, but important remark about the Boltzmann-Gibbs transformations is that for any measure $\mu$ and any positive functions $G$ and $\tilde{G}$ we have $$\psi_{\tilde{G}} (\mu)  \; = \;  \psi_G \left( \psi_{\frac{\tilde{G}}{G}} (\mu) \right).$$ Therefore, if we take $\displaystyle{H_{n+1}^N:= \frac{G^N_{n+1}}{G_{n+1}} }$, then the perturbed transformation $\phi_{n+1}^N$ can be written in terms of the theoretical one $\phi_{n+1}$ by

$$\label{mes-virt}
\phi_{n+1}^N = \phi_{n+1} \circ \psi_{H_{n+1}^N}.$$

If we use an inductive approach, we face the following problem. Let $\eta$ be a deterministic measure ($\eta_n$ in our analysis) and $\hat{\eta}$ a random measure ($\eta_n^N$ in our analysis), close to $\eta$ under the $d_p$ distance (induction hypothesis). We also consider a Markov kernel $M$ and the potential functions $$\label{def-G-etc}
G = e^{-\kappa_{\eta}(\varepsilon).V}, \quad \hat{G} = e^{-\kappa_{\hat{\eta}}(\varepsilon).V}, \quad \hat{H} = \frac{\hat{G}}{G}$$ and we let $\phi$ (respectively $\hat{\phi}$) be the FK transformation associated with the potential function $G$ (respectively $\hat{G}$). The question is now: how can we estimate $d_p(\phi(\eta),\hat{\phi}(\hat{\eta}))$ in terms of $d_p(\eta,\hat{\eta})$ ?\
To answer to this question, we propose to achieve a two-step estimation. Firstly we estimate the distance between $\hat{\eta}$ and $\psi_{\hat{H}}(\hat{\eta}) $ (Lemma \[lemme-fonda-adapt\]). Secondly we analyze the stability properties of the transformation $\phi$ (Lemma \[lemme-phi-Lp\]). This strategy is summerized by the following synthetic diagram.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}
\eta & \underset{\phi}{-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!
, but important remark about the Boltzmann - Gibbs transformations is that for any measure $ \mu$ and any positive function $ G$ and $ \tilde{G}$ we take $ $ \psi_{\tilde{G } } (\mu)   \; = \;   \psi_G \left (\psi_{\frac{\tilde{G}}{G } } (\mu) \right).$$ Therefore, if we take $ \displaystyle{H_{n+1}^N:= \frac{G^N_{n+1}}{G_{n+1 } } } $, then the perturbed transformation $ \phi_{n+1}^N$ can be write in terms of the theoretical one $ \phi_{n+1}$ by 

 $ $ \label{mes - virt } 
 \phi_{n+1}^N = \phi_{n+1 } \circ \psi_{H_{n+1}^N}.$$ 

 If we use an inductive access, we face the following problem. permit $ \eta$ be a deterministic measure ($ \eta_n$ in our analysis) and $ \hat{\eta}$ a random meter ($ \eta_n^N$ in our analysis), close to $ \eta$ under the $ d_p$ distance (generalization guess). We also consider a Markov kernel $ M$ and the likely functions $ $ \label{def - gravitational constant - etc } 
 G = e^{-\kappa_{\eta}(\varepsilon).V }, \quad \hat{G } = e^{-\kappa_{\hat{\eta}}(\varepsilon).V }, \quad \hat{H } = \frac{\hat{G}}{G}$$ and we permit $ \phi$ (respectively $ \hat{\phi}$) be the FK transformation associated with the potential function $ G$ (respectively $ \hat{G}$). The motion is now: how can we estimate $ d_p(\phi(\eta),\hat{\phi}(\hat{\eta}))$ in terms of $ d_p(\eta,\hat{\eta})$  ? \ 
 To answer to this doubt, we propose to achieve a two - step estimation. Firstly we estimate the distance between $ \hat{\eta}$ and $ \psi_{\hat{H}}(\hat{\eta }) $ (Lemma \[lemme - fonda - adapt\ ]). second we analyze the stability properties of the transformation $ \phi$ (Lemma \[lemme - phi - Lp\ ]). This strategy is summerized by the following synthetic diagram. 

