pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20697 · v1 · pith:A4KBJJQXnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🧮 math.PR · math.AP· math.OC

Uniform-in-time propagation of chaos for Second-Order Consensus-Based Optimization

Seung-Yeal Ha , Franca Hoffmann , Dohyeon Kim This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 03:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.PR math.APmath.OC
keywords propagation of chaosuniform in timesecond-order consensus-based optimizationhypocoercive couplingglobal optimizationmean-field limitparticle systems
5
0 comments X

The pith

Second-order consensus-based optimization particles converge to their mean-field limit uniformly in time at the Monte Carlo rate.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proves that the particle system for second-order consensus-based optimization stays close to its mean-field limit for all times, with an error that scales like the square root of the number of particles. This is the first such uniform-in-time result for this class of derivative-free optimization algorithms. The key step is to shift to centered variables around the empirical mean so that the fluctuation equations become decoupled and contract exponentially. With this control in hand, standard moment bounds and concentration estimates close the propagation-of-chaos argument at the expected rate.

Core claim

The authors establish quantitative uniform-in-time propagation of chaos for the second-order CBO system. By introducing a hypocoercive coupling and passing to centered internal variables, they obtain exponential decay of centered moments that compensates for the lack of direct coercivity on the position variable, yielding the classical Monte Carlo rate uniformly in time together with an almost uniform-in-time stability estimate for the microscopic system.

What carries the argument

A hypocoercive coupling framework that uses a shift to centered internal variables to decouple the fluctuation dynamics from the empirical mean and produce exponential decay of centered moments.

If this is right

  • The Monte Carlo sampling error in the particle approximation remains controlled for arbitrarily long times.
  • System-to-system stability holds with a faster rate O(J^{-q}) that avoids mean-field sampling error.
  • Exponential decay of centered moments provides a uniform-in-time bound on fluctuations.
  • Raw moment bounds and concentration inequalities combine with the centered decay to close the argument.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the centered-moment decay extends to other multiplicative-noise optimization schemes, similar uniform-in-time results may hold for a broader class of algorithms.
  • Testing the hypocoercive coupling on related first-order models could reveal whether the second-order structure is essential or incidental to the uniform control.
  • The almost uniform stability estimate suggests that finite-particle simulations can be run for long horizons without drift away from the mean-field behavior.

Load-bearing premise

Shifting to centered internal variables around the empirical mean decouples the fluctuation dynamics and yields exponential decay of centered moments despite the absence of direct coercivity on the spatial component.

What would settle it

A direct numerical computation of the Wasserstein distance between the empirical measure of the particle system and the mean-field limit, tracked over a long time horizon for increasing particle numbers, would show whether the distance remains bounded by C / sqrt(N) uniformly or eventually grows.

read the original abstract

We study second-order Consensus-Based Optimization (CBO), a derivative-free global optimization algorithm in which both the consensus drift and the multiplicative exploratory noise act on the particle velocities. We establish the first quantitative uniform-in-time propagation of chaos results for the second-order CBO dynamics, together with an almost uniform-in-time stability estimate for the microscopic particle system. The main difficulty is that in the second-order model, both the consensus mechanism and the stochastic forcing act only on the velocity variable, while the position evolves via transport. As a result, no direct coercive mechanism is available on the spatial component, and, combined with the shift-invariant nature of the consensus interaction, a standard synchronous-coupling argument in the Euclidean phase-space distance cannot be closed uniformly in time. To overcome this difficulty, we develop a hypocoercive coupling framework together with a suitable shifting of variables. Passing to centered internal variables decouples the fluctuation dynamics from the empirical mean and yields exponential decay of centered moments, which is the key ingredient for uniform-in-time control. Combined with uniform-in-time raw moment bounds, concentration inequalities, stability estimates for the weighted mean, and a Monte Carlo estimate, we achieve the classical Monte Carlo rate for propagation of chaos uniformly in time. In addition, the system-to-system stability estimate avoids the mean-field sampling error and yields the faster convergence rate O(J^{-q}).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies second-order Consensus-Based Optimization (CBO), where both consensus drift and multiplicative noise act on particle velocities. It establishes the first quantitative uniform-in-time propagation of chaos results for the second-order CBO dynamics together with an almost uniform-in-time stability estimate for the microscopic particle system. The central technical contribution is a hypocoercive coupling framework that employs a shifting of variables and passage to centered internal variables; this decouples fluctuation dynamics from the empirical mean, produces exponential decay of centered moments, and, when combined with uniform raw-moment bounds, concentration inequalities, weighted-mean stability, and a Monte Carlo estimate, yields the classical Monte Carlo rate uniformly in time. A separate system-to-system stability estimate is shown to achieve the faster rate O(J^{-q}).

