Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Quantitative Particle Approximation for Controlled Nonlinear Filtering

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For controlled nonlinear filtering, an N-particle approximation has explicit value-function error rates.

desk verdict A genuinely new rate result for controlled nonlinear filtering with a common-control Hamiltonian, but the main theorem is stated under hypotheses weaker than the proof requires—there's a fix, but the paper needs it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00686 v1 pith:7VTFNYCI submitted 2026-08-01 math.OC

Erhan Bayraktar , Ibrahim Ekren , Xihao He , Xin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 93E1193E2049L2560H3065C35
keywords Nonlinearfilteringpartiallyobservedcontrolfinite-particleapproximationWassersteinHamilton–Jacobi–Bellmanequationscommonnoiseparticlefiltersviscositysolutionsconvergencerate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies a partially observed control problem in which the state evolves as a McKean–Vlasov diffusion on the torus and the only observations arrive through a common noise. The filter—the conditional law of the state given the observations—becomes the state variable, and the value function solves a second-order Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equation on the space of probability measures. The paper shows that this infinite-dimensional problem can be replaced by a centralized N-particle control problem, where one common action is applied to all particles, and that the two value functions differ by at most C N^{-1/6} in dimension one, C N^{-1/6}(log N)^{1/3} in dimension two, and C N^{-1/(3d)} in higher dimensions, uniformly over initial configurations. This matters because it turns a measure-valued stochastic control problem into a finite-particle problem with a guaranteed, explicit error tolerance, without requiring the affine-drift, separable-reward structure of earlier results.

What carries the argument

The central object is the optimized common-control Hamiltonian H(t,eta)=sup_a int_{T^d x R^d} [ell(t,x,m_eta,a)+b(t,x,m_eta,a) dot p] eta(dx,dp), where eta is a measure over (x,p) pairs and m_eta is its spatial marginal. Because one action is chosen for all particles, the supremum sits outside the integral; Assumption 3.1(iv) requires this optimized Hamiltonian to be C^r in the measure variable in the Lions sense, with derivatives uniformly continuous and bounded. That regularity implies the empirical derivative scaling |D_{z_{i1}}...D_{z_{iq}} H^N| <= C_R N^{-#{i1,...,iq}}, the key mean-field ingredient for uniform-in-N particle derivative estimates. The other load-bearing device is the tra

What would settle it

Construct a smooth-data model on T^1 where the supremum defining the Hamiltonian is attained at two distinct actions whose optimizers cross at a measure point, so that H remains continuous but loses C^2 Lions regularity; compute V^N and V for increasing N at a fixed initial measure and check whether the uniform difference still obeys the N^{-1/6} bound. If it does, the Hamiltonian regularity assumption is not necessary; if the observed rate degrades, the assumption is doing the work the proof assigns it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.1: under smoothness of the data, uniform ellipticity, and a C^r regularity condition on the optimized common-control Hamiltonian H(t,eta)=sup_a int [ell(t,x,m_eta,a)+b(t,x,m_eta,a) dot p] eta(dx,dp), the value function V^N of the centralized N-particle control problem converges uniformly to V(t, mu^N_x), the value of the true controlled filtering problem evaluated at the empirical measure, at the stated rates. The proof works directly with the Wasserstein HJB equation rather than reducing to a finite-dimensional Gaussian representation. The constant common-noise Hessian is removed by a translation lift that introduces an extra torus variable, and Fourier–Wasser