 $ $ \begin{array}{ccc } 
 \eta & \underset{\phi}{-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!
, buh important remark about the Boltzmann-Gnvbs trensformztions ir that for any measure $\mu$ anv ant posutive functions $G$ and $\gilde{G}$ we have $$\psu_{\tilve{G}} (\mu)  \; = \;  \psi_G \left( \psl_{\yrac{\tjpde{G}}{Y}} (\nu) \right).$$ Therenore, if we dake $\displaystfld{H_{u+1}^N:= \frac{G^N_{n+1}}{G_{n+1}} }$, then the perturbed tragsformayiln $\phi_{n+1}^N$ can bg wriuteg in nevms of the theoretical one $\phi_{n+1}$ gy

$$\label{kes-virt}
\phi_{n+1}^N = \phi_{n+1} \circ \psi_{H_{n+1}^N}.$$

If we use an lnductive approach, we face thg fojoowing probldm. Let $\eta$ be a determjnistic measure ($\eta_n$ in our anauysis) and $\hat{\etq}$ q rwtdom measurx ($\eta_n^G$ in our analysis), clmse to $\rta$ under the $c_p$ vistqnce (induction hypothxsis). We also considet a Markov kzrnel $M$ and the potenriql futctimns $$\uqbeu{der-G-xtc}
F = e^{-\kaopa_{\xta}(\varepsilkn).V}, \quad \har{G} = e^{-\kappa_{\hat{\eta}}(\vartpsyoon).V}, \quad \hat{G} = \fras{\hwt{G}}{G}$$ and we let $\phi$ (respectively $\hat{\phi}$) be the FK transformation qssociated with the pltential sunction $G$ (respectively $\hat{G}$). The question is now: vow cen we efgumwte $d_p(\phi(\eta),\hat{\phi}(\hat{\eta}))$ in terms of $d_p(\eta,\hat{\qfa})$ ?\
Uo snswer to this question, wr orpkose to achievg a two-stel estimation. Firstpy we eftimare the diftanve between $\hat{\eta}$ and $\psi_{\har{H}}(\hat{\eta}) $ (Leina \[lemme-fonda-adapt\]). Secondly wz analize thr stability properties uf tge transforlation $\phj$ (Lemma \[lemme-phi-Lo\]). Tmis strategy is summerized by the folliwiny synthegic ciagrai.

$$\begin{arraj}{ccc}
\ebd & \underset{\phi}{-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!
, but important remark about the Boltzmann-Gibbs that any measure and any positive have (\mu) \; = \psi_G \left( \psi_{\frac{\tilde{G}}{G}} \right).$$ Therefore, if we take $\displaystyle{H_{n+1}^N:= }$, then the perturbed transformation $\phi_{n+1}^N$ can be written in terms of the one $\phi_{n+1}$ by $$\label{mes-virt} \phi_{n+1}^N = \phi_{n+1} \circ \psi_{H_{n+1}^N}.$$ If we use an approach, face following Let $\eta$ be a deterministic measure ($\eta_n$ in our analysis) and $\hat{\eta}$ a random measure ($\eta_n^N$ our analysis), close to $\eta$ under the $d_p$ (induction hypothesis). We also a Markov kernel $M$ and potential $$\label{def-G-etc} G e^{-\kappa_{\eta}(\varepsilon).V}, \hat{G} e^{-\kappa_{\hat{\eta}}(\varepsilon).V}, \quad \hat{H} \frac{\hat{G}}{G}$$ and we let $\phi$ (respectively $\hat{\phi}$) be the FK transformation associated with the potential function $G$ $\hat{G}$). The now: how we $d_p(\phi(\eta),\hat{\phi}(\hat{\eta}))$ terms of $d_p(\eta,\hat{\eta})$ answer to this question, we propose two-step estimation. Firstly we estimate the distance between and $\psi_{\hat{H}}(\hat{\eta}) (Lemma \[lemme-fonda-adapt\]). Secondly we analyze the properties of the transformation $\phi$ (Lemma \[lemme-phi-Lp\]). This is summerized by the following synthetic diagram. $$\begin{array}{ccc} \eta & \underset{\phi}{-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!
, but important remark about thE Boltzmann-gibbs TraNsfOrMatiOns iS that for any meaSUre $\mU$ and any positive functioNs $G$ anD $\tILde{G}$ WE hAve $$\psI_{\tilde{G}} (\MU)  \; = \;  \pSI_g \leFt( \PsI_{\frAc{\TIlDe{G}}{G}} (\mU) \riGht).$$ TherEfore, if we tAke $\DiSplaystyle{H_{n+1}^n:= \FrAc{G^N_{n+1}}{G_{n+1}} }$, theN thE perturbed trAnsFormatIoN $\phI_{N+1}^N$ can Be wRitteN in terMS of the TheoreticAl ONe $\phi_{n+1}$ BY

$$\label{mES-ViRt}
\phI_{n+1}^N = \phi_{n+1} \circ \psi_{H_{n+1}^N}.$$

iF wE Use an inductive ApproaCh, WE fACE thE foLlowing proBlEm. Let $\ETa$ be a deTErMINIstIC measure ($\eta_n$ iN our analysiS) And $\Hat{\eta}$ A rAndOM measuRe ($\eta_N^N$ IN ouR analysis), clOse tO $\eta$ under The $d_p$ dIStance (iNDuction HypothEsiS). We Also COnSiDer A MARkoV KeRneL $m$ anD the poteNtIaL funcTionS $$\LABEl{deF-G-eTc}
G = e^{-\Kappa_{\Eta}(\varepsilon).v}, \quAd \haT{g} = e^{-\kAppa_{\hAt{\eta}}(\VarePsIlon).V}, \Quad \haT{H} = \fraC{\hAt{G}}{G}$$ and we let $\phi$ (RespEctively $\hAt{\pHi}$) Be tHe fK traNSformaTioN asSociateD with thE PotEnTIAL fUnction $G$ (respectiveLy $\HAT{G}$). the questIon is nOW: hOw CAn we estiMaTe $d_P(\phi(\ETA),\hat{\pHi}(\haT{\EtA}))$ in terms Of $d_p(\etA,\HaT{\eTa})$ ?\
To ansWeR to thiS qUesTioN, we prOPose To achiEve a two-sTep esTImation. Firstly WE estimate the dIStANCe BEtweEn $\hAt{\eta}$ and $\psi_{\Hat{H}}(\HAt{\etA}) $ (LemMA \[lEmmE-Fonda-Adapt\]). seCOnDLy we analyze the stabiLiTy propErtieS of the transfoRmation $\phi$ (lEMMa \[lemme-pHi-Lp\]). tHiS Strategy is summErizeD by the follOWing syntHetic Diagram.

$$\bEgin{array}{CCC}
\eta & \undeRseT{\phI}{-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!
, but important remark abo ut the Bol tzman n-G ibb stran sfor mations is tha t  for  any measure $\mu$ and  anypo s itiv e  f uncti ons $G$ an d $\t il de {G} $w ehave$$\ psi_{\t ilde{G}} ( \mu ) \; = \;  \p s i_ G \left( \ psi _{\frac{\til de{ G}}{G} }(\m u ) \ri ght ).$$Theref o re, if  we take$\ d isplay s tyle{H_ { n +1 }^N: = \frac{G^N_{n+1} } {G _ {n+1}} }$, the n thepe r tu r b edtra nsformatio n$\phi _ {n+1}^N $  c a n bew ritten in ter ms of the t h eor etical  o ne$ \phi_{ n+1}$  b y 

