Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Linear-Quadratic Stackelberg Mean Field Games and Teams with Arbitrary Population Sizes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a linear-quadratic Stackelberg mean field game with one leader and N followers, this paper constructs decentralized strategies that are exact Stackelberg-Nash or Stackelberg-team equilibria for every finite N, not merely…

desk verdict Follower section is a clean de-aggregation exercise, but the leader's decoupling equations in Section 3.2 have load-bearing algebra errors that invalidate Theorem 3.4 as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16203 v1 pith:7PEISJO3 submitted 2024-12-17 math.OC

Wenyu Cong , Jingtao Shi , Bingchang Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 93E2060H1049K4549N7091A23
keywords Stackelberggamede-aggregationmethodlinear-quadraticstochasticoptimalcontrolmeanfieldgamessocialoptimadecentralizedfinitepopulationforward-backwarddifferentialequations
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 treats a one-leader, N-follower linear-quadratic game in which each follower's cost is coupled to the average follower state and to the leader's state, while the leader's cost depends on the follower average. The authors claim that, for any finite N, they can construct decentralized strategies that form a true Stackelberg equilibrium: each follower uses only its own state and its expectation, and the leader uses low-dimensional aggregate information. The key is a de-aggregation step: conditional on a follower's own information, the mean field term is rewritten as a linear combination of that follower's state and its expectation, which decouples the followers from one another. This matters because earlier Stackelberg mean field results delivered only asymptotic equilibria whose error shrinks with population size, which can be poor for small or moderate N. The paper gives parallel results for non-cooperative followers (Stackelberg-Nash) and for cooperative followers minimizing social cost (Stackelberg-team).

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the de-aggregation identity: for exchangeable followers, $E_i[\check x^{(N)}] = \frac{1}{N}\check x_i + \frac{N-1}{N}E[\check x_i]$. Writing the mean field this way turns the N-coupled system into one follower's state plus one expectation process, so the follower's optimal strategy depends only on its own state and its expectation. The same idea is used again at the leader level: the leader's high-dimensional forward-backward system is reduced by taking conditional expectations and stacking the leader state, the mean follower state, and an auxiliary adjoint expectation into a three-block vector, then an affine ansatz with coefficient comparison yields the Riccati equations that define the leader's exact strategy.

What would settle it

Substitute the proposed leader strategy (3.37) into the stationarity condition (3.22) together with the forward-backward system (3.21) and verify the affine decoupling identity (3.30): solve (3.32)-(3.33) numerically for the Section 5 parameter values, simulate (3.29), and check whether $\check Y - \check P \check X - \check K E[\check X] - \check V$ is identically zero; a nonzero residual would mean the leader's strategy is not optimal as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.4 (and its team analog, Theorem 4.4). Once the leader has announced a strategy, the optimal decentralized response of follower i is $\check u_i = -R^{-1}B^\top(P_N \check x_i + K_N E[\check x_i] + \check\phi_N)$, where $P_N$ and $K_N$ solve Riccati equations (3.13)-(3.14) and $\check\phi_N$ solves a linear equation (3.17). The paper then stacks the leader state, the average follower state, and a conditional expectation of the adjoint into a vector $\check X$, assumes the affine relation $\check Y = \check P \check X + \check K E[\check X] + \check V$, and derives the leader's decentralized strategy $\check u_0 = -R_0^{-1}B_0^\top e_1(\check P \check X + \check K E[\check X] + \check V)$ from Riccati equations (3.32)-(3.33). Because every step is carried out at fixed N and the de-aggregation identity holds for every N, the pair (3.18) and (3.37) is asserted to be an exact decentralized Stackelberg-Nash equilibrium rather than an asymptotic one; the parallel construction with social cost gives the exact decentralized Stackelberg-team equilibrium.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction hinges on the coefficient comparison that turns the leader's high-dimensional forward-backward system into the three matrix differential equations (3.32)-(3.33); if that comparison is wrong by a sign or a transposed matrix, the leader's claimed optimal strategy does not solve the leader's problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The strategies remain exactly optimal for small populations, so a planner or regulator does not need to wait for N to be large before applying mean-field-style design.
  • Each follower's equilibrium strategy uses only its own state and its expectation, not the full vector of rivals' states, preserving the decentralized information structure that makes mean field solutions tractable.
  • The leader's strategy is expressed through a fixed low-dimensional block system, so the leader's computation does not grow with N.
  • The same proof mechanism yields both equilibrium concepts: changing the coupling matrices and the follower Riccati equations passes from non-cooperative Nash followers to cooperative team followers.
  • The equilibrium is exact with respect to the decentralized strategy set, so the usual epsilon-Nash gap that shrinks only as N grows is absent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an extension not claimed by the paper, the de-aggregation identity should carry over to other exchangeable multi-agent systems, since it uses only symmetry and conditional expectations; this would make exact decentralized equilibria available beyond linear-quadratic models.
  • A direct numerical audit of the printed Riccati equations (3.32)-(3.33) would settle the leader step: solve them for the Section 5 parameters, simulate (3.29), and check whether $\check Y = \check P \check X + \check K E[\check X] + \check V$ holds throughout the time interval.
  • If the exactness survives verification, a practical consequence is that Stackelberg mechanisms such as the carbon-tax example can be calibrated at the actual population size rather than at the infinite-population limit, which changes the recommended tax schedule quantitatively.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a finite-horizon LQ Stackelberg mean field game/team with one leader and N exchangeable followers, where N can be finite or infinite. The leader announces its strategy, after which the followers solve either a Nash game (Problem PG) or a social-team problem (Problem PS). The authors apply a 'de-aggregation' method from earlier work to derive closed-loop decentralized strategies for the followers that are exact for arbitrary N, and then solve the leader's resulting optimal control problem by variational analysis and decoupling of a high-dimensional FBSDE. The main claims are Theorems 3.4 and 4.4: an exact decentralized Stackelberg-Nash/team equilibrium for arbitrary N, with strategies (3.18)+(3.37) and (4.13)+(4.31).

Significance. If correct, the exact-decentralization property for arbitrary N would be a clear improvement over the usual asymptotic epsilon-Nash results in the mean field literature, and the de-aggregation technique is a useful addition. The follower part (Sections 3.1 and 4.1) is derived carefully and appears internally consistent. However, the leader's decoupling—which is essential to both main theorems—contains sign and matrix-definition errors, so the claimed equilibrium is not established by the manuscript as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (3.33)-(3.35)] The coefficient comparison does not yield the published equations. Substituting Y = P X + K E[X] + V into (3.29) and matching E[X] terms gives Kdot + P B K + K A + K B(P+K) - B1 K - A2 - B2(P+K) = 0, not (3.33) with +A1 +B2(P+K). The constant term gives Vdot + (P+K)B(V+f) - B1 V - B2 V - f1 = 0, not (3.34). Consequently M = P+K satisfies Mdot + M A - B1 M + M B M - B2 M - A2 - A1 = 0, not (3.35). Since the leader strategy (3.37) is defined through P, K, V obtained from these equations, the optimality of the leader in Theorem 3.4 is not derived. The same error recurs in Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.27)-(4.29).
  2. [Section 3.2, matrix definitions before Eq. (3.29)] The matrices defining the FBSDE (3.29) do not match the system (3.28). The (1,2) entry of A1 should be Q0 Gamma0, not Q0; the (2,2) entry of A1 should be -Gamma0^T Q0 Gamma0, not -Gamma0^T Q0; the (3,3) entry of B1 should be -A^T + PiN B R^{-1} B^T, not -A + PiN B R^{-1} B^T; and the second component of f1 should be +Gamma0^T Q0 eta0, not -Gamma0^T Q0 eta0. These errors change the FBSDE that the Riccati equations (3.32)-(3.34) are supposed to solve. Section 4.2's matrices around Eq. (4.23) inherit the same defects.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.21) and (3.28)] The mean-field coupling in the adjoint equation for y(N) is written with the untransposed matrix (PiN - PN) B R^{-1} B^T E[y(N)]. Since the forward state equation contains -B R^{-1} B^T (PiN - PN) E[x(N)] and PiN - PN is not shown to be symmetric, the adjoint mean-field term should be (PiN - PN)^T B R^{-1} B^T E[y(N)]. This affects the definition of B2 and the K-equation. Unless symmetry of K = PiN - PN is established, the decoupling is invalid. The same issue appears in the PS problem of Section 4.2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.6)] The terminal condition is written as p_i(T) = H x_i(T), but H is never defined; from Theorem 3.1 it should be 0.
  2. [Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 4.4] The statement 'if (3.32) and (3.33) admit a solution P(·), M(·)' should refer to (3.32) and (3.35); Eq. (3.33) defines K, not M. The analogous statement in Theorem 4.4 should refer to (4.26) and (4.29).
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.28)] In the equation for E0[y(N)], the terminal condition is written as y(N)(T) = 0; it should be E0[y(N)(T)] = 0.
  4. [Section 4.2] The text 'the secend equation in (4.23)' should read 'the second equation in (4.23)'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the de-aggregation method is self-attributed but re-derived in the paper, and the Stackelberg equilibrium is derived from variational principles rather than from its own conclusion.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. The followers' decentralized strategies (3.18) are derived from the variational maximum-principle system (3.1)-(3.5), the exact conditional-expectation de-aggregation identity (3.8), and the Riccati coefficient comparison (3.13)-(3.17), all of which appear explicitly in the paper. The identity E_i[x^(N)] = (1/N)x_i + ((N-1)/N)E[x_i] is an exact exchangeability calculation, not an imported asymptotic ansatz; Remark 3.2's references to [48], [46], and [30] are attribution rather than load-bearing support. The leader's strategy (3.37) is likewise obtained by solving FBSDE (3.29) through the affine decoupling (3.30) and coefficient comparisons (3.32)-(3.34); no parameter is fitted to a data subset and no conclusion is renamed as an input. The skeptical concern about sign and matrix-definition errors in (3.32)-(3.34) is a correctness objection: if valid, it would make Theorem 3.4 false, not self-referential, so it does not raise the circularity score. The remaining self-citations (e.g., [12], [13], [41], [45]) appear in the literature review and do not substitute for the derivations in Sections 3-4. Hence no circular step meets the evidentiary threshold, and the paper receives a low score reflecting only minor self-attribution of the de-aggregation method.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the paper introduces no new physical entities. The axioms are standard LQ and mean field assumptions plus unverified Riccati solvability, which is the main gap. The leader's decoupling additionally assumes the correctness of the algebraic comparison in (3.31)-(3.34), which is not supported by the display.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Exchangeability of followers and independence of noises (A1)-(A2) so that E_i[x_j] = E[x_j] = E[x_i] for j != i.
    Used in (3.7)-(3.8) to de-aggregate the mean field term; this is a structural assumption on the population, not derived.
  • domain assumption Convexity conditions (A3)-(A4) imply the second-order sufficient conditions (3.3) and (3.23).
    Q>=0, R>0 and Q0>=0, R0>0 guarantee convexity of costs; standard but stated as assumptions.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of solutions to Riccati equations (3.13), (3.14), (3.32), (3.33).
    Theorems 3.2, 3.4, 4.2 and 4.4 are conditional on these ODEs having global solutions; no general verification is given, and for the leader the equations are nonsymmetric.
  • standard math Theorem 4.1 of Ma-Yong [33] guarantees unique adapted solutions of FBSDEs once Riccati equations are solvable.
    Used implicitly to pass from solvability of Riccati equations to well-posedness of the Hamiltonian system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Linear-Quadratic Stackelberg Mean Field Games and Teams with Arbitrary Population Sizes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PEISJO3

