Fractional heat semigroups on metric measure spaces with finite densities and applications to fractional dissipative equations

Jizheng Huang; Pengtao Li; Shaoguang Shi; Yu Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Fractional heat semigroups on metric measure spaces with finite densities and applications to fractional dissipative equations

T0 review · 4 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 Fractional heat semigroups on metric measure spaces inherit Euclidean-type kernel decay, and that decay controls regularity and capacity trace theorems for fractional dissipation.

desk verdict Solid kernel-estimate core, but the capacity half rests on an unproved good-lambda inequality and a ball-mass misstep; deserves referee attention but needs real revision. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07895 v1 pith:JQV25SSA submitted 2019-08-21 math.AP

Jizheng Huang , Pengtao Li , Yu Liu , Shaoguang Shi This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 31E0547D0335K0531C15

keywords fractionalheatsemigroupmetricmeasurespacesGaussiankernelestimatesdissipativeequationsspace-timeStrichartzLp-capacitytraceembeddings

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 aims to prove that the fractional heat semigroup $e^{-tL^\alpha}$ on a metric measure space behaves, in its kernel, like the Euclidean fractional heat semigroup: whenever the ambient measure obeys upper and lower power-law ball estimates $\mu(B(x,r))\lesssim r^\beta$ and $\mu(B(x,r))\gtrsim r^{\beta_*}$, and the original heat kernel has Gaussian upper bounds, the fractional kernel satisfies $K^L_{\alpha,t}(x,y)\lesssim t/(t^{1/(2\alpha)}+d(x,y))^{\beta_*+2\alpha}$. It then uses this single estimate to derive space-time and Strichartz estimates for the Cauchy problem $\partial_t u+L^\alpha u=f$, giving regularity for fractional dissipative equations on spaces where Fourier analysis is unavailable. In a second thread, under a matching two-sided Gaussian bound, it develops an $L^p$-capacity on space-time and characterizes exactly which Radon measures $\nu$ on $M\times(0,\infty)$ admit the trace embedding $e^{-tL^\alpha}: L^p(M)\to L^q(M\times(0,\infty),\nu)$. A sympathetic reader would care because the package of Euclidean results for fractional dissipation—kernel decay, Strichartz estimates, capacity criteria—is transplanted to manifolds, Lie groups, and other metric spaces by a Fourier-free argument.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is the subordination representation of the fractional heat semigroup, $K^L_{\alpha,t}(x,y)=\int_0^\infty \eta^\alpha_t(s)p_s(x,y)\,ds$, where $\eta^\alpha_t$ is the scaled stable density satisfying $\eta^\alpha_t(s)\simeq t/s^{1+\alpha}$ for large $s$. It does the work of transferring decay: the Gaussian factor in $p_s$ contributes $e^{-d(x,y)^2/s}$, the density assumption contributes the volume factor $\mu(B(x,\sqrt{s}))^{-1}\lesssim s^{-\beta_*/2}$, and the remaining $s$-integral is evaluated by the change of variable $r=d(x,y)/\sqrt{s}$ to produce the combined denominator $t^{1/(2\alpha)}+d(x,y)$. The same mechanism, fed with the derivative estimate (A2) and the fractional-power identity (1.5), produces the time-derivative and $L^{\theta/2}$ kernel bounds, and with the two-sided bound (A4) it produces the lower kernel bound used for capacities.

