Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 77 references

A Graphop Analysis of Graph Neural Networks on Sparse Graphs: Generalization and Universal Approximation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Graph limits called bofops give message-passing networks a compact, universal theory over sparse and dense graphs of all sizes.

desk verdict Substantial but not finished: new Hölder machinery for graphop-based MPNN analysis is mostly solid, but the main compactness theorem hinges on an unverified import from overlapping prior work and a non-sequitur in the key proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.08785 v2 pith:Q3ZDPMUZ submitted 2026-02-09 cs.LG

Ofek Amran , Tom Gilat , Ron Levie This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords graphneuralnetworksmessagepassinglimitsgraphopsbofopsuniversalapproximationgeneralizationboundsiterateddegreemeasures
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

The paper claims that message-passing graph neural networks (MPNNs) can be analysed uniformly over every graph of every size, sparse or dense, inside a single compact metric space. The construction extends graphop theory — a graph-limit formalism where graphs become linear operators on function spaces — to include node features, producing objects called bofop-signals whose neighborhoods are measures with uniformly bounded mass. On these bofop-signals the authors prove that MPNNs are Hölder continuous with respect to a fine 'action' metric, and that this continuity transfers to a coarser metric, the DIDM-mover's distance, which is exactly the metric that matches what MPNNs can distinguish via the 1-WL colour-refinement test. Because the bofop-DIDM space is compact and MPNNs separate its points, the Stone-Weierstrass theorem yields a universal approximation result, and compactness together with equicontinuity yields a covering-number generalisation bound: the gap between training and test loss vanishes as sample size grows. The theory is deliberately restricted to bofops, which the authors call critical, and it leaves open an explicit bound on the covering number.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are bofop-signals (self-adjoint, positivity-preserving operators on L^p spaces whose fiber measures have uniformly bounded total mass) paired with node-feature signals, together with two metrics on them: the action metric, a weighted sum of Hausdorff distances between k-profile sets under the Wasserstein distance, and the DIDM-mover's distance, a recursive unbalanced optimal-transport distance between the distributions of iterated degree measures produced by the 1-WL colour refinement. The critical step is Theorem 5.2, which shows that action convergence implies DIDM-mover convergence. That implication is what turns the new Hölder continuity of MPNNs (Theorem 4.1) in

What would settle it

Construct a sequence of bofop-signals with uniformly bounded fiber mass whose 1-WL DIDMs converge in the unbalanced Wasserstein metric to a DIDM that provably cannot arise from any bofop-signal — for example, a colour histogram whose nodal-measure marginals are supported on feature values no bofop signal can attain. If such a limit exists, the bofop-DIDM space is not closed and the compactness theorem fails; checking this for a concrete sequence (e.g., growing bounded-degree graphs approaching a graphing) would settle the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: the space of bofop-DIDMs of order L — distributions of iterated degree measures produced by running the 1-WL algorithm on bofop-signals with uniformly bounded operator norm — is compact under the DIDM-mover's distance (Corollary 5.3). MPNNs are uniformly equicontinuous on this space and separate its points, so every DIDM-mover-continuous real-valued function on bofop-signals is uniformly approximable by an MPNN (Theorem M.1). The same compactness gives a generalisation bound: for any data distribution over bofop-signals, the difference between empirical and statistical risk of an MPNN with bounded Lipschitz constants tends to zero as the sample size grows, at a rate

