American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Advanced
March  2021, 16(1): 139-153. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2021002

Periodic consensus in network systems with general distributed processing delays

Yicheng Liu 1,, , Yipeng Chen 1, , Jun Wu 2, and  Xiao Wang 1,

1. 

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, 410073, P. R. China
2. 

College of Mathematics and Statistics, Changsha University of Science Technology, Changsha, 410076, P. R. China

* Corresponding author: Yicheng Liu

Received  September 2020 Revised  November 2020 Published  December 2020

Fund Project: This work was partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (11671011 and 11428101)

How to understand the dynamical consensus patterns in network systems is of particular significance in both theories and applications. In this paper, we are interested in investigating the influences of distributed processing delay on the consensus patterns in a network model. As new observations, we show that the desired network model undergoes both weak consensus and periodic consensus behaviors when the parameters reach a threshold value and the connectedness of the network system may be absent. In results, some criterions of weak consensus and periodic consensus with exponential convergent rate are established by the standard functional differential equations analysis. An analytic formula is given to calculate the asymptotic periodic consensus in terms of model parameters and the initial time interval. Also, we post the threshold values for some typical distributions included uniform distribution and Gamma distribution. Finally, we give the numerical simulation and analyse the influences of different delays on the consensus.

Keywords: Weak consensus, periodic consensus, differential system, processing delay, Gamma distribution delay.
Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 93C23, 93D09, 93C95.
Citation: Yicheng Liu, Yipeng Chen, Jun Wu, Xiao Wang. Periodic consensus in network systems with general distributed processing delays. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2021, 16 (1) : 139-153. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2021002
References:
[1]

M. H. DeGroot, Reaching a consensus, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 69 (1974), 118-121.   Google Scholar

[2]

J. A. Fax and R. M. Murray, Information flow and cooperative control of vehicle formations, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 49 (2004), 1465-1476.  doi: 10.1109/TAC.2004.834433.  Google Scholar

[3]

Q. Feng, S. K. Nguang and A. Seuret, Stability analysis of linear coupled differential–difference systems with general distributed delays, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 65 (2020), 1356-1363.  doi: 10.1109/TAC.2019.2928145.  Google Scholar

[4]

J. K. Hale and S. M. V. Lunel, Introduction to Functional Differential Equations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4342-7.  Google Scholar

[5]

J. Jost, F. M. Atay and W. Lu, Consensus and synchronization in discrete-time networks of multi-agents with stochastically switching topologies and time delays, Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 6 (2011), 329-349.  doi: 10.3934/nhm.2011.6.329.  Google Scholar

[6]

F. A. Khasawneh and B. P. Mann, A spectral element approach for the stability of delay systems, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng., 87 (2011), 566-592.   Google Scholar

[7]

N. A. Lynch, Distributed Algorithms, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1996. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-01-2014-0013.  Google Scholar

[8]

F. Mazenc, M. Malisoff and H. $\ddot{O}$zbay, Stability and robustness analysis for switched systems with time-varying delays, SIAM J. Control Optim., 56 (2018), 158-182.  doi: 10.1137/16M1104895.  Google Scholar

[9]

M. Michiels, I. C. Morărescu and S.-I. Niculescu, Consensus problems with distributed delays, with application to traffic flow models, SIAM J. Control Optim., 48 (2009), 77-101.  doi: 10.1137/060671425.  Google Scholar

[10]

I. C. Morarescu, W. Michiels and M. Jungers, Synchronization of coupled nonlinear oscillatiors with gamma-distributed delays, in American Control Conference, ACC 2013, (2013), Washington, United States. Google Scholar

[11]

R. Olfati-Saber and R. M. Murray, Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 49 (2004), 1520-1533.  doi: 10.1109/TAC.2004.834113.  Google Scholar

[12]

A. V. Proskurnikov, Average consensus in networks with nonlinearly delayed couplings and switching topology, Automatica, 49 (2013) 2928–2932. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2013.06.007.  Google Scholar

[13]

D. Serre, Matrices, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 216 (2010), Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7683-3.  Google Scholar

[14]

