Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Set Invariance with Probability One for Controlled Diffusion: Score-based Approach

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a controlled Itô diffusion, keeping a prescribed region invariant with probability one over a finite or infinite horizon is exactly equivalent to a range condition on a score vector field computed from a Dirichlet problem.

desk verdict The score-range test is a neat sufficient construction, but the 'all controllers' claim is false: adding a bounded drift to the h-transform control preserves almost-sure invariance. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22385 v1 pith:YWAKK42N submitted 2025-07-30 math.OC cs.LGcs.SYeess.SYmath.PRstat.ME

Wenqing Wang , Alexis M.H. Teter , Murat Arcak , Abhishek Halder This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.LGcs.SYeess.SYmath.PRstat.ME MSC 93E2060J6060H1035K20
keywords controlledsetinvarianceItôdiffusionDoobh-transformscorevectorfieldDirichletboundaryvalueproblemalmostsuresafetyMarkoviancontrolFeynman-Kacpathintegral
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 asks when a controlled diffusion—a stochastic differential equation with a control input—can be confined to a given region of state space for all times up to a deadline, or forever, with probability one. It claims a complete answer: compute the score vector field $s_T(t,x)=\Sigma(t,x)\nabla_x\log h_T(t,x)$ from the uncontrolled dynamics and the region, then test whether that field lies pointwise in the range of the input matrix. If it does, controllers exist and all of them are the solutions of a static linear system; if it does not, no Markovian controller can work. This matters because it turns a probabilistic safety question into a PDE solve followed by a linear-algebra check, with no conservative approximations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is Doob's h-transform. For the uncontrolled diffusion (2), the probability $h_T(t,x)=P_x(\tau_X>T)$ of not exiting $X$ before $T$ solves a Dirichlet boundary value problem, and conditioning the diffusion on that survival event changes its drift by the score vector field $s_T=\Sigma\nabla_x\log h_T$, the diffusion-weighted log-gradient of $h_T$. The controlled diffusion (1) shares the same diffusion coefficient as (2), so it can realize the conditioned process exactly when $Gu=s_T$ is solvable; this equivalence carries the entire argument. In the infinite-horizon case the same construction is run with the principal eigenfunction $\psi_0$, whose log-gradient is time-independent, yielding time-invariant feedback when $G$ and $\sigma$ are autonomous. Computationally, $h_T$ is obtained by Feynman-Kac path integrals and $\psi_0$ by inverse power iteration.