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the optimized common-control Hamiltonian being C^r smooth in the measure variable in the Lions sense, with bounded uniformly continuous derivatives; this is the property that forces the N^{-#indices} scaling of empirical derivatives, and smooth data alone does not guarantee it when the maximizing action is non-unique.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The centralized N-particle control problem is a numerical proxy for the infinite-dimensional filtering value function with a guaranteed error: N particles give O(N^{-1/6}) accuracy in one dimension, O(N^{-1/6}(log N)^{1/3}) in two dimensions, and O(N^{-1/(3d)}) in higher dimensions.
  • The error bound is uniform over all initial particle configurations, so it supports worst-case approximation guarantees rather than only average-case ones.
  • Nonseparable running rewards and controlled drifts are covered, so the rate guarantee does not rely on the Gaussian-convolution reduction used in earlier separable-reward results.
  • The Hamiltonian regularity condition can hold even when the maximizing action is non-unique, so convergence does not require uniqueness of optimal controls.
  • In one space dimension, the proof is designed to extend to state- and law-dependent common noise through a measure-dependent flow transformation, broadening the models for which the rates hold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the stated rates are probably not sharp; under stronger data regularity one would expect rates closer to the N^{-1} weak rate available in the special separable-reward case, but the current proof trades optimality for generality.
  • Editorial inference: the choice of the Fourier–Wasserstein metric gives convenient Hilbert-space duality for the convolutions; using a sharper metric could improve the dimension dependence but would complicate the derivative identities and residual estimates.
  • Editorial inference: the comparison machinery should extend to controlled filtering with jumps or path-dependent coefficients if the optimized Hamiltonian keeps analogous Lions regularity and a counterpart of the translation lift exists.
  • Editorial inference: the uniform particle derivative estimates in v^N suggest that mesh-free or Monte Carlo solvers for the N-particle HJB equation may inherit the N^{-1} mean-field scaling, making the finite-particle problem practically solvable even though its raw dimension grows with N.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a partially observed stochastic control problem in which the state is a McKean–Vlasov diffusion on the flat torus and the observation noise is common. The filter serves as the infinite-dimensional state, and the value function is shown to solve a second-order HJB equation on the Wasserstein space. The main result, Theorem 3.1, bounds the uniform error between the value function of a centralized N-particle control problem and the true value function evaluated at the empirical measure, with rates N^{-1/6} in d=1, N^{-1/6}(ln N)^{1/3} in d=2, and N^{-1/(3d)} in d>2, under smoothness of the coefficients, uniform ellipticity, and a strong regularity assumption on the optimized common-control Hamiltonian. The proof combines a translation lift in the common-noise direction, Fourier--Wasserstein inf/sup-convolutions, viscosity comparison, and N-uniform particle derivative estimates.

Significance. If correct, the paper gives the first quantitative value-function convergence rates for particle approximations of controlled nonlinear filtering problems with nonseparable rewards and a common-control Hamiltonian. The proof strategy is technically substantial and builds in an interesting way on recent quantitative mean-field control results, with a clean telescoping residual structure in Proposition 4.4. The authors are transparent about the restrictive nature of Assumption 3.1(iv) and provide a worked example. The comparison with the optimal N^{-1} weak rate in the separable affine case of Bouchard--Tan is clearly explained. However, the central theorem is not proved under the assumptions as stated because the proof requires a time-Lipschitz or Hölder modulus that Assumption 3.1 does not provide.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, proof of Theorem 3.1; §4.4, Proposition 4.4] The proof of Theorem 3.1 begins with the assertion 'Since Assumption 3.1 implies Assumption 4.1'. This is false: Assumption 3.1(i) requires only continuity of b and ℓ in t, while Assumption 4.1 requires these functions to be Lipschitz continuous on their domains uniformly in a. The discrepancy is load-bearing. In Proposition 4.4, the time-translation part of the residual is bounded by C(|t0-s0|^{1/2}+|z0-w0|+r)(1+r/ε). The |t0-s0|^{1/2} term is not available from mere time-continuity; with Lemma 4.5's bound |t0-s0|≤Cε^{2/3}, arbitrary time continuity would give an error of the form ω(C N^{-1/3}) for a generic modulus ω, which can be much larger than the claimed N^{-1/6} rate. Thus Theorem 3.1 is not established for the stated hypotheses. The repair is to add an explicit time-Hölder (e.g., 1/2-Hölder) or Lipschitz condition to Assumption 3.1, or to track the actual time modulus in Proposi
  2. [§4.3, Proposition 4.1] The comparison principle for the limiting equation is central to the sandwich argument in the proof of Theorem 3.1, but Proposition 4.1 is only a 'Proof sketch' and defers to references [20,7,5,6,8]. Since the Hamiltonian H(t,η) here is the optimized common-control Hamiltonian defined by sup after integration, it is not a priori covered by the comparison statements in the cited papers. Please either provide a complete proof of Proposition 4.1, or state precisely which theorem from which reference is being applied and verify all its hypotheses for the present nonseparable, common-control Hamiltonian under Assumptions 3.1 and 4.1.
  3. [§3.1, Assumption 3.1(iv)] The Hamiltonian regularity assumption is very strong: it requires the optimized common-control Hamiltonian to be C^r in the measure variable with uniformly continuous Lions derivatives up to total order r. This is not implied by smoothness of the data and will fail in many natural examples where the maximizing control is nonunique. The paper gives one nontrivial example, but no general sufficient condition or discussion of prevalence. Since the N-uniform particle derivative estimates in Proposition 4.2 and the rates in Theorem 3.1 rest directly on this assumption, the scope of the main theorem is considerably narrower than the problem formulation suggests. This is not an internal inconsistency, but it should be stated more prominently and, if possible, supplemented with broader sufficient conditions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There is a notation inconsistency between V^N (used for the value function in Sections 2--3 and in Theorem 3.1) and v^N (used in Proposition 4.2 and the proofs). Please unify.
  2. [§3.1, text before Example 3.1] The sentence 'the supremum in (3.1) is exactly H(t, η^{μ,ϕ})' appears to refer to the Hamiltonian definition, but (3.1) is the PDE. The reference should be to (1.1) or the displayed definition in §3.1.
  3. [§4.4, Proposition 4.4 proof] The phrase 'the regularity of ℓ and b in time, state, and measure' is vague. Since the main issue is the time modulus, please state explicitly which regularity (Lipschitz or Hölder) is being used for the time variable at that point.
  4. [§4.3, Lemma 4.1 and Proposition 4.3] Lemma 4.1 and Proposition 4.3 are again 'Proof sketch' with references to [8,25]. This is acceptable if the referenced arguments are directly applicable, but the reader should at least see the key step for the Fourier metric and the compact-space empirical W1 estimate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No constructional circularity: the rate theorem is not identical to its inputs. Self-citations are transparent prior comparison tools; the proof has a non-circular time-regularity gap.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, I find no reduction of the central claim to its own inputs. Theorem 3.1 is a uniform bound on |V^N - V(mu^N_x)|, and the proof compares the N-particle HJB equation (3.2) with the limiting Wasserstein HJB equation (3.1) via translation lift, Fourier-Wasserstein inf/sup-convolutions, and viscosity comparison. The residual E(N,epsilon) in (3.5) is a genuine difference of the two operators at the contact point, not a relabeling of the final error; its telescoping form is an identity used to expose the approximation error, and its bound in Proposition 4.4 comes from localization (Lemma 4.5) plus the assumed derivative scaling of the optimized common-control Hamiltonian. That derivative scaling is an explicit hypothesis, Assumption 3.1(iv), not a quantity fitted to the value-function error, so the pattern 'fitted input called prediction' does not apply. The paper leans on the authors' prior comparison and convolution results [5,6,7,8], but these are cited as established theorems and they do not by themselves contain the nonseparable-reward/common-control-Hamiltonian rate result; the central rate claim therefore has independent content. One passage should be flagged for correctness, though not for circularity: the proof of Theorem 3.1 begins 'Since Assumption 3.1 implies Assumption 4.1', but Assumption 3.1(i) assumes only continuity in t, while Assumption 4.1 requires Lipschitz data and Proposition 4.4's residual estimate uses terms of order |t0-s0|^{1/2}; for merely continuous-in-time coefficients with a slow time modulus the claimed N^{-1/6}-type rates are not supported. This is an unsupported implication / missing hypothesis, not an equation reducing to itself, so it does not raise the circularity score. Overall, the derivation is self-contained apart from standard prior comparison results, and no step is circular by construction.

