Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

On generalised d'Alembert-type integral representations for damped wave equations on the quarter-plane

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · 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 generalized d'Alembert-type integral representation (1.5) produces classical solutions of the forced damped wave equation on the quarter-plane, including up to the corner under three compatibility conditions.

desk verdict A technically impressive Fokas-method extension whose main theorem is ill-posed for its declared data class. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06355 v1 pith:XP2NBM7V submitted 2026-08-06 math.AP math-phmath.CVmath.MP

Andreas Chatziafratis , Claudio Giorgi , Alain Miranville , Federico Zullo This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath-phmath.CVmath.MP MSC 35L0535L2035C1535B6535Q7935A2235B4035M13
keywords dampedwaveequationtelegrapherMaxwell-Cattaneo-Vernottequarter-planeinitial-boundary-valueproblemFokasunifiedtransformmethodgeneralizedd'Alembertintegralrepresentationscompatibilityconditionsasymptoticperiodicity
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 sets out to prove that the damped wave equation, also known as the telegrapher or Maxwell-Cattaneo-Vernotte equation, has exact closed-form solutions on the first quadrant of the spatiotemporal plane for general smooth, rapidly decaying data. It builds these solutions with the Fokas unified transform method, extended for the first time to a mixed hyperbolic-parabolic problem on a semi-infinite interval. The central claim is that the integral formula (1.5) really solves $u_{tt}+u_t=u_{xx}+f$: it is smooth away from the characteristic $t=x$, it recovers the initial and boundary data in the limit, and under the three corner conditions (1.8) it becomes $C^2$ and solves the equation all the way to the corner. The paper then proves uniqueness, spatial decay, a non-controllability obstruction, and asymptotic periodicity for periodic or weakly periodic data. A sympathetic reader should care because explicit, verified solution formulas of this generality for the quarter-plane are rare and give a reference point for numerical and modelling work.

What carries the argument

The central object is the integral representation (1.5), written compactly in (2.18) as a sum of terms built from the half-line Fourier transforms $\hat u_0$, $\hat u_1$, the time-convoluted boundary datum, and the forced contributions. The machinery that carries the argument is the Fokas unified transform method applied to the dispersion relation $\omega^2-i\omega-\lambda^2=0$, whose two branches are $\omega_1,\omega_2$ formed from $\rho(\lambda)=\sqrt{\lambda^2-1/4}$. The load-bearing step is Lemma 1, which shows that the square-root-bearing kernels have removable singularities at $\lambda=\pm 1/2$ and can be rewritten as entire or $C^\infty$ functions of $\lambda$; the contour-deformation identities (3.19)-(3.31) and a Jordan-type lemma then reinterpret the non-absolutely-convergent oscillatory integrals so that differentiation under the integral sign and passage to boundary limits become legitimate. This reinterpretation is what allows the formula to be verified a posteriori as a classical solution up to the corner.

