Extended mean field games with terminal constraint via decoupling fields

Peng Luo; Tianjiao Hua

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Extended mean field games with terminal constraint via decoupling fields

T0 review · 4 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 This paper shows that a terminal-constrained extended mean field game can be solved by adding a quadratic penalty on the terminal state and letting the penalty weight go to infinity, passing through the monotonicity of the associated…

desk verdict Promising approach to terminal-constrained extended MFGs via penalized decoupling fields, but the submitted proof has an invalid inequality in the main blow-up argument and an inconsistent terminal condition, so the result is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07485 v1 pith:FJOEURP4 submitted 2025-06-09 math.OC

Tianjiao Hua , Peng Luo This is my paper

classification math.OC MSC 93E2060H3049N70

keywords extendedmeanfieldgameterminalconstraintcommonnoiseconditionalFBSDEdecouplingpenalizationmethodoptimalliquidationabsorption

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 class of linear-quadratic extended mean field games with common noise in which every player's state must be exactly zero at the terminal time, a constraint that makes the value function singular at T. The authors' plan is to replace the constrained game by an unconstrained one with a quadratic penalty on the terminal state, and then to let the penalty weight L tend to infinity. The core step is proving that the decoupling field u^L(t,x,\nu)=P^L_t x+\Phi^L(t,\nu) of the associated conditional mean field forward-backward SDE is uniformly bounded and monotone in L on positive states; this yields limiting objects u^\infty and X^\infty with X^\infty_T=0. They then identify the limit as the unique solution of a new type of coupled conditional mean field FBSDE in which the forward component carries both initial and terminal conditions and the backward component has no boundary condition. A sympathetic reader would care because the result gives a probabilistic, FBSDE-based route to terminal-constrained mean field equilibria without a weak-interaction assumption.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the decoupling field u^L(t,x,\nu)=P^L_t x+\Phi^L(t,\nu) of the penalized conditional mean field FBSDE (3.1), where P^L_t solves a Riccati ODE with terminal value L and \Phi^L is the unique Lipschitz solution of an auxiliary FBSDE driven by the common noise. The field encodes the optimal cost-to-go for the unconstrained problem and provides the feedback form of the optimal control. Its monotonicity in L (Lemma 3.5) and uniform upper and lower bounds on positive states (Lemma 3.4) allow the limit L\to\infty to be taken, producing u^\infty and the limiting state X^\infty; the lower bound u^\infty(s,X^\infty_s,\cdot)\ge C_1 X^\infty_s/(T-s) then drives the terminal blow-up argument that forces X^\infty_T=0.

What would settle it

Compute the limit X^\infty from (3.20) in the one-dimensional pure liquidation case (A=0, B=1, f=b=l=h=0, Q=R=1) with positive deterministic \xi. If X^\infty_T>0, the terminal constraint is missed and Theorem 2.1 fails; alternatively, any concrete (t,x,\nu) with x,\nu>0 where u^L(t,x,\nu) is not monotone in L falsifies Lemma 3.5.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the constrained extended MFG has an optimal control \$\alpha$^\infty, given in feedback form by \$\alpha$^\infty_t=-$B_tR_t^{{-1}}$u^\infty(t,X^\infty_t,E[X^\infty_t|$F^{{W^0}}$_t])-h(t,\rho(t,-$R_t^{{-1}}$B_tu^\infty(t,X^\infty_t,E[X^\infty_t|$F^{{W^0}}$_t])))) for t\in[0,T) and \$\alpha$^\infty_T=0, and that the associated quadruplet (X^\infty,Y^\infty,Z^\infty,$Z^{{0,\infty}}$) is the unique solution of the conditional mean field FBSDE (3.25). The control is obtained as the L\to\infty limit of the penalized optimal controls; the limit exists because the decoupling field u^L is non-decreasing in L and uniformly bounded for positive states, and the penalized optimal paths are nonnegative and non-increasing, which ultimately forces X^\infty_T=0 through the blow-up estimate (3.21). In the limiting FBSDE the forward process carries both X^\infty_0=\xi and X^\infty_T=0, while the backward component Y^\infty satisfies no boundary condition; this is described as a new type of coupled conditional mean field FBSDE whose wellposedness is established in Theorem 3.9.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the absorption and monotonicity structure that keeps every optimal penalized state nonnegative and non-increasing — nonnegative initial state, A_t\le 0, f'\le 0, f(t,0)=b(t,0)=0 and the sign condition (2.1) — because without it the penalized trajectories need not converge to a path hitting zero at the terminal time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The optimal strategy \alpha^\infty is implementable as a feedback control depending on the state and its conditional expectation with respect to common noise, with the terminal value set to zero, and it attains finite cost for the constrained problem.
The penalized problems are consistent with the constrained problem: V(\xi)=\lim_{L\to\infty}V^L(\xi), so solving the limit of unconstrained games gives the true value of the constrained game.
The theorem establishes wellposedness of a coupled conditional mean field FBSDE where the forward component has both an initial and a terminal condition and the backward component has no boundary condition at all; this is a new object even outside the MFG context.
The result covers nonlinear dependence of the coefficients on the mean field of states and controls, extending earlier terminal-constrained MFG results that required linear structure or weak interaction.

