Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Complexity guarantees for risk-neutral generalized Nash equilibrium problems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a distributed variance-reduced forward-backward-forward splitting algorithm computes variational equilibria of stochastic generalized Nash games with almost sure convergence, linear expected-rate convergence under…

desk verdict Genuinely new SVRG-plus-distributed-FBF combination for stochastic GNEPs, but the 'biased estimators' headline is oversold: Assumption 6(a) only covers vanishing-bias oracles, and Lemma 3 has an E[L]^2 vs E[L^2] slip. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11409 v1 pith:U5QWS7HW submitted 2025-06-13 math.OC

Haochen Tao , Andrea Iannelli , Meggie Marschner , Mathias Staudigl , Uday V. Shanbhag , Shisheng Cui This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C3390C1591A10
keywords stochasticgeneralizedNashequilibriumdistributedalgorithmvariancereductionforward-backward-forwardsplittingmonotoneinclusionssamplecomplexitybiasedestimatorsvariational
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 proposes a fully distributed double-loop algorithm, DVRSFBF, for finding variational equilibria in stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium problems where each agent's cost depends on randomness and agents exchange information only with trusted neighbors. The central claim is that a variance-reduced forward-backward-forward splitting scheme, which refreshes a costly mini-batch gradient estimate in an outer loop and uses only cheap single-sample updates in an inner loop, converges almost surely to an equilibrium. Under strong monotonicity the expected squared error decays linearly, $E[\|x_t-x^*\|^2] = O(\tilde\eta^t)$, even when the stochastic oracle is biased, provided the conditional bias shrinks like $O(1/\sqrt{S_t})$ with the batch size $S_t$. Under mere monotonicity, the expected restricted gap of an averaged iterate decays as $O(1/T)$ and computing an $\epsilon$-solution costs $O(\epsilon^{-3})$ oracle samples. If correct, this is the first variance-reduced, fully distributed scheme for general monotone stochastic equilibrium problems that allows general sample spaces and biased estimators.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the variance-reduced stochastic forward-backward-forward splitting update, built on the operator-splitting formulation of the game's KKT conditions as a monotone inclusion $0 \in V(x) + T(x)$, where $V$ collects the pseudogradient, the coupling constraint terms, and the network Laplacian terms, and $T$ is the maximally monotone operator formed from player subdifferentials and the normal cone of the nonnegative orthant. In each outer iteration a mini-batch estimator $\bar V(x^t)$ is computed; the inner loop applies the FBF template with a single-sample correction $\tilde V(z^t_{k+1/2},\xi) - \tilde V(x^t,\xi)$ that cancels the variance while preserving the bias structure. The proof machinery is the expected-contraction recursion of Lemma 3, which uses the strong-monotonicity modulus $\mu$, the Lipschitz constant $\hat L$, and a free constant $c\in(0,\mu/3)$ to produce the contraction factors $q$ and $\rho$.

What would settle it

Run DVRSFBF on a strongly monotone instance such as the Section V Cournot game with an oracle whose conditional bias is a fixed positive constant rather than $b/\sqrt{S_t}$; the Lemma 3 recursion predicts the expected squared error should plateau at a positive level instead of converging to zero, contradicting Theorem 1 and Proposition 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the variational equilibrium of a stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium problem can be computed by a double-loop stochastic forward-backward-forward splitting method whose inner iterates use single-sample operator evaluations while an outer loop periodically refreshes a mini-batch SVRG-type estimator. The convergence analysis rests on a one-step recursion, Lemma 3, that contracts the expected squared distance to the solution by a factor $q^K + \frac{1-q^K}{1-q}\rho$ and leaves a bias-variance term of order $(3b^2+\nu^2)/(cS_t)$. Choosing $S_t = \lfloor \eta^{-(t+1)}\rfloor$ gives the linear rate of Proposition 2 under $\mu$-strong monotonicity, and choosing $S_t = T^2$, $K=T$, and zero-mean conditional errors gives the $O(1/T)$ restricted-gap decay and $O(\epsilon^{-3})$ sample complexity of Proposition 3.

Load-bearing premise

The rate analysis depends on Assumption 6(a): the conditional bias of the stochastic operator estimator must be no larger than $b/\sqrt{S_t}$ for every inner-loop sample; if the bias decays more slowly, the contraction recursion of Lemma 3 cannot absorb it and the linear convergence claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In strongly monotone stochastic games, the algorithm reaches accuracy $\epsilon$ in expected squared distance with $O(1/\epsilon)$ oracle evaluations in the outer loop, a sample-complexity statement that prior distributed stochastic equilibrium-seeking schemes did not provide.
  • In merely monotone games the method still converges, with the expected restricted gap of an averaged iterate decaying as $O(1/T)$ and sample complexity $O(\epsilon^{-3})$ for an $\epsilon$-solution.
  • Because the inner loop needs only single-sample evaluations after a periodic mini-batch refresh, the algorithm substantially reduces sampling cost; the numerical study on a networked Cournot game reports oracle counts two to three orders of magnitude smaller than the variance-reduced SMFBS baseline.
  • The bias allowance, conditional bias bounded by $b/\sqrt{S_t}$, covers oracles that arise in simulation-based optimization and goes beyond the unbiased-estimator assumption used by earlier SVRG-type schemes for variational inequalities.
  • The method is fully distributed: each player updates local primal and dual variables and communicates only with trusted neighbors, so the guarantees apply to networked multi-agent systems without a central coordinator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A stress test suggested by the assumptions is to run the same algorithm with an oracle whose conditional bias decays as $1/S_t$ rather than $1/\sqrt{S_t}$; the theory predicts the linear rate should fail, so this isolates the role of Assumption 6(a).
  • The double-loop variance-reduced FBF template is likely transferable to stochastic variational inequalities beyond Nash problems, since the restricted merit function used in Proposition 3 is not tied to the game structure.
  • The geometric growth of $S_t$ in Proposition 2 may be wasteful in practice; an adaptive scheme that stops increasing the batch once the contracting term dominates could retain a linear rate with lower total sampling cost.
  • The paper's numerical study is limited to strongly monotone and merely monotone Cournot games; testing the algorithm on the ride-hailing or electricity-dispatch examples from Section I-B would show whether the convergence rates persist in those models.
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. The paper studies distributed solution of stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium problems (SGNEPs) by recasting the variational-equilibrium characterization as a structured monotone inclusion and applying a double-loop stochastic forward-backward-forward splitting scheme (DVRSFBF). The outer loop forms a mini-batch estimator of the stochastic pseudo-gradient operator, while the inner loop uses cheap single-sample corrections. The main theoretical results are almost sure convergence and linear expected-error contraction under strong monotonicity (Theorem 1 and Proposition 2), with a stated allowance for biased estimators, and an O(1/T) expected-gap bound with O(epsilon^{-3}) sample complexity under mere monotonicity and unbiased errors (Proposition 3). A numerical study on networked Cournot games compares the oracle complexity of DVRSFBF with that of vr-SMFBS.

