REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references
Scattered point measurement-based regularization for backward problems for fractional wave equations
T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Tikhonov regularization of scattered noisy point measurements recovers the initial velocity of a fractional wave equation, with stochastic error bounds that improve as the number of sensors grows.
desk verdict Solid stability results for backward fractional wave problems, but the advertised L2 convergence rate in Theorem 3 rests on an unproved higher-moment bound; worth a careful revision and a serious referee. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the Mittag-Leffler function $E_{\alpha,2}(z)$, whose value at $z=-\lambda_n T^\alpha$ appears in the denominator of the coefficient formula $(a_1,\varphi_n)=(u(\cdot,T),\varphi_n)/(T\,E_{\alpha,2}(-\lambda_n T^\alpha))$. Its asymptotic lower bound turns division by the solution kernel into a polynomial amplification that the Tikhonov penalty absorbs, while the fact that the function has only finitely many real zeros supplies the exceptional terminal times to exclude. On the sampling side, the machinery is the quasi-uniform discrete norm inequality $\|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\le C(\|u\|_n^2+n^{-2k/d}\|u\|_{H^k(\Omega)}^2)$, which converts scattered point evaluations into Sobolev control and yields the explicit dependence on the sensor count $n$ in the convergence rates.
What would settle it
Fix a smooth target $a^*$, choose $\beta=1/4$, draw the noise $e_i$ from a distribution with finite variance but heavy tails, and estimate $\mathbb{E}[\|a_n^*-a^*\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^{2+2/\beta}]$ over many realizations for increasing $n$; if this empirical moment fails to follow the predicted $O(n^{-4(1+\beta)/d}+\rho_n)$ scaling, or if the step $\mathbb{E}[M_n^{2/\beta}]$ diverges, then the $L^{2}$ rate of Theorem 3 is not valid as stated.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
Using the eigenfunction expansion $u(x,t)=\sum_{n\ge 1} t\,E_{\alpha,2}(-\lambda_n t^\alpha)(a_1,\varphi_n)\varphi_n(x)$, the forward map $S$ has coefficients controlled from below and above through Mittag-Leffler lower bounds of the form $|E_{\alpha,2}(-\lambda T^\alpha)|\ge C(1+\lambda T^\alpha)^{-1}$. The paper proves that the minimizer $a_n^*$ of $\min_{a\in X}\|(Sa)(x)-m\|_n^2+\rho_n\|a\|_X^2$, with $m_i=(Sa^*)(x_i)+e_i$ and i.i.d. zero-mean noise of variance at most $\sigma^2$, satisfies, for $a^*\in D((-\Delta)^\beta)$ with $\beta>0$, $$\mathbb{E}\big[\|a_n^*-a^*\|_{$L^{2}$(\$\Omega$)}^{2+2/\$\beta$}\big] \le C\Big(\|a^*\|$_X^{2}$+\frac{\$sigma^{2}$}{n\$rho_n^{{1+d/[4(1+\beta)]}}$}\Big)^{2/\$\beta$}\Big($n^{{-4(1+\beta)/d}}$+\rho_n\Big),$$ and for $a^*\in L^2(\Omega)$, $$\mathbb{E}\big[\|a_n^*-a^*\|_{$H^{{-1}}$(\$\Omega$)}^4\big] \le C\big($n^{{-4/d}}$+\rho_n\big)\Big(\|a^*\|_{$L^{2}$(\$\Omega$)}^2+\frac{\$sigma^{2}$}{n\$rho_n^{{1+d/4}}$}\Big)^2.$$ These bounds hold for $\alpha\in(1,4/3]$ at every terminal time, and for $\alpha\in(4/3,2)$ when $T^\alpha$ avoids the finite exceptional set coming from real zeros of $E_{\alpha,2}$; the key structural step is a discrete eigenvalue lower bound $\mu_k^{(n)}\ge C k^{4(1+\gamma)/d}$ on the sampling space, which transfers the smoothing of the forward operator into the explicit $n$-dependence.
Load-bearing premise
The $L^{2}$-rate proof in Theorem 3 relies on the step $\mathbb{E}[M_n^{2/\beta}]\le C(\|a^*\|_X^2+\sigma^2/(n\rho_n^{1+d/[4(1+\beta)]}))^{1/\beta}$, where $M_n=\|(-\Delta)^\beta(a_n^*-a^*)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}$; Lemma 4.5 supplies only the second-moment estimate, and for $\beta<1$ the exponent $2/\beta$ exceeds $2$, so the advertised rate needs a higher-moment or boundedness condition on the noise that is not stated.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- For $\alpha\in(1,4/3]$, the stability and convergence results hold for every terminal time $T>0$; for $\alpha\in(4/3,2)$, they hold for all times outside a countable exceptional set determined by the zeros of $E_{\alpha,2}$.
- With the optimal regularization parameter, the expected $L^2$ reconstruction error is of order $n^{-4(1+\beta)/d}+\rho_n$, so increasing the number of scattered sensors provably reduces the error even when the observation noise is large.
- The iterative fixed-point algorithm selects the regularization parameter without prior knowledge of the noise level $\sigma$ or the norm of the true initial value, and in the numerical experiments it reaches a stable parameter within a few iterations.
- For rough initial data in $L^2(\Omega)$, the $H^{-1}$ quartic error bound gives stable recovery in a weak norm, with the same explicit dependence on $n$ and $\rho_n$, which covers initial profiles that are not smooth enough for the $L^2$ rate.
Reading between the lines
- The proof of Theorem 3 calls for the moment bound $\mathbb{E}[M_n^{2/\beta}]$ with $M_n=\|(-\Delta)^\beta(a_n^*-a^*)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}$, but only a second-moment bound for $M_n$ is established; assuming bounded noise or a sufficiently high moment on $e_i$ would close this gap, and the stated rate should survive such an added hypothesis.
- Because the convergence rates depend on the spatial dimension only through $d$ and the exponent $4(1+\beta)/d$, the framework suggests a quantitative sensor-placement rule: quasi-uniform scattered points suffice, and the benefit of each additional sensor decays more slowly in lower dimensions.
- The same discrete eigenvalue estimates could support recovering both initial values $a_0$ and $a_1$ from terminal observations at two time levels, which the authors list as future work; the stochastic analysis would need a two-parameter version of the sampling-space eigenvalue bound.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This paper studies the backward problem for a fractional wave equation with Caputo derivative of order α∈(1,2), aiming to recover the initial velocity a_1 from terminal observations. The authors use asymptotic and root-distribution properties of Mittag-Leffler functions to establish conditional Hölder stability (Theorems 1 and 2), with a relaxed condition on the terminal time for α∈(1,4/3]. They then propose a Tikhonov regularization method based on scattered point measurements corrupted by independent identically distributed noise, and claim stochastic convergence rates in L^2 and H^{-1} norms (Theorems 3 and 4) that exhibit explicit dependence on the number of sensors n. A fixed-point iteration for selecting the regularization parameter is also presented, followed by numerical experiments for several test problems.
Significance. If the main convergence theorems were valid, the paper would provide the first stochastic convergence rates for the backward fractional wave problem with scattered point observations, with explicit dependence on the number of sensors, and would extend the stability analysis to the range α∈(1,4/3] without restrictions on the terminal time. The stability estimates in Theorems 1–2 and the spectral lower bounds in Lemmas 4.2–4.4 are largely standard and appear correct, and the numerical experiments with a practical fixed-point parameter selection are informative. However, the advertised rates in Theorems 3 and 4 are not established by the proofs as written: the missing higher-moment and correlation estimates are load-bearing. The results may be recoverable under additional assumptions or with a repaired argument, but the paper in its current form does not prove its central claims.
major comments (4)
- [Section 4.3, proof of Theorem 3] In the proof of Theorem 3, after defining M_n = ||(-∆)^β(a_n^*-a*)||_{L^2}, the assertion E[M_n^{2/β}] ≤ C( ||a*||_X^2 + σ^2/(n ρ_n^{1+d/[4(1+β)]}) )^{1/β} is used. Lemma 4.5 provides only the second-moment estimate E[M_n^2] ≤ C A. For 0<β<1, the exponent 2/β exceeds 2, so Jensen's inequality gives E[M_n^{2/β}] ≥ (E[M_n^2])^{1/β}, and the reverse bound requires an additional boundedness or higher-moment assumption on M_n; none is stated in the noise assumptions (only E e_i=0 and E e_i^2≤σ^2). The proof also splits expressions of the form E[M_n^{2/β}( n^{-4/d}||a_n^*-a*||_{L^2}^2 + ... )] as E[M_n^{2/β}] times the expectation of the second factor, which silently assumes a correlation bound. Consequently, the L^2 convergence rate in Theorem 3 is not derived by the given proof.
- [Section 4.3, proof of Theorem 4] The same missing-moment problem affects Theorem 4. The proof chooses a deterministic M_n ≥ C E||a_n^*-a*||^2_{L^2}, but then passes from the pointwise conditional stability bound ||a||^2_{H^{-1}} ≤ C ||a||_{L^2} ||S(a)||_{L^2} to a bound on E||a_n^*-a*||^4_{H^{-1}} of the form C M_n (n^{-4/d} M_n + ρ_n ||a*||^2 + σ^2/(n ρ_n^{d/4})). This step effectively requires an estimate such as E[||a_n^*-a*||^2_{L^2} ||S(a_n^*-a*)||^2_{L^2}] ≤ M_n E||S(a_n^*-a*)||^2_{L^2}, which is not supplied by Lemma 4.5. Thus the H^{-1} theorem is not insulated from the higher-moment gap.
- [Theorem 3, displayed bound] The final display in Theorem 3 states E||a_n^*-a*||^{2+2/β} ≤ C ( ||a*||^2_X + σ^2/(n ρ_n^{1+d/[4(1+β)]}) )^{2/β} ( n^{-4(1+β)/d} + ρ_n ). The proof, however, yields a first term proportional to A^{2/β} n^{-4(1+β)/d} and a second term proportional to ρ_n A^{1+1/β}, where A denotes the bracket. For β≠1, ρ_n A^{1+1/β} cannot be absorbed into ρ_n A^{2/β} with a constant independent of A. The statement of Theorem 3 must be corrected to match the proof, or the proof must be revised accordingly.
- [Lemma 4.4 and Lemma 4.5] Lemma 4.4 asserts that the space V_n is orthonormal with respect to (Sψ_i,Sψ_j)_n = δ_ij. However, the basis constructed in Lemma 4.3 satisfies (Sψ_i)(x_j)=δ_ij, so with the definition (u,v)_n = n^{-1}Σ u(x_i)v(x_i) one obtains (Sψ_i,Sψ_j)_n = n^{-1}δ_ij, not δ_ij. Since Lemma 4.5's estimate of the noise term, leading to σ^2/n Σ(1+ρ μ_k^{(n)})^{-1}, relies on the representation and normalization from Lemma 4.4, this inconsistency is load-bearing; the proof needs rescaling (e.g., replacing ψ_i by sqrt(n)ψ_i) and the subsequent rates must be re-derived. As written, the factor of n in the discrete norm is not consistently tracked.
minor comments (5)
- [Corollary 2.1, proof] The proof ends with 'This completes the proof of the lemma', but the statement being proven is a corollary; the wording should be adjusted.
- [Throughout] The symbol β is used both as the smoothing order in X=D((-∆)^β) and as the power in the error exponent in Theorem 3; this overloading is confusing and should be disambiguated.
- [Lemma 4.3, proof] In the expression (ϕ−P_V[ϕ_i]) the index is missing; it should read (ϕ_i - P_V[ϕ_i]).
- [Example 1, Section 5] The reported noise levels '≈24%, 15%' for σ=0.2 and ||Sa_1||_{L∞}≈0.95,1.30 appear to be slightly off (one obtains approximately 21% and 15%); please verify the values or clarify the computation.
