Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Multi-horizon kNN forecast-error growth can flag fractional dynamics when the error curve fits a Mittag–Leffler law better than an exponential one.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Multi-horizon kNN forecast-error growth that fits Mittag–Leffler better than exponential is a preliminary diagnostic of fractional-memory dynamics in scalar time series.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-10 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful method extension of forecast-error growth to a fractional diagnostic, honest about its limits, but specificity is still untested without integer-order controls. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08588 v1 pith:L6WJ3SDU submitted 2026-07-09 math.DS

Mittag-Leffler-Type Forecast-Error Growth as a Diagnostic Indicator of Fractional Dynamics

N'Gbo N'Gbo , Andrei Velichko This is my paper
classification math.DS MSC 37M1026A3334A08
keywords Fractional dynamicsforecast error growthk-nearest neighborsMittag–Leffler functionfractional systemsdelay embeddingchaos detection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that you can test a scalar time series for fractional-memory signatures without knowing the governing equations. Train a simple k-nearest-neighbors forecaster on delay-embedded observations, then watch how the out-of-sample prediction error grows (or contracts) as the forecast horizon lengthens. Classical chaotic integer-order systems produce roughly exponential error growth; fractional systems are expected to produce slower, Mittag–Leffler-type growth or decay. By fitting both laws to the same empirical curve and checking that the local slope of the log-error declines, the method builds a preliminary fractionality indicator. On a known fractional chaotic system the Mittag–Leffler model cut RMSE by about 58 percent and won in every bootstrap replicate; the same advantage appears in stable fractional relaxation and in a kNN contraction test. The fitted Mittag–Leffler order is treated only as a shape parameter of the error curve, not as a recovered system order.

Core claim

The geometry of multi-horizon forecast error on a scalar series carries a usable signature of fractional dynamics: when the normalized kNN error-growth (or contraction) curve is better described by a Mittag–Leffler law than by a classical exponential law, and when the local slope of the log-error falls with horizon, the series is consistent with fractional-memory behavior. This holds for both chaotic divergence and stable relaxation, and the preference for Mittag–Leffler is stable under bootstrap resampling of the test set.

What carries the argument

The multi-horizon kNN forecast-error curve: after delay-embedding a scalar series and training a K-nearest-neighbors regressor, form the geometric-mean absolute error G(h) at each horizon h, normalize by G(1), then compare exponential versus Mittag–Leffler parametric fits (plus the local slope of log G) as a fractionality indicator.

Load-bearing premise

A better Mittag–Leffler fit to the forecast-error curve is taken as evidence of fractional memory rather than of any other non-exponential geometry, extra free parameter, embedding choice, or long-memory mimic.

What would settle it

Run the identical pipeline on matched integer-order chaotic maps and on classical long-memory series that are not fractional (e.g., structural-break or aggregated processes): if Mittag–Leffler still wins RMSE and local-slope tests as often as on true fractional Caputo systems, the diagnostic does not specifically indicate fractional dynamics.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Scalar observations alone can supply a pre-model check before one commits to a fractional governing equation.
  • The same forecast-error geometry already used for chaos detection can double as a dynamical-characterization tool for memory effects.
  • A positive diagnostic supports trying fractional models in applications where only limited measurements exist, while leaving exact order recovery as a separate inverse problem.
  • Windowed and bootstrap comparisons of RMSE and log-RMSE give a practical robustness layer for the indicator.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Without published negative controls on integer-order chaos and non-fractional long memory under the same pipeline, the indicator’s specificity remains unproven and should be the first follow-up experiment.
  • Because α_fit is only a shape parameter, pairing this diagnostic with an independent order estimator (or multivariate measurements) would be the natural next step toward full identification.
  • If the method survives noise and real experimental series (viscoelastic, electrochemical, biological), it could become a cheap gatekeeping step against unjustified fractionalization of models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-driven preliminary diagnostic for fractional-memory signatures in scalar time series: multi-horizon out-of-sample kNN forecast-error growth (geometric-mean absolute error after delay embedding) is fitted by classical exponential and free-order Mittag–Leffler models, with local log-slope behavior used as supporting evidence. On a Caputo fractional chaotic system the Mittag–Leffler model reduces RMSE by ~58% relative to exponential (Δ>0 in 100% of 500 bootstrap replicates); analogous gains appear for analytical and kNN-based stable fractional relaxation/contraction. The authors correctly treat the fitted order α_fit as an effective shape parameter of the error curve rather than a recovery of the true system order, and position the pipeline as an intermediate check before full fractional identification.

Significance. If the diagnostic is shown to be reasonably specific, it supplies a practical, equation-free, time-domain pre-model test that could curb unjustified fractionalization of complex systems when only scalar observations are available. Strengths that should be retained include the nonparametric kNN pipeline, the explicit refusal to equate α_fit with the true order, the dual evaluation on chaotic growth and stable contraction, the bootstrap stability analysis, and the connection to the authors’ earlier forecast-error LLE estimator. These elements make the contribution more than a pure curve-fitting exercise and give it clear applied value in dynamical systems and fractional modeling.

major comments (3)
  1. Section 3 evaluates only Caputo fractional systems (chaotic system (3.1) with α_true=0.916 and stable relaxation (3.3) with α=0.70). The central claim that superior Mittag–Leffler versus exponential fit of G(τ) is a diagnostic of fractional-memory dynamics therefore lacks a matched integer-order negative control run under identical embedding (m=8, τ_embed=2), K=3, horizon schedule, geometric-mean error, and free-order ML fitting. Without that control (e.g., the logistic or other maps already used in the authors’ prior LLE work), it remains untested whether the observed preference is specific to fractional memory or simply reflects any non-exponential geometry that the three-parameter ML model can capture.
  2. Table 4 and the global fit: the free-order Mittag–Leffler model has three free parameters (C_ML, λ_ML, α_fit) against two for the exponential model, yet model comparison is reported solely via RMSE (and log-RMSE). Globally α_fit collapses to ≈0.007, far from α_true=0.916, confirming that the RMSE gain is driven by flexible curvature rather than recovery of the system order. An information-criterion or nested-model penalty (as already used for the stable kNN contraction in Table 6) is needed to show that the preference survives the extra degree of freedom; otherwise the 58% reduction and 100% bootstrap Δ>0 are expected by construction and do not yet establish a fractional-specific signature.
  3. Discussion correctly flags long-memory mimics (structural breaks, aggregation, low-frequency contamination) but does not subject any of them to the same multi-horizon kNN pipeline. Because the indicator is defined essentially as “ML fits G(τ) better than exponential plus decreasing local log-slope,” these classical confounders remain unexcluded; a minimal set of synthetic non-fractional long-memory or broken-trend series would make the specificity claim load-bearing rather than aspirational.
minor comments (4)
  1. Section headings contain stray spaces (“F ractional chaotic system”, “F ractional stable system”); clean for production.
  2. Table 5 shows two intermediate windows with Δ≤0; a brief remark on the transitional regime would help readers interpret the windowed analysis.
  3. Figures 2–3 would benefit from explicit statement of the horizon units (τ = h·Δt_obs) in the captions so that the plotted range is immediately comparable to the tables.
  4. The reconstruction-parameter sweep (Table 2) is useful; stating whether the same (m,τ_embed) optimum was re-used for the stable contraction experiment would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Mild flexibility bias in the ML-vs-exp comparison (extra free parameter) plus non-load-bearing self-citation of the coauthor's prior forecast-error pipeline; central claim remains an empirical model comparison, not a definitional loop.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.5 Eqs. (2.15)–(2.21), §3.2.1 Table 4, Abstract]
    "G_ML(τ)=C_ML E_αfit(λ_ML τ^αfit) … The parameters C_ML, λ_ML, and α_fit are estimated simultaneously from the data. … On a fractional chaotic system the Mittag–Leffler model achieved a 58% reduction in RMSE over the exponential model … α_fit=0.007422"

    The Mittag–Leffler model is given three free parameters while the exponential competitor has only two. The reported superiority (RMSE drop, Δ>0 in 100% of bootstraps) is therefore partly forced by the extra degree of freedom; the fitted α_fit collapses to a near-zero effective shape value unrelated to α_true. The diagnostic indicator is defined as this superior fit, so a non-negligible fraction of the claimed ‘fractional signature’ is the flexibility of the ansatz itself rather than an independent geometric property of the data.

  2. self citation load bearing [§1 (paragraph introducing the method)]
    "Recently, Velichko et al. [34] introduced a data-driven Largest Lyapunov Exponent (LLE) estimator for one-dimensional chaotic time series that trains a forecasting model and infers the exponent from the exponential growth of geometrically averaged forecast error across prediction horizons. … In this article, we aim to adapt a similar approach to construct a data-driven preliminary “fractionality” diagnostic pipeline."

    The multi-horizon kNN forecast-error pipeline that underpins the entire diagnostic is justified by a 2025 paper whose author list overlaps with the present work. While the citation is not a uniqueness theorem and the fractionality claim itself is tested on new simulations, the methodological core is imported from the co-author’s immediately preceding result rather than re-derived or externally validated inside the present manuscript.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a self-definitional derivation or a prediction that is forced by construction from its own fitted inputs. The diagnostic is explicitly a model-comparison procedure: empirical multi-horizon geometric-mean kNN error growth G̃(h) is fitted by both G_exp(τ)=C_exp exp(λ_exp τ) (two free parameters) and G_ML(τ)=C_ML E_αfit(λ_ML τ^αfit) (three free parameters), and superior ML RMSE plus a decreasing local log-slope is taken as a preliminary fractionality indicator. The authors repeatedly caution that α_fit is only an effective shape parameter, not an estimate of the true Caputo order (explicitly stated in abstract, §4 and conclusion). The linear Caputo motivation (Eqs. 2.16–2.18) is classical and external; the numerical experiments on system (3.1) and the stable relaxation (3.3) are independent of that motivation. The sole self-citation of Velichko et al. [34] merely supplies the earlier multi-horizon kNN forecast-error idea for LLE estimation; it is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem that forces the present fractionality claim. The residual mild circularity is only that an extra free parameter can improve RMSE by construction (global α_fit collapses to ~0.007, far from α_true=0.916), so part of the reported 58 % gain is flexibility rather than a pure fractional signature; the local-slope and bootstrap analyses supply partial independent grounding. No integer-order negative control is present, but that is a specificity/correctness gap, not circularity under the stated criteria. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained and empirical; score remains low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on standard Caputo/Mittag–Leffler theory, the domain premise that fractional memory imprints non-exponential forecast-error geometry, and the Velichko-style premise that multi-horizon kNN error growth proxies divergence/contraction—plus several fitted embedding and model parameters. No new physical entity is postulated; the ‘fractionality indicator’ is a comparative fit construct. The largest unearned step is treating better ML fit as specific evidence of fractional dynamics without negative controls for other non-exponential mechanisms.

free parameters (6)
  • α_fit (Mittag–Leffler order in error-growth model) = 0.007422 (global chaotic); 0.804866 (free-order stable kNN)
    Fitted jointly with C_ML and λ_ML by log-domain MSE; global chaotic fit gives α_fit≈0.007, far from α_true=0.916; treated as shape parameter but still free.
  • λ_ML, C_ML (ML growth/decay amplitude and rate) = C_ml≈0.004984, λ_ml≈1.010588 (chaotic global)
    Free parameters of G_ML(τ)=C_ML E_α(λ_ML τ^α); estimated from the same error-growth curve used for the diagnostic.
  • C_exp, λ_exp (exponential model) = C_exp≈6.12, λ_exp≈0.158 (chaotic global)
    Baseline two-parameter exponential fit to the same normalized error curve.
  • K (nearest neighbors) = 3
    Chosen by short-horizon R²/RMSE sensitivity; optimal K=3 used for all main results.
  • m, τ_embed (delay embedding) = m=8, τ_embed=2
    Selected by reconstruction sensitivity grid; optimal m=8, τ_embed=2; diagnostic depends on this reconstruction.
  • Simulation/observation settings (Δt, stride, H_max, train fraction) = Δt=0.01, stride=5, H_max=400, α_true=0.916 (chaotic case)
    Hand-chosen generation and evaluation settings that define the observed series and horizons over which models are compared.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Linear Caputo evolution C D^α u = λ u has solution u(t)=u0 E_α(λ t^α), recovering exponential at α=1; this motivates modeling forecast-error growth/decay by Mittag–Leffler forms.
    Invoked in §2.5 eqs. (2.16)–(2.18) and stable case (3.3)–(3.4).
  • domain assumption Out-of-sample multi-horizon kNN forecast-error growth (geometric mean absolute error) is a usable proxy for trajectory divergence or contraction geometry on delay-embedded scalar series.
    Carried over from Velichko et al. [34] and adopted throughout §2.3–2.4 without independent proof for fractional attractors.
  • ad hoc to paper Superior Mittag–Leffler vs exponential fit of the empirical error-growth curve, plus decreasing local log-slope, indicates fractional-memory signatures rather than other non-exponential mechanisms.
    Core interpretive step of the diagnostic (§1, §2.5, Discussion); not established by negative controls in the experiments.
  • domain assumption Standard delay-coordinate embedding without fractional weights still yields a state space in which kNN neighbors are meaningful for forecasting fractional trajectories.
    Stated in §2.2; authors note kNN has no direct knowledge of α.
  • domain assumption Long-memory-like geometry can arise from non-fractional causes (breaks, aggregation, low-frequency contamination), so diagnostics should compare alternative laws—not only estimate a noninteger order.
    Cited from time-series literature in Introduction; motivates model comparison but is not operationalized as a control experiment.
invented entities (1)
  • Preliminary fractionality indicator from multi-horizon forecast-error geometry no independent evidence
    purpose: Data-driven flag that a scalar series is more consistent with Mittag–Leffler-type memory than classical exponential error growth, without recovering the governing equation.
    Methodological construct defined by ML-vs-exp fit quality and local log-slope behavior; no independent physical existence outside the proposed pipeline.

reviewed 2026-07-10 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mittag-Leffler-Type Forecast-Error Growth as a Diagnostic Indicator of Fractional Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L6WJ3SDU

@misc{pith2026260708588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mittag-Leffler-Type Forecast-Error Growth as a Diagnostic Indicator of Fractional Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L6WJ3SDU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08588}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Fractional calculus is a powerful framework for modeling nonlocal behavior in complex systems. However, the identification of fractional dynamics from measured time series remains challenging, as most existing approaches require knowledge of the underlying governing equations. In this work, we propose a data-driven diagnostic pipeline that detects fractional signatures directly from scalar observations using a multi-horizon k-nearest neighbors (kNN) forecast-error growth framework. The central idea is that fractional systems exhibit power-law or Mittag-Leffler error growth, in contrast to the exponential divergence characteristic of chaotic integer-order systems. By comparing the empirical error-growth curve against exponential and Mittag-Leffler models, and by examining the local slope of the logarithmic curve, we construct a preliminary fractionality indicator. The method is evaluated on a fractional chaotic system and in a controlled stable fractional relaxation setting, including a kNN-based contraction test. On a fractional chaotic system the Mittag-Leffler model achieved a 58% reduction in RMSE over the exponential model, with $\Delta>0$ in 100% of bootstrap replicates. In the stable relaxation setting, Mittag-Leffler decay strongly outperformed the exponential alternative; in the kNN contraction test, the free-order Mittag-Leffler model reduced the RMSE from $4.810\times 10^{-3}$ to $5.14\times10^{-4}$. The fitted Mittag-Leffler order should be interpreted as an effective shape parameter of the error-growth curve rather than as a direct estimate of the true system order, the recovery of which remains a more difficult inverse problem. Our results demonstrate that multi-horizon forecast-error geometry can serve not only for forecasting and chaos detection, but also for dynamical characterization in fractional systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08588 by Andrei Velichko, N'Gbo N'Gbo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sensitivity of prediction agreement to K. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Normalized kNN forecast-error growth curve (left) and logarithmic representation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Local slope comparison. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Bootstrap analysis of the normalized kNN error-growth curve. 4 Discussion The results presented in Section 3 demonstrate that the proposed kNN-based forecast-error growth framework can serve as an effective data-driven diagnostic for detecting fractional sig￾natures in scalar time series. The central finding of this study is that the multi-horizon forecast￾error curve, when compared against exponential and… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Information Encoding/Decoding using the Memory Effect in Fractional-order Capacitive Devices