What would settle it

Evaluate the explicit formula (1.7) numerically for a smooth test problem with a known classical solution, for example an exact exponential or polynomial solution of $u_{tt}+u_t-u_{xx}=f$ with compatible data, at points approaching the corner and the characteristic $t=x$; if the quadrature of (1.7) does not reproduce the known solution and the claimed boundary limits, the central verification fails. Alternatively, for the non-controllability statement, take Fourier-Laplace transforms of $u_0$ and $u_1$ that are not entire and set $f=0$; if any admissible boundary datum $g_0$ produces $u(T,x)\equiv 0$ at one time $T$, Theorem 6 is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the function $u(t,x)$ defined by the Fokas-type integral representation (1.5) satisfies $u_{tt}+u_t=u_{xx}+f$ on the quarter-plane $Q=\{(x,t):x>0,\,t>0\}$ in a rigorous classical sense, not merely as a formal ansatz. Theorem 1 proves the integrals exist in a generalized sense and define a $C^\infty$ function on each side of $t=x$, with $C^\infty$ extensions to the closed regions on the respective sides. Theorem 2 proves that the $x$- and $t$-limits reproduce the prescribed initial and boundary data and that, under the compatibility conditions (1.8), namely $u_0(0)=g_0(0)$, $u_1(0)=g_0'(0)$, and $f(0,0)=u_0''(0)-g_0'(0)+g_0''(0)$, the solution is $C^2$ on the closed quarter-plane and satisfies the equation up to the corner. Theorems 3 and 4 add boundary differentiability and rapid decay in $x$, Theorem 5 establishes uniqueness in a natural decaying class, Theorem 6 gives a non-controllability result, and Theorems 7 and 8 describe the long-time behaviour under periodic and weakly periodic data. Thus the paper claims explicit, verifiable closed-form solutions for a general class of forced initial-boundary-value problems on the half-line.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on being able to switch limits, derivatives, and integrals freely inside the solution formula, and on the data being infinitely smooth and rapidly decaying in space; the authors note in Section 5, Remark (2), that some of these switches are justified only implicitly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any data in the stated class, the formula (1.5) gives an explicit, checkable solution, and under the compatibility conditions (1.8) a $C^2$ solution exists up to the corner of the quarter-plane.
  • The initial and boundary data are recovered as ordinary limits, so the integral formula solves the actual initial-boundary-value problem, not a weakened version of it.
  • The solution is rapidly decreasing in $x$ and has the claimed derivative limits at the boundary, so it provides a reference solution for numerical schemes on half-line domains.
  • Uniqueness holds in a natural integrable and decaying class, so the constructed formula gives the physical solution among competitors satisfying the same data and decay conditions.
  • With $T$-periodic or weakly $T$-periodic boundary and forcing data, the solution becomes asymptotically periodic in time up to $O(1/t)$ corrections, and the homogeneous problem is not null-controllable under the stated analyticity obstruction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same contour-deformation and removable-singularity analysis is likely to apply to other second-order equations with two dispersion branches on the quarter-plane, such as Boussinesq-type or double-diffusion models; the paper itself does not claim this.
  • Editorial extension: the explicit formula turns the corner compatibility conditions into a concrete numerical prescription, namely that any consistent difference or spectral scheme for the quarter-plane must respect (1.8) at the origin or lose accuracy near $(0,0)$.
  • Editorial extension: the asymptotic periodicity results suggest a testable physical prediction for telegrapher-type models: after transients decay, the response to periodic driving is periodic up to $1/t$ corrections even though the wave part still transports information along characteristics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a Fokas unified-transform representation for the damped wave / telegraph / Maxwell-Cattaneo-Vernotte equation u_tt + u_t = u_xx + f on the quarter-plane x,t > 0, with initial data u(0,x)=u0(x), u_t(0,x)=u1(x) and boundary data u(t,0)=g0(t). The authors define a seven-term integral formula (1.5), prove in Theorem 1 that the integrals exist in a generalized sense and define a C^∞ solution away from the characteristic t=x, in Theorem 2 that the initial and boundary limits are attained, with C^1/C^2 regularity under compatibility conditions (1.8), and in Theorems 5–8 establish uniqueness, non-controllability, and periodic/weakly periodic large-time asymptotics. Section 10 extends the formula to the equation with coefficients α,β, and Section 11 shows that the β→0+ limit recovers the d'Alembert solution of the undamped wave equation. The paper verifies the solution a posteriori rather than deriving it from the desired answer, and it contains detailed contour deformations in Section 3.