Reading between the lines

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

This construction suggests a numerical recipe: solve the penalized FBSDE for a sequence of growing L and use the monotone convergence of u^L to extrapolate X^L_T toward zero; a natural test is the pure liquidation case with A=0, B=1, Q=R=1.
Because the limiting backward equation carries no terminal data, the same decoupling-field limit may apply to other problems with hard end-point targets, such as principal-agent contracts with terminal capital requirements, where the free backward component plays the role of a shadow price.
The proof of monotonicity of u^L in L is carried out on strictly positive states; whether the convergence extends to states that reach zero before T, i.e. along the absorption boundary, is a boundary question the paper does not settle and could be probed numerically.

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

Colleague—

The headline: this paper takes a promising route to terminal-constrained extended MFGs—penalize the terminal state, get a decoupling field for the penalized conditional mean field FBSDE, then pass L to infinity—but the proof as submitted does not close. The limiting blow-up argument in Lemma 3.7 contains an algebraic falsehood, and the terminal condition in the auxiliary FBSDE (3.3) is inconsistent with the decoupling field ansatz.

What is genuinely new: the paper is the first to use decoupling fields for extended MFGs with a strict terminal state constraint and common noise. It removes the weak interaction condition from Fu, Graewe, Horst, and Popier by imposing a monotonicity/absorption structure, and it identifies the limiting object as a new type of conditional mean field FBSDE with two constraints on the forward component. The organization is clear, and the high-level strategy is coherent.

The soft spots are substantive. Eq. (3.21) asserts u∞ ≥ C1(X∞−E[X∞])/(T−t) + C3 E[X∞]/(T−t) ≥ C1 X∞/(T−t). The second inequality requires C3 ≥ C1. Lemma 3.4 explicitly states C3 < C1 and its proof depends on that ordering. Unless the conditional mean is zero a.s.—which the framework does not guarantee—the chain is false. This is not a typo; the subsequent differential inequality and the conclusion X∞_T = 0 depend on it. Without X∞_T = 0, the limiting control is not admissible for (C-MF), and the equality V∞ = V in Theorem 2.1 is unsupported.

Second, Eq. (3.3) has φ^L_T = Lν^L_T, which gives Φ^L(T,ν)=Lν for the decoupling field. But FBSDE (3.1) has Y_T = LX_T, and the ansatz u^L(T,x,ν)=P^L_T x + Φ^L(T,ν) forces Φ^L(T,ν)=0. The two terminal conditions are incompatible. This looks like a modeling error in the auxiliary FBSDE rather than a harmless convention.

Third, Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5 lean on “similar arguments as [17]”, a preprint by the same authors. That may be fine in a working paper, but a referee cannot verify the dynamics of Ψ^L or the global extension from those references without more detail.

All three issues are locatable and plausibly repairable. The core idea is good, and the paper deserves a serious referee. But the current version is not publishable as is. I would send it to peer review with a strong request for major revision, asking the authors to fix the constants in Lemma 3.7, reconcile the terminal conditions, and expand the arguments imported from [17].

For your reading group: maybe—worth reading for the method, but warn people about the gaps.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies a linear-quadratic extended mean field game with common noise and a strict terminal state constraint X_T = 0. The proposed method penalizes the terminal constraint by adding L X_T^2 to the cost, solves the penalized problem through a stochastic maximum principle and a conditional mean field FBSDE, and then analyzes the limiting behavior of the decoupling field u^L and the state X^L as L tends to infinity. The main result, Theorem 2.1, asserts that the limit control α^∞ is optimal for the constrained problem, and Theorems 3.8–3.9 characterize the limit as the unique solution of a new type of conditional mean field FBSDE in which the terminal condition is imposed on the forward component while the backward component has no boundary condition.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely difficult extension of the decoupling-field method: the common noise makes the decoupling field a function of both the spatial and the measure variable, and the terminal constraint produces a singular limiting object. If the proof can be completed, the main contribution is a constructive solution of a terminal-constrained extended MFG and a new wellposedness result for free-boundary conditional mean field FBSDEs. I also credit the authors for not assuming the main theorem: the limit objects u^∞ and X^∞ are defined as limits of explicitly constructed penalized objects, and Theorem 3.9 provides a uniqueness statement. However, the submitted manuscript contains a terminal-condition inconsistency in Section 3.1 and an invalid inequality in the key blow-up argument of Lemma 3.7, so the central claims are not presently established.

major comments (4)

[3.1, Eq. (3.3) and (3.4)] The terminal condition φ^L_T = L ν^L_T is inconsistent with the decoupling-field representation. For FBSDE (3.1) one has Y^L_T = L X^L_T; if Y^L_t = P^L_t X^L_t + Φ^L(t, E[X^L_t | F^{W^0}_t]) and P^L_T = L, then necessarily Φ^L(T,ν)=0 for every ν. In contrast, the definition Φ^L(t,ν)=φ^{t,ν}_t together with (3.3) gives Φ^L(T,ν)=Lν, so u^L(T,x,ν)=L(x+ν), not Lx. This mismatch concerns the wellposedness statement in Theorem 3.1 and the identification of the decoupling field, and it should be fixed (for example, by using φ^L_T = 0 in (3.3) or by redefining Φ^L and (3.7)).
[3.2, Lemma 3.7, Eq. (3.21)] The inequality chain in Eq. (3.21) is algebraically invalid. From Lemma 3.4, after L→∞ the lower bounds give u^∞(s,x,ν) ≥ C1 (x−ν)/(T−s) + C3 ν/(T−s). Since Lemma 3.4 states C3 < C1, the right-hand side equals C1 x/(T−s) + (C3−C1)ν/(T−s), which is strictly smaller than C1 x/(T−s) whenever ν = E[X^∞_s | F^{W^0}_s] > 0. Thus the claimed second inequality in (3.21) fails, and the subsequent estimate leading to X^∞_T = 0 is not established. The terminal constraint in Theorem 2.1 and the equality V^∞(ξ)=V(ξ) rest on this step; the ordering C3 < C1 is not an arbitrary typo because Φ^L_ν can be negative.
[3.1–3.2, Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5] The derivations of the dynamics of Ψ^L and Λ^L are delegated to 'similar arguments as [17]', a preprint by the same authors, and Theorem 3.1 is imported from [18]. These results are load-bearing: they supply the lower bounds (3.5)–(3.6) and the monotonicity in L that are used to define u^∞. The manuscript should either reproduce the arguments or state the precise results from [17] with matching hypotheses; as submitted, the proof is not self-contained at a critical point.
[3.2, Lemma 3.5] The comparison argument for γ_t = ∂u/∂L asserts that P_t and Λ_t are uniformly bounded 'according to Lemma 3.4'; however, Lemma 3.4 only provides bounds of order 1/(T−t) (κ_t and κ̃_t), so uniformity on [0,T) is not available. The proof needs to explain why the linear BSDE for γ_t has bounded coefficients on each interval used for the extension, or otherwise justify the comparison and the monotonicity of u^L in L.

minor comments (5)

[3.2, proof of Lemma 3.4] The displayed definition 'K_3 = K^2/δ + (K^2+K^3)/(δ ε_0)' is circular; the constants should be reindexed to avoid using the same symbol on both sides.
[3.2, proof of Lemma 3.6] The sentence that 'u^L is defined on a closed and bounded interval' is inaccurate: Lemma 3.2 concerns the state X^L, not u^L, and the domain of u^L is [0,T)×(0,∞)×(0,∞). The Arzelà–Ascoli step should be stated on compact subintervals of [0,T) and on bounded subsets of (0,∞)^2.
[3.2, after Eq. (3.16)] The phrase 'pointwise convergence of u^L(t,x,L)' should read 'u^L(t,x,ν)'; using L for both the penalty parameter and an argument of u^L is confusing.
[3.2, statement of Lemma 3.5] The terminal condition of FBSDE (3.8) is written as (0∨X_T∧C)(0∨L_T∧C); the text should explicitly justify that under Lemma 3.2 and L>0 the relevant values are in [0,C], so that this indeed coincides with X_T L_T.
[3.3, Theorem 3.8] The theorem is formulated for 0≤t≤r<T, but the displayed FBSDE (3.25) is written as a system over the whole interval with X^∞_T = 0; please clarify the sense in which (3.25) holds and whether Y^∞ is required to have a terminal value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the constrained MFG result is derived by an explicit penalization-and-limit construction; self-citations are dependencies, not disguised assumptions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The constrained problem (C-MF) is attacked by introducing the L-penalized unconstrained problem (P-MF), importing from the authors' published [18] the stochastic-maximum-principle characterization of its solution, and then explicitly constructing u^∞ and X^∞ as limits (3.16) and (3.19). The terminal condition X^∞_T = 0 is not assumed as an input; it is argued in Lemma 3.7 through the blow-up estimate (3.21). The self-citations in the paper are real dependencies but not reductions of the target theorem to itself: Theorem 3.1 is quoted from [18] ('The problem (P-MF) has been investigated in [18]'), and Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5 rely on 'similar argument in [17]' and 'similar arguments as [17]'. Those prior works concern LQ extended MFGs and FBSDE solvability, not the terminal-constrained MFG theorem proved here, so the cited results do not contain the conclusion as a premise. The alleged algebraic defect in (3.21) is a correctness concern, not a circularity concern: since Lemma 3.4 gives C3 < C1, the displayed lower bound by C1 X^∞/(T-t) is indeed false in general when E[X^∞] > 0, so the proof of X^∞_T = 0 as written has a gap. But a failed estimate is not an instance of the paper's output being equivalent to its input by construction; the terminal constraint is derived rather than presupposed. If the inequality is repaired, the construction remains non-circular; if it cannot be repaired, the theorem is unproved, but the failure mode is algebraic, not self-referential.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters and no new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The paper's analytic result depends on the coefficient assumptions in (H), on standard stochastic calculus tools, and on the inverse function defining ρ.

assumptions (3)

standard math Itô calculus, comparison principles for ODEs and BSDEs, stochastic maximum principle, Arzelà-Ascoli, Fatou's lemma.
Invoked without proof throughout Section 3 to derive the FBSDE, its decoupling field, and the limit arguments.
domain assumption Assumption (H): A_t ≤ 0, Q_t > 0, R_t ≥ δ, |B_t| ≥ δ, f' ≤ 0, l' ≥ 0, 1 + h' ≠ 0, B R^{-1}(b' - B h')/(1 + h') ≥ 0, and ξ ≥ 0 bounded.
Used to prove nonnegativity and monotonicity of optimal states (Lemma 3.2), uniform bounds of the decoupling field (Lemma 3.4), and monotonicity in L (Lemma 3.5).
domain assumption The mapping ρ is the inverse of x ↦ x + h(t,x), with ρ' = 1/(1 + h'), and |1 + h'| ≥ ε_0 gives ρ uniformly Lipschitz.
Introduced in Section 3.1 via the inverse function theorem; used in the optimal control formula and in the FBSDE drift terms.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extended mean field games with terminal constraint via decoupling fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJOEURP4

@misc{pith2026250607485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extended mean field games with terminal constraint via decoupling fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJOEURP4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07485}
}

read the original abstract

We consider a class of extended mean field games with common noises, where there exists a strictly terminal constraint. We solve the problem by reducing it to an unconstrained control problem by adding a penalized term in the cost functional and then taking a limit. Using the stochastic maximum principle, we characterize the solution of the unconstrained control problem in terms of a conditional mean field forward-backward stochastic differential equation (FBSDE). We obtain the wellposedness results of the FBSDE and the monotonicity property of its decoupling field. Based on that, we solve the original constrained problem and characterize its solution in terms of a system of coupled conditional mean field FBSDE with a free backward part. In particular, we obtain the solvability of a new type of coupled conditional mean field FBSDEs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[17]

A unified approach to global solvability for FBSDEs with diagonal generators

T. Hua and P. Luo , A unified approach to global solvability for fbsdes with diagonal generators , arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00913, (2022)

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[18]

Hua and P

T. Hua and P. Luo , Linear-quadratic extended mean field games with common noises , J. Differential Equations, 411 (2024), pp. 204--226

work page 2024
[1]

Achdou, F

Y. Achdou, F. Camilli, and I. Capuzzo-Dolcetta , Mean field games: numerical methods for the planning problem , SIAM J. Control Optim., 50 (2012), pp. 77--109

work page 2012
[2]

Alasseur, I

C. Alasseur, I. Ben Taher, and A. Matoussi , An extended mean field game for storage in smart grids , J. Optim. Theory Appl., 184 (2020), pp. 644--670

work page 2020
[3]

Ankirchner, A

S. Ankirchner, A. Fromm, T. Kruse, and A. Popier , Optimal position targeting via decoupling fields , Ann. Appl. Probab., 30 (2020), pp. 644--672

work page 2020
[4]

Ankirchner, M

S. Ankirchner, M. Jeanblanc, and T. Kruse , B SDE s with singular terminal condition and a control problem with constraints , SIAM J. Control Optim., 52 (2014), pp. 893--913

work page 2014
[5]

Cardaliaguet and C.-A

P. Cardaliaguet and C.-A. Lehalle , Mean field game of controls and an application to trade crowding , Math. Financ. Econ., 12 (2018), pp. 335--363

work page 2018
[6]

Carmona and F

R. Carmona and F. Delarue , Probabilistic analysis of mean-field games , SIAM J. Control Optim., 51 (2013), pp. 2705--2734

work page 2013

Show all 24 references

[7]

Carmona and F

R. Carmona and F. Delarue , Probabilistic theory of mean field games with applications. I , vol. 83 of Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling, Springer, Cham, 2018. Mean field FBSDEs, control, and games

2018
[8]

Carmona and F

R. Carmona and F. Delarue , Probabilistic theory of mean field games with applications. II , vol. 84 of Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling, Springer, Cham, 2018. Mean field games with common noise and master equations

2018
[9]

Carmona and P

R. Carmona and P. Wang , A probabilistic approach to extended finite state mean field games , Math. Oper. Res., 46 (2021), pp. 471--502

2021
[10]

G. Fu, P. Graewe, U. Horst, and A. Popier , A mean field game of optimal portfolio liquidation , Math. Oper. Res., 46 (2021), pp. 1250--1281

2021
[11]

G. Fu, P. P. Hager, and U. Horst , Mean-field liquidation games with market drop-out , Math. Finance, 34 (2024), pp. 1123--1166

2024
[12]

D. A. Gomes and T. Seneci , Displacement convexity for first-order mean-field games , Minimax Theory Appl., 3 (2018), pp. 261--284

