\section{\bf Introduction}\label{intro}
\indent The geometry of a space is described by the curvature, which plays a crucial role in differential geometry as this symmetry of the space is determined by the restriction on the curvature tensor $R$. There are several classes of manifolds with specific geometric structures such as the locally symmetric manifolds by Cartan \cite{Cart26}  defined as $\nabla R= 0$, semisymmetric manifolds again by Cartan \cite{Cart46,Szab82,Szab84,Szab85}  defined as $R \cdot R=0$,  pseudosymmetric manifolds by Adam\'{o}w and Deszcz \cite{AD83}. Many authors have studied locally symmetric manifolds and introduced several notions of manifolds, such as recurrent manifolds by Ruse \cite{Ruse46, Ruse49a, Ruse49b, Walk50},  several classes of generalized recurrent manifolds by Shaikh and his coauthors \cite{SP10, SR10,SRK18,SRK17},  weakly symmetric manifolds by Tam\'assy and Binh \cite{TB89, TB93}, pseudosymmetric manifolds by Chaki \cite{Chak87, Chak88}, curvature $2$-forms of recurrent manifolds by Besse \cite{Bess87, LR89, MS12a,MS13a,MS14} etc. We mentioned that the notion of pseudosymmetry in the sence of Deszcz is important in pseudo-Riemannian geometry as well as in general relativity because several spacetimes are models of pseudosymmetric manifolds (see e.g. \cite{ ADEHM14, DK99, Kowa06, SAA18, SAAC20,  SDKC19}). It is mention that  pseudosymmetry in the sence of Deszcz and pseudosymmetry in the sence of Chaki are different concepts. The study of geometric structure of a certain spacetime gives us the idea about its geometry and provides knowledge about its physical nature.\\
\indent It is known that spacetime singularities are a reflection of the incompletenes of general relativity.  In $1968$,  Bardeen \cite{Bardeen} obtained a solution of Einstein field equation in spherical symmetry, which describes a singularity free black hole spacetime.  In fact, it is the first regular black hole model in general relativity. In spherical coordinates system $(t,r,\theta, \phi)$, the Bardeen spacetime  metric is as follows
\bea\label{BM}
ds^2=-\left( 1-\frac{2M\rho^2}{(e^2+\rho^2)^{3/2}}\right)dt^2  +\left(1-\frac{2M\rho^2}{(e^2+\rho^2)^{3/2}}\right)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2\left( d\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta d\phi^2\right),
\eea
where, $M$ and $e$ respectively denotes the mass and  magnetic charge of the nonlinear self gravities monopole \cite{Bardeen}.
If  $e^2\le \frac{16}{27}M^2$, then the Bardeen model represents a black hole and a singularity-free structure \cite{AE}. When $e^2 = \frac{16}{27}M^2$, the horizons shrink into a single one that corresponds to an extreme black hole such as the extreme Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m solution. In \cite{Borde}, Borde has  studied Bardeen spacetime and proved that topology change is necessary for the existence of regular black holes satisfying the weak energy condition. In \cite{AE} Ay\'{o}n-Beato and Garc\'{i}a  reinterpreted this black hole as a gravitational field of a nonlinear magnetic monopole. In the context of black holes we also mention the works of Capozziello and his coauthors \cite{BCL03, BCIS01, CFS04} regarding its gravitational lensing, cosmological structure, types as part of entangled systems etc.
\\
\indent  However, the curvature properties of Bardeen spacetime are yet to known. Thus the present study is devoted to deduce the geometric structures of Bardeen black hole metric in terms of curvature restrictions.

\indent Deriving the  components of various curvature tensors, we  investigate the curvature properties admitted by the Bardeen black hole metric \eqref{BM}. It is found that Bardeen black hole metric is not semisymmetric but  pseudosymmetric manifold and satifies various pseudosymmetric type curvature conditions. The difference tensor $C\cdot R -R\cdot C$ is linearly dependent with the tensors $Q(g,C)$ and $Q(S,C)$. It is also a weakly generalized recurrent manifold and satisfies special recurrent like structure. Further, it is Roter type and Einstein manifold of level $2$. It is interesting to note that this spacetime has pseudosymmetric energy momentum tensor. \\
\indent In this context, we mention that recently the   curvature properties of interior black hole metric \cite{SDHK} were investigated and it is shown that such a interior black hole metric admits several geometric structures such as pseudosymmetry, Ricci pseudosymmetry and several kinds of pseudosymmetric type curvature conditions.\\
\indent This paper is composed in four sections : in section $2$ we review  various curvature tensors and  geometric structures as priliminaries.  Section $3$  determines the  curvature restricted geometric structures admitted by the Bardeen black hole metric \eqref{BM}. Section $4$ deals with some geometric structures of energy momentum tensor. In section $5$, we make a comparison between the geometric properties of Bardeen black hole spacetime and Reissner-Nordstr\"om spacetime.

\section{\bf Preliminaries}
\indent Let $M$, a smooth and connected manifold of dimension $\ge 3$, be furnished with the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ and also with a semi-Riemannian metric $g$. Let $\kappa$ be the scalar curvature, $S$ the Ricci curvature and $R$ the Riemann curvature of $M$.\\
 Now, for a symmetric $(0,2)$  tensors  $\lambda$ and $\tau$, the Kulkarni-Nomizu product $\lambda \wedge \tau$ \cite{DGHS11, Glog02, SKA16} is defined as
\bea
(\tau \wedge  \lambda )(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,X,Y)&=& \tau  (\zeta_1,Y)\lambda (\zeta_2,X) - \tau (\zeta_1,X)\lambda(\zeta_2,Y) \nonumber\\
&+& \tau (\zeta_2,X)\lambda(\zeta_1,Y)  - \tau (\zeta_2,Y)\lambda(\zeta_1,X)\nonumber
\eea
$\zeta_1, \zeta_2, X, Y$ being some smooth vector fields and throughout this paper we assume  $\zeta_1,\zeta_2, X,Y \in  \chi({M})$, $\chi(M)$ being the set of all smooth vector fields of $M$.\\
\indent Now, we consider the following endomorphisms on $M$ (\cite{DHJKS14,SC21,SK18,SK19}) :
\bea
(\zeta_1\wedge_{\tau} \zeta_2)X &=& \tau(\zeta_2,X)\zeta_1-\tau(\zeta_1,X)\zeta_2 ,\nonumber \\
\mu_{\mathscr{R}}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)X &=& \left( [\nabla_{\zeta_1}, \nabla_{\zeta_2}] - \nabla_{[\zeta_1,\zeta_2]}\right) X, \nonumber \\
\mu_{\mathscr{W}}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)X &=& \mu_{\mathscr{R}}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)X-\frac{\kappa}{n(n-1)}\left( \zeta_1\wedge_g\zeta_2\right)X ,\nonumber \\
\mu_{\mathscr{K}}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)X &=& \mu_{\mathscr{R}}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)X -\frac{1}{(n-2)}\left( \zeta_1\wedge_S\mathscr{J}\zeta_2 +\mathscr{J}\zeta_1\wedge_S\zeta_2\right)X,  \nonumber \\
\mu_{\mathscr{C}}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)X &=& \mu_{\mathscr{R}}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)X +\frac{\kappa}{(n-1)(n-2)}(\zeta_1\wedge_g\zeta_2)X \nonumber\\ &-& \frac{1}{(n-2)}\left(\zeta_1\wedge_S\mathscr{J}\zeta_2 +\mathscr{J}\zeta_1\wedge_S\zeta_2\right)X , \nonumber \\
\mu_{\mathscr{P}}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)X &=& \mu_{\mathscr{R}}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)X-\frac{1}{(n-1)}\left( \zeta_1\wedge_S\zeta_2\right)X  ,\nonumber
\eea
\indent where $\mathscr{J}$ is the Ricci operator and is defined by $g(\zeta_1,\mathscr{J}\zeta_2)=S(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)$.\\
\indent Now, for an endomorphism $\mathscr{D}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)$, the corresponding  $(0,4)$-tensor $D$ is given by
\bea
D(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3,\zeta_4)=g(\mathscr{D}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)\zeta_3,\zeta_4).
\eea
In above relation replacing $\mathscr{D}$ by $\mu_{\mathscr{C}}$ one can find the $(0,4)$ conformal curvature $C$. Again, replacing it by $\mu_{\mathscr{R}}$, $\mu_{\mathscr{P}}$, $\mu_{\mathscr{W}}$ and $\mu_{\mathscr{K}}$ one can also look for $(0,4)$ Riemann curvature $R$, projective curvature $P$, concircular curvature $W$ and conharmonic curvature $K$ respectively.

\indent Let $\eta$ be a $(0,l)$-tensor field on  $M$, $l\geq 1$. Now we can define the $(0,l+2)$-tensor $D \cdot \eta$ \cite{DGHS98, DH03, SK14} by
\beb
(D\cdot \eta)(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\cdots,\zeta_l;X,Y)&=&(\mathscr{D}(X,Y)\cdot \eta)(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\cdots,\zeta_l)\\
&&\hspace{-1in} =-\eta(\mathscr{D}(X,Y)\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\cdots,\zeta_l)- \cdots -\eta(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\cdots,\mathscr{D}(X,Y)\zeta_l),
\eeb
\index In addition, if $\lambda$ is a symmetric $(0,2)$-tensor field then we define the $(0,l+2)$-tensor $Q(\lambda, \eta)$, called Tachibana tensor \cite{DGPSS11,SDHJK15,Tach74}, by
\beb
Q(\lambda,\eta)(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\cdots,\zeta_l;X,Y)&=&((X\wedge_{\lambda}Y)\cdot \eta)(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\cdots,\zeta_l)\\
&&\hspace{-2in} =-\eta((X\wedge_{\lambda}Y)\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\cdots,\zeta_l)- \cdots -\eta(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\cdots,(X\wedge_{\lambda}Y)\zeta_l)\\
&&\hspace{-2in} = \lambda(\zeta_1, X) \eta(Y,\zeta_2,\cdots,\zeta_l) + \cdots + \lambda(\zeta_l,X) \eta(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\cdots,Y)\\
&&\hspace{-2in} - \lambda(\zeta_1,Y) \eta(X,\zeta_2,\cdots,\zeta_l) - \cdots - \lambda(\zeta_l,Y) \eta(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\cdots,X).
\eeb
\index The local components $(D \cdot \eta)_{i_1i_2 \cdots i_l\alpha \beta}$ and $Q(\lambda, \eta)_{i_1i_2 \cdots i_l\alpha \beta}$ of the tensors $D \cdot \eta $ and the Tachibana tensor  $Q(\lambda,\eta)$ are written as :
\beb
(D\cdot \eta)_{i_1i_2...i_l\alpha \beta} &=& -g^{uv}[D_{\alpha \beta i_1v}\eta_{ui_2...i_l} +\cdots + D_{\alpha \beta i_lv}\eta_{i_1i_2...u}],\\
Q(\lambda,\eta)_{i_1i_2...i_l\alpha \beta} &=& \lambda_{i_1 \beta }\eta_{\alpha i_2...i_l} + \cdots + \lambda_{i_l \beta }\eta_{i_1i_2...\alpha} \\ &-& \lambda_{i_1 \alpha}\eta_{\beta i_2...i_l} - \cdots - \lambda_{i_l \alpha}\eta_{i_1i_2...\beta}.
\eeb
\begin{defi}
	The linear dependency of the tensor $D\cdot \eta$ with $Q(\lambda, \eta)$ defines a $\eta$-pseudosymmetric manifold \cite{AD83,  Desz92, Desz93, DGHZ15, DGHZ16, SK14, SKppsnw} due to $D$ i.e., on this manifold we have $D\cdot \eta=\varrho _\eta Q(\lambda, \eta)$ where $\varrho_\eta$ is a smooth function on $\left\{ x \in M : Q(\lambda,\eta)_x \ne 0 \right\}$. If $D\cdot \eta=0$ holds then the manifold $M$ is a $\eta$-semisymmetric manifold due to $D$ \cite{Cart46,SAAC20N,Szab82, Szab84, Szab85}.
\end{defi}
For $D=R$, $\eta=R$ and $\lambda=g$ (or $S$) the manifold is simply called as pseudosymmetric manifold or Deszcz's pseudosymmetric manifold (or Ricci generalized pseudosymmetric manifold). Again a semisymmetric manifold is obtained for $D=R$, $\eta=R$ i.e., $R\cdot R=0$.  Several kinds of pseudosymmetric and semisymmetric type curvature conditions are obtained for other curvature tensors. \\
\indent If $S=\alpha g$ holds on $M$ i.e., the Ricci tensor and the metric tensor are linearly dependent then it is called an Einstein manifold and in this case $\alpha=\frac{\kappa}{n}$. In a quasi-Einstein manifold the Ricci tensor has the form $S=\beta A\otimes A + \alpha g$ (A being some $1$-form). This notion is important in general relativity as a connected Lorentzian manifold of dimension $4$ is a spacetime of perfect fluid if it is quasi-Einstein and vise versa. In a quasi-Einstein manifold rank$(S-\alpha g)=1$ and if rank$(S-\alpha g)=2\ \text{or}\ 3$ then the manifold is called as $2$ or $3$ quasi-Einstein manifold \cite{S09, SK19} respectively. It may be mentioned that Kaigorodov spacetime \cite{SDKC19} is Einstein, Robertson Walker spacetime \cite{ARS95, Neill83, SKMHH03} are quasi Einstein and Kantowski-Sachs spacetime \cite{SC21} is $2$-quasi Einstein. Again, a Ricci simple manifold is a special case of quasi Einstein manifold for $\alpha=0$ and Morris-Thorne spacetime \cite{ECS22} is a Ricci simple manifold.  Another generalization of Einstein manifold is given  below. \\
\begin{defi}$($\cite{Bess87, SK14, SK19}$)$
		A manifold satisfying the relation
		\be
		\beta_1S^4 + \beta_2S^3 + \beta_3S^2 + \beta_4S + \beta_5g=0, \; (\beta_1 \neq 0)\nonumber
		\ee
		is called an Einstein manifold of level $4$,
		where $\beta_i$ are smooth functions on $M$. If $\beta_1=0$ but $\beta_2\ne 0$ (resp., $\beta_1=\beta_2=0$ but $\beta_3 \ne 0$), then it turns into an Einstein manifold of level $3$ (resp. level $2$).
\end{defi}

