Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Optimal hedging of an informed broker facing many traders

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 A broker with private drift information should hide it until a critical time, then disclose it all at once.

desk verdict A genuinely new explicit bang-bang disclosure policy for an informed broker in a mean-field Stackelberg game, solidly derived but with two proof gaps that need closing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08992 v1 pith:L4AUOO7Y submitted 2025-06-10 q-fin.TR math.OC

Philippe Bergault , Pierre Cardaliaguet , Wenbin Yan This is my paper
classification q-fin.TRmath.OC MSC 91A1691A6591G1049N10
keywords marketmakingalgorithmictradingexternalizationmeanfieldgamesStackelbergequilibriuminformationleakageoptimalcontrolhedging
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 studies a broker who knows the drift of an asset price while many traders do not, and whose own trading rate is observed by those traders. The paper claims that in the mean-field limit of infinitely many traders there is a critical time $t_c \in [0,T]$ such that the broker optimally leaks no information before $t_c$ and discloses all information exactly at $t_c$, provided the traders' permanent market impact $b$ is small. It gives an explicit, piecewise analytic formula for the broker's execution rate and proves that this infinite-trader policy remains a $C/\sqrt{N}$-optimal Stackelberg equilibrium when there are $N$ traders. The reason to care is that the result turns a vague trade-off between hiding and exploiting private information into a sharp policy: gradual leakage is dominated by a single, timed revelation.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the critical-time function $A(t)$, whose derivative $A'_s$ is assembled in (4.19) from the kernel functions (4.11) and (4.18); the optimal disclosure time $t_c$ is a point where $A$ attains a negative minimum. These kernels come from an explicit solution of a linear-quadratic backward stochastic Hamilton-Jacobi equation, whose Riccati component is solved in closed form and whose linear component is expressed through conditional expectations of the drift. That explicit solution turns the broker's optimization over filtrations into a one-dimensional variational problem over the increasing process $\mathbb{E}[\mu_t^2]$, whose optimum is to keep $\mathbb{E}[\mu_t^2]$ flat at $\mathbb{E}[\mu]^2$ until $t_c$ and then jump to $\mathbb{E}[\mu^2]$. The same formulas feed Theorem 5.1, where propagation of chaos shows the mean-field control is approximately optimal in the finite-$N$ game.

What would settle it

Solve the finite-$N$ Stackelberg game numerically with a broker who is allowed to condition the execution rate on the aggregate trader inventory: if a gradual-leakage policy then beats the bang-bang policy (4.20), the paper's optimality claim fails in that relaxation. A cheaper check is to find parameters violating the small-$b$ condition (4.14) and test whether the single-disclosure-time policy is still optimal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the optimal information-leaking strategy for an informed broker facing a continuum of uninformed traders is bang-bang: the broker's execution rate reveals nothing about the drift $\mu$ until a critical time $t_c$, and reveals $\mu$ completely at $t_c$. The optimal broker control is the explicit piecewise formula (4.20), with $t_c$ determined by the negative minimum of a deterministic function $A$ built from the model parameters; the numerical section exhibits a nontrivial case with $t_c \simeq 0.32$ in a two-day horizon. For a finite game with $N$ traders, the same control is a $C/\sqrt{N}$-optimal Stackelberg equilibrium, meaning the mean-field strategy loses at most of order $1/\sqrt{N}$ in value compared with the true finite-player optimum.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the broker can commit, for the whole horizon, to an execution plan that does not depend on traders' inventories (and that the traders' permanent impact $b$ is below an explicit small threshold), so the only information traders receive is the timing of that precommitted plan.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the infinite-trader limit, the broker should act as if uninformed until $t_c$ and then disclose the drift fully; any gradual leakage policy is strictly suboptimal.
  • For a large but finite number of traders, the mean-field bang-bang policy is within $C/\sqrt{N}$ of the true Stackelberg value, so the recommendation survives finite population effects.
  • In the pre-disclosure phase traders unwind their inventories, letting the broker collect transaction fees $\eta$ without taking market risk; after disclosure, traders build positions in the direction of the drift and the broker profits by executing at a cheaper cost $\eta^B<\eta$.
  • The optimal policy depends on the drift only through its expectation and realized value, not on the full distribution of $\mu$.
  • For observable liquidity providers such as automated market makers, the model predicts that the optimal response to private drift information is a single scheduled information event rather than continuous leakage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the broker is allowed to condition on traders' inventories, the formal master-equation problem is unsolved and the bang-bang structure could fail; testing this numerically is a direct next step.
  • Beyond the paper: the critical time $t_c$ gives a testable signature in observable order flow—flat execution rates until a date and then a jump—that could be looked for in OTC or automated-market-maker data.
  • Beyond the paper: the same variational argument over the martingale $\mathbb{E}[\mu_t^2]$ may extend to multi-signal private information, predicting a sequence of disclosure dates rather than a single one.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a Stackelberg mean-field game between an informed broker and a continuum of uninformed traders in a linear-quadratic model. The broker knows the drift μ of the asset price, commits to an open-loop execution rate ν^B that is independent of traders' initial inventories, and traders observe the filtration generated by ν^B. The main theoretical result, stated informally in Section 2.3 and proved in Section 4.3, is that the broker's optimal information-leaking strategy is bang-bang: no information about μ is revealed before a critical time t_c, and all information is disclosed at t_c. The broker's optimal control is given by the explicit piecewise formula (4.20), where t_c is determined by the negative minimum of an explicitly computed function A. Section 5 proves that, for finitely many traders, this mean-field control is C/√N-optimal. A numerical example in Section 6 exhibits a nontrivial t_c and illustrates the resulting trader and broker behavior.

