section 5 implements the algorithm on 2-, 3-, and 21-dimensional solenoid-like maps, validating the computed optimal response against finite-difference estimates of the perturbed measure. Section 6 sketches a PDE-based approach for manifolds with boundary.

Significance. If the main estimates are correct, the paper offers a general Hilbert-space framework for optimal linear response in hyperbolic systems and a practical adjoint-based algorithm that scales favorably when the feasible perturbation set is small relative to the phase-space dimension. The numerical coefficients are computed, not fitted, and the validation against direct finite-difference approximations of μ_γ(Φ) is an external check. The main theorem in Proposition 3 is defensible once boundedness is included; the issues identified below are local to the statements and definitions, not to the central numerical strategy.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §4.1, Proposition 3] The uniqueness theorem as advertised is false because boundedness of P is omitted. For example, take H=R^2 and P={(x,y): y≥x^2}, which is closed, convex, strictly convex, and unbounded; the continuous linear functional L(x,y)=y is unbounded above on P, so no maximizer exists. This example can be embedded in the paper's setting by mapping (x,y) to the constant vector field yV for a nonzero V∈C^3 and choosing an observable with R(V)≠0. Proposition 3 correctly assumes P is bounded; the abstract and the informal statement in Section 1.2 must also state boundedness of P, together with the condition that R is not identically zero on P. The unit-ball applications are unaffected by this correction, but the advertised central claim overreaches as written.
  2. [Definition 1] Definition 1 as written requires γx+(1−γ)y∈int(A) for all pairs x,y∈A, including x=y. For x=y the condition forces every point of A to be interior, so no closed convex set with nonempty boundary, including the unit ball which the text explicitly says is strictly convex, satisfies the definition. The intended definition must be for all x≠y. Proposition 3's uniqueness conclusion relies on this corrected reading.
  3. [Proposition 4] The statement of Proposition 4 omits the hypothesis that P is the unit ball of H. As written it is applied to the general optimization problem (11) over an arbitrary bounded strictly convex closed set, but the formula X_opt=v/||v||_H is only correct for the unit ball; for a ball of radius r the maximizer is r v/||v||_H. The preceding paragraph indicates the intended setting, but the proposition itself should state explicitly that P is the unit ball.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Lemma 1] The statement writes |R(X)|≤ C||X||_{C^{1,α}}≤||X||_{C^3}; the second inequality is not generally true with constant 1 and should read ||X||_{C^{1,α}}≤ C||X||_{C^3} (or the C^3 norm should be defined to dominate the C^{1,α} norm by construction).
  2. [Proof of Lemma 1, estimate for R_2W] The estimate writes a sum of C λ^n for n from −W to W; for negative n this should be C λ^{|n|}, otherwise the summand grows as n becomes negative.
  3. [Proposition 3] Proposition 3 refers to 'problem (20)', but at that point the relevant problem is (11); the reference should be corrected.
  4. [§5.1 and §5.2] The feasible set is written as P:={||X'||_{H^5}=1}, which is the unit sphere rather than the unit ball used in Propositions 5 and 6. For a linear objective the maximizer is the same, but the feasible set should be written consistently with the theoretical statement.
  5. [§5.1–5.3] The three maps are described as 'solenoid-like' and asserted to be hyperbolic, but no verification of uniform hyperbolicity or exponential decay of correlations is given. Since Lemma 1 and the fast adjoint response formula assume such a regime, the numerical claims should either include a check of hyperbolicity or be phrased as illustrative computations whose theoretical guarantees require the stated hypotheses.
  6. [§4.3] The text says 'M = TM is the M dimensional torus'; this should be M = T^M (or the notation should be introduced consistently).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the response coefficients are computed, not fitted, and the self-cited fast adjoint formula is independently published prior work.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. The linear response operator R is defined as the derivative of the physical-measure expectation (Eq. (6)), and its boundedness on C^{1,alpha} is proved in Lemma 1 using the fast adjoint response formula, which is a previously published theorem from [20,22] with stated assumptions (uniform hyperbolicity, decay of correlations) that do not include the target result. The optimal perturbation is obtained by the Riesz representation theorem and computed from Fourier coefficients c_i = R(b_i) (Proposition 4); these coefficients are computed by applying the response operator to basis elements rather than fitted to the quantity being predicted. The numerical verification compares the computed linear response with independently simulated finite-difference slopes mu_gamma(Phi), so the comparisons are external to the fitted values. The only manuscript-level caveat, unrelated to circularity, is that the abstract states existence and uniqueness for a strictly convex closed P without boundedness, while the proof (Proposition 3) explicitly assumes P is bounded; this is an overstatement and a correctness issue, not a circular reduction. Because no key claim reduces to its own inputs by construction or through a load-bearing self-citation, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem assumes a mixing Axiom A diffeomorphism with exponential decay of correlations, the validity of the fast adjoint response formula as a representation of linear response, and standard functional analysis (Sobolev embedding, Riesz representation, weak compactness). No invented entities are introduced. The Sobolev norm weights and basis truncation are user-chosen degrees of freedom defining the feasible set and the numerical approximation.

