Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Dynamics and large deviations for fractional stochastic partial differential equations with L\'evy noise

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that small Lévy-noise perturbations of a fractional SPDE obey a large deviation principle, with decay rate equal to a minimal control cost.

desk verdict A solid fractional-SPDE package that deserves refereeing, but the LDP proof has a genuine gap in the controlled-equation estimate that must be repaired before the main theorem is reliable. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14843 v1 pith:ZTQT2EM7 submitted 2025-01-24 math.PR

Jiaohui Xu , Tomás Caraballo , José Valero This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR MSC 35R1135Q3065F0860H1565F10
keywords fractionalLaplacianLévynoiselargedeviationprinciplevariationalrepresentationweakpullbackmeanrandomattractorinvariantmeasureergodicitystochasticpartialdifferentialequations
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 studies fractional stochastic partial differential equations driven by both Brownian motion and Lévy noise, meaning a nonlocal diffusion operator plus random jumps. It establishes well-posedness, a weak pullback mean random attractor (a weakly compact attracting family of sets in the mean-square sense), and, in the autonomous case, a unique invariant measure that is ergodic. The central claim is a large deviation principle: as the noise intensity $\varepsilon$ tends to zero, the probability that the solution leaves a neighbourhood of the deterministic skeleton path decays exponentially in $1/\varepsilon$, with a rate given by the infimum over Brownian and Poisson controls of their cost. The upshot is that rare excursions of such nonlocal jump equations have a quantitative price, and the cheapest control describes the most likely excursion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a variational representation for positive functionals of a Poisson random measure and Brownian motion, adapted to the fractional setting. The solution map $G^\varepsilon$ sends $(\sqrt{\varepsilon}W,\varepsilon N^{\varepsilon^{-1}})$ to the unique solution of the small-noise equation. A control pair $\pi=(\sigma,\rho)$ consists of an $L^2$ Brownian control $\sigma$ and a nonnegative reweighting $\rho$ of the Poisson intensity; the skeleton $G^0$ is the unique solution of the deterministic controlled equation with drift term $g(t,u)\sigma(t)$ and jump term $h(t,u,\xi)(\rho(t,\xi)-1)\lambda(d\xi)$. The rate function evaluates the control cost, with $l(r)=r\log r-r+1$ measuring the relative-entropy cost of changing the jump intensity. Verifying the two continuity conditions that yield the LDP uses the fractional Laplacian operator $(-\Delta)^\gamma$, the compact embedding $V\subset L^{p+1}(O)$, and an exponential integrability condition on the jump coefficient to obtain uniform energy estimates and tightness.

What would settle it

For the pure-jump linear equation with $g=0$ and $h(u,\xi)=\xi$ on a finite intensity space, compute the paper's rate function $I$ explicitly and compare it with the classical large deviation rate for the compensated compound Poisson process; the two rates must coincide. If they do not, Theorem 6.14 fails in its simplest setting; if they do, the variational formula passes a concrete check that the paper itself does not carry out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The main theorem states that the family of solutions $\{u^\varepsilon\}$ of the small-noise fractional SPDE satisfies a large deviation principle on $D([0,T];H)$ with the uniform topology. The good rate function is $$I(\varphi)=\inf_{\pi=(\$\sigma$,\rho)\in S_\varphi}\left(\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \|\$\sigma$(s)\|$_U^{2}$\,ds + \int_{[0,T]\times E} l(\rho(s,\xi))\,\lambda_T(ds,d\xi)\right),$$ where $l(r)=r\log r-r+1$, $S_\varphi$ is the set of control pairs for which $\varphi$ equals the deterministic skeleton $G^0(\int_0^\cdot \sigma(s)\,ds,\lambda^\rho_T)$, and $\lambda^\rho_T(ds,d\xi)=\rho(s,\xi)\lambda_T(ds,d\xi)$. In words, the probability that the noisy solution is near a non-skeleton path $\varphi$ decays like $\exp(-I(\varphi)/\varepsilon)$, and the cheapest control achieving $\varphi$ sets the rate. The paper also proves global well-posedness, a unique weak pullback mean random attractor, and, in the autonomous case, a unique invariant measure, which is therefore ergodic.

Load-bearing premise

The large-deviation block rests on Condition 6.5, which requires the jump coefficient to have finite exponential moments of its squared growth norm on every set of finite intensity measure; if that integrability fails, the uniform estimates behind the rate function collapse even though the well-posedness and attractor results still go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For small $\varepsilon$, solutions concentrate near the deterministic skeleton path, and the most likely rare excursion is the minimizer of the rate function $I$.
  • The Laplace-principle form of the large deviation principle gives asymptotic evaluations of expectations such as $\mathbb{E}[\exp(-h(u^\varepsilon)/\varepsilon)]$, which are the quantitative objects used in filtering and rare-event simulation.
  • Exponential tightness follows from the goodness of the rate function, so the laws of $u^\varepsilon$ have compact sublevel sets on $D([0,T];H)$.
  • In the autonomous case, the unique invariant measure and ergodicity justify long-time averages along a single trajectory as estimators of invariant statistics.
  • The fractional stochastic Chafee-Infante equation is covered by the assumptions, so the LDP applies to a standard bistable reaction-diffusion model with nonlocal diffusion and jumps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The minimizers of $I$, which the paper does not compute, would give the most probable transition pathways between metastable states of the fractional Chafee-Infante model; computing them numerically is a natural next step.
  • The well-posedness, attractor, and invariant-measure results do not require the exponential integrability condition behind the LDP, so the two halves of the paper stand or fall independently.
  • A testable extension would replace the bounded domain $O$ by an unbounded one; the present proof relies on compact embeddings that depend on boundedness, so a localization argument would be needed.
  • The heavy-tailed case, where Condition 6.5 fails, is left open; large deviations for such jumps may exist under a different scaling or with a different rate, but the paper gives no prediction.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a family of fractional stochastic partial differential equations with polynomial drift, multiplicative Brownian noise, and Lévy noise on a bounded domain. It claims (i) global well-posedness via iterative approximations and energy estimates, (ii) existence and uniqueness of weak pullback mean random attractors for a non-autonomous version, (iii) existence, uniqueness, and ergodicity of invariant measures in the autonomous case, and (iv) a large deviation principle for the small-noise equation (6.1) with rate function defined by a deterministic skeleton equation. The main advertised novelty is the large deviation result, obtained through the Budhiraja–Dupuis–Maroulas variational representation and the weak convergence approach.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a substantial contribution: it appears to be the first large deviation treatment for fractional SPDEs driven by Lévy noise, and it combines well-posedness, attractor theory, and invariant measures in one framework. The rate function is defined through a skeleton equation that is solved independently by Galerkin approximation (Theorem 6.13), so the LDP is not circular. The paper also contains many explicit energy estimates and follows a recognizable, mostly standard proof architecture. However, several load-bearing technical steps are not currently justified, in particular an incomplete Itô formula in the proof of the key uniform estimate for the controlled process and a topological mismatch in the statement of the main LDP theorem.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A.1, Eq. (8.1)] The Itô formula displayed in (8.1) is incomplete for the controlled equation (6.58). The jump term in (6.58) has jump size εh, so Itô's formula must contain the purely discontinuous quadratic-variation martingale ε²∫∫|h|²(N^{ε^{-1}φε}−ε^{-1}φελ)(dsdξ). Equation (8.1) keeps only the compensator part ε∫∫|h|²φε λ, labelled J7. The Burkholder–Davis–Gundy estimates for J4 and J6 in (8.6)–(8.7) do not control the missing term; a BDG estimate for it would require a bound on E∫∫ε⁴|h|⁴N^{ε^{-1}φε} = ε³∫∫|h|⁴φε λ, which is not implied by Condition 6.5 as stated. Since (6.60) is the key uniform estimate used in Lemma 6.18 and then in Theorem 6.22 to verify Condition 6.1(b), the proof of the LDP Theorem 6.14 is incomplete as written.
  2. [Section 5.3, Eq. (5.14)] The inequality (5.14) is not what Itô's formula applied to e^{βt}|z^m(t)|² gives. The drift contributions −2∫e^{βs}(Az^m,z^m)ds and −2∫e^{βs}(F(u^m)−F(v^m),z^m)ds are omitted. The second term is controlled from below using (F3), and its omission materially changes the algebraic cancellation in the displayed estimate. Consequently Lemma 5.6, the exponential contraction used in Theorem 5.7, is not proved by the computation shown. The claimed contraction may still be true and repairable, but the current proof is invalid.
  3. [Section 6 and Theorem 6.14] There is a topological mismatch in the main LDP statement. At the start of Section 6 the paper says that D([0,T];E) is endowed with the Skorokhod topology, while Theorem 6.14 states a large deviation principle on D([0,T];H) 'with respect to the topology of uniform convergence'. These are different topologies, and D with the uniform topology is not a Polish space, so the Polish-space criterion Theorem 6.2 cannot be invoked directly for the uniform topology. The verification of Condition 6.1(b) in Theorem 6.22 produces tightness and convergence in D([0,T];D(A^{-r})) and identifies limits after removing the Y^ε correction; the passage to convergence in D([0,T];H) with the uniform topology is not justified, and the jump size εh does not obviously vanish uniformly under the stated hypotheses.
  4. [Section 5.3, Theorem 5.7] The uniqueness-of-invariant-measure argument in Theorem 5.7 requires finiteness of ∬E|u0−v0| μ(du0) μ̃(dv0). No proof is given that arbitrary invariant measures have finite first or second moments. Lemma 5.4 provides estimates for deterministic initial data in H, but these do not directly imply moment bounds for an arbitrary invariant measure; the Krylov–Bogolyubov measure constructed in Theorem 5.5 has such bounds, but the comparison in Theorem 5.7 is made for general invariant measures. An additional moment argument is needed before the conclusion is fully justified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 6.18] The statement of Lemma 6.18 assumes only (F1)–(F3), (g1)–(g3), and Condition 6.4, but the proof invokes Lemma 6.7 and the constants C^{Υ}_{0,1}, C^{Υ}_{0,2}, which require Condition 6.5. Condition 6.5 should be added to the hypothesis of Lemma 6.18, or the proof should be rewritten without it.
  2. [Section 7] Condition 6.5, which drives the entire LDP estimate, is never verified for the fractional stochastic Chafee–Infante example. The example only says that the same assumptions are made; since Condition 6.5 is a restrictive exponential-integrability condition, at least a representative family of coefficients h should be shown to satisfy it.
  3. [Section 2.3] The phrase 'large derivation' appears in the sentence on the equivalence between Laplace and large deviation bounds; it should read 'large deviation'.
  4. [Equation (3.7)] In the expectation of the jump quadratic-variation term, E∫∫|h|²N(ds,dξ) equals E∫∫|h|²λ(dξ)ds; keeping the N notation is harmless but should be clarified, since the subsequent bound uses the compensator.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LDP is built on the external Budhiraja–Dupuis–Maroulas variational framework and an independently solved deterministic skeleton, with self-citations only in routine technical roles.

full rationale

The central LDP Theorem 6.14 is not circular: the rate function I is defined through G0, which is the solution of the deterministic controlled skeleton equation (6.11), proved independently by Galerkin approximation in Theorem 6.13. Condition 6.1 is then verified by Proposition 6.15 and Theorem 6.22, with compactness supplied by Lemmas 6.18 and 6.20; these are substantive analytic estimates, not restatements of the desired LDP. The large-deviation criterion itself is imported from the external, published framework of Budhiraja–Dupuis–Maroulas [9, Theorem 4.2], and the exponential-integrability machinery used for the Poisson component is taken from Zhai–Zhang [55]. The attractor and invariant-measure blocks rely on external results (Wang [48], Da Prato–Zabczyk [18, Theorem 3.2.6], Krylov–Bogolyubov). The self-citations present, e.g. [11] for an Itô formula and [51]-[53] for comparison or convergence arguments, are routine and non-load-bearing: none is invoked to forbid alternative constructions or to define the rate function. The reviewer-flagged omission of a pure-jump quadratic-variation martingale in Appendix A.1, if valid, is a correctness gap in the uniform estimate (6.60), not a circularity: it does not make the LDP conclusion identical to an input or reduce the theorem to its own assumptions. Accordingly no circular step meets the evidentiary bar of quoting a specific reduction.

