Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 63 references

A Smoluchowski-Kramers approximation for the stochastic variational wave equation

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a damped stochastic variational wave equation with state-dependent speed and friction, the zero-mass limit is a quasilinear parabolic SPDE, and this paper proves convergence in probability to it.

desk verdict New and substantive Smoluchowski–Kramers result for a quasilinear variational wave equation; proof is solid but leans heavily on references, with the load-bearing uniqueness of the limit equation asserted rather than proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.13567 v2 pith:4QRFPNWE submitted 2025-11-17 math.AP math.PR

Billel Guelmame , Julien Vovelle This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath.PR MSC 35R6060H1535L7035A01
keywords Smoluchowski–Kramersapproximationstochasticvariationalwaveequationdampedsmall-masslimitquasilinearparabolicSPDEItôcorrectiondefectmeasureweakdissipativesolutions
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's goal is to validate the Smoluchowski–Kramers approximation for a one-dimensional stochastic variational wave equation with state-dependent wave speed, state-dependent damping, and additive noise. It shows that as the mass parameter μ tends to zero, global weak 'dissipative' martingale solutions converge in probability, in strong norms, to the solution of a stochastic quasilinear parabolic equation. The limiting equation carries an extra drift term — the Itô correction −γ′(u)q/(2γ(u)^3) — that arises from the interaction between the noise and the non-constant friction, and is not present if one formally sets μ=0. A sympathetic reader should care because this turns a hyperbolic, possibly singular SPDE into a well-posed parabolic effective model in the small-mass regime, with an explicit formula for the correction.

What carries the argument

The engine of the proof is the energy 'dissipation' inequality for the damped wave equation. It yields the one-sided estimate (2.25): the positive part of the deviation 2μγ(u^μ)(u^μ_t)^2 − q tends to zero in expectation, so the frictional energy cannot exceed the noise intensity in the limit. This forces the non-negative defect measure â = a − c′(u)c(u)u_x^2 — the gap between the weak limit of the flux and the expected flux — to vanish, which is exactly what turns the limit equation into the parabolic SPDE (1.6). The change of variables θ = Γ(u) = ∫_0^u (γ(v)/c(v)) dv puts the limit in divergence form, where uniqueness of weak solutions follows from earlier results cited in the paper.

What would settle it

Construct two distinct weak solutions of (1.6) for admissible coefficients (periodic torus, F=F(x,θ) with the x-dependence through q(x), and Ψ=Φ/c∘Γ^{-1}) that satisfy the same initial datum. Such a construction would break the Gyöngy–Krylov argument in Section 5.2.4 and falsify the stated convergence in probability of the whole sequence u^μ.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2.6: under assumptions (2.3)–(2.9), for any η>0, p∈[1,∞), δ∈(0,1), one has lim_{μ→0} P(∥u^μ−u∥_{L2([0,T];Hδ)} + ∥u^μ−u∥_{Lp([0,T];L2)} > η) = 0, where u is the unique weak solution of the quasilinear parabolic SPDE du = (c(u)/γ(u))(c(u)u_x)_x dt + (f(u)/γ(u) − γ′(u)q/(2γ(u)^3)) dt + (1/γ(u))Φ dW. The proof establishes global existence of weak dissipative martingale solutions, derives uniform-in-μ energy and parabolic estimates, identifies the vanishing of the defect measure via the energy dissipation identity, and uses the Gyöngy–Krylov criterion to lift subsequential compactness to convergence in probability.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the limiting quasilinear parabolic equation (1.6) has at most one weak solution in the periodic case with x-dependent coefficients; the paper relies on this uniqueness from the existing literature to conclude convergence in probability rather than just subsequential convergence of martingale solutions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the small-mass regime, the effective drift for u is the parabolic operator (c(u)/γ(u))(c(u)u_x)_x plus the Itô correction −γ′(u)q/(2γ(u)^3); the naive μ=0 equation is not the correct limit.
  • The convergence holds in L2([0,T];Hδ(T)) ∩ Lp([0,T];L2(T)) for all p∈[1,∞) and δ∈(0,1), so the parabolic model approximates the wave equation uniformly on finite time intervals.
  • Global weak dissipative martingale solutions exist for the damped stochastic variational wave equation on the torus with state-dependent c and γ.
  • The defect measure vanishes under the energy-dissipation mechanism, which is the specific step that makes the limit equation parabolic rather than hyperbolic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If uniqueness of the limiting quasilinear SPDE were proven directly in this setting, the convergence argument would no longer depend on importing a uniqueness result from simpler cases.
  • The same mechanism — frictional energy capturing the noise variance — likely governs small-mass limits of other quasilinear hyperbolic SPDEs with state-dependent damping, such as stochastic Hunter–Saxton type equations.
  • A quantitative version of the convergence rate in μ is not provided by the compactness argument; obtaining such a rate would be a natural next step for numerical applications.
  • The one-dimensional restriction is inherited from the deterministic global well-posedness theory; progress there could extend the result to higher dimensions if the uniform estimates survive.
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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies the one-dimensional periodic stochastic variational wave equation with state-dependent damping and additive noise, equation (2.8). It claims two results: (i) existence of global weak martingale solutions in the sense of Definition 2.2 (Theorem 2.3), and (ii) a Smoluchowski–Kramers approximation: as the mass parameter μ tends to zero, solutions u^μ converge in probability to the unique solution of the stochastic quasilinear parabolic equation (1.5), equivalently (1.6), with an explicit Itô correction term. The proof of the small-mass limit combines uniform estimates from Sections 3–4, a compactness/Skorokhod argument, identification of the nonlinear terms and a defect measure, and a Gyöngy–Krylov step to upgrade subsequential convergence to convergence in probability of the whole family. The main convergence argument is presented in substantial detail, but it rests on an unproved uniqueness assertion for the limiting equation and on assumptions about the existence and probabilistic setup of the family u^μ that are not reconciled with the martingale-solution theorem.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a meaningful contribution to the literature on Smoluchowski–Kramers approximations for nonlinear hyperbolic SPDEs. The paper identifies a nontrivial Itô correction due to state-dependent friction, develops uniform-in-μ estimates in the parabolic energy space, and gives a detailed defect-measure argument showing that the energy defect vanishes. The approximation statement is sharp and goes beyond previous work on constant friction or simpler geometries. The main convergence proof is largely self-contained once the existence and uniqueness inputs are granted. However, the paper currently leaves two load-bearing items to references or to assumption: uniqueness of the limiting quasilinear parabolic equation in the present torus setting with x-dependent F and multiplicative noise, and the existence of a family of solutions u^μ on a common probability space with a common Wiener process. These gaps must be closed before the theorem can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4 and §5.2.4] The uniqueness of weak solutions to (1.6) in the sense of Definition 2.4 is asserted without proof: the text says 'Following [HZ17, Theorem 3.1] and [CX22, Theorem 6.2] one can prove...' and Section 5.2.4 repeats this assertion. This is load-bearing because the Gyöngy–Krylov argument at the end of Section 5.2.4 uses uniqueness to conclude θ^1 = θ^2 and hence convergence in probability of the whole family u^μ. The cited references do not obviously cover the present setting: [HZ17] treats F independent of x, while [CX22] treats bounded domains with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Here the torus, the x-dependent drift F(x,θ) containing q(x)c'(Γ^{-1}(θ))/(2γ c^2), and the multiplicative noise Ψ(θ) = Φ/c(Γ^{-1}(θ)) require modified integration-by-parts and monotonicity estimates. The authors should provide a complete proof of uniqueness, or a precise reference whose hypotheses cover exactly th
  2. [§2.3, Theorem 2.3] Theorem 2.3 is stated as a new existence result for (2.8) with γ ≥ γ_1 > 0 and Lipschitz f, but its proof is omitted: the text says the proof is 'omitted here, we refer to [GV24]'. According to the Introduction, [GV24] treats the case f ≡ γ ≡ 0. Section 4.3 only sketches the passage from the approximating system via stochastic compactness and does not verify all items of Definition 2.2 for the new forcing and damping terms. Since the small-mass theorem assumes the existence of solutions u^μ with the properties (2.26)–(2.28), the paper should either prove Theorem 2.3 in the present setting or state precisely which parts of [GV24] are being extended and how.
  3. [§2.4, Theorem 2.6; §2.3, Theorem 2.3] Theorem 2.6 assumes that u^μ are solutions on the fixed probability space (2.1) with the same Wiener process W, as written in (2.26) and used in the probability statement (2.29). However, Theorem 2.3 only yields martingale solutions, each on a stochastic basis (2.19) depending on μ. The paper does not explain how to obtain, for each μ, a solution on a common basis with a common W. If the only available solutions are martingale solutions on varying bases, the probability statement in (2.29) is not defined, and the Gyöngy–Krylov argument in §5.2.4 cannot be applied directly. The authors should either prove existence of a family of strong solutions on one probability space, or reformulate the approximation result in the language of martingale solutions / convergence of laws.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B, Proposition B.2] The proof of Proposition B.2 is omitted with the comment that it is simpler than the proof of Proposition B.1. Since Proposition B.2 is used in deriving the limiting equations (5.17), (5.18) and (5.22), the authors should include at least a sketch of the proof or give a precise reference where this form of the Itô formula is proved.
  2. [Throughout] There are several small grammatical and typographical issues, e.g. 'we conclude to (5.24)' in Section 5.2.3 should read 'we conclude (5.24)'; 'Rarefactive' in the Introduction should be 'Rarefactive' or 'Rarefaction' as appropriate. Also, the assertion in Section 2.4 that uniqueness of (1.5) follows from uniqueness of (1.6) 'using Itô's formula in Proposition B.1' would benefit from a brief explanation of the transformation, since the equation for u is not simply a Lipschitz change of variables when q is x-dependent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the convergence proof is self-contained once existence is granted; only a mild same-author dependence and an asserted (externally cited) uniqueness extension are present.

full rationale

The main convergence proof in Section 5 is not circular. Given any family u^mu satisfying the uniform estimates, the paper builds tightness for (theta^mu, V^mu, R^mu, S^mu, a^mu, W^mu), passes to Skorokhod limits, derives the limiting equations (5.19) directly from the weak formulation and the Ito formulas proved in Appendix B, identifies the defect measure through the one-sided estimate (2.28), and only then invokes uniqueness of the quasilinear equation (1.6). The uniqueness input is not the paper's own conclusion: it is cited from Hofmanova-Zhang [HZ17, Thm 3.1] and Cerrai-Xi [CX22, Thm 6.2], neither of which is a self-citation or presupposes the Smoluchowski-Kramers limit. The only same-author reference is [GV24], used for the existence of the approximating weak martingale solutions; the proof is mostly omitted here and the needed estimates are supplied in Sections 3-4. That is a dependency/gap (and the adaptation of [HZ17]/[CX22] uniqueness is asserted rather than shown), but it is not a construction-level circularity: no target equation is used to derive itself, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and the Ito correction term is obtained from Ito calculus rather than imposed. Score 2 reflects the mild self-citation and the unproved uniqueness assertion, not a circular reduction.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and no fitted free parameters; all coefficients c, γ, f, Φ are given data satisfying stated bounds. The defect measure â (5.20) is a standard object from deterministic conservation-law theory, not an invented entity. The main external inputs are the prior existence theorem from the authors' [GV24], an extension of uniqueness results from [HZ17]/[CX22], and two Itô formulas with sketched proofs.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Existence of global weak martingale solutions to (2.8) with bounds (2.22)-(2.25) (Theorem 2.3)
    Theorem 2.3 is stated but its proof is 'omitted here, we refer to [GV24]'. The main theorem (Theorem 2.6) assumes such solutions u^μ satisfying (2.26)-(2.28); Section 4.3 only sketches the missing estimates.
  • domain assumption Uniqueness of weak solutions to (1.6) in the periodic case with F=F(x,θ) and Ψ=Ψ(θ)
    Stated as 'Following [HZ17, Theorem 3.1] and [CX22, Theorem 6.2] one can prove ...' (Section 2.4). Used in Section 5.2.4 to identify θ^1=θ^2 and to apply the Gyöngy–Krylov argument.
  • standard math Itô formulas in Propositions B.1 and B.2 for the weak solutions involved
    Appendix B; the proof of B.1 omits details after Step 4, and the proof of B.2 is omitted entirely. These formulas are used to derive the energy identity (3.1) and the limiting equations (5.19)-(5.22).
  • standard math Stochastic compactness: Prokhorov theorem and Skorokhod–Jakubowski representation in the non-metric space Z
    Used in Section 4.3 Step 1 and Section 5.2.1 to extract convergent subsequences; standard tools in stochastic compactness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Smoluchowski-Kramers approximation for the stochastic variational wave equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4QRFPNWE

