Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

The Fundamental Theorem of Weak Optimal Transport

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves a fundamental theorem for weak optimal transport: convex-in-measure costs admit optimal plans, strong duality, and, under two regularity conditions, dual attainment and complementary slackness.

desk verdict A genuine and largely convincing generalization of the fundamental theorem to weak costs, with real new applications, but the key duality step is delegated to prior work with a 'line by line' claim that may not cover the Borel-in-x setting, and the relaxed non-convex theorem is stated without proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16316 v1 pith:7SMOCJB5 submitted 2025-01-27 math.PR math.OC

Mathias Beiglböck , Gudmund Pammer , Lorenz Riess , Stefan Schrott This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.OC MSC 49Q2249N1560G4228A33
keywords weakoptimaltransportstrongdualitydualattainmentcomplementaryslacknessbarycentricentropicmartingaleC-transform
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Classical optimal transport has a central structure theorem: the cheapest way to move one probability measure to another equals the best dual certificate, and optimal plans are exactly the ones satisfying a pointwise equality. This paper extends that theorem to weak optimal transport, where the cost of sending a point $x$ is a nonlinear function $C(x,\rho)$ of the entire conditional distribution $\rho$ it is sent to, not just of the destination point. The main result states that for costs convex and lower semicontinuous in the measure argument, an optimal plan always exists and the primal value equals the dual value; under two mild boundedness and continuity conditions the dual optimum is attained, and a plan with a dual pair is jointly optimal exactly when $C(x,\pi_x)=f(x)+\pi_x(g)$ holds almost surely. Because entropic regularization, barycentric transport, and martingale-type problems are all weak transport problems in disguise, the theorem gives a single route to results that previously needed separate arguments. The consequence is that the classical duality toolkit now applies to a broad class of nonlinear transportation problems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $C$-transform, $g^C(x)=\inf_{\rho\in\mathcal P_p(Y)}\{C(x,\rho)-\rho(g)\}$, the nonlinear analogue of the classical $c$-transform. Lemma 2.3 shows any admissible dual pair $(f,g)$ can be replaced by $(g^C,g)$, so the dual is a one-function maximization $\sup_g \mu(g^C)+\nu(g)$. Primal attainment and strong duality come from lower semicontinuity of $\pi\mapsto\int C(x,\pi_x)\,\mu(dx)$ under the adapted-weak topology; dual attainment is proved by Komlós-style convex combinations together with uniform integrability supplied by condition (B), while condition (C) passes admissibility to the limit. Complementary slackness then characterizes joint optimality. In the applications, the same transform is computed explicitly: it becomes the infimal convolution $\vartheta\square\psi$ for barycentric costs, the relative-entropy potential for entropic costs, and $\vartheta\square g^C$ or $(\psi^*\star\check\gamma)^*$ for relaxed martingale costs.

What would settle it

Take a two-point version of the problem, $X=Y=\{0,1\}$, with $\mu=\nu$ uniform, and a convex lsc cost satisfying (B) and (C), for example $C(x,\rho)=|x-\operatorname{mean}(\rho)|^2+\varepsilon(\rho(1)\log \rho(1)+\rho(0)\log \rho(0))$. Compute $WT_C$ by enumerating the one-dimensional coupling polytope and $D_C$ by a convex one-dimensional search over $g(0),g(1)$, and check equality. A single finite example where the min differs from the sup would refute the theorem; independently, searching for an optimal $(\pi,(f,g))$ pair that violates $C(x,\pi_x)=f(x)+\pi_x(g)$ would refute the complementarity criterion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1.2: for a measurable cost $C:X\times \mathcal P_p(Y)\to[0,\infty]$ that is convex and lower semicontinuous in the measure argument, the weak transport value $WT_C(\mu,\nu)=\inf_{\pi}\int C(x,\pi_x)\,\mu(dx)$ is attained and equals the dual value $D_C(\mu,\nu)=\sup\{\mu(f)+\nu(g): f(x)+\rho(g)\le C(x,\rho)\}$. Under conditions (B) and (C) the dual supremum is attained, and a coupling $\pi$ together with an admissible pair $(f,g)$ is optimal if and only if $C(x,\pi_x)=f(x)+\pi_x(g)$ holds $\mu$-almost surely. The proof reduces duality to the $C$-transform $g^C(x)=\inf_\rho (C(x,\rho)-\rho(g))$, which replaces the two-variable dual constraint by a single-function formula. The paper applies this theorem to barycentric costs $\vartheta(x-\operatorname{mean}(\pi_x))$, to entropic transport, and to relaxed martingale transport, deriving uniqueness of optimal barycenters, the Gibbs form of entropic optimizers, and dual attainment for problems where classical martingale duality fails.

Load-bearing premise

The whole structure rests on assuming the cost is convex and lower semicontinuous in the measure argument; for dual attainment, it also assumes the cost is bounded above by an integrable envelope plus an entropy term and is continuous under truncations, assumptions that are not consequences of convexity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every weak transport problem with convex lower semicontinuous cost has an optimal plan and satisfies strong duality, so existence and dual certificates are available without compactness of the state space.
  • When (B) and (C) hold, the dual problem is attained, meaning optimality of a plan can be certified by a pair of potentials and checked through the pointwise equality $C(x,\pi_x)=f(x)+\pi_x(g)$.
  • For barycentric costs of the form $\vartheta(x-\operatorname{mean}(\pi_x))$, strictly convex $\vartheta$ yields a unique optimal barycenter and a Monge-type transport map, extending Strassen's theorem to a quantitative projection of $\mu$ onto the convex-order sublevel set of $\nu$.
  • For entropic optimal transport, the theorem recovers the Gibbs structure $d\pi/d(\mu\otimes\nu)=\exp((f+g-c)/\varepsilon)$ directly from complementary slackness, and the same route works for general convex regularizers.
  • For martingale-type costs, where classical dual attainment can fail, the paper's relaxed formulation yields dual attainment and uniqueness, with optimizers built from a Bass-martingale kernel or a Gibbs-type density.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the $C$-transform computation is likely to be the first move in any future weak transport application: the theorem reduces the whole dual to $\sup_g \mu(g^C)+\nu(g)$, so tractability of a problem is essentially the tractability of one infimum over measures.
  • A natural testable extension is to weaken condition (B) to polynomial growth without the entropy term; the proof's uniform-integrability step would then need a different super-coercivity argument, and the theorem's boundary might move.
  • The relaxed lifted formulation suggests a quantitative measure of non-convexity: the gap $WT_C(\mu,\nu)-WT_{\bar C}(\mu,\nu)$ between a non-convex cost and its convex hull could be studied as a function of the atom sizes of $\mu$, with the paper's equality cases marking when the gap vanishes.
  • In the financial reading of the convex Kantorovich–Rubinstein corollary, the maximum locked-in arbitrage under trading restrictions is exactly the weak transport value; one could extend the formula to multi-step strategies, where the barycentric cost would involve conditional expectations at intermediate times.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a fundamental theorem for weak optimal transport with costs C(x,ρ) that are measurable in x and convex and lower semicontinuous in ρ for the p-weak topology. The main theorem claims primal attainment, strong duality with a C-transform dual, dual attainment under conditions (B) and (C), and a complementary slackness criterion. The paper then derives applications to barycentric costs (a Gangbo–McCann–Strassen theorem and convex Kantorovich–Rubinstein formulae), to entropic and convexly regularized optimal transport, and to relaxed martingale optimal transport, including a martingale Benamou–Brenier interpolation and entropic martingale transport.

Significance. If the central theorem is fully proved, this is a substantial unification: it extends the classical Kantorovich duality package to weak transport at a high level of generality and it yields concise derivations of several known results plus new structural results for barycentric and martingale-type problems. The paper is careful in separating the roles of conditions (B) and (C), and Example 2.10 gives a useful demonstration that condition (C) cannot simply be dropped. However, the main duality proof delegates the decisive minimax step to a prior paper, and the non-convex relaxed theorem is stated without proof; both points are load-bearing for the advertised scope and for the Section 5 applications.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Theorem 2.5] The proof of the central duality WTC(μ,ν)=DC(μ,ν) is not self-contained. After establishing lower semicontinuity of ν↦WTC(μ,ν), the text states that 'we can follow line by line [11, Proof of Theorem 3.1]' and obtain the dual representation. The cited result is presented in the related-literature section as covering lsc costs on Polish spaces, whereas Theorem 2.5 only assumes C is Borel in x and lsc in ρ. The paper itself notes in §1.3 that Theorem 1.2 is 'slightly stronger' precisely in order to include entropic optimal transport in its usual generality. Since this extension is the load-bearing step, the manuscript needs to supply the actual argument or a precise statement from the literature that covers Borel-in-x, lsc-in-ρ costs; otherwise the duality for costs such as (4.2) with merely Borel c is not established.
  2. [§2.5, Theorem 2.15] Theorem 2.15, the fundamental theorem for relaxed WOT without convexity, is stated without proof. The surrounding text and Remark 2.16 only say that the generalization follows 'line by line' as in Theorem 2.2 and refer to [17] for the equivalence of formulations. This theorem is subsequently used in an essential way in Section 5: Theorem 5.1 relies on it for duality and dual attainment of the non-convex cost Cϑ, and Theorem 5.4 and Theorem 5.8 inherit that reliance. A proof, or a reference whose assumptions match exactly, must be provided before the Section 5 results can be considered established.
  3. [§5.2, Lemma 5.9] In the proof of Lemma 5.9 it is asserted that 'the reasoning in Corollary 2.13 also works for P∈Λ(μ,ν)' that are optimal for the relaxed non-convex problem. Corollary 2.13 is proved in the convex setting and relies on Theorem 2.2, complementary slackness, and C-monotonicity; no analogue is proved for the relaxed, non-convex setting of Theorem 2.15. Since Lemma 5.9 is used to prove the Gibbs-type structure in Theorem 5.8, this transfer from the convex theory to the relaxed setting needs to be justified explicitly.
  4. [§2.2, Proposition 2.6] The complementary slackness criterion is stated as an 'if and only if' for a pair (π,(f,g)) of candidates, under Assumption 2.1. The forward implication uses that both are optimal, and the reverse implication uses weak duality from Lemma 2.4 together with D≤WTC. This is correct given Theorem 2.5. However, the statement of Proposition 2.6 itself does not mention conditions (B) and (C) for dual attainment, which is fine, but it would help the reader to clarify explicitly that the equivalence is between simultaneous primal/dual optimality and the pointwise equality, not between individual optimality and the equality alone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Global] There are several typographical issues: 'FUNDAMENT AL' in the title, 'Tentali' for 'Tetali' in the introduction, 'Propsition 4.1' in the proof of Theorem 4.2, 'Benaumou–Brenier' in Section 5.1, and 'vaild' in Remark 5.3. These should be corrected in a revision.
  2. [§3, Theorem 3.1(i)] The dual formula (3.3) is written as a supremum over 'ψ convex, lsc' without explicitly stating the integrability condition ψ∈L1(ν). Since ν(ψ) can be infinite, please add the domain convention or state that the supremum is over convex lsc ψ with ψ∈L1(ν) and ϑ□ψ∈L1(μ).
  3. [§4.1, Theorem 4.2] In the converse direction of Theorem 4.2, the proof assumes that the functions f,g in the representation (4.5) belong to L1(μ)×L1(ν), while the theorem statement only says 'measurable'. If the representation can hold with non-integrable f,g, the converse needs a brief justification; if integrability is intended, the statement should say so.
  4. [§2.4, Corollary 2.13] The corollary states that every optimal π is C-monotone, but the proof uses dual attainment and hence conditions (B) and (C). This is clear from the proof, but the statement of the corollary only says 'Suppose that Assumption 2.1, (B) and (C) are satisfied', so the dependence is explicit. No change needed beyond ensuring the same conditions are cited in later uses of C-monotonicity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity; the central duality proof leans on self-cited prior work [11], but that work is an independent published theorem rather than a restatement of the target result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation does not exhibit a circular reduction: no equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no known result is merely relabeled as a new theorem. The C-transform, the dual problem, and the complementary slackness condition are defined from the cost C and are standard constructions; the applications in Sections 3–5 are derived from the stated assumptions once the fundamental theorem is granted. The main point requiring scrutiny is Theorem 2.5, where the proof changes the topology on Y and then states 'we can follow line by line [11, Proof of Theorem 3.1]' to obtain duality, and Remark 2.16 similarly delegates the non-convex relaxed case to [11] and [17]. These are self-citations by overlapping authors (Beiglböck and Pammer), and they are load-bearing for the central duality claim. However, [11] is a published, independently checkable theorem establishing weak-transport duality in the jointly lsc setting, not a theorem whose statement is equivalent to the present paper's conclusion. The claimed extension to costs that are only Borel in x and lsc in ρ is asserted as a line-by-line generalization rather than fully proved, which is a proof gap or correctness risk, not a circular step. No passage reduces the main theorem to its own assumptions by construction, and the paper's genuinely new content—the Borel-in-x generalization and the applications to barycentric, entropic, and relaxed martingale transport—does not collapse into the cited results. The score reflects the heavy reliance on self-cited prior work while stopping short of identifying actual circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters, no ad hoc constants, and no new physical entities. It relies on standard mathematical results and on explicit domain assumptions (convexity, lsc, boundedness, continuity) on the weak cost. The duality proof depends on the authors' prior published theorem [11], which is self-cited but not circular.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: C is measurable, convex and lsc in the second argument, lower bounded by a_ℓ(x)+ρ(b_ℓ), and WTC(μ,ν)<∞
    Standing hypothesis for Theorem 2.2; needed for primal attainment and duality. Not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Condition (B): C(x,ρ) ≤ a(x)+ρ(b)+∫h(dρ/dν)dν for convex increasing h
    Used in Theorem 2.7 and Lemma 2.8 to get uniform integrability of the dual maximizing sequence.
  • domain assumption Condition (C): limsup_k C(x, ρ|Y_k/ρ(Y_k)) ≤ C(x,ρ) for increasing Y_k covering Y
    Used to pass the admissibility inequality to the limit in Theorem 2.7; Example 2.10 shows it cannot be dropped.
  • standard math Duality theorem of Backhoff-Veraguas, Beiglböck, Pammer [11, Theorem 3.1]
    Theorem 2.5 follows its proof line by line; this is a published result with independent grounding, self-cited.
  • standard math Strassen's martingale coupling theorem
    Used in Remark 3.2 and Theorem 3.1(iv) to build martingale couplings from η to ν.
  • standard math Brenier's theorem for strictly convex costs
    Used in Theorem 5.4 proof to show strict convexity of MCov(·,γ) when γ is absolutely continuous.
  • standard math Gangbo-McCann theorem for Monge solutions
    Used in Proposition 5.2(b) and Remark 5.3 to get an optimal Monge coupling for Tϑ.
  • standard math Komlós lemma, Egorov's theorem, de la Vallée Poussin criterion
    Used in Theorem 2.7 to extract convergent subsequences and prove uniform integrability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Fundamental Theorem of Weak Optimal Transport." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7SMOCJB5

