Weak Poincaré Inequalities via Approximate Stochastic Localization: Application to Sampling the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model
Abstract: We develop a new method for proving a weak functional inequality by first proving it for a sufficiently regular sequence of distributions approximating the stochastic localization (SL) process, and then transferring it to the desired distribution via regularity of the SL process and conductance arguments. We use this strategy to prove a weak Poincaré inequality (WPI) holds for the Gibbs measure of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model when $β< \frac{1}{2}$. A prior result of the authors [arXiv:2605.03718, 2026] proves the ASL process for the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model satisfies the required regularity conditions. A consequence of the WPI is that a much simpler algorithm -- Glauber dynamics with a warm-start -- efficiently samples the Gibbs measure of the SK model at $β< \frac{1}{2}$. This is a significant structural step towards resolution of the conjecture that Glauber dynamics mixes fast in the replica-symmetric regime for the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model [arXiv:2504.20539, Open-Problem 15, 2025].
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Explain it Like I'm 14
What this paper is about
This paper is about speeding up how we sample, or “draw at random,” from a very complicated probability model called the Sherrington–Kirkpatrick (SK) model. You can think of the SK model as a big, messy magnet with lots of tiny on/off switches (spins) that all interact. Scientists want to sample from this model to understand its behavior. But because the interactions are random and tangled, ordinary methods can be slow.
The authors introduce a new way to prove a kind of “stability” statement, called a weak Poincaré inequality (WPI). In simple terms, WPI says a basic, simple algorithm called Glauber dynamics will reach near-random behavior quickly—so long as you don’t start too far away from the right place (this is called a warm start). Using their method, they show this WPI holds for the SK model when the inverse temperature β is less than 1/2 (this is the higher-temperature, easier regime), and then they turn this into a simpler sampling algorithm than what was known before.
The key questions
- Can we prove a stability/mixing property (WPI) for difficult models like SK under weaker, more realistic conditions than previous methods required?
- If yes, can that proof make a simple sampling algorithm (plain Glauber dynamics with a warm start) work efficiently for the SK model when β < 1/2?
How they approach it
To keep ideas intuitive, here are the main tools and how to picture them:
Stochastic localization (SL): focusing the picture
Imagine your target distribution (the complicated random magnet) is like a blurry photo you want to sharpen. Stochastic localization is a mathematical process that gradually “focuses” the distribution until it concentrates on a single sample—like slowly zooming a camera. It’s powerful for proving deep properties, but it usually needs strong, hard-to-verify conditions.
Approximate stochastic localization (ASL): a computable stand-in
ASL is a practical, approximate version of that focusing process. It’s easier to control and has weaker requirements. The authors’ key idea is to prove the desired stability (WPI) by:
- Proving it first for a smooth, well-behaved sequence of distributions that approximate the SL process.
- Transferring that property back to the real target distribution using regularity and flow arguments (think: if the proxy is close enough and behaves well, the real thing inherits the behavior).
They call this “scaffolding”: use a nicer, nearby object to support the target.
A decomposition trick: proving two smaller things instead of one big thing
The authors use a decomposition theorem that says: to show a WPI for the whole system, it suffices to show WPI for two simpler parts:
- The “localized” distribution you get at an intermediate focusing time.
- A simple alternating update chain (“proximal sampler”) that moves between a smoothed version and the localized version.
Why this helps: each piece is easier to control than the whole thing at once.
Conductance and smoothing: keeping mass flowing
To make the second part work, they prove a WPI for a smoothed distribution connected to the SL process. Intuitively, “conductance” measures how easily probability flows between large regions. If flow is blocked by skinny choke points, mixing is slow. The authors show that adding a little Gaussian noise (a gentle blur) removes those choke points, improving conductance. Then a known link (Cheeger-type inequalities) turns good conductance into a WPI.
The SK-specific part
For the SK model, they rely on earlier results that say the ASL process is regular enough and stays close to the true SL process, and that the localized (tilted) SK distributions are tightly concentrated with high probability. They adapt those results to show the localized distributions satisfy a WPI for the Glauber dynamics, finishing the decomposition.
Main results and why they matter
- They prove a weak Poincaré inequality for the SK model when β < 1/2. In plain terms: if you start Glauber dynamics from a warm start—not too far from the true distribution—you mix to near-random fairly quickly.
- This result goes beyond earlier “functional inequality” results for SK that only worked up to about β ≈ 0.295. Now it reaches β < 1/2, aligning with the best-known fast sampling results but with a much simpler final algorithm.
- Consequence: a simple two-phase sampler works. 1) Warm start: run a short continuous-time random walk (Langevin dynamics) or the approximate localization to get a good starting point. 2) Then run plain Glauber dynamics to sample the SK model.
- The paper also shows how to build an explicit good warm start using a physics identity called Jarzynski’s equality. This warm start itself has strong “concentration” properties (a log-Sobolev inequality), meaning it’s not too spiky and is easy to sample from.
Why this matters: Glauber dynamics is the most basic, well-understood updater—pick one spin at random and resample it. Showing that it mixes quickly from a warm start using clean, verifiable conditions is an important structural step toward the bigger conjecture that Glauber dynamics mixes fast in the entire “replica-symmetric” regime (roughly, the high-temperature phase).
What this means going forward
- Simpler algorithms: The end sampler is much simpler than previous multi-part methods, yet still works in the significant regime β < 1/2.
- A new proof strategy: Proving WPIs through approximate stochastic localization may work for other complex, “glassy” models where direct methods are too hard.
- Closer to the big goal: This is a step toward proving that Glauber dynamics is fast in even broader ranges of the SK model (and possibly other spin glasses).
In short, the paper shows how a smart combination of approximation, smoothing, and decomposition can turn very tough models into something a simple algorithm can handle—at least from a reasonably good starting point.
Knowledge Gaps
Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions
Below is a consolidated list of what remains missing, uncertain, or unexplored based on the paper, formulated to guide concrete follow‑up work:
- Extending the β range: The results for the SK model are proved only for β<1/2 (replica-symmetric regime extends up to β<1). It remains open whether the assumptions (magnetization error, Lipschitz drift for ASL, WPI for localized measures) and the WPI transfer can be established for 1/2≤β<1.
- Strength of WPI constants: The obtained weak Poincaré constants degrade exponentially with 1/ε (e.g., c≈e{-O(1/ε)}), and become trivial when ε≈1/n. Achieving a (n{-O(1)}, o(1/n)) WPI—sufficient for simulated annealing—is open.
- From WPI to PI/MLSI: The work yields a WPI (mixing from warm starts), not a Poincaré or (modified) log‑Sobolev inequality (mixing from arbitrary starts). Clarifying whether the method can be strengthened to a PI/MLSI for SK at high temperature remains open.
- Optimizing T0/T1 “scaffolding”: The proof uses a smoothing step via p_{T0} and comparison to p_{T1}. It is unclear how to optimally choose T0<T1 (or adaptively choose them) to improve WPI constants; a quantitative optimization is missing.
- Tight conductance bounds: The conductance lower bounds for the SL distribution p_{T0} use a coupling argument plus Gaussian smoothing and Cheeger’s inequality (incurring quadratic losses). Sharper isoperimetric or spectral profile bounds could improve constants.
- Direct mixing analysis of the proximal sampler: WPI is shown via comparison to Langevin; a direct spectral or MLSI analysis of the (t0,t1) proximal sampler (and its discretizations) could sharpen constants and broaden applicability.
- Localized WPI assumptions: The localized WPI for μ_{y_T} (time‑T localized measure) is assumed with high probability. Providing a more intrinsic, assumption‐light proof or a uniform-in-y_T quantitative version with explicit constants is open.
- ASL Lipschitz drift assumption: The method requires a Lipschitz bound for the approximate magnetization m̃ (not the true m), which is verified using heavy machinery in DLSS26. Identifying weaker or alternative regularity conditions that still allow WPI transfer remains open.
- Magnetization error control: The approach hinges on controlling ∥m(y_t)−m̃(y_t)∥² through time and bounding E_T (the Girsanov/KL budget). New techniques to reduce E_T or trade it more efficiently into WPI constants are needed.
- Jarzynski weights (Lipschitz ODE) assumption: The warm‑start construction relies on weight processes satisfying Lipschitz drift. Verifying this rigorously for broader models (and quantifying the constants tightly) is not addressed.
- Path‑space LSI perturbation robustness: The path‑space LSI transfer is proved under Lipschitz drifts; extensions to drifts with linear growth, merely one‑sided Lipschitz, or weaker regularity would enlarge applicability.
- Discretization and implementation details: The algorithm uses discretized Langevin for ρ_T and Glauber steps; detailed non‑asymptotic discretization error bounds, step‑size constraints, and total computational complexity for the mirror‑descent subroutine (computing m(y)) are not quantified.
- Runtime dependence on ε: The end‑to‑end sampling time scales as n·exp((1/ε){O(1)}), worse than prior ASL‑based runtimes O(poly(n)·e{O(1/ε)}). Narrowing this gap—either via improved WPI constants or better warm‑start closeness—is open.
- Warm‑start quality metrics: The warm‑start closeness is controlled in terms like Lq/χ², not uniform TV; upgrading to TV‑warmness guarantees (or proving sharper χ² bounds) would yield stronger mixing and runtime guarantees.
- Atypical disorder instances: Results hold with high probability over A∼GOE(n). Behavior, possible guarantees, or algorithms for the small‑probability set of atypical A (where assumptions fail) are unaddressed.
- Generalization to other models: Applying the method to mixed p‑spin on the hypercube, SK with fields, sparse random graphs, or other spin glasses requires verifying the three core assumptions; a roadmap or criteria to do so is missing.
- Spherical models and continuous domains: While the framework nominally handles r·S{n−1}, a careful treatment of discrete‑to‑continuous differences (e.g., for spherical SK or p‑spin) and the impact on constants is not developed.
- Alternative (nonreversible) dynamics: Whether analogous WPI transfer results can be obtained for nonreversible dynamics (e.g., underdamped Langevin, nonreversible Glauber) and whether nonreversibility improves constants is open.
- Alternative decompositions: The WPI decomposition relies on alternating Gibbs (X|Y and Y|X) with SL geometry. Exploring other decompositions (e.g., block‑Gibbs or rank‑k proximal updates) that might yield better constants is unexplored.
- Coupling construction details: The small‑distance coupling between p_{T1} masses is asserted; explicit constructions (e.g., via optimal transport bounds using score error control) with quantitative constants could tighten conductance bounds.
- Beyond GOE: Extending to deformed Wigner or correlated disorder ensembles would require new free‑probability/cavity inputs; the sensitivity of the method to such changes is unstudied.
- Simulated annealing compatibility: The paper notes the current WPI is too weak for standard annealing schedules. Designing annealing schemes that exploit smoothing (e.g., via SL time) and the proven WPI remains an open direction.
- Error function choice in WPI: The analysis uses Err(f)=osc(f)². Alternative error functionals (e.g., localized oscillation or median‑based variants) might yield sharper convergence bounds; this is uninvestigated.
- Quantitative constants: Many constants are implicit (depend on β, L, E_{T1}, etc.). Providing explicit, numerically evaluable constants would aid both theory‑to‑practice translation and comparison to alternative methods.
- Empirical validation: No numerical experiments are provided to assess warm‑start quality, mixing times, or sensitivity to discretization; empirical studies could guide constant optimization and practical parameter choices.
Practical Applications
Immediate Applications
Below are concrete, deployable use cases that follow directly from the paper’s results and constructions, together with sector tags, potential tools/workflows, and key assumptions that gate feasibility.
- SK sampling via a simpler pipeline: Glauber dynamics from a warm start (Academia, ML research; Software)
- What you can do now:
- For the Sherrington–Kirkpatrick (SK) model at inverse temperature β < 1/2, sample the Gibbs measure using:
- 1) Warm start: simulate Langevin dynamics targeting the annealed distribution ρT (constructed via Jarzynski’s equality) for O(1) time with stepsize η ≈ 1/n, starting from y0 ~ N(0, T I), where the drift uses the TAP-like magnetization m(y) (solved numerically e.g., by mirror descent).
- 2) Local mixing: run Glauber dynamics (or the polarized walk) on the localized measure μβA,yT for O(n2) (or O(n)) steps.
- 3) Global mixing: run Glauber dynamics for ne(1/ε){O(1)} steps to reach total variation error ε.
- Tools/workflows/products:
- A reference implementation of the “SK Sampler: Glauber dynamics from a warm start” algorithm in Python/Julia/C++.
- A TAP/magnetization solver (mirror-descent-based) with line-search and stopping criteria for m(y).
- A Langevin kernel with adaptive step-size control for ρT, and a standard Gibbs kernel for μβA.
- Assumptions/dependencies:
- SK high-temperature regime: β < 1/2.
- Model-side properties established in prior work (DLSS26): magnetization error bounds (A1), Lipschitz drift for ASL (A2), localized WPI (A3), and Lipschitz JE weights (A4).
- Computational cost dominated by evaluating A·v and solving the TAP equation to sufficient accuracy.
- Methodological shortcut to functional inequalities via ASL scaffolding (Academia; Theory/Methods)
- What you can do now:
- Prove weak Poincaré inequalities (WPI) for complex Gibbs measures by verifying weaker, algorithmic localization conditions (A1–A3) that are often easier than full SL regularity.
- Apply the decomposition theorem (joint-to-marginal WPI via the proximal sampler) to modularize analyses: prove WPI for conditionals (localized measures) and for the Y-marginal chain, then lift to the target.
- Tools/workflows/products:
- A “WPI-from-ASL” proof checklist: verify magnetization approximation (A1), Lipschitz drift for ASL (A2), and localized WPI (A3); then combine via the paper’s decomposition and conductance arguments.
- Assumptions/dependencies:
- Existence of an ASL that tracks SL with O(1) error (model-dependent).
- High-probability WPI for localized measures (often shown via concentration/local structure).
- Proximal sampler as an analysis and diagnostic tool (Academia; Software)
- What you can do now:
- Use the (t0, t1)-proximal sampler kernels as a lens to study conductance profiles and WPI of pT0 through Gaussian “smoothing” of pT1.
- Employ the proximal sampler as a diagnostic in experiments (not necessarily as the production sampler): compare empirical mixing/mode connectivity across t.
- Tools/workflows/products:
- A prototype proximal-sampler module with tunable (t0, t1) and optional adjoint-kernel checks.
- Assumptions/dependencies:
- Access to an SL/ASL-like path or to its Gaussian time-change reverse step.
- Warm-start engineering via Jarzynski’s equality and path-space LSI (Academia, ML research; Software)
- What you can do now:
- Construct explicit, sampleable warm-start distributions ρT (annealed reweightings of ASL laws) with provable log-Sobolev constants via a path-space (Cameron–Martin) perturbation argument under Lipschitz JE weights.
- Use Langevin to sample ρT efficiently and feed its output to Gibbs/MCMC on the target.
- Tools/workflows/products:
- A generic “JE warm-start builder” that integrates an ODE for weights along a diffusion path, with Lipschitz checks and LSI certification.
- Assumptions/dependencies:
- Lipschitz-in-state JE reweighting drift (A4-like), verified for the model of interest.
- Practical ODE/stochastic simulation stability and access to target gradients.
- Teaching and benchmarking for high-dimensional sampling (Academia)
- What you can do now:
- Use SK at β < 1/2 as a testbed for contrasting ASL-based, proximal-sampler-based, and Glauber-from-warm-start pipelines.
- Incorporate decomposition-based WPI proofs and scaffolding arguments into advanced courses on MCMC, statistical physics, and diffusion models.
- Tools/workflows/products:
- Reproducible notebooks with ablations over T, step sizes, and solver accuracy.
- Assumptions/dependencies:
- Availability of random GOE instances; careful control of numerical error in TAP solvers.
- Probabilistic programming integrations for dense Ising-like models (Industry, ML tooling; Software)
- What you can do now:
- Add a “warm-started Gibbs” option for dense Ising/spin-glass-style models in probabilistic programming systems, using ρT-based initializations.
- Tools/workflows/products:
- A backend that computes m(y) and runs short Langevin for ρT before dispatching to a Gibbs kernel.
- Assumptions/dependencies:
- Model must be in a regime where ASL-style Lipschitz conditions and localized WPI plausibly hold (empirical checks recommended).
Long-Term Applications
These use cases require further theoretical progress, scaling work, or generalization beyond SK β < 1/2.
- Extending fast mixing to broader regimes and models (Academia, ML research; Software)
- Potential:
- Push WPI and warm-start Glauber mixing closer to the conjectured replica-symmetric threshold (β < 1), or to other spin glasses (e.g., structured couplings, sparse graphs, mixed p-spin).
- Adapt the decomposition-plus-scaffolding proof strategy to general discrete MRFs used in computer vision, computational biology, or coding theory.
- Likely tools/products:
- A general-purpose “ASL regularity verifier” and “localized-WPI prover” for practitioner models.
- Key dependencies:
- Stronger or tailored ASL regularity and localized WPI estimates beyond those currently proved for SK.
- Certified sampling modules for diffusion models (Industry, ML foundations; Software/Frameworks)
- Potential:
- Use the paper’s ASL/SL connection and JE reweighting to design training/inference schedules in score-based generative models that preserve LSI or guarantee WPI at key stages, enabling certified sampling subroutines.
- Hybrid samplers that alternate diffusion steps with MCMC updates guided by proximal-sampler insights.
- Likely tools/products:
- “Certified diffusion + MCMC” pipelines with runtime monitors for conductance-like surrogates and warm-start diagnostics.
- Key dependencies:
- Establishing verifiable Lipschitz/approximation properties for learned score/drift fields; bridging from theory-on-known potentials to learned potentials.
- Scalable uncertainty quantification via warm-start MCMC (Industry: personalization, A/B testing, health analytics; Software)
- Potential:
- Integrate warm-started Gibbs/Langevin updates for large-scale Bayesian models with rugged posteriors, enabling rapid incremental posterior updates in production systems.
- Likely tools/products:
- MCMC controllers that auto-generate warm starts from annealed/JE paths and switch to domain samplers (e.g., conditional Gibbs or HMC).
- Key dependencies:
- Mapping application posteriors to ASL-verifiable regimes; robust numerical solvers for model-specific magnetization/gradient surrogates.
- Approximate counting and random optimization (Academia, Optimization; Software)
- Potential:
- Use WPI-based guarantees and proximal-sampler decompositions to develop sampling/counting algorithms for combinatorial problems with glassy landscapes (e.g., random MAX-CUT, planted models).
- Likely tools/products:
- Sampling-assisted approximate counters and basin-exploration heuristics with provable cases.
- Key dependencies:
- Translating the ASL/Lipschitz and localized-WPI assumptions to relevant combinatorial distributions.
- Hardware-accelerated samplers inspired by ASL/proximal steps (Industry: hardware, HPC)
- Potential:
- Implement Gaussian-noise reverse steps and local conditional updates (proximal-sampler building blocks) on accelerators for faster large-n sampling.
- Likely tools/products:
- Firmware kernels for Gaussian mixing, conditional resampling, and JE-weighted reweighting pipelines.
- Key dependencies:
- Stable, high-throughput implementations of TAP/magnetization solvers and diffusion-path integrators.
- Auditing and standards for Monte Carlo reliability (Policy, Industry; Governance)
- Potential:
- Develop audit protocols and reporting standards that track WPI/LSI surrogates (e.g., conductance profiles, warm-start chi-square closeness) for high-stakes sampling tasks (risk, safety-critical ML).
- Likely tools/products:
- “Sampler audit suite” that runs stress tests and reports diagnostics aligned with functional inequalities.
- Key dependencies:
- Community consensus on practical proxies for WPI/LSI and on minimal conditions analogous to A1–A4 in applied settings.
Notes on cross-cutting assumptions and dependencies
- Model-side regularity (A1–A3):
- Magnetization approximation error (A1) and Lipschitz drift for ASL (A2) are the backbone; they hold for SK at β < 1/2 with high probability (DLSS26).
- Localized WPI (A3) requires mass concentration and local mixing (verified for SK in the specified regime).
- Warm-start construction via JE (A4-like):
- The reweighting ODE must be Lipschitz in the state to transfer LSI to ρT and enable efficient Langevin sampling for the warm start.
- Computational costs:
- TAP/magnetization solve and repeated matrix–vector operations dominate costs; practical scalability relies on efficient linear algebra and carefully tuned solvers.
- Generalization risks:
- Moving beyond SK or beyond β < 1/2 may break key assumptions; empirical checks and model-specific proofs are needed before deployment in new domains.
Glossary
- Abstract Wiener space: A triple consisting of a Banach space, a Gaussian measure, and its Cameron–Martin space that models infinite-dimensional Gaussian structures. Example: "The triple is the prototypical example of an abstract Wiener space"
- Algorithmic Stochastic Localization (ASL): A computational approximation to the stochastic localization process used for sampling and analysis. Example: "this is the framework of algorithmic stochastic localization (ASL)"
- Approximate Message Passing (AMP): An iterative algorithmic framework for high-dimensional inference with state-evolution analyses. Example: "relate the behavior or RGD to approximate message passing (AMP)"
- Cameron–Martin space: The Hilbert space of absolutely continuous paths with square-integrable derivatives associated with a Gaussian measure on path space. Example: "[Wiener space and Cameron--Martin space]"
- Cavity estimates: Precise analytic approximations in spin glass theory controlling fluctuations by effectively removing (or conditioning on) a component of the system. Example: "and precise cavity estimates (stronger than overlap concentration)"
- Cheeger's inequality: A relation between isoperimetry and functional inequalities (e.g., Poincaré/WPI), bounding constants by conductance. Example: "Cheeger's inequality for weak Poincar e inequality"
- Denoising diffusion model: A generative modeling framework where data is reconstructed from noise via a reverse-time diffusion, connected here to SL/ASL processes. Example: "a standard denoising diffusion model"
- Dirichlet form: A quadratic form associated with a Markov chain/process capturing its energy or smoothness, central to functional inequalities. Example: "Define the Dirichlet form by"
- Feynman–Kac formula: A representation connecting PDE solutions with expectations over stochastic processes. Example: "based on the Feynman-Kac formula"
- Gaussian isoperimetric inequality: The sharp inequality describing boundary measure of sets under Gaussian measure, used to bound conductance. Example: "Gaussian isoperimetric inequality"
- Gibbs measure: A probability distribution over configurations weighted by an energy function and inverse temperature (from statistical physics). Example: "Gibbs measure of the Sherrington--Kirkpatrick model"
- Girsanov's Theorem: A result describing how drift changes alter measures on path space for diffusions, enabling KL bounds between SDEs. Example: "This follows from Girsanov's Theorem;"
- Glauber dynamics: A single-site update Markov chain for spin systems that resamples one coordinate from its conditional distribution. Example: "Glauber dynamics with a warm-start"
- GOE (Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble): The distribution of real symmetric random matrices with i.i.d. Gaussian entries (up to symmetry). Example: ""
- Jarzynski's equality: An identity from non-equilibrium statistical mechanics linking free energy differences to exponential work averages; used to reweight path measures. Example: "Jarzynski's equality with rejection sampling"
- KL divergence (Kullback–Leibler divergence): A measure of discrepancy between probability distributions used to control approximation errors. Example: "bounded KL divergence to "
- Langevin dynamics: A continuous-time diffusion driven by the gradient of log-density plus Brownian noise, targeting a specified stationary distribution. Example: "run Langevin dynamics"
- Log-Sobolev inequality (LSI): A functional inequality implying strong concentration and rapid mixing for diffusions. Example: "satisfies a log-Sobolev inequality"
- Malliavin calculus: A calculus on Wiener space providing differential tools for functionals of Brownian motion. Example: "and Malliavin calculus on path space"
- Modified log-Sobolev inequality (MLSI): A discrete-time or chain-compatible version of LSI adapted to Markov chains like Glauber dynamics. Example: "modified log-Sobolev inequality (MLSI)"
- Proximal sampler: A Markov chain alternating between a (noised) forward SL step and a Gaussian backward step, used to mix the SL distributions. Example: "the proximal sampler was introduced"
- Replica-symmetric regime: A phase of spin glass models where the solution structure is not broken into many pure states and mixing is conjecturally fast. Example: "mixes fast in the replica-symmetric regime"
- Sherrington–Kirkpatrick (SK) model: A mean-field Ising spin glass with random couplings drawn from GOE/normal entries. Example: "the Sherrington--Kirkpatrick model"
- s-conductance: A truncated conductance notion measuring bottlenecks only over sets with mass at least s, underpinning weak Poincaré bounds. Example: "The -conductance is defined to be"
- Stochastic differential equation (SDE): An equation describing dynamics driven by deterministic drift and stochastic noise terms. Example: "by the following SDEs:"
- Stochastic localization (SL): A measure-valued process that progressively localizes a target distribution, facilitating functional inequalities and sampling. Example: "Stochastic localization (SL) \cite{eldan2013thin} is a measure-valued stochastic process"
- TAP free energy: The Thouless–Anderson–Palmer functional capturing corrections to mean-field approximations in spin glasses. Example: "in terms of the TAP free energy"
- Total variation (TV) distance: A strong metric on distributions measuring the maximal difference in probabilities assigned to events. Example: "negligible total variation (TV) distance"
- Wasserstein distance: An optimal transport metric quantifying the minimal cost to move mass between two probability distributions. Example: "with error measured under the weaker Wasserstein distance metric"
- Wiener measure: The probability measure on continuous paths corresponding to Brownian motion. Example: "the Wiener measure"
- Weak Poincaré inequality (WPI): A relaxation of the Poincaré inequality allowing an error term, yielding mixing from warm starts. Example: "weak Poincar e inequality (WPI)"
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.