1
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a non-empty finite set, let $\mathcal{M}(X)$ denote the set of metrics on $X$ for which if $\rho\in \mathcal{M}(X)$ then $\rho(x,y)\ge 1$ for all $x,y\in X,\, x\neq y$ (i.e. distinct points must be at a distance of at-least $1$) which we equip with the Gromov-Hausdorff distance $d_{GH}$, and let $\mathcal{P}(X)$ denote the set of probability measures on $(X,2^X)$. Now, for any given $\rho\in \mathcal{M}(X)$, we denote the $1$-Wassertein distance with respect to the metric structure $(X,\rho)$ by $$ \mathcal{W}_\rho(\mu,\nu) = \inf_{\pi\in \mathcal{P}(X^2);p^1_{\#}\pi = 1,\, p^2_{\#}\pi=\nu} \int \rho(x,y) d\pi(x,y) $$ where $\mu,\nu\in \mathcal{P}(X)$ and $p_i$ are the canonical projections of $X\times X$ onto the $i^{th}$ coordinate for $i=1,2$.


Is there a name for this distance between probability measures: $\mu,\nu \in \mathcal{P}(X)$ $$ \inf_{d\in\mathcal{M}(X)}\, \mathcal{W}_{\rho}(\mu,\nu) + \operatorname{dim}(X,d) \tag{1} $$ where $\operatorname{dim}(X,d)$ is the doubling dimension of $(X,d)$; i.e. the log doubling constant.


Note the doubling dimension of $(X,I_{n\neq y})$ is that of the complete graph which is $\log_2(|X|)$ which is maximal; thus, as noted by Martin Hairer in the comments, without this penalty the value of problem (1) is $TV(\mu,\nu)/2$.


Is this object studied in the literature? How can one compute/estimate the optimal value of (1)?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Isn't the minimum always attained at the metric $\rho$ where $\rho(x,y)=1$ for all $x,y\in X, x\neq y$? Increasing the metric can only increase the Wasserstein distance. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 16 at 19:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WillSawin Yes, and the name of that distance is (one half of) the total variation distance... $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 16 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinHairer Fair, but what if one penalizes for the size of certain geometric invariants; esp. doubling dimension or reciprocal-diameter. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 16 at 23:40
  • $\begingroup$ As soon as you put some term like that in there the problem probably becomes nontrivial. I don't know the literature well but it seems unlikely to me the exact concept you define has been studied much. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 17 at 1:17
  • $\begingroup$ @WillSawin Agreed, but do you know of similar ones, which I can build on? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 17 at 2:57

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.