Citation: Viktorija Dičpinigaitienė, Lina Novickytė. Application of systemic risk measurement methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis using a network approach[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2018, 2(4): 798-820. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2018.4.798
[1] | Tianyuan Xu, Shanming Ji, Chunhua Jin, Ming Mei, Jingxue Yin . EARLY AND LATE STAGE PROFILES FOR A CHEMOTAXIS MODEL WITH DENSITY-DEPENDENT JUMP PROBABILITY. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(6): 1345-1385. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018062 |
[2] | Wenjie Zhang, Lu Xu, Qiao Xin . Global boundedness of a higher-dimensional chemotaxis system on alopecia areata. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 7922-7942. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023343 |
[3] | Sunwoo Hwang, Seongwon Lee, Hyung Ju Hwang . Neural network approach to data-driven estimation of chemotactic sensitivity in the Keller-Segel model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 8524-8534. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021421 |
[4] | Qianhong Zhang, Fubiao Lin, Xiaoying Zhong . On discrete time Beverton-Holt population model with fuzzy environment. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(3): 1471-1488. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019071 |
[5] | Chichia Chiu, Jui-Ling Yu . An optimal adaptive time-stepping scheme for solving reaction-diffusion-chemotaxis systems. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2007, 4(2): 187-203. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2007.4.187 |
[6] | Xu Song, Jingyu Li . Asymptotic stability of spiky steady states for a singular chemotaxis model with signal-suppressed motility. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(12): 13988-14028. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022652 |
[7] | Tingting Yu, Sanling Yuan . Dynamics of a stochastic turbidostat model with sampled and delayed measurements. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(4): 6215-6236. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023268 |
[8] | Lin Zhang, Yongbin Ge, Zhi Wang . Positivity-preserving high-order compact difference method for the Keller-Segel chemotaxis model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(7): 6764-6794. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022319 |
[9] | Changwook Yoon, Sewoong Kim, Hyung Ju Hwang . Global well-posedness and pattern formations of the immune system induced by chemotaxis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 3426-3449. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020194 |
[10] | Marcin Choiński, Mariusz Bodzioch, Urszula Foryś . A non-standard discretized SIS model of epidemics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(1): 115-133. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022006 |
Baló's concentric sclerosis (BCS) was first described by Marburg [1] in 1906, but became more widely known until 1928 when the Hungarian neuropathologist Josef Baló published a report of a 23-year-old student with right hemiparesis, aphasia, and papilledema, who at autopsy had several lesions of the cerebral white matter, with an unusual concentric pattern of demyelination [2]. Traditionally, BCS is often regarded as a rare variant of multiple sclerosis (MS). Clinically, BCS is most often characterized by an acute onset with steady progression to major disability and death with months, thus resembling Marburg's acute MS [3,4]. Its pathological hallmarks are oligodendrocyte loss and large demyelinated lesions characterized by the annual ring-like alternating pattern of demyelinating and myelin-preserved regions. In [5], the authors found that tissue preconditioning might explain why Baló lesions develop a concentric pattern. According to the tissue preconditioning theory and the analogies between Baló's sclerosis and the Liesegang periodic precipitation phenomenon, Khonsari and Calvez [6] established the following chemotaxis model
˜uτ=DΔX˜u⏟diffusion ofactivated macrophages−∇X⋅(˜χ˜u(ˉu−˜u)∇˜v)⏟chemoattractant attractssurrounding activated macrophages+μ˜u(ˉu−˜u)⏟production of activated macrophages,−˜ϵΔX˜v⏟diffusion of chemoattractant=−˜α˜v+˜β˜w⏟degradation∖production of chemoattractant,˜wτ=κ˜uˉu+˜u˜u(ˉw−˜w)⏟destruction of oligodendrocytes, | (1.1) |
where ˜u, ˜v and ˜w are, respectively, the density of activated macrophages, the concentration of chemoattractants and density of destroyed oligodendrocytes. ˉu and ˉw represent the characteristic densities of macrophages and oligodendrocytes respectively.
By numerical simulation, the authors in [6,7] indicated that model (1.1) only produces heterogeneous concentric demyelination and homogeneous demyelinated plaques as χ value gradually increases. In addition to the chemoattractant produced by destroyed oligodendrocytes, "classically activated'' M1 microglia also can release cytotoxicity [8]. Therefore we introduce a linear production term into the second equation of model (1.1), and establish the following BCS chemotaxis model with linear production term
{˜uτ=DΔX˜u−∇X⋅(˜χ˜u(ˉu−˜u)∇˜v)+μ˜u(ˉu−˜u),−˜ϵΔX˜v+˜α˜v=˜β˜w+˜γ˜u,˜wτ=κ˜uˉu+˜u˜u(ˉw−˜w). | (1.2) |
Before going to details, let us simplify model (1.2) with the following scaling
u=˜uˉu,v=μˉu˜ϵD˜v,w=˜wˉw,t=μˉuτ,x=√μˉuDX,χ=˜χ˜ϵμ,α=D˜α˜ϵμˉu,β=˜βˉw,γ=˜γˉu,δ=κμ, |
then model (1.2) takes the form
{ut=Δu−∇⋅(χu(1−u)∇v)+u(1−u),x∈Ω,t>0,−Δv+αv=βw+γu,x∈Ω,t>0,wt=δu1+uu(1−w),x∈Ω,t>0,∂ηu=∂ηv=0,x∈∂Ω,t>0,u(x,0)=u0(x),w(x,0)=w0(x),x∈Ω, | (1.3) |
where Ω⊂Rn(n≥1) is a smooth bounded domain, η is the outward normal vector to ∂Ω, ∂η=∂/∂η, δ balances the speed of the front and the intensity of the macrophages in damaging the myelin. The parameters χ,α and δ are positive constants as well as β,γ are nonnegative constants.
If δ=0, then model (1.3) is a parabolic-elliptic chemotaxis system with volume-filling effect and logistic source. In order to be more line with biologically realistic mechanisms, Hillen and Painter [9,10] considered the finite size of individual cells-"volume-filling'' and derived volume-filling models
{ut=∇⋅(Du(q(u)−q′(u)u)∇u−q(u)uχ(v)∇v)+f(u,v),vt=DvΔv+g(u,v). | (1.4) |
q(u) is the probability of the cell finding space at its neighbouring location. It is also called the squeezing probability, which reflects the elastic properties of cells. For the linear choice of q(u)=1−u, global existence of solutions to model (1.4) in any space dimension are investigated in [9]. Wang and Thomas [11] established the global existence of classical solutions and given necessary and sufficient conditions for spatial pattern formation to a generalized volume-filling chemotaxis model. For a chemotaxis system with generalized volume-filling effect and logistic source, the global boundedness and finite time blow-up of solutions are obtained in [12]. Furthermore, the pattern formation of the volume-filling chemotaxis systems with logistic source and both linear diffusion and nonlinear diffusion are shown in [13,14,15] by the weakly nonlinear analysis. For parabolic-elliptic Keller-Segel volume-filling chemotaxis model with linear squeezing probability, asymptotic behavior of solutions is studied both in the whole space Rn [16] and on bounded domains [17]. Moreover, the boundedness and singularity formation in parabolic-elliptic Keller-Segel volume-filling chemotaxis model with nonlinear squeezing probability are discussed in [18,19].
