Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 52 references

Harnack estimates for the nonlocal Trudinger equation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves a quantitative strong parabolic Harnack inequality for nonnegative weak solutions of the nonlocal Trudinger equation, with optimal tail control.

desk verdict Genuinely new strong Harnack result for the nonlocal Trudinger class, but the proof's load-bearing Caccioppoli inequality with time-dependent levels is not actually proved here. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17912 v1 pith:25A2Y33F submitted 2026-07-20 math.AP

Simone Ciani , Kenta Nakamura This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35B6535R0947G20
keywords nonlocalTrudingerequationparabolicHarnackinequalitydoublynonlinearfractionalSobolevspacestailestimatesDeGiorgiiterationweaksolutionssingularkernels
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 aims to establish the parabolic Harnack principle for the nonlocal Trudinger equation, a doubly nonlinear integro-differential equation whose operator has a measurable, bounded, symmetric singular kernel. The main theorem states that for nonnegative weak solutions in a large cylinder, the supremum of the solution over an earlier small cylinder, together with a time-averaged tail of its positive part, is controlled by the infimum over a later cylinder together with a time-averaged tail of its negative part; for globally nonnegative solutions this reduces to sup u ≤ C_H inf u. The paper also proves quantitative L∞-Lν local bounds with optimal tail terms. A sympathetic reader would care because Harnack inequalities are the sharpest pointwise regularity available for solutions with rough data, and this extends the known linear and p-Laplacian results to the full doubly nonlinear range with sharp tail dependence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Caccioppoli inequality with time-dependent truncation levels (Proposition 2.12), which controls the energy g±(u,k(t)) = ±(p−1)∫_k^u |τ|^{p−2}(τ−k)± dτ, the fractional Gagliardo seminorm, and the nonlocal interaction term by boundary energy, cut-off errors, and a signed term involving k′(t). This inequality is applied with carefully designed moving levels k(t) that absorb positive tails, yielding refined sup-bounds. The measure-theoretic core consists of De Giorgi-type lemmas—critical mass, expansion of positivity, and a nonlocal measure-shrinking lemma—which lead to a weak Harnack inequality with positive exponent; Theorem 1.2 chains that weak Harnack inequalit

What would settle it

Find a measurable kernel satisfying (1.2) and a weak solution with 1<p<2 for which the formal identity ∂t g+(u,k(t)) used in Proposition 2.12 acquires a non-negligible correction term after mollification; or, more accessibly, verify whether Proposition 2.12 can be derived from Definition 2.9 without extra regularity. If such a counterexample exists, the asserted Caccioppoli inequality and hence Theorem 1.2 fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 1.2, is that every nonnegative weak solution of ∂t(|u|^{p−2}u) + Lu = 0 in a cylinder of radius R0 = 4·6^{1/(sp)}ρ satisfies a strong Harnack estimate: the supremum over B_ρ × (t0 − (2ρ)^{sp}/2, t0] plus a positive-tail term is bounded by a constant C_H times the infimum over a later cylinder B_ρ × (t0 + 3(4ρ)^{sp}/4, t0 + (4ρ)^{sp}] plus a negative-tail term of higher integrability. If u ≥ 0 globally, the inequality becomes the classical sup u ≤ C_H inf u. The proof chains a refined energy-based iteration with a weak Harnack inequality, under the optimal tail condition Tail(u; B_{R0}) ∈ L^{p−1+ε}_loc.

Load-bearing premise

The entire proof rests on the time-dependent Caccioppoli inequality (Proposition 2.12), whose integration by parts in time is not proved in the paper but delegated to exponential-mollification arguments in earlier references; if that step fails for singular measurable kernels in the range 1<p<2, both main theorems lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For globally nonnegative weak solutions, the strong Harnack inequality sup u ≤ C_H inf u holds, implying the usual parabolic Harnack principle.
  • The estimate is quantitative: constants depend only on d, s, p, Λ, and the tail terms are optimal in their scaling.
  • The time gap between the sup-cylinder and inf-cylinder is intrinsic to the nonlocal doubly nonlinear setting; the estimate fails to be time-insensitive for local solutions.
  • Together with the refined L∞-Lν bound (Theorem 1.1), the result yields pointwise control that is the best available regularity for these rough-coefficient equations.
  • The assumption Tail(u; B_{R0}) ∈ L^{p−1+ε}_loc is the optimal integrability condition under which the Harnack estimate holds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the time-dependent Caccioppoli inequality can be justified without exponential mollification for singular kernels in 1<p<2, the same chaining argument would likely give local Hölder continuity for the nonlocal Trudinger equation; the paper does not state this explicitly.
  • The tail-dependent formulation suggests a testable extension to equations with drift terms: adding a first-order term should shift the chaining cylinders but preserve the sup-plus-tail versus inf-plus-tail structure.
  • For global weak solutions, the time-gap collapse noted in the paper hints that a time-insensitive Harnack estimate may hold in the whole-space setting, analogous to known local results; this is an extrapolation beyond the stated theorem.
  • A numerical check of the Caccioppoli inequality with a simple singular kernel (e.g., k(x,y)=|x−y|^{−d−sp}) in p∈(1,2) could expose whether the unproved integration-by-parts step produces hidden boundary terms; the paper does not perform such a check.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops pointwise regularity theory for the nonlocal Trudinger equation ∂t(|u|^{p-2}u)+Lu=0 with a measurable, bounded, symmetric singular kernel satisfying (1.2). It claims a quantitative L∞–Lν local bound with optimal tail (Theorem 1.1) and a strong parabolic Harnack inequality (Theorem 1.2), including the simplified sup u ≤ CH inf u for globally nonnegative weak solutions. The strategy is a DiBenedetto-type De Giorgi–Moser iteration: time-dependent Caccioppoli inequalities (Proposition 2.12), refined upper bounds, and measure-theoretic lemmas (De Giorgi type, expansion of positivity, weak Harnack) leading to the strong Harnack inequality. Much of the structure follows and adapts the authors' companion preprint [CN26].

Significance. If the result holds, it is a substantial advance: the strong parabolic Harnack inequality for the nonlocal Trudinger equation with measurable kernels and optimal tail conditions is new, going beyond the linear case of Kassmann–Weidner and the earlier weak Harnack or local-boundedness results. The paper contains a detailed iteration with explicit constants for many steps, and the statements are quantitatively precise. Its main weakness is that the proof is not fully self-contained: several load-bearing lemmas, especially the time-dependent Caccioppoli inequality and the measure-theoretic machinery, are delegated to companion preprints or to informal mollification arguments. I could not certify correctness of those steps from the manuscript alone.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.5, Proposition 2.12] This proposition is load-bearing: (2.4) is used with time-dependent k(t) in the proof of Theorem 1.1 (see the estimate of term IV around (3.10)–(3.15)), and the simplified versions (2.5)–(2.6) are used throughout Section 4. Its proof, however, is not given in the manuscript. The fractional part is dispatched to [CCMV25, Lemma 3.23], and the ∂t(|u|^{p−2}u) integration by parts is justified only informally through identity (2.3) and 'exponential mollification' cited from [BDL21] and [Nak22a, Appendix A]. For 1<p<2, u↦|u|^{p−2}u is singular, and a function in the class of Definition 2.9 does not have a time derivative in the usual sense; identity (2.3) is formal. Since both Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 lose their foundation if this mollification step fails, the authors should supply a complete proof of (2.3)–(2.4), or state and prove the exact regularization lemma under the hypotheses of Def
  2. [§4, Lemmas 4.2–4.5 and Theorem 4.6] The measure-theoretic part is largely imported from the companion preprint [CN26]. Lemma 4.2 says 'crudely similar', Lemma 4.3 says 'completely same argument', Lemma 4.4 'almost repeated verbatim', Lemma 4.5 'identical', and Theorem 4.6 is stated without proof as a 'combination of Lemmas 4.4, 4.5 and Theorem 1.1'. Since [CN26] is not part of this submission, the proof chain from Caccioppoli to the weak Harnack inequality is not verifiable from the manuscript. This is not merely stylistic: Theorem 4.6 is the central ingredient in the proof of Theorem 1.2. The authors should include the missing arguments or make the companion preprint available and cross-checked in this submission.
  3. [§3, Theorem 1.1 Step 1 (Eq. (3.15))] The crucial cancellation III2 + IV ≤ 0 depends on the choice of time-dependent level ℓ(t) and on the compressed estimate (3.15). For 1<p<2, the estimate of IV uses both k′(t)≥0 and u≤M0 on Qi, and the displayed chain contains multiple implicit constants and restrictions on k. Since this is the point where the time-dependent Caccioppoli inequality is actually used, I ask for a more detailed verification of the term IV and of the restrictions (3.18) and (3.24), so that the reader can check that the cancellation is legitimate for all p∈(1,∞).
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and nonstandard locutions: 'at stake' should likely be 'in force' or 'in place'; 'we fave' in Lemma 4.2; 'Lebesgue instant' is nonstandard; 'the support department of Mathematics' is ungrammatical.
  2. [Equation (2.3)] The symbol w is used both for the auxiliary function and for the generic value u; this makes identity (2.3) hard to parse. Please use a consistent notation, e.g. u for the solution and v or τ for the integration variable.
  3. [Remark 2.10] The remark says Lp-continuity follows from exponential mollification and cites footnotes of [MNY23], but Lp-continuity is already part of Definition 2.9. Please clarify whether it is an assumption or a consequence, and if a consequence, state it as a lemma.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Main theorems are chained through the authors' own companion [CN26] and an unproved Caccioppoli estimate; no definitional circularity, but load-bearing self-citation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.5, Proposition 2.12 proof]
    "The rigorous proof relies on 'exponential mollification' techniques. This is first adopted for the doubly nonlinear problems [BDL21]; in particular, for the nonlocal case, the reader can also consult the arguments of [Nak22a, Appendix A] for more details of this point."

    Proposition 2.12 is the only Caccioppoli estimate with a time-dependent truncation level k(t); it produces the k'(t) terms used in the proof of Theorem 1.1. The paper does not prove it: the fractional term is deferred to [CCMV25, Lemma 3.23] (co-authored by Ciani) and the ∂t(|u|^{p-2}u) integration by parts to [Nak22a, Appendix A] (co-authored by Nakamura). Neither is machine-checked or reproduced here, so the energy estimates on which both main theorems rest are imported from the authors' own unverified chain.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 3, proof of Theorem 1.1 and Proposition 3.1]
    "The proof is now similar to the one of [CN26, Theorem 2.1]."

    Theorem 1.1, the refined sup-bound used to prove the strong Harnack inequality, is not derived self-containedly: Proposition 3.1 follows [CN26, Section 3.1], the proof of Theorem 1.1 says it is 'similar' to [CN26, Theorem 2.1], and the final part 'applies verbatim' from [CN26, Section 3.2, Step 4]. Since [CN26] is an arXiv preprint by the same two authors and is not independently certified in this paper, the main upper-bound result is supported by the authors' own companion rather than by an independent derivation.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, Lemmas 4.1-4.5 and Theorem 4.6]
    "The proof is a combination of Lemmas 4.4, 4.5 and Theorem 1.1. The reader can also consult the argument [CN26, Section 5.2] for a more precise proof."

    The weak Harnack inequality (Theorem 4.6) is the key chaining ingredient in Theorem 1.2, but its proof is given only as a citation to [CN26]. The preceding measure-theoretic lemmas are introduced as 'modifications' or 'identical to' Lemmas 4.1-5.2 of [CN26]. Thus the proof of the paper's main theorem inherits its load-bearing measure-theoretic machinery from the authors' own companion preprint, which is not independently verified or reproduced here.

full rationale

There is no definitional or by-construction circularity: Theorem 1.2 is not a restatement of Proposition 2.12 or of [CN26], and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. If the deferred estimates in [CCMV25], [Nak22a], and [CN26] are valid, the argument is coherent and the stated Harnack estimate has genuine content. However, the paper is not self-contained at the load-bearing level. Proposition 2.12, the time-dependent-level Caccioppoli inequality, is explicitly proved only informally: the paper says 'a routine computation says, informally' for identity (2.3) and then delegates the rigorous justification to 'exponential mollification' in [BDL21] and [Nak22a, Appendix A]. For 1<p<2, ∂t(|u|^{p-2}u) is singular and the identity is not justified for solutions merely in the spaces of Definition 2.9, so this is a real gap. Moreover, the whole De Giorgi-Moser machinery of Section 3 and Section 4 is taken from [CN26], a companion preprint by the same two authors that is neither machine-checked nor otherwise independently certified here. These self-citations are load-bearing, but they do not make the theorem a restatement of its inputs; the central claim still has independent content conditional on the companion results. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is moderate, 4, reflecting substantial load-bearing self-citation without definitional circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted numerical parameters; all constants depend structurally on data=(d,s,p,Λ). Its claims rest on the structural PDE assumptions and on a chain of imported results, most importantly the same-authors companion preprint [CN26].

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kernel comparability (1.2): k is measurable, symmetric, with Λ^{-1}|x-y|^{-d-sp} ≤ k(x,y,t) ≤ Λ|x-y|^{-d-sp}.
    This defines the operator class; it is used in every Caccioppoli and tail estimate.
  • domain assumption Weak solution regularity: u ∈ L∞(0,T;W^{s,p}(R^d)) ∩ C([0,T];L^p(Ω)) and satisfies the energy identity (2.1).
    Definition 2.9; the paper also assumes Lp-continuity follows a priori from [MNY23] remarks.
  • ad hoc to paper Exponential mollification justifies the time integration by parts of ∂t(|u|^{p-2}u) in Proposition 2.12 and identity (2.3), as in [Nak22a, Appendix A] and [BDL21].
    Not proved in the manuscript; all Caccioppoli inequalities and later estimates depend on this validity.
  • ad hoc to paper The De Giorgi/measure lemmas imported from the authors' companion [CN26] are valid.
    Lemma 4.1 is 'a modification of [CN26, Lemma 4.1]', Lemma 4.4 is 'almost repeated verbatim', and Theorem 1.2 chains these results; the current paper inherits their correctness.
  • standard math Fractional Sobolev embeddings and parabolic Gagliardo-Nirenberg estimates in Proposition 2.6 and Lemma 2.7 hold as stated.
    Imported from [Lia24a, Propositions A.2/A.3] and [BK24, Lemma 2.2]; used in the Moser and De Giorgi iterations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Harnack estimates for the nonlocal Trudinger equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/25A2Y33F

@misc{pith2026260717912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Harnack estimates for the nonlocal Trudinger equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/25A2Y33F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17912}
}
read the original abstract

We carry on a study of the point-wise regularity theory for the nonlocal Trudinger equation, with measurable and bounded singular kernel. We establish refined quantitative upper bounds, weak and strong parabolic Harnack inequalities, both under optimal tail conditions. Our analysis relies on the adaptation of a refined De Giorgi-Moser machinery based on the parabolic approach \'{a} la Di Benedetto, specifically designed to overcome the technical intricacies of the nonlocal, doubly nonlinear framework.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Abatangelo, S Dipierro, and E

    N. Abatangelo, S Dipierro, and E. Valdinoci. A Gentle Invitation to the Fractional World. Cham, Springer 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Acerbi, and N

    E. Acerbi, and N. Fusco. Regularity for minimizers of non-quadratic functionals: the case 1<p<2 . J. Math. Anal. Appl. ,140:115--135, 1989

    1989

  3. [3]

    Adimurthi, H

    K. Adimurthi, H. Prasad, and V. Tewary. Local H \"o lder regularity for nonlocal parabolic p - L aplace equations. arXiv:2205.09695 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Adimurthi

    K. Adimurthi. Local H\" older regularity for bounded, signed solutions to nonlocal Trudinger equations. arXiv:2503.07184 . 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    o gelein, F. Duzaar, and N. Liao. On the H\

    V. B\" o gelein, F. Duzaar, and N. Liao. On the H\" o lder regularity of signed solutions to a doubly nonlinear equation. J. Funct. Anal. , 281(9):109--173, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    B\" o gelein, F

