Causal transport on path space

Fang Rui Lim; Rama Cont

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Causal transport on path space

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read All bicausal Monge transports between SDE laws are stochastic integrals driven by rotation-valued integrands.

desk verdict Novel and likely correct in spirit, but Lemma 3.10 has a real unpatched proof gap; the reader's Lévy-transform counterexample does not actually land. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02948 v2 pith:3RVZTBSM submitted 2024-12-04 math.PR

Rama Cont , Fang Rui Lim This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PR MSC 60G4460H1049Q22

keywords causaltransportbicausalcouplingsMongemapspathspacestochasticdifferentialequationsWienermeasuresemimartingalesadaptedWassersteindistance

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

This paper sets out to characterize bicausal Monge transports between laws of stochastic processes on path space, in the case where the two laws are weak solutions of stochastic differential equations. It claims that a measurable map is a bicausal Monge transport exactly when its coordinate process is a semimartingale under the source law and satisfies a transport SDE with a rotation-valued matrix process $Q$; for Wiener measures this reduces to stochastic integrals $\int_0^\cdot Q_s\,dX_s$ with adapted $O_d$-valued integrands. If correct, the result turns the measure-theoretic question of causality into a differential question about SDEs. It also yields explicit existence obstructions, density of Monge transports among all bicausal couplings, and equality of Monge and Kantorovich costs for regular SDEs.

What carries the argument

The central object is a bicausal coupling: a transport plan between two path-space measures whose conditional distributions are non-anticipative in both time directions. The proof machinery has three load-bearing components: the H-hypothesis reformulation of causality (Theorem 2.1), a martingale representation theorem for degenerate diffusions (Proposition 3.9), and the transport SDE (9)--(10) with its rotation-valued coefficient $Q$. The SDE is what converts measure preservation into a differential condition: the pushed-forward diffusion must align with the target diffusion through $Q$, and condition (10) enforces the alignment on kernels of degenerate diffusion coefficients.

What would settle it

The one-dimensional map $T(X)_t=\int_0^t \operatorname{sign}(X_s)\,dX_s$ pushes Wiener measure to itself and is a semimartingale under it. If the converse direction of Lemma 3.10 were valid, the induced coupling would be bicausal; the original Wiener path, however, is not adapted to the filtration generated by $T(X)$, so the reverse-causality condition fails. Verifying this non-adaptation directly would settle the converse direction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central result is Theorem 3.4: for $\eta=\mu_z^{\sigma,b}$ and $\nu=\mu_{\tilde z}^{\bar\sigma,\bar b}$, a map $T:W^d\to W^d$ is a bicausal Monge map from $\eta$ to $\nu$ if and only if $T$ is an $(\eta,H_t^\eta)$-semimartingale and satisfies $T_t=\tilde z+\int_0^t b(s,T)\,ds+\int_0^t \sigma(s,T)Q_s\sigma^\dagger(s,X)\,dM_s^\eta$ together with the alignment condition $\sigma(s,T)Q_s=\sigma(s,T)Q_s\sigma^\dagger(s,X)\sigma(s,X)$, where $Q$ is adapted and orthogonal-matrix-valued. Corollary 3.6 draws the Wiener-space conclusion: every bicausal Monge transport of Wiener measure is a stochastic integral of an adapted $O_d$-valued integrand. The paper also claims that when the diffusion coefficients are regular and invertible, all bicausal Monge transports between strong SDE solutions factor through the Itô maps and rotation-valued stochastic integrals, and that such Monge transports are dense among all bicausal couplings.

Load-bearing premise

The classification rests on the claim that any measurable map pushing one SDE law to another is automatically bicausal once its coordinate process is a semimartingale under the starting law.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every bicausal Monge transport between $d$-dimensional Wiener measures has the form $T(X)=\int_0^\cdot Q_s\,dX_s$ for an adapted $O_d$-valued process $Q$.
Between strong solutions of SDEs with invertible diffusion coefficients, every bicausal Monge transport factors as an Itô map composed with a rotation-valued stochastic integral and a second Itô map (Corollary 3.7).
If the kernel dimensions of the two diffusion coefficients are incompatible, no bicausal Monge map exists (Corollary 3.5).
Bicausal Monge transports are dense in the set of all bicausal couplings for SDEs with regular, invertible coefficients (Propositions 4.5 and 4.6).
For continuous costs with integrable separable growth, the bicausal Monge problem and the bicausal Kantorovich problem have the same optimal value (Corollary 4.7).

Reading between the lines

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

Strengthening the converse to require that the original path be adapted to the transported path would preserve the classification while excluding stochastic-integral maps whose image filtration is strictly smaller.
The kernel-dimension obstruction in Corollary 3.5 gives a design principle: pairs of SDEs with incompatible diffusion-kernel dimensions can only admit Kantorovich, not Monge, bicausal transports.
Because bicausal Monge maps are dense among all bicausal couplings for regular SDEs, numerical solvers for adapted transport could parameterize near-optimal plans by rotation-valued integrands rather than by general couplings.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The paper is not the clean reject the reader's report suggests, but it is also not ready as is. The headline result — a complete description of bicausal Monge maps between laws of SDEs as semimartingales of the form (9) — is genuinely new and, I suspect, correct in spirit. Theorem 3.2 (bicausal couplings are exactly joint laws of weak solutions driven by a common Brownian pair) is a clean contribution that generalizes the scalar results in [8] and is likely to be useful. Corollary 3.6, the Wiener-to-Wiener description in terms of stochastic integrals of O_d-valued integrands, is elegant and would be a natural tool for adapted Wasserstein problems. The density arguments using Émery's almost Brownian filtrations are a nice touch.

The reader's verdict leans on the Lévy transform as a counterexample. That doesn't work: under the Lévy coupling, X and T are both Brownian motions on the common filtration generated by X, so by the paper's own Theorem 3.1 the coupling is bicausal. Strictly smaller image filtration by itself does not break reverse causality. So that part of the reader's rationale is wrong.

The real hole is in the converse direction of Lemma 3.10. The proof only checks the martingale property of the target process on sets A×W^d, which is not enough to certify reverse causality against all rectangles. More substantively, the proof assumes the H^η-semimartingale decomposition of T has drift b(s,T). That is not automatic from T#η=ν: the drift under the enlarged filtration H^η can differ from the drift under T's own filtration, especially when σ is degenerate and the difference lives in the kernel. The argument needs to exclude that possibility, and it doesn't. As stated, Lemma 3.10 is unsupported. Since Theorem 3.4's sufficiency invokes Lemma 3.10, the proof needs repair even if the theorem itself is true — and I think it may be, because (9) explicitly pins the drift to b(T), which is exactly the missing condition.

So the paper has a significant, localized proof gap rather than a refuted central claim. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it out, and ask the referee to focus on whether the H^η-drift of a semimartingale transport is forced to be b(T) under the assumptions of Lemma 3.10, or whether the lemma needs an extra hypothesis. For readers working on adapted Wasserstein causality, the paper is worth reading for Theorem 3.2 and the density results, but they should be cautious about Lemma 3.10 until it's fixed.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies causal and bicausal couplings between probability measures on the space of continuous paths, with the measures assumed to be (possibly weak) solutions of SDEs. The main results are a characterization of bicausal couplings as joint laws of two weak solutions driven by a pair of Brownian motions on a common filtration (Theorem 3.2), and a claimed complete description of bicausal Monge transports in terms of stochastic integrals with orthogonal-matrix-valued integrands (Theorem 3.4). Corollaries specialize to the Wiener measure, give existence and non-existence criteria, and lead to density results and to equality of the bicausal Monge and Kantorovich costs.

