Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Solving McKean-Vlasov Equation by deep learning particle method

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Training neural functions of Brownian paths to match Itô drift and diffusion gives a time-step-independent solver for McKean-Vlasov SDEs.

desk verdict A clean shared-network i.i.d. construction and honest conditional stability bounds are undercut by an ansatz, Y=F(t,W_t), that cannot represent non-degenerate diffusions, so the claimed h-independent convergence does not go through as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00780 v1 pith:JJBD5N7B submitted 2025-01-01 math.NA cs.NAmath.PR

Jingyuan Li , Wei Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAmath.PR MSC 60H1065C3068T07
keywords McKean-Vlasovequationinteractingparticlesystemphysics-informedneuralnetworksmeshlesssolverpropagationofchaosWassersteindistancefractionalBrownianmotion
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 introduces a way to solve McKean-Vlasov stochastic differential equations without a fixed time mesh. Instead of Euler steps on interacting particles, it writes each particle path as a neural network applied to that particle's Brownian motion, uses Itô's formula to read off what drift and diffusion the network path is actually following, and trains the network until those pseudo coefficients match the true mean-field drift and diffusion. The authors claim the resulting error is controlled by the training loss, not by the time step size, and that in the one-network version the target is the MV-SDE itself, so propagation of chaos is not needed. This would matter because traditional particle solvers slow down sharply on long time horizons or strongly nonlinear coefficients, whereas this method is meshless, parallelizable, and extends to noises like fractional Brownian motion. The self-interacting variant also approximates stationary distributions from a single trajectory without storing long sample histories.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pseudo MV-SDE obtained by applying Itô's formula to the ansatz $Y^{n,N}_t=F^n(t,W^n_t)$. Its drift is $b^{\mathrm{pseudo}}_{n,t}=F^n_1(t,W^n_t)+\frac12 F^n_{22}(t,W^n_t)$ and its diffusion is $\sigma^{\mathrm{pseudo}}_{n,t}=F^n_2(t,W^n_t)$. The loss is the sum of the initial mismatch and the $L^2$ discrepancies between these pseudo coefficients and the true $b$ and $\sigma$ evaluated at $Y^{n,N}_t$ and the empirical measure $\hat\nu^{(N)}_t$. The proofs feed those residuals through stochastic-integral estimates and a nonlinear Gronwall lemma to obtain sup-in-time $L^p$ and Wasserstein bounds; in the shared-$F$ case, an empirical-measure Wasserstein bound controls the sampling error.

What would settle it

Consider the scalar linear SDE $dX_t=-X_t\,dt+e^{-t}\,dW_t$ with $X_0=0$, whose solution depends on the whole Brownian path and not only on $W_t$. Train the proposed network $F_\theta(t,W_t)$ on this equation; if the minimal drift and diffusion residuals in (3.2)-(3.3) cannot be driven below a strictly positive floor while an Euler-Maruyama reference converges, the claim that error is controlled solely by the training loss fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that an MV-SDE solution can be approximated by neural paths $Y^{n,N}_t=F^n(t,W^n_t)$, where the network is trained so that the Itô-formula pseudo coefficients match the true coefficients: the pseudo drift $F^n_1+\frac12F^n_{22}$ is matched to $b(t,Y^{n,N}_t,\hat\nu^{(N)}_t)$ and the pseudo diffusion $F^n_2$ is matched to $\sigma(t,Y^{n,N}_t,\hat\nu^{(N)}_t)$. Theorems 3.6, 3.7, and 3.9 then bound the sup-in-time $L^p$ error and the Wasserstein distance by constants that vanish as the initial, drift, and diffusion residuals go to zero, and those constants do not involve the discretization step $h$. In the shared-$F$ version, the outputs for $N$ independent Brownian motions are i.i.d., so the empirical measure approximates the true law by the standard i.i.d. Wasserstein bound and propagation of chaos is not invoked.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that at every time $t$ the approximate particle path is fully determined by the current value of its driving Brownian motion; for a generic diffusion the true path depends on the whole Brownian past, and when that happens the trained residuals in the proof cannot be made arbitrarily small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The training loss replaces the Euler step-size error, so Brownian trajectories can be sampled at coarse, uneven, or partially missing time points while keeping the same error bounds.
  • In the single-network version, the approximation targets the MV-SDE directly from i.i.d. Brownian paths, so propagation of chaos is not needed as an intermediate step.
  • The same Itô-formula loss works for other noises; replacing the chain rule yields a solver for McKean-Vlasov SDEs driven by fractional Brownian motion.
  • The self-interacting one-path version approximates the stationary distribution from a single trajectory without storing long histories of samples.
  • Because all training points are evaluated inside one loss, the method can exploit GPU acceleration for large particle counts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The representability assumption $Y_t=F(t,W_t)$ is the point most worth testing: for non-degenerate diffusions the true path generally depends on the whole Brownian past, so a path-dependent equation would expose an irreducible lower bound on the residuals in (3.2)-(3.3).
  • If the meshless error control survives uneven sampling, the same loss could be used for parameter estimation or data assimilation from irregularly observed SDE trajectories, a natural extension the paper does not develop.
  • The $h$-independence statement concerns the training loss; the loss itself is evaluated at sampled Brownian points, so a careful quadrature-error analysis would be needed to confirm the claim for arbitrarily sparse or randomly deleted observation times.
  • The shared-$F$ formulation's slower Monte Carlo convergence suggests a hybrid: use the interacting-particle loss for a few networks to get fast distributional accuracy and then fine-tune a single shared network for pathwise predictions.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a deep-learning, PINN-type solver for McKean-Vlasov SDEs. The solution is represented as Y_t^n = F^n(t, W_t^n) (or by a shared F), and the Itô expansion of this ansatz is matched to the drift and diffusion coefficients of the MV-SDE through an L2 loss. The authors provide conditional error estimates in Lp and Wasserstein distance for three settings: interacting particle systems with separate networks, i.i.d. copies with a shared network, and self-interacting diffusions for stationary distributions. Numerical experiments on a Burgers-type MV-SDE, an fBm-driven model, and a stationary-distribution example compare the method with Euler-Maruyama particle simulation.

