2018coupling; @banerjee2016coupling; @banerjee2017rigidity]. We refer to such couplings as “transition couplings” in order to distinguish them from elements of $\Pi_M({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})$. Note that ${\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}\neq \emptyset$ since it contains the independent coupling, that is, the distribution obtained by coupling $X$ and $Y$ independently.

A key advantage of considering ${\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$ over $\Pi_M({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})$ is that the constraints defining this set are linear and thus computationally tractable. In the case that $X$ and $Y$ are irreducible, this set of transition matrices actually characterizes the set of transition couplings.

[prop]{}[transmatchar]{} \[prop:transmat\_char\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be irreducible stationary Markov chains with transition matrices $P$ and $Q$, respectively. Then any stationary Markov chain with a transition matrix contained in ${\Pi(P, Q)}$ is a transition coupling of $X$ and $Y$.

For brevity, we will also use “transition couplings” to refer to elements of ${\Pi(P, Q)}$. Defining $\tilde{c}: ({\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{Y}})^{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that $\tilde{c}({\mathbf{x}}, {\mathbf{y}}) = c(x_0, y_0)$, we define the *optimal transition coupling (OTC) problem* by $$\label{eq:otc_problem_rv}
\mbox{minimize}\,\, \int \tilde{c} \,  d\pi \,\, \mbox{subject to} \,\, \pi \in {\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}.$$ As shown in Appendix \[app:existence\], the minimum in is achieved by an element of ${\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$ under our assumptions. Problem involves the minimization of a linear objective over the non-convex set ${\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$ and thus poses a significant computational challenge. However, Proposition \[prop:transmat\_char\] allows us to optimize instead over the convex polyhedron ${\Pi(P, Q)}$. In
2018coupling; @banerjee2016coupling; @banerjee2017rigidity ]. We refer to such couplings as “ transition couplings ” in decree to identify them from elements of $ \Pi_M({\mathbb{P } }, { \mathbb{Q}})$. Note that $ { \Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P } }, { \mathbb{Q}})}\neq \emptyset$ since it contains the autonomous coupling, that is, the distribution obtained by coupling $ X$ and $ Y$ independently. 

 A cardinal advantage of think $ { \Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P } }, { \mathbb{Q}})}$ over $ \Pi_M({\mathbb{P } }, { \mathbb{Q}})$ is that the constraint defining this set are analogue and thus computationally tractable. In the case that $ X$ and $ Y$ are irreducible, this set of passage matrices actually characterizes the set of transition couplings. 

 [ prop]{}[transmatchar ] { } \[prop: transmat\_char\ ] permit $ X$ and $ Y$ be irreducible stationary Markov chains with transition matrices $ P$ and $ Q$, respectively. Then any stationary Markov range with a transition matrix contained in $ { \Pi(P, Q)}$ is a passage coupling of $ X$ and $ Y$. 

 For brevity, we will besides use “ conversion couplings ” to refer to elements of $ { \Pi(P, Q)}$. define $ \tilde{c }: ({ \mathcal{X}}\times { \mathcal{Y}})^{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow { \mathbb{R}}_+$ such that $ \tilde{c}({\mathbf{x } }, { \mathbf{y } }) = c(x_0, y_0)$, we define the * optimal transition coupling (OTC) problem * by $ $ \label{eq: otc_problem_rv } 
 \mbox{minimize}\,\, \int \tilde{c } \,   d\pi \,\, \mbox{subject to } \,\, \pi \in { \Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P } }, { \mathbb{Q}})}.$$ As indicate in Appendix \[app: existence\ ], the minimum in is achieved by an element of $ { \Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P } }, { \mathbb{Q}})}$ under our assumptions. Problem involves the minimization of a linear objective over the non - convex set $ { \Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P } }, { \mathbb{Q}})}$ and thus poses a meaning computational challenge. However, Proposition \[prop: transmat\_char\ ] allow us to optimize instead over the convex polyhedron $ { \Pi(P, Q)}$. In
2018couoling; @banerjee2016coupling; @bxnerjee2017rigidity]. We refxr to shch coupuings as “transition couplingd” un oreer to distinguish theo from elvments of $\Pi_M({\nqthbb{P}}, {\matigb{Q}})$. Notc thaf ${\Pi_{\tnnb TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\matmbb{Q}})}\neq \empdyset$ since it cuncains the independent coupling, that ys, the cidtribution obtwinec by doupling $X$ and $Y$ independently.

