Counterexamples and Sufficient Conditions: Comments on "Optimally-Transported Generalized Method of Moments"
Abstract
We comment on the optimally-transported generalized method of moments (OTGMM) estimator proposed by Schennach & Starck (2026a) and give counterexamples to Theorems 2-6 under their stated assumptions. First, the assumptions used in the small-error analysis are insufficient for consistency in Theorem 2 and asymptotic normality in Theorem 3. Next, we consider the large-error analysis, in which Theorem 4 states that the OTGMM estimator is equivalent to a GMM estimator with modified moments. We show that in a scalar model, Theorem 4 selects a value that differs from the unique OTGMM minimizer and violates the OTGMM sample moment restriction. In an overidentified model satisfying the assumptions used in Theorems 5 and 6, the first component of the Lagrange multiplier has different probability limits under the OTGMM estimator and the GMM estimator with modified moments. Under misspecification, the population value selected by OTGMM depends on the transport metric and on which variables may be adjusted. We give a sufficient condition under which solutions of the modified moment equations also solve the original constrained problem at a given parameter value, and separate conditions for consistency and asymptotic normality of the OTGMM estimator. We also show that Assumption 16 does not imply the matrix bound used in the supplemental proofs and replace Assumption 16 with a matrix condition that yields the bound.
Related
- Necessity of Ladyzhenskaya \& Ural'tseva's sufficient conditions in nonuniform ellipticity
- Necessary and sufficient conditions for optimal control of coupled forward-backward stochastic control systems driven by G-Brownian motion
- Sufficient conditions for multiplicity and uniqueness of positive solutions of the Hénon equation
- Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Adaptive Stabilizability of Continuous-Time Markov Jump Linear Stochastic Systems
- On quantitative sufficient second-order optimality conditions for elliptic optimal control problems
BibTeX
@misc{kato2026counterexamples,
title = {{Counterexamples and Sufficient Conditions: Comments on "Optimally-Transported Generalized Method of Moments"}},
author = {Masahiro Kato},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.20260},
eprint = {2609.20260},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.20260},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Counterexamples and Sufficient Conditions: Comments on "Optimally-Transported Generalized Method of Moments"
AU - Masahiro Kato
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/01
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.20260
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.20260
AB - We comment on the optimally-transported generalized method of moments (OTGMM) estimator proposed by Schennach & Starck (2026a) and give counterexamples to Theorems 2-6 under their stated assumptions. First, the assumptions used in the small-error analysis are insufficient for consistency in Theorem 2 and asymptotic normality in Theorem 3. Next, we consider the large-error analysis, in which Theorem 4 states that the OTGMM estimator is equivalent to a GMM estimator with modified moments. We show that in a scalar model, Theorem 4 selects a value that differs from the unique OTGMM minimizer and violates the OTGMM sample moment restriction. In an overidentified model satisfying the assumptions used in Theorems 5 and 6, the first component of the Lagrange multiplier has different probability limits under the OTGMM estimator and the GMM estimator with modified moments. Under misspecification, the population value selected by OTGMM depends on the transport metric and on which variables may be adjusted. We give a sufficient condition under which solutions of the modified moment equations also solve the original constrained problem at a given parameter value, and separate conditions for consistency and asymptotic normality of the OTGMM estimator. We also show that Assumption 16 does not imply the matrix bound used in the supplemental proofs and replace Assumption 16 with a matrix condition that yields the bound.
ER -