Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 35 references

A fast and memoryless numerical method for solving fractional differential equations

T0 review · 1 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 This paper claims that fractional differential equations can be solved as stiff augmented ODE systems after replacing the fractional kernel $t^{\alpha -1}/\Gamma(\alpha)$ by an explicit sum of exponentials, with an…

desk verdict A genuinely useful memoryless fractional-ODE solver built on known pieces, but the paper's rigorous error claim has a constant-factor gap between Algorithm 1 and Theorem 1. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04188 v2 pith:XCMWAJUP submitted 2025-06-04 math.NA cs.NAmath.DS

Nicola Guglielmi , Ernst Hairer This is my paper
classification math.NAcs.NAmath.DS MSC 26A3334A0865L0645D0565F05
keywords fractionaldifferentialequationsCaputoderivativeRiemann-LiouvilleVolterraintegralexponentialsumapproximationstiffODEsolversmemorylessconvolutionstructuredlinearsystems
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

Fractional derivatives are nonlocal, so standard stiff ODE codes cannot be applied directly to fractional differential equations; this paper turns that obstacle into an augmented but standard ODE system. The key reduction replaces the fractional kernel $t^{\alpha -1}/\Gamma(\alpha)$ by an explicit finite sum of exponentials, so each convolution integral becomes a few scalar ODEs with no history to store. The paper proves (Theorem 1) that if the kernel approximation satisfies a weighted $\ell^1$-type error bound, the resulting solution error is $O(\varepsilon)$, and it gives Algorithm 1 to choose the exponential-sum parameters so that bound holds. It then shows how the stiff code Radau5 can solve the augmented system, with a linear solver that exploits the arrow-shaped Jacobian to run in $O(d^3 + D)$ time instead of $O((d+D)^3)$. If the method works as claimed, fractional initial-value problems become solvable with variable steps, constant memory, and the reliability of mature stiff integrators.

What carries the argument

The linear chain trick is the object that carries the argument: replacing the convolution kernel by exponentials converts the fractional integral into the output of ODEs $\dot z_i=-\gamma_i z_i+G(t,y)$, so the memory lives in the current state rather than in stored history. The trapezoidal-rule exponential-sum approximation, applied after the change of variables $z=e^s$ to the integral representation (5.1), produces explicit $c_i$ and $\gamma_i$ with the exponentially convergent bound (5.3); Algorithm 1 picks $\delta,h,M,N$ to make the weighted $\ell^1$ kernel error in (5.9) small, and Theorem 1 is the bridge from kernel error to solution error. The arrow-shaped Jacobian (3.6), with diagonal blocks $\mathrm{diag}(-\gamma_i)$ and rank-one off-diagonal blocks, makes the linear algebra fast: eliminating the $z$-variables costs $O(D)$ per step and leaves only a $d\times d$ system (4.1), giving total $O(d^3+D)$ complexity.

What would settle it

Take any $\alpha\in(0,1)$ and the parameters from Algorithm 1, compute the left side of (5.9) numerically on a mesh that extends to $t=0$, and check whether it stays below $\varepsilon(1+t^\alpha)$; if it exceeds that bound, the proof of Theorem 1 no longer covers the method. A direct experiment would run the scalar test problem (7.1) with $\varepsilon$ set well below the integrator tolerance and compare the observed error against $\varepsilon\,u(T)$ from (5.11); an observed error much larger than predicted would falsify the claimed $O(\varepsilon)$ accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the nonlocal memory of a fractional differential equation is an artifact of the kernel representation: once $k(t)=t^{\alpha -1}/\Gamma(\alpha)$ is replaced by $\sum_{i=1}^n c_i e^{-\gamma_i t}$, the fractional integral $J^\alpha f(t)$ becomes a weighted sum of variables $z_i(t)$ that satisfy $\dot z_i = -\gamma_i z_i + G(t,y)$, and the original problem (2.8) becomes the stiff ODE system (3.4)-(3.5) with the arrow-shaped Jacobian (3.6). For $0<\alpha<1$ the coefficients $c_i,\gamma_i$ come from a trapezoidal-rule discretization of the real integral representation (5.1), with parameters $\delta,h,M,N$ chosen by Algorithm 1 so that the kernel error satisfies (5.9); Theorem 1 converts that condition into the solution bound $\|y-\tilde y\| \le \varepsilon\, u(t)$, where $u$ solves the scalar Abel-type equation (5.11). For $\alpha>1$ the kernel is split as $t^{m-1}/((\alpha-1)\cdots(\alpha-m+1))$ times $t^{\alpha_0-1}/\Gamma(\alpha_0)$, and the same chain trick yields a bi-diagonal block structure, so the whole range $\alpha>0$ is covered. The paper supports the claim with experiments on a scalar problem with known exact solution, a fractional Brusselator, a multi-term fractional equation, and one-dimensional fractional PDEs, including comparisons with existing constant-step and memory-intensive codes.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy guarantee assumes the exponential-sum kernel error stays small all the way down to time zero, but the proof only checks it from a small cutoff $\delta$ onward and trusts that the singular interval before $\delta$ contributes a negligible error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any stiff or differential-algebraic ODE solver can be pointed at a fractional problem by feeding it the augmented system (3.4), so fractional ODEs inherit variable step-size control and tolerance-based adaptivity.
  • Memory use is bounded and independent of the integration horizon, since no past solution values are stored; the paper demonstrates runs to $T=5000$ for a multi-term equation and $T=1000$ for PDE examples at constant memory.
  • For semi-discretized one-dimensional fractional PDEs, the banded structure of the spatial Jacobian is preserved in the Schur complement (Lemma 8.1), so the per-step cost scales linearly with the number of spatial points.
  • The method detects stability changes in fractional problems: the multi-term example reproduces the instability onset near $\alpha\approx 0.654298$, so the exponential-sum approximation does not mask the underlying dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same kernel-replacement machinery should transfer to other weakly singular convolution kernels, such as logarithmic kernels or Abel kernels, provided a weighted $\ell^1$ error bound analogous to (5.9) can be verified; Theorem 1 itself is not specific to the fractional power kernel.
  • A practical risk not settled by the paper is the behavior of the approximation on the singular strip $0<t<\delta$; a natural test would be to replace the analytic $\delta$ bound by an explicit exponential fit on $(0,\delta)$ and see whether the observed global error still tracks $\varepsilon$.
  • Because the augmented system is stiff regardless of the original problem, the method's value hinges on the structured linear solver; for very large $D$ the $O(D)$ elimination is the enabling step, so improving that block elimination would extend the method to large systems with many integral terms.
  • The demonstrated CPU gains over step-size-fixed fractional codes suggest that variable-step fractional solvers are the main practical payoff; a systematic benchmark across tolerances and $\alpha$ values would show where the memoryless approach overtakes quadrature-based splitting methods.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes to solve fractional ODEs (Caputo or Riemann-Liouville) by rewriting them as Volterra integral equations, approximating the kernel t^{alpha-1}/Gamma(alpha) by a sum of exponentials via the Beylkin-Monzon quadrature, and converting the convolution integral into an augmented system of ODEs. The augmented system is stiff and is integrated with Radau5, using a purpose-built structured linear solver that reduces the linear-algebra cost from O((d+D)^3) to O(d^3+D). The paper gives explicit formulas and an algorithm for choosing the quadrature parameters, a theorem showing that an O(epsilon) weighted L1 kernel error implies an O(epsilon) solution error, and numerical experiments with known exact solutions, including scalar tests, a Brusselator system, multi-term problems, and 1D fractional PDEs.

