Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Towards Better Spherical Sliced-Wasserstein Distance Learning with Data-Adaptive Discriminative Projection Direction

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that weighting each projection direction by a data-adaptive projected energy function yields a spherical sliced-Wasserstein distance that better discriminates distributions and outperforms equal-weight SSW in gradient…

desk verdict A useful empirical variant of spherical sliced-Wasserstein with a cheap non-parametric weighting, but the theory overclaims: the estimator in Definition 2 is not an estimator of the integral in Definition 1, and the proofs do not close that gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19212 v1 pith:Z7JAZOCU submitted 2024-12-26 cs.LG

Hongliang Zhang , Shuo Chen , Lei Luo , Jian Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords sphericalsliced-Wassersteindistancedata-adaptiveprojectiondirectionprojectedenergyfunctionoptimaltransportonthehyperspheregradientflowsdensityestimationself-supervisedlearningStiefelmanifold
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 proposes replacing the uniform average over projection directions in the Spherical Sliced-Wasserstein (SSW) distance with a weighted average, where the weight of each direction is learned from the two distributions being compared. The resulting Discriminative Spherical Sliced-Wasserstein (DSSW) distance weights each geodesic projection by a projected energy function, either a hand-designed transform of the projected Wasserstein distance or a small neural network. The authors argue that this data-adaptive weighting preserves the good properties of SSW—symmetry, weak continuity, dimension-free sample complexity, and a Monte Carlo projection error bound—while capturing discriminative information hidden in individual directions. If correct, DSSW offers better spherical discrepancy measurement with negligible extra cost in the non-parametric case, and the experiments report gains over SSW, S3W, SW, and Wasserstein in gradient flows, density estimation on earth data, autoencoders, and self-supervised learning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the weighted projection integral defining $\mathrm{DSSW}_p^p$: the expected value, over the uniform measure $\sigma$ on the Stiefel manifold $V_{d,2}$, of $f(P^U_\#\mu, P^U_\#\nu)$ times the $p$-th power of the Wasserstein distance between the two circular projections. The projected energy function $f$ is defined in Definition 2 as a normalized transform of the projected Wasserstein distances: $$f($P^{{U_\ell}}$_\#\mu, $P^{{U_\ell}}$_\#\nu) = \frac{g(h($P^{{U_\ell}}$_\#\mu, $P^{{U_\ell}}$_\#\nu))}{\sum_{k=1}^L g(h($P^{{U_k}}$_\#\mu, $P^{{U_k}}$_\#\nu))},$$ with $h$ either the Wasserstein distance itself or a neural network and $g$ the exponential, identity, or polynomial function. This mechanism converts the unweighted SSW average into a softmax-like weighting that emphasizes discriminative directions; the theoretical results (positivity and symmetry, weak convergence, dimension-free sample complexity, and the Monte Carlo bound) all flow from bounding $f$ in $(0,1)$ and from the corresponding properties of SSW.

What would settle it

Fix two distributions on $S^2$ with one dominant projection direction, compute the DSSW Monte Carlo estimator in Definition 2 for $L = 10$, $100$, and $1000$, and compare the empirical mean squared error against the bound $C^2 \operatorname{Var}(W_p^p)/L$ from Theorem 1; if the error fails to decay at rate $1/L$ with a constant independent of $L$, the bounded-$f$ assumption behind the proof is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that for probability measures on the sphere $S^{d-1}$, the quantity $$\mathrm{DSSW}_p^p(\mu,\nu;f) = \int_{V_{d,2}} f(P^U_\#\mu, P^U_\#\nu) W_p^p(P^U_\#\mu, P^U_\#\nu) d\$\sigma$(U)$$ is a strictly better spherical discrepancy than the unweighted SSW integral. Here $V_{d,2}$ is the Stiefel manifold of $d \times 2$ orthonormal frames, $P^U_\#$ maps a measure to its geodesic projection on the circle, and $f$ is a projected energy function that assigns larger weight to directions with larger projected Wasserstein distance. Two families of $f$ are given: a non-parametric form (exponential, identity, or polynomial transform of the projected distance, normalized across sampled directions) and a parametric form (linear, nonlinear, or attention network trained on projected supports). The paper claims DSSW is positive and symmetric, respects weak convergence, has sample complexity independent of dimension, and has Monte Carlo error bounded by the variance of the projected Wasserstein distance divided by $L$, matching SSW's guarantees. Experimental comparisons across gradient flows, density estimation on Earthquake/Flood/Fire data, sliced Wasserstein autoencoders, and CIFAR-10 self-supervised learning report consistent improvements, with parametric variants generally outperforming non-parametric ones.

Load-bearing premise

The theory treats the weight function $f$ as a fixed function of just the two projected measures, bounded in $(0,1)$, while the implemented $f$ is normalized over the randomly sampled projection directions and therefore depends on the whole sample and on $L$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the non-parametric energy function, DSSW costs essentially the same as SSW: the added weight computation is $O(L)$, while the projection and circular-OT steps dominate.
  • The parametric variants add only $O(TL)$ training cost and are reported to further improve accuracy in all four evaluation setups.
  • DSSW shares SSW's theoretical guarantees: symmetry, convergence under weak convergence of measures, sample complexity independent of dimension, and Monte Carlo projection error that decreases with the number of projections $L$.
  • Because the weights are proportional to projected Wasserstein distance, DSSW places more emphasis on directions in which the two distributions differ most, which explains the improved gradient-flow and density-estimation behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same weighting-by-projected-Wasserstein idea could be applied directly to other sliced distances on non-Euclidean spaces, such as stereographic or rotation-invariant spherical variants, to give them the same discriminative behavior.
  • The softmax-like normalization in Definition 2 means the implemented $f$ changes with $L$ and with the random set of sampled projections; the paper's theoretical statements, which take $f$ as fixed and bounded, would need re-derivation for the implemented estimator to verify the constants remain valid.
  • The learned weights themselves may serve as an interpretability tool: for a pair of distributions, the network's weights identify the directions that carry most of the discrepancy, which could be visualized on the sphere.
  • One could test the robustness of the parametric variants by training the weighting network on one pair of distributions and evaluating the weighted distance on a different pair, measuring whether the learned emphasis transfers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-adaptive Discriminative Spherical Sliced-Wasserstein (DSSW) distance that weights projection directions in the spherical sliced-Wasserstein integral. Two weight mechanisms are introduced: a non-parametric projected energy function (exponential, identity, or polynomial of the projected Wasserstein distance) and a parametric neural-network induced weight (linear, nonlinear, or attention). The authors claim topological and statistical guarantees, including positivity, symmetry, asymptotic continuity, dimension-free sample complexity, and Monte-Carlo projection complexity, and they report experiments on gradient flows, spherical density estimation, sliced-Wasserstein autoencoders, and self-supervised learning where DSSW variants outperform SSW, S3W, and other baselines.

Significance. If the theoretical guarantees were valid, the paper would offer a simple and useful extension of spherical sliced-Wasserstein distances, with a cheap non-parametric variant and a more flexible learned variant. The experimental study is broad, includes several standard benchmarks, and reports consistent improvements with t-test significance markers; the non-parametric variants also add negligible runtime overhead. The main weakness is that the stated theoretical results do not match the quantity actually implemented: the normalized weight in Definition 2 depends on the full sample of L projection directions, while the integral in Definition 1 uses a fixed function of the two projected measures. This mismatch invalidates the sample-complexity and Monte-Carlo guarantees as written, and it also affects the interpretation of the parametric training objective. The empirical contribution is likely salvageable, but the theoretical claims need to be reworked substantially.

major comments (3)
  1. [Definition 1 (Eq. 7) and Definition 2 (Eq. 8)] The f in Eq. (7) is a fixed function of the two projected measures, but the f in Eq. (8) is normalized over the L sampled directions, so it depends on the entire random set {U_k}_{k=1}^L and on all L projected Wasserstein distances. Therefore the Monte Carlo estimator in Theorem 1 is not an average of independent copies of the integrand in Eq. (7), and its expectation is not DSSW_p^p(μ,ν;f). This is a definitional mismatch between the continuum object and the sampled algorithm, not a notational issue.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.19) and Eq. (A.23)] The proofs of Proposition 6 and Theorem 1 replace |f W - f W| with C|W - W| using only 0<f<1. Boundedness alone does not imply Lipschitz continuity of the product f·W. With the sample-dependent normalization of Eq. (8), f changes with the empirical measures and with the set of sampled directions, so the inequality in Eq. (A.19) and its Monte-Carlo counterpart in Eq. (A.23) do not follow. The sample-complexity and projection-complexity guarantees therefore lack support.
  3. [Algorithm 2, line 10] The training objective L(ψ) for the parametric weight network is exactly the same weighted average that defines the DSSW distance. Since the softmax weights can concentrate mass on the smallest projected Wasserstein distances, minimizing L(ψ) over ψ for a fixed pair (μ,ν) drives the discrepancy toward small values, which is the opposite of the claimed 'discriminative' emphasis. The paper should specify what property of hψ is being optimized and explain why this does not trivialize the discrepancy in downstream minimization tasks.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Naming and numbering] The proposition and theorem numbers in the main text (Proposition 1, 2, 3; Theorem 1) do not match the numbers in the appendix (Proposition 4, 5, 6; Theorem 2); this makes cross-referencing the proofs unnecessarily confusing.
  2. [Proof of Proposition 2 (Appendix A)] In the proof, the argument of f is written as f(P^U_#μ_k, P^U_#ν), but the statement concerns DSSW_p^p(μ_k, μ; f); the second argument should be P^U_#μ. This appears to be a typo, but it should be corrected.
  3. [Notation for spheres] The paper uses 'S9', 'S2', and 'Sd−1' inconsistently; for instance, Table 4 writes 'S9' where S^{9} is meant, and the text writes 'S2' where S^{2} is meant. Please use consistent superscript notation for spheres.
  4. [Typos] There are several typographical errors, including 'Molleweide' for Mollweide, 'preform' for perform, 'followd' for followed, 'propsoed' for proposed, 'the the' for the, and 'Scipy' should be 'SciPy'. These do not affect the science but should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: DSSW is an explicit reweighting of SSW; the Definition 1/Definition 2 mismatch is a proof gap rather than a self-referential reduction, and the only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central object, DSSW (Definition 1, Eq. 7), is a weighted integral of projected Wasserstein distances, and the projected energy function f (Definition 2, Eq. 8) is a normalized transform of the same projected distances or of network outputs trained on them. This is an intentional reweighting of SSW rather than a derivation of a result from its own target: the weights are inputs to the definition, not fitted constants used to predict the quantity being reported. The non-parametric g choices are taken from Nguyen and Ho (2024) with citation, and the sample-complexity argument in Proposition 3 relies on the independent S^1 bound of Nadjahi et al.; these are external supports. The only self-citation (Zhang et al. 2024, in the SSL background) is non-load-bearing and is corroborated by Wang and Isola (2020). The Theorem 1 Monte-Carlo proof has a genuine gap: Definition 2's f depends on all L sampled directions, so the estimator in Eq. (11) is not an average of independent copies of a fixed integrand, and the step from |f_n W_n - fW| <= C|W_n - W| in Eqs. (A.19)/(A.23) uses only boundedness of f. This is a correctness/consistency problem, not a circular reduction: the claimed bound does not follow, but it is not equivalent to the paper's inputs by construction. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited, and the score reflects only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm itself is well defined, but the theoretical claims rest on hidden assumptions about the normalized weight f and on an unproved sample complexity bound. The most serious ledger entry is the universal constant C used in the proofs, which is not a standard theorem and is false in general.

free parameters (1)
  • h_psi network parameters (linear, nonlinear, attention) = not reported
    Trained by gradient descent in Algorithm 2 to minimize the weighted spherical sliced-Wasserstein sum. The learned weights are data-dependent, so the discriminative directions are fit to each task.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper For all sample measures and projections, |f_hat * W_hat - f * W| <= C * |W_hat - W| for a universal constant C.
    Used at Eq. (A.19) in the proof of Proposition 6 and again in Theorem 2. It is asserted without proof and does not follow from f being bounded in (0,1).
  • domain assumption The empirical Wasserstein distance on the circle has a dimension-free sample complexity bound beta(p,n).
    Assumed as the hypothesis of Proposition 6, Eq. (A.16). The paper does not prove this bound and relies on it to conclude that DSSW is dimension-free.
  • ad hoc to paper The L-normalized f in Definition 2 is interchangeable with the fixed function f in Definition 1.
    The continuum integral in Eq. (7) uses a pointwise f, while Eq. (8) defines f through a normalization over the L sampled directions. The proofs never reconcile the two.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Better Spherical Sliced-Wasserstein Distance Learning with Data-Adaptive Discriminative Projection Direction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z7JAZOCU

@misc{pith2026241219212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Better Spherical Sliced-Wasserstein Distance Learning with Data-Adaptive Discriminative Projection Direction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z7JAZOCU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19212}
}
read the original abstract

Spherical Sliced-Wasserstein (SSW) has recently been proposed to measure the discrepancy between spherical data distributions in various fields, such as geology, medical domains, computer vision, and deep representation learning. However, in the original SSW, all projection directions are treated equally, which is too idealistic and cannot accurately reflect the importance of different projection directions for various data distributions. To address this issue, we propose a novel data-adaptive Discriminative Spherical Sliced-Wasserstein (DSSW) distance, which utilizes a projected energy function to determine the discriminative projection direction for SSW. In our new DSSW, we introduce two types of projected energy functions to generate the weights for projection directions with complete theoretical guarantees. The first type employs a non-parametric deterministic function that transforms the projected Wasserstein distance into its corresponding weight in each projection direction. This improves the performance of the original SSW distance with negligible additional computational overhead. The second type utilizes a neural network-induced function that learns the projection direction weight through a parameterized neural network based on data projections. This further enhances the performance of the original SSW distance with less extra computational overhead. Finally, we evaluate the performance of our proposed DSSW by comparing it with several state-of-the-art methods across a variety of machine learning tasks, including gradient flows, density estimation on real earth data, and self-supervised learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19212 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Runtime comparison for Wasserstein distance, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Mollweide projections for mini-batch projected gradient descent. We use 1, 5, and 30 rotations for RI-S3W (1), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Projected features on S 2 for CIFAR10 strates that the cluster result of the projected features on S 2 obtained by our DSSW is better than other methods. Conclusion In this work, we propose a novel approach termed DSSW distance that emphasizes the importance of the projection di￾rection. Our proposed DSSW employ a non-parametric pro￾jected energy function to learn a discriminative projection direction, considering b… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    An, X.; Zhao, L.; Gong, C.; Wang, N.; Wang, D.; and Yang, J. 2024. SHaRPose : Sparse High-Resolution Representation for Human Pose Estimation . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(2): 691--699

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Bendokat, T.; Zimmermann, R.; and Absil, P.-A. 2024. A Grassmann manifold handbook: Basic geometry and computational aspects. Advances in Computational Mathematics, 50(1): 6

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Besombes, C.; Pannekoucke, O.; Lapeyre, C.; Sanderson, B.; and Thual, O. 2021. Producing realistic climate data with generative adversarial networks. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 28(3): 347--370

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Bonet, C.; Berg, P.; Courty, N.; Septier, F.; Drumetz, L.; and Pham, M. T. 2023. Spherical Sliced-Wasserstein. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Bonneel, N.; Rabin, J.; Peyr \'e , G.; and Pfister, H. 2015. Sliced and radon wasserstein barycenters of measures. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 51: 22--45

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Brakenridge, G. 2017. Global active archive of large flood events

    work page 2017

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Chen, T.; Kornblith, S.; Norouzi, M.; and Hinton, G. 2020. A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations. In III, H. D.; and Singh, A., eds., Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Lear...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Cui, L.; Qi, X.; Wen, C.; Lei, N.; Li, X.; Zhang, M.; and Gu, X. 2019. Spherical optimal transportation. Computer-Aided Design, 115: 181--193

    2019

  3. [11]

    Cuturi, M. 2013. Sinkhorn Distances: Lightspeed Computation of Optimal Transport. In Burges, C.; Bottou, L.; Welling, M.; Ghahramani, Z.; and Weinberger, K., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26. Curran Associates, Inc

    2013

  4. [12]

    R.; Falorsi, L.; De Cao, N.; Kipf, T.; and Tomczak, J

    Davidson, T. R.; Falorsi, L.; De Cao, N.; Kipf, T.; and Tomczak, J. M. 2018. Hyperspherical variational auto-encoders. In 34th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 2018, UAI 2018, 856--865. Association For Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (AUAI)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Di Marzio, M.; Panzera, A.; and Taylor, C. C. 2014. Nonparametric regression for spherical data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 109(506): 748--763

    2014

  6. [14]

    Dinh, L.; Sohl-Dickstein, J.; and Bengio, S. 2017. Density estimation using Real NVP . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2017

  7. [15]

    Dominitz, A.; and Tannenbaum, A. 2009. Texture mapping via optimal mass transport. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 16(3): 419--433

    2009

  8. [16]

    Doucet, A.; de Freitas, N.; and Gordon, N. J., eds. 2001. Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice. Statistics for Engineering and Information Science. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4419-2887-0

    2001

  9. [17]

    EOSDIS. 2020. Land, atmosphere near real-time capability for eos (lance) system operated by nasa's earth science data and information system (esdis)

    2020

  10. [18]

    C.; Rezende, D.; and Mohamed, S

    Gemici, M. C.; Rezende, D.; and Mohamed, S. 2016. Normalizing flows on riemannian manifolds. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.02304

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Groemer, H. 1998. On a spherical integral transformation and sections of star bodies. Monatshefte f \"u r Mathematik , 126(2): 117--124

    1998

  12. [20]

    He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Hu, X.; Zhong, B.; Liang, Q.; Zhang, S.; Li, N.; and Li, X. 2024. Towards Modalities Correlation for RGB-T Tracking. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology

    2024

  14. [22]

    Hu, X.; Zhong, B.; Liang, Q.; Zhang, S.; Li, N.; Li, X.; and Ji, R. 2023. Transformer tracking via frequency fusion. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 34(2): 1020--1031

    2023

  15. [23]

    R.; and Sengupta, A

    Jammalamadaka, S. R.; and Sengupta, A. 2001. Topics in circular statistics, volume 5. world scientific

    2001

  16. [24]

    Kolouri, S.; Nadjahi, K.; Simsekli, U.; Badeau, R.; and Rohde, G. 2019 a . Generalized Sliced Wasserstein Distances. In Wallach, H.; Larochelle, H.; Beygelzimer, A.; d Alch\' e -Buc, F.; Fox, E.; and Garnett, R., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume ...

    2019

  17. [25]

    E.; Martin, C

    Kolouri, S.; Pope, P. E.; Martin, C. E.; and Rohde, G. K. 2019 b . Sliced Wasserstein Auto-Encoders. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  18. [26]

    Krizhevsky, A.; and Hinton, G. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Technical Report 0, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

    2009

  19. [27]

    LeCun, Y.; Bottou, L.; Bengio, Y.; and Haffner, P. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE , 86(11): 2278--2324

    1998

  20. [28]

    Madry, A.; Makelov, A.; Schmidt, L.; Tsipras, D.; and Vladu, A. 2018. Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2018

  21. [29]

    Mathieu, E.; and Nickel, M. 2020. Riemannian continuous normalizing flows. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 2503--2515

    2020

  22. [30]

    Nadjahi, K.; Durmus, A.; Chizat, L.; Kolouri, S.; Shahrampour, S.; and Simsekli, U. 2020 a . Statistical and Topological Properties of Sliced Probability Divergences. In Larochelle, H.; Ranzato, M.; Hadsell, R.; Balcan, M.; and Lin, H., eds., Advances in Neural Information Pro...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Nadjahi, K.; Durmus, A.; Chizat, L.; Kolouri, S.; Shahrampour, S.; and Simsekli, U. 2020 b . Statistical and topological properties of sliced probability divergences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 20802--20812

    2020

  24. [32]

    Nadjahi, K.; Durmus, A.; Simsekli, U.; and Badeau, R. 2019. Asymptotic Guarantees for Learning Generative Models with the Sliced-Wasserstein Distance. In Wallach, H.; Larochelle, H.; Beygelzimer, A.; d Alch\' e -Buc, F.; Fox, E.; and Garnett, R., eds., Advances in Neural Infor...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Nguyen, K.; and Ho, N. 2024. Energy-based sliced wasserstein distance. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  26. [34]

    Nguyen, K.; Ho, N.; Pham, T.; and Bui, H. 2021. Distributional Sliced-Wasserstein and Applications to Generative Modeling. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  27. [35]

    Nietert, S.; Goldfeld, Z.; Sadhu, R.; and Kato, K. 2022. Statistical, Robustness, and Computational Guarantees for Sliced Wasserstein Distances. In Koyejo, S.; Mohamed, S.; Agarwal, A.; Belgrave, D.; Cho, K.; and Oh, A., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems,...

    2022

  28. [36]

    NOAA. 2022. Ncei/wds global significant earthquake database

    2022

  29. [37]

    Ohana, R.; Nadjahi, K.; Rakotomamonjy, A.; and Ralaivola, L. 2023. Shedding a PAC - B ayesian Light on Adaptive Sliced- W asserstein Distances. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202, 26451--26473

    2023

  30. [38]

    Paszke, A.; Gross, S.; Massa, F.; Lerer, A.; Bradbury, J.; Chanan, G.; Killeen, T.; Lin, Z.; Gimelshein, N.; Antiga, L.; et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    2019

  31. [39]

    Peyr \'e , G.; Cuturi, M.; et al. 2019. Computational optimal transport: With applications to data science. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 11(5-6): 355--607

    2019

  32. [40]

    Peyré, G.; and Cuturi, M. 2019. Computational Optimal Transport: With Applications to Data Science. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 11(5-6): 355--607

    2019

  33. [41]

    Quellmalz, M.; Beinert, R.; and Steidl, G. 2023. Sliced optimal transport on the sphere. Inverse Problems, 39(10): 105005

    2023

  34. [42]

    J.; Papamakarios, G.; Racaniere, S.; Albergo, M.; Kanwar, G.; Shanahan, P.; and Cranmer, K

    Rezende, D. J.; Papamakarios, G.; Racaniere, S.; Albergo, M.; Kanwar, G.; Shanahan, P.; and Cranmer, K. 2020. Normalizing Flows on Tori and Spheres. In III, H. D.; and Singh, A., eds., Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedi...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Rubin, B. 2018. The Vertical Slice Transform in Spherical Tomography. arXiv:1807.07689

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    D.; and Kolouri, S

    Tran, H.; Bai, Y.; Kothapalli, A.; Shahbazi, A.; Liu, X.; Martin, R. D.; and Kolouri, S. 2024. Stereographic Spherical Sliced Wasserstein Distances. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  37. [45]

    Vrba, J.; and Robinson, S. E. 2001. Signal processing in magnetoencephalography. Methods, 25(2): 249--271

    2001

  38. [46]

    Wang, T.; and Isola, P. 2020. Understanding contrastive representation learning through alignment and uniformity on the hypersphere. In International conference on machine learning, 9929--9939. PMLR

    2020

  39. [47]

    Xu, J.; and Durrett, G. 2018. Spherical Latent Spaces for Stable Variational Autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2018

  40. [48]

    Yi, M.; and Liu, S. 2023. Sliced Wasserstein variational inference. In Khan, E.; and Gonen, M., eds., Proceedings of The 14th Asian Conference on Machine Learning, volume 189 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 1213--1228. PMLR

    2023

  41. [49]

    Zhang, H.; Chen, S.; Luo, L.; and Yang, J. 2024. Few-shot learning with long-tailed labels. Pattern Recognition, 156: 110806

    2024

  42. [50]

    Zheng, Y.; Zhan, J.; He, S.; Dong, J.; and Du, Y. 2023. Curricular contrastive regularization for physics-aware single image dehazing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 5785--5794

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.