Very recently, we [20] investigated the uniform boundedness and global asymptotic stability for the following chemotaxis model of multiple sclerosis
{ut=Δu−∇⋅(χ(u)∇v)+u(1−u),χ(u)=χu1+u,x∈Ω,t>0,τvt=Δv−βv+αw+γu,x∈Ω,t>0,wt=δu1+uu(1−w),x∈Ω,t>0, |
subject to the homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions.
In this paper, we are first devoted to studying the local existence and uniform boundedness of the unique classical solution to system (1.3) by using Neumann heat semigroup arguments, Banach fixed point theorem, parabolic Schauder estimate and elliptic regularity theory. Then we discuss that exponential asymptotic stability of the positive equilibrium point to system (1.3) by constructing Lyapunov function.
Although, in the pathological mechanism of BCS, the initial data in model (1.3) satisfy 0<u0(x)≤1,w0(x)=0, we mathematically assume that
{u0(x)∈C0(ˉΩ)with0≤,≢u0(x)≤1inΩ,w0(x)∈C2+ν(ˉΩ)with0<ν<1and0≤w0(x)≤1inΩ. | (1.5) |
It is because the condition (1.5) implies u(x,t0)>0 for any t0>0 by the strong maximum principle.
The following theorems give the main results of this paper.
Theorem 1.1. Assume that the initial data (u0(x),w0(x)) satisfy the condition (1.5). Then model (1.3) possesses a unique global solution (u(x,t),v(x,t),w(x,t)) satisfying
u(x,t)∈C0(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2,1(ˉΩ×(0,∞)),v(x,t)∈C0((0,∞),C2(ˉΩ)),w(x,t)∈C2,1(ˉΩ×[0,∞)), | (1.6) |
and
0<u(x,t)≤1,0≤v(x,t)≤β+γα,w0(x)≤w(x,t)≤1,inˉΩ×(0,∞). |
Moreover, there exist a ν∈(0,1) and M>0 such that
‖u‖C2+ν,1+ν/2(ˉΩ×[1,∞))+‖v‖C0([1,∞),C2+ν(ˉΩ))+‖w‖Cν,1+ν/2(ˉΩ×[1,∞))≤M. | (1.7) |
Theorem 1.2. Assume that β≥0,γ≥0,β+γ>0 and
χ<{min | (1.8) |
Let (u, v, w) be a positive classical solution of the problem (1.3), (1.5). Then
\begin{equation} \|u(\cdot, t)-u^{\ast}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+\|v(\cdot, t)-v^{\ast}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} +\|w(\cdot, t)-w^{\ast}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\rightarrow 0, \; \; \mathit{\text{as}}\, t\rightarrow \infty. \end{equation} | (1.9) |
Furthermore, there exist positive constants \lambda = \lambda(\chi, \alpha, \gamma, \delta, n) and C = C(|\Omega|, \chi, \alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta) such that
\begin{equation} \|u-u^{\ast}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq C e^{-\lambda t}, \, \|v-v^{\ast}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq C e^{-\lambda t}, \, \|w-w^{\ast}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} \leq C e^{-\lambda t}, \; \; t \gt 0, \end{equation} | (1.10) |
where (u^{\ast}, v^{\ast}, w^{\ast}) = (1, \frac{\beta+\gamma}{\alpha}, 1) is the unique positive equilibrium point of the model (1.3).
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we prove the local existence, the boundedness and global existence of a unique classical solution. In section 3, we firstly establish the uniform convergence of the positive global classical solution, then discuss the exponential asymptotic stability of positive equilibrium point in the case of weak chemotactic sensitivity. The paper ends with a brief concluding remarks.
The aim of this section is to develop the existence and boundedness of a global classical solution by employing Neumann heat semigroup arguments, Banach fixed point theorem, parabolic Schauder estimate and elliptic regularity theory.
Proof of Theorem 1.1 (ⅰ) Existence. For p\in (1, \infty) , let A denote the sectorial operator defined by
Au: = -\Delta u \; \mathrm{for}\; u\in D(A): = \Big\{\varphi\in W^{2, p}(\Omega)\Big|\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta}\varphi\Big|_{\partial\Omega} = 0\Big\}. |
\lambda_{1} > 0 denote the first nonzero eigenvalue of -\Delta in \Omega with zero-flux boundary condition. Let A_{1} = -\Delta+\alpha and X^{l} be the domains of fractional powers operator A^{l}, \; l\geq 0 . From the Theorem 1.6.1 in [21], we know that for any p > n and l\in(\frac{n}{2p}, \frac{1}{2}) ,
\begin{equation} \|z\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq C\|A_{1}^{l}z\|_{ L^{p}(\Omega)}\, \, \mathrm{for\; all}\, \, z\in X^{l}. \end{equation} | (2.1) |
We introduce the closed subset
S: = \left\{u\in X\big| \|u\|_{L^{\infty}((0, T);L^{\infty}(\Omega))}\leq R+1\right\} |
in the space X: = C^{0}([0, T];C^{0}(\bar{\Omega})) , where R is a any positive number satisfying
\|u_{0}(x)\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq R |
and T > 0 will be specified later. Note F(u) = \frac{u}{1+u} , we consider an auxiliary problem with F(u) replaced by its extension \tilde{F}(u) defined by
\tilde{F}(u) = \begin{cases} F(u)u\; \; &\text{if}\; \; u\geq 0, \\ -F(-u)(-u)\; \; &\text{if}\; \; u \lt 0. \end{cases} |
Notice that \tilde{F}(u) is a smooth globally Lipshitz function. Given \hat{u}\in S , we define \Psi\hat{u} = u by first writing
\begin{equation} w(x, t) = (w_{0}(x)-1)e^{-\delta\int_{0}^{t}\tilde{F} (\hat{u})\hat{u}ds}+1, \; \; x\in\Omega, \; t \gt 0, \end{equation} | (2.2) |
and
w_{0}\leq w(x, t)\leq 1, \; \; x\in\Omega, \; t \gt 0, |
then letting v solve
\begin{equation} \left\{\begin{array}{ll} -\Delta v+\alpha v = \beta w+\gamma \hat{u}, &x\in\Omega, \; t\in(0, T), \\ \partial_{\eta}v = 0, &x\in\partial\Omega, \; t\in(0, T), \\ \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (2.3) |
and finally taking u to be the solution of the linear parabolic problem
\left\{\begin{array}{ll} u_{t} = \Delta u-\chi \nabla\cdot(\hat{u}(1-\hat{u})\nabla v)+\hat{u}(1-\hat{u}), &x\in\Omega, \; t\in(0, T), \\ \partial_{\eta}u = 0, &x\in\partial\Omega, \; t\in(0, T), \\ u(x, 0) = u_{0}(x), &x\in\Omega.\\ \end{array} \right. |
Applying Agmon-Douglas-Nirenberg Theorem [22,23] for the problem (2.3), there exists a constant C such that
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \|v\|_{W_{p}^{2}(\Omega)}&\leq C(\beta\|w\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}+\gamma\|\hat{u}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)})\\ &\leq C(\beta|\Omega|^{\frac{1}{p}}+\gamma (R+1)) \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (2.4) |
for all t\in(0, T) . From a variation-of-constants formula, we define
\Psi(\hat{u}) = e^{t\Delta}u_{0}-\chi\int^{t}_{0}e^{(t-s)\Delta}\nabla\cdot\left(\hat{u}(1-\hat{u})\nabla v(s)\right)ds+\int^{t}_{0}e^{(t-s)\Delta}\hat{u}(s)(1-\hat{u}(s))ds. |
First we shall show that for T small enough
\|\Psi(\hat{u})\|_{L^{\infty}((0, T);L^{\infty}(\Omega))}\leq R+1 |
for any \hat{u}\in S . From the maximum principle, we can give
\begin{equation} \|e^{t\Delta}u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq \|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}, \end{equation} | (2.5) |
and
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \int^{t}_{0}\|e^{t\Delta}\hat{u}(s)(1-\hat{u}(s))\|_{L^{\infty} (\Omega)}ds \leq& \int^{t}_{0}\|\hat{u}(s)(1-\hat{u}(s))\|_{L^{\infty} (\Omega)}ds\\ \leq&(R+1)(R+2)T \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (2.6) |
for all t\in(0, T) . We use inequalities (2.1) and (2.4) to estimate
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} &\chi\int^{t}_{0}\|e^{(t-s)\Delta}\nabla\cdot(\hat{u}(1-\hat{u})\nabla v(s))\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}ds\\ \leq& C\int^{t}_{0}(t-s)^{-l} \|e^{\frac{t-s}{2}\Delta}\nabla\cdot(\hat{u}(1-\hat{u})\nabla v(s))\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}ds \\ \leq& C\int^{t}_{0}(t-s)^{-l-\frac{1}{2}} \|(\hat{u}(1-\hat{u})\nabla v(s)\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}ds \\ \leq& C T^{\frac{1}{2}-l}(R+1)(R+2)(\beta|\Omega|^{\frac{1}{p}}+\gamma (R+1)) \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (2.7) |
for all t\in(0, T) . This estimate is attributed to T < 1 and the inequality in [24], Lemma 1.3 iv]
\| e^{t\Delta}\nabla z\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}\leq C_{1}(1+t^{-\frac{1}{2}})e^{-\lambda_{1}t}\| z\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}\; \mathrm{for\; all}\; \; z\in C^{\infty}_{c}(\Omega). |
From inequalities (2.5), (2.6) and (2.7) we can deduce that \Psi maps S into itself for T small enough.
