pith. sign in

arxiv: 2404.02871 · v4 · pith:LHGNVJGLnew · submitted 2024-04-03 · 🧮 math.OC · econ.TH

Existence and uniqueness results for a mean-field game of optimal investment

Alessandro Calvia , Salvatore Federico , Giorgio Ferrari , Fausto Gozzi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 02:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC econ.TH
keywords mean-field gamesoptimal investmentexistence and uniquenessstochastic controlequilibrium pricefinite horizoninfinite horizonnonlinear integral equations
0
0 comments X

The pith

A stochastic mean-field game of optimal investment has a unique equilibrium for finite and infinite horizons.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proves that a game in which many identical firms choose investment levels to maximize profits has exactly one consistent market outcome. The firms interact only through the selling price of their output, and that price at equilibrium equals a nonlinear function of the average production capacity the firms achieve under optimal control. The result holds whether the planning period is finite or stretches to infinity, and the authors also treat the deterministic version of the same game. A reader cares because the theorem supplies a rigorous justification for replacing a large population of competing firms with a single representative agent whose decisions clear the market. The proof proceeds by deriving a priori bounds and then solving associated nonlinear integral equations.

Core claim

There exists a unique mean-field equilibrium in which the time-dependent price of the produced good is given by a nonlinear function of the expected value of the optimally controlled production capacity of the representative firm; the same uniqueness statement holds for the deterministic counterpart of the game.

What carries the argument

The mean-field equilibrium obtained as the fixed point of the map that sends a candidate price process to the nonlinear function of the expected optimally controlled capacity that arises from that price.

If this is right

  • The equilibrium price at each date is completely determined by the law of the representative firm's optimal capacity process.
  • Optimal investment strategies for the representative firm are consistent with the market price they themselves generate.
  • The same existence and uniqueness conclusion holds when the underlying noise is removed and the problem becomes deterministic.
  • Separate techniques suffice for the finite-horizon case and the infinite-horizon case.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The result supplies a justification for using a single-agent optimization problem to approximate the behavior of a large but finite number of competing firms.
  • The integral-equation approach may extend directly to models with additional state variables such as inventory or debt.
  • Numerical solution of the nonlinear integral equation offers a practical route to computing the equilibrium price path.

Load-bearing premise

The running cost, terminal cost, and nonlinear price function must satisfy regularity and growth conditions strong enough for the a priori estimates and contraction arguments to close.

What would settle it

A concrete choice of running cost, terminal cost, and nonlinear price function for which the associated nonlinear integral equation has either no solution or more than one solution would show that existence or uniqueness fails.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2404.02871 by Alessandro Calvia, Fausto Gozzi, Giorgio Ferrari, Salvatore Federico.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The solution z to the integro-differential equation (4.5), the equilibrium average production capacity qb, and the equilibrium optimal investment strategy ub, in the short, medium, and long time horizon cases. Initial condition x = 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The solution z to the integro-differential equation (4.5), the equilibrium average production capacity qb, and the equilibrium optimal investment strategy ub, in the short, medium, and long time horizon cases. Initial condition x = y∞ ≈ 13.5721. In this case, as the time horizon gets larger the capital deterioration effect is delayed by a higher investment level in the first part of the time interval. None… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Trajectories of Xb and the equilibrium average production capacity qb, in the short, medium, and long time horizon cases, and for σ = 0.001, 0.01, 0.1. Initial condition x = 10. As it is clear from our results, the role of σ is just to measure the exposure of the production capacity level to the source of risk modeled by the Wiener process B appearing in SDE (2.1). Lower values of σ imply that the equilibr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trajectories of Xb and the equilibrium average production capacity qb, in the short, medium, and long time horizon cases, and for σ = 0.001, 0.01, 0.1. Initial condition x = y∞ ≈ 13.5721. We use, instead, the fact that any solution z to the integro-differential equation (4.5) also solves the second-order ODE (4.23), to which we can associate the initial value problem (IVP)    z ′′ s = (ρ + 2δ)z ′ s − … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The solution z to the integro-differential equation (4.5), the equilibrium average production capacity qb, and the equilibrium optimal investment strategy ub. Initial conditions: x = 10 in the first row; x = y∞ + 0.01 ≈ 13.5821 in the second row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trajectories of Xb and the equilibrium average production capacity qb, in the infinite time horizon case, and for σ = 0.001, 0.01, 0.1. Initial conditions: x = 10 in the left column; x = y∞ + 0.01 ≈ 13.5821 in the right column. deterministic, thus coinciding with the initial average production capacity x; more precisely, ξ = x = 10 and ξ = x = y∞ + 0.01 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We establish the existence and uniqueness of the equilibrium for a stochastic mean-field game of optimal investment. The analysis covers both finite and infinite time horizons, and the mean-field interaction of the representative company with a mass of identical and indistinguishable firms is modeled through the time-dependent price at which the produced good is sold. At equilibrium, this price is given in terms of a nonlinear function of the expected (optimally controlled) production capacity of the representative company at each time. The proof of the existence and uniqueness of the mean-field equilibrium relies on a priori estimates and the study of nonlinear integral equations, but employs different techniques for the finite and infinite horizon cases. Additionally, we investigate the deterministic counterpart of the mean-field game under study.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript establishes existence and uniqueness of the mean-field equilibrium for a stochastic optimal investment game in which the representative firm's interaction with the continuum of identical firms occurs through a time-dependent price that is a nonlinear function of the expected optimally controlled production capacity. Results are proved for both finite and infinite horizons via a priori estimates combined with analysis of nonlinear integral equations (using distinct techniques in each case) and the deterministic counterpart of the game is also treated.

