When an impulsive control is adopted for a stochastic delay difference
system (SDDS), there are at least two situations that should be contemplated. If the
SDDS is stable, then what kind of impulse can the original system tolerate to keep
stable? If the SDDS is unstable, then what kind of impulsive strategy should be taken
to make the system stable? Using the Lyapunov-Razumikhin technique, we
establish criteria for the stability of impulsive stochastic delay difference equations
and these criteria answer those questions. As for applications, we consider a kind of
impulsive stochastic delay difference equation and present some corollaries to our
main results.
1. Introduction
In recent years, stochastic delay difference equations (SDDEs) have been studied by many researchers; a number of results have been reported [1–7]. In these literatures, stability analysis stays on the focus of attention; see [1, 2, 4–6] and the references therein. As we all know, when we adopt an impulsive strategy to an SDDE, the stability of the SDDE may be destroyed or strengthen. Impulsive phenomena exist widely in the real world; therefore, it is important to study the stability problem for SDDEs with impulsive effects [8–10], that is to say, the stability problem for impulsive stochastic delay difference equations (ISDDEs).
For SDDEs, when we take impulsive effects into account, we have at least two problems to deal with. Problem 1. When a SDDE is stable, what kind of impulsive effect can the system tolerate so that it remain stable? Problem 2. If the SDDE is unstable, then what kind of impulsive effect should be taken to make the system stable? Problems 1 and 2 are called the problem of impulsive stability and the problem of impulsive stabilization, respectively.
As well known, Lyapunov-Razumikhin technique is one of main methods to investigate the stability of delay systems [11, 12]. There are little papers on the stability of ISDDEs [13, 14], and up to our knowledge, there is no paper on the stability of ISDDEs using Lyapunov-Razumikhin technique. In this paper, we study the stability of ISDDEs by Lyapunov-Razumikhin technique. We establish criteria for the r-moment exponential stability; these criteria present the answers to Problems 1 and 2. As for applications, we consider a kind of ISDDE and present some corollaries to our main theorems.
2. Preliminaries
In the sequel, ℝ denotes the field of real numbers, and ℕ represents the natural numbers. For some positive integer m and n0, let N-m={-m,-m+1,…,-1,0} and Nn0-m={n0-m,n0-m+1,…,n0-1,n0}. Given a matrix A, ∥A∥ denotes the norm of A induced by the Euclidean vector norm. Let C([-r,0],ℝn)={ψ:[-r,0]→ℝn,ψiscontinuous}. Given a positive integer m, we define ∥φ∥m=maxθ∈N-m{∥φ(s)∥} for any φ∈C([-m,0],ℝn). Let (Ω,ℱ,P) be a complete probability space and let {ℱn,n∈ℤ} be a nondecreasing family of sub-σ-algebra of ℱ, that is, ℱn1⊂ℱn2 for n1<n2.
Consider the impulsive stochastic delay difference equations of the form
x(n+1)=f(n,xn)+g(n,xn)ξn,n≠ηk-1,n⩾n0,n,k∈ℕ,x(ηk)=Hk(x(ηk-1)),k∈ℕ,xn0=φ,
where n0∈ℕ, f,g∈C(ℕ×C((-m,0),ℝn),ℝn), and m∈ℕ represents the delay in system (2.1), m⩾2. xn∈C([-m,0],ℝn) is defined by xn(s)=x(n+s) for any s∈[-m,0]. {ξn} are ℱn+1-adapted mutually independent random variables and satisfy Eξn=0, Eξn2=1, where E denotes the mathematical expectation. Hk∈C(ℝn,ℝn). Impulsive moment ηk∈ℕ satisfies: n0<η1<η2<⋯<ηn<⋯, and ηk→∞ as k→∞. Let η0=n0.
Assume that f(n,0)≡0, g(n,0)≡0, and Hk(0)=0, then system (2.1) admits the trivial solution. We also assume there exists a unique solution of system (2.1), denoted by x(n)=x(n,n0,φ), for any given initial data xn0=φ.
Definition 2.1.
One calls the trivial solution of system (2.1) r-moment exponentially stable if for any initial data xn0=φ there exist two positive constants α and M, such that for all n⩾n0, n∈ℕ, the following inequality holds:
E∥x(n)∥r⩽M∥φ∥mre-αn.
If the trivial solution of system (2.1) is r-moment exponentially stable, then we also call the system (2.1) r-moment exponentially stable.
3. Main Results
In this section, we will establish two theorems on r-moment exponential stability of system (2.1); these theorems give the answers to Problems 1 and 2.
First, we present the theorem on impulsive stability. The technique adopted in the proof is motivated by [15].
Theorem 3.1.
Assume that there exist a positive function V(n,x) for system (2.1) and positive constants r,p,c1,c2,andλ, where p>1, 0<λ<1, such that.
c1∥x∥r⩽V(n,x)⩽c2∥x∥r for any n∈Nn0-m∪ℕ and x∈ℝn.
For n≠ηk-1, any s∈N-m, EV(n+1,x(n+1))⩽λEV(n,x(n)) whenever EV(n+s,x(n+s))⩽pEV(n,x(n)).
For n≠ηk-1, some s∈N-m-{0}, EV(n+1,x(n+1)⩽(1/p)maxθ∈N-m{EV(n+θ,x(n+θ))} whenever EV(n+s,x(n+s))>eαEV(n,x(n)), where α=min{-lnλ,lnp/(m+1)}.
EV(ηk,x(ηk))⩽dkEV(ηk-1,x(ηk-1)), where dk>1 and d=maxk∈N{dk}<∞.
ηk+1-ηk>m, α(1-1/m)-lnd/m=β>0.
Then for any initial data xn0=φ,
E∥x(n)∥r⩽c2c1E∥φ∥mre-βn.
That is the trivial solution of system (2.1) that is r-moment exponentially stable.
Proof.
Let U(n)=maxθ∈N-m{eα(n+θ)EV(n+θ,x(n+θ))}. For any n⩾n0, n∈[ηk,ηk+1-1), k∈ℕ, define
θ̅n=max{θ∈N-m:eα(n+θ)EV(n+θ,x(n+θ))=U(n)},
then U(n)=eα(n+θ̅n)EV(n+θ̅n,x(n+θ̅n)).
Next, we will show that, for any n∈[ηk,ηk+1-1),
U(n+1)⩽U(n).
For a given n, we have two situations to contemplate: θ̅n⩽-1 and θ̅n=0.Case 1 (θ̅n⩽-1).
Under this situation, we have eαnEV(n,x(n))<eα(n+θ̅n)EV(n+θ̅n,x(n+θ̅n)), then
EV(n+θ̅n,x(n+θ̅n))>eα(-θ̅n)EV(n,x(n))⩾eαEV(n,x(n)).
Using condition (C3) and noticing p⩾eα(m+1), we obtain
maxs∈N-m{EV(n+s,x(n+s))}⩾eα(m+1)EV(n+1,x(n+1)).
Multiplying both sides by eαn and rearranging yield
eα(n-m)maxs∈N-m{EV(n+s,x(n+s))}⩾eα(n+1)EV(n+1,x(n+1)).
Then we get
eα(n+1)EV(n+1,x(n+1))⩽maxs∈N-m{eα(n+s)EV(n+s,x(n+s))}=U(n),
which implies that
U(n+1)⩽U(n).
Case 2 (θ̅n=0).
Making use of the definition of U(n) and θ̅n, noticing that p>e-αθ for any θ∈N-m, we have
EV(n+θ,x(n+θ))⩽eα(-θ)EV(n,x(n))<pEV(n,x(n)).
Under condition (C2), the above inequality implies that
EV(n+1,x(n+1))⩽λEV(n,x(n)).
Multiplying both sides by eα(n+1), we have
eα(n+1)EV(n+1,x(n+1))⩽eα(n+1)λEV(n,x(n))=eαnEV(n,x(n))eαλ⩽eαnEV(n,x(n))=U(n).
Thus
U(n+1)⩽U(n),
which is the desired assertion.
When n=ηk+1, under condition (C4) and using the definition of U(n), we get
U(ηk+1)=maxθ∈N-m{eα(ηk+1+θ)EV(ηk+1+θ,x(ηk+1+θ))}=max{eαηk+1EVmaxθ∈N-m-{0}{eα(ηk+1+θ)EV(ηk+1+θ,x(ηk+1+θ))}(ηk+1,x(ηk+1)),maxθ∈N-m-{0}{eα(ηk+1+θ)EV(ηk+1+θ,x(ηk+1+θ))}}⩽max{dk+1eαeα(ηk+1-1)EVmaxθ∈N-m-{0}{eα(ηk+1+θ)EV(ηk+1+θ,x(ηk+1+θ))}(ηk+1-1,x(ηk+1-1)),maxθ∈N-m-{0}{eα(ηk+1+θ)EV(ηk+1+θ,x(ηk+1+θ))}}⩽dk+1eαmaxθ∈N-m-{0}{eα(ηk+1+θ)EV(ηk+1+θ,x(ηk+1+θ))}⩽dk+1eαU(ηk+1-1)⩽dk+1eαU(ηk).
By induction and taking (3.3) into account, when n∈[ηl,ηl+1), for all l∈ℕ, we have
U(n)⩽U(ηl)⩽dleαU(ηl-1)⩽∏i=1l(dieα)U(n0),
which yields
eαnEV(n,x(n))⩽∏i=1l(dieα)c2E∥φ∥mr.
By virtue of condition (C5),
EV(n,x(n))⩽e-n(α(1-l/n)(-1/n)∑i=1llndi)c2E∥φ∥mr⩽c2E∥φ∥mre-βn.
The desired result follows when we take condition (C1) into account.
Now, we are in position to state the theorem on impulsive stabilization. The method used in the proof is motivated by [16].
Theorem 3.2.
Assume that there exist a function V(n,x) for system (2.1) and constants r>0, c1>0, c2>0, λ>0, and natural number α>1, such that the following conditions hold.
c1∥x∥r⩽V(n,x)⩽c2∥x∥r for any n∈Nn0-m∪ℕ and x∈ℝn.
For n≠ηk-1, any s∈N-m, EV(n+1,x(n+1))⩽(1+λ)EV(n,x(n)) whenever qEV(n+1,x(n+1))⩾EV(n+s,x(n+s)), where q>e2λα.
EV(ηk,x(ηk))⩽dkEV(ηk-1,x(ηk-1)), where dk>0.
m⩽ηk+1-ηk⩽α, lndk+αλ<-λ(ηk+1-ηk).
Then for any initial data xn0=φ there exists positive constant C; for any n∈ℕ, the following inequality holds:
E∥x(n)∥r⩽CE∥φ∥mre-λn,
that is, the trivial solution of system (2.1) is r-moment exponentially stable.
Proof.
Choose M>1 such that
(1+λ)c2E∥φ∥mr⩽ME∥φ∥mre-λη1e-αλ<ME∥φ∥mre-λη1⩽qc2E∥φ∥mr.
We will show that, for any n∈[ηk,ηk+1), k=1,2,…,
EV(n,x(n))⩽ME∥φ∥mre-ληk+1.
Write EV(n,x(n))=EV(n) for the sake of brevity.
First we will show that, for any n∈[0,η1),
EV(n)⩽ME∥φ∥mre-λη1.
Obviously, when n∈[-m,0], EV(n)⩽ME∥ξ∥mre-λη1. If (3.20) is not true, then there exists n̅∈[0,η1-1) such that
EV(n̅+1)>ME∥φ∥mre-λη1.
And when n⩽n̅, EV(n)⩽ME∥φ∥mre-λη1. At the same time there exists n*⩾0 such that EV(n*)⩽c2E∥φ∥mr, and when n*<n⩽n̅,
c2E∥φ∥mr<EV(n)⩽ME∥φ∥mre-λη1.
Note that there may not exist the natural number n that satisfies n*<n⩽n̅ such that (3.22) holds. However, we claim that there must be a natural number n satisfing n*<n⩽n̅ such that (3.22) holds. If not, we have n*=n̅; then we get
EV(n)⩽c2E∥φ∥mr,n⩽n̅.
Obviously,
qEV(n̅+1)⩾EV(n̅+s),∀s∈N-m.
Under condition (C2) we get
EV(n̅+1)⩽(1+λ)EV(n̅).
That is
EV(n̅)⩾11+λEV(n̅+1)>11+λME∥φ∥mre-λη1=eαλ1+λME∥φ∥mre-λη1e-αλ>ME∥φ∥mre-λη1e-αλ⩾c2E∥φ∥mr,
which contradicts with (3.23). Then there must be an n satisfing n*<n⩽n̅ such that (3.22) holds.
For any n∈[n*+1,n̅],
EV(n+s)⩽ME∥φ∥mre-λη1<qc2E∥φ∥mr<qEV(n).
By virtue of (C2), for any n∈[n*+1,n̅],
EV(n)⩽(1+λ)EV(n-1),
and for s∈N-m, we have
qEV(n̅+1)⩾EV(n̅+s),qEV(n*+1)⩾EV(n*+s).
Making use of (3.28), we get
EV(n̅+1)⩽(1+λ)EV(n̅)⩽(1+λ)n̅-n*EV(n*+1)⩽(1+λ)αEV(n*)<eαλc2E∥φ∥mr.
Taking (3.3) into account, the above inequality yields
EV(n̅+1)>ME∥φ∥mre-λη1,
which implies that
ME∥φ∥mre-λη1<eαλc2E∥φ∥mr.
It contradicts with (3.18); then (3.20) holds, that is, (3.19) holds for k=1.
Assume that (3.19) holds for k=1,2,…,h, that is, when n∈[ηk-1,ηk), k=1,2,…,h,
EV(n)⩽ME∥φ∥mre-ληk.
Under conditions (C3) and (C4), we have
EV(ηh)⩽dhEV(ηh-1)⩽dhME∥φ∥mre-ληh⩽ME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1e-αλ⩽ME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1.
Now we will show that, when n∈[ηh,ηh+1),
EV(n)⩽ME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1.
If (3.35) is not true, then there must be an n̅∈(ηh,ηh+1-1), such that
EV(n̅+1)>ME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1,
and for n∈[ηh,n̅]EV(n)⩽ME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1.
At the same time, there exists an n*∈[ηh,n̅] such that
EV(n*)⩽ME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1e-αλ,
And, when n*<n⩽n̅,
EV(n)>ME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1e-αλ.
If there does not exist an n satisfing n*<n⩽n̅ such that (3.39) holds, then n*=n̅. Obviously, for any s∈N-m, qEV(n̅+1)⩾EV(n̅+s). Using condition (C2) yields EV(n̅+1)⩽(1+λ)EV(n̅), that is,
EV(n̅)⩾11+λEV(n̅+1)⩾eλα1+λME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1e-αλ>ME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1e-αλ,
which contradicts with the definition of n̅; then there exists at least one number n satisfing n*<n⩽n̅ such that (3.39) holds.
For n∈[n*+1,n̅] and s∈N-m, we have
EV(n+s)⩽ME∥φ∥mre-ληh=eλ(ηh+1-ηh)ME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1⩽e2λαME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1e-αλ<qEV(n),
which implies that, under condition (C2),
EV(n)⩽(1+λ)EV(n-1).
Obviously, qEV(n̅+1)⩾EV(n̅). Using condition (C2) again, we get
EV(n̅+1)⩽(1+λ)EV(n̅).
since qEV(n*+1)>EV(n*+s), s∈N-m, we have, under condition (C2)
EV(n*+1)⩽(1+λ)EV(n*).
Then
EV(n̅+1)⩽(1+λ)EV(n̅)⩽(1+λ)n̅-n*EV(n*+1)⩽(1+λ)n̅-n*+1EV(n*)⩽(1+λ)αEV(n*)<eαλME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1e-αλ=ME∥φ∥mre-ληh+1<EV(n̅),
which conflicts with the definition of n̅. Then (3.19) holds for k=h+1.
By induction, we know that (3.19) holds for n∈[ηk,ηk+1), k∈ℕ.
Using condition (C1), for any n∈[ηk,ηk+1), k∈ℕ, we have
c1E∥x(n)∥r⩽EV(n)⩽ME∥φ∥mre-ληk+1⩽ME∥φ∥mre-λn.
That is the desired result.
4. Applications
In this section, we consider a kind of impulsive stochastic delay difference equation as follows:
Using the obtained results, we present three corollaries for system (4.1).
Corollary 4.1.
Assume that conditions (C1), (C4), and (C5) of Theorem 3.1 hold, but conditions (C2) and (C3) are replaced with the following conditions:
There exist constants λ1 and λ2, 0<λ1, λ2<1, such that
EV(n+1,x(n+1))⩽λ1EV(n,x(n))+λ2EV(n-m,x(n-m)).
If λ1+λ2<1, then the trivial solution of system (4.1) is r-moment exponentially stable.
Proof.
Let x(n) be a solution of system (4.1). Take (p=λ12+4λ2+λ2-λ1)/3λ2. It is easy to see that, under the conditions 0<λ1, λ2<1, and 0<λ1+λ2<1,
1<p<λ12+4λ2-λ12λ2<1λ1+λ2<1-λ1λ2.
If EV(n+θ,x(n+θ))⩽pEV(n,x(n)) for any θ∈N-m, it follows from the condition (C2*) that
EV(n+1,x(n+1))⩽(λ1+pλ2)EV(n,x(n)).
Then condition (C2) of Theorem 3.1 follows under (4.3).
Let λ=λ1+pλ2; using inequality (4.3), we get α in Theorem 3.1: α=min{-lnλ,lnp/(m+1)}=lnp/(m+1).
Now we assume that V(n+θ,x(n+θ))>eαV(n,x(n)) for some θ∈N-m; by virtue of (C2*) and inequality (4.3),
EV(n+1,x(n+1))⩽λ1EV(n,x(n))+λ2EV(n-m,x(n-m))<λ1e-αEV(n+θ,x(n+θ))+λ2EV(n-m,x(n-m))<(λ1+λ2)maxs∈N-m{EV(n+s,x(n+s))}<1pmaxs∈N-m{EV(n+s,x(n+s))}.
Then condition (C3) of Theorem 3.1 follows, which completes the proof.
From the above proof, we know that constant β in Theorem 3.1 equals to
m-1m(m+1)lnλ12+4λ2+λ2-λ13λ2-lndm.
Corollary 4.2.
Assume that conditions (C1), (C4), and (C5) of Theorem 3.1 hold, but conditions (C2) and (C3) are replaced with the following condition.
There exists a constant 0<λ<1 such that
EV(n+1,x(n+1))⩽λmaxs∈N-m{EV(n+s,x(n+s))}.
Then the trivial solution of system (4.1) is r-moment exponentially stable.
Proof.
Let x(n) be a solution of system (4.1). Take
p=(1λ)(m+1)/(m+2).
Since 0<λ<1, we have 1<p<1/λ and
lnp(m+1)=ln(1/λ)(m+2)<ln(1λ).
For any s∈N-m, assume that V(n+s,x(n+s))⩽pV(n,x(n)); by virtue of condition (C2**), we get
EV(n+1,x(n+1))⩽pλEV(n),
that is, condition (C2) of Theorem 3.1.
Since 1<p<1/λ we have 1/p>λ. Under condition (C2**), for any n∈ℕ, we get
EV(n+1,x(n+1))⩽λmaxs∈N-m{EV(n+s,x(n+s))}<(1p)maxs∈N-m{EV(n+s,x(n+s))},
that is condition (C3) of Theorem 3.1.
From the above proof, we know that constant α in Theorem 3.1 equals to
min{-ln(λp),lnp(m+1)}=-ln(λp)=lnp(m+1)=-lnλ(m+2).
Then constant β in Theorem 3.1 equals
-lnλ(m+2)(1-1m)-lndm.
Now, we present a corollary of Theorem 3.2 which establishes a criterion of mean square exponential stability for system (4.1).
Corollary 4.3.
Assume that there exist positive constants λ, α, and q where α is a natural number and α>1, q⩾e2λαsuch that system (4.1) satisfies the following.
E∥f(n,x(n),x(n-m))∥2+E∥g(n,x(n),x(n-m))∥2⩽12(aE∥x(n)∥2+bE∥x(n-m)∥2),
where a,b are positive constants, b<1/q, and
0<a+bq-11-bq⩽λ.
∥Hk(x)∥⩽βk∥x∥, for any x∈ℝn, βk>0, and 2lnβk+λ(ηk+1-ηk)⩽-λα. The impulsive moments satisfy m⩽ηk+1-ηk⩽α.
Then, for any initial data xn0=φ, the solution x(n) of system (4.1) satisfies
E∥x(n)∥2≤E∥φ∥m2e-(λ/2)n.
That is to say, the trivial solution of system (4.1) is mean square exponentially stable.
Proof.
Let V(n,x)=∥x∥2, then,
EV(n+1,x(n+1))=E∥x(n+1)∥2=E∥f(n,x(n),x(n-m))+g(n,x(n),x(n-m))ξn∥2⩽2(E∥f(n,x(n),x(n-m))∥2+E(∥g(n,x(n),x(n-m))∥2ξn2))⩽aE∥x(n)∥2+bE∥x(n-m)∥2=aEV(n)+bEV(n-m).
Assume that qEV(n+1,x(n+1))⩾EV(n+s,x(n+s)) holds for any s∈N-m, then
EV(n+1)=E∥x(n+1)∥2⩽a1-bqEV(n)⩽(1+λ)EV(n).
The other conditions of Theorem 3.2 are easy to be verified and the conclusion of this corollary now follows.
5. Examples
Now we study some examples to illustrate our results.
We consider a linear impulsive stochastic delay difference equation as following:
First we take a=0.5, b=0.25, c=0.25, m=9, ηk=10k, βk=1.1, k=1,2,…, and φ(s)=1/(100+s2). By virtue of Corollary 4.1, taking V(x,n)=x2(n), we can get the mean square exponential stability of (5.1). The stability is shown in Figure 1.
Mean square exponential stability of (5.1): a=0.5, b=0.25, c=0.25, m=9, ηk=10k, andβk=1.1.
Now we take a=1.09, b=0, c=e-19, m=3, and φ(s)=1/(10+s2) in (5.1) without impulsive effects. It is easy to see that equation is unstable. This property is shown in Figure 2. Then we take an impulsive strategy: ηk=4k, βk=e-19. In light of Corollary 4.3, we can see that equation is mean square exponentially stable. The stability is shown in Figure 3.
Instability without impulsive effects of (5.1): a=1.09, b=0, c=e-19, andm=3.
Mean square exponential stability of (5.1): a=1.09, b=0, c=e-19, m=3, ηk=4k, andβk=e-19.
