Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Time-changed Markov processes and space-time coupled non-local equations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The seasoned price of an intraday call option solves a coupled non-local Black-Scholes equation, and all positive-sojourn-time prices follow from it by a renewal formula.

desk verdict Theorem 5.2 is a solid contribution, but the seasoned-price formula in Theorem 6.11 fails elementary checks and is not the conditional expectation it claims to be. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14956 v3 pith:OS244IAQ submitted 2024-12-19 math.PR

Giacomo Ascione , Enrico Scalas , Bruno Toaldo , Lorenzo Torricelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR MSC 60G5360K5060K15
keywords time-changedprocessesBlack-Scholesundershootingsemi-Markovsubordinatorscouplednon-localequationsanomalousdiffusionoptionpricing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes existence and uniqueness for a class of fully non-local Cauchy problems in which a single non-local operator acts jointly on time and space: $\phi(\partial_t-G)q(t,x)=\nu_\phi(t)q(0,x)$. The solution is shown to be a stochastic expectation: $q(t,x)=\mathbb{E}[u(X(t))]$, where $X(t)=M(H(t))$ is a Feller process time-changed by the undershooting $H$ of an independent subordinator, so trajectories have trapping intervals of constancy followed by jumps coupled to the preceding wait. Uniqueness is proved via a positive maximum principle. In the financial application, when the subordinator is $\alpha$-stable with $\alpha\in(1/2,1)$, the seasoned price of an intraday call option is shown to satisfy the coupled fractional Black-Scholes equation $(\partial_t-G)^\alpha q=t^{-\alpha}q(0,x)/\Gamma(1-\alpha)$, with $G=\frac12 x^2\partial_x^2$, initial datum $(x-K)_+$, and a renewal formula expressing prices at positive sojourn times in terms of the renewal-state price. If correct, the paper turns a previously Fourier-and-simulation-based pricing problem into a PDE with a unique solution and an explicit renewal structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the undershooting $H(t)=S(L(t)-)$: it is the last value of $S$ strictly before its inverse $L$ crosses level $t$, and it is the time variable seen by the parent process. Writing $X(t)=M(H(t))$ turns the pair $(M^\phi,S)$ into a Markov-additive process, and adding the age variable $\gamma(t)=t-S(0)-H(t)$ makes $(X,\gamma)$ a time-homogeneous Markov process, a fact imported from the referenced Markov-embedding theory with a modified translation operator. The governing non-local operator is defined through the semigroup action of the generator $G$ as $-\phi(\partial_t-G)f(t,x)=\int_0^\infty(P_s f(t-s,\cdot)1_{[0,t]}(s)-f(t,x))\,\nu_\phi(ds)$; the Sonine pair of the special Bernstein function $\phi$ supplies the density formulas that make the Laplace-transform proof and the renewal formula work. Uniqueness for the Cauchy problem is carried by a positive maximum principle, and for the $\alpha$-stable case the undershooting has the explicit density $g_{H_0}(s;t)=s^{\alpha-1}(t-s)^{-\alpha}/(\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(1-\alpha))$.

