Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Neural Operators Can Play Dynamic Stackelberg Games

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An attention-based neural operator can approximate the follower's best response in dynamic Stackelberg games.

desk verdict Genuinely new approximation result for stochastic Stackelberg games, but the proof of the equilibrium-approximation theorem has a real admissibility gap that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09644 v1 pith:XEQXHWNH submitted 2024-11-14 math.OC cs.LGcs.NAmath.NAmath.PRq-fin.CP

Guillermo Alvarez , Ibrahim Ekren , Anastasis Kratsios , Xuwei Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.LGcs.NAmath.NAmath.PRq-fin.CP MSC 49N7093E2068T0741A65
keywords StackelberggamesneuraloperatorsuniversalapproximationattentionmechanismstochasticcontrolbestresponseoperatorWienerchaosHöldercontinuity
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

Dynamic Stackelberg games, in which a leader commits first and a follower responds optimally, are usually solvable only in stylized linear-quadratic cases because the follower's best-response map is analytically intractable. This paper establishes that an attention-based neural operator, acting on spaces of square-integrable adapted stochastic processes, can uniformly approximate that best-response map to arbitrary precision on any compact set of leader controls. It then shows that playing the approximate best response produces an $\varepsilon$-Stackelberg equilibrium whose leader value is $\varepsilon$-close to the true Stackelberg value, and that the approximation can be guided by an unsupervised objective that does not require knowing the true optimal responses in advance. Under extra structural assumptions on the compact set of controls, the approximation is shown to be efficient. The results hold when the best-response map is Hölder continuous, which the paper derives from strong convexity of the follower's Hamiltonian and shows can fail for merely convex follower problems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the attentional neural operator defined in Definition 6. An encoder projects an input control onto the first $d$ coefficients of an explicit orthonormal basis of $\mathcal H^2_T$ built from Haar wavelets in time and Wiener-chaos/Hermite-polynomial random variables in space; a multilayer perceptron transforms the coefficient vector; and an attention-style decoder writes the output as a softmax-weighted combination of $N$ basis elements with values produced by a second network. The weight vector lies in the simplex, so the decoder outputs a convex combination of learned extreme points of the target space. The universal approximation theorem (Theorem 12) shows that this architecture can uniformly approximate any continuous operator between compact subsets of $\mathcal H^2_T$; Lipschitz extension arguments reduce continuity to Hölder regularity. On the game-theory side, Proposition 13 shows strong convexity of the follower's Hamiltonian gives 1/2-Hölder continuity of the best-response map, which is exactly the regularity the approximation theorem needs.

What would settle it

Run the paper's own static counterexample: $l_1(u_0,u_1)=u_0u_1$, $l_0(u_0,u_1)=-u_1$, with $u_0,u_1\in[0,1]$. The follower's best response is discontinuous at $u_0=0$ (singleton $\{0\}$ for $u_0>0$, whole interval at $0$), so for any continuous neural operator $\hat U$ the error $\sup_{u_0\in[0,1]}|U^\star(u_0)-\hat U(u_0)|$ is bounded below by a positive constant, contradicting uniform $\varepsilon$-approximation. Verifying Theorem 7 instead would require a strongly convex follower game (e.g. a linear-quadratic game with positive-definite cost matrix) where the $\mathcal H^2_T$ error is observed to shrink with network size.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 7: under Lipschitz regularity of the game data (Assumption 2) and Hölder continuity of the follower's best-response map $U^\star$ on the compact leader-control set $K_0$ (Assumption 4), for every $\varepsilon>0$ there is an attentional neural operator $\hat U\in \mathcal{NO}: U_0\to U_1$ with $\sup_{u_0\in K_0}\|U^\star(u_0)-\hat U(u_0)\|_{\mathcal H^2_T}\le\varepsilon$. Theorem 8 upgrades this to an equilibrium statement: the pair formed by a suitable finite-dimensional projection of a leader control and the neural-operator reply is an $\varepsilon$-Stackelberg equilibrium, and the leader's value under approximate play is within $\varepsilon$ of the value of the true Stackelberg game. Theorem 11 adds that if $K_0$ is an exponentially ellipsoidal set (or an exponential manifold of small latent dimension), the approximating operator uses only polynomially many parameters in $\varepsilon^{-1}$. The best-response map acts between spaces of square-integrable predictable stochastic processes, so the result is genuinely about learning an infinite-dimensional operator, not a finite-dimensional policy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the follower's best-response map is Hölder continuous on the compact leader-control set, which the paper derives from strong convexity of the follower's Hamiltonian and which can fail—as the paper's counterexample shows—if the follower's problem is only convex rather than strongly convex.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any dynamic Stackelberg game with Lipschitz data and a strongly convex follower Hamiltonian admits an approximately optimal neural-operator strategy with arbitrary prescribed accuracy on any compact set of leader controls.
  • Training can be unsupervised: minimizing the leader's cost with the neural-operator reply, over finite-dimensional projections of the control set, detects whether the operator is close to optimal, without ever computing the true best response.
  • Approximate play yields an $\varepsilon$-Stackelberg equilibrium, so numerical solutions of stochastic games come with a quantifiable loss in the leader's value.
  • When leader controls are small perturbations of a linear-quadratic solution (exponentially decaying basis coefficients, or a low-dimensional latent manifold), the neural operator achieves polynomial parameter complexity in $1/\varepsilon$.
  • Compactness of the leader's strategy set is essential: the guarantee is uniform on compacta, and exhausting the full control space with larger compact sets gives convergence of approximate leader values to the true optimal value.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to run the unsupervised objective on a game whose follower problem is convex but not strongly convex; the paper's counterexample predicts the trained neural operator's value will fail to track the true Stackelberg value, since no continuous operator can match the discontinuous best response.
  • The architecture's softmax decoder naturally realizes the follower's reply as a convex combination of basis controls; one could exploit that representation to impose constraints (boundedness, no-shorting, budget limits) on the follower's replies by restricting the values $V^{(n,q)}$.
  • The same approximation framework could be applied to mean-field or multi-follower Stackelberg games whenever the aggregated best-response map is Hölder; the paper's analysis does not cover those cases.
  • Because the latent-manifold rate depends on a parameterization map $\pi$ that need not be known, the result suggests a practical recipe: choose compact control sets with low-dimensional structure, and the network size can be chosen before observing the best-response map.
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. This paper studies continuous-time stochastic Stackelberg games with adapted open-loop controls. It models the follower's best-response map U* as an operator on the space H^2_T of square-integrable predictable processes and proves (Theorem 7) that, under Lipschitz regularity of the game data and Holder continuity of U* on a compact leader-control set K0, an attention-based neural operator uniformly approximates U* on K0. Theorem 8 claims that the unsupervised objective (17), built from finite-dimensional projections of leader controls, detects approximate optimality and yields an epsilon-Stackelberg equilibrium whose leader value is epsilon-close to the true value. Theorem 11 gives parametric complexity rates under an exponential-ellipsoid/latent-manifold condition, and Proposition 13 provides a strong-convexity sufficient condition for Assumption 4, complemented by a convex counterexample in Appendix A.

Significance. If the main theorems were fully established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it extends neural-operator approximation from PDE solution maps to spaces of stochastic processes, proposes an unsupervised training criterion that does not require samples of U*, and identifies structural conditions under which approximation is efficient. The paper also contains genuinely useful building blocks, including an orthonormal basis of simple adapted processes (Lemma B.6), stability estimates for the players' costs (Lemmas B.1-B.5), and a precise Holder-regularity analysis of the best-response map under strong convexity (Proposition 13). The central approximation statement is plausible and largely supported, and the counterexample in Section A correctly shows that mere convexity is not enough. However, the equilibrium and value guarantees in Theorem 8 are not established as stated because the projected leader control used in the proof need not be admissible, and one load-bearing approximation step is imported from a prior paper without a self-contained verification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B.5, Eqs. (104)-(112)] The proof fixes u0 in K0, sets \hat u0_d = p_d(u0), and treats (\hat u0_d, \hat U(\hat u0_d)) as the candidate epsilon-Stackelberg equilibrium, but it never shows that \hat u0_d lies in K0. This is not a minor technicality: if K0 = {u0} with u0 having infinitely many nonzero coefficients in the basis from Lemma B.6, then K0 is compact while p_d(u0) is not in K0 for any finite d. Consequently the existential statement in Theorem 8(ii), 'there is \hat u0_d = sum_{i=1}^d beta_i s_i in K0', is false as stated, and the inequalities in Definition 3 are not shown for an admissible leader action. The subsequent claim that the objective (17) approximates the infimum over K0 is therefore unsupported. A repair requires an additional hypothesis on K0, such as projection stability or the existence of a finite-dimensional admissible section, or a genuinely different construction of an admissible \hat u0_d.
  2. [Appendix B.5, Eq. (108)] The uniform approximation estimate is taken over v in p_d(K0), but Assumption 4 defines U* only on K0 and Theorem 7 supplies the uniform approximation (15) only on K0. When p_d(K0) is not a subset of K0, the quantity U*(v) need not be defined by Assumption 4, and the estimate ||U*(v) - \hat U(v)|| is not controlled by (15). This affects Theorem 8(i) as well as Theorem 8(ii). The proof must either show p_d(K0) is contained in K0, extend Assumption 4 to p_d(K0), or replace the supremum in (108) by a set on which both U* and the neural operator are known to be close.
  3. [Appendix B.4, Lemma B.7] The crucial simplicial approximation bound (68) is obtained by asserting that 'Step 4 of the proof of (Acciaio et al., 2023, Theorem 3.8) holds unaltered in our setting.' Since Theorem 12 and hence Theorem 7 rest on this bound, the reader cannot verify the main approximation claim from the manuscript alone. Please state the imported theorem, check its hypotheses explicitly (including the asserted QAS property of H^2_T with the stated constants), and either reproduce the argument or give a precise reference that covers exactly the present setting. Because the cited paper shares a current co-author, a self-contained statement is particularly desirable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Definition 3 and Assumption 4] The domain of U* is described inconsistently: Definition 3 says U*(u0) is defined for all u0 in U0, while Assumption 4 only posits a Holder continuous map on K0. Please clarify which domain is intended and make the notation uniform.
  2. [Lemma B.7, Step 2] The claim that the map iota_N is 2/epsilon_1-Lipschitz because the minimal distance between distinct points of the net is epsilon_1 is not correct for an arbitrary minimal covering net; a covering net need not be epsilon_1-separated. The proof should choose a maximal epsilon_1-separated set, which is also an epsilon_1-cover, or otherwise justify the Lipschitz bound.
  3. [Theorem 11, Table 1] Several entries in Table 1 are hard to parse as typeset, for example O(ln(epsilon^{-1/r}) epsilon^{-ln(C)/r}) and the expression for N. Please check the exponents and logarithmic arguments, and define all constants used in the table.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (16)] The minimization in (16) does not specify the class over which U ranges; state explicitly that U varies over the set of attention-based neural operators of Definition 6 with a given complexity bound.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Moderate circularity: the universal approximation theorem powering Theorem 7 imports its key simplicialization step from a co-authored prior paper; the separate Theorem 8(ii) admissibility gap is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction.

