Skip to article frontmatterSkip to article content
Site not loading correctly?

This may be due to an incorrect BASE_URL configuration. See the MyST Documentation for reference.

Dynamic Optimal Transport

Optimal transport becomes especially powerful once distances between measures are seen as actions of moving mass. This chapter first develops the dynamic language: continuity equations describe admissible measure evolutions, while the Benamou--Brenier formula identifies W2\Wass_2 with a least-action principle. The path-space Schrodinger problem then provides its stochastic, entropy-regularized counterpart. After extending dynamic actions to other transport geometries, the chapter closes with variational mean field games, where congestion and a terminal cost turn the Benamou--Brenier action into a population-planning problem. These ideas prepare the gradient-flow and generative-model chapters that follow.

Evolutions Over the Space of Measures

We start with the continuity equation because it is the common language for particles, densities and weak measure evolutions. It also makes precise which velocity fields actually move mass.

Lagrangian and Eulerian Descriptions

Consider an evolution tαtP(Rd)t\mapsto\alpha_t\in\mathcal P(\RR^d). It can be described in a Lagrangian way as the advection of particles along a time-dependent vector field vt(x)v_t(x):

dx(t)dt=vt(x(t)).\frac{\d x(t)}{\d t}=v_t(x(t)).

Writing TtT_t for the associated flow map, so that Tt(x(0))=x(t)T_t(x(0))=x(t), the advected measure is

αt=(Tt)α0.\alpha_t=(T_t)_\sharp\alpha_0.

For empirical measures, αt=n1i=1nδxi(t)\alpha_t=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n\delta_{x_i(t)}, each particle solves (1).

In the Eulerian description, the same motion is written directly on the evolving measure:

αtt+div(vtαt)=0.\frac{\partial\alpha_t}{\partial t} +\operatorname{div}(v_t\alpha_t)=0.

This PDE is often called the advection equation, the continuity equation, or Liouville’s equation when it acts on phase space. It is a classical PDE only when αt\alpha_t has a smooth density. For general measures, and in particular for empirical measures, it is understood in the distributional sense: for every φCc1((0,1)×Rd)\varphi\in C_c^1((0,1)\times\RR^d),

01 ⁣Rd(tφ(t,x)+vt(x),xφ(t,x))dαt(x)dt=0.\int_0^1\!\int_{\RR^d} \left( \partial_t\varphi(t,x) +\dotp{v_t(x)}{\nabla_x\varphi(t,x)} \right) \d\alpha_t(x)\d t =0.

This weak equation is obtained from (3) by integration by parts. For smooth positive densities, the classical and weak formulations are equivalent; for particle clouds, the weak form remains meaningful.

The interior identity does not record endpoint traces or boundary conditions. The boundary-aware version supplies the admissible class used throughout the chapter.

Proof

Let φCc1((0,1)×Rd)\varphi\in C_c^1((0,1)\times\RR^d). Since αt=(Tt)α0\alpha_t=(T_t)_\sharp\alpha_0,

ddtφ(t,x)dαt(x)=ddtφ(t,Tt(y))dα0(y).\frac{\d}{\d t}\int \varphi(t,x)\d\alpha_t(x) = \frac{\d}{\d t}\int \varphi(t,T_t(y))\d\alpha_0(y).

The chain rule gives

ddtφ(t,Tt(y))dα0(y)=(tφ(t,Tt(y))+xφ(t,Tt(y)),tTt(y))dα0(y).\frac{\d}{\d t}\int \varphi(t,T_t(y))\d\alpha_0(y) = \int \left( \partial_t\varphi(t,T_t(y)) +\dotp{\nabla_x\varphi(t,T_t(y))}{\partial_t T_t(y)} \right) \d\alpha_0(y).

Using the definition of vtv_t and the push-forward relation, this is

(tφ(t,x)+xφ(t,x),vt(x))dαt(x).\int \left( \partial_t\varphi(t,x)+\dotp{\nabla_x\varphi(t,x)}{v_t(x)} \right) \d\alpha_t(x).

Integrating in time and using the boundary values of φ\varphi gives (4).

From Measure Evolutions to Vector Fields

For a given evolution (αt)t(\alpha_t)_t, there are typically infinitely many velocity fields vtv_t satisfying

tαt+div(αtvt)=0.\partial_t\alpha_t+\operatorname{div}(\alpha_t v_t)=0.

This non-uniqueness comes from the kernel of the weighted divergence. The linear space of vector fields that leave a measure α\alpha invariant is

Hα={vL2(α;Rd):div(αv)=0 in distributions}.\mathcal H_\alpha = \{v\in L^2(\alpha;\RR^d):\operatorname{div}(\alpha v)=0 \text{ in distributions}\}.

It is usually non-trivial: if α\alpha is an isotropic Gaussian, Hα\mathcal H_\alpha contains rotational vector fields generated by anti-symmetric matrices.

Dacorogna--Moser Inversion

Reconstructing particles from an observed density evolution is therefore ill-posed. For a smooth positive density αt=ρtdx\alpha_t=\rho_t\,\d x, a simple choice, introduced by Dacorogna and Moser Dacorogna & Moser, 1990, imposes that the flux ρtvt\rho_t v_t is a gradient field. With a fixed convention for the inverse Laplacian,

vt=1ρtΔ1(tρt),v_t = -\frac{1}{\rho_t} \nabla\Delta^{-1}(\partial_t\rho_t),

with suitable boundary conditions, for instance vanishing at infinity. This formula is useful conceptually but delicate when ρt\rho_t vanishes, and it does not generally produce a gradient velocity field.

The classical Dacorogna--Moser construction uses the linear density path. If αi=ρidx\alpha_i=\rho_i\,\d x are smooth positive densities with the same total mass on a bounded connected domain Ω\Omega, set

αt=(1t)α0+tα1=ρtdx,ρt=(1t)ρ0+tρ1.\alpha_t=(1-t)\alpha_0+t\alpha_1=\rho_t\,\d x, \qquad \rho_t=(1-t)\rho_0+t\rho_1.

Choose a time-independent flux ww satisfying

divw=ρ0ρ1,wn=0on Ω,\operatorname{div} w=\rho_0-\rho_1, \qquad w\cdot n=0\quad\hbox{on }\partial\Omega,

for instance w=ϕw=-\nabla\phi with Δϕ=ρ1ρ0\Delta\phi=\rho_1-\rho_0 and Neumann boundary condition. Then

vt=wρtv_t=\frac{w}{\rho_t}

satisfies tρt+div(ρtvt)=0\partial_t\rho_t+\operatorname{div}(\rho_t v_t)=0. The flow tTt=vtTt\partial_t T_t=v_t\circ T_t, T0=IdT_0=\operatorname{Id}, therefore transports ρ0dx\rho_0\d x onto ρtdx\rho_t\d x, and T1T_1 solves the prescribed-Jacobian problem ρ1(T1(x))det(T1(x))=ρ0(x)\rho_1(T_1(x))\det(\nabla T_1(x))=\rho_0(x).

Least-Square Inversion and Gradient Structure

A more robust choice, used implicitly in flow matching, optimal transport and Wasserstein gradient flows, is to select among all admissible velocities the one with smallest kinetic energy:

minv1201 ⁣Rdvt(x)2dαt(x)dtsubject totαt+div(αtvt)=0.\min_v \frac12\int_0^1\!\int_{\RR^d}\norm{v_t(x)}^2\,\d\alpha_t(x)\d t \quad \text{subject to} \quad \partial_t\alpha_t+\operatorname{div}(\alpha_t v_t)=0.
Proof

Introduce a Lagrange multiplier ϕt\phi_t for the continuity equation. The constrained problem has the formal saddle formulation

minvmaxϕ01[12Rdvt(x)2dαt(x)+Rdϕt(x)(div(αtvt)(x)+tαt(x))dx]dt.\min_v\max_\phi \int_0^1 \left[ \frac12\int_{\RR^d}\norm{v_t(x)}^2\,\d\alpha_t(x) + \int_{\RR^d}\phi_t(x) \left(\operatorname{div}(\alpha_t v_t)(x)+\partial_t\alpha_t(x)\right) \d x \right]\d t.

Integrating by parts in the divergence term gives, for each tt,

(12vt2ϕt,vt)dαt+ϕttαt.\int \left( \frac12\norm{v_t}^2-\dotp{\nabla\phi_t}{v_t} \right) \d\alpha_t + \int\phi_t\,\partial_t\alpha_t.

The pointwise minimizer in vtv_t is therefore vt=ϕtv_t=\nabla\phi_t. Substituting this into tρt+div(ρtvt)=0\partial_t\rho_t+\operatorname{div}(\rho_t v_t)=0 gives the weighted Poisson equation in (19). The inverse notation is a shorthand for solving this equation on zero-mean right-hand sides, modulo additive constants.

In general this inversion is still computationally demanding, but special choices of (αt)t(\alpha_t)_t lead to simpler formulas; this is the mechanism exploited later by flow matching in Section Generative Models via Flow Matching.

Benamou--Brenier Dynamic Formulation of OT

The dynamic formulation identifies W2\Wass_2 with the kinetic energy of the cheapest continuity-equation path. It is the point where OT becomes a least-action principle.

Benamou--Brenier Formulation

Instead of assuming that a whole curve (αt)t[0,1](\alpha_t)_{t\in[0,1]} is prescribed, one fixes only the endpoints α0\alpha_0 and α1\alpha_1 and minimizes the least-square energy (17). The theorem of Benamou and Brenier states that this geodesic energy is exactly the squared Wasserstein distance Benamou & Brenier, 2000.

Proof

For the inequality “dynamic \leq static”, assume first that a Monge map TT exists and define (αt,vt)(\alpha_t,v_t) by (23). Since the Lagrangian velocity T(x)xT(x)-x is independent of tt,

01 ⁣vt2dαtdt=T(x)x2dα0(x),\int_0^1\!\int\norm{v_t}^2\,\d\alpha_t\d t = \int\norm{T(x)-x}^2\,\d\alpha_0(x),

so the dynamic cost is no larger than the static Monge cost. Without a Monge map, the same construction uses an optimal coupling π\pi: sample (X,Y)π(X,Y)\sim\pi and move along the straight path γX,Y(t)=(1t)X+tY\gamma_{X,Y}(t)=(1-t)X+tY. This path measure has action xy2dπ(x,y)\int\norm{x-y}^2\d\pi(x,y); projecting path velocities onto their conditional mean at time tt gives an admissible Eulerian velocity with no larger action, so the dynamic value is no larger than the Kantorovich value.

