Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Sharp kinetic trace theory

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Kinetic energy spaces admit natural boundary traces only above sharp velocity-dependent regularity thresholds, and the natural Gaussian trace fails on every smooth enough bounded domain in dimension two and higher.

desk verdict Solid classification that kills the unrestricted Gaussian natural-trace hope on bounded domains and pins the sharp C^{1,α} threshold for bounded velocities. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24708 v1 pith:PLNIFQFF submitted 2026-07-27 math.AP

Lukas Niebel , Lisa Valentini This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 46E3535A3035A2335B3335H1035Q49
keywords kinetictraceestimatesSobolevspacestransportequationsFokker–PlanckgrazingsetboundaryregularitythresholdsGreen’sformula
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

When a kinetic equation lives in a domain with boundary, the natural energy space controls only a weak transport derivative. The question is whether that still produces a usable boundary trace against the natural flux weight |v·n|. This paper settles the question across the main velocity models. On a half-space the natural trace always exists, for both Lebesgue and Gaussian velocities, with no support restriction. On bounded domains the picture splits. Unrestricted Lebesgue velocities never work: a simple translation of a velocity packet makes the boundary integral blow up while the bulk energy stays fixed. Unrestricted Gaussian velocities fail the natural weight on every bounded C^{1,1} domain in dimension two and higher, answering a recent open question negatively; a weaker quadratic weight still works. When velocities are bounded (either by a hard cutoff or by living on the sphere), the decisive quantity is boundary regularity. The weighted trace estimate holds on every C^{1,α} domain precisely when α is at least 1/(p+1), and fails below that threshold on carefully built strictly convex domains. Density then upgrades the smooth estimates to continuous trace operators and Green’s formula exactly where the estimates hold. The result tells kinetic analysts exactly which domains and weights are admissible for energy methods.

What carries the argument

The cubic (or critical) grazing-scale multiplier: a smoothed sign profile whose transition width collapses like y^{1/3} (half-space) or like the Hölder-critical scales ρ(y)~y^{1/(p+2)}, ℓ(y)~y^{(p+1)/(p+2)} (curved domains). Combined with a one-dimensional Poincaré/Hardy transfer across the transition window, it converts Green’s identity into a boundary-flux bound while controlling the velocity-gradient cost of the multiplier.

What would settle it

On any concrete bounded C^{1,1} domain in dimension two or higher, exhibit a sequence of smooth compactly-supported test functions whose Gaussian kinetic energies stay bounded while the natural boundary integrals of |f|^2 |v·n| diverge; or, below α=1/(p+1), verify that the explicit packet family on the model domain |z|^{1+α}+|y−1|^{1+α}<1 produces a diverging ω_p boundary functional.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In dimensions d≥2 the natural Gaussian kinetic trace estimate fails on every bounded C^{1,1} domain, while for bounded-support Euclidean and spherical velocities the ω_p-trace estimate holds on every bounded C^{1,α} domain if and only if α≥1/(p+1), with matching existential counterexamples of exact regularity C^{1,α} below the threshold; the natural case p=1 therefore requires at least C^{1,1/2}.

