# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

September  2017, 22(7): 2731-2761. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2017133

## Adaptive methods for stochastic differential equations via natural embeddings and rejection sampling with memory

 Department of Mathematics, Center for Complex Biological Systems, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA

* Corresponding author

Received  August 2016 Revised  December 2016 Published  April 2017

Adaptive time-stepping with high-order embedded Runge-Kutta pairs and rejection sampling provides efficient approaches for solving differential equations. While many such methods exist for solving deterministic systems, little progress has been made for stochastic variants. One challenge in developing adaptive methods for stochastic differential equations (SDEs) is the construction of embedded schemes with direct error estimates. We present a new class of embedded stochastic Runge-Kutta (SRK) methods with strong order 1.5 which have a natural embedding of strong order 1.0 methods. This allows for the derivation of an error estimate which requires no additional function evaluations. Next we derive a general method to reject the time steps without losing information about the future Brownian path termed Rejection Sampling with Memory (RSwM). This method utilizes a stack data structure to do rejection sampling, costing only a few floating point calculations. We show numerically that the methods generate statistically-correct and tolerance-controlled solutions. Lastly, we show that this form of adaptivity can be applied to systems of equations, and demonstrate that it solves a stiff biological model 12.28x faster than common fixed timestep algorithms. Our approach only requires the solution to a bridging problem and thus lends itself to natural generalizations beyond SDEs.

Citation: Christopher Rackauckas, Qing Nie. Adaptive methods for stochastic differential equations via natural embeddings and rejection sampling with memory. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2017, 22 (7) : 2731-2761. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2017133
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Outline of the adaptive SODE algorithm based on Rejection Sampling with Memory. This depicts the general schema for the Rejection Sampling with Memory algorithm (RSwM). The green arrow depicts the path taken when the step is rejected, whereas the red arrow depicts the path that is taken when the step is accepted. The blue text denotes steps which are specific to the stochastic systems in order to ensure correct sampling properties which are developed in section 4.
Adaptive algorithm Kolmogorov-Smirnov Tests. Equation 31 was solved from $t=0$ to $t=2$. Scatter plots of the p-values from Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests against the normal distribution. At the end of each run, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed on the values at end of the Brownian path for 200 simulations. The $x$-axis is the absolute tolerance (with relative tolerance set to zero) and the $y$-axis is the p-value of the Kolmogorov Smirnov tests.
Adaptive algorithm correctness checks. QQplots of the distribution of the Brownian path at the end time $T=2$ over 10,000 paths. The $x$-axis is the quantiles of the standard normal distribution while the $y$-axis is the estimated quantiles for the distribution of $W_2 / \sqrt{2}$. Each row is for a example equation for Examples 1-3 respectively, and each column is for the algorithm RSwM1-3 respectively. $\epsilon=10^{-4}$. The red dashed line represents $x=y$, meaning the quantiles of a 10,000 standard normal random variables equate with the quantiles of the sample. The blue circles represent the quantile estimates for $W(2)/\sqrt{2}$ which should be distributed as a standard normal.
Adaptive Algorithm Error Comparison on Equation 31, Equation 33, and Equation 35. Comparison of the rejection sampling with memory algorithms on examples 1-3. Along the $x$-axis is $\epsilon$ which is the user chosen local error tolerance. The $y$-axis is the average $l^{2}$ error along the path. These values are taken as the mean for 100 runs. Both axes are log-scaled.
Adaptive Algorithm Timing Comparison. Comparison of the rejection sampling with memory algorithms. Along the $x$-axis is $\epsilon$ which is the user chosen local error tolerance. In the $y$-axis time is plotted (in seconds). The values are the elapsed time for a 1000 Both axes are log-scaled.
Solution to the Lorenz system Equation 39 on $t\in[0,10]$ with additive noise and parameters $\alpha=10$, $\rho=28$, $\sigma =3$, and $\beta=8/3$ at varying tolerances. The system was solved using ESRK+RSwM3 with the relative tolerance fixed at zero and varying absolute tolerances.
