I am stuck on the following problem. I have a discrete distribution $\mu_0$ (it is actually an empirical distribution). I have some $\mu_i$ (again discrete, some empirical distribution). I have some bound on the Wasserstein distance $W_2(\mu_0, \mu_i).$ I now want to consider a simple mixture of $\mu_i,$ that is, $\nu=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}\lambda_i\mu_i$ where $\sum\lambda_i=1, \lambda_i>0.$

My goal is to bound $W_2^2(\mu_0, \nu).$ I felt that it would be easy to get a bound on $W_2^2(\mu_0, \nu)$ in terms of $W_2^2(\mu_0, \mu_i),$ but I am unable to prove anything. I want something like $$W_2^2(\mu_0, \nu)\le \sum \lambda_i^2 W_2^2(\mu_0, \mu_i).$$

This does not look terribly hard, but I am stuck. Can anyone please say if it is true or not? If anyone can give a simple demonstration of why this is true, it would be great.


$\newcommand\Ga{\Gamma}$ $\newcommand\ga{\gamma}$ $\newcommand\la{\lambda}$ Let $\Ga(\mu,\rho)$ denote the set of all measures with marginals $\mu$ and $\rho$. For each $i$, take any real $c_i>W_2(\mu_0,\mu_i)^2$, so that $$\int d(x,y)^2\ga_i(dx\times dy)<c_i$$ for some $\ga_i\in\Ga(\mu_0,\mu_i)$. Let $$\ga:=\sum_i\la_i\ga_i.$$ Then $\ga\in\Ga(\mu_0,\nu)$ and hence $$W_2(\mu_0,\nu)^2\le\int d(x,y)^2\ga(dx\times dy) =\sum_i\la_i \int d(x,y)^2\ga_i(dx\times dy)<\sum_i\la_i c_i.$$ Letting now $c_i\downarrow W_2(\mu_0,\mu_i)^2$ for each $i$ such that $W_2(\mu_0,\mu_i)^2<\infty$, we get $$W_2(\mu_0,\nu)^2\le\sum_i\la_i W_2(\mu_0,\mu_i)^2.$$

The inequality you proposed, $$W_2(\mu_0,\nu)^2\le\sum_{i=1}^k\la_i^2 W_2(\mu_0,\mu_i)^2,\tag{1}$$ cannot hold in general. Indeed, suppose that for some probability measure $\rho$ we have $0<W_2(\mu_0,\rho)<\infty$. Let $\mu_i:=\rho$ and $\la_i:=1/k$ for all $i=1,\dots,k$. Then $\nu=\rho$ and the left-hand side of (1) is a constant $>0$, whereas its right-hand side goes to $0$ as $k\to\infty$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Yes, I realised that we can not hope for $\lambda_i^2$ in the right hand side. I could finally get the result with $\lambda_i$ but your argument is neater. $\endgroup$ – WhoKnowsWho Feb 12 at 2:57
  • $\begingroup$ Also note that this argument works for any cost function! $\endgroup$ – Dirk Feb 12 at 8:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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