Convergence for linear quadratic potential mean field games (original) (raw)

and Jodi Dianetti University of Padova, Department of Mathematics “Tullio Levi-Civita”,
Via Trieste 63, 35121 Padova, Italy alekos.cecchin@unipd.it University of Rome Tor Vergata, Department of Economics and Finance,
Via Columbia 2, 00133 Roma, Italy jodi.dianetti@uniroma2.it

(Date: February 16, 2026)

Abstract.

This paper studies the limits of empirical means of open-loop Nash equilibria of linear-quadratic stochastic differential games as the number of players goes to infinity, when the corresponding mean field game is of potential type and may have multiple equilibria. Via weak compactness arguments, the limit points are characterized as optimal trajectories of the related deterministic control problem, thus ruling out some of the mean field equilibria. Our result is obtained by first connecting the finite player game to a suitable control problem, whose optimal trajectories are the empirical means of Nash equilibria of the game, and in which the number of players NN becomes a parameter. True convergence to the unique minimizer of the limit control problem then holds for almost every initial mean. In cases of multiple optimizers, we focus on examples to show that some symmetry of the data ensures that the sequence admits a random limit which is distributes uniformly among the minimizers of the potential. Multidimensional examples of the convergence result appear here for the first time, which show the flexibility of our method. We also establish a similar convergence results for the corresponding linear-quadratic potential mean field games with common noise, as the noise vanishes.

Key words and phrases:

Mean field games, potential game, linear-quadratic, convergence problem, selection principle, stochastic optimal control, stochastic maximum principle, common noise, vanishing viscosity

1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:

49N10, 49N70, 49N80, 60J60, 91A06, 91A15, 91A16

A.C. acknowledges support from the project MeCoGa “Mean field control and games” of the University of Padova through the program STARS@UNIPD, the PRIN 2022 Project 2022BEMMLZ “Stochastic control and games and the role of information”, the INdAM-GNAMPA Project 2025 “Stochastic control and MFG under asymmetric information: methods and applications” and the PRIN 2022 PNRR Project P20224TM7Z “Probabilistic methods for energy transition”.

Contents

1. 1 Introduction
   1. 1.1 Background and motivation
   2. 1.2 Our results and methodology
   3. 1.3 Outline
2. 2 Linear quadratic mean field games and related control problems
   1. 2.1 The NN-player game
   2. 2.2 A related control problem
   3. 2.3 Potential mean field game
3. 3 NN-player convergence result
4. 4 Mean field game with common noise
5. 5 Examples of selection
   1. 5.1 One-dimensional symmetric selection
   2. 5.2 The case of constant optimal controls
   3. 5.3 Multi-dimensional symmetric selection
6. A
   1. A.1 Proof of Theorem 2
   2. A.2 Proof of Theorem 3

1. Introduction

Mean field games (MFGs) were introduced independently in [43] and [49] as limit models for symmetric stochastic differential games with mean field interaction, as the number of players tends to infinity. This approach provides a way of analyzing games with a large number of players, which are otherwise intractable due to the curse of dimensionality that arises when numerically solving the equations associated with Nash equilibria. This line of research has culminated in several textbooks (see e.g. [14, 22, 1]), which survey and synthesize the many advances that MFGs have brought to probability theory, analysis, and applications in the social sciences.

The connection between the MFG and the relatedNN-player game can be understood in two directions. On the one side, approximation results show that each mean field equilibrium provides an approximate Nash equilibrium, with an error that vanishes as the number of players NN tends to infinity (see e.g. [20, 43]). On the other side, convergence results provide sufficient conditions under which any sequence of Nash equilibria for the NN-player game converges (up to subsequences) to a MFG equilibrium. However, MFGs may admit equilibria that are not limit points of any sequence of Nash equilibria. In other words, while every mean field equilibrium provides an approximate Nash equilibrium, some MFG equilibria are not informative about the true Nash equilibria, and the equilibrium behavior of the NN-player system may look very different from that of certain equilibria of the limit model; see [15, 40] for a recent survey.

This paper addresses the problem of determining which mean field equilibria arise as limit points of Nash equilibria in potential linear–quadratic models. Through the lens of the potential, our main results characterize the limits of Nash equilibria as minimizers of a limiting control problem. These results are then used to construct the limiting distribution in a series of examples, where certain symmetries in the model data are present and multiple MFG equilibria arise.

1.1. Background and motivation

Solving a mean field game typically amounts to solving a fixed point problem, which can be formulated either via a system of partial differential equations (see e.g. [49, 1])), via the best response map (see e.g. [33, 47]), or via the probabilistic system of forward-backward stochastic differential equations (FBSDEs) (see [2, 20, 35]). Relying on the continuity of the problem and on structural conditions on the game, existence of solutions typically holds and can be addresses via topological fixed point theorems (see [18, 47]), or via lattice theoretical fixed point theorems (see [19, 35, 33, 34]). The search for equilibria relies on different techniques in the case of MFGs of potential type, that is, when the data of the model are given by derivatives of some functions with respect to the measure variable. In this case, the game can be linked to a mean field control problem: any solution of the control problem is a MFG equilibrium, since the system of forward-backward equations of the MFG represents the necessary conditions for optimality given by the maximum principle; see [9, 21, 24, 49].

The uniqueness of the equilibrium holds for small time horizons (see [4, 43]); however, uniqueness is not guaranteed in general, and it depends on structural properties of the game. These properties are often referred to as monotonicity conditions, and several versions have been proposed (see e.g. [1, 2, 39, 38, 52]), the most common being the Lasry–Lions monotonicity condition, already employed in [49]; in a nutshell, such conditions mean that players prefer to spread instead of aggregate. A particular case of study is that of linear-quadratic MFGs; see [7, 44]. Uniqueness typically holds for purely linear-quadratic MFGs, as the system of equations becomes finite-dimensional, and a form of monotonicity is verified. In contrast, cases in which multiple equilibria arise are common in several applications, when any monotonicity condition is violated. Several examples of non-uniqueness have been proposed; see [4, 6, 25, 29]. All these examples satisfy the submodularity condition, which is a structural condition in which players have an incentive to aggregate, and which can be seen as a sort of antithetic version of the Lasry–Lions monotonicity. Under submodularity, a lattice structure on the set of (possibly multiple) equilibria can be obtained; see [19, 35, 33, 34, 53]. Moreover, when the strength of the interaction among players is sufficiently high, uniqueness is recovered; see [52, 32].

The multiplicity of equilibria is a crucial issue for the convergence problem. The search for Nash equilibria of a NN-player game, and also the question of convergence as NN grows, must take into account the information available to players, and is thus different if considering open-loop or closed-loop equilibria. As a general result, even in presence of multiple MFG equilibria, any sequence of (approximate) Nash equilibria, either open-loop or closed-loop, can be shown to be tight and have limit points supported on the set of weak MFG equilibria; see [36, 37, 48, 46]. If the MFG equilibrium is unique, other techniques can be employed to leverage the convergence to a quantitative result. Open-loop Nash equilibria can be characterized by a system of FBSDE, whose convergence is guaranteed under some form of monotonicity or smallness condition; see [21, 50]. On the other hand, closed-loop equilibria can be characterized by a system of PDEs (called the Nash system), whose convergence is established if it is possible to construct a solution to the master equation which is at least continuous: this is an equation which serves as the decoupling field of the forward-backward MFG system of PDEs or SDEs, and thus a regular solution can be defined when such system is uniquely solvable; see [14, 54]. Similar techniques have been employed to study convergence of Nash equilibria of linear-quadratic NN-player games, in cases uniqueness holds in the limit; see [5, 26, 51].

The convergence problem in case of multiple equilibria presents many open problems; we refer again to [15, 40] for a survey. While any sequence of Nash equilibria converges, up to subsequences, to a weak mean field equilibrium, in general not all mean field equilibria arise as limit points of such sequences. The question of which mean field equilibria is informative about the NN-player game thus remains a central question in the theory and largely open. True convergence of the sequence of Nash equilibria to a unique mean field equilibrium or to a randomization of some of them is shown just in two particular examples: a selection principle is established for open-loop equilibria in a linear-quadratic one-dimensional model in [29], and for closed-loop equilibria in a two-state model in [25]; these results hinge on a fine analysis and techniques which are specific of the considered models and difficult to generalize in other contexts.

A natural conjecture can be formulated for the convergence problem for potential MFGs. In that case, the optimizers of the additional control problem are also solutions to the MFG, but there are MFG equilibria which are not optimizers, but just stationary points. The conjecture is that limit points of Nash equilibria are supported on optimizers of the mean field control problem, thus ruling out equilibria which are not optimizers; this is shown just in the two particular one-dimensional examples [25, 29]. Notably, the optimizer is typically unique in an open and dense set of probability measures [17]. We mention also the convergence problem for mean field control problems, for which the prelimit model is a cooperative NN-player game; we refer to [16, 17] for recent results. However, the cooperative and non-cooperative NN-player games are not related and in general not close; indeed, the NN-player non-cooperative game (which is the prelimit of MFGs) is not, by its nature, of potential type. See the related notion of α\alpha-Potential game recently introduced in [41, 42]. We also refer to the recent [10, 13], which compare cooperation and non-cooperation in the MFG context.

A related convergence problem is that of vanishing common noise. We refer to[18, 35, 38] for general existence results for MFGs with common noise, and to [31] for a case in which a form of noise restores uniqueness in presence of multiple MFG equilibria. For linear-quadratic MFGs, the finite-dimensional system becomes parabolic in presence of the usual common noise, and thus is shown to be uniquely solvable in [56]. When the common noise restores uniqueness, one wonders about selection principles for MFG solutions as the noise vanishes. Results in this direction can be found in [29] for a one-dimensional linear-quadratic example, and in [23] for a model of potential finite state MFGs.

These convergence problems can also be framed into the more general context of zero-noise limit of a system. Indeed, it is a well known fact in probability theory that certain deterministic systems become well posed when a small noise is plugged, even if the original deterministic system admits multiple solutions. However, finding the limit of the solution as the noise vanishes represents a challenging question, for which few results are known: we refer the interested reader to [3, 27, 57] for one-dimensional models, and to [28] for a potential multi-dimensional model.

1.2. Our results and methodology

We focus on potential MFGs in which multiple MFG equilibria arise. The cost we consider is linear-quadratic in the control variable and is a general potential function (not linear quadratic) of the empirical mean; thus our model is a perturbation of a linear-quadratic MFG. Our method consists in defining a control problem related to the open-loop Nash equilibrium of the NN-player game, which has the Nash FBSDE system as the FBSDE derived via the Pontryagin stochastic maximum principle. More precisely, by averaging on the player’s indexes the components of the solution to the Nash FBSDE, the linear quadratic structure allows to obtain another FBSDE which is written in terms of the empirical mean (i.e., the arithmetic mean of the states of the players at equilibrium). Such a system of FBSDEs is indeed the Pontryagin system related to a stochastic control problem in which the state process is the empirical mean, and with costs written in terms of the integral of the original costs and of some reminder costs. In a nutshell, we obtain a control problem whose minimizer is the empirical mean of the Nash equilibrium. We mention that, differently from other works, the cost of a player in the NN-player depends on the other players through the empirical mean of the whole system, not through the empirical mean of the other players excluding the private state.

Taking limits as NN goes to infinity, weak compactness arguments allow to show that every limit point of the sequence of empirical means related to Nash equilibria is supported on minimizers of a deterministic control problem; indeed, in linear-quadratic cases the reminder costs are shown to go to zero. Stationary points of this limit control problem are shown to be expectations of MFG solutions, thanks to Pontryagin’s maximum principle. Hence, we show a selection principle as limits of empirical means are supported on optimizers, thus ruling out (expectation of) MFG equilibria which are not minimizers. In particular, optimizers of deterministic control problem are known to be unique for almost every initial point, thus yielding a true convergence result to a unique deterministic limit. This also provides almost sure convergence of the corresponding decoupling fields, which are smooth solutions to a system of PDEs. We prove similar results also when analyzing the vanishing common noise; in that case, there is no additional reminder in the cost.

When optimizers are not unique, we wonder whether the sequence of empirical means admits a true random limit which is supported in (some) optimizers. We then turn our focus on examples. When the potential is convex, the known convergence result under uniqueness of the equilibrium is recovered. When the potential is not convex, we study some examples with submodular structure in which multiple equilibria arise and use the previous convergence result to characterize the limiting distribution. In our examples, the symmetry of the data ensures that the limiting measure distributes uniformly among the minimizers of the potential. The exact characterization allows to show convergence without going through a subsequence and we partially recover the result of [29]. Multidimensional examples of the convergence result appear here for the first time, which show the flexibility of our method when compared with the techniques in [29].

1.3. Outline

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we first describe the NN-player games and their open-loop equilibria in §2.1, then their related control problem for the empirical mean in §2.2, and thus the potential MFG in §2.3. Section 3 presents the main result on convergence of the NN-player empirical means: see Theorem 8. Section 4 examines the potential MFG with common noise and the related convergence problem in Theorem 10. Section 5 presents the the convergence results for some models whereas optimizers of the deterministic control problem are not unique: a one-dimensional symmetric example is analyzed in Theorem 13, a submodular example is treated in Proposition 18, and a multi-dimensional symmetric model is studied in Theorem 19.

2. Linear quadratic mean field games and related control problems

2.1. The NN-player game

On a complete probability space (Ω,ℱ,ℙ)(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P}), consider NN independent dd-dimensional Brownian motions W1,…,WNW^{1},...,W^{N} and NN independent dd-dimensional square integrable random variables ξ1,…,ξN\xi^{1},...,\xi^{N}, with ξi\xi^{i} being independent from WjW^{j} for each i,j=1,…,Ni,j=1,...,N. Set 𝑾=(W1,…,WN)\bm{W}=(W^{1},\ldots,W^{N}), 𝝃=(ξ1,…,ξN)\bm{\xi}=(\xi^{1},\ldots,\xi^{N}) and denote by 𝔽𝑾,𝝃\mathbb{F}^{\bm{W},\bm{\xi}} the right continuous extension of the filtration generated by 𝑾\bm{W} and 𝝃\bm{\xi}, augmented by the ℙ\mathbb{P}-null sets. Denote by 𝒜N\mathcal{A}_{N} the space of (open-loop) controls; that is, the space of ℝd\mathbb{R}^{d}-valued 𝔽𝑾,𝝃\mathbb{F}^{\bm{W},\bm{\xi}}-progressively measurable square integrable processes.

Consider NN players, indexed by i=1,…,Ni=1,...,N. For i=1,…,Ni=1,...,N, when player ii chooses a (open-loop) control αi∈𝒜N\alpha^{i}\in\mathcal{A}_{N}, its own state XiX^{i} is determined as the solution to the SDE

for a matrix b∈ℝd×db\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d} and a constant σ∈ℝ\sigma\in\mathbb{R}. The aim of player ii is to choose αi\alpha^{i} in order to minimize the cost

| Ji​(αi,𝜶−i)=𝔼​[∫0T12​(|αti|2+(Xti+∇f​(1N​∑j=1NXtj))2)​𝑑t+12​(XTi+∇g​(1N​∑j=1NXTj))2],J^{i}(\alpha^{i},\bm{\alpha}^{-i})=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\frac{1}{2}\left(|\alpha_{t}^{i}|^{2}+\big(X_{t}^{i}+\nabla f(\begin{matrix}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}X^{j}_{t}\end{matrix})\big)^{2}\right)dt+\frac{1}{2}\big(X_{T}^{i}+\nabla g(\begin{matrix}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}X^{j}_{T}\end{matrix})\big)^{2}\bigg], | (2) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- |

where 𝜶−i=(αj)j≠i\bm{\alpha}^{-i}=(\alpha^{j})_{j\neq i} denotes the vector of strategies chosen the all the other players and f,g:ℝd→ℝf,g:\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R} are C2C^{2} functions, with (column) gradients ∇f,∇g\nabla f,\nabla g.

An open-loop Nash equilibrium is a vector of strategies 𝜶=(α1,…,αN)\bm{\alpha}=(\alpha^{1},...,\alpha^{N}) such that

Thanks to the stochastic maximum principle (see e.g. [22]), one can determine the Nash equilibria of the game by solving the following system of FBSDEs:

where ∇2f,∇2g\nabla^{2}f,\nabla^{2}g denote the Hessian matrices and we consider the derivative of the functions

and

A solution to this system is denoted by a tuple (𝑿,𝒀,𝒁)=(X1,…,XN,Y1,…,YN,Z1,…,ZN)(\bm{X},\bm{Y},\bm{Z})=(X^{1},...,X^{N},Y^{1},...,Y^{N},Z^{1},...,Z^{N}), where for any ii, Xi,YiX^{i},Y^{i} are ℝd\mathbb{R}^{d}-valued, Zi=(Zi​j)j=1,…,NZ^{i}=(Z^{ij})_{j=1,...,N} with Zi​jZ^{ij} being valued in the space of ℝd×d\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}-matrices.

Given a solution (𝑿,𝒀,𝒁)(\bm{X},\bm{Y},\bm{Z}) to the Nash FBSDE (3), define the triple (mN,ηN,ζN)=(mN,ηN,ζ1,N,…,ζN,N)(m^{N},\eta^{N},\zeta^{N})=(m^{N},\eta^{N},\zeta^{1,N},...,\zeta^{N,N}) of empirical mean as

Then, (mN,ηN,ζN)(m^{N},\eta^{N},\zeta^{N}) solves the FBSDE

Our analysis hinges on an existence and uniqueness result for the FBSDE (4). To this aim, we introduce the following requirements, which will be standing throughout the paper.

Assumption A.

The functions ff and gg are in C2​(ℝd)C^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{d}), and the functions

are bounded and Lipschitz continuous.

The proof of the following lemma, which is given in Appendix A.1, exploits a transformation of the system using the associated Riccati equation (similarly, e.g., to the arguments already employed in [29, 56]); we remark that this is not a standard linear system. The assumption that ∇2f​(y)​y\nabla^{2}f(y)y, ∇2g​(y)​y\nabla^{2}g(y)y are bounded is required only for this well-posedness result; notice that in the particular case of dimension one, such conditions is not necessary.

Theorem 2.

For σ>0\sigma>0, the FBSDE (4) admits a unique solution.

Let us recall that we study the strong formulation of the control problems and thus we always consider strong solutions to FBSDEs. As a consequence, we obtain an existence and characterization result of the unique Nash equilibrium, for which we provide a proof in Appendix A.2.

Theorem 3.

For σ>0\sigma>0 and N≥‖∇2f‖∞∨‖∇2g‖∞N\geq||\nabla^{2}f||_{\infty}\vee||\nabla^{2}g||_{\infty}, the FBSDE (3) admits a unique solution (𝐗,𝐘,𝐙)(\bm{X},\bm{Y},\bm{Z}). Moreover, there exists a unique Nash equilibrium 𝛂=(α1,…,αN)\bm{\alpha}=(\alpha^{1},...,\alpha^{N}); it is given by αi=−Yi\alpha^{i}=-Y^{i} for any i=1,…,Ni=1,...,N.

2.2. A related control problem

Despite the NN-player game introduced above is not of potential type, our aim is to view the empirical mean mNm^{N} associated to the Nash equilibrium as the minimizer of an auxiliary optimal control problem to be determined. Indeed, the fact that mNm^{N} solves the FBSDE (4) suggests to search for a stochastic control problem for which (4) is the related FBSDE. To this end, set

and consider the optimal control problem which consists in minimizing, over β∈𝒜N\beta\in\mathcal{A}_{N}, the cost functional

| JcN​(β)=𝔼​[∫0T(12​|βt|2+12​|mt|2+f​(mt)+1N​Rf​(mt))​𝑑t+12​|mT|2+g​(mT)+1N​Rg​(mT)],subject tod​mt=(b​mt+βt)​d​t+σN​d​W¯tN,m0=ξ¯N,\begin{split}&J_{c}^{N}(\beta)=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\frac{1}{2}\left|\beta_{t}\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}|m_{t}|^{2}+f\left(m_{t}\right)+\frac{1}{N}R_{f}(m_{t})\Big)dt+\frac{1}{2}|m_{T}|^{2}+g\left(m_{T}\right)+\frac{1}{N}R_{g}(m_{T})\bigg],\\ &\text{subject to}\quad dm_{t}=(bm_{t}+\beta_{t})dt+\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{N}}d\overline{W}^{N}_{t},\quad m_{0}=\overline{\xi}^{N},\end{split} | (OCN) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- |

where the reminders Rf,RgR_{f},R_{g} are defined as

| Rf​(m):=12​|∇f​(m)|2+m⋅∇f​(m)−f​(m),Rg​(m):=12​|∇g​(m)|2+m⋅∇g​(m)−g​(m).\begin{split}R_{f}(m)&:=\tfrac{1}{2}|\nabla f(m)|^{2}+m\cdot\nabla f\left(m\right)-f\left(m\right),\\ R_{g}(m)&:=\tfrac{1}{2}|\nabla g(m)|^{2}+m\cdot\nabla g\left(m\right)-g\left(m\right).\end{split} | (5) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --- |

A control β∈𝒜N\beta\in\mathcal{A}_{N} is said to be optimal if JcN​(β)≤JcN​(β′)J_{c}^{N}(\beta)\leq J_{c}^{N}(\beta^{\prime}) for any β′∈𝒜N\beta^{\prime}\in\mathcal{A}_{N}. If β\beta is optimal, we refer to the associated state process mm as the optimal trajectory (related to β\beta), and to (β,m)(\beta,m) as an optimal pair.

The following result connects the control problem (2) to the NN-player game.

Theorem 4.

For σ>0\sigma>0, the following statements hold true:

1. (1)
   There exists a unique optimal control of the control problem (OCN);
2. (2)
   The optimal pair of (OCN) is given by the empirical mean (−ηN,mN)(-\eta^{N},m^{N}) associated to the unique Nash equilibrium.

Proof.

The costs of the control problem (OCN) are

| FN​(m)\displaystyle F_{N}(m) | =12​|m|2+f​(m)+1N​Rf​(m),\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}|m|^{2}+f(m)+\frac{1}{N}R_{f}(m), | | ------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | GN​(m)\displaystyle G_{N}(m) | =12​|m|2+g​(m)+1N​Rg​(m),\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}|m|^{2}+g(m)+\frac{1}{N}R_{g}(m), |

and computing the gradients in mm we find

By the stochastic maximum principle, any optimal control of the control problem (OCN), writes as −η-\eta for some solution (m,η,ζ)(m,\eta,\zeta) to the FBSDE

Such a FBSDE coincides with the FBSDE (4), hence it admits a unique solution (m,η,ζ)(m,\eta,\zeta) by Theorem 2. Thus the control problem (OCN) admits a unique optimal control −η-\eta, proving (1)(1).

To show (2)(2), it is enough to notice that the FBSDE (6) coincides with the FBSDE (4), for which (mN,ηN,ζN)(m^{N},\eta^{N},\zeta^{N}) (related to the mean of the Nash equilibrium) is the unique solution. ∎

We also study convergence of the decoupling field of system (4), that is, the function uN:[0,T]×ℝd→ℝdu^{N}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d} such that ηtN=uN​(t,mtN)\eta^{N}_{t}=u^{N}(t,m^{N}_{t}); then uN=(u1N,…,udN)u^{N}=(u^{N}_{1},\dots,u^{N}_{d}) solves the following system of PDEs:

We remark that uniqueness of classical solutions to parabolic systems of PDEs is true in case of bounded coefficients, and not know for general systems with linear growth coefficients; observe that ∂FN∂mi​(m)\frac{\partial F_{N}}{\partial m_{i}}(m) and ∂GN∂mi​(m)\frac{\partial G_{N}}{\partial m_{i}}(m) have linear growth in mm. We thus rely on the uniqueness result of Theorem 2.

Proposition 5.

For σ>0\sigma>0, there exists a unique solution to system (7) in the space of linear growth vectors in C1,2​([0,T)×ℝd;ℝd)∩C​([0,T]×ℝd;ℝd)C^{1,2}([0,T)\times\mathbb{R}^{d};\mathbb{R}^{d})\cap C([0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{d};\mathbb{R}^{d}).

Proof.

By standard results the value function of the control problem (OCN) is smooth and, thanks to the interior regularity estimates (e.g. [45, Theorem 8.12.1]), its derivative is a classical solution to system (7). Notice that under our regularity assumptions, the derivative is not C2C^{2} up to the terminal time. Uniqueness of classical solutions is then a consequence of Itô’s formula and uniqueness of (4). Indeed, given a classical solution uu, let mm be the solution to the forward SDE with initial point (t0,ν0)(t_{0},\nu_{0}), whereas ηt\eta_{t} is replaced by the function u​(t,mt)u(t,m_{t}); such SDE admits a unique strong solution since σ>0\sigma>0 and uu has linear growth. Thus, letting ηt=u​(t,mt)\eta_{t}=u(t,m_{t}), the process (η,m)(\eta,m) solves the FBSDE (4) and thus the uniqueness result Theorem 2 yields that u​(t0,ν0)=ηt0u(t_{0},\nu_{0})=\eta_{t_{0}} is uniquely determined for any (t0,ν0)(t_{0},\nu_{0}). ∎

2.3. Potential mean field game

Suppose the probability space (Ω,ℱ,ℙ)(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P}) to be rich enough to accommodate another dd-dimensional Brownian motion WW and an independent square integrable ℝd\mathbb{R}^{d}-valued random variable ξ\xi. Denote by 𝒜\mathcal{A} the space of square integrable ℝd\mathbb{R}^{d}-valued processes which are progressively measurable with respect to the right continuous extension of the filtration generated by WW and ξ\xi, augmented by ℙ\mathbb{P}-null sets.

Consider the mean field game in which, for any continuous for m:[0,T]→ℝdm:[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d}, the representative players minimizes, over the controls α∈𝒜\alpha\in\mathcal{A}, the cost functional

| J​(α,m)=𝔼​[∫0T12​(|αt|2+(Xt+∇f​(mt))2)​𝑑t+12​(XT+∇g​(mT))2],\displaystyle J(\alpha,m)=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\frac{1}{2}\big(|\alpha_{t}|^{2}+(X_{t}+\nabla f(m_{t}))^{2}\big)dt+\frac{1}{2}(X_{T}+\nabla g(m_{T}))^{2}\bigg], | (8) | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | | subject tod​Xt=(b​Xt+αt)​d​t+σ​d​Wt,X0=ξ.\displaystyle\text{subject to}\quad dX_{t}=(bX_{t}+\alpha_{t})dt+\sigma dW_{t},\quad X_{0}=\xi. | |

A mean field equilibrium is a couple (α,m)(\alpha,m) such that α\alpha is optimal for J​(⋅,m)J(\cdot,m) over 𝒜\mathcal{A}, with corresponding optimal trajectory XX, and mt=𝔼​[Xt]m_{t}=\mathbb{E}\left[X_{t}\right] for any tt.

By the stochastic maximum principle (see [22]), mean field equilibria can be characterized in terms of solutions (X,Y,Z)(X,Y,Z) of the related McKean-Vlasov FBSDE

Indeed, (α,m)(\alpha,m) is a mean field equilibrium if and only if α=−Y\alpha=-Y for some solution (X,Y,Z)(X,Y,Z) the McKean-Vlasov FBSDE (9). Moreover, for a solution (X,Y,Z)(X,Y,Z), setting mt=𝔼​[Xt]m_{t}=\mathbb{E}\left[X_{t}\right] and ηt=𝔼​[Yt]\eta_{t}=\mathbb{E}\left[Y_{t}\right], by taking expectations in the system we see that (m,η)(m,\eta) solves the forward-backward system of ODE’s

Given initial conditions (t0,ν0)∈[0,T]×ℝd(t_{0},\nu_{0})\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{d}, consider now the deterministic optimal control problem which consists in minimizing, over deterministic square integrable functions β:[0,T]→ℝd\beta:[0,T]\to\mathbb{R}^{d}, the cost functional

| Jc​(t0,ν0;β)=∫t0T(12​|βt|2+12​|mt|2+f​(mt))​𝑑t+12​|mT|2+g​(mT),\displaystyle J_{c}(t_{0},\nu_{0};\beta)=\int_{t_{0}}^{T}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|\beta_{t}\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left|m_{t}\right|^{2}+f\left(m_{t}\right)\right)dt+\frac{1}{2}\left|m_{T}\right|^{2}+g\left(m_{T}\right), | (OC) | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | | subject tom˙t=b​mt+βt,mt0=ν0.\displaystyle\text{subject to}\quad\dot{m}_{t}=bm_{t}+\beta_{t},\quad m_{t_{0}}=\nu_{0}. | |

Unless otherwise stated, we will set Jc​(β)=Jc​(0,ν0;β)J_{c}(\beta)=J_{c}(0,\nu_{0};\beta), when ν0\nu_{0} is understood. We observe that, for t0=0t_{0}=0 and ν0=𝔼​[ξ]\nu_{0}=\mathbb{E}[\xi], (OC-FBODE) is the system given by the Pontryagin maximum principle for the above control problem. We denote the value function by v​(t0,ν0)v(t_{0},\nu_{0}); i.e., set v​(t0,ν0)=infβJc​(t0,ν0;β)v(t_{0},\nu_{0})=\inf_{\beta}J_{c}(t_{0},\nu_{0};\beta).

The following is a classical result in deterministic control theory; see [12].

Proposition 7.

The following hold:

• (i)
  For any initial condition (t0,ν0)∈[0,T]×ℝd(t_{0},\nu_{0})\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{d}, there exists an optimal control for (OC);
• (ii)
  If (t0,ν0)=(0,𝔼​[ξ])(t_{0},\nu_{0})=(0,\mathbb{E}[\xi]), any minimizer (m,β)(m,\beta) is such that (m,η)(m,\eta) solves (OC-FBODE) with β=−η\beta=-\eta;
• (iii)
  The value function is locally Lipschitz and locally semiconcave in ν0\nu_{0}.
• (iv)
  The optimal trajectory is unique for the control problem with initial condition ν0\nu_{0} at time t0t_{0} if and only if v​(t0,⋅)v(t_{0},\cdot) is differentiable in ν0\nu_{0} - and thus for almost every ν0\nu_{0}.
  In this case, system (OC-FBODE) is uniquely solvable on [t0,T][t_{0},T] and ηt0=∇mv​(t0,ν0)\eta_{t_{0}}=\nabla_{m}v(t_{0},\nu_{0}).

Proof.

We first observe that, for a given (deterministic) initial condition ν0\nu_{0}, the infimum in the control does not change if we restrict to controls β\beta such that

| ∫0T|βt|2​𝑑t≤C​(1+|ν0|2),\int_{0}^{T}|\beta_{t}|^{2}dt\leq C(1+|\nu_{0}|^{2}), | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

for a given constant CC. This follows by the bound

| ∫0T(12​|βt|2−C​|βt|)​𝑑t−C​(1+|ν0|)≤J​(β)≤J​(0)≤C​(1+|ν0|2),\int_{0}^{T}\big(\tfrac{1}{2}|\beta_{t}|^{2}-C|\beta_{t}|\big)dt-C(1+|\nu_{0}|)\leq J(\beta)\leq J(0)\leq C(1+|\nu_{0}|^{2}), | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

which is obtained by using the estimatesup0≤t≤T|mt|≤|ν0|+C​∫0T|βt|​𝑑t\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|m_{t}|\leq|\nu_{0}|+C\int_{0}^{T}|\beta_{t}|dt, and the constant zero control for the upper bound. Therefore existence of an optimal control can be proved by taking a minimizing subsequence converging in the weak topology of 𝕃2​([0,T],ℝd)\mathbb{L}^{2}([0,T],\mathbb{R}^{d}). This proves claim (i), while the proof of (ii) follows by standard arguments. Having a solution to (OC-FBODE), we also get

| sup0≤t≤T|mt|+sup0≤t≤T|ηt|≤C​(1+|ν0|),\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|m_{t}|+\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|\eta_{t}|\leq C(1+|\nu_{0}|), | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

which implies that, if ν0\nu_{0} belongs to a ball of radius RR, then the control problem can be restricted to controls bounded by a constant depending on RR. Thus (iii) follows by usual arguments. Boundedness of controls permits to apply [12, Thm. 7.4.20] which provides claim (iv) in case the value function is differentiable in (t0,ν0)(t_{0},\nu_{0}). The fact that differentiability of v​(t0,⋅)v(t_{0},\cdot) in ν0\nu_{0} implies joint differentiability of vv in (t0,ν0)(t_{0},\nu_{0}) is proved in [11]. The value functions is also shown to be locally Lipschitz and semiconcave jointly in (t0,ν0)(t_{0},\nu_{0}). ∎

3. NN-player convergence result

In light of Proposition 7, minimizes of (OC) with initial condition (t0,ν0)=(0,𝔼​[ξ])(t_{0},\nu_{0})=(0,\mathbb{E}[\xi]) are mean field equilibria. However, there are mean field equilibria which are not minimizes of (OC), but are just stationary points. We show that Nash equilibria of the NN-player game converge to minimizes of (OC), thus ruling out mean field equilibria which are not minimizes.

To phrase our main result, consider the space of continuous functions C​([0,T];ℝd)C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d}) endowed with the supremum norm, and the space of càdlàg functions D​([0,T];ℝd)D([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d}) endowed with the pseudo-path topology; that is, the topology of the convergence in the measure d​t+δTdt+\delta_{T}, where d​tdt is the Lebesgue measure on [0,T][0,T] and δT\delta_{T} is the Dirac delta in TT.

We have the following selection principle.

Theorem 8.

Let ξ¯N=1N​∑jξi\overline{\xi}^{N}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j}\xi^{i} converge to 𝔼​[ξ]\mathbb{E}[\xi] in L2​(Ω)L^{2}(\Omega).111Recall that this is equivalent to require that ξ¯N\overline{\xi}^{N} converge in distribution and the second moments converge.If σ>0\sigma>0, then

1. (1)
   The sequence (mN,ηN)(m^{N},\eta^{N}) is tight on C​([0,T];ℝd)×D​([0,T];ℝd)C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})\times D([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d}), endowed with the (product) topology of uniform convergence and pseudo-path topology.
2. (2)
   Any limit point (m,η)(m,\eta) in distribution is supported on (deterministic) minimizes of (OC) with initial conditions (0,𝔼​[ξ])(0,\mathbb{E}[\xi]).
3. (3)
   The sequence (mN,ηN)(m^{N},\eta^{N}) truly converges to the unique (deterministic) minimizer of (OC) if and only if vv is differentiable in (0,𝔼​[ξ])(0,\mathbb{E}[\xi]).
4. (4)
   We have limNuN​(t0,ν0)=∇mv​(t0,ν0)\lim_{N}u^{N}(t_{0},\nu_{0})=\nabla_{m}v(t_{0},\nu_{0}) at any point t0t_{0} and any ν0\nu_{0} in which m↦v​(t0,m)m\mapsto v(t_{0},m) is differentiable (thus for any t0t_{0} and almost every ν0\nu_{0}).

Proof.

We prove each claim separately.

_Proof of 1._Consider the constant 0 control and denote by m0m^{0} the related controlled state process. By Theorem 4, the pair (mN,−ηN)(m^{N},-\eta^{N}) is optimal for the control problem (OCN). Thus, expanding the inequality JcN​(−ηN)≤JcN​(0)J_{c}^{N}(-\eta^{N})\leq J_{c}^{N}(0) and using the growth condition on f,∇f,g,∇gf,\nabla f,g,\nabla g we find

| 𝔼​[∫0T(12​|ηtN|2+12​|mtN|2−C​|mtN|)​𝑑t+12​|mTN|2−C​|mTN|]−C\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\frac{1}{2}|\eta^{N}_{t}|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}|m^{N}_{t}|^{2}-C|m^{N}_{t}|\Big)dt+\frac{1}{2}|m^{N}_{T}|^{2}-C|m^{N}_{T}|\bigg]-C | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ≤𝔼​[∫0T(12​|mt0|2+C​|mt0|)​𝑑t+12​|mT0|2+C​|mT0|]+C.\displaystyle\quad\leq\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\frac{1}{2}|m^{0}_{t}|^{2}+C|m^{0}_{t}|\Big)dt+\frac{1}{2}|m^{0}_{T}|^{2}+C|m^{0}_{T}|\bigg]+C. |

The convergence of ξ¯N\overline{\xi}^{N} and classical Lipschitz estimates allow to find a constant CC such that

| 𝔼​[supt∈[0,T]|mt0|2]≤Cand𝔼​[supt∈[0,T]|mtN|]≤C​𝔼​[∫0T|ηtN|​𝑑t].\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|m^{0}_{t}|^{2}\bigg]\leq C\quad\text{and}\quad\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|m^{N}_{t}|\bigg]\leq C\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}|\eta^{N}_{t}|dt\bigg]. | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Hence, the terms in the previous inequality can be rearranged as

| 𝔼​[∫0T12​|ηtN|2​𝑑t]\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\frac{1}{2}|\eta^{N}_{t}|^{2}dt\bigg] | ≤C​𝔼​[∫0T(12​|mt0|2+|mt0|+|mtN|)​𝑑t+12​|mT0|2+|mT0|+|mTN|]\displaystyle\leq C\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\Big(\frac{1}{2}|m^{0}_{t}|^{2}+|m^{0}_{t}|+|m^{N}_{t}|\Big)dt+\frac{1}{2}|m^{0}_{T}|^{2}+|m^{0}_{T}|+|m^{N}_{T}|\bigg] | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ≤C​(1+𝔼​[∫0T|ηtN|​𝑑t]),\displaystyle\leq C\bigg(1+\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}|\eta^{N}_{t}|dt\bigg]\bigg), | |

which in turn implies that

| supN𝔼​[∫0T|ηtN|2​𝑑t]<∞andsupN𝔼​[supt∈[0,T]|mtN|2]<∞,\sup_{N}\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}|\eta^{N}_{t}|^{2}dt\bigg]<\infty\quad\text{and}\quad\sup_{N}\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|m^{N}_{t}|^{2}\bigg]<\infty, | (10) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

where the second estimate follows from the first one.

Next, we want to show that (mN)N(m^{N})_{N} is tight on C​([0,T],ℝd)C([0,T],\mathbb{R}^{d}). Let h>0h>0, and let 𝒯h\mathcal{T}_{h} be the set of [0,T][0,T]–valued stopping times τ\tau such that τ+h≤T\tau+h\leq T. For every τ∈𝒯h\tau\in\mathcal{T}_{h}, it follows by Hölder’s inequality that

| 𝔼​[|mτ+hN−mτN|]\displaystyle\mathbb{E}[|m^{N}_{\tau+h}-m^{N}_{\tau}|] | ≤𝔼​[∫ττ+h|b​msN−ηsN|​𝑑s]+1N​|σ|​𝔼​[|W¯τ+hN−W¯τN|]\displaystyle\leq\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{\tau}^{\tau+h}|bm^{N}_{s}-\eta^{N}_{s}|ds\bigg]+\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}|\sigma|\mathbb{E}[|\overline{W}_{\tau+h}^{N}-\overline{W}_{\tau}^{N}|] | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ≤h​𝔼​[∫ττ+h(|b|2​|msN|2+|ηsN|2)​𝑑s]12+|σ|​h\displaystyle\leq\sqrt{h}\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{\tau}^{\tau+h}(|b|^{2}|m^{N}_{s}|^{2}+|\eta^{N}_{s}|^{2})ds\bigg]^{\frac{1}{2}}+|\sigma|\sqrt{h} | | | ≤C​h,\displaystyle\leq C\sqrt{h}, | |

where the last inequality follows from (10). It follows by Aldous’ tightness criterion [8, Theorem 16.9] that the sequence (mN)N(m^{N})_{N} is tight on D​([0,T];ℝd)D([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d}) with the Skorohod J1J_{1} topology, and thus also on C​([0,T];ℝd)C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d}) with the topology of uniform convergence.

In order to show the tightness of the controls (ηN)N(\eta^{N})_{N}, we employ the FBSDE and the Meyer-Zheng tightness criterion. Let Π\Pi be the set of partitions π={0=t0,t1,…,tnπ=T}\pi=\{0=t_{0},t_{1},\dots,t_{n_{\pi}}=T\} of nπ∈ℕn_{\pi}\in\mathbb{N} points ti∈[0,T]t_{i}\in[0,T] with ti<ti+1t_{i}<t_{i+1}. For π∈Π\pi\in\Pi, set

| Vπ(ηN):=∑i=0nπ−1|𝔼[ηti+1N−ηtiN|ℱti]|+𝔼[|ηTN|].V_{\pi}(\eta^{N}):=\sum_{i=0}^{n_{\pi}-1}\big|\mathbb{E}[\eta^{N}_{t_{i+1}}-\eta^{N}_{t_{i}}|\mathcal{F}_{t_{i}}]\big|+\mathbb{E}[|\eta_{T}^{N}|]. | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

The FBSDE representation of ηN\eta^{N} as in (4) (with FN,GNF_{N},G_{N} as in (6)) gives

| Vπ​(ηN)\displaystyle V_{\pi}(\eta^{N}) | =∑i=0nπ−1|𝔼[∫titi+1[b⊤ηtN+∇FN(mtN)]dt+∑jζtj,NdWtj|ℱti]|+𝔼[|∇GN(mTN)|],\displaystyle=\sum_{i=0}^{n_{\pi}-1}\bigg|\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{t_{i}}^{t_{i+1}}[b^{\top}\eta^{N}_{t}+\nabla F_{N}(m_{t}^{N})]dt+\sum_{j}\zeta_{t}^{j,N}dW_{t}^{j}\bigg|\mathcal{F}_{t_{i}}\bigg]\bigg|+\mathbb{E}[|\nabla G_{N}(m_{T}^{N})|], | | ------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

and using the square integrability of ζj,N\zeta^{j,N} and the growth conditions on f,gf,g, we find

| 𝔼​[Vπ​(ηN)]\displaystyle\mathbb{E}[V_{\pi}(\eta^{N})] | ≤𝔼​[∫0T|b⊤​ηtN+∇FN​(mtN)|​𝑑t+|∇GN​(mTN)|]\displaystyle\leq\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\big|b^{\top}\eta^{N}_{t}+\nabla F_{N}(m_{t}^{N})\big|dt+|\nabla G_{N}(m_{T}^{N})|\bigg] | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ≤C​(1+𝔼​[∫0T|ηtN|​𝑑t+supt∈[0,T]|mtN|]).\displaystyle\leq C\bigg(1+\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}|\eta^{N}_{t}|dt+\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|m^{N}_{t}|\bigg]\bigg). | |

Thus, by using the estimates in (10), we obtain

| supNsupπ∈Π𝔼​[Vπ​(ηN)]≤C​(1+𝔼​[∫0T|ηtN|2​𝑑t+supt∈[0,T]|mtN|2])<∞.\sup_{N}\sup_{\pi\in\Pi}\mathbb{E}[V_{\pi}(\eta^{N})]\leq C\bigg(1+\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}|\eta^{N}_{t}|^{2}dt+\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|m^{N}_{t}|^{2}\bigg]\bigg)<\infty. | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

The Meyer-Zheng tightness criterion (see [22, Theorem 3.9, Volume II]) implies that the sequence (ηN)N(\eta^{N})_{N} is tight on the space of càdlàg function D​([0,T];ℝd)D([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d}), endowed with the convergence in the measure d​t+δTdt+\delta_{T}, where δT\delta_{T} denotes the Dirac’s delta in TT.

Therefore, we conclude that the sequence (mN,ηN)(m^{N},\eta^{N}) is tight in C​([0,T];ℝd)×D​([0,T];ℝd)C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})\times D([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d}) endowed with the product topology.

_Proof of 2._Let the process (m,η)(m,\eta) be a limit point in distribution of the sequence (mN,ηN)(m^{N},\eta^{N}). By Skorokhod representation theorem, we can find a probability space (Ω~,ℱ~,ℙ~)(\widetilde{\Omega},\widetilde{\mathcal{F}},\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}) supportingℝd×C​([0,T];ℝd)×C​([0,T];ℝd)×D​([0,T];ℝd)\mathbb{R}^{d}\times C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})\times C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})\times D([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})-valued r.v.’s(ξ~N,W~N,m~N,η~N)(\widetilde{\xi}^{N},\widetilde{W}^{N},\widetilde{m}^{N},\widetilde{\eta}^{N}), N≥1N\geq 1,(ξ~,W~,m~,η~),(\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{W},\widetilde{m},\widetilde{\eta}),such that:

where the convergence is meant in ℝd×C​([0,T];ℝd)×C​([0,T];ℝd)×D​([0,T];ℝd)\mathbb{R}^{d}\times C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})\times C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})\times D([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d}). We denote with 𝔼~\widetilde{\mathbb{E}} the expectation under the probability measure ℙ~\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}.

We first recall that by assumption ξ¯N\overline{\xi}^{N} converges to 𝔼​[ξ]\mathbb{E}[\xi] and observe that W¯N\overline{W}^{N} converges to 0. Hence we haveξ~=𝔼​[ξ]\widetilde{\xi}=\mathbb{E}[\xi] and W~=0\widetilde{W}=0. Secondly, the convergence of η~N\widetilde{\eta}^{N} in the measure d​t+δTdt+\delta_{T} together with the a priori estimates in (10) implies that

| limN𝔼~​[∫0T|η~tN−η~t|​𝑑t]=0.\lim_{N}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}|\widetilde{\eta}^{N}_{t}-\widetilde{\eta}_{t}|dt\bigg]=0. | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Moreover, using that mNm^{N} solves the SDE controlled by −ηN-\eta^{N}, we obtain that m~N\widetilde{m}^{N} solves the SDE controlled by −η~N-\widetilde{\eta}^{N} with noises ξ~N\widetilde{\xi}^{N} and W~N\widetilde{W}^{N}. Thus, using Grönwall estimates and the previous limit, we obtain the convergence

| limN𝔼~​[supt∈[0,T]|m~tN−m~t|]=0,\lim_{N}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|\widetilde{m}^{N}_{t}-\widetilde{m}_{t}|\bigg]=0, | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

and that

We now show that

where 𝔼~​[Jc​(η~)]\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}[J_{c}(\widetilde{\eta})] denotes the expectation of the deterministic cost in (OC) in which the control η\eta is random. This is a consequence of the above convergence, continuity and linear growth of ff and gg, and by Fatou’s lemma which yields

| 𝔼~​[∫0T|η~t|2​𝑑t]\displaystyle\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}|\widetilde{\eta}_{t}|^{2}dt\bigg] | ≤lim infN𝔼~​[∫0T|η~tN|2​𝑑t],\displaystyle\leq\liminf_{N}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}|\widetilde{\eta}^{N}_{t}|^{2}dt\bigg], | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 𝔼~​[∫0T|m~t|2​𝑑t]\displaystyle\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}|\widetilde{m}_{t}|^{2}dt\bigg] | ≤lim infN𝔼~​[∫0T|m~tN|2​𝑑t],𝔼~​[|m~T|2]≤lim infN𝔼~​[|m~TN|2].\displaystyle\leq\liminf_{N}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}|\widetilde{m}^{N}_{t}|^{2}dt\bigg],\qquad\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}\big[|\widetilde{m}_{T}|^{2}\big]\leq\liminf_{N}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}\big[|\widetilde{m}^{N}_{T}|^{2}\big]. |

Next, for any given deterministic control β\beta, denote by m~β,N\widetilde{m}^{\beta,N} the solution to SDE in (OCN) in the probability space (Ω~,ℱ~,ℙ~,W~N)(\widetilde{\Omega},\widetilde{\mathcal{F}},\widetilde{\mathbb{P}},\widetilde{W}^{N}), and by m~β\widetilde{m}^{\beta} the solution to the ODE in (OC); that is,

The assumed convergence on the initial conditions imply that

| limN𝔼~​[supt∈[0,T]|m~tβ,N−m~tβ|2]=0,\lim_{N}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|\widetilde{m}^{\beta,N}_{t}-\widetilde{m}^{\beta}_{t}|^{2}\bigg]=0, | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

and thus limNJcN​(β)=Jc​(β)\lim_{N}J^{N}_{c}(\beta)=J_{c}(\beta). Hence the optimality of ηN\eta^{N} yields

for any deterministic control β\beta, which in turn implies that the measure ℙ~∘(η~)−1\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}\circ(\widetilde{\eta})^{-1} charges only the minimizers of the map Jc:L2​([0,T];ℝd)→ℝJ_{c}:L^{2}([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})\to\mathbb{R}.

Proof of 3. Claim follows directly from Claim 2 and from Proposition 7.

Proof of 4. For any initial point (t0,ν0)(t_{0},\nu_{0}), we have ηt0N=uN​(t0,ν0)\eta^{N}_{t_{0}}=u^{N}(t_{0},\nu_{0}), where ηN\eta^{N} solves (4) on [t0,T][t_{0},T], by the stochastic Pontryagin maximum principle, noticing that uNu^{N} is the gradient (in mm) of the value function of (OCN). Let t0t_{0} and ν0\nu_{0} such that m↦v​(t0,m)m\mapsto v(t_{0},m) is differentiable in ν0\nu_{0}. Thanks to Proposition 2 (iv), we have just to show that limNηt0N=ηt0\lim_{N}\eta^{N}_{t_{0}}=\eta_{t_{0}}. In the above setup, we have

| limN𝔼~​[supt∈[t0,T]|m~tN−m~t|],\lim_{N}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\sup_{t\in[t_{0},T]}|\widetilde{m}^{N}_{t}-\widetilde{m}_{t}|\bigg], | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

but convergence is not in L2L^{2}. We apply Itô-Tanaka formula to ηN−η\eta^{N}-\eta to get

| dd​t​𝔼~​[|η~tN−η~t|]\displaystyle\frac{d}{dt}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}[|\widetilde{\eta}^{N}_{t}-\widetilde{\eta}_{t}|] | ≥−b​𝔼~​[|η~tN−η~t|]−C​𝔼~​[|m~tN−m~t|]−CN​(1+𝔼~​[|mtN|])\displaystyle\geq-b\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}[|\widetilde{\eta}^{N}_{t}-\widetilde{\eta}_{t}|]-C\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}[|\widetilde{m}^{N}_{t}-\widetilde{m}_{t}|]-\frac{C}{N}(1+\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}[|m^{N}_{t}|]) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 𝔼​[|η~TN−η~T|]\displaystyle\mathbb{E}[|\widetilde{\eta}^{N}_{T}-\widetilde{\eta}_{T}|] | ≤C​𝔼~​[|m~TN−m~T|]−CN​(1+𝔼~​[|mTN|]),\displaystyle\leq C\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}[|\widetilde{m}^{N}_{T}-\widetilde{m}_{T}|]-\frac{C}{N}(1+\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}[|m^{N}_{T}|]), |

and thus Gronwall’s inequality yields

| supt∈[t0,T]𝔼~​[|η~tN−η~t|]≤C​(1N+supt∈[0,T]𝔼~​[|m~tN−m~t|]).\sup_{t\in[t_{0},T]}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}[|\widetilde{\eta}^{N}_{t}-\widetilde{\eta}_{t}|]\leq C\Big(\frac{1}{N}+\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}[|\widetilde{m}^{N}_{t}-\widetilde{m}_{t}|]\Big). | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Hence we obtain limNsupt∈[t0,T]𝔼~​[|η~tN−η~t|]=0\lim_{N}\sup_{t\in[t_{0},T]}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}[|\widetilde{\eta}^{N}_{t}-\widetilde{\eta}_{t}|]=0, which gives the claim. ∎

4. Mean field game with common noise

We add a common noise to the linear-quadratic potential mean field game. Suppose the probability space (Ω,ℱ,ℙ)(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P}) to be rich enough to accommodate another dd-dimensional (ξ,W)(\xi,W)-independent Brownian motion BB: the common noise. Denote by 𝒜ε\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon} the space of square integrable ℝd\mathbb{R}^{d}-valued processes which are progressively measurable with respect to the right continuous extension of the filtration generated by W,BW,B and ξ\xi, augmented by ℙ\mathbb{P}-null sets. Denote by 𝔽B=(ℱtB)t∈[0,T]\mathbb{F}^{B}=(\mathcal{F}_{t}^{B})_{t\in[0,T]} the filtration generated by BB, augmented by ℙ\mathbb{P}-null sets.

Let ε>0\varepsilon>0 and consider, for any control αε∈𝒜ε\alpha^{\varepsilon}\in\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon}, the dynamics

and the cost

| Jε​(αε,m)=𝔼​[∫0T12​(|αtε|2+(Xtε+∇f​(mt))2)​𝑑t+12​(XTε+∇g​(mT))2],J^{\varepsilon}(\alpha^{\varepsilon},m)=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\frac{1}{2}\big(|\alpha_{t}^{\varepsilon}|^{2}+(X_{t}^{\varepsilon}+\nabla f(m_{t}))^{2}\big)dt+\frac{1}{2}(X_{T}^{\varepsilon}+\nabla g(m_{T}))^{2}\bigg], | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

for a generic square integrable 𝔽B\mathbb{F}^{B}-progressively measurable process m:[0,T]→ℝdm:[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d}. In a mean field equilibrium (αε,mε)(\alpha^{\varepsilon},m^{\varepsilon}): αε\alpha^{\varepsilon} is optimal for mεm^{\varepsilon} over the controls in 𝒜ε\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon}, with corresponding optimal trajectory XεX^{\varepsilon}, and it holds mtε=𝔼​[Xtε|ℱtB]m_{t}^{\varepsilon}=\mathbb{E}[X_{t}^{\varepsilon}|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{B}] for any tt, ℙ\mathbb{P}-a.s.; this is a strong formulation of the MFG with common noise, see [22, Vol I, §2.2].

Mean field equilibria satisfy the FBSDE

| {d​Xtε=(b​Xtε−Ytε)​d​t+σ​d​Wt+ε​d​Bt,X0ε=ξ,d​Ytε=−[b⊤​Ytε+Xtε+∇f​(𝔼​[Xtε|ℱtB])]​d​t+Ztε​d​Wt+Z~tε​d​Bt,YTε=XT+∇g​(𝔼​[XTε|ℱtB]).\left\{\begin{array}[]{l}dX_{t}^{\varepsilon}=(bX_{t}^{\varepsilon}-Y_{t}^{\varepsilon})dt+\sigma dW_{t}+\varepsilon dB_{t},\quad X_{0}^{\varepsilon}=\xi,\\ dY_{t}^{\varepsilon}=-[b^{\top}Y_{t}^{\varepsilon}+X_{t}^{\varepsilon}+\nabla f(\mathbb{E}[X_{t}^{\varepsilon}|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{B}])]dt+Z_{t}^{\varepsilon}dW_{t}+\widetilde{Z}^{\varepsilon}_{t}dB_{t},\quad Y_{T}^{\varepsilon}=X_{T}+\nabla g(\mathbb{E}[X_{T}^{\varepsilon}|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{B}]).\end{array}\right. | (12) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

Taking conditional expectations, the processes mtε=𝔼​[Xtε|ℱtB]m_{t}^{\varepsilon}=\mathbb{E}[X_{t}^{\varepsilon}|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{B}], ηtε=𝔼​[Ytε|ℱtB]\eta_{t}^{\varepsilon}=\mathbb{E}[Y_{t}^{\varepsilon}|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{B}] and ζtε=𝔼​[Z~tε|ℱtB]\zeta_{t}^{\varepsilon}=\mathbb{E}[\widetilde{Z}_{t}^{\varepsilon}|\mathcal{F}_{t}^{B}] solve the FBSDE

By Pontryagin’s maximum principle, the above systems can be seen as the optimality condition of the stochastic control problem:

| Jcε​(β)=∫0T(12​|βt|2+12​|mt|2+f​(mt))​𝑑t+12​|mT|2+g​(mT),\displaystyle J_{c}^{\varepsilon}(\beta)=\int_{0}^{T}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|\beta_{t}\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left|m_{t}\right|^{2}+f\left(m_{t}\right)\right)dt+\frac{1}{2}\left|m_{T}\right|^{2}+g\left(m_{T}\right), | (OCε) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | | subject tod​mt=(b​mt+βt)​d​t+ε​d​Bt,m0=𝔼​[ξ],\displaystyle\text{subject to}\quad d{m}_{t}=(bm_{t}+\beta_{t})dt+\varepsilon dB_{t},\quad m_{0}=\mathbb{E}[\xi], | |

where the controls are square integrable and 𝔽B\mathbb{F}^{B}-progressively measurable.

With the help of Theorem 2, we immediately get the following result.

Proposition 9.

The FBSDE (12) is uniquely solvable and its solution (Xε,Yε,Zε,Z~ε)(X^{\varepsilon},Y^{\varepsilon},Z^{\varepsilon},\widetilde{Z}^{\varepsilon}) gives the unique solution (αε,mε)=(−Yε,𝔼​[Xε|ℱB])(\alpha^{\varepsilon},m^{\varepsilon})=(-Y^{\varepsilon},\mathbb{E}[X^{\varepsilon}|\mathcal{F}^{B}])to the MFG with common noise. The control problem (OCε) has a unique optimal control −ηε-\eta^{\varepsilon}, and the related optimal trajectory is mεm^{\varepsilon}. In particular, we have mtε=𝔼​[Xtε|ℱtB]m^{\varepsilon}_{t}=\mathbb{E}[X^{\varepsilon}_{t}|\mathcal{F}^{B}_{t}] and ηtε=𝔼​[Ytε|ℱtB]\eta^{\varepsilon}_{t}=\mathbb{E}[Y^{\varepsilon}_{t}|\mathcal{F}^{B}_{t}], for any tt, ℙ\mathbb{P}-a.s.

Let vεv^{\varepsilon} be the value function of (OCε). We obtain the following convergence result, whose proof is similar to that of Theorem 8.

Theorem 10.

The following hold:

1. (1)
   The family (mε,ηε)(m^{\varepsilon},\eta^{\varepsilon}) is tight on C​([0,T];ℝd)×D​([0,T];ℝd)C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})\times D([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d}), endowed with the (product) topology of uniform convergence and pseudo-path topology.
2. (2)
   As ε→0\varepsilon\to 0, any limit point (m,η)(m,\eta) in distribution is supported on (deterministic) minimizes of (OC).
3. (3)
   The sequence (mε,ηε)(m^{\varepsilon},\eta^{\varepsilon}) converges, as ε→0\varepsilon\to 0, to the unique (deterministic) minimizer of (OC) if and only if vv is differentiable in (0,m0)(0,m_{0}).
4. (4)
   We have limε∇mvε​(t0,ν0)=∇mv​(t0,ν0)\lim_{\varepsilon}\nabla_{m}v^{\varepsilon}(t_{0},\nu_{0})=\nabla_{m}v(t_{0},\nu_{0}) at any point t0t_{0} and any ν0\nu_{0} in which m↦v​(t0,m)m\mapsto v(t_{0},m) is differentiable (thus for any t0t_{0} and almost every ν0\nu_{0}).

5. Examples of selection

In this section we discuss several examples which illustrate how to derive properties of the limiting measure from the previous result. In the whole section, we assume thatξ¯N\overline{\xi}^{N} converges to m0=𝔼​[ξ].m_{0}=\mathbb{E}[\xi].

Our first example concerns the case of a unique minimizer.

Proposition 11.

If σ>0\sigma>0 and the function JcJ_{c} has only one optimal control β^\widehat{\beta} with optimal trajectory m^\widehat{m} solving m^t=m0+∫0t(b​m^s+β^s)​𝑑s\widehat{m}_{t}=m_{0}+\int_{0}^{t}(b\widehat{m}_{s}+\widehat{\beta}_{s})ds, then the sequence mN{m}^{N} converges to m^\widehat{m}.

Proof.

Obvious from Theorem 8. ∎

Example 12.

There are two typical examples in which the assumptions of the previous proposition are verified:

1. (1)
   The case is which the value function in differentiable in (0,m0)(0,m_{0}), as in Theorem 8-3.
2. (2)
   The case in which the functions f,gf,g are convex. In this case the Lasry-Lions monotonicity condition is satisfied and the mean field equilibrium is unique, so that our proposition recovers [48, Corollary 2.10].

5.1. One-dimensional symmetric selection

In dimension 1, we discuss a selection principle with two minimizers, thus in which multiple mean field equilibria could arise. We state the following proposition, which assumes the existence of two distinct optimal controls (more explicit conditions are given in the next subsection).

Theorem 13.

Consider the case σ>0\sigma>0, d=1d=1 with initial condition such that ℙ∘(−ξ¯N)−1=ℙ∘(ξ¯N)−1\mathbb{P}\circ(-\overline{\xi}^{N})^{-1}=\mathbb{P}\circ(\overline{\xi}^{N})^{-1} and ν0=0\nu_{0}=0. Suppose

1. (1)
   f,gf,g to be even (i.e., f​(−m)=f​(m)f(-m)=f(m) and g​(−m)=g​(m)g(-m)=g(m) for any m∈ℝm\in\mathbb{R});
2. (2)
   JcJ_{c} to have two and only two (distinct) optimal controls, one of which strictly positive.

Then, if β^\widehat{\beta} is the positive optimal control, the control −β^-\widehat{\beta} is optimal and we have

where mt+:=∫0t(b​m^s+β^s)​𝑑sm^{+}_{t}:=\int_{0}^{t}(b\widehat{m}_{s}+\widehat{\beta}_{s})ds and mt−:=∫0t(b​m^s−β^s)​𝑑s=−mt+m_{t}^{-}:=\int_{0}^{t}(b\widehat{m}_{s}-\widehat{\beta}_{s})ds=-m^{+}_{t}.

Example 14.

The assumption on the optimal controls of JcJ_{c} in the previous proposition is satisfied in the example studied in [29], where f​(m)=0f(m)=0 and gg is defined as

| g​(m):=−mrδ​𝟙{|m|≤rδ}−sign​(m)​𝟙{|m|>rδ},m∈ℝ,δ∈(0,T),rδ:=∫δTws−2​𝑑s,g(m):=-\frac{m}{r_{\delta}}\mathbbm{1}_{\{|m|\leq r_{\delta}\}}-\text{sign}(m)\mathbbm{1}_{\{|m|>r_{\delta}\}},\ m\in\mathbb{R},\quad\delta\in(0,T),\quad r_{\delta}:=\int_{\delta}^{T}{w_{s}^{-2}}ds, | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

with wt:=exp⁡[∫tT(−b+ηs)​𝑑s]w_{t}:=\exp\big[\int_{t}^{T}(-b+\eta_{s})ds\big], η\eta solution to the Riccati equationd​ηtd​t=ηt2−2​b​ηt−1\frac{d\eta_{t}}{dt}=\eta_{t}^{2}-2b\eta_{t}-1, ηT=1\eta_{T}=1. In this case, the two optimal trajectories are given by mt−=−wt​∫0tws−2​𝑑sm^{-}_{t}=-w_{t}\int_{0}^{t}{w_{s}^{-2}}ds and mt+=wt​∫0tws−2​𝑑sm^{+}_{t}=w_{t}\int_{0}^{t}{w_{s}^{-2}}ds, and Theorem 13 recovers the NN-player selection of [29, Theorem 4], with the difference that [29] consider NN player games in which player ii optimization problem depends only on 1N−1​∑j≠iXTj\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{j\neq i}X_{T}^{j}.

Proof of Theorem 13.

Since f,gf,g are even, f′,g′f^{\prime},g^{\prime} are odd (i.e., f​(−m)=−f​(m)f(-m)=-f(m) and g​(−m)=−g​(m)g(-m)=-g(m) for any m∈ℝm\in\mathbb{R}) and m​f′​(m),m​g′​(m)mf^{\prime}(m),mg^{\prime}(m) are even as well. Thus, computing the derivatives in mm of the costs of the control problem (OCN), we find

By the stochastic maximum principle, any optimal control of the control problem (OCN), writes as −ηN-\eta^{N} for some solution (mN,ηN,ζN)(m^{N},\eta^{N},\zeta^{N}) to the FBSDE (6). By the previous identities, the process (m~N,η~N,ζ~N)=(−mN,−ηN,ζN)(\widetilde{m}^{N},\widetilde{\eta}^{N},\widetilde{\zeta}^{N})=(-m^{N},-\eta^{N},\zeta^{N}) solves the FBSDE

which the same system as (6), but driven by the noises (−ξ¯N,−𝑾)(-\overline{\xi}^{N},-\bm{W}). By our assumption, ℙ∘(−ξ¯N,−𝑾)−1=ℙ∘(ξ¯N,𝑾)−1\mathbb{P}\circ(-\overline{\xi}^{N},-\bm{W})^{-1}=\mathbb{P}\circ(\overline{\xi}^{N},\bm{W})^{-1}, and by weak uniqueness of the solution to the FBSDE (6) (following from Theorem 2), we deduce that ℙ∘(mN)−1=ℙ∘(−mN)−1\mathbb{P}\circ(m^{N})^{-1}=\mathbb{P}\circ(-m^{N})^{-1}. Hence we haveℙ​[mtN<0]=ℙ​[mtN>0]≤12\mathbb{P}[m^{N}_{t}<0]=\mathbb{P}[m^{N}_{t}>0]\leq\frac{1}{2}for any tt, and since ℙ​[mtN=0]=0\mathbb{P}[m^{N}_{t}=0]=0, we obtain that

Let μ∈𝒫​(C​([0,T];ℝ))\mu\in\mathcal{P}(C([0,T];\mathbb{R})) be the limit in distribution of a subsequence (not relabeled) of mNm^{N} converging in distribution on C​([0,T],ℝ)C([0,T],\mathbb{R}). By Theorem 8, the limit μ\mu is supported only on the optimal trajectories of JcJ_{c}, which are mt+:=∫0t(b​mt++β^s)​𝑑sm^{+}_{t}:=\int_{0}^{t}(bm^{+}_{t}+\widehat{\beta}_{s})ds and mt−=−mt+m_{t}^{-}=-m^{+}_{t}. Thus, there exists p∈[0,1]p\in[0,1] such that

where δ(xt)t\delta_{(x_{t})_{t}} denoted the Dirac delta on a particular trajectory (xt)t∈C​([0,T];ℝ)(x_{t})_{t}\in C([0,T];\mathbb{R}). In order to determine pp, we use (14). Indeed, denoting with πT\pi_{T} the map πT:C​([0,T];ℝ)→ℝ\pi_{T}:C([0,T];\mathbb{R})\to\mathbb{R}, πT​((xt)t):=xT\pi_{T}((x_{t})_{t}):=x_{T}, the continuous mapping theorem gives that ℙ∘(mTN)−1\mathbb{P}\circ(m^{N}_{T})^{-1} converges in distribution to μ∘(πT)−1=p​δmT−+(1−p)​δmT+\mu\circ(\pi_{T})^{-1}=p\delta_{m^{-}_{T}}+(1-p)\delta_{m^{+}_{T}}. Notice that, since mT−<0<mT+m_{T}^{-}<0<m^{+}_{T}, we have

Hence, by Portmanteau theorem and (14), we deduce that

so that p=12p=\frac{1}{2} and μ=12​δm−+12​δm+\mu=\frac{1}{2}\delta_{m^{-}}+\frac{1}{2}\delta_{m^{+}}. Finally, since every subsequence have the same limit μ\mu, the sequence (mN)N(m^{N})_{N} converges to μ\mu, thus completing the proof. ∎

5.2. The case of constant optimal controls

In this subsection we will focus on the case in which the representative player minimization problem is

| J​(α,m)=𝔼​[∫0T12​|αt|2​𝑑t+12​(XT+∇g​(mT))2],\displaystyle J(\alpha,m)=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\frac{1}{2}|\alpha_{t}|^{2}dt+\frac{1}{2}(X_{T}+\nabla g(m_{T}))^{2}\bigg], | (15) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | | subject tod​Xt=αt​d​t+σ​d​Wt,X0=ξ,\displaystyle\text{subject to}\quad dX_{t}=\alpha_{t}dt+\sigma dW_{t},\quad X_{0}=\xi, | |

and the related optimal control problem is

| Jc​(t0,ν0;β)=∫t0T12​|βt|2​𝑑t+12​|mT|2+g​(mT),\displaystyle J_{c}(t_{0},\nu_{0};\beta)=\int_{t_{0}}^{T}\frac{1}{2}\left|\beta_{t}\right|^{2}dt+\frac{1}{2}\left|m_{T}\right|^{2}+g\left(m_{T}\right), | (16) | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | | subject tom˙t=βt,mt0=ν0.\displaystyle\text{subject to}\quad\dot{m}_{t}=\beta_{t},\quad m_{t_{0}}=\nu_{0}. | |

For this model, all the results of the previous sections applies with the same arguments.

We first discuss the following property of optimal controls.

Lemma 16.

If β^\widehat{\beta} is optimal for JcJ_{c} as in (16), then β^\widehat{\beta} is constant in time; i.e., β^t=a^\widehat{\beta}_{t}=\widehat{a} for any t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T].

Proof.

By the Pontryagin maximum principle, the optimal control β^\widehat{\beta} equals the backward component η\eta of some solution (m,η)(m,\eta) to the forward-backward system of ODE’s

The proof is completed by noticing that every solution has backward component η\eta constant in time. ∎

Lemma 16 implies that the optimization problem is equivalent to the static optimization problem of the function

| a↦U​(t0,ν0,a):=T−t02​|a|2+G​(ν0+(T−t0)​a),a\mapsto U\left(t_{0},\nu_{0},a\right):=\frac{T-t_{0}}{2}|a|^{2}+G\left(\nu_{0}+(T-t_{0})a\right), | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

where we consider the function G​(y)=12​|y|2+g​(y),G(y)=\frac{1}{2}\left|y\right|^{2}+g\left(y\right), y∈ℝdy\in\mathbb{R}^{d}.

For simplicity, we discuss the case T=1T=1.

Proposition 17.

Assume σ>0\sigma>0, d=1d=1, gg to be concave, and such that there exist C−,C+C_{-},C_{+} such that g′′​(m)+2<0g^{\prime\prime}(m)+2<0 for m∈(C−,C+)m\in(C_{-},C_{+}) and g′′​(m)+2≥0g^{\prime\prime}(m)+2\geq 0 for m∈(−∞,C−]∪[C+,∞)m\in(-\infty,C_{-}]\cup[C_{+},\infty). Then there exist at most two solutions of the optimal control problem and one solution of the optimal control problem is selected with positive probability.

Proof.

The second order derivative (in the variable aa) of U​(0,m0;⋅)U(0,m_{0};\cdot) is U′′​(0,m0;a)=2+g′′​(m0+a)U^{\prime\prime}(0,m_{0};a)=2+g^{\prime\prime}(m_{0}+a). Studying the convexity/concavity of U​(0,m0;⋅)U(0,m_{0};\cdot), one deduces that U​(0,m0;⋅)U(0,m_{0};\cdot) admits at most two (distinct) minima, which by Lemma 16 correspond to two distinct optimal controls for (16). The rest of the claim follows by Theorem 8. ∎

In particular, we obtain the following example of a submodular mean field game (see [33]) in which only extremal equilibria are plausible limits of the NN-player game.

Proposition 18.

Consider the case σ>0\sigma>0, d=1d=1 with initial condition ν0=0\nu_{0}=0. Suppose gg to be concave, even (i.e. g​(−m)=g​(m)g(-m)=g(m)) and such that there exist C+C_{+} such that g′′​(m)+2<0g^{\prime\prime}(m)+2<0 for m∈[0,C+)m\in[0,C_{+}) and g′′​(m)+2≥0g^{\prime\prime}(m)+2\geq 0 for m∈[C+,∞)m\in[C_{+},\infty). Then, U​(0,0;⋅)U(0,0;\cdot) has two and only two (distinct) minima a¯>0\overline{a}>0 and −a¯-\overline{a} and we have

where mt−:=−t​a¯m_{t}^{-}:=-t\overline{a} and mt+:=t​a¯m^{+}_{t}:=t\overline{a}. Moreover, (α0,m0)=(0,0)(\alpha^{0},m^{0})=(0,0) is a mean field equilibrium which is not selected as limit of Nash equilibria.

Proof.

The characterization of the limit points follows by using Lemma 16, Proposition 17 and Theorem 13, after noticing that the minimum points of U(0,0,;⋅)U(0,0,;\cdot) are necessarily different from 0. Notice that g′​(0)=0g^{\prime}(0)=0, so that (σ​W,0)(\sigma W,0) is a solution to the system

Thus, (0,0)=(0,𝔼​[σ​W])(0,0)=(0,\mathbb{E}[\sigma W]) is a mean field equilibrium by the Pontryagin maximum principle. Such an equilibrium does not correspond to any minimum, hence it is not selected as limit of Nash equilibria. ∎

5.3. Multi-dimensional symmetric selection

We finally provide a multidimensional example with an infinite number of mean field equilibria.

Theorem 19.

Assume σ>0\sigma>0, ν0=0∈ℝd\nu_{0}=0\in\mathbb{R}^{d}, the distribution of ξ¯N\overline{\xi}^{N} to be invariant under rotations, g​(m)=g~​(|m|)g(m)=\widetilde{g}(|m|) for a concave function g~∈C2​([0,∞))\widetilde{g}\in C^{2}([0,\infty)) with g~′​(0)=0\widetilde{g}^{\prime}(0)=0, and such that there exists C+C_{+} such that g~′′​(m)+2<0\widetilde{g}^{\prime\prime}(m)+2<0 for m∈[0,C+)m\in[0,C_{+}) and g~′′​(m)+2≥0\widetilde{g}^{\prime\prime}(m)+2\geq 0 for m∈[C+,∞)m\in[C_{+},\infty). Then

where mtΘ=Θ​a^​tm^{\Theta}_{t}=\Theta\widehat{a}\,t, a^\widehat{a} is the (unique) minimum of the function a1↦U​(0,0;(a1,0,…,0))a_{1}\mapsto U(0,0;(a_{1},0,...,0)) on (0,∞)(0,\infty), and Θ\Theta is a uniform random variable on the unit sphere Sd−1={r∈ℝd||r|=1}S^{d-1}=\{r\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\,|\,|r|=1\}.

Moreover, (α0,m0)=(0,0)(\alpha^{0},m^{0})=(0,0) is a mean field equilibrium which is not selected as limit of Nash equilibria.

Proof.

We first notice that the unique solution (mN,ηN,ζN)(m^{N},\eta^{N},\zeta^{N}) of the FBSDE

which gives the optimal control for the control problem (16), is invariant under rotations. Indeed, for a generic rotation RR of ℝd\mathbb{R}^{d}, with some basic calculus we see that the process (R​mN,R​ηN,ζN)(Rm^{N},R\eta^{N},\zeta^{N}) solves the system

which is the same system as above, but with driving noises (R​ξ¯N,R​W1,…,R​WN)(R\overline{\xi}^{N},RW^{1},...,RW^{N}). Since ℙ∘(R​ξ¯N,R​W1,…,R​WN)−1=ℙ∘(ξ¯N,W1,…,WN)−1\mathbb{P}\circ(R\overline{\xi}^{N},RW^{1},...,RW^{N})^{-1}=\mathbb{P}\circ(\overline{\xi}^{N},W^{1},...,W^{N})^{-1} by assumption, the uniqueness of the solution to the FBSDE (which follows exactly as in Theorem 2) implies that

Therefore, also the distribution of mtNm^{N}_{t} is rotation invariant, and for every cone VV (i.e., a Borel set V⊂ℝdV\subset\mathbb{R}^{d} such that s​v∈Vsv\in V for any s∈[0,∞)s\in[0,\infty) and v∈Vv\in V) we have

where λd−1\lambda_{d-1} denotes the Lebesgue spherical measure on Sd−1S^{d-1}.

Let μ∈𝒫​(C​([0,T],ℝd))\mu\in\mathcal{P}(C([0,T],\mathbb{R}^{d})) be the limit of a subsequence (not relabeled) of ℙ∘(mN)−1\mathbb{P}\circ(m^{N})^{-1}. Assume μ=ℙ∘(m)−1\mu=\mathbb{P}\circ(m)^{-1}, for a continuous stochastic process mm. By Portmanteau Theorem, for every open cone VV we deduce that

Thus, for every cone V~\widetilde{V}, the outer regularity of the spherical measure implies that

| ℙ​[mt∈V~]\displaystyle\mathbb{P}[m_{t}\in\widetilde{V}] | ≤inf{ℙ​[mt∈V]|V~⊂V,V​open}\displaystyle\leq\inf\{\mathbb{P}[m_{t}\in V]\,|\,\widetilde{V}\subset V,V\text{open}\} | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | ≤inf{lim infNℙ​[mtN∈V]|V~⊂V,V​open}\displaystyle\leq\inf\{\liminf_{N}\mathbb{P}[m^{N}_{t}\in V]\,|\,\widetilde{V}\subset V,V\text{open}\} | | | =inf{λd−1​(V∩Sd−1)|V~⊂V,V​open}=λd−1​(V~∩Sd−1).\displaystyle=\inf\{\lambda_{d-1}(V\cap S^{d-1})\,|\,\widetilde{V}\subset V,V\text{open}\}=\lambda_{d-1}(\widetilde{V}\cap S^{d-1}). | |

Thus, mtm_{t} is distributed as the spherical measure; that is,

By looking at the concavity/convexity of the function a1↦U​(0,0;(a1,0,…,0))a_{1}\mapsto U(0,0;(a_{1},0,...,0)), we see that such a map has a unique minimum point a^\widehat{a} on [0,∞)[0,\infty). Thus, the minimizers of the control problem (16) are constant controls θ​a^\theta\widehat{a}, with θ∈Sd−1\theta\in S^{d-1}. Hence, by Theorem 8, mm is supported in the set {mθ|mtθ=θ​a^​t,θ∈Sd−1}\{m^{\theta}\,|\,m^{\theta}_{t}=\theta\widehat{a}\,t,\ \theta\in S^{d-1}\}. Hence

Finally, since every subsequence have the same limit, the sequence (mN)N(m^{N})_{N} converges to mm, thus completing the proof.

The proof that (α0,m0)=(0,0)(\alpha^{0},m^{0})=(0,0) is a mean field equilibrium which is not selected as limit of Nash equilibria is identical as in the previous proposition. ∎

Appendix A

A.1. Proof of Theorem 2

For simplicity of notation, we write (m,η,ζ)(m,\eta,\zeta) for (mN,ηN,ζN)(m^{N},\eta^{N},\zeta^{N}). Define the function φ:[0,T]→ℝd×d\varphi:[0,T]\to\mathbb{R}^{d\times d} as the unique (symmetric) solution to the matrix valued system of Riccati ODE

as ensured by [58]. Define the process (η~,ζ~)(\widetilde{\eta},\widetilde{\zeta}) as

If (m,η,ζ)(m,\eta,\zeta) solves the FBSDE (4), using Ito formula we see that (η~,ζ~)(\widetilde{\eta},\widetilde{\zeta}) solves the backward SDE

Moreover, setting

we have

Actually, one can easily verify that (m,η,ζ)(m,\eta,\zeta) solves the FBSDE (4) if and only if the process(m~,η~,ζ~)(\widetilde{m},\widetilde{\eta},\widetilde{\zeta}) solves the system of FBSDE

where Φt−1\Phi_{t}^{-1} denotes the inverse of the matrix Φt\Phi_{t}.

Thanks to our assumptions on the boundedness and on the Lipschitzianity of the functions ∇f​(y),∇2f​(y),∇2f​(y)​y,∇g​(y),∇2g​(y),∇2g​(y)​y\nabla f(y),\nabla^{2}f(y),\nabla^{2}f(y)y,\nabla g(y),\nabla^{2}g(y),\nabla^{2}g(y)y, and thanks to the non-degeneracy (which follows from the boundedness of φ\varphi), Theorem 2.6 in [30] provides the existence of a unique solution (m~,η~,ζ~)(\widetilde{m},\widetilde{\eta},\widetilde{\zeta}) to the previous FBSDE. Hence, the inverse transformation gives the existence of a unique solution (m,η,ζ)(m,\eta,\zeta) to (4), which completes the proof.

A.2. Proof of Theorem 3

The argument consists in constructing the solution to (3) starting from the solution of (4), which by Theorem 2 exists unique.

_Step 1._Let (m∗,η∗,ζ∗)(m^{*},\eta^{*},\zeta^{*}) be the unique solution to (4), and consider the FBSDE

For any fixed i=1,…,Ni=1,\dots,N, this is a linear FBSDE with random coefficients for the unknowns (Xi,Yi,(Zi​j)j)(X^{i},Y^{i},(Z^{ij})_{j}) which can be seen to represent the optimality conditions of a linear-quadratic stochastic control problem with random coefficients. The existence of a unique adapted solution is ensured by [55, Theorem 2.2] as soon as the matrices Id+1N​∇2f​(mt∗)I_{d}+\frac{1}{N}\nabla^{2}f(m^{*}_{t}) and Id+1N​∇2g​(mT∗)I_{d}+\frac{1}{N}\nabla^{2}g(m^{*}_{T}) are nonnegative semi-definite, which is the case for NN large enough; notably, the solution can be represented by a backward stochastic Riccati equation.

_Step 2._We next look at the empirical means related to (𝑿,𝒀,𝒁)(\bm{X},\bm{Y},\bm{Z}), namely

and want to show that mN=m∗m^{N}=m^{*}. Indeed, averaging over the components of (18), we find that (mN,ηN,ζN)(m^{N},\eta^{N},\zeta^{N}) solves the system

Such a system is equivalent to the FBSDE (18), hence it admits a unique strong solution. Noticing that (m∗,η∗,ζ∗)(m^{*},\eta^{*},\zeta^{*}) is also a solution to the previous system, we deduce that

which in turn implies that (𝑿,𝒀,𝒁)(\bm{X},\bm{Y},\bm{Z}) is the unique solution to the FBSDE (3).

Step 3. Via a classical fixed point argument, one can construct a Nash equilibrium 𝜶=(α1,…,αN)\bm{\alpha}=(\alpha^{1},...,\alpha^{N}) for a weak formulation of the game; the details are long but standard, and thus are omitted. Then, stochastic maximum principle implies any equilibrium gives a solution to a weak formulation of the FBSDE (3). In light of the previous step, for σ>0\sigma>0 and NN large enough, system (3) admits a unique strong solution and thus the equilibrium is is unique, strong, and given by αi=−Yi\alpha^{i}=-Y^{i} for any i=1,…,Ni=1,...,N.

References

• [1] Y. Achdou, P. Cardaliaguet, F. Delarue, A. Porretta, and F. Santambrogio (2021) Mean field games: cetraro, italy 2019. Vol. 2281, Springer Nature. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1,§1.
• [2] S. Ahuja, W. Ren, and T. Yang (2019) Forward–backward stochastic differential equations with monotone functionals and mean field games with common noise. Stochastic Process. Appl. 129 (10), pp. 3859–3892. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1.
• [3] R. Bafico and P. Baldi (1982) Small random perturbations of peano phenomena. Stochastics 6 (3-4), pp. 279–292. Cited by: §1.1.
• [4] M. Bardi and M. Fischer (2019) On non-uniqueness and uniqueness of solutions in finite-horizon mean field games. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 25, pp. 44. Cited by: §1.1.
• [5] M. Bardi and F. S. Priuli (2014) Linear-quadratic n-person and mean-field games with ergodic cost. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 52 (5), pp. 3022–3052. Cited by: §1.1.
• [6] E. Bayraktar and X. Zhang (2020) On non-uniqueness in mean field games. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 148 (9), pp. 4091–4106. Cited by: §1.1.
• [7] A. Bensoussan, K. J. Sung, S. C. P. Yam, and S. Yung (2016) Linear-quadratic mean field games. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 169 (2), pp. 496–529. Cited by: §1.1.
• [8] P. Billingsley (1999) Convergence of probability measures. 2nd edition, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Probability and Statistics, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. Cited by: §3.
• [9] A. Briani and P. Cardaliaguet (2018) Stable solutions in potential mean field game systems. Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications NoDEA 25 (1), pp. 1. Cited by: §1.1.
• [10] L. Campi, F. Cannerozzi, and F. Cartellier (2025) Coarse correlated equilibria in linear quadratic mean field games and application to an emission abatement game. Applied Mathematics & Optimization 91 (1), pp. 8. Cited by: §1.1.
• [11] P. Cannarsa and H. Frankowska (1996) Value function and optimality condition for semilinear control problems. ii: parabolic case. Applied Mathematics and Optimization 33 (1), pp. 1–33. Cited by: §2.3.
• [12] P. Cannarsa and C. Sinestrari (2004) Semiconcave functions, hamilton-jacobi equations, and optimal control. Vol. 58, Springer Science & Business Media. Cited by: §2.3,§2.3.
• [13] F. Cannerozzi and G. Ferrari (2026) Cooperation, correlation, and competition in ergodic n-player games and mean-field games of singular controls: a case study. Mathematics of Operations Research. Cited by: §1.1.
• [14] P. Cardaliaguet, F. Delarue, J. Lasry, and P. Lions (2019) The Master Equation and the Convergence Problem in Mean Field Games. Annals of Mathematics Studies, Princeton University Press. Cited by: §1.1,§1.
• [15] P. Cardaliaguet and F. Delarue (2022) Selected topics in mean field games. In Proc. Int. Cong. Math, Vol. 5, pp. 3660–3703. Cited by: §1.1,§1.
• [16] P. Cardaliaguet, J. Jackson, N. Mimikos-Stamatopoulos, and P. E. Souganidis (2023) Sharp convergence rates for mean field control in the region of strong regularity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11373. Cited by: §1.1.
• [17] P. Cardaliaguet and P. E. Souganidis (2023) Regularity of the value function and quantitative propagation of chaos for mean field control problems. Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications NoDEA 30 (2), pp. 25. Cited by: §1.1.
• [18] R. Carmona, F. Delarue, and D. Lacker (2016) Mean field games with common noise. Ann. Probab. 44 (6), pp. 3740–3803. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1.
• [19] R. Carmona, F. Delarue, and D. Lacker (2017) Mean field games of timing and models for bank runs. Appl. Math. Optim. 76 (1), pp. 217–260. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1.
• [20] R. Carmona and F. Delarue (2013) Probabilistic analysis of mean-field games. SIAM J. Control Optim. 51 (4), pp. 2705–2734. Cited by: §1.1,§1.
• [21] R. Carmona and F. Delarue (2015) Forward–backward stochastic differential equations and controlled McKean–Vlasov dynamics. Ann. Probab. 43 (5), pp. 2647–2700. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1.
• [22] R. Carmona and F. Delarue (2018) Probabilistic theory of mean field games with applications i-ii. Springer. Cited by: §1,§2.1,§2.3,§3,§4,Remark 6.
• [23] A. Cecchin and F. Delarue (2021) Selection by vanishing common noise for potential finite state mean field games. Communications in Partial Differential Equations, pp. 1–76. Cited by: §1.1.
• [24] A. Cecchin and F. Delarue (2025) Weak solutions to the master equation of potential mean field games. Vol. 315, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society. Cited by: §1.1.
• [25] A. Cecchin, P. D. Pra, M. Fischer, and G. Pelino (2019) On the convergence problem in mean field games: a two state model without uniqueness. SIAM J. Control Optim. 57 (4), pp. 2443–2466. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1,§1.1.
• [26] M. Cirant and D. F. Redaelli (2025) Some remarks on linear-quadratic closed-loop games with many players. Dynamic Games and Applications 15 (2), pp. 558–591. Cited by: §1.1.
• [27] F. Delarue and F. Flandoli (2014) The transition point in the zero noise limit for a 1d peano example. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems-Series A 34, pp. 4071–4084. Cited by: §1.1.
• [28] F. Delarue and M. Maurelli (2019) Zero noise limit for multidimensional sdes driven by a pointy gradient. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08702. Cited by: §1.1.
• [29] F. Delarue and R. F. Tchuendom (2020) Selection of equilibria in a linear quadratic mean-field game. Stochastic Process. Appl. 130 (2), pp. 1000–1040. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1,§1.1,§1.1,§1.2,§2.1,Remark 1,Example 14,Example 14.
• [30] F. Delarue (2002) On the existence and uniqueness of solutions to FBSDEs in a non-degenerate case. Stochastic Process. Appl. 99 (2), pp. 209–286. Cited by: §A.1.
• [31] F. Delarue (2019) Restoring uniqueness to mean-field games by randomizing the equilibria. Stochastics and Partial Differential Equations: Analysis and Computations 7 (4), pp. 598–678. Cited by: §1.1.
• [32] J. Dianetti, S. Federico, G. Ferrari, and G. Floccari (2025) Multiple equilibria in mean-field game models of firm competition with strategic complementarities. Quant. Finance, pp. 1–15. Cited by: §1.1.
• [33] J. Dianetti, G. Ferrari, M. Fischer, and M. Nendel (2021) Submodular mean field games: Existence and approximation of solutions. Ann. Appl. Probab. 31 (6), pp. 2538–2566. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1,§5.2.
• [34] J. Dianetti, G. Ferrari, M. Fischer, and M. Nendel (2023) A unifying framework for submodular mean field games. Math. Oper. Res. 48 (3), pp. 1679–1710. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1.
• [35] J. Dianetti (2025) Strong solutions to submodular mean field games with common noise and related McKean–Vlasov FBSDEs. Ann. Appl. Probab. 35 (3), pp. 1622–1667. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1,§1.1.
• [36] M. F. Djete (2023) Large population games with interactions through controls and common noise: convergence results and equivalence between open-loop and closed-loop controls. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations 29, pp. 39. Cited by: §1.1.
• [37] M. Fischer (2017) On the connection between symmetric n-player games and mean field games. Ann. Appl. Probab. 27 (2), pp. 757–810. Cited by: §1.1.
• [38] W. Gangbo, A. R. Mészáros, C. Mou, and J. Zhang (2022) Mean field games master equations with nonseparable Hamiltonians and displacement monotonicity. Ann. Probab. 50 (6), pp. 2178 – 2217. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1.
• [39] W. Gangbo and A. R. Mészáros (2022) Global well-posedness of master equations for deterministic displacement convex potential mean field games. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 75 (12), pp. 2685–2801. Cited by: §1.1.
• [40] P. J. Graber (2025) Remarks on potential mean field games. Research in the Mathematical Sciences 12 (1), pp. 1–29. Cited by: §1.1,§1.
• [41] X. Guo, X. Li, and Y. Zhang (2025) An α\alpha-potential game framework for NN-player dynamic games. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 63 (4), pp. 2964–3005. Cited by: §1.1.
• [42] X. Guo, X. Li, and Y. Zhang (2025) Distributed games with jumps: An α\alpha-potential game approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01929. Cited by: §1.1.
• [43] M. Huang, R. P. Malhamé, and P. E. Caines (2006) Large population stochastic dynamic games: closed-loop McKean-Vlasov systems and the Nash certainty equivalence principle. Commun. Inf. Syst. 6 (3), pp. 221–252. Cited by: §1.1,§1,§1.
• [44] M. Huang and X. Yang (2021) Linear quadratic mean field games: decentralized o (1/n)-nash equilibria. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity 34 (5), pp. 2003–2035. Cited by: §1.1.
• [45] N. V. Krylov (1996) Lectures on elliptic and parabolic equations in holder spaces. Vol. 12, American Mathematical Soc.. Cited by: §2.2.
• [46] D. Lacker and L. Le Flem (2023) Closed-loop convergence for mean field games with common noise. Ann. Appl. Probab. 33 (4), pp. 2681–2733. Cited by: §1.1.
• [47] D. Lacker (2015) Mean field games via controlled martingale problems: Existence of Markovian equilibria. Stochastic Process. Appl. 125 (7), pp. 2856–2894. Cited by: §1.1.
• [48] D. Lacker (2016) A general characterization of the mean field limit for stochastic differential games. Probab. Theory Related Fields 165, pp. 581–648. Cited by: §1.1,item 2.
• [49] J. Lasry and P. Lions (2007) Mean field games. Jpn. J. Math. 2 (1), pp. 229–260. Cited by: §1.1,§1.1,§1.
• [50] M. Laurière and L. Tangpi (2022) Convergence of large population games to mean field games with interaction through the controls. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 54 (3), pp. 3535–3574. Cited by: §1.1.
• [51] M. Li, C. Mou, Z. Wu, and C. Zhou (2023) Linear-quadratic mean field games of controls with non-monotone data. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 376 (06), pp. 4105–4143. Cited by: §1.1,Remark 1.
• [52] C. Mou and J. Zhang (2024) Mean field game master equations with anti-monotonicity conditions. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS). Cited by: §1.1.
• [53] C. Mou and J. Zhang (2024) Minimal solutions of master equations for extended mean field games. J. Math. Pures Appl. 184, pp. 190–217. Cited by: §1.1.
• [54] C. Mou and J. Zhang (2024) Wellposedness of second order master equations for mean field games with nonsmooth data. Vol. 302, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society. Cited by: §1.1.
• [55] S. Tang (2003) General linear quadratic optimal stochastic control problems with random coefficients: linear stochastic hamilton systems and backward stochastic riccati equations. SIAM journal on control and optimization 42 (1), pp. 53–75. Cited by: §A.2.
• [56] R. F. Tchuendom (2018) Uniqueness for linear-quadratic mean field games with common noise. Dyn. Games Appl. 8 (1), pp. 199–210. Cited by: §1.1,§2.1.
• [57] D. Trevisan (2013) Zero noise limits using local times. Electronic Communications in Probability 18. Cited by: §1.1.
• [58] J. Yong (1999) Linear forward—backward stochastic differential equations. Applied Mathematics and Optimization 39 (1), pp. 93–119. Cited by: §A.1.