Load-bearing premise

The compactness argument imports a theorem from a companion paper — that two bofop-signals are close in DIDM-mover distance exactly when every MPNN gives close outputs on them — and also asserts, without a located proof, that finite graphs are dense in bofop space; the authors themselves label the restriction to uniformly bounded operator norm (bofops) as critical, since the continuity analysis fails for general graphops.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any continuous function on bofop-signals — sparse or dense, any size — can be uniformly approximated by an MPNN of sufficient depth and width.
  • For any probability distribution over bofop-signals, the gap between a trained MPNN's empirical error and its true statistical error vanishes as the training set grows, with a rate set by the (finite but unquantified) covering number of the bofop-DIDM space.
  • Both sum aggregation and normalized-sum aggregation arise as limits of bofop-signals, so sparse and dense graphs live in the same framework, unlike earlier graphon-based analyses that only fit dense graphs or bounded-size sparse graphs.
  • The hierarchy of DIDM spaces is strict: dense-graph DIDMs form a proper subspace of bofop-DIDMs, which in turn form a proper subspace of all formal DIDMs.
  • The DIDM-mover's distance characterises MPNN expressivity on bofop-signals: two bofop-signals have identical outputs under every MPNN exactly when their DIDM-mover distance is zero.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the compactness theorem holds, the generalisation bound applies to any i.i.d. sampling scheme from a bofop-generating process, including sparse graphs of unbounded size — a regime where previous graphon-based bounds degrade to zero aggregation or require a uniform bound on graph size.
  • The paper's own conjecture that MPNNs are not uniformly equicontinuous for general (unbounded-fiber) graphops suggests a stress test: construct a sequence of graphops with growing operator norm whose DIDM-mover limit exists but whose MPNN outputs do not converge, which would confirm that the bofop restriction is essential, not a technicality.
  • An explicit covering-number bound for bofop-DIDMs — the paper leaves this open — would convert the implicit generalisation guarantee into a practical sample-complexity estimate, analogous to the cut-distance bounds known for graphon-signals.
  • Because MPNNs on profiles commute with MPNNs on bofop-signals, profiles are a candidate computational surrogate for graphs; the paper notes profiles currently lack the structure for numerical algorithms, so a measurable profile representation could open a new route to graph learning on limit objects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a graphop-based framework for analyzing MPNNs on sparse and dense graphs of arbitrary size. It extends graphop theory to graphop-signals, introduces bofop-signals (bounded fiber operators with node features), defines an action metric via profiles, and proves compactness of the space of bofop-signals under this metric. It then extends the 1-WL/DIDM construction to bofops, defines the DIDM-mover's distance, and claims that the action topology is finer than the DIDM-mover topology (Theorem 5.2), yielding compactness of the space of bofop-DIDMs (Corollary 5.3). From this compactness, together with Hölder continuity and separation of points by MPNNs, the paper derives universal approximation and generalization results (Appendix M). The main mathematical chain is: action compactness (H.21) → Hölder continuity of MPNNs (J) → continuity of the DIDM map (L.1) → compactness of bofop-DIDMs (5.3) → universal approximation and generalization. The central claim is an interesting and substantial extension of prior graphon-based analyses to sparse graphs, but the proof of the pivotal implication in Appendix L.1 contains an invalid step, and the imported separation theorem E.11 is not verified for the modified IDM spaces.

