Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Yamada-Watanabe uniqueness results for SPDEs driven by Wiener and pure jump processes

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that for a class of nonlinear SPDEs driven by Wiener and Poisson noise, the existence of a weak solution plus pathwise uniqueness implies the existence of a unique strong solution.

desk verdict A plausible Yamada-Watanabe result for Wiener-plus-jump SPDEs, but the main theorem is unproved and its statement puts the cylindrical Wiener process on the wrong path space. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02924 v1 pith:KAILI4RY submitted 2025-01-06 math.PR

Kistosil Fahim , Erika Hausenblas , Kenneth H. Karlsen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR MSC 60H1560G57
keywords Yamada-WatanabetheorempathwiseuniquenessstrongsolutionsvariationalSPDEsLévyprocessesPoissonrandommeasuresWienermartingale
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 proves a Yamada-Watanabe-type theorem for nonlinear SPDEs in variational form driven by two kinds of noise at once: an infinite-dimensional cylindrical Wiener process and a compensated Poisson random measure. The main result says that if the equation has a probabilistic weak (martingale) solution satisfying some regularity bounds, and if any two solutions on the same filtered probability space with the same noise and initial data coincide almost surely (pathwise uniqueness), then there is a unique strong solution. Strong here means the solution is a measurable function of the driving noise and initial condition, so no extra randomness is needed. The result matters because many SPDE models are first solved weakly and then need a route from weak existence plus pathwise uniqueness to a strong solution, which is the form needed for simulation, perturbation arguments, and further analysis. The proof embeds the SPDE into an abstract equation and uses a general Yamada-Watanabe principle for such equations.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on an abstract Yamada-Watanabe theorem stated as Theorem 4.6: for a Borel constraint $\Gamma(X,Y)=0$, a non-empty set of temporally compatible joint solution measures together with pathwise uniqueness is equivalent to the existence of a strong solution and joint uniqueness in law. Temporal compatibility is the property that the future increments of the driving noise are independent of the past of the solution and noise together; only Itô-type integrals satisfy it. The paper builds the set of joint laws on $D([0,T];E_1) \times (C([0,T];H) \times M_N(\{S_n \times [0,T]\}) \times E_2)$ that satisfy the SPDE constraints, the regularity bounds, and temporal compatibility. The second load-bearing piece is a transfer lemma (Lemma 4.5) that takes a process with the same joint law as a known solution and with the future-noise independence, and concludes that it too solves the SPDE; the lemma transfers the laws of the drift, Wiener, and Poisson integrals via cited results while preserving the finite-integral conditions.

