Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Mixed linear fractional boundary value problems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes explicit two-sided pointwise estimates for the Green's function of a diffusion driven by two Caputo fractional time derivatives on the positive quadrant, covering the boundary, initial-time, and large-separation…

desk verdict A promising extension of the authors' single-derivative estimates, but the proof of the main two-sided bound has a false dominance ordering and needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03158 v2 pith:ZSJH7EC3 submitted 2019-08-08 math.PR math.AP

Ifan Johnston , Vassili Kolokoltsov This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.AP MSC 60J3560G5226A3335K08
keywords fractionalboundaryvalueproblemGreen'sfunctionestimatesCaputoderivativestablesubordinatortwo-sidedboundsheatkernelorthantruinprobability
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 sets out to prove explicit two-sided pointwise estimates for the Green's function of a boundary value problem whose time evolution is driven by two Caputo fractional derivatives, one in each of two time variables, together with a spatial diffusion. Such estimates matter because they give uniform control of the solution kernel in every relevant regime—near the boundary, near the initial time, and at large spatial separation—which is the kind of control needed to analyze fractional PDEs, ruin probabilities for multi-asset models, and heat-kernel-based approaches to boundary value problems. The main result, Proposition 3.1, provides the bounds in terms of two dimensionless quantities $\Omega = |x-y|^2 t^{-\beta}$ and $A = r^\gamma t^{-\beta}$, with dimension-dependent algebraic powers and a stretched-exponential decay whose rate is set by the smaller of the two fractional orders.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the stochastic representation of the solution as an expectation involving three independent processes: a diffusion $Y_x(s)$ with generator $L$, and two decreasing stable subordinators $X^\beta$ and $X^\gamma$ absorbed at zero. Conditioning on the exit times reduces the Green's function to an integral over $s$ of the diffusion density times the stable transition density of one coordinate and the exit-time density of the other; substituting the explicit exit-time density and using Aronson's Gaussian estimates together with the two-sided stable-density asymptotics splits the integral into four pieces, of which one dominates in each regime. The final step applies the Laplace method and the incomplete-gamma asymptotics to the dominant piece.

What would settle it

Fix $\beta=0.2$, $\gamma=0.9$, $d=4$, $A=0.5$, and $\Omega=0.5$, compute the four integrals $I_1$ through $I_4$ numerically, and check whether $I_1$ indeed dominates the sum within the asserted constants; alternatively, Monte-Carlo simulate the process to estimate $G^{(\beta,\gamma)}$ directly and compare with (3.5) at the crossovers $A\approx 1$ and $\Omega\approx 1$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Proposition 3.1: for the component of the Green's function coming from the first boundary, with $t, r, x, y$ as described, the two-sided estimate splits cleanly at $\Omega = |x-y|^2 t^{-\beta} = 1$. For $\Omega \le 1$, the kernel behaves like $t^{-\beta/\gamma - d\beta/2} A^{-1-1/\gamma}$ times a dimensional factor: constant in $d \le 3$, logarithmic in $d = 4$, and $\Omega^{(2-d)/2}$ for $d \ge 5$, where $A = r^\gamma t^{-\beta}$. For $\Omega \ge 1$, the kernel decays as a power of $\Omega$ and $A$ times $\exp\{-\left(\Omega \max(A^{-1}, 1)\right)^{1/(2-\min(\beta,\gamma))}\}$. The proof decomposes the kernel into four integrals $I_1$ through $I_4$, arguing that $I_1$ dominates for $\Omega \le 1$ and $I_4$ dominates for $\Omega \ge 1$; the stated dominance ordering is asserted without a full proof.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, in each regime, one of the four constituent integrals dominates all the others—an ordering asserted without proof—so that if the ordering fails in any parameter range, the stated exponents do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two-sided bounds provide the kernel estimates needed to study well-posedness of mixed Caputo boundary value problems and to extend the results to spatial operators that generate stable-like Feller processes.
  • The uniform control in the boundary coordinate $r$, including $r \to 0$, means the boundary potential inherits the same bounds, giving concrete control of the solution's dependence on boundary data.
  • The multidimensional extension (Conjecture 4.1) predicts analogous two-sided estimates for orthants in dimension $k \ge 2$, with the critical-dimension logarithmic behavior appearing at $d = 2k$.
  • The estimates support the programme of replacing each fractional derivative by a generalised Caputo derivative with a Lévy-type kernel whose density is comparable to a $\beta$-stable density, yielding estimates for the more general equation (1.3).
  • For ruin-probability and default-time applications, the bounds give explicit control of the probability that one of two stable processes hits zero first, with the decay governed by the slower index $\min(\beta,\gamma)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The dominance ordering of the four integrals is the step most likely to fail in extreme asymmetry $\beta \ll \gamma$; a direct proof of those inequalities would be a natural complement, and numerical experiments in the $\beta=0.2$, $\gamma=0.9$ corner would settle whether the stated exponents hold.
  • The stretched-exponential exponent $1/(2-\min(\beta,\gamma))$ suggests a general principle: in a mixture of fractional time derivatives, the smaller index controls the large-time and large-distance tail, just as the smaller drift controls large deviations in classical settings.
  • The logarithmic factor at $d=4$ (and $d=2k$ in the conjecture) is the fractional analogue of the classical heat kernel's critical dimension; this suggests that for fractional boundary problems the critical dimension equals twice the number of fractional coordinates, a pattern the authors do not explicitly name.
  • Because the full Green's function splits as a sum of boundary components, the estimates imply two-sided bounds on the harmonic measure of the orthant for the mixed fractional diffusion, which are exactly what barrier-option and default-time models require; the paper mentions these applications but does not develop them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the boundary value problem on R_+ × R_+ × R^d obtained by combining two Caputo fractional derivatives in the time variables with a spatial diffusion operator. Using the stochastic representation of the solution and known asymptotic estimates for stable densities (Lemma 2.1), Aronson's Gaussian bounds (Lemma 2.2), and a Laplace-method appendix, the authors derive two-sided estimates for the boundary Green's function component G^{(β,γ)}. The main result is Proposition 3.1, which splits into a small-Ω regime (Ω = |x−y|^2 t^{−β} ≤ 1) and a large-Ω regime, with explicit powers and exponential factors depending on A = r^γ t^{−β}. Section 4 sketches an extension to k ≥ 2 fractional derivatives, stated as a conjecture. The central claim is that the Green's function is controlled by a single dominant integral I1 for Ω ≤ 1 and by I4 for Ω ≥ 1.

Significance. If Proposition 3.1 were correct, the paper would supply explicit two-sided kernel bounds for a class of fractional boundary value problems on orthants, with potential applications to multidimensional ruin probabilities, barrier options, and related models. The derivation is free of fitted parameters and relies only on established asymptotic estimates for stable densities and on Aronson's Gaussian bounds; the stochastic-representation route to the kernel decomposition is natural. However, the central estimates are not established as stated: the proof contains an exponent inconsistency and, more seriously, the dominance ordering on which the proof rests is false in an admissible parameter regime. Because the main theorem is the paper's principal contribution, these issues are load-bearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Proposition 3.1 and its proof] The displayed estimate (3.5) contains the factor A^{−1−γ}, while the integral I1 defined in the proof of Proposition 3.1 and in Appendix B has prefactor A^{−1−1/γ}. The asymptotic evaluation of I1 that follows in the text then silently replaces this with A^{−1−γ}. These two exponents are not the same, and the final two-sided estimate depends on which one is correct. The theorem statement is therefore not what the proof establishes. The mismatch must be resolved before the result can be assessed.
  2. [Appendix B, definitions of I2 and I3] The integrals I2 and I3 are written with limits that are empty or reversed in the regimes in which they are used: I2 is written as ∫_1^A ... 1_{A<1}, and I3 as ∫_A^1 ... 1_{A>1}. Taken literally, I3 vanishes for A>1, yet the domination orderings for Case 2b (A≥1, Ω≥1) treat I3 as a nonzero contribution that can dominate I1. The intended limits should presumably be ∫_A^1 for I2 and ∫_1^A for I3, but as printed the proof is not coherent.
  3. [Appendix B, domination orderings before §B.1] The assertions '0=I3<I4≤I2≤I1, A≤1', '0=I2<I4≤I3≤I1, A≥1', and the analogous orderings for Ω≥1 are stated without proof and are not correct in general. In particular, for Ω≥1 and A≥1 the claimed ordering 0=I2<I1≤I3≤I4 fails. Take β=0.8, γ=0.2, d=1, t=1, Ω=10^6, and A=10^3 (admissible, e.g. r=10^{15}, t2>r). Then I3 contains the factor exp{−Ω/z − c z^{1/(1−β)}} with β=0.8, whose Laplace saddle lies inside [1,A]; consequently I3 ≍ exp{−K Ω^{1/(2−β)}} with K>0. The integral I4 is integrated only over [A,∞), and since A lies beyond the saddle, I4 is exponentially smaller than I3. Thus I3, not I4, dominates the Green's function in this regime. The displayed lower bound in (3.6) uses α=min(β,γ)=0.2 and is of order exp{−C Ω^{1/(2−γ)}} = exp{−C Ω^{5/9}}, while the actual contribution is exp{−O(Ω^{5/6})}; for Ω=10^6 the former is exponentially larger than the latter, so the claimed lower bound is false. This is not a mere gap in the proof: the theorem as stated is contradicted in this regime.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, proof of Proposition 3.1] After defining I1, the sentence 'Since the integral I1 is the main contributor to the estimate' presupposes the domination orderings that are asserted later in Appendix B; the main text should refer the reader to the proof of those orderings or prove them there.
  2. [§4, Conjecture 4.1] The k-dimensional extension is explicitly conjectural and the proof is omitted. This is acceptable as a discussion, but the paper should clearly state that the extension is not a theorem, especially because the k=2 case on which it is modelled is not fully proved.
  3. [Appendix B, notation] The symbol cβ appears in I3 and I4 without a precise definition; if it is the constant from Lemma 2.1, it should be stated explicitly, since the later Laplace estimates depend on its positivity.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical inconsistencies in exponents and indicators, e.g. the repeated use of A^{−1−γ} versus A^{−1−1/γ}, and the indicator notation 1_{A∈R+} is redundant. A careful re-editing of the displayed formulas is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Green’s function estimates are derived from external stable-density asymptotics and Aronson’s Gaussian bounds; self-citations are used only for context and well-posedness.