J. W. H. So, X. Tang and X. Zou, Stability in a linear delay system without instantaneous negative feedback, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 33 (2002), 1297-1304.  doi: 10.1137/S0036141001389263.  Google Scholar

[15]

O. Solomon and E. Fridman, New stability conditions for systems with distributed delays, Automatica, 49 (2013), 3467-3475.  doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2013.08.025.  Google Scholar

[16]

T. Vicsek, A Czirók, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen and O. Shochet, Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles, Phys. Rev. Lett., 75 (1995), 1226-1229.  doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1226.  Google Scholar

show all references

References:
[1]

M. H. DeGroot, Reaching a consensus, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 69 (1974), 118-121.   Google Scholar

[2]

J. A. Fax and R. M. Murray, Information flow and cooperative control of vehicle formations, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 49 (2004), 1465-1476.  doi: 10.1109/TAC.2004.834433.  Google Scholar

[3]

Q. Feng, S. K. Nguang and A. Seuret, Stability analysis of linear coupled differential–difference systems with general distributed delays, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 65 (2020), 1356-1363.  doi: 10.1109/TAC.2019.2928145.  Google Scholar

[4]

J. K. Hale and S. M. V. Lunel, Introduction to Functional Differential Equations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4342-7.  Google Scholar

[5]

J. Jost, F. M. Atay and W. Lu, Consensus and synchronization in discrete-time networks of multi-agents with stochastically switching topologies and time delays, Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 6 (2011), 329-349.  doi: 10.3934/nhm.2011.6.329.  Google Scholar

[6]

F. A. Khasawneh and B. P. Mann, A spectral element approach for the stability of delay systems, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng., 87 (2011), 566-592.   Google Scholar

[7]

N. A. Lynch, Distributed Algorithms, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1996. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-01-2014-0013.  Google Scholar

[8]

F. Mazenc, M. Malisoff and H. $\ddot{O}$zbay, Stability and robustness analysis for switched systems with time-varying delays, SIAM J. Control Optim., 56 (2018), 158-182.  doi: 10.1137/16M1104895.  Google Scholar

[9]

M. Michiels, I. C. Morărescu and S.-I. Niculescu, Consensus problems with distributed delays, with application to traffic flow models, SIAM J. Control Optim., 48 (2009), 77-101.  doi: 10.1137/060671425.  Google Scholar

[10]

I. C. Morarescu, W. Michiels and M. Jungers, Synchronization of coupled nonlinear oscillatiors with gamma-distributed delays, in American Control Conference, ACC 2013, (2013), Washington, United States. Google Scholar

[11]

R. Olfati-Saber and R. M. Murray, Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 49 (2004), 1520-1533.  doi: 10.1109/TAC.2004.834113.  Google Scholar

[12]

A. V. Proskurnikov, Average consensus in networks with nonlinearly delayed couplings and switching topology, Automatica, 49 (2013) 2928–2932. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2013.06.007.  Google Scholar

[13]

D. Serre, Matrices, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 216 (2010), Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7683-3.  Google Scholar

[14]

J. W. H. So, X. Tang and X. Zou, Stability in a linear delay system without instantaneous negative feedback, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 33 (2002), 1297-1304.  doi: 10.1137/S0036141001389263.  Google Scholar

[15]

O. Solomon and E. Fridman, New stability conditions for systems with distributed delays, Automatica, 49 (2013), 3467-3475.  doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2013.08.025.  Google Scholar

[16]

T. Vicsek, A Czirók, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen and O. Shochet, Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles, Phys. Rev. Lett., 75 (1995), 1226-1229.  doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1226.  Google Scholar

