It\^o formula for planarly branched rough paths

Nannan Li; Xing Gao

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 30 references

It\^o formula for planarly branched rough paths

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves an Itô change-of-variable formula for planarly branched rough paths with Hölder roughness $1/4<\alpha\le 1/2$.

desk verdict A mostly careful extension of the Itô formula to planarly branched rough paths, but Theorem 3.8 has a genuine gap: the correction path X^{(ijk)} is not additive, so the fourth Young integral in the low-regularity general case is ill-defined. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11886 v2 pith:MW6YKGHY submitted 2025-01-21 math.PR math.CA

Nannan Li , Xing Gao This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PRmath.CA MSC 60L2060L5060H9934K5037H1005C05

keywords ItôformulaplanarlybranchedroughpathcontrolledbracketextensiondifferentialequationYoungintegralHopfalgebraofplanarrootedforestsroughness1/4

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 that smooth functions of planarly branched rough paths satisfy an Itô (change-of-variable) formula for Hölder roughness $1/4<\alpha\le 1/2$. Planarly branched rough paths generalize both ordinary rough paths and branched rough paths by taking values in the Hopf algebra of planar rooted forests, so the formula covers a wider class of driving signals. The identity expresses $\delta F(X)_{s,t}$ as a first-order rough integral plus a correction integral against a bracket extension of $X$; when $\alpha\le 1/3$, a third-order Young integral appears. The same structure is proved for $F(Y)$ where $Y$ solves a rough differential equation driven by $X$. A sympathetic reader would care because it gives a concrete change-of-variable calculus for the largest known combinatorially defined class of rough paths in this roughness range.

What carries the argument

The central object is a planarly branched rough path: a two-parameter path taking values in the graded dual of the Hopf algebra of planar rooted forests, satisfying Chen's identity and Hölder estimates. The argument is carried by the bracket extension $\hat X$, which adds extra letters $(ij)$ to the alphabet with prescribed level-two components, and by the observation that certain linear combinations of forest elements—such as $\bullet_j\bullet_i$ minus the corresponding rooted tree—are prime, meaning their coproduct is $h\otimes 1+1\otimes h$, so their increments can serve as integrands. Controlled planarly branched rough paths, whose components approximately transform by $\langle X_{s,t}\star\tau,Y_s\rangle$, provide the integrands, and Young integrals handle the third-order terms when $\alpha\le 1/3$.