@misc{pith2026250116316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Fundamental Theorem of Weak Optimal Transport},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7SMOCJB5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16316}
}
read the original abstract

The fundamental theorem of classical optimal transport establishes strong duality and characterizes optimizers through a complementary slackness condition. Milestones such as Brenier's theorem and the Kantorovich-Rubinstein formula are direct consequences. In this paper, we generalize this result to non-linear cost functions, thereby establishing a fundamental theorem for the weak optimal transport problem introduced by Gozlan, Roberto, Samson, and Tetali. As applications we provide concise derivations of the Brenier--Strassen theorem, the convex Kantorovich--Rubinstein formula and the structure theorem of entropic optimal transport. We also extend Strassen's theorem in the direction of Gangbo--McCann's transport problem for convex costs. Moreover, we determine the optimizers for a new family of transport problems which contains the Brenier--Strassen, the martingale Benamou--Brenier and the entropic martingale transport problem as extreme cases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Kirszbraun extensions preserving uniform distance in Hilbert spaces

    math.FA 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A uniform-distance-preserving Kirszbraun extension exists iff the reference map satisfies a barycentric inequality, for arbitrary real Hilbert targets and subsets.

  2. A Brenier-Strassen Theorem on CAT(kappa) Spaces

    math.FA 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    On CAT(0) spaces, every probability measure has a unique Wasserstein projection onto the set of measures dominated by ν in convex order, and the optimal transport is a 1-Lipschitz map.

  3. On the quadratic barycentric transport problem

    math.FA 2025-09 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    The quadratic barycentric transport cost equals the infimum of an expected kinetic-energy integral over semimartingales, and the optimal processes are geodesics with Markovian dynamics.

  4. Weak Optimal Transport: When is the Dual Potential Convex?

    math.PR 2025-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    In weak optimal transport, convex (or increasing convex) dual potentials are exactly characterized by the cost being decreasing in (increasing) convex order, with attainment under mild regularity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [11]

    Backhoff-Veraguas, M

    J. Backhoff-Veraguas, M. Beiglb¨ ock, and G. Pammer. Existence, duality, and cyclical monotonicity for weak transport costs. Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations , 58(6):1–28, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [22]

    Beiglb¨ ock, B

    M. Beiglb¨ ock, B. Jourdain, W. Margheriti, and G. Pammer. Monotonicity and stability of the weak martingale optimal transport problem. Annals of Applied Probability, to appear , 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [17]

    Bartl, M

    D. Bartl, M. Beiglb¨ ock, and G. Pammer. The Wassersteinspace of stochastic processes. J. Eur. Math. Soc. ,

    work page

  4. [1]

    Acciaio, M

    B. Acciaio, M. Beiglb¨ ock, and G. Pammer. Weak transportfor non-convex costs and model-independence in a fixed-income market. Math. Finance, 31(4):1423–1453, 2021

    2021

  5. [2]

    Acciaio, M

    B. Acciaio, M. Beiglb¨ ock, F. Penkner, and W. Schacherma yer. A model-free version of the fundamental theorem of asset pricing and the super-replication theorem . Math. Finance, 26(2):233–251, 2016

    2016

  6. [3]

    Acciaio, A

    B. Acciaio, A. Marini, and G. Pammer. Calibration of the b ass local volatility model. ArXiv e-prints , 2311.14567, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [4]

    Alfonsi, J

    A. Alfonsi, J. Corbetta, and B. Jourdain. Sampling of pro bability measures in the convex order and approx- imation of Martingale Optimal Transport problems. ArXiv e-prints , Sept. 2017

    2017

  8. [5]

    Alibert, G

    J.-J. Alibert, G. Bouchitt´ e, and T. Champion. A new class of costs for optimal transport planning. European Journal of Applied Mathematics , 30(6):1229–1263, 2019

    2019

Show all 85 references
  1. [6]

    Ambrosio and N

    L. Ambrosio and N. Gigli. A user’s guide to optimal transp ort. In Modelling and optimisation of flows on networks, volume 2062 of Lecture Notes in Math. , pages 1–155. Springer, Heidelberg, 2013

    2013

  2. [7]

    Asadulaev, A

    A. Asadulaev, A. Korotin, V. Egiazarian, P. Mokrov, and E . Burnaev. Neural optimal transport with general cost functionals. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Represen tations, 2024

    2024

  3. [8]

    Backhoff-Veraguas, D

    J. Backhoff-Veraguas, D. Bartl, M. Beiglb¨ ock, and M. Eder. Adapted Wasserstein distances and stability in mathematical finance. Finance Stoch., 24(3):601–632, 2020. 36 M. BEIGLB ¨OCK, G. PAMMER, L. RIESS, S. SCHROTT

    2020

  4. [9]

    Backhoff-Veraguas, D

    J. Backhoff-Veraguas, D. Bartl, M. Beiglb¨ ock, and M. Eder. All adapted topologies are equal. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields, 178(3-4):1125–1172, 2020

    2020

  5. [10]

    Backhoff-Veraguas, M

    J. Backhoff-Veraguas, M. Beiglb¨ ock, M. Huesmann, and S. K¨ allblad. Martingale Benamou-Brenier: A prob- abilistic perspective. Ann. Probab., 48(5):2258–2289, 2020

    2020

  6. [12]

    Backhoff-Veraguas, M

    J. Backhoff-Veraguas, M. Beiglb¨ ock, and G. Pammer. Weak monotone rearrangement on the line. Electronic Communications in Probability , 25, 2020

    2020

  7. [13]

    Backhoff-Veraguas, M

    J. Backhoff-Veraguas, M. Beiglb¨ ock, W. Schachermayer , and B. Tschiderer. The structure of martingale Benamou–Brenier in multiple dimensions. ArXiv e-prints , 2306.11019, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Backhoff-Veraguas, G

