Initial boundary value problems for time-fractional evolution equations in Banach spaces

Fikret Golgeleyen; Giuseppe Floridia; Masahiro Yamamoto

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Initial boundary value problems for time-fractional evolution equations in Banach spaces

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sectorial operators make time-fractional evolution equations well-posed in any Banach space.

desk verdict Solid operator-theoretic results for time-fractional evolution equations, but the paper overstates well-posedness: Theorem 4.1 proves existence only, and Theorem 6.1's uniqueness proof is limited to elliptic L^p settings. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06554 v1 pith:37VENEN3 submitted 2025-02-10 math.AP

Giuseppe Floridia , Fikret Golgeleyen , Masahiro Yamamoto This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35R1147D0626A3335K9047A60

keywords time-fractionalevolutionequationsCaputoderivativeBanachspacessectorialoperatorsLaplacetransformfractionalSobolevwell-posednessinverseproblems

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 establishes well-posedness for the time-fractional evolution equation $\partial_t^\alpha(u(t)-a)=Au(t)+F(t)$ in a general Banach space $X$, with $A$ a sectorial operator satisfying a resolvent decay condition called Condition (A). The solution operator is built explicitly from a vector-valued Laplace transform contour integral, producing a solution formula $u(t)=G(t)a+\int_0^t K(t-s)F(s)\,ds$ with estimates in $L^q(0,T;D(A))$ and the fractional Sobolev space $W^{\alpha,q}(0,T;X)$. This extends the well-posedness theory for time-fractional diffusion, which mostly lives in Hilbert space, to settings such as $X=L^p(\Omega)$ with uniform elliptic $A$. The same machinery yields weak solutions, local mild solutions for semilinear equations, Hölder regularity of smoother solutions, and a uniqueness result for an inverse problem of determining the initial value from subdomain observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of operator families $G(t)a=\frac1{2\pi i}\int_\Gamma e^{\lambda t}\lambda^{\alpha-1}(\lambda^\alpha-A)^{-1}a\,d\lambda$ and $K(t)=\frac{d}{dt}J^\alpha G(t)$, where $\Gamma$ is a contour around the spectrum and $J^\alpha$ is the fractional integral. Their Laplace transforms satisfy $L(Ga)(\lambda)=\lambda^{\alpha-1}(\lambda^\alpha-A)^{-1}a$, which turns the equation into the resolvent equation. The work of the paper is proving the key estimates $\|(-A)^\beta G(t)a\|\le Ct^{-\alpha\beta}\|a\|$ and $\|(-A)^\beta K(t)a\|\le Ct^{\alpha(1-\beta)-1}\|a\|$ for $0\le\beta\le1$, using Condition (A) and Mittag-Leffler bounds on the kernel. Together with the closedness of the fractional derivative operator $\partial_t^\alpha=(J^\alpha)^{-1}$ on $W^{\alpha,q}(0,T;X)$, these estimates carry the existence, uniqueness, and continuous dependence arguments.