Load-bearing premise

The spherical density argument for all dimensions rests on the claim that a published space–time density proof written only for dimensions two and three extends unchanged to higher dimensions by inspection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Energy methods that need the natural flux weight on bounded domains must either restrict to C^{1,1/2} boundaries with bounded velocities, or accept a weaker grazing weight when velocities are unrestricted Gaussians.
  • The open natural-trace question for the stationary Gaussian kinetic energy space on bounded domains is settled in the negative for d≥2.
  • Green’s formula and continuous natural-trace operators are now available on half-spaces (any velocity measure) and on bounded C^{1,1/2} domains for bounded-support and spherical velocities.
  • Silvestre’s quadratic grazing weight is optimal in the stationary unrestricted Gaussian setting: every weaker ω_p with p<2 fails on every C^{1,1} domain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Time-dependent kinetic Fokker–Planck problems on fixed cylinders inherit the same sharp exponents and regularity thresholds, because the multipliers are time-independent and the counterexamples lift by a fixed time cut-off.
  • Any numerical scheme or variational formulation that relies on a natural-flux boundary term for unrestricted Gaussian velocities on a smooth bounded domain is formally unjustified and may need artificial velocity cut-offs or a weaker weight.
  • The same Hölder-critical packet construction suggests that other kinetic boundary functionals (entropy fluxes, higher moments) will exhibit analogous regularity thresholds once the normal varies.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a comprehensive trace theory for the kinetic energy space X_μ(Ω) = {f ∈ L²(Ω;H¹_μ) : v·∇_x f ∈ L²(Ω;H^{-1}_μ)} across four velocity models. On the half-space it proves the natural (ω_1) trace estimate for unrestricted Lebesgue and Gaussian velocity measures via a cubic grazing-scale multiplier with an overshooting sign profile and a grazing-cone Hardy inequality (Theorem 2.1). On bounded C¹ domains it rules out the unrestricted Lebesgue estimate by norm-preserving velocity translation (Proposition 3.1). On every bounded C^{1,1} domain in d≥2 it proves the Gaussian ω_2 estimate (after Silvestre's multiplier) and constructs, for 1≤p<2, translated Gaussian packets on a supporting quadratic cap whose weighted boundary functional diverges like h^{(p−2)/6} while the bulk energy stays bounded (Theorem 4.2), negatively answering Question 1.8 of Albritton–Armstrong–Mourrat–Novack. For the bounded-support Euclidean and spherical models it proves the ω_p estimate on every C^{1,α} domain with α≥α_p=1/(p+1) (Theorem 6.1, Corollary 6.16) and gives matching existential counterexamples on strictly convex ℓ^q-type domains of exact regularity C^{1,α} below the threshold (Theorems 5.1–5.2). Density results then yield trace operators and Green formulas on the corresponding graph spaces (Section 7), and the one-dimensional case is classified in Section 8.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial contribution to kinetic boundary theory. It resolves the natural Gaussian trace problem posed as Question 1.8 in Albritton–Armstrong–Mourrat–Novack (2024), negatively on bounded C^{1,1} domains and positively on the half-space; it identifies the sharp Hölder threshold α_p=1/(p+1) in both bounded-velocity models with matching counterexamples of exact regularity; and it proves optimality of the quadratic grazing exponent in the stationary Gaussian analogue of Silvestre's estimate. The work is constructive and falsifiable throughout: multipliers, packet families, and geometric lemmas are written out in full with explicit scales, and the paper also performs a careful audit of earlier trace claims in the literature, pinpointing where prior arguments are incomplete.

