Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Long time strong convergence analysis of one-step methods for McKean-Vlasov SDEs with superlinear growth coefficients

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves uniform-in-time mean-square convergence at rate 1/2 for two Euler-type schemes applied to McKean–Vlasov SDEs with superlinear growth.

desk verdict A useful long-time convergence framework for superlinear McKean–Vlasov SDEs, but the propagation-of-chaos proof currently rests on a misstated empirical-measure bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09274 v1 pith:XEJHVBWZ submitted 2025-09-11 math.NA cs.NA

Taiyuan Liu , Yaozhong Hu , Siqing Gan This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65C3060H1060H35
keywords McKean-VlasovSDEssuperlineargrowthuniform-in-timestrongconvergencepropagationofchaosprojectedEulerschemebackwardmean-squareone-stepmethods
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

McKean–Vlasov stochastic differential equations describe the motion of a typical particle in a large interacting system, and their coefficients depend on the distribution of the solution. When those coefficients grow faster than linearly, standard Euler methods can blow up, and long-time error control has been missing. The paper shows that a broad class of one-step methods, including a projected Euler scheme and a backward Euler scheme, have global mean-square error that is uniformly of order h^(1/2) over the whole infinite time horizon, plus a propagation-of-chaos error that decays as the number of simulated particles grows. The result matters because it makes long-run simulations of superlinear mean-field systems rigorous, without global Lipschitz assumptions on the drift.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-step recursion with contraction. At each step the global error is written as the difference of two exact flows starting from the true and the numerical state, plus the one-step local error. The contractive monotonicity assumption with K1 > K2 gives an exponential decay factor e^(-(K1-K2)h) for the flow-difference term, and a modified Gronwall inequality converts a recurrence with such a factor into a uniform-in-time bound. The projection operator is the second mechanism: it keeps numerical iterates within a bounded ball of radius h^(-1/(2(kappa+2))), preventing the superlinear drift from destroying moment bounds while perturbing the solution by only a small amount per

What would settle it

Run an MV-SDE satisfying the paper's assumptions but with K1 = 2K2, using the projected Euler scheme with a fixed step h, and compare mean-square errors at T = 10, 10^2, 10^3. If the error grows without bound with T, the theorem's uniform-in-time claim fails; the paper's bound instead predicts an error that stays of order h^(1/2) for all T.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a general decomposition of the long-time error into a propagation-of-chaos term and a discretization term, with both controlled uniformly in time. For any one-step scheme whose local weak error is of order q1>1, whose local strong error is of order q2 in (1/2, q1-1/2), and whose numerical solutions have uniform moment bounds, the paper proves a global L2 bound of order h^(q2-1/2) on every grid point, uniformly in the number of steps. It verifies the hypotheses for two schemes: the projected Euler scheme, which caps the state via the projection psi(x)=min{1,h^(-1/(2(kappa+2)))|x|^(-1)}x, and the backward Euler scheme with a globally Lipschitz diffusion coefficient. Fo

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the contractive monotonicity gap K1 > 2K2; without it the negative feedback that makes the particle system and its discretization contract toward the nonlinear law disappears, and the uniform-in-time error bounds no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any one-step scheme satisfying the paper's three structural hypotheses, local weak order q1>1, local strong order q2>1/2, and uniform numerical moments, inherits a uniform-in-time mean-square error of order h^(q2-1/2).
  • The propagation-of-chaos bound is uniform over t>=0, so interacting-particle simulations of superlinear mean-field systems remain reliable for arbitrarily long horizons provided N is large enough.
  • The projected Euler scheme is a practical explicit method with a rigorous long-time rate 1/2 despite superlinear drift and diffusion.
  • The backward Euler scheme also attains rate 1/2, but only under an extra global Lipschitz condition on the diffusion coefficient, showing an asymmetry in the hypotheses needed by the two methods.
  • The paper's numerical experiments on polynomial and trigonometric mean-field examples report measured error slopes close to 1/2, consistent with the theoretical rates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: the same framework should cover tamed, split-step, and adaptive Euler variants, provided one can verify the local-error and moment hypotheses; the proof structure is not tied to the two schemes analyzed.
  • The constants in the bounds grow like 1/(K1-2K2), so for nearly critical systems the uniform-in-time guarantee is real but practically weak; the paper's condition is also a stiffness indicator.
  • Because the error bound is uniform in time, approximating invariant measures and long-run statistics of superlinear MV-SDEs is a direct downstream use, although the paper does not explicitly discuss invariant measures.
  • The dimension-dependent propagation-of-chaos rate implies that in high dimension d>4, increasing N gives only N^(-2/d) improvement; practical high-dimensional simulation will likely require variance reduction or multilevel methods rather than just larger 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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a general framework for the long-time strong convergence of one-step time discretizations of McKean–Vlasov SDEs with superlinear growth coefficients. It first establishes an infinite-horizon propagation-of-chaos estimate for the interacting particle system under a contractive monotonicity condition with quantitative gap K1 > 2K2, together with uniform moment bounds. It then proves a general one-step error theorem (Theorem 3.3) that reduces uniform-in-time mean-square convergence to local weak and strong error checks plus uniform numerical moments. The framework is applied to the projected Euler scheme and to the backward Euler scheme, yielding a uniform mean-square rate of order 1/2 in the time step, up to the propagation-of-chaos term in N. Numerical experiments for two scalar McKean–Vlasov equations are reported as supporting evidence.