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

The central rate theorem depends on the data being C^r and Lipschitz, on uniform ellipticity, and above all on the optimized common-control Hamiltonian being C^r with the right derivative scaling. That last condition is not free: it fails for generic smooth data, and the paper exhibits one class where it holds. The proof also consumes external comparison results, three of which are authored by the present authors. No free numerical parameters are fitted; all rates are structural.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Uniform ellipticity: sigma sigma^T >= lambda I_d (Assumption 3.1(iii)).
    Needed for the weighted energy estimate in Prop 4.2 that controls spatial gradients of derivatives; without it the adjoint method does not close.
  • ad hoc to paper Hamiltonian regularity: the optimized common-control Hamiltonian H(t,eta) is C^r in the measure variable with bounded, jointly continuous Lions derivatives up to total order r (Assumption 3.1(iv)).
    This strong regularity condition is imposed directly on the optimized Hamiltonian; the empirical derivative scaling D_{z_i1}...D_{z_iq} H^N <= C N^{-#{i1,...,iq}} is derived from it and is the key to the N-uniform particle derivative estimates. Even with smooth data, sup-type Hamiltonians can be non-smooth; the paper gives one worked example where it holds but no general verification.
  • domain assumption Well-posedness and comparison for the limiting second-order Wasserstein HJB equation (3.1), quoted from references [20, 7, 5, 6, 8].
    Proposition 4.1 is a proof sketch that defers the comparison principle to previous and companion works, including several by the authors (e.g., arXiv:2606.04377). If those comparisons fail in the present common-noise setting, the final viscosity comparison step of Theorem 3.1 collapses.
  • standard math Classical parabolic theory on the compact manifold (T^d)^N for the truncated N-particle equation (cited to Friedman [26]).
    Used in Prop 4.2 to obtain a classical solution v^{N,R} before removing truncation.
  • standard math Empirical measure concentration: W1 and rho_F estimates for i.i.d. samples on the torus from [25] (Fournier-Guillin).
    Used in Lemma 4.2 and Prop 4.3 to control inf_x rho_F(mu^N_x, mu) <= C alpha(N).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantitative Particle Approximation for Controlled Nonlinear Filtering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7VTFNYCI

@misc{pith2026260800686,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantitative Particle Approximation for Controlled Nonlinear Filtering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7VTFNYCI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00686}
}
abstract

We estimate convergence rates of value functions for particle approximations of a controlled nonlinear filtering problem. The state is a McKean--Vlasov diffusion on the flat torus, driven by hidden idiosyncratic noise and observed common noise. The filter---the conditional law of the state given the observations---serves as the state variable of the control problem, and the associated value function solves a second-order Hamilton--Jacobi--Bellman equation on the Wasserstein space. We approximate this problem by a centralized \(N\)-particle control problem with independent idiosyncratic noises and a common observation noise. The framework accommodates nonseparable rewards and controlled drifts. Since a single control is applied to the entire population, the Hamiltonian is defined by an optimization performed after integration over the population. Under smoothness of the data, uniform ellipticity, and regularity of this Hamiltonian, we establish uniform value-function error bounds of order \(N^{-1/6}\) for \(d=1\), \(N^{-1/6}(\log N)^{1/3}\) for \(d=2\), and \(N^{-1/(3d)}\) for \(d>2\). The proof combines a translation lift in the common-noise direction, Fourier--Wasserstein inf- and sup-convolutions, viscosity comparison, and particle derivative estimates uniform in \(N\).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Backward SDEs for optimal control of partially observed path-dependent stochastic systems: A control randomization approach.The Annals of Applied Probability, 28(3):1634–1678, 2018

    Elena Bandini, Andrea Cosso, Marco Fuhrman, and Huyên Pham. Backward SDEs for optimal control of partially observed path-dependent stochastic systems: A control randomization approach.The Annals of Applied Probability, 28(3):1634–1678, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Randomized filtering and Bellman equa- tion in Wasserstein space for partial observation control problem.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 129(2):674–711, 2019

    Elena Bandini, Andrea Cosso, Marco Fuhrman, and Huyên Pham. Randomized filtering and Bellman equa- tion in Wasserstein space for partial observation control problem.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 129(2):674–711, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Mean field control and finite agent approxi- mation for regime-switching jump diffusions.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 88(2):36, 2023