Significance. If the claimed accuracy and efficiency hold, the paper offers a practically useful, memory-efficient alternative to quadrature-based fractional ODE solvers, with the notable advantage of variable step sizes inherited from Radau5. The kernel-compression construction is explicit and depends only on the accuracy parameter epsilon and a quadrature parameter; Theorem 1 provides a clean propagation of the kernel approximation error into the solution; and the structured linear solver is a genuine algorithmic contribution, demonstrated by large speedups in the experiments. The driver examples are publicly available, which aids reproducibility. The main theoretical caveat, namely the constant mismatch between Algorithm 1 and the hypothesis of Theorem 1, does not affect the substance of the method and is fixable.

major comments (1)
  1. [5.3, Eqs. (5.13)-(5.14), Algorithm 1] The construction as stated does not put the hypothesis (5.9) of Theorem 1 in force for the user-supplied epsilon. From (5.6), the bound on [delta,T] is int_delta^t |k(s)-k_tilde(s)| ds <= 3 epsilon t^alpha / Gamma(alpha+1), and since Gamma(alpha+1) < 1 for 0<alpha<1, the coefficient 3/Gamma(alpha+1) is larger than 3, so for all sufficiently large t this exceeds epsilon(1+t^alpha). On (0,delta), equation (5.14) only controls the integral of k(s), not the pointwise high-tail contribution in (5.5), which adds a further O(epsilon) term. Combining the two regions gives at best C epsilon (1+t^alpha) with C>1, not epsilon(1+t^alpha). Consequently Algorithm 1 with the user's epsilon does not, as stated, satisfy the assumption of Theorem 1. This is the load-bearing link between the construction and the error bound, but it is repairable either by scaling epsilon in Algorithm 1 by 1/C or by stating Theorem 1 with an explicit constant on the right-hand side.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (5.5)] The factor e^{alpha i h} in the displayed sums appears inconsistent with the integrand e^{(1-alpha)s} in (5.1)-(5.2); the incomplete-gamma substitution suggests that it should be e^{(1-alpha) i h}. Please correct and re-verify (5.6).
  2. [5.3, before Algorithm 1] The sentence stating that Algorithm 1 chooses parameters so that the kernel approximation satisfies (5.9) is stronger than what (5.13)-(5.14) show; please rephrase it to say that the weighted L1 error is O(epsilon), or that a version of (5.9) with an explicit constant is satisfied.
  3. [Section 6] No error estimate is given for the alpha>1 constructions (6.3)-(6.4); a sentence explaining that the same weighted-L1 argument extends to the monomial-times-exponential kernel, or explicitly noting that the proof is not carried out, would clarify the scope of the theoretical guarantee.
  4. [7.2, Table 7.4 and text] The reported CPU times for the present method at T=220 differ (0.051 s in Table 7.4 and 0.8 s in the text) and correspond to different tolerances and accuracies; please state the settings used for the 0.8 s figure.
  5. [2.2 and Introduction] There are minor typos, including 'frcational' in Section 2.2 and 'developped' in the Introduction, that should be corrected.
  6. [4.3] The role of the two dummy variables added per integral block in dc_sumexp.f is described operationally but not explained; a sentence on why the Radau5 interface requires them would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: the central derivation is self-contained, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations; the noted gap in Section 5.3 is a correctness issue, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not circular. The kernel approximation is taken from Beylkin and Monzón [6], and the trapezoidal-rule error bound is taken from Trefethen and Weideman [33]; both are external, machine-independent sources. Theorem 1 proves a genuine perturbation bound: assuming a weighted L1 kernel condition (5.9), the solution error is controlled by a scalar Gronwall-type equation (5.11). This is a standard sensitivity argument against the true kernel, not a definition of the predicted quantity in terms of the fitted parameters. The numerical experiments are measured against exact solutions or against reference values obtained independently, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper does cite the authors' previous work [15] for the linear chain trick and for details of the fast linear algebra, but those citations are not load-bearing for the fractional-kernel error analysis; the latter rests on external results and explicit estimates. The one genuine weakness is a correctness gap, not circularity: in Section 5.3 the paper admits that on (0, δ) the second estimate of (5.5) 'is only bounded by t^{α−1}/Γ(α)', and the displayed bounds (5.13)-(5.14) give at best a constant multiple of ε(1+t^α), so Algorithm 1 does not strictly place the hypotheses of Theorem 1 in force as stated. That is a repairable error-estimate defect, not a reduction of the result to its own inputs. Accordingly, the circularity score is 2, reflecting only minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small number of standard analytic tools (trapezoidal rule error bounds, fractional calculus identities) plus two domain assumptions that are only empirically checked: the small-t control of the kernel error, and the coupling between kernel error and Radau5's time integration error. No hidden fitted parameters or new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameter is the user-chosen accuracy epsilon, which is not fitted to data but is a convergence parameter.

free parameters (2)
  • epsilon = user-chosen, e.g., 1e-4 to 1e-10
    User-specified target accuracy for the kernel approximation. It controls delta, h, M, N via Algorithm 1, but it is not fitted to data; it is a requested tolerance. Listed for completeness because the solution error scales with it.
  • quadrature parameter a = a = pi/2 * (1 - (1-alpha)/((2-alpha) * ln(epsilon^{-1})))
    Chosen to make the error bound (5.4) small. The paper states 'choosing a close to optimal' and provides this formula, which is a hand-chosen choice, not derived from a unique optimality condition.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The trapezoidal-rule error bound [33, Theorem 5.1] applies to the integral in (5.1) and yields the relative error bound (5.3).
    Invoked in Section 5.1 to justify the exponential-sum approximation. Standard result for analytic functions on a strip, cited to Trefethen-Weideman.
  • standard math The Volterra integral formulations (2.6), (2.7), and the general formulation (2.8) are equivalent to the fractional IVP (2.5).
    Section 2, based on standard fractional calculus identities and textbooks [11, 14].
  • domain assumption The kernel approximation error bound (5.9) is sufficient for solution error propagation via Theorem 1, and the small-time region t in (0, delta) can be controlled by choosing delta^alpha/Gamma(alpha+1) <= epsilon.
    Section 5.3: the authors assume the singular region contributes O(epsilon) without a pointwise bound on the kernel approximation near zero. This is a load-bearing assumption for the global error guarantee.
  • domain assumption Radau5's internal error control on the augmented stiff ODE system (3.5) provides a reliable proxy for the error in the original fractional problem, with the kernel error epsilon chosen comparable to the integration tolerance Tol.
    Used throughout Section 7 and Table/Figure interpretations (e.g., Table 7.1). The interaction between kernel error and time-integration error is only studied empirically, not analytically.
  • standard math The scalar Volterra error equation (5.11) has a solution that grows at most exponentially (Remark 2), so the O(epsilon) error bound does not blow up over the integration intervals considered.
    The paper states 'we expect exponential bounds of this kind,' providing a Laplace-transform solution but not a full proof for general alpha in (0,1).
invented entities (1)
  • dc_sumexp.f linear algebra routines independent evidence
    purpose: Purpose-built Fortran routines that replace Radau5's default dense linear algebra, exploiting the arrow/banded structure of the augmented Jacobian to solve linear systems in O(d^3 + D) instead of O((d+D)^3).
    The routines are described and their effects are benchmarked against the standard linear algebra and against other codes. They are a software artifact, not a physical entity, and they are falsifiable through the numerical experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A fast and memoryless numerical method for solving fractional differential equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XCMWAJUP

@misc{pith2026250604188,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A fast and memoryless numerical method for solving fractional differential equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XCMWAJUP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04188}
}
abstract

The numerical solution of implicit and stiff differential equations by implicit numerical integrators has been largely investigated and there exist many excellent efficient codes available in the scientific community, as Radau5 (based on a Runge-Kutta collocation method at Radau points) and Dassl, based on backward differentiation formulas, among the others. When solving fractional ordinary differential equations (ODEs), the derivative operator is replaced by a non-local one and the fractional ODE is reformulated as a Volterra integral equation, to which these codes cannot be directly applied. This article is a follow-up of the article by the authors (Guglielmi and Hairer, SISC, 2025) for differential equations with distributed delays. The main idea is to approximate the fractional kernel $t^{\alpha -1}/ \Gamma (\alpha )$ ($\alpha >0$) by a sum of exponential functions or by a sum of exponential functions multiplied by a monomial, and then to transform the fractional integral (of convolution type) into a set of ordinary differential equations. The augmented system is typically stiff and thus requires the use of an implicit method. It can have a very large dimension and requires a special treatment of the arising linear systems. The present work presents an algorithm for the construction of an approximation of the fractional kernel by a sum of exponential functions, and it shows how the arising linear systems in a stiff time integrator can be solved efficiently. It is explained how the code Radau5 can be used for solving fractional differential equations. Numerical experiments illustrate the accuracy and the efficiency of the proposed method. Driver examples are publicly available from the homepages of the authors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04188 by the authors.

