Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: this work is concerned with catalytic branching processes that model the dynamics of catalyst - reactant populations in which the activity level of the reactant depends on the amount of catalyst present . branching processes in catalytic environments have been studied extensively and are motivated , for instance , by biochemical reaction networks ; see @xcite and references therein . a typical setting consists of populations of multiple types such that the rate of growth ( depletion ) of one population type is directly affected by population sizes of other types . the simplest such model consists of a continuous time countable state branching process describing the evolution of the catalyst population and a second branching process for which the branching rate is proportional to the total mass of the catalyst population , modeling the evolution of reactant particles . such processes were introduced in  @xcite in the setting of super - brownian motions ; see  @xcite . for classical catalyst - reactant branching processes , the catalyst population dies out with positive probability and subsequent to the catalyst extinction , the reactant population stays unchanged , and therefore the population dynamics are modeled until the time the catalyst becomes extinct . in this work , we consider a setting where the catalyst population is maintained above a positive threshold through a specific form of controlled immigration . branching process models with immigration have also been well studied in literature ; see @xcite and references therein . however , typical mechanisms that have been considered correspond to adding an independent poisson component ; see , for example ,  @xcite . here , instead , we consider a model where immigration takes place only when the population drops below a certain threshold . roughly speaking , we consider a sequence @xmath0 of continuous time branching processes , where @xmath1 starts with @xmath2 particles . when the population drops below @xmath2 , it is instantaneously restored to the level  @xmath2 . there are many settings where controlled immigration models of the above form arise naturally . one class of examples arises from predator - prey models in ecology , where one may be concerned with the restoration of populations that are close to extinction by reintroducing species when they fall below a certain threshold . in our work , the motivation for the study of such controlled immigration models comes from problems in chemical reaction networks where one wants to keep the levels of certain types of molecules above a threshold in order to maintain a desired level of production ( or inhibition ) of other chemical species in the network . such questions are of interest in the study of control and regulation of chemical reaction networks . a control action where one minimally adjusts the levels of one chemical type to keep it above a fixed threshold is one of the simplest regulatory mechanisms , and  the goal of this research is to study system behavior under such mechanisms with the long - term objective of designing optimal control policies . the specific goal of the current work is to derive simpler approximate and reduced models , through the theory of diffusion approximations and stochastic averaging techniques , that are more tractable for simulation and mathematical treatment than the original branching process models . in order to keep the presentation simple , we consider the setting of one catalyst and one reactant . however , similar limit theorems can be obtained for a more general chemical reaction network in which the levels of some of the chemical species are regulated in a suitable manner . settings where some of the chemical species act as inhibitors rather than catalysts are also of interest and can be studied using similar techniques . these extensions will be pursued elsewhere . our main goal is to establishes diffusion approximations for such regulated catalyst - reactant systems under suitable scalings . we consider two different scaling regimes ; in the first setting the catalyst and reactant evolve on `` comparable timescales , '' while in the second setting the catalyst evolves `` much faster '' than the reactant . in the former setting , the limit model is described through a coupled system of reflected stochastic differential equations with reflection in the space @xmath3 . the precise result ( theorem  [ thmcrdiffusion ] ) is stated in section [ secdiffusionlimit ] . such limit theorems are of interest for various analytic and computational reasons . it is simpler to simulate ( reflected ) diffusions than branching processes , particularly for large network settings . analytic properties such as hitting time probabilities and steady state behavior are more easily analyzed for the diffusion models than for their branching process counterparts . in general , such diffusion limits give parsimonious model representations and provide useful qualitative insight to the underlying stochastic phenomena . for the second scaling regime , where the catalyst evolution is much faster , we establish a stochastic averaging limit theorem . a key ingredient here is an ergodicity result , which says that under a suitable `` criticality from below '' assumption on the catalyst dynamics , the limiting catalyst reflected diffusion admits a unique stationary distribution , which takes an explicit form ( proposition  [ propstationarydistrofx ] ) . characterization of the invariant distribution is based on a variant of echeverria s criterion for constrained markov processes  @xcite . next , by constructing suitable _ uniform _ lyapunov functions , we show that the stationary distribution of the scaled catalyst branching process converges to that of the catalyst diffusion ( theorem [ thmtightnessandconvergenceofnu^n1 ] ) . these results are then used to establish a stochastic averaging principle that governs the dynamics of the reactant population in the fast catalyst limit . proofs proceed by developing suitable moment estimates that are uniform in time and the scaling parameter and by using characterization results for probability laws of reflected diffusions through certain constrained martingale problems  @xcite . the limit evolution of the reactant population is given through an autonomous one - dimensional sde with coefficients that depend on the stationary distribution of a reflected diffusion in @xmath4 . such model reductions are important in that they not only help in better understanding the dynamics of the system but also help in reducing computational costs in simulations . indeed , since in the model considered here the invariant distribution is explicit , the coefficients in the one - dimensional averaged diffusion model are easily computed , and consequently this model is significantly easier to analyze and simulate than the original two - dimensional model . we refer the reader to  @xcite and references therein for similar results in the setting of ( nonregulated ) chemical reaction networks . it will be of interest to see if similar model reductions can be obtained for general multi - dimensional regulated chemical - reaction networks . key mathematical challenges will be to identify suitable conditions for ergodicity of multi - dimensional reflected diffusions in polyhedral domains that arise from the regulated part of the network , and to develop uniform ( in time and the scaling parameter ) moment estimates for such multi - dimensional constrained diffusions . we consider two different formulations of models with multiple time scales . in theorem [ thmfastcatalystweaklimit ] we consider the setting where both catalyst and reactant processes are described through ( reflected ) diffusions and the time scale parameter appears in the coefficients of the catalyst evolution equation . an important step here is to argue that the generator of the two - dimensional catalyst - reactant reflected diffusion is suitably close to the generator of the one - dimensional averaged diffusion , for large values of the scaling parameter . bounds on the exponential moments of the catalyst process , obtained in lemma  [ lemunifmombdx ] , play a key role in this argument . the second formulation is considered in theorem [ fastcatalystbpaveraging ] . here , both catalyst and reactant populations evolve according to near critical countable state branching processes , and the branching rate in the catalyst dynamics is of higher order than that for the reactant process . in this setting one encounters the additional difficulty of showing that the steady state distributions of the scaled catalyst branching process , for large values of the scaling parameter , are suitably close to the stationary distribution of the limiting catalyst reflected diffusion . the approach taken here is based on characterizing the limit points of a certain sequence of random measures on the path space of the catalyst process and the associated reflection process , as time and the scaling parameter together approach infinity . the model considered in this work does not incorporate any spatial dynamics of the two chemical species . as noted earlier in the , in the unregulated setting , dawson and fleischmann @xcite considered catalyst - reactant systems , with chemical species moving continuously in a spatial domain , given in terms of super - brownian motions . it will be of interest to develop analogous continuous spatial models for the regulated catalyst - reactant systems of the form considered in the current work . this question will be explored in a future work . the paper is organized as follows . we begin in section [ secdiffusionlimit ] by presenting the basic limit theorem in the setting of `` comparable time scales . '' section [ chasymptoticbehaviorofthecatalystpopulation ] studies the time asymptotic behavior of the catalyst process under a suitable _ criticality from below _ assumption . section [ secdiffusionlimitofthereactantunderfastcatalystdynamics1 ] presents our main results for the multiple time scale setting . section [ secauxresults ] collects some auxiliary estimates that are needed in our proofs . section  [ sec6 ] proves theorem  [ thmcrdiffusion ] , and section  [ secproofofasymptoticbehaviorofthecatalystpopulation ] is devoted to the proofs of proposition  [ propstationarydistrofx ] and theorem [ thmtightnessandconvergenceofnu^n1 ] . finally , in section  [ secdiffusionlimitofthereactantunderfastcatalystdynamics ] we present proofs of stochastic averaging principles stated in section  [ secdiffusionlimitofthereactantunderfastcatalystdynamics1 ] . the following notation will be used throughout this work . denote by @xmath5 the natural numbers , let @xmath6 , denote the set of integers by @xmath7 and let @xmath8 be the set of nonnegative real numbers . the state spaces of the scaled catalyst , reactant , and auxiliary processes , @xmath9 and @xmath10 , respectively , introduced below in ( [ eqhatw^n ] ) , are @xmath11 , @xmath12 and @xmath13 . let @xmath14 and @xmath15 . let @xmath16 denote the space of @xmath17-times continuously differentiable , real valued functions on @xmath18 , and denote by @xmath19 the space of @xmath16 functions with compact support . here , by a ( @xmath17-times ) differentiable function @xmath20 on a set @xmath21 we mean a function that can be extended to a ( @xmath17-times ) differentiable function @xmath22 on an open domain @xmath23 such that @xmath22 restricted to @xmath24 equals @xmath20 . given a metric space @xmath25 , the space of probability measures on @xmath25 will be denoted by @xmath26 , the borel @xmath27-field on @xmath25 by @xmath28 , and the space of real valued , bounded , measurable functions on @xmath25 by bm(@xmath25 ) . let @xmath29 and @xmath30 , where these @xmath24-spaces are endowed with the usual skorohod topology . let @xmath31 be the space of continuous functions from @xmath32 to @xmath32 endowed with the local uniform topology . we say a sequence @xmath33 of random variables with values in some polish space @xmath34 is tight if the corresponding probability laws are a tight sequence in @xmath35 . for a function @xmath36 , let the jump at time @xmath37 be defined as @xmath38 , @xmath39 , and @xmath40 . for a function @xmath41 and @xmath42 , let @xmath43 . for two semimartingales @xmath44 and @xmath45 , the quadratic covariation ( or bracket process ) and predictable ( or conditional ) quadratic covariation are denoted by @xmath46_t\}_{t\in{\mathbb{r}}_+}$ ] and @xmath47 , respectively ; their definition will be recalled in section  [ secauxresults ] . consider a sequence of pairs of continuous time , countable state markov branching processes @xmath48 , where @xmath1 and @xmath49 represent the number of catalyst and reactant particles , respectively . the dynamics are described as follows . each of the @xmath50 particles alive at time @xmath37 has an exponentially distributed lifetime with parameter @xmath51 ( mean lifetime @xmath52 ) . when it dies , each such particle gives rise to a number of offspring , according to the offspring distribution @xmath53 . additionally , if the catalyst population drops below @xmath2 , it is instantaneously replenished back to the level @xmath2 ( _ controlled immigration _ ) . the branching rate of the reactant process @xmath49 is of the order of the current total mass of the catalyst population , that is , @xmath54 , and we denote the offspring distribution of @xmath49 by @xmath55 . a precise definition of the pair @xmath48 will be given below . we are interested in the study of asymptotic behavior of @xmath56 , under suitable scaling , as @xmath57 .    to facilitate some weak convergence arguments , we will consider an auxiliary sequence of processes @xmath58 that `` shadow '' @xmath1 in the following manner . the process @xmath58 will be a @xmath7 valued pure jump process whose jump instances and sizes are the same as that of @xmath1 away from the boundary @xmath59 , whereas when @xmath1 is at the boundary , @xmath58 has a negative jump of size 1 whenever there is immigration of a catalyst particle into the system . this description is made precise through the infinitesimal generator given in ( [ eqgeneratorofwholeprocess ] ) . the process @xmath10 will not appear in the statements of the results ; nevertheless it plays an important role in our proofs . we now give a precise description of the various processes and the scaling that is considered . roughly speaking , time is accelerated by a factor of @xmath2 , and mass is scaled down by a factor of @xmath2 . define rcll processes @xmath60 and let @xmath61 , where @xmath62 is the initial number of catalyst and reactant particles and @xmath63 . then @xmath64 is characterized as the @xmath65 valued markov process with sample paths in @xmath66 , starting at @xmath67 , and having infinitesimal generator @xmath68 given as @xmath69 \mu_1^{(n)}(k ) \nonumber\\[-8pt]\\[-8pt ] & & { } + \lambda_2^{(n ) } n^2 x y \sum _ { k=0}^\infty \biggl[\phi \biggl(x , y+ \frac{k-1}{n},z \biggr)-\phi(\mathbf w ) \biggr]\mu_2^{(n)}(k),\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath70 and @xmath71 . from the definition of the generator we see that , for each @xmath72 , given @xmath73 , the process jumps to @xmath74 with rate @xmath75 and to @xmath76 with rate @xmath77 , except when @xmath78 and @xmath79 , in which case the latter jump is to @xmath80 with rate @xmath81 . this property of the generator at @xmath79 accounts for the instantaneous replenishment of the ( unscaled ) catalyst population to level @xmath2 , whenever the catalyst drops below  @xmath2 .    for @xmath82 , let @xmath83 we make the following basic assumption on the parameters of the branching rates and offspring distributions as well as on the initial configurations of the catalyst and reactant populations :    [ conditioncr ] for @xmath82 and for @xmath84 , @xmath85 and @xmath86 .    for @xmath82 , as @xmath57 , @xmath87 , @xmath88 and @xmath89 .    for @xmath82 and for every @xmath90 , @xmath91    as @xmath57 , @xmath92 condition  [ conditioncr ] and the form of the generator in ( [ eqgeneratorofwholeprocess ] ) ensure that the scaled catalyst and reactant processes transition on comparable time scales , namely @xmath93 . in order to state the limit theorem for @xmath94 , we need some notation and definitions associated with the one - dimensional skorohod map with reflection at  1 . let @xmath95 be defined as @xmath96 the function @xmath97 , known as skorohod map , can be characterized as follows ; see , for example , appendix b in  @xcite and references therein : if @xmath98 are such that ( i ) @xmath99 , ( ii ) @xmath100 , ( iii ) @xmath101 , ( iv ) @xmath102 is nondecreasing , @xmath103 , and @xmath104 , then @xmath105 and @xmath106 . the process @xmath102 can be regarded as the reflection term that is applied to the original trajectory @xmath107 to produce a trajectory @xmath108 that is constrained to @xmath4 . from the definition of the skorohod map and using the triangle inequality , we get the following lipschitz property : for @xmath109 , @xmath110    the diffusion limit of @xmath111 will be the process @xmath112 , starting at @xmath113 , which is given through a system of stochastic integral equations as in the following proposition . [ propuniqunessofx , y ] let @xmath114 be a filtered probability space on which are given independent standard @xmath115 brownian motions @xmath116 and @xmath117 . let @xmath118 be square integrable @xmath119 measurable random variables with values in @xmath4 and @xmath32 , respectively . then the following system of stochastic integral equations has a unique strong solution : @xmath120 where @xmath97 is the skorohod map defined in ( [ eqskorohodmap ] ) .    in the above proposition , by a strong solution of ( [ eqx])([eqeta ] ) , we mean an @xmath121-adapted continuous process @xmath122 with values in @xmath123 that satisfies ( [ eqx])([eqeta ] ) . the following is the main result of this section . [ thmcrdiffusion ] suppose condition  [ conditioncr ] holds . the process @xmath124 converges weakly in @xmath125 to the process @xmath112 given in proposition  [ propuniqunessofx , y ] with @xmath126 . proposition [ propuniqunessofx , y ] follows by standard arguments , so its proof is relegated to the . theorem  [ thmcrdiffusion ] will be proved in section  [ sec6 ] . stochastic averaging results in this work rely on understanding the time asymptotic behavior of the catalyst process . such behavior , of course , is also of independent interest . we begin with the following result on the stationary distribution of @xmath127 , where @xmath127 is the reflected diffusion from proposition [ propuniqunessofx , y ] , approximating the catalyst dynamics . the proof uses an extension of the echeverria criterion for stationary distributions of diffusions to the setting of constrained diffusions ; see section  [ secproofstationarydistrofx ] . we will make the following additional assumption . recall the constants @xmath128 and @xmath129 introduced in condition [ conditioncr ] . [ conditionc1 ] for all @xmath84 , @xmath130 and @xmath131 . [ propstationarydistrofx ] suppose condition  [ conditionc1 ] holds . the process @xmath127 defined through ( [ eqx ] ) has a unique stationary distribution , @xmath132 , which has density @xmath133 where @xmath134 . the following result shows that the time asymptotic behavior of the catalyst population is well approximated by that of its diffusion approximation given through ( [ eqx ] ) . we make the following additional assumption on the moment generating function of the offspring distribution , which will allow us to construct certain `` uniform lyapunov functions '' that play a key role in the analysis ; see theorem  [ thmintegratingtillreturntime ] and the function @xmath135 defined in ( [ lyapfn ] ) . [ conditionmoment ] for some @xmath136 , @xmath137    [ thmtightnessandconvergenceofnu^n1 ] suppose conditions  [ conditioncr ] ,  [ conditionc1 ] and [ conditionmoment ] hold . then , for each @xmath84 , the process @xmath138 has a unique stationary distribution @xmath139 , and the family @xmath140 is tight . as @xmath57 , @xmath139 converges weakly to @xmath132 . proposition  [ propstationarydistrofx ] and theorem [ thmtightnessandconvergenceofnu^n1 ] will be proved in section [ secproofofasymptoticbehaviorofthecatalystpopulation ] . as noted in section  [ secdiffusionlimit ] , the catalyst and reactant populations whose scaled evolution is described through ( [ eqgeneratorofwholeprocess ] ) transition on comparable time scales . in situations in which the catalyst evolves `` much faster '' than the reactant , one can hope to find a simplified model that captures the dynamics of the reactant population in a more economical fashion . one would expect that the reactant population can be approximated by a diffusion whose coefficients depend on the catalyst only through the catalyst s stationary distribution . indeed , we will show that the ( scaled ) reactant population can be approximated by the solution of @xmath141 where @xmath142 . such model reductions ( see  @xcite and references therein for the setting of chemical reaction networks ) not only help in better understanding the dynamics of the system but also help in reducing computational costs in simulations . in this section we will consider such stochastic averaging results in two model settings . first , in section  [ secstochaveragingindiffusionsetting ] , we consider the simpler setting where the population mass evolutions are described through ( reflected ) stochastic integral equations and a scaling parameter in the coefficients of the model distinguishes the time scales of the two processes . in section [ secstochasticaveragingforscaledbranchingprocesses ] we will consider a setting which captures the underlying physical dynamics more accurately in the sense that the mass processes are described in terms of continuous time branching processes , rather than diffusions.=1      in this section we consider the setting where the catalyst and reactant populations evolve according to ( reflected ) diffusions similar to @xmath127 and @xmath143 from proposition  [ propuniqunessofx , y ] , but where the evolution of the catalyst is accelerated by a factor of @xmath144 such that @xmath145 as @xmath146 ( i.e. , drift and diffusion coefficients are scaled by @xmath144 ) . more precisely , we consider a system of catalyst and reactant populations that are given as solutions of the following system of stochastic integral equations : for @xmath42 , @xmath147 where @xmath148 , @xmath149 , @xmath150 , @xmath116 and @xmath117 are independent standard brownian motions , and @xmath97 is the skorohod map described above proposition  [ propuniqunessofx , y ] . the following result says that if @xmath131 , then the reactant population process  @xmath151 , which is given through a coupled two - dimensional system , can be well approximated by the one - dimensional diffusion @xmath152 in ( [ eqchecky ] ) , whose coefficients are given in terms of the stationary distribution of the catalyst process . [ thmfastcatalystweaklimit ] suppose condition  [ conditionc1 ] holds . the process @xmath153 converges weakly in @xmath31 to the process @xmath152 . the proof of theorem  [ thmfastcatalystweaklimit ] is given in section  [ secdiffusionlimitofthereactantunderfastcatalystdynamics ] . we now consider stochastic averaging for the setting where the catalyst and reactant populations are described through branching processes . consider catalyst and reactant populations evolving according to the branching processes introduced in section  [ secdiffusionlimit ] , but where the catalyst evolution is sped up by a factor of @xmath144 such that @xmath145 monotonically as @xmath146 . that is , we consider a sequence of catalyst populations @xmath154 , @xmath42 , where @xmath1 are the branching processes introduced in section  [ secdiffusionlimit ] . the reactant population evolves according to a branching process , @xmath155 , whose branching rate , as before , is of the order of the current total mass of the catalyst population , @xmath156 . the infinitesimal generator @xmath157 of the scaled process @xmath158 is given as @xmath159\mu_1^{(n)}(k ) \nonumber\\[-8pt]\\[-8pt ] & & { } + \lambda_2^{(n ) } n^2 x y \sum _ { k=0}^\infty \biggl[\phi \biggl(x , y+\frac{k-1}{n } \biggr)-\phi(x , y ) \biggr]\mu_2^{(n)}(k),\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath160 and @xmath161 . we note that a key difference between the generators @xmath157 above and @xmath162 in ( [ eqgeneratorofwholeprocess ] ) is the extra factor of @xmath144 in the first term of ( [ eqcheckg^n ] ) , which says that , for large @xmath2 , the catalyst dynamics are much faster than that of the reactant .    we will show in theorem  [ fastcatalystbpaveraging ] that the reactant population process @xmath151 can be well approximated by the one - dimensional diffusion @xmath152 in ( [ eqchecky ] ) . once again , the result provides a model reduction that is potentially useful for simulations and also for a general qualitative understanding of reactant dynamics near criticality . [ fastcatalystbpaveraging ] suppose conditions  [ conditioncr ] ,  [ conditionc1 ] and [ conditionmoment ] hold . then , as @xmath57 , @xmath163 converges weakly in @xmath164 to the process @xmath152 . we will prove the above theorem in section [ secdiffusionlimitofthereactantunderfastcatalystdynamics ] . in this section we collect several auxiliary results , which will be used in the proofs of our main results . recall that the quadratic covariation ( or bracket process ) of two semimartingales @xmath44 and @xmath45 is the process @xmath46_t\}_{t\in{\mathbb{r}}_+}$ ] defined by @xmath165_t:=\xi_t\zeta_t-\int _ 0^t \xi_{s- } \,d \zeta_s-\int_0^t \zeta_{s- } \,d\xi_s,\qquad t\geq0,\ ] ] where @xmath166 . the predictable quadratic covariation of @xmath44 and @xmath45 is the unique predictable process @xmath167 such that @xmath46_t-\langle\xi,\zeta\rangle_t\}_{t\in{\mathbb{r}}_+}$ ] is a local martingale . if @xmath168 , then @xmath169\equiv[\xi,\xi ] $ ] and @xmath170 are , respectively , the quadratic and predictable quadratic variation processes of @xmath44 .    for @xmath171 , let @xmath172 , @xmath173 , and @xmath174 . note that for a locally bounded measurable function @xmath20 on @xmath18 @xmath175 is a local martingale with respect to the filtration @xmath176 . for the rest of the paper , we suppress the filtration , and simply refer to @xmath177 as a local martingale . let @xmath178 this process will play the role of the reflection term in the dynamics of the catalyst , arising from the controlled immigration . the following tightness result will be used in the weak convergence proofs . [ lemtighnessofcatalyst - reactant ] suppose conditions  [ conditioncr ] and  [ conditionc1 ] hold . then the family @xmath179 is tight in @xmath180 . if additionally condition  [ conditionmoment ] holds , then the family @xmath181 is tight in @xmath182 . the proof of proposition  [ lemtighnessofcatalyst - reactant ] will be based on the following results . lemma  [ lemrepresentationofcrprocesses ] below gives some useful representations for the catalyst and reactant processes . lemmas  [ lemevofsquaredsuprema][lemevofsquaredsupremaofshiftedprocesses ] and corollary [ corevofsquaredsupremaofshiftedhatx^n ] provide moment bounds that are useful for arguing tightness . proofs of these results are given in section  [ secproofsofauxresults ] . [ lemrepresentationofcrprocesses ] suppose condition  [ conditioncr ] holds . the process @xmath94 can be represented as @xmath183\\[-8pt ] & = & \gamma \biggl(\hat x_0^{(n)}+c_1^{(n ) } \lambda_1^{(n)}\int_0^\cdot \hat x_s^{(n)}\,ds+m_\cdot^{(n ) } ( \phi_1 ) \biggr ) ( t)\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath184 moreover , for @xmath185 , @xmath186\\[-8pt ] & \le&\lambda_1^{(n)}\alpha_1^{(n ) } \int_0^t\hat x_s^{(n)}\,ds\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath187    let @xmath188 then we have the following second moment estimate .    [ lemevofsquaredsuprema ] suppose conditions  [ conditioncr ] and hold . then there is a @xmath189 such that for all @xmath84 and @xmath190 , @xmath191 and for each @xmath192 , @xmath193 where @xmath194 .    in order to study properties of invariant measures of @xmath195 , it will be convenient to allow the initial random variable @xmath196 to have an arbitrary distribution on @xmath197 . when @xmath198 has distribution @xmath199 on @xmath197 , we will denote the corresponding probability and expectation operator by @xmath200 and @xmath201 , respectively . if @xmath202 for some , we will instead write @xmath203 and @xmath204 , respectively . when considering an initial condition @xmath205 for @xmath195 , @xmath205 will always be in @xmath197 , although this will frequently be suppressed in the notation . the symbols @xmath206 and @xmath207 ( without any subscripts ) will correspond to the initial distribution as in condition [ conditioncr ] . [ lemexpmomentsonfinitetime ] suppose conditions  [ conditioncr ] and , [ conditionc1 ] and  [ conditionmoment ] hold . then there exist @xmath208 such that for every @xmath209 , @xmath210    [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] suppose conditions  [ conditioncr ] and , [ conditionc1 ] and  [ conditionmoment ] hold . then there exist @xmath211 such that for every @xmath212 , @xmath84 and @xmath42 , @xmath213    the following is immediate from lemmas  [ lemevofsquaredsuprema ] and [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] . [ corevofsquaredsupremaofshiftedhatx^n ] suppose conditions  [ conditioncr ] and , [ conditionc1 ] and  [ conditionmoment ] hold . let @xmath214 be as in lemma  [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] and @xmath215 . then there exists a @xmath216 such that for all @xmath212 and @xmath84 , @xmath217    the next lemma follows by combining lemma  [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] with arguments as in the proof of lemma  [ lemevofsquaredsuprema ] . the proof is omitted . [ lemevofsquaredsupremaofshiftedprocesses ] suppose conditions  [ conditioncr ] and , [ conditionc1 ] and  [ conditionmoment ] hold . let @xmath214 be as in lemma  [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] . then for each @xmath190 there are @xmath218 such that for all @xmath84 and @xmath219 , @xmath220    in order to prove weak convergence results for the scaled catalyst and reactant processes , we will need to argue that the limit processes are continuous , which will be a consequence of the following bounds on the jumps . the somewhat stronger estimate on the jumps of the catalyst population in ( [ eqpsupdeltahatx^nt ] ) , below , will be used in the stochastic averaging argument in the proof of theorem [ fastcatalystbpaveraging ] . recall that for a process @xmath221 the jump at instant @xmath39 is defined as @xmath38 and @xmath40 . [ lempsupdeltahatx^nt ] suppose condition  [ conditioncr ] holds . fix @xmath222 . then , as , @xmath223 if additionally conditions  [ conditionc1 ] and [ conditionmoment ] hold , then , as @xmath57 , @xmath224      in this section we prove the results stated in section  [ secauxresults ] . we begin with the proofs of lemmas [ lemrepresentationofcrprocesses][lemevofsquaredsupremaofshiftedprocesses ] . using these results , we will then prove proposition [ lemtighnessofcatalyst - reactant ] . the proof of lemma [ lempsupdeltahatx^nt ] is given at the end . proof of lemma  [ lemrepresentationofcrprocesses ] recall that @xmath225 and that for @xmath171 , @xmath226 , @xmath173 , and @xmath174 . from ( [ locmart ] ) , @xmath227 using ( [ eqgeneratorofwholeprocess ] ) , we get @xmath228 next , since @xmath229 , we have @xmath230 and , once more using ( [ eqgeneratorofwholeprocess ] ) , @xmath231 thus with @xmath232 as in ( [ hateta^n ] ) , we get @xmath233 noting that @xmath234 and using ( [ eqhatz^n ] ) , ( [ eqhata^nphi3 ] ) and ( [ eqhatx^n - hatz^n ] ) , we have @xmath235 since @xmath232 is nondecreasing and @xmath236 , we have from the characterization given above ( [ eqskorohodlipschitz ] ) that @xmath237    next , for the reactant population , using similar calculations as for @xmath238 , we get @xmath239 finally , routine calculations then show ( see  @xcite , lemma 3.1.3 ) that ( [ eqpqvm^nphi1 ] ) and ( [ eq5.6 ] ) hold . details are omitted . proof of lemma  [ lemevofsquaredsuprema ] using ( [ eqpqvm^nphi1 ] ) and doob s inequality , we have @xmath240 next , from ( [ eq5.3 ] ) , @xmath241 the lipschitz continuity of the skorohod map implies @xmath242 letting @xmath243 , we now get @xmath244 combining this with ( [ eqhatn^ndef ] ) and ( [ eq5.20 ] ) , we obtain @xmath245 . \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] using gronwall s inequality , we get , since @xmath246 , @xmath247 where @xmath248 . since @xmath249 and @xmath250 converge as @xmath57 , we have that for some @xmath189 and all @xmath251 @xmath252 using ( [ eq5.23 ] ) in ( [ eq5.20 ] ) , ( [ eq5.22 ] ) and ( [ eqhatx^nintemsofmartandeta ] ) , we have the estimate in ( [ eqevofsquaredsuprema ] ) by choosing @xmath253 sufficiently large . we next establish ( [ eqestimateonhaty^n ] ) . using doob s inequality once more and applying ( [ eq5.6 ] ) , we have @xmath254 thus , by ( [ eqhaty^nb^n2 ] ) , @xmath255\int_0^t e \bigl(\bigl|\hat y^{(n)}\bigr|_{*,s\wedge\sigma^{(n)}_k}^2 \bigr)\,ds \biggr).\end{aligned}\ ] ] the estimate in ( [ eqestimateonhaty^n ] ) now follows by choosing @xmath253 sufficiently large and applying gronwall s inequality . proof of lemma  [ lemexpmomentsonfinitetime ] first we show , using conditions  [ conditioncr](i ) and ( ii ) , [ conditionc1 ] and  [ conditionmoment ] , that there are @xmath256 such that for all @xmath257 $ ] and   @xmath258\mu^{(n)}_1(k ) \le-\delta d_1.\ ] ] note that @xmath259\mu^{(n)}_1(k)\\ & & \qquad = n^2 \sum_{k=0}^\infty \biggl(\sum _ { l=1}^\infty\frac { 1}{l ! } \biggl ( \frac{(k-1)\delta}{n } \biggr)^l \biggr)\mu^{(n)}_1(k ) \\ & & \qquad= n\delta \biggl(\sum_{k=0}^\infty k \mu^{(n)}_1(k)-1 \biggr ) + \frac { 1}{2 } \delta^2\sum_{k=0}^\infty(k-1)^2 \mu^{(n)}_1(k ) \\ & & \qquad\quad { } + n^2\sum_{k=0}^\infty \biggl ( \sum_{l=3}^\infty\frac { 1}{l ! } \biggl ( \frac{(k-1)\delta}{n } \biggr)^l \biggr)\mu^{(n)}_1(k).\end{aligned}\ ] ] now , as @xmath57 , @xmath260 and @xmath261 noting that @xmath130 , we can choose @xmath262 sufficiently small , and @xmath263 suitably , such that ( [ eqinstep1 ] ) holds .    for @xmath264 as above and @xmath265 , let @xmath266 and @xmath267\mu^{(n)}_1(k ) \bigr)1_{\{\hat x^{(n)}_s > 1\}}\,ds.\ ] ] note that , by ( [ eqinstep1 ] ) , for any @xmath268 , @xmath269\\[-8pt ] & \le&-\delta d_1\lambda^{(n)}_1 \int _ u^t \hat x^{(n)}_s 1_{\{\hat x^{(n)}_s>1\}}\,ds.\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] moreover , @xmath270 the first inequality in the last display is immediate , the second inequality can be seen as follows : @xmath271 by ( [ eqinstep1 ] ) , the first term on the right - hand side of the last display is smaller or equal to @xmath272 . thus @xmath273    we now argue that @xmath274 is a local martingale . let @xmath275 and @xmath276 here @xmath277 is the generator of @xmath195 , that is , for @xmath278 , @xmath279 \mu_1^{(n)}(k).\ ] ] note that @xmath280 \mu^{(n)}_1(k ) \bigr)1_{\{x>1\}}\ ] ] and thus @xmath281 also , @xmath282 consider the markov process @xmath283 defined by @xmath284 denote by @xmath285 the generator of @xmath283 . then the action of the generator on the function @xmath286 with @xmath275 and @xmath287 is given by @xmath288 using ( [ eq5.28 ] ) we now have that @xmath289 is a local martingale . from ( [ eq5.29 ] ) we now see that the last expression equals @xmath290 , @xmath42 , which is thus a local martingale . we next show that for every @xmath209 , @xmath265 and @xmath42 , @xmath291 note that @xmath292\\[-12pt ] & = & \biggl(m^{(n),\delta}_t+\alpha^{(n)}_\delta \int_0^t e^{-\beta ^{(n),\delta}_s}\,d\hat \eta^{(n)}_s \biggr)e^{\beta^{(n),\delta}_t}.\nonumber \ ] ] applying it s formula and using ( [ eqinstep1 ] ) , ( [ eq5.28 ] ) and ( [ eq5.31 ] ) , we see that @xmath293 the estimate in ( [ eq5.30 ] ) now follows by combining the above inequality with lemma  [ lemevofsquaredsuprema ] and ( [ eqestimatealpha^bdelta ] ) . fix @xmath209 , @xmath294 and @xmath295 . then , since @xmath296 for all @xmath42 , we have for @xmath297 , @xmath298 where the last inequality follows on noting that @xmath299 is a submartingale and applying doob s inequality . now from ( [ eqestimatebeta^bdelta ] ) and ( [ eq5.30 ] ) , @xmath300 choose @xmath301 . then , by combining the above estimates , we can find a @xmath302 such that for all @xmath294 , @xmath84 and @xmath295 @xmath303^{1/2}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] dividing both sides by @xmath304^{1/2}$ ] yields @xmath305^{1/2}\le d_4(\delta,\rho , m)\ ] ] for any @xmath294 and @xmath84 . the result follows . proof of lemma  [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] for @xmath306 , define @xmath307 and @xmath308 from ( [ eqinstep1 ] ) , we have , for some @xmath309 , @xmath310 for all @xmath265 [ with @xmath264 as above ( [ eqinstep1 ] ) ] and @xmath311 . observing that with @xmath275 , @xmath312 , where @xmath313 is the generator of @xmath195 defined in ( [ eq5.27 ] ) , we have that @xmath314 is a local martingale . fix @xmath214 and @xmath315 as in the statement of lemma [ lemexpmomentsonfinitetime ] . without loss of generality , we can assume that @xmath265 . note that on the set @xmath316 we have @xmath317&\le&\delta \bigl[\hat x^{(n)}_{j\rho}- \hat x^{(n)}_{(j-1)\rho}\bigr]-\int_{(j-1)\rho } ^{j\rho}b^{(n)}_\delta \bigl(\hat x^{(n)}_s\bigr)\,ds-\delta\kappa\rho \nonumber\\[-8pt]\\[-8pt ] & \equiv & v^{(n)}_j-\delta\kappa\rho.\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] fix @xmath39 , and let @xmath318 be such that @xmath319 . then , similarly , on the set @xmath320 @xmath321\le v^{(n)}_{n}(t)$ ] , where @xmath322-\int_{(j-1)\rho}^{t}b^{(n)}_\delta \bigl(\hat x^{(n)}_s\bigr)\,ds.\ ] ] now , for a fixed @xmath323 , let @xmath324 be such that @xmath325 is the last interval in which @xmath195 visits 1 before time @xmath326 . we set @xmath327 if 1 is not visited before time  @xmath326 . we distinguish between the cases @xmath328 , @xmath329 and @xmath327 , where the latter corresponds to the case where 1 is not visited before time @xmath326 . _ case _ 1 : @xmath328 . in this case @xmath330 for @xmath331 , let @xmath332 and @xmath333.\ ] ] then @xmath334 combining the above estimates , we have @xmath335 thus , in this case @xmath336 where by convention @xmath337 for @xmath338 and @xmath339 .    _ case _ 2 : @xmath327 .    in this case , 1 is not visited before time @xmath326 and thus @xmath340    _ case _ 3 : @xmath329 . suppose first that there is an @xmath341 $ ] such that @xmath342 . it then follows that @xmath343 now suppose that there is no such @xmath341 $ ] . define @xmath344 to be such that @xmath345 is the last interval in which @xmath195 visits 1 before @xmath346 . once again we set @xmath347 if there is no such interval . if @xmath347 , we get exactly as in case 2 that @xmath348    if @xmath349 , then @xmath350    combining the three cases , we have @xmath351 thus , for any @xmath352 , @xmath353 \biggr ) e^{-\delta\kappa\rho(n - l-1 ) } \biggr]\\ & & \qquad\quad\hspace*{227.5pt}{}+ e_x\bigl(e^{\delta\theta ^{(n)}_n } \bigr ) \biggr).\end{aligned}\ ] ] recalling @xmath354 from ( [ equ^nmart ] ) and using its martingale property , we get @xmath355\\[-8pt ] & \le & e^{-m_0}e^{(1+x)\delta } \,d(\delta,\rho,1 ) \biggl(1 + \frac { 1}{1-e^{-\delta\kappa\rho } } \biggr),\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the last inequality follows from lemma [ lemexpmomentsonfinitetime ] and the observation that @xmath356 where @xmath357 is as in ( [ eqtheta^nj ] ) . finally , from ( [ eq5.36 ] ) , we get that for all @xmath42 and @xmath84 @xmath358 where @xmath359 . the result follows . proof of proposition  [ lemtighnessofcatalyst - reactant ] we will first consider the second part of the proposition . we begin by showing that @xmath360 is tight . for that , in view of ( [ eqevofsquaredsupremaofshiftedprocesses ] ) , it suffices to show that the following condition ( aldous  kurtz criterion ) holds : for each @xmath361 and @xmath362 there are @xmath262 and @xmath363 such that for all stopping times @xmath364 with @xmath365 , we have @xmath366    let @xmath367 be given . note that @xmath368 by ( [ eqestimateofshiftedhatx^noverfinitetime ] ) we have , for @xmath264 sufficiently small , @xmath369 it remains to prove that , for some @xmath262 , @xmath370 using the martingale property of @xmath371 , @xmath372 and , using ( [ eqpqvm^nphi1 ] ) , @xmath373 now , using ( [ eqestimateofshiftedhatx^noverfinitetime ] ) once more , we can choose @xmath262 such that ( [ eq5.40 ] ) holds . this proves tightness of @xmath360 and , using the continuity property of the skorohod map ( from @xmath374 to @xmath375 ) , that of @xmath376 and @xmath377 . tightness of @xmath378 now follows by using the uniform estimate in lemma  [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] . now we consider the first part of the proposition . tightness of @xmath379 follows as before . we now consider @xmath380 . fix @xmath381 . using ( [ eqestimateonhaty^n ] ) , we get , for @xmath382 , @xmath383 & \leq&\frac{e ( \sup_{t\leq t}(\hat y^{(n)}_{\sigma ^{(n)}_k\wedge t})^2 ) } { \tilde k^2}+p \bigl(\sup_{t\leq t}\bigl(\hat x^{(n)}_t\bigr)\geq k \bigr ) \\[-2pt ] & \leq&\frac{\exp(kt^2 k^2 ) ( y^{(n)}_0)^2}{\tilde k^2}+\frac{e ( \sup_{t\leq t}(\hat x^{(n)}_t)^2 ) } { k^2}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] using ( [ eqevofsquaredsuprema ] ) , we can choose @xmath17 such that @xmath384 now choose @xmath385 such that @xmath386 the last two displays imply @xmath387 , and since @xmath381 is arbitrary , the tightness of the random variables @xmath388 , for each @xmath389 , follows . to establish the tightness of the processes @xmath390 , it now suffices to show that for each @xmath361 and @xmath391 there are @xmath262 and @xmath363 such that for all stopping times @xmath364 with @xmath365 , we have @xmath392 fix @xmath393 . then , for any @xmath394 , @xmath395 & & \qquad \leq p \bigl(\bigl|\hat y^{(n)}_{(\tau_n+\theta)\wedge\sigma ^{(n)}_k}-\hat y^{(n)}_{\tau_n\wedge\sigma^{(n)}_k}\bigr| \geq\gamma \bigr)+p \bigl(\sigma^{(n)}_k\leq m+1 \bigr).\end{aligned}\ ] ] taking @xmath396 and @xmath17 as in ( [ eqsupe|x^n|k ] ) , we have @xmath397 for all @xmath84 . for the first term on the right - hand side of the last display , we get , using ( [ eqhaty^nb^n2 ] ) and that @xmath398 , @xmath399 & & \qquad \leq p \biggl(\biggl|c_2^{(n)}\lambda^{(n)}_2 \int_{\tau _ n\wedge\sigma^{(n)}_k}^{(\tau_n+\theta)\wedge\sigma^{(n)}_k}\hat y^{(n)}_s \,ds\biggr|\geq\frac{\gamma}{2k } \biggr ) \\[-2pt ] & & \qquad\quad { } + p \biggl(\bigl|m^{(n)}_{(\tau_n+\theta)\wedge \sigma^{(n)}_k}(\phi_2)-m^{(n)}_{\tau_n\wedge\sigma^{(n)}_k } ( \phi_2)\bigr|\geq\frac{\gamma}{2 } \biggr).\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the first term on the right - hand side can be bounded as follows : @xmath400 where @xmath253 is the constant from ( [ eqestimateonhaty^n ] ) . thus , for @xmath264 sufficiently small , we get @xmath401 the second term on the right - hand side of ( [ eq5.43 ] ) can be bounded as follows : @xmath402 using ( [ eqestimateonhaty^n ] ) once more , we have that , for @xmath264 sufficiently small , the second term in ( [ eq5.43 ] ) is bounded by @xmath403 . combining the above estimates , we now see that ( [ eq5.42 ] ) holds , and thus tightness of @xmath404 follows .    proof of lemma  [ lempsupdeltahatx^nt ] consider ( [ eqpsupdeltahatx^nt ] ) . let @xmath405 be the number of deaths of particles of the ( unscaled ) process @xmath1 in the time interval @xmath406 $ ] . . then @xmath408 by corollary  [ corevofsquaredsupremaofshiftedhatx^n ] , we can choose @xmath409 such that @xmath410 for @xmath219 and @xmath84 . next , consider @xmath411 note that on the set @xmath412 the branching rates of @xmath1 are bounded during the time interval @xmath406 $ ] , uniformly in @xmath413 and @xmath2 , and thus we can choose a @xmath414 such that for @xmath219 and @xmath84 @xmath415 finally , let , for @xmath84 , @xmath416 be i.i.d . random variables distributed as @xmath417 . then , since the variance of the offspring distribution converges , we have for @xmath363 sufficiently large and all @xmath418 , @xmath419 combining the above estimates , ( [ eqpsupdeltahatx^nt ] ) follows . the limit in ( [ eqpsupdeltahaty^nt ] ) can be established similarly , using lemma  [ lemevofsquaredsuprema ] instead of corollary  [ corevofsquaredsupremaofshiftedhatx^n ] ; the proof is therefore omitted . the following martingale characterization result will be useful in the proof of theorem  [ thmcrdiffusion ] . the proof is standard and is omitted ; see  @xcite ,  @xcite ,  @xcite and theorem 5.3 of  @xcite .    for @xmath420 , let @xmath421 let @xmath422 and @xmath423 be the corresponding borel @xmath27-field ( with respect to the skorohod topology ) . denote by @xmath424 the canonical filtration on @xmath425 , that is , @xmath426 , where @xmath427 for @xmath428 . finally , let @xmath429 , @xmath173 , be the coordinate processes , that is , @xmath430 . [ thmmartingalecharacterization ] let @xmath431 be a probability measure on @xmath432 under which the following hold a.s . :    @xmath433 is a nondecreasing , continuous process , and @xmath434 ;    @xmath435 is an @xmath436 valued continuous process ;    @xmath437 ;    for all @xmath420 @xmath438 is an @xmath439 martingale ;    @xmath440,where @xmath441 and @xmath442 are as in proposition [ propuniqunessofx , y ] .    then @xmath443 . proof of theorem  [ thmcrdiffusion ] recall that for @xmath420 , we have @xmath444 where @xmath445 is a martingale , and @xmath446 is as defined in ( [ eqgeneratorofwholeprocess ] ) . also note that @xmath447 can be rewritten as @xmath448 where @xmath449\mu_1^{(n)}(k ) \\ & & { } + \lambda_2^{(n ) } n^2 x y \sum _ { k=0}^\infty \biggl[\phi \biggl(x , y+\frac{k-1}{n } \biggr)-\phi(x , y ) \biggr]\mu_2^{(n)}(k)\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath450 thus , using ( [ hateta^n ] ) , ( [ eq6.1 ] ) can be rewritten as @xmath451 recall the path space @xmath452 introduced above theorem  [ thmmartingalecharacterization ] . denote by @xmath453 the measure induced by @xmath454 on @xmath425 and by @xmath455 the corresponding expectation .    from proposition  [ lemtighnessofcatalyst - reactant ] , @xmath456 is tight . let @xmath431 be a limit point of @xmath457 along some subsequence @xmath458 . in order to complete the proof , it suffices to show that under @xmath431 properties ( i)(v ) in theorem  [ thmmartingalecharacterization ] hold almost surely . property  ( i ) is immediate from the fact that @xmath232 is nondecreasing and continuous with initial value 0 for each  @xmath2 . also , property ( v ) is immediate from the fact that @xmath459 , a.s . , for each @xmath2 . next , consider property ( ii ) . the continuity of @xmath460 and @xmath461 follows by ( [ eqpsupdeltahaty^nt ] ) ; see  @xcite , proposition vi.3.26 , page 315 .    to see ( iii ) , consider , for @xmath462 , continuous bounded test functions @xmath463 such that @xmath464 note that , for each @xmath84 , @xmath465 and thus , for each @xmath462 , @xmath466 consequently , for each @xmath462 , @xmath467 , almost surely w.r.t . the property in ( iii ) now follows on sending @xmath468 . finally , we consider part ( iv ) . it suffices to show that for every @xmath469 @xmath470 where @xmath471 is an arbitrary bounded , continuous , @xmath472 measurable map . now fix such @xmath473 and @xmath107 . then by weak convergence of @xmath474 to @xmath431 and using the moment bound in lemma  [ lemevofsquaredsuprema ] , @xmath475 to complete the proof , it suffices to show that the limit on the left - hand side above is 0 . in view of the martingale property in ( [ eq6.1 ] ) , to show this , it suffices to prove that for @xmath420 , @xmath476 and @xmath477 the latter is immediate upon using the smoothness of @xmath108 and the moment estimate for @xmath232 in ( [ eqevofsquaredsuprema ] ) . for ( [ eqh4forsingletypecont ] ) , we rewrite @xmath478 using a taylor expansion as follows : @xmath479\mu_1^{(n)}(k ) \\ & & \qquad\quad { } + \lambda_2^{(n ) } n^2 xy \sum _ { k=0}^\infty \biggl[\frac { k-1}{n } \,\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\phi(x , y)+\frac{1}{2 } \biggl(\frac{k-1}{n } \biggr)^2\,\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}\phi(x , y ) \biggr]\mu_2^{(n)}(k ) \\ & & \qquad\quad { } + r^{(n)}(x , y ) \\ & & \qquad = c_1^{(n)}\lambda_1^{(n ) } x \,\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\phi ( x , y)+\frac{1}{2}\alpha_1^{(n ) } \lambda_1^{(n ) } x \,\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\phi(x , y ) \\ & & \qquad\quad { } + c_2^{(n ) } \lambda_2^{(n ) } x y \,\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\phi(x , y)+\frac{1}{2}\alpha_2^{(n ) } \lambda_2^{(n ) } x y \,\frac { \partial^2}{\partial y^2}\phi(x , y)+r^{(n)}(x , y),\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the term @xmath480 is a remainder term , which , using part ( iii ) of condition  [ conditioncr ] , is seen to satisfy @xmath481 as @xmath57 , for any @xmath482 . furthermore , using the compact support property of @xmath483 , it follows that @xmath484 . next note that @xmath485 and therefore , in view of condition  [ conditioncr ] , @xmath486 once more using the compact support property of @xmath108 , it follows that @xmath487 combining the above estimates , we have ( [ eqh4forsingletypecont ] ) , and the result follows . uniqueness of the invariant measure of @xmath127 is an immediate consequence of the nondegeneracy of the diffusion coefficient ( note that @xmath488 ) . for existence , we will apply an extension of the well - known echeverria criterion for invariant measures of markov processes  @xcite and theorem  5.7 of @xcite . this criterion , in the current context , says that in order to establish that a probability measure @xmath489 is an invariant measure for @xmath127 , it suffices to verify that for some @xmath490 and all @xmath491 @xmath492 where @xmath493    we now show that ( [ eqewk - criterion ] ) holds with @xmath494 and @xmath495 . for @xmath496 and @xmath497 as in ( [ eqdensityofnu1 ] ) , @xmath498 thus ( [ eqewk - criterion ] ) follows .      throughout this section we assume that conditions  [ conditioncr ] , [ conditionc1 ] and  [ conditionmoment ] hold . this will not be explicitly noted in the statements of the results . existence of a stationary distribution @xmath139 of the @xmath499 valued markov process @xmath195 follows from the tightness of @xmath500 , which is a consequence of lemma [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] . the uniqueness of the stationary distribution follows from the irreducibility of @xmath195 .    in order to establish the tightness of the sequence @xmath140 , we will use the following uniform in @xmath2 moment stability estimate for @xmath195 . [ thmmomentstability ] there is a @xmath501 such that for all @xmath502 and @xmath503 , @xmath504    fix an @xmath505 , and let @xmath506 . observe that if @xmath507 for some @xmath318 , then , following arguments as in the proof of lemma [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] , for @xmath508 , @xmath509 thus we have that @xmath510 where @xmath511 , @xmath82 . the above estimate along with lemma  [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] implies , for @xmath84 , @xmath512 where @xmath513 is as in lemma  [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] and @xmath514 is some constant , independent of @xmath2 . fix @xmath503 . then , for some @xmath515 , we have @xmath516 choose @xmath517 large enough such that @xmath518 . then for @xmath519 @xmath520 the result follows .    as a consequence of theorem  [ thmmomentstability ] , we have the following result . for @xmath521 , define the return time to a compact set @xmath522 by @xmath523 there are @xmath524 and a compact set @xmath522 such that @xmath525    note that @xmath526 since @xmath527 . applying theorem  [ thmmomentstability ] with @xmath528 , we have that there is an @xmath529 such that with @xmath530 , for all @xmath531 , @xmath532 where @xmath517 is as in theorem  [ thmmomentstability ] . let @xmath533 and @xmath534 consider a sequence of stopping times defined as follows : @xmath535 let @xmath536 , and @xmath537 then @xmath538 let @xmath539 . we claim that there is a @xmath540 such that for all @xmath541 , @xmath542 @xmath543 due to the strong markov property , to prove the claim it suffices to show that for some @xmath540 and for all @xmath544 @xmath545 note that for @xmath311 , @xmath546 , where @xmath547 . using this bound along with lemma [ lemevofsquaredsuprema ] , we get , for some @xmath548 , @xmath549 the claim follows .    from the estimate ( [ eqclaimaa ] ) , we now have @xmath550 note that @xmath551 is a markov chain with transition probability kernel @xmath552 where @xmath553 is the transition probability kernel for @xmath138 . using ( [ eqexpmomentoutsidecompact ] ) and lemma  [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] , we get that for any @xmath529 there exists a @xmath554 such that for all @xmath555 @xmath556\\[-8pt ] & & { } + \sup_n \int_1^\infty y^3 p^{(n)}_{t_0 l}(x , dy ) 1_{\{x\leq l\ } } \nonumber\\ & \leq & x^3-\frac{1}{2}x^3+\tilde b 1_{[0,l]}(x ) . \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the above inequality along with theorem 14.2.2 of  @xcite yields @xmath557 } \bigl(\hat x^{(n)}_{\sigma ^{(n)}_k } \bigr ) \biggr ) \biggr ) \\ & = & 2 \bigl(x^3+\tilde b 1_{[0,l]}(x ) \bigr)\le\tilde c x^3,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the equality in the last display follows from the fact that @xmath558 for @xmath559 . the result follows now on combining the last estimate with  ( [ eq7.7 ] ) . the following theorem is proved exactly as proposition 5.4 of @xcite . the proof is omitted . [ thmestimatefx^nbyv^n ] let @xmath560 be a measurable function . define for @xmath561 and a compact set @xmath522 @xmath562 if @xmath563 is everywhere finite and uniformly bounded on @xmath564 , then there exists a @xmath565 such that for all @xmath566 @xmath567    we now return to the proof of theorem  [ thmtightnessandconvergenceofnu^n1 ] and establish the tightness of @xmath140 . we will apply theorem  [ thmestimatefx^nbyv^n ] with @xmath568 , and @xmath569 as in theorem  [ thmintegratingtillreturntime ] . since @xmath139 is an invariant measure for @xmath195 , we have for nonnegative , real valued , measurable functions @xmath570 on @xmath4 @xmath571 fix @xmath192 and let @xmath572 . let @xmath573 by ( [ eq7.9 ] ) , we have that @xmath574 . let @xmath575 by the monotone convergence theorem @xmath576 as @xmath577 . we next show that @xmath578 is bounded from below for all @xmath579 : if @xmath580 , then @xmath581 where the last inequality follows from theorem [ thmestimatefx^nbyv^n ] . if @xmath582 , @xmath583 thus @xmath584 for all @xmath311 . by fatou s lemma , we have @xmath585 by theorem  [ thmestimatefx^nbyv^n ] we have @xmath586 . combining this with the last display , we have @xmath587 using the invariance property of @xmath139 once more , we see that the first term on the right - hand side above equals @xmath588 , and therefore@xmath589 . this completes the proof of tightness . the tightness of @xmath140 implies that every subsequence of @xmath590 has a convergent subsequence . call such a limit @xmath591 . theorem  [ thmcrdiffusion ] and the stationarity of @xmath139 imply that @xmath591 is a stationary distribution of @xmath127 . since the stationary distribution of @xmath127 is unique , we have @xmath592 , which completes the proof.=-1 in order to prove the result , we will verify that the assumptions of theorem ii.1 ( more precisely , those in the remark following theorem ii.1 ) in  @xcite , pages 78 and 79 , hold . for this , it suffices to show that for all @xmath192 , @xmath593 , @xmath594 and @xmath595 , there exists a sequence @xmath596 with @xmath597 and @xmath598}\bigl{\vert}e \bigl[\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1},\ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k } \bigr ) \bigl(\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t+h_n } \bigr)-\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t } \bigr)-h_n\check l\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t \bigr ) \bigr ) \bigr]\bigr{\vert}\nonumber\\[-8pt]\\[-8pt ] & & \qquad = o(h_n),\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath599 is given as @xmath600    letting @xmath601 , @xmath42 , we see , using scaling properties of the skorohod map and straight forward martingale characterization results , that @xmath602 has the same probability law as the process @xmath127 that was introduced in proposition [ propuniqunessofx , y ] with initial value @xmath603 . the following uniform moment bound will be used in the proof of theorem [ thmfastcatalystweaklimit ] . [ lemunifmombdx ] there exists a @xmath604 , such that whenever @xmath127 is as in proposition  [ propuniqunessofx , y ] with initial value @xmath605 , for some @xmath579 , we have @xmath606    we begin by establishing exponential moment estimates for the increase of @xmath607 over time intervals of length @xmath608 when the process is away from the boundary 1 , where @xmath297 and @xmath609 . fix @xmath610 . let @xmath611 , @xmath612 and @xmath613 . note that in view of condition  [ conditionc1 ] , @xmath614 . define @xmath615 and @xmath616 . then @xmath617 where the inequality follows on noting that @xmath618 and @xmath619 . using the super martingale property of the stochastic exponential , we have that the second term on the right - hand side of the last display is bounded by 1 . thus , sending @xmath620 , we have , with @xmath621 , @xmath622    next , for @xmath579 , we have by application of it s formula that for @xmath623 and @xmath624 , @xmath625 where @xmath626 and the last inequality follows by an application of gronwall s lemma and the lipschitz property of the skorohod map ; see  ( [ eqskorohodlipschitz ] ) .    using the above estimates , we will now establish certain uniform estimates on the tail probabilities of @xmath627 , which will lead to exponential moment estimates at these time points . fix @xmath505 , and let @xmath628 @xmath629 . fix @xmath192 , and let @xmath630 if there is an @xmath631 $ ] such that @xmath632 , and set @xmath633 equal to 0 otherwise . let @xmath634 then @xmath635 . letting @xmath636 , we have , using  ( [ eq8.3 ] ) , @xmath637 next note that , from ( [ eq8.4 ] ) , @xmath638 } 1_{\tau_i < i\rho } \bigr)+1=e_x \bigl ( e^{-\delta x_{\tau_i}}1_{\tau _ i < i\rho } e_{x_{\tau_i } } \bigl(e^{\delta x_{i\rho } } \bigr ) \bigr)+1 \\ & \le & e_x \bigl[e^{-\delta x_{\tau_i}}1_{\tau_i < i\rho } \bigl(e^{\delta x_{\tau_i}}+x_{\tau_i } c_1(\rho,\delta ) \bigr ) \bigr]+1\equiv c_2(\rho,\delta)+1.\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence , @xmath639 the last estimate yields , analogously to ( [ eq5.38 ] ) , @xmath640 for some @xmath641 . finally , letting @xmath642 , we have from ( [ eq8.4 ] ) for @xmath643 $ ] , @xmath644 , @xmath645 the result follows . [ remunifmombdcheckx^n ] note that lemma  [ lemunifmombdx ] and the scaling property noted above that lemma say that for all @xmath579 @xmath646    we now prove theorem  [ thmfastcatalystweaklimit ] by showing ( [ eqstochaveragcriterion ] ) . let , for @xmath594 , @xmath647 then @xmath648 \nonumber \\ & & \qquad = e \biggl[\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1},\ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k } \bigr ) \int_t^{t+h_n } \mathcal{l}_{\check x^{(n)}_s}\phi\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t\bigr)\,ds \biggr ] \\ & & \qquad\quad { } + e \biggl[\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1},\ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k } \bigr ) \int_t^{t+h_n } \bigl(\mathcal{l}_{\check x^{(n)}_s}\phi\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_s \bigr)- \mathcal{l}_{\check x^{(n)}_s}\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t \bigr ) \bigr)\,ds \biggr].\hspace*{-15pt}\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] for the second term , we have , using remark  [ remunifmombdcheckx^n ] and the fact that the function @xmath570 is bounded and @xmath108 as well as its derivatives are continuous with bounded support , that @xmath649 } e \biggl|\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1},\ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k } \bigr ) \int_t^{t+h_n } \bigl(\mathcal{l}_{\check x^{(n)}_s } \phi\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_s\bigr)- \mathcal{l}_{\check x^{(n)}_s } \phi\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t\bigr ) \bigr)\,ds \biggr| \nonumber \\ & & \qquad= \sup_{t\in[t_{k+1},t ] } e \biggl|\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1 } , \ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k } \bigr ) \nonumber\\ & & \qquad\quad\hspace*{48pt}{}\times\int_t^{t+h_n } \biggl[c_2\lambda_2\check x^{(n)}_s \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_s\phi'\bigl ( \check y^{(n)}_s\bigr)-\check y^{(n)}_t \phi'\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t\bigr ) \bigr ) \\ & & \hspace*{93.3pt}\qquad\quad { } + \frac{1}{2}\alpha_2\lambda_2 \check x^{(n)}_s \bigl ( \check y^{(n)}_s \phi''\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_s \bigr)-\check y^{(n)}_t\phi '' \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t\bigr ) \bigr ) \biggr]\,ds \biggr|\nonumber\\ & & \qquad = o(h_n).\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] recalling the definition of @xmath602 above lemma  [ lemunifmombdx ] , the first expected value on the right - hand side in ( [ eqab ] ) equals @xmath650.\ ] ] thus @xmath651 \\ & & \qquad = e \biggl[\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1},\ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k } \bigr ) h_n \biggl(\frac{1}{h_n a_n } \int_{ta_n}^{ta_n+h_na_n } \mathcal{l } _ { x^\circ_s}\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t\bigr)\,ds-\check{\mathcal{l}}\phi\bigl ( \check y^{(n)}_t\bigr ) \biggr ) \biggr]\\ & & \qquad\quad{}+o(h_n ) \\ & & \qquad = e \biggl[\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1},\ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k } \bigr ) h_n \biggl(c_2 \lambda_2\check y^{(n)}_t\phi ' \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t\bigr)+\frac { 1}{2 } \alpha_2\lambda_2 \check y^{(n)}_t \phi''\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t \bigr ) \biggr ) \\ & & \hspace*{173.4pt}{}\times \biggl(\frac{1}{h_na_n}\int_{ta_n}^{ta_n+h_na_n } x^\circ_s \,ds - m_x \biggr ) \biggr]\\ & & \qquad\quad{}+o(h_n).\end{aligned}\ ] ] to complete the proof , it thus remains to show that for some sequence @xmath652 with @xmath597 @xmath653 converges to 0 uniformly in @xmath654 $ ] . from the ergodicity of @xmath127 and the moment estimate in lemma [ lemunifmombdx ] , it follows that @xmath655 the above result , along with lemma  [ lemshiftintegrallimits ] , below , implies that there is a sequence @xmath652 such that @xmath656 , and the expression in ( [ eqc ] ) converges to 0 uniformly in @xmath657 $ ] . this completes the proof . the proof of the following lemma is adapted from lemma ii.9 , page 137 , in  @xcite . [ lemshiftintegrallimits ] let @xmath658 and @xmath659 monotonically as @xmath57 . if for all @xmath654 $ ] @xmath660 then there is a sequence @xmath652 such that @xmath661 as @xmath662 , and @xmath663}e\biggl{\vert}\frac{1}{h_na_n}\int_{ta_n}^{ta_n+h_na_n}x_s\,ds - m_x \biggr{\vert}\to0\qquad \mbox{as } n\to \infty.\ ] ]    let @xmath664 . note that @xmath665 converges monotonically to 0 as @xmath666 . for @xmath654 $ ] we have @xmath667 for all @xmath2 such that @xmath668 . note that the right - hand side of the last display is independent of @xmath654 $ ] . choosing @xmath669 , the lemma follows .      as in the proof of theorem  [ thmfastcatalystweaklimit ] , it suffices to show that for all @xmath192 , @xmath593 , @xmath594 and @xmath595 , there exists a sequence @xmath596 with @xmath597 and @xmath663}\bigl|e\bigl[\phi\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1},\ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k}\bigr ) \bigl(\phi\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t+h_n}\bigr)-\phi\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t } \bigr)-h_n\check l\phi\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t \bigr)\bigr)\bigr]\bigr|=o(h_n),\ ] ] where @xmath599 is given as in ( [ eq8.2 ] ) . let for @xmath594 and @xmath670 @xmath671 \mu_2^{(n)}(k)\ ] ] and recall @xmath672 from ( [ eq8.6 ] ) . then @xmath673 \nonumber\\ & & \qquad = e \biggl[\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1},\ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k } \bigr ) \int_t^{t+h_n } \mathcal{l}^{(n)}_{\check x^{(n)}_s}\phi\bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t \bigr)\,ds \biggr ] \\ & & \qquad\quad { } + e \biggl[\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1},\ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k } \bigr ) \int_t^{t+h_n } \bigl [ \mathcal{l}^{(n ) } _ { \check x^{(n)}_s}\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_s \bigr)-\mathcal{l}^{(n ) } _ { \check x^{(n)}_s } \phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t \bigr ) \bigr]\,ds \biggr ] . \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] using lemma  [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] , we get , as in ( [ eqsecondterm ] ) , that the second term in the last display is @xmath674 uniformly in @xmath654 $ ] . thus @xmath675 \nonumber\\ & & \qquad = e \biggl[\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1},\ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k } \bigr ) \biggl(\int_{t}^{t+h_n } \bigl(\mathcal{l}^{(n ) } _ { \check x^{(n)}_s}\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t \bigr)-\mathcal{l}_{\check x^{(n)}_s}\phi \bigl ( \check y^{(n)}_t \bigr ) \bigr ) \,ds \biggr ) \biggr ] \nonumber\\[-8pt]\\[-8pt ] & & \qquad\quad{}+ e \biggl[\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_{t_1},\ldots,\check y^{(n)}_{t_k } \bigr ) h_n \biggl(\frac{1}{h_n } \int_{t}^{t+h_n } \mathcal{l } _ { \check x^{(n)}_s}\phi \bigl(\check y^{(n)}_t\bigr)\,ds-\check{\mathcal{l}}\phi\bigl ( \check y^{(n)}_t\bigr ) \biggr ) \biggr]\nonumber\\ & & \qquad\quad{}+o(h_n ) . \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] calculations similar to those in the proof of theorem [ thmcrdiffusion ] show that the first term on the right - hand side in the last display is @xmath674 uniformly in @xmath654 $ ] [ see proof of ( [ eqh4forsingletypecont ] ) ] , while the second term can be written as @xmath676.\end{aligned}\ ] ] to show that the latter term is @xmath674 uniformly in @xmath657 $ ] , it suffices to show the following result . [ th8.1 ] as @xmath57 @xmath663 } e\biggl{\vert}e_{\check{\mathcal{f}}^{(n)}_t } \biggl(\frac{1}{h_n } \int_{t}^{t+h_n}\check x^{(n)}_s \,ds - m_x \biggr)\biggr{\vert}\to0,\ ] ] where @xmath677 and @xmath678 .    in order to prove this theorem , we need the following three results . let @xmath679 , @xmath26 be the space of probability measures on @xmath25 , and , given a sequence @xmath680 $ ] , @xmath681 be a sequence of @xmath26 valued random variables defined as follows . for @xmath682 , @xmath683\,ds.\ ] ] let @xmath684 . [ lemrandommeasuretight ] the family of @xmath26 valued random variables @xmath685 is tight , and any weak limit point is a @xmath686 valued random variable . let @xmath687 with @xmath460 and @xmath461 being the canonical coordinate processes on @xmath688 . [ lemrandommeasurelimit ] let @xmath199 be a weak limit point of @xmath689 given on some probability space @xmath690 . then for @xmath691 a.e . @xmath692 , @xmath693 satisfies the following :    a.   @xmath694 , for all @xmath42 ; @xmath695 ; b.   @xmath461 is nondecreasing and @xmath696 a.s . @xmath693 ; c.   @xmath697 a.s . d.   under @xmath693 , for all @xmath491 @xmath698 is a @xmath699-martingale , where @xmath700 is as in ( [ eq7.2 ] ) and . we postpone the proofs of lemmas  [ lemrandommeasuretight ] and [ lemrandommeasurelimit ] until after the proof of theorem  [ th8.1 ] . the following is immediate from the above two lemmas , proposition [ propstationarydistrofx ] and the martingale characterization of the probability law of the process in ( [ eqx ] ) ; see theorem  [ thmmartingalecharacterization ] . [ lemrandommeasurelimitcorollary ] let @xmath701 be as in proposition  [ propuniqunessofx , y ] with @xmath702 and @xmath132 given as in proposition [ propstationarydistrofx ] . let @xmath703 be the probability measure on @xmath688 induced by @xmath701 . then @xmath681 converges weakly to @xmath703 . proof of theorem  [ th8.1 ] it suffices to show that for an arbitrary sequence @xmath704 $ ] we have , as @xmath57 , @xmath705 since @xmath706 it suffices to show that @xmath707 for any @xmath708 , let @xmath709 be the following continuous function : @xmath710 and @xmath709 is linearly interpolated on @xmath711 $ ] . by corollary  [ lemrandommeasurelimitcorollary ] @xmath681 converges weakly to  @xmath703 , and therefore , for every @xmath708 , @xmath712 moreover , using the estimate in lemma  [ lemsuptsupnexpmoment ] , @xmath713 and @xmath714 the last three displays imply the convergence in ( [ eq8.14 ] ) , and thus the result follows . proof of lemma  [ lemrandommeasuretight ] to show the tightness of @xmath689 , it suffices to show that @xmath715 is tight , where for @xmath682 @xmath716\,ds.\ ] ] however , the tightness of @xmath717 is immediate in view of the tightness of @xmath718 which was proved in proposition  [ lemtighnessofcatalyst - reactant ] . let @xmath199 be a weak limit point of @xmath681 and @xmath719 be defined by @xmath720\,du,\ ] ] where @xmath721 then @xmath722 is continuous and bounded on @xmath25 , and in order to show that @xmath199 is supported on @xmath688 , it suffices to show that @xmath723 ; see  @xcite , page 147 . in turn , for the latter equality to hold , it suffices to show that for all @xmath381 , @xmath724 as @xmath57 . now @xmath725\wedge1 \bigr)\,du>\varepsilon \biggr ) \,ds.\end{aligned}\ ] ] finally , noting that @xmath726 is continuous and using lemma  [ lempsupdeltahatx^nt ] , we now have that the right - hand side of the latter equation converges to 0 as @xmath57 . the result follows . proof of lemma  [ lemrandommeasurelimit ] for a measure @xmath727 , let @xmath728 denote the expectation operator . for ( a ) , we show that @xmath729\\[-8pt ] & & \eqntext{\mbox{a.s . for all bounded continuous } f\mbox { on } s.}\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that @xmath730 this proves ( [ eq8.15 ] ) since we can choose @xmath596 such that @xmath731 , and thus ( a ) follows . property ( b ) is immediate from the fact that @xmath732 is nondecreasing and continuous with initial value 0 for each @xmath2 . to prove ( c ) , it suffices to show that for a.e . @xmath323 and for every @xmath733 @xmath734 where @xmath735 is defined in ( [ eqfdelta ] ) . in turn , for the above equality to hold , it suffices to show that @xmath736 the latter equality is immediate on noting that for every @xmath733 @xmath737 & & \qquad = \frac{1}{a_nh_n}\int_{a_nt_n}^{a_nt_n+a_nh_n}e \biggl(\int _ 0^t f_\delta\bigl(\hat x^{(n)}_{s+u}\bigr)\,d\bigl(\hat\eta^{(n)}_{s+\cdot}- \hat \eta^{(n)}_s\bigr ) ( u)\wedge1 \biggr ) \,ds=0\end{aligned}\ ] ] and thus @xmath738=\lim_{n\to\infty } e \biggl[\tilde e^{\mu_n } \biggl(\int_0^t f_\delta\bigl(\pi^{(1)}_s\bigr)\,d \pi^{(2)}_s\wedge1 \biggr ) \biggr]=0.\ ] ] finally , consider ( d ) . it suffices to show that for every @xmath739 , @xmath740 & & \hspace*{151.5pt}\qquad{}- \phi'(1)\bigl[\pi_t^{(2)}- \pi_r^{(2)}\bigr ] \biggr ) \biggr ) \biggr|=0,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath741 is an arbitrary bounded , continuous , @xmath742 measurable map . now fix such @xmath743 and @xmath107 . assume without loss of generality that @xmath681 converges to @xmath199 . combining this weak convergence with lemma  [ lemevofsquaredsupremaofshiftedprocesses ] , we see that the left - hand side of the last display is the limit of @xmath744 & & \qquad\quad\hspace*{144.5pt}{}- \phi'(1)\bigl[\pi_t^{(2)}-\pi_r^{(2 ) } \bigr]\biggr ) \biggr ) \biggr| \\[-2pt ] & & \qquad=\frac{1}{a_nh_n}\int_{a_nt_n}^{a_nt_n+a_nh_n } e \biggl| e_{\check{\mathcal{f}}_{t_n } } \biggl(\psi\bigl(\hat x^{(n)}_{s+\cdot},\hat \eta^{(n)}_{s+\cdot}-\hat\eta^{(n)}_s\bigr ) \\[-2pt ] & & \hspace*{146.2pt}{}\times \biggl[\phi\bigl(\hat x^{(n)}_{s+t}\bigr)-\phi\bigl(\hat x^{(n)}_{s+r}\bigr ) \\[-2pt ] & & \qquad\quad\hspace*{130pt}{}-\int_r^t \mathcal{l}_1\phi\bigl(\hat x^{(n)}_{s+u } \bigr)\,du\\[-2pt ] & & \qquad\quad\hspace*{130pt}{}-\phi'(1)\bigl[\hat\eta^{(n)}_{s+t}-\hat \eta^{(n)}_{s+r}\bigr ] \biggr ] \biggr ) \biggr|\,ds.\end{aligned}\ ] ] to complete the proof , it suffices to show that the limit of the expression in the last display is 0 . note that for @xmath491 , @xmath745 is a martingale , where @xmath746 $ ] and @xmath747\mu_1^{(n)}(k).\ ] ] thus , it suffices to prove that @xmath748 and @xmath749 the proofs for the last two equalities are completed as those for ( [ eqh4forsingletypecont ] ) and ( [ eqeintd^n - phi ] ) upon using the uniform estimates in corollary  [ corevofsquaredsupremaofshiftedhatx^n ] and lemma  [ lemevofsquaredsupremaofshiftedprocesses ] . proof of proposition  [ propuniqunessofx , y ] we will consider here only the case where @xmath750 for some @xmath751 . the general case can be treated similarly . the unique solvability of ( [ eqx ] ) is an immediate consequence of the lipschitz property of the skorohod map , lipschitz coefficients ( note that @xmath752 is a lipschitz function on @xmath4 ) and a standard picard iteration scheme ; see , for example , proposition 1 in  @xcite . we next argue the unique solvability of ( [ eqy ] ) . for @xmath84 , let @xmath753 , @xmath754 and @xmath755 . consider the equation @xmath756\\[-8pt ] & & { } + \sqrt{\alpha_2 \lambda_2}\int_0^t \sqrt { \bar x^{(n)}_s f^{(n)}\bigl ( \bar y^{(n)}_s\bigr ) } \,db_s^y.\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] from the lipschitz property of @xmath757 and @xmath758 it follows that , for each @xmath2 , the above equation has a unique pathwise solution . let @xmath759 and @xmath760 . note that @xmath761 solves ( [ eqy ] ) on @xmath762 $ ] . also , by unique solvability of ( [ eqcheckyinpropuniqunessofx , y ] ) , we have for all @xmath84 , @xmath763 finally , letting @xmath764 , the unique solution of ( [ eqy ] ) is given by the following : @xmath765 we thank the editor , the associate editor and the referees for their comments that led to several improvements in the manuscript .
Abstract:

Answer: near critical catalyst - reactant branching processes with controlled immigration are studied . the reactant population evolves according to a branching process whose branching rate is proportional to the total mass of the catalyst . the bulk catalyst evolution is that of a classical continuous time branching process ; in addition there is a specific form of immigration . immigration takes place exactly when the catalyst population falls below a certain threshold , in which case the population is instantaneously replenished to the threshold . such models are motivated by problems in chemical kinetics where one wants to keep the level of a catalyst above a certain threshold in order to maintain a desired level of reaction activity . a diffusion limit theorem for the scaled processes is presented , in which the catalyst limit is described through a reflected diffusion , while the reactant limit is a diffusion with coefficients that are functions of both the reactant and the catalyst . stochastic averaging principles under fast catalyst dynamics are established . in the case where the catalyst evolves `` much faster '' than the reactant , a scaling limit , in which the reactant is described through a one dimensional sde with coefficients depending on the invariant distribution of the reflected diffusion , is obtained . proofs rely on constrained martingale problem characterizations , lyapunov function constructions , moment estimates that are uniform in time and the scaling parameter and occupation measure techniques .