REVIEW 1 cited by
White-noise driven conditional McKean-Vlasov limits for systems of particles with simultaneous and random jumps
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
We study the convergence of $N-$particle systems described by SDEs driven by Brownian motion and Poisson random measure, where the coefficients depend on the empirical measure of the system. Every particle jumps with a jump rate depending on its position and on the empirical measure of the system. Jumps are simultaneous, that is, at each jump time, all particles of the system are affected by this jump and receive a random jump height that is centred and scaled in $N^{-1/2}.$ This particular scaling implies that the limit of the empirical measures of the system is random, describing the conditional distribution of one particle in the limit system. We call such limits {\it conditional McKean-Vlasov limits}. The conditioning in the limit measure reflects the dependencies between coexisting particles in the limit system such that we are dealing with a {\it conditional propagation of chaos property}. As a consequence of the scaling in $N^{-1/2}$ and of the fact that the limit of the empirical measures is not deterministic the limit system turns out to be solution of a non-linear SDE, where not independent martingale measures and white noises appear having an intensity that depends on the conditional law of the process.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Wellposedness and averaging principle for conditional distribution dependent SDEs driven by standard Brownian motions and fractional Brownian motions
The averaging principle (Theorem 4.7) fails for the equation dX^ε_t = E[X^ε_t | F^0_t] dt with random initial condition, contradicting the paper's central claim.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.