What would settle it

One concrete way to test the claim is to look for a variational SPDE satisfying Assumption 4.4 where two processes have identical joint law and the required future-noise independence, but the transferred drift, Wiener, and Poisson integrals fail to have identical laws on $D([0,T];E_1) \cap L^2(0,T;V)$; if such a case exists, Lemma 4.5 and hence Theorem 4.8 would not go through. Equivalently, a counterexample would be an equation in the stated class with a martingale solution and pathwise uniqueness whose solution is not measurable with respect to the augmented noise filtration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4.8. Given a Gelfand triple $V \subset H \subset V'$ and Banach spaces $E_2 \hookrightarrow E_1$ with $V \hookrightarrow E_1$ and $E_1$ a UMD space of type 2, consider an SPDE of the form $dU(t) = b(t,U)dt + \sigma(t,U(t))dW(t) + \int_S c(t,z,U(t))\,\tilde{\eta}(dz,dt)$ with $U(0) = U_0$. If there exists a solution in the sense of Definition 3.6 satisfying the regularity constraints of Assumption 4.4, and if pathwise uniqueness holds in the sense of Definition 4.3, then there is a Borel measurable map $F$ from the path space of the Wiener process, the Poisson random measure, and the initial condition into $D([0,T];E_1)$ such that every solution equals $F(W,\eta,U_0)$ almost surely. The same map fed with any other admissible filtered probability space, Wiener process, Poisson random measure, and initial condition produces a solution that is adapted to the augmented filtration generated by the noise and initial data. Consequently, existence plus pathwise uniqueness yields a unique strong solution and also joint uniqueness in law.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the transfer step in Lemma 4.5—that a process with the same joint law as a true solution, and whose future noise is independent of its past, must itself satisfy the SPDE—and the paper imports this step from cited transfer theorems rather than proving it in detail, with the proof of the main theorem sketched by analogy to one of those references.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under Theorem 4.8, every SPDE of the form (3.6) that has a martingale solution and pathwise uniqueness automatically has a strong solution, so no separate construction of the solution map is needed.
  • The solution of such an equation is measurable with respect to the augmented filtration generated by the Wiener process, the Poisson random measure, and the initial condition, so adding extra random variables to the probability space cannot change the solution.
  • The same hypotheses imply joint uniqueness in law: any two solutions whose driving noises have the same law have the same joint law for solution and noise.
  • The theorem applies to nonlinear examples such as the stochastic porous medium equation with jump noise described in the paper, once the existence and pathwise uniqueness hypotheses are verified.
  • For applied models, the result gives a ready-to-cite criterion: prove weak existence and pathwise uniqueness under the regularity constraints, and strong well-posedness follows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The strategy is modular: the abstract Yamada-Watanabe part is independent of the SPDE coefficients, so future work on new models can reuse the theorem by checking the two hypotheses rather than re-deriving strong uniqueness from scratch.
  • The main theorem is stated for $E_1$ of type 2 because of the Wiener integral, but the paper's setup suggests the pure-jump case should work on UMD spaces of type $p \in [1,2]$ with $p$-integrable small jumps, which would cover more Banach-valued equations.
  • Because temporal compatibility is built in, the theorem does not directly cover Stratonovich-interpreted SPDEs; applications formulated in the Stratonovich sense would need a conversion to Itô form before this Yamada-Watanabe route applies.
  • A natural testbed would be the Lévy-driven stochastic bidomain model mentioned as motivation; if that model admits a martingale solution and pathwise uniqueness, the map $F$ here would furnish the strong solution needed for numerical and stability work.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims a Yamada-Watanabe theorem for nonlinear SPDEs in variational form driven by a cylindrical Wiener process and a compensated Poisson random measure: existence of a weak (martingale) solution together with pathwise uniqueness implies existence of a unique strong solution. The proof is built on Kurtz's abstract framework, with a key law-transfer lemma (Lemma 4.5) and a final theorem (Theorem 4.8) whose proof is only sketched. The paper also contains an example from a porous-medium-type SPDE with jump noise.

Significance. If the main result were established rigorously, it would be a useful contribution, extending the classic Yamada-Watanabe theory to a broad class of jump-diffusion SPDEs in the variational framework, and it would complement existing results for purely continuous or purely jump noise. The choice of the variational framework and the use of Kurtz's compatibility condition are timely and potentially applicable. However, the manuscript in its present form does not provide a proof of the main theorem: the central technical lemma is only sketched, with verification of several hypotheses delegated to prior work, and the theorem statement contains an ill-posed path space for the noise. No machine-checked proofs or reproducible code are included.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3.5), Eq. (3.8), Theorem 4.8] A cylindrical Wiener process on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space H does not take values in C([0,T];H), since the series W(t)=Σ_k h_k β_k(t) diverges in H a.s. Consequently, B_2 defined in (3.8) as C_b([0,T];H) × ... is not the path space of the noise, the law ρ_W introduced before (4.2) is not a probability measure on C([0,T];H), the law-equality hypothesis in Lemma 4.5 is not meaningful as stated, and the domain C([0,T];H) of F in Theorem 4.8 is invalid. This is an internal inconsistency, not merely a missing proof: the statement of the main theorem needs to be reformulated with a larger path space (e.g., via a Hilbert-Schmidt embedding of H into another Hilbert space).
  2. [Lemma 4.5] The proof of Lemma 4.5 is not carried out. The verification of conditions (i)-(vii) is dismissed as routine, and for condition (viii) the proof asserts without justification that equality of laws on D([0,T];E1) × C_b(0,T;H) × ... implies equality of laws on D([0,T];E) ∩ L^2(0,T;V); the space E is not defined and the topology on the intersection is not specified. Moreover, the cited transfer results [23, Theorems 8.3 and 8.6] and [11, Theorem A.1] are not stated, and the hypotheses on the coefficient class, filtration, and UMD geometry are not verified. Since Lemma 4.5 is the bridge that turns law equality into pathwise equality of the SPDE, the main conclusion is unsupported.
  3. [Theorem 4.8] The proof of the main theorem is omitted ("Due to the similarity in reasoning, a detailed proof is omitted"), even though the present setting combines a cylindrical Wiener process and a Poisson random measure in a variational framework, which is not covered by [11]. In particular, the outline does not prove that the assumed weak solution in the sense of Definition 3.6 is temporally compatible, a condition required for the Kurtz set S_{Γ^θ,ρ,T} to be non-empty. Without an argument that every solution satisfies the compatibility condition (or that the relevant joint measures do), the application of Theorem 4.6 is not justified.
  4. [Lemma 3.15] Lemma 3.15, which characterizes temporal compatibility for sequences of processes, is stated without proof ("similar to [11, Lemma 5.7]"). Since temporal compatibility is a substantive condition in the definition of the Kurtz set (3.16) and is needed for the abstract Yamada-Watanabe theorem, an unproved lemma at this point creates a gap in the chain leading to Theorem 4.8.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (3.8) and Theorem 4.8] Notation B2 is inconsistent: (3.8) uses C_b([0,T];H), while Theorem 4.8 and its proof sketch use C([0,T];H). Please harmonize the notation and clarify the topology.
  2. [Proof of Lemma 4.5] In the proof of Lemma 4.5, the spaces D([0,T];E) and D([0,T];E) ∩ L^2(0,T;V) appear; E is not introduced in the lemma's statement (which uses E1). Use a single symbol consistently.
  3. [Section 3, before Eq. (3.10)] The statement preceding (3.10) says "for each k ∈ N and t ∈ Q_T" but the constraints are indexed by ϕ ∈ V_d and t ∈ Q_T; later (4.3) uses ϕ ∈ V_d and t ∈ Q_T. This is fine, but the notation Γ = {Γ_{ϕ,t}: ϕ∈V_d, t∈Q_T} should be written as a set rather than "for each k".

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Theorem 4.8 rests on an omitted adaptation of the same authors' [11]; not forced by construction, but the key transfer lemma is inherited via self-citation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, proof outline of Theorem 4.8 (p. 23)]
    "Using the results developed earlier in this section, the proof follows an adaptation of [11], with the only modification being the inclusion of the Wiener process. Due to the similarity in reasoning, a detailed proof is omitted."

    The paper's main theorem is not derived here; its proof is asserted to be an adaptation of [11], a prior paper by the same authors (Hausenblas, with de Bouard and Ondrejat). The preceding Lemma 4.5, the key transfer step needed to apply Kurtz's abstract theorem, is likewise not proved but referred to as 'similar to the proof of Lemma 4.4 in [11]' and resolved by '[11, Theorem A.1]'. Thus the load-bearing mechanism of the Yamada-Watanabe argument is inherited from same-author earlier work rather than demonstrated in this paper. This is not an equivalence by construction, but the central step's support is a self-citation chain rather than an independent derivation.

full rationale

The analysis finds no definitional or fitted-input circularity: the abstract equation Gamma(X,Y)=0 is explicitly built from the SPDE coefficients in (3.10)-(3.11), and the desired conclusion U=F(W,eta,U0) is the standard Yamada-Watanabe form, not a renamed input. The paper's own new content is the translation of the variational SPDE into Kurtz's framework, and the abstract Kurtz theorem [19, Theorem 1.5] is external. However, the proof of the main Theorem 4.8 is not supplied: it says the proof follows an adaptation of [11] with the Wiener process added, and the key transfer Lemma 4.5 is also proved only by reference to [11, Lemma 4.4 and Theorem A.1], where [11] shares the second author. This is load-bearing self-citation: the central mechanism that turns same-law processes into solutions is inherited from the authors' prior work rather than demonstrated, so the paper's support is partly imported. The unproved Lemma 3.15, cited as similar to [11, Lemma 5.7], adds to this pattern. There is an independent non-circular correctness risk: a cylindrical Wiener process has no C([0,T];H)-valued paths, so the path space B2 in (3.8) and the domain of F in Theorem 4.8 are not the right spaces; this affects validity but is not a circularity. Overall score 4.

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

Pure math paper; no fitted parameters and no invented entities. The central claim rests almost entirely on imported theorems: Kurtz's abstract Yamada-Watanabe theorem, law-transfer results used in Lemma 4.5, and UMD Banach space integration theory. The main gap is that the paper's own derivation of Theorem 4.8 is omitted.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Kurtz's abstract Yamada-Watanabe theorem applies to the SPDE solution set S_{Gamma^theta,rho,T} (Theorem 4.6, imported from [19, Theorem 1.5] and [20]).
    Used as the black box that yields the strong solution from existence plus pathwise uniqueness; the correspondence between Definition 3.6 solutions and measures in S_{Gamma^theta,rho,T} is asserted, not proved in detail.
  • standard math Law-transfer results [23, Theorem 8.3], [23, Theorem 8.6], and [11, Theorem A.1] preserve the joint laws of drift, Wiener, and jump integrals under equality of the law of (U,W,eta,U0).
    These citations carry the core of Lemma 4.5; their hypotheses are not verified in the text.
  • domain assumption The Ito integrals for the cylindrical Wiener process and the compensated Poisson random measure are well defined on the stated UMD Banach space of type 2 and satisfy the stated continuity estimates.
    The paper restricts to UMD spaces of type 2 and imports the integration theory from [7], [15], and [28] without reproducing it.
  • domain assumption For a concrete application, one must independently construct a weak solution satisfying Definition 3.6 and Assumption 4.4, and prove pathwise uniqueness.
    Theorem 4.8 only states a conditional equivalence; the paper neither proves existence nor pathwise uniqueness for any specific SPDE beyond the illustrative Example 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Yamada-Watanabe uniqueness results for SPDEs driven by Wiener and pure jump processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KAILI4RY

@misc{pith2026250102924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Yamada-Watanabe uniqueness results for SPDEs driven by Wiener and pure jump processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KAILI4RY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02924}
}
read the original abstract

The Yamada-Watanabe theory provides a robust framework for understanding stochastic equations driven by Wiener processes. Despite its comprehensive treatment in the literature, the applicability of the theory to SPDEs driven by Poisson random measures or, more generally, L\'evy processes remains significantly less explored, with only a handful of results addressing this context. In this work, we leverage a result by Kurtz to demonstrate that the existence of a martingale solution combined with pathwise uniqueness implies the existence of a unique strong solution for SPDEs driven by both a Wiener process and a Poisson random measure. Our discussion is set within the variational framework, where the SPDE under consideration may be nonlinear. This work is influenced by earlier research conducted by the second author alongside de Bouard and Ondrej\'at.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The Yamada-Watanabe-Engelbert theorem for SPDEs in Banach spaces

    math.PR 2025-01 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    For SPDEs with cylindrical Wiener noise in Banach spaces, weak existence plus pathwise uniqueness is equivalent to strong existence plus joint weak uniqueness under flexible path-space and integrability assumptions.

  2. Existence and vanishing noise limit of measure attractors for McKean-Vlasov $p$-Laplacian lattice systems with delay driven by L\'evy noise

    math.PR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Pullback measure attractors exist and are unique for McKean-Vlasov p-Laplace delay lattice systems driven by superlinear Lévy noise; singleton attractors converge at the optimal Wasserstein rate ½ as noise intensity t...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [11]

    de Bouard, E

    A. de Bouard, E. Hausenblas, and M. Ondrej´ at. Uniqueness of the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equa- tion driven by jump processes. NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. , 26(3):Paper No. 22, 31, 2019. 1, 2, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23

    work page 2019

  2. [4]

    Barczy, Z

    M. Barczy, Z. Li, and G. Pap. Yamada-W atanabe results for stochastic differential equations with jumps. Int. J. Stoch. Anal. , 2015:23, 2015. Id/No 460472. 1

    work page 2015

  3. [31]

    H. Zhao. Yamada-W atanabe theorem for stochastic evolu tion equation driven by Poisson random measure. ISRN Probab. Stat. , 2014:7, 2014. Id/No 982190. 1 (Kistosil Fahim) Department of Mathematics, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nope mber, Kampus ITS Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia Email address : kfahim@matematika.its.ac.id (Erika Hausenblas) Department ...

    work page 2014

  4. [1]

    Applebaum

    D. Applebaum. L´ evy processes and stochastic calculus, volume 116 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2 009. 5, 6

    work page

  5. [2]

    Araujo and E

    A. Araujo and E. Gin´ e M. Type, cotype and L´ evy measures i n Banach spaces. Ann. Probab., 6(4):637–643, 1978. 5

    work page 1978

  6. [3]

    Barbu, G

    V. Barbu, G. Da Prato, and M. R¨ ockner. Stochastic porous media equations , volume 2163 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer, 2016. 11

    work page 2016

  7. [5]

    Billingsley

    P. Billingsley. Convergence of probability measures. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Yor k, second edition, 1999. A Wiley- Interscience Publication. 24

    work page 1999

  8. [6]

    Brze´ zniak and D

    Z. Brze´ zniak and D. G¸ atarek. Martingale solutions and invariant measures for stochastic evolution equations in banach spaces. Stochastic Processes and their Applications , 84(2):187– 225, 1999. 5

    work page 1999

Show all 31 references
  1. [7]

    Brze´ zniak and E

    Z. Brze´ zniak and E. Hausenblas. Maximal regularity for stochastic convolutions driven by L´ evy processes.Probab. Theory Related Fields , 145(3-4):615–637, 2009. 6

    2009

  2. [8]

    Brze´ zniak, W

    Z. Brze´ zniak, W. Liu, and J. Zhu. Strong solutions for SP DE with locally monotone coeffi- cients driven by L´ evy noise. Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl. , 17:283–310, 2014. 9

    2014

  3. [9]

    Brze´ zniak and M

    Z. Brze´ zniak and M. Ondrej´ at. W eak solutions to stocha stic wave equations with values in Riemannian manifolds. Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 36(9):1624–1653, 2011. 9

    2011

  4. [10]

    Da Prato and J

    G. Da Prato and J. Zabczyk. Stochastic equations in infinite dimensions , volume 152 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2014. 3

    2014

  5. [12]

    Dettweiler

    E. Dettweiler. A characterization of the Banach spaces of type p by L´ evy measures. Math. Z., 157(2):121–130, 1977. 6

    1977

  6. [13]

    S. N. Ethier and T. G. Kurtz. Markov processes: Characterization and convergence . John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1986. 24

    1986

  7. [14]

    Hausenblas, K

    E. Hausenblas, K. Fahim, and K. Karlsen. On the cardiac b idomain model and the effect of L´ evy noise: An analysis of strong solutions. in preparatio n, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [15]

    Hyt¨ onen, J

    T. Hyt¨ onen, J. van Neerven, M. Veraar, and L. W eis. Analysis in Banach spaces. Vol. I. Martingales and Littlewood-Paley theory . Springer, Cham, 2016. 6, 11

    2016

  9. [16]

    Hyt¨ onen, J

    T. Hyt¨ onen, J. van Neerven, M. Veraar, and L. W eis. Analysis in Banach spaces. Vol. II . Springer, Cham, 2017. 5

    2017

  10. [17]

    Ikeda and S

    N. Ikeda and S. W atanabe. Stochastic differential equations and diffusion processes , vol- ume 24 of North-Holland Mathematical Library . North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam,

  11. [18]

    Jacod and A

    J. Jacod and A. N. Shiryaev. Limit theorems for stochastic processes , volume 288 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamen tal Principles of Mathemati- cal Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 2003. 24

    2003

  12. [19]

    T. Kurtz. W eak and strong solutions of general stochast ic models. Electron. Commun. Probab., 19(58):1–16, 2014. 2, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21

    2014

  13. [20]

    T. G. Kurtz. The Yamada-Watanabe-Engelbert theorem fo r general stochastic equations and inequalities. Electron. J. Probab. , 12:951–965, 2007. 1, 9, 16, 17, 22

    2007

  14. [21]

    W. Linde. Probability in Banach spaces—stable and infinitely divisib le distributions. A Wiley- Interscience Publication. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichest er, second edition, 1986. 5

    1986

  15. [22]

    Liu and M

    W. Liu and M. R¨ ockner. Stochastic partial differential equations: an introductio n. Springer, Cham, 2015. 9, 11

    2015

  16. [23]

    Ondrej´ at

    M. Ondrej´ at. Uniqueness for stochastic evolution equ ations in banach spaces. Dissertationes Mathematicae, 426:1–63, 01 2004. 20 26 F AHIM, HAUSENBLAS, AND KARLSEN

    2004

  17. [24]

    K. R. Parthasarathy. Probability measures on metric spaces . Probability and Mathematical Statistics, No. 3. Academic Press Inc., New York, 1967. 2

    1967

  18. [25]

    Peszat and J

    S. Peszat and J. Zabczyk. Stochastic partial differential equations with L´ evy noise . An evo- lution equation approach . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007. 6, 7

    2007

  19. [26]

    Revuz and M

    D. Revuz and M. Yor. Continuous martingales and Brownian motion , volume 293 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, third edition,

  20. [27]

    Runst and W

    T. Runst and W. Sickel. Sobolev spaces of fractional order, Nemytskij operators, a nd nonlin- ear partial differential equations , volume 3 of De Gruyter Series in Nonlinear Analysis and Applications. W alter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1996. 8

    1996

  21. [28]

    van Neerven, M

    J. van Neerven, M. Veraar, and L. W eis. Stochastic integ ration in Banach spaces—a survey. In Stochastic analysis: a series of lectures , volume 68 of Progr. Probab., pages 297–332. Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Basel, 2015.6

    2015

  22. [29]

    W atanabe and T

    S. W atanabe and T. Yamada. On the uniqueness of solution s of stochastic differential equa- tions. II. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. , 11:553–563, 1971. 1

    1971

  23. [30]

    Yamada and S

    T. Yamada and S. W atanabe. On the uniqueness of solution s of stochastic differential equa- tions. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. , 11:155–167, 1971. 1

    1971

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.