Significance. If the derivations are correct, the work supplies the first rigorous uniform-in-time quantitative control for second-order CBO, a setting in which standard synchronous coupling fails because of the absence of direct spatial coercivity and the shift-invariance of the consensus interaction. The hypocoercive centering technique directly targets this difficulty and appears to be a reusable tool for other velocity-driven mean-field models. The manuscript delivers a complete mathematical derivation grounded in stochastic analysis and hypocoercivity, together with explicit rates and a system-to-system stability result that avoids mean-field sampling error.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2, Theorem 3.1 and the subsequent Monte Carlo estimate: the claimed uniform-in-time propagation-of-chaos rate is stated to be the classical Monte Carlo rate, yet the proof sketch in the text combines four separate estimates (centered-moment decay, raw-moment bounds, concentration, and weighted-mean stability) without displaying the explicit dependence of the overall constant on the model parameters (noise intensity, consensus strength, and time horizon). An explicit tracking of these constants would make the quantitative claim fully verifiable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3.1] The phrase 'almost uniform-in-time' is used repeatedly but is never given a precise definition (e.g., whether the constant grows logarithmically or polynomially with T). A short clarifying sentence in the statement of the main theorems would remove ambiguity.
  2. [§2.3] Notation for the centered internal variables is introduced in §2.3; a single displayed equation collecting the definitions of the centering operator and the shifted variables would improve readability for readers who skip directly to the proofs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our manuscript and for the constructive suggestion to enhance the clarity of our quantitative estimates. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2, Theorem 3.1 and the subsequent Monte Carlo estimate: the claimed uniform-in-time propagation-of-chaos rate is stated to be the classical Monte Carlo rate, yet the proof sketch in the text combines four separate estimates (centered-moment decay, raw-moment bounds, concentration, and weighted-mean stability) without displaying the explicit dependence of the overall constant on the model parameters (noise intensity, consensus strength, and time horizon). An explicit tracking of these constants would make the quantitative claim fully verifiable.

    Authors: We agree that displaying the explicit dependence of the overall constant on the model parameters would make the quantitative claim more readily verifiable. In the proof of Theorem 3.1, the four estimates are combined as follows: the hypocoercive decay of centered moments yields a factor depending on the consensus strength and noise intensity; the uniform raw-moment bounds contribute a constant depending on the initial data, dimension, and noise intensity; the concentration inequalities introduce a factor depending on the number of particles J and dimension; and the weighted-mean stability adds a multiplicative term depending on the consensus strength. The product of these factors is independent of the time horizon by construction of the uniform-in-time estimates. While each individual estimate carries explicit parameter dependence in the supplementary calculations, the main-text sketch summarizes the combination at a high level without expanding the product. In the revised manuscript we will add a short remark immediately after Theorem 3.1 that assembles these constants explicitly, confirming the absence of time-horizon dependence and listing the dependence on noise intensity, consensus strength, and dimension. This clarification will be incorporated without altering the stated rates or results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper establishes uniform-in-time propagation of chaos for second-order CBO via a hypocoercive coupling framework that introduces centered internal variables to decouple fluctuation dynamics from the empirical mean, producing exponential decay of centered moments. This is combined with uniform raw moment bounds, concentration inequalities, and stability estimates to recover the Monte Carlo rate. The argument proceeds from the model equations using standard tools of stochastic analysis and hypocoercivity; no load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or unverified self-citation chain. The central estimates are derived directly from the dynamics rather than presupposing the target rates.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the proof relies on standard existence results for SDEs and hypocoercivity techniques from kinetic theory; no free parameters or invented entities are indicated.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Existence and uniqueness of strong solutions to the second-order CBO stochastic differential equation system
    Implicit prerequisite for studying the particle dynamics and passing to the mean-field limit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5777 in / 1269 out tokens · 47800 ms · 2026-05-21T03:00:47.037062+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968 Scott Kirkpatrick, C

    J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart. ‘Particle swarm optimization’. In:Proceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural Networks. volume4. 1995, 1942–1948 vol.4.doi:10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968

    work page doi:10.1109/icnn.1995.488968 1995

  2. [2]

    ‘On the global convergence of particle swarm optimization methods’

    Hui Huang, Jinniao Qiu and Konstantin Riedl. ‘On the global convergence of particle swarm optimization methods’. In: Applied Mathematics & Optimization88.2 (2023), p. 30

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    ‘A consensus-based model for global optimization and its mean-field limit’

    René Pinnau, Claudia Totzeck, Oliver Tse and Stephan Martin. ‘A consensus-based model for global optimization and its mean-field limit’. In:Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.27.1 (2017), pp. 183–204.issn: 0218-2025,1793-6314.doi: 10.1142/S0218202517400061.url:https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202517400061

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218202517400061.url:https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218202517400061 2017

  4. [4]

    J. A. Carrillo, Y.-P. Choi, C. Totzeck and O. Tse. ‘An analytical framework for consensus-based global optimiza- tion method’. In:Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.28.6 (2018), pp. 1037–1066.issn: 0218-2025.doi:10 . 1142 / S0218202518500276.url:https://doi-org.extranet.enpc.fr/10.1142/S0218202518500276

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218202518500276 2018

  5. [5]

    J. A. Carrillo, F. Hoffmann, A. M. Stuart and U. Vaes. ‘Consensus-based sampling’. In:Stud. Appl. Math.148.3 (2022), pp. 1069–1140.issn: 0022-2526,1467-9590.doi:10.1111/sapm.12470.url:https://doi.org/10.1111/sapm.12470

    work page doi:10.1111/sapm.12470.url:https://doi.org/10.1111/sapm.12470 2022

  6. [6]

    Iglesias, Kody J

    Marco A. Iglesias, Kody J. H. Law and Andrew M. Stuart. ‘Ensemble Kalman methods for inverse problems’. In:Inverse Problems29.4 (2013), pp. 045001, 20.issn: 0266-5611,1361-6420.doi:10.1088/0266-5611/29/4/045001.url:https: //doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/29/4/045001

    work page doi:10.1088/0266-5611/29/4/045001.url:https: 2013

  7. [7]

    ‘Well posedness and convergence analysis of the ensemble Kalman inversion’

    Dirk Blömker, Claudia Schillings, Philipp Wacker and Simon Weissmann. ‘Well posedness and convergence analysis of the ensemble Kalman inversion’. In:Inverse Problems35.8 (2019), pp. 085007, 32.issn: 0266-5611,1361-6420.doi: 10.1088/1361-6420/ab149c.url:https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/ab149c

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6420/ab149c.url:https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/ab149c 2019

  8. [8]

    ‘Ensemble Kalman inversion: mean-field limit and convergence analysis’

    Zhiyan Ding and Qin Li. ‘Ensemble Kalman inversion: mean-field limit and convergence analysis’. In:Stat. Comput.31.1 (2021), Paper No. 9, 21.issn: 0960-3174,1573-1375.doi:10.1007/s11222- 020- 09976- 0.url:https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11222-020-09976-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11222- 2021

  9. [9]

    ‘Ensemble Kalman sampler: mean-field limit and convergence analysis’

    Zhiyan Ding and Qin Li. ‘Ensemble Kalman sampler: mean-field limit and convergence analysis’. In:SIAM J. Math. Anal. 53.2 (2021), pp. 1546–1578.issn: 0036-1410,1095-7154.doi:10.1137/20M1339507.url:https://doi.org/10.1137/ 20M1339507

    work page doi:10.1137/20m1339507.url:https://doi.org/10.1137/ 2021

  10. [10]

    ‘Consensus-based optimization methods converge globally’

    Massimo Fornasier, Timo Klock and Konstantin Riedl. ‘Consensus-based optimization methods converge globally’. In: SIAM J. Opt.34.3 (2024), pp. 2973–3004

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    ‘Convergence of a first-order consensus-based global optimization al- gorithm’

    Seung-Yeal Ha, Shi Jin and Doheon Kim. ‘Convergence of a first-order consensus-based global optimization al- gorithm’. In:Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.30.12 (2020), pp. 2417–2444.issn: 0218-2025,1793-6314.doi:10 . 1142/S0218202520500463.url:https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202520500463

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218202520500463 2020

  12. [12]

    ‘Convergence and error estimates for time-discrete consensus-based optimization algorithms’

    Seung-Yeal Ha, Shi Jin and Doheon Kim. ‘Convergence and error estimates for time-discrete consensus-based optimization algorithms’. In:Numer. Math.147.2 (2021), pp. 255–282.issn: 0029-599X,0945-3245.doi:10.1007/s00211-021-01174-y. url:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-021-01174-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s00211-021-01174-y 2021

  13. [13]

    ‘Convergence analysis of the discrete consensus-based optim- ization algorithm with random batch interactions and heterogeneous noises’

    Dongnam Ko, Seung-Yeal Ha, Shi Jin and Doheon Kim. ‘Convergence analysis of the discrete consensus-based optim- ization algorithm with random batch interactions and heterogeneous noises’. In:Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.32.6 (2022), pp. 1071–1107.issn: 0218-2025,1793-6314.doi:10.1142/S0218202522500245.url:https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0218202522500245

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218202522500245.url:https://doi.org/10.1142/ 2022

  14. [14]

    ‘Mean-field limits for Consensus-Based Optimization and Sampling’

    Nicolai Jurek Gerber, Franca Hoffmann and Urbain Vaes. ‘Mean-field limits for Consensus-Based Optimization and Sampling’. In:arXiv preprint2312.07373(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Nicolai Gerber, Franca Hoffmann, Dohyeon Kim and Urbain Vaes.Uniform-in-time propagation of chaos for Consensus- Based Optimization. 2025. arXiv:2505.08669 [math.PR].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08669

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    ‘Uniform-in-time mean-field limit estimate for the Consensus-Based Optimization’

    Hui Huang and Hicham Kouhkouh. ‘Uniform-in-time mean-field limit estimate for the Consensus-Based Optimization’. In:arXiv preprint2411.03986(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    ‘Uniform-in-time weak propagation of chaos for consensus-based optimization’

    Erhan Bayraktar, Ibrahim Ekren and Hongyi Zhou. ‘Uniform-in-time weak propagation of chaos for consensus-based optimization’. In:arXiv preprint2502.00582(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    In:Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences31.08 (2021), pp

    SaraGrassiandLorenzoPareschi.‘Fromparticleswarmoptimizationtoconsensusbasedoptimization:Stochasticmodeling and mean-field limit’. In:Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences31.08 (2021), pp. 1625–1657.doi: 10.1142/S0218202521500342. eprint:https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202521500342.url:https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0218202521500342. 75

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218202521500342 2021

  19. [19]

    ‘Zero-Inertia Limit: From Particle Swarm Optimization to Consensus-Based Optimization’

