pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.27767 · v1 · pith:64VZZKRAnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · 💻 cs.LG · math.OC

Difference of Convex Programming in the Wasserstein Space with Applications to MMD Optimization

Cl\'ement Bonet , Pierre-Cyril Aubin-Frankowski , Youssef Mroueh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 05:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG math.OC
keywords difference of convex programmingWasserstein spaceMMD optimizationconvex-concave procedureprobability measuresnon-convex optimizationenergy distance
0
0 comments X

The pith

A lifted convex-concave procedure finds almost-stationary points for difference-of-convex objectives over the Wasserstein space.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a way to optimize non-convex functionals defined on probability measures by first decomposing them as differences of convex functions and then lifting the classical convex-concave procedure to the Wasserstein geometry. Under smoothness and strong convexity of the convex parts, the resulting iterates are shown to be almost stationary. Explicit decompositions are constructed for the maximum mean discrepancy and energy distance, and local convergence is established under mild conditions. The work matters because many distribution-matching objectives used in machine learning are non-convex along Wasserstein geodesics, where ordinary first-order methods lack strong guarantees.

Core claim

Objectives over the Wasserstein space that admit a difference-of-convex decomposition can be minimized by a lifted CCCP algorithm whose iterates are almost stationary when the convex components are smooth and strongly convex. Explicit Wasserstein DC decompositions are supplied for the MMD and energy-distance functionals, and the scheme is shown to converge locally under mild assumptions. Well-chosen decompositions produce faster and more stable convergence than plain Wasserstein gradient descent on these objectives.

What carries the argument

The lifted convex-concave procedure (CCCP) applied to a DC decomposition of a functional on the Wasserstein space, which generates a sequence of convex subproblems solved along Wasserstein geodesics.

If this is right

  • Iterates of the lifted CCCP are almost stationary for smooth strongly convex DC components.
  • Explicit DC decompositions exist for both MMD and energy distance.
  • Local convergence holds under mild assumptions on those decompositions.
  • Well-chosen DC decompositions converge faster and more stably than Wasserstein gradient descent on MMD objectives.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach may extend to other optimal-transport discrepancies once suitable DC decompositions are found.
  • It could be combined with existing Wasserstein gradient flows to handle mixed convex-nonconvex objectives in generative modeling.
  • Finding systematic ways to obtain DC decompositions for arbitrary functionals on measures remains a separate algorithmic question.

Load-bearing premise

The convex parts of the DC decomposition must be smooth and strongly convex.

What would settle it

Run the lifted CCCP on an MMD objective whose DC decomposition has a convex part that is not strongly convex and check whether the iterates remain far from stationarity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27767 by Cl\'ement Bonet, Pierre-Cyril Aubin-Frankowski, Youssef Mroueh.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Convergence of WGD and WC￾CCP to minimize F(µ) = 1 2 ED(µ, ν) with ν samples from CIFAR10. Proposition 8. Let q ∈ C 2 ([0, S∗]). Assume there exists q± ∈ C 2 ([0, S∗]) such that q = q+ − q−. If λ[q+], λ[q−] ≥ 0, then the translation-invariant kernel k(x, y) = ψ(x − y) = q(∥x − y∥ 2 2 ) satisfies Proposition 7 with ψ±(z) = q±(∥z∥ 2 2 ), α ± = λ[q±]. Moreover, if Λ[q+],Λ[q−] < ∞, for all k ≥ 0, the Lipschitz… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Optimization of F(µ) = 1 2MMD2 k (µ, ν) for ν a Gaussian target and k the Gaussian kernel. (Left) Evolution of the squared MMD along the flow. (Right) Trajectories of the particles over time. The initial particles are in blue and the final particles in red. comparing the three schemes in the same setting, assuming access to an oracle for WCCCP and FB. We add in Figure E.7 a comparison with different step s… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Optimizing functionals over the space of probability measures is now ubiquitous in machine learning. A widely used approach is to perform the optimization directly over the Wasserstein space, but many objective functionals of practical interest are non-convex along Wasserstein geodesics, making the analysis of standard first-order methods challenging. In this work, we study a class of objectives over the Wasserstein space that admit a difference-of-convex (DC) decomposition and we lift the classical convex-concave procedure (CCCP) to this setting. Under smoothness and strong convexity assumptions on the convex components of the decomposition, we prove almost stationarity along the iterates of the resulting algorithm. Our main focus is on the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) and the Energy Distance (ED) functionals, for which we develop explicit Wasserstein DC decompositions, and establish local convergence of the scheme under mild assumptions. Empirically, we show that well-chosen DC decompositions yield faster and more stable convergence than Wasserstein gradient descent on these MMD objectives.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes lifting the classical convex-concave procedure (CCCP) to the Wasserstein space for optimizing functionals that admit a difference-of-convex (DC) decomposition. Under smoothness and strong-convexity assumptions on the convex summands, it claims to prove that the resulting algorithm produces almost-stationary iterates. Explicit DC decompositions are developed for the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) and Energy Distance (ED) functionals, for which local convergence is established under mild assumptions. Empirical comparisons indicate that suitably chosen DC decompositions yield faster and more stable convergence than Wasserstein gradient descent on MMD objectives.

