Recent results on prey detection in a spider orb web

Alexandre Kawano; Antonino Morassi; Ramón Zaera; Alexandre Kawano; Antonino Morassi; Ramón Zaera

doi:10.3934/nhm.2025014

Networks and Heterogeneous Media

2025, Volume 20, Issue 1: 286-323. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2025014

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Recent results on prey detection in a spider orb web

1.
Escola Politécnica, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 380 - Butantã, São Paulo 05508-010, Brazil
2.
Polytechnic Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Udine, via Cotonificio 114, Udine 33100, Italy
3.
Department of Continuum Mechanics and Structural Analysis, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Av. de la Universidad 30, Leganés 28911, Spain

Received: 18 November 2024 Revised: 19 March 2025 Accepted: 21 March 2025 Published: 02 April 2025

In this paper, we present a review of some results concerning the inverse problem of detecting a prey in a spider orb web. First, an overview of the discrete and numerical models in the literature is provided to understand the mechanics of the orb web and a descriiption of their structural features is presented. Then, a continuous model was introduced in which the orb web was described as a membrane with a specific fibrous structure and subject to tensile prestress in the referential configuration. The prey's impact was modeled as a pressure field acting on the orb web with magnitude of the form $g(t)f(x)$ , where $g(t)$ is a known function of the time and $f(x)$ is the unknown spatial term that depends on the position variable $x$ . Next, for axially symmetric orb webs supported at the boundary and undergoing infinitesimal deformations, a uniqueness results for $f(x)$ was proven in terms of dynamic displacement measurements taken on an arbitrarily small and thin ring centered at the origin of the web, for a sufficiently large interval of time. A reconstruction algorithm suggested by the uniqueness result was implemented for $f(x)$ , and how the results of identification are affected by the key geometric and mechanical parameters were studied. The results, obtained on a realistic family of orb webs, revealed that the dynamic signals propagating through the web immediately after impact contained enough information for the spider to capture the prey. In the final part of the paper, we discuss an alternative method for prey localization and include some extension to account for different boundary conditions. A short list of open problems is proposed in the conclusions section. This paper is dedicated to Professor Emilio Turco for his 60th Birthday.

Keywords:

Citation: Alexandre Kawano, Antonino Morassi, Ramón Zaera. Recent results on prey detection in a spider orb web[J]. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2025, 20(1): 286-323. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2025014

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 . C^1;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

Abstract

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.

1. Introduction

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 $(\Omega, {\mathcal{F}}, ({\mathcal{F}}_t)_{0{\leqslant} t}, \mathbb{P})$ be a complete filtered probability space such that $({\mathcal{F}}_t)_{0{\leqslant} t}$ is the standard filtration induced by $t\mapsto W_t$ , 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 $b^S:[0, T]\times {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}$ and volatility $\sigma^S:[0, T]\times {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}^+_0$ , which are smooth functions, and the supply $Q_s$ is determined by the stochastic differential equation

$\begin{equation} dQ_s = b^S(Q_s, \varpi_s, s)ds+ \sigma^S(Q_s, \varpi_s, s)dW_s \quad \mbox{ in } [0, T] \end{equation}$

(1.1)

with the initial condition $\bar{q}$ . We would like to determine the drift $b^P:[0, T]\times {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}$ , the volatility $\sigma^P:[0, T]\times {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}^+_0$ , and $\bar{w}$ such that the price $\varpi_s$ solves

$\begin{equation} d\varpi_s = b^P(Q_s, \varpi_s, s)ds+\sigma^P(Q_s, \varpi_s, s)dW_s \quad \mbox{ in } [0, T] \end{equation}$

(1.2)

with initial condition $\bar{w}$ and such that it ensures a market clearing condition. It may not be possible to find $b^P$ and $\sigma^P$ 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 ${\bf X}_s$ be the quantity of the commodity held by an agent at time $s$ for $t {\leqslant} s {\leqslant} T$ . This agent trades this commodity, controlling its rate of change, ${\bf v}$ , thus

$\begin{equation} d {\bf X}_s = {\bf v}(s) ds \; \; \mbox{ in } [t, T]. \end{equation}$

(1.3)

At time $t$ , an agent who holds $x$ and observes $q$ and $w$ chooses a control process ${\bf v}$ , progressively measurable with respect to $\mathcal{F}_t$ , to minimize the expected cost functional

