Linear Quadratic Mean Field Games: Asymptotic Solvability and Relation to the Fixed Point Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mean field game theory has been developed largely following two routes. One of them, called the direct approach, starts by solving a large-scale game and next derives a set of limiting equations as the population size tends to infinity. The second route is to apply mean field approximations and formalize a fixed point problem by analyzing the best response of a representative player. This paper addresses the connection and difference of the two approaches in a linear quadratic (LQ) setting. We first introduce an asymptotic solvability notion for the direct approach, which means for all sufficiently large population sizes, the corresponding game has a set of feedback Nash strategies in addition to a mild regularity requirement. We provide a necessary and sufficient condition for asymptotic solvability and show that in this case the solution converges to a mean field limit. This is accomplished by developing a re-scaling method to derive a low-dimensional ordinary differential equation (ODE) system, where a non-symmetric Riccati ODE has a central role. We next compare with the fixed point approach which determines a two-point boundary value (TPBV) problem, and show that asymptotic solvability implies feasibility of the fixed point approach, but the converse is not true. We further address non-uniqueness in the fixed point approach and examine the long time behavior of the non-symmetric Riccati ODE in the asymptotic solvability problem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".