Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Hypocoercivity meets lifts

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adaptive Langevin dynamics is a near-optimal second-order lift of overdamped Langevin dynamics.

desk verdict A clean, honest unification with two genuinely new applications—ALD near-optimality and a GLE square-root lower bound—but the ALD part rests on an imported Proposition 3.1 that deserves a hard look. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10890 v2 pith:PPQYPNP3 submitted 2024-12-14 math.PR math.APmath.FA

Giovanni Brigati , Francis Lörler , Lihan Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.APmath.FA MSC 60J6060J2582C31
keywords hypocoercivitysecond-orderliftskineticFokker-PlanckequationsadaptiveLangevindynamicsgeneralisedequationrelaxationtimeconvergenceratesPoincaréinequality
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 draws a direct line between two previously separate ideas: variational hypocoercivity, which proves exponential decay for kinetic equations by averaging in time, and second-order lifts, which describe when a non-reversible process is a kinetic acceleration of a reversible diffusion. Its main theorem turns five structural assumptions into an explicit rate $\lambda = 2P_v/(1+(C_{1,T}+C_{0,T}\sqrt{RP_v})^2)$ in the untwisted norm $L^2(\hat\mu)$, so the constants can be compared with lower bounds instead of being hidden by a norm change. On that basis the paper claims that adaptive Langevin dynamics, for near-quadratic potentials with tuned parameters, is a near-optimal second-order lift of overdamped Langevin dynamics, converging at order $\sqrt{P_q}$ up to a universal constant. It further claims that the generalised Langevin equation is also a second-order lift, so it cannot converge faster than the square root of the overdamped rate; in a Gaussian benchmark the optimal parameters give a relaxation time about $0.964\,m^{-1/2}$, within a factor of $1.93$ of the theoretical floor.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the notion of a second-order lift: a semigroup $(\hat P_t)$ on $X\times V$ is a second-order lift of the reversible diffusion semigroup $(P_{t/2})$ when $\Pi T\Pi=0$ and $-(T\Pi)^*(T\Pi)$ is the generator of the overdamped diffusion, with spectral gap $P_x$. This structure identifies the two intermediate inequalities, the space-time-velocity Poincaré–Lions inequality and the averaging lemma, as consequences of the lift, and it also supplies the lower bound $t_{\rm rel}(\hat P)\ge 2^{-1/2}P_x^{-1/2}$ on relaxation time. The averaging lemma is powered by Assumption 5, the solvability of $-\partial_t\varphi_0 - L_x\varphi_1 = g$ with boundary conditions and the regularity estimates (12)-(13); the proof then runs through a time-averaged $L^2$ energy and an adapted Poincaré inequality. The same machinery, applied to the Gaussian generalised Langevin equation, reduces the computation to the spectral analysis of a $3\times 3$ matrix and the propagator norm of a matrix exponential.

What would settle it

A concrete check is numerical: simulate ALD for convex near-quadratic potentials, for example $U(q)=q^2/2+\alpha q^4$ with small $\alpha$, tune $\epsilon$ and $\gamma$ as prescribed, and measure the $L^2$ decay rate as $P_q\to 0$; if the best observed rate is $o(\sqrt{P_q})$, the near-optimality claim is false. For the Gaussian GLE, the relaxation time $0.964\,m^{-1/2}$ at the optimal parameters $\lambda=2\sqrt{2m}$ and $\gamma=3\sqrt{3m}$ is directly checkable, and any second-order lift with relaxation time below $2^{-1/2}P_x^{-1/2}$ would contradict the paper's Corollary 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a single abstract theorem that makes the variational hypocoercivity machinery constructive and simultaneously interprets it through the lift structure. For any linear kinetic equation $\partial_t f + T f = L_v f$ satisfying Assumptions 1 through 5, every zero-mean solution converges in $L^2(\hat\mu)$ with the explicit rate above and an explicit constant; the proof uses a time-averaged energy and an averaging lemma whose constants come from a divergence equation. The genuinely new applications are two. First, adaptive Langevin dynamics satisfies the assumptions once the potential meets quadratic-growth conditions, and after optimizing $T$, $\epsilon$, and $\gamma$, the paper obtains $\lambda \ge P_q/(66334\sqrt{P_q+M+L})$; for convex near-quadratic potentials this is of order $\sqrt{P_q}$, which is the best possible for a second-order lift, so ALD is claimed to be near-optimal. Second, the generalised Langevin equation satisfies the two lift assumptions despite violating the microscopic coercivity Assumption 4, so the general lower bound $t_{\rm rel} \ge \tfrac12 P_x^{-1/2}$ applies; in the Gaussian case the paper computes the sharpest relaxation time for optimised parameters and finds it exceeds the lower bound only by the factor $1.93$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole rate bound rests on Assumption 5: for every zero-mean function $g$, the divergence equation $-\partial_t\varphi_0 - L_x\varphi_1 = g$ must have solutions with boundary conditions and the regularity bounds (12)-(13). For adaptive Langevin dynamics the paper verifies this through Proposition 3.1, which is obtained by rescaling a theorem from another work rather than by a self-contained proof; if that theorem does not cover the rescaled ALD equation, or if the regularity constants there are wrong, the ALD rate bound and the near-optimality claim collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For near-quadratic convex potentials, adaptive Langevin dynamics has convergence rate of order $\sqrt{P_q}$ up to a universal constant, matching the square-root speed-up that is the theoretical ceiling for second-order lifts.
  • The generalised Langevin equation cannot accelerate convergence beyond ballistic speed: its relaxation time is at least $\tfrac12 P_x^{-1/2}$, so adding the memory variable does not beat standard Langevin by a higher-order margin.
  • In the Gaussian case with $\lambda=2\sqrt{2m}$ and $\gamma=3\sqrt{3m}$, the generalised Langevin equation has relaxation time $\approx 0.964 m^{-1/2}$, which is within a factor 1.93 of the lower bound and sharper than the standard Langevin factor 5.46.
  • Because Assumptions 1 through 4 also hold for randomised Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and the Zig-Zag process, the same explicit-rate framework applies to those samplers without further work.
  • The optimisation of $T$ is decoupled from the final constant $C=\exp(T\lambda)$, so rates can be tuned without worsening the norm constants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step would be to verify Assumption 5 directly for the generalised Langevin equation under Assumption 6; the paper states this is ongoing, and success would put an upper bound on GLE's rate matching its lower bound.
  • The paper's identification of GLE as a second-order lift suggests that adding extra degenerate hidden variables, such as higher-order memory or thermostat variables, cannot itself produce more than the square-root acceleration; breaking the barrier would require a structural change such as state-dependent or non-reversible forcing, not just more dimensions.
  • The explicit factor 1.93 in the Gaussian benchmark gives a concrete target for parameter tuning in GLE-based samplers: the optimal friction and coupling are $\gamma=3\sqrt{3m}$ and $\lambda=2\sqrt{2m}$, not arbitrary large values.
  • The paper's rate formula predicts how ALD degrades as the potential's non-quadraticity parameters $M$ and $L$ grow, which is a quantitatively testable prediction for potentials beyond the near-quadratic class.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper unifies the Albritton–Armstrong–Mourrat–Novack variational hypocoercivity framework with the Eberle–Lörler concept of second-order lifts of reversible diffusions. It states a general Theorem 1 under Assumptions 1–5, giving an explicit exponential decay rate in the untwisted L2 norm, and proves it via a time-averaged energy and an averaging lemma (Lemma 2.1). The main applications are: (i) adaptive Langevin dynamics (ALD), for which the paper claims, for near-quadratic potentials and suitable parameters, near-optimality as a second-order lift of overdamped Langevin dynamics; and (ii) the generalized Langevin equation (GLE), for which a square-root lower bound on acceleration is obtained via the general lift lower bound, with an explicit Gaussian benchmark showing a 1.93-optimal lift. The abstract theorem and the GLE lower bound are self-contained, while the ALD upper bound relies on an external divergence-equation result (Proposition 3.1 imported from [30] and [20,18]).

Significance. If all claims hold, the paper is a valuable contribution: it gives a clean, fully constructive presentation of variational hypocoercivity through the lens of lifts, recovers sharp rates for Langevin-type dynamics, and provides a surprising negative result for GLE (no more than square-root acceleration). The proof of Theorem 1 is short and self-contained once Assumptions 1–5 are granted, and the Gaussian GLE computation is explicit and reproducible. The GLE observation that Assumptions 1–2 hold with a degenerate dissipation is elegant and rigorous. However, the headline ALD near-optimality claim depends crucially on Proposition 3.1, which is not proved in the manuscript; because Assumption 5 is the only non-structural input to Theorem 1, the ALD upper-bound claim is only as strong as that imported proposition and the asserted boundary conditions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Proposition 3.1] Proposition 3.1 is the only verification of Assumption 5 for ALD, and Assumption 5 is the only non-structural input to Theorem 1. Yet the proposition is not proved in this manuscript: it is imported from [30, Theorem 5] and [20,18], with only a verbal rescaling z̃ = εz/√(2d). In addition, the statement of Proposition 3.1 gives the regularity estimates (28)–(29) but does not explicitly include the boundary conditions φ0(0,·)=φ0(T,·)=0 and Tφ1(0,·)=Tφ1(T,·)=0 required by Assumption 5; the paragraph preceding the proposition asserts that these follow from [20,18] without proof. Since the integration by parts in the proof of Lemma 2.1, specifically the passage in (23), uses exactly those boundary conditions, the ALD upper-bound estimate is not self-contained as written. A mismatch in the rescaling or in the domain hypotheses of [30, Theorem 5] would alter c0 and c1 in (30) and hence the optimized rate, so this gap is load-bearing for the paper's central ALD near-optimality claim.
  2. [Section 3, final paragraph and Remark 3.2] The conclusion that ALD is 'up to a universal constant, an optimal second-order lift' for 'convex potentials that are not far from quadratic' is not stated as a quantified theorem. The paper sets M=0 and L≈Pq informally, but 'near-quadratic' is never defined, and the final lower bound λ ≥ Pq/(66334√(Pq+M+L)) depends on L. Remark 3.2 explicitly concedes that the L-dependence may be an artifact of the proof technique and that the authors cannot recover the L-free rates of [20] for standard Langevin dynamics. Unless the class of potentials is precisely specified (for instance, M=0 and L ≤ C Pq for a universal constant C) or the L-dependence is removed, the headline claim in the abstract is stronger than what the displayed inequalities prove.
  3. [Section 3, Proposition 3.1 and estimate (12)-(13)] The assertion that (12) and (13) follow from (28)–(29) 'since their left-hand sides only involve at most first derivatives of φ0, first and second derivatives of φ1, and up to eighth moments of v against the standard Gaussian' is not a complete argument. The estimates (12)–(13) need to hold for every zero-mean g ∈ L2(¯µ) with constants uniform in g, and (29) does not control all terms appearing in (13), in particular the mixed terms involving ∇U · ∇qφ1 and zBzφ1 that are later handled using [20, Lemma 2.2] and the structural assumptions on U. Since the authors are already computing the constants in (30) explicitly, the missing step is to verify that the solution produced by [30, Theorem 5] satisfies both (28)–(29) and the boundary conditions in Assumption 5; this should be presented in the manuscript rather than delegated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'is a also second-order lift' should read 'is also a second-order lift'.
  2. [Remark 1.1 and Corollary 2] The lower-bound constants are inconsistent: Remark 1.1 states trel(ˆP) ≥ 1/√2 P_x^{-1/2} by [29, Theorem 11], while Corollary 2 states trel(ˆP) ≥ 1/2 P_x^{-1/2}. Since Example 4.2 compares with 0.964 m^{-1/2} against 1/2 m^{-1/2} to obtain the 1.93-optimality factor, the correct constant from [29] should be used consistently; otherwise the numerical optimality factor may change.
  3. [Example 4.2] The sentence 'By a factorisation argument, the same holds true for arbitrary Gaussian probability measures on Rd' is too terse; a one-sentence justification or a citation would clarify how the scalar computation transfers to the multivariate Gaussian case.
  4. [Equation (14)] In the statement of Theorem 1, the notation R and Pv is used in (14) but these constants are only defined later in Assumption 4 and (9); adding a short parenthetical reminder would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

