(q,p)-Wasserstein GANs: Comparing Ground Metrics for Wasserstein GANs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Generative Adversial Networks (GANs) have made a major impact in computer vision and machine learning as generative models. Wasserstein GANs (WGANs) brought Optimal Transport (OT) theory into GANs, by minimizing the 1-Wasserstein distance between model and data distributions as their objective function. Since then, WGANs have gained considerable interest due to their stability and theoretical framework. We contribute to the WGAN literature by introducing the family of (q,p)-Wasserstein GANs, which allow the use of more general p-Wasserstein metrics for p≥ 1 in the GAN learning procedure. While the method is able to incorporate any cost function as the ground metric, we focus on studying the lq metrics for q≥ 1. This is a notable generalization as in the WGAN literature the OT distances are commonly based on the l2 ground metric. We demonstrate the effect of different p-Wasserstein distances in two toy examples. Furthermore, we show that the ground metric does make a difference, by comparing different (q,p) pairs on the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets. Our experiments demonstrate that changing the ground metric and p can notably improve on the common (q,p) = (2,1) case.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 10 Feb 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 2; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
10 papers.
- 2021Do Neural Optimal Transport Solvers Work? A Continuous Wasserstein-2 Benchmarkcited by 95
- 2021Generative Modeling with Optimal Transport Mapscited by 80
- 2021Wasserstein GANs Work Because They Fail (to Approximate the Wasserstein Distance)cited by 33
- 2022Kantorovich Strikes Back! Wasserstein GANs are not Optimal Transport?cited by 19
- 2022An Optimal Transport Perspective on Unpaired Image Super-Resolutioncited by 12
- 2023Sample Complexity Bounds for Estimating Probability Divergences under Invariancescited by 11
- 2024ENOT: Expectile Regularization for Fast and Accurate Training of Neural Optimal Transportcited by 6
- 2021Physics Informed Convex Artificial Neural Networks (PICANNs) for Optimal Transport based Density Estimationcited by 2
- 2025Embedding Empirical Distributions for Computing Optimal Transport Mapscited by 0
- 2026Stability of the Monge Map in Semi-Dual Optimal Transportcited by 0
- 2026Stability of the Monge Map in Semi-Dual Optimal Transport7 May 2026
- 2025Embedding Empirical Distributions for Computing Optimal Transport Maps24 Apr 2025
- 2024ENOT: Expectile Regularization for Fast and Accurate Training of Neural Optimal Transport6 Mar 2024
- 2023Sample Complexity Bounds for Estimating Probability Divergences under Invariances6 Nov 2023
- 2022Kantorovich Strikes Back! Wasserstein GANs are not Optimal Transport?15 Jun 2022
- 2022An Optimal Transport Perspective on Unpaired Image Super-Resolution2 Feb 2022
- 2021Generative Modeling with Optimal Transport Maps6 Oct 2021
- 2021Do Neural Optimal Transport Solvers Work? A Continuous Wasserstein-2 Benchmark3 Jun 2021
- 2021Physics Informed Convex Artificial Neural Networks (PICANNs) for Optimal Transport based Density Estimation2 Apr 2021
- 2021Wasserstein GANs Work Because They Fail (to Approximate the Wasserstein Distance)2 Mar 2021