What would settle it

On a metric measure space satisfying (A1), (1.2) and (1.3) but not (A4), evaluate the subordination integral at $t=d(x,y)^{2\alpha}$: if $K^L_{\alpha,t}(x,y)$ decays faster than $t/(t^{1/(2\alpha)}+d(x,y))^{\beta+2\alpha}$ for some sequence of points, then Proposition 2.9 and every capacity upper bound depending on it fail; such a space would separate the upper-bound theory of Sections 2–3 from the capacity theory of Sections 4–5.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the subordination formula $K^L_{\alpha,t}(x,y)=\int_0^\infty \eta^\alpha_t(s)p_s(x,y)\,ds$, with the stable-type kernel $\eta^\alpha_t(s)=t^{-1/\alpha}\eta^\alpha_1(s/t^{1/\alpha})$ obeying $\eta^\alpha_t(s)\lesssim t/s^{1+\alpha}$, turns a one-sided Gaussian upper bound on $p_s$ into sharp two-sided-shape bounds on the fractional kernel: $K^L_{\alpha,t}(x,y)\lesssim t/(t^{1/(2\alpha)}+d(x,y))^{\beta_*+2\alpha}$ (Proposition 2.8), and with an additional derivative bound on $p_s$, $|L^{\theta/2}K^L_{\alpha,t}(x,y)|\lesssim (t^{1/(2\alpha)}+d(x,y))^{-(\beta_*+\theta)}$ (Proposition 2.11). These pointwise estimates are the load-bearing input for the space-time estimates of Section 3 and for the capacity and trace theorems of Sections 4 and 5. Under the two-sided Gaussian assumption (A4) the same subordination argument gives the matching lower bound $K^L_{\alpha,t}(x,y)\gtrsim t/(t^{1/(2\alpha)}+d(x,y))^{\beta+2\alpha}$, which is what makes the $L^p$-capacity of parabolic balls comparable to $r^{\beta_*}$ from below and $(t_0^{1/(2\alpha)}+r_0)^\beta$ from above. In the paper's own formulation, the fractional solution operator $e^{-tL^\alpha}$ has Euclidean-type off-diagonal decay, and the $L^p$-capacity characterization of trace embeddings is valid on metric measure spaces with finite densities.

Load-bearing premise

The capacity and trace theorems of Sections 4 and 5 rest on Assumption (A4), the two-sided Gaussian bound $p_s(x,y)\simeq \mu(B(x,\sqrt{s}))^{-1}e^{-Cd(x,y)^2/s}$; if a space has only the Gaussian upper bound (A1), the lower kernel bound and the resulting capacity comparisons are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The admissible-triplet space-time estimates $\|e^{-tL^\alpha}\phi\|_{L^q(I;L^p)}\lesssim\|\phi\|_{L^r}$ and the companion estimates for the Duhamel term give well-posedness and decay for the Cauchy problem (1.6) on any metric measure space satisfying the density and Gaussian upper assumptions.
The Strichartz-type bound $\|G(F)\|_{L^{\tilde q}((0,\infty);L^{\tilde p})}\lesssim\|F\|_{L^q((0,\infty);L^p)}$, together with the exponential-integrability and Hölder estimates of Theorem 3.8, transfers the Euclidean regularity package for fractional dissipation to the metric setting.
The $L^p$-capacity on $M\times(0,\infty)$ is dual to the adjoint fractional heat semigroup, is subadditive, and has parabolic-ball capacity comparable to $r^{\beta_*}$ from below and $(t_0^{1/(2\alpha)}+r_0)^\beta$ from above.
The trace theorem gives a quantitative characterization: for $1<p\le q<\infty$, $e^{-tL^\alpha}:L^p(M)\to L^q(M_+,\nu)$ is bounded if and only if $\sup_\lambda \lambda^{p/q}/\kappa(\nu;\lambda)<\infty$, while for $1<q<p<\infty$ the criterion is the finiteness of $\int_0^\infty(\lambda^{p/q}/\kappa(\nu;\lambda))^{q/(p-q)}\,d\lambda/\lambda$.
On stratified Lie groups the same trace theorem is equivalent to membership of the Hedberg–Wolff potential $P_{\alpha p}\nu$ in $L^{q(p-1)/(p-q)}_\nu(G_+)$, giving a checkable potential-theoretic condition.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct extension the paper does not state is that the same proof should give kernel bounds for other subordinated semigroups, such as $e^{-tL^{1/2}}$ or relativistic-type fractional powers, whenever the subordinator has the same scaling and two-sided decay.
In the non-Ahlfors case $\beta\neq\beta_*$, the spherical capacity upper bound involves $(t_0^{1/(2\alpha)}+r_0)^\beta$ while the lower bound involves $r_0^{\beta_*}$; a natural testable refinement would be to locate the transition radius where the two exponents cross, which the paper leaves implicit.
Because the kernel estimates are Fourier-free and use only (A1)–(A3), one could try to verify the pointwise bounds for jump-type nonlocal Dirichlet forms once their heat kernels satisfy comparable Gaussian-type bounds, connecting this capacity theory to known two-sided jump-kernel estimates.
Sharpness of the exponent $\beta_*+2\alpha$ could be probed by taking $M=\mathbb{R}^n$ and $L=-\Delta$, where the bounds collapse to the classical Euclidean estimates; that suggests the metric-space result is dimensionally optimal in the Ahlfors-regular case.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper tries to do a lot: extend the fractional heat semigroup kernel bounds of Miao–Yuan–Zhang and Jiang–Xiao–Yang–Zhai from Euclidean space and stratified groups to general metric measure spaces with upper and lower densities. The subordination route is standard, but the systematic transfer of the bounds and the Fourier-free off-diagonal estimates are genuinely new, and the PDE applications in Sections 2–3 look like they work. The kernel estimate in Proposition 2.8, the derivative bound in Proposition 2.10, and the space-time estimates that follow are clean, and I didn't find any circularity. Credit where it's due: the opening sections are a solid piece of work.

