Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Strong averaging principle for multiscale time-inhomogeneous SDEs with multiplicative $\alpha$-stable noises

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves a strong averaging principle for multiscale time-inhomogeneous SDEs driven by multiplicative $\alpha$-stable noise, with $L^p$ convergence to the averaged system at rate $\varepsilon^{(p-1)/(\alpha+p-1)}$.

desk verdict A solid extension of strong averaging to multiplicative α-stable noise, but the 'any p∈(1,α)' claim outruns Assumption (A4); fix the p-quantification and it's a good paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06011 v1 pith:BUQ23CNI submitted 2026-08-06 math.PR

Jiaquan Lu , Huaizhong Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR MSC 60H1037A5060G5234C29
keywords strongaveragingprinciplemultiscaleSDEsα-stableLévynoisemultiplicativeperiodicmeasureKhasminskiidiscretizationtime-inhomogeneousquasi-periodicity
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 establishes a strong averaging principle for multiscale stochastic differential equations whose slow and fast components are driven by multiplicative $\alpha$-stable L\'evy noise with stability index $\alpha\in(1,2)$. The central result is an $L^p$ error bound: the slow process $X^\varepsilon$ converges to an averaged process at rate $\varepsilon^{(p-1)/(\alpha+p-1)}$ on finite time intervals, uniformly in $\varepsilon$, for any $p\in(1,\alpha)$. The averaged system is built from a periodic measure of the frozen fast equation, exploiting time-periodicity of the coefficients. A second, $\varepsilon$-independent averaged system is obtained by further averaging over the fast period, and the paper shows the same convergence rate holds for it. This is the first strong averaging result for fully coupled multiscale systems with multiplicative $\alpha$-stable noise, including in the time-homogeneous case.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is Khasminskii's time-discretization: an auxiliary fast process $\hat Y^\varepsilon$ with the slow variable frozen on each subinterval. The frozen time-inhomogeneous fast SDE admits a unique $\tau_2$-periodic measure $\rho^x_t$ with exponential ergodicity in the 1-Wasserstein distance at rate $e^{-(\lambda-q)t}$, and a second-order expansion estimate (Lemma 2.7) controls the heavy-tailed jump terms. Balancing the two error terms in the splitting gives the rate $\varepsilon^{(p-1)/(\alpha+p-1)}$ and the optimal choice $\Delta=\varepsilon^{\alpha/(\alpha+p-1)}$.

