Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation

Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Nicolas Papadakis Optimal Transport for
Image Assimilation 1/38

1 Introduction 2 Image Assimilation 3 Wasserstein distance 4 Wasserstein
Image Assimilation 5 Conclusion Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 2/38

How to use images for ocean state prediction? Optimal Transport
for Image Assimilation Introduction 3/38

Assimilation: how to predict the state of a dynamical system?
Meteorology Glaciology Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Health sciences Introduction 4/38

Heat diffusion Physical variable: u(x, t) room temperature Ω at
time t Initial conditions Homogeneous temperature u(., 0) = 15◦ Add an Heater at xH : u(xH , 0) = 20◦ Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 5/38

Heat diffusion Dynamical model: heat equation during 3 hours 
 ∂t u(x, t) = ∆u(x, t) x ∈ Ω\xh u(xH , t) = 20◦  ∂u (x) =0 x ∈ ∂Ω ∂⃗n Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 5/38

 ∂t u(x, t) = ∆u(x, t) x ∈ Ω\xh u(xH , t) = 20◦  ∂u (x) =0 x ∈ ∂Ω ∂⃗n Observations: Thermometer measure at θ: 17◦ ̸= u(xθ , 3) Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 5/38

 ∂t u(x, t) = ∆u(x, t) x ∈ Ω\xh u(xH , t) = 20◦  ∂u (x) = g(x) x ∈ ∂Ω ∂⃗n Observations: Thermometer measure at θ: 17◦ ̸= u(xθ , 3) Uncertainties on boundary conditions g (ventilation...) Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 5/38

 ∂t u(x, t) = ∆u(x, t) x ∈ Ω\xh u(xH , t) = 20◦  ∂u (x) = g(x) x ∈ ∂Ω ∂⃗n Observations: Thermometer measure at θ: 17◦ ̸= u(xθ , 3) Uncertainties on boundary conditions g (ventilation...) Correction of boundary conditions g - Learning of g - Better knowledge of x - More reliable predictions Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 5/38

Oceanography Variables: velocity, surface height, temperature, salinity, phytoplankton... Numerical model
of ocean dynamic Non homogeneous spatial interactions Complex boundary conditions - Littoral - Seabed - Atmosphere Observations - in situ: Drifting buoys/ships... - Bathymetry - Satellite data Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 6/38

Satellite observations of ocean surface Information spatially structured (fronts, vortex...)
Altimetry Temperature Chlorophyll Temporal deformations (occlusions) SST image Temporal variation Source: [Béréziat and Herlin ‘11] Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 7/38

Satellite observations Jason Resolution ≈ 10km SWOT High resolution ≈
1km (CNES/NASA, 2021-) (CNES/NASA, 2001-) Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 8/38

Satellite observations Jason Resolution ≈ 10km (CNES/NASA, 2001-) Optimal Transport
for Image Assimilation SWOT High resolution ≈ 1km (CNES/NASA, 2021-) Introduction 8/38

Ocean images Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 9/38

Prediction with data assimilation Constrained minimization problem Z ||y (t)
− H(u(t))||2R dt + ||u(t0 ) − f ||2B min ∂t u=M(u) T Physical variable u: velocity, temperature, pressure... Dynamical model ∂t u = M(u): temporal evolution Background information at t0 : u(t0 ) ≈ f Observations y : radar, stations, balloons... Observation operator H Choice of a norm ||.|| Modeling of error covariance matrices on the background B and the observations R Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 10/38

Assimilation of ocean surface images Satellite images y Challenges Choice
of the norm to compare the relevant information contained in images Assimilation Loss function: ||y − H(u)||2R Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 11/38

Assimilation of ocean surface images Satellite images y Challenges Observed
quantities y not in the state u : Observation operator H? Choice of the norm to compare the relevant information contained in images Assimilation Loss function: ||y − H(u)||2R Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 11/38

