Invariant Gibbs measures for the one-dimensional quintic nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation in infinite volume

Bjoern Bringmann; Gigliola Staffilani

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Invariant Gibbs measures for the one-dimensional quintic nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation in infinite volume

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Defocusing quintic NLS on the real line has an invariant Gibbs measure, proved via stochastic quantization.

desk verdict First infinite-volume invariant Gibbs measure for the 1D quintic NLS, backed by a genuinely new measure estimate; one unmarked finite-volume invariance input needs to be stated or proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22478 v1 pith:C3EAODZK submitted 2025-05-28 math.AP math.PR

Bjoern Bringmann , Gigliola Staffilani This is my paper

classification math.APmath.PR MSC 35Q5560H1537L4035R60

keywords GibbsmeasurenonlinearSchrödingerequationinfinitevolumequinticnonlinearitystochasticquantizationinvariantalmostsureconvergencelargedeviations

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

This paper proves that the defocusing quintic nonlinear Schrödinger equation on the real line preserves the infinite-volume Gibbs measure. It extends the previously known cubic case to the range 3≤p≤5. The proof treats 2πL-periodic approximations drawn from finite-volume Gibbs measures μ^L and shows these solutions converge almost surely to a limit u in $C^{0}$_t C^α_x on compact sets, that u solves the equation in the sense of distributions, and that the law of u(t) is the same infinite-volume measure μ for every time t. The new engine is a tail estimate for the $Φ^{{p+1}}$_1 measures: with high probability the L∞ norm over [-R,R] grows at most like (log R)^{2/(p+3)}, proved by stochastic quantization rather than Gaussian estimates. This faster decay of tails is what lowers the Gronwall exponent enough for p≤5.

What carries the argument

The central object is the frequency-truncated, exponentially localized mass M_R(w)=∫ |P_{≤R}w|^2 $e^{{-|x|/R}}$dx, where P_{≤R} is a Littlewood-Paley low-frequency projection and w=u^L-$u^{{L/2}}$ is the difference of two periodic solutions at scales L and L/2. On a high-probability 'good event' the time derivative of M_R obeys a Gronwall inequality whose growth rate is log(R)^{2(p-1)/(p+3)}; keeping M_R small on long time intervals requires 2(p-1)/(p+3)≤1, i.e. p≤5. The rate comes from splitting frequencies: low frequencies are controlled by a log-concave comparison inequality between μ^L and the Gaussian free field, while the sharper log exponent comes from a stochastic-quantization argument controlling exponential moments of ||φ||_{$L^{{p+1}}$([-1,1])}; a quantitative Skorokhod representation theorem converts the measure estimates into an explicit coupling of μ^L and μ. Iterating the mass estimate with a sequence of radii R_j = R_{j+1}^2 produces the final almost-sure convergence.