$ $\label{mes -vir t}
\phi_{ n+1}^N = \phi_ { n+1} \c irc \p si_ {H_ {n+1 } ^N }. $$
I f  we us e a n  in ductiveap pr oach,  wef a c e  the  fo llow ing p roblem. Let $ \et a$ b e  adeter minis ticme asure  ($\et a_n$in  our analysis)and$\hat{\et a}$  a  ra nd om me a sure ( $\e ta_ n^N$ in  our an a lys is ) , cl ose to $\eta$ unde rt h e$d_p$ di stance (i nd u ction hy po the sis) . We al so c o ns ider a M arkovk er ne l $M$ a nd  the p ot ent ial  func t ions  $$\la bel{def- G-etc } 
G = e^{-\kapp a _{\eta}(\vare p si l o n) . V},\qu ad \hat{G}= e^ { -\ka ppa_ { \h at{ \ eta}} (\var ep s il o n).V}, \quad \hat{H }= \fra c{\ha t{G}}{G}$$ an d we let $ \ p h i$ (resp ecti v el y  $\hat{\phi}$)  be t he FK tran s formatio n ass ociatedwith thep o tentialfun cti on$G$ ( re spectively $\ h a t{G} $) . The q ues tion is  no w:how  ca nwe estima te $d_p( \p hi (\ et a), \hat{ \ phi}(\ha t{ \et a} ))$  in t e rms of  $d_p (\et a, \h a t{\ eta})$? \T o  ans we rto t his  q uesti on,w e p roposeto achiev e a two- st ep  estima tion. Firstly  w e estimate  t hedistan c e  between  $\hat{\eta}$ and $\psi _ {\hat{H }}( \hat{ \eta }) $ (Lem ma\[lemm e-f o nda-ad apt\]) . Sec on dly w e ana l y ze  th estabilityp r ope rties  o f th e trans formation $\phi$ ( L emm a \[lemme-phi -Lp \]). T hi s s t ra t egy  i s  su m m erized by the f ollowing s yn t he tic diagra m .
$$ \begin{ array}{ ccc}\ eta & \ underset{ \phi}{-\! \! \!\! - \ !\! \!\!-\!\!\ !\!-\!\! \!\!
, but_important remark_about the Boltzmann-Gibbs transformations_is that_for_any measure_$\mu$_and any positive_functions $G$ and_$\tilde{G}$ we have $$\psi_{\tilde{G}}_(\mu)  \;_=_\;  \psi_G \left( \psi_{\frac{\tilde{G}}{G}} (\mu) \right).$$ Therefore, if we take $\displaystyle{H_{n+1}^N:= \frac{G^N_{n+1}}{G_{n+1}} }$,_then_the perturbed_transformation_$\phi_{n+1}^N$_can be written in terms_of the theoretical one $\phi_{n+1}$_by

$$\label{mes-virt}
\phi_{n+1}^N =_\phi_{n+1} \circ \psi_{H_{n+1}^N}.$$

If we use an inductive approach,_we_face the following_problem. Let $\eta$ be a deterministic measure ($\eta_n$ in_our analysis) and $\hat{\eta}$ a random_measure ($\eta_n^N$ in_our_analysis),_close to $\eta$ under_the $d_p$ distance (induction hypothesis). We_also consider a Markov kernel $M$_and the potential functions $$\label{def-G-etc}
G = e^{-\kappa_{\eta}(\varepsilon).V},_\quad \hat{G} = e^{-\kappa_{\hat{\eta}}(\varepsilon).V}, \quad \hat{H}_= \frac{\hat{G}}{G}$$ and we let_$\phi$ (respectively_$\hat{\phi}$) be the FK transformation_associated with the_potential function_$G$ (respectively $\hat{G}$)._The question is now: how can_we estimate $d_p(\phi(\eta),\hat{\phi}(\hat{\eta}))$_in terms of $d_p(\eta,\hat{\eta})$ ?\
To answer to_this_question, we propose_to_achieve_a two-step_estimation. Firstly we_estimate_the distance_between_$\hat{\eta}$ and $\psi_{\hat{H}}(\hat{\eta}) $ (Lemma \[lemme-fonda-adapt\])._Secondly_we analyze the stability properties of the_transformation $\phi$ (Lemma \[lemme-phi-Lp\])._This_strategy is summerized by_the following synthetic diagram.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}
\eta &_\underset{\phi}{-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!-\!\!\!\!