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

The paper's central claims rest on two imports: the spectral and Sobolev theory of the fractional Laplacian (from [36] and [46]) and the variational LDP machinery (from [9], [10], [55]). The paper-specific inputs are structural assumptions on the nonlinearities: dissipativity of the polynomial drift, Lipschitz growth of the noise coefficients, and the exponential integrability Condition 6.5 for the jump coefficient. Only δ is a hand-tuned scalar with explicit thresholds; the other constants come from assumptions or standard theorems. No invented entities are introduced; the rate function I is the standard variational rate. The heaviest unverified input is Condition 6.5, which is plausible for bounded jump coefficients but is not instantiated by the example.

free parameters (2)
  • δ (dissipativity shift) = hand-chosen, subject to 2δ > C_g + C_h (Lemma 4.1) and 2δ > 2k_4 + α_1 + α_2 (Lemma 5.6)
    Introduced in (2.4) via F = f − δu; it converts the polynomial nonlinearity into a dissipative one and its size is a modeling choice, not fitted to data. All long-time and ergodicity results depend on these thresholds.
  • Exponential integrability exponents δ_0^1, δ_1^1 in Condition 6.5 = existential, required to be positive and finite
    Postulated in Section 6.4 for the jump coefficient h; Lemma 6.7 and the LDP uniform bounds are not available without them. They are assumptions rather than fitted constants.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A compactly invertible operator A built from (−∆)^γ with zero exterior condition has an eigenbasis of H with eigenvalues 0 < δ < λ_1 ≤ λ_2 → ∞ (Hilbert-Schmidt theorem), cited from [46].
    Cited from [46] and used in every section: orthonormal basis in Theorem 3.2, compactness of the absorbing set in Lemma 4.2, spectral tightness in Lemma 6.20. Not proved in the paper.
  • standard math Sobolev embedding and compactness: V ⊂⊂ H, H^γ(O) ⊂⊂ L^2(O), and V ⊂ L^{p+1}(O) for p+1 ∈ (2, 2d/(d−2γ)] with 2γ < d.
    Used for tightness of the Krylov-Bogolyubov measures (Theorem 5.5), for the LDP skeleton equation (Theorem 6.13), and for the compactness lemma 6.10; cited from [36, Theorem 6.7] and [46, Lemma 2.1].
  • standard math Budhiraja-Dupuis-Maroulas variational representation and the criterion that Condition 6.1 implies the Laplace principle/LDP (Theorems 6.2 and 6.3).
    Taken as a black box from [9] and [10]; the entire Section 6 is built on it, and the rate function I is defined through this representation.
  • ad hoc to paper Condition 6.5: exponential integrability of ‖h(s,ξ)‖²_{i,H} for i = 0,1 on every set of finite λ_T-measure, plus the growth and Lipschitz Conditions 6.4.
    Ad hoc hypotheses introduced in Section 6.4 to make Lemma 6.7 and the LDP uniform estimates work; never verified for a concrete h, including the Section 7 example.
  • domain assumption The noise is integrable in the right spaces: g takes values in Hilbert-Schmidt operators L²(U;H) and h returns H under (g1)-(g3), (h1)-(h3), with W and Ñ independent.
    Required for the stochastic integrals and the Itô formula in Sections 2.2 and 3; these are domain assumptions on the model, standard in SPDE theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics and large deviations for fractional stochastic partial differential equations with L\'evy noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZTQT2EM7

@misc{pith2026250114843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics and large deviations for fractional stochastic partial differential equations with L\'evy noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZTQT2EM7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14843}
}
abstract

This paper is mainly concerned with a kind of fractional stochastic evolution equations driven by L\'evy noise in a bounded domain. We first state the well-posedness of the problem via iterative approximations and energy estimates. Then, the existence and uniqueness of weak pullback mean random attractors for the equations {are} established by defining a mean random dynamical system. Next, we prove the existence of invariant measures when the problem is autonomous by means of the fact that $H^\gamma(\mathcal{O})$ is compactly embedded in $L^2(\mathcal{O})$ with $\gamma\in (0,1)$. Moreover, the uniqueness of this invariant measure is presented which ensures the ergodicity of the problem. Finally, a large deviation principle result for solutions of SPDEs perturbed by small L\'evy noise and Brownian motion is obtained by a variational formula for positive functionals of a Poisson random measure and Brownian motion. Additionally, the results are illustrated by the fractional stochastic Chafee-Infante equations

