An inverse problem for the fractional Schr\"odinger equation in a magnetic field

Giovanni Covi

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 43 references

An inverse problem for the fractional Schr\"odinger equation in a magnetic field

T0 review · 1 major / 4 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 This paper proves that the vector and scalar potentials of a fractional magnetic Schrödinger equation are uniquely determined, up to their natural gauge, by Dirichlet-to-Neumann measurements taken on arbitrary open subsets of the exterior…

desk verdict A solid, genuinely new fractional magnetic Calderón result whose written proof has one repairable gap in the final limiting argument. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11696 v2 pith:M4LVEDGJ submitted 2019-08-30 math.AP

Giovanni Covi This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35R1135R30

keywords fractionalmagneticSchrödingerequationinverseproblemsCalderónproblemnon-localoperatorsgaugeinvarianceDirichlet-to-NeumannmapuniquecontinuationRungeapproximation

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 a bounded electromagnetic medium can be fully identified from nonlocal exterior measurements, up to precisely the gauge freedom that the physics forces. The object is the fractional magnetic Schrödinger equation $( -\Delta)^s_A u + q u = 0$ on a bounded domain $\Omega$, with exterior Dirichlet data; the paper shows that equality of the associated Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps on arbitrary open subsets of the exterior implies that the two vector potentials and scalar potentials are gauge-equivalent. This extends the fractional Calderón problem, where only a scalar potential was recovered, to first-order magnetic terms, where a gauge obstruction is unavoidable. The result matters because magnetic fractional models describe anomalous diffusion in media with both electric and magnetic structure, and the theorem says that boundary measurements actually determine that structure.

What carries the argument

The machinery is Alessandrini's identity for the magnetic fractional Laplacian. The Hamiltonian enters through the magnetic fractional gradient $\nabla^s_A u = \nabla^s u + A(x,y)u(x)$; a decomposition of the two-point vector potential into symmetric/antisymmetric and parallel/perpendicular parts shows that only $A_{a\|}$ couples to the fractional gradient, because $\nabla^s u$ is a.e. parallel. This yields the identity $\langle(\Lambda^s_{A_1,q_1}-\Lambda^s_{A_2,q_2})f_1,f_2\rangle = 2\langle\int((A_1)_{a\|}-(A_2)_{a\|})\cdot\nabla^s u_1\,dy, u_2\rangle + \langle(Q_1-Q_2)u_1,u_2\rangle$, which converts equality of DN maps into a distributional equation for $A_{a\|}$ and $Q$. The proof then uses the weak unique continuation property, obtained by reducing to the fractional Laplacian under the support assumption, to get the Runge approximation property, which allows arbitrary $L^2$ interior probes; varying the probes isolates $Q$ first, then $\sigma(x,y)$, pointwise in $\Omega$. The support condition $\operatorname{supp}(A) \subseteq \Omega^2$ is what forces $\sigma \equiv 1$ outside $\Omega^2$ and makes the reduction to the known WUCP work.

