Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Massive Particle Systems, Wasserstein Brownian Motions, and the Dean-Kawasaki Equation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Empirical measures of random-mass particle systems uniquely solve the singular-drift Dean–Kawasaki equation and are Wasserstein Brownian motions.

desk verdict A substantial and mostly correct Dirichlet-form unification, but the advertised uniqueness for the Dean–Kawasaki equation with finite equal-mass data is wider than what the paper actually proves. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14936 v2 pith:GHUDEJNC submitted 2024-11-22 math.PR math.FA

Lorenzo Dello Schiavo This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.FA MSC 60G5760H1760J4649Q2270F45
keywords interactingparticlesystemsWassersteindiffusionsmeasure-valuedmarkedpointprocessesDean–KawasakiequationDirichletformsCheegerenergysingularSPDE
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 aims to establish that four objects studied in separate literatures are one and the same: infinite systems of independently diffusing particles with random masses, solutions of the Dean–Kawasaki equation with singular drift and space-time white noise, Wasserstein diffusions with purely atomic reversible measures, and metric measure Brownian motions arising from Cheeger energies on $L^2$-Wasserstein spaces. The central claim is that for any diffusive Markov generator $\mathsf{L}$ with spectral gap and ultracontractive semigroup on a locally compact Polish space, the empirical measure process $\mu_t = \sum_i s_i \delta_{X^i_t}$ of a free massive system is a reversible Markov diffusion, is the unique analytically weak martingale solution to the SPDE $d\mu_t = \operatorname{div}(\sqrt{\mu_t}\,\xi) + \sum_{x\in\mu_t} \mathsf{L}'\delta_x\,dt$, and is the Brownian motion of the Wasserstein geometry induced by $\mathsf{L}$. The paper also derives the explicit generator of this process on the space of probability measures, identifies its Dirichlet form with the Cheeger energy when the ambient space is a weighted Riemannian manifold, and extends the construction to singular repulsive interactions of Riesz and logarithmic type via Girsanov transforms. A fair reader should care because this supplies well-posedness for a class of singular SPDEs previously accessible only through rigidity results, and provides an explicit Laplace operator on Wasserstein space for a large family of reversible measures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the measure representation map $\operatorname{em}(s,x) = \sum_i s_i \delta_{x_i}$, which turns a mass-weighted configuration on a locally compact Polish space $M$ into a purely atomic probability measure; the transfer works through the weak atomic topology $\tau_a$, which makes $\operatorname{em}$ a homeomorphism on the off-diagonal configuration space. The load-bearing identity is the explicit generator (3.25), $\widehat{\mathsf{L}}(u)(\eta) = \int_M \mathsf{L}^z|_{z=x} u(\eta + \eta\{x\}\delta_z - \eta\{x\}\delta_x)/(\eta\{x\})^2\,d\eta(x)$, with its square-field counterpart, expressing the infinitesimal motion of mass by displacing an atom at $x$ along the driving diffusion $\mathsf{L}$. The quantitative non-collision assumption (qpp), $\operatorname{cap}_{1,1}(\Delta M) = 0$, guarantees that $\operatorname{em}$ is a quasi-homeomorphism between the infinite-product Dirichlet form and the form on probability measures, transferring the Markov property and yielding essential self-adjointness of the generator, hence uniqueness of the martingale problem. On weighted Riemannian manifolds this form equals the Cheeger energy of $(P_2,W_2,Q_{\pi,\nu})$, identifying the associated diffusion as the Wasserstein Brownian motion.

What would settle it

Construct two distinct analytically weak martingale solutions to the SPDE $d\mu_t = \operatorname{div}(\sqrt{\mu_t}\,\xi) + \sum_{x\in\mu_t} \mathsf{L}'\delta_x\,dt$ for some diffusion $\mathsf{L}$ satisfying the non-collision capacity condition (qpp); the paper's Corollary 4.8 asserts uniqueness up to $Q_{\pi}$-equivalence, so any such pair would refute the central claim. A complementary test: prove uniqueness for the same equation with one-dimensional Brownian motion on the real line, where (qpp) fails, which would show the boundary of the theorem lies elsewhere.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is the identification of the measure representation of a free massive particle system with two previously distinct objects. Under the assumptions that the driving noise $W$ is a $\nu$-reversible irreducible recurrent Hunt process with ultracontractive semigroup and that the diagonal of the ambient space has zero capacity for the product form (Assumption 3.16, (qpp)), the empirical measure process $\mu_\bullet = \sum_i s_i \delta_{X^i_\bullet}$ is properly associated with an explicitly constructed quasi-regular Dirichlet form on the space of probability measures, is unique in law for its martingale problem, and is a diffusion precisely when $W$ is. When $M$ is a complete weighted Riemannian manifold and $W$ is the drifted Laplace–Beltrami diffusion, the form coincides with the Cheeger energy $\operatorname{Ch}_{W_2,Q_{\pi,\nu}}$ of the $L^2$-Wasserstein space $(P_2,W_2)$, its generator is the operator (1.5)/(3.25) that moves mass by $\mathsf{L}$ at each atom weighted by local mass proportions, the Rademacher theorem holds for $W_2$-Lipschitz functions, and the semigroup satisfies a one-sided Varadhan short-time estimate. Finally, under the same assumptions, $\mu_\bullet$ is the unique analytically weak martingale solution of the SPDE $d\mu_t = \operatorname{div}(\sqrt{\mu_t}\,\xi) + \sum_{x\in\mu_t} \mathsf{L}'\delta_x\,dt$, which for equal-mass finite systems reduces to the $\mathsf{L}$-driven Dean–Kawasaki equation. The paper therefore establishes that free massive particle systems, singular-drift Dean–Kawasaki solutions, Wasserstein diffusions with atomic reversible measures, and metric measure Brownian motions are the same object.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that pairs of independently diffusing particles never meet, guaranteed by the quantitative condition that the diagonal of the ambient space has zero capacity for the two-particle product Dirichlet form (Assumption 3.16); this condition fails for one-dimensional driving noises, and that is exactly where uniqueness of the Dean–Kawasaki martingale problem is known to break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The singular-drift Dean–Kawasaki SPDE is well-posed in the sense of weak existence and uniqueness for every diffusive recurrent generator $\mathsf{L}$ with spectral gap and ultracontractive semigroup on a locally compact Polish space; its unique solution is the empirical measure of the free massive system driven by $\mathsf{L}$.
  • On every complete weighted Riemannian manifold satisfying the assumptions, the measure $Q_{\pi,\nu}$ on $(P_2,W_2)$ admits a reversible Brownian motion with explicit generator, and its Dirichlet form is the Cheeger energy; this includes the Dirichlet–Ferguson diffusion and the conjectured Laplace operator on $P_2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ for Gaussian weights.
  • The Rademacher theorem holds for $(P_2,W_2,Q_{\pi,\nu})$: every $W_2$-Lipschitz function is Fréchet differentiable $Q_{\pi,\nu}$-almost everywhere, with its Otto gradient norm bounded by its Lipschitz constant.
  • The heat semigroup of this Wasserstein Brownian motion obeys a one-sided integral Varadhan short-time estimate; when masses are random the opposite inequality fails because the process is not ergodic.
  • Interacting massive systems with repulsive singular pair potentials (Riesz and logarithmic type, and more general Sobolev-class weights) yield unique solutions of the Dean–Kawasaki-type SPDE with interaction drift, via Girsanov transforms that need only local Sobolev regularity of the weight.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the singular drift acts as a boundary term forcing atomicity, any truncated or colored-noise approximation of the white noise will produce a different effective drift; this may explain the gap between regularized Dean–Kawasaki models and the rigid white-noise result.
  • Beyond the paper: the same construction should extend to jump noises once a rigorous Hilbert-module divergence is available, with an $\alpha$-stable driver as the natural test case; the paper leaves this open.
  • Beyond the paper: the non-ergodicity when masses are random suggests that sharp Varadhan-type upper bounds should be sought on each ergodic component (fixed mass sequence), where the invariant measure is a product of delta masses.
  • Beyond the paper: the capacity dichotomy (qpp vs npp) likely governs well-posedness of other measure-valued SPDEs with singular drift, not only Dean–Kawasaki equations.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs Dirichlet forms for infinite systems of independent massive particles on locally compact Polish spaces, transfers them to the space of probability measures via an empirical-measure map, and identifies the resulting process with Wasserstein Brownian motions and metric-measure Brownian motions. It also connects the process to a singular-drift Dean–Kawasaki-type SPDE through a shadow martingale problem, and treats singular interactions by Girsanov transforms. The technical core proves closability, essential self-adjointness, quasi-regularity, proper association, and several characterizations of the generator, extending earlier work on Dirichlet–Ferguson diffusions and the Dean–Kawasaki equation.