    Erhan Bayraktar, Alekos Cecchin, and Prakash Chakraborty. Mean field control and finite agent approxi- mation for regime-switching jump diffusions.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 88(2):36, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Erhan Bayraktar, Andrea Cosso, and Huyên Pham. Randomized dynamic programming principle and Feynman–Kac representation for optimal control of McKean–Vlasov dynamics.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 370(3):2115–2160, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Comparison for semi-continuous viscosity solutions for second order pdes on the Wasserstein space.Journal of Differential Equations, 455:113963, 2026

    Erhan Bayraktar, Ibrahim Ekren, Xihao He, and Xin Zhang. Comparison for semi-continuous viscosity solutions for second order pdes on the Wasserstein space.Journal of Differential Equations, 455:113963, 2026

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    A comparison principle for Wasserstein PDEs with state- and law-dependent common noise

    Erhan Bayraktar, Ibrahim Ekren, Xihao He, and Xin Zhang. A comparison principle for Wasserstein pdes with state- and law-dependent common noise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.04377, 2026

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Comparison of viscosity solutions for a class of second- order pdes on the Wasserstein space.Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 50(4):570–613, 2025

    Erhan Bayraktar, Ibrahim Ekren, and Xin Zhang. Comparison of viscosity solutions for a class of second- order pdes on the Wasserstein space.Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 50(4):570–613, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Convergence rate of particle system for second-order pdes on Wasserstein space.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 63(3):1768–1782, 2025

    Erhan Bayraktar, Ibrahim Ekren, and Xin Zhang. Convergence rate of particle system for second-order pdes on Wasserstein space.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 63(3):1768–1782, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1992

    Alain Bensoussan.Stochastic Control of Partially Observable Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1992

    1992

  2. [10]

    Limit theory for mean-field control problems with common noise adapted controls.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14734, 2025

    Bruno Bouchard and Xiaolu Tan. Limit theory for mean-field control problems with common noise adapted controls.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14734, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Max Reppen, and H

    Matteo Burzoni, Vincenzo Ignazio, A. Max Reppen, and H. Mete Soner. Viscosity solutions for controlled McKean–Vlasov jump-diffusions.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 58(3):1676–1699, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Souganidis

    Pierre Cardaliaguet, Samuel Daudin, Joe Jackson, and Panagiotis E. Souganidis. An algebraic convergence rate for the optimal control of McKean–Vlasov dynamics.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 61(6):3341–3369, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Souganidis

    Pierre Cardaliaguet, Joe Jackson, Nikolaos Mimikos-Stamatopoulos, and Panagiotis E. Souganidis. Sharp convergence rates for mean field control in the region of strong regularity.The Annals of Probability, 2026. To appear. arXiv:2312.11373

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Souganidis

    Pierre Cardaliaguet and Panagiotis E. Souganidis. Regularity of the value function and quantitative propa- gation of chaos for mean field control problems.Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications NoDEA, 30(2):25, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    A survey of convergence results on particle filtering methods for practition- ers.IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 50(3):736–746, 2002

    Dan Crisan and Arnaud Doucet. A survey of convergence results on particle filtering methods for practition- ers.IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 50(3):736–746, 2002

    2002

  8. [16]

    Dan Crisan, Jessica Gaines, and Terry J. Lyons. Convergence of a branching particle method to the solution of the zakai equation.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 58(5):1568–1590, 1998

    1998

  9. [17]

    Dan Crisan and Terry J. Lyons. Nonlinear filtering and measure-valued processes.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 109(2):217–244, 1997. 24

    1997

  10. [18]

    Dan Crisan and Terry J. Lyons. A particle approximation of the solution of the kushner–stratonovitch equation.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 115(4):549–578, 1999

    1999

  11. [19]

    On the optimal rate for the convergence problem in mean field control.Journal of Functional Analysis, 287(12), 2024

    Samuel Daudin, François Delarue, and Joe Jackson. On the optimal rate for the convergence problem in mean field control.Journal of Functional Analysis, 287(12), 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Well-posedness of Hamilton–Jacobi equations in the Wasserstein space: non-convex hamiltonians and common noise.Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 50(1–2):1–52, 2025