Significance. If the proofs are completed, the paper gives a useful unified route to long-time strong convergence for non-globally Lipschitz McKean–Vlasov SDEs. The general theorem is a genuine structural contribution: it separates the propagation-of-chaos argument from the numerical stability/moment argument and reduces each application to finite checks. The two worked schemes, projected Euler and backward Euler, are natural and the obtained rate 1/2 is consistent with the expected strong order. The paper is also honest about the assumptions, including the explicit K1 > 2K2 gap that makes the propagation of chaos uniform in time. However, as written there are several load-bearing gaps: the empirical-measure lemma is misstated, the strict hypothesis of the general theorem excludes the two applications, and the moment bookkeeping in the proof of Theorem 3.3 is incomplete and internally inconsistent with the stated exponents. These issues are repairable, but they affect the central claims and require a major revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Lemma 5.1 and Eqs. (5.7)-(5.8)] Lemma 5.1 misstates the Fournier–Guillin empirical-measure estimate. The standard bound is E W_r^r(μ_N, μ) ≤ C_{r,l,d} W_l(μ)^r times the N-dependent factor, not W_l(μ)^{r/l}. The manuscript writes W_l(μ)^{r/l} in (5.1), and this erroneous exponent is propagated into Eq. (5.7), where E W_2^2(μ_t^{X_j}, μ_t^N) is bounded by C_{d,l} (E|X_t^j|^l)^{2/l^2} η(N), and into the definition of Υ(N) in Theorem 3.1. The correct coefficient is W_l(μ)^2, equivalently (E|X_t^j|^l)^{2/l}. Since Theorem 3.1 feeds Theorems 3.4, 3.9 and 3.14, the propagation-of-chaos estimates and all downstream rates are not justified as written. The defect is repairable by replacing 2/l^2 with 2/l under the finite l-th moment available from Assumptions 2.3-2.4, but the repair is absent.
  2. [Section 3.2, Theorem 3.3 (H2) and Theorems 3.7/3.12] The general theorem requires q2 ∈ (1/2, q1 - 1/2), i.e. q2 < q1 - 1/2. However the projected Euler scheme has q1 = 3/2 and q2 = 1 (Theorem 3.7, (3.21)-(3.22)), and the backward Euler scheme has the same values (Theorem 3.12, (3.29)-(3.30)). Thus q2 = q1 - 1/2, not q2 < q1 - 1/2. The proof of Theorem 3.3 uses only q1 ≥ q2 + 1/2 (see the line after (5.48)), so the strict inequality is not needed. As stated, Theorems 3.8 and 3.13 cannot be obtained from Theorem 3.3; the hypothesis should be weakened to q2 ≤ q1 - 1/2 (or q1 ≥ q2 + 1/2 with q2 > 1/2).
  3. [Section 5.3, proof of Theorem 3.3, Eqs. (5.45)-(5.48) and Eq. (3.13)] The moment exponent λ in Theorem 3.3 is not justified by the displayed estimates. After Young's inequality, the forcing term contains E[(1+|X_k|^{2κ-2}+|Y_k|^{2κ-2})^{1/2}(1+|Y_k|^{2η2})] h^{2q2}. Expanding this produces terms |Y_k|^{κ-1+2η2} and |X_k|^{κ-1}|Y_k|^{2η2}; bounding the latter by Cauchy–Schwarz/Hölder requires moments of |Y_k| up to order 4η2 and initial moments of order 4η2 η3, not just the advertised (κ−1/2+η2)η3. The concrete exponents in Theorems 3.8 and 3.13 (18κ+22 and 17κ+23) are also inconsistent with the formula for λ when η3=2, which is the value forced by the moment bounds in Theorems 3.6 and 3.11. The phrase 'combining (3.5), (3.12), and (5.49)' is therefore not sufficient as written. A complete Hölder/Young bookkeeping with the correct λ, or an explicit restriction on κ/q0 ensuring the needed moments, must be provided.
  4. [Section 3.2, Theorem 3.3 and proof around (5.39)] The proof reduces the sup over j to a single index by asserting that the joint sequence (X_k^{j,N}, Y_k^{j,N}) is identically distributed. This exchangeability of the one-step scheme is not a consequence of assumptions (H1)-(H3); it requires the local map Ψ^{j,N} in (3.6) to be symmetric with respect to the particle index. The projected and backward Euler schemes have this property, but the general theorem is stated for arbitrary one-step methods satisfying only (H2)-(H3). The theorem should either include an explicit symmetry/exchangeability condition or be restricted to schemes for which the asserted joint exchangeability holds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorems 3.1, 3.4, 3.9, 3.14] The statements allow any 2 < l ≤ q*, but Assumption 2.3 only guarantees E|X0|^{2q0} < ∞. Since the propagation-of-chaos constant contains (E|X0|^l+1)^{2/l} (after the correction to Lemma 5.1), the range should be restricted to l ≤ 2q0, or an additional finite l-th moment assumption should be stated. This does not affect the rate, since one can choose e.g. l=4 for d≤4 with l≠4, but the current 'any' is formally incorrect.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (3.25)] The implicit backward Euler scheme requires existence and uniqueness of the algebraic equation defining X̂_{k+1}^{i,N}. This follows from the strong monotonicity in Assumption 2.1, but it is not stated or proved. A short remark would make the scheme well-posed.
