On the Convergence of Langevin Monte Carlo: The Interplay between Tail Growth and Smoothness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study sampling from a target distribution $\nu_* = e^{-f}$ using the unadjusted Langevin Monte Carlo (LMC) algorithm. For any potential function $f$ whose tails behave like $\|x\|^\alpha$ for ${\alpha \in [1,2]}$, and has $\beta$-H\older continuous gradient, we prove that $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}} \Big(d^{\frac{1}{\beta}+\frac{1+\beta}{\beta}(\frac{2}{\alpha}-{1}_{\{\alpha \neq 1\}})} \epsilon^{-\frac{1}{\beta}}\Big)$ steps are sufficient to reach the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of a $d$-dimensional target distribution $\nu_*$ in KL-divergence. This bound, in terms of $\epsilon$ dependency, is not directly influenced by the tail growth rate $\alpha$ of the potential function as long as its growth is at least linear, and it only relies on the order of smoothness $\beta$. One notable consequence of this result is that for potentials with Lipschitz gradient, i.e. $\beta=1$, the above rate recovers the best known rate $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}} (d\epsilon^{-1})$ which was established for strongly convex potentials in terms of $\epsilon$ dependency, but we show that the same rate is achievable for a wider class of potentials that are degenerately convex at infinity. The growth rate $\alpha$ affects the rate estimate in high dimensions where $d$ is large; furthermore, it recovers the best-known dimension dependency when the tail growth of the potential is quadratic, i.e. $\alpha = 2$, in the current setup.
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 | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".