Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/BasicLatin.js
Research article Special Issues

A mean field game price model with noise

  • In this paper, we propose a mean-field game model for the price formation of a commodity whose production is subjected to random fluctuations. The model generalizes existing deterministic price formation models. Agents seek to minimize their average cost by choosing their trading rates with a price that is characterized by a balance between supply and demand. The supply and the price processes are assumed to follow stochastic differential equations. Here, we show that, for linear dynamics and quadratic costs, the optimal trading rates are determined in feedback form. Hence, the price arises as the solution to a stochastic differential equation, whose coefficients depend on the solution of a system of ordinary differential equations.

    Citation: Diogo Gomes, Julian Gutierrez, Ricardo Ribeiro. A mean field game price model with noise[J]. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(4): 1-14. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021028

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yves Achdou, Ziad Kobeissi . Mean field games of controls: Finite difference approximations. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(3): 1-35. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021024
    [2] Benoît Perthame, Edouard Ribes, Delphine Salort . Career plans and wage structures: a mean field game approach. Mathematics in Engineering, 2019, 1(1): 38-54. doi: 10.3934/Mine.2018.1.38
    [3] Piermarco Cannarsa, Rossana Capuani, Pierre Cardaliaguet . C1;1-smoothness of constrained solutions in the calculus of variations with application to mean field games. Mathematics in Engineering, 2019, 1(1): 174-203. doi: 10.3934/Mine.2018.1.174
    [4] Pablo Blanc, Fernando Charro, Juan J. Manfredi, Julio D. Rossi . Games associated with products of eigenvalues of the Hessian. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(3): 1-26. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023066
    [5] Simone Paleari, Tiziano Penati . Hamiltonian lattice dynamics. Mathematics in Engineering, 2019, 1(4): 881-887. doi: 10.3934/mine.2019.4.881
    [6] Mario Pulvirenti . On the particle approximation to stationary solutions of the Boltzmann equation. Mathematics in Engineering, 2019, 1(4): 699-714. doi: 10.3934/mine.2019.4.699
    [7] Franco Flandoli, Eliseo Luongo . Heat diffusion in a channel under white noise modeling of turbulence. Mathematics in Engineering, 2022, 4(4): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/mine.2022034
    [8] Giacomo Canevari, Arghir Zarnescu . Polydispersity and surface energy strength in nematic colloids. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(2): 290-312. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020015
    [9] Zheming An, Nathaniel J. Merrill, Sean T. McQuade, Benedetto Piccoli . Equilibria and control of metabolic networks with enhancers and inhibitors. Mathematics in Engineering, 2019, 1(3): 648-671. doi: 10.3934/mine.2019.3.648
    [10] Jérôme Droniou, Jia Jia Qian . Two arbitrary-order constraint-preserving schemes for the Yang–Mills equations on polyhedral meshes. Mathematics in Engineering, 2024, 6(3): 468-493. doi: 10.3934/mine.2024019
  • In this paper, we propose a mean-field game model for the price formation of a commodity whose production is subjected to random fluctuations. The model generalizes existing deterministic price formation models. Agents seek to minimize their average cost by choosing their trading rates with a price that is characterized by a balance between supply and demand. The supply and the price processes are assumed to follow stochastic differential equations. Here, we show that, for linear dynamics and quadratic costs, the optimal trading rates are determined in feedback form. Hence, the price arises as the solution to a stochastic differential equation, whose coefficients depend on the solution of a system of ordinary differential equations.


    The authors are honored to participate in this special issue and express their admiration to Professor Italo Capuzzo-Dolcetta for his mathematical work. The first author met Prof. Dolcetta for the first time at the end of his Ph.D. thesis more than 20 years ago during an extended visit to Roma. Prof. Dolcetta mentorship at that time influenced his career deeply and he is particularly grateful for this opportunity.

    Mean-field games (MFG) is a tool to study the Nash equilibrium of infinite populations of rational agents. These agents select their actions based on their state and the statistical information about the population. Here, we study a price formation model for a commodity traded in a market under uncertain supply, which is a common noise shared by the agents. These agents are rational and aim to minimize the average trading cost by selecting their trading rate. The distribution of the agents solves a stochastic partial differential equation. Finally, a market-clearing condition characterizes the price.

    We let (Ω,F,(Ft)0t,P) be a complete filtered probability space such that (Ft)0t is the standard filtration induced by tWt, the common noise, which is a one-dimensional Brownian motion. We consider a commodity whose supply process is described by a stochastic differential equation; that is, we are given a drift bS:[0,T]×R2R and volatility σS:[0,T]×R2R+0, which are smooth functions, and the supply Qs is determined by the stochastic differential equation

    dQs=bS(Qs,ϖs,s)ds+σS(Qs,ϖs,s)dWs in [0,T] (1.1)

    with the initial condition ˉq. We would like to determine the drift bP:[0,T]×R2R, the volatility σP:[0,T]×R2R+0, and ˉw such that the price ϖs solves

    dϖs=bP(Qs,ϖs,s)ds+σP(Qs,ϖs,s)dWs in [0,T] (1.2)

    with initial condition ˉw and such that it ensures a market clearing condition. It may not be possible to find bP and σP in a feedback form. However, for linear dynamics, as we show here, we can solve quadratic models, which are of great interest in applications.

    Let Xs be the quantity of the commodity held by an agent at time s for tsT. This agent trades this commodity, controlling its rate of change, v, thus

    dXs=v(s)ds in [t,T]. (1.3)

    At time t, an agent who holds x and observes q and w chooses a control process v, progressively measurable with respect to Ft, to minimize the expected cost functional

    J(x,q,w,t;v)=E[TtL(Xs,v(s))+ϖsv(s)ds+Ψ(XT,QT,ϖT)], (1.4)

    subject to the dynamics (1.1), (1.2), and (1.3) with initial condition Xt=x, and the expectation is taken w.r.t. Fr. The Lagrangian, L, takes into account costs such as market impact or storage, and the terminal cost Ψ stands for the terminal preferences of the agent.