@misc{pith2026251113567,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Smoluchowski-Kramers approximation for the stochastic variational wave equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4QRFPNWE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.13567}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the Smoluchowski-Kramers approximation for the one-dimensional periodic variational wave equation with state-dependent damping and additive noise. We show that weak ``dissipative'' solutions converge to solutions of a stochastic quasilinear parabolic equation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. F. Bass. Stochastic processes , volume 33 of Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011

    2011

  2. [2]

    Bensoussan

    A. Bensoussan. Stochastic N avier- S tokes equations. Acta Appl. Math. , 38(3):267--304, 1995

    1995

  3. [3]

    Berthelin and J

    F. Berthelin and J. Vovelle. Stochastic isentropic E uler equations. Ann. Sci. \' E c. Norm. Sup\' e r. (4) , 52(1):181--254, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    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

    1999

  5. [5]

    Bressan, G

    A. Bressan, G. Chen, and Q. Zhang. Unique conservative solutions to a variational wave equation. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 217(3):1069--1101, 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    Bressan, and T

    A. Bressan, and T. Huang. Representation of dissipative solutions to a nonlinear variational wave equation. Commun. Math. Sci. , 14(1):31--53, 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Bressan and Y

    A. Bressan and Y. Zheng. Conservative solutions to a nonlinear variational wave equation. Comm. Math. Phys. , 266(2):471--497, 2006

    2006

  8. [8]

    Brze \'z niak and S

    Z. Brze \'z niak and S. Cerrai. Stochastic wave equations with constraints: well-posedness and Smoluchowski--Kramers diffusion approximation. arXiv preprint , arXiv:2303.09717, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Brze \'z niak and M

    Z. Brze \'z niak and M. Ondrej \'a t. Weak solutions to stochastic wave equations with values in R iemannian manifolds. Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 36(9):1624--1653, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Brze \'z niak, M

    Z. Brze \'z niak, M. Ondrej \'a t and J. Seidler. Invariant measures for stochastic nonlinear beam and wave equations. Journal of Differential Equations , 260(5):4157--4179, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Cerrai and A

    S. Cerrai and A. Debussche. Smoluchowski--Kramers diffusion approximation for systems of stochastic damped wave equations with non-constant friction. arXiv preprint , arXiv:2312.08925, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cerrai and M

    S. Cerrai and M. Freidlin. On the Smoluchowski--Kramers approximation for a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields , 135:363--394, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Cerrai and M

    S. Cerrai and M. Freidlin. Small mass asymptotics for a charged particle in a magnetic field and long-time influence of small perturbations. J. Stat. Phys. , 144(1):101--123, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    Cerrai and M

    S. Cerrai and M. Freidlin. Smoluchowski--Kramers approximation for a general class of SPDE's. J. Evol. Equ. , 6:657--689, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Cerrai, M

    S. Cerrai, M. Freidlin, and M. Salins. On the Smoluchowski--Kramers approximation for SPDEs and its interplay with large deviations and long-time behavior. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. A , 37:33--76, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Cerrai and M

    S. Cerrai and M. Salins. On the Smoluchowski--Kramers approximation for a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom subject to a magnetic field. Stochastic Process. Appl. , 127:273--303, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Cerrai, J

    S. Cerrai, J. Wehr and Y. Zhu. An averaging approach to the Smoluchowski-Kramers approximation in the presence of a varying magnetic field. J. Stat. Phys. , 181(1):132--148, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Cerrai and G

    S. Cerrai and G. Xi. A Smoluchowski--Kramers approximation for an infinite dimensional system with state-dependent damping. Ann. Probab. , 50(3):874--904, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Cerrai and M