@misc{pith2026241216203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Linear-Quadratic Stackelberg Mean Field Games and Teams with Arbitrary Population Sizes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PEISJO3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16203}
}
read the original abstract

This paper addresses a linear-quadratic Stackelberg mean field (MF) games and teams problem with arbitrary population sizes, where the game among the followers is further categorized into two types: non-cooperative and cooperative, and the number of followers can be finite or infinite. The leader commences by providing its strategy, and subsequently, each follower optimizes its individual cost or social cost. A new de-aggregation method is applied to solve the problem, which is instrumental in determining the optimal strategy of followers to the leader's strategy. Unlike previous studies that focus on MF games and social optima, and yield decentralized asymptotically optimal strategies relative to the centralized strategy set, the strategies presented here are exact decentralized optimal strategies relative to the decentralized strategy set. This distinction is crucial as it highlights a shift in the approach to MF systems, emphasizing the precision and direct applicability of the strategies to the decentralized context. In the wake of the implementation of followers' strategies, the leader is confronted with an optimal control problem driven by high-dimensional forward-backward stochastic differential equations (FBSDEs). By variational analysis, we obtain the decentralized strategy for the leader. By applying the de-aggregation method and employing dimension expansion to decouple the high-dimensional FBSDEs, we are able to derive a set of decentralized Stackelberg-Nash or Stackelberg-team equilibrium solution for all players.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16203 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The curves of Pˆ(t), Kˆ (t) and Π( ˆ t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The curve of Pˆ(·) 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Trajectories of 30 followers and E[ˆxi ] References [1] J. Arabneydi, A. Mahajan, Team-optimal solution of finite number of mean-field coupled LQG subsystems. Proc. IEEE 54th Conference on Decision and Control, 5308-5313, Dec. 15-18, 2015, Osaka, Japan. [2] A. Bagchi, T. Ba¸sar, Stackelberg strategies in linear-quadratic stochastic differential games. J. Optim. Theory Appl., 1981, 35(3): 443-464. [3] A. Bensoussan, … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arabneydi, A