The trouble starts in Section 4. Theorem 4.3's upper spherical capacity bound uses the lower bound μ(B(x0,r0)) ≳ r0^β, which is not what (1.3) gives unless β=β*. That's a concrete error, not a style quibble. If the intended statement is only for β=β*, fine, but say so.

The bigger problem is Lemma 5.7. The asserted good-λ inequality (5.3) is the engine for Lemma 5.8 and hence for the Wolff-potential characterization in Theorem 5.10, and the proof simply says 'we slightly modify [1, (3.6.1)]'. That is not a proof of a nontrivial estimate, and the scaling looks off: with the parabolic ball volume r^{Q+2α}, an exponent (Q+2α)/Q in the good-λ term is not the routine reduction to Adams–Hedberg. If this inequality fails, the equivalence in Lemma 5.7 collapses, and with it the main capacity result. The rest of Section 5 is built on that.

There are also smaller issues: Lemma 3.2(ii) states a time exponent -θ where the proof gives -θ/2α, and Theorem 3.8(i) seems to use yet another exponent. These look like fixable typos, but they indicate the manuscript wasn't checked carefully. The reliance on (A4) for all of Sections 4–5 is explicit, so that's not a flaw per se, but it narrows the advertised scope.

Who is this for? Harmonic analysts working on heat kernels and trace inequalities will want to know the kernel bounds and the general framework. The capacity results are the most advertised, and they're the least supported. I'd send it to a serious referee — the core ideas are worth engaging — but it needs major revision, not copy-editing. The referee should be asked to verify Lemma 5.7 from scratch and to fix the ball-mass exponent in Theorem 4.3. If those get repaired, this becomes a useful paper.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Fourier-free, subordination-based approach to the fractional heat semigroup e^{-tL^alpha} on a metric measure space (M,d,mu) with upper and lower density bounds. Under heat-kernel assumptions (A1)-(A4), it derives pointwise estimates for the fractional heat kernel and its fractional derivatives, then uses them to prove space-time and Strichartz-type estimates for the fractional dissipative equation, to define an L^p-capacity on the parabolic space M x (0,infty), and to characterize nonnegative Radon measures nu for which the solution operator maps L^p(M) into L^q(M x (0,infty), nu). The central advertised results are the decay estimates in Propositions 2.8 and 2.11 and the capacity trace criteria in Theorems 5.3, 5.4, and 5.10.

Significance. If fully correct, the paper would provide a genuinely non-Fourier route to Euclidean-type off-diagonal estimates for fractional heat semigroups on general metric measure spaces and would extend the Chang-Xiao and Jiang-Xiao-Yang-Zhai capacity theory to this setting. The subordination derivation in Sections 2 and 3 is clean and self-contained, and the examples in Section 2.1 give useful context. The capacity duality in Proposition 4.1 is also a well-structured part of the paper. However, the current manuscript contains several load-bearing gaps: an unproved good-lambda inequality, an unjustified ball-measure lower bound in Theorem 4.3, and an exponent mismatch in Lemma 3.2(ii). These issues prevent the advertised conclusions from being fully supported as written.

major comments (4)

[Section 5.3, Lemma 5.7, Eq. (5.3)] The asserted good-lambda inequality (5.3) is the engine of Lemma 5.7, and Lemma 5.7 is essential for Lemma 5.8 and therefore for Theorem 5.10, the paper's second main result. The proof only says that the inequality follows by 'slightly modify[ing] [1, (3.6.1)]', but no derivation is given. The reduction to Adams-Hedberg is not routine: the parabolic ball B_r^{(alpha)}(r^{2alpha},x) has volume of order r^{Q+2alpha}, whereas the maximal operator M_alpha in Lemma 5.7 uses the normalization r^{-Q}, so the scaling of the claimed constant epsilon^{(Q+2alpha)/Q} needs independent verification. The paper should either prove (5.3) from the kernel estimates and the density assumptions, or state precisely the extra hypotheses under which it holds (e.g., doubling of nu or a restricted range of p). As written, the proof of Theorem 5.10 has a missing nontrivial step.
[Section 4.2, Theorem 4.3 (upper bound)] The upper estimate Cap_p^{(alpha)}(B_{r0}^{(alpha)}(t0,x0)) lesssim (t0^{1/2alpha}+r0)^beta is proved using e^{-tL^alpha} 1_{B_{r0}(x0)}(x) greatersim r0^beta/(t0^{1/2alpha}+r0)^beta. This inequality is obtained by integrating the lower kernel bound over B(x0,r0), which requires mu(B(x0,r0)) greatersim r0^beta. Assumption (1.3) only gives mu(B(x0,r0)) greatersim r0^{beta*}, and (1.2) gives the opposite inequality. Unless beta=beta* or an additional lower density condition with exponent beta is assumed, the displayed lower bound is unjustified. This gap matters for Theorem 5.3, where the ball condition nu(B_r^{(alpha)}) lesssim r^{qbeta/p} is claimed to be equivalent to the capacitary condition.
[Lemma 3.2(ii) and its consequences] Lemma 3.2(ii) states ||L^{theta/2} e^{-tL^alpha} phi||_{L^p} lesssim t^{-theta - beta*(1/r-1/p)/2alpha} ||phi||_{L^r}, but the proof, using Proposition 2.11, yields the exponent -theta/(2alpha) - beta*(1/r-1/p)/(2alpha) in place of -theta. The mismatch is not cosmetic: Lemma 3.2(ii) is used in Theorems 3.5, 3.6, and 3.8, and the admissible-triplet computations in Section 3 depend on the correct exponent. The authors should correct the statement and then re-check the exponents in the subsequent estimates, including the displayed bounds in Theorem 3.8(i), which appear to use yet another exponent for L^alpha e^{-tL^alpha}.
[Lemma 5.1] The proof of Lemma 5.1 invokes Proposition 4.1(ii) for the level sets E_j = {(t,x): e^{-tL^alpha} f(x) >= 2^j}. Proposition 4.1 is stated and proved only for compact subsets K of M+. The paper does not explain why the capacitary extremal measure exists for these level sets, which are not shown to be compact. Since Lemma 5.1 is used in the proofs of Theorems 5.3 and 5.4, this approximation/extension step should be supplied or replaced by a limiting argument.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract announces results under Gaussian upper estimates, but Sections 4 and 5 require the two-sided bound (A4). The scope should be stated accurately in the abstract and introduction.
[Definition 3.3] The definition of admissible triplet appears to be printed twice with the same displayed condition; if one copy is intended to define the 'generalized admissible triplet', the two conditions should be distinguished.
[Proof of Lemma 3.2(ii)] In the displayed formula inside the proof, the kernel is written with |x| instead of d(x,y), and there is a 'beta*+2alpha nu' typo; these should be fixed.
[Throughout] There are typographical issues such as 'Randon' for 'Radon', 'Naiver-Stokes' for 'Navier-Stokes', and 'tempreratue' in a reference title; these should be corrected in a final version.
[Section 5.3.2, Remark 5.9] Remark 5.9 claims Lemmas 5.7 and 5.8 hold for general metric measure spaces under (1.2), but Lemma 5.8 uses the Lie-group structure and the dyadic cube construction in its proof; the remark should indicate what modifications are needed or be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is a chain of deductions from explicit heat-kernel and density assumptions; the only self-citation is an example.

full rationale

The paper's chain is a sequence of implications from explicit hypotheses. Proposition 2.8, 2.10, and 2.11 apply the subordination representation (2.4)-(2.5) to the assumed Gaussian bounds (A1)-(A3) and the density conditions (1.2)-(1.3); no conclusion is fed back as a hypothesis. Sections 3-5 use those kernel estimates to derive space-time estimates, capacities, and trace criteria via standard real-variable arguments; the capacity is defined through e^{-tL^alpha}, and the equivalence theorems are proved from the estimates rather than assumed. The only overlapping-author citation, [25], appears in Example 2.4 as an example of a heat kernel satisfying (A1)-(A3) and is not used in the proof of the main theorems, so it is not load-bearing. Lemma 5.7's good-lambda inequality (5.3) is asserted by 'slightly modify[ing] [1, (3.6.1)]' without a derivation; this is a potential correctness gap, but it is an imported external estimate, not a reduction of the theorem to its own conclusion, so it does not constitute circularity.

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

The central claims draw on standard theory (subordination, minimax capacity duality, dyadic cubes, maximal functions) plus domain-specific heat kernel bounds. The main objects not proved in the paper are the asserted good-lambda inequality and the correct spherical capacity bound under mixed density exponents. No free parameters are fitted, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Upper and lower density conditions (1.2) and (1.3) with exponents β, β⋆ ≤ Hausdorff dimension.
This is the class of spaces treated; used throughout to convert heat kernel bounds into s^{-β⋆/2} and s^{-β/2} estimates in Propositions 2.8 and 2.9.
domain assumption Heat kernel Gaussian upper and derivative bounds (A1)-(A3) and the two-sided bound (A4).
These are the core hypotheses; (A1) drives the kernel decay, (A2) drives derivative and L^θ estimates, (A3) drives continuity, and (A4) drives the lower kernel bound and the capacity/trace results.
standard math Subordination formula (2.4)-(2.5): e^{-tL^α} = ∫ η_α,t(s) e^{-sL} ds with η_α,t(s) ≲ t/s^{1+α}.
Standard representation of fractional powers of operators; assumed with the stated properties of η, cited to [15].
standard math Adams-Hedberg minimax theorem [1, Theorem 2.4.1] used in Proposition 4.1.
Used to prove the dual formula for Lp-capacities; the paper relies on it without reproducing the proof.
ad hoc to paper Good-lambda inequality (5.3) in Lemma 5.7.
Asserted as a modification of [1, (3.6.1)] but not proved; the Lp equivalence between the parabolic maximal function and the adjoint semigroup depends on it.
standard math Christ dyadic cube structure on spaces of homogeneous type (Proposition 5.6).
Used in the Carnot-group trace Theorem 5.10 to construct dyadic parabolic cubes and transfer the capacity criterion.
standard math Hardy-Littlewood maximal function Lp bounds on the measure ν.
Used in the final step of Theorem 5.10; standard for doubling and for the centered maximal operator in the metric setting.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractional heat semigroups on metric measure spaces with finite densities and applications to fractional dissipative equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JQV25SSA

@misc{pith2026190807895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractional heat semigroups on metric measure spaces with finite densities and applications to fractional dissipative equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JQV25SSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07895}
}

abstract

Let $(\mathbb M, d,\mu)$ be a metric measure space with upper and lower densities: $$ \begin{cases} |||\mu|||_{\beta}:=\sup_{(x,r)\in \mathbb M\times(0,\infty)} \mu(B(x,r))r^{-\beta}<\infty;\\ |||\mu|||_{\beta^{\star}}:=\inf_{(x,r)\in \mathbb M\times(0,\infty)} \mu(B(x,r))r^{-\beta^{\star}}>0, \end{cases} $$ where $\beta, \beta^{\star}$ are two positive constants which are less than or equal to the Hausdorff dimension of $\mathbb M$. Assume that $p_t(\cdot,\cdot)$ is a heat kernel on $\mathbb M$ satisfying Gaussian upper estimates and $\mathcal L$ is the generator of the semigroup associated with $p_t(\cdot,\cdot)$. In this paper, via a method independent of Fourier transform, we establish the decay estimates for the kernels of the fractional heat semigroup $\{e^{-t \mathcal{L}^{\alpha}}\}_{t>0}$ and the operators $\{{\mathcal{L}}^{\theta/2} e^{-t \mathcal{L}^{\alpha}}\}_{t>0}$, respectively. By these estimates, we obtain the regularity for the Cauchy problem of the fractional dissipative equation associated with $\mathcal L$ on $(\mathbb M, d,\mu)$. Moreover, based on the geometric-measure-theoretic analysis of a new $L^p$-type capacity defined in $\mathbb{M}\times(0,\infty)$, we also characterize a nonnegative Randon measure $\nu$ on $\mathbb M\times(0,\infty)$ such that $R_\alpha L^p(\mathbb M)\subseteq L^q(\mathbb M\times(0,\infty),\nu)$ under $(\alpha,p,q)\in (0,1)\times(1,\infty)\times(1,\infty)$, where $u=R_\alpha f$ is the weak solution of the fractional diffusion equation $(\partial_t+ \mathcal{L}^\alpha)u(t,x)=0$ in $\mathbb M\times(0,\infty)$ subject to $u(0,x)=f(x)$ in $\mathbb M$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