major comments (2)
  1. [§7.1, Proposition 7.5] Proposition 7.5 (density of C^∞(Ω×S^{d−1}) in X_σ(Ω)) is stated for all d≥2, but the proof relies on Brunken–Smetana [12, Prop. 3.1], which is stated only for d∈{2,3}. The manuscript bridges this gap with the sentence 'Inspection of its proof suggests that the same argument extends to every d≥2.' This is not a proof, and the proposition is load-bearing for the spherical trace operator of Proposition 7.9(2) and the spherical Green formula of Proposition 7.12 — both of which are claimed in the abstract ('density yields natural trace operators and Green's formula ... in the spherical velocity model'). The authors should either (a) supply the higher-dimensional argument explicitly (e.g., a short appendix verifying that the Bochner-valued spatial regularisation and the spherical H^1-basis approximation in [12, Supplement SM1] are dimension-independent), or (b) restrict Propositions 7.9(2) and
  2. [§1.4, Remark 1.4] Remark 1.4 asserts a full time-dependent analogue of the classification — same exponents, same thresholds, Green formulas with temporal boundary terms — with the justification 'the multiplier proofs may be rerun.' This is a substantive claim (the grazing Hardy estimate of §2 and the two-multiplier curved-boundary argument of §6 would each need a space–time Green identity and control of the ∂t terms), stated in a remark and used to conclude that 'the sharp exponents and boundary regularity thresholds in Theorem 1.1 are unchanged in the time-dependent setting.' Either a concise proof sketch indicating how the key estimates (2.15)/(6.25) absorb the temporal terms, or a softening of the claim to a conjectural remark, is needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1.2, §2, §3, §4] Notation for test classes: throughout, C^∞_c(Ω×R^d) and C^∞_c(H^d×R^d) are used for functions that are nonzero on the spatial boundary (e.g., f_R in Prop. 3.1 is x-independent; f_h in Theorem 4.2 has χ(Φ/h)≠0; Theorem 2.1 estimates the trace at y=0 of a class that, read literally, would vanish there). The convention 'smooth functions on Ω are restrictions of ambient smooth functions' in §1.2 should be made explicit at each occurrence of the notation, since C^∞_c(H^d×R^d) taken literally would make Proposition 7.1's density statement incompatible with a nontrivial trace operator.
  2. [§5.2, Eq. (5.6)] Eq. (5.6): the definition of A_ℓ renders ambiguously in the text ('ℓ−m+1 2'). From the energy bound (5.11), A_ℓ² must equal ℓ^{-(m+1)}; please restore the intended exponent ℓ^{-(m+1)/2} and check the typesetting.
  3. [§4.2, Eq. (4.2)] Theorem 4.2: the two-sided bound T^γ_{p,Ω}(f_h) ≍ h^{(p−2)/6} is stated with subscript p,Ω on ≍ in (4.2) but the ≍ notation with subscripts is not defined; a one-line convention in §1.2 (as given for implicit constants) would help.
  4. [References] References [1] and [2] are the published and superseded arXiv versions of the same work. Given the careful discussion of the differences (§1.7), consider a footnote at the first citation clarifying that [2] is cited only for the historical record of the gap.
  5. [§4.4–4.5] In Lemma 4.5 the constant R is both the enclosing-ball radius and, later (§4.5), the packet's tangential speed R=h^{−1/3}. Although introduced in different subsections, the collision is confusing; consider renaming one of them.
  6. [Table 1, Figure 1] Table 1 uses 'natural for p=1' before the term 'natural trace' is used consistently in the body; a pointer to the definition after (1.6) would suffice. Figure 1's caption could state the parameter regime (0<ε<1/8 fixed by Lemma 2.4) for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: thresholds and counterexamples are derived from independent multiplier/Green identities and explicit packet constructions, not forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

This is a pure analysis paper whose load-bearing steps are (i) Green identities with carefully chosen multipliers (half-space cubic scale; curved-boundary height-dependent and dyadic mollified slopes), (ii) explicit finite-energy test packets (velocity translation, curvature-induced Gaussian packets, rapid-normal-variation packets on Ω_{α,d}), and (iii) density-plus-extension to obtain operators/Green formulae. The critical exponent α_p=1/(p+1) is motivated by a scaling heuristic and then confirmed by matching positive estimates and existential counterexamples; it is not fitted to data nor defined to make the claim true. Citations to Silvestre (ω_2 multiplier), Albritton–Armstrong–Mourrat–Novack (Gaussian density), and Brunken–Smetana (spherical density) supply external tools or open questions; they do not restate the paper’s sharp thresholds. The Prop. 7.5 d>3 density extension is a correctness/completeness soft spot, not a circular reduction of the claimed smooth classification or the Gaussian negative answer to Question 1.8. No self-definitional loop, fitted-as-prediction step, or load-bearing uniqueness imported from the authors’ prior work appears in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Pure analytic PDE paper. Load-bearing inputs are standard Sobolev/distribution calculus, classical Green/divergence identities, Hölder mollification, Gaussian integration by parts, and a short list of cited external results (Silvestre’s clipped multiplier idea, Albritton et al. Gaussian density, Brunken–Smetana spherical density). No empirical fitted constants. Function spaces and weights are definitions, not ontological new entities.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Classical divergence theorem / weak Gauss–Green for Lipschitz or C^1 domains and compactly supported smooth integrands, extended by density to graph spaces once traces exist.
    Used throughout Green identities (Lemma 2.2, 6.4, Propositions 7.11–7.12).
  • standard math Bounded C^{1,1} domains admit W^{1,∞} extensions of the outward normal; C^{1,α} domains admit local graph charts with α-Hölder slopes.
    Invoked for Silvestre-type multiplier (Prop 4.1) and flattened-boundary analysis (Section 6).
  • domain assumption Density of compactly supported smooth functions in the unrestricted Gaussian kinetic energy space on bounded C^1 domains (Albritton–Armstrong–Mourrat–Novack Prop. 2.2).
    Cited as Proposition 7.2 to pass smooth Gaussian estimates to X_γ operators.
  • domain assumption Brunken–Smetana space–time smooth density on spherical-velocity graph spaces extends from d∈{2,3} to all d≥2.
    Proposition 7.5 relies on inspection rather than a self-contained higher-d proof.
  • domain assumption Physical domains are at least C^1 unless a stronger hypothesis is stated; velocity measures are Lebesgue, standard Gaussian, or spherical surface measure as classified.
    Standing setup in Section 1; counterexample domains are additionally strictly convex of exact C^{1,α}.
  • standard math Odd-cancellation Gaussian primitives and Cameron–Martin unitary translations on L^2(γ) control translated packet norms (Lemmas 4.3–4.4).
    Standard Gaussian analysis used to build unrestricted Gaussian counterexamples.
invented entities (2)
  • Kinetic energy space X_μ(Ω) and weighted boundary functionals T^μ_{p,Ω} with ω_p(s)=min{s,s^p} independent evidence
    purpose: Precise graph-space setting and scale of trace weights in which sharp thresholds are stated.
    Definitions organizing the problem; equivalent to H^1_hyp in the Gaussian case of [1]. Not a new physical object.
  • Cubic grazing scale a(y)=y^{1/3} and critical curved scales ρ(y)∼y^{1/(p+2)}, ℓ(y)∼y^{(p+1)/(p+2)} independent evidence
    purpose: Balance velocity-gradient cost against transport cost in multipliers; predict α_p.
    Cubic scale already appears in kinetic boundary literature cited by the authors; curved scales are the paper’s organizing heuristic made rigorous.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sharp kinetic trace theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PLNIFQFF

@misc{pith2026260724708,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sharp kinetic trace theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PLNIFQFF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24708}
}
abstract