    J. Arabneydi, A. Mahajan, Team-optimal solution of finite number of mean-field coupled LQG subsystems. Proc. IEEE 54th Conference on Decision and Control , 5308-5313, Dec. 15-18, 2015, Osaka, Japan

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Bagchi, T

    A. Bagchi, T. Ba¸ sar, Stackelberg strategies in linear-quadratic stochastic differential games. J. Optim. Theory Appl. , 1981, 35(3): 443-464

    work page 1981

  3. [3]

    Bensoussan, S.K

    A. Bensoussan, S.K. Chen, and S.P. Sethi, The maximum principle for global solutions of stochastic Stackelberg differential games. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 2015, 53(4): 1956-1981

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Bensoussan, M.H.M

    A. Bensoussan, M.H.M. Chau, Y. Lai, and S.C.P. Yam, Linear-quadratic mean field Stackel- berg games with state and control delays. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 2017, 55(4): 2748-2781

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Bensoussan, M.H.M

    A. Bensoussan, M.H.M. Chau, and S.C.P. Yam, Mean field Stackelberg games: aggregation of delayed instructions. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 2015, 53(4): 2237-2266

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Bensoussan, X.W

    A. Bensoussan, X.W. Feng, and J.H. Huang, Linear-quadratic-Gaussian mean-field-game with partial observation and common noise. Math. Control Relat. Fields , 2021, 11(1): 23-46

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Bensoussan, J

    A. Bensoussan, J. Frehse, and P. Yam, Mean Field Games and Mean Field Type Control Theory. Springer, New York, 2013. 28

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Bensoussan, K.C.J

    A. Bensoussan, K.C.J. Sung, S.C.P. Yam, and S.P. Yung, Linear-quadratic mean field games. J. Optim. Theory Appl. , 2016, 169(2): 496-529

    work page 2016

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Caines, M.Y

    P.E. Caines, M.Y. Huang, and R.P. Malham´ e, Mean field games. In T. Ba¸ sar, G. Zaccour, Handbook of Dynamic Game Theory , Springer, Berlin, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Carmona, G

    R. Carmona, G. Dayanikli, and M. Lauri˙ ere, Mean field models to regulate carbon emissions in electricity production. Dyn. Games Appl. , 2022, 12(3): 897-928

    2022

  3. [11]

    Carmona, F

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

    2018

  4. [12]

    Cong, J.T

    W.Y. Cong, J.T. Shi, Direct approach of linear-quadratic Stackelberg mean field games of backward-forward stochastic systems. Proc. 43rd Chinese Control Conference, 1230-1237, July 28-31, 2024, Kunming, China

    2024

  5. [13]

    Cong, J.T

    W.Y. Cong, J.T. Shi, Direct approach of indefinite linear-quadratic mean field games. arXiv:2404.05166

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dayanıklı, M

    G. Dayanıklı, M. Lauri` ere, A machine learning method for Stackelberg mean field games. arXiv:2302.10440

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    K. Du, Z. Wu, Linear-quadratic Stackelberg game for mean-field backward stochastic dif- ferential system and application. Math. Prob. Engin. , 2019, 1798585, 17 pages

    2019

  8. [16]

    X.W. Feng, Y. Hu, and J.H. Huang, Backward Stackelberg differential game with con- straints: a mixed terminal-perturbation and linear-quadratic approach. SIAM J. Control Optim., 2022, 66(3): 1488-1518

    2022

  9. [17]