Adams and L

D. Adams and L. Hedberg, Function Spaces and Potential Th eory, Springer Press, Berlin, 1996

work page 1996
[2]

Aimar, A

H. Aimar, A. Bernardis, B. Iaﬀei, Comparison of Hardy-Li ttlewood and dyadic maximal functions on spaces of homogeneous type, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 312 (2005), 105-120

work page 2005
[3]

Ambrosio, N

L. Ambrosio, N. Gigli and G. Savar´ e, Calculus and heat ﬂo w in metric measure spaces and applications to spaces with Ricci bounds from below, Inventiones Math. 195 (2014), 289-391

work page 2014
[4]

Capogna and N

L. Capogna and N. Garofalo, Ahlfors type estimates for pe rimeter measures in Carnot-Carath´ eodory spaces, J. Geom. Anal. 16 (2006), 455-497

work page 2006
[5]

Chang and J

D.C. Chang and J. Xiao, Lq-extensions of Lp-spaces by fractional diﬀusion equations, Discrete Contin . Dyn. Syst. 35 (2015), 1905-1920

work page 2015
[6]

Cheeger, Diﬀerentiability of Lipschitz functions on metric measure spaces, GAF A 9:3 (1999), 428-517

J. Cheeger, Diﬀerentiability of Lipschitz functions on metric measure spaces, GAF A 9:3 (1999), 428-517

work page 1999
[7]

Fractional and fractal derivatives modeling of turbulence

W. Chen, Fractional and fractal derivatives modeling of turbulence, arXiv:nlin/0511066v1, 2005

work page Pith review arXiv 2005
[8]

Christ, A T (b) theorem with remarks on analytic capacity and the Cauchy in tegral, Colloq

M. Christ, A T (b) theorem with remarks on analytic capacity and the Cauchy in tegral, Colloq. Math. 60/61 (1990), 601-628

work page 1990

Show all 45 references

[9]

Constantin, Geometric statistics in turbulence, SIA M Rev

P. Constantin, Geometric statistics in turbulence, SIA M Rev. 36 (1994), 73-98

1994
[10]

Coifman and G

R. Coifman and G. Weiss, Analyse harmornique non-commu tative sur certains espaces homogenes, Lecture Notes in Math. Vol. 242. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1971. FRACTIONAL HEAT SEMIGROUPS 47

1971
[11]

Dziuba´ nski, G

J. Dziuba´ nski, G. Garrig´ os, T. Mart ´ ınez and J.L. Torrea, J. Zienkiewicz, BMO spaces related to Schr¨ odinger operators with potentials satisfying a reverse H¨ older ine quality, Math. Z. 249(2) (2005), 329-356

2005
[12]

Dziuba´ nski, Note on H 1 spaces related to degenerate Schr¨ odinger operators, Ill.J

J. Dziuba´ nski, Note on H 1 spaces related to degenerate Schr¨ odinger operators, Ill.J. Math. 49 (2005), 1271-1297

2005
[13]

Folland and E.M

G.B. Folland and E.M. Stein, Hardy Spaces on Homogeneou s Groups, Math Notes, Vol. 28. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1982

1982
[14]

Grigor’yan, Gaussian upper bounds for the heat kerne l on arbitrary manifolds, J

A. Grigor’yan, Gaussian upper bounds for the heat kerne l on arbitrary manifolds, J. Diﬀ. Geom. 45 (1997), 33-52

1997
[15]

Grigor’yan, Heat kernels and function theory on metr ic measure spaces, Contemp

A. Grigor’yan, Heat kernels and function theory on metr ic measure spaces, Contemp. Math. 338 (2002), 143-172

2002
[16]