What would settle it

Take a vector potential $A$ supported in $\Omega^2$ whose antisymmetric-parallel part is nonzero, and compare the exterior DN map of $(-\Delta)^s_A + q$ with that of $(-\Delta)^s + q'$ where $q'$ is chosen so that the effective potentials $Q$ match; the paper's identity predicts the two DN maps are identical. A numerical or analytical computation exhibiting any difference between these maps would refute Theorem 1.1's gauge classification, while exact agreement would confirm the load-bearing identity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is Theorem 1.1: for $n \ge 2$, $s \in (0,1)$, and potential pairs $(A_i,q_i)$ in the admissible class $P$, if the DN maps satisfy $\Lambda^s_{A_1,q_1}[f]|_{W_2} = \Lambda^s_{A_2,q_2}[f]|_{W_2}$ for all smooth $f$ supported in an open exterior set $W_1$ and all measurements taken in another open exterior set $W_2$, then $(A_1,q_1) \sim (A_2,q_2)$. The gauge $\sim$ means that the two operators $(-\Delta)^s_A + q$ coincide, which Lemma 3.8 identifies explicitly: the measurable content of the vector potential is only its antisymmetric-parallel part $A_{a\|}$, and the measurable content of the scalar potential is the effective potential $Q = q + \int |A|^2\,dy + (\nabla\cdot)^s A_{s\|}$. The proof shows that $Q$ and $A_{a\|}$ (equivalently the symmetric weight $\sigma(x,y)$) are uniquely recovered, and that all remaining freedom in $A$ is gauge, not physics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the vector potential vanishes outside the product domain $\Omega \times \Omega$ ($\operatorname{supp}(A) \subseteq \Omega^2$), which lets the proof replace the magnetic operator by the usual fractional Laplacian in the exterior and invoke the known unique continuation result; the author explicitly suspects this condition is unnecessary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Equality of all exterior measurements, taken on arbitrarily small open patches outside $\Omega$, pins down the whole electromagnetic configuration inside $\Omega$ up to the gauge $\sim$; no measurement on the boundary $\partial\Omega$ itself is needed.
The DN map determines the antisymmetric-parallel part $A_{a\|}$ of the vector potential and the effective potential $Q$; the components $A_{s\|}$, $A_{a\perp}$, and $A_{s\perp}$ are invisible except through gauge-equivalent changes of $q$.
The FMSE has a gauge $\sim$ but no multiplicative gauge $\approx$, the reverse of the local magnetic Schrödinger equation; any recovery algorithm must fix the $\sim$-class, and cannot be misled by multiplying solutions by nontrivial exterior-trivial functions.
The fractional magnetic conductivity equation is conjugate to an FMSE, so the same uniqueness theorem solves an analogous inverse problem for FMCE.
The long-jump random walk with position-dependent weight $\sigma(x,y)$ has the FMSE leading term as its continuous-time limit, so exterior measurements carry information about a particle-jump environment whose conductivity at a point depends on where the walker currently is.

Reading between the lines

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

An extension the paper leaves implicit is that the invisible components of $A$ can be chosen arbitrarily and absorbed into a modified scalar potential, so any numerical reconstruction should output only the pair $(A_{a\|}, Q)$; other choices of $A$ in the same gauge class are artifacts of the gauge, not of the data.
If the flagged support assumption $\operatorname{supp}(A) \subseteq \Omega^2$ is eventually removed, the same detection result should hold for vector potentials supported further out; a natural route is to prove the WUCP for $(-\Delta)^s_A$ directly rather than by reduction to the fractional Laplacian.
The random walk model suggests a concrete experiment: fit the jump kernel of a particle in a heterogeneous medium and compare the inferred $\sigma(x,y)$ with a reconstruction from exterior voltage-current-type measurements; the theorem implies the fitted jump kernel should be identifiable from those measurements.
Because the theorem allows the exterior open sets $W_1$ and $W_2$ to be disjoint and arbitrary, the same proof should extend in spirit to remote-sensor configurations, pointing toward nonlocal tomography with separated detectors.

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 is a real extension of the fractional Calderón program. Covi defines a fractional magnetic Laplacian from nonlocal vector calculus, works out its algebraic structure, proves the relevant Runge approximation and WUCP under a compact-support assumption on A, and gets global uniqueness up to the natural gauge. The gauge analysis is the most interesting part: the FMSE has a gauge ∼ that the local MSE does not, and lacks the gauge ≈ that the local MSE has; Lemmas 3.8–3.10 are clean and make the nonlocal-versus-local contrast precise. The random walk interpretation in Section 5 is a nice bonus, though informal. Citation practice is fine; the earlier fractional conductivity paper is used as a toolbox, not as an input to the main theorem.

The main soft spot is the final limit in Theorem 1.1. The stated Runge approximation property only gives density of solution restrictions in L²(Ω), but the magnetic term in Alessandrini’s identity is controlled only in a space L^r with r<2 (or equivalently as a functional in H^{-s}), so L² convergence of u_2^{(k)} to f does not justify passing to the limit in (23). As written, the recovery of Q1=Q2 and then σ1=σ2 is not fully proved. I don’t think this is fatal—the same WUCP/Hahn-Banach argument should give density in H^s(Ω), or one can work directly with the H^{-s} pairing—but it needs to be fixed before the proof is complete. This is a genuine gap, not a manufactured one, and I agree with the stress-test note here.