full rationale

The central estimate in Proposition 3.1 is obtained by substituting the known asymptotic behaviour of stable densities (2.4)–(2.5), the exit-time asymptotics of Lemma 2.1, and Aronson’s two-sided Gaussian estimates (2.6) into the integral representation (3.4). None of these inputs is the target estimate, and no free parameter is fitted to the claimed bound. The paper’s self-citations to [JK19] and [Kol19b] concern the one-variable case, well-posedness, and operator-valued Mittag-Leffler rearrangements; they are not used to assume Proposition 3.1. The higher-dimensional case is explicitly labelled a conjecture rather than a derived result. The asserted dominance orderings among the integrals I1–I4 in Appendix B are stated without proof and may be a genuine correctness gap, but an unsupported or even false comparison is not circularity: it does not reduce the conclusion to its own inputs. The paper is therefore not circular in the sense of this review.

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

The central estimates require no fitted constants and no new entities. They rest on standard asymptotic results for stable densities and diffusions, on the probabilistic representation of the solution, and on the independence of the one-dimensional stable processes. The only hand-chosen elements are the assumptions that the boundary data lie in the generator domains and that the Laplace-method asymptotics apply uniformly in the parameters.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Aronson's two-sided Gaussian estimates for the transition density of uniformly elliptic diffusions hold: GY(s,x,y) ≍ s^{-d/2} exp(-c|x-y|^2/s).
    Invoked in Lemma 2.2 and throughout Proposition 3.1 to control the spatial part of the kernel; standard result cited as [Aro67].
  • standard math The stable density w_α has the two-sided asymptotics (2.4)-(2.5), and the exit-time density μ has the asymptotics of Lemma 2.1.
    Used to decompose G into the four integrals I1-I4 in Appendix B; cited to [UZ99, MS04].
  • domain assumption The solution to (3.1) has the stochastic representation (3.3) via Dynkin's formula and Doob's optimal stopping theorem, and the boundary value problem is well-posed.
    Section 3.1 only sketches this, referring to [Kol19a], [HHKT17], [Kol19b]; the Green's function estimates are for this representation.
  • domain assumption The two one-dimensional stable processes X^β and X^γ are independent.
    Stated in Section 2.2; used in the conditioning argument in Appendix A to factor the transition densities.
  • domain assumption The boundary functions φ1 and φ2 belong to the domains of the generators (-t2 D^γ - A) and (-t1 D^β - A) respectively.
    Required in Section 3.1 for the well-posedness transformation and for the representation of the solution.
  • standard math The Laplace method asymptotic formulas (C.1), (C.2), Proposition C.1 and C.2 are valid for the parameter ranges used.
    Used in Appendix B to estimate I4; standard asymptotic analysis, but the paper does not verify all uniformity conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mixed linear fractional boundary value problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSJH7EC3

@misc{pith2026190803158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mixed linear fractional boundary value problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSJH7EC3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03158}
}
abstract