Grigor’yan, On stochastically complete manifolds, Engl

A. Grigor’yan, On stochastically complete manifolds, Engl. transl. Soviet Math. Dokl. 34 (1987), 310-313

1987
[17]

Grigor’yan, Analytic and geometric background of re currence and non-explosion of the Brownian motion on Riemannian manifolds, Bull

A. Grigor’yan, Analytic and geometric background of re currence and non-explosion of the Brownian motion on Riemannian manifolds, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 36 (1999), 135-249

1999
[18]

Grigor’yan, E

A. Grigor’yan, E. Hu and J. Hu, Lower estimates of heat ke rnels of non-local Dirichlet forms on metric measure spaces, J. Funct. Anal. 272 (2017), 3311-3346

2017
[19]

Grigor’yan, E

A. Grigor’yan, E. Hu and J. Hu, Two-sided estimates of he at kernels of jump type Dirichlet forms, Adv. Math. 330 (2018), 433-515

2018
[20]

Grigor’yan and J

A. Grigor’yan and J. Hu, Oﬀ-diagonal upper estimates fo r the heat kernel of the Dirichlet forms on metric spaces, Inventiones Math. 174 (2008), 81-126

2008
[21]

Grigor’yan, J

A. Grigor’yan, J. Hu and K.-S. Lau, Heat kernels on metri c measure spaces and an application to semilinear elliptic equations, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), 2065-2095

2003
[22]

Hebisch and L

W. Hebisch and L. Saloﬀ-Coste, On the relation between e lliptic and parabolic Harnack inequalities, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 51 (2001), 1437-1481

2001
[23]

Heinonen and P

J. Heinonen and P. Koskela, Quasiconformal maps in metr ic spaces with controlled geometry, Acta Math. 181 (1998), 1-61

1998
[24]

Heinonen, P

J. Heinonen, P. Koskela, N. Shanmugalingam, J.T. Tyson , Sobolev spaces on metric measure spaces. An approach based on upper gradients, New Mathematical Monographs, 27. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015

2015
[25]

Huang, P

J. Huang, P. Li and Y. Liu, Poisson semigroup, area funct ion, and the characterization of Hardy space associated to degenerate Schr¨ odinger operators, Banach J. Math. Anal . 10 (2016), 727-749

2016
[26]

Jespersen, R

S. Jespersen, R. Metzler and H.C. Fogedby, Levy ﬂights i n external force ﬁelds: Langevin and fractional Fokker- Planck equations, and their solutions, Physical Review E 59 (1999), 27-36

1999
[27]

Jiang, J

R. Jiang, J. Xiao, Da. Yang and Z. Zhai, Regularity and ca pacity for the fractional dissipative operator, J. Diﬀ. Equa. 259 (2015), 3495-3519

2015
[28]

Li, Estimations Lp des op´ erateurs de Schr¨ odinger sur les groupes nilpotents , J

H. Li, Estimations Lp des op´ erateurs de Schr¨ odinger sur les groupes nilpotents , J. Func. Anal. 161 (1999), 152-218

1999
[29]

Li and S

P. Li and S. Yau, On the parabolic kernel of the Schr¨ odin ger operator, Acta Math. 156 (3-4) (1986), 153-201

1986
[30]

Lin and H

C. Lin and H. Liu, BM OL(Hn) spaces and Carleson measures for Schr¨ odinger operators, Adv. Math. 228 (2011), 1631-1688

2011
[31]

Lions, Quelques m´ ethodes de r´ esolution des probl` emes aux limites non lin´ eaires, Dunod/Gauthier

J. Lions, Quelques m´ ethodes de r´ esolution des probl` emes aux limites non lin´ eaires, Dunod/Gauthier. Villars, Paris, 1969 (in French)

1969
[32]

Y. Lu, Da. Yang and W. Yuan, Morrey-Sobolev Spaces on Met ric Measure Spaces, Potential Anal. 41 (2014), 215-243

2014
[33]

T. Ma, P. Stinga, J. Torrea and C. Zhang, Regularity prop erties of Schr¨ odinger operators, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 388 (2012), 817-837

2012
[34]

C. Miao, B. Yuan and B. Zhang, Well-posedness of the Cauc hy problem for the fractional power dissipative equations, Nonlinear Anal. 68 (2008), 461-484