What would settle it

Take the one-dimensional problem $X=(0,1)$, $T<\infty$, $G=1$, $\sigma=1$, $f=0$, and compare the paper's controller $s_T$ with the infinite-horizon controller $u(x)=\pi\cot(\pi x)$, which also keeps the diffusion inside $(0,1)$ up to any finite $T$. If Euler-Maruyama paths under $u(x)=\pi\cot(\pi x)$ never hit the boundary in the small-step limit, then the paper's claim that all almost surely invariant controllers are exactly the solutions of $Gu=s_T$ is false; exhibiting any data where the range test fails yet a Markovian controller keeps paths inside would likewise refute the necessity direction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that almost sure set invariance for the controlled diffusion (1) with data $(f,\sigma,X,X_T,[0,T])$ holds if and only if the score vector field $s_T(t,x):=\Sigma(t,x)\nabla_x\log h_T(t,x)$ belongs to the range of $G(t,x)$ for every $(t,x)\in[0,T]\times X$, where $h_T$ is the unique solution of the backward Kolmogorov/Dirichlet problem (28) with terminal condition $1$ on $X_T$ and zero on the lateral boundary. The infinite-horizon analogue replaces $h_T$ with the principal Dirichlet eigenfunction $\psi_0$ of $-\mathcal{L}$ and requires $s_\infty:=\Sigma\nabla_x\log\psi_0\in R(G)$. When the condition holds, every certified Markovian controller is a solution of $G(t,x)u(t,x)=s(t,x)$; when it fails, no Markovian controller exists. The finite-horizon test can also enforce hitting a target subset $X_T$ at the terminal time by changing only the terminal condition in the Dirichlet problem.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that any controller achieving almost sure set invariance must drive the controlled process to coincide with the Doob h-transform of the uncontrolled process conditioned to stay in the set, and that this conditioning is unique and well-defined through uniform ellipticity; if another drift can also keep the process inside with probability one, the claimed all-controllers characterization and the necessity direction are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When the range condition fails anywhere in $I\times X$, the paper rules out the existence of any Markovian controller for almost sure set invariance, so the search for one can stop and weaker safety specifications must be considered.
  • When the condition holds, the set of certified controllers is exactly the affine family $u=u_{\mathrm{part}}+v$ with $v$ in the nullspace of $G$; with a wide full-row-rank input matrix, any nullspace vector can be added without breaking invariance.
  • The finite-horizon certified controller is a time-varying state feedback even when $G$ and $\sigma$ are autonomous, while the infinite-horizon certified controller is time-invariant under the same autonomy conditions.
  • The same two-step test covers the additional requirement of hitting a target set $X_T$ at time $T$ by changing only the terminal condition in the Dirichlet BVP, leaving the controller construction unchanged.
  • Under the matching condition $GG^\top=\Sigma$, the certified controller coincides with the optimal controller of an inverse stochastic optimal control problem whose running cost penalizes the boundary with infinite cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because feasibility is the rank condition $s\in R(G)$, the framework also gives a design rule that the paper does not develop explicitly: enlarging the control authority $R(G)$ is exactly what can turn an infeasible safety specification into a feasible one.
  • The Weyl-chamber example suggests a general recipe: for any domain whose principal eigenfunction is known, the h-transform drift gives an interacting-particle or repulsive-dynamics interpretation of set invariance, potentially connecting to multi-agent collision avoidance.
  • A data-driven variant is conceivable: estimate the score field from sampled trajectories of the uncontrolled process instead of solving the PDE, then apply the same range test; the paper's score vocabulary points toward this but does not pursue it.
  • The degenerate single-input example indicates that the range test may extend beyond uniform ellipticity when input and noise enter through the same channel; proving the necessary-and-sufficient status in that regime is a natural open extension.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a score-based test for almost-sure set invariance of controlled Itô diffusions. For a prescribed finite horizon T, the authors define h_T as the solution of a Dirichlet BVP and the score s_T = Σ ∇ log h_T, then claim that a Markovian controller exists if and only if s_T is pointwise in the range of the input matrix G, and that when this holds all invariant controllers are exactly the solutions of Gu = s_T. An analogous statement is made for the infinite horizon using the principal Dirichlet eigenfunction ψ_0 and s_∞ = Σ ∇ log ψ_0. The paper also contains an inverse-optimality result and several semi-analytic and numerical examples, including Feynman-Kac and inverse power iteration computations.

Significance. If the main theorems were correct, the paper would provide a computationally checkable necessary-and-sufficient certificate for a strong safety notion, together with an explicit characterization of all safe controllers. The score-based reformulation is original and the numerical examples are constructive. However, the central necessary-and-sufficient claim and the 'all controllers' characterization are false: there exist invariant controlled diffusions that do not coincide with the Doob h-transform process and do not solve Gu = s_∞. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or reproducibility artifacts, but the appearance of a decisive counterexample means the main contribution as stated cannot stand.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV-B, Theorem 4] The claim that all a.s.-invariant controllers solve Gu = s_∞ is false. Consider Example 5 in one dimension: X = (0,1), f = 0, σ = 1, G = 1, ψ_0(x) = sin(πx), so s_∞(x) = π cot(πx). For any constant c ≠ 0, the Markovian controller u_c(x) = π cot(πx) + c also achieves a.s. invariance: the SDE dX_t = (π cot(πX_t) + c) dt + dW_t has scale density s(x) = sin^{-2}(πx)e^{-2cx}, the scale function diverges to -∞ at 0 and +∞ at 1, and the speed measure is integrable near both boundaries, so by Feller's boundary classification both 0 and 1 are entrance boundaries and P_x(τ_{(0,1)} = ∞) = 1 for every x ∈ (0,1). This controller does not solve (43). The same construction works for the finite horizon case because h_T(t,x) is proportional to the distance to ∂X for t<T, so adding a bounded drift to the h-transform drift preserves non-attainment of the boundary up to time T. Therefore the characterization in Theorem 4 (and, analogously, Theorem 2) is not merely unproved but wrong.
  2. [III-B and IV-B, proofs in Appendices B and D] The necessity step in Theorems 2 and 4 is invalid. The proofs equate an arbitrary controlled diffusion that is a.s. invariant with the Doob h-transform conditioned process. However, the conditional law P(· | τ_X > T) is only one probability measure supported on paths that stay in X; there are many absolutely continuous measures with the same diffusion coefficient that are also supported on such paths, as the family of controllers u_c in the previous comment shows. Consequently, the condition s_T ∈ R(G) or s_∞ ∈ R(G) is at best sufficient for existence, and the falsification claim that violation of the range condition implies non-existence of any controller does not follow from the provided arguments.
  3. [IV-A, Eq. (35) and Appendix C] The asymptotic expansion in Eq. (35) is not correct as written. For fixed t, h_T(t,x) = P_x(τ_X > T - t) tends to 0 as T → ∞, whereas the right-hand side e^{λ_0 t} ψ_0(x) does not tend to 0. The correct leading-order behavior is h_T(t,x) = c e^{-λ_0 (T - t)} ψ_0(x) + o(e^{-λ_0 T}) (up to normalization), so the displayed limit does not exist. The proof of Theorem 3 in Appendix C relies on this limit; although the logarithmic gradient ∇ log h_T may still converge to ∇ log ψ_0 after cancellation of the exponential factors, the derivation as written needs to be repaired.
  4. [VI-A, Example 1, Eq. (49)] Equation (49) states u(t,x) = s_T(t,x) = ∇_x h_T(t,x), but the definition (32) gives s_T = Σ ∇_x log h_T = ∇_x h_T / h_T when Σ = I. The displayed formula drops the 1/h_T factor and is inconsistent with equation (34). This error affects the analytic controller formula in Example 1 and the subsequent numerical illustrations in Figures 2-4.
  5. [VI-A, Example 4] The controlled diffusion in Example 4, Eq. (54), is degenerate and violates Assumption A2, yet the text asserts that 'the proposed computational framework still applies thanks to the same input and noise channels in (54)' without proof. Assumption A2 is used to guarantee positivity of the transition density and the invertibility of Σ in the Girsanov argument of Theorem 1. If the framework applies to this degenerate setting, a separate justification or a relaxed assumption is required; otherwise the example does not illustrate the stated theory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II, Assumption A1] Assumption A1 states a Lipschitz condition only for f and a growth condition for σ, not a Lipschitz condition for σ; the cited existence-uniqueness theorem for strong solutions requires Lipschitz continuity of both drift and diffusion coefficients.
  2. [III-A, Theorem 1] The notation h_T ∈ C^{1,2}([0,T]; X) is nonstandard; the intended space is C^{1,2}([0,T] × X).
  3. [VI-A, Example 1, Eq. (48)] The series solution in Eq. (48) appears to place the exponential time dependence incorrectly: the factor exp(-(T-t)) in (48b) should involve the modal rates π² m_i² / (2ℓ_i²), and the exponentials in (48c) should include the factor (T-t).
  4. [VI-B, Example 8] The Weyl chamber W_n in Example 8 is unbounded, so it does not satisfy Assumption A3; the example is presented without noting or resolving this violation.
  5. [I and II] The paper never specifies the regularity class of the Markovian controller u (e.g., local boundedness, Borel measurability, or an integrability condition), although such regularity is needed for the Girsanov argument and for well-posedness of the controlled SDE.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Self-contained h-transform derivation; no circular reduction of the central claim.

full rationale

The paper derives its score-based invariance test from Doob's h-transform and standard spectral theory, not by fitting a parameter to the target quantity. The finite-horizon score s_T is computed from the uncontrolled data (f, sigma, X, X_T, I) via the Dirichlet problem (28), and the infinite-horizon score s_infinity is computed from the principal eigenfunction problem (40). The controller characterization Gu=s is obtained by matching the controlled drift to the h-transform drift; sufficiency is constructive, and the condition s in R(G) is not defined in terms of the controllers. There is no fitted input being renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation: the Doob h-transform, Feynman-Kac formula, and principal eigenvalue facts are standard external results. The one-line proof of necessity in Appendix B ('By equating the diffusion process x_t^u governed by (1), to the process tilde x_t governed by (27), we find that the necessary and sufficient condition is the solvability of Gu=s_T') is terse and effectively assumes the uniqueness of the a.s.-invariant law; that is a rigor/correctness concern, not a circularity, because the claimed characterization has independent mathematical content and does not reduce to the paper's inputs by construction. Example 4's use outside Assumption A2 is also an unsupported extension, but again not circular. Overall, no self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or self-citation-chain circularity is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard stochastic calculus and spectral theory, plus domain assumptions on the problem data. The paper does not introduce fitted parameters or new entities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A1: Non-explosion and Lipschitz coefficients for f and σ.
    Assumed on f and σ in Sec. I; ensures strong existence-uniqueness.
  • domain assumption A2: Uniform ellipticity (Σ strictly positive definite).
    Assumed in Sec. I; used for positive transition density and invertible Σ in Girsanov; violated in Example 4 without proof.
  • domain assumption A3: X connected, bounded, Lipschitz.
    Needed for Dirichlet BVP and spectral theory.
  • standard math Doob h-transform conditioning keeps process in X a.s.
    Doob's h-transform and principal eigenfunction theory are cited as external results; used in Theorems 1 and 3.
  • domain assumption Markovian controllers have sufficient regularity for the controlled SDE to be well-posed and for Girsanov to apply.
    The paper does not state regularity conditions on u in (4); Girsanov and weak well-posedness require at least local integrability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Set Invariance with Probability One for Controlled Diffusion: Score-based Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YWAKK42N

