Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 36 references

The Lewy-Stampacchia Inequality for the Fractional Laplacian and Its Application to Anomalous Unidirectional Diffusion Equations

T0 review · 2 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 The paper proves a Lewy-Stampacchia inequality for the spectral fractional Laplacian on bounded Lipschitz domains, giving two-sided pointwise bounds and L2 regularity for obstacle-problem solutions.

desk verdict The Lewy-Stampacchia inequality for the spectral fractional Laplacian is correct and new, but the application half has a concrete error in the discrete functional that makes the well-posedness proof unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00588 v4 pith:XXCGTZ7Z submitted 2019-09-02 math.AP

Pu-Zhao Kow , Masato Kimura This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35R1135K8635K61
keywords Lewy-StampacchiaobstacleproblemfractionalLaplacianspectralvariationalinequalityunidirectionaldiffusionwell-posednessCaffarelli-Silvestreextension
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 establishes a Lewy-Stampacchia inequality for the spectral fractional Laplacian on bounded Lipschitz domains. It shows that the solution of an obstacle variational inequality has its fractional Laplacian trapped between the forcing term and the obstacle's fractional Laplacian, pointwise almost everywhere. This extends the classical Laplacian result of Lewy and Stampacchia to the fractional setting, where the nonlocal nature of the operator creates genuine difficulties. The paper then applies the inequality to prove well-posedness, uniqueness, stability, comparison, and long-time convergence for anomalous unidirectional diffusion equations of fractional type. A sympathetic reader would care because the inequality is the key tool that upgrades distributional solutions to strong solutions with enough regularity to make the nonlinear evolution equations meaningful.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the Caffarelli-Silvestre extension of the spectral fractional Laplacian, which realizes $(-\Delta)^s$ as a Dirichlet-to-Neumann map of a degenerate elliptic problem in one extra dimension, together with Gustafsson's equivalent variational-inequality reformulation. Because the fractional Laplacian is nonlocal, the classical identity $\langle -\Delta u_+, u_-\rangle = 0$ fails; Lemma 2.2 replaces it with $\langle (-\Delta)^s u_+, u_-\rangle \le 0$, proved through the extension. The equivalent constraint set $K_2 = \{v : f \le Av \le \max\{f, A\psi\}\}$ is then used to force the two-sided $L^2$ estimate and the membership $u \in X^{2s}_0(\Omega)$.

What would settle it

Solve the obstacle problem (14) numerically on a bounded Lipschitz domain with smooth forcing and smooth obstacle, and check pointwise whether $f \le Au \le \max\{f, A\psi\}$ holds; any single violation would disprove Theorem 1.6. Alternatively, choose an obstacle with $(-\Delta)^s \psi$ equal to a Dirac mass so that assumption (12) fails and test whether the inequality survives in any weaker sense, which would show whether the assumption is merely technical or truly necessary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Let $\Omega$ be a bounded Lipschitz domain and $s \in (0,1)$. For $f \in L^2(\Omega)$ and an obstacle $\psi \in H^s_0(\Omega)$ whose fractional Laplacian is a signed Radon measure with positive part in $L^2(\Omega)$, the unique solution $u$ of the obstacle variational inequality $\langle Au, v-u\rangle \ge \langle f, v-u\rangle$ for all $v \ge \psi$ actually satisfies $u \in X^{2s}_0(\Omega)$ and, with $A = (-\Delta)^s + \lambda$, the two-sided bound $f \le Au \le \max\{f, A\psi\}$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$. This is a complete Lewy-Stampacchia estimate for the spectral fractional Laplacian, including $L^2$ regularity of $(-\Delta)^s u$. The same machinery yields comparison principles, uniqueness and stability, existence of strong solutions to the fractional unidirectional diffusion equation $\partial_t u = [-(-\Delta)^s u + f]_+$, and convergence of these solutions as $t \to \infty$ to an associated stationary obstacle problem.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the obstacle's fractional Laplacian is a signed Radon measure whose positive part is square-integrable; without it the upper bound $\max\{f, A\psi\}$ need not be an $L^2$ function and the proof's constraint set $K_2$ is undefined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every obstacle and forcing satisfying the stated assumptions, the solution of the obstacle problem has $(-\Delta)^s u \in L^2(\Omega)$, so expressions such as $[-(-\Delta)^s u + f]_+$ are well defined pointwise almost everywhere.
  • The comparison principle Theorem 1.7 holds: larger forcing and larger obstacles give larger solutions, making the fractional obstacle problem order-preserving.
  • The anomalous unidirectional diffusion equation has a unique strong solution depending continuously on the data, by Theorems 1.10 and 1.11.
  • Solutions of the fractional unidirectional diffusion equation converge as $t \to \infty$ to the solution of a stationary obstacle problem, with the limit satisfying $u_\infty \ge u_0$ and $(-\Delta)^s u_\infty \ge f_\infty$.
  • The Lewy-Stampacchia estimate itself is exactly the two-sided bound $f \le Au \le \max\{f, A\psi\}$, the fractional analogue of the classical result.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is whether the same two-sided estimate persists for more general nonlocal operators possessing a Caffarelli-Silvestre-type extension, such as stable-like operators with variable coefficients; the proof's reliance on the spectral representation suggests this may require new ideas.
  • In the limit $s \to 1$, the fractional inequality should recover the classical Lewy-Stampacchia bound for the Laplacian, providing a consistency check for numerical discretizations of fractional obstacle problems.
  • The $L^2$ bound on $(-\Delta)^s u$ implies additional spatial regularity that could be used to derive rates of convergence for finite element or finite difference methods for fractional obstacle problems, a consequence the paper does not develop.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a Lewy-Stampacchia-type inequality for the spectral fractional Laplacian on bounded Lipschitz domains. Under the assumptions f in L^2(Omega) and (-Delta)^s psi being a signed Radon measure whose positive part lies in L^2(Omega), the solution u of the obstacle variational inequality is shown to lie in X_0^{2s}(Omega) and to satisfy f <= Au <= max{f, A psi} a.e. in Omega, where A = (-Delta)^s + lambda. The proof follows Gustafsson's dual formulation, combined with the Caffarelli-Silvestre extension and a nonlocal sign estimate. The paper then applies this inequality to an anomalous unidirectional diffusion equation, claiming uniqueness, stability, existence via implicit Euler time discretization, comparison, and long-time convergence of strong solutions.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it constitutes a substantial extension of Lewy-Stampacchia estimates to the spectral fractional Laplacian, including L^2 regularity of (-Delta)^s u, and the application to strong solutions of unidirectional fractional diffusion is new. The proof of Theorem 1.6 appears internally sound: the key lemmas (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.5) form a coherent chain, the nonlocal sign estimate of Lemma 2.2 is correctly used, and the right-hand side max{f, A psi} is fixed by the obstacle rather than fitted. No free parameters or circular normalizations appear in the derivation. However, the application half contains a concrete error in the time-discrete functional, so the present version does not establish the existence theorem for the anomalous diffusion equation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (31) and Lemma 5.1] The functional J_k displayed in (31) is not the energy associated with the operator A_sigma = (-Delta)^s + 1/tau_k used in the same lemma. For that operator the natural variational functional is (1/2)∫_Ω |(-Delta)^{s/2} v|^2 dx + (1/(2 tau_k))∫_Ω |v|^2 dx - ⟨u_{k-1}/tau_k + f_k, v⟩, whereas (31) contains (1/2)∫_Ω |(-Delta)^s v|^2 dx. The latter is not finite for a general v in H_0^s(Ω), because (-Delta)^s v belongs to H^{-s}(Ω) rather than L^2(Ω), and its first variation is not ⟨A_sigma v, w-v⟩. Consequently the minimizer of (31) does not satisfy the implicit Euler equation (30), and the invocation of Lemmas 2.1 and 2.5 to obtain (34)-(38) is not justified. This is a load-bearing defect for the existence theorem.
  2. [Section 5, proof of Lemma 5.1, Step 1] The claim that there exists a unique u_1 in K_0^1 minimizing J_1 given by (31), and that (34)-(37) follow from Lemmas 2.1 and 2.5, is unsupported as written because J_1 is not the functional considered in those lemmas. The two-sided estimate (38), which is the only point where the Lewy-Stampacchia inequality enters the time-discrete existence proof, is therefore unproved. The defect appears fixable by replacing |(-Delta)^s v|^2 with |(-Delta)^{s/2} v|^2 in (31) and re-checking the subsequent estimates, but as written the proof of Theorem 1.11 is incomplete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equation (31)] If the intended functional is indeed the one associated with A_sigma, the same correction should be propagated consistently through the proof of Lemma 5.1; the notation ‖(-Delta)^s v‖^2 is otherwise ambiguous and suggests the incorrect energy.
  2. [Appendix A, Lemma A.1] The phrase 'μ + μζ' appears to be a typo for 'μ + ζ'; please correct it.
  3. [Section 1.7] The proofs of Theorems 1.12 and 1.13 are omitted on the grounds that they follow from [AK19]; since these results depend on the corrected existence argument, please state explicitly which arguments from [AK19] carry over and what fractional-specific modifications are needed.
  4. [Abstract and throughout] There are numerous typographical artifacts, e.g., 'unidirectio nal' and 'inequal ity'; a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Lewy-Stampacchia inequality is derived with an independent proof; self-citations to AK19 are not load-bearing for the central claim.

full rationale

The central derivation of Theorem 1.6 is self-contained in the relevant sense. The set K2 = {v : f ≤ Av ≤ max{f, Aψ}} is introduced as an auxiliary constraint, and Lemmas 2.2, 2.3, and 2.5 prove, rather than assume, that the obstacle solution u lies in K2: Lemma 2.2 supplies the fractional sign identity, Lemma 2.3 upgrades K2-elements to X_0^{2s} by a Hahn-Banach/Riesz argument, and Lemma 2.5 shows u ∈ K0 ∩ K2 via the truncated function g = max{f, Aψ} on {u−ψ<0}. The upper bound max{f, Aψ} is fixed by the obstacle and is not fitted or normalized after the fact. The assumptions (11)–(12) are genuine regularity hypotheses: they imply the auxiliary upper bound is in L2 and are stronger than what is needed to solve the variational inequality (14). Citations to the co-authored AK19 are used for an elementary measure lemma (Lemma A.1) and as a proof template for the application theorems (1.11–1.13); these are not identical to the fractional LS claim, and the paper proves the main inequality. No equation in the main proof reduces by construction to an input. A separate, non-circular defect exists in Lemma 5.1: the time-discrete functional (31) writes 1/2∫|(−Δ)^s v|^2 dx instead of 1/2∫|(−Δ)^{s/2}v|^2 dx, so its Euler-Lagrange equation is not (30) and the claimed reduction to Theorem 1.6 is not valid as written; that is a correctness gap, not a circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted, and no new entities are introduced. The proof rests on standard functional-analytic facts (Lax-Milgram, Stampacchia, compact embedding), the Caffarelli-Silvestre extension theory for the spectral fractional Laplacian, the Musina-Nazarov sign inequality, and the measure lemma A.1 imported from AK19. The latter is the least independent element because it is taken from the authors' related paper.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math The spectral fractional Laplacian (-Δ)^s : H^s_0(Ω) -> H^{-s}(Ω) is an isomorphism and the energy identity E_s(V(v)) = ⟨(-Δ)^s v, v⟩ holds (Lemmas 1.1-1.2, Eq. (9)).
    Used throughout to set up the obstacle problem and the Caffarelli-Silvestre tools; cited from CS16, NOS15, ST10.
  • standard math Caffarelli-Silvestre trace identity (7): -lim_{y→0+} y^{1-2s} V_y = c_s (-Δ)^s v, and the extension minimizer exists (Lemma 1.2).
    Converts the nonlocal operator into a local problem in the extension space; used in Lemma 2.2 and in the energy arguments.
  • standard math Sign inequality ⟨(-Δ)^s u+, u-⟩ ≤ 0 for u ∈ H^s_0 (Lemma 2.2; cf. MN17 Remark 3.3).
    Replaces the local identity ⟨Δu+, u-⟩ = 0 and is the key nonlocal tool in Lemma 2.5; a proof is provided using the extension.
  • standard math Measure lemma A.1: for μ ∈ M(Ω), ζ ∈ Lp, [μ+ζ]+ ∈ Lp iff [μ]+ ∈ Lp, with norm bound.
    Imported from AK19 without proof; used to conclude [Aψ-f]+ ∈ L2 from (12) and to justify (13).
  • standard math Stampacchia theorem and Lax-Milgram give unique solutions of coercive variational inequalities; K2 is nonempty via A^{-1}f.
    Used to open Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.5.
  • standard math Compact embedding H^s_0(Ω) → L2(Ω) and Ascoli compactness justify the time-discretization limit in Theorem 1.11.
    Used in the sketch of the existence proof, Eq. (19).
  • standard math Chain rule for a(u(t)) in the Hilbert triple (Theorem B.1).
    Proved in Appendix B; used to differentiate the energy in Lemma 4.1 for the stability estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Lewy-Stampacchia Inequality for the Fractional Laplacian and Its Application to Anomalous Unidirectional Diffusion Equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XXCGTZ7Z

@misc{pith2026190900588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Lewy-Stampacchia Inequality for the Fractional Laplacian and Its Application to Anomalous Unidirectional Diffusion Equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XXCGTZ7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00588}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we consider a Lewy-Stampacchia-type inequality for the fractional Laplacian on a bounded domain in Euclidean space. Using this inequality, we can show the well-posedness of fractional-type anomalous unidirectional diffusion equations. This study is an extension of the work by Akagi-Kimura (2019) for the standard Laplacian. However, there exist several difficulties due to the nonlocal feature of the fractional Laplacian. We overcome those difficulties employing the Caffarelli-Silvestre extension of the fractional Laplacian.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Towards an Efficient Finite Element Method for the Integral Fractional Laplacian on Polygonal Domains

    M. Ainsworth and C. Glusa. Towards an Efficient Finite Element Method for the Integral Fractional Laplacian on Polygonal Domains. Contemporary computational mathematics - a celebration of the 80th birthday of Ian Sloan. Vol. 1, 2, 17--57, Springer, Cham, 2018, MR3822227 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3822227 https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Unidirectional evolution equations of diffusion type

    G. Akagi and M. Kimura. Unidirectional evolution equations of diffusion type. J. Differential Equations 266 (2019), no. 1, 1--43, MR3870555 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3870555, doi:10.1016/j.jde.2018.05.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2018.05.022, https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.01072 arXiv:1501.01072

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Fractional Elliptic Quasi-Variational Inequalities: Theory and Numerics

    H. Antil and C. N. Rautenberg. Fractional elliptic quasi-variational inequalities: theory and numerics. Interfaces Free Bound. 20 (2018), no. 1, 1--24, MR3800749 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3800749, doi:10.4171/IFB/395 https://doi.org/10.4171/IFB/395, https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07001 arXiv:1712.07001

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Br\' e zis

    H. Br\' e zis. Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations. Universitext. Springer, New York, 2011, MR2759829 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2759829, doi:10.1007/978-0-387-70914-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70914-7

    doi:10.1007/978-0-387-70914-7 2011

  5. [5]

    Br\' e zis

    H. Br\' e zis. Op\' e rateurs Maximaux Monotones et Semi-Groupes de Contractions dans les Espaces de Hilbert . (French) North-Holland Mathematics Studies, No. 5. Notas de Matem\' a tica (50). North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-London; American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1973, MR0348562 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=34...

    work page doi:10.1016/s0304-0208(08)x7125-7 1973

  6. [6]

    S. N. Chandler-Wilde, D. P. Hewett, and A. Moiola. Sobolev spaces on non-Lipschitz subsets of R ^ n with application to boundary integral equations on fractal screens . Integral Equations Operator Theory 87 (2017), no. 2, 179--224, MR3620760 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3620760, doi:10.1007/s00020-017-2342-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    P. G. Ciarlet, The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems. Reprint of the 1978 original [North-Holland, Amsterdam]. Classics in Applied Mathematics, 40. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2002, MR1930132 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1930132, doi:10.1137/1.9780898719208 https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898719208

    doi:10.1137/1.9780898719208 1978

  8. [8]

    An extension problem related to the fractional Laplacian

    L. Caffarelli and L. Silvestre. An extension problem related to the fractional Laplacian. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 32 (2007), no. 7-9, 1245--1260, MR2354493 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2354493, doi:10.1080/03605300600987306 https://doi.org/10.1080/03605300600987306, https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0608640 arXiv:math/0608640

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Caffarelli and P

    L. Caffarelli and P. R. Stinga. Fractional elliptic equations, Caccioppoli estimates and regularity. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e Anal. Non Lin\' e aire 33 (2016), no. 3, 767--807, MR3489634 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3489634, doi:10.1016/j.anihpc.2015.01.00...

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Di Nezza, G

    E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, and E. Valdinoci. Hitchhiker's guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bull. Sci. Math. 136 (2012), no. 5, 521--573, MR2944369 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2944369, doi:10.1016/j.bulsci.2011.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bulsci...

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. Duo, H. W. van Wyk, and Y. Zhang. A novel and accurate finite difference method for the fractional Laplacian and the fractional Poisson problem. J. Comput. Phys. 355 (2018), 233--252, MR3738575 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3738575, doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2017...

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    S. Duo, H. Wang, and Y. Zhang. A comparative study on nonlocal diffusion operators related to the fractional Laplacian Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 24 (2019), no. 1, 231--256, MR3932725 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3932725, doi:10.3934/dcdsb.2018110 h...

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    L. C. Evans. Partial Differential Equations. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 19. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998, MR2597943 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2597943, doi:10.1090/gsm/019 https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/019

    1998 doi

  6. [14]

    G. Grubb. Fractional Laplacians on domains, a development of Hrmander's theory of -transmission pseudodifferential operators. Adv. Math. 268 (2015), 478--528, MR3276603 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3276603, doi:10.1016/j.aim.2014.09.018 https://doi.org/10.1...

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gustafsson

    B. Gustafsson. A simple proof of the regularity theorem for the variational inequality of the obstacle problem. Nonlinear Anal. 10 (1986), no. 12, 1487--1490, MR0869557 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=869557, doi:10.1016/0362-546X(86)90119-7 https://doi.org/10...

    1986 doi

  8. [16]

    Klages, G

    R. Klages, G. Radons, and I.M. Sokolov, Anomalous Transport: Foundations and Applications, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, 2008, doi:10.1002/9783527622979 https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527622979

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    Kinderlehrerand and G

    D. Kinderlehrerand and G. Stampacchia. An Introduction to Variational Inequalities and Their Applications. Pure and Applied Mathematics 88. Academic Press, Inc. [ Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers ] , New York-London, 1980, MR0567696 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-g...

    1980 doi

  10. [18]

    Kwa\' s nicki Ten equivalent definitions of the fractional Laplace operator

    M. Kwa\' s nicki Ten equivalent definitions of the fractional Laplace operator. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 20 (2017), no. 1, 7--51, MR3613319 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3613319, doi:10.1515/fca-2017-0002 https://doi.org/10.1515/fca-2017-0002, https://arxiv....

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. L. Lions and E. Magenes. Non-homogeneous Boundary Value Problems and Applications. 3 volumes. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972. Vol I, MR0350177 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=350177, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-65161-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-64...

    1972 doi

  12. [20]

    C. W. K. Lo and J. F. Rodrigues. On a class of fractional obstacle type problems related to the distributional Riesz derivative, https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.06863 arXiv:2101.06863

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lewy and G

    H. Lewy and G. Stampacchia, On the regularity of the solution of a variational inequality. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 22 (1969), 153--188, MR0247551 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=247551, doi:10.1002/cpa.3160220203 https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160220203

    1969 doi

  14. [22]

    Mclean, Strongly Elliptic Systems and Boundary Integral Equations

    W. Mclean, Strongly Elliptic Systems and Boundary Integral Equations. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 2000, MR1742312 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1742312

    2000

  15. [23]

    S. E. Mikhailov, Traces, extensions and co-normal derivatives for elliptic systems on Lipschitz domains. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 378 (2011), no. 1, 324--342, MR2772469 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2772469, doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2010.12.027 https://doi.org/10.1016...

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    Musina and A

    R. Musina and A. I. Nazarov. On fractional Laplacians. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 39 (2014), no. 9, 1780--1790, MR3246044 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3246044, doi:10.1080/03605302.2013.864304 https://doi.org/10.1080/03605302.2013.864304, https://...

    2014

  17. [25]

    Musina and A

    R. Musina and A. I. Nazarov. On fractional Laplacians--2. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e Anal. Non Lin\' e aire 33 (2016), no. 6, 1667--1673, MR3569246 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3569246, doi:10.1016/j.anihpc.2015.08.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2015.0...

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Musina and A

    R. Musina and A. I. Nazarov. Variational inequalities for the spectral fractional Laplacian. Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 57 (2017), no. 3, 373--386, MR3636026 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3636026, doi:10.1134/S0965542517030113 https://doi.org/10.1134/S0965542...

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Musina, A

    R. Musina, A. I. Nazarov, and K. Sreenadh. Variational inequalities for the fractional Laplacian. Potential Anal. 46 (2017), no. 3, 485--498, MR3630405 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3630405, doi:10.1007/s11118-016-9591-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11118-016-95...

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    R. H. Nochetto, E. Ot\' a rola, and A. J. Salgado, A PDE approach to fractional diffusion in general domains: a priori error analysis. Found. Comput. Math. 15 (2015), no. 3, 733--791, MR3348172 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3348172, doi:10.1007/s10208-014-92...

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    u land. Unique continuation for fractional Schr\

    A. R\" u land. Unique continuation for fractional Schr\" o dinger equations with rough potentials . Comm. Partial Differential Equations 40 (2015), no. 1, 77--114, MR3268922 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3268922, doi:10.1080/03605302.2014.905594 https://doi....

    2015

  22. [30]

    R\" u land and J.-N

    A. R\" u land and J.-N. Wang. On the Fractional Landis Conjecture J. Funct. Anal. (2019), no. 9, 3236--3270, MR3997635 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3997635, doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2019.05.026 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfa.2019.05.026, https://arxiv.org/abs/1809....

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. L. Schilling. An Introduction to L\' e vy and Feller Processes . From L\' e vy-type processes to parabolic SPDEs, 1--126, Adv. Courses Math. CRM Barcelona, Birkhuser/Springer, Cham, 2016, MR3587472 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3587472, doi:10.1007/978-3-...

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    R. E. Showalter, Monotone Operators in Banach Space and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 49. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997, MR1422252 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1422252, doi:10.1090/surv/0...

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    P. R. Stinga and J. L. Torrea, Extension problem and Harnack s inequality for some fractional operators. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 35 (2010), no. 11, 2092--2122, MR2754080 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2754080, doi:10.1080/03605301003735680 https:...

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Servadei and E

    R. Servadei and E. Valdinoci. Lewy-Stampacchia type estimates for variational inequalities driven by (non)local operators, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 29 (2013), no. 3, 1091--1126, MR3090147 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3090147, doi:10.4171/RMI/750 https:/doi.org/10...

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    M. Warma. The fractional relative capacity and the fractional Laplacian with Neumann and Robin boundary conditions on open sets. Potential Anal. 42 (2015), no. 2, 499--547, MR3306694 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3306694, doi:10.1007/s11118-014-9443-4 https:...

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Yosida, Functional analysis

    K. Yosida, Functional analysis. Sixth edition. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [ Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences ] , 123. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1980, MR0617913 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=617913, doi:10.1007/978-3-...

    1980 doi

Pith tools

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