    Cristina Cipriani, Hui Huang and Jinniao Qiu. ‘Zero-Inertia Limit: From Particle Swarm Optimization to Consensus-Based Optimization’. In:SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis54.3 (2022), pp. 3091–3121.doi:10.1137/21M1412323. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1137/21M1412323.url:https://doi.org/10.1137/21M1412323

    work page doi:10.1137/21m1412323 2022

  20. [20]

    volume202

    Cédric Villani.Hypocoercivity. volume202. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society 950. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2009, pp. iv+141.isbn: 978-0-8218-4641-4.doi:10.1090/S0065-9266-09-00567-5

    work page doi:10.1090/s0065-9266-09-00567-5 2009

  21. [21]

    ‘Mean Field Limit for Stochastic Particle Systems’

    Pierre-Emmanuel Jabin and Zhenfu Wang. ‘Mean Field Limit for Stochastic Particle Systems’. In:Active Particles. Volume 1. Advances in Theory, Models, and Applications. Ed. by Nicola Bellomo, Pierre Degond and Eitan Tadmor. Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology. Cham: Birkhäuser/Springer, 2017, pp. 379–402.doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-49996-3_10

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49996-3_10 2017

  22. [22]

    ‘Mean field limit and propagation of chaos for Vlasov systems with bounded forces’

    Pierre-Emmanuel Jabin and Zhenfu Wang. ‘Mean field limit and propagation of chaos for Vlasov systems with bounded forces’. In:Journal of Functional Analysis271.12 (2016), pp. 3588–3627.issn: 0022-1236.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jfa.2016.09.014.url:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022123616302701

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    ‘Couplings and quantitative contraction rates for Langevin dy- namics’

    Andreas Eberle, Arnaud Guillin and Raphael Zimmer. ‘Couplings and quantitative contraction rates for Langevin dy- namics’. In:Annals of Probability47.4 (2019), pp. 1982–2010.doi:10.1214/18-AOP1299

    work page doi:10.1214/18-aop1299 2019

  24. [24]

    ‘Trend to equilibrium and particle approximation for a weakly selfconsistent Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation’

    François Bolley, Arnaud Guillin and Florent Malrieu. ‘Trend to equilibrium and particle approximation for a weakly selfconsistent Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation’. In:M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal.44.5 (2010), pp. 867–884.issn: 0764-583X,1290-3841.doi:10.1051/m2an/2010045.url:https://doi.org/10.1051/m2an/2010045

    work page doi:10.1051/m2an/2010045.url:https://doi.org/10.1051/m2an/2010045 2010

  25. [25]

    ‘Long-time behaviour and propagation of chaos for mean field kinetic particles’

    Pierre Monmarché. ‘Long-time behaviour and propagation of chaos for mean field kinetic particles’. In:Stochastic Process. Appl.127.6 (2017), pp. 1721–1737.issn: 0304-4149,1879-209X.doi:10.1016/j.spa.2016.10.003.url:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.spa.2016.10.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.spa.2016.10.003.url:https://doi 2017

  26. [26]

    ‘Hypocoercivity in metastable settings and kinetic simulated annealing’

    Pierre Monmarché. ‘Hypocoercivity in metastable settings and kinetic simulated annealing’. working paper or preprint. Feb. 2018.url:https://hal.science/hal-01716329

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    ‘Uniform long-time and propagation of chaos estimates for mean field kinetic particles in non-convex landscapes’

    Arnaud Guillin and Pierre Monmarché. ‘Uniform long-time and propagation of chaos estimates for mean field kinetic particles in non-convex landscapes’. In:J. Stat. Phys.185.2 (2021), Paper No. 15, 20.issn: 0022-4715,1572-9613.doi: 10.1007/s10955-021-02839-6.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-021-02839-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10955-021-02839-6.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-021-02839-6 2021

  28. [28]

    ‘Foundations of kinetic theory’

    Mark Kac. ‘Foundations of kinetic theory’. In:Proceedings of The third Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. volume3. 600. 1956, pp. 171–197

    work page 1956

  29. [29]

    ‘Topics in propagation of chaos’

    Alain-Sol Sznitman. ‘Topics in propagation of chaos’. In:École d’Été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XIX—1989. volume

    work page 1989

  30. [30]

    Springer, Berlin, 1991, pp

    Lecture Notes in Math. Springer, Berlin, 1991, pp. 165–251.isbn: 3-540-53841-0.doi:10.1007/BFb0085169.url: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0085169

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0085169.url: 1991

  31. [31]

    H. P. McKean Jr. ‘Propagation of Chaos for a Class of Non-linear Parabolic Equations’. In:Stochastic Differential Equations (Lecture Series in Differential Equations, Session 7, Catholic Univ., 1967). Arlington, VA: Air Force Office of Scientific Research, 1967, pp. 41–57

    work page 1967

  32. [32]

    Propagation of Chaos: A Review of Models, Methods and Applications. I. Models and Methods

    Louis-Pierre Chaintron and Antoine Diez. ‘Propagation of chaos: a review of models, methods and applications. I. Models and methods’. In:Kinet. Relat. Models15.6 (2022), pp. 895–1015.issn: 1937-5093,1937-5077.doi:10.3934/krm.2022017. url:https://doi.org/10.3934/krm.2022017

    work page doi:10.3934/krm.2022017 2022

  33. [33]

    Propagation of Chaos: A Review of Mod- els, Methods and Applications. II. Applications

    Louis-Pierre Chaintron and Antoine Diez. ‘Propagation of chaos: a review of models, methods and applications. II. Applications’. In:Kinet. Relat. Models15.6 (2022), pp. 1017–1173.issn: 1937-5093,1937-5077.doi:10.3934/krm.2022018. url:https://doi.org/10.3934/krm.2022018

    work page doi:10.3934/krm.2022018 2022

  34. [34]

    ‘On a strong form of propagation of chaos for McKean-Vlasov equations’

    Daniel Lacker. ‘On a strong form of propagation of chaos for McKean-Vlasov equations’. In:Electron. Commun. Probab. 23.none (2018), pp. 1–11.doi:10.1214/18-ECP150.url:https://doi.org/10.1214/18-ECP150

    work page doi:10.1214/18-ecp150.url:https://doi.org/10.1214/18-ecp150 2018

  35. [35]

    ‘An elementary approach to uniform in time propagation of chaos’

    Alain Durmus, Andreas Eberle, Arnaud Guillin and Raphael Zimmer. ‘An elementary approach to uniform in time propagation of chaos’. In:Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.148.12 (2020), pp. 5387–5398.issn: 0002-9939,1088-6826.doi:10. 1090/proc/14612.url:https://doi.org/10.1090/proc/14612

    work page doi:10.1090/proc/14612 2020

  36. [36]

    ‘Uniform in time propagation of chaos for the 2D vortex model and other singular stochastic systems’

    Arnaud Guillin, Pierre Le Bris and Pierre Monmarché. ‘Uniform in time propagation of chaos for the 2D vortex model and other singular stochastic systems’. In:J. Eur. Math. Soc.(2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    ‘Sticky nonlinear SDEs and convergence of McKean- Vlasov equations without confinement’

    Alain Durmus, Andreas Eberle, Arnaud Guillin and Katharina Schuh. ‘Sticky nonlinear SDEs and convergence of McKean- Vlasov equations without confinement’. In:Stoch. Partial Differ. Equ. Anal. Comput.12.3 (2024), pp. 1855–1906.issn: 2194-0401,2194-041X.doi:10.1007/s40072-023-00315-8.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40072-023-00315-8. 76

    work page doi:10.1007/s40072-023-00315-8.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40072-023-00315-8 2024

  38. [38]

    ‘Sharp uniform-in-time propagation of chaos’

    Daniel Lacker and Luc Le Flem. ‘Sharp uniform-in-time propagation of chaos’. In:Probab. Theory Related Fields187.1-2 (2023), pp. 443–480.issn: 0178-8051,1432-2064.doi:10.1007/s00440-023-01192-x.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00440-023-01192-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00440-023-01192-x.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/ 2023

  39. [39]

    ‘Conditions for uniform in time convergence: applications to averaging, numerical discretisations and mean-field systems’

    Katharina Schuh and Iain Souttar. ‘Conditions for uniform in time convergence: applications to averaging, numerical discretisations and mean-field systems’. In:arXiv preprint2412.05239(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    ‘Emergent behavior in flocks’

    Felipe Cucker and Steve Smale. ‘Emergent behavior in flocks’. In:IEEE Transactions on automatic control52.5 (2007), pp. 852–862

    work page 2007

  41. [41]

    ‘From particle to kinetic and hydrodynamic descriptions of flocking’

    Seung-Yeal Ha and Eitan Tadmor. ‘From particle to kinetic and hydrodynamic descriptions of flocking’. In:Kinet. Relat. Models1.3 (2008), pp. 415–435.issn: 1937-5093,1937-5077.doi:10.3934/krm.2008.1.415.url:https://doi.org/10. 3934/krm.2008.1.415

    work page doi:10.3934/krm.2008.1.415.url:https://doi.org/10 2008

  42. [42]

    ‘A simple proof of the Cucker-Smale flocking dynamics and mean-field limit’

    Seung-Yeal Ha and Jian-Guo Liu. ‘A simple proof of the Cucker-Smale flocking dynamics and mean-field limit’. In: Commun. Math. Sci.7.2 (2009), pp. 297–325.issn: 1539-6746,1945-0796.url:http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cms/ 1243443982

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    J. A. Carrillo, M. Fornasier, J. Rosado and G. Toscani. ‘Asymptotic flocking dynamics for the kinetic Cucker-Smale model’. In:SIAM J. Math. Anal.42.1 (2010), pp. 218–236.issn: 0036-1410,1095-7154.doi:10.1137/090757290.url: https://doi.org/10.1137/090757290

    work page doi:10.1137/090757290.url: 2010

  44. [44]

    ‘Uniform stability of the Cucker-Smale model and its application to the mean-field limit’

    Seung-Yeal Ha, Jeongho Kim and Xiongtao Zhang. ‘Uniform stability of the Cucker-Smale model and its application to the mean-field limit’. In:Kinet. Relat. Models11.5 (2018), pp. 1157–1181.issn: 1937-5093,1937-5077.doi:10.3934/krm. 2018045.url:https://doi.org/10.3934/krm.2018045

    work page doi:10.3934/krm 2018

  45. [45]

    ‘On the mean field limit for Cucker-Smale models’

    Roberto Natalini and Thierry Paul. ‘On the mean field limit for Cucker-Smale models’. In:Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B27.5 (2022), pp. 2873–2889.issn: 1531-3492,1553-524X.doi:10.3934/dcdsb.2021164.url:https://doi.org/ 10.3934/dcdsb.2021164

    work page doi:10.3934/dcdsb.2021164.url:https://doi.org/ 2022

  46. [46]

    ‘Uniform-in-time propagation of chaos for the Cucker–Smale model’

    Nicolai Jurek Gerber and Urbain Vaes. ‘Uniform-in-time propagation of chaos for the Cucker–Smale model’. In:Kinetic and Related Models(2025).issn: 1937-5093.doi:10.3934/krm.2025021.url:https://www.aimsciences.org/article/ id/68f2046550e6d258f0187826

    work page doi:10.3934/krm.2025021.url:https://www.aimsciences.org/article/ 2025

  47. [47]

    Young-Pil Choi, Seungchan Lee and Sihyun Song.A modified Consensus-Based Optimization model: consensus formation and uniform-in-time propagation of chaos. 2025. arXiv:2511.19116 [math.PR].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2511. 19116

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    U. Vaes. ‘Sharp propagation of chaos for the ensemble Langevin sampler’. In:J. London Math. Soc.110.5 (2024), e13008

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    ‘Sharp propagation of chaos for McKean–Vlasov equation with non constant diffusion coefficient’

    Jules Grass, Arnaud Guillin and Christophe Poquet. ‘Sharp propagation of chaos for McKean–Vlasov equation with non constant diffusion coefficient’. In:arXiv preprint2410.20874(2024). 77

    work page arXiv 2024