You will be presented with the title and body text of a computer science research paper. Please write a summary of the work that would be informative for a peer reviewer assessing its quality. Your summary should be 5 sentences long. In your response, include only the summary and no additional text.

Paper title:
ACT: Asymptotic Conditional Transport

Paper body:
1 INTRODUCTION . Measuring the difference between two probability distributions is a fundamental problem in statistics and machine learning ( Cover , 1999 ; Bishop , 2006 ; Murphy , 2012 ) . A variety of statistical distances have been proposed to quantify the difference , which often serves as the first step to build a generative model . Commonly used statistical distances include the Kullback–Leibler ( KL ) divergence ( Kullback and Leibler , 1951 ) , Jensen–Shannon ( JS ) divergence ( Lin , 1991 ) , and Wasserstein distance ( Kantorovich , 2006 ) . While being widely used for generative modeling ( Kingma and Welling , 2013 ; Goodfellow et al. , 2014 ; Arjovsky et al. , 2017 ; Balaji et al. , 2019 ) , they all have their own limitations . The KL divergence , directly related to both maximum likelihood estimation and variational inference , is amenable to mini-batch stochastic gradient descent ( SGD ) based optimization ( Wainwright and Jordan , 2008 ; Hoffman et al. , 2013 ; Blei et al. , 2017 ) . However , it requires the two probability distributions to share the same support , and hence is often inapplicable if either of them is an implicit distribution whose probability density function ( PDF ) is unknown ( Mohamed and Lakshminarayanan , 2016 ; Huszár , 2017 ; Tran et al. , 2017 ; Yin and Zhou , 2018 ) . The JS divergence is directly related to the mini-max loss of a generative adversarial net ( GAN ) when the discriminator is optimal ( Goodfellow et al. , 2014 ) . However , it is difficult to maintain a good balance between the generator and discriminator , making GANs notoriously brittle to train . The Wasserstein distance is a widely used metric that allows the two distributions to have non-overlapping supports ( Villani , 2008 ; Santambrogio , 2015 ; Peyré and Cuturi , 2019 ) . However , it is challenging to estimate in its primal form and generally results in biased sample gradients when its dual form is employed ( Arjovsky et al. , 2017 ; Bellemare et al. , 2017 ; Bottou et al. , 2017 ; Bińkowski et al. , 2018 ; Bernton et al. , 2019 ) . To address the limitations of existing measurement methods , we introduce conditional transport ( CT ) as a new divergence to quantify the difference between two probability distributions . We refer to them as the source and target distributions and denote their probability density functions ( PDFs ) as pX ( x ) and pY ( y ) , respectively . The CT divergence is defined with a bidirectional distribution-to-distribution transport . It consists of a forward CT that transports the source to target distribution , and a backward CT that reverses the transport direction . Our intuition is that given a source ( target ) point , it is more likely to be transported to a target ( source ) point closer to it . Denoting d ( x , y ) = d ( y , x ) as a learnable function and c ( x , y ) = c ( y , x ) ≥ 0 , where the equality is true when x = y , as the point-to-point transport cost , the goal is to minimize the transport cost between two distributions . The forward CT is constructed in three steps : 1 ) We define a forward “ navigator ” as π ( y |x ) = e−d ( x , y ) pY ( y ) / ∫ e−d ( x , y ) pY ( y ) dy , a conditional distribution specifying how likely a given source point x will be transported to distribution pY ( y ) via path x → y ; 2 ) We define the cost of a forward x-transporting CT as ∫ c ( x , y ) π ( y |x ) dy , the expected cost of employing the forward navigator to transport x to a random target point ; 3 ) We define the total cost of the forward CT as ∫ pX ( x ) ∫ c ( x , y ) π ( y |x ) dydx , which is the expectation of the cost of a forward x-transporting CT with respect to pX ( x ) . Similarly , we construct the backward CT by first defining a backward navigator as π ( x |y ) = e−d ( x , y ) pX ( x ) / ∫ e−d ( x , y ) pX ( x ) dx and then its total cost as∫ pY ( y ) ∫ c ( x , y ) π ( x |y ) dxdy . Estimating the CT divergence involves both π ( x |y ) and π ( y |x ) , which , however , are generally intractable to evaluate and sample from , except for a few limited settings where both pX ( x ) and pY ( y ) are exponential family distributions conjugate to e−d ( x , y ) . To apply the CT divergence in a general setting where we only have access to random samples from the distributions , we introduce asymptotic CT ( ACT ) as a divergence measure that is friendly to mini-batch SGD based optimization . The ACT divergence is the expected value of the CT divergence , whose pX ( x ) and pY ( y ) are both replaced with their discrete empirical distributions , respectively supported on N independent , and identically distributed ( iid ) random samples from pX ( x ) and M iid random samples from pY ( y ) . The ACT divergence is asymptotically equivalent to CT divergence when both N →∞ and M →∞ . Intuitively , it can also be interpreted as performing both a forward one-to-M stochastic CT from the source to target and a backward one-to-N stochastic CT from the target to source , with the expected cost providing an unbiased sample estimate of the ACT divergence . We show that similar to the KL divergence , ACT provides unbiased sample gradients , but different from it , neither pX ( x ) nor pY ( y ) needs to be known . Similar to the Wasserstein distance , it does not require the distributions to share the same support , but different from it , the sample estimates of ACT and its gradients are unbiased and straightforward to compute . In GANs or Wasserstein GANs ( Arjovsky et al. , 2017 ) , having an optimal discriminator or critic is required to unbiasedly estimate the JS divergence or Wasserstein distance and hence the gradients of the generator ( Bottou et al. , 2017 ) . However , this is rarely the case in practice , motivating a common remedy to stabilize the training by carefully regularizing the gradients , such as clipping or normalizing their values ( Gulrajani et al. , 2017 ; Miyato et al. , 2018 ) . By contrast , in an adversarial game under ACT , the optimization of the critic , which manipulates the point-to-point transport cost c ( x , y ) but not the navigators ’ conditional distributions for x→ y and x← y , has no impact on how ACT is estimated . For this reason , the sample gradients stay unbiased regardless of how well the critic is optimized . To demonstrate the use of the ACT ( or CT ) divergence , we apply it to train implicit ( or explicit ) distributions to model both 1D and 2D toy data , MNIST digits , and natural images . The implicit distribution is defined by a deep generative model ( DGM ) that is simple to sample from . We focus on adapting existing GANs , with minimal changes to their settings except for substituting the statistical distances in their loss functions with the ACT divergence . We leave tailoring the network architectures to the ACT divergence to future study . More specifically , we modify the GAN loss function to an adversarial game between a generator , a forward navigator , and a backward navigator , which try to minimize the distribution-to-distribution transport cost by optimizing both the fake data distribution pY ( y ) and two conditional point-to-point navigation-path distributions π ( y |x ) and π ( x |y ) , versus a critic that does the opposite by inflating the point-to-point transport cost c ( x , y ) . Modifying an existing ( Wasserstein ) GAN with the ACT divergence , our experiments show consistent improvements in not only quantitative performance and generation quality , but also learning stability . 2 CONDITIONAL TRANSPORT WITH GENERATOR , NAVIGATORS , AND CRITIC . Denote x as a data taking its value in RV . In practice , we observe a finite setX = { xi } |X |i=1 , consisting of |X | data samples assumed to be iid drawn from pX ( x ) . Given X , the usual task is to learn a distribution to approximate pX ( x ) , explaining how the data in X are generated . To approximate pX ( x ) , we consider a DGM defined as y = Gθ ( ) , ∼ p ( ) , whereGθ is a generator that transforms noise ∼ p ( ) via a deep neural network parameterized by θ to generate random sample y ∈ RV . While the PDF of the generator , denoted as pθ ( y ) , is often intractable to evaluate , it is straightforward to draw y ∼ pθ ( y ) with Gθ . Denote both µ ( dx ) = pX ( x ) dx and ν ( dy ) = pθ ( y ) dy as continuous probability measures over RV , with µ ( RV ) = ∫ RV pX ( x ) dx = 1 and ν ( R V ) = ∫ RV pθ ( y ) dy = 1 . The Wasserstein distance in its primal form can be defined with Kantorovich ’ s optimal transport problem ( Kantorovich , 2006 ; Villani , 2008 ; Santambrogio , 2015 ; Peyré and Cuturi , 2019 ) : W ( µ , ν ) =minπ∈Π ( µ , ν ) { ∫ RV ×RV c ( x , y ) π ( dx , dy ) } =minπ∈Π ( µ , ν ) { E ( x , y ) ∼π ( x , y ) [ c ( x , y ) ] } , ( 1 ) where the minimum is taken over Π ( µ , ν ) , defined as the set of all possible joint probability measures π on RV ×RV , with marginals π ( A , RV ) = µ ( A ) and π ( RV , A ) = ν ( A ) for any Borel set A ⊂ RV . When c ( x , y ) = ‖x− y‖ , we obtain the Wasserstein-1 distance , also known as the Earth Mover ’ s distance , for which there exists a dual form according to the Kantorovich duality as W1 ( µ , ν ) = supf∈Lip1 { Ex∼pX ( x ) [ f ( x ) ] − Ey∼pY ( y ) [ f ( y ) ] } , where f is referred to as the “ critic ” and Lip1 denotes the set of all 1-Lipschitz functions ( Villani , 2008 ) . Intuitively , the critic f plays the role of “ amortizing ” the computation of the optimal transport plan . However , as it is difficult to ensure the 1-Lipschitz constraint , one often resorts to approximations ( Arjovsky et al. , 2017 ; Gulrajani et al. , 2017 ; Wei et al. , 2018 ; Miyato et al. , 2018 ) that inevitably introduce bias into the estimation ofW1 and its gradient ( Bellemare et al. , 2017 ; Bottou et al. , 2017 ) .

5-sentence paper summary:
The paper proposes conditional transport as a new divergence to measure the difference between two distributions. The idea is to learn the conditional transport plan of transporting one point in one distribution to the other marginal distribution. This conditional transport plan is modeled using a neural network. The resulting model is then applied to optimal transport formulation. Experiments are shown on image-based generative modeling dataset.