@misc{pith2026250722385,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Set Invariance with Probability One for Controlled Diffusion: Score-based Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YWAKK42N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22385}
}
read the original abstract

Given a controlled diffusion and a connected, bounded, Lipschitz set, when is it possible to guarantee controlled set invariance with probability one? In this work, we answer this question by deriving the necessary and sufficient conditions for the same in terms of gradients of certain log-likelihoods -- a.k.a. score vector fields -- for two cases: given finite time horizon and infinite time horizon. The deduced conditions comprise a score-based test that provably certifies or falsifies the existence of Markovian controllers for given controlled set invariance problem data. Our results are constructive in the sense when the problem data passes the proposed test, we characterize all controllers guaranteeing the desired set invariance. When the problem data fails the proposed test, there does not exist a controller that can accomplish the desired set invariance with probability one. The computation in the proposed tests involve solving certain Dirichlet boundary value problems, and in the finite horizon case, can also account for additional constraint of hitting a target subset at the terminal time. We illustrate the results using several semi-analytical and numerical examples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22385 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Almost sure fixed horizon controlled set invariance with problem data (f , σ, X , XT , [0, T ]). The problem is to design Markovian control (4) such that the controlled path governed by (1) satisfies x u t ∈ X for all t ∈ [0, T ] and x u T ∈ XT ⊆ X with probability one. For diffusions, there is a rich literature on the related notion of viability theory without control, see e.g., [12, Ch. 1.5]. For controlled diffus… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Contour plot of hT and controlled sample paths for Example 1 with n = 1, ℓ = π, b = π/3, I = [0, 3] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contour snapshots of hT (t, x) for Example 1 with n = 2, ℓ = (2, 2)⊤, b = (1, 1)⊤, I = [0, 1]. Each contour snapshot is plotted over the set X ≡ Rect (0, ℓ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 20 controlled sample paths for Example 1 with n = 2, ℓ = (2, 2)⊤, b = (1, 1)⊤, I = [0, 1]. The inset plot highlights the target set XT ≡ Rect (0, b) overlaid with the terminal states of the controlled sample paths. the k th zero of J0(·); see e.g., [53, Ch. 9.1, Ch. 9.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: compares 7 uncontrolled and controlled sample paths for problem data (50) with r1 = 1, r2 = 2, T = 1. Example 3 (Effect of input matrix G) To give falsification example, let us re-visit Example 2 with the same problem data (50) except for single input, i.e., G(t, x1, x…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contour snapshots of hT (t, x) for Example 4 with α = β = 1, f(x) = x 3, ℓ = (2, 2)⊤, I = [0, 1], using the Feynman-Kac path integral computation. Each contour snapshot is plotted over the set X ≡ Rect (0, ℓ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The 5 controlled sample paths for Example 4. For ℓ ∈ R n >0 , we consider the prescribed time controlled set invariance for (54) with problem data (f, G,σ, X , I) =  x u 2t −αf (x u 1t ) − βxu 2t  ,  0 1  ,  0 1  , Rect(0, ℓ), [0, T]  . (55) In this case, the p…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The principal eigenfunction ψ0 and 5 controlled sample paths for Example 5 with n = 1, ℓ = 1. For n = 1, ℓ = 1, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Uncontrolled and (b) controlled sample paths for Example 6 with r1 = 1. With probability one, the controlled paths are guaranteed to be in X ≡ Disk (0, r1). The color (blue to red) along each sample path indicates the progression of time. Example 7 (Infinite time …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The principal eigenfunction ψ0 and 5 controlled sample paths for Example 5 with n = 2, ℓ = (2, 2)⊤. The ψ0 contours are plotted over the set X ≡ Rect (0, ℓ). Example 6 (Infinite time disk invariance with zero drift) For given r1 > 0, consider the a.s. controlled set in…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The principal eigenfunction ψ0 and 5 controlled sample paths for Example 7. The ψ0 contours are plotted over the set X ≡ [−1, 1]2. Example 8 (Set invariance as non-collision) The purpose of this example is to highlight that for special choices of X , we may compute th…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The a.s. infinite horizon controlled invariance of the Weyl chamber W3 for Example 8. Vander(x) plays the role of the (spatial) harmonic function. Indeed, direct computation verifies ∆xVander(x) = 0. Consequently, the time-invariant state feedback u(x) = ∇x log Vander…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Oksendal, Stochastic differential equations: an introduction with applications

    B. Oksendal, Stochastic differential equations: an introduction with applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Friedman, Partial differential equations of parabolic type

    A. Friedman, Partial differential equations of parabolic type . Courier Dover Publications, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Karatzas and S

    I. Karatzas and S. Shreve, Brownian motion and stochastic calculus . springer, 2014, vol. 113

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,

    A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2016

    2016

  5. [5]

    Safety-critical control for non-affine non- linear systems with application on autonomous vehicle,

    T. D. Son and Q. Nguyen, “Safety-critical control for non-affine non- linear systems with application on autonomous vehicle,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 7623–7628

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Safety Under Uncertainty: Tight Bounds with Risk-Aware Control Barrier Functions

    M. Black, G. Fainekos, B. Hoxha, D. Prokhorov, and D. Panagou, “Safety under uncertainty: Tight bounds with risk-aware control barrier functions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01040 , 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    W. Xiao, C. G. Cassandras, and C. Belta, Safe autonomy with control barrier functions: theory and applications . Springer, 2023. 7The weighted L2 inner product between φ(r) and ψ(r) w.r.t. the weight function w(r), is ⟨φ(r), ψ(r)⟩w(r) := R φ(r)ψ(r)w(r) dr

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    The stochastic reach- avoid problem and set characterization for diffusions,

    P. M. Esfahani, D. Chatterjee, and J. Lygeros, “The stochastic reach- avoid problem and set characterization for diffusions,” Automatica, vol. 70, pp. 43–56, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Stochastic reachability of a target tube: Theory and computation,

    A. P. Vinod and M. M. Oishi, “Stochastic reachability of a target tube: Theory and computation,” Automatica, vol. 125, p. 109458, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Mean viability theorems and second-order Hamilton–Jacobi equations,

    C. Keller, “Mean viability theorems and second-order Hamilton–Jacobi equations,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 1615–1642, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Near invariance for Markov diffusion systems,

    F. Colonius, T. Gayer, and W. Kliemann, “Near invariance for Markov diffusion systems,” SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 79–107, 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    Aubin, Viability Theory

    J.-P. Aubin, Viability Theory . Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    The viability theorem for stochastic differential inclusions,

    J.-P. Aubin and G. D. Prato, “The viability theorem for stochastic differential inclusions,” Stochastic Analysis and Applications , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 1998

    1998

  6. [14]

    A geometric characterization of viable sets for controlled degenerate diffusions,

    M. Bardi and R. Jensen, “A geometric characterization of viable sets for controlled degenerate diffusions,” Set-Valued Analysis, vol. 10, pp. 129–141, 2002

    2002

  7. [15]

    Almost sure stabilizability of controlled degenerate diffusions,

    M. Bardi and A. Cesaroni, “Almost sure stabilizability of controlled degenerate diffusions,” SIAM journal on control and optimization , vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 75–98, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Stochastic control and compatible subsets of constraints,

    M. Quincampoix and C. Rainer, “Stochastic control and compatible subsets of constraints,” Bulletin des sciences mathematiques , vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 39–55, 2005

    2005

  9. [17]

    Stochastic viability for compact sets in terms of the distance function,

    G. Da Prato and H. Frankowska, “Stochastic viability for compact sets in terms of the distance function,” Dynamic Systems and Applications , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 177–184, 2001

    2001

  10. [18]

    Stochastic viability of convex sets,

    ——, “Stochastic viability of convex sets,” Journal of mathematical analysis and applications , vol. 333, no. 1, pp. 151–163, 2007

    2007

  11. [19]

    Invariance of stochastic control systems with deterministic ar- guments,

    ——, “Invariance of stochastic control systems with deterministic ar- guments,” Journal of differential equations , vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 18–52, 2004

    2004

  12. [20]

    Another proof for the equivalence between invariance of closed sets with respect to stochastic and deterministic systems,

    R. Buckdahn, M. Quincampoix, C. Rainer, and J. Teichmann, “Another proof for the equivalence between invariance of closed sets with respect to stochastic and deterministic systems,” Bulletin des sciences mathe- matiques, vol. 134, no. 2, pp. 207–214, 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    Control barrier functions for stochastic systems,

    A. Clark, “Control barrier functions for stochastic systems,” Automatica, vol. 130, p. 109688, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    On a notion of stochastic zeroing barrier function,

    T. A. Tamba, B. Hu, and Y . Y . Nazaruddin, “On a notion of stochastic zeroing barrier function,” in 2021 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1318–1321

    2021

  15. [23]

    Control barrier functions for stochastic systems and safety-critical control designs,

    Y . Nishimura and K. Hoshino, “Control barrier functions for stochastic systems and safety-critical control designs,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 8088–8095, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    A barrier function approach to finite-time stochastic system verification and control,

    C. Santoyo, M. Dutreix, and S. Coogan, “A barrier function approach to finite-time stochastic system verification and control,” Automatica, vol. 125, p. 109439, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Safety-critical control of stochastic systems using stochastic control barrier functions,

    C. Wang, Y . Meng, S. L. Smith, and J. Liu, “Safety-critical control of stochastic systems using stochastic control barrier functions,” in 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 5924–5931

    2021

  18. [26]

    Reach-avoid analysis for polyno- mial stochastic differential equations,

    B. Xue, N. Zhan, and M. Fr ¨anzle, “Reach-avoid analysis for polyno- mial stochastic differential equations,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 1882–1889, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    A framework for worst- case and stochastic safety verification using barrier certificates,

    S. Prajna, A. Jadbabaie, and G. J. Pappas, “A framework for worst- case and stochastic safety verification using barrier certificates,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1415–1428, 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    Finite-time regional verification of stochastic non-linear systems,

    J. Steinhardt and R. Tedrake, “Finite-time regional verification of stochastic non-linear systems,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 901–923, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Safety certification for stochastic systems via neural barrier functions,

    F. B. Mathiesen, S. C. Calvert, and L. Laurenti, “Safety certification for stochastic systems via neural barrier functions,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 973–978, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Conditional Brownian motion and the boundary limits of harmonic functions,

    J. L. Doob, “Conditional Brownian motion and the boundary limits of harmonic functions,” Bulletin de la Soci ´et´e Math ´ematique de France , vol. 85, pp. 431–458, 1957

    1957

  23. [31]

    Springer, 1984, vol

    ——, Classical potential theory and its probabilistic counterpart . Springer, 1984, vol. 262

    1984

  24. [32]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,

    Y . Song and S. Ermon, “Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differ- ential equations,

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole, “Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differ- ential equations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 , 2020. 16

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Score-based generative modeling in latent space,

    A. Vahdat, K. Kreis, and J. Kautz, “Score-based generative modeling in latent space,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 34, pp. 11 287–11 302, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Score-based generative modeling of graphs via the system of stochastic differential equations,

    J. Jo, S. Lee, and S. J. Hwang, “Score-based generative modeling of graphs via the system of stochastic differential equations,” in Interna- tional conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 10 362– 10 383

    2022

  28. [36]

    Score-based generative modeling for de novo protein design,

    J. S. Lee, J. Kim, and P. M. Kim, “Score-based generative modeling for de novo protein design,” Nature Computational Science , vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 382–392, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Convergence of score-based generative modeling for general data distributions,

    H. Lee, J. Lu, and Y . Tan, “Convergence of score-based generative modeling for general data distributions,” in International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory . PMLR, 2023, pp. 946–985

    2023

  30. [38]

    Bakry, I

    D. Bakry, I. Gentil, and M. Ledoux, Analysis and geometry of Markov diffusion operators. Springer, 2014, vol. 103

    2014

  31. [39]

    Gilbarg and N

    D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger, Elliptic partial differential equations of second order. Springer, 1977, vol. 224, no. 2

    1977

  32. [40]

    Absolute continuity of Markov processes and generators,

    H. Kunita, “Absolute continuity of Markov processes and generators,” Nagoya Mathematical Journal , vol. 36, pp. 1–26, 1969

    1969

  33. [41]

    The geometry of Markov diffusion generators,

    M. Ledoux, “The geometry of Markov diffusion generators,” in Annales de la Facult ´e des sciences de Toulouse: Math ´ematiques, vol. 9, no. 2, 2000, pp. 305–366

    2000

  34. [42]

    L. C. G. Rogers and D. Williams, Diffusions, Markov processes, and martingales: It ˆo calculus. Cambridge university press, 2000, vol. 2

    2000

  35. [43]

    On the convergence of diffusion processes conditioned to remain in a bounded region for large time to limiting positive recurrent diffusion processes,

    R. G. Pinsky, “On the convergence of diffusion processes conditioned to remain in a bounded region for large time to limiting positive recurrent diffusion processes,” The Annals of Probability , pp. 363–378, 1985

    1985

  36. [44]

    Doob’s conditioned diffusions and their lifetimes,

    R. D. DeBlassie, “Doob’s conditioned diffusions and their lifetimes,” The Annals of Probability , pp. 1063–1083, 1988

    1988

  37. [45]

    Nonequilibrium Markov processes con- ditioned on large deviations,

    R. Chetrite and H. Touchette, “Nonequilibrium Markov processes con- ditioned on large deviations,” in Annales Henri Poincar ´e, vol. 16. Springer, 2015, pp. 2005–2057

    2015

  38. [46]

    L. C. Evans, Partial differential equations . American Mathematical Society, 2022, vol. 19

    2022

  39. [47]

    Linear operators leaving invariant a cone in a Banach space,

    M. G. Krein and M. A. Rutman, “Linear operators leaving invariant a cone in a Banach space,” Uspekhi Matematicheskikh Nauk, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 3–95, 1948

    1948

  40. [48]

    The principal eigen- value and maximum principle for second-order elliptic operators in general domains,

    H. Berestycki, L. Nirenberg, and S. S. Varadhan, “The principal eigen- value and maximum principle for second-order elliptic operators in general domains,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 47–92, 1994

    1994

  41. [49]

    Generalizations and properties of the principal eigenvalue of elliptic operators in unbounded domains,

    H. Berestycki and L. Rossi, “Generalizations and properties of the principal eigenvalue of elliptic operators in unbounded domains,” Com- munications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 1014– 1065, 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

    Stochastic control and principal eigenvalue,

    S.-J. Sheu, “Stochastic control and principal eigenvalue,” Stochastics, vol. 11, no. 3-4, pp. 191–211, 1984

    1984

  43. [51]

    Haberman, Applied Partial Differential Equations with Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems , 5th ed

    R. Haberman, Applied Partial Differential Equations with Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems , 5th ed. Pearson, 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    W. A. Strauss, Partial differential equations: An introduction , 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2007

    2007

  45. [53]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. E. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series 55, Tenth Printing, 1972

    1972

  46. [54]

    Stochastic control and the second law of thermodynamics,

    R. W. Brockett and J. C. Willems, “Stochastic control and the second law of thermodynamics,” in 1978 IEEE conference on decision and control including the 17th symposium on adaptive processes . IEEE, 1979, pp. 1007–1011

    1978

  47. [55]

    Nonlinear feedback systems perturbed by noise: Steady-state probability distributions and optimal control,

    D. Liberzon and R. W. Brockett, “Nonlinear feedback systems perturbed by noise: Steady-state probability distributions and optimal control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1116–1130, 2000

    2000

  48. [56]

    Relations among ODEs, PDEs, FSDEs, BSDEs, and FBSDEs,

    J. Yong, “Relations among ODEs, PDEs, FSDEs, BSDEs, and FBSDEs,” in Proceedings of the 36th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , vol. 3. IEEE, 1997, pp. 2779–2784

    1997

  49. [57]

    Yong and X

    J. Yong and X. Y . Zhou, Stochastic controls: Hamiltonian systems and HJB equations. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012, vol. 43

    2012

  50. [58]

