Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Well-posedness of Fractional Stochastic p-Laplace Equations Driven by Superlinear Transport Noise

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 proves that fractional p-Laplace stochastic equations with polynomial drift of arbitrary order and superlinear transport noise have unique solutions.

desk verdict A serious, technically sound extension of the fully local monotonicity framework that fixes real gaps in the recent Annalen paper; only small clarifications are needed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06766 v2 pith:SD6NQKDT submitted 2025-06-07 math.PR math.AP

Bixiang Wang This is my paper
classification math.PRmath.AP MSC 60F1060H1537L5535R60
keywords fractionalp-LaplaceequationtransportnoisefullylocalmonotonicityGalerkinapproximationtightnessSkorokhod-Jakubowskitheoremwell-posednesssuperlinear
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

The paper proves an abstract existence-and-uniqueness theorem for stochastic evolution equations whose drift and diffusion satisfy a fully local monotonicity condition, then applies it to the fractional p-Laplace equation. The drift may be a polynomial of arbitrarily high order, and the transport noise may grow superlinearly and depend on spatial derivatives of the solution, a regime previous results could not cover. The proof uses Galerkin approximations, uniform moment estimates, tightness in a non-metrizable path space, and the Skorokhod-Jakubowski representation theorem. The main analytic difficulty is proving tightness and uniform integrability of the approximate solutions, which the paper handles with an auxiliary Hilbert space basis and a compactness criterion. If correct, the theorem gives unique solutions for a broad class of stochastic partial differential equations with genuinely superlinear noise.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on four interlocking devices. First, the Galerkin approximations are built from an auxiliary separable Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}\subseteq V$ whose orthonormal basis $\{h_k\}$ is also an orthogonal basis of the solution space $H$; this gives the projection identities (2.19)-(2.20) used throughout. Second, Itô's formula combined with the coercivity and growth assumptions (H3)-(H5) yields uniform moment bounds for the approximate solutions in $L^\infty(0,T;H)$, $L^{q_j}(0,T;V_j)$, and $W^{\sigma,2}(0,T;H^*)$. Third, tightness is proved in the non-metrizable space $L^q(0,T;H)\cap L^\infty_{w^*}(0,T;H)\cap\bigcap_j L^{q_j}_w(0,T;V_j)$ using the Simon compactness criterion, with the compact embedding $V\subseteq H$ supplying the needed compactness in $L^q(0,T;H)$; this repairs an incomplete tightness argument in the earlier literature. Fourth, passage to the limit uses the Skorokhod-Jakubowski representation theorem in a topological space instead of the strong Skorokhod theorem, which is false, followed by a weak-convergence argument for stochastic integrals and the monotone trick to identify the weak limit of the drift as $A(\cdot,Z)$.

What would settle it

A concrete check: for $V=W^{s,p}(\mathbb{R}^n)\cap L^q(\mathbb{R}^n)$ on a bounded domain, try to write down the auxiliary Hilbert space and basis promised by [5, Lemma C.1] and verify the identity $\|v\|_H^2=\|P_nv\|_H^2+\|(I-P_n)v\|_H^2$ for every $v\in H$; a counterexample to this basis property would invalidate Lemma 2.6. Alternatively, test condition (2.9): find a diffusion $B$ satisfying (H2)-(H5) and a sequence $u_n\to u$ in $L^1(0,T;H)$ for which $v^*B(\cdot,u_n)$ fails to converge in $L^2(0,T;L^2(U,\mathbb{R}))$ for some $v\in V$, which would block the identification of the limit noise term.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2.2: if the drift $A=\sum_{j=1}^J A_j$ and diffusion $B$ satisfy hemicontinuity, full local monotonicity, coercivity, growth bounds, and the weak-noise-continuity condition (2.9), and if the embedding $V\subseteq H$ is compact, then for every $x\in H$ the abstract equation $dX(t)=A(t,X(t))dt+B(t,X(t))dW(t)$ has a unique solution in the sense of Definition 2.1, with uniform moment estimates. Full local monotonicity means the estimate $2\sum_j(A_j(t,u)-A_j(t,v),u-v)+\|B(t,u)-B(t,v)\|^2_{L_2(U,H)}\le(g(t)+\varphi(u)+\psi(v))\|u-v\|_H^2$ holds with both $\varphi$ and $\psi$ nonzero; earlier theorems only treated the case where one of them vanishes. The paper then verifies conditions (H1)-(H5) for the fractional $p$-Laplace operator with polynomial drift and superlinear transport noise, obtaining existence and uniqueness under explicit conditions such as (3.19), (3.34), or (3.60).

Load-bearing premise

The proof's load-bearing premise is that the auxiliary Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}\subseteq V$ from [5, Lemma C.1] really exists, with an orthonormal basis that is also an orthogonal basis of the solution space $H$; if that construction fails, the Galerkin projections, the bounds (2.19)-(2.20), and the tightness argument in Lemma 2.6 collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fractional stochastic p-Laplace equation (1.1)-(1.3) with polynomial drift of any order $q\ge2$ and superlinear transport noise has a unique solution for every $u_0\in H$ under the conditions of Theorem 3.1 or Theorem 3.2.
  • For $p=2$, the standard fractional Laplacian equation with an additional noise term $G$ satisfying (3.42)-(3.43) also has a unique solution under condition (3.60), including multiplicative noise of the form $\sum_i a_i g_i(-\Delta)^{s/2}u$.
  • The solution satisfies the uniform moment estimates (2.15), so its $H$-norm and $V_j$-norms are controlled in expectation by the initial data for every $p$ in the range (2.14).
  • Pathwise uniqueness holds for the abstract equation, so existence on a new probability space upgrades to a unique strong probabilistic solution by the Yamada-Watanabe theorem.
  • The abstract theorem applies to a family of superlinear-noise SPDEs, including the 2D Navier-Stokes, Allen-Cahn, Cahn-Hilliard, and Allen-Cahn-Navier-Stokes equations with transport noise mentioned in the introduction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The auxiliary-Hilbert-space construction used for tightness suggests the method transfers to other Gelfand triples where a compactness criterion like Simon's applies, so the abstract theorem may cover intersections of fractional Sobolev spaces beyond $W^{s,p}\cap L^q$.
  • Because the paper only needs the weak noise-continuity condition (2.9) rather than strong continuity of $B$, the same proof scheme may extend to noise coefficients that are merely weakly continuous in the state variable, a testable weakening for equations where strong continuity fails.
  • The repaired tightness argument, based on boundedness in $L^q(0,T;V)\cap W^{\sigma,2}(0,T;H^*)$, gives a general template for proving tightness in locally monotone SPDEs with multiple drift components, which could be reused in other settings.
  • One could numerically probe whether the smallness conditions such as $\sum_i\beta_i<\delta_1$ in (3.34) are sharp, for instance by taking $f(u)=-|u|^{q-2}u$ and letting $\sum_i\beta_i$ approach the critical bound while watching for blow-up or non-uniqueness.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves an abstract well-posedness theorem for stochastic evolution equations in a variational setting under a fully local monotonicity condition, allowing both functions φ and ψ in the local monotonicity inequality (2.1) to be nonzero. The proof combines Galerkin approximations, uniform a priori estimates, tightness in a non-metrizable space built from L^q(0,T;H), weak-* L∞(0,T;H), and weak L^{q_j}(0,T;V_j), the Skorokhod-Jakubowski representation theorem, and a monotone limit argument. The abstract theorem is then applied to fractional stochastic p-Laplace equations with polynomial drift of arbitrary order and superlinear transport noise, under smallness conditions such as (3.19) or (3.34). A separate result covers the standard fractional Laplacian case p=2 with an additional gradient-type noise term.

Significance. If the proof is completed, the paper would remove several limitations of the recent work [32]: it avoids the use of the false strong Skorokhod representation theorem, repairs the tightness argument in L^r(0,T;H), and allows polynomial nonlinearities of arbitrary order under fully local monotonicity. The abstract framework is clean and the assumptions (H1)-(H5) are explicit, with no fitted parameters or normalization that encodes the answer. The applications to fractional p-Laplace equations with superlinear transport noise are substantial and go beyond existing results for linearly growing noise. The paper also gives quantitative moment estimates (2.15), which are valuable for further dynamical and ergodic questions. The main caveat is that the proof contains a real but reparable gap in the construction of the separating family for the Skorokhod-Jakubowski theorem, and a technical issue with the definition of the projections Q_n.

major comments (3)
  1. [Lemma 2.7, proof after (2.44)] The assertion that the supremum topology T on Y is stronger than the norm topology of L^q(0,T;V) is false: convergence in T consists of convergence in L^q(0,T;H), weak-* convergence in L∞(0,T;H), and weak convergence in each L^{q_j}(0,T;V_j), none of which implies norm convergence in L^q(0,T;V). Consequently, a functional φ_j^* ∈ (L^q(0,T;V))^* need not be continuous on (Y,T), and the separating family constructed in the proof does not justify the application of Proposition 4.1. This is not fatal: since Y⊂L^1(0,T;H) and T is stronger than the L^1(0,T;H) norm topology, one can take a countable separating family from (L^1(0,T;H))^* ≅ L∞(0,T;H*), or from the duals of the spaces L^{q_j}(0,T;V_j) using their weak topologies. The repair should be written out explicitly, but it does not change the main result.
  2. [Section 2.2, definition of Q_n] The projection Q_n is defined as the orthogonal projection of U0 onto span{u_1^0,...,u_n^0} for an arbitrary orthonormal basis {u_i^0} of U0. In equation (2.21) the stochastic integral contains P_nB(s,Z_n(s))Q_n dW(s), where W is a cylindrical Wiener process in U; for this integrand to be a Hilbert-Schmidt operator from U to H, Q_n must map U into U and act as an orthogonal projection on U. An arbitrary basis of U0 does not have this property. The construction should use the singular value decomposition of the Hilbert-Schmidt embedding U⊂U0 so that Q_n|_U is the U-orthogonal projection onto the first n singular vectors; this also makes the convergence estimates in (2.60)-(2.63) valid. This is a technical but necessary correction.
  3. [Section 2.4, final paragraph] The uniqueness part of Theorem 2.2 is not proved in the manuscript; the text says that 'by the standard argument (see, e.g., [32])' pathwise uniqueness holds and then invokes the Yamada-Watanabe theorem. Since Theorem 2.2 is the central abstract result and the fully local monotonicity condition (H2) is precisely the delicate part of the problem, the uniqueness proof should either be included or the exact statement in [32] that applies should be identified. Without this, the uniqueness assertion of the main theorem is not verified within the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 2.6, use of [31, Corollary 5]] The citation to [31, Corollary 5] should be made precise: as usually stated, the corollary requires a translation estimate in L^p(0,T;H*) with the same integrability exponent p as the space L^p(0,T;V). Here the proof has L^q(0,T;V) and W^{σ,2}(0,T;H*); the missing step is that the L∞(0,T;H) bound converts the W^{σ,2} translation estimate into the required L^q translation estimate. This is a clarification, not a fatal gap.
  2. [Lemma 2.5, equations (2.40)-(2.42)] The exponent q̃/(q̃-1) is typeset with a bar over q in several places, and the definition of q = min{2, q̃/(q̃-1)} in (2.39) should be double-checked for consistency with the use of q in the W^{σ,2} estimate.
  3. [Section 3, equation (3.31)] The derivation of (3.31) from (2.7) uses the convention that γ_{2,j}=0 gives an infinite ratio γ_{1,j}/γ_{2,j}; this convention should be stated explicitly, since otherwise the minimum in (2.7) is undefined when some γ_{2,j} vanish, as happens in the applications.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'the strong Skorokhod representation theorem is incorrect even in a complete separable metric space' is potentially confusing: the classical Skorokhod representation theorem for tight sequences in Polish spaces is correct, while the 'strong' version on the original probability space is what fails. The wording should distinguish these two statements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the main theorem is a conditional result derived from explicit assumptions, and the applications verify those assumptions directly.

full rationale

Theorem 2.2 is proved from the stated hypotheses (H1)-(H5), not from the conclusion. The Galerkin approximations, uniform estimates, tightness argument, Skorokhod-Jakubowski passage, and monotonicity limit identification are all carried out in the paper rather than imported as the desired result. The applications in Section 3 are genuinely non-circular: they verify the abstract hypotheses by checking concrete inequalities such as (3.22), (3.25), (3.28), (3.35), and (3.39), with the smallness conditions (3.19), (3.34), and (3.60) serving as algebraic sufficient conditions for the abstract growth constraint (2.7). No parameter is fitted to a target quantity, and no object is defined in terms of the existence or uniqueness statement it is used to prove. The auxiliary Hilbert space H with the special basis is imported from the external lemma [5, Lemma C.1]; it is a standard tool and does not encode the well-posedness claim. The author's own earlier works cited in the introduction are contextual and are not load-bearing in the proof of Theorem 2.2 or Theorems 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4. The paper also explicitly identifies and repairs gaps in the prior work [32], which further indicates that the present derivation is not a renaming or repackaging of an earlier result. Any concerns in the paper are about technical presentation, not circularity.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters: the constants in (H1)-(H5) are assumptions, and their values in the applications (e.g., gamma_{1,1}=C(n,p,s)/2, gamma_{2,1}=2 lambda^{-1} sum beta_i) are computed, not fitted. The axioms are standard analytic and probabilistic facts plus the structural conditions that define the class of equations. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Gelfand triple structure V⊆H≡H*⊆V* with V = ∩_j V_j reflexive and compactly embedded in H.
    Used throughout Section 2; compactness of V⊆H is essential in Lemma 2.6 for tightness via Simon's compactness theorem.
  • standard math Existence of the auxiliary Hilbert space H with an orthonormal basis that is also an orthogonal basis of H ([5, Lemma C.1]).
    Invoked in Section 2.2 to define Galerkin projections P_n with the norm bound (2.20).
  • standard math Ito formula, BDG inequality, and standard martingale inequalities for cylindrical Wiener processes.
    Used in Lemma 2.3 and later estimates.
  • standard math Skorokhod-Jakubowski representation theorem for topological spaces ([5], [18]).
    Used in Lemma 2.7 to pass from tightness in the non-metrizable space Y to almost sure convergence of approximate solutions.
  • standard math Simon's compactness theorem [31, Corollary 5] for relative compactness in L^r(0,T;H).
    Used in Lemma 2.6 to show the tightness set K is compact.
  • domain assumption Poincare inequality (3.2) and Sobolev embedding W^{s,p}⊂L^∞ when sp>n for Theorem 3.1, and conditions (3.19) or (3.34) on the noise coefficients.
    These are the specific conditions under which the abstract assumptions (H2) and (H5) are verified for the fractional p-Laplace equation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Well-posedness of Fractional Stochastic p-Laplace Equations Driven by Superlinear Transport Noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SD6NQKDT

@misc{pith2026250606766,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Well-posedness of Fractional Stochastic p-Laplace Equations Driven by Superlinear Transport Noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SD6NQKDT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06766}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we prove the existence and uniqueness of solutions of the fractional p-Laplace equation with a polynomial drift of arbitrary order driven by superlinear transport noise. By the monotone argument, we first prove the existence and uniqueness of solutions of an abstract stochastic differential equation satisfying a fully local monotonicity condition. We then apply the abstract result to the fractional stochastic p-Laplace equation defined in a bounded domain. The main difficulty is to establish the tightness as well as the uniform integrability of a sequence of approximate solutions defined by the Galerkin method. To obtain the necessary uniform estimates, we employ the Skorokhod-Jakubowski representation theorem on a topological space instead of a metric space. Since the strong Skorokhod representation theorem is incorrect even in a complete separable metric space, we pass to the limit of stochastic integrals with respect to a sequence of Wiener processes by a weak convergence argument.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Rockner, S

    M. Rockner, S. Shang and T. Zhang, Well-posedness of stochastic partial differential equations with fully local monotone coefficients,Mathematische Annalen,390(2024), 3419-3469. 43

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Abe and S

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

    work page 2005

  3. [2]

    Aldous, Stopping times and tightness,Annals of Probability,6(1978), 335-340

    D. Aldous, Stopping times and tightness,Annals of Probability,6(1978), 335-340

    work page 1978

  4. [3]

    Bensoussan

    A. Bensoussan. Stochastic Navier-Stokes equations,Acta Applicandae Mathematicae,38 (1995), 267-304

    work page 1995

  5. [4]

    Brasco and E

    L. Brasco and E. Cinti, On fractional Hardy inequalities in convex sets,Discrete and Contin- uous Dynamical Systems,38(2018), 4019-4040

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Brze´ zniak and L

    Z. Brze´ zniak and L. Motyl, Existence of a martingale solution of the stochastic Navier-Stokes equations in unbounded 2D and 3D domains.Journal of Differential Equations,254(2013), 1627-1685

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Brze´ zniak, E

    Z. Brze´ zniak, E. Hausenblas and P.A. Razafimandimby, Stochastic reaction-diffusion equations driven by jump processes,Potential Analysis,49(2018), 131-201