    This control problem determines a Hamilton-Jacobi equation addressed in Section 2.1. In turn, each agent selects an optimal control and uses it to adjust its holdings. Because the source of noise in Qt is common to all agents, the evolution of the probability distribution of agents is not deterministic. Instead, it is given by a stochastic transport equation derived in Section 2.2. Finally, the price is determined by a market-clearing condition that ensures that supply meets demand. We study this condition in Section 2.3.

    Mathematically, the price model corresponds to the following problem.

    Problem 1. Given a Hamiltonian, H:R2R, HC, a commodity's supply initial value, ˉqR, supply drift, bS:R2×[0,T]R, and supply volatility, σS:R2×[0,T]R, a terminal cost, Ψ:R3R, ΨC(R3), and an initial distribution of agents, ˉmCc(R)P(R), find u:R3×[0,T]R, μC([0,T]×Ω;P(R3)), ˉwR, the price at t=0, the price drift bP:R2×[0,T]R, and the price volatility σP:R2×[0,T]R solving

    {ut+H(x,w+ux)=bSuq+bPuw+12(σS)2uqq+σSσPuqw+12(σP)2uwwdμt=((μ(σS)22)qq+(μσSσP)qw+(μ(σP)22)wwdiv(μb))dtdiv(μσ)dWtR3q+DpH(x,w+ux(x,q,w,t))μt(dx×dq×dw)=0,a.e.ωΩ,0tT, (1.5)

    and the terminal-initial conditions

    {u(x,q,w,T)=Ψ(x,q,w)μ0=ˉm×δˉq×δˉw, (1.6)

    where b=(DpH(x,w+ux),bS,bP), σ=(0,σS,σP), and the divergence is taken w.r.t. (x,q,w).

    Given a solution to the preceding problem, we construct the supply and price processes

    Qt=R3qμt(dx×dq×dw)

    and

    ϖt=R3wμt(dx×dq×dw),

    which also solve

    {dQt=bS(Qt,ϖt,t)dt+σS(Qt,ϖt,t)dWt in [0,T]dϖt=bP(Qt,ϖt,t)dt+σP(Qt,ϖt,t)dWt in [0,T]

    with initial conditions

    {Q0=ˉqϖ0=ˉw (1.7)

    and satisfy the market-clearing condition

    Qt=RDpH(x,ϖt+ux(x,Qt,ϖt,t))μt(dx).

    In [10], the authors presented a model where the supply for the commodity was a given deterministic function, and the balance condition between supply and demand gave rise to the price as a Lagrange multiplier. Price formation models were also studied by Markowich et al. [18], Caffarelli et al. [2], and Burger et al. [1]. The behavior of rational agents that control an electric load was considered in [16,17]. For example, turning on or off space heaters controls the electric load as was discussed in [13,14,15]. Previous authors addressed price formation when the demand is a given function of the price [12] or that the price is a function of the demand, see, for example [5,6,7,8,11]. An N-player version of an economic growth model was presented in [9].

    Noise in the supply together with a balance condition is a central issue in price formation that could not be handled directly with the techniques in previous papers. A probabilistic approach of the common noise is discussed in Carmona et al. in [4]. Another approach is through the master equation, involving derivatives with respect to measures, which can be found in [3]. None of these references, however, addresses problems with integral constraints such as (1.7).

    Our model corresponds to the one in [10] for the deterministic setting when we take the volatility for the supply to be 0. Here, we study the linear-quadratic case, that is, when the cost functional is quadratic, and the dynamics (1.1) and (1.2) are linear. In Section 3.2, we provide a constructive approach to get semi-explicit solutions of price models for linear dynamics and quadratic cost. This approach avoids the use of the master equation. The paper ends with a brief presentation of simulation results in Section 4.

    In this section, we derive Problem 1 from the price model. We begin with standard tools of optimal control theory. Then, we derive the stochastic transport equation, and we end by introducing the market-clearing (balance) condition.

    The value function for an agent who at time t holds an amount x of the commodity, whose instantaneous supply and price are q and w, is

    u(x,q,w,t)=inf (2.1)

    where J is given by (1.4) and the infimum is taken over the set {\mathcal{A}}\left((t, T]\right) of all functions v:[t, T]\to {\mathbb{R}} , progressively measurable w.r.t. (\mathcal{F}_s)_{t{\leqslant} s {\leqslant} T} . Consider the Hamiltonian, H , which is the Legendre transform of L ; that is, for p\in {\mathbb{R}} ,

    \begin{equation} H(x, p) = \sup\limits_{v\in {\mathbb{R}}} [-pv-L (x, v)]. \end{equation} (2.2)

    Then, from standard stochastic optimal control theory, whenever L is strictly convex, if u is C^2 , it solves the Hamilton-Jacobi equation in {\mathbb{R}}^3 \times [0, T)

    \begin{equation} -u_t+H(x, w+u_x) -b^Pu_w -b^S u_q - \tfrac{(\sigma^P)^2}{2}u_{ww}- \tfrac{(\sigma^S)^2}{2}u_{qq}- \sigma^P\sigma^Su_{wq} = 0 \end{equation} (2.3)

    with the terminal condition

    \begin{equation} u(x, q, w, T) = \Psi \left(x, q, w\right). \end{equation} (2.4)

    Moreover, as the next verification theorem establishes, any C^2 solution of (2.3) is the value function.

    Theorem 2.1(Verification). Let \tilde u:[0, T]\times {\mathbb{R}}^3 \to {\mathbb{R}} be a smooth solution of (2.3) with terminal condition (2.4). Let ({\bf X}^*, Q, \varpi) solve (1.3), (1.1) and (1.2), where {\bf X}^* is driven by the (\mathcal{F}_t)_{0{\leqslant} t} -progressively measurable control

    \begin{equation*} {\bf v}^*(s): = -D_pH( {\bf X}^*_s, \varpi_s+ \tilde{u}_x ( {\bf X}^*_s, Q_s, \varpi_s, s)). \end{equation*}

    Then

    1). {\bf v}^* is an optimal control for (2.1)

    2). \tilde u = u , the value function.

    Theorem 2.1 provides an optimal feedback strategy. As usual in MFG, we assume that the agents are rational and, hence, choose to follow this optimal strategy. This behavior gives rise to a flow that transports the agents and induces a random measure that encodes their distribution. Here, we derive a stochastic PDE solved by this random measure. To this end, let u solve (2.3) and consider the random flow associated with the diffusion

    \begin{equation} \begin{cases} d {\bf X}_s = -D_pH( {\bf X}_s, \varpi_s+u_x( {\bf X}_s, Q_s, \varpi_s, s)) ds\\ dQ_s = b^S(Q_s, \varpi_s, s)ds+ \sigma^S(Q_s, \varpi_s, s)dW_s \\ d\varpi_s = b^P(Q_s, \varpi_s, s)ds+\sigma^P(Q_s, \varpi_s, s)dW_s \end{cases} \end{equation} (2.5)

    with initial conditions

    \begin{equation*} \begin{cases} {\bf X}_0 = x\\ Q_0 = \bar{q}\\ \varpi_0 = \bar{w}. \end{cases} \end{equation*}

    That is, for a given realization \omega\in\Omega of the common noise, the flow maps the initial conditions (x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}) to the solution of (2.5) at time t , which we denote by \left({\bf X}_t^\omega (x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q_t^\omega (\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi_t^\omega (\bar{q}, \bar{w})\right) . Using this map, we define a measure-valued stochastic process \mu_t as follows:

    Definition 2.2. Let \omega\in \Omega denote a realization of the common noise W on 0{\leqslant} s {\leqslant} T . Given a measure \bar{m}\in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathbb{R}}) and initial conditions \bar{q}, \bar{w}\in {\mathbb{R}} take \bar \mu \in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathbb{R}}^3) by \bar \mu = \bar{m}\times \delta_{\bar{q}}\times \delta_{\bar{w}} and define a random measure \mu_t by the mapping \omega \mapsto \mu^\omega_t \in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathbb{R}}^3) , where \mu_t^\omega is characterized as follows:

    for any bounded and continuous function \psi: {\mathbb{R}}^3\to {\mathbb{R}}

    \begin{align*} &\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} \psi(x, q, w) \mu_t^\omega(dx\times dq\times dw) \\ & = \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} \psi \left( {\bf X}_t^\omega (x, q, w), Q_t^\omega(q, w), \varpi_t^\omega(q, w) \right)\bar{\mu}(dx\times dq \times dw). \end{align*}

    Remark 2.3. Because \bar \mu = \bar{m}\times \delta_{\bar{q}}\times \delta_{\bar{w}} , we have

    \begin{align*} &\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} \psi \left( {\bf X}_t^\omega (x, q, w), Q_t^\omega(q, w), \varpi_t^\omega(q, w) \right)\bar{\mu}(dx\times dq \times dw) \\ & = \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} \psi \left( {\bf X}_t^\omega (x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q_t^\omega(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi_t^\omega(\bar{q}, \bar{w}) \right)\bar{m}(dx). \end{align*}

    Moreover, due to the structure of (2.5),

    \mu_t^\omega = ( {\bf X}_t^\omega(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}) \# \bar{m})\times \delta_{Q_t^\omega(\bar{q}, \bar{w})}\times \delta_{\varpi^\omega_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w})}.

    Definition 2.4. Let \bar{\mu}\in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathbb{R}}^3) and write

    \begin{align*} {\bf b}(x, q, w, s)& = (-D_pH(x, w+u_x(x, q, w, s)), b^S(q, w, s), b^P(q, w, s)), \\ {\boldsymbol \sigma}(q, w, s)& = (0, \sigma^S(q, w, s), \sigma^P(q, w, s)). \end{align*}

    A measure-valued stochastic process \mu = \mu(\cdot, t) = \mu_t(\cdot) is a weak solution of the stochastic PDE

    \begin{equation} d\mu_t = \left(- \operatorname{div} (\mu {\bf b} )+\left(\mu\tfrac{(\sigma^S)^2 }{2}\right)_{qq}+(\mu\sigma^S\sigma^P )_{qw}+\left(\mu\tfrac{(\sigma^P)^2 }{2}\right)_{ww}\right) dt- \operatorname{div}(\mu {\boldsymbol \sigma}) dW_t, \end{equation} (2.6)

    with initial condition \bar{\mu} if for any bounded smooth test function \psi: {\mathbb{R}}^3\times[0, T]\to {\mathbb{R}}

    \begin{align} &\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} \psi(x, q, w, t)\mu_t(dx\times dq \times dw) = \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} \psi(x, q, w, 0)\bar{\mu}(dx\times dq \times dw) \end{align} (2.7)
    \begin{align} &+\int_0^t\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3}\partial_t\psi+ D\psi \cdot {\bf b} +\tfrac{1}{2} \operatorname{tr} \left( {\boldsymbol \sigma}^T {\boldsymbol \sigma} D^2\psi \right)\mu_s(dx \times dq \times dw) ds \end{align} (2.8)
    \begin{align} & + \int_0^t\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} D\psi \cdot {\boldsymbol \sigma} \mu_s(dx \times dq \times dw) dW_s, \end{align} (2.9)

    where the arguments for {\bf b} , {\boldsymbol \sigma} and \psi are (x, q, w, s) and the differential operators D and D^2 are taken w.r.t. the spatial variables x, q, w .

    Theorem 2.5. Let \bar{m}\in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathbb{R}}) and \bar{q}, \bar{w}\in {\mathbb{R}} . The random measure from Definition 2.2 is a weak solution of the stochastic partial differential equation (2.6) with initial condition \bar{\mu} = \bar{m}\times \delta_{\bar{q}}\times \delta_{\bar{w}} .

    Proof. Let \psi: {\mathbb{R}}^3\times [0, T]\to {\mathbb{R}} be a bounded smooth test function. Consider the stochastic process s \mapsto \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3}\psi(x, q, w, s)\mu^\omega_s(dx\times dq \times dw) . Let

    ( {\bf X}_t(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}))

    be the flow induced by (2.5). By the definition of \mu^\omega_t ,

    \begin{align*} &\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3}\psi(x, q, w, t)\mu_t^\omega(dx\times dq\times dw)-\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3}\psi(x, q, w, 0)\bar{\mu}(dx\times dq\times dw) \\ & = \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} \left[\psi( {\bf X}^\omega_t(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q^\omega_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi^\omega_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), t)-\psi(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}, 0)\right]\bar{m} (dx). \end{align*}

    Then, applying Ito's formula to the stochastic process

    s\mapsto \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} \psi( {\bf X}_s(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q_s(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi_s(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), s)\bar{m}(dx),

    the preceding expression becomes

    \begin{align*} &\int_0^t d \Big( \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} \psi( {\bf X}_s(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q_s(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi_s(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), s)\bar{m}(dx) \Big) \\ & = \int_0^t \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}}\left[D_t\psi+D\psi \cdot {\bf b}+ \tfrac{1}{2} \operatorname{tr} ( {\boldsymbol \sigma}^T {\boldsymbol \sigma} D^2\psi )\right]\bar{m}(dx)ds \\ &+ \int_0^t \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} D\psi\cdot {\boldsymbol \sigma}\bar{m}(dx) dW_s \\ & = \int_0^t\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3}\left[D_t\psi+ D\psi \cdot {\bf b} + \tfrac{1}{2} \operatorname{tr} ( {\boldsymbol \sigma}^T {\boldsymbol \sigma} D^2\psi) \right]\mu_s(dx\times dq\times dw)ds \\ &+\int_0^t\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} D\psi\cdot {\boldsymbol \sigma} \mu_s(dx\times dq\times dw) dW_s, \end{align*}

    where arguments of {\bf b} , {\boldsymbol \sigma} and the partial derivatives of \psi in the integral with respect to \bar{m}(dx) are ({\bf X}_s(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q_s(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi_s(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), s) , and in the integral with respect to \mu_t(dx\times dq \times dw) are (x, q, w, t) . Therefore,

    \begin{align*} &\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3}\psi(x, q, w, t)\mu_t^\omega(dx\times dq\times dw)-\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3}\psi(x, q, w, 0)\bar{\mu}(dx\times dq\times dw) \\ & = \int_0^t\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3}\left[D_t\psi+ D\psi \cdot {\bf b} + \tfrac{1}{2} \operatorname{tr} (D^2\psi:( {\boldsymbol \sigma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma})) \right]\mu^\omega_s(dx\times dq\times dw)ds\\ &+\int_0^t\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} D\psi\cdot {\boldsymbol \sigma} \mu^\omega_s(dx\times dq\times dw) dW_s. \end{align*}

    Hence, (2.7) holds.

    The balance condition requires the average trading rate to be equal to the supply. Because agents are rational and, thus, use their optimal strategy, this condition takes the form

    \begin{align} Q_t& = \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} -D_pH(x, w + u_x(x, q, w, t)) \mu^\omega_t(dx\times dq \times dw), \end{align} (2.10)

    where \mu_t^\omega is given by Definition 2.2. Because Q_t satisfies a stochastic differential equation, the previous can also be read in differential form as

    \begin{align} b^S(Q_t, \varpi_t, t)dt+ \sigma^S(Q_t, \varpi_t, t)dW_t = d\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} -D_pH(x, w + u_x(x, q, w, t)) \mu^\omega_t(dx\times dq \times dw). \end{align} (2.11)

    The former condition determines b^P and \sigma^P . In general, b^P and \sigma^P are only progressively measurable with respect to (\mathcal{F}_t)_{0{\leqslant} t} and not in feedback form. In this case, the Hamilton–Jacobi (2.3) must be replaced by either a stochastic partial differential equation or the problem must be modeled by the master equation. However, as we discuss next, in the linear-quadratic case, we can find b^P and \sigma^P in feedback form.

    Here, we consider a price model for linear dynamics and quadratic cost. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation admits quadratic solutions. Then, the balance equation determines the dynamics of the price, and the model is reduced to a first-order system of ODE.

    Suppose that L(x, v) = \tfrac{c}{2}v^2 and, thus, H(x, p) = \tfrac{1}{2c}p^2 . Accordingly, the corresponding MFG model is

    \begin{equation} \begin{cases} -u_t + \tfrac{1}{2c}(w+u_x)^2 -b^Pu_w -b^S u_q - \tfrac{1}{2}(\sigma^P)^2u_{ww}- \tfrac{1}{2}(\sigma^S)^2u_{qq}- \sigma^P\sigma^Su_{wq} = 0 \\ d \mu_t = \left(\left(\mu\tfrac{(\sigma^S)^2 }{2}\right)_{qq}+(\mu\sigma^S\sigma^P )_{qw}+\left(\mu\tfrac{(\sigma^P)^2 }{2}\right)_{ww}- \operatorname{div} (\mu {\bf b} )\right) dt- \operatorname{div}(\mu {\boldsymbol \sigma}) dW_t \\ Q_t = -\tfrac{1}{c} \varpi_t +\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} -\tfrac{1}{c} u_x(x, q, w, t) \mu_t^\omega(dx\times dq \times dw). \end{cases} \end{equation} (3.1)

    Assume further that \Psi is quadratic; that is,

    \Psi(x, q, w) = c_0+c_1^1x+c_1^2q + c_1^3w + c_2^1x^2 + c_2^2xq + c_2^3xw + c_2^4q^2 + c_2^5qw + c_2^6w^2.

