Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Existence and computation of monomial families of near-optimal strategies for recursive games

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For rational recursive games with a fixed number of states, one finite monomial formula encodes ε-optimal strategies for all sufficiently small ε, and a deterministic polynomial-time algorithm computing it exists.

desk verdict Solid elementary existence proof; the claimed polynomial-time algorithm is real but leans on one unverified algebraic-geometry lemma (4.12) that a referee must check. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08017 v1 pith:PHOGDUO5 submitted 2026-08-08 cs.GT cs.SCmath.OC

Peter Bro Miltersen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.SCmath.OC MSC 91A1591A6868W30
keywords recursivegamesstochasticmonomialstrategyfamiliesexactsymbolicalgorithmsrealunivariaterepresentationsPuiseuxseries
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 sets out to show that the regular pattern behind near-optimal play in finite recursive games is not only true but explicitly computable. Its first contribution is an elementary existence proof: every finite recursive game admits, for each player and all sufficiently small accuracies $\varepsilon>0$, a single stationary monomial family — a finite object in which, at each state, all but one action probability are constants times integer powers of $\varepsilon$ and which therefore specifies an $\varepsilon$-optimal strategy for every small $\varepsilon$ at once. Its second contribution is an algorithm: for rational games with a fixed number $N$ of active states, a deterministic procedure computes such a family exactly, returning all algebraic coefficients in one ordered common real univariate representation, in time and output length at most $L^{(N+1)^{O(N)}}$ for input length $L$. If the algorithmic claim is correct, it settles a question left open in the doctoral thesis that contained the earlier, partly flawed proof of the existence result, and it replaces that proof's semialgebraic machinery with finite Markov-chain and polyhedral arguments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the monomial family: a stationary strategy in which, at every state, all but one action probability are of the form $c\varepsilon^d$ with $c\ge 0$ and integer $d\ge 0$, while one distinguished action takes the remaining probability, so a finite list of coefficients and exponents defines a legal strategy for every sufficiently small accuracy $\varepsilon$. Two mechanisms carry the argument. The first is the directed-forest quotient formula: once the support of a strategy sequence is fixed, every absorption probability against a fixed pure reply is a quotient of two polynomials whose expanded terms are nonnegative monomials in the action probabilities and which share one positive denominator; the paper proves the formula by direct determinant expansion, which also exposes the exact numerators and signs needed later. The second is the finite monomial-ratio compression lemma: it replaces finitely many competing asymptotic scales by one integer exponent vector and, crucially, reproduces the limiting values of all finite positive term ratios exactly — not merely their orders — which matters because terminal rewards may be signed. Around these, the algorithmic proof builds a recursive state reduction in which all exact data live on one selected irreducible real plane-curve branch over an ordered algebraic number field; after each state removal the branch is reconstructed by interpolation from finitely many matched fibers at dyadic parameter values, and the final algebraic coefficients are packaged in one ordered common real univariate representation, which records the joint conjugate pairing of all coefficients.

What would settle it

Run the algorithm on a rational recursive game with two or three active states, then compare the recovered carrier branch at the dyadic sample points against an independent high-precision numerical continuation of the value curves; any divergence inside the certified $\varepsilon_0$-interval would falsify the reconstruction claim. A more targeted test looks for an ordered algebraic field and a discounted matrix family in which the same covering determinant recurs along a sequence of discounts tending to zero, its derivative along the value coordinate vanishes at the limit point, and yet the value still changes — exactly the configuration that would break Lemma 4.12's coverage of coordinate candidates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a complete, exact description of the near-optimal strategy asymptotics of recursive games. The existence claim is that the value vector can be approached through the Player-I one-sided region by stationary strategies whose supports are eventually fixed, and that with supports fixed every absorption probability against any pure stationary reply is a quotient of directed-forest polynomials with nonnegative coefficients and a common positive denominator. A polyhedral compression lemma then shows that the finitely many asymptotic scales of these forest monomials can be collapsed into a single integer weight vector without changing any limiting ratio, so a monomial curve in the accuracy parameter produces strategies that are $\varepsilon$-optimal from every state for all sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ — this re-proves the existence theorem with elementary means and gives an explicit bound on the exponents. The algorithmic claim is that, for rational games with a fixed number $N$ of active states, a deterministic algorithm computes such a family for both players: it removes states one at a time while preserving all strict inequalities, represents the evolving value data as rational functions on one selected real plane-curve branch over an ordered number field, recovers that branch at each level by matched-fiber interpolation from exactly computed dyadic values, extracts the leading rational-exponent terms of the stable local strategies, and certifies the result with an exact two-sided sign check. The output is one ordered common real univariate representation of all coefficients plus a positive dyadic endpoint $\varepsilon_0$, with running time and output length at most $L^{(N+1)^{O(N)}}$.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that removing one state at a time keeps the exact value data on one single irreducible real algebraic curve branch over an ordered number field, and that this branch is always recoverable from finitely many exactly computed sample points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The open question of whether monomial families can be computed exactly in polynomial time for each fixed number of active states is answered affirmatively, with explicit bounds on degree, height, exponent size, and running time.
  • The earlier existence theorem is re-proved without semialgebraic selection or rational-exponent series, replacing them with finite Markov-chain and polyhedral arguments, and an explicit bound on the monomial exponents is obtained.
  • The output object is verifiable: an exact two-sided symbolic certificate decides, from the game and the two formulas, whether the families are $\varepsilon$-optimal on a stated interval, so the computed families can be checked independently.
  • For every rational game with a fixed number of states, the same symbolic object gives a single strategy for all sufficiently small accuracies, so no separate strategy needs to be recomputed per $\varepsilon$.
  • If the complexity bound is sound, it gives a concrete, uniform guarantee: doubling the input length never costs more than a fixed state-dependent polynomial in the input length, even though the algebraic coefficients may live in large number fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the finite monomial-ratio compression lemma should transfer to any parametrized finite Markov decision problem whose payoffs are quotients of positive polynomials, such as concurrent reachability games, giving leading-term approximations without semialgebraic machinery.
  • Beyond the paper, the matched-fiber carrier-reconstruction template — certify one selected irreducible curve by interpolation at exactly evaluated dyadic fibers — suggests a general recipe for exact parametric value computation in games, with the state count appearing only in the exponent.
  • Beyond the paper, the exact two-sided certificate from the paper can be reused as a standalone verifier: run any approximate solver on a rational game, plug its output into the sign-polynomial check, and get a certified dyadic interval or a rejection.
  • Beyond the paper, a natural next question is the tightness of $L^{(N+1)^{O(N)}}$: whether the fixed-state exponent must grow doubly exponentially in $N$, or whether the algebraic coefficients can be kept in fields of degree exponential rather than doubly exponential in $N$.
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 has two parts. Section 3 gives an elementary proof of the Frederiksen–Miltersen regularity theorem: every finite recursive game has, for each player, a stationary monomial family that is ε-optimal from all states for all sufficiently small ε>0. The proof starts from a sequence of points in Everett's region C1 converging to the value, expresses absorption probabilities of pure stationary replies as quotients of directed-forest polynomials, and uses a polyhedral compression lemma to replace the finitely many asymptotic scales by one monomial parameter. Section 4 presents a deterministic exact algorithm for rational games with a fixed number N of active states that computes such a monomial family, with all algebraic coefficients in one ordered common real-univariate representation, and claims running time and output length at most L^{(N+1)^{O(N)}}. The algorithm maintains the represented data on one selected real plane-curve branch over an ordered algebraic number field, reconstructs the carrier from matched fibers, and extracts stable local strategies via Newton–Puiseux expansions.

Significance. The elementary proof in Section 3 is a genuine contribution and, if correct, repairs the earlier flawed Frederiksen–Miltersen proof while avoiding semialgebraic selection and Puiseux series. The algorithmic result, if correct, answers an open question from Frederiksen's thesis and gives the first exact polynomial-time-in-L algorithm (for fixed N) for monomial families. The paper is explicit about degree and height bookkeeping and states deterministic complexity bounds, which is a strength. No code is shipped, but the algorithm is described in enough detail that the claimed size recurrences can in principle be audited. However, the algorithmic proof rests on several imported exact-algebraic results whose hypotheses are not always stated; at least one of these dependencies is load-bearing and needs to be resolved before the algorithmic claim can be regarded as established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.5, Lemma 4.12] The recursive invariant of Theorem 4.2 is sound only if Lemma 4.12(i) holds: at every point of the inherited branch, at least one raw Shapley–Snow coordinate candidate has positive degree in the value coordinate and vanishes at the selected coordinate. The proof of (i) imports a 'recurring-kernel' derivative claim from Attia and Oliu-Barton [4, Proposition 5.3.1], but the manuscript does not state the hypotheses of that proposition, nor does it show that the auxiliary matrices W_k^lambda(a) satisfy them after clearing denominators over an arbitrary ordered algebraic number field K. In particular, the argument requires that the cofactor sum in the Shapley–Snow formula be nonzero at each lambda_n and at the limit point, that the coefficient of the queried value have entries of one strict sign in the ordered field, and that the first nonzero lambda-coefficient P_{K,nu0}(a) after specialization be a nonzero polynomial of positive degree in a. If any of these fails, the candidate family may not pin down the correct branch, the matched-fiber reconstruction in Lemma 4.3 could select a wrong component, and the nested reduction in Theorem 4.2 would break. This is the central unverified hinge of the algorithmic part. I ask the authors to give a self-contained proof of the recurring-kernel property for ordered algebraic fields, or to state the imported proposition in full and verify its hypotheses explicitly.
  2. [Section 4.3, Lemma 4.4 and Proposition 4.6] The exact-value computation at every recursive level relies on Lemma 4.4's transfer of the Oliu-Barton limiting-sign argument to an ordered algebraic field. As written, the proof asserts that the sign of val W_k^lambda(a) is constant on (0, lambda*] using only the Shapley–Snow determinant cover and exclusion of roots of field norms, but it does not fully justify two steps: it does not establish that the kernel formula's denominator (the cofactor sum) remains nonzero on the interval, and it does not spell out how degenerate cases are handled when the selected kernel's numerator is identically zero but another kernel determines the value. Since Proposition 4.6 invokes this lemma at every fiber of the recursive construction, the proof should either be completed within the paper or reduced line-by-line to the cited proposition with an explicit statement of the hypotheses being verified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sections 2 and 3.4] The cross-references to 'theorem 3.1' actually point to Lemma 3.1 (the pure stationary reply lemma); the numbering or labels should be corrected throughout.
  2. [Section 1.1, Eq. (2)] The dual region C2 is described in words but never displayed; displaying its explicit definition would help the reader check the symmetric arguments.
  3. [Section 4.2, Lemma 4.3] The bound in (17) uses m, the number of ambient coordinate differences, but m is not defined before the statement of the lemma; it is only introduced inside the proof.
  4. [Section 4.4, Eq. (18)] The notation D_{r+1} for the strict gap conflicts with the forest denominator D_beta used in Section 3; renaming the gap (for example, Delta_{r+1}) would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: Section 3 gives an independent elementary existence proof, and Section 4 imports exact-algebraic tools whose assumptions do not include the target monomial-family conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Section 3 proves Theorem 1.2 from Everett's classical one-sided-region theorems, a one-pure-reply lemma proved by discounted-MDP optimality, a direct determinant/forest formula, and an elementary compression lemma; none of these inputs defines a monomial family in terms of a monomial family. Section 4's algorithm is built from external exact-algebraic ingredients—ordered-field linear programming [2], Oliu-Barton's exact stochastic-game value algorithm [21], the Shapley–Snow kernel analysis of Attia and Oliu-Barton [4], Chistov's Newton–Puiseux and factorization algorithms [8], and standard number-field routines—whose stated assumptions do not include the outcome of Theorem 4.2. The only self-referential material is Section 2's review and repair of the author's own earlier proof [12,13], together with the use of Hansen et al. [14] for exact values and gap estimates; [14] proves a different statement (exact values and ε-optimal strategies for fixed accuracy), not the uniform monomial-family conclusion, so it is independent support rather than a definitional reduction. Lemma 4.12's recurring-kernel step is the unverified correctness hinge and imports [4, Proposition 5.3.1]; that is a correctness risk, not circularity, because the cited result is external and does not assume Theorem 4.2. The score of 2 reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations (especially Section 2), not any reduction by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard results in Markov chains, polyhedral geometry, and exact real algebraic computation. The elementary proof uses Everett's theory, deterministic MDP optimality, the forest determinant formula, and a rational-cone density argument, all cited or proved. The algorithm imports several published polynomial-time exact-algebraic routines and its complexity bookkeeping in Section A assumes their stated interfaces. No free parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Everett's theorem that the value vector v lies in C1 intersect C2, with uniqueness and the optimality guarantee (Everett 1957, Theorems 2 and 5).
    Used in Section 3.1 to choose a sequence u(n) in C1 approaching v and to justify that local optimal rows guarantee u(n) against every reply.
  • standard math Deterministic stationary optimality for finite discounted Markov decision processes (Puterman 1994, Theorem 6.2.10).
    Used in Lemma 3.1 to show one pure stationary reply suffices for Player II from every initial state.
  • standard math The directed-forest formula for absorption probabilities (Agaev and Chebotarev 2000), re-proved in Lemma 3.2 via Cramer's rule.
    The elementary proof expresses payoffs as quotients of forest monomials, the core of Section 3.2.
  • standard math Finite Shapley-Snow determinant cover for matrix games over a field, with the recurring-kernel derivative property (Attia and Oliu-Barton 2021).
    Imported in Proposition 4.6 and Lemma 4.12 to compute value coordinates and to identify the selected algebraic branches.
  • standard math Polynomial-time exact algorithms over ordered number fields: Oliu-Barton's bisection value algorithm, Lenstra's factorization, Lenstra and Silverberg's primitive-element conversion, Kannan-Lenstra-Lovasz root reconstruction, and Chistov's Newton-Puiseux algorithm.
    Section 4.7 and Appendix A list the imported routines and their interfaces; the L^{(N+1)^{O(N)}} bound depends on these being polynomial in the displayed parameters.
  • domain assumption Input model: finite rational recursive games, transitions and rewards rational binary numbers, fixed number N of active states.
    Section 4.1 defines the input length L and restricts the algorithm to rational games; the exact representation of algebraic coefficients then makes sense.
  • domain assumption Explicitly ordered algebraic number fields and the ordered common RUR (Definition 4.1) represent all intermediate values and outputs.
    The algorithm's exact arithmetic and sign tests require an explicit real embedding; this is stated in Sections 4.1 and 4.3.
  • standard math Generalized Bezout inequality, Hadamard's determinant inequality, and rational-point density in rational cones.
    Used for exponent bounds in Proposition 3.4 and the degree and height ledger in Sections 4.7 and A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Existence and computation of monomial families of near-optimal strategies for recursive games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PHOGDUO5

@misc{pith2026260808017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Existence and computation of monomial families of near-optimal strategies for recursive games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PHOGDUO5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08017}
}
read the original abstract

In a finite recursive game in the sense of Everett, both players have stationary epsilon-optimal strategies for every epsilon>0. Frederiksen and Miltersen strengthened this result by showing that the strategies for all sufficiently small epsilon can be encoded by finitely many monomials: at every state, all but possibly one of the action probabilities are constants times integer powers of epsilon. The resulting finite symbolic object specifies a strategy for every sufficiently small accuracy. Their proof uses semialgebraic selection and Puiseux series. We give an alternative elementary proof of this regularity theorem for recursive games. We start with stationary strategies that guarantee vectors approaching the value through Everett's one-sided region. After fixing their support, we express, for each pure stationary reply, all absorption probabilities as quotients of directed-forest polynomials with nonnegative coefficients and a common positive denominator. Each payoff is a fixed signed linear combination of these quotients. We then compress the asymptotic orders of the finitely many forest monomials into one integer weight vector. This proof uses neither semialgebraic selection nor Puiseux series. Furthermore, for rational games with a fixed number N of active states, we present a deterministic polynomial-time algorithm that computes a monomial family exactly. It returns all algebraic coefficients in one ordered real univariate representation. The representation length and running time are at most L^{(N+1)^{O(N)}}, where L is the input length.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adler and P

    I. Adler and P. A. Beling. Polynomial algorithms for linear programming over the alge- braic numbers. InProceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on The- ory of Computing, pages 483–494. ACM, 1992. doi: 10.1145/129712.129760. URLhttps: //adler.ieor.berkeley.edu/ilans_pubs/lp_algebraic_stoc_1992.pdf

    work page arXiv 1992

  2. [2]

    Adler and P

    I. Adler and P. A. Beling. Polynomial algorithms for linear programming over the algebraic numbers.Algorithmica, 12(6):436–457, 1994. doi: 10.1007/BF01188714. URLhttps:// adler.ieor.berkeley.edu/ilans_pubs/lp_algebraic_1994.pdf

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01188714 1994

  3. [3]

    The Matrix of Maximum Out Forests of a Digraph and Its Applications

    R. Agaev and P. Chebotarev. The matrix of maximum out forests of a digraph and its applications.Automation and Remote Control, 61(9):1424–1450, 2000. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/math/0602059. Part 1

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    Attia and M

    L. Attia and M. Oliu-Barton. Shapley–Snow kernels, multiparameter eigenvalue problems, and stochastic games.Mathematics of Operations Research, 46(3):1181–1202, 2021. doi: 10.1287/moor.2020.1104. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08798

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Avendaño and J

    M. Avendaño and J. Ortigas-Galindo. Interpolation of ideals.Revista Matemática Iberoamer- icana, 31(1):291–302, 2015. doi: 10.4171/RMI/834. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1204. 3027

    work page doi:10.4171/rmi/834 2015

  6. [6]

    S. Basu, R. Pollack, and M.-F. Roy.Algorithms in Real Algebraic Geometry, volume 10 ofAlgorithms and Computation in Mathematics. Springer, 2 edition, 2006. doi: 10.1007/ 3-540-33099-2. URLhttps://web.archive.org/web/20181125204031id_/https://perso. univ-rennes1.fr/marie-francoise.roy/bpr-ed2-posted2.pdf

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Chatterjee, M

    K. Chatterjee, M. Oliu-Barton, and R. Saona. Value-positivity for matrix games.Mathemat- ics of Operations Research, 50(4):2502–2525, 2025. doi: 10.1287/moor.2022.0332. Published online October 2024

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    A. L. Chistov. Polynomial-time algorithms for computational problems in the theory of alge- braic curves.Journal of Soviet Mathematics, 59(3):855–867, 1992. doi: 10.1007/BF01104109. URLhttps://www.mathnet.ru/eng/znsl4537

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01104109 1992

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    H. Everett. Recursive games. In M. Dresher, A. W. Tucker, and P. Wolfe, editors,Contri- butions to the Theory of Games, Volume III, volume 39 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies, pages 47–78. Princeton University Press, 1957. doi: 10.1515/9781400882151-004

    1957 doi

  2. [10]

    Flesch, F

    J. Flesch, F. Thuijsman, and O. J. Vrieze. Stationary strategies in zero-sum stochas- tic games.International Game Theory Review, 3(4):283–290, 2001. doi: 10.1142/ S0219198901000464. URLhttps://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/ stationary-strategies-in-zero-sum-sto...

    2001

  3. [11]

    Fortuna, P

    E. Fortuna, P. Gianni, and B. Trager. Ideals of curves given by points. In M. Seppälä and E. Volcheck, editors,Computational Algebraic and Analytic Geometry, volume 572 of Contemporary Mathematics, pages 71–87. American Mathematical Society, 2012. doi: 10. 1090/conm/572/11374....

