Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Fluctuation dynamics in randomly advected Navier-Stokes equations below critical scaling

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fast small-scale random stirring makes fluid fluctuations Gaussian in two dimensions.

desk verdict Solid, ambitious homogenization paper for randomly advected Navier-Stokes; the theorems as stated outrun the proof by a periodicity assumption on δ labeled WLOG but not justified. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16132 v1 pith:B7YAHXT6 submitted 2026-07-17 math.AP math.PR

Arnaud Debussche , Martina Hofmanová This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath.PR MSC 35Q3060H1535B2760F0576M5076D05
keywords randomadvectionNavier-StokesequationsenhanceddiffusionlawoflargenumbersGaussianfluctuationsGreen-KuboformulahomogenizationOrnstein-Uhlenbeckprocess
topics Navier-Stokes Regularity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies incompressible Navier–Stokes equations advected by a stationary, divergence-free random velocity field whose temporal and spatial correlation scales are ε² and δ, in the subcritical regime ε = o(δ). It proves two theorems. First, a law of large numbers in dimensions 2 and 3: as ε,δ → 0, the random solutions converge to a deterministic Navier–Stokes system in which the only trace of the stirring is an enhanced viscosity, explicitly ν = 1/16‖K‖²_L² in d = 2 and ν = 1/5‖K‖²_L² in d = 3, a Green–Kubo-type formula. Second, in two dimensions under the slightly stronger separation ε = o(δ^{1+ι}), the leading fluctuations around that deterministic limit, after subtracting deterministic macroscopic corrections, are Gaussian: they solve a stochastic linearized Navier–Stokes equation driven by multiplicative space-time white noise with intensity χ = (F_{R²}K)(0). If correct, the paper gives a complete two-level macroscopic description—deterministic averaged dynamics plus Gaussian fluctuations—derived from one fixed microscopic random field, with the transport noise inherited from the scaling rather than inserted by hand.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a finite hierarchy of correctors indexed by binary sequences σ: digit 0 encodes an application of the transport term ε^{-1}P(m^{ε,δ}·∇·) and digit 1 an application of the Laplacian, each corrector carrying weight ε^{M+2L}φ_σ(u,m). Corrections are built by inverting the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck generator (−Mδ)^{-1}, which is explicit in Wiener chaos: each inversion contracts pairs of field factors against the covariance and lowers polynomial degree by two. Persistent expectations split as S_σ u + R_σ u; the leading operators S_σ are translation-invariant Fourier multipliers, so they can be absorbed into a semigroup generator of the form −λ Id + (1+ν)PΔ + Σ ε^{M+2L−1}S_σ,

What would settle it

Run a two-dimensional direct numerical simulation of (1.1) with a fixed compactly supported isotropic kernel K, choose ε = o(δ^{1+ι}) with ε,δ small, solve for the deterministic corrections v^{ε,δ}, and measure the rescaled fluctuation δ^{-1}(u^{ε,δ} − v^{ε,δ} − u) in H^{−β}; if its space-time statistics deviate from the Gaussian solution of dz + [z·∇u + u·∇z + ∇p_z]dt = (1+ν)Δz dt + χ dW·∇u with ν = ‖K‖²_L²/16 and χ = (F_{R²}K)(0), the central claim is wrong. Equivalently, exhibiting a sequence δ → 0 with δ^{-1} not an integer along which the stated convergence fails would refute the 'without

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.3: for d = 2 and ε = o(δ^{1+ι}) for some ι > 0, after subtracting deterministic macroscopic corrections v^{ε,δ} that solve a Navier–Stokes-type system with full quadratic self-interaction, the rescaled fluctuation δ^{-d/2}(u^{ε,δ} − v^{ε,δ} − u) converges in probability in L²(0,T;H^{−β}) for every β > 0 to a Gaussian field z solving dz + [z·∇u + u·∇z + ∇p_z]dt = (1+ν)Δz dt + χ dW·∇u, with enhanced viscosity ν = 1/16‖K‖²_L² and noise intensity χ = (F_{R²}K)(0), where W is a space-time white noise on the divergence-free mean-zero subspace. The companion law of large numbers (Theorem 1.1) identifies the deterministic limit in d = 2,3 as a Navier–Stokes system with

Load-bearing premise

The proofs run on a fixed torus under the assumption that δ^{-1} is an integer so that the rescaled stirring field is exactly periodic; the paper calls this 'without loss of generality' but supplies no argument that covers arbitrary δ → 0, so the theorems as stated may only cover reciprocal-integer spatial correlation lengths.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The effective viscosity is explicitly computable from the stirring kernel K, and the dimension-dependent constants arise purely from the Leray projection acting on the isotropic covariance.
  • In dimensions 2 and 3, any family of weak solutions satisfying the energy inequality converges (along subsequences) to the same deterministic enhanced-diffusion Navier–Stokes system, so the macroscopic limit does not depend on how solutions are constructed.
  • In two dimensions, randomness does survive below critical scaling, but only at the fluctuation level: after the δ^{d/2} normalization, the limit is Gaussian and obeys a linearized Navier–Stokes equation around the deterministic background flow.
  • The multiplicative noise in the fluctuation limit has intensity χ = (F_{R²}K)(0), so only the zero-frequency spatial component of the stirring kernel contributes to the surviving randomness.
  • The critical case ε = δ is explicitly left open; the paper expects a different form of enhanced diffusion there, combining the noise correlation function with the Green kernel of the Stokes operator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proofs are carried out on a fixed torus under the standing assumption that δ^{-1} is an integer, so that m^{ε,δ} is exactly periodic; the paper declares this 'without loss of generality' but gives no argument covering arbitrary δ → 0, so the theorems as stated may strictly cover correlation lengths that are reciprocal integers.
  • The two-parameter family suggests a phase diagram in the (ε,δ) plane: subcritical temporal mixing produces a deterministic diffusive limit plus Gaussian fluctuations, while the critical line ε = δ may host qualitatively different, possibly non-Gaussian, fluctuations analogous to anomalous scaling in the Kraichnan passive-scalar model.
  • A numerical test is readily conceivable: simulate the randomly advected Navier–Stokes system for a prescribed compactly supported isotropic K and small ε,δ, measure the empirical enhanced viscosity and the fluctuation covariance, and compare against ν = ‖K‖²_L²/16 and χ = (F_{R²}K)(0).
  • The d = 3 analysis stops at the law of large numbers; the fluctuation result fails for three distinct reasons named in the paper, one of which is the divergence of a lattice sum, suggesting that a genuinely three-dimensional fluctuation theory would require a different averaging mechanism or a different observable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the randomly advected incompressible Navier–Stokes system (1.1) on the torus, with advecting field m^{ε,δ}(t,x)=m(ε^{-2}t,δ^{-1}x), where m is a centered, divergence-free, stationary Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process with covariance (K*K)Id and K smooth, compactly supported, isotropic. In the subcritical regime ε=o(δ), Theorem 1.1 proves convergence, along subsequences in law, to a deterministic Navier–Stokes system with enhanced viscosity ν=∥K∥²_{L²}/16 in d=2 and ν=∥K∥²_{L²}/5 in d=3, via a two-step corrector expansion and stochastic compactness. In d=2, under the stronger assumption ε=o(δ^{1+ι}), Theorem 1.3 proves that after subtracting deterministic macroscopic corrections v^{ε,δ} and the deterministic limit u, the normalized fluctuations δ^{-d/2}(u^{ε,δ}-v^{ε,δ}-u) converge in probability in L²(0,T;H^{-β}) to a Gaussian field z solving a linearized Navier–Stokes equation driven by χ dW·∇u, with χ=(F_{R²}K)(0). The proof builds a Wiener-chaos corrector hierarchy, absorbs effective operators into a Fourier-multiplier semigroup, and uses critical endpoint estimates for the convective terms.

Significance. If the theorems hold in their stated generality, this is a substantial contribution to the mathematical theory of turbulent transport and stochastic homogenization for fluid equations. The paper derives, rather than postulates, the enhanced-diffusion coefficient via a Green–Kubo-type formula, and it identifies the Gaussian fluctuation law with an explicitly computed noise intensity. The Fourier-symbol computations in Sections 4 and 11 are explicit and transparent, the Wiener-chaos inversion of the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck generator is conceptually clear, and the quantitative estimates in Section 11 are concrete and falsifiable. These are genuine strengths. However, the periodization gap in Section 2.2 currently prevents the main theorems from covering the full parameter range stated in the abstract and in Theorems 1.1 and 1.3; this is a load-bearing issue, not merely a presentation defect.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (2.3)] The manuscript assumes δ^{-1}∈N 'without loss of generality' and keeps this assumption throughout, but Theorems 1.1 and 1.3 quantify over all ε,δ∈(0,1]. For δ^{-1}∉N, the expression m(δ^{-1}x) is not a well-defined function on the fixed torus T^d: translation by 2πk changes the argument by δ^{-1}2πk, which is not a period of m unless δ^{-1}∈N. The subsequent Fourier diagonalization (2.3), the symbol computations of Lemma 4.1, the Riemann-sum limits of Lemma 4.3, and the quantitative estimates of Section 11 all rely on the periodized kernel K_δ on T^d. For non-integral δ^{-1}, the periodized covariance differs from q(δ^{-1}(x-y)) by aliasing terms, and no argument is supplied that the asserted limits remain unchanged. Thus the central theorems are presently established only for sequences with reciprocal-integer spatial correlation length. The manuscript should either restrict the statemen
  2. [§10.3, Lemma 10.3] The existence proof for the macroscopic correction v^{ε,δ} is explicitly omitted: the proof says 'We proceed via a Galerkin approximation and derive uniform energy estimates; the passage to the limit is standard and omitted.' Since v^{ε,δ} appears in the very statement of Theorem 1.3 and its construction is needed for the definition of the fluctuation variable, this omission is load-bearing. I do not doubt that a Galerkin passage can be supplied, but it should either be written out or a precise reference should be given. The uniqueness part is also only sketched after 'preliminary mollification'; this is acceptable if the Galerkin passage is supplied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] The sentence 'assuming δ^{-1}∈N ... keep this assumption from now on' should be flagged as an assumption, not a WLOG reduction, until an approximation argument is provided. Also, the later phrase 'assume throughout and without loss of generality that ε≤1/2' is harmless but should be stated after the periodization issue is resolved.
  2. [§6.1] The notation '∼=' for 'equality up to combinatorial constants' is used repeatedly. It would improve readability to state once that all such constants depend only on k and ℓ and are ultimately absorbed into the implicit constants of the estimates.
  3. [§12.1] The norm notation such as ||·||_{L²L²H^{-β}} is unusual; presumably it means the L² norm in time of an L²H^{-β}-valued map. Please define this notation explicitly at first use.
  4. [§6.2] The terms 'blue term' and 'magenta terms' are used in the text but the manuscript does not contain colors. It would be clearer to replace these by labels such as 'singular drift term' and 'remaining generator terms', or to include the color convention in a footnote.
  5. [§11.3] In Lemma 11.5, the bound is stated for β>0 but the proof uses H^{-2-β} and the energy estimate; the case β>1 follows from the case β=1 by embedding, but it would be useful to state this explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the enhanced-viscosity and noise-intensity coefficients are computed from the kernel K, not fitted, and the Gaussian limit is obtained after a deterministic centering that is itself solved rather than chosen from data.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The enhanced viscosity ν in Theorem 1.1 is obtained by an explicit Fourier-symbol computation (Lemmas 4.2, 4.3 and Proposition 4.4): sδ(ℓ)→−ν(Id−ℓℓ^T/|ℓ|^2)|ℓ|^2 with ν=(1/16)||K||^2_{L^2} in d=2 and ν=(1/5)||K||^2_{L^2} in d=3. No parameter is fitted to the solution; the constant is determined by the covariance kernel. Similarly, the noise intensity χ=(F_{R^2}K)(0) in Theorem 1.3 is the pointwise limit of the diagonalized operator Q^{1/2}_δ in Proposition 10.1, not an adjustable coefficient. The subtraction of v^{ε,δ} is not circular: v^{ε,δ} is defined as the solution of the deterministic PDE (10.4), with forcing built from Sσu, and the proof shows its energy is O((εδ^{-1})^4) (Lemma 10.3); it is not chosen to match the realized fluctuations. The corrector hierarchy cancels mean-free terms by construction, but the surviving effective operator Sδ and the limit stochastic integral are identified, not postulated. The only self-citation of note is [20], used in Section 9 for paraproduct estimates; this is a technical published lemma and the paper's central claims do not reduce to it. Two non-circularity gaps are flagged: Section 2.2 assumes δ^{-1}∈N 'without loss of generality' although Theorems 1.1 and 1.3 quantify over all δ∈(0,1], and Lemma 10.3 omits the Galerkin passage; these are correctness/completeness concerns, not circularity. Overall score 1 reflects the minor self-citation and no definitional or fitted circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation has no fitted constants: nu and chi are computed explicitly from the kernel K. The proof uses technical truncation parameters (N, R=delta^{-1}, lambda) chosen to close estimates, but these do not enter the statement and are not free physical parameters. The corrector hierarchy and the deterministic correction v^{epsilon,delta} are explicit mathematical constructions rather than newly postulated physical entities.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption m is a stationary Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with covariance E[m(t,x) otimes m(s,y)] = 1/2 e^{-|t-s|} Q(x-y), Q = q Id = (K*K) Id, with K smooth, compactly supported, symmetric and rotation invariant.
    Invoked throughout Sections 2.3 and 4; this makes the Wiener chaos analysis and the Fourier symbol computation of the enhanced diffusion coefficient explicit.
  • domain assumption Subcritical scaling: epsilon = o(delta) for the LLN and epsilon = o(delta^{1+iota}) for some iota>0 for the CLT, with epsilon,delta in (0,1] and delta^{-1} in N.
    Defines the regime; the strict gap iota>0 controls the finite corrector hierarchy through iota > d/(2N) in Section 6 and Section 13.1.
  • domain assumption Weak solutions to (1.1) exist and satisfy the energy inequality (1.2); in d=2 they are unique.
    Used throughout Section 5; existence is obtained by Galerkin approximation and stochastic compactness and is cited rather than proved in this paper.
  • standard math Standard Gaussian analysis facts: Borell-TIS inequality, Wiener chaos decomposition and inverse Ornstein-Uhlenbeck generator, Kolmogorov continuity theorem.
    Used in Appendix A.1, Section 6.1 and Proposition 2.1; standard but essential to the corrector construction.
  • standard math Standard harmonic analysis facts: Leray projection bounded on L^p, Littlewood-Paley/Besov paraproduct estimates, O'Neil convolution inequality in Lorentz spaces.
    Used in Sections 2.1 and 9 and Appendix A.4; these provide the endpoint convective estimates.
  • standard math Skorokhod-Jakubowski representation theorem for sub-Polish spaces.
    Used in Section 5.4 to pass from tightness to almost sure convergence.
  • standard math In d=2 the lattice sum sum_{1<=|k|<=delta^{-1}} |k|^{-2} grows like log delta^{-1}; in d=3 it grows like delta^{-1}.
    This is the quantitative engine of Section 11 and the stated structural reason for the d=2 restriction in Remark 13.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fluctuation dynamics in randomly advected Navier-Stokes equations below critical scaling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B7YAHXT6

@misc{pith2026260716132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fluctuation dynamics in randomly advected Navier-Stokes equations below critical scaling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B7YAHXT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16132}
}
abstract

We study randomly advected incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, where the advecting field is a mean-zero, divergence-free, space-time stationary velocity field with smooth order-one correlations. We introduce a two-parameter family of models in which the advection is accelerated on a fast temporal scale $\varepsilon^2$ and has spatial correlation length $\delta$; the critical regime $\varepsilon = \delta$ corresponds to the natural parabolic scaling of the Navier-Stokes equation. In the full subcritical regime $\varepsilon = o (\delta)$, we prove a law of large numbers in dimensions $d = 2, 3$: the solutions converge to a deterministic Navier--Stokes system with an enhanced diffusion coefficient given by a Green-Kubo formula. In two space dimensions, under the slightly stronger assumption $\varepsilon = o (\delta^{1 + \iota})$ for some $\iota > 0$, we identify the leading-order fluctuations: after subtracting deterministic macroscopic corrections satisfying a nonlinear system of Navier-Stokes type, the rescaled fluctuations converge to a Gaussian field solving a linearized Navier-Stokes equation driven by multiplicative space-time white noise.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Adler and Jonathan E

    Robert J. Adler and Jonathan E. Taylor.Random fields and geometry. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2007

    2007

  2. [2]

    Renormalization theory for eddy diffusivity in turbulent transport.Physical Review Letters, 68(20):3028, 1992

    Marco Avellaneda and Andrew J Majda. Renormalization theory for eddy diffusivity in turbulent transport.Physical Review Letters, 68(20):3028, 1992

    1992

  3. [3]

    Marco Avellaneda and Andrew J. Majda. An integral representation and bounds on the effective diffusivity in passive advection by laminar and turbulent flows. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 138(2):339–391, 1991

    1991

  4. [4]

    Fourier analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations, volume 343 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften

    Hajer Bahouri, Jean-Yves Chemin, and Raphaël Danchin. Fourier analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations, volume 343 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011

    2011

  5. [5]

    Gaussian fluctuations for the stochastic Burgers equation in dimensiond⩾2.Comm

    Giuseppe Cannizzaro, Massimiliano Gubinelli, and Fabio Toninelli. Gaussian fluctuations for the stochastic Burgers equation in dimensiond⩾2.Comm. Math. Phys., 405(4), 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Stationary stochastic Navier-Stokes on the plane at and above criticality.Stoch

    Giuseppe Cannizzaro and Jacek Kiedrowski. Stationary stochastic Navier-Stokes on the plane at and above criticality.Stoch. Partial Differ. Equ. Anal. Comput., 12(1):247–280, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Particles and fields in fluid turbulence.Reviews of Modern Physics, 73(4):913–975, 2001

    Gregory Falkovich, Krzysztof Gawędzki, and Massimo Vergassola. Particles and fields in fluid turbulence.Reviews of Modern Physics, 73(4):913–975, 2001

    2001

  8. [8]

    Delayed blow-up by transport noise

    Franco Flandoli, Lucio Galeati, and Dejun Luo. Delayed blow-up by transport noise. Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 46(9):1757–1788, 2021

    2021

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Scaling limit of stochastic 2D Euler equations with transport noises to the deterministic Navier-Stokes equations.J

    Franco Flandoli, Lucio Galeati, and Dejun Luo. Scaling limit of stochastic 2D Euler equations with transport noises to the deterministic Navier-Stokes equations.J. Evol. Equ., 21(1):567–600, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Quantitative convergence rates for scaling limit of SPDEs with transport noise.J

    Franco Flandoli, Lucio Galeati, and Dejun Luo. Quantitative convergence rates for scaling limit of SPDEs with transport noise.J. Differential Equations, 394:237–277, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Martingale and stationary solutions for stochastic Navier- Stokes equations.Probab

    Franco Flandoli and Dariusz Gatarek. Martingale and stationary solutions for stochastic Navier- Stokes equations.Probab. Theory Related Fields, 102(3):367–391, 1995

    1995

  4. [12]

    High mode transport noise improves vorticity blow-up control in 3D Navier-Stokes equations.Probab

    Franco Flandoli and Dejun Luo. High mode transport noise improves vorticity blow-up control in 3D Navier-Stokes equations.Probab. Theory Related Fields, 180(1-2):309–363, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    On the convergence of stochastic transport equations to a deterministic parabolic one.Stoch

    Lucio Galeati. On the convergence of stochastic transport equations to a deterministic parabolic one.Stoch. Partial Differ. Equ. Anal. Comput., 8(4):833–868, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    LDP and CLT for SPDEs with transport noise

    Lucio Galeati and Dejun Luo. LDP and CLT for SPDEs with transport noise. Stoch. Partial Differ. Equ. Anal. Comput., 12(1):736–793, 2024. 57

    2024

  7. [15]

    Anomalous scaling of the passive scalar

    Krzysztof Gawędzki and Antti Kupiainen. Anomalous scaling of the passive scalar. Physical Review Letters, 75(21):3834–3837, 1995

    1995

  8. [16]

    Springer, New York, Second edition, 2008

    Loukas Grafakos.Classical Fourier analysis, volume 249 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, Second edition, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    Melville S. Green. Markoff random processes and the statistical mechanics of time-dependent phenomena. II. irreversible processes in fluids.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 22(3):398–413, 1954

    1954

  10. [18]

    A Wong-Zakai theorem for stochastic PDEs

    Martin Hairer and Étienne Pardoux. A Wong-Zakai theorem for stochastic PDEs. J. Math. Soc. Japan, 67(4):1551–1604, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Fluctuations around a homogenised semilinear random PDE.Arch

    Martin Hairer and Étienne Pardoux. Fluctuations around a homogenised semilinear random PDE.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 239(1):151–217, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Global existence and non-uniqueness for 3D Navier-Stokes equations with space-time white noise.Arch

    Martina Hofmanová, Rongchan Zhu, and Xiangchan Zhu. Global existence and non-uniqueness for 3D Navier-Stokes equations with space-time white noise.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 247(3), 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    The almost sure Skorokhod representation for subsequences in nonmetric spaces.Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 42(1):167–174, 1998

    Adam Jakubowski. The almost sure Skorokhod representation for subsequences in nonmetric spaces.Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 42(1):167–174, 1998

    1998

  14. [22]

    Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997

    Svante Janson.Gaussian Hilbert spaces, volume 129 ofCambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997

    1997

  15. [23]

    Kolmogorov

    Andrey N. Kolmogorov. The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluid for very large Reynolds numbers.Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 30(4):301–305, 1941. In Russian

    1941

  16. [24]

    Kraichnan

    Robert H. Kraichnan. Small-scale structure of a scalar field convected by turbulence. The Physics of Fluids, 11(5):945–953, 1968

    1968

  17. [25]

    Kraichnan

    Robert H. Kraichnan. Anomalous scaling of a randomly advected passive scalar. Physical Review Letters, 72(7):1016–1019, 1994

    1994

  18. [26]

    Stochastic Liouville equations.J

    Ryogo Kubo. Stochastic Liouville equations.J. Mathematical Phys., 4:174–183, 1963

    1963

  19. [27]

    Majda and Peter R

    Andrew J. Majda and Peter R. Kramer. Simplified models for turbulent diffusion: theory, numerical modelling, and physical phenomena.Physics Reports, 314(4–5):237–574, 1999

    1999

  20. [28]

    Global well-posedness of the dynamicΦ4 model in the plane.Ann

    Jean-Christophe Mourrat and Hendrik Weber. Global well-posedness of the dynamicΦ4 model in the plane.Ann. Probab., 45(4):2398–2476, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Probability and its Applications (New York)

    David Nualart.The Malliavin calculus and related topics. Probability and its Applications (New York). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Second edition, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    Convolution operators andL(p, q)spaces.Duke Math

    Richard O’Neil. Convolution operators andL(p, q)spaces.Duke Math. J., 30:129–142, 1963

    1963

  23. [31]

    Atmospheric diffusion shown on a distance-neighbour graph

    Lewis Fry Richardson. Atmospheric diffusion shown on a distance-neighbour graph. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 110(756):709–737, 1926

    1926

  24. [32]

    Geoffrey I. Taylor. Diffusion by Continuous Movements.Proc. London Math. Soc. (2), 20(3):196–212, 1921. 58

    1921

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.