What would settle it

Take the frozen fast equation with $f(t,x,y)=-\lambda y$, $g(t,y)=\mathrm{Id}$, and a rotationally invariant $\alpha$-stable driver, then compute $q(p)$ from Assumption (A4); for a fixed $\lambda$, choose $p<\alpha$ with $q(p)>\lambda$. If that system still satisfies the theorem's hypotheses, the inequality in Theorem 2.2 cannot hold with a finite constant, so the theorem's 'any $p$' claim would be refuted. A direct check of whether $\lambda>q(p)$ holds for all $p\in(1,\alpha)$ settles the issue.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under Assumptions (A) and (B), the paper proves Theorems 2.2 and 2.5: for any $p\in(1,\alpha)$, $\sup_{t\in[s,T]}\mathbb{E}|X^\varepsilon_t-\bar X^\varepsilon_t|^p \le C_{\kappa,p,s,T}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p)\varepsilon^{(p-1)/(\alpha+p-1)}$, where $\bar X^\varepsilon$ solves the averaged equation whose drift is $b$ averaged against the unique periodic measure $\rho^x_t$ of the frozen fast equation, and the same bound holds with $\bar X$, the further-period-averaged system independent of $\varepsilon$. The proof uses Khasminskii's discretization: freeze the slow variable on intervals of length $\Delta$, estimate the error by the fast dynamics' exponential relaxation with rate $\lambda-q$, and optimize $\Delta$ to balance the two error terms. A corollary is that when the two periods are rationally linearly independent, the $\varepsilon$-dependent averaged system is random quasi-periodic.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fast drift is strongly dissipative with a rate $\lambda$ larger than a constant $q$, and $q$ grows without bound as the moment order $p$ approaches the stability index $\alpha$; the theorems state the convergence for every $p\in(1,\alpha)$ under a single $\lambda$, which requires the assumption and the theorem's quantifiers to be reconciled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The slow component of systems like (1.1) can be replaced by the one-dimensional averaged SDE, with a computable $L^p$ error of order $\varepsilon^{(p-1)/(\alpha+p-1)}$ on finite time intervals.
  • When the slow and fast periods are rationally independent, the averaged system is random quasi-periodic, so the long-time behaviour is captured by a two-parameter periodic drift.
  • The result applies to the climate-weather model in Section 4, where $\varepsilon\approx 10^{-5}$, yielding a quasi-periodic averaged climate system.
  • Because multiplicative noise is allowed, the diffusion coefficient of the slow equation need not be independent of the fast component, removing a restriction that appears in earlier averaging results.
  • The same argument yields a new strong averaging theorem in the time-homogeneous fully coupled case, which the paper notes was previously open for multiplicative $\alpha$-stable noise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The constant $q$ in Assumption (A4) depends on $p$ through $(\alpha-p)^{-1}$, so the theorem's claim of 'any $p\in(1,\alpha)$' implicitly requires either $\lambda$ to grow with $p$ or the admissible range of $p$ to shrink; this is a gap between the stated assumption and the stated theorem.
  • The rate exponent $(p-1)/(\alpha+p-1)$ tends to $0$ as $p\uparrow\alpha$, so strong convergence is slowest for moments close to the stability index, consistent with heavier tails giving weaker integrability.
  • One could test the quasi-periodicity claim numerically by simulating the Section 4 averaged equation and checking whether sample paths are quasi-periodic with periods $1$ and $\varepsilon$ in the sense of Definition 2.3.
  • Remark 2.6(ii) indicates the same discretization extends to $\gamma$-Hölder drift in time with rate $\varepsilon^{\beta/(1+\beta)}$, $\beta=\min\{(p-1)/\alpha,\gamma\}$; a natural next step is to push the method to SPDEs with multiplicative $\alpha$-stable noise.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a multiscale time-inhomogeneous SDE system (1.1) whose fast component is scaled by 1/ε and whose noise is multiplicative and rotationally invariant α-stable. Under Lipschitz/linear-growth assumptions and a dissipativity condition on f, the authors construct a τ2-periodic measure for the frozen fast equation via Wasserstein contraction and exponential convergence (Theorem 3.9). They then prove L^p strong averaging principles: Theorem 2.2 compares the slow component X^ε with the ε-dependent averaged equation (2.7) at rate ε^{(p-1)/(α+p-1)}, and Theorem 2.5 gives the same rate against the ε-independent averaged equation (2.10). A climate-weather example is presented in Section 4.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely open direction: strong averaging for multiscale SDEs with heavy-tailed multiplicative noise and fully coupled drifts. The Khasminskii discretization is implemented carefully, with an explicit error decomposition into freezing, averaging, and ergodicity terms, and the periodic-measure construction for the time-inhomogeneous fast equation is a useful contribution. If the quantification of p is corrected, the result would be a solid advance. As stated, however, the advertised scope 'any p∈(1,α)' is not supported by Assumption (A4); this is a correctness issue in the theorem statements, while the underlying argument appears sound for a fixed admissible p.

