Back to search
2407.18400

Phase transition in a kinetic mean-field game model of inertial self-propelled agents

Piyush Grover, Mandy Huo

incompletemedium confidence
Category
Not specified
Journal tier
Strong Field
Processed
Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM

Audit review

The paper’s stability proof hinges on claiming that the non-Hamiltonian linearization N and a symmetrized Hamiltonian matrix Ns have the same characteristic equation and therefore are similar, i.e., Ns = P^{-1} N P. Having identical spectra does not, by itself, imply similarity; additional conditions (e.g., diagonalizability with matched Jordan structure) are missing. This gap affects the subsequent change of variables using P in Lemma 1. The rest of the argument (CARE, invariant graph, decay on the stable subspace, and uniqueness under invertibility of P11+P12X+) is otherwise standard and well-aligned with Riccati/invariant subspace theory. The candidate solution treats the similarity as an explicit hypothesis and then completes a correct, standard proof via the invariant graph subspace; thus, under that assumption, the model solution is correct. Key elements such as the BVP setup and the role of the stabilizing Riccati solution match the paper’s framework (e.g., the BVP and block structure of N, Theorem 1, and the uniqueness condition) .

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} major revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} strong field

\textbf{Justification:}

The work makes a useful connection between kinetic MFG stability and Hamiltonian/Riccati methods and presents compelling numerics. However, the theoretical proof has a central gap: it claims similarity of N and a symmetrized Hamiltonian Ns from equality of characteristic equations. Without additional hypotheses (e.g., diagonalizability with matched Jordan structure) or replacing the step by an explicit assumption, the existence/uniqueness result for the BVP is not fully justified. Addressing this point and clarifying the uniqueness condition would elevate the work to a solid contribution.