Two smaller issues. The “without loss of generality W1∩W2=∅” step is asserted without justification; it is fixable by passing to smaller disjoint balls inside the two exterior sets, but as written it needs a sentence. And Section 6 claims an inverse problem for the fractional magnetic conductivity equation is solved, when only a reduction formula is proved; the DN-map correspondence for the FMCE is not established. That is an overclaim, though it does not affect the main theorem.

If the L²-limit gap is repaired, this is a solid contribution. The result settles a natural open problem, introduces the right operator class, and the main theorem is almost certainly true with the compact-support assumption. I would send it to a serious referee, and after the limit argument and the Section 6 claim are fixed I would be happy to see it published.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies an inverse boundary value problem for a fractional magnetic Schrödinger equation (FMSE), defined through nonlocal fractional gradient and divergence operators. It proves (Theorem 1.1) that if two admissible pairs (A_i,q_i) produce Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps that agree only on exterior test data supported in an open set W1 and measured on another open set W2, then the pairs are equivalent up to a natural gauge relation ∼. The proof combines an Alessandrini-type integral identity, a weak unique continuation property obtained by reducing to the fractional Laplacian under the compact-support assumption (p5), and a Runge approximation property. The paper also gives a random walk interpretation of the leading term and reduces a fractional magnetic conductivity equation to the FMSE.

Significance. If the proof is completed, the result is a valuable generalization of the fractional Calderón problem to first-order magnetic terms: it would be a global uniqueness statement for the fully fractional magnetic Schrödinger equation, and it correctly identifies the gauge freedom. The operator decomposition in Lemma 3.3, the gauge analysis in Lemmas 3.8–3.10, the reduction of the weak unique continuation property to the known fractional Laplacian case, and the random walk interpretation are concrete strengths. The author is also transparent about the compact-support assumption (p5) and where it is used. The manuscript is not circular: the main theorem is not used as an input, and the external WUCP and well-posedness results are standard tools. However, one limit step in the proof of Theorem 1.1 is not justified as written; the gap appears repairable by strengthening the Runge approximation to H^s.

major comments (1)

[§4, proof of Theorem 1.1, passage from Eq. (23) to the conclusions] The passage to the limit after Eq. (23) uses only the L² Runge approximation from Lemma 3.15, but the magnetic term is not controlled in L². For sequences u_1^{(k)}|_Ω → 1 and u_2^{(k)}|_Ω → f in L²(Ω), the term M_k = 2∫_{R^n} (u_2^{(k)}|_Ω)(x) ∫_{R^n} ((A_1)_{a‖}-(A_2)_{a‖})·∇^s u_1^{(k)} dy dx involves the inner integral F_k(x)=∫_{R^n} ((A_1)_{a‖}-(A_2)_{a‖})·∇^s u_1^{(k)} dy, which by the estimate used in Lemma 3.3 lies only in L^r(Ω) with r=2p/(p+1)<2, not in L²(Ω). Since r'>2, convergence of u_2^{(k)} to f in L² does not imply ∫ u_2^{(k)}F_k → 0, and L² convergence of u_1^{(k)} to 1 does not imply F_k → 0 because ∇^s u_1^{(k)} is controlled by the H^s norm, not the L² norm. The same objection applies to the later step in which an arbitrary f∈L² is used to force the inner integral involving σ_1−σ_2 to vanish. This is a load-bearing gap in the written proof. It appears repairable: running the Hahn-Banach argument of Lemma 3.15 with v∈H^{-s}(Ω) should give the Runge approximation property in H^s(Ω), and then the H^s convergence of u_1^{(k)} and u_2^{(k)} makes the magnetic term tend to zero and justifies both limit passages. The proof should be revised accordingly.

minor comments (4)

[§4, proof of Theorem 1.1] The phrase 'Without loss of generality, let W1∩W2=∅' needs justification. If W1 and W2 overlap, one can shrink to disjoint nonempty open subsets, so a short explanatory sentence should be added.
[§4, proof of Theorem 1.1] The proof refers to 'Lemmas 3.18 and 3.19' for the RAP and WUCP, but the correct references appear to be Lemma 3.15 and Lemma 4.1.
[§6, final paragraph] The statement that 'we can consider and solve an analogous inverse problem' for the fractional magnetic conductivity equation is unsupported: no uniqueness theorem or proof is given for the FMCE inverse problem. The sentence should either be removed, marked as a conjecture, or backed by a stated theorem.
[Theorem 1.1] The theorem should specify that W1 and W2 are nonempty open sets; otherwise the statement is vacuous if either set is empty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the uniqueness proof reduces to known fractional-Laplacian WUCP and uses the Runge approximation to invert the integral identity, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain doing load-bearing work.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The operator identity in Lemma 3.3 and the gauge characterization in Lemma 3.8 are algebraic decompositions, and the theorem's conclusion (A1,q1) ∼ (A2,q2) is not equivalent by definition to the hypothesis that the DN maps agree only on data supported in W1 and W2; the proof must pass through the integral identity, the RAP, and pointwise test functions to show equality of Q and σ. Lemma 3.15 derives the RAP from the WUCP via Hahn-Banach rather than assuming it, and Lemma 4.1 reduces the WUCP for the fractional magnetic operator to the external WUCP for the fractional Laplacian, which is cited from Rüland–Salo and is not an input to the theorem. The self-citation to Covi's earlier fractional conductivity paper supplies only definitions, norm estimates, and the companion random-walk viewpoint; it does not supply the uniqueness theorem or forbid alternative choices, so it is not load-bearing in the circularity sense. The admitted assumption (p5) that supp(A) ⊆ Ω² is used to localize the magnetic contribution, but the paper explicitly flags it as a technical simplification rather than concealing it as a prediction. The random walk interpretation in Section 5 is also not circular: σ is first defined from A_a‖ and then shown to be the weight in the limiting jump process, which is an explanatory reformulation, not a derived prediction fitted to the conclusion. The reviewer-level concern that the final L2-limit step in the proof of Theorem 1.1 may not be fully justified because the magnetic term is only controlled in a weaker Lebesgue space is a correctness gap in the written proof, not a circular reduction; it does not make any claim equivalent to its own input. Overall, the paper's result is an independent extension of the fractional Calderón problem, and no step reduces by construction to its assumptions.

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

The central theorem depends on standard function-space machinery plus two domain assumptions on the admissible potentials: regularity (p1)-(p4) and compact support (p5). The compact support condition is the only one the proof actually needs in a way the author flags as likely removable, so it is the main toll the reader pays beyond the external theorems.

assumptions (5)

standard math Sobolev embedding and multiplication theorems used in Lemma 2.5 and throughout (e1)-(e7).
Invoked for finiteness of the bilinear form and products in the magnetic fractional gradient; standard results cited from [2], [3].
standard math Weak unique continuation for the fractional Laplacian holds for the required solution class.
External theorem from [36], [37], [16], used in Lemma 4.1 to obtain WUCP for FMSE via reduction when (p5) holds.
domain assumption Well-posedness of the FMSE Dirichlet problem when 0 is not an eigenvalue.
Needed to define the DN map; standard for this operator class via the bilinear form, cited from [37].
domain assumption Regularity assumptions (p1)-(p4) on potentials and the nonnegativity condition (p3).
These make the magnetic fractional gradient and the bilinear form finite and coercive; they define the admissible class P0.
ad hoc to paper Compact support condition (p5), supp(A) subset of Ω².
Load-bearing for WUCP and for localizing the integral identity to Ω; the author states he suspects it is unnecessary and defers the general case to future work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An inverse problem for the fractional Schr\"odinger equation in a magnetic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4LVEDGJ

@misc{pith2026190811696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An inverse problem for the fractional Schr\"odinger equation in a magnetic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4LVEDGJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11696}
}

read the original abstract

This paper shows global uniqueness in an inverse problem for a fractional magnetic Schr\"odinger equation (FMSE): an unknown electromagnetic field in a bounded domain is uniquely determined up to a natural gauge by infinitely many measurements of solutions taken in arbitrary open subsets of the exterior. The proof is based on Alessandrini's identity and the Runge approximation property, thus generalizing some previous works on the fractional Laplacian. Moreover, we show with a simple model that the FMSE relates to a long jump random walk with weights.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

The stable-law model of stock retu rns

Akgiray, V., Booth, G., 1988. The stable-law model of stock retu rns. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 6 . 25

work page 1988
[2]

Multiplication in Sobolev spaces, rev isited, arXiv:1512.07379v2, 2017

Behzadan, A., Holst, M., 2017. Multiplication in Sobolev spaces, rev isited, arXiv:1512.07379v2, 2017

arXiv 2017
[3]

Another look at Sob olev spaces

Bourgain, J., Brezis, H., Mironescu, P., 2001. Another look at Sob olev spaces. Optimal Control and PDEs IOS P

work page 2001
[4]

Nonlocal diﬀusion and applications

Bucur, C., Valdinoci, E., 2018. Nonlocal diﬀusion and applications. arXiv:1504.08292v10

arXiv 2018
[5]

On an inverse boundary value problem

Calder´ on, A.P., 1980. On an inverse boundary value problem. Sem inar on Numerical Analysis and its Applications to Continuum Physics, Soc. Brasileira de Matem´ atica, 1980

work page 1980
[6]

The Calder\'on problem for the fractional Schr\"odinger equation with drift

Cekic, M., Lin, Y.H., Ruland, A., 2018. The Calder´ on problem for the fractional Schr¨ odinger equation with drift. arXiv:1810.04211v1

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[7]

Thoracic impe dance images during ventilation

Cheney, M., Goble, J., Isaacson, D., Newell, J., 1990. Thoracic impe dance images during ventilation. Annual Conference of the IEEE Engineer ing in Medicine and Biology Society

work page 1990
[8]

Euler equations, Navier-Stokes equation s and turbu- lence

Constantin, P., 2006. Euler equations, Navier-Stokes equation s and turbu- lence. Mathematical foundation of turbulent viscous ﬂows, Lectu re Notes in Math., pages 1-43. Springer, Berlin

work page 2006

Show all 43 references

[9]

Inverse problems for a fractional conductivity e quation

Covi, G., 2018. Inverse problems for a fractional conductivity e quation. Nonlinear Analysis

2018
[10]

On shape optimization pr oblems involving the fractional Laplacian

Dalibard, A.L., Gerard-Varet, D., 2013. On shape optimization pr oblems involving the fractional Laplacian. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 19

2013
[11]

Hitchhicker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces

Di Nezza, E., Palatucci, G., Valdinoci, E., 2011. Hitchhicker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bull. Sci. Math. 136, No. 5 (2011)

2011
[12]

Analysis a nd Approximation of Nonlocal Diﬀusion Problems with Volume Constraints

Du, Q., Gunzburger, M., Lehoucq, R.B., Zhou, K., 2012. Analysis a nd Approximation of Nonlocal Diﬀusion Problems with Volume Constraints . SIAM Rev. 54, No. 4, 667–696

2012
[13]

A nonloca l vector calculus, nonlocal volume-constrained problems, and nonlocal bala nce laws

Du, Q., Gunzburger, M., Lehoucq, R.B., Zhou, K., 2013. A nonloca l vector calculus, nonlocal volume-constrained problems, and nonlocal bala nce laws. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 23, No. 3, 493–540

2013
[14]

Nonlocal continuum ﬁeld theory

Eringen, A., 2002. Nonlocal continuum ﬁeld theory. Springer, N ew York

2002
[15]

Global uniqueness in the inverse scattering pro blem for the Schr¨ odinger operator with external Yang-Mills potentials

Eskin, G., 2001. Global uniqueness in the inverse scattering pro blem for the Schr¨ odinger operator with external Yang-Mills potentials . Comm. Math. Phys. 222

2001
[16]

The Calder´ on problem for the fractional Schr¨ odinger equation, arXiv:1609.09248v3, 2017

