meetings_fall_2026
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| meetings_fall_2026 [2026/09/10 20:31] – avornor | meetings_fall_2026 [2026/10/17 01:51] (current) – asjensen | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| | August 26 | Organizational Meeting | | | | | | August 26 | Organizational Meeting | | | | | ||
| | September 2 | Vertex-Minimal Subgraphs with K_n Minors | David Hathaway | Kansas State University | [[# | | September 2 | Vertex-Minimal Subgraphs with K_n Minors | David Hathaway | Kansas State University | [[# | ||
| - | | September 9 | Computing Generalized Nash Equilibria with Quasi-Linear Constraints | + | | September 9 | Computing Generalized Nash Equilibria with Quasi-Linear Constraints| Jiyoung Choi | Kansas State University |[[# |
| - | | Jiyoung Choi | Kansas State University | | | + | | September 16 | The Scaling Limit of Fair Peano Paths| Pietro Poggi-Corradini | Kansas State University |[[# |
| - | | September 16 | Notes on the Transfer-Impedance matrix.| Pietro Poggi-Corradini | Kansas State University | | + | | September 23 | The Scaling Limit of Fair Peano Paths | Pietro Poggi-Corradini | Kansas State University | [[# |
| - | | + | |
| - | | September 23 | TBA | Pietro Poggi-Corradini | Kansas State University | | | + | |
| | September 30 | Duality for the Dirichlet and Thomson problems on networks | Andrew Jensen | Kansas State University | | | | September 30 | Duality for the Dirichlet and Thomson problems on networks | Andrew Jensen | Kansas State University | | | ||
| - | | October 7 | | | | | | + | | October 7 | **No Meeting** |
| - | | October 14 | | | | | | + | | October 14 | **No Meeting** |
| - | | October 21 | | | | | | + | | October 21 | | Joan Lind | University of Tennessee, Knoxville |
| | October 28 | | | | | | | October 28 | | | | | | ||
| | November 4 | | | | | | | November 4 | | | | | | ||
| | November 11 | | | | | | | November 11 | | | | | | ||
| | November 18 | | | | | | | November 18 | | | | | | ||
| - | | November 25 | **No Meeting | + | | November 25 | **No Meeting** | | | | |
| - | | December 2 | | | | | | + | | December 2 | | Manisha Garg | University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign |
| - | | December 9 | | | | | | + | | December 9 | | Sylvester Eriksson-Bique |
| ===== Abstracts ===== | ===== Abstracts ===== | ||
| Line 29: | Line 27: | ||
| - | ===== Abstracts ===== | ||
| ==== September 9 ==== | ==== September 9 ==== | ||
| Generalized Nash equilibrium problems describe strategic interactions in which each player’s feasible choices may depend on the other players’ decisions. In this talk, I will present an algorithm for games with polynomial objectives and constraints that are linear in each player’s own strategy. The key idea is to use Carathéodory’s theorem and partial Lagrange multiplier expressions to decompose the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) set into simpler subsets, leading to a collection of polynomial optimization problems. I will explain how the algorithm identifies equilibrium candidates and verifies them in the nonconvex setting, and discuss conditions under which it can find all equilibria or detect their nonexistence. Time permitting, I will discuss global optimization methods for solving the polynomial optimization problems arising in this approach. | Generalized Nash equilibrium problems describe strategic interactions in which each player’s feasible choices may depend on the other players’ decisions. In this talk, I will present an algorithm for games with polynomial objectives and constraints that are linear in each player’s own strategy. The key idea is to use Carathéodory’s theorem and partial Lagrange multiplier expressions to decompose the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) set into simpler subsets, leading to a collection of polynomial optimization problems. I will explain how the algorithm identifies equilibrium candidates and verifies them in the nonconvex setting, and discuss conditions under which it can find all equilibria or detect their nonexistence. Time permitting, I will discuss global optimization methods for solving the polynomial optimization problems arising in this approach. | ||
| - | ===== Abstracts ===== | + | |
| ==== September 16 ==== | ==== September 16 ==== | ||
| - | This summer I started collecting some notes on this fascinating topic. I will start from the beginning and lay down the basic definitions, | + | We study random Peano paths on planar square grids that arise from fair random spanning trees. These are trees that are sampled in such a way as to have the same (if possible) edge probabilities. |
| + | In particular, we are interested in identifying the scaling limit as the mesh-size of the grid tends to zero. | ||
| + | It is known that if the trees are sampled uniformly, then the scaling limit exists | ||
| + | [lawler-schramm-werner2002], | ||
| + | then fair Peano paths have a deterministic scaling limit. We end by describing a different approach that is conjectured to have a non-deterministic scaling. | ||
meetings_fall_2026.1789072271.txt.gz · Last modified: by avornor