\begin{defi}
	A manifold is called a generalized Roter type manifold \cite{Desz03, DGJPZ13, DGJZ-2016, DGP-TV-2015, SK16,SK19} if its  Riemann curvature tensor fulfills  $$R=s_{22}(g\wedge g)+ (s_{11}S+s_{12}g)\wedge S+ (s_{00}S^2+s_{01}S+s_{02}g)\wedge S^2$$  $s_{ij}$ being some smooth functions on $M$. For $s_{00}=s_{01}=s_{02}=0$, $R$ is linearly dependent on $g\wedge g$, $S\wedge g$ and $S\wedge S$ and in this case $M$ is called a Roter type manifold \cite{Desz03, DG02, DGP-TV-2011, DPSch-2013, Glog-2007}.
\end{defi}
\indent It is worthy to note that Melvin magnetic spacetime \cite{SAAC20} and Robinson-Trautman spacetime \cite{SAA18} are Roter type and $Ein(2)$ manifolds, whereas Lifshitz spacetime \cite{SSC19} is $Ein(3)$ manifold and generalized Roter type. Recently, Lema\^itre-Tolman-Bondi spacetime \cite{SAACD22} is found to possess generalized Roter type and $Ein(3)$ condition.
\begin{defi}
	A super generalized recurrent manifold $M$ is defined by curvature condition \cite{SRK17}
	$$\nabla R=\Pi\otimes R + A\otimes (g\wedge g) + \bar{A} (S\wedge g) + \bar{\bar{A}}(S\wedge S)$$
	where $A, \bar{A}, \bar{\bar{A}}$ are some $1$-forms on $M$. A weakly generalized recurrent manifold \cite{SAR13,SR11} (resp., hyper generalized recurrent manifold \cite{SP10,SRK18}) is obtained for $A=\bar{A}=0$ (resp., $A=\bar{\bar{A}}=0$).
\end{defi}
\begin{defi}
	Tam\'assy and Binh \cite{TB89, TB93}  defined the notion of weak symmetry by
	\beb
	(\nabla_{X} R)(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3,\zeta_4)&=& \Pi(X)\otimes R(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3,\zeta_4)+ \bar{B}(\zeta_4)\otimes R(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3,X)\\ &+& B(\zeta_3)\otimes R(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,X,\zeta_4)+ \bar{A}(\zeta_2)\otimes R(\zeta_1,X,\zeta_3,\zeta_4)\\ &+& A(\zeta_1)\otimes R(X,\zeta_2,\zeta_3,\zeta_4)
	\eeb
	where $A, \bar{A}, B, \bar{B}$ are some $1$-forms on $M$. For $\Pi=\frac{A}{2}=\frac{\bar A}{2}=\frac{B}{2}=\frac{\bar B}{2}$ it is a Chaki pseudosymmetric manifold \cite{Chak87, Chak88}.
\end{defi}
\begin{defi}\label{defi2.8} \cite{LR89, MS12a, MS13a, MS14}
	Let $D$ be a  $(0,4)$-type tensor and $\lambda$ be a $(0,2)$-type symmetric tensor on $M$. Then $\Omega^m_{(D)l}$ \cite{SKP03}, the curvature $2$-forms, are recurrent if
	\beb
	\mathop{\mathcal{S}}_{\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3}(\nabla_{\zeta_1}D)(\zeta_2,\zeta_3,X,Y)=\mathop{\mathcal{S}}_{\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3}A (\zeta_1)\otimes D(\zeta_2,\zeta_3,X,Y)
	\eeb
	  $\mathcal S$ being the cyclic sum over $\zeta_1$, $\zeta_2$ and $\zeta_3$, holds on $M$ and the $1$-forms $\iota_{(\lambda)l}$ \cite{SKP03} are recurrent if
	$$(\nabla_{\zeta_1}\lambda)(\zeta_2,X)-(\nabla_{\zeta_2}\lambda)(\zeta_1,X)=A(\zeta_1)\otimes \lambda(\zeta_2,X)-\bar{A}(\zeta_2)\otimes \lambda(\zeta_1,X)$$ holds on $M$ and $A$, $\bar A$ are smooth 1-forms.
\end{defi}
\begin{defi}\label{2.6}
The Ricci tensor of $M$ is of Codazzi type \cite{F81, S81} (resp., cyclic parallel \cite{ Gray78, SB08, SJ06, SS06, SS07}) if
	$$(\nabla_{\zeta_1}S)(\zeta_3,\zeta_2)=(\nabla_{\zeta_2}S)(\zeta_3,\zeta_1)$$
	$$(resp., \mathop{\mathcal{S}}_{\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3}(\nabla _{\zeta_1} S)(\zeta_2,\zeta_3)=0)$$
	holds on $M$,
\end{defi}
\indent We mention that the Ricci tensor of the  $(t-z)$-type plane wave metric is of Codazzi type \cite{EC21} and the Ricci tensor is cyclic parallel in G\"odel spacetime \cite{DHJKS14}.
\begin{defi}\label{defi2.7}$($\cite{DD91, DGJPZ13, MM12a, MM12b, MM13}$)$
	The Ricci tensor $S$ of $M$ is called  Riemann compatible if the relation   $$\mathop{\mathcal{S}}_{\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3}R(\mathscr J  \zeta_1,X,\zeta_2,\zeta_3)=0$$ holds.
\end{defi}
\indent This notion of compatibility can be extended to the curvatures $C$, $P$, $W$ and $K$ to define the corresponding curvatures compatibility.
\begin{defi}$($\cite{P95, Venz85}$)$
	Let $D$ be a symmetric $(0,4)$-type tensor of $M$. If the $1$-forms $\Theta$ satisfying the relation
	\beb
	\mathop{\mathcal{S}}_{\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3}\Theta(\zeta_1)\otimes D(\zeta_2,\zeta_3,X,Y)=0
	\eeb
	generates a $k$-dimensional vector space, $k \ge 1$, then $M$ is a $D$-space by Venzi.
	\end{defi}
\section{\bf Geometric properties admitted by Bardeen black hole metric}
The components of metric \eqref{BM} are

$$\begin{array}{c}g_{11}=-\left(1-\frac{2M\rho^2}{\rho^3_1}\right),\; g_{22}= \left((1-\frac{2M\rho^2}{\rho^3_1})^{-1}\right),\;  \\ g_{33}=\rho^2, \;g_{44}=\rho^2 \sin^2\theta, \; g_{ij}=0, \;\mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}$$

\index Now, the components of various curvature tensors of Bardeen black hole metric \eqref{BM} are calculated in a straight forward manner. \\
\index The non-zero components of second kind Christoffel symbols $\Gamma^h_{ij}$ of $g$ are given by :
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
\Gamma^2_{11}=-\frac{M\rho (\rho^2_1-3e^2) (2M\rho^2- \rho^3_1)}{\rho^8}; \ \
\Gamma^1_{12} = \frac{M\rho (\rho^2_1-3e^2)}{\rho^2_1(-2M\rho^2+{\rho^3_1})}=-\Gamma^2_{22} ; \\
\Gamma^3_{23} = \frac{1}{\rho}=\Gamma^4_{24};  \\
\Gamma^2_{33}=-\rho+\frac{2M\rho^3}{\rho^3_1}; \\
\Gamma^4_{34}=\cot\theta; \\
\Gamma^2_{44}=\rho[-1+\frac{2M\rho^2}{\rho^3_1}]\sin^2\theta; \\
 \Gamma^3_{44}=-\cos\theta \sin\theta.
 \end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\indent The non-zero components $R_{hijk}$ and $S_{ij}$ of $R$ and $S$ of the Bardeen metric \eqref{BM} along with its scalar curvature $k$ are :
\begin{eqnarray}\label{RRS}
\begin{cases}
R_{1212}=\frac{M(15\rho^2e^2-2\rho^4_1)}{\rho^7_1}, \
R_{1313}=\frac{M\rho^2 (\rho^2_1-3e^2)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}{\rho^8_1}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}R_{1414}, \\

R_{2323}=-\frac{M\rho^2(\rho^2_1-3e^2)}{\rho^2_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}R_{2424}, \\

R_{3434}=\frac{2M\rho^4 \sin^2\theta}{\rho^3_1};  \\
S_{11}=\frac{3Me^2(2\rho^2_1-3e^2)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}{\rho^{10}_1},  \
S_{22}=\frac{3e^2M(5\rho^2-2\rho^2_1)}{\rho^4_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)},  \\
S_{33}=-\frac{6Me^2\rho^2}{\rho^5_1}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}S_{44}; \

 \text{and}  \
k=\frac{6Me^2(5\rho^2-4\rho^2_1)}{\rho^7_1}.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\indent Let $L^1=(g\wedge g)$, $L^2=(g\wedge S)$ and $L^3=(S\wedge S)$. Then the non-zero components of these Kulkarni-Nomizu products are written as:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{KNP}
\begin{cases}
L^1_{1212}=2,\ L^1_{1313}=2(\rho^2-\frac{2M\rho^4}{\rho^3_1})=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}L^1_{1414}, \\
L^1_{2323}=\frac{2\rho^2 \rho^3_1}{2M\rho^2-\rho^3_1}=-\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}L^1_{2424}, \
L^1_{3434}= -2\rho^2 \sin^2\theta;\\ \\
L^2_{1212}=\frac{6Me^2(5\rho^2-2\rho^2_1)}{\rho^7_1}, \
L^2_{1313}=-\frac{3Me^2\rho^2(4\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}{\rho^{10}_1}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}L^2_{1414}, \\
L^2_{2323}=\frac{3Me^2\rho^2(4\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{\rho^4_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}L^2_{2424}, \
L^2_{3434}=\frac{12Me^2\rho^4\sin^2\theta}{\rho^5_1}; \\ \\
L^3_{1212}=\frac{18M^2e^4(2\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)^2}{\rho^{14}_1}, \

L^3_{1313}=\frac{36M^2e^4\rho^2(2\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}{\rho^{15}_1}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}L^3_{1414}, \\

L^3_{2323}=-\frac{36M^2e^4\rho^2(2\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{\rho^9_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}L^3_{2424}, \

L^3_{3434}=-\frac{72M^2e^4\rho^4\sin^2\theta}{\rho^{10}_1}.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
From \eqref{KNP} we can decompose Riemann tensor explicitly as follows:
\bea\label{RT}
R=\varrho_1 L^1 + \varrho_2 L^2 + \varrho_3 L^3
\eea
where $\varrho_1=\frac{M(18\rho^2_1-25\rho^2)}{25\rho^2 \rho^3_1}$, $\varrho_2=\frac{\rho^2_1(6\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{25e^2\rho^2}$ and $\varrho_3=\frac{(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)\rho^7_1}{150Me^4\rho^2}$. Contracting the relation \eqref{RT} the following relation is entailed:
\bea\label{Ein2}
S^2+ \beta S + \bar{\beta} g=0
\eea
where $\beta=\frac{3Me^2(4\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{\rho^7_1}$ and $\bar{\beta}=\frac{18M^2e^4(2\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{\rho^{12}_1}$.
\begin{pr}\label{pr1}
	The Bardeen metric \eqref{BM} is not Einstein manifold but it is (i) Einstein manifold of level $2$ as well as (ii) fulfills Roter type condition.
\end{pr}
\begin{cor}\label{cr1}
	Since the Bardeen metric is Roter type, from Theorem $6.7$ of \cite{DGHS11} we obtain the following geometric structures of it:
	\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
		\item $R\cdot R= \varrho_R Q(g,R)$,\ \ $\varrho_R=\frac{1}{2\varrho_2^3}(2((\varrho_2)^2-4\varrho_3\varrho_1)-2\varrho_1)=-\frac{M(2\rho^2_1-3\rho^2)^{5/2}}{\rho^2_1},$

		\item $R\cdot C=\varrho_R Q(g,C)$,

		\item $C\cdot R=\varrho_C Q(g,R)$, \ \ $\varrho_C=\varrho_R - (\frac{\kappa}{3}+\frac{\varrho_2}{2\varrho_3})+\frac{1}{4\varrho_3}=-\frac{M\rho^2(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{2\rho^7_1}$,

		\item $C\cdot C=\varrho_CQ(g,C)$,

		\item $R\cdot R=Q(S,R)+\varrho Q(g,C)$, \ \ $\varrho=\varrho_R+\frac{\varrho_2}{2\varrho_3}=\frac{2M(6\rho^2_1-7\rho^2)}{(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)\rho^3_1}$.
	\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
The conformal curvature components of the metric \eqref{BM} are:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{CC}
\begin{cases}
C_{1212}=\frac{M\rho^2(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{\rho^7_1}=-\frac{1}{\rho^4 \sin^2\theta} C_{3434}; \\
C_{1313}=-\frac{M\rho^4(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}{2\rho^5_1}=\frac{1}{ \sin^2\theta} C_{1414}; \\

C_{2323}= \frac{M\rho^4(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{2\rho^4_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=\frac{1}{ \sin^2\theta} C_{2424}; \\

\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
Let $N^1_{abcd,f}=\nabla_fR_{abcd}$ and $N^2_{abcd,f}=\nabla_fC_{abcd}$. Then the non-vanishing components of the covariant derivatives of $R$ and $C$ are calculated and presented as below:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{CovR}
\begin{cases}
N^1_{1212,2}=\frac{3M\rho(12e^4-21e^2\rho^2+2\rho^5)}{\rho^9_1}; \\
N^1_{1213,3}=-\frac{3M\rho^3 (5\rho^2-4\rho^2_1)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}{\rho^5_1}=-N^1_{1313,2}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}N^1_{1214,4}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}N^1_{1414,2}; \\

N^1_{2323,2}=\frac{3M\rho^3(5\rho^2-4\rho^2_1)}{\rho^4_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}N^1_{2424,2}; \\

N^1_{2334,4}=\frac{3M\rho^5\sin^2\theta}{\rho^5_1}= -N^1_{2434,3}=-2N^1_{3434,2}; \\

\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{eqnarray}\label{CovC}
\begin{cases}
N^2_{1212,2}= \frac{\rho M(6e^4-23e^2\rho^2+6\rho^5)}{\rho^9_1}=-\frac{1}{\rho^4 \sin^2\theta} N^2_{3434,2}; \\
N^2_{1213,3}= \frac{3M\rho^3(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}{2\rho^5_1}=\frac{1}{ \sin^2\theta} N^2_{1214,4}; \\

N^2_{1313,2}= -\frac{M\rho^3(6e^4-23e^2\rho^2+6\rho^4)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}{2\rho^6_1}=-\frac{1}{ \sin^2\theta} N^2_{1414,2}; \\

N^2_{2323,2}=\frac{M\rho^3(6e^4-23e^2\rho^2+6\rho^4)}{2\rho^6_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=\frac{1}{ \sin^2\theta} N^2_{2424,2}; \\
N^2_{2334,4}=-\frac{3M\rho^5(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)\sin^2\theta}{2\rho^7_1}=-N^2_{2434,3}; \\

\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
From \eqref{KNP}, \eqref{CovR} and \eqref{CovC} we get the following:
\begin{pr}\label{pr2}
	The Bardeen metric \eqref{BM} admits the following geometric structures:
	\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
	\item $\nabla R=\Pi\otimes R + A\otimes (S\wedge S)$ where $\Pi=\left\lbrace 0, \frac{6\rho(8M-5\rho_1)}{5(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)},0,0\right\rbrace $ and \\  $A=\left\lbrace 0, -\frac{\rho(29e^4+e^2(53\rho^2-8M\rho_1)+24(\rho^2-2M\rho_1 \rho^2))}{30M(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)},0, 0 \right\rbrace $	,

	\item $\nabla R=A\otimes (g\wedge S)$ where $A=\left\lbrace 0,\frac{2\rho(8M-5 \rho_1)}{5(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)},0,0  \right\rbrace $,\\

	\item \[\mathop{\mathcal{S}}_{\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3}\nabla_{\zeta_1}C(\zeta_2,\zeta_3,X,Y)=\mathop{\mathcal{S}}_{\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3}A(\zeta_1)\otimes C(\zeta_2,\zeta_3,X,Y)\] $$\text{where} \ \ A=\left\lbrace 0, \frac{5e^2(3\rho^2_1-7\rho^2)}{\rho \rho^2_1(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)},0,0 \right\rbrace .$$
	\end{enumerate}
\end{pr}

Let $B^1=R\cdot C$, $B^2=C\cdot R$, $F^1=Q(g,R)$, $F^2=Q(S,R)$, $F^3=Q(g,C)$ and $F^4=Q(S,C)$. Then, the non-vanishing components of the tensors $B^1$, $B^2$, $F^1$, $F^2$, $F^3$ and $F^4$ are given by (upto symmetry):
\begin{eqnarray}\label{RC}
\begin{cases}
B^1_{122313}=-\frac{3M^2\rho^4}{2\rho^{12}_1}(2\rho^2_1-3\rho^2)(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}B^1_{122414}=-B^1_{121323}=-\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}B^1_{121424},\\
B^1_{143413}=-\frac{3M^2\rho^6}{2\rho^{15}_1}(2\rho^2_1-3\rho^2)(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^2_1)\sin^2\theta=-B^1_{133414},\\
B^1_{243423}=\frac{3M^2\rho^6(2\rho^2_1-3\rho^2)(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)\sin^2\theta}{2\rho^9_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=-B^1_{233424};
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{CR}
\begin{cases}
B^2_{1223,13}=  \frac{3M^2\rho^6(-4\rho^2_1+5\rho^2)(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{2\rho^{14}_1}=-B^2_{1213,23}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}B^2_{1224,14}=-\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}B^2_{1214,24}, \\

B^2_{1434,13}= \frac{3M^2\rho^8}{2\rho^{15}_1}(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)(-2Mr^2+\rho^3_1)=-B^2_{1334,14}, \\

B^2_{2434,23}=-\frac{3M^2\rho^8(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{2\rho^9_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=-B^2_{2334,24};
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{qgR}
\begin{cases}
F^1_{1223,13}= -\frac{3M\rho^4}{\rho^7_1}(-4\rho^2_1+5\rho^2)=-\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}F^1_{1214,24}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}F^1_{1224,14}=-F^1_{1213,23}, \\
F^1_{1434,13}= \frac{3M\rho^6}{\rho^4_1}(2M\rho^2-\rho^3_1)\sin^2\theta=-F^1_{1334,14}, \\

F^1_{2434,23}= \frac{3M\rho^6 \sin^2\theta}{\rho^2_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=-F^1_{2334,24};
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{qSR}
\begin{cases}
F^2_{1223,13}=\frac{3M^2e^2\rho^4}{\rho^{12}_1}(14\rho^2_1+13\rho^2)=-F^2_{1213,23}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}F^2_{1224,14}=-\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}F^2_{1214,24}, \\

F^2_{1434,13}= -\frac{12M^2e^2\rho^6}{\rho^{13}_1}(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)\sin^2\theta=-F^2_{1334,14}, \\

F^2_{2434,23}= \frac{12M^2e^2\rho^6\sin^2\theta}{\rho^7_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=-F^2_{2334,24};
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{qgC}
\begin{cases}
F^3_{1223,13}=\frac{3M\rho^4}{2\rho^7_1}(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)=-F^3_{1213,23}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}F^3_{1224,14}=-\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}F^3_{1214,24}, \\

F^3_{1434,13}= \frac{3M\rho^6}{2\rho^{10}_1}(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)\sin^2\theta=-F^3_{1334,14}, \\

F^3_{2434,23}=- \frac{3M\rho^6(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)\sin^2\theta}{2\rho^4_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=-F^3_{2334,24};
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{qSC}
\begin{cases}
F^4_{1223,13}=\frac{3M^2e^2\rho^4}{2\rho^{14}_1}(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)(6\rho^2_1-7\rho^2)=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta} F^4_{1224,14}=-F^4_{1213,23}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta} F^4_{1214,24}, \\
F^4_{1434,13}=-\frac{3M^2e^2\rho^6}{\rho^{17}_1}(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)^2(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)\sin^2\theta=-F^4_{1334,14}, \\

F^4_{2434,23}=\frac{3M^2e^2\rho^6(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{\rho^{11}_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=F^4_{2334,24}.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{pr}\label{pr3}
From \eqref{RC}-- \eqref{qSC} we obtain the following pseudosymmetric type curvature relations for the metric \eqref{BM}:
\bea
C\cdot R -R\cdot C=\bar{\varrho}_2\ Q(S,R) + \bar{\varrho}_1\ Q(g,R)
\eea
where $\bar{\varrho}_1=-\frac{M(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)(\rho^2(6\rho^2_1-7\rho^2)-(2\rho^2_1-3\rho^2)^2)}{2(6\rho^2_1-7\rho^2)\rho^7_1}$ \ \ $\bar{\varrho}_2=1-\frac{3}{14}e^2(\frac{12}{6\rho^2_1-7\rho^2}+\frac{5}{\rho^2_1})$
\bea
\text{and} \ \ \ \ \ C\cdot R -R\cdot C=Q(S,C) + \bar{\varrho}_3\ Q(g,C)
\eea
where $\bar{\varrho}_3=\frac{2M(4\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)e^2}{\rho^7_1}$.
\end{pr}

\indent Let $B^3=W\cdot R$ and $B^4=K\cdot R$. Then the non-zero components of the tensors $W \cdot R$ and $K\cdot R$ are given by :
\begin{eqnarray}\label{WR}
\begin{cases}
B^3_{1223,13}=\frac{3M^2\rho^6}{2\rho^{14}_1}(-4\rho^2_1+5\rho^2)(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)=-B^3_{1213,23}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta} B^3_{1224,14}=-\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta} B^3_{1214,24}, \\
B^3_{1434,13}=\frac{3M^2\rho^8}{2\rho^{15}_1}(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)\sin^2\theta=-B^3_{1334,14},\\

B^3_{2434,23}=-\frac{3M^2\rho^8(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)\sin^2\theta}{2\rho^9_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=-B^3_{2334,24};
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{KR}
\begin{cases}
B^4_{1223,13}=-\frac{3M^2\rho^4}{2\rho^{14}_1}(-4\rho^2_1+5\rho^2)(8e^4-5e^2\rho^2+2\rho^4)=-B^4_{1213,23}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta} B^4_{1224,14}=-\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta} B^4_{1214,24}, \\
B^4_{1434,13}=-\frac{3M^2\rho^6}{2\rho^{15}_1}(8e^4-5e^2\rho^2+2\rho^4)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)\sin^2\theta=-B^4_{1334,14},\\

B^4_{2434,23}=\frac{3M^2\rho^6(8e^4-5e^2\rho^2+2\rho^4)\sin^2\theta}{2\rho^9_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=-B^4_{2334,24};
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
From \eqref{qgR}, \eqref{WR} and \eqref{KR} we get the following:
\begin{pr}\label{pr4}
	The Bardeen metric \eqref{BM} fulfills the curvature conditions
	$$W\cdot R=-\frac{M\rho^2(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{2\rho^7_1}Q(g,R)$$ and
	$$K\cdot R=\frac{M(8e^4-5e^2\rho^2+2\rho^4)}{2\rho^7_1}Q(g,R).$$

\end{pr}
From propositions \ref{pr1}--\ref{pr4} and  from corollary \ref{cr1} we can conclude about the curvature properties of the Bardeen spacetime metric \eqref{BM} as follows:
\begin{thm}
	The Bardeen metric \eqref{BM} admits the following curvature restricted geometric structures:
	\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
	\item It is a pseudosymmetric spacetime and as a result it realizes Ricci pseudosymmetry, conformal pseudosymmetry, concircular pseudosymmetry, conharmonic pseudosymmetry and projective pseudosymmetry,

	\item it is also pseudosymmetric due to conformal curvature, concircular curvature and conharmonic curvature,

	\item the difference tensor $C\cdot R - R\cdot C$ is linearly dependent with the tensors $Q(g,R)$ and $Q(S,R)$ as well as it is also linearly dependent with the tensors $Q(g,C)$ and $Q(S,C)$,

	\item the pseudosymmetric type condition $$R\cdot R- Q(S,R)=\varrho\ Q(S,C)$$ is possessed by this spacetime and it is also equipped with pseudosymmetric Weyl tensor,
	where $\varrho$ is a smooth scalar function given in corollary \ref{cr1},

	\item it is a weakly generalized recurrent manifold satisfying special recurrent like structure $\nabla R=A\otimes (g\wedge S)$,

	\item its conformal $2$ forms are recurrent,

	\item it is a Roter type spacetime and is an Einstein manifold of level $2$,

	\item Ricci tensor is Weyl compatible as well as Riemann compatible.
	\end{enumerate}

\end{thm}

\begin{rem}
	From the components of various curvatures we conclude that the following geometric structures are not admitted by the Bardeen metric \eqref{BM}:
		\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
	\item any semisymmetric type conditions for $C, P, W, K, S$,
	\item Ricci generalized pseudosymmetry,
	\item $D$-Venzi space for $E=C, R, P,W, K,$
	\item Einstein or quasi-Einstein condition,
	\item curvature $2$-forms recurrence,
	\item Codazzi type Ricci tensor or cyclic parallel Ricci tensor,
	\item Chaki pseudosymmetry,
	\item Weak symmetry.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}

\section{\bf Energy momentum tensor of Bardeen black hole metric}

\indent In general theory of relativity, Einstein describes the physics of a spacetime in terms of geometry  by the system of equations
$$S-\frac{k}{2}g+\Lambda g= \frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T$$
where $k$ is the scalar curvature, $S$ the Ricci curvature and $T$ the Energy momentum tensor of the spacetime. Also $\Lambda$ represents the cosmological constant, $G$ is the gravitational constant, $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum.

\indent Taking $\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}=1$ the components of Energy momentum tensor are given by:
$$\begin{array}{c}
 T_{11}=-\frac{(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)(6Me^2+\rho^5_1\Lambda)}{\rho^8_1}, \\
 T_{22}=\frac{6Me^2+\rho^5_1\Lambda}{\rho^2_1 (-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}, \\
 T_{33}=\frac{\rho^2(3Me^2(2\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)+\rho^7_1\Lambda)}{\rho^7_1}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}T_{44}.
\end{array}$$

\indent The non-zero components of the tensor $R \cdot T$ are
$$\begin{array}{c}
(R \cdot T)_{1313}=\frac{15M^2e^2\rho^4}{8\rho^{15}_1}(-2\rho^2_1+3\rho^2)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)=\frac{1}{sin^2\theta}(R \cdot T)_{1414}, \\

(R \cdot T)_{2323}=-\frac{15M^2e^2\rho^4(-2\rho^2_1+3\rho^2)}{8\rho^9_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=\frac{1}{sin^2\theta}(R \cdot T)_{2424}, \\

\end{array}$$
\indent The non-zero components of the tensor $Q(g,T)$ are
$$\begin{array}{c}
 Q(g,T)_{1313}=\frac{15Me^2\rho^4}{8\rho^{10}_1}(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}Q(g,T)_{1414}, \\

 Q(g,T)_{2323}=-\frac{15Me^2\rho^4}{8\rho^4_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}Q(g,T)_{2424}, \\

\end{array}$$
\indent Also the non-zero components of the tensor $C\cdot T$ are
$$\begin{array}{c}
(C\cdot T)_{1313}=-\frac{15Me^2\rho^6(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}{2\rho^{17}_1}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}(C\cdot T)_{1414}, \\
(C\cdot T)_{2323}=-\frac{15Me^2\rho^6(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{2\rho^{11}_1(-2M\rho^2+\rho^3_1)}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}(C\cdot T)_{2424}, \\

\end{array}$$
 We can state the following, in view the above components:
\begin{thm}
	  The Bardeen spacetime \eqref{BM} has the energy momentum tensor concurring the following properties:
	\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
	\item $R\cdot T=-\frac{M(2\rho^2_1-3\rho^2)}{\rho^5_1}Q(g,T)$ i.e., the energy momentum tensor is pseudosymmetric,

	\item $C\cdot T=-\frac{M\rho^2(3\rho^2_1-5\rho^2)}{2\rho^7_1}Q(g,T)$ i.e., the energy momentum tensor is pseudosymmetric due to Weyl tensor,

	\item the energy momentum tensor is Riemann compatible as well as Weyl compatible.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\section{\bf Bardeen black hole metric and Reissner-Nordstr\"om metric}
\indent Reissner-Nordstr\"om metric \cite{Kowa06} is a stationary solution of Einstein-Maxwell field equations with zero cosmological constant. Physically, it represents
the exterior gravitational field of a charged black hole. In spherical coordinates $(t,r,\theta, \phi)$, the Reissner-Nordstr\"om metric is given by \
\begin{eqnarray}\label{VBM}
ds^2=g_{ij}dx^idx^j=-\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{q^2}{r^2}\right)dt^2-2dtdr+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2),
\end{eqnarray}
where $t$ is the time coordinate, $r$ is the radial coordinate, the parameters $m$ is the mass of the body and $q$ is the charge of the body. We note that Bardeen spacetime is also a model of a charged black hole. Unlike Reissner-Nordstr\"om metric it does not bear curvature singularity. Hence we compare their curvature properties as this comparison compare a charge black hole with curvature singularity with curvature singularity free black hole, the Bardeen black hole.
\textbf{Similarities:}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
	\item both the black holes are Roter type ,

	\item both spacetimes describe  $Ein(2)$ manifolds,

	\item both the black holes are pseudosymmetric,

	\item conformal curvature $2$-forms are recurrent for both,

	\item both the spacetimes have Riemann compatible and Weyl compatible Ricci tensor.

\end{enumerate}
However, they have the following dissimilar properties:\\
\textbf{Dissimilarities:}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item scalar curvature of  Reissner-Nordstr\"om spacetime vanishes while it doesn't for the Bardeen spacetime,
\item the Bardeen spacetime comes out with a weakly generalized recurrent manifold while  Reissner-Nordstr\"om spacetime doesn't,
\item also the Bardeen spacetime admits special recurrent like structure $\nabla R=A\otimes (g\wedge S)$ ($A$ being some $1$-form) but  Reissner-Nordstr\"om spacetime does not admit such recurrence.

\end{enumerate}

\section{Acknowledgment}
The third author greatly acknowledges to The University Grants Commission, Government of India for the award of Junior Research Fellow. All the algebraic computations of Section $3$ and $4$ are performed by a program in Wolfram Mathematica.


\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Statement}
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ ($d\ge 2$) be an open bounded and connected subset with a
$ C^{2}$ boundary $\partial \Omega$. We define an elliptic operator $\mathcal{A}$  on the domain $\Omega$ by
\begin{equation}\label{A}
\mathcal{A} u(x) :=-\sum_{i,j=1}^d \partial_{x_i} \left( a_{i,j}(x) \partial_{x_j} u(x) \right)+q(x)u(x),\quad  x\in\Omega,
\end{equation}
where the potential $q \in L^\infty(\Omega)$ is nonnegative,
and the diffusion coefficient matrix $a:=(a_{i,j})_{1 \leq i,j \leq d} \in C^{1}
(\overline{\Omega};\mathbb{R}^{d\times d})$ is symmetric, i.e., $a_{i,j}(x)=a_{j,i}(x)$, for
any $ x \in \overline{\Omega}$, $i,j = 1,\ldots,d,$ and fulfills the following ellipticity condition
\begin{equation}\label{ell}
\exists c>0 :\,  \sum_{i,j=1}^d a_{i,j}(x) \xi_i \xi_j \geq c |\xi|^2,\quad  x \in \overline{\Omega},\ \xi=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_d) \in \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
Let the weight function $\rho\in L^\infty(\Omega)$ satisfy the condition
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:rho}
 0<c_0 \leq\rho(x) \leq C_0 <+\infty\quad\mbox{in } \Omega,
\end{equation}
with $c_0,C_0$ two positive constants. From now on and in all the remaining parts of this article we set $\mathbb{R}_+:=(0,+\infty)$ and $\mathbb N:=\{1,2,\ldots\}$. We introduce the Riemann-Liouville integral operator $I^\beta$ and the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative  $D_t^\beta$, of order $\beta\in(0,1)$,  as follows
\[
I^\beta h(\cdot,t):=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\beta)}\int_0^t\frac{h(\cdot,\tau)}{(t-\tau)^{1-\beta}}\,d\tau,\quad D_t^\beta:=
\partial_t\circ I^{1-\beta}.
\]
We define also the Caputo fractional derivative  $\partial_t^\beta$, of order $\beta\in(0,1)$, by
$$\partial_t^\beta h=D_t^\beta (h-h(\cdot,0)),\quad h\in  C([0,+\infty);L^2(\Omega)).$$
We recall also that, for all $\beta\in(0,1)$, we have
$$\partial_t^\beta h:=I^{1-\beta}\partial_th,\quad h\in W^{1,1}_{loc}(\mathbb R_+;L^2(\Omega)).$$
Fixing $F\in L^1(\mathbb{R}_+;L^2(\Omega))$ and $\alpha \in (0, 1)$,
we consider weak solutions (in the sense of Definition \ref{d1}) $u$ of the following initial boundary value problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\begin{cases}
\rho\partial_t^{\alpha}u +\mathcal{A} u =  F(x,t), & \mbox{in }\Omega\times\mathbb{R}_+,\\
 u= 0, & \mbox{on } \partial\Omega\times\mathbb{R}_+, \\
u=0, & \mbox{in } \Omega\times \{0\}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

With reference to \cite{K1,KY1}, one can check that \eqref{eq1} admits a unique weak solution lying in $L^1_{loc}(\mathbb{R}_+;H^s(\Omega))$, $1\leq s<2$.   Fixing $T\in\mathbb{R}_+$, in the present article,  we assume that the source term $F$ satisfies the following condition
\begin{equation} \label{source1} F(x,t)=\sigma(t)f(x),\quad t\in (0,T),\ x\in \Omega,\end{equation}
with $\sigma\in L^1(0,T)$ and $f\in L^2(\Omega)$. We denote by $\partial _{\nu_a}$  the conormal derivative associated with the coefficient $a$ of $\partial \Omega$ defined by
$$\partial _{\nu_a}v(x)=\sum_{j=1}^da_{ij}(x)\partial_{x_j}v(x)\nu_i(x),\quad x\in\partial \Omega,$$
where $\nu=(\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_d)$ denotes the outward unit normal vector of $\partial \Omega$. We  assume that there exists $\delta\in(0,T)$ such that the time dependent part $\sigma$ of the source term in \eqref{eq1} satisfies the following condition
\begin{equation} \label{source} \sigma(t)=0,\quad t\in (T-\delta,T).\end{equation}
Then, we consider three inverse problems:\\
(IP1)  Assuming that $\sigma$ is known and $\sigma\not\equiv0$, determine  $f$ from knowledge of  $\partial_{\nu_a} u(x,t)$, $(x,t)\in\Gamma\times(T-\epsilon,T)$ with $\Gamma$ an arbitrary open subset of $\partial\Omega$ and with $\epsilon\in(0,T)$ arbitrary small.\\
(IP2) Determine the space time dependent function $\sigma(t)f(x)$, $t\in(0,T)$ and $x\in\Omega$,  from knowledge of  $\partial_{\nu_a} u(x,t)$, $(x,t)\in\Gamma\times(T-\epsilon,T)$ with $\Gamma$ an arbitrary open subset of $\partial\Omega$ and with $\epsilon\in(0,T)$ arbitrary small.\\
(IP3) Assuming that $f$ is known and $f\not\equiv0$, determine $\sigma$ from the knowledge of $\partial_{\nu_a} u(x_0,t)$, $t\in(T-\epsilon,T)$ for some $x_0\in \partial \Omega$  and for $\epsilon\in(0,T)$ arbitrary small.\\

\subsection{Motivations}
We recall that systems of the form \eqref{eq1} model anomalous diffusion phenomena appearing  in applied sciences. This includes models of geophysics, environmental science and biology \cite{JR,NSY}. For such models, sub-diffusive  processes are described by \eqref{eq1}  and the kinetic equation \eqref{eq1} describes the corresponding macroscopic model to microscopic diffusion phenomena driven by continuous time random walk \cite{MK}.

In this context, the goal of the inverse problems (IP1)-(IP3) is to determine a source of anomalous diffusion from \textit{a posteriori} measurement. This class of problems may appear in several  practical situations such as environmental accident where the data are often  available only after the occurrence of such accident. We study this problem by exploiting the memory effect of solutions of \eqref{eq1}.

\subsection{Known results}

We recall that among the different formulations of inverse  problems, inverse source problems for time fractional diffusion equations  have received a lot of attention these last decades. The interested reader can refer to \cite{JR,LLY2} for an overview of this class of problems. Most of the results for this class of inverse problems are uniqueness results stated for source terms with separated variables of the form $F(x,t)=\sigma(t)f(x)$, $x\in\Omega$, $t\in(0,T)$. For this class of source terms, one can refer to  \cite{FK,LRY,LZ} for the determination of the time dependent component $\sigma(t)$ from measurement at one point and to \cite{JLLY,KSXY} for the determination of the space dependent component $f(x)$ from internal data. We refer also to \cite{KST} for the stable recovery of the space dependent component $f(x)$ in this class of problems. We can also mention the work of \cite{JKZ,KY2} dealing with the determination of a source term independent of one space direction in a cylindrical domain and the work of \cite{JK} who have considered the determination of a general space-time source term from the full knowledge of the solution close to the final time.

Most of the above mentioned results are stated with measurement throughout the full interval of time $(0,T)$. We are only aware of the three results \cite{JK,K2,KLY} considering measurement during an interval of time of the form $(T-\epsilon,T)$ with  $\epsilon\in(0,T)$ arbitrary small. In all these three works the authors use the memory effect of time-fractional diffusion equations exhibited by \cite[Theorem 1]{JK} which can not be applied in the context of the inverse problems (IP1)-(IP3).

\subsection{Main results}

Our main results will be devoted to the study of each of the inverse problems (IP1)-(IP3).

For (IP1) we obtain the following result.

\begin{theorem}\label{t1} Let $\sigma\in L^1(0,T)$, $f\in L^2(\Omega)$ with $\sigma\not\equiv0$ satisfying \eqref{source}. Consider also  $F\in L^1(\mathbb{R}_+;L^2(\Omega))$ satisfying \eqref{source1} and let $\Gamma$ be an open and not empty subset of $\partial\Omega$. Then for any $\epsilon\in(0,T)$ the following implication
\begin{equation}\label{t1b}\partial_{\nu_a}u_{|\Gamma\times (T-\epsilon,T)}\equiv0\Longrightarrow f\equiv0\end{equation}
holds true.
\end{theorem}

As a consequence of Theorem \ref{t1}, we obtain the following result for (IP2).

\begin{theorem}\label{t3} Let $\alpha$ be irrational and let  $\sigma_j\in L^1(0,T)$, $f_j\in L^2(\Omega)$, $j=1,2$. Assume also that condition \eqref{source} is fulfilled with $\sigma=\sigma_j$, $j=1,2$. For $j=1,2$, consider $F_j\in L^1(\mathbb{R}_+;L^2(\Omega))$, $j=1,2$, satisfying \eqref{source1} with $\sigma=\sigma_j$ and $f=f_j$, and let $u_j$ be the
weak solution of \eqref{eq1} corresponding to the source term $F=F_j$.
 Let also $\Gamma$ be an open and not empty subset of $\partial\Omega$. Then for any $\epsilon\in(0,T)$ the following implication
\begin{equation}\label{t3a}\partial_{\nu_a}u_{1}|_{\Gamma\times (T-\epsilon,T)}\equiv
\partial_{\nu_a}u_{2}|_{\Gamma\times (T-\epsilon,T)} \Longrightarrow F_{1}|_{\Omega\times (0,T)}\equiv F_{2}|_{\Omega\times (0,T)}\end{equation}
holds true.
\end{theorem}

Let us introduce the operator $A=\rho^{-1}\mathcal{A}$ acting on $L^2(\Omega;\rho d x)$ with domain $D(A):=\{h\in H^1_0(\Omega):\ \rho^{-1}\mathcal{A}\in L^2(\Omega;\rho d x)\}$. Here we denote by  $L^2(\Omega;\rho d x)$ the space
 of measurable functions $v$ satisfying
$\int_\Omega |v|^2\rho d x<\infty$ endowed with the inner product
$ \langle u,v\rangle =\int_\Omega uv\rho d x.$
Note that under condition \eqref{eqn:rho}, we have $L^2(\Omega;\rho d x)=L^2(\Omega)$
with equivalent norm, and thus we distinguish only the inner products but not the spaces. With reference to Section 2, we consider, for all $r>0$, $D(A^r)$ and we denote by $\rho D(A^r)$ the space of functions $h$ such that $\rho^{-1}h\in D(A^r)$. Assuming  that $\Omega$ has a $C^{2\lceil\frac{d}{4}\rceil+2}$  boundary, $a \in C^{1+2\lceil\frac{d}{4}\rceil}(\overline{\Omega};\mathbb{R}^{d^2})$, $\rho\in C^{1+2\lceil\frac{d}{4}\rceil}(\overline{\Omega})$ and applying the elliptic regularity of the operator $\rho^{-1}\mathcal{A}$ one can check that $D(A)=H^2(\Omega)\cap H^1_0(\Omega)$. In addition,  from \cite[Theorem 2.5.1.1]{Gr} we deduce  that, for all $\ell=1,\ldots,\lceil\frac{d}{4}\rceil+1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{DH}D(A^\ell)=\{h\in H^{2\ell}(\Omega):\   h,\rho^{-1}\mathcal Ah,\ldots, (\rho^{-1}\mathcal A)^{\ell-1} h\in H^1_0(\Omega)\}.\end{equation}
By interpolation, for all $r>0$, $D(A^r)$ is embedded continuously into  $H^{2r}(\Omega)$. Combining this with the fact that $0$ is not in the spectrum of $A$ and applying the Sobolev embedding theorem, we deduce that for all $f\in \rho D(A^s)$,  with $s>\frac{d-2}{2}$, we have $A^{-k}\rho^{-1}f\in C^1(\overline{\Omega})$, $k\in\mathbb N$, and we can define the set
\begin{equation}\label{set}\mathcal G(f):= \{x\in\partial\Omega:\ \textrm{there exists $k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$ such that } \partial_{\nu_a}A^{-k-2}\rho^{-1} f(x)\neq0\textrm{ and }\alpha(k+1)\not\in \mathbb N\}.\end{equation}
For (IP3) our  result is a uniqueness result which can be stated as follows.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t2} We assume that $\Omega$ has a $C^{2\lceil\frac{d}{4}\rceil+2}$  boundary, $a \in C^{1+2\lceil\frac{d}{4}\rceil}(\overline{\Omega};\mathbb{R}^{d^2})$, $\rho\in C^{1+2\lceil\frac{d}{4}\rceil}(\overline{\Omega})$.
Let  $\sigma\in L^1(0,T)$ satisfy the condition \eqref{source},  $f\in \rho D(A^s)$, with $s>\frac{d-2}{4}$, be a non-identically vanishing function and let $F\in L^1(\mathbb{R}_+;L^2(\Omega))$ satisfy \eqref{source1}. Then the  weak solution $u$ of \eqref{eq1}  is lying in $  L^1(0,T;C^1(\overline{\Omega}))$. Moreover, the set $\mathcal G(f)$, defined by \eqref{set}, is dense on $\partial\Omega$ and  for all  $x_0\in\mathcal G(f)$ and all $\epsilon\in(0,T)$ the implication
\begin{equation}\label{t2b}\left(\forall t\in(T-\epsilon,T),\ \partial_{\nu_a}u(x_0,t)=0\right)\Longrightarrow \sigma\equiv0\end{equation}
holds true. In addition, assuming that there exists $k_1\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$ and $g\in D(A^{k_1+s})$ of constant sign such that
$f=\rho A^{k_1}g$, we have $\mathcal G(f)=\partial\Omega$ and the implication \eqref{t2b} holds true for any $x_0\in\partial\Omega$.
\end{theorem}

Let us observe that the results of Theorem \ref{t1}, \ref{t3} and \ref{t2} are all stated with \textit{a posteriori} boundary measurement restricted to an arbitrary small interval of time of the form $(T-\epsilon,T)$ where $T$ denotes the final time. We are only aware of the two articles \cite{K2,KLY} studying this class of inverse source  problems with such  data. While the results of \cite{KLY} are stated with internal data, in the results of \cite{K2} the measurements are given by $\partial_{\nu_a} u(x,t)$ and $\partial_t^\alpha \partial_{\nu_a} u(x,t)$, $(x,t)\in\Gamma\times(T-\epsilon,T)$ with $\Gamma$ an arbitrary open subset of $\partial\Omega$ and with $\epsilon\in(0,T)$ arbitrary small. In both of these results, the authors apply the memory effect exhibited in \cite[Theorem 1]{JK} in order to determine from these class of data restricted to in interval of time of the form $(T-\epsilon,T)$ similar type of data on the full interval $(0,T)$. When the boundary measurement are only restricted to $\partial_{\nu_a} u(x,t)$, $(x,t)\in\Gamma\times(T-\epsilon,T)$, this approach does not work and a different strategy should be considered for the resolution of this problem. In the present article, we introduce a new strategy based on the study of the singularities of the Laplace transform in time of solutions of \eqref{eq1}, with  $F=0$ on $\Omega\times (T,+\infty)$, in order to analyze the inverse problems (IP1)-(IP3). Our results show that the memory effect of \eqref{eq1} can also be applied to the boundary measurement under consideration in inverse problems (IP1)-(IP3).

Note that in all the results of this article the source terms $F$ of \eqref{eq1} are unknown on $\Omega\times(T,+\infty)$ and we do not try to determine such values. This can be equivalently seen as  the statement of our inverse problems on the set $\Omega\times(0,T)$ instead of $\Omega\times\mathbb{R}_+$.

During the preparation of this article we realized that a result similar to Theorem \ref{t1} has been obtained, simultaneously and independently of this article, in \cite[Theorem 2]{Y} as a consequence of the main results of the same article. Our proof of Theorem \ref{t1} is completely different from the one under consideration in \cite{Y} where the author uses asymptotic properties of solutions while our analysis is mostly based on the study of singularities of Laplace transform in time of solution of \eqref{eq2} which coincides with the solution of \eqref{eq1} with  $F=0$ on $\Omega\times (T,+\infty)$.

Let us mention that, to the best of our knowledge, in Theorem \ref{t3} we obtain the first result of full determination of a general space-time dependent  source term of the form $\sigma(t)f(x)$ from boundary measurement. Indeed, in all the results that we are aware of (see e.g. \cite{JLLY,KLY,KSXY}) some \textit{a priori} knowledge of the time dependent component $\sigma(t)$ or  the space dependent component $f(x)$ of such source terms are required for the determination of this type of source terms. We recall also that there is a natural obstruction for the the determination of general source terms of the form $\sigma(t)f(x)$ for classical diffusion equations corresponding to \eqref{eq1} with $\alpha=1$ (see e.g. \cite[Theorem 7.1.]{KSXY}). In that sense, Theorem \ref{t3} emphasizes the particularity of time-fractional diffusion equations where in contrast to classical diffusion equations such inverse problems can be solved.

Notice that the result of Theorem \ref{t2} is stated with measurement at one point $x_0$ located on the explicit subset $\mathcal G(f)$ of $\partial\Omega$ defined by \eqref{set}. This formulation allows to state the result of Theorem \ref{t2} for general non-uniformly vanishing space dependent part $f(x)$ of
the source term $\sigma(t)f(x)$ while other similar results are often stated with some extra condition imposed to $f$ (see e.g. \cite{FK,LRY,LZ}). In addition, we prove in Theorem \ref{t2} that the set $\mathcal G(f)$ is dense in $\partial\Omega$ which means that the result of Theorem \ref{t2} holds true for at least one point in any arbitrary chosen open set of $\partial\Omega$. We exhibit also in Theorem \ref{t2} a general condition guarantying that $\mathcal G(f)=\partial\Omega$.

All the results of this article can be easily extended to \eqref{eq1} with homogeneous Neumann boundary condition instead of the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition. Moreover, with some minor modifications, our results can also be applied to super-diffusive models given by  \eqref{eq1} with $\alpha\in(1,2)$. Nevertheless, Theorem \ref{t3} is not true for classical diffusion equations  of the \eqref{eq1} with $\alpha=1$ and it is not clear whether
Theorem \ref{t1} and \ref{t2}  hold true  for classical diffusion equations.
\section{Preliminary properties}
In this section we introduce several preliminary properties related to the definition of solutions, the well-posedness and regularity properties for the initial boundary value problem \eqref{eq1}. We start by introducing the definition of weak solutions for problem \eqref{eq1} as follows.
\begin{defn}\label{d1}
We say that
$u\in L_{loc}^1(\mathbb R_+;L^2(\Omega))$ is a weak solution to \eqref{eq1} if it satisfies
the following conditions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm(i)}] The identity $\rho(x)D^\alpha_t u(x,t) -\mathcal A u(x,t) = F(x,t),\  (x,t)\in   \Omega\times\mathbb{R}_+ $
 holds true in the sense of distributions in $\Omega\times\mathbb{R}_+$.
\item[{\rm(ii)}]  $I^{1-\alpha} u\in W_{loc}^{1,1}(\mathbb R_+;H^{-2}(\Omega))$ and $I^{1-\alpha} u(0, x)=0,\quad x\in\Omega$.
\item[{\rm(iii)}] $\tau_0=\inf\{\tau>0:\ e^{-\tau t}u\in L^1(\mathbb R_+;L^2(\Omega))\}<\infty$
and there exists $\tau_1\geq \tau_0$ such that for all $p\in\mathbb C$ satisfying $\mathfrak R\,p>\tau_1$ we have
$$
\hat{u}(\cdot,p):=\int_0^\infty e^{-p t}u(\cdot,t)\,d t\in H^1_0(\Omega).
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}

According to \cite{K1,KY1}, assuming that $F\in L^1(\mathbb{R}_+;L^2(\Omega))$, one can check that problem \eqref{eq1} admits a unique weak solution in the sense of Definition \ref{d1}.

Recall that the spectrum of the operator $A$
consists of an increasing sequence of strictly positive eigenvalues
$(\lambda_{n})_{n\geq1}$.  In the Hilbert space $L^2(\Omega;\rho dx)$, for each eigenvalue $\lambda_n$, we fix also $m_n\in\mathbb N$   the algebraic multiplicity of $\lambda_n$ and the family $\{\varphi_{n,k}\}_{k=1}^{m_n}$ of eigenfunctions of $A$,
which forms an orthonormal basis in $L^2(\Omega;\rho dx)$ of the algebraic eigenspace of $A$ associated with $\lambda_n$. For all $s\geq 0$, we denote by $A^s$ the operator defined by
\[
A^s g=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle g,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle
\lambda_{n}^s\varphi_{n,k},\quad g\in D(A^s)
= \left\{h\in L^2(\Omega):\ \sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\abs{\left\langle g,
\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle}^2 \lambda_{n}^{2s}<\infty
\right\}
\]
and in $D(A^s)$ we introduce the norm
\[\|g\|_{D(A^s)}
= \left(\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\abs{\left\langle g,
\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle}^2 \lambda_{n}^{2s}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},
\quad g\in D(A^s).
\]
With reference to \cite{P}, we introduce the Mittag-Leffler function $E_{\alpha,\beta}(z)$ defined by

\begin{equation*}
  E_{\alpha,\beta}(z) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{z^n}{\Gamma(n\alpha+\beta)},\quad z\in \mathbb{C}
\end{equation*}
and we define the operator
\begin{equation}\label{S1}
S(t)h=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{k=1}^{m_n} t^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha,\alpha}(-\lambda_n t^\alpha)\left\langle h,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\varphi_{n,k},\quad h\in L^2(\Omega),\ t
\in \mathbb{R}_+.
\end{equation}
Let us consider the following initial boundary value problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
\begin{cases}
\rho\partial_t^{\alpha}v +\mathcal{A} v =  \sigma(t)f(x), & \mbox{in }\Omega\times\mathbb{R}_+,\\
 v= 0, & \mbox{on } \partial\Omega\times\mathbb{R}_+, \\
v=0, & \mbox{in } \Omega\times \{0\},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ denotes the extension of the function $\sigma\in L^1(0,T)$ by $0$ into an element of $L^1(\mathbb{R}_+)$.