    Gomes, J

    D.A. Gomes, J. Sa´ ude, Mean field games models-a brief survey. Dyn. Games Appl. , 2014, 4(2): 110-154

    2014

  10. [18]

    Ho, Team decision theory and information structures

    Y.C. Ho, Team decision theory and information structures. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1980, 68(6): 644-654

    1980

  11. [19]

    Huang, N

    J.H. Huang, N. Li, Linear-quadratic mean-field game for stochastic delayed systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 2018, 63(8): 2711-2729

    2018

  12. [20]

    Huang, S.L

    M.Y. Huang, S.L. Nguyen, Linear-quadratic mean field teams with a major agent. Proc. IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control , 6958-6963, Dec. 12-14, 2016, Las Vegas, USA

    2016

  13. [21]

    Huang, S.J

    J.H. Huang, S.J. Wang, and Z. Wu, Backward-forward linear-quadratic mean-field games with major and minor agents. Probab. Uncer. Quant. Risk , 2016, 1: 8. 29

    2016

  14. [22]

    Huang, S.J

    J.H. Huang, S.J. Wang, and Z. Wu, Backward mean-field linear-quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) games: full and partial information. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 2016, 61(12): 3784-3796

    2016

  15. [23]

    Huang, Large-population LQG games involving a major player: the Nash certainty equivalence principle, SIAM J

    M.Y. Huang, Large-population LQG games involving a major player: the Nash certainty equivalence principle, SIAM J. Control Optim. , 2010, 48(5): 3318-3353

    2010

  16. [24]

    Huang, P.E

    M.Y. Huang, P.E. Caines, and R.P. Malham´ e, Large-population cost-coupled LQG problems with nonuniform agents: individual-mass behavior and decentralized ϵ-Nash equilibria. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 2007, 52(9): 1560-1571

    2007

  17. [25]

    Huang, P.E

    M.Y. Huang, P.E. Caines, and R.P. Malham´ e, Social optima in mean field LQG control: centralized and decentralized strategies. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control , 2012, 57(7): 1736- 1751

    2012

  18. [26]

    Huang, R.P

    M.Y. 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. Commun. Inf. Syst. , 2006, 6(3): 221-251

    2006

  19. [27]

    Huang, M.J

    M.Y. Huang, M.J. Zhou, Linear quadratic mean field games: asymptotic solvability and relation to the fixed point approach. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 2020, 65(4): 1397-1412

    2020

  20. [28]

    Lasry, P.L

    J.M. Lasry, P.L. Lions, Mean field games. Jpn. J. Math. , 2007, 2(1): 229-260

    2007

  21. [29]

    T. Li, J.F. Zhang, Asymptotically optimal decentralized control for large population stochastic multiagent systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control , 2008, 53(7): 1643-1660

    2008

  22. [30]

    Liang, B.C

    Y. Liang, B.C. Wang, H.S. Zhang, Discrete-time indefinite linear-quadratic mean field games and control: the finite-population case. Automatica, 2024, 162: 111518

    2024

  23. [31]

    Lin, X.S

    Y.N. Lin, X.S. Jiang, and W.H. Zhang, An open-loop Stackelberg strategy for the lin- ear quadratic mean-field stochastic differential game. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control , 2019, 64(1): 97-110

    2019

  24. [32]

    Lin, W.H

    Y.N. Lin, W.H. Zhang, Feedback Stackelberg solution for mean-field type stochastic systems with multiple followers. J. Syst. Sci. Complex. , 2023, 36(4): 1519-1539

    2023

  25. [33]

    J. Ma, J.M. Yong, Forward-backward Stochastic Differential Equations and Their Applica- tions. Lecture Notes Math., Springer, New York, 1999

    1999

  26. [34]

    J. Moon, T. Ba¸ sar, Linear quadratic risk-sensitive and robust mean field games. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 2017, 62(3): 1062-1077

    2017

  27. [35]

    J. Moon, T. Ba¸ sar, Linear quadratic mean field Stackelberg differential games.Automatica, 2018, 97: 200-213. 30

    2018

  28. [36]

    Moon, H.J

    J. Moon, H.J. Yang, Linear-quadratic time-inconsistent mean-field type Stackelberg dif- ferential games: time-consistent open-loop solutions. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control , 2021, 66(1): 375-382

    2021

  29. [37]