- [Remark 4.1] The displayed optimal regularization parameter and optimal error should be re-derived after the exponent mismatch in Theorem 3 is fixed; the current formulas rely on the unproven bound.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the stochastic error bounds are derived from Mittag-Leffler stability estimates and sampling inequalities, not from a fitted input or a self-citation chain; the unproved higher-moment step in Theorem 3 is a derivation gap, not a circular reduction.
full rationale
Although the proof of Theorems 3 and 4 relies on estimates from Lemma 4.5 and on the stability estimate Theorem 2, the chain of claims does not feed its conclusion back into its hypotheses. The Tikhonov solution a_n^* is defined by minimizing (4.4) from noisy point data, and the bounds in Theorems 3 and 4 contain the unknown true solution a^* through ||a^*||_X; the bounds are therefore not used as a construction of a_n^*. The regularization parameter is selected by the fixed-point Algorithm 1 using residual information rather than by fitting the constants of Theorem 3, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction loop. The external ingredients are standard and non-circular: Mittag-Leffler asymptotics (Lemma 2.1, Podlubny), the no-real-roots region (Lemma 2.3, Pskhu), lower bounds (Lemma 2.2 and Corollary 2.2, Floridia-Yamamoto), sampling inequalities (Lemma 4.1, Utreras), and the variational existence argument (Theorem 2.3 in [1], a published SINUM result). The same coauthor appears in [1] and [11], but those citations are not used to define the claimed error rates as their own inputs. There is, however, a genuine derivation gap: Theorem 3 needs E[M_n^{2/β}] ≤ C A^{1/β} for all β>0, while Lemma 4.5 gives only E[M_n^2] ≤ C A; for 0<β<1 this higher-moment step does not follow from the stated i.i.d. zero-mean, bounded-variance noise, and the proof also multiplies E[M_n^{2/β}] by expectations without a correlation estimate. A similar unproved fourth-moment control appears in Theorem 4. This is a completeness gap in the proof, not a circular reduction: the advertised rates are not constructed to be equivalent to any fitted parameter or to a prior result of the same authors.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (8)
- standard math Mittag-Leffler asymptotic expansion and decay estimate (Lemma 2.1) from Podlubny [21]
- standard math Finitely many real zeros and lower bound for E_{alpha,2}(-lambda T^alpha) except at exceptional times (Lemma 2.2) from Floridia and Yamamoto [5]
- standard math Positivity E_{alpha,2}(t) > 0 for all real t when 1 < alpha <= 4/3 (Lemma 2.3 from Pskhu [22])
- domain assumption For alpha in (4/3, 2), the terminal time satisfies T^alpha not in the countable exceptional set where some Mittag-Leffler denominator vanishes
- standard math Well-posedness and representation by eigenfunction expansion for the forward problem (Lemma 2.4 from Sakamoto and Yamamoto [24])
- domain assumption Sampling inequalities for quasi-uniform scattered points (Lemma 4.1 from Utreras [29])
- domain assumption Independent zero-mean noise with bounded variance and E[e_i e_j] = delta_ij
- ad hoc to paper Unstated higher-moment bound E[M_n^{2/beta}] <= C(...) in the proof of Theorem 3
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Scattered point measurement-based regularization for backward problems for fractional wave equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MNEJP5Q
@misc{pith2026250617575,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Scattered point measurement-based regularization for backward problems for fractional wave equations},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MNEJP5Q}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17575}
}
read the original abstract
In this work, we are devoted to the reconstruction of an unknown initial value from the terminal data. The asymptotic and root-distribution properties of Mittag-Leffler functions are used to establish stability of the backward problem. Furthermore, we introduce a regularization method that effectively handles scattered point measurements contaminated with stochastic noise. Furthermore, we prove the stochastic convergence of our proposed regularization and provide an iterative algorithm to find the optimal regularization parameter. Finally, several numerical experiments are presented to demonstrate the efficiency and accuracy of the algorithm.
Figures
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Stochastic convergence of regularized solutions and their finite element approximations to inverse source problems.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 60(2):751–780, 2022
Zhiming Chen, Wenlong Zhang, and Jun Zou. Stochastic convergence of regularized solutions and their finite element approximations to inverse source problems.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 60(2):751–780, 2022
2022
-
[2]
Salah-Eddine Chorfi, L. Maniar, and M. Yamamoto. The backward problem for time-fractional evolution equations.Applicable Analysis, 103(12):2194–2212, 2024
work page 2024
-
[3]
Salah-Eddine Chorfi, Lahcen Maniar, and Masahiro Yamamoto. Logarithmic con- vexity of non-symmetric time-fractional diffusion equations.Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 2022
work page 2022
-
[4]
Xiaoli Feng, Xiaoyu Yuan, Meixia Zhao, and Zhi Qian. Numerical methods for the forward and backward problems of a time-space fractional diffusion equation. Calcolo, 61(1):16, 2024
work page 2024
-
[5]
Giuseppe Floridia and Masahiro Yamamoto. Backward problems in time for frac- tional diffusion-wave equation.Inverse Problems, 36(12):124003, 2020. 21
work page 2020
-
[6]
Hatano and N
Y. Hatano and N. Hatano. Dispersive transport of ions in column experiments: An explanation of long-tailed profiles.Water Resources Research, 34(5):1027–1034, 1998
1998
-
[7]
Jiawei He and Yong Zhou. On a backward problem for nonlinear time fractional wave equations.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Section A Mathe- matics, 152(6):1589–1612, 2022
work page 2022
-
[8]
A regularized domain decomposition method with lagrange multiplier
Qiya Hu. A regularized domain decomposition method with lagrange multiplier. Advances in Computational Mathematics, 26:401, 2007
work page 2007
Show all 35 references
-
[9]
A new variational approach for inverse source problems.Numerical Mathematics: Theory, Methods and Applications, 12(2):331– 347, 2019
Qiya Hu, Shi Shu, and Jun Zou. A new variational approach for inverse source problems.Numerical Mathematics: Theory, Methods and Applications, 12(2):331– 347, 2019
2019
-
[10]
Backward problem for a time-space fractional diffusion equation.Inverse Problems and Imaging, 12(3):773– 799, 2018
Junxiong Jia, Jigen Peng, Jinghuai Gao, and Yujiao Li. Backward problem for a time-space fractional diffusion equation.Inverse Problems and Imaging, 12(3):773– 799, 2018
2018
-
[11]
B. Jin, Q. Quan, and W. Zhang. Stochastic convergence analysis of inverse potential problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14106, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[12]
Inverse problems for subdiffusion from observation at an unknown terminal time.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 83(4):1496–1517, 2023
Bangti Jin, Yavar Kian, and Zhi Zhou. Inverse problems for subdiffusion from observation at an unknown terminal time.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 83(4):1496–1517, 2023
2023
-
[13]
Kilbas, Hari M
Anatoly A. Kilbas, Hari M. Srivastava, and Juan J. Trujillo.Theory and applica- tions of fractional differential equations, volume 204 ofNorth-Holland Mathematics Studies. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 2006
2006
-
[14]
Kubica, K
A. Kubica, K. Ryszewska, and M. Yamamoto.Introduction to a Theory of Time- fractional Partial Differential Equations. Springer Japan, Tokyo, 2020
2020
-
[15]
De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2019
Zhiyuan Li, Yikan Liu, and Masahiro Yamamoto.Inverse problems of determin- ing parameters of the fractional partial differential equations, pages 431–442. De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2019
2019
-
[16]
De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2019
Zhiyuan Li and Masahiro Yamamoto.Inverse problems of determining coefficients of the fractional partial differential equations, pages 443–464. De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2019
2019
-
[17]
Liu and M
J. Liu and M. Yamamoto. A backward problem for the time-fractional diffusion equation.Appl. Anal., 89:1769–1788, 2010
2010
-
[18]
Y. Liu, Z. Li, and M. Yamamoto.Inverse Problems of Determining Sources of the Fractional Partial Differential Equations, volume 2, pages 411–429. De Gruyter, Berlin, 2019
2019
-
[19]
The random walk’s guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach.Phys
Ralf Metzler and Joseph Klafter. The random walk’s guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach.Phys. Rep., 339(1):77, 2000
2000
-
[20]
Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1999
Igor Podlubny.Fractional differential equations, volume 198 ofMathematics in Science and Engineering. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1999. An intro- duction to fractional derivatives, fractional differential equations, to methods of their solution and some of their applications
1999
-
[21]
Academic Press, 1999
Igor Podlubny.Fractional Differential Equations: An Introduction to Fractional Derivatives, Fractional Differential Equations, to Methods of Their Solution and Some of Their Applications, volume 198 ofMathematics in Science and Engineer- ing. Academic Press, 1999
1999
-
[22]
On the real zeros of functions of mittag-leffler type.Mathematical Notes, 77(3):546–556, 2005
A V Pskhu. On the real zeros of functions of mittag-leffler type.Mathematical Notes, 77(3):546–556, 2005
2005
-
[23]
Regularization by projection for a back- ward problem of the time-fractional diffusion equation.J
Caixuan Ren, Xiang Xu, and Shuai Lu. Regularization by projection for a back- ward problem of the time-fractional diffusion equation.J. Inverse Ill-Posed Probl., 22:121–139, 2014. 22
2014
-
[24]
Initial value/boundary value problems for fractional diffusion-wave equations and applications to some inverse problems
Kenichi Sakamoto and Masahiro Yamamoto. Initial value/boundary value problems for fractional diffusion-wave equations and applications to some inverse problems. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 382(1):426–447, 2011
2011
-
[25]
The backward problem for an inho- mogeneous time-fractional diffusion-wave equation in an axis-symmetric cylinder
Chengxin Shi, Hao Cheng, and Xiaoxiao Geng. The backward problem for an inho- mogeneous time-fractional diffusion-wave equation in an axis-symmetric cylinder. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 137:44–60, 2023
2023
-
[26]
Liangliang Sun, Yuxin Wang, and Maoli Chang. A fractional-order quasi- reversibility method to a backward problem for the multi-term time-fractional dif- fusion equation.Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics, 27(6):1185–1210, December 2023
2023
-
[27]
A fully discrete difference scheme for a diffusion- wave system.Applied Numerical Mathematics, 56(2):193–209, 2006
Zhizhong Sun and Xiaonan Wu. A fully discrete difference scheme for a diffusion- wave system.Applied Numerical Mathematics, 56(2):193–209, 2006
2006
-
[28]
N. H. Tuan, L. N. Huynh, T. B. Ngoc, and Y. Zhou. On a backward problem for nonlinear fractional diffusion equations.Appl. Math. Lett., 92:76–84, 2019
2019
-
[29]
Florencio I. Utreras. Convergence rates for multivariate smoothing spline functions. Journal of Approximation Theory, 52(1):1–27, 1988
1988
-
[30]
J.G. Wang, T. Wei, and Y. Zhou. Tikhonov regularization method for a back- ward problem for the time-fractional diffusion equation.Appl. Math. Model., 37(18):8518–8532, 2013
2013
-
[31]
Wang and J
L. Wang and J. Liu. Total variation regularization for a backward time-fractional diffusion problem.Inverse Problems, 29(11):115013, 2013
2013
-
[32]
Wei and Y
T. Wei and Y. Zhang. The backward problem for a time-fractional diffusion-wave equation in a bounded domain.Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 75:3632–3648, 2018
2018
-
[33]
Wen, Z.Y
J. Wen, Z.Y. Li, and Y.P. Wang. Solving the backward problem for time-fractional wave equations by the quasi-reversibility regularization method.Advances in Com- putational Mathematics, 49:80, 2023
2023
-
[34]
R. Zacher. Weak solutions of abstract evolutionary integro-differential equations in hilbert spaces.Funkcial. Ekvac., 52:1–18, 2009
2009
-
[35]
Backward diffusion-wave problem: Stability, regular- ization, and approximation.SIAM Journal of Scientific Computing, 44(5):A3183– A3216, 2022
Zhengqi Zhang and Zhi Zhou. Backward diffusion-wave problem: Stability, regular- ization, and approximation.SIAM Journal of Scientific Computing, 44(5):A3183– A3216, 2022. 23
2022
Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.