Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Ranking Quantilized Mean-Field Games with an Application to Early-Stage Venture Investments

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An explicit equilibrium for target-based ranking quantilized mean-field games, with an epsilon-Nash guarantee for the finite-player game.

desk verdict A useful new quantilized MFG model with a clean analytic solution, but the epsilon-Nash proof has an adaptedness gap that needs repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00853 v2 pith:2QIKRJ2F submitted 2025-07-01 math.OC cs.SYeess.SYq-fin.MF

Rinel Foguen Tchuendom , Dena Firoozi , Michèle Breton This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.SYeess.SYq-fin.MF MSC 91A1649N80
keywords mean-fieldgamesquantilizedalpha-quantilesrankingepsilon-Nashequilibriumforward-backwardordinarydifferentialequationsearly-stageventureinvestmentsstart-upcompetition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies mean-field games in which agents are ranked by their terminal state against the population's $\alpha$-quantile, so the top $(1-\alpha)\%$ qualify, and it proposes two competing formulations. In the target-based version, each agent tries to land exactly on the quantile, and the paper proves that the equilibrium quantile path and the optimal effort strategy are characterized by a fully decoupled system of five forward-backward ordinary differential equations. It then shows that using these limiting strategies in the $N$-player game forms an $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium, with error of order $\sqrt{1/N}\,\sqrt{\alpha(1-\alpha)}/p(T,\bar q^\alpha_T)$, where $p$ is the terminal-state density at the quantile. The threshold-based version, where agents only need to reach or exceed the quantile, is solved semi-explicitly and handled numerically. The motivating application is early-stage venture capital: a VC firm funds competing start-ups and selects those whose terminal market values reach the endogenously determined quantile threshold.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sample $\alpha$-quantile $q_T^{\alpha,[N]}$ of the terminal states, defined by (2.3), and its deterministic limit $\bar q^\alpha_t$. In the limiting game the quantile of the Gaussian state law has the explicit form $\bar q^\alpha_t = \mathbb{E}[x^\star_t] + X^\alpha\sqrt{\mathbb{V}[x^\star_t]}$, with $X^\alpha=Q(\alpha,\mathcal N(0,1))$. The machinery is a three-step loop: (i) the stochastic maximum principle for the quadratic terminal cost $(\lambda/2)(x_T-q_T^\alpha)^2$, producing Riccati equations for the adjoint coefficients; (ii) differentiation of the Gaussian quantile identity to obtain the quantile-path ODE; (iii) the identity $\pi_t=-\eta_t$, which follows from the Riccati terminal conditions and decouples the system into (3.3)--(3.7). The finite-$N$ error estimate is carried by a central-limit theorem for sample quantiles, which turns the terminal mismatch between $q_T^{\alpha,[N]}$ and $\bar q_T^\alpha$ into the rate displayed in (3.43).

What would settle it

Check whether $\hat u^i_t = -\frac{b}{r}(\eta_t \hat x^i_t+\hat\theta^{\alpha,[N]}_t)$ with $\hat\theta^{\alpha,[N]}_T=-\lambda q_T^{\alpha,[N]}$ is adapted: for $N$ finite and $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $q_T^{\alpha,[N]}$ is not $\sigma(x^i_0,w^i_s: s\le t)$-measurable for $t<T$, so the backward equation (3.50) is anticipating. A direct calculation of $J_i^{[N]}(\hat u^i,\cdot)$ compared with the true dynamic-programming optimum for a deviator would show whether the non-adapted control can be replaced by an admissible one that achieves the same cost; if not, Step 1 of the proof (relation (3.48)) has no justification and the claimed bound is not established by the given argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the target-based ranking model has a closed-form mean-field equilibrium, and that this equilibrium is nearly optimal for each agent in the finite population. Fixing the limiting quantile process, the representative agent's optimal control is $u^\star_t = -\frac{b}{r}(\eta_t x^\star_t + \pi_t \bar q^\alpha_t + \phi^\alpha_t)$, where the coefficient processes solve the decoupled FBODEs (3.3)--(3.7). The argument first uses the stochastic maximum principle with the adjoint ansatz $y_t=\eta_t x_t+\theta^\alpha_t$, then imposes the quantilized consistency condition $q^\alpha_t = \mathbb{E}[x^\star_t]+X^\alpha\sqrt{\mathbb{V}[x^\star_t]}$, where $X^\alpha$ is the standard-normal quantile. A key simplification is the identity $\eta_t+\pi_t=0$, which turns coupled equations into the explicit system. Theorem 3.3 extends these limiting strategies to the $N$-player game: for any unilateral deviation, the cost gain is at most $\epsilon^\alpha_N=O\!\left(\sqrt{1/N}\,\sqrt{\alpha(1-\alpha)}\big/p(T,\bar q^\alpha_T)\right)$, obtained from the central limit theorem for sample quantiles.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the $\epsilon$-Nash property assumes that the strategy it identifies as the best deviating response is actually available to the agent; but that strategy's terminal condition involves the final sample quantile, which is not known until time $T$, so the strategy may not be adapted to the agent's information flow and may fall outside the admissible set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The target-based equilibrium can be computed by solving five decoupled scalar ODEs, so the quantile path and effort policy are available without fixed-point iteration.
  • In the finite-$N$ game, any agent who deviates from the proposed strategy gains at most $\epsilon^\alpha_N$, which vanishes as $N\to\infty$; hence the limiting strategy is asymptotically a Nash equilibrium.
  • The same $\epsilon$-Nash argument is claimed to cover quantilized games with quantile-of-control interactions and to remove the earlier uniform boundedness assumption on square-integrable deviating strategies.
  • The threshold-based equilibrium has no closed form, but in the venture-capital experiments its quantile stays systematically slightly above the target-based one, and the two distributions of terminal values are close.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The identity $\pi_t=-\eta_t$ is likely a general phenomenon for symmetric quadratic terminal costs whose coefficients cancel; if so, the decoupling ansatz (3.34) would transfer to other target-type MFGs, including heterogeneous-agent versions, as long as the representative-agent Gaussianity is preserved.
  • Editorial inference: The error rate (3.43) contains the factor $1/p(T,\bar q^\alpha_T)$, so the approximation should worsen in low-density regions of the terminal distribution, for instance when $\alpha$ is very close to 0 or 1, or when volatility is small and the density at the quantile is thin; the paper's numerics do not probe this boundary regime.
  • Editorial inference: Since the VC coordinator's funding allocation is treated as an exogenous deterministic support $\gamma_t$, a natural extension is a principal-agent layer where $\gamma_t$ is chosen optimally; the target-based FBODEs could serve as the reduced-form constraint in such a design problem.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a class of mean-field games in which agents' terminal costs depend on the sample α-quantile of the population's terminal states, motivated by ranking competitions. Two formulations are introduced: a target-based one, where agents aim to land exactly on the quantile, and a threshold-based one, where agents are penalized only for falling below the quantile. For the target-based formulation, the paper derives a fully decoupled forward-backward ODE system characterizing the equilibrium quantile process, proves existence and uniqueness of solutions, and claims an ε-Nash property for the finite-N game with an error of order sqrt(1/N) * sqrt(α(1−α)) divided by the terminal-state density at the quantile. For the threshold-based formulation, the paper gives a semi-explicit optimal control representation and solves the mean-field consistency condition numerically via a fixed-point iteration. The model is applied to early-stage venture capital, where a fund selects top start-ups, and a set of numerical experiments with sensitivity analysis is presented.

Significance. If the ε-Nash claim is correct, the paper makes a useful contribution: it provides one of the first analytically tractable mean-field game models with quantile-type interactions, and it does so without ad hoc fitted constants. The core equilibrium characterization in Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.2 is clean and self-contained: the Gaussian quantile identity (3.21) and the decoupling through η+π=0 are correct, and the resulting FBODE system is explicit. The threshold-based numerics and the venture-capital application are novel and clearly presented. However, the significance of the paper hinges on the ε-Nash property, and the proof of Theorem 3.3 has a serious adaptedness gap that is not cosmetic. The contribution remains potentially valuable, but the advertised finite-player approximation result is not established as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3, proof of Theorem 3.3, Eqs. (3.48)–(3.51)] The control hat u^i_t = -(b/r)(eta_t hat x^i_t + hattheta^{alpha,[N]}_t) asserted to achieve the infimum in (3.48) is not admissible. By (3.50), hattheta^{alpha,[N]}_t solves a backward ODE with terminal condition hattheta^{alpha,[N]}_T = -lambda q^{alpha,[N]}_T, and for t<T the sample quantile q^{alpha,[N]}_T is mathcal{F}^{[N]}_T-measurable but generally not mathcal{F}^{[N]}_t-measurable, since it depends on future increments of all agents' Brownian motions, including agent i's own w^i. Consequently hattheta^{alpha,[N]}_t is an anticipating functional of the full sample, and hat u^i is not mathcal{F}^{[N]}-adapted; it therefore violates the admissibility condition U^{[N]} in (2.5). The stochastic maximum principle invoked at (3.48) applies only to admissible controls, so the identification of hat u^i with the infimum is unjustified. The correct adjoint for a deviating agent would be a BSDE with a martingale term representing the conditional expectation of lambda(hat x^i_T - q^{alpha,[N]}_T) given mathcal{F}^{[N]}_t; because q^{alpha,[N]}_T is a nonlinear functional of the whole population, that martingale term need not vanish and the linear feedback structure (3.49) is not the true best response. Since the chain of inequalities (3.52)–(3.68) compares arbitrary finite-N deviations through this hat u^i, the proof of the epsilon-Nash bound (3.43) is incomplete. The claim may be repairable with a genuinely adapted finite-N best-response construction, but that requires new arguments rather than a minor correction.
  2. [Section 3.3, Step 3, Eqs. (3.69)–(3.72)] The bound in (3.69) uses E[(q^{alpha,[N]}_T - bar q^alpha_T)^2]^{1/2} and concludes in (3.72) a rate O(1/sqrt{N}) from the quantile central limit theorem (3.70). The CLT is a statement of convergence in distribution; it does not by itself give convergence of second moments, which is what (3.69) requires. Uniform integrability of N(q^{alpha,[N]}_T - bar q^alpha_T)^2 is plausible (e.g., from Gaussian tail bounds for order statistics), but it must be proved before the epsilon-Nash rate is justified. In addition, (3.72) writes mu(T,bar q^alpha_T) where (3.70) and (3.43) use p(T,bar q^alpha_T); the notation should be made consistent.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, general] The sensitivity analysis is useful, but the paper does not report any error bars or confidence intervals for the finite-N simulations (e.g., in Figures 4, 5, and 7); a brief discussion of Monte Carlo variability would strengthen the comparison between the target-based and threshold-based formulations.
  2. [Introduction, references] References [22] and [43] appear to describe the same article (same title, same authors) with different publication statuses; one should be removed or cross-referenced to avoid duplication.
  3. [Introduction, contribution statement] The paper claims in the introduction that the epsilon-Nash proof 'is also applicable to the model in [43]' and that it relaxes a uniform bound assumption, but this claim is not revisited or substantiated anywhere in the text; either provide the argument or soften the claim.
