pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23944 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 📊 stat.ML · cs.LG

Recognition: unknown

Sliced-Regularized Optimal Transport

Khai Nguyen
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 01:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.ML cs.LG
keywords optimal transportsliced optimal transportregularized optimal transportentropic OTSinkhorn algorithmOT divergencecolor transfer
0
0 comments X

The pith

Sliced-regularized optimal transport approximates exact OT plans more accurately than entropic OT by pulling the plan toward a smoothened sliced OT reference instead of an independent coupling.

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

The paper introduces sliced-regularized optimal transport (SROT), which defines a new way to regularize optimal transport plans. Rather than using an independent coupling as the target like entropic OT does, SROT uses a smoothened sliced OT plan as the reference. This change is intended to produce transport plans that stay closer to the exact optimal transport solution while preserving the same level of regularization and computational scalability through a Sinkhorn-style algorithm. The authors also derive the dual problem, offer a post-Bayesian view, and define an associated SROT divergence whose properties they analyze. Experiments on synthetic data and color transfer tasks support that SROT improves both on entropic OT and on the original sliced plan.

Core claim

Sliced-regularized optimal transport (SROT) regularizes the transport plan toward a smoothened sliced OT plan rather than an independent coupling. This yields more accurate approximations to the exact OT plan than entropic OT at the same regularization strength, and the resulting plan improves upon the reference sliced plan itself. The formulation admits a dual, a Sinkhorn-style algorithm for computation, and an induced SROT divergence whose topological and computational properties are examined.

What carries the argument

The SROT transport plan, obtained by regularizing the coupling toward a smoothened sliced OT plan via a Sinkhorn-style algorithm that retains the scalability of entropic OT.

If this is right

  • SROT approximates the exact OT plan more closely than EOT under identical regularization strength.
  • The final transport plan improves accuracy beyond the sliced OT plan used as reference.
  • The method remains computationally scalable through a Sinkhorn-style algorithm.
  • The induced SROT divergence possesses topological and computational properties suitable for applications such as gradient flows.
  • On synthetic datasets and color transfer tasks, SROT outperforms both EOT and plain SOT in approximating exact OT.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the accuracy gain persists in higher dimensions, SROT could serve as a drop-in replacement for entropic OT in domain adaptation or generative modeling pipelines.
  • The post-Bayesian interpretation opens a route to incorporating uncertainty estimates into transport-based distances.
  • Extensions to other sliced approximations or multi-marginal settings could be tested by replacing the reference plan while keeping the same algorithmic structure.

Load-bearing premise

Regularizing toward a smoothened sliced OT plan produces a closer approximation to exact optimal transport than regularizing toward an independent coupling, and the Sinkhorn-style algorithm reliably finds the desired plan.

What would settle it

On a low-dimensional synthetic dataset where the exact OT plan can be computed directly, measure the plan error or Wasserstein distance of SROT versus EOT to that exact plan at matched regularization levels; if SROT is not closer, the accuracy claim does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23944 by Khai Nguyen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) An example of SOT plan (adapting from [ view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visualization of transportation plans from OT, SOT, EOT, and SROT for synthetic view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Ablation studies of varying the regularization strengths ( view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Color transfer results of OT, SOT, EOT, and SROT. 4.2 Color Transfer Color transfer is formulated as an OT problem by representing each image as a weighted point cloud in the normalized RGB space, [0, 1]3 . Each image is discretized into K = 256 colors via median-cut quantization without dithering, yielding palette centroids (atoms) and normalized bin frequencies (weights). We compare three couplings: (i) … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gradient flows of Sinkhorn divergence and SR divergence with Wasserstein distance as netural evaluation metric. flow converge faster in the sense of Wasserstein distance, 5 Conclusion We propose sliced-regularized optimal transport (SROT), a framework that leverages a smoothened SOT plan as an informative prior to improve regularized OT. SROT retains the computational efficiency of EOT via a Sinkhorn-style… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation study of varying the number of projections view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Computational speed measurement when varying the number of projections view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gradient flows of Sinkhorn divergence and SR divergence with Wasserstein distance as netural evaluation metric. two-rings case. This may be due to the greater smoothness of the corresponding SOT plan. For both uniform and softmin initializations, SROT improves as L increases, even when the initial plans do not. Overall, we recommend uniform SOT as a default choice, while noting that it may not be optimal a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a new regularized optimal transport (OT) formulation, termed sliced-regularized optimal transport (SROT). Unlike entropic OT (EOT), which regularizes the transport plan toward an independent coupling, SROT regularizes it toward a smoothened sliced OT (SOT) plan. To the best of our knowledge, SROT is the first approach to leverage a version of SOT plan as a reference to improve classical OT. We provide a formal definition of SROT, derive its dual formulation, and provide a post-Bayesian interpretation of SROT. We then develop a Sinkhorn-style algorithm for efficient computation, retaining the same scalability advantages as EOT. By incorporating a scalable SOT plan as a prior, SROT yields more accurate approximations of the exact OT plan than EOT under the same level of regularization. Moreover, the resulting transport plan improves upon the reference SOT plan itself. We further introduce the corresponding OT divergence induced by SROT, named SROT divergence, and analyze its topological and computational properties. Finally, we validate our approach through experiments on synthetic datasets and color transfer tasks, demonstrating that SROT is better than both EOT and SOT in approximating exact OT. Additional experiments on gradient flows further highlight the advantages of SROT divergence.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces sliced-regularized optimal transport (SROT), a new regularized OT formulation that replaces the independent coupling prior of entropic OT (EOT) with a smoothed sliced OT (SOT) plan inside the KL term. It derives the dual problem, offers a post-Bayesian interpretation, develops a Sinkhorn-style algorithm, defines the induced SROT divergence and studies its topological and computational properties, and reports experiments on synthetic data, color transfer, and gradient flows claiming that SROT approximates the exact OT plan more accurately than EOT at the same regularization level and also improves upon the reference SOT plan.

Significance. If the derivations and the controlled comparison hold, the work supplies a practical way to inject sliced-OT structure into regularized transport while preserving Sinkhorn scalability. The new divergence and its analysis could enlarge the set of OT-based distances available for downstream tasks. Credit is due for the explicit dual derivation, the algorithmic construction, and the multi-task empirical validation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (experimental comparison): the headline claim that SROT approximates exact OT more accurately than EOT 'under the same level of regularization' is not yet supported, because the two priors (smoothed SOT plan vs. independent coupling) possess different entropies and different distances to the target plan. A numerically identical λ therefore does not guarantee comparable effective regularization strength. The manuscript must specify the normalization procedure (e.g., matching realized KL(π||μ) or entropy of μ) used to equate the two regularizers; without it the reported accuracy gains cannot be attributed to the SROT construction rather than to the choice of prior.
minor comments (1)
  1. [§2] Notation for the smoothed SOT reference measure should be introduced once and used consistently; the current alternation between 'smoothened SOT plan' and 'SOT prior' is occasionally ambiguous.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. The feedback highlights an important point regarding the fairness of the regularization comparison, which we address below. We will revise the manuscript to strengthen the experimental section and abstract accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (experimental comparison): the headline claim that SROT approximates exact OT more accurately than EOT 'under the same level of regularization' is not yet supported, because the two priors (smoothed SOT plan vs. independent coupling) possess different entropies and different distances to the target plan. A numerically identical λ therefore does not guarantee comparable effective regularization strength. The manuscript must specify the normalization procedure (e.g., matching realized KL(π||μ) or entropy of μ) used to equate the two regularizers; without it the reported accuracy gains cannot be attributed to the SROT construction rather than to the choice of prior.

    Authors: We agree that identical numerical values of λ do not automatically equate effective regularization strength, given the differing entropies and distances of the independent coupling (EOT) versus the smoothed SOT plan (SROT). In the original experiments we followed the common practice of reporting results for the same λ across methods, but we acknowledge that this leaves the comparison open to the referee's valid concern. In the revised manuscript we will (i) explicitly state the comparison protocol, (ii) introduce a normalization step that matches either the realized KL(π || reference) or the entropy of the reference measure across SROT and EOT for each reported λ, and (iii) add supplementary figures that display performance at these matched effective regularization levels. The abstract and §4 will be updated to reflect the clarified procedure, ensuring that any reported accuracy gains can be attributed to the SROT construction rather than to an unaccounted difference in prior strength. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper defines SROT by replacing the independent coupling prior in EOT with a smoothed SOT plan, then derives the dual and a Sinkhorn-style solver using standard convex optimization steps for KL-regularized OT. These steps are constructive and do not reduce to self-definition, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The central empirical claim (better approximation than EOT at 'same level' of regularization) is presented as an experimental outcome rather than a mathematical identity. While the skeptic correctly notes that identical λ values may not yield comparable effective regularization across dissimilar priors, this is a validity concern about experimental controls, not a circular reduction in the derivation itself. The formulation and algorithm remain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claim rests on standard optimal transport theory plus the domain assumption that a smoothened sliced OT plan is a suitable and computable reference prior. The regularization strength is an implicit free parameter tuned in experiments. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • regularization strength
    Controls how strongly the plan is pulled toward the smoothened SOT reference; must be chosen or tuned for each application.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Existence of an optimal transport plan under the proposed regularization
    Required for the dual formulation and Sinkhorn-style algorithm to be well-defined.
  • domain assumption Sliced OT plan can be efficiently computed and smoothed to serve as reference
    Invoked when using the SOT plan as the regularization target.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5514 in / 1488 out tokens · 100177 ms · 2026-05-08T01:16:47.116697+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. ASAP: Amortized Doubly-Stochastic Attention via Sliced Dual Projection

    cs.LG 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    ASAP amortizes Sinkhorn-based doubly-stochastic attention by learning a parametric map from 1D potentials to the Sinkhorn dual and reconstructing the plan via two-sided entropic c-transform, delivering 5.3x faster inf...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Altschuler, J

    J. Altschuler, J. Niles-Weed, and P. Rigollet. Near-linear time approximation algorithms for optimal transport via Sinkhorn iteration. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1964–1974, 2017. (Cited on pages 2 and 8.)

    1964

  2. [2]

    Arjovsky, S

    M. Arjovsky, S. Chintala, and L. Bottou. Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 214–223, 2017. (Cited on page 1.)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Benamou, G

    J.-D. Benamou, G. Carlier, M. Cuturi, L. Nenna, and G. Peyré. Iterative Bregman projections for regularized transportation problems.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 37(2):A1111– A1138, 2015. (Cited on pages 1, 7, and 14.)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Bernton, P

    E. Bernton, P. E. Jacob, M. Gerber, and C. P. Robert. Approximate Bayesian computation with the Wasserstein distance.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 81(2):235–269, 2019. (Cited on page 1.)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Bernton, P

    E. Bernton, P. E. Jacob, M. Gerber, and C. P. Robert. On parameter estimation with the Wasserstein distance.Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 8(4):657–676, 2019. (Cited on page 1.)

    2019

  6. [6]

    P. G. Bissiri, C. C. Holmes, and S. G. Walker. A general framework for updating belief distribu- tions.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 78(5):1103–1130,

  7. [7]

    Bonet, L

    C. Bonet, L. Drumetz, and N. Courty. Sliced-Wasserstein distances and flows on Cartan- Hadamard manifolds.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 26(32):1–76, 2025. (Cited on page 4.)

    2025

  8. [8]

    Bonneel, J

    N. Bonneel, J. Rabin, G. Peyré, and H. Pfister. Sliced and Radon Wasserstein barycenters of measures.Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 1(51):22–45, 2015. (Cited on page 4.)

    2015

  9. [9]

    L. M. Bregman. The relaxation method of finding the common point of convex sets and its application to the solution of problems in convex programming.USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 7(3):200–217, 1967. (Cited on page 15.)

    1967

  10. [10]

    Bunne, S

    C. Bunne, S. G. Stark, G. Gut, J. S. Del Castillo, M. Levesque, K.-V. Lehmann, L. Pelkmans, A. Krause, and G. Rätsch. Learning single-cell perturbation responses using neural optimal transport.Nature methods, 20(11):1759–1768, 2023. (Cited on page 1.)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Catalano, H

    M. Catalano, H. Lavenant, A. Lijoi, and I. Prünster. A Wasserstein index of dependence for random measures.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119(547):2396–2406, 2024. (Cited on page 1.)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Catalano, A

    M. Catalano, A. Lijoi, and I. Prünster. Measuring dependence in the Wasserstein distance for Bayesian nonparametric models.The Annals of Statistics, 49(5):2916–2947, 2021. (Cited on page 1.) 18

    2021

  13. [13]

    Chapel, R

    L. Chapel, R. Tavenard, and S. Vaiter. Differentiable generalized sliced Wasserstein plans. In The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2026. (Cited on pages 2 and 4.)

    2026

  14. [14]

    Chizat, G

    L. Chizat, G. Peyré, B. Schmitzer, and F.-X. Vialard. Scaling algorithms for unbalanced optimal transport problems.Mathematics of Computation, 87(314):2563–2609, 2018. (Cited on page 2.)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Courty, R

    N. Courty, R. Flamary, A. Habrard, and A. Rakotomamonjy. Joint distribution optimal transportation for domain adaptation. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3730–3739, 2017. (Cited on page 1.)

    2017

  16. [16]

    M. Cuturi. Sinkhorn distances: Lightspeed computation of optimal transport. In C. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, and K. Weinberger, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26. Curran Associates, Inc., 2013. (Cited on pages 1, 2, and 3.)

    2013

  17. [17]

    B. B. Damodaran, B. Kellenberger, R. Flamary, D. Tuia, and N. Courty. Deepjdot: Deep joint distribution optimal transport for unsupervised domain adaptation. InProceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 447–463, 2018. (Cited on page 1.)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Feydy, B

    J. Feydy, B. Charlier, F.-X. Vialard, and G. Peyré. Optimal transport for diffeomorphic registration. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention- MICCAI 2017: 20th International Conference, Quebec City, QC, Canada, September 11-13, 2017, Proceedings, Part I 20, pages 291–299. Springer, 2017. (Cited on page 1.)

    2017

  19. [19]

    Feydy, T

    J. Feydy, T. Séjourné, F.-X. Vialard, S.-i. Amari, A. Trouve, and G. Peyré. Interpolating between optimal transport and mmd using sinkhorn divergences. In K. Chaudhuri and M. Sugiyama, editors,Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 89 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 268...

    2019

  20. [20]

    Entropic optimal transport beyond product reference couplings: the Gaussian case on Euclidean space

    P. Freulon, N. Georgakis, and V. Panaretos. Entropic optimal transport beyond product reference couplings: the Gaussian case on Euclidean space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01709,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Genevay, L

    A. Genevay, L. Chizat, F. Bach, M. Cuturi, and G. Peyré. Sample complexity of sinkhorn divergences. InThe 22nd international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 1574–1583. PMLR, 2019. (Cited on page 1.)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Genevay, M

    A. Genevay, M. Cuturi, G. Peyré, and F. Bach. Stochastic optimization for large-scale optimal transport.Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016. (Cited on page 7.)

    2016

  23. [23]

    Genevay, G

    A. Genevay, G. Peyré, and M. Cuturi. Learning generative models with Sinkhorn divergences. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1608–1617. PMLR,

  24. [24]

    (Cited on pages 1, 3, and 8.)

  25. [25]

    Gretton, K

    A. Gretton, K. M. Borgwardt, M. J. Rasch, B. Schölkopf, and A. Smola. A kernel two-sample test.The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(1):723–773, 2012. (Cited on page 8.) 19

    2012

  26. [26]

    P. He, O. Khangaonkar, H. Pirsiavash, Y. Bai, and S. Kolouri. Sinkhorn-drifting generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12366, 2026. (Cited on page 1.)

    work page arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Kolouri, K

    S. Kolouri, K. Nadjahi, U. Simsekli, R. Badeau, and G. Rohde. Generalized sliced Wasserstein distances. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 261–272, 2019. (Cited on page 4.)

    2019

  28. [28]

    Kolouri, S

    S. Kolouri, S. R. Park, M. Thorpe, D. Slepcev, and G. K. Rohde. Optimal mass transport: Signal processing and machine-learning applications.IEEE signal processing magazine, 34(4):43–59,

  29. [29]

    Lipman, R

    Y. Lipman, R. T. Q. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le. Flow matching for generative modeling. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. (Cited on page 1.)

    2023

  30. [30]

    T. Liu, J. Puigcerver, and M. Blondel. Sparsity-constrained optimal transport. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. (Cited on page 2.)

    2023

  31. [31]

    X. Liu, R. D. Martin, Y. Bai, A. Shahbazi, M. Thorpe, A. Aldroubi, and S. Kolouri. Expected sliced transport plans. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations,

  32. [32]

    (Cited on pages 2 and 4.)

  33. [33]

    D. A. Lorenz, P. Manns, and C. Meyer. Quadratically regularized optimal transport.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 83(3):1919–1949, 2021. (Cited on pages 1 and 2.)

    1919

  34. [34]

    Mahey, L

    G. Mahey, L. Chapel, G. Gasso, C. Bonet, and N. Courty. Fast optimal transport through sliced Wasserstein generalized geodesics. InProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 35350–35385, 2023. (Cited on pages 2 and 4.)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Manole, S

    T. Manole, S. Balakrishnan, J. Niles-Weed, and L. Wasserman. Plugin estimation of smooth optimal transport maps.The Annals of Statistics, 52(3):966–998, 2024. (Cited on page 1.)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Muzellec and M

    B. Muzellec and M. Cuturi. Subspace detours: Building transport plans that are optimal on subspace projections. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 6917–6928,

  37. [37]

    K. Nguyen. An introduction to sliced optimal transport: foundations, advances, extensions, and applications.Foundations and Trends®in Computer Graphics and Vision, 17(3-4):171–391,

  38. [38]

    (Cited on pages 2 and 6.)

  39. [39]

    Nguyen and P

    K. Nguyen and P. Mueller. Summarizing nonparametric Bayesian mixture posteriors–sliced optimal transport metrics for Gaussian mixtures.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, (just-accepted):1–22, 2026. (Cited on page 4.)

    2026

  40. [40]

    Nguyen, H

    K. Nguyen, H. Nguyen, and N. Ho. Fast estimation of Wasserstein distances via regression on sliced Wasserstein distances. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. (Cited on page 2.)

    2026

  41. [41]

    Nguyen, Y

    K. Nguyen, Y. Ni, and P. Mueller. Vertical consensus inference for high-dimensional random partition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.27864, 2026. (Cited on page 1.) 20

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Peyré, M

    G. Peyré, M. Cuturi, et al. Computational optimal transport: With applications to data science. Foundations and Trends®in Machine Learning, 11(5-6):355–607, 2019. (Cited on page 2.)

    2019

  43. [43]

    Pooladian, H

    A.-A. Pooladian, H. Ben-Hamu, C. Domingo-Enrich, B. Amos, Y. Lipman, and R. T. Chen. Multisample flow matching: Straightening flows with minibatch couplings. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 28100–28127. PMLR, 2023. (Cited on page 1.)

    2023

  44. [44]

    Rabin, G

    J. Rabin, G. Peyré, J. Delon, and M. Bernot. Wasserstein barycenter and its application to texture mixing. InScale Space and Variational Methods in Computer Vision: Third International Conference, SSVM 2011, Ein-Gedi, Israel, May 29–June 2, 2011, Revised Selected Papers 3, pages 435–446. Springer, One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004-1562, 2...

    2011

  45. [45]

    Rigollet and A

    P. Rigollet and A. J. Stromme. On the sample complexity of entropic optimal transport.The Annals of Statistics, 53(1):61–90, 2025. (Cited on page 1.)

    2025

  46. [46]

    H. E. Robbins. An empirical Bayes approach to statistics. InBreakthroughs in Statistics: Foundations and Basic Theory, pages 388–394. Springer, 1992. (Cited on page 5.)

    1992

  47. [47]

    Rowland, J

    M. Rowland, J. Hron, Y. Tang, K. Choromanski, T. Sarlos, and A. Weller. Orthogonal estimation of Wasserstein distances. InThe 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 186–195. PMLR, 2019. (Cited on page 4.)

    2019

  48. [48]

    Santambrogio

    F. Santambrogio. Optimal transport for applied mathematicians.Birkäuser, NY, 55(58-63):94,

  49. [49]

    Scetbon and M

    M. Scetbon and M. Cuturi. Low-rank optimal transport: Approximation, statistics and debiasing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:6802–6814, 2022. (Cited on page 2.)

    2022

  50. [50]

    Schiebinger, J

    G. Schiebinger, J. Shu, M. Tabaka, B. Cleary, V. Subramanian, A. Solomon, J. Gould, S. Liu, S. Lin, P. Berube, et al. Optimal-transport analysis of single-cell gene expression identifies developmental trajectories in reprogramming.Cell, 176(4):928–943, 2019. (Cited on page 1.)

    2019

  51. [51]

    Sinkhorn

    R. Sinkhorn. Diagonal equivalence to matrices with prescribed row and column sums.The American Mathematical Monthly, 74(4):402–405, 1967. (Cited on page 7.)

    1967

  52. [52]

    Sinkhorn and P

    R. Sinkhorn and P. Knopp. Concerning nonnegative matrices and doubly stochastic matrices. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 21(2):343–348, 1967. (Cited on page 1.)

    1967

  53. [53]

    Solomon, F

    J. Solomon, F. De Goes, G. Peyré, M. Cuturi, A. Butscher, A. Nguyen, T. Du, and L. Guibas. Convolutional Wasserstein distances: Efficient optimal transportation on geometric domains. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 34(4):1–11, 2015. (Cited on page 1.)

    2015

  54. [54]

    Solomon, G

    J. Solomon, G. Peyré, V. G. Kim, and S. Sra. Entropic metric alignment for correspondence problems.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 35(4):72, 2016. (Cited on page 1.)

    2016

  55. [55]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01243 , year=

    E. Tanguy, L. Chapel, and J. Delon. Sliced optimal transport plans.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01243, 2025. (Cited on pages 2 and 4.) 21

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Thornton and M

    J. Thornton and M. Cuturi. Rethinking initialization of the Sinkhorn algorithm. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 8682–8698. PMLR, 2023. (Cited on page 2.)

    2023

  57. [57]

    A. Tong, K. FATRAS, N. Malkin, G. Huguet, Y. Zhang, J. Rector-Brooks, G. Wolf, and Y. Bengio. Improving and generalizing flow-based generative models with minibatch optimal transport.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024. Expert Certification. (Cited on page 1.)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Amortized Optimal Transport from Sliced Potentials

    M.-P. Truong and K. Nguyen. Amortized optimal transport from sliced potentials.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.15114, 2026. (Cited on page 2.)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Villani.Topics in optimal transportation

    C. Villani.Topics in optimal transportation. Number 58. American Mathematical Soc., 2003. (Cited on page 1.)

    2003

  60. [60]

    Villani.Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338

    C. Villani.Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338. Springer, One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004-1562, 2009. (Cited on pages 1 and 3.) 22

    2009