4
$\begingroup$

I have a question about the convexity of an Wasserstein ambiguity set.

Let $W_1(\mu, \nu)$ be the Wasserstein distance of order 1 between $\mu$ and $\nu$, defined as $$W_1(\mu, \nu) := \min\limits_{\gamma \in \Gamma(\mu, \nu)} \bigg \{ \int_{\Xi \times \Xi} d(\xi, \zeta) \gamma(d\xi, d\zeta) \bigg \}, $$ where $\Gamma(\mu, \nu)$ denotes the set of all probability measures on $\Xi \times \Xi$ with marginals $\mu$ and $\nu$.

Let $\nu$ be the empirical distribution. The Wasserstein ambiguity set $\mathcal{M}$ is defined by $$\mathcal{M} := \{ \mu \in \mathcal{P}(\Xi) : W_1(\mu, \nu) \leq \theta \},$$ where $\theta$ is a given radius.

I am curious about whether the set $\mathcal{M}$ is convex. I notice that Wasserstein distance satisfies the triangle inequality, but I'm not sure that the set $\mathcal{M}$ is convex.

Is the Wasserstein ambiguity set of order 1 always convex?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ @JosiahPark deleted a spurious power $p$, and I made some other edits, which I think clarified rather than changing the meaning. Please feel free to revert if my edits were inappropriate. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Dec 10, 2018 at 22:46
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't this set simply a geodesic ball? It follows from the definition of W_1 that it is sublinear, i.e. $W_1(t *)\leq tW_1(*)$ for positive t. And the fact W_1 it is a metric makes that set convex. $\endgroup$
    – BigM
    Commented Dec 10, 2018 at 23:50
  • $\begingroup$ @sylee I was actually curious. If you go to probability or SDE talks you often hear Wasserstein distance but not so much of Wasserstein norm. Apparently using two Dirac masses you can observe that W_2 doesn't respect convexity. $\endgroup$
    – BigM
    Commented Dec 11, 2018 at 1:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BigM usually a norm is in relation to a vector space, the set of probability measures dont form a vector space. $\endgroup$ Commented May 13, 2022 at 17:46

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Edit: (This question may be better suited for math.stackexchange.)

This is true. It suffices to show the map $\mu\rightarrow W_{1}(\mu,\nu)$ is convex. Let $\mu_{i}\in\mathcal{P}(\Xi)$ and $\psi^{*}_i\in\Gamma(\mu_{i},\nu)$ be optimal transport plans between $\mu_{i}$ and $\nu$ for each $i=1,2$. Then $\lambda\psi_{1}^{*}+(1-\lambda)\psi_{2}^{*}\in\Gamma(\lambda\mu_{1}+(1-\lambda)\mu_{2},\nu)$ and so

$W_{1}(\lambda\mu_{1}+(1-\lambda)\mu_{2},\nu)=\inf\limits_{\gamma\in\Gamma(\lambda\mu_{1}+(1-\lambda)\mu_{2},\nu)} \int d(x,y) d\gamma(x,y)\leq \\ \int d(x,y) d(\lambda\psi_{1}^{*}+(1-\lambda)\psi_{2}^{*})(x,y) = \lambda W_{1}(\mu_{1},\nu)+(1-\lambda)W_{1}(\mu_{2},\nu)$

which gives convexity. Thus, $$W_{1}(\lambda\mu_{1}+(1-\lambda)\mu_{2},\nu)\leq \lambda W_{1}(\mu_{1},\nu)+(1-\lambda)W_{1}(\mu_{2},\nu)\leq \theta.$$

When restrictions are made such as replacing $\mathcal{P}(\Xi)$ with some other set of probability measures, as is done in the paper here, the answer can be no:

[For $\mathcal{P}(\Xi)$ replaced with $\mathcal{N}(\Xi)$, Gaussian distributions]...the Wasserstein ambiguity set $P$ is nonconvex (as mixtures of normal distributions are generically not normal).

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, one has joint-convexity, i.e the mapp $(\mu,\nu) \mapsto W(\mu,\nu)$ is convex. Indeed by KR duality formula, $W(\mu,\nu) = \sup_{\|f\|_{L} \le 1}\mathbb E_\mu[f]-\mathbb E_\nu[f] = \sup_{\|f\|_L \le 1}T_f(\mu,\nu)$ a supremum of linear functions $T_f: \mathcal P \times \mathcal P \rightarrow \mathbb R$ defined by $T_f (\mu,\nu) := (\mu,\nu)^T(f,-f)$; convexity follows. In fact, this reasoning applies to ALL Wasserstein distances, even ones generated by cost-functions which are not norms, for example. $\endgroup$
    – dohmatob
    Commented Jan 25, 2020 at 21:49
  • $\begingroup$ @dohmatob Hi. can you help answer this question math.stackexchange.com/questions/3891881/…? Thank you! $\endgroup$
    – Hermi
    Commented Nov 2, 2020 at 23:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .