arxiv: v2 [math.ap] 23 Apr 2014

Transcription

1 Multi-marginal Monge-Kantorovich transport problems: A characterization of solutions arxiv: v2 [math.ap] 23 Apr 2014 Abbas Moameni Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada abbas.momeni@uleth.ca April 24, 2014 Abstract We shall present a measure theoretical approach for which together with the Kantorovich duality provide an efficient tool to study the optimal transport problem. Specifically, we study the support of optimal plans where the cost function does not satisfy the classical twist condition in the two marginal problem as well as in the multi-marginal case when twistedness is limited to certain subsets. 1 Introduction We consider the Monge-Kantorovich transport problem for Borel probability measures µ 1,µ 2,...,µ n on smooth manifolds,x 2,...,X n. The cost function c : X 2... X n R is bounded and continuous. Let Π(µ 1,...,µ n ) be the set of Borel probability measures on X 2... X n which have X i -marginal µ i for each i 1,2,...,n. The transport cost associated to a transport plan π Π(µ 1,...,µ n ) is given by I c (π) = c(x 1,...,x n )dπ. X 2... X n We consider the Monge-Kantorovich transport problem, infi c (π);π Π(µ 1,...,µ n ). (MK) If a transport plan minimizes the cost, it will be called an optimal plan. We say that an optimal plan γ induces a Monge solution if it is concentrated on the graph (x,t(x); x of a measurable map T : X 2... X n. In contrary to the Monge problem, the Kantorovich problem always admits solutions as soon as the cost function is a non-negative lower semi continuous function (see [17] for a proof). When n = 2, a general criterion for existence and uniqueness of an optimal transport map known as the twist condition dictates the map y D 1 c(x,y) to be injective for fixed x. Under the twist condition and the absolute continuity of µ 1, the optimal plan γ which solves the Monge-Kantorovich problem (MK) is supported on the graph of an optimal transport map T, i.e., γ = (Id T) # µ. For larger n, questions regarding the existence and uniqueness are not fully understood yet. By now there are many interesting results for the multi-marginal problem in the general case as well as particular models (see for instance [2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15], the bibliography is not exhaustive). When n > 2, as shown in [10], the twist condition can be replaced by twistedness on c-splitting sets. Definition 1.1 A set S X 2... X n is a c-splitting set if there exists Borel functions u i : X i R such that for all (x 1,x 2,...,x n ), u i (x i ) c(x 1,x 2,...,x n ) with equality whenever (x 1,x 2,...,x n ) S. The n-tuple (u 1,...,u n ) is called the c-splitting tuple for S. Supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. 1

2 In [12], for the case n = 2, the author relaxed the twist condition by a new property, i.e., Generalized-twist condition: We say that c satisfies the generalized-twist condition if for any x 1 and x 2 X 2 the set L ( x1, x 2) := x 2 X 2 ; D 1 c( x 1,x 2 ) = D 1 c( x 1, x 2 ) is a finite subset of X 2. Moreover, if there exists m N such that for each x 1 and x 2 X 2 the cardinality of the set L ( x1, x 2) does not exceed m then we say that c satisfies the m-twist condition. Under the m-twist condition, it is shown that for each optimal plan γ of (MK), there exist a sequence of non-negative measurable real functions α i m on with m α i = 1 and, Borel measurable maps G 1,...,G m : X 2 such that γ = m α i(id G i ) # µ. Our aim in this work is to extend this result to the multi-marginal case. The generalized twist structure takes the following form in the multi-marginal case. Definition 1.2 Let c be a function that is differentiable with respect to the first variable. 1. m-twist condition: Say that c is m-twisted on c-splitting sets if for any c-splitting set S X 2... X n and any ( x 1, x 2,..., x n ) S the cardinality of the set ( x 1,x 2,...,x n ) S; D x1 c( x 1, x 2,..., x n ) = D x1 c( x 1,x 2,...,x n ), is at most m. 2. Generalized-twist condition: Say that c satisfies the generalized twist condition on c-splitting sets if for any c-splitting set S X 2... X n and any ( x 1, x 2,..., x n ) S the set ( x 1,x 2,...,x n ) S; D x1 c( x 1, x 2,..., x n ) = D x1 c( x 1,x 2,...,x n ), is a finite subset of S. The following result provides a connection between the generalized twist condition and the local 1-twistedness. Proposition 1.1 Assume that c is continuously differentiable with respect to the first variable and S is a compact c-splitting set. If c is locally 1-twisted on S then c satisfies the generalized-twist condition on S. We now state our main result in this paper. Theorem 1.3 Assume that the cost function c satisfies the generalized-twist condition on c-splitting sets, µ 1 is absolutely continuous with with respect to local coordinates and any c-concave function is differentiable µ 1 -almost surely on its domain. Then for each optimal plan γ of (MK), there exist k N, a sequence of nonnegative measurable real functions α i m on and, Borel measurable maps G 1,...,G k : X 2... X n such that γ = α i (Id G i ) # µ, (1) where k α i(x) = 1 for µ 1 -a.e. x As an immediate consequence of the above theorem we have: Corollary 1.4 Under the assumption of Theorem 1.3, if one replaces the generalized-twist condition by the m-twist condition then each optimal plan γ of (MK) is of the form (1) with k m. As shown in [12], the most interesting examples of costs satisfying the generalized-twist condition are nondegenerate costs on smooth n-dimensional manifolds X and Y. Denote by Dxyc(x 2 0,y 0 ) the n n matrix of mixed second order partial derivatives of the function c at the( point (x 0,y 0 )). A cost c C 2 (X Y) is non-degenerate provided Dxyc(x 2 0,y 0 ) is non-singular, that is det Dxyc(x 2 0,y 0 ) 0. In [13], following an idea in [15] together with Proposition 1.1, a differential condition similar to the non-degeneracy condition (in n = 2) is derived for the multi-marginal case that guaranties the general twist property on c-splitting sets and consequently the characterization of the support of optimal plans due to Theorem 1.3. In the next section, we shall discuss the key ingredients for our methodology in this work. Section 3 is devoted to the proof of the main results, 2

3 2 Measurable sections and extremality Let (X, B, µ) be a finite, not necessarily complete measure space, and (Y, Σ) a measurable space. The completion of B with respect to µ is denoted by B µ, when necessary, we identify µ with its completion on B µ. The push forward of the measure µ by a map T : (X,B,µ) (Y,Σ) is denoted by T # µ, i.e. T # µ(a) = µ(t 1 (A)), A Σ. Definition 2.1 Let T : X Y be (B,Σ)-measurable and ν a positive measure on Σ. We call a map F : Y X a (Σ ν,b)-measurable section of T if F is (Σ ν,b)- measurable and T F = Id Y. If X is a topological space we denote by B(X) the set of Borel sets on X. The space of Borel probability measures on a topological space X is denoted by P(X). For a measurable map T : (X,B(X)) (Y,Σ,ν) denote by M(T,ν) the set of all measures λ on B so that T pushes λ forward to ν, i.e. M(T,ν) = λ P(X); T # λ = ν. Evidently M(T,ν) is a convex set. A measure λ is an extreme point of M(T,ν) if the identity λ = θλ 1 + (1 θ)λ 2 with θ (0,1) and λ 1,λ 2 M(T,ν) imply that λ 1 = λ 2. The set of extreme points of M(T,ν) is denoted by extm(t,ν). We recall the following result from [8] in which a characterization of the set extm(t,ν) is given. Theorem 2.2 Let (Y,Σ,ν) be a probability space, (X,B(X)) be a Hausdorff space with a Radon probability measure λ, and let T : X Y be an (B(X),Σ)-measurable mapping. Assume that T is surjective and Σ is countably separated. The following conditions are equivalent: (i) λ is an extreme point of M(T,ν); (ii) there exists a (Σ ν,b(x))-measurable section F : Y X of the mapping T with λ = F # ν. By making use of the Choquet theory in the setting of noncompact sets of measures [18], each λ M(T,ν) can be represented as a Choquet type integral over extm(t,ν). Denote by Σ extm(t,ν) the σ-algebra over extm(t,ν) generated by the functions (B), B B(X). We have the following result (see [12] for a proof). Theorem 2.3 Let X and Y be complete separable metric spaces and ν a probability measure on B(Y). Let T : (X,B(X)) (Y,B(Y)) be a surjective measurable mapping and let λ M(T,ν). Then there exists a Borel probability measure ξ on extm(t,ν) such that for each B B(X), ) λ(b) = (B)dξ( ), ( (B) is measurable. 3 Proofs. ext M(T,ν) In this section we shall proceed with the proofs of the statements in the introduction. Proof of Proposition 1.1. Assume that S... X n is a c-splitting set. Fix ( x 1,..., x n ) S. We need to show that the set L = ( x 1,x 2,...,x n ) S; D 1 c( x 1, x 2,..., x n ) = D 1 c( x 1,x 2,...x n ), is finite. If L is not finite there exists an infinitely countable subset ( x 1,x k 2,...x k n) k N L. Since S is compact then the sequence ( x 1,x k 2,...xk n ) k N has an accumulation point ( x 1,x 0 2,...x0 n ) S and there exists a subsequence still denoted by ( x 1,x k 2,...xk n) k N such that x k i x0 i as k for i = 2,...,n. Since D 1c is continuous it follows that ( x 1,x 0 2,...x 0 n) L. Since c is locally 1-twisted on S, this leads to a contradiction as ( x 1,x 0 2,...x0 n ) is an accumulation point of the sequence ( x 1,x k 2,...xk n ) k N and D 1 c( x 1,x 0 2,...x0 n ) = D 1c( x 1,x k 2,...xk n ), k N. 3

4 This completes the proof. We now state some preliminaries required for the proof of the main theorem. It is standard that γ Π(µ 1,...,µ n ) is non-atomic if and only if at least one µ i is non-atomic (see for instance [16]). Set Y = X 2... X n. Since µ 1 is non-atomic it follows that the Borel measurable spaces (,B( ),µ 1 ) and ( Y,B( Y),γ) are isomorphic. Thus, there exists an isomorphism T = (T 1,T 2,...,T n ) from (,B( ),µ 1 ) onto ( Y,B( Y),γ). It can be easily deduced that T i : X i are surjective maps and T i #µ 1 = µ i, i = 1,2,...,n. Consider the convex set M(T 1,µ 1 ) = λ P( ); T 1 #λ = µ 1, and note that µ 1 M(T 1,µ 1 ). The following result is established in [12]. Lemma 3.1 Suppose F 1,F 2 are two distinct sections of T 1. Then the set x X1 ; F 1 (x) = F 2 (x) is a null set with respect to the measure µ 1. Proof of Theorem 1.3. Since µ 1 M(T 1,µ 1 ), it follows from Theorem 2.3 that there exists a Borel probability measure ξ on extm(t such that for each B B(,µ 1) 1), ) µ(b) = (B)dξ( ), ( (B) is measurable. (2) extm(t 1,µ 1) On the other hand, by Kantorovich duality (see [4] for a proof Theorem in the multi-marginal case), there exist c-conjugate functions ϕ i L 1 (µ i ) such that ϕ 1 (x 1 )+...+ϕ n (x n ) c(x 1,...,x n ) for all (x 1,...,x n ) and cdγ = X i ϕ i (x i )dµ i. Let S be the c-splitting set generated by the n-tuple (ϕ 1,...,ϕ n ), that is, S = (x 1,...,x n ); c(x 1,...,x n ) = ϕ i (x i ). As T = (T 1,T 2,...,T n ) is an isomorphism from (,B( ),µ 1 ) onto ( Y,B( Y),γ), it follows that c(t 1 x 1,T 2 x 1,...,T n x 1 )dµ 1 = ϕ i (T i x 1 )dµ 1. from which together with the fact that n ϕ i(x i ) c(x 1,...,x n ) we obtain c(t 1 x 1,T 2 x 1,...,T n x 1 ) = Since ϕ 1 is µ almost surely differentiable and T 1# µ 1 = µ 1, it follows that ϕ i (T i x 1 ). µ 1 a.e. (3) D 1 c(t 1 x 1,T 2 x 1,...,T n x 1 ) = ϕ 1 (T 1 x 1 ) µ 1 a.e. (4) where D 1 c stands for the partial derivative of c with respect to the first variable. Let A γ B( ) be the set with µ(a γ ) = 1 such that (3) and (4) hold for all x 1 A γ, i.e. c(t 1 x 1,T 2 x 1,...,T n x 1 ) = ϕ i (T i x 1 ) & D 1 c(t 1 x 1,T 2 x 1,...,T n x 1 ) = ϕ 1 (T 1 x 1 ) x 1 A γ. (5) 4

5 Since µ 1 ( \A γ ) = 0, it follows from (2) that ( \A γ )dξ( ) = µ( \A γ ) = 0, extm(t 1,µ 1) and therefore there exists a ξ-full measure subset K γ of extm(t 1,µ 1 ) such that ( \A γ ) = 0 for all K γ Claim. The set K γ is finite. To prove the claim assume that K γ contains an infinitely countable subset n n N. It follows from Theorem 2.2 that there exists a sequence of (B( ) µ,b( ))-measurable sections F n n N of the mapping T 1 with n = F n# µ. It follows from (5) that D 1 c ( T 1 F n (x 1 ),T 2 F n (x 1 ),...,T n F n (x 1 ) ) = ϕ ( T 1 F n (x 1 ) ) x 1 Fn 1 (A γ). (6) It follows that D 1 c ( x 1,T 2 F n (x 1 ),...,T n F n (x 1 ) ) = ϕ ( x 1 ) x 1 n=1 F 1 n (A γ), n N. (7) Since n( \A γ ) = 0 and n is a probability measure we have that n(a γ ) = 1 for every n N. Note that n(a γ ) = µ ( Fn 1(A γ) ) ( and therefore µ 1 n=1 Fn 1(A γ) ) = 1. This together with (7) yield that where Āγ = n=1f 1 n (A γ ). Let D 1 c ( x 1,T 2 F n (x 1 ),...,T n F n (x 1 ) ) = ϕ ( x 1 ) x Ā γ, (8) A i,j = x 1 ; F i (x 1 ) = F j (x 1 ). It follows from Lemma 3.1 that µ 1 (A i,j ) = 0 provided i j. By setting B γ = i,j=1,i j A i,j, it follows that µ 1 (B γ ) = 0. Fix x 1 Āγ \B γ. It follows from the generalized twist condition on splitting sets that L x1 := (x 1,y) S; D 1 c ( x 1,T 2 F 1 (x 1 ),...,T n F n (x 1 ) ) = D 1 c ( x 1,y ), is a finite set. On the other hand it follows from (8) that ( x 1,T 2 F n (x 1 ),...,T n F n (x 1 ) ) L x1 for all n N. Thus, there exist i,j N with i j such that ( T 2 F i (x 1 ),...,T n F i (x 1 ) ) = ( T 2 F j (x 1 ),...,T n F j (x 1 ) ). Since T 1 F i = T 1 F j = Id X1 and the map T = (T 1,T 2,...,T n ) is injective it follows that F i (x 1 ) = F j (x 1 ). This is a contradiction as x 1 / B γ from which the claim follows. By the latter claim the cardinality of the set K γ is a finite number. Let k = Card(K γ ) and assume that K γ = 1,..., k. For every B B(X) it follows from (2) that µ 1 (B) = (B)dξ( ) = (B)dξ( ), extm(t 1,µ 1) K γ fromwhichweobtainthatµisabsolutelycontinuouswithrespectto k i.itfollowsthatdµ/d( k i) = α(x) for some measurable non-negative function α. Assume that F 1,...,F k are (B( ) µ,b(x))-measurable sections of the mapping T 1 with i = F i# µ 1. Setting α i = α F i, it follows from T 1# µ 1 = µ 1 that k α i(x) = 1 for µ 1 -a.e. x. It also follows from Corollary6.7.6 in [1] that each F i is µ 1 -a.e. equal to a (B( ),B( ))-measurable function still denoted by F i. For each i 1,...,k, let G i = ( ) T 2 F i,...,t n F i. We now show that γ = k α i(id G i ) # µ. For each bounded continuous function f : Y R it follows that f(x,y)dγ = f(t 1 x 1,T 2 x 1,...,T n x 1 )dµ 1 Y = α(x 1 )f(t 1 x 1,T 2 x 1,...,T n x 1 )d i = = α ( F i (x 1 ) ) f ( T 1 F i (x 1 ),T 2 F i (x 1 ),...,T n F i (x 1 ) ) dµ 1 α i (x)f ( x 1,G i (x 1 ) ) dµ 1. 5

6 Therefore, γ = k α i(id G i ) # µ. This completes the proof. Proof of Corollary 1.4. The proof goes in the same lines as the proof of Theorem 1.3 and the only difference is that not only the set K γ is finite but also its cardinality does not exceed m provided the cost function satisfies the m-twist condition. References [1] V. I. Bogachev, Measure theory. Vol. I, II. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, [2] G. Buttazzo, L. De Pascale, and P. Gori-Giorgi. Optimal transport formulation of electronic densityfunctional theory. Phys. Rev. A, 85:062502, Jun [3] G. Carlier, On a class of multidimensional optimal transportation problems. J. Convex Anal., 10(2): , [4] G. Carlier, B. Nazaret, Optimal transportation for the determinant, ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 14 (2008), no. 4, [5] P.-A. Chiappori, R. J. McCann, L. P. Nesheim, Hedonic price equilibria, stable matching, and optimal transport: equivalence, topology, and uniqueness. Econom. Theory 42 (2010) [6] W. Gangbo and A. Swiech. Optimal maps for the multidimensional mongekantorovich problem. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 51(1):23-45, [7] N. Ghoussoub and A. Moameni. A Self-dual Polar Factorization for Vector Fields. Comm. Pure. Applied. Math., Vol 66, Issue 6 (2013) p [8] S. Graf, Induced -homomorphisms and a parametrization of measurable sections via extremal preimage measures. Math. Ann. 247 (1980), no. 1, [9] H. Heinich. Probleme de Monge pour n probabilities. C.R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 334(9): , [10] Y-H Kim, B. Pass. A general condition for Monge solutions in the multi-marginal optimal transport problem. arxiv: [11] V. Levin, Abstract cyclical monotonicity and Monge solutions for the general Monge-Kantorovich problem. Set-Valued Analysis, 7(1):7-32, [12] A. Moameni, A characterization for solutions of the Monge-Kantorovich mass transport problem. Submitted. [13] A. Moameni, On the support of optimal plans in the muti-marginal Monge-Kantorovich mass transport problem. In preparation. [14] B. Pass. Uniqueness and monge solutions in the multimarginal optimal transportation problem. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 43(6): , [15] B. Pass. On the local structure of optimal measures in the multimarginal optimal transportation problem. Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 43: , [16] K. P. S. Bhaskara Rao, M. Bhaskara Rao, A Remark on Nonatomic Measures. Ann. Math. Statist. V. 43, 1 (1972), [17] C. Villani, Optimal transport, Old and new. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, [18] H. von Weizsäcker, G. Winkler, Integral representation in the set of solutions of a generalized moment problem. Math. Ann. 246 (1979/80), no. 1,