  4. [Proposition 3.2, proof] The proof of Proposition 3.2 asserts uniqueness of the solution to (3.3)-(3.7) but only spells out the argument for (3.3), relying on [45] for a Riccati-type equation that is, in fact, explicitly solvable; adding the closed form eta_t = 1/(1/lambda + (b^2/r)(T-t)) would make the existence and uniqueness claim immediately transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the target-based consistency condition is derived from Gaussian propagation, the epsilon-Nash rate is benchmarked by the external CLT for sample quantiles, and the authors' prior quantilized-MFG papers are cited only as background, not as load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is self-contained. In the target-based formulation, the representative agent's stochastic control problem is solved by the standard linear-quadratic FBSDE with the fixed quantile q^alpha_T, and the consistency condition is then obtained by computing the alpha-quantile of the Gaussian law of x*_t: q^alpha_t = E[x*_t] + X^alpha sqrt(V[x*_t]) (Eqs. (3.21)-(3.25)). This yields the ODE for bar-q^alpha_t; nothing is fitted and no target quantity is inserted by ansatz. The decoupling ansatz theta^alpha_t = pi_t bar-q^alpha_t + phi^alpha_t is solved internally (Eqs. (3.34)-(3.40)), and pi = -eta follows from the ODEs, not from a cited theorem. The uniqueness of eta is cited to an external Riccati reference [45], and the epsilon-Nash rate uses the external CLT for quantiles [46], so the main claims are benchmarked outside the paper's own assumptions. The threshold-based section explicitly states that existence and uniqueness of the consistency fixed point and the epsilon-Nash property remain open and proceeds numerically; this is an acknowledged limitation rather than a circular step. The comparison between target-based and threshold-based formulations is an empirical numerical observation, not a definitional equivalence. Self-citations [21,22,43] are background only; none of the paper's theorems is justified by invoking those prior works as a premise. The skeptical adaptedness objection to Theorem 3.3, Step 1, is a genuine correctness gap: hat-theta^{alpha,[N]}_T = -lambda q^{alpha,[N]}_T makes hat-u^i anticipating relative to F^[N] as defined in (2.5), so the stochastic-maximum-principle identification of the infimum is not justified as written. However, that is a missing admissibility argument, not a circular reduction: no equation is equal to its input by construction and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theoretical result rests on standard stochastic control (maximum principle), the CLT for sample quantiles, and existence of Riccati ODE solutions, plus the model assumptions of Gaussian i.i.d. initial conditions and homogeneous agents. The threshold-based numerical results additionally assume convergence of the fixed-point iteration, which the paper explicitly leaves open. No invented entities or fitted constants appear in the derivation.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Stochastic maximum principle (Pontryagin) for LQG control
    Used in Theorem 3.1 proof step (i) and in Step 1 of Theorem 3.3 (equation (3.48)).
  • standard math Central limit theorem for sample quantiles (Serfling [46], p.77)
    Used in Step 3 of Theorem 3.3 (equation (3.70)) to obtain the epsilon-Nash rate.
  • standard math Existence and uniqueness of Riccati ODE solutions (Freiling et al. [45])
    Used in Proposition 3.2 to assert a unique solution to ODE (3.3).
  • domain assumption Initial states are i.i.d. Gaussian N(m0, nu^2) and noise processes are independent
    Model assumption in (2.1); ensures Gaussian state propagation and the exact quantile identity (3.21).
  • domain assumption Homogeneous agents with common model parameters
    Assumed at the start of Section 2.1; enables the representative-agent formulation.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed-point iteration for the threshold-based consistency condition converges
    Section 4.2 states 'the convergence analysis of the numerical algorithm remains also challenging', but the scheme in Figure 1 is used for all threshold-based results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ranking Quantilized Mean-Field Games with an Application to Early-Stage Venture Investments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QIKRJ2F

