Relative entropy and modulated free energy without confinement via self-similar transformation

Abstract.

This note extends the modulated entropy and free energy methods for proving mean-field limits/propagation of chaos to the whole space without any confining potential, in contrast to previous work limited to the torus or requiring confinement in the whole space, for all log/Riesz flows. Our novel idea is a scale transformation, sometimes called self-similar coordinates in the PDE literature, which converts the problem to one with a quadratic confining potential, up to a time-dependent renormalization of the interaction potential. In these self-similar coordinates, one can then establish a Grönwall relation for the relative entropy or modulated free energy, conditional on bounds for the Hessian of the mean-field log density. This generalizes recent work of Feng-Wang [FW23], which extended the relative entropy method of [JW18] to the whole space for the viscous vortex model. Moreover, in contrast to previous work, our approach allows to obtain uniform-in-time propagation of chaos and even polynomial-in-time generation of chaos in the whole space without confinement, provided one has suitable decay estimates for the mean-field log density. The desired regularity bounds and decay estimates are the subject of the companion paper [HRSb].

1. Introduction

First-order mean-field systems have attracted enormous interest in recent years. At the microscopic level, the dynamics are described by the system of $N$ SDEs

(1.1) $$\begin{cases}\displaystyle dx_{i}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{1\leq j\leq N:j\neq i}{\mathbb{M}}\nabla{\mathsf{g}}(x_{i}-x_{j})dt+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\beta}}dW_{i},\\ \displaystyle x_{i}|_{t=0}=x_{i}^{\circ}.\end{cases}$$βべーた end_ARG end_ARG italic_d italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW

Here, $X_{N}^{\circ}=(x_{1}^{\circ},\ldots,x_{N}^{\circ})\in({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{N}$ are the initial positions of the particles. The function ${\mathsf{g}}:{\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}\cup\{\infty\}$ is the interaction potential, assumed to belong to the log/Riesz class of singular, integrable potentials

(1.2) $${\mathsf{g}}(x)\coloneqq\begin{cases}-\log|x|,&{\mathsf{s}=0}\\ \frac{1}{\mathsf{s}}|x|^{-\mathsf{s}},&{0<\mathsf{s}<\mathsf{d}}.\end{cases}$$

The $\mathsf{d}\times\mathsf{d}$ matrix ${\mathbb{M}}$ has constant real entries. The two cases we will consider are ${\mathbb{M}}$ is antisymmetric (Hamiltonian/conservative) or ${\mathbb{M}}=-\mathbb{I}$ (gradient/dissipative), though linear combinations of the two are permitted. For convenience, we introduce the vector field notation $\mathsf{k}\coloneqq{\mathbb{M}}\nabla{\mathsf{g}}$. The parameter $\beta\in(0,\infty]$βべーた ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ] has the interpretation of inverse temperature, and $W_{1},\ldots,W_{N}$ are independent Wiener processes in ${\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}}$. We refer to the introductions of [JW18, Ser20, NRS22, RS23a] and the surveys [JW17, CD21, Gol22] for a discussion of the motivation for and applications of these models.

Assuming that $\mu_{N}^{\circ}\coloneqq\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta_{x_{i}^{\circ}}$μみゅー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT suitably converges to $\mu^{\circ}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as $N\rightarrow\infty$, the empirical measure $\mu_{N}^{t}\coloneqq\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta_{x_{i}^{t}}$μみゅー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is expected to converge to a solution of the mean-field equation, which is the nonlinear PDE

(1.3) $$\{\begin{array}{cc}{\partial }_t\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}+\mathrm{div}(\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}𝗄\ast \mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}\hfill & \\ {\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}|}_{t=0}={\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}^{\circ },\hfill & \end{array}(t,x)\in {ℝ}_{+}\times {ℝ}^{𝖽}.$$Δでるた𝜇𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒evaluated-at𝜇𝑡0superscript𝜇𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑥subscriptℝsuperscriptℝ𝖽\begin{cases}{\partial}_{t}\mu+\operatorname{div}(\mu{\mathsf{k}}\ast\mu)=% \frac{1}{\beta}\Delta\mu\\ \mu|_{t=0}=\mu^{\circ},\end{cases}\qquad(t,x)\in{\mathbb{R}}_{+}\times{\mathbb% {R}}^{\mathsf{d}}.{ start_ROW start_CELL ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μみゅー + roman_div ( italic_μみゅー sansserif_k ∗ italic_μみゅー ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた end_ARG roman_Δでるた italic_μみゅー end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_μみゅー | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW ( italic_t , italic_x ) ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The mean-field limit refers to this convergence. Related is the notion of propagation of chaos, that the $k$-point marginals of the law $f_{N}^{t}$ of the solution $X_{N}^{t}$ of (1.1), which satisfies the forward Kolmogorov equation

(1.4) $$\{\begin{array}{cc}{\partial }_t{f}_N+\sum _{i=1}^N{\mathrm{div}}_{x_i}\left(f_N\sum _{1\le j\le N:j\ne i}𝗄(x_i-x_j)\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}\sum _{i=1}^N{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}_{x_i}{f}_N\hfill & \\ {f_N|}_{t=0}=f_N^{\circ },\hfill & \end{array}(t,X_N)\in {ℝ}_{+}\times {({ℝ}^{𝖽})}^N$$Δでるたsubscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑓𝑁𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒evaluated-atsubscript𝑓𝑁𝑡0superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑁𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑡subscript𝑋𝑁subscriptℝsuperscriptsuperscriptℝ𝖽𝑁\begin{cases}{\partial}_{t}f_{N}+\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N}\operatorname{div}% _{x_{i}}\Big{(}f_{N}\sum_{1\leq j\leq N:j\neq i}\mathsf{k}(x_{i}-x_{j})\Big{)}% =\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\Delta_{x_{i}}f_{N}\\ f_{N}|_{t=0}=f_{N}^{\circ},\end{cases}\qquad(t,X_{N})\in{\mathbb{R}}_{+}\times% ({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{N}{ start_ROW start_CELL ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_div start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_N : italic_j ≠ italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_k ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW ( italic_t , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

become $\mu^{t}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-chaotic as $N\rightarrow\infty$, where $\mu^{t}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a solution to (1.3), assuming the initial law $f_{N}^{\circ}$ is $\mu^{\circ}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-chaotic. There is also the stronger notion of generation of chaos, which asserts that $f_{N}^{t}$ becomes $\mu^{t}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-chaotic for large $N$ and $t$, even when $f_{N}^{\circ}$ is not $\mu^{\circ}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-chaotic. We refer to [HM14, RS23b] for a more precise description of the relation between these notions.

