Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Iterative Schemes for Markov Perfect Equilibria

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Best-response loops provably converge to the unique Markov-perfect equilibrium in symmetric finite-state games.

desk verdict Genuinely new convergence result for Picard iterations without monotonicity, but the proof has a false Laguerre generating function identity and a norm-conversion slip; both are fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20898 v1 pith:HWTXAEUF submitted 2025-07-28 math.OC

Felix Höfer , Mathieu Laurière , H. Mete Soner , Qinxin Yan This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 35Q8935D4049L2560G99
keywords Markovperfectequilibriummean-fieldgamesNash-Lasry-LionsequationPicarditerationfinite-statedynamicbestresponsedynamicsmasterstrongconvexity
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

This paper establishes that, in continuous-time dynamic games with finitely many symmetric players on a finite state space, a simple best-response loop computes the unique Markov perfect equilibrium. At each step the tagged player solves only their own dynamic programming equation against the other players' current common strategy, and the common strategy is then replaced by that optimal reply. The paper proves that both the plain Picard iteration and the weighted variant converge uniformly, at a geometric rate, to the unique equilibrium, without the Lasry-Lions monotonicity condition that is standard in mean-field game theory. Because the equilibrium value function is characterized by the Nash-Lasry-Lions equation, a finite system of ordinary differential equations, the iteration gives a practical route in regimes where direct numerical solvers for the mean-field master equation become unstable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the best-response map $\alpha^*(\beta)$: solve the tagged player's dynamic programming equation (HJB($\beta$)) and extract the unique minimizer $\hat\alpha(x,\mu,p)$ of the Hamiltonian $H(x,\mu,p)=\inf_a\{\ell(x,\mu,a)+\sum_{y\neq x}(\lambda^0_y(x,\mu)+\lambda^1_y(x,\mu)a_y)p_y\}$. Three estimates carry the argument: Lemma 2.3 makes $\hat\alpha$ Lipschitz in the gradient variable because $\ell$ is $\gamma$-strongly convex; Lemma 4.3 bounds the difference of two best responses by the difference of the corresponding value functions; and Lemma 4.4 bounds the difference of value functions by a time-integral of the difference of the other players' controls. Chaining these gives the recursion $m^{(n+1)}(t)\le c^*c_0\int_t^T m^{(n)}(s)\,ds$, whose solutions decay factorially; the weighted iteration is analyzed through a Laguerre-polynomial generating function, producing the geometric rates of Proposition 3.3. Uniqueness of the limit comes from the classical fact that the (N-NLL) system of ODEs has one solution.

What would settle it

Run the pure Picard loop $\beta^{(n)}=\alpha^*(\beta^{(n-1)})$ on any symmetric finite-state game that satisfies Assumption 2.1, with the best response computed by a high-accuracy ODE solver on an increasingly fine time grid; the theorem predicts uniform convergence to the unique (N-NLL) solution with error decaying like $(\hat c T)^n/n!$, so an instance whose iterates plateau, oscillate, or converge to a function that does not satisfy (N-NLL) would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is Theorem 3.2: for any weighting parameter $\rho\in[0,1)$ and any initial control $\beta^{(0)}\in A^*$, the sequence of value functions $v_\rho^{(n)}$ converges uniformly to the unique classical solution $v$ of the $N$-player Nash-Lasry-Lions system (N-NLL), and the controls $\alpha_\rho^{(n)}$ converge uniformly to the unique Markov perfect equilibrium $\alpha(t,x,\mu)=\hat\alpha(x,\mu,\Delta_x v(t,\cdot,\mu))$. The mechanism is that the best-response map $\beta\mapsto\alpha^*(\beta)$ is not a contraction in the usual pointwise sense, but its errors are smoothed by the dynamic programming equation: each iteration compresses a time-integral of the previous error, so the cumulative error decays factorially in the pure Picard case and geometrically in the weighted case. A further theorem (Theorem 5.1) shows that numerical errors introduced when approximating $\alpha^*$ stay bounded through the iterations, and Proposition 5.4 shows the resulting strategies are approximate equilibria. These results hold without Lasry-Lions monotonicity; the structural assumptions are strong convexity of the running cost and symmetry of the players.