  3. [Section 4] The numerical experiments use T=16 and report rates visually from log-log plots. Quantitative slope estimates, confidence intervals, or a table of rates would make the validation more conclusive. Also, the theoretical claims are uniform in time, so presenting errors at a longer terminal time (e.g., T=64 or T=100) would better match the infinite-horizon statement.
  4. [Theorem 3.3, Eq. (3.13)] The definition of λ is given after Eq. (5.50) in the proof but is used in the theorem statement before the proof. The statement should define λ explicitly in the theorem, and the proof should verify that the same λ satisfies all moment requirements, including the cross terms discussed in the major comments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the long-time rates follow from a genuinely general error decomposition with independently verified local error and moment inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 3.4 combines two independent ingredients: (i) the propagation-of-chaos estimate of Theorem 3.1, which uses an external quantitative lemma ([21, Theorem 1]) and the contractive monotonicity condition K1 > 2K2, and (ii) the general one-step long-time error bound of Theorem 3.3. Theorem 3.3 is a standard reduction: it shows that if a scheme has local weak error order q1 > 1, local strong error order q2 in (1/2, q1 - 1/2), and uniform moment bounds, then the global L2 error is O(h^{q2-1/2}) plus the propagation-of-chaos term. The projected Euler and backward Euler analyses then independently verify these local error and moment hypotheses (Theorems 3.6, 3.7, 3.11, 3.12) with constants that are not fitted to the claimed rates. No parameter is calibrated from the target convergence rate, and no quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict. The paper does not rely on any load-bearing self-citation: its citations to prior numerical analyses of MV-SDEs are contextual, and the key external inputs (existence/uniqueness in [10], empirical-measure estimates in [21], Gronwall-type lemma in [28]) are independent mathematical results, not results derived by the present authors. The skeptical concern about Lemma 5.1 misstating the Fournier–Guillin moment factor is a correctness issue in the statement of the propagation-of-chaos estimate, not a circularity: even if the moment exponent is wrong, the estimate is not equivalent to the theorem it is used to prove, and the claimed scheme-specific convergence rates do not reduce by construction to the assumptions. Numerical experiments validate the predicted order 1/2 against reference solutions and are not used to set any theoretical constant. Therefore the central derivation is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity, and the paper receives a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard stochastic analysis (Itô formula, Gronwall, empirical-measure estimates) plus four domain assumptions on the coefficients. The backward Euler additionally requires a global Lipschitz diffusion assumption (3.10). No new entities, particle types, or parameters fitted to data are introduced.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: contractive monotonicity with K1 > K2 (and K1 > 2K2 for POC).
    Ensures exponential contraction of the particle difference and uniform-in-time propagation of chaos; invoked in Eq. (2.10) and throughout the proofs.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.2: polynomial growth Lipschitz drift.
    Used to control drift increments in the local error analysis; Eq. (2.11).
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.3: finite high-order initial moments.
    Needed for moment bounds with 2q0-th moment finite; Eq. (2.12).
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.4: dissipativity condition with q* >= 4q0 - 2.
    Provides uniform moment bounds for the true solution and the interacting particle system; Eq. (2.13).
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.10: global Lipschitz diffusion with small constant for the backward Euler scheme.
    Required for the moment bounds and local error analysis of the backward Euler scheme; Eq. (3.26).
  • standard math Lemma 2.7 (existence, uniqueness, finite-horizon moment bounds from [10]).
    Borrowed existence and moment results; stated as Lemma 2.7.
  • standard math Lemma 2.8 (modified Gronwall inequality from [28]).
    Used to convert integral inequalities into uniform-in-time bounds; Eq. (2.18)-(2.19).
  • standard math Lemma 5.1 (Fournier-Guillin empirical measure bound).
    Used for the propagation of chaos proof. The stated form appears to misstate the moment factor (should be W_l^r, not W_l^{r/l}); the correct N-rate is standard, but the stated factor is dimensionally inconsistent, affecting the proof of Theorem 3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long time strong convergence analysis of one-step methods for McKean-Vlasov SDEs with superlinear growth coefficients." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XEJHVBWZ

