Stochastic maximum principle for optimal control problem of non exchangeable mean field systems

Huy\^en Pham; Idris Kharroubi; Samy Mekkaoui

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Stochastic maximum principle for optimal control problem of non exchangeable mean field systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For non-exchangeable mean-field systems, this paper proves a Pontryagin maximum principle in which optimal controls are exactly the pointwise minimizers of the Hamiltonian, and proves unique solvability of the associated collection of…

desk verdict Genuine SMP extension for non-exchangeable systems, but the main solvability theorem has a load-bearing gap in Lemma 5.2 that needs a fix before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05595 v1 pith:4P322LSQ submitted 2025-06-05 math.OC math.PR

Idris Kharroubi , Samy Mekkaoui , Huyên Pham This is my paper

classification math.OCmath.PR MSC 49N8060K3593E20

keywords Pontryaginmaximumprinciplenon-exchangeablemean-fieldsystemsFBSDElinear-quadraticgraphoncontrolheterogeneousinteractionslinearfunctionalderivativeRiccatiequations

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 Pontryagin maximum principle for optimal control of non-exchangeable mean-field systems, in which each agent $u\in(0,1)$ follows its own stochastic differential equation and interacts with all others through the full collection of their laws. The main results are a necessary condition and a sufficient condition: under convexity of the Hamiltonian in the control variable, an optimal control minimizes the Hamiltonian pointwise along the adjoint processes, and conversely any measurable pointwise minimizer is optimal when the Hamiltonian and terminal cost satisfy the paper's joint convexity condition. The paper then proves that the resulting collection of forward-backward stochastic differential equations has a unique solution under assumptions that make the drift and volatility affine in the state, control, and mean of the law collection. In the linear-quadratic case the optimal control is expressed through a triangular system of Riccati equations, recovering the feedback form obtained by dynamic programming. This makes the Pontryagin approach available for heterogeneous, asymmetric populations, complementing the master-equation route.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Pontryagin collection of FBSDEs (5.2), indexed by the agent label $u\in I=(0,1)$. Its forward equation drives $X^u$ with coefficients $b,\sigma$ depending on the law collection $P^{X.}_t$; its backward equation drives the adjoint pair $(Y^u,Z^u)$ with a driver built from the partial $x$-derivative of the Hamiltonian $H(u,x,\mu,y,z,a)=b(u,x,\mu,a)\cdot y+\sigma(u,x,\mu,a):z+f(u,x,\mu,a)$ plus integrals of the flat derivatives $\partial\frac{\delta}{\delta m}H$ and $\partial\frac{\delta}{\delta m}g$ over an independent copy of the population. The control is closed by the Hamiltonian minimizer $\hat a=\arg\min_{a\in A}H(u,x,\mu,y,z,a)$. The mathematical machinery that makes the argument work is the linear functional derivative on the space $L^2(P_2(\mathbb{R}^d))$ together with a matching notion of convexity, and the continuation method, which proves existence and uniqueness by perturbing from a decoupled system in the solution space $\mathcal{S}$ of label-measurable, square-integrable process collections.

What would settle it

Take the linear-quadratic model of Section 6, fix a finite discretization of the agent interval, and solve the finite-agent control problem by dynamic programming; compare the resulting optimal cost with the cost of the feedback rule (6.7) computed from the infinite-dimensional Riccati system. A positive gap would falsify the claim that the SMP solution and the dynamic programming solution coincide. For the abstract existence theorem, a direct check is to search, under Assumptions 4.1 and 5.1, for a second solution of (5.2) in $\mathcal{S}$ with the same initial condition; uniqueness in Theorem 5.1 rules this out, so a concrete pair would settle the question negatively.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Pontryagin maximum principle survives the loss of exchangeability. For the cost functional $J(\alpha)=\int_I \mathbb{E}[\int_0^T f(u,X_t^u,P^{X.}_t,\alpha_t^u)dt+g(u,X_T^u,P^{X.}_T)]du$, where $P^{X.}_t=(P^{X^u_t})_{u\in I}$ is the collection of marginal laws, the Gâteaux derivative of $J$ along a perturbation is $\int_I\mathbb{E}[\int_0^T \partial_a H(u,X_t^u,P^{X.}_t,Y_t^u,Z_t^u,\alpha_t^u)\cdot(\beta_t^u-\alpha_t^u)dt]du$, with adjoint processes $(Y^u,Z^u)$ solving the coupled equations (3.3). Hence, under convexity of $a\mapsto H$ in the control, an optimal control satisfies $H(u,X_t^u,P^{X.}_t,Y_t^u,Z_t^u,\alpha_t^u)\le H(u,X_t^u,P^{X.}_t,Y_t^u,Z_t^u,a)$ $dt\otimes dP$-almost everywhere (Theorem 4.1), and the reverse implication holds under joint convexity of $H$ and $g$ (Theorem 4.2). Closing the loop with the feedback control $\hat\alpha_t^u=\hat a(u,X_t^u,P^{X.}_t,Y_t^u,Z_t^u)$, where $\hat a$ minimizes $H$, produces the FBSDE collection (5.2); Theorem 5.1 asserts a unique solution in the space $\mathcal{S}$ under Assumptions 4.1 and 5.1. The linear-quadratic application gives explicit Riccati equations for the feedback coefficients and reproduces the optimal control from the dynamic programming value function.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on Assumption 5.1(i), which forces the drift and volatility to be affine in the state and control and to interact with the population law only through its mean via kernels $b_1(u,v)$ and $\sigma_1(u,v)$; if the dynamics are nonlinear in these variables or depend on higher moments of the law, the existence and uniqueness proof for the FBSDE collection does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An optimal control must satisfy the pointwise Hamiltonian inequality $H(u,X_t^u,P^{X.}_t,Y_t^u,Z_t^u,\alpha_t^u)\le H(u,X_t^u,P^{X.}_t,Y_t^u,Z_t^u,a)$ for almost every $u$ and $dt\otimes dP$-almost every $(t,\omega)$, whenever the Hamiltonian is convex in the control.
Under joint convexity of $H$ in $(x,\mu,a)$ and of $g$ in $(x,\mu)$, any admissible control obtained from a measurable pointwise minimizer of the Hamiltonian along the adjoint processes is optimal, so the necessary condition is also sufficient.
Under Assumptions 4.1 and 5.1 the Pontryagin FBSDE collection has a unique solution in the space $\mathcal{S}$, which makes the candidate optimal feedback control $\hat\alpha_t^u=\hat a(u,X_t^u,P^{X.}_t,Y_t^u,Z_t^u)$ well defined and admissible.
In the linear-quadratic non-exchangeable model, the optimal control is given explicitly by the Riccati feedback formula (6.7), matching the dynamic programming value function and its triangular system of Riccati equations.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural stress test for Theorem 5.1 is to keep all regularity and convexity assumptions but let $b$ or $\sigma$ depend on the law through a nonlinear moment, e.g. the variance; the continuation proof's estimates appear to depend on the linear mean-field form, so a counterexample there would mark the true boundary of the result.
The pointwise minimization characterization suggests an implementable numerical loop—iterate between solving the FBSDE collection for a fixed feedback and updating the feedback by minimizing $H$—and the continuation method's constants could be used to estimate its contraction radius, though the paper itself reports no such experiments.
In a finite-agent discretization of the LQ model, the feedback formula (6.7) can be tested against the exact finite-horizon optimal control; agreement would support the continuum modeling, while a gap would reveal whether the Riccati ansatz or the continuum limit is the source of error.
The same flat-derivative convexity calculus is likely to transfer to non-exchangeable mean-field games, where the single optimizer is replaced by a population of optimizers; that would convert the adjoint coupling into best-response fixed-point equations, a problem the paper does not address.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this for the necessary and sufficient Pontryagin conditions in Section 4, which are a real extension. They handle dynamics where drift and volatility depend on the whole family of marginal laws, not just a graphon-weighted sum as in [17]. The flat-derivative calculus from [4] is applied cleanly, the convexity assumptions are natural though strong, and the LQ illustration recovers the Riccati system from [1] in a transparent form. The citation pattern is honest; they build on [4] for state-process existence and on [1] for the LQ value function.

The reason I would not take Theorem 5.1 at face value is Lemma 5.2. The proof asserts that the sum T2^u+\bar{T2}^u equals an integral containing only the input differences (I^{f,u}-\bar I^{f,u}, etc.). But from the Itô expansions preceding it, T2^u contains ∂xH, the flat-derivative term, and the (b(\bar θ)-b(θ))·Y and (σ(\bar θ)-σ(θ)):Z increments. Summing with the barred version does not cancel those terms; it gives (Xbar-X)·(∂xH(Θ)-∂xH(\bar Θ)) plus flat-derivative analogues and Δb·(Ybar-Y)+Δσ:(Zbar-Z). No substitution is supplied to get rid of these and replace them by input differences. Since (5.6) is the small-ε estimate that makes the Gronwall argument work in the continuation proof, the existence/uniqueness result is not proved as written. This is load-bearing, not a typo.

Two more soft spots, in decreasing order. First, Theorem 5.1 is proved only under Assumption 5.1(i), where b and σ are affine in (x,µ,a) through the means — essentially graphon-type linear interactions. The full-law dependence for which Section 4 states the SMP remains unsolved. That should be said clearly in the abstract or introduction. Second, several lemmas in Section 4 are sketched (e.g., uniform convergence in Lemma 4.1, the Z-representation in the (S0) step, the Riccati algebra), but those look routine and I did not see anything fatal there.

Bottom line: the paper is worth engaging with. The SMP part is a genuine contribution, and the FBSDE approach is natural. But the main theorem is currently unproven due to the missing argument in Lemma 5.2. Send it to a careful referee with that question front and center. If the authors can repair Lemma 5.2 — and I suspect they can, since the attack is standard — the paper will be a solid addition to the mean-field control literature.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies a Pontryagin maximum principle for optimal control of non-exchangeable mean-field systems, where agents are indexed by u in I=(0,1) and interact through the full collection of laws (P^{X^v})_v. The state and adjoint processes form a collection of FBSDEs, and the paper develops the necessary flat-derivative calculus on L^2(P_2(R^d)), defines a Hamiltonian, and derives a necessary condition (Theorem 4.1) and a sufficient condition (Theorem 4.2) under convexity assumptions. Section 5 restricts the coefficients to an affine-linear graphon-type structure through Assumption 5.1 and proves existence and uniqueness of the Pontryagin FBSDE collection via a continuation method (Theorem 5.1). Section 6 applies the result to a linear-quadratic graphon model and derives Riccati equations consistent with the prior work [1].

Significance. If the proofs are completed, the paper makes a useful contribution by extending the stochastic maximum principle beyond exchangeable mean-field models to non-exchangeable systems with heterogeneous couplings. The careful treatment of admissible controls with label measurability, the flat-derivative calculus on L^2(P_2(R^d)), and the explicit necessary and sufficient conditions in Section 4 are strengths. The solvability theorem, however, is narrower than the general setting of Section 4, since Assumption 5.1(i) restricts b and sigma to be affine in (x,a) with interaction only through the mean of the measure. Most importantly, a load-bearing step in the proof of the stability estimate in Lemma 5.2 is not justified, and the (S0) representation step for Z is sketched rather than proved. These issues affect Theorem 5.1, the central solvability result.

major comments (3)

[Lemma 5.2] The proof of Lemma 5.2 contains an unsupported identification that is load-bearing for Theorem 5.1. After defining T_2^u, the text states that 'similarly' T_2^u + \bar T_2^u equals E∫[-(I^{f,u}-\bar I^{f,u})·(X^u-\bar X^u)+(I^{b,u}-\bar I^{b,u})·(Y^u-\bar Y^u)+(I^{σ,u}-\bar I^{σ,u}):(Z^u-\bar Z^u)]dt. This equality does not follow from the definitions: T_2^u and \bar T_2^u involve ∂_xH, flat derivatives of H, and the b and sigma increments, and an Itô expansion of (X^u-\bar X^u)·(Y^u-\bar Y^u) introduces an additional terminal term E[(X_T^u-\bar X_T^u)·(Y_T^u-\bar Y_T^u)] that does not appear in the displayed formula. Inequality (5.6), which provides the small-ε control of the control difference needed in the final Gronwall step, is derived from this identification. The continuation argument for Theorem 5.1 therefore lacks support as written; a complete derivation of the stability estimate must be supplied. The 'standard estimates' quoted in (5.7) and (5.8) are also asserted without proof in this coupled non-exchangeable FBSDE framework and should be justified.
[Proof of (S0) in Section 5.3] The verification of the (S0) step for the process Z relies on the convergence (1/h_n)∫_{t-h_n}^t Z_s ds → Z_t P-a.s. and states that this 'ends the proof' via Theorem 7.20 in [14]. This is incomplete: Lebesgue differentiation gives the limit only for almost every t (and along a suitable subsequence), and the passage from this a.e. limit to a jointly Borel function z(u,t,w,z) satisfying the representation in Definition 5.1 for all t requires a measurable selection or version argument that is not provided. Since membership in S and the admissibility of the control in (5.4) depend on this representation, the (S0) step is not fully established.
[Definition 3.1, Eq. (3.1)] The convexity notion in (3.1) is not fully specified: the term E[∂δ/δm f(u,x,μ)(ũ,X^ũ)·(X′^ũ−X^ũ)] depends on the joint law of (X^ũ,X′^ũ), but the text only states that X^ũ∼μ^ũ and X′^ũ∼μ′^ũ. The proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 and Lemma 5.2 use the particular coupling given by the state processes, whereas Assumption 5.1(iv) appears to require the inequality for arbitrary measurable couplings. Please state explicitly whether (3.1) is required for all square-integrable couplings with these marginals or only for a distinguished one, and adapt the assumptions and proofs accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract / Introduction] Assumption 5.1(i) restricts b and sigma to be affine in (x,a) and to depend on μ only through its mean, so Theorem 5.1 does not cover the full-law dependence for which the SMP is stated in Section 4. The abstract and introduction should state this limitation explicitly.
[Definition 5.1] There is a typo in the representation of X: 'X^u_t = x(u,t,W^u_{.∧t}, Z^u)' should read '... , U^u)'; otherwise the definition is inconsistent.
[Theorem 2.1 proof and Lemma 4.1] In the proof of Theorem 2.1, Step 2, the sigma term contains 'σ(u,X^{ν,m+1,u}_t,...)' which should be 'σ(u,X^{m+1,u}_t,...)'. In Lemma 4.1, the estimate for V^{ε,u,2}_t contains stray absolute value signs around the integral of the expectation.
[Remark 5.3 / Notation] The symbol S is used both for the solution space in Definition 5.1 and for the extended space of processes Θ in Section 5.3; Remark 5.3 says a Banach space 'will allow us to construct an adequate contraction for existence and uniqueness in S and therefore in S', which is confusing. Use distinct symbols for the two spaces.
[Section 6] The existence and uniqueness of the Riccati system (6.3)-(6.6) is deferred to [1] in Remarks 6.1 and 6.2. Please state precisely which theorem in [1] is being used, since the coefficients here are time-dependent and the triangular coupling is essential.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity in the SMP derivation; minor self-citations and a non-circular proof gap in Lemma 5.2.

full rationale

The central results Theorems 4.1, 4.2, and 5.1 are derived from scratch: the Gâteaux derivative of J, the adjoint equations, and the pointwise Hamiltonian minimization are obtained by Itô calculus and the flat derivative calculus of Section 3, not by assuming the theorem. The only self-citations are to [4] for existence of the non-exchangeable controlled SDE (Theorem 2.1) and to [1] for the LQ value function and Riccati well-posedness; both are prior theorems with independent proofs and are not fitted inputs, so they do not make the argument circular. The LQ section recovers the [1] control as a consistency check (Remark 6.5), not as the source of the SMP. One load-bearing issue is flagged as a correctness, not circularity, concern: in the proof of Lemma 5.2 the paper asserts 'Similarly for the sum T2 + ¯T2, we have T2+¯T2 = E∫[-(I^{f,u}-¯I^{f,u})·(X^u-¯X^u)+(I^{b,u}-¯I^{b,u})·(Y^u-¯Y^u)+(I^{σ,u}-¯I^{σ,u}):(Z^u-¯Z^u)]dt.' The left side is defined through ∂xH, flat derivatives of H, and b,σ increments, while the right side contains only input differences; no substitution or equation is supplied. Inequality (5.6), needed for the continuation argument of Theorem 5.1, rests on this equality, so Theorem 5.1 has a missing derivation at that point. That is a proof gap, not a reduction of the result to its own inputs or to a self-citation chain, so the circularity score remains low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the paper is analytical. The central results rest on the flat derivative framework of [4], the controlled SDE existence from [4], the continuation method of [12], and the Riccati well-posedness from [1]. The most consequential added assumption is Assumption 5.1(i), which restricts the solvability theorem to linear mean-field (graphon-type) interactions, and Assumption 5.1(iv), a uniform strong convexity in the control that drives the FBSDE estimates.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Existence and uniqueness of the controlled non-exchangeable mean field SDE (Theorem 2.1 of [4])
Invoked in Section 2.2 to define the state process for any admissible control; the proof is not repeated.
standard math Flat derivative calculus on L2(P2(R^d)) introduced in [4], including the definition of convexity (3.1)
Used throughout Sections 3-5 for the Hamiltonian and adjoint equations; relies on prior work, not rederived.
standard math Continuation method for FBSDEs from Carmona-Delarue [12]
The proof of Theorem 5.1 in Section 5.3 follows Chapter 6 of [12]; the method is background.
domain assumption Well-posedness of the triangular Riccati system (K, \bar K, \Lambda) from [1]
Used in Section 6 to assert the LQ ansatz is valid; this well-posedness is cited from [1], which is a companion paper with overlapping authors.
domain assumption Uniform strong convexity of f in the control variable with constant λ > 0 (Assumption 5.1(iv))
Introduced to make the continuation-method estimates work (Lemma 5.2, Lemma 5.1); it is a standard coercivity condition but not guaranteed by the original problem data.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic maximum principle for optimal control problem of non exchangeable mean field systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4P322LSQ

@misc{pith2026250605595,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic maximum principle for optimal control problem of non exchangeable mean field systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4P322LSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05595}
}

read the original abstract

We study the Pontryagin maximum principle by deriving necessary and sufficient conditions for a class of optimal control problems arising in non exchangeable mean field systems, where agents interact through heterogeneous and asymmetric couplings. Our analysis leads to a collection of forward-backward stochastic differential equations (FBSDE) of non exchangeable mean field type. Under suitable assumptions, we establish the solvability of this system. As an illustration, we consider the linear-quadratic case, where the optimal control is characterized by an infinite dimensional system of Riccati equations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Optimal Control of Heterogeneous Mean-Field Stochastic Differential Equations with Common Noise and Applications
math.OC 2025-11 reject novelty 8.0 of 10

An LQ control framework for heterogeneous mean-field SDEs with common noise, solved through a triangular system of Hilbert-space Riccati BSDEs.
Long-time behavior and turnpike properties of linear-quadratic graphon mean field control problems
math.OC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Finite-horizon optimal pairs in linear-quadratic graphon mean field control converge exponentially to the ergodic optimal pair away from time boundaries.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[17]

Cao and M

Z. Cao and M. Laurière. Probabilistic Analysis of Graphon Mean Field Control . arXiv:2505.19664, 2025

arXiv 2025
[4]

De Crescenzo, M

A. De Crescenzo, M. Fuhrman, I. Kharroubi and H. Pham. Mean-ﬁeld control of non-exchangeable systems. arXiv:2407.18635, 2024

arXiv 2024
[1]

De Crescenzo, F

A. De Crescenzo, F. de Feo and H. Pham. Linear-quadratic optimal control for non-exchangeable mean-ﬁeld SDEs and applications to systemic risk . arXiv:2503.03318, 2025

arXiv 2025
[14]

