Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 40 references

This paper establishes that the statistical value of depth in message passing on a sparse graph is governed by a single Kesten–Stigum ratio κ=γ²Δ, with error saturating geometrically below κ=1 and compounding geometrically above it.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 20:16 UTC pith:4XPD3GXQ

load-bearing objection A careful theory paper that proves a clean Kesten-Stigum dichotomy for the value of depth in sparse-CSBM message passing, but the below-threshold half rests on a symmetry assumption the paper concedes is open when relaxed. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16676 v1 pith:4XPD3GXQ submitted 2026-07-18 math.ST cs.LGmath.PRstat.MLstat.TH

The Value of Depth in Message Passing on Sparse Graphs: A Kesten-Stigum Dichotomy

Aseem Raj Baranwal This is my paper
classification math.ST cs.LGmath.PRstat.MLstat.TH MSC 60J8005C8062H30
keywords sparse contextual stochastic block modelKesten–Stigum thresholdmessage-passing depthbroadcast process on treesbelief propagation linearizationgraph neural network depthlocal weak convergencePoisson Galton–Watson tree
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks how much statistical value the ℓ-th layer of a graph neural network adds on a sparse graph, and answers it in an exactly tractable model: node classification on the sparse contextual stochastic block model, whose local limit is a broadcast-labeled Poisson Galton–Watson tree. The author proves that for the pairwise message-passing classifier h_ℓ = sgn(Σ_{k≤ℓ}Σ_{v∈N_k} 2 artanh(γ^k t(X_v))), the entire depth–error curve is organized by the Kesten–Stigum ratio κ=γ²Δ. If κ<1, errors at different depths differ by at most Cκ^{(ℓ+1)/3}, so beyond depth O(log(1/ε)) additional layers move the error by less than ε, and a companion lower bound shows decisions still flip at rate κ^{ℓ/2}. If κ>1, each layer multiplies the decision statistic's signal-to-noise ratio by roughly κ, driving the error to a branching-process floor at a super-geometric rate. The practical upshot, if correct, is that on sparse graphs the useful depth is a small constant independent of graph size, and depth can never substitute for feature signal.

Core claim

On the limit tree, the classifier aggregates distance-attenuated evidence 2 artanh(γ^k t(X_v)) from every vertex at distance k. The paper's central discovery is that the entire error map E(ℓ) is governed by κ=γ²Δ. The key mechanism is an antisymmetry identity: under symmetric feature classes, the expected message from generation k is exactly opposite for the two labels, so generation-k evidence scales as κ^k rather than the naive (γΔ)^k, and its second moment vanishes geometrically when κ<1. This yields a geometric saturation theorem below the threshold (Theorem 3.1), a matching κ^{ℓ/2} decision-flip lower bound (Theorem 3.2), and a geometric amplification theorem above it (Theorem 3.3). A u

What carries the argument

The central object is the Kesten–Stigum ratio κ=γ²Δ, the square of the edge signal times the average degree, which is the same quantity that separates reconstructible from non-reconstructible broadcast processes. It is carried by two identities: the message antisymmetry E_−[M_k] = −E_+[M_k] for the clipped feature messages M_k(x) = 2 artanh(γ^k t(x)), and the broadcast/branching martingale W_k = D_k/(γΔ)^k, whose L² behavior is summable exactly when κ<1. Together they show that the net evidence of generation k has mean of order κ^k and fluctuation of order κ^{k/2}, so κ acts as the per-layer signal-to-noise gain; the same ratio reappears in the first layer's information budget.

Load-bearing premise

The below-threshold saturation proof relies on Assumption 1, that the two feature classes are symmetric via a measure-preserving involution (the Gaussian mixture with opposite means being the canonical case); without this symmetry, generation-k messages acquire a label-independent drift that the sign statistic does not re-center, and the stated κ^{ℓ/3} saturation may fail.