  1. self citation load bearing [Appendix B.4, proof of Lemma B.7, Step 3 (around Eq. (68))]
    "Since H2_T is a QAS space (see (Acciaio et al., 2023, Definition 3.4) with p = 1 and Cη = 1, as shown in (Acciaio et al., 2023, Example 5.1)) then Step 4 of the proof of (Acciaio et al., 2023, Theorem 3.8) holds unaltered in our setting (with X = Ed(K0), (Y, dY = (H2_T , ∥ · ∥H2_T ), the α-Hölder target function with respect to the α-Hölder seminormL >0 of f (1))."

    Theorem 12 is the universal-approximation engine behind Theorem 7's claim that the follower's best-response map can be approximately implemented by an attentional neural operator. In the proof of Lemma B.7, the crucial simplicialization/quantization step is not derived from first principles here; it is asserted to 'hold unaltered' from (Acciaio et al., 2023, Theorem 3.8), a paper co-authored by a current co-author (A. Kratsios). That cited theorem is not machine-checked, code-reproduced, or otherwise independently verified in this work, so under the review rules it is not independent support; the central approximation result rests on this self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation from Assumption 4 to Theorem 7 is structurally a direct application of the paper's own universal approximation theorem, Theorem 12, which is not itself circular: the target U* is defined by the follower's optimization problem, and its Hölder regularity is established under stronger conditions in Proposition 13. The primary circularity concern is that Theorem 12's proof imports a key construction ('Step 4') from Acciaio, Kratsios, and Pammer (2023), a paper sharing a co-author with this work. That citation is load-bearing because without it the approximation argument lacks the simplicial quantization step; it is not machine-checked or code-reproduced, so it does not count as independent support under the review rules. This is a self-citation burden, not a definitional reduction: the imported result is a genuine though co-authored theorem, and the paper's basis construction, Hölder-regularity control, and complexity estimates are independent contributions. Separately, Theorem 8(ii)'s proof asserts that p_d(u0) ∈ K0 without proof; for arbitrary compact K0 this is false (e.g. a singleton consisting of an infinite-dimensional vector), leaving the ε-Stackelberg equilibrium claim unsupported. That is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction, and it does not increase the circularity score beyond 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All assumptions are stated in the paper; none are fitted to data. The central approximation result rests on Assumptions 2 and 4, with Proposition 13 supplying a sufficient condition. The efficient-rate result adds Assumption 9, which the authors describe as hard to verify. Standard results in functional analysis and stochastic analysis are used without proof. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Filtration generated by a d-dimensional Brownian motion; H2_T is the space of square-integrable predictable processes.
    Section 3.1 sets the probability space and Hilbert-space framework for all controls and operators.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: global Lipschitz continuity of f, sigma, L0, L1, g0, g1 with constant K.
    Section 3.2 ensures well-posedness of the SDE and Lipschitz dependence of states and costs on controls.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: the follower's best-response map U* is Holder continuous on K0.
    Section 3.2. Necessary for uniform approximation by continuous operators; Proposition 13 gives a sufficient condition.
  • domain assumption K0 is a compact subset of U0.
    Section 3.2. Compactness is required for uniform approximation on the whole set and for existence of equilibria.
  • domain assumption Strong convexity of the follower's Hamiltonian in u1 and convexity of g1 (Proposition 13).
    Section 6. Sufficient condition for Assumption 4; excludes games where the best response is discontinuous.
  • domain assumption Assumption 9: exponential decay of basis coefficients of u and U*(u) on K0.
    Section 4.2. Needed for the efficient parametric complexity bounds in Theorem 11; authors note it is hard to verify.
  • standard math Benyamini-Lindenstrauss Lipschitz extension theorem and Miculescu's density of Lipschitz maps.
    Proof of Theorem 12 uses these to reduce continuous approximation to Lipschitz approximation.
  • standard math Well-posedness of SDE (4) and BSDE (41) under the stated Lipschitz and convexity conditions.
    Used in Lemma B.1 and Proposition 13; standard stochastic analysis results invoked without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neural Operators Can Play Dynamic Stackelberg Games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XEQXHWNH