    J. Backhoff-Veraguas, G. Loeper, and J. Obloj. Geometri c martingale benamou-brenier transport and geo- metric bass martingales. arXiv preprint, 2024

    2024

  9. [15]

    Backhoff-Veraguas and G

    J. Backhoff-Veraguas and G. Pammer. Applications of weak transport theory. Bernoulli, 28(1):370–394, 2022

    2022

  10. [16]

    Backhoff-Veraguas and G

    J. Backhoff-Veraguas and G. Pammer. Stability of martingale optimal transport and weak optimal transport. Ann. Appl. Probab. , 32(1):721–752, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes. Convex analysis and monotone operator theory in Hilbert spa ces, volume 408. Springer, 2011

    2011

  12. [19]

    Bayraktar and D

    E. Bayraktar and D. Norgilas. Generalizing super/sub m ot using weak l1 transport. arXiv preprint , arXiv:2407.13002, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Beiglb¨ ock, A

    M. Beiglb¨ ock, A. Cox, and M. Huesmann. Optimal transpo rt and Skorokhod embedding. Invent. Math. , 208(2):327–400, 2017

    2017

  14. [21]

    Beiglb¨ ock, P

    M. Beiglb¨ ock, P. Henry-Labord` ere, and F. Penkner. Model-independent bounds for option prices: A mass transport approach. Finance Stoch., 17(3):477–501, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Beiglb¨ ock and N

    M. Beiglb¨ ock and N. Juillet. On a problem of optimal transport under marginal martingale constraints. Ann. Probab., 44(1):42–106, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Beiglb¨ ock and N

    M. Beiglb¨ ock and N. Juillet. Shadow couplings.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 374(7):4973–5002, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Beiglb¨ ock, T

    M. Beiglb¨ ock, T. Lim, and J. Ob/suppress l´ oj. Dual attainment for the martingale transport problem. Bernoulli, 25(3):1640–1658, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Beiglb¨ ock, M

    M. Beiglb¨ ock, M. Nutz, and N. Touzi. Complete duality for martingale optimal transport on the line. Ann. Probab., 45(5):3038–3074, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Beiglb¨ ock, G

    M. Beiglb¨ ock, G. Pammer, and L. Riess. Change of numeraire for weak martingale transport. arXiv e-prints , 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Beiglb¨ ock and W

    M. Beiglb¨ ock and W. Schachermayer. Duality for Borel measurable cost functions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 363(8):4203–4224, 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    Benamou, G

    J.-D. Benamou, G. Chazareix, M. Hoffmann, G. Loeper, and F.-X. Vialard. Entropic semi-martingale optimal transport. Preprint, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    D. P. Bertsekas and S. E. Shreve. Stochastic optimal control , volume 139 of Mathematics in Science and Engineering. Academic Press, Inc. [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publish ers], New York-London, 1978. The discrete time case

    1978

  23. [31]

    Blondel, V

    M. Blondel, V. Seguy, and A. Rolet. Smooth and sparse opt imal transport. In A. Storkey and F. Perez-Cruz, editors, Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , volume 84 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Borwein and J

    J. Borwein and J. Vanderwerff. Convex Functions: Constructions, Characterizations and C ounterexamples. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambrid ge University Press, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Bowles and N

    M. Bowles and N. Ghoussoub. A Theory of Transfers: Duali ty and convolution. arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:1804.08563, Apr 2018

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bredies, E

    K. Bredies, E. Chenchene, and A. Hosseini. A hybrid prox imal generalized conditional gradient method and application to total variation parameter learning. 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    D. T. Breeden and R. H. Litzenberger. Prices of state-contingent claims implicit in option prices. The Journal of Business , 51(4):621–51, 1978

    1978

  28. [36]

    Y. Brenier. Polar factorization and monotone rearrang ement of vector-valued functions. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. , 44(4):375–417, 1991

    1991

  29. [37]

    Chon´ e, N

    P. Chon´ e, N. Gozlan, and F. Kramarz. Weak optimal trans port with unnormalized kernels. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 55(6):6039–6092, 2023. THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF WEAK OPTIMAL TRANSPORT 37

    2023

  30. [38]

    Conforti

    G. Conforti. A second order equation for schr¨ odinger b ridges with applications to the hot gas experiment and entropic transportation cost. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 174(1):1–47, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Conze and P

    A. Conze and P. Henry-Labordere. Bass Construction wit h Multi-Marginals: Lightspeed Computation in a New Local Volatility Model. SSRN Electronic Journal , 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    A. M. Cox and M. Vidmar. The structure of non-linear martingale optimal transport problems. arXiv preprint, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Daskalakis, A

    C. Daskalakis, A. Deckelbaum, and C. Tzamos. Strong Dua lity for a Multiple-Good Monopolist. Economet- rica, 85(3):735–767, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Dessein, N

    A. Dessein, N. Papadakis, and J.-L. Rouas. Regularized optimal transport and the rot mover’s distance. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 19(15):1–53, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Fathi, N

    M. Fathi, N. Gozlan, and M. Prod’homme. A proof of the Caff arelli contraction theorem via entropic regu- larization. Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations , 59:1–18, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Fathi and Y

    M. Fathi and Y. Shu. Curvature and transport inequaliti es for Markov chains in discrete spaces. Bernoulli, 24(1):672–698, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Gangbo and R

    W. Gangbo and R. McCann. The geometry of optimal transpo rtation. Acta Math., 177(2):113–161, 1996

    1996

  38. [46]

    Gonz´ alez-Sanz and M

    A. Gonz´ alez-Sanz and M. Nutz. Quantitative convergence of quadratically regularized linear programs, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Gonz´ alez-Sanz and M

    A. Gonz´ alez-Sanz and M. Nutz. Sparsity of quadratically regularized optimal transport: Scalar case, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Gonz´ alez-Sanz, M

    A. Gonz´ alez-Sanz, M. Nutz, and A. R. Valdevenito. Mono tonicity in quadratically regularized linear pro- grams, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Gozlan and N

    N. Gozlan and N. Juillet. On a mixture of Brenier and Stra ssen theorems. Proceedings of the London Math- ematical Society, 120(3):434–463, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Gozlan, C

    N. Gozlan, C. Roberto, P.-M. Samson, Y. Shu, and P. Tetal i. Characterization of a class of weak transport- entropy inequalities on the line. Preprint arXiv:1509.042 02v2, 2015

    2015

  43. [51]

    Gozlan, C

    N. Gozlan, C. Roberto, P.-M. Samson, Y. Shu, and P. Tetal i. Characterization of a class of weak transport- entropy inequalities on the line. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e Probab. Stat., 54(3):1667–1693, 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    Gozlan, C

    N. Gozlan, C. Roberto, P.-M. Samson, and P. Tetali. Kant orovich duality for general transport costs and applications. J. Funct. Anal. , 273(11):3327–3405, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    I. Guo, G. Loeper, and S. Wang. Local volatility calibra tion by optimal transport. In 2017 MATRIX Annals , pages 51–64. Springer, 2019

    2017

  46. [54]

    Guyon, R

    J. Guyon, R. Menegaux, and M. Nutz. Bounds for VIX futures given S&P 500 smiles.Finance and Stochastics, 21(3):593–630, 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Henry-Labord` ere and N

    P. Henry-Labord` ere and N. Touzi. An explicit martingale version of the one-dimensional Brenier theorem. Finance Stoch., 20(3):635–668, 2016

    2016

  48. [56]

    Hobson and A

    D. Hobson and A. Neuberger. Robust bounds for forward st art options. Math. Finance, 22(1):31–56, 2012

    2012

  49. [57]

    Kantorovich and G

    L. Kantorovich and G. Rubinstein. On a space of complete ly additive functions. Vestnik Leningrad. Univ. , 13(7):52–59, 1958

    1958

  50. [58]

    A. S. Kechris. Classical descriptive set theory, volume 156 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995

    1995

  51. [59]

    Kolesov, P

    A. Kolesov, P. Mokrov, I. Udovichenko, M. Gazdieva, G. P ammer, E. Burnaev, and A. Korotin. Estimating barycenters of distributions with neural optimal transpor t. In Proceedings of the 41st International Confer- ence on Machine Learning , 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Koml´ os

    J. Koml´ os. A generalization of a problem of Steinhaus. Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. , 18:217–229, 1967

    1967

  53. [61]

    Korotin, D

    A. Korotin, D. Selikhanovych, and E. Burnaev. Neural op timal transport. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Kupper, M

    M. Kupper, M. Nendel, and A. Sgarabottolo. Risk measure s based on weak optimal transport. Quantitative Finance, pages 1–18, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    J. Lehec. Representation formula for the entropy and fu nctional inequalities. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e Probab. Stat., 49(3):885–899, 2013

    2013

  56. [64]

    L´ eonard

    C. L´ eonard. A survey of the Schr¨ odinger problem and some of its connections with optimal transport.Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 34(4):1533–1574, 2014

    2014

  57. [65]

    G. Loeper. Option pricing with linear market impact and nonlinear Black-Scholes equations. Ann. Appl. Probab., 28(5):2664–2726, 2018

    2018

  58. [66]

    D. A. Lorenz, P. Manns, and C. Meyer. Quadratically regu larized optimal transport. Appl. Math. Optim. , 83(3):1919–1949, 2021

    1919

  59. [67]

    S. D. Marino and A. Gerolin. Optimal transport losses an d sinkhorn algorithm with general convex regular- ization, 2020

    2020

  60. [68]

    K. Marton. Bounding ¯d-distance by informational divergence: A method to prove me asure concentration. The Annals of Probability , 24(2):857–866, 1996. 38 M. BEIGLB ¨OCK, G. PAMMER, L. RIESS, S. SCHROTT

    1996

  61. [69]

    K. Marton. A measure concentration inequality for cont racting markov chains. Geometric & Functional Analysis GAF A, 6(3):556–571, 1996

    1996

  62. [70]

    M. Nutz. Introduction to entropic optimal transport. https://www.math.columbia.edu/mnutz/docs/EOTlecturenotes.pdf, 2022

    2022

  63. [71]

    M. Nutz. Quadratically regularized optimal transport : Existence and multiplicity of potentials, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    Nutz and J

    M. Nutz and J. Wiesel. On the martingale schr¨ odinger br idge between two distributions. arXiv preprint , 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    Pramenkovic

    F. Pramenkovic. Imposing convexity on dual formulatio ns of transport problems. Diplomarbeit, University of Vienna, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    R. T. Rockafellar. Convex analysis. Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics. Princeton University Press, Prince- ton, NJ, 1997. Reprint of the 1970 original, Princeton Paper backs

    1997

  67. [75]

    P.-M. Samson. Transport-entropy inequalities on loca lly acting groups of permutations. Electron. J. Probab., 22:Paper No. 62, 33, 2017

    2017

  68. [76]

    Schrott and D

    S. Schrott and D. Toneian. On Strassen’s theorem for sup port functions. Electronic Communications in Probability, 29:1 – 12, 2024

    2024

  69. [77]

    Y. Shu. Hamilton-Jacobi equations on graph and applica tions. Potential Anal. , 48(2):125–157, 2018

    2018

  70. [78]

    Y. Shu. From Hopf–Lax formula to optimal weak transfer p lan. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 52(3):3052–3072, 2020

    2020

  71. [79]

    Strassen

    V. Strassen. The existence of probability measures wit h given marginals. Ann. Math. Statist. , 36:423–439, 1965

    1965

  72. [80]

    Talagrand

    M. Talagrand. Concentration of measure and isoperimet ric inequalities in product spaces. Publications Math´ ematiques de l’Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiqu es, 81(1):73–205, 1995

    1995

  73. [81]

    Talagrand

    M. Talagrand. New concentration inequalities in produ ct spaces. Inventiones mathematicae, 126(3):505–563, 1996

    1996

  74. [82]

    Tan and N

    X. Tan and N. Touzi. Optimal transportation under contr olled stochastic dynamics. Ann. Probab. , 41(5):3201–3240, 2013

    2013

  75. [83]

    C. Villani. Topics in Optimal Transportation , volume 58 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003

    2003

  76. [84]

    Wiesel and E

    J. Wiesel and E. Zhang. A characterisation of convex ord er using the 2-Wasserstein distance. arXiv preprint, 2022

    2022

  77. [2024]

    arXiv:2104.14245

    To appear. arXiv:2104.14245

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.