Abstract
We studied the dynamical behaviors of degenerate stochastic differential equations (SDEs). We selected an auxiliary Fisher information functional as the Lyapunov functional. Using generalized Fisher information, we conducted the Lyapunov exponential convergence analysis of degenerate SDEs. We derived the convergence rate condition by generalized Gamma calculus. Examples of the generalized Bochner’s formula are provided in the Heisenberg group, displacement group, and Martinet sub-Riemannian structure. We show that the generalized Bochner’s formula follows a generalized second-order calculus of Kullback–Leibler divergence in density space embedded with a sub-Riemannian-type optimal transport metric.
Keywords:
degenerate drift–diffusion process; Lyapunov methods; auxiliary Fisher information; sub-Riemannian density manifold; generalized Bochner’s formula MSC:
53C17; 60D05; 58B20
1. Introduction
Consider the following Stratonovich stochastic differential equation:
where is an n-dimensional Brownian motion in , is a matrix-valued function, and is a drift vector field. The convergence analysis of SDE (1) to its invariant distribution lies in the intersection of differential geometry, analysis, the Lie group (subgroup in quantum mechanics), and probability. The convergence analysis also has broad applications in designing fast algorithms in artificial intelligence (AI) and Bayesian sampling/optimization problems. One key question arises: How fast does the probability density function of SDE (1) converge to its invariant distribution?
The Gamma calculus, also named Bakry–Émery iterative calculus [1], provides analytical approaches to derive the convergence rate for SDE (1). This lower bound is known as the Ricci curvature lower bound. However, classical studies are limited to the non-degenerate diffusion coefficient matrix a. The classical Gamma calculus is no longer valid when a is a degenerate matrix function; see the generalization of Bakry–Émery calculus in [2].
This paper presents a Lyapunov convergence analysis for the degenerate diffusion process. We selected a class of z-Fisher information as the Lyapunov functional, where z is a matrix function different from matrix a. We derived a generalized Gamma calculus by the dissipation of the Lyapunov functional along the diffusion process. We then derived the generalized Bochner’s formula and obtained the exponential convergence condition. Several concrete examples are presented: gradient-drift–diffusions on the Heisenberg group, the displacement group, and the Martinet sub-Riemannian structure. Our approach extends the classical optimal transport geometry, in particular the second-order calculus of the relative entropy in the density manifold studied in [3,4,5,6].
The generalized Gamma calculus was first introduced by Baudoin–Garofalo [2] for sub-Riemannian manifolds. Related results were studied later in [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. The commutative property of the iteration of and (Hypothesis in [2]) was crucial in the previous works. Our algebraic Condition 1 does not have this requirement. We can remove this commutative condition in the weak sense. Thus, our results go beyond the step two-bracket-generating condition. We present algebraic conditions for the existence of the generalized Bochner’s formula.
On the other hand, optimal transport on the sub-Riemannian manifold was studied by [16,17,18,19]. An optimal transport metric on a sub-Riemannian manifold was proposed in [18,19]. In this case, the density manifold still forms an infinite-dimensional Riemannian manifold. The Monge–Ampère equation in sub-Riemannian settings was studied in [17]. Our approach is different. We introduced the sub-Riemannian density manifold (SDM) and studied its second-order geometric calculations of relative entropies in the SDM. Using those, we propose a new Gamma z calculus for degenerate stochastic differential equations and established the generalized curvature dimension-type bound. Besides, Refs. [20,21] used the analytical property of optimal transport to formulate the Ricci curvature lower bound in general metric space. Different from [20,21,22], we focused on the geometric calculations in the density manifold introduced by the z direction. Following the second-order geometric calculations in the density manifold, we formulated the new Gamma calculus and the corresponding Ricci curvature tensor for the sub-Riemannian manifold. Besides, our derivation also relates to the entropy methods [23,24]. Using entropy methods, Refs. [25,26] derived the convergence rate for degenerate drift–diffusion processes with constant diffusion coefficients a. Compared to previous works, we applied the entropy method with Gamma calculus and geometric calculations in the density manifold. It derives a generalized Gamma calculus from the dissipation of auxiliary Fisher information. Several concrete examples of convergence conditions are derived in the Lie-group-induced drift–diffusion processes.
We organize the paper as follows. We introduce the main result in Section 2. It is an explicit convergence rate condition for the density of degenerate SDEs in the distance. In Section 3, we provide three examples of the proposed convergence analysis, including gradient-drift–diffusions on the Heisenberg group, the displacement group, and the Martinet sub-Riemannian structure. In Section 4, we present the Lyapunov analysis in the sub-Riemannian density manifold. The generalized Gamma calculus and the proof of the generalized Bochner’s formula is presented in Section 5. Some further discussions for other functional inequalities are presented in Section 6.
2. Main Results
In this section, we present this paper’s setting and main results.
2.1. Setting
Consider a Stratonovich SDE:
where is an n-dimensional Brownian motion in , is a matrix-valued function, and is a vector field. We refer to [27] (Section 3.13) for the definition of the Stratonovich SDE. According to [28] (Appendix A.7), the SDE (2) can also be written as the following Itô SDE:
where
We denote as the column vectors of matrix a, and represents
We denote as the transpose of matrix a and denote as the row vectors of matrix . In particular, we have , for and . With some abuse of notation, we also denote as the vector fields corresponding to the row vectors , for . We assumed that satisfies the strong Hormander condition (or bracket-generating condition):
where represents the Lie bracket between two vector fields. The strong Hörmander condition means that the Lie algebra generated by the vector fields is of full rank at every point (see, e.g., [29] (Section 7.4)). This condition ensures the existence of a smooth probability density function of SDE (2); see the original proofs in [30,31]. For the simplicity of presentation, we assumed the probability density function is strictly positive. Indeed, the positivity of the density follows from the Hörmander condition [32]; for the more technical conditions to show the positivity by using Malliavin calculus, we refer to [33,34] (Theorem 1.4 with H = 1/2). Denote , where is the probability density function of SDE (2). The density function satisfies the Fokker–Planck equation of SDE (2):
with a smooth initial condition:
In this paper, we assumed that SDE (2) has a unique invariant symmetric measure , where with . Here, solves the equilibrium of Fokker–Planck Equation (6):
We studied a particular class of the vector field b for a given invariant distribution .
Assumption (Gradient flow formulation): Suppose that b, a, and satisfy the relation:
where represents, for ,
We leave the derivation of Formula (9) in Appendix A. If , then , and is an invariant density function for SDE (2). In Section 4, we demonstrate that Fokker–Planck Equation (6), or its equivalent Formulation (9), forms a “horizontal” gradient flow in the sub-Riemannian density manifold. We designed a Lyapunov functional to study the convergence behavior of this “horizontal” gradient flow (9).
Remark 1.
Formula (9) can be written as
It has a weak formulation that
where is a smooth test function.
Remark 2
(Non-gradient flow drift). In fact, the proposed method is not limited to the gradient flow assumption of the drift vector field b in (7). See the details in [35].
2.2. Main Result
We now briefly sketch the main results. Denote a sub-elliptic operator as follows:
where .
Definition 1
(Generalized Gamma z calculus). Consider a smooth matrix function . Denote Gamma one bilinear forms as
Define Gamma two bilinear forms as
and
Here, , are divergence operators defined by
for any smooth vector field , and , are vector Gamma one bilinear forms defined as
with
We next demonstrate that the summation of and can induce the following decomposition and bilinear forms. They are natural extensions of the classical Bakry–Émery calculus in the Riemannian manifold, i.e., non-degenerate matrix function a.
Notation 1.
For matrix function , we define matrix Q as
with . More precisely, for each row (respectively, column) of Q, the row (respectively column) indices of follow (respectively, ). For matrix function , we define matrix P as
with . For smooth function , for any and (or , we define vector with components
where we denote . We define vector with components
We define vector with components
We define vector with components
We define vector with components
We define X as the vectorization of the Hessian matrix of function f:
Assumption 1.
Assume that there exists vectors such that
Definition 2
(Hessian matrix). For smooth function , define a matrix function as
where we define the following bilinear forms:
and
Here, we also denote , such that .
The main theorem is presented below, and its proof is postponed to Theorem 3 in Section 5.
Theorem 1
(Generalized z Bochner’s formula). If Assumption 1 is satisfied, then the following decomposition holds:
where we define
We are now ready to prove the convergence property of the degenerate drift–diffusion process (1) and related functional inequalities. Denote the Kullback–Leibler divergence as
Denote the -relative Fisher information functional as
Theorem 2
(Exponential convergence in the distance). Suppose there exists a constant such that
Let be a smooth initial distribution and be the probability density function of (1). Then, ρ converges to the invariant measure π in the sense of
In addition,
The proof of Theorem 2 is postponed to Proposition (14).
Remark 3
(Functional inequalities). Suppose with , then the z-log-Sobolev inequalities hold:
for any smooth density function ρ.
Remark 4.
In the literature [2], the operator is defined by (10), i.e., . In fact, this definition is under the assumption of . This assumption holds true only for the special choice of a and z. In the generalized Gamma z calculus, we introduce a new term (11), which removes the assumption . In fact, in the paper, we show that (11) is exactly the new bilinear form behind the assumption in [2] by considering the weak form.
Remark 5.
Following [35] (Assumption 1), we know that, for any and, if
there exist vectors and , such that the Hessian operator associated with the generator of the SDE and the metric could be represented as
Furthermore, we have the following relation:
if there exist and as in Assumption 1 such that
Assumption 1 is true if Conditions 20 and 21 hold. See the detailed connections in [35] (Remark 11).
3. Examples
In this section, we consider the following degenerate drift–diffusion process:
where is a matrix-valued function, for , and is a smooth potential function. We denote the invariant measure of SDE (22) as . We further assumed that
The above assumption holds for the later three examples.
Remark 6.
For , the invariant measure π in the above assumption exists if forms left-invariant structures on unimodular Lie groups. In this case, the sub-Laplacian is the sum of squares of horizontal vector fields and the invariant measure is also symmetric. Stratonovich SDE (22) defines the horizontal Brownian motion on sub-Riemannian structure , and π is the volume form associated with the horizontal Laplacian. In general, if the Lie group structure is not unimodular, the drift . See the related studies about the diffusion process on general manifolds in [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. See the related studies on log-Sobolev inequality in [44,45].
Remark 7.
It is also worth mentioning that many sub-Riemannian manifolds are non-compact. Hence, there may not exist a positive constant κ for both classical and directions in the non-compact domain. The non-compactness of the domain brings additional difficulties. To prove the associated inequalities in this case, we need to extend the result derived in [46,47]. This is a direction for future work.
Remark 8.
It is known that the Heisenberg group is an example of Lie groups in quantum mechanics [48]. In future work, we shall investigate the general convergence analysis of SDEs in Lie groups and their connections with quantum SDEs.
3.1. Heisenberg Group
In this subsection, we apply our general theory to the well-known example in sub-Riemannian geometry, which is the Heisenberg group. A related LSI for the horizontal Wiener measure was studied in [46]. Recall briefly that the Heisenberg group admits left-invariant vector fields: . Here, forms an orthonormal basis for the tangent bundle of . In this case, . In particular, X and Y generate the horizontal distribution . To fit into our general theory from the previous section, we take matrices a and z as below:
In particular, we have
We have the following proposition for Heisenberg group following Theorem 1.
Proposition 1.
For any smooth function , one has
where
The proof of Proposition of 1 follows from the proof of Theorem 1 (i.e., Theorem 3) and Lemmas 1–3. The following convergence result follows directly from Theorem 2.
Proposition 2.
If there exists as shown in Theorem 2, the exponential dissipation result in the distance holds:
We next formulate the curvature tensor into a matrix format. Denote
and denote as the identity matrix. With a little abuse of notation, there exists a symmetric matrix such that we can represent the tensor as below.
which implies that
In other words, we need to estimate the smallest eigenvalue of matrix . We next present the formulation of matrix for the Heisenberg group as follows.
Corollary 1.
The matrix associated with the Heisenberg group has the following form:
Proof.
The explicit form of matrix follows from the definition in Theorem 1 and the notation in (24) and (25). We have
Plugging the explicit representation from Proposition 1 into the above formula and applying matrix symmetrization for the off-diagonal terms, we obtain the desired matrix . □
Next, we present the three key lemmas.
Lemma 1.
For the Heisenberg group, we have
Proof.
The proof of this lemma follows from routine computations. Plugging matrices a and z from (23) into Notation 1, we obtain the desired vectors and matrices. We skip the detailed computation here. □
Lemma 2.
On , vectors F and G are zero vectors, and we have
In particular, we have
Lemma 3.
By routine computations, we obtain
Proof of Lemma 2.
We first have
By direct computations, we have
Completing the squares for the cross terms involving the type of ” and following the reformulation as below:
we have
The sum of squares terms give , hence and . The remainders generate , which equals . □
We are now left to compute the tensors.
Proof of Lemma 3.
By direct computation, we have
For the four terms above, we have
Similar computation applies to the tensor terms and . Since z is a constant matrix, we obtain
We now compute the tensor terms involving the drift b. For the drift term in tensor , taking , which means in local coordinates,
We now derive the explicit formulas for the above four terms.
Summing up the above formulas, we obtain . We now compute the drift tensor term of . By taking , we have
We further compute as below by taking advantage of the constant matrix z:
The proof is thus completed. □
3.2. Displacement Group
In this section, we derive the generalized curvature dimension bound for the displacement group, which is one example of three-dimensional solvable Lie groups. We adapted the general setting from [49] below. Denote as the three-dimensional solvable Lie algebra, and denote as the horizontal subspace satisfying Hörmander’s condition, then for a given inner product on H, there exists a canonical basis for , such that forms an orthonormal basis for H and satisfies the following Lie-bracket-generating condition for parameters and :
When the parameters and , the Lie algebra has a faithful representation. In particular, it was shown in [49] that the elements of , in local coordinates , correspond to the following left-invariant differential operators:
with the following relation:
In terms of local coordinates , we have
The corresponding Lie group of this special Lie algebra is called the displacement group, denoted as . We chose as the horizontal orthonormal basis for subalgebra H. To fit into the general framework from the previous section, we take
with . Our focus here is to derive the curvature tensor in terms of . We then used as the horizontal metric on H. Thus, the sub-Riemannian structure is given by . By direct computations, it is easy to show that, for general smooth function f, . Hence, the classical Gamma z calculus proposed in [2] can not be extended for this case to derive the zLSI. Thus, we need to compute vector G and the tensor term . Following Theorem 1, we have the following z-Bochner’s formula for .
Proposition 3.
For any smooth function , one has
where
and
In particular, we have
The proof of Proposition 3 follows from the proof of Theorem 1 (i.e., Theorem 3) and Lemmas 4–6 below. The following convergence result follows directly from Theorem 2.
Proposition 4.
If there exists as shown in Theorem 2, the exponential dissipation result in the distance holds:
Similarly, we formulated the curvature tensor into a matrix format of . Using the fact , we have the following representation.
Corollary 2.
The matrix associated with has the following representation:
Proof.
The derivation for the explicit form of matrix follows from a similar equivalent representation as shown in the proof of Corollary 1 and the explicit bilinear terms derived in Proposition 3. □
Remark 9.
By taking as a constant, Proposition 3 reduces to a simple version; in particular, the tensors reduce to be
Next, we present the following three key lemmas.
Lemma 4.
For displacement group , we have
.
Proof.
Lemma 5.
On displacement group , we have
In particular, we have
Lemma 6.
By routine computations, we obtain
Proof of Lemma 5.
According to Lemma 4 and observing the fact that and
, we first have
By direct computations, we have
Completing the squares for the above terms, we have
The first-order terms generate , and the sum of squares terms generate vectors and . We further formulate the above two terms as below:
Adding into the term again, we further expand as below:
By grouping the bilinear terms of , we obtain
□
We are now left to compute the three tensor terms.
Proof of Lemma 6.
For displacement group , we have and . Recall Theorem 1; we denote , where represents the tensor term involving drift b. We thus have
By direct computations, we have
For the drift term in tensor , taking , we obtain
Plugging into the matrix , we obtain
Combining the above computations, we obtain the tensor . Now, we turn to the second tensor , which has the following form:
where we denote further that
By taking , we further obtain that
By direct computations, it is not hard to observe that
and
Now, we are left to compute the term . Recall that
By direct computation, we obtain
□
3.3. Martinet Flat Sub-Riemannian Structure
In this part, we apply our result to the Martinet flat sub-Riemannian structure, which satisfies the bracket-generating condition and has a non-equiregular sub-Riemannian structure (see [37]). The sub-Riemannian structure is defined on through the kernel of one-form A global orthonormal basis for the horizontal distribution adapts the following differential operator representation, in local coordinates :
The commutative relation gives
To apply it in our framework, we take
Thus, the sub-Riemannian structure has the form .
Proposition 5.
In this setting,
then
Proof.
The poof follows from the observation that
□
Similar to the previous displacement group case, we have the following identity.
Proposition 6.
For any smooth function , one has
where
In particular, we have
The proof of Proposition 6 follows from the proof of Theorem 1 (i.e., Theorem 3) and Lemmas 7–9 below. The following convergence results are a direct consequence of Theorem 2.
Proposition 7.
If there exists as shown in Theorem 2, the exponential dissipation result in the distance holds:
Similarly, we summarize the sub-Riemannian Ricci tensor in terms of as follows.
Corollary 3.
The matrix associated with the Martinet sub-Riemannian structure has the following form:
Proof.
The proof follows from the similar equivalent matrix formulation as shown in the proof of Corollary 1 and the explicit bilinear forms in Proposition 6. □
Next, we prove the following three key lemmas.
Lemma 7.
For Martinet sub-Riemannian structure , we have
Proof.
Lemma 8.
For the Martinet sub-Riemannian structure, F and G are zero vectors, and we have
In particular, we have
Lemma 9.
By routine computations, we obtain
Proof of Lemma 8.
Since F and G are zero vectors, we have
By routine computation, we observe that
where we use the fact
The proof is thus completed. □
We are now left to compute the three tensor terms.
Proof of Lemma 9.
Similar to the proof of Lemma 6, we have
By direct computations, we have
For the drift term, we take
Plugging into the matrices of , we obtain
Combing the above computations, we obtain the tensor . Now, we turn to the second tensor . Since , it is obvious to see that only the drift term of the tensor remains, where we denote
By taking , we further obtain that
By direct computations, it is not hard to observe that
The only non-zero term has the following form:
Since matrix is a constant matrix and matrix contains only variable y, it is easy to observe that
□
4. Lyapunov Analysis in Sub-Riemannian Density Manifold
In this section, we illustrate the motivation of this paper, which is to design a matrix condition, whose smallest eigenvalue characterizes the convergence rate of the degenerate SDE.