It is well known  that the weak
solution of problem \eqref{eq2} is given by
$$v(\cdot,t)=\int_0^t\sigma(s)S(t-s)(\rho^{-1}f)ds,\quad t\in\mathbb{R}_+$$
and that $v=u$ on $\Omega\times (0,T)$, where $u$ denotes the solution of \eqref{eq1} with $F\in L^1(\mathbb{R}_+;L^2(\Omega))$ satisfying \eqref{source1}. In addition, following \cite[Proposition 2.2]{JK1}, \cite[Lemma 2.2]{JK2} and \cite[Proposition 2.1.]{KSXY}, one can check the following results

\begin{lemma}\label{l1} Let $f\in L^2(\Omega)$ and $\sigma\in L^1(0,T)$ satisfy \eqref{source}. Then  the problem \eqref{eq2} admits a unique weak solution $v\in L^1_{loc}(\mathbb{R}_+;H^{\frac{7}{4}}(\Omega))$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{l1a} \partial_{\nu_a}v(\cdot,t)|_{\Gamma}=\int_0^t\sigma(s) \partial_{\nu_a} [S(t-s)\rho^{-1}f]|_{\Gamma}ds,\quad t\in\mathbb{R}_+.\end{equation}
Moreover, the map $t\mapsto v(\cdot,t)$ is analytic with respect to $t\in(T-\delta,+\infty)$ as a map taking values in $H^{\frac{7}{4}}(\Omega)$. Finally, fixing $w=\partial_{\nu_a}v|_{\Gamma\times\mathbb{R}_+}$, we have
$$\inf\{p>0:\ e^{-pt}w(\cdot,t)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}_+;L^2(\Gamma))\}=0$$
and for all $p\in\mathbb C_+:=\{z\in\mathbb C:\ \mathfrak R(z)>0\}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{l1b}\partial_{\nu_a}\hat{v}(\cdot,p)|_{\Gamma}=\hat{w}(\cdot,p)=\hat{\sigma}(p)\sum_{n=1}^\infty\sum_{k=1}^{m_n} \frac{\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle}{\lambda_n+p^\alpha}\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}.\end{equation}

\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{l2} Assume that $\Omega$ has a $C^{2\lceil\frac{d}{4}\rceil+2}$  boundary, $a \in C^{1+2\lceil\frac{d}{4}\rceil}(\overline{\Omega};\mathbb{R}^{d^2})$, $\rho\in C^{1+2\lceil\frac{d}{4}\rceil}(\overline{\Omega})$.  Let $f\in \rho D(A^s)$, with $s>\frac{d-2}{4}$ and let $\sigma\in L^1(0,T)$  satisfy \eqref{source}. Then the problem \eqref{eq2} admits a unique weak solution $v\in L^1_{loc}(\mathbb{R}_+;C^1(\overline{\Omega}))$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{l2a} \partial_{\nu_a}v(x,t)=\int_0^t\sigma(s) \partial_{\nu_a} [S(t-s)\rho^{-1}f](x)ds,\quad t\in(0,+\infty),\ x\in\partial\Omega.\end{equation}
 Moreover, the map $t\mapsto v(\cdot,t)$ is analytic with respect to $t\in(T-\delta,+\infty)$ as a map taking values  in $C^1(\overline{\Omega})$. Finally, for any $x_1\in\partial\Omega$  fixing $w_1:=\mathbb{R}_+\ni t\mapsto \partial_{\nu_a} v(x_1,t)$ we have
$$\inf\{p>0:\ e^{-pt}w_1(t)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}_+)\}=0$$
and for all $p\in\mathbb C_+$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{l2b}\hat{w_1}(p):=\hat{\sigma}(p)\sum_{n=1}^\infty\sum_{k=1}^{m_n} \frac{\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}(x_1)}{\lambda_n+p^\alpha}.\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{t1}}

 Let $\epsilon\in(0,T)$ and let $\Gamma$ be an open and not empty subset of $\partial\Omega$. Assume that the solution $u$ of \eqref{eq1} satisfies $\partial_{\nu_a}u_{|\Gamma\times (T-\epsilon,T)}\equiv0$. Then, recalling that the solution $v$ of \eqref{eq2} satisfies $v=u$ on $\Omega\times (0,T)$, we deduce that $\partial_{\nu_a}v_{|\Gamma\times (T-\epsilon,T)}=\partial_{\nu_a}u_{|\Gamma\times (T-\epsilon,T)}\equiv0$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\epsilon=\delta$ with $\delta>0$ appearing in \eqref{source}.  Applying Lemma \ref{l1}, we deduce that $(T-\delta,+\infty)\ni t\mapsto\partial_{\nu_a}v(\cdot,t)_{|\Gamma}$ is an analytic function taking values in $L^2(\Gamma)$. Therefore, fixing $w=\partial_{\nu_a}v_{|\Gamma\times \mathbb{R}_+}$ and applying unique continuation for holomorphic functions, we find
\begin{equation} \label{t1a}w(\cdot,t)=\partial_{\nu_a}v(\cdot,t)_{|\Gamma}\equiv 0,\quad t\in(T-\epsilon,+\infty).\end{equation}
Thus the Laplace transform in time $\hat{w}(\cdot,p)$ of $w$ is holomorphic with respect  to $p\in\mathbb C$ as a function taking values in $L^2(\Gamma)$. On the other hand, applying \eqref{l1b}, we deduce that the following identity
\begin{equation} \label{t1b}\hat{w}(\cdot,p)=\hat{\sigma}(p)\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}{\lambda_n+p^\alpha}\end{equation}
holds true for all $p\in\mathbb C_+$.
In the same way, one can easily check that the map
$$\mathcal K:=p\mapsto \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle}{\lambda_n+p^\alpha}\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}$$
admits an holomorphic extension to $\mathbb C\setminus(-\infty,0] $ as a map taking values in $L^2(\Gamma)$. Here and in all the remaining parts of the article, for any $p\in\mathbb C\setminus(-\infty,0]$ we set $p^\alpha=e^{\alpha \log(p)}$ with $\log$ the complex logarithm defined on  $\mathbb C\setminus(-\infty,0]$. Therefore, the identity \eqref{t1b} holds true for all $p\in\mathbb C\setminus(-\infty,0]$. Now let us fix $R>0$ and consider the identity \eqref{t1b} for $p=Re^{i\theta}$ with $\theta\in(-\pi,\pi)$. Sending $\theta\to\pm\pi$ and using the fact that $\hat{w}(\cdot,p)$ and $\hat{\sigma}(p)$ are holomorphic with respect  to $p\in\mathbb C$, we obtain
$$\hat{w}(\cdot,-R)=\hat{w}(\cdot,Re^{\pm i\pi})=\hat{\sigma}(Re^{\pm i\pi})\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}{\lambda_n+R^\alpha e^{\pm i\alpha\pi}}.$$
Taking the difference of these two expressions, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}&\hat{\sigma}(-R)\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_n+R^\alpha e^{ i\alpha\pi}}-\frac{1}{\lambda_n+R^\alpha e^{ -i\alpha\pi}}\right)\\
&=\hat{w}(\cdot,-R)-\hat{w}(\cdot,-R)\equiv0.\end{aligned}$$
It follows that
$$\begin{aligned}0&\equiv\hat{\sigma}(-R)\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}\right)\left(\frac{R^\alpha (e^{ -i\alpha\pi}- e^{ i\alpha\pi})}{(\lambda_n+R^\alpha e^{ i\alpha\pi})(\lambda_n+R^\alpha e^{ -i\alpha\pi})}\right)\\
&=\hat{\sigma}(-R)\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}\right)\left(\frac{-2iR^\alpha \sin(\alpha\pi)}{(\lambda_n+R^\alpha e^{ i\alpha\pi})(\lambda_n+e^{ -2i\alpha\pi}R^\alpha e^{ i\alpha\pi} )}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Recalling that $\alpha\in(0,1)$, we find $\sin(\alpha\pi)\neq0$ and we deduce that
$$\hat{\sigma}(-R)\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}{(\lambda_n+R^\alpha e^{ i\alpha\pi})(\lambda_n+e^{ -2i\alpha\pi}R^\alpha e^{ i\alpha\pi} )}\right)\equiv 0.$$
In the same way, using the fact that $\hat{\sigma}$ is holomorphic and $\sigma\not\equiv0$, we can find $R_1,R_2\in\mathbb{R}_+$ with $R_1<R_2$ such that $|\hat{\sigma}(-R)|>0$ for $R\in(R_1,R_2)$. Then, it follows that
\begin{equation} \label{t1c}\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}{(\lambda_n+r e^{ i\alpha\pi})(\lambda_n+e^{ -2i\alpha\pi}r e^{ i\alpha\pi} )}\right)\equiv 0,\quad r\in(R_1^\alpha,R_2^\alpha).\end{equation}
Now, let us consider the set $\mathcal O:=\mathbb C\setminus \{-\lambda_n,-e^{ -2i\alpha\pi}\lambda_n:\ n\in\mathbb N\}$ and the
map
$$\mathcal H:\mathcal O\ni z\mapsto \sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}{(\lambda_n+z)(\lambda_n+e^{ -2i\alpha\pi}z )}\right).$$
Since $f\in L^2(\Omega)$, one can easily check that the map $\mathcal H$ is an holomorphic function on $\mathcal O$ as a map taking values in $L^2(\Gamma)$. Combining this with \eqref{t1c} and applying the unique continuation for holomorphic functions, we obtain the following identity
\begin{equation} \label{t1d}\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}{(\lambda_n+z)(\lambda_n+e^{ -2i\alpha\pi}z )}\right)\equiv 0,\quad z\in\mathcal O.\end{equation}
Fixing $n\in\mathbb N$ and multiplying \eqref{t1d} by $(z+\lambda_n)$ and sending $z\to-\lambda_n$, we find
\begin{equation} \label{t1e}\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}\equiv0,\quad n\in\mathbb N.\end{equation}
On the other hand, it is well known that the maps $\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}$, $k=1,\ldots,m_n$ are linearly independent (see e.g. \cite[Lemma 2.1.]{CK} or \cite[Step 4 in the proof of Theorem 1.1]{KSXY} for the proof of an equivalent property) and applying \eqref{t1e}, we find
$$\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle=0,\quad n\in\mathbb N,\ k=1,\ldots,m_n.$$
From this last identity, we deduce that $\rho^{-1}f\equiv0$ and \eqref{eqn:rho} implies that $f\equiv0$. This completes the proof of the theorem.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{t3}}

Let us assume that  \begin{equation} \label{t3b}\partial_{\nu_a}u_{1|\Gamma\times (T-\epsilon,T)}\equiv
\partial_{\nu_a}u_{2|\Gamma\times (T-\epsilon,T)}.\end{equation}  Let $v_j$, $j=1,2,$ be the solutions of
\eqref{eq2} that correspond to the pairs $(f,\sigma)=(f_j,\sigma_j)$, $j=1,2$, respectively and notice that \eqref{t3b} and Lemma \ref{l1} imply that
\begin{equation} \label{t3c}\partial_{\nu_a}v_{1}|_{\Gamma\times (T-\epsilon,+\infty)}\equiv
\partial_{\nu_a}v_{2}|_{\Gamma\times (T-\epsilon,+\infty)}.\end{equation}

Further, let us define $w=\partial_{\nu_a}v_1(\cdot,t)_{|\Gamma} - \partial_{\nu_a}v_2(\cdot,t)_{|\Gamma}$, $t>0$. In view of \eqref{t3c} and condition \eqref{source} with $\sigma=\sigma_j$, $j=1,2$, the Laplace transforms of $w$, $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ are holomorphic in $\mathbb{C}$ and
 the formula
\begin{equation} \label{theorF2}\hat{w}(\cdot,p)=\hat{\sigma_1}(p)\sum_{n=1}^\infty
\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f_1,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}{\lambda_n+p^\alpha}
-\hat{\sigma_2}(p)\sum_{n=1}^\infty
\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f_2,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}{\lambda_n+p^\alpha}\end{equation}
is valid for $p\in\mathbb{C}\setminus (-\infty,0]$.
We fix $R>0$ and we set $p=Re^{i\theta}$ with $\theta\in(-\pi,\pi)$ in \eqref{theorF2}. Sending
$\theta\to\pm\pi$  and taking the difference of expressions obtained, we get
$$\hat{\sigma}_1(-R)\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle
\rho^{-1}f_1,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}
{(\lambda_n+R^\alpha e^{ i\alpha\pi})(\lambda_n+R^\alpha e^{- i\alpha\pi} )}\right)-
\hat{\sigma}_2(-R)\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle
\rho^{-1}f_2,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}
{(\lambda_n+R^\alpha e^{ i\alpha\pi})(\lambda_n+R^\alpha e^{- i\alpha\pi} )}\right)\equiv 0,$$
where $R>0$. Replacing $R^\alpha$ by $r>0$, for all $r\in\mathbb{R}_+$, we have
$$\hat{\sigma}_1(-r^{1\over\alpha})\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle
\rho^{-1}f_1,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}
{(\lambda_n+r e^{ i\alpha\pi})(\lambda_n+r e^{ -i\alpha\pi} )}\right)-
\hat{\sigma}_2(-r^{1\over\alpha})\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle
\rho^{-1}f_2,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}
{(\lambda_n+r e^{ i\alpha\pi})(\lambda_n+r e^{- i\alpha\pi} )}\right)\equiv 0.$$