major comments (1)
  1. [§2, Assumption (A4); Theorems 2.2 and 2.5] Assumption (A4), Eq. (2.4), fixes a single constant λ with λ>q(p0), where q(p0)=2^{α−1}C_{α,d2}S_{d2}((2−α)^{-1}+(α−1)^{-1}+(α−p0)^{-1})C_g^α for a particular p0∈(1,α). Theorems 2.2 and 2.5 then assert the estimates (2.6) and (2.9) for every p∈(1,α). This quantification is not implied by the assumptions: because q(p) contains (α−p)^{-1}, q(p)→∞ as p↑α, so for any finite λ there exist p<α with q(p)≥λ. The proofs of Lemma 3.8 (Eq. (3.11)), Lemma 3.10, and the I31 estimate (Eq. (3.29)) rely on exponential factors of the form e^{−(λ−q)(t−s)} or e^{−(λ−q)(u−s−kΔ)/ε}; when q(p)≥λ these factors no longer decay, and the comparison steps give non-decaying or even growing bounds. The same issue appears in the statements 'for all p∈[1,α)' in Lemmas 3.5, 3.7 and 3.8, whose proofs compare the q' built with the lemma's p against the q of Assumption (A4); that comparison is valid only when the p's agree. The main results should be restated for the p fixed in (A4), or for all p∈(1,α) with q(p)<λ, with constants allowed to degenerate as q(p)↑λ; Section 4's 'for any p∈(1,α)' inherits the same problem.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The auxiliary process is defined with Δ=τ2/N for some integer N, but the proof of Theorem 2.2 later sets Δ=ε^{α/(α+p−1)}, which is not generally of the form τ2/N; choose N=N(ε) so that Δ_N=τ2/N has the same order, or remove the divisibility requirement.
  2. [§4] The coefficient 3796 appearing in (4.1) is written as 3739 in the displayed definition of f, and the phase 2.858 becomes 2.853 in the frozen equation; please reconcile these numbers.
  3. [Lemma 3.2 proof] The final line writes 'sup_{s∈[t,T]}' where the supremum should be over t∈[s,T]; as printed, the inequality is not well-formed.
  4. [Remark 2.4 and abstract] The term 'random quasi-periodicity' is used for the averaged system, but the argument only shows that the averaged drift \bar B^ε(t,x) is quasi-periodic in t; the solution-level random quasi-periodic property is not defined or proved, so please clarify the terminology.
  5. [Assumption (A4)] The letter p is used both for the exponent fixed in the definition of q and for the arbitrary exponent in the theorems; renaming the former p0 would avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the averaged system is defined via the periodic measure constructed in Theorem 3.9, and the convergence proofs are self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an upper bound on E|X^ε − \bar X^ε|^p, where \bar X^ε solves (2.7) with averaged drift (2.8) built from the periodic measure ρ^x_t of the frozen fast equation (3.8). ρ^x_t is not assumed or imported as a prediction target; Theorem 3.9 constructs it from the dissipativity assumption (A4) using W1-contraction and moment estimates. The Khasminskii estimates in Section 3.4 (I1, I2, I3) and Section 3.5 are proved from Lemmas 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.10, 3.11, 3.14 and do not presuppose the convergence being proved. The only self-citations ([20], [21], [32]) provide definitions or background context, e.g. Definition 2.3 and periodic-measure terminology, and are not load-bearing: the paper's own Theorem 3.9 and Lemmas 3.7–3.10 establish the periodic measure and ergodic decay used in the proof. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from prior author work is invoked to force a choice. A separate concern, not a circularity: Assumption (A4) fixes λ > q for 'some 1<p<α' while Theorems 2.2 and 2.5 claim 'any p∈(1,α)', and q contains (α−p)^{-1}, so the stated quantification may not follow from the assumptions as written; this is an assumption/theorem mismatch rather than a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard stochastic calculus, a strong dissipativity assumption on the fast drift, bounded diffusion coefficients, and periodicity. No fitted numbers or ad hoc invented entities are introduced. The main fragility is the interplay between the p in the convergence statement and the dissipativity constant λ, which is a statement-level issue rather than an extra free parameter.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Itô formula and Lévy-Itô decomposition for α-stable semimartingales.
    Used throughout Section 3, e.g. in Lemmas 3.2, 3.5, 3.7, and 3.8, to derive moment inequalities.
  • standard math Existence, uniqueness, and comparison theorems for SDEs with Lipschitz coefficients.
    Invoked in Theorem 3.1 and Lemma 3.12, citing Applebaum [1, Theorem 6.2.9].
  • domain assumption Strong dissipativity of the fast drift: λ>q with q depending on p through (α-p)^{-1} (Assumption A4).
    This is the load-bearing assumption that gives exponential contraction and ergodicity of the frozen fast equation (Theorem 3.9).
  • domain assumption Periodicity of coefficients: b and σ have period τ1, f and g have period τ2 (Assumption B).
    Needed for the existence of periodic measures and for the quasi-periodic structure of the averaged drift in Remark 2.4.
  • domain assumption Bounded diffusion coefficients σ and g (Assumption A3).
    Controls the jump integrals and justifies the truncations |z|>1/(2Cσ) and similar thresholds in Itô estimates.
  • domain assumption α-stable driving processes with α∈(1,2), rotationally invariant, mutually independent, defined on the whole real line.
    The model assumption stated in Section 1; all moment estimates require p<α.
  • domain assumption Rational linear independence of reciprocal periods when the quasi-periodicity consequence is claimed.
    Used in Remark 2.4 so that the averaged system is genuinely quasi-periodic rather than periodic.
  • standard math Markov property and independence of the fast driving stable process from past sigma-fields.
    Used in the I_{31} estimate around Eq. (3.27) to condition on the slow and fast variables at the start of each discretization interval.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong averaging principle for multiscale time-inhomogeneous SDEs with multiplicative $\alpha$-stable noises." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUQ23CNI

@misc{pith2026260806011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong averaging principle for multiscale time-inhomogeneous SDEs with multiplicative $\alpha$-stable noises},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUQ23CNI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06011}
}
abstract

