Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Markov approximation for controlled Hawkes Jump-Diffusions with general kernels

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · 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 that every Hawkes jump-diffusion with a general integrable kernel can be approximated on a finite horizon by a Markov jump-diffusion driven by exponential-sum kernels, with explicit error bounds and convergent control…

desk verdict A useful Markov approximation theorem for general Hawkes kernels, but the control convergence proof has a real gap: the WLOG f=0 reduction in Theorem 4.1 is invalid. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11294 v1 pith:WFZKY7EC submitted 2025-07-15 math.PR math.OC

Mahmoud Khabou , Mehdi Talbi This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.OC MSC 60G5593E2045D0560H10
keywords Hawkesprocessjump-diffusionSDEMarkovapproximationsumsofexponentialsVolterra-typedynamicsstochasticcontrolkernelcontinuitydynamicprogramming
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

Volterra-type Hawkes jump-diffusions, whose jump intensity is driven by a general integrable kernel, are in general path-dependent and escape classical Markov control methods. This paper shows that any such kernel can be replaced, to arbitrary precision on a finite time horizon, by a sum of exponentials; the resulting process becomes a Markov jump-diffusion with auxiliary state variables. The state processes are shown to be continuous in the kernel in an $L^1$ sense, with an explicit error bound that grows exponentially in the horizon. Consequently, optimal control values of the original problem are approximated by values of Markov control problems, with error controlled by the kernel approximation error.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the replacement of the kernel by a finite sum of exponentials $\phi_n(t)=\sum_{k=1}^n \eta_k e^{-\beta_k t}$. For such kernels the intensity takes the form $\lambda_t = \lambda_\infty + \psi\big(\sum_{k=1}^n \eta_k \xi^k_t\big)$ with $\xi^k_t = \int_0^{t-}\int e^{-\beta_k(t-s)} b(y)\nu(s,X_{s-})\mathbf{1}_{\theta\le\lambda_s}\Pi(ds,d\theta,dy)$, and the flow property of exponentials gives the linear dynamics $d\xi^k_t = -\beta_k\xi^k_t\,dt + \text{ jump term}$. The augmented process $(X,\xi^1,\dots,\xi^n)$ is Markov with an explicit infinitesimal generator. Two facts carry the argument: sums of exponentials are dense in $L^1(\mathbb R_+)$ for any fixed $\beta>0$ (not only for completely monotone kernels), and Hawkes jump-diffusions are continuous in their kernel, via Theorem 2.4, $\mathbb{E}[\sup |\tilde X-X|] \le C_1\|\tilde\phi-\phi\|_1 e^{C_2 T}$, proved by a contraction argument using Assumption 1.3. The same exponential dynamics give an $O(nT)$ simulation cost instead of $O(T^2)$ for the original Volterra SDE.