Let us define the set $\mathcal O_1:=\mathbb C\setminus( \{-e^{ \pm i\alpha\pi}\lambda_n:\ n\in\mathbb N\}\cup (-\infty,0])$ and
the
map
$$\mathcal H_1:\mathcal O_1\ni
 z\mapsto \hat{\sigma}_1(-z^{1\over\alpha})\Psi_1(\cdot,z)+
\hat{\sigma}_2(-z^{1\over\alpha})\Psi_2(\cdot,z),$$
with
$$
\Psi_1(\cdot,z)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f_1,
 \varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}{(\lambda_n+z e^{ i\alpha\pi})(\lambda_n+z e^{- i\alpha\pi} )}\right),$$
$$\Psi_2(\cdot,z)=-\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left(\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f_2,
 \varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}|_{\Gamma}}{(\lambda_n+z e^{ i\alpha\pi})(\lambda_n+z e^{- i\alpha\pi} )}\right).
$$
Then, for all $r>0$, we have $\mathcal H_1(r)=0$. Moreover, in a similar way to Theorem \ref{t1}, one can check
 that the map $\mathcal H_1$ is holomorphic in $\mathcal O_1$. Therefore, by unique continuation of holomorphic functions
  $\mathcal H_1$ vanishes  in $\mathcal O_1$. Now
we set $z=\varrho e^{i\theta}$ in the relation $\mathcal H_1(z)\equiv 0$  and send $\theta$ to $\pm\pi$.
We obtain the following system of equations:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{theorF3}
&&\hat{\sigma}_1(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{i\pi\over\alpha})\Psi_1(\cdot,-\varrho)+
\hat{\sigma}_2(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{i\pi\over\alpha})\Psi_2(\cdot,-\varrho)\equiv 0,
\\ \label{theorF4}
&&\hat{\sigma}_1(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{-{i\pi\over\alpha}})\Psi_1(\cdot,-\varrho)+
\hat{\sigma}_2(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{-i{\pi\over\alpha}})\Psi_2(\cdot,-\varrho)\equiv 0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\varrho>0$. Since the maps $\Psi_j$ are holomorphic in
  the set $\mathcal O_2=\mathbb{C}\setminus  \{-e^{ \pm i\alpha\pi}\lambda_n:\ n\in\mathbb N\}$, either
\\
(1) $\Psi_1=\Psi_2\equiv 0,\;\; j=1,2$
\\
or\\
(2) there exist $ j_0\in \{1;2\}$ and  $r_0>0$ such that $\norm{\Psi_{j_0}(\cdot,z)}_{L^2(\Gamma)}> 0$ for $0<|z|<r_0$.
\\
In case (1), using the method presented in the proof of Theorem \ref{t1} we deduce the relations $f_1\equiv 0$ and $f_2\equiv 0$ that imply
 $F_1|_{\Omega\times(0,T)}= F_2|_{\Omega\times(0,T)}\equiv 0$. In case (2) the determinant of the system \eqref{theorF3}, \eqref{theorF4}
  is zero for $0<\varrho<r_0$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{theorF5} \det \left(\begin{array}{lll}
&\hat{\sigma}_1(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{i\pi\over\alpha}) &\hat{\sigma}_2(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{i\pi\over\alpha})
\\
&\hat{\sigma}_1(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{-{i\pi\over\alpha}}) &\hat{\sigma}_2(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{-{i\pi\over\alpha}})
\end{array}\right)= 0,\;\; 0<\varrho<r_0.
\end{eqnarray}
If $\hat{\sigma}_1\equiv0$, combining \eqref{theorF3} with the arguments used at the end of the proof of Theorem \ref{t1}
 we deduce that either $\sigma_2\equiv0$ or $f_2\equiv0$ and it follows that $F_1|_{\Omega\times(0,T)}= F_2|_{\Omega\times(0,T)}\equiv 0$.
  In the same way, assuming that $\hat{\sigma}_2\equiv0$ we deduce that $F_1|_{\Omega\times(0,T)}= F_2|_{\Omega\times(0,T)}\equiv 0$.
  Therefore, we need to consider the situation where (2) holds true and $\hat{\sigma}_j\not\equiv0$, $j=1,2$.
  Since $\hat{\sigma}_1$ and $\hat{\sigma}_2$ are entire and not uniformly vanishing, we can find $r_1\in(0,r_0)$ such that
$$\min(|\hat{\sigma}_1(z)|,|\hat{\sigma}_2(z)|)>0,\quad 0<|z|<r_1.$$
In that situation, either $\hat{\sigma}_1(z)/\hat{\sigma}_2(z)$ or
$\hat{\sigma}_2(z)/\hat{\sigma}_1(z)$ will have a finite limit as $z\to0$ and then can be extended to an holomorphic
 function with respect to  $z\in D_{r_1}:=\{\eta\in\mathbb C:\ |\eta|<r_1\}$. From now on, without loss of generality,
  we assume that $\hat{\sigma}_2(z)/\hat{\sigma}_1(z)$ admits an holomorphic extension with respect to  $z\in D_{r_1}$.
   Then there exists a function $\mathcal C$ holomorphic
in $D_{r_1}$  such that $$\hat{\sigma}_2(z)= \mathcal C(z)\hat{\sigma}_1(z),\quad z\in D_{r_1}.$$
 Using this notation, we can transform the equation \eqref{theorF5} into
$$
\hat{\sigma}_1(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{i\pi\over\alpha})\hat{\sigma}_1(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{-{i\pi\over\alpha}})
\left(\mathcal C(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{i\pi\over\alpha})-\mathcal C(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{-{i\pi\over\alpha}})\right)= 0,
\;\;0<\varrho<r_1.
$$
This implies that
 $\mathcal C(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{i\pi\over\alpha})\equiv \mathcal C(-\varrho^{1\over\alpha}e^{-{i\pi\over\alpha}})$ for $0<\varrho<r_1$.
\\
 Due to the holomorphy of $\mathcal C$, we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{theorF6}
\mathcal C(z)=\mathcal C(ze^{-{2i\pi\over\alpha}}),\;\; |z|<r_1^{1\over\alpha}.
\end{eqnarray}
Differentiating this relation at $z=0$ we have
$$
\mathcal C^{(n)}(0)=\mathcal C^{(n)}(0)e^{-{2ni\pi\over\alpha}},\;\; n\in\mathbb N.
$$
Since $\alpha$ is irrational, we have $e^{-{2ni\pi\over\alpha}}\ne 1$, $n\in\mathbb N$. Consequently, $\mathcal C^{(n)}(0)=0$, $n\in\mathbb N$.
Hence, the function $\mathcal C$ is constant and we have $\sigma_2\equiv \mathcal C\sigma_1$. Using the fact that $\hat{\sigma}_j\not\equiv0$, $j=1,2$,
we deduce that $\mathcal C\neq 0$. Then, we can rewrite $\sigma_2(t)f_2(x)$ in the form $$\sigma_2(t)f_2(x)=\sigma_1(t)\tilde f_2(x),\quad (x,t)\in\Omega\times(0,T),$$ where $\tilde f_2\equiv \mathcal C f_2$.
Then, the function $u=v_1-v_2$ solves \eqref{eq1} with the source function
$F(x,t)=(f_1(x)-\tilde f_2(x))\sigma_1(t)$ and satisfies the condition
$\partial_{\nu_a}u_{|\Gamma\times (T-\epsilon,T)}\equiv 0$. Thus,
Theorem \ref{t1} implies $f_1-\tilde f_2\equiv 0$. Consequently, we have
$$\sigma_2(t)f_2(x)=\sigma_1(t)\mathcal C f_2(x)=\sigma_1(t)f_1(x),\quad (x,t)\in\Omega\times(0,T)$$
which implies  that $F_1|_{\Omega\times(0,T)}\equiv F_2|_{\Omega\times(0,T)}$.
 This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{t3}.

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{t2}}
In this section we use the notation of Section 2. Recall that  $\rho^{-1}f\in D(A^{s})$, with $s>\frac{d-2}{4}$, and we deduce that $(A+re^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+re^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f\in H^{2s+2}(\Omega)$, $r>0$, and the Sobolev embedding theorem implies that $(A+re^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+re^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}f\in C^1(\overline{\Omega})$. Therefore, we can define the set $\mathcal J(f)$ of points $x_0\in\partial\Omega$ such that for all  $\epsilon>0$ there exists  $r_0\in(0,\epsilon)$ such that the condition
\begin{equation}\label{cond2}\partial_{\nu_a}(A+r_0e^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+r_0e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x_0)\neq0\end{equation}
is fulfilled. The proof of Theorem \ref{t2} will be divided into four steps. We will start by proving that for $\mathcal G(f)$,  defined by \eqref{set}, we have  $\mathcal G(f)=\mathcal J(f)$. Then, using this identity, we will prove that the set $\mathcal G(f)$ is dense in $\partial\Omega$. Then, we prove that, for all $x_0\in\mathcal G(f)$ the implication \eqref{t2b} holds true.  Finally, we will show that when $f=\rho A^{k_1}g$, with $g\in D(A^{k_1+s})$ of constant sign, we have $\mathcal G(f)=\partial\Omega$.

\textbf{Step 1.} In this step we will show that $\mathcal J(f)=\mathcal G(f)$. For this purpose, it would be enough to prove that $\partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal G(f)=\partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal J(f)$. Let us fix
$\delta_1=\left(2\norm{A^{-1}}_{\mathcal B(D(A^{s+1}))}\right)^{-1}$. Since $\rho^{-1}f\in D(A^s)$, we deduce that  the map $r\mapsto (A+re^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+re^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f$ is analytic with respect to $r\in(0,+\infty)$ as a function taking values in $D(A^{s+1})$. Combining this with the continuous embedding $D(A^{s+1})\subset C^1(\overline{\Omega})$, one can check  that the map $r\mapsto (A+re^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+re^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f$ is analytic with respect to $r\in(0,+\infty)$ as a function taking values in $C^1(\overline{\Omega})$. From this last property and the unique continuation for analytic functions, we deduce that   $x\in \partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal J(f)$ if and only if $x\in\partial\Omega$ satisfies the following condition
\begin{equation}\label{cond3}\exists\epsilon_1\in(0,\delta_1),\quad  \partial_{\nu_a}(A+re^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+re^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)=0,\quad r\in(0,\epsilon_1) .\end{equation}
On the other hand, for $z_1,z_2\in D_{\delta_1}:=\{\eta\in\mathbb C:\ |\eta|<\delta_1\}$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}(A+z_1e^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+z_2e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f&=(Id+z_1e^{i\alpha\pi}A^{-1})^{-1}(Id+z_2e^{-i\alpha\pi}A^{-1})^{-1}A^{-2}\rho^{-1}f\\
&=\sum_{j=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^\infty (-e^{i\alpha\pi})^{k}z_1^k(-e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{j}z_2^jA^{-j-k-2}\rho^{-1}f.\end{aligned}$$
Using the fact $\rho^{-1}f\in D(A^s)$ and applying the Sobolev embedding theorem, we deduce that, for all $z_1,z_2\in D_{\delta_1}$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}&\sum_{j=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^\infty \norm{(-e^{i\alpha\pi})^{k}z_1^k(-e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{j}z_2^jA^{-j-k-2}\rho^{-1}f}_{C^1(\overline{\Omega})}\\
&\leq C\sum_{j=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^\infty \norm{(-e^{i\alpha\pi})^{k}z_1^k(-e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{j}z_2^jA^{-j-k-2}\rho^{-1}f}_{H^{2s+2}(\Omega)}\\
\ &\leq  C\sum_{j=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^\infty \norm{(-e^{i\alpha\pi})^{k}z_1^k(-e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{j}z_2^jA^{-j-k-2}\rho^{-1}f}_{D(A^{s+1})}\\
\ &\leq C\sum_{j=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^\infty \delta_1^j\norm{A^{-1}}_{\mathcal B(D(A^{s+1}))}^{j+1}\delta_1^k\norm{A^{-1}}_{\mathcal B(D(A^{s+1}))}^{k}\norm{A^{-1}}_{\mathcal B(D(A^{s+1}),D(A^{s}))}\norm{\rho^{-1}f}_{ D(A^s)}\\
\ &\leq C\norm{A^{-1}}_{\mathcal B(D(A^{s+1}),D(A^{s}))}\norm{\rho^{-1}f}_{ D(A^s)}\sum_{j=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^\infty 2^{-k}2^{-j}<\infty.\end{aligned}$$

Therefore, the sequence
$$\sum_{j=0}^{N_1}\sum_{k=0}^{N_2} (-e^{i\alpha\pi})^{k}z_1^k(-e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{j}z_2^jA^{-j-k-2}\rho^{-1}f,\quad N_1,\ N_2\in\mathbb N$$
converges uniformly with respect to $z_1,z_2\in D_{\delta_1}$ in the sense of  $C^1(\overline{\Omega})$ valued function and, for any $x\in\partial\Omega$,  we have
\begin{equation}\label{cond4}\begin{aligned}&\partial_{\nu_a}(A+z_1e^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+z_2e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)\\
&=\sum_{j=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^\infty (-e^{i\alpha\pi})^{k}z_1^k(-e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{j}z_2^j\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-j-k-2}\rho^{-1}f(x),\quad z_1,z_2\in D_{\delta_1}.\end{aligned}\end{equation}
In the above expression, fixing $z_1=z_2=z\in D_{\delta_1}$, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}&\partial_{\nu_a}(A+ze^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+ze^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[\sum_{k+j=n}(-e^{i\alpha\pi})^{k}(-e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{j}\right]\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-n-2}\rho^{-1}f(x)z^n\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[\sum_{k+j=n}e^{i\alpha\pi(k-j)}\right](-1)^n\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-n-2}\rho^{-1}f(x)z^n\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[\sum_{k=0}^ne^{i\alpha\pi (2k-n)}\right](-1)^n\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-n-2}\rho^{-1}f(x)z^n\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[\frac{1-e^{i2\alpha \pi(n+1)}}{1-e^{2i\alpha \pi}}\right]e^{-i\alpha\pi n}(-1)^n\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-n-2}\rho^{-1}f(x)z^n.\end{aligned}$$
Recalling that   $x\in \partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal G(f)$ if and only if $x\in\partial\Omega$ satisfies the following condition
$$\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-n-2}\rho^{-1}f(x)=0,\quad n\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\},\ \alpha(n+1)\not\in \mathbb N,$$
we deduce that
$$\left[\frac{1-e^{i2\alpha \pi(n+1)}}{1-e^{2i\alpha \pi}}\right]e^{-i\alpha\pi n}(-1)^n\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-n-2}\rho^{-1}f(x)=0,\quad
x\in \partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal G(f),\ n\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}.$$
Therefore, we have
$$\partial_{\nu_a}(A+ze^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+ze^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)=0,\quad z\in D_{\delta_1},\ x\in \partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal G(f)$$
which implies that for all $x\in \partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal G(f)$ condition \eqref{cond3} is fulfilled. This implies that $\partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal G(f)\subset\partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal J(f)$ and we deduce $\mathcal J(f)\subset \mathcal G(f)$. In the same way,  from the above argumentation, we deduce that for all $x\in\partial\Omega$ the map $$z\mapsto \partial_{\nu_a}(A+ze^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+ze^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)$$ is holomorphic with respect to $z\in D_{\delta_1}$ and we have
$$\partial_{\nu_a}(A+ze^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+ze^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[\frac{1-e^{i2\alpha \pi(n+1)}}{1-e^{2i\alpha \pi}}\right]e^{-i\alpha\pi n}(-1)^n\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-n-2}\rho^{-1}f(x)z^n.$$
Thus, fixing $x\in \partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal J(f)$, condition \eqref{cond3} implies
$$\partial_{\nu_a}(A+ze^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+ze^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)=0,\quad z\in D_{\delta_1}.$$
Then, it follows that
$$\begin{aligned}&n!\left[\frac{1-e^{i2\alpha \pi(n+1)}}{1-e^{2i\alpha \pi}}\right]e^{-i\alpha\pi n}(-1)^n\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-n-2}\rho^{-1}f(x)\\
&=\partial_{z}^n\left.\left[\partial_{\nu_a}(A+ze^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+ze^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)\right]\right|_{z=0}=0,\quad n\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}.\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, we have
$$\left[\frac{1-e^{i2\alpha \pi(n+1)}}{1-e^{2i\alpha \pi}}\right]\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-n-2}\rho^{-1}f(x)=0, \quad x\in \partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal J(f),\ n\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$$
and we deduce that
$$\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-n-2}\rho^{-1}f(x)=0, \quad x\in \partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal J(f),\ n\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\},\ (n+1)\alpha\not\in\mathbb N.$$
From this identity, one can easily check that for any $x\in \partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal J(f)$ we have $x\in \partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal G(f)$ and combining this with the fact that $\partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal G(f)\subset\partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal J(f)$ we deduce that $\partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal G(f)=\partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal J(f)$. It follows that $\mathcal G(f)=\mathcal J(f)$.
\ \\

\textbf{Step 2.} In this step we will prove that $\mathcal G(f)$ is dense in $\partial\Omega$. In view of Step 1, it would be enough to show that $\mathcal J(f)$ is dense in $\partial\Omega$. We will show this result by contradiction. Assuming that  $\mathcal J(f)$ is not dense in $\partial\Omega$, we deduce that there exists an open not empty set $\Gamma$ of $\partial\Omega$ such that $\Gamma\subset\partial\Omega\setminus\mathcal J(f)$. Then, for all $x\in\Gamma$ there exists $\epsilon_x>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{cond33}  \partial_{\nu_a}(A+re^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+re^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)=0,\quad r\in(0,\epsilon_x) .\end{equation}
On the other hand, using the fact that $\rho^{-1}f\in D(A^{s})$, we deduce that for all $x\in\partial\Omega$, we have
$$\partial_{\nu_a}(A+z)^{-1}(A+e^{-i2\alpha\pi}z)^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}(x)}{(\lambda_n+z)(\lambda_n+e^{-i2\alpha\pi}z)},\quad z\in\mathcal O$$
and the map $z\mapsto \partial_{\nu_a}(A+z)^{-1}(A+e^{-i2\alpha\pi}z)^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)$ is holomorphic with respect to $z\in\mathcal O$.
Thus, the condition \eqref{cond33} implies that
$$\partial_{\nu_a}(A+z)^{-1}(A+e^{-i2\alpha\pi}z)^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x)\equiv0,\quad z\in \mathcal O,\ x\in\Gamma$$
and we deduce that \eqref{t1d} holds true. Therefore, repeating the arguments used at the end of the proof of Theorem \ref{t1}, we deduce that \eqref{t1d} implies that $f\equiv0$ which contradicts the fact that $f\not\equiv0$. This proves the density of the set $\mathcal G(f)=\mathcal J(f)$  in $\partial\Omega$.
\ \\
\textbf{Step 3.} In this step we will show that for any $x_0\in\mathcal G(f)$ the implication \eqref{t2b} holds true. For this purpose, we fix $x_0\in\mathcal G(f)$ and from   Step 1 we deduce that $x_0\in\mathcal G(f)=\mathcal J(f)$. Therefore, for all $\epsilon'>0$ there exists $r_0\in (0,\epsilon')$ such that \eqref{cond2} is fulfilled.
Let $u$ be the weak solution of problem \eqref{eq1}  satisfying
$$\partial_{\nu_a}u(x_0,t)=0,\quad t\in(T-\epsilon,T).$$
Fixing $v$ the weak solution of \eqref{eq2} and recalling that $v=u$ on $\Omega\times(0,T)$, we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{t2h}\partial_{\nu_a}v(x_0,t)=0,\quad t\in(T-\epsilon,T).\end{equation}
Without loss of generality we may assume that $\delta=\epsilon$ with $\delta$ appearing in condition \eqref{source}.
 Then, applying Lemma \ref{l2} and the unique continuation of analytic functions we deduce that
$$\partial_{\nu_a}v(x_0,t)=0,\quad t\in(T-\epsilon,+\infty)$$
and fixing $h:=\mathbb{R}_+\ni t\mapsto \partial_{\nu_a}v(x_0,t)$ we deduce that supp$(h)\subset[0,T-\epsilon]$. Therefore, the Laplace transform $\hat{h}$ of $h$ admits an holomorphic extension to $\mathbb C$. Moreover, \eqref{l2a} implies that
$$h(t)=\int_0^t\sigma(s) \partial_{\nu_a} [S(t-s)\rho^{-1}f](x_0)ds,\quad t\in\mathbb{R}_+.$$
Applying the Laplace transform on both side of this identity and using \eqref{l2b}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{t2i}\hat{h}(p)=\hat{\sigma}(p)\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m_n}\left\langle \rho^{-1}f,\varphi_{n,k}\right\rangle\partial_{\nu_a}\varphi_{n,k}(x_0)}{\lambda_n+p^\alpha},\quad p\in\mathbb C_+.\end{equation}
We set $R>0$ and we consider the identity \eqref{t1b} for $p=Re^{i\theta}$ with $\theta\in(-\pi,\pi)$. In a similar way to the proof of Theorem \ref{t1}, sending $\theta\to\pm\pi$ and using the fact that $\hat{h}(p)$ and $\hat{\sigma}(p)$ are holomorphic with respect  to $p\in\mathbb C$, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{t2aa}\hat{\sigma}(-R)\partial_{\nu_a}(A+R^\alpha e^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+R^\alpha e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x_0)= 0,\quad R\in \mathbb{R}_+.\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{t2aa} with condition \eqref{cond2}, we deduce that for all $n\in\mathbb N$, there exists $r_n\in (0,2^{-n})$ such that
$$\partial_{\nu_a}(A+r_n^\alpha e^{i\alpha\pi})^{-1}(A+r_n^\alpha e^{-i\alpha\pi})^{-1}\rho^{-1}f(x_0)\neq0.$$
Then \eqref{t2aa} implies
\begin{equation} \label{t2ab}\hat{\sigma}(-r_n)=0,\quad n\in\mathbb N.\end{equation}
It is clear that the sequence $(r_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ admits an accumulation at $0$ and using the fact that $\hat{\sigma}$ is holomorphic on $\mathbb C$, we deduce that $\hat{\sigma}\equiv 0$. Therefore, we have $\sigma\equiv0$. This proves that the implication \eqref{t1a} holds true.
\ \\

\textbf{Step 4.} In this step, we prove the last statement of Theorem \ref{t1}. For this purpose, we fix $k_1\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$ and $g\in D(A^{k_1+s})$ of constant sign. Then, we fix $f=\rho A^{k_1}g$. By eventually replacing $f$ by $-f$, we may assume without loss of generality that  $g\leq0$. We fix $k_2\in \mathbb N$ such that $k_2\geq k_1$ and $\alpha(k_2+1)\not\in\mathbb N$. According to the above discussion the proof will be completed if we prove that for any $x_0\in\partial\Omega$ we have $\partial_{\nu_a}A^{-2-k_2}\rho^{-1}f(x_0)\neq0$.

Set $x_0\in\partial\Omega$ and $w=A^{-2-k_2}\rho^{-1}f=A^{-2-k_2+k_1}g$. Using the fact that $\mathcal A A^{-1}g= \rho g\leq 0$ and $A^{-1}g|_{\partial\Omega}=0$, the maximum principle implies that $A^{-1}g\leq0$. In the same way by iteration, we can prove that $A^{-1-k_2+k_1}g\leq0$. Therefore, since $\mathcal Aw= \rho A^{-1-k_2+k_1}g\leq 0$ and $w|_{\partial\Omega}=0$,  the strong maximum principle (see e.g. \cite[Corollary 3.5]{GT}) implies that $w(x)<0=A^{-2-k_2+k_1}g(x_0),\   x\in\Omega$.
Thus,  the Hopf lemma (see \cite[Lemma 3.4]{GT}) implies that \begin{equation}\label{t2j}\partial_{\nu} A^{-2-k_2}\rho^{-1}f(x_0)=\partial_{\nu}w(x_0)>0.\end{equation}
On the other hand, recalling   that $w|_{\partial\Omega}\equiv0$ we deduce that $\nabla w(x_0)=(\partial_\nu w(x_0))\nu(x_0)$. Then, fixing the matrix $C=(a_{ij}(x_0))_{1\leq i,j\leq d}$, we get
$$\partial_{\nu_a} w(x_0)=[\nabla w(x_0)]\cdot [C\nu(x_0)]\\
=[(\partial_\nu w(x_0))\nu(x_0)]\cdot [C\nu(x_0)]\\
=(\partial_\nu w(x_0))\nu(x_0)^TC\nu(x_0).$$
Moreover, according to \eqref{ell} we have
$$\nu(x_0)^TC\nu(x_0)= \sum_{i,j=1}^d a_{i,j}(x_0) \nu_i(x_0) \nu_j(x_0) \geq c |\nu(x_0)|^2=c>0.$$
Combining this with \eqref{t2j}, we deduce that $\partial_{\nu_a} A^{-2-k_2}\rho^{-1}f(x_0)=\partial_{\nu_a} w(x_0)>0$. Therefore, we have $x_0\in\mathcal G(f)$ and it follows that $\mathcal G(f)=\partial\Omega$. Moreover, according to the Step 3 of the proof of this theorem, the implication \eqref{t2b} holds true for any $x_0\in\partial\Omega$.
This completes the proof of the last statement of the theorem and by the same way the proof of the theorem.

\section*{Aknowledgement}
The work of the first author is supported by the Grant PRG832 of the Estonian Research Council. The work of the  second  author is partially supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (project MultiOnde) under  grant ANR-17-CE40-0029.