Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Integral Representations for Interface Problems for the Barenblatt-Sobolev-Galpern Pseudoparabolic Equation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Contour-integral formulas solve nonstandard interface and boundary problems for the Barenblatt pseudo-parabolic equation.

desk verdict Solid, incremental UTM formulas for nonstandard Barenblatt IBVPs and interfaces; the math checks out, the physics framing is aspirational, and the det=0 restriction is the main caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27119 v1 pith:TMQ67IRR submitted 2026-07-29 math.AP math-phmath.CVmath.MP

Andreas Chatziafratis , Sergey A. Rukolaine , Elias C. Aifantis This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath-phmath.CVmath.MP MSC 35K7035A2235C1535G1644A15
keywords Barenblattpseudo-parabolicequationSobolev-Galpernequationsunifiedtransformmethodinterfaceproblemscontourintegralsinitial-boundaryvalueporousmediasolid-statebatteries
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 derives explicit solution formulas, written as contour integrals in the complex Fourier plane, for the Barenblatt–Zheltov–Kochina pseudo-parabolic equation on the half-line, the whole line with an interface, and a finite interval. The equation models seepage in fissured rock, non-Newtonian flow, two-temperature heat conduction and transport in batteries; the boundary and interface conditions it forces are nonstandard combinations of the unknown and its mixed derivatives. Using the unified transform method, the authors eliminate unknown boundary transforms via global relations and obtain closed-form integral representations that recover the initial data and the prescribed boundary/interface data. These formulas open the way to asymptotic analysis, regularity theory and free-boundary problems in which an interface moves according to energy balance.

What carries the argument

The unified transform method: a global relation that couples the Fourier transforms of the solution and of the unknown boundary values is combined with algebraic invariances and contour deformation around the poles of the symbol, allowing those unknown transforms to be eliminated and yielding an explicit contour-integral representation.

What would settle it

Direct numerical evaluation of the contour integrals against a high-resolution finite-difference or spectral solution of the same initial-boundary-value problem on a half-line or finite interval; systematic discrepancy in the recovered boundary traces or in the PDE residual would refute the claimed formulas.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under standard smoothness assumptions on the data, the contour-integral formula (1.18) defines a jointly smooth solution of the nonhomogeneous Barenblatt equation on the half-line that attains the initial condition uniformly and the natural nonstandard boundary condition uniformly on compact time intervals; analogous integral representations are obtained for separable interface problems on the line and for Robin-type problems on a finite interval.

