REVIEW 2 cited by
A Machine Learning Method for Stackelberg Mean Field Games
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
We propose a single-level numerical approach to solve Stackelberg mean field game (MFG) problems. In Stackelberg MFG, an infinite population of agents play a non-cooperative game and choose their controls to optimize their individual objectives while interacting with the principal and other agents through the population distribution. The principal can influence the mean field Nash equilibrium at the population level through policies, and she optimizes her own objective, which depends on the population distribution. This leads to a bi-level problem between the principal and mean field of agents that cannot be solved using traditional methods for MFGs. We propose a reformulation of this problem as a single-level mean field optimal control problem through a penalization approach. We prove convergence of the reformulated problem to the original problem. We propose a machine learning method based on (feed-forward and recurrent) neural networks and illustrate it on several examples from the literature.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Neural Operators Can Play Dynamic Stackelberg Games
Attention-based neural operators can uniformly approximate the follower's best-response map in dynamic stochastic Stackelberg games on compact control sets, with approximate value guarantees.
-
Linear-Quadratic Stackelberg Mean Field Games and Teams with Arbitrary Population Sizes
The paper claims exact decentralized Stackelberg-Nash and Stackelberg-team equilibria for LQ mean field games with arbitrary population sizes, but the leader's decoupling derivation has load-bearing algebraic errors.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.