Figure 1.  Consensus and periodic consensus with a uniform distribution delay. $ \varphi(s) = \frac{1}{\tau} $, $ k^* = \frac{\pi^2}{2} $(Tab. 1). According to Theorem 2.1, if $ \tilde{\lambda}\tau(1-\frac{8}{9})<\frac{\pi^2}{2} $, the system achieves a consensus(left:$ \tilde{\lambda} = 9\pi^2 $ and $ \tau = 0.3 $). When $ \tilde{\lambda}\tau(1-\frac{8}{9}) = \frac{\pi^2}{2} $, the system achieves a periodic consensus(right: $ \tilde{\lambda} = 9\pi^2 $ and $ \tau = 0.5 $)
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 2.  Consensus and periodic consensus with an exponential distribution delay. $ \varphi(s) = \frac{\alpha e^{\alpha\tau}}{e^{\alpha\tau}-1}e^{\alpha s}(\alpha = 2,\tau = 1) $, $ k^* = 116.7278 $. The critical condition is that $ \tilde{\lambda}\tau(1-\frac{8}{9})<116.7278 $. Thus, the left one is a consensus($ \tilde{\lambda} = 270 $ and $ \tau = 1 $) and the right one is a periodic consensus($ \tilde{\lambda} = 1050.5502 $ and $ \tau = 1 $)
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 3.  Consensus and periodic consensus with a Gamma distribution delay. $ \varphi(s) = \frac{\alpha^2e^{\alpha\tau}}{e^{\alpha\tau}-\alpha\tau-1}|s|e^{\alpha s} (\alpha = 2,\tau = 1) $, $ k^* = 3.8152 $. Similarly, the left one is a consensus($ \tilde{\lambda} = 13.5 $ and $ \tau = 1 $) and the right one is a periodic consensus($ \tilde{\lambda} = 34.3368 $ and $ \tau = 1 $)
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 4.  Consensus and periodic consensus with a Gamma distribution delay. $ \varphi(s) = \frac{\alpha^3e^{\alpha\tau}}{2e^{\alpha\tau}-(\alpha\tau+1)^2-1}s^2e^{\alpha s} (\alpha = 2,\tau = 1) $, $ k^* = 2.7019 $. The left one is the case $ \tilde{\lambda} = 9 $ and $ \tau = 1 $. The right one is the case $ \tilde{\lambda} = 24.3171 $ and $ \tau = 1 $
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 5.  Consensus and periodic consensus with a Bernoulli distribution delay. $ \varphi(s) = 0 $ for $ s\in (-\tau,0] $ and $ \varphi(s) = 1 $ for $ s = -\tau $, $ k^* = \frac{\pi}{2} $. The left one is the case $ \tilde{\lambda} = 9\pi $ and $ \tau = 0.3 $. The right one is the case $ \tilde{\lambda} = 9\pi $ and $ \tau = 0.5 $
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 6.  Clustering consensus with a uniform distribution delay. $ \varphi(s) = \frac{1}{\tau} $, $ k^* = \frac{\pi^2}{2} $. According to Theorem 2.1, if $ \tilde{\lambda}\tau(1-\frac{5}{6}) = \frac{\pi^2}{2} $, the nodes in Group 1(blue line) achieve a consensus and the ones in Group 2(red line) achieve a periodic consensus(left: $ \tilde{\lambda} = 6\pi^2 $ and $ \tau = 0.5 $). When $ \tilde{\lambda}\tau(1-\frac{13}{15}) = \frac{\pi^2}{2} $, the nodes in Group 1(blue line)achieve a periodic consensus and the others in Group 2(red line) are divergence(right: $ \tilde{\lambda} = \frac{15\pi^2}{2} $ and $ \tau = 0.5 $)
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 7.  Clustering consensus with an exponential distribution delay. $ \varphi(s) = \frac{\alpha e^{\alpha\tau}}{e^{\alpha\tau}-1}e^{\alpha s}(\alpha = 2,\tau = 1) $, $ k^* = 116.7278 $. Similarly, the left one is the case $ \tilde{\lambda} = 700.3668 $ and $ \tau = 1 $, which is that Group 1(blue line) achieves a consensus and Group 2(red line) achieves a periodic consensus. The right one is the case $ \tilde{\lambda} = 875.4585 $ and $ \tau = 1 $, which is that Group 1(blue line)achieves a periodic consensus and Group 2(red line) is divergence
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 8.  Clustering consensus with a Gamma distribution delay. $ \varphi(s) = \frac{\alpha^2e^{\alpha\tau}}{e^{\alpha\tau}-\alpha\tau-1}|s|e^{\alpha s} (\alpha = 2,\tau = 1) $, $ k^* = 3.8152 $. In the case of $ \tilde{\lambda} = 22.8912 $ and $ \tau = 1 $, the nodes in Group 1(blue line)achieve a consensus and the others in Group 2(red line) achieve a periodic consensus(left). In the case $ \tilde{\lambda} = 28.614 $ and $ \tau = 1 $, the nodes in Group 1(blue line)achieve a consensus and the others in Group 2(red line) are divergence(right)
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 9.  Clustering consensus with a Gamma distribution delay. $ \varphi(s) = \frac{\alpha^3e^{\alpha\tau}}{2e^{\alpha\tau}-(\alpha\tau+1)^2-1}s^2e^{\alpha s} $ $ (\alpha = 2,\tau = 1) $, $ k^* = 2.7019 $. In the case of $ \tilde{\lambda} = 16.2114 $ and $ \tau = 1 $, the nodes in Group 1(blue line)achieve a consensus and the others in Group 2(red line) achieve a periodic consensus(left). In the case $ \tilde{\lambda} = 20.2643 $ and $ \tau = 1 $, the nodes in Group 1(blue line)achieve a consensus and the others in Group 2(red line) are divergence(right)
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 10.  Clustering consensus with a Bernoulli distribution delay. $ \varphi(s) = 0 $ for $ s\in (-\tau,0] $ and $ \varphi(s) = 1 $ for $ s = -\tau $, $ k^* = \frac{\pi}{2} $. In the case of $ \tilde{\lambda} = 6\pi $ and $ \tau = 0.5 $, the nodes in Group 1(blue line)achieve a consensus and the others in Group 2(red line) achieve a periodic consensus(left). In the case $ \tilde{\lambda} = \frac{15\pi}{2} $ and $ \tau = 0.5 $, the nodes in Group 1(blue line)achieve a consensus and the others in Group 2(red line) are divergence(right)
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Table 1.  The values of $ k^* $ and $ y_{im} $ for some special cases
Cases $ k^* $ $ y_{im} $ Descriptions
$ \varphi(s)=\frac{1}{\tau} $ $ \frac{\pi^2}{2} $ $ \frac{\pi}{\tau} $ Uniform distribution
$ \varphi(s)=\frac{2e^{2}}{e^{2}-1}e^{2s} $ 116.7278 16.8680 Exponential distribution
$ \varphi(s)=\frac{4e^{2}}{e^{2}-3}|s|e^{2s} $ 3.8152 2.8801 Special $ \gamma $-distribution
$ \varphi(s)=\frac{4e^{2}}{e^{2}-5}s^2e^{2s} $ 2.7019 2.3530 Special $ \gamma $-distribution
$ \varphi(s)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0, & s \in(-\tau, 0] \\ 1, & s=-\tau \end{array}\right. $ $ \frac{\pi}{2} $ $ \frac{\pi}{2\tau} $ Bernoulli distribution
Table Options

