How does the 39% efficiency gain hold up when background distributions are highly non-smooth or multi-modal?

I appreciate the precision of your question, but I need to be direct: the provided preprints don't address a claimed "39% efficiency gain" or discuss how such a result would behave under non-smooth or multi-modal background distributions.

That said, your question touches on a real and important problem in the papers here. Let me explain what *is* relevant:

Several of these works directly tackle efficiency and robustness precisely *because* real scientific data are non-smooth and multi-modal:

On handling non-smooth, multi-modal distributions:

[AG-2025.09-036] explicitly targets "ill-conditioned, multi-modal, or supported on topologically non-Euclidean spaces" using Langevin birth-death dynamics. The insight is that adding a birth-death process to standard diffusion helps samplers escape local modes — a practical solution to the regime you're asking about [AG-2025.09-036].

[AG-2026.03-1752] decomposes density estimation into stages, including clustering and graphical model structure learning, precisely to handle multi-modal data. The decomposition idea is that you don't estimate one global density; you learn the structure first, then estimate locally [AG-2026.03-1752].

[AG-2024.09-1291] benchmarks two-sample tests on "mixtures of Gaussians in 5, 20, and 100 dimensions" and gluon jets (highly non-smooth real physics data), testing whether different statistical tests remain sensitive under realistic conditions [AG-2024.09-1291].

The robustness question you're asking:

These papers suggest efficiency gains *are* sensitive to distributional shape, and that's why they propose adaptive or structure-aware methods rather than claiming universal percentage improvements. If you have a specific 39% claim in mind, I'd need the source to evaluate it fairly.