$\begin{equation} J(x, q, w, t; {\bf v}) = { \mathbb{E}} \left[ \int_t^T L( {\bf X}_s, {\bf v}(s))+\varpi_s {\bf v}(s) ds + \Psi \left( {\bf X}_ T, Q_T, \varpi_T\right)\right], \end{equation}$

(1.4)

subject to the dynamics (1.1), (1.2), and (1.3) with initial condition ${\bf X}_t = x$ , and the expectation is taken w.r.t. $\mathcal{F}_r$ . The Lagrangian, $L$ , takes into account costs such as market impact or storage, and the terminal cost $\Psi$ 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 $Q_t$ 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, $H: {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}$ , $H\in C^\infty$ , a commodity's supply initial value, $\bar q\in {\mathbb{R}}$ , supply drift, $b^S: {\mathbb{R}}^2\times [0, T]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ , and supply volatility, $\sigma^S: {\mathbb{R}}^2\times [0, T]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ , a terminal cost, $\Psi: {\mathbb{R}}^3\to {\mathbb{R}}$ , $\Psi\in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ , and an initial distribution of agents, $\bar m\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}})\cap {\mathcal{P}}({\mathbb{R}})$ , find $u: {\mathbb{R}}^3\times [0, T]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ , $\mu\in C([0, T]\times \Omega; {\mathcal{P}}({\mathbb{R}}^3))$ , $\bar w\in {\mathbb{R}}$ , the price at $t = 0$ , the price drift $b^P: {\mathbb{R}}^2\times[0, T] \to {\mathbb{R}}$ , and the price volatility $\sigma^P: {\mathbb{R}}^2\times [0, T]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ solving

$\begin{equation} \begin{cases} -u_t+H(x, w+u_x) = b^S u_q +b^P u_w +\tfrac{1}{2}(\sigma^S)^2u_{qq}+\sigma^S\sigma^P u_{qw}+\tfrac{1}{2}(\sigma^P)^2u_{ww}\\ d \mu_t = \left(\left(\mu\tfrac{(\sigma^S)^2 }{2}\right)_{qq}+(\mu\sigma^S\sigma^P )_{qw}+\left(\mu\tfrac{(\sigma^P)^2 }{2}\right)_{ww}- \operatorname{div} (\mu {\bf b} )\right) dt- \operatorname{div}(\mu {\boldsymbol \sigma}) dW_t\\ \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3}q+D_pH(x, w+u_x(x, q, w, t))\mu_t(dx\times dq\times dw) = 0, \mathit{\mbox{a.e.}}\omega \in \Omega, \; 0{\leqslant} t {\leqslant} T, \end{cases} \end{equation}$

(1.5)

and the terminal-initial conditions

$\begin{equation} \begin{cases} u(x, q, w, T) = \Psi(x, q, w)\\ \mu_0 = \bar m \times \delta_{\bar q} \times \delta_{\bar w}, \end{cases} \end{equation}$

(1.6)

where ${\bf b} = (-D_pH(x, w+u_x), b^S, b^P)$ , ${\boldsymbol \sigma} = (0, \sigma^S, \sigma^P)$ , 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

$Q_t = \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} q \; \mu_t(dx\times dq\times dw)$

and

$\varpi_t = \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}^3} w \; \mu_t(dx\times dq\times dw),$

which also solve

$\begin{cases} dQ_t& = b^S(Q_t, \varpi_t, t)dt+ \sigma^S(Q_t, \varpi_t, t)dW_t \quad \mbox{ in } [0, T] \\ d\varpi_t& = b^P(Q_t, \varpi_t, t)dt+\sigma^P(Q_t, \varpi_t, t)dW_t \quad \mbox{ in } [0, T] \end{cases}$

with initial conditions

$\begin{equation} \begin{cases} Q_0 = \bar{q}\\ \varpi_0 = \bar{w} \end{cases} \end{equation}$

(1.7)

and satisfy the market-clearing condition

$Q_t = \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} -D_pH(x, \varpi_t + u_x(x, Q_t, \varpi_t, t)) \mu_t(dx).$

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.

2. The model

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.

2.1. Hamilton-Jacobi equation and verification theorem

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

$\begin{equation} u(x, q, w, t) = \inf\limits_{ {\bf v}} J(x, q, w, t; {\bf v}) \end{equation}$

(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.

2.2. Stochastic transport equation

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.

2.3. Balance condition

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.

3. Potential-free linear-quadratic price model

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,

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

3.1. Balance condition

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)

3.2. Quadratic solutions to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation

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.

4. Simulation results

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

$\alpha = 0$ ,

$\alpha = 0.1$ ,

$\alpha = 0.25$ ,

$\alpha = 0.5$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Acknowledgments

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

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

References

[1]	L. H. Lin, W. Sobek, Structural hierarchy in spider webs and spiderweb-type systems, Struct. Engineer, 76 (1998), 59–64.
[2]	P. Jiang, L. H. Wu, T. Y. Lv, S. S. Tang, M. L. Hu, Z. M. Qiu, et al., Memory effect of spider major ampullate silk in loading-unloading cycles and the structural connotations, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 146 (2023), 106031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.106031 doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.106031
[3]	T. Köhler, F. Vollrath, Thread biomechanics in the two orb-weaving spiders araneus diadematus (araneae, araneidae) and uloborus walckenaerius (araneae, uloboridae), J. Exp. Zool., 271 (1995), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1402710102 doi: 10.1002/jez.1402710102
[4]	C. L. Craig, The ecological and evolutionary interdependence between web architecture and web silk spun by orb web weaving spiders, Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 30 (1987), 135–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1987.tb00294.x doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1987.tb00294.x
[5]	L. H. Lin, D. T. Edmonds, F. Vollrath, Structural engineering of an orb-spider's web, Nature, 373 (1995), 146–148.
[6]	M. S. Alam, C. H. Jenkins, Damage tolerance in naturally compliant structures, Int. J. Damage Mech., 14 (2005), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056789505054313 doi: 10.1177/1056789505054313
[7]	M. S. Alam, M. A. Wahab, C. H. Jenkins, Mechanics in naturally compliant structures, Mech. Mater., 39 (2007), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2006.04.005 doi: 10.1016/j.mechmat.2006.04.005
[8]	Y. Aoyanagi, K. Okumura, Simple model for the mechanics of spider webs, Phys. Rev. Lett., 104 (2010), 038102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.038102 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.038102
[9]	S. W. Cranford, A. Tarakanova, N. M. Pugno, M. J. Buehler, Nonlinear material behaviour of spider silk yields robust webs, Nature, 482 (2012), 72–76.
[10]	F. K. Ko, J. Jovicic, Modeling of mechanical properties and structural design of spider web, Biomacromolecules, 5 (2004), 780–785. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm0345099 doi: 10.1021/bm0345099
[11]	R. Zaera, A. Soler, J. Teus, Uncovering changes in spider orb-web topology owing to aerodynamic effects, J. R. Soc. Interface, 11 (2014), 20140484. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0484 doi: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0484
[12]	A. Soler, R. Zaera, The secondary frame in spider orb webs: The detail that makes the difference, Sci. Rep., 6 (2016), 31265.
[13]	H. Yu, J. Yang, Y. Sun, Energy absorption of spider orb webs during prey capture: A mechanical analysis, J. Bionic Eng., 12 (2015), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-6529(14)60136-0 doi: 10.1016/S1672-6529(14)60136-0
[14]	L. Zheng, M. Behrooz, F. Gordaninejad, A bioinspired adaptive spider web, Bioinspiration Biomimetics, 12 (2017), 016012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3190/12/1/016012 doi: 10.1088/1748-3190/12/1/016012
[15]	B. Mortimer, A. Soler, C. R. Siviour, R. Zaera, F. Vollrath, Tuning the instrument: Sonic properties in the spider's web, J. R. Soc. Interface, 13 (2016), 20160341. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2016.0341 doi: 10.1098/rsif.2016.0341
[16]	B. Mortimer, A. Soler, L. Wilkins, F. Vollrath, Decoding the locational information in the orb web vibrations of araneus diadematus and zygiella x-notata, J. R. Soc. Interface, 16 (2019), 20190201. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2019.0201 doi: 10.1098/rsif.2019.0201
[17]	A. W. Otto, D. O. Elias, R. L. Hatton, Modeling transverse vibration in spider webs using frequency-based dynamic substructuring, in Dynamics of Coupled Structures, Volume 4: Proceedings of the 36th IMAC, 2018,143–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74654-8_12
[18]	A. Morassi, A. Soler, R. Zaera, A continuum membrane model for small deformations of a spider orb-web, Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 93 (2017), 610–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.02.018 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.02.018
[19]	A. Kawano, A. Morassi, Closed-form solutions to the static transverse deformation of a spider orb-web, Meccanica, 54 (2019a), 2421–2442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-019-01083-3 doi: 10.1007/s11012-019-01083-3
[20]	A. Kawano, A. Morassi, Detecting a prey in a spider orb web, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 79 (2019b), 2506–2529. https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1262322 doi: 10.1137/19M1262322
[21]	A. Kawano, A. Morassi, R. Zaera, Detecting a prey in a spider orb-web from in-plane vibration, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 81 (2021a), 2297–2322. https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1372792 doi: 10.1137/20M1372792
[22]	A. Kawano, A. Morassi, R. Zaera, Determination of the prey impact region in a spider orb-web from in-plane vibration, Appl. Math. Comput., 424 (2022a), 126947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2022.126947 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2022.126947
[23]	R. Zaera, Ó. Serrano, J. Fernández-Sáez, A. Morassi, Eco-localization of a prey in a spider orb web, J. Vib. Control, 28 (2022), 1229–1238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546321993548 doi: 10.1177/1077546321993548
[24]	A. Kawano, A. Morassi, Can the spider hear the position of the prey, Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 143 (2020), 106838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.106838 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.106838
[25]	A. Kawano, A. Morassi, R. Zaera, The prey's catching problem in an elastically supported spider orb-web, Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 151 (2021b), 107310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107310 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107310
[26]	Y. Guo, Z. Chang, B. Li, Z. L. Zhao, H. P. Zhao, X. Q. Feng, et al., Functional gradient effects on the energy absorption of spider orb webs, Appl. Phys. Lett., 113 (2018), 103701. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5039710 doi: 10.1063/1.5039710
[27]	Y. Jiang, H. Nayeb-Hashemi, Dynamic response of spider orb webs subject to prey impact, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 186 (2020a), 105899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105899 doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105899
[28]	Y. Jiang, H. Nayeb-Hashemi, Energy dissipation during prey capture process in spider orb webs, J. Appl. Mech., 87 (2020b), 091009. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4047364 doi: 10.1115/1.4047364
[29]	B. Xie, X. Wu, X. Ji, Investigation on the energy-absorbing properties of bionic spider web structure, Biomimetics, 8 (2023), 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8070537 doi: 10.3390/biomimetics8070537
[30]	S. Kaewunruen, C. Ngamkhanong, T. Yang, Large-amplitude vibrations of spider web structures, Appl. Sci., 10 (2020b), 6032. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10176032 doi: 10.3390/app10176032
[31]	S. Kaewunruen, C. Ngamkhanong, S. Xu, Large amplitude vibrations of imperfect spider web structures, Sci. Rep., 10 (2020a), 19161.
[32]	K. Yavuz, A. M. Soler, R. Zaera, S. Jahangirov, Effect of spider's weight on signal transmittance in vertical orb webs, R. Soc. Open Sci., 11 (2024), 240986. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240986 doi: 10.1098/rsos.240986
[33]	M. Denny, The physical properties of spider's silk and their role in the design of orb-webs, J. Exp. Biol., 65 (1976), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.65.2.483 doi: 10.1242/jeb.65.2.483
[34]	E. J. Kullmann, The convergent development of orb-webs in cribellate and ecribellate spiders, Am. Zool., 12 (1972), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/12.3.395 doi: 10.1093/icb/12.3.395
[35]	E. Wirth, F. G. Barth, Forces in the spider orb web, J. Comp. Physiol. A, 171 (1992), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00223966
[36]	W. G. Eberhard, Construction behaviour and the distribution of tensions in orb webs, Bull. Br. Arachnological Soc., 5 (1981), 189–204.
[37]	N. Tew, T. Hesselberg, The effect of wind exposure on the web characteristics of a tetragnathid orb spider, J. Insect Behav., 30 (2017), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-017-9618-0 doi: 10.1007/s10905-017-9618-0
[38]	Y. C. Li, Y. P. Zhao, F. K. Gui, B. Teng, Numerical simulation of the hydrodynamic behaviour of submerged plane nets in current, Ocean Eng., 33 (2006), 2352–2368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2005.11.013 doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2005.11.013
[39]	W. G. Eberhard, Function and phylogeny of spider webs, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 21 (1990), 341–372.