free parameters (3)
  • Sobolev norm weights C_0,...,C_p in H^p inner product = C_l = (2*pi)^(-2l) in numerical examples
    Defines the Hilbert geometry of feasible perturbations and therefore changes the optimal perturbation; user-chosen, not fitted to data.
  • Sobolev index p of feasible space H^p = p=5 in 2d/3d examples, p=4 in 21d example
    Chosen to satisfy the Sobolev embedding H^p subset C^3; a modeling choice, not a fitted constant.
  • Numerical truncation and algorithm parameters N, W, Nseg, A = N=15 (2d), 11 (3d), 21 (21d); W=10; Nseg=20; A=4000
    Discretization parameters controlling basis truncation and sampling error; chosen by hand and affecting accuracy but not the theorem.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The system (M,f) is a C^3 diffeomorphism with a mixing Axiom A attractor K and physical measure mu with exponential decay of correlations for Holder observables.
    Used throughout: Ruelle linear response, the fast adjoint formula, and the decay estimates in Lemma 1.
  • domain assumption The fast adjoint response formula (Eq. (6)) from [20,22] correctly represents the linear response for C^3 perturbations.
    Taken as established from cited previous work, not re-derived in this paper.
  • standard math Ruelle's linear response theorem for C^3 perturbations of uniformly hyperbolic systems.
    Baseline existence of the linear response; cited as [27].
  • standard math Sobolev embedding H^p subset C^3 for p >= 4 + floor(M/2).
    Ensures the inclusion I : H^p -> C^3 is continuous; used in Section 4.2.
  • standard math Riesz representation theorem in Hilbert spaces.
    Provides the representative v of the response functional in Proposition 4.
  • standard math Closed bounded convex sets in Hilbert space are weakly compact, so continuous linear functionals attain maxima.
    Supports the existence part of Proposition 3.
  • standard math Composition with the C^3 inverse diffeomorphism f^{-1} preserves Sobolev regularity H^p.
    Used in Section 4.4 to define I(X') = X' o f^{-1} from H^p into C^3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Response for Hyperbolic Systems by the fast adjoint response method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SW4NOG7I

@misc{pith2026250102395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Response for Hyperbolic Systems by the fast adjoint response method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SW4NOG7I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02395}
}
abstract

In a uniformly hyperbolic system, we consider the problem of finding the optimal infinitesimal perturbation to apply to the system, from a certain set $P$ of feasible ones, to maximally increase the expectation of a given observation function. We perturb the system both by composing with a diffeomorphism near the identity or by adding a deterministic perturbation to the dynamics. In both cases, using the fast adjoint response formula, we show that the linear response operator, which associates the response of the expectation to the perturbation on the dynamics, is bounded in terms of the $C^{1,\alpha}$ norm of the perturbation. Under the assumption that $P$ is a strictly convex, closed subset of a Hilbert space $\cH$ that can be continuously mapped in the space of $C^3$ vector fields on our phase space, we show that there is a unique optimal perturbation in $P$ that maximizes the increase of the given observation function. Furthermore since the response operator is represented by a certain element $v$ of $\cH$, when the feasible set $P$ is the unit ball of $\cH$, the optimal perturbation is $v/||v||_{\cH}$. We also show how to compute the Fourier expansion $v$ in different cases. Our approach can work even on high dimensional systems. We demonstrate our method on numerical examples in dimensions 2, 3, and 21.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows a typical orbit of this nonlinear system, which indicates that the attractor is fractal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Contour plot of ||B j ⃗n||2 H5 in log scale. We use the fast adjoint response algorithm to compute the linear response of orthonormal basis, R′ (B˜j ⃗n), which is also the coefficient for v, the Hp representative of the linear response operator R′ . The results are plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contour plot of C j ⃗n = R′ (B˜j ⃗n). Left: j = 1. Right: j = 2. With R′ (B˜j ⃗n), we can compute v ′ , then compute X′ opt, the optimal perturbation achieving the optimal response in Equation (20). The vector field plot of Xopt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Vector field plot of the optimal perturbation 1 4X′ opt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Linear responses and µγ(Φ) of different perturbations. The dots are µγ(Φ) for f +γX′ opt (indicated by red circles), f +γB˜2 (0,3) (blue squares), and f + γB˜2 (14,14) (black triangles). The short lines represent the linear responses computed by the fast response algor…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Vector field plots of 1 4 [X′1 opt, X′2 opt] for the 3-dimensional system. Left: slice at x 3 = 0. Right: slice at x 3 = 0.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Linear responses and averaged observable of different perturbations of a 3d dynamical system (explanations in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: R(B˜ n), the linear response for normalized basis functions. The linear response for each basis function is plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: vector field plot of 1 24X′ opt for the 21-dimensional system. We plot only the first two coordinates, as all the other are 0. Right: X′1 opt(x 1 ) function plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Linear responses and averaged observable of different perturbations of a 21d dynamical system (explanations in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Markov matrix perturbations to optimize dynamical and entropy functionals

    math.DS 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Linear-response optimization algorithms are derived for entropy, KL divergence, and entropy production on Markov chains, with a drift-reconstruction protocol linking matrix perturbations to vector field forcing.

  2. Divergence-Kernel method for scores of random systems

    math.PR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New divergence-kernel formulas compute scores of SDEs with multiplicative noise via pathwise Monte Carlo, without hyperbolicity assumptions.

  3. Optimal response for stochastic differential equations by local kernel perturbations

    math.DS 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For SDEs on R^d, the paper proves existence and uniqueness of the optimal infinitesimal local kernel perturbation maximizing the linear response of an observable, and demonstrates a numerical approximation on a double...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Antown, D

    F. Antown, D. Dragičević, and G. Froyland. Optimal linear responses for Markov chains and stochastically perturbed dynamical systems.Journal of Statistical Physics, 170:1051–1087, 3 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Antown, G

    F. Antown, G. Froyland, and S. Galatolo. Optimal linear response for Markov Hilbert–Schmidt integral operators and stochastic dynamical systems.Journal of Nonlinear Science, 32, 12 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Bahsoun, S

    W. Bahsoun, S. Galatolo, I. Nisoli, and X. Niu. A rigorous computational approach to linear response. Nonlinearity, 31:1073–1109, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    V. Baladi. Linear response, or else. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians Seoul 2014, pages 525–545, 2014. 24 HYPERBOLIC OPTIMAL RESPONSE

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Bódai, V

    T. Bódai, V. Lucarini, and F. Lunkeit. Can we use linear response theory to assess geoengi- neering strategies? Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 30, 2 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Rigorous justification for the space-split sensitivity algorithm to compute linear response in Anosov systems

    N. Chandramoorthy and M. Jézéquel. Rigorous justification for the space-split sensitivity algorithm to compute linear response in Anosov systems.arxiv:2109.02750, pages 1–33, 2021

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    M. F. Demers, N. Kiamari, and C. Liverani.Transfer operators in hyperbolic dynamics. An introduction. Colloquio Brasilero de Matematica. IMPA, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    L. C. Evans. Partial Differential Equations: Second Edition, volume 19. AMS, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Froyland

    G. Froyland. On Ulam approximation of the isolated spectrum and eigenfunctions of hyperbolic maps. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 17:671–689, 2007

    2007

  2. [10]

    Froyland and S

    G. Froyland and S. Galatolo. Optimal linear response for expanding circle maps. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19191, 10 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Galatolo

    S. Galatolo. Self-consistent transfer operators: Invariant measures, convergence to equilibrium, linear response and control of the statistical properties.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 395:715–772, 10 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Galatolo and P

    S. Galatolo and P. Giulietti. A linear response for dynamical systems with additive noise. Nonlinearity, 32:2269–2301, 6 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Galatolo and M

    S. Galatolo and M. Pollicott. Controlling the statistical properties of expanding maps. Nonlinearity, 30:2737–2751, 7 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Ghil and V

    M. Ghil and V. Lucarini. The physics of climate variability and climate change.Reviews of Modern Physics, 92:035002, 7 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Gouëzel and C

    S. Gouëzel and C. Liverani. Banach spaces adapted to Anosov systems.Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 26:189–217, 2006

    2006

  8. [16]

    Kloeckner

    B. Kloeckner. The linear request problem.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 146:2953–2962, 3 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    R. S. MacKay. Management of complex dynamical systems.Nonlinearity, 31:R52–R65, 2 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    A. Ni. Fast differentiation of chaos on an orbit.arXiv:2009.00595, pages 1–28, 2020

    2009

  11. [19]

    A. Ni. Fast adjoint algorithm for linear responses of hyperbolic chaos.SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 22:2792–2824, 12 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    A. Ni. Backpropagation in hyperbolic chaos via adjoint shadowing.Nonlinearity, 37:035009, 3 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Ni and C

    A. Ni and C. Talnikar. Adjoint sensitivity analysis on chaotic dynamical systems by non- intrusive least squares adjoint shadowing (NILSAS). Journal of Computational Physics, 395:690–709, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Ni and Y

    A. Ni and Y. Tong. Recursive divergence formulas for perturbing unstable transfer operators and physical measures.Journal of Statistical Physics, 190:126, 7 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Ni and Y

    A. Ni and Y. Tong. Equivariant divergence formula for hyperbolic chaotic flows.Journal of Statistical Physics, 191:118, 9 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Ni and Q

    A. Ni and Q. Wang. Sensitivity analysis on chaotic dynamical systems by non-intrusive least squares shadowing (NILSS).Journal of Computational Physics, 347:56–77, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Nisoli and T

    I. Nisoli and T. Taylor-Crush. Rigorous computation of linear response for intermittent maps. Journal of Statistical Physics, 190:192, 11 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Pollicott and P

    M. Pollicott and P. Vytnova. Linear response and periodic points.Nonlinearity, 29:3047–3066, 8 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    D. Ruelle. Differentiation of SRB states.Commun. Math. Phys, 187:227–241, 1997

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.