Stability of the Shannon–Stam inequality via the Föllmer process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We prove stability estimates for the Shannon–Stam inequality (also known as the entropy-power inequality) for log-concave random vectors in terms of entropy and transportation distance. In particular, we give the first stability estimate for general log-concave random vectors in the following form: for log-concave random vectors $$X,Y \in {\mathbb {R}}^d$$ X , Y ∈ R d , the deficit in the Shannon–Stam inequality is bounded from below by the expression $$\begin{aligned} C \left( \mathrm {D}\left( X||G\right) + \mathrm {D}\left( Y||G\right) \right) , \end{aligned}$$ C D X | | G + D Y | | G , where $$\mathrm {D}\left( \cdot ~ ||G\right) $$ D · | | G denotes the relative entropy with respect to the standard Gaussian and the constant C depends only on the covariance structures and the spectral gaps of X and Y. In the case of uniformly log-concave vectors our analysis gives dimension-free bounds. Our proofs are based on a new approach which uses an entropy-minimizing process from stochastic control theory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".