[40]	R. M. Young, An Introduction to Nonharmonic Fourier Series, first edition, Academic Press, 2001.
[41]	A. Olevskii, A. Ulanovskii, On multi-dimensional sampling and interpolation, Anal. Math. Phys., 2 (2012), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13324-012-0027-4 doi: 10.1007/s13324-012-0027-4
[42]	A. Kawano, A. Zine, Uniqueness and nonuniqueness results for a certain class of almost periodic distributions, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 43 (2011), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1137/090763524 doi: 10.1137/090763524
[43]	L. Hörmander, The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators I: Distribution Theory and Fourier Analysis, Classics in Mathematics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003.
[44]	A. Kirsch, An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of Inverse Problems, 3rd edition, Springer International Publishing, 2021.
[45]	J. Baumeister, Stable Solution of Inverse Problems, Friedr. Vieweg and Sohn, Braunschweig, 1986.
[46]	R. Hergenröder, F. G. Barth, Vibratory signals and spider behavior: How do the sensory inputs from the eight legs interact in orientation, J. Comp. Physiol., 152 (1983), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00606241 doi: 10.1007/bf00606241
[47]	B. D. Opell, J. E. Bond, Capture thread extensibility of orb-weaving spiders: Testing punctuated and associative explanations of character evolution, Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 70 (2000), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2000.tb00203.x doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2000.tb00203.x
[48]	B. D. Opell, J. E. Bond, Changes in the mechanical properties of capture threads and the evolution of modern orb-weaving spiders, Evol. Ecol. Res., 3 (2001), 507–519.
[49]	B. Mortimer, S. D. Gordon, C. Holland, C. R. Siviour, F. Vollrath, J. F. C. Windmill, The speed of sound in silk: linking material performance to biological function, Adv. Mater., 26 (2014), 5179–5183. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201401027 doi: 10.1002/adma.201401027
[50]	T. Mulder, B. Mortimer, F. Vollrath, Functional flexibility in a spider's orb web, J. Exp. Biol., 223 (2020), jeb234070. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.234070 doi: 10.1242/jeb.234070
[51]	Y. C. Yang, C. Dorn, T. Mancini, Z. Talken, G. Kenyon, C. Farrar, et al., Blind identification of full-field vibration modes from video measurements with phase-based video motion magnification, Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 85 (2017), 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.08.041 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.08.041
[52]	Y. C. Yang, H. K. Jung, C. Dorn, G. Park, C. Farrar, D. Mascarenas, Estimation of full-field dynamic strains from digital video measurements of output-only beam structures by video motion processing and modal superposition, Struct. Control Health Monit., 26 (2019), e2408. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2408 doi: 10.1002/stc.2408
[53]	A. Kawano, A. Morassi, R. Zaera, Dynamic identification of pretensile forces in a spider orb-web, Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 169 (2022b), 108703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108703 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108703
[54]	A. Savitzky, M. J. E. Golay, Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures, Anal. Chem., 36 (1964), 1627–1639. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60214a047 doi: 10.1021/ac60214a047
[55]	W. H. Press, S. Teukolsky, B. P. Flannery, W. T. Vetterling, Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[56]	C. V. Boys, The influence of a tuning-fork on the garden spider, Nature, 23 (1880), 149–150.
[57]	H. C. McCook, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork: A Natural History of the Orbweaving Spiders of the United States with Special Regard to Their Industry and Habits, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1890.
[58]	M. Asch, G. Lebeau, The spectrum of the damped wave operator for a bounded domain in $R^2$ , Exp. Math., 12 (2003), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/10586458.2003.10504494 doi: 10.1080/10586458.2003.10504494
[59]	G. Di Fazio, M. S. Fanciullo, A. Morassi, P. Zamboni, Bounded deformation for a spider orb web, preprint, 2025.
[60]	F. Vollrath, M. Downes, S. Krackow, Design variability in web geometry of an orb-weaving spider, Physiol. Behav., 62 (1997), 735–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00186-8 doi: 10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00186-8
[61]	A. Kawano, A. Morassi, Asymmetrical spider orb webs, preprint, 2024.

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

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2025 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)