Load-bearing premise

For the two-sided interface problem to separate into independent half-line problems, two 2-by-2 blocks of interface coefficients must have vanishing determinants; otherwise the unknown spectral data from the opposite side do not cancel and the elimination step fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The explicit formulas supply the linear building blocks needed for asymptotic and well-posedness studies of the same equation.
  • They furnish exact benchmarks for numerical schemes applied to pseudo-parabolic models arising in battery and porous-media transport.
  • The same contour technique extends, in principle, to free-boundary problems in which the interface location itself evolves by an energy-balance law.
  • The half-line and finite-interval representations reduce, when the higher-order coefficient vanishes, to the classical Robin problem for the heat equation, recovering known formulas as a special case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the admissible interface conditions are constrained by algebraic determinants rather than by physics alone, many physically natural jump relations may lie outside the solvable class and will require a different spectral treatment.
  • The same global-relation machinery should apply, with only notational changes, to systems of coupled Barenblatt-type equations that appear in multi-temperature or multi-porosity models.
  • Once the linear formulas are in hand, a fixed-point argument in appropriate function spaces becomes feasible for mild nonlinearities such as power-law source terms or concentration-dependent mobility.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the Fokas unified transform method (UTM) to the nonhomogeneous Barenblatt-Zheltov-Kochina pseudoparabolic equation u_t - αu_xxt - βu_xx = f. Four problems are treated: (1) a half-line IBVP with the non-standard boundary condition (1.7) mixing u(0,t), u_t(0,t), u_x(0,t), u_xt(0,t); (2) a two-medium interface problem on the line with two interface conditions coupling the half-line solutions, which is shown to reduce to two decoupled half-line problems under the algebraic restriction det Γ12 = det Γ34 = 0 in (1.13); (3) a general interface problem with six interface conditions, solved via an 8×8 Cramer system subject to a list of vanishing 6×6 minors of the coefficient matrix; (4) a finite-interval IBVP with Robin-type analogues (1.15). For Problem 1 the authors derive formula (1.18) from the global relation (2.1) and verify in detail (Theorems 1-3, Section 3) that the contour-integral formula is jointly C∞, solves the PDE, and attains the initial and boundary data uniformly. Problems 2-4 are treated by derivation only, via contour deformations around the pole i/α of the dispersion function ω(λ) = λ²/(1+αλ²) and biholomorphic changes of spectral variable.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides the first explicit contour-integral solution formulas for interface problems for the Barenblatt-Sobolev-Galpern pseudoparabolic equation, an equation with a long modeling pedigree (Milne 1926, Barenblatt-Zheltov-Kochina 1960, two-temperature heat conduction) and current applied interest. The half-line result (Problem 1) is not merely derived but verified: Theorems 1-3 establish joint C^∞ regularity, uniform attainment of the initial condition, uniform attainment of the non-standard boundary condition, and spatial decay, by a careful six-step argument involving contour deformation, Jordan's lemma, and the symbol identity (1.16). The derivations are self-contained and parameter-free — no fitted quantities enter. The identification of the non-standard boundary/interface conditions dictated by the global relation, and of the separable class (1.13), are useful structural observations. The finite-interval formula (6.16) is a nontrivial extension of UTM interval technology to a third-order mixed-derivative symbol. These are solid, citable contributions to the UTM literature, conditional on the verification gaps for Problems 3 and 4 being closed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, display (1.13)] The manuscript states that 'if this problem is solvable, we have to assume (1.13)' (det Γ12 = det Γ34 = 0). What is actually shown is narrower: if (1.13) fails, the parts of the integrals (4.13)-(4.14) containing the opposite half-line's unknown spectral functions J*_L, J*_R do not cancel, so the UTM elimination step fails. Unsolvability of the interface problem itself does not follow — other methods (e.g., direct spectral or energy methods for the coupled system) are not ruled out. Please rephrase as a sufficient condition for the present method. More importantly for scope: standard physical interface conditions (continuity of u, continuity of flux v = -α∂x u + β∂x∂t u) generically give det Γ12 ≠ 0. The paper should state explicitly which physically motivated interface laws, if any, satisfy (1.13); otherwise the class of interface problems solved here is considerably narrower than the引言
  2. [§5, Proposition and displays (5.9)-(5.10)] The Proposition lists twelve vanishing conditions on 6×6 minors Γ_{j1...j6} (together with the α_Rβ_R, α_Lβ_L combinations) under which (5.7)-(5.8) reduce to the effective formulas (5.9)-(5.10). No example is given of an interface matrix γ_ij satisfying these conditions beyond the separable cases already covered by §4/Problem 2. If the only admissible matrices are (equivalent to) the separable ones, §5 adds no genuinely new solvable class. Please either exhibit a concrete non-separable 6×6 interface system satisfying all twelve conditions — ideally one with a physical interpretation — or show the conditions define a strictly larger algebraic set than the separable locus.
  3. [§§5-6, formulas (5.9), (5.10), (6.16)] Sections 2-3 give a careful derivation and a full six-step verification (Theorems 1-3) for Problem 1, but no analogous verification is provided for the interface and finite-interval formulas (5.9), (5.10) and (6.16). Problem 2 inherits the verification via reduction to Problem 1, but Problems 3 and 4 do not. In §6 the situation is genuinely more delicate than in §3: after substituting (6.10)-(6.11) into (6.3), the integrands acquire denominators Δ(λ) whose zeros (roots of (κ0² - κl²) sin(lλ)-type expressions) must be controlled relative to the contours γ(±i/α), and the boundary-attainment argument of Steps 4-6 needs to be redone for the Robin-type conditions (1.15). A theorem for (6.16) (PDE, initial condition, boundary conditions, with uniformity) and at least a statement for (5.9)-(5.10), with an indication of how the §3 machinery adapts, seems necessary for the title claim about ' '
  4. [§6, displays (6.12)-(6.15)] The vanishing of the J* and U0, Ul terms in (6.12)-(6.15) is justified only by 'the integrands are bounded in the vicinities of the points ±i/α'. Boundedness alone does not make a contour integral vanish; presumably the intended argument is that γ(±i/α) can be shrunk to the point, provided the integrand is analytic in a punctured neighborhood with at most integrable singularity — but the denominators Δ(λ) and κ0, κl have their own zeros/singularities, and the condition Δ(λ) ≠ 0 is only imposed at generic λ. Please make the argument precise, including the local behavior of Δ near ±i/α (the stated asymptotics Δ(λ) ~ (β/α²)(1+λ²/α²)^{-2} sin(lλ)·(2i)^{-1} as λ→±i/α suggest a blow-up, not boundedness — the two estimates given seem to need reconciliation).
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1, Theorems 1-3] Cross-referencing errors in the theorem statements: Theorem 1 cites assumption '(1.4)' where (1.8) is meant, and refers to the solution formula as '(1.14)' where (1.18) is meant (also in Theorems 2 and 3). After the Notation paragraph, 'the boundary condition (1.3)' should be (1.7). On p. 5, 'assumption (1.9) imply' should be (1.13).
  2. [References] Reference [38] appears twice with different content (Chatziafratis-Kamvissis-Stratis, Stud. Appl. Math. 2023 and Chatziafratis-Karali-Synolakis, Stud. Appl. Math. 2026); renumber the list.
  3. [§3] No uniqueness statement accompanies Theorem 1: the formula is shown to produce a solution, but it is not stated within which class the solution of Problem 1 is unique. Even a brief remark (or a reference to [17]) would help, since the abstract advertises future well-posedness work.
  4. [§3, displays (3.5), (3.9)] In (3.5) and (3.9), the interchange of ∂^{m+n}/∂x^m∂t^n with the integrals is stated to hold 'provided M is sufficiently large'; please state the explicit threshold (e.g., M > n + m + 1 in terms of the O(λ^{-(M+1)}) decay in (3.2), (3.6)) so the reader can verify the dominated-convergence step.
  5. [throughout] Assorted typos: 'eqution was obtaind' (p. 2), 'sourse' (§1, Problem 4 discussion), 'orientaion' (Fig. 1 caption), 'procced', 'deterninants' (§4). The definition of σ_M below (3.2) should be displayed as a sum over k of u^{(k-1)}(0)/(iλ)^k — as typeset it is hard to parse.
  6. [§4, display (4.3)] The contour C(i,ε) in (4.3), (4.6) and §5 is used without a definition in the text; only Figures 4-5 hint at it. Please define it explicitly (a small circle around μ = i in the μ-plane, with ε chosen via the biholomorphic maps φ_R, φ_L) and state the orientation convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: UTM contour formulae are derived from the PDE global relation and independently verified against IC/BC.