In this paper, we study the strong averaging principle for multiscale time-inhomogeneous stochastic systems driven by multiplicative $\alpha$-stable processes with $\alpha\in(1,2)$. Based on Khasminskii's discretization approach, we first establish that the fast component processes with a frozen slow variable admits a periodic measure. We then prove the strong convergence of the slow subsystem to an averaged system that depends on the time scale $\varepsilon$. For any fixed $\varepsilon$, if the reciprocals of the two periods $\tau_1$ and $\varepsilon \tau_2$ are rationally linearly independent, an important consequence is that the averaged system has random quasi-periodicity. Furthermore, by applying the ergodic theorem, we prove the strong convergence of the slow subsystem to another averaged system, a time-inhomogeneous SDEs independent of the time scale $\varepsilon$. Our result is also novel even in the time-homogeneous case for a fully coupled multiscale system with multiplicative $\alpha$-stable noises. Finally, we apply the result to a climate-weather system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Cheng, Z

    M. Cheng, Z. Hao, and X. Zhang. Averaging principle forSDEs with singular drifts driven byα-stable processes.Journal of Differential Equations, 449:113706, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Applebaum.L´ evy processes and stochastic calculus

    D. Applebaum.L´ evy processes and stochastic calculus. Cambridge University Press, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    J. Bao, G. Yin, and C. Yuan. Two-time-scale stochastic partial differential equations driven byα-stable noises:Averaging principles.Bernoulli, 23(1):645–669, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    Benth and J

    F. Benth and J. Benth. The volatility of temperature and pricing of weather derivatives.Quantitative Finance, 7(5):553–561, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [4]

    Benzi, G

    R. Benzi, G. Parisi, A. Sutera, and A. Vulpiani. A theory of stochastic resonance in climatic change.SIAM Journal on applied mathematics, 43(3):565–578, 1983

    work page 1983

  6. [5]

    Bertram and J

    R. Bertram and J. Rubin. Multi-timescale systems and fast-slow analysis.Mathematical Biosciences, 287:105– 121, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    Bogolyubov and Y

    N. Bogolyubov and Y. Mitropolsky. Asymptotic methods in theory on nonlinear oscillations, gordon and breach.Russian Original, 1961

    work page 1961

  8. [7]

    Br´ ehier

    C. Br´ ehier. Strong and weak orders in averaging for spdes.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 122(7):2553–2593, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    S. Cerrai. A khasminskii type averaging principle for stochastic reaction–diffusion equations.The Annals of Applied Probability, 19(3):899–948, 2009

    2009

  2. [9]

    Cerrai and M

    S. Cerrai and M. Freidlin. Averaging principle for a class of stochastic reaction–diffusion equations.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 144(1):137–177, 2009

    2009

  3. [10]

    Cerrai and A

    S. Cerrai and A. Lunardi. Averaging principle for nonautonomous slow-fast systems of stochastic reaction- diffusion equations: the almost periodic case.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 49(4):2843–2884, 2017

    2017

  4. [11]

    Chekroun, E

    M. Chekroun, E. Simonnet, and M. Ghil. Stochastic climate dynamics: Random attractors and time- dependent invariant measures.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 240(21):1685–1700, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Cheng, X

    M. Cheng, X. Sun, and Y. Xie. Strong averaging principle for nonautonomous multi-scaleSPDEs with fully local monotone and almost periodic coefficients.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.17652, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Clairaut

    A. Clairaut. M´ emoire sur l’orbite apparente du soleil autour de la terre, en ayant ´ egard aux perturbations produites par des actions de la lune et des plan` etes principales.Histoire de l ´Academie Royale des Sciences, pages 521–564, 1754

  7. [15]

    F. de Feo. The averaging principle for non-autonomous slow-fast stochastic differential equations and an application to a local stochastic volatility model.Journal of Differential Equations, 302:406–443, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Z. Dong, X. Sun, H. Xiao, and J. Zhai. Averaging principle for one dimensional stochastic burgers equation. Journal of Differential Equations, 265(10):4749–4797, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    W. E and E. Bjorn. Multiscale modeling and computation.Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 50(9):1062–1070, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    W. E, D. Liu, and E. Vanden-Eijnden. Analysis of multiscale methods for stochastic differential equations. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 58(11):1544–1585, 2005

    2005

  11. [19]

    C. Feng, Y. Liu, and H. Zhao. Ergodic numerical approximation to periodic measures of stochastic differential equations.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 398:113701, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    C. Feng, B. Qu, and H. Zhao. Random quasi-periodic paths and quasi-periodic measures of stochastic differential equations.Journal of Differential Equations, 286:119–163, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Feng and H

    C. Feng and H. Zhao. Random periodic processes, periodic measures and ergodicity.Journal of Differential Equations, 269:7382–7428, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Fouque, G