    S. Cerrai and M. Xie. On the small-mass limit for stationary solutions of stochastic wave equations with state dependent friction. Appl. Math. Optim. , 90(1):Paper No. 7, 48 pp., 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Cerrai and M

    S. Cerrai and M. Xie. On the small noise limit in the Smoluchowski--Kramers approximation of nonlinear wave equations with variable friction. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 376(11):7651--7689, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    N. V. Chemetov and F. Cipriano. Weak solution for stochastic Degasperis-Procesi equation. Journal of Differential Equations , 382:1--49, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    G. Q. G. Chen and P. H. C. Pang. Nonlinear anisotropic degenerate parabolic-hyperbolic equations with stochastic forcing. J. Funct. Anal. , 281(12):Paper No. 109222, 48, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Constantin and L

    A. Constantin and L. Molinet. The initial value problem for a generalized B oussinesq equation. Differential Integral Equations , 15(9):1061--1072, 2002

    2002

  16. [24]

    Dafermos

    C.M. Dafermos. Generalized characteristics and the Hunter--Saxton equation. Journal of Hyperbolic Differential Equations, 8: 0 01 159--168, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Da Prato and J

    G. Da Prato and J. Zabczyk. Stochastic equations in infinite dimensions , volume 152 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Debussche, N

    A. Debussche, N. Glatt-Holtz, and R. Temam. Local martingale and pathwise solutions for an abstract fluids model. Phys. D , 240(14-15):1123--1144, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Debussche, M

    A. Debussche, M. Hofmanov \'a , and J. Vovelle. Degenerate parabolic stochastic partial differential equations: quasilinear case. Ann. Probab. , 44(3):1916--1955, 2016

    1916

  20. [28]

    R. J. DiPerna. Convergence of approximate solutions to conservation laws. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. , 82(1):27--70, 1983

    1983

  21. [29]

    R. J. DiPerna and P.-L. Lions. Ordinary differential equations, transport theory and S obolev spaces. Invent. Math. , 98(3):511--547, 1989

    1989

  22. [30]

    Feng and D

    J. Feng and D. Nualart. Stochastic scalar conservation laws. J. Funct. Anal. , 255(2):313--373, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Freidlin

    M. Freidlin. Some remarks on the S moluchowski-- K ramers approximation. J. Statist. Phys. , 117, no. 3-4,617--634, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Galimberti, H

    L. Galimberti, H. Holden, K. H. Karlsen and P. H. C. Pang. Global existence of dissipative solutions to the Camassa--Holm equation with transport noise. arXiv:2211.07046 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    R. T. Glassey, J. K. Hunter, and Y. Zheng. Singularities of a variational wave equation. J. Differential Equations , 129(1):49--78, 1996

    1996

  26. [34]

    R. T. Glassey, J. K. Hunter, and Y. Zheng. Singularities and oscillations in a nonlinear variational wave equation. Singularities and Oscillations , Springer, 37--60, 1997

    1997

  27. [35]

    A. M. Grundland and E. Infeld. A family of nonlinear Klein--Gordon equations and their solutions. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 33(7):2498--2503, 1992

    1992

  28. [36]

    Guelmame and J

    B. Guelmame and J. Vovelle. Global dissipative martingale solutions to the variational wave equation with stochastic forcing . Stoch PDE: Anal Comp , 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40072-024-00337-w

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Gy \"o ngy and N.V

    I. Gy \"o ngy and N.V. Krylov. Existence of strong solutions for It\^o's stochastic equations via approximations . Probability Theory and Related Fields , 103:143--158, 1996

    1996

  30. [38]

    Herzog, S

    D. Herzog, S. Hottovy and G. Volpe. The small-mass limit for Langevin dynamics with unbounded coefficients and positive friction . J. Stat. Phys. , 163(3):659--673, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Hofmanov \'a

    M. Hofmanov \'a . Degenerate parabolic stochastic partial differential equations. Stochastic Process. Appl. , 123(12):4294--4336, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Hofmanov \'a and J

    M. Hofmanov \'a and J. Seidler. On weak solutions of stochastic differential equations. Stoch. Anal. Appl. , 30(1):100--121, 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    Hofmanov \'a and T