Significance. The paper is a serious contribution if the stated rates hold: it extends SVRG-type variance reduction to structured monotone inclusions over general probability spaces, gives explicit complexity statements, and the algorithm is fully distributed. The analysis is largely self-contained, the assumptions are stated explicitly, and the rate statements do not involve fitted parameters. However, the headline claim of allowing biased estimators is more restricted than advertised: Assumption 6(a) requires the per-sample conditional bias to shrink with the outer batch size S_t, and the monotone result in Proposition 3 explicitly assumes zero conditional means. The proof of Lemma 3 also contains a moment-notation error that must be corrected. With these issues addressed, the paper would be a useful addition to the stochastic variational-inequality and distributed Nash-equilibrium literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Assumption 6(a), Lemma 3, Proposition 2] The per-sample conditional bias bound ||E[epsilon_{j,t}(x_t)|F_t]|| <= b/sqrt(S_t) is not the 'rather mild' fixed-bias setting promised in the abstract. For i.i.d. samples from a fixed law with a fixed bias, e.g. \tilde V(x,xi)=V(x)+delta+xi with E[xi]=0 and delta != 0, the per-sample bias is delta, which does not decay with S_t. The mini-batch estimator then has conditional bias delta, not b/sqrt(S_t), so the O(1/S_t) term in inequality (32) cannot absorb the bias, and the linear rate in Proposition 2(a) collapses. In addition, Proposition 3 explicitly assumes zero conditional means, so the monotone regime does not cover biased estimators either. The paper should restrict the biased-estimator claim to the vanishing-bias condition actually used, or alternatively impose a batch-level bias condition compatible with fixed-bias oracles and rework the recursion.
  2. [Lemma 3 proof (Section IV.B)] The proof introduces \hat L as E[L(xi)], but the contraction coefficients q and rho are then written with \hat L^2 in place of the required E[L(xi)^2]. For instance, the step-size conditions 3alpha^2 \hat L^2 < alpha(mu-3c) are meaningful only if \hat L^2 denotes the second moment. As written, the definition of \hat L does not support the subsequent inequalities. Since q and rho are used in Theorem 1 and Proposition 2, the notation must be corrected and the step-size conditions restated with the correct second moment.
  3. [Proposition 3 proof (Section IV.C)] In the energy identity after 'We then compute', the term ||\tilde V(z^t_{k+1}, xi^t_{k+1/2}) - \tilde V(x_t, xi^t_{k+1/2})||^2_{Phi^{-1}} should involve z^t_{k+1/2}, not z^t_{k+1}, to match the update (29). Additionally, the line 'where we have set \bar W_t + \bar V(x_t) = V(x_t)' is not a definition of \bar W_t from the preceding expression; the authors should define \bar W_t explicitly (it appears to be V(x_t)-\bar V(x_t)) and check the signs in the subsequent display. These are proof-completeness issues in the main monotone-rate argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I.A (Preliminaries)] The indicator function is defined as iota_Q(x)=1 if x in Q and 0 otherwise; in convex analysis and the later use of indicator functions in H(z), the indicator should take values 0 inside Q and +infinity outside Q. The current definition is the characteristic function and may confuse readers.
  2. [Equation (29) and Algorithm 1] The notation for the inner-loop sample is inconsistent: the compact update writes xi^{k+1/2,t}, while the filtration in Definition 1 and the errors in Assumption 6 use xi_{k+1/2,t}. Please unify the notation.
  3. [References] Reference [58] (Tseng's modified forward-backward splitting) is missing the year and volume information; the entry should be completed.
  4. [Figures and captions] The captions of Figures 2 and 3 contain typos ('form the solution' should be 'from the solution'), and the figures themselves are not fully legible in the version under review; please provide higher-resolution figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convergence rates are conditional theorems derived from explicitly stated assumptions, and the cited prior work is not doing the derivational work.

full rationale

The paper's main results (Theorem 1, Propositions 2 and 3) are conditional statements: given Assumptions 1-6 (Lipschitzness, strong or mere monotonicity, and the bias/moment bounds of Assumption 6), the recursions in Lemma 3 and the gap estimate in Proposition 3 are derived algebraically from the FBF update (29) without invoking the desired conclusion. The bias assumption 6(a) is used exactly where it appears: it converts conditional bias terms into O(1/sqrt(S_t)) contributions, which with S_t = floor(eta^{-(t+1)}) produce the O(eta^t) rate and with S_t = T^2 produce the O(1/T) gap. This is an assumption-to-conclusion derivation, not a tautology. Lemma 1 cites [56, Lemma 1] and [20, Lemma 5]; although [56] shares an author, the monotone-operator facts are standard and [20] is by Yi and Pavel with no author overlap, so the citation is not load-bearing circularity. The numerical baseline vr-SMFBS [18] comes from the same research group, but it is used as a benchmark for empirical comparison, not as evidence for the convergence proofs. The concern that Assumption 6(a) is difficult to satisfy for fixed-bias oracles, and that Proposition 3 silently imposes zero conditional means, is a generality/validity limitation rather than a circular reduction. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no result is defined in terms of itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorems rest on standard convex analysis and explicitly stated assumptions on the game, network, and stochastic oracles. No fitted constants appear in the theory. The key assumption is Assumption 6, which controls bias and variance of the stochastic estimator. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumptions 1 and 2: convexity of the smooth parts, compact local feasible sets, and Slater's constraint qualification for the coupled feasible sets.
    These are standard for existence of a GNE and for the primal-dual reformulation used in Proposition 1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: the pseudogradient mapping F in (18) is monotone and l-Lipschitz on D.
    Needed for the monotone operator framework and for the Lipschitz estimate on V in Lemma 1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: the communication graph adjacency matrix W is irreducible and symmetric.
    Ensures consensus of dual variables and is used in the Laplacian definition in (23).
  • domain assumption Assumption 5: the stochastic operator \tilde V(.,xi) is L(xi)-Lipschitz with L(xi) in L^2, V is monotone and single-valued, T is maximal monotone.
    This is the core regularity of the stochastic operator, invoked throughout the proofs.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 6: bias and variance bounds on the stochastic errors, including conditional bias bounded by b/sqrt(S_t).
    This assumption is tailored to make the variance-reduction proof close; it is not implied by the game model and is the main fragility of the paper.
  • domain assumption In the monotone case, the feasible set X is closed, convex, nonempty, and the iterates lie in a bounded set containing the solution set (with constant C).
    Needed for the restricted merit function gap bound in Proposition 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complexity guarantees for risk-neutral generalized Nash equilibrium problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U5QWS7HW

@misc{pith2026250611409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complexity guarantees for risk-neutral generalized Nash equilibrium problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U5QWS7HW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11409}
}
abstract

In this paper, we address \ac{SGNEP} seeking with risk-neutral agents. Our main contribution lies the development of a stochastic variance-reduced gradient (SVRG) technique, modified to contend with general sample spaces, within a stochastic forward-backward-forward splitting scheme for resolving structured monotone inclusion problems. This stochastic scheme is a double-loop method, in which the mini-batch gradient estimator is computed periodically in the outer loop, while only cheap sampling is required in a frequently activated inner loop, thus achieving significant speed-ups when sampling costs cannot be overlooked. The algorithm is fully distributed and it guarantees almost sure convergence under appropriate batch size and strong monotonicity assumptions. Moreover, it exhibits a linear rate with possible biased estimators, which is rather mild and imposed in many simulation-based optimization schemes. Under monotone regimes, the expectation of the gap function of an averaged iterate diminishes at a suitable sublinear rate while the sample-complexity of computing an $\epsilon$-solution is provably $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-3})$. A numerical study on a class of networked Cournot games reflects the performance of our proposed algorithm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11409 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Game setting: the coupling relationship between firms and markets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Residual distance of the primal variable form the solution. (strongly mono.) + 1 KT T X−1 t=0 K X−1 k=0 E h ⟨ϵk+ 1 2 ,t(x t ), z t k+ 1 2 − B t k ⟩ i ≤ 3 2KT · ∥Φ∥ · 2C 2 + 1 2KT T X−1 t=0 K X−1 k=0 ∥Φ −1 ∥ 2Lˆ2 · 2C 2 · ∥Φ∥ + 1 T T X−1 t=0 · √ 2Cν √ St + 1 2KT T X−1 t=0 K X−1 k=0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Generalized Nash equilibria for the service provisioning problem in multi-cloud systems,

    D. Ardagna, M. Ciavotta, and M. Passacantando, “Generalized Nash equilibria for the service provisioning problem in multi-cloud systems,” IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 381–395, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Generalized-Nash-equilibrium- based pareto solution for transmission-distribution-coupled optimal power flow,

    K. Lu, K. Tang, S. Dong, and Y . Song, “Generalized-Nash-equilibrium- based pareto solution for transmission-distribution-coupled optimal power flow,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 4051–4063, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Generalized Nash equilibrium problems,

    F. Facchinei and C. Kanzow, “Generalized Nash equilibrium problems,” 4OR, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 173–210, 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Generalized Nash equilibrium problems,

    F. Facchinei and C. Kanzow, “Generalized Nash equilibrium problems,” Annals of Operations Research, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 177–211, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Convex opti- mization, game theory, and variational inequality theory,

    G. Scutari, D. P. Palomar, F. Facchinei, and J.-s. Pang, “Convex opti- mization, game theory, and variational inequality theory,”IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 35–49 14 IEEE TRANSACTIONS AND JOURNALS TEMPLATE

    work page

  6. [6]

    VI-constrained hemivariational inequalities: distributed algorithms and power control in ad-hoc networks,

    F. Facchinei, J.-S. Pang, G. Scutari, and L. Lampariello, “VI-constrained hemivariational inequalities: distributed algorithms and power control in ad-hoc networks,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 59– 96, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Distributed GNE seeking under partial-decision information over networks via a doubly-augmented operator splitting approach,

    L. Pavel, “Distributed GNE seeking under partial-decision information over networks via a doubly-augmented operator splitting approach,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes,Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces. Springer-CMS Books in Math., 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    A stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium model for platforms competition in the ride-hail market,

    F. Fabiani and B. Franci, “A stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium model for platforms competition in the ride-hail market,” in2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 4455–4460, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Convergent noisy forward- backward-forward algorithms in non-monotone variational inequalities,

    M. Staudigl and P. Mertikopoulos, “Convergent noisy forward- backward-forward algorithms in non-monotone variational inequalities,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 120–125, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Distributed learning for stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium problems,

    C.-K. Yu, M. Van Der Schaar, and A. H. Sayed, “Distributed learning for stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium problems,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 65, no. 15, pp. 3893–3908, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    On m-stationary points for a stochastic equilibrium problem under equilibrium constraints in electricity spot market modeling,

    R. Henrion and W. R ¨omisch, “On m-stationary points for a stochastic equilibrium problem under equilibrium constraints in electricity spot market modeling,”Applications of Mathematics, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 473– 494, 2007

    2007

  5. [13]

    A generalized Nash– Cournot model for the Northwestern European natural gas markets with a fuel substitution demand function: The GaMMES model,

    I. Abada, S. Gabriel, V . Briat, and O. Massol, “A generalized Nash– Cournot model for the Northwestern European natural gas markets with a fuel substitution demand function: The GaMMES model,”Networks and Spatial Economics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–42, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    A stochastic multiple-leader Stackelberg model: analysis, computation, and application,

    V . DeMiguel and H. Xu, “A stochastic multiple-leader Stackelberg model: analysis, computation, and application,”Operations Research, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1220–1235, 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    Multicriterion aerodynamic shape design optimization and inverse problems using control theory and Nash games,

    Z. Tang, J.-A. D ´esid´eri, and J. P ´eriaux, “Multicriterion aerodynamic shape design optimization and inverse problems using control theory and Nash games,”Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 135, no. 3, pp. 599–622, 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    Pointwise control of the burgers equation and related Nash equilibrium problems: computational approach,

    A. Ramos, R. Glowinski, and J. Periaux, “Pointwise control of the burgers equation and related Nash equilibrium problems: computational approach,”Journal of optimization theory and applications, vol. 112, pp. 499–516, 2002

    2002

  9. [17]

    Risk-neutral pde-constrained generalized Nash equilibrium problems,

    D. B. Gahururu, M. Hinterm ¨uller, and T. M. Surowiec, “Risk-neutral pde-constrained generalized Nash equilibrium problems,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 198, no. 2, pp. 1287–1337, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Variance-reduced splitting schemes for monotone stochastic generalized equations,

    S. Cui and U. V . Shanbhag, “Variance-reduced splitting schemes for monotone stochastic generalized equations,”IEEE Transactions on Au- tomatic Control, vol. 68, no. 11, pp. 6636–6648, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Minibatch forward-backward-forward methods for solving stochastic variational inequalities,

    R. I. Bot ¸, P. Mertikopoulos, M. Staudigl, and P. T. Vuong, “Minibatch forward-backward-forward methods for solving stochastic variational inequalities,”Stochastic Systems, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 112–139, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    An operator splitting approach for distributed gener- alized Nash equilibria computation,

    P. Yi and L. Pavel, “An operator splitting approach for distributed gener- alized Nash equilibria computation,”Automatica, vol. 102, pp. 111–121, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Projected-gradient algorithms for generalized equilibrium seeking in aggregative games are preconditioned forward-backward methods,

    G. Belgioioso and S. Grammatico, “Projected-gradient algorithms for generalized equilibrium seeking in aggregative games are preconditioned forward-backward methods,” in2018 European Control Conference (ECC), pp. 2188–2193, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    On the variational equilibrium as a refinement of the generalized Nash equilibrium,

    A. A. Kulkarni and U. V . Shanbhag, “On the variational equilibrium as a refinement of the generalized Nash equilibrium,”Automatica, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 45–55, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Extragradient method with variance reduction for stochastic variational inequalities,

    A. N. Iusem, A. Jofr ´e, R. I. Oliveira, and P. Thompson, “Extragradient method with variance reduction for stochastic variational inequalities,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 686–724, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Stochastic variance reduction for varia- tional inequality methods,

    A. Alacaoglu and Y . Malitsky, “Stochastic variance reduction for varia- tional inequality methods,” inConference on Learning Theory, pp. 778– 816, PMLR, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    A distributed forward–backward al- gorithm for stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium seeking,

    B. Franci and S. Grammatico, “A distributed forward–backward al- gorithm for stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium seeking,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 5467–5473, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Stochastic approximation approaches to the stochastic variational inequality problem,

    H. Jiang and H. Xu, “Stochastic approximation approaches to the stochastic variational inequality problem,”IEEE Transactions on Au- tomatic Control, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1462–1475, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    Stochastic forward–backward splitting for monotone inclusions,

    L. Rosasco, S. Villa, and B. C. V ˜u, “Stochastic forward–backward splitting for monotone inclusions,”Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 169, no. 2, pp. 388–406, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    A damped forward–backward algorithm for stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium seeking,

    B. Franci and S. Grammatico, “A damped forward–backward algorithm for stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium seeking,” in2020 European Control Conference (ECC), pp. 1117–1122, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    On variance reduction for stochastic smooth convex optimization with multiplicative noise,

    A. Jofr ´e and P. Thompson, “On variance reduction for stochastic smooth convex optimization with multiplicative noise,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 174, no. 1-2, pp. 253–292, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Smoothed variable sample-size accelerated proximal methods for nonsmooth stochastic convex programs,

    A. Jalilzadeh, U. V . Shanbhag, J. Blanchet, and P. W. Glynn, “Smoothed variable sample-size accelerated proximal methods for nonsmooth stochastic convex programs,”Stochastic Systems, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 373– 410, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    A variable sample-size stochastic quasi-newton method for smooth and nonsmooth stochastic convex optimization,

    A. Jalilzadeh, A. Nedi ´c, U. V . Shanbhag, and F. Yousefian, “A variable sample-size stochastic quasi-newton method for smooth and nonsmooth stochastic convex optimization,”Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 690–719, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Accelerating stochastic gradient descent using predictive variance reduction,

    R. Johnson and T. Zhang, “Accelerating stochastic gradient descent using predictive variance reduction,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 26, pp. 1–9, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    Extragradient SVRG for variational in- equalities: Error bounds and increasing iterate averaging,

    T. Nan, Y . Gao, and C. Kroer, “Extragradient SVRG for variational in- equalities: Error bounds and increasing iterate averaging,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01796, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    SAGA: A fast incremental gradient method with support for non-strongly convex composite objec- tives,

    A. Defazio, F. Bach, and S. Lacoste-Julien, “SAGA: A fast incremental gradient method with support for non-strongly convex composite objec- tives,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 27, pp. 1646–1654, Curran Associates, Inc., 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    Stochastic variance reduction methods for saddle-point problems,

    B. Palaniappan and F. Bach, “Stochastic variance reduction methods for saddle-point problems,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Communication- efficient gradient descent-accent methods for distributed variational inequalities: Unified analysis and local updates,

    S. Zhang, S. Choudhury, S. U. Stich, and N. Loizou, “Communication- efficient gradient descent-accent methods for distributed variational inequalities: Unified analysis and local updates,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05100, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Forward-reflected-backward method with variance reduction,

    A. Alacaoglu, Y . Malitsky, and V . Cevher, “Forward-reflected-backward method with variance reduction,”Computational optimization and ap- plications, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 321–346, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Stochastic halpern iteration with variance reduction for stochastic monotone inclusions,

    X. Cai, C. Song, C. Guzm ´an, and J. Diakonikolas, “Stochastic halpern iteration with variance reduction for stochastic monotone inclusions,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 24766– 24779, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    An accelerated variance reduced extra-point approach to finite-sum vi and optimization,

    K. Huang, N. Wang, and S. Zhang, “An accelerated variance reduced extra-point approach to finite-sum vi and optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.03269, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Oligopolistic competition in electricity spot markets,

    J. F. Escobar and A. Jofre, “Oligopolistic competition in electricity spot markets,”Working paper, SSRN, 2005

    2005

  33. [41]

    Electricity generation with looped transmission networks: Bidding to an iso,

    X. Hu, D. Ralph, E. K. Ralph, P. Bardsley, M. C. Ferris,et al., “Electricity generation with looped transmission networks: Bidding to an iso,”Research Paper, vol. 16, 2004

    2004

  34. [42]

    Addressing supply- side risk in uncertain power markets: stochastic Nash models, scalable algorithms and error analysis,

    A. Kannan, U. V . Shanbhag, and H. M. Kim, “Addressing supply- side risk in uncertain power markets: stochastic Nash models, scalable algorithms and error analysis,”Optimization Methods and Software, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1095–1138, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    On-demand ride-hailing platforms in competition with the taxi industry: Pricing strategies and government supervision,

    Y . Zhong, T. Yang, B. Cao, and T. Cheng, “On-demand ride-hailing platforms in competition with the taxi industry: Pricing strategies and government supervision,”International Journal of Production Eco- nomics, vol. 243, p. 108301, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Off-platform threats in on- demand services,

    E. J. He, S. Savin, J. Goh, and C.-P. Teo, “Off-platform threats in on- demand services,”Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 775–791, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Spatial pricing in ride- sharing networks,

    K. Bimpikis, O. Candogan, and D. Saban, “Spatial pricing in ride- sharing networks,”Operations Research, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 744–769, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    A stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium model for platforms competition in the ride-hail market,

    F. Fabiani and B. Franci, “A stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium model for platforms competition in the ride-hail market,” in2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 4455–4460, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Generalized Nash equilibrium problems,

    F. Facchinei and C. Kanzow, “Generalized Nash equilibrium problems,” 4or, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 173–210, 2007

    2007

  40. [49]

    Semi-decentralized generalized Nash equilibrium seeking in monotone aggregative games,

    G. Belgioioso and S. Grammatico, “Semi-decentralized generalized Nash equilibrium seeking in monotone aggregative games,”IEEE Trans- actions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 140–155, 2023

    2023

  41. [50]

    Stochastic generalized Nash equilib- rium seeking under partial-decision information,

    B. Franci and S. Grammatico, “Stochastic generalized Nash equilib- rium seeking under partial-decision information,”Automatica, vol. 137, p. 110101, 2022

    2022

  42. [51]

    On generalized Nash games and variational inequalities,

    F. Facchinei, A. Fischer, and V . Piccialli, “On generalized Nash games and variational inequalities,”Operations Research Letters, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 159–164, 2007

    2007

  43. [52]

    Facchinei and J.-S

    F. Facchinei and J.-S. Pang,Finite-Dimensional Variational Inequalities and Complementarity Problems - Volume I and Volume II. Springer Series in Operations Research, 2003. AUTHORet al.: TITLE 15

    2003

  44. [53]

    Lagrangian duality and related mul- tiplier methods for variational inequality problems,

    A. Auslender and M. Teboulle, “Lagrangian duality and related mul- tiplier methods for variational inequality problems,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1097–1115, 2000

    2000

  45. [54]

    Godsil and G

    C. Godsil and G. F. Royle,Algebraic graph theory, vol. 207. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  46. [55]

    A relaxed-inertial forward-backward-forward algorithm for stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium seeking,

    S. Cui, B. Franci, S. Grammatico, U. V . Shanbhag, and M. Staudigl, “A relaxed-inertial forward-backward-forward algorithm for stochastic generalized Nash equilibrium seeking,” in2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 197–202, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  47. [56]

    Distributed forward- backward (half) forward algorithms for generalized Nash equilibrium seeking,

    B. Franci, M. Staudigl, and S. Grammatico, “Distributed forward- backward (half) forward algorithms for generalized Nash equilibrium seeking,” in2020 European Control Conference (ECC), pp. 1274–1279, 2020

    2020

  48. [57]

    Comments on “distributed robust adaptive equilibrium computation for generalized convex games

    S. Grammatico, “Comments on “distributed robust adaptive equilibrium computation for generalized convex games”[automatica 63 (2016) 82– 91],”Automatica, vol. 97, pp. 186–188, 2018

    2016

  49. [58]

    A modified forward-backward splitting method for maximal monotone mappings,

    P. Tseng, “A modified forward-backward splitting method for maximal monotone mappings,”SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, no. 2, pp. 431–446

  50. [59]

    Sample size selection in optimization methods for machine learning,

    R. H. Byrd, G. M. Chin, J. Nocedal, and Y . Wu, “Sample size selection in optimization methods for machine learning,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 127–155, 2012

    2012

  51. [60]

    Distributed variable sample-size gradient- response and best-response schemes for stochastic Nash equilibrium problems,

    J. Lei and U. V . Shanbhag, “Distributed variable sample-size gradient- response and best-response schemes for stochastic Nash equilibrium problems,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 573–603, 2022

    2022

  52. [61]

    B. T. Polyak,Introduction to Optimization. Optimization Soft., 1987

    1987

  53. [62]

    Ahmadi,On the analysis of data-driven and distributed algorithms for convex optimization problems

    H. Ahmadi,On the analysis of data-driven and distributed algorithms for convex optimization problems. The Pennsylvania State University, 2016

    2016

  54. [63]

    Dual extrapolation and its applications to solving varia- tional inequalities and related problems,

    Y . Nesterov, “Dual extrapolation and its applications to solving varia- tional inequalities and related problems,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 319–344, 2007

    2007

Pith tools

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