Unique ergodicity of deterministic zero-sum differential games

Antoine Hochart

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Unique ergodicity of deterministic zero-sum differential games

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper characterizes unique ergodicity of a deterministic zero-sum differential game by the absence of disjoint dominions, the closed sets each player can keep approximately invariant.

desk verdict The central characterization is false: an irrational linear flow on the torus is uniquely ergodic yet has disjoint dominions, so Proposition 4.6 and the only-if directions of the main theorems fail as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03643 v2 pith:AL3NC47J submitted 2019-08-09 math.OC

Antoine Hochart This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 91A2349N7037A9949L2535F2135B40

keywords differentialgameszero-sumHamilton-Jacobiequationsviscositysolutionsergodicityuniquedominionslimitvalue

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 studies deterministic two-player zero-sum differential games on the n-torus, asking when the game has a unique long-run value: the discounted value $\delta v_\delta(x)$ converges uniformly to a constant as the discount factor $\delta$ tends to $0$, not just for one payoff but for every continuous state-dependent perturbation of the running payoff. The central claim is that this property, unique ergodicity, is equivalent to a symmetric condition on the controlled dynamics: the two players must have no disjoint "dominions," meaning no nonempty closed sets, one defensible by each player, that can be kept approximately invariant for arbitrarily long horizons. The necessity of the dominion condition is proved in full generality (Proposition 4.6), and sufficiency is proved under either structural equicontinuity of the discounted value family (Theorem 4.13) or a uniform approximate-reachability time estimate (Assumption A2, Theorem 5.3). A sympathetic reader should care because the result converts a delicate question about limits of Hamilton-Jacobi equations into a geometric check on which regions each player can defend, and it treats the two players symmetrically, unlike earlier controllability conditions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dominion: a closed set that one player can render approximately invariant for arbitrarily long times. The argument runs through the Hamilton-Jacobi-Isaacs equation of the lower game, whose data are encoded in the Hamiltonian $H(x,p)=\min_{b\in B}\max_{a\in A}\{-\langle f(x,a,b),p\rangle-\ell(x,a,b)\}$, and its recession function $H_\infty(x,p)=\min_{b\in B}\max_{a\in A}\{-\langle f(x,a,b),p\rangle\}$; the cell problem $c+H(x,Dw)=0$ links discounted values to the ergodic constant. Theorem 3.2 decomposes unique ergodicity into two ingredients: structural equicontinuity of the family $\{\delta u_\delta\}$ under every perturbation $g\in C^0_{\rm per}$, and the strong maximum principle for $H_\infty$. Dominions do the work of the second ingredient: by Lemma 4.11, the argmin and argmax of any periodic solution of $H_\infty(x,Dw)=0$ are respectively dominions of player 1 and player 2, so the no-disjoint-dominions condition forces every such solution to be constant. Section 6 gives the operator-theoretic handle, characterizing dominions by inequalities involving proximal normals, which is exactly the leadership/discriminating domain criterion of viability theory.

What would settle it

A concrete check: for the two-dimensional game $f(x,a,b)=(a,\gamma b)$, the theory predicts unique ergodicity exactly when $\gamma$ is irrational; computing $\delta v_\delta$ for rational and irrational $\gamma$ and a family of perturbations $g$, and testing uniform convergence to a constant, would settle the characterization in this model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that unique ergodicity of a deterministic zero-sum differential game is governed by dominions. A dominion of a player is a nonempty closed set $D$ such that, from any $x\in D$, that player can keep the trajectory inside the $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of $D$ for any horizon $T$, no matter what the opponent does; the relevant objects live on the torus $\mathbb{R}^n/\mathbb{Z}^n$ because a dominion in $\mathbb{R}^n$ may project to a dense set. Proposition 4.6 shows uniquely ergodic games cannot admit two disjoint dominions held by the two players. Theorem 4.13 adds structural equicontinuity and proves the converse: if every dominion of player 1 meets every dominion of player 2 in the torus, then the Hamiltonian satisfies the strong maximum principle---the only periodic viscosity solutions of $H_\infty(x,Dw)=0$ are constants---and the game is uniquely ergodic. Theorem 5.3 proves the same equivalence under Assumption A2, when the game is not necessarily Lipschitz-controllable but reachable points can be approached in time at most $C(-\log\varepsilon)^\gamma$. Section 6 completes the picture by characterizing dominions through proximal-normal inequalities, identifying them with leadership and discriminating domains from viability theory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the discounted value functions stay uniformly continuous as the discount rate vanishes (or satisfy the uniform approximate-reachability time estimate A2); if that regularity fails, the no-disjoint-dominions condition is only necessary, not sufficient, and the equivalence collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the equivalence holds, unique ergodicity can be certified from the bare controlled dynamics $f$, independent of the running payoff $\ell$: check that no closed set defensible by player 1 is disjoint from one defensible by player 2 on the torus.
The theorem recovers and unifies earlier controllability results: if one player can uniformly control the system, the other player's only dominion is the whole torus, so the condition holds automatically and the game is uniquely ergodic.
For one-player optimal control viewed as a two-player game, the dominion condition reduces to the existence and uniqueness of the ergodic attractor of Arisawa: a unique minimal positively invariant set that intersects every dominion.
In the explicit two-dimensional example $f(x,a,b)=(a,\gamma b)$, the characterization yields a sharp dichotomy: for irrational $\gamma$ the game is uniquely ergodic, while for rational $\gamma$ the players hold disjoint dominion lines and the game fails to be uniquely ergodic.

Reading between the lines

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

The proximal-normal characterization of dominions suggests a computational route the paper does not develop: unique ergodicity could be certified by a search over closed sets satisfying the normal-cone inequalities of Theorems 6.1 and 6.2, stopping when a disjoint pair is found or none exists.
The regularity gap between necessity (unconditional) and sufficiency (conditional) leaves room for a genuinely non-equicontinuous game with no disjoint dominions but no unique ergodic limit; constructing or ruling out such an example would locate the exact boundary of the theorem.
Because the companion discrete-time results use the same 'dominion' terminology, the dichotomy may carry over to zero-sum repeated or stochastic games, giving a unified explanation of when long-run values exist; the paper only gestures at this connection.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The main theorem is false as stated. Proposition 4.6 claims that unique ergodicity forces every pair of dominions to intersect in the torus. Here is a counterexample: take A = B = {0}, f(x, a, b) = (1, γ) with γ irrational, and state space R^2/Z^2. The lines D1 = {(s, γs)} and D2 = {(s, γs + 1/2)} are closed, invariant, hence dominions of both players. Their images in the torus are disjoint (an intersection would force 1/2 ∈ γZ + Z, impossible for irrational γ). The game is just the irrational linear flow on T^2, which is uniquely ergodic: for every continuous periodic g, the discounted averages converge uniformly to the torus average. So the necessary condition in Proposition 4.6 fails, and with it the only-if directions of Theorems 4.13 and 5.3.

The proof's invalid step is the claim that π^{-1}(π(D)) is again a dominion. That set is D + Z^n, which need not be closed even when D is closed; Definition 4.2 requires dominions to be closed. This is not a subtle hidden-assumption issue: the author himself notes earlier that images of closed sets in the torus need not be closed. The fix is to work with closures of π(D), or to require dominions to be Z^n-invariant and closed in R^n, but that changes the paper's stated definition and theorem.

What is still good: the operator-theoretic characterization of dominions (Theorems 6.1 and 6.2) is a solid link to viability theory and likely correct. The sufficiency arguments under structural equicontinuity or Assumption A2 may also survive once the necessary condition is repaired. The paper is not a waste; it introduces a useful notion and proves several nontrivial partial results.

For a quick verdict: the central equivalence as written is wrong, so the paper cannot be accepted. But it deserves a serious referee, because the framework is valuable and the flaw is identifiable and fixable. If the author redefines dominions appropriately and re-proves the necessity, the result may hold. I would not cite the paper in its current form, but I would read a revised version.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but flag the counterexample and the non-closedness issue right away; the paper needs major revision before it is publishable.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies unique ergodicity of deterministic zero-sum differential games on the torus, defined as the uniform convergence of the discounted value δv_δ (or the finite-horizon average v(t,·)/t) to a constant for every state-dependent perturbation of the running payoff. The central objects are 'dominions', closed sets that a player can make approximately invariant. The main claim is that unique ergodicity is equivalent to the absence of disjoint dominions of the two players in the torus, under either structural equicontinuity (Theorem 4.13) or a uniform reachability time estimate (Theorem 5.3). The paper proves a necessary condition in Proposition 4.6 and provides operator-theoretic characterizations of dominions in Section 6.

Significance. If the characterization were valid, it would give a clean, symmetric, dynamics-only criterion for unique ergodicity in two-player games, extending Arisawa's results for optimal control and connecting to viability theory and repeated games. The paper contains several substantial and apparently correct auxiliary results, including Theorem 3.2 (unique ergodicity, structural equicontinuity, and the strong maximum principle), Lemma 4.11 (argmin and argmax of cell-problem solutions are dominions), and Theorem 6.2 (proximal-normal characterization of dominions). However, the central necessity result, Proposition 4.6, is false as stated, and the same counterexample invalidates Proposition 5.2. The manuscript therefore does not establish its advertised characterization.

major comments (3)

[§4.1–4.2, Definition 4.5 and Proposition 4.6] The proof of Proposition 4.6 uses the claim, stated in the note after Definition 4.5, that π^{-1}(π(D)) is again a dominion whenever D is a dominion. This is false as stated because Definition 4.2 requires dominions to be closed, while π^{-1}(π(D)) = D + Z^n need not be closed. A concrete obstruction is the control-free game on R^2 with f(x,a,b) = (1,γ), A = B = {0}, and γ irrational. The sets D1 = {(s,γs) : s ∈ R} and D2 = {(s,γs + 1/2) : s ∈ R} are closed invariant lines, hence dominions of both players, and π(D1) ∩ π(D2) = ∅ because an intersection would force 1/2 ∈ γZ + Z, impossible for irrational γ. At the same time the game is uniquely ergodic, since the underlying dynamics is the uniquely ergodic irrational linear flow on T^2; for every continuous periodic perturbation g, δv_δ^g converges uniformly to the torus average of ℓ + g. Thus Proposition 4.6 is false, and the only-if direction of Theorems 4.13 and 5.3 is not established. The fix should involve closed images in the torus (e.g., require K closed with π^{-1}(K) a dominion, or replace π(D) by its closure) and a separation argument adapted to such sets.
[§4.2, proof of Proposition 4.6 (separation step)] Independently of the closedness issue, the construction in the proof of Proposition 4.6 requires the ε-neighborhoods D1^ε and D2^ε in R^n to be disjoint for some ε > 0, which is possible only if the torus images π(D1) and π(D2) are positively separated. In the irrational-flow example the images are dense, so no such ε exists and the payoff perturbation g satisfying (10) cannot be defined. Any corrected version of the necessity theorem must either add a separation hypothesis or use an argument that works for non-closed images.
[§5, Proposition 5.2 and Theorem 5.3] Proposition 5.2 is stated as a stronger version of Proposition 4.6 for Lipschitz perturbations and is used in Theorem 5.3 to prove (ii) ⇒ (iii). The control-free irrational-flow example also disproves Proposition 5.2: the game satisfies the proposition's hypothesis (it is uniquely ergodic, hence ergodic for every Lipschitz perturbation) but the players have disjoint dominions in the torus. Consequently the proof of Theorem 5.3 is invalid as written. The uniform time estimate Assumption A2 does not repair Proposition 5.2, which is stated independently of A2; a corrected proof of the necessity direction under A2 would still require a different argument.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Introduction] There are several typographical errors, including 'W e', 's um', and 'identify' for 'identified'; the manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
[Definition 4.5 and following note] The notation in the note after Definition 4.5 is garbled in the rendering, and the claim that π^{-1}(π(D)) is a dominion is precisely the point that fails; this should be corrected in conjunction with the major revision.
[Theorem 4.13] The proof correctly observes that for argmin and argmax sets of a continuous periodic solution w of the cell problem, the images π(D1) and π(D2) are closed; this contrasts with the general definition of a dominion in the torus, where π(D) need not be closed, and this distinction should be made explicit.
[Example 4.14] The argument for irrational γ is heuristic, particularly the statement that 'any deviation of a trajectory from one of these half-lines eventually leads to the intersection'; a rigorous proof or a reference to a standard density argument would strengthen the example.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central equivalence is derived from independent PDE and controllability arguments; the disputed saturation claim is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Unique ergodicity is defined through uniform convergence of discounted or finite-horizon value functions for every state-dependent perturbation g, while dominions are defined dynamically through approximate invariance of closed sets. The two notions are connected by substantive arguments: Lemmas 4.7 and 4.8 characterize dominions by discounted occupation measures; Lemma 4.11 identifies argmin and argmax of solutions of the cell problem with dominions; Proposition 4.6 constructs a perturbation g that separates two disjoint dominions; and Theorem 4.13 derives the strong maximum principle from the absence of disjoint dominions, with the extra structural equicontinuity assumption taken explicitly as a hypothesis. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction. The structural equicontinuity condition and Assumption A2 are stated assumptions, not hidden consequences of the conclusion; A2 is explicitly borrowed from Arisawa [Ari98], and Theorem 3.2 is adapted from Alvarez--Bardi [AB10], neither of which is a self-citation by the author. The self-citations [Hoc19, AGH20] are used only to explain the terminology 'dominion' and are not load-bearing. The genuinely load-bearing step that may be invalid is the assertion in Definition 4.5 and Proposition 4.6 that π^{-1}(π(D)) is again a dominion; if false, this breaks the necessity direction of the main characterization. That is a mathematical correctness issue, not a circularity: the conclusion is not equivalent to the premise by definition, nor is a fitted input relabeled as a prediction. The paper should therefore receive a circularity score of 0.

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

The central claim rests on the explicitly stated standing assumptions A0, A1, and A2, which are standard domain assumptions in the field. There are no free parameters fitted to data. The only new object introduced is the definition of 'dominion', which is a mathematical concept, not a postulated physical entity, so the invented-entities ledger is empty.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumption A0: f is continuous and uniformly Lipschitz in x; ℓ is bounded, continuous and uniformly continuous in x; f and ℓ are Zn-periodic in x.
Stated in Section 2.1 as the standing framework. Guarantees well-posedness of the controlled system and viscosity solutions. Used throughout.
domain assumption Assumption A1: Hamiltonian H is continuous, Zn-periodic in the first variable, has a modulus of continuity with respect to x that allows comparison, and admits a positively homogeneous recession function H∞.
Introduced in Section 3 for arbitrary Hamiltonians. The game Hamiltonian (4) satisfies these under A0, so they are assumptions on the abstract setting, not extra restrictions on the games.
domain assumption Assumption A2: there exist γ in [0,1) and C > 0 such that approximate reachability within any ε-neighborhood is achieved in time at most C(-log ε)^γ, for reachable sets of both players.
Used in Section 5 to prove Theorem 5.3; this is a strong uniform controllability-type estimate borrowed from Arisawa [Ari98]. It is explicitly stated as an assumption and is load-bearing for the sufficiency direction in that section.
standard math Classical PDE and analysis results: comparison principle for viscosity solutions, stability of viscosity solutions, Arzela-Ascoli, Cauchy-Lipschitz for ODEs, and measurable selection.
Used throughout the proofs, cited to [BCD97] and [AF09]. These are standard background, not invented for this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unique ergodicity of deterministic zero-sum differential games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AL3NC47J

@misc{pith2026190803643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unique ergodicity of deterministic zero-sum differential games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AL3NC47J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03643}
}

read the original abstract

We study the ergodicity of deterministic two-person zero-sum differential games. This property is defined by the uniform convergence to a constant of either the infinite-horizon discounted value as the discount factor tends to zero, or equivalently, the averaged finite-horizon value as the time goes to infinity. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the unique ergodicity of a game. This notion extends the classical one for dynamical systems, namely when ergodicity holds with any (suitable) perturbation of the running payoff function. Our main condition is symmetric between the two players and involve dominions, i.e., subsets of states that one player can make approximately invariant.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03643 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Trajectories in ε-neighborhoods (D1 ε and D2 ε ) of dominions D1 and D2 . any deviation of a trajectory from one of these half-lines eventually leads to the intersection of the two trajectories. If there are only finitely many points zε as described above, then we deduce that D1 and D2 respectively contain the latter half-lines and therefore both dominions correspond to the trivial dominion in R 2/Z 2 , composed of… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

Alvarez and M

O. Alvarez and M. Bardi, Singular perturbations of nonlinear degenerate parabolic PDE s: a general convergence result , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 170 (2003), no. 1, 17--61

work page 2003
[2]

Internat

, Ergodic problems in differential games, Advances in dynamic game theory, Ann. Internat. Soc. Dynam. Games, vol. 9, Birkh\" a user Boston, Boston, MA, 2007, pp. 131--152

work page 2007
[3]

, Ergodicity, stabilization, and singular perturbations for B ellman- I saacs equations , Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 204 (2010), no. 960, vi+77

work page 2010
[4]

a user Classics, Birkh\

J.-P. Aubin and H. Frankowska, Set-valued analysis, Modern Birkh\" a user Classics, Birkh\" a user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2009, Reprint of the 1990 edition

work page 2009
[5]

Akian, S

M. Akian, S. Gaubert, and A. Hochart, A game theory approach to the existence and uniqueness of nonlinear P erron- F robenius eigenvectors , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 40 (2020), no. 1, 207--231

work page 2020
[6]

Arisawa, Ergodic problem for the H amilton- J acobi- B ellman equation

M. Arisawa, Ergodic problem for the H amilton- J acobi- B ellman equation. I . E xistence of the ergodic attractor , Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e Anal. Non Lin\' e aire 14 (1997), no. 4, 415--438

work page 1997
[7]

II , Ann

, Ergodic problem for the H amilton- J acobi- B ellman equation. II , Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e Anal. Non Lin\' e aire 15 (1998), no. 1, 1--24

work page 1998
[8]

As Soulaimani, M

S. As Soulaimani, M. Quincampoix, and S. Sorin, Repeated games and qualitative differential games: approachability and comparison of strategies, SIAM J. Control Optim. 48 (2009), no. 4, 2461--2479

work page 2009

Show all 23 references

[9]

Bardi and I

M. Bardi and I. Capuzzo-Dolcetta, Optimal control and viscosity solutions of H amilton- J acobi- B ellman equations , Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications, Birkh\" a user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1997

1997
[10]

Bettiol, On ergodic problem for H amilton- J acobi- I saacs equations , ESAIM Control Optim

P. Bettiol, On ergodic problem for H amilton- J acobi- I saacs equations , ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 11 (2005), no. 4, 522--541

2005
[11]

Buckdahn, M

R. Buckdahn, M. Quincampoix, and J. Renault, On representation formulas for long run averaging optimal control problem, J. Differential Equations 259 (2015), no. 11, 5554--5581

2015
[12]

Cardaliaguet, A differential game with two players and one target, SIAM J

P. Cardaliaguet, A differential game with two players and one target, SIAM J. Control Optim. 34 (1996), no. 4, 1441--1460

1996
[13]

, Ergodicity of H amilton- J acobi equations with a noncoercive nonconvex H amiltonian in R ^2/ Z ^2 , Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e Anal. Non Lin\' e aire 27 (2010), no. 3, 837--856

2010
[14]

Cannarsa and M

P. Cannarsa and M. Quincampoix, Vanishing discount limit and nonexpansive optimal control and differential games, SIAM J. Control Optim. 53 (2015), no. 4, 1789--1814

2015
[15]

Gaitsgory and M

V. Gaitsgory and M. Quincampoix, On sets of occupational measures generated by a deterministic control system on an infinite time horizon, Nonlinear Anal. 88 (2013), 27--41

2013
[16]

Hochart, An accretive operator approach to ergodic zero-sum stochastic games, J

A. Hochart, An accretive operator approach to ergodic zero-sum stochastic games, J. Dyn. Games 6 (2019), no. 1, 27--51

2019
[17]

Khlopin, Tauberian theorem for value functions, Dyn

D. Khlopin, Tauberian theorem for value functions, Dyn. Games Appl. 8 (2018), no. 2, 401--422

2018
[18]

Lions, G

P.-L. Lions, G. Papanicolaou, and S. R. S. Varadhan, Homogenization of H amilton- J acobi equations , unpublished work, 1987

1987
[19]

Quincampoix and J

M. Quincampoix and J. Renault, On the existence of a limit value in some nonexpansive optimal control problems, SIAM J. Control Optim. 49 (2011), no. 5, 2118--2132

2011
[20]

Vigeral, A zero-zum stochastic game with compact action sets and no asymptotic value, Dyn

G. Vigeral, A zero-zum stochastic game with compact action sets and no asymptotic value, Dyn. Games Appl. 3 (2013), no. 2, 172--186

2013
[21]

Ziliotto, Zero-sum repeated games: counterexamples to the existence of the asymptotic value and the conjecture maxmin = v_n , Ann

B. Ziliotto, Zero-sum repeated games: counterexamples to the existence of the asymptotic value and the conjecture maxmin = v_n , Ann. Probab. 44 (2016), no. 2, 1107--1133

2016
[22]

Pure Appl

, Stochastic homogenization of nonconvex H amilton- J acobi equations: a counterexample , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 70 (2017), no. 9, 1798--1809

2017
[23]

, Convergence of the solutions of the discounted H amilton- J acobi equation: a counterexample , J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 128 (2019), 330--338

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Alvarez and M

O. Alvarez and M. Bardi, Singular perturbations of nonlinear degenerate parabolic PDE s: a general convergence result , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 170 (2003), no. 1, 17--61

work page 2003

[2] [2]

Internat

, Ergodic problems in differential games, Advances in dynamic game theory, Ann. Internat. Soc. Dynam. Games, vol. 9, Birkh\" a user Boston, Boston, MA, 2007, pp. 131--152

work page 2007

[3] [3]

, Ergodicity, stabilization, and singular perturbations for B ellman- I saacs equations , Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 204 (2010), no. 960, vi+77

work page 2010

[4] [4]

a user Classics, Birkh\

J.-P. Aubin and H. Frankowska, Set-valued analysis, Modern Birkh\" a user Classics, Birkh\" a user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2009, Reprint of the 1990 edition

work page 2009

[5] [5]

Akian, S

M. Akian, S. Gaubert, and A. Hochart, A game theory approach to the existence and uniqueness of nonlinear P erron- F robenius eigenvectors , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 40 (2020), no. 1, 207--231

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Arisawa, Ergodic problem for the H amilton- J acobi- B ellman equation

M. Arisawa, Ergodic problem for the H amilton- J acobi- B ellman equation. I . E xistence of the ergodic attractor , Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e Anal. Non Lin\' e aire 14 (1997), no. 4, 415--438

work page 1997

[7] [7]

II , Ann

, Ergodic problem for the H amilton- J acobi- B ellman equation. II , Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e Anal. Non Lin\' e aire 15 (1998), no. 1, 1--24

work page 1998

[8] [8]

As Soulaimani, M

S. As Soulaimani, M. Quincampoix, and S. Sorin, Repeated games and qualitative differential games: approachability and comparison of strategies, SIAM J. Control Optim. 48 (2009), no. 4, 2461--2479

work page 2009