Significance. If correct, the structural description of bicausal Monge maps between SDE laws would be a substantial contribution to adapted transport theory, with a clean statement for Wiener measure and connections to the H-hypothesis and Émery's almost Brownian filtrations. The paper also gives a useful characterization of all bicausal couplings as common-filtration weak solutions. The central claims are ambitious and potentially very useful, but the current version contains a serious proof gap in the key lemma and a false existence corollary, so the manuscript is not yet in a publishable state.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.4.2, Lemma 3.10 (Eq. (12))] The converse direction of Lemma 3.10 is not proved. The equality of the first and last terms in (12) is asserted without justification: it is valid only if N_t = T_t - z - ∫_0^t b(s,T) ds is already known to be an (η,(H^η_t))-martingale. Semimartingality of T under (H^η_t) gives only a decomposition T_t = A_t + M_t with an arbitrary (H^η_t)-predictable finite-variation part A_t; nothing in the assumptions forces A_t = ∫_0^t b(s,T) ds. The proof silently identifies the H^η-drift of T with the drift of the target SDE, which is exactly the point that needs to be established. Since the sufficiency proof of Theorem 3.4 invokes this lemma, the main characterization is not established as written. I do not regard the Lévy transform as a counterexample to the lemma: it is of the form in Corollary 3.6 and is in fact bicausal; the genuine issue is the drift identification, not the size of the image filtration.
[Corollary 3.5] Corollary 3.5 is false as stated. Take η = W^d (σ = I, b = 0, z = 0) and ν = δ_0 (σ = 0, b = 0, z = 0). Then max_ω dim Ker σ(s,ω) = 0 < d = min_ω dim Ker σ(s,ω), so the corollary asserts that no bicausal Monge map exists. But T ≡ 0 is a bicausal Monge map: the induced plan (Id,0)#η is causal from η to ν, and the reverse plan is causal because the disintegration of η given Y = 0 is the constant kernel η, which is measurable with respect to the trivial filtration H^ν_t. The inequality therefore has the wrong direction; the correct no-existence condition should be max dim Ker σ > min dim Ker σ (source more degenerate than target). This error affects the paper's existence criteria.
[Section 4.2, Proposition 4.3] The proof of Proposition 4.3 invokes Lemma 3.10 to conclude that T^n is a bicausal Monge map. In that application the conclusion is likely correct because X^n and Y^n generate the same filtration and Y^n is a Brownian motion in that filtration, so the H^η-drift condition holds. However, the proof as written relies on the unproved converse of Lemma 3.10 rather than on the explicit martingale structure, and this should be repaired if the lemma is weakened or corrected.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.4.2, Lemma 3.10] The proof of the converse should explicitly state the required identification of the H^η-finite-variation part of T with ∫_0^· b(s,T) ds, and give an argument for it; simply asserting that the first and last terms of (12) are equal is circular.
[Corollary 3.5] The statement of Corollary 3.5 contains no proof; given the counterexample above, the authors should either supply a corrected statement with the reversed inequality or delete the corollary and explain the correct conditions.
[Corollary 3.8] The notation in Corollary 3.8 is confusing: the text appears to write 'from μ^{σ,0}_z to μ^{σ,0}_z' with the same symbol σ for both marginals, while the proof clearly distinguishes σ and σ. The statement should be reformulated with separate symbols for the two SDE coefficients.
[Section 4.3, Corollary 4.7] The proof of Corollary 4.7 is omitted with a reference to [32, Lemma 5.14]; since this is an application of the density result, the omission may be acceptable, but the dependence on the still-unproved Lemma 3.10 should be made explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central results are proven from external martingale-representation and H-hypothesis results; the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce its conclusions to its inputs. Theorem 3.4 is proven from Proposition 3.9, which invokes Ustunel's martingale representation theorem [37] as the primary external ingredient, and from Lemma 3.10, which uses the causal-coupling/H-hypothesis equivalence of Bremaud-Yor [12] and Lassalle [29]. Corollary 3.6 follows by substituting the Wiener SDE data (b=0, sigma=I) into the characterization (9)-(10); it is not used to define bicausality. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction; no equation is defined in terms of the target characterization. The only self-citation is [14] (Cont), which appears as a secondary 'see also' reference in the proof of Proposition 3.9 after the main citation [37], and [15] is cited only for the definition of non-anticipative functionals. Neither is load-bearing. The proof gap noted by the skeptic in Lemma 3.10, concerning whether the H^eta finite-variation part of T is forced to equal the drift b(T), is a mathematical correctness issue, not a circularity: it does not consist in assuming the conclusion or fitting the conclusion into the assumptions. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new entities. The central result rests on standard martingale representation theory, the H-hypothesis criterion, Lévy's characterization, and the semimartingale decomposition of weak SDE solutions. The ad hoc premise flagged in the axioms is the false sufficiency claim in Lemma 3.10, which effectively acts as an extra unstated assumption.