Figure 7
Figure 7. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    L´ opez-Fern´ andez, C

    M. L´ opez-Fern´ andez, C. Lubich, and A. Sch¨ adle. Adaptive, fast, and oblivious convolution in evolution equations with memory. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 30(2):1015–1037, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [1]

    Antoine, A

    X. Antoine, A. Arnold, C. Besse, M. Ehrhardt, and A. Sch¨ adle. A review of transparent and artificial boundary conditions techniques for linear and nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations. Commun. Comput. Phys. , 4(4):729–796, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [2]

    D. Baffet. A Gauss-Jacobi kernel compression scheme for fractional differential equations. J. Sci. Comput. , 79(1):227–248, 2019. 20 N. GUGLIELMI, E. HAIRER

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Baffet and J

    D. Baffet and J. S. Hesthaven. High-order accurate adaptive kernel compression time-stepping schemes for fractional differential equations. J. Sci. Comput. , 72(3):1169–1195, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Baffet and J

    D. Baffet and J. S. Hesthaven. A kernel compression scheme for fractional differential equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 55(2):496–520, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Banjai and M

    L. Banjai and M. L´ opez-Fern´ andez. Efficient high order algorithms for fractional integrals and fractional differential equations. Numer. Math. , 141(2):289–317, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Beylkin and L

    G. Beylkin and L. Monz´ on. Approximation by exponential sums revisited. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 28:131–149, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    Brugnano, K

    L. Brugnano, K. Burrage, P. Burrage, and F. Iavernaro. A spectrally accurate step-by-step method for the numerical solution of fractional differential equations. J. Sci. Comput. , 99(2):Paper No. 48, 28, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    H. Brunner. Collocation methods for Volterra integral and related functional differential equa- tions, volume 15 of Cambridge Monographs on Applied and Computational Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004

    2004

  2. [9]

    Brunner and P

    H. Brunner and P. J. van der Houwen. The numerical solution of Volterra equations , volume 3 of CWI Monographs. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1986

    1986

  3. [10]

    Cardone, M

    A. Cardone, M. Donatelli, F. Durastante, R. Garrappa, M. Mazza, and M. Popolizio, edi- tors. Fractional differential equations—modeling, discretization, and numerical solvers , volume 50 of Springer INdAM Series . Springer, Singapore, 2023

    2023

  4. [11]

    Diethelm

    K. Diethelm. The analysis of fractional differential equations , volume 2004 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010. An application-oriented exposition using differential operators of Caputo type

    2004

  5. [12]

    Diethelm, N

    K. Diethelm, N. J. Ford, and A. D. Freed. Detailed error analysis for a fractional Adams method. Numer. Algorithms, 36(1):31–52, 2004

    2004

  6. [13]

    Garrappa

    R. Garrappa. Numerical solution of fractional differential equations: A survey and a software tutorial. Mathematics, 6(2), 2018

    2018

  7. [14]

    Gorenflo and F

    R. Gorenflo and F. Mainardi. Fractional calculus: integral and differential equations of frac- tional order. In Fractals and fractional calculus in continuum mechanics (Udine, 1996) , volume 378 of CISM Courses and Lect. , pages 223–276. Springer, Vienna, 1997

    1996

  8. [15]

    Guglielmi and E

    N. Guglielmi and E. Hairer. Applying stiff integrators for ordinary differential equations and delay differential equations to problems with distributed delays. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 47(1):A102–A123, 2025

    2025

  9. [16]

    Hairer and P

    E. Hairer and P. Maass. Numerical methods for singular nonlinear integro-differential equations. Appl. Numer. Math. , 3(3):243–256, 1987

    1987

  10. [17]

    Hairer and G

    E. Hairer and G. Wanner. Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II. Stiff and Differential- Algebraic Problems. Springer Series in Computational Mathematics 14. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2nd edition, 1996

    1996

  11. [18]

    P. Henrici. Applied and computational complex analysis. Vol. 2 . Wiley-Interscience [John Wiley & Sons], New York-London-Sydney, 1977. Special functions—integral transforms— asymptotics—continued fractions

    1977

  12. [19]

    Error estimate of the fast L1 method for time- fractional subdiffusion equations

    Yuxiang Huang, Fanhai Zeng, and Ling Guo. Error estimate of the fast L1 method for time- fractional subdiffusion equations. Appl. Math. Lett. , 133:Paper No. 108288, 8, 2022

    2022

  13. [20]

    Fast evaluation of the Caputo fractional derivative and its applications to fractional diffusion equations

    Shidong Jiang, Jiwei Zhang, Qian Zhang, and Zhimin Zhang. Fast evaluation of the Caputo fractional derivative and its applications to fractional diffusion equations. Commun. Com- put. Phys. , 21(3):650–678, 2017

    2017

  14. [21]

    B. Jin. Fractional differential equations—an approach via fractional derivatives , volume 206 of Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer, Cham, [2021] ©2021

    2021

  15. [22]

    A. A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava, and J. J. Trujillo. Theory and applications of fractional differential equations, volume 204 of North-Holland Mathematics Studies . Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 2006

    2006

  16. [23]

    Lefever and G

    R. Lefever and G. Nicolis. Chemical instabilities and sustained oscillations. J. theor. Biol. , 30:267–284, 1971

    1971

  17. [24]

    J.-R. Li. A fast time stepping method for evaluating fractional integrals. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 31(6):4696–4714, 2009/10

    2009

  18. [26]

    Lu and A

    J.-F. Lu and A. Hanyga. Numerical modelling method for wave propagation in a linear vis- coelastic medium with singular memory. Geophysical Journal International , 159(2):688– 702, 2004

    2004

  19. [27]

    C. Lubich. Discretized fractional calculus. SIAM J. Math. Anal. , 17(3):704–719, 1986

    1986

  20. [28]

    C. Lubich. Convolution quadrature and discretized operational calculus. I. Numer. Math. , 52(2):129–145, 1988. Solving fractional differential equations by implicit ODE solvers 21

    1988

  21. [29]

    Lubich and A

    C. Lubich and A. Ostermann. Runge-Kutta methods for parabolic equations and convolution quadrature. Math. Comp. , 60(201):105–131, 1993

    1993

  22. [30]

    Podlubny

    I. Podlubny. Fractional differential equations , volume 198 of Mathematics in Science and Engineering. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1999. An introduction to fractional derivatives, fractional differential equations, to methods of their solution and some of their applications

    1999

  23. [31]

    S. G. Samko, A. A. Kilbas, and O. I. Marichev. Fractional integrals and derivatives . Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Yverdon, 1993. Theory and applications, Edited and with a foreword by S. M. Nikolski ˘ ı, Translated from the 1987 Russian original, Revised by the authors

    1993

  24. [32]

    Sch¨ adle, M

    A. Sch¨ adle, M. L´ opez-Fern´ andez, and C. Lubich. Fast and oblivious convolution quadrature. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 28(2):421–438, 2006

    2006

  25. [33]

    Trefethen and J.A.C

    L.N. Trefethen and J.A.C. Weideman. The Exponentially Convergent Trapezoidal Rule. SIAM Review, 56(3):385–458, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Xue and L

    D. Xue and L. Bai. Benchmark problems for Caputo fractional-order ordinary differential equations. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. , 20(5):1305–1312, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Fast evaluation of the Caputo fractional derivative and its applications to fractional diffusion equations: a second-order scheme

    Yonggui Yan, Zhi-Zhong Sun, and Jiwei Zhang. Fast evaluation of the Caputo fractional derivative and its applications to fractional diffusion equations: a second-order scheme. Commun. Comput. Phys. , 22(4):1028–1048, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

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