We establish sharp kinetic trace estimates and counterexamples across several velocity models. For half-space position domains, without any common bound on velocity support, we prove the natural trace estimate for both Lebesgue and standard Gaussian velocity measures. Density yields natural trace operators and Green's formula on the corresponding kinetic energy spaces. For bounded spatial domains in $d\ge2$, in the bounded-support Euclidean velocity model and in the spherical velocity model, we identify the sharp boundary regularity threshold for the trace weights $\min\{|v \cdot n|,|v \cdot n|^p\}$, $1\le p<\infty$. Writing $\alpha_p=1/(p+1)$, the estimate holds on every bounded $\mathrm{C}^{1,\alpha}$ domain with $\alpha\ge\alpha_p$, and it fails for every $0<\alpha<\alpha_p$ on some strictly convex bounded domain of exact regularity $\mathrm{C}^{1,\alpha}$. In particular, the natural trace ($p=1$) has the regularity threshold $\mathrm{C}^{1,1/2}$. On bounded $\mathrm{C}^{1,1/2}$ domains in $d\ge2$, density yields natural trace operators and Green's formula in the bounded-support Euclidean velocity model with either Lebesgue or standard Gaussian measure, and in the spherical velocity model. Norm-preserving velocity translation rules out the unrestricted Lebesgue trace estimate on every bounded $\mathrm{C}^1$ domain. In the unrestricted Gaussian model, for each $1\le p<2$, we construct counterexamples on every bounded $\mathrm{C}^{1,1}$ domain in dimension $d\ge2$, answering Question 1.8 of Albritton, Armstrong, Mourrat, and Novack (2024) negatively. For $2\le p<\infty$, the Gaussian $\omega_2$ estimate and density instead yield $\omega_p$-trace operators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24708 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overshooting sign profile Fε (left) and the grazing cone, coercive anchor bands, and central defect after the self-similar substitution r = wy−1/3 (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An enclosing ball centred at a fixed interior point touches Ω at a farthest boundary point, here translated to the origin. Its centre lies on the normal axis, and the common tangent plane is y = 0. The dashed box indicates the single local chart used in the rest of Lemma 4.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The boundary graph stays between quadratic barriers. Con￾sequently, the bottom layer has tangential scale √ h, lies in BCch √ h (0), and is contained in one chart. The thicker boundary segment is the region {Φ < h/2}. Only the half-plane y ≥ 0 is shown. Step 3: a large ball with coherently rotating normals. Fix any τ ∈ S m−1 , and let L > 0 be a Lipschitz constant for ∇Φ. Choose 0 < η ≤ 1 so that Lη ≤ c0/2, and then… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Albritton, S

    D. Albritton, S. Armstrong, J.-C. Mourrat, and M. Novack,Variational methods for the kinetic Fokker–Planck equation, Anal. PDE17(2024), no. 6, 1953–2010, doi:10.2140/apde.2024.17.1953

    doi:10.2140/apde.2024.17.1953 2024

  2. [2]

    Armstrong and J.-C

    S. Armstrong and J.-C. Mourrat,Variational methods for the kinetic Fokker–Planck equation, arXiv:1902.04037v1 (2019),https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04037v1

    arXiv 1902

  3. [3]

    Auscher, C

    P. Auscher, C. Imbert, and L. Niebel,Weak solutions to Kolmogorov–Fokker–Planck equations: regularity, existence and uniqueness, arXiv:2403.17464 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Auscher and L

    P. Auscher and L. Niebel,Kinetic Sobolev spaces, arXiv:2603.17491 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Avelin and M

    B. Avelin and M. Hou,Weak and Perron solutions for stationary Kramers–Fokker–Planck equations in bounded domains, Potential Anal.64(2026), Article 11, doi:10.1007/s11118-025-10242-z

    doi:10.1007/s11118-025-10242-z 2026

  6. [6]

    Bal and B

    G. Bal and B. Palacios,Pencil-beam approximation of stationary Fokker–Planck, SIAM J. Math. Anal.52(2020), no. 4, 3487–3519, doi:10.1137/19M1295775

    work page doi:10.1137/19m1295775 2020

  7. [7]

    M. S. Baouendi and P. Grisvard,Sur une équation d’évolution changeant de type, J. Funct. Anal.2 (1968), 352–367, doi:10.1016/0022-1236(68)90012-8. SHARP KINETIC TRACE THEORY 61

    doi:10.1016/0022-1236(68)90012-8 1968

  8. [8]

    Bardos,Problèmes aux limites pour les équations aux dérivées partielles du premier ordre à coefficients réels; théorèmes d’approximation; application à l’équation de transport, Ann

    C. Bardos,Problèmes aux limites pour les équations aux dérivées partielles du premier ordre à coefficients réels; théorèmes d’approximation; application à l’équation de transport, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4)3(1970), 185–233, doi:10.24033/asens.1190

    work page doi:10.24033/asens.1190 1970

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Bernard,On the existence and asymptotic behavior of weak solution of the kinetic Fokker–Planck equation in a bounded domain with absorbing boundary, Bull

    É. Bernard,On the existence and asymptotic behavior of weak solution of the kinetic Fokker–Planck equation in a bounded domain with absorbing boundary, Bull. Sci. Math.197(2024), Paper No. 103523, doi:10.1016/j.bulsci.2024.103523

    2024

  2. [10]

    Bosboom, H

    V. Bosboom, H. Egger, and M. Schlottbom,Analysis and systematic discretization of a Fokker– Planck equation with Lorentz force, Comput. Methods Appl. Math.25(2025), no. 4, 807–822, doi:10.1515/cmam-2025-0061

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Boyer,Trace theorems and spatial continuity properties for the solutions of the transport equation, Differential Integral Equations18(2005), no

    F. Boyer,Trace theorems and spatial continuity properties for the solutions of the transport equation, Differential Integral Equations18(2005), no. 8, 891–934, doi:10.57262/die/1356060150

    2005

  4. [12]

    Brunken and K

    J. Brunken and K. Smetana,Stable and efficient Petrov–Galerkin methods for a kinetic Fokker–Planck equation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal.60(2022), no. 1, 157–179, doi:10.1137/20M1374857

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Cannone and C

    M. Cannone and C. Cercignani,A trace theorem in kinetic theory, Appl. Math. Lett.4(1991), no. 6, 63–67, doi:10.1016/0893-9659(91)90077-9

    1991 doi

  6. [14]

    Carrapatoso, P

    K. Carrapatoso, P. Gabriel, R. Medina, and S. Mischler,Constructive Krein–Rutman result for kinetic Fokker–Planck equations in a domain, arXiv:2407.10530 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Carrapatoso and S

    K. Carrapatoso and S. Mischler,The kinetic Fokker–Planck equation in a domain: ultracontractivity, hypocoercivity, and long-time asymptotic behavior, Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl.35(2024), no. 4, 643–680, doi:10.4171/RLM/1055

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    J. A. Carrillo,Global weak solutions for the initial-boundary-value problems to the Vlasov–Poisson– Fokker–Planck system, Math. Methods Appl. Sci.21(1998), no. 10, 907–938,doi:10.1002/(SICI) 1099-1476(19980710)21:10<907::AID-MMA977>3.0.CO;2-W

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    Cessenat,Théorèmes de traceLp pour des espaces de fonctions de la neutronique, C

    M. Cessenat,Théorèmes de traceLp pour des espaces de fonctions de la neutronique, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math.299(1984), no. 16, 831–834

    1984

  10. [18]

    Cessenat,Théorèmes de trace pour des espaces de fonctions de la neutronique, C

    M. Cessenat,Théorèmes de trace pour des espaces de fonctions de la neutronique, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math.300(1985), no. 3, 89–92

    1985

  11. [19]

    Choi and S

    Y.-P. Choi and S. Song,Global weak solutions to nonlinear kinetic Fokker–Planck equations in bounded domains under physical initial data, arXiv:2510.06656 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Degond and S

    P. Degond and S. Mas–Gallic,Existence of solutions and diffusion approximation for a model Fokker–Planck equation, Transport Theory Statist. Phys.16(1987), nos. 4–6, 589–636, doi:10.1080/00411458708204307

    1987 doi

  13. [21]

    Garain and K

    P. Garain and K. Nyström,On regularity and existence of weak solutions to nonlinear Kolmogorov– Fokker–Planck type equations with rough coefficients, Math. Eng.5(2023), no. 2, 1–37, doi:10.3934/mine.2023043

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Y. Guo, C. Kim, D. Tonon, and A. Trescases,Regularity of the Boltzmann equation in convex domains, Invent. Math.207(2017), no. 1, 115–290, doi:10.1007/s00222-016-0670-8

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Henderson, G

    C. Henderson, G. Lucertini, and W. Wang,A kinetic Nash inequality and precise boundary behavior of the kinetic Fokker–Planck equation, arXiv:2407.08785 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hou,Boundedness of weak solutions to degenerate Kolmogorov equations of hypoel- liptic type in bounded domains, J