What would settle it

Take $X=\ell^p$ and let $A$ be diagonal with eigenvalues $\lambda_n=-n e^{i\theta}$, $\theta\in(\pi/2,\pi)$. Check the resolvent bound $\|(\lambda-A)^{-1}\|\le C/|\lambda|$ directly for this sectorial operator; if the contour integral in (2.2) diverges or the estimate (4.8) fails for $a=e_1$, then the theorem's premise is essential. Conversely, verifying (4.8) numerically for this family would support the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that Condition (A), the resolvent estimate $\|(\lambda-A)^{-1}\|\le C/|\lambda|$ on a sector $\Sigma_{\gamma-\varepsilon}$ with $\gamma\in(\pi/2,\pi)$ and $0\in\rho(A)$, is enough to construct a solution operator for the fractional-order initial value problem by the same contour-integral method that builds analytic semigroups in the classical case $\alpha=1$. For $1-\frac1{q\alpha}<\mu<1$, $a\in D((-A)^\mu)$, and $F\in L^q(0,T;D((-A)^\varepsilon))$ with $\varepsilon>0$, the paper proves there is a unique strong solution $u\in L^q(0,T;D(A))$ with $u-a\in W^{\alpha,q}(0,T;X)$, with the estimate (4.6) and representation (4.7). For the homogeneous case it also proves the decay bound $\|u(t)\le Ct^{-\alpha}\|a\|$, and for general $F\in L^q(0,T;X)$ it constructs a unique weak solution. Applied to $X=L^p(\Omega)$ with a uniformly elliptic operator, this gives well-posedness for the corresponding initial-boundary value problem, and the same solution formula drives the semilinear and inverse-problem results.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction depends on Condition (A): the resolvent of $A$ must decay like $C/|\lambda|$ on a sector wider than a half-plane, and $0$ must be outside the spectrum; if either fails, the contour integrals defining the solution operators may not converge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $X=L^p(\Omega)$ with a uniformly elliptic operator satisfying the resolvent bound, the initial-boundary value problem for time-fractional diffusion is well-posed in $L^q$ in time, removing the Hilbert-space restriction.
The homogeneous solution has the decay estimate $\|u(t\|\le Ct^{-\alpha}\|a\|$ uniformly for $t>0$, proved directly in the general Banach-space setting.
Semilinear equations $\partial_t^\alpha(u-a)=Au+F(u)$ admit a unique local mild solution in $C([0,T];D((-A)^\gamma))$ for small $T$, by a contraction argument.
For Hölder continuous $F$ with $F(0)=0$ and $\sigma<1-\alpha$, the solution satisfies $Au,\partial_t^\alpha u\in C^\sigma$, i.e., maximal regularity in the Hölder scale.
If the solution is observed on a subdomain $\omega\times(0,T)$, the initial value is determined uniquely, even when the elliptic operator is known only up to a commuting unknown operator.

Reading between the lines

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

The proof leaves open whether the extra regularity $\varepsilon>0$ for $F$ is necessary: the natural maximal-regularity question $F\in L^q(0,T;X)\Rightarrow u\in L^q(0,T;D(A))$ in general Banach spaces remains open outside Hilbert space.
Because the construction is contour-based, it should be possible to derive subordination identities linking the fractional solution operators $G_\alpha$, $K_\alpha$ for different $\alpha$; the paper does not explore this.
The inverse-problem uniqueness for commuting operators suggests that initial data are more stably identifiable than coefficients in time-fractional models; a testable extension would be to relax the commutation assumption and see whether uniqueness persists.
The semilinear theory in Section 5 is developed only for local time and small data; the same estimates should support global results or blow-up criteria for specific nonlinearities, but that is beyond the paper.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a substantial operator-theoretic paper with real results and some overclaims that need fixing. The core estimates in Propositions 2.1, 3.1, and 3.2 are carefully proved and sound. The construction of G(t) and K(t) via Laplace inversion is classical in spirit but carried out cleanly, and the applications—semilinear local existence, H\"older regularity with sigma<1-alpha, and an inverse problem for commuting elliptic operators—are genuinely useful. The L^q framework for general Banach spaces is a step beyond the usual Hilbert-space treatments.

The weak spot is the gap between the stated claims and the theorems. Theorem 4.1 proves existence of a strong solution with the representation (4.7), but it does not prove uniqueness. The abstract and Section 4 title promise "well-posedness" and "unique existence," and Section 1 explicitly defines well-posedness as unique existence. The only uniqueness results are Proposition 4.2 (global-in-time with growth), Proposition 4.3 (Hilbert space), and Proposition 4.4 (elliptic L^p). For a general Banach space with finite T, uniqueness is not established. That is a load-bearing gap: without it, (4.7) is just one solution, not "the" solution. The stress-test note is correct.

A second issue: condition (4.4), which requires 1 - 1/(q alpha) < mu < 1, is impossible for q = infinity. Theorem 4.1 is therefore vacuous in the q=infinity case, despite the abstract claiming 1<=q<=infinity. The authors should either exclude q=infinity or give a separate limiting argument.

Third, the claim in Section 1 that "there are no existing works" for constructing the solution operator when 0

Finally, Theorem 6.1 states unique weak solution for general Banach spaces, but the uniqueness proof relies on Sobolev embeddings, elliptic regularity, and L^2 uniqueness—it only works for X=L^p(Omega) with A elliptic. The existence part may hold generally, but the statement overreaches the proof. Theorem 4.3 also has a confusing remark about 0 in rho(A), though the iteration argument itself seems fine.

In sum: the mathematics that is actually proved is valuable, but the paper needs revision to align claims with theorems. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should push for either a general uniqueness proof or a much more careful statement of what is established.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the abstract time-fractional evolution equation ∂_t^α(u(t)-a)=Au(t)+F(t) on a Banach space X, with A satisfying a sectorial resolvent estimate and 0∈ρ(A). It constructs the solution operators G(t) and K(t) by vector-valued Laplace inversion, and proves in Theorem 4.1 that for a∈D((-A)^μ) and F∈L^q(0,T;D((-A)^ε)) there exists a strong solution with the representation (4.7) and estimate (4.6). Further sections give local existence of mild solutions for a semilinear equation, weak and Hölder-regular solutions, and an inverse problem for determining the initial value from observations on a subdomain.

Significance. If valid, the construction is a useful extension of the classical analytic-semigroup approach to Caputo-type fractional equations in non-Hilbert spaces. The key estimates (4.8)-(4.9) are derived directly from the resolvent condition and give explicit time-weighting, and the applications to L^p elliptic operators, semilinear problems, and an inverse problem indicate the potential breadth of the method. The existence proofs are detailed, and the main estimates in Propositions 2.1, 3.1, 3.2 and Lemma 3.4 appear sound for finite q.

major comments (4)

[Theorem 4.1; Section 4.2] The central claim of well-posedness is stronger than what is proved. Theorem 4.1 establishes existence of a strong solution and the formula (4.7), but it does not prove uniqueness in the stated setting of an arbitrary Banach space X, finite T, and 1≤q≤∞. The only uniqueness results are Proposition 4.2 (solutions on (0,∞) with polynomial growth), Proposition 4.3 (Hilbert X, q≥2, and condition (4.14)), and Proposition 4.4 (X=L^p(Ω) with A elliptic). The abstract and the heading of Section 4 promise 'well-posedness' and 'unique existence', so the claims should be narrowed, or a uniqueness proof in the generality of Theorem 4.1 should be supplied.
[Theorem 4.1(1), condition (4.4)] For q=∞, condition (4.4) reads 1<μ<1 and has no admissible μ. Since the theorem is stated for 1≤q≤∞, the q=∞ case is vacuous. The statement should either exclude q=∞ or specify a limiting or alternative condition; the same issue propagates to Theorem 4.3, which also states 1≤q≤∞ and uses (4.4).
[Theorem 4.3] The assumption 'A0:=A-C0 satisfies Condition (A) but not necessarily 0∈ρ(A)' is internally inconsistent: Condition (A)(iv) explicitly requires 0∈ρ(A0). Moreover, the proof and the data spaces D((-A0)^μ) use fractional powers of -A0, which normally require 0∈ρ(A0). The intended hypothesis should be stated precisely, distinguishing Condition (A) from a version without item (iv), if that is what is meant.
[Theorem 6.1] The uniqueness part of Theorem 6.1 is not proved in the stated generality of an arbitrary Banach space X satisfying Condition (A). The uniqueness proof invokes (4.16) to place w=J^m A^{-ℓ}u in W^{1,2}(0,T;X)∩L^2(0,T;H^2(Ω)∩H^1_0(Ω)); however, (4.16) is derived in Proposition 4.4 specifically for X=L^p(Ω) and an elliptic A. The theorem should be restricted to that setting, or an abstract uniqueness argument must be provided.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.2, final paragraph] The sentence 'there exists at most one strong solution to (4.3)' should refer to equation (4.1); (4.3) defines the operator K(t).
[Theorem 4.3] The statement refers to 'problem (4.3)' but should refer to equation (4.1).
[Outline and Section 8] There are typos: 'Sectoin 5' in the outline and 'prolems' in Section 8 should read 'Section 5' and 'problems'.
[Corollary 4.1] The corollary repeats 'We assume Condition (A) and 0∈ρ(A)', although 0∈ρ(A) is already part of Condition (A)(iv).
[Theorem 6.1 and Lemma 6.1] Theorem 6.1 allows 1≤q≤∞, but Lemma 6.1 assumes 1<q<∞; the duality argument for the endpoint cases q=1 and q=∞ should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the resolvent-based Laplace transform construction is a genuine derivation; auxiliary uniqueness and duality results are external, not load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation starts from Condition (A), a resolvent estimate on a sector, and constructs the operators G(t) and K(t) by contour integrals and Laplace inversion. The solution representation (4.7), the estimate (4.6), and the Laplace identity L(Ga)(lambda)=lambda^{alpha-1}(lambda^alpha-A)^{-1}a in Theorem 4.1(2) are proved from the resolvent estimate and vector-valued Laplace transform theory, not assumed. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction; the only regularity parameters are hypotheses with stated ranges. The authors' self-citations appear in auxiliary uniqueness arguments, coercivity lemmas, and duality identities (e.g., Lemma 4.1 citing [14], Proposition 4.4 citing [14], [28], Lemma 6.1 citing [26], [27]); these are standard, externally published results used as ingredients, and they do not carry the main Banach-space existence construction. The inverse problem proof uses the derived Laplace transform formula, spectral projections, unique continuation, and a reduction to L^2(Omega), none of which is equivalent by construction to the conclusion. The paper does contain a gap between the abstract's 'well-posedness' phrasing and Theorem 4.1, which proves existence without uniqueness in the general Banach-space setting; uniqueness is established separately under extra hypotheses in Section 4.2. This is a correctness or framing issue, not circularity, and the authors themselves note limitations such as the need for epsilon>0 in the data space and the lack of t-continuity in Theorem 4.1. Overall the derivation is self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central existence theory rests on a small set of standard assumptions: the sectorial resolvent condition on A (Condition (A)), the injectivity of the fractional integral operator, and standard Laplace-transform and Mittag-Leffler estimates. The weak solution and inverse problem results add domain-specific assumptions: elliptic regularity and unique continuation, and for Theorem 7.2, a commutativity condition between the two elliptic operators. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new entities are introduced; the solution operators G(t) and K(t) are constructed, not postulated.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Condition (A): A is a densely defined closed operator on X with Sigma_gamma subset of rho(A) for some gamma in (pi/2, pi), resolvent estimate (1.5), and 0 in rho(A).
Stated in Section 1, Condition (A). It is the foundation for defining G(t) via (2.2) and for all resolvent estimates in Sections 2-4.
standard math Vector-valued Laplace transform theory, including holomorphy of the transform (Arendt et al. Theorem 2.6.1) and injectivity of the Laplace transform.
Used in Lemma 2.3, Theorem 2.1, and Proposition 4.2 to derive the solution formula and uniqueness.
standard math The fractional integral operator J^beta is injective on L^q(0,T;X) and the fractional derivative d_t^beta = (J^beta)^{-1} is closed.
Lemma 1.1 and definition (1.3)-(1.4). This defines the framework for W^{alpha,q} spaces.
standard math Mittag-Leffler function estimates (Podlubny Theorem 1.6) giving |E_{1,tau}(z)| <= C/(1+|z|) on sectors.
Used in Lemmas 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 to estimate J^tau G and AK.
domain assumption For the elliptic example, the elliptic operator (1.7) with Dirichlet boundary conditions satisfies Condition (A) in L^p(Omega) for 1 < p < infinity, and elliptic regularity estimates hold.
Assumed in Section 1 (example of elliptic operator) and used in Sections 5-7. The authors refer to Pazy [19] Theorem 3.2 for Condition (A).
domain assumption Unique continuation for elliptic operators A - lambda and tilde A - lambda on the domain Omega.
Used in the proof of Theorem 7.2 to conclude that eigenprojections vanishing on an open set omega must vanish on all of Omega.
domain assumption Commutation assumption (7.3): A_p tilde A_p = tilde A_p A_p and compatibility of domains.
This is a nontrivial assumption in Theorem 7.2 that makes the inverse problem result work. It is not a general property of elliptic operators.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Initial boundary value problems for time-fractional evolution equations in Banach spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/37VENEN3

