Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Semigroup-theoretic approach to diffusion in thin layers separated by semi-permeable membranes

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read As the layers of a thin 3D slab shrink, diffusion across the membrane becomes 2D diffusion plus jumps whose rates are exactly the membrane permeability coefficients.

desk verdict The transmission-coefficients-becoming-jump-rates result is real and worth refereeing, but the Feller proof has a false step and the L2 proof delegates its key convergence to an unproved non-dense extension. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02740 v1 pith:BJHBHH6J submitted 2019-08-07 math.AP

Adam Bobrowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35K5747D0635B2535K58
keywords semigroupsofoperatorssemilinearequationsirregularconvergencesingularperturbationsboundaryandtransmissionconditionsthinlayersFeller
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

This paper proves that diffusion in two thin three-dimensional layers separated by a semi-permeable membrane has a well-defined two-dimensional limit as the layer thickness tends to zero: solutions become flat in the vertical direction, and the only remaining vertical information is a jump between the lower and upper sides of the membrane. The central claim is that the permeability coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$ appearing in the transmission conditions of the approximating problem become, in the limit, the jump intensities of an effective jump process, so that boundary and transmission conditions enter the limiting master equation as constitutive terms. The result is established in two settings: in $L^2$ with spatially varying permeability, and in the space of continuous functions with constant permeability and a more general family of membrane mechanisms. Understanding this limit matters for any thin-layer model, such as diffusion in the narrow cytoplasm of a cell, because it says which effective two-dimensional equations should be used.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the family of rescaled Laplace operators $A_\epsilon=\partial_x^2+\partial_y^2+\epsilon^{-2}\partial_z^2$ acting on a fixed reference domain $\Omega$, subject to boundary and transmission conditions with $\epsilon$-scaled coefficients. Convergence is carried by a monotone-form limit theorem: the forms $a_\epsilon$ have a common domain and monotone real parts, so the limit form $b$ is identified explicitly; its domain consists of functions independent of $z$, and the associated operator is the block matrix $B$ above. In the continuous-function setting, the vertical component is analyzed separately through one-dimensional Feller generators with a sticky boundary, whose long-time limit is an averaging projection $P_{p,q}$; the full semigroup is assembled as an injective tensor product of the lateral 2D diffusion and the vertical component, and a boundary-perturbation argument constructs the generator that couples the two sides through the membrane.

What would settle it

Run a numerical simulation of the two-layer problem (2.1)-(2.3) for a sequence of thicknesses $\epsilon\to 0$ with an initial profile that varies in $z$, and check that the solution at fixed positive time approaches $e^{tB}(P u_0)$ in $L^2$; a persistent discrepancy would invalidate the central convergence claim. For the specific unproved step, test the cited non-densely-defined extension of the form convergence theorem on a simple one-dimensional example: if the resolvent convergence $\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}(\mu I - A_\epsilon)^{-1}=(\mu I - B)^{-1}P$ holds but $\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}e^{tA_\epsilon}=e^{tB}P$ fails, the proof of (2.18) in the paper does not go through.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's main theorem (Theorem 3.1, with an $L^2$ analogue in (2.18)) states that the semigroups generated by the approximating diffusion operators converge strongly, as $\epsilon\to 0$, to $e^{tB}P$, where $B=\operatorname{diag}(\Delta_{2D}-c_-,\Delta_{2D}-c_+)+(-\alpha,\alpha;\beta,-\beta)$ is the generator of the limit system (1.2). Here $\Delta_{2D}$ is the 2D Neumann Laplacian on the base $B$, $c_\pm$ come from Robin conditions on the outer boundaries, and $\alpha,\beta$ are the permeability coefficients from the transmission conditions (2.3) or (3.1). The projection $P$ (or $P_{p,q}$ in the continuous case) averages the initial datum vertically, in the simple case by integrating over the thickness of each layer, and in the sticky case by mixing the value at the membrane with the vertical average. Thus, in the limit the solutions are horizontal Laplacian evolutions on each side of the membrane, coupled by a jump matrix whose off-diagonal entries are exactly the membrane permeabilities. The paper also shows that the same limit generator $B$ is obtained for a broad class of membrane filtering mechanisms, while the initial averaging projection does depend on the mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The $L^2$ convergence result rests on the statement, cited in the paper but not proved there, that the known monotone form convergence theorem remains valid when the limiting form is defined on a proper subspace; this is exactly the step that turns resolvent convergence into the semigroup convergence (2.18) that the main $L^2$ theorem needs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • As $\epsilon\to 0$, solutions of the reaction-diffusion equation in the two thin layers converge to the system (1.2): 2D diffusion on each side of the membrane plus jumps with intensities $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
  • The permeability coefficients lose their boundary-condition character and reappear as rate constants in the limiting master equation, so thin-layer models should include these terms rather than treat the membrane as a zero-flux interface.
  • In the continuous-function setting, the limit semigroup is independent of the particular way particles are reinserted after crossing the membrane (the measures $\mu,\nu$), although the averaging projection $P_{p,q}$ depends on the stickiness parameters $p,q$.
  • Convergence of semigroups transfers to mild solutions of the semilinear problem, so the same limiting equation holds with a Lipschitz reaction term $F$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same averaging mechanism should apply to curved membranes and non-constant coefficients, since only the form structure and trace compactness enter the $L^2$ argument; the paper's restriction to a flat membrane and, in $C$, to constant coefficients is a simplification of the proof, not a necessity.
  • The dependence of the initial projection $P_{p,q}$ on stickiness suggests an experimentally detectable signature: if a real membrane traps particles for a random time, the effective initial condition for the limit model differs from a pure vertical average, and this could be tested by observing early-time behavior after a non-flat initial concentration.
  • For biological thin-layer models, the result implies that membrane permeability should enter the effective 2D reaction-diffusion system as a jump-rate matrix rather than as a Robin boundary condition; fitting the 2D model to data could in principle recover the microscopic permeability.
  • A natural next step would be to derive higher-order corrections in $\epsilon$; the paper establishes only the leading singular limit, and such corrections would quantify when the 2D jump model becomes inaccurate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a thin-layer limit for diffusion in two adjacent layers separated by a semi-permeable membrane. After a vertical rescaling, the problem is posed on a fixed cylinder and the approximating generators A_epsilon are shown to generate semigroups in L2 and in C(Omega). The main convergence result (Theorem 3.1, with L2 analogue (2.18)) identifies lim_{epsilon->0} e^{tA_epsilon} = e^{tB}P, where P is a vertical averaging/projection and B is the direct sum of two 2D Neumann Laplacians on the two sides of the membrane plus a 2x2 jump matrix whose off-diagonal entries are the permeability coefficients alpha,beta from the transmission conditions. Section 2 uses sesquilinear forms and monotone form convergence; Section 3 uses a Feller/vertical-component decomposition, sticky-boundary generators, and a Greiner-type boundary perturbation, allowing more general transmission conditions. The paper also proves generation results for the approximating operators and discusses robustness of the limit to the choice of transmission conditions.

Significance. If the convergence claims are fully established, this is a useful contribution. The paper makes a clear and appealing structural observation: boundary and transmission conditions of the approximating problem survive in the limit as multiplicative rate terms in a finite-dimensional jump matrix, rather than disappearing. The Feller-semigroup approach goes beyond the usual L2 form methods and, via the Trotter-Kurtz-Mackevicius theorem, yields process-level convergence; the use of the vertical component and the exponential convergence of the sticky process is conceptually clean. The identification of the limit generator from the forms and from the Greiner perturbation calculation is convincing. However, two load-bearing arguments are incomplete: the L2 degenerate-convergence step is quoted from an unproved extension of Ouhabaz's theorem, and the Feller generation proof in Proposition 3.13 relies on a false assertion about normal derivatives at the membrane. These gaps must be repaired before the paper's central claims are established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. (2.18)] The L2 convergence theorem rests on the sentence 'Ouhabaz's arguments may be extended to this case' for the non-densely defined limit form. This extension is not stated, let alone proved, and the cited support is a comment on p. 676 of [14] plus the author's own [7] and [12, Chapter 31]. The extension is exactly what converts resolvent convergence into the semigroup convergence (2.18), which is the main L2 result; if the extension is not valid, the central claim does not follow from the paper's arguments. Please provide a complete theorem statement and proof (or a precise external reference with the full statement) for the non-densely-defined case.
  2. [Section 3.5, Proposition 3.13] The assertion 'at z=0+ and z=0−, ∂z u vanishes for u in D(A_epsilon)' is false. For p=q=1, alpha=beta=0, the function u defined on the layers by u(x,y,z)=-z^3/3+z on [-1,0] and u(x,y,z)=z^3/3-z on [0,1], constant in (x,y), lies in D(A_epsilon): it is C^2 on each layer, has zero normal derivatives at z=±1, and satisfies both transmission conditions (3.3) at 0±, yet ∂z u(0-)=1 and ∂z u(0+)=-1. Consequently the positive-maximum-principle argument for A_epsilon, which is the stated route to the Feller generation statement needed for Theorem 3.1, is not established as written. A direct sign analysis may repair this, but it must be supplied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Proposition 3.3] In the extension formula (3.14), the term 'e^{-kappa t}' should read 'e^{-kappa x}'; as printed, t is the semigroup time parameter and the formula is undefined.
  2. [Section 3.1, after (3.3)] The sentence introducing the shorthands says 'νx,y(u) and νx,y(u)'; the second occurrence should be 'μx,y(u)'.
  3. [Section 3.4, Lemma 3.12] In the displayed expression for L_{epsilon^2 lambda} epsilon^2 Phi f, the second basis function is written as k_{1,epsilon^2 lambda} but should be k_{2,epsilon^2 lambda}; in addition, the sign of the beta-term is inconsistent with the following limit (beta[mu(f)-f(0+)] versus beta[f(0+)-mu(f)]). These appear to be typos, since the final limit is correct.
  4. [Section 2.4, limit form] The sentence 'D(b) may be identified with the direct sum of two copies of L2(B)' should refer to H1(B)×H1(B), since D(b) consists of z-independent H1 functions; as written it conflates the form domain with the ambient Hilbert space.
  5. [Section 3.3.2, Theorem 3.9] The density of D(A_Phi) is asserted without proof; please add a short argument, for example by approximating an arbitrary continuous function by elements of D(A) and then correcting by a small element of ker(lambda-A) to satisfy Lf = Phi f.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The limit operator B is genuinely derived from the transmission conditions, but the L2 semigroup convergence (2.18) is secured only by an unproved, self-cited extension of Ouhabaz's theorem; Proposition 3.13 also contains a false maximum-principle assertion that is a correctness gap rather than circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.4, derivation of (2.18) after the Ouhabaz paragraph]
    "Ouhabaz's arguments may be extended to this case to show that lim_ε→0 (µI−Aε−γI)^{-1} = (µI−B−γI)^{-1}P, strongly, for all µ in a sector of the complex plane (see the comment on p. 676 in [14]). Here, P is the orthogonal projection onto H0. Using straightforward arguments involving contour integrals, presented in more detail in e.g. [7] or [12, Chapter 31], one then deduces that lim_ε→0 e^{−γt}e^{tAε} = e^{−γt}e^{tB}P or, simply, lim_ε→0 e^{tAε} = e^{tB}P, t>0 (2.18) (strongly)."

    The paper's main L2 semigroup-convergence claim (2.18) is not obtained by proving the needed extension of Ouhabaz's theorem. Because the limit form b is non-densely defined, Ouhabaz's original theorem does not apply, and the paper's own derivation stops at the resolvent limit. The step that completes the central theorem is justified only by a comment in [14] plus the author's own [7] and [12, Chapter 31], with no proof of the extension supplied. This is a load-bearing appeal to the author's prior work rather than a derivation from the approximating forms. The identification of B itself is independent and non-circular; the circularity concern is confined to the convergence mechanism that turns the resolvent limit into the semigroup limit.

full rationale

The algebraic heart of the paper is not circular: the limit operator B is computed from the limit of the explicitly written sesquilinear forms aε (Eq. 2.15) and from the resolvent calculation in Lemma 3.12. The transmission coefficients α and β are inputs, not fitted outputs, and the statement that they reappear in B is a theorem, not an assumption. The Feller tensor-product decomposition is also a genuine construction, and the derivation in Lemma 3.12 does not assume the conclusion. The main circularity-type concern is localized to Section 2.4: the step from resolvent convergence to (2.18) in the non-densely-defined limit case is asserted to be an extension of Ouhabaz's theorem and is justified only by a comment in [14] and the author's own [7] and [12], without proof. This is load-bearing because (2.18) is the main L2 theorem; nevertheless it is a proof-support gap rather than an equation-level equivalence. Separately, Proposition 3.13 states "Arguing as in [12, p. 17] we conclude that at z = 0+ and z = 0−, ∂z u vanishes for u ∈ D(Aε)"; this assertion is false, since for p = q = 1, α = β = 0, the function u = −z^3/3 + z on [−1,0] and u = z^3/3 − z on [0,1] satisfies (3.3) but has ∂z u(0−) = 1 and ∂z u(0+) = −1. That false assertion is the only stated justification for the maximum principle used in the Feller generation half of Theorem 3.1. This is a correctness risk, not a circularity, and I have not added it to the circularity score.