L. C. G. Rogers and D. Williams. Diﬀusions, Markov Processes and Martingales: Volume 2: Itô Calculus. Cambridge University Press, 2000

work page 2000
[2]

Lasry and P.-L

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

work page 2007
[3]

Coppini, A

F. Coppini, A. De Crescenzo and H. Pham. Nonlinear Graphon mean-ﬁeld systems . To appear in Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 2025

work page 2025
[5]

J. Yong. Linear-Quadratic Optimal Control Problems for Mean-Field S tochastic Diﬀerential Equations. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 51(4):2809–283 8, 2013

work page 2013
[6]

Bayraktar, S

E. Bayraktar, S. Chakraborty and R. Wu. Graphon mean ﬁeld systems . The Annals of Applied Probability, 33(5):3587–3619, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 19 references

[7]

L. Lovász. Large Networks and Graph Limits . American Mathematical Society, 2010

2010
[8]

Jabin, D

P.-E. Jabin, D. Poyato and J. Soler. Mean-ﬁeld limit of non-exchangeable systems . Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 78(4):651–741, 2025

2025
[9]

S. Peng. A general stochastic maximum principle for optimal control p roblems. SIAM J. Control Optim., 28(4):966–979, 1990

1990
[10]

Yong and X

J. Yong and X. Y. Zhou. Stochastic Controls. Springer, 1999

1999
[11]

Carmona and F

R. Carmona and F. Delarue. Probabilistic Theory of Mean Field Games with Applications I . Springer, 2018

2018
[12]

Carmona and F

R. Carmona and F. Delarue. Probabilistic Theory of Mean Field Games with Applications II . Springer, 2018

2018
[13]

Lacker and A

D. Lacker and A. Soret. A label-state formulation of stochastic graphon games and ap proximate equilibria on large networks . Mathematics of Operations Research, 48(4):1987–2018, 20 23

1987
[15]

R. A. Carmona, J. P. Fouque and L. H. Sun. Mean ﬁeld games and systemic risk . Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 13(4):911–933, 2015. 36

2015
[16]

Bayraktar, R

E. Bayraktar, R. Wu and X. Zhang. Propagation of chaos of forward–backward stochastic diﬀerential equations with graphon interactions . Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 88(1):25, 2023

2023
[18]

Basei and H

M. Basei and H. Pham. A weak martingale approach to linear-quadratic McKean–Vlaso v stochastic control problems. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 181:347 –382, 2019

2019
[19]

Carmona and F

R. Carmona and F. Delarue. Forward–backward stochastic diﬀerential equations and con trolled McKean–Vlasov dynamics . The Annals of Probability, 43(5):2647–2700, 2015. 37

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [17]

Cao and M

Z. Cao and M. Laurière. Probabilistic Analysis of Graphon Mean Field Control . arXiv:2505.19664, 2025

arXiv 2025

[2] [4]

De Crescenzo, M

A. De Crescenzo, M. Fuhrman, I. Kharroubi and H. Pham. Mean-ﬁeld control of non-exchangeable systems. arXiv:2407.18635, 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [1]

De Crescenzo, F

A. De Crescenzo, F. de Feo and H. Pham. Linear-quadratic optimal control for non-exchangeable mean-ﬁeld SDEs and applications to systemic risk . arXiv:2503.03318, 2025

arXiv 2025

[4] [14]

L. C. G. Rogers and D. Williams. Diﬀusions, Markov Processes and Martingales: Volume 2: Itô Calculus. Cambridge University Press, 2000

work page 2000

[5] [2]

Lasry and P.-L

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

work page 2007

[6] [3]

Coppini, A

F. Coppini, A. De Crescenzo and H. Pham. Nonlinear Graphon mean-ﬁeld systems . To appear in Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 2025

work page 2025

[7] [5]

J. Yong. Linear-Quadratic Optimal Control Problems for Mean-Field S tochastic Diﬀerential Equations. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 51(4):2809–283 8, 2013

work page 2013

[8] [6]

Bayraktar, S

E. Bayraktar, S. Chakraborty and R. Wu. Graphon mean ﬁeld systems . The Annals of Applied Probability, 33(5):3587–3619, 2023

work page 2023