Significance. If the proofs are complete, the work supplies a rigorous analytic foundation for a class of stochastic MFG investment models that appear in economics and operations research. The deterministic consistency check and the explicit treatment of both time horizons are positive features; the reliance on standard a priori estimates and integral-equation fixed-point arguments is appropriate for the setting.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that 'different techniques' are used for the finite and infinite horizons would benefit from a one-sentence indication of the key difference (e.g., contraction mapping versus Schauder fixed-point) so that readers can immediately gauge the scope of the argument.
  2. The growth and regularity hypotheses on the running cost, terminal cost, and price function should be collected in a single, clearly labeled assumption block early in the model section so that the reader can verify at once that they suffice for the a priori bounds.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary and recommendation of minor revision. No specific major comments were listed in the report, so we have no individual points to rebut. The conditional remark on proof completeness is noted, but the manuscript contains complete proofs as described.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; analytic existence proof is self-contained

full rationale

The derivation establishes existence and uniqueness of the mean-field equilibrium via a priori estimates on value functions and analysis of nonlinear integral equations (distinct techniques for finite vs. infinite horizon). No quoted step reduces a claimed result to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation chain; the deterministic counterpart supplies an independent consistency check. The argument is a standard fixed-point construction under explicit growth/regularity assumptions on costs and the price function, with no internal reduction to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the cost functions and price map that enable the a priori estimates and integral-equation analysis; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The running cost, terminal cost, and price function satisfy sufficient regularity and growth conditions to support a priori estimates and well-posedness of the associated nonlinear integral equations.
    Invoked implicitly to close the existence argument for both finite and infinite horizons.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5650 in / 1425 out tokens · 28871 ms · 2026-05-24T02:26:12.842186+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Acciaio, J

    B. Acciaio, J. B. Veraguas, and J. Jia. Cournot–Nash equilibrium and optimal transport in a dynamic setting.SIAM J. Control Optim., 59(3):2273–2300, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Achdou, F

    Y. Achdou, F. J. Buera, J.-M. Lasry, P.-L. Lions, and B. Moll. Partial differential equation models in macroeconomics.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 372 (2028):20130397, 19, 2014

    work page 2028

  3. [3]

    R. Aïd, M. Basei, and G. Ferrari. A stationary mean-field equilibrium model of irreversible investment in a two-regime economy.Operations Research, 73(5):2351–2374, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Alasseur, M

    C. Alasseur, M. Basei, C. Bertucci, and A. Cecchin. A mean field model for the development of renewable capacities.Mathematics and Financial Economics, 17(4):695–719, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Bensoussan, K

    A. Bensoussan, K. C. J. Sung, S. C. P. Yam, and S. P. Yung. Linear-quadratic mean field games.J. Optim. Theory Appl., 169(2):496–529, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Brezis.Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations

    H. Brezis.Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations. Universitext. Springer, New York, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Brockett

    R. Brockett. Notes on the control of the Liouville equation. InControl of partial differential equations, volume 2048 ofLecture Notes in Math., pages 101–129. Springer, Heidelberg, 2012

    work page 2048

  8. [8]