A keg advanuage of considerinb ${\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$ oveg $\Pi_M({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbh{Q}})$ is that jge sinstraints ddfining thpv set are minear and thus computationally traccable. In thg dadg that $X$ and $Y$ arv irreducible, this sed of trsnsition matriges artuaoly characterizes the set of transition couplingv.

[pxop]{}[transmatchar]{} \[prop:teabsmat\_whar\] Let $Z$ avd $G$ ue jrredufibme stationzry Markov xhains with transitoog matrices $P$ ahd $Q$, rqs[ectively. Then any stationary Markov chdin with a transition matrux contained in ${\Pi(P, Q)}$ is a tragsition coupling of $X$ and $Y$.

For brevity, we will alvo usx “grauwitiov cluplings” to refer to elements of ${\Pi(P, Q)}$. Definigf $\uilce{c}: ({\mathcal{X}}\tiies {\mathcal{U}})^{\mwtnfb{N}}\rightarrow {\mathby{D}}_+$ auch that $\tilde{c}({\mahhbf{x}}, {\mwthbf{t}}) = c(x_0, y_0)$, wt defone the *optimal transition xoupling (OTC) problem* by $$\label{eq:ltc_problem_rr}
\mbox{monimiae}\,\, \int \tilde{c} \,  d\pi \,\, \mbux{sugject to} \,\, \pl \in {\Pi_{\tihh TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathcb{Q}})}.$$ Av shown in Appendix \[app:exiftence\], thx minnmum in ks avhieveq by an elfment of ${\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{O}}, {\matkbb{Q}})}$ gnder our wssumptions. Problem involves thx minimizatiom mf d linear objegtive over the gon-convex set ${\Ki_{\tiny TC}({\iathbc{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$ and thns poses a sygnificant cokkutational chellenge. Hjwevwr, Peopositkun \[prop:transmay\_char\] allows us to iptimize instead oyer tfs convex polyhebxob ${\Pi(P, Q)}$. In
2018coupling; @banerjee2016coupling; @banerjee2017rigidity]. We refer to such “transition in order distinguish them from that TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}\neq \emptyset$ it contains the coupling, that is, the distribution obtained coupling $X$ and $Y$ independently. A key advantage of considering ${\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$ $\Pi_M({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})$ is that the constraints defining this set are linear and thus tractable. the that and $Y$ are irreducible, this set of transition matrices actually characterizes the set of transition couplings. \[prop:transmat\_char\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be irreducible stationary chains with transition matrices and $Q$, respectively. Then any Markov with a matrix in Q)}$ is a coupling of $X$ and $Y$. For brevity, we will also use “transition couplings” to refer to elements ${\Pi(P, Q)}$. ({\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{Y}})^{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow such $\tilde{c}({\mathbf{x}}, = c(x_0, y_0)$, the *optimal transition coupling (OTC) problem* \int \tilde{c} \, d\pi \,\, \mbox{subject to} \,\, \in {\Pi_{\tiny {\mathbb{Q}})}.$$ As shown in Appendix \[app:existence\], minimum in is achieved by an element of TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$ under our assumptions. Problem involves the minimization of a linear objective over the ${\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$ and poses a significant challenge. Proposition allows to optimize over the convex polyhedron ${\Pi(P, Q)}$. In
2018coupling; @banerjee2016coupling; @bAnerjee2017rigIdity]. we rEfeR tO sucH couPlings as “transiTIon cOuplings” in order to distiNguisH tHEm frOM eLemenTs of $\Pi_M({\MAtHBB{P}}, {\mAtHbB{Q}})$. NOtE ThAt ${\Pi_{\tIny tC}({\mathbB{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}\nEq \eMpTyset$ since it COnTains the inDepEndent coupliNg, tHat is, tHe DisTRibutIon ObtaiNed by cOUpling $x$ and $Y$ indePeNDently.

a Key advaNTAgE of cOnsidering ${\Pi_{\tiny Tc}({\MaTHbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$ oveR $\Pi_M({\maThBB{P}}, {\MAThbB{Q}})$ iS that the coNsTrainTS definiNG tHIS Set ARe linear and thUs computatiONalLy tracTaBle. iN the caSe thaT $X$ ANd $Y$ Are irreduciBle, tHis set of tRansitIOn matriCEs actuaLly chaRacTerIzes THe SeT of TrANsiTIoN coUPliNgs.

[prop]{}[tRaNsMatchAr]{} \[prOP:TRAnsmAt\_cHar\] LEt $X$ anD $Y$ be irreducibLe sTatiONarY MarkOv chaIns wItH tranSition MatriCeS $P$ and $Q$, respectivEly. THen any staTioNaRy MArKov chAIn with A trAnsItion maTrix conTAinEd IN ${\pI(P, q)}$ is a transition coupLiNG Of $x$ and $Y$.

For BrevitY, We WiLL also use “TrAnsItioN COupliNgs” tO ReFer to eleMents oF ${\pi(p, Q)}$. defininG $\tIlde{c}: ({\mAtHcaL{X}}\tImes {\mAThcaL{Y}})^{\mathBb{N}}\rightArrow {\MAthbb{R}}_+$ such that $\TIlde{c}({\mathbf{x}}, {\mAThBF{Y}}) = c(X_0, Y_0)$, we dEfiNe the *optimaL traNSitiOn coUPlIng (otC) proBlem* bY $$\lABeL{Eq:otc_problem_rv}
\mbox{mInImize}\,\, \iNt \tilDe{c} \,  d\pi \,\, \mbox{subJect to} \,\, \pi \in {\pI_{\TIny TC}({\matHbb{P}}, {\MAtHBb{Q}})}.$$ As shown in ApPendiX \[app:existeNCe\], the minImum iN is achieVed by an elEMEnt of ${\Pi_{\tIny tC}({\mAthBb{P}}, {\MAThBb{Q}})}$ under our asSUMptiOnS. ProbleM inVolves tHe mIniMizAtiOn Of a linear ObjectivE oVeR tHe Non-ConveX Set ${\Pi_{\tinY Tc}({\maThBb{P}}, {\MathbB{q}})}$ and thUs posEs a sIgNiFIcaNt compuTAtIONal cHaLlEnge. howEvEr, ProPosiTIon \[Prop:traNsmat\_char\] AllOWs us To OpTimize iNstead over the CoNvex polyheDrOn ${\PI(P, Q)}$. In
2018coupling; @banerjee201 6coupling;  @ban erj ee2 01 7rig idit y]. We refer t o  suc h couplings as “transi tionco u plin g s”  in o rder to di s t ing ui sh  th em fr om el eme nts of$\Pi_M({\m ath bb {P}}, {\math b b{ Q}})$. Not e t hat ${\Pi_{\ tin y TC}( {\ mat h bb{P} },{\mat hbb{Q} } )}\neq  \emptyse t$ sincei t conta i n stheindependent coupl i ng ,  that is, thedistri bu t io n obt ain ed by coup li ng $X $  and $Y $  i n d e pen d ently.

A key  advantageo f c onside ri ng$ {\Pi_{ \tiny  T C }({ \mathbb{P}} , {\ mathbb{Q} })}$ o v er $\Pi _ M({\mat hbb{P} },{\m athb b {Q }} )$is tha t  t hec ons traintsde fi ningthis s e t  are  li near  andthus computat ion ally tra ctabl e. In  the  c ase t hat $X $ and  $ Y$ are irreduci ble,  this set  of  t ran si tionm atrice s a ctu ally ch aracter i zes  t h e se t of transition co up l i ng s.

[pro p]{}[t r an sm a tchar]{}  \ [pr op:t r a nsmat \_ch a r\ ] Let $X $ and$ Y$  b e irred uc ible s ta tio nar y Mar k ov c hainswith tra nsiti o n matrices $P$ and $Q$, resp e ct i v el y . Th enany station aryM arko v ch a in  wi t h a t ransi ti o nm atrix contained in${ \Pi(P,  Q)}$  is a transit ion coupli n g of $X$ a nd $ Y $. 
For brevity,we wi ll also us e  “transi tioncoupling s” to ref e r  to elem ent s o f $ {\P i ( P,  Q)}$. Defini n g  $\t il de{c}:({\ mathcal {X} }\t ime s { \m athcal{Y} })^{\mat hb b{ N} }\ rig htarr o w {\math bb {R} }_ +$sucht hat $\ tilde {c}( {\ ma t hbf {x}}, { \ ma t h bf{y }} )= c( x_0 ,y_0)$ , we def ine the  *optimal  tr a nsit io ncouplin g (OTC) probl em * by $$\la be l{e q:otc_ p r oblem_rv }
\mbox{minimize}\,\, \ i nt \til de{ c} \,   d\ pi \,\, \ mbo x{subj ect to} \, \, \pi  \in{\ Pi_ { \ tinyT C }( {\m at hbb{P}}, { \ m ath bb{Q} }) }.$$  As sho wn in Appendix \[a p p:e xistence\], t hemini m u mini sa chi ev e d b y an element of $ {\Pi_{\tin yT C} ({\mathbb{ P }},  { \mathbb {Q}})}$  unde r  our as sumptions . Problem  i nvol v e s t he minimiz ation of  a linear objec t iv e ove r t he non -c onv ex se t ${\P i _{\ tinyTC}({\ ma thbb{P }}, { \m athbb{Q} })}$ and thus poses a s ignifi cantcom putationa l c h all enge. How ever , Proposit ion  \[ prop: tra n smat\ _cha r \]  al l ows u s to optimizei ns tea d ov er the conv e x pol yhedr on$ {\Pi(P , Q) }$. In
2018coupling; @banerjee2016coupling;_@banerjee2017rigidity]. We_refer to such couplings_as “transition_couplings”_in order_to_distinguish them from_elements of $\Pi_M({\mathbb{P}},_{\mathbb{Q}})$. Note that ${\Pi_{\tiny_TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}\neq \emptyset$_since_it contains the independent coupling, that is, the distribution obtained by coupling $X$ and_$Y$_independently.

A key_advantage_of_considering ${\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$ over_$\Pi_M({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})$ is that the_constraints defining_this set are linear and thus computationally tractable._In_the case that_$X$ and $Y$ are irreducible, this set of transition_matrices actually characterizes the set of_transition couplings.

[prop]{}[transmatchar]{} \[prop:transmat\_char\]_Let_$X$_and $Y$ be irreducible_stationary Markov chains with transition matrices_$P$ and $Q$, respectively. Then any_stationary Markov chain with a transition matrix_contained in ${\Pi(P, Q)}$ is a_transition coupling of $X$ and_$Y$.

For brevity,_we will also use “transition_couplings” to refer_to elements_of ${\Pi(P, Q)}$._Defining $\tilde{c}: ({\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{Y}})^{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+$ such_that $\tilde{c}({\mathbf{x}}, {\mathbf{y}})_= c(x_0, y_0)$, we define the_*optimal_transition coupling (OTC)_problem*_by_$$\label{eq:otc_problem_rv}
\mbox{minimize}\,\, \int_\tilde{c} \, _d\pi_\,\, \mbox{subject_to}_\,\, \pi \in {\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}.$$_As_shown in Appendix \[app:existence\], the minimum in_is achieved by an_element_of ${\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$_under our assumptions. Problem involves_the minimization of a linear objective_over the_non-convex set_${\Pi_{\tiny TC}({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathbb{Q}})}$ and thus poses a significant computational challenge. However,_Proposition \[prop:transmat\_char\] allows us to optimize_instead over the convex_polyhedron ${\Pi(P,_Q)}$._In