@misc{pith2026250206554,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Initial boundary value problems for time-fractional evolution equations in Banach spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/37VENEN3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06554}
}

abstract

We consider an initial value problem for time-fractional evolution equation in Banach space $X$: $$ \pppa (u(t)-a) = Au(t) + F(t), \quad 0<t<T. \eqno{(*)} $$ Here $u: (0,T) \rrrr X$ is an $X$-valued function defined in $(0,T)$, and $a \in X$ is an initial value. The operator $A$ satisfies a decay condition of resolvent which is common as a generator of analytic semigroup, and in particular, we can treat a case $X=L^p(\OOO)$ over a bounded domain $\OOO$ and a uniform elliptic operator $A$ within our framework. First we construct a solution operator $(a, F) \rrrr u$ by means of $X$-valued Laplace transform, and we establish the well-posedness of (*) in classes such as weak solution and strong solutions. We discuss also mild solutions local in time for semilinear time-fractional evolution equations. Finally we apply the result on the well-posedness to an inverse problem of determining an initial value and we establish the uniqueness for the inverse problem.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Identification problems for anisotropic time-fractional subdiffusion equations
math.AP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For fractional-in-time subdiffusion with multiple spatial operators, the unknown constant coefficients are uniquely determined by n energy measurements at one time instant.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[8]

Henr ´ ıquez, J.G

H.R. Henr ´ ıquez, J.G. Mesquita and J.C. Pozo, Existence of solutio ns of the abstract Cauchy problem of fractional order, J. Functional Analysis 281 (2021) 109028

work page 2021
[13]

Kexue, P

L. Kexue, P. Jigen and J. Junxiong, Cauchy problems for fract ional diﬀerential equations with Riemann- Liouville fractional derivatives, J. Functional Analysis 263 (2012) 476-510

work page 2012
[1]

Achache, Non-autonomous maximal regularity for fractiona l evolution equations, J

M. Achache, Non-autonomous maximal regularity for fractiona l evolution equations, J. Evol. Equ, 22 (2022) article number 48

work page 2022
[2]

Achache, On non-autonomous fractional evolution equation s and applications, Semigroup Forum 108 (2024) 511-535

M. Achache, On non-autonomous fractional evolution equation s and applications, Semigroup Forum 108 (2024) 511-535

work page 2024
[3]

Adams, Sobolev Spaces, Academic Press, New York, 1975

R.A. Adams, Sobolev Spaces, Academic Press, New York, 1975

1975
[4]

Agmon, Lectures on Elliptic Boundary Value Problems , Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1965

S. Agmon, Lectures on Elliptic Boundary Value Problems , Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1965

work page 1965
[5]

Arendt, C.J.K

W. Arendt, C.J.K. Batty, M. Hieber and F. Neubrander, Vector-valued Laplace Transforms and Cauchy Problems, Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2011

work page 2011
[6]

L. C. Evans, Partial Diﬀerential Equations ; American Mathematical Society: Providence, RI, USA, 1998

work page 1998

Show all 28 references

[7]

Gorenﬂo, Y

R. Gorenﬂo, Y. Luchko and M. Yamamoto, Time-fractional diﬀus ion equation in the fractional Sobolev spaces, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 18 (2015) 799–820

2015
[9]

Henry, Geometric Theory of Semilinear Parabolic Equations , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol

D. Henry, Geometric Theory of Semilinear Parabolic Equations , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 840, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981

1981
[10]

Huang and M

X. Huang and M. Yamamoto, Well-posedness of initial-boundary v alue problem for time-fractional diﬀusion-wave equation with time-dependent coeﬃcients, preprint , 2024

2024
[11]

Jin, Fractional Diﬀerential Equations: An Approach via Fractio nal Derivatives , Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2021

B. Jin, Fractional Diﬀerential Equations: An Approach via Fractio nal Derivatives , Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2021

2021
[12]

Kato, Perterbation Theory for Linear Operators , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995

T. Kato, Perterbation Theory for Linear Operators , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995

1995
[14]

Kubica, K

A. Kubica, K. Ryszewska and M. Yamamoto, Theory of Time-fractional Diﬀerential Equations An Introduction, Springer, Tokyo, 2020

2020
[15]

Kubica and M

A. Kubica and M. Yamamoto, Initial-boundary value problems for fractional diﬀusion equations with time-dependent coeﬃcients, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 21 (2018) 276-311

2018
[16]

Ladyzhenskaya and N.N

O.A. Ladyzhenskaya and N.N. Ural’tseva, Linear and Quasilinear Elliptic Equations , Academic Press, New York, 1968

1968
[17]

Luchko and M

Y. Luchko and M. Yamamoto, Comparison principles for the time- fractional diﬀusion equations with the Robin boundary conditions. Part I: Linear equations, Fract. C alc. Appl. Anal. 26 (2023), no. 4, 1504-1544, no. 6, 2959-2960. 57

2023
[18]

Luchko and M

Y. Luchko and M. Yamamoto, Comparison principles for the time- fractional diﬀusion equations with the Robin boundary conditions. Part II: Semilinear equations, prep rint arXiv:2411.05186

arXiv
[19]

Pazy, Semigroups of Linear Operators and Applications to Partial Diﬀerential Equations , Springer, Berlin, 1983

A. Pazy, Semigroups of Linear Operators and Applications to Partial Diﬀerential Equations , Springer, Berlin, 1983

1983
[20]

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

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

1999
[21]

Pr¨ uss,Evolutionary Integral Equations and Applications , Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 1993

J. Pr¨ uss,Evolutionary Integral Equations and Applications , Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 1993

1993
[22]

Sakamoto and M

K. Sakamoto and M. Yamamoto, Initial value/boundary value pr oblems for fractional diﬀusion-wave equations and applications to some inverse problems, J. Math. Anal. Appl.382 (2011) no. 1, 426-447

2011
[23]

Tanabe, Equations of Evolution , Pitman, London, 1979

H. Tanabe, Equations of Evolution , Pitman, London, 1979

1979
[24]

Vergara and R

V. Vergara and R. Zacher, Optimal decay estimates for time-f ractional and other nonlocal subdiﬀusion equation via energy methods, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 47 (2015) 210-239

2015
[25]

Yagi, Abstract Parabolic Evolution Equations and their Applicat ions, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010

A. Yagi, Abstract Parabolic Evolution Equations and their Applicat ions, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010

2010
[26]

Yamamoto, Weak solutions to non-homogeneous boundary v alue problems for time-fractional diﬀu- sion equations, J

M. Yamamoto, Weak solutions to non-homogeneous boundary v alue problems for time-fractional diﬀu- sion equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 460 (2018) 365-381

2018
[27]

M. Yamamoto, Fractional calculus and time-fractional diﬀeren tial equations: revisit and construction of a theory, Mathematics, Special issue Fractional Integrals and Derivatives: True versus False, 2022, https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/5/698

2022
[28]

Zacher, Weak solutions of abstract evolutionary integro-d iﬀerential equations in Hilbert spaces

R. Zacher, Weak solutions of abstract evolutionary integro-d iﬀerential equations in Hilbert spaces. Funkcialaj Ekvacioj 52 (2009) 1-18

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

Henr ´ ıquez, J.G

H.R. Henr ´ ıquez, J.G. Mesquita and J.C. Pozo, Existence of solutio ns of the abstract Cauchy problem of fractional order, J. Functional Analysis 281 (2021) 109028

work page 2021

[2] [13]

Kexue, P

L. Kexue, P. Jigen and J. Junxiong, Cauchy problems for fract ional diﬀerential equations with Riemann- Liouville fractional derivatives, J. Functional Analysis 263 (2012) 476-510

work page 2012

[3] [1]

Achache, Non-autonomous maximal regularity for fractiona l evolution equations, J

M. Achache, Non-autonomous maximal regularity for fractiona l evolution equations, J. Evol. Equ, 22 (2022) article number 48

work page 2022

[4] [2]

Achache, On non-autonomous fractional evolution equation s and applications, Semigroup Forum 108 (2024) 511-535

M. Achache, On non-autonomous fractional evolution equation s and applications, Semigroup Forum 108 (2024) 511-535

work page 2024

[5] [3]

Adams, Sobolev Spaces, Academic Press, New York, 1975

R.A. Adams, Sobolev Spaces, Academic Press, New York, 1975

1975

[6] [4]

Agmon, Lectures on Elliptic Boundary Value Problems , Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1965

S. Agmon, Lectures on Elliptic Boundary Value Problems , Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1965

work page 1965

[7] [5]

Arendt, C.J.K

W. Arendt, C.J.K. Batty, M. Hieber and F. Neubrander, Vector-valued Laplace Transforms and Cauchy Problems, Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2011

work page 2011

[8] [6]

L. C. Evans, Partial Diﬀerential Equations ; American Mathematical Society: Providence, RI, USA, 1998

work page 1998