Conversely, for a smooth deterministic path, take the flow TtT_t defined by T˙t=vtTt\dot T_t=v_t\circ T_t and T0=IdT_0=\Id. Then αt=(Tt)α0\alpha_t=(T_t)_\sharp\alpha_0 and (T1)α0=α1(T_1)_\sharp\alpha_0=\alpha_1. Jensen’s inequality gives

T1(x)x201vt(Tt(x))2dt.\norm{T_1(x)-x}^2 \leq \int_0^1\norm{v_t(T_t(x))}^2\d t.

After integration with respect to α0\alpha_0, the Monge cost is bounded above by the dynamic action. For general finite-energy solutions of the continuity equation, the superposition principle lifts the curve to a probability measure on absolutely continuous paths; applying Jensen’s inequality pathwise gives a coupling of the endpoints whose quadratic cost is no larger than the action. Thus the Kantorovich value is bounded above by the dynamic value.

Convex Momentum-Based Reformulation

Although (22) is not jointly convex in (αt,vt)(\alpha_t,v_t), it becomes convex after replacing velocities by momenta. Given vL2(α;Rd)v\in L^2(\alpha;\RR^d), define the momentum

ω:=αv,ω(B)=Bv(x)dα(x),\omega\eqdef \alpha v, \qquad \omega(B)=\int_B v(x)\,\d\alpha(x),

which is a finite Rd\RR^d-valued measure. The nonlinear relation ω=αv\omega=\alpha v is eliminated by the quadratic perspective

J(a,m):={m2/a,a>0,0,a=0 and m=0,+,a=0 and m0,(a,m)[0,+)×Rd.J(a,m) \eqdef \begin{cases} \norm{m}^2/a, & a>0,\\ 0, & a=0\ \text{and}\ m=0,\\ +\infty, & a=0\ \text{and}\ m\neq0, \end{cases} \qquad (a,m)\in[0,+\infty)\times\RR^d.

This lower-semicontinuous convex function is positively 1-homogeneous: J(ηa,ηm)=ηJ(a,m)J(\eta a,\eta m)=\eta J(a,m) for η0\eta\geq0. If λ\lambda is any positive measure dominating both α\alpha and the total variation ω|\omega|, set

J(α,ω):=J(dαdλ(x),dωdλ(x))dλ(x).\mathbb J(\alpha,\omega) \eqdef \int J\left( \frac{\d\alpha}{\d\lambda}(x), \frac{\d\omega}{\d\lambda}(x) \right)\d\lambda(x).

The value is independent of the dominating measure: both Radon--Nikodym densities change by the same factor, and the 1-homogeneity of JJ cancels the change of reference measure. This is the integral functional associated with a convex normal integrand in the measure-valued relaxation of dynamic OT Ambrosio et al., 2006; see also the perspective construction in Rockafellar, 2015. Moreover,

J(α,ω)<+ω=vα with vL2(α;Rd),J(α,ω)=v2dα.\mathbb J(\alpha,\omega)<+\infty \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \omega=v\alpha\ \text{with}\ v\in L^2(\alpha;\RR^d), \qquad \mathbb J(\alpha,\omega)=\int\norm{v}^2\,\d\alpha.

The Benamou--Brenier problem therefore has the convex measure formulation

W22(α0,α1)=inftαt+divωt=0αt=0=α0, αt=1=α101J(αt,ωt)dt.\Wass_2^2(\alpha_0,\alpha_1) = \inf_{\substack{\partial_t\alpha_t+\operatorname{div}\omega_t=0\\ \alpha_{t=0}=\alpha_0,\ \alpha_{t=1}=\alpha_1}} \int_0^1\mathbb J(\alpha_t,\omega_t)\,\d t.

In the absolutely continuous case αt=ρtdx\alpha_t=\rho_t\,\d x and ωt=mtdx\omega_t=m_t\,\d x, this reduces to the familiar integral of J(ρt,mt)=mt2/ρtJ(\rho_t,m_t)=\norm{m_t}^2/\rho_t, with the zero-density conventions already encoded in (27). This convex reformulation enables geodesic interpolation by convex optimization after discretization.

Dual Hamilton--Jacobi Formulation

The momentum formulation also has a useful dual. It turns the least-action problem into a Hamilton--Jacobi subsolution inequality for a scalar potential, with equality on the part of space-time actually visited by the optimal curve. With the no-1/21/2 convention of (30), the constants are as follows.

Proof

Let (ρ,m)(\rho,m) satisfy the continuity equation and let ϕ\phi be smooth. Multiplying the constraint by ϕ\phi and integrating by parts gives

Rdϕ1dα1Rdϕ0dα0=01 ⁣Rd(ρttϕt+mt,ϕt)dxdt.\int_{\RR^d}\phi_1\,\d\alpha_1 - \int_{\RR^d}\phi_0\,\d\alpha_0 = \int_0^1\!\int_{\RR^d} \left(\rho_t\,\partial_t\phi_t+\dotp{m_t}{\nabla\phi_t}\right)\d x\d t .

If tϕt+ϕt2/40\partial_t\phi_t+\norm{\nabla\phi_t}^2/4\leq0, Young’s inequality yields

ρtϕ+m,ϕρ4ϕ2+m,ϕm2ρ,\rho\,\partial_t\phi+\dotp{m}{\nabla\phi} \leq -\frac{\rho}{4}\norm{\nabla\phi}^2+\dotp{m}{\nabla\phi} \leq \frac{\norm m^2}{\rho},

with the usual perspective convention. Thus the dual objective of every feasible potential is no larger than the action of every feasible primal pair. Conversely, introducing ϕ\phi as a Lagrange multiplier for tρ+divm=0\partial_t\rho+\operatorname{div}m=0, and discarding the fixed endpoint contribution, the pointwise minimization contains m2/ρρtϕm,ϕ\norm m^2/\rho-\rho\,\partial_t\phi-\dotp{m}{\nabla\phi}. Minimizing over mm gives m=ρϕ/2m=\rho\nabla\phi/2; minimizing over ρ0\rho\geq0 is finite exactly under tϕ+ϕ2/40\partial_t\phi+\norm{\nabla\phi}^2/4\leq0. Fenchel--Rockafellar duality then gives no duality gap in finite-dimensional discretizations. The continuum identity follows by the usual relaxation and approximation, with ϕ\phi interpreted as a Hamilton--Jacobi subsolution. Equality in the two pointwise inequalities gives (32).

This also recovers the static Kantorovich inequality from a dynamic principle. If γ\gamma is any smooth curve with γ(0)=x\gamma(0)=x and γ(1)=y\gamma(1)=y, then

ddtϕt(γ(t))=tϕt(γ(t))+ϕt(γ(t)),γ˙(t)γ˙(t)2.\frac{\d}{\d t}\phi_t(\gamma(t)) = \partial_t\phi_t(\gamma(t))+\dotp{\nabla\phi_t(\gamma(t))}{\dot\gamma(t)} \leq \norm{\dot\gamma(t)}^2.

After integration and minimization over curves,

ϕ1(y)ϕ0(x)xy2.\phi_1(y)-\phi_0(x)\leq \norm{x-y}^2.

Thus (ϕ0,ϕ1)(-\phi_0,\phi_1) is a feasible static Kantorovich dual pair for the quadratic cost. At optimality the inequality is saturated on the endpoint pairs connected by the primal characteristics.

Figure Div displays these primal--dual relations for a one-dimensional mixture transport, including the Hamilton--Jacobi contact identity along the active mass.

<IPython.core.display.Image object>

One-dimensional Benamou--Brenier primal and dual solutions. The endpoints are Gaussian mixtures and the solution is computed from monotone quantile interpolation. The panels show the primal density, the momentum mt=ρtvtm_t=\rho_t v_t, and the dual Hamilton--Jacobi potential. Along the active transported mass, the notebook checks mt=ρtxϕt/2m_t=\rho_t\partial_x\phi_t/2 and tϕt+xϕt2/4=0\partial_t\phi_t+|\partial_x\phi_t|^2/4=0.

Proximal Splitting

The convex momentum formulation also explains the original Benamou--Brenier solver. After discretization, the ALG2 scheme can be read as a Douglas--Rachford splitting, equivalently ADMM on the Fenchel--Rockafellar dual Papadakis et al., 2014. Suppressing discretization indices, write U=(ρ,m)U=(\rho,m), let F(U)\mathcal F(U) be the integral of the perspective action, and let G=ιC\mathcal G=\iota_{\mathcal C} be the indicator of the affine continuity constraint with prescribed endpoints. The problem is minUF(U)+G(U)\min_U \mathcal F(U)+\mathcal G(U).

The two proximal operators separate the nonlinear and linear parts: the prox of F\mathcal F is local in (t,x)(t,x) and amounts to the perspective proximal operator, whereas the prox of G\mathcal G is the orthogonal projection onto the divergence equation and endpoint constraints. Douglas--Rachford alternates these two simple operations.

Figure Div complements the Eulerian optimization viewpoint with the Lagrangian picture: matched particles travel along the straight characteristics of the minimizing curve.

<IPython.core.display.Image object>

Benamou--Brenier geodesic between two sampled silhouettes. A discrete quadratic OT plan between finely subsampled cat and two-disks point clouds induces the McCann interpolation Zt=(1t)X+tYZ_t=(1-t)X+tY, which is the Lagrangian realization of the least-action solution. The left panel renders local color images of the smaller-bandwidth kernel-smoothed densities with enough padding to include the full silhouettes. The right panel overlays shortened velocity arrows centered at evenly subsampled midpoint particles Z1/2Z_{1/2}; each displayed arrow runs in data coordinates from a source-side tail to a target-side head along the matched characteristic direction YXY-X, but is not drawn as the full endpoint segment from XX to YY.

The interactive demo keeps the same Lagrangian picture: particles are matched once, then move along straight characteristics. The time and velocity scale controls separate the path αt\alpha_t from the underlying displacement field.

Interactive panel. Use the time and velocity-scale controls to follow the Benamou-Brenier geodesic as a moving density with an Eulerian velocity field.

Path-Space Formulation

Let S=C([0,1];Rd)\Ss=C([0,1];\RR^d) be the space of continuous paths endowed with the uniform topology. For t[0,1]t\in[0,1] define the evaluation map

et:SRd,et(γ)=γ(t).e_t:\Ss\to\RR^d, \qquad e_t(\gamma)=\gamma(t).

The Benamou--Brenier cost admits the equivalent formulation

W22(α0,α1)=infMP(S){S ⁣01γ˙(t)2dtdM(γ)  :  (e0)M=α0, (e1)M=α1}.\Wass_2^2(\alpha_0,\alpha_1) = \inf_{M\in\Pp(\Ss)} \enscond{ \int_{\Ss}\!\int_0^1\norm{\dot\gamma(t)}^2\d t\,\d M(\gamma) }{ (e_0)_\sharp M=\alpha_0,\ (e_1)_\sharp M=\alpha_1 }.

The inner energy is understood as ++\infty outside the absolutely continuous paths. If α0\alpha_0 has a density, the minimizer MM^* is unique. Its time marginals reproduce the optimal curve: αt=(et)M\alpha_t=(e_t)_\sharp M^* for all tt. Furthermore, for a.e. tt, the conditional law of the path velocity is deterministic:

(et,e˙t)M(dx,dq)=αt(dx)δvt(x)(dq),(e_t,\dot e_t)_\sharp M^*(\d x,\d q) = \alpha_t(\d x)\delta_{v_t^*(x)}(\d q),

where vtv_t^* is the optimal velocity field in the Benamou--Brenier formulation. Hence MM^* concentrates on straight-line geodesics and, for a.e. tt, assigns exactly one direction at αt\alpha_t-a.e. spatial point.

Path-Space Schrödinger Problem

The path-space formulation above fills each endpoint pair by a deterministic least-action path. Schrödinger’s reciprocal problem replaces this path by the conditional trajectory of a noisy reference dynamics. Optimizing the conditional path laws leaves an entropic problem over endpoint couplings, which connects dynamic transport with the Sinkhorn problem of Chapter Paragraph.

From Least-Action Paths to Random Bridges

Let X\X be a Polish state space equipped with a compatible complete bounded metric and equip Ω=C([0,1];X)\Om=C([0,1];\X) with the uniform metric. Then Ω\Om is Polish, the evaluations et(ω)=ωte_t(\omega)=\omega_t are continuous, and regular conditional path laws exist.

For quadratic Euclidean transport, A(ω)=01ω˙t2dt\mathcal{A}(\omega)=\int_0^1\norm{\dot\omega_t}^2\d t on absolutely continuous paths and ++\infty otherwise. The induced endpoint cost is

cA(x,y):=infωΩe0(ω)=x, e1(ω)=yA(ω).c_{\mathcal{A}}(x,y) \eqdef \inf_{\substack{\omega\in\Om\\e_0(\omega)=x,\ e_1(\omega)=y}} \mathcal{A}(\omega).

It is lower semianalytic, hence universally measurable. In the quadratic Euclidean case, cA(x,y)=xy2c_{\mathcal{A}}(x,y)=\norm{x-y}^2.

Proof

Every feasible path law induces π=(e0,e1)M\pi=(e_0,e_1)_\sharp M and satisfies AdMcAdπ\int\mathcal{A}\d M\geq\int c_{\mathcal{A}}\d\pi. Conversely, mixing the selected δ\delta-optimal paths against any endpoint coupling gives the reverse inequality after δ0\delta\downarrow0. Exact selections yield the stated optimizer.

Entropic Path-Space Problem

Let RϵP(Ω)\mathsf R^\epsilon\in\Pp(\Om) be a Brownian, Langevin, or other reference path law at noise level ϵ\epsilon.

This is Schrödinger’s entropy projection of a prior dynamics onto prescribed endpoint marginals Schrödinger, 1931Léonard, 2014. For the reference dXt=ϵdBt\d X_t=\sqrt\epsilon\,\d B_t started from α\alpha, Girsanov’s formula gives, under its usual integrability assumptions,

ϵKL(MRϵ)=12EM01ut2dt\epsilon\KL(M\mid\mathsf R^\epsilon) =\frac12\mathbb E_M\int_0^1\norm{u_t}^2\d t

when MM has controlled drift utu_t. Thus the bridge is the least energetic drift change steering the Brownian prior from α\alpha to β\beta.

Proof

Disintegrating MM and the reference with respect to their endpoints gives the entropy chain rule

KL(MRϵ)=KL(πR0,1ϵ)+KL(Mx,yRϵ,x,y)dπ(x,y).\KL(M\mid\mathsf R^\epsilon) =\KL(\pi\mid\mathsf R_{0,1}^\epsilon) +\int\KL(M^{x,y}\mid\mathsf R^{\epsilon,x,y})\d\pi(x,y).

The second term is nonnegative and vanishes exactly for the mixture of reference bridges.

A zero-noise conclusion requires a path-space large-deviation theorem, not only this definition. If Rϵ\mathsf R^\epsilon satisfies an LDP with speed 1/ϵ1/\epsilon and good action A\mathcal{A}, and exponential tightness plus the endpoint constraints yield constrained Γ\Gamma-convergence, then minima and suitably precompact minimizers converge to the unregularized path problem Léonard, 2012. For dXt=ϵdBt\d X_t=\sqrt\epsilon\,\d B_t, the rate action is 1201ω˙t2dt\frac12\int_0^1\norm{\dot\omega_t}^2\d t, so the limiting endpoint cost is xy2/2\norm{x-y}^2/2.

Brownian Bridges and Sinkhorn Couplings

For dXt=ϵdBt\d X_t=\sqrt\epsilon\,\d B_t, the unit-time Brownian transition density is

pϵ(x,y)=(2πϵ)d/2exp(xy2/(2ϵ)).p_\epsilon(x,y)=(2\pi\epsilon)^{-d/2} \exp(-\norm{x-y}^2/(2\epsilon)).

Thus ϵKL\epsilon\KL produces the cost xy2/2\norm{x-y}^2/2; the usual quadratic Sinkhorn convention exy2/ϵe^{-\norm{x-y}^2/\epsilon} corresponds to Brownian noise variance ϵ/2\epsilon/2. More generally, suppose that for reference probability measures αˉ,βˉ\bar\alpha,\bar\beta the endpoint prior is, with 0<Zϵ<+0<Z_\epsilon<+\infty,

R0,1ϵ(dx,dy)=Zϵ1ec(x,y)/ϵαˉ(dx)βˉ(dy),\mathsf R_{0,1}^\epsilon(\d x,\d y) =Z_\epsilon^{-1}e^{-c(x,y)/\epsilon} \bar\alpha(\d x)\bar\beta(\d y),

with ααˉ\alpha\ll\bar\alpha and ββˉ\beta\ll\bar\beta. For every feasible coupling, the chain rule gives

ϵKL(πR0,1ϵ)=cdπ+ϵKL(παβ)+ϵKL(ααˉ)+ϵKL(ββˉ)+ϵlogZϵ.\epsilon\KL(\pi|\mathsf R_{0,1}^\epsilon) =\int c\,\d\pi+\epsilon\KL(\pi|\alpha\otimes\beta) +\epsilon\KL(\alpha|\bar\alpha)+\epsilon\KL(\beta|\bar\beta) +\epsilon\log Z_\epsilon.

The last three terms are fixed by the marginals, so (45) is the continuous Sinkhorn problem up to an additive constant. If Brownian motion starts from α\alpha and β=bdy\beta=b\,\d y, the same identity contains the fixed one-body term ϵlogbdβ\epsilon\int\log b\,\d\beta. Thus the needed domination is βdy\beta\ll\d y (and α(Rϵ)0\alpha\ll(\mathsf R^\epsilon)_0 for another initial reference), not an absolute-continuity relation between α\alpha and β\beta.

<IPython.core.display.Image object>

Schematic endpoint couplings lifted to Brownian bridges. The discrete picture is literal for a reciprocal reference obtained by mixing endpoint-conditioned Brownian bridges with a discrete endpoint prior; an ordinary unconditioned Brownian reference cannot have an atomic terminal law at finite entropy.

Generalized Dynamic Wasserstein Distances

The quadratic Benamou--Brenier formula is only one instance of a broader fixed-mass dynamic language. The goal of this section is to define a large family of geodesic-like geometries on spaces of probability measures by modifying the action minimized in the Benamou--Brenier formula. An arbitrary action first defines only a path value; metric properties require the symmetry, homogeneity, nondegeneracy, and closure assumptions isolated below. All descent constructions are postponed to Generalized Dynamic Wasserstein Flows, where these distances are used to generate gradient-flow PDE models.

Path Actions

The common construction replaces the quadratic kinetic energy in the Benamou--Brenier formula by an instantaneous action while retaining the continuity equation and endpoint constraints.

In the mass-preserving Euclidean setting, the basic input is an instantaneous action A(α,w)\mathbb A(\alpha,w), where α\alpha is the current measure and ww is an admissible velocity representative.

Equivalently, one may quotient by velocity fields that induce the same first-order variation of the measure. This value need not be symmetric or separate measures, and its square root need not satisfy the triangle inequality. For an rr-homogeneous action satisfying Proposition Proposition: Homogeneous Dynamic Actions Define Distances, its rr-th root is a distance. Some standard distances, such as Wp\Wass_p, are first written with a pp-homogeneous action and then squared by taking a constant-speed parametrization; this normalization is made explicit below. Different choices of A\mathbb A change the resulting geometry; Generalized Dynamic Wasserstein Flows later reuses these choices when dynamics are introduced.

Quadratic, or Riemannian, Tangent Actions

A particularly transparent case occurs when wA(α,w)w\mapsto\mathbb A(\alpha,w) is quadratic. For simplicity, take admissible velocities in L2(α;Rd)L^2(\alpha;\RR^d); in some applications this Hilbert space is replaced by a closed subspace encoding additional constraints. Suppose the polarization of A\mathbb A is represented by a positive self-adjoint operator Qα:L2(α;Rd)L2(α;Rd)Q_\alpha:L^2(\alpha;\RR^d)\to L^2(\alpha;\RR^d),

A(α;w,z)=Qαw,zL2(α),A(α,w)=Qαw,wL2(α),\mathbb A(\alpha;w,z) = \left\langle Q_\alpha w,z\right\rangle_{L^2(\alpha)}, \qquad \mathbb A(\alpha,w)=\left\langle Q_\alpha w,w\right\rangle_{L^2(\alpha)},

To obtain a genuine tangent norm, this quadratic form must be nondegenerate after quotienting velocity fields that induce the same measure variation.

The associated quadratic path value is

DQ2(α0,α1)=EA(α0,α1)=inftαt+div(αtvt)=0αt=0=α0, αt=1=α101Qαtvt,vtL2(αt)dt.\mathsf D_Q^2(\alpha_0,\alpha_1) = \mathsf E_{\mathbb A}(\alpha_0,\alpha_1) = \inf_{\substack{\partial_t\alpha_t+\operatorname{div}(\alpha_t v_t)=0\\ \alpha_{t=0}=\alpha_0,\ \alpha_{t=1}=\alpha_1}} \int_0^1 \left\langle Q_{\alpha_t}v_t,v_t\right\rangle_{L^2(\alpha_t)} \d t .

If the dynamic problem is also sequentially closed and attains finite infima as in Proposition: Homogeneous Dynamic Actions Define Distances, DQ\mathsf D_Q is an extended distance. The usual W2\Wass_2 geometry corresponds to Qα=IdQ_\alpha=\Id in this simplified notation. Thus QαQ_\alpha records how the chosen geometry deforms the Euclidean L2(α)L^2(\alpha) tangent norm: no deformation for W2\Wass_2, and a nontrivial tensor for generalized Riemannian geometries. Generalized Dynamic Wasserstein Flows later reuses the same tensor as a preconditioner for metric descent.

Local Velocity Actions

Many dynamic distances are local with respect to a reference measure λ\lambda. Write α=aλ\alpha=a\lambda. A velocity action is specified by a pointwise integrand

A:[0,+)×Rd[0,+],(a,w)A(a,w),A:[0,+\infty)\times\RR^d\to[0,+\infty], \qquad (a,w)\mapsto A(a,w),

where aR+a\in\RR_+ is a density value and wRdw\in\RR^d is a velocity value, and defines

A(α,w)=A(dαdλ(x),w(x))dλ(x).\mathbb A(\alpha,w) = \int A\left(\frac{\d\alpha}{\d\lambda}(x),w(x)\right)\d\lambda(x).

For a fixed reference λ\lambda, this covers density-dependent mobilities and congestion constraints. If, in addition, AA is positively 1-homogeneous in its first variable, A(ηa,w)=ηA(a,w)A(\eta a,w)=\eta A(a,w) for η0\eta\geq0, then the same formula is intrinsic: replacing λ\lambda by another dominating measure gives the same value. The usual Benamou--Brenier action is the model case

A2(a,w)=aw2,A(α,w)=w2dα.A_2(a,w)=a\norm{w}^2, \qquad \mathbb A(\alpha,w)=\int\norm{w}^2\d\alpha .

Homogeneous Momentum Actions

The same action can be written in momentum variables, and this is the form in which convexity and metric properties are easiest to read. Set ω=αw\omega=\alpha w, so that ω\omega is a vector-valued measure. When the local description is written with the same reference λ\lambda, so that α=aλ\alpha=a\lambda and ω=mλ\omega=m\lambda, the pointwise momentum perspective is

JA(a,m):={A(a,m/a),a>0,0,a=0 and m=0,+,a=0 and m0,J_A(a,m) \eqdef \begin{cases} A(a,m/a), & a>0,\\ 0, & a=0\ \text{and}\ m=0,\\ +\infty, & a=0\ \text{and}\ m\neq0, \end{cases}

and the measure action relative to λ\lambda is

JA,λ(α,ω):=JA ⁣(dαdλ,dωdλ)dλ,\mathbb J_{A,\lambda}(\alpha,\omega) \eqdef \int J_A\!\left( \frac{\d\alpha}{\d\lambda}, \frac{\d\omega}{\d\lambda} \right)\d\lambda,

with value ++\infty if α\alpha or the total variation ω|\omega| is not absolutely continuous with respect to λ\lambda. This zero-density convention is the lower-semicontinuous one for the superlinear actions used below; other growths use the corresponding recession extension. If AA is positively 1-homogeneous in aa, then JAJ_A is jointly 1-homogeneous: JA(ηa,ηm)=ηJA(a,m)J_A(\eta a,\eta m)=\eta J_A(a,m). In that intrinsic case the value of JA,λ\mathbb J_{A,\lambda} is independent of the dominating reference measure, and we write simply JA\mathbb J_A. For A2(a,w)=aw2A_2(a,w)=a\norm{w}^2, one recovers the quadratic perspective

J2(a,m)=m2a,J_2(a,m)=\frac{\norm m^2}{a},

which is the integrand used in the convex Benamou--Brenier formulation.

Proof

The perspective P(s,m)=sL(m/s)P(s,m)=sL(m/s) of a convex function is convex on s>0s>0. Since L(0)=0L(0)=0, it is also nonincreasing in ss for fixed mm: if s2s1>0s_2\geq s_1>0, then

L(m/s2)=L ⁣((s1/s2)(m/s1))(s1/s2)L(m/s1),L(m/s_2) = L\!\left((s_1/s_2)(m/s_1)\right) \leq (s_1/s_2)L(m/s_1),

hence P(s2,m)P(s1,m)P(s_2,m)\leq P(s_1,m). Let aζ=(1ζ)a0+ζa1a_\zeta=(1-\zeta)a_0+\zeta a_1 and mζ=(1ζ)m0+ζm1m_\zeta=(1-\zeta)m_0+\zeta m_1. Concavity of θ\theta gives θ(aζ)(1ζ)θ(a0)+ζθ(a1)\theta(a_\zeta)\geq(1-\zeta)\theta(a_0)+\zeta\theta(a_1). Monotonicity in ss, followed by convexity of PP, gives

Jθ,L(aζ,mζ)P((1ζ)θ(a0)+ζθ(a1),mζ)(1ζ)Jθ,L(a0,m0)+ζJθ,L(a1,m1).J_{\theta,L}(a_\zeta,m_\zeta) \leq P((1-\zeta)\theta(a_0)+\zeta\theta(a_1),m_\zeta) \leq (1-\zeta)J_{\theta,L}(a_0,m_0) +\zeta J_{\theta,L}(a_1,m_1).

Boundary cases follow from the lower-semicontinuous extension.

The next proposition isolates the assumptions under which the momentum formulation generated by AA defines a path metric rather than only a variational principle.

Proof

Zero self-distance is obtained by the constant curve. Conversely, if the distance is zero, attainment supplies a relaxed zero-action minimizer. Thus JA,λ(αt,ωt)=0\mathbb J_{A,\lambda}(\alpha_t,\omega_t)=0 a.e., hence ωt=0\omega_t=0 a.e.; the continuity equation then gives α0=α1\alpha_0=\alpha_1. Symmetry follows by time reversal and evenness in mm. For the triangle inequality, concatenate two almost optimal curves with actions E1,E2E_1,E_2, allocating time fractions τ\tau and 1τ1-\tau. By rr-homogeneity the action is τ1rE1+(1τ)1rE2\tau^{1-r}E_1+(1-\tau)^{1-r}E_2. Optimizing in τ\tau gives (E11/r+E21/r)r(E_1^{1/r}+E_2^{1/r})^r, and the result follows after taking infima.

Without homogeneity or nondegeneracy, the same momentum action remains useful as a variational principle, but its rr-th root need not define a distance.

Concave-Mobility Actions

One can instead keep a quadratic momentum action and change the mobility. Dolbeault, Nazaret and Savaré introduced this construction as a class of generalized transport distances adapted to nonlinear diffusion Dolbeault et al., 2009.

The convexity of JθJ_\theta is the special case L(u)=u2L(u)=\norm u^2 of Proposition Proposition: Concave Mobilities Give Convex Momentum Actions. This is why concavity of the mobility, rather than convexity, is the structural condition that makes the continuity-equation formulation convex.

Fix now a reference measure λ\lambda. If α=aλ\alpha=a\lambda, the induced squared tangent action is

Aθ,λ(α,w)=Aθ(a(x),w(x))dλ(x)=a(x)2θ(a(x))w(x)2dλ(x),\mathbb A_{\theta,\lambda}(\alpha,w) = \int A_\theta(a(x),w(x))\,\d\lambda(x) = \int \frac{a(x)^2}{\theta(a(x))}\norm{w(x)}^2\,\d\lambda(x),

with the closed convention above. It is ++\infty when α≪̸λ\alpha\not\ll\lambda or aa leaves II on a set of positive λ\lambda-measure. Equivalently, on the set where θ(a(x))>0\theta(a(x))>0,

Aθ,λ(α,w)=a(x)θ(a(x))w(x)2dα(x).\mathbb A_{\theta,\lambda}(\alpha,w) = \int \frac{a(x)}{\theta(a(x))}\norm{w(x)}^2\,\d\alpha(x).

Hence this is a local Riemannian case whenever the multiplier a(x)/θ(a(x))a(x)/\theta(a(x)) is finite and positive, in the sense of (53). The associated tensor is the multiplication operator

(Qθ,λ,αw)(x)=a(x)θ(a(x))w(x),α=aλ,\big(Q_{\theta,\lambda,\alpha}w\big)(x) = \frac{a(x)}{\theta(a(x))}w(x), \qquad \alpha=a\lambda,

defined α\alpha-a.e. on the set where θ(a)>0\theta(a)>0. Except for linear mobilities θ(a)=ca\theta(a)=ca, and in particular the normalized case θ(a)=a\theta(a)=a which recovers W2\Wass_2, the pointwise velocity action Aθ(a,w)A_\theta(a,w) is not positively 1-homogeneous in the density variable aa. Consequently the construction is not intrinsic under a change of λ\lambda: the resulting distance depends on the chosen reference measure and is finite only between endpoints that can be joined by a finite-action curve with αtλ\alpha_t\ll\lambda.

The subscript λ\lambda recalls that the action is measured through the density a=dα/dλa=\d\alpha/\d\lambda. Equivalently, because this action is quadratic in the momentum, Wθ,λ2\mathsf W_{\theta,\lambda}^2 is the path value (51) with A=Aθ,λ\mathbb A=\mathbb A_{\theta,\lambda}.

Proof

Proposition Proposition: Concave Mobilities Give Convex Momentum Actions, applied with L(u)=u2L(u)=\norm u^2, gives convexity on the positive-mobility region. Continuity of θ\theta, the zero-mobility convention, and the barrier outside II give the lower-semicontinuous extension JθJ_\theta. It is even in mm, satisfies Jθ(a,0)=0J_\theta(a,0)=0 on II, and obeys

Jθ(a,ξm)=ξ2Jθ(a,m).J_\theta(a,\xi m)=|\xi|^2J_\theta(a,m).

Moreover Jθ(a,m)=0J_\theta(a,m)=0 if and only if m=0m=0, with the boundary convention used in its definition. For the fixed reference λ\lambda, the hypotheses of Proposition Proposition: Homogeneous Dynamic Actions Define Distances therefore hold with r=2r=2; the compactness hypothesis supplies its existence assumption. That proposition gives symmetry, separation and the triangle inequality for DAθ,λ\mathsf D_{A_\theta,\lambda}, hence for Wθ,λ\mathsf W_{\theta,\lambda}.

The choice θ(a)=a\theta(a)=a recovers W2\Wass_2. Other choices encode different geometry: θ(a)=aγ\theta(a)=a^\gamma with 0<γ10<\gamma\leq1 changes the cost of moving dilute mass, while θ(a)=a(1a/M)\theta(a)=a(1-a/M) on [0,M][0,M] models a volume-filling or exclusion effect. The distance is comparable with W2\Wass_2 on classes where θ(a)\theta(a) is bounded above and below by positive multiples of aa; otherwise zero-mobility barriers can make some pairs infinitely far apart.

Dynamic Spectral Wasserstein Distances

The static spectral distances of Spectral and Robust Wasserstein Distances penalize a coupling through the covariance of its displacement. A dynamic version keeps the continuity equation but replaces the pointwise kinetic energy by a gauge of the whole velocity covariance. The resulting action is nonlocal in space: velocity directions are charged globally through their covariance, rather than independently at each point.

The trace gauge gives the usual Wasserstein tangent action, while the operator gauge γ(M)=λmax(M)\gamma(M)=\lambda_{\max}(M) charges only the largest directional velocity variance.

In density--momentum variables, this corresponds to the measure action

Jγ(α,ω)=γ ⁣((dωdα)(dωdα)dα),\mathbb J_\gamma(\alpha,\omega) = \gamma\!\left(\int \left(\frac{\d\omega}{\d\alpha}\right) \left(\frac{\d\omega}{\d\alpha}\right)^\top \d\alpha\right),

or, when α=ρdx\alpha=\rho\,\d x and ω=mdx\omega=m\,\d x,

Jγ(ρ,m)=γ ⁣(m(x)m(x)ρ(x)dx).\mathbb J_\gamma(\rho,m) = \gamma\!\left(\int \frac{m(x)m(x)^\top}{\rho(x)}\,\d x\right).

This functional is convex in the density--momentum fields (ρ,m)(\rho,m) by the matrix perspective, together with the monotonicity and convexity of γ\gamma. It is nevertheless not, in general, obtained by integrating a pointwise action density, because the covariance is computed globally before applying γ\gamma. Among spectral gauges, the linear ones are exactly the scaled traces γ(M)=ctr(M)\gamma(M)=c\operatorname{tr}(M) with c>0c>0. Their velocity and momentum densities are

Alin(a,w)=caw2,Jlin(a,m)=cm2a.A_{\mathrm{lin}}(a,w)=ca\norm w^2, \qquad J_{\mathrm{lin}}(a,m)=c\frac{\norm m^2}{a}.

The case c=1c=1 recovers Benamou--Brenier. A functional Mtr(GM)M\mapsto\operatorname{tr}(GM) with nonscalar G0G\succeq0 is Loewner-monotone but not orthogonally invariant, hence anisotropic rather than spectral.

The following result, in the form used for normalized spectral flows in Peyré, 2026, shows that this dynamic construction is not merely infinitesimal: it exactly recovers the static displacement-covariance formulation.

Proof

First let πΠ(α0,α1)\pi\in\Couplings(\alpha_0,\alpha_1), let (X,Y)π(X,Y)\sim\pi, set Zt=(1t)X+tYZ_t=(1-t)X+tY and αt=(Zt)π\alpha_t=(Z_t)_\sharp\pi, and define the Eulerian velocity as the conditional mean vt(z)=E[YXZt=z]v_t(z)=\mathbb E[Y-X\mid Z_t=z]. Then (αt,vt)(\alpha_t,v_t) solves the continuity equation. If Mπ=(xy)(xy)dπ(x,y)M_\pi=\int(x-y)(x-y)^\top\d\pi(x,y) and Ct=vt(z)vt(z)dαt(z)C_t=\int v_t(z)v_t(z)^\top\d\alpha_t(z), conditional Jensen gives CtMπC_t\preceq M_\pi: for every uRdu\in\RR^d,

uCtu=E ⁣[E[u,YXZt]2]E[u,YX2]=uMπu.u^\top C_tu = \mathbb E\!\left[\mathbb E[\langle u,Y-X\rangle\mid Z_t]^2\right] \leq \mathbb E[\langle u,Y-X\rangle^2] = u^\top M_\pi u .

Since γ\gamma is monotone for the Loewner order, 01γ(Ct)dtγ(Mπ)\int_0^1\gamma(C_t)\d t\leq\gamma(M_\pi). Infimizing over π\pi gives Wγ,dyn2Wγ2\mathsf W_{\gamma,\mathrm{dyn}}^2\leq\Wass_\gamma^2.

Conversely, let (αt,vt)(\alpha_t,v_t) be a finite-action competitor. Since γ\gamma is a finite positive gauge on the finite-dimensional cone S+d\mathbb S_+^d, it is equivalent to the trace on this cone; hence finite spectral action gives finite kinetic energy. By the superposition principle, the competitor is represented by a probability law η\eta on absolutely continuous paths satisfying ω˙t=vt(ωt)\dot\omega_t=v_t(\omega_t). For the endpoint coupling π=(e0,e1)η\pi=(e_0,e_1)_\sharp\eta, Jensen along each path gives

(ω1ω0)(ω1ω0)01ω˙tω˙tdt.(\omega_1-\omega_0)(\omega_1-\omega_0)^\top \preceq \int_0^1\dot\omega_t\dot\omega_t^\top\d t .

After integration over the path law, Mπ01CtdtM_\pi\preceq\int_0^1 C_t\d t. Therefore monotonicity and convexity of γ\gamma imply

γ(Mπ)γ ⁣(01Ctdt)01γ(Ct)dt.\gamma(M_\pi) \leq \gamma\!\left(\int_0^1 C_t\d t\right) \leq \int_0^1\gamma(C_t)\d t .

The static value is thus no larger than any dynamic action. The crucial hypothesis is the monotonicity of γ\gamma: the proof only produces Loewner-order comparisons of covariance matrices, and these comparisons control the action only for monotone gauges.

The use of this geometry for normalized flows, including the operator-gauge connection with Muon-type normalization, is developed in Dynamic Spectral Wasserstein Flows.

Kernelized Benamou--Brenier Distances

A different way to deform the Benamou--Brenier geometry is to keep the local continuity equation but to measure velocities in a reproducing-kernel Hilbert space rather than in L2(α)L^2(\alpha). This construction is motivated by Stein variational gradient descent, studied later in Stein Variational Gradient Descent: the kernel makes the velocity field computable from particles, while its regularity is inherited from that of the kernel. The price is a much more restrictive transport geometry.

This is the vector-valued analogue of the scalar RKHS norm used for MMDs in Dual RKHS Norms and Maximum Mean Discrepancies. The action itself is independent of α\alpha; the measure only enters through the continuity equation tαt+div(αtvt)=0\partial_t\alpha_t+\diverg(\alpha_t v_t)=0, which says how the common velocity field moves all particles. This type of Stein geometry was introduced in the analysis of SVGD by Liu and Wang Liu & Wang, 2016Liu, 2017 and later developed geometrically in Duncan et al., 2023Nüsken & Renger, 2023. The important caveat is that the admissible tangent space is the restricted RKHS class, not the whole Wasserstein tangent space; its regularity depends on kk.

Proof

The Borel assumption makes every RKHS function measurable: kernel sections and their finite linear combinations are Borel, while the bounded evaluation estimate turns RKHS-norm convergence into uniform convergence. The constant curve gives zero self-distance. The RKHS evaluation bound gives v(x)κkvHkd\norm{v(x)}\leq\kappa_k\norm{v}_{\RKHS_k^d}. Therefore, for every φCc1(Rd)\varphi\in C_c^1(\RR^d) and every admissible curve of action EE, the weak continuity equation and Cauchy--Schwarz imply

φd(α1α0)01 ⁣φ(x)vt(x)dαt(x)dtκkφ(01vtHkd2dt)1/2=κkφE.\begin{aligned} \left|\int\varphi\,\d(\alpha_1-\alpha_0)\right| &\leq \int_0^1\!\int\norm{\nabla\varphi(x)}\,\norm{v_t(x)} \,\d\alpha_t(x)\d t\\ &\leq \kappa_k\norm{\nabla\varphi}_\infty \left(\int_0^1\norm{v_t}_{\RKHS_k^d}^2\d t\right)^{1/2} =\kappa_k\norm{\nabla\varphi}_\infty\sqrt E. \end{aligned}

Taking the infimum over curves proves separation without assuming that a zero-action minimizer exists. Symmetry follows by time reversal and by replacing vtv_t with v1t-v_{1-t}. For the triangle inequality, concatenate two almost optimal curves of actions E1E_1 and E2E_2. Compressing them into time intervals of lengths τ\tau and 1τ1-\tau changes the total action to E1/τ+E2/(1τ)E_1/\tau+E_2/(1-\tau). Optimizing gives (E1+E2)2(\sqrt{E_1}+\sqrt{E_2})^2, and taking infima yields the claim.

One should read Wk\mathcal W_k as an extended distance on finite-action components, not as a replacement for W2\Wass_2 on all of P2(Rd)\Pp_2(\RR^d). A useful sufficient condition for finiteness is that the endpoints lie on the same RKHS-flow orbit: if there exists vL2([0,1];Hkd)v\in L^2([0,1];\RKHS_k^d) whose flow map Φt\Phi_t solves Φ˙t=vtΦt\dot\Phi_t=v_t\circ\Phi_t and satisfies α1=(Φ1)α0\alpha_1=(\Phi_1)_\sharp\alpha_0, then Wk2(α0,α1)01vtHkd2dt\mathcal W_k^2(\alpha_0,\alpha_1)\leq\int_0^1\norm{v_t}_{\RKHS_k^d}^2\d t. For a concrete particle criterion, assume additionally that kk is continuous and strictly positive definite. If pairwise-distinct atoms follow absolutely continuous paths xi(t)x_i(t) with square-integrable speeds, the Gram matrices (k(xi(t),xj(t)))i,j(k(x_i(t),x_j(t)))_{i,j} vary continuously and remain uniformly positive definite. Their minimum-norm RKHS interpolants therefore have square-integrable norm, so discrete measures with the corresponding fixed weights are at finite distance. Smooth or Lipschitz interpolating fields require the corresponding regularity assumptions on kk; strict positive definiteness alone does not provide them.

The same condition also explains the limitation. If kk is smooth enough that Hkd\RKHS_k^d embeds into Lipschitz vector fields, finite-action curves are induced by regular flows. Atomic measures remain atomic with the same number of atoms, so a Dirac mass cannot be transported at finite kernelized action to a measure with a density. This lack of splitting is precisely what makes the geometry useful for deterministic particle methods, and also what makes it a nontrivial extended object rather than a full probability metric.

Nonlocal Wasserstein Distances

The local dynamic distances above transport mass through a vector field on the base space and a classical continuity equation. Nonlocal geometries use a different tangent model: the elementary motion is an exchange across an edge or a jump from xx to yy. The common data are a reversible kernel KK, a symmetric edge or jump measure J\mathsf J, a pairwise increment ˉ\bar\nabla, and a pair-space action AK\mathbb A_K. The tangent variable is therefore attached to pairs of points, not to a single point xx, so these constructions are not simply obtained by choosing another pointwise local action-density A(ρ(x),m(x))A(\rho(x),m(x)).

There are two complementary versions. On a finite state space, the goal is to put a Wasserstein-like geometry on the probability simplex so that the entropy gradient flow is exactly a prescribed reversible Markov chain Maas, 2011Mielke, 2013Chow et al., 2012. On a continuum space, the same edge calculus becomes a jump calculus over X×X\mathcal X\times\mathcal X, which models nonlocal motion, heavy-tailed jumps, and fractional-type diffusion; this is the construction of Erbar Erbar, 2014, building on nonlinear mobilities Dolbeault et al., 2009, with subsequent metric and asymptotic refinements Slepčev & Warren, 2022.

For a,b>0a,b>0, it satisfies θ(a,b)(logalogb)=ab\theta(a,b)(\log a-\log b)=a-b. At vacuum this relation is understood only as a limiting identity. This edge-wise chain rule identifies entropy-driven flows with the underlying reversible Markov or jump dynamics.

Continuum Jump Kernels

The continuum version replaces graph edges by a symmetric measure on pairs. Weak compactness requires a formulation for arbitrary measures and pair-flux measures; the density--velocity formula is only its absolutely continuous specialization.

Let (X,d)(\mathcal X,d) be Polish, let m\mathfrak m be Radon, and let K(x,)K(x,\cdot) be a nonnegative Borel kernel. Assume that the pair measures below are locally finite on the off-diagonal space G={(x,y):xy}\mathcal G=\{(x,y):x\neq y\}. Define

GΦ(x,y)J(dx,dy):=X(X{x}Φ(x,y)K(x,dy))m(dx).\int_{\mathcal G}\Phi(x,y)\,\mathsf J(\d x,\d y) \eqdef \int_{\mathcal X}\left(\int_{\mathcal X\setminus\{x\}} \Phi(x,y)K(x,\d y)\right)\mathfrak m(\d x).

Reversibility means that J\mathsf J is invariant under (x,y)(y,x)(x,y)\mapsto(y,x). Write ˉφ(x,y)=φ(y)φ(x)\bar\nabla\varphi(x,y)=\varphi(y)-\varphi(x). For αP(X)\alpha\in\Pp(\mathcal X) define the oriented edge measures

α1(dx,dy)=K(x,dy)α(dx),α2(dx,dy)=K(y,dx)α(dy).\alpha^1(\d x,\d y)=K(x,\d y)\alpha(\d x), \qquad \alpha^2(\d x,\d y)=K(y,\d x)\alpha(\d y).

If a measure ς\varsigma dominates α1\alpha^1, α2\alpha^2, and a signed pair-flux ν\nu, write ri=dαi/dςr_i=\d\alpha^i/\d\varsigma and q=dν/dςq=\d\nu/\d\varsigma. Positive homogeneity makes the following action independent of ς\varsigma.

If α=ρm\alpha=\rho\mathfrak m and ν=v(x,y)θ(ρ(x),ρ(y))J\nu=v(x,y)\theta(\rho(x),\rho(y))\mathsf J, then

AK(α,ν)=12Gv(x,y)2θ(ρ(x),ρ(y))J(dx,dy).\mathbb A_K(\alpha,\nu) =\frac12\int_{\mathcal G}|v(x,y)|^2 \theta(\rho(x),\rho(y))\mathsf J(\d x,\d y).

This recovers the intuitive density--velocity formula, but relaxed minimizers need not remain absolutely continuous with respect to m\mathfrak m.

The definition makes sense on a general Polish space, but the metric and compactness theorems need additional analytic assumptions. We record the Euclidean result used here.

Proof

The integrand in (92) is a convex lower-semicontinuous perspective, homogeneous in (r1,r2,q)(r_1,r_2,q), and the logarithmic mean satisfies Assumption 2.1 of Erbar (2014). Proposition 3.4 there gives compactness and closure of the measure--flux continuity equation, Proposition 4.3 gives attainment and constant-speed parametrization, and Theorem 4.4 gives definiteness, completeness, and geodesicity. Time reversal gives symmetry, while time-optimized concatenation gives the triangle inequality.

For a fixed jump kernel this geometry is genuinely nonlocal and does not coincide with ordinary W2\Wass_2. A local metric is recovered in a small-jump limit only if the kernel can transport through vacuum. More explicitly, set X=Rd\mathcal X=\mathbb R^d and m=Ld\mathfrak m=\mathcal L^d, and let η(z)=ηˉ(z)\eta(z)=\bar\eta(\lVert z\rVert) satisfy Assumptions 2.1--2.2 of Slepčev & Warren (2022), including radial monotonicity and the required tail and nondegeneracy bounds, and suppose that

M2(η):=Rdz2η(z)dz(0,+),M_2(\eta):=\int_{\mathbb R^d}\lVert z\rVert^2\eta(z)\,\mathrm dz \in(0,+\infty),

and, for some c,r0>0c,r_0>0 and s(0,2)s\in(0,2),

η(z)czdswhenever 0<z<r0.\eta(z)\geq c\lVert z\rVert^{-d-s} \qquad\text{whenever }0<\lVert z\rVert<r_0.

and define

Kε(x,dy):=ηε(yx)dy,ηε(z):=εdη(z/ε).K_\varepsilon(x,\mathrm dy) :=\eta_\varepsilon(y-x)\,\mathrm dy, \qquad \eta_\varepsilon(z):=\varepsilon^{-d}\eta(z/\varepsilon).

Radiality implies symmetry and isotropy, and a change of variables gives

yx2Kε(x,dy)=ε2M2(η),(yx)(yx)Kε(x,dy)=ε2M2(η)dId.\int\lVert y-x\rVert^2K_\varepsilon(x,\mathrm dy) =\varepsilon^2M_2(\eta), \qquad \int (y-x)(y-x)^\top K_\varepsilon(x,\mathrm dy) =\varepsilon^2\frac{M_2(\eta)}{d}\operatorname{Id}.

Equation (99) is the precise sense in which the second-moment jump scale is ε\varepsilon. To obtain a nontrivial local limit, one simultaneously accelerates the jump rate by ε2\varepsilon^{-2} and sets

K^ε:=2dε2M2(η)Kε,(yx)(yx)K^ε(x,dy)=2Id.\widehat K_\varepsilon :=\frac{2d}{\varepsilon^2M_2(\eta)}K_\varepsilon, \qquad \int (y-x)(y-x)^\top\widehat K_\varepsilon(x,\mathrm dy) =2\operatorname{Id}.

Multiplying a jump kernel by c>0c>0 divides the associated distance by c\sqrt c. Theorem 1.3 of Slepčev & Warren (2022) therefore gives, for endpoints supported in a fixed compact set,

WK^ε=εM2(η)2dWKεW2(ε0).\mathcal W_{\widehat K_\varepsilon} =\varepsilon\sqrt{\frac{M_2(\eta)}{2d}}\, \mathcal W_{K_\varepsilon} \longrightarrow\Wass_2 \qquad(\varepsilon\to0).

The singular lower bound (97) is essential for the logarithmic mean because θ(1,0)=0\theta(1,0)=0. A smooth integrable profile, including the usual bounded compactly supported kernels, does not satisfy this theorem: in that regime a Dirac mass can be at infinite nonlocal distance from another compactly supported singular measure although their W2\Wass_2 distance is finite Slepčev & Warren, 2022.

There is a rigorous anisotropic extension for affine images of such kernels. If BB is invertible and

ηB(z)=detB1η(B1z),\eta_B(z)=|\det B|^{-1}\eta(B^{-1}z),

define

KB,ε(x,dy)=εdηB((yx)/ε)dy,K^B,ε=2dε2M2(η)KB,ε.K_{B,\varepsilon}(x,\d y) =\varepsilon^{-d}\eta_B((y-x)/\varepsilon)\d y, \qquad \widehat K_{B,\varepsilon} =\frac{2d}{\varepsilon^2M_2(\eta)}K_{B,\varepsilon}.

Then the change of variables x=Bξx=B\xi, y=Bζy=B\zeta, together with the one-homogeneity of the logarithmic mean, gives

WK^B,ε(α0,α1)=WK^ε(B1α0,B1α1)W2(B1α0,B1α1).\mathcal W_{\widehat K_{B,\varepsilon}}(\alpha_0,\alpha_1) = \mathcal W_{\widehat K_\varepsilon} (B^{-1}_\sharp\alpha_0,B^{-1}_\sharp\alpha_1) \longrightarrow \Wass_2(B^{-1}_\sharp\alpha_0,B^{-1}_\sharp\alpha_1).

The limiting accelerated covariance is 2BB2BB^\top, and the local velocity action is v(BB)1vdα\int v^\top(BB^\top)^{-1}v\,\d\alpha. For a general anisotropic profile this covariance gives only the candidate local action: a convergence theorem additionally requires compactness, recovery sequences, tail control, and vacuum connectivity.

Discrete Wasserstein Distances on Markov Chains

The finite-state version keeps the same pair-space philosophy, but with a finite graph of admissible exchanges. It is not the naive Euclidean metric on the simplex. The key idea, introduced by Maas and independently developed in related forms by Mielke and by Chow--Huang--Li--Zhou, is to use the transition graph of a reversible Markov chain to define both the admissible directions and the mobility of the mass Maas, 2011Mielke, 2013Chow et al., 2012. The entropy gradient-flow interpretation is stated later in Proposition: Entropy Gradient Flow of a Reversible Markov Chain.

Let X={1,,n}\mathcal X=\{1,\ldots,n\} and let K=(Kij)K=(K_{ij}) denote the off-diagonal transition rates of an irreducible continuous-time Markov chain reversible with respect to a probability vector π\pi, so that πiKij=πjKji\pi_iK_{ij}=\pi_jK_{ji} for iji\neq j. Write

Jij:=πiKij=πjKji\mathsf J_{ij}\eqdef \pi_iK_{ij}=\pi_jK_{ji}

for the symmetric edge measure, the finite counterpart of the jump measure used above. The transported object is a mass histogram

Σn:={aR+n:iai=1}.\Sigma_n\eqdef\left\{a\in\RR_+^n:\sum_i a_i=1\right\}.

Relative densities only enter as auxiliary variables with respect to the invariant law:

ρi(a):=aiπi,ai=πiρi(a).\rho_i(a)\eqdef \frac{a_i}{\pi_i}, \qquad a_i=\pi_i\rho_i(a).

The logarithmic mean θ\theta defined in (89) is the mobility selected so that the entropy calculus later recovers exactly the Markov evolution. The identity θ(a,b)(logalogb)=ab\theta(a,b)(\log a-\log b)=a-b converts entropy gradients into density differences along graph edges. For a potential ψRn\psi\in\RR^n, set

ˉψ(i,j):=ψjψi.\bar\nabla\psi(i,j)\eqdef\psi_j-\psi_i.

The finite nonlocal divergence is encoded by the density Onsager operator and by its mass form

(Kρψ)i:=jKijθ(ρi,ρj)(ψiψj),(Laψ)i:=πi(Kρ(a)ψ)i.(\mathcal K_\rho\psi)_i \eqdef \sum_j K_{ij}\theta(\rho_i,\rho_j)(\psi_i-\psi_j), \qquad (\mathcal L_a\psi)_i \eqdef \pi_i(\mathcal K_{\rho(a)}\psi)_i.

with tangent action

AK(a,ψ):=12i,jJijθ(ρi(a),ρj(a))(ˉψ(i,j))2.\mathbb A_K(a,\psi) \eqdef \frac12\sum_{i,j}\mathsf J_{ij}\theta(\rho_i(a),\rho_j(a)) (\bar\nabla\psi(i,j))^2.

This is the finite-state squared tangent action; the tangent variable is the potential ψ\psi, or equivalently the induced edge flux, rather than an ambient Euclidean vector field.

The discrete transport distance is

WK2(a0,a1):=infat,ψt01AK(at,ψt)dt,a˙t+Latψt=0,\mathcal W_K^2(a_0,a_1) \eqdef \inf_{a_t,\psi_t} \int_0^1\mathbb A_K(a_t,\psi_t)\,\d t, \qquad \dot a_t+\mathcal L_{a_t}\psi_t=0,

with endpoint conditions at=0=a0a_{t=0}=a_0 and at=1=a1a_{t=1}=a_1. Equivalently, one can write the same formula in edge-flux variables: flux is only allowed along edges where Kij>0K_{ij}>0, and the denominator in the kinetic energy is the logarithmic mean of the two relative endpoint densities ρi(a)=ai/πi\rho_i(a)=a_i/\pi_i.

The first nontrivial finite Markov geometries already show how the logarithmic mean bends the simplex. In both examples below, take the uniform random walk on the complete neighbor graph, so πi=1/n\pi_i=1/n and Kij=1/(n1)K_{ij}=1/(n-1) for iji\neq j.

Figure Div visualizes these small-dimensional geometries and compares them with the ordinary Wasserstein distance associated with the 0/10/1 ground metric, for which W22\Wass_2^2 is one half of the total variation norm.

<IPython.core.display.Image object>

Discrete Wasserstein distances on small Markov-chain simplices. The left panel shows the closed-form profiles rWK(ar,ar0)r\mapsto \mathcal W_K(a_r,a_{r_0}), with ar=(r,1r)a_r=(r,1-r), for several anchors r0r_0 on Σ2\Sigma_2. The middle panel shows numerical level sets of WK(a,aˉ)\mathcal W_K(a,\bar a) on Σ3\Sigma_3, where aˉ=(1/3,1/3,1/3)\bar a=(1/3,1/3,1/3), using the local Riemannian norm induced by the complete-neighbor Markov chain. The right panel shows the corresponding level sets for the ordinary W2W_2 distance with d(i,j)=1d(i,j)=1 for iji\neq j, so that W22(a,aˉ)=12aaˉTVW_2^2(a,\bar a)=\tfrac12\norm{a-\bar a}_{\mathrm{TV}}.

Interactive panel. Move the anchor in the two-state formula and refine the three-state grid to compare the Markov-chain Riemannian distance with the ordinary simplex distance induced by the 0/10/1 ground metric.

Dynamic Unbalanced Wasserstein Distances

Balanced dynamic distances keep the total mass fixed: their tangent vectors are transport velocities or fluxes satisfying a continuity equation. Unbalanced distances use a different tangent model. A tangent vector now has both a spatial component and a reaction component, so mass can move, disappear, and reappear. This section isolates this reaction--transport geometry before its use for gradient flows in Dynamic Unbalanced OT and WFR Flows.

Balance Equation and Tangent Variables

Unbalanced dynamic transport is obtained by allowing mass to be created and destroyed along the path. At the density level, the continuity equation becomes a balance equation and an admissible tangent direction is a pair (m,s)(m,s): the flux density mm transports mass, while the source density ss changes its amount locally. This formulation underlies the Hellinger--Kantorovich and Wasserstein--Fisher--Rao metrics Liero et al., 2016Chizat et al., 2018; its equivalence with static entropy-transport and cone formulations is developed in Liero et al., 2018Chizat et al., 2018.

A representative quadratic action is

tρt+ ⁣mt=st,01 ⁣(mt2ρt+κ2st2ρt)dxdt,\partial_t\rho_t+\nabla\!\cdot m_t=s_t, \qquad \int_0^1\!\int \left(\frac{|m_t|^2}{\rho_t}+\kappa^2\frac{s_t^2}{\rho_t}\right)\d x\,\d t,

with the usual perspective convention: zero flux and zero source through zero density cost nothing, whereas nonzero flux or source through zero density has infinite cost. At the measure level these densities become the vector-valued flux measure ωt=mtdx\omega_t=m_t\,\d x and the signed source measure σt=stdx\sigma_t=s_t\,\d x.

Reaction--Transport Action

The action attaches one price to displacement and another to local growth. For a density a0a\geq0, a velocity wRdw\in\RR^d, and a relative growth rate gRg\in\RR, define

Aκ(a,w,g):=a(w2+κ2g2).A_\kappa(a,w,g) \eqdef a\bigl(\norm{w}^2+\kappa^2 g^2\bigr).

Thus, writing mt=ρtvtm_t=\rho_t v_t and st=ρtgts_t=\rho_t g_t, the smooth action is 01Aκ(ρt,vt,gt)dxdt\int_0^1\int A_\kappa(\rho_t,v_t,g_t)\,\d x\,\d t under tρt+ ⁣(ρtvt)=gtρt\partial_t\rho_t+\nabla\!\cdot(\rho_t v_t)=g_t\rho_t. The parameter κ\kappa fixes the relative cost of reaction and transport.

For the convex measure formulation, set m=awm=aw and r=agr=ag. The corresponding three-variable perspective is

Jκ(a,m,r):={m2+κ2r2a,a>0,0,a=0, m=0, r=0,+,a=0, (m,r)(0,0).J_\kappa(a,m,r) \eqdef \begin{cases} \displaystyle\frac{\norm{m}^2+\kappa^2 r^2}{a}, & a>0,\\ 0, & a=0,\ m=0,\ r=0,\\ +\infty, & a=0,\ (m,r)\neq(0,0). \end{cases}

For measure-valued triples, α\alpha denotes the transported measure, ω\omega the vector-valued flux measure, and σ\sigma the signed source measure. If λ\lambda dominates α\alpha, ω|\omega| and σ|\sigma|, define

Jκ(α,ω,σ):=Jκ ⁣(dαdλ,dωdλ,dσdλ)dλ.\mathbb J_\kappa(\alpha,\omega,\sigma) \eqdef \int J_\kappa\!\left( \frac{\d\alpha}{\d\lambda}, \frac{\d \omega}{\d\lambda}, \frac{\d \sigma}{\d\lambda} \right)\d\lambda .

The one-homogeneity of JκJ_\kappa makes this definition independent of the chosen dominating measure. Finite action forces both the flux and source to be absolutely continuous with respect to the transported mass.

Static and Dynamic Viewpoints

The balance-equation formula is the least-action representation of the same cone distance used in static unbalanced OT. To make the normalization explicit, define on the cone C[Rd]\mathfrak C[\RR^d] the squared cost

Δκ((x,r),(y,s))2:=4κ2[r2+s22rscos ⁣(xy2κπ2)].\Delta_\kappa\big((x,r),(y,s)\big)^2 \eqdef 4\kappa^2 \left[ r^2+s^2-2rs \cos\!\left( \frac{\norm{x-y}}{2\kappa}\wedge\frac{\pi}{2} \right) \right].

The radii encode masses through the weighted projection P2\mathsf P_2 defined in Unbalanced OT. Accordingly, set

CWκ(α0,α1):=infγM+(C[Rd]2)P2γ1=α0, P2γ2=α1Δκ((x,r),(y,s))2dγ(x,r,y,s).\CW_\kappa(\alpha_0,\alpha_1) \eqdef \inf_{\substack{\gamma\in\Mm_+(\mathfrak C[\RR^d]^2)\\ \mathsf P_2\gamma_1=\alpha_0,\ \mathsf P_2\gamma_2=\alpha_1}} \int \Delta_\kappa\big((x,r),(y,s)\big)^2 \,\d\gamma(x,r,y,s).

For κ=1/2\kappa=1/2, this is exactly the normalization of the Hellinger--Kantorovich cone cost used in Unbalanced OT.

Proof

The cone construction turns variation of mass into radial motion and spatial transport into angular motion. The normalization can be checked on a smooth cone path: if its base position is xtx_t, its radius is rtr_t, and the projected mass is at=rt2a_t=r_t^2, then gt=a˙t/at=2r˙t/rtg_t=\dot a_t/a_t=2\dot r_t/r_t. The infinitesimal energy induced by (122) is therefore

4κ2r˙t2+rt2x˙t2=at(x˙t2+κ2gt2),4\kappa^2\dot r_t^2+r_t^2\norm{\dot x_t}^2 = a_t\bigl(\norm{\dot x_t}^2+\kappa^2g_t^2\bigr),

which is precisely (119).

The converse passage from an arbitrary Eulerian triple to a cone-valued dynamic plan is the substantive step. For κ=1/2\kappa=1/2, Theorems 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6 of Liero et al. (2016) give, respectively, the dynamic-plan representation and the two action comparisons; the proof of their Theorem 3.6 identifies the resulting distance with the cone metric. In their notation the vector field is the velocity ww used here, while the scalar field ξ\xi satisfies g=4ξg=4\xi. Thus their action density w2+4ξ2\lVert w\rVert^2+4\xi^2 is exactly w2+g2/4\lVert w\rVert^2+g^2/4. These results establish both inequalities for arbitrary finite measures, not only for smooth cone paths.

For general κ\kappa, rescale the base metric by (2κ)1(2\kappa)^{-1} and the cone distance by 2κ2\kappa. The same theorem then gives the cone cost (122) and the action w2+κ2g2\lVert w\rVert^2+\kappa^2g^2. The complete-separable-space formulation and its relaxation are developed in Liero et al. (2018); related normalizations appear in Chizat et al., 2018Chizat et al., 2018.

Balanced Versus Unbalanced Interpolations

The distinction is visible for mixtures with mismatched modal masses. Balanced transport must physically move excess mass, whereas unbalanced transport can trade transport against reaction. Figure Div uses entropic balanced and KL-relaxed barycenters as a qualitative numerical surrogate; its unbalanced row illustrates the reaction--transport mechanism but is not asserted to be an exact WFRκ\WFR_\kappa geodesic.

<IPython.core.display.Image object>

Balanced and unbalanced Sinkhorn-barycenter interpolations between two one-dimensional Gaussian mixtures with swapped modal masses. The balanced row conserves total mass, so excess mass from the dominant left mode must move along the line toward the dominant right target mode, producing transient mass in the middle. The unbalanced row uses KL-relaxed marginal constraints; mass can be attenuated near overrepresented modes and recreated near underrepresented modes, giving a reaction--transport interpolation closer to the Wasserstein--Fisher--Rao intuition.

Variational Mean Field Games

Mean field games use a population law to summarize strategic interactions among many individually negligible agents. This section only considers the potential subclass for which the equilibrium system is the optimality condition of one convex planning problem. The link with dynamic OT is then transparent: the Benamou--Brenier kinetic action is augmented by congestion, and a terminal penalty replaces the prescribed final measure.

Throughout this section, ΩRd\Omega\subset\mathbb R^d is a bounded connected Lipschitz domain, agents remain in Ω\overline\Omega, and the population flux has zero normal trace on Ω\partial\Omega in the sense of (6). These assumptions make the room geometry and its impermeable walls part of the variational model.

From Individual Control to a Population Equilibrium

Mean field games were introduced by Lasry and Lions Lasry & Lions, 2007 and, in a parallel large-population stochastic-control framework, by Huang, Malhame, and Caines Huang et al., 2006. Given a candidate density path ρt\rho_t, a representative deterministic agent starting from xΩx\in\overline\Omega chooses an admissible path γ:[0,1]Ω\gamma:[0,1]\to\overline\Omega by minimizing

infγ(0)=x{01(12γ˙(t)2+g(ρt(γ(t))))dt+Ψ(γ(1))}.\inf_{\gamma(0)=x} \left\{ \int_0^1\left(\frac12\lVert\dot\gamma(t)\rVert^2 +g(\rho_t(\gamma(t)))\right)\d t +\Psi(\gamma(1)) \right\}.

Here g(ρ)g(\rho) is the running cost created by the local population density and the continuous function Ψ:ΩR\Psi:\overline\Omega\to\mathbb R prices the final state. A mean field Nash equilibrium requires consistency: when every agent uses an optimal feedback, the resulting position law must be αt=ρtdx\alpha_t=\rho_t\d x.

Benamou--Brenier Planning Problem

A global variational reduction is available when the local coupling is a first variation. Let G:[0,+)[0,+]G:[0,+\infty)\to[0,+\infty] be proper, closed, and convex, with G(0)=0G(0)=0. In the differentiable case set g(r)=G(r)g(r)=G'(r); more generally, select g(r)G(r)g(r)\in\partial G(r).

Unlike the classical Benamou--Brenier problem, the final measure is not prescribed. The terminal potential softly selects desirable final states, while GG penalizes crowded configurations. The planner pays G(ρ)G(\rho) rather than ρg(ρ)\rho g(\rho) because the marginal cost perceived by an infinitesimal agent is G(ρ)=g(ρ)G'(\rho)=g(\rho). This potential formulation is developed in Benamou et al. (2017); first-order systems with local couplings are analyzed in Cardaliaguet & Graber (2015).

Convex Momentum Formulation

Set ωt=αtvt\omega_t=\alpha_tv_t, or mt=ρtvtm_t=\rho_tv_t when densities exist. For the closed congestion functional, write the Lebesgue decomposition α=ρdx+αs\alpha=\rho\d x+\alpha^s and define

CG(α):=ΩG(ρ(x))dx+Gαs(Ω),G:=limr+G(r)r.\mathcal C_G(\alpha) \eqdef \int_\Omega G(\rho(x))\d x +G^\infty\alpha^s(\overline\Omega), \qquad G^\infty\eqdef\lim_{r\to+\infty}\frac{G(r)}r.

For superlinear congestion, G=+G^\infty=+\infty and finite energy forces αdx\alpha\ll\d x. The recession term is needed for lower-semicontinuous closure when GG has only linear growth. The planning problem becomes

inf(αt,ωt){01(12J(αt,ωt)+CG(αt))dt+ΩΨdα1},\inf_{(\alpha_t,\omega_t)} \left\{ \int_0^1\left(\frac12\mathbb J(\alpha_t,\omega_t) +\mathcal C_G(\alpha_t)\right)\d t +\int_{\overline\Omega}\Psi\d\alpha_1 \right\},

under the affine constraints tαt+ ⁣ωt=0\partial_t\alpha_t+\nabla\!\cdot\omega_t=0, αt=0=α0\alpha_{t=0}=\alpha_0, and ωtn=0\omega_t\cdot n=0 on Ω\partial\Omega. In density--momentum variables, the running integrand is

12J(ρt,mt)+G(ρt)=mt22ρt+G(ρt),\frac12J(\rho_t,m_t)+G(\rho_t) =\frac{\lVert m_t\rVert^2}{2\rho_t}+G(\rho_t),

with the vacuum convention of (27). The perspective term is convex, CG\mathcal C_G is convex and narrowly lower semicontinuous, the terminal term is continuous and linear, and the constraints are affine and closed. Thus (130) is a closed convex problem. If a finite-action competitor exists, compactness on Ω\overline\Omega and the direct method give an optimizer. A nonconvex GG would leave the congestion term nonconvex even after the momentum substitution.

Optimality System and Game Interpretation

Proof

Use u-u as multiplier for tρ+ ⁣m=0\partial_t\rho+\nabla\!\cdot m=0. After integration by parts, the space--time Lagrangian density is m2/(2ρ)+G(ρ)+ρtu+mu\lVert m\rVert^2/(2\rho)+G(\rho)+\rho\partial_tu+m\cdot\nabla u. Stationarity in mm gives m=ρum=-\rho\nabla u; stationarity in ρ\rho then gives the Hamilton--Jacobi--Bellman equation. Since terminal variations preserve total mass, stationarity first says that u1Ψu_1-\Psi is spatially constant. The additive gauge of uu is chosen to make this constant zero, so u1=Ψu_1=\Psi. Primal feasibility gives the forward equation.

The backward equation describes the representative agent’s best response, while the forward equation transports the population under the feedback v=uv=-\nabla u. For nonsmooth GG, replace g(ρ)g(\rho) by an element of G(ρ)\partial G(\rho); a hard density cap produces a pressure on the saturated region.

Hard Congestion Through a Bottleneck

A hard crowd-capacity constraint is obtained with

Gκ(r)=ι[0,κ](r)={0,0rκ,+,otherwise.G_\kappa(r)=\iota_{[0,\kappa]}(r) = \begin{cases} 0,&0\leq r\leq\kappa,\\ +\infty,&\text{otherwise}. \end{cases}

One can retain a prescribed terminal preference by replacing the linear terminal term with the convex penalty

Γη(ρ1)=η2Ωρ1(x)ρ(x)2dx.\Gamma_\eta(\rho_1) =\frac\eta2\int_\Omega|\rho_1(x)-\rho_\star(x)|^2\d x.

Such endpoint penalties occur in the augmented-Lagrangian experiments of Benamou & Carlier (2015), while the two-room hard-congestion geometry follows Benamou et al. (2017). A constant cap does not alter a Euclidean W2\Wass_2 geodesic between capped endpoints, but that argument fails in a nonconvex domain because straight displacement segments may leave the domain and a narrow passage creates a genuine bottleneck.

Figure Div uses a bounded two-room domain joined by a narrow doorway and specializes the terminal functional to the hard constraint ρt=1=ρ\rho_{t=1}=\rho_\star. Both endpoints are uniform on mirrored disks. The constrained row uses the tight feasible cap κ=ρ0\kappa=\lVert\rho_0\rVert_\infty; blocked grid faces carry zero flux and implement the impermeable boundary.

<IPython.core.display.Image object>

Hard-congestion variational MFG through two communicating rooms. The bounded domain has impermeable walls and one narrow doorway. Initial and hard terminal profiles are uniform on mirrored disks; dashed outlines show the target and the columns advance from red to blue. Without a cap the path forms a narrow, dense doorway jet. The cap κ=ρ0\kappa=\lVert\rho_0\rVert_\infty instead forces a broad saturated queue; dark contours mark regions within one percent of the cap.

After conservative space--time discretization, the convex objective is a sum of local perspective and congestion terms under one affine divergence constraint. Augmented-Lagrangian and primal--dual methods can alternate local proximal updates with a linear space--time solve, paralleling the dynamic OT solver Benamou & Carlier, 2015Benamou et al., 2017.

Together, the local, spectral, kernelized, jump, graph, and unbalanced examples show that modifying the Benamou--Brenier action changes both the admissible motion and the topology of the measure space. The MFG planning problem then shows how adding a convex congestion cost turns the same dynamic language into a population game. The next chapter turns these geometries into gradient-flow equations.

References
  1. Dacorogna, B., & Moser, J. (1990). On a Partial Differential Equation Involving the Jacobian Determinant. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré C, Analyse Non Linéaire, 7(1), 1–26.
  2. Benamou, J.-D., & Brenier, Y. (2000). A computational fluid mechanics solution to the Monge-Kantorovich mass transfer problem. Numerische Mathematik, 84(3), 375–393.
  3. Ambrosio, L., Gigli, N., & Savaré, G. (2006). Gradient Flows in Metric Spaces and in the Space of Probability Measures. Springer.
  4. Rockafellar, R. T. (2015). Convex Analysis. Princeton University Press.
  5. Papadakis, N., Peyré, G., & Oudet, E. (2014). Optimal transport with proximal splitting. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 7(1), 212–238.
  6. Schrödinger, E. (1931). Über die Umkehrung der Naturgesetze. Sitzungsberichte Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin. Phys. Math., 144, 144–153.
  7. Léonard, C. (2014). A survey of the Schrödinger problem and some of its connections with optimal transport. Discrete Continuous Dynamical Systems Series A, 34(4), 1533–1574.
  8. Léonard, C. (2012). From the Schrödinger problem to the Monge–Kantorovich problem. Journal of Functional Analysis, 262(4), 1879–1920.
  9. Beckmann, M. (1952). A continuous model of transportation. Econometrica, 20, 643–660.
  10. Dolbeault, J., Nazaret, B., & Savaré, G. (2009). A new class of transport distances between measures. Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 34(2), 193–231.
  11. Peyré, G. (2026). Muon Dynamics as a Spectral Wasserstein Flow. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2604.04891.
  12. Liu, Q., & Wang, D. (2016). Stein Variational Gradient Descent: A General Purpose Bayesian Inference Algorithm. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29. https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04471
  13. Liu, Q. (2017). Stein Variational Gradient Descent as Gradient Flow. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/17ed8abedc255908be746d245e50263a-Abstract.html
  14. Duncan, A. B., Nüsken, N., & Szpruch, L. (2023). On the Geometry of Stein Variational Gradient Descent. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(56), 1–39. https://www.jmlr.org/papers/v24/20-602.html
  15. Nüsken, N., & Renger, D. R. M. (2023). Stein Variational Gradient Descent: Many-Particle and Long-Time Asymptotics. Foundations of Data Science, 5(3), 286–320. 10.3934/fods.2022023