Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Harmonic problems arising from continuous time random walks limit processes

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs a universal harmonic-problem framework for the governing equations of continuous time random walk limits, and proves existence and uniqueness of the equation for Feller processes time-changed by the overshoot of a subordinator.

desk verdict A genuinely new governing equation for the overshooting CTRW limit, with a real uniqueness gap on non-compact state spaces; worth refereeing but needs a fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14550 v1 pith:EXT555WH submitted 2025-05-20 math.PR

Ivan Biočić , Bruno Toaldo This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR
keywords methodprocessprocessestimewell-posednesscasecontinuousequation
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

Many physical systems are modeled as random walks in which the particle waits a random time between jumps. When both the waiting times and the jumps can be heavy-tailed, the scale limits of these walks are Markov processes whose clock is a random, non-linear function of time. Physicists want the partial differential equation that such a limit process obeys, but deriving it is usually done case by case, and several coupled cases were open. The paper's idea is to attach to the limit process a second, auxiliary Markov process in which the time coordinate runs backward and is frozen when it reaches zero. The generator of that auxiliary process is then a candidate operator A, and the desired evolution equation takes the form of a harmonic problem: A q = 0 inside the domain, with q = u prescribed at the time boundary. The paper packages this as a 'universal method', while admitting that proving the problem is well posed must be done separately for each class of processes. For the case where the spatial motion is a Feller process subordinated by a subordinator, and the time change is the overshoot of the subordinator, the paper proves a precise theorem: the function q(x,t) given by the expected value of u at the overshoot time is the unique continuous solution of A q = 0, provided the subordinator satisfies an assumption (S), meaning no drift, infinite activity, a special Bernstein function with a log-integrability condition. The proof is a Laplace-transform verification, and uniqueness comes from a positive maximum principle. The final section shows the same framework reproduces known fractional kinetic and coupled equations.
Extended reading notes

Core claim

The load-bearing assertion is Theorem 4.2. With u in D(G) and assumption (S): 'a solution to (4.1) is given by q(x,t) = E(x,0)[u(M_Dt)], t >= 0. Furthermore, this is the unique solution such that q(x,t) is jointly continuous in E x [0, +inf) and lim_{t to +inf} q(x,t) = 0, for all x in E', where A+ in (4.1) is the non-local coupled operator A+q(x,t) = integral over s >= 0 of (P_s q(x, t-s) 1_{s<t} + 1_{s>=t} P_s q(x,0) - q(x,t)) nu(ds). If correct, this establishes a well-posed governing evolution equation for the overshooting CTRW limit process, and the framework claim in the abstract, that the harmonic problem associated with the constructed operator represents an evolution governing equation, holds rigorously in this case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the regularity and potential-theoretic machinery encoded in assumption (S). Lemma 4.3(c) asserts that q(x, .) is absolutely continuous with the bound |d_t q(.,t)| <= C u_phi(t), its proof delegated to the companion preprint [6, Prop. 5.4] and relying on the log-integrability of the potential density u_phi. Equation (4.18), namely integral_0^t u_phi(t-h) nu(h, inf) dh = 1, equivalently the convolution of the potential and Levy measures being Lebesgue measure, a driftless-subordinator fact, is what makes the Laplace transform of A+q cancel to zero. If these estimates or identities fail, the existence part of Theorem 4.2 collapses. A further premise, cited to [57, Prop. 11.16] but not quoted, is that special Bernstein functions have positive Levy tail at every level, which the uniqueness argument needs. These are structurally distinct from the claim itself: they are the estimates and identities that make the verification go through.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a systematic method for identifying governing evolution equations of continuous-time random walk (CTRW) limit processes. For a Feller process M on a locally compact separable metric space E and an independent subordinator σ, the authors consider the time-changed process M_{D_t}, where D_t is the overshoot of σ at time t. They construct an auxiliary Markov process Z^+ whose generator A^+ acts jointly on space and time, and they propose that the generalized harmonic problem A^+ q = 0, q(x,0)=u(x), is solved by q(x,t)=E[u(M_{D_t})]. The main theorem (Theorem 4.2) claims existence and uniqueness of such a solution under assumption (S) and u∈D(G). The proof uses a Laplace-transform verification of A^+ q = 0, relying on the potential density u_φ of the subordinator and the renewal-type identity (4.18), together with a maximum-principle argument for uniqueness. The paper also sketches applications to uncoupled CTRWs, space-dependent CTRWs, and the undershoot process, showing how the method recovers known fractional kinetic equations.

Significance. If Theorem 4.2 is correct, the paper offers a rigorous and fairly general answer to the question of the governing evolution equation for overshooting CTRW limit processes, a case for which such an equation was not previously available. The derivation of A^+ via the auxiliary process Z^+ is transparent and conceptually appealing, and the Laplace-transform verification of the harmonic property is explicit, algebraic, and uses only standard resolvent and renewal identities. The authors are honest that well-posedness must be established case by case, and the example section successfully unifies several known approaches. The main shortcomings are concentrated in the proof of uniqueness, whose stated generality currently exceeds what the arguments actually establish, and in the delegation of a key regularity estimate to an unpublished preprint. These gaps are local and likely fixable, so the contribution is a solid basis for a publishable paper after revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, step (iv) and Proposition 4.4] The uniqueness proof assumes without loss of generality that the difference q̄ = q − q2 attains a positive supremum at some (x⋆, t⋆). On a non-compact locally compact space E, a jointly continuous function with q̄(·,0)=0 and lim_{t→∞} q̄(x,t)=0 need not attain its supremum; for example, f(x,t) = (e^{−t} − e^{−2t})(1 − e^{−x^2}) on E = R × [0,∞) has supremum 1/4, which is not attained. The subsequent argument that A^+ q̄(x⋆,t⋆) < 0 requires an actual maximizer, since with a maximizing sequence (x_n,t_n) the negative term −q̄(x_n,t_n) ν̄(t_n) can vanish in the limit when t_n → ∞. Thus the uniqueness half of Theorem 4.2 is not proved for general locally compact E, and the abstract's 'general Polish space' claim is stronger than the proof supports.
  2. [Section 4.1, step (iv) and Proposition 4.4, last display] The strict inequality in the maximum principle relies on ν[t⋆,∞) > 0, which the text attributes to [57, Proposition 11.16] for special Bernstein functions. That proposition is not quoted, and it is not apparent that it states this; in fact, special Bernstein functions can have Lévy measures with bounded support (e.g. a stable-like density truncated near infinity), for which the tail ν(t⋆,∞) vanishes for large t⋆. If ν[t⋆,∞)=0, the displayed inequality becomes ≤ 0 and no contradiction is obtained. The authors should either prove the tail positivity from assumption (S), add an explicit assumption such as ν(a,∞)>0 for all a>0 and verify that all examples in Section 5 satisfy it, or replace the maximum-principle argument with one that does not require positivity of the tail at the maximizing point.
  3. [Appendix A.2, proof of Lemma 4.3(c)] Lemma 4.3(c) is load-bearing for the existence proof: the bound |∂_t q(.,t)| ≤ C(||u|| + ||Gu||) u_φ(t) is used in the J2 term of A^+ q, equations (4.14)–(4.17), to show convergence and Laplace transformability. However, the proof in Appendix A.2 is not self-contained: the key bound (A.20)–(A.22) is asserted to follow 'by the same calculations as in [6] (see, in particular, [6, p. 17-18])', and the uniform-integrability step is justified 'in the very same way as [6, top of page 18]'. Here [6] is an unpublished preprint (arXiv:2412.14956). Given that this estimate underpins the central theorem, the manuscript should either provide a complete proof of Lemma 4.3(c) or, at minimum, ensure the preprint is publicly available and the relevant arguments are fully reproduced so that the present paper is self-contained.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (5.2)] The term 'γ(t) f(x,t) ∂_t f(x,t)' appears to be a typo; it should likely read 'γ(t) ∂_t f(x,t)'.
  2. [Section 4.1, uniqueness proof] After defining q̄ = q − q2, the text writes 'Assume thatq = q−q2' with a missing overline on the first q; this makes the sentence grammatically incomplete.
  3. [Equations (4.25)–(4.26)] The sentence 'Note that in the third equality we used Fubini’s theorem' refers to a display containing only two equalities; the numbering should be corrected.
  4. [Lemma A.1(a)] The constant C(ϕ) in the estimate (A.7) is not defined; it should be explicitly given, for example as b + ∫_0^∞ (1 ∧ s) ν(ds).
  5. [Reference [6]] The paper depends on [6] in a load-bearing way for Lemma 4.3(c); if the manuscript is published before [6] appears, this dependence should be flagged in the text, and ideally the relevant arguments should be reproduced in an appendix.
  6. [Abstract] The word 'universal' is strong, given that the paper itself states that well-posedness must be established case by case; consider softening to 'general' or 'systematic'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained modulo a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation in a technical regularity lemma.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is Theorem 4.2: with u in D(G) and assumption (S), q(x,t)=E(x,0)[u(M_Dt)] solves (4.1) and is the unique solution in a stated class. The operator A+ is not fitted to q; it is derived in Lemma 3.3 as the generator of the auxiliary process Z+ via subordination and Phillips' theorem, with transition kernel (3.16). The existence proof is a direct Laplace-transform verification: it computes the Laplace transform of A+q using the overshoot density (3.22), the renewal identity (4.18), and the resolvent representation (λI−G)^{-1}=∫e^{-λv}P_v dv, all quoted from external sources ([14], [57]). No parameter is fitted and no prediction reduces to an input by construction. The only self-citation is in Lemma 4.3(c), whose proof says it 'can be done in a similar way as in [6, Proposition 5.4]'; however, the appendix reproduces the crucial steps, and the lemma is a technical regularity estimate, not the main theorem. The uniqueness argument's 'without loss of generality' assumption that the difference of two solutions attains its supremum is a genuine mathematical gap on non-compact E, but that is a correctness concern, not circularity. The paper is otherwise self-contained against external renewal and Bernstein-function results, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

This is pure mathematics with no data or fitted constants. The ledger lists the background results: standard subordination theory (Phillips' theorem), renewal identities for driftless subordinators, the overshoot density formula, the limit identification of CTRW scaling limits (extended from Levy to Feller by assertion), the scope assumption (S), and two front-loaded results whose proofs are delegated or only quoted: Lemma 4.3(c), imported from the companion preprint [6], and the special-Bernstein strict-tail property cited to [57, Prop. 11.16].

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption CTRW scaling limits converge as in (2.5)-(2.7) via [62, Theorem 3.6], whose proof the authors assert extends from Levy processes to general Feller processes with strictly increasing unbounded second coordinate.
    Section 2.1, eqs. (2.5)-(2.7) and footnote 1; the Feller extension is asserted, not proved.
  • domain assumption Assumption (S): phi is a special Bernstein function, b = 0, nu(0, inf) = inf, and integral_0^1 |log t| u_phi(t) dt < inf.
    Section 3, after Lemma 3.3; defines the scope of Theorem 4.2 and is used for the overshoot density (3.22) and the bounds in Lemma 4.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Regularity estimate Lemma 4.3(c): q(x, .) is absolutely continuous with |d_t q(.,t)| <= C(||u|| + ||Gu||) u_phi(t) a.e.; proof sketched and delegated to [6, Proposition 5.4].
    Appendix A.2; load-bearing for existence in Theorem 4.2 through the boundedness of J2 and the Laplace-free inversion in Step (iii).
  • standard math Renewal identity: for a driftless subordinator, U * nu = Lebesgue measure on (0, inf), equivalently integral_0^t u_phi(t-h) nu(h, inf) dh = 1.
    Eqs. (4.18) and (4.29)-(4.32); used in the cancellation that proves the Laplace transform of A+q is zero; follows from the Laplace transforms of U and nu.
  • standard math Overshoot density formula: P(D_t in ds) = integral_0^t nu(ds-h) U(dh) for s > t, with no atom at {t} since b = 0.
    Eq. (3.22), cited to [14, Chapter III]; used to compute the Laplace transform q-hat(lambda) in (4.22)-(4.24).
  • standard math Special Bernstein functions have Levy measure with positive mass in every tail: for every t*, some [a,b] subset of [t*, inf) has nu[a,b] > 0, and the potential density is non-increasing.
    Theorem 4.2 uniqueness step and Proposition 4.4, cited to [57, Proposition 11.16]; the content is not quoted and is not an obvious consequence of the stated (S).
  • standard math Phillips' theorem and Bochner subordination: the generator of a subordinated Feller process is bL + integral (P_s - I) nu(ds), with core preservation properties as in Lemma A.1.
    Lemmas 3.2, 3.3, and A.1, citing [57, Propositions 13.1 and 13.6].
invented entities (1)
  • Auxiliary Markov processes tZ+, tZ-, Z+, Z- (reversed, frozen-clock processes) independent evidence
    purpose: Built from the CTRW limit (A_u, sigma_u) by reversing the time coordinate and freezing it at zero, so that the value function at the stopping time tau_0 reproduces the CTRW limit marginals E u(A_{L_t}) and E u(A_{L_t-}); their generators are the candidates for the governing operators A+ and A-.
    These are mathematical constructions proved to exist in Theorem 2.1 and Proposition 2.2; they introduce no physical postulates, and their defining transition kernels (2.10)-(2.11), (2.24), (2.27) are given explicitly, so they carry their evidence inside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Harmonic problems arising from continuous time random walks limit processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EXT555WH

@misc{pith2026250514550,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Harmonic problems arising from continuous time random walks limit processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EXT555WH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14550}
}
abstract

In this paper, we develop a universal method that identifies the (non-local) governing evolution equations for Continuous Time Random Walks' (CTRWs) limit processes. Given one of these processes, our method provides the form of a non-local operator, acting on space and time variables jointly, such that the (generalized) harmonic problem associated with it represents an evolution governing equation for this process. Then, the well-posedness of this problem must be established case by case. In this paper, we establish well-posedness when the process is a Feller process (on a general Polish space $E$) time-changed with the overshooting of a subordinator. Also, we will show how our method applies to several cases when the equation and its well-posedness are already known, hence unifying several different approaches in the literature.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Modelling Anomalous Diffusion: The Role of CTRWs and Non-Local Dynamics

    math.PR 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    CTRW scaling limits are semi-Markov time-changed processes whose laws solve general non-local evolution equations, with new pointwise theory for killed subordinate Brownian motion on domains.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [6]

    Time-changed Markov processes and space-time coupled non-local equations

    G. Ascione, E. Scalas, B. Toaldo, and L. Torricelli. Time-changed Markov processes and coupled non-local equations. arXiv:2412.14956, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Applebaum

    D. Applebaum. L´ evy processes and stochastic calculus. Cambridge University Press, New York, second edition, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    Applebaum

    D. Applebaum. Semigroups of linear operators . Cambridge University Press, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Arendt, C

    W. Arendt, C. J. K. Batty, M. Hieber, and F. Neubrander. Vector-valued Laplace Transforms and Cauchy Problems , volume 96. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [4]

    Ascione, N

    G. Ascione, N. Leonenko, and E. Pirozzi. Time-non-local pearson diffusions. Journal of Statistical Physics , 183(3):48, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Ascione, M

    G. Ascione, M. Savov, and B. Toaldo. Regularity and asymptotics of densities of inverse subordinators. Transactions of the London Mathematical Society , 11(1):e70004, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Athanasopoulos, L

    I. Athanasopoulos, L. Caffarelli, and E. Milakis. On the regularity of the non-dynamic parabolic fractional obstacle problem. Journal of Differential Equations, 265(6):2614–2647, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Baeumer and M

    B. Baeumer and M. M. Meerschaert. Stochastic solutions for fractional Cauchy problems. Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis , 4:481–800, 2001

    work page 2001

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Baeumer and P

    B. Baeumer and P. Straka. Fokker–Planck and Kolmogorov backward equa- tions for continuous time random walk scaling limits. Proceedings of the Amer- ican Mathematical Society, 145(1):399–412, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Barkai, Y

    E. Barkai, Y. Garini, and R. Metzler. Strange kinetics of single molecules in living cells. Physics Today, 65(8):29–35, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Barkai, R

    E. Barkai, R. Metzler, and J. Klafter. From continuous time random walks to the fractional Fokker-Planck equation. Physiscal Review E , 61:132–138, 2000

    2000

  4. [12]

    Becker-Kern, M

    P. Becker-Kern, M. M. Meerschaert, and H.-P. Scheffler. Limit theorems for coupled continuous time random walks.The Annals of Probability, 32(1B):730– 756, 2004

    2004

  5. [13]

    Berkowitz, A

    B. Berkowitz, A. Cortis, M. Dentz, and H. Scher. Modeling non-Fickian trans- port in geological formations as a continuous time random walk. Reviews of Geophysics, 44(2), 2006

    2006

  6. [14]

    J. Bertoin. L´ evy processes, volume 121. Cambridge University Press, 1996

    1996

  7. [15]

    J. Bertoin. Subordinators: examples and applications . Springer, Berlin, 1999

    1999

  8. [16]

    Bogdan, T

    K. Bogdan, T. Grzywny, K. Pietruska-Pa luba, and A. Rutkowski. Extension and trace for nonlocal operators. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Ap- pliqu´ ees. Neuvi` eme S´ erie, 137:33–69, 2020. 27

    2020

  9. [17]

    Bogdan and P

    K. Bogdan and P. Sztonyk. Estimates of the potential kernel and Har- nack’s inequality for the anisotropic fractional Laplacian. Studia Mathematica, 181(2):101–123, 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    B¨ ottcher, R

    B. B¨ ottcher, R. Schilling, and J. Wang. L´ evy matters. III, volume 2099 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    H. Brezis. Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations. Springer, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Caffarelli and L

    L. Caffarelli and L. Silvestre. H¨ older regularity for generalized master equa- tions with rough kernels. In Advances in analysis: the legacy of Elias M. Stein, volume 50 of Princeton Math. Ser., pages 63–83. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Capitanelli and M

    R. Capitanelli and M. D’Ovidio. Fractional equations via convergence of forms. Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis. An International Journal for Theory and Applications, 22(4):844–870, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    C ¸ inlar

    E. C ¸ inlar. Markov additive processes. I. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeits- theorie und Verwandte Gebiete , 24:85–93, 1972

    1972

  15. [23]

    Z.-Q. Chen. On notions of harmonicity. Proceedings of the American Mathe- matical Society, 137(10):3497–3510, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Z.-Q. Chen. Time fractional equations and probabilistic representation. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 102:168–174, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    L. C. Evans. Partial differential equations . American Mathematical Society, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    S. Fedotov. Non-Markovian random walks and nonlinear reactions: Subdiffu- sion and propagating fronts. Physical Review E , 81:011117, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Fedotov and A

    S. Fedotov and A. Iomin. Migration and proliferation dichotomy in tumor-cell invasion. Physical Review Letters, 98(11):118101, 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    Fedotov, N

    S. Fedotov, N. Korabel, T. A. Waigh, D. Han, and V. J. Allan. Memory effects and L´ evy walk dynamics in intracellular transport of cargoes.Physical Review E, 98:042136, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Fedotov and V

    S. Fedotov and V. M´ endez. Non-Markovian model for transport and reactions of particles in spiny dendrites. Physical Review Letters, 101:218102, 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    Ferreira and A

    R. Ferreira and A. de Pablo. Blow-up for a fully fractional heat equation. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems. Series A , 44(2):569–584, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    I. I. Gikhman and A. V. Skorokhod. The theory of stochastic processes II . Springer-Verlag, 1975

    1975

  24. [32]

    Gorenflo, F

    R. Gorenflo, F. Mainardi, D. Moretti, G. Pagnini, and P. Paradisi. Discrete random walk models for space–time fractional diffusion. Chemical Physics , 284(1):521–541, 2002

    2002

  25. [33]

    Harlamov

    B. Harlamov. Continuous semi-Markov processes. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    B. I. Henry, T. Langlands, and P. Straka. Fractional Fokker-Planck equations for subdiffusion with space-and time-dependent forces. Physical review letters, 105(17):170602, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    M. E. Hern´ andez-Hern´ andez, V. N. Kolokoltsov, and L. Toniazzi. Generalised fractional evolution equations of Caputo type. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals , 102:184–196, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Y. Kian, L. Oksanen, E. Soccorsi, and M. Yamamoto. Global uniqueness in an inverse problem for time fractional diffusion equations. Journal of Differential Equations, 264(2):1146–1170, 2018. 28 IV AN BIO ˇCI ´C AND BRUNO TOALDO

    2018

  29. [37]

    Y. Kian, E. Soccorsi, and M. Yamamoto. On time-fractional diffusion equations with space-dependent variable order. Annales Henri Poincar´ e, 19:3855–3881, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Kobayashi

    K. Kobayashi. Stochastic calculus for a time-changed semimartingale and the associated stochastic differential equations. Journal of Theoretical Probability, 24:789–820, 2011

    2011

  31. [39]

    A. N. Kochubei. General fractional calculus, evolution equations and renewal processes. Integral Equations and Operator Theory , 71:583–600, 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    V. N. Kolokoltsov. Generalized continuous-time random walks, subordination by hitting times, and fractional dynamics. Theory of Probability & Its Appli- cations, 53(4):594–609, 2009

    2009

  33. [41]

    V. N. Kolokoltsov. On fully mixed and multidimensional extensions of the Ca- puto and Riemann-Liouville derivatives, related Markov process and fractional differential equations. Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis , 18(4):1039– 1073, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    V. N. Kolokoltsov. CTR W approximations for fractional equations with vari- able order. In A 3N2M: approximation, applications, and analysis of nonlocal, nonlinear models, volume 165 of IMA Vol. Math. Appl. , pages 3–25. Springer, Cham, [2023] ©2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Z. Ma, R. Zhu, and X. Zhu. On notions of harmonicity for non-symmetric Dirichlet form. Science China. Mathematics , 53(6):1407–1420, 2010

    2010

  36. [44]

    M. M. Meerschaert, D. A. Benson, H.-P. Scheffler, and P. Becker-Kern. Gov- erning equations and solutions of anomalous random walk limits. Physical Review E, 66(6):060102, 2002

    2002

  37. [45]

    M. M. Meerschaert and H.-P. Scheffler. Limit theorems for continuous-time random walks with infinite mean waiting times. Journal of Applied Probability, 41(3):623–638, 2004

    2004

  38. [46]

    M. M. Meerschaert and P. Straka. Semi-Markov approach to continuous time random walk limit process. The Annals of Probability , 42(4):1699–1726, 2014

    2014

  39. [47]

    Metzler and J

    R. Metzler and J. Klafter. The random walk’s guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach. Physics Reports, 339(1):1–77, 2000

    2000

  40. [48]

    Nystr¨ om and O

    K. Nystr¨ om and O. Sande. Extension properties and boundary estimates for a fractional heat operator. Nonlinear Analysis. Theory, Methods & Applications, 140:29–37, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Raberto, E

    M. Raberto, E. Scalas, and F. Mainardi. Waiting-times and returns in high- frequency financial data: an empirical study. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 314(1-4):749–755, 2002

    2002

  42. [50]

    Revuz and M

    D. Revuz and M. Yor. Continuous martingales and Brownian motion. Springer Science & Business Media, 3rd edition, 1999

    1999

  43. [51]

    Savov and B

    M. Savov and B. Toaldo. Semi-Markov processes, integro-differential equations and anomalous diffusion-aggregation. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 56(4):2640–2671, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    E. Scalas. Five years of continuous-time random walks in econophysics. In The Complex Networks of Economic Interactions: Essays in Agent-Based Econom- ics and Econophysics , pages 3–16. Springer, 2006

    2006

  45. [53]

    Scher and M

    H. Scher and M. Lax. Stochastic transport in a disordered solid. I. Theory. Physical Review B , 7(10):4491–4502, 1973. 29

    1973

  46. [54]

    Scher and M

    H. Scher and M. Lax. Stochastic transport in a disordered solid. II. Impurity conduction. Physical Review B , 7(10):4502–4519, 1973

    1973

  47. [55]

    Scher and E

    H. Scher and E. W. Montroll. Anomalous transit-time dispersion in amophous solids. Physical Review B , 12(6):2455–2477, 1975

    1975

  48. [56]

    R. L. Schilling. Subordination in the sense of Bochner and a related functional calculus. Australian Mathematical Society. Journal. Series A. Pure Mathemat- ics and Statistics , 64(3):368–396, 1998

    1998

  49. [57]

    R. L. Schilling, R. Song, and Z. Vondraˇ cek. Bernstein functions: theory and applications. De Gruyter, 2012

    2012

  50. [58]

    Schumer, D

    R. Schumer, D. A. Benson, M. M. Meerschaert, and B. Baeumer. Fractal mobile/immobile solute transport. Water Resources Research, 39(10), 2003

    2003

  51. [59]

    M. F. Shlesinger, J. Klafter, and Y. Wong. Random walks with infinite spatial and temporal moments. Journal of Statistical Physics , 27:499–512, 1982

    1982

  52. [60]

    P. R. Stinga and J. L. Torrea. Regularity theory and extension problem for fractional nonlocal parabolic equations and the master equation.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 49(5):3893–3924, 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    P. Straka. Variable order fractional Fokker-Planck equations derived from continuous time random walks. Physica A. Statistical Mechanics and its Ap- plications, 503:451–463, 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    Straka and B

    P. Straka and B. I. Henry. Lagging and leading coupled continuous time ran- dom walks, renewal times and their joint limits. Stochastic processes and their applications, 121(2):324–336, 2011

    2011

  55. [63]

    Giuseppe Peano

    L. Toniazzi. Stochastic classical solutions for space-time fractional evolution equations on a bounded domain. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Ap- plications, 469(2):594–622, 2019. Ivan Bioˇ ci´ c Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.