Exponential Ergodicity in $\W_1$ for SDEs with Distribution Dependent Noise and Partially Dissipative Drifts

Huaiqian Li; Liying Mu; Xing Huang

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Exponential Ergodicity in $\W_1$ for SDEs with Distribution Dependent Noise and Partially Dissipative Drifts

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For McKean–Vlasov SDEs with law-dependent noise and partially dissipative drifts, exponential ergodicity in $W_1$ holds from every initial law.

desk verdict A genuinely useful general theorem with self-contained Brownian proofs, and a clear, checkable reliance on imported contraction results in the kinetic and stable cases. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14090 v2 pith:2JGPCELT submitted 2024-11-21 math.PR

Xing Huang , Huaiqian Li , Liying Mu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PR MSC 60H1060J6060G5237A25

keywords exponentialergodicityWassersteindistanceMcKean–VlasovSDEdistributiondependentnoisepartiallydissipativedriftα-stablekineticLangevinsystemreflectioncoupling

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 that McKean–Vlasov SDEs whose drift is only partially dissipative and whose noise coefficient may itself depend on the law can still converge exponentially fast to a unique equilibrium in the $L^1$-Wasserstein distance $W_1$, for every initial law in $P_1(\mathbb{R}^d)$. The proof works by freezing the law in the coefficients, proving the resulting classical SDE contracts uniformly in $W_1$, and then treating the law-dependence as a small perturbation. The result covers non-degenerate and multiplicative Brownian noise, degenerate second-order (kinetic) systems, and additive rotationally invariant $\alpha$-stable noise, in both non-degenerate and kinetic settings, under a smallness condition on the strength $\kappa$ of the distribution coupling. A sympathetic reader would care because previous results either required distribution-free noise coefficients or only proved convergence from Dirac initial laws; here the initial law is arbitrary in $P_1$.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a fixed-point and perturbation scheme on the space of laws. First, freeze a measure $\mu$ in the coefficients and study the decoupled SDE (2.2); reflection coupling with a specially constructed concave function $\psi$ (the $\psi$-Wasserstein distance $W_\psi$, with $\psi''\le 0$) produces a uniform contraction $W_1((P^\mu_t)_*\eta_1,(P^\mu_t)_*\eta_2)\le c_0e^{-\lambda_0 t}W_1(\eta_1,\eta_2)$. Synchronous couplings and Gronwall estimates then control the variation of the frozen maps in the distribution variable, giving the growth functions $G(t)$ and $H(t)$. Theorem 2.1 assembles these into a Banach fixed point for $\Gamma$ on $(P_1(\mathbb{R}^d),W_1)$ and a one-step contraction for the semigroup $P_t^*$, yielding the exponential rate. For $\alpha$-stable noise, a time-change lemma (Lemma 5.1) is used because the jump L\'evy measure has infinite second moment, so a direct It\^o-type expansion fails.

What would settle it

Compute the stationary equations for a one-dimensional model of the form of Example 3.3 with the distribution-coupling strength below the theorem's $\delta_0$; if two distinct stationary densities solve the equilibrium Fokker–Planck equation, the uniqueness claim of Theorem 3.1 is false. Alternatively, for the kinetic case, exhibit a drift satisfying the partial dissipativity condition but violating the uniform decoupled contraction estimate, and check whether the original distribution-dependent SDE nevertheless has two invariant measures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2.1 together with its applications: if the decoupled family $dX_t^\mu = b(X_t^\mu,\mu)dt + \sigma(X_t^\mu,\mu)dZ_t$ has $W_1$-contraction to a unique invariant measure $\Gamma(\mu)$ with rate uniform in $\mu$, and the map $\mu\mapsto\Gamma(\mu)$ is contractive after solving a fixed-point condition involving $G(t)/(1-c_0e^{-\lambda_0 t})$, then the original distribution-dependent SDE has a unique invariant measure $\mu_*$ and exponential $W_1$-ergodicity $W_1(P_t^*\eta,\mu_*)\le ce^{-\lambda t}W_1(\eta,\mu_*)$. The applications verify the two ingredients for four noise regimes, each time with the coupling-strength constant $\kappa$ below an explicit threshold $\delta_0$; the noise coefficients may depend on the distribution, and the drifts need only be dissipative at long distances or dissipative in a partial set of components.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the decoupled SDE family, with a frozen measure $\mu$, contracts in $W_1$ to its invariant measure at a rate $c_0e^{-\lambda_0 t}$ that is uniform over all $\mu$; if this uniform rate fails, the perturbation and fixed-point step collapses even if the original SDE is still ergodic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

When $\kappa<\delta_0$, the solution semigroup has a unique invariant probability measure and every initial law in $P_1$ converges to it exponentially in $W_1$.
The noise coefficient may depend on the law, not only the drift, improving on prior results that required distribution-free $\sigma$.
Partially dissipative drifts suffice: kinetic Langevin systems can be exponentially ergodic in $W_1$ without uniform dissipation in every coordinate.
The $\alpha$-stable cases extend exponential $W_1$-ergodicity to heavy-tailed noise with distribution-dependent diffusion coefficients, in both non-degenerate and kinetic forms.
The smallness condition on $\kappa$ is not purely technical: Example 3.3 shows that for large distribution-coupling strength the stationary measure can cease to exist, so ergodicity can fail.

Reading between the lines

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

The uniform contraction rate of the decoupled family is likely the sharp bottleneck: if that rate fails for some frozen measure, the current perturbation argument collapses even if the original SDE is still ergodic.
The threshold $\delta_0$ is explicit but probably conservative; computing the infima in $G(t)$ and $H(t)$ numerically for concrete models could give substantially larger ergodicity regions.
The same freeze-then-perturb scheme may extend to other Wasserstein distances $W_p$ or to relative entropy, provided a suitable coupling and Lyapunov structure replace reflection coupling.
For $\alpha$-stable noise, the time-change lemma could also yield explicit propagation-of-chaos rates for the associated mean-field particle system, since the same decoupled contraction controls particle laws.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper does real work: it proves a general perturbation/fixed-point theorem for W1-exponential ergodicity of McKean–Vlasov SDEs, then applies it to cases with distribution-dependent noise and arbitrary initial laws in P1. That genuinely improves [28], which was restricted to Dirac initial measures, and the earlier distribution-free-noise results. Theorem 2.1 is a clean contraction argument, and Lemma 5.1 (the time-change estimate for α-stable noise) is a nice reusable tool. The Brownian non-degenerate case is essentially self-contained: Lemma 3.5 supplies the decoupled contraction via reflection coupling with the auxiliary ψ-distance, and the Grönwall steps in Theorem 3.1 control the measure-dependence correctly. Example 3.3 on phase transition is a thoughtful addition.

The soft spots are concentrated where the stress-test note points. The kinetic and α-stable applications import uniform contraction results from [23, Theorem 5], [18, Theorem 1.3], and [14, Theorem 1.1]. The paper checks that the rescaled systems satisfy the hypotheses—the conditions (3.13) and L_b²γ⁻² < 3K1/4 are exactly the right shape—and the constants are claimed to be independent of the frozen μ. That is plausible and the checks look correct to me, but a referee should verify the alignment of constants with those external theorems, especially the smallness conditions on friction and dissipativity. This is a normal dependency, not a circular one, and the authors do not hide it.

Minor issues: a few typos (e.g., 'W' for 'W1' in Theorem 2.1, a stray brace in the definition of δ2, 'adimits'), and the derivation of (3.11) is compressed but valid given the coupling inequality—worth a referee's eye, not a red flag.

Overall the central argument holds up. The paper is honest about what is imported and what is new, and the math in the Brownian case is sound. I would take it seriously and recommend sending it to a competent referee. It is a solid contribution to the McKean–Vlasov ergodicity literature.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies exponential ergodicity in the L1-Wasserstein distance for McKean-Vlasov SDEs whose drift and noise coefficients may both depend on the law of the solution. The main abstract result, Theorem 2.1, reduces the problem to three ingredients: a uniform W1-contraction for the decoupled SDE family with frozen distribution, a G(t)-bound between invariant measures of two frozen systems, and an H(t)-bound comparing the original flow with the flow frozen at the target invariant measure. The paper then verifies these ingredients for non-degenerate and kinetic Brownian cases and for non-degenerate and kinetic alpha-stable noise, under partially dissipative drift assumptions. It also gives a one-dimensional example showing that a large distribution-coupling constant can destroy existence of stationary measures.

Significance. If correct, the results are a genuine advance: they extend exponential W1-ergodicity from initial Dirac laws to arbitrary P1 initial laws in settings where the noise coefficient itself depends on the law, which was left open by previous work. The Brownian non-degenerate case is essentially self-contained, with a clean reflection-coupling proof of the decoupled contraction in Lemma 3.5 and a coherent Grönwall argument for the H-bound. The time-change proof of Lemma 5.1 for alpha-stable noise is also a useful technical contribution. The main risk is that the kinetic and stable applications rely on imported uniform contraction theorems, so the verification of their hypotheses is load-bearing.

major comments (2)

[Sections 3.2 and 4.2, Eqs. (3.20) and (4.4)] The central hypothesis of Theorem 2.1 - uniform W1-contraction of the decoupled family with constants independent of the frozen parameter - is imported from [23, Theorem 5] and [14, Theorem 1.1] rather than proved in the paper. The manuscript should state precisely the hypotheses of these theorems and verify them for the rescaled drift b-bar in (3.14) and (4.12). In particular, the derivation from condition (3.13) to the inequality L_g u gamma^{-2} < L_K/(2 L_g) is compressed, and neither the role of the dissipativity radius R in (3.16)-(3.19) nor the independence of c0, lambda0 from the frozen measure mu is demonstrated. Because the G- and H-bounds in Theorem 2.1 cannot replace this contraction step, any mismatch between the cited theorems' hypotheses and (A2) would invalidate Theorems 3.6 and 4.2 even when the original DDSDE is ergodic.
[Section 4.2, proof of Theorem 4.2] The proof invokes [14, Theorem 1.1] for the decoupled kinetic stable system (4.12) and then states that the remaining estimates are repetitions of the proof of Theorem 4.1 with K1 replaced by Lb+2. This repetition is not entirely immediate: the H(t)-estimate in Theorem 4.1 uses the dissipative structure of (A3), whereas the kinetic system only supplies the one-sided estimate 2<Delta y, Delta x> + 2<-gamma Delta y + Delta b, Delta y> <= (Lb+2)(...)+ kappa W1^2. Although that estimate is written out, the passage from it to the analogue of (4.8) for the kinetic model should be given in detail, and the smallness condition L_b^2 gamma^{-2} < 3/4 K1 should be checked explicitly against the hypotheses of [14] after the sigma-scaling. As written, the proof delegates too much to a claimed repetition at a load-bearing point.

minor comments (5)

[Proof of Lemma 3.5] The first inequality for d|X_t^mu - Y_t^mu| suppresses the second-order Itô-Tanaka term and the local-time term; for t<tau the inequality is valid after using (A1)(iii), but the derivation should be expanded to avoid confusion.
[Theorem 2.1(ii)] In the statement, the last display uses W instead of W1; it should read W1(P*_t eta, nu) <= c e^{-lambda t} W1(eta, nu).
[Corollary 3.4] The piecewise definition of phi contains 'r>2r0' in the last line; the variable should be v, so the line should read 'v > 2r0'.
[Proof of Theorem 4.1] In the definition of delta2, the expression 't> log c0 / lambda' appears to have a typo for lambda0, and there is an extra closing brace in the displayed formula; these should be corrected.
[General] There are several small typos, including 'adimits' for 'admits' in the proof of Theorem 4.1 and 'Word Scientiﬁc' for 'World Scientific' in reference [22]; these should be fixed in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the uniform contraction hypotheses in Theorem 2.1 are either proved internally or imported from external decoupled-SDE results, not derived from the target ergodicity claim.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 2.1 is a self-contained contraction argument: its hypotheses are a uniform W1-contraction of the decoupled SDE family, a G(t)-bound between different frozen invariant measures, and an H(t)-bound comparing the original flow with the frozen flow. Its proof uses only the triangle inequality, the contraction hypothesis, the semigroup property, and Banach's fixed point theorem; the conclusion is not assumed in the hypotheses. The uniform contraction input is not the target ergodicity of the coupled DDSDE: in the Brownian non-degenerate case it is proved directly in Lemma 3.5 by reflection coupling, while in the kinetic Brownian and α-stable cases it is imported from external, non-self references ([23, Theorem 5], [18, Theorem 1.3], [14, Theorem 1.1]) applied to the frozen, distribution-free SDEs. The G and H estimates are derived internally by Itô/Grönwall arguments and the time-change Lemma 5.1. The only self-citations ([10], [11], [12]) concern well-posedness, a survey, and a technical ψ-estimate used to exhibit an admissible φ; none of these is equivalent to, or assumes, the exponential ergodicity conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the choice of the argument. Thus there is no quoted reduction of the target result to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the decoupled contraction theorems and on standard well-posedness results. No free parameters are fitted to data, no new physical or mathematical entities are introduced, and the self-cited ψ-construction does not assume the target result.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Uniform W1-contraction of the decoupled SDE (2.2) with rate independent of μ: W1((P^μ_t)*η, Γ(μ)) ≤ c0 e^{-λ0 t} W1(η, Γ(μ)).
This is the main external input of Theorem 2.1. It is proved in Lemma 3.5 for the non-degenerate Brownian case, but imported from [23, Theorem 5] and [18, Theorem 1.3] for the kinetic and α-stable applications.
domain assumption Well-posedness of the McKean-Vlasov SDEs (2.1), (3.1), (3.12), (4.1), (4.10) in P1(Rd) under assumptions (A1)-(A3).
Invoked in Section 2 and in Remarks; cited to [22, Theorem 3.3.1] and [3, Theorem 1.1].
domain assumption The distance function ψ from (3.3) satisfies ψ''≤0 and C1 r ≤ ψ(r) ≤ C2 r; for the explicit φ in Corollary 3.4 this property is taken from [12, (3.23)].
Needed for the reflection-coupling decay estimate in Lemma 3.5; supplied by a self-cited preprint by the first author and collaborators.
domain assumption Stability and approximation results for SDEs driven by time-changed Brownian motion, as used in Lemma 5.1 (regularization of subordinator paths, approximation of σ in L2(dℓ), Yosida approximation of b).
These results from [27] and [30] underpin the α-stable estimates and are not proved in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exponential Ergodicity in $\W_1$ for SDEs with Distribution Dependent Noise and Partially Dissipative Drifts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JGPCELT

@misc{pith2026241114090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exponential Ergodicity in $\W_1$ for SDEs with Distribution Dependent Noise and Partially Dissipative Drifts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JGPCELT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14090}
}

abstract

Being concerned with ergodicity of McKean--Vlasov SDEs, we establish a general result on exponential ergodicity in the $L^1$-Wasserstein distance. The result is successfully applied to non-degenerate and multiplicative Brownian motion cases, degenerate second order systems, and even the additive $\alpha$-stable noise, where the coefficients before the noise are allowed to be distribution dependent and the drifts are only assumed to be partially dissipative. Our results considerably improve existing ones whose coefficients before the noise are distribution-free.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[28]

Zhang, Uniqueness of stationary distribution and exponent ial convergence for dis- tribution dependent SDEs, Discrete Contin

S. Zhang, Uniqueness of stationary distribution and exponent ial convergence for dis- tribution dependent SDEs, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser., 16 (2 023), 878–900

work page
[14]

Y. Liu, J. Wang, M. Zhang, Exponential Contractivity and Prop agation of Chaos for Langevin Dynamics of McKean–Vlasov Type with L´ evy Noises, Po tential. Anal., (2024), 1–34

work page 2024
[1]

Applebaum, L´ evy Processes and Stochastic Calculus, 2nd edition, Cambridge, Cam- bridge University Press, 2011

D. Applebaum, L´ evy Processes and Stochastic Calculus, 2nd edition, Cambridge, Cam- bridge University Press, 2011

work page 2011
[2]

J. Bao, R. Fang, J. Wang, Exponential ergodicity of L´ evy drive n Langevin dynamics with singular potentials, Stoch. Proc. Appl., (17) (2024), Paper No . 104341, 19 pp

work page 2024
[3]

J. Bao, J. Wang, A note on L´ evy-driven McKean–Vlasov SDEs un der monotonicity, arXiv:2412.01070

arXiv
[4]

Barbu, M

V. Barbu, M. R¨ ockner, From nonlinear Fokker–Planck equations to solutions of distri- bution dependent SDE, Ann. Probab., 48 (2020), 1902–1920

work page 2020
[5]

J. A. Carrillo, R. S. Gvalani, G. A. Pavliotis, A. Schlichting, Long-tim e behaviour and phase transitions for the Mckean–Vlasov equation on the torus, A rch. Rational Mech. Anal., 235 (2020), 635–690

work page 2020
[6]

D. A. Dawson, Critical Dynamics and Fluctuations for a Mean-Field Model of Coop- erative Behavio, J. Statist. Phys., 31 (1983), 29–85

work page 1983

Show all 30 references

[7]

Eberle, A

A. Eberle, A. Guillin, R. Zimmer, Couplings and quantitative contrac tion rates for Langevin dynamics, Ann. Probab., 47 (2019), 1982–2010

2019
[8]

Eberle, A

A. Eberle, A. Guillin, R. Zimmer, Quantitative Harris-type theorem s for diﬀusions and McKean–Vlasov processes, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 371 (2019) , 7135–7173

2019
[9]

Guillin, W

A. Guillin, W. Liu, L. Wu, C. Zhang, Uniform Poincar´ e and logarithmic Sobolev inequalities for mean ﬁeld particle systems, Ann. Appl. Probab., 32 (2 022), 1590–1614
[10]

Huang, F.-Y

X. Huang, F.-Y. Wang, Distribution dependent SDEs with singular coeﬃcients, Stoch. Proc. Appl., 129 (2019), 4747–4770

2019
[11]

Huang, P

X. Huang, P. Ren, F.-Y. Wang, Distribution dependent stochas tic diﬀerential equa- tions, Front. Math. China, 16 (2021), 257–301

2021
[12]

Huang, F.-F

X. Huang, F.-F. Yang, C. Yuan, Long Time W0-~ W1 type Propagation of Chaos for Mean Field Interacting Particle System, arXiv:2404.01795v3. 24

arXiv
[13]

Hairer, J

M. Hairer, J. C. Mattingly, M. Scheutzow, Asymptotic coupling a nd a general form of Harris theorem with applications to stochastic delay equations, Pro bab. Theo. Relat. Fields., 149 (2011), 223–259

2011
[15]

D. Luo, J. Wang, Exponential convergence in Lp-Wasserstein distance for diﬀusion processes without uniformly dissipative drift, Math. Nachr., 289 (2 016), 1909–1926

1909
[16]

W. Liu, L. Wu, C. Zhang, Long-time behaviors of mean-ﬁeld inter acting particle sys- tems related to McKean–Vlasov equations, Commun. Math. Phys., 3 87 (2021), 179– 214

2021
[17]

Liang, M

M. Liang, M. B. Majka, J. Wang, Exponential ergodicity for SDE s and McKean– Vlasov processes with L´ evy noise, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e Probab. Stat., 57 (2021), 1665–1701

2021
[18]

Liang, J

M. Liang, J. Wang, Gradient estimates and ergodicity for SDEs d riven by multiplica- tive L´ evy noises via coupling, Stoch. Proc. Appl., 130 (2020), 3053 –3094

2020
[19]

M. B. Majka, Coupling and exponential ergodicity for stochast ic diﬀerential equations driven by L´ evy processes, Stoch. Proc. Appl., 127 (2017), 4083 –4125

2017
[20]

H. P. McKean, Jr, Propagation of chaos for a class of non-linea r parabolic equations, in Stochastic Diﬀerential Equations (Lecture Series in Diﬀerential E quations, Session 7, Catholic Univ.), Air Force Oﬃce Sci. Res., Arlington, V A, 1967, 41–5 7

1967
[21]

Ren, F.-Y

P. Ren, F.-Y. Wang, Exponential convergence in entropy and W asserstein distance for McKean–Vlasov SDEs, Nonlinear Analysis, 206 (2021), Paper No. 11 2259, 20 pp

2021
[22]

Ren, F.-Y

P. Ren, F.-Y. Wang, Distribution Dependent Stochastical Diﬀer ential Equations, Word Scientiﬁc, 2024

2024
[23]

Schuh, Global contractivity for Langevin dynamics with distr ibution-dependent forces and uniform in time propagation of chaos, Ann

K. Schuh, Global contractivity for Langevin dynamics with distr ibution-dependent forces and uniform in time propagation of chaos, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e Probab. Stat. (2024), in press

2024
[24]

Wang, Distribution dependent SDEs for Landau type equa tions, Stoch

F.-Y. Wang, Distribution dependent SDEs for Landau type equa tions, Stoch. Proc. Appl., 128 (2018), 595–621

2018
[25]

Wang, Exponential Ergodicity for Non-Dissipative McKean –Vlasov SDEs, Bernoulli, 29 (2023), 1035–1062

F.-Y. Wang, Exponential Ergodicity for Non-Dissipative McKean –Vlasov SDEs, Bernoulli, 29 (2023), 1035–1062

2023
[26]

Wang, Exponential ergodicity for singular reﬂecting McKe an–Vlasov SDEs, Stoch

F.-Y. Wang, Exponential ergodicity for singular reﬂecting McKe an–Vlasov SDEs, Stoch. Proc. Appl., 160 (2023), 265–293. 25

2023
[27]

F.-Y. Wang, J. Wang, Harnack inequalities for stochastic equat ions driven by L´ evy noise, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 410 (2014), 513–523

2014
[29]

Zhang, Existence and non-uniqueness of stationary distrib utions for distribution dependent SDEs, Electron

S. Zhang, Existence and non-uniqueness of stationary distrib utions for distribution dependent SDEs, Electron. J. Probab., 28 (2023), Paper No. 93, 34 pp

2023
[30]

Zhang, Derivative formula and gradient estimates for SDEs d riven by α-stable processes, Stochastic Process

X. Zhang, Derivative formula and gradient estimates for SDEs d riven by α-stable processes, Stochastic Process. Appl., 123 (2013) 1213–1228. 26

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [28]

Zhang, Uniqueness of stationary distribution and exponent ial convergence for dis- tribution dependent SDEs, Discrete Contin

S. Zhang, Uniqueness of stationary distribution and exponent ial convergence for dis- tribution dependent SDEs, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser., 16 (2 023), 878–900

work page

[2] [14]

Y. Liu, J. Wang, M. Zhang, Exponential Contractivity and Prop agation of Chaos for Langevin Dynamics of McKean–Vlasov Type with L´ evy Noises, Po tential. Anal., (2024), 1–34

work page 2024

[3] [1]

Applebaum, L´ evy Processes and Stochastic Calculus, 2nd edition, Cambridge, Cam- bridge University Press, 2011

D. Applebaum, L´ evy Processes and Stochastic Calculus, 2nd edition, Cambridge, Cam- bridge University Press, 2011

work page 2011

[4] [2]

J. Bao, R. Fang, J. Wang, Exponential ergodicity of L´ evy drive n Langevin dynamics with singular potentials, Stoch. Proc. Appl., (17) (2024), Paper No . 104341, 19 pp

work page 2024

[5] [3]

J. Bao, J. Wang, A note on L´ evy-driven McKean–Vlasov SDEs un der monotonicity, arXiv:2412.01070

arXiv

[6] [4]

Barbu, M

V. Barbu, M. R¨ ockner, From nonlinear Fokker–Planck equations to solutions of distri- bution dependent SDE, Ann. Probab., 48 (2020), 1902–1920

work page 2020

[7] [5]

J. A. Carrillo, R. S. Gvalani, G. A. Pavliotis, A. Schlichting, Long-tim e behaviour and phase transitions for the Mckean–Vlasov equation on the torus, A rch. Rational Mech. Anal., 235 (2020), 635–690

work page 2020

[8] [6]

D. A. Dawson, Critical Dynamics and Fluctuations for a Mean-Field Model of Coop- erative Behavio, J. Statist. Phys., 31 (1983), 29–85

work page 1983