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. K. S. Frederiksen.Semi-algebraic Tools for Stochastic Games. PhD thesis, Aarhus Uni- versity, July 2015. URLhttps://pure.au.dk/ws/files/428892444/Thesis.pdf

    2015

  5. [13]

    S. K. S. Frederiksen and P. B. Miltersen. Monomial strategies for concurrent reachability games and other stochastic games. In P. A. Abdulla and I. Potapov, editors,Reachability Problems, volume 8169 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 122–134. Springer, 2013. doi: 10.1...

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    K. A. Hansen, M. Koucký, N. Lauritzen, P. B. Miltersen, and E. P. Tsigaridas. Exact algorithmsforsolvingstochasticgames: Extendedabstract. InProceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 205–214. ACM, 2011. doi: 10.1145/1993636. 1993665. URLhttps:/...

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kannan, A

    R. Kannan, A. K. Lenstra, and L. Lovász. Polynomial factorization and nonrandomness of bits of algebraic and some transcendental numbers.Mathematics of Computation, 50 (181):235–250, 1988. doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-1988-0917831-4. URLhttps://www.math. cmu.edu/users/af1p/Teaching...

    1988 doi

  8. [16]

    Kemper and N

    G. Kemper and N. V. Trung. Krull dimension and monomial orders.Journal of Algebra, 399: 782–800, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2013.10.005. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1303. 3937

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    A. K. Lenstra. Factoring polynomials over algebraic number fields. InComputer Algebra, volume 162 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 245–254. Springer, 1983. doi: 10. 1007/3-540-12868-9_108. URLhttps://ir.cwi.nl/pub/2541/2541D.pdf

    1983

  10. [18]

    A. K. Lenstra. Factoring multivariate polynomials over algebraic number fields. InMath- ematical Foundations of Computer Science 1984, volume 176 ofLecture Notes in Com- puter Science, pages 389–396. Springer-Verlag, 1984. doi: 10.1007/BFb0030321. URL https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/252...

    1984 doi

  11. [19]

    H. W. Lenstra, Jr. and A. Silverberg. Algorithms for commutative algebras over the rational numbers.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 18(1):159–180, 2018. doi: 10.1007/ s10208-016-9336-6. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1509.08843

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mignotte and D

    M. Mignotte and D. Stefanescu.Polynomials: An Algorithmic Approach. Springer-Verlag, Singapore, 1999. ISBN 9789814021517

    1999

  13. [21]

    Oliu-Barton

    M. Oliu-Barton. New algorithms for solving zero-sum stochastic games.Mathematics of Operations Research, 46(1):255–267, 2021. doi: 10.1287/moor.2020.1055. URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/1810.13019

    2021

  14. [22]

    Wi- ley Series in Probability and Statistics

    M.L.Puterman.Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming. Wi- ley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley, New York, 1994. doi: 10.1002/9780470316887. 41

    1994 doi

  15. [23]

    L. S. Shapley and R. N. Snow. Basic solutions of discrete games. In H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker, editors,Contributions to the Theory of Games, Volume I, volume 24 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies, pages 27–35. Princeton University Press, 1950. doi: 10.1515/9781400881727-004

    1950 doi

  16. [24]

    E. Solan. Continuity of the value of competitive Markov decision processes.Journal of The- oretical Probability, 16(4):831–845, 2003. doi: 10.1023/B:JOTP.0000011995.28536.ef. URL https://www.math.tau.ac.il/~eilons/value8.pdf

    2003

  17. [25]

    Solan and N

    E. Solan and N. Vieille. Computing uniformly optimal strategies in two-player stochastic games.Economic Theory, 42(1):237–253, 2010. doi: 10.1007/s00199-009-0437-1. URLhttps: //www.math.tau.ac.il/~eilons/algorithm7.pdf. A Degree and height bookkeeping This appendix proves the ...

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.