What would settle it

Simulate the model with a concrete choice such as $\alpha=0.75$, $T=1$, $K=1$, and compare Monte Carlo estimates of the conditional expectation $\tilde{\mathbb{E}}[(X(T)-K)_+\mid X(t)=x,\gamma(t)=w]$ against the right-hand side of the renewal formula evaluated with the numerically solved $q$ from (6.36); a systematic mismatch at any state would falsify the renewal representation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the governing equation of a Markov process time-changed by the undershooting of an independent subordinator is a coupled fully non-local equation, and that this equation has one solution. Let $M$ be a Feller process with generator $G$, let $S$ be a subordinator with Laplace exponent $\phi\in SB_0$ and $\log(\cdot)u_\phi(\cdot)\in L^1[0,1]$, and set $X(t)=M(S(L(t)-))$ where $L$ is the inverse of $S$. Theorem 5.2 states that for every $u$ in the domain of $G$, the function $q(t,x)=\mathbb{E}_{(x,0)}[u(X(t))]$ is the unique solution of $\phi(\partial_t-G)q(t,x)=\nu_\phi(t)q(0,x)$ with initial datum $q(0,\cdot)=u$ and a local-uniform vanishing-at-infinity condition. In the option-pricing part, the authors specialise to $M(t)=e^{B(t)}$, so that $G=\frac12 x^2\partial_x^2$, and to $\phi(\lambda)=\lambda^\alpha$ for $\alpha\in(1/2,1)$; Theorem 6.11 then identifies the seasoned call price $q^\star(t,x,w)=\tilde{\mathbb{E}}[(X(T)-K)_+\mid X(t)=x,\gamma(t)=w]$ with a renewal formula whose only input is the function $q(t,x)=q^\star(T-t,x,0)$, the unique solution of the coupled non-local Black-Scholes equation (6.36). The price thus depends on the sojourn time $w$ only through the renewal kernel and the renewal-state solution.

Load-bearing premise

The formula for seasoned prices assumes that the pair 'log-price plus time since last trade' remains a Markov process after the change to the pricing measure; this is imported from a cited embedding theorem with modifications rather than fully reproved, so if that Markov property fails the renewal formula lacks rigorous support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The coupled non-local equation (5.1) becomes a governing equation for any Feller process time-changed by an undershooting, placing the trapping intervals of continuous-time random walk limits into an analytic partial differential equation framework.
  • For the dependent-returns-and-durations option model, valuation reduces to solving a single deterministic equation, (6.36); the renewal formula then yields the seasoned price for any positive sojourn time without simulation.
  • The seasoned price is a function of the current log-price and the time since the last trade, so it is determined by a finite state that is observable in tick data.
  • The time-fractional structure implies a correction to ordinary Black-Scholes prices, controlled by the trade-duration distribution and the stability index $\alpha$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • For a general special subordinator, a renewal formula may still hold, but the explicit Beta density and the $\alpha>1/2$ regularity threshold are special to stable subordinators; extending the pricing theorem would require a new argument.
  • At $\alpha\le 1/2$, the paper's own Remark 6.16 shows the solution is not twice differentiable at the strike, so a weak or viscosity formulation of the coupled equation would be needed there.
  • Because the seasoned price depends only on the renewal kernel and the renewal-state price, time-since-last-trade quotes could be used to infer the subordinator exponent from observed option prices.
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. This paper introduces a class of fully non-local, space-time coupled evolution equations of the form φ(∂t−G)q=νφ(t)q(0,·), where φ is a Bernstein function and G is the generator of a Feller semigroup. The main analytical result (Theorem 5.2) gives existence and uniqueness of solutions via a stochastic representation: q(t,x)=E[u(X(t))] for X(t)=M(H(t)), the undershooting time-change of a Feller process M by a subordinator inverse. A maximum principle yields uniqueness. The paper then applies the framework to option pricing: for φ(λ)=λ^α, α∈(1/2,1), it claims (Theorem 6.11) that the zero-age call price q(t,x) solves the coupled non-local Black-Scholes equation (∂t−G)^α q = t^{-α}/Γ(1−α) q(0,x), and provides a renewal formula (6.35) for the seasoned price q⋆(t,x,w) with positive sojourn time w.

