Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Generalized Fine-Tuning of Diffusion Models via Stochastic Control and FBSDEs

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuning a diffusion model under general costs is equivalent to solving a forward-backward SDE system.

desk verdict Good framing, but the main theorem is false as stated: quadratic rewards break the bounded-gradient claim and the BSDE existence proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22660 v1 pith:D52T4KUO submitted 2026-06-28 math.OC math.PR

Zirui Wang , Lu Wang This is my paper
classification math.OCmath.PR MSC 49L2560H1093E20
keywords diffusionmodelsfine-tuningstochasticcontrolforward-backwardSDEHamilton-Jacobi-Bellmanoptimalrobustrewardcollapse
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

Fine-tuning a pretrained diffusion model is usually formulated as entropy-regularized control with a quadratic penalty on the control. This paper attempts to broaden that to an arbitrary running cost ℓ(t,x,u), yielding a relative generalized path cost that includes KL divergence and Wasserstein-like transport costs as special cases. It claims that the resulting fully nonlinear HJB equation has a unique classical solution, and that the value function is the Y-component of a coupled forward-backward SDE whose generator is the minimized Hamiltonian inf_u{ℓ+u·z/σ̃}. If true, this gives a unified solution recipe — compute (Y,Z) with a deep BSDE solver and read off the optimal feedback control — and extends to robust fine-tuning under model ambiguity by adding a δ||Z|| penalty.

What carries the argument

The central object is the running cost ℓ and the induced relative generalized path cost Cℓ(P‖Q)=inf_{u:L(X^u)=P} E^{Q^u}[∫ℓ dt]. The argument turns on the fully nonlinear Hamiltonian H(t,x,z)=inf_u{ℓ(t,x,u)+u·z/σ̃(t)}. The usual decoupling-field argument supplies the value function, and the BSDE's Z-process — Z_t=σ̃(t)∇v(t,X_t) — is the key bridge: it serves simultaneously as the martingale representation of the backward process and the variable through which the optimal control is expressed. In the ambiguity extension, the support function δ||Z|| is added to the generator.

What would settle it

Take r(x)=||x||², which satisfies the stated smoothness assumption H4, and take a simple diffusion with Gaussian marginal (e.g., linear drift and constant diffusion). Then E exp(γ||X_T||²) is infinite for large γ, so the terminal condition fails the exponential-moment condition required by the quadratic-growth BSDE theorem invoked in the proof of Theorem 3.2. Running the proposed BSDE-FT algorithm on this reward and observing non-convergence or non-uniqueness of the deep solution would settle whether the FBSDE representation holds under the stated assumptions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the generalized fine-tuning problem — minimize E[∫ℓ(t,X,u)dt + r(X_T)] over controls u driving the reverse diffusion — is well-posed and solvable by FBSDE. Theorem 3.1 asserts that under H1-H7 the HJB equation has a unique classical solution v∈C^{1,2} with globally bounded gradient and Hessian, and a unique globally Lipschitz optimal feedback u*(t,x)=argmin_u{ℓ(t,x,u)+u·∇v(t,x)}. Theorem 3.3 identifies v with the Y-component of the FBSDE dX_t=eb dt+σ̃ dB_t, dY_t=-inf_u{ℓ+u·Z/σ̃}dt+Z dB_t, Y_T=r(X_T), and the optimal control as the argmin in the generator. The framework unifies entropy-regularized fine-tuning (quadratic ℓ), sparsity-inducing costs λ|u|₁, time