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Caffarelli, J

    L. Caffarelli, J. Roquejoffre and Y. Sire, Variational problems for free boundaries for the fractional Laplacian,Journal of the European Mathematical Society,12(2010), 1151-1179

    work page 2010

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Debussche, N

    A. Debussche, N. Glatt-Holtz and R. Temam, Local martingale and pathwise solutions for an abstract fluids model,Phys. D: Nonlinear Phenomena,240(2011), 1123-1144

    2011

  2. [9]

    Di Nezza, G

    E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci and E. Valdinoci, Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math.,136(2012), 521-573

    2012

  3. [10]

    Flandoli and D

    F. Flandoli and D. Gatarek, Martingale and stationary solutions for stochastic Navier-Stokes equations,Probability Theory and Related Fields,102(1995), 367-391

    1995

  4. [11]

    Gal and M

    C. Gal and M. Warma, Reaction-diffusion equations with fractional diffusion on non-smooth domains with various boundary conditions,Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems,36 (2016), 1279-1319

    2016

  5. [12]

    Garroni and S

    A. Garroni and S. Muller, A variational model for dislocations in the line tension limit,Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis,181(2006), 535-578

    2006

  6. [13]

    A. Gu, D. Li, B. Wang and H. Yang, Regularity of random attractors for fractional stochastic reaction-diffusion equations onR n,Journal of Differential Equations,264(2018), 7094-7137

    2018

  7. [14]

    Guan and Z

    Q. Guan and Z. Ma, Reflected symmetricα-stable processes and regional fractional Laplacian, Probability Theory and Related Fields,134(2006), 649-694

    2006

  8. [15]

    Hauer, Thep-Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator with applications to elliptic and parabolic problems,Journal of Differential Equations,259(2015), 3615-3655

    D. Hauer, Thep-Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator with applications to elliptic and parabolic problems,Journal of Differential Equations,259(2015), 3615-3655

    2015

  9. [16]

    Jara, Nonequilibrium scaling limit for a tagged particle in the simple exclusion process with long jumps,Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics,62(2009), 198-214

    M. Jara, Nonequilibrium scaling limit for a tagged particle in the simple exclusion process with long jumps,Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics,62(2009), 198-214. 42

    2009

  10. [17]

    Jakubowski, On the Skorokhod topology,Ann

    A. Jakubowski, On the Skorokhod topology,Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Probab. Statist.,22(1986), 263-285

    1986

  11. [18]

    Jakubowski, The almost sure Skorokhod representation for subsequences in nonmetric spaces,Theory of Probability and Its Applications,42(1988), 167-175

    A. Jakubowski, The almost sure Skorokhod representation for subsequences in nonmetric spaces,Theory of Probability and Its Applications,42(1988), 167-175

    1988

  12. [19]

    Koslowski, A

    M. Koslowski, A. Cuitino and M. Ortiz, A phasefield theory of dislocation dynamics, strain hardening and hysteresis in ductile single crystal,J. Mech. Phys. Solids,50(2002), 2597-2635

    2002

  13. [20]

    Krylov and B.L

    N.V. Krylov and B.L. Rozovskii, Stochastic evolution equations,Journal of Soviet Mathemat- ics,16(1981), 1233-1277

    1981

  14. [21]

    Liu and M

    W. Liu and M. Rockner,Stochastic Partial Differential Equations: An Introduction, Springer, Berlin, 2015

    2015

  15. [22]

    Liu and M

    W. Liu and M. Rockner, Local and global well-posedness of SPDE with generalized coercivity conditions.Journal of Differential Equations,254(2013), 725-755

    2013

  16. [23]

    Liu and M

    W. Liu and M. SPDE in Hilbert space with locally monotone coefficients,Journal of Functional Analysis,259(2010), 2902-2922

    2010

  17. [24]

    Liu, Existence and uniqueness of solutions to nonlinear evolution equations with locally monotone operators,Nonlinear Anal

    W. Liu, Existence and uniqueness of solutions to nonlinear evolution equations with locally monotone operators,Nonlinear Anal. TMA,75(2011), 7543-7561

    2011

  18. [25]

    H. Lu, P. W. Bates, S. Lu and M. Zhang, Dynamics of 3D fractional complex Ginzburg-Landau equation,Journal of Differential Equations,259(2015), 5276-5301

    2015

  19. [26]

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

    2015

  20. [27]

    Nguyen, K

    P. Nguyen, K. Tawri and R. Temam, Nonlinear stochastic parabolic partial differential equa- tions with a monotone operator of the Ladyzenskaya-Smagorinsky type driven by a Levy noise, Journal of Functional Analysis,281(2021), 109157

    2021

  21. [28]

    Ondrejat and J

    M. Ondrejat and J. Seidler, A counterexample to the strong Skorokhod representation the- orem,Stochastics and Partial Differential Equations: Analysis and Computations, DOI: 10.1007/s40072-025-00357-0, 2025

    2025 doi

  22. [29]

    Pardoux, Equations aux derivees partielles stochastiques non lineaires monotones, Ph.D

    E. Pardoux, Equations aux derivees partielles stochastiques non lineaires monotones, Ph.D. thesis, Universite Paris XI, 1975

    1975

  23. [30]

    Peccati, Weak convergence to Ocone martingales: a remark,Electronic Communications in Probability,9(2004), 172-174

    G. Peccati, Weak convergence to Ocone martingales: a remark,Electronic Communications in Probability,9(2004), 172-174

    2004

  24. [31]

    Simon, Compact sets in the spaceL p(0, T;B),Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, 146(1987), 65-96

    J. Simon, Compact sets in the spaceL p(0, T;B),Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, 146(1987), 65-96

    1987

  25. [33]

    Ros-Oton and J

    X. Ros-Oton and J. Serra, The Dirichlet problem for the fractional Laplacian: regularity up to the boundary,Journal de Mathematiques Pures et Appliquees,101(2014), 275-302

    2014

  26. [34]

    Servadei and E

    R. Servadei and E. Valdinoci, Variational methods for non-local operators of elliptic type, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems,33(2013), 2105-2137

    2013

  27. [35]

    Vallet and A

    G. Vallet and A. Zimmermann, Well-posedness for a pseudomonotone evolution problem with multiplicative noise,Journal of Evolution Equations,19(2019), 153-202

    2019

  28. [36]

    V´ azquez, The Dirichlet problem for the fractionalp-Laplacian evolution equation,Journal of Differential Equations,260(2016) 6038-6056

    J.L. V´ azquez, The Dirichlet problem for the fractionalp-Laplacian evolution equation,Journal of Differential Equations,260(2016) 6038-6056

    2016

  29. [37]

    Wang, Asymptotic behavior of non-autonomous fractional stochastic reaction-diffusion equations,Nonlinear Analysis TMA,158(2017), 60-82

    B. Wang, Asymptotic behavior of non-autonomous fractional stochastic reaction-diffusion equations,Nonlinear Analysis TMA,158(2017), 60-82

    2017

  30. [38]

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

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

    2019

  31. [39]

    Wang, Martingale solutions of fractional stochastic reaction-diffusion equations driven by superlinear noise, arXiv:2505.12180

    B. Wang, Martingale solutions of fractional stochastic reaction-diffusion equations driven by superlinear noise, arXiv:2505.12180

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    R. Wang, T. Caraballo and N. Tuan, Mean attractors and invariant measures of locally mono- tone and generally coercive SPDEs driven by superlinear noise,Journal of Differential Equa- tions,381(2024), 209-259

    2024

  33. [41]

    Wang and B

    R. Wang and B. Wang, Asymptotic behavior of non-autonomous fractional p-Laplacian equa- tions driven by additive noise on unbounded domains,Bulletin of Mathematical Sciences,11 (2021), Paper No. 2050020

    2021

  34. [42]

    Warma, On a fractional (s, p)-Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator on bounded Lipschitz do- mains,Journal of Elliptic and Parabolic Equations,4(2018) 223-269

    M. Warma, On a fractional (s, p)-Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator on bounded Lipschitz do- mains,Journal of Elliptic and Parabolic Equations,4(2018) 223-269

    2018

  35. [43]

    Warma, The fractional Neumann and Robin type boundary conditions for the regional fractionalp-Laplacian,Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications,23(2016) 1-46

    M. Warma, The fractional Neumann and Robin type boundary conditions for the regional fractionalp-Laplacian,Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications,23(2016) 1-46

    2016

  36. [44]

    Zhang, On stochastic evolution equations with non-Lipschitz coefficients,Stochastics and Dynamics,9(2009), 549-595

    X. Zhang, On stochastic evolution equations with non-Lipschitz coefficients,Stochastics and Dynamics,9(2009), 549-595. 44

    2009

Pith tools

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