Bessel SPDEs with general Dirichlet boundary conditions

Henri Elad Altman

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Bessel SPDEs with general Dirichlet boundary conditions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper extends integration-by-parts identities for Bessel bridge laws to arbitrary boundary values, and constructs a Markov process solving a regularized version of the conjectured Bessel SPDE in dimension two.

desk verdict The IbPFs for general boundary values are the real contribution and are in good shape; the δ=2 dynamics is conditional on an unproved quasi-regularity proposition. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02241 v1 pith:75VFDZ34 submitted 2019-08-06 math.PR

Henri Elad Altman This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PR MSC 60H1560J6060J55

keywords BesselprocessbridgeintegrationbypartsformulaDirichletboundaryconditionsrenormalisedlocaltimesformsstochasticheatequationMarkov

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the stochastic PDEs that have Bessel-bridge laws as invariant measures—the so-called Bessel SPDEs—make sense when the bridge is required to start and end at arbitrary nonnegative heights, not just at zero. The author proves that the integration-by-parts formulas that encode the bridges' structure extend to every pair of boundary values $a,a'\ge 0$ and to Bessel processes with arbitrary starting point, for every dimension $\delta>0$, with special formulas at $\delta=1$ and $\delta=3$. These formulas are the rigorous counterpart of the drift term in the conjectural Bessel SPDEs, expressed through renormalized local times, and they show that the same renormalized structure persists under general Dirichlet boundary conditions. For $\delta=2$, the paper goes beyond the formal level: using Dirichlet forms, it constructs a Markov process on nonnegative paths whose reversible measure is the law of the two-dimensional Bessel bridge from $0$ to $0$, and proves that this process satisfies a weak, regularized form of the Bessel SPDE. The upshot is that renormalized local times look like an intrinsic feature of Bessel SPDEs below dimension three rather than an artifact of the zero boundary condition.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three linked objects. First, the family of measures $$\$Sigma^{{\delta,r}}$_{a,a'}(dX|b) := \frac{$p^{{\delta,r}}$_{a,a'}(b)}{$b^{{\delta-1}}$} $P^{{\delta}}$_{a,a'}[dX|X_r=b],$$ the candidate Revuz measures of the diffusion local time of the conjectured SPDE solution at level $b$ and time-space point $r$. Second, the analytic family of Schwartz distributions on the half-line, the generalized functions $x_+^{\alpha-1}/\Gamma(\alpha)$, which packages every integration-by-parts formula into a single expression in which the apparent singularity at $\delta=2$ is cancelled by a vanishing property. Third, for the dynamical result, the Gaussian representation of the $2$-dimensional Bessel bridge: the process $X=\|\beta\|$ with $\beta$ a two-dimensional Brownian bridge pulls the gradient Dirichlet form on nonnegative paths back to the explicit Gaussian Dirichlet form of the linear heat equation, and convergence of the associated one-potentials identifies the limiting drift.