Stochastic cell differentiation model solutions. (A) Timeseries of the concentration of $[Ecad]$. The solution is plotted once every 100 accepted steps due to memory limitations. (B) Timeseries of the concentration of $[Vim]$. The solution is plotted once every 100 accepted steps due to memory limitations. (C) Accepted $h$ over time. The $h$ values were taken every 100 accepted steps due to memory limitations. (D) Elapsed time of the Euler-Maruyama and ESRK+RSwM3 algorithms on the stochastic cell model. Each algorithm was used to solve the model on $t\in[0,1]$ 10,000 times. The elapsed time for the fixed timestep methods for given $h$'s are shown as the filled lines, while the dashed line is the elapsed time for the adaptive method. The red circles denote the minimal $h$ and times for which the method did not show numerical instability in the ensemble.
ESRK1. Table (a) shows the legend for how the numbers in in Table (b) correspond to the coefficient arrays/matrices $c^{(i)}, A^{(i)}, B^{(i)}, \alpha, \beta^{(i)}, \tilde{\alpha}$, and $\tilde{\beta^{(i)}}$. For example, these tables show that $\alpha^T = (\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3},0,0)$. Note that the matrices $A^{(i)}$ and $B^{(i)}$ are lower triangular since the method is explicit.
 Algorithm 1 RSwM1 1: Set the values $\epsilon$, $h_{max}$, $T$ 2: Set $t=0$, $W=0$, $Z=0$, $X=X_0$ 3: Take an initial $h$, $\Delta Z,\Delta W \sim N(0,h)$ 4: While $t  Algorithm 1 RSwM1 1: Set the values$\epsilon$,$h_{max}$,$T$2: Set$t=0$,$W=0$,$Z=0$,$X=X_0$3: Take an initial$h$,$\Delta Z,\Delta W \sim N(0,h)$4: While$t
 Algorithm 2 RSwM3 1: Set the values $\epsilon$, $h_{max}$, $T$ 2: Set $t=0$, $W=0$, $Z=0$, $X=X_0$ 3: Take an initial $h$, $\Delta Z,\Delta W \sim N(0,h)$ 4: while $t  Algorithm 2 RSwM3 1: Set the values$\epsilon$,$h_{max}$,$T$2: Set$t=0$,$W=0$,$Z=0$,$X=X_0$3: Take an initial$h$,$\Delta Z,\Delta W \sim N(0,h)$4: while$t
Fixed timestep method fails and runtimes. The fixed timestep algorithms and ESRK+RSwM3 algorithms were used to solve the stochastic cell model on $t\in[0,1]$ 10,000 times. Failures were detected by checking if the solution contained any NaN values. During a run, if any NaNs were detected, the solver would instantly end the simulations and declare a failure. The runtime for the adaptive algorithm (with no failures) was 186.81 seconds.
 Euler-Maruyama Runge-Kutta Milstein Rößler SRI $\Delta t$ Fails (/10,000) Time (s) Fails (/10,000) Time (s) Fails (/10,000) Time (s) $2^{-16}$ 137 133.35 131 211.92 78 609.27 $2^{-17}$ 39 269.09 26 428.28 17 1244.06 $2^{-18}$ 3 580.14 6 861.01 0 2491.37 $2^{-19}$ 1 1138.41 1 1727.91 0 4932.70 $2^{-20}$ 0 2286.35 0 3439.90 0 9827.16 $2^{-21}$ 0 4562.20 0 6891.35 0 19564.16
 Euler-Maruyama Runge-Kutta Milstein Rößler SRI $\Delta t$ Fails (/10,000) Time (s) Fails (/10,000) Time (s) Fails (/10,000) Time (s) $2^{-16}$ 137 133.35 131 211.92 78 609.27 $2^{-17}$ 39 269.09 26 428.28 17 1244.06 $2^{-18}$ 3 580.14 6 861.01 0 2491.37 $2^{-19}$ 1 1138.41 1 1727.91 0 4932.70 $2^{-20}$ 0 2286.35 0 3439.90 0 9827.16 $2^{-21}$ 0 4562.20 0 6891.35 0 19564.16
$qmax$ determination tests. Equation 31, Equation 33, and Equation 35 were solved using the ESRK+RSwM3 algorithm with a relative tolerance of 0 and absolute tolerance of $2^{-14}$. The elapsed time to solve a Monte Carlo simulation of 100,000 simulations to $T=1$ was saved and the mean error at $T=1$ was calculated. The final column shows timing results for using ESRK+RSwM3 on the stochastic cell model from F solved with the same tolerance settings as in subsection 6.2 to solve a Monte Carlo simulation of 10,000 simulations.
 Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Cell Model qmax Time (s) Error Time (s) Error Time (s) Error Time (s) $1+2^{-5}$ 37.00 2.57e-8 60.87 2.27e-7 67.71 3.42e-9 229.83 $1+2^{-4}$ 34.73 2.82e-8 32.40 3.10e-7 66.68 3.43e-9 196.36 $1+2^{-3}$ 49.14 3.14e-8 132.33 8.85e-7 65.94 3.44e-9 186.81 $1+2^{-2}$ 39.33 3.59e-8 33.90 1.73e-6 66.33 3.44e-9 205.57 $1+2^{-1}$ 38.22 3.82e-8 159.94 2.58e-6 68.16 3.44e-9 249.77 $1+2^{0}$ 82.76 4.41e-8 34.41 3.58e-6 568.22 3.44e-9 337.99 $1+2^{1}$ 68.16 9.63e-8 33.98 6.06e-6 87.50 3.22e-9 418.78 $1+2^{2}$ 48.23 1.01e-7 33.97 9.74e-6 69.78 3.44e-9 571.59
 Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Cell Model qmax Time (s) Error Time (s) Error Time (s) Error Time (s) $1+2^{-5}$ 37.00 2.57e-8 60.87 2.27e-7 67.71 3.42e-9 229.83 $1+2^{-4}$ 34.73 2.82e-8 32.40 3.10e-7 66.68 3.43e-9 196.36 $1+2^{-3}$ 49.14 3.14e-8 132.33 8.85e-7 65.94 3.44e-9 186.81 $1+2^{-2}$ 39.33 3.59e-8 33.90 1.73e-6 66.33 3.44e-9 205.57 $1+2^{-1}$ 38.22 3.82e-8 159.94 2.58e-6 68.16 3.44e-9 249.77 $1+2^{0}$ 82.76 4.41e-8 34.41 3.58e-6 568.22 3.44e-9 337.99 $1+2^{1}$ 68.16 9.63e-8 33.98 6.06e-6 87.50 3.22e-9 418.78 $1+2^{2}$ 48.23 1.01e-7 33.97 9.74e-6 69.78 3.44e-9 571.59
 Algorithm 3 Initial $h$ Determination 1: Let $d_0 = \Vert X_0 \Vert$ 2: Calculate $f_0 = f(X_0,t)$ and $\sigma_0 = 3g(X_0,t)$ 3: Let $d_1 = \Vert \mathrm{max}(|f_0 +\sigma_0|,|f_0 -\sigma_0|)\Vert$ 4: if $d_0 < 10^{-5}$ or $d_{1} < 10^{-5}$ then 5: Let $h_0 = 10^{-6}$ 6: else 7: Let $h_0 = 0.01(d_0/d_1)$ 8: end if 9: Calculate an Euler step: $X_1 = X_0 + h_0f_0$ 10: Calculate new estimates: $f_1 = f(X_1,t)$ and $\sigma_0 = 3g(X_1,t)$ 11: Determine $\sigma_1^M = \mathrm{max}(|\sigma_0 +\sigma_1|),|\sigma_0 -\sigma_1|)$ 12: Let $d_2 = \Vert \mathrm{max}(|f_1-f_0 + \sigma_1^M|,|f_1-f_0 - \sigma_1^M|)\Vert/h_0$ 13: if $\mathrm{max}(d_1,d_2)<10^{-15}$ then 14: Let $h_1 = \mathrm{max}(10^{-6},10^{-3}h_0)$ 15: else 16: Let $h_1 = 10^{-(2+\log_10(\mathrm{max}(d_1,d_2))/(order+0.5)}$ 17: end if 18: Let $h=\mathrm{min}(100h_0,h_1)$
 Algorithm 3 Initial $h$ Determination 1: Let $d_0 = \Vert X_0 \Vert$ 2: Calculate $f_0 = f(X_0,t)$ and $\sigma_0 = 3g(X_0,t)$ 3: Let $d_1 = \Vert \mathrm{max}(|f_0 +\sigma_0|,|f_0 -\sigma_0|)\Vert$ 4: if $d_0 < 10^{-5}$ or $d_{1} < 10^{-5}$ then 5: Let $h_0 = 10^{-6}$ 6: else 7: Let $h_0 = 0.01(d_0/d_1)$ 8: end if 9: Calculate an Euler step: $X_1 = X_0 + h_0f_0$ 10: Calculate new estimates: $f_1 = f(X_1,t)$ and $\sigma_0 = 3g(X_1,t)$ 11: Determine $\sigma_1^M = \mathrm{max}(|\sigma_0 +\sigma_1|),|\sigma_0 -\sigma_1|)$ 12: Let $d_2 = \Vert \mathrm{max}(|f_1-f_0 + \sigma_1^M|,|f_1-f_0 - \sigma_1^M|)\Vert/h_0$ 13: if $\mathrm{max}(d_1,d_2)<10^{-15}$ then 14: Let $h_1 = \mathrm{max}(10^{-6},10^{-3}h_0)$ 15: else 16: Let $h_1 = 10^{-(2+\log_10(\mathrm{max}(d_1,d_2))/(order+0.5)}$ 17: end if 18: Let $h=\mathrm{min}(100h_0,h_1)$
SRA1. Table (a) shows the legend for how the numbers in in Table (b) correspond to the coefficient arrays/matrices $c^{(i)}, A^{(i)}, B^{(i)}, \alpha,$ and $\beta^{(i)}$. Note that the matrices $A^{(i)}$ and $B^{(i)}$ are lower triangular since the method is explicit.
 Algorithm 4 RSwM2 1: Set the values $\epsilon$, $h_{max}$, $T$ 2: Set $t=0$, $W=0$, $Z=0$, $X=X_0$ 3: Take an initial $h$, $\Delta Z,\Delta W \sim N(0,h)$ 4: while $t  Algorithm 4 RSwM2 1: Set the values$\epsilon$,$h_{max}$,$T$2: Set$t=0$,$W=0$,$Z=0$,$X=X_0$3: Take an initial$h$,$\Delta Z,\Delta W \sim N(0,h)$4: while$t
Table of Parameter Values for the Stochastic Cell Model.
 Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value $J1_{200}$ 3 $J1_{E}$ 0.1 $K_{2}$ 1 $k0_{O}$ 0.35 $J2_{200}$ 0.2 $J2_{E}$ 0.3 $K_{3}$ 1 $kO_{200}$ 0.0002 $J1_{34}$ 0.15 $J1_{V}$ 0.4 $K_{4}$ 1 $kO_{34}$ 0.001 $J2_{34}$ 0.35 $J2_{V}$ 0.4 $K_{5}$ 1 $kd_{snail}$ 0.09 $J_{O}$ 0.9 $J3_{V}$ 2 $K_{TR}$ 20 $kd_{tgf}$ 0.1 $J0_{snail}$ 0.6 $J1_{zeb}$ 3.5 $K_{SR}$ 100 $kd_{zeb}$ 0.1 $J1_{snail}$ 0.5 $J2_{zeb}$ 0.9 $TGF0$ 0 $kd_{TGF}$ 0.9 $J2_{snail}$ 1.8 $K_{1}$ 1 $Tk$ 1000 $kd_{ZEB}$ 1.66 $k0_{snail}$ 0.0005 $k0_{zeb}$ 0.003 $\lambda_{1}$ 0.5 $k0_{TGF}$ 1.1 $n1_{200}$ 3 $n1_{snail}$ 2 $\lambda_{2}$ 0.5 $k0_{E}$ 5 $n2_{200}$ 2 $n1_{E}$ 2 $\lambda_{3}$ 0.5 $k0_{V}$ 5 $n1_{34}$ 2 $n2_{E}$ 2 $\lambda_{4}$ 0.5 $k_{E1}$ 15 $n2_{34}$ 2 $n1_{V}$ 2 $\lambda_{5}$ 0.5 $k_{E2}$ 5 $n_{O}$ 2 $n2_{V}$ 2 $\lambda_{SR}$ 0.5 $k_{V1}$ 2 $n0_{snail}$ 2 $n2_{zeb}$ 6 $\lambda_{TR}$ 0.5 $k_{V2}$ 5 $k_{O}$ 1.2 $k_{200}$ 0.02 $k_{34}$ 0.01 $k_{tgf}$ 0.05 $k_{zeb}$ 0.06 $k_{TGF}$ 1.5 $k_{SNAIL}$ 16 $k_{ZEB}$ 16 $kd_{ZR_{1}}$ 0.5 $kd_{ZR_{2}}$ 0.5 $kd_{ZR_{3}}$ 0.5 $kd_{ZR_{4}}$ 0.5 $kd_{ZR_{5}}$ 0.5 $kd_{O}$ 1.0 $kd_{200}$ 0.035 $kd_{34}$ 0.035 $kd_{SR}$ 0.9 $kd_{E}$ 0.05 $kd_{V}$ 0.05
 Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value $J1_{200}$ 3 $J1_{E}$ 0.1 $K_{2}$ 1 $k0_{O}$ 0.35 $J2_{200}$ 0.2 $J2_{E}$ 0.3 $K_{3}$ 1 $kO_{200}$ 0.0002 $J1_{34}$ 0.15 $J1_{V}$ 0.4 $K_{4}$ 1 $kO_{34}$ 0.001 $J2_{34}$ 0.35 $J2_{V}$ 0.4 $K_{5}$ 1 $kd_{snail}$ 0.09 $J_{O}$ 0.9 $J3_{V}$ 2 $K_{TR}$ 20 $kd_{tgf}$ 0.1 $J0_{snail}$ 0.6 $J1_{zeb}$ 3.5 $K_{SR}$ 100 $kd_{zeb}$ 0.1 $J1_{snail}$ 0.5 $J2_{zeb}$ 0.9 $TGF0$ 0 $kd_{TGF}$ 0.9 $J2_{snail}$ 1.8 $K_{1}$ 1 $Tk$ 1000 $kd_{ZEB}$ 1.66 $k0_{snail}$ 0.0005 $k0_{zeb}$ 0.003 $\lambda_{1}$ 0.5 $k0_{TGF}$ 1.1 $n1_{200}$ 3 $n1_{snail}$ 2 $\lambda_{2}$ 0.5 $k0_{E}$ 5 $n2_{200}$ 2 $n1_{E}$ 2 $\lambda_{3}$ 0.5 $k0_{V}$ 5 $n1_{34}$ 2 $n2_{E}$ 2 $\lambda_{4}$ 0.5 $k_{E1}$ 15 $n2_{34}$ 2 $n1_{V}$ 2 $\lambda_{5}$ 0.5 $k_{E2}$ 5 $n_{O}$ 2 $n2_{V}$ 2 $\lambda_{SR}$ 0.5 $k_{V1}$ 2 $n0_{snail}$ 2 $n2_{zeb}$ 6 $\lambda_{TR}$ 0.5 $k_{V2}$ 5 $k_{O}$ 1.2 $k_{200}$ 0.02 $k_{34}$ 0.01 $k_{tgf}$ 0.05 $k_{zeb}$ 0.06 $k_{TGF}$ 1.5 $k_{SNAIL}$ 16 $k_{ZEB}$ 16 $kd_{ZR_{1}}$ 0.5 $kd_{ZR_{2}}$ 0.5 $kd_{ZR_{3}}$ 0.5 $kd_{ZR_{4}}$ 0.5 $kd_{ZR_{5}}$ 0.5 $kd_{O}$ 1.0 $kd_{200}$ 0.035 $kd_{34}$ 0.035 $kd_{SR}$ 0.9 $kd_{E}$ 0.05 $kd_{V}$ 0.05
 [1] Lorenzo Zambotti. A brief and personal history of stochastic partial differential equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 471-487. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020264 [2] Yueyang Zheng, Jingtao Shi. A stackelberg game of backward stochastic differential equations with partial information. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020047 [3] Fathalla A. Rihan, Hebatallah J. Alsakaji. Stochastic delay differential equations of three-species prey-predator system with cooperation among prey species. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020468 [4] Zhenzhen Wang, Tianshou Zhou. Asymptotic behaviors and stochastic traveling waves in stochastic Fisher-KPP equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020323 [5] Siyang Cai, Yongmei Cai, Xuerong Mao. A stochastic differential equation SIS epidemic model with regime switching. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020317 [6] Xuhui Peng, Rangrang Zhang. Approximations of stochastic 3D tamed Navier-Stokes equations. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5337-5365. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020241 [7] Christian Beck, Lukas Gonon, Martin Hutzenthaler, Arnulf Jentzen. On existence and uniqueness properties for solutions of stochastic fixed point equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020320 [8] Yangrong Li, Shuang Yang, Qiangheng Zhang. Odd random attractors for stochastic non-autonomous Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equations without dissipation. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1529-1544. doi: 10.3934/era.2020080 [9] Pengyu Chen. Non-autonomous stochastic evolution equations with nonlinear noise and nonlocal conditions governed by noncompact evolution families. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020383 [10] Lin Shi, Xuemin Wang, Dingshi Li. Limiting behavior of non-autonomous stochastic reaction-diffusion equations with colored noise on unbounded thin domains. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5367-5386. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020242 [11] Wei Ouyang, Li Li. Hölder strong metric subregularity and its applications to convergence analysis of inexact Newton methods. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 169-184. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019105 [12] Fabio Camilli, Giulia Cavagnari, Raul De Maio, Benedetto Piccoli. Superposition principle and schemes for measure differential equations. Kinetic & Related Models, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/krm.2020050 [13] Li-Bin Liu, Ying Liang, Jian Zhang, Xiaobing Bao. A robust adaptive grid method for singularly perturbed Burger-Huxley equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1439-1457. doi: 10.3934/era.2020076 [14] Wenqiang Zhao, Yijin Zhang. High-order Wong-Zakai approximations for non-autonomous stochastic $p$-Laplacian equations on $\mathbb{R}^N$. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2021, 20 (1) : 243-280. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020265 [15] Stefan Ruschel, Serhiy Yanchuk. The spectrum of delay differential equations with multiple hierarchical large delays. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (1) : 151-175. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020321 [16] Yahia Zare Mehrjerdi. A new methodology for solving bi-criterion fractional stochastic programming. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/naco.2020054 [17] Reza Chaharpashlou, Abdon Atangana, Reza Saadati. On the fuzzy stability results for fractional stochastic Volterra integral equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020432 [18] Giuseppina Guatteri, Federica Masiero. Stochastic maximum principle for problems with delay with dependence on the past through general measures. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020048 [19] Martin Heida, Stefan Neukamm, Mario Varga. Stochastic homogenization of $\Lambda$-convex gradient flows. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (1) : 427-453. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020328 [20] Yuan Tan, Qingyuan Cao, Lan Li, Tianshi Hu, Min Su. A chance-constrained stochastic model predictive control problem with disturbance feedback. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 67-79. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019099

2019 Impact Factor: 1.27