Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Mutual Regression Distance

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read MRD turns mutual linear regression into a pseudometric between data sets.

desk verdict A genuinely new distance with a correct pseudometric theorem, but the simplified algorithm behind every experiment rests on a false lemma and a miswritten definition. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10617 v1 pith:C32WJKLT submitted 2025-01-18 cs.LG stat.ML

Dong Qiao , Jicong Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords mutualregressiondistancepseudometricdistributioncomparisonkernelmethodsspectralnormconstraintmaximummeandiscrepancyWassersteindomainadaptation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces the Mutual Regression Distance (MRD), a way to measure how dissimilar two collections of data points are. Instead of averaging pairwise point distances as Wasserstein distance and MMD do, MRD asks how accurately each set can linearly reconstruct the other, with both reconstruction matrices constrained to have spectral norm—their largest singular value—at most 1; the distance is the combined reconstruction error. The paper proves that this quantity is a pseudometric, meaning it is nonnegative, symmetric, and obeys the triangle inequality, so it can serve as a loss or affinity in distribution-comparison tasks. Because the constrained problem is costly, the paper proposes a tightened version, a simplified closed-form ridge version, and kernel variants, and it reports lower computational cost than Wasserstein distance. The motivation is that regression-based reconstruction respects the smoothness of data lying on manifolds, which pairwise distances ignore.

What carries the argument

The central object is the mutual regression problem: minimize the symmetric reconstruction error $\sqrt{\tfrac12\|X_1-X_2S_{12}\|_F^2+\tfrac12\|X_2-X_1S_{21}\|_F^2}$ subject to $\|S_{12}\|_2\le1$ and $\|S_{21}\|_2\le1$. The spectral-norm ball is the load-bearing constraint: it makes the feasible set convex, keeps the problem meaningful when the two point sets have different cardinalities, and—through submultiplicativity $\|S_{23}S_{12}\|_2\le\|S_{23}\|_2\|S_{12}\|_2$—it is exactly what allows the gluing lemma that proves the triangle inequality. The simplified variant replaces the constraint by ridge regularization and searches for the regularization coefficient that puts the ridge estimate on the boundary of the spectral-norm ball.

What would settle it

Take any full-rank $X_2$ and set $X_1=0.1\,X_2$. Then the unregularized coefficient is $0.1\,I$ with spectral norm $0.1<1$, so Lemma 3.9's assertion that a unique $\lambda\in[0,r]$ with $\|S_{12}(\lambda)\|_2=1$ exists is false, and Algorithm 1's binary search will keep halving the interval without ever reaching the tolerance. Running the algorithm on this pair is a direct test of the assumption behind the simplified MRD.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is Theorem 3.5: for $X_1, X_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$, the value $$\mathrm{MRD}(X_1,X_2)=\min_{\{S_{12},S_{21}\}\subseteq \mathcal{S}^{\le 1}_2}\sqrt{\tfrac12\|X_1-X_2S_{12}\|$_F^{2}$+\tfrac12\|X_2-X_1S_{21}\|$_F^{2}$}$$ is a pseudometric, where $\mathcal{S}^{\le1}_2$ is the set of matrices with spectral norm at most 1. The proof is carried by a gluing construction: composing the two optimal maps through an intermediate sample set produces admissible maps $S_{13}=S_{23}S_{12}$ and $S_{31}=S_{21}S_{32}$ because the spectral norm is submultiplicative, which yields the triangle inequality. The paper also shows that zero distance does not imply equality; the same-subspace example of Example 3.6 gives $X_1=X_2S_{12}$ with $\|S_{12}\|_2\le1$ for different columns, so MRD intentionally fails separation and is permutation-invariant. For computation, the simplified MRD uses ridge-regularized least squares $S_{12}(\lambda)=(X_2^\top X_2+\lambda I_{n_2})^{-1}X_2^\top X_1$, with $\lambda$ chosen by binary search so that $\|S_{12}(\lambda)\|_2=1$; Lemma 3.9 asserts such a $\lambda$ is unique in $[0,r]$ with $r=\|X_2^\top X_1\|_2-\sigma_{\min}(X_2^\top X_2)$.

Load-bearing premise

The practical algorithm assumes that the unregularized least-squares map from $X_2$ to $X_1$, namely $(X_2^\top X_2)^{-1}X_2^\top X_1$, already has spectral norm at least 1, so that increasing the ridge penalty can bring that norm down to exactly 1; when the norm is already below 1, no such penalty exists and the binary-search subroutine has no solution to find.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MRD is a valid objective for distribution matching: because it satisfies the triangle inequality and symmetry, using it as a loss in generative models or as an affinity in clustering inherits metric-like guarantees.
  • The simplified MRD reduces computation to ridge regressions and a one-dimensional search, so it offers a cheaper alternative to Wasserstein distance in high-dimensional comparisons.
  • Kernel MRD remains a pseudometric and lets the same regression construction act on nonlinear manifolds through the kernel trick.
  • Under Gaussian noise, MRD changes by at most $2\sigma\xi_{m,n_1,n_2}\sqrt{w_1+w_2}$ with high probability, so the distance is robust to perturbation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because MRD can be zero for different data sets that lie on the same subspace, the distance is better interpreted as a dissimilarity between manifolds or representational capacities than as a statistical divergence; this suggests testing MRD on pairs of distributions with identical support but different densities, where MMD would separate them but MRD may not.
  • The heuristic link between the constrained MRD and the ridge-based simplified MRD is only via the spectral-norm boundary condition; one could quantify the gap by comparing Algorithm 1's output to the exact constrained optimum on random matrices where the unregularized norm is far from 1.
  • The proof mechanism suggests an extension: verify whether the tightened Frobenius-norm variant preserves the triangle inequality, since the gluing argument no longer applies directly when composition can leave the Frobenius ball.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Mutual Regression Distance (MRD) between two data matrices X1 and X2, defined as the minimum of a weighted sum of two least-squares residuals subject to spectral-norm constraints on the coefficient matrices S12 and S21. It proves that MRD is a pseudometric (Theorem 3.5), proposes a tightened variant, a simplified variant with closed-form ridge solutions, and kernel extensions, and gives Gaussian perturbation bounds (Theorems 4.1 and 4.3). The authors also present a heuristic algorithm (Algorithm 1) to select regularization parameters so that the coefficient matrices have unit spectral norm, and they report experiments on distribution transformation, discrete-distribution clustering, GAN training, and Office-31 domain adaptation.

Significance. If the central pseudometric result holds, MRD is an interesting finite-sample dissimilarity that departs from pairwise-distance-based measures such as MMD and Wasserstein distance and may exploit regression structure in the data. The paper contains a genuine proof of the pseudometric axioms using a gluing lemma, and the perturbation bound for the original MRD (Theorem 4.1) is a clean Lipschitz-style result. However, the computational contribution rests on Lemma 3.9, which is false as stated, and Definition 3.8 is internally inconsistent; the kernel robustness proof in Theorem 4.3 also contains an unjustified algebraic step. The paper is promising but requires substantive correction before its practical and robustness claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Lemma 3.9 and Algorithm 1] Lemma 3.9 is false when the unregularized least-squares coefficient already has spectral norm below 1. For example, with X2^T X2 = diag(100, 0.2) and X2^T X1 = [10, 0.1]^T, one has r = 9.8 > 0 but ||S12(0)||_2 = sqrt(100/10000 + 0.01/0.04) = 0.5099 < 1; since ||S12(lambda)||_2 is nonincreasing in lambda for lambda >= 0, no lambda in [0, r] gives unit spectral norm. The proof in Appendix F treats only the cases ||S12(0)||_2 = 1 and ||S12(0)||_2 > 1, so the asserted existence and uniqueness are not established. Consequently, Algorithm 1's binary search never terminates in the omitted case, because every c > 0 also yields ||S12(c)||_2 < 1. Since the simplified MRD, simplified kernel MRD, and all experiments in Section 6 rely on this search, the empirical claims are not supported as written.
  2. [Definition 3.8] Definition 3.8 is internally inconsistent: the objective defining S*_12 is written with a regularizer (lambda12/2)||S21||_F^2 rather than (lambda12/2)||S12||_F^2, while the displayed closed form S*_12 = (X2^T X2 + lambda12 I_n2)^{-1} X2^T X1 is the solution to the ridge problem with ||S12||_F^2. The same issue appears in Definition 3.12 for the kernel variant. This makes the simplified MRD ill-defined and must be corrected before Algorithm 1 can be interpreted as computing it.
  3. [Theorem 4.3, proof around Eq. (75)] The proof of Theorem 4.3 contains an unjustified algebraic step: the trace expression on the left of Eq. (75), which includes a term epsilon11 n1 plus terms involving |S12| and |S12|^T |S12|, is bounded by epsilon || |S12|^T I_n2 + I_n1 ||_2^2 without a supporting inequality relating a sum of traces to a squared spectral norm. The subsequent bound in Eq. (79) also needs a correct derivation, as it appears to mix Frobenius-norm and spectral-norm estimates. Since Theorem 4.3 is the advertised robustness guarantee for kernel MRD, this gap must be repaired.
  4. [Sections 1 and 6] No population limit or consistency result is provided. MRD is defined for finite matrices X1 in R^{m x n1} and X2 in R^{m x n2}, but the abstract and introduction describe it as a distance between distributions. There is no theorem showing that MRD(X1, X2) converges, as n1 and n2 grow, to a quantity depending only on the underlying distributions, nor that the empirical estimator is consistent. Given that the numerical comparisons are used to claim superiority over MMD and Wasserstein distance as distribution distances, a population-level definition or a consistency theorem is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 1] The initialization in Algorithm 1 sets r = ||X2^T X1||_2 - ||X2^T X2||_2, but Lemma 3.9 uses sigma_min(X2^T X2); if sigma_min(X2^T X2) is small or r is negative, the search interval is inconsistent with the lemma and the algorithm is undefined.
  2. [Notation throughout] The symbol X is used both for a data matrix and for a distribution (e.g., 'X1 ∈ R^{m x n1}' versus 'X1, X2, X3 ∈ R^{m x n}'), which is occasionally confusing; calligraphic letters for distributions would improve clarity.
  3. [Definition 3.7] The feasible set S_F^{≤1} is defined generically with dimensions m and n, but the matrices S12 and S21 have different dimensions; the notation should use generic p and q to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Section 6.3] The FID and Inception Score results in Table 2 report standard deviations but no number of random seeds or a statistical test; adding this information would make the claimed improvements more verifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; MRD is defined and proved independently, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

MRD is defined independently in Definition 3.4 as the optimum of a constrained mutual regression problem, and Theorem 3.5 (pseudometric) is proved directly from that definition in Appendix D; the triangle inequality uses a concrete gluing construction (S13 = S23 S12, S31 = S21 S32) and the norm constraint, not a restatement of the target. The simplified/tightened/kernel variants are separate definitions (Definitions 3.7, 3.8, 3.10-3.12) with their own closed forms, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions; lambda12 and lambda21 are regularization coefficients searched by Algorithm 1 to enforce unit spectral norm, and the resulting MRD value is not a prediction of data fitted by those lambdas. The paper cites Wang et al. 2024 (which shares authors with the present paper) for the DDSC baseline and Sun and Fan 2024 for graph-kernel related work, but these citations are not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem or derivation is imported from them. The potential failure of Lemma 3.9 when ||S12(0)||_2 < 1 and the typo in Definition 3.8 (regularizing ||S21||_F instead of ||S12||_F) are correctness and rigor concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The formal MRD definition has no fitted constants, but the simplified computation introduces data-dependent regularization coefficients lambda12 and lambda21. The main domain assumption is that cross-set linear regression error reflects manifold closeness, which is stated heuristically and never formalized. Lemma 3.9, used to justify the search algorithm, is an additional assumption that is false in general.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda12 = data-dependent, not reported
    Regularization coefficient for S12 in simplified MRD; chosen by Algorithm 1 to make ||S12||_2 = 1. Its value depends on each pair X1,X2 and is not reported in experiments.
  • lambda21 = data-dependent, not reported
    Regularization coefficient for S21 in simplified MRD; chosen by Algorithm 1 to make ||S21||_2 = 1. Its value depends on each pair X1,X2 and is not reported in experiments.
  • kernel bandwidth r or sigma = estimated as mean pairwise distance in clustering; r in theory
    The Gaussian kernel bandwidth affects KMRD. In the text clustering experiments it is estimated adaptively from the data rather than fixed and reported.
  • trade-off lambda in domain adaptation = fine-tuned, not reported per task
    Equation (12) balances classification loss and MRD. The appendix says it is fine-tuned for all distances, but exact values are not given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Data lie on low-dimensional manifolds where each point is well represented as a linear combination of a few points on the other manifold
    Section 2, last paragraph. This motivates the claim that MRD exploits manifold smoothness, but no formal condition is stated.
  • domain assumption Linear regression error between two finite sample sets approximates dissimilarity between the underlying distributions
    Throughout Section 3. No population limit or consistency theorem is proved.
  • ad hoc to paper For any X1,X2, Lemma 3.9 holds: a unique lambda exists making the regularized least-squares coefficient have unit spectral norm
    Lemma 3.9. This is false when the unregularized solution has spectral norm below 1.
  • standard math Chi-square concentration inequalities of Laurent and Massart
    Used in the proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mutual Regression Distance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C32WJKLT

@misc{pith2026250110617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mutual Regression Distance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C32WJKLT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10617}
}
read the original abstract

The maximum mean discrepancy and Wasserstein distance are popular distance measures between distributions and play important roles in many machine learning problems such as metric learning, generative modeling, domain adaption, and clustering. However, since they are functions of pair-wise distances between data points in two distributions, they do not exploit the potential manifold properties of data such as smoothness and hence are not effective in measuring the dissimilarity between the two distributions in the form of manifolds. In this paper, different from existing measures, we propose a novel distance called Mutual Regression Distance (MRD) induced by a constrained mutual regression problem, which can exploit the manifold property of data. We prove that MRD is a pseudometric that satisfies almost all the axioms of a metric. Since the optimization of the original MRD is costly, we provide a tight MRD and a simplified MRD, based on which a heuristic algorithm is established. We also provide kernel variants of MRDs that are more effective in handling nonlinear data. Our MRDs especially the simplified MRDs have much lower computational complexity than the Wasserstein distance. We provide theoretical guarantees, such as robustness, for MRDs. Finally, we apply MRDs to distribution clustering, generative models, and domain adaptation. The numerical results demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of MRDs compared to the baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10617 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of constrained optimization solved by CVX and Algorithm 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution transformation on a toy example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Samples from WGAN-GP, SMMDGAN, and our SMRDGAN. Top: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Samples from WGAN-GP, SMMDGAN, and our SMRDGAN. Top: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Faster wasserstein distance estimation with the sinkhorn divergence

    Lenaic Chizat, Pierre Roussillon, Flavien L \'e ger, Fran c ois-Xavier Vialard, and Gabriel Peyr \'e . Faster wasserstein distance estimation with the sinkhorn divergence. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 2257--2269, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Minimax estimation of maximum mean discrepancy with radial kernels

    Ilya O Tolstikhin, Bharath K Sriperumbudur, and Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf. Minimax estimation of maximum mean discrepancy with radial kernels. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Wasserstein generative adversarial networks

    Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and L \'e on Bottou. Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 214--223. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    Controlling wasserstein distances by kernel norms with application to compressive statistical learning

    Titouan Vayer and R \'e mi Gribonval. Controlling wasserstein distances by kernel norms with application to compressive statistical learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (149): 0 1--51, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Distance metric learning: A comprehensive survey

    Liu Yang and Rong Jin. Distance metric learning: A comprehensive survey. Michigan State Universiy, 2 0 (2): 0 4, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    A tutorial on spectral clustering

    Ulrike Von Luxburg. A tutorial on spectral clustering. Statistics and computing, 17: 0 395--416, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Visualizing data using t-sne

    Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9 0 (11), 2008

    2008

  8. [8]

    Metric learning: A survey

    Brian Kulis et al. Metric learning: A survey. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 5 0 (4): 0 287--364, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Deep metric learning: A survey

    Mahmut Kaya and Hasan S akir Bilge. Deep metric learning: A survey. Symmetry, 11 0 (9): 0 1066, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    On information and sufficiency

    Solomon Kullback and Richard A Leibler. On information and sufficiency. The annals of mathematical statistics, 22 0 (1): 0 79--86, 1951

    1951

  3. [11]

    Robust and efficient estimation by minimising a density power divergence

    Ayanendranath Basu, Ian R Harris, Nils L Hjort, and MC Jones. Robust and efficient estimation by minimising a density power divergence. Biometrika, 85 0 (3): 0 549--559, 1998

    1998

  4. [12]

    Information and information stability of random variables and processes

    Mark S Pinsker. Information and information stability of random variables and processes. Holden-Day, 1964

    1964

  5. [13]

    Interpolating between optimal transport and mmd using sinkhorn divergences

    Jean Feydy, Thibault S \'e journ \'e , Fran c ois-Xavier Vialard, Shun-ichi Amari, Alain Trouv \'e , and Gabriel Peyr \'e . Interpolating between optimal transport and mmd using sinkhorn divergences. In The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistic...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338

    C \'e dric Villani et al. Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338. Springer, 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    Sinkhorn distances: Lightspeed computation of optimal transport

    Marco Cuturi. Sinkhorn distances: Lightspeed computation of optimal transport. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    A kernel method for the two-sample-problem

    Arthur Gretton, Karsten Borgwardt, Malte Rasch, Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf, and Alex Smola. A kernel method for the two-sample-problem. Advances in neural information processing systems, 19, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    A kernel two-sample test

    Arthur Gretton, Karsten M Borgwardt, Malte J Rasch, Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf, and Alexander Smola. A kernel two-sample test. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13 0 (1): 0 723--773, 2012

    2012

  10. [18]

    Characterization of translation invariant mmd on rd and connections with wasserstein distances

    Thibault Modeste and Cl \'e ment Dombry. Characterization of translation invariant mmd on rd and connections with wasserstein distances. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25 0 (237): 0 1--39, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Optimal bounds between f-divergences and integral probability metrics

    Rohit Agrawal and Thibaut Horel. Optimal bounds between f-divergences and integral probability metrics. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22 0 (128): 0 1--59, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Mmd aggregated two-sample test

    Antonin Schrab, Ilmun Kim, M \'e lisande Albert, B \'e atrice Laurent, Benjamin Guedj, and Arthur Gretton. Mmd aggregated two-sample test. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (194): 0 1--81, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Mathematical methods of organizing and planning production

    Leonid V Kantorovich. Mathematical methods of organizing and planning production. Management science, 6 0 (4): 0 366--422, 1960

    1960

  14. [22]

    The earth mover's distance as a metric for image retrieval

    Yossi Rubner, Carlo Tomasi, and Leonidas J Guibas. The earth mover's distance as a metric for image retrieval. International journal of computer vision, 40: 0 99--121, 2000

    2000

  15. [23]

    Barycenters in the wasserstein space

    Martial Agueh and Guillaume Carlier. Barycenters in the wasserstein space. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 43 0 (2): 0 904--924, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Improved training of wasserstein gans

    Ishaan Gulrajani, Faruk Ahmed, Martin Arjovsky, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron C Courville. Improved training of wasserstein gans. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Wasserstein wormhole: Scalable optimal transport distance with transformers

    Doron Haviv, Russell Zhang Kunes, Thomas Dougherty, Cassandra Burdziak, Tal Nawy, Anna Gilbert, and Dana Pe’Er. Wasserstein wormhole: Scalable optimal transport distance with transformers. ArXiv, pages arXiv--2404, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Sample complexity of sinkhorn divergences

    Aude Genevay, L \'e naic Chizat, Francis Bach, Marco Cuturi, and Gabriel Peyr \'e . Sample complexity of sinkhorn divergences. In The 22nd international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 1574--1583. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Near-linear time approximation algorithms for optimal transport via sinkhorn iteration

    Jason Altschuler, Jonathan Niles-Weed, and Philippe Rigollet. Near-linear time approximation algorithms for optimal transport via sinkhorn iteration. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Learning generative models with sinkhorn divergences

    Aude Genevay, Gabriel Peyr \'e , and Marco Cuturi. Learning generative models with sinkhorn divergences. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1608--1617. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Training generative neural networks via maximum mean discrepancy optimization

    Gintare Karolina Dziugaite, Daniel M Roy, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Training generative neural networks via maximum mean discrepancy optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.03906, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Spectral clustering for discrete distributions

    Zixiao Wang, Dong Qiao, and Jicong Fan. Spectral clustering for discrete distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13913, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Mmd gan: Towards deeper understanding of moment matching network

    Chun-Liang Li, Wei-Cheng Chang, Yu Cheng, Yiming Yang, and Barnab \'a s P \'o czos. Mmd gan: Towards deeper understanding of moment matching network. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Demystifying mmd gans

    Miko aj Bi \'n kowski, Danica J Sutherland, Michael Arbel, and Arthur Gretton. Demystifying mmd gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01401, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    On gradient regularizers for mmd gans

    Michael Arbel, Danica J Sutherland, Miko aj Bi \'n kowski, and Arthur Gretton. On gradient regularizers for mmd gans. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Distribution-matching embedding for visual domain adaptation

    Mahsa Baktashmotlagh, Mehrtash Har, Mathieu Salzmann, et al. Distribution-matching embedding for visual domain adaptation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17 0 (108): 0 1--30, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Statistical aspects of wasserstein distances

    Victor M Panaretos and Yoav Zemel. Statistical aspects of wasserstein distances. Annual review of statistics and its application, 6: 0 405--431, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Subspace robust wasserstein distances

    Fran c ois-Pierre Paty and Marco Cuturi. Subspace robust wasserstein distances. In International conference on machine learning, pages 5072--5081. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Hierarchical sliced wasserstein distance

    Khai Nguyen, Tongzheng Ren, Huy Nguyen, Litu Rout, Tan Nguyen, and Nhat Ho. Hierarchical sliced wasserstein distance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.13570, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Sliced and radon wasserstein barycenters of measures

    Nicolas Bonneel, Julien Rabin, Gabriel Peyr \'e , and Hanspeter Pfister. Sliced and radon wasserstein barycenters of measures. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 51: 0 22--45, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Generalized sliced wasserstein distances

    Soheil Kolouri, Kimia Nadjahi, Umut Simsekli, Roland Badeau, and Gustavo Rohde. Generalized sliced wasserstein distances. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Multivariate soft rank via entropy-regularized optimal transport: Sample efficiency and generative modeling

    Shoaib Bin Masud, Matthew Werenski, James M Murphy, and Shuchin Aeron. Multivariate soft rank via entropy-regularized optimal transport: Sample efficiency and generative modeling. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (160): 0 1--65, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Analysis of representations for domain adaptation

    Shai Ben-David, John Blitzer, Koby Crammer, and Fernando Pereira. Analysis of representations for domain adaptation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 19, 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    Optimal transport for domain adaptation

    Nicolas Courty, R \'e mi Flamary, Devis Tuia, and Alain Rakotomamonjy. Optimal transport for domain adaptation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 39 0 (9): 0 1853--1865, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    A survey of transfer learning

    Karl Weiss, Taghi M Khoshgoftaar, and DingDing Wang. A survey of transfer learning. Journal of Big data, 3: 0 1--40, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Wasserstein distance guided representation learning for domain adaptation

    Jian Shen, Yanru Qu, Weinan Zhang, and Yong Yu. Wasserstein distance guided representation learning for domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirtieth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference...

    2018

  37. [45]

    Jia Li and James Z. Wang. Real-time computerized annotation of pictures. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 30 0 (6): 0 985--1002, June 2008. ISSN 1939-3539. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2007.70847

    2008

  38. [46]

    Fast discrete distribution clustering using wasserstein barycenter with sparse support

    Jianbo Ye, Panruo Wu, James Z Wang, and Jia Li. Fast discrete distribution clustering using wasserstein barycenter with sparse support. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 65 0 (9): 0 2317--2332, 2017

    2017

  39. [48]

    MMD graph kernel: Effective metric learning for graphs via maximum mean discrepancy

    Yan Sun and Jicong Fan. MMD graph kernel: Effective metric learning for graphs via maximum mean discrepancy. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=GZ6AcZwA8r

    2024

  40. [49]

    Further results on the subspace distance

    Xichen Sun, Liwei Wang, and Jufu Feng. Further results on the subspace distance. Pattern recognition, 40 0 (1): 0 328--329, 2007

    2007

  41. [50]

    Schubert varieties and distances between subspaces of different dimensions

    Ke Ye and Lek-Heng Lim. Schubert varieties and distances between subspaces of different dimensions. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 37 0 (3): 0 1176--1197, 2016

    2016

  42. [51]

    Learning high dimensional correspondences from low dimensional manifolds

    Ji Hun Ham, Daniel D Lee, and Lawrence K Saul. Learning high dimensional correspondences from low dimensional manifolds. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2003

    2003

  43. [52]

    Manifold alignment without correspondence

    Chang Wang and Sridhar Mahadevan. Manifold alignment without correspondence. In IJCAI, volume 2, page 3, 2009

    2009

  44. [53]

    Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio

    Aaron Van Den Oord, Sander Dieleman, Heiga Zen, Karen Simonyan, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, Nal Kalchbrenner, Andrew Senior, Koray Kavukcuoglu, et al. Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499, 12, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Density estimation using real nvp

    Laurent Dinh, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, and Samy Bengio. Density estimation using real nvp. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.08803, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Normalized cuts and image segmentation

    Jianbo Shi and Jitendra Malik. Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 22 0 (8): 0 888--905, 2000

    2000

  47. [56]

    On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm

    Andrew Ng, Michael Jordan, and Yair Weiss. On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm. In T. Dietterich, S. Becker, and Z. Ghahramani, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 14. MIT Press, 2001

    2001

  48. [57]

    Projection robust wasserstein barycenters

    Minhui Huang, Shiqian Ma, and Lifeng Lai. Projection robust wasserstein barycenters. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4456--4465. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  49. [58]

    Practical solutions to the problem of diagonal dominance in kernel document clustering

    Derek Greene and P\' a draig Cunningham. Practical solutions to the problem of diagonal dominance in kernel document clustering. In Proc. 23rd International Conference on Machine learning (ICML'06), pages 377--384. ACM Press, 2006

    2006

  50. [59]

    Reuters-21578 Text Categorization Collection

    David Lewis. Reuters-21578 Text Categorization Collection . UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1987. DOI : https://doi.org/10.24432/C52G6M

    1987 doi

  51. [60]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition

    Yann LeCun, L \'e on Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86 0 (11): 0 2278--2324, 1998

    1998

  52. [61]

    Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms

    Han Xiao, Kashif Rasul, and Roland Vollgraf. Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. 2009

    2009

  54. [63]

    Deep learning face attributes in the wild

    Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, Xiaogang Wang, and Xiaoou Tang. Deep learning face attributes in the wild. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), December 2015

    2015

  55. [64]

    Adapting visual category models to new domains

    Kate Saenko, Brian Kulis, Mario Fritz, and Trevor Darrell. Adapting visual category models to new domains. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2010: 11th European Conference on Computer Vision, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, September 5-11, 2010, Proceedings, Part IV 11, pages 213--226. Sprin...

    2010

  56. [65]

    Everything about transfer learning and domain adapation

    Jindong Wang et al. Everything about transfer learning and domain adapation. http://transferlearning.xyz

  57. [66]

    Learning transferable features with deep adaptation networks

    Mingsheng Long, Yue Cao, Jianmin Wang, and Michael Jordan. Learning transferable features with deep adaptation networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 97--105. PMLR, 2015

    2015

  58. [67]

    Deep subdomain adaptation network for image classification

    Yongchun Zhu, Fuzhen Zhuang, Jindong Wang, Guolin Ke, Jingwu Chen, Jiang Bian, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. Deep subdomain adaptation network for image classification. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 32 0 (4): 0 1713--1722, 2020

    2020

  59. [68]

    Deep transfer learning with joint adaptation networks

    Mingsheng Long, Han Zhu, Jianmin Wang, and Michael I Jordan. Deep transfer learning with joint adaptation networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2208--2217. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  60. [69]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  61. [70]

    Pytorch lightning

    William A Falcon. Pytorch lightning. GitHub, 3, 2019

    2019

  62. [71]

    Adaptive estimation of a quadratic functional by model selection

    Beatrice Laurent and Pascal Massart. Adaptive estimation of a quadratic functional by model selection. Annals of statistics, pages 1302--1338, 2000

    2000

  63. [72]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

  64. [73]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  65. [74]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  66. [75]

    `^ (E s [ҽn =C ĕ.]o֢♈NN # i pN- ʹ PWA |

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.