Wasserstein Mirror Gradient Flow as the limit of the Sinkhorn Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We prove that the sequence of marginals obtained from the iterations of the Sinkhorn algorithm or the iterative proportional fitting procedure (IPFP) on joint densities, converges to an absolutely continuous curve on the 2-Wasserstein space, as the regularization parameter ε goes to zero and the number of iterations is scaled as 1/ε (and other technical assumptions). This limit, which we call the Sinkhorn flow, is an example of a Wasserstein mirror gradient flow, a concept we introduce here inspired by the well-known Euclidean mirror gradient flows. In the case of Sinkhorn, the gradient is that of the relative entropy functional with respect to one of the marginals, and the mirror is half of the squared Wasserstein distance functional from the other marginal. Interestingly, the norm of the velocity field of this flow can be interpreted as the metric derivative with respect to the linearized optimal transport (LOT) distance. An equivalent description of this flow is provided by the parabolic Monge–Ampère PDE whose connection to the Sinkhorn algorithm was noticed by Berman (Numer. Math. 145 (2020) 771–836). We derive conditions for exponential convergence for this limiting flow. We also construct a McKean–Vlasov diffusion whose marginal distributions follow the Sinkhorn flow.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".