Ghosh, T., Salo, M., Uhlmann, G., 2017. The Calder´ on problem for the fractional Schr¨ odinger equation, arXiv:1609.09248v3, 2017 . 26

2017 arXiv
[17]

Phase segregation dynamics in particle systems with long range interaction I

Giacomin, G., Lebowitz, J.L., 1997. Phase segregation dynamics in particle systems with long range interaction I. J Stat Phys 87

1997
[18]

Nonlocal operators with applications to image processing

Gilboa, G., Osher, S., 2008. Nonlocal operators with applications to image processing. Multiscale Model. Simul. 7

2008
[19]

A review of electrical impedance techniqu es for breast cancer detection

Guo, Z., Zou, Y., 2003. A review of electrical impedance techniqu es for breast cancer detection . Med. Eng. Phys. 2

2003
[20]

Electrical imped ance tomography-based sensing skin for quantitative imaging of damage in con- crete

Hallaji, M., Pour-Ghaz, M., Sepp¨ anen, A., 2014. Electrical imped ance tomography-based sensing skin for quantitative imaging of damage in con- crete. Smart Mater. Struct. 23

2014
[21]

Identiﬁcation of viscosity in an in com- pressible ﬂuid

Heck, H., Li, X., Wang, J.N., 2006. Identiﬁcation of viscosity in an in com- pressible ﬂuid. Indiana Univ. Math. J., to appear

2006
[22]

Electrical Impedance Tomography

Holder, D., 2005. Electrical Impedance Tomography. Institut e of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia

2005
[23]

The analysis of linear partial diﬀerential operators, Springer

H¨ ormander, L., 1990. The analysis of linear partial diﬀerential operators, Springer

1990
[24]

Environmental context explains L´ evy a nd Brown- ian movement patterns of marine predators

Humphries, N.E., 2010. Environmental context explains L´ evy a nd Brown- ian movement patterns of marine predators. Nature 465

2010
[25]

The impedivity of freshly excised human brea st tissue

Jossinet, J., 1998. The impedivity of freshly excised human brea st tissue. Physiol. Meas. 19, 61–75

1998
[26]

Ten equivalent deﬁnitions of the fractional Laplace operator

Kwasnicki, M., 2015. Ten equivalent deﬁnitions of the fractional Laplace operator. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 20, No. 1 (2017)

2017
[27]

Fractional quantum mechanics and L´ evy pat h integrals

Laskin, N., 2000. Fractional quantum mechanics and L´ evy pat h integrals. Physics Letters 268

2000
[28]

Pricing of the American put under L´ ev y processes

Levendorski, S.Z., 2004. Pricing of the American put under L´ ev y processes. Int. J. Theor. Appl. Finance 7

2004
[29]

Is a nonlocal diﬀusion strate gy conve- nient for biological populations in competition? arXiv:1503.01629v3

Massaccesi, A., Valdinoci, E., 2018. Is a nonlocal diﬀusion strate gy conve- nient for biological populations in competition? arXiv:1503.01629v3

2018 arXiv
[30]

An electromagnetic inverse problem in chiral media

McDowall, S.R., 2000. An electromagnetic inverse problem in chiral media . Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352

2000
[31]

The random walks guide to anomalo us diﬀusion: a fractional dynamics approach

Metzler, R., Klafter, J., 2000. The random walks guide to anomalo us diﬀusion: a fractional dynamics approach. Phys. Rep. 339

2000
[32]

Global identiﬁability for an inverse problem for the Schr¨ odinger equation in a magnetic ﬁeld

Nakamura, G., Sun, Z., Uhlmann, G., 1995. Global identiﬁability for an inverse problem for the Schr¨ odinger equation in a magnetic ﬁeld. Ma tem- atische Annalen, 303(1):377-388

1995
[33]

Uniqueness for an inverse bo undary 27 value problem for Dirac operators

Nakamura, G., Tsuchida, T., 2000. Uniqueness for an inverse bo undary 27 value problem for Dirac operators . Comm. PDE 25

2000
[34]

Global uniqueness for an inver se boundary problem arising in elasticity

Nakamura, G., Uhlmann, G., 1994. Global uniqueness for an inver se boundary problem arising in elasticity . Invent. Math. 118

1994
[35]

The L´ evy ﬂight paradigm: Ra ndom search patterns and mechanisms

Reynolds, A.M., Rhodes, C.J., 2009. The L´ evy ﬂight paradigm: Ra ndom search patterns and mechanisms. Ecology 90

2009
[36]

Unique continuation for fractional Schr¨ odinger equations with rough potentials

R¨ uland, A., 2015. Unique continuation for fractional Schr¨ odinger equations with rough potentials. Comm. PDE, 40(1):77-114

2015
[37]

The fractional Calder´ on problem: low regular- ity and stability, arXiv:1708.06294v1, 2017

R¨ uland, A., Salo, M., 2017. The fractional Calder´ on problem: low regular- ity and stability, arXiv:1708.06294v1, 2017

2017 arXiv
[38]

Recovering ﬁrst order terms from boundary me asurements

Salo, M., 2007. Recovering ﬁrst order terms from boundary me asurements. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 73

2007
[39]

L´ evy Processes in Finance: Pricing Finan cial Deriva- tives

Schoutens, W., 2003. L´ evy Processes in Finance: Pricing Finan cial Deriva- tives. Wiley, New York

2003
[40]

Partial diﬀerential equations III, Springer -Verlag

Taylor, M.E., 1996. Partial diﬀerential equations III, Springer -Verlag

1996
[41]

Electrical impedance tomography and Calder ´ ons prob- lem

Uhlmann, G., 2009. Electrical impedance tomography and Calder ´ ons prob- lem. Inverse Problems

2009
[42]

From the long jump random walk to the fractio nal Laplacian

Valdinoci, E., 2009. From the long jump random walk to the fractio nal Laplacian. Bol. Soc. Esp. Mat. Apl. SeMA, No. 49

2009
[43]

Mathematical and numerical analysis of lin ear peridynamic models with nonlocal boundary conditions

Zhou, K., Du, Q., 2010. Mathematical and numerical analysis of lin ear peridynamic models with nonlocal boundary conditions. SIAM J. Nume r. Anal. 48 . 28

2010

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

The stable-law model of stock retu rns

Akgiray, V., Booth, G., 1988. The stable-law model of stock retu rns. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 6 . 25

work page 1988

[2] [2]

Multiplication in Sobolev spaces, rev isited, arXiv:1512.07379v2, 2017

Behzadan, A., Holst, M., 2017. Multiplication in Sobolev spaces, rev isited, arXiv:1512.07379v2, 2017

arXiv 2017

[3] [3]

Another look at Sob olev spaces

Bourgain, J., Brezis, H., Mironescu, P., 2001. Another look at Sob olev spaces. Optimal Control and PDEs IOS P

work page 2001

[4] [4]

Nonlocal diﬀusion and applications

Bucur, C., Valdinoci, E., 2018. Nonlocal diﬀusion and applications. arXiv:1504.08292v10

arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

On an inverse boundary value problem

Calder´ on, A.P., 1980. On an inverse boundary value problem. Sem inar on Numerical Analysis and its Applications to Continuum Physics, Soc. Brasileira de Matem´ atica, 1980

work page 1980

[6] [6]

The Calder\'on problem for the fractional Schr\"odinger equation with drift

Cekic, M., Lin, Y.H., Ruland, A., 2018. The Calder´ on problem for the fractional Schr¨ odinger equation with drift. arXiv:1810.04211v1

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

Thoracic impe dance images during ventilation

Cheney, M., Goble, J., Isaacson, D., Newell, J., 1990. Thoracic impe dance images during ventilation. Annual Conference of the IEEE Engineer ing in Medicine and Biology Society

work page 1990

[8] [8]

Euler equations, Navier-Stokes equation s and turbu- lence

Constantin, P., 2006. Euler equations, Navier-Stokes equation s and turbu- lence. Mathematical foundation of turbulent viscous ﬂows, Lectu re Notes in Math., pages 1-43. Springer, Berlin

work page 2006