What would settle it

Simulate the classifier on broadcast-labeled Poisson Galton–Watson trees with asymmetric feature classes (e.g., N(µ,σ²) under label +1 and N(−µ,2σ²) under label −1) at κ<1 and measure |E(ℓ)−E(ℓ+1)|; if it does not decay geometrically at a rate governed by κ (or at least at the Lévy-form rate the appendix gives), the symmetry assumption is load-bearing.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Below the threshold (κ<1), all layers beyond O(log(1/ε)) combined change the error by less than ε, so on sparse graphs statistical gains from extra depth are exhausted at a bounded, size-independent horizon.
  • Above the threshold (κ>1), each additional layer multiplicatively improves the decision statistic, approaching a floor set by branching-process fluctuations that no amount of depth can repair.
  • No local classifier of any depth can beat the isolated-root floor e^{-Δ}Φ(−ζ), so depth is never a substitute for feature quality on sparse graphs.
  • The first layer strictly improves on feature-only classification by an explicit amount, so even where deep layers saturate, shallow message passing is provably useful.
  • Because the pairwise rule treats correlated deep evidence as independent, its error curve has a finite optimal depth; depth should be tuned as a hyperparameter rather than increased monotonically.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If this dichotomy transfers to trained GNNs, it predicts an information-limited regime in sparse graphs where depth should scale with log(1/ε), not with graph size or diameter—a testable design rule beyond the pairwise rule analyzed here.
  • For asymmetric or unbalanced feature classes, the exact cancellation that powers the below-threshold theorem fails; a natural extension is to test whether a recentred statistic restores geometric saturation, a case the paper leaves open.
  • The exact-BP baseline suggests that belief propagation saturates at a strictly faster per-layer ratio κ_BP < κ; proving this would require controlling the stationary law of the nonlinear BP message recursion, which the paper identifies but does not establish.
  • For multi-class models, the natural conjecture is to replace γ by the second eigenvalue λ of the class-transition matrix and use κ=λ²Δ as the organizing threshold, following the extension logic the paper sketches.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the depth-error tradeoff of the pairwise message-passing classifier h_ℓ = sgn(T_ℓ) on the local weak limit of the sparse CSBM, a broadcast-labeled Poisson Galton-Watson tree. The central claim is a Kesten-Stigum dichotomy organized by κ = γ²Δ. Below threshold (κ<1), Theorem 3.1 gives a geometric Cauchy bound on the error sequence, with Theorem 3.2 providing a matching κ^{ℓ/2} lower bound on decision flips; above threshold (κ>1), Theorem 3.3 bounds the error by a branching-process floor plus super-geometric signal terms. The paper also proves a universal floor, a certified strict first-layer improvement, finite-depth prescriptions O(log(1/ε)), identifies the pairwise rule as linearized belief propagation, and documents non-monotonicity of the depth-error curve with an exact certified instance. Simulations with an exact BP baseline and finite-graph transfer experiments accompany the theory, and the paper is unusually explicit about what its constants do and do not certify.

Significance. If the main dichotomy holds as stated, this is a valuable quantitative contribution to the theory of GNN depth on sparse graphs: it identifies a single parameter κ that governs whether additional message-passing layers are information-limited or information-productive, and it gives explicit depth prescriptions independent of graph size. The proofs are coherent second-moment/martingale arguments with a parameter-free derivation of the threshold, and the paper ships reproducible code, a certified non-monotonicity instance with strict error accounting, and a table honestly reporting the vacuity of constants at simulated parameters. These are genuine strengths. However, the below-threshold half is proven only under a symmetric-feature assumption whose removal the paper itself leaves open, the above-threshold theorem is non-vacuous only for κ>17, and the claimed L2 convergence of T_ℓ is not justified by the stated assumptions. These gaps need to be addressed before the dichotomy can be accepted at the level claimed in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Lemma 4.2(i), §6] The below-threshold dichotomy is proved only under Assumption 1. Lemma 4.2(i) supplies the exact antisymmetry E_-[M_k] = -m_k, and every use of the mean part of Lemma 4.4 depends on it. Without Assumption 1, E[R|G] contains a label-independent drift term of order (γΔ)^k; for Δ=3, γ=0.55 one has κ=0.9075<1 but γΔ=1.65, so this drift can destroy the cancellation that produces the κ^{ℓ+1} rate. Section 6 explicitly states that under class asymmetry the mean message acquires a label-independent drift 'that sgn(T_ℓ) does not re-center' and that saturation for a recentered statistic 'is open.' The abstract and Theorem 3.1 nevertheless state the dichotomy without this caveat. The central below-threshold claim should be restricted to the symmetric-feature CSBM throughout, or extended to a recentered statistic.
  2. [§4.2, Theorem 3.1] The claim that T_ℓ converges in L2 requires E[(log ψ(X_o))^2] < ∞. Assumption 3 only bounds the density of log ψ(X) by B; a bounded density does not imply a finite second moment (e.g., density proportional to 1/(1+x^2)). Lemma 4.4 proves an L2-Cauchy bound only for the non-root part R; T_0 = log ψ(X_o) may have infinite second moment. As stated, 'T_ℓ converges in L2' is not justified. This does not affect the error-tail bound (6), but it does affect the identification of E(∞) as the error of a bona fide infinite-depth L2 statistic. Add a second-moment assumption (satisfied by the Gaussian example) or replace L2 convergence by convergence in probability/a.s.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (7)] The above-threshold bound is non-vacuous only for κ>17: the floor term 16/(κ−1) exceeds 1 for κ≤17. Since κ<Δ, this excludes every sparse configuration with Δ≤17, including the simulated κ=2.25, Δ=3. Thus the theorem as stated does not certify 'depth is geometrically productive' in the sparse regime; the abstract's above-threshold sentence is stronger than what is proved. The paper is admirably explicit in Table 1 about this, but the central statement should be qualified, or the floor constant improved by the kind of left-tail control of W_∞ discussed in §6.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.2] The text refers to 'Theorem 4.2' for antisymmetry of the messages, but the statement is Lemma 4.2. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [§4.3, Step 1] In the proof of Theorem 3.3, the line P(W_1 < 3/4) ≤ 16 Var(W_1) = 16 κ^{-1} uses the exact variance κ^{-1}; the displayed text can be misread as the looser 16/(κ−1). Spell out Var(W_1)=κ^{-1} to avoid confusion.
  3. [§2.3 / Appendix A] Assumption 3 is described as needed only for Theorem 3.1, but Appendix A immediately provides the Lévy-concentration form that is the right statement for atomic feature laws. Consider moving that remark into Section 2.3 so the scope of Assumption 3 is clear from the outset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the κ-dichotomy is a parameter-free derivation from stated assumptions; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central dichotomy is derived, not fitted. Theorem 3.1's below-threshold rate κ^{(ℓ+1)/3} follows from the second-moment tail bound in Lemma 4.4, whose cancellation uses Assumption 1 (symmetric features) through Lemma 4.2(i), E_-[M_k]=-m_k. This is an explicitly stated model assumption, not an input that already contains the target theorem; Section 6 openly concedes that without it the mean message acquires a drift and the survival of saturation 'is open', which confirms the result's scope rather than concealing a circularity. Theorem 3.3 above threshold is likewise self-contained and is explicitly flagged as non-vacuous only for κ>17, with its geometric term identified as a truncation cost rather than a signal-driven rate. The classifier h_ℓ is imported from the author's prior work [8], but as the object under study, not as evidence for the new claims; the new theorems are proved from Lemmas 4.1–4.5 and standard branching-process facts. The finite-graph transfer in Remark 3.7 cites [8] but is supported by local weak convergence and by the paper's own finite-n simulations (±0.002 agreement), so it is not load-bearing for the limit-tree dichotomy. Empirically computed quantities—fitted flip rates and κ_BP—are explicitly presented as measurements or annealed predictions, not as theorem inputs. No prediction reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, and no load-bearing conclusion rests solely on a self-citation chain. The honest limitation statements in Section 6 and Table 1 are correctness/scope caveats, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data in the central claims: Theorems 3.1–3.3 are parameter-free given the model constants, with explicit (loose) constants. The honest flags — κ_BP is an annealed empirical prediction; s is a free truncation rate; t0=0.95 is a chosen certified instance — are listed above. The axioms are dominated by the symmetry assumption (1), the engine of the sub-threshold cancellation and the main scope restriction; the others are standard (bounded density, informative features) or classical background (local weak convergence, Kesten–Stigum L² convergence, Berry–Esseen). No new physical or probabilistic entities are postulated except κ_BP, which carries independent falsifiable content (it predicts the BP flip decay rate).

free parameters (3)
  • truncation rate s (Theorem 3.3) = any s ∈ (0,1)
    Free parameter of the Markov truncation in (7); the paper explicitly notes the geometric term 2κ^{−sℓ} is a truncation artifact, not a signal-driven rate.
  • effective BP ratio κ_BP = Δ E[F'_γ(L)²] = √κ_BP ≈ 0.424, 0.559, 0.621 at κ = 1/3, 0.653, 0.923 (ζ=0.6); κ_BP = 0.356 at κ = 2.25
    Computed numerically via population dynamics (pool 2×10^6, 20 iterations); the paper calls it an annealed prediction whose status is 'quantitative agreement, not proof', used to predict BP flip decay rates 0.41/0.54/0.58.
  • two-point feature law parameter t0 (Appendix C) = 0.95
    Chosen instance for the certified non-monotonicity computation; not a fit, an example. The paper acknowledges the atomless-density Assumption 3 does not hold for this instance.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: symmetric mutually absolutely continuous feature classes with measure-preserving involution τ, ρ_− = ρ_+∘τ
    Drives the message antisymmetry Lemma 4.2(i) that is the engine of the below-threshold cancellation in Theorem 3.1. Section 6 states the below-threshold picture may be brittle to asymmetry (label-independent drift that sgn(T_ℓ) does not re-center).
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: ϑ = E+[t(X)²] > 0 (informative features)
    Needed for the signal lower bound m_k ≥ 2γ^kϑ (Lemma 4.2(ii)) used in both regime theorems.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: log ψ(X) has density bounded by B under P+ (non-atomic)
    Used exactly once, via anti-concentration Lemma 4.5, for the upper bound in Theorem 3.1; the paper notes (Appendix A) the general statement replaces 2Bs by the Lévy concentration function, so this condition is a convenience.
  • standard math Local weak convergence of the sparse CSBM to a PGW(Δ) broadcast tree (Aldous–Steele / Benjamini–Schramm, cited [3,9,13,29])
    The whole analysis happens on the limit object; finite-graph transfer (Remark 3.7) holds per fixed depth with the iterated-limit caveat for statements about E(∞).
  • standard math Kesten–Stigum L² martingale convergence for supercritical GW processes (κ>1): Var(W_∞) ≤ 1/(κ−1) (Lemma 4.3(v))
    Used in the above-threshold proof (Theorem 3.3) for the bad-branching-event probability and the drift of W_k away from W_1.
  • standard math Berry–Esseen bound for independent bounded non-identically distributed summands (Petrov, Ch. V)
    Used in the proof of Theorem 3.2 to lower-bound the newest-generation flip probability; contributes to the explicit but loose constants and the initial-depth ℓ0.
  • domain assumption Δ > 1 throughout (Section 2.1)
    Keeps the branching process supercritical (nontrivial neighborhoods); the paper notes κ < Δ always, which is why the above-threshold theorem requires average degree > 17.
invented entities (1)
  • κ_BP = Δ E[F'_γ(L)²], the effective per-layer BP ratio independent evidence
    purpose: To predict that exact BP's decision flips decay strictly faster than the pairwise rule's, at rate √κ_BP < √κ, refining the claim that BP saturates faster.
    The ratio is computed by population dynamics (2×10^6 pool, 20 iterations) and predicts measured BP flip rates (√κ_BP = 0.424/0.559/0.621 vs measured 0.41/0.54/0.58). The paper explicitly flags that the stationary message law's existence is empirical, not proven, and the derivation is annealed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26815 in / 24811 out tokens · 237557 ms · 2026-08-01T20:16:59.387777+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

How deep does a graph neural network need to be on a sparse graph? We study its purest statistical form: node classification on the sparse contextual stochastic block model (CSBM) with average degree $\Delta=O(1)$, whose local weak limit is a broadcast-labelled Poisson Galton-Watson tree. Prior work derived a message-passing classifier $h_\ell$ that aggregates from each vertex at distance $k\le\ell$ the attenuated evidence $2\operatorname{artanh}(\gamma^k t(X_v))$, with $\gamma$ the edge signal and $t$ a bounded likelihood-ratio transform of the feature. We prove that the value of depth is governed by a single number, the Kesten-Stigum ratio $\kappa=\gamma^2\Delta$. Below the threshold ($\kappa<1$), the error sequence is Cauchy at a geometric rate, $|\mathcal{E}(\ell)-\mathcal{E}(\ell')|\le C\kappa^{(\ell+1)/3}$ for all $\ell'>\ell$, so all layers beyond depth $O(\log(1/\epsilon))$ change the error by less than $\epsilon$; conversely, under mild regularity each sufficiently deep layer still flips the decision with probability at least $c\kappa^{\ell/2}$, the empirically sharp exponent. Above the threshold ($\kappa>1$), depth is geometrically productive: $\mathcal{E}(\ell)$ is driven to a branching-process floor of order at most $1/(\kappa-1)$ at any geometric rate $\kappa^{-s\ell}$, $s<1$ (this bound has content only for $\kappa>17$). No local classifier of any depth beats the universal floor $e^{-\Delta}\Phi(-\zeta)$ set by isolated roots ($\zeta$ the feature signal-to-noise ratio), while the first layer provably helps by an explicit total-variation amount. Simulations with an exact belief-propagation baseline on the same trees show that the pairwise rule's error curve is mildly non-monotone in $\ell$, so an optimal finite depth exists (an exact instance is certified in the appendix), while BP saturates strictly faster, at an effective per-layer ratio below $\kappa$ that we identify.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16676 by Aseem Raj Baranwal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Error against depth ℓ on the limit tree for the pairwise rule hℓ (solid, filled markers) and exact BP truncated at depth ℓ (dashed), computed on the same trees, for feature strengths ζ ∈ {0.4, 0.6, 0.9} (∆ = 3; 4 × 105 trees per point; shaded bands are ±2 standard errors). Left (below threshold, κ = 0.65): the pairwise curves saturate within 2–3 layers and then drift mildly upward (Theorem 3.9), while the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: probability that one more layer changes the decision, below the threshold (∆ = 3, ζ = 0.6; 6 × 105 trees): pairwise rule (solid) and exact BP (dashed), on the same trees. Both decay geometrically, BP strictly faster; fitted rates, and the effective-ratio prediction for BP, are reported in the text. Right: the tree-limit curves (lines) against the classifier run on finite sparse CSBM graphs with n = 2… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: the near-critical window: E(ℓ) for κ ∈ {0.95, 1.00, 1.05} (∆ = 3, ζ = 0.6, 2 × 105 trees per point, depths to ℓ = 8; bands are ±2 standard errors). The three pairwise curves have the same shape—minima 0.196, 0.191, 0.185 at ℓ ∈ {2, 3}, then matched upward drift—and nothing at these depths signals which side of the threshold each sits on: the dichotomy is an asymptotic statement, and near κ = 1 a crit… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Community detection and stochastic block models: Recent developments

    Emmanuel Abbe. Community detection and stochastic block models: Recent developments. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(177):1–86, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    Achieving the KS threshold in the general stochastic block model with linearized acyclic belief propagation

    Emmanuel Abbe and Colin Sandon. Achieving the KS threshold in the general stochastic block model with linearized acyclic belief propagation. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), volume 29, pages 1334–1342, 2016

    2016

  3. [3]

    Michael Steele

    David Aldous and J. Michael Steele. The objective method: Probabilistic combinatorial optimization and local weak convergence. InProbability on Discrete Structures, volume 110 ofEncyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, pages 1–72. Springer, 2004

    2004

  4. [4]

    On the bottleneck of graph neural networks and its practical implications

    Uri Alon and Eran Yahav. On the bottleneck of graph neural networks and its practical implications. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, 2024

    Aseem Baranwal.Statistical Foundations for Learning on Graphs. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Graph convolution for semi- supervised classification: Improved linear separability and out-of-distribution generalization

    Aseem Baranwal, Kimon Fountoulakis, and Aukosh Jagannath. Graph convolution for semi- supervised classification: Improved linear separability and out-of-distribution generalization. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 684–693, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Effects of graph convolutions in multi-layer networks

    Aseem Baranwal, Kimon Fountoulakis, and Aukosh Jagannath. Effects of graph convolutions in multi-layer networks. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Optimality of message- passing architectures for sparse graphs

    Aseem Baranwal, Kimon Fountoulakis, and Aukosh Jagannath. Optimality of message- passing architectures for sparse graphs. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 36, 2023. Updated version: arXiv:2305.10391

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Recurrence of distributional limits of finite planar graphs

    Itai Benjamini and Oded Schramm. Recurrence of distributional limits of finite planar graphs. Electronic Journal of Probability, 6(23):1–13, 2001

    2001

  10. [10]

    Nonbacktracking spectrum of random graphs: Community detection and nonregular Ramanujan graphs.The Annals of Probability, 46(1):1–71, 2018

    Charles Bordenave, Marc Lelarge, and Laurent Massouli´ e. Nonbacktracking spectrum of random graphs: Community detection and nonregular Ramanujan graphs.The Annals of Probability, 46(1):1–71, 2018. Conference version in FOCS 2015

    2018

  11. [11]

    Supervised community detection with line graph neural networks

    Zhengdao Chen, Lisha Li, and Joan Bruna. Supervised community detection with line graph neural networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019

    2019

  12. [12]

    Asymptotic analysis of the stochastic block model for modular networks and its algorithmic applications

    Aurelien Decelle, Florent Krzakala, Cristopher Moore, and Lenka Zdeborov´ a. Asymptotic analysis of the stochastic block model for modular networks and its algorithmic applications. Physical Review E, 84(6):066106, 2011. 22

    2011

  13. [13]

    Contextual stochastic block models

    Yash Deshpande, Subhabrata Sen, Andrea Montanari, and Elchanan Mossel. Contextual stochastic block models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 31, 2018

    2018

  14. [14]

    Schulman

    William Evans, Claire Kenyon, Yuval Peres, and Leonard J. Schulman. Broadcasting on trees and the Ising model.The Annals of Applied Probability, 10(2):410–433, 2000

    2000

  15. [15]

    Graph attention retrospective.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(246):1–52, 2023

    Kimon Fountoulakis, Amit Levi, Shenghao Yang, Aseem Baranwal, and Aukosh Jagannath. Graph attention retrospective.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(246):1–52, 2023

    2023

  16. [16]

    Robust reconstruction on trees is determined by the second eigenvalue.The Annals of Probability, 32(3B):2630–2649, 2004

    Svante Janson and Elchanan Mossel. Robust reconstruction on trees is determined by the second eigenvalue.The Annals of Probability, 32(3B):2630–2649, 2004

    2004

  17. [17]

    Global and local information in clustering labeled block models.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(10):5906– 5917, 2016

    Varun Kanade, Elchanan Mossel, and Tselil Schramm. Global and local information in clustering labeled block models.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(10):5906– 5917, 2016

    2016

  18. [18]

    Not too little, not too much: A theoretical analysis of graph (over)smoothing

    Nicolas Keriven. Not too little, not too much: A theoretical analysis of graph (over)smoothing. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 35, 2022

    2022

  19. [19]

    Harry Kesten and Bernt P. Stigum. A limit theorem for multidimensional Galton–Watson processes.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 37(5):1211–1223, 1966

    1966

  20. [20]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017

    2017

  21. [21]

    Spectral redemption in clustering sparse networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(52):20935–20940, 2013

    Florent Krzakala, Cristopher Moore, Elchanan Mossel, Joe Neeman, Allan Sly, Lenka Zde- borov´ a, and Pan Zhang. Spectral redemption in clustering sparse networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(52):20935–20940, 2013

    2013

  22. [22]

    Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learning

    Qimai Li, Zhichao Han, and Xiao-Ming Wu. Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learning. InProceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3538–3545, 2018

    2018

  23. [23]

    What graph neural networks cannot learn: Depth vs width

    Andreas Loukas. What graph neural networks cannot learn: Depth vs width. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020

    2020

  24. [24]

    Contextual stochastic block model: Sharp thresholds and contiguity.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(54):1–34, 2023

    Chen Lu and Subhabrata Sen. Contextual stochastic block model: Sharp thresholds and contiguity.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(54):1–34, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Community detection thresholds and the weak Ramanujan property

    Laurent Massouli´ e. Community detection thresholds and the weak Ramanujan property. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 694–703, 2014

    2014

  26. [26]

    Reconstruction on trees and spin glass transition

    Marc M´ ezard and Andrea Montanari. Reconstruction on trees and spin glass transition. Journal of Statistical Physics, 124(6):1317–1350, 2006

    2006

  27. [27]

    Reconstruction on trees: Beating the second eigenvalue.The Annals of Applied Probability, 11(1):285–300, 2001

    Elchanan Mossel. Reconstruction on trees: Beating the second eigenvalue.The Annals of Applied Probability, 11(1):285–300, 2001

    2001

  28. [28]

    Information flow on trees.The Annals of Applied Probability, 13(3):817–844, 2003

    Elchanan Mossel and Yuval Peres. Information flow on trees.The Annals of Applied Probability, 13(3):817–844, 2003. 23

    2003

  29. [29]

    Reconstruction and estimation in the planted partition model.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 162(3-4):431–461, 2015

    Elchanan Mossel, Joe Neeman, and Allan Sly. Reconstruction and estimation in the planted partition model.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 162(3-4):431–461, 2015

    2015

  30. [30]

    A proof of the block model threshold conjecture

    Elchanan Mossel, Joe Neeman, and Allan Sly. A proof of the block model threshold conjecture. Combinatorica, 38(3):665–708, 2018

    2018

  31. [31]

    Graph neural networks exponentially lose expressive power for node classification

    Kenta Oono and Taiji Suzuki. Graph neural networks exponentially lose expressive power for node classification. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020

    2020

  32. [32]

    Petrov.Limit Theorems of Probability Theory: Sequences of Independent Random Variables, volume 4 ofOxford Studies in Probability

    Valentin V. Petrov.Limit Theorems of Probability Theory: Sequences of Independent Random Variables, volume 4 ofOxford Studies in Probability. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995

    1995

  33. [33]

    Graph attention networks

    Petar Veliˇ ckovi´ c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Li` o, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Repre- sentations (ICLR), 2018

    2018

  34. [34]

    Analysis of corrected graph convolutions

    Robert Wang, Aseem Baranwal, and Kimon Fountoulakis. Analysis of corrected graph convolutions. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 37,

  35. [35]

    A non-asymptotic analysis of oversmoothing in graph neural networks

    Xinyi Wu, Zhengdao Chen, William Wang, and Ali Jadbabaie. A non-asymptotic analysis of oversmoothing in graph neural networks. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023. A Complements to the below-threshold analysis The proof of Theorem 3.1 gives, verbatim, the following form of the saturation bound, which does not u...

    2023

  36. [36]

    ≤C 1κ/V0 = p2/8. Writing fWj := Sj/∆j, the shape martingale satisfies EfWj = 1 and EfW 2 j ≤ 1 + 1 ∆−1 (the computation of Theorem 4.3(iii) with γ = 1), so the Paley–Zygmund inequality gives P(G2) ≥ (1/2)2 EfW 2 j ≥ ∆−1 4∆ = p2, uniformly in ℓ. By Theorem 4.3(iv), ED2 ℓ+1 ≤ (γ∆)2(ℓ+1)κ−(ℓ+1)/(1 −κ ), so P(Gc 3)≤ 1 M 2(1−κ) =p 2/8. HenceG:=G 1 ∩G 2 ∩G 3 ha...

  37. [37]

    the level-3 signs attached to one level-2 vertex of relative labelσ2 sum to a Skellam 3q, 3(1−q) variable,q= 1+γt0σ2 2

  38. [38]

    a group of n level-2 vertices of common label contributes an independent pair: the level-2 signs sum to 2 Binom(n, p2) −n with p2 = 1+t0σ2 2 , and their level-3 children to Skellam(3nq, 3n(1 − q))

  39. [39]

    each level-1 vertex’s children split into independent Poi ∆(1+γ) 2 same-label and Poi ∆(1−γ) 2 flipped-label groups; convolving the two groups gives the per-child law A(m2, m3 |σ 1), with A(· | −1) the reflection ofA(· |+1) by global sign symmetry

  40. [40]

    conditioning on the root’s group sizes ( i, j) makes m1 an independent sum of two shifted binomials and (m 2, m3) the convolutionA(·|+1) ∗i ∗A(·|−1) ∗j. The computation evaluates these finite convolutions on truncated integer boxes with a strict accounting rule: every distribution is kept as asub-probability and never renormalized, so each array’s mass de...