    M. Hofmanov \'a and T. Zhang. Quasilinear parabolic stochastic partial differential equations: Existence, uniqueness. Stochastic Processes and their Applications. , 127:3354--3371, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Holden, K

    H. Holden, K. H. Karlsen, and P. H. C. Pang. Global well-posedness of the viscous C amassa- H olm equation with gradient noise. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 43(2):568--618, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Hottovy, A

    S. Hottovy, A. McDaniel, G. Volpe and J. Wehr. The Smoluchowski-Kramers limit of stochastic differential equations with arbitrary state--dependent friction. Communications in Mathematical Physics. , 336(3):1259--1283, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    J. K. Hunter and R. Saxton. Dynamics of director fields. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 51 0 (6): 0 1498--1521, 1991

    1991

  37. [45]

    Jakubowski

    A. Jakubowski. The almost sure skorokhod representation for subsequences in nonmetric spaces. Theory Probab. Appl. , 42:167--174, 1997

    1997

  38. [46]

    T. Kato. Quasi-linear equations of evolution, with applications to partial differential equations. Spectral theory and differential equations. , Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 448, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 25--70, 1975

    1975

  39. [47]

    Kato and G

    T. Kato and G. Ponce. Commutator estimates and the E uler and N avier- S tokes equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 41(7):891--907, 1988

    1988

  40. [48]

    J. J. Lee. Small mass asymptotics of a charged particle in a variable magnetic field. Asymptotic Analysis. , 86(2):99--121, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    P.L. Lions. Mathematical topics in fluid mechanics. Vol. 1. Incompressible Models. Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, 3., 1996

    1996

  42. [50]

    Lv and A

    Y. Lv and A. Roberts. Averaging approximation to singularly perturbed nonlinear stochastic wave equations. J. Math. Phys. , 53:1--11, 2012

    2012

  43. [51]

    Lv and A

    Y. Lv and A. Roberts. Large deviation principle for singularly perturbed stochastic damped wave equations. Stochastic Anal. Appl. , 32:50--60, 2014

    2014

  44. [52]

    Y. Lv, A. Roberts, and W. Wang. Approximation of the random inertial manifold of singularly perturbed stochastic wave equations. Stoch. Dyn. , 32:1370018, 21 pp., 2014

    2014

  45. [53]

    H. Nguyen. The small-mass limit and white-noise limit of an infinite dimensional Generalized Langevin Equation. J. Stat. Phys. , 173:411--437, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Ondrej \'a t

    M. Ondrej \'a t. Stochastic nonlinear wave equations in local S obolev spaces. Electron. J. Probab. , 15:no. 33, 1041--1091, 2010

    2010

  47. [55]

    P. H. C. Pang. The viscous variational wave equation with transport noise. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19386 , 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    M. Salins. Smoluchowski--Kramers approximation for the damped stochastic wave equation with multiplicative noise in any spatial dimension. Stoch. Partial Differ. Equ. Anal. Comput. , 7:86--122, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    R. A. Saxton. Dynamic instability of the liquid crystal director. Contemporary Mathematics , 100: 325--330, 1989

    1989

  50. [58]

    J. Simon. Compact sets in the space L^p(0,T;B) . Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) , 146:65--96, 1987

    1987

  51. [59]

    Spiliopoulos

    K. Spiliopoulos. A note on the Smoluchowski-Kramers approximation for the Langevin equation with reflection. Stoch. Dyn. , 7(2):141--152, 2007

    2007

  52. [60]

    Zhang and Y

    P. Zhang and Y. Zheng. Rarefactive solutions to a nonlinear variational wave equation of liquid crystals. Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 26(3-4):381--419, 2001

    2001

  53. [61]

    Zhang and Y

    P. Zhang and Y. Zheng. Weak solutions to a nonlinear variational wave equation. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 166(4):303--319, 2003

    2003

  54. [62]

    Zhang and Y

    P. Zhang and Y. Zheng. Weak solutions to a nonlinear variational wave equation with general data. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e C Anal. Non Lin\' e aire , 22(2):207--226, 2005

    2005

  55. [63]

    Zorski and E

    H. Zorski and E. Infeld. New soliton equations for dipole chains. APhys. Rev. Lett. , 68: 1180--1183 , 1992

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.