    V. B\" o gelein, F. Duzaar, N. Liao, G. Molica Bisci, and R. Servadei. Regularity for the fractional p - L aplace equation. J. Funct. Anal. , 289(9), 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Banerjee, P

    A. Banerjee, P. Garain, and J. Kinnunen. Some local properties of subsolutions and supersolutions for a doubly nonlinear nonlocal parabolic p -Laplace equation. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) , 201(4):1717--1751, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Byun, and K

    S.-S. Byun, and K. Kim. A H \"older estimate with an optimal tail for nonlocal parabolic p - L aplace equations. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) , 203(1):109--147, 2024

    2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Caffarelli, C

    L. Caffarelli, C. H. Chan, and A. Vasseur. Regularity theory for parabolic nonlinear integral operators. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 24(3):849--869, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Cassanello, S

    F. Cassanello, S. Ciani, B. Majrashi, and V. Vespri. Local Vs Nonlocal De Giorgi Classes: A brief guide in the homogeneous case. Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste , Vol. 57, Art. No. 9, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Chaker, M

    J. Chaker, M. Kim, and M. Weidner. Harnack inequality for nonlocal problems with non-standard growth. Math. Ann. , 386(1-2):533--550, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Ciani, E

    S. Ciani, E. Henriques, M. Savchenko, I. Skrypnik, and Y. Yevgenieva. Regularity for Doubly Nonlinear Equations in the Mixed Regime. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.09906. , 2026

    2026

  5. [13]

    Ciani, and K

    S. Ciani, and K. Nakamura. Nonlocal parabolic De Giorgi class. arXiv:2508.16247v4 , 2026

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. Cozzi. Regularity results and H arnack inequalities for minimizers and solutions of nonlocal problems: a unified approach via fractional D e G iorgi classes. J. Funct. Anal. , 272(11):4762--4837, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    L. A. Caffarelli, and A. Vasseur. Drift diffusion equations with fractional diffusion and the quasi-geostrophic equation. Annals of Mathematics. , 171:1903--1930, 2010

    1903

  8. [16]

    Di Castro, T

    A. Di Castro, T. Kuusi, and G. Palatucci. Nonlocal H arnack inequalities. J. Funct. Anal. , 267(6):1807--1836, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    Di Castro, T

    A. Di Castro, T. Kuusi, and G. Palatucci. Local behavior of fractional p -minimizers. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e C Anal. Non Lin\' e aire , 33(5):1279--1299, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    De Filippis

    F. De Filippis. Local boundedness for weak solutions to fractional porous medium equation. arXiv:2602.23001v1 , 2026

    2026

  11. [19]

    DiBenedetto

    E. DiBenedetto. Degenerate parabolic equations . Universitext. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993

    1993

  12. [20]

    D. Dier, J. Kemppainen, J. Siljander, and R. Zacher. On the parabolic H arnack inequality for non-local diffusion equations. Math. Z. , 295(3-4):1751--1769, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Di Nezza, G

    E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, and E. Valdinoci. Hitchhiker's guide to the fractional Sobolev space. Bull. Sci. Math. , 136(5): 521--573, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    DiBenedetto, U

    E. DiBenedetto, U. Gianazza, V. Vespri. Harnack’s inequality for degenerate and singular parabolic equations . Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag New York (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Fern\' a ndez-Real, and X

    X. Fern\' a ndez-Real, and X. Ros-Oton. Integro-Differential Elliptic Equations , Progress in Mathematics 350, Birkh\" a user, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Felsinger, and M

    M. Felsinger, and M. Kassmann. Local regularity for parabolic nonlocal operators. Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 38(9):1539--1573, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Fusco, P

    N. Fusco, P. Marcellini, and C. Sbordone. Mathematical Analysis: Functions of Several Real Variables and Applications , UNITEXT 137, Springer, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Giaquinta, and G

    M. Giaquinta, and G. Modica. Partial regularity of minimizers of quasiconvex integrals. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e Anal. Non Lin\' e aire 3(3):185--208, 1986

    1986

  19. [27]

    Glagoleva

    R.Y. Glagoleva. Liouville theorems for the solution of a second-order linear parabolic equation with discontinuous coefficients. Mat. Zametki , 5: 599–-606, 1969

    1969

  20. [28]

    Garain, and J

    P. Garain, and J. Kinnunen. Weak Harnack inequality for a mixed local and nonlocal parabolic equation. Journal of Differential Equations , 360:373--406, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    E. Giusti. Direct methods in the calculus of variations. World Scientific , Singapore, 2003

    2003

  22. [30]

    Kassmann

    M. Kassmann. A priori estimates for integro-differential operators with measurable kernels. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 34(1):1--21, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    Kim, Nonlocal Harnack inequalities for nonlocal heat equations

    Y.C. Kim, Nonlocal Harnack inequalities for nonlocal heat equations. J. Differ. Equ. , 267, 6691--6757, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Kuusi, and G

    T. Kuusi, and G. Palatucci (Eds.). Recent Developments in Nonlocal Theory. De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Kassmann, and M

    M. Kassmann, and M. Weidner. Nonlocal operators related to nonsymmetric forms I : H \"older estimates. arXiv:2203.07418 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kassmann, and M

    M. Kassmann, and M. Weidner. Upper heat kernel estimates for nonlocal operators via Aronson's method. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 62(2):Paper No. 68, 27, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Kassmann, and M

    M. Kassmann, and M. Weidner. The parabolic Harnack inequality for nonlocal equations. Duke Math. J. , 173(17):3413--3451, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    N. Liao. Remarks on parabolic De Giorgi classes. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) , 200(6):2361--2384, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    N. Liao. H\" o lder regularity for parabolic fractional p - L aplacian. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 63(1):Paper No. 22, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    N. Liao. On the modulus of continuity of solutions to nonlocal parabolic equations. J. Lond. Math. Soc. , 110(3):Paper No. e12985, 30 pp., 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    N. Liao. Harnack estimates for nonlocal drift diffusion equations. arXiv:2402.11986v2 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Liao, and M

    N. Liao, and M. Weidner, Time‐insensitive nonlocal parabolic Harnack estimates. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. , 130(5): Paper No. e70051, 53 pp., 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Mingione

    G. Mingione. Gradient potential estimates. Journal of the European Mathematical Society , 13: 459--486, 2011

    2011

  34. [42]

    J. Moser. A H arnack inequality for parabolic differential equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 17:101--134, 1964

    1964

  35. [43]

    Misawa, K

    M. Misawa, K. Nakamura, and Y. Yamaura. A volume constraint problem for the nonlocal doubly nonlinear parabolic equation. Math. Eng. , 5(6): 1--26, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Nakamura

    K. Nakamura. Local Boundedness of a mixed local-nonlocal doubly nonlinear equation. J. Evol. Equ. , 22(3): Paper No. 75, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Nakamura

    K. Nakamura. Harnack's estimate for a mixed local-nonlocal doubly nonlinear parabolic equation. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 62(2):Paper No. 40, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Nakamura

    K. Nakamura. Local properties of fractional parabolic De Giorgi classes of order s,p . J. Funct. Anal. , 285:110049, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Palatucci, and M

    G. Palatucci, and M. Piccinini. Nonlocal Harnack inequalities in the Heisenberg group. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 61(5):185, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    H. Prasad. On the weak Harnack estimate for nonlocal equations. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 63:Paper No. 67, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Ros-Oton

    X. Ros-Oton. Nonlocal elliptic equations in bounded domains: a survey. Publications Matematiques , 3--26, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Str\" o mqvist

    M. Str\" o mqvist. Harnack's inequality for parabolic nonlocal equations. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e C Anal. Non Lin\' e aire , 36(6):1709--1745, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Shang, and C

    B. Shang, and C. Zhang. Weak Harnack estimates for a doubly nonlinear nonlocal p -Laplace equation. Communications in Contemporary Mathematics , 28(7), 2026

    2026

  44. [52]

    J.L. Vázquez. Asymptotic behaviour for the fractional heat equation in the Euclidean space. Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations , 63(7–8), 1216--1231, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.