Load-bearing premise

The proof's load-bearing premise is that the running cost is uniformly strongly convex in each player's control, together with exchangeability of the players; if the cost is only convex or linear, or if players are not exchangeable, the iteration has no convergence guarantee.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any symmetric finite-state continuous-time game with strongly convex running costs can be solved by repeatedly solving the tagged player's HJB equation; no monotonicity condition on the coupling to the other players' distribution is needed.
  • The pure Picard iteration converges with error bounded by $\hat c_\gamma \gamma^n$ for any prescribed $\gamma>0$, and the weighted iteration converges with rate $\gamma_\rho<1$ that worsens as $\rho$ approaches 1.
  • Small errors in each best-response computation propagate in a uniformly bounded way, so approximate best responses still produce strategies that are $\varepsilon$-Markov perfect equilibria after enough iterations.
  • The algorithms reproduce the entropy solution of non-monotone mean-field games in two-state models where a direct ODE solver of (N-NLL) becomes unstable, and they extend to a four-state cyber-security model via a neural-network Monte Carlo iteration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the contraction mechanism should survive a small time-step discretization of the continuous-time game, because the proof relies on the smoothing of the dynamic programming equation and strong convexity rather than on Lasry-Lions monotonicity; testing the iteration as $h\to0$ in a discrete-time model with quadratic costs would make this precise.
  • Editorial inference: the two-state examples suggest a selection principle for non-unique mean-field limits, namely that the finite-player equilibrium produced by best-response iteration tracks the entropy solution of the associated scalar conservation law; the paper demonstrates this numerically but does not claim it as a general theorem.
  • Editorial inference: the bounded error propagation in Theorem 5.1 is exactly the property needed to justify replacing exact best responses with stochastic gradient estimates, and a convergence proof for the neural-network algorithm with explicit per-iteration optimization errors is a natural follow-up.
  • Editorial inference: because the weighted iteration's rate deteriorates as $\rho\to1$, averaging old strategies appears not to help in this continuous-time setting; the dynamics' inertia already prevents oscillation, so aggressive averaging only slows convergence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies symmetric continuous-time finite-state stochastic games with N+1 players, in which the Nash system reduces to the Nash-Lasry-Lions (NLL) equation for a common value function. The tagged-player best-response map is defined, and a Markov perfect equilibrium is characterized as a fixed point of this map. The main result, Theorem 3.2, states that for any weighting parameter rho in [0,1) and any initial control in the bounded admissible set A*, both the Picard and weighted Picard iterations converge uniformly to the unique solution of the NLL equation, and hence to the unique Markov perfect equilibrium, without imposing Lasry-Lions monotonicity. Proposition 3.3 gives geometric convergence rates. Section 5 analyzes propagation of numerical errors and shows that the iterates eventually form approximate equilibria. Section 6 presents an ODE-based algorithm and a neural-network/Monte-Carlo algorithm, and Section 7 reports numerical experiments on synchronization and cyber-security models.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, the paper makes a genuinely useful contribution: it gives a constructive, provably convergent best-response iteration for Markov perfect equilibria in a class of finite-player games where the standard monotonicity condition is not available. The proof strategy is interesting: it combines the external uniqueness theorem of Gomes-Mohr-Souza with Gronwall-type estimates and Laguerre-polynomial bounds, and it contains no fitted parameters or circular assumptions. The error-propagation results and the approximate-equilibrium statement are valuable for numerical practice, and the numerical experiments are concrete and reproducible in spirit. However, the proof of the central convergence theorem currently contains a false stated identity for the Laguerre generating function in Section 4.3; this is a load-bearing defect in the written proof, although it appears to be repairable because the correct generating function also gives the needed finiteness.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.3, Step 5] The proof of the weighted Picard case uses the identity g(x,t) = sum_{n>=1} t^n L^(n)(x) = (1-t)^{1/2} e^{-xt/(1-t)}, where L^(n)}(x) = sum_{k=0}^n binom(n,k)(-1)^k x^k/k! is the standard Laguerre polynomial defined immediately above. This identity is false for those polynomials. The correct standard generating function is sum_{n>=0} L^(n)(x)t^n = (1-t)^{-1} e^{-xt/(1-t)}, so the n>=1 sum is (1-t)^{-1} e^{-xt/(1-t)} - 1. The false identity is used to conclude that g(rho_delta^{1/2}, -T_delta) is finite, which drives the Cauchy-summability of the value-function increments. The convergence conclusion is nevertheless recoverable, because the correct generating function also gives a finite value for |rho_delta^{1/2}|<1. The manuscript must replace the displayed identity and re-derive the summability bound; as written, this is a false statement in the proof of the main theorem.
  2. [Section 4.4, proof of Proposition 3.3] The rate proof contains an exponent inconsistency. The text states that for large k, k! >= (T_delta)^k (1-rho_delta)^{-k}, which implies T_delta^k/k! <= (1-rho_delta)^k. The displayed tail estimate then, however, uses (1-rho_delta)^{-k} inside the binomial sum. With the negative exponent, the subsequent equality to (2-rho_delta)^n is false: sum_{k=0}^n binom(n,k)(1-rho_delta)^{-k} equals (1+(1-rho_delta)^{-1})^n, not (2-rho_delta)^n. The intended argument is clear and the claimed geometric rate is recovered if the exponent is changed to +k, but the printed proof needs correction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.3, equation (4.6)] Since beta^(n+1) - beta^(n) = (1-rho) gamma^(n), Lemma 4.4 gives m^(n+1)(t) <= c_* (1-rho)^2 int_t^T Gamma^(n)(s) ds, not c_*(1-rho) as printed. The missing factor can be absorbed into the subsequent constant c_{delta,rho}, but the displayed equality is incorrect.
  2. [Section 4.3, equation (4.7)] Lemma 4.3 gives |alpha^(n+1)(t)-alpha^(n)(t)|_2^2 <= c_0^2 m^(n)(t), whereas equation (4.7) uses c_0 m^(n)(t). Since c_0 is a generic constant this is absorbable by redefining c_0, but the inequality as written is not the square of the Lemma 4.3 bound.
  3. [Section 3, after Definition 3.1] The sentence 'When necessary to emphasize the dependence on the parameter rho, we sometimes write v_rho^(n) for the corresponding value functions.' is repeated verbatim twice; one copy should be deleted.
  4. [Section 4.1, Lemma 4.1] There is a typographical error in the first sentence of the proof: 'the valuefunction v_beta ofisalsonon-negative' should read 'the value function v_beta is also non-negative'.
  5. [Section 5.3, Proposition 5.4] The phrase 'kappa_*(~c+1) epsilon_*-Markov prefect equilibria' contains a typo: 'prefect' should be 'perfect'.
  6. [Section 7.1, second model] The text introducing equation (7.2) says 'a direct calculation shows that Z solves', but the unknown function has been denoted V; the symbol Z appears to be a typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained and the limit is identified through an external uniqueness theorem, not through the iteration's own output.

full rationale

The paper's main claim (Theorem 3.2) is that the Picard and weighted Picard iterations converge to the unique solution of the Nash-Lasry-Lions system. Walking the chain: Assumption 2.1 (strong convexity) is an explicit input; Lemma 2.3 is derived from it; Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4 are genuine a-priori estimates proved from the dynamic programming equation (HJB(β)) and Gronwall-type arguments, with no use of the target solution as an input. The weighted-Picard proof in Section 4.3 reduces the increments to a recursive inequality and obtains summability via a Laguerre bound; this bound contains a false identity (the stated generating function g(x,t)=(1−t)^{1/2}e^{−xt/(1−t)} is not the generating function of the standard Laguerre polynomials defined in the paper), but the correct generating function is also finite for the relevant |t|<1, so the defect is a repairable correctness issue rather than a circular one. The limit function v̄ is shown to satisfy (N-NLL) by passing to the limit, and uniqueness is imported from the external result of Gomes, Mohr and Souza [21], not from the authors' own prior work. The self-citation to [28] supplies the exchangeability/symmetry reduction and contextual discrete-time results, but the convergence proof does not reduce to it; numerical rate fits in Section 7 are illustrative checks, not fitted parameters used in the proof. Thus there is no step where a prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

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

The theorem itself is parameter-free; no number is fitted to data. The key modeling inputs are strong convexity of the running cost and exchangeability, and the key external input is the Gomes-Mohr-Souza uniqueness theorem for (N-NLL). Numerical hyperparameters such as rho, Delta t, N, and T are chosen for experiments and do not enter the proof.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: the running cost l is gamma-strongly convex in the control a, uniformly in (x,mu).
    This gives Lemma 2.3, the Lipschitz property of the optimal control map, which is used in Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4 and throughout the convergence proof.
  • domain assumption Players are exchangeable and use the same running and terminal costs, so the Nash system reduces to the NLL equation for a single tagged player.
    The entire MPE and best-response setup relies on this symmetry reduction from [28]; without it the tagged-player formulation and the NLL equation do not apply.
  • domain assumption The (N-NLL) system has a unique classical solution, as proved by Gomes, Mohr and Souza (Proposition 2.5 here).
    Theorem 3.2 uses this uniqueness to conclude that the Cauchy limit of the iteration is the unique MPE; if uniqueness were absent, convergence to a particular equilibrium would not follow.
  • standard math Standard ODE existence/uniqueness and Gronwall's inequality for backward differential inequalities.
    Used in Lemma 4.4 and Section 4 to close the iteration recursions and to pass from differential inequalities to integral bounds.
  • standard math Feynman-Kac representation for the cost difference in Lemma 5.3.
    Justifies the dynamics of j and k used to show that near-equilibrium strategies are approximate MPEs.
  • standard math Laguerre polynomial generating function: sum_{n>=0} L_n(x) t^n = (1-t)^{-1} e^{-xt/(1-t)} for |t|<1.
    Invoked in Section 4.3 to bound the weighted-Picard series; the paper states an incorrect variant, but the standard formula gives the needed finiteness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Iterative Schemes for Markov Perfect Equilibria." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HWTXAEUF

@misc{pith2026250720898,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Iterative Schemes for Markov Perfect Equilibria},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HWTXAEUF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20898}
}
read the original abstract

We study Markov perfect equilibria in continuous-time dynamic games with finitely many symmetric players. The corresponding Nash system reduces to the Nash-Lasry-Lions equation for the common value function, also known as the master equation in the mean-field setting. In the finite-state space problems we consider, this equation becomes a nonlinear ordinary differential equation admitting a unique classical solution. Leveraging this uniqueness, we prove the convergence of both Picard and weighted Picard iterations, yielding efficient computational methods. Numerical experiments confirm the effectiveness of algorithms based on this approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20898 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. First model: plot of p 7→ v N (t, 0, p) − v N (t, 1, p) at initial time t = 0. Next, we show numerically the convergence rates of Picard and weighted Picard iterations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Weighted Picard Iteration n 5 4 3 2 1 0 lo g( v n v S) Logarithmic Error Decay (Geometric Convergence) log(Error) Fit: logC + nlog a, a = 0.345 (a) Picard iteration 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Weighted Picard Iteration n 5 4 3 2 1 0 lo g( v n v S) L… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convergence rates of the Picard and weighted Picard iterations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Second model: plot of p 7→ v N (t, 0, p) − v N (t, 1, p) at initial time t = 0. 7.2 Cyber-security model with adjustment costs This section presents a variation of the cyber-security model due to Bensoussan and Kolokoltsov [37]. In this model, we are given a network of computers, each of which can be in one of four states: X := {DI, DS, UI, US}. Here, the first letter refers to the protection status of the computer … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the empirical distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Achdou and M

    Y. Achdou and M. Laurière. Mean field games and applications: Numerical aspects.Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 249–307, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    T. Başar. A tutorial on dynamic and differential games.Dynamic games and applications in economics, pages 1–25, 1986

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    Başar and G

    T. Başar and G. J. Olsder.Dynamic noncooperative game theory. SIAM, 1998

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Bayraktar and A

    E. Bayraktar and A. Cohen. Analysis of a finite state many player game using its master equation. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 56(5):3538–3568, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bayraktar and X

    E. Bayraktar and X. Zhang. On non-uniqueness in mean field games.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 148(9):4091–4106, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Bensoussan, J

    A. Bensoussan, J. Frehse, and S. C. P. Yam. The master equation in mean field theory.Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 103(6):1441–1474, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Briani and P

    A. Briani and P. Cardaliaguet. Stable solutions in potential mean field game systems.Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications NoDEA, 25:1–26, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    G. W. Brown. Iterative solution of games by fictitious play.Act. Anal. Prod Allocation, 13(1):374, 1951

    work page 1951

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Cardaliaguet and S

    P. Cardaliaguet and S. Hadikhanloo. Learning in mean field games: the fictitious play.ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 23(2):569–591, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Cardaliaguet, F

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

    2019

  3. [11]

    R. Carmona. Lectures on BSDEs, stochastic control, and stochastic differential games with financial applications, volume 1 ofFinancial Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Carmona and F

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

    2018

  5. [13]

    Cecchin, P

    A. Cecchin, P. D. Pra, M. Fischer, and G. Pelino. On the convergence problem in mean field games: a two state model without uniqueness.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 57(4):2443–2466, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Chassagneux, D

    J.-F. Chassagneux, D. Crisan, and F. Delarue. Numerical method for FBSDEs of McKean–Vlasov type. The Annals of Applied Probability, 29(3):1640–1684, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Chassagneux, D

    J.-F. Chassagneux, D. Crisan, and F. Delarue.A probabilistic approach to classical solutions of the master equation for large population equilibria, volume 280. American Mathematical Society, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Delarue and A

    F. Delarue and A. Vasileiadis. Exploration noise for learning linear-quadratic mean field games. Mathematics of Operations Research, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    R. Elie, J. Perolat, M. Laurière, M. Geist, and O. Pietquin. On the convergence of model free learning in mean field games. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7143–7150, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Fleming and H

    W. Fleming and H. M. Soner. Controlled Markov processes and viscosity solutions, volume 25. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    Fudenberg and J

    D. Fudenberg and J. Tirole.Game theory. MIT press, 1991. 26 Iterative Schemes for MPEs Höfer, Laurière, Soner & Yan

    1991

  12. [20]

    Gangbo and A

    W. Gangbo and A. R. Mészáros. Global well-posedness of master equations for deterministic displacement convex potential mean field games.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 75(12):2685–2801, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    D. A. Gomes, J. Mohr, and R. R. Souza. Continuous time finite state mean field games.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 68(1):99–143, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Hadikhanloo and F

    S. Hadikhanloo and F. J. Silva. Finite mean field games: fictitious play and convergence to a first order continuous mean field game.Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 132:369–397, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Han and W

    J. Han and W. E. Deep learning approximation for stochastic control problems. InDeep Reinforcement Learning Workshop, NIPS, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Han and R

    J. Han and R. Hu. Deep fictitious play for finding Markovian Nash equilibrium in multi-agent games. In Mathematical and scientific machine learning, pages 221–245, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    J. Han, A. Jentzen, and W. E. Solving high-dimensional partial differential equations using deep learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(34):8505–8510, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    X. Han, R. Wang, and X. Y. Zhou. Choquet regularization for continuous-time reinforcement learning. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 61(5):2777–2801, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Höfer and H

    F. Höfer and H. M. Soner. Synchronization games.Mathematics of Operations Research, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Höfer, H

    F. Höfer, H. M. Soner, and A. Yılmaz. Markov perfect equilibria in discrete finite-player and mean-field games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04540, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    R. Hu. Deep fictitious play for stochastic differential games.Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 19(2):325–353, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Hu and M

    R. Hu and M. Laurière. Recent developments in machine learning methods for stochastic control and games. Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization, 14(3):435–525, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    M. Hua, M. Lauriere, and E. Vanden-Eijnden. An efficient on-policy deep learning framework for stochastic optimal control. InFrontiers in Probabilistic Inference: Learning meets Sampling (ICLR workshop), 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Huang, C

    M. Huang, C. PE, and R. Malhamé. Individual and mass behaviour in large population stochastic wireless power control problems: Centralized and Nash equilibrium solutions. In 42nd IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control, volume 1, pages 98–103, 2003

    2003

  25. [33]

    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.Communications in Information & Systems, 6(3):221–252, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Huang, P

    M. Huang, P. E. Caines, and R. P. Malhamé. Large-population cost-coupled LQG problems with nonuniform agents: Individual-mass behavior and decentralizedε-Nash equilibria.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 52:1560–1571, 2007. ISSN 1558-2523

    2007

  27. [35]

    Huang, P

    M. Huang, P. E. Caines, and R. P. Malhamé. An invariance principle in large population stochastic dynamic games. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 20(2):162–172, 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    Isaacs.Differential games: a mathematical theory with applications to warfare and pursuit, control and optimization

    R. Isaacs.Differential games: a mathematical theory with applications to warfare and pursuit, control and optimization. Courier Corporation, 1999

    1999

  29. [37]

    V. N. Kolokoltsov and A. Bensoussan. Mean-field-game model for botnet defense in cyber-security. Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 74(3):669–692, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Lasry and P.-L

    J.-M. Lasry and P.-L. Lions. Jeux à champ moyen. I – Le cas stationnaire. Comptes Rendus Mathematique, 343(9):619–625, 2006. 27 Iterative Schemes for MPEs Höfer, Laurière, Soner & Yan

    2006

  31. [39]

    Lasry and P.-L

    J.-M. Lasry and P.-L. Lions. Jeux à champ moyen. II – Horizon fini et contrôle optimal.Comptes Rendus Mathematique, 343(10):679–684, 2006

    2006

  32. [40]

    Lasry and P.-L

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

    2007

  33. [41]

    Lauriere

    M. Lauriere. Numerical methods for mean field games and mean field type control.arXiv:2106.06231, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    D. S. Leslie and E. J. Collins. Generalised weakened fictitious play.Games and Economic Behavior, 56(2):285–298, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Perrin, J

    S. Perrin, J. Pérolat, M. Laurière, M. Geist, R. Elie, and O. Pietquin. Fictitious play for mean field games: Continuous time analysis and applications.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:13199–13213, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    A. M. Reppen and H. M. Soner. Deep empirical risk minimization in finance: Looking into the future. Mathematical Finance, 33(1):116–145, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    A. M. Reppen, H. M. Soner, and V. Tissot-Daguette. Deep stochastic optimization in finance.Digital Finance, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    A. M. Reppen, H. M. Soner, and V. Tissot-Daguette. Neural optimal stopping boundary.Mathematical Finance, 35(2):441–469, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    M. O. Sayin, F. Parise, and A. Ozdaglar. Fictitious play in zero-sum stochastic games.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 60(4):2095–2114, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    H. M. Soner, J. Teichmann, and Q. Yan. Learning algorithms for mean field optimal control. arXiv:2503.17869, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Wang and X

    H. Wang and X. Y. Zhou. Continuous-time mean–variance portfolio selection: A reinforcement learning framework. Mathematical Finance, 30(4):1273–1308, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    H. Wang, T. Zariphopoulou, and X. Y. Zhou. Reinforcement learning in continuous time and space: A stochastic control approach.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(198):1–34, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Yong.Differential games: a concise introduction

    J. Yong.Differential games: a concise introduction. World scientific, 2014. 28

    2014

Pith tools

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