A note on application of mean-field limit to non-exchangeable non-conservative systems

Katarzyna Ryszewska; Piotr Gwiazda

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A note on application of mean-field limit to non-exchangeable non-conservative systems

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The random, mass-weighted empirical measure of a non-exchangeable, non-conservative particle system converges to a deterministic density solving a Vlasov-type equation with a source term.

desk verdict A real extension to non-exchangeable non-conservative mean-field limits with a new weighted Glivenko–Cantelli lemma, but the proof of Theorem 1 uses kernel regularity stronger than the stated assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20014 v1 pith:OYSIM3KE submitted 2026-07-22 math.AP

Piotr Gwiazda , Katarzyna Ryszewska This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35Q8335Q7035R0235Q4935R06

keywords mean-fieldlimitnon-exchangeablesystemsextendedgraphonsnon-conservativeweightedempiricalmeasureGlivenko-CantellilemmaVlasovhierarchyinteractingparticle

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 aims to establish a mean-field limit for a system of N interacting agents that is both non-exchangeable — each pair of agents has its own interaction strength — and non-conservative — each agent carries an influence mass that changes over time and is not preserved. The main claim is that the random, mass-weighted empirical measure of the agent states converges, as N grows, to a deterministic density f that solves a Vlasov-type equation with a source term A - V2[f], so total mass can grow or decay in the limit. The proof extends the theory of extended graphons — measure-valued connectivity kernels that encode the asymptotic interaction structure — and introduces a weighted version of the Glivenko-Cantelli lemma to control the empirical measure when the weights are random and time-dependent. If correct, this gives a rigorous continuous description of heterogeneous interacting systems whose agents gain or lose influence, such as opinion dynamics with polarization or balance laws in biology.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three linked devices. The first is the extended graphon: a weak-* measurable, measure-valued kernel w(ξ,dζ) (a measure in the second variable) that serves as the limit object for the discrete connectivity matrices, allowing heterogeneous interactions without a classical graphon. The second is the family of tree-indexed observables τ(T, w, f), which are built by integrating f over the tree structure of the interaction graph; these solve a non-exchangeable Vlasov hierarchy that is used to propagate stability from the initial data to the limit equation. The third, and the new piece, is a weighted Glivenko-Cantelli lemma: it bounds, in expectation, the flat-metric distance

What would settle it

Simulate the particle system with half of the agents initially at zero influence (M^0_i = 0) and positive interaction weights connecting them to others; if the expected flat-metric distance from the deterministic limit does not go to zero as N grows — or the limit density fails to match the empirical measure — the central claim is refuted. Alternatively, measure the rate of decay in N and check whether it matches the N^{-1/(2+3d/2)} bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is Theorem 1: under assumptions (2)-(8), there exist an extended graphon w and a density f in L∞((0,t*)×(0,1); W^{1,1}∩W^{1,∞}(R^d)) such that f is a weak solution of the non-conservative limit equation ∂t f + div(f V1[f]) = f(A - V2[f]), with Vj[f](t,x,ξ) = ∫∫ Kj(x-y)f(t,y,ζ)dy w(ξ,dζ). The convergence statement is that, up to a subsequence, the expected flat metric between the deterministic density ∫ f(t,·,ξ)dξ and the random weighted empirical measure (1/N)Σ M_i(t)δ_{X_i(t)} tends to 0 uniformly in t ∈ [0,t*] as N → ∞. This is the first mean-field limit for non-conservative non-exchangeable systems: even though the total mass of the particle sys

Load-bearing premise

The whole proof hinges on the assumption that every agent's expected influence stays uniformly bounded below by a positive constant (inf_N min_i E M^0_i ≥ m > 0) and above by a finite bound; if some agents have vanishing initial influence, the weighted empirical measure can shed mass and the convergence argument collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, non-conservative non-exchangeable particle systems admit a deterministic mean-field description without any conservation law; the limit density satisfies a balance law with a source term f(A - V2[f]).
The weighted Glivenko-Cantelli lemma gives a concrete convergence rate, on the order of N^{-1/(2+3d/2)} in expectation, for the empirical measure with random and time-varying weights.
The limit does not require a priori knowledge of the connectivity limit: the extended graphon is extracted as a weak-* limit of the discrete matrices, so only structural assumptions on the weights are needed.
Since the exchangeable case (all weights equal to 1/N) is a special case, this recovers the classical mean-field limit with a conservative limit when A = 0 and K2 = 0.
The result implies propagation of independence: as N grows, the agents' states become asymptotically independent, which is what makes the tree-indexed hierarchy close.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct consequence the authors leave implicit: if a positive fraction of agents starts with zero expected influence, the mass floor assumption (6) fails, and the weighted empirical measure can lose mass in the limit; the result may then need a different normalization or may fail outright.
The non-conservative source term allows mass amplification when A dominates V2[f]; this models sharp opinion polarization or population blow-up. One testable extension is to determine whether the convergence rate N^{-1/(2+3d/2)} is optimal under the given assumptions.
Because the graphon is measure-valued in the second variable, the framework may also cover sparse or adaptive connectivity sequences for which classical graphons do not exist, suggesting a route toward mean-field limits for co-evolving networks.

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 two things worth your time. First, it extends the Jabin–Poyato–Soler extended-graphon machinery to systems where total mass is not conserved and particles are not exchangeable. That combination is absent from the cited literature. Second, it proves a weighted Glivenko–Cantelli lemma (Lemma 5) for empirical measures with non-constant total mass, with an explicit N^{-1/(2+3d/2)} rate. The proof chain is mostly coherent: Theorem 3's propagation of independence, the hierarchy equation (43), and the stability iteration in Lemma 8 all check out. No fitted parameters; constants depend only on problem data. The debt to [17] is stated openly.

The soft spot is real and load-bearing. Theorem 1 is stated under (2), which only asks K1, K2 in W^{1,∞}. But Lemma 10 — the step that compares the auxiliary empirical density to the limit — requires K1 in W^{1,1}∩L^∞, div K1 in L^∞, and K2 in L^1∩L^∞. Lemma 8 needs K1, K2 in L^2 for the convolution bound (46). W^{1,∞} does not imply any of those: for example, K1(x)=arctan(x) is admissible under (2). So as written, the argument does not prove Theorem 1 for the full class of kernels it claims. This is not a claim that the mean-field limit is false for such kernels; it's a proof-completeness gap. The fix is either to strengthen (2) to match the lemmas or to redo the stability estimates under W^{1,∞} alone. That is nontrivial because the L2-hierarchy method appears to rely on kernel integrability.

Also worth noting: Propositions 1–3 are stated without proof ('standard arguments'), and [17, Theorem 5.1] is used as a black box. These are acceptable for a note but should be flagged. The mass floor (6) is restrictive but it is explicitly assumed and used correctly; the stress-test concern about that is not the weakest point.

Who is this for? Someone working on mean-field limits of non-exchangeable particle systems, especially with adaptive or non-conservative weights. The weighted GC lemma alone is a useful contribution. It deserves a serious referee: the idea is right, the gap is fixable, and the paper is transparent about its debts. I would send it to review, but the referee needs to demand either corrected assumptions or a reproof of Lemma 10 under the stated hypotheses.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the mean-field limit of a non-exchangeable, non-conservative particle system (1), where each agent carries a weight M_i(t) that evolves in time. Under assumptions (2)-(8), it claims that the weighted empirical measure (1/N)∑ M_i(t)δ_{X_i(t)} converges, as N→∞, to a deterministic density f(t,x,ξ) solving the non-conservative limit equation (9), with the connectivity matrices converging to an extended graphon w. The proof has two main blocks: propagation of independence (Theorem 3, using the auxiliary independent system (22) and a new weighted Glivenko-Cantelli lemma (Lemma 5)), and then the extended-graphon hierarchy stability machinery adapted from [17] (Section 4), which yields Theorem 1. The paper also contains a self-contained treatment of the simpler bounded-graphon case (Section 2).

Significance. If the main theorem were established, the paper would be a notable extension of the non-exchangeable mean-field theory to systems with non-conserved mass, and Lemma 5 (weighted Glivenko-Cantelli) would be a useful technical contribution. The authors carefully track all constants and there are no fitted parameters. However, the proof of Theorem 1 as written has a load-bearing kernel-regularity gap: the hypotheses of the main theorem are strictly weaker than those required by the stability lemmas used to prove it. The paper can likely be repaired by strengthening assumption (2) or by providing a W^{1,∞}-only stability argument, but this must be done before the central claim is supported.

major comments (2)

[§4.2–§4.3, Lemma 10, Lemma 8, Proposition 8] Theorem 1 assumes only (2): K1,K2 ∈ W^{1,∞}(R^d). However, the proof of Theorem 1 invokes Lemma 10 to compare f̅_N and f, and Lemma 10's hypotheses require K1 ∈ L∞∩W^{1,1}, div K1 ∈ L∞, K2 ∈ L^1∩L∞. Moreover, Lemma 8 (used inside Lemma 10) requires K1,K2 ∈ L^2(R^d), and its estimate (46) uses ∥K_j*h∥_{L2} ≤ ∥K_j∥_{L2}∥h∥_{L1}. Since W^{1,∞}(R^d) does not imply membership in any L^p for p<∞ — e.g. K1(x)=arctan(x), K2≡1 are admissible under (2) — the L^2-hierarchy estimate is unavailable for admissible kernels. Thus the supplied argument does not establish Theorem 1 for the stated class. Please either strengthen (2) to include the integrability assumptions used by Lemmas 8–10, or replace the L^2 hierarchy by a stability estimate that works for merely W^{1,∞} kernels.
[§5.4, Proposition 8] There is an internal inconsistency in the kernel assumptions for Proposition 8. The proposition statement requires only divK1∈L^1(R^d), but the proof (e.g. estimate (75)) and the later use in Lemma 9 require divK1∈L∞(R^d). Since Proposition 8 is used to construct the solutions f^ν entering Lemma 10, the assumptions must be stated uniformly and correctly. This is separate from but intertwined with the main Theorem 1 gap.

minor comments (4)

[§5.3, Lemma 5] The lower bound on N in the statement is 'N > max{1, ̄m^{-1/(2+3d/2)}}', but the proof (with k=2+3d/2 and ε=N^{-1/k}) requires N^{-1/k} < ̄m, i.e. N > ̄m^{-(2+3d/2)}. The stated threshold is too low. Since the proof only needs N large, the statement should be corrected.
[§3, Lemma 4] In the estimate of I3, the text says 'E[G_{i,k}(t)|̄X_i(t)] = 0' but the symbol G should be H. This is a typo but slightly confusing in a delicate conditional-independence argument.
[§4.3, proof of Theorem 1] The derivation of f^0_i = g_i dx introduces the conditional expectation h_i(x) = ... / f_{X_i^0}(x). The division is only valid a.e. on {f_{X_i^0}>0}, and the final identity is correct without division. It would be cleaner to define h_i through the relation h_i f_{X_i^0} = g_i to avoid a zero-denominator issue.
[§5.1, Lemma 2 proof] The proof is written with a long chain of estimates; some constants are combined into C without being redefined. For reproducibility, please label the constants at the end of each inequality, especially in (60)–(61).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the limiting object is obtained by compactness and stability estimates, not by fitting; the notable kernel-regularity gap is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1, is a convergence theorem: it proves that the weighted empirical measure of the particle system converges, along a subsequence, to a weak solution f of the limiting non-conservative equation (9). The limiting object f is not fitted to the empirical measure. The extended graphon w is obtained as a weak-* limit of the connectivity matrices via the compactness result [17, Theorem 5.1], and f is then defined as the solution of the limiting PDE through Proposition 8. The convergence (10) is established by a chain of estimates: propagation of independence (Theorem 3), the generalized Glivenko-Cantelli lemma (Lemma 5), the comparison of the original and auxiliary particle systems (Lemma 4), and the stability estimate for the Vlasov hierarchy (Lemma 10). All these lemmas are proved in the paper or adapted with proofs from the cited external work [17] by Jabin, Poyato, and Soler; they are not the present authors' own prior work. No parameter is fitted to the target output, and the constants depend only on the stated problem data (norms of K1, K2, A, t*, M, m, Cw, etc.). The only self-citation, [27], is future work and is not load-bearing. A reviewer concern that Theorem 1's assumptions (2) are weaker than the integrability hypotheses used in Lemma 10 and Proposition 8 (which require K1 in L∞∩W^{1,1}, div K1 in L∞, and K2 in L1∩L∞) identifies a potential proof gap, but this is a correctness/completeness issue, not a circular reduction: the conclusion is not equivalent to the assumptions by construction, and the gap could in principle be repaired by strengthening the hypotheses or reproving the stability bounds. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof buys its result on three levels: (i) imported machinery from [17] (extended graphon existence, tree-observable convergence, hierarchy stability template) taken as black boxes; (ii) new lemmas proven in this paper (weighted Glivenko-Cantelli, propagation of independence with non-conserved mass, hierarchy adaptations); (iii) data-side assumptions (5)-(8) restricting the model class. There are no fitted constants and no invented entities; the price of admission is the assumptions, not tuning.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption [17, Theorem 5.1]: unique extension of the tree-indexed observables τ(T,w,f) to w ∈ L∞_ξ M_ζ ∩ L∞_ζ M_ξ and convergence of τ(T,w^N,f^N) → τ(T,w,f) in L^p_loc, used verbatim.
Imported as a black box in Section 4.1. It supplies the limiting extended graphon w, the limiting initial density f^0, and the convergence (57) that feeds Lemma 10 in the proof of Theorem 1.
domain assumption Existence of a.e.-injective measure-preserving maps Φ_N such that w^N(Φ_N(·),Φ_N(·)) admits an extended-graphon limit (Remark 2).
Transfers the discrete matrices (w^N_ij) to the continuum object needed for Theorem 4; the construction belongs to [17, Chapter 5] and is not reproduced here.
domain assumption Initial pairs (X^0_i, M^0_i) are independent for every i ≠ j.
Gives propagation of independence ((X̄_i(t),M̄_i(t)) independent, Lemma 3), the cancellation E[H_{i,j}H_{i,k}]=0 in Lemma 4, and the variance control in Lemma 5. Without it the fluctuation estimates fail.
domain assumption Mass floor and ceiling: sup_{N,i,x} M^0_i ≤ M and inf_N min_i E M^0_i ≥ m > 0 — assumptions (5)-(6).
Load-bearing for the paper's new Glivenko-Cantelli lemma (hypothesis (39): inf E M_i ≥ m̄ > 0, verified for t>0 via (40) using (6) plus positivity). Also keeps empirical-measure masses bounded in Lemma 2 and Proposition 6.
domain assumption Weighted initial densities g_i ∈ W^{1,1}∩W^{1,∞}(R^d) uniformly in N — assumption (7).
Needed so f^0_N satisfies assumption 2 of [17, Theorem 5.1]. The paper states that improving these baseline regularity conditions lies beyond its scope.
domain assumption Positivity: w^N_ij ≥ 0, K2 ≥ 0, M^0_i ≥ 0.
Makes V2[f] ≥ 0 so the reaction term f(A − V2[f]) is bounded above by Af; used in the mass lower bound (29)/(40) and in the nonnegativity of solutions in Proposition 8.
ad hoc to paper Kernel regularity beyond (2): K1 ∈ W^{1,1}(R^d), div K1 ∈ L∞(R^d), K2 ∈ L¹(R^d) — hypotheses of Lemmas 9-10 not stated in Theorem 1.
Lemma 9 and Lemma 10 require these and the proof of Theorem 1 invokes them without verifying they follow from (2). W^{1,∞} on R^d does not imply W^{1,1}. This is an unflagged assumption gap, noted as a red flag.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A note on application of mean-field limit to non-exchangeable non-conservative systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OYSIM3KE

@misc{pith2026260720014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A note on application of mean-field limit to non-exchangeable non-conservative systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OYSIM3KE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20014}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper we apply the newly developed theory of extended graphons to a certain class of non-exchangeable, non-conservative problems. We establish the mean-field limit by proving the convergence of the associated generalized weighted empirical measures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

The mean-field limit of non-exchangeable particle systems with non-conservative dynamics and adaptive weights
math.AP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Non-exchangeable particles with adaptive weights converge to a Vlasov-type equation, with the limit described by vector-valued dynamic extended graphons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[17]

E., Poyato D., Soler J.,Mean-field limit of non-exchangeable systems, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 78(4), 651-741, (2025)

Jabin P. E., Poyato D., Soler J.,Mean-field limit of non-exchangeable systems, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 78(4), 651-741, (2025)

2025
[1]

Ambrosio, L., Gigli, N., Savar´ e, G. (2005). Gradient flows: in metric spaces and in the space of probability measures. Basel: Birkh¨ auser Basel

2005
[2]

Ayi N.,Graph and mean-field limits for interacting particle systems, Festum Pi 2024

2024
[3]

Ayi N.,Mean-field limits for interacting particles on general adaptive dynamical networks, arXiv preprint: arXiv:2601.03742, (2026). 47

arXiv 2026
[4]

P.Large-population limits of non-exchangeable particle systems, Active Particles, Volume 4: Theory, Models, Applications, 79-133, (2024)

Ayi N., Duteil N. P.Large-population limits of non-exchangeable particle systems, Active Particles, Volume 4: Theory, Models, Applications, 79-133, (2024)

2024
[5]

P.,Mean-field and graph limits for collective dynamics models with time-varying weights, Journal of Differential Equations, 299, 65-110, (2021)

Ayi N., Duteil N. P.,Mean-field and graph limits for collective dynamics models with time-varying weights, Journal of Differential Equations, 299, 65-110, (2021)

2021
[6]

R.Weakly interacting oscillators on dense random graphs

Bet G., Coppini F., Nardi F. R.Weakly interacting oscillators on dense random graphs. Journal of Applied Probability, 61(1), 255-278, (2024)

2024
[7]

Borgs C., Chayes J., Cohn H., Zhao Y.,AnL p theory of sparse graph convergence I: Limits, sparse random graph models, and power law distributions, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 372(5), 3019-3062, (2019)

2019

Show all 29 references

[8]

T., Cohn H., Zhao Y.,AnL p theory of sparse graph convergence II: LD convergence, quotients and right convergence, Ann

Borgs C., Chayes J. T., Cohn H., Zhao Y.,AnL p theory of sparse graph convergence II: LD convergence, quotients and right convergence, Ann. Probab. 46 (2018), no. 1, 337–396

2018
[9]

The mean field equation and transition point formulas, Discrete Contin

Chiba H., Medvedev G.S.,The mean field analysis for the Kuramoto model on graphs I. The mean field equation and transition point formulas, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. A 39 (2019), no. 1, 131–155. 21

2019
[10]

Asymptotic stability of the incoherent state, center manifold reduction, and bifurcations, Discrete Contin

Chiba H., Medvedev, G.S.,The mean field analysis of the Kuramoto model on graphs II. Asymptotic stability of the incoherent state, center manifold reduction, and bifurcations, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. A 39 (2019), no. 7, 3897–3921. 22

2019
[11]

Cabrera-Nyst J., Poyato D.Mean field limit of non-exchangeable interacting diffusions on co-evolutionary networks arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.21556, (2026)

2026 arXiv
[12]

Chiba, H., Medvedev G.S., Muzuhara M.S.,Bifurcations in the Kuramoto model on graphs, Chaos 28 (2018),073109

2018
[13]

M.,The speed of mean Glivenko-Cantelli convergence, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 40(1), 40-50, (1969)

Dudley, R. M.,The speed of mean Glivenko-Cantelli convergence, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 40(1), 40-50, (1969)

1969
[14]

Duteil N.P.,Mean-field limit of collective dynamics with time-varying weights, Netw. Heterog. Media 17 (2) 129–161, (2022)

2022
[15]

A., Kuehn C.,Graphop mean-field limits for Kuramoto-type models, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 21(1):248–283, 2022

Gkogkas M. A., Kuehn C.,Graphop mean-field limits for Kuramoto-type models, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 21(1):248–283, 2022

2022
[16]

A., Kuehn C., Xu C.,Mean field limits of co-evolutionary signed heterogeneous networks, European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 37(3), 643-686, (2026)

Gkogkas M. A., Kuehn C., Xu C.,Mean field limits of co-evolutionary signed heterogeneous networks, European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 37(3), 643-686, (2026)

2026
[18]

E., Zhou D.The mean-field limit of sparse networks of integrate-and-fire neurons, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C, 43(2), 273-343, (2025)

Jabin P. E., Zhou D.The mean-field limit of sparse networks of integrate-and-fire neurons, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C, 43(2), 273-343, (2025)

2025
[19]

Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi D., Medvedev G.S.,The semilinear heat equation on sparse random graphs, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 49 (2017), pp. 1333-1355

2017
[20]

S.,The mean field equation for the Kuramoto model on graph sequences with non-Lipschitz limit, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 50(3), 2441-2465, (2018)

Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi D., Medvedev G. S.,The mean field equation for the Kuramoto model on graph sequences with non-Lipschitz limit, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 50(3), 2441-2465, (2018)

2018
[21]

N.,First order quasilinear equations in several independent variables, Mathematics of the USSR-Sbornik, 10(2), 217, (1970)

Kruˇ zkov, S. N.,First order quasilinear equations in several independent variables, Mathematics of the USSR-Sbornik, 10(2), 217, (1970)

1970
[22]

Kuehn C., Xu C.,Vlasov equations on digraph measures, J. Differ. Equ. 339 (2022), 261–349

2022
[23]

Lov´ asz L.,Large networks and graph limits, (Vol. 60). American Mathematical Soc, (2012)

2012
[24]

Lov´ asz L., Szegedy B.,Limits of dense graph sequences, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 96(6), 933-957, (2006)

2006
[25]

McQuade S., Piccoli B., Pouradier Duteil N.,Social dynamics models with time-varying influence, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 29(04), 681-716, (2019)

2019
[26]

Perthame B.Transport equations in biology, Basel: Birkh¨ auser Basel, (2007)

2007
[27]

Ryszewska K.,Mean-field limit to non-exchangeable non-conservative systems with adaptive weights, in preparation
[28]

Throm S.,Mean field limit for interacting systems on co-evolving networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21312, (2025)

2025 arXiv
[29]

Zhou D.,Non-exchangeable mean-field theory for adaptive weights: propagation of dissociatedness and graphon sampling lemma, arXiv preprint: arXiv:2506.13587, (2025). 48

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [17]

E., Poyato D., Soler J.,Mean-field limit of non-exchangeable systems, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 78(4), 651-741, (2025)

Jabin P. E., Poyato D., Soler J.,Mean-field limit of non-exchangeable systems, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 78(4), 651-741, (2025)

2025

[2] [1]

Ambrosio, L., Gigli, N., Savar´ e, G. (2005). Gradient flows: in metric spaces and in the space of probability measures. Basel: Birkh¨ auser Basel

2005

[3] [2]

Ayi N.,Graph and mean-field limits for interacting particle systems, Festum Pi 2024

2024

[4] [3]

Ayi N.,Mean-field limits for interacting particles on general adaptive dynamical networks, arXiv preprint: arXiv:2601.03742, (2026). 47

arXiv 2026

[5] [4]

P.Large-population limits of non-exchangeable particle systems, Active Particles, Volume 4: Theory, Models, Applications, 79-133, (2024)

Ayi N., Duteil N. P.Large-population limits of non-exchangeable particle systems, Active Particles, Volume 4: Theory, Models, Applications, 79-133, (2024)

2024

[6] [5]

P.,Mean-field and graph limits for collective dynamics models with time-varying weights, Journal of Differential Equations, 299, 65-110, (2021)

Ayi N., Duteil N. P.,Mean-field and graph limits for collective dynamics models with time-varying weights, Journal of Differential Equations, 299, 65-110, (2021)

2021

[7] [6]

R.Weakly interacting oscillators on dense random graphs

Bet G., Coppini F., Nardi F. R.Weakly interacting oscillators on dense random graphs. Journal of Applied Probability, 61(1), 255-278, (2024)

2024

[8] [7]

Borgs C., Chayes J., Cohn H., Zhao Y.,AnL p theory of sparse graph convergence I: Limits, sparse random graph models, and power law distributions, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 372(5), 3019-3062, (2019)

2019