Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 105 references

Analysis of Semi-Supervised Learning on Hypergraphs

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Classical hypergraph learning is asymptotically first-order, converging to a density-weighted p-Laplacian; a proposed higher-order variant reaches a Sobolev-type limit.

desk verdict Solid first-order reduction for classical hypergraph learning; the HOHL higher-order claim outruns what is actually proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.25354 v3 pith:RTPRAR3M submitted 2025-10-29 cs.LG math.STstat.TH

Adrien Weihs , Andrea L. Bertozzi , Matthew Thorpe This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGmath.STstat.TH MSC 49J5549J4562G2065N12
keywords hypergraphssemi-supervisedlearningasymptoticconsistencyp-LaplacianGamma-convergencemultiscaleregularizationrandomgeometrichigher-orderSobolevseminorm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper analyzes semi-supervised learning on random geometric hypergraphs and proves what happens in the large-data limit. It shows that the classical hypergraph objective, despite encoding multiway interactions, is asymptotically first-order: its discrete operators converge to a density-weighted $p$-Laplacian and its minimizers converge to minimizers of a weighted $W^{1,p}$ energy. The transition between meaningful label propagation and collapse to a constant labeling is governed by $n\varepsilon^p$ tending to $0$ versus $\infty$. The paper then proposes Higher-Order Hypergraph Learning (HOHL), which penalizes powers of Laplacians on hypergraph-induced subgraphs, and proves that its multiscale Laplace surrogate converges to a higher-order Sobolev-type seminorm. The results matter because they give a concrete rule for when hypergraph label propagation will work and they ground a computationally cheaper multiscale method in continuum theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the product-weight hyperedge model (4), $w_{\varepsilon,i_0\cdots i_k} = \prod_{j=1}^k \prod_{r=0}^{j-1} \eta(|x_{i_j}-x_{i_r}|/\varepsilon)$, which ties every hyperedge's weight to the pairwise proximity of all its members and yields the discrete $(k,p)$-Laplacians $\Delta^{(k,p)}_{n,\varepsilon}$. Its continuum limit is the weighted $p$-Laplacian $\Delta^{(k,p)}_\infty u = \frac{\sigma^{(k,p)}_\eta}{2\rho}\,\mathrm{div}\big(\rho^{k+1}\|\nabla u\|^{p-2}\nabla u\big)$, derived through angular integral identities that collapse $k$-dimensional kernel averages into a single constant and expose the density exponent $k+1$. The variational analysis runs in the $TL^p$ space, a product space of measures and functions with a transport-based metric, using $\Gamma$-convergence. For HOHL, the key object is the multiscale Laplace surrogate (6), $\sum_{k=1}^q \lambda_k \Delta^{p_k}_{n,\varepsilon^{(k)}}$, which is proven to converge to the continuum energy $\langle v, \Delta_\rho^{p} v\rangle_{L^2(\mu)}$, whose domain is the Sobolev space $W^{p,2}$; the paper treats this surrogate as the tractable stand-in for the skeleton-Laplacian HOHL energy (5).

What would settle it

Compute the continuum limit of the HOHL energy (5) directly for the product-weight hypergraph model on a point cloud with smooth density $\rho$, for instance by $\Gamma$-convergence or by spectral convergence of the matrix $\sum_{k=1}^q \lambda_k (L^{(k)})^{p_k}$. If the resulting limiting energy is not a $W^{p_q,2}$-type seminorm, or if its density scaling differs from the surrogate's limit, then the claim that HOHL is genuinely higher-order in the continuum is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that classical variational hypergraph learning on the product-weight random geometric hypergraph model is asymptotically equivalent to first-order graph-based regularization. In the continuum, the discrete hypergraph energy $\Gamma$-converges to $\sigma^{(k)}_\eta \int_\Omega \|\nabla v\|_2^p \rho(x)^{k+1} dx$, and the associated discrete operator converges pointwise to the weighted $p$-Laplacian $\Delta^{(k,p)}_\infty u = \frac{\sigma^{(k,p)}_\eta}{2\rho}\,\mathrm{div}\big(\rho^{k+1}\|\nabla u\|^{p-2}\nabla u\big)$. Hyperedge structure therefore changes only the density weighting of the limiting energy, not the order of the regularization, and the semi-supervised problem is well-posed exactly when $n\varepsilon^p \to 0$ and ill-posed when $n\varepsilon^p \to \infty$. For higher-order learning, the paper introduces HOHL, which regularizes via powers of skeleton graph Laplacians at multiple scales; for geometric point clouds it analyzes the multiscale Laplace surrogate $v^T \sum_{k=1}^q \lambda_k \Delta^{p_k}_{n,\varepsilon^{(k)}} v$ and proves $\Gamma$-convergence to a $W^{p_q,2}$-type seminorm, establishing that higher-order structure yields genuinely higher-order regularization in the continuum.

Load-bearing premise

The higher-order convergence claim is proven for the multiscale Laplace surrogate used as a practical stand-in on point clouds, not for the HOHL energy built directly from the skeleton graph Laplacians; the paper itself notes that the surrogate does not exactly approximate that energy because the limiting Laplacians may differ in density scaling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Classical hypergraph learning asymptotically reduces to reweighted graph $p$-Laplacian learning: hyperedge combinatorics affects only the density weighting and constants, not the order of regularization.
  • The threshold $n\varepsilon^p \to 0$ versus $\infty$ gives a concrete, checkable rule: choose the interaction scale so that $n\varepsilon^p \to 0$ to keep the continuum problem well-posed and the minimizers smooth label interpolants.
  • The HOHL surrogate converges to a $W^{p_q,2}$ seminorm, so increasing the power $p_k = k$ raises the regularity order of the continuum limit, distinguishing HOHL from classical hypergraph learning.
  • The continuum-limit classification identifies multiscale Laplace learning as a principled proxy for HOHL on point clouds, giving theoretical footing to that method.
  • For HOHL, well-posedness is governed mostly by the finest scale $\varepsilon^{(q)}$ and its power $p_q$, a simple diagnostic for when higher-order regularization will propagate labels instead of collapsing them.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The proven higher-order limit applies to the multiscale Laplace surrogate (6), not to the skeleton-Laplacian HOHL energy (5); a direct $\Gamma$-convergence proof for (5) under the product-weight model is needed to confirm the skeleton construction itself has a $W^{p_q,2}$ limit, since the manuscript's Section 3.3 states the surrogate does not exactly match (5) in density scaling.
  • Inference: The density exponent $k+1$ in the classical limiting energy predicts that larger hyperedges amplify the influence of high-density regions on the learned function; a direct test would compare classification error on high- versus low-density clusters as the maximum hyperedge size increases.
  • Inference: The well-posedness conditions $p > d$ (classical) and $p_q > 2d$ (HOHL, via Sobolev embedding) suggest these methods need very high powers to remain well-posed in high dimension; this could be probed with synthetic data in $d \geq 5$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops discrete-to-continuum asymptotics for variational semi-supervised learning on random geometric hypergraphs with product weights (4). For classical hypergraph learning (2), Theorem 3.2 gives a pointwise convergence of the discrete Euler-Lagrange operator to a weighted p-Laplacian, and Theorem 3.3 gives Gamma-convergence of the semi-supervised objectives in TL^p, with well-posedness when n epsilon_n^p tends to 0 and ill-posedness when n epsilon_n^p tends to infinity; the limiting energy is a density-weighted W^{1,p} seminorm. The paper then proposes Higher-Order Hypergraph Learning (HOHL), based on powers of skeleton Laplacians (5), introduces the multiscale Laplace surrogate (6), and claims in Theorem 3.4 that this surrogate converges to a W^{p_q,2}-type energy. Numerical experiments on iris, digits, Salinas A, and MNIST compare the surrogate against several graph-based SSL baselines over 100 trials each.

Significance. If the results hold, the first half of the paper is a substantive contribution: it gives a clean asymptotic classification of the hypergraph learning model of Zhou-Huang-Scholkopf under a natural product-weight construction, with explicit thresholds n epsilon^p -> 0 versus infinity, and it shows that the classical model is asymptotically first-order up to density re-weighting. The proofs of Theorems 3.2 and 3.3 are detailed: the concentration estimates, the sigma-identities of Lemmas 4.6-4.8, and the reduction to the p-Laplacian in Corollary 4.9 are spelled out and checkable, and the Gamma-convergence scaffolding follows the established TL^p framework of Garcia Trillos-Slepcev and Slepcev-Thorpe. The empirical study is honestly reported with means and standard deviations over 100 trials. The higher-order part, however, is conditional: Theorem 3.4 is proved only for the surrogate (6), the manuscript itself concedes in Section 3.3 that the surrogate does not exactly approximate the HOHL energy (5), and Theorem 3.4's proof is imported from [94] with the threshold conditions asserted rather than derived.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Theorem 3.4] Theorem 3.4 is proved for the multiscale Laplacian surrogate (SJ)^{(q,P)}_{n,E_n}, that is, for energies built from <v, Delta_{n,epsilon^{(k)}}^{p_k} v> as in (6), and not for the HOHL energy (5) built from the skeleton Laplacians L^{(k)} of the random geometric hypergraph with weights (4). The only bridge offered in Section 3.3 is the statement that '(6) does not exactly approximate (5) with weights from (4)--since the corresponding limiting Laplacians may differ in density scaling'; this admission sits exactly at the point where the higher-order claim lives. If the density scaling differs, the continuum limit of (5) may carry a different density power or a different operator structure from the limit of (6), so attributing Theorem 3.4 to HOHL (5) in Table 1 and in contribution item 4 is unsupported as written. The authors should either prove a link between (5) and (6) under explicit conditions on the weight model (4), or restrict the theoretical claim to the surrogate (6) and re-scope the abstract, Table 1, and the conclusion accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.4 and Theorem 3.4] The convergence claims for the higher-order model are not proved in this manuscript: Section 4.4 states that the results are 'simple corollaries from the results in [94]', and Theorem 3.4's well-posedness threshold, n(epsilon_n^{(q)})^{p_q/2-1/2} bounded together with p_q > (5/2)d + 4, is asserted in Lemma 4.26 and used without derivation. Because the HOHL parameterization (powers p_k, scales epsilon_n^{(k)}, and the finest scale q) interacts with the spectral-convergence machinery of [94] in a dimension-dependent way, a reader cannot verify from this manuscript that the thresholds are correctly re-scaled for the present operators. A self-contained derivation of the thresholds, or at least a precise statement of which propositions of [94] are used at each step, is needed for the central higher-order claim to be checkable.
  3. [Section 6 (Conclusion)] The conclusion claims 'a previously undocumented discrepancy between the operator obtained via pointwise convergence and that derived from the variational limit.' On the evidence in the paper, there is no such discrepancy: Corollary 4.9, equations (48)-(49), shows that the pointwise limit Delta_infty^{(k,p)}(u) equals (sigma_eta^{(k,p)}/(2 rho)) div(rho^{k+1} ||grad u||^{p-2} grad u), which is precisely the Euler-Lagrange operator of the variational limiting energy sigma_eta^{(k)} int rho^{k+1} ||grad u||^p in (8)-(9). The difference from p-Laplacian learning in [84] is a fixed density power, exactly as (9) states. Either the claimed discrepancy should be removed, or it should be reformulated precisely (for example, as a comparison of density powers with [84]) and located with a specific equation reference.
  4. [Section 3.7.1, after Eq. (9)] The paragraph following equation (9) states that 'the well-posedness ... is ensured if and only if epsilon_n satisfies the lower bound L.2 and the upper bound n epsilon_n^p -> 0.' Theorem 3.3 proves sufficiency of these conditions, but necessity is not established: the ill-posed part of Theorem 3.3 assumes n epsilon_n^p -> infinity and does not rule out other failure modes, and the lower bound L.2 is a standard connectivity/stabilization condition rather than a proved necessary condition in this specific setting. The 'if and only if' wording should either be proved or softened to a sufficiency statement.
  5. [Section 5 and Tables 3-8] The numerical section evaluates only the multiscale surrogate (6): the q- and j-experiments take Laplacians of epsilon-graphs or kNN graphs and solve energies of the form (6) with coefficients lambda_ell and powers p_ell. The HOHL energy (5) with skeleton Laplacians L^{(k)} of the random geometric hypergraph (4) is never evaluated, and the asymptotic regimes of Theorem 3.4 (n epsilon_n^{(q)} bounded versus tending to infinity) are not probed in the experiments. Consequently, the experiments cannot repair the surrogate-fidelity gap identified in the first major comment; they support only the empirical utility of the surrogate model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.7.2] The statement of Theorem 3.4 refers to 'minimizers of (SJ)^{(q,p)}_{n,epsilon_n}', but the objects defined in Section 3.5 are (SJ)^{(q,P)}_{n,E_n} with a power set P and a scale set E_n; the notation in the theorem and in its proof should be made consistent, and the typo 'limiting enery' in the paragraph after Theorem 3.4 should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Lemma 4.2] The quantity t(k) is defined informally as 'the number of terms in the product'; since the concentration proof in Theorem 3.2 uses the exponent t(k) on ||eta||_{L^infty}, the paper should state explicitly that t(k) = k(k+1)/2. Also, Lemma 4.2's statement contains the typographical error 'S^{(n,k)}(i) =<= k n^{k-1}', which should read 'S^{(n,k)}(i) <= k n^{k-1}'.
  3. [Figure 5 and Section 3.7.2] Figure 5's caption says the striped regions are conjectured results, but the body text near Theorem 3.4 does not repeat this qualification; since the figure accompanies a theorem statement, the conjectural nature of the striped thresholds should be stated in the main text as well to prevent readers from attributing them to Theorem 3.4.
  4. [Tables 3-8] The comparison is stated as showing that the proposed models 'mostly outperform' other graph SSL methods, but several of the differences between IP-QC and the best baseline are within one standard deviation (for example, Table 7 at labeling rate 0.02). A brief statement of which differences are statistically meaningful, or a paired-test reference, would make the empirical claim more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the classical hypergraph limit is derived from first principles; the HOHL/surrogate gap is a support gap, not a circularity.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The classical hypergraph analysis (Section 3.7.1) starts from the explicit hyperedge weight model (4), derives the discrete Euler–Lagrange operators in Proposition 3.1, proves quantitative pointwise convergence to the weighted p-Laplacian via Taylor expansions and the symmetry Lemmas 4.5–4.8, and obtains the Gamma-limit (9) by adapting the nonlocal-to-local and discrete-to-continuum arguments of [39,84] in Propositions 4.13–4.20. None of these steps defines the limiting energy as the discrete energy, nor fits a parameter to the predicted object; the well-/ill-posedness thresholds n epsilon^p tending to 0 versus infinity are consequences of the Gamma-convergence and are benchmarked against the external p-Laplacian result [84]. For HOHL, Theorem 3.4 proves consistency for the multiscale surrogate (SJ), i.e. (6), using spectral-convergence results imported from [94]; the proof is a corollary, not a redefinition. The one genuine caveat is an admitted support gap, not circularity: Section 3.3 says '(6) does not exactly approximate (5) with weights from (4)--since the corresponding limiting Laplacians may differ in density scaling', and Table 1 attributes Theorem 3.4 to HOHL (5). That means the 'HOHL converges to a W^{p_q,2} seminorm' headline is not fully established for the skeleton-Laplacian energy (5), but this unsupported link is not an equation that reduces to itself. The self-citations to [94] and [92] are to published results with stated assumptions and are not used to assume the present theorem. The score of 2 reflects the low, non-circular self-citation and support-gap burden.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The classical hypergraph analysis needs standard transport-map and Gamma-convergence machinery (imported from [43, 10, 39, 74, 84]), the domain, measure, kernel, and data assumptions of Section 3.6, and the paper's own product-weight hyperedge model (4), without which the reformulation of (2) as a sum of (k,p)-energies does not hold. The HOHL analysis additionally leans on the spectral results of [94] and on the informally assumed surrogate identification between the skeleton-Laplacian energy (5) and the multiscale Laplace energy (6), which Section 3.3 concedes is not exact. The ill-posed HOHL case also assumes a uniform L^2 bound on the discrete minimizers without proof. No parameters are fitted to data to make the theorems true; the method hyperparameters in the experiments (p_k, lambda_k, epsilon^(l)) are chosen by hand, and the theory holds for arbitrary positive sequences.

free parameters (3)
  • HOHL powers p_k = p_k = k in experiments
    Chosen by hand; the theory allows any increasing positive sequence. These are method hyperparameters, not fitted to the target claim.
  • HOHL coefficients lambda_k = lambda_k in {1, l, l^2} (CC, SC, QC schedules)
    Tuning parameters in Section 5 experiments; the authors report robustness to the choice. They do not affect the theorems, which hold for arbitrary positive sequences.
  • Scale sequences epsilon^(l) / k^(l) = e.g., epsilon^(l) = 100 * 2^{-l}, k^(l) = 30 - (l-1) * 10
    Interaction length scales at each level, chosen by hand in the experiments. The theorems state conditions on the finest scale epsilon^(q)_n rather than fixing values.
assumptions (9)
  • standard math Empirical measure transport maps exist with the rates of Theorem 2.3 (from [43]) for densities bounded above and below on bounded Lipschitz domains.
    Invoked in the Gamma-convergence proofs (Section 4.3) to transfer discrete functions to the continuum. This is an imported external result.
  • standard math Nonlocal-to-local approximation and Gamma-convergence theory for W^{1,p} energies (Bourgain-Brezis-Mironescu [10], Ponce [74], Garcia Trillos-Slepcev [39]).
    Backbone of Propositions 4.13 and 4.14; standard results extended to the hypergraph kernels.
  • standard math Weighted spectral convergence results for graph Laplacians on random geometric graphs (from [94, 26, 38]).
    Theorem 3.4 and Propositions 4.23 to 4.26 are stated as 'simple corollaries from the results in [94]'; the paper's higher-order claims inherit their correctness from [94].
  • domain assumption Domain and data assumptions S.1/S.2, M.1/M.2, W.1, D.1/D.2: open bounded Lipschitz domain or torus, density bounded above and below, compactly supported non-increasing kernel, iid samples, fixed labels.
    Listed in Section 3.6; the theorems hold only under these model restrictions, notably the non-vanishing density M.2.
  • domain assumption Length-scale regimes L.1 to L.3: epsilon_n tends to 0, with L.2 the connectivity lower bound and L.3 the stronger bound needed for the HOHL well-posed case.
    Section 3.6; L.2 ensures graph connectivity with probability one, L.3 is needed for the spectral results used in the HOHL analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Product-weight construction (4) as the hyperedge weight model.
    All theory for classical hypergraph learning is restricted to this particular weight model, where the hyperedge weight is the product of pairwise weights; the paper notes the construction is essential (Point P.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Surrogate fidelity: the multiscale Laplacian energy (6) represents HOHL (5) on point clouds.
    Section 3.3 states that (6) 'does not exactly approximate (5)' and that the density scalings may differ; Theorem 3.4 is proven for (6), so the HOHL claim depends on this informal identification.
  • domain assumption Uniform L^2 boundedness of the discrete minimizers, sup_n ||u_n||_{L^2(mu_n)} < infinity, in the ill-posed HOHL case.
    Assumed without proof in Theorem 3.4 part 2; it is load-bearing for the compactness argument that produces a convergent subsequence.
  • domain assumption Smoothness assumptions: rho in C^2 for Theorem 3.2, rho in C^infinity for Theorem 3.4, u in C^3 for the pointwise convergence theorem.
    Needed for the Taylor expansions in the pointwise consistency proof and for the spectral results imported from [94].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of Semi-Supervised Learning on Hypergraphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTPRAR3M

@misc{pith2026251025354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of Semi-Supervised Learning on Hypergraphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTPRAR3M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.25354}
}
read the original abstract

Hypergraphs provide a natural framework for modeling multiway interactions. We analyze a class of variational semi-supervised learning problems posed on random geometric hypergraphs and establish asymptotic consistency in the large-data limit. In particular, we identify scaling regimes that ensure well-posedness--yielding nontrivial label propagation rather than collapse to a constant labeling--and show that discrete minimizers converge, in the continuum, to solutions of a density-weighted p-Laplacian equation. We also propose Higher-Order Hypergraph Learning (HOHL), a multiscale regularization scheme based on powers of Laplacians associated with hypergraph-induced subgraphs. For geometric point clouds, we analyze an efficient multiscale Laplacian surrogate for HOHL and prove convergence to a higher-order Sobolev-type seminorm. Numerical experiments on standard benchmarks support the practical utility of the resulting higher-order regularization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.25354 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. From graphs to hypergraphs. Left: In the graph, the vertices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Classification of several algorithms based on their continuum limit. Edges indicate convergence to a Sobolev [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the HOHL energy with pk = k. Left: For q = 2, the energy imposes hierarchical regularization by penalizing v ⊤L (1)v on skeleton edges E(1) and v ⊤(L (2)) 2v on E(2). Right: With the random hypergraph model of (4), in high-density regions, hyperedges of large size capture finer structural details, and HOHL imposes stronger smoothness to exploit this local structure. a principled explanation for choos… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Well- and Ill-posedness characterization of hypergraph learning as a function of the length-scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Well- and Ill-posedness characterization of HOHL as a function of the length-scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Geometric interpretation of the affine reflection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [94]

    Consistency of fractional graph-Laplacian regularization in semisu- pervised learning with finite labels.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 56(4):4253–4295, 2024

    Adrien Weihs and Matthew Thorpe. Consistency of fractional graph-Laplacian regularization in semisu- pervised learning with finite labels.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 56(4):4253–4295, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [84]

    Analysis ofp-Laplacian regularization in semisupervised learning

    Dejan Slep ˇcev and Matthew Thorpe. Analysis ofp-Laplacian regularization in semisupervised learning. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 51(3):2085–2120, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    from the Computational Intelligence Group, University of the Basque Country

    Salinas hyperspectral dataset.http://www.ehu.eus/ccwintco/index.php?Title= Hyperspectral_Remote_Sensing_Scenes, 2008. from the Computational Intelligence Group, University of the Basque Country

    2008

  4. [2]

    Mixhop: Higher-order graph convolutional architectures via sparsified neighborhood mixing

    Sami Abu-El-Haija, Bryan Perozzi, Amol Kapoor, Nazanin Alipourfard, Kristina Lerman, Hrayr Haru- tyunyan, Greg Ver Steeg, and Aram Galstyan. Mixhop: Higher-order graph convolutional architectures via sparsified neighborhood mixing. InProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 97 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Re...

    2019

  5. [3]

    Higher order learning with graphs

    Sameer Agarwal, Kristin Branson, and Serge Belongie. Higher order learning with graphs. InProceed- ings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’06, page 17–24, New York, NY , USA, 2006. Association for Computing Machinery

    2006

  6. [4]

    Optical Recognition of Handwritten Digits

    Ethem Alpaydin and Cenk Kaynak. Optical Recognition of Handwritten Digits. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C50P49

    doi:10.24432/c50p49 1998

  7. [5]

    Using manifold structure for partially labelled classification

    Mikhail Belkin and Partha Niyogi. Using manifold structure for partially labelled classification. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 953–960, 2002

    2002

  8. [6]

    Semi-supervised learning on Riemannian manifolds.Machine Learn- ing, 56(1):209–239, 2004

    Mikhail Belkin and Partha Niyogi. Semi-supervised learning on Riemannian manifolds.Machine Learn- ing, 56(1):209–239, 2004

    2004

Show all 105 references
  1. [7]

    Convergence of Laplacian eigenmaps

    Mikhail Belkin and Partha Niyogi. Convergence of Laplacian eigenmaps. InAdvances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 2007

    2007

  2. [8]

    Bertozzi and Arjuna Flenner

    Andrea L. Bertozzi and Arjuna Flenner. Diffuse interface models on graphs for classification of high dimensional data.SIAM Review, 58(2):293–328, 2016

    2016

  3. [9]

    Demystifying higher-order graph neural networks, 2024

    Maciej Besta, Florian Scheidl, Lukas Gianinazzi, Grzegorz Kwasniewski, Shachar Klaiman, Jürgen Müller, and Torsten Hoefler. Demystifying higher-order graph neural networks, 2024. 48

    2024

  4. [10]

    Another look at Sobolev spaces

    Jean Bourgain, Haim Brezis, and Petru Mironescu. Another look at Sobolev spaces. InOptimal Control and Partial Differential Equations, pages 439–455, 2001

    2001

  5. [11]

    Oxford University Press, 2002

    Andrea Braides.Γ-convergence for Beginners. Oxford University Press, 2002

    2002

  6. [12]

    Springer New York, New York, NY , USA, 1 edition, 1995

    Wlodzimierz Bryc.The Normal Distribution: Characterizations with Applications, volume 100 of Lecture Notes in Statistics. Springer New York, New York, NY , USA, 1 edition, 1995

    1995

  7. [13]

    Convergence rates for Poisson learning to a Poisson equation with measure data, 2024

    Leon Bungert, Jeff Calder, Max Mihailescu, Kodjo Houssou, and Amber Yuan. Convergence rates for Poisson learning to a Poisson equation with measure data, 2024

    2024

  8. [14]

    Uniform convergence rates for lipschitz learning on graphs

    Leon Bungert, Jeff Calder, and Tim Roith. Uniform convergence rates for lipschitz learning on graphs. IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 43(4):2445–2495, 09 2022

    2022

  9. [15]

    The game theoretic p-Laplacian and semi-supervised learning with few labels.Nonlinearity, 32(1):301, 2018

    Jeff Calder. The game theoretic p-Laplacian and semi-supervised learning with few labels.Nonlinearity, 32(1):301, 2018

    2018

  10. [16]

    Consistency of Lipschitz learning with infinite unlabeled data and finite labeled data.SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 1(4):780–812, 2019

    Jeff Calder. Consistency of Lipschitz learning with infinite unlabeled data and finite labeled data.SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 1(4):780–812, 2019

    2019

  11. [17]

    Poisson learning: Graph based semi- supervised learning at very low label rates

    Jeff Calder, Brendan Cook, Matthew Thorpe, and Dejan Slep ˇcev. Poisson learning: Graph based semi- supervised learning at very low label rates. InProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1283–1293, 2020

    2020

  12. [18]

    Improved spectral convergence rates for graph Laplacians on ε-graphs andk−nngraphs.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 60:123–175, 2022

    Jeff Calder and Nicolás García Trillos. Improved spectral convergence rates for graph Laplacians on ε-graphs andk−nngraphs.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 60:123–175, 2022

    2022

  13. [19]

    Properly-weighted graph Laplacian for semi-supervised learning.Ap- plied Mathematics & Optimization, 82(3):1111–1159, 2020

    Jeff Calder and Dejan Slep ˇcev. Properly-weighted graph Laplacian for semi-supervised learning.Ap- plied Mathematics & Optimization, 82(3):1111–1159, 2020

    2020

  14. [20]

    Rates of convergence for Laplacian semi-supervised learning with low labeling rates.Research in the Mathematical Sciences, 10(1):10, 2023

    Jeff Calder, Dejan Slep ˇcev, and Matthew Thorpe. Rates of convergence for Laplacian semi-supervised learning with low labeling rates.Research in the Mathematical Sciences, 10(1):10, 2023

    2023

  15. [21]

    Mumford–Shah functionals on graphs and their asymptotics.Nonlinearity, 33(8):3846–3888, jun 2020

    Marco Caroccia, Antonin Chambolle, and Dejan Slep ˇcev. Mumford–Shah functionals on graphs and their asymptotics.Nonlinearity, 33(8):3846–3888, jun 2020

    2020

  16. [22]

    Dynamic hypergraph convolutional network for no-reference point cloud quality assessment.IEEE Trans

    Wu Chen, Qiuping Jiang, Wei Zhou, Long Xu, and Weisi Lin. Dynamic hypergraph convolutional network for no-reference point cloud quality assessment.IEEE Trans. Cir. and Sys. for Video Technol., 34(10_Part_2):10479–10493, October 2024

    2024

  17. [23]

    Random walks on hypergraphs with edge-dependent vertex weights

    Uthsav Chitra and Benjamin Raphael. Random walks on hypergraphs with edge-dependent vertex weights. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 1172–1181. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  18. [24]

    Coifman and Stéphane Lafon

    Ronald R. Coifman and Stéphane Lafon. Diffusion maps.Applied and Computational Harmonic Anal- ysis, 21(1):5–30, 2006

    2006

  19. [25]

    Large data limit for a phase transition model with the p- Laplacian on point clouds.European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 31(2):185–231, 2020

    Riccardo Cristoferi and Matthew Thorpe. Large data limit for a phase transition model with the p- Laplacian on point clouds.European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 31(2):185–231, 2020

    2020

  20. [26]

    Large data and zero noise limits of graph-based semi-supervised learning algorithms.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 49(2):655–697, 2020

    Matthew Dunlop, Dejan Slepcev, Andrew Stuart, and Matthew Thorpe. Large data and zero noise limits of graph-based semi-supervised learning algorithms.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 49(2):655–697, 2020

    2020

  21. [27]

    Wainwright, and Michael I

    Ahmed El Alaoui, Xiang Cheng, Aaditya Ramdas, Martin J. Wainwright, and Michael I. Jordan. Asymp- totic behavior ofℓ p-based Laplacian regularization in semi-supervised learning. In Vitaly Feldman, Alexander Rakhlin, and Ohad Shamir, editors,29th Annual Conference on Learning ...

    2016

  22. [28]

    Continuum limit ofp-Laplacian evolution problems on graphs: lq graphons and sparse graphs.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 2023

    Imad El Bouchairi, Jalal Fadili, and Abderrahim Elmoataz. Continuum limit ofp-Laplacian evolution problems on graphs: lq graphons and sparse graphs.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 2023. arXiv 2010.08697

    2023 arXiv

  23. [29]

    K.-T. Fang, S. Kotz, and W. Ng, K.˙Symmetric Multivariate and Related Distributions. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York, 1 edition, 1990

    1990

  24. [30]

    Hypergraph p-Laplacians, scale spaces, and infor- mation flow in networks

    Ariane Fazeny, Daniel Tenbrinck, and Martin Burger. Hypergraph p-Laplacians, scale spaces, and infor- mation flow in networks. In Luca Calatroni, Marco Donatelli, Serena Morigi, Marco Prato, and Matteo Santacesaria, editors,Scale Space and Variational Methods in Computer Visio...

  25. [31]

    Ronald Fisher. Iris. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C56C76

    1988 doi

  26. [32]

    Analysis and algorithms forℓ p-based semi-supervised learning on graphs.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 60:77–122, 2022

    Mauricio Flores, Jeff Calder, and Gilad Lerman. Analysis and algorithms forℓ p-based semi-supervised learning on graphs.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 60:77–122, 2022

    2022

  27. [33]

    Visual-textual joint relevance learning for tag-based social image search.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 22(1):363–376, 2013

    Yue Gao, Meng Wang, Zheng-Jun Zha, Jialie Shen, Xuelong Li, and Xindong Wu. Visual-textual joint relevance learning for tag-based social image search.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 22(1):363–376, 2013

    2013

  28. [34]

    Hypergraph learning: Methods and practices.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(5):2548– 2566, 2022

    Yue Gao, Zizhao Zhang, Haojie Lin, Xibin Zhao, Shaoyi Du, and Changqing Zou. Hypergraph learning: Methods and practices.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(5):2548– 2566, 2022

    2022

  29. [35]

    Error estimates for spectral convergence of the graph Laplacian on random geometric graphs toward the Laplace–Beltrami operator

    Nicolás García Trillos, Moritz Gerlach, Matthias Hein, and Dejan Slep ˇcev. Error estimates for spectral convergence of the graph Laplacian on random geometric graphs toward the Laplace–Beltrami operator. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 20:827–887, 2020

    2020

  30. [36]

    A new analytical approach to consistency and overfitting in regularized empirical risk minimization.European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 28(6):886–921, 2017

    Nicolás García Trillos and Ryan Murray. A new analytical approach to consistency and overfitting in regularized empirical risk minimization.European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 28(6):886–921, 2017

    2017

  31. [37]

    From graph cuts to isoperimetric inequali- ties: Convergence rates of Cheeger cuts on data clouds.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 244(3):541–598, 2022

    Nicolás García Trillos, Ryan Murray, and Matthew Thorpe. From graph cuts to isoperimetric inequali- ties: Convergence rates of Cheeger cuts on data clouds.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 244(3):541–598, 2022

    2022

  32. [38]

    Rates of convergence for regression with the graph poly-Laplacian.Sampling Theory, Signal Processing, and Data Analysis, 21(2):35, 2023

    Nicolás García Trillos, Ryan Murray, and Matthew Thorpe. Rates of convergence for regression with the graph poly-Laplacian.Sampling Theory, Signal Processing, and Data Analysis, 21(2):35, 2023

    2023

  33. [39]

    Continuum limit of total variation on point clouds.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 220(1):193–241, 2016

    Nicolás García Trillos and Dejan Slep ˇcev. Continuum limit of total variation on point clouds.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 220(1):193–241, 2016

    2016

  34. [40]

    A variational approach to the consistency of spectral cluster- ing.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 45(2):239–281, 2018

    Nicolás García Trillos and Dejan Slep ˇcev. A variational approach to the consistency of spectral cluster- ing.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 45(2):239–281, 2018

    2018

  35. [41]

    Estimating perimeter using graph cuts

    Nicolás García Trillos, Dejan Slep ˇcev, and James V on Brecht. Estimating perimeter using graph cuts. Advances in Applied Probability, 49(4):1067–1090, 2017

    2017

  36. [42]

    Con- sistency of Cheeger and ratio graph cuts.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(181):1–46, 2016

    Nicolás García Trillos, Dejan Slep ˇcev, James von Brecht, Thomas Laurent, and Xavier Bresson. Con- sistency of Cheeger and ratio graph cuts.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(181):1–46, 2016

    2016

  37. [43]

    On the rate of convergence of empirical measures in∞- transportation distance.Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 67(6):1358–1383, 2015

    Nicolás García Trillos and Dejan Slep ˇcev. On the rate of convergence of empirical measures in∞- transportation distance.Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 67(6):1358–1383, 2015

    2015

  38. [44]

    Diffusion improves graph learning

    Johannes Gasteiger, Stefan Weiß enberger, and Stephan Günnemann. Diffusion improves graph learning. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, In...

    2019

  39. [45]

    Consistency of spectral partitioning of uniform hypergraphs under planted partition model

    Debarghya Ghoshdastidar and Ambedkar Dukkipati. Consistency of spectral partitioning of uniform hypergraphs under planted partition model. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, and K.Q. Weinberger, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volu...

    2014

  40. [46]

    Consistency of spectral hypergraph partitioning under planted partition model.The Annals of Statistics, 45(1):289–315, 2017

    Debarghya Ghoshdastidar and Ambedkar Dukkipati. Consistency of spectral hypergraph partitioning under planted partition model.The Annals of Statistics, 45(1):289–315, 2017

    2017

  41. [47]

    Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2006

    Evarist Giné and Vladimir Koltschinskii.Empirical graph Laplacian approximation of Laplace– Beltrami operators: Large sample results, volume 51 ofIMS Lecture Notes Monographs Series, pages 238–259. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2006

    2006

  42. [48]

    Monotone properties of random geometric graphs have sharp thresholds.The Annals of Applied Probability, 15:2535–2552, 2005

    Ashish Goel, Sanatan Rai, and Bhaskar Krishnamachari. Monotone properties of random geometric graphs have sharp thresholds.The Annals of Applied Probability, 15:2535–2552, 2005

    2005

  43. [49]

    Uniform convergence of adaptive graph-based regularization

    Matthias Hein. Uniform convergence of adaptive graph-based regularization. InProceedings of the Conference on Learning Theory, pages 50–64, 2006

    2006

  44. [50]

    Graph Laplacians and their convergence on random neighborhood graphs.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 8(6), 2007

    Matthias Hein, Jean-Yves Audibert, and Ulrike von Luxburg. Graph Laplacians and their convergence on random neighborhood graphs.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 8(6), 2007

    2007

  45. [51]

    From graphs to manifolds – weak and strong pointwise consistency of graph Laplacians

    Matthias Hein, Jean-Yves Audibert, and Ulrike von Luxburg. From graphs to manifolds – weak and strong pointwise consistency of graph Laplacians. InProceedings of the Conference on Learning The- ory, pages 470–485, 2005

    2005

  46. [52]

    The total variation on hypergraphs - learning on hypergraphs revisited

    Matthias Hein, Simon Setzer, Leonardo Jost, and Syama Sundar Rangapuram. The total variation on hypergraphs - learning on hypergraphs revisited. InProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 2, NIPS’13, page 2427–2435, Red...

  47. [53]

    Hypergraph Laplace operators for chemical reaction networks.Ad- vances in Mathematics, 351:870–896, 2019

    Jürgen Jost and Raffaella Mulas. Hypergraph Laplace operators for chemical reaction networks.Ad- vances in Mathematics, 351:870–896, 2019

    2019

  48. [54]

    p-Laplace operators for oriented hypergraphs.Vietnam Journal of Mathematics, 50(2):323–358, 2022

    Jürgen Jost, Raffaella Mulas, and Dong Zhang. p-Laplace operators for oriented hypergraphs.Vietnam Journal of Mathematics, 50(2):323–358, 2022

    2022

  49. [55]

    A survey of data-efficient graph learning

    Wei Ju, Siyu Yi, Yifan Wang, Qingqing Long, Junyu Luo, Zhiping Xiao, and Ming Zhang. A survey of data-efficient graph learning. InProceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI ’24, 2024

    2024

  50. [56]

    Semi-supervised learning via sparse label propagation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.01414, 2016

    Alexander Jung, Alfred O Hero III, Alexandru Mara, and Saeed Jahromi. Semi-supervised learning via sparse label propagation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.01414, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Balakrishnan, and Norman L

    Samuel Kotz, N. Balakrishnan, and Norman L. Johnson.Continuous Multivariate Distributions, Volume 1: Models and Applications. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2 edition, 2000

    2000

  52. [58]

    Spielman

    Rasmus Kyng, Anup Rao, Sushant Sachdeva, and Daniel A. Spielman. Algorithms for Lipschitz learning on graphs. InProceedings of the Conference on Learning Theory, pages 1190–1223, 2015

    2015

  53. [59]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition.Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998

    Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition.Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998

    1998

  54. [60]

    Lee.Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, volume 218 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics

    John M. Lee.Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, volume 218 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, NY , 2012

    2012

  55. [61]

    Graduate studies in mathematics

    Giovanni Leoni.A First Course in Sobolev Spaces. Graduate studies in mathematics. American Mathe- matical Society, 2017. 51

    2017

  56. [62]

    Submodular hypergraphs: p-Laplacians, Cheeger inequalities and spec- tral clustering

    Pan Li and Olgica Milenkovic. Submodular hypergraphs: p-Laplacians, Cheeger inequalities and spec- tral clustering. In Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause, editors,Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Rese...

    2018

  57. [63]

    A random matrix analysis and improvement of semi-supervised learning for large dimen- sional data.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 19(79):1–27, 2018

    Xiaoyi Mai. A random matrix analysis and improvement of semi-supervised learning for large dimen- sional data.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 19(79):1–27, 2018

    2018

  58. [64]

    On the method of bounded differences

    Colin McDiarmid. On the method of bounded differences. In J. Siemons, editor,Surveys in Com- binatorics, 1989, volume 141 ofLondon Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, pages 148–188. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989

    1989

  59. [65]

    Multiscale Laplacian learning.Applied Intelligence, 53(12):15727–15746, nov 2022

    Ekaterina Merkurjev, Duc Duy Nguyen, and Guo-Wei Wei. Multiscale Laplacian learning.Applied Intelligence, 53(12):15727–15746, nov 2022

    2022

  60. [66]

    Bronstein

    Federico Monti, Karl Otness, and Michael M. Bronstein. Motifnet: A motif-based graph convolutional network for directed graphs. In2018 IEEE Data Science Workshop (DSW), pages 225–228, 2018

    2018

  61. [67]

    Random walks and Laplacians on hypergraphs: When do they match?Discrete Applied Mathematics, 317:26–41, 2022

    Raffaella Mulas, Christian Kuehn, Tobias Böhle, and Jürgen Jost. Random walks and Laplacians on hypergraphs: When do they match?Discrete Applied Mathematics, 317:26–41, 2022

    2022

  62. [68]

    Semi-supervised learning with the graph Laplacian: The limit of infinite unlabelled data

    Boaz Nadler, Nathan Srebro, and Xueyuan Zhou. Semi-supervised learning with the graph Laplacian: The limit of infinite unlabelled data. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1330–1338, 2009

    2009

  63. [69]

    Leonie Neuhäuser, Renaud Lambiotte, and Michael T. Schaub. Consensus dynamics and opinion for- mation on hypergraphs. In Federico Battiston and Giovanni Petri, editors,Higher-Order Systems, pages 347–376. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022

    2022

  64. [70]

    Consistency of Dirichlet partitions.SIAM Journal on Mathemat- ical Analysis, 49(5):4251–4274, 2017

    Braxton Osting and Todd Harry Reeb. Consistency of Dirichlet partitions.SIAM Journal on Mathemat- ical Analysis, 49(5):4251–4274, 2017

    2017

  65. [71]

    Operator norm convergence of spectral clustering on level sets.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(12):385–416, 2011

    Bruno Pelletier and Pierre Pudlo. Operator norm convergence of spectral clustering on level sets.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(12):385–416, 2011

    2011

  66. [72]

    Penrose.Random Geometric Graphs

    Mathew D. Penrose.Random Geometric Graphs. Oxford University Press, 2003

    2003

  67. [73]

    Multi-task hypergraphs for semi-supervised learning using earth observations

    Mihai Pirvu, Alina Marcu, Maria Alexandra Dobrescu, Ahmed Nabil Belbachir, and Marius Leordeanu. Multi-task hypergraphs for semi-supervised learning using earth observations. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) Workshops, pages 3404...

    2023

  68. [74]

    Augusto C. Ponce. A new approach to Sobolev spaces and connections toΓ-convergence.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 19(3):229–255, 2004

    2004

  69. [75]

    Continuum limit of Lipschitz learning on graphs.Foundations of Com- putational Mathematics, pages 1–39, 2022

    Tim Roith and Leon Bungert. Continuum limit of Lipschitz learning on graphs.Foundations of Com- putational Mathematics, pages 1–39, 2022

    2022

  70. [76]

    Hypergraph p-Laplacian: a differential geometry view

    Shota Saito, Danilo P Mandic, and Hideyuki Suzuki. Hypergraph p-Laplacian: a differential geometry view. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirtieth In- novative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference and Eighth AAAI ...

    2018

  71. [77]

    Birkhäuser Basel, 2015

    Filippo Santambrogio.Optimal Transport for Applied Mathematicians, volume 87 ofProgress in Non- linear Differential Equations and Their Applications. Birkhäuser Basel, 2015

    2015

  72. [78]

    Hypergraphp-Laplacian equations for data interpolation and semi- supervised learning.Journal of Scientific Computing, 103(3):93, 2025

    Kehan Shi and Martin Burger. Hypergraphp-Laplacian equations for data interpolation and semi- supervised learning.Journal of Scientific Computing, 103(3):93, 2025. 52

    2025

  73. [79]

    Weighted nonlocal Laplacian on interpolation from sparse data.Journal of Scientific Computing, 73(2):1164–1177, 2017

    Zuoqiang Shi, Stanley Osher, and Wei Zhu. Weighted nonlocal Laplacian on interpolation from sparse data.Journal of Scientific Computing, 73(2):1164–1177, 2017

    2017

  74. [80]

    Generalization of the weighted nonlocal Laplacian in low dimensional manifold model.Journal of Scientific Computing, 75(2):638–656, 2018

    Zuoqiang Shi, Stanley Osher, and Wei Zhu. Generalization of the weighted nonlocal Laplacian in low dimensional manifold model.Journal of Scientific Computing, 75(2):638–656, 2018

    2018

  75. [81]

    Error estimation of weighted nonlocal Laplacian on random point cloud.arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08622, 2018

    Zuoqiang Shi, Bao Wang, and Stanley J Osher. Error estimation of weighted nonlocal Laplacian on random point cloud.arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08622, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  76. [82]

    From graph to manifold Laplacian: The convergence rate.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 21:128–134, 2006

    Amit Singer. From graph to manifold Laplacian: The convergence rate.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 21:128–134, 2006

    2006

  77. [83]

    Spectral convergence of the connection Laplacian from random sam- ples.Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 6(1):58–123, 12 2016

    Amit Singer and Hau-Tieng Wu. Spectral convergence of the connection Laplacian from random sam- ples.Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 6(1):58–123, 12 2016

    2016

  78. [85]

    Asymptotic analysis of the Ginzburg–Landau functional on point clouds.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Section A Mathematics, 149(2):387–427, 2019

    Matthew Thorpe and Florian Theil. Asymptotic analysis of the Ginzburg–Landau functional on point clouds.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Section A Mathematics, 149(2):387–427, 2019

    2019

  79. [86]

    Daniel Ting, Ling Huang, and Michael I. Jordan. An analysis of the convergence of graph Laplacians. InProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1079–1086, 2010

    2010

  80. [87]

    Gamma-convergence of graph Ginzburg–Landau functionals

    Yves van Gennip and Andrea Bertozzi. Gamma-convergence of graph Ginzburg–Landau functionals. Advances in Differential Equations, 17(11–12):1115–1180, 2012

    2012

  81. [88]

    Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009

    Cédric Villani.Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009

    2009

  82. [89]

    A tutorial on spectral clustering.Statistics and Computing, 2007

    Ulrike von Luxburg. A tutorial on spectral clustering.Statistics and Computing, 2007

    2007

  83. [90]

    Consistency of spectral clustering.The Annals of Statistics, 36(2):555–586, 2008

    Ulrike von Luxburg, Mikhail Belkin, and Olivier Bousquet. Consistency of spectral clustering.The Annals of Statistics, 36(2):555–586, 2008

    2008

  84. [91]

    Spectral convergence rate of graph Laplacian.arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.08110, 2015

    Xu Wang. Spectral convergence rate of graph Laplacian.arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.08110, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  85. [92]

    Higher-order regularization learning on hyper- graphs, 2025

    Adrien Weihs, Andrea Bertozzi, and Matthew Thorpe. Higher-order regularization learning on hyper- graphs, 2025

    2025

  86. [93]

    Discrete-to-continuum rates of convergence for non- local p-Laplacian evolution problems.Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 13(4):iaae031, 11 2024

    Adrien Weihs, Jalal Fadili, and Matthew Thorpe. Discrete-to-continuum rates of convergence for non- local p-Laplacian evolution problems.Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 13(4):iaae031, 11 2024

    2024

  87. [95]

    Graph learning: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2(2):109–127, 2021

    Feng Xia, Ke Sun, Shuo Yu, Abdul Aziz, Liangtian Wan, Shirui Pan, and Huan Liu. Graph learning: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2(2):109–127, 2021

    2021

  88. [96]

    Semi-supervised hypergraph node classification on hypergraph line expansion

    Chaoqi Yang, Ruijie Wang, Shuochao Yao, and Tarek Abdelzaher. Semi-supervised hypergraph node classification on hypergraph line expansion. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, CIKM ’22, page 2352–2361, New York, NY , USA...

    2022

  89. [97]

    Damián H. Zanette. Beyond networks: opinion formation in triplet-based populations.Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 367(1901):3311–3319, 2009

    1901

  90. [98]

    Dynamic hypergraph structure learning

    Zizhao Zhang, Haojie Lin, and Yue Gao. Dynamic hypergraph structure learning. InProceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’18, page 3162–3169. AAAI Press, 2018. 53

    2018

  91. [99]

    Semi-supervised learning on directed graphs

    Dengyong Zhou, Thomas Hofmann, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Semi-supervised learning on directed graphs. In L. Saul, Y . Weiss, and L. Bottou, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 17. MIT Press, 2004

    2004

  92. [100]

    Learning with hypergraphs: Clustering, classification, and embedding

    Dengyong Zhou, Jiayuan Huang, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Learning with hypergraphs: Clustering, classification, and embedding. In B. Schölkopf, J. Platt, and T. Hoffman, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 19. MIT Press, 2006

    2006

  93. [101]

    Learning from labeled and unlabeled data using random walks

    Dengyong Zhou and Bernhard Schölkopf. Learning from labeled and unlabeled data using random walks. In Carl Edward Rasmussen, Heinrich H. Bülthoff, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Martin A. Giese, editors,Pattern Recognition, pages 237–244, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2004

  94. [102]

    Semi-supervised learning by higher order regularization

    Xueyuan Zhou and Mikhail Belkin. Semi-supervised learning by higher order regularization. In Geof- frey Gordon, David Dunson, and Miroslav Dudík, editors,Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 15 ofProceedings o...

    2011

  95. [103]

    Semi-supervised learning using Gaussian fields and harmonic functions

    Xianjin Zhu, Zoubin Ghahramani, and John Lafferty. Semi-supervised learning using Gaussian fields and harmonic functions. InProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, 2003. 54 7 Complete numerical experiments In this section, we present the complete numer...

    2003

  96. [2013]

    Curran Associates Inc

  97. [2023]

    Springer International Publishing

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.