[WIP] Gaussian initialization for sinkhorn

[rflamary]

Types of changes

This is a first shot for intializing empirical sinkhorn but the computational gain is not very clear on tests I did locally.

The following code

n=2000rng=np.random.RandomState(0)
x=rng.randn(n, 2)
x2=10*rng.randn(n//2, 2)
x2[:,0]+=2ot.tic()
G, log=ot.empirical_sinkhorn(x,x2, 1, method='sinkhorn_log', warmstart=None, verbose=False, isLazy=False, stopThr=1e-5, log=True)
ot.toc()
print("Err=",log['err'][-1], "niter=", log['niter'])
ot.tic()
G2, log2=ot.empirical_sinkhorn(x,x2, 1, method='sinkhorn_log', warmstart='gaussian', verbose=False, isLazy=False, stopThr=1e-5, log=True)
ot.toc()
print("Err=",log2['err'][-1], "niter=", log2['niter'])

give sthe following output

Elapsed time : 3.0527355670928955 s
Err= 9.441113655553818e-06 niter= 140
Elapsed time : 2.391462564468384 s
Err= 9.89690596643644e-06 niter= 110`

Quite far from the computational gains in the paper. Will investigate it more.

Motivation and context / Related issue

How has this been tested (if it applies)

PR checklist

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• The documentation is up-to-date with the changes I made (check build artifacts).
• All tests passed, and additional code has been covered with new tests.
• I have added the PR and Issue fix to the RELEASES.md file.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.83673% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 83.70%. Comparing base (53dde7a) to head (b3be5a6).
⚠️ Report is 136 commits behind head on master.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (53dde7a) and HEAD (b3be5a6). Click for more details.

HEAD has 12 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (53dde7a)	HEAD (b3be5a6)
	14	2

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #555 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 96.49% 83.70% -12.79% 
===========================================
Files 67 67 Lines 14663 14708 +45 ===========================================
- Hits 14149 12312 -1837 - Misses 514 2396 +1882 

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[cedricvincentcuaz]

I believe that your implementation is correct, i am not sure how authors handle the bias in empirical_bures_wasserstein_mapping set by default to True in POT.
From the experiments in the paper I would say that gains seem specific to low regimes for the entropic regularization, did you check that ?

[rflamary]

will do. iI have students looking into this. Will come ack to the PR after.