Significance. If the main theorems were correct as stated, this would be a substantial contribution: it would give explicit, verified integral representations for a hyperbolic-parabolic problem on a semi-infinite domain, extend the Fokas method to a non-polynomial dispersion relation, and provide benchmark formulas for applications. The paper has real strengths: the a posteriori verification strategy is methodologically sound; Lemma 1 correctly exposes the removable singularities at λ=±1/2; the compatibility conditions (1.8) are clearly identified; and the uniqueness and asymptotic results, if supported by complete proofs, would be useful. The manuscript also makes several falsifiable and concrete claims. However, the central data class is currently ill-posed: the half-line Fourier transforms used in the solution formula are not defined for the C∞(0,∞) initial data allowed by (1.2), and the paper explicitly concedes in Section 5, Remark (2), that several interchanges of limits and integrals are left implicit. These issues touch the foundation of every theorem, so the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1, Eq. (1.2); §2 definitions of û0, û1; §3 generalized sense] The data class (1.2) allows u0 and u1 to be arbitrary C^∞ functions on [0,∞) with no decay, but the half-line Fourier transforms defined in Section 2, namely û0(λ)=∫_0^∞ e^{-iλx}u0(x)dx for Im λ≤0, do not exist on the real axis for such data. For the allowed data u0≡1, û0(0)=∫_0^∞ dx diverges, and for every nonzero real λ the improper integral ∫_0^∞ e^{-iλx} dx does not converge. The solution formula (1.5) integrates these transforms along the real axis, so it is not defined pointwise for such data, nor is it covered by the paper's generalized sense, because the integration-by-parts identities (3.7)–(3.8) require the boundary terms at infinity to vanish, which they do not for u0≡1. Theorems 1 and 2 therefore assert existence and regularity for data for which the central object is undefined. The manuscript must either impose a rapid-decay or Schwartz-type assumption on u0,u1 (as is already natural from the use of the half-line Schwartz space in Theorem 6 and reference [9]) or give a rigorous principal-value/distributional definition of the transforms and of the symmetric-limit integrals in (1.5), together with a proof that the deformed-contour expressions reproduce that definition.
  2. [§5, Remark (2); proofs of Theorems 2, 7, 8] The paper explicitly states in Section 5, Remark (2), that justifications of interchanges of differentiation with integration and of limits with integration are 'sometimes implicit and not clearly stated.' This is a load-bearing issue, not a cosmetic one. Theorem 2 requires passing t→0+ and x→0+ through infinite oscillatory integrals; Theorem 7 requires the limit t→∞ in equations such as (12.3), (12.19), and (12.26); and Theorem 8 invokes Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem on infinite domains. In each case one needs uniform-in-parameter estimates in a neighbourhood of the limiting point, as well as a demonstration that the generalized symmetric-limit integrals can be differentiated under the integral sign after the deformations (3.19)–(3.31). Since the boundary-limit, regularity, and asymptotic conclusions all depend on these interchanges, the proofs need to be completed; a remark that the justification is 'easy to give' is not a proof in a paper whose stated goal is rigorous verification.
  3. [§3, Eqs. (3.19)–(3.31); §4, Part 2] The contour-deformation identities used to interpret the integrals treat λ=±1/2 as removable singularities via Lemma 1, but they do not address possible non-removable real-axis singularities that arise for non-decaying data, such as the pole at λ=0 for u0≡1. The 'generalized sense' is defined as a symmetric limit ∫_{-R}^R, but no proof is given that the deformed-contour expressions are independent of the truncation parameter R or that they equal the symmetric limit of the original integrand when that integrand is not a classical function on the real axis. This gap is central to the C^∞ regularity claim of Theorem 1, because that claim is proved by differentiating the right-hand sides of (3.19)–(3.31). The authors should either restrict the data so that the real-axis transforms are classical functions with sufficient decay, or prove the principal-value interpretation and its compatibility with the contour deformations before using it to establish regularity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors: 'Throughtout', 'uniformy', 'numercal', and 'integrANT' in the abstract and introduction should be corrected.
  2. [§8, Theorem 5] Theorem 5 states 'If we assume, in addition, that the data satisfy (1.4)', but (1.4) is a symmetry property of ω1 and ω2, not a condition on the data; the intended cross-reference is likely (1.8) or (1.2).
  3. [§6, Theorem 6] The conclusion '0),( ≡Txu' is ambiguous; it should read 'u(T,x)≠0' or 'u(T,·)≢0' depending on the intended statement, and the notation should be clarified.
  4. [Reference list] Several reference numbers are duplicated: [11], [13], [15], and [41] each appear twice, and the numbering is therefore unreliable.
  5. [§4, equation numbering] Equation numbers are reused: (4.7)–(4.9) appear both in the proof for g0 and later in the proof for f, and (4.8)–(4.13) are duplicated; the numbering should be made unique.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the UTM solution formula is verified a posteriori by independent estimates; self-citations such as [9] supply background Fourier-Laplace facts rather than the central theorems.

full rationale

The derivation-to-verification chain is not self-referential. Section 2 derives (1.5) heuristically from the global relation obtained via Green's theorem, but Section 4's verification never assumes that u solves the PDE: the contour-deformation identities (3.19)-(3.31) rest on Lemma 1 (power-series expansions in rho^2 = lambda^2 - 1/4), Lemma 3 (Jordan-type decay from (3.5)-(3.6)), and the integration-by-parts asymptotics (3.7)-(3.16), none of which involve u itself. Part 3 then checks the PDE componentwise by direct differentiation, e.g. (4.7)-(4.9) for the g0-part and (4.7)-(4.13) for the f-parts, using only algebraic identities among omega_1, omega_2, and rho. No parameter is fitted, and the compatibility conditions (1.8) are exactly the PDE, boundary, and initial data evaluated at the corner; their sufficiency is proved via the expansion (5.24), not assumed. Theorems 5, 7, and 8 are self-contained energy and integral estimates. Self-citations ([3], [5]-[16], [28]) are numerous but not load-bearing for the core claim: [9] is invoked only for the standard remark that half-line Fourier transforms generally require Im lambda <= 0 (p. 3) and for the Baire-genericity of data whose uhat_0 + t uhat_1 has a natural boundary (end of Theorem 6) - a published, independent fact about half-line Schwartz functions, not about the damped wave equation itself. The genuine risks flagged in-scope are correctness gaps, not circularity: under data class (1.2), u0 and u1 need not decay, so uhat_0(lambda) = integral_0^inf e^{-i lambda x} u0(x) dx can diverge on the real axis (u0 = 1 is admitted yet uhat_0(0) diverges), leaving (1.5) undefined for allowed data; and Section 5, Remark (2) concedes some limit-integral interchanges are 'implicit and not clearly stated.' These bear on soundness of the theorems as stated, not on self-referential reduction, so the circularity score stays low.

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

The solution method has no fitted constants and introduces no new entities. The proof relies on the smooth rapidly decaying data class, a specific square-root branch, a vanishing boundary term at infinity in the formal derivation, the Fokas transform background, and a prior half-line Fourier-Laplace result by the same authors. These are all stated or standard, but the data class and branch choice limit the scope of the theorems.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Data class: u0,u1 in C-infinity([0,infinity)), g0 in C-infinity([0,infinity)), f in C-infinity(Q_bar) and f rapidly decreasing in x uniformly for t in compact sets (assumption (1.2)).
    Used to define half-line Fourier-Laplace transforms and to justify convergence and differentiation of the integral representation; the theorems are stated only for this class.
  • ad hoc to paper Branch selection for rho(lambda) = sqrt(lambda^2 - 1/4) with branch cut [-1/2, 1/2] and continuous extension to the lower half-plane (Section 1, Fig. 1).
    The entire solution formula and Lemma 1 depend on this branch; a different square-root branch changes omega_1 and omega_2 and the admissible contour deformations.
  • domain assumption Vanishing of the boundary contribution at x = infinity during the formal Green's theorem step (Section 2, Step 1).
    Needed to pass from finite rectangles to the half-line; Theorem 4 later proves the constructed solution is rapidly decreasing, but the formal derivation assumes such behavior of the unknown solution.
  • standard math Fokas unified transform machinery, including the global relation and contour deformation lemmas, can be extended to non-polynomial dispersion relations (Sections 2 and 3).
    Background method introduced in references [21,22]; the paper's novelty is the specific implementation, not the underlying transform calculus.
  • standard math Half-line Fourier-Laplace transforms satisfy the natural boundary and analytic extension properties used in Theorem 6, from the authors' prior work [9].
    The non-controllability proof relies on [9] for the Fourier-Laplace transform of half-line Schwartz functions; this is external support, but authored by the same group.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On generalised d'Alembert-type integral representations for damped wave equations on the quarter-plane." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XP2NBM7V

@misc{pith2026260806355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On generalised d'Alembert-type integral representations for damped wave equations on the quarter-plane},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XP2NBM7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06355}
}
read the original abstract

We rigorously construct and verify a posteriori new closed-form solutions for the forced Maxwell-Cattaneo-Vernotte equation (also broadly known as the damped wave equation, hyperbolic heat, and telegrapher's equation on lossy transmission lines) posed on the spatiotemporal quarter-plane with general initial and boundary data in classical function spaces. For this purpose, the modern complex-analytic unified transform method of Fokas (originally developed for elliptic PDE and evolution equations with polynomial dispersion relations) is here, for the first time, extended for analysis of hyperbolic-parabolic problems on the semi-infinite interval. Importantly, we then establish theorems which pertain to regularity, boundary and asymptotic properties of the new analytical formulae as well as to well-posedness of the addressed boundary-value problems. Notably, the nature and generality of problems considered, combined with the semi-unboundedness of the domain, induce substantial analytic challenges which demand delicate treatment, both in appropriately interpreting oscillatory integral terms of the solution formulae and in proving the proposed results. In this process, crucially, certain compatibility conditions, between initial, boundary and forcing data at the origin, are revealed, which guarantee the existence of a smooth solution across the whole domain of interest. Our explicit integral representations are of direct utility for numercal benchmarking purposes, for exploring connections with modelling in continuum mechanics, mathematical physics, biology and the natural sciences, and for the investigation of well-posedness for nonlinear counterparts too.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Chatziafratis, T