    Let

    \Pi_t = \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} u_x(x, q, w, t) \mu_t(dx\times dq\times dw).

    The balance condition is Q_t = -\tfrac{1}{c} \left(\varpi_t+\Pi_t\right) . Furthermore, Definition 2.2 provides the identity

    \Pi_t = \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} u_x( {\bf X}_t^*(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), t) \bar{m}(dx).

    Lemma 3.1. Let ({\bf X}^*, Q, \varpi) solve (1.3), (1.1) and (1.2) with {\bf v} = {\bf v}^* , the optimal control, and initial conditions \bar{q}, \bar{w}\in {\mathbb{R}} . Let u\in C^3({\mathbb{R}}^3\times[0, T]) solve the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (2.3). Then

    \begin{align} d\Pi_t = & \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} \left(u_{xq} \sigma^S + u_{xw} \sigma^P \right)\bar{m}(dx)dW_t, \end{align} (3.2)

    where the arguments for the partial derivatives of u are ({\bf X}_t^*(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), t) .

    Proof. By Itô's formula, the process t\mapsto u_x({\bf X}^*_t, Q_t, \varpi_t, t) solves

    \begin{align} &d\big(u_x( {\bf X}^*_t, Q_t, \varpi_t, t)\Big) \\ & = \Big( u_{xt} + u_{xx} {\bf v}^* + u_{xq} b^S + u_{xw} b^P + u_{xqq} \tfrac{1}{2} (\sigma^S)^2 + u_{xqw} \sigma^S \sigma^P + u_{xww} \tfrac{1}{2} (\sigma^P)^2 \Big) dt + \\ &+ \Big( u_{xq}\sigma^S + u_{xw} \sigma^P \Big) dW_t, \end{align} (3.3)

    with {\bf v}^*(t) = -\tfrac{1}{c}(\varpi_t+u_x({\bf X}^*_t, Q_t, \varpi_t, t)) . By differentiating the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, we get

    \begin{equation*} -u_{tx}+\tfrac{1}{c}(\varpi_t+u_x)u_{xx} -b^Pu_{wx} -b^S u_{qx} - \tfrac{(\sigma^P)^2}{2}u_{wwx}- \tfrac{(\sigma^S)^2}{2}u_{qqx}- \sigma^P\sigma^Su_{wqx} = 0. \end{equation*}

    Substituting the previous expression in (3.3), we have

    \begin{align*} &d\Big( \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} u_x( {\bf X}^*_t(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), t)\bar{m}(dx)\Big) \\ & = \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} \left(\tfrac{1}{c}(\varpi_t+u_x)u_{xx} +u_{xx} {\bf v}^* \right)\bar{m}(dx)dt +\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} \left(u_{xq} \sigma^S + u_{xw} \sigma^P \right)\bar{m}(dx)dW_t. \end{align*}

    The preceding identity simplifies to

    \begin{gather*} \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} \left(u_{xq} \sigma^S + u_{xw} \sigma^P \right)\bar{m}(dx)dW_t. \end{gather*}

    Using Lemma 3.1, we have

    -c dQ_t = \int_ {\mathbb{R}}\left(u_{xq} \sigma^S + u_{xw} \sigma^P \right)\bar{m}(dx)dW_t +d\varpi_t;

    that is,

    \begin{gather*} -cb^S dt - c\sigma^S dW_t = \left( \sigma^S \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xq}\bar{m}(dx) + \sigma^P \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xw}\bar{m}(dx) \right)dW_t + d\varpi_t\\ = b^P dt + \left(\sigma^S \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xq}\bar{m}(dx) + \sigma^P \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xw}\bar{m}(dx) + \sigma^P\right)dW_t. \end{gather*}

    Thus,

    \begin{gather} b^P = -cb^S, \\ \sigma^P = -\sigma^S \dfrac{c+ \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xq}\bar{m}(dx)}{1+ \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xw}\bar{m}(dx)}. \end{gather} (3.4)

    If u is a second-degree polynomial with time-dependent coefficients, then

    \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xq}( {\bf X}_t^*(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), t)\bar{m}(dx)

    and

    \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xw}( {\bf X}_t^*(x, \bar{q}, \bar{w}), Q_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), \varpi_t(\bar{q}, \bar{w}), t)\bar{m}(dx)

    are deterministic functions of time. Accordingly, b^P and \sigma^P are given in feedback form by (3.4), thus, consistent with the original assumption. Here, we investigate the linear-quadratic case that admits solutions of this form.

    Now, we assume that the dynamics are affine; that is,

    \begin{equation} \begin{cases} b^P(t, q, w) = b_0^P(t)+q b_1^P(t)+w b_2^P(t)\\ b^S(t, q, w) = b_0^S(t)+q b_1^S(t)+w b_2^S(t)\\ \sigma^P(t, q, w) = \sigma_0^P(t)+q \sigma _1^P(t)+w \sigma _2^P(t)\\ \sigma^S(t, q, w) = \sigma_0^S(t) +q \sigma _1^S(t)+w \sigma _2^S(t). \end{cases} \end{equation} (3.5)

    Then, (3.4) gives

    \begin{align*} b^P_0& = -cb_0^S , &\sigma^P_0 & = -\sigma_0^S \dfrac{c+ \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xq}\bar{m}(dx)}{1+ \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xw}\bar{m}(dx)}\\ b^P_1& = -cb_1^S , &\sigma^P_1 & = -\sigma_1^S \dfrac{c+ \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xq}\bar{m}(dx)}{1+ \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xw}\bar{m}(dx)}\\ b^P_2& = -cb_2^S , &\sigma^P_2 & = -\sigma_2^S \dfrac{c+ \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xq}\bar{m}(dx)}{1+ \int_ {\mathbb{R}} u_{xw}\bar{m}(dx)}. \end{align*}

    Because all the terms in the Hamilton-Jacobi equation are at most quadratic, we seek for solutions of the form

    \begin{align*} u(t, x, q, w) = & a_0(t) + a_1^1(t)x + a_1^2(t)q + a_1^3(t)w\\ & + a_2^1(t)x^2 + a_2^2(t)xq + a_2^3(t)xw + a_2^4(t)q^2 + a_2^5(t)qw + a_2^6(t)w^2, \end{align*}

    where a_i^j:[0, T]\to {\mathbb{R}} . Therefore, the previous identities reduce to

    \begin{align} b^P_0& = -cb_0^S , &\sigma^P_0 & = -\sigma_0^S \dfrac{c+ a_2^2 }{1+ a_2^3} \\ b^P_1& = -cb_1^S , &\sigma^P_1 & = -\sigma_1^S \dfrac{c+ a_2^2 }{1+ a_2^3} \\ b^P_2& = -cb_2^S , &\sigma^P_2 & = -\sigma_2^S \dfrac{c+ a_2^2 }{1+ a_2^3}. \end{align} (3.6)

    Using (3.6) and grouping coefficients in the Hamilton-Jacobi PDE, we obtain the following ODE system

    \begin{align*} \dot{a}_2^1 = &\tfrac{2 \left(a_2^1\right)^2}{c} \\ \dot{a}_2^2 = &\tfrac{c^2 a_2^3 b_1^S-c a_2^2 b_1^S+2 a_2^1 a_2^2}{c} \\ \dot{a}_2^3 = &\tfrac{c^2 a_2^3 b_2^S-c a_2^2 b_2^S+2 a_2^1+2 a_2^1 a_2^3}{c} \\ \dot{a}_1^1 = &\tfrac{c^2 a_2^3 b_0^S-c a_2^2 b_0^S+2 a_1^1 a_2^1}{c} \\ \dot{a}_2^4 = &c a_2^5 b_1^S-2 a_2^4 b_1^S+\tfrac{a_2^5 \left(a_2^2+c\right) \left(\sigma _1^S\right)^2}{a_2^3+1}-\tfrac{1}{4} \left(\tfrac{4 a_2^6 \left(a_2^2+c\right)^2 \left(\sigma _1^S\right)^2}{\left(a_2^3+1\right)^2}+4 a_2^4 \left(\sigma _1^S\right)^2\right)+\tfrac{\left(a_2^2\right)^2}{2 c} \\ \dot{a}_2^5 = &2 c a_2^6 b_1^S+c a_2^5 b_2^S-a_2^5 b_1^S-2 a_2^4 b_2^S-\tfrac{1}{2} \left(\tfrac{4 a_2^6 \left(a_2^2+c\right)^2 \sigma _1^S \sigma _2^S}{\left(a_2^3+1\right)^2}+4 a_2^4 \sigma _1^S \sigma _2^S\right)+\tfrac{2 a_2^5 \left(a_2^2+c\right) \sigma _1^S \sigma _2^S}{a_2^3+1}+\tfrac{a_2^2 \left(a_2^3+1\right)}{c} \\ \dot{a}_2^6 = &2 c a_2^6 b_2^S-a_2^5 b_2^S-\tfrac{1}{4} \left(\tfrac{4 a_2^6 \left(a_2^2+c\right)^2 \left(\sigma _2^S\right)^2}{\left(a_2^3+1\right)^2}+4 a_2^4 \left(\sigma _2^S\right)^2\right)+\tfrac{a_2^5 \left(a_2^2+c\right) \left(\sigma _2^S\right)^2}{a_2^3+1}+\tfrac{\left(a_2^3+1\right)^2}{2 c} \\ \dot{a}_0 = &c a_1^3 b_0^S-a_1^2 b_0^S+\tfrac{a_2^5 \left(a_2^2+c\right) \left(\sigma _0^S\right)^2}{a_2^3+1}-\tfrac{1}{2} \left(\tfrac{2 a_2^6 \left(a_2^2+c\right)^2 \left(\sigma _0^S\right)^2}{\left(a_2^3+1\right)^2}+2 a_2^4 \left(\sigma _0^S\right)^2\right)+\tfrac{\left(a_1^1\right)^2}{2 c} \\ \dot{a}_1^2 = &c a_2^5 b_0^S+c a_1^3 b_1^S-2 a_2^4 b_0^S-a_1^2 b_1^S+\tfrac{2 a_2^5 \left(a_2^2+c\right) \sigma _0^S \sigma _1^S}{a_2^3+1}-\tfrac{1}{2} \left(\tfrac{4 a_2^6 \left(a_2^2+c\right)^2 \sigma _0^S \sigma _1^S}{\left(a_2^3+1\right)^2}+4 a_2^4 \sigma _0^S \sigma _1^S\right)+\tfrac{a_1^1 a_2^2}{c} \\ \dot{a}_1^3 = &2 c a_2^6 b_0^S+c a_1^3 b_2^S-a_2^5 b_0^S-a_1^2 b_2^S-\tfrac{1}{2} \left(\tfrac{4 a_2^6 \left(a_2^2+c\right)^2 \sigma _0^S \sigma _2^S}{\left(a_2^3+1\right)^2}+4 a_2^4 \sigma _0^S \sigma _2^S\right)+\tfrac{2 a_2^5 \left(a_2^2+c\right) \sigma _0^S \sigma _2^S}{a_2^3+1}+\tfrac{a_1^1 \left(a_2^3+1\right)}{c} , \end{align*}

    with terminal conditions

    \begin{align*} a_0(T)& = \Psi(0, 0, 0) = c_0 & a_1^1(T)& = D_{x}\Psi(0, 0, 0) = c_1^1\\ a_1^2(T)& = D_{q}\Psi(0, 0, 0) = c_1^2 & a_1^3(T)& = D_{w}\Psi(0, 0, 0) = c_1^3\\ a_2^1(T)& = \tfrac{1}{2} D_{xx}\Psi(0, 0, 0) = c_2^1 & a_2^2(T)& = D_{xq}\Psi(0, 0, 0) = c_2^2\\ a_2^3(T)& = D_{xw}\Psi(0, 0, 0) = c_2^3 & a_2^4(T)& = \tfrac{1}{2} D_{qq}\Psi(0, 0, 0) = c_2^4\\ a_2^5(T)& = D_{qw}\Psi(0, 0, 0) = c_2^5 & a_2^6(T)& = \tfrac{1}{2} D_{ww}\Psi(0, 0, 0) = c_2^6. \end{align*}

    While this system has a complex structure, it admits some simplifications. For example, the equation for a_2^1 is independent of other terms and has the solution

    a_2^1(t) = \tfrac{c c_2^1}{c+2c_2^1(T-t)}.

    Moreover, we can determine a_2^2 and a_2^3 from the linear system

    \tfrac{d}{dt} \begin{bmatrix} a_2^2\\ a_2^3 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} -b_1^S + \tfrac{2}{c} a_2^1 & c b_1^S\\ -b_2^S & c b_2^S +\tfrac{2}{c}a_2^1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} a_2^2\\ a_2^3 \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix} 0\\ \tfrac{2}{c}a_2^1 \end{bmatrix}.

    Lemma 3.1 takes the form

    \begin{gather*} d\Pi_t = \Big(a_2^2(t) \sigma^S(Q_t, \varpi_t, t) + a_2^3 (t)\sigma^P (Q_t, \varpi_t, t) \Big)dW_t. \end{gather*}

    Therefore,

    \begin{gather*} \Pi_t = \Pi_0 + \int_0^t \Big(a_2^2(r) \sigma^S(Q_r, \varpi_r, r) + a_2^3 (r)\sigma^P (Q_r, \varpi_r, r) \Big)dW_r \end{gather*}

    where

    \Pi_0 = a_1^1(0)+2a_2^1(0)\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}}x\bar{m}(dx)+a_2^2(0)\bar{q}+a_2^3(0)\bar{w}.

    Replacing the above in the balance condition at the initial time, that is \bar{w} = -c\bar{q}-\Pi_0 , we obtain the initial condition for the price

    \begin{equation} \bar{w} = \tfrac{-1}{1+a_2^3(0)}\Big(a_1^1(0) + 2a_2^1(0) \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}}x\bar{m}(dx) + (a_2^2(0)+c) \bar{q}\Big). \end{equation} (3.7)

    where a_1^1 can be obtained after solving for a_2^1 , a_2^2 and a_2^3 .

    Now, we proceed with the price dynamics using the balance condition. Under linear dynamics, we have

    \begin{align*} Q_t& = -\tfrac{1}{c} \left(\varpi_t+\Pi_0\right) \\ & -\tfrac{1}{c} \int_0^t a_2^2(r) \Big(\sigma_0^S(r) +Q_r \sigma _1^S(r)+\varpi_r \sigma _2^S(r) \Big) + a_2^3 (r)\Big(\sigma_0^P(r)+Q_r \sigma _1^P(r)+\varpi_r \sigma _2^P(r) \Big) dW_r. \end{align*}

    Thus, replacing the price coefficients for (3.6), we obtain

    \begin{align*} d\varpi_t = &-c\left( b_0^S(t)+ b_1^S(t)Q_t+ b_2^S(t)\varpi_t\right) dt \\ &- \tfrac{c+a_2^2(t)}{1+a_2^3(t)} \left(\sigma_0^S(t)+\sigma_1^S(t) Q_t+\sigma_2^S(t) \varpi_t\right)dW_t, \\ dQ_t = &b^S dt + \sigma^S dW_t, \end{align*}

    which determines the dynamics for the price.

    In this section, we consider the running cost corresponding to c = 1 ; that is,

    L( {\bf v}) = \tfrac{1}{2} {\bf v}^2

    and terminal cost at time T = 1

    \Psi(x) = (x-\alpha)^2.

    We take \bar{m} to be a normal standard distribution; that is, with zero-mean and unit variance. We assume the dynamics for the normalized supply is mean-reverting

    dQ_t = (1-Q_t) dt + Q_t dW_t,

    with initial condition \bar{q} = 1 . Therefore, the dynamics for the price becomes

    d\varpi_t = -(1-Q_t) dt - \tfrac{1+a_2^2}{1+a_2^3} Q_t dW_t,

    with initial condition \bar{w} given by (3.7), and a_2^2 and a_2^3 solve

    \begin{align*} \dot{a}_2^2 = & -a_2^3 + a_2^2 (1+2 a_2^1) \\ \dot{a}_2^3 = & 2 a_2^1(1+a_2^3), \end{align*}

    with terminal conditions a_2^2(1) = 0 and a_2^3(1) = 0 . We observe that the coefficient multiplying Q_t in the volatility of the price is now time-dependent.

    For a fixed simulation of the supply, we compute the price for different values of \alpha . Agents begin with zero energy average. The results are displayed in Figure 1. As expected, the price is negatively correlated with the supply. Moreover, as the storage target increases, prices increase, which reflects the competition between agents who, on average, want to increase their storage.

    Figure 1.  Supply vs. Price for the values \alpha = 0 , \alpha = 0.1 , \alpha = 0.25 , \alpha = 0.5 .

    The authors were partially supported by KAUST baseline funds and KAUST OSR-CRG2017-3452.

    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.



    [1] Burger M, Caffarelli LA, Markowich PA, et al. (2013) On a Boltzmann-type price formation model. P R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Eng Sci 469: 1-20.
    [2] Caffarelli LA, Markowich PA, Pietschmann JF (2011) On a price formation free boundary model by Lasry and Lions. C R Math Acad Sci Paris 349: 621-624. doi: 10.1016/j.crma.2011.05.011
    [3] Carmona R, Delarue F (2014) The master equation for large population equilibriums. arXiv:1404.4694.
    [4] Carmona R, Delarue F, Lacker D (2016) Mean field games with common noise. Ann Probab 44: 3740-3803. doi: 10.1214/15-AOP1060
    [5] Alasseur C, Taher IB, Matoussi A (2017) An extended mean field game for storage in smart grids. J Optim Theory Appl 184: 644-670.
    [6] Couillet R, Perlaza SM, Tembine H, et al. (2012) Electrical vehicles in the smart grid: A mean field game analysis. IEEE J Sel Area Commun 30: 1086-1096. doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2012.120707
    [7] De Paola A, Angeli D, Strbac G (2016) Distributed control of micro-storage devices with mean field games. IEEE T Smart Grid 7: 1119-1127.
    [8] De Paola A, Trovato V, Angeli D (2019) A mean field game approach for distributed control of thermostatic loads acting in simultaneous energy-frequency response markets. IEEE T Smart Grid, 10: 5987-5999. doi: 10.1109/TSG.2019.2895247
    [9] Gomes D, Lafleche L, Nurbekyan L (2016) A mean-field game economic growth model, In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, 4693-4698.
    [10] Gomes DA, Saúde J (2020) A mean-field game approach to price formation. Dyn Games Appl, To appear.
    [11] Graber J, Mouzouni C (2017) Variational mean field games for market competition. arXiv:1707.07853.
    [12] Guéant O, Lasry JM, Lions PL (2011) Mean field games and applications. In: Paris-Princeton Lectures on Mathematical Finance 2010, Berlin: Springer, 205-266.
    [13] Kizilkale AC, Malhame RP (2014) A class of collective target tracking problems in energy systems: Cooperative versus non-cooperative mean field control solutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 3493-3498.
    [14] Kizilkale AC, Malhame RP (2014) Collective target tracking mean field control for electric space heaters. In: 2014 22nd Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, MED 2014, 829-834.
    [15] Kizilkale AC, Malhame RP (2014) Collective target tracking mean field control for markovian jump-driven models of electric water heating loads. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 47: 1867-1872. doi: 10.3182/20140824-6-ZA-1003.00630
    [16] Malhamé R, Chong CY (1988) On the statistical properties of a cyclic diffusion process arising in the modeling of thermostat-controlled electric power system loads. SIAM J Appl Math 48: 465-480. doi: 10.1137/0148026
    [17] Malhamé R, Kamoun S, Dochain D (1989) On-line identification of electric load models for load management. In: Advances in Computing and Control, Berlin: Springer, 290-304.
    [18] Markowich PA, Matevosyan N, Pietschmann JF, et al. (2009) On a parabolic free boundary equation modeling price formation. Math Mod Meth Appl Sci 19: 1929-1957. doi: 10.1142/S0218202509003978
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Masaaki Fujii, Akihiko Takahashi, Strong Convergence to the Mean Field Limit of a Finite Agent Equilibrium, 2022, 13, 1945-497X, 459, 10.1137/21M1441055
    2. Masaaki Fujii, Akihiko Takahashi, Strong Convergence to the Mean-Field Limit of A Finite Agent Equilibrium, 2021, 1556-5068, 10.2139/ssrn.3905899
    3. Diogo Gomes, Julian Gutierrez, Ricardo Ribeiro, A Random-Supply Mean Field Game Price Model, 2023, 14, 1945-497X, 188, 10.1137/21M1443923
    4. Yuri Ashrafyan, Tigran Bakaryan, Diogo Gomes, Julian Gutierrez, 2022, The potential method for price-formation models, 978-1-6654-6761-2, 7565, 10.1109/CDC51059.2022.9992621
    5. Diogo Gomes, Julian Gutierrez, Mathieu Laurière, Machine Learning Architectures for Price Formation Models, 2023, 88, 0095-4616, 10.1007/s00245-023-10002-8
    6. Matt Barker, Pierre Degond, Ralf Martin, Mirabelle Muûls, A mean field game model of firm-level innovation, 2023, 33, 0218-2025, 929, 10.1142/S0218202523500203
    7. Khaled Aljadhai, Majid Almarhoumi, Diogo Gomes, Melih Ucer, A mean-field game model of price formation with price-dependent agent behavior, 2024, 1982-6907, 10.1007/s40863-024-00465-0
    8. Diogo Gomes, Julian Gutierrez, Mathieu Laurière, 2023, Machine Learning Architectures for Price Formation Models with Common Noise, 979-8-3503-0124-3, 4345, 10.1109/CDC49753.2023.10383244
    9. Masaaki Fujii, Masashi Sekine, Mean-Field Equilibrium Price Formation With Exponential Utility, 2023, 1556-5068, 10.2139/ssrn.4420441
    10. Yuri Ashrafyan, Diogo Gomes, A Fully-Discrete Semi-Lagrangian Scheme for a Price Formation MFG Model, 2025, 2153-0785, 10.1007/s13235-025-00620-y
    11. Masaaki Fujii, Masashi Sekine, Mean-field equilibrium price formation with exponential utility, 2024, 24, 0219-4937, 10.1142/S0219493725500017
    12. Masaaki Fujii, Masashi Sekine, Mean Field Equilibrium Asset Pricing Model with Habit Formation, 2025, 1387-2834, 10.1007/s10690-024-09507-1
    13. Fabio Bagagiolo, Rossana Capuani, Luciano Marzufero, A zero-sum differential game for two opponent masses, 2025, 6, 2662-2963, 10.1007/s42985-025-00322-5
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5303) PDF downloads(789) Cited by(13)

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog