Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Well-posedness and mean-field limit estimate of a consensus-based algorithm for multiplayer games

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves unique strong solutions and an explicit mean-field limit rate $N^{-\gamma}$ for the consensus-based multiplayer-game algorithm.

desk verdict Solid multi-species CBO well-posedness, but the main mean-field limit rate theorem has a genuine gap in the (Emp Diff) step—likely repairable, yet not proven as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13632 v1 pith:RYY3J7LJ submitted 2025-05-19 math.OC math.CAmath.PR

Hui Huang , Jethro Warnett This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCmath.CAmath.PR MSC 35Q9365C3570F4560H30
keywords mean-fieldlimitconsensus-basedoptimizationmultiplayergamesNashequilibriumWassersteinstabilityinteractingparticlesystemspropagationofchaosstochasticdifferentialequations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper addresses two theoretical gaps in the consensus-based particle method for non-convex multiplayer games. It shows that the finite-particle stochastic dynamics and the mean-field stochastic dynamics both admit unique strong solutions. Its central result is a quantitative mean-field limit estimate: when the two systems are driven by the same Brownian motions and start from matching initial laws, the $p$-th moment of the distance between a particle and its mean-field counterpart is bounded by $C N^{-\gamma}$, where $\gamma = \min(\frac12, \frac{q-p}{2p^2}, \frac{q-(2\vee p_M)}{2(2\vee p_M)^2})$. The rate reaches the Monte Carlo rate $1/2$ (for $p=2$) once the initial laws have sufficiently high finite moments. This closes the previously formal passage from $N$ interacting particles to the infinite-particle limit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the consensus point $X^m_\alpha(\rho^m, M^{-m})$, the Gibbs-weighted mean of player $m$'s particles with weights $e^{-\alpha E^m}$; it is only locally Lipschitz, which is why the mean-field limit is nontrivial. Lemma 2.1 gives a Wasserstein stability estimate for this map in terms of the measures of all players and their expectations. Lemma 2.8 converts the i.i.d. sampling error of the weighted mean into an $N^{-p/2}$ rate, relying on a ratio-moment bound for random weighted means. Theorem 1.3 assembles these pieces into a Gronwall inequality for $\sup_t |X^{m,i}_t - \bar X^{m,i}_t|^p$.

What would settle it

Run the coupled particle and mean-field systems for a two-player game whose cost depends steeply on the opponent's strategy, using the same Brownian paths and varying $N$ from $10^2$ to $10^5$, and measure the empirical-difference term $|X^m_\alpha(\mu^{m,N}_t, \bar M^{-m}_t) - X^m_\alpha(\rho^{m,N}_t, M^{-m}_t)|$. If its $p$-th moment decays slower than the claimed $N^{-\gamma}$, or fails to improve with $N$ at all, the missing Lipschitz or fluctuation bound in the proof of Theorem 1.3 is real and the theorem's rate does not follow as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes, under Assumptions (A1)-(A2) (locally Lipschitz costs with polynomial growth, sandwiched between two polynomials), that the finite-particle system and the mean-field system have unique strong solutions (Theorems 1.1 and 1.2). The main quantitative result, Theorem 1.3, couples the two systems on the same Brownian motions with matching initial laws and proves $$\sup_{m\in[M],i\in[N]}\Big(\mathbb{E}\big[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|$X^{{m,i}}$_t - \bar $X^{{m,i}}$_t|^p\big]\Big)^{1/p} \le C $N^{{-\gamma}}$,$$ with $\gamma = \min(\frac12, \frac{q-p}{2p^2}, \frac{q-(2\vee p_M)}{2(2\vee p_M)^2})$, for $q \ge 4\vee 2p_M$ and $p \le q/2$. Here $p_M$ is $2+s$ if $\ell=0$ and $1$ if $\ell>0$, with $s,\ell$ the growth exponents from the assumptions. The proof decomposes the error into the particle difference, the empirical approximation of the mean-field consensus, and the empirical difference between the two systems' consensus points, then closes a Gronwall inequality.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes the consensus point reacts in a controlled way to the difference between the true expected opponent strategy and the sample-average opponent strategy, but no stated lemma bounds that difference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any fixed horizon $T$ under (A1)-(A2), both the particle algorithm and its mean-field limit are well-posed, so the algorithm's dynamics have a rigorous foundation.
  • With shared Brownian motions and initial laws of finite $q$-th moment, the mean-field error is at most $C N^{-\gamma}$, and for $q \ge 6 \vee ((2\vee p_M)+(2\vee p_M)^2)$ the bound attains the Monte Carlo rate $\gamma = 1/2$ at $p=2$.
  • The proof yields a propagation-of-chaos estimate: the empirical law of the $N$ particles approaches the mean-field law, in the sense of the $p$-th moments of the coupled trajectories, at an explicit rate.
  • The exponent $\gamma$ is monotone in the available moment $q$, so increasing the number of finite moments of the initial law improves the rate up to the $N^{-1/2}$ cap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a missing bound on the consensus sensitivity to the opponent's average strategy is supplied, the same proof would likely give $N^{-1/2}$ for the full parameter range allowed by the moment assumptions, not only for $q$ above the stated threshold.
  • The coupling-and-Gronwall structure is transferable: analogous quantitative mean-field rates should follow for consensus-based algorithms with constraints, min-max objectives, or jump-diffusion noise once the two consensus lemmas are re-proved in those settings.
  • A finite-$N$ numerical check of the empirical-difference term would settle whether the unproved strategy-argument bound is benign or rate-limiting in practice.
  • The result is finite-horizon; converting the rate into a uniform-in-time estimate would require controlling how $C$ and the moment bounds grow with $T$, which the present proof does not address.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies a consensus-based optimization (CBO) algorithm for multiplayer games introduced in [12]. The main contributions are: (i) existence and uniqueness of strong solutions for the finite-particle system (CBO) and the mean-field system (MF CBO) under Assumptions (A1)-(A2) (Theorems 1.1 and 1.2); and (ii) a quantitative mean-field limit estimate (Theorem 1.3) showing that the empirical particle system converges to the mean-field dynamics at rate N^{-γ} in L^p for a rate γ = min(1/2, (q-p)/(2p^2), (q-(2∨pM))/(2(2∨pM)^2)) under additional moment assumptions. The proofs adapt techniques from [22] and [9] to the multi-species setting, using Wasserstein stability estimates for the consensus point, moment bounds, and a Doukhan-Lang ratio estimate. The well-posedness proofs are standard and appear sound. However, the proof of Theorem 1.3 contains a gap in the treatment of the (Emp Diff) term, where the second argument of the consensus is not the empirical mean of the measure on which the consensus is based.

Significance. If correct, Theorem 1.3 would provide the first quantitative mean-field limit estimate for the multi-player CBO algorithm of [12], addressing a gap noted in that paper. The well-posedness theorems, while adaptations of existing results, are useful and appear to be correctly proved. The paper is clearly written and the techniques are appropriate. The main obstacle is the gap in the proof of the central rate estimate; without a fix, Theorem 1.3 is not established. The gap appears to be repairable, so the result is promising.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 5, proof of Theorem 1.3, estimate of (Emp Diff)] The application of Lemma 2.1 to the (Emp Diff) term is not justified. Lemma 2.1 controls the difference |X^m_α(µ^m, \bar µ^{-m}) − X^m_α(ν^m, \bar ν^{-m})|, where the second arguments are the expectations of the corresponding measures. In the term labelled (Emp Diff), the first consensus is X^m_α(µ^{m,N}_t, M̄^{-m}_t), and M̄^{-m}_t is the expectation of the mean-field law Law(X̄_t), not the empirical mean (1/N)Σ_i X̄^{j,i}_t of µ^{m,N}_t. The difference between M̄^{-m}_t and the sample mean is a Monte Carlo fluctuation that is not controlled by W_p(µ^{m,N}_t, ρ^{m,N}_t). The same mismatch occurs in the excursion-set bound, where Lemma 2.3 is applied to X^m_α(µ^{m,N}_t, M̄^{-m}_t) even though Lemma 2.3 also requires the second argument to be the expectation of the measure appearing in its first argument. Since these bounds feed directly into the Gronwall argument, the rate N^{−γ} in Theorem 1.3 is not established as written. The gap appears repairable by adding a fluctuation term for M̄^{-m}_t − (1/N)Σ_i X̄^{m,i}_t and proving a suitable Lipschitz estimate for X^m_α in its second argument, but this argument is absent.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, after the (Emp App) bound] The displayed equality defining θ is not an equality: θ := min{1/2, (q-p)/(2p^2)} cannot equal min{p/2, (q-p)/(2p), (q-(2∨pM))/(2(2∨pM)^2)} as written; the right-hand side should be θ p, and the third term arises only in the reduction step for p < 2∨pM.
  2. [Throughout] There are frequent typos, including 'Lipshitz' for 'Lipschitz', 'Grönwall' for 'Gronwall', 'fictous' for 'fictitious', and 'Kingdo' for 'Kingdom' in the affiliation line.
  3. [Lemma 2.8] The statement should specify that the estimate holds for each m ∈ [M], since the notation X^m_α appears without prior quantification of m.
  4. [Section 4, equation (9)] The constant 'CBDG' appears without definition in equation (9) and is later written as 'C_BDG'; this should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the novel well-posedness and mean-field rate results are established via external estimates from [22] and [9]; the self-citation to [12] only names the algorithm under study.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—well-posedness for the particle and mean-field systems (Theorems 1.1–1.2) and the quantitative mean-field limit (Theorem 1.3)—are derived from an external chain: Lemmas 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 and 2.8 are adapted from [22] (Gerber–Hoffmann–Vaes) and [9] (Carrillo et al.), with [16, Theorem 1] (Doukhan–Lang) used for the i.i.d. weighted-mean convergence. The only self-citation, [12] (Chenchene–Huang–Qiu), is cited as the source of the algorithm and its informal mean-field convergence, not as a load-bearing premise for the new theorems; the proofs do not assume the convergence result of [12]. No parameter is fitted and renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work to rule out alternatives. Per the reviewing rule, I flag explicitly the reviewer-identified gap in Section 5: in bounding (Emp Diff), Lemma 2.1 is applied with an opponent-strategy argument that is the true mean-field expectation rather than the empirical sample mean, so the displayed W_p estimate does not control the missing Monte Carlo fluctuation term. This is a genuine mathematical gap in the proof as written, but it is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction: it does not make the claimed rate equivalent to an input by construction. Hence the circularity score remains low.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or invented entities; λ, σ and α are algorithm parameters treated as given positive constants. The main burden lies in the moment/regularity assumptions on the cost functions and the imported analytical results. One unstated technical premise is needed for the central rate proof.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumptions (A1) and (A2): the cost functions E_m are locally Lipschitz with polynomial growth and are sandwiched between polynomials with exponent ℓ.
    These are stated in Section 1.3 and used throughout Theorems 1.1-1.3 to ensure moment bounds and consensus stability.
  • domain assumption The diffusion coefficient D is a Lipschitz transformation with respect to the Frobenius norm, e.g., D(X)=diag(X_i) or D(X)=|X| id.
    Stated in the model section; needed for the SDE coefficients to be locally Lipschitz and for the BDG estimates.
  • standard math Imported results [22, Corollary 3.3], [22, Lemma 2.5], [16, Theorem 1], and [35, Theorem 3.5] hold as stated.
    The paper uses these results without reproof: Wasserstein stability of the weighted mean, a large-deviation bound for empirical p-moments, moment bounds for ratios, and a non-explosion criterion.
  • domain assumption In Theorem 1.3, the mean-field particles X̄^{m,i} are i.i.d. for each player and share Brownian motions and initial conditions with the particle system.
    This coupling is the basis for the Gronwall comparison; it is stated in Theorem 1.3 and is a standard propagation-of-chaos setting.
  • ad hoc to paper The consensus map X^α_m(µ, Y) satisfies an implicit Lipschitz or fluctuation estimate when Y is changed from the empirical mean of µ to the true expectation of the underlying law.
    This is not stated in the paper but is needed in the (Emp Diff) step of Theorem 1.3's proof to make the application of Lemma 2.1 valid. It may follow from assumption (A1), but the paper does not derive it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Well-posedness and mean-field limit estimate of a consensus-based algorithm for multiplayer games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYY3J7LJ

@misc{pith2026250513632,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Well-posedness and mean-field limit estimate of a consensus-based algorithm for multiplayer games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYY3J7LJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13632}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, the paper [12] introduces a derivative-free consensus-based particle method that finds the Nash equilibrium of non-convex multiplayer games, where it proves the global exponential convergence in the sense of mean-field law. This paper aims to address theoretical gaps in [12], specifically by providing a quantitative estimate of the mean-field limit with respect to the number of particles, as well as establishing the well-posedness of both the finite particle model and the corresponding mean-field dynamics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Mean-field limits for Consensus- Based Optimization and Sampling

    Nicolai Jurek Gerber, Franca Hoffmann, and Urbain Vaes. Mean-field limits for Consensus- Based Optimization and Sampling. arXiv:2312.07373v2, 2024. 22

    arXiv 2024

  2. [12]

    A consensus-based algorithm for non-convex multiplayer games

    Enis Chenchene, Hui Huang, and Jinniao Qiu. A consensus-based algorithm for non-convex multiplayer games. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , 2025. to appear

    work page 2025

  3. [9]

    Carrillo, Young-Pil Choi, Claudia Totzeck, and Oliver Tse

    Jos´ e A. Carrillo, Young-Pil Choi, Claudia Totzeck, and Oliver Tse. An analytical framework for consensus-based global optimization method. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 28(06):1037–1066, June 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [1]

    Uniform-in-time weak propagation of chaos for consensus-based optimization

    Erhan Bayraktar, Ibrahim Ekren, and Hongyi Zhou. Uniform-in-time weak propagation of chaos for consensus-based optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00582 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [2]

    Constrained consensus-based optimization and numerical heuristics for the few particle regime

    Jonas Beddrich, Enis Chenchene, Massimo Fornasier, Hui Huang, and Barbara Wohlmuth. Constrained consensus-based optimization and numerical heuristics for the few particle regime. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10361 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [3]

    Brown’s original fictitious play

    Ulrich Berger. Brown’s original fictitious play. Journal of Economic Theory , 135(1):572–578, July 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [4]

    Stochastic differential equations: an introduction with applications

    Bernt Øksendal. Stochastic differential equations: an introduction with applications . Univer- sitext. Springer, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [5]

    An Adaptive Consensus Based Method for Multi-objective Optimization with Uniform Pareto Front Approximation

    Giacomo Borghi, Michael Herty, and Lorenzo Pareschi. An Adaptive Consensus Based Method for Multi-objective Optimization with Uniform Pareto Front Approximation. Applied Math- ematics & Optimization , 88(2):58, October 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [6]

    A particle consensus approach to solving nonconvex-nonconcave min-max problems

    Giacomo Borghi, Hui Huang, and Jinniao Qiu. A particle consensus approach to solving nonconvex-nonconcave min-max problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17373 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Mirrorcbo: A consensus- based optimization method in the spirit of mirror descent

    Leon Bungert, Franca Hoffmann, Doh Yeon Kim, and Tim Roith. Mirrorcbo: A consensus- based optimization method in the spirit of mirror descent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12189 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Polarized consensus-based dynamics for optimization and sampling, 2022

    Leon Bungert, Tim Roith, and Philipp Wacker. Polarized consensus-based dynamics for optimization and sampling, 2022. Version Number: 3

    2022

  4. [10]

    Carrillo, Shi Jin, Lei Li, and Yuhua Zhu

    Jos´ e A. Carrillo, Shi Jin, Lei Li, and Yuhua Zhu. A consensus-based global optimization method for high dimensional machine learning problems. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 27:S5, 2021

    2021

  5. [11]

    Propagation of chaos: A review of models, methods and applications

    Louis-Pierre Chaintron and Antoine Diez. Propagation of chaos: A review of models, methods and applications. ii. applications. Kinetic & Related Models , 15(6), 2022. 21

    2022

  6. [13]

    Springer Texts in Statistics

    Yuan Shih Chow and Henry Teicher.Probability Theory. Springer Texts in Statistics. Springer, New York, NY, 1997. ISSN: 1431-875X

    1997

  7. [14]

    SBEED: Convergent reinforcement learning with nonlinear function approximation

    Bo Dai, Albert Shaw, Lihong Li, Lin Xiao, Niao He, Zhen Liu, Jianshu Chen, and Le Song. SBEED: Convergent reinforcement learning with nonlinear function approximation. In Inter- national conference on machine learning , pages 1125–1134. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  8. [15]

    Local Stochastic Gradient Descent Ascent: Convergence Analysis and Communication Efficiency

    Yuyang Deng and Mehrdad Mahdavi. Local Stochastic Gradient Descent Ascent: Convergence Analysis and Communication Efficiency. In Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 1387–1395. PMLR, March 2021. ISSN: 2640- 3498

    2021

  9. [16]

    Evaluation for moments of a ratio with application to regression estimation

    Paul Doukhan and Gabriel Lang. Evaluation for moments of a ratio with application to regression estimation. Bernoulli. Official Journal of the Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 15(4):1259–1286, 2009

    2009

  10. [17]

    Fault-Tolerant Federated Reinforcement Learning with Theoretical Guarantee

    Xiaofeng Fan, Yining Ma, Zhongxiang Dai, Wei Jing, Cheston Tan, and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. Fault-Tolerant Federated Reinforcement Learning with Theoretical Guarantee. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 1007–1021. Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2021

    2021

  11. [18]

    Consensus-based optimization on hypersurfaces: Well-posedness and mean-field limit

    Massimo Fornasier, Hui Huang, Lorenzo Pareschi, and Philippe S¨ unnen. Consensus-based optimization on hypersurfaces: Well-posedness and mean-field limit. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , 30(14):2725–2751, December 2020

    2020

  12. [19]

    Consensus-based optimization on the sphere: Convergence to global minimizers and machine learning

    Massimo Fornasier, Hui Huang, Lorenzo Pareschi, and Philippe S¨ unnen. Consensus-based optimization on the sphere: Convergence to global minimizers and machine learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(237):1–55, 2021

    2021

  13. [20]

    Consensus-Based Optimization Meth- ods Converge Globally

    Massimo Fornasier, Timo Klock, and Konstantin Riedl. Consensus-Based Optimization Meth- ods Converge Globally. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 34(3):2973–3004, September 2024. arXiv:2103.15130 [math]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Uniform-in-time propa- gation of chaos for consensus-based optimization

    Nicolai Gerber, Franca Hoffmann, Dohyeon Kim, and Urbain Vaes. Uniform-in-time propa- gation of chaos for consensus-based optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08669 , 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Trudinger

    David Gilbarg and Neil S. Trudinger. Elliptic partial differential equations of second order . Classics in mathematics. Springer, Berlin, reprint of 1998 ed. edition, 2001

    1998

  16. [24]

    Gokhale and Arne Traulsen

    Chaitanya S. Gokhale and Arne Traulsen. Evolutionary Multiplayer Games. Dynamic Games and Applications, 4(4):468–488, December 2014. arXiv:1404.1421 [q-bio]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Stochastic consensus dynamics for nonconvex optimization on the Stiefel manifold: Mean-field limit and convergence

    Seung-Yeal Ha, Myeongju Kang, Dohyun Kim, Jeongho Kim, and Insoon Yang. Stochastic consensus dynamics for nonconvex optimization on the Stiefel manifold: Mean-field limit and convergence. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , February 2022. Publisher: World Sci...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Adaptive Gradient Multiobjective Particle Swarm Optimization

    Honggui Han, Wei Lu, Lu Zhang, and Junfei Qiao. Adaptive Gradient Multiobjective Particle Swarm Optimization. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 48(11):3067–3079, November 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    A Simple Adaptive Procedure Leading to Correlated Equilibrium

    Sergiu Hart and Andreu Mas-Colell. A Simple Adaptive Procedure Leading to Correlated Equilibrium. Econometrica, 68(5):1127–1150, September 2000

    2000

  20. [28]

    Uniform-in-time mean-field limit estimate for the consensus-based optimization

    Hui Huang and Hicham Kouhkouh. Uniform-in-time mean-field limit estimate for the consensus-based optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03986 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Self-interacting cbo: Existence, uniqueness, and long-time convergence

    Hui Huang and Hicham Kouhkouh. Self-interacting cbo: Existence, uniqueness, and long-time convergence. Applied Mathematics Letters, 161:109372, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    On the mean-field limit for the consensus-based optimiza- tion

    Hui Huang and Jinniao Qiu. On the mean-field limit for the consensus-based optimiza- tion. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences , 45(12):7814–7831, August 2022. arXiv:2105.12919 [math]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    On the global convergence of particle swarm optimization methods

    Hui Huang, Jinniao Qiu, and Konstantin Riedl. On the global convergence of particle swarm optimization methods. Applied Mathematics & Optimization , 88(2):30, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Consensus-based optimization for saddle point problems

    Hui Huang, Jinniao Qiu, and Konstantin Riedl. Consensus-based optimization for saddle point problems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 62(2):1093–1121, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    A Consensus-Based Global Optimization Method with Adaptive Momentum Estimation

    Jingrun Chen Jingrun Chen, Shi Jin Shi Jin, and Liyao Lyu Liyao Lyu. A Consensus-Based Global Optimization Method with Adaptive Momentum Estimation. Communications in Computational Physics, 31(4):1296–1316, January 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Tretyakov

    Dante Kalise, Akash Sharma, and Michael V. Tretyakov. Consensus-based optimization via jump-diffusion stochastic differential equations. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 33(02):289–339, February 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Stochastic Stability of Differential Equations , volume 66 of Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability

    Rafail Khasminskii. Stochastic Stability of Differential Equations , volume 66 of Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012. 23

    2012

  28. [36]

    Brooks King-Casas and Pearl H. Chiu. Understanding Interpersonal Function in Psychiatric Illness Through Multiplayer Economic Games. Biological psychiatry , 72(2):119–125, July 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    A unified game-theoretic approach to multiagent reinforcement learning

    Marc Lanctot, Vinicius Zambaldi, Audrunas Gruslys, Angeliki Lazaridou, Karl Tuyls, Julien P´ erolat, David Silver, and Thore Graepel. A unified game-theoretic approach to multiagent reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 30, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Triple Generative Adversarial Nets

    Chongxuan LI, Taufik Xu, Jun Zhu, and Bo Zhang. Triple Generative Adversarial Nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Budget Allocation Problem with Multiple Advertisers: A Game Theoretic View

    Takanori Maehara, Akihiro Yabe, and Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi. Budget Allocation Problem with Multiple Advertisers: A Game Theoretic View. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 428–437. PMLR, June 2015. ISSN: 1938-7228

    2015

  32. [40]

    Stochastic differential equations and applications

    Xuerong Mao. Stochastic differential equations and applications . Woodhead Publishing, sec- ond edition, reprinted edition, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    Game Theory and Mechanism Design , volume 4 of IISc Lecture Notes Series

    Y Narahari. Game Theory and Mechanism Design , volume 4 of IISc Lecture Notes Series . WORLD SCIENTIFIC / INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE, INDIA, May 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    John F. Nash. Equilibrium points in n -person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1):48–49, January 1950

    1950

  35. [43]

    Solving a Class of Non-Convex Min-Max Games Using Iterative First Order Methods

    Maher Nouiehed, Maziar Sanjabi, Tianjian Huang, Jason D Lee, and Meisam Razaviyayn. Solving a Class of Non-Convex Min-Max Games Using Iterative First Order Methods. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    A consensus-based model for global optimization and its mean-field limit

    Ren´ e Pinnau, Claudia Totzeck, Oliver Tse, and Stephan Martin. A consensus-based model for global optimization and its mean-field limit. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 27(01):183–204, January 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    El-Gokhy, and Elsayed Sallam

    Shery Sedarous, Sherin M. El-Gokhy, and Elsayed Sallam. Multi-swarm multi-objective op- timization based on a hybrid strategy. Alexandria Engineering Journal , 57(3):1619–1629, September 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Multi-Agent Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning

    Jiaming Song, Hongyu Ren, Dorsa Sadigh, and Stefano Ermon. Multi-Agent Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol- ume 31. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018. 24

    2018

  39. [47]

    Trends in consensus-based optimization

    Claudia Totzeck. Trends in consensus-based optimization. In Active Particles, Volume 3: Advances in Theory, Models, and Applications , pages 201–226. Springer, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    CB2O: Consensus-based bi-level optimization

    Nicol´ as Garc´ ıa Trillos, Sixu Li, Konstantin Riedl, and Yuhua Zhu. CB2O: Consensus-based bi-level optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13394 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Particle swarm optimization algorithm: an overview

    Dongshu Wang, Dapei Tan, and Lei Liu. Particle swarm optimization algorithm: an overview. Soft Computing, 22(2):387–408, January 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Mathematical analysis of the pde model for the consensus-based optimization

    Jinhuan Wang, Keyu Li, and Hui Huang. Mathematical analysis of the pde model for the consensus-based optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10990 , 2025. 25

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.