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. Abe, S. Thurner, Anomalous diffusion in view of Einste ins 1905 theory of Brownian motion, Physica A, 356 (2005), 403-407

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Aldous, Stopping times and tightness, Ann

    D. Aldous, Stopping times and tightness, Ann. Probab., 6 (1978), 335-340

    work page 1978

  3. [3]

    N. T. Bao, T. Caraballo, N. H. Tuan, Y . Zhou, Existence and regularity results for terminal value problem for nonlinear fractional wave equations, Nonlinearity, 34 (20 21), 1448-1503

    work page

  4. [4]

    M. Boué, P . Dupuis, A variational representation for cer tain functionals of Brownian motion, Ann. Probab., 26 (1998), 1641-1659

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Bre´ zniak, W

    Z. Bre´ zniak, W . Liu, J. H. Zhu, Strong solutions for SPDE with locally monotone coefficients driven by Lévy noise, Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl., 27 (2014), 283-310

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Brze´ zniak, B

    Z. Brze´ zniak, B. Goldys, K. N. Le, Existence of a unique s olution and invariant measures for the stochastic Landau-Lifshitz-Bloch equation, J. Differential Equatio ns, 269 (2020), 9471-9507

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Budhiraja, P

    A. Budhiraja, P . Dupuis, A variational representation f or positive functional of infinite dimensional Brownian motions, Probab. Math. Statist., 20 (2000), 39-61

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Budhiraja, P

    A. Budhiraja, P . Dupuis, V . Maroulas, Large deviations f or infinite dimensional stochastic dynamical systems, Ann. Probab., 36 (2008),1390-1420

    work page 2008

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Budhiraja, P

    A. Budhiraja, P . Dupuis, V . Maroulas, V ariational repre sentations for continuous time processes, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré, Probab. Stat., 47 (2011), 725-747

    2011

  2. [10]

    Budhiraja, J

    A. Budhiraja, J. Chen, P . Dupuis, Large deviations for s tochastic partial differential equations driven by a Poisson random measure, Stochastic Processes Appl., 123 (2 013), 523-560

  3. [11]

    Caraballo, Asymptotic exponential stability of sto chastic partial differential equations with delay, Stochastics Stochastic Rep., 33 (1990), 27-47

    T. Caraballo, Asymptotic exponential stability of sto chastic partial differential equations with delay, Stochastics Stochastic Rep., 33 (1990), 27-47

    1990

  4. [12]

    P . Y . Chen, R. H. Wang, X. P . Zhang, Long-time dynamics of fractional nonclassical diffusion equations with nonlieanr colored noise and delay on unbounded domains, Bul l. Sci. Math., 173 (2021), 103071, 52 pp

    2021

  5. [13]

    Y . Chen, H. J. Gao, Well-posedness and large deviations for a class of SPDEs with Lévy noise, J. Differential Equations, 263 (2017), 5216-5252

    2017

  6. [14]

    Z. Chen, B. X. Wang, Invariant measure of fractional sto chastic delay reaction-diffusion equations on un- bounded domains, Nonlinearity, 34 (2021), 3969-4016

    2021

  7. [15]

    P . L. Chow, R. Z. Khasminskii, Stationary solutions of n onlinear stochastic evolution equations, Stoch. Anal. Appl., 15 (1997), 671-699

    1997

  8. [16]

    J. Cyr, P . Nguyen, S. S. Tang, R. Temam, Review of local an d global existence results for stochastic PDES with Lévy noise, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser., 40 (2020), 563 9-5710

    2020

  9. [17]

    Da Prato, J

    G. Da Prato, J. Zabczyk, Stochastic Equations in Infinit e Dimensions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992

    1992

  10. [18]

    Da Prato, J

    G. Da Prato, J. Zabczyk, Ergodicity for Infinite Dimensi onal Systems, In Mathematical Society Lecture Notes, V ol. 229. London: Cambridge University press, 1996

    1996

  11. [19]

    Da Prato, D

    G. Da Prato, D. G. Gatarek, J. Zabczyk, Invariant measur es for semilinear stochastic equations, Stoch. Anal. Appl., 10 (1992), 387-408

    1992

  12. [20]

    C. G. Gal, M. Warma, Reaction-diffusion equations with fractional diffusion on non-smooth domains with various boundary conditions, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 36 (2016), 1279-1319

    2016

  13. [21]

    Flandoli, D

    F. Flandoli, D. Gatarek, Martingale and stationary sol utions for stochastic Navier-Stokes equations, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields., 102 (1995), 367-391

    1995

  14. [22]

    Q. Y . Guan, Z. M. Ma, Boundary problems for fractional La placians, Stoch. Dyn., 5 (2005), 385-424

    2005

  15. [23]

    Q. Y . Guan, Z. M. Ma, Reflected symmetric α-stable processes and regional fractional Laplacian, Prob ab. The- ory Related Fields, 134 (2006),649-694. 40

    2006

  16. [24]

    A. H. Gu, D. S. Li, B. X. Wang, H. Y ang, regularity of rando m attractors for fractional stochastic reaction- diffusion equations on Rn, J. Differential Equations, 264 (2018), 7094-7137

    2018

  17. [25]

    Ikeda, S

    N. Ikeda, S. Watanabe, Stochastic Differential Equati ons and Diffusion Processes, North-Holland Mathematical Library 24, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1981

    1981

  18. [26]

    Jacod, A

    J. Jacod, A. N. Shiryaev, Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes, Springer, Berlin, 1987

    1987

  19. [27]

    Jakubowski, On the Skorokhod topology, Ann

    A. Jakubowski, On the Skorokhod topology, Ann. Inst. He nri Poincaré Probab. Stat., 22 (1986), 263-285

    1986

  20. [28]

    Kallianpur, J

    G. Kallianpur, J. Xiong, Stochastic Differential Equa tions in Infinite Dimensional Spaces, in: Lecture Notes- Monograph Series, vol. 26, Institute of Mathematical Stati stics, 1995

    1995

  21. [29]

    Lions, Quelques Méthodes de Résolution des Probl èmes aux Limites Non Linéaires, Paris: Dunod, 1969

    J.-L. Lions, Quelques Méthodes de Résolution des Probl èmes aux Limites Non Linéaires, Paris: Dunod, 1969

    1969

  22. [30]

    Y . L. Li, Y . C. Xie, X. C. Zhang, Large deviation principl e for stochastic heat equation with memory, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser., 35 (2015), 5221-5237

    2015

  23. [31]

    H. Lu, P . W . Bates, J. Xin, M. J. Zhang, Asymptotic behavior of stochastic fractional power dissipative equations on Rn, Nonlinear Anal. TMA, 128 (2015), 176-198

    2015

  24. [32]

    Y . J. Li, Y . J. Wang, W . H. Deng, Galerkin finite element ap proximations for stochastic space-time fractional wave equations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 55 (2017), 3173-3202

    2017

  25. [33]

    Manna, S

    U. Manna, S. S. Sritharan, P . Sundar, Large deviations f or the stochastic shell model of turbulence, Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl., 16 (2009), 493-521

    2009

  26. [34]

    M. T. Mohan, Deterministic and stochastic equations of motion arising in Oldroyd fluids of order one: existence, uniqueness, exponential stability and invariant measures , Stoch. Anal. Appl., 38 (2020), 1-61

    2020

  27. [35]

    M. T. Mohan, Stochastic convective Brinkman-Forchhei mer equations, arXiv:2007.09376v1

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Di Nezza, G

    E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, E. V aldionci, Hitchiker’s gu ide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math, 136 (2012), 521-573

    2012

  29. [37]

    Penland, B

    C. Penland, B. D. Ewald, On modelling physical systems w ith stochastic models: diffusion versus Lévy pro- cesses, Phil. Trans. R. Sco. A, 366 (2008), 2457-2476

    2008

  30. [38]

    Riedle, Large deviation for stochastic heat equatio ns with memory driven by Lévy-type noise, Discrete Contin

    M. Riedle, Large deviation for stochastic heat equatio ns with memory driven by Lévy-type noise, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser., 38 (2018), 1983-2005

    2018

  31. [39]

    Röckner, T

    M. Röckner, T. Zhang, Stochastic evolution equations o f jump type: Existence, uniqueness and large deviation principles, Potential Anal., 26 (2007), 255-279

    2007

  32. [40]

    Ros-Oton, J

    X. Ros-Oton, J. Serra, The Dirichlet problem for the fra ctional Laplacian: regularity up the boundary, J. Math. Pures Appl., 101 (2014), 275-302

    2014

  33. [41]

    Servadei, E

    R. Servadei, E. V aldinoci, V ariational methods for non -local operators of elliptic type, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 33 (2013), 2105-2137

    2013

  34. [42]

    Servadei, E

    R. Servadei, E. V aldinoci, On the spectrum of two differ ent fractional operators, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A, 144 (2014), 831-855

    2014

  35. [43]

    Temam, Navier-Stokes Equations: Theory and Numeric al Analysis, Revised ed

    R. Temam, Navier-Stokes Equations: Theory and Numeric al Analysis, Revised ed. Studies in Mathematics and Its Applications 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979

    1979

  36. [44]

    N. H. Tuan, T. Caraballo, On initial and terminal value p roblems for fractional nonclassical diffusion equations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 149 (2021), 143-161

    2021

  37. [45]

    N. A. Tuan, T. Caraballo, N. H. Tuan, On the initial value problem for a class of nonlinear biharmonic equation with time-fractional derivative, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburg h Sect. A, 152 (2022), 989-1031

    2022

  38. [46]

    B. X. Wang, Asymptotic behavior of non-autonomous frac tional stochastic reaction-diffusion equations, Non- linear Anal., 158 (2017), 60-82

    2017

  39. [47]

    B. X. Wang, Dynamics of fractional stochastic reaction -diffusion equations on unbounded domains driven by nonlinear noise, J. Differential Equations, 268 (2019), 1- 59

    2019

  40. [48]

    B. X. Wang, Weak pullback attractors for mean random dyn amical systems in Bochner spaces, J. Dynam. Differential Equations, 31 (2019), 2177-2204

    2019

  41. [49]

    R. H. Wang, Y . R. Li, B. X. Wang, Bi-spatial pullback attr actors of fractional nonclassical diffusion equations on unbounded domains with (p,q )− growth nonlinearities, Appl. Math. Optim., 84 (2021), 425- 461

    2021

  42. [50]

    R. H. Wang, L. Shi, B. X. Wang, Asymptotic behavior of fra ctional nonclassical diffusion equations driven by nonlinear colored noise on RN , Nonlinearity, 32 (2019), 4524-4556. 41

    2019

  43. [51]

    J. H. Xu, T. Caraballo, Long Time Behavior of Stochastic Nonlocal Partial Differential Equations and Wong- Zakai Approximations, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 54 (2022), 2792-2 844

    2022

  44. [52]

    J. H. Xu, Z. C. Zhang, T. Caraballo, Non-autonomous nonl ocal partial differential equations with delay and memory, J. Differential Equations, 270 (2021), 505-546

    2021

  45. [53]

    J. H. Xu, Z. C. Zhang, T. Caraballo, Mild Solutions to Tim e Fractional Stochastic 2D-Stokes Equations with Bounded and Unbounded Delay, J. Dynam. Differential Equati ons, 34 (2022), 583-603

    2022

  46. [54]

    Y ang, J

    X. Y ang, J. L. Zhai, T. S. Zhang, Large deviations for SPD Es of jump type, Stoch. Dynam., 15 (2015), 1550026

    2015

  47. [55]

    J. L. Zhai, T. S. Zhang, Large derivation for 2-D Stochas tic Navier-Stokes equations driven by multiplicative Lévy noises, Bernoulli, 21 (2015), 2351-2392

    2015

  48. [56]

    X. C. Zhang, Clark-Ocone formula and variational repre sentation for Poisson functionals, Ann. Probab., 37 (2009), 506-529. 42

    2009

Pith tools

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