In this article we obtain two-sided estimates for the Greens function of fractional boundary value problems on $\mathbb R_+ \times \mathbb R_+ \times \mathbb R^d$ of the form \[(-{}_{t_1}D^\beta_{0+*} - {}_{t_2}D^\gamma_{0+*})u(t_1, t_2, x) = L_{x}u(t_1, t_2, x),\] with some prescribed boundary functions on the boundaries $\{0\} \times \mathbb R_+ \times \mathbb R^d$ and $\mathbb R_+ \times\{0\}\times \mathbb R^d$. The operators ${}_{t_1}D^\beta$ and ${}_{t_1}D^\gamma$ are Caputo fractional derivatives of order $\beta, \gamma \in (0, 1)$ and $L_{x}$ is the generator of a diffusion semigroup: $L_x= \nabla \cdot(a(x) \nabla)$ for some nice function $a(x)$. The Greens function of such boundary value problems are decomposed into its components along each boundary, giving rise to a natural extension to the case involving $k \geq 2$ number of fractional derivatives on the left hand side.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03158 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sample path of X β,γ t1,t2 (s) until the time s = τ β,γ 0 when it hits the boundary and X β,γ t1,t2 (τ β,γ 0 ) = (149, 0) in this case. Here β = γ = 0.8 and t1 = t2 = 1000. Made using the R packages ggplot2 [Wic16] and stabledist [WMctm16]. Remark 3. Note that we could also obtain estimates for the Greens function in the case when L is, say, a non-isotropic homogeneous pseudo-differential operator of order α ∈ (0, 2… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ruin probabilities , volume 14 of Advanced Series on Statistical Science & Applied Probability

    S ren Asmussen and Hansj \"o rg Albrecher. Ruin probabilities , volume 14 of Advanced Series on Statistical Science & Applied Probability . World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, second edition, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    D. G. Aronson. Bounds for the fundamental solution of a parabolic equation. Bulletin of the American Mathematical society , 73(6):890--897, 1967

    1967

  3. [3]

    Order book dynamics in liquid markets: limit theorems and diffusion approximations

    Rama Cont and Adrien De Larrard. Order book dynamics in liquid markets: limit theorems and diffusion approximations. Available at SSRN 1757861 , 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Asymptotic results for ruin probability of a two-dimensional renewal risk model

    Yang Chen, Yuebao Wang, and Kaiyong Wang. Asymptotic results for ruin probability of a two-dimensional renewal risk model. Stoch. Anal. Appl. , 31(1):80--91, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    N. G. de Bruijn. Asymptotic methods in analysis . Dover Publications, Inc., New York, third edition, 1981

    1981

  6. [6]

    Affine processes and applications in finance

    Darrell Duffie, Damir Filipovi \'c , Walter Schachermayer, et al. Affine processes and applications in finance. The Annals of Applied Probability , 13(3):984--1053, 2003

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    A large deviation estimate for ruin probabilities

    Boualem Djehiche. A large deviation estimate for ruin probabilities. Scand. Actuar. J. , 1993(1):42--59, 1993

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    Markov processes

    Eugene Borisovich Dynkin. Markov processes. In Markov Processes , pages 77--104. Springer, 1965

    work page 1965

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    S. D. Eidelman, S. D. Ivasyshen, and A. N. Kochubei. Analytic methods in the theory of differential and pseudo-differential equations of parabolic type , volume 152. Springer Science & Business Media, 2004

    2004

  2. [10]

    M. V. Fedoryuk. Asymptotics: integrals and series . Mathematical Reference Library. ``Nauka'', Moscow, 1987

    1987

  3. [11]

    Ma. E. Hern \'a ndez-Hern \'a ndez, V. Kolokoltsov, and L. Toniazzi. Generalised fractional evolution equations of C aputo type. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , 102:184--196, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Limit order books, diffusion approximations and reflected spdes: from microscopic to macroscopic models

    Ben Hambly, Jasdeep Kalsi, and James Newbury. Limit order books, diffusion approximations and reflected spdes: from microscopic to macroscopic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07107 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Greens function estimates for time-fractional evolution equations

    Ifan Johnston and V Kolokoltsov. Greens function estimates for time-fractional evolution equations. Fractal and Fractional , 3(2):36, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    o rinczi. Contractivity and ground state domination properties for non-local S chr \

    Kamil Kaleta, Mateusz Kwa\' s nicki, and J\' o zsef L \"o rinczi. Contractivity and ground state domination properties for non-local S chr \"o dinger operators. J. Spectr. Theory , 8(1):165--189, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Konstantinides and Jinzhu Li

