2212.07014
Distributed Prediction-Correction Algorithms for Time-Varying Nash Equilibrium Tracking
Ziqin Chen, Ji Ma, Peng Yi, Yiguang Hong
correctmedium confidence
- Category
- Not specified
- Journal tier
- Specialist/Solid
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The candidate reproduces the paper’s Theorem 1 bound ||x_k - x*(t_k)|| ≤ C1 γ^k + C2 h^2 under the same hypotheses, using the same two-phase recursion (k<q and k≥q), the same choices of A,B,D, the same feasibility condition ρ^τ((q+1)/(qγ) + 1/(qγ^{q+1})) ≤ 1, and the same closed-form C2 = c2 √N q(q+1) ρ^τ / (2q - 2ρ^τ(q+2)) as in the paper’s statement and proof. The only minor discrepancy is that the model includes an unnecessary h^2 term in the k<q initialization, but it does not affect correctness. Importantly, the paper contains a conceptual slip in writing ẋ*(t) = F^t(x*(t)) when F^t(x*(t))=0 by definition of NE; however, the key O(h^2) predictor error bound can be justified directly from Assumption 1 (bounded ẍ*(t)), so the main result remains correct. Overall: same argument structure and result; paper needs a small fix in the motivation of Lemma 2. See Theorem 1 with (14)–(16) and Lemmas 2–3 in the paper, and the induction step (18) for the recursion closure .
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions \textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid \textbf{Justification:} The contribution provides a discrete-time distributed prediction–correction scheme for tracking time-varying Nash equilibria with a rigorous, explicit tracking bound, and a clear accuracy–iteration trade-off. The main analysis (Lemmas 2–3 and Theorem 1) is sound, but the paper contains a small conceptual misstatement in the predictor motivation (using ẋ*(t)=F\^t(x*(t)) despite F\^t(x*(t))=0). This does not undermine the main result because the O(h\^2) term can be justified directly from bounded ẍ*(t) via Taylor expansion. With this fix, the work is publishable.