    Allagui, A., Elwakil, A.S., 2021. Information encoding/decoding using the memory effect in fractional-order capacitive devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03362

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Special issue on application of fractional calculus: Mathematical modeling and control — part ii

    Boulaaras, S., Pham, V.T., Jan, R., 2025. Special issue on application of fractional calculus: Mathematical modeling and control — part ii. Fractals doi:10.1142/s0218348x25020050

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218348x25020050 2025

  3. [3]

    Algorithms for testing of fractional dynamics: a practical guide to arfima modelling

    Burnecki, K., Weron, A., 2014. Algorithms for testing of fractional dynamics: a practical guide to arfima modelling. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2014, P10036

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Inferring the fractional nature of wu baleanu trajectories

    Conejero, J.A., Garibo-i Orts, Ò., Lizama, C., 2023. Inferring the fractional nature of wu baleanu trajectories. Nonlinear Dynamics 111, 12421–12431

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    The Analysis of Fractional Differential Equations

    Diethelm, K., 2010. The Analysis of Fractional Differential Equations. Springer, Berlin

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Measuring memory with the order of fractional derivative

    Du, M., Wang, Z., Hu, H., 2013. Measuring memory with the order of fractional derivative. Scientific Reports 3. doi:10.1038/srep03431

    work page doi:10.1038/srep03431 2013

  7. [7]

    Recursive system identification of continuous-time fractional systems for all parameter estimation

    Duhé, J.F., Victor, S., Melchior, P., Abdelmoumen, Y., Roubertie, F., 2024. Recursive system identification of continuous-time fractional systems for all parameter estimation. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 32, 2037–2049

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Modeling and parameter estimation for fractional large-scale interconnected hammerstein systems

    Elloumi, M., Naifar, O., Bouzida, I., 2025. Modeling and parameter estimation for fractional large-scale interconnected hammerstein systems. Asian Journal of Control doi:10.1002/asjc.70009. 15

    work page doi:10.1002/asjc.70009 2025

  9. [9]

    Advanced materials modelling via fractional calculus: challenges and perspectives

    Failla, G., Zingales, M., 2020. Advanced materials modelling via fractional calculus: challenges and perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 378. doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0050

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0050 2020

  10. [10]

    Numerical methods for the caputo-type fractional derivative with an exponential kernel

    Fan, E., Li, C., Li, Z., 2023. Numerical methods for the caputo-type fractional derivative with an exponential kernel. J. Appl. Anal. Comput. 13, 376–423

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    The estimation and application of long memory time series models

    Geweke, J., Porter-Hudak, S., 1983. The estimation and application of long memory time series models. Journal of Time Series Analysis 4, 221–238. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9892. 1983.tb00371.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1467-9892 1983

  12. [12]

    1365-2966.2004.08384.x

    Granger, C.W.J., Joyeux, R., 1980. An introduction to long-memory time series models and fractional differencing. Journal of Time Series Analysis 1, 15–29. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-9892.1980.tb00297.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j 1980

  13. [13]

    Long memory, fractional integration, and cross-sectional aggregation

    Haldrup, N., Valdés, J.E., 2017. Long memory, fractional integration, and cross-sectional aggregation. Journal of Econometrics 199, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2017.03.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2017.03.001 2017

  14. [14]

    A new approach to detect long memory by fractional integration or short memory by structural break

    Huang, Y., Ding, L., Lin, Y., Luo, Y., 2024. A new approach to detect long memory by fractional integration or short memory by structural break. AIMS Mathematics doi:10. 3934/math.2024798

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Applications of fractional calculus in science and engineering 7, 4385–4394

    Jacob, J., Priya, J., Karthika, A., 2020. Applications of fractional calculus in science and engineering 7, 4385–4394

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Theory and Applications of Fractional Differential Equations

    Kiliaas, A.A., Srivastava, H.M., Trujillo, J.J., 2006. Theory and Applications of Fractional Differential Equations. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    A perturbation robust test against spurious long memory

    Less, V., Sibbertsen, P., 2025. A perturbation robust test against spurious long memory. Econometrics and Statistics doi:10.1016/j.ecosta.2025.10.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ecosta.2025.10.002 2025

  18. [18]

    Determining lyapunov exponents of fractional-order systems: A general method based on memory principle

    Li, H., Shen, Y., Han, Y., Dong, J., Li, J., 2023. Determining lyapunov exponents of fractional-order systems: A general method based on memory principle. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113167

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113167 2023

  19. [19]

    Fractional order system identification with occupation kernel regression

    Li, X., Rosenfeld, J.A., 2021. Fractional order system identification with occupation kernel regression. IEEE Control Systems Letters 6, 19–24. doi:10.1109/LCSYS.2020.3046408

    work page doi:10.1109/lcsys.2020.3046408 2021

  20. [20]

    Mittag-leffler stability of fractional order nonlinear dynamic systems

    Li, Y., Chen, Y., Podlubny, I., 2009. Mittag-leffler stability of fractional order nonlinear dynamic systems. Automatica 45, 1965–1969. doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2009.04.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2009.04.003 2009

  21. [21]

    Stability of fractional-order nonlinear dynamic sys- tems: Lyapunov direct method and generalized mittag-leffler stability

    Li, Y., Chen, Y., Podlubny, I., 2010. Stability of fractional-order nonlinear dynamic sys- tems: Lyapunov direct method and generalized mittag-leffler stability. Computers & Math- ematics with Applications 59, 1810–1821. doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2009.08.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2009.08.019 2010

  22. [22]

    Fractional calculus - theory and applications

    Macías-Díaz, J., 2022. Fractional calculus - theory and applications. Axioms 11, 43. doi:10.3390/axioms11020043

    work page doi:10.3390/axioms11020043 2022

  23. [23]

    A note on the equivalence of fractional relaxation equations to differ- ential equations with varying coefficients

    Mainardi, F., 2018. A note on the equivalence of fractional relaxation equations to differ- ential equations with varying coefficients. Mathematics 6, 8. doi:10.3390/math6010008

    work page doi:10.3390/math6010008 2018

  24. [24]

    Why the mittag-leffler function can be considered the queen function of the fractional calculus? Entropy 22

    Mainardi, F., 2020. Why the mittag-leffler function can be considered the queen function of the fractional calculus? Entropy 22. doi:10.3390/e22121359

    work page doi:10.3390/e22121359 2020

  25. [25]

    On mittag-leffler-type functions in fractional evolution processes

    Mainardi, F., Gorenflo, R., 2000. On mittag-leffler-type functions in fractional evolution processes. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 118, 283–299. doi:10.1016/ S0377-0427(00)00294-6. 16

    work page 2000

  26. [26]

    From stretched exponential to inverse power-law: Fractional dynamics, cole-cole relaxation processes, and beyond

    Metzler, R., Klafter, J., 2002. From stretched exponential to inverse power-law: Fractional dynamics, cole-cole relaxation processes, and beyond. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 305, 81–87. doi:10.1016/S0022-3093(02)01124-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-3093(02)01124-9 2002

  27. [27]

    Testing for level shifts in fractionally integrated processes: A state space approach

    Monache, D.D., Grassi, S., Magistris, P., 2015. Testing for level shifts in fractionally integrated processes: A state space approach. Studies in Economics

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    Chaos detection in generalizedψ-fractional differential systems

    N’Gbo, N., Li, C., Cai, M., 2024. Chaos detection in generalizedψ-fractional differential systems. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics doi:10.1115/1.4067471

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4067471 2024

  29. [29]

    Fractional Differential Equations

    Podlubny, I., 1999. Fractional Differential Equations. Academic Press, San Diego

    work page 1999

  30. [30]

    Identification of fractional systems using an output-error technique

    Poinot, T., Trigeassou, J., 2004. Identification of fractional systems using an output-error technique. Nonlinear Dynamics 38, 133–154. doi:10.1007/s11071-004-3751-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11071-004-3751-y 2004

  31. [31]

    Analysis of a fractional-order chaotic system in the context of the ca- puto fractional derivative via bifurcation and lyapunov exponents

    Sene, N., 2021. Analysis of a fractional-order chaotic system in the context of the ca- puto fractional derivative via bifurcation and lyapunov exponents. Journal of King Saud University-Science 33, 101275

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    On history of mathematical economics: Application of fractional calculus

    Tarasov, V.E., 2019. On history of mathematical economics: Application of fractional calculus. Mathematics 7. doi:10.3390/math7060509

    work page doi:10.3390/math7060509 2019

  33. [33]

    A comprehensive re- view of fractional calculus in modeling real-world phenomena

    Uddin, A., Juyal, P., Shah, R., Kailasavalli, D.S., Bharani, J., 2025. A comprehensive re- view of fractional calculus in modeling real-world phenomena. Communications on Applied Nonlinear Analysis doi:10.52783/cana.v32.4182

    work page doi:10.52783/cana.v32.4182 2025

  34. [34]

    A novel approach for estimating largest lyapunov exponents in one-dimensional chaotic time series using machine learning

    Velichko, A., Belyaev, M., Boriskov, P., 2025. A novel approach for estimating largest lyapunov exponents in one-dimensional chaotic time series using machine learning. Chaos 35 10. doi:10.1063/5.0289352

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0289352 2025

  35. [35]

    Robust multi-innovation full pa- rameter identification for separable fractional-order systems based on online measurements

    Wang, J., Shi, X., Xiong, W., Ding, F., William, H., 2026. Robust multi-innovation full pa- rameter identification for separable fractional-order systems based on online measurements. ISA transactions

    work page 2026

  36. [36]

    Identifying climate memory impacts on climate network analysis: A new approach based on fractional integral techniques

    Wei, Z., Yuan, N., 2024. Identifying climate memory impacts on climate network analysis: A new approach based on fractional integral techniques. Climate Dynamics 62, 3465–3476. doi:10.1007/s00382-023-07076-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00382-023-07076-z 2024

  37. [37]

    Identification method for a fractional- ordersystemintermsofequivalentdynamicproperties

    Yuan, M., Xu, W., Liu, F., Wang, L., Lu, Y., 2024. Identification method for a fractional- ordersystemintermsofequivalentdynamicproperties. Chaos34. doi:10.1063/5.0187031

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0187031 2024

  38. [38]

    Extracting climate memory using fractional integrated statistical model: A new perspective on climate prediction

    Yuan, N., Fu, Z., Liu, S.d., 2014. Extracting climate memory using fractional integrated statistical model: A new perspective on climate prediction. Scientific Reports 4. doi:10. 1038/srep06577

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    Sparse identification of fractional chaotic systems based on the time-domain data

    Zhang, T., Lu, Z., Liu, J.k., Liu, G., 2024. Sparse identification of fractional chaotic systems based on the time-domain data. Chinese Journal of Physics doi:10.1016/j.cjph. 2024.02.050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cjph 2024

  40. [40]

    Hierarchical estimation method for fractional-order systems based on the auxiliary model

    Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, F., 2026. Hierarchical estimation method for fractional-order systems based on the auxiliary model. Applied Mathematics and Computation 512, 129749. 17

    work page 2026

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 10, 2026.