Download as excel

Cases $ k^* $ $ y_{im} $ Descriptions
$ \varphi(s)=\frac{1}{\tau} $ $ \frac{\pi^2}{2} $ $ \frac{\pi}{\tau} $ Uniform distribution
$ \varphi(s)=\frac{2e^{2}}{e^{2}-1}e^{2s} $ 116.7278 16.8680 Exponential distribution
$ \varphi(s)=\frac{4e^{2}}{e^{2}-3}|s|e^{2s} $ 3.8152 2.8801 Special $ \gamma $-distribution
$ \varphi(s)=\frac{4e^{2}}{e^{2}-5}s^2e^{2s} $ 2.7019 2.3530 Special $ \gamma $-distribution
$ \varphi(s)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0, & s \in(-\tau, 0] \\ 1, & s=-\tau \end{array}\right. $ $ \frac{\pi}{2} $ $ \frac{\pi}{2\tau} $ Bernoulli distribution
Table 2.  Initial values $ x_i(\theta)(i = 1,2,...,N) $, $ \theta\in[-\tau,0] $
$ x_1(\theta) $ $ x_2(\theta) $ $ x_3(\theta) $ $ x_4(\theta) $ $ x_5(\theta) $
7.0605 0.3183 2.7692 0.4617 0.9713
$ x_6(\theta) $ $ x_7(\theta) $ $ x_8(\theta) $ $ x_9(\theta) $ $ x_{10}(\theta) $
8.2346 6.9483 3.1710 9.5022 0.3445
where the numbers are randomly selected in interval (0, 10).
Table Options