Significance. If the smoothness and strong-convexity assumptions hold for the explicit DC splittings of MMD and ED with respect to the Wasserstein metric, the work supplies a new first-order scheme for a practically relevant class of non-convex problems on probability measures together with concrete constructions and local-convergence guarantees. The provision of explicit DC decompositions for MMD and ED constitutes a concrete, reusable contribution.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the almost-stationarity and local-convergence statements are conditioned on the convex components of the DC decomposition being smooth and strongly convex in the Wasserstein geometry. The manuscript supplies explicit DC decompositions for MMD and ED yet provides no verification, constant bounds, or counter-example checks confirming that these particular summands satisfy strong convexity (or even finite smoothness constants) with respect to the Wasserstein metric; this verification is load-bearing for the applicability of the theoretical guarantees to the functionals highlighted in the title and abstract.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'well-chosen DC decompositions' without stating the selection criterion or the precise mild assumptions used for local convergence of MMD/ED.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and the constructive comment on the abstract. We address the point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the almost-stationarity and local-convergence statements are conditioned on the convex components of the DC decomposition being smooth and strongly convex in the Wasserstein geometry. The manuscript supplies explicit DC decompositions for MMD and ED yet provides no verification, constant bounds, or counter-example checks confirming that these particular summands satisfy strong convexity (or even finite smoothness constants) with respect to the Wasserstein metric; this verification is load-bearing for the applicability of the theoretical guarantees to the functionals highlighted in the title and abstract.

    Authors: We agree that the general almost-stationarity result relies on smoothness and strong-convexity of the convex summands with respect to the Wasserstein metric, and that the manuscript does not supply explicit verification, bounds, or checks for the specific DC components of MMD and ED. The local-convergence claim for MMD/ED is stated under separate mild assumptions, but the referee is correct that the abstract does not clearly separate the general theorem from the application. In the revision we will add a dedicated paragraph (or short appendix) that either derives the relevant constants for the chosen decompositions or states the precise additional conditions needed for the MMD/ED cases. This addresses the load-bearing gap without altering the main theorems. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: convergence claims rest on independent assumptions and explicit decompositions without reduction to self-defined inputs.

full rationale

The abstract states that almost-stationarity is proved under smoothness and strong-convexity assumptions on the DC components, with explicit decompositions supplied for MMD and ED and local convergence shown under mild assumptions. No quoted equations or steps reduce any prediction or theorem to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or definitional equivalence. The derivation chain is presented as conditional on external assumptions that are not shown to be tautological with the result itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the existence of a DC decomposition whose convex pieces satisfy smoothness and strong convexity; these are domain assumptions imported from convex analysis rather than derived in the paper.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The objective functional admits a DC decomposition whose convex parts are smooth and strongly convex along Wasserstein geodesics.
    Stated in the abstract as the condition under which almost stationarity and local convergence hold.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5723 in / 1222 out tokens · 17734 ms · 2026-06-29T05:00:41.149154+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    On the rate of convergence of the difference-of-convex algorithm (DCA).Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 202(1):475–496, 2024

    Hadi Abbaszadehpeivasti, Etienne de Klerk, and Moslem Zamani. On the rate of convergence of the difference-of-convex algorithm (DCA).Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 202(1):475–496, 2024. (Cited on p. 4, 5, 17)

    2024

  2. [2]

    DC Decomposition of Nonconvex Polynomials with Algebraic Techniques.Mathematical Programming, 169(1):69–94, 2018

    Amir Ali Ahmadi and Georgina Hall. DC Decomposition of Nonconvex Polynomials with Algebraic Techniques.Mathematical Programming, 169(1):69–94, 2018. (Cited on p. 9, 17)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Neural Wasserstein Gradient Flows for Discrepancies with Riesz Kernels

    Fabian Altekrüger, Johannes Hertrich, and Gabriele Steidl. Neural Wasserstein Gradient Flows for Discrepancies with Riesz Kernels. In Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett, editors,Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 ofProceedings of Machine Learn...

    2023

  4. [4]

    Springer, 2008

    Luigi Ambrosio, Nicola Gigli, and Giuseppe Savaré.Gradient Flows: in Metric Spaces and in the Space of Probability Measures. Springer, 2008. (Cited on p. 1, 2, 3, 6, 17, 19, 33)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Refining Deep Generative Models via Discriminator Gradient Flow

    Abdul Fatir Ansari, Ming Liang Ang, and Harold Soh. Refining Deep Generative Models via Discriminator Gradient Flow. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. (Cited on p. 1)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Maximum Mean Discrepancy Gradient Flow.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    Michael Arbel, Anna Korba, Adil Salim, and Arthur Gretton. Maximum Mean Discrepancy Gradient Flow.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019. (Cited on p. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 28)

    2019

  7. [7]

    A DC- Programming Algorithm for Kernel Selection

    Andreas Argyriou, Raphael Hauser, Charles A Micchelli, and Massimiliano Pontil. A DC- Programming Algorithm for Kernel Selection. InProceedings of the 23rd international confer- ence on Machine learning, pages 41–48, 2006. (Cited on p. 2)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Convex- Concave Programming: An Effective Alternative for Optimizing Shallow Neural Networks

    Mohammad Askarizadeh, Alireza Morsali, Sadegh Tofigh, and Kim Khoa Nguyen. Convex- Concave Programming: An Effective Alternative for Optimizing Shallow Neural Networks. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, 9(4):2894–2907, 2024. (Cited on p. 2)

    2024

  9. [9]

    DC-programming for neural network optimizations.Journal of Global Optimization, pages 1–17, 2024

    Pranjal Awasthi, Anqi Mao, Mehryar Mohri, and Yutao Zhong. DC-programming for neural network optimizations.Journal of Global Optimization, pages 1–17, 2024. (Cited on p. 2)

    2024

  10. [10]

    A descent lemma beyond Lipschitz gradient continuity: first-order methods revisited and applications.Mathematics of Operations Research, 42(2):330–348, 2017

    Heinz H Bauschke, Jérôme Bolte, and Marc Teboulle. A descent lemma beyond Lipschitz gradient continuity: first-order methods revisited and applications.Mathematics of Operations Research, 42(2):330–348, 2017. (Cited on p. 17)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Mirror Descent and Nonlinear Projected Subgradient Methods for Convex Optimization.Operations Research Letters, 31(3):167–175, 2003

    Amir Beck and Marc Teboulle. Mirror Descent and Nonlinear Projected Subgradient Methods for Convex Optimization.Operations Research Letters, 31(3):167–175, 2003. (Cited on p. 3)

    2003

  12. [12]

    Weighted Quantization Using MMD: From Mean Field to Mean Shift via Gradient Flows

    Ayoub Belhadji, Daniel Sharp, and Youssef Marzouk. Weighted Quantization Using MMD: From Mean Field to Mean Shift via Gradient Flows. InThe 29th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2026. (Cited on p. 2)

    2026

  13. [13]

    The Difference of Convex Algorithm on Hadamard Manifolds.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 201(1):221–251, 2024

    Ronny Bergmann, Orizon P Ferreira, Elianderson M Santos, and João Carlos O Souza. The Difference of Convex Algorithm on Hadamard Manifolds.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 201(1):221–251, 2024. (Cited on p. 2)

    2024

  14. [14]

    A family of functional inequalities: Łojasiewicz inequalities and displacement convex functions.Journal of Functional Analysis, 275(7):1650–1673, 2018

    Adrien Blanchet and Jérôme Bolte. A family of functional inequalities: Łojasiewicz inequalities and displacement convex functions.Journal of Functional Analysis, 275(7):1650–1673, 2018. (Cited on p. 1, 17)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticians.Journal of the American statistical Association, 112(518):859–877, 2017

    David M Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D McAuliffe. Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticians.Journal of the American statistical Association, 112(518):859–877, 2017. (Cited on p. 1) 10

    2017

  16. [16]

    Bomze and Marco Locatelli

    Immanuel M. Bomze and Marco Locatelli. Undominated d.c. Decompositions of Quadratic Functions and Applications to Branch-and-Bound Approaches.Computational Optimization and Applications, 28(2):227–245, 2004. (Cited on p. 17)

    2004

  17. [17]

    Mirror and Preconditioned Gradient Descent in Wasserstein Space

    Clément Bonet, Théo Uscidda, Adam David, Pierre-Cyril Aubin-Frankowski, and Anna Korba. Mirror and Preconditioned Gradient Descent in Wasserstein Space. InThirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. (Cited on p. 1, 3, 5, 6, 17, 18, 34)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Sliced-Wasserstein Distances and Flows on Cartan-Hadamard Manifolds.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 26(32):1–76, 2025

    Clément Bonet, Lucas Drumetz, and Nicolas Courty. Sliced-Wasserstein Distances and Flows on Cartan-Hadamard Manifolds.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 26(32):1–76, 2025. (Cited on p. 1)

    2025

  19. [19]

    A Pontryagin Maximum Principle in Wasserstein Spaces for Constrained Optimal Control Problems.ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 25:52,

    Benoît Bonnet. A Pontryagin Maximum Principle in Wasserstein Spaces for Constrained Optimal Control Problems.ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 25:52,

  20. [20]

    PhD thesis, Université Paris Sud-Paris XI; Scuola normale superiore (Pise, Italie), 2013

    Nicolas Bonnotte.Unidimensional and Evolution Methods for Optimal Transportation. PhD thesis, Université Paris Sud-Paris XI; Scuola normale superiore (Pise, Italie), 2013. (Cited on p. 1)

    2013

  21. [21]

    On the global convergence of Wasserstein gradient flow of the Coulomb discrepancy.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 57(4): 4556–4587, 2025

    Siwan Boufadène and François-Xavier Vialard. On the global convergence of Wasserstein gradient flow of the Coulomb discrepancy.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 57(4): 4556–4587, 2025. (Cited on p. 2)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Polar Factorization and Monotone Rearrangement of Vector-Valued Functions

    Yann Brenier. Polar Factorization and Monotone Rearrangement of Vector-Valued Functions. Communications on pure and applied mathematics, 44(4):375–417, 1991. (Cited on p. 4)

    1991

  23. [23]

    Proximal Opti- mal Transport Modeling of Population Dynamics

    Charlotte Bunne, Laetitia Papaxanthos, Andreas Krause, and Marco Cuturi. Proximal Opti- mal Transport Modeling of Population Dynamics. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 6511–6528. PMLR, 2022. (Cited on p. 1)

    2022

  24. [24]

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum? id=cqDH0e6ak2

    Jiarui Cao, Zixuan Wei, and Yuxin Liu. Gradient Flow Drifting: Generative Model- ing via Wasserstein Gradient Flows of KDE-Approximated Divergences.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.10592, 2026. (Cited on p. 1)

    work page arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    A Lagrangian approach to totally dissipative evolutions in Wasserstein spaces

    Giulia Cavagnari, Giuseppe Savaré, and Giacomo Enrico Sodini. A Lagrangian approach to totally dissipative evolutions in Wasserstein spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05211, 2023. (Cited on p. 3, 17)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Stochastic Difference-of-Convex Optimization with Mo- mentum.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17503, 2025

    El Mahdi Chayti and Martin Jaggi. Stochastic Difference-of-Convex Optimization with Mo- mentum.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17503, 2025. (Cited on p. 6)

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    On the Global Convergence of Gradient Descent for Over- Parameterized Models using Optimal Transport.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    Lenaic Chizat and Francis Bach. On the Global Convergence of Gradient Descent for Over- Parameterized Models using Optimal Transport.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018. (Cited on p. 1)

    2018

  28. [28]

    Quantitative Convergence of Wasserstein Gradient Flows of Kernel Mean Discrepancies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01977, 2026

    Lénaïc Chizat, Maria Colombo, Roberto Colombo, and Xavier Fernández-Real. Quantitative Convergence of Wasserstein Gradient Flows of Kernel Mean Discrepancies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01977, 2026. (Cited on p. 8)

    work page arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Generative Modeling via Drifting

    Mingyang Deng, He Li, Tianhong Li, Yilun Du, and Kaiming He. Generative Modeling via Drifting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04770, 2026. (Cited on p. 1)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Nonparametric Generative Modeling with Conditional Sliced-Wasserstein Flows

    Chao Du, Tianbo Li, Tianyu Pang, Shuicheng Yan, and Min Lin. Nonparametric Generative Modeling with Conditional Sliced-Wasserstein Flows. In Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett, editors,Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 ofProceedings of Machin...

    2023

  31. [31]

    Learning Monge maps with constrained drifting models

    Théo Dumont, Théo Lacombe, and François-Xavier Vialard. Learning Monge maps by lifting and constraining Wasserstein gradient flows.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25182, 2026. (Cited on p. 3)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    A Bregman Divergence View on the Difference-of-Convex Algorithm

    Oisin Faust, Hamza Fawzi, and James Saunderson. A Bregman Divergence View on the Difference-of-Convex Algorithm. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 3427–3439. PMLR, 2023. (Cited on p. 4, 5, 17, 18, 19)

    2023

  33. [33]

    A subdifferential characteri- zation via Busemann functions and applications to DC optimization on Hadamard manifolds

    OP Ferreira, DS Gonçalves, MS Louzeiro, SZ Németh, and J Zhu. A subdifferential characteri- zation via Busemann functions and applications to DC optimization on Hadamard manifolds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.20931, 2026. (Cited on p. 2) 11

    work page arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Functional Bregman Divergence

    Bela A Frigyik, Santosh Srivastava, and Maya R Gupta. Functional Bregman Divergence. In 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, pages 1681–1685. IEEE, 2008. (Cited on p. 3)

    2008

  35. [35]

    Deep Generative Learning via Variational Gradient Flow

    Yuan Gao, Yuling Jiao, Yang Wang, Yao Wang, Can Yang, and Shunkang Zhang. Deep Generative Learning via Variational Gradient Flow. In Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov, editors,Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2093–2101. PMLR, 09–15 Jun 2019. (Cited on p. 1)

    2093

  36. [36]

    DDEQs: Distribu- tional Deep Equilibrium Models through Wasserstein Gradient Flows

    Jonathan Geuter, Clément Bonet, Anna Korba, and David Alvarez-Melis. DDEQs: Distribu- tional Deep Equilibrium Models through Wasserstein Gradient Flows. InThe 28th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2025. (Cited on p. 8)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Interaction-Force Transport Gradient Flows.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:14484– 14508, 2024

    Egor Gladin, Pavel Dvurechensky, Alexander Mielke, and Jia-Jie Zhu. Interaction-Force Transport Gradient Flows.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:14484– 14508, 2024. (Cited on p. 2, 28)

    2024

  38. [38]

    A Kernel Two-sample Test.The journal of machine learning research, 13(1):723–773,

    Arthur Gretton, Karsten M Borgwardt, Malte J Rasch, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Alexander Smola. A Kernel Two-sample Test.The journal of machine learning research, 13(1):723–773,

  39. [39]

    Posterior Sampling Based on Gradient Flows of the MMD with Negative Distance Kernel

    Paul Hagemann, Johannes Hertrich, Fabian Altekrüger, Robert Beinert, Jannis Chemseddine, and Gabriele Steidl. Posterior Sampling Based on Gradient Flows of the MMD with Negative Distance Kernel. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. (Cited on p. 8)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Wasserstein Steepest Descent Flows of Discrepancies with Riesz Kernels.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 531(1):127829, 2024

    Johannes Hertrich, Manuel Gräf, Robert Beinert, and Gabriele Steidl. Wasserstein Steepest Descent Flows of Discrepancies with Riesz Kernels.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 531(1):127829, 2024. (Cited on p. 1, 8)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Generative Sliced MMD Flows with Riesz Kernels

    Johannes Hertrich, Christian Wald, Fabian Altekrüger, and Paul Hagemann. Generative Sliced MMD Flows with Riesz Kernels. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, 2024. (Cited on p. 1, 7, 8, 25, 28)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Generalized Differentiability, Duality and Optimization for Prob- lems Dealing with Differences of Convex Functions

    Jean-Baptiste Hiriart-Urruty. Generalized Differentiability, Duality and Optimization for Prob- lems Dealing with Differences of Convex Functions. In J. Ponstein, editor,Convexity and Duality in Optimization, volume 256 ofLecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, pages 37–70. Springer, Berlin, 1985. (Cited on p. 2, 3)

    1985

  43. [43]

    The variational formulation of the Fokker– Planck equation.SIAM journal on mathematical analysis, 29(1):1–17, 1998

    Richard Jordan, David Kinderlehrer, and Felix Otto. The variational formulation of the Fokker– Planck equation.SIAM journal on mathematical analysis, 29(1):1–17, 1998. (Cited on p. 1)

    1998

  44. [44]

    Kernel Stein Discrepancy Descent

    Anna Korba, Pierre-Cyril Aubin-Frankowski, Szymon Majewski, and Pierre Ablin. Kernel Stein Discrepancy Descent. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5719–5730. PMLR, 2021. (Cited on p. 7)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Learning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images

    Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. Learning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images. 2009. (Cited on p. 8)

    2009

  46. [46]

    Variational Inference via Wasserstein Gradient Flows.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:14434–14447, 2022

    Marc Lambert, Sinho Chewi, Francis Bach, Silvère Bonnabel, and Philippe Rigollet. Variational Inference via Wasserstein Gradient Flows.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:14434–14447, 2022. (Cited on p. 1)

    2022

  47. [47]

    On the Convergence of the Concave-Convex Procedure.Advances in neural information processing systems, 22, 2009

    Gert Lanckriet and Bharath K Sriperumbudur. On the Convergence of the Concave-Convex Procedure.Advances in neural information processing systems, 22, 2009. (Cited on p. 4)

    2009

  48. [48]

    First-Order Conditions for Optimiza- tion in the Wasserstein Space.SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 7(1):274–300,

    Nicolas Lanzetti, Saverio Bolognani, and Florian Dörfler. First-Order Conditions for Optimiza- tion in the Wasserstein Space.SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 7(1):274–300,

  49. [49]

    DC programming and DCA: thirty years of developments

    Hoai An Le Thi and Tao Pham Dinh. DC programming and DCA: thirty years of developments. Mathematical Programming, 169(1):5–68, 2018. (Cited on p. 2, 4)

    2018

  50. [50]

    Polyak–Łojasiewicz inequality on the space of measures and convergence of mean-field birth-death processes.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 87(3):48, 2023

    Linshan Liu, Mateusz B Majka, and Łukasz Szpruch. Polyak–Łojasiewicz inequality on the space of measures and convergence of mean-field birth-death processes.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 87(3):48, 2023. (Cited on p. 1, 17) 12

    2023

  51. [51]

    Minimizing f- Divergences by Interpolating Velocity Fields

    Song Liu, Jiahao Yu, Jack Simons, Mingxuan Yi, and Mark Beaumont. Minimizing f- Divergences by Interpolating Velocity Fields. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp, editors,Proceed- ings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 ofProceedings ...

    2024

  52. [52]

    Sliced-Wasserstein Flows: Nonparametric Generative Modeling via Optimal Transport and Diffusions

    Antoine Liutkus, Umut Simsekli, Szymon Majewski, Alain Durmus, and Fabian-Robert Stöter. Sliced-Wasserstein Flows: Nonparametric Generative Modeling via Optimal Transport and Diffusions. InInternational Conference on machine learning, pages 4104–4113. PMLR, 2019. (Cited on p. 1)

    2019

  53. [53]

    Freund, and Yurii Nesterov

    Haihao Lu, Robert M. Freund, and Yurii Nesterov. Relatively Smooth Convex Optimization by First-Order Methods, and Applications.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 28(1):333–354, 2018. (Cited on p. 3, 17)

    2018

  54. [54]

    DC-LA: Difference-of-Convex Langevin Algorithm

    Hoang Phuc Hau Luu and Zhongjian Wang. DC-LA: Difference-of-Convex Langevin Algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.22932, 2026. (Cited on p. 2)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Non-geodesically-convex optimization in the Wasserstein space

    Hoang Phuc Hau Luu, Hanlin Yu, Bernardo Williams, Petrus Mikkola, Marcelo Hartmann, Kai Puolamäki, and Arto Klami. Non-geodesically-convex optimization in the Wasserstein space. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:16772–16809, 2024. (Cited on p. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20, 25, 29)

    2024

  56. [56]

    A Mean Field View of the Landscape of Two-Layer Neural Networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33): E7665–E7671, 2018

    Song Mei, Andrea Montanari, and Phan-Minh Nguyen. A Mean Field View of the Landscape of Two-Layer Neural Networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33): E7665–E7671, 2018. (Cited on p. 1)

    2018

  57. [57]

    Kernel Mean Embedding of Distributions: A Review and Beyond.Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 10(1-2):1–141, 2017

    Krikamol Muandet, Kenji Fukumizu, Bharath Sriperumbudur, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Kernel Mean Embedding of Distributions: A Review and Beyond.Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 10(1-2):1–141, 2017. (Cited on p. 7)

    2017

  58. [58]

    Stochastic Difference of Convex Algorithm and its Appli- cation to Training Deep Boltzmann Machines

    Atsushi Nitanda and Taiji Suzuki. Stochastic Difference of Convex Algorithm and its Appli- cation to Training Deep Boltzmann Machines. InArtificial intelligence and statistics, pages 470–478. PMLR, 2017. (Cited on p. 6)

    2017

  59. [59]

    Continuous-Time Dynamics of the Difference-of-Convex Algorithm

    Yi-Shuai Niu. Continuous-Time Dynamics of the Difference-of-Convex Algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.06926, 2026. (Cited on p. 4, 17)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    On Difference-of-SOS and Difference- of-Convex-SOS Decompositions for Polynomials.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 34(2): 1852–1878, 2024

    Yi-Shuai Niu, Hoai An Le Thi, and Dinh Tao Pham. On Difference-of-SOS and Difference- of-Convex-SOS Decompositions for Polynomials.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 34(2): 1852–1878, 2024. (Cited on p. 17)

    2024

  61. [61]

    Forward-backward splitting under the light of generalized convexity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18098, 2025

    Konstantinos Oikonomidis, Emanuel Laude, and Panagiotis Patrinos. Forward-backward splitting under the light of generalized convexity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18098, 2025. (Cited on p. 4, 17, 18, 19)

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Some convexity criteria for differentiable functions on the 2-Wasserstein space

    Guy Parker. Some convexity criteria for differentiable functions on the 2-Wasserstein space. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 56(5):1839–1858, 2024. (Cited on p. 3, 17)

    2024

  63. [63]

    Learning of Population Dynamics: Inverse Optimization Meets JKO Scheme

    Mikhail Persiianov, Jiawei Chen, Petr Mokrov, Alexander Tyurin, Evgeny Burnaev, and Alexan- der Korotin. Learning of Population Dynamics: Inverse Optimization Meets JKO Scheme. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. (Cited on p. 1)

    2026

  64. [64]

    Variational Inference with Mix- tures of Isotropic Gaussians

    Marguerite Petit-Talamon, Marc Lambert, and Anna Korba. Variational Inference with Mix- tures of Isotropic Gaussians. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. (Cited on p. 1)

    2025

  65. [65]

    Wasserstein Policy Optimization

    David Pfau, Ian Davies, Diana L Borsa, João Guilherme Madeira Araújo, Brendan Daniel Tracey, and Hado van Hasselt. Wasserstein Policy Optimization. InForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. (Cited on p. 1)

    2025

  66. [66]

    Recent advances in DC programming and DCA.Transac- tions on computational intelligence XIII, pages 1–37, 2014

    Tao Pham Dinh and Hoai An Le Thi. Recent advances in DC programming and DCA.Transac- tions on computational intelligence XIII, pages 1–37, 2014. (Cited on p. 2, 4)

    2014

  67. [67]

    Tight Analysis of Difference-of- Convex Algorithm (DCA) Improves Convergence Rates for Proximal Gradient Descent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04486, 2025

    Teodor Rotaru, Panagiotis Patrinos, and François Glineur. Tight Analysis of Difference-of- Convex Algorithm (DCA) Improves Convergence Rates for Proximal Gradient Descent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04486, 2025. (Cited on p. 4)

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Smoothed distance kernels for MMDs and applications in Wasserstein gradient flows.Advances in Computational Mathematics, 52 (2):24, 2026

    Nicolaj Rux, Michael Quellmalz, and Gabriele Steidl. Smoothed distance kernels for MMDs and applications in Wasserstein gradient flows.Advances in Computational Mathematics, 52 (2):24, 2026. (Cited on p. 25) 13

    2026

  69. [69]

    The Wasserstein Proximal Gradient Algorithm

    Adil Salim, Anna Korba, and Giulia Luise. The Wasserstein Proximal Gradient Algorithm. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12356–12366, 2020. (Cited on p. 1, 2, 6)

    2020

  70. [70]

    Springer,

    Filippo Santambrogio.Optimal Transport for Applied Mathematicians, volume 55. Springer,

  71. [71]

    Equivalence of distance-based and RKHS-based statistics in hypothesis testing.The annals of statistics, pages 2263–2291, 2013

    Dino Sejdinovic, Bharath Sriperumbudur, Arthur Gretton, and Kenji Fukumizu. Equivalence of distance-based and RKHS-based statistics in hypothesis testing.The annals of statistics, pages 2263–2291, 2013. (Cited on p. 8, 24)

    2013

  72. [72]

    Learning Rate Free Sampling in Constrained Domains.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:65380–65415,

    Louis Sharrock, Lester Mackey, and Christopher Nemeth. Learning Rate Free Sampling in Constrained Domains.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:65380–65415,

  73. [73]

    A proximal point algorithm for DC fuctions on Hadamard manifolds.Journal of Global Optimization, 63(4):797–810, 2015

    JC d O Souza and Paulo Roberto Oliveira. A proximal point algorithm for DC fuctions on Hadamard manifolds.Journal of Global Optimization, 63(4):797–810, 2015. (Cited on p. 2)

    2015

  74. [74]

    Universality, Characteristic Kernels and RKHS Embedding of Measures.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(7),

    Bharath K Sriperumbudur, Kenji Fukumizu, and Gert RG Lanckriet. Universality, Characteristic Kernels and RKHS Embedding of Measures.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(7),

  75. [75]

    Proximal point algorithm for minimization of DC function.Journal of computational Mathematics, pages 451–462, 2003

    Wen-yu Sun, Raimundo JB Sampaio, and MAB Candido. Proximal point algorithm for minimization of DC function.Journal of computational Mathematics, pages 451–462, 2003. (Cited on p. 6)

    2003

  76. [76]

    Accelerated gradient descent method for functionals of probability measures by new convexity and smoothness based on transport maps.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05127,

    Ken’ichiro Tanaka. Accelerated gradient descent method for functionals of probability measures by new convexity and smoothness based on transport maps.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05127,

    work page arXiv

  77. [77]

    Convex analysis approach to DC programming: theory, algorithms and applications.Acta mathematica vietnamica, 22(1):289–355, 1997

    Pham Dinh Tao and Hoai An Le Thi. Convex analysis approach to DC programming: theory, algorithms and applications.Acta mathematica vietnamica, 22(1):289–355, 1997. (Cited on p. 4)

    1997

  78. [78]

    New and efficient DCA based algorithms for minimum sum-of-squares clustering.Pattern Recognition, 47(1):388–401, 2014

    Pham Dinh Tao et al. New and efficient DCA based algorithms for minimum sum-of-squares clustering.Pattern Recognition, 47(1):388–401, 2014. (Cited on p. 2)

    2014

  79. [79]

    Learning diffusion at lightspeed

    Antonio Terpin, Nicolas Lanzetti, Martín Gadea, and Florian Dorfler. Learning diffusion at lightspeed. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems,

  80. [80]

    Convergence Rates for Distribution Match- ing with Sliced Optimal Transport.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10691, 2026

    Gauthier Thurin, Claire Boyer, and Kimia Nadjahi. Convergence Rates for Distribution Match- ing with Sliced Optimal Transport.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10691, 2026. (Cited on p. 2)

    work page arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.