ALD near-optimality rests on a self-cited Assumption 5 verification, but the core theorem and GLE lower bound are not circular.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, 'Solving the divergence equation' through the final optimization paragraph]
    "Furthermore, from [20, 18], it is already clear that the divergence equation (11) has a solution pφ0, φ1q that satisfies the desired boundary conditions as well as φ0, Btφ1, ∇xφ1 P H1p¯µq. Hence the estimates (12) and (13) must hold ... We adapt the strategy of [30], after [20, 18]. ... which means up to a universal constant, adaptive Langevin dynamics is also an optimal second-order lift of the overdamped Langevin dynamics."

    Applying Theorem 1 to ALD requires Assumption 5: solutions of the divergence equation with boundary conditions and bounds (12)-(13). The manuscript does not prove this for ALD; it asserts that [20,18] make it 'already clear' and then imports Proposition 3.1 by 'adapt[ing] the strategy of [30]'. The cited works overlap heavily with the present authors ([20] includes Wang, [18] includes Brigati, [30] includes Lörler), so the ALD upper bound and the 'near-optimal second-order lift' conclusion reduce to a self-citation chain rather than an in-paper derivation. This is load-bearing self-citation, though not a definitional identity, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The general Theorem 1 is proved from Assumptions 1-5 in Section 2 with a complete energy and averaging-lemma argument; it does not redefine its conclusion as an input. The GLE result in Section 4 is a direct verification of Assumptions 1-2 followed by the lower bound of [29, Theorem 11] and an explicit Gaussian benchmark computation, so it is not circular. The circularity risk is concentrated in the ALD application: Assumption 5 is verified by Proposition 3.1, which is quoted from [30, Theorem 5] and [20,18], all by overlapping authors. Because those are stated as general theorems whose assumptions do not include the target ALD optimality, they are independent mathematical support rather than a fit or a definitional equivalence; however, the manuscript does not reproduce their proofs or the boundary-condition verification, so the ALD near-optimality claim carries a genuine self-citation burden. Separately, Proposition 3.1 as stated omits the boundary conditions required by Assumption 5; the text claims them from [20,18] but does not exhibit them. That is a correctness gap, not a circularity, and it does not further raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem is conditional on Assumptions 1-5; for ALD, Assumption 6 and Proposition 3.1 (cited from prior work by the same group) supply the needed regularity. The parameter choices for epsilon, gamma, and T are optimization choices, not fitted to data. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Time-averaging window T = T^2 = pi^2 P_x^{-1} (chosen in ALD optimization)
    An auxiliary parameter in Theorem 1; chosen by hand to optimize the rate bound. The theorem allows any T > 0.
  • ALD feedback timescale epsilon = epsilon^2 = sqrt(d/(P_q(M+L+gamma^2)))
    Chosen to optimize the ALD convergence rate bound.
  • ALD friction gamma = gamma = sqrt(P_q+M+L)
    Chosen to optimize the ALD convergence rate bound.
  • GLE coupling lambda and friction gamma in Gaussian benchmark = lambda = 2 sqrt(2m), gamma = 3 sqrt(3m)
    Chosen to maximize the spectral gap in the Gaussian case.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: Pi T Pi = 0.
    Defines the projection property of a second-order lift; used in the adjoint identities in Lemma 2.1. Verified in all examples.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: L_x = -(T Pi)^*(T Pi) is a reversible diffusion generator and has Poincare gap P_x > 0.
    Supplies macroscopic coercivity and the spectral gap P_x; the relaxation-time lower bound for lifts is expressed in terms of P_x.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: T is non-negative in L2(mu_hat) in the sense of inequality (8).
    Used in the energy estimate (27) to show the time-averaged energy decreases.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: L_v self-adjoint, ker L_v = Im Pi, microscopic coercivity (9), and the regularity bound (10).
    Controls the dissipation in v; for ALD it holds with R = P_v = gamma.
  • domain assumption Assumption 5: divergence equation (11) has solutions phi0, phi1 with boundary conditions and estimates (12), (13).
    The load-bearing regularity input for the averaging lemma. It is not proved in general and for ALD is imported from [30,20,18] via Proposition 3.1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 6 (ALD): grad^2 U >= -M Id, Delta U <= Ld + a|grad U|^2 with a in (0,1/2), and discrete spectrum with gap P_q.
    Restricts the class of potentials for which the ALD constants are computed.
  • domain assumption For the GLE lower bound, mu satisfies a Poincare inequality with constant P_x^{-1}.
    Used in Lemma 4.1 to show the GLE is a second-order lift; this is the standard macroscopic coercivity assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hypocoercivity meets lifts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PPQYPNP3

@misc{pith2026241210890,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hypocoercivity meets lifts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PPQYPNP3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10890}
}
read the original abstract

We unify the variational hypocoercivity framework established by D. Albritton, S. Armstrong, J.-C. Mourrat, and M. Novack, with the notion of second-order lifts of reversible diffusion processes, recently introduced by A. Eberle and F. L\"orler. We give an abstract, yet fully constructive, presentation of the theory, so that it can be applied to a large class of linear kinetic equations. As this hypocoercivity technique does not twist the reference norm, we can recover accurate and sharp convergence rates in various models. Among those, adaptive Langevin dynamics (ALD) is discussed in full detail and we show that for near-quadratic potentials, with suitable choices of parameters, it is a near-optimal second-order lift of the overdamped Langevin dynamics. As a further consequence, we observe that the Generalised Langevin Equation (GLE) is a also a second-order lift, as the standard (kinetic) Langevin dynamics are, of the overdamped Langevin dynamics. Then, convergence of (GLE) cannot exceed ballistic speed, i.e. the square root of the rate of the overdamped regime. We illustrate this phenomenon with explicit computations in a benchmark Gaussian case.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Exponential Ergodicity in Relative Entropy and $L^2$-Wasserstein Distance for non-equilibrium partially dissipative Kinetic SDEs

    math.PR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Non-equilibrium kinetic SDEs under partial dissipation are shown to satisfy exponential ergodicity in relative entropy and L2-Wasserstein distance, with extensions to McKean-Vlasov and mean-field particle systems.

  2. From Kinetic Theory to AI: a Rediscovery of High-Dimensional Divergences and Their Properties

    math-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The authors extend Energy Distances to negative and higher orders, connect them to Fourier-based metrics, and construct scale-invariant divergence measures for high-dimensional machine learning.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [2]

    Variational methods for the kinetic Fokker–Planck equation

    Dallas Albritton, Scott Armstrong, Jean-Christophe Mo urrat, and Matthew Novack. Variational methods for the kinetic Fokker–Planck equation. Analysis & PDE , 17(6):1953–2010, 2024

    work page 1953

  2. [29]

    Non-reversible lif ts of reversible diffusion processes and relaxation times

    Andreas Eberle and Francis Lörler. Non-reversible lif ts of reversible diffusion processes and relaxation times. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields , 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [30]

    Space-time divergence lemmas and optimal non-reversible lifts of diffusions on Riemannian manifolds with boundary

    Andreas Eberle and Francis Lörler. Space-time diverge nce lemmas and optimal non-reversible lifts of diffusions on Riemannian manifolds with boundary. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16710 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [20]

    On explicit L2-convergence rate estimate for underdamped Langevin dynamics

    Yu Cao, Jianfeng Lu, and Lihan Wang. On explicit L2-convergence rate estimate for underdamped Langevin dynamics. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 247(5):90, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [1]

    On optimal decay estimates for ODEs and PDEs with modal decomposition

    Franz Achleitner, Anton Arnold, and Beatrice Signorell o. On optimal decay estimates for ODEs and PDEs with modal decomposition. In International workshop on Stochastic Dynamics out of Equil ibrium, pages 241–264. Springer, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [3]

    Poincaré inequality and quantitative De Giorgi meth od for hypoelliptic operators

    Francesca Anceschi, Helge Dietert, Jessica Guerand, Am élie Loher, Clément Mouhot, and Annalaura Re- bucci. Poincaré inequality and quantitative De Giorgi meth od for hypoelliptic operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12194, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [4]

    Sharpening of decay rates in Fourier based hypocoercivity methods

    Anton Arnold, Jean Dolbeault, Christian Schmeiser, and Tobias Wöhrer. Sharpening of decay rates in Fourier based hypocoercivity methods. In Recent Advances in Kinetic Equations and Applications , pages 1–50. Springer, 2021. 16 GIOV ANNI BRIGATI, FRANCIS LÖRLER, AND LIHAN W ANG

    work page 2021

  8. [5]

    Propagator norm and sharp decay estimates for Fokker-Planck equations with linear drift

    Anton Arnold, Christian Schmeiser, and Beatrice Signor ello. Propagator norm and sharp decay estimates for Fokker-Planck equations with linear drift. Commun. Math. Sci. , 20(4):1047–1080, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 51 references
  1. [6]

    Diffusions hypercontr actives

    Dominique Bakry and Michel Émery. Diffusions hypercontr actives. In Séminaire de Probabilités XIX 1983/84: Proceedings, pages 177–206. Springer, 2006

    1983

  2. [7]

    Analysis and geometry of Markov diffusion operators

    Dominique Bakry, Ivan Gentil, and Michel Ledoux. Analysis and geometry of Markov diffusion operators . Springer, Cham; New York, 2014

    2014

  3. [8]

    Bakry–émery meet Villani

    Fabrice Baudoin. Bakry–émery meet Villani. Journal of functional analysis , 273(7):2275–2291, 2017

    2017

  4. [9]

    Hypocoercivity with Schur complements

    Étienne Bernard, Max Fathi, Antoine Levitt, and Gabriel Stoltz. Hypocoercivity with Schur complements. An- nales Henri Lebesgue , 5:523–557, 2022

    2022

  5. [10]

    Th e zig-zag process and super-efficient sampling for Bayesian analysis of big data

    Joris Bierkens, Paul Fearnhead, and Gareth Roberts. Th e zig-zag process and super-efficient sampling for Bayesian analysis of big data. The Annals of Statistics , 47(3):1288–1320, 2019

    2019

  6. [11]

    Ergodicity of the zigzag process

    Joris Bierkens, Gareth O Roberts, and Pierre-André Zit t. Ergodicity of the zigzag process. The Annals of Applied Probability, 29(4):2266–2301, 2019

    2019

  7. [12]

    Randomize d Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

    Nawaf Bou-Rabee and Jesus Maria Sanz-Serna. Randomize d Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. The Annals of applied probability, 27(4):2159–2194, 2015

    2015

  8. [13]

    The bouncy particle sampler: A non- reversible rejection-free Markov chain Monte Carlo method

    Alexandre Bouchard-Côté, Sebastian J Vollmer, and Arn aud Doucet. The bouncy particle sampler: A non- reversible rejection-free Markov chain Monte Carlo method . Journal of the American Statistical Association , 113(522):855–867, 2018

    2018

  9. [14]

    Fra ctional hypocoercivity

    Emeric Bouin, Jean Dolbeault, and Laurent Lafleche. Fra ctional hypocoercivity. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 390(3):1369–1411, 2022

    2022

  10. [15]

    Hypocoercivity and sub-exponential local equilibria

    Emeric Bouin, Jean Dolbeault, Laurent Lafleche, and Chr istian Schmeiser. Hypocoercivity and sub-exponential local equilibria. Monatshefte für Mathematik , 194:41–65, 2021

    2021

  11. [16]

    L 2 Hypo coercivity methods for kinetic Fokker-Planck equations with factorised Gibbs states

    Emeric Bouin, Jean Dolbeault, and Luca Ziviani. L 2 Hypo coercivity methods for kinetic Fokker-Planck equations with factorised Gibbs states. In INdAM Meeting: Kolmogorov Operators and their Application s Workshop, pages 23–56. Springer, 2022

    2022

  12. [17]

    Time averages for kinetic Fokker–Pl anck equations

    Giovanni Brigati. Time averages for kinetic Fokker–Pl anck equations. Kinetic and Related Models , 16(4):524–539, 2023

    2023

  13. [18]

    How to construct d ecay rates for kinetic Fokker–Planck equations? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14506, 2023

    Giovanni Brigati and Gabriel Stoltz. How to construct d ecay rates for kinetic Fokker–Planck equations? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14506, 2023

    2023

  14. [19]

    Explicit convergence rates of underdamped Langevin dynamics under weighted and weak Poincaré–Lions i nequalities

    Giovanni Brigati, Gabriel Stoltz, Andi Q Wang, and Liha n Wang. Explicit convergence rates of underdamped Langevin dynamics under weighted and weak Poincaré–Lions i nequalities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16033 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Lifting Markov C hains to Speed up Mixing

    Fang Chen, László Lovász, and Igor Pak. Lifting Markov C hains to Speed up Mixing. Proceedings of the Thirty- First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 275–281, 05 1999

    1999

  16. [22]

    Persi Diaconis, Susan Holmes, and Radford M. Neal. Anal ysis of a nonreversible Markov chain sampler. Ann. Appl. Probab., 10(3):726–752, 2000

    2000

  17. [23]

    L2-hypocoercivity for non-equilibrium kinetic equations

    Helge Dietert. L2-hypocoercivity for non-equilibrium kinetic equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13456 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Quantitative geometric control in linear kinetic theory

    Helge Dietert, Frédéric Hérau, Harsha Hutridurga, and Clément Mouhot. Quantitative geometric control in linear kinetic theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.09340 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Bayesian sampling using stochastic gradient thermostats

    Nan Ding, Youhan Fang, Ryan Babbush, Changyou Chen, Rob ert D Skeel, and Hartmut Neven. Bayesian sampling using stochastic gradient thermostats. Advances in neural information processing systems , 27, 2014

    2014

  20. [26]

    Hypocoercivity for kinetic equations with linear relaxation terms

    Jean Dolbeault, Clément Mouhot, and Christian Schmeis er. Hypocoercivity for kinetic equations with linear relaxation terms. Comptes Rendus Mathematique , 347(9):511–516, May 2009

    2009

  21. [27]

    Hypocoercivity for linear kinetic equations conservin g mass

    Jean Dolbeault, Clément Mouhot, and Christian Schmeis er. Hypocoercivity for linear kinetic equations conservin g mass. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 367(6):3807–3828, 2015

    2015

  22. [28]

    Convergence of non-reversible Markov processes via lifting and flow Poincaré inequality

    Andreas Eberle, Arnaud Guillin, Léo Hahn, Francis Lörl er, and Manon Michel. Convergence of non-reversible Markov processes via lifting and flow Poincaré inequality. In preparation, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Compressible generalized hybrid Monte Carlo

    Youhan Fang, Jesus-Maria Sanz-Serna, and Robert D Skee l. Compressible generalized hybrid Monte Carlo. The Journal of chemical physics , 140(17), 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    Riemann Manifold Lan gevin and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Methods

    Mark Girolami and Ben Calderhead. Riemann Manifold Lan gevin and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Methods. J. R. Statist. Soc. , 73(2):123–214, 03 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    Regularity of the moments of the solution of a transport equation

    François Golse, Pierre-Louis Lions, Benoît Perthame, and Rémi Sentis. Regularity of the moments of the solution of a transport equation. Journal of functional analysis , 76(1):110–125, 1988. HYPOCOERCIVITY MEETS LIFTS 17

    1988

  26. [34]

    Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations , volume 31

    Ernst Hairer, Christian Lubich, and Gerhard Wanner. Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations , volume 31. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  27. [35]

    Hypocoercivity and exponential time d ecay for the linear inhomogeneous relaxation Boltzmann equation

    Frédéric Hérau. Hypocoercivity and exponential time d ecay for the linear inhomogeneous relaxation Boltzmann equation. Asymptotic Analysis , 46(3-4):349–359, 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Exponential relaxation of the Nosé-Hoo ver equation under Brownian heating

    David P Herzog. Exponential relaxation of the Nosé-Hoo ver equation under Brownian heating. Communications in Mathematical Sciences , 16:2231–2260, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Hypoelliptic second order differentia l equations

    Lars Hörmander. Hypoelliptic second order differentia l equations. Acta Mathematica, 119:147–171, 1967

    1967

  30. [38]

    Adaptive stochastic m ethods for sampling driven molecular systems

    Andrew Jones and Ben Leimkuhler. Adaptive stochastic m ethods for sampling driven molecular systems. The Journal of chemical physics , 135(8), 2011

    2011

  31. [39]

    Kolmogoroff

    A. Kolmogoroff. Zufallige Bewegungen (zur Theorie der B rownschen Bewegung). Annals of Mathematics , 35(1):116–117, 1934

    1934

  32. [40]

    Convergence in total variation for the ki netic Langevin algorithm

    Joseph Lehec. Convergence in total variation for the ki netic Langevin algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09301, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hypocoercivity properties of adaptive Langevin dy- namics

    Benedict Leimkuhler, Matthias Sachs, and Gabriel Stol tz. Hypocoercivity properties of adaptive Langevin dy- namics. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 80(3):1197–1222, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Hypocoercivity properties of adaptive langevin dy- namics

    Benedict Leimkuhler, Matthias Sachs, and Gabriel Stol tz. Hypocoercivity properties of adaptive langevin dy- namics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09363v3 , 2023

    1908 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Unbia sing Hamiltonian Monte Carlo algorithms for a general Hamiltonian function

    Tony Lelièvre, Régis Santet, and Gabriel Stoltz. Unbia sing Hamiltonian Monte Carlo algorithms for a general Hamiltonian function. Foundations of Computational Mathematics , pages 1–74, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    On explicit L2-convergence rate estimate for piecewise deterministic Ma rkov processes in MCMC algorithms

    Jianfeng Lu and Lihan Wang. On explicit L2-convergence rate estimate for piecewise deterministic Ma rkov processes in MCMC algorithms. The Annals of Applied Probability , 32(2):1333–1361, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Sp ectrum of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Operators in Lp Spaces with Respect to Invariant Measures

    Giorgio Metafune, Diego Pallara, and Enrico Priola. Sp ectrum of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Operators in Lp Spaces with Respect to Invariant Measures. J. Funct. Anal. , 196(1):40–60, 2002

    2002

  38. [46]

    Ge neralized event-chain Monte Carlo: Constructing rejection-free global-balance algorithms from infinitesi mal steps

    Manon Michel, Sebastian C Kapfer, and Werner Krauth. Ge neralized event-chain Monte Carlo: Constructing rejection-free global-balance algorithms from infinitesi mal steps. The Journal of chemical physics , 140(5), 2014

    2014

  39. [47]

    High-order Langevin diffusion yields an accelerated MCMC algorithm

    Wenlong Mou, Yi-An Ma, Martin J Wainwright, Peter L Bart lett, and Michael I Jordan. High-order Langevin diffusion yields an accelerated MCMC algorithm. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 22(1):1919–1959, 2021

    1919

  40. [48]

    A unified formulation of the constant temp erature molecular dynamics methods

    Shuichi Nosé. A unified formulation of the constant temp erature molecular dynamics methods. The Journal of chemical physics , 81(1):511–519, 1984

    1984

  41. [49]

    Asymptotic analysis for the generalized Langevin equation

    Michela Ottobre and Grigorios A Pavliotis. Asymptotic analysis for the generalized Langevin equation. Nonlin- earity, 24(5):1629, 2011

    2011

  42. [50]

    Scaling limits for the generalized Langevin equation

    Grigorios A Pavliotis, Gabriel Stoltz, and Urbain Vaes . Scaling limits for the generalized Langevin equation. Journal of Nonlinear Science , 31(1):8, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Hypocoercivity, volume 202

    Cédric Villani. Hypocoercivity, volume 202. American Mathematical Society, 2009. Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Am Campus 1, Kl osterneuburg, 3400 Austria Email address : giovanni.brigati@ist.ac.at Institute for Applied Ma thema tics, University of Bonn. End enic...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.