    A. Chatziafratis, T. Hatziafratis, The natural boundary of Fourier-Laplace transforms of functions in the half- line Schwartz space, Integral Transforms and Special Functions (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    J. R. d’Alembert, Recherches sur la courbe que forme une corde tendue mise en vibration, Mémoires de l'Académie royale des sciences et belles lettres. Classe de mathématique. Année 1747 (Paris), Tome 3, pp. 214- 219

    work page

  3. [2]

    Hyperbolic heat conduction and thermal resonances in a cylindrical solid carrying a steady periodic electric field

    Barletta, A.; Zanchini, E. (1996). "Hyperbolic heat conduction and thermal resonances in a cylindrical solid carrying a steady periodic electric field". International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 39 (6): 1307–1315

    work page 1996

  4. [3]

    J.L. Bona, A. Chatziafratis, H. Chen, S. Kamvissis, The linear BBM-equation on the half-line revisited, Letters in Mathematical Physics (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Cattaneo, C. (1958). Sur une forme d’équation de la chaleur eliminant le paradoxe d’une propagation instantanée. Comptes Rendus Académie des Sciences, 247 , 431–433

    work page 1958

  6. [5]

    M. M. Cavalcanti, A. Chatziafratis, and L. Rosier. A unified approach to lack of controllability for linear evolution equations on quarter-planes. preprint (2025). A. Chatziafratis, C. Giorgi, A. Miranville, F. Zullo 44

    work page 2025

  7. [6]

    Chatziafratis, E.C

    A. Chatziafratis, E.C. Aifantis, A. Carbery, A.S. Fokas, Integral representations for the double-diffusion system on the half-line, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Chatziafratis, A.S

    A. Chatziafratis, A.S. Fokas, E.C. Aifantis, On Barenblatt’s pseudoparabolic equation on the half-line via the Fokas method, Z. Angew. Math. Mech. (2024)

    2024

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    Chatziafratis, L

    A. Chatziafratis, L. Grafakos, S. Kamvissis, Long-range instabilities for linear evolution PDE on semi-bounded domains, Dyn. PDE 21 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 57(12), 4111-4121 (2025)

    Chatziafratis, A., Kamvissis, S., Infinity of solutions to initial‐boundary value problems for linear constant‐coefficient evolution PDEs on semi‐infinite intervals. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 57(12), 4111-4121 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Chatziafratis, S

    A. Chatziafratis, S. Kamvissis, A. Miranville. Rigorous qualitative theory for evolution equations with variable coefficients, preprint (2026)

    2026

  4. [12]

    Chatziafratis, S

    A. Chatziafratis, S. Kamvissis, I.G. Stratis, Boundary behavior of the solution to the linear KdV equation on the half-line, Stud. Appl. Math. (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Chatziafratis, G

    A. Chatziafratis, G. Karali, C. E. Synolakis, Rigorous analytical solution for the linearized Whitham-Broer- Kaup system on the half-line, Stud Appl Math (2026)

    2026

  6. [14]

    Chatziafratis, E

    A. Chatziafratis, E. Luca and S. L. Waters, The Milne–Barenblatt pseudo-parabolic equation with time- dependent coefficients, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S (2026)

    2026

  7. [15]

    Chatziafratis, D

    A. Chatziafratis, D. Mantzavinos, Boundary behavior for the heat equation on the half-line, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Chatziafratis, A

    A. Chatziafratis, A. Miranville, G. Karali, A.S. Fokas, E.C. Aifantis, Higher-order diffusion and Cahn– Hilliard-type models revisited on the half-line, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. (2025). [15]A. Chatziafratis and T. Ozawa. Instability, blow-up and break-down effects for S...

    2025

  9. [17]

    Chatziafratis, T

    A. Chatziafratis, T. Ozawa, Non-standard initial-boundary-value and interface problems for the linear BBM equation, Discrete Contin Dyn Syst-S (2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    F., Rigorous analysis of the unified transform method and long-range instabilities for the inhomogeneous time-dependent Schrödinger equation on the quarter-plane

    Chatziafratis, A., Ozawa, T., Tian, S. F., Rigorous analysis of the unified transform method and long-range instabilities for the inhomogeneous time-dependent Schrödinger equation on the quarter-plane. Math. Ann., 389(4), 3535-3602 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Chaudhry, M. H. (2014). Applied Hydraulic Transients (3rd ed.), Springer

    2014

  12. [20]

    Chen, G. (2021). Non-Fourier phonon heat conduction at the microscale and nanoscale. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(8), 555-569

    2021

  13. [21]

    Chester, M. (1963). Second sound in solids. Physical Review, 131(5), 2013

    1963

  14. [22]

    Courant, D

    R. Courant, D. Hilbert, Methods of Mathematical Physics, Vol. II, Wiley–Interscience, 1962

    1962

  15. [23]

    Fokas, A unified transform method for solving linear and certain nonlinear PDEs, Proc

    A.S. Fokas, A unified transform method for solving linear and certain nonlinear PDEs, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A (1997); On the integrability of certain linear and nonlinear partial differential equations, J. Math. Phys. (2000); Two–dimensional linear partial differential e...

    1997

  16. [24]

    A. S. Fokas, E. A. Spence, Synthesis, as opposed to separation, of variables, SIAM Rev. (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Fokas, A., Himonas, A., Mantzavinos, D., The nonlinear Schrödinger equation on the half-line. Tran. Amer. Math. Soc., (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    S., Lenells, J., & Pelloni, B., Boundary value problems for the elliptic sine-Gordon equation in a semi-strip

    Fokas, A. S., Lenells, J., & Pelloni, B., Boundary value problems for the elliptic sine-Gordon equation in a semi-strip. J. Nonl. Sci., (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    S., & Pelloni, B

    Fokas, A. S., & Pelloni, B. (Eds.). Unified Transform for Boundary Value Problems: Applications and Advances. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    A. S. Fokas, D.A. Smith, Evolution PDEs and augmented eigenfunctions: Finite interval, Adv. Differ. Equ. (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    S., & Sung, L

    Fokas, A. S., & Sung, L. Y., Generalized Fourier transforms, their nonlinearization and the imaging of the brain. Notices AMS, 52(10), 1178-1192 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    Chatziafratis, A.S

    A. Chatziafratis, A.S. Fokas, K. Kalimeris, The Fokas method for evolution partial differential equations, Partial Differ. Equ. Appl. Math. (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Goldstein, On diffusion by discontinuous movements, and on the telegraph equation, Quart

    S. Goldstein, On diffusion by discontinuous movements, and on the telegraph equation, Quart. J. Mech. Appl. Math., 4 (1951), 129–156. A. Chatziafratis, C. Giorgi, A. Miranville, F. Zullo 45

    1951

  24. [32]

    I., Jokipii, J

    Gombosi, T. I., Jokipii, J. R., Kota, J., Lorencz, K., & Williams, L. L. (1993). The telegraph equation in charged particle transport. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 403, no. 1, p. 377-384

    1993

  25. [33]

    Heaviside, On the extra current , Philosophical Magazine, 1879, Series 5, 2:9, 135-145

    O. Heaviside, On the extra current , Philosophical Magazine, 1879, Series 5, 2:9, 135-145

  26. [34]

    L., & Huxley, A

    Hodgkin, A. L., & Huxley, A. F. (1952). A Quantitative Description of Membrane Current and Its Application to Conduction and Excitation in Nerve, Journal of Physiology, 117(4), 500–544

    1952

  27. [35]

    J., Lanzani, L., Llewellyn Smith, S

    Hulse, J. J., Lanzani, L., Llewellyn Smith, S. G., & Luca, E. (2025). The unified transform method: beyond circular or convex domains. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 481(2319)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Jaffe, L. F. (1999). On the Conservation of Calcium Wave Speeds, Cell Calcium, 25(3), 243–249

    1999

  29. [37]

    J., & Luca, E

    Ji, X., Wilson, H. J., & Luca, E. (2026). Theoretical analysis of Stokes flow through a sharp-cornered cross- slot. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1026, A9

    2026

  30. [38]

    Joseph, D. D. , & Preziosi, L. (1989). Heat waves. Reviews of Modern Physics, 61 (1), 41–73

    1989

  31. [39]

    Kac, A stochastic model related to the telegrapher’s equation, Rocky Mountain J

    M. Kac, A stochastic model related to the telegrapher’s equation, Rocky Mountain J. Math., 4 (1974), 497– 509

    1974

  32. [40]