Assimilation of ocean surface images Satellite images y Challenges Observed
quantities y not in the state u : Observation operator H? Error modeling R: KaRIN noise, satellite roll, atmospheric conditions... Assimilation Loss function: ||y − H(u)||2R Denoised image y [Gómez-Navarro, Cosme, Le Sommer et al. ‘18- ] Choice of the norm to compare the relevant information contained in images Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Introduction 11/38

Image Assimilation 5 Conclusion Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 12/38

Image assimilation for oceanography Short review : Assimilation of structured
information contained in images with standard Euclidean norm Main contributors: groups of R. Fablet, I. Herlin, F.-X. Le Dimet, É. Mémin, J. Verron... Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 13/38

Image assimilation in situ configuration - Image I: observation of
a subset of the state variable u - Occlusion mask M, observation operator H - Pixelwise assimilation: ||M(I − Hu)||2 Example [Corpetti et al. ‘09] - Estimate the velocity fields of a multilayer shallow-water model - Assimilation of pressure images ✗ The structured information contained in images is not used Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 14/38

How to assimilate the structures contained in images? Indirect assimilation:
use image processing techniques to produce pseudo-observations Direct comparison of images and state variables in a dedicated space Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 15/38

Indirect assimilation 1 Extract information y from image observations I
2 Assimilation of pseudo-observations y : ||H(u) − y ||2 Example: fronts [Gaultier et al. ‘13] - I: SST or SSS image (a) SST I1 (b) SSS I2 (c) SPICE u - y : thresholded image gradients - H(u): Binarized Finite-Size Lyapunov Exponents (FLSE) (d) gradient SST y1 (e) gradient SSS y2 Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation (f) FLSE H(u) Image Assimilation 16/38

Direct assimilation Define a coupling between image I and state
variable u: ||H(u, I)||2 Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 17/38

variable u: ||H(u, I)||2 Temporal information [P. and Mémin ‘07, Béréziat and Herlin ‘09] - Layer velocity u(x, t), image sequence I(x, t) - Coupling with optical flow equation: ||I(x + u(x, t), t + 1) − I(x, t)||2 I(x, t) Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation I(x, t + 1) u(x, t) Image Assimilation 17/38

variable u: ||H(u, I)||2 Temporal information [P. and Mémin ‘07, Béréziat and Herlin ‘09] - Layer velocity u(x, t), image sequence I(x, t) - Coupling with optical flow equation: ||I(x + u(x, t), t + 1) − I(x, t)||2 I(x, t) I(x, t + 1) u(x, t) ✗ Not a norm on I or u : hard to model observation errors in a covariance matrix Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 17/38

variable u: ||H(u, I)||2 Multiscale decomposition [Titaud et al. ‘10] - Additional passive state variable u - Project u and I in a structured space S (Wavelets, Curvelets...): ||PS (u) − PS (I)||2 ✓ Threshold coefficients: dimension reduction, robustness to noise Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 17/38

variable u: ||H(u, I)||2 Multiscale decomposition [Titaud et al. ‘10] - Additional passive state variable u - Project u and I in a structured space S (Wavelets, Curvelets...): ||PS (u) − PS (I)||2 ✓ Threshold coefficients: dimension reduction, robustness to noise ✓ For observation noise correlated in space: diagonal error covariance matrix in wavelet space [Chabot et al. ‘15] Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 17/38

Norm for assimilation Type of compromise between prediction p and
observation y : min ||u − p||2B + ||u − y ||2R u Standard assimilation: Euclidean distance weighted by a positive definite matrix A: ||x||2A = ⟨x, Ax⟩ For a confidence of degree α ∈ [0; 1], B = αId and R = (1 − α)Id: min α||u − p||2 + (1 − α)||u − y ||2 u Solution: linear interpolation u ∗ = αp + (1 − α)y - Prediction p = 18◦ , observation y = 17◦ - Assimilation is expected to produce something within [17◦ , 18◦ ] Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 18/38

Euclidean distance Data defined on a 1D domain Prediction Observation
Euclidean Interpolation Interpolation → computation of geodesic in Euclidean space Not adapted to errors in the position of structures Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 19/38

Wasserstein distance Data defined on a 1D domain Prediction Observation
Wasserstein Interpolation Interpolation → computation of geodesic in Wasserstein space Adapted to errors in the position of structures Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 19/38

Wasserstein in 2D Sea Surface Height creation of vortexes in
Cap Point (output of NEMO model) How to deal with the coast? Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Image Assimilation 20/38

Image Assimilation 5 Conclusion Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 21/38

Optimal transport and Wasserstein distance Transport T : application moving
a density ρ0 onto another one ρ1 (same mass), defined for x ∈ Ω as: ρ1 = T #ρ0 Optimal transport: Application of minimal cost R Ω c(x, T (x))dx Wasserstein distance Wp : c(x, y ) = ||x − y ||p Concave cost (Economy), Truncated cost (Computer Vision), W1 (Deep Learning) Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 22/38

Applications in IP, CV, ML and DL Robust dissimilarity measure
(Optimal transport cost) • Image retrieval (EMD) [Rubner et al. ’00] • 3D shape recognitions [Ruzon and Tomasi, ’01] • SIFT matching [Pele and Werman ’08] • Object segmentation [Ni et al. ’09, Rabin et al. ’11, ’15], • Denoising [Burger et al. ’12, Tartavel et al. ’16] • Generative models [Arjovsky et al. ’17, Genevay et al. ’18] Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 23/38

(Optimal transport cost) • Image retrieval (EMD) [Rubner et al. ’00] • 3D shape recognitions [Ruzon and Tomasi, ’01] • SIFT matching [Pele and Werman ’08] • Object segmentation [Ni et al. ’09, Rabin et al. ’11, ’15], • Denoising [Burger et al. ’12, Tartavel et al. ’16] • Generative models [Arjovsky et al. ’17, Genevay et al. ’18] Why is it robust? Discrete bin-to-bin metrics are not informative for disjoint supports Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 23/38

(Optimal transport cost) • Image retrieval (EMD) [Rubner et al. ’00] • 3D shape recognitions [Ruzon and Tomasi, ’01] • SIFT matching [Pele and Werman ’08] • Object segmentation [Ni et al. ’09, Rabin et al. ’11, ’15], • Denoising [Burger et al. ’12, Tartavel et al. ’16] • Generative models [Arjovsky et al. ’17, Genevay et al. ’18] Why is it robust? Discrete bin-to-bin metrics are not informative for disjoint supports Transport map T explains how far are the distributions Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 23/38

Optimal Transport Map • The Monge transport map: • Interpolate
between densities, compute barycenters or geodesics in the Wasserstein space ρ0 Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation ρ1 Wasserstein distance 24/38

Applications in IP, CV, ML and DL Tool for matching/interpolation
(Optimal transport map) • Image interpolation, registration [Angenent et al. ’04] Medical image registration [Rehman et al. ’09] • Color transfer [Delon, ’04, Pitié et al. ’07, Bonneel et al. ‘11] • Shape matching [Rabin et al. ’10, Schmitzer and Schnörr ’14] • Texture synthesis [Ferradans et al. ’13, Leclaire et al. ’19] • Geodesic PCA [Bigot et al. ‘13, Seguy et al. ‘15, Cazelles et al. ‘18] • Domain adaptation [Courty et al. ’15, Redko et al. ’17] • Generative models [Seguy et al. ’18] Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 25/38

Formulations Continuous Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Semi-discrete Wasserstein distance
Discrete 26/38

Formulations Continuous Semi-discrete Discrete [J.-D. Benamou] • Images: densities on
support Ω • Mass transport in a fluid mechanics framework on Ω Velocity field T : Ω → Ω Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 26/38

Formulations Continuous Semi-discrete Discrete [Q. Mérigot] Wasserstein for GAN Optimal
Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 26/38

Formulations Continuous Semi-discrete Discrete [M. Cuturi] • Distributions of image
features • Transport between normalized histograms of size M and N Coupling matrix P of size M × N Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 26/38

Formulations Continuous Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Semi-discrete Wasserstein distance
Discrete 26/38

Continuous Optimal Transport Densities ρ0 and ρ1 defined from x
∈ [0, 1]d to [0, 1] Mass preserving transport map T : T (ρ0 , ρ1 ) := {T : [0, 1]d 7→ [0, 1]d such that ρ1 = T ♯ρ0 } T ∈ T (ρ0 , ρ1 ) satisfies the gradient equation ρ0 (x) = ρ1 (T (x))| det(∂T (x))| An optimal transport T solves Z min T ∈T (ρ0 ,ρ1 ) C(x, T (x))ρ0 (x) dx where C(x, y ) ⩾ 0 is the cost of assigning x ∈ [0, 1]d to y ∈ [0, 1]d For C(x, y ) = ||x − y ||p : distance Wp , T unique if p > 1 Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 27/38

Estimation of optimal transport map For p = 2,T =
∇ψ, with ψ convex [Brenier ’91] and optimal mass transfer follows straight lines → Monge-Ampère equation: det(D 2 ψ) = ρ0 (x) ρ1 (∇ψ(x)) [Oliker and Prussner ’88, Oberman ’08, Froese ’12, Benamou et al. ’16] Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 28/38

∇ψ, with ψ convex [Brenier ’91] and optimal mass transfer follows straight lines → Monge-Ampère equation: det(D 2 ψ) = ρ0 (x) ρ1 (∇ψ(x)) [Oliker and Prussner ’88, Oberman ’08, Froese ’12, Benamou et al. ’16] ✓ Fast algorithms (second order methods) Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 28/38

∇ψ, with ψ convex [Brenier ’91] and optimal mass transfer follows straight lines → Monge-Ampère equation: det(D 2 ψ) = ρ0 (x) ρ1 (∇ψ(x)) [Oliker and Prussner ’88, Oberman ’08, Froese ’12, Benamou et al. ’16] ✓ Fast algorithms (second order methods) ✗ ρ1 should be lipschitz continuous with convex support ρ0 ρ1 ✓ Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 28/38

∇ψ, with ψ convex [Brenier ’91] and optimal mass transfer follows straight lines → Monge-Ampère equation: det(D 2 ψ) = ρ0 (x) ρ1 (∇ψ(x)) [Oliker and Prussner ’88, Oberman ’08, Froese ’12, Benamou et al. ’16] ✓ Fast algorithms (second order methods) ✗ ρ1 should be lipschitz continuous with convex support ρ0 ρ1 ρ0 ρ1 ✓ ✗ Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 28/38

∇ψ, with ψ convex [Brenier ’91] and optimal mass transfer follows straight lines → Monge-Ampère equation: det(D 2 ψ) = ρ0 (x) ρ1 (∇ψ(x)) [Oliker and Prussner ’88, Oberman ’08, Froese ’12, Benamou et al. ’16] ✓ Fast algorithms (second order methods) ✗ ρ1 should be lipschitz continuous with convex support ρ0 ρ0 ρ1 ✓ ρ1 ✗ • Regularized potential ψ [Paty et al. ’19] Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 28/38

∇ψ, with ψ convex [Brenier ’91] and optimal mass transfer follows straight lines → Monge-Ampère equation: det(D 2 ψ) = ρ0 (x) ρ1 (∇ψ(x)) [Oliker and Prussner ’88, Oberman ’08, Froese ’12, Benamou et al. ’16] ✓ Fast algorithms (second order methods) ✗ ρ1 should be lipschitz continuous with convex support ρ0 ρ0 ρ1 ✓ ρ1 ✗ • Regularized potential ψ [Paty et al. ’19] All these methods are limited to non vanishing densities Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 28/38

Fluid mechanics formulation [Benamou-Brenier ’00] • Parameterization with t ∈
[0, 1] of the geodesic path ρ(x, t): ρ(x, t) = ((1 − t)Id + tT (x)) ♯ρ0 Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 29/38

[0, 1] of the geodesic path ρ(x, t): ρ(x, t) = ((1 − t)Id + tT (x)) ♯ρ0 • Non-convex problem over ρ(x, t) ∈ R and velocity field v (x, t) ∈ R2 : Z Z 1 1 2 W2 (ρ0 , ρ1 ) = min ρ(x, t)||v (x, t)||2 dtdx, (v ,ρ)∈Cv 2 [0,1]2 0 under the set of non-linear constraints Cv = (v , ρ) \ ∂t ρ + divx (ρv ) = 0, v (0, ·) = v (1, ·) = 0, ρ(·, 0) = ρ0 , ρ(·, 1) = ρ1 Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 29/38

[0, 1] of the geodesic path ρ(x, t): ρ(x, t) = ((1 − t)Id + tT (x)) ♯ρ0 • Non-convex problem over ρ(x, t) ∈ R and velocity field v (x, t) ∈ R2 : Z Z 1 1 2 W2 (ρ0 , ρ1 ) = min ρ(x, t)||v (x, t)||2 dtdx, (v ,ρ)∈Cv 2 [0,1]2 0 under the set of non-linear constraints Cv = (v , ρ) \ ∂t ρ + divx (ρv ) = 0, v (0, ·) = v (1, ·) = 0, ρ(·, 0) = ρ0 , ρ(·, 1) = ρ1 ✓ Change of variable (v , ρ) 7→ (m, ρ), with m = ρv : Convex cost J and linear constraints C Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 29/38

[0, 1] of the geodesic path ρ(x, t): ρ(x, t) = ((1 − t)Id + tT (x)) ♯ρ0 • Non-convex problem over ρ(x, t) ∈ R and velocity field v (x, t) ∈ R2 : Z Z 1 1 2 W2 (ρ0 , ρ1 ) = min ρ(x, t)||v (x, t)||2 dtdx, (v ,ρ)∈Cv 2 [0,1]2 0 under the set of non-linear constraints Cv = (v , ρ) \ ∂t ρ + divx (ρv ) = 0, v (0, ·) = v (1, ·) = 0, ρ(·, 0) = ρ0 , ρ(·, 1) = ρ1 ✓ Change of variable (v , ρ) 7→ (m, ρ), with m = ρv : Convex cost J and linear constraints C ✗ No estimation of the transport map T , only the geodesic ρ(x, t) Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 29/38

Wasserstein distance Pollutant on a convex 2D domain Prédiction Optimal
Transport for Image Assimilation Observation Interpolation Wasserstein distance 30/38

Wasserstein distance Pollutant on a non-convex 2D domain Prédiction Observation
Interpolation Obstacles with w : x → {1; +∞} [P., Peyré and Oudet, ‘14] Z w(x)c(x, T (x))dx Ω Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 30/38

Wasserstein distance Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 31/38

Wasserstein distance ✓ Deal with structured data in complex domain
Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 31/38

Wasserstein distance ✓ Deal with structured data in complex domain
✗ Computational cost Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein distance 31/38

Image Assimilation 5 Conclusion Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein Image Assimilation 32/38

Image assimilation with Wasserstein distance Quantity observed I included in
the state [Feyeux et al. ‘18]: W2 (u, I) Clean formulation: gradient flow in Wasserstein space Initial time Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Final time Wasserstein Image Assimilation 33/38

Image assimilation with Wasserstein distance Quantity observed I included in
the state [Feyeux et al. ‘18]: W2 (u, I) Clean formulation: gradient flow in Wasserstein space Initial time Final time ✗ Only defined for densities: same mass and non negative Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein Image Assimilation 33/38

Contour assimilation with Wasserstein distance Deal with pollutant position shift
[Li et al. ‘19] Level set representation [Ba et al. ‘10, Gautama et al. ‘16] of a contour C(u) of interest, transported by the model Pseudo-observations: extraction of a contour C(I) from the image Normalization of the mass: W2 Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation C(u) C(I) , |C(u)| |C(I)| Wasserstein Image Assimilation 34/38

[Li et al. ‘19] Level set representation [Ba et al. ‘10, Gautama et al. ‘16] of a contour C(u) of interest, transported by the model Pseudo-observations: extraction of a contour C(I) from the image Normalization of the mass: W2 C(u) C(I) , |C(u)| |C(I)| C(I) Reduced non-linearities [P. and Rabin ‘17]: W2 C(u), |C(I)| |C(u)| Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein Image Assimilation 34/38

[Li et al. ‘19] Level set representation [Ba et al. ‘10, Gautama et al. ‘16] of a contour C(u) of interest, transported by the model Pseudo-observations: extraction of a contour C(I) from the image Normalization of the mass: W2 C(u) C(I) , |C(u)| |C(I)| C(I) Reduced non-linearities [P. and Rabin ‘17]: W2 C(u), |C(I)| |C(u)| ✗ Limited to segmentation masks Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein Image Assimilation 34/38

Generalized Wasserstein models Extended W1 for seismograms of varying mass
[Métivier et al. ‘16] Full waveform inversion Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein Image Assimilation 35/38

[Métivier et al. ‘16] Full waveform inversion Unbalanced transport [Chizat et al. ‘18] - Deal with mass variations (source term in transport equation) - Still a distance Euclidean Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein Unbalanced Wasserstein Image Assimilation 35/38

[Métivier et al. ‘16] Full waveform inversion Unbalanced transport [Chizat et al. ‘18] - Deal with mass variations (source term in transport equation) - Still a distance Euclidean Wasserstein Unbalanced Transport-based distance [Thorpe et al. ‘17] - Can deal with negative values (lifting) - Adapted to phase shifts Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein Image Assimilation 35/38

Computational schemes Dynamical Optimal Transport (geodesic estimation) Fixed grid [Benamou
and Brenier ‘00, P. et al. ‘14, Osher et al. ‘17, Chizat et al ‘18, Hug et al. ‘20] Discrete surfaces [Lavenant et al. ’18] Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein Image Assimilation 36/38

and Brenier ‘00, P. et al. ‘14, Osher et al. ‘17, Chizat et al ‘18, Hug et al. ‘20] Discrete surfaces [Lavenant et al. ’18] Parametric: sphere [Lang and P. ‘20?] Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein Image Assimilation 36/38

and Brenier ‘00, P. et al. ‘14, Osher et al. ‘17, Chizat et al ‘18, Hug et al. ‘20] Discrete surfaces [Lavenant et al. ’18] Parametric: sphere [Lang and P. ‘20?] - Multi-scale representation, adaptive meshes - Controlling errors on a reduced number of quadrature points Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein Image Assimilation 36/38

and Brenier ‘00, P. et al. ‘14, Osher et al. ‘17, Chizat et al ‘18, Hug et al. ‘20] Discrete surfaces [Lavenant et al. ’18] Parametric: sphere [Lang and P. ‘20?] - Multi-scale representation, adaptive meshes - Controlling errors on a reduced number of quadrature points Fast Optimal Transport map estimation Machine Learning: discrete setting [Cuturi & Peyré ‘19, Flamary, Courty et al. ‘19, P. ‘19, Weed & Rigolet ‘19...] Deep Learning: density estimation, mass transport [Dinh et al. ‘16, Zhang et al. ‘18, Grathwohl et al. ‘19...] Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Wasserstein Image Assimilation 36/38

Image Assimilation 5 Conclusion Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Conclusion 37/38

Conclusions and current challenges Wasserstein distance ✓ Measure between structured
images ✓ Generalization: mass variation, negative ✗ Efficient computation ✗ Dealing with covariance matrices for assimilation Ocean images (SWOT mission, 2021) ✓ Observation of small scale dynamic ✗ Modeling observation errors Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation Conclusion 38/38

Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation

Optimal Transport for Image Assimilation

More Decks by npapadakis

Other Decks in Technology

Featured

Transcript