Significance. If Theorem 5.2 and the zero-age pricing equation (6.36) are correct, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it gives a rigorous stochastic representation and uniqueness theory for a class of non-local operators with joint time-space non-locality, and connects them to physically motivated CTRW limits. The maximum-principle-based uniqueness proof is a strength, as is the detailed verification of the regularity conditions in Sections 5 and 6.2. The option-pricing section is ambitious and provides explicit formulas that could be useful. However, the renewal formula (6.35) for seasoned prices is not a valid conditional expectation, as the terminal-condition and K=0 martingale checks show; this undermines the applied claim and requires a substantial correction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6.2, Theorem 6.11, Eq. (6.35)] The renewal formula fails the terminal condition. Setting t=T and w>0, the integral over [w,w+T−t)=[w,w) is empty and K_w(R×[w,∞))=1, so (6.35) gives q⋆(T,x,w)=(x e^{-(T−v−w)/2}−K)_+. By definition, q⋆(T,x,w)=eE[(X(T)−K)_+ | X(T)=x, γ(T)=w]=(x−K)_+. Since H(T)=T−v−w>0 a.s. for the α-stable subordinator, the two expressions disagree. Equivalently, for K=0 the call price must equal the underlying x for all t,w by the eP-martingale property of X (Proposition 6.3), but the right-hand side of (6.35) contains the extra factor e^{-(t−v−w)/2} in the no-jump term, and the jump term does not compensate. The formula is therefore not the conditional expectation it claims to be.
  2. [Proof of Theorem 6.11, final paragraph] The step eE[(X(T)−K)_+ | X(t), γ(t)] = E[(e^{Xe(T)−(T−v−γ(T))/2}−K)_+ | X(t), γ(t)] is not justified. Proposition 6.6 (Cameron-Martin formula) gives equality of the unconditional laws of (Xe+H/2,γ) under eP and (Xe,γ) under P; it does not give equality of conditional laws given X(t),γ(t), because the event {X(t)=x, γ(t)=w} under eP corresponds under the transformed representation to {e^{Xe(t)+H(t)/2−H(t)}=x} rather than {Xe(t)=log x}. Consequently, the subsequent use of the P-renewal equation for the semigroup Q_t with the payoff g_{T,v} does not yield the eP-conditional expectation; the correct renewal equation would require the eP jump kernel and an unshifted no-jump payoff. This is the root cause of the failure described in the previous comment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The restriction α∈(1/2,1) for the option-pricing theorem is not mentioned; the abstract states the theory applies generally, while Theorem 6.11 holds only for this range.
  2. [Remark 6.7] The formula φX(t)(z)=1F1(α, t/2) is incomplete as written; the hypergeometric parameters and argument should be specified accurately.
  3. [Section 6.1, definition of eP] The notation for the Radon-Nikodym derivative omits the constant e^{x/2} in the displayed definition (deP_T/dP|_{N_T}=Z(T)), which may confuse readers; the factor is introduced a few lines earlier.
  4. [Theorem 6.1] The proof is only a reference to [45, Theorems 3.2 and 4.1] with a brief remark on the translation operator; since the setting is not identical, a more self-contained argument would help verify the Markov embedding.
  5. [Section 6.2, line before Remark 6.7] The phrase 'for tehcnical reasons' contains a typo and should read 'for technical reasons'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the governing equation and pricing formula are derived from the process construction and an external Markov-embedding result, not from fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central derivation is first-principles and self-contained against the stated assumptions. In Section 3 the operator is defined directly in terms of the semigroup action, and Theorem 5.2 proves by Laplace-transform and renewal arguments that q(t,x)=E[u(X(t))] satisfies the coupled equation, with the right-hand side nu_phi(t)q(0,x) arising from the t<0 convention and not from any fitting or matching. In Section 6, q(t,x) is first defined as an expectation under the measure-change of Proposition 6.6, and then Proposition 6.19 proves that this same function solves the non-local Black-Scholes equation (6.36); the equation is therefore a theorem about the defined price, not a renamed input. The renewal formula (6.35) is imported from Meerschaert-Straka [45, Theorems 3.2 and 4.1], an external source, with a clearly stated modification of the translation operator; this is independent support rather than a self-citation chain. Self-citations to [34] and [52] are contextual: [34] supplies the model being studied and is not used to prove Theorem 6.11, while [52] merely notes prior use of the operator. No parameter is fitted to option-price data, and no uniqueness theorem is borrowed from the authors' own prior work. The skeptic's terminal-condition objection, if valid, would be a correctness defect in formula (6.35), not circularity, since the formula is asserted as a consequence of a Markov-renewal representation rather than as an equivalent restatement of its assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard results in Feller semigroup theory, Laplace transforms, Bernstein functions, and Girsanov's theorem. The main domain-specific assumptions are the structural conditions on the subordinator (special Bernstein function, existence of density, integrability of log·uφ) and the Markov embedding result of Meerschaert-Straka. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated; the processes and measures are constructed from given ingredients.