@misc{pith2026250700853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ranking Quantilized Mean-Field Games with an Application to Early-Stage Venture Investments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QIKRJ2F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00853}
}
abstract

Quantilized mean-field game models involve quantiles of the population's distribution. We study a class of such games with a capacity for ranking games, where the performance of each agent is evaluated based on its terminal state relative to the population's $\alpha$-quantile value, $\alpha \in (0,1)$. This evaluation criterion is designed to select the top $(1-\alpha)\%$ performing agents. We provide two formulations for this competition: a target-based formulation and a threshold-based formulation. In the former and latter formulations, to satisfy the selection condition, each agent aims for its terminal state to be \textit{exactly} equal and \textit{at least} equal to the population's $\alpha$-quantile value, respectively. For the target-based formulation, we obtain an analytic solution and demonstrate the $\epsilon$-Nash property for the asymptotic best-response strategies in the $N$-player game. Specifically, the quantilized mean-field consistency condition is expressed as a set of forward-backward ordinary differential equations, characterizing the $\alpha$-quantile value at equilibrium. For the threshold-based formulation, we obtain a semi-explicit solution and numerically solve the resulting quantilized mean-field consistency condition. Subsequently, we propose a new application in the context of early-stage venture investments, where a venture capital firm financially supports a group of start-up companies engaged in a competition over a finite time horizon, with the goal of selecting a percentage of top-ranking ones to receive the next round of funding at the end of the time horizon. We present the results and interpretations of a set of numerical experiments for both formulations discussed in this context, which illustrate that the target-based formulation closely approximates the threshold-based formulation in the scenarios considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00853 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Numerical scheme for solving the limiting threshold-based problem as described by (2.10)-(2.11) and (4.2). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This fact is further supported by the temporal evolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Limiting threshold-based model: Impact of quantile level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Finite-population threshold-based model involving 1000 start-ups: Results for quantile level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Limiting target-based model: Results for quantile level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Limiting target-based model: The impact of quantile level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Finite-population target-based model involving 1000 start-ups: Results for quantile level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sensitivity analysis with respect to the dynamical parameters, efficiency strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Sensitivity analysis with respect to the cost functional parameters, running cost weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Transmission Neural Networks: Inhibitory and Excitatory Connections

    cs.SI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Under technical assumptions, inhibitory Transmission Neural Networks have firing probabilities equivalent to a 2D continuous-state network, and a neurotransmitter continuum limit admits stability and contraction conditions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Huang, R

    M. Huang, R. P. Malham´ e, P. E. Caines, Large population stochastic dynamic games: Closed- loop McKean-Vlasov systems and the Nash certainty equivalence principle, Communications in Information & Systems 6 (3) (2006) 221–252

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Huang, P

    M. Huang, P. E. Caines, R. P. Malham´ e, Large-population cost-coupled LQG problems with nonuniform agents: individual-mass behavior and decentralizedε-Nash equilibria, IEEE trans- actions on automatic control 52 (9) (2007) 1560–1571

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Lasry, P.-L

    J.-M. Lasry, P.-L. Lions, Mean field games, Japanese Journal of Mathematics 2 (1) (2007) 229–260

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Carmona, F

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

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bensoussan, J

    A. Bensoussan, J. Frehse, P. Yam, Mean field games and mean field type control theory, Vol. 101, Springer, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Cardaliaguet, F

    P. Cardaliaguet, F. Delarue, J.-M. Lasry, P.-L. Lions, The master equation and the convergence problem in mean field games:(AMS-201), Princeton University Press, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Carmona, J.-P

    R. Carmona, J.-P. Fouque, Mousavi, L.-H. Sun, Mean field games and systemic risk, Commu- nications in Mathematical Sciences 13 (4) (2015) 911–933

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    L. Bo, A. Capponi, Systemic risk in interbanking networks, SIAM Journal on Financial Math- ematics 6 (1) (2015) 386–424

    work page 2015

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Chang, D

    Y. Chang, D. Firoozi, D. Benatia, Large banks and systemic risk: Insights from a mean-field game model, Journal of Systems Science & Complexity 38 (2025) 460–494

    2025

  2. [10]

    Casgrain, S

    P. Casgrain, S. Jaimungal, Mean-field games with differing beliefs for algorithmic trading, Mathematical Finance 30 (3) (2020) 995–1034

    2020

  3. [11]

    Firoozi, P

    D. Firoozi, P. E. Caines, The execution problem in finance with major and minor traders: A mean field game formulation, in: Annals of the International Society of Dynamic Games (ISDG): Advances in Dynamic and Mean Field Games, Vol. 15, Birkh¨ auser Basel, 2017, pp. 107–130

    2017

  4. [12]

    Cardaliaguet, C.-A

    P. Cardaliaguet, C.-A. Lehalle, Mean field game of controls and an application to trade crowd- ing, Mathematics and Financial Economics 12 (3) (2018) 335–363

    2018

  5. [13]

    Huang, S

    X. Huang, S. Jaimungal, M. Nourian, Mean-field game strategies for optimal execution, Applied Mathematical Finance 26 (2) (2019) 153–185. 24

    2019

  6. [14]

    G. Fu, P. Graewe, U. Horst, A. Popier, A mean field game of optimal portfolio liquidation, Mathematics of Operations Research 46 (4) (2021) 1250–1281

    2021

  7. [15]

    G. Fu, U. Horst, X. Xia, Portfolio liquidation games with self-exciting order flow, Mathematical Finance 32 (4) (2022) 1020–1065

    2022

  8. [16]

    A. V. Shrivats, D. Firoozi, S. Jaimungal, A mean-field game approach to equilibrium pricing in solar renewable energy certificate markets, Mathematical Finance 32 (3) (2022) 779–824

    2022

  9. [17]

    Gomes, J

    D. Gomes, J. Sa´ ude, A mean-field game approach to price formation in electricity markets, Dynamic Games and Applications 11 (1) (2021) 29–53

    2021

  10. [18]

    Fujii, A

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

    2022

  11. [19]

    A ¨ ıd, R

    R. A ¨ ıd, R. Dumitrescu, P. Tankov, The entry and exit game in the electricity markets: A mean-field game approach, Journal of Dynamics and Games 8 (4) (2021) 331–358

    2021

  12. [20]

    Alasseur, E

    C. Alasseur, E. Bayraktar, R. Dumitrescu, Q. Jacquet, A rank-based reward between a principal and a field of agents: Application to energy savings, (to appear) SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics (2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    Foguen-Tchuendom, R

    R. Foguen-Tchuendom, R. Malham´ e, P. Caines, A quantilized mean field game approach to energy pricing with application to fleets of plug-in electric vehicles, in: Proceedings of the 58th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE, 2019, pp. 299–304

    2019

  14. [22]

    Foguen-Tchuendom, R

    R. Foguen-Tchuendom, R. Malham´ e, P. E. Caines, On a class of linear quadratic Gaussian quantilized mean field games, Automatica 170 (2024) 111878

    2024

  15. [23]

    S. Gao, R. P. Malham´ e, Linear quadratic mean field games with quantile-dependent cost coef- ficients, Journal of Systems Science and Complexity 38 (1) (2025) 495–510

    2025

  16. [24]

    Crisan, T

    D. Crisan, T. G. Kurtz, Y. Lee, Conditional distributions, exchangeable particle systems, and stochastic partial differential equations, in: Annales de l’IHP Probabilit´ es et statistiques, Vol. 50, 2014, pp. 946–974

    2014

  17. [26]

    Ankirchner, N

    S. Ankirchner, N. Kazi-Tani, J. Wendt, C. Zhou, Large ranking games with diffusion control, Mathematics of Operations Research 49 (2) (2024) 675–696

    2024

  18. [27]

    Bayraktar, Y

    E. Bayraktar, Y. Zhang, A rank-based mean field game in the strong formulation, Electronic Communications in Probability 21 (none) (2016) 1 – 12

    2016

  19. [28]

    Bayraktar, J

    E. Bayraktar, J. Cvitani´ c, Y. Zhang, Large tournament games, The Annals of Applied Proba- bility 29 (6) (2019) 3695–3744