Next we prove that the map \Psi is a contractive on S . For \hat{u}_{1}, \hat{u}_{2}\in S , we estimate
\begin{align*} \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; &\|\Psi(\hat{u}_{1})-\Psi(\hat{u}_{2})\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} \\ \leq & \chi \int^{t}_{0}(t-s)^{-l-\frac{1}{2}}\|\left[\hat{u}_{2}(s)(1-\hat{u}_{2}(s))-\hat{u}_{1}(s)(1-\hat{u}_{1}(s))\right] \nabla v_{2}(s)\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}ds\\ &+\chi \int^{t}_{0}\|\hat{u}_{1}(s)(1-\hat{u}_{1}(s))(\nabla v_{1}(s)- \nabla v_{2}(s))\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}ds \\ &+\int^{t}_{0}\|e^{(t-s)\Delta}[\hat{u}_{1}(s)(1-\hat{u}_{1}(s))-\hat{u}_{2}(s)(1-\hat{u}_{2}(s))]\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}ds \\ \leq & \chi \int^{t}_{0}(t-s)^{-l-\frac{1}{2}}(2R+1)\|\hat{u}_{1}(s)-\hat{u}_{2}(s)\|_{X}\|\nabla v_{2}(s)\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}ds\\ &+\chi \int^{t}_{0}(R+1)(R+2)\left(\beta \|w_{1}(s)-w_{2}(s)\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}+\gamma \|\hat{u}_{1}(s)-\hat{u}_{2}(s)\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}\right)ds \\ & +\int^{t}_{0}(2R+1)\|\hat{u}_{1}(s)-\hat{u}_{2}(s)\|_{X}ds \\ \leq & \chi \int^{t}_{0}(t-s)^{-l-\frac{1}{2}}(2R+1)\|\hat{u}_{1}(s)-\hat{u}_{2}(s)\|_{X}\|\nabla v_{2}(s)\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}ds\\ &+2\beta\delta \chi \int^{t}_{0}(R+1)(R+2)t\|\hat{u}_{1}(s)-\hat{u}_{2}(s)\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}+\gamma \|\hat{u}_{1}(s)-\hat{u}_{2}(s)\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}ds\\ & +\int^{t}_{0}(2R+1)\|\hat{u}_{1}(s)-\hat{u}_{2}(s)\|_{X}ds \\ \leq & \left(C\chi T^{\frac{1}{2}-l}(2R+1)(\beta|\Omega|^{\frac{1}{p}}+\gamma (R+1))+2\beta\delta \chi T(R^{2}+3R+\gamma+2)+T(2R+1)\right)\|\hat{u}_{1}(s)-\hat{u}_{2}(s)\|_{X}. \end{align*} |
Fixing T\in(0, 1) small enough such that
\left(C\chi T^{\frac{1}{2}-l}(2R+1)(\beta|\Omega|^{\frac{1}{p}}+\gamma (R+1))+2\beta\delta \chi T(R^{2}+3R+\gamma+2)+T(2R+1)\right)\leq \frac{1}{2}. |
It follows from the Banach fixed point theorem that there exists a unique fixed point of \Psi .
(ⅱ) Regularity. Since the above of T depends on \|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} and \|w_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} only, it is clear that (u, v, w) can be extended up to some maximal T_{\max}\in(0, \infty] . Let Q_{T} = \Omega \times (0, T] for all T\in (0, T_{\max}) . From u\in C^{0}(\bar{Q}_{T}) , we know that w\in C^{0, 1}(\bar{Q}_{T}) by the expression (2.2) and v\in C^{0}([0, T], W_{p}^{2}(\Omega)) by Agmon-Douglas-Nirenberg Theorem [22,23]. From parabolic L^{p} -estimate and the embedding relation W_{p}^{1}(\Omega)\hookrightarrow C^{\nu}(\bar{\Omega}), \; p > n , we can get u\in W^{2, 1}_{p}(Q_{T}) . By applying the following embedding relation
\begin{equation} W^{2, 1}_{p}(Q_{T})\hookrightarrow C^{\nu, \nu/2}(\bar{Q}_{T}), \; p \gt \frac{n+2}{2}, \end{equation} | (2.8) |
we can derive u(x, t)\in C^{\nu, \nu/2}(\bar{Q}_{T}) with 0 < \nu\leq 2-\frac{n+2}{p} . The conclusion w\in C^{\nu, 1+\nu/2}(\bar{Q}_{T}) can be obtained by substituting u\in C^{\nu, \nu/2}(\bar{Q}_{T}) into the formulation (2.2). The regularity u\in C^{2+\nu, 1+\nu/2}(\bar{Q}_{T}) can be deduced by using further bootstrap argument and the parabolic Schauder estimate. Similarly, we can get v\in C^{0}((0, T), C^{2+\nu}(\bar{\Omega})) by using Agmon-Douglas-Nirenberg Theorem [22,23]. From the regularity of u we have w\in C^{2+\nu, 1+\nu/2}(\bar{Q}_{T}) .
Moreover, the maximal principle entails that 0 < u(x, t)\leq 1 , 0\leq v(x, t)\leq\frac{\beta+\gamma}{\alpha} . It follows from the positivity of u that \tilde{F}(u) = F(u) and because of the uniqueness of solution we infer the existence of the solution to the original problem.
(ⅲ) Uniqueness. Suppose (u_{1}, v_{1}, w_{1}) and (u_{2}, v_{2}, w_{2}) are two deferent solutions of model (1.3) in \Omega\times [0, T] . Let U = u_{1}-u_{2} , V = v_{1}-v_{2} , W = w_{1}-w_{2} for t\in (0, T) . Then
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega}U^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}|\nabla U|^{2}dx\\ \leq& \chi\int_{\Omega}|u_{1}(1-u_{1})-u_{2}(1-u_{2})|\nabla v_{1}||\nabla U|+u_{2}(1-u_{2})|\nabla V||\nabla U| dx\\ &+\int_{\Omega}|u_{1}(1-u_{1})-u_{2}(1-u_{2})||U|dx \\ \leq & \chi\int_{\Omega}|U||\nabla v_{1}||\nabla U|+\frac{1}{4}|\nabla V||\nabla U| dx +\int_{\Omega}|U|^{2}dx \\ \leq &\int_{\Omega}|\nabla U|^{2}dx+\frac{\chi^{2}}{32}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla V|^{2}dx+ \frac{\chi^{2} K^{2}+2}{2}\int_{\Omega}|U|^{2}dx, \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (2.9) |
where we have used that |\nabla v_{1}|\leq K results from \nabla v_{1}\in C^{0}([0, T], C^{0}(\bar{\Omega})).
Similarly, by Young inequality and w_{0}\leq w_{1}\leq 1 , we can estimate
\begin{equation} \int_{\Omega}|\nabla V|^{2}dx+\frac{\alpha}{2}\int_{\Omega}| V|^{2}dx\leq\frac{\beta^{2}}{\alpha} \int_{\Omega}|W|^{2}dx+\frac{\gamma^{2}}{\alpha} \int_{\Omega}|U|^{2}dx, \end{equation} | (2.10) |
and
\begin{equation} \frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega}W^{2}dx\leq \delta\int_{\Omega}|U|^{2}+|W|^{2}dx. \end{equation} | (2.11) |
Finally, adding to the inequalities (2.9)–(2.11) yields
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\int_{\Omega}U^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}W^{2}dx\right)\leq C\left(\int_{\Omega}U^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}W^{2}dx\right)\; \mathrm{for\; all}\; t \in (0, T). |
The results U\equiv 0 , W\equiv0 in \Omega\times(0, T) are obtained by Gronwall's lemma. From the inequality (2.10), we have V\equiv 0 . Hence (u_{1}, v_{1}, w_{1}) = (u_{2}, v_{2}, w_{2}) in \Omega\times(0, T) .
(ⅳ) Uniform estimates. We use the Agmon-Douglas-Nirenberg Theorem [22,23] for the second equation of the model (1.3) to get
\begin{equation} \|v\|_{C^{0}([t, t+1], W_{p}^{2}(\Omega))}\leq C\left(\|u\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times [t, t+1])}+\|w\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times [t, t+1])}\right) \leq C_{2} \end{equation} | (2.12) |
for all t\geq 1 and C_{2} is independent of t . From the embedded relationship W_{p}^{1}(\Omega)\hookrightarrow C^{0}({\bar{\Omega}}), \; p > n , the parabolic L^{p} -estimate and the estimation (2.12), we have
\|u\|_{W_{p}^{2, 1}(\Omega\times[t, t+1])}\leq C_{3} |
for all t\geq 1 . The estimate \|u\|_{C^{\nu, \frac{\nu}{2}}(\bar{\Omega}\times [t, t+1])}\leq C_{4} for all t\geq 1 obtained by the embedded relationship (2.8). We can immediately compute \|w\|_{C^{\nu, 1+\frac{\nu}{2}}(\bar{\Omega}\times [t, t+1])}\leq C_{5} for all t\geq 1 according to the regularity of u and the specific expression of w . Further, bootstrapping argument leads to \|v\|_{C^{0}([t, t+1], C^{2+\nu}(\bar{\Omega}))}\leq C_{6} and \|u\|_{C^{2+\nu, 1+\frac{\nu}{2}}(\bar{\Omega}\times [t, t+1])}\leq C_{7} for all t\geq 1 . Thus the uniform estimation (1.7) is proved.
Remark 2.1. Assume the initial data 0 < u_{0}(x)\leq 1 and w_{0}(x) = 0 . Then the BCS model (1.3) has a unique classical solution.
In this section we investigate the global asymptotic stability of the unique positive equilibrium point (1, \frac{\beta+\gamma}{\alpha}, 1) to model (1.3). To this end, we first introduce following auxiliary problem
\begin{equation} \left\{\begin{array}{ll} u_{\epsilon t} = \Delta u_{\epsilon}-\nabla\cdot(u_{\epsilon}(1-u_{\epsilon})\nabla v_{\epsilon})+u_{\epsilon}(1-u_{\epsilon}), & x\in\Omega, \; t \gt 0, \\ -\Delta v_{\epsilon}+\alpha v_{\epsilon} = \beta w_{\epsilon}+\gamma u_{\epsilon}, &x\in\Omega, \; t \gt 0, \\ w_{\epsilon t} = \delta\frac{u_{\epsilon}^{2}+\epsilon}{1+u_{\epsilon}} (1-w_{\epsilon}), &x\in\Omega, \; t \gt 0, \\ \partial_{\eta}u_{\epsilon} = \partial_{\eta}v_{\epsilon} = 0, &x\in\partial\Omega, \; t \gt 0, \\ u_{\epsilon}(x, 0) = u_{0}(x), \; w_{\epsilon}(x, 0) = w_{0}(x), &x\in\Omega. \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (3.1) |
By a similar proof of Theorem 1.1, we get that the problem (3.1) has a unique global classical solution (u_{\epsilon}, v_{\epsilon}, w_{\epsilon}) , and there exist a \nu\in(0, 1) and M_{1} > 0 which is independent of \epsilon such that
\begin{equation} \|u_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{2+\nu, 1+\nu/2}(\bar{\Omega}\times[1, \infty))}+\|v_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{2+\nu, 1+\nu/2}(\bar{\Omega}\times[1, \infty))} +\|w_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{\nu, 1+\nu/2}(\bar{\Omega}\times[1, \infty))}\leq M_{1}. \end{equation} | (3.2) |
Then, motivated by some ideas from [25,26], we construct a Lyapunov function to study the uniform convergence of homogeneous steady state for the problem (3.1).
Let us give following lemma which is used in the proof of Lemma 3.2.
Lemma 3.1. Suppose that a nonnegative function f on (1, \infty) is uniformly continuous and \int_{1}^{\infty}f(t)dt < \; \infty . Then f(t)\rightarrow 0 as t\rightarrow \infty.
Lemma 3.2. Assume that the condition (1.8) is satisfied. Then
\begin{equation} \|u_{\epsilon}(\cdot, t)-1\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}+ \|v_{\epsilon}(\cdot, t)-v^{\ast}\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)} +\|w_{\epsilon}(\cdot, t)-1\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\rightarrow 0, \; \; t\rightarrow \infty, \end{equation} | (3.3) |
where v^{\ast} = \frac{\beta+\gamma}{\alpha} .
Proof We construct a positive function
E(t): = \int_{\Omega}(u_{\varepsilon}-1-\ln u_{\epsilon}) +\frac{1}{2\delta\epsilon}\int_{\Omega}(w_{\epsilon}-1)^{2}, \; \; t \gt 0. |
From the problem (3.1) and Young's inequality, we can compute
\begin{equation} \frac{d}{dt}E(t)\leq {\frac{\chi^{2}}{4}}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla v_{\epsilon}|^{2}dx-\int_{\Omega}(u_{\epsilon}-1)^{2}dx-\int_{\Omega}(w_{\epsilon}-1)^{2}dx, \; \; t \gt 0. \end{equation} | (3.4) |
We multiply the second equations in system (3.1) by v_{\epsilon}-v^{\ast} , integrate by parts over \Omega and use Young's inequality to obtain
\begin{equation} \int_{\Omega}|\nabla v_{\epsilon}|^{2}dx\leq\frac{\gamma^{2}}{2\alpha}\int_{\Omega}(u_{\epsilon}-1)^{2}dx +\frac{\beta^{2}}{2\alpha}\int_{\Omega}(w_{\epsilon}-1)^{2}dx, \; \; t \gt 0, \end{equation} | (3.5) |
and
\begin{equation} \int_{\Omega}(v_{\epsilon}-v^{\ast})^{2}dx\leq\frac{2\gamma^{2}}{\alpha^{2}}\int_{\Omega}(u_{\epsilon}-1)^{2}dx+\frac{2 \beta^{2}}{\alpha^{2}}\int_{\Omega}(w_{\epsilon}-1)^{2}dx, \; \; t \gt 0. \end{equation} | (3.6) |
Substituting inequality (3.5) into inequality (3.4) to get
\begin{equation} \nonumber \frac{d}{dt}E(t)\leq -C_{8}\left(\int_{\Omega}(u_{\epsilon}-1)^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(w_{\epsilon}-1)^{2}dx\right), \; \; t \gt 0, \end{equation} |
where C_{8} = \min\left\{1-\frac{\chi^{2}\beta^{2}}{8\alpha}, 1-\frac{\chi^{2}\gamma^{2}}{8\alpha}\right\} > 0.
Let f(t): = \int_{\Omega}(u_{\epsilon}-1)^{2}+(w_{\epsilon}-1)^{2}dx . Then
\int_{1}^{\infty}f(t)dt\leq \frac{E(1)}{C_{8}} \lt \infty, \; \; t \gt 1. |
It follows from the uniform estimation (3.2) and the Arzela-Ascoli theorem that f(t) is uniformly continuous in (1, \infty) . Applying Lemma 3.1, we have
\begin{equation} \int_{\Omega}(u_{\epsilon}(\cdot, t)-1)^{2}+ (w_{\epsilon}(\cdot, t)-1)^{2}dx\rightarrow 0, \; \; t\rightarrow \infty. \end{equation} | (3.7) |
Combining inequality (3.6) and the limit (3.7) to obtain
\int_{\Omega}(v_{\epsilon}(\cdot, t)-v^{\ast})^{2}dx \rightarrow 0, \; \; t\rightarrow \infty. |
Proof of Theorem 1.2 As we all known, each bounded sequence in C^{2+\nu, 1+\frac{\nu}{2}}(\bar{\Omega}\times[1, \infty)) is precompact in C^{2, 1}(\bar{\Omega}\times[1, \infty)) . Hence there exists some subsequence \{u_{\epsilon_{n}}\}_{n = 1}^{\infty} satisfying \epsilon_{n}\rightarrow0 as n\rightarrow \infty such that
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\|u_{\epsilon_{n}}-u_{\ast}\|_{C^{2, 1}(\bar{\Omega}\times[1, \infty))} = 0. |
Similarly, we can get
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\|v_{\epsilon_{n}}-v_{\ast}\|_{C^{2}(\bar{\Omega})} = 0, |
and
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\|w_{\epsilon_{n}}-w_{\ast}\|_{C^{0, 1}(\bar{\Omega}\times[1, \infty))} = 0. |
Combining above limiting relations yields that (u_{\ast}, v_{\ast}, w_{\ast}) satisfies model (1.3). The conclusion (u_{\ast}, v_{\ast}, w_{\ast}) = (u, v, w) is directly attributed to the uniqueness of the classical solution of the model (1.3). Furthermore, according to the conclusion, the strong convergence (3.3) and Diagonal line method, we can deduce
\begin{equation} \|u(\cdot, t)-1\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}+ \|v(\cdot, t)-v^{\ast}\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)} +\|w(\cdot, t)-1\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\rightarrow 0, \; \; t\rightarrow \infty. \end{equation} | (3.8) |
By applying Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality
\begin{equation} \|z\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq C\|z\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{2/(n+2)}\|z\|_{W^{1, \infty}(\Omega)}^{n/(n+2)}, \; \; z\in W^{1, \infty}(\Omega), \end{equation} | (3.9) |
comparison principle of ODE and the convergence (3.8), the uniform convergence (1.9) is obtained immediately.
Since \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\|u(\cdot, t)-1\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} = 0 , so there exists a t_{1} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} u(x, t)\geq \frac{1}{2}\; \; \mathrm{for\; all}\; \; x\in \Omega, \; \; t \gt t_{1}. \end{equation} | (3.10) |
Using the explicit representation formula of w
w(x, t) = (w_{0}(x)-1)e^{-\delta\int_{0}^{t}F(u)uds}+1, \; \; x\in\Omega, \; t \gt 0 |
and the inequality (3.10), we have
\begin{equation} \|w(\cdot, t)-1\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq e^{-\frac{\delta}{6}(t-t_{1})}, \; \; t \gt t_{1}. \end{equation} | (3.11) |
Multiply the first two equations in model (1.3) by u-1 and v-v^{\ast} , respectively, integrate over \Omega and apply Cauchy's inequality, Young's inequality and the inequality (3.10), to find
\begin{equation} \frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega}(u-1)^{2}dx\leq \frac{\chi^{2}}{32}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{2}dx-\int_{\Omega}(u-1)^{2}dx, \; \; t \gt t_{1}. \end{equation} | (3.12) |
\begin{equation} \int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{2}dx+\frac{\alpha}{2}\int_{\Omega}(v-v^{\ast})^{2}dx\leq \frac{\beta^{2}}{\alpha}\int_{\Omega}(w-1)^{2}dx +\frac{\gamma^{2}}{\alpha}\int_{\Omega}(u-1)^{2}dx, \; \; t \gt 0. \end{equation} | (3.13) |
Combining the estimations (3.11)–(3.13) leads us to the estimate
\begin{equation} \nonumber \frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega}(u-1)^{2}dx\leq \left(\frac{\chi^{2}\gamma^{2}}{32\alpha}-1\right)\int_{\Omega}(u-1)^{2}dx +\frac{\chi^{2}\beta^{2}}{32\alpha}e^{-{\frac{\delta}{3}(t-t_{1})}}, \; \; t \gt t_{1}. \end{equation} |
Let y(t) = \int_{\Omega}(u-1)^{2}dx . Then
y'(t)\leq \left(\frac{\chi^{2}\gamma^{2}}{32\alpha}-1\right)y(t) +\frac{\chi^{2}\beta^{2}}{32\alpha}e^{-{\frac{\delta}{3}(t-t_{1})}}, \; \; t \gt t_{1}. |
From comparison principle of ODE, we get
y(t)\leq \left(y(t_{1})-\frac{3\chi^{2}\beta^{2}}{32\alpha(3-\delta)-\chi^{2}\gamma^{2}}\right) e^{-\left(1-\frac{\chi^{2}\gamma^{2}}{32\alpha}\right)(t-t_{1})} +\frac{3\chi^{2}\beta^{2}}{32\alpha(3-\delta)-\chi^{2}\gamma^{2}}e^{-\frac{\delta}{3}(t-t_{1})}, \; \; t \gt t_{1}. |
This yields
\begin{equation} \int_{\Omega}(u-1)^{2}dx\leq C_{9} e^{-\lambda_{2} (t-t_{1})}, \; \; t \gt t_{1}, \end{equation} | (3.14) |
where \lambda_{2} = \min\{1-\frac{\chi^{2}\gamma^{2}}{32\alpha}, \frac{\delta}{3}\} and C_{9} = \max\left\{|\Omega|-\frac{3\chi^{2}\beta^{2}}{32\alpha(3-\delta)-\chi^{2}\gamma^{2}}, \frac{3\chi^{2}\beta^{2}}{32\alpha(3-\delta)-\chi^{2}\gamma^{2}}\right\} .
From the inequalities (3.11), (3.13) and (3.14), we derive
\begin{equation} \int_{\Omega}\left(v-\frac{\beta+\gamma}{\alpha}\right)^{2}dx\leq C_{10}e^{-\lambda_{2}(t-t_{1})}, \; \; t \gt t_{1}, \end{equation} | (3.15) |
where C_{10} = \max\left\{\frac{2\gamma^{2}}{\alpha^{2}}C_{9}, \frac{2\beta^{2}}{\alpha^{2}}\right\} . By employing the uniform estimation (1.7), the inequalities (3.9), (3.14) and (3.15), the exponential decay estimation (1.10) can be obtained.
The proof is complete.
In this paper, we mainly study the uniform boundedness of classical solutions and exponential asymptotic stability of the unique positive equilibrium point to the chemotactic cellular model (1.3) for Baló's concentric sclerosis (BCS). For model (1.1), by numerical simulation, Calveza and Khonsarib in [7] shown that demyelination patterns of concentric rings will occur with increasing of chemotactic sensitivity. By the Theorem 1.1 we know that systems (1.1) and (1.2) are {uniformly} bounded and dissipative. By the Theorem 1.2 we also find that the constant equilibrium point of model (1.1) is exponentially asymptotically stable if
\tilde{\chi} \lt \frac{2}{\bar{w}\tilde{\beta}} \sqrt{\frac{2D\mu\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\epsilon}}{\bar{u}}}, |
and the constant equilibrium point of the model (1.2) is exponentially asymptotically stable if
\tilde{\chi} \lt 2\sqrt{\frac{2D\mu\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\epsilon}}{\bar{u}}}\min \left\{\frac{1}{\bar{w}\tilde{\beta}}, \frac{1}{\bar{u}\tilde{\gamma}}\right\}. |
According to a pathological viewpoint of BCS, the above stability results mean that if chemoattractive effect is weak, then the destroyed oligodendrocytes form a homogeneous plaque.
The authors would like to thank the editors and the anonymous referees for their constructive comments. This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11761063, 11661051).
We have no conflict of interest in this paper.
[1] |
Abdymomunov A (2013) Regime-switching measure of systemic financial stress. Ann Finance 9: 455–470. doi: 10.1007/s10436-012-0194-1
![]() |
[2] |
Acharya V, Engle R, Pierret D (2014) Testing macroprudential stress tests: The risk of regulatory risk weights. J Monetary Econ 65: 36–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2014.04.014
![]() |
[3] | Adrian T, Brunnermeier MK (2011) CoVaR. NBER, Working Paper, 17454. |
[4] | Aikman D, Kiley M, Lee SJ, et al. (2017) Mapping heat in the U.S. financial system. J Banking Financ 81: 36–64. |
[5] |
Aldasoro I, Angeloni I (2015) Input-output-based measures of systemic importance. Quant Financ 15: 589–606. doi: 10.1080/14697688.2014.968194
![]() |
[6] | Anginer D, Demirguc-Kunt A, Zhu M (2014) How does competition affect bank systemic risk? J Financ Int 23: 1–26. |
[7] |
Baek S, Cursio JD, Cha SY (2015) Nonparametric Factor Analytic Risk Measurement in Common Stocks in Financial Firms: Evidence from Korean Firms. Asia-Pac J Financ Stud 44: 497–536. doi: 10.1111/ajfs.12098
![]() |
[8] |
Baglioni A, Cherubini U (2013) Marking-to-market government guarantees to financial systems-Theory and evidence for Europe. J Int Money and Financ 32: 990–1007. doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2012.08.004
![]() |
[9] | Banulescu GD, Dumitrescu EI (2015) Which are the SIFIs? A Component Expected Shortfall approach to systemic risk. J Banking Financ 50: 575–588. |
[10] | Barth JR, Wihlborg C (2017) Too big to fail: Measures, remedies, and consequences for efficiency and stability. Financ Mark Inst Instrum 26: 175–245. |
[11] |
Battaglia F, Gallo A (2013) Securitization and systemic risk: An empirical investigation on Italian banks over the financial crisis. Int Rev Financ Anal 30: 274–286. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2013.03.002
![]() |
[12] | Battaglia F, Gallo A (2017) Strong boards, ownership concentration and EU banks' systemic risk-taking: Evidence from the financial crisis. J Int Financ Mark 46: 128–146. |
[13] | Benoit S (2014) Where is the system? Int Econ 138: 1–27. |
[14] | Berger D, Pukthuanthong K (2012) Market fragility and international market crashes. J Financ Econ 105: 565–580. |
[15] | Bernal O, Gnabo JY, Guilmin G (2014) Assessing the contribution of banks, insurance and other financial services to systemic risk. J Banking Financ 47: 270–287. |
[16] |
Bernardi M, Maruotti A, Petrella L (2017) Multiple risk measures for multivariate dynamic heavy-tailed models. J Empirical Financ 43: 1–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jempfin.2017.04.005
![]() |
[17] |
Bisias D, Flood M, Lo AW, et al. (2012) A survey of systemic risk analytics. Annu Rev Financ Econ 4: 255–296. doi: 10.1146/annurev-financial-110311-101754
![]() |
[18] |
Bluhm M, Krahnen JP (2014) Systemic risk in an interconnected banking system with endogenous asset markets. J Financ Stab 13: 75–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2014.04.002
![]() |
[19] | Borri N (2017) Local currency systemic risk. Emerging Mark Rev 34: 1–13. |
[20] | Cai J, Eidam F, Saunders A, et al. (2018) Syndication, interconnectedness, and systemic risk. J Financ Stab 34: 105–120. |
[21] |
Cambón MI, Estévez L (2016) A Spanish Financial Market Stress Index (FMSI). Span Rev Financ Econ 14: 23–41. doi: 10.1016/j.srfe.2016.01.002
![]() |
[22] | Castro C, Ferrari S (2014) Measuring and testing for the systemically important financial institutions. J Empirical Financ 25: 1–14. |
[23] | Cerchiello P, Giudici P (2016) Big data analysis for financial risk management. J Big Data 3: 18. |
[24] |
Cerchiello P, Giudici P, Nicola G (2017) Twitter data models for bank risk contagion. Neurocomputing 264: 50–56. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2016.10.101
![]() |
[25] | Chakroun MA, Gallali MI (2017) Contribution of Islamic banks to systemic risk. Int J Banking Accounting 8: 52–92. |
[26] | Chang CW, Li X, Lin EMH, et al. (2017) Systemic risk, interconnectedness, and non-core activities in Taiwan insurance industry. Int Rev Econ Financ 55: 1–12. |
[27] | Cheng F, Wellman MP (2017) Accounting for strategic response in an agent-based model of financial regulation. Acm Conf Econ Comput 2017: 187–204. |
[28] | Chiu WC, Peña JI, Wang CW (2015) Measuring Systemic Risk: Common Factor Exposures and Tail Dependence Effects. Eur Financ Manage 21: 833–866. |
[29] | Cipra T, Hendrych R (2017) Systemic risk in financial risk regulation. Czech J Econ Financ 67: 15–38. |