Load-bearing premise

The proof of BSDE existence assumes that the reward's exponential moments exp(γ|r(X_T)|) are finite for every γ, and it tries to derive this from r∈C^{2+α} with bounded second derivatives; that derivation is invalid because such a reward can grow quadratically (e.g., ||x||²), for which the required exponential moments are not finite.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Entropy-regularized fine-tuning with ℓ=(α/2)||u/σ̃||² is recovered as the special case where the HJB equation is semilinear and the optimal control is σ̃²∇v/α; the FBSDE framework then contains the existing approach.
  • A single deep BSDE solver can handle non-quadratic costs such as ℓ=λ|u|₁ and ℓ=β(t)||u||², where no analytic argmin is available, as long as the generator remains tractable.
  • The optimal control is nonlinear feedback through Z_t, so the BSDE gradient component is the sufficient statistic for fine-tuning; users do not need to solve a separate PDE.
  • Robust fine-tuning under uncertainty about the score model is formulated as a minimax BSDE with generator +δ||Z||, and the worst-case perturbation is aligned with ∇v; this yields robust controls without changing the numerical scheme.
  • Well-posedness of the generalized fine-tuning objective follows from the claimed uniqueness of the classical HJB solution, guaranteeing that the reward-collapse trade-off has a well-defined optimum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to benchmark the LQI example ℓ=(α/2σ̃²)||u||²+θ1·u+θ2 against a direct HJB solver in low dimension; agreement of Y0 would confirm the FBSDE characterization beyond the formal proof.
  • The framework implicitly suggests that any divergence expressible as an optimal control path cost — not just KL and p-Wasserstein — can be fine-tuned by the same machinery; a concrete next step is to write f-divergence penalties in this form.
  • The exponential-integrability gap in the existence proof leaves the deep BSDE algorithm without full theoretical support for rewards that grow quadratically; adding a bounded-reward assumption or explicit growth bound is a minimal amendment.
  • The robust formulation implies an adversarial interpretation: fine-tuning against the worst-case drift perturbation δ·sign(∇v) could be used to quantify how reward optimization is degraded by score-estimation error, which a practitioner could measure empirically.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a generalized stochastic-control framework for fine-tuning diffusion models. A general running cost ℓ(t,x,u) is introduced, giving a "relative generalized path cost" C_ℓ(P∥Q) that is claimed to include KL divergence and Wasserstein distance as special cases. The value function of the resulting Generalized Fine-Tuning (GFT) problem is asserted to be the unique classical C^{1,2} solution of a fully nonlinear HJB equation (Theorem 3.1), to admit a BSDE representation of the form (3.18)–(3.19) (Theorem 3.3), and to satisfy the existence/uniqueness estimates of Theorem 3.2. A deep BSDE algorithm and a robust-ambiguity extension are also presented.