@misc{pith2026241109644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neural Operators Can Play Dynamic Stackelberg Games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XEQXHWNH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09644}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamic Stackelberg games are a broad class of two-player games in which the leader acts first, and the follower chooses a response strategy to the leader's strategy. Unfortunately, only stylized Stackelberg games are explicitly solvable since the follower's best-response operator (as a function of the control of the leader) is typically analytically intractable. This paper addresses this issue by showing that the \textit{follower's best-response operator} can be approximately implemented by an \textit{attention-based neural operator}, uniformly on compact subsets of adapted open-loop controls for the leader. We further show that the value of the Stackelberg game where the follower uses the approximate best-response operator approximates the value of the original Stackelberg game. Our main result is obtained using our universal approximation theorem for attention-based neural operators between spaces of square-integrable adapted stochastic processes, as well as stability results for a general class of Stackelberg games.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Attentional Neural Operator Workflow: Our attentional neural operator model maps controls u· to square-integrable F-adapted processes Uˆ(u·) in three phases. First, the (input) control is linearly projected onto the wavelet-like (in time) Wiener Chaos-like (in space) orthonormal basis of H2 T . Next, the basis coefficients are transformed by a feedforward neural network (MLP). Lastly, the basis coefficients are used… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The ellipsoidal compact set K of Example 8. Example 8 (Perturbations of Feedback Control For Linearized Problem - Pt. I). Consider a finite subset {(xn, v0 n , v1 n )} N n=1 ⊂ R d and let A, B1, B2, C, D1, D2 be matrices minimizing the following MSE problem over all matrices of compatible dimension X N n=1 ∥f(xn, v0 n , v1 n ) − (Axn + B1v 0 n + B2v 1 ) | {z } lin. approx. drift ∥ 2 + ∥σ(xn, v0 n , v1 n ) − Cxn + D1… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. CoNav-UAV: Cooperative Dual-Altitude Aerial Navigation via Stackelberg Learning

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dual-altitude UAV system that treats cooperation as a leader-follower game improves vision-and-language navigation success rates in simulated cities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Designing universal causal deep learning models: The geometric (hyper) transformer

    Beatrice Acciaio, Anastasis Kratsios, and Gudmund Pammer. Designing universal causal deep learning models: The geometric (hyper) transformer. Mathematical Finance, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Optimal brokerage contracts in almgren--chriss model with multiple clients

    Guillermo Alonso Alvarez, Sergey Nadtochiy, and Kevin Webster. Optimal brokerage contracts in almgren--chriss model with multiple clients. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 14 0 (3): 0 855--878, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Refinement of strong stackelberg equilibria in security games

    Bo An, Milind Tambe, Fernando Ordonez, Eric Shieh, and Christopher Kiekintveld. Refinement of strong stackelberg equilibria in security games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 25, pages 587--593, 2011

    2011

  4. [4]

    Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equations

    Anima Anandkumar, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Nikola Kovachki, Zongyi Li, Burigede Liu, and Andrew Stuart. Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equations. In ICLR 2020 Workshop on Integration of Deep Neural Models and Differential Equations, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Optimal incentives to mitigate epidemics: a stackelberg mean field game approach

    Alexander Aurell, Rene Carmona, Gokce Dayanikli, and Mathieu Lauriere. Optimal incentives to mitigate epidemics: a stackelberg mean field game approach. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 60 0 (2): 0 S294--S322, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Ba\ nos, Sindre Duedahl, Thilo Meyer-Brandis, and Frank Proske

    David R. Ba\ nos, Sindre Duedahl, Thilo Meyer-Brandis, and Frank Proske. Construction of M alliavin differentiable strong solutions of SDE s under an integrability condition on the drift without the Y amada- W atanabe principle. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar\'e Probab. Stat. , 54 0 (3): 0 1464--1491, 2018. ISSN 0246-0203,1778-7017. doi:10.1214/17-AIHP845. URL ...

    work page doi:10.1214/17-aihp845 2018

  7. [7]

    Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate

    Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyung Hyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, 2015

    2015

  8. [8]

    Bartlett, Nick Harvey, Christopher Liaw, and Abbas Mehrabian

    Peter L. Bartlett, Nick Harvey, Christopher Liaw, and Abbas Mehrabian. Nearly-tight VC -dimension and pseudodimension bounds for piecewise linear neural networks. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20: 0 Paper No. 63, 17, 2019. ISSN 1532-4435,1533-7928

    2019

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    Representation equivalent neural operators: a framework for alias-free operator learning

    Francesca Bartolucci, Emmanuel de Bezenac, Bogdan Raonic, Roberto Molinaro, Siddhartha Mishra, and Rima Alaifari. Representation equivalent neural operators: a framework for alias-free operator learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Out-of-distributional risk bounds for neural operators with applications to the helmholtz equation

    J Benitez, Takashi Furuya, Florian Faucher, Anastasis Kratsios, Xavier Tricoche, and Maarten V de Hoop. Out-of-distributional risk bounds for neural operators with applications to the helmholtz equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11509, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Prevention efforts, insurance demand and price incentives under coherent risk measures

    Sarah Bensalem, Nicol \'a s Hern \'a ndez Santib \'a \ n ez, and Nabil Kazi-Tani. Prevention efforts, insurance demand and price incentives under coherent risk measures. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 93: 0 369--386, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    The maximum principle for global solutions of stochastic stackelberg differential games

    Alain Bensoussan, Shaokuan Chen, and Suresh P Sethi. The maximum principle for global solutions of stochastic stackelberg differential games. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 53 0 (4): 0 1956--1981, 2015

    1956

  5. [13]

    Geometric nonlinear functional analysis

    Yoav Benyamini and Joram Lindenstrauss. Geometric nonlinear functional analysis. V ol. 1 , volume 48 of American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000. ISBN 0-8218-0835-4. doi:10.1090/coll/048. URL https://doi.org/10....

    doi

  6. [14]

    Linear L ipschitz and C^1 extension operators through random projection

    Elia Bru\`e, Simone Di Marino, and Federico Stra. Linear L ipschitz and C^1 extension operators through random projection. J. Funct. Anal., 280 0 (4): 0 Paper No. 108868, 21, 2021. ISSN 0022-1236,1096-0783. doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2020.108868. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfa.2020.108868

    2021

  7. [15]

    Artificial neural systems for interpretation and inversion of seismic data

    Carlos Calderon-Macias. Artificial neural systems for interpretation and inversion of seismic data. The University of Texas at Austin, 1997

    1997

  8. [16]

    Continuum attention for neural operators

    Edoardo Calvello, Nikola B Kovachki, Matthew E Levine, and Andrew M Stuart. Continuum attention for neural operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06486, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Stackelberg differential game for insurance under model ambiguity

    Jingyi Cao, Dongchen Li, Virginia R Young, and Bin Zou. Stackelberg differential game for insurance under model ambiguity. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 106: 0 128--145, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Choose a transformer: Fourier or galerkin

    Shuhao Cao. Choose a transformer: Fourier or galerkin. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 0 24924--24940, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Metric entropy of convex hulls in H ilbert spaces

    Bernd Carl. Metric entropy of convex hulls in H ilbert spaces. Bull. London Math. Soc., 29 0 (4): 0 452--458, 1997. ISSN 0024-6093,1469-2120. doi:10.1112/S0024609397003044. URL https://doi.org/10.1112/S0024609397003044

    1997 doi

  12. [20]

    Mean field game model for an advertising competition in a duopoly

    Ren \'e Carmona and G \"o k c e Dayan kl . Mean field game model for an advertising competition in a duopoly. International Game Theory Review, 23 0 (04): 0 2150024, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    The kolmogorov infinite dimensional equation in a hilbert space via deep learning methods

    Javier Castro. The kolmogorov infinite dimensional equation in a hilbert space via deep learning methods. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 527 0 (2): 0 127413, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Efficient approximation of high-dimensional functions with neural networks

    Patrick Cheridito, Arnulf Jentzen, and Florian Rossmannek. Efficient approximation of high-dimensional functions with neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Cohen and Robert J

    Samuel N. Cohen and Robert J. Elliott. Stochastic calculus and applications. Probability and its Applications. Springer, Cham, second edition, 2015. ISBN 978-1-4939-2866-8; 978-1-4939-2867-5. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2867-5. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2867-5

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Computing the optimal strategy to commit to

    Vincent Conitzer and Tuomas Sandholm. Computing the optimal strategy to commit to. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 82--90, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    An introduction to -convergence , volume 8 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications

    Gianni Dal Maso. An introduction to -convergence , volume 8 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications. Birkh\"auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1993. ISBN 0-8176-3679-X. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0327-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0327-8

    1993 doi

  18. [26]

    A machine learning method for stackelberg mean field games

    Gokce Dayanikli and Mathieu Lauriere. A machine learning method for stackelberg mean field games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10440, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Antonio Lara B., Anastasis Kratsios, Matti Lassas, and Takashi Furuya

    Maarten de Hoop, J. Antonio Lara B., Anastasis Kratsios, Matti Lassas, and Takashi Furuya. Mixture of experts soften the curse of dimensionality in operator learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09101, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Deep learning architectures for nonlinear operator functions and nonlinear inverse problems

    Maarten V de Hoop, Matti Lassas, and Christopher A Wong. Deep learning architectures for nonlinear operator functions and nonlinear inverse problems. Mathematical Statistics and Learning, 4 0 (1): 0 1--86, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Error estimates for physics-informed neural networks approximating the navier--stokes equations

    Tim De Ryck, Ameya D Jagtap, and Siddhartha Mishra. Error estimates for physics-informed neural networks approximating the navier--stokes equations. IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 44 0 (1): 0 83--119, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Cloud pricing: The spot market strikes back

    Ludwig Dierks and Sven Seuken. Cloud pricing: The spot market strikes back. Management Science, 68 0 (1): 0 105--122, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization

    John Duchi, Elad Hazan, and Yoram Singer. Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12: 0 2121--2159, 2011. ISSN 1532-4435

    2011

  24. [32]

    Pinsker, and Viacheslav V

    Ilya Dumer, Mark S. Pinsker, and Viacheslav V. Prelov. On coverings of ellipsoids in E uclidean spaces. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 50 0 (10): 0 2348--2356, 2004. ISSN 0018-9448,1557-9654. doi:10.1109/TIT.2004.834759. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2004.834759

    2004

  25. [33]

    A tale of a principal and many, many agents

    Romuald Elie, Thibaut Mastrolia, and Dylan Possama \" . A tale of a principal and many, many agents. Mathematics of Operations Research, 44 0 (2): 0 440--467, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Lawrence C. Evans. Partial differential equations, volume 19 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition, 2010. ISBN 978-0-8218-4974-3. doi:10.1090/gsm/019. URL https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/019

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    Spectral neural operators

    VS Fanaskov and Ivan V Oseledets. Spectral neural operators. In Doklady Mathematics, pages 1--7. Springer, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Geometric measure theory

    Herbert Federer. Geometric measure theory. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 153. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, 1969

    1969

  29. [38]

    Designing universal causal deep learning models: The case of infinite-dimensional dynamical systems from stochastic analysis

    Luca Galimberti, Anastasis Kratsios, and Giulia Livieri. Designing universal causal deep learning models: The case of infinite-dimensional dynamical systems from stochastic analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13300, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Achieving optimal adversarial accuracy for adversarial deep learning using stackelberg games

    Xiao-shan Gao, Shuang Liu, and Lijia Yu. Achieving optimal adversarial accuracy for adversarial deep learning using stackelberg games. Acta Mathematica Scientia, 42 0 (6): 0 2399--2418, 2022

    2022

  31. [40]

    Oracles & followers: Stackelberg equilibria in deep multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Matthias Gerstgrasser and David C Parkes. Oracles & followers: Stackelberg equilibria in deep multi-agent reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11213--11236. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  32. [41]

    Stackelberg equilibria with multiple policyholders

    Mario Ghossoub and Michael B Zhu. Stackelberg equilibria with multiple policyholders. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 116: 0 189--201, 2024

    2024

  33. [42]

    A physics-informed variational deeponet for predicting crack path in quasi-brittle materials

    Somdatta Goswami, Minglang Yin, Yue Yu, and George Em Karniadakis. A physics-informed variational deeponet for predicting crack path in quasi-brittle materials. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 391: 0 114587, 2022

    2022

  34. [43]

    Calibrated stackelberg games: Learning optimal commitments against calibrated agents

    Nika Haghtalab, Chara Podimata, and Kunhe Yang. Calibrated stackelberg games: Learning optimal commitments against calibrated agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023

    2023

  35. [44]

    Gnot: A general neural operator transformer for operator learning

    Zhongkai Hao, Zhengyi Wang, Hang Su, Chengyang Ying, Yinpeng Dong, Songming Liu, Ze Cheng, Jian Song, and Jun Zhu. Gnot: A general neural operator transformer for operator learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12556--12569. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  36. [45]

    Stackelberg games with side information

    Keegan Harris, Steven Wu, and Maria Florina Balcan. Stackelberg games with side information. In Multi-Agent Security Workshop @ NeurIPS'23, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=4RFv40DWkp

    2023

  37. [46]

    Cooperative advertising and pricing in a dynamic stochastic supply chain: Feedback stackelberg strategies

    Xiuli He, Ashutosh Prasad, and Suresh P Sethi. Cooperative advertising and pricing in a dynamic stochastic supply chain: Feedback stackelberg strategies. In PICMET'08-2008 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology, pages 1634--1649. IEEE, 2008

    2008

  38. [47]

    Time-inconsistent contract theory

    Camilo Hern \'a ndez and Dylan Possama \" . Time-inconsistent contract theory. Mathematical Finance, 34 0 (3): 0 1022--1085, 2024

    2024

  39. [48]

    Closed-loop equilibria for stackelberg games: it's all about stochastic targets

    Camilo Hern \'a ndez, Nicol \'a s Hern \'a ndez Santib \'a \ n ez, Emma Hubert, and Dylan Possama \" . Closed-loop equilibria for stackelberg games: it's all about stochastic targets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19607, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Bridging the gap between approximation and learning via optimal approximation by relu mlps of maximal regularity

    Ruiyang Hong and Anastasis Kratsios. Bridging the gap between approximation and learning via optimal approximation by relu mlps of maximal regularity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12335, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Incentives, lockdown, and testing: from thucydides’ analysis to the covid-19 pandemic

    Emma Hubert, Thibaut Mastrolia, Dylan Possama \" , and Xavier Warin. Incentives, lockdown, and testing: from thucydides’ analysis to the covid-19 pandemic. Journal of mathematical biology, 84 0 (5): 0 37, 2022

    2022

  42. [51]

    A neural network-based policy iteration algorithm with global H^2 -superlinear convergence for stochastic games on domains

    Kazufumi Ito, Christoph Reisinger, and Yufei Zhang. A neural network-based policy iteration algorithm with global H^2 -superlinear convergence for stochastic games on domains. Found. Comput. Math., 21 0 (2): 0 331--374, 2021. ISSN 1615-3375,1615-3383. doi:10.1007/s10208-020-09...

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    Trends and applications in stackelberg security games

    Debarun Kar, Thanh H Nguyen, Fei Fang, Matthew Brown, Arunesh Sinha, Milind Tambe, and Albert Xin Jiang. Trends and applications in stackelberg security games. Handbook of dynamic game theory, pages 1--47, 2017

    2017

  44. [53]

    Dynamic contracting in asset management under the investor-partner-manager relationship

    Jussi Keppo, Nizar Touzi, and Ruiting Zuo. Dynamic contracting in asset management under the investor-partner-manager relationship. Operations Research, 72 0 (3): 0 903--915, 2024

    2024

  45. [54]

    Universal Approximation with Deep Narrow Networks

    Patrick Kidger and Terry Lyons. Universal Approximation with Deep Narrow Networks . In Jacob Abernethy and Shivani Agarwal, editors, Proceedings of Thirty Third Conference on Learning Theory, volume 125 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2306--2327. PMLR, 09--1...

    2020

  46. [55]

    The generalized stackelberg equilibrium of the all-pay auction with complete information

    Kai A Konrad and Wolfgang Leininger. The generalized stackelberg equilibrium of the all-pay auction with complete information. Review of Economic Design, 11: 0 165--174, 2007

    2007

  47. [56]

    On universal approximation and error bounds for F ourier neural operators

    Nikola Kovachki, Samuel Lanthaler, and Siddhartha Mishra. On universal approximation and error bounds for F ourier neural operators. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22: 0 Paper No. [290], 76, 2021. ISSN 1532-4435,1533-7928

    2021

  48. [57]

    Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes

    Nikola Kovachki, Zongyi Li, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (89): 0 1--97, 2023

    2023

  49. [58]

    Universal approximation theorems for differentiable geometric deep learning

    Anastasis Kratsios and L\' e onie Papon. Universal approximation theorems for differentiable geometric deep learning. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 23: 0 Paper No. [196], 73, 2022. ISSN 1532-4435,1533-7928

    2022

  50. [60]

    Universal geometric deep learning via geometric attention

    Anastasis Kratsios, Chong Liu, Matti Lassas, Maarten V de Hoop, and Ivan Dokmani \'c . Universal geometric deep learning via geometric attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12231, 2023 b

    2023 arXiv

  51. [61]

    Mixture of experts soften the curse of dimensionality in operator learning

    Anastasis Kratsios, Takashi Furuya, Antonio Lara, Matti Lassas, and Maarten de Hoop. Mixture of experts soften the curse of dimensionality in operator learning. arxiv, 2024

    2024

  52. [62]

    Optimal robust reinsurance with multiple insurers

    Emma Kroell, Sebastian Jaimungal, and Silvana M Pesenti. Optimal robust reinsurance with multiple insurers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11828, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Operator learning with PCA-N et: upper and lower complexity bounds

    Samuel Lanthaler. Operator learning with PCA-N et: upper and lower complexity bounds. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (318): 0 1--67, 2023

    2023

  54. [64]

    The curse of dimensionality in operator learning

    Samuel Lanthaler and Andrew M Stuart. The curse of dimensionality in operator learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15924, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Error estimates for deeponets: A deep learning framework in infinite dimensions

    Samuel Lanthaler, Siddhartha Mishra, and George E Karniadakis. Error estimates for deeponets: A deep learning framework in infinite dimensions. Transactions of Mathematics and Its Applications, 6 0 (1): 0 tnac001, 2022 a

    2022

  56. [66]

    Nonlinear reconstruction for operator learning of pdes with discontinuities

    Samuel Lanthaler, Roberto Molinaro, Patrik Hadorn, and Siddhartha Mishra. Nonlinear reconstruction for operator learning of pdes with discontinuities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01074, 2022 b

    2022 arXiv

  57. [67]

    Hyperdeep ON et: learning operator with complex target function space using the limited resources via hypernetwork

    Jae Yong Lee, SungWoong CHO, and Hyung Ju Hwang. Hyperdeep ON et: learning operator with complex target function space using the limited resources via hypernetwork. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=...

    2023

  58. [68]

    A cooperative stackelberg game based energy management considering price discrimination and risk assessment

    Guanguan Li, Qiqiang Li, Yi Liu, Huimin Liu, Wen Song, and Ran Ding. A cooperative stackelberg game based energy management considering price discrimination and risk assessment. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 135: 0 107461, 2022

    2022

  59. [69]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Fourier neural operator with learned deformations for pdes on general geometries

    Zongyi Li, Daniel Zhengyu Huang, Burigede Liu, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator with learned deformations for pdes on general geometries. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (388): 0 1--26, 2023

    2023

  61. [71]

    G. G. Lorentz. Metric entropy and approximation. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 72: 0 903--937, 1966. ISSN 0002-9904. doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1966-11586-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1966-11586-0

    1966 doi

  62. [72]

    Lorentz, Manfred v

    George G. Lorentz, Manfred v. Golitschek, and Yuly Makovoz. Constructive approximation, volume 304 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996. ISBN 3-540-57028-4. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-60932...

    1996 doi

  63. [73]

    Deeponet: Learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operators

    Lu Lu, Pengzhan Jin, and George Em Karniadakis. Deeponet: Learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03193, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  64. [74]

    Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators

    Lu Lu, Pengzhan Jin, Guofei Pang, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Em Karniadakis. Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature machine intelligence, 3 0 (3): 0 218--229, 2021

    2021

  65. [75]

    Exponential convergence of deep operator networks for elliptic partial differential equations

    Carlo Marcati and Christoph Schwab. Exponential convergence of deep operator networks for elliptic partial differential equations. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 61 0 (3): 0 1513--1545, 2023

    2023

  66. [76]

    Ondelettes et op\' e rateurs

    Yves Meyer. Ondelettes et op\' e rateurs. I . Actualit\' e s Math\' e matiques. [Current Mathematical Topics]. Hermann, Paris, 1990. ISBN 2-7056-6125-0. Ondelettes. [Wavelets]

    1990

  67. [77]

    Approximations by L ipschitz functions generated by extensions

    Radu Miculescu. Approximations by L ipschitz functions generated by extensions. Real Anal. Exchange, 28 0 (1): 0 33--40, 2002/03. ISSN 0147-1937,1930-1219. doi:10.14321/realanalexch.28.1.0033. URL https://doi.org/10.14321/realanalexch.28.1.0033

    2002 doi

  68. [78]

    Neural inverse operators for solving pde inverse problems

    Roberto Molinaro, Yunan Yang, Bj \"o rn Engquist, and Siddhartha Mishra. Neural inverse operators for solving pde inverse problems. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 25105--25139, 2023

    2023

  69. [79]

    James R. Munkres. Topology. Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, second edition, 2000. ISBN 0-13-181629-2

    2000

  70. [80]

    The M alliavin calculus and related topics

    David Nualart. The M alliavin calculus and related topics . Probability and its Applications (New York). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 2006. ISBN 978-3-540-28328-7; 3-540-28328-5

    2006

  71. [81]

    Fully coupled forward-backward stochastic differential equations and applications to optimal control

    Shige Peng and Zhen Wu. Fully coupled forward-backward stochastic differential equations and applications to optimal control. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 37 0 (3): 0 825--843, 1999

    1999

  72. [82]

    Lipschitz widths

    Guergana Petrova and Przemys aw Wojtaszczyk. Lipschitz widths. Constructive Approximation, 57 0 (2): 0 759--805, 2023

    2023

  73. [83]

    Convolutional neural operators for robust and accurate learning of pdes

    Bogdan Raonic, Roberto Molinaro, Tim De Ryck, Tobias Rohner, Francesca Bartolucci, Rima Alaifari, Siddhartha Mishra, and Emmanuel de B \'e zenac. Convolutional neural operators for robust and accurate learning of pdes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  74. [84]

    Rectified deep neural networks overcome the curse of dimensionality for nonsmooth value functions in zero-sum games of nonlinear stiff systems

    Christoph Reisinger and Yufei Zhang. Rectified deep neural networks overcome the curse of dimensionality for nonsmooth value functions in zero-sum games of nonlinear stiff systems. Analysis and Applications, 18 0 (06): 0 951--999, 2020

    2020

  75. [85]

    Robinson

    James C. Robinson. Dimensions, embeddings, and attractors, volume 186 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011. ISBN 978-0-521-89805-8

    2011

  76. [86]

    Optimal approximation rate of R e LU networks in terms of width and depth

    Zuowei Shen, Haizhao Yang, and Shijun Zhang. Optimal approximation rate of R e LU networks in terms of width and depth. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 157: 0 101--135, 2022. ISSN 0021-7824. doi:10.1016/j.matpur.2021.07.009. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2021.07.009

    2022 doi

  77. [87]

    Deep learning algorithms for hedging with frictions

    Xiaofei Shi, Daran Xu, and Zhanhao Zhang. Deep learning algorithms for hedging with frictions. Digital Finance, 5 0 (1): 0 113--147, 2023

    2023

  78. [88]

    Stanis aw J. Szarek. A B anach space without a basis which has the bounded approximation property. Acta Math., 159 0 (1-2): 0 81--98, 1987. ISSN 0001-5962,1871-2509. doi:10.1007/BF02392555. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02392555

    1987 doi

  79. [89]

    van der Vaart and Jon A

    Aad W. van der Vaart and Jon A. Wellner. Weak convergence and empirical processes. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996. ISBN 0-387-94640-3. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2545-2. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2545-2. With applications to statistics

    1996 doi

  80. [90]

    The infinite-dimensional topology of function spaces, volume 64 of North-Holland Mathematical Library

    Jan van Mill. The infinite-dimensional topology of function spaces, volume 64 of North-Holland Mathematical Library. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 2001. ISBN 0-444-50557-1

    2001

  81. [91]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  82. [92]

    Lipschitz algebras

    Nik Weaver. Lipschitz algebras. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, second edition, 2018. ISBN 978-981-4740-63-0

    2018

  83. [93]

    A leader-follower stochastic linear quadratic differential game

    Jiongmin Yong. A leader-follower stochastic linear quadratic differential game. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 41 0 (4): 0 1015--1041, 2002

    2002

  84. [94]

    The optimization of supply chain financing for bank green credit using stackelberg game theory in digital economy under internet of things

    Hui Zhang, Fengrui Zhang, Bing Gong, Xuan Zhang, and Yifan Zhu. The optimization of supply chain financing for bank green credit using stackelberg game theory in digital economy under internet of things. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 35 0 (3): 0 1--16, 2023

    2023

  85. [95]

    Improved nystr \"o m low-rank approximation and error analysis

    Kai Zhang, Ivor W Tsang, and James T Kwok. Improved nystr \"o m low-rank approximation and error analysis. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, pages 1232--1239, 2008

    2008

  86. [96]

    Deep network approximation: Achieving arbitrary accuracy with fixed number of neurons

    Shijun Zhang, Zuowei Shen, and Haizhao Yang. Deep network approximation: Achieving arbitrary accuracy with fixed number of neurons. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 0 (276): 0 1--60, 2022

    2022

  87. [97]

    A stackelberg game approach to proactive caching in large-scale mobile edge networks

    Zijie Zheng, Lingyang Song, Zhu Han, Geoffrey Ye Li, and H Vincent Poor. A stackelberg game approach to proactive caching in large-scale mobile edge networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 17 0 (8): 0 5198--5211, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.