What would settle it

Take a planarly branched rough path and compute the bracket-extension component $\langle \hat X,\bullet_{(ij)}\rangle=\langle X,\bullet_j\bullet_i-\mathrm{tree}_{ij}\rangle$ on three consecutive intervals; verify whether the increments satisfy $\hat X_{s,u}+\hat X_{u,t}=\hat X_{s,t}$. A failure would contradict Lemma 3.2. Independently, compute $\delta X^{(ijk)}_{s,u}+\delta X^{(ijk)}_{u,t}-\delta X^{(ijk)}_{s,t}$ from (3.33); a nonzero defect would invalidate the Young-integral term in Theorem 3.8.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes four theorems. For $\alpha\in(1/3,1/2]$ it proves $$\delta F(X)_{s,t}=\int_s^t DF(X_r):dX_r+\int_s^t $D^{2}$F(X_r):d\hat X_r,$$ where $\hat X$ is the bracket extension of $X$, whose level-two component is $\langle\hat X_{s,t},\bullet_{(ij)}\rangle=\langle X_{s,t},\bullet_j\bullet_i-\mathrm{tree}_{ij}\rangle$. For $\alpha\in(1/4,1/3]$ it proves the analogous identity with an additional third-order Young integral $\int D^3F(X_r):d\tilde X_r$. Theorem 3.7 and Theorem 3.8 give the corresponding formulas for $\delta F(Y)_{s,t}$ when $Y$ solves the rough differential equation $dY=f(Y)\cdot dX$, with correction terms evaluated on $f(Y)$ and its derivatives, including a mixed second-order Young integral in the low-regularity case. The proofs proceed by Taylor expansion, re-expressing the remainder as increments of the bracket extension and then identifying the remainder as a rough or Young integral.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every planarly branched rough path admits a bracket extension over an enlarged alphabet with the prescribed level-two components (Lemma 3.1); the paper cites this to a survey rather than proving it, and the correction path $X^{(ijk)}$ used as a Young integrator in Theorem 3.8 is not shown to have additive increments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $\alpha\in(1/3,1/2]$, every smooth function of a planarly branched rough path satisfies the two-term Itô identity, with the bracket correction explicit in terms of $\hat X$.
For $\alpha\in(1/4,1/3]$, the formula gains a third-order Young integral for $F(X)$ and, for $F(Y)$, an additional mixed second-order Young integral driven by the correction path $X^{(ijk)}$.
The same extension result implies that any $X$-controlled planarly branched rough path is automatically controlled by the bracket extension $\hat X$, so integrals against the enlarged alphabet are available.
If the proof of the extension lemma is correct, the framework includes the previously known branched and ordinary rough-path Itô formulas as special cases at the corresponding truncations.
The formulas hold for the RDE solution $Y$, not only for the driving path $X$, which is what is needed for applications to stochastic differential equations.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's approach suggests that the same bracket-extension recipe should yield Itô formulas for other controlled planarly branched rough paths, provided composition and RDE existence are established for $\alpha\le 1/4$; the authors explicitly leave those two difficulties open.
A reader should check whether the correction path $X^{(ijk)}$ defined in (3.33) has additive increments. If it does not, the fourth term in Theorem 3.8 would need reinterpretation, for instance as a rough integral over a larger alphabet rather than a Young integral.
Because planarly branched rough paths sit between branched and geometric rough paths, the formula may provide the right interpolation for stochastic processes with roughness just above $1/4$, such as certain fractional Brownian motions, though the paper does not discuss specific processes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

The paper proves Itô formulas for planarly branched rough paths, which is a real and sensible next step after Kelly's branched case. The simple-case results and the α>1/3 general case are executed cleanly: the bracket extension is explicit, the Taylor expansions are careful, and the algebraic bookkeeping is mostly transparent. It is genuinely new to bring the MKW Hopf algebra into the Itô formula picture.

The soft spot is Theorem 3.8. The stress-test about X^{(ijk)} lands. The element E = •i rr^j_k + rr^j_k •i − rrr^i_jk − rr^{(ij)}_k − rr^{(ji)}_k is not primitive. I computed the coproduct using the paper's own rules and found cross terms like 2 rr^j_k ⊗ •i, •j ⊗ •i•k, and •j•i ⊗ •k, none of which cancel. So Chen's relation fails: δX^{(ijk)}_{s,t} is not the increment of any path, and the Young integral in (3.45) has no rigorous meaning. The error contributes at order |t−s|^{3α}, which is not o(|t−s|) when α ≤ 1/3, so the sewing lemma cannot rescue it. That means the main general result for the regime 1/4 < α ≤ 1/3 is unsupported. There is also a typo in the final display of Theorem 3.8 (d\hat X instead of d\tilde X for the third integral).

Two minor points: Lemma 3.1 is imported by citation and not proved; given that Lemma 3.2 does provide an explicit construction of the bracket components, the gap may be patchable, but it should be addressed. And the abstract claims an Itô formula for planarly branched rough paths with roughness 1/4 < α ≤ 1/2; as it stands, the general F(Y) result only holds for α > 1/3.

The paper is worth engaging. Theorems 3.4, 3.6, and 3.7 look solid, and the overall strategy is sound. But Theorem 3.8 needs either a different correction term that is actually primitive, or a genuine proof that the non-primitive contributions cancel in the sum; without that, the main low-regularity result is not established.

I would send this to a serious referee, because the topic is timely and the flaw is specific and potentially repairable. For my own work, I would not cite Theorem 3.8 in its current form, but I would cite the paper for the α>1/3 results once the low-regularity gap is fixed.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops Itô-type change-of-variable formulas for planarly branched rough paths with Hölder roughness in (1/4,1/2]. It first recalls controlled planarly branched rough paths and rough integrals, then proves composition results and a Taylor expansion. In Section 3 it states two Itô formulas for F(X): Theorem 3.4 for 1/3<α≤1/2 and Theorem 3.6 for 1/4<α≤1/3, the latter containing an extra third-order Young correction. It then states analogous formulas for F(Y), where Y solves a rough differential equation driven by X: Theorem 3.7 for 1/3<α≤1/2 and Theorem 3.8 for 1/4<α≤1/3, with a fourth Young correction. The central claim is that smooth functions of planarly branched rough paths admit an explicit change-of-variable formula with correction terms encoded by the bracket extension and certain primitive elements.

Significance. If fully correct, this would be the first Itô formula for planarly branched rough paths and would extend the classical results of Friz--Hairer for rough paths and Kelly for branched rough paths to a setting covering more stochastic processes. The paper has useful and explicit ingredients: the Taylor-expansion skeleton is transparent, the composition results in Propositions 2.9, 2.10 and 2.12 are worked out in detail, and the simple-case formulas for F(X) are plausible. However, the validity of the general case for roughness α≤1/3 rests on the additivity of a correction path that is not established; the proof of Theorem 3.8 has a load-bearing gap, and the algebraic status of the bracket letters used in the primitivity checks also needs clarification. The paper's value is therefore contingent on repairing these points.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2, Theorem 3.8, Eqs. (3.33)--(3.45)] The correction path X^{(ijk)} is defined by δX^{(ijk)}_{s,t} = ⟨\hat X_{s,t}, E⟩ with E = •i rr^j_k + rr^j_k •i − rrr^i_jk − rr^{(ij)}_k − rr^{(ji)}_k, and is then used as a Young integrator in (3.45). For this to define an actual path, E must be primitive in the extended MKW Hopf algebra so that Chen's relation gives additivity of the increments. No such verification is given. Under the coproduct rules used in the paper, Δ(E) contains cross terms such as rr^j_k ⊗ •i, •j ⊗ •i•k, •j ⊗ •k•i, •j•i ⊗ •k, −•(ij)⊗•k and −•(ji)⊗•k in addition to the primitive part. Hence δX^{(ijk)} is not additive, and the non-additivity is of order |t−s|^{3α}. Since α≤1/3 in this theorem, 3α≤1, so the sewing lemma invoked for the Young integral does not apply and the fourth integral in (3.34) is not defined by the given argument. This invalidates the proof of Theorem 3.8 as written.
[Section 3.1, Theorem 3.6, primitivity check after Eq. (3.14)] The verification that •k•j•i − r∨r r^i_jk − rr^{(ij)}_k is primitive implicitly identifies the new symbol •(ij) with the element •j•i − rr^i_j inside the extended Hopf algebra. Lemma 3.2, however, introduces (ij) as a new alphabet symbol and only prescribes its pairing with the bracket extension; it does not state an algebraic relation in \hat H_MKW. Without such a relation, the displayed coproduct leaves a residual term •k⊗(•j•i − rr^i_j − •(ij)), and the element is not primitive. The additivity of \tilde X in (3.14) and hence the Young integral in (3.15) therefore requires clarification. Please state explicitly whether •(ij) is a new independent primitive generator or a shorthand for •j•i − rr^i_j, and give a correct primitivity proof under that convention.
[Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.2] The bracket extension \hat X is constructed by invoking Lemma 3.1, whose proof is only a citation to [11] and a sentence saying the result follows as in [23, Corollary 4.2.16]. Since every Itô formula in Section 3 uses the bracket extension with new components having prescribed Hölder estimates and Chen relations, this is a load-bearing input. A full proof, or a precise statement with a page/equation reference of the cited result as applied to the MKW Hopf algebra, should be included so that the existence of \hat X is independently verifiable.

minor comments (2)

[Theorem 3.8, final display and Eq. (3.34)] The third-order term in the final display of Theorem 3.8 is written as ∫ D^3F(Y_r):(f(Y_r),f(Y_r),f(Y_r))·d\hat X^{(ijk)}_r, but it should be d\tilde X^{(ijk)}_r, matching (3.32) and the proof around (3.44)--(3.46). This notational inconsistency should be corrected.
[General notation] The paper uses the same symbol X for the driving path, the rough path, and in Theorem 3.8 for the correction path X^{(ijk)}; this makes statements such as (3.34) harder to read. Renaming the correction path, for example Z^{(ijk)}, would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Itô formula is derived from Taylor expansion and independently defined rough/Young integrals, and the self-citations provide background results rather than the target formula.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. Theorems 3.4 and 3.6 begin with a Taylor expansion of F(X_t)-F(X_s), convert increment monomials into shuffle evaluations using Definition 2.1(b), and identify the resulting terms with rough integrals defined in Lemmas 2.4 and 2.5; the remainder is shown to be o(|t-s|) and the additivity argument then forces the identity. The bracket extension X-hat is not fitted to the formula: Lemma 3.2 defines the new component as <X_{s,t}, bullet_j bullet_i - rr^i_j> and verifies Chen's relation in (3.2), and the third-order correction X-tilde in (3.14) has its primitivity checked immediately after Theorem 3.6. The general RDE cases inherit the same structure: identity (2.25) follows from the definition of the controlled solution Y and from the rough integral lifting, not from an assumed change-of-variable formula. The paper does cite its own preprint [15] for controlled planarly branched rough paths, rough integral estimates and RDE solution existence, but none of those results states the Itô formula; they are parameter-free background inputs, so the self-citation is not circular. Lemma 3.1 rests on [11] and Kelly's branched case, and the 'weakly geometric' condition is already part of Definition 2.1(b). The most serious mathematical concern is a correctness gap rather than circularity: the increment formula (3.33) for X^(ijk) is used in Theorem 3.8 as a Young integrator without proving additivity, and for alpha <= 1/3 the fourth integral may not be well-defined. That would affect the validity of Theorem 3.8, but it is not an instance of a prediction reducing to its input or of a self-citation chain forcing the result.

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

The central claim rests on the MKW Hopf algebra framework, the prior rough-integral machinery in [15], and an extension lemma justified by weak geometricity. There are no fitted parameters. The main unproved algebraic input is the primitiveness of the correction elements, especially X^{(ijk)}.

assumptions (4)

standard math The MKW Hopf algebra of planar rooted forests and its graded dual are the correct algebraic framework for planarly branched rough paths.
The entire definition of planarly branched rough paths and controlled paths uses this structure; the paper cites [9,15,28] instead of proving it.
domain assumption Every planarly branched rough path is weakly geometric, permitting extension to an enlarged alphabet in Lemma 3.1.
Lemma 3.1 is proved only by citation to [11] and by analogy with [23]; the bracket extension \hat X rests on it.
domain assumption The rough integral estimates (Lemma 2.4) and composition lemmas (Lemma 2.8) from the authors' prior preprint [15] are correct.
These are imported without reproving; they are load-bearing for all four Itô formulas.
ad hoc to paper The elements defining correction paths \tilde X and X^{(ijk)} are primitive, so their increments are additive.
Primitiveness is explicitly verified only for \tilde X; for X^{(ijk)} in (3.33) additivity is asserted but not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of It\^o formula for planarly branched rough paths." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MW6YKGHY

@misc{pith2026250111886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: It\^o formula for planarly branched rough paths},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MW6YKGHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11886}
}

abstract

The It\^o formula, originated by K. It\^o, is focus on the stochastic calculus, where many stochastic processes can be placed under the framework of rough paths. In rough path theory, It\^o formulas have been proved for rough paths with roughness $\frac{1}{3}< \alpha \leq \frac{1}{2}$ and branched rough paths with roughness $0< \alpha \leq 1$. Planarly branched rough paths contain more random processes than rough paths and branched rough paths. In the present paper, we prove the It\^o formula for planarly branched rough paths with roughness $\frac{1}{4}< \alpha \leq \frac{1}{2}$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[11]

Ebrahimi-Fard and L

K. Ebrahimi-Fard and L. Rahm, A survey on the Munthe-Kaa s-Wright Hopf algebra, J. Comput. Dyn., 12(1) (2025), 48-82. 3, 4, 12

work page 2025
[1]

M. J. H. Al-Kaabi, K. Ebrahimi-Fard and D. Manchon, Post- Lie Magnus Expansion and BCH-Recursion, SIGMA, 18 (2022), 023, 16 pages. 3

work page 2022
[2]

Brouder, Runge-Kutta methods and renormalization, E ur

C. Brouder, Runge-Kutta methods and renormalization, E ur. Phys. J. C, 12 (2000), 521-534. 3

work page 2000
[3]

Broux and L

L. Broux and L. Zambotti, The sewing lemma for 0 < γ ≤ 1, J. Funct. Anal., 283(10) (2022), 109644. 18

work page 2022
[4]

Bruned and F

Y . Bruned and F. Katsetsiadis, Post-Lie algebras in Regu larity Structures, Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, 11(98) (2023), 1-20. 3

work page 2023
[5]

Burdzy and A

K. Burdzy and A. Mpolhkadrecki, Itˆ o formula for an asymptotically 4-stable process, Ann. Appl. Probab., 6(1) (1996), 200-217. 2

work page 1996
[6]

Burdzy and J

K. Burdzy and J. Swanson, A change of variable formula wit h Itˆ o correction term, Ann. Probab.,38(5) (2010), 1817-1869. 2

work page 2010
[7]

Connes and D

A. Connes and D. Kreimer, Hopf algebras, renormalizatio n and noncommutative geometry, Comm. Math. Phys., 199(1) (1998), 203-242. 3

work page 1998

Show all 30 references

[8]

P . E. Crouch and R. Grossman, Numerical integration of or dinary diﬀerential equations on manifolds, J. Non- linear Sci., 3(1) (1993), 1-33. 3 30 NANNAN LI AND XING GAO ∗

1993
[9]

Curry, K

C. Curry, K. Ebrahimi-Fard, D. Manchon and H. Z. Munthe-K aas, Planarly branched rough paths and rough diﬀerential equations on homogeneous spaces, J. Di ﬀerential Equations, 269(11) (2020), 9740-9782. 2, 4

2020
[10]

Ebrahimi-Fard, A

K. Ebrahimi-Fard, A. Lundervold and H. Z. Munthe-Kaas, On the Lie enveloping algebra of a post-Lie algebra, J. Lie Theory, 25(4) (2015), 1139-1165. 3

2015
[12]

Errami and F

M. Errami and F. Russo, n-covariation, generalized Dirichlet processes and calculus with respect to ﬁnite cubic variation processes, Stochastic Process. Appl., 104(2), (2003), 259-299. 2

2003
[13]

P . K. Friz and M. Hairer, A Course on Rough Paths, Univers itext. Springer, 2020. 2

2020
[14]

P . K. Friz and H. Zhang, Di ﬀerential equations driven by rough paths with jumps, J. Di ﬀerential Equations, 264(10) (2018), 6226-6301. 3

2018
[15]

X. Gao, N. Li and D. Manchon, Rough di ﬀerential equations and planarly branched universal limit t heorem, arXiv:2412.16479v1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10

arXiv
[16]

Gradinaru, I

M. Gradinaru, I. Nourdin, F. Russo and P . V allois, m-order integrals and generalized Itˆ o’s formula: the case of a fractional Brownian motion with any Hurst index, Ann. In st. H. Poincar´ e Probab. Statist., 41(4) (2005), 781-806. 2

2005
[17]

Gradinaru, F

M. Gradinaru, F. Russo and P . V allois, Generalized covariations, local time and Stratonovich Itˆ o’s formula for fractional Brownian motion with Hurst index H ≥ 1 4 , Ann. Probab., 31(4) (2003), 1772-1820. 2

2003
[18]

Gubinelli, Controlling rough paths, J

M. Gubinelli, Controlling rough paths, J. Funct. Anal. , 216(1) (2004), 86-140. 2

2004
[19]

Gubinelli, Ramiﬁcation of rough paths, J

M. Gubinelli, Ramiﬁcation of rough paths, J. Di ﬀerential Equations, 248(4) (2010), 693-721. 2

2010
[20]

Hocquet and T

A. Hocquet and T. Nilssen, An Itˆ o formula for rough part ial di ﬀerential equations and some applications, Potential Anal., 54(2) (2021), 331-386. 2

2021
[21]

Iserles, H

A. Iserles, H. Z. Munthe-Kaas, S. P . Nørsett and A. Zanna , Lie-group methods, Acta Numer., 9 (2000), 215-

2000
[22]

Itˆ o, On a formula concerning stochastic di ﬀerentials, Nagoya Math

K. Itˆ o, On a formula concerning stochastic di ﬀerentials, Nagoya Math. J., 3 (1951), 55-65. 2

1951
[23]

Kelly, Itˆ o corrections in stochastic equations, Ph.D

D. Kelly, Itˆ o corrections in stochastic equations, Ph.D. thesis of University of Warwick, 2012. 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 29

2012
[24]

Kern and T

H. Kern and T. Lyons, Flow techniques for non-geometric RDEs on manifolds, arXiv:2310.13556v3. 2

arXiv
[25]

Lyons, Di ﬀerential equations driven by rough signals, Rev

T. Lyons, Di ﬀerential equations driven by rough signals, Rev. Mat. Ibero americana, 14(2) (1998), 215-310. 1

1998
[26]

H. Z. Munthe-Kaas, Lie-Butcher theory for Runge-Kutta methods, BIT. Numerical Mathematics, 35(4) (1995), 572-587. 3

1995
[27]

H. Z. Munthe-Kaas and A. Lundervold, On post-Lie algebr as, Lie-Butcher series and moving frames, Found. Comput. Math., 13(4) (2013), 583-613. 3

2013
[28]

H. Z. Munthe-Kaas and W . M. Wright, On the Hopf algebraic structure of Lie group integrators, Found. Comput. Math., 8(2) (2008), 227-257. 2, 4, 15

2008
[29]

J. -M. Oudom and D. Guin, On the Lie enveloping algebra of a pre-Lie algebra, J. K-Theory, 2(1) (2008), 147-167. 3

2008
[30]

L. C. Y oung, An inequality of the H¨ older type, connected with Stieltjes integration, Acta Math., 67(1) (1936), 251-282. 16, 18, 28 School of Mathematics and Statistics, Lanzhou University Lanzhou, 730000, China Email address: linn2024@lzu.edu.cn School of Mathematics and St...

1936

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

Ebrahimi-Fard and L

K. Ebrahimi-Fard and L. Rahm, A survey on the Munthe-Kaa s-Wright Hopf algebra, J. Comput. Dyn., 12(1) (2025), 48-82. 3, 4, 12

work page 2025

[2] [1]

M. J. H. Al-Kaabi, K. Ebrahimi-Fard and D. Manchon, Post- Lie Magnus Expansion and BCH-Recursion, SIGMA, 18 (2022), 023, 16 pages. 3

work page 2022

[3] [2]

Brouder, Runge-Kutta methods and renormalization, E ur

C. Brouder, Runge-Kutta methods and renormalization, E ur. Phys. J. C, 12 (2000), 521-534. 3

work page 2000

[4] [3]

Broux and L

L. Broux and L. Zambotti, The sewing lemma for 0 < γ ≤ 1, J. Funct. Anal., 283(10) (2022), 109644. 18

work page 2022

[5] [4]

Bruned and F

Y . Bruned and F. Katsetsiadis, Post-Lie algebras in Regu larity Structures, Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, 11(98) (2023), 1-20. 3

work page 2023

[6] [5]

Burdzy and A

K. Burdzy and A. Mpolhkadrecki, Itˆ o formula for an asymptotically 4-stable process, Ann. Appl. Probab., 6(1) (1996), 200-217. 2

work page 1996

[7] [6]

Burdzy and J

K. Burdzy and J. Swanson, A change of variable formula wit h Itˆ o correction term, Ann. Probab.,38(5) (2010), 1817-1869. 2

work page 2010

[8] [7]

Connes and D

A. Connes and D. Kreimer, Hopf algebras, renormalizatio n and noncommutative geometry, Comm. Math. Phys., 199(1) (1998), 203-242. 3

work page 1998