    Dimitrios G. Konstantinides and Jinzhu Li. Asymptotic ruin probabilities for a multidimensional renewal risk model with multivariate regularly varying claims. Insurance Math. Econom. , 69:38--44, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    o rinczi. Zero-energy bound state decay for non-local S chr \

    Kamil Kaleta and J \'o zsef L \"o rinczi. Zero-energy bound state decay for non-local S chr \"o dinger operators. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Fractional risk process in insurance

    Arun Kumar, Nikolai Leonenko, and Alois Pichler. Fractional risk process in insurance. Mathematics and Financial Economics , pages 1--23, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Symmetric stable laws and stable-like jump-diffusions

    V Kolokoltsov. Symmetric stable laws and stable-like jump-diffusions. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society , 80(3):725--768, 2000

    2000

  11. [19]

    Differential equations on measures and functional spaces

    V Kolokoltsov. Differential equations on measures and functional spaces . Springer, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    The probabilistic point of view on the generalized fractional pdes

    V Kolokoltsov. The probabilistic point of view on the generalized fractional pdes. Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis , 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Correlation structure of fractional pearson diffusions

    Nikolai N Leonenko, Mark M Meerschaert, and Alla Sikorskii. Correlation structure of fractional pearson diffusions. Computers & Mathematics with Applications , 66(5):737--745, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Pricing and hedging basket options with exact moment matching

    Arturo Leccadito, Tommaso Paletta, and Radu Tunaru. Pricing and hedging basket options with exact moment matching. Insurance Math. Econom. , 69:59--69, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Limit theorems for the fractional nonhomogeneous P oisson process

    Nikolai Leonenko, Enrico Scalas, and Mailan Trinh. Limit theorems for the fractional nonhomogeneous P oisson process. J. Appl. Probab. , 56(1):246--264, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Asymptotic multivariate finite-time ruin probability with statistically dependent heavy-tailed claims

    Xiaohu Li, Jintang Wu, and Jinsen Zhuang. Asymptotic multivariate finite-time ruin probability with statistically dependent heavy-tailed claims. Methodol. Comput. Appl. Probab. , 17(2):463--477, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Continuously monitored barrier options under M arkov processes

    Aleksandar Mijatovi\' c and Martijn Pistorius. Continuously monitored barrier options under M arkov processes. Math. Finance , 23(1):1--38, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Meerschaert and Hans-Peter Scheffler

    Mark M. Meerschaert and Hans-Peter Scheffler. Limit theorems for continuous-time random walks with infinite mean waiting times. J. Appl. Probab. , 41(3):623--638, 2004

    2004

  19. [27]

    Stochastic models for fractional calculus , volume 43

    Mark M Meerschaert and Alla Sikorskii. Stochastic models for fractional calculus , volume 43. Walter de Gruyter, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    J. D. Murray. Asymptotic analysis , volume 48 of Applied Mathematical Sciences . Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1984

    1984

  21. [29]

    Ramasubramanian

    S. Ramasubramanian. A multidimensional ruin problem and an associated notion of duality. Stoch. Models , 32(4):539--574, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Fractional calculus and continuous-time finance

    Enrico Scalas, Rudolf Gorenflo, and Francesco Mainardi. Fractional calculus and continuous-time finance. Phys. A , 284(1-4):376--384, 2000

    2000

  23. [31]

    Fractional calculus and continuous-time finance ii: the waiting-time distribution

    Enrico Scalas, Rudolf Gorenflo, and Francesco Mainardi. Fractional calculus and continuous-time finance ii: the waiting-time distribution. Physica A. Stastical Mechanics and its Applications , 287(3-4):468--481, 2000

    2000

  24. [32]

    Fractional calculus and continuous-time finance

    Enrico Scalas, Rudolf Gorenflo, Francesco Mainardi, and Marco Raberto. Fractional calculus and continuous-time finance. III . T he diffusion limit. In Mathematical finance ( K onstanz, 2000) , Trends Math., pages 171--180. Birkh\" a user, Basel, 2001

    2000

  25. [33]

    Uchaikin and Vladimir M

    Vladimir V. Uchaikin and Vladimir M. Zolotarev. Chance and stability . Modern Probability and Statistics. VSP, Utrecht, 1999. Stable distributions and their applications, With a foreword by V. Yu. Korolev and Zolotarev

    1999

  26. [34]

    ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis

    Hadley Wickham. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis . Springer-Verlag New York, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    stabledist: Stable Distribution Functions , 2016

    Diethelm Wuertz, Martin Maechler, and Rmetrics core team members. stabledist: Stable Distribution Functions , 2016. R package version 0.7-1

    2016

Pith tools

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