    Mukaidani, S

    H. Mukaidani, S. Irie, H, Xu, and W.H. Zhuang, Robust incentive Stackelberg games with a large population for stochastic mean-field systems. IEEE Control Syst. Lett. , 2022, 6: 1934-1939

    2022

  30. [38]

    Nourian, P.E

    M. Nourian, P.E. Caines, R.P. Malham´ e, and M.Y. Huang, Mean field LQG control in leader-follower stochastic multi-agent systems: likelihood ratio based adaptation. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 2012, 57(11): 2801-2816

    2012

  31. [39]

    Pardoux, S.G

    E. Pardoux, S.G. Peng, Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differential equation. Syst. & Control Lett., 1990, 14(1): 55-61

    1990

  32. [40]

    Shi, G.C

    J.T. Shi, G.C. Wang, J. Xiong, Leader-follower stochastic differential game with asymmetric information and applications. Automatica, 2016, 63: 60-73

    2016

  33. [41]

    Y. Si, J.T. Shi, Linear-quadratic mean field Stackelberg stochastic differential game with partial information and common noise. arXiv:2405.03102

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    K.H. Si, Z. Wu, Backward-forward linear-quadratic mean-field Stackelberg games. Adv. Difference Equ., 2021, 73: 23

    2021

  35. [43]

    Sun, H.X

    J.R. Sun, H.X. Wang, and J.Q. Wen, Zero-sum Stackelberg stochastic linear-quadratic differential games. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 2023, 61(1): 250-282

    2023

  36. [44]

    von Stackelberg, The Theory of the Market Economy

    H. von Stackelberg, The Theory of the Market Economy . Oxford University Press, London, 1952

    1952

  37. [45]

    Wang, Leader-follower mean field LQ games: a direct method

    B.C. Wang, Leader-follower mean field LQ games: a direct method. Asian J Control , 2024, 26(2): 617-625

    2024

  38. [46]

    Wang, H.S

    B.C. Wang, H.S. Zhang, M.Y. Fu, Y. Liang, Decentralized strategies for finite population linear-quadratic-Gaussian games and teams. Automatica, 2023, 148: 110789

    2023

  39. [47]

    Wang, H.S

    B.C. Wang, H.S. Zhang, J.F. Zhang, Mean field linear-quadratic control: uniform stabiliza- tion and social optimality. Automatica, 2020, 121: 109088

    2020

  40. [48]

    Wang, H.S

    B.C. Wang, H.S. Zhang, J.F. Zhang, Linear quadratic mean field social control with common noise: a directly decoupling method. Automatica, 2022, 146: 110619

    2022

  41. [49]

    Wang, J.F

    B.C. Wang, J.F. Zhang, Hierarchical mean field games for multiagent systems with tracking- type costs: distributed ϵ-Stackelberg equilibria. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 2014, 59(8): 2241-2247. 31

    2014

  42. [50]

    Wang, S.S

    G.C. Wang, S.S. Zhang, A mean-field linear-quadratic stochastic Stackelberg differential game with one leader and two followers. J. Syst. Sci. Complex. , 2020, 33(5): 1383-1401

    2020

  43. [51]

    Xiang, J.T

    N. Xiang, J.T. Shi, Stochastic linear-quadratic Stackelberg Differential game with asym- metric informational uncertainties: Robust optimization approach. arXiv:2407.05728

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Xiong, An Introduction to Stochastic Filtering Theory

    J. Xiong, An Introduction to Stochastic Filtering Theory . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008

    2008

  45. [53]

    R.M. Xu, F. Zhang, ϵ-Nash mean-field games for general linear-quadratic systems with applications. Automatica, 2020, 114: 108835

    2020

  46. [54]

    Yang, M.Y

    X.W. Yang, M.Y. Huang, Linear quadratic mean field Stackelberg games: master equations and time consistent feedback strategies. Proc. 60th IEEE Conf. Decision Control , 171-176, December 13-15, 2021, Austin, Texas, USA

    2021

  47. [55]

    Yong, A leader-follower stochastic linear quadratic differential games

    J.M. Yong, A leader-follower stochastic linear quadratic differential games. SIAM J. Control Optim., 2002, 41(4): 1015-1041

    2002

  48. [56]

    Zheng, J.T

    Y.Y. Zheng, J.T. Shi, A Stackelberg game of backward stochastic differential equations with applications. Dyna. Games Appl. , 2020, 10(4): 968-992. 32

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.