2007.01534
Mode Decomposition for Homogeneous Symmetric Operators
Ido Cohen, Omri Azencot, Pavel Lifshits, Guy Gilboa
incompletemedium confidence
- Category
- math.DS
- Journal tier
- Specialist/Solid
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:55 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The paper’s adaptive p-flow sets ψ_t = G(ψ) with G(ψ) = λ_ψ^{-1} Δ_p ψ and explicitly defines λ_ψ^{-1} = −⟨Δ_pψ, ψ⟩/||Δ_pψ||^2; with this choice one indeed gets d/dt J_p(ψ) = −p J_p(ψ) and exponential energy decay, so the model’s claim of a mismatch stems from swapping λ with its inverse. Items (1) and the decay-on-an-eigenfunction ray in (2) are therefore correct under the paper’s G. However, the paper’s proof of item (3) (“every element from f decays exponentially”) relies on a loose ‘triangle inequality’ step and lacks precise hypotheses on what ‘elements’ are, so (3) as stated is not rigorously justified. The model’s fix uses the same effective multiplier as the paper (just a naming inversion) and does not rigorously establish (3) either. Hence, both are incomplete: the paper for (3) and a minor sign slip in (2), and the model for misreading λ and not resolving (3).
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} major revisions
\textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid
\textbf{Justification:}
The adaptive p-flow normalization is sound and yields the advertised exponential energy decay; the operator’s one-homogeneity also correctly explains the e\^{-t} decay along eigenfunction rays. These points are valuable, and the connection to mode decomposition is interesting. However, Theorem 1(3) is not rigorously supported: the notion of “elements” is undefined at that stage and the triangle-inequality step is not valid in the stated generality. There is also a minor sign slip in (2). Clarifying definitions and providing correct hypotheses and proofs (or reframing (3) as an algorithmic observation tied to the later S-DMD construction) are needed.