Download as excel

$ x_1(\theta) $ $ x_2(\theta) $ $ x_3(\theta) $ $ x_4(\theta) $ $ x_5(\theta) $
7.0605 0.3183 2.7692 0.4617 0.9713
$ x_6(\theta) $ $ x_7(\theta) $ $ x_8(\theta) $ $ x_9(\theta) $ $ x_{10}(\theta) $
8.2346 6.9483 3.1710 9.5022 0.3445
where the numbers are randomly selected in interval (0, 10).
Table 3.  The numerical simulations for Case Ⅰ
Cases $ \tilde{\lambda} $ $ \tau $ Results
Uniform distribution (Fig. 1) $ 9\pi^2 $ $ 0.3 $ consensus
$ 9\pi^2 $ $ 0.5 $ periodic consensus
Exponential distribution(Fig. 2) $ 270 $ $ 1 $ consensus
$ 1050.5502 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus
Special $ \gamma $-distribution 1(Fig. 3) $ 13.5 $ $ 1 $ consensus
$ 34.3368 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus
Special $ \gamma $-distribution 2(Fig. 4) $ 9 $ $ 1 $ consensus
$ 24.3171 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus
Bernoulli distribution(Fig. 5) $ 9\pi $ $ 0.3 $ consensus
$ 9\pi $ $ 0.5 $ periodic consensus
Table Options

Download as excel

Cases $ \tilde{\lambda} $ $ \tau $ Results
Uniform distribution (Fig. 1) $ 9\pi^2 $ $ 0.3 $ consensus
$ 9\pi^2 $ $ 0.5 $ periodic consensus
Exponential distribution(Fig. 2) $ 270 $ $ 1 $ consensus
$ 1050.5502 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus
Special $ \gamma $-distribution 1(Fig. 3) $ 13.5 $ $ 1 $ consensus
$ 34.3368 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus
Special $ \gamma $-distribution 2(Fig. 4) $ 9 $ $ 1 $ consensus
$ 24.3171 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus
Bernoulli distribution(Fig. 5) $ 9\pi $ $ 0.3 $ consensus
$ 9\pi $ $ 0.5 $ periodic consensus
Table 4.  The numerical simulations for Case Ⅱ
Distribution cases $ \tilde{\lambda} $ $ \tau $ Group 1(blue) Group 2(red)
Uniform (Fig. 6) $ 6\pi^2 $ $ 0.5 $ consensus periodic consensus
$ \frac{15\pi^2}{2} $ $ 0.5 $ periodic consensus divergence
Exponential (Fig. 7) $ 700.3668 $ $ 1 $ consensus periodic consensus
$ 875.4585 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus divergence
Gamma 1(Fig. 8) $ 22.8912 $ $ 1 $ consensus periodic consensus
$ 28.614 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus divergence
Gamma 2(Fig. 9) $ 16.2114 $ $ 1 $ consensus periodic consensus
$ 20.2643 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus divergence
Bernoulli(Fig. 10) $ 6\pi $ $ 0.5 $ consensus periodic consensus
$ \frac{15\pi}{2} $ $ 0.5 $ periodic consensus divergence
Table Options

Download as excel

Distribution cases $ \tilde{\lambda} $ $ \tau $ Group 1(blue) Group 2(red)
Uniform (Fig. 6) $ 6\pi^2 $ $ 0.5 $ consensus periodic consensus
$ \frac{15\pi^2}{2} $ $ 0.5 $ periodic consensus divergence
Exponential (Fig. 7) $ 700.3668 $ $ 1 $ consensus periodic consensus
$ 875.4585 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus divergence
Gamma 1(Fig. 8) $ 22.8912 $ $ 1 $ consensus periodic consensus
$ 28.614 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus divergence
Gamma 2(Fig. 9) $ 16.2114 $ $ 1 $ consensus periodic consensus
$ 20.2643 $ $ 1 $ periodic consensus divergence
Bernoulli(Fig. 10) $ 6\pi $ $ 0.5 $ consensus periodic consensus
$ \frac{15\pi}{2} $ $ 0.5 $ periodic consensus divergence
[1]