@misc{pith2026250909274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long time strong convergence analysis of one-step methods for McKean-Vlasov SDEs with superlinear growth coefficients},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XEJHVBWZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09274}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a strong convergence rate analysis of general discretization approximations for McKean-Vlasov SDEs with super-linear growth coefficients over infinite time horizon. Under some specified non-globally Lipschitz conditions, we derive the propagation of chaos, and the mean-square convergence rate over infinite time horizon for general one-step time discretization schemes for the underlying Mckean-Vlasov SDEs. As an application of the general result it is obtained the mean-square convergence rate over infinite time horizon for two numerical schemes: the projected Euler scheme and the backward Euler scheme for Mckean-Vlasov SDEs in non-globally Lipschitz settings. Numerical experiments are provided to validate the theoretical findings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [3]

    Bao and J

    J. Bao and J. Hao. Uniform-in-time estimates for mean-field type SDEs and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04047, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [44]

    N. K. Tran, T.-T. Kieu, D.-T. Luong, and H.-L. Ngo. On the infinite time horizon approx- imation for L´ evy-driven McKean-Vlasov SDEs with non-globally Lipschitz continuous and super-linearly growth drift and diffusion coefficients.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 543(2):128982, 2025

    2025

  3. [1]

    Angeli, D

    L. Angeli, D. Crisan, and M. Ottobre. Uniform in time convergence of numerical schemes for stochastic differential equations via strong exponential stability: Euler methods, Split-step and tamed schemes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15463, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [2]

    Baladron, D

    J. Baladron, D. Fasoli, O. Faugeras, and J. Touboul. Mean-field description and propagation of chaos in networks of Hodgkin-Huxley and FitzHugh-Nagumo neurons.The Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience, 2:1–50, 2012

    2012

  5. [4]

    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(2245):20200258, 2021

    2021

  6. [5]

    Benachour, B

    S. Benachour, B. Roynette, D. Talay, and P. Vallois. Nonlinear self-stabilizing processes– I Existence, invariant probability, propagation of chaos.Stochastic processes and their applications, 75(2):173–201, 1998. 45

    1998

  7. [6]

    Bensoussan, J

    A. Bensoussan, J. Frehse, P. Yam, et al.Mean field games and mean field type control theory, volume 101. Springer, 2013

    2013

  8. [7]

