Minimax Confidence Intervals for the Sliced Wasserstein Distance

Motivated by the growing popularity of variants of the Wasserstein distance in statistics and machine learning, we study statistical inference for the Sliced Wasserstein distance--an easily computable variant of the Wasserstein distance. Specifically, we construct confidence intervals for the Sliced Wasserstein distance which have finite-sample validity under no assumptions or under mild moment assumptions. These intervals are adaptive in length to the regularity of the underlying distributions. We also bound the minimax risk of estimating the Sliced Wasserstein distance, and as a consequence establish that the lengths of our proposed confidence intervals are minimax optimal over appropriate distribution classes. To motivate the choice of these classes, we also study minimax rates of estimating a distribution under the Sliced Wasserstein distance. These theoretical findings are complemented with a simulation study demonstrating the deficiencies of the classical bootstrap, and the advantages of our proposed methods. We also show strong correspondences between our theoretical predictions and the adaptivity of our confidence interval lengths in simulations. We conclude by demonstrating the use of our confidence intervals in the setting of simulator-based likelihood-free inference. In this setting, contrasting popular approximate Bayesian computation methods, we develop uncertainty quantification methods with rigorous frequentist coverage guarantees

Benchmarking Simulation-Based Inference

Recent advances in probabilistic modelling have led to a large number of simulation-based inference algorithms which do not require numerical evaluation of likelihoods. However, a public benchmark with appropriate performance metrics for such 'likelihood-free' algorithms has been lacking. This has made it difficult to compare algorithms and identify their strengths and weaknesses. We set out to fill this gap: We provide a benchmark with inference tasks and suitable performance metrics, with an initial selection of algorithms including recent approaches employing neural networks and classical Approximate Bayesian Computation methods. We found that the choice of performance metric is critical, that even state-of-the-art algorithms have substantial room for improvement, and that sequential estimation improves sample efficiency. Neural network-based approaches generally exhibit better performance, but there is no uniformly best algorithm. We provide practical advice and highlight the potential of the benchmark to diagnose problems and improve algorithms. The results can be explored interactively on a companion website. All code is open source, making it possible to contribute further benchmark tasks and inference algorithms.Comment: In AISTATS 202