What would settle it

One concrete test: take the same SDE with a state-dependent jump amplitude $\gamma(x)$ and an unbounded jump-rate map $\psi(x)=x$, so that Assumption 1.3 fails, and compute $\mathbb{E}[\sup_{0\le s\le T}|X_s-\tilde X_s|]$ for a sequence of exponential-sum kernels $\phi_n$ with $\|\phi_n-\phi\|_1\to 0$. If the $L^1$ closeness between $X$ and $\tilde X$ fails to go to zero, or if the constants $C_1,C_2$ in Theorem 2.4 blow up as $\psi$'s Lipschitz constant grows, the central approximation claim collapses in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 3.1: under Lipschitz regularity and a stability condition on the Hawkes kernel, for any $\varepsilon>0$ and horizon $T$, a solution $(X,\lambda)$ of a Hawkes jump-diffusion with a general integrable (possibly non-monotone) kernel $\phi$ is within $\varepsilon$ in $\mathbb{E}[\sup_{0\le s\le T}|X_s-\tilde X_s|]$ of a $(n{+}1)$-dimensional Markov jump-diffusion $(\tilde X,\xi^1,\dots,\xi^n)$ whose kernel is a linear combination of exponentials. The estimate is quantitative: $\mathbb{E}[\sup |\tilde X-X|] \le C_1\|\tilde\phi-\phi\|_1 e^{C_2 T}$, and it rests on an $L^1$ continuity theorem for the state process in the kernel. For stochastic control, Theorem 4.1 shows that the value of the Volterra-type control problem is the limit of the Markov value functions, and that with Lipschitz costs the error $|V^n_0 - V_0|$ is bounded by $\|\phi_n-\phi\|_1 C_1 e^{C_2 T}$. The result therefore converts a class of path-dependent control problems into standard Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman problems with auxiliary dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The result requires Assumption 1.3: either the jump-rate function $\psi$ is bounded above, or the jump-amplitude $\gamma$ and the impact function $\nu$ do not depend on the state variable $X$. Every contraction estimate in the kernel-continuity theorem uses this to control the term involving $|\tilde\lambda-\lambda|$; without it, the $L^1$ continuity of $X$ in the kernel, the basis of the Markov approximation, is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Markov approximation is available for non-monotone kernels too, so delayed excitation and inhibition patterns, such as refractory periods in neuronal networks, fall inside the dynamic programming framework.
  • Numerical simulation of the original Volterra Hawkes SDE costs $O(T^2)$; simulating the exponential-sum system costs $O(nT)$, a strict improvement for large horizons.
  • The approximation error is explicit: $\mathbb{E}[\sup |X-\tilde X|] \le C_1\|\tilde\phi-\phi\|_1 e^{C_2 T}$, so the number of exponentials $n$ needed for a target precision is determined by the kernel approximation problem.
  • Optimal control values converge: $|V^n_0 - V_0| \le \|\phi_n-\phi\|_1 C_1 e^{C_2 T}$ under Lipschitz costs, giving a quantitative HJB-based route to nearly optimal strategies for Volterra-type Hawkes control problems.
  • The value function of the Markov problem solves an HJB equation in $n+1$ dimensions, so existing numerical dynamic programming machinery, including neural-network approximations, applies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same exponential-sum lifting could make rough-volatility-type kernels (integrable power kernels, not necessarily completely monotone) accessible to Markovian approximation on finite horizons, since only $L^1$ integrability and the stability condition are used.
  • Beyond the paper: the approximation does not optimise over the decay parameter $\beta$; a testable extension is to select $\beta$ from the kernel's effective tail length and compare the resulting $L^1$ error and the number of exponentials needed in practice.
  • Beyond the paper: the continuity-in-kernel theorem suggests an alternative numerical route, directly discretising the kernel with piecewise-exponential fits rather than global exponential sums, with the same error control once Assumption 1.3 holds.
  • Beyond the paper: for state-dependent intensities, the paper's $L^1$ contraction method indicates the error bound may be improvable from exponential to polynomial in $T$ when the baseline intensity $\lambda_\infty$ has additional contraction properties; that improvement is not claimed in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies jump-diffusions whose jump intensity is driven by a Hawkes process with a general integrable kernel. It proves an L1 continuity result for the state process with respect to the kernel (Theorem 2.4), then combines this with the density of sums of exponentials in L1 to obtain a Markov approximation: for any epsilon and horizon T one can replace the kernel by a finite sum of exponentials so that the corresponding state process satisfies E[sup_{0<=s<=T}|X_s - Xtilde_s|] <= epsilon (Theorem 3.1). This approximation is then applied to stochastic control: Theorem 4.1 claims convergence of value functions for controlled Hawkes jump-diffusions with running and terminal costs, and Section 4.3 presents a portfolio optimization example with log utility. The approximation argument is the core contribution; the control application, as written, has substantial gaps.

Significance. If Theorem 3.1 is correct, it gives a simple and broadly applicable route from Volterra-type Hawkes dynamics to Markovian dynamic programming and HJB methods, without restricting to completely monotone or otherwise special kernels. The explicit L1 kernel-continuity bounds with exponential dependence on the horizon are useful, and the proof strategy is elegant and largely self-contained. The paper also ships a numerical illustration that supports the plausibility of the approximation. However, the control part is currently not established as stated: the proof of Theorem 4.1 assumes away the running cost, the uniformity over controls is not proved, and the log-utility example does not satisfy the hypotheses of the theorem it invokes. These are fixable in a revision, but they materially limit the paper's claims as they stand.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 4.1 proof, Step 1] The proof of Theorem 4.1 begins with 'without loss of generality f = 0', but f enters the value function (4.3) through the running cost, so this reduction changes the optimization unless f is constant in x and the control. Step 1 only controls E|g(X^n_T)-g(X_T)| and Step 2 only truncates g; no estimate is given for E[integral_0^T |f(t,X^n_t,alpha_t)-f(t,X_t,alpha_t)|dt]. Under the stated polynomial-growth assumption on f, such an estimate is not automatic and requires an additional Lipschitz or truncation argument. This gap propagates to Section 4.3, where Theorem 4.1 is invoked for finite-horizon running-cost problems (4.12) and (4.14). The theorem may be salvageable by augmenting the state with Y_t = integral_0^t f(s,X_s,alpha_s)ds and proving convergence for the augmented terminal cost, or by proving a uniform running-cost estimate, but as written the claimed convergence for f != 0 is unproved.
  2. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (4.12)-(4.14)] Step 1 of the proof of Theorem 4.1 uses Theorem 2.4 to bound E|X^n_T - X_T| for an arbitrary control alpha, but the constants C1 and C2 in Theorem 2.4 depend on the Lipschitz constants and the stability margin of the coefficients, and therefore can depend on alpha. The definition of A in Section 4.1 only requires each alpha to satisfy Assumptions 1.1-1.3; it does not impose bounds uniform over alpha. Passing from E|g(X^n_T)-g(X_T)| <= epsilon for each fixed alpha to |V^n_0 - V_0| <= epsilon requires a choice of n that works uniformly over alpha in A. This uniformity is not established. A uniform version of the kernel-continuity bound, or a restriction of A to controls with uniform Lipschitz and stability constants, is needed.
  3. [Section 4.3] The convergence argument for the log-utility example invokes Theorem 4.1 for the finite-horizon value functions V^epsilon_0 and V^{n,epsilon}_0, whose running payoff is f(t,x,(c,omega)) = e^{-rho t} log(c x). This f is neither continuous with polynomial growth in x uniformly in the control, nor Lipschitz in x uniformly in (t,a), so the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1 are not satisfied. In addition, the inequalities V^epsilon_0 <= V_0 and V^{n,epsilon}_0 <= V^n_0 used after (4.13) require the integrand e^{-rho t} U(c_t x_t) to be nonnegative; for U = log this can fail unless additional assumptions are imposed. The example therefore needs its own verification or a modified theorem that covers it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract promises 'minimal integrability conditions', but Assumption 1.3 is a structural dichotomy (bounded jump rate, or state-independent gamma and nu) that is used in every contraction estimate, starting at inequalities (5.1)-(5.2). This should be stated in the introduction as a substantive restriction, not presented as part of the integrability conditions.
  2. [Section 1] The sentence 'the univariate proofs extend to the multivariate SDE (1.2)' is an assertion rather than a proof. Since the formal statements are multivariate, it would be preferable either to give the matrix/spectral-radius extension explicitly or to state the main theorems in the univariate setting.
  3. [Section 3] The displayed approximating kernel phi^(3)(t) = -0.82 e^{-0.5t} + 0.58 e^{-t} + 1.39 e^{1.5t} contains a growing exponential e^{1.5t}; this cannot be a sum of decaying exponentials and is not in L1(R+). This is presumably a typo for e^{-1.5t}, but as printed it contradicts the admissibility condition for the approximating kernel.
  4. [Section 5.4] In the estimate for |V^M_0 - V_0|, the Markov inequality gives a bound of order M^{-1/2}, not M^{-1}; the displayed 'C/M' should be 'C M^{-1/2}'. The convergence conclusion is unaffected but the displayed rate is incorrect.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical and notational slips: 'Bukholder-Davis-Gundy' in Section 5.1, 'indepdendent' in Assumption 1.1, 'generaility' in Section 5.4, and Proposition 1.4 states E[sup_t |X_t|^p] <= +infinity, which should say that this expectation is finite.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the Markov approximation follows from an external exponential-density theorem plus an in-paper kernel-continuity bound; the only self-citation supplies a secondary moment estimate and does not carry the central claim.

full rationale

The central chain is not circular. Theorem 3.1 combines Theorem 2.4, whose L1 estimate E[sup_{0<=s<=T}|X_s - Xtilde_s|] <= C1 ||phi - phitilde||_1 e^{C2 T} is proved in the paper via contraction arguments and Proposition 2.3, with the external density result of [39]/[6] that sums of exponentials are dense in L^p(R+). Neither ingredient defines the target quantity in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Theorem 4.1 uses the same kernel-continuity theorem together with Proposition 1.4 moment bounds and a truncation argument; the convergence is again not built from a fitted input. The only self-citation is Lemma A.2, where the second-moment bound for lambda is delegated to [25] (a co-author's prior work); that bound feeds the auxiliary L2 continuity Theorem 2.2, not the L1 Markov approximation or the control theorem, so it is at most a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation. Citation [27] is external and supplies only a parallel observation. One issue that is not circularity but a proof gap: Section 5.4, proof of Theorem 4.1, says 'we assume without loss of generality that f = 0', although the value function (4.3) contains a running cost; as written, the proof establishes terminal-cost convergence only. This is an omitted argument for f != 0, not a reduction-by-construction of the claimed result to its own input. Overall, no analytic prediction is equivalent by definition to a fitted constant, and no load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The theoretical core does not require fitted constants; the only free parameters arise in the numerical illustration. The main axioms are the regularity and stability conditions in Assumptions 1.1-1.3 plus an external density theorem for exponentials. The multivariate framework (1.2) is effectively assumed to inherit the univariate proofs, which is a gap. The auxiliary variables xi are mathematical lifting devices, not empirically motivated entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Exponential approximant coefficients eta in numerical example = phi^(2): (-1.16, 2.17); phi^(3): (-0.82, 0.58, 1.39)
    Chosen to minimize the L1/L2 mismatch with the illustrative kernel. These coefficients are not used in the theoretical theorems and do not appear in the main claims.
  • Decay rate beta in numerical example = 0.5
    Chosen by hand as a decay parameter so that exponentials are negligible after about ten time units. The paper explicitly does not optimize over beta because of non-convexity.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1.1: coefficient functions are Lipschitz in x, bounded where needed, and the baseline intensity lambda_infty is Lipschitz with constant L_lambda < 1.
    Used for existence, uniqueness, and all continuity estimates; not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1.2: stability condition L E[b(Y)] sp(||phi||_1) < 1.
    Prevents explosive mutual excitation and is needed for time-uniform intensity bounds and for the continuity estimates.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 1.3: either psi is bounded from above, or gamma and nu are independent of x.
    Technical condition used in every contraction estimate, for example in the proofs of Proposition 1.4 and Theorem 2.4. It is not implied by integrability of the kernel and is not disclosed in the abstract.
  • standard math For any fixed beta>0, finite linear combinations of e^{-beta k t}, k>=1, are dense in L^p(R+) for p>=1.
    External theorem from Kammler [39] and Ang-Knopoff [6]; the proof of Theorem 3.1 relies on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The univariate proofs extend to the multivariate SDE (1.2).
    The paper explicitly reduces to d=1 and does not carry out the multivariate contractions, even though the stated framework and applications are multivariate.
  • standard math Standard Feynman-Kac and viscosity-solution theory for Markov jump-diffusion control problems.
    Used in Section 4 to assert that the value function solves the HJB equation and admits the probabilistic representation.
invented entities (1)
  • Auxiliary state variables xi^1,...,xi^n (equation 3.2)
    purpose: Lift the convolution Hawkes kernel into a finite-dimensional Markovian state so that dynamic programming applies.
    Purely mathematical state augmentation with no empirical referent; the variables are defined by integrating past jumps with exponential weights.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Markov approximation for controlled Hawkes Jump-Diffusions with general kernels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WFZKY7EC

@misc{pith2026250711294,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Markov approximation for controlled Hawkes Jump-Diffusions with general kernels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WFZKY7EC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11294}
}
read the original abstract

We present a Markov approximation for jump-diffusions whose jump part consists in a Hawkes process with intensity driven by a general (possibly non-monotone) kernel. Under minimal integrability conditions, the kernel can be approximated by a linear combination of exponential functions. This implies that Hawkes jump-diffusions can be approximated with Markov jump-diffusions. We illustrate the usefulness of this approximation by applying it to a class of stochastic control problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11294 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ϕ (3) does a better job at approximating ϕ than ϕ (2). Both approximations fail at capturing the heavy polynomial tail, but this is not a problem given that we are interested in approximation on finite horizons. We point out that the first two coefficients of ϕ (2) are not preserved in ϕ (3), due to the lack of orthogonality. Given a Brownian motion W and a Poisson measure Π we simulate three paths (X, λ), (X(2), λ(… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A realisation of (X, λ) on [0, T]. The order 3 Markov approximation X(3) (in green) remains confounded with the original process X (in blue). This is because λ (3) is close enough to λ to accept and reject the exact same point of Π (in cyan). The same cannot be said about the order 2 Markov approximation (in orange). 4 Application to stochastic control of Hawkes jump-diffusions 4.1 The control problem In this paragr… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Functional approximation of the marked Hawkes risk process

    Laure Coutin and Mahmoud Khabou. Functional approximation of the marked Hawkes risk process

    work page

  2. [1]

    Linear–quadratic control for a class of stochastic Volterra equations: solvability and approximation

    E. Abi Jaber, E. Miller, and H. Pham. “Linear–quadratic control for a class of stochastic Volterra equations: solvability and approximation”. In:The Annals of Applied Probability 31.5 (2021), pp. 2244– 2274

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    New approach to optimal control of stochastic Volterra integral equations

    N. Agram, B. Oksendal, and S. Yakhlef. “New approach to optimal control of stochastic Volterra integral equations”. In: Stochastics: An International Journal of Probability and Stochastic Processes 91.6 (2019), pp. 873–894

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Malliavin calculus and optimal control of stochastic Volterra equations

    Nacira Agram and Bernt Oksendal. “Malliavin calculus and optimal control of stochastic Volterra equations”. In: Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 167 (2015), pp. 1070–1094

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    Portfolio choice in markets with contagion

    Yacine A ¨ ıt-Sahalia and Thomas Robert Hurd. “Portfolio choice in markets with contagion”. In:Journal of Financial Econometrics 14.1 (2015), pp. 1–28. 27

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Approximation of Stochastic Volterra Equations with kernels of completely monotone type

    Aur´ elien Alfonsi and Ahmed Kebaier. “Approximation of Stochastic Volterra Equations with kernels of completely monotone type”. In: Mathematics of Computation 93.346 (2024), pp. 643–677

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    A note on L1-approximations by exponential polynomials and Laguerre exponential polynomials

    D. D. Ang and L. Knopoff. “A note on L1-approximations by exponential polynomials and Laguerre exponential polynomials”. In: J. Approximation Theory 6 (1972), pp. 272–275. issn: 0021-9045,1096-

    work page 1972

  8. [7]

    L´ evy processes and stochastic calculus

    David Applebaum. L´ evy processes and stochastic calculus. Second. Vol. 116. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009, pp. xxx+460. isbn: 978-0-521- 73865-1. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511809781. url: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809781

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809781 2009

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Some limit theorems for Hawkes processes and application to financial statistics

    E. Bacry, S. Delattre, M. Hoffmann, and J. F. Muzy. “Some limit theorems for Hawkes processes and application to financial statistics”. In: Stochastic Process. Appl. 123.7 (2013), pp. 2475–2499. issn: 0304-4149,1879-209X. doi: 10.1016/j.spa.2013.04.007 . url: https://doi.org/1...

    2013 doi

  2. [9]

    Regularity and stability for the semigroup of jump diffusions with state-dependent intensity

    Vlad Bally, Dan Goreac, and Victor Rabiet. “Regularity and stability for the semigroup of jump diffusions with state-dependent intensity”. In: Ann. Appl. Probab. 28.5 (2018), pp. 3028–3074. issn: 1050-5164,2168-8737. doi: 10.1214/18-AAP1382. url: https://doi.org/10.1214/18-AAP1382

    2018 doi

  3. [10]

    Pricing under rough volatility

    C. Bayer, P. Friz, and J. Gatheral. “Pricing under rough volatility”. In: Quantitative Finance 16.6 (2016), pp. 887–904

    2016

  4. [11]

    Markovian approximations of stochastic Volterra equations with the fractional kernel

    Christian Bayer and Simon Breneis. “Markovian approximations of stochastic Volterra equations with the fractional kernel”. In: Quantitative Finance 23.1 (2023), pp. 53–70

    2023

  5. [12]

    Mean field games with controlled jump- diffusion dynamics: existence results and an illiquid interbank market model

    Chiara Benazzoli, Luciano Campi, and Luca Di Persio. “Mean field games with controlled jump- diffusion dynamics: existence results and an illiquid interbank market model”. In: Stochastic Process. Appl. 130.11 (2020), pp. 6927–6964. issn: 0304-4149,1879-209X. doi: 10.1016/j.spa...

    2020 doi

  6. [13]

    Stochastic control for diffusions with self-exciting jumps: An overview

    Alain Bensoussan and Benoit Chevalier-Roignant. “Stochastic control for diffusions with self-exciting jumps: An overview”. In: Mathematical Control and Related Fields (2024), pp. 0–0

    2024

  7. [14]

    Price-aware au- tomated market makers: Models beyond Brownian prices and static liquidity

    Philippe Bergault, Louis Bertucci, David Bouba, Olivier Gu´ eant, and Julien Guilbert. “Price-aware au- tomated market makers: Models beyond Brownian prices and static liquidity”. In:Preprint arXiv:2405.03496 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Multivariate Hawkes pro- cess for cyber insurance

    Yannick Bessy-Roland, Alexandre Boumezoued, and Caroline Hillairet. “Multivariate Hawkes pro- cess for cyber insurance”. In: Annals of Actuarial Science 15.1 (2021), pp. 14–39. doi: 10 . 1017 / S1748499520000093

    2021

  9. [16]

    On approximation of functions by exponential sums

    Gregory Beylkin and Lucas Monz´ on. “On approximation of functions by exponential sums”. In: Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 19.1 (2005), pp. 17–48. issn: 1063-5203,1096-603X. doi: 10.1016/j.acha. 2005.01.003. url: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acha.2005.01.003

    2005 doi

  10. [17]

    The effect of pulse duration on refractory periods of neurons mediating brain-stimulation reward

    Catherine Bielajew, Sabine Jurgens, and George Fouriezos. “The effect of pulse duration on refractory periods of neurons mediating brain-stimulation reward”. In: Behavioural brain research 24.3 (1987), pp. 233–241

    1987

  11. [18]

    Stability of nonlinear Hawkes processes

    Pierre Br´ emaud and Laurent Massouli´ e. “Stability of nonlinear Hawkes processes”. In: Ann. Probab. 24.3 (1996), pp. 1563–1588. issn: 0091-1798,2168-894X. doi: 10.1214/aop/1065725193. url: https: //doi.org/10.1214/aop/1065725193

    1996

  12. [19]

    Metastability in a stochastic neural network modeled as a velocity jump Markov process

    Paul C. Bressloff and Jay M. Newby. “Metastability in a stochastic neural network modeled as a velocity jump Markov process”. In: SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 12.3 (2013), pp. 1394–1435. issn: 1536-0040. doi: 10.1137/120898978. url: https://doi.org/10.1137/120898978

    2013 doi

  13. [20]

    A stochastic Gordon- Loeb model for optimal cybersecurity investment under clustered attacks

    Giorgia Callegaro, Claudio Fontana, Caroline Hillairet, and Beatrice Ongarato. A stochastic Gordon- Loeb model for optimal cybersecurity investment under clustered attacks . 2025. arXiv: 2505 . 01221 [q-fin.RM]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.01221

    2025

  14. [21]

    A self-exciting modeling framework for for- ward prices in power markets

    Giorgia Callegaro, Andrea Mazzoran, and Carlo Sgarra. “A self-exciting modeling framework for for- ward prices in power markets”. In: Appl. Stoch. Models Bus. Ind. 38.1 (2022), pp. 27–48. issn: 1524- 1904,1526-4025. doi: 10.1002/asmb.2645. url: https://doi.org/10.1002/asmb.2645. 28

    2022 doi

  15. [22]

    Existence of optimal controls for stochastic Volterra equa- tions

    A. C´ ardenas, S. Pulido, and R. Serrano. “Existence of optimal controls for stochastic Volterra equa- tions”. In: ArXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05169 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Fractional Brownian motion and the Markov property

    Philippe Carmona and Laure Coutin. “Fractional Brownian motion and the Markov property”. In: Electronic Communications in Probability 3 (1998), pp. 95–107

    1998

  17. [24]

    Optimal Control of Spiking Neural Networks

    Tiago Costa, Juan R. Casti˜ neiras de Saa, and Alfonso Renart. “Optimal Control of Spiking Neural Networks”. In: bioRxiv (2024). doi: 10.1101/2024.10.02.616330 . eprint: https://www.biorxiv. org/content/early/2024/10/03/2024.10.02.616330.full.pdf. url: https://www.biorxiv.org/...

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Convergence of stochastic gene networks to hybrid piecewise deterministic processes

    A. Crudu, A. Debussche, A. Muller, and O. Radulescu. “Convergence of stochastic gene networks to hybrid piecewise deterministic processes”. In: Ann. Appl. Probab. 22.5 (2012), pp. 1822–1859. issn: 1050-5164,2168-8737. doi: 10.1214/11-AAP814. url: https://doi.org/10.1214/11-AAP814

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    Stability, convergence to equilibrium and simu- lation of non-linear Hawkes processes with memory kernels given by the sum of Erlang kernels

    Aline Duarte, Eva L¨ ocherbach, and Guilherme Ost. “Stability, convergence to equilibrium and simu- lation of non-linear Hawkes processes with memory kernels given by the sum of Erlang kernels”. In: ESAIM Probab. Stat. 23 (2019), pp. 770–796. issn: 1292-8100,1262-3318. doi: 10...

    2019

  20. [28]

    On viscosity solutions of path dependent PDEs

    Ibrahim Ekren, Christian Keller, Nizar Touzi, and Jianfeng Zhang. “On viscosity solutions of path dependent PDEs”. In: The Annals of Probability 42.1 (2014), pp. 204–236. doi: 10.1214/12-AOP788. url: https://doi.org/10.1214/12-AOP788

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Modeling networks of spiking neurons as interacting processes with memory of variable length

    Antonio Galves and Eva L¨ ocherbach. “Modeling networks of spiking neurons as interacting processes with memory of variable length”. In: J. SFdS 157.1 (2016), pp. 17–32. issn: 2102-6238

    2016

  22. [30]

    Volatility is rough

    J. Gatheral, T. Jaisson, and M. Rosenbaum. “Volatility is rough”. In: Quantitative Finance 18.6 (2018), pp. 933–949

    2018

  23. [31]

    A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions

    Daniel T. Gillespie. “A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions”. In: J. Comput. Phys. 22.4 (1976), pp. 403–434. issn: 0021-9991,1090-2716. doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(76)90041-3. url: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(7...

    1976 doi

  24. [32]

    McKean-Vlasov Itˆ o-Skorohod equations, and nonlinear diffusions with discrete jump sets

    Carl Graham. “McKean-Vlasov Itˆ o-Skorohod equations, and nonlinear diffusions with discrete jump sets”. In: Stochastic Process. Appl. 40.1 (1992), pp. 69–82. issn: 0304-4149,1879-209X. doi: 10.1016/ 0304-4149(92)90138-G. url: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4149(92)90138-G

    1992 doi

  25. [33]

    Markovian lifting and asymptotic log-Harnack inequality for stochastic Volterra inte- gral equations

    Y. Hamaguchi. “Markovian lifting and asymptotic log-Harnack inequality for stochastic Volterra inte- gral equations”. In: ArXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06683 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    On the maximum principle for optimal control problems of stochastic Volterra integral equations with delay

    Yushi Hamaguchi. “On the maximum principle for optimal control problems of stochastic Volterra integral equations with delay”. In: Applied Mathematics & Optimization 87.3 (2023), p. 42

    2023

  27. [35]

    Stochastic models of neuronal dynamics

    LM Harrison, O David, and KJ Friston. “Stochastic models of neuronal dynamics”. In: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360.1457 (2005), pp. 1075–1091

    2005

  28. [36]

    Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes

    Alan G. Hawkes. “Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes”. In: Biometrika 58 (1971), pp. 83–90. issn: 0006-3444,1464-3510. doi: 10 . 1093 / biomet / 58 . 1 . 83. url: https : //doi.org/10.1093/biomet/58.1.83

    1971 doi

  29. [37]

    Deep neural networks algorithms for stochastic control problems on finite horizon: convergence analysis

    Cˆ ome Hur´ e, Huyˆ en Pham, Achref Bachouch, and Nicolas Langren´ e. “Deep neural networks algorithms for stochastic control problems on finite horizon: convergence analysis”. In:SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 59.1 (2021), pp. 525–557

    2021

  30. [38]

    Optimal market making with persistent order flow

    Paul Jusselin. “Optimal market making with persistent order flow”. In: SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics 12.3 (2021), pp. 1150–1200

    2021

  31. [39]

    Approximation with sums of exponentials in Lp[0, ∞)

    David W. Kammler. “Approximation with sums of exponentials in Lp[0, ∞)”. In: J. Approximation Theory 16.4 (1976), pp. 384–408. issn: 0021-9045,1096-0430. doi: 10.1016/0021-9045(76)90071-x . url: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9045(76)90071-x

    1976 doi

  32. [40]

    Controlled singular Volterra integral equations and Pontryagin maxi- mum principle

    Ping Lin and Jiongmin Yong. “Controlled singular Volterra integral equations and Pontryagin maxi- mum principle”. In: SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 58.1 (2020), pp. 136–164. 29

    2020

  33. [41]

    Option pricing when underlying stock returns are discontinuous

    Robert C. Merton. “Option pricing when underlying stock returns are discontinuous”. In: Journal of Financial Economics 3.1 (1976), pp. 125–144. issn: 0304-405X. doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016/0304- 405X(76)90022- 2. url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi...

    1976

  34. [42]

    Lifting of Volterra processes: optimal control in UMD Banach spaces

    G. di Nunno and M. Giordano. “Lifting of Volterra processes: optimal control in UMD Banach spaces”. In: ArXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14175 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Applied stochastic control of jump diffusions

    Bernt Øksendal and Agnes Sulem. Applied stochastic control of jump diffusions . Vol. 3. Springer, 2007

    2007

  36. [44]

    Optimal control of Volterra-integral diffusions and application to contract theory

    Dylan Possama ¨ ı and Mehdi Talbi. Optimal control of Volterra-integral diffusions and application to contract theory. 2024. url: https://mctalbi.github.io/Optimal%20control%20of%20Volterra% 20integral%20diffusions.pdf

    2024

  37. [45]

    Optimal control for stochastic neural oscillators

    Faranak Rajabi, Frederic Gibou, and Jeff Moehlis. “Optimal control for stochastic neural oscillators”. In: Biological Cybernetics 119.2 (2025), pp. 1–16

    2025

  38. [46]

    Memory effects on epidemic evolution: The susceptible-infected-recovered epidemic model

    M. Saeedian, M. Khalighi, N. Azimi-Tafreshi, G.R. Jafari, and M. Ausloos. “Memory effects on epidemic evolution: The susceptible-infected-recovered epidemic model”. In: Physical Review E 95.2 (2017), p. 022409

    2017

  39. [47]

    Self-scaling tumor growth

    J. Schmiegel. “Self-scaling tumor growth”. In: Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 367 (2006), pp. 509–524

    2006

  40. [48]

    A martingale approach for fractional Brownian motions and related path dependent PDEs

    F. Viens and J. Zhang. “A martingale approach for fractional Brownian motions and related path dependent PDEs”. In: The Annals of Applied Probability 29.6 (2019), pp. 3489–3540

    2019

  41. [49]

    Path dependent Feynman–Kac formula for forward backward stochastic Volterra integral equations

    H. Wang, J. Yong, and J. Zhang. “Path dependent Feynman–Kac formula for forward backward stochastic Volterra integral equations”. In: Annales de l’institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statis- tiques (B) 58.2 (2022), pp. 603–638

    2022

  42. [50]

    Linear–quadratic optimal controls for stochastic Volterra integral equations: causal state feedback and path-dependent Riccati equations

    H. Wang, J. Yong, and C. Zhou. “Linear–quadratic optimal controls for stochastic Volterra integral equations: causal state feedback and path-dependent Riccati equations”. In: SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 61.4 (2023), pp. 2595–2629

    2023

  43. [51]

    Portfolio optimization in a multivariate jump-diffusion model

    Dominik de Witte, Jan-Frederik Mai, and Matthias Scherer. “Portfolio optimization in a multivariate jump-diffusion model”. In: Front. Math. Finance 5 (2025), pp. 39–72. issn: 2769-6715. doi: 10.3934/ fmf.2025004. url: https://doi.org/10.3934/fmf.2025004. 30

    2025 doi

  44. [430]

    url: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021- 9045(72) 90059-7

    doi: 10.1016/0021- 9045(72)90059- 7. url: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021- 9045(72) 90059-7

    doi

  45. [2024]

    url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06276

    arXiv: 2409.06276 [math.PR]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06276

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.