free parameters (1)
  • α = α ∈ (1/2, 1)
    The stability index of the subordinator in the option pricing model (Theorem 6.11). It is a model parameter, not fitted to data; the lower bound α>1/2 is imposed for second-order regularity of q (Proposition 6.15) and is highlighted as a technical restriction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The process S is a strictly increasing subordinator with Laplace exponent φ∈B0, and S0(t)=S(t)-S(0) admits a density g_S0(·;t).
    Assumed in Theorem 5.2 and used throughout Section 5 to compute the potential density and the Laplace transform representation of q.
  • standard math For φ∈SB0, the potential measure Uφ(t)=E[L0(t)] has density uφ, non-increasing, and (uφ, ν̄φ) form a Sonine pair.
    Standard result for special Bernstein functions, cited from [59, Theorems 10.3 and 10.9], used in Proposition 5.6 and the proof of Theorem 5.2.
  • domain assumption The condition log(·)uφ(·) ∈ L1[0,1] holds.
    Assumed in Theorem 5.2 and used in Proposition 5.4 to ensure ∫_0^T Uφ(t)/t dt < ∞, a key step in the absolute continuity of q(·,x).
  • domain assumption The Markov embedding theorem of Meerschaert-Straka [45, Theorems 3.2 and 4.1] applies to (Bφ,S) with the modified translation operator, giving the Markov property of (Xe,γ).
    Used in Theorem 6.1 and in the proof of Theorem 6.11 to obtain the renewal equation (6.35); the paper provides only a proof sketch of the modification.
  • standard math Phillips' theorem, the Courrège-Waldenfels theorem, and Dynkin's formula for Feller processes.
    Used in Propositions 5.4 and 6.29 to identify generators and in the stochastic representation arguments.
  • standard math Girsanov's theorem and the Doléans-Dade exponential for Brownian motion.
    Used in the construction of the equivalent martingale measure eP and in the Cameron-Martin formula (Proposition 6.6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-changed Markov processes and space-time coupled non-local equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OS244IAQ

@misc{pith2026241214956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-changed Markov processes and space-time coupled non-local equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OS244IAQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14956}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we study coupled fully non-local equations, where a linear non-local operator jointly acts on the time and space variables. We establish existence and uniqueness of the solution. A maximum principle is proved and used to derive uniqueness. Existence is established by providing a stochastic representation based on anomalous processes constructed as a time change via the undershooting of an independent subordinator. This leads to general non-stepped processes with intervals of constancy representing a sticky or trapping effect. Our theory allows these intervals to be dependent on the immediately subsequent jump. These processes include scaling limit of suitable coupled continuous time random walks previously studied in applications, in particular in the context of anomalous diffusion and option pricing. Here we exploit our general theory to obtain a non-local analog of the Black and Scholes equation, addressing the problem of determining the seasoned price of a derivative security, in case the price fluctuations are described by a process whose jumps are dependent on the previous interval.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Harmonic problems arising from continuous time random walks limit processes

    math.PR 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper constructs a universal harmonic-problem framework for the governing equations of continuous time random walk limits, and proves existence and uniqueness of the equation for Feller processes time-changed by t...

  2. Modelling Anomalous Diffusion: The Role of CTRWs and Non-Local Dynamics

    math.PR 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    CTRW scaling limits are semi-Markov time-changed processes whose laws solve general non-local evolution equations, with new pointwise theory for killed subordinate Brownian motion on domains.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [45]

    M. M. Meerschaert and P. Straka. Semi-Markov approach to continuous time random walk limit pro- cesses. The Annals of Probability , 42(4):1699–1723, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    A ¨ ıt Sahalia and J

    Y. A ¨ ıt Sahalia and J. Jacod. From tick data to semimartingales. Annals of Applied Probability , 30(6):2740–2768, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Arendt, C

    W. Arendt, C. J. K. Batty, M. Hieber, and F. Neubrander. Vector-valued Laplace Transforms and Cauchy Problems, volume 96. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [3]

    Ascione, Y

    G. Ascione, Y. Mishura, and E. Pirozzi. Fractional deterministic and stochastic calculus , volume 4. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Time changed spherical Brownian motions with longitudinal drifts

    G. Ascione and A. Vidotto. Time changed spherical Brownian motions with longitudinal drifts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05202, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Athanasopoulos, L

    I. Athanasopoulos, L. Caffarelli, and E. Milakis. On the regularity of the non-dynamic parabolic frac- tional obstacle problem. Journal of Differential Equations , 265(6):2614–2647, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    Baeumer and M

    B. Baeumer and M. M. Meerschaert. Stochastic solutions for fractional Cauchy problems. Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis , 4:481–800, 2001

    2001

  8. [7]

    Baeumer and P

    B. Baeumer and P. Straka. Fokker-Planck and Kolmogorov backward equations for continous time random walk limits. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 145:399–412, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    Barkai, Y

    E. Barkai, Y. Garini, and R. Metzler. Strange kinetics of single molecules in living cells. Physics Today, 65(8):29–35, 2012

    2012

  2. [9]

    Barkai, R

    E. Barkai, R. Metzler, and J. Klafter. From continuous time random walks to the fractional Fokker- Planck equation. Physiscal Review E , 61:132–138, 2000

    2000

  3. [10]

    Becker-Kern, M

    P. Becker-Kern, M. M. Meerschaert, and H.-P. Scheffler. Limit theorems for coupled continuous time random walks. The Annals of Probability , 32(1B):730–756, 2004

    2004

  4. [11]

    J. Bertoin. L´ evy Processes, volume 121. Cambridge University Press, 1996

    1996

  5. [12]

    J. Bertoin. Subordinators: examples and applications. In Lectures on Probability Theory and Statistics: Ecole d’Et´ e de Probabilit´ es de Saint-Flour XXVII-1997, pages 1–91. Springer, 1999

    1997

  6. [13]

    Billingsley

    P. Billingsley. Convergence of Probability Measures. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    2013

  7. [14]

    B¨ ottcher, R

    B. B¨ ottcher, R. Schilling, and J. Wang. L´ evy Matters. III, volume 2099. Springer, 2013

    2013

  8. [15]

    H. Brezis. Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations , volume 2. Springer, 2011

    2011

  9. [16]

    Caffarelli and L

    L. Caffarelli and L. Silvestre. Chapter Four. H¨ older Regularity for Generalized Master Equations with Rough Kernels , pages 63–83. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2014

    2014

  10. [17]

    J. R. Cannon. The One-Dimensional Heat Equation . Number 23. Cambridge University Press, 1984

    1984

  11. [18]

    Capitanelli and M

    R. Capitanelli and M. D’Ovidio. Fractional equations via convergence of form. Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis, 22(4):844–870, 2019

    2019

  12. [19]

    Cartea and T

    A. Cartea and T. Meyer-Brandis. How duration between trades of underlying securities affects option prices. Review of Finance , 14(4):749–785, 2010

    2010

  13. [20]

    Z.-Q. Chen. Time fractional equations and probabilistic representation. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals , 102:168–174, 2017

    2017

  14. [21]

    C ¸ inlar

    E. C ¸ inlar. Markov additive processes. i.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete, 24(2):85–93, 1972

    1972

  15. [22]

    Coddington and N

    E. Coddington and N. Levinson. Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations. McGraw-Hill Book Com- pany, 1955

    1955

  16. [23]

    Dupret and D

    J.-L. Dupret and D. Hainaut. A subdiffusive stochastic volatility jump model. Quantitative Finance , 23(6):979–1002, 2023

    2023

  17. [24]

    L. C. Evans. Partial Differential Equations , volume 19. American Mathematical Soc., 2010

    2010

  18. [25]

    S. Fedotov. Non-Markovian random walks and nonlinear reactions: Subdiffusion and propagating fronts. Physical Review E , 81:011117, 2010. 72

    2010

  19. [26]

    Fedotov, N

    S. Fedotov, N. Korabel, T. A. Waigh, D. Han, and V. J. Allan. Memory effects and L´ evy walk dynamics in intracellular transport of cargoes. Physical Review E , 98:042136, 2018

    2018

  20. [27]

    Fedotov and V

    S. Fedotov and V. M´ endez. Non-Markovian model for transport and reactions of particles in spiny dendrites. Physical Review Letters, 101:218102, 2008

    2008

  21. [28]

    Ferreira and A

    R. Ferreira and A. de Pablo. Blow-up for a fully fractional heat equation. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 44(2):569–584, 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    Gorenflo, F

    R. Gorenflo, F. Mainardi, D. Moretti, G. Pagnini, and P. Paradisi. Discrete random walk models for space–time fractional diffusion. Chemical Physics, 284(1):521–541, 2002

    2002

  23. [30]

    Hairer, G

    M. Hairer, G. Iyer, L. Koralov, A. Novikov, and Z. Pajor-Gyulai. A fractional kinetic process describing the intermediate time behaviour of cellular flows. The Annals of Probability , 46(2):897–955, 2018

    2018

  24. [31]

    Hairer, L

    M. Hairer, L. Koralov, and Z. Pajor-Gyulai. From averaging to homogenization in cellular flows - an exact description of the transition. Annales de L’Institut Henri Poincar´ e - Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 52(4):1592–1613, 2016

    2016

  25. [32]

    Harlamov

    B. Harlamov. Continuous semi-Markov processes. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    2013

  26. [33]

    M. E. Hern´ andez-Hern´ andez, V. N. Kolokoltsov, and L. Toniazzi. Generalised fractional evolution equations of Caputo type. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , 102:184–196, 2017

    2017

  27. [34]

    Jacquier and L

    A. Jacquier and L. Torricelli. Anomalous diffusions in option prices: Connecting trade duration and the volatility term structure. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics , 11:1137–1167, 2020

    2020

  28. [35]

    Karatzas and S

    I. Karatzas and S. Shreve. Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus . springer, 1987

    1987

  29. [36]

    Klafter, A

    J. Klafter, A. Blumen, and M. F. Shlesinger. Stochastic pathway to anomalous diffusion. Physical Review A, 35(7):3081, 1987

    1987

  30. [37]

    Kochubei

    A. Kochubei. General fractional calculus, evolution equations and renewal processes. Integral Equations and Operator Theory, 71:583–600, 2011

    2011

  31. [38]

    V. N. Kolokoltsov. Generalized continuous-time random walks, subordination by hitting times, and fractional dynamics. Theory of Probability & its Applications , 53:594–609, 2009

    2009

  32. [39]

    V. N. Kolokoltsov. The rates of convergence for functional limit theorems with stable subordinators and for CTR W approximations to fractional evolutions. Fractal and Fractional, 7(4):335, 2023

    2023

  33. [40]

    Kotulski

    M. Kotulski. Asymptotic behavior of generalized l´ evy walks. InChaos—The Interplay Between Stochastic and Deterministic Behaviour: Proceedings of the XXXIst Winter School of Theoretical Physics Held in Karpacz, Poland 13–24 February 1995 , pages 471–477. Springer, 1995

    1995

  34. [41]

    Magdziarz

    M. Magdziarz. Black-Scholes formula in subdiffusive regime. Journal of Statistical Physics , 136:553–564, 2009

    2009

  35. [42]

    M. M. Meerschaert and E. Scalas. Coupled continuous time random walks in finance. Physica A , 370:114–118, 2006

    2006

  36. [43]

    M. M. Meerschaert and H.-P. Scheffler. Limit theorems for continuous-time random walks with infinite mean waiting times. Journal of Applied Probability , 41(3):623–638, 2004

    2004

  37. [44]

    M. M. Meerschaert and H.-P. Scheffler. Triangular array limits for continuous time random walks. Stochastic processes and their applications , 118(9):1606–1633, 2008

    2008

  38. [46]

    Metzler, E

    R. Metzler, E. Barkai, and J. Klafter. Anomalous diffusion and relaxation close to thermal equilibrium: A fractional Fokker-Planck equation approach. Physical Review Letters, 82(18):3563–3567, 1999

    1999

  39. [47]

    Metzler and J

    R. Metzler and J. Klafter. The random walk’s guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach. Physics Reports, 339(1):1–77, 2000

    2000

  40. [48]

    Mura and G

    A. Mura and G. Pagnini. Characterizations and simulations of a class of stochastic processes to model anomalous diffusion. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 41, 2009. 73

    2009

  41. [49]

    Pascucci

    A. Pascucci. PDE and Martingale Methods in Option Pricing . Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  42. [50]

    Patie and A

    P. Patie and A. Srapionyan. Self-similar Cauchy problems and generalized Mittag-Leffler functions. Fractiona Calculus and Applied Analysis , 24(2):447–482, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Revuz and M

    D. Revuz and M. Yor. Continuous martingales and Brownian motion , volume 293. Springer Science & Business Media, 1999

    1999

  44. [52]

    Ricciuti and B

    C. Ricciuti and B. Toaldo. From semi-markov random evolutions to scattering transport and superdif- fusion. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 401(3):2999–3042, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    L. C. Rogers and D. Williams. Diffusions, Markov processes, and Martingales: Volume 1, foundations . Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  46. [54]

    K.-I. Sato. L´ evy Processes and Infinitely Divisible Distributions, volume 68. Cambridge University Press, 1999

    1999

  47. [55]

    Savov and B

    M. Savov and B. Toaldo. Semi-Markov processes, integro-differential equations and anomalous diffusion- aggregation. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 56(4):2640–2671, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    E. Scalas. Five years of continuous-time random walks in econophysics. In The Complex Network of Economic Interactions. Springer, 2006

    2006

  49. [57]

    Scalas, R

    E. Scalas, R. Gorenflo, and F. Mainardi. Fractional calculus and continuous-time finance. Physica A, 284:376–384, 2000

    2000

  50. [58]

    Scalas and B

    E. Scalas and B. Toaldo. Limit theorems for prices of options written on semi-Markov processes. Theory of probability and mathematical statistics , 105:3–33, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    R. L. Schilling, R. Song, and Z. Vondraˇ cek. Bernstein Functions: Theory and Applications . Walter de Gruyter, 2009

    2009

  52. [60]

    M. F. Shlesinger, J. Klafter, and Y. Wong. Random walks with infinite spatial and temporal moments. Journal of Statistical Physics , 27:499–512, 1982

    1982

  53. [61]

    Søjmark and F

    A. Søjmark and F. Wunderlich. Functional CLTs for subordinated L´ evy models in physics, finance, and econometrics. arXiv:2312.15119 [math.PR] , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    N. Sonine. Sur la g´ en´ eralisation d’une formule d’Abel.Acta Mathematica, 4(1):171–176, 1884

  55. [63]

    T. Tao. An Introduction to Measure Theory , volume 126. American Mathematical Soc., 2011

    2011

  56. [64]

    G. M. Zaslavsky. Fractional kinetic equation for Hamiltonian chaos. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 76(1-3):110–122, 1994

    1994

  57. [65]

    G. M. Zaslavsky. Chaos, fractional kinetics, and anomalous transport. Physics reports, 371(6):461–580, 2002

    2002

  58. [66]

    Giuseppe Peano

    G. M. Zaslavsky. Hamiltonian Chaos and Fractional Dynamics . Oxford University Press, 2005. 1: Scuola Superiore Meridionale, Largo S. Marcellino 10 - 80138, Napoli (Italy) Email address : g.ascione@ssmeridionale.it 2: Dipartimento di Scienze Statistiche, Sapienza Universit `a ...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.