    Bolley, J

    F. Bolley, J. A. Canizo, and J. A. Carrillo. Stochastic mean-field limit: non-Lipschitz forces and swarming.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 21(11):2179–2210, 2011

    2011

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Mean-field de- scription and propagation of chaos in networks of Hodgkin–Huxley and FitzHugh–Nagumo neurons

    M. Bossy, O. Faugeras, and D. Talay. Clarification and complement to “Mean-field de- scription and propagation of chaos in networks of Hodgkin–Huxley and FitzHugh–Nagumo neurons”.The Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience (JMN), 5:1–23, 2015

    2015

  2. [9]

    Bossy and D

    M. Bossy and D. Talay. A stochastic particle method for the McKean-Vlasov and the Burgers equation.Mathematics of computation, 66(217):157–192, 1997

    1997

  3. [10]

    C. R. C. Kumar, Neelima and W. Stockinger. Well-posedness and tamed schemes for McKean-Vlasov equations with common noise.Ann. Appl. Probab, 32:3283–3330, 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    Chen and G

    X. Chen and G. Dos Reis. A flexible split-step scheme for solving McKean-Vlasov stochastic differential equations.Applied Mathematics and Computation, 427:127180, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Chen and G

    X. Chen and G. Dos Reis. Euler simulation of interacting particle systems and McKean– Vlasov SDEs with fully super-linear growth drifts in space and interaction.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 44(2):751–796, 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    Crisan, P

    D. Crisan, P. Dobson, and M. Ottobre. Uniform in time estimates for the weak error of the Euler method for SDEs and a pathwise approach to derivative estimates for diffusion semigroups.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 374(5):3289–3330, 2021

    2021

  7. [14]

    Crisan and J

    D. Crisan and J. Xiong. Approximate McKean–Vlasov representations for a class of SPDEs. Stochastics An International Journal of Probability and Stochastics Processes, 82(1):53–68, 2010

    2010

  8. [15]

    Cui and X

    Y. Cui and X. Li. Explicit numerical approximations for McKean-Vlasov stochastic differ- ential equations in finite and infinite time.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02878, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    A. S. Dalalyan. Theoretical guarantees for approximate sampling from smooth and log- concave densities.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 79(3):651–676, 2017

    2017

  10. [17]

    D. A. Dawson. Critical dynamics and fluctuations for a mean-field model of cooperative behavior.Journal of Statistical Physics, 31(1):29–85, 1983

    1983

  11. [18]

    dos Reis, S

    G. dos Reis, S. Engelhardt, and G. Smith. Simulation of McKean–Vlasov SDEs with super- linear growth.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 42(1):874–922, 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    dos Reis and J

    G. dos Reis and J. Tugaut. Freidlin-Wentzell LDP in path space for McKean-Vlasov equa- tions and the functional iterated logarithm law.Ann. Appl. Probab, 29(3):1478–1540, 2019

    2019

  13. [20]

    Dreyer, M

    W. Dreyer, M. Gaberˇ sˇ cek, C. Guhlke, R. Huth, and J. Jamnik. Phase transition in a rechargeable lithium battery.European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 22(3):267–290, 2011

    2011

  14. [21]

    Fournier and A

    N. Fournier and A. Guillin. On the rate of convergence in Wasserstein distance of the empirical measure.Probab. Theory Related Fields, 162(3):707–738, 2015. 46

    2015

  15. [22]

    Germain, J

    M. Germain, J. Mikael, and X. Warin. Numerical resolution of McKean-Vlasov FBSDEs using neural networks.Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, 24(4):2557–2586, 2022

    2022

  16. [23]

    Guhlke, P

    C. Guhlke, P. Gajewski, M. Maurelli, P. K. Friz, and W. Dreyer. Stochastic many-particle model for LFP electrodes.Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 30:593–628, 2018

    2018

  17. [24]

    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(1):1–24, 2024

    2024

  18. [25]

    Hong and X

    J. Hong and X. Wang.Invariant measures for stochastic nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations. Springer, 2019

    2019

  19. [26]

    Hutzenthaler, A

    M. Hutzenthaler, A. Jentzen, and P. E. Kloeden. Strong and weak divergence in finite time of Euler’s method for stochastic differential equations with non-globally Lipschitz continuous coefficients.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Scie...

    2011

  20. [27]

    Hutzenthaler, T

    M. Hutzenthaler, T. Kruse, and T. A. Nguyen. Multilevel Picard approximations for McKean-Vlasov stochastic differential equations.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 507(1):125761, 2022

    2022

  21. [28]

    Itˆ o and M

    K. Itˆ o and M. Nisio. On stationary solutions of a stochastic differential equation .J. Math. Kyoto Univ., 4(1):1–75, 1964

    1964

  22. [29]

    J. Jian, Q. Song, X. Wang, Z. Zhang, and Y. Zhao. On modified Euler methods for McKean-Vlasov stochastic differential equations with super-linear coefficients.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05057, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Kumar and Neelima

    C. Kumar and Neelima. On explicit Milstein-type scheme for McKean–Vlasov stochastic differential equations with super-linear drift coefficient.Electronic Journal of Probability, 26:1–32, 2021

    2021

  24. [31]

    Y. Li, X. Mao, Q. Song, F. Wu, and G. Yin. Strong convergence of Euler–Maruyama schemes for McKean–Vlasov stochastic differential equations under local Lipschitz conditions of state variables.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 43(2):1001–1035, 2023

    2023

  25. [32]

    H. Liu, B. Shi, and F. Wu. Tamed Euler–Maruyama approximation of McKean–Vlasov stochastic differential equations with super-linear drift and H¨ older diffusion coefficients. Applied Numerical Mathematics, 183:56–85, 2023

    2023

  26. [33]

    W. Liu, X. Mao, and Y. Wu. The backward Euler-Maruyama method for invariant mea- sures of stochastic differential equations with super-linear coefficients.Applied Numerical Mathematics, 184:137–150, 2023

    2023

  27. [34]

    Z. Liu, S. Gao, C. Yuan, and Q. Guo. Stability of the numerical scheme for stochastic McKean-Vlasov equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12699, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    J. C. Mattingly, A. M. Stuart, and M. V. Tretyakov. Convergence of numerical time- averaging and stationary measures via Poisson equations.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 48(2):552–577, 2010

    2010

  29. [36]

    H. P. McKean Jr. A class of Markov processes associated with nonlinear parabolic equations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 56(6):1907–1911, 1966. 47

    1907

  30. [37]

    H. P. McKean Jr. Propagation of chaos for a class of non-linear parabolic equations. 1967 Stochastic Differential Equations (Lecture Series in Differential Equations, Session 7, Catholic Univ., 1967) pp. 41–57 Air Force Office Sci.Res., Arlington, Va, 1967

    1967

  31. [38]

    Mishura and A

    Y. Mishura and A. Veretennikov. Existence and uniqueness theorems for solutions of McKean–Vlasov stochastic equations.Theory of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, 103:59–101, 2020

    2020

  32. [39]

    Reisinger and W

    C. Reisinger and W. Stockinger. An adaptive Euler–Maruyama scheme for McKean–Vlasov SDEs with super-linear growth and application to the mean-field FitzHugh–Nagumo model. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 400:113725, 2022

    2022

  33. [40]

    Y. Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole. Score- based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Sznitman

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

    1989

  35. [42]

    D. Talay. Second-order discretization schemes of stochastic differential systems for the computation of the invariant law.Stochastics: An International Journal of Probability and Stochastic Processes, 29(1):13–36, 1990

    1990

  36. [43]

    D. Talay. Stochastic Hamiltonian systems: exponential convergence to the invariant mea- sure, and discretization by the implicit Euler scheme.Markov Process. Related Fields, 8(2):163–198, 2002

    2002

  37. [45]

    E. I. Wolf-Jurgen Beyn and R. Kruse. Stochastic C-stability and B-consistency of explicit and implicit Euler-type schemes.Journal of Scientific Computing, 67(3):955–987, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    H. Wu, J. Hu, S. Gao, and C. Yuan. Stabilization of stochastic McKean–Vlasov equations with feedback control based on discrete-time state observation.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 60(5):2884–2901, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Wu and X

    X. Wu and X. Wang. Strong convergence rates for long-time approximations of SDEs with non-globally Lipschitz continuous coefficients.arXiv:2406.10582, 2024. 48

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.