    On the Markov processes of Schr ¨odinger, the Feynman-Kac formula and stochastic control,

    P. D. Pra and M. Pavon, “On the Markov processes of Schr ¨odinger, the Feynman-Kac formula and stochastic control,” in Realization and Mod- elling in System Theory: Proceedings of the International Symposium MTNS-89, Volume I. Springer, 1990, pp. 497–504

    1990

  51. [59]

    Learning policy improvements with path integrals,

    E. Theodorou, J. Buchli, and S. Schaal, “Learning policy improvements with path integrals,” in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010, pp. 828–835

    2010

  52. [60]

    Schr ¨odinger meets Kuramoto via Feynman- Kac: Minimum effort distribution steering for noisy nonuniform Ku- ramoto oscillators,

    I. Nodozi and A. Halder, “Schr ¨odinger meets Kuramoto via Feynman- Kac: Minimum effort distribution steering for noisy nonuniform Ku- ramoto oscillators,” in IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2022, pp. 2953–2960

    2022

  53. [61]

    Saad, Numerical methods for large eigenvalue problems: revised edition

    Y . Saad, Numerical methods for large eigenvalue problems: revised edition. SIAM, 2011

    2011

  54. [62]

    Geometrical structure of Laplacian eigenfunctions,

    D. S. Grebenkov and B.-T. Nguyen, “Geometrical structure of Laplacian eigenfunctions,” SIAM Review, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 601–667, 2013

    2013

  55. [63]

    Henrot, Extremum problems for eigenvalues of elliptic operators

    A. Henrot, Extremum problems for eigenvalues of elliptic operators . Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  56. [64]

    Fulton and J

    W. Fulton and J. Harris, Representation theory: a first course. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013, vol. 129

    2013

  57. [65]

    Brownian motion in a Weyl chamber, non-colliding particles, and random matrices,

    D. J. Grabiner, “Brownian motion in a Weyl chamber, non-colliding particles, and random matrices,” in Annales de l’IHP Probabilit ´es et statistiques, vol. 35, no. 2, 1999, pp. 177–204

    1999

  58. [66]

    Noncolliding Brownian motion and determinantal processes,

    M. Katori and H. Tanemura, “Noncolliding Brownian motion and determinantal processes,” Journal of statistical physics , vol. 129, pp. 1233–1277, 2007

    2007

  59. [67]

    Coincidence probabilities

    S. Karlin and J. McGregor, “Coincidence probabilities.” Pacific J. Math., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1141–1164, 1959

    1959

  60. [68]

    A Brownian-motion model for the eigenvalues of a random matrix,

    F. J. Dyson, “A Brownian-motion model for the eigenvalues of a random matrix,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 1191–1198, 1962

    1962

  61. [69]

    Tao, Topics in random matrix theory

    T. Tao, Topics in random matrix theory . American Mathematical Soc., 2012, vol. 132

    2012

  62. [70]

    Universality of the local spacing distribution in certain ensembles of Hermitian Wigner matrices,

    K. J. Johansson, “Universality of the local spacing distribution in certain ensembles of Hermitian Wigner matrices,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 215, pp. 683–705, 2001

    2001

  63. [71]

    Eigenvalues of the Laguerre process as non-colliding squared Bessel processes

    W. K ¨onig and N. O’Connell, “Eigenvalues of the Laguerre process as non-colliding squared Bessel processes.” Electronic Communications in Probability [electronic only], vol. 6, pp. 107–114, 2001

    2001

  64. [72]

    Symmetry of matrix-valued stochastic processes and noncolliding diffusion particle systems,

    M. Katori and H. Tanemura, “Symmetry of matrix-valued stochastic processes and noncolliding diffusion particle systems,” Journal of math- ematical physics, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 3058–3085, 2004

    2004

  65. [73]

    Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis , 3rd ed

    W. Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis , 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill Science, 1976

    1976

  66. [74]

    Logarithmic transformations and stochastic control,

    W. H. Fleming, “Logarithmic transformations and stochastic control,” in Advances in Filtering and Optimal Stochastic Control: Proceedings of the IFIP-WG 7/1 Working Conference Cocoyoc, Mexico, February 1–6,

  67. [75]

    G. N. Watson, A treatise on the theory of Bessel functions . The University Press, 1922, vol. 2

    1922

  68. [1982]

    Springer, 2005, pp. 131–141

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.