    M. Hou,Boundedness of weak solutions to degenerate Kolmogorov equations of hypoel- liptic type in bounded domains, J. Differential Equations453(2026), Paper No. 113794, doi:10.1016/j.jde.2025.113794

    2026

  17. [25]

    H. J. Hwang, J. Jang, and J. J. L. Velázquez,The Fokker–Planck equation with absorbing boundary conditions, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.214(2014), no. 1, 183–233, doi:10.1007/s00205-014-0758-5

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Kim and M

    K. Kim and M. Weidner,Sharp regularity near the grazing set for kinetic Fokker–Planck equations, arXiv:2603.04121 (2026)

    2026

  19. [27]

    Kim and M

    K. Kim and M. Weidner,Kinetic Fokker–Planck equations with Maxwell boundary conditions, arXiv:2607.20076 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Litsgård and K

    M. Litsgård and K. Nyström,The Dirichlet problem for Kolmogorov–Fokker–Planck type equations with rough coefficients, J. Funct. Anal.281(2021), no. 10, Paper No. 109226, doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2021.109226

    2021

  21. [29]

    T. A. Manteuffel, K. J. Ressel, and G. Starke,A boundary functional for the least-squares finite- element solution of neutron transport problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal.37(2000), no. 2, 556–586, doi:10.1137/S0036142998344706. 62 LUKAS NIEBEL AND LISA V ALENTINI

    2000 doi

  22. [30]

    E. J. McShane,Extension of range of functions, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.40(1934), no. 12, 837–842, doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1934-05978-0

    1934 doi

  23. [31]

    Mischler,On the trace problem for solutions of the Vlasov equation, Comm

    S. Mischler,On the trace problem for solutions of the Vlasov equation, Comm. Partial Differential Equations25(2000), no. 7–8, 1415–1443, doi:10.1080/03605300008821554

    2000 doi

  24. [32]

    Mischler,Kinetic equations with Maxwell boundary conditions, Ann

    S. Mischler,Kinetic equations with Maxwell boundary conditions, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4)43 (2010), no. 5, 719–760, doi:10.24033/asens.2132

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    Nier,Boundary conditions and subelliptic estimates for geometric Kramers–Fokker–Planck op- erators on manifolds with boundaries, Mem

    F. Nier,Boundary conditions and subelliptic estimates for geometric Kramers–Fokker–Planck op- erators on manifolds with boundaries, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.252(2018), no. 1200, v+144 pp., doi:10.1090/memo/1200

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Ouyang and L

    Z. Ouyang and L. Silvestre,ConditionalL∞ estimates for the non-cutoff Boltzmann equation in a bounded domain, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.248(2024), no. 4, Paper No. 59, doi:10.1007/s00205- 024-02002-x

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Ros-Oton and M

    X. Ros-Oton and M. Weidner,Optimal regularity for kinetic Fokker–Planck equations in domains, arXiv:2505.11943 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Silvestre,Hölder estimates for kinetic Fokker–Planck equations up to the boundary, Ars Inven

    L. Silvestre,Hölder estimates for kinetic Fokker–Planck equations up to the boundary, Ars Inven. Anal. (2022), Paper No. 6, 29 pp., doi:10.15781/nqdd-qs03

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Valentini,Well-posedness and trace theory for the Kolmogorov equation on bounded domains, arXiv:2606.19198 (2026)

    L. Valentini,Well-posedness and trace theory for the Kolmogorov equation on bounded domains, arXiv:2606.19198 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhu,Regularity of kinetic Fokker–Planck equations in bounded domains, Ann

    Y. Zhu,Regularity of kinetic Fokker–Planck equations in bounded domains, Ann. Henri Lebesgue7 (2024), 1323–1366, doi:10.5802/ahl.221. (Lukas Niebel)Institut für Analysis und Numerik, Universität Münster, Orléans-Ring 10, 48149 Münster, Germany. Email address:lukas.niebel@uni-m...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.