    J. Fouque, G. Papanicolaou, and K. Sircar.Derivatives in financial markets with stochastic volatility. Cam- bridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  15. [23]

    Freidlin and A

    M. Freidlin and A. Wentzell. Random perturbations. InRandom perturbations of dynamical systems, pages 15–43. Springer, 1998

    1998

  16. [24]

    Hairer and X

    M. Hairer and X. Li. Averaging dynamics driven by fractionalBrownian motion.The Annals of Probability, 48(4):1826–1860, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Imkeller and J

    P. Imkeller and J. Von Storch.Stochastic climate models, volume 49. Springer Science & Business Media, 2001. 31

    2001

  18. [26]

    Khasminskii

    R. Khasminskii. On the principle of averaging theItˆ o’s stochastic differential equations.Kibernetica, 4:260– 279, 1968

    1968

  19. [27]

    Lagrange.M´ ecanique analytique, volume 1

    J. Lagrange.M´ ecanique analytique, volume 1. Mallet-Bachelier, 1853

  20. [28]

    Laplace.Trait´ e de m´ ecanique c´ eleste, volume 5

    P. Laplace.Trait´ e de m´ ecanique c´ eleste, volume 5. Chez JBM Duprat, libraire pour les math´ ematiques, quai des Augustins, 1825

  21. [29]

    Y. Li, X. Sun, Z. Wang, and Y. Xie. Strong averaging principle for nonautonomous slow-fast SPDEs driven byα-stable processes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07538, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Liu and K

    R. Liu and K. Lu. Exponential mixing and limit theorems of quasi-periodically forced 2DstochasticNavier– Stokes equations in the hypoelliptic setting: Exponential mixing and limit theorems of quasi-periodically forced.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 406(3):55, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    W. Liu, M. R¨ ockner, X. Sun, and Y. Xie. Averaging principle for slow-fast stochastic differential equations with time dependent locally lipschitz coefficients.Journal of Differential Equations, 268(6):2910–2948, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Lu and H

    J. Lu and H. Zhao. Random periodic solutions ofSDEs driven byα-stable processes: existence, unique- ness and numerical approximations.Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 152(E):109451, 2026

    2026

  25. [33]

    Pardoux and A

    ´E. Pardoux and A. Veretennikov. On thePoisson equation and diffusion approximation.I.The Annals of Probability, 29(3):1061–1085, 2001

    2001

  26. [34]

    Pardoux and A

    ´E. Pardoux and A. Veretennikov. OnPoisson equation and diffusion approximation.II.The Annals of Probability, 31(3):1166–1192, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    Peszat and J

    S. Peszat and J. Zabczyk.Stochastic partial differential equations withL´ evy noise: An evolution equation approach, volume 113. Cambridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    R¨ ockner, X

    M. R¨ ockner, X. Sun, and Y. Xie. Strong convergence order for slow–fastMckean–Vlasov stochastic differential equations. InAnnales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e-Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, volume 57, pages 547–576, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    R¨ ockner and L

    M. R¨ ockner and L. Xie. Averaging principle and normal deviations for multiscale stochastic systems.Com- munications in Mathematical Physics, 383(3):1889–1937, 2021

    1937

  30. [38]

    X. Sun, L. Xie, and Y. Xie. Strong and weak convergence rates for slow–fast stochastic differential equations driven byα-stable process.Bernoulli, 28(1):343–369, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Sun and Y

    X. Sun and Y. Xie. Orders of strong and weak averaging principle for multi-scaleSPDEs driven byα-stable process.Journal of Differential Equations, 351:194–242, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    K. Uda. Averaging principle for stochastic differential equations in the random periodic regime.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 139:1–36, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Veretennikov

    A. Veretennikov. On the averaging principle for systems of stochastic differential equations.Mathematics of the USSR-Sbornik, 69(1):271, 1991

    1991

  34. [42]

    G. Wainrib. Double averaging principle for periodically forced stochastic slow-fast systems.Electronic Communications in Probability, 18:1–12, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Wang and A

    W. Wang and A. Roberts. Average and deviation for slow–fast stochastic partial differential equations. Journal of Differential Equations, 253(5):1265–1286, 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    Zhang, Q

    Y. Zhang, Q. Huang, X. Wang, Z. Wang, and J. Duan. Weak averaging principle for multiscale stochastic dynamical systems driven by stable processes.Journal of Differential Equations, 379:721–761, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Zhao and Z

    H. Zhao and Z. Zheng. Random periodic solutions of random dynamical systems.Journal of Differential equations, 246(5):2020–2038, 2009. 32

    2020

Pith tools

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