It should be pointed that the conditions of Corollary 4.3 are sufficient but not necessary. If we take a=1.09, b=0, c=e-19, m=3, ηk=4k, and βk=0.7 and φ(s)=1/(10+s2), then it is not difficult to show that the conditions of Corollary 4.3 are not satisfied again, but under this situation, the equation is still stable. The stability is shown in Figure 4.
Stability of (5.1): a=1.09, b=0, c=e-19, m=3, ηk=4k, andβk=0.7.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, we considered the r-moment exponential stability for impulsive stochastic delay difference equations. Using the Lyapunov-Razumikhin method, we established criteria of r-moment exponential stability and these criteria presented the answers for the problem of impulsive stability and the problem of impulsive stabilization. As for applications, we considered a kind of impulsive stochastic delay difference equation and obtained three corollaries for our main theorems. The results we got may work in the study of stability of numerical method for the impulsive delay differential equations.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Scientific Foundations of Harbin Institute of Technology at Weihai under Grants no.HIT(WH)20080008 and no.HIT(WH)2B200905. The authors would like to give their thanks to Professor Leonid Shaikhet for his valuable comments and to the referees who suggest that the authors give examples to illustrate the results.
PaternosterB.ShaikhetL.Stability of equilibrium points of fractional difference equations with stochastic perturbations200820082171840810.1155/2008/718408MR2417453ZBL1149.39007PaternosterB.ShaikhetL.About stability of nonlinear stochastic difference equations2000135273210.1016/S0893-9659(00)00029-XMR1760259ZBL0959.60056RodkinaA.On asymptotic behaviour of solutions of stochastic difference equations200147747194730MR197586510.1016/S0362-546X(01)00584-3ZBL1042.39502DingX.Razumikhin-type theorems on exponential stability of stochastic functional difference equations2006200699465610.1155/DDNS/2006/94656KolmanovskiiV.ShaikhetL.Construction of Lyapunov functionals for stochastic hereditary systems: a survey of some recent results2002366691716MR194061710.1016/S0895-7177(02)00168-1ZBL1029.93057KolmanovskiiV. B.MaizenbergT. L.RichardJ.-P.Mean square stability of difference equations with a stochastic delay2003523795804MR193786610.1016/S0362-546X(02)00133-5ZBL1029.39005BaccinM.FerranteM.On a stochastic delay difference equation with boundary conditions and its Markov property1995601131146MR136232310.1016/0304-4149(95)00058-5ZBL0846.60063ZhuW.XuD.YangZ.Global exponential stability of impulsive delay difference equation200618116572MR227047010.1016/j.amc.2006.01.015ZBL1148.39304ZhangQ.On a linear delay difference equation with impulses2002182197204MR1918118ZBL1008.39008AbdullinR. Z.Stability of difference equations with impulse actions at moments of time that depend on the state vector19975873343MR1615112LiuX.WangQ.The method of Lyapunov functionals and exponential stability of impulsive systems with time delay200766714651484MR230133210.1016/j.na.2006.02.004ZBL1123.34065LiuB.MarquezH.Razumikhin-type stability theorems for discrete delay systems20074371219122510.1016/j.automatica.2006.12.032MR2306769ZBL1123.93065BaoJ.HouZ.WangF.Exponential stability in mean square of impulsive stochastic difference equations with continuous time200922574975310.1016/j.aml.2008.08.013MR2514905YangZ.XuD.Mean square exponential stability of impulsive stochastic difference equations200720893894510.1016/j.aml.2006.09.006MR2323135MaoX.Razumikhin-type theorems on exponential stability of stochastic functional-differential equations1996652233250MR142535810.1016/S0304-4149(96)00109-3ZBL0889.60062WangQ.LiuX.Impulsive stabilization of delay differential systems via the Lyapunov-Razumikhin method2007208839845MR232311910.1016/j.aml.2006.08.016ZBL1159.34347