    2019

  20. [29]

    Bayraktar, Y

    E. Bayraktar, Y. Zhang, Terminal ranking games, Mathematics of Operations Research 46 (4) (2021) 1349–1365

    2021

  21. [30]

    Tembine, Q

    H. Tembine, Q. Zhu, T. Ba¸ sar, Risk-sensitive mean-field games, IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic Control 59 (4) (2013) 835–850. 25

    2013

  22. [31]

    Saldi, T

    N. Saldi, T. Basar, M. Raginsky, Discrete-time risk-sensitive mean-field games, arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.03929 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  23. [32]

    J. Moon, T. Ba¸ sar, Linear quadratic risk-sensitive and robust mean field games, IEEE Trans- actions on Automatic Control 62 (3) (2016) 1062–1077

    2016

  24. [33]

    J. Moon, T. Ba¸ sar, Risk-sensitive mean field games via the stochastic maximum principle, Dynamic Games and Applications 9 (4) (2019) 1100–1125

    2019

  25. [34]

    Y. Wang, M. Huang, Risk-sensitive linear-quadratic mean-field games: Asymptotic solvability and decentralizedo(1/n)-Nash equilibria, Journal of Systems Science and Complexity 38 (1) (2025) 436–459

    2025

  26. [35]

    X. Y. Ren, D. Firoozi, Risk-sensitive mean field games with common noise: A theoretical study with applications to interbank markets., arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03915 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    H. Liu, D. Firoozi, M. Breton, LQG risk-sensitive single-agent and major-minor mean-field game systems: A variational framework, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 63 (4) (2025) 2251–2281

    2025

  28. [37]

    Ewens, A

    M. Ewens, A. Gorbenko, A. Korteweg, Venture capital contracts, Journal of Financial Eco- nomics 143 (1) (2022) 131–158

    2022

  29. [38]

    T. W. Archibald, E. Possani, Investment and operational decisions for start-up companies: a game theory and markov decision process approach, Annals of Operations Research 299 (1) (2021) 317–330

    2021

  30. [39]

    Elitzur, A

    R. Elitzur, A. Gavious, A multi-period game theoretic model of venture capitalists and en- trepreneurs, European Journal of Operational Research 144 (2) (2003) 440–453

    2003

  31. [40]

    Lukas, S

    E. Lukas, S. M¨ olls, A. Welling, Venture capital, staged financing and optimal funding policies under uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research 250 (1) (2016) 305–313

    2016

  32. [41]

    Gornall, I

    W. Gornall, I. A. Strebulaev, Squaring venture capital valuations with reality, Journal of Financial Economics 135 (1) (2020) 120–143

    2020

  33. [42]

    J.-H. Kim, L. Wagman, Portfolio size and information disclosure: An analysis of startup ac- celerators, Journal of Corporate Finance 29 (2014) 520–534

    2014

  34. [43]

    Foguen-Tchuendom, R

    R. Foguen-Tchuendom, R. Malham´ e, P. Caines, On a class of linear quadratic Gaussian quan- tilized mean field games, Accepted provisionally into Automatica (2023)

    2023

  35. [44]

    Ankirchner, N

    S. Ankirchner, N. Kazi-Tani, J. Wendt, C. Zhou, Mean-field ranking games with diffusion control, Mathematics and Financial Economics 18 (2) (2024) 313–331

    2024

  36. [45]

    Freiling, G

    G. Freiling, G. Jank, H. Abou-Kandil, Generalized Riccati difference and differential equations, Linear algebra and its applications 241 (1996) 291–303

    1996

  37. [46]

    R. J. Serfling, Approximation theorems of mathematical statistics, John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    2009

  38. [47]

    A ¨ ıd, S

    R. A ¨ ıd, S. Biagini, Optimal dynamic regulation of carbon emissions market, Mathematical Finance 33 (1) (2023) 80–115. 26

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.