in recent years , scaling limits of nonlinear and/or singular functionals of stochastic lattice models have attracted a lot of attention .
just to give a couple of examples , we mention the extensive studies of the kpz universality class ( see @xcite for a review ) and gaussian multiplicative chaos associated to liouiville quantum gravity ( see @xcite for a review ) . in @xcite
the author has proposed a general framework ( the so - called theory of _ regularity structures _ ) in order to deal with ill - posed stochastic pde s on which the trouble comes from a nonlinear term ( like in the kpz or stochastic allen - cahn equations ) or from a singular linear term ( like in the parabolic anderson model ) .
the theory of regularity structures allows to make sense of troublesome equations in a meaningful way .
moreover , various scaling limits of stochastic lattice models on which these singular and/or nonlinear observables play an important role should be given in terms of solutions to these equations .
however , aside from models on which a great deal of integrability is present ( the term _ stochastic integrability _ was coined in @xcite ) , the question of convergence of nonlinear fluctuations of stochastic lattice models is basically open ; see however @xcite , @xcite .
one of the main ingredients of the theory of regularity structures consists in making sense _ a priori _ of enough nonlinear and/or singular observables of solutions of _ linear _ stochastic pde s . in the case of the kpz equation @xcite ,
one starts with the solution of the ornstein - uhlenbeck equation @xmath0 where @xmath1 is a space - time white noise and tries to make sense of various nonlinear functionals of it ( the twelve tree - labeled processes in @xcite ) . to avoid uncomfortable issues arising from the lack of compactness
, @xcite restricts himself to the circle @xmath2 .
the simplest of these processes corresponds to @xmath3 .
since @xmath4 turns out to be a distribution , it is far from clear how to define @xmath3 .
let us restrict ourselves to the stationary situation , on which for any fixed time @xmath5 , @xmath4 is a spatial white noise of variance @xmath6 .
the simplest choice should be to take an approximation of the identity @xmath7 centered at @xmath8 , and to consider @xmath3 as the limit of @xmath9 as @xmath10 in some sense .
it turns out that this plan can be formalized after a wick renormalization : when integrated in time and space against a smooth test function , @xmath11 has a meaningful limit as @xmath12 . of course ,
if one wants to use @xcite in order to obtain a unique solution of the kpz equation , there are still 11 processes to go , but on this paper we just focus on this one process ( we don _ not _ claim we can treat the other 11 processes ! ) . up to our knowledge , this _ squared field _ was first considered in @xcite , where the convergence of space - time fluctuations of two - point functions to the squared field of the ornstein - uhlenbeck process was obtained .
a more general , different proof was implicitly obtained in @xcite and explicitly stated in @xcite , as a part of a program towards the derivation of the kpz equation from general stochastic lattice models .    in this paper
we propose a new , different approach in order to define the field @xmath3 .
the _ quadratic field _ associated to @xmath4 is the two - dimensional process formally defined as @xmath13 . in order to define this object in a weak sense ,
some care needs to be taken at the diagonal ; the simplest choice is to take @xmath14 ( anyway @xmath15 is just a formal object ) . blindly applying it s formula
we see that @xmath15 satisfies an equation of the form @xmath16 where @xmath17 is a distribution - valued martingale that can be computed in terms of the ornstein - uhlenbeck process @xmath4 and the noise @xmath18 .
it turns out that this equation is well - posed and solutions of it can be constructed straightforwardly .
let @xmath19 be a two - dimensional approximation of the identity .
let @xmath20 be a mean - zero , regular function and consider the process @xmath21 it turns out that the process @xmath22 has a non - trivial limit as @xmath12 and this limit coincides with the squared process @xmath3 constructed in @xcite .
the main difference is that now we obtain the squared process as a singular _ linear _ observable of the solution of a reasonably well - behaved stochastic pde .
the main advantage of this representation is that solving a simple laplace problem , we can obtain various properties of the squared process in a more or less straightforward way .    in
order keep the paper at a reasonable length , we focus on two issues about the quadratic field @xmath15 and we keep the model as simple as possible . first we show that the quadratic fluctuations of the simple exclusion process converge to the quadratic field @xmath15 . it is well known that the simple exclusion process is integrable in the sense that various quantities of interest , among them @xmath23-point correlation functions , can be computed almost explicitly .
we do _ not _ take full advantage of this feature .
given the technical boltzmann - gibbs principle for granted , a careful reading of our proof shows that this convergence result can be extended for the speed - change exclusion processes considered in @xcite .
this technical principle has been proved in @xcite .
and then we obtain short - time and long - time properties of the process @xmath24 , using the construction outlined above .
these properties have not been obtained before , and they are good examples of the advantages of our construction with respect to previous ones .    this paper is organized as follows . in section [ s1 ]
we define the exclusion process and we define the various fluctuation fields we want to study on this article . on the way , we provide various topological definitions which are needed to handle distribution - valued processes .
we also state the main results of the article . in section [ s2 ] we show that the discrete quadratic fields form a relatively compact sequence of distributions with respect to the @xmath25-skorohod topology on the space of distribution - valued , _ cdlg _ paths . in section [ s3 ]
we show that the discrete quadratic fields converge to the unique stationary solution of equation .
the proof is divided in three parts .
recall that limit points exists due to tightness . in section [ s3.1 ]
we show that any limit point is continuous ; this will be important later when characterizing some martingales in terms of quadratic variations . in section [ s3.2 ]
we show that various martingales associated to the discrete quadratic fields have limit points which are martingales .
this shows that any limit point of the discrete quadratic fields satisfies a martingale formulation of . in section [ s3.3 ]
we show that this martingale problem has a unique solution , which closes the proof of the convergence result . in section [ s4 ]
let @xmath26 denote the discrete circle with @xmath23 points .
let @xmath27 be the state space of a continuous - time markov chain which we describe as follows .
we denote by @xmath28 the elements of @xmath29 and we call them _
configurations_. we consider the set @xmath30 as embedded in the continuous circle @xmath31 .
we call the elements of @xmath30 _ sites_. we say that two sites @xmath32 are _ neighbors _ if @xmath33 .
in this case we write @xmath34 . to each pair @xmath35 of neighbors
we attach a poisson clock of rate @xmath36 .
each poisson clock is independent of the other clocks . each time
a poisson clock rings , we exchange the occupation numbers of the corresponding pair of neighbors . for each @xmath37 and each @xmath32 ,
let @xmath38 denote the configuration obtained from @xmath39 by exchanging the occupation numbers at @xmath40 and @xmath41 , that is , @xmath42 this informal description corresponds to the markov chain @xmath43 generated by the operator @xmath44 , given by @xmath45 for any @xmath46 , where @xmath47 is given by @xmath48 for any @xmath32 and any @xmath37 .
the sum is over _ unordered pairs _
@xmath35 of neighbors in @xmath30 .
we say that a site @xmath40 is _ occupied _ by a particle at time @xmath49 if @xmath50 .
if @xmath51 , we say that the site @xmath40 is _ empty _ at time @xmath49 . with this convention about particles and empty sites ( or _ holes _ ) , the dynamics of @xmath43 has the following interpretation .
each particle tries to jump to each of its two neighbours with exponential rate @xmath36 . at each attempt
, it verifies whether the destination site is empty , on which case it jumps to it
. otherwise the particle stays where it is .
this particle interpretation gives the name _ simple exclusion process _ to the family of processes @xmath43 .
notice that particles are neither created nor annihilated by this dynamics . by reversibility
, it is easy to check that the uniform measures on the spaces @xmath52 are invariant with respect to the dynamics of @xmath53 for any @xmath54
. let us call @xmath55 these measures .
checking the irreducibility of the sets @xmath56 with respect to the dynamics , it can be concluded that @xmath55 is actually ergodic under the evolution of @xmath43 for any @xmath57 .
notice that the product measures @xmath58 given by @xmath59 are invariant and reversible under @xmath43 for any @xmath60 $ ] .
however , these measures are not ergodic due to the conservation of the number of particles . in fact , these measures are obtained as proper convex combinations of the measures @xmath61 . from now on we start the process @xmath43 from the invariant measure @xmath62 for @xmath63 . to avoid uninteresting topological issues , we fix @xmath64 and we restrict the process @xmath53 to the interval @xmath65 $ ] .
we denote by @xmath66 the distribution of @xmath67\}$ ] on the space @xmath68 ; \omega_n)$ ] of cdlg trajectories from @xmath65 $ ] to @xmath29 , and we denote by @xmath69 the expectation with respect to @xmath66 . the expectation with respect to @xmath55
will be denoted by @xmath70 , and the expectation with respect to @xmath58 will be denoted by @xmath71 .      in order to define the fluctuation fields associated to the process @xmath67\}$ ] in a proper way , we need to introduce some notations and some topologies . for a given compact set @xmath72 with a differentiable structure ,
let @xmath73 denote the set of infinitely differentiable functions @xmath74 .
we will only consider @xmath75 for @xmath76 , that is , the circle @xmath2 and the two - dimensional torus @xmath77 .
the space @xmath73 is a polish space with respect to the topology generated by the metric @xmath78 given by @xmath79 here @xmath80 denotes the @xmath57-derivative of @xmath81 , which is a function in the case @xmath82 and an @xmath57-dimensional , symmetric tensor in the case @xmath83 .
the space @xmath84 ( do not confuse with @xmath68 ; \omega_n)$ ] ) will denote the set of linear , continuous functions @xmath85 .
in other words , @xmath84 is the topological dual of @xmath73 , which is known in the literature as the _ space of distributions _ in @xmath72 .
the functions @xmath86 are called _
test functions_. we will define two distribution - valued processes associated to @xmath67\}$ ] ; one with values in @xmath87 and another one with values in @xmath87 .
it turns out that the spaces @xmath87 , @xmath88 equipped with the weak topology are polish spaces . for an arbitrary polish space @xmath89 ,
we denote by @xmath68 ; { { \mathscr e}})$ ] the space of cdlg trajectories equipped with the @xmath25-skorohod topology .
notice that with respect to the @xmath25-skorohod topology @xmath68 ; { { \mathscr e}})$ ] is also a polish space .
for a given compact space @xmath72 and @xmath90 , we denote by @xmath91 the @xmath92 of dirac at @xmath40 , that is , the atomic probability measure supported at @xmath93 .
let @xmath94\}$ ] denote the @xmath87-valued process given by @xmath95 for any @xmath96 and any @xmath97 $ ] .
the process @xmath94\}$ ] is known in the literature as the _ density fluctuation field _ associated to the process @xmath67\}$ ] .
this process has been extensively studied , and in particular a scaling limit for it is available .
the process @xmath94\}$ ] converges in distribution with respect to the @xmath25-topology of @xmath68 ; { { \mathscr d}}({{\mathbb t}}))$ ] to the stationary solution of the infinite - dimensional ornstein - uhlenbeck equation @xmath98 where @xmath99\}$ ] is a space - time white noise .
as far as we understand , this result was proved by the first time in the lecture notes by de masi , ianiro , pellegrinotti and presutti @xcite .
let us introduce a second fluctuation field , this time with values in @xmath88 .
let @xmath100\}$ ] be the process with values in @xmath88 defined as @xmath101 for any test function @xmath102 and any @xmath97 $ ] . without loss of generality , from now on and up to the end of the article we will assume that any test function @xmath102 is symmetric .
in fact , for any antisymmetric function @xmath102 , @xmath103 .
we call the process @xmath100\}$ ] the _ quadratic _ fluctuation field associated to the process @xmath67\}$ ]
. our aim will be to obtain the scaling limit of the process @xmath100\}$ ] as @xmath104 .
[ t1 ] let @xmath105\}$ ] be the martingale process defined as @xmath106 for any test function @xmath102 .
the process @xmath100\}$ ] converges in distribution , as @xmath104 , to the stationary solution of the equation @xmath107    for a given function @xmath108 , it will be useful to introduce the notation @xmath109 ( without the index @xmath5 ) for the function from @xmath29 to @xmath110 given by @xmath111 let us write @xmath112 . in the same spirit , for a ( symmetric ) function @xmath113 and for @xmath37
, we define @xmath114      the main purpose of the introduction of the fluctuation field @xmath115\}$ ] , is the study of the _ quadratic field _
@xmath116\}$ ] formally defined as follows . for each function @xmath96 ,
we denote by @xmath117 the distribution in @xmath77 given by @xmath118 in other words , @xmath119 , where @xmath120 represents the uniform measure on the diagonal @xmath121 .
then we formally define @xmath122 as @xmath123    of course , it is not clear at all whether this definition makes any sense .
the simplest idea one can use is to approximate the singular object @xmath124 by a sequence of more regular functions .
let us consider the approximation of the identity @xmath125 given by @xmath126 this approximation of the identity is not the smoothest one we can use , but it is very convenient computationally .
the following theorem explains how to define the singular process @xmath116\}$ ] .
[ t2 ] let @xmath127 be the approximation of the identity in @xmath77 defined above .
let @xmath128\}$ ] be the @xmath87-valued process defined as @xmath129 for any @xmath96 and any @xmath97 $ ] .
then , @xmath128\}$ ] converges in distribution with respect to the uniform topology to a well - defined , @xmath87-valued process @xmath116\}$ ] .
this theorem was proved in @xcite , although the proof there is very different from the proof we will present here .
moreover , the proof we present here has one important advantage : as we will see , it gives a more explicit construction of the process @xmath116\}$ ] , which allows to obtain various properties of it .
for completeness , we present the following convergence result , obtained in @xcite :    let @xmath130\}$ ] the @xmath87-valued process defined by @xmath131 for any @xmath96 .
the process @xmath130\}$ ] converges in distribution as @xmath104 , to the process @xmath116\}$ ] defined above .
notice that concatenating intervals of size @xmath132 , we can assume that @xmath133 is a well - defined process . as we mentioned in the introduction , our construction allows to obtain some properties of the field @xmath133 .
the short - time properties of @xmath134 are given by the following theorem :    [ t4.5 ] as @xmath12 , for each @xmath96 the field @xmath135 converges in the uniform topology to a stationary gaussian process @xmath136 of covariances @xmath137 = \tfrac{\kappa}{8}{\langle}f,-\delta f{\rangle}\big\ { t^{3/2}+s^{3/2}-|t - s|^{3/2}\big\},\ ] ] where @xmath138    notice that this result is very similar in spirit to theorem 2.5 of @xcite .
as far as we understand , this result has not been predicted in the literature . for large times @xmath5 , we only know the limiting variance of @xmath122 :    [ t2.6 ] there exists a compact operator @xmath139 such that @xmath140 = \tfrac{1}{4 } { \langle}f , -\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi } } ( -\delta)^{\frac{1}{4 } } f + { { \mathscr k } } f{\rangle}.\ ] ]
we will prove theorem [ t1 ] using the standard three - steps method to get convergence in distribution of stochastic processes , namely , we first prove tightness of the sequence of processes in a suitable topology , then we deduce some properties of the possible limit points using the approximating processes , and then we show that these aforementioned properties characterize the limit point in a unique way . in this section
we perform the first step , that is , we prove tightness , and we prepare the ground for the other steps by introducing a bunch of martingales .
we start recalling the following well - known fact about continuous - time markov chains .
let @xmath141 \to { { \mathbb r}}$ ] be a smooth function on the time variable .
then , the process @xmath142 is a positive martingale with unit expectation .
we will apply this formula for the function @xmath143 , where @xmath144 and @xmath145 is defined above . for each @xmath144 and each @xmath146 ,
let @xmath147\}$ ] denote the martingale given by @xmath148 for any @xmath97 $ ] .
another simple observation is that for any @xmath149 , the process @xmath150 is a martingale .
let us compute @xmath151 in a more explicit way .
notice that for any function @xmath46 , @xmath152 notice as well that @xmath153 this term will appear repeatedly in what follows , so we will give it a name .
let @xmath154 denote the function @xmath155 if @xmath156 , we will write @xmath157 instead of @xmath158 . we will write @xmath159 , @xmath160 as well . with this notation ,
we can write in the more compact form @xmath161 when @xmath162 , the difference @xmath163 is of order @xmath164 .
in fact , since @xmath146 , this difference is approximated by @xmath165 , with an error term of order @xmath166 .
in particular , we have the _ a priori _ bound @xmath167 for any @xmath168 , any @xmath169 and any @xmath97 $ ] .
since the measure @xmath170 is of product form , we have a better bound for the second moment of @xmath171 : @xmath172 \leq \frac{c_2(f)}{n}\ ] ] for any @xmath168 , any @xmath169 and any @xmath97 $ ] .
we point out here that the _ a priori _ bound will be very useful , since the term @xmath173 will actually appear in a double exponential , and therefore moment bounds will not be as useful .
going back to the computation of the martingale , we see that @xmath174 recall that taking derivatives of @xmath175 with respect to @xmath176 we can find other martingales associated to the process @xmath67\}$ ] .
taking @xmath177 in , we see that the process @xmath178\}$ ] given by @xmath179 is a martingale . for @xmath102 , let us define @xmath180 as @xmath181 in other words , @xmath182 is a discrete version of the laplacian @xmath183 . for functions @xmath96 , we define @xmath184 which corresponds to a discrete version of the laplacian ( actually the second derivative ! ) @xmath185 . for functions
@xmath81 defined only in @xmath30 , we adopt the same notation and definition for @xmath182 .
after some computations , we see that @xmath186 where the function @xmath187 is defined as @xmath188 for any @xmath8 , that is , @xmath189 is the value of @xmath81 on the _ diagonal _ @xmath190 .
notice that the first term on the right - hand side of can be written as @xmath191 .
with respect to the measure @xmath170 , the expectation of the second term on the right - hand side of is equal to @xmath192 , since the function @xmath193 has mean @xmath192 with respect to the counting measure on @xmath30 .
it is also uniformly bounded in @xmath23 and @xmath39 , thanks to the smoothness of @xmath81 .
moreover , its variance with respect to @xmath170 vanishes as @xmath104 . in other words ,
only the first term on the right - hand side of will be relevant when considering scaling limits .
the term @xmath194 will appear repeatedly in what follows , so it is convenient to give it a name .
let us define @xmath195 and notice that @xmath196 for any @xmath168 , any @xmath169 and any @xmath37 .
taking @xmath197 in , we see that the process @xmath198 is also a martingale . in other words ,
quadratic variation _ of the martingale @xmath178\}$ ] is given by @xmath199 notice that the moment bound implies a bound of the form @xmath200 for the quadratic variation process , and therefore a moment bound of the form @xmath201
\leq c(f ) t$ ] for the martingale process @xmath178\}$ ] .
this observation will be relevant when showing tightness of the processes @xmath100\}$ ] .      in this section
we prove tightness of the sequence of processes @xmath202\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] .
the first step is to reduce the problem from distribution - valued processes to real - valued processes .
this is done throught the so - called _
criterion_.    the sequence of @xmath88-valued processes @xmath202\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] is tight in @xmath68 ; { { \mathscr d}}({{\mathbb t}}^2))$ ] if and only if the sequence @xmath203\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] is tight in @xmath68 ; { { \mathbb r}})$ ] for any @xmath102 . moreover , if any limit point of @xmath203\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] is supported on continuous , real - valued trajectories for any @xmath102 , then any limit point of @xmath100\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] is supported on continuous trajectories on @xmath88 .    applying this criterion
, we see that it is enough to prove tightness for the process @xmath204 for each @xmath102 .
the decomposition is also a declaration of intentions : we will not prove tightness directly for the process @xmath203\}$ ] , but for each one of the process appearing on the right - hand side of .
the simplest one is the sequence @xmath205 of real - valued random variables .
in fact , taking characteristic functions , it is easy to see that @xmath206 converges to a gaussian random variable of mean @xmath192 and variance @xmath207 .
notice that this is also true for the sequence @xmath208 for any time @xmath97 $ ] .
since any convergent sequence is tight , we are done with this term .
next in line is the integral term @xmath209 there is a very simple criterion that applies in this situation ( see theorem 2.3 of @xcite for example ) .
[ p2.2 ] the sequence of processes @xmath210\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] is tight with respect to the uniform topology of @xmath211 ; { { \mathbb r}})$ ] if @xmath212 < \infty.\ ] ]    by the stationarity of the process @xmath67\}$ ] , it is enough to get a bound for @xmath213.\ ] ] recall decomposition and the comments thereafter . since @xmath81 is smooth
, we see that there exists a constant @xmath214 which does not depend on @xmath23 such that @xmath215 \leq c(f)\ ] ] for any @xmath168 . in the other hand , @xmath216 \leq \frac{1}{n^2 } \sum_{x , z \in { { \mathbb t}}_n } \big ( \delta_n f(x , z)\big)^2,\ ] ] and due to the smoothness of @xmath81 , the right - hand side of this inequality can also be bounded by a ( maybe different ) constant @xmath214 which does not depend on @xmath23 .
we conclude that the sequence of processes @xmath210\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] is tight with respect to the uniform topology of @xmath211 ; { { \mathbb r}})$ ] .
now it is the turn of the martingale term @xmath178\}$ ] .
we use the following well - known criterion .
the sequence of real - valued processes @xmath178\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] is tight in @xmath68 ; { { \mathbb r}})$ ] if @xmath217 dt < \infty.\ ] ]    let us show that this supremum is finite .
first we recall a simple version of burkholder s inequality .
for any @xmath218 there exists a universal constant @xmath219 such that @xmath220           \leq \kappa_p \big(\sum_{z \in a } f_z^2\big)^p\ ] ] for any @xmath221 and any @xmath222 .
notice that the inequality above is actually an identity when @xmath223 and @xmath224 . by stationarity
, we just need to show that
@xmath225 < \infty.\ ] ] since there are no cancellations between the @xmath157 terms , using the crude estimate @xmath226 should not be really bad . therefore , we need to show that
@xmath227 < \infty.\ ] ] bounding above by @xmath228 the term @xmath229 in @xmath230 , we are exactly on the setup of burkholder s inequality for @xmath231 .
therefore , we have the bound @xmath232 \leq \kappa_2 n \sum_{x \in { { \mathbb t}}_n } \big(\sum_{z \in { { \mathbb t}}_n } \big(f(z , x+\tfrac{1}{n})-f(z , x)\big)^2\big)^2.\ ] ] due to the smoothness of @xmath81 , the right - hand side of this inequality converges , as @xmath104 , to @xmath233 which shows that the supremum in is finite .
we conclude that the martingale sequence @xmath178\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] is tight in @xmath68 ; { { \mathbb r}})$ ] .
recapitulating what we have accomplished up to here in this section , we have proved tightness of @xmath100\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] by combining mitoma s criterion with the tightness of the processes appearing in the decomposition .
here we just remark that we do not know whether the limit points of @xmath178\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] are continuous , and in particular , we do not know whether the limit points of @xmath100\}$ ] are concentrated on continuous , @xmath88-valued trajectories .
we will address this question in the following section , when discussing the characterization of such limit points .
in the previous section , we have showed tightness of the sequence @xmath100\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] .
let @xmath115\}$ ] be one of such limit points . for ease of notation , the superscript @xmath23 will denote along this section , the subsequence for which the process @xmath100\}$ ] converges to @xmath115\}$ ] . without loss of generality , we can assume that the process @xmath178\}$ ] converges to a process @xmath234\}$ ] , along the subsequence @xmath23 , for any @xmath102 .
interpreting @xmath235\}$ ] as an integral process , we see that the estimates used to prove tightness of @xmath178\}$ ] are exactly the ones needed to apply the tightness criterion [ p2.2 ] to @xmath235\}$ ] .
we leave the details to the reader . taking a further sub - subsequence if necessary
, we can assume that along @xmath23 , the process @xmath235\}$ ] converges in distribution to some process @xmath236\}$ ] without further comments , taking sub - subsequences if necessary , we will assume that any process we need to define is convergent along the subsequence @xmath23 .
notice that based solely on convergence in distribution , we can not argue that @xmath236\}$ ] is the quadratic variation of @xmath234\}$ ] .
in fact , we do not even know whether @xmath234\}$ ] is a martingale .      in order to address the questions raised in the previous section
, it will be more convenient to work with the exponential martingales @xmath237\}$ ] . for the moment we do not know whether these martingales are tight , and
therefore we can not say anything about convergence .
the following simple taylor estimate will be very useful .
for any @xmath238 and any @xmath149 , @xmath239    fix @xmath102 and @xmath144 .
we will use this estimate for @xmath240 and @xmath241 . recall that @xmath242 .
we have that @xmath243 therefore , we can write @xmath244 where the error term @xmath245 satisfies @xmath246 and in particular this error term goes to @xmath192 uniformly in @xmath23 . notice that @xmath247 @xmath248           \leq \frac{c_1(f ) c_2(f)}{n}\ ] ] and we see that the cubic term in is uniformly bounded in @xmath23 and it converges to @xmath192 in @xmath66-probability as @xmath104 . the uniform bound is relevant , because this cubic term is on top of an exponential in .
looking into , we have just showed that along the subsequence @xmath23 , for any fixed @xmath97 $ ] and any @xmath146 , the _ random variable _
@xmath249 converges in distribution to @xmath250 notice that although we have not proved that the convergence holds at the level of processes , we do know that @xmath251\}$ ] is a well - defined process with trajectories in @xmath68 ; { { \mathbb r}})$ ] .
in order to prove that @xmath251\}$ ] is a martingale , it is enough to show that the sequence @xmath252 is uniformly integrable .
it is here where we will take full advantage of the decomposition .
in fact , the error term and the cubic term in are uniformly bounded in @xmath23 by a deterministic constant .
therefore , we can neglect them .
moreover , the term @xmath253 is non - negative and it appears with a minus sign .
therefore , we can also neglect it .
we are left to prove the uniform integrability of the sequence @xmath254 .
the simplest criterion for uniform integrability is a uniform @xmath255-bound for some @xmath256 . in other words , we want to estimate @xmath257 $ ] for some @xmath256 . recall that @xmath258=1 $ ] .
we will use the elementary estimate @xmath259 \leq e[e^{2(x - y)}]^{1/2}e[e^{2y}]^{1/2}\ ] ] for @xmath260 and @xmath261 with these choices , we get the bound @xmath262 \leq { { \mathbb e}}_n[\exp\ { 2 y\}]^{\frac{1}{2}}.\ ] ] we can again neglect the cubic term and the error term in , since they are uniformly bounded in @xmath23 by a deterministic constant . therefore , uniform integrability of @xmath263 will be proved if we can show that @xmath264 < \infty.\ ] ] recall the definition of @xmath253 and rewrite it as @xmath265 by the convexity of the exponential function , @xmath266 \leq \frac{1}{t } \int_0^t { { \mathbb e}}_n\big[\exp\{2p^2\theta^2 t \sum_{x \in { { \mathbb t}}_n } \xi^n_t(f;x)^2 \}\big ] dt.\ ] ] therefore , we just need to show that
@xmath267 < \infty.\ ] ] at this point , we need something stronger than burkholder s inequality in order to bound this expectation .
we will use _ hoeffding s inequality_.    there exist constants @xmath268 , @xmath269 such that for any @xmath168 , for any @xmath221 and for any @xmath222 , @xmath270    let us go back to . as we pointed out before , there are no cancellations we can take advantage when adding up the terms @xmath230 .
therefore , we use the crude exponential hlder estimate
@xmath271 \leq \prod_i e[\exp\{nx_i\}]^{1/n}$ ] to get the bound @xmath272          \leq \prod_{x \in { { \mathbb t}}_n } e_{\frac{1}{2 } } \big [ \exp\{2p^2\theta^2 t n \xi^n(f;x)^2\}\big]^{\frac{1}{n}}.\ ] ] to simplify the notation , let us write @xmath273 .
bounding @xmath229 by one , we get the estimate @xmath274 \leq          e_{\frac{1}{2 } } \big [ \exp\big\{\beta n \big(\sum_{z \in a_x } \big(\eta(z)-\tfrac{1}{2}\big)g(z , x)\big)^2\big\}\big],\ ] ] where @xmath275 and @xmath276 .
we are almost at the setting of hoeffding s inequality .
we just need the following simple observation . for any non - negative random variable @xmath277 and any regular function @xmath81 , @xmath278 = -f(0)+ \int_0^\infty f'(t ) p(x \geq t ) dt.\ ] ] therefore , the right - hand side of is bounded above by @xmath279 finally we are in position to use hoeffding s inequality .
taking @xmath280 in , the integral above is bounded by @xmath281 by the smoothness of @xmath81 , there is a constant @xmath282 such that @xmath283 for any @xmath168 and any @xmath169 .
therefore , for any @xmath284 , @xmath285 and we conclude that @xmath272          \leq c_h\big\{\frac{c_h}{c_h-2p^2\theta^2 t c_2(f)}-1\big\}\ ] ] for any @xmath144 small enough .
we conclude that the sequence @xmath263 is uniformly integrable for any @xmath144 satisfying @xmath286    we summarize what we have shown above in the following theorem .
[ t3.3 ] for any function @xmath146 , there is a ( strictly positive ) constant @xmath287 such that the process @xmath288\}$ ] given by @xmath289 is a martingale for any @xmath144 such that @xmath290 .
notice that this theorem implies that the processes @xmath291\big\}\ ] ] are martingales for any @xmath292 .
in particular , considering the cases @xmath76 we get the following result .
[ c3.4 ] for any function @xmath146 , the process @xmath234\}$ ] is a martingale of quadratic variation @xmath236\}$ ] .
considering the case @xmath241 , it is possible to obtain the following bound : @xmath293 \leq 125 { { \mathbb e}}_n\big[{\langle}{{\mathscr w}}_t(f){\rangle}^2\big].\ ] ] using a crude cauchy - schwarz estimate to bound @xmath294 $ ] , we get a bound of the form @xmath295 \leq c(f ) t^2 $ ] for some constant depending on @xmath81 . by stationary and the classical kolmogorov - centsov continuity criterion ,
we conclude that the process @xmath234\}$ ] has continuous trajectories , which answers the question raised in the previous section about the continuity of @xmath115\}$ ] .
we state this as a corollary .
[ c3.5 ] any limit point of the sequence of @xmath88-valued processes @xmath100\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] is concentrated on continuous , @xmath88-valued tractories .
our next goal will be to characterize the martingale @xmath234\}$ ] and its quadratic variation in terms of the processes @xmath115\}$ ] and @xmath296\}$ ] .
recall the definition of the process @xmath296\}$ ] as the scaling limit of the density fluctuation fields @xmath94\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] . by , @xmath297 the second sum on the right - hand side of this identity converges to @xmath192 in @xmath298 .
the first sum is equal to @xmath299 plus an error term which also goes to @xmath192 in @xmath298 . taking the limit in through the subsequence @xmath23
, we get the identity @xmath300 valid for any @xmath146 and any @xmath97 $ ] .
for @xmath8 , @xmath168 and @xmath146 , let @xmath301 be defined as @xmath302 notice that @xmath303 is a discrete approximation of the partial derivative @xmath304 .
the function @xmath303 provides a very compact way of identify @xmath171 in terms of @xmath305 .
in fact , looking back to definition , we see that @xmath306 in particular , there exists a constant @xmath307 such that @xmath308 for any @xmath168 , any @xmath169 and any @xmath97 $ ] . using the simple identity @xmath309
, we see that @xmath310 we conclude that @xmath311 in the sense that this difference is uniformly bounded by a deterministic sequence which goes to @xmath192 as @xmath104 .
now we explain how to change @xmath312 by @xmath313 in the sum above .
notice that @xmath314          & \leq { { \mathbb e}}_n\big[\big({{\mathscr y}}_t^n(f_1)-{{\mathscr y}}_t^n(f_2)\big)^2\big]^{\frac{1}{2 } } \times\\          & \quad \times \big(2\big\{{{\mathbb e}}_n\big[{{\mathscr y}}_t^n(f_1)^2\big]+{{\mathbb e}}_n\big[{{\mathscr y}}_t^n(f_2)^2\big]\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\\ \end{split}\ ] ] using the product structure of @xmath170 , the right - hand side of this inequality is equal to @xmath315 therefore , the application @xmath316 from @xmath317 to @xmath318 is uniformly continuous in @xmath23 and @xmath5 .
let @xmath319 be defined as @xmath320 .
we see that @xmath303 converges uniformly to @xmath321 , the convergence being uniform in @xmath23 and @xmath40 .
we conclude that @xmath322 in @xmath318 .
now we need to get rid of the term @xmath323 , which is not a function of @xmath324 .
the idea is to take advantage of the continuity of @xmath325 with respect to @xmath40 , in order to introduce an average of @xmath326 over some finite interval .
notice that for any @xmath327 , @xmath328 using this limit in conjunction with , we see that for any @xmath149 , @xmath329 in @xmath318 .
passing the sum over @xmath330 to the @xmath326-term , we see that @xmath331 in @xmath318 .
the expectation of @xmath229 is equal to @xmath332 .
moreover , @xmath326 and @xmath333 are independent under @xmath170 as soon as @xmath334 .
if we split the sum @xmath335 into two sums , one running over even values of @xmath330 and another running over odd values of @xmath330 , we can use the elementary inequality @xmath336 plus burkholder s inequality on each sum to get the bound @xmath337 \leq \frac{c_p}{\ell^p}\ ] ] for any @xmath218 and any @xmath149 , where @xmath338 is a constant that depends only on @xmath339 .
in particular , using hlder s inequality ( to split the product ) and burkholder s inequality ( for @xmath340 ) , we get the bound @xmath341 \leq \frac{c_3(f)}{\sqrt \ell}\ ] ] for some constant @xmath307 which does not depend on @xmath342 or @xmath343 $ ] .
we conclude that @xmath344 in @xmath318 .
in particular , @xmath345 in @xmath318 .
both terms in this limit are convergent in distribution when @xmath104 .
we summarize what we have proved up to here in the following theorem .
[ t3.5 ] for any @xmath146 and any @xmath97 $ ] , @xmath346 where @xmath319 is defined as @xmath320
.    recall that by definition @xmath347 , where @xmath348 is the symmetric part of @xmath81 .
the expression for @xmath349 does not look very symmetric in the coordinates @xmath350 .
notice that for any smooth , symmetric function @xmath351 , @xmath352 this relation allows us to write @xmath349 in the more symmetric way @xmath353      putting theorems [ t3.3 ] ( actually corollaries [ c3.4 ] and [ c3.5 ] ) and [ t3.5 ] together , we see that the process @xmath115\}$ ] satisfies the following martingale problem .    * for any function @xmath102 , the process @xmath354 is a continuous martingale of quadratic variation @xmath355    very formally speaking , this is the martingale problem associated to the spde @xmath356 where @xmath357\}$ ] is a space - time white noise .
the problem comes from the fact that this martingale problem does not tell us anything about the relation between the processes @xmath296\}$ ] and @xmath358\}$ ] .
we would like to say that @xmath357\}$ ] is the driving process of @xmath296\}$ ] , that is , the white noise appearing in .
let us consider a test function of the form @xmath359 for some functions @xmath360 .
then , by we have @xmath361 in the other hand , by definition of @xmath362\}$ ] , we see that @xmath363 taking the limit along the subsequence @xmath23 , we conclude that @xmath364 using it s formula , we can obtain the martingale decomposition of the process @xmath365\}$ ] .
in particular , @xmath366 let us rewrite this identity in terms of the process @xmath115\}$ ] .
first notice that @xmath367 .
then notice that the term @xmath368 is exactly the normalization term missing in the integral involving the laplacians .
we conclude that @xmath369 for any function of the form @xmath359 .
therefore , at least for functions of this product form , we are able to identify @xmath370 with @xmath371 . actually , since the set of linear combinations of functions of the form @xmath372 is dense in @xmath373 , this relation allows us to identify the martingale appearing in * ( mp ) * in terms of @xmath371 .
let us explain this in a more rigorous way .
let us define the @xmath87-valued process @xmath374\}$ ] as @xmath375 for any @xmath96 . by the definition of @xmath296\}$ ] , the process @xmath376\}$ ] is a continuous martingale of quadratic variation @xmath377 . the relation can be rewritten as @xmath378 notice that a by - product of our proof of tightness for @xmath94\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] is a proof of tightness for @xmath379\}$ ] as a @xmath88-valued martingale .
therefore , @xmath105\}$ ] is a well - defined , @xmath88-valued martingale process . in particular ,
its distribution is determined by the values of @xmath234\}$ ] for @xmath81 of the form @xmath380 . in
there is no mention to the process @xmath115\}$ ] .
we are finally ready to establish a uniqueness result for the martingale problem * ( mp)*. we state it as a theorem .
[ t3.8 ] let @xmath381\}$ ] be a @xmath382-valued , continuous processes .
assume that    * for any @xmath96 , the process @xmath376\}$ ] is a continuous martingale of quadratic variation @xmath383 , * for any @xmath96 , the process @xmath384\}$ ] satisfies the relation @xmath385 * there exists a @xmath88-valued process @xmath105\}$ ] such that for any @xmath386 , @xmath387 * for any @xmath102 , we have @xmath388 * for any @xmath102 and any @xmath97 $ ] , the real - valued random variable @xmath389 has a gaussian distribution of mean zero and variance @xmath390 .
then the distribution of @xmath381\}$ ] is uniquely determined .
the proof was basically accomplished above .
notice that the tightness result shows existence of the triple @xmath391\}$ ] .
condition e ) implies _ stationarity _ of the process @xmath115\}$ ] , and could be relaxed to some moment bound , but since we are only interested on the stationary case , we will not discuss these generalizations here . using this stationarity condition ,
it is not hard to show that for any @xmath97 $ ] and any smooth path @xmath392 \to { { \mathscr c}}^\infty({{\mathbb t}}^2)$ ] , @xmath393 this relation allows us to use duhamel s formula to compute @xmath389 in terms of the process @xmath105\}$ ] .
fix @xmath102 and @xmath97 $ ] , and consider the test function @xmath394 , where @xmath395\}$ ] is the semigroup generated by @xmath396 .
then , @xmath397 and @xmath398 therefore , given the process @xmath105\}$ ] and the initial distribution of @xmath399 , the process @xmath115\}$ ] is uniquely determined by this duhamel s formula , which shows uniqueness in distribution .
we finish this section with the proof of theorem [ t1 ] .    in section [ s2 ]
we showed tightness of the sequence of processes @xmath100\}_{n \in { { \mathbb n}}}$ ] .
then in this section we first showed that any limit point @xmath115\}$ ] of this sequence satisfies the martingale problem stated in theorem [ t3.8 ] , and then we proved that this martingale problem has a unique solution in distribution .
therefore , we conclude that the limit point of @xmath100\}$ ] is unique , thus proving actual sequential convergence to that unique limit point of the whole sequence .
in this section we prove theorems [ t2 ] , [ t4.5 ] and [ t2.6 ] . the idea is to use the martingale characterization of the process @xmath115\}$ ] obtained in theorem [ t3.8 ] , and more precisely the martingale decomposition in order to rewrite the integral process @xmath400 as a martingale plus a function of @xmath15 and @xmath399 . for a given function @xmath401 ,
let @xmath402 denote the solution of the poisson equation @xmath403 if @xmath404 , then the solution @xmath405 of this equation belongs to @xmath373 , and therefore we can use it as a test function .
then , by we have that @xmath406 now we can explain better what is the strategy of proof of theorem [ t2 ] .
for each fixed time @xmath5 , @xmath15 is a white noise of variance @xmath407 .
therefore , @xmath408 = \smash{\frac{1}{4 } } \|\psi_g\|^2 $ ] for any @xmath97 $ ] .
the variance of the martingale @xmath17 is equal to @xmath409 . therefore , is stable under approximations in @xmath410 .
we will use the following lemma .
[ l4.1 ] let @xmath411 be the solution of the poisson equation @xmath412 satisfying @xmath413 .
then , there exists a constant @xmath414 such that @xmath415 for any @xmath416 and any @xmath96 .
we will obtain an explicit expression for the fourier series of the solution of . for @xmath417 ,
let @xmath418 be the trigonometric polynomial given by @xmath419 .
then @xmath420 is an orthonormal basis of @xmath421 . for any function @xmath422 ,
we denote by @xmath423 the fourier series of @xmath424 : @xmath425 for any @xmath417 . then , @xmath426 .
notice that the fourier series of @xmath427 is equal to @xmath428 .
we conclude that @xmath429 the fourier series @xmath430 can be computed explicitly .
in fact , @xmath431 where we use the convention @xmath432 for @xmath433 . by parseval s identity , for any function @xmath434 , @xmath435 we claim that there exists a universal constant @xmath436 such that @xmath437 for any @xmath438 .
in fact , it is enough to notice that the gradient of the function @xmath439 is bounded in @xmath440 .
since the function @xmath441 is bounded between @xmath442 and @xmath228 , we also have the trivial bound @xmath443 which is actually better than if @xmath444 .
notice that @xmath445 we will split this sum into a sum over two sets , depending whether or is better .
we start with the case on which the trivial bound is better .
notice that the set @xmath446 is contained on the set @xmath447 let us define the new coordinates @xmath448 , @xmath449 . in these new coordinates , the set @xmath450 is given by for the image of the set @xmath450 under this change of coordinates . ]
@xmath451 using the estimate @xmath452 , we have that @xmath453 we conclude that there is a constant @xmath454 such that for any @xmath455 small enough , @xmath456
now we estimate the sum in over the set @xmath457 . using
, we see that @xmath458 putting the two pieces together , we end the proof of the lemma .    at first glance
, it seems that solving the poisson equation with @xmath459 instead of @xmath81 is not needed in order to prove this lemma , since the final bound depends only on @xmath459 and not on @xmath81 .
actually , what we need is the integral condition @xmath460 , which is equivalent to @xmath459 being the actual derivative of a function @xmath81 .
this condition means that the @xmath192-th order of the fourier s expansion of @xmath459 vanishes , allowing to divide by @xmath461 without worrying about the case @xmath462 , @xmath463 in various steps of the computations .
what lemma [ l4.1 ] is saying , is that for any @xmath97 $ ] and any @xmath96 , the sequence @xmath464 is cauchy in @xmath465 , and therefore the limit @xmath466 exists in @xmath465 .
this does not show the existence of the @xmath88-valued process @xmath116\}$ ] , nor the convergence of @xmath467\}$ ] to it . in order to obtain this convergence ,
we need a more refined argument .
notice that @xmath468 therefore , for @xmath469 we have @xmath470       & \leq 2 e\big [ \big(q_t(\psi^\varepsilon_f-\psi^\delta_f)- q_0(\psi^\varepsilon_f-\psi^\delta_f)\big)^2\big]\\      & \quad + 2 e [ { { \mathscr w}}_t(\psi^\varepsilon_f-\psi^\delta_f)^2 ] .
\end{split}\ ] ] the second expectation on the right - hand side is equal to @xmath471 , which is bounded by @xmath472 . the first expectation is computed in the following lemma :    [ l4.2 ] for any @xmath473 , @xmath474 = \tfrac{1}{2 } { \langle}g , g - p_tg{\rangle}.\ ] ]    let us assume that @xmath401 . by duhamel s formula , we have that @xmath475      & = e[q_0(p_t g - g)^2 ] + e\big [ \big ( \int_0^t d { { \mathscr w}}_s(p_{t - s}g)\big)^2\big]\\      & = \tfrac{1}{4 } \|p_tg - g\|^2 + \tfrac{1}{2 } \int_0^t \|\nabla(p_s g)\|^2 . \end{split}\ ] ] since @xmath476 , the lemma follows for @xmath401 .
since @xmath15 and @xmath477 are continuous under approximations in @xmath421 , the lemma follows for @xmath473 by approximations .
notice that @xmath478 and in particular @xmath479 .
this shows that both expectations in are of the same order .
therefore , we have the bound @xmath480 \leq ct \varepsilon \|f'\|^2,\ ] ] valid for any @xmath96 , any @xmath97 $ ] and any @xmath481 . using the representation
@xmath482 we get the simple bound @xmath483 \leq \tfrac{1}{4 } t^2\|(f ' \otimes \delta ) \ast \iota_\varepsilon\|^2 \leq \frac{c t^2}{\varepsilon } \|f'\|^2.\ ] ] taking @xmath484 , choosing @xmath485 and combining with , we obtain the bound @xmath486 \leq c t^{3/2 } \|f'\|^2.\ ] ] these estimates are all we need in order to show that @xmath116\}$ ] is a well - defined , @xmath88-valued process and to show that @xmath128\}$ ] converges to @xmath116\}$ ] at the level of processes , see theorem 2.1 of @xcite for the details .
let us denote by @xmath487 the solution of the poisson equation @xmath488 [ ec4.27 ] satisfying @xmath489 .
by lemma [ l4.1 ] , @xmath490 .
the various approximation results shown in the previous section allow to obtain the following representation formula for @xmath122 :    @xmath491    for any @xmath97 $ ] . using this formula as a starting point
, we can analyze the behavior of @xmath122 for small times @xmath5 .
the variance of the first term on the right - hand side of is equal to @xmath492 , while the variance of the second term on the right - hand side of is equal to @xmath493 if the norm @xmath494 decays to @xmath192 like a power law , then the martingale term in turns out to be of lower order than the term @xmath495 .
in fact , we have the following    [ l4.4 ] for any smooth function @xmath20 we have that @xmath496 where @xmath138    notice that for any @xmath497 regular enough ( in fact , anything at least as regular as a measure on @xmath77 works ) , @xmath498 . therefore , by parseval identity
we have that @xmath499 let us perform the change of variables @xmath500 , @xmath501 .
notice that @xmath502 .
we have that @xmath503 where the sum is over @xmath504 such that @xmath505 is even .
let us define @xmath506 as @xmath507 rearranging terms in a convenient way , we can rewrite as @xmath508 therefore , it is enough to find the limit of the quantity @xmath509 notice that the sum between parentheses is a riemann sum for the integral @xmath510 the factor @xmath511 in front of it coming from the fact that the sum is over one half of the integers .
we can check that there exists a finite constant @xmath512 such that @xmath513 for any @xmath514 .
therefore , @xmath515 uniformly in @xmath40 .
in particular , we have the diagonal limit @xmath516 for any @xmath517 . using the bound @xmath518 we can exchange the limit and the summation to obtain that @xmath519 which proves the lemma .    with lemma [ l4.4 ] in hands
, we can prove theorem [ t4.5 ] :    recall the discussion after .
since @xmath520 decays to @xmath192 as @xmath521 , the second term on the right - hand side of is of smaller order than the first term . in other words ,
@xmath522 whenever one of the limits exists .
the process @xmath399 is gaussian and centered , and therefore it is easy to check its convergence .
in fact , this is exactly what lemma [ l4.4 ] accomplishes .
we conclude that @xmath523 converges in distribution as @xmath12 to a gaussian random variable of mean zero and variance @xmath524 .
since the process @xmath525 has stationary increments , we have proved convergence in the sense of finite - dimensional distributions . in order to get convergence at the level of processes ,
we only need to show tightness of the sequence @xmath526 . but
this follows from the comment after .
notice that the process @xmath527 is a _ fractional brownian motion _ of hurst exponent @xmath528 .
this is exactly the same process arising as the scaling limit of occupation times of the exclusion process @xcite .
this fact is a quantitative version of the formal claim which states that fluctuations of additive functionals of local functions of degree 1 ( like the occupation time ) are of the same nature as fluctuations of additive functionals of extensive functions of degree 2 ( like the quadratic field ) .      in the previous section
we have seen how we can extract non - trivial information about the quadratic field @xmath133 for small times using the representation .
now we will see what can we say about the variance of @xmath529 when @xmath5 is large .
actually , it will be easier to work with the representation @xmath530 this relation can be obtained by passing to the limit in .
the variance of @xmath531 ( and also of @xmath532 ) is equal to @xmath533 , while the variance of @xmath534 is equal to @xmath535 .
therefore , we see that @xmath536}{t } = \tfrac{1}{2 } \|\nabla \psi_f \|^2.\ ] ] the following lemma tells us the behavior of @xmath537 :    [ l4.6 ] there exists a function @xmath538 such that @xmath539 and such that @xmath540    notice that @xmath541 using the change of variables @xmath500 , @xmath542 and rearranging terms , we can rewrite this expression as @xmath543 the second sum is a riemann sum for @xmath544 .
therefore , it is enough to choose @xmath545    the fact that @xmath546 allows us to identify the limiting variance of @xmath122 as the energy associated to a sort of _ fractional laplacian operator _ of order @xmath547 . in a more precise way , we can write @xmath548 where @xmath72 is a continuous operator in @xmath549 .
the appearance of this compact operator is just a finite - volume effect .
this work was written during a visit of the author to universit aix - marseille .
the author would like to thank the warm hospitality at the institut de mathmati - ques de marseille and to etienne pardoux for valuable comments and for helping with the proof of theorem [ t3.8 ] .
a.  de masi , n.  ianiro , a.  pellegrinotti , and e.  presutti .
a survey of the hydrodynamical behavior of many - particle systems . in _ nonequilibrium phenomena ,
ii _ , stud . statist .
mech . , xi , pages 123294 .
north - holland , amsterdam , 1984 .