Significance. If the stated results are taken at face value, the paper is a substantial unifying contribution: it replaces the Laplacian in the Dean–Kawasaki setting by a general diffusive recurrent generator with ultracontractive semigroup, gives explicit generators and martingale problems on Wasserstein space, and provides new Rademacher and Varadhan-type statements. The central technical achievements—essential self-adjointness on a cylinder-function algebra and uniqueness of the associated martingale problem—are proved rather than assumed, and there is no parameter fitting in the construction. The Girsanov treatment of singular interactions is also a genuine extension of earlier C²-regularity frameworks. However, the advertised well-posedness claims for the Dean–Kawasaki SPDE are broader than the theorems actually prove, and the SPDE itself is only interpreted through a formal square-root rule.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2.2, Eq. (4.11); Theorem 1.7] The paper never gives a rigorous construction of the SPDE (1.10): the term div(√μ_t ξ) is handled only through the shadow martingale problem (4.4), and the identification is explicitly based on the algebraic rule (√ρ_t f)^2 = ρ_t(f^2), which the paper itself labels formal and says cannot be given a rigorous meaning. Consequently, the claim that μ• is the unique analytically weak martingale solution to (1.10) is not supported by the proofs. The rigorous statement should be uniqueness for the shadow martingale problem (4.4), with (1.10) described as its formal counterpart, unless a genuine weak solution theory for (1.10) is added.
  2. [§4.1.3, Corollary 4.8; Theorem 1.7, second paragraph] Uniqueness for finite equal-mass atomic initial data is not proved in this paper. Corollary 4.8 only covers initial laws equivalent to Qπ with π∈P(T°), i.e. infinitely many strictly positive masses; a finite equal-mass law such as δ_{(1/n)∑δxi} is mutually singular with every such Qπ. Lemma 4.5 proves only the forward implication from the Konarovskyi–Lehmann–von Renesse problem (mp)_L^n to the new shadow problem (cmp)_L, while the converse in Theorem 4.7 requires an initial distribution equivalent to Qπ. The finite-particle uniqueness therefore rests on Theorem 4.2, quoted from [102], which requires a standard Markov triple with a Bakry–Émery Ricci-curvature lower bound, an assumption not present in Assumption 1.1. Thus the advertised uniqueness for every diffusive recurrent generator with spectral gap and ultracontractive semigroup is not established for the finite-particle case; the statement needs either the curvature hypothesis, an extension of the T° machinery to finite zero-mass tails, or a separate proof.
  3. [Corollary 4.8; §1.3.5] The uniqueness that is actually proved is uniqueness 'up to Qπ-equivalence' for Qπ-substationary processes whose initial distribution is equivalent to Qπ, with the additional limitation π∈P(T°). This is weaker than uniqueness from an arbitrary deterministic starting point in P_pa, which is the natural reading of the theorem's wording 'the unique solution is the measure representation'. The distinction is material for the SPDE application, where one would expect at least uniqueness in law for every deterministic atomic initial measure. The statements in Theorem 1.7 and in the abstract should be qualified to match the precise uniqueness notion of Corollary 4.8.
  4. [Theorem 1.7 vs Assumption 3.16] The uniqueness argument for the shadow martingale problem uses Assumption 3.16 (qpp), i.e. cap_{1,1}(ΔM)=0, while Theorem 1.7 is stated under the qualitative Assumption 1.3 only. Since (qpp) is introduced as a sufficient condition for Assumption 1.3, the theorem should either state (qpp) explicitly or prove the implication; otherwise the uniqueness statement is one assumption short. The distinction is not cosmetic, since the one-dimensional examples in §1.3.4 show that non-uniqueness appears precisely when (qpp) fails.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2.1] The line 'Let I := I ×∞' appears to contain a typo: the symbol I on the right cannot be the same set being defined; presumably one side should be the unit interval or a different symbol.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'existence and uniqueness of solutions' should be qualified as 'uniqueness in law up to Qπ-equivalence under Qπ-equivalent initial laws' to match Corollary 4.8; the current wording suggests a stronger pathwise or initial-value uniqueness that is not proved.
  3. [§4.2.2] The white-noise construction defines P0 as 'the law of the standard white noise on S′(R)', but P0 is never used afterwards; either remove it or clarify the role of the time component in the product measure P ⊗ P0.
  4. [§1.4.3 and Definition 5.8] The notation Cπ(τ) is introduced with τ in Definition 5.8, but the text later writes τ(n), τ(s_i^{-1}), and 'some τ as above'; ensure that the function parameter and the variable of integration are consistently distinguished.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

SPDE well-posedness is definitional: 'solutions of (1.10)' are stipulated to be the shadow martingale problem equivalent to the free massive particle system, and the noise-to-martingale bridge rests on the admitted heuristic rule (4.11).

  1. self definitional [§4.1.2 (Definition 4.4) and §4.2.2 (formal derivation), feeding Theorem 1.7]
    "Following the Konarovsky–Lehmann–von Renesse approach, we will therefore define solutions of (1.10) to be solutions to a shadow martingale problem defined similar to (mp)^α_L but with the different class of test functions R0 ⊗ A in place of A. The identification of formal solutions to (1.10) with solutions to this new martingale problem is justified by a heuristic computation identifying the quadratic variation of both these types of solutions, which we will present in this setting at the end of §4.2.2."

    Solutions of the SPDE (1.10) are never given an independent meaning: Definition 4.4 declares them to be solutions of the shadow martingale problem (cmp)_L, whose drift term (4.3) is, by construction, the generator bL of the measure representation of the massive particle system. Theorem 4.7 then proves the equivalence of (cmp)_L with the martingale problem for (bL, bA0), so the 'unique analytically weak martingale solution to (1.10)' in Theorem 1.7 is satisfied by µ• by definition of the solution concept; the SPDE statement restates the particle-system martingale problem.

full rationale

The central Dirichlet-form construction (Theorem 2.8, Theorem 3.15, Theorem 3.24) is not circular: essential self-adjointness of (L,A) and of (bL,bA0) is proved from assumptions, not assumed, and the quasi-homeomorphism transfers the Hunt process to the measure space without fitting parameters. Theorem 4.7 and Corollary 4.8 give a genuine uniqueness statement for the martingale problem for (bL,bA0) among Qπ-substationary processes with initial law equivalent to Qπ, π∈P(T°). The circular component is the Dean–Kawasaki packaging: Definition 4.4 defines 'solutions of (1.10)' as solutions of (cmp)_L, and (4.3) makes (cmp)_L identical to the particle-system generator; the SPDE noise term is connected to (cmp)_L only by the formal square-root rule (4.11), which the paper admits is not rigorous. Thus Theorem 1.7's 'unique analytically weak martingale solution to (1.10)' is a renaming/definitional consequence rather than an independent well-posedness theorem for an SPDE. The finite-equal-mass part of Theorem 1.7 is not covered by Corollary 4.8 (which requires π∈P(T°), hence infinitely many positive masses) and is imported from [102] under a Bakry–Émery hypothesis absent from Assumption 1.1; this is an overstatement or correctness gap, not a circularity. Self-citations [46] and [47] are used for direct-integral and Dirichlet–Ferguson tools, but the central claims do not reduce to those citations. Overall, partial circularity in the SPDE claim warrants the score 6.

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

The central claim rests on a package of stated structural assumptions rather than on any fitted parameters. The most restrictive are ultracontractivity, the core-algebra invariance, and especially the quantitative polarity of points (no collisions).

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ambient space and driving noise setting: (M,τ) locally compact Polish, ν atomless probability, W ν-reversible irreducible recurrent Hunt process with ultracontractive semigroup and core algebra A with LA⊂A, H_t A⊂A (Assumption 2.18).
    This is the standing setting for the entire construction; ultracontractivity and the algebra invariance are used to make the infinite-product Dirichlet form regular and explicitly computable.
  • domain assumption Quantitative polarity of points: cap_{1,1}(ΔM)=0 (Assumption 3.16, (qpp)).
    Guarantees no particle collisions, hence the Markov property and uniqueness of the martingale problem; excludes dimension 1.
  • domain assumption Strong locality of the reference Dirichlet form (Assumption 3.26).
    Needed to define the Wasserstein geometry, the exterior differential and divergence, and the SPDE (1.10).
  • domain assumption Weighted Riemannian manifold setting: complete, stochastically complete, ultracontractive heat kernel, ν∈P2 (Assumption 3.34).
    Taken as the geometric setting for Theorem 1.6; the paper gives sufficient conditions for these to hold.
  • domain assumption Distance assumptions for interactions: d metrizes M, d(·,x)∈D(Γ) with Γ(d(·,x)) bounded, A⊂Lip_b[d] (Assumption 5.1).
    Used to prove interaction energies lie in the broad local Dirichlet space and to apply Girsanov theory.
  • standard math Background Dirichlet-form, infinite tensor product, Girsanov transform, and essential self-adjointness theorems from cited literature.
    Standard tools invoked throughout; not proved in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Massive Particle Systems, Wasserstein Brownian Motions, and the Dean-Kawasaki Equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GHUDEJNC

@misc{pith2026241114936,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Massive Particle Systems, Wasserstein Brownian Motions, and the Dean-Kawasaki Equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GHUDEJNC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14936}
}
abstract

We develop a unifying theory for four different objects: (1) infinite systems of interacting massive particles; (2) solutions to the Dean-Kawasaki equation with singular drift and space-time white noise; (3) Wasserstein diffusions with a.s. purely atomic reversible random measures; (4) metric measure Brownian motions induced by Cheeger energies on $L^2$-Wasserstein spaces. For the objects in (1)-(3) we prove existence and uniqueness of solutions, and several characterizations, on an arbitrary locally compact Polish ambient space $M$ with exponentially recurrent Feller driving noise. In the case of the Dean-Kawasaki equation, this amounts to replacing the Laplace operator with some arbitrary diffusive Markov generator $\mathsf{L}$ with ultracontractive semigroup. In addition to a complete discussion of the free case, we consider singular interactions, including, e.g., mean-field repulsive isotropic pairwise interactions of Riesz and logarithmic type under the assumption of local integrability. We further show that each Markov diffusion generator $\mathsf{L}$ on $M$ induces in a natural way a geometry on the space of probability measures over $M$. When $M$ is a manifold and $\mathsf{L}$ is a drifted Laplace-Beltrami operator, this geometry coincides with the geometry of $L^2$-optimal transportation. The corresponding `geometric Brownian motion' coincides with the 'metric measure Brownian motion' in (4).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14936 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The trajectory up to time 1 of a free massive system consisting of five independent massive Brownian particles on a two￾dimensional torus. The trajectory of each particle is represented by a different color, with saturation proportional to the mass carried by the particle. As the lightest particle has already explored the whole space, the heavier particles remain more localized due to lower diffusivity. 1.1.1. Main … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The diffusive nature of solutions to (1.10) is exemplified by the evolution of a concentrated initial datum. Here, the measure representation µ• as in (1.2) of a massive particle system driven by the Laplacian on the disk is shown at increasing times, with N = 105 , initial datum concentrated around Xi 0 = 0, and masses (si) i≤N sampled from a standard Dirichlet distribution over the N-simplex. scale, see e.g. [94, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A diagram of the main results 2. Free massive systems: particle representation Throughout this work, we shall make extensive use of the theory of Dirichlet forms both in its analytic and its probabilistic aspects. We adhere to the standard terminology and notation in the monographs [74,117] and in [27,110]. For ease of exposition and for reference, all the relevant definitions and some standard facts are recalled in… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Ill-posedness of the pure-noise Dean-Kawasaki equation

    math.PR 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The pure-noise Dean-Kawasaki equation with any bounded drift has no measure-valued martingale solutions.

  2. Well-Posedness for Dean-Kawasaki Models of Vlasov-Fokker-Planck Type

    math.AP 2024-11 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    For second-order Langevin particle systems, the associated Dean-Kawasaki SPDE is well posed exactly for atomic, empirical-measure initial data and provably ill posed for smooth initial data.