2008
[35]

Podlubny, Fractional Diﬀerential Equations, Acade mic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1999

I. Podlubny, Fractional Diﬀerential Equations, Acade mic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1999

1999
[36]

Saichev and G.M

A. Saichev and G.M. Zaslavsky, Fractional kinetic equa tions: solutions and applications, Chaos 7 (1997), 753-764

1997
[37]

Shen, Lp estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators with certain potentials, Ann

Z. Shen, Lp estimates for Schr¨ odinger operators with certain potentials, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 45 (1995), 513-546

1995
[38]

Shi and J

S. Shi and J. Xiao, A tracing of the fractional temprerat ure ﬁeld, Sci. China Math. 60 (2017), 2303-2320

2017
[39]

Sogge, Fourier integral operators in classical anal ysis, Cambridge University Press, 1993

C. Sogge, Fourier integral operators in classical anal ysis, Cambridge University Press, 1993

1993
[40]

Varopoulos, L

N. Varopoulos, L. Saloﬀ-Coste and T. Coulhon, Analysis and geometry on groups, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1992

1992
[41]

Yan and Da

L. Yan and Da. Yang, New Sobolev spaces via generalized P oincar´ e inequalities on metric measure spaces, Math. Z. 255 (2007), 133-159

2007
[42]

Yang, Some function spaces relative to Morrey-Camp anato spaces on metric spaces, Nagoya Math

Da. Yang, Some function spaces relative to Morrey-Camp anato spaces on metric spaces, Nagoya Math. J. 177 (2005), 1-29

2005
[43]

Yang, Do

Da. Yang, Do. Yang, Y. Zhou, Localized BMO and BLO spaces on RD-spaces and applications to Schr¨ odinger operators, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 9 (2017), 779-812

2017
[44]

Yosida, Functional Analysis, Springer Press, Berli n, 1980

K. Yosida, Functional Analysis, Springer Press, Berli n, 1980. 48 J. HUANG, P. LI, Y. LIU, AND S. SHI

1980
[45]

Zhai, Strichartz type estimates for fractional heat equations, J

Z. Zhai, Strichartz type estimates for fractional heat equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 356 (2009), 642-658. School of Science, Beijing University of Posts and Telecomm unications, Beijing 100876, P.R.China. E-mail address : hjzheng@163.com College of Mathematics, Qingdao Unive...

2009

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Adams and L

D. Adams and L. Hedberg, Function Spaces and Potential Th eory, Springer Press, Berlin, 1996

work page 1996

[2] [2]

Aimar, A

H. Aimar, A. Bernardis, B. Iaﬀei, Comparison of Hardy-Li ttlewood and dyadic maximal functions on spaces of homogeneous type, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 312 (2005), 105-120

work page 2005

[3] [3]

Ambrosio, N

L. Ambrosio, N. Gigli and G. Savar´ e, Calculus and heat ﬂo w in metric measure spaces and applications to spaces with Ricci bounds from below, Inventiones Math. 195 (2014), 289-391

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Capogna and N

L. Capogna and N. Garofalo, Ahlfors type estimates for pe rimeter measures in Carnot-Carath´ eodory spaces, J. Geom. Anal. 16 (2006), 455-497

work page 2006

[5] [5]

Chang and J

D.C. Chang and J. Xiao, Lq-extensions of Lp-spaces by fractional diﬀusion equations, Discrete Contin . Dyn. Syst. 35 (2015), 1905-1920

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Cheeger, Diﬀerentiability of Lipschitz functions on metric measure spaces, GAF A 9:3 (1999), 428-517

J. Cheeger, Diﬀerentiability of Lipschitz functions on metric measure spaces, GAF A 9:3 (1999), 428-517

work page 1999

[7] [7]

Fractional and fractal derivatives modeling of turbulence

W. Chen, Fractional and fractal derivatives modeling of turbulence, arXiv:nlin/0511066v1, 2005

work page Pith review arXiv 2005

[8] [8]

Christ, A T (b) theorem with remarks on analytic capacity and the Cauchy in tegral, Colloq

M. Christ, A T (b) theorem with remarks on analytic capacity and the Cauchy in tegral, Colloq. Math. 60/61 (1990), 601-628

work page 1990