full rationale

The paper’s central claims are explicit contour-integral solution formulae (e.g. (1.18) for the half-line, (5.9)–(5.10) for general interfaces, (6.16) for the finite interval) obtained by the standard three-step Unified Transform Method: write the global relation from the PDE, eliminate unknown boundary transforms via the given (non-standard) boundary/interface conditions and invariant substitutions, then deform contours. Section 3 then verifies directly that the candidate (1.18) is C∞, satisfies the nonhomogeneous PDE, and attains the initial and boundary data uniformly—an independent check, not a restatement of the inputs. The algebraic restrictions det Γ12=det Γ34=0 that make Problem 2 separable are openly imposed so that opposite-half-line unknowns cancel inside the contours; they are method limitations, not results forced by definition or by fitting. Self-citations ([17] and related author works) supply background UTM technique and prior half-line results for classical BCs; they are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or fitted ansätze that manufacture the target formulae. There is no data fitting, no parameter tuned to force a ‘prediction,’ and no renaming of an external empirical pattern. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against its own stated assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a pure-analysis derivation. It inherits the classical Fourier/complex-analysis toolkit and the structural form of the Barenblatt PDE; it introduces no fitted constants and no new physical entities. The only non-standard modelling choices are the algebraic det-vanishing conditions needed for interface separability and the precise mixed boundary operators suggested by the global relation.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Cauchy's integral theorem, Jordan's lemma, and Fourier inversion on the real line hold for the function classes under consideration.
    Used repeatedly to deform contours past the point i/α and to recover initial data (Sections 2–3).
  • domain assumption Coefficients satisfy α>0, β>0 so that ω(λ)=βλ²/(1+αλ²) remains bounded and the exponential factors e^{iλx-ω(λ)t} decay in the appropriate half-planes.
    Stated after (1.7); needed for absolute convergence estimates (1.17) and contour deformation.
  • domain assumption Initial, boundary and forcing data lie in the Schwartz-type class (1.8): C∞ with all derivatives bounded on compact time intervals.
    Invoked to justify differentiation under the integral sign and uniform limits in Theorems 1–3.
  • ad hoc to paper For interface Problem 2 the coefficient matrices satisfy det Γ12=0 and det Γ34=0, otherwise the UTM elimination of unknown spectral transforms fails.
    Imposed in (1.13) and justified only by the requirement that cross-half-line terms vanish inside the contours (Section 4).
  • domain assumption The non-standard boundary operator γ0(α∂t+β∂xxt)+γ1(α∂xt+β∂xxxt) is the natural one appearing in the global relation.
    Motivated after (1.7) and used to close the system for the unknown boundary transforms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integral Representations for Interface Problems for the Barenblatt-Sobolev-Galpern Pseudoparabolic Equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TMQ67IRR

@misc{pith2026260727119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integral Representations for Interface Problems for the Barenblatt-Sobolev-Galpern Pseudoparabolic Equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TMQ67IRR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27119}
}
read the original abstract

We obtain novel integral representations, expressed as contour integrals in the complex Fourier plane, for the solution of fully nonhomogeneous initial-boundary-value as well as interface problems for the Barenblatt-Zheltov-Kochina pseudo-parabolic equation of Sobolev-Galpern type formulated on the real line, half-line and finite interval. This fundamental partial differential equation (PDE) of mathematical physics emerges in a wide variety of natural phenomena and applied sciences including continuum mechanics, thermodynamics, chemical engineering, solid-state electronics, semi-conductor devices, battery research, and nanotechnology. A suitable implementation of a modern methodology, known as Unified Transform Method, is in force throughout this study, with particular challenges arising due to the higher-order mixed-derivative term of the PDE and the generality of the problems under consideration altogether. The boundary and interface conditions appear to be non-standard but are naturally dictated by the structure of the PDE itself. Our explicit analytical formulae directly lend themselves to future explorations of the solutions' qualitative properties such as asymptotic behavior, spatio-temporal dynamics, regularity and well-posedness. This work is expected to be of utility also in the investigation of nonlinear counterparts as well as towards the study of phase-transition phenomena and free-boundary problems, where the interface evolves dynamically according to energy balance laws.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27119 by the authors.

Figure 5
Figure 5. 3/ 2 ( )'( ) ( )  L  L L  i   and 1 3/ 2 ( )'( / ) ( ) ( ) L L L L  i       . Changing the variable in the integrals of (4.5) taken on ( / ) L i  , we obtain that (4.6)            u x t u e d L L i x t L ( ) 0 ˆ ( ) 2 1 ( , )       ( , ) 2 0, 0 0, 0 ( ) ( ) [ ( )] ( , )] ~ ' ( , ) ~ [ 1 [ ( )] ( ) 2 1 0                     C i L L L L L L L i x t L d d d g t g t i … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [17]

    Chatziafratis, A.S

    A. Chatziafratis, A.S. Fokas, E.C. Aifantis, On Barenblatt’s pseudoparabolic equation on the half-line via the Fokas method, Z. Angew. Math. Mech. (2024)

    2024

  2. [1]

    Showalter, R. E. (1969). Partial differential equations of Sobolev-Galpern type. Pacific J. Math., 31: 787–793

    1969

  3. [2]

    E., Ting, T

    Showalter, R. E., Ting, T. W. (1970) Pseudoparabolic partial differential equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 1: 1– 26

    1970

  4. [3]

    Milne, E. A. (1926) The diffusion of imprisoned radiation through a gas. J. London Math. Soc., s1-1: 40–51

    1926

  5. [4]

    I., Zheltov, Iu

    Barenblatt, G. I., Zheltov, Iu. P., Kochina, I. N. (1960) Basic concepts in the theory of seepage of homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks (strata). J. Appl. Math. Mech., 24: 1286–1303

    1960

  6. [5]

    D., Noll, W

    Coleman, B. D., Noll, W. (1960) An approximation theorem for functionals, with applications in continuum mechanics. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 6: 355–370

    1960

  7. [6]

