Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 26 references

Two-scale criteria for Poincar\'{e} and log-Sobolev inequalities with applications to Markov chain Monte Carlo

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves explicit two-scale criteria under which mixtures and joint distributions inherit Poincaré and log-Sobolev inequalities, and shows how the constants propagate through MCMC algorithms.

desk verdict A genuinely useful two-scale PI/LSI transfer with explicit constants; the core proof is sound, but the exact-HMC scope is left unverified and the theorem hypotheses are stated looser than the proofs require. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.15410 v2 pith:TFPZ462G submitted 2025-09-18 math.PR math.FA

Vishwak Srinivasan This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.FA MSC 60E1560J2226D10
keywords Poincaréinequalitylog-SobolevΦ-Sobolevtwo-scalecriteriamixturedistributionsMarkovchainMonteCarlounadjustedLangevinalgorithmproximalsampler
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes two-scale criteria under which a mixture or joint distribution inherits a Poincaré or log-Sobolev inequality from its constituent parts. If the mixing measure satisfies the inequality with constant $\alpha$, every conditional distribution satisfies it with constant $\beta$, and the conditional score is uniformly controlled in the sense of a variance or moment-generating condition with constant $\bar L$, then the mixture satisfies the same class of inequality with explicit constant $\beta+\alpha\beta\bar L^2$, and the joint distribution satisfies an explicit but more intricate constant. The proof is unified through $\Phi$-Sobolev inequalities, so the variance and entropy cases come from one mechanism rather than separate arguments. The interest for MCMC is that the constants propagate through recursions for the unadjusted Langevin algorithm, the proximal sampler, and exact Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, yielding explicit rates at which the isoperimetric quality of iterates converges.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the $\Phi$-entropy $J_\pi^\Phi[f]=\mathbb{E}_\pi[\Phi(f)]-\Phi(\mathbb{E}_\pi[f])$ and the associated $\Phi$-Sobolev inequality $J_\pi^\Phi[f]\le \frac{\gamma}{2}\mathbb{E}_\pi[\Phi''(f)\Vert\nabla f\Vert^2]$. The proof decomposes the $\Phi$-entropy of a joint or mixture into a conditional term and a marginal term, then bounds the marginal term by estimating the gradient of the conditional expectation with the identity $\nabla_y\log p_{X|Y=y}(x)=\mathbb{E}_{X|Y=y}[\nabla_2G(x,y)]-\nabla_2G(x,y)$ and a variational duality result for $\Phi$-entropies. The Var and MGF conditions are exactly the two estimates needed to control the cross term that couples the conditional score with the test function; choosing $\Phi(t)=t^2$ or $\Phi(t)=t\log t$ makes the general argument specialize to Poincaré or log-Sobolev.

What would settle it

Take scalar Gaussians $\rho=\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_1^2)$ and $P_{X|Y=y}=\mathcal{N}(a y,\sigma_2^2)$. Then $\alpha=\sigma_1^2$, $\beta=\sigma_2^2$, $\bar L^2=a^2/\sigma_2^2$, and the mixture is $\mathcal{N}(0,a^2\sigma_1^2+\sigma_2^2)$, whose exact LSI constant is $a^2\sigma_1^2+\sigma_2^2=\xi$. Checking this identity across parameter ranges tests the constants; any parameter regime where the optimal mixture constant exceeds $\xi$ while the assumptions hold would falsify the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 3.2: for a mixture $\mu$ with mixing measure $\rho$ and conditional distributions $P_{X|Y=y}$, if $\rho$ satisfies a $\Phi$-Sobolev inequality with constant $\alpha$, every $P_{X|Y=y}$ satisfies the same $\Phi$-Sobolev inequality with constant $\beta$, and the conditional score $\nabla_y\log p_{X|Y=y}(x)$ satisfies either the variance bound $\mathbb{E}_{X|Y=y}[\langle u,\nabla_y\log p_{X|Y=y}(X)\rangle^2]\le \bar L^2\|u\|^2$ or its moment-generating analogue, then $\mu$ satisfies the corresponding Poincaré or log-Sobolev inequality with constant $\xi=\beta+\alpha\beta\bar L^2$. The joint-distribution version (Theorem 3.1) carries the same information with the more complicated constant $\zeta$ obtained by optimizing an auxiliary parameter. Choosing $\Phi(t)=t^2$ gives the Poincaré case and $\Phi(t)=t\log t$ gives the log-Sobolev case, so both results are corollaries of one $\Phi$-Sobolev argument. In the applications the score conditions reduce to bounded-score, bounded-score-variance, or Lipschitz-Hessian assumptions, which the paper verifies for the Gaussian conditionals arising in ULA, the proximal sampler, and exact HMC.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every conditional density's sensitivity to its conditioning point is uniformly controlled—its variance, or its exponential tail, is bounded by the same constant for every possible conditioning value—and if this uniformity fails anywhere with positive weight, the proof's cross term is uncontrolled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the unadjusted Langevin algorithm, if $c=\sup_y\|I_d-\eta\nabla^2 V_\star(y)\|_{\mathrm{op}}<1$, the PI/LSI constants of the iterates follow $\alpha^{(k+1)}=2\eta+c^2\alpha^{(k)}$ and converge to the biased limit $2\eta/(1-c^2)$; for $\eta\le 1/\lambda$ this recovers the known bound $\alpha^{(\infty)}\ge 2/\mu$.
  • For the proximal sampler, when the conditional constant satisfies $\beta<\eta$, the LSI constants converge to $\alpha^{(\infty)}=(1/\beta-1/\eta)^{-1}$, and for a $\mu$-strongly convex target this equals $1/\mu$, the constant predicted by strong convexity.
  • For exact HMC with a Gaussian target, the LSI constants of the iterates converge to $1/\lambda_{\min}(M)$, consistent with the unbiased nature of exact HMC.
  • When the conditionals do not depend on $y$, the product measure satisfies $\Phi\mathrm{SI}(\max\{\alpha,\beta\})$ and the convolution satisfies $\Phi\mathrm{SI}(\alpha+\beta)$; the product constant is attained by Gaussian factors.
  • Because PI/LSI control variance and concentration of functionals, these recursions translate directly into an error analysis for plug-in estimators that use $N$ parallel MCMC chains.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Averaged, rather than uniform, control of the score would likely suffice: the proof only needs the cross term controlled in expectation over $\rho$, so a mean-version of Var or MGF might replace the uniform condition at the cost of a different constant.
  • The linear-Gaussian calculation suggests the mixture bound $\xi=\beta+\alpha\beta\bar L^2$ is sharp in the linear case; a natural extension is to ask whether the same transfer constant is optimal for the joint theorem and for non-Gaussian conditionals near the Gaussian regime.
  • A practical diagnostic for MCMC use is to track the pointwise Fisher information $\mathbb{E}_{X|Y=y}\Vert\nabla_y\log p_{X|Y=y}(X)\Vert^2$ along a chain; the theory predicts the usable PI/LSI constant degrades with its supremum, so when that supremum grows the theorem's guarantee becomes vacuous even if each conditional is individually well behaved.
  • The same $\Phi$-entropy decomposition might transfer two-scale criteria to other inequalities in the Beckner family, but the direct duality route fails there because both duality terms are nonzero; a new estimate for the second term would be needed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops two-scale sufficient conditions under which a joint distribution ν(x,y)=P_{X|Y=y}(x)ρ(y) or its mixture μ(x)=∫P_{X|Y=y}(x)dρ(y) satisfies a Poincaré or log-Sobolev inequality, given that the mixing measure ρ and each conditional P_{X|Y=y} satisfy the relevant inequality. The conditions are a variance bound (Var) on the conditional score for the Poincaré case and a sub-Gaussian moment bound (MGF) on the same score for the log-Sobolev case. The proofs are carried out in the framework of Φ-Sobolev inequalities, using a duality inequality for Φ-entropies and Young/Cauchy-Schwarz estimates. The paper then applies the two-scale criteria to the unadjusted Langevin algorithm, the proximal sampler, and exact Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, deriving explicit recursions for the isoperimetric constants and, in some cases, their biased or unbiased limits.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a unified and elementary proof of previously known two-scale transfer results (Otto-Reznikoff, Mou et al., Ge et al.) and adds a new sub-Gaussian criterion for log-Sobolev transfer. The constants in Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 are explicit and parameter-free, and the recursions for ULA and the proximal sampler reproduce known rates with a concise argument. The proof of Proposition 5.4 and its instantiations are carefully written and appear algebraically sound. However, the advertised scope is broader than what is actually verified: the exact HMC application is only carried out in the Gaussian case, and one auxiliary sufficient condition is promised to be deferred to an appendix that does not contain it. These issues do not invalidate the central transfer theorem, but they limit the paper's claims of covering a 'variety of Markov chains'.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Var case 3] The manuscript states that Var holds under a β-bounded variation condition and says 'We include details about this in the appendix.' The appendix (Section A) contains only Definitions A.1 and A.2 and Hoeffding's lemma; it does not discuss any β-bounded variation condition. This explicit promise to the reader is unfulfilled and should be either implemented or removed.
  2. [Section 4.1.3 / Abstract] The abstract claims that the proposed criteria 'are satisfied by a variety of Markov chains, and consequently allows us to characterise the evolution of these functional inequalities for iterates generated by simulating these Markov chains.' The exact HMC application in Section 4.1.3, however, states that Var 'is hard to check in general' and only verifies the Gaussian case. The abstract therefore overstates the verified scope; it should be qualified to the ULA and proximal sampler applications, which are fully verified under their stated conditions.
  3. [Section 3.1, MGF case 2] The claim that σ-sub-Gaussianity in the sense of Definition A.2 implies Var with Lbar = 2σ is not correct. From the defining inequality E exp(λ⟨u,Z−EZ⟩) ≤ exp(λ²σ²/2), differentiating twice at λ=0 gives E[⟨u,Z−EZ⟩²] ≤ σ², so the correct implication is Lbar = σ. The factor 2σ should be corrected.
  4. [Theorems 3.1-3.2 / Section 5] The proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 additionally assume that Φ is of Legendre type, that 1/Φ'' is concave, and that the range of Φ' is R, whereas the theorem statements only say 'Let Φ : S → R be a twice differentiable convex function' and 'specified later.' Although the two instantiated choices satisfy the extra conditions, the statements should either include the extra hypotheses or explicitly note that the proofs are only carried out for the two displayed choices of Φ. The phrase 'specified later' is confusing.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'phenomemon' in the Introduction, 'time-homoegeneous' in Section 4.1.3, 'A clean error analysis' in the Abstract, and 'Principled' where 'principal' is likely intended. The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Section 5.2] The first sentence of the proof of Theorem 3.2 says 'We would like to show that J^Φ_ν[ψ] ≤ ...', but the theorem concerns the mixture measure μ; it should read J^Φ_μ[ψ].
  3. [Section 4.1.2] After the proximal sampler recursion, the convergence condition is stated as 'β < η^3' in the text, but the preceding line and the subsequent analysis use the condition β/η < 1, i.e., β < η. The appearance of η^3 appears to be a typographical error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the two-scale transfer theorems are conditional results whose hypotheses and conclusions are distinct and whose applications verify the criteria independently.

full rationale

The paper's central results are conditional transfer theorems, not disguised definitions or fitted predictions. Theorem 3.2 assumes that the marginal rho satisfies PhiSI(alpha), that every conditional P_{X|Y=y} satisfies PhiSI(beta), and that either the variance criterion (Var) or the moment-generating criterion (MGF) holds with constant Lbar; it then concludes that the mixture mu satisfies PI(beta+alpha*beta*Lbar^2) or LSI(beta+alpha*beta*Lbar^2), respectively. The conclusion is explicitly expressed in terms of the assumed constants, and the proof in Section 5.2 bounds the two decomposition terms T1 and T2 directly from the assumptions, while the cross term is controlled by (Var) or (MGF) together with the conditional PhiSI constant beta. No parameter is fitted to the desired conclusion, and no equation is used as both an assumption and a derived result. The sufficient conditions in Section 3.1 are separate verifications: for example, boundedness of the score, bounded conditional variance of the score, or Lipschitz continuity of x -> grad_2 G combined with PI or LSI of the conditionals are shown to imply (Var) or (MGF), and these implications are not the target inequality. In the applications, the criteria are checked through Gaussianity for ULA and the proximal forward step, through Lipschitz-plus-LSI for the proximal backward step, and through Gaussian calculations for exact HMC. The recursion formulas in Section 4 apply Theorem 3.2 iteratively; they do not invert the theorem to fit constants. The paper's own caveat that (Var) 'is hard to check in general' for exact HMC is an acknowledged scope limitation, not a circular step. The references to prior work, including Chen and Vempala's Theorem 3 for conditional PI of exact HMC, are external evidence rather than self-citations; the paper's author does not cite his own prior work as the source of any load-bearing premise. Consequently, the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that no claimed prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theorems are conditional: their output is an inequality transfer given assumed isoperimetric inequalities for ρ and each P_y, plus the Var or MGF score bounds. The proof also relies on standard convex duality and regularity for differentiating under the integral. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Lbar (two-scale score bound) = varies by application, for example B, sqrt(beta)*L, c_ULA/sqrt(2*eta), sqrt(beta)/eta
    The constants zeta and xi depend on Lbar through Lbar^2. Lbar is an assumed uniform variance or sub-Gaussian bound on the conditional score, not a quantity estimated from data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ρ satisfies ΦSI(α) and each P_y satisfies ΦSI(β) for all y
    Stated as hypotheses in Theorems 3.1 and 3.2. For Φ(t)=t^2 this is PI, and for Φ(t)=t log t this is LSI.
  • domain assumption Var holds with Lbar for PI, or MGF holds with Lbar for LSI
    These are the two-scale criteria in Section 3. They are assumptions, not consequences, and they must hold uniformly in y.
  • standard math Φ is twice differentiable, of Legendre type, with range of Φ' equal to R and 1/Φ'' concave
    Used in Proposition 5.4 and in the proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2. Satisfied by Φ(t)=t^2 and Φ(t)=t log t, but not stated in the theorem hypotheses.
  • domain assumption Densities have the Gibbs form p_{X|Y=y}(x) ∝ exp(-G(x,y)) and differentiation under the integral in Proposition 5.2 is legitimate
    This is the Section 2.2 setup. The regularity needed for Proposition 5.2 is not enumerated in the paper.
  • domain assumption Algorithm-specific conditional bounds: Gaussian scores for ULA, LSI constants for proximal sampler conditionals, and the exact HMC closed form for Gaussian targets
    Sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.3 depend on these bounds to instantiate Var or MGF for each algorithm.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-scale criteria for Poincar\'{e} and log-Sobolev inequalities with applications to Markov chain Monte Carlo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TFPZ462G

@misc{pith2026250915410,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-scale criteria for Poincar\'e and log-Sobolev inequalities with applications to Markov chain Monte Carlo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TFPZ462G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.15410}
}
abstract

Given a collection of distributions $\{P_{y}\}$ and a mixing distribution $\rho$ supported over $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, we propose new sufficient conditions under which the mixture / joint distribution satisfies a Poincar\'{e} or log-Sobolev inequality. We develop these sufficient conditions in a unified manner using the framework of $\Phi$-Sobolev inequalities (Chafa\"{i}, 2004). The conditions that we develop in this work are satisfied by a variety of Markov chains, and consequently allows us to characterise the evolution of these functional inequalities for iterates generated by simulating these Markov chains. As a result, we obtain an clean error analysis for estimating a broad class of functionals using Markov chain Monte Carlo strategies along these Markov chains.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Analysis and geometry of M arkov diffusion operators , volume 348 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]

    Dominique Bakry, Ivan Gentil, and Michel Ledoux. Analysis and geometry of M arkov diffusion operators , volume 348 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer, Cham, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Concentration of measure on product spaces with applications to M arkov processes

    Gordon Blower and François Bolley. Concentration of measure on product spaces with applications to M arkov processes. Studia Math., 175 0 (1): 0 47--72, 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Bobkov and Prasad Tetali

    Sergey G. Bobkov and Prasad Tetali. Modified logarithmic S obolev inequalities in discrete settings. J. Theoret. Probab., 19 0 (2): 0 289--336, 2006

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Moment inequalities for functions of independent random variables

    St\'ephane Boucheron, Olivier Bousquet, G\'abor Lugosi, and Pascal Massart. Moment inequalities for functions of independent random variables. The Annals of Probability, 33 0 (2): 0 514--560, 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Heat flow, log-concavity, and Lipschitz transport maps

    Giovanni Brigati and Francesco Pedrotti. Heat flow, log-concavity, and Lipschitz transport maps . arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15205, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Entropies, convexity, and functional inequalities, on -entropies and -sobolev inequalities

    Djalil Chafa \" . Entropies, convexity, and functional inequalities, on -entropies and -sobolev inequalities. Journal of Mathematics of Kyoto University, 44 0 (2): 0 325--363, 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Dimension-free log- S obolev inequalities for mixture distributions

    Hong-Bin Chen, Sinho Chewi, and Jonathan Niles-Weed. Dimension-free log- S obolev inequalities for mixture distributions. J. Funct. Anal., 281 0 (11): 0 Paper No. 109236, 17, 2021. ISSN 0022-1236,1096-0783. doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2021.109236. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfa.2021.109236

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Improved analysis for a proximal algorithm for sampling

    Yongxin Chen, Sinho Chewi, Adil Salim, and Andre Wibisono. Improved analysis for a proximal algorithm for sampling. In Po-Ling Loh and Maxim Raginsky, editors, Proceedings of Thirty Fifth Conference on Learning Theory, volume 178 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2984--3014. PMLR, 02--05 Jul 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Optimal convergence rate of hamiltonian monte carlo for strongly logconcave distributions

    Zongchen Chen and Santosh S Vempala. Optimal convergence rate of hamiltonian monte carlo for strongly logconcave distributions. Theory of Computing, 18 0 (1): 0 1--18, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Analysis of langevin monte carlo from poincare to log-sobolev

    Sinho Chewi, Murat A Erdogdu, Mufan Li, Ruoqi Shen, and Matthew S Zhang. Analysis of langevin monte carlo from poincare to log-sobolev. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, pages 1--51, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Log- S obolev inequalities and sampling from log-concave distributions

    Alan Frieze and Ravi Kannan. Log- S obolev inequalities and sampling from log-concave distributions. Ann. Appl. Probab., 9 0 (1): 0 14--26, 1999

    1999

  4. [12]

    Simulated Tempering Langevin Monte Carlo II: An Improved Proof using Soft Markov Chain Decomposition , 2020

    Rong Ge, Holden Lee, and Andrej Risteski. Simulated Tempering Langevin Monte Carlo II: An Improved Proof using Soft Markov Chain Decomposition , 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.00793

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Westdickenberg

    Natalie Grunewald, Felix Otto, C\'edric Villani, and Maria G. Westdickenberg. A two-scale approach to logarithmic S obolev inequalities and the hydrodynamic limit. Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincar\'e Probabilit\'es et Statistiques , 45 0 (2): 0 302--351, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    Modified log- S obolev inequalities for strong- R ayleigh measures

    Jonathan Hermon and Justin Salez. Modified log- S obolev inequalities for strong- R ayleigh measures. Ann. Appl. Probab., 33 0 (2): 0 1301--1314, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Elementary bounds on P oincar\'e and log- S obolev constants for decomposable M arkov chains

    Mark Jerrum, Jung-Bae Son, Prasad Tetali, and Eric Vigoda. Elementary bounds on P oincar\'e and log- S obolev constants for decomposable M arkov chains. Ann. Appl. Probab., 14 0 (4): 0 1741--1765, 2004

    2004

  8. [16]

    The concentration of measure phenomenon, volume 89 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs

    Michel Ledoux. The concentration of measure phenomenon, volume 89 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    Structured Logconcave Sampling with a Restricted Gaussian Oracle

    Yin Tat Lee, Ruoqi Shen, and Kevin Tian. Structured Logconcave Sampling with a Restricted Gaussian Oracle . In Proceedings of Thirty Fourth Conference on Learning Theory, volume 134 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2993--3050. PMLR, 15--19 Aug 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Characterizing Dependence of Samples along the Langevin Dynamics and Algorithms via Contraction of -Mutual Information , 2025

    Jiaming Liang, Siddharth Mitra, and Andre Wibisono. Characterizing Dependence of Samples along the Langevin Dynamics and Algorithms via Contraction of -Mutual Information , 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17067

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Wainwright, Peter L

    Wenlong Mou, Nhat Ho, Martin J. Wainwright, Peter L. Bartlett, and Michael I. Jordan. Sampling for Bayesian Mixture Models: MCMC with Polynomial-Time Mixing , 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.05153

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mcmc using hamiltonian dynamics

    Radford M Neal et al. Mcmc using hamiltonian dynamics. Handbook of markov chain monte carlo, 2 0 (11): 0 2, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    Reznikoff

    Felix Otto and Maria G. Reznikoff. A new criterion for the logarithmic S obolev inequality and two applications. Journal of Functional Analysis, 243 0 (1): 0 121--157, 2007

    2007

  14. [22]

    Roberts and Richard L

    Gareth O. Roberts and Richard L. Tweedie. Exponential convergence of L angevin distributions and their discrete approximations. Bernoulli, 2 0 (4): 0 341--363, 1996

    1996

  15. [23]

    Tyrrell Rockafellar

    R. Tyrrell Rockafellar. Convex A nalysis , volume No. 28 of Princeton Mathematical Series. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1970

    1970

  16. [24]

    Vempala and Andre Wibisono

    Santosh S. Vempala and Andre Wibisono. Rapid Convergence of the Unadjusted Langevin Algorithm: Isoperimetry Suffices . In Geometric Aspects of Functional Analysis: Israel Seminar (GAFA) 2020-2022, pages 381--438. Springer International Publishing, 2023

    2020

  17. [25]

    Wainwright

    Martin J. Wainwright. Concentration of measure, pages 58--97. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Information and estimation in fokker-planck channels

    Andre Wibisono, Varun Jog, and Po-Ling Loh. Information and estimation in fokker-planck channels. In 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages 2673--2677, 2017. doi:10.1109/ISIT.2017.8007014

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.