Consider the Fokker-Planck equation $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = \sum_{i,j=1}^2 \mathbf{\Gamma}_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}(x_j \rho) + \mathbf{D}_{ij}\frac{\partial^2 \rho}{\partial x_i \partial x_j}$$ where $$\rho = \begin{pmatrix} x \\ v \end{pmatrix} \quad \mathbf{\Gamma} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -1 \\ 0 & \gamma\end{bmatrix} \quad \mathbf{D} = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & D \gamma^2 \end{bmatrix} \, .$$ These equations represent diffusion where $\gamma$ is the coefficient of friction and $D=k_b T / \gamma m$ is the diffusion constant.
I'm reading Elements of Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics by Balakrishnan wherein this equation is studied. The book points out that this Fokker-Planck equation is equivalent to the following Lengevin equation $$\dot{\mathbf{x}} + \mathbf{\Gamma} \mathbf{x} = \frac{1}{m} \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ \eta(t) \end{pmatrix}$$ where $$\mathbf{x} = \begin{pmatrix} x \\ v \end{pmatrix}$$ and where $\eta(t)$ is white noise satisfying $\langle \eta(t) \eta(t') \rangle = 2 m \gamma k_b T \delta(t-t').$ So far this is all fine.
The author writes
The Langevin equation is solved with the help of the matrix Green function $$\mathbf{G}(t) = \exp(-\mathbf{\Gamma} t) \equiv \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(-\mathbf{\Gamma}t)^n}{n!} \, .$$
This is annoying because the noise $\eta$ is left out. However, the author then writes
We are concerned with sharp initial conditions $\mathbf{x}_0 = (x_0, v_0)$. The average value of $\mathbf{x}$, conditioned upon these initial values, is then given by $$\overline{\mathbf{x}(t)} = \mathbf{G}(t) \mathbf{x}_0 \, . \tag{12.17}$$
So now it's reasonably clear why the noise is left out of $\mathbf{G}$. Note that the noise does two things: 1) it determines the unconditioned probability distribution over $x_0$ and $v_0$, and 2) it leads to randomness in $x(t)$ and $v(t)$. Therefore, for given values of $x_0$ and $v_0$ and taking the average of the conditional time dependent trajectories, the noise plays no role. In other words, we're really just solving $$\dot{\mathbf{x}} + \mathbf{\Gamma} \mathbf{x} = 0 $$ for which (12.17) is obviously the solution. This is annoyingly poorly explained by the book, but at least it's discernibly correct.
Then the author writes
The next step is to define the covariance matrix $$\mathbf{\sigma}(t) = 2 \int_0^t \mathbf{G}(t') \mathbf{D} \mathbf{G}^T (t') \, dt'$$ where $\mathbf{G}^T$ denotes the transpose of the matrix $\mathbf{G}$.
I have no idea where this equation came from. Why is this integral expression the correct one for the covariance?