    Keener, J., & Sneyd, J. (2008). Mathematical Physiology: I: Cellular Physiology (2nd ed.). Springer

    2008

  33. [41]

    Kovács, R. (2024). Heat equations beyond Fourier: From heat waves to thermal metamaterials. Physics Reports, 1048, 1-75

    2024

  34. [42]

    Luca, E., & Crowdy, D. G. (2018). A transform method for the biharmonic equation in multiply connected circular domains. IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics, 83(6), 942-976

    2018

  35. [43]

    Luca, E., & Llewellyn Smith, S. G. (2018). Stokes flow through a two-dimensional channel with a linear expansion. The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, 71(4), 441-462

    2018

  36. [44]

    Stud App Math (2025)

    Deconinck, B., Farkas, M., Variable‐coefficient evolution problems via the Fokas method Part I: Dissipative case. Stud App Math (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    A., Legrand, N., Desprez, P., & Franco, A

    Maiza, M., Mammeri, Y., Nguyen, D. A., Legrand, N., Desprez, P., & Franco, A. A. (2019). Evaluating the impact of transport inertia on the electrochemical response of lithium ion battery single particle models. Journal of Power Sources, 423, 263-270

    2019

  38. [46]

    Analysis of non-Fourier conduction waves from a reciprocating heat source

    Mandrusiak, G. D. (1997). "Analysis of non-Fourier conduction waves from a reciprocating heat source". Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer. 11 (1): 82–89

    1997

  39. [47]

    Maxwell, J. C. (1867). On the dynamical theory of gases. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 157, 49–88

  40. [48]

    M., Feshbach, H

    Morse, P. M., Feshbach, H. (1953). Methods of Theoretical Physics. New York: McGraw-Hill

    1953

  41. [49]

    Murray, J. D. (2002). Mathematical Biology: I. An Introduction (3rd ed.). Springer

    2002

  42. [50]

    Nosko, O. (2021). Perfect thermal contact of hyperbolic conduction semispaces with an interfacial heat source. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 164, 120541

    2021

  43. [51]

    Ostendorf, D. W., D. J. DeGroot, and P. J. Dunaj (2007), Water hammer dissipation in pneumatic slug tests, Water Resour. Res., 43, W02413

    2007

  44. [52]

    Rukolaine, S. A. (2025). Integral representation of solutions to initial‐boundary value problems on a finite interval in the framework of the hyperbolic heat equation. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 48(14), 13760-13772

    2025

  45. [53]

    Scott, A. C. (2003). Nonlinear Science: Emergence and Dynamics of Coherent Structures (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press

    2003

  46. [54]

    X., & Tian, S

    Shi, M. X., & Tian, S. F. (2026). Well-posedness for Cahn–Hilliard-type model on the half-line. Letters in Mathematical Physics, 116(3), 69

    2026

  47. [55]

    Itoh, Yusuke Kosuga, Maxime Lesur, Naohiro Kasuya: Test of the Telegraph Equation for Transport Dynamics in Plasma

    Shigeru Inagaki, Kimitaka Itoh, Sanae-I. Itoh, Yusuke Kosuga, Maxime Lesur, Naohiro Kasuya: Test of the Telegraph Equation for Transport Dynamics in Plasma. Plasma and Fusion Research, 2015, 10

    2015

  48. [56]

    Straughan, B. (2011). Heat Waves (Vol. 177). Springer Science & Business Media

    2011

  49. [57]

    Sobolev, S. L. (2018). On hyperbolic heat-mass transfer equation. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 122, 629-630

    2018

  50. [58]

    Tzou, D. Y. (1989). Shock wave formation around a moving heat source in a solid with finite speed of heat propagation. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 32(10), 1979-1987

    1989

  51. [59]

    Vernotte, P. (1958). Les paradoxes de la théorie continue de l’équation de la chaleur. Comptes Rendus Académie des Sciences, 246, 3154–3155

    1958

  52. [60]

    Weiss, G. H. (2002). Some applications of persistent random walks and the telegrapher's equation. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311(3-4), 381-410

    2002

  53. [61]

    Zhang, T., & Tian, S. F. (2026). The Initial‐Boundary Value Problem of Klein–Gordon Equation on the Half‐Line. Studies in Applied Mathematics, 156(2), e70188

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.