Significance. If the proof is completed, the paper gives a crisp and non-obvious qualitative conclusion: in this LQ Stackelberg mean-field game, delayed full disclosure dominates gradual information leakage. The strength of the paper is its explicit, closed-form construction: the critical time is computed from the derived function A in (4.19), not calibrated to data, and the finite-N approximation rate in Theorem 5.1 is stated with explicit dependence on the model parameters. This makes the result a useful benchmark for the literature on externalization, internalization, and information disclosure by liquidity providers. The main caveats are that Theorem 4.3 relies on a relaxed filtration optimization whose attainment is not fully verified, and the key propagation-of-chaos lemma used in the finite-N result is essentially unproved. These are load-bearing but plausibly fixable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Theorem 4.3 and Eq. (4.20)] The relaxed optimization over filtrations gives only an upper bound. The statement immediately before Theorem 4.3 that "it is easy to see that such a filtration indeed satisfies properties 1-4" is not sufficient: property 1 requires σ(ν^B_s; 0≤s≤t) = σ(μ) for t>t_c. For the candidate control (4.20), the pre-t_c part is visibly deterministic, but after t_c the coefficient of μ is c_t := ∫_{t_c}^t Ĉ^B_{s,t} ds + D̂^B_t. The generated filtration reveals μ at time t only if c is not identically zero on every interval (t_c, τ), and the paper cites only real-analyticity, which does not exclude the possibility that c_t ≡ 0 on (t_c,T) (or on an initial interval after t_c) for special parameter values. The authors should prove that this coefficient is not identically zero under the standing small-b condition (4.14), or introduce an explicit nondegeneracy/genericity condition, and then verify properties 2-4 for the constructed filtration.
  2. [Section 5.4, Lemma 5.3] Lemma 5.3 is the quantitative propagation-of-chaos estimate used in Theorem 5.1, but its proof is a single sentence referring to Cauchy-Schwarz, independence, (4.13), (5.16), and (5.19). The estimates in (5.4) involve a supremum over t∈[0,T] of empirical averages of the traders' equilibrium controls and their squares, where the controls depend on μ_s and on the initial inventories Q0^j. The appearance of the supremum, the second-moment inequality, and the role of the fourth-moment assumption on m0 all require a detailed proof. As written, this is a gap in the proof of the finite-N optimality claim.
  3. [Section 4.3, derivation of A' in Eq. (4.19)] The reduction of the broker's objective to the single function A' and the conclusion that E[μ_t^2] jumps only at t_c are the technical heart of the bang-bang theorem, but the displayed symmetrization identities are only sketched and contain apparent index errors. For example, after conditioning on F_u, an inner integral is printed as ∫_s^u while the surrounding variables suggest it should be over r from 0 to u or a related range. Because the sign and shape of A determine t_c, these identities should be written out carefully and in correct notation. If the printed formulas are not typos, the subsequent expression for A' needs a rigorous derivation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3, preamble to optimization over filtrations] The sentence "Note that β^B_0 and γ^R_0 only depend on μ_0" seems to contain a typo: γ^R_0 should be γ^B_0, and γ^B_0 is deterministic rather than dependent on μ_0.
  2. [Theorem 4.3 statement] The notation C^ω([0,T]×[0,T], R^4) is inaccurate because the four functions have different domains: Â^B_t and B̂^B_t are functions of t only, Ĉ^B_{s,t} is a function of (s,t), and D̂^B_t is a function of t only. Please state the separate domains explicitly.
  3. [Section 4.2, after Eq. (4.13)] The notation ar Q_0 is used before it is defined; it should be introduced as ar Q_0 := E[Q_0] at its first appearance.
  4. [Section 5.2, definition of A^{N,B}] There is a typo in the admissibility condition: "ν_t is independ of (Q^{N,j}_0)" should read "ν_t is independent of (Q^{N,j}_0)_{1≤j≤N}".
  5. [Section 6, numerical example] Figure 1 and the formulas for A and A' are computed only to leading order in b. Since the theorem requires b sufficiently small, the text should state explicitly that the displayed curves correspond to b=0, or that the O(b) remainder is uniformly small enough to preserve the existence and location of the negative minimum.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the critical-time disclosure policy is derived from model primitives, not fitted to data and not imported from prior work.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The traders' best response is obtained in Lemma 4.1 by solving a linear-quadratic HJ equation with Bismut's method; the broker's value function in Section 4.3 is then reduced to a linear functional of E[μ_t^2] with coefficient A defined in (4.19). The critical time t_c is chosen as the argmin of A, and the control (4.20) is explicitly constructed to generate the trivial filtration before t_c and σ(μ) after t_c. No fitted constants appear: A, t_c, and the controls are explicit functions of the primitives a, η, ϕ, b, a^B, η^B, ϕ^B, Q^B_0, E[μ], E[μ^2], E[Q_0], E[Q_0^2], and T. The small-b condition (4.14) is a stated hypothesis, not a calibrated input. The only self-referential element is the citation to the authors' prior Bergault–Cardaliaguet–Rainer framework for the Stackelberg-MFG and relaxed-filtration setup, but that citation supplies methodology, not the critical-time conclusion, which is derived here from equations (4.19)–(4.20). The flagged question about whether the filtration generated by the candidate control exactly equals the relaxed filtration is a proof-detail concern, not circularity, and the explicit positivity of D̄^B_t plus analyticity of the coefficients supports the asserted filtration equality. The finite-N approximation in Theorem 5.1 is a separate propagation-of-chaos estimate, not an assumption of the mean-field result. Overall, the paper does not reduce its own inputs to its outputs.

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

No free parameters are fitted: all constants (a, η, φ, aB, ηB, φB, b, T, μ distribution, Q0 distribution) are model inputs, and the critical time t_c is derived from the function A in (4.19), not calibrated. The central result rests on standard LQ control theory and on three domain assumptions: small market impact b, open-loop broker strategy, and i.i.d. trader inventories with finite fourth moments. No new particles, forces, or unobserved states are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Bismut maximum principle applies and the associated backward HJ equation (4.1) has a unique solution on [0,T], including well-posedness of the Riccati ODEs for γ and γ^B.
    Used throughout Sections 4.2-4.3 to turn the traders' and broker's stochastic control problems into the linear ODE systems (4.3) and (4.17)-(4.18); no explicit parameter conditions for Riccati non-explosion are given, so existence on [0,T] is assumed.
  • domain assumption The market impact parameter b is small enough, with the explicit bound (4.14) derived from contraction estimates for operators L and L-hat.
    Guarantees uniqueness of the mean-field trader equilibrium, the representation (4.8), and uniqueness of the finite-N Nash equilibrium in Lemma 5.2. The result is not claimed for large b.
  • domain assumption Initial trader inventories are i.i.d. with finite fourth moment for the finite-N game (m0 in P4(R)) and finite second moment for the mean-field game; μ has finite second moment and is independent of W and Q0.
    Assumed in Section 2 and Theorem 5.1; needed for moment formulas (4.13), propagation-of-chaos estimates, and the C/sqrt(N) rate.
  • domain assumption The broker's strategy is open-loop, independent of Q0, and observable: traders condition on F_t = sigma(ν^B_s; 0≤s≤t).
    Defined in Section 3.2 and Remark 2.2; the entire information-revelation mechanism is built on this observability and commitment.
  • domain assumption The probability space can be enlarged so that sigma(μ) supports the information-revelation argument, and the broker may choose the measure Q in the discrete-μ case (Remark 2.1).
    Invoked to make the nontrivial information problem well posed and to allow the filtration to reveal μ entirely at t_c.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal hedging of an informed broker facing many traders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4AUOO7Y

@misc{pith2026250608992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal hedging of an informed broker facing many traders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4AUOO7Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08992}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the optimal hedging strategies of an informed broker interacting with multiple traders in a financial market. We develop a theoretical framework in which the broker, possessing exclusive information about the drift of the asset's price, engages with traders whose trading activities impact the market price. Using a mean-field game approach, we derive the equilibrium strategies for both the broker and the traders, illustrating the intricate dynamics of their interactions. The broker's optimal strategy involves a Stackelberg equilibrium, where the broker leads and the traders follow. Our analysis also addresses the mean field limit of finite-player models and shows the convergence to the mean-field solution as the number of traders becomes large.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08992 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The main terms of A ′ and A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Behavior of a representative trader with initial inventory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Behavior of a representative trader with initial inventory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the traders’ inventories. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Behavior of the broker. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Mean field games in a stackelberg problem with an informed major player.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 62(3):1737–1765, 2024

    Philippe Bergault, Pierre Cardaliaguet, and Catherine Rainer. Mean field games in a stackelberg problem with an informed major player.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 62(3):1737–1765, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Insider trading in continuous time.The Review of Financial Studies, 5(3):387–409, 1992

    Kerry Back. Insider trading in continuous time.The Review of Financial Studies, 5(3):387–409, 1992

    work page 1992

  3. [2]

    A mean-field game of market-making against strategic traders.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 14(4):1080–1112, 2023

    Bastien Baldacci, Philippe Bergault, and Dylan Possamaï. A mean-field game of market-making against strategic traders.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 14(4):1080–1112, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Barzykin, P

    A. Barzykin, P. Bergault, and O. Guéant. Algorithmic market making in dealer markets with hedging and market impact.Mathematical Finance, 33(1):41–79, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Dealing with multi-currency inventory risk in FX cash markets

    Alexander Barzykin, Philippe Bergault, and Olivier Guéant. Dealing with multi-currency inventory risk in fx cash markets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04100, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Market-making by a foreign exchange dealer.Risk Magazine (Cutting Edge), 2022

    Alexander Barzykin, Philippe Bergault, and Olivier Guéant. Market-making by a foreign exchange dealer.Risk Magazine (Cutting Edge), 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Market making in spot precious metals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15478, 2024

    Alexander Barzykin, Philippe Bergault, and Olivier Guéant. Market making in spot precious metals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15478, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Mean-field games of speedy information access with observation costs

    Dirk Becherer, Christoph Reisinger, and Jonathan Tam. Mean-field games of speedy information access with observation costs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07877, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    Mean field games with a dominating player.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 74:91–128, 2016

    Alain Bensoussan, Michael HM Chau, and Sheung CP Yam. Mean field games with a dominating player.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 74:91–128, 2016

    2016

  2. [9]

    A mean field game between informed traders and a broker

    Philippe Bergault and Leandro Sánchez-Betancourt. A mean field game between informed traders and a broker. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05257, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    To hedge or not to hedge: Optimal strategies for stochastic trade flow management.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02496, 2025

    Philippe Bergault, Olivier Guéant, and Hamza Bodor. To hedge or not to hedge: Optimal strategies for stochastic trade flow management.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02496, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Mean field games with incomplete information.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.07703, 2022

    Charles Bertucci. Mean field games with incomplete information.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.07703, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Strategic advantages in mean field games with a major player.Comptes Rendus

    Charles Bertucci, Jean-Michel Lasry, and Pierre-Louis Lions. Strategic advantages in mean field games with a major player.Comptes Rendus. Mathématique, 358(2):113–118, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Linear quadratic optimal stochastic control with random coefficients.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 14(3):419–444, 1976

    Jean-Michel Bismut. Linear quadratic optimal stochastic control with random coefficients.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 14(3):419–444, 1976

    1976

  7. [15]

    Internalisation by electronic fx spot dealers.Quantitative Finance, 19(1): 35–56, 2019

    Maximilian Butz and Roel Oomen. Internalisation by electronic fx spot dealers.Quantitative Finance, 19(1): 35–56, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Dynamic markov bridges motivated by models of insider trading.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 121(3):534–567, 2011

    Luciano Campi, Umut Cetin, and Albina Danilova. Dynamic markov bridges motivated by models of insider trading.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 121(3):534–567, 2011. 24

    2011

  9. [17]

    Cardaliaguet and C.-A

    P. Cardaliaguet and C.-A. Lehalle. Mean field game of controls and an application to trade crowding.Mathematics and Financial Economics, 12(3):335–363, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Cardaliaguet, M

    P. Cardaliaguet, M. Cirant, and A. Porretta. Remarks on Nash equilibria in mean field game models with a major player.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 148(10):4241–4255, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Carmona and D

    R. Carmona and D. Lacker. A probabilistic weak formulation of mean field games and applications.The Annals of Applied Probability, 25(3):1189–1231, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Carmona and P

    R. Carmona and P. Wang. An alternative approach to mean field game with major and minor players, and applications to herders impacts.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 76(1):5–27, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Carmona and X

    R. Carmona and X. Zhu. A probabilistic approach to mean field games with major and minor players.The Annals of Applied Probability, 26(3):1535–1580, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Brokers and informed traders: dealing with toxic flow and extracting trading signals.Available at SSRN, 2022

    Álvaro Cartea and Leandro Sánchez-Betancourt. Brokers and informed traders: dealing with toxic flow and extracting trading signals.Available at SSRN, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Trading foreign exchange triplets.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 11(3):690–719, 2020

    Álvaro Cartea, Sebastian Jaimungal, and Tianyi Jia. Trading foreign exchange triplets.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 11(3):690–719, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Double-execution strategies using path signatures.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 13(4):1379–1417, 2022

    Álvaro Cartea, Imanol Pérez Arribas, and Leandro Sánchez-Betancourt. Double-execution strategies using path signatures.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 13(4):1379–1417, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Casgrain and S

    P. Casgrain and S. Jaimungal. Mean-field games with differing beliefs for algorithmic trading.Mathematical Finance, 30(3):995–1034, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    On pricing rules and optimal strategies in general kyle–back models.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 59(5):3973–3998, 2021

    Umut Çetin and Albina Danilova. On pricing rules and optimal strategies in general kyle–back models.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 59(5):3973–3998, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Fast and slow optimal trading with exogenous information

    Rama Cont, Alessandro Micheli, and Eyal Neuman. Fast and slow optimal trading with exogenous information. Available at SSRN 4489258, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Stackelberg mean field games: convergence and existence results to the problem of principal with multiple agents in competition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00640, 2023

    Mao Fabrice Djete. Stackelberg mean field games: convergence and existence results to the problem of principal with multiple agents in competition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00640, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Élie and D

    R. Élie and D. Possamaï. Contracting theory with competitive interacting agents.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 57(2):1157–1188, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    R. Élie, T. Mastrolia, and D. Possamaï. A tale of a principal and many many agents.Mathematics of Operations Research, 44(2):440–467, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    R. Élie, E. Hubert, T. Mastrolia, and D. Possamaï. Mean-field moral hazard for optimal energy demand response management.Mathematical Finance, 31(1):399–473, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Dena Firoozi and Peter E Caines.ε-nash equilibria for major–minor lqg mean field games with partial observations of all agents.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66(6):2778–2786, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Optimization frameworks and sensitivity analysis of stackelberg mean- field games.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04110, 2022

    Xin Guo, Anran Hu, and Jiacheng Zhang. Optimization frameworks and sensitivity analysis of stackelberg mean- field games.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04110, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Liquidity provision with adverse selection and inventory costs.Mathematics of Operations Research, 48(3):1286–1315, 2023

    Martin Herdegen, Johannes Muhle-Karbe, and Florian Stebegg. Liquidity provision with adverse selection and inventory costs.Mathematics of Operations Research, 48(3):1286–1315, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Huang, R.P

    M. Huang, R.P. Malhamé, and P.E. Caines. Large population stochastic dynamic games: closed-loop McKean– Vlasov systems and the Nash certainty equivalence principle.Communications in Information & Systems, 6(3): 221–252, 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Large-population lqg games involving a major player: the nash certainty equivalence principle

    Minyi Huang. Large-population lqg games involving a major player: the nash certainty equivalence principle. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 48(5):3318–3353, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    An invariance principle in large population stochastic dynamic games.Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 20(2):162–172, 2007

    Minyi Huang, Peter E Caines, and Roland P Malhamé. An invariance principle in large population stochastic dynamic games.Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 20(2):162–172, 2007. 25

    2007

  30. [38]

    Minyi Huang, Peter E Caines, and Roland P Malhamé. Large-population cost-coupled lqg problems with nonuni- form agents: Individual-mass behavior and decentralizedvarepsilon-nash equilibria.IEEE transactions on auto- matic control, 52(9):1560–1571, 2007

    2007

  31. [39]

    Continuous-time incentives in hierarchies.Finance and Stochastics, 27(3):605–661, 2023

    Emma Hubert. Continuous-time incentives in hierarchies.Finance and Stochastics, 27(3):605–661, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    A. S. Kyle. Informed speculation with imperfect competition.The Review of Economic Studies, 56(3):317–355, 1989

    1989

  33. [41]

    A.S. Kyle. Continuous auctions and insider trading.Econometrica, 53(6):1315–1335, 1985

    1985

  34. [42]

    Jeux à champ moyen

    Jean-Michel Lasry and Pierre-Louis Lions. Jeux à champ moyen. i–le cas stationnaire.Comptes Rendus Mathé- matique, 343(9):619–625, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Jeux à champ moyen

    Jean-Michel Lasry and Pierre-Louis Lions. Jeux à champ moyen. ii–horizon fini et contrôle optimal.Comptes Rendus. Mathématique, 343(10):679–684, 2006

    2006

  36. [44]

    Mean field games.Japanese journal of mathematics, 2(1):229–260, 2007

    Jean-Michel Lasry and Pierre-Louis Lions. Mean field games.Japanese journal of mathematics, 2(1):229–260, 2007

    2007

  37. [45]

    Automated market making and loss-versus-rebalancing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.06046, 2022

    Jason Milionis, Ciamac C Moallemi, Tim Roughgarden, and Anthony Lee Zhang. Automated market making and loss-versus-rebalancing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.06046, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Linear quadratic mean field stackelberg differential games.Automatica, 97:200–213, 2018

    Jun Moon and Tamer Başar. Linear quadratic mean field stackelberg differential games.Automatica, 97:200–213, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Muhle-Karbe and K

    J. Muhle-Karbe and K. Webster. Information and inventories in high-frequency trading.Market Microstructure and Liquidity, 03(02):1750010, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Pre-hedging.Available at SSRN 4499729, 2023

    Johannes Muhle-Karbe and Roel CA Oomen. Pre-hedging.Available at SSRN 4499729, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Mean field lqg games with mass behavior responsive to a major player

    Son Luu Nguyen and Minyi Huang. Mean field lqg games with mass behavior responsive to a major player. In 2012 IEEE 51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 5792–5797. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    Mojtaba Nourian and Peter E Caines.ε-nash mean field game theory for nonlinear stochastic dynamical systems with major and minor agents.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 51(4):3302–3331, 2013

    2013

  43. [51]

    Nutz and Y

    M. Nutz and Y. Zhang. A mean field competition.Mathematics of Operations Research, 44(4):1245–1263, 2019

    2019

  44. [52]

    Unwinding stochastic order flow: When to warehouse trades.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14144, 2023

    Marcel Nutz, Kevin Webster, and Long Zhao. Unwinding stochastic order flow: When to warehouse trades.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14144, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Liquidation in the face of adversity: stealth vs

    Torsten Schöneborn and Alexander Schied. Liquidation in the face of adversity: stealth vs. sunshine trading. In EFA 2008 Athens Meetings Paper, 2009

    2008

  46. [54]

    Fx trade execution: complex and highly fragmented.BIS Quarterly Review, December, 2019

    Andreas Schrimpf and Vladyslav Sushko. Fx trade execution: complex and highly fragmented.BIS Quarterly Review, December, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Mean field game theory with a partially observed major agent.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 54(6):3174–3224, 2016

    Nevroz Sen and Peter E Caines. Mean field game theory with a partially observed major agent.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 54(6):3174–3224, 2016. 26

    2016

Pith tools

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