    Ting, T. W. (1963) Certain non-steady flows of second-order fluids. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 14: 1–26

    1963

  8. [7]

    (1981) The impulsive motion of a flat plate in a viscoelastic fluid

    Teipel, I. (1981) The impulsive motion of a flat plate in a viscoelastic fluid. Acta Mech., 39: 277–279

    1981

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    (1984) Impulsive motion of a flat plate in a Rivlin-Ericksen fluid

    Puri, P. (1984) Impulsive motion of a flat plate in a Rivlin-Ericksen fluid. Rheol. Acta, 23: 451–453

    1984

  2. [9]

    Christov, I. C. (2010) Stokes’ first problem for some non-Newtonian fluids: Results and mistakes. Mech. Res. Commun., 37: 717–723

    2010

  3. [10]

    J., Gurtin, M

    Chen, P. J., Gurtin, M. E. (1968) On a theory of heat conduction involving two temperatures. Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 19: 614–627

    1968

  4. [11]

    (2015) Generalized heat conduction in heat pulse experiments

    Kovács, R., Ván, P. (2015) Generalized heat conduction in heat pulse experiments. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., 83: 613–620

    2015

  5. [12]

    (eds.): High Energy Density Lithium Batteries: Materials, Engineering, Applications

    Aifantis, K.E., Hackney, S.A., Kumar, V.R. (eds.): High Energy Density Lithium Batteries: Materials, Engineering, Applications. Wiley, Weinheim (2010). (Translated in Chinese: China Machine Press, ISBN: 9787111371786 (2011))

    2010

  6. [13]

    Juarez-Campos, B., Kaikina, E.I., Ruiz-Paredes, H.F.: Nonlinear model of quasi-stationary process in crystalline semiconductor. Differ. Equ. Appl. 1, 37 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    Zhou, J., Xu, G., Mu, C.: Analysis of a pseudo-parabolic equation by potential wells. Ann. Math. Pura. Appl. 200, 2741 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Chatziafratis, E.C

    A. Chatziafratis, E.C. Aifantis, A. Carbery, A.S. Fokas, Integral representations for the double-diffusion system on the half-line, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 75 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Chatziafratis, E.C

    A. Chatziafratis, E.C. Aifantis, Explicit Ehrenpreis-Palamodov-Fokas representations for the Sobolev- Barenblatt pseudo-parabolic model and the Rubinshtein-Aifantis double-diffusion system on semi-strips”, Lobachevskii J. Math. (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    A. Chatziafratis, Tohru Ozawa, New instability, blow-up and break-down effects for Sobolev-type evolution PDE: asymptotic analysis for a celebrated pseudo-parabolic model on the quarter-plane. Partial Differential Equations and Applications, 5(5), 30 (2024). Andreas Chatziafra...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Chatziafratis, A. (2025). Fokas-type closed-form solution formulae for Sobolev-type equations with time- dependent coefficients, preprint (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Chatziafratis, E

    A. Chatziafratis, E. Luca and S. L. Waters, The Milne–Barenblatt pseudo-parabolic equation with time- dependent coefficients, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S (2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    E., Non-steady-state heat conduction in composite walls

    Deconinck, B., Pelloni, B., & Sheils, N. E., Non-steady-state heat conduction in composite walls. Proc R Soc A (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Chatziafratis, Guenbo Hwang, Georgia Karali, Analytical solution of general interface problems for forced advection-diffusion-reaction equations, preprint (2025)

    A. Chatziafratis, Guenbo Hwang, Georgia Karali, Analytical solution of general interface problems for forced advection-diffusion-reaction equations, preprint (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    A unified transform method for solving linear and certain nonlinear PDEs

    Athanassios S. Fokas, “A unified transform method for solving linear and certain nonlinear PDEs”, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 453, 1411-43 (1997); “On the integrability of certain linear and nonlinear partial differential equations”, J. Math. Phys. 41, 4188–4237 (2000); “A n...

    1997

  16. [24]

    Fokas, V.E

    A.S. Fokas, V.E. Zakharov, Important Developments in Soliton Theory, Springer-Verlag, 1993

    1993

  17. [25]

    Fokas, I.M

    A.S. Fokas, I.M. Gelfand, Integrability of linear and nonlinear evolution equations and the associated nonlinear Fourier transforms, Lett. Math. Phys. 32, 189–210 (1994)

    1994

  18. [26]

    Fokas, C.R

    A.S. Fokas, C.R. Menyuk, Integrability and self-similarity in transient stimulated Raman scattering. J. Nonlinear Sci. 9, 1–31 (1999)

    1999

  19. [27]

    Fokas, D.E

    A.S. Fokas, D.E. Pelinovsky, C. Sulem, Interaction of lumps with a line soliton for the DSII equation, Phys D: Nonlinear Phenom 152–153 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    A. S. Fokas, M. Zyskin, The fundamental differential form and boundary‐value problems, Q J Mech Appl Math 55, 457–479 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    Fokas, A.A

    A.S. Fokas, A.A. Kapaev, On a transform method for the Laplace equation in a polygon. IMA J Appl Math 68 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    S., Monvel, A

    Fokas, A. S., Monvel, A. B., & Shepelsky, D. (2004). The mKdV equation on the half-line. Journal of the Institute of Mathematics of Jussieu, 3(2), 139-164

    2004

  23. [31]

    A. S. Fokas, E. A. Spence, Synthesis, as opposed to separation, of variables, SIAM Review 54 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    A Chatziafratis, AS Fokas, K Kalimeris, The Fokas method for evolution partial differential equations, Partial Differ. Equ. Appl. Math. (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Fokas, E

    A.S. Fokas, E. Kaxiras, Modern Mathematical Methods for Computational Sciences & Engineering, World Scientific (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Jerry L. Bona, A. Chatziafratis, Hongqiu Chen, Spyridon Kamvissis, The linearised BBM equation on the half-line revisited, Lett. Math. Phys. 114 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Cavalcanti, A

    Marcelo M. Cavalcanti, A. Chatziafratis, and Lionel Rosier. A unified approach to lack of controllability for linear evolution equations on quarter-planes. preprint (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Chatziafratis, Loukas Grafakos, Spyridon Kamvissis, Long-range instabilities for linear evolution PDE on semi-bounded domains, Dyn

    A. Chatziafratis, Loukas Grafakos, Spyridon Kamvissis, Long-range instabilities for linear evolution PDE on semi-bounded domains, Dyn. PDE 21 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Chatziafratis, Spyridon Kamvissis, Infinity of solutions to initial-boundary value problems for linear constant-coefficient evolution PDEs on semi-infinite intervals, Bull

    A. Chatziafratis, Spyridon Kamvissis, Infinity of solutions to initial-boundary value problems for linear constant-coefficient evolution PDEs on semi-infinite intervals, Bull. London Math. Soc. (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Stratis, Boundary behavior of the solution to the linear KdV equation on the half-line, Stud

    Andreas Chatziafratis, Spyridon Kamvissis, Ioannis G. Stratis, Boundary behavior of the solution to the linear KdV equation on the half-line, Stud. Appl. Math. (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Chatziafratis, Georgia Karali, Costas E

    A. Chatziafratis, Georgia Karali, Costas E. Synolakis, Analytical solution for the linearized Whitham-Broer- Kaup system on the half-line, Stud Appl Math (2026)

    2026

  32. [40]

    Chatziafratis, Dionyssios Mantzavinos, Boundary behavior for the heat equation on the half-line, Math

    A. Chatziafratis, Dionyssios Mantzavinos, Boundary behavior for the heat equation on the half-line, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Chatziafratis, Alain Miranville, Georgia Karali, A.S

    A. Chatziafratis, Alain Miranville, Georgia Karali, A.S. Fokas, E.C. Aifantis, Higher-order diffusion and Cahn–Hilliard-type models revisited on the half-line, Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci. (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    A. Chatziafratis, Tohru Ozawa, Shou-Fu Tian, Rigorous analysis of the unified transform method and long- range instabilities for the inhomogeneous time-dependent Schrödinger equation on the quarter-plane, Math. Annalen 389 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Rukolaine, Integral representation of solutions to initial‐boundary value problems on a finite interval in the framework of the hyperbolic heat equation

    Sergey A. Rukolaine, Integral representation of solutions to initial‐boundary value problems on a finite interval in the framework of the hyperbolic heat equation. Math Methods Appl Sci (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Gustafson, K., Abe, T., The third boundary condition—was it Robin’s?, The Mathematical Intelligencer 20, 63–71 (1998)

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.