  3. Rearranged Stochastic Heat Equations with an Entropy Gradient Structure

    math.PR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A penalized rearranged stochastic heat equation with entropy-gradient drift is well-posed, and its marginal law has a density solving a corrected Dean–Kawasaki SPDE.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [102]

    V. V. Konarovskyi, T. Lehmann, and M.-K. von Renesse. Dean-Kawasaki dynamics: ill-posednessvs.triviality.Electron. Commun. Probab., 24, jan2019.doi:10.1214/19- ecp208

    doi:10.1214/19-

  2. [46]

    Dello Schiavo

    L. Dello Schiavo. The Dirichlet–Ferguson Diffusion on the Space of Probability Measures over a Closed Riemannian Manifold.Ann. Probab., 50(2):591–648, 2022. doi:10.1214/21-AOP1541

    doi:10.1214/21-aop1541 2022

  3. [1]

    Akemann, J

    G. Akemann, J. Baik, and P. Di Francesco, editors.The Oxford Handbook of Random Matrix Theory. Oxford University Press, September 2015.doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780198744191.001.0001

    doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/ 2015

  4. [2]

    S. A. Albeverio, A. Yu. Daletskii, and Yu. G. Kondrat’ev. Infinite Systems of Stochastic Differential Equations and Some Lattice Models on Compact Riemannian Manifolds.Ukr. Math. J., 49(3):360–372, 1997.doi:10.1007/BF02487239

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02487239 1997

  5. [3]

    S. A. Albeverio, A. Yu. Daletskii, and Yu. G. Kondrat’ev. Stochastic Analysis on Product Manifolds: Dirichlet Operators on Differential Forms.J. Funct. Anal., 176:280–316, 2000.doi:10.1006jfan.2000.3629

    arXiv

  6. [4]

    S. A. Albeverio, Yu. G. Kondratiev, and M. Röckner. Analysis and Geometry on Configuration Spaces.J. Funct. Anal., 154(2):444–500, 1998. doi:10.1006/jfan. 1997.3183

    arXiv 1998

  7. [5]

    S. A. Albeverio, Yu. G. Kondratiev, and M. Röckner. Analysis and Geometry on Configuration Spaces: The Gibbsian Case.J. Funct. Anal., 157:242–291, 1998. doi:10.1006/jfan.1997.3215

    arXiv 1998

  8. [6]

    S. A. Albeverio and M. Röckner. Classical Dirichlet Forms on Topological Vector Spaces — Closability and a Cameron–Martin Formula.J. Funct. Anal., 88:395–436, 1990.doi:10.1016/0022-1236(90)90113-Y

    doi:10.1016/0022-1236(90)90113-y 1990

Show all 148 references
  1. [7]

    S. A. Albeverio and M. Röckner. Dirichlet form methods for uniqueness of martingale problems and applications. In M. Cranston and M. Pinsky, editors,Stochastic Analysis – Proceedings of the Summer Research Institute on Stochastic Analysis, Held at Cornell University, Ithaca, N...

    1993 doi

  2. [8]

    Altland and B

    A. Altland and B. Simons.Condensed Matter Field Theory. Cambridge University Press, Second edition, 2010

    2010

  3. [9]

    Ariyoshi and M

    T. Ariyoshi and M. Hino. Small-time Asymptotic Estimates in Local Dirichlet Spaces. Electron. J. Probab., 10(37):1236–1259, 2005

    2005

  4. [10]

    Bakry, I

    D. Bakry, I. Gentil, and M. Ledoux.Analysis and Geometry of Markov Diffusion Operators, volume 348 ofGrundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer, 2014.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00227-9

    2014 doi

  5. [11]

    Baudoin and D

    F. Baudoin and D. Kelleher. Differential one-forms on Dirichlet spaces and Bakry- Émery estimates on metric graphs.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 371(5):3145–3178, December 2018.doi:10.1090/tran/7362

    2018 doi

  6. [12]

    Benamou and Y

    J.-D. Benamou and Y. Brenier. A computational fluid mechanics solution to the Monge-Kantorovich mass transfer problem.Num. Math., 84:375–393, 2000. doi: 10.1007/s002119900117

    doi

  7. [13]

    Bendikov and L

    A. Bendikov and L. Saloff-Coste. Elliptic diffusions on infinite products.J. reine angew. Math., 493:171–220, 1997

    1997

  8. [14]

    Benois, C

    O. Benois, C. Kipnis, and C. Landim. Large deviations from the hydrodynamical limit of mean zero asymmetric zero range processes.Stoch. Proc. Appl., 55(1):65–89, January 1995.doi:10.1016/0304-4149(95)91543-a

    1995 doi

  9. [15]

    Berg.Potential Theoryon the InfiniteDimensional Torus.Invent

    C. Berg.Potential Theoryon the InfiniteDimensional Torus.Invent. Math., 32:49–100, 1976

    1976

  10. [16]

    Bertini, A

    L. Bertini, A. De Sole, D. Gabrielli, G. Jona-Lasinio, and C. Landim. Macro- scopic fluctuation theory.Rev. Mod. Phys., 87(2):593–636, June 2015.doi:10.1103/ revmodphys.87.593

    2015

  11. [17]

    Beznea, I

    L. Beznea, I. Cîmpean, and M. Röckner. Irreducible recurrence, ergodicity, and extremality of invariant measures for resolvents.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 128(4):1405–1437, April 2018.doi:10.1016/j.spa.2017.07.009

    2018 doi

  12. [18]

    Billingsley.Convergence of Probability Measures

    P. Billingsley.Convergence of Probability Measures. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Wiley, Second edition, 1999

    1999

  13. [19]

    Bouleau and F

    N. Bouleau and F. Hirsch.Dirichlet forms and analysis on Wiener space. De Gruyter, 1991

    1991

  14. [20]

    Y. Brenier. Polar Factorization and Monotone Rearrangement of Vector-Valued Functions.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 44:375–417, 1991. MASSIVE PARTICLE SYSTEMS, WASSERSTEIN BM’S, DEAN–KAWASAKI SPDES 97

    1991

  15. [21]

    P. C. Bressloff. A generalized Dean–Kawasaki equation for an interacting Brownian gas in a partially absorbing medium.Proc. R. Soc. A, 480(2296), August 2024. doi:10.1098/rspa.2023.0915

    2024

  16. [22]

    Cardaliaguet, F

    P. Cardaliaguet, F. Delarue, J.-M. Lasry, and P.-L. Lions.The Master Equation and the Convergence Problem in Mean Field Games, volume 201 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, 2019

    2019

  17. [23]

    Carmona and F

    R. Carmona and F. Delarue.Probabilistic Theory of Mean Field Games with Ap- plications I, volume 83 ofProbability Theory and Stochastic Modelling. Springer International Publishing, 2018.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58920-6

    2018 doi

  18. [24]

    Carmona and F

    R. Carmona and F. Delarue.Probabilistic Theory of Mean Field Games with Ap- plications II. Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling. Springer International Publishing, 2018.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56436-4

    2018 doi

  19. [25]

    Cecchin and F

    A. Cecchin and F. Delarue. Weak solutions to the master equation of potential mean field games.arXiv:2204.04315, 2022.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2204.04315

    2022 doi arXiv

  20. [26]

    Chen and W

    C.-Z. Chen and W. Sun. Strong continuity of generalized Feynman–Kac semigroups: Necessary and sufficient conditions.J. Funct. Anal., 237(2):446–465, aug 2006. doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2006.04.013

    2006 doi

  21. [27]

    Chen, Z.-M

    Z.-Q. Chen, Z.-M. Ma, and M. Röckner. Quasi-homeomorphisms of Dirichlet forms. Nagoya Math. J., 136:1–15, 1994

    1994

  22. [28]

    Chen and T.-S

    Z.-Q. Chen and T.-S. Zhang. Girsanov And Feynman–Kac Type Transformations For Symmetric Markov Processes.Ann. I. H. Poincaré B, 38(4):475–505, 2002

    2002

  23. [29]

    Chizat, G

    L. Chizat, G. Peyré, B. Schmitzer, and F.-X. Vialard. An Interpolating Distance Between Optimal Transport and Fisher–Rao Metrics.Found. Computat. Math., 18(1):1–44, October 2016.doi:10.1007/s10208-016-9331-y

    2016 doi

  24. [30]

    Y. T. Chow and W. Gangbo. A partial Laplacian as an infinitesimal generator on the Wasserstein space.J. Differ. Equat., 267(10):6065–6117, 2019

    2019

  25. [31]

    Cipriani and J.-L

    F. Cipriani and J.-L. Sauvageot. Derivations as square roots of Dirichlet forms.J. Funct. Anal., 201(1):78–120, June 2003.doi:10.1016/s0022-1236(03)00085-5

    2003 doi

  26. [32]

    Conforti, R

    G. Conforti, R. C. Kraaij, L. Tamanini, and D. Tonon. Hamilton–Jacobi equa- tions for Wasserstein controlled gradient flows: existence of viscosity solutions. arXiv:2401.02240, 2024.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2401.02240

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [33]

    Conforti, R

    G. Conforti, R. C. Kraaij, and D. Tonon. Hamilton–Jacobi equations for controlled gradient flows: cylindrical test functions.arXiv:2302.06571, 2023. doi:10.48550/ ARXIV.2302.06571

    2023 doi arXiv

  28. [34]

    Conforti, R

    G. Conforti, R. C. Kraaij, and D. Tonon. Hamilton–Jacobi equations for controlled gradient flows: The comparison principle.J. Funct. Anal., 284(9):109853, May 2023. doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2023.109853

    2023

  29. [35]

    Cornalba and J

    F. Cornalba and J. Fischer. Multilevel Monte Carlo methods for the Dean–Kawasaki equation from Fluctuating Hydrodynamics.arXiv:2311.08872, 2023.doi:10.48550/ ARXIV.2311.08872

    2023 doi arXiv

  30. [36]

    Cornalba and J

    F. Cornalba and J. Fischer. The Dean–Kawasaki Equation and the Structure of Density Fluctuations in Systems of Diffusing Particles.Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 247(5), August 2023.doi:10.1007/s00205-023-01903-7

    2023 doi

  31. [37]

    Cornalba, J

    F. Cornalba, J. Fischer, J. Ingmanns, and C. Raithel. Density fluctuations in weakly interacting particle systems via the Dean–Kawasaki equation.arXiv:2303.00429, 2023.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2303.00429

    2023 doi arXiv

  32. [38]

    B.Heat kernels and spectral theory

    Davies, E. B.Heat kernels and spectral theory. Cambridge University Press, 1989

    1989

  33. [39]

    De Ponti, G

    N. De Ponti, G. E. Sodini, and L. Tamanini. The infimal convolution structure of the Hellinger-Kantorovich distance.arxiv:2503.12939, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV. 2503.12939

    2025 doi arXiv

  34. [40]

    D. S. Dean. Langevin equation for the density of a system of interacting Langevin processes.J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 29:L613–L617, 1996

    1996

  35. [41]

    Delarue and W

    F. Delarue and W. R. P. Hammersley. Rearranged Stochastic Heat Equation.Probab. Theory Relat. Fields, October 2024.doi:10.1007/s00440-024-01335-8

    2024 doi

  36. [42]

    Delarue and W

    F. Delarue and W. R. P. Hammersley. Rearranged Stochastic Heat Equation: Ergodicity and Related Gradient Descent on the Space of Probability Measures. arXiv:2403.16140, 2024.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.16140. 98 L. DELLO SCHIAVO

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [43]

    Delfau, H

    J.-B. Delfau, H. Ollivier, C. López, B. Blasius, and E. Hernández-García. Pattern formation with repulsive soft-core interactions: Discrete particle dynamics and Dean- Kawasaki equation.Phys. Rev. E, 94(4), October 2016.doi:10.1103/physreve.94. 042120

    2016 doi

  38. [44]

    Dello Schiavo

    L. Dello Schiavo. Characteristic functionals of Dirichlet measures.Electron. J. Probab., 24(115):1–38, 2019.doi:10.1214/19-EJP371

    2019 doi

  39. [45]

    Dello Schiavo

    L. Dello Schiavo. A Rademacher-type theorem onL2-Wasserstein spaces over closed Riemannian manifolds.J. Funct. Anal., 278(6):108397, 2020. 51 pp.doi:10.1016/j. jfa.2019.108397

    2020

  40. [47]

    Dello Schiavo

    L. Dello Schiavo. Ergodic Decomposition of Dirichlet Forms via Direct Integrals and Applications.Potential Anal., 58:573–615, 2023. 43 pp.doi:10.1007/s11118-021- 09951-y

    2023 doi

  41. [48]

    Dello Schiavo and V

    L. Dello Schiavo and V. Konarovskyi. Ill-posedness of the pure-noise Dean–Kawasaki equation.arXiv:2501.09677, 2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.09677

    2025 doi arXiv

  42. [49]

    Dello Schiavo and E

    L. Dello Schiavo and E. W. Lytvynov. A Mecke-type Characterization of the Dirichlet– Ferguson Measure.Electron. Commun. Probab., 28:1–12, 2023. doi:10.1214/23- ECP528

    2023 doi

  43. [50]

    Dello Schiavo and G

    L. Dello Schiavo and G. E. Sodini. The Hellinger–Kantorovich metric measure geometry on spaces of measures.arXiv:2503.07802, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Dello Schiavo and K

    L. Dello Schiavo and K. Suzuki. Configuration Spaces over Singular Spaces I – Dirichlet-Form and Metric Measure Geometry.arXiv:2109.03192, 2021. 85 pp

    2021 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Dello Schiavo and K

    L. Dello Schiavo and K. Suzuki. Rademacher-type theorems and Sobolev-to-Lipschitz properties for strongly local Dirichlet spaces.J. Funct. Anal., 281(11):109234, dec

  46. [53]

    Dello Schiavo and K

    L. Dello Schiavo and K. Suzuki. Configuration Spaces over Singular Spaces II – Curvature.arXiv: 2205.01379, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Dello Schiavo and M

    L. Dello Schiavo and M. Wirth. Ergodic Decompositions of Dirichlet Forms under Order Isomorphisms.J. Evol. Equ., 23(9), 2023. 22 pp.doi:10.1007/s00028-022- 00859-7

    2023 doi

  48. [55]

    N. Dirr, M. Stamatakis, and J. Zimmer. Entropic and gradient flow formulations for nonlinear diffusion.J. Math. Phys., 57(8), August 2016.doi:10.1063/1.4960748