Significance. If the central representation were valid, the meshless formulation and the decoupling of the time-discretization error from the optimization error would be a useful contribution to MV-SDE simulation. The paper's conditional stability estimates are standard, and the use of the Fournier-Guillin i.i.d. Wasserstein bound in the shared-F case is appropriate. However, the method's main premise—that a solution can be written as a deterministic function of the current Brownian value—is false for generic non-degenerate diffusions, and the experiments do not report the residual quantities on which the theorems condition. The h-independence claim is therefore not supported. These issues affect the core theoretical claims of the paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (2.5)] The ansatz Y^{n,N}_t = F^n(t, W^n_t) in Eq. (2.5) is the load-bearing premise of the method, but it is not valid for non-degenerate SDEs. For fixed t, F^n(t, W^n_t) is measurable with respect to the single random variable W^n_t, whereas the solution X_t of (2.2) is in general a functional of the entire Brownian path. A concrete obstruction is the scalar SDE dX_t = -X_t dt + dW_t, X_0 = 0, whose solution X_t = ∫_0^t e^{-(t-s)} dW_s has Var(X_t | W_t) = (1-e^{-2t})/2 - (1-e^{-t})^2/t > 0 for t > 0, so no Borel F exists with X_t = F(t, W_t). Equivalently, with σ = 1 the diffusion matching condition forces F_w = 1, hence F(t,w) = w + C(t), and the resulting pseudo-drift C'(t) cannot match the state-dependent drift -w - C(t). The same obstruction carries over to the MV-SDEs considered. Consequently the residual hypotheses (3.2)-(3.3), (3.5)-(3.6), and (3.8)-(3.9) are generally not achievable, and the universal approximation result cited ([28]) only approximates functions of (t,w), not path functionals.
  2. [§3.3, Theorems 3.6, 3.7, 3.9] The three main theorems are conditional stability statements: they assert that if the training residuals are bounded by ε_i, then the Lp path error and Wasserstein error are bounded by constants that vanish as ε_i → 0 (and N → ∞ where claimed). Since these residuals are exactly the loss terms L2 and L3 minimized in Algorithm 4.1, the theorems do not by themselves provide an a priori error estimate for the proposed method. An a priori estimate requires either a proof that the residuals can be driven to zero, or a representability result for the ansatz class, or an optimization guarantee. Neither is supplied. In view of the obstruction in Eq. (2.5), the h-independence claim in Sections 2.1 and 2.4 rests on an unverified and generally false premise.
  3. [§4.1, Algorithm 4.1 and §3.3] The residual conditions such as (3.2) and (3.3) are stated as continuous-time integrals, but the loss in Algorithm 4.1 is a finite sum over training time points. The paper provides no estimate for the difference between the empirical loss and the continuous residuals, so the theorems do not imply that small training loss yields small ε_2 and ε_3. Hence the advertised independence from the time step h is not established; h still enters through the quadrature of the loss integrals. The meshless numerical experiments with deleted time points illustrate robustness but do not fill this gap.
  4. [§3.3, Theorem 3.9] Theorem 3.9 states that C1 and C2 converge to 0 when T → ∞ and ε_1, ε_2, ε_3 → 0, but the proof yields constants that grow like exp((2L + C^2)t), so they blow up as t increases. No long-time argument is given to offset this exponential growth by the contraction in Hypothesis 3.8. The claimed convergence to the stationary distribution therefore does not follow from the displayed estimates; at best the bounds hold on compact time intervals with constants depending exponentially on T.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3] The sentence beginning 'Under some mild conditions [9, 32],' is incomplete and should be finished or merged with the following sentence.
  2. [§2.1, Eqs. (2.6)-(2.7)] The notation 'b^{P seudo}' and 'σ^{P seudo}' contains an obvious typo; it should be 'pseudo' throughout.
  3. [§4.1, Algorithm 4.1] The loss weights λ_i in Algorithm 4.1 are not defined, and no normalization by the number of time points D is specified, making the relationship between the empirical loss and the integral residuals in (3.2)-(3.3) unclear.
  4. [§4.2, Table 1] The training time for PEM is listed as '×' without explanation; a short note stating why this entry is not applicable would improve the table.
  5. [§2.2] The claim that omitting propagation of chaos is 'a theoretical breakthrough' is overstated; the shared-F setting still requires the empirical measure \v{\nu}^{(N)}_t to approximate \nu_t, and convergence is only supplied through the i.i.d. Wasserstein bound of Lemma 3.4.
  6. [§4.2.1] The experiments report the distributional MSE, not the residual quantities ε_2 and ε_3 from (3.2)-(3.3). Reporting the training residuals would directly test the hypotheses on which the theorems condition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the residual-based stability bounds are conditional a posteriori estimates, not quantities equivalent to their own inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's main error results (Theorems 3.6, 3.7, and 3.9) are conditional stability bounds of the form: if the training residuals (3.1)-(3.3), (3.4)-(3.6), or (3.7)-(3.9) are small, then the path and Wasserstein errors are small, with constants depending on those residual tolerances. The residual integrals are indeed the same quantities minimized in the loss, but this is not circular: the theorems do not claim that small loss is automatically attainable, and they do not identify the output error with the loss. They prove a transfer of smallness from coefficient residuals to path error using Itô's formula, the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality, Gronwall's lemma, and Lipschitz assumptions. The Wasserstein part additionally imports the external, parameter-free i.i.d. empirical-measure result of Fournier-Guillin [11], and the particle-system part relies on externally cited propagation-of-chaos results. The self-citations [9,13,20] supply standard stationary-distribution and long-time results rather than functioning as an unverified premise that forces the present conclusion, so they are not load-bearing circularity. The genuinely serious gap is representability: for a non-degenerate diffusion, a solution X_t generally depends on the whole Brownian path, so the ansatz Y_t = F(t,W_t) in (2.5) cannot make residuals (3.2)-(3.3) arbitrarily small, and the cited universal approximation theorem for functions of (t,w) does not cover path functionals. That is a correctness/completeness defect in the claimed convergence, not a definitional reduction of the output to the input; hence no circular step is exhibited under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the pseudo MV-SDE is a mathematical construct used for the loss, not an ontological entity. The central load-bearing inputs are the regularity assumptions on the coefficients, the Ito-calculus representation ansatz, and the unproved achievability of small residuals.

free parameters (3)
  • Training hyperparameters = e.g., 2 layers x 32 tanh, Adam lr=0.001, 100-20000 epochs
    Chosen ad hoc in experiments; no sensitivity analysis or principled selection is provided.
  • Loss weights and stopping threshold = lambda_i not specified; epsilon = min(epsilon1, epsilon2, epsilon3)
    Hand-selected; the theoretical conditions depend on integral residuals, while the algorithm controls weighted discrete MSE, so the link is not exact.
  • Time discretization for training points = M=2 to 101, h varies
    The loss evaluation and empirical measures depend on these points, but the theory does not account for quadrature error between the discrete loss and the integral residuals.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Ito formula for F in C^{1,2}(t,W_t)
    Used throughout to derive the pseudo drift and diffusion in equations (2.6) and (2.7).
  • domain assumption Coefficient regularity: Hypothesis 3.5 (Lipschitz in x and measure, gamma-Holder in t, finite p-th moment of X0)
    Sets the standard setting for MV-SDE well-posedness and propagation of chaos; stated in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption Existence and uniqueness of stationary distribution (Hypothesis 3.8)
    Used for the self-interacting stationary distribution analysis in Theorem 3.9.
  • ad hoc to paper Neural network universal approximation in Sobolev norms via tanh networks
    The paper cites [28] and applies it to approximate F in C^{1,2}; this is done without addressing whether the target process admits a representation of the form F(t,W_t).
  • ad hoc to paper Small training residuals (3.2), (3.3), and (3.5), (3.6) are achievable
    The theorems assume epsilon2 and epsilon3 are small; the paper asserts optimization can make them small but provides no proof, which is the main gap.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solving McKean-Vlasov Equation by deep learning particle method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JJBD5N7B

@misc{pith2026250100780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solving McKean-Vlasov Equation by deep learning particle method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JJBD5N7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00780}
}
abstract

We introduce a novel meshless simulation method for the McKean-Vlasov Stochastic Differential Equation (MV-SDE) utilizing deep learning, applicable to both self-interaction and interaction scenarios. Traditionally, numerical methods for this equation rely on the interacting particle method combined with techniques based on the It\^o-Taylor expansion. The convergence rate of this approach is determined by two parameters: the number of particles $N$ and the time step size $h$ for each Euler iteration. However, for extended time horizons or equations with larger Lipschitz coefficients, this method is often limited, as it requires a significant increase in Euler iterations to achieve the desired precision $\epsilon$. To overcome the challenges posed by the difficulty of parallelizing the simulation of continuous interacting particle systems, which involve solving high-dimensional coupled SDEs, we propose a meshless MV-SDE solver grounded in Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) that does not rely on the propagation of chaos result. Our method constructs a pseudo MV-SDE using It\^o calculus, then quantifies the discrepancy between this equation and the original MV-SDE, with the error minimized through a loss function. This loss is controlled via an optimization algorithm, independent of the time step size, and we provide an error estimate for the loss function. The advantages of our approach are demonstrated through corresponding simulations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    T. D. Ryck, S. Lanthaler, and S. Mishra, On the approximation of functions by tanh neural networks, Neural networks : the official journal of the International Neural Network SOL VING MCKEAN-VLASOV EQUATION BY DEEP LEARNING PARTICLE METHOD23 Society, 143 (2021), pp. 732–750

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Antonelli and A

    F. Antonelli and A. Kohatsu, Rate of convergence of a particle method to the solution of the mckean-vlasov’s equation , Annals of Applied Probability, 12 (2002), pp. 423–476

    work page 2002

  3. [2]

    Baladron, D

    J. Baladron, D. F asoli, O. D. F augeras, and J. Touboul, Mean-field description and propagation of chaos in networks of hodgkin-huxley and fitzhugh-nagumo neurons , Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience, 2 (2012), pp. 10 – 10

    work page 2012

  4. [3]

    J. Bao, C. Reisinger, P. Ren, and W. Stockinger, First-order convergence of milstein schemes for mckean–vlasov equations and interacting particle systems , Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 477 (2021). 22 JINGYUAN LI, WEI LIU

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Barbu and M

    V. Barbu and M. Rockner, From nonlinear fokker–planck equations to solutions of distribu- tion dependent sde , The Annals of Probability, (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    V. I. Bogachev, M. R¨ockner, and S. V. Shaposhnikov, On convergence to stationary distri- butions for solutions of nonlinear fokker–planck–kolmogorov equations , Journal of Mathe- matical Sciences, 242 (2019), pp. 69 – 84

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Bossy and D

    M. Bossy and D. Talay, A stochastic particle method for the mckean-vlasov and the burgers equation, Math. Comput., 66 (1997), pp. 157–192

    work page 1997

  8. [7]

    Carmona, F

    R. Carmona, F. Delarue, et al., Probabilistic theory of mean field games with applications I-II, Springer, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Chaintron and A

    L.-P. Chaintron and A. Diez, Propagation of chaos: A review of models, methods and applications. i. models and methods , Kinetic and Related Models, (2022), https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:247187507

    2022

  2. [9]

    K. Du, Y. Jiang, and J. Li, Empirical approximation to invariant measures for mckean–vlasov processes: Mean-field interaction vs self-interaction , Bernoulli, 29 (2023), pp. 2492–2518

    2023

  3. [10]

    Durmus, A

    A. Durmus, A. Eberle, A. Guillin, and R. Zimmer, An elementary approach to uniform in time propagation of chaos, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 148 (2020), pp. 5387–5398

    2020

  4. [11]

    Fournier and A

    N. Fournier and A. Guillin, On the rate of convergence in wasserstein distance of the empirical measure, Probability Theory and Related Fields, 162 (2015), pp. 707–738

    2015

  5. [12]

    Guillin, W

    A. Guillin, W. Liu, L. Wu, and C. Zhang, The kinetic fokker-planck equation with mean field interaction, Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 150 (2021), pp. 1–23

    2021

  6. [13]

    Guillin, W

    A. Guillin, W. Liu, L. Wu, and C. Zhang, Uniform poincar´ e and logarithmic sobolev in- equalities for mean field particle systems , The Annals of Applied Probability, 32 (2022), pp. 1590–1614

    2022

  7. [14]

    J. Han, R. Hu, and J. Long, Learning high-dimensional mckean–vlasov forward-backward stochastic differential equations with general distribution dependence , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 62 (2024), pp. 1–24

    2024

  8. [16]

    J. He, S. Gao, W. Zhan, and Q. Guo, An explicit euler method for mckean-vlasov sdes driven by fractional brownian motion , arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.04574, (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    P. E. Kloeden and E. Platen, The numerical solution of stochastic differential equations , The Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society. Series B. Applied Mathematics, 20 (1977), pp. 8 – 12

    1977

  10. [18]

    I. E. Lagaris, A. C. Likas, and D. I. Fotiadis, Artificial neural networks for solving ordi- nary and partial differential equations , IEEE transactions on neural networks, 9 5 (1997), pp. 987–1000

    1997

  11. [19]

    Lasry and P.-L

    J.-M. Lasry and P.-L. Lions, Mean-field games with a major player , Comptes Rendus Math- ematique, 356 (2018), pp. 886–890

    2018

  12. [20]

    W. Liu, L. Wu, and C. Zhang, Long-time behaviors of mean-field interacting particle systems related to mckean–vlasov equations, Communications in Mathematical Physics, 387 (2021), pp. 179–214

    2021

  13. [21]

    Liu, Optimal Quantization: Limit Theorem, Clustering and Simulation of the McKean- Vlasov Equation , PhD thesis, Sorbonne universit´ e, 2019

    Y. Liu, Optimal Quantization: Limit Theorem, Clustering and Simulation of the McKean- Vlasov Equation , PhD thesis, Sorbonne universit´ e, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Liu, Particle method and quantization-based schemes for the simulation of the mckean- vlasov equation, ArXiv, abs/2212.14853 (2022)

    Y. Liu, Particle method and quantization-based schemes for the simulation of the mckean- vlasov equation, ArXiv, abs/2212.14853 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    S. V. Muniandy and S. C. Lim, Modeling of locally self-similar processes using multifractional brownian motion of riemann-liouville type. , Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics, 63 4 Pt 2 (2001), p. 046104

    2001

  16. [24]

    N. B. Rached, A.-L. Haji-Ali, S. Mohan, and R. Tempone, Multilevel importance sampling for mckean-vlasov stochastic differential equation , ArXiv, abs/2208.03225 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    N. B. Rached, A.-L. Haji-Ali, S. M. S. Pillai, and R. Tempone , Single level im- portance sampling for mckean-vlasov stochastic differential equation , arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.06926, (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys., 378 (2019), pp. 686–707

    2019

  19. [27]

    Reisinger and M

    C. Reisinger and M. O. Tsianni, Convergence of the euler–maruyama particle scheme for a regularised mckean–vlasov equation arising from the calibration of local-stochastic volatility models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00434, (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [29]

    D. G. Salinas and M. O. Gallardo, A topic for integrated teaching of mathematics and biology: the parabola of chaos in tumour cell aneuploidy , International Journal of Mathe- matical Education in Science and Technology, 53 (2020), pp. 909 – 919

    2020

  21. [30]

    Sznitman, Topics in propagation of chaos , Ecole d’´ et´ e de probabilit´ es de Saint-Flour XIX—1989, 1464 (1991), pp

    A.-S. Sznitman, Topics in propagation of chaos , Ecole d’´ et´ e de probabilit´ es de Saint-Flour XIX—1989, 1464 (1991), pp. 165–251

    1991

  22. [31]

    A. Y. Veretennikov, On ergodic measures for mckean-vlasov stochastic equations , in Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 2004, Springer, 2006, pp. 471–486

    2004

  23. [32]

    W ang, Distribution dependent sdes for landau type equations , Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 128 (2018), pp

    F.-Y. W ang, Distribution dependent sdes for landau type equations , Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 128 (2018), pp. 595–621

    2018

  24. [33]

    Appendix. 6.1. Proof for Theorem 3.6. Proof. By using Lemmas Lemma 3.1, Lemma 3.2 and Hypothesis (3.5), we have sup u∈[0,t] |X n,N u − Y n,N u | p ≤ sup u∈[0,t] |X n,N 0 − Y n,N 0 + Z u 0 b(s, Xn,N s , ˆµs) − bP seudo n,s ds p + sup u∈[0,t] | Z u 0 σ(s, Xn,N s , ˆµs) − σP seud...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.