Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question occurred to me while I was reading Klartag's papers on central limit theorems for convex bodies.

Given probability measures $\mu$, $\nu$ on (the Borel $\sigma$-field of) $R^d$ with finite first moments, their Wasserstein distance is given by: $$W_{R^d}(\mu,\nu) = \sup \mbox{ of }\int_{R^d}f d\mu-\int_{R^d}f d\nu\mbox{ over all 1-Lipschitz }f:R^d\to R.$$

(NB: there was an error in this formula -- an inf in the place of the sup.)

Given a vector $v\in R^d$, let $\mu_v$ be the distribution of $X.v$, where $X$ has distribution $\mu$. Define $\nu_v$ analogously. Note that $\mu_v$ and $\nu_v$ are distributions over $R$.

Question: is there a constant $C_d>0$ depending on $d$ only such that: $$W_{R^d}(\mu,\nu)\leq C_d\sup_{v\in R^d, |v|=1}W_{R}(\mu_v,\nu_v)?$$ If so, how does $C_d$ grow with $d$?

An illustrative example: Assume $Z$ is uniform over a $D-1$ dimensional sphere $S^{D-1}$ in $R^D$. Any one-dimensional marginal of $\sqrt{D-1}Z$ is approximatelly Gaussian. Now let $\mu$ be the law of the first $d$ coordinates of $\sqrt{D-1}Z$, and $\nu$ be the standard Gaussian distribution on $R^d$. Can one deduce from the previous statement alone that $\mu$ and $\nu$ are close?

Another example: Let $Z$ be a random vector in $R^D$ with mean $0$ and covariance matrix $I_D$, $D\gg 1$. Old results of Sudakov (quoted here) show that "most" one-dimensional marginals of $Z$ are close to $|Z|N$ where $N$ is standard normal and independent from $Z$. A positive answer to the above question would lead to typical results for $d$-dimensional projections of $Z$.

share|improve this question
I don't have time to think about your question at the moment, but you may be interested in the results for typical $d$-dimensional projections here: arxiv.org/abs/0912.2044 –  Mark Meckes Sep 4 '10 at 11:40
There is an error in your definition of the Wasserstein metric: you have to replace inf by sup. –  Florian Oct 1 '10 at 8:51
Thanks! I guess I had the dual definition in mind when writing this. –  Roberto Imbuzeiro Oliveira Oct 1 '10 at 10:04
That a probability measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$ is entirely defined by its projections on lines is more or less Radon's theorem. What you want is a quantitative version of this, you could therefore try to use the inversion formula for Radon transform: it gives you, at least when $\mu$ has a density, an expression of $\mu$ in terms of the $\mu_v$. However it seems difficult to relate this formula with the Wasserstein distance. –  Benoît Kloeckner Oct 1 '10 at 14:04

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

There is a result which contains an answer to your question in a somewhat different form. Instead of the transportation metric it uses another metric which metrizes the weak topology in the space of measures on $\mathbb R^d$: $$ \lambda(\mu,\nu) \le \delta \iff \exists\; T\ge 1/\delta : \langle \exp(i(t,\cdot)),\mu-\nu\rangle \le \delta \quad\forall\; |t|\le T \;, $$ which might still be OK for your purposes. This article by Klebanov and Rachev actually contains a stronger result (Theorem 4): it gives an explicit upper estimate for $\lambda(\mu,\nu)$ in terms of the maximal distance $\lambda(\mu_v,\nu_v)$ between the projections of $\mu$ and $\nu$ onto a finite (growing) number of directions $v$ in $\mathbb R^d$.

PS In spite of a sufficiently long tradition of misnaming the transportation metric (some people even go as far as calling it after Hutchinson), I would still insist on using the name of Kantorovich (or Monge-Kantorovich, Kantorovich-Rubinshtein), see, for instance, this historical article.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.