Significance. If the compactness result and the continuity estimates are established rigorously, this is a meaningful advance: it provides a compact metric space that contains both sparse and dense graphs of all sizes, on which MPNNs are uniformly equicontinuous and separate points, and it yields universal approximation and generalization bounds beyond the dense-graph regime. The paper also introduces a useful hierarchy of DIDM spaces (graphon-DIDMs ⊂ bofop-DIDMs ⊂ all DIDMs). Strengths include explicit Hölder estimates in Appendix J, a detailed profile-based formulation of MPNNs, and the careful separation of the action metric (too fine) from the DIDM-mover metric (matching MPNN separation power). However, the validity of the central compactness result currently rests on an imported theorem whose hypotheses are not checked for the r-bounded setting, and on a proof step in Appendix L.1 that is not justified as written. The result is promising but needs significant revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Theorem 4.1 vs. Appendix J (Theorems J.1, J.2)] Theorem 4.1 states a Lipschitz bound: dM((A1,h1^L),(A2,h2^L)) ≤ C_{D,r} dM((A1,f1),(A2,f2)), and similarly for the readout output H. However, Appendix J proves only Hölder continuity with exponent 1/(p d): Theorem J.1 gives dM(...) ≤ C dM(...)^{1/(p d)} and Theorem J.2 gives the same exponent for the profile-level output. Since the exponent is generally not 1, the main-text theorem is not supported by the appendix. The later arguments require only uniform equicontinuity, so the Hölder statement is likely sufficient, but the discrepancy must be fixed by either weakening Theorem 4.1 to the Hölder statement proved in Appendix J or supplying a genuine Lipschitz proof.
  2. [Appendix L.1, proof of Theorem L.1] The proof contains an invalid intermediate step. After invoking Theorem J.2, it concludes from convergence of the scalar/profile-level output that, for every k, dH(S_k(A_n,h_n^L), S_k(A,h^L)) → 0, and hence dM((A_n,h_n^L),(A,h^L)) → 0. Theorem J.2 only gives convergence of the final MPNN output, not convergence of the full k-profiles of the propagated signal. This step is not justified. The conclusion can likely be repaired by using Theorem J.1 directly on the action convergence of the original bofop-signals, then translating MPNN outputs on bofop-signals to MPNN outputs on DIDMs via Lemma K.4, and finally invoking Theorem E.11. The proof should be rewritten along these lines, since this theorem is the hinge for Corollary 5.3 and all subsequent compactness-based claims.
  3. [§5.1, Definition 5.1 and Appendix K.1; Theorem E.11] The paper changes the IDM spaces from M_{≤1}(H_L) to M_{≤r}(H_L), with the remark 'This generalization does not affect our analysis' (Section 5.1). Theorem E.11, imported from [50], is stated for probability measures P(H_L) over the original IDM hierarchy. The equivalence between convergence of all MPNN outputs and convergence in δ^L_DIDM is used in the last step of Theorem L.1, and it must be verified for the enlarged r-bounded IDM spaces that are actually used for bofop-DIDMs. As written, the applicability of E.11 to Γ_L(BF^r_d) is asserted, not proved. This is load-bearing: if the separation/equivalence theorem fails or requires additional hypotheses in the r-bounded setting, the compactness of the bofop-DIDM space collapses.
  4. [§1, contribution 2; §7] The paper claims that the space of sparse and dense graphs of all sizes is dense in the space of bofops, and hence that bofops are the completion of the space of graphs. I could not locate a proof of this density statement in the provided text. Since the 'unified approach' of the paper relies on this identification, the authors should either state it as a theorem with a proof or explicit reference, or clearly mark it as a conjecture/assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §4.3] The abstract says MPNNs are 'Hölder continuous' with respect to the compact metric, while Theorem 4.1 in §4.3 claims Lipschitz continuity. Align the terminology with what is actually proved in Appendix J.
  2. [Appendix M.1, proof of Theorem M.1] The proof states that 'N N^1_L separates points of H_L'. This should be 'separates points of Γ_L(BF^r_d)' (or of the quotient by δ^L_DIDM), since the domain of interest is the space of bofop-DIDMs, not the full IDM space H_L.
  3. [§6.1] Typography: 'A prior, without establishing...' should be 'A priori, without establishing...'.
  4. [§1 (contributions list)] There are several typos: 'baphops' should be 'bofops', 'hance' should be 'hence', 'apporoach' should be 'approach', 'conenctivities' should be 'connectivities', 'grpahop' should be 'graphop'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  5. [§5.2 / Corollary 5.3] Corollary 5.3 claims the strict inclusion Γ_L(BF^r_d) ⊊ P(H_L). The strictness is plausible from analogy with Example E.7, but it is not demonstrated for bofop-DIDMs in the main text; a short argument or reference would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity; central compactness result has independent content despite load-bearing import of Theorem E.11 and a proof gap in Theorem L.1.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters, and no quantity is defined in terms of the result it is used to predict. The central chain is: compactness of (BF^r_d,d_M) is proved from profile/Hausdorff compactness (Cor. H.21); MPNN Hölder continuity on the action metric is proved in Appendix J; Theorem L.1 then transfers this to the DIDM-mover topology, yielding compactness of bofop-DIDMs (Cor. 5.3), universality (Thm. M.1), and generalization (App. M.2). The transfer step invokes Theorem E.11 of [50] ('convergence of DIDMs is equivalent to the convergence of every MPNN on the DIDMs'). This is an overlapping-author prior result, but under Rule 4 it is independent support: it is parameter-free and its stated assumptions do not include the target compactness of bofop-DIDMs. Two non-circular concerns should be flagged: (i) the paper asserts without proof that changing IDM masses from ≤1 to ≤r 'does not affect our analysis' (Sec. 5.1), which is a hypothesis-verification gap for applying E.11; (ii) the proof of Theorem L.1 as written infers d_H(S_k(A_n,h^(L)),S_k(A,h^(L)))→0 from MPNN output convergence, which is not a consequence; a repair via Thm. J.1 + Lemma K.4 + E.11 is plausible. These are correctness risks, not by-construction circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The framework imports its background from two prior theories: DIDM/mover-distance and graphon-signal analysis from the authors' own group ([50], with [8]), and graphop/profile/action-convergence from Backhausz–Szegedy [4]. To this it adds the bofop restriction, feature signals, and profile-based MPNN operations. The free-parameter ledger is empty: there is no numerical fitting anywhere. The axioms above are the load-bearing imported premises and domain restrictions; the most fragile is the imported equivalence theorem E.11 of [50], on which the compactness of bofop-DIDMs and hence the UA/generalization theorems hinge.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption DIDM convergence is equivalent to convergence of every MPNN output on DIDMs (Theorem E.11, from [50])
    Invoked in the final step of Theorem L.1 (Appendix L.1) and in §5.3; it converts action-metric continuity into compactness of bofop-DIDMs (Cor. 5.3) and hence into Theorem M.1. Imported from co-authored prior work; not reproved here.
  • domain assumption Ambient DIDM spaces: P(H_L) is compact and metrizable by the DIDM-mover's distance; graphon-DIDMs form a compact strict subspace; dense graph-DIDMs are dense in graphon-DIDMs ([50], Thms. 4, 64–65, 79)
    Used in §5.4 (hierarchy claims) and in M.1, where a continuous function on the compact bofop-DIDM space is extended to all DIDMs via Tietze.
  • domain assumption 1-WL/MPNN commutation and Lipschitz continuity of MPNNs on DIDMs (Lemma 11 and Theorem E.10 of [50]; extended to bofops in K.3–K.4)
    Bridges bofop-signal outputs to DIDM outputs; needed for Theorem L.1 and for the uniform equicontinuity claim in §5.
  • domain assumption Graphop machinery of [4]: representing measure and fibers (Thm. 6.3; Thm. 3.3 here), action convergence and profile compactness (Thm. 2.9 and §8 of [4])
    The entire framework is 'based on, and extends' [4] (abstract); bofops are the G_{1,1}=G_{∞,∞} subclass of graphops plus a signal, and the action metric is the weighted Hausdorff metric of profiles from [4].
  • domain assumption MPNN update and readout functions are Lipschitz and node features are bounded in [−1,1]^d (Def. C.1; §2.2)
    All constants in Appendix J are functions of the Lipschitz constants of φ^(l),ψ and of the norm bound r; the Hölder exponent 1/(pd) arises from the operator-norm index p and the feature/channel count d.
  • domain assumption Graph inputs are normalized so that their bofop norm is uniformly bounded (normalized sum A/|V|, symmetric average D^{-1/2}AD^{-1/2}, etc.); unnormalized sum aggregation on growing graphs is excluded
    Compactness holds on BF^r_d only; §2.2 admits that sum aggregation diverges as graph size grows, and §7 flags the bofop restriction as critical, conjecturing that MPNNs are not equicontinuous for general graphops in G_{∞,1}.
  • standard math Standard tools: Stone–Weierstrass, Tychonoff, disintegration, Kantorovich–Rubinstein duality, Tietze extension
    Invoked throughout: Thm. C.4 (Stone–Weierstrass), Thm. A.3 (Tychonoff), Thm. A.20 (disintegration), Thm. G.4 (duality), and the extension step in §6.1 and Thm. M.1.
invented entities (3)
  • bofop / bofop-signal (bounded fiber operator with a node-feature signal)
    purpose: Limit objects representing both sparse and dense graphs of all sizes; each node's neighborhood is a fiber measure of uniformly bounded mass; the input domain on which MPNNs are canonically extended.
    A mathematical definition (graphop in G_{1,1}=G_{∞,∞} plus measurable signal into [−1,1]^d), not an empirical postulate. Limit existence for bounded-norm Cauchy sequences is Thm. H.15/H.20; the density of actual graphs in this space is asserted (§1) rather than proved in the visible text.
  • bofop-DIDM (distribution of iterated degree measures computed by 1-WL on bofops)
    purpose: Compact, MPNN-matched computational-structure representation; the arena for the universal approximation theorem (Thm. M.1).
    Extension of [50]'s DIDMs from graphon-signals to bofops (Def. 5.1 / K.1). Compactness (Cor. 5.3) is the central new result; there is no independent non-theoretical corroboration.
  • k-profile with signal (P-distributions S_k(A,f))
    purpose: Domain-independent representation underlying the action metric; enables MPNNs to act directly on profiles via pushforward and diagonal marginalization.
    Extends [4]'s profiles to attributed operators (Def. 3.4 / H.10). The profile-level MPNN construction (Defs. I.2–I.8, commutation Thm. I.9) is new but purely theoretical; the authors note profiles are not directly amenable to computation (§7 Limitations).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Graphop Analysis of Graph Neural Networks on Sparse Graphs: Generalization and Universal Approximation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q3ZDPMUZ

@misc{pith2026260208785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Graphop Analysis of Graph Neural Networks on Sparse Graphs: Generalization and Universal Approximation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q3ZDPMUZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.08785}
}
read the original abstract

Generalization and approximation capabilities of message passing graph neural networks (MPNNs) are often studied by defining a compact metric on a space of input graphs under which MPNNs are equicontinuous. Such analyses are of two varieties: 1) when the metric space includes graphs of unbounded sizes, the theory is only appropriate for dense graphs, and, 2) when studying sparse graphs, the metric space only includes graphs of uniformly bounded size. In this work, we present a unified approach, defining a compact metric on the space of graphs of all sizes, both sparse and dense, under which MPNNs are equicontinuous. This leads to more powerful universal approximation theorems and generalization bounds than previous works. The theory is based on, and extends, a recent approach to graph limit theory called graphop analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.08785 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hierarchy of DIDM spaces: the space of all DIDMs (black); its strict [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [50]

    Generalization, ex- pressivity, and universality of graph neural networks on attributed graphs

    Levi Rauchwerger, Stefanie Jegelka, and Ron Levie. Generalization, ex- pressivity, and universality of graph neural networks on attributed graphs. International Conference of Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  2. [1]

    Trees and amenable equivalence relations.Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 10(1):1–14, 1990

    Scot Adams. Trees and amenable equivalence relations.Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 10(1):1–14, 1990

    1990

  3. [2]

    Springer, 2005

    Luigi Ambrosio, Nicola Gigli, and Giuseppe Savar´ e.Gradient flows: in metric spaces and in the space of probability measures. Springer, 2005

    2005

  4. [3]

    Characterizing the expressive power of invariant and equivariant graph neural networks.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    Wa ¨ ıss Azizian and Marc Lelarge. Characterizing the expressive power of invariant and equivariant graph neural networks.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  5. [4]

    Action convergence of operators and graphs.Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 74(1):72–121, 2022

    ´Agnes Backhausz and Bal´ azs Szegedy. Action convergence of operators and graphs.Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 74(1):72–121, 2022

    2022

  6. [5]

    Emergence of scaling in random networks.Science, 286(5439):509–512, 1999

    Albert-L´ aszl´ o Barab´ asi and R´ eka Albert. Emergence of scaling in random networks.Science, 286(5439):509–512, 1999

    1999

  7. [6]

    Probability and measure.A Wiley-Interscience Publica- tion, John Wiley, 118:119, 1995

    Patrick Billingsley. Probability and measure.A Wiley-Interscience Publica- tion, John Wiley, 118:119, 1995

    1995

  8. [7]

    Springer, 2007

    Vladimir I Bogachev.Measure theory. Springer, 2007

    2007

Show all 77 references
  1. [8]

    Fine-grained expressivity of graph neural networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    Jan B¨ oker, Ron Levie, Ningyuan Huang, Soledad Villar, and Christopher Morris. Fine-grained expressivity of graph neural networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Christian Borgs, Jennifer Chayes, Henry Cohn, and Yufei Zhao. An Lp theory of sparse graph convergence i: Limits, sparse random graph models, and power law distributions.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 372(5):3019–3062, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Sparse exchangeable graphs and their limits via graphon processes.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(210):1–71, 2018

    Christian Borgs, Jennifer T Chayes, Henry Cohn, and Nina Holden. Sparse exchangeable graphs and their limits via graphon processes.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(210):1–71, 2018

    2018

  4. [11]

    An Lp theory of sparse graph convergence ii: Ld convergence, quotients and right convergence.The Annals of Probability, 2018

    Christian Borgs, Jennifer T Chayes, Henry Cohn, and Yufei Zhao. An Lp theory of sparse graph convergence ii: Ld convergence, quotients and right convergence.The Annals of Probability, 2018

    2018

  5. [12]

    Convergent sequences of dense graphs i: Subgraph frequencies, metric properties and testing.Advances in Mathematics, 219(6):1801–1851, 2008

    Christian Borgs, Jennifer T Chayes, L´ aszl´ o Lov´ asz, Vera T S´ os, and Katalin Vesztergombi. Convergent sequences of dense graphs i: Subgraph frequencies, metric properties and testing.Advances in Mathematics, 219(6):1801–1851, 2008

    2008

  6. [13]

    Universal function approximation on graphs

    Rickard Br¨ uel Gabrielsson. Universal function approximation on graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:19762–19772, 2020

    2020

  7. [14]

    American Mathematical Society Providence, 2001

    Dmitri Burago, Yuri Burago, Sergei Ivanov, et al.A course in metric geometry, volume 33. American Mathematical Society Providence, 2001. 16

    2001

  8. [15]

    Monte carlo and quasi-monte carlo methods.Acta numerica, 7:1–49, 1998

    Russel E Caflisch. Monte carlo and quasi-monte carlo methods.Acta numerica, 7:1–49, 1998

    1998

  9. [16]

    Machine learning on graphs: A model and comprehensive taxonomy

    Ines Chami, Sami Abu-El-Haija, Bryan Perozzi, Christopher R´ e, and Kevin Murphy. Machine learning on graphs: A model and comprehensive taxonomy. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(89):1–64, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Weisfeiler-lehman meets Gromov-Wasserstein.International Conference on Machine Learning, 2022

    Samantha Chen, Facundo M´ emoli, Zhengchao Wan, and Yusu Wang. Weisfeiler-lehman meets Gromov-Wasserstein.International Conference on Machine Learning, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    On the equiva- lence between graph isomorphism testing and function approximation with gnns.Advances in neural information processing systems, 3, 2019

    Zhengdao Chen, Soledad Villar, Lei Chen, and Joan Bruna. On the equiva- lence between graph isomorphism testing and function approximation with gnns.Advances in neural information processing systems, 3, 2019

    2019

  12. [19]

    Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function

    George Cybenko. Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function. Mathematics of control, signals and systems, 2(4):303–314, 1989

    1989

  13. [20]

    Graph neural networks for social recommendation

    Wenqi Fan, Yao Ma, Qing Li, Yuan He, Eric Zhao, Jiliang Tang, and Dawei Yin. Graph neural networks for social recommendation. InThe world wide web conference, pages 417–426, 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    John Wiley & Sons, 1999

    Gerald B Folland.Real analysis: modern techniques and their applications. John Wiley & Sons, 1999

    1999

  15. [22]

    Spaces in which sequences suffice.Fundamenta Mathematicae, 57(1):107–115, 1965

    Stan Franklin. Spaces in which sequences suffice.Fundamenta Mathematicae, 57(1):107–115, 1965

    1965

  16. [23]

    On the approximate realization of continuous mappings by neural networks.Neural networks, 2(3):183–192, 1989

    Ken-Ichi Funahashi. On the approximate realization of continuous mappings by neural networks.Neural networks, 2(3):183–192, 1989

    1989

  17. [24]

    A survey of graph neural networks for recommender systems: Challenges, methods, and directions.ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems, 1(1):1–51, 2023

    Chen Gao, Yu Zheng, Nian Li, Yinfeng Li, Yingrong Qin, Jinghua Piao, Yuhan Quan, Jianxin Chang, Depeng Jin, Xiangnan He, et al. A survey of graph neural networks for recommender systems: Challenges, methods, and directions.ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems, 1(1):1–51, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    Generalization and representational limits of graph neural networks

    Vikas Garg, Stefanie Jegelka, and Tommi Jaakkola. Generalization and representational limits of graph neural networks. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3419–3430, 2020

    2020

  19. [26]

    Expressiveness and approximation properties of graph neural networks.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    Floris Geerts and Juan L Reutter. Expressiveness and approximation properties of graph neural networks.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  20. [27]

    Neural message passing for quantum chemistry

    Justin Gilmer, Samuel S Schoenholz, Patrick F Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E Dahl. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. InInter- national Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70, pages 1263–1272, 2017

    2017

  21. [28]

    Fractional isomorphism of graphons.Combi- natorica, 42(3):365–404, 2022

    Jan Greb ´ ık and Israel Rocha. Fractional isomorphism of graphons.Combi- natorica, 42(3):365–404, 2022. 17

    2022

  22. [29]

    word2vec, node2vec, graph2vec, x2vec: Towards a theory of vector embeddings of structured data

    Martin Grohe. word2vec, node2vec, graph2vec, x2vec: Towards a theory of vector embeddings of structured data. InProceedings of the 39th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS’20, page 1–16. Association for Computing Machinery, 2020

    2020

  23. [30]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  24. [31]

    American Mathe- matical Soc., 1978

    Felix Hausdorff.Grundzuge der mengenlehre, volume 61. American Mathe- matical Soc., 1978

    1978

  25. [32]

    Limits of action convergent graph sequences with un- bounded (p, q)-norms, 2022

    Aranka Hruˇ skov´ a. Limits of action convergent graph sequences with un- bounded (p, q)-norms, 2022

    2022

  26. [33]

    Sparse graph sequences, generalized graphon processes and signal processing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08124, 2023

    Feng Ji, Xingchao Jian, and Wee Peng Tay. Sparse graph sequences, generalized graphon processes and signal processing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08124, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Generalized graphon process: Convergence of graph frequencies in stretched cut distance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05260, 2023

    Xingchao Jian, Feng Ji, and Wee Peng Tay. Generalized graphon process: Convergence of graph frequencies in stretched cut distance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05260, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Convolutional neural networks for image classification

    Nadia Jmour, Sehla Zayen, and Afef Abdelkrim. Convolutional neural networks for image classification. In2018 international conference on advanced systems and electric technologies (IC ASET), pages 397–402. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  29. [36]

    Universal invariant and equivariant graph neural networks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    Nicolas Keriven and Gabriel Peyr´ e. Universal invariant and equivariant graph neural networks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  30. [37]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks.International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2017

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks.International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2017

    2017

  31. [38]

    Lecun, L

    Y. Lecun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition.Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998

    1998

  32. [39]

    Multilayer feedforward networks with a nonpolynomial activation function can approximate any function.Neural networks, 6(6):861–867, 1993

    Moshe Leshno, Vladimir Ya Lin, Allan Pinkus, and Shimon Schocken. Multilayer feedforward networks with a nonpolynomial activation function can approximate any function.Neural networks, 6(6):861–867, 1993

    1993

  33. [40]

    A graphon-signal analysis of graph neural networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    Ron Levie. A graphon-signal analysis of graph neural networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  34. [41]

    A pac-bayesian approach to generalization bounds for graph neural networks.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    Renjie Liao, Raquel Urtasun, and Richard Zemel. A pac-bayesian approach to generalization bounds for graph neural networks.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. 18

    2021

  35. [42]

    American Mathematical Soc., 2012

    L´ aszl´ o Lov´ asz.Large networks and graph limits, volume 60. American Mathematical Soc., 2012

    2012

  36. [43]

    Szemer´ edi’s lemma for the analyst

    L´ aszl´ o Lov´ asz and Bal´ azs Szegedy. Szemer´ edi’s lemma for the analyst. GAF A Geometric And Functional Analysis, 17:252–270, 2007

    2007

  37. [44]

    Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators.Nature machine intelligence, 3(3):218–229, 2021

    Lu Lu, Pengzhan Jin, Guofei Pang, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Em Karniadakis. Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators.Nature machine intelligence, 3(3):218–229, 2021

    2021

  38. [45]

    Generalization bounds for message passing networks on mixture of graphons.SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 7(2):802–825, 2025

    Sohir Maskey, Gitta Kutyniok, and Ron Levie. Generalization bounds for message passing networks on mixture of graphons.SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 7(2):802–825, 2025

    2025

  39. [46]

    Transferability of graph neural networks: an extended graphon approach.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 63:48–83, 2023

    Sohir Maskey, Ron Levie, and Gitta Kutyniok. Transferability of graph neural networks: an extended graphon approach.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 63:48–83, 2023

    2023

  40. [47]

    Generaliza- tion analysis of message passing neural networks on large random graphs

    Sohir Maskey, Ron Levie, Yunseok Lee, and Gitta Kutyniok. Generaliza- tion analysis of message passing neural networks on large random graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:4805–4817, 2022

    2022

  41. [48]

    WL meet VC.International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023

    Christopher Morris, Floris Geerts, Jan T¨ onshoff, and Martin Grohe. WL meet VC.International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023

    2023

  42. [49]

    Weisfeiler and leman go neural: Higher-order graph neural networks

    Christopher Morris, Martin Ritzert, Matthias Fey, William L Hamilton, Jan Eric Lenssen, Gaurav Rattan, and Martin Grohe. Weisfeiler and leman go neural: Higher-order graph neural networks. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 4602–4...

    2019

  43. [51]

    A note on graphon-signal analysis of graph neural networks, 2025

    Levi Rauchwerger and Ron Levie. A note on graphon-signal analysis of graph neural networks, 2025

    2025

  44. [52]

    McGraw-Hill, 1976

    Walter Rudin.Principles of mathematical analysis. McGraw-Hill, 1976

    1976

  45. [53]

    Springer, 2015

    Filippo Santambrogio.Optimal transport for applied mathematicians. Springer, 2015

    2015

  46. [54]

    The vapnik– chervonenkis dimension of graph and recursive neural networks.Neural Networks, 108:248–259, 2018

    Franco Scarselli, Ah Chung Tsoi, and Markus Hagenbuchner. The vapnik– chervonenkis dimension of graph and recursive neural networks.Neural Networks, 108:248–259, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    Unbalanced optimal transport, from theory to numerics.Handbook of Numerical Analysis, 24:407–471, 2023

    Thibault S´ ejourn´ e, Gabriel Peyr´ e, and Fran¸ cois-Xavier Vialard. Unbalanced optimal transport, from theory to numerics.Handbook of Numerical Analysis, 24:407–471, 2023. 19

    2023

  48. [56]

    Cambridge university press, 2014

    Shai Shalev-Shwartz and Shai Ben-David.Understanding machine learning: From theory to algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2014

    2014

  49. [57]

    American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I, 2011

    Terence Tao.An introduction to measure theory, volume 126 ofGraduate studies in mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I, 2011

    2011

  50. [58]

    Covered forest: Fine-grained generalization analysis of graph neural networks

    Antonis Vasileiou, Ben Finkelshtein, Floris Geerts, Ron Levie, and Christo- pher Morris. Covered forest: Fine-grained generalization analysis of graph neural networks. InForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

    2025

  51. [59]

    Survey on generalization theory for graph neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15650, 2025

    Antonis Vasileiou, Stefanie Jegelka, Ron Levie, and Christopher Morris. Survey on generalization theory for graph neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15650, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Springer, 2009

    C´ edric Villani et al.Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338. Springer, 2009

    2009

  53. [61]

    Molecular contrastive learning of representations via graph neural networks

    Yuyang Wang, Jianren Wang, Zhonglin Cao, and Amir Barati Farimani. Molecular contrastive learning of representations via graph neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(3):279–287, 2022

    2022

  54. [62]

    Robustness and generalization.Machine learning, 86:391–423, 2012

    Huan Xu and Shie Mannor. Robustness and generalization.Machine learning, 86:391–423, 2012

    2012

  55. [63]

    How pow- erful are graph neural networks?International Conference of Learning Representations, 2019

    Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. How pow- erful are graph neural networks?International Conference of Learning Representations, 2019. 20 Appendix A Basic Background in Analysis 23 A.1 Basic Concepts From Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

    2019

  56. [64]

    We define the σ-algebra on the Cartesian product Ω 1 × Ω2, and denote by Σ1 ⊗ Σ2 the σ-algebra generated by sets of the form E1 ×E 2 where E1 ∈Σ 1 andE 2 ∈Σ 2

  57. [65]

    A.2.4 Marginal Measures When a measure is defined on a product space, it often represents a joint distribution of a sequence of random variables

    We define the product measure µ1 ×µ 2 (often denoted by µ1 ⊗µ 2) as the measure on Ω 1 ×Ω 2 that satisfies (µ1 ×µ 2)(E1 ×E 2) =µ 1(E1)·µ 2(E2), whereE 1 ∈Σ 1 andE 2 ∈Σ 2. A.2.4 Marginal Measures When a measure is defined on a product space, it often represents a joint distribu...

  58. [66]

    Forν-almost everyx∈ X, µx Ω\f −1({x}) = 0

  59. [67]

    For everyE∈Σ, the map x7→µ x(E) is measurable

  60. [68]

    Intuitively (and informally), µx can be interpreted as a measure supported on the level set {w∈ Ω |f (w) = x}

    For every integrable functionφ: Ω→R, Z Ω φ(ω)dµ(ω) = Z X Z Ω φ(ω)dµ x(ω) dν(x).(6) The family {µx}x∈X is unique up to ν-almost everywhere equality and is called the disintegration ofµwith respect tof. Intuitively (and informally), µx can be interpreted as a measure supported o...

  61. [69]

    IfXis complete, then(C(X), d H )is also complete

  62. [70]

    Monte Carlo approximation

    IfXis compact, then(C(X), d H )is also compact. C Background in Machine Learning and GNNs In this section, we review the basic concepts from machine learning and graph neural networks (GNNs) that are required for the analysis developed in this paper. C.1 Attributed graphs A gr...

  63. [71]

    continuous node sets

    derives uniform generalization bounds for any regular MPNNs over broad classes of various graph-signal distributions without an assumption on the data as generative model. Rauchwerger and Levie [ 51] further extend these results and obtained improved asymptotic rates in the re...

  64. [72]

    Denote byB(Ω) the set of allP-operators on Ω

    A P-operator is a bounded linear operator A : L∞(Ω) → L1(Ω), i.e., such that ∥A∥∞→1 := sup f∈L ∞(Ω),f̸=0 ∥Af∥ 1 ∥f∥ ∞ is finite. Denote byB(Ω) the set of allP-operators on Ω

  65. [73]

    Denote by Bp,q(Ω) the space of all P-operators with finite ( p, q) norm

    For (p, q) ∈ [1,∞ ]2, a P-operator A is said to have a finite ( p, q) norm if the norm ∥A∥p→q := sup f∈L ∞(Ω),f̸=0 ∥Af∥ q ∥f∥ p is finite. Denote by Bp,q(Ω) the space of all P-operators with finite ( p, q) norm. RemarkH.2.For a measurable function f on the probability space Ω,...

  66. [74]

    neighborhoods

    The two marginal distribution of ν onΩare absolutely continuous with respect toµ. 3.(f, g) A = R Ω2 f(x)g(y)dν(x, y)holds for everyf, g∈L ∞(Ω). Conversely, if ν is a finite measure on(Ω × Ω,F ⊗ F)satisfying the first two properties, then there is a unique graphopAthat satisfie...

  67. [75]

    Thediagonal marginalizationof ν, denoted by DMd(ν), is the Borel measure onR 2k obtained by marginalizing out the coordinatesy 2

    Diagonal Marginalization.Let ν∈ STd k,d be a diagonal P-distribution. Thediagonal marginalizationof ν, denoted by DMd(ν), is the Borel measure onR 2k obtained by marginalizing out the coordinatesy 2. Formally, DMd(ν) :=p ∗ν, wherep:R 2k+d →R 2k is the projection p: (y 1, y2, y...

  68. [76]

    Explicitly, DMd(Sk,d) := n DMd(ν) ν∈S Td k,d o

    Aggregated Profile.Theaggregated profile DMd(Sk,d) is the collection of all diagonal marginalizations of diagonal P-distributions in S Td k,d. Explicitly, DMd(Sk,d) := n DMd(ν) ν∈S Td k,d o . In Lemma I.7, we show that DMd(Sk,d) is indeed a ( k−d )-profile of a P- operator-sig...

  69. [77]

    graphing

    presents a generalization of Szemer´ edi’s regularity lemma and proves a weak regularity lemmas for Lp graphons. Equipped with this lemma, the space of uniformly bounded Lp graphons, endowed with the cut distance is proved to be compact in Theorem 2.13 in [9]. Consider the fol...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.