    Samuel Daudin, Joe Jackson, and Benjamin Seeger. Well-posedness of Hamilton–Jacobi equations in the Wasserstein space: non-convex hamiltonians and common noise.Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 50(1–2):1–52, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Probability and Its Applications

    Pierre Del Moral.Feynman-Kac Formulae: Genealogical and Interacting Particle Systems with Applications. Probability and Its Applications. Springer, New York, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    McKean–Vlasov optimal control: limit theory and equivalence between different formulations.Mathematics of Operations Research, 47(4):2891–2930, 2022

    Mao Fabrice Djete, Dylan Possamaï, and Xiaolu Tan. McKean–Vlasov optimal control: limit theory and equivalence between different formulations.Mathematics of Operations Research, 47(4):2891–2930, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    McKean–Vlasov optimal control: the dynamic pro- gramming principle.The Annals of Probability, 50(2):791–833, 2022

    Mao Fabrice Djete, Dylan Possamaï, and Xiaolu Tan. McKean–Vlasov optimal control: the dynamic pro- gramming principle.The Annals of Probability, 50(2):791–833, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Springer, New York, 2001

    Arnaud Doucet, Nando de Freitas, and Neil Gordon, editors.Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice. Springer, New York, 2001

    2001

  17. [25]

    On the rate of convergence in Wasserstein distance of the empirical measure.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 162(3):707–738, 2015

    Nicolas Fournier and Arnaud Guillin. On the rate of convergence in Wasserstein distance of the empirical measure.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 162(3):707–738, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1964

    Avner Friedman.Partial Differential Equations of Parabolic Type. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1964

    1964

  19. [27]

    Finite dimensional approximations of Hamilton– Jacobi–Bellman equations in spaces of probability measures.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 53(2):1320–1356, 2021

    Wilfrid Gangbo, Sergio Mayorga, and Andrzej Swiech. Finite dimensional approximations of Hamilton– Jacobi–Bellman equations in spaces of probability measures.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 53(2):1320–1356, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Rate of convergence for particle approximation of pdes in Wasserstein space.Journal of Applied Probability, 59(4):992–1008, 2022

    Maximilien Germain, Huyen Pham, and Xavier Warin. Rate of convergence for particle approximation of pdes in Wasserstein space.Journal of Applied Probability, 59(4):992–1008, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Gordon, David J

    Neil J. Gordon, David J. Salmond, and Adrian F. M. Smith. Novel approach to nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian state estimation.IEE Proceedings F (Radar and Signal Processing), 140(2):107–113, 1993

    1993

  22. [30]

    Monte carlo filter and smoother for non-Gaussian nonlinear state space models.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 5(1):1–25, 1996

    Genshiro Kitagawa. Monte carlo filter and smoother for non-Gaussian nonlinear state space models.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 5(1):1–25, 1996

    1996

  23. [31]

    Limit theory for controlled McKean–Vlasov dynamics.SIAM Journal on Control and Opti- mization, 55(3):1641–1672, 2017

    Daniel Lacker. Limit theory for controlled McKean–Vlasov dynamics.SIAM Journal on Control and Opti- mization, 55(3):1641–1672, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Henry P. McKean. Propagation of chaos for a class of non-linear parabolic equations. InLecture Series in Differential Equations, volume 2, pages 177–194. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1969

    1969

  25. [33]

    Dynamic programming for optimal control of stochastic McKean–Vlasov dynamics.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 55(2):1069–1101, 2017

    Huyên Pham and Xiaoli Wei. Dynamic programming for optimal control of stochastic McKean–Vlasov dynamics.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 55(2):1069–1101, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Mete Soner and Qinxin Yan

    H. Mete Soner and Qinxin Yan. Viscosity solutions for McKean–Vlasov control on a torus.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 62(2):903–923, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Topics in propagation of chaos

    Alain-Sol Sznitman. Topics in propagation of chaos. InEcole d’Ete de Probabilites de Saint-Flour XIX—1989, volume 1464 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 165–251. Springer, 1991. 25

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.