Significance. The high-level idea — encode general divergence penalties through a running cost and solve the HJB equation via FBSDEs — is attractive and, if rigorously established, would provide a unified view of entropy-regularized and transport-based fine-tuning. The paper also makes a concrete algorithmic proposal (BSDE-FT). However, the central mathematical claims are not proven as stated. In fact, Theorem 3.1(i) fails on a simple admissible one-dimensional example with quadratic reward, and the proof of Theorem 3.2 uses a linear-growth/integrability assertion that is false under H4. These are load-bearing errors: the FBSDE representation and the proposed solution method rest on them. No numerical experiments or applications are included, so the algorithmic contribution is not demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Theorem 3.1(i) / Eq. (3.7)] Theorem 3.1(i) claims that, under H1–H7, the HJB equation (3.7) has a unique classical solution with ∥∇_x v∥_∞ ≤ L_1. This is false under the stated assumptions. Take d=1, b(t,x)=0, σ̃(t)=1, ℓ(t,x,u)=u²/2, and r(x)=x². Assumptions H1–H7 hold (H4 holds because r has bounded second derivative; H2 holds with p=2). The HJB equation is v_t + ½v_xx − ½(v_x)² = 0, v(T,x)=x². Its explicit classical solution is v(t,x)=x²/(1+2(T−t)) + ½ log(1+2(T−t)), whose gradient 2x/(1+2(T−t)) is unbounded in x. Thus the asserted a priori bound is not merely unproven; it is wrong for admissible data. This also breaks the claimed regularity needed for the FBSDE representation and for the feedback formula (3.8).
  2. [§3.3, Step 2 / Eq. (3.16)] The proof of Theorem 3.2 asserts that H4 implies |r(x)| ≤ L_0^r∥x∥ + |r(0)| and hence E[exp(γ|r(X_T)|)] < ∞ for every γ>0. This is incorrect: H4 only requires r∈C^{2+α} with bounded second derivatives, which permits quadratic growth, e.g. r(x)=∥x∥². For such r and a Gaussian X_T, E[exp(γ|r(X_T)|)] = ∞ for γ ≥ 1/(2T), so (3.16) is false. The cited Briand–Hu existence theorem for quadratic BSDEs is therefore not applicable under the stated hypotheses. The theorem needs an explicit sublinear-growth or bounded-reward condition, or a different integrability argument.
  3. [§3.3, Step 1 and Assumption H2] Theorem 3.2 is stated for H1–H7, but H2 only assumes coercivity with p≥1. In Step 1 the proof silently upgrades to p≥2, writing "By Assumption (H2), ... for p≥2." Without p≥2 the Legendre–Fenchel conjugate of ℓ can grow faster than quadratically in z, and the quadratic-growth BSDE theory invoked in the proof does not apply. This is another mismatch between the assumptions and the proof. At minimum the theorem must restrict H2 to p≥2; but even with that restriction, Major Comment 2 shows the result still fails for r(x)=∥x∥².
  4. [Proof of Theorem 3.1, Steps 1–3] The fixed-point proof is incomplete in several places. Step 1 asserts the existence of a decoupling field v^u∈C^{1,2} with uniform bounds ∥∇_x v^u∥≤C_1(R), ∥∇²_xx v^u∥≤C_2(R) for every u in the weighted Lipschitz ball B_R. No assumptions are given that guarantee these bounds; indeed, the example in Major Comment 1 shows that such uniform bounded-gradient bounds fail for a valid problem. Step 2 then defines R_0 through an implicit inequality involving C_2(R), but no proof is given that this inequality has a solution. Lemma 3's gradient stability estimate is asserted by passing from difference quotients to a uniform sup over x without controlling the constant independently of the initial point; as written, the contraction argument does not rigorously close. The proof therefore does not establish the theorem's central well-posedness claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Definition 3.1, Eq. (3.1)] The SDE (3.1) is typeset incorrectly: "+eσ(t), dB_t" should read "+eσ(t) dB_t".
  2. [Assumption H5, Eq. (3.3)] The first inequality is written with ∥x_1−x_2∥² but is called an L-Lipschitz condition; it should be ∥x_1−x_2∥ (or the terminology should be adjusted).
  3. [Proposition 3.2, Wasserstein case] The Wasserstein case assumes σ̃(t)≡0, which is incompatible with the uniform ellipticity in H7. The equivalence to the p-Wasserstein distance is only sketched and requires separate assumptions; as stated it is outside the paper's framework.
  4. [§3.4.1, Eq. (3.22)–(3.24)] The algebra for the linear-quadratic-interaction cost appears to be incorrect: θ_2(t,x) should not be inside the squared norm in f, and the optimal control should be u*(t)=−(σ̃²/α)θ_1(t,X_t)−(σ̃/α)Z_t, with the sign of the θ_1 term checked. The current Eq. (3.22)–(3.24) is not consistent with a direct minimization of (3.21) plus u·z/σ̃.
  5. [Theorem 5.2, Proof] The proof assumes "Since σ̃(t)>0 is a scalar", but H7 allows a matrix σ̃(t). For matrix σ̃, the support function sup_{∥η∥≤δ} η·(σ̃∇v) equals δ∥σ̃^T∇v∥, not δ∥σ̃∇v∥. The robust HJB equation and the candidate η* need to be corrected for the matrix case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FBSDE representation is a standard Itô-formula equivalence and the derivation relies on external, independent theorems.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: define the generalized path cost C_l(P||Q) and the GFT control problem; derive the HJB equation from the dynamic programming principle (Proposition 3.3); prove regularity and well-posedness via a fixed-point argument citing external FBSDE results (Ma-Yong-Zhang, Delarue); prove BSDE existence using Briand-Hu; and finally obtain the FBSDE representation by applying Itô's formula to v(t,X_t) and setting Z_t = sigma(t) grad v(t,X_t). None of these steps substitutes a fitted parameter for a prediction, renames an input as an output, or imports an unverified uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work. The generalized path cost is introduced as a definition, and the KL and Wasserstein identifications are checked against external benchmarks rather than being assumed. The cited results (Pardoux-Peng, Briand-Hu, Ma-Yong-Zhang, Delarue, Kobylanski) are standard external theorems, not self-citations. The skeptical note about H4 allowing quadratic rewards is a real mathematical-assumption gap: H4 does not imply the linear growth |r(x)| <= L_0||x||+|r(0)| used in Theorem 3.2, and the claimed exponential integrability can fail for r(x)=||x||^2. However, this is a correctness/rigor defect in the stated assumptions, not circularity: the theorem's conclusion is not an input of its proof, even if the proof as written is invalid for admissible data. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants; α and δ are arbitrary hyperparameters, not data-fitted. The main debts are unproven or silently strengthened assumptions: the false linear-growth inference from H4, the silent p≥2 upgrade, and the reliance on external theorems whose hypotheses are not verified.

free parameters (2)
  • α
    Positive hyperparameter in the linear-quadratic and product-quadratic running costs (3.21), (3.25). It is symbolic and arbitrary; no value is fitted or calibrated.
  • δ
    Worst-case ambiguity radius in the robust formulation (5.5). The paper states it 'could be fixed and selected arbitrarily or adaptively', so it is a free model parameter with no principled assignment.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ℓ(t,x,·) is strongly convex, lower semicontinuous, and coercive with ℓ≥c1||u||^p−c2 (H1-H2).
    This is the main structural assumption on the running cost; it guarantees minimizers exist and the generalized path cost Cℓ is well-defined.
  • ad hoc to paper H4 (r∈C^{2+α} with bounded second derivatives) implies |r(x)|≤L||x||+C and E exp(γ|r(X_T)|)<∞ for all γ.
    This implication is used in Theorem 3.2, Step 2, but is false: quadratic rewards satisfy H4 and violate the exponential-integrability claim. The theorem needs a separate boundedness or linear-growth assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Coercivity exponent p≥2 in H2.
    H2 is stated with p≥1, but Theorem 3.2's proof silently assumes p≥2 so that the conjugate h grows at most quadratically in z. For 1≤p<2 the cited Briand-Hu quadratic BSDE theory does not apply.
  • domain assumption σ̃ is uniformly elliptic on the whole interval [0,T] (H7.2).
    Uniform ellipticity is used for FBSDE/PDE regularity and for the sub-Gaussian estimates in Theorem 3.2. Many diffusion schedules use noise that vanishes at endpoints, so the assumption may fail in practice.
  • standard math External quadratic-BSDE theorems (Briand-Hu 2006), the four-step scheme (Ma-Yong-Zhang), and the Delarue regularity results apply to the constructed FBSDE.
    The paper invokes these results without checking all of their hypotheses; several hypothesis checks are precisely where the stated assumptions fail (p≥2, terminal integrability).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized Fine-Tuning of Diffusion Models via Stochastic Control and FBSDEs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D52T4KUO

@misc{pith2026260722660,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized Fine-Tuning of Diffusion Models via Stochastic Control and FBSDEs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D52T4KUO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22660}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a generalized fine-tuning framework for diffusion models from the perspective of stochastic control. Beyond entropy-regularized formulations, we introduce a general running cost that induces a relative generalized path cost, encompassing both Kullback-Leibler divergence and optimal transport metrics as special cases. This leads to a fully nonlinear Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation. We characterize the value function through a forward-backward stochastic differential equation system and establish existence and uniqueness under standard regularity conditions. The optimal control admits a nonlinear feedback form driven by the backward stochastic differential equation gradient component. Finally, we show that generalized fine-tuning naturally introduces an additional gradient-dependent penalty, providing a unified framework for diffusion fine-tuning under general distributional constraints.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Deep un- supervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep un- supervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 2256–2265. pmlr, 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Er- mon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020

    arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    Im- agen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02303, 2022

    Jonathan Ho, William Chan, Chitwan Saharia, Jay Whang, Ruiqi Gao, Alexey Grit- senko, Diederik P Kingma, Ben Poole, Mohammad Norouzi, David J Fleet, et al. Im- agen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02303, 2022. 21

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Equiv- ariant diffusion for molecule generation in 3d

    Emiel Hoogeboom, Vıctor Garcia Satorras, Cl´ ement Vignac, and Max Welling. Equiv- ariant diffusion for molecule generation in 3d. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 8867–8887. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Geod- iff: A geometric diffusion model for molecular conformation generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02923, 2022

    Minkai Xu, Lantao Yu, Yang Song, Chence Shi, Stefano Ermon, and Jian Tang. Geod- iff: A geometric diffusion model for molecular conformation generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02923, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Score-based diffusion models for accelerated mri

    Hyungjin Chung and Jong Chul Ye. Score-based diffusion models for accelerated mri. Medical image analysis, 80:102479, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Measurement-conditioned denoising diffusion proba- bilistic model for under-sampled medical image reconstruction

    Yutong Xie and Quanzheng Li. Measurement-conditioned denoising diffusion proba- bilistic model for under-sampled medical image reconstruction. InInternational Confer- ence on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 655–664. Springer, 2022

    2022

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Generative adversarial nets.Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    Ian J Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets.Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    On fast sampling of diffusion probabilistic models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00132, 2021

    Zhifeng Kong and Wei Ping. On fast sampling of diffusion probabilistic models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00132, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Instaflow: One step is enough for high-quality diffusion-based text-to-image generation

    Xingchao Liu, Xiwen Zhang, Jianzhu Ma, Jian Peng, et al. Instaflow: One step is enough for high-quality diffusion-based text-to-image generation. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation

    Tianwei Yin, Micha¨ el Gharbi, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, Fredo Durand, William T Freeman, and Taesung Park. One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6613–6623, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13301, 2023

    Kevin Black, Michael Janner, Yilun Du, Ilya Kostrikov, and Sergey Levine. Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13301, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Dpok: Reinforce- ment learning for fine-tuning text-to-image diffusion models.Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 36:79858–79885, 2023

    Ying Fan, Olivia Watkins, Yuqing Du, Hao Liu, Moonkyung Ryu, Craig Boutilier, Pieter Abbeel, Mohammad Ghavamzadeh, Kangwook Lee, and Kimin Lee. Dpok: Reinforce- ment learning for fine-tuning text-to-image diffusion models.Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 36...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 22500–...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Directly fine-tuning diffusion models on differentiable rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17400, 2023

    Kevin Clark, Paul Vicol, Kevin Swersky, and David J Fleet. Directly fine-tuning diffusion models on differentiable rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17400, 2023. 22

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Fine- tuning of continuous-time diffusion models as entropy-regularized control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15194, 2024

    Masatoshi Uehara, Yulai Zhao, Kevin Black, Ehsan Hajiramezanali, Gabriele Scalia, Nathaniel Lee Diamant, Alex M Tseng, Tommaso Biancalani, and Sergey Levine. Fine- tuning of continuous-time diffusion models as entropy-regularized control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15194, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Fine-tuning of diffusion models via stochastic control: entropy regularization and beyond, 2025

    Wenpin Tang and Fuzhong Zhou. Fine-tuning of diffusion models via stochastic control: entropy regularization and beyond, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Conjugate convex functions in optimal stochastic control.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 44(2):384–404, 1973

    Jean-Michel Bismut. Conjugate convex functions in optimal stochastic control.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 44(2):384–404, 1973

    1973

  13. [21]

    Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differential equation.Systems & Control Letters, 14(1):55–61, 1990

    Etienne Pardoux and Shige Peng. Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differential equation.Systems & Control Letters, 14(1):55–61, 1990

    1990

  14. [22]

    Stochastic hamilton–jacobi–bellman equations.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 30(2):284–304, 1992

    Shige Peng. Stochastic hamilton–jacobi–bellman equations.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 30(2):284–304, 1992

    1992

  15. [23]

    Backward stochastic differential equations and applications to optimal con- trol.Applied Mathematics and Optimization, 27(2):125–144, 1993

    Shige Peng. Backward stochastic differential equations and applications to optimal con- trol.Applied Mathematics and Optimization, 27(2):125–144, 1993

    1993

  16. [24]

    Solving high-dimensional partial differen- tial equations using deep learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(34):8505–8510, 2018

    Jiequn Han, Arnulf Jentzen, and Weinan E. Solving high-dimensional partial differen- tial equations using deep learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(34):8505–8510, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Reverse-time diffusion equation models.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 12(3):313–326, 1982

    Brian DO Anderson. Reverse-time diffusion equation models.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 12(3):313–326, 1982

    1982

  18. [26]

    Backward stochastic differential equations and partial differen- tial equations with quadratic growth.The Annals of Probability, 28(2):558–602, 2000

    Magdalena Kobylanski. Backward stochastic differential equations and partial differen- tial equations with quadratic growth.The Annals of Probability, 28(2):558–602, 2000. 23

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.