What would settle it

Test the endpoint p=5 by direct simulation on large tori: draw samples from μ^L, evolve them under (1.2), and check whether solutions starting from L and L/2 data obey the convergence bound (1.6) on fixed compact sets for radii R up to a small power of L; a systematic breakdown of $C^{0}$_t C^α_x convergence as L→∞ would falsify the theorem. Alternatively, compute the L∞ tail of μ^L over [-R,R] at p=5: the proof predicts probability at most C $e^{{-cλ}}$ for threshold (log R + λ)^{2/8}; observing a slower Gaussian-type tail of order (log R)^{1/2} would invalidate Theorem 1.3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorems 1.1 and 1.3 together assert that for 3≤p≤5 the defocusing NLS i∂_t u + ∂$_x^{2}$ u = |u|^{p-1}u on R admits an invariant Gibbs measure in a strong sense. If (φ^L) are couplings with Law(φ^L)=μ^L and Law(φ)=μ satisfying the quantitative coupling condition (1.5), then the associated global solutions u^L converge P-a.s. to u in $C^{0}$_t C^α_x([-T,T]×I) for all α<1/2, T≥1, and compact intervals I; the limit solves the equation in the space-time distribution sense and Law(u(t))=μ for all real t. The paper also establishes that the infinite-volume $Φ^{{p+1}}$_1 measure has large-deviation tails of order (log R + λ)^{2/(p+3)} for the L∞ norm over [-R,R], uniformly in the period L. The p=5 endpoint is the first nonlinearity beyond cubic for which such an infinite-volume invariance statement is proved.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes as a black box that the finite-volume Gibbs measures μ^L are invariant under the 2πL-periodic nonlinear Schrödinger flow and that the periodic solutions u^L exist uniquely and globally; if that finite-volume invariance were not already available, the transfer of estimates from initial data to all times has no starting point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every 3≤p≤5, the defocusing NLS on the real line has a solution dynamics on a full-measure set of Gibbs-sampled initial data, with the Gibbs law preserved for all times.
The limits of the periodic approximants are distributional solutions with C^0_t C^α_x regularity for every α<1/2 on compact space-time sets, and the solutions do not decay at infinity.
The infinite-volume Φ^{p+1}_1 measure samples grow at most like (log R)^{2/(p+3)} on [-R,R] with sub-Gaussian tail probabilities, uniformly in the period.
The quantitative coupling estimate (1.6) gives explicit polynomial-in-L control of the convergence rate of u^L to u, not merely convergence in law.
The proof removes the need for kernel estimates of P_{≤N}e^{itΔ} used in the cubic case, simplifying the frequency analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural testable extension is p>5: here the Gronwall exponent 2(p-1)/(p+3) exceeds 1, so the present argument cannot close; whether the invariance statement itself fails or merely needs a different estimate is left open by the paper.
The same coupling-and-difference scheme could be applied to other translation-invariant infinite-volume Gibbs measures whose tails are known via stochastic quantization, such as higher-dimensional Φ models, provided finite-volume invariance is available.
The quantitative Skorokhod step suggests that a polynomial Wasserstein rate plus a local density bound may be enough to upgrade weak convergence of measures to almost-sure convergence of solutions; one testable consequence is whether the exponential rate in (1.13) is optimal at p=5.
Because finite-volume invariance is taken as a black box, a proof of periodic invariance for p=5 would make the theorem's conclusion self-contained; conversely, any failure of finite-volume invariance at p=5 would also invalidate the infinite-volume claim.

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

Bottom line: this is a real extension. Bourgain's infinite-volume result was cubic, and this paper reaches the quintic endpoint, p=5, via a new uniform exponential-tail estimate for the infinite-volume Phi_1^{p+1} measures. The stochastic-quantization proof of Theorem 1.3 using the Hairer-Steele maximum principle is clean and well matched to the setting, and it has independent value beyond the dynamics application. The paper also simplifies Bourgain's technical apparatus, removing the kernel estimates for P_{<=N} e^{itDelta}. The quantitative coupling construction in Section 3.4 is a genuine improvement over the qualitative Skorokhod step in [Bou00]. The main line of the proof is coherent, and I do not see circularity: the measure estimate comes from Langevin dynamics independent of the NLS flow.

The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test. The proof uses Law(u^L(t)) = mu^L as a black box, and this finite-volume invariance for the periodic quintic equation is not stated as an assumption and no reference is supplied for p=5. For p=3 you can point to Bourgain's periodic theory, but the paper does not make that citation explicit even there, and for p=5 it is not clear that the cited periodic results include the endpoint. This is a load-bearing external input, not a circular step: the measure estimate does not depend on it. But the authors need to either state it as a hypothesis or prove it in an appendix. If Bourgain's method covers p=5 with minor modifications, they should say so and indicate where; if it does not, a short periodic-side argument is required.

Minor issues: a few sub-estimates, notably Lemma 5.2 and the final step of Lemma 3.14, are sketched or deferred to the literature. In a paper of this length that is defensible, but a referee should ask for the missing details in (3.48). The paper is long and notation-heavy, but the structure is clear and the central argument is readable. The citation pattern looks normal; the relevant prior work is cited and the new contribution is distinct.

This paper is for dispersive PDE and stochastic quantization readers. It deserves a serious referee: the result closes a natural gap and Theorem 1.3 is a useful standalone estimate. Send it to review, with the referee asked to check the finite-volume invariance input carefully. My own verdict would depend on whether that input is already in the literature or can be added cleanly, but the paper is clearly worth refereeing.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves the invariance of the infinite-volume Gibbs measure for the one-dimensional defocusing nonlinear Schrödinger equation (1.2) for exponents 3 ≤ p ≤ 5, extending Bourgain's infinite-volume result for the cubic case. The new ingredient is a uniform growth estimate (Theorem 1.3) for the supremum of the finite-volume Φ_1^{p+1} Gibbs measures on intervals of length R, obtained by the Hairer–Steele stochastic quantization method. Using this estimate together with a new quantitative coupling of the finite-volume measures and a localized mass comparison argument, the authors show that the finite-volume solutions u^L converge almost surely in C^0_t C^α_x on compact sets to a limit u, that u solves the equation in the sense of distributions, and that the law of u(t) is the infinite-volume Gibbs measure for every t.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, this is a substantive advance: it removes the cubic restriction that had stood since Bourgain's infinite-volume work and shows that the stochastic quantization method can be used to control the relevant measure tails in a one-dimensional setting. The paper also introduces a quantitative coupling construction via a quantitative Skorokhod theorem and simplifies parts of Bourgain's argument by avoiding estimates for the kernel of P_{≤N}e^{itΔ}. The measure estimate Theorem 1.3 is proved in detail from the Langevin dynamics with a maximum-principle argument, and the difference estimates in Sections 5–6 are carefully structured. The main concerns are two load-bearing points: the finite-volume invariance of μ^L is used as an unstated external input for p=5, and the proof of the one-point density estimate in Lemma 3.13 contains a parameter choice that does not close the estimate as written. Both points appear fixable within the scope of the manuscript.

major comments (2)

[Section 4, Propositions 4.1–4.2 and Eq. (4.8)–(4.9)] The proofs of Propositions 4.1 and 4.2 rely on the statement that μ^L is invariant under the periodic flow (1.2), and this invariance is used in a load-bearing way when replacing u^L(t) by the initial data φ^L in moment estimates such as (4.8)–(4.9). The introduction only attributes to [Bou94, Bou96] the cases d=1 and (d,p)=(2,3), and no explicit reference or proof is supplied for the finite-volume invariance in the quintic case p=5 covered by Theorem 1.1. The manuscript should state precisely which periodic theorem establishes existence, uniqueness, and invariance of μ^L under (1.2) for all 3≤p≤5, or should prove that finite-volume statement. Without this input, Theorem 1.1 for p=5 is conditional on an unstated external result.
[Section 3.4, proof of Lemma 3.13 after Eq. (3.36)] In the proof of Lemma 3.13, the choice t∼δ^{4p(1−κ)} does not prove the stated density estimate (3.35). The first term in (3.36) is bounded by Ct^{−1/4}δ, which with this choice equals δ^{1−p(1−κ)}. For p>1 and κ<3/4, this is not bounded by Cδ^κ as δ→0; indeed for p=5 and κ=3/4 this exponent is negative. Replacing the choice by t∼δ^{4(1−κ)} appears to balance the Gaussian term against δ^κ while making the exponential term in the nonlinear remainder acceptable. The parameter choice and the subsequent conclusion should be corrected, since Lemma 3.13 is one of the three inputs used to construct the coupling in Proposition 3.11 and hence to verify assumption (1.5) of Theorem 1.1.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.4, proof of Lemma 3.14] The estimate (3.48) is asserted to follow easily from Corollary 3.6 and (3.43), but the details are omitted; since this estimate is the exponential decay that produces (3.38), a short derivation or a precise reference would improve the exposition.
[Section 5, proof of Lemma 5.2] The proof of the high-frequency component (5.8) of the good event is omitted with the comment that it is similar to (5.7). Given that (5.8) feeds into the difference estimates, a brief sketch of the logarithmic weight and dyadic summation would make the argument easier to verify.
[Introduction, paragraph on Bourgain's periodic results] The sentence 'Bourgain [Bou94, Bou96] proved the invariance of the Gibbs measure under (1.1) for d=1 and (d,p)=(2,3)' is ambiguous: it should specify which periodic cases are covered and which reference covers p=5 in dimension one.
[Definition 5.1] The good event G_{L,T,R} is said to depend on a constant δ chosen depending on α from (1.6), but α is not otherwise present in Definition 5.1; the dependence should be stated explicitly so that the later choice of δ in the proof of Theorem 1.1 is transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; proof is internally coherent, though Theorem 1.1 for p=5 is conditional on an unstated finite-volume invariance input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The measure growth estimate (Theorem 1.3) is proved independently of the NLS flow via stochastic quantization and the Hairer-Steele argument, not by assuming the target infinite-volume dynamics. The NLS arguments then use the finite-volume invariance of mu^L as an external input, not as a consequence of the conclusion of Theorem 1.1. Specifically, in the proof of Proposition 4.2, the text uses 'the invariance of the Gibbs measure under (1.2)' to replace u^L(t) by phi^L in moment estimates (equations (4.8)-(4.9)), and the final step of Theorem 1.1 transfers this finite-volume invariance to the limit using weak convergence and almost-sure convergence. For p=3 this input is Bourgain's periodic theorem; for p=5 the paper neither proves nor cites the periodic finite-volume invariance, so Theorem 1.1 as written is conditional on that input. This is a missing or external hypothesis, not a circular step: no quantity is defined in terms of its target, no fitted value is renamed a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation supplies the missing input. The stochastic-quantization proof of Theorem 1.3 is self-contained and uses only the invariance of auxiliary Langevin measures constructed for that purpose, which is not the NLS invariance being proved. Therefore there is no circularity to report, but the p=5 case carries a genuine conditionality caveat.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; all constants are existential and depend only on p. The central claim rests on prior finite-volume well-posedness/invariance and on standard SPDE and Brascamp-Lieb results; no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Finite-volume global well-posedness and invariance of μ^L under the NLS flow (1.2) for 3 ≤ p ≤ 5
Theorem 1.1 states 'let u^L be the unique global solution' and Propositions 4.1/4.2 invoke 'the invariance of the Gibbs measure μ^L under (1.2)'; this is an input from Bourgain's periodic theory, not proved here.
domain assumption Well-posedness of the stochastic quantization equation (3.5) and invariance of ν^L
Proposition 3.1 treats ν^L as the invariant measure of (3.5), and Lemma 3.2 imports the maximum principle from Moinat-Weber; these SPDE facts are cited, not proved.
standard math Brascamp-Lieb inequality (Lemma 3.9)
Used in Lemma 3.8 to dominate μ^L moments by Gaussian moments; quoted verbatim from [BL76].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Invariant Gibbs measures for the one-dimensional quintic nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation in infinite volume." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C3EAODZK

@misc{pith2026250522478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Invariant Gibbs measures for the one-dimensional quintic nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation in infinite volume},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C3EAODZK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22478}
}

abstract

We prove the invariance of the Gibbs measure for the defocusing quintic nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation on the real line. This builds on earlier work by Bourgain, who treated the cubic nonlinearity. The key new ingredient is a growth estimate for the infinite-volume $\Phi^{p+1}_1$-measures, which is proven via the stochastic quantization method.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Invariance of $\phi^4$ measure under nonlinear wave and Schr\"odinger equations on the plane

N. Barashkov and P. Laarne . Invariance of ^4 measure under nonlinear wave and Schr \"o dinger equations on the plane . arXiv:2211.16111, November 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[2]

V. Betz. Gibbs measures relative to Brownian motion and Nelson's model . PhD thesis, Technische Universität München, 2002

work page 2002
[3]

Billingsley

P. Billingsley. Convergence of probability measures . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, second edition, 1999. A Wiley-Interscience Publication

work page 1999
[4]

Bourgain

J. Bourgain. Periodic nonlinear S chr\" o dinger equation and invariant measures. Comm. Math. Phys. , 166(1):1--26, 1994

work page 1994
[5]

Bourgain

J. Bourgain. Invariant measures for NLS in infinite volume. Comm. Math. Phys. , 210(3):605--620, 2000

work page 2000
[6]

Bourgain

J. Bourgain. Invariant measures for the 2 D -defocusing nonlinear S chr\" o dinger equation. Comm. Math. Phys. , 176(2):421--445, 1996

work page 1996
[7]

H. J. Brascamp and E. H. Lieb. On extensions of the B runn- M inkowski and P r\'ekopa- L eindler theorems, including inequalities for log concave functions, and with an application to the diffusion equation. J. Functional Analysis , 22(4):366--389, 1976

work page 1976
[8]

Bringmann, Y

B. Bringmann, Y. Deng, A. R. Nahmod, and H. Yue. Invariant G ibbs measures for the three dimensional cubic nonlinear wave equation. Invent. Math. , 236(3):1133--1411, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 30 references

[9]

Cacciafesta and A.-S

F. Cacciafesta and A.-S. de Suzzoni. Invariance of G ibbs measures under the flows of H amiltonian equations on the real line. Commun. Contemp. Math. , 22(2):1950012, 39, 2020

2020
[10]

Chaichenets, D

L. Chaichenets, D. Hundertmark, P. C. Kunstmann, and N. Pattakos. Local well-posedness for the nonlinear S chr \"o dinger equation in the I ntersection of M odulation spaces M ^s_ p,q ( R ^d) M _ ,1 ( R ^d) . In Mathematics of Wave Phenomena , pages 89--107. Springer Internati...

2020
[11]

Y. Deng, A. R. Nahmod, and H. Yue. Invariant G ibbs measures and global strong solutions for nonlinear S chr\"odinger equations in dimension two. Ann. of Math. (2) , 200(2):399--486, 2024

2024
[12]

uhrmann, and D. Mendelson. Almost sure local well-posedness and scattering for the 4 D cubic nonlinear S chr\

B. Dodson, J. L\"uhrmann, and D. Mendelson. Almost sure local well-posedness and scattering for the 4 D cubic nonlinear S chr\"odinger equation. Adv. Math. , 347:619--676, 2019

2019
[13]

Dodson, A

B. Dodson, A. Soffer, and T. Spencer. The nonlinear S chr\" o dinger equation on Z and R with bounded initial data: examples and conjectures. J. Stat. Phys. , 180(1-6):910--934, 2020

2020
[14]

Dodson, A

B. Dodson, A. Soffer, and T. Spencer. Global well-posedness for the cubic nonlinear S chr\" o dinger equation with initial data lying in L^p -based S obolev spaces. J. Math. Phys. , 62(7):Paper No. 071507, 13, 2021

2021
[15]

J. S. Feldman and K. Osterwalder. The W ightman axioms and the mass gap for weakly coupled ( ^ 4 )_ 3 quantum field theories. Ann. Physics , 97(1):80--135, 1976

1976
[16]

Forlano , R

J. Forlano , R. Killip , and M. Visan . Invariant measures for mKdV and KdV in infinite volume . arXiv:2401.04292, January 2024

2024 arXiv
[17]

Glimm and A

J. Glimm and A. Jaffe. Positivity of the ^ 4 _ 3 H amiltonian. Fortschr. Physik , 21:327--376, 1973

1973
[18]

Gubinelli , M

M. Gubinelli , M. Hairer , T. Oh , and Y. Zine . A simple construction of the sine-Gordon model via stochastic quantization . arXiv:2412.16404, December 2024

2024 arXiv
[19]

Gubinelli and M

M. Gubinelli and M. Hofmanov\' a . A PDE construction of the E uclidean _3^4 quantum field theory. Comm. Math. Phys. , 384(1):1--75, 2021

2021
[20]

Hairer and R

M. Hairer and R. Steele. The _3^4 measure has sub- G aussian tails. J. Stat. Phys. , 186(3):Paper No. 38, 25, 2022

2022
[21]

R. Hyakuna. Well-posedness for the 1 D cubic nonlinear S chr\" o dinger equation in L^p , p> 2 . Nonlinear Anal. , 226:Paper No. 113154, 16, 2023

2023
[22]

Killip, J

R. Killip, J. Murphy, and M. Visan. Invariance of white noise for K d V on the line. Invent. Math. , 222(1):203--282, 2020

2020
[23]

Killip and M

R. Killip and M. Visan. Kd V is well-posed in H^ -1 . Ann. of Math. (2) , 190(1):249--305, 2019

2019
[24]

Moinat and H

A. Moinat and H. Weber. Local bounds for stochastic reaction diffusion equations. Electron. J. Probab. , 25:Paper No. 17, 26, 2020

2020
[25]

Moinat and H

A. Moinat and H. Weber. Space-time localisation for the dynamic ^4_3 model. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 73(12):2519--2555, 2020

2020
[26]

Mourrat and H

J.-C. Mourrat and H. Weber. Global well-posedness of the dynamic ^4 model in the plane. Ann. Probab. , 45(4):2398--2476, 2017

2017
[27]

R. Schippa. On smoothing estimates in modulation spaces and the nonlinear S chr\"odinger equation with slowly decaying initial data. J. Funct. Anal. , 282(5):Paper No. 109352, 46, 2022

2022
[28]

D. W. Stroock. Probability theory, an analytic view . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993

1993
[29]

Vershynin

R. Vershynin. High-dimensional probability , volume 47 of Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018

2018
[30]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Invariance of $\phi^4$ measure under nonlinear wave and Schr\"odinger equations on the plane

N. Barashkov and P. Laarne . Invariance of ^4 measure under nonlinear wave and Schr \"o dinger equations on the plane . arXiv:2211.16111, November 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

V. Betz. Gibbs measures relative to Brownian motion and Nelson's model . PhD thesis, Technische Universität München, 2002

work page 2002

[3] [3]

Billingsley

P. Billingsley. Convergence of probability measures . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, second edition, 1999. A Wiley-Interscience Publication

work page 1999

[4] [4]

Bourgain

J. Bourgain. Periodic nonlinear S chr\" o dinger equation and invariant measures. Comm. Math. Phys. , 166(1):1--26, 1994

work page 1994

[5] [5]

Bourgain

J. Bourgain. Invariant measures for NLS in infinite volume. Comm. Math. Phys. , 210(3):605--620, 2000

work page 2000

[6] [6]

Bourgain

J. Bourgain. Invariant measures for the 2 D -defocusing nonlinear S chr\" o dinger equation. Comm. Math. Phys. , 176(2):421--445, 1996

work page 1996

[7] [7]

H. J. Brascamp and E. H. Lieb. On extensions of the B runn- M inkowski and P r\'ekopa- L eindler theorems, including inequalities for log concave functions, and with an application to the diffusion equation. J. Functional Analysis , 22(4):366--389, 1976

work page 1976

[8] [8]

Bringmann, Y

B. Bringmann, Y. Deng, A. R. Nahmod, and H. Yue. Invariant G ibbs measures for the three dimensional cubic nonlinear wave equation. Invent. Math. , 236(3):1133--1411, 2024

work page 2024