assumptions (5)

standard math Martingale representation theorem of Üstünel for weak solutions of possibly degenerate SDEs (Proposition 3.9, based on [37, Theorem 2]).
Used to represent the martingale part of any bicausal Monge map as a stochastic integral against the normalized martingale of the source SDE; this is external theory, not derived in the paper.
standard math Lévy characterization of Brownian motion and the H-hypothesis criterion of Brémaud-Yor (Theorem 2.1, [12]).
Used to identify bicausal couplings with couples of jointly immersed Brownian motions.
domain assumption Under Assumption 1, the canonical process under eta is a semimartingale with decomposition (7)-(8).
This is the definition of weak solution; needed for the martingale representation and for Eq. (9).
domain assumption For the density results, coefficients are continuous and SDEs have unique strong, pathwise unique solutions (Assumption 2).
Used to pass to the limit in the stochastic integrals via Kurtz-Protter; restricts the scope of Propositions 4.5-4.6.
ad hoc to paper A semimartingale transport between weak SDE solutions is automatically bicausal (Lemma 3.10, converse).
This premise is implicit in the sufficiency proof and is false: the Lévy transform is a semimartingale transport of Wiener measure to itself but is not causally invertible.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Causal transport on path space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3RVZTBSM

@misc{pith2026241202948,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Causal transport on path space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3RVZTBSM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02948}
}

abstract

We study properties of causal couplings for probability measures on the space of continuous functions. We first provide a characterization of bicausal couplings between weak solutions of stochastic differential equations. We then provide a complete description of all such bicausal Monge couplings. In particular, we show that bicausal Monge couplings of $d$-dimensional Wiener measures are induced by stochastic integrals of rotation-valued integrands. As an application, we give necessary and sufficient conditions for bicausal couplings to be induced by Monge maps and show that such bicausal Monge transports are dense in the set of bicausal couplings between laws of SDEs with regular coefficients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02948 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Bicausal couplings π ∈ Πbc(µ σ,b z , µ σ,b z˜ ) between (strong) solutions of SDEs may be constructed by pushing forward bicausal Wiener couplings ˆπ ∈ Πbc(Wd ,Wd ) with the Ito maps (F σ,b, Fσ,b ). solutions of SDEs. It generalizes [8, Proposition 2.2] to the case where d > 1 and the SDEs may not necessarily have strong solutions. Theorem 3.2. π ∈ Πbc(µ σ,b z , µ σ,b z˜ ) if and only if there exists a stochastic ba… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Any bi-causal Monge transport π ∈ Tbc(µ σ,b z , µ σ,b z˜ ) can be constructed by pushing µ σ,b z along R σ,b z , then T and finally, F σ,b z˜ . the set of all bicausal Monge transports from µ σ,b z to µ σ,b z˜ is n F σ,b ◦ T ◦ R σ,b z , T ∈ Tbc(Wd ,Wd ) o , where R σ,b z : Wd → Wd is defined by R σ,b z (X) = Z · 0 σ −1 (s, X)dMη s ηa.s. and Mη · := X· − z − Z · 0 b(s, X)ds. Proof. Let η := µ σ,b z and (F˜ t)t∈[0,1] … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

A transfer principle for computing the adapted Wasserstein distance between stochastic processes
math.PR 2025-05 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

The adapted 2-Wasserstein distance between fractional Brownian motions equals the Hilbert-Schmidt distance between their Molchan-Golosov kernels, attained by the synchronous coupling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[8]

Backhoff-Veraguas, S

J. Backhoff-Veraguas, S. K ¨allblad, and B. A. Robinson , Adapted Wasser- stein distance between the laws of SDEs , 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Acciaio, J

B. Acciaio, J. Backhoff, and A. Zalashko , Causal optimal transport and its links to enlargement of ﬁltrations and continuous-time stochast ic optimization , Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 130 (2016), pp. 2918–295 3. 32

work page 2016
[2]

Ambrosio, E

L. Ambrosio, E. Bru ´ e, and D. Semola , Lectures on optimal transport , Springer, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

E. A. Azoff , Borel measurability in linear algebra , Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 42 (1974), pp. 346–350

work page 1974
[4]

Backhoff, D

J. Backhoff, D. Bartl, M. Beiglb ¨ock, and J. Wiesel , Estimating processes in adapted Wasserstein distance , The Annals of Applied Probability, 32 (2022), pp. 529– 550

work page 2022
[5]

Backhoff, D

J. Backhoff, D. Bartl, M. Beiglb ¨ock, and M. Eder , Adapted Wasserstein distances and stability in mathematical ﬁnance , Finance and Stochastics, 24 (2020), p. 601–632

work page 2020
[6]

Backhoff, M

J. Backhoff, M. Beiglbock, Y. Lin, and A. Zalashko , Causal transport in discrete time and applications , SIAM Journal on Optimization, 27 (2017), pp. 2528– 2562

work page 2017
[7]

Backhoff-Veraguas, D

J. Backhoff-Veraguas, D. Bartl, M. Beiglb ¨ock, and M. Eder , All adapted topologies are equal, Probability Theory and Related Fields, 178 (2020), pp. 112 5–1172

work page 2020

Show all 39 references

[9]

Bartl, M

D. Bartl, M. Beiglb ¨ock, and G. Pammer , The Wasserstein space of stochastic processes, Journal of the European Mathematical Society, (to appear)
[10]

Beiglb ¨ock and D

M. Beiglb ¨ock and D. Lacker , Denseness of adapted processes among causal cou- plings, arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03185, (2018)

2018 arXiv
[11]

Bion-Nadal and D

J. Bion-Nadal and D. Talay , On a Wasserstein-type distance between solutions to stochastic diﬀerential equations , The Annals of Applied Probability, 29 (2019), pp. 1609–1639

2019
[12]

Br ´ emaud and M

P. Br ´ emaud and M. Yor , Changes of ﬁltrations and of probability measures , Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete, 45 (1978), pp. 269– 295. 33

1978
[13]

A. S. Cherny , On the uniqueness in law and the pathwise uniqueness for stoc hastic diﬀerential equations , Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 46 (2002), pp. 40 6– 419

2002
[14]

R. Cont , Functional Ito Calculus and functional Kolmogorov equations , in Stochastic Integration by Parts and Functional Ito Calculus (Lecture N otes of the Barcelona Sum- mer School in Stochastic Analysis, July 2012), F. Utzet and J . Vives, eds., Birkhauser Basel, 2016, pp. 115–208

2012
[15]

Cont and D.-A

R. Cont and D.-A. Fourni ´ e, Change of variable formulas for non-anticipative functionals on path space , J. Funct. Anal., 259 (2010), pp. 1043–1072

2010
[16]

Eckstein and G

S. Eckstein and G. Pammer , Computational methods for adapted optimal transport , The Annals of Applied Probability, 34 (2024), pp. 675–713

2024
[17]

Eder , Compactness in adapted weak topologies , arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.00856, (2019)

M. Eder , Compactness in adapted weak topologies , arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.00856, (2019)

2019 arXiv
[18]

´Emery, On certain almost brownian ﬁltrations , in Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probability and Statistics, vol

M. ´Emery, On certain almost brownian ﬁltrations , in Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probability and Statistics, vol. 41, Elsevier , 2005, pp. 285–305

2005
[19]

F ang and V

S. F ang and V. Nolot , Optimal transport maps on inﬁnite dimensional spaces , Frontiers of Mathematics in China, 10 (2015), pp. 715–732

2015
[20]

Feyel and A

D. Feyel and A. S. ¨Ust¨unel, Monge-kantorovitch measure transportation and monge-ampere equation on wiener space , Probability theory and related ﬁelds, 128 (2004), pp. 347–385

2004
[21]

Fliess , Fonctionnelles causales non lin´ eaires et ind´ etermin´ ees non commutatives , Bull

M. Fliess , Fonctionnelles causales non lin´ eaires et ind´ etermin´ ees non commutatives , Bull. Soc. Math. France, 109 (1981), pp. 3–40

1981
[22]

F ¨ollmer, Optimal Couplings on Wiener Space and An Extension of Talagra nd’s Transport Inequality, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022, pp

H. F ¨ollmer, Optimal Couplings on Wiener Space and An Extension of Talagra nd’s Transport Inequality, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022, pp. 147–1 75

2022
[23]

G. H. Golub and C. F. V an Loan , Matrix computations, JHU press, 2013

2013
[24]

S. He, J. W ang, and J. Yan , Semimartingale Theory and Stochastic Calculus , Science Press, 1992. 34

1992
[25]

Ikeda and S

N. Ikeda and S. W atanabe , Stochastic Diﬀerential Equations and Diﬀusion Pro- cesses, Elsevier, 1981

1981
[26]

Jiang , Duality of causal distributionally robust optimization: t he discrete-time case, 2024

Y. Jiang , Duality of causal distributionally robust optimization: t he discrete-time case, 2024

2024
[27]

Kallenberg , Foundations of modern probability , vol

O. Kallenberg , Foundations of modern probability , vol. 2, Springer, 1997

1997
[28]

T. G. Kurtz and P. Protter , Weak limit theorems for stochastic integrals and stochastic diﬀerential equations , The Annals of Probability, (1991), pp. 1035–1070

1991
[29]

Lassalle , Causal transport plans and their Monge–Kantorovich problem s, Stochastic Analysis and Applications, 36 (2018), pp

R. Lassalle , Causal transport plans and their Monge–Kantorovich problem s, Stochastic Analysis and Applications, 36 (2018), pp. 1–33

2018
[30]

Le Gall , Brownian motion, martingales, and stochastic calculus , Springer, 2016

J.-F. Le Gall , Brownian motion, martingales, and stochastic calculus , Springer, 2016

2016
[31]

R. S. Liptser and A. N. Shiryaev , Statistics of random processes: General theory , vol. 394, Springer, 1977

1977
[32]

Nutz , Introduction to entropic optimal transport , Lecture notes, Columbia Uni- versity, (2022)

M. Nutz , Introduction to entropic optimal transport , Lecture notes, Columbia Uni- versity, (2022)

2022
[33]

Peyr ´ e and M

G. Peyr ´ e and M. Cuturi , Computational optimal transport: With applications to data science, Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 11 (2019), pp. 355–607

2019
[34]

S. T. Rachev and L. R ¨uschendorf, Mass transportation problems: Applications , Springer, 2006

2006
[35]

B. A. Robinson and M. Sz ¨olgyenyi, Bicausal optimal transport for sdes with irregular coeﬃcients , 2024

2024
[36]

Rogers and D

L. Rogers and D. Williams , Diﬀusions, Markov Processes, and Martingales: Vol- ume 1, Foundations , Cambridge University Press, 2000

2000
[37]

A. S. ¨Ust¨unel, Martingale representation for degenerate diﬀusions , Journal of Func- tional Analysis, 276 (2019), pp. 3468–3483

2019
[38]

Villani , Optimal Transport: Old and New , Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008

C. Villani , Optimal Transport: Old and New , Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008. 35

2008
[39]

T. Xu, L. K. Wenliang, M. Munn, and B. Acciaio , Cot-gan: Generating se- quential data via causal optimal transport , Advances in neural information processing systems, 33 (2020), pp. 8798–8809. 36

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

Backhoff-Veraguas, S

J. Backhoff-Veraguas, S. K ¨allblad, and B. A. Robinson , Adapted Wasser- stein distance between the laws of SDEs , 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Acciaio, J

B. Acciaio, J. Backhoff, and A. Zalashko , Causal optimal transport and its links to enlargement of ﬁltrations and continuous-time stochast ic optimization , Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 130 (2016), pp. 2918–295 3. 32

work page 2016

[3] [2]

Ambrosio, E

L. Ambrosio, E. Bru ´ e, and D. Semola , Lectures on optimal transport , Springer, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [3]

E. A. Azoff , Borel measurability in linear algebra , Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 42 (1974), pp. 346–350

work page 1974

[5] [4]

Backhoff, D

J. Backhoff, D. Bartl, M. Beiglb ¨ock, and J. Wiesel , Estimating processes in adapted Wasserstein distance , The Annals of Applied Probability, 32 (2022), pp. 529– 550

work page 2022

[6] [5]

Backhoff, D

J. Backhoff, D. Bartl, M. Beiglb ¨ock, and M. Eder , Adapted Wasserstein distances and stability in mathematical ﬁnance , Finance and Stochastics, 24 (2020), p. 601–632

work page 2020

[7] [6]

Backhoff, M

J. Backhoff, M. Beiglbock, Y. Lin, and A. Zalashko , Causal transport in discrete time and applications , SIAM Journal on Optimization, 27 (2017), pp. 2528– 2562

work page 2017

[8] [7]

Backhoff-Veraguas, D

J. Backhoff-Veraguas, D. Bartl, M. Beiglb ¨ock, and M. Eder , All adapted topologies are equal, Probability Theory and Related Fields, 178 (2020), pp. 112 5–1172

work page 2020