Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

A new probabilistic approach for mean field games of optimal stopping

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mean-field optimal stopping equilibria in randomized strategies coincide exactly with solutions of a new coupled reflected forward-backward McKean–Vlasov system.

desk verdict A substantial, mostly rigorous new FBSDE characterization of randomized-optimal-stopping MFGs; the KFG-based existence is solid, but the Tarski extremal/learning track leans on an unverified structural monotonicity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21062 v1 pith:KH5V7SUA submitted 2026-07-23 math.PR

Andrea Cosso , Laura D'Andolfi , Roxana Dumitrescu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR MSC 91A1660G4060H10
keywords meanfieldgamesoptimalstoppingrandomizedstrategiesMcKean–VlasovequationsreflectedbackwardSDEssurvivalprocessesNashequilibriumobstacleproblems
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 a complete probabilistic characterization of mean field games of optimal stopping when players may randomize their stopping times. It proves that an equilibrium is the same thing as a quintuple (X,Y,Z,A,L) solving a coupled system in which the state process, a reflected backward value process, and a survival process L are determined together. Two new optimality conditions—the value must meet the stopping payoff only where L can place mass, and no stopping mass may appear once reflection has begun—turn strategic optimality into equations. Existence is obtained under two complementary sets of assumptions, and the system yields approximate Nash equilibria for large finite-player games and connects to an obstacle-problem PDE formulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coupled MKV-RFBSDE system: a forward-backward system in which the randomized stopping strategy L is solved for as part of the unknown, rather than recovered from an external flow of measures. The two integral conditions on L—that the measure −dL be supported on the contact set of the value with the obstacle and on the flat set of the reflection process—are the mechanism that makes a candidate survival process an optimal response.

What would settle it

In a one-dimensional Markovian example with Brownian state, f=0, and h(t,x)=x, compute the reflected BSDE candidate and the survival process L; the equivalence predicts that the support of −dL is contained in {Y=ξ}∩{A=0}, so any positive stopping mass outside that set would refute the characterization. Alternatively, produce L≤L′ satisfying the standing assumptions for which the gap Y−h is not ordered, which would falsify the monotonicity assumption behind the Tarski route.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that randomized-strategy equilibria of optimal-stopping mean field games are not a separate fixed-point object: they are exactly the L-component of a solution to a coupled reflected forward-backward McKean–Vlasov system. In the system, L is an adapted, non-increasing survival process taking values in [0,1], the state X evolves with coefficients averaged against the surviving population, and the reflected backward component (Y,Z,A) solves an RBSDE with obstacle built from L. Optimality is encoded by two contact conditions: the measure −dL can charge only times where Y equals the obstacle, and only times where the reflection process A has not yet increased. The paper p

Load-bearing premise

The most fragile premise is the order-preservation assumption that whenever one survival process stays below another, the gap between the continuation value and the stopping payoff is pointwise ordered in the same direction; the Tarski-based existence of extremal equilibria and the learning algorithms collapse if this monotonicity fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Randomized mean-field equilibria exist under the paper's assumptions, so pure-strategy non-existence is circumvented by allowing survival processes.
  • Any solution of the coupled system is automatically an equilibrium, and any equilibrium produces a solution of the system; the game and the system are the same problem.
  • Under monotonicity assumptions there are minimal and maximal equilibria, ordered by survival probability, with iterative learning schemes that converge to them.
  • A mean-field equilibrium induces an ε-Nash equilibrium for the N-player stopping game, with the approximation error vanishing as N grows.
  • The probabilistic system is equivalent to a constrained obstacle-problem PDE system, providing an analytic route to the same equilibria.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the optimality conditions are stated purely through contact sets of Y and A, the same two-condition test could serve as a Snell-envelope-style criterion for randomized stopping in single-agent problems.
  • The fixed point lives directly on survival processes, which suggests a natural numerical loop—solve the RBSDE for a given L, update L by the contact sets, iterate—that the order-theoretic route shows converges to extremal equilibria in monotone settings.
  • The non-Markovian extension noted in the paper indicates the two contact conditions are filtration-relative, so the characterization may persist with common noise or partial information.
  • The finite-player approximation is stated for i.i.d. copies of the equilibrium strategy; a natural continuation is to quantify deviations under dependent initial data or common noise.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a probabilistic formulation of mean-field games of optimal stopping (OS-MFGs) with randomized stopping strategies, based on a coupled reflected forward-backward McKean–Vlasov system (2.2)-(2.5). The equilibrium object is a quintuple (X, Y, Z, A, L), where L is a [0,1]-valued, non-increasing càdlàg process representing the survival/randomized stopping strategy. The two Skorokhod-type conditions involving (Y−ξ) and A are proposed as optimality conditions for randomized stopping, and are claimed to be new even in the classical single-agent setting. The main results are: (i) existence of solutions to the MKV-RFBSDE system by a Kakutani–Fan–Glicksberg fixed-point argument (Theorem 2.14), under Assumptions 1–3; (ii) uniqueness under a Lasry–Lions monotonicity assumption (Theorem 2.16); (iii) an equivalence theorem between solutions of the system and OS-MFG equilibria in randomized strategies (Theorem 5.2); (iv) an alternative existence proof of extremal solutions and learning algorithms via Tarski’s fixed-point theorem under Assumptions 5–6 (Theorems 4.9–4.10); (v) an approximate Nash equilibrium result for N-player games (Theorem 6.6); and (vi) a connection with the PDE/obstacle-problem approach of Bertucci (Theorem 7.1). The paper is carefully written and contains many nontrivial auxiliary results on continuity, compactness, and monotonicity of the maps involved.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial contribution to the theory of OS-MFGs with randomized strategies. The KFG-based existence theorem and the equilibrium equivalence are coherent and are established without fitted parameters or self-citation loops; the two Skorokhod conditions are a genuine novelty. The approximate Nash theorem and the PDE bridge further increase the paper’s utility. However, the order-theoretic branch is conditional on Assumption 6(iii), a non-primitive monotonicity condition on the solution map Γ1, and the PDE section contains a subtle inconsistency at time zero. These issues do not invalidate the core KFG existence argument, but they do require substantial additional work or careful repositioning before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Assumption 6(iii) and Lemma 4.7(ii)] The Tarski-based results (Theorems 4.9 and 4.10) depend on monotonicity of the best-response selection R. Lemma 4.7(ii) proves monotonicity of R(S) using Assumption 6(iii), which postulates that L ≤_V L' implies pointwise ordering of the gaps Y−ξ and Y'−ξ'. This is not a condition on the primitives b, σ, f, h, φ; it is a structural assumption on the solution map Γ1, and it is essentially the kind of final monotonicity that the Tarski construction is meant to produce. Remark 4.1 only gives a scalar example, and Assumption 8 provides sufficient conditions for Assumption 7 (τmin = τmax), not for Assumption 6(iii). If Assumption 6(iii) fails, R need not be monotone, Tarski’s theorem cannot be applied, and the extremal-solution and learning-algorithm results collapse. The paper should either prove Assumption 6(iii) from primitive conditions in a meaningful class, or explicitly reposition the
  2. [Section 7, definition of m_t and Theorem 7.1] The measure flow is defined as m_t(B) = E[1_B(X_t)L_t] for t ∈ (0,T], but m_0 is set to μ0 = Law(X0). Since V only requires L_{0−}=1 and does not require L_0=1, a solution may have L_0 < 1, corresponding to stopping mass at time 0. In that case the flow m_t just after zero has total mass E[L_0] < 1, while the PDE initial condition m_0 = μ0 has total mass 1. The Fokker–Planck inequality in Theorem 7.1(ii) is derived by integrating from 0− and using L_{0−}=1, so it does not correspond to the stated initial condition. A rigorous connection with [5] needs either m_0 = E[δ_{X_0}L_0] or an explicit jump/source term at t=0. As written, the claimed PDE bridge is not fully justified.
  3. [Theorem 4.10, Step 3] The passage to the limit in the Skorokhod integrals is not fully justified. In the last displayed estimate of Step 3, the term ∫(Ỹ_t − ξ̃_t)d(L^n_t − L̃_t) is said to be handled by the same technique as in Proposition 2.13. But Lemma 2.12 is only proved for Itô-type integrands with bounded coefficients, and Ỹ − ξ̃ is not shown to be such a process: ξ̃_t = h(t, X̃_t, E∫φ(t−s)dL̃_s) with h merely continuous. Additional regularity or a direct argument is needed to conclude that this term vanishes. Since Theorem 4.10 is the main convergence result for the learning schemes, this gap should be closed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] There are several typographical glitches in section headings, e.g., 'W ell-posedness' and 'T echnical results'.
  2. [Lemma 6.5] Lemma 6.5 is proved by saying it follows along the same lines as Lemma 6.3. While plausible, the deviation introduces an asymmetric term for player 1; a few more details would improve verifiability.
  3. [Theorem 2.16] The proof references Definition 5.1 and Theorem 5.2, which appear later in the paper. The reader is forced to jump ahead; consider stating the needed inequality from the equilibrium definition or moving the uniqueness result after Section 5.
  4. [Remark 4.3 / Assumption 8] Assumption 8 is introduced inside Remark 4.3, but Theorem 7.1 refers to 'Assumptions 8.a, 8.b and 8.c'. It would be cleaner to state Assumption 8 as a formal assumption outside a remark.
  5. [Section 7] The assumptions on h are inconsistent: Theorem 7.1 assumes h ∈ W^{1,2}([0,T]×R^d), while Assumption 8.b assumes h ∈ C^{1,2}. The Itô-formula arguments require C^{1,2}-type regularity; the Sobolev regularity should be either reconciled or justified.
  6. [Theorem 4.10, Step 1] The pointwise supremum L = sup_n L^n of càdlàg non-increasing processes is not automatically càdlàg. The right-continuous modification should be taken explicitly; the H^2 convergence statement needs a short justification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central KFG existence and equilibrium equivalence are self-contained; Assumption 6(iii) is an explicit structural hypothesis, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 2.14 constructs the best-response correspondence Γ from the RBSDE solution map and proves non-emptiness, convexity and graph closedness using standard RBSDE stability results (El Karoui et al., external) and self-contained weak-compactness arguments; the Kakutani-Fan-Glicksberg fixed point then yields a solution of (2.2)-(2.5). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation is used: the many self-citations occur in the literature review or as technical pointers, not as the justification of the existence or equivalence theorems. Theorem 5.2 reduces to Theorem 3.3, which proves that the two Skorokhod conditions are equivalent to optimality in the randomized-stopping problem; this is a genuine equivalence proved from the RBSDE representation, not an identity by construction. The uniqueness result (Theorem 2.16) invokes Theorem 5.2 as a forward reference, but Theorem 5.2 itself does not depend on Theorem 2.16, so there is no circular dependency. The Tarski branch relies on Assumption 6(iii), which postulates the monotonicity of the gap Y−ξ in L; this is an explicit, non-primitive structural hypothesis rather than a derived conclusion, and the paper does not present it as a prediction from the model. That is a fragility or correctness risk, not circularity under the standards here. Overall the central existence and equivalence results stand on independent arguments, and the order-theoretic results are conditional on a clearly stated assumption.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters and no new physical entities. The survival process L is a standard representation of randomized stopping strategies; the MKV-RFBSDE system is a new equation class, not an entity. The main burden is carried by domain assumptions on coefficients and by the strong structural assumptions (6(iii), 7) used for the order-theoretic results.

assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: global Lipschitz/linear growth of b, σ, ¯b, ¯σ
    Used throughout for well-posedness of the forward McKean-Vlasov SDE and stability estimates.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: Lipschitz/polynomial growth of f, h, ¯f; h continuous; ϕ ∈ C^1
    Needed for existence and uniqueness of the reflected BSDE (2.6) for each L.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: C^{1,2} regularity and polynomial growth of interaction functions ¯b, ¯σ, ¯f
    Used in the bounded-variation and continuity results (Lemmas 2.8, 2.9) that underpin the closed-graph argument.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4(ii): Lasry-Lions-type monotonicity with equality-iff-L=L' condition
    This is the specific monotonicity condition that drives the uniqueness proof in Theorem 2.16; the equality-iff clause is strong and tailored.
  • domain assumption Assumption 6(i)-(ii): non-negativity and componentwise monotonicity of ¯b, ¯f, b, f, h, and ϕ'
    These ensure the comparison/monotonicity results needed for the Tarski approach.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 6(iii): monotonicity of the gap Y-ξ with respect to L
    This is a hypothesis on the solution map Γ1 rather than on primitives; it is essentially the monotonicity that the Tarski argument needs, and only a scalar example is supplied in Remark 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 7: τmin = τmax for each L
    Used to prove uniqueness of the best response and the complete-lattice property; Remark 4.3 gives sufficient conditions, but the assumption itself is restrictive.
  • domain assumption Assumption 9: local Lipschitz growth of f and h for the N-player approximation
    Needed for the quantitative estimates in Theorem 6.6.
  • standard math Standard results: RBSDE existence/uniqueness, KFG fixed-point theorem, Tarski fixed-point theorem, Helly/Arzelà-Ascoli
    The paper relies on these as black-box background results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new probabilistic approach for mean field games of optimal stopping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KH5V7SUA

@misc{pith2026260721062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new probabilistic approach for mean field games of optimal stopping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KH5V7SUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21062}
}
abstract

We propose a novel probabilistic formulation for optimal stopping mean field games (OS-MFGs) with randomized strategies. We characterize mean field equilibria through a new class of coupled forward-backward systems, termed coupled reflected forward-backward McKean--Vlasov stochastic differential equations (MKV-RFBSDEs). An equilibrium is represented by a quintuple $(X,Y,Z,A,L)$, where $L$ is an adapted, $[0,1]$-valued, non-increasing c\`adl\`ag process representing the randomized stopping strategy. The optimality of randomized stopping strategies is characterized through two novel Skorokhod-type conditions involving $L$. This characterization is new even for classical optimal stopping problems without mean field interactions. We rigorously prove an equivalence between solutions of the MKV-RFBSDE system and OS-MFG equilibria in randomized strategies. We establish the existence of equilibria by applying the Kakutani--Fan--Glicksberg fixed-point theorem to a set-valued best-response correspondence, relying on new stability, compactness, and continuity results for the coupled MKV-RFBSDE system. We also prove uniqueness under suitable conditions. Under alternative monotonicity assumptions, we develop a new order-theoretic approach based on Tarski's fixed-point theorem, yielding the existence of extremal equilibria and constructive schemes for the minimal and maximal solutions. We further show that a mean field equilibrium induces an approximate Nash equilibrium for the associated $N$-player stopping game. Finally, we connect our probabilistic formulation with the analytical approach characterized by a coupled system of constrained partial differential equations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [5]

    Bertucci

    C. Bertucci. Optimal stopping in mean field games, an obstacle problem approach.Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 120:165–194, 2018

    2018

  2. [1]

    Acciaio, J

    B. Acciaio, J. Backhoff-Veraguas, and R. Carmona. Extended mean field control problems: stochastic maximum principle and transport perspective.SIAM journal on Control and Opti- mization, 57(6):3666–3693, 2019

    2019

  3. [2]

    C. D. Aliprantis and K. C. Border.Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker’s Guide. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 3 edition, 2006

    2006

  4. [3]

    Basei and H

    M. Basei and H. Pham. Linear-quadratic McKean-Vlasov stochastic control problems with random coefficients on finite and infinite horizon, and applications.Preprint arXiv:1711.09390, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  5. [4]

    Bensoussan, J

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

    2013

  6. [6]

    J.-M. Bismut. Temps d’arrˆ et optimal, quasi-temps d’arrˆ et et retournement du temps.The Annals of Probability, pages 933–964, 1979

    1979

  7. [7]

    Bouveret, R

    G. Bouveret, R. Dumitrescu, and P. Tankov. Mean-field games of optimal stopping: a relaxed solution approach.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 58(4):1795–1821, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Br´ ezis.Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations, volume 2

    H. Br´ ezis.Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations, volume 2. Springer, 2011

    2011

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Cardaliaguet

    P. Cardaliaguet. Notes on mean field games. Technical report, 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    Cardaliaguet, J

    P. Cardaliaguet, J. Jackson, and P. E. Souganidis. Mean field control with stopping.Preprint arXiv:2603.21204, 2026

    2026

  3. [11]

    Carmona and F

    R. Carmona and F. Delarue. Probabilistic analysis of mean-field games.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 51(4):2705–2734, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    Carmona and F

    R. Carmona and F. Delarue.Probabilistic theory of mean field games with applications. I, volume 83. Springer, Cham, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Carmona and F

    R. Carmona and F. Delarue.Probabilistic theory of mean field games with applications. II, volume 84. Springer, Cham, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Carmona, F

    R. Carmona, F. Delarue, and A. Lachapelle. Control of mckean–vlasov dynamics versus mean field games.Mathematics and Financial Economics, 7(2):131–166, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Carmona, F

    R. Carmona, F. Delarue, and D. Lacker. Mean field games with common noise. 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Carmona, F

    R. Carmona, F. Delarue, and D. Lacker. Mean field games of timing and models for bank runs. Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 76(1):217–260, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Cosso and L

    A. Cosso and L. Perelli. Mean field optimal stopping with uncontrolled state.Preprint arXiv:2503.04269, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    B. A. Davey and H. A. Priestley.Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge university press, 2002. 39

    2002

  11. [19]

    Dianetti, R

    J. Dianetti, R. Dumitrescu, G. Ferrari, and R. Xu. Entropy regularization in mean-field games of optimal stopping.Preprint arXiv:2509.18821, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Dianetti, G

    J. Dianetti, G. Ferrari, M. Fischer, and M. Nendel. A unifying framework for submodular mean field games.Mathematics of Operations Research, 48(3):1679–1710, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Djehiche and R

    B. Djehiche and R. Dumitrescu. Zero-sum mean-field dynkin games: characterization and convergence.Mathematics of Operations Research, 51(2):1385–1412, 2026

    2026

  14. [22]

    Djehiche, R

    B. Djehiche, R. Elie, and S. Hamad` ene. Mean-field reflected backward stochastic differential equations.Preprint arXiv:1911.06079, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A propagation of chaos result for weakly interacting nonlinear snell envelopes.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 188:104669, 2025

    Boualem Djehiche, Roxana Dumitrescu, and Jia Zeng. A propagation of chaos result for weakly interacting nonlinear snell envelopes.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 188:104669, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Dumitrescu, M

    R. Dumitrescu, M. Leutscher, and P. Tankov. Control and optimal stopping mean field games: a linear programming approach.Electronic Journal of Probability, 26:1–49, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Dumitrescu, M

    R. Dumitrescu, M. Leutscher, and P. Tankov. Linear programming fictitious play algorithm for mean field games with optimal stopping and absorption.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 57(2):953–990, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    B. Dupire. Functional Itˆ o calculus.Quant. Finance, 19(5):721–729, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    El Karoui

    N. El Karoui. Les aspects probabilistes du contrˆ ole stochastique. In ´Ecole d’´ et´ e de Probabilit´ es de Saint-Flour IX-1979, pages 73–238. Springer, 2006

    1979

  20. [28]

    El Karoui, C

    N. El Karoui, C. Kapoudjian, E. Pardoux, S. Peng, and M. C. Quenez. Reflected solutions of backward SDE’s, and related obstacle problems for PDE’s.Ann. Probab., 25(2):702–737, 1997

    1997

  21. [29]

    El Karoui, J.-P

    N. El Karoui, J.-P. Lepeltier, and A. Millet. A probabilistic approach to the reduite in optimal stopping.Probab. Math. Statist, 13(1):97–121, 1992

    1992

  22. [30]

    S. N. Ethier and T. G. Kurtz.Markov processes. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1986

    1986

  23. [31]

    Ferrari and A

    G. Ferrari and A. Pajola. Existence of strong randomized equilibria in mean-field games of optimal stopping with common noise.Preprint arXiv:2507.19123, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    P. J. Graber. Linear quadratic mean field type control and mean field games with common noise, with application to production of an exhaustible resource.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 74(3):459–486, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Continuous-time mean field games: a primal-dual characterization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01042, 2025

    Xin Guo, Anran Hu, Jiacheng Zhang, and Yufei Zhang. Continuous-time mean field games: a primal-dual characterization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01042, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Mf-omo: An optimization formulation of mean-field games.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 62(1):243–270, 2024

    Xin Guo, Anran Hu, and Junzi Zhang. Mf-omo: An optimization formulation of mean-field games.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 62(1):243–270, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    X. He, X. Tan, and J. Zou. A mean-field version of bank–el karoui’s representation of stochastic processes.The Annals of Applied Probability, 35(5):3334–3377, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Huang, R

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

    2006

  29. [37]

    S. D. Jacka. Local times, optimal stopping and semimartingales.Ann. Probab., 21(1):329–339, 1993

    1993

  30. [38]

    Y. M. Kabanov. Hedging and liquidation under transaction costs in currency markets.Finance and Stochastics, 3(2):237–248, 1999

    1999

  31. [39]

    Kallenberg.Foundations of modern probability

    O. Kallenberg.Foundations of modern probability. Springer, 3 edition, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Karatzas and S

    I. Karatzas and S. Shreve.Brownian motion and stochastic calculus. springer, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    D. Lacker. A general characterization of the mean field limit for stochastic differential games. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 165(3):581–648, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Mean field games via controlled martingale problems: existence of markovian equilibria.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 125(7):2856–2894, 2015

    Daniel Lacker. Mean field games via controlled martingale problems: existence of markovian equilibria.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 125(7):2856–2894, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    Lasry and P.-L

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

    2007

  36. [44]

    P.-L. Lions. Th´ eorie des jeux de champ moyen et applications.Cours du College de France. http://www. college-de-france. fr/default/EN/all/equ der/audio video. jsp, 2007

    2007

  37. [45]

    H. P. McKean. A class of markov processes associated with nonlinear parabolic equations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 56(6):1907–1911, 1966. 40

    1907

  38. [46]

    P.-A. Meyer. Convergence faible et compacit´ e des temps d’arrˆ et d’apres Baxter et Chacon. In S´ eminaire de Probabilit´ es XII: Universit´ e de Strasbourg 1976/77, pages 411–423. Springer, 2006

    1976

  39. [47]

    Nualart.The Malliavin calculus and related topics

    D. Nualart.The Malliavin calculus and related topics. Springer, 2006

    2006

  40. [48]

    M. Nutz. A mean field game of optimal stopping.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 56(2):1206–1221, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Peng and M

    S. Peng and M. Xu. The smallestg-supermartingale and reflected bsde with single and double l2 obstacles. InAnnales de l’IHP Probabilit´ es et statistiques, volume 41, pages 605–630, 2005

    2005

  42. [50]

    Possama ¨ ı and M

    D. Possama ¨ ı and M. Talbi. Mean-field games of optimal stopping: master equation and weak equilibria.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 92(3):1–32, 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    Revuz and M

    D. Revuz and M. Yor.Continuous martingales and Brownian motion. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  44. [52]

    Talbi, N

    M. Talbi, N. Touzi, and J. Zhang. Dynamic programming equation for the mean field optimal stopping problem.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 61(4):2140–2164, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    A. Tarski. A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications.Pacific Journal of Math- ematics, 5(2):285–309, 1955

    1955

  46. [54]

    Touzi and N

    N. Touzi and N. Vieille. Continuous-time dynkin games with mixed strategies.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 41(4):1073–1088, 2002. 41

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.