arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 21 Jul 2012

Transcription

1 DISPLACEMENT CONVEXITY OF ENTROPY AND RELATED INEQUALITIES ON GRAPHS arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 1 Jul 01 NATHAEL GOZLAN, CYRIL ROBERTO, PAUL-MARIE SAMSON, PRASAD TETALI Abstract. We introduce the notion of an interpolating path on the set of probability measures on finite graphs. Using this notion, we first prove a displacement convexity property of entropy along such a path and derive Prekopa-Leindler type inequalities, a Talagrand transport-entropy inequality, certain HWI type as well as log-sobolev type inequalities in discrete settings. To illustrate through examples, we apply our results to the complete graph and to the hypercube for which our results are optimal by passing to the limit, we recover the classical log-sobolev inequality for the standard Gaussian measure with the optimal constant. 1. Introduction In recent years, Optimal Transport and its link with the Ricci curvature in Riemannian geometry attracted a considerable amount of attention. The extensive modern book by C. Villani [55] is one of the main references on this topic. However, while a lot is now known in the Riemannian setting (and more generally in geodesic spaces), very little is known so far in discrete spaces (such as finite graphs or finite Markov chains), with the notable exception of some notions of (discrete) Ricci curvature proposed recently by several authors unfortunately there is not yet a satisfactory (universally agreed upon) resolution even there see Bonciocat-Sturm [6], Erbar-Maas [1], Hillion [17], Joulin [1], Lin-Yau [8], Maas [30], Mielke [36], Ollivier [37], and recent works on the displacement convexity of entropy by Hillion [18], Lehec[4] and Léonard [7]. In particular, the notions of Transport inequalities, HWI inequalities, interpolating paths on the measure space, displacement convexity of entropy, are yet to be properly introduced, analyzed and understood in discrete spaces. This is the chief aim of the present paper, and of a companion paper [15]. Due to its theoretical as well as applied appeal, this subject is at the intersection of many areas of Mathematics, such as Calculus of Variations, Probability Theory, Convex Geometry and Analysis, as well as Combinatorial Optimization. In order to present our results, let us first introduce some of the relevant notions in the continuous framework of geodesic spaces, see [55]. A complete, separable, metric space (X, d) is said to be a geodesic space, if for all x 0, x 1 X, there exists at least one pathγ: [0, 1] Xsuch thatγ(0)= x 0,γ(1)= x 1 and d(γ(s),γ(t))= t s d(x 0, x 1 ), s, t [0, 1]. Such a path is then called a constant speed geodesic between x 0 and x 1. Date: August 15, 018. Key words and phrases. Displacement convexity, transport inequalities, modified logarithmic-sobolev inequalities, Ricci curvature. Supported by the grants ANR 011 BS , ANR 10 LABX-58, and the NSF DMS

2 NATHAEL GOZLAN, CYRIL ROBERTO, PAUL-MARIE SAMSON, PRASAD TETALI Then, for p 1, letp p (X) be the set of Borel probability measures onxhaving a finite p-th moment, namely { } P p (X) := µ Borel probability measure : d(x o, x) p µ(dx)<, X where x o X is arbitrary (P p (X) does not depend on the choice of the point x o ) and define the following L p -Wasserstein distance: forν 0,ν 1 P p (X), set ( { 1/p (1.1) W p (ν 0,ν 1 ) := inf d(x, y) p dπ(x, y)}), π Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) whereπ(ν 0,ν 1 ) is the set of couplings ofν 0 andν 1. The metric space (P p (X), W p ) is canonically associated to the original metric space (X, d). Namely, if p>1, (P p (X), W p ) is geodesic if and only if (X, d) is geodesic, see [5]. A remarkable and powerful fact is that, when X is a Riemannian manifold, one can relate the Ricci curvature of the space to the convexity of entropy along geodesics [34, 8, 43, 9, 51, 54]. More precisely, under the Bakry-Emery CD(K, ) condition (see e.g. []), namely if the space (X, d, µ) is such that RicHess V K, whereµ(dx)=e V(x) dx, then one can prove that for allν 0,ν 1 P (X) whose supports are included in the support ofµ, there exists a constant speed W -geodesic{ν t } t [0,1] fromν 0 toν 1 such that (1.) H(ν t µ) (1 t)h(ν 0 µ)th(ν 1 µ) K t(1 t)w (ν 0,ν 1 ) t [0, 1], where H(ν µ) denotes the relative entropy ofνwith respect toµ. Equation (1.) is known as the K-displacement convexity of the entropy. In fact, a converse statement also holds: if the entropy is K-displacement convex, then the Ricci curvature is bounded below by K. This equivalence was used as a guideline for the definition of the notion of curvature in geodesic spaces by Sturm-Lott-Villani in their celebrated works [9, 5, 53]. Moreover, it is known that the K-displacement convexity of the entropy is a very strong notion that implies many well-known inequalities in Convex Geometry and in Probability Theory, such as the Brunn-Minkowski inequality, the Prekopa-Leindler inequality, Talagrand s transport-entropy inequality, HWI inequality, log-sobolev inequality etc., see [55]. The question one would like to address is whether one can extend the above theory to discrete settings such as finite graphs, equipped with a set of probability measures on the vertices and with a natural graph distance. Let us mention two main obstructions. Firstly, W -geodesics do not exist in discrete settings (the reader can verify this fact by considering two nearest neighbors x, y in the graph G=(V, E) and constructing a constant speed geodesic between the two Dirac measuresδ x,δ y at the vertices x and y). On the other hand, the following Talagrand s transport-entropy inequality (1.3) W (ν 0,µ) C H(ν 0 µ), ν 0 P (V) (for a suitable constant C> 0) does not hold in discrete settings unlessµis a Dirac measure! From these simple observations we deduce that W is not well adapted either for defining the path{ν t } t [0,1] or for measuring the defect/excess in the convexity of entropy in a discrete context. In this paper, our contribution is to introduce the notion of an interpolating path{ν t } t [0,1] and of a weak transport cost T (that in a sense goes back to Marton [31, 3] ). These will in turn help us derive the desired displacement convexity results on finite graphs.