Mikhail Gilman, Semyon Tsynkov. Statistical characterization of scattering delay in synthetic aperture radar imaging. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2020, 14 (3) : 511-533. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020024
[2]

Rui Hu, Yuan Yuan. Stability, bifurcation analysis in a neural network model with delay and diffusion. Conference Publications, 2009, 2009 (Special) : 367-376. doi: 10.3934/proc.2009.2009.367
[3]

Valery Y. Glizer. Novel Conditions of Euclidean space controllability for singularly perturbed systems with input delay. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/naco.2020027
[4]

Yunfei Lv, Rong Yuan, Yuan He. Wavefronts of a stage structured model with state--dependent delay. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2015, 35 (10) : 4931-4954. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2015.35.4931
[5]

Jaume Llibre, Luci Any Roberto. On the periodic solutions of a class of Duffing differential equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2013, 33 (1) : 277-282. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2013.33.277
[6]

Xiaoming Wang. Quasi-periodic solutions for a class of second order differential equations with a nonlinear damping term. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2017, 10 (3) : 543-556. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2017027
[7]

Zaihong Wang, Jin Li, Tiantian Ma. An erratum note on the paper: Positive periodic solution for Brillouin electron beam focusing system. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2013, 18 (7) : 1995-1997. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2013.18.1995
[8]

Lekbir Afraites, Abdelghafour Atlas, Fahd Karami, Driss Meskine. Some class of parabolic systems applied to image processing. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2016, 21 (6) : 1671-1687. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2016017
[9]

Hong Seng Sim, Wah June Leong, Chuei Yee Chen, Siti Nur Iqmal Ibrahim. Multi-step spectral gradient methods with modified weak secant relation for large scale unconstrained optimization. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (3) : 377-387. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018024
[10]

V. V. Zhikov, S. E. Pastukhova. Korn inequalities on thin periodic structures. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2009, 4 (1) : 153-175. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2009.4.153
[11]

Giovanni Cimatti. Forced periodic solutions for piezoelectric crystals. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2005, 4 (2) : 475-485. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2005.4.475
[12]

Wolf-Jüergen Beyn, Janosch Rieger. The implicit Euler scheme for one-sided Lipschitz differential inclusions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2010, 14 (2) : 409-428. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2010.14.409
[13]

M. Grasselli, V. Pata. Asymptotic behavior of a parabolic-hyperbolic system. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2004, 3 (4) : 849-881. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2004.3.849
[14]

Elena Bonetti, Pierluigi Colli, Gianni Gilardi. Singular limit of an integrodifferential system related to the entropy balance. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2014, 19 (7) : 1935-1953. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2014.19.1935
[15]

Dmitry Treschev. A locally integrable multi-dimensional billiard system. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2017, 37 (10) : 5271-5284. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2017228
[16]

Rafael Luís, Sandra Mendonça. A note on global stability in the periodic logistic map. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020, 25 (11) : 4211-4220. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020094
[17]

Nhu N. Nguyen, George Yin. Stochastic partial differential equation models for spatially dependent predator-prey equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020, 25 (1) : 117-139. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019175
[18]

Bin Pei, Yong Xu, Yuzhen Bai. Convergence of p-th mean in an averaging principle for stochastic partial differential equations driven by fractional Brownian motion. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020, 25 (3) : 1141-1158. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019213
[19]

Dugan Nina, Ademir Fernando Pazoto, Lionel Rosier. Controllability of a 1-D tank containing a fluid modeled by a Boussinesq system. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2013, 2 (2) : 379-402. doi: 10.3934/eect.2013.2.379
[20]

Yanqin Fang, Jihui Zhang. Multiplicity of solutions for the nonlinear Schrödinger-Maxwell system. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2011, 10 (4) : 1267-1279. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2011.10.1267

2019 Impact Factor: 1.053

Tools

Metrics

  • PDF downloads (57)
  • HTML views (112)
  • Cited by (0)

Other articles
by authors

[Back to Top]

Copyright © 2021 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences