Directed Poincaré Inequalities and $L^1$ Monotonicity Testing of Lipschitz Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the connection between directed isoperimetric inequalities and monotonicity testing. In recent years, this connection has unlocked breakthroughs for testing monotonicity of functions defined on discrete domains. Inspired the rich history of isoperimetric inequalities in continuous settings, we propose that studying the relationship between directed isoperimetry and monotonicity in such settings is essential for understanding the full scope of this connection. Hence, we ask whether directed isoperimetric inequalities hold for functions f:[0,1]ⁿ → R, and whether this question has implications for monotonicity testing. We answer both questions affirmatively. For Lipschitz functions f:[0,1]ⁿ → ℝ, we show the inequality d^mono₁(f) ≲ 𝔼 [‖∇^- f‖₁], which upper bounds the L¹ distance to monotonicity of f by a measure of its "directed gradient". A key ingredient in our proof is the monotone rearrangement of f, which generalizes the classical "sorting operator" to continuous settings. We use this inequality to give an L¹ monotonicity tester for Lipschitz functions f:[0,1]ⁿ → ℝ, and this framework also implies similar results for testing real-valued functions on the hypergrid.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".