High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochastic PDEs with multiplicative noise

Carsten Chong

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 29 references

High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochastic PDEs with multiplicative noise

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that for the stochastic heat equation driven by multiplicative Gaussian noise with Riesz spatial correlation of order alpha in (0,1), normalized power variations satisfy a stable central limit theorem with no asymptotic…

desk verdict Genuinely new CLT for multiplicative-noise SPDEs with a surprising no-bias cancellation; proof has one repairable gap in Lemma 3.3. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04145 v2 pith:RIAHVI5X submitted 2019-08-12 math.PR math.STstat.TH

Carsten Chong This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PRmath.STstat.TH MSC 60H1560F0562M4062G20

keywords powervariationsstochasticheatequationmultiplicativenoiseRieszkernelcentrallimittheoremparabolicAndersonmodelparameterestimationmixedGaussianprocess

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proves a central limit theorem (CLT) for high-frequency power variations and related functionals of the solution to the stochastic heat equation with multiplicative Gaussian noise. Earlier CLTs for such functionals needed the noise coefficient to be almost 1/2-Hölder in time and twice differentiable in space, assumptions that the coefficient $\sigma(u)$ here does not satisfy. The paper shows that when the spatial correlation is a Riesz kernel of order $\alpha\in(0,1)$, the normalized variation converges stably to a continuous mixed Gaussian process with an explicit covariance and with no asymptotic bias. The result matters because second-order limits of this kind are the step that turns consistent estimators of volatility-type parameters into tools for confidence intervals and tests. The absence of bias is explained by cancellations among error terms that depend crucially on $\sigma$ being evaluated along the solution itself.

What carries the argument

The central object is the decomposition of the normalized variation into a martingale array plus four 'bad' terms $B_2^{n,m}$, $D_2^n$, $D_3^n$, and $H^n$ that individually do not vanish at the $\sqrt{\Delta_n}$ rate. The load-bearing mechanism is Proposition 3.23, which shows that certain simplified versions of these bad terms cancel: $B_2^{n,8}+D_2^{n,6}+D_3^{n,6}+H^n\xrightarrow{L^1}0$. The cancellations use the special algebraic fact that $\sigma(u(s,y))$ is a function of the solution $u$ itself, not an arbitrary rough random field; this creates identities between Taylor expansions of $f$, of $\sigma$, and of the solution increments. The proof is carried by two quantitative tools: 'standard size estimates' for stochastic integrals against the rough coefficient and 'martingale size estimates' that exploit conditional independence, together with Wiener-chaos orthogonality to kill terms of wrong parity. A block-splitting argument isolates conditionally independent pieces so that Jacod's martingale CLT applies.

What would settle it

Run a high-frequency Monte Carlo simulation of the parabolic Anderson model with $\alpha=\tfrac12$, $\sigma(x)=\sigma_0 x$, and a known smooth $u_0$, and compute the sample version of $\Delta_n^{-1/2}(V_4^n(u,t)-V_4(u,t))$; if its distribution does not approach the zero-mean mixed Gaussian with covariance (2.15) as $\Delta_n\to0$, the no-bias claim fails. A second check is to take $u_0$ with derivative Hölder exponent exactly at $\frac12-\frac{\alpha}{4}$ and observe whether a bias of order $\Delta_n^{-1/2}$ appears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under hypotheses H1–H4, for each $\alpha\in(0,1)$, the normalized variation functional satisfies $\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta_n}}(V_f^n(u,t)-V_f(u,t))\xrightarrow{\text{st}}Z$, where $Z$ is a continuous process that, conditionally on the original $\sigma$-field, is centered Gaussian with independent increments and covariance matrix (2.15). In words: the fluctuation of the power variation around its law-of-large-numbers limit is asymptotically Gaussian at the usual $\sqrt{\Delta_n}$ rate, with zero mean. This holds although $\sigma(u(t,x))$ is only $(1/2-\alpha/4-\epsilon)$-Hölder in time and $(1-\alpha/2-\epsilon)$-Hölder in space, i.e. far below the regularity previously required. The companion analysis at $\alpha=1$ shows the positive result is sharp: when the noise is space-time white, a genuine asymptotic bias appears for $p\ge4$, while $p=2$ remains unbiased.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is hypothesis H4, that the initial condition $u_0$ is bounded and differentiable with derivative Hölder continuous of exponent larger than $\frac12-\frac{\alpha}{4}$, together with $\alpha\in(0,1)$; if $u_0$ is rougher, the deterministic contribution to the increments need not be $o(\sqrt{\Delta_n})$, and at $\alpha=1$ an additional bias appears for $p\ge4$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the parabolic Anderson model, the CLT turns the consistent estimator of $\sigma_0^p$ into an asymptotically normal estimator, enabling confidence intervals and tests from high-frequency observations at one spatial point.
For $\alpha\in(0,1)$, no bias correction is needed in the CLT for any $p>0$; the companion result at $\alpha=1$ shows bias correction is required for $p\ge4$ when the noise is space-time white.
The covariance formula (2.15) gives explicit asymptotic variances for power, multipower, and signed multipower variations, so it can be used to choose among functionals for efficiency.
The CLT applies to power and multipower variations at a fixed spatial point; functionals that mix different spatial points within one coordinate are excluded by hypothesis H2 and are not covered by this theorem.

Reading between the lines

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

The sharp change at $\alpha=1$ suggests a phase transition in the statistical theory: estimators based on fourth or higher power variations should behave differently in the white-noise case than for any $\alpha<1$, and this distinction should be detectable in simulation studies.
The cancellation mechanism likely transfers to other parabolic SPDEs with multiplicative noise, provided the coefficient is a smooth function of the solution and the solution has enough moments; testing this on stochastic reaction-diffusion equations would be a natural next step.
If the open conjecture for $\alpha\in(1,2)$ in dimension $d\ge2$ is correct, the $\sqrt{\Delta_n}$ rate itself would fail there, so the present $\alpha\in(0,1)$ window may be the only one with standard CLT behavior; this is an explicit, testable boundary.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this paper proves a real CLT — for power variations of the stochastic heat equation with multiplicative noise and Riesz spatial covariance alpha in (0,1), the normalized variation converges stably to a mixed Gaussian process, and there is no asymptotic bias. The novelty is genuine: prior CLTs needed sigma(u) to be 1/2-Holder in time and C^2 in space, which fails here. The no-bias result is traced to cancellation among four error terms (B_2, D_2, D_3, H), and Proposition 3.23 — the cancellation itself — is proved with explicit estimates rather than hand-waved. The covariance formula is natural and the statistical motivation (confidence intervals for volatility in the parabolic Anderson model) is well explained.

What to be careful about. The paper leans heavily on two companion papers [5] and [6] for several technical lemmas, including Lemma 3.4 and the differentiability of mu_f. That is a self-containedness problem, not a correctness problem, but it makes independent verification harder. The more specific issue is in the proof of Lemma 3.3. The term A_n^1 is dismissed using [5, Remark 2.7] with a uniform bound on |u^(0)(i Delta_n,x)-u^(0)((i-1) Delta_n,x)|/tau_n = o(sqrt(Delta_n)). Under H4 alone, that uniform bound is not justified: for t near lambda_n Delta_n, the increment behaves like Delta_n t^{(gamma-1)/2}, and after dividing by tau_n sqrt(Delta_n) the exponent is alpha/4 + (1-a)(gamma-1)/2, which can be negative when gamma > 1/2 - alpha/4 is chosen close to the bound. The stress-test note is right about that. It is also right that the damage is repairable: the sum of those increments is bounded by the total variation of u^(0)(.,x) on [lambda_n Delta_n,T], which H4 makes finite, and the resulting estimate is O(Delta_n^{alpha/4+(1-a)(1+gamma)/2}) -> 0. So the theorem still stands, but the proof as written contains a real gap that ought to be fixed before publication.

Bottom line: worth sending to a serious referee. The main result is new, the cancellation mechanism is enlightening, and the flawed step is localized and fixable. I'd cite this in my own work and bring it to the reading group, but I'd ask the author to patch Lemma 3.3 and to think about making the companion-paper dependency less opaque.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the high-frequency behavior of normalized variation functionals of the solution to a parabolic stochastic PDE with multiplicative Gaussian noise that is white in time and spatially homogeneous with Riesz-kernel covariance of order α∈(0,1). After recalling a law of large numbers from earlier work, the main result (Theorem 2.2) states a stable central limit theorem for these functionals at the usual √Δ_n rate, with a centered mixed Gaussian limit whose conditional covariance is given explicitly in terms of the evaluation function f and the covariance constants Γ_r. The proof decomposes the variation functional into a martingale part and several error terms, then shows that the apparently non-negligible error terms cancel in the limit; this cancellation is isolated in Proposition 3.23. The paper also discusses why the same statement fails for α=1 in a companion work, making the positive result for α∈(0,1) surprising.

Significance. If the theorem is correct, it is a substantial contribution to the statistical theory of SPDEs: it extends second-order limit theorems for power variations from additive or smooth-coefficient cases to the multiplicative case, where the coefficient σ(u) has only the low regularity inherited from the solution. The result is non-trivial because the coefficient is not 1/2-Hölder in time, and the paper identifies an interesting cancellation mechanism that removes the bias one might expect. The normalization τ_n and the covariance constants Γ_r are derived explicitly from the Riesz kernel, and the covariance formula in (2.15) is parameter-free. The proof is detailed and contains a direct verification of the decisive cancellation in Proposition 3.23. The sharp contrast with the α=1 companion paper [7] makes the positive result credible. The paper should be of interest to researchers in SPDE inference and high-frequency statistics.

major comments (1)

[Section 4, proof of Lemma 3.3, treatment of A_n^1] The proof of Lemma 3.3 contains a gap in the treatment of the term A_n^1. It is asserted that hypothesis H4 implies the uniform estimate |u^(0)(iΔ_n,x)-u^(0)((i-1)Δ_n,x)|/τ_n = o(√Δ_n) for all i≥λ_n, referring to [5, Remark 2.7]. This uniform bound is not a consequence of H4. If ∇u_0 is Hölder continuous with exponent γ>1/2−α/4, semigroup smoothing gives |u^(0)(t,x)-u^(0)(t−Δ_n,x)| = O(Δ_n t^{(γ−1)/2}) for t≥Δ_n. For t in the summation range, the worst case is t≈λ_nΔ_n=Δ_n^{1−a}, which yields |u^(0)(iΔ_n,x)-u^(0)((i−1)Δ_n,x)|/(τ_n√Δ_n) = O(Δ_n^{α/4+(1−a)(γ−1)/2}). This exponent can be negative under the assumptions of H4; for example, α=1/2, γ=0.38, and a≈0.4 give an exponent of about −0.06. The gap is repairable: the sum defining A_n^1 can be bounded by (√Δ_n/τ_n) times the total variation of t↦u^(0)(t,x) on [λ_nΔ_n,T], which is finite under H4, so A_n^1=O(Δ_n^{α/4})→0. However, the proof as written relies on a false uniform estimate and must be corrected.

minor comments (3)

[Section 3.1, Lemma 3.4] The core martingale approximation in Lemma 3.4 is not proved self-containedly: the decomposition C^{n,m}=C_1^{n,m}+C_2^{n,m} is obtained by reference to [5, Eq. (3.11)] and [6, Eq. (D.8)] with the comment that the proofs are identical and do not use Hölder regularity of σ(u). Since this lemma supplies the limiting Gaussian process, the manuscript should either reproduce the argument or state the relevant results precisely enough that a reader can verify the claimed independence from the missing regularity assumptions.
[Throughout Section 3] The notation a and a (with and without underline) in (3.5) and subsequent lemmas is extremely easy to confuse, especially in print. Renaming one of the two exponents, e.g., using b for the underlined quantity, would considerably improve readability.
[Theorem 2.2, Eq. (2.15)] The theorem states that the infinite series in the covariance formula converge in L1, but I did not find an explicit proof of this convergence in the text. A short justification or a precise reference to where it is established would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Theorem 2.2 is derived from the Riesz-kernel covariance and cancellation algebra; self-citations are independent technical support.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is the CLT (2.14) for normalized power variations under multiplicative noise. The normalization tau_n (2.9) and Gamma_r (2.12) are not fitted to the variation data; they are obtained from the Riesz kernel F(y)=c_alpha|y|^{-alpha} and the heat-kernel increments in Lemma A.1 (e.g., equation (A.4) computes Pi^n_{r,0}=Gamma_r). The covariance of the limit (2.15) is likewise computed from the conditional Gaussian structure (2.17), not read off from the data. The proof decomposes V^n_f into martingale approximations and shows, through Lemmas 3.12-3.17, 3.18-3.22 and Proposition 3.23, that the nonvanishing error terms cancel algebraically; Proposition 3.23 is proved in-text (identity B^{n,8}_2=-~H^n_1, and the remainders of ~H^n_2+D^{n,6}_2, ~H^n_3+D^{n,6}_3 vanish), so the 'no bias' conclusion is a derived cancellation, not an ansatz. The paper does cite the author's earlier works [5] and [6] for several technical ingredients (LLN, Lemma 3.4's martingale CLT, differentiability of mu_f, moment bounds). These are independent support: they are parameter-free results with stated assumptions that do not include the multiplicative-noise CLT itself, and the current paper's contribution is precisely that sigma(u(t,x)) falls outside [5, Theorem 2.3]'s regularity conditions (Remark 2.3, Introduction). There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported to force the choice, and no known result merely relabeled. A skeptical concern about the uniform bound in Lemma 3.3 is a potential proof gap about estimate validity, not a circularity; it does not make the theorem's conclusion equal to an input. Accordingly, no step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters: C_alpha in (2.9) and Gamma_r in (2.12) are derived explicitly from the Riesz kernel and covariance structure. The only invented entity is the limiting process Z, which is a conditional Gaussian process defined on an extension of the probability space, not a new physical or probabilistic object requiring independent evidence. The axioms listed are standard background results from the probability literature, not ad hoc to this paper.

assumptions (4)

standard math Dalang's existence, uniqueness and Lp moment bounds for the mild solution of (1.1) with Riesz spectral measure: sup E|u(t,x)|^p < infinity for all p.
Invoked in Section 2 around (2.4) as a classical result from [12, Theorem 13]; it underpins all size estimates.
domain assumption Holder regularity of the solution: time exponent 1/2 - alpha/4 and space exponent 1 - alpha/2 - epsilon, from [24, Theorem 2.1] and [19].
Used repeatedly, e.g., in (A.8), to control differences such as sigma(u(s,y)) - sigma(u(s,y)_0^{(i-l_n)Delta_n}).
standard math Spectral representation of the Riesz covariance: mu(dxi) = |xi|^{alpha-d} dxi.
Used in (2.3) and throughout the Fourier calculations in the appendix; cited from [25, Chapter V].
standard math Wiener chaos expansion and orthogonality of multiple integrals of different orders (Nualart [20]).
Used in the proof of Lemma A.3 and in several orthogonality arguments, such as the proofs of Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 3.14.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochastic PDEs with multiplicative noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIAHVI5X

@misc{pith2026190804145,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochastic PDEs with multiplicative noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIAHVI5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04145}
}

abstract

We consider the stochastic heat equation driven by a multiplicative Gaussian noise that is white in time and spatially homogeneous in space. Assuming that the spatial correlation function is given by a Riesz kernel of order $\alpha \in (0,1)$, we prove a central limit theorem for power variations and other related functionals of the solution. To our surprise, there is no asymptotic bias despite the low regularity of the noise coefficient in the multiplicative case. We trace this circumstance back to cancellation effects between error terms arising naturally in second-order limit theorems for power variations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[5]

C. Chong. High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochas tic PDEs. Ann. Statist., 2019. Forth- coming

work page 2019
[6]

High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochastic PDEs

C. Chong. Supplement to “High-frequency analysis of par abolic stochastic PDEs” . arXiv:1806.06959, 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[7]

C. Chong. High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochas tic PDEs with multiplicative noise: Part II. In preparation, 2019

work page 2019
[1]

Aït-Sahalia and J

Y. Aït-Sahalia and J. Jacod. High-Frequency Financial Econometrics . Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2014

work page 2014
[2]

Barndorﬀ-Nielsen, J.M

O.E. Barndorﬀ-Nielsen, J.M. Corcuera, and M. Podolskij . Multipower variation for Brownian semistationary processes. Bernoulli, 17(4):1159–1194, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

Volatility estimation for stochastic PDEs using high-frequency observations

M. Bibinger and M. Trabs. Volatility estimation for stoc hastic PDEs using high-frequency observations. arXiv:1710.03519, 2018

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[4]

On central limit theorems for power variations of the solution to the stochastic heat equation

M. Bibinger and M. Trabs. On central limit theorems for po wer variations of the solution to the stochastic heat equation. arXiv:1901.01026, 2019. High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochastic PDEs with multiplicative noise 49

work page Pith review arXiv 1901
[8]

Cialenco

I. Cialenco. Statistical inference for SPDEs: an overvi ew. Stat. Inference Stoch. Process. , 21 (2):309–329, 2018

work page 2018

Show all 29 references

[9]

Cialenco and Y

I. Cialenco and Y. Huang. A note on parameter estimation f or discretely sampled SPDEs. Stoch. Dyn. , 2019. Forthcoming

2019
[10]

Corcuera, D

J.M. Corcuera, D. Nualart, and J.H.C. Woerner. Power va riation of some integral fractional processes. Bernoulli, 12(4):713–735, 2006

2006
[11]

Corcuera, E

J.M. Corcuera, E. Hedevang, M.S. Pakkanen, and M. Podol skij. Asymptotic theory for Brow- nian semi-stationary processes with application to turbul ence. Stochastic Process. Appl., 123 (7):2552–2574, 2013

2013
[12]

R.C. Dalang. Extending martingale measures stochasti c integral with applications to spatially homogeneous S.P.D.E’s. Electron. J. Probab., 4, 1999. 29 pages

1999
[13]

Foondun, D

M. Foondun, D. Khoshnevisan, and P. Mahboubi. Analysis of the gradient of the solution to a stochastic heat equation via fractional Brownian motion. Stoch. Partial Diﬀer. Equ. Anal. Comput., 3(2):133–158, 2015

2015
[14]

Huang, D

J. Huang, D. Nualart, and L. Viitasaari. A central limit theorem for the stochastic heat equation. arXiv:1810.09492, 2018

2018 arXiv
[15]

Huang, D

J. Huang, D. Nualart, L. Viitasaari, and G. Zheng. Gauss ian ﬂuctuations for the stochastic heat equation with colored noise. Stoch. Partial Diﬀer. Equ. Anal. Comput. , 2019. Forthcom- ing

2019
[16]

Istas and G

J. Istas and G. Lang. Quadratic variations and estimati on of the local Hölder index of a Gaussian process. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist. , 33(4):407–436, 1997

1997
[17]

J. Jacod. On continuous conditional Gaussian martinga les and stable convergence in law. In J. Azéma, M. Emery, and M. Yor, editors, Séminaire de Probabilités XXXI , pages 232–246. Springer, Berlin, 1997

1997
[18]

Jacod and P

J. Jacod and P. Protter. Discretization of Processes. Springer, Berlin, 2012

2012
[19]

A. Lunardi. Analytic Semigroups and Optimal Regularity in Parabolic Pr oblems. Birkhäuser, Basel, 1995

1995
[20]

D. Nualart. The Malliavin Calculus and Related Topics . Springer, Berlin, 2nd edition, 2006

2006
[21]

Podolskij

M. Podolskij. Ambit ﬁelds: Survey and new challenges. I n R.H. Mena, J.C. Pardo, V. Rivero, and G.U. Bravo, editors, XI Symposium on Probability and Stochastic Processes , pages 241–
[22]

Podolskij and M

M. Podolskij and M. Vetter. Understanding limit theore ms for semimartingales: a short survey. Statist. Neerlandica, 64(3):329–351, 2010

2010
[23]

Pospíšil and R

J. Pospíšil and R. Tribe. Parameter estimates and exact variations for stochastic heat equa- tions driven by space-time white noise. Stoch. Anal. Appl. , 25(3):593–611, 2007

2007
[24]

Sanz-Solé and M

M. Sanz-Solé and M. Sarrà. Hölder continuity for the sto chastic heat equation with spatially correlated noise. In R.C. Dalang, M. Dozzi, and F. Russo, edi tors, Seminar on Stochastic Analysis, Random Fields and Applications III . Birkhäuser, Basel, 2002

2002
[25]

E.M. Stein. Singular Integrals and Diﬀerentiability Properties of Fun ctions. Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, 1970

1970
[26]

Stein and G

E.M. Stein and G. Weiss. Introduction to Fourier Analysis on Euclidean Spaces . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1971

1971
[27]

J. Swanson. Variations of the solution to a stochastic h eat equation. Ann. Probab., 35(6): 2122–2159, 2007

2007
[28]

J.B. Walsh. A stochastic model of neural response. Adv. Appl. Probab., 13(2):231–281, 1981

1981
[279]

High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochastic PDEs with multiplicative noise 50

Springer, Cham, 2015. High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochastic PDEs with multiplicative noise 50

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

C. Chong. High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochas tic PDEs. Ann. Statist., 2019. Forth- coming

work page 2019

[2] [6]

High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochastic PDEs

C. Chong. Supplement to “High-frequency analysis of par abolic stochastic PDEs” . arXiv:1806.06959, 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[3] [7]

C. Chong. High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochas tic PDEs with multiplicative noise: Part II. In preparation, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [1]

Aït-Sahalia and J

Y. Aït-Sahalia and J. Jacod. High-Frequency Financial Econometrics . Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [2]

Barndorﬀ-Nielsen, J.M

O.E. Barndorﬀ-Nielsen, J.M. Corcuera, and M. Podolskij . Multipower variation for Brownian semistationary processes. Bernoulli, 17(4):1159–1194, 2011

work page 2011

[6] [3]

Volatility estimation for stochastic PDEs using high-frequency observations

M. Bibinger and M. Trabs. Volatility estimation for stoc hastic PDEs using high-frequency observations. arXiv:1710.03519, 2018

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[7] [4]

On central limit theorems for power variations of the solution to the stochastic heat equation

M. Bibinger and M. Trabs. On central limit theorems for po wer variations of the solution to the stochastic heat equation. arXiv:1901.01026, 2019. High-frequency analysis of parabolic stochastic PDEs with multiplicative noise 49

work page Pith review arXiv 1901

[8] [8]

Cialenco

I. Cialenco. Statistical inference for SPDEs: an overvi ew. Stat. Inference Stoch. Process. , 21 (2):309–329, 2018

work page 2018