    Camilli, M

    F. Camilli, M. Laurière, and Q. Tang. Learning equilibria in Cournot mean field games of controls.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 63(2):1407–1431, 2025

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    H. Cao, J. Dianetti, and G. Ferrari. Stationary discounted and ergodic mean field games with singular controls.Math. Oper. Res., 48(4):1871–1898, 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Cardaliaguet

    P. Cardaliaguet. Notes on Mean Field Games (from P.-L. Lions’ lectures at Collège de France). Technical report,https://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/~cardaliaguet/MFG20130420.pdf, 2013

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Carmona and F

    R. Carmona and F. Delarue.Probabilistic theory of mean field games with applications I-II. Springer, 2018

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Chan and R

    P. Chan and R. Sircar. Bertrand and Cournot mean field games.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 71(3):533–569, 2015

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Chan and R

    P. Chan and R. Sircar. Fracking, renewables, and mean field games.SIAM Review, 59(3): 588–615, 2017

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    E. A. Coddington and N. Levinson.Theory of ordinary differential equations. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York-Toronto-London, 1955

    work page 1955

  15. [15]

    Delarue and R

    F. Delarue and R. F. Tchuendom. Selection of equilibria in a linear quadratic mean-field game. Stochastic Process. Appl., 130(2):1000–1040, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    A. K. Dixit and J. E. Stiglitz. Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity.The American Economic Review, 67(3):297–308, 1977

    work page 1977

  17. [17]

    Escribe, J

    C. Escribe, J. Garnier, and E. Gobet. A mean field game model for renewable investment under long-term uncertainty and risk aversion.Dynamic Games and Applications, 14(5):1093–1130, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Fujii and A

    M. Fujii and A. Takahashi. A mean field game approach to equilibrium pricing with market clearing condition.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 60(1):259–279, 2022

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    D. A. Gomes and J. Saúde. A mean-field game approach to price formation.Dynamic Games and Applications, 11(1):29–53, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    P. J. Graber and A. Bensoussan. Existence and uniqueness of solutions for Bertrand and Cournot mean field games.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 77(1):47–71, 2018

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    P. J. Graber and R. Sircar. Master equation for Cournot mean field games of control with absorption.Journal of Differential Equations, 343:816–909, 2023. A MEAN-FIELD GAME OF OPTIMAL INVESTMENT 31

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    P. J. Graber, V. Ignazio, and A. Neufeld. Nonlocal Bertrand and Cournot mean field games with general nonlinear demand schedule.Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 148: 150–198, 2021

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Gripenberg, S.-O

    G. Gripenberg, S.-O. Londen, and O. Staffans.Volterra integral and functional equations, volume 34 ofEncyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990

    work page 1990

  24. [24]

    Huang, R

    M. Huang, R. P. Malhamé, and P. E. Caines. Large population stochastic dynamic games: closed-loop McKean-Vlasov systems and the Nash certainty equivalence principle.Commun. Inf. Syst., 6(3):221–252, 2006

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    Karatzas and S.E

    I. Karatzas and S.E. Shreve.Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus. Springer, New York, 2nd edition, 1991

    work page 1991

  26. [26]

    Lakshmikantham and M

    V. Lakshmikantham and M. Rama Mohana Rao.Theory of integro-differential equations, volume 1 ofStability and Control: Theory, Methods and Applications. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Lausanne, 1995

    work page 1995

  27. [27]

    Lasry and P.-L

    J.-M. Lasry and P.-L. Lions. Mean field games.Jpn. J. Math., 2(1):229–260, 2007

    work page 2007

  28. [28]

    E. G. J. Luttmer. Selection, growth, and the size distribution of firms.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3):1103–1144, 2007

    work page 2007

  29. [29]

    R. F. Tchuendom. Uniqueness for linear-quadratic mean field games with common noise.Dyn. Games Appl., 8(1):199–210, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Francesco Severi

    X. Vives.Oligopoly pricing: old ideas and new tools. MIT Press (MA), 1999. Statements and Declarations Funding.Giorgio Ferrari gratefully acknowledges financial support fromDeutsche Forschungsge- meinschaft(DFG, German Research Foundation)– Project-ID 317210226– SFB 1283. This work started during the visit of Alessandro Calvia, Salvatore Federico and Faus...

    work page 1999