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

The paper introduces no fitted constants and no new postulated entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are standard background theorems (trace compactness, Greiner and Kurtz theorems, spectral gap results) plus the author's previously published extension of Ouhabaz's theorem for the non-dense case. That last item is the one most worth reading before relying on the result.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Ouhabaz's monotone form convergence theorem extends to non-densely defined limit forms, giving strong semigroup convergence (2.18).
    Invoked in Section 2.4; the extension is not proved in the paper but cited to [14], [7], [12, Ch.31], all by the author. This is the key convergence step.
  • standard math Greiner's boundary perturbation theorem and its resolvent formula (3.26).
    Used in Theorem 3.9 and Lemma 3.12 to represent the resolvent of A_Φ; Greiner [31] is an external reference.
  • standard math Kurtz's degenerate convergence theorem (Theorem 3.10).
    Cited from [12] and [43,44]; used to deduce semigroup convergence from resolvent convergence in Section 3.4.
  • domain assumption For a bounded Lipschitz domain B, trace operators from H1(Ω±) to L2(B) are compact; for C^{2,κ} boundary, the Neumann Laplacian generates a Feller semigroup in C(B).
    Assumed in Sections 2.1 and 3.1; these are standard results, cited to [49, Thm 6.2] and [27, p.369].
  • standard math Spectral theory result used in Theorem 3.6: a compact, irreducible, eventually norm-continuous positive semigroup converges exponentially to a rank-one projection (from [2]).
    Used to prove exponential convergence of the 1D sticky Brownian semigroup to P_r.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semigroup-theoretic approach to diffusion in thin layers separated by semi-permeable membranes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BJHBHH6J

@misc{pith2026190802740,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semigroup-theoretic approach to diffusion in thin layers separated by semi-permeable membranes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BJHBHH6J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02740}
}
abstract

Using techniques of the theory of semigroups of linear operators we study the question of approximating solutions to equations governing diffusion in thin layers separated by a semi-permeable membrane. We show that as thickness of the layers converges to $0$, the solutions, which by nature are functions of $3$ variables, gradually lose dependence on the vertical variable and thus may be regarded as functions of $2$ variables. The limit equation describes diffusion on the lower and upper sides of a two-dimensional surface (the membrane) with jumps from one side to the other. The latter possibility is expressed as an additional term in the generator of the limit semigroup, and this term is build from permeability coefficients of the membrane featuring in the transmission conditions of the approximating equations (i.e., in the description of the domains of the generators of the approximating semigroups). We prove this convergence result in the spaces of square integrable and continuous functions, and study the way the choice of transmission conditions influences the limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02740 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two thin layers separated by a semi-permeable flat membrane 2. Analysis in L 2 2.1. Intuitions and the limit master equation For our case-study we choose the following situation. Let B (‘b’ for ‘base’) be a bounded, open subset of R 2 with Lipschitz boundary. Given ε ∈ (0, 1], we consider the following ‘split’ solid (cylinder) Ωε = Ω− ε ∪ Ω + ε formed by two bordering thin layers Ω − ε := {(x, y, z) ∈ R 3 : (x, y) ∈… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Bobrowski, Degenerate convergence of semigroups, Semigroup Forum 49 (1994), no

    A. Bobrowski, Degenerate convergence of semigroups, Semigroup Forum 49 (1994), no. 3, 303–327

    work page 1994

  2. [12]

    In Models of Mathe- matical Biology and Elsewhere, New Mathematical Monographs, vol

    , Convergence of One-parameter Operator Semigroups. In Models of Mathe- matical Biology and Elsewhere, New Mathematical Monographs, vol. 30, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [14]

    Bobrowski, B

    A. Bobrowski, B. Kaźmierczak, and M. Kunze,An averaging principle for fast dif- fusions in domains separated by semi-permeable membranes, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 27 (2017), no. 04, 663–706, available athttp: //www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S0218202517500130

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218202517500130 2017

  4. [1]

    R. A. Adams and J. J. F. Fournier,Sobolev Spaces, Second, Pure and Applied Math- ematics (Amsterdam), vol. 140, Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [2]

    Arendt, Semigroups and Evolution Equations: Functional Calculus, Regularity and Kernel Estimates, Evolutionary Equations vol

    W. Arendt, Semigroups and Evolution Equations: Functional Calculus, Regularity and Kernel Estimates, Evolutionary Equations vol. 1, 2004, pp. 1–85

    work page 2004

  6. [3]

    Freely available at http://www.uni-ulm.de/fileadmin/website_uni_ulm/mawi.inst.020/ arendt/downloads/internetseminar.pdf

    , Heat Kernels – Manuscript of the 9th Internet Seminar, 2006. Freely available at http://www.uni-ulm.de/fileadmin/website_uni_ulm/mawi.inst.020/ arendt/downloads/internetseminar.pdf

    work page 2006

  7. [4]

    Arendt, C

    W. Arendt, C. J. K. Batty, M. Hieber, and F. Neubrander,Vector-Valued Laplace Transforms and Cauchy Problems, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [5]

    J. M. Arrieta, A. N. Carvalho, M. C. Pereira, and R. P. Silva,Semilinear parabolic problems in thin domains with a highly oscillatory boundary, Nonlinear Anal. 74 (2011), no. 15, 5111–5132

    work page 2011

Show all 67 references
  1. [6]

    S. R. M. Barros and M. C. Pereira,Semilinear elliptic equations in thin domains with reaction terms concentrating on boundary, J. Math. Anal. Appl.441 (2016), no. 1, 375–392

    2016

  2. [8]

    An Introduc- tion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005

    , Functional Analysis for Probability and Stochastic Processes. An Introduc- tion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005

    2005

  3. [9]

    , On a semigroup generated by a convex combination of two Feller generators, J. Evol. Equ.7 (2007), no. 3, 555–565. 30 REFERENCES

    2007

  4. [10]

    , Generation of cosine families via Lord Kelvin’s method of images, J. Evol. Equ. 10 (2010), no. 3, 663–675

    2010

  5. [11]

    , Lord Kelvin’s method of images in the semigroup theory, Semigroup Forum 81 (2010), 435–445

    2010

  6. [13]

    Bobrowski, A

    A. Bobrowski, A. Gregosiewicz, and M. Murat,Functionals-preserving cosine families generated by Laplace operators in C[0,1], Discr. Cont. Dyn. Syst. B20 (2015), no. 7, 1877–1895

    2015

  7. [15]

    Bobrowski and M

    A. Bobrowski and M. Kunze,Irregular convergence of mild solutions of semilinear equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl.472 (2019), no. 2, 1401–1419

    2019

  8. [16]

    Bobrowski and T

    A. Bobrowski and T. Lipniacki,Singular limit of diffusion equations in 3D domains with thickness converging to zero, Models and Reality: Festschrift For James Robert Thompson, edited by J.A. Dobelman, 2017, pp. 95–116. Chicago, IL: TNO Company

    2017

  9. [17]

    , Robin-type boundary conditions in transition from reaction-diffusion equa- tions in 3D domains to equations in 2D domains, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Bobrowski and K

    A. Bobrowski and K. Morawska,From a PDE model to an ODE model of dynamics of synaptic depression, Discr. Cont. Dyn. Syst. B17 (2012), no. 7, 2313–2327

    2012

  11. [19]

    Carlsson, T

    T. Carlsson, T. Ekholm, and C. Elvingson, Algorithm for generating a Brownian motion on a sphere, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical43 (2010), no. 50, 505001

    2010

  12. [20]

    Costantini and T.G

    C. Costantini and T.G. Kurtz,Existence and uniqueness of reflecting diffusions in cusps, Electron. J. Probab.23 (2018), Paper No. 84, 21

    2018

  13. [21]

    Daners,Principal eigenvalues for generalised indefinite Robin problems, Potential Anal

    D. Daners,Principal eigenvalues for generalised indefinite Robin problems, Potential Anal. 38 (2013), no. 4, 1047–1069. MR3042694

    2013

  14. [22]

    M. H. A. Davis,Lectures on Stochastic Control and Nonlinear Filtering, Springer, 1984

    1984

  15. [23]

    Royal Statistical Soc., Ser

    , Piece-wise Deterministic Markov Processes, J. Royal Statistical Soc., Ser. B. 46 (1984), 353–388

    1984

  16. [24]

    , Markov Processes and Optimization, Chapman and Hall, 1993

    1993

  17. [25]

    Elsken,Continuity of attractors for net-shaped thin domains, Topol

    T. Elsken,Continuity of attractors for net-shaped thin domains, Topol. Methods Non- linear Anal. 26 (2005), no. 2, 315–354

    2005

  18. [26]

    Engel and R

    K.-J. Engel and R. Nagel,One-Parameter Semigroups for Linear Evolution Equa- tions, Springer, New York, 2000

    2000

  19. [27]

    S. N. Ethier and T. G. Kurtz,Markov Processes. Characterization and Convergence, Wiley, New York, 1986

    1986

  20. [28]

    Feller,Diffusion processes in one dimension, Trans

    W. Feller,Diffusion processes in one dimension, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.77 (1954), no. 1, 1–31

    1954

  21. [29]

    2, Wiley, New York, 1966

    , An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, Vol. 2, Wiley, New York, 1966. Second edition, 1971

    1966

  22. [30]

    J. A. Goldstein,Semigroups of Linear Operators and Applications, Oxford University Press, New York, 1985

    1985

  23. [31]

    Greiner,Perturbing the boundary conditions of a generator, Houston J

    G. Greiner,Perturbing the boundary conditions of a generator, Houston J. Math.13 (1987), no. 2, 213–229

    1987

  24. [32]

    R. J. Griego and R. Hersh,Random evolutions, Markov chains, and systems of partial differential equations, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.62 (1969), 305–308

    1969

  25. [33]

    , Theory of random evolutions with applications to partial differential equa- tions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.156 (1971), 405–418. REFERENCES 31

    1971

  26. [34]

    J. K. Hale and G. Raugel,Reaction-diffusion equation on thin domains, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9)71 (1992), no. 1, 33–95

    1992

  27. [35]

    B. Hat, B. Kaźmierczak, and T. Lipniacki,B cell activation triggered by the formation of the small receptor cluster: a computational study, PLoS Comput Biol.7(10) (2011 Oct.), e1002197

    2011

  28. [36]

    B. Hat, P. Paszek, M. Kimmel, K. Piechór, and T. Lipniacki,How the numer of alleles influences gene expression, J. Statist. Phys.128 (2007), no. 1/2, 511–533

    2007

  29. [37]

    A. M. Il’in, R. Z. Khasminskii, and G. Yin,Asymptotic expansions of solutions of integro-differential equations for transition densities of singularly perturbed switching diffusions: rapid switchings, J. Math. Anal. Appl.238 (1999), 516–539

    1999

  30. [38]

    Itô and McKean, Jr

    K. Itô and McKean, Jr. H. P.,Diffusion Processes and Their Sample Paths, Springer, Berlin, 1996. Repr. of the 1974 ed

    1996

  31. [39]

    Kallenberg,Foundations of Modern Probability, 2nd ed., Springer, 2002

    O. Kallenberg,Foundations of Modern Probability, 2nd ed., Springer, 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, Classics in Mathematics Series, Springer, 1995

    T. Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, Classics in Mathematics Series, Springer, 1995. reprint of the 1980 edition

    1995

  33. [41]

    Kaźmierczak and T

    B. Kaźmierczak and T. Lipniacki,Regulation of kinase activity by diffusion and feed- back, J. Theor. Biol.259 (2009), 291–296

    2009

  34. [42]

    T. G. Kurtz,Extensions of Trotter’s operator semigroup approximation theorems, J. Functional Analysis3 (1969), 354–375

    1969

  35. [43]

    Functional Analysis12 (1973), 55–67

    , A limit theorem for perturbed operator semigroups with applications to ran- dom evolutions, J. Functional Analysis12 (1973), 55–67

    1973

  36. [44]

    Math.3 (1977), no

    ,Applications of an abstract perturbation theorem to ordinary differential equa- tions, Houston J. Math.3 (1977), no. 1, 67–82

    1977

  37. [45]

    , A control formulation for constrained Markov processes, Mathematics of ran- dom media (Blacksburg, VA, 1989), 1991, pp. 139–150

    1989

  38. [46]

    Lejay,The snapping out Brownian motion, Ann

    A. Lejay,The snapping out Brownian motion, Ann. Appl. Probab.26 (2016), no. 3, 1727–1742

    2016

  39. [47]

    T. M. Liggett,Continuous Time Markov Processes. An Introduction, Amer. Math. Soc., 2010

    2010

  40. [48]

    Nagel (ed.),One-parameter Semigroups of Positive Operators, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol

    R. Nagel (ed.),One-parameter Semigroups of Positive Operators, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1184, Springer, 1986

    1986

  41. [49]

    Nečas,Direct methods in the theory of elliptic equations, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, Heidelberg, 2012

    J. Nečas,Direct methods in the theory of elliptic equations, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, Heidelberg, 2012. Translated from the 1967 French original by GerardTronelandAloisKufner,Editorial coordinationand prefacebyŠárka Nečasová and a contribution by Christian...

    2012

  42. [50]

    Nickel,A new look at boundary perturbations of generators, Electron

    G. Nickel,A new look at boundary perturbations of generators, Electron. J. Differential Equations (2004), No. 95, 14

    2004

  43. [51]

    E. M. Ouhabaz,Second order elliptic operators with essential spectrum[0, ∞) on Lp, Comm. Partial Differential Equations20 (1995), no. 5-6, 763–773

    1995

  44. [52]

    ,Analysis of Heat Equations on Domains, Lond. Math. Soc. Monograph Series, vol. 30, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 2005

    2005

  45. [53]

    Pažanin and M

    I. Pažanin and M. C. Pereira,On the nonlinear convection-diffusion-reaction problem in a thin domain with a weak boundary absorption, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal.17 (2018), no. 2, 579–592

    2018

  46. [54]

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

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

    1983

  47. [55]

    M. A. Pinsky,Lectures on Random Evolutions, World Scientific, Singapore, 1991

    1991

  48. [56]

    Prizzi, M

    M. Prizzi, M. Rinaldi, and K. P. Rybakowski,Curved thin domains and parabolic equations, Studia Math.151 (2002), no. 2, 109–140

    2002

  49. [57]

    Prizzi and K

    M. Prizzi and K. P. Rybakowski,The effect of domain squeezing upon the dynamics of reaction-diffusion equations, J. Differential Equations173 (2001), no. 2, 271–320

    2001

  50. [58]

    II, Topol

    , Recent results on thin domain problems. II, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 19 (2002), no. 2, 199–219. 32 REFERENCES

    2002

  51. [59]

    Raugel, Dynamics of partial differential equations on thin domains, Dynamical systems (Montecatini Terme, 1994), 1995, pp

    G. Raugel, Dynamics of partial differential equations on thin domains, Dynamical systems (Montecatini Terme, 1994), 1995, pp. 208–315. MR1374110

    1994

  52. [60]

    Rudnicki and M

    R. Rudnicki and M. Tyran-Kamińska,Piecewise Deterministic Processes in Biological Models, Springer Briefs in Applied Sciences and Technology, Springer, Cham, 2017. Springer Briefs in Mathematical Methods

    2017

  53. [61]

    R. A. Ryan,Introduction to Tensor Products of Banach Spaces, Springer, 2002

    2002

  54. [62]

    Simon,A canonical decomposition for quadratic forms with applications to mono- tone convergence theorems, J

    B. Simon,A canonical decomposition for quadratic forms with applications to mono- tone convergence theorems, J. Functional Analysis28 (1978), no. 3, 377–385

    1978

  55. [63]

    Sova,Convergence d’opérations linéaires non bornées, Rev

    M. Sova,Convergence d’opérations linéaires non bornées, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 12 (1967), 373–389

    1967

  56. [64]

    Xiao and J

    T.-J. Xiao and J. Liang, A solution to an open problem for wave equations with generalized Wentzell boundary conditions, Math. Ann.327 (2003), no. 2, 351–363

    2003

  57. [65]

    , Second order differential operators with Feller-Wentzell type boundary con- ditions, J. Funct. Anal.254 (2008), no. 6, 1467–1486

    2008

  58. [66]

    Yin, On limit results for a class of singularly perturbed switching diffusions, J

    G. Yin, On limit results for a class of singularly perturbed switching diffusions, J. Theor. Probab. 14 (2001), 673–697

    2001

  59. [67]

    Yin and M

    G. Yin and M. Kniazeva,Singularly perturbed multidimensional switching diffusions with fast and slow switchings, J. Math. Anal. Appl.229 (1999), 605–630. Adam Bobrowski Lublin University of Technology Nadbystrzycka 38A 20-618 Lublin, Poland e-mail: a.bobrowski@pollub.pl

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.