3 DISPLACEMENT CONVEXITY ON GRAPHS 3 Before presenting our results, we give a brief state of the art of the field (to the best of our knowledge). In [38], Ollivier and Villani prove that, on the hypercubeω n ={0, 1} n, for any probability measures ν 0,ν 1, there exists a probability measureν 1/ (concentrated on the set of mid-points, see [38] for a precise definition) such that H(ν 1/ µ) 1 H(ν 0 µ) 1 H(ν 1 µ) 1 80n W 1 (ν 0,ν 1 ), whereµ 1/ n is the uniform measure and W 1 is defined with the Hamming distance. They observe that, this in turn implies some curved Brunn-Minkowski inequality onω n. The constant 1/n encodes, in some sense, the discrete Ricci curvature of the hypercube in accordance with the various definitions of the discrete Ricci curvature (see above for references). In [1], Erbar and Maas introduce a pseudo Wasserstein distancew that corresponds to the geodesic distance on the set,p(ω n ), of probability measures on the hypercubeω n, equipped with a Riemannian metric. (In fact, their construction is more general and applies to a wide class of Markov kernels on finite graphs.) This metric is such that the continuous time random walk on the graph becomes a gradient flow of the function H( µ). Moreover they prove, inter alia, that if{ν t } t [0,1] is a geodesic fromν 0 toν 1, then H(ν t µ) (1 t)h(ν 0 µ)th(ν 1 µ) 1 n t(1 t)w (ν 0,ν 1 ), t [0, 1], whereµ 1/ n is the uniform measure. Independently, Mielke [36] also obtains similar results. As a consequence of their displacement convexity property, these authors derive versions of log-sobolev, HWI and Talagrand s transport-entropy inequalities (involvingw and W 1 distances) with sharp constants. In a different direction (at the level of functional inequalities), besides the study of the log-sobolev inequality which is somehow now classical (see e.g. [46, 1]), Sammer and the last named author [48, 47] studied Talagrand s inequality in discrete spaces, with W 1 on the left hand side of (1.3). They also derived a discrete analogue of the Otto-Villani result [39]: that a modified log-sobolev inequality implies the W 1 -type Talagrand inequality. Connected to this, a few years ago, following seminal work of Bobkov and Ledoux [3], several researchers independently realized that modified versions of logarithmic Sobolev inequalities helped capture refined information that was lost while working with the classic log-sobolev inequality of Gross. In the discrete setting of finite Markov chains, one such modified log-sobolev inequality has been instrumental in capturing the rate of convergence to equilibrium in the (relative) entropy sense, see e.g. [7], [10], [5], [13], [14], [46], [44]. The current state of knowledge in identifying precise sufficient criteria to derive bounds on the entropy decay (or on the corresponding modified log-sobolev constants) is unfortunately rather meagre. This is an independent motivation for our efforts at developing the discrete aspects of the displacement convexity property and related notions. Now we describe some of the main results of the present paper. At first, we shall introduce the notion of an interpolating path{ν π t } t [0,1], on the set of probability measures on graphs, between two arbitrary probability measuresν 0,ν 1. In fact, we define a family of interpolating paths, depending on a parameterπ Π(ν 0,ν 1 ), which is a coupling ofν 0,ν 1. The construction of this interpolating path is inspired by a certain binomial interpolation due to Johnson [0], see also [17, 18, 19]. In particular, we shall prove that such an interpolating path, for a properly chosen couplingπ namely an optimal coupling for W 1 is actually a W 1 constant speed geodesic: i.e. W 1 (ν π t,ν π s )= t s W 1(ν 0,ν 1 ) for all s, t [0, 1], with W 1 defined with the graph distance d (see Proposition.5 below). Such a family

4 4 NATHAEL GOZLAN, CYRIL ROBERTO, PAUL-MARIE SAMSON, PRASAD TETALI enjoys a tensorisation (see Lemma.10) that is crucial in our derivation of the displacement convexity property on product of graphs. Indeed, we shall prove the following tensoring property of a displacement convexity of entropy along the interpolating path{ν π t } t [0,1]. This is one of our main results (see below and Theorem 4.6). In order to state the result, we define here the notion of a quadratic cost, which we will elaborate on, in the later sections. Let G=(V, E) be a (finite) connected, undirected graph, and letp(v) denote the set of probability measures on the vertex set V. Given two probability measuresν 0 andν 1 on V, letπ(ν 0,ν 1 ) denote the set of couplings (joint distributions) ofν 0 andν 1. Givenπ Π(ν 0,ν 1 ), consider the probability kernels p and p defined by and set (1.4) π(x, y)=ν 0 (x)p(x, y)=ν 1 (y) p(y, x), x, y V, I (π) := d(x, y)p(x, y) x V y V y V x V ν 0 (x), Ī (π) := d(x, y) p(y, x) ν 1 (y). We say a graph G, equipped with the distance d and probability measureµ P(V), satisfies the displacement convexity property (of entropy), if there exists a C= C(G, d,µ)>0, so that for any ν 0,ν 1 P(V), there exists aπ Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) satisfying: H(ν π t µ) (1 t)h(ν 0 µ)th(ν 1 µ) Ct(1 t)(i (π)ī (π)), t [0, 1]. The quantity I (π) goes back to Marton [31, 3] in her definition of the following transport cost, we call weak transport cost: W (ν 0,ν 1 ) := inf I (π) inf Ī (π). π Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) π Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) For more on this Wasserstein-type distance, see [11, 33, 49]. The precise statement of our tensorisation theorem is as follows. For a graph, by the graph distance between two vertices, we mean the length of a shortest path between the two vertices. Theorem 1.5. For i {1,...,n}, letµ i be a probability measure on G i = (V i, E i ), with the graph distance d i. Assume also that for each i {1,...,n} there is a constant C i 0 such that for all probability measuresν 0,ν 1 on V i, there existsπ=π i Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) such that it holds H(ν π t µ i ) (1 t)h(ν 0 µ i )th(ν 1 µ i ) C i t(1 t)(i (π)ī (π)) t [0, 1]. Then the product probability measureµ = µ 1 µ n defined on the Cartesian product G = G 1 G n (see below for a precise definition) verifies the following property: for all probability measuresν 0,ν 1 on V, there existsπ=π (n) Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) satisfying, where C=min i C i, H(ν π t µ) (1 t)h(ν 0 µ)th(ν 1 µ) Ct(1 t)(i (n) I (n) (π) := x V 1 V n i=1 n d i (x i, y i ) y V 1 V n (π) Ī(n) (π)) t [0, 1], π(x, y) ν 0 (x) ν 0 (x),

5 and Ī (n) (π) := DISPLACEMENT CONVEXITY ON GRAPHS 5 y V 1 V n i=1 n d i (x i, y i ) x V 1 V n π(x, y) ν 1 (y) ν 1 (y). (and with I (π) := I (1) (π) and similarly for Ī (π)). In particular, as a consequence of the above tensorisation theorem, we shall prove that, given two probability measuresν 0,ν 1 on the hypercubeω n ={0, 1} n, there exists a couplingπsuch that (1.6) H(ν π t µ) (1 t)h(ν 0 µ)th(ν 1 µ) 1 t(1 t) W (ν 0,ν 1 ), t [0, 1] whereµ 1/ n is the uniform measure (but that could be any product of Bernoulli measures). As it is easy to see, the weak transport cost is weaker than W, but stronger than W 1. Moreover, W (ν 0,ν 1 ) n W 1 (ν 0,ν 1 ) (see below) so that (1.6) captures, in a sense, a discrete Ricci curvature of the hypercube (see [38] and references therein). As a by-product of the displacement convexity property above, we shall derive a series of consequences. More precisely, we shall first derive a so-called HWI inequality. Proposition 1.7. Letµbe a probability measure on V n. Assume thatµverifies the following displacement convexity inequality: there is some c>0 such that for any probability measuresν 0,ν 1 on V n, there exists a couplingπ Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) such that Thenµverifies H(ν π t µ) (1 t)h(ν 0 µ)th(ν 1 µ) ct(1 t)(i (n) H(ν 0 µ) H(ν 1 µ) x V n i=1 n z N i (x) (π) Ī(n) (π)) t [0, 1]. ( log ν ) 0(x) µ(x) logν 0(z) ν 0 (x) I (n) µ(z) (π) c(i(n) (π) Ī(n) (π)), for the sameπ Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) as above, where N i (x) is the set of neighbors of x in the i-th direction (see Proposition 5.1 for a precise definition). On the hypercube, the latter implies the following log-sobolev-type inequality (that can be seen as a reinforcement of a discrete modified log-sobolev inequality (see Corollary 5.3)): ifµ 1/ n, for any f :Ω n (0, ), it holds Ent µ ( f ) 1 n [ log f (x) log f (σi (x)) ] f (x)µ(x) W 1 ( fµ µ), x Ω n i=1 whereσ i (x)=(x 1,..., x i 1, 1 x i, x i1,..., x n ) is the vector x=(x 1,..., x n ) with the i-th coordinate flipped, and the constant 1/ (in front of the Dirichlet form) is optimal. From this, by means of the Central Limit Theorem, the above reinforced modified log-sobolev inequality actually leads to the usual logarithmic Sobolev inequality of Gross [16] for the standard Gaussian, with the optimal constant (see Corollary 5.5). In a different direction, we also prove that the displacement convexity along the interpolating path {ν π t } t [0,1] implies a discrete Prekopa-Leindler Inequality (Theorem 6.4), which in turn, as in the continuous setting, implies a logarithmic Sobolev inequality and a (weak) transport-entropy inequality of the Talagrand-type: W (ν µ) C H(ν µ), ν

6 6 NATHAEL GOZLAN, CYRIL ROBERTO, PAUL-MARIE SAMSON, PRASAD TETALI for a suitable constant C > 0. These implications and inequalities are studied in further detail their various links with the concentration of measure phenomenon and with other functional inequalities in the companion paper [15]. We may summarize the various implications that we prove in the following diagram: Displacement convexity Prekopa-Leindler HWI Modified log-sob Weak transport log-sob for the Gaussian In summary, our paper develops various theoretical objects of much current interest (the interpolating path{ν π t } t [0,1], the weak transport cost W, the displacement convexity property and its consequences) in a discrete context. Our concrete examples include the complete graph and the hypercube. However, our theory applies to other graphs (not necessarily product type) that we will collect in a forthcoming paper. Also, we believe that our results open a wide class of new problems and new directions of investigation in Probability Theory, Convex Geometry and Analysis. Finally, we mention that, during the final preparation of this work, we learned that Erwan Hillion independently introduced the same kind of interpolating path, but between a Dirac at a fixed point o G of the graph and any arbitrary measure (hence without coupling π), and derive some displacement convexity property [18] along the interpolation. In [18], the author also deals with the f g decomposition introduced by Léonard [7]. Our presentation follows the following table of contents. Contents 1. Introduction Notation 7 Graphs 7 Paths and geodesics 7 Probability measures and couplings 7. A notion of a path on the set of probability measures on graphs Construction 8.. Geodesics for W Differentiation property Tensoring property Examples Weak transport cost Definition and first properties The Knothe-Rosenblatt coupling Tensorisation 0 4. Displacement convexity property of the entropy The complete graph

7 DISPLACEMENT CONVEXITY ON GRAPHS Tensorisation of the displacement convexity property 4 5. HWI type inequalities on graphs Symmetric HWI inequality for products of graphs Complete graph 3 6. Prekopa-Leindler type inequality 33 Acknowledgements 37 References Notation. Throughout the paper we shall use the following notation. Graphs. G=(V, E) will denote a finite connected undirected graph with the vertex set V and the edge set E. For any two vertices x and y of G, x y means that x and y are nearest neighbors (for the graph structure of G), i.e. (x, y) E. We use d for the graph distance defined below. Given two graphs G 1 = (V 1, E 1 ), G = (V, E ), with graph distances d 1, d respectively, we set G 1 G = (V 1 V, E 1 E ) for the Cartesian product of the two graphs, equipped with thel 1 distance d(x, y)=d 1 (x 1, y 1 )d (x, y ), for all x=(x 1, x ), y=(y 1, y ) G 1 G. More precisely, ((x 1, x ), (y 1, y )) E 1 E if either x 1 = y 1 and x y, or x 1 y 1 and x = y. The Cartesian product of G with itself will simply be denoted by G, and more generally by G n, for all n. Paths and geodesics. A pathγ=(x 0, x 1,..., x n ) (of G) is an oriented sequence of vertices of G satisfying x i 1 x i for any i=1...,n. Such a path starts at x 0 and ends at x n and is said to be of length γ =n. The graph distance d(x, y) between two vertices x, y G is the minimal length of a path connecting x to y. Any path of length n=d(x, y) between x and y is called a geodesic between x and y. By construction, any geodesic is self-avoiding. We will denote byγ(x, y) the set of all geodesics from x to y. We will say that a pathγ = (x 0, x 1,..., x n ) crosses the vertex z V, if there is some k such that z= x k. In this case, we will write z γ. Given z V, we set C(z)={(x, y) such that z γ for someγ Γ(x, y)} for the set of couples such that some geodesic joining them goes through z. Conversely, if z belongs to some geodesic between x and y, we shall write z x, y and say that z is between x and y. Finally, for all x, y, z V, we will denote byγ(x, z, y), the set of geodesics γ Γ(x, y) such that z γ. This set is nonempty if and only if z x, y. Probability measures and couplings. We write P(V) for the set of probability measures on V. Given a probability measureν P(V) and a function f : V R,ν( f )= z Vν(z) f (z) denotes the mean value of f with respect toν. We may also use the alternative notationν( f )= f (x)ν(dx)= f (x) dν(x)= f dν. Letν,µ P(V); the relative entropy ofνwith respect toµis defined by dν dν dµ log dµ dµ ifν µ H(ν µ) = otherwise whereν µ means thatν is absolutely continuous with respect toµ, and dν dµ with respect toµ. denotes the density ofν

8 8 NATHAEL GOZLAN, CYRIL ROBERTO, PAUL-MARIE SAMSON, PRASAD TETALI Given a density f : V (0, ) with respect to a given probability measureµ(i.e.µ( f )=1), we shall use the following notation for the relative entropy of f µ with respect to µ: Ent µ ( f ) := H( fµ µ)= f log f dµ. If f : V (0, ) is no longer a density, then Ent µ ( f ) := f log( f/µ( f )) dµ. Given two graphs G 1 = (V 1, E 1 ) and G = (V, E ) and a probability measureµ P(V 1 V ) on the product, we disintegrateµas follows: letµ be the second marginal ofµ, i.e.µ (x ) = x 1 V 1 µ(x 1, x )=µ(v 1, x ), for all x V, and setµ 1 (x 1 x ) so that (1.8) µ(x 1, x )=µ (x )µ 1 (x 1 x ), (x 1, x ) V 1 V, with the convention thatµ 1 (x 1 x ) = 0 ifµ (x ) = 0. Equation (1.8) will be referred to as the disintegration formula of µ. Recall that a couplingπ of two probability measuresµ andνinp(v) is a probability measure on V so thatµandνare its first and second marginals, respectively: i.e.π(x, V)=µ(x) andπ(v, y)=ν(y), for all x, y V. Given µ, ν P(V), the set of all couplings of µ and ν will be denoted by Π(µ, ν). Moreover, given two probability measuresµandνinp(v), we denote by P(µ,ν) the set of probability kernels 1 p such that µ(x)p(x, y)=ν(y), y V. x V By construction, given p P(µ,ν), one defines a couplingπ Π(µ,ν) by settingπ(x, y)=µ(x)p(x, y), x, y V. Conversely, given a couplingπ Π(µ,ν), we canonically construct a kernel p P(µ,ν) by setting p(x, y)=π(x, y)/µ(x) whenµ(x) 0 and p(x, y)=0 otherwise. Warning 1: In the sequel, it will always be understood, although not explicitly stated, that p(x, y) = 0 ifµ(x)=0 and similarly in the disintegration formula (1.8). Warning : For convenience, we will use the French notation Cn k := ( ) n k = n! k!(n k)! for the binomial coefficients.. Anotionofapathonthesetofprobabilitymeasuresongraphs. The aim of this section is to define a class of paths between probability measures on graphs. As proved below, each path in this class is a geodesic, in the space of probability measures equipped with the Wasserstein distance W 1 (see below). It satisfies a convenient differentiation property and also has the nice feature of allowing tensorisation. We shall end the section with some specific examples..1. Construction. Inspired by [0], we will first construct an interpolating path between two Dirac measuresδ x andδ y, for arbitrary x, y V, on the set of probability measuresp(v). Fix x, y Vand denote byγthe random variable that chooses uniformly at random a geodesicγinγ(x, y). Also, for any t [0, 1], let N t B(d(x, y), t) be a binomial variable of parameter d(x, y) and t, independent of Γ (observe that N 0 = 0 and N 1 = d(x, y)). Then denote by X t =Γ Nt the random position onγafter N t jumps starting from x. Finally, setν x,y t for the law of X t. By construction,ν x,y t is clearly a path fromδ x toδ y. Moreover, for all z V, we have ν x,y t (z)= γ Γ(x,y) P(X t = z Γ=γ, z Γ)P(Γ=γ, z γ)= C d(x,z) d(x,y) td(x,z) (1 t) d(y,z) γ Γ(x,y) 1 We recall that p : V V [0, 1] is a probability kernel if, for all x V, y V p(x, y)=1. 1 z γ Γ(x, y).

9 DISPLACEMENT CONVEXITY ON GRAPHS 9 Therefore ν x,y t (z)= C d(x,z) d(x,y) td(x,z) (1 t) d(y,z) Γ(x, z, y). Γ(x, y) For all z between x and y we observe that (.1) Γ(x, z, y) = Γ(x, z) Γ(z, y), since there is a one to one correspondence between the sets of geodesics from x to z and from z to y, and the set of geodesics from x to y that cross the vertex z, just by gluing the path from x to z to the path from z to y, and by using that d(x, y)=d(x, z)d(z, y). Thereforeν x,y t takes the form (.) ν x,y t (z)=c d(x,z) d(x,y) td(x,z) (1 t) d(y,z) Γ(x, z) Γ(z, y) 1 z x,y. Γ(x, y) Observe that, for any x, y V and any t (0, 1),ν x,y t =ν y,x 1 t. Remark.3. In the construction above of the interpolationν x,y t, the choice of the binomial random variable for the number N t of jumps might seem somewhat ad hoc; however, in Proposition.1 below, we show that in fact the choice is necessary forν x,y t to tensorise over a (Cartesian) product of graphs. Given the family{ν x,y t } x,y, we can now construct a path from any measureν 0 P(V) to any measure ν 1 P(V). Namely, given a couplingπ P(V V) ofν 0 andν 1, we define (.4) ν π t ( )= π(x, y)ν x,y t ( ), t [0, 1]. (x,y) V By construction we haveν π 0 =ν 0 andν π 1 =ν 1. Furthermore, observe that, ifν 0 =δ x andν 1 =δ y, then necessarilyπ=δ x δ y and thusν π t =ν x,y t... Geodesics for W 1. Next we prove that, whenπis well chosen, (ν π t ) t [0,1] is a geodesic fromν 0 toν 1 on the set of probability measuresp(v) equipped with the Wasserstein L 1 -distance W 1. Given two probability measuresµandνonp(v), recall that W 1 (µ,ν)= inf π Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) d(x, y)π(dx dy)= inf E[d(X, Y)] X µ,y ν The following result asserts that (ν π t ) t [0,1] is actually a geodesic for W 1 whenπis an optimal coupling. Proposition.5. For any probability measuresν 0,ν 1 P(V), it holds W 1 (ν π s,νπ t )= t s W 1 (ν 0,ν 1 ) s, t [0, 1] whereπ is an optimal coupling in the definition of W 1 (ν 0,ν 1 ) and whereν π t is defined in (.4). Proof. Fix two probability measuresν 0,ν 1 P(V) andπ an optimal coupling in the definition of W 1 (ν 0,ν 1 ) (sincep(v) is compactπ is well defined). For brevity, setν t :=ν π t. First, we claim that it is enough to prove that (.6) W 1 (ν s,ν t ) (t s)w 1 (ν 0,ν 1 ), s, t [0, 1] with s t. Indeed, assume (.6), then recalling that W 1 is a distance (see e.g. [55]), by the triangle inequality we have W 1 (ν 0,ν 1 ) W 1 (ν 0,ν s )W 1 (ν s,ν t )W 1 (ν t,ν 1 ) sw 1 (ν 0,ν 1 )(t s)w 1 (ν 0,ν 1 )tw 1 (ν 0,ν 1 ) W 1 (ν 0,ν 1 ).

10 10 NATHAEL GOZLAN, CYRIL ROBERTO, PAUL-MARIE SAMSON, PRASAD TETALI Hence, all the inequalities used above are actually equalities, which guarantees the conclusion of the proposition and hence the claim. Now, we prove (.6). Let (X, Y) be a random couple of lawπ. Fix s t, it suffises to construct a random couple (X s, X t ) with marginal lawsν s andν t so that E[d(X s, X t )] (t s)e[d(x, Y)]=(t s)w 1 (ν 0,ν 1 ). From the last observation, let us remark that such a couple (X s, X t ) will therefore realized E[d(X s, X t )]=W 1 (ν s,ν t ). Let ( (U i s, V i t )) i 1 be an independent identically distributed sequence of random couples in{0, 1}, independent of X and Y. We chose the law of (Us 1, V1 t ) given by P((Us 1, V1 t )=(0, 0))=1 s, P((U1 s, V1 t )=(0, 1))=0, P((U 1 s, V 1 t )=(1, 0))=t s, P((U 1 s, V 1 t )=(1, 1))=t, so that U 1 s and V 1 t are Bernoulli random variables with respective parameters s and t, and we have E( U 1 s V 1 t )=(t s). Given (X, Y)=(x, y), with x, y V, let (N s, N t ) denote the random couple defined by i=1 N s = d(x,y) i=1 U i s, N t = Then the laws of N s and N t given (X, Y)=(x, y) are respectivelyb(d(x, y), s) andb(d(x, y), t), the binomial distribution with parameters d(x, y), s and t respectively. Finally, given (X, Y)=(x, y), with x, y V, letγdenote a random geodesic chosen uniformly in Γ(x, y), independently of the sequence ( (Us, i Vt i)), and let X i 1 s=γ Ns be the random position onγ after N s jumps and X t =Γ Nt be the random position onγafter N t jumps. By definition, the law of X s and X t are respectivelyν s andν t and one has d(x s, X t )= N s N t. Moreover, according to this construction, one has d(x,y) d(x,y) E[d(X s, X t )]=E [ N s N t ]=E Us i Vt i i=1 i=1 d(x,y) E Us i d(x,y) Vi t =E E [ U i s Vt i ] = (t s)e[d(x, Y)]. This completes the proof of (.6) and Proposition Differentiation property. A second property of the path defined in (.) and (.4) is the following time differentiation property. For any z on a given geodesicγfrom x to y, if z y, letγ (z) denotes the (unique) vertex onγat distance d(z, y) 1 from y (and thus at distance d(x, z) 1 from x), and similarly if z x, letγ (z) denote the vertex on γ at distance d(z, y) 1 from y (and hence at distance d(x, z) 1 from x). In other words, following the geodesicγfrom x toward y,γ (z) is the vertex just anterior to z, andγ (z) the vertex posterior to z. For any real function f on V, we also define two related notions of gradient along γ: for all z γ, z y, γ f (z)= f (γ (z)) f (z), i=1 d(x,y) i=1 V i s.