What would settle it

Compute the energy $E^2(f_n,g_n)$ for smooth cylinder functions whose supports in $K$ are disjoint and concentrate near different points; locality of the closed Dirichlet form requires this energy to vanish in the limit, while non-closability would appear as a bounded-energy sequence with no limit in $L^2(\nu_2)$. Either failure would directly contradict Proposition 4.1 and invalidate the Markov-process construction of Theorem 4.7.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.1: for every $\delta\in(0,\infty)\setminus\{1,3\}$, every pair $a,a'\ge 0$, every $\Phi$ in the linear span of functionals $\exp(-\langle m,X^2\rangle)$, and every $h\in C_c^2(0,1)$, the law $P^{\delta}_{a,a'}$ of the $\delta$-dimensional Bessel bridge satisfies $$$E^{{\delta}}$_{a,a'}(\partial_h\Phi(X)) + $E^{{\delta}}$_{a,a'}(\langle h'',X\rangle\Phi(X)) = -\kappa(\delta)\$int_0^{1}$ h_r \int_0^\infty $b^{{\delta-4}}$ $T^{{2k}}$_b \$Sigma^{{\delta,r}}$_{a,a'}(\Phi(X)|\cdot)\,db\,dr,$$ with $\kappa(\delta)=(\delta-1)(\delta-3)/4$, $k=\lfloor(3-\delta)/2\rfloor$, and analogous formulas at $\delta=1$ and $\delta=3$. Here $\Sigma^{\delta,r}_{a,a'}(dX|b)$ is the candidate Revuz measure for the local time of a would-be solution at level $b$. For $\delta=2$, the paper combines this formula with the representation of the $0$-to-$0$ Bessel bridge as the Euclidean norm of a two-dimensional Brownian bridge: it constructs a quasi-regular gradient Dirichlet form, obtains an associated Markov diffusion process, and proves in Theorem 4.7 that this process satisfies the regularized SPDE $\partial_t u = \tfrac12\partial_x^2 u - \tfrac18\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\lim_{\eta\to 0}(\mathbb{1}_{u\ge\varepsilon}/u^3 - \tfrac{2}{\varepsilon}\rho_\eta(u)/u) + \xi$ in the sense of additive functionals.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamic half of the paper rests on Proposition 4.1, which asserts that the gradient Dirichlet form for the two-dimensional Bessel-bridge law is closable, local, and quasi-regular so that an associated Markov process exists; the paper does not prove this proposition, saying it follows from a thesis and a prior article with the argument communicated privately, so the existence of the Markov process is an assumed input for Theorem 4.7.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every $\delta>0$, the algebraic form of the Bessel-SPDE drift—renormalized local times rather than an explicit convex potential—is the same for arbitrary Dirichlet boundary values as for the zero-to-zero case, so changing the endpoints changes only the boundary condition, not the structure of the equation.
The formulas at $\delta=3$ and $\delta>3$ reduce to the previously known integration-by-parts formulas for Bessel bridges, showing the new identities are consistent with the classical regime where the bridge law is a Gibbs measure with explicit potential.
There exists a Markov diffusion process on nonnegative paths of $L^2(0,1)$ with the two-dimensional Bessel bridge law from $0$ to $0$ as its reversible measure, and its martingale part has sharp bracket with Revuz measure $\|h\|^2_{L^2}\nu_2$.
Taken with the earlier $\delta=1$ construction, this gives weak dynamics for both integer dimensions below 3 that admit a Gaussian representation with zero boundary values.
The paper's conjectures identify $\delta=2$ as the critical dimension for the number of space points where a solution can simultaneously vanish, by analogy with the known zero-hitting transition for Bessel processes.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the integration-by-parts formulas are proven for all boundary values while the Gaussian representation used for the dynamics is only available when one endpoint is zero, the obstacle to a $\delta=2$ dynamics with $a,a'>0$ is technical rather than structural; approximating general endpoints by pairs with one zero endpoint and passing to the limit in the Dirichlet form is a natural test of w
The limiting drift in Theorem 4.7 is defined through a double limit in $\varepsilon$ and $\eta$; whether the limit depends on the mollifier $\rho$ is not analyzed, and checking that independence numerically on the constructed process would upgrade the weak solution to a more canonical object.
The paper leaves well-posedness of the Bessel SPDEs open; since the integration-by-parts formulas determine the generator on the dense algebra $\mathcal{S}$, a proof of uniqueness of Markov processes with that generator would turn the weak construction into a full solution of the $\delta=2$ equation.
The conjectured critical behavior at $\delta=2$ could be probed by simulating the zero set of the constructed process; because the process is not the norm of the stationary heat equation, such simulations would genuinely test the conjecture rather than reproduce known results.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the integration by parts formulas are the real product here, and they are in good shape. The dynamical result for δ=2 is genuinely new in aspiration but is currently held together by a proposition the paper does not prove.

What the paper actually does: it extends the IbPFs of Elad Altman–Zambotti from zero-to-zero Bessel bridges to arbitrary boundary values and arbitrary initial conditions. Theorem 3.1 covers all δ>0 with separate formulas at δ=1,3, and the proof via pinned bridges and the family of distributions μα is worked out in detail. The conditioning argument that passes from the process case to the bridge case is clean. Section 3 is the substantive, reproducible core; I could not find a gap there, and the reliance on Lemma 3.3 of [7] is legitimate because that lemma is a standard additivity/Girsanov fact, not a disguised version of the target formula.

The softer half is Section 4. Proposition 4.1, which asserts closability, locality, quasi-regularity and the isometric identification with the gradient form of the two-dimensional Brownian bridge, is stated without proof. The text says it can be proved as in Theorem 5.1.3 of [23] or Prop. 5.1 of [7], and that the arguments were communicated by R. Zhu and X. Zhu. That is transparent but it is still a load-bearing external dependency: Corollary 4.2, the existence of the Markov process, and Theorem 4.7 all rest on it. Lemma 4.5 (projection) is also deferred, and Theorem 4.7's proof refers to the same argument as Theorem 5.9 of [7]. These are omissions of proof, not signs of error. If Proposition 4.1 is accepted, the weak dynamics construction for the two-dimensional Bessel bridge looks plausible; the identification of the drift as the renormalised local time term is exactly the kind of result the field wants. I would not call the dynamical half wrong, but it is conditional in a way the abstract does not fully advertise.

The paper also does a good job of marking its own limits: the Bessel SPDEs themselves remain conjectural, and the δ=2 transition discussion is honestly speculative.

Who should read it: people working on Bessel SPDEs, Dirichlet form constructions of singular SPDEs, and the interface-model scaling limit program. A serious referee should engage with it, mainly to push for a complete proof of Proposition 4.1 or a clear statement that it is an assumption. I would accept it for peer review, and my report would ask for the Section 4 dependencies to be either proved or explicitly isolated as assumptions.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the integration-by-parts formulae (IbPFs) of Elad Altman and Zambotti, originally proved for δ-dimensional Bessel bridges from 0 to 0, to Bessel bridges on [0,1] with arbitrary boundary values a,a'≥0 and to Bessel processes with arbitrary initial conditions. The IbPFs are stated in Theorem 3.1 for all δ>0, with special formulas for δ=1 and δ=3. The proof proceeds through explicit calculations using Laplace transforms of squared Bessel bridges and the family of distributions μ_α. In the second part, the paper uses the δ=2 IbPF to construct, via Dirichlet form methods, a weak dynamics for the law of a 2-dimensional Bessel bridge from 0 to 0, claimed to satisfy a regularized version of the conjectured Bessel SPDE. The dynamical half rests on Proposition 4.1, which asserts closability, locality, quasi-regularity, and the isometric identification of the gradient Dirichlet form, but whose proof is deferred to [23], [7], and private communication.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides a valuable extension of the Bessel SPDE programme to general Dirichlet boundary conditions, showing that the renormalised-local-time structure is not an artefact of the zero-boundary setting. The Section 3 IbPFs are derived with substantial explicit computation and are of independent interest. The dynamical construction for δ=2 would be the first weak solution theory for the corresponding Bessel SPDE, complementing the δ=1 case of [7]. However, the dynamical claim is only as strong as the unproved Proposition 4.1; the paper is therefore a solid contribution to the IbPF half but is conditional in the Dirichlet-form half. The manuscript makes no machine-checked claims, but the analytic computations are detailed and reproducible in principle.

major comments (2)

[Section 4.2, Proposition 4.1] Proposition 4.1 asserts that the gradient form (E^2, FC_b^∞(K)) is closable, that its closure is a local quasi-regular Dirichlet form on L^2(ν_2), and that the isometric identity (4.4) holds; no proof is given in the manuscript, which instead refers to Theorem 5.1.3 of [23], Proposition 5.1 of [7], and arguments communicated by R. Zhu and X. Zhu. This proposition is load-bearing: Corollary 4.2, Lemma 4.5, Corollary 4.6, and Theorem 4.7 all rely on the existence and quasi-regularity of this Dirichlet form. Without a complete proof or a fully detailed adaptation of the cited arguments, the dynamical half of the paper is conditional on an unstated external input rather than being established in the manuscript.
[Section 4.4, Theorem 4.7] The proof of Theorem 4.7 is reduced to 'the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 5.9 in [7]', and Corollary 4.6 is obtained by 'arguing as for the proof of Corollary 5.6 in [7]'. The present setting differs from [7] in the form of the drift approximation, in particular the double limit ε→0, η→0 in (4.7) and the definition of the potential V in (4.9). Moreover, the projection operator Π of Lemma 4.5 inherits the unresolved status of Proposition 4.1. The martingale decomposition and the identification of the zero-energy additive functional are therefore not fully established in the text as it stands; the author should supply the missing details or explicitly verify that all hypotheses of the cited arguments are met in this new setting.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.2, proof of Theorem 3.7] In the display immediately preceding equation (3.16), the Taylor-remainder operators appear as T^{-2k}_b and T^{-k}_y, whereas the statement of Theorem 3.1 and the subsequent identification with the distribution μ_{(δ-3)/2} require T^{2k}_b and T^k_y; please correct this sign inconsistency.
[Sections 2.1 and 4.1] The symbol μ is used both for the distributions μ_α on R_+ in Section 2.1 and for the probability measure μ_2 on H_2 in Section 4.1; this notation conflict is a potential source of confusion and should be disambiguated.
[Introduction, equation (1.15)] Equation (1.15) uses ψ_1, ψ_r, and ψ̂_r without defining them; please add a pointer to the definitions in Section 2 or to the corresponding formula in [7].
[Abstract and Section 1.3.2] The abstract and introduction state that the results extend to Bessel processes with arbitrary initial conditions and to general Dirichlet boundary conditions, but the dynamical construction in Section 4 is carried out only for the δ=2 Bessel bridge from 0 to 0; please make this scope explicit in the abstract and introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity in the IbPF theorems; the δ=2 dynamical construction is conditional on an unproved Dirichlet-form proposition deferred to [7]/[23], but this is a rigor gap, not a reduction of the result to its inputs.

full rationale

The central IbPFs (Theorem 3.1) are derived in the paper rather than assumed: the Laplace-transform input Lemma 2.7 is proved from Lemma 3.3 of [7], which is itself a standard Girsanov/time-change consequence of the Shiga–Watanabe additivity property of squared Bessel processes, and the bridge case follows by conditioning on X1 and by uniqueness of Laplace transforms. No parameter is fitted to data and no target identity is used among the hypotheses. The weakness of the paper is located in Section 4: Proposition 4.1, which supplies the closability, locality, quasi-regularity and the isometry (4.4) for the gradient form, is not proved; the text says it 'can then be proven similarly as Theorem 5.1.3 in [23] or Prop. 5.1 in [7]', and the acknowledgments state the arguments were communicated by R. Zhu and X. Zhu. Corollary 4.2 and Theorem 4.7 collapse if Proposition 4.1 fails. This is an omitted proof and a reliance on self-citation [7] plus an external thesis [23], but it is not circular: Proposition 4.1 is an existence statement for a Dirichlet form, not a restatement of Theorem 4.7, and the quoted propositions in [7] and [23] do not assume the Bessel SPDE dynamics under construction. The formal SPDEs (1.7)-(1.10) are explicitly conjectural, so no prediction is being manufactured from a fit. Overall, Section 3 is self-contained and honest, while Section 4 inherits a substantial unproved input; this warrants a low score, not a circularity finding.

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

No fitted constants or invented entities appear. The proofs rely on standard Bessel theory, the additivity property of squared Bessel processes, a time-change lemma from [7], and Dirichlet-form results. One load-bearing technical assertion, Proposition 4.1, is not proved in the paper.

assumptions (4)

standard math Known transition densities and additivity property of squared Bessel processes (Shiga-Watanabe) are used to compute Laplace transforms of pinned bridges.
Sections 2.3 and Lemma 2.7 rely on these standard results from Revuz-Yor and [22].
standard math Existence and uniqueness of the solution φ to the Sturm-Liouville problem (SL_m), with φ > 0 and φ' ≤ 0.
Used in Lemma 2.7 and taken from Appendix 8 of [21].
domain assumption Lemma 3.3 of [7]: exponential weighting by exp(-⟨m,X⟩) acts as a deterministic time change for squared Bessel processes.
Cited in the proof of Lemma 2.7 and Eq (3.13); the proof is in prior work by the same first author and is not reproduced here.
domain assumption Closability and quasi-regularity of the gradient Dirichlet form in Proposition 4.1, and the existence of an associated Markov process.
Stated without full proof, deferred to [23] and private communication; load-bearing for Corollary 4.2 and Theorem 4.7.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bessel SPDEs with general Dirichlet boundary conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/75VFDZ34

@misc{pith2026190802241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bessel SPDEs with general Dirichlet boundary conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/75VFDZ34}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02241}
}

abstract

We generalise the integration by parts formulae obtained in arXiv:1811.00518v5 [math.PR] to Bessel bridges on $[0,1]$ with arbitrary boundary values, as well as Bessel processes with arbitrary initial conditions. This allows us to write, formally, the corresponding dynamics using renormalised local times, thus extending the Bessel SPDEs of arXiv:1811.00518v5 [math.PR] to general Dirichlet boundary conditions. We also prove a dynamical result for the case of dimension $2$, by providing a weak construction of the gradient dynamics corresponding to a $2$-dimensional Bessel bridge.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

On the gradient dynamics associated with wetting models
math.PR 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Tightness is proved for reversible gradient dynamics of critical strip-wetting models, and a new continuous wetting measure with a local-time tilt converges to reflecting Brownian motion as the strip shrinks, leaving ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[7]

Elad Altman and L

H. Elad Altman and L. Zambotti. Bessel SPDEs and renor- malised local times. Probability Theory and Related Fields , Jun

work page
[23]

Revuz and M

D. Revuz and M. Yor. Continuous martingales and Brownian motion , volume

work page
[1]

An It\^o type formula for the additive stochastic heat equation

C. Bellingeri. An Itˆ o type formula for the additive stochastic hea t equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01744 , 2018

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[2]

Chandra and M

A. Chandra and M. Hairer. An analytic BPHZ theorem for regularit y struc- tures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.08138 , 2016

arXiv 2016
[3]

Da Prato and J

G. Da Prato and J. Zabczyk. Second order partial diﬀerential equations in Hilbert spaces, volume 293. Cambridge University Press, 2002

work page 2002
[4]

R. C. Dalang, C. Mueller, and L. Zambotti. Hitting properties of pa rabolic S.P.D.E.’s with reﬂection. The Annals of Probability , pages 1423–1450, 2006

work page 2006
[5]

Scaling limit of wetting models in $1+1$ dimensions pinned to a shrinking strip

J.-D. Deuschel and T. Orenshtein. Scaling limit of wetting models in 1 + 1 dimensions pinned to a shrinking strip. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02248 , 2018. BESSEL SPDES WITH GENERAL DIRICHLET BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 40

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[6]

Deuschel, G

J.-D. Deuschel, G. Giacomin, and L. Zambotti. Scaling limits of equilibr ium wetting models in (1 + 1)-dimension. Probab. Theory Related Fields , 132 (4):471–500, 2005. ISSN 0178-8051. doi: 10.1007/s00440-004- 0401-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00440-004-0401-8

work page doi:10.1007/s00440-004- 2005

Show all 34 references

[8]

A. M. Etheridge and C. Labb´ e. Scaling limits of weakly asymmetric interfaces. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 336(1):287–336, 2015

2015
[9]

Fattler, M

T. Fattler, M. Grothaus, and R. Voßhall. Construction and analy sis of a sticky reﬂected distorted Brownian motion. In Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, volume 52, pages 735–762. Institut Henri Poincar´ e, 2016

2016
[10]

Fukushima, Y

M. Fukushima, Y. Oshima, and M. Takeda. Dirichlet forms and symmetric Markov processes, volume 19. Walter de Gruyter, 2010

2010
[11]

T. Funaki. Stochastic interface models. In ´Ecole d’´ et´ e de Saint- Flour XXXIII-2003 , volume 1869 of Lecture Notes in Math. , pages 103–274. Springer, Berlin, 2005. doi: 10.1007/11429579

2003 doi
[12]

Funaki and S

T. Funaki and S. Olla. Fluctuations for ∇φ interface model on a wall. Stochastic Process. Appl. , 94(1):1–27, 2001. ISSN 0304-4149. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4149(00)00104-6. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4149(00)00104-6

2001 doi
[13]

URL https://doi.org/10.1007/11429579_2

doi
[14]

Grothaus and R

M. Grothaus and R. Voßhall. Integration by parts on the law of t he modulus of the Brownian bridge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02438 , 2016

2016 arXiv
[15]

I. M. Gelfand and G. E. Shilov. Generalized functions. Vol. 1 . AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2016. ISBN 978-1-4704-2658-3. Pro perties and operations, Translated from the 1958 Russian original [ MR009771 5] by Eu- gene Saletan, Reprint of the 1964 English translatio...

2016
[16]

Hairer and J

M. Hairer and J. Quastel. A class of growth models rescaling to KP Z. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.07845 , 2015

2015 arXiv
[17]

Grothaus and R

M. Grothaus and R. Voßhall. Strong Feller property of sticky re - ﬂected distorted Brownian motion. J. Theoret. Probab. , 31(2):827– 852, 2018. ISSN 0894-9840. doi: 10.1007/s10959-016-0735-z. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10959-016-0735-z

2018 doi
[18]

Ma and M

Z.-M. Ma and M. R¨ ockner. Introduction to the theory of (non-symmetric) Dirichlet forms . Springer Science & Business Media, 1992

1992
[19]

M. Katori. Bessel processes, Schramm-Loewner evolution, and the Dyso n model, volume 11. Springer, 2016

2016
[20]

Pitman and M

J. Pitman and M. Yor. Sur une d´ ecomposition des ponts de Bess el. In Func- tional Analysis in Markov Processes , pages 276–285. Springer, 1982

1982
[21]

Nualart and E

D. Nualart and E. Pardoux. White noise driven quasilinear SPDEs w ith reﬂection. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 93(1):77–89, 1992. BESSEL SPDES WITH GENERAL DIRICHLET BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 41

1992
[22]

Shiga and S

T. Shiga and S. Watanabe. Bessel diﬀusions as a one-paramete r family of diﬀusion processes. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete, 27(1):37–46, 1973

1973
[24]

Yor and L

M. Yor and L. Zambotti. A remark about the norm of a Brownian b ridge. Statistics & probability letters , 68(3):297–304, 2004

2004
[25]

Zambotti

L. Zambotti. A reﬂected stochastic heat equation as symmetr ic dy- namics with respect to the 3-d Bessel bridge. J. Funct. Anal. , 180(1): 195–209, 2001. ISSN 0022-1236. doi: 10.1006/jfan.2000.3685. U RL https://doi.org/10.1006/jfan.2000.3685

2001
[26]

R. Voßhall. Sticky reﬂected diﬀusion processes in view of stocha stic inter- face models and on general domains. PhD Thesis, Technische Universit¨ at Kaiserslautern, 2016

2016
[27]

Zambotti

L. Zambotti. Integration by parts on δ-Bessel bridges, δ > 3, and related SPDEs. The Annals of Probability , 31(1):323–348, 2003

2003
[28]

Zambotti

L. Zambotti. Fluctuations for a ∇ϕ interface model with repulsion from a wall. Probability theory and related ﬁelds , 129(3):315–339, 2004

2004
[29]

Zambotti

L. Zambotti. Integration by parts formulae on convex sets of paths and appli- cations to SPDEs with reﬂection. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 123 (4):579–600, 2002

2002
[30]

Zambotti

L. Zambotti. Integration by parts on the law of the reﬂecting B rownian mo- tion. Journal of Functional Analysis , 223(1):147–178, 2005

2005
[31]

Zambotti

L. Zambotti. Random Obstacle Problems, ´Ecole d’´Et´ e de Probabilit´ es de Saint- Flour XL V-2015, volume 2181. Springer, 2017. Sorbonne Universit´ e, CNRS, Laboratoire de Probabilit ´ es Statistique et Mod´ elisation (LPSM), F-75005 Paris, France E-mail address : eladaltman@...

2015
[32]

Zambotti

L. Zambotti. Occupation densities for SPDEs with reﬂection. The Annals of Probability, 32(1A):191–215, 2004

2004
[293]

Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

2013
[2019]

doi: 10.1007/s00440-019-00926-0

ISSN 1432-2064. doi: 10.1007/s00440-019-00926-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00440-019-00926-0

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

Elad Altman and L

H. Elad Altman and L. Zambotti. Bessel SPDEs and renor- malised local times. Probability Theory and Related Fields , Jun

work page

[2] [23]

Revuz and M

D. Revuz and M. Yor. Continuous martingales and Brownian motion , volume

work page

[3] [1]

An It\^o type formula for the additive stochastic heat equation

C. Bellingeri. An Itˆ o type formula for the additive stochastic hea t equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01744 , 2018

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[4] [2]

Chandra and M

A. Chandra and M. Hairer. An analytic BPHZ theorem for regularit y struc- tures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.08138 , 2016

arXiv 2016

[5] [3]

Da Prato and J

G. Da Prato and J. Zabczyk. Second order partial diﬀerential equations in Hilbert spaces, volume 293. Cambridge University Press, 2002

work page 2002

[6] [4]

R. C. Dalang, C. Mueller, and L. Zambotti. Hitting properties of pa rabolic S.P.D.E.’s with reﬂection. The Annals of Probability , pages 1423–1450, 2006

work page 2006

[7] [5]

Scaling limit of wetting models in $1+1$ dimensions pinned to a shrinking strip

J.-D. Deuschel and T. Orenshtein. Scaling limit of wetting models in 1 + 1 dimensions pinned to a shrinking strip. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02248 , 2018. BESSEL SPDES WITH GENERAL DIRICHLET BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 40

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[8] [6]

Deuschel, G

J.-D. Deuschel, G. Giacomin, and L. Zambotti. Scaling limits of equilibr ium wetting models in (1 + 1)-dimension. Probab. Theory Related Fields , 132 (4):471–500, 2005. ISSN 0178-8051. doi: 10.1007/s00440-004- 0401-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00440-004-0401-8

work page doi:10.1007/s00440-004- 2005