    2016 doi

  49. [56]

    Dixmier.Von Neumann Algebras

    J. Dixmier.Von Neumann Algebras. North-Holland, 1981

    1981

  50. [57]

    Djurdjevac, H

    A. Djurdjevac, H. Kremp, and N. Perkowski. Weak error analysis for a nonlinear SPDE approximation of the Dean–Kawasaki equation.Stoch. PDE: Anal. Comp., March 2024.doi:10.1007/s40072-024-00324-1

    2024 doi

  51. [58]

    Donnelly and G

    P. Donnelly and G. Grimmett. On the asymptotic distribution of large prime factors. J. London Math. Soc., 47(3):395–404, 1993

    1993

  52. [59]

    A. Eberle. Weak Sobolev spaces and Markov uniqueness of operators.C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I - Math., 320:1249–1254, 1995

    1995

  53. [60]

    A. Eberle. Girsanov-type transformations of local Dirichlet forms: An analytic approach.Osaka J. Math., 33(2):497–531, 1996

    1996

  54. [61]

    Eberle.Uniqueness and Non-Uniqueness of Semigroups Generated by Singular Diffusion Operators, volume 1718 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics

    A. Eberle.Uniqueness and Non-Uniqueness of Semigroups Generated by Singular Diffusion Operators, volume 1718 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, 1999

    1999

  55. [62]

    Embacher, N

    P. Embacher, N. Dirr, J. Zimmer, and C. Reina. Computing diffusivities from particle models out of equilibrium.Proc. R. Soc. A, 474(2212):20170694, April 2018. doi:10.1098/rspa.2017.0694

    2018

  56. [63]

    Engelking.General Topology, volume 6 ofSigma series in pure mathematics

    R. Engelking.General Topology, volume 6 ofSigma series in pure mathematics. Heldermann, Berlin, 1989

    1989

  57. [64]

    Erbar and M

    M. Erbar and M. Huesmann. Curvature bounds for configuration spaces.Calc. Var., 54:307–430, 2015.doi:10.1007/s00526-014-0790-1

    2015 doi

  58. [65]

    S.N.EthierandT.G.Kurtz.ConvergencetoFleming–Viotprocessintheweakatomic topology.Stoch. Proc. Appl., 54(1):1–27, 1994.doi:10.1016/0304-4149(94)00006- 9. MASSIVE PARTICLE SYSTEMS, WASSERSTEIN BM’S, DEAN–KAWASAKI SPDES 99

    1994 doi

  59. [66]

    Fehrman and B

    B. Fehrman and B. Gess. Non-equilibrium large deviations and parabolic-hyperbolic PDE with irregular drift.Invent. math., 234(2):573–636, July 2023.doi:10.1007/ s00222-023-01207-3

    2023

  60. [67]

    Fehrman and B

    B. Fehrman and B. Gess. Well-Posedness of the Dean–Kawasaki and the Nonlinear Dawson–Watanabe Equation with Correlated Noise.Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 248(2), March 2024.doi:10.1007/s00205-024-01963-3

    2024 doi

  61. [68]

    T. S. Ferguson. A Bayesian analysis of some nonparametric problems.Ann. Statist., 1:209–230, 1973.doi:10.1214/aos/1176342360

    1973

  62. [69]

    P. J. Fitzsimmons. Absolute continuity of symmetric diffusions.Ann. Probab., 25(1), January 1997.doi:10.1214/aop/1024404287

    1997

  63. [70]

    W. H. Fleming and M. Viot. Some Measure-Valued Markov Processes in Population Genetics Theory.Indiana J. Math., 28(5):817–843, 1979

    1979

  64. [71]

    Fornasier, G

    M. Fornasier, G. Savaré, and G. E. Sodini. Density of subalgebras of Lipschitz functions in metric Sobolev spaces and applications to Wasserstein Sobolev spaces. J. Funct. Anal., 285(11):110153, dec 2023.doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2023.110153

    2023

  65. [72]

    Frusawa and R

    H. Frusawa and R. Hayakawa. On the controversy over the stochastic density func- tional equation.J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 33:L155–L160, 2000

    2000

  66. [73]

    B. Fuglede. The quasi topology associated with a countably subadditive set function. Ann. I. Fourier, 21(1):123–169, 1971

    1971

  67. [74]

    Fukushima, Y

    M. Fukushima, Y. Oshima, and M. Takeda.Dirichlet forms and symmetric Markov processes, volume 19 ofDe Gruyter Studies in Mathematics. de Gruyter, 2011

    2011

  68. [75]

    Gangbo, S

    W. Gangbo, S. Mayorga, and A. Święch. Finite Dimensional Approximations of Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman Equations in Spaces of Probability Measures.SIAM J. Math. Anal., 53(2):1320–1356, January 2021.doi:10.1137/20m1331135

    2021 doi

  69. [76]

    Giacomin, J

    G. Giacomin, J. Lebowitz, and E. Presutti.Deterministic and stochastic hydrodynamic equations arising from simple microscopic model systems, pages 107–152. American Mathematical Society, November 1999.doi:10.1090/surv/064/03

    1999 doi

  70. [77]

    N. Gigli. On the inverse implication of Brenier–McCann theorems and the structure of P2(M), W2 .Methods and Applications of Analysis, 18(2):127–158, 2011

    2011

  71. [78]

    N. Gigli. Second Order Analysis on P2(M ), W2 .Mem. Am. Math. Soc., 216(1018), 2012

    2012

  72. [79]

    N. Gigli. The splitting theorem in non-smooth context.arXiv:1302.5555, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  73. [80]

    N. Gigli. Nonsmooth Differential Geometry – An Approach Tailored for Spaces with Ricci Curvature Bounded from Below.Mem. Am. Math. Soc., 251(1196), 2018. doi:10.1090/memo/1196

    2018 doi

  74. [81]

    T. L. Gill.Tensor products of contraction semigroups on Hilbert spaces. PhD thesis, Wayne State University, 1974

    1974

  75. [82]

    T. L. Gill. Infinite tensor products of Banach spaces I.J. Funct. Anal., 30(1):17–35, October 1978.doi:10.1016/0022-1236(78)90052-6

    1978 doi

  76. [83]

    AMS–IP, 2009

    Grigor’yan, A.Heat Kernel and Analysis on Manifolds, volume 47 ofAdvanced Studies in Mathematics. AMS–IP, 2009

    2009

  77. [84]

    Gubinelli, P

    M. Gubinelli, P. Imkeller, and N. Perkowski. Paracontrolled distributions and singular pdes.Forum of Mathematics, Pi, 3, August 2015.doi:10.1017/fmp.2015.2

    2015 doi

  78. [85]

    Guichardet.Tensor Products of C ∗-Algebras – Part I

    A. Guichardet.Tensor Products of C ∗-Algebras – Part I. Finite Tensor Products. Number 12 in Lecture Notes Series. Aarhus Universitet, 1969

    1969

  79. [86]

    Guichardet.Tensor Products ofC ∗-Algebras – Part II

    A. Guichardet.Tensor Products ofC ∗-Algebras – Part II. Infinite Tensor Products. Number 13 in Lecture Notes Series. Aarhus Universitet, 1969

    1969

  80. [87]

    Guionnet and B

    A. Guionnet and B. Zegarlinksi. Lectures on Logarithmic Sobolev Inequalities. In J. Azéma, M. Émery, M. Ledoux, and M. Yor, editors,Séminaire de Probabilités XXXVI, volume 1801 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 1–134. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003.doi:10.1007/978-3-540-...

    2003 doi

  81. [88]

    M. Hairer. A theory of regularity structures.Invent. math., 198(2):269–504, March 2014.doi:10.1007/s00222-014-0505-4

    2014 doi

  82. [89]

    M. Hino. Measurable Riemannian structures associated with strong local Dirichlet forms.Math. Nachr., 286(14–15):1466–1478, February 2013. doi:10.1002/mana. 201200061

    2013 doi

  83. [90]

    Hino and J

    M. Hino and J. A. Ramírez. Small-Time Gaussian Behavior of Symmetric Diffusion Semigroups.Ann. Probab., 31(3):1254–1295, 2003. 100 L. DELLO SCHIAVO

    2003

  84. [91]

    M. Hinz, M. Röckner, and A. Teplyaev. Vector analysis for dirichlet forms and quasilinear pde and spde on metric measure spaces.Stoch. Proc. Appl., 123(12):4373– 4406, December 2013.doi:10.1016/j.spa.2013.06.009

    2013 doi

  85. [92]

    P. Illien. The Dean-Kawasaki equation and stochastic density functional theory. 2024. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2411.13467

    2024 doi arXiv

  86. [93]

    Ionescu, L

    M. Ionescu, L. G. Rogers, and A. Teplyaev. Derivations and Dirichlet forms on fractals. J. Funct. Anal., 263(8):2141–2169, October 2012.doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2012.05.021

    2012 doi

  87. [94]

    R. L. Jack and J. Zimmer. Geometrical interpretation of fluctuating hydrodynamics in diffusive systems.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 47(48):485001, November 2014. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/48/485001

    2014 doi

  88. [95]

    Janson.Gaussian Hilbert Spaces

    S. Janson.Gaussian Hilbert Spaces. Cambridge University Press, June 1997.doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511526169

    1997 doi

  89. [96]

    Kakutani

    S. Kakutani. On Equivalence of Infinite Product Measures.Ann. Math., 49(1):214–224, Jan 1948

    1948

  90. [97]

    Kawasaki

    K. Kawasaki. Stochastic model of slow dynamics in supercooled liquids and dense colloidal suspensions.Physica A: Statist. Mech. Appl., 208(1):35–64, July 1994. doi:10.1016/0378-4371(94)90533-9

    1994 doi

  91. [98]

    A. S. Kechris.Classical Descriptive Set Theory, volume 156 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995

    1995

  92. [99]

    B. Kim, K. Kawasaki, H. Jacquin, and F. van Wijland. Equilibrium dynamics of the dean-kawasaki equation: Mode-coupling theory and its extension.Phys. Rev. E, 89(1), January 2014.doi:10.1103/physreve.89.012150

    2014 doi

  93. [100]

    J. F. C. Kingman. Random Discrete Distributions.J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B Met., 37(1):1– 22, 1975

    1975

  94. [101]

    V. V. Konarovskyi. A System of Coalescing Heavy Diffusion Particles on the Real Line.Ann. Probab., 45(5):3293–3335, 2017.doi:10.1214/16-AOP1137

    2017 doi

  95. [103]

    V. V. Konarovskyi, T. Lehmann, and M.-K. von Renesse. On Dean-Kawasaki Dy- namics with Smooth Drift Potential.J. Statist. Phys., 178(3):666–681, nov 2019. doi:10.1007/s10955-019-02449-3

    2019 doi

  96. [104]

    V. V. Konarovskyi and F. Müller. Dean–Kawasaki equation with initial condition in the space of positive distributions.J. Evol. Equ., 24(4), October 2024. doi: 10.1007/s00028-024-01018-w

    2024 doi

  97. [105]

    V. V. Konarovskyi and M.-K. von Renesse. Modified Massive Arratia flow and Wasserstein diffusion.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 72(4):764–800, 2019.doi:10.1002/ cpa.21758

    2019

  98. [106]

    V. V. Konarovskyi and M.-K. von Renesse. Reversible coalescing-fragmentating Wasserstein dynamics on the real line.J. Funct. Anal., 286(8):110342, April 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2024.110342

    2024

  99. [107]

    Yu. G. Kondratiev, E. W. Lytvynov, and A. M. Vershik. Laplace operators on the cone of Radon measures.J. Funct. Anal., 269(9):2947–2976, 2015.doi:10.1016/j. jfa.2015.06.007

    2015 doi

  100. [108]

    Kondratyev, L

    S. Kondratyev, L. Monsaingeon, and D. Vorotnikov. A new optimal transport distance on the space of finite Radon measures.Adv. Diff. Equ., 21(11/12), November 2016. doi:10.57262/ade/1476369298

    2016

  101. [109]

    K. Kuwae. Recurrence and conservativeness of symmetric diffusion processes by Girsanov transformations.J. Math. Kyoto Univ., 37(4), January 1997.doi:10.1215/ kjm/1250518212

    1997

  102. [110]

    K. Kuwae. Functional Calculus for Dirichlet Forms.Osaka J. Math., 35:683–715, 1998

    1998

  103. [111]

    C. Lance. Direct Integrals of Left Hilbert Algebras.Math. Ann., 216:11–28, 1975

    1975

  104. [112]

    Le Jan and O

    Y. Le Jan and O. Raimond. Flows, Coalescence and Noise.Ann. Probab., 32(2):1247– 1315, 2004.doi:10.1214/009117904000000207

    2004 doi

  105. [113]

    Liero, A

    M. Liero, A. Mielke, and G. Savaré. Optimal Entropy-Transport problems and a new Hellinger–Kantorovich distance between positive measures.Invent. math., 211(3):969–1117, dec 2017.doi:10.1007/s00222-017-0759-8. MASSIVE PARTICLE SYSTEMS, WASSERSTEIN BM’S, DEAN–KAWASAKI SPDES101

    2017 doi

  106. [114]

    Liero, A

    M. Liero, A. Mielke, and G. Savaré. Fine Properties of Geodesics and Geodesic λ-Convexity for the Hellinger–Kantorovich Distance.Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 247(6), November 2023.doi:10.1007/s00205-023-01941-1

    2023 doi

  107. [115]

    J. Lott. Some Geometric Calculations on Wasserstein Space.Comm. Math. Phys., 277(2):423–437, 2007

    2007

  108. [116]

    Lunardi, G

    A. Lunardi, G. Metafune, and D. Pallara. The Ornstein–Uhlenbeck semigroup in finite dimension.Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. A, 378(2185):20200217, October 2020. doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0217

    2020

  109. [117]

    Ma and M

    Z.-M. Ma and M. Röckner.Introduction to the Theory of (Non-Symmetric) Dirichlet Forms. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. Springer, 1992

    1992

  110. [118]

    Marini Bettolo Marconi and P

    U. Marini Bettolo Marconi and P. Tarazona. Dynamic density functional theory of fluids.J. Chem. Phys., 110(16):8032–8044, April 1999.doi:10.1063/1.478705

    1999 doi

  111. [119]

    Martini and A

    A. Martini and A. Mayorcas. An Additive Noise Approximation to Keller–Segel– Dean–Kawasaki Dynamics Part I: Local Well-Posedness of Paracontrolled Solutions. arXiv:2207.10711v2, 2022

    2022

  112. [120]

    R. J. McCann. A Convexity Principle for Interacting Gases.Adv. Math., 128, 1997

    1997

  113. [121]

    R. J. McCann. Polar factorization of maps on Riemannian manifolds.Geom. Funct. Anal., 11(3):589–608, 2001

    2001

  114. [122]

    Müller, M.-K

    F. Müller, M.-K. von Renesse, and J. Zimmer. Well-Posedness for Dean–Kawasaki Models of Vlasov-Fokker-Planck Type.arXiv:2411.14334, nov 2024.doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2411.14334

    2024 doi arXiv

  115. [123]

    E. Nelson. The free Markoff field.J. Funct. Anal., 12(2):211–227, February 1973. doi:10.1016/0022-1236(73)90025-6

    1973 doi

  116. [124]

    H. Osada. Dirichlet Form Approach to Infinite-Dimensional Wiener Processes with Singular Interactions.Comm. Math. Phys., 176:117–131, 1996

    1996

  117. [125]

    Osada and H

    H. Osada and H. Tanemura. Infinite-dimensional stochastic differential equations and tail σ-fields.Probab. Theory Relat. Fields, 177:1137–1242, 2020.doi:10.1007/s00440- 020-00981-y

    2020 doi

  118. [126]

    Oshanin, M

    G. Oshanin, M. N. Popescu, and S. Dietrich. Active colloids in the context of chemical kinetics.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 50(13):134001, March 2017.doi:10.1088/1751- 8121/aa5e91

    2017 doi

  119. [127]

    F. Otto. The Geometry of Dissipative Evolution Equations: The Porous Medium Equation.Comm. Part. Diff. Eq., 26(1-2):101–174, 2001

    2001

  120. [128]

    Overbeck, M

    L. Overbeck, M. Röckner, and B. Schmuland. An analytic approach to Fleming–Viot processes with interactive selection.Ann. Probab., 23(1):1–36, 1995

    1995

  121. [129]

    E. Perkins. Dawson-Watanabe Superprocesses and Measure-Valued Diffusions. In P. Bernard, editor,Lectures on Probability Theory and Statistics: Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXIX - 1999. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002.doi: 10.1007/b93152

    1999 doi

  122. [130]

    Theory Relat

    J.Quastel, F.Rezakhanlou, andS.R.S.Varadhan.Largedeviationsforthesymmetric simple exclusion process in dimensionsd≥ 3.Probab. Theory Relat. Fields, 113(1):1– 84, February 1999.doi:10.1007/s004400050202

    1999 doi

  123. [131]

    M. C. Reed and B. Simon.Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics II – Fourier Analysis, Self-Adjointness. Academic Press, New York, London, 1975

    1975

  124. [132]

    M. C. Reed and B. Simon.Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics I – Functional Analysis. Academic Press, 1980

    1980

  125. [133]

    Ren and F.-Y

    P. Ren and F.-Y. Wang. Derivative formulas in measure on Riemannian manifolds. Bull. London Math. Soc., 53(6):1786–1800, October 2021.doi:10.1112/blms.12542

    2021 doi

  126. [134]

    Ren and F.-Y

    P. Ren and F.-Y. Wang. Ornstein–Uhlenbeck Type Processes on Wasserstein Space. Stoch. Proc. Appl., 172:104339, June 2024.doi:10.1016/j.spa.2024.104339

    2024

  127. [135]

    Röckner and B

    M. Röckner and B. Schmuland. Quasi-regular Dirichlet forms: Examples and Coun- terexamples.Can. J. Math., 47(1):165–200, 1995

    1995

  128. [136]

    G. Savaré. Self-Improvement of the Bakry–Émery Condition and Wasserstein Con- traction of the Heat Flow inRCD(K,∞ )Metric Measure Spaces.Discr. Cont. Dyn. Syst., 34(4):1641–1661, 2014.doi:10.3934/dcds.2014.34.1641

    2014 doi

  129. [137]

    A. Schied. Geometric Aspects of Fleming–Viot and Dawson–Watanabe Processes. Ann. Probab., 25(3):1160–1179, 1997. 102 L. DELLO SCHIAVO

    1997

  130. [138]

    L. Shui, J. C. Eijkel, and A. van den Berg. Multiphase flow in microfluidic systems – Control and applications of droplets and interfaces.Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 133(1):35–49, May 2007.doi:10.1016/j.cis.2007.03.001

    2007 doi

  131. [139]

    K.-T. Sturm. Entropic Measure on Multidimensional Spaces. In Dalang, R., Dozzi, M., and Russo, F., editors,Seminar on Stochastic Analysis, Random Fields and Applications VI, volume 63 ofProgr. Probab., pages 261–277. Birkhäuser/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2011

    2011

  132. [140]

    K.-T. Sturm. Wasserstein Diffusion on Multidimensional Spaces.arxiv:2401.12721, 2024.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2401.12721

    2024 doi arXiv

  133. [141]

    te Vrugt, H

    M. te Vrugt, H. Löwen, and R. Wittkowski. Classical dynamical density functional theory: from fundamentals to applications.Adv. Phys., 69(2):121–247, April 2020. doi:10.1080/00018732.2020.1854965

    2020

  134. [142]

    A. F. M. ter Elst, D. W. Robinson, A. Sikora, and Y. Zhu. Dirichlet Forms and Degenerate Elliptic Operators. In E. Koelink, J. van Neerven, B. de Pagter, G. H. Sweers, A. Luger, and H. Woracek, editors,Partial Differential Equations and Functional Analysis: The Philippe Clémen...

    2006

  135. [143]

    Venturelli, P

    D. Venturelli, P. Illien, A. Grabsch, and O. Bénichou. Dynamics of soft interacting particles on a comb.arXiv:2502.16951, 2025.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2502.16951

    2025 doi arXiv

  136. [144]

    von Neumann

    J. von Neumann. On infinite direct products.Compositio Math., 6:1–77, 1939

    1939

  137. [145]

    von Renesse and K.-T

    M.-K. von Renesse and K.-T. Sturm. Entropic measure and Wasserstein diffusion. Ann. Probab., 37(3):1114–1191, 2009

    2009

  138. [146]

    L. Wu. Uniqueness of Nelson’s Diffusions II: Infinite Dimensional Setting and Appli- cations.Potential Anal., 13(3):269–301, 2000.doi:10.1023/a:1008707703191

    doi

  139. [147]

    Tor Vergata

    W. P. Ziemer.Weakly Differentiable Functions: Sobolev Spaces and Functions of Bounded Variation, volume 120 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, 1989. Dipartimento di Matematica – Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”, Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Roma, ...

    1989

  140. [2021]

    63 pp.doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2021.109234

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.