11 and for all z γ, z x, DISPLACEMENT CONVEXITY ON GRAPHS 11 γ f (z)= f (z) f (γ (z)). By convention, we put γ f (x)= γ f (y)=0, and γ f (z)= γ f (z)=0, if z γ. Let γ f denote the following convex combination of these two gradients: γ f (z)= d(y, z) d(x, z) d(x, y) γ f (z) d(x, y) γ f (z). Observe that, although not explicitly stated, γ depends on x and y. Finally, for all z x, y, we define 1 x,y f (z)= γ f (z), Γ(x, z, y) and when z x, y, we set x,y f (z)=0. γ Γ(x,z,y) Proposition.7. For all function f : V R and all x, y V, it holds t νx,y t ( f )=d(x, y)ν x,y t ( x,y f ). As a direct consequence of the above differentiation property, we are able to give an explicit expression of the derivative (with respect to time) of the relative entropy ofν π t with respect to an arbitrary reference measure. Corollary.8. Letν 0,ν 1 andµbe three probability measures on V. Assume thatν 0,ν 1 are absolutely continuous with respect toµ. Then, for any couplingπ Π(ν 0,ν 1 ), it holds ( t H(νπ t µ) t=0 = log ν ) 0(z) µ(z) logν 0(x) Γ(x, z, y) d(x, y) π(x, y). µ(x) Γ(x, y) x,z V: z x The proof of Corollary.8 can be found below, while some example applications will be given in the next subsection. In order to prove Proposition.7, we need some preparation. Recall that B(n, t) denotes a binomial variable of parameter n and t, and that, for any function h:{0, 1,...,n} R, B(n, t)(h)= n k=0 h(k)c k n tk (1 t) n k. Lemma.9. Let n N and t [0, 1]. For any function h:{0, 1,...,n} Rit holds n t B(n, t)(h)= [(h(k 1) h(k))(n k)(h(k) h(k 1))k] Cnt k k (1 t) n k, k=0 with the convention that h( 1) = h(n 1) = 0. Proof of Lemma.9. By differentiating in t, we have n t B(n, t)(h)= h(k)kcnt k k 1 (1 t) n k k=0 Now, using that 1=t(1 t) and that kcn k= (n k1)ck 1 n, we get with the convention that C 1 n y V n h(k)(n k)cnt k k (1 t) n k 1. kc k nt k 1 (1 t) n k = kc k nt k (1 t) n k (n k1)c k 1 n t k 1 (1 t) n k1, k=0 = 0. Similarly, using that (n k)c k n = (k 1)Ck1 n, we have (n k)c k nt k (1 t) n k 1 = (n k)c k nt k (1 t) n k (k1)c k1 n t k1 (1 t) n k 1.

12 1 NATHAEL GOZLAN, CYRIL ROBERTO, PAUL-MARIE SAMSON, PRASAD TETALI Hence, n t B(n, t)(h)= h(k)(n k1)cn k 1 t k 1 (1 t) n k1 = k=0 n h(k)kcnt k k (1 t) n k k=0 n k=0 n (h(k 1) h(k))(n k)cnt k k (1 t) n k k=0 with the convention that h( 1) = h(n 1) = 0. n h(k)(n k)cn k tk (1 t) n k k=0 h(k)(k 1)Cn k1 t k1 (1 t) n k 1 n (h(k) h(k 1))kCnt k k (1 t) n k, k=0 We were informed by E. Hillion that the above elementary lemma also appears in his thesis [17]. We are now in a position to prove Proposition.7. Proof of Proposition.7. Set n=d(x, y) and letγbe a random variable uniformly distributed on Γ(x, y) and N t be a random variable with Binomial lawb(n, t) independent ofγ. By definitionν x,y t is the law of X t =Γ Nt. Using the independence, we have ν x,y t ( f )=E [ f (X t ) ] = n h(k)cn k tk (1 t) n k, with h(k)=e[ f (Γ k )], k=0, 1...,n. According to Lemma.9, we thus get t νx,y t ( f )= k=0 n [(h(k 1) h(k))(n k)(h(k) h(k 1))k] Cnt k k (1 t) n k k=0 =E [(h(n t 1) h(n t ))(n N t )(h(n t ) h(n t 1))N t ] =E [ ( f (Γ Nt 1) f (Γ Nt ))d(γ Nt, y)( f (Γ Nt ) f (Γ Nt 1))d(x,Γ Nt ) ] =E [ ( f (Γ (X t )) f (X t ))d(x t, y)( f (X t ) f (Γ (X t )))d(x, X t ) ] =E [ d(x, y) Γ f (X t ) ]. Finally, observe that the law ofγknowing X t = z x, y is uniform onγ(x, z, y). Indeed, P(Γ=γ, X t = z)=p(γ=γ,γ Nt = z)=p(γ=γ, N t = d(x, z), z γ)= 1 Γ(x,z,y)(γ) P(N t = d(x, z)). Γ(x, y) On the other hand, P(X t = z)=ν x,y Γ(x, z, y) t (z)=p(n t = d(x, z)), Γ(x, y) which proves the claim. By the definition of x,y f, it thus follows that which completes the proof. t νx,y t ( f )=d(x, y)ν x,y t ( x,y f ), Proof of Corollary.8. For simplicity, let F= log(ν 0 /µ). Observe that, sinceν 0 andν 1 are absolutely continuous with respect toµ, so isν π t. Now we observe that, since z V t νπ t (z)=0, by Proposition

13 .7 (recall thatν π 0 =ν 0 andν x,y 0 =δ x by construction), t H(νπ t µ) t=0 = t ν π t (z) logνπ t (z) = µ(z) z V t=0 = π(x, y)d(x, y) x,y F(x). (x,y) V DISPLACEMENT CONVEXITY ON GRAPHS 13 t νπ t (F) t=0 = π(x, y) t νx,y t (x,y) V By the definition of the gradient, for anyγ Γ(x, y), it holds γ F(x) = γ F(x). Thus, by the definition of x,y F, we get t H(νπ t µ) t=0 = π(x, y)d(x, y) Γ(x, y) (x,y) V γ Γ(x,y) γ F(x). Now, observe that for (x, y) V given, it holds γ F(x)= F(γ (x)) F(x)= (F(z) F(x)) Γ(x, z, y), γ Γ(x,y) γ Γ(x,y) z x (F) completing the proof..4. Tensoring property. In this section we prove that the path (ν x,y t ) t [0,1] constructed in Section.1 does tensorise. This will appear to be crucial in deriving the displacement convexity of the entropy on product spaces. Moreover we shall prove that, in order to have this tensoring property, the law of the random variable N t introduced in the construction of the path (ν x,y t ) t [0,1], must be, modulo a change of time, a binomial (see Proposition.1 below). The tensoring property of the path (ν x,y t ) t [0,1] is the following. Lemma.10. Let G 1 = (V 1, E 1 ), G = (V, E ) be two graphs and let G= G 1 G be their Cartesian product. Then, for any x=(x 1, x ), y=(y 1, y ) and z=(z 1, z ) in V 1 V, ν x,y t (z)=ν x 1,y 1 t (z 1 )ν x,y t (z ). Proof. Fix x=(x 1, x ), y=(y 1, y ) and z=(z 1, z ) in V 1 V. Then, we observe that, given two geodesics, one from x 1 to y 1, and one from x to y, one can construct exactly C d(x 1,y 1 ) d(x,y) different geodesics from x to y (by choosing the d(x 1, y 1 ) positions where to change the first coordinate, according to the geodesic joining x 1 to y 1, and thus changing the second coordinate in the remaining d(x, y )=d(x, y) d(x 1, y 1 ) positions, according to the geodesic joining x to y ). This construction exhausts all the geodesics from x to y. Hence, (.11) Γ(x, y) = C d(x 1,y 1 ) d(x,y) Γ(x 1, y 1 ) Γ(x, y ). Observe also that z belongs to some geodesic from x to y if and only if z 1 and z belong respectively to some geodesic from x 1 to y 1, and from x to y. Therefore, by (.1), it follows that Γ(x, z, y) = C d(x 1,z 1 ) d(x,z) C d(z 1,y 1 ) d(z,y) Γ(x 1, z 1, y 1 ) Γ(x, z, y ).

14 14 NATHAEL GOZLAN, CYRIL ROBERTO, PAUL-MARIE SAMSON, PRASAD TETALI So, it holds that ν x,y t (z)=c d(x,z) d(x,y) td(x,z) (1 t) d(y,z) Γ(x, z, y) Γ(x, y) = Cd(x,z) d(x,y) Cd(x 1,z 1 ) d(x,z) C d(y 1,z 1 ) d(y,z) C d(x 1,y 1 ) d(x,y) t d(x 1,z 1 ) (1 t) d(y 1,z 1 ) Γ(x 1, z 1, y 1 ) t d(x,z ) (1 t) d(y,z ) Γ(x, z, y ) Γ(x 1, y 1 ) Γ(x, y ) =ν x 1,y 1 t (z 1 )ν x,y t (z ), where we used that d(x, z)=d(x 1, z 1 )d(x, z ), and similarly for d(y, z), and the fact (that the reader can easily verify) that C d(x,z) d(x,y) Cd(x 1,z 1 ) C d(y 1,z 1 ) d(x,z) d(y,z) C d(x 1,y 1 ) d(x,y) = C d(x 1,z 1 ) d(x 1,y 1 ) Cd(x,z ) d(x,y ). Proposition.1. In the construction ofν x,y t, t [0, 1], use a general random variable N d(x,y) t {0, 1,...,d(x, y)}, of parameter d(x, y) and t, that satisfies a.s. N d(x,y) 0 = 0 and N d(x,y) 1 = d(x, y) (instead of the Binomial, observe that this condition is here to ensure thatν x,y 0 =δ x andν x,y 1 =δ y, namely thatν x,y t is still an interpolation between the two Dirac measures), so that ν x,y t (z)=p ( N d(x,y) t = d(x, z) ) Γ(x, z, y). Γ(x, y) Let G 1 = (V 1, E 1 ), G = (V, E ) be two graphs and let G= G 1 G be their Cartesian product. Assume that for any x=(x 1, x ), y=(y 1, y ) and z=(z 1, z ) in V 1 V, ν x,y t (z)=ν x 1,y 1 t (z 1 )ν x,y t (z ) t [0, 1]. Then, there exists a function a: [0, 1] [0, 1] with a(0) = 0, a(1) = 1, such that N d(x,y) t B(a(t), d(x, y)). Proof. Following the proof of Lemma.10 we have, On the other hand, and ν x,y t (z)=p ( N d(x,y) t = d(x, z) ) Γ(x, z, y) Γ(x, y) = Cd(x 1,z 1 ) C d(y 1,z 1 ) d(x,z) d(y,z) C d(x 1,y 1 ) d(x,y) P ( N d(x,y) t = d(x, z) ) Γ(x 1, z 1, y 1 ) Γ(x 1, y 1 ) ν x 1,y 1 t (z 1 )=P ( N d(x 1,y 1 ) t = d(x 1, z 1 ) ) Γ(x 1, z 1, y 1 ) Γ(x 1, y 1 ) ν x,y t (z )=P ( N d(x,y ) t = d(x, z ) ) Γ(x, z, y ). Γ(x, y ) Hence, the identityν x,y t (z)=ν x 1,y 1 t (z 1 )ν x,y t (z ) ensures that C d(x 1,z 1 ) d(x,z) C d(y 1,z 1 ) d(y,z) C d(x 1,y 1 ) d(x,y) for any z 1 x 1, y 1, z x, y. Γ(x, z, y ) Γ(x, y ) P ( N d(x,y) t = d(x, z) ) =P ( N d(x 1,y 1 ) t = d(x 1, z 1 ) ) P ( N d(x,y ) t = d(x, z ) ).

15 Now, observe that Hence, the latter can be rewritten as P ( N d(x,y) t = d(x, z) ) C d(x,z) d(x,y) DISPLACEMENT CONVEXITY ON GRAPHS 15 C d(x 1,z 1 ) d(x,z) C d(y 1,z 1 ) d(y,z) C d(x 1,y 1 ) d(x,y) Set, for simplicity, for any n, k, 0 k n = Cd(x 1,z 1 ) d(x 1,y 1 ) Cd(x,z ) d(x,y ) C d(x,z) d(x,y) = P( N d(x 1,y 1 ) t = d(x 1, z 1 ) ) C d(x 1,z 1 ) d(x 1,y 1 ) p n,k := P( Nt n = k ). C k n. P( N d(x,y ) t = d(x, z ) ) C d(x,z ) d(x,y ) Notice that p n,k depends also on t, while not explicitly stated. We end up with the following induction formula (.13) p n,k = p n1,k 1 p n n1,k k 1 for any integers k 1, n 1, k, n satisfying the following conditions k, n 1 n, k 1 min(k, n 1 ), and n 1 k 1 n k. (We set, n=d(x, y), n 1 = d(x 1, y 1 ), k=d(x, z) and k 1 = d(x 1, z 1 )). The special choice n 1 = 1, k 1 = 0 leads to (.14) p n,k = p 1,0 p n 1,k. Hence, it cannot be that p 1,0 = 0 (otherwise we would have p n,k = 0 for any k 0, any n 1, which clearly is impossible since n k=0 C k n p n,k= 1). Set b=b(t)= p 1,0. From (.14) we deduce that p n,k = b n k p k,k. Finally, the special choice n=k, n 1 = k 1 = k 1, in (.13), ensures that Since p 1,0 p 1,1 = 1, the latter reads as It follows that Now set a(t)=1 b(t) to end up with p k,k = p k 1,k 1 p 1,1. p k,k = p k 1,1 = (1 b)k. p n,k = b n k (1 b) k n, k n. P ( N n t = k ) = C k na k (1 a) n k, which guarantees that N d(x,y) t is indeed a binomial variable of parameter a(t) and d(x, y). To end the proof, it is suffices to observe that N d(x,y) 0 = 0 implies a(0)=0, and that N d(x,y) 1 = d(x, y) implies a(1) = Examples. In this section we collect some elementary facts on specific examples. Namely we give explicit expressions ofν x,y t, and derive some properties, when available, on the complete graph, the two-point space, and the hypercube..

16 16 NATHAEL GOZLAN, CYRIL ROBERTO, PAUL-MARIE SAMSON, PRASAD TETALI.5.1. Complete graph K n. Let K n be the complete graph with n vertices. Then, given any two points x, y K n, there exists only one geodesic from x to y, namelyγ(x, y)={(x, y)}. Hence, by construction, we have ofν x,y t (.15) ν x,y t (z)=0 z x, y; ν x,y t (x)=1 t, and ν x,y t (y)=t. Therefore, for any couplingπ with marginalsν 0 andν 1 (two given probability measures on K n ), we have for any z K n, ν π t (z)= ν x,y t (z)π(x, y) = ν z,y t (z)π(z, y) ν x,z t (z)π(x, z) (x,y) C(z) y K n x K n = (1 t) π(z, y)t π(x, z)=(1 t)ν 0 (z)tν 1 (z). y K n x K n As a conclusion, on the complete graph,ν π t is a simple linear combination ofν 0 andν 1 that does not depend onπ. Moreover, under the assumption of Corollary.8, since d(x, y) = Γ(x, y) = Γ(z, y) = 1, we have t H(νπ t µ) t=0 = (log f (z) log f (x))π(x, z)= log f (z)ν 1 (z) f (x) log f (x)µ(x) z x z K n x K n x K n where we set for simplicity f=ν 0 /µ. On the other hand, since f is a density with respect toµ, E µ ( f, log f ) := 1 (log f (z) log f (x))( f (z) f (x))µ(x)µ(z) x,z K n = log f (z)µ(z) f (x) log f (x)µ(x). z K n x K n Hence, ifν 1 = µ 1/n is the uniform measure on K n (notice all the measures on K n are then absolutely continuous with respect toµ), we can conclude that (.16) t H(νπ t µ) t=0 = E µ ( f, log f ). Note that, whenµ 1/n,E µ corresponds to the Dirichlet form associated to the uniform chain on the complete graph (each point can jumps to each point with probability 1/n). As a summary, on the complete graph we have: For any couplingπ, for any t [0, 1], Forν 1 =µ 1/n and f=ν 0 /µ, it holds ν π t = (1 t)ν 0 tν 1. t H(νπ t µ) t=0 = E µ ( f, log f )..5.. The two-point space. The previous computations apply in particular to the two-point space {0, 1}. In this specific case, let us considerµ to be a Bernoulli(p) measure (i.e.µ(1)= p=1 q= 1 µ(0)). As above,ν π t = (1 t)ν 0 tν 1, for any couplingπ ofν 0 andν 1. Moreover, it can also be checked by an easy computation that, for any t [0, 1], t H(νπ t µ)= C (ν 0 (0)tC)(ν 0 (1) tc) 4C,

17 DISPLACEMENT CONVEXITY ON GRAPHS 17 where C=ν 1 (0) ν 0 (0), and ν 0 ν 1 TV = ν 1 (0) ν 0 (0). As a result, one arrives at the following displacement convexity of the entropy ofν π t on the two-point space: (.17) H(ν π t µ) (1 t)h(ν 0 µ)th(ν 1 µ) t(1 t) ν 0 ν 1 TV, t [0, 1]. In Section 4 below, we refine the above inequality further, and generalize in two ways by deriving displacement convexity of entropy on the complete graph and the n-dimensional hypercube. As an application, let us setν 1 =µ, and use f=ν 0 /µ for the density; taking the limit t 0, and using t H(νπ t µ) t=0 = pq ( f (1) f (0))(log f (1) log f (0))=: E µ( f, log f ), we get a reinforced modified logarithmic Sobolev inequality on the two-point space of the following type: (.18) Ent µ ( f ) E µ ( f, log f ) fµ µ TV. In the above,e µ ( f, log f ) corresponds to the Dirichlet form associated with the Markov chain jumping from 0 to 1 with probability p and from 1 to 0 with probability q. The inequality is a reinforcement of a modified log-sobolev inequality, considered by previous researchers (as mentioned in the introduction), which lacks the negative term. Similarly to (.17), we also refine (.18) further in Proposition The n-dimensional hypercubeω n. Consider the n-dimensional hypercubeω n ={0, 1} n whose edges consist of pairs of vertices p that differ in precisely one coordinate. The graph distance here coincides with the Hamming distance: n d(x, y)= 1 xi y i, x, y Ω n. i=1 Then, one observes that Γ(x, y) =d(x, y)! (since, in order to move from x to y in the shortest way, one just needs to choose, among d(x, y) coordinates where x and y differ, the order of the flips (i.e. moves from x i to 1 x i )). It follows from (.) that, as soon as z belongs to a geodesic from x to y, ν x,y t (z)=c d(x,z) d(x,y) td(x,z) d(y,z) d(x, z)!d(y, z)! (1 t) = t d(x,z) (1 t) d(y,z), d(x, y)! andν x,y t (z)=0 if z does not belong to a geodesic from x to y. This expression can be recovered using the tensorisation property above. Namely, observe that Equation (.15) can be rewritten for the two-point space as follows, for all coordinates: Hence, by Lemma.10, ν x i,y i t (z i )=1 {xi,y i }(z i )t d(x i,z i ) (1 t) d(y i,z i ). ν x,y t (z)= n i=1 ν x i,y i t (z i )=t d(x,z) (1 t) d(y,z), as soon as z belongs to a geodesic from x to y, and 0 otherwise. Observe that the latter can also be rewritten in terms of a product of probability measures on the fibers as (.19) ν x,y t = n i=1 ((1 t)δ x i tδ yi ). Given two probability measures onω n, and a couplingπ onω n Ω n, we can finally define ν π t (z)= t d(x,z) (1 t) d(y,z) π(x, y). (x,y) Ω n

18 18 NATHAEL GOZLAN, CYRIL ROBERTO, PAUL-MARIE SAMSON, PRASAD TETALI On the n-dimensional hypercube we have: for any couple (x, y) Ω n and for any t [0, 1], ν x,y t = t d(x,z) (1 t) d(y,z) δ z = n i=1 ((1 t)δ x i tδ yi ). z x,y 3. Weak transport cost In this section we recall a notion of a discrete Wasserstein-type distance, called weak transport cost introduced and studied in [31, 50], developed further in [15] and collect some useful facts from [15]. Also, we introduce the notion of a Knothe-Rosenblatt coupling which will play a crucial role in the displacement convexity of the entropy property on product spaces Definition and first properties. For the notion of a weak transport cost, first recall the definition of P(ν 0,ν 1 ) introduced in Section 1.1. Definition 3.1. Letν 0,ν 1 P(V). Then, the weak transport cost T (ν 1 ν 0 ) betweenν 0 andν 1 is defined as T (ν 1 ν 0 ) := inf p P(ν 0,ν 1 ) d(x, y)p(x, y) ν 0 (x). It can be shown that (ν 0,ν 1 ) x V y V T (ν 1 ν 0 ) T (ν 0 ν 1 ) is a distance onp(v), see [15]. Also recall from the introduction, the following notation: givenπ Π(ν 0,ν 1 ), consider the kernels p P(ν 0,ν 1 ) and p P(ν 1,ν 0 ) defined byπ(x, y)=ν 0 (x)p(x, y)=ν 1 (y) p(y, x) and set (3.) I (π) := d(x, y)p(x, y) ν 0 (x), and x V y V y V Ī (π) := d(x, y) p(y, x) ν 1 (y), x V J (π) := d(x, y)π(x, y) x V y V With this notation, T (ν 0 ν 1 )= inf I (π). π Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) Also, define ˆT (ν 0,ν 1 ) := inf J (π), π Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) and observe that ˆT (ν 0,ν 1 )=W1 (ν 0,ν 1 ) where W 1 is the usual L 1 -Wasserstein distance associated to the distance d. Whenν 0 andν 1 are absolutely continuous with respect to some probability measureµ, and d is the Hamming distance d(x, y)=1 x y, x, y V, the weak transport cost and the L 1 -Wasserstein distance take an explicit form. This is stated in the next lemma. We give the proof for completeness..

19 DISPLACEMENT CONVEXITY ON GRAPHS 19 Lemma 3.3 ([15]). Assume thatν 0,ν 1 P(V) are absolutely continuous with respect to a third probability measureµ P(V), with respective densities f 0 and f 1. Assume that d(x, y) = 1 x y, x, y V. Then it holds [ T (ν 1 ν 0 )= 1 f ] 1 f 0 dµ f 0 where [X] = max(x, 0), and [ ] ˆT (ν 0,ν 1 )= f0 f 1 dµ= 1 f 0 f 1 dµ= 1 ν 0 ν 1 TV with TV, the total variation norm. Remark 3.4. Observe that T (ν 1 ν 0 ) does not depend onµ. Proof. For anyπ Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) and any x V, one has and therefore 1 d(x, y)p(x, y)= y V π(x, x) ν 0 (x) [ 1 f ] 1(x) f 0 (x) min(ν 0(x),ν 1 (x)) ν 0 (x) d(x, y)p(x, y). y V ( ) f1 (x) = min f 0 (x), 1. By integrating with respect to the measureν 0 and then optimizing over allπ Π(ν 0,ν 1 ), it follows that [ f0 f 1 ] dµ ˆT (ν 0,ν 1 ), and [ 1 f ] 1 f 0 dµ T (ν 1 ν 0 ). f 0 The equality is reached choosingπ Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) defined by (3.5) π (x, y)=ν 0 (x)p (x, y)=1 x=y min(ν 0 (x),ν 1 (x))1 x y [ν 0 (x) ν 1 (x)] [ν 1 (y) ν 0 (y)] z V[ν 1 (z) ν 0 (z)], since y V d(x, y)p (x, y)= [ 1 f ] 1(x) f 0 (x). 3.. The Knothe-Rosenblatt coupling. In this subsection, we recall a general method, due to Knothe-Rosenblatt [, 45], enabling to construct couplings between probability measures on product spaces. Consider two graphs G 1 = (V 1, E 1 ) and G = (V, E ) and two probability measuresν 0,ν 1 P(V 1 V ). The disintegration formulas ofν 0,ν 1 (recall (1.8)) read (3.6) ν 0 (x 1, x )=ν 0 (x )ν 1 0 (x 1 x ) and ν 1 (y 1, y )=ν 1 (y )ν 1 1 (y 1 y ). Letπ P(V ) be a coupling ofν 0,ν 1, and for all (x, y ) V letπ1 ( x, y ) P(V1 ) be a coupling ofν 1 0 ( x ) andν 1 1 ( y ), x, y V. We are now in a position to define the Knothe-Rosenblatt coupling.

20 0 NATHAEL GOZLAN, CYRIL ROBERTO, PAUL-MARIE SAMSON, PRASAD TETALI Definition 3.7 (Knothe-Rosenblatt coupling). Letν 0,ν 1 P(V 1 V ), and consider a family of couplingsπ,{π 1 ( x, y )} x,y as above; the coupling ˆπ P([V 1 V ] ), defined by ˆπ((x 1, x ), (y 1, y )) :=π (x, y )π 1 (x 1, y 1 x, y ), (x 1, x ), (y 1, y ) V 1 V is called the Knothe-Rosenblatt coupling ofν 0,ν 1 associated with the family of couplings { π,{π 1 ( x, y )} x,y }. It is easy to check that the Knothe-Rosenblatt coupling is indeed a coupling ofν 0,ν 1. Note that it is usually required that the couplingsπ,{π 1 ( x, y )} x,y are optimal for some weak transport cost, but we will not make this assumption in what follows. The preceding construction can easily be generalized to products of n graphs. Consider n graphs G 1 = (V 1, E 1 ),..., G n = (V n, E n ), and two probability measuresν 0,ν 1 P(V 1 V n ) admitting the following disintegration formulas: for all x=(x 1,..., x n ), y=(y 1,...,y n ) V 1 V n, ν 0 (x)=ν n 0 (x n)ν n 1 0 (x n 1 x n )ν n 0 (x n x n 1, x n ) ν 1 0 (x 1 x,..., x n ), ν 1 (y)=ν n 1 (y n)ν n 1 1 (y n 1 y n )ν n 1 (y n y n 1, y n ) ν 1 1 (y 1 y,...,y n ). For all j=1,...,n, letπ j ( x j1,..., x n, y j1,...,y n ) P(V j ) be a coupling ofν j 0 ( x j1,..., x n ) andν j 1 ( y j1,...,y n ). The Knothe-Rosenblatt coupling ˆπ P([V 1 V n ] ) betweenν 0 andν 1 is then defined by ˆπ(x, y)=π n (x n, y n )π n 1 (x n 1, y n 1 x n, y n ) π 1 (x 1, y 1 x,..., x n, y,...,y n ), for all x=(x 1, x,..., x n ) and y=(y 1, y,...,y n ) Tensorisation. Another useful property of the weak transport cost defined above is that it tensorises in the following sense. For 1 i n, let G i = (V i, E i ) be a graph with the associated distance d i. Given two probability measuresν 0,ν 1 inp(v 1 V n ), define n T (n) (ν 1 ν 0 ) := inf p P(ν 0,ν 1 ) d i (x i, y i )p(x, y) ν 0 (x) x V 1 V n i=1 y V 1 V n where x=(x 1,..., x n ), y=(y 1,...,y n ) V 1 V n. As above, for any couplingπofν 0,ν 1 P(V 1 V n ) we also define n I (n) (π) := d i (x i, y i )p(x, y) ν 0 (x) y V 1 V n x V 1 V n i=1 where p is such thatπ(x, y)=ν 0 (x)p(x, y), for all x, y V 1 V n. Similarly, one defines Ī (n). We also define n J (n) (π) := d i (x i, y i )π(x, y) i=1 x,y V 1 V n and ˆT (n) (ν 0,ν 1 ) := inf π Π(ν 0,ν 1 ) J(n) (π). Using the notation of Section 3. above, we can state the result.

21 DISPLACEMENT CONVEXITY ON GRAPHS 1 Proposition 3.8. Letν 0,ν 1 inp(v 1 V n ); and consider a family of couplingsπ n Π(ν n 0,νn 1 ) andπ k ( x k1,..., x n ) Π(ν k 0 ( x k1,..., x n ),ν k 1 ( y k1,...,y n )) with (x,..., x n ), (y,...,y n ) V V n, as above. Then, n 1 (ˆπ) I (π n ) I (n) k=1 x,y V 1 V n ˆπ(x, y)i (π k ( x k1,..., x n, y k1...y n )). where ˆπ is the Knothe-Rosenblatt coupling ofν 0 andν 1 associated with the family of couplings above. The same holds for Ī (n) and J (n) (π). In particular, if the couplingsπ n andπ k ( x k1,..., x n ) are assumed to achieve the infimum in the definition of the weak transport costs betweenν n 0 andνn 1 and betweenνk 0 ( x k1,..., x n ) and ν k 1 ( y k1,...,y n ) for all k {1,...,n 1}, we immediately get the following tensorisation inequality for T : (3.9) n 1 T (n) (ν 1 ν 0 ) T (ν n 1 νn 0 ) k=1 x,y V 1 Vn ˆπ(x, y) T (ν k 1 ( x k1,..., x n ) ν k 0 ( y k1,...,y n )). In an obvious way, the same kind of conclusion holds replacing T by ˆT. Proof. In this proof, we will use the following shorthand notation: if x Vand if 1 i j n, we will denote by x i: j the subvector (x i, x i1,..., x j ) V i V j. Define the kernels ˆp(, ), p n (, ) and p k (, x k1:n, y k1:n ) by the formulas ˆπ(x, y)= ˆp(x, y)ν 0 (x) π k (x k, y k x k1:n, y k1:n )= p k (x k, y k x k1:n, y k1:n )ν k 0 (x k x k1:n ), k<n, π n (x n, y n )= p n (x n, y n )ν n 0 (x n). By the definition of the Knothe-Rosenblatt coupling ˆπ, it holds As a result, d i (x i, y i ) ˆp(x, y) y ˆp(x, y)= n 1 y i1:n k=i1 n 1 k=1 p k (x k, y k x k1:n, y k1:n ) p n (x n, y n ). n 1 = d i (x i, y i ) p k (x k, y k x k1:n, y k1:n )p n (x n, y n ) y i:n k=i p k (x k, y k x k1:n, y k1:n )p n (x n, y n ) d i (x i, y i )p i (x i, y i x i1:n, y i1:n ) y i