[30] | Conciarelli A (2014) A New macroprudential tool to assess sources of financial risks: Implied-systemic cost of risks. Int J Financ Econ 19: 74–88. |
[31] | Derbali A (2017) Systemic Risk in the Chinese Financial System: Measuring and Ranking. Chin Econ 50: 34–58. |
[32] | Derbali A, Hallara S (2016) Systemic risk of European financial institutions: Estimation and ranking by the Marginal Expected Shortfall. Res Int Bus Financ 37: 113–134. |
[33] | Dhar V (2013) Data science and prediction. Commun ACM 56: 64–73. |
[34] | Cesare AD, Stork PA, De Vries CG (2012) Risk measures for autocorrelated hedge fund returns. J Financ Econ 13: 868–895. |
[35] | Drakos AA, Kouretas GP (2013) Measuring Systemic Risk in Emerging Markets Using CoVaR. Emerging Markets and the Global Economy: A Handbook, 271–307. |
[36] |
Drakos AA, Kouretas GP (2015) Bank ownership, financial segments and the measurement of systemic risk: An application of CoVaR. Int Rev Econ Financ 40: 127–140. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2015.02.010
![]() |
[37] | Drehmann M, Tarashev N (2013) Measuring the systemic importance of interconnected banks. J Financ Int 22: 586–607. |
[38] | Foggitt GM, Heymans A, Vuuren GWV, et al. (2017) Measuring the systemic risk in the South African banking sector. South Afr J Econ Manage Sci 20: 1–9. |
[39] |
Garciadeandoain C, Kremer M (2017) Beyond spreads: Measuring sovereign market stress in the euro area. Econ Lett 159: 153–156. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.042
![]() |
[40] | Gauthier C, Lehar A, Souissi M (2012) Macroprudential capital requirements and systemic risk. J Financ Int 21: 594–618. |
[41] |
Girardi G, Ergün AT (2013) Systemic risk measurement: Multivariate GARCH estimation of CoVaR. J Banking Financ 37: 3169–3180. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.02.027
![]() |
[42] |
Giudici P, Parisi L (2017) Sovereign risk in the Euro area: A multivariate stochastic process approach. Quant Financ 17: 1995–2008. doi: 10.1080/14697688.2017.1357968
![]() |
[43] | González-Hermosillo B, Hesse H (2011) Global Market Conditions and Systemic Risk. J Emerging Mark Financ 10: 227–252. |
[44] | Gramlich D, Oet MV, Ong SJ (2017) The contributions to systemic stress of financial interactions between the US and Europe. Eur J Financ 23: 1176–1196. |
[45] | Gray DF, Malone SW (2012) Sovereign and financial-sector risk: Measurement and interactions. Annu Rev Financ Econ 4: 297–312. |
[46] | Hałaj G, Kok C (2013) Assessing interbank contagion using simulated networks. Comput Manage Sci 10: 157–186. |
[47] | Härdle WK, Wang W, Yu L (2016) TENET: Tail–event driven NETwork risk. J Econ 192: 499–513. |
[48] |
Hespeler F, Loiacono G (2017) Monitoring systemic risk in the hedge fund sector. Quant Financ 17: 1859–1883. doi: 10.1080/14697688.2017.1357969
![]() |
[49] |
Hmissi B, Bejaoui A, Snoussi W (2017) On identifying the domestic systemically important banks: The case of Tunisia. Res Int Bus Financ 42: 1343–1354. doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.071
![]() |
[50] |
Huang X, Zhou H, Zhu H (2009) A framework for assessing the systemic risk of major financial institutions. J Banking Financ 33: 2036–2049. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.05.017
![]() |
[51] |
Huang X (2012) Systemic risk contributions. J Financ Serv Res 42: 55–83. doi: 10.1007/s10693-011-0117-8
![]() |
[52] | IJtsma P, Spierdijk L, Shaffer S (2017) The concentration-stability controversy in banking: New evidence from the EU-25. J Financ Stab 33: 273–284. |
[53] | Irresberger F, Bierth C, Weiß GNF (2017) Size is everything: Explaining SIFI designations. Rev Financi Econ 32: 7–19. |
[54] | Jobst AA (2014) Measuring systemic risk-adjusted liquidity (SRL)-a model approach. J Banking Financ 45: 270–287. |
[55] |
Jondeau E, Khalilzadeh A (2017) Collateralization, leverage, and stressed expected loss. J Financ Stab 33: 226–243. doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2017.01.005
![]() |
[56] | Kanno M (2015a) Assessing systemic risk using interbank exposures in the global banking system. J Financ Stab 20: 105–130. |
[57] | Kanno M (2015b) The network structure and systemic risk in the Japanese interbank market. Jpn World Econ 36: 102–112. |
[58] |
Kanno M (2016) The network structure and systemic risk in the global non-life insurance market. Insur Math Econ 67: 38–53. doi: 10.1016/j.insmatheco.2015.12.004
![]() |
[59] | Karimalis EN, Nomikos NK (2017) Measuring systemic risk in the European banking sector: A copula CoVaR approach. Eur J Financ 24: 1–38. |
[60] | Khiari W, Nachnouchi J (2017) Banks' systemic risk in the Tunisian context: Measures and Determinants. Res Int Bus Financ. |
[61] | Kleinow J, Horsch A, Garcia-Molina M (2017a) Factors driving systemic risk of banks in Latin America. J Econ Financ 41: 211–234. |
[62] | Kleinow J, Moreira F, Strobl S, et al. (2017b) Measuring systemic risk: A comparison of alternative market-based approaches. Financ Res Lett 21: 40–46. |
[63] | Klinger T, Teplý P (2014) Systemic risk of the global banking system-an agent-based network model approach. Prague Econ Pap 23: 24–41. |
[64] | Klinger T, Teplý P (2016) The nexus between systemic risk and sovereign crises. Czech J Econ Financ 66: 50–69. |
[65] | Kreis Y, Leisen DPJ (2016) Systemic risk in a structural model of bank default linkages. J Financ Stab, 1–46. |
[66] | Kubinschi M, Barnea D (2016) Systemic risk impact on economic growth-The case of the CEE countries. Rom J Econ Forecast 19: 79–94. |
[67] | Kupiec PH, Ramirez CD (2013) Bank failures and the cost of systemic risk: Evidence from 1900 to 1930. J Financ Int 22: 285–307. |
[68] | Kupiec P, Güntay L (2016) Testing for Systemic Risk Using Stock Returns. J Financ Serv Res 49: 203–227. |
[69] |
Kurowski ŁK, Rogowicz K (2017) Negative interest rates as systemic risk event. Financ Res Lett 22: 153–157. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2017.04.001
![]() |
[70] |
Lee JH, Ryu J, Tsomocos D (2013) Measures of systemic risk and financial fragility in Korea. Ann Financ 9: 757–786. doi: 10.1007/s10436-012-0218-x
![]() |
[71] | Lee J, Lee DH, Yun SG (2016) Systemic Risk on Trade Credit Systems: With the Tangible Interconnectedness. Comput Econ 51: 1–16. |
[72] |
Leroy A, Lucotte Y (2017) Is there a competition–stability trade–off in European banking? J Int Financ Mark 46: 199–215. doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2016.08.009
![]() |
[73] | Li F, Perez-Saiz H (2018) Measuring systemic risk across financial market infrastructures. J Financ Stab 34: 1–11. |
[74] |
Liao S, Sojli E, Tham WW (2015) Managing systemic risk in The Netherlands. Int Rev Econ Financ 40: 231–245. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2015.02.012
![]() |
[75] |
López-Espinosa G, Moreno A, Rubia A, et al. (2015) Systemic risk and asymmetric responses in the financial industry. J Banking Financ 58: 471–485. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.05.004
![]() |
[76] |
López-Espinosa G, Rubia A, Valderrama L, et al. (2013) Good for one, bad for all: Determinants of individual versus systemic risk. J Financ Stab 9: 287–299. doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2013.05.002
![]() |
[77] |
Ma Y, Chen Y (2014) Financial imbalance index as a new early warning indicator: Methods and applications in the Chinese economy. China World Econ 22: 64–86. doi: 10.1111/cwe.12092
![]() |
[78] | Martinez-Jaramillo S, Alexandrova-Kabadjova B, Bravo-Benitez B, et al. (2014) An empirical study of the Mexican banking system's network and its implications for systemic risk. J Econ Dyn Control 40: 242–265. |
[79] | Martínez-Jaramillo S, Pérez OP, Embriz FA, et al. (2010) Systemic risk, financial contagion and financial fragility. J Econ Dyn Control 34: 2358–2374. |
[80] |
Mayordomo S, Rodriguez-Moreno M, Peña JI (2014) Derivatives holdings and systemic risk in the U.S. banking sector. J Banking Financ 45: 84–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.03.037
![]() |
[81] |
Mendonça HF, Silva RBD (2018) Effect of banking and macroeconomic variables on systemic risk: An application of Δ COVAR for an emerging economy. North Am J Econ Financ 43: 141–157. doi: 10.1016/j.najef.2017.10.011
![]() |
[82] | Mensah JO, Premaratne G (2017) Systemic interconnectedness among Asian Banks. Jpn World Econ 41: 17–33. |
[83] | Mezei J, Sarlin P (2016) Aggregating expert knowledge for the measurement of systemic risk. Decis Support Syst 88: 38–50. |
[84] |
Mezei J, Sarlin P (2018) RiskRank: Measuring interconnected risk. Econ Modell 68: 41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2017.04.016
![]() |
[85] | Milne A (2014) Distance to default and the financial crisis. J Financ Stab 12: 26–36. |
[86] | Nucera F, Lucas A, et al. (2017) Do negative interest rates make banks less safe? Econ Lett 159: 112–115. |
[87] |
Patro DK, Qi M, Sun X (2013) A simple indicator of systemic risk. J Financ Stab 9: 105–116. doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2012.03.002
![]() |
[88] |
Pederzoli C, Torricelli C (2017) Systemic risk measures and macroprudential stress tests: An assessment over the 2014 EBA exercise. Ann Financ 13: 237–251. doi: 10.1007/s10436-017-0294-z
![]() |
[89] | Popescu A, Turcu C (2014) Systemic sovereign risk in Europe: An MES and CES approach. Work Pap 124: 899–925. |
[90] |
Popescu A, Turcu C (2017) Sovereign debt and systemic risk in the eurozone: A macroeconomic perspective. Econ Modell 67: 275–284. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2016.12.032
![]() |
[91] |
Reboredo JC, Ugolini A (2015) Systemic risk in European sovereign debt markets: A CoVaR-copula approach. J Int Money Financ 51: 214–244. doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2014.12.002
![]() |
[92] | Reboredo JC, Ugolini A (2016) Systemic risk of Spanish listed banks: A vine copula CoVaR approach [Riesgo sistémico de los bancos españoles cotizados: Una aproximación CoVaR con cópulas vine]. Span J Financ Accounting 45: 1–31. |
[93] |
Rönnqvist S, Sarlin P (2015) Bank networks from text: Interrelations, centrality and determinants. Quant Financ 15: 1619–1635. doi: 10.1080/14697688.2015.1071076
![]() |
[94] | Rösch D, Scheule H (2016) The role of loan portfolio losses and bank capital for Asian financial system resilience. Pac-Basin Financ J 40: 289–305. |
[95] |
Sedunov J (2016) What is the systemic risk exposure of financial institutions? J Financ Stab 24: 71–87. doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2016.04.005
![]() |
[96] | Sheu HJ, Cheng CL (2012) Systemic risk in Taiwan stock market. J Bus Econ Manage 13: 895–914. |
[97] |
Siebenbrunner C, Sigmund M, Kerbl S (2017) Can bank-specific variables predict contagion effects? Quant Financ 17: 1805–1832. doi: 10.1080/14697688.2017.1357974
![]() |
[98] |
Silva TC, Souza SRSD, Tabak BM (2017) Monitoring vulnerability and impact diffusion in financial networks. J Econ Dyn Control 76: 109–135. doi: 10.1016/j.jedc.2017.01.001
![]() |
[99] |
Souza SRSD, Silva TC, Tabak BM, et al. (2016) Evaluating systemic risk using bank default probabilities in financial networks. J Econ Dyn Control 66: 54–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jedc.2016.03.003
![]() |
[100] |
Staum J (2012) Systemic risk components and deposit insurance premia. Quant Financ 12: 651–662. doi: 10.1080/14697688.2012.664942
![]() |
[101] | Stolbov M, Shchepeleva M (2017) Systemic risk in Europe: Deciphering leading measures, common patterns and real effects. Ann Financ 14: 1–43. |
[102] |
Strobl S (2016) Stand-alone vs systemic risk-taking of financial institutions. J Risk Financ 17: 374–389. doi: 10.1108/JRF-05-2016-0064
![]() |
[103] |
Trabelsi N, Naifar N (2017) Are Islamic stock indexes exposed to systemic risk? Multivariate GARCH estimation of CoVaR. Res Int Bus Financ 42: 727–744. doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.013
![]() |
[104] |
Xu S, In F, Forbes C, et al. (2017) Systemic risk in the European sovereign and banking system. Quant Financ 17: 633–656. doi: 10.1080/14697688.2016.1205212
![]() |
[105] |
Yao Y, Li J, Zhu X, et al. (2017) Expected default based score for identifying systemically important banks. Econ Modell 64: 589–600. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2017.04.023
![]() |
[106] |
Yun J, Moon H (2014) Measuring systemic risk in the Korean banking sector via dynamic conditional correlation models. Pac-Basin Financ J 27: 94–114. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2014.02.005
![]() |
1. | Lu Xu, Chunlai Mu, Qiao Xin, Global boundedness and asymptotic behavior of solutions for a quasilinear chemotaxis model of multiple sclerosis with nonlinear signal secretion, 2023, 28, 1531-3492, 1215, 10.3934/dcdsb.2022118 |