Paper detail

Debiaser Beware: Pitfalls of Centering Regularized Transport Maps

Estimating optimal transport (OT) maps (a.k.a. Monge maps) between two measures $P$ and $Q$ is a problem fraught with computational and statistical challenges. A promising approach lies in using the dual potential functions obtained when solving an entropy-regularized OT problem between samples $P_n$ and $Q_n$, which can be used to recover an approximately optimal map. The negentropy penalization in that scheme introduces, however, an estimation bias that grows with the regularization strength. A well-known remedy to debias such estimates, which has gained wide popularity among practitioners of regularized OT, is to center them, by subtracting auxiliary problems involving $P_n$ and itself, as well as $Q_n$ and itself. We do prove that, under favorable conditions on $P$ and $Q$, debiasing can yield better approximations to the Monge map. However, and perhaps surprisingly, we present a few cases in which debiasing is provably detrimental in a statistical sense, notably when the regularization strength is large or the number of samples is small. These claims are validated experimentally on synthetic and real datasets, and should reopen the debate on whether debiasing is needed when using entropic optimal transport.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.