The most powerful tools to prove mean-field limits/propagation of chaos when the potential ${\mathsf{g}}$ is singular, such as for the log/Riesz case, are the modulated energy [Ser17, Due16, Ser20] (further developed in [NRS22]) and relative entropy of Jabin-Wang [JW16, JW18] (previously, widely used for hydrodynamic limits and conservation laws, e.g. [Yau91, SR09] and [DiP79, Daf79]), as well as their combination in the form of modulated free energy introduced by Bresch et al. [BJW19b, BJW19a, BJW23]. We review these quantities in Section 1.1 below.

The modulated energy method is versatile to both the whole space and confined domains, such as the torus, at zero temperature $\beta=\infty$βべーた = ∞ [Due16, Ser20, NRS22]. For positive temperature $\beta<\infty$βべーた < ∞, a pure modulated energy approach was used to prove mean-field convergence by two of the authors [RS23a] provided $\mathsf{s}<\mathsf{d}-2$ (i.e., the interaction is sub-Coulomb). The approach works in both the whole space and the torus. However, for more singular interactions at positive temperature, one needs to utilize relative entropy, which has the disadvantage of requiring a strong regularity assumption on the solution of the limiting equation (1.3) in the form of $L^{\infty}$ estimates for the Hessian of the log density $\nabla^{\otimes 2}\log\mu^{t}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. On compact domains, such as the torus, these bounds are fairly straightforward, as one just needs to show that $\mu^{t}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is positively bounded from below and establish $W^{2,\infty}$ bounds for $\mu^{t}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. However, in the full space ${\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}}$, the matter is more delicate, as no probability density can be bounded from below by a positive constant.

In recent work [FW23], Feng-Wang extended the relative entropy method of [JW18] to prove local-in-time entropic propagation of chaos for the viscous vortex model, which corresponds to $\mathsf{d}=2$, ${\mathbb{M}}$ antisymmetric, and ${\mathsf{g}}(x)=-\log|x|$ in our notation. The bulk of the work in [FW23] concerns establishing local-in-time spatially weighted bounds for the solution of the mean-field equation up to second-order derivatives. For this, they rely on somewhat sophisticated tools for general parabolic equations; namely, Li-Yau [LY86] and Hamilton-type [Ham93] estimates. In particular, there is the awkwardness of dealing with the solution having Gaussian-like spatial decay, hence the absolute log density grows quadratically as $|x|\rightarrow\infty$. Once one has these bounds, the remainder of the argument of [JW18] goes through.

The purpose of the present paper is to propose a simpler approach based on a transformation of the dynamics to self-similar coordinates, which converts all equations to ones with a quadratic confining potential. See the next subsection for further description. Such a transformation has been widely used in the PDE literature to study the asymptotic properties of dissipative equations (e.g., [Kap80, FMT83, GK87, Kav87, EK88, MZ97, GW02, GW05, BDP06, BCL09, BKM10, CV11, CD14, SV14]). The relative entropy is invariant under this transformation, while the interaction potential ${\mathsf{g}}$ is renormalized by a time-dependent factor. In these coordinates, one can perform the relative entropy or modulated free energy method. Showing a closed estimate for the relative entropy or modulated free energy then reduces to $L^{\infty}$ bounds for the Hessian of the logarithm of the ratio of the mean-field density to a time-dependent thermal equilibrium measure.

Such Hessian bounds (as well as higher-order derivatives) can be easily be proven, locally in time, through a direct fixed point argument, energy estimates, or maximal principle, avoiding the appeals to more sophisticated tools, as in [FW23]. With more work, building on ideas of the authors and Chodron de Courcel [RS23a, dCRS23b, dCRS23a], one can show exponential-in-time rates of decay for this logarithmic ratio. This allows to show uniform-in-time propagation of chaos and even polynomial-in-time generation of chaos. The treatment of these regularity bounds and general analysis of the self-similar equation, for the first time covering both Hamiltonian and gradient drifts in the full range of log and Riesz potentials, is the subject of the companion paper [HRSb].

1.1. Modulated energy, entropy, and free energy

Before proceeding further, we review the notions of modulated (free) energy.

Given $\mu\in\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})$μみゅー ∈ caligraphic_P ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), we define the modulated energy of the configuration $X_{N}\in({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{N}$ by

(1.5) $$F_{N}(X_{N},\mu)\coloneqq\frac{1}{2}\int_{({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{2}\setminus\triangle}{\mathsf{g}}(x-y)d\Big{(}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta_{x_{i}}-\mu\Big{)}^{\otimes 2}(x,y),$$μみゅー ) ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ △ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_g ( italic_x - italic_y ) italic_d ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_μみゅー ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) ,

where $\triangle$ denotes the diagonal of $({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{2}$. This object first appeared as a next-order electric energy in [SS15, RS16, PS17] and was subsequently used in the dynamics context in [Due16, Ser20] and following works—in the spirit of Brenier’s modulated energy [Bre00]. The modulated energy $F_{N}$ is the total interaction of the system of $N$ discrete charges located at $X_{N}$ against a negative (neutralizing) background charge $\mu$μみゅー, with the infinite self-interaction of the points removed. As shown in the aforementioned prior works, $F_{N}$ is not necessarily positive (see Lemma 3.4 below); however, it effectively acts as a squared distance between the empirical measure $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta_{x_{i}}$δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and $\mu$μみゅー.

The normalized relative entropy between two probability densities $f_{N},g_{N}$ on $({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{N}$ is given by

(1.6) $$H_{N}(f_{N}|g_{N})\coloneqq\frac{1}{N}\int_{({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{N}}\log\left(\frac{f_{N}}{g_{N}}\right)df_{N}.$$

Given a reference probability density $\mu$μみゅー on ${\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}}$, we may now define the modulated free energy, as introduced in [BJW19b, BJW19a, BJW23] by

(1.7) $$E_{N}(f_{N},\mu)\coloneqq\frac{1}{\beta}H_{N}(f_{N}|\mu^{\otimes N})+\mathbb{E}_{f_{N}}\left[F_{N}(X_{N},\mu)\right],$$μみゅー ) ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた end_ARG italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_μみゅー ) ] ,

where $\mathbb{E}_{f_{N}}$ denotes the expectation with respect to the measure $f_{N}=\mathrm{Law}(X_{N})$.

The average modulated energy satisfies the differential inequality (see [RS23a])

(1.8) $$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d}{dt}{𝔼}_{f_N^t}[F_N(X_N,{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}^t)]\le \frac{1}{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}{𝔼}_{f_N^t}\left[{\int }_{{({ℝ}^{𝖽})}^2\setminus \mathrm{△}}\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}𝗀(x-y)d{\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum _{i=1}^N{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}_{x_i}-{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}^t\right)}^{\otimes 2}(x,y)\right]\hfill \\ \hfill +{𝔼}_{f_N^t}\left[\frac{1}{N}\sum _{i=1}^N\mathrm{PV}\nabla 𝗀\ast \left(\frac{1}{N}\sum _{j=1}^N{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}_{x_j}-{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}^t\right)(x_i)\cdot \mathrm{PV}𝗄\ast \left(\frac{1}{N}\sum _{j=1}^N{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}_{x_j}-{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}^t\right)(x_i)\right]\\ \hfill -\frac{1}{2}{𝔼}_{f_N^t}\left[{\int }_{{({ℝ}^{𝖽})}^2\setminus \mathrm{△}}(u^t(x)-u^t(y))\cdot \nabla 𝗀(x-y)d{\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum _{i=1}^N{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}_{x_i}-{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}^t\right)}^{\otimes 2}(x,y)\right],\end{array}$$Δでるた𝗀𝑥𝑦𝑑superscript1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝛿subscript𝑥𝑖superscript𝜇𝑡tensor-productabsent2𝑥𝑦subscript𝔼superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑁𝑡delimited-[]1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁∗⋅∗PV∇𝗀1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑁subscript𝛿subscript𝑥𝑗superscript𝜇𝑡subscript𝑥𝑖PV𝗄1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑁subscript𝛿subscript𝑥𝑗superscript𝜇𝑡subscript𝑥𝑖12subscript𝔼superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑁𝑡delimited-[]subscriptsuperscriptsuperscriptℝ𝖽2△⋅superscript𝑢𝑡𝑥superscript𝑢𝑡𝑦∇𝗀𝑥𝑦𝑑superscript1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝛿subscript𝑥𝑖superscript𝜇𝑡tensor-productabsent2𝑥𝑦\frac{d}{dt}{\mathbb{E}}_{f_{N}^{t}}[{F}_{N}(X_{N},\mu^{t})]\leq\frac{1}{\beta% }{\mathbb{E}}_{f_{N}^{t}}\Bigg{[}\int_{({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{2}% \setminus\triangle}\Delta{\mathsf{g}}(x-y)d\Big{(}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}% \delta_{x_{i}}-\mu^{t}\Big{)}^{\otimes 2}(x,y)\Bigg{]}\\ +{\mathbb{E}}_{f_{N}^{t}}\Bigg{[}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\operatorname{PV}\ % \nabla{\mathsf{g}}\ast\Big{(}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\delta_{x_{j}}-\mu^{t}% \Big{)}(x_{i})\cdot\operatorname{PV}\ \mathsf{k}\ast\Big{(}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=% 1}^{N}\delta_{x_{j}}-\mu^{t}\Big{)}(x_{i})\Bigg{]}\\ -\frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{E}}_{f_{N}^{t}}\Bigg{[}\int_{({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^% {2}\setminus\triangle}(u^{t}(x)-u^{t}(y))\cdot\nabla{\mathsf{g}}(x-y)d\Big{(}% \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta_{x_{i}}-\mu^{t}\Big{)}^{\otimes 2}(x,y)\Bigg{]},start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_d end_ARG start_ARG italic_d italic_t end_ARG blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた end_ARG blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ △ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Δでるた sansserif_g ( italic_x - italic_y ) italic_d ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_PV ∇ sansserif_g ∗ ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⋅ roman_PV sansserif_k ∗ ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ △ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) ⋅ ∇ sansserif_g ( italic_x - italic_y ) italic_d ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) ] , end_CELL end_ROW

where $\operatorname{PV}$ denotes principal value, $u^{t}\coloneqq-\mathsf{k}\ast\mu^{t}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. If $\mathsf{s}<\mathsf{d}-2$, then the first term on the right-hand side is nonpositive up to $o_{N}(1)$ error, while the second term is nonpositive (vanishes if ${\mathbb{M}}$ is antisymmetric). The third term, called the commutator term, may be estimated in terms of the modulated energy using a functional inequality [LS18, Ser20, Ros20, Ser23, Ros23, NRS22, RS23a] which bounds it by $C\|\nabla u^{t}\|_{L^{\infty}}F_{N}(X_{N},\mu^{t})$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). This allows to close the Grönwall loop for ${\mathbb{E}}_{f_{N}^{t}}[{F}_{N}(X_{N},\mu^{t})]$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ], as was done in [RS23a]. Importantly, one only needs to control $\|\nabla u^{t}\|_{L^{\infty}}=\|\nabla\mathsf{k}\ast\mu^{t}\|_{L^{\infty}}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which is well-established in the PDE literature, e.g. [Wol33, Yud63, CMT94, CW99, LZ00, BKM10, CCC${}^{+}$12, BLL12, SV14, BIK15, CJ21]. If $\mathsf{s}\geq\mathsf{d}-2$, then the first term is no longer essentially nonpositive, and it is not clear how to proceed.

On the other hand, the relative entropy (see [JW18]) satisfies the differential inequality

(1.9) $$\frac{d}{dt}H_{N}(f_{N}^{t}|(\mu^{t})^{\otimes N})\leq-\frac{1}{\beta}I_{N}({f}_{N}^{t}|(\mu^{t})^{\otimes N})\\ +\frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{E}}_{f_{N}^{t}}\Big{[}\int_{({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{2}\setminus\triangle}\Big{(}\nabla\log(\mu^{t})(x)-\nabla\log(\mu^{t})(y)\Big{)}\cdot\mathsf{k}(x-y)\Big{(}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\delta_{{x}_{j}}-\mu^{t}\Big{)}^{\otimes 2}(x,y)\Big{]}\\ +{\mathbb{E}}_{f_{N}^{t}}\Big{[}\int_{({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{2}\setminus\triangle}\operatorname{div}\mathsf{k}(x-y)\Big{(}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\delta_{{x}_{j}}-\mu^{t}\Big{)}^{\otimes 2}(x,y)\Big{]},$$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≤ - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた end_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ( italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ △ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∇ roman_log ( start_ARG italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ( italic_x ) - ∇ roman_log ( start_ARG italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ( italic_y ) ) ⋅ sansserif_k ( italic_x - italic_y ) ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ △ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_div sansserif_k ( italic_x - italic_y ) ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) ] , end_CELL end_ROW

where $I_{N}$ denotes the $1/N$ normalized relative Fisher information, which is nonnegative. The simplest setting is when $\operatorname{div}\mathsf{k}=0$, which holds if ${\mathbb{M}}$ is antisymmetric, removing the third line. The difficulty in establishing a Grönwall relation is to control the second line, which again is a commutator term, in terms of the relative entropy. This can be done, as was shown in [JW18] (see Lemma 3.1 below), but only when $\mathsf{s}=0$. More importantly for our purposes, this requires control of $\|\nabla^{\otimes 2}\log\mu^{t}\|_{L^{\infty}}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT which is not obvious to establish in the whole space, given the decay of solutions as $|x|\rightarrow\infty$. For instance, if $\mu^{t}(x)\approx e^{-c|x|^{2+\epsilon}}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ≈ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 + italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then such a bound would be impossible.

As observed first by Bresch et al. [BJW19b, BJW19a, BJW23], combining the relations (1.8), (1.9), one sees that in the gradient case ${\mathbb{M}}=-\mathbb{I}$, the first term on the right-hand side of (1.8) cancels with $\frac{1}{\beta}$βべーた end_ARG times the last term on the right-hand side of (1.9). The second term term in (1.8) may be recombined with the relative Fisher information term in (1.9) into a total nonpositive expression, leading to

(1.10) $$\frac{d}{dt}E_{N}(f_{N}^{t},\mu^{t})\leq-\frac{1}{\beta^{2}}{I_{N}(f_{N}^{t}|{\mathbb{Q}}_{N,\beta}(\mu^{t}))}\\ -\frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{E}}_{f_{N}^{t}}\Big{[}\int_{({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{2}\setminus\triangle}\Big{(}u^{t}(x)-u^{t}(y)\Big{)}\cdot\nabla{\mathsf{g}}(x-y)\Big{(}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\delta_{{x}_{j}}-\mu^{t}\Big{)}^{\otimes 2}(x,y)\Big{]},$$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≤ - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | blackboard_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ △ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) ⋅ ∇ sansserif_g ( italic_x - italic_y ) ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) ] , end_CELL end_ROW

where now $u^{t}\coloneqq\frac{1}{\beta}\nabla\log\mu^{t}+\nabla{\mathsf{g}}\ast\mu^{t}$βべーた end_ARG ∇ roman_log italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∇ sansserif_g ∗ italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and

(1.11) $$d{\mathbb{Q}}_{N,\beta}(\mu^{t})(X_{N})\coloneqq\frac{1}{\mathsf{K}_{N,\beta}(\mu^{t})}e^{-\beta N{F}_{N}(X_{N},\mu^{t})}d(\mu^{t})^{\otimes N}(X_{N})$$βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG sansserif_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_βべーた italic_N italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

is the $\mu^{t}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-modulated Gibbs measure, with $\mathsf{K}_{N,\beta}(\mu^{t})$βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) the normalization factor or partition function. To establish a Grönwall relation, one again needs to just estimate the commutator term in terms of the relative entropy, modulated energy, or a linear combination of the two, which can be done with the aforementioned functional “commutator” inequality. This comes at the cost of needing a bound for $\|\nabla u^{t}\|_{L^{\infty}}$, which, by triangle inequality, again requires a bound for $\|\nabla^{\otimes 2}\log\mu^{t}\|_{L^{\infty}}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; the second term in $\nabla u^{t}$ can be straightforwardly estimated in terms of $\|\mu^{\circ}\|_{W^{2,\infty}}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 , ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so there is no cancellation between the entropic and potential terms to be exploited.

The punchline of the preceding discussion is that entropic terms require $\dot{W}^{2,\infty}$ control on $\log\mu^{t}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which is not guaranteed in the whole space for an arbitrary smooth, rapidly decaying function. However, this difficulty is, in some sense, an artifact of being in the wrong frame of reference: one has to take advantage of the asymptotic form of solutions to equation (1.3) in the large time limit. This leads us to the self-similar transformation.

1.2. The self-similar coordinates

Let $\mu^{t}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a solution of the mean-field equation (1.3). For $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}}$ and $t\geq 0$, self-similar coordinates are defined by

(1.12) $$\xi\coloneqq\frac{x}{\sqrt{t+1}},\ \tau\coloneqq\log(t+1)\qquad \Longleftrightarrow\qquad x=e^{\tau/2}\xi,\ t=e^{\tau}-1$$ξくしー ≔ divide start_ARG italic_x end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_t + 1 end_ARG end_ARG , italic_τたう ≔ roman_log ( start_ARG italic_t + 1 end_ARG ) τたう / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξくしー , italic_t = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1

(1.13) $$\mu(t,x)\eqqcolon(t+1)^{-\mathsf{d}/2}\bar{\mu}(\log(t+1),x/\sqrt{t+1})\qquad \Longleftrightarrow\qquad e^{\mathsf{d}\tau/2}\mu(e^{\tau}-1,e^{\tau/2}\xi)=\bar{\mu}(\tau,\xi).$$μみゅー ( italic_t , italic_x ) ≕ ( italic_t + 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - sansserif_d / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ( roman_log ( start_ARG italic_t + 1 end_ARG ) , italic_x / square-root start_ARG italic_t + 1 end_ARG ) τたう / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μみゅー ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 , italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξくしー ) = over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ( italic_τたう , italic_ξくしー ) .

Note that this transformation is mass-preserving. From the chain rule (see Lemma 2.1 below), one checks that $\bar{\mu}^{\tau}$μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT solves the self-similar mean-field equation

(1.14) $$\{\begin{array}{cc}{\partial }_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}+\mathrm{div}\left(\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}({𝗄}_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}\ast \overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}-\nabla (\frac{1}{4}{|\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}|}^2))\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}\hfill & \\ {\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}|}_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}=0}={\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}^{\circ }\hfill & \end{array}(\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>},\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>})\in {ℝ}_{+}\times {ℝ}^{𝖽},$$Δでるた¯𝜇𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒evaluated-at¯𝜇𝜏0superscript𝜇𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒𝜏𝜉subscriptℝsuperscriptℝ𝖽\begin{cases}{\partial}_{\tau}\bar{\mu}+\operatorname{div}\left(\bar{\mu}(% \mathsf{k}_{\tau}\ast\bar{\mu}{-}\nabla(\frac{1}{4}|\xi|^{2}))\right)=\frac{1}% {\beta}\Delta\bar{\mu}\\ \bar{\mu}|_{\tau=0}=\mu^{\circ}\end{cases}\qquad(\tau,\xi)\in{\mathbb{R}}_{+}% \times{\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}},{ start_ROW start_CELL ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG + roman_div ( over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ( sansserif_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG - ∇ ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG | italic_ξくしー | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた end_ARG roman_Δでるた over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τたう = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW ( italic_τたう , italic_ξくしー ) ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where ${\mathsf{g}}_{\tau}\coloneqq e^{-\frac{\mathsf{s}\tau}{2}}{\mathsf{g}}$τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG sansserif_s italic_τたう end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_g is the renormalized interaction potential and $\mathsf{k}_{\tau}\coloneqq{\mathbb{M}}\nabla{\mathsf{g}}_{\tau}$τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ blackboard_M ∇ sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This way, we see the confinement potential $\frac{1}{4}|\xi|^{2}$ξくしー | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT appear. Remark that ${\mathsf{g}}_{0}={\mathsf{g}}$ and if $\mathsf{s}=0$, then ${\mathsf{g}}_{\tau}={\mathsf{g}}$τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = sansserif_g for all $\tau\geq 0$τたう ≥ 0. Similarly, if $f_{N}^{t}$ is a solution of the forward Kolmogorov equation (1.4), then the density

(1.15) ${\overline{f}}_N(\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>},{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N)=e^{𝖽N\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}/2}{f}_N(e^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}-1,e^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}/2}{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N)$Ξくしー𝑁superscript𝑒𝖽𝑁𝜏2subscript𝑓𝑁superscript𝑒𝜏1superscript𝑒𝜏2subscriptΞくしー𝑁\displaystyle\bar{f}_{N}(\tau,\Xi_{N})=e^{\mathsf{d}N\tau/2}f_{N}(e^{\tau}-1,e% ^{\tau/2}\Xi_{N})over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_τたう , roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d italic_N italic_τたう / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 , italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

satisfies the self-similar forward Kolmogorov equation

(1.16) $\{\begin{array}{cc}{\partial }_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}{\overline{f}}_N+{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^N}{\mathrm{div}}_{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_i}\left({\overline{f}}_N\left({\displaystyle \sum _{j\ne i}}{𝗄}_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_i-{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_j)-{\nabla }_{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_i}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{|{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N|}^2)\right)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}}{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}_{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N}{\overline{f}}_N\hfill & \\ {{\overline{f}}_N|}_{t=0}=f_N^{\circ },\hfill & \end{array}(\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>},{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N)\in {ℝ}_{+}\times {({ℝ}^{𝖽})}^N.$Ξくしー𝑁21𝛽subscriptΔでるたsubscriptΞくしー𝑁subscript¯𝑓𝑁𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒evaluated-atsubscript¯𝑓𝑁𝑡0superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑁𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒𝜏subscriptΞくしー𝑁subscriptℝsuperscriptsuperscriptℝ𝖽𝑁\displaystyle\begin{cases}{\partial}_{\tau}\bar{f}_{N}+\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}% ^{N}\operatorname{div}_{\xi_{i}}\Big{(}\bar{f}_{N}\Big{(}\sum_{j\neq i}\mathsf% {k}_{\tau}(\xi_{i}-\xi_{j}){-\nabla_{\xi_{i}}(\frac{1}{4}|\Xi_{N}|^{2})}\Big{)% }\Big{)}=\frac{1}{\beta}\Delta_{\Xi_{N}}\bar{f}_{N}\\ \bar{f}_{N}|_{t=0}=f_{N}^{\circ},\end{cases}\qquad(\tau,\Xi_{N})\in{\mathbb{R}% }_{+}\times({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{N}.{ start_ROW start_CELL ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_div start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≠ italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG | roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた end_ARG roman_Δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW ( italic_τたう , roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Thus, our original problem has been converted to one with a confining potential, at the cost of renormalizing the interaction potential by a time-dependent factor.

Remark 1.1.

If ${\mathbb{M}}$ is antisymmetric and $\bar{\mu}$μみゅー end_ARG is radial, then the nonlinear term $\operatorname{div}(\bar{\mu}\mathsf{k}_{\tau}\ast\bar{\mu})=0$μみゅー end_ARG sansserif_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ) = 0 and the equation reduces to the linear Fokker-Planck equation. Equivalently, under the same assumptions equation (1.3) becomes the linear heat equation.

The relative entropy is invariant under changing to self-similar coordinates. In contrast, the modulated energy transforms to

${\overline{F}}_N^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N,\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}{4N}}{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{𝗌=0}$Ξくしー𝑁¯𝜇𝜏4𝑁subscript1𝗌0\displaystyle\bar{F}_{N}^{\tau}(\Xi_{N},\bar{\mu})+\frac{\tau}{4N}\mathbf{1}_{% \mathsf{s}=0}over¯ start_ARG italic_F end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ) + divide start_ARG italic_τたう end_ARG start_ARG 4 italic_N end_ARG bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_s = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT $\displaystyle\coloneqq\int_{({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{2}\setminus\triangle}{\mathsf{g}}_{\tau}(\xi-\eta)d\Big{(}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta_{\xi_{i}}-\bar{\mu}\Big{)}^{\otimes 2}(\xi,\eta)+\frac{\tau}{4N}\mathbf{1}_{\mathsf{s}=0}$τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξくしー - italic_ηいーた ) italic_d ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ξくしー , italic_ηいーた ) + divide start_ARG italic_τたう end_ARG start_ARG 4 italic_N end_ARG bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_s = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

(1.17) $=e^{-𝗌\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}/2}{F}_N({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N,\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}{4N}}{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{𝗌=0},$Ξくしー𝑁¯𝜇𝜏4𝑁subscript1𝗌0\displaystyle=e^{-\mathsf{s}\tau/2}{F}_{N}(\Xi_{N},\bar{\mu})+\frac{\tau}{4N}% \mathbf{1}_{\mathsf{s}=0},= italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - sansserif_s italic_τたう / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ) + divide start_ARG italic_τたう end_ARG start_ARG 4 italic_N end_ARG bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_s = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

and therefore the modulated free energy transforms to

(1.18) ${\overline{E}}_N^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}({\overline{f}}_N^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}},{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}{4N}}{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{𝗌=0}≔{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}}{H}_N({\overline{f}}_N|{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{\otimes N})+{𝔼}_{{\overline{f}}_N}\left[{\overline{F}}_N^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N,\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}})\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}{4N}}{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{𝗌=0}.$Ξくしー𝑁¯𝜇𝜏4𝑁subscript1𝗌0\displaystyle\bar{E}_{N}^{\tau}(\bar{f}_{N}^{\tau},\bar{\mu}^{\tau})+\frac{% \tau}{4N}\mathbf{1}_{\mathsf{s}=0}\coloneqq\frac{1}{\beta}H_{N}(\bar{f}_{N}|% \bar{\mu}^{\otimes N})+{\mathbb{E}}_{\bar{f}_{N}}\Big{[}\bar{{F}}_{N}^{\tau}(% \Xi_{N},\bar{\mu})\Big{]}+\frac{\tau}{4N}\mathbf{1}_{\mathsf{s}=0}.over¯ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + divide start_ARG italic_τたう end_ARG start_ARG 4 italic_N end_ARG bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_s = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた end_ARG italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ over¯ start_ARG italic_F end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ) ] + divide start_ARG italic_τたう end_ARG start_ARG 4 italic_N end_ARG bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_s = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

We refer to Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3 for the detailed computation. Just as with (1.8), (1.9), (1.10), each of these transformed quantities satisfies a dissipation identity amenable to a Grönwall argument.

Focusing, in the interests of brevity, on just the modulated free energy when ${\mathbb{M}}=-\mathbb{I}$, one has (see Lemma 3.6)

(1.19) $$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d}{d\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}{\overline{E}}_N^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}({\overline{f}}_N^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}},{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}})\le -\frac{1}{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}^2}{I}_N({\overline{f}}_N^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}|{\mathbb{Q}}_{N,\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}({\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}))-\frac{𝗌}{2}{𝔼}_{{\overline{f}}_N^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}}\left[{\overline{F}}_N^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N,{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}})\right]\hfill \\ \hfill -\frac{1}{2}{𝔼}_{{\overline{f}}_N^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}}\left[{\int }_{{({ℝ}^{𝖽})}^2\setminus \mathrm{△}}({\overline{u}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}(\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>})-{\overline{u}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}(\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\eta </rb><rt>いーた</rt></ruby>}))\cdot \nabla {𝗀}_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}(\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}-\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\eta </rb><rt>いーた</rt></ruby>})d{\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum _{i=1}^N{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}_{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_i}-{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}\right)}^{\otimes 2}(\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>},\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\eta </rb><rt>いーた</rt></ruby>})\right],\end{array}$$Ξくしー𝑁superscript¯𝜇𝜏12subscript𝔼superscriptsubscript¯𝑓𝑁𝜏delimited-[]subscriptsuperscriptsuperscriptℝ𝖽2△⋅superscript¯𝑢𝜏𝜉superscript¯𝑢𝜏𝜂∇subscript𝗀𝜏𝜉𝜂𝑑superscript1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝛿subscript𝜉𝑖superscript¯𝜇𝜏tensor-productabsent2𝜉𝜂\frac{d}{d\tau}\bar{E}_{N}^{\tau}(\bar{f}_{N}^{\tau},\bar{\mu}^{\tau})\leq-% \frac{1}{\beta^{2}}I_{N}(\bar{f}_{N}^{\tau}|{\mathbb{Q}}_{N,\beta}^{\tau}(\bar% {\mu}^{\tau}))-\frac{\mathsf{s}}{2}{\mathbb{E}}_{\bar{f}_{N}^{\tau}}\Big{[}% \bar{F}_{N}^{\tau}(\Xi_{N},\bar{\mu}^{\tau})\Big{]}\\ -\frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{E}}_{\bar{f}_{N}^{\tau}}\Big{[}\int_{({\mathbb{R}}^{% \mathsf{d}})^{2}\setminus\triangle}(\bar{u}^{\tau}(\xi)-\bar{u}^{\tau}(\eta))% \cdot\nabla{\mathsf{g}}_{\tau}(\xi-\eta)d\Big{(}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}% \delta_{\xi_{i}}-\bar{\mu}^{\tau}\Big{)}^{\otimes 2}(\xi,\eta)\Big{]},start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_d end_ARG start_ARG italic_d italic_τたう end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≤ - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | blackboard_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) - divide start_ARG sansserif_s end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ over¯ start_ARG italic_F end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ △ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ξくしー ) - over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ηいーた ) ) ⋅ ∇ sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξくしー - italic_ηいーた ) italic_d ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ξくしー , italic_ηいーた ) ] , end_CELL end_ROW

where $\mathbb{Q}_{N,\beta}^{\tau}(\bar{\mu}^{\tau})$βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is the modulated Gibbs measure given by

(1.20) $d{\mathbb{Q}}_{N,\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}({\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}})({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N)≔{\displaystyle \frac{1}{{𝖪}_{N,\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}({\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}})}}{e}^{-\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}N{\overline{F}}_N^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N,{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}})}d{({\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}})}^{\otimes N}({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Xi </rb><rt>くしー</rt></ruby>}}_N),$Ξくしー𝑁1superscriptsubscript𝖪𝑁𝛽𝜏superscript¯𝜇𝜏superscript𝑒𝛽𝑁superscriptsubscript¯𝐹𝑁𝜏subscriptΞくしー𝑁superscript¯𝜇𝜏𝑑superscriptsuperscript¯𝜇𝜏tensor-productabsent𝑁subscriptΞくしー𝑁\displaystyle d\mathbb{Q}_{N,\beta}^{\tau}(\bar{\mu}^{\tau})(\Xi_{N})\coloneqq% \frac{1}{\mathsf{K}_{N,\beta}^{\tau}(\bar{\mu}^{\tau})}e^{-\beta N\bar{F}_{N}^% {\tau}(\Xi_{N},\bar{\mu}^{\tau})}d(\bar{\mu}^{\tau})^{\otimes N}(\Xi_{N}),italic_d blackboard_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG sansserif_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_βべーた italic_N over¯ start_ARG italic_F end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d ( over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ξくしー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,

with partition function $\mathsf{K}_{N,\beta}^{\tau}(\bar{\mu}^{\tau})$βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), and the vector field $\bar{u}^{\tau}\coloneqq\frac{1}{\beta}\nabla\log\bar{\mu}^{\tau}+\frac{1}{2}\xi+\nabla{\mathsf{g}}\ast\bar{\mu}^{\tau}$τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた end_ARG ∇ roman_log over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ξくしー + ∇ sansserif_g ∗ over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has gained the contribution of the confining potential $\frac{1}{4}|\xi|^{2}$ξくしー | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. To estimate the commutator term in (1.19), one again wants to use the aforementioned functional inequality, which requires bounding $\|\nabla\bar{u}^{\tau}\|_{L^{\infty}}$τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To do so, one should not try to estimate each of the three terms in the expression for $\nabla\bar{u}^{\tau}$τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT separately. Rather, one should exploit a cancellation in their combination described as follows.

Since the relative entropy is strictly convex and $\hat{{\mathsf{g}}}\geq 0$, the time-dependent macroscopic free energy

(1.21) $$\bar{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta}^{\tau}(\bar{\mu})\coloneqq\frac{1}{2}\int_{({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})^{2}}{\mathsf{g}}_{\tau}(\xi-\eta)d\bar{\mu}(\xi)d\bar{\mu}(\eta)+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}}}\frac{1}{4}|\xi|^{2}d\bar{\mu}(\xi)+\frac{1}{\beta}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}}}(\log\bar{\mu})d\bar{\mu}$$βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ) ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξくしー - italic_ηいーた ) italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ( italic_ξくしー ) italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ( italic_ηいーた ) + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG | italic_ξくしー | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ( italic_ξくしー ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_log over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG ) italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG

is strictly convex and admits a unique minimizer $\bar{\mu}_{\beta}^{\tau}$μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in $\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})$, characterized by the relation

(1.22) $$\frac{1}{\beta}\log\bar{\mu}_{\beta}^{\tau}+\frac{1}{4}|\xi|^{2}+{\mathsf{g}}_{\tau}\ast\bar{\mu}_{\beta}^{\tau}=Z_{\beta}^{\tau},$$βべーた end_ARG roman_log over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG | italic_ξくしー | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where $Z_{\beta}^{\tau}\in{\mathbb{R}}$βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R. Remark that if $\mathsf{s}=0$, then $\bar{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta}^{\tau}$βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is independent of time, and $\bar{\mu}_{\beta}^{\tau}$μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the usual thermal equilibrium measure, which is the unique stationary state of equation (1.14) among probability measures with finite free energy. We refer to [Ser, Chap. 2] for a description of the thermal equilibrium measure. If on the other hand $\mathsf{s}>0$, then ${\mathsf{g}}_{\tau}\to 0$τたう end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 as $\tau\rightarrow\infty$τたう → ∞, hence $\bar{\mu}_{\beta}^{\tau}$μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT converges to the Gaussian

(1.23) $$d\bar{\mu}_{\beta}^{\infty}(\xi)\coloneqq(4\pi/\beta)^{-\frac{\mathsf{d}}{2}}e^{-\beta|\xi|^{2}/4}d\xi,$$μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ξくしー ) ≔ ( 4 italic_πぱい / italic_βべーた ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG sansserif_d end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_βべーた | italic_ξくしー | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ξくしー ,

which minimizes the sum of the last two terms in (1.21).

Taking the gradient of the left-hand side of the relation (1.22), which is zero, and subtracting from $\bar{u}^{\tau}$τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we observe the cancellation

(1.24) $$\bar{u}^{\tau}=\frac{1}{\beta}\nabla\log\frac{\bar{\mu}^{\tau}}{\bar{\mu}_{\beta}^{\tau}}+\nabla{\mathsf{g}}\ast(\bar{\mu}^{\tau}-\bar{\mu}_{\beta}^{\tau}).$$τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_βべーた end_ARG ∇ roman_log divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + ∇ sansserif_g ∗ ( over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Each of the two terms may now be estimated separately. The second term is straightforward, while the first term is more subtle, as discussed below.

1.3. Main result

We come to the main result. In a nutshell, we show that if the self-similar mean-field equation (1.14) admits a solution $\bar{\mu}^{\tau}$μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, such that the Hessian $\nabla^{\otimes 2}\log\frac{\bar{\mu}^{\tau}}{\bar{\mu}_{\beta}^{\tau}}$μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG is in $L^{\infty}$ uniformly in $\tau\in[0,\log(T+1)]$τたう ∈ [ 0 , roman_log ( start_ARG italic_T + 1 end_ARG ) ], then the following holds:

1. if $\mathsf{s}=0$ and ${\mathbb{M}}$ is antisymmetric, the original relative entropy $H_{N}(f_{N}^{t}|(\mu^{t})^{\otimes N})$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is bounded by $C_{T}(H_{N}(f_{N}^{0}|(\mu^{0})^{\otimes N})+o_{N}(1))$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_o start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 ) ) on $[0,T]$;

2. if $\mathsf{s}<\mathsf{d}-2$ and ${\mathbb{M}}$ is antisymmetric or $\mathsf{s}<\mathsf{d}$ and ${\mathbb{M}}=-\mathbb{I}$, the modulated free energy $E_{N}(f_{N}^{t}|(\mu^{t})^{\otimes N})$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is bounded by $C_{T}(E_{N}(f_{N}^{0},\mu^{0})+o_{N}(1))$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_o start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 ) ) on $[0,T]$;

3. if $\int_{0}^{\infty}\|\nabla^{\otimes 2}\log\frac{\bar{\mu}^{\tau}}{\bar{\mu}_{\beta}^{\tau}}\|_{L^{\infty}}d\tau<\infty$μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_τたう < ∞, then the preceding estimates hold uniformly in time;

4. if for $\mathsf{s}<\mathsf{d}-2$ and ${\mathbb{M}}$ antisymmetric, $\|\log\frac{\bar{\mu}^{\tau}}{\bar{\mu}_{\beta}^{\infty}}\|_{L^{\infty}}$μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is uniformly bounded in time, then the prefactor $C_{T}$ in point (1) vanishes polynomially fast as $T\rightarrow\infty$;

5. if for $\mathsf{s}<\mathsf{d}$ and ${\mathbb{M}}=-\mathbb{I}$, the modulated Gibbs measure $\mathbb{Q}_{N,\beta}^{\tau}(\bar{\mu}^{\tau})$βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τたう end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) from (1.20) satisfies a logarithmic Sobolev inequality (LSI) uniformly in $N$ and $\tau$τたう (a uniform modulated LSI in the language of [RS23b]), then the dependence on the initial modulated free energy in point (2) vanishes polynomially fast as $T\rightarrow\infty$.

As is well-known, by subadditivity of the relative entropy and the almost positivity of the modulated energy, the first two assertions imply propagation of chaos on the interval $[0,T]$. The third assertion implies uniform-in-time propagation of chaos. While the fourth and fifth assertions imply generation of chaos. The important takeaway is that the problem of propagation and generation of chaos in the whole space is reduced to a pure regularity question for a nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation, which can be established with a little effort. See Section 1.4 below for further discussion.

Theorem 1.

Suppose that equation (1.14) admits a solution $\bar{\mu}\in C_{w}([0,T],\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}}))$μみゅー end_ARG ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] , caligraphic_P ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), the space of functions on $[0,T]$ taking values in $\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^{\mathsf{d}})$ and continuous with respect to weak convergence, such that $\|\nabla^{\otimes 2}\log\frac{\bar{\mu}}{\bar{\mu}_{\beta}}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,T],L^{\infty})}<\infty$μみゅー end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_μみゅー end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_βべーた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞. Let $f_{N}^{t}$ be an entropy solution to (1.4). Define the quantity

(1.25) $$\mathcal{E}_{N}(f_{N}^{t},\mu^{t})\coloneqq E_{N}(f_{N}^{t},\mu^{t})+\mathsf{o}_{N}^{t}(1)\geq 0,$$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≔ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + sansserif_o start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) ≥ 0 ,

where $\mathsf{o}_{N}^{t}(1)$ is a correction to obtain a nonnegative quantity and depends on $\mu^{t}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT only through $\|\mu^{t}\|_{L^{\infty}}$μみゅー start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and vanishes as $N\rightarrow\infty$. See (3.43) for the precise definition. Also, introduce the seminorm

(1.26) Δでるた𝖽𝗌4𝑣superscript𝐿2𝖽𝖽2𝗌𝗌𝖽2\displaystyle\|v\|_{*}\coloneqq\begin{cases}\|\nabla v\|_{L^{\infty}},&{% \mathsf{s}\geq\mathsf{d}-2}\\ \|\nabla v\|_{L^{\infty}}+\|(-\Delta)^{\frac{\mathsf{d}-\mathsf{s}}{4}}v\|_{L^% {\frac{2\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{d}-2-\mathsf{s}}}},&{\mathsf{s}<\mathsf{d}-2}.\end% {cases}∥ italic_v ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT * end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ { start_ROW start_CELL ∥ ∇ italic_v ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL sansserif_s ≥ sansserif_d - 2 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ∥ ∇ italic_v ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∥ ( - roman_Δでるた ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG sansserif_d - sansserif_s end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 sansserif_d end_ARG start_ARG sansserif_d - 2 - sansserif_s end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL sansserif_s < sansserif_d - 2 . end_CELL end_ROW

Then the following hold.

• Suppose that ${\mathbb{M}}$ is antisymmetric. If $\mathsf{s}=0$, then for $t\in[0,T]$,

(1.27) $$\begin{array}{c}{H}_N(f_N^t|{({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}^t)}^{\otimes N})\le \exp \left({\int }_0^{\log \left(t+1\right)}\left({\Vert {\nabla }^{\otimes 2}\log \frac{{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}^{\prime }}}{{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{\infty }}}\Vert }_{L^{\mathrm{\infty }}}-e^{-2{\Vert \log \frac{{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}^{\prime }}}{{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{\infty }}}\Vert }_{L^{\mathrm{\infty }}}}\right)𝑑{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}^{\prime }\mathrm{missing}\right)H_N(f_N^0|{({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}^0)}^{\otimes N})\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{C}{N}{\int }_0^{\log \left(t+1\right)}\exp \left({\int }_{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}^{\prime }}^{\log \left(t+1\right)}\left({\Vert {\nabla }^{\otimes 2}\log \frac{{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}^{\prime \prime }}}{{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{\infty }}}\Vert }_{L^{\mathrm{\infty }}}-e^{-2{\Vert \log \frac{{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}^{\prime \prime }}}{{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{\infty }}}\Vert }_{L^{\mathrm{\infty }}}}\right)𝑑{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{missing}\right){\Vert {\nabla }^{\otimes 2}\log \frac{{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}^{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}^{\prime }}}{{\overline{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\mu </rb><rt>みゅー</rt></ruby>}}}_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\beta </rb><rt>べーた</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{\infty }}}\Vert }_{L^{\mathrm{\infty }}}𝑑{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\tau </rb><rt>たう</rt></ruby>}}^{\prime },\end{array}$$