The outline of this section is given below. Consider a density space over the sub-Riemannian manifold. The finite-dimensional sub-Riemannian structure introduces the density space the infinite-dimensional sub-Riemannian structure. We name it the sub-Riemannian density manifold (SDM). We provide the geometric calculations in the SDM. We studied the Fokker–Planck equation as the sub-Riemannian gradient flow in the SDM. We derived the equivalence relation between the second-order calculus of the relative entropy in the SDM and the generalized Gamma z calculus.
4.1. Sub-Riemannian Density Manifold
Given a finite-dimensional sub-Riemannian manifold with , consider the probability density space:
Consider the tangent space at :
We introduce the sub-Riemannian structure in probability density space .
Definition 3
(sub-Riemannian Wasserstein metric tensor). The sub-Riemannian-Wasserstein metric is defined by
Here, , is the metric on , and is the pseudo-inverse of the sub-elliptic operator:
For some special choices of a as studied in [19] or forming a positive definite matrix, then is an elliptic operator. In this case, still forms a Riemannian density manifold. In general, given a sub-Riemannian manifold , is only a sub-elliptic operator. Thus, forms an infinite-dimensional sub-Riemannian manifold.
We next present the sub-Riemannian calculus in , including both geodesics and the Hessian operator in the tangent bundle. Consider an identification map:
Here, . This is the cotangent space in the SDM, and ∼ represents a constant shift relation. Thus,
In other words,
where the second equality holds by and the last equality holds by the integration by parts.
We next derive several basic geometric calculations in the SDM.
Proposition 8
(Geodesics in the SDM). The sub-Riemannian geodesics in the cotangent bundle forms
Proof.
We considered the Lagrangian formulation of geodesics in density. Here, the minimization of the geometric action functional forms
where is a density path with fixed boundary points , . Then, the Euler–Lagrange equation in density space forms
where is the first variation with respect to and is the first variation with respect to . Here,
where the last equality uses the following fact:
Denote , then the Euler–Lagrange Equation (30) forms the sub-Riemannian geodesics flow (29). In other words,
□
Proposition 9
(Gradient and Hessian operators in the SDM). Given a functional , the gradient operator of in satisfies
The Hessian operator of in satisfies
where
Proof.
We first derive the sub-Riemannian gradient operator. We recall the identification map by . Hence, the gradient operator in the SDM satisfies
The Hessian operator in the SDM satisfies
where satisfies the geodesics Equation (29) with , . Notice the fact that
In addition,
where the last equality holds by the integration by parts formula. □
We next show the equivalence relation between the Hessian of the relative entropy in the SDM and the classical Gamma two operator. We first demonstrate the relation among , and the gradient operator of the entropy. In particular, we show that the Fokker–Planck equation is a sub-Riemannian gradient flow in the SDM. Denote the KL divergence as
Proposition 10
(Gradient flow). The negative gradient operator in forms
In addition, the sub-Riemannian gradient flow of in forms the Fokker–Planck equation:
Proof.
We first derive the sub-Riemannian gradient operator of the entropy and relative entropy. Notice that
We next demonstrate that the Hessian of the relative entropy (KL divergence) is equivalent to the classical Bakry–Émery calculus.
Proposition 11
(Hessian of entropy and Bakry–Émery calculus). Given , , then
Proof.
We first derive the Hessian of in the SDM. Notice the fact that . For simplicity, we denote . By using (31), we have
We next rewrite (34) into the iterative Gamma calculus. We first show that
where the fourth equality uses the fact that , while the last equality follows the integration by parts.
We secondly show that
where the second equality applies the fact that , while the last inequality uses the dual-relation between Kolmogorov operators L and in , i.e.,
Combining the equality of , we prove the result. □
Remark 10.
We remark that the above formulations in terms of hold for both Riemannian and sub-Riemannian density manifolds. Here, the major difference is whether matrix function a is full rank or degenerate. In this sense, all formulas derived in this subsection recover the classical Bakry–Émery calculus. However, the classical Hessian operator of the entropy is not enough to study the convergence behavior of degenerate diffusion processes. Briefly, we use a modified Lyapunov functional and derive a tensor for the gradient flow in the SDM. It provides the convergence rate of the degenerate diffusion process.
4.2. Gamma z Calculus via Second-Order Calculus of Relative Entropy in SDM
In this subsection, we introduce the motivation of our new Gamma z calculus from the SDM viewpoint. Consider the SDM gradient flow (33):
When a is a degenerate matrix, the classical relative Fisher information may not be the Lyapunov functional. In other words, along the gradient flow, it is possible that .
To handle this issue, a new Lyapunov function is considered. It is to add a new direction z into the relative Fisher information functional. Denote and . Construct
We next prove the following proposition.
Proposition 12.
where
with the notation and .
Proof.
For the simplicity of notation, we denote . Notice the fact that
From Proposition 11, we have
□
We only need to show the following claim.
Claim:
Proof of Claim.
The proof is similar to the ones in Proposition 11. We need to take care of the z direction. Notice that
We next estimate (I) and (II) separately. For (I), we notice the fact that
Thus,
where the last equality holds by integration by parts.
For (II), we have
Combining (I) and (II), we have
Using the notation , we finish the proof. □
We next prove that and in Definition 1 agree with each other in the weak form along the gradient flow.
Proposition 13.
Denote , then
Proof.
To prove the proposition, we rewrite as follows.
□
Here, we need to prove the following equality.
Claim:
Proof of Claim.
For the simplicity of notation, let
and
The following property is also used in the proof. For any smooth test function f and , then
Notice that , then
Here,
Notice the fact that
Hence,
Similarly, by switching a and z, we have
Combining the above derivation, we finish the proof. □
Remark 11.
From the proof, we can show the following identity: denote , then
Therefore, it is clear that, if the commutative assumption holds, the above quantity equals zero. In this case,
This means that, under the commutative assumption, the generalized Gamma z calculus agrees with the classical one [2] in the weak sense.
With the generalized Gamma z calculus, we are ready to prove the convergence properties and functional inequalities for degenerate drift–diffusion processes.
Proposition 14.
Suppose with . Denote as the solution of the sub-Riemannian gradient flow (33), then
In addition, the z-log-Sobolev inequalities holds:
for any smooth density function ρ.
Finally,
Proof.
Here, the proof is very similar to the one in the previous section. Again, consider the sub-Riemannian gradient flow in the SDM.
We know that the log-Sobolev inequality relates to the ratio of and . If we cannot estimate a ratio , then
We construct the other Lyapunov function:
Thus, along the SDM gradient flow (33), we have
If , then
The convergence result follows directly from Gronwall’s equality.
Thus, . Hence, we prove all the results by the fact that implies . In other words, the generalized Gamma z calculus implies the z-log-Sobolev equality (zLSI):
We last prove the exponential convergence in the distance. Notice that
We apply an inequality between the KL divergence and distance. In other words,
This finishes the proof. □
Remark 12.
It is worth mentioning that our derivation of the Gamma z calculus is not a direct Hessian operator of the entropy in the SDM. In fact, it combines both the second-order calculus in the SDM and the property of the Hessian operator of the entropy. See similar relations in the mean-field Bakry–Émery calculus [50].
5. Generalized Gamma z Calculus
In this section, we introduce the generalized Gamma z calculus. For any smooth functions , the diffusion operator associated with SDE (2) is denoted as
where we denote and
When , we denote the diffusion operator as
We first define the Carré de Champ operator associated with the above second-order diffusion operators. It is easy to check that , , and L share the same :
Similarly, we introduce the operator in the direction of below:
Next, we define the iterative and for operator L (, respectively) below:
Definition 4.
We define the generalized Gamma z for operator L below:
For matrices and , we denote the divergence operator as
and
Here, we denote π as the invariant distribution associated with the operator L.
Remark 13.
In particular, we have the following local coordinates representation.
We first present the following key lemmas.
Lemma 10.
where X, G are defined in Notation 1 and is defined in Definition 2.
Lemma 11.
where are introduced in Notation 1 and is defined in Definition 2.
Lemma 12.
where are introduced in Notation 1 and is defined in Definition 2.
We then have the following main theorem. In order to distinguish the operators L and , we rewrite Theorem 1 as below, and with some abuse of notation, we denote and .
Theorem 3
(z-Bochner’s formula). For smooth function , assume that Assumption 1 holds, then
where
All the terms are defined in Notation 1 and Definition 2.
Proof.
We compute the above terms explicitly in the following four steps.
Step 1:
The term follows from Lemma 11. We are left with the other two terms:
and
Step 2:
The term follows from Lemma 12. We are left to compute the last two terms:
and
Step 3: Following Lemma 10, which will be proven shortly in the next section, we have
where X, G are defined in Notation 1 and is defined in Definition 2.
Step 4: Combining the above terms in Lemma 11, in Lemma 12, and , we have
Assuming that Assumption 1 is satisfied, we obtain
Adding the drift terms from Step 1 and Step 2, we obtain and , which finishes the proof. □
5.1. Proof of Lemma 10
Lemma 13.
where X, G are defined in Notation 1 and is defined in Definition 2.
Proof.
For the first term in the above lemma, we have
where is defined in (42). Plugging in (42), we further obtain
By further expanding , we obtain
Similarly, we obtain
where we also obtain
Combining all the terms above, we have
By direct computations, we separate the above terms into two groups based on “” and “”. We denote as the sum of all “” terms and denote as the sum of all “” terms. Switching indices for the terms in to match , we obtain the following:
The first equality follows from the quantities we obtained previously, the second equality from switching ” to ” and ” to ”, and the third equality from switching between ” and ”, ” and ”. Thus, the proof is completed. □
5.2. Proof of Lemma 11
From now on, we keep the following notation: . Furthermore, we fixed the notation for with relation for and Here, we denote Recall that we define
Next, we are ready to prove the following lemma.
Lemma 14.
where are introduced in Notation 1 and is defined in Definition 2.
Proof.
We plug in the operator into our definition for :
Now, we compute the last two terms of the above equation. With , we obtain
and
It is easy to see
We now expand and into local coordinates:
and
Applying Lemma 15, which will be proven shortly below, we have
where
Lemma 15.
Here, the local representations for and are given as follows. For , we denote
We introduce the following notation (convention) that, for any function F,
Proof of Lemma 15.
By our definition above, we have
where we denote
Therefore, we have
Next, we compute the following quantity.
where we have
We continue with our computation as below:
Recall that we denote to emphasize the transpose of the matrix a and :
and
Subtracting the above two terms, we have
Now, we eventually obtain the the following step:
Thus, the proof is completed. □
Below, we further investigate the extra term explicitly in the above Lemma 15.
Lemma 16.
Recall that matrix Q and vectors X, C, and D are defined in Notation 1.
Proof.
We expand the two terms in Lemma 16. The first term reads as
The second term reads as
Next, we expand and completely and obtain the following:
Additionally,
Our next step is to complete the squares for all the above terms. Look at the term first.
The terms , , and play the role of crossing terms inside the complete squares. In particular, for convenience, we change the index inside the sum of and , switching for and switching for . Then, we obtain the following.
We denote
The above Equality (55) can be represented in the following matrix form:
where Q and X are defined in (12) and (19). Now, we can represent term as . Next, we want to represent and in the following form in terms of vector X:
where C is defined in (14). Similarly, we can represent by X:
where D is defined in (1). Summingover the above terms, we have the following quadratic form:
Taking into account the fact that and , we have
which completes the proof. □
5.3. Proof of Lemma 12
Lemma 17.
where is defined in Definition 2.
Proof.
The proof follows directly from Lemmas 18 and 19. □
Lemma 18.
Proof.
Step 1: We first define , then we have
By our definition above, we directly obtain
where we denote
We have
Next, we compute the following quantity.
From Lemma 15, we have
We continue with our computation as below:
Recall here that we denote to emphasize the transpose of the matrix a and :
Subtracting the above two terms, we obtain the following:
Now, we eventually end up with the following formula:
Step 2: Computation of . Now, we compute the last two terms of the above equation, with :
It is easy to see that We now expand and into local coordinates:
Combining the above two steps, we thus obtain
□
Lemma 19.
Proof.
We expand the two terms in Lemma 19.
Next, we expand and completely and obtain the following:
Our next step is to complete the squares for all the above terms. We look at term first.
The terms , , and play the role of crossing terms inside the complete squares. In particular, for convenience, we changed the index inside the sum of and , switched for , and switched for , then we obtain the following.
We denote
The above Equality (63) can be represented in the following matrix form:
where P and X are defined in (13) and (19). Now, we can represent term as . Next, we want to represent and in the following form in terms of vector X:
where F is defined in (16). Similarly, we can represent by X:
where E is defined in (17). We thus have the following form:
Taking into account the fact that and , we have
which completes the proof. □
6. Further Discussions on Other Inequalities
In this section, we apply the generalized Gamma calculus to study the entropic inequality for the semi-group associated with the drift–diffusion process. With a little abuse of notation, we denote the generator of the semi-group as instead of L, and we denote as the corresponding diffusion process.
Definition 5.
We define the semigroup , where L is invariant with respect to the invariant measure . We denote , and
where the infinitesimal generator of this process is , and we denote as the product of the transition kernel and the volume measure π.
Remark 14.
Following the standard treatment as in [2] (Section 5), whenever we consider the differentiating operation on , we shall always consider first with , for . Then, we take the limit as . Throughout this section, we directly use instead of for convenience.
Remark 15.
In the standard sub-Riemannian setting, the semi-groups are in general defined with respect to the invariant measure . In this paper, we formulate the semi-group and the transition kernel with respect to the Lebesgue measure .
Following the framework in [2], we also need the following assumption, which is necessary to rigorously justify the computations on functionals of the heat semigroup.
Assumption 2.
The semigroup is stochastically complete, that is, for , and for any and with compact support, we assume that
We believe that the above Assumption 2 should follow from the the assumption if we assume the appropriate lower bound . We leave this for further studies. Related gradient estimates are presented in order below. For the infinitesimal generator associated with linear semi-group , we have the following property.
Proposition 15.
For all smooth function f, we have:
- ;
- For all functions , the map is continuous from to ;
- For all one has ;
- , .
Next, we present the entropic inequality under Assumption 1. We follow closely the framework introduced in [2] and define the following two functionals:
Lemma 20.
We have the following relation:
Proof.
Denote , and we have the following relation:
By direct computation, one obtains
where we have ; thus, (66) is proven. Similarly, we obtain the following for :
The proof then follows. □
Now, we are ready to present the following important lemma, which prepares us to prove the new entropy inequality without the assumption:
Lemma 21.
For any , we denote as the transition kernel of diffusion process starting at x defined in Definition 5, and the following equality is satisfied:
Here, we denote and
Proof.
We first expand in the following integral form.
We skip for simplicity. Take .
Claim 1:
Recall that we denote and . Use the following identity:
We then obtain
Similarly, the other equality is satisfied.
Claim 2:
First, observe that
Similarly, one obtains
For the next term, one obtains
where the last equality follows from the integration by parts for the first term and the direct expansion of the divergence for the second term. Similarly, we obtain
Observing, by integration by parts, we obtain
Combining the above formulas, the proof is completed. □
With the above lemma in hand, we are ready to prove the following entropic inequality. We first define the following energy form:
Recall that we define
Theorem 4.
Denote ; if the following condition is satisfied:
we then conclude
where depends on the estimate of the transition kernel associated with semi-group (see Definition 5).
Remark 16.
Based on Theorem 3, we can also prove the above theorem for operator with the drift term involved. Since the proof is similar, we skip the proof here.
Proof.
Take . Let be the diffusion Markov process with semigroup . (Similar proofs can be found in [2] (Proposition 4.5).) Let smooth function be such that, for every , and . We have for every
where is a local martingale. Let be an increasing sequence of stopping times such that, almost surely, and is a martingale. We obtain
By using the dominated convergence theorem, we obtain
Applying the above equality to , we obtain
We now look at the term with :
By using the above Lemma 21, let , and we obtain
Applying Theorem 3 here with as the transition kernel function, we obtain a time-dependent version of Theorem 3. Assume that the following bound is satisfied where the bound depends on kernel :
We then conclude with the following bound:
Plugging into the time integral , the proof follows. □
Remark 17.
We prove the entropic inequality Theorem 4 in this section without the the assumption: . A similar entropic inequality under the assumption was first proven in [2] (Proposition 4.5 and Theorem 5.2). With this new inequality Theorem 4 in hand, similar gradient estimates and other inequalities from [2] follow. We leave them for future studies. Proposition 4.5 in [2] is based on a pointwise estimate given the commutative assumption of and . We removed the commutative assumption, and our estimate is in a weak form, which is presented in the above Lemma 21.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, Q.F. and W.L.; methodology, Q.F. and W.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.F. and W.L.; writing—review and editing, Q.F. and W.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
Wuchen Li is supported by AFOSR MURI FA9550-18-1-0502, the AFOSR YIP award: FA9550-23-1-0087, and NSF RTG: 2038080.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Degenerate SDEs and Sub-Riemannian Manifold
In this appendix, we briefly illustrate the formulation of the degenerate diffusion process and sub-Riemannian geometry.
For a smooth connected -dimensional Riemannian manifold , we denote as the tangent bundle of and denote as a sub-bundle of . The sub-Riemannian structure associated with the sub-bundle on is denoted as , where is the metric associated with the sub-bundle . In particular, if we take distribution to be the horizontal sub-bundle, denoted as , of the tangent bundle (see [2,51] for more details), then we denote the sub-Riemannian structure as . In this paper, we will not distinguish distributions and and call this the horizontal sub-bundle. We assumed that the horizontal distribution is bracket-generating (with any steps). The distribution has dimension n.
For a vector field and a general matrix , we denote with each , as an -dimensional column vector. For any Stratonovich SDE,
where is an n-dimensional Brownian motion in and has local coordinates . We consider (A1) as the SDE associated with a given sub-Riemannian structure, which is defined through the Lie algebra spanned by the driving vector fields of the SDE . In general, we assumed that is of rank n and satisfies the bracket-generating condition (or Hörmander condition). To be precise, for any , the Lie brackets of , span the whole tangent space at x with dimension . We define the manifold as the subspace of , where the diffusion process lives on. This spaces is described as the triple , and we denote as the n-dimensional horizontal distribution of the tangent bundle generated by the vector fields . In this paper, we considered the case where the generator of the diffusion process (A1) coincides with the horizontal Laplacian operator (or sub-Laplacian operator) associated with the sub-Riemannian structure . Furthermore, we assumed that there exists a symmetric and invariant volume measure associated with the horizontal Laplacian operator. The Stratonovich SDE (A1) without the drift () term could be treated as a special case, where the horizontal Laplacian can be presented as the sum of squares of the horizontal vector fields in . In particular, we considered the precise metric defined through the diffusion matrix a, which could be seen as an analogue for non-degenerate SDEs on Riemannian manifolds. The problem is that the rank of is n; thus, the matrix is degenerate and cannot serve as a metric. We thus introduce the following metric, which is to formulate this sub-Riemannian structure in Euclidean space.
Definition A1.
Consider an orthonormal basis in , such that for any , . We define a metric and a metric on the horizontal sub-bundle , the pseudo-inverse of matrix , on manifold .
The above definition is based on the following lemma.
Lemma A1.
The metric is .
Proof.
For rank n matrix , we denote its eigenvalue decomposition and the corresponding pseudo-inverse as
Thus, we have . Furthermore, we have
where we denote as the diagonal matrix for eigenvalues and as the m-dimensional identity matrix. Thus, the proof follows directly with
□
With the new metric introduced above, we have the following lemma.
Lemma A2.
The vectors are the orthonormal basis under the metric .
Proof.
We just need to prove for with each , and we have
Notice that , then we only need to prove . Let us denote , then we have
where the second equality follows from the property of the pseudo-inverse matrix and the last step follows from the fact that is a non-degenerate matrix, hence invertible. The proof then follows directly. □
We are now ready to introduce the following definition.
Definition A2.
Define as the sub-Riemannian structure associated with the degenerate SDE (A1), where denotes the horizontal metric, i.e., metric g is restricted onthe horizontal bundle τ. We denote as the Levi-Civita connection on associated with our metric , and let be the projection of the connection on the horizontal distribution τ. In particular, in our framework, we have , for any function , where ∇ is the Euclidean gradient in
Remark A1.
In Lemma A2, we show that are the orthonormal basis for horizontal distribution τ under our metric g. In particular, we have
which gives the local representation of
To demonstrate the definition clearly, we give the following example. On the Heisenberg group , we know that forms an orthonormal basis for the tangent bundle of . In particular, X and Y generate the horizontal distribution . If we start with the following SDE:
then we know , which is the horizontal Brownian motion on the Heisenberg group . The generator of the horizontal Brownian motion and the sub-Laplacian operator are the same, which is given by , and the volume measure associated with is the Lebesgue measure on the Heisenberg group with the volume element equal to 1. Then, is a diffusion process in . In terms of our general sub-Riemannian structure introduced above, we can define
and
In particular, the horizontal gradient is given by
Thus, the sub-Riemannian structure associated with Stratonovich SDE (A2) is just , where is the restriction of metric on the horizontal sub-bundle . Different from the standard construction of Brownian motion on a given Riemannian (sub-Riemannian) manifold by Ells–Elworthy–Malliavin [40,43], we can directly define our diffusion on the manifold by (A1) without performing projection from the orthonormal frame bundles. This is because the new metrics and are globally defined orthonormal basis of the (horizontal) sub-bundle on the tangent bundle . Essentially, we first define (A1) in and then introduce the associated sub-Riemannian structure.
Remark A2.
Compared to the definition of the horizontal Brownian motion introduced in [38], the sub-Riemannian structure comes first with a totally geodesic Riemannian foliation structure, and then, SDE (A2) is defined on the given totally geodesic Riemannian foliation. In the current setting, we directly define the degenerate diffusion process by a first given matrix a, then we define the sub-Riemannian structure by introducing the new metric .
Proof of Gradient Flow Assumption
In this subsection, we demonstrate that Equation (6) is in fact a Fokker–Planck equation of SDE (A1).
Lemma A3.
Consider the drift–diffusion process:
Suppose that b, a, π satisfy
Then, the Fokker–Planck equation of satisfies
Proof.
Recall that we denote as the column vectors of matrix a. For Stratonovich SDE (A3), we can write
According to [28] (Appendix 7), the corresponding Itô SDE is
Thus, the Fokker-Plank equation (Kolmogorov forward equation) satisfies
Namely, we have
Plugging in the relation , we have
Here, we use the fact that
This finishes the proof. □
Example A1.
The Lie group is a compact connected Lie group, diffeomorphic to the three-sphere . Following the construction of the left-invariant vector fields in [41] (Section 6.2), we change the coordinates in terms of coordinate system . We obtain new left-invariant vector fields on , with
Thus, we have in the new coordinate system. We define the metric . Here, are the orthonormal basis for the horizontal bundle generated by under metric . According to [41] (Lemma 6.4), the invariant measure on has the form of . It is easy to check that the above Lemma is satisfied for , , and
where
References
- Bakry, D.; Émery, M. Diffusions hypercontractives. In Séminaire de Probabilités XIX 1983/84; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 177–206. [Google Scholar]
- Baudoin, F.; Garofalo, N. Curvature-dimension inequalities and Ricci lower bounds for sub-Riemannian manifolds with transverse symmetries. J. EMS 2017, 19, 151–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnold, A.; Carlen, E. A generalized Bakry–Émery condition for non-symmetric diffusions. In Proceedings of the EQUADIFF 99—International Conference on Differential Equations, Berlin, Germany, 1–7 August 1999; pp. 732–734. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W. Transport information geometry: Riemannian calculus on probability simplex. Inf. Geom. 2022, 5, 161–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otto, F. The geometry of dissipative evolution equations the porous medium equation. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 2001, 26, 101–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otto, F.; Villani, C. Generalization of an Inequality by Talagrand and Links with the Logarithmic Sobolev Inequality. J. Funct. Anal. 2000, 173, 361–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baudoin, F. Wasserstein contraction properties for hypoelliptic diffusions. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1602.04177. [Google Scholar]
- Baudoin, F. Bakry–Émery meet Villani. J. Funct. Anal. 2017, 273, 2275–2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baudoin, F.; Bonnefont, M.; Garofalo, N. A sub-Riemannian curvature-dimension inequality, volume doubling property and the Poincaré inequality. Math. Ann. 2014, 358, 833–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baudoin, F.; Gordina, M.; Herzog, D.P. Gamma calculus beyond Villani and explicit convergence estimates for Langevin dynamics with singular potentials. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 2021, 241, 765–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baudoin, F.; Grong, E.; Kuwada, K.; Thalmaier, A. Sub-Laplacian comparison theorems on totally geodesic Riemannian foliations. Calc. Var. 2019, 58, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baudoin, F.; Wang, J. Curvature dimension inequalities and subelliptic heat kernel gradient bounds on contact manifolds. Potential Anal. 2014, 40, 163–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Q. Harnack inequalities on totally geodesic foliations with transverse Ricci flow. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1712.02275. [Google Scholar]
- Grong, E.; Thalmaier, A. Curvature-dimension inequalities on sub-Riemannian manifolds obtained from Riemannian foliations: Part I. Math. Z. 2015, 282, 99–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grong, E.; Thalmaier, A. Curvature-dimension inequalities on sub-Riemannian manifolds obtained from Riemannian foliations: Part II. Math. Z. 2015, 282, 131–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrachev, A.; Lee, P. Optimal transportation under nonholonomic constraints. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 2009, 361, 6019–6047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figalli, A.; Rifford, L. Mass transportation on sub-Riemannian manifolds. Geom. Funct. Anal. 2010, 20, 124–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juillet, N. Diffusion by optimal transport in Heisenberg groups. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 2014, 50, 693–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khesin, B.; Lee, P. A nonholonomic Moser theorem and optimal transport. J. Symplectic Geom. 2009, 7, 381–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lott, J.; Villani, C. Ricci Curvature for Metric-Measure Spaces via Optimal Transport. Ann. Math. 2009, 169, 903–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sturm, K.-T. On the Geometry of Metric Measure Spaces. Acta Math. 2006, 196, 65–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lafferty, J.D. The Density Manifold and Configuration Space Quantization. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1988, 305, 699–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jüngel, A. Entropy Methods for Diffusive Partial Differential Equations; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Markowich, P.A.; Villani, C. On the Trend to Equilibrium for the Fokker–Planck Equation: An Interplay between Physics and Functional Analysis. Physics and Functional Analysis. Mat. Contemp. 1999, 19, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, A.; Einav, A.; Wöhrer, T. On the rates of decay to equilibrium in degenerate and defective Fokker-Planck equations. J. Differ. Equ. 2018, 264, 6843–6872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnold, A.; Erb, J. Sharp entropy decay for hypocoercive and non-symmetric Fokker–Planck equations with linear drift. arXiv 2014, arXiv:1409.5425. [Google Scholar]
- Karatzas, I.; Shreve, S.E. Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus, 2nd ed.; Graduate Texts in Mathematics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1991; Volume 113. [Google Scholar]
- Baudoin, F. An Introduction to the Geometry of Stochastic Flows; World Scientific: Singapore, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Stroock, D.W. Partial differential equations for probabilists. In Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008; Volume 112. [Google Scholar]
- Bismut, J.M. Martingales, the Malliavin calculus and hypoellipticity under general Hörmander’s conditions. In Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981; Volume 56, pp. 469–505. [Google Scholar]
- Hörmander, L. Hypoelliptic second-order differential equations. Acta Math. 1967, 119, 147–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arous, B.; Léandre, R. Décroissance exponentielle du noyau de la chaleur sur la diagonale (II). Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 1991, 90, 377–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barlow, M.; Nualart, D. Lectures on Probability Theory and Statistics. In Ecole d’Ete de Probabilites de Saint-Flour XXV; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Baudoin, F.; Nualart, E.; Ouyang, C.; Tindel, S. On probability laws of solutions to differential systems driven by a fractional Brownian motion. Ann. Probab. 2016, 44, 2554–2590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Q.; Li, W. Hypoelliptic entropy dissipation for stochastic differential equations. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2102.00544. [Google Scholar]
- Agrachev, A.; Barilari, D.; Boscain, U. On the Hausdorff volume in sub-Riemannian geometry. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 2012, 43, 355–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barilari, D.; Rizzi, L. A formula for Popp’s volume in sub-Riemannian geometry. Anal. Geom. Metr. Spaces 2013, 1, 42–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baudoin, F.; Feng, Q.; Gordina, M. Integration by parts and quasi-invariance for the horizontal Wiener measure on foliated compact manifolds. J. Funct. Anal. 2019, 277, 1362–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eldredge, N.; Gordina, M.; Saloff-Coste, L. Left-invariant geometries on SU(2) are uniformly doubling. Geom. Funct. Anal. 2018, 28, 1321–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elworthy, K.D. Stochastic Differential Equations on Manifolds; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1982; Volume 70. [Google Scholar]
- Gordina, M.; Laetsch, T. Sub-Laplacians on sub-Riemannian manifolds. Potential Anal. 2016, 44, 811–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordina, M.; Laetsch, T. A convergence to Brownian motion on sub-Riemannian manifolds. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 2017, 369, 6263–6278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malliavin, P. Stochastic Analysis. In Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1997; Volume 313. [Google Scholar]
- Baudoin, F.; Feng, Q. Log-Sobolev inequalities on the horizontal path space of a totally geodesic foliation. arXiv 2015, arXiv:1503.08180. [Google Scholar]
- Inglis, J.; Papageorgiou, I. Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities for infinite-dimensional Hörmander type generators on the Heisenberg group. Potential Anal. 2009, 31, 79–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baudoin, F.; Bonnefont, M. Log-Sobolev inequalities for subelliptic operators satisfying a generalized curvature dimension inequality. J. Funct. Anal. 2012, 262, 2646–2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.-Y. Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities on noncompact Riemannian manifolds. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 1997, 109, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woit, P. Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Baudoin, F.; Cecil, M. The subelliptic heat kernel on the three-dimensional solvable Lie groups. Forum Math. 2015, 27, 2051–2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W. Diffusion Hypercontractivity via Generalized Density Manifold. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1907.12546. [Google Scholar]
- Baudoin, F. Sub-Laplacians and hypoelliptic operators on totally geodesic Riemannian foliations. arXiv 2014, arXiv:1410.3268. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).