Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

In every dimension d≥2, the influence function of a transport-based quantile is unbounded: it diverges like the inverse (d−1)-power of the distance from the quantile level, so infinitesimal point-mass contamination at an inlier moves the qu

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 13:29 UTC pith:XGMIAV4C

load-bearing objection First rigorous characterization of transport-quantile influence functions: a pole-type singularity in d≥2, with a sound PDE proof but a few presentation gaps. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19080 v1 pith:XGMIAV4C submitted 2026-07-21 math.ST stat.MEstat.TH

The Influence Function of Transport-based Quantiles

Alberto Gonz\'alez-Sanz , Shunan Sheng , Bohan Wu , Marco Avella Medina This is my paper
classification math.ST stat.MEstat.TH MSC 62G3562G30
keywords transport-based quantilesinfluence functionrobust statisticsoptimal transportpole singularityheavy-tailed asymptoticsempirical quantilesfundamental-solution potential
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks how much a transport-based (optimal-transport) multivariate quantile changes when the underlying distribution is contaminated by an infinitesimal point mass. It proves that in every dimension d≥2 the influence function exists away from the contamination point and is given by the gradient of the fundamental-solution potential of a uniformly elliptic operator. That potential has a pole-type singularity: at a fixed quantile level z, the influence of contaminating at x0 grows like ||z − F_P(x0)||^{-(d−1)}, where F_P is the transport distribution function. Consequently the influence function is not square-integrable under P, so the usual √n Gaussian asymptotic linear representation cannot hold with a square-integrable influence function; the paper conjectures slower n^{1/d} (for d≥3) and √(n/log n) (for d=2) rates and gives numerical evidence of stable-type, non-Gaussian fluctuations. If correct, this marks a fundamental robustness difference between univariate quantiles, whose influence function is bounded, and multivariate transport quantiles.

Core claim

For regular probability measures μ and P, the influence function I(x0; Q_P(z)) exists for every x0 ≠ Q_P(z) and equals ∇G_{x0}(z), where G_{x0} is the unique zero-mean solution of div(f_μ[∇Q_P]^{-1}∇G) = μ − δ_{F_P(x0)} with a no-flux (homogeneous Neumann) boundary condition on the reference domain. Near the singularity the influence function obeys the two-sided estimate ||I(x0; Q_P(z))|| ≍ ||z − F_P(x0)||^{-(d−1)}. In words, the transport quantile is infinitesimally sensitive to perturbations at points whose transport-distribution coordinate is close to the queried level; the sensitivity is a pole, not a jump. The proof combines L^2 stability of the contaminated optimal transport map, unifo

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the potential G_{x0}, the fundamental-solution potential of the uniformly elliptic operator div(f_μ[∇Q_P]^{-1}∇·) with a Dirac source and a no-flux boundary condition; the influence function is exactly ∇G_{x0}. Uniform ellipticity follows from classical regularity theory for optimal maps between regular measures, and it is what lets the proof freeze coefficients near the singularity, compare G_{x0} with the explicit fundamental solution of a constant-coefficient operator, and extract the ||z − F_P(x0)||^{-(d−1)} rate. A second mechanism is the shape control of the preimage K_{x0,t} of the contamination point under the contaminated transport map: an ellipsoid lemma show

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the regularity assumption that both the reference and target measures have bounded convex C^{2,1} support with C^{1,α} densities bounded away from zero and infinity; if densities vanish at the boundary or lack this smoothness, the uniform ellipticity that produces the exact pole rate can break down.

What would settle it

In the explicit uniform-ball example μ=P=U(B_1(0)), compute or simulate the influence function I(x;0) stated in Proposition 4.1 for x approaching 0: it must scale exactly as ||x||^{-(d−1)} and its L^2(P) norm must diverge. Alternatively, estimate the tail of the empirical linear statistic in Conjecture 4.4 at increasing sample sizes; if the correct normalizer deviates from n^{1/d} (or √(n/log n) in d=2) or the limiting distribution is Gaussian, the pole-type singularity claim is contradicted.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In dimensions d≥2, transport quantiles are not robust in the classical bounded-influence sense: contamination at an inlier close to the quantile level produces unbounded first-order sensitivity, even though transport quantiles have high breakdown points.
  • The influence function lies in L^q(P) for every q < d/(d−1) but not in L^2(P), so a standard √n asymptotically linear representation with a square-integrable influence function is impossible.
  • The paper's conjecture gives the scaling n^{1/d} for d≥3 and √(n/log n) for d=2 for empirical transport quantiles, with numerical experiments showing the empirical quantile and the influence-function linear statistic aligning under this scaling.
  • For d≥3, the preimage of the contamination point under the contaminated map is asymptotically a ball of radius t^{1/d}; in dimension two it is contained in a ball of radius √(t|log t|).
  • The symmetry G_x(z) = G_{Q_P(z)}(F_P(x)) provides a practical finite-difference recipe for computing the influence function at any quantile level.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to test whether trimming or capping observations near the quantile level restores √n Gaussian limits; the pole rate suggests the trimming radius should scale with n^{-1/d} in dimension d.
  • The same elliptic fundamental-solution mechanism likely governs other point-mass-perturbed optimal-transport functionals, so pole-type influence with exponent d−1 may be a general phenomenon for transport-based statistics, not just for quantiles.
  • If the conjecture's stable-type limit is correct, bootstrap confidence intervals built on normal approximations will undercover for empirical transport quantiles; simulations should show coverage degrading as n grows unless intervals are based on stable quantiles.
  • The tail index γ = d/(d−1) is directly testable: estimate the tail of the empirical linear statistic n^{1/d}∑I(X_i; Q_P(z)) at increasing n and compare with a γ-stable fit; Proposition 4.5 already provides a rigorous testing-functional version that may extend to the full convergence.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the influence function (IF) of transport-based quantiles, i.e., of the optimal transport map Q_P pushing a fixed reference measure mu to a target P. For Huber contaminations P_t=(1-t)P+t delta_{x_0}, it proves that the limit I(x_0;Q_P(z)) = lim_{t->0}(Q_{P_t}(z)-Q_P(z))/t exists for x_0 != Q_P(z), that it admits the PDE representation I(x_0;Q_P(z)) = nabla G_{x_0}(z), where G_{x_0} solves a uniformly elliptic Neumann problem with a Dirac source, and that in dimension d>=2 this IF has a pole-type singularity: ||I(x_0;Q_P(z))|| is comparable to ||z-F_P(x_0)||^{-(d-1)} locally. The paper also shows the IF has infinite second moment under P, presents an explicit uniform-ball example, and gives numerical evidence for a conjectured n^{1/d} (d>=3) or sqrt(n/log n) (d=2) scaling of empirical transport quantiles.

Significance. If established, this is an important and somewhat surprising result: it shows that transport quantiles in dimension d>=2 are infinitesimatically sensitive to inliers, in contrast to bounded univariate quantile IFs, and it provides a rigorous PDE route to influence analysis for nonsmooth perturbations. The proof strategy is substantial: it combines an L^2 stability estimate, upgraded L^q bounds, local maximum principle/Moser iteration, Schauder estimates, and a comparison with the frozen fundamental solution. The explicit uniform-ball computation and the symmetry lemma for the Green potential are valuable concrete contributions. The falsifiable predictions -- the exact singularity rate, infinite second moment, and the conjectured empirical scaling -- are clearly stated and numerically probed. The paper is careful to distinguish the unbounded IF from high breakdown point, which is a common source of confusion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (16)] Theorem 5.1 is the cornerstone of the proof, but the key inequality (16) is quoted from (Manole et al., 2024, Theorem 6) and then applied to P_t=(1-t)P+t delta_{x_0}, which is not absolutely continuous. The manuscript does not state the hypotheses of that theorem. If the theorem requires regular or absolutely continuous targets, the application to an atomic perturbation is not justified. Please either restate the precise theorem and verify its applicability to atomic P_t (e.g., by approximation), or give a self-contained proof of the L^2 stability bound for atomic targets.
  2. [Section 5.6, Proposition 3.5] The d=2 case of Proposition 3.5 is explicitly omitted ('The case d=2 follows from a similar argument and the details are omitted'). This is not merely cosmetic: Proposition 3.5 is used in Lemma 5.6 to ensure K_{t,x0} is disjoint from a fixed open set U, which is then used in Proposition 5.5 and hence in the proof of Theorem 3.1 for d=2. Since the paper's headline claim covers all d>=2, the d=2 proof should be written out or a complete reference should be provided.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1 / Proof of Proposition 4.1(iii)] In the proof of Proposition 4.1(iii), the influence function is written as I(x;z)=nabla^2 G_x(z); the Hessian should be a gradient, I(x;z)=nabla G_x(z). The displayed formula and the surrounding text should be corrected.
  2. [Section 5.5, Step 2.2] The estimate for the Hoelder seminorm [f_0]_{C^alpha(B_{R/4}(z*))} is asserted by direct computation but not shown. Given the importance of the scaling in Eq. (60), a few lines of derivation would improve checkability.
  3. [General] Several acronyms and names have inconsistent accents/diacritics (e.g., 'Monge-Ampere' vs 'Monge-Ampère'). The paper would also benefit from a statement near Eq. (16) that the implicit constants in the L^2 estimates are uniform in the small-t regime.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the influence function is derived from a PDE analysis, not from fitting or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central object is the influence function I(x0;Q_P(z)) = lim_{t↓0} [Q_{P_t}(z)−Q_P(z)]/t, characterized in Theorem 3.1 as ∇G_x0 where G_x0 solves div(fμ[∇Q_P]^{-1}∇G)=μ−δ_{z0}. This characterization is proved via L^2 and L^q estimates (Theorem 5.1, Proposition 5.3), local C^{2,α} bounds (Proposition 5.5), compactness, and a uniqueness argument (Proposition 5.7). The pole-type singularity of Theorem 3.3 follows by comparing G_x0 with the constant-coefficient fundamental solution Φ_x0 and controlling the remainder v via the local maximum principle, Schauder estimates, and the uniform L^p bound in Lemma 5.8; the rate ∥z−F_P(x0)∥^{−(d−1)} is derived, not assumed. The symmetry identity G_x(z)=G_{Q_P(z)}(F_P(x)) is proved in Lemma 5.10 from the PDE rather than imported. The explicit uniform example uses Wirth's external Green-function formula, and the L^2 stability input (16) is an external theorem from Manole et al. (2024), whose authors do not overlap with this paper. Self-citations (e.g., Avella Medina and González-Sanz 2026; Gonzalez-Sanz and Avella Medina 2026; González-Sanz and Sheng 2024) concern breakdown points or are technique references; they are not the load-bearing derivation of the IF singularity. Conjecture 4.4 is explicitly labeled a conjecture and is not presented as a theorem. Thus there is no equation or parameter equivalent to its inputs by construction, no fitted prediction renamed as a result, and no self-citation chain forcing the central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation depends on regularity assumptions and external PDE/OT results, but introduces no parameters fitted to data and no new physical or mathematical entities. The Green-type potential G_{x0} is a solution of an existing PDE, not an ad hoc construction.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Brenier's theorem (Theorem 2.1): existence/uniqueness of the OT map as the gradient of a convex function.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 to define Q_P and F_P and to use Caffarelli regularity.
  • standard math Caffarelli's global regularity (Theorem 2.3): for regular μ,P, Q_P,F_P ∈ C^{2,α} with uniform ellipticity of ∇Q_P.
    Used pervasively in Sections 3 and 5 to set up the uniformly elliptic PDE and to localize the fundamental solution.
  • standard math L2–W2 stability bound (Manole et al. 2024, Theorem 6): ||Q_{P_t}−Q_P||²_{L²(μ)} ≲ W₂²(P_t,P).
    External theorem used in the proof of Theorem 5.1, the cornerstone of the L2 estimate.
  • standard math Elliptic regularity, Schauder estimates, local maximum principle, and John's lemma (Gilbarg–Trudinger; Taira; Figalli; Gutiérrez).
    Foundational PDE results used in Section 5 and Appendix A to upgrade convergence and bound the Green function.
  • domain assumption Definition 2.2 regularity assumption: μ and P have bounded convex C^{2,1} support and C^{1,α} densities bounded away from 0 and ∞.
    This is the structural hypothesis on the measures; without it the ellipticity and regularity arguments in Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 break down.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 42961 in / 13307 out tokens · 123886 ms · 2026-08-01T13:29:14.383979+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Transport-based quantiles extend univariate quantiles to multivariate distributions via optimal transport. We study the influence function of the transport quantile map $\mathbf{Q}_P$, defined as the optimal transport map pushing a fixed reference measure $\mu$ forward to a target distribution $P$. For the Huber contamination $P_t=(1-t)P+t\delta_{x_0}$, we prove that the first-order limit $\mathbf{I}(x_0;\mathbf{Q}_P(z)) := \lim_{t\downarrow 0} [\mathbf{Q}_{(1-t)P+t\delta_{x_0}}(z)-\mathbf{Q}_P(z)]/t$ exists whenever $x_0\ne \mathbf{Q}_P(z)$ and characterize it uniquely. Specifically, $\mathbf{I}(x_0;\mathbf{Q}_P(z))=\nabla G_{x_0}(z)$, where $G_{x_0}$ is characterized by a uniformly elliptic equation with a Dirac source and a Neumann boundary condition. In every dimension $d\ge 2$, this influence function has a pole-type singularity. For fixed $z\in\operatorname{int}(\Omega_\mu)$, it remains bounded when $\mathbf{F}_P(x_0)$ stays away from $z$, where $\mathbf{F}_P=\mathbf{Q}_P^{-1}$ is the transport-based distribution function, but diverges as $x_0\to\mathbf{Q}_P(z)$, equivalently as $\mathbf{F}_P(x_0)\to z$. In fact, $\|\mathbf{I}(x_0;\mathbf{Q}_P(z))\|\asymp\|z-\mathbf{F}_P(x_0)\|^{-(d-1)}$. This contrasts with the bounded influence function of univariate quantiles and implies that $\mathbf{I}(X;\mathbf{Q}_P(z))$, for $X\sim P$, has infinite second moment. Numerical experiments further suggest that empirical transport quantiles may exhibit stable-type non-Gaussian fluctuations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19080 by Alberto Gonz\'alez-Sanz, Bohan Wu, Marco Avella Medina, Shunan Sheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flow Chart for the Proof of Main Results. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The left panel shows the norm of the influence function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Empirical distributions of n 1/dQPn (0) (blue) and the linear statistics n −1+1/d P i I(Xi ; QP (0)) (orange), for n ∈ {250, 1000, 4000, 16000} (rows 1–4), d = 3, and R = 1000 replications. The two distributions remain stable as n grows and provide finite￾sample evidence consistent with the scaling in Conjecture 4.4. While the OT median looks normal for small sample sizes, as n increases the distribution o… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Intuition behind Proposition 3.5. Inside the set Kt,x0 (green) we have the ellipsoid E (purple) and outside its dilation d 3/2E (orange). The goal in Proposition 3.5 is to show that the axes λ1,t ≥ λ2,t of E decrease with rate t 1 d for d ≥ 3. The following is the celebrated John’s Lemma. See (Gutiérrez, 2016, Theorem 1.8.2) and (Figalli, 2017, Lemma A.13). Lemma 5.9 (John’s lemma). Let K be an open bounde… view at source ↗

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. Empirical optimal transport potentials: fast rates and a functional central limit theorem

    math.ST 2026-08 accept novelty 8.0

    Empirical Brenier potentials converge in L1(μ) at rate n^{-1/2} for d≤3, n^{-1/2} log^{5/2} n for d=4, and n^{-2/d} log^{(d+2)/d} n for d≥5, with sharp polynomial exponents, an FCLT and consistent bootstrap for d≤3.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

173 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Adams, R. A. and Fournier, J. J. F. (2003). Sobolev spaces , volume 140 of Pure and Applied Mathematics (Amsterdam) . Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, second edition

    2003

  2. [2]

    Ambrosio, L., Goldman, M., and Trevisan, D. (2022). On the quadratic random matching problem in two-dimensional domains. Electron. J. Probab. , 27(54):1--35

    2022

  3. [3]

    and González-Sanz, A

    Avella Medina, M. and González-Sanz, A. (2026). On the breakdown point of transport-based quantiles. Bernoulli (to appear)

    2026

  4. [5]

    Brenier, Y. (1991). Polar factorization and monotone rearrangement of vector-valued functions. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 44(4):375--417

    1991

  5. [6]

    Br \'e zis, H. (2011). Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations , volume 2. Springer

    2011

  6. [7]

    Caffarelli, L. A. (1992a). Boundary regularity of maps with convex potentials. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 45(9):1141--1151

  7. [8]

    Caffarelli, L. A. (1992b). The regularity of mappings with a convex potential. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 5(1):99--104

  8. [9]

    Caffarelli, L. A. (1996). Boundary regularity of maps with convex potentials. II . Ann. of Math. (2) , 144(3):453--496

    1996

  9. [10]

    Chen, S., Liu, J., and Wang, X.-J. (2021). Global regularity for the M onge- A mp\`ere equation with natural boundary condition. Ann. of Math. (2) , 194(3):745--793

    2021

  10. [11]

    and Tyler, D

    Chen, Z. and Tyler, D. E. (2002). The influence function and maximum bias of T ukey's median. Ann. Statist. , 30(6):1737--1759

    2002

  11. [12]

    Chernozhukov, V., Galichon, A., Hallin, M., and Henry, M. (2017). Monge- K antorovich depth, quantiles, ranks and signs. Annals of Statistics , 45(1):223--256

    2017

  12. [13]

    Chewi, S., Niles-Weed, J., and Rigollet, P. (2025). Statistical optimal transport , volume 2364 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer, Cham. \'Ecole d'\'Et\'e de Probabilit\'es de Saint-Flour XLIX---2019, \'Ecole d'\'Et\'e de Probabilit\'es de Saint-Flour

    2025

  13. [14]

    Cuesta-Albertos , J. A. and Matr \'a n, C. (1989). Notes on the W asserstein metric in H ilbert spaces. Ann. Probab. , 17:1264--1276

    1989

  14. [15]

    c., Orsina, L., and Prignet, A

    Dal Maso, G., Murat, F. c., Orsina, L., and Prignet, A. (1999). Renormalized solutions of elliptic equations with general measure data. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) , 28(4):741--808

    1999

  15. [16]

    and Figalli, A

    De Philippis, G. and Figalli, A. (2013). Second order stability for the Monge--Amp\`ere equation and strong Sobolev convergence of optimal transport maps. Analysis & PDE , 6(4):993--1000

    2013

  16. [18]

    del Barrio, E., Alberto, G.-S., and Hallin, M. (2025). Nonparametric multiple-output center-outward quantile regression. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 120(550):818--832

    2025

  17. [19]

    del Barrio, E., Gonz\'alez-Sanz, A., and Loubes, J.-M. (2024). Central limit theorems for general transportation costs. Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincar \'e Probabilit \'e s et Statistiques , 60(2):847--873

    2024

  18. [20]

    and Loubes, J.-M

    del Barrio, E. and Loubes, J.-M. (2019). Central limit theorems for empirical transportation cost in general dimension. Ann. Probab. , 47(2):926--951

    2019

  19. [21]

    Donoho, D. L. and Gasko, M. (1992). Breakdown properties of location estimates based on halfspace depth and projected outlyingness. Ann. Statist. , 20(4):1803--1827

    1992

  20. [22]

    Evans, L. C. (2010). Partial differential equations , volume 19 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition

    2010

  21. [23]

    Figalli, A. (2017). The M onge- A mp\`ere equation and its applications . Zurich Lectures in Advanced Mathematics. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Z\"urich

    2017

  22. [24]

    and McCann, R

    Gangbo, W. and McCann, R. J. (1996). The geometry of optimal transportation. Acta Math. , 177(2):113--161

    1996

  23. [25]

    and Sen, B

    Ghosal, P. and Sen, B. (2022). Multivariate ranks and quantiles using optimal transport: consistency, rates and nonparametric testing. Ann. Statist. , 50(2):1012--1037

    2022

  24. [26]

    and Trudinger, N

    Gilbarg, D. and Trudinger, N. S. (1983). Elliptic partial differential equations of second order , volume 224 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition

    1983

  25. [31]

    and Widman, K.-O

    Gr\"uter, M. and Widman, K.-O. (1982). The G reen function for uniformly elliptic equations. Manuscripta Math. , 37(3):303--342

    1982

  26. [32]

    Gutiérrez, C. E. (2016). The Monge-Ampère Equation , volume 89 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications . Birkh \"a user, Cham, second edition

    2016

  27. [33]

    Hallin, M., del Barrio, E., Cuesta-Albertos, J., and Matr\'an, C. (2021). Distribution and quantile functions, ranks and signs in dimension d : a measure transportation approach. Annals of Statistics , 49(2):1139--1165

    2021

  28. [34]

    Hallin, M., La Vecchia, D., and Liu, H. (2022). Center-outward R -estimation for semiparametric VARMA models. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 117(538):925--938

    2022

  29. [35]

    Hampel, F. R. (1974). The influence curve and its role in robust estimation. Journal of the american statistical association , 69(346):383--393

    1974

  30. [36]

    R., Ronchetti, E

    Hampel, F. R., Ronchetti, E. M., Rousseeuw, P. J., and Stahel, W. A. (1986). Robust statistics: the approach based on influence functions , volume 196. John Wiley & Sons

    1986

  31. [38]

    Huber, P. J. and Ronchetti, E. M. (2009). Robust statistics . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, second edition

    2009

  32. [39]

    Jarque, C. M. and Bera, A. K. (1980). Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals. Economics letters , 6(3):255--259

    1980

  33. [40]

    Konen, D. (2025). P DE characterization of geometric distribution functions and quantiles. Bernoulli , 31(3):2077--2104

    2025

  34. [41]

    and Paindaveine, D

    Konen, D. and Paindaveine, D. (2025). Existence and breakdown analysis of M -quantiles in general H ilbert spaces. Electron. J. Stat. , 19(2):5778--5804

    2025

  35. [42]

    and Paindaveine, D

    Konen, D. and Paindaveine, D. (2026). On the robustness of spatial quantiles. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar\'e Probab. Stat. , 62(1)

    2026

  36. [43]

    Littman, W., Stampacchia, G., and Weinberger, H. F. (1963). Regular points for elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (3) , 17:43--77

    1963

  37. [44]

    Loeper, G. (2005). On the regularity of the polar factorization for time dependent maps. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 22(3):343--374

    2005

  38. [45]

    Loeper, G. (2006). A fully nonlinear version of the incompressible E uler equations: the semigeostrophic system. SIAM J. Math. Anal. , 38(3):795--823

    2006

  39. [46]

    Loeper, G. (2009). On the regularity of solutions of optimal transportation problems. Acta Math. , 202(2):241--283

    2009

  40. [48]

    Manole, T., Balakrishnan, S., Niles-Weed, J., and Wasserman, L. (2024). Plugin estimation of smooth optimal transport maps. Ann. Statist. , 52(3):966--998

    2024

  41. [49]

    A., Martin, R

    Maronna, R. A., Martin, R. D., Yohai, V. J., and Salibi \'a n-Barrera, M. (2019). Robust statistics: theory and methods (with R ) . John Wiley & Sons

    2019

  42. [50]

    Mijnheer, J. L. (1975). Sample path properties of stable processes , volume No. 59 of Mathematical Centre Tracts . Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden, Leiden

    1975

  43. [51]

    Nagy, S. (2021). Halfspace depth does not characterize probability distributions. Statist. Papers , 62(3):1135--1139

    2021

  44. [52]

    and Passeggeri, R

    Paindaveine, D. and Passeggeri, R. (2026). On the robustness of semi-discrete optimal transport. Annals of Applied Probability (to appear)

    2026

  45. [53]

    and Cuturi, M

    Peyr \'e , 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

  46. [54]

    Peyre, R. (2018). Comparison between W 2 distance and h - 1 norm, and Localization of Wasserstein distance. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations , 24(4):1489--1501

    2018

  47. [55]

    Rockafellar, R. T. and Wets, R. J.-B. (1998). Variational analysis , volume 317 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    1998

  48. [56]

    Ronchetti, E. (2023). Robustness aspects of optimal transport. In Research Papers in Statistical Inference for Time Series and Related Models: Essays in Honor of Masanobu Taniguchi , pages 445--453. Springer

    2023

  49. [57]

    A., Grabarnik, G

    Rubshtein, B.-Z. A., Grabarnik, G. Y., Muratov, M. A., and Pashkova, Y. S. (2016). Foundations of symmetric spaces of measurable functions , volume 45 of Developments in Mathematics . Springer, Cham. Lorentz, Marcinkiewicz and Orlicz spaces

    2016

  50. [58]

    and Rachev, S

    R \"u schendorf, L. and Rachev, S. T. (1990). A characterization of random variables with minimum L ^2 -distance. J. Multivariate Anal. , 32:48--54

    1990

  51. [59]

    and Taqqu, M

    Samorodnitsky, G. and Taqqu, M. S. (1994). Stable non- G aussian random processes . Stochastic Modeling. Chapman & Hall, New York. Stochastic models with infinite variance

    1994

  52. [60]

    Santambrogio, F. (2015). Optimal transport for applied mathematicians , volume 87 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications . Birkh\"auser/Springer, Cham. Calculus of variations, PDEs, and modeling

    2015

  53. [62]

    Shi, H., Drton, M., Hallin, M., and Han, F. (2025). Distribution-free tests of multivariate independence based on center-outward quadrant, S pearman, K endall, and van der W aerden statistics. Bernoulli , 31(1):106--129

    2025

  54. [63]

    Stampacchia, G. (1965). Le probl\`eme de D irichlet pour les \'equations elliptiques du second ordre \`a coefficients discontinus. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 15:189--258

    1965

  55. [64]

    Taira, K. (2024). Real Analysis Methods for Markov Processes: Singular Integrals and Feller Semigroups . Springer Singapore

    2024

  56. [65]

    Van der Vaart, A. W. (2000). Asymptotic S tatistics , volume 3. Cambridge university press

    2000

  57. [66]

    Villani, C. (2003). Topics in Optimal Transportation , volume 58 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI

    2003

  58. [67]

    Villani, C. et al. (2009). Optimal transport: old and new , volume 338. Springer

    2009

  59. [68]

    Wirth, B. (2020). Green's function for the N eumann- P oisson problem on n -dimensional balls. Amer. Math. Monthly , 127(8):737--743

    2020

  60. [69]

    The Annals of Statistics , volume=

    The influence function and maximum bias of Tukey's median , author=. The Annals of Statistics , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  61. [70]

    Robust statistics: theory and methods (with

    Maronna, Ricardo A and Martin, R Douglas and Yohai, Victor J and Salibi. Robust statistics: theory and methods (with. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  62. [71]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02508 , year=

    Graphical and uniform consistency of estimated optimal transport plans , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02508 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [72]

    , TITLE =

    Samorodnitsky, Gennady and Taqqu, Murad S. , TITLE =. 1994 , PAGES =

    1994

  64. [73]

    2025 , PAGES =

    Chewi, Sinho and Niles-Weed, Jonathan and Rigollet, Philippe , TITLE =. 2025 , PAGES =. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-85160-5 , URL =

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-85160-5 2025

  65. [74]

    Yu, Bin and Kumbier, Karl , TITLE =. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , FJOURNAL =. 2020 , NUMBER =. doi:10.1073/pnas.1901326117 , URL =

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1901326117 2020

  66. [75]

    and Rose, Sherri , TITLE =

    van der Laan, Mark J. and Rose, Sherri , TITLE =. 2011 , PAGES =

    2011

  67. [76]

    Semiparametric theory and empirical processes in causal inference , year =

    Edward H Kennedy , month =. Semiparametric theory and empirical processes in causal inference , year =

  68. [77]

    Asymptotic

    Van der Vaart, Aad W , publisher =. Asymptotic

  69. [78]

    Chernozhukov and D

    V. Chernozhukov and D. Chetverikov and M. Demirer and E. Duflo and C. Hansen and W. Newey and J. Robins , issue =. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters , volume =. Econometrics Journal , pages =

  70. [79]

    Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society , volume=

    Random projections and goodness-of-fit tests in infinite-dimensional spaces , author=. Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  71. [80]

    plugged-in

    Nonparametric estimators which can be" plugged-in" , author=. The Annals of Statistics , volume=. 2003 , publisher=

    2003

  72. [81]

    Economics letters , volume=

    Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals , author=. Economics letters , volume=. 1980 , publisher=

    1980

  73. [82]

    Carlier, Guillaume and Chernozhukov, Victor and Galichon, Alfred , TITLE =. Ann. Statist. , FJOURNAL =. 2016 , NUMBER =. doi:10.1214/15-AOS1401 , URL =

    doi:10.1214/15-aos1401 2016

  74. [83]

    Chen and H

    X. Chen and H. Hong and A. Tarozzi , doi =. Semiparametric efficiency in GMM models with auxiliary data , volume =. Annals of Statistics , pages =

  75. [84]

    Minimax estimation of smooth optimal transport maps , author=

  76. [85]

    Newey , doi =

    Whitney K. Newey , doi =. Econometrica , title =

  77. [86]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=

    Semiparametric posterior corrections , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  78. [87]

    and Ronchetti, Elvezio M

    Huber, Peter J. and Ronchetti, Elvezio M. , TITLE =. 2009 , PAGES =. doi:10.1002/9780470434697 , URL =

    doi:10.1002/9780470434697 2009

  79. [88]

    Econometrica , volume=

    Unconditional quantile regressions , author=. Econometrica , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  80. [89]

    Quantitative Economics , volume=

    The influence function of semiparametric estimators , author=. Quantitative Economics , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

Showing first 80 references.