2018
[13]

Graewe and U

P. Graewe and U. Horst , Optimal trade execution with instantaneous price impact and stochastic resilience , SIAM J. Control Optim., 55 (2017), pp. 3707--3725

2017
[14]

Graewe, U

P. Graewe, U. Horst, and J. Qiu , A non- M arkovian liquidation problem and backward SPDE s with singular terminal conditions , SIAM J. Control Optim., 53 (2015), pp. 690--711

2015
[15]

Graewe, U

P. Graewe, U. Horst, and E. S\' e r\' e , Smooth solutions to portfolio liquidation problems under price-sensitive market impact , Stochastic Process. Appl., 128 (2018), pp. 979--1006

2018
[16]

Graewe, U

P. Graewe, U. Horst, and R. Sircar , A maximum principle approach to a deterministic mean field game of control with absorption , SIAM J. Control Optim., 60 (2022), pp. 3173--3190

2022
[19]

Huang, R

M. Huang, R. P. Malham\' e , and P. E. Caines , Large population stochastic dynamic games: closed-loop M c K ean- V lasov systems and the N ash certainty equivalence principle , Commun. Inf. Syst., 6 (2006), pp. 221--251

2006
[20]

Kruse and A

T. Kruse and A. Popier , Minimal supersolutions for BSDE s with singular terminal condition and application to optimal position targeting , Stochastic Process. Appl., 126 (2016), pp. 2554--2592

2016
[21]

Lasry and P.-L

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

2007
[22]

Popier , Backward stochastic differential equations with singular terminal condition , Stochastic Process

A. Popier , Backward stochastic differential equations with singular terminal condition , Stochastic Process. Appl., 116 (2006), pp. 2014--2056

2006
[23]

Popier , Backward stochastic differential equations with random stopping time and singular final condition , Ann

A. Popier , Backward stochastic differential equations with random stopping time and singular final condition , Ann. Probab., 35 (2007), pp. 1071--1117

2007
[24]

Porretta , On the planning problem for the mean field games system , Dyn

A. Porretta , On the planning problem for the mean field games system , Dyn. Games Appl., 4 (2014), pp. 231--256

2014

Pith tools

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

[1] [17]

A unified approach to global solvability for FBSDEs with diagonal generators

T. Hua and P. Luo , A unified approach to global solvability for fbsdes with diagonal generators , arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00913, (2022)

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[2] [18]

Hua and P

T. Hua and P. Luo , Linear-quadratic extended mean field games with common noises , J. Differential Equations, 411 (2024), pp. 204--226

work page 2024

[3] [1]

Achdou, F

Y. Achdou, F. Camilli, and I. Capuzzo-Dolcetta , Mean field games: numerical methods for the planning problem , SIAM J. Control Optim., 50 (2012), pp. 77--109

work page 2012

[4] [2]

Alasseur, I

C. Alasseur, I. Ben Taher, and A. Matoussi , An extended mean field game for storage in smart grids , J. Optim. Theory Appl., 184 (2020), pp. 644--670

work page 2020

[5] [3]

Ankirchner, A

S. Ankirchner, A. Fromm, T. Kruse, and A. Popier , Optimal position targeting via decoupling fields , Ann. Appl. Probab., 30 (2020), pp. 644--672

work page 2020

[6] [4]

Ankirchner, M

S. Ankirchner, M. Jeanblanc, and T. Kruse , B SDE s with singular terminal condition and a control problem with constraints , SIAM J. Control Optim., 52 (2014), pp. 893--913

work page 2014

[7] [5]

Cardaliaguet and C.-A

P. Cardaliaguet and C.-A. Lehalle , Mean field game of controls and an application to trade crowding , Math. Financ. Econ., 12 (2018), pp. 335--363

work page 2018

[8] [6]

Carmona and F

R. Carmona and F. Delarue , Probabilistic analysis of mean-field games , SIAM J. Control Optim., 51 (2013), pp. 2705--2734

work page 2013