Coupling and Tensorization of Kinetic Theory and Graph Theory

Datong Zhou

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Coupling and Tensorization of Kinetic Theory and Graph Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Convergence of agent weights and states in one interpolated distance forces convergence of the whole empirical dynamics to an extended Vlasov limit.

desk verdict Novel distance and stability framework, but Lemma 2.29's 'moreover' is false, so Theorem 1.7 as stated is not proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14512 v2 pith:ZGJ4INPR submitted 2024-12-19 math.AP math.COmath.PR

Datong Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.APmath.COmath.PR MSC 35Q8382C4005C80

keywords mean-fieldlimitnon-exchangeablemulti-agentsystemsbi-couplingdistanceextendedVlasovequationobservablesgraphontheoryfractionalisomorphismtensorizedgraphhomomorphismdensities

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 argues that non-exchangeable multi-agent systems—networks in which every ordered pair of agents can interact with its own strength—possess a mean-field limit of a strong kind: if the connection weights and initial states of a sequence of systems converge together in a specially designed bi-coupling distance, then at every later time the empirical state configuration converges, in expectation over the noise, to the deterministic solution of an extended Vlasov equation. It matters because previously available mean-field limits for such systems required an a priori matching of each agent to a label in a continuum, a matching that is unnatural when agents are not interchangeable and that prevents convergence of the empirical data itself. The bi-coupling distance interpolates the Wasserstein-1 distance between agent states and a fractional-overlay (operator commutator) distance between weighted graphs, so a single coupling gamma both transports agents and measures how much the graph structures fail to commute through the transport. The proof identifies convergence in this distance with convergence of a hierarchy of observables—weighted, tensorized moments of the empirical measure that are exactly graph homomorphism densities—and shows this hierarchy is stable. Axiomatically, the work puts the mean-field limit of non-exchangeable systems on an a posteriori correspondence footing: the best matching of agents to the limit can vary with time and with the realization of randomness.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bi-coupling distance d_{Lp->Lq,W1}, the infimum over couplings gamma of a Wasserstein-1 state cost plus two operator norms ||w^(1)gamma - gamma w^(2)|| and ||gamma^T w^(1) - w^(2) gamma^T||; on discrete systems this is a convex optimization problem that degenerates to the Wasserstein distance when all weights are equal and to the fractional-overlay graph distance when all states coincide. Around it, the proof builds three linked structures: (1) the lifted kernel w_{w,X} in L^infty(I x I; $H^{{-1}}$(T) oplus $H^{{-1}}$(T)) with entries delta_{X(zeta)} and w(xi,zeta) delta_{X(zeta)}, which makes the bi-coupling distance topologically equivalent to a coupling distance gamma_{D,H} between such kernels; (2) the observables tau(T,w,X), defined as weighted sums over distinct k-tuples of agents with weights product w_{i,j} on tree edges, which are simultaneously k-particle marginals and tensorized graph homomorphism densities; (3) the functional-valued Counting Lemma and Inverse Counting Lemma, which show convergence of all tree observables is equivalent to gamma_{D,H}-convergence. The hierarchy of linear PDEs that the observables solve is then closed on oriented trees, and its energy estimates in $H^{{-1}}$(T)^{tensor v'(T)} give the stability in expectation that the theorem states.

What would settle it

Compute the cut-distance limit for the sequence w^(n) = 1, X^(n)(xi) = n*xi mod 1 on [0,1]: the first component delta_{X^(n)(zeta)} converges in the cut norm to Lebesgue measure on T, not to any delta_{X(zeta)}. Since this limit is not of Dirac-kernel form, the 'moreover' part of Lemma 2.29 is false unless some additional structure rules out such oscillations; that settles whether the compactness step, and hence the deterministic-limit statement, can stand as written.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.7: on the torus T with mu in $W^{{1,infty}}$, $\sigma$ in $W^{{2,infty}}$, and noise intensity nu >= 0, if the initial pairs (w^(n), X_0^(n)) converge to a limit (w^(infty), X_0^(infty)) in the bi-coupling distance d_{L2->L2,W1}, then at any later time t > 0 the expected bi-coupling distance between the system's state and the limit lift vanishes: lim_{n->infty} E[d_{L2->L2,W1}((w^(n),X^(n)(t)),(w^(infty),X^(infty)(t)))] = 0. The discovery is that this convergence for empirical data—Dirac masses moving under the SDE or ODE—is proved by passing through the observables: for every oriented tree T, the weighted empirical sum tau(T,w,X) satisfies a closed hierarchy of linear transport equations whose energy estimates in tensorized $H^{{-1}}$(T) are stable. The graph-theoretic input is that the family of all observable limits is equivalent, via functional-valued Counting and Inverse Counting Lemmas, to convergence in the coupling distance induced by the bi-coupling distance. In this sense, kinetic theory and graph limit theory meet at the level of tree-indexed tensorizations: the dynamics of a swarm of distinguishable agents is controlled by the homomorphism densities of its interaction graph.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the compactness lemma's extra claim that whenever the kernels built from (w^(n), X^(n)) converge in cut distance, the limit can again be written as w_{w,X} for some measurable state map X; if oscillating state sequences produce cut-distance limits that are diffuse measures, the deterministic limit used in Theorem 1.7 may fail to exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If two systems have fractionally isomorphic connection graphs (identical tree homomorphism densities) and suitably close initial data, their large-scale dynamics coincide in the bi-coupling distance; no agent-to-agent isomorphism is required.
The mean-field limit holds at the level of empirical realizations, not just one-particle laws, because the theorem bounds the expected distance between Dirac empirical measures and the deterministic Vlasov lift for every t > 0.
Any sequence of uniformly bounded weights and deterministic initial data has a subsequence that is Cauchy in the bi-coupling distance, so the theorem's hypotheses reduce to a checkable compactness condition.
Finite-agent systems and continuum (Vlasov) initial data are treated in one framework: the lift in Definition 1.6 converts a law f into a state map X so that both live in the same space of pairs (w,X).
The stability in the observable metric is quantitative enough to imply well-posedness of the extended Vlasov equation itself, so the limit system is not just an abstract object.

Reading between the lines

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

If the compactness lemma's 'moreover' part can be repaired, the same program should carry over to T^d and to rougher kernels by raising the Sobolev exponent s beyond d/2; the paper's own outlook section notes that required commutator estimates grow with dimension.
Because the bi-coupling distance is a convex program, it suggests a numerical workflow the paper does not run: given two snapshots of a large network, compute the optimal coupling gamma, read off the time-dependent correspondence between agents, and test whether the system is near its Vlasov limit.
The equivalence between tree observables and fractional overlay suggests that network comparison for dynamics should use fractional isomorphism classes rather than graph isomorphism; spectral fingerprints of trees could serve as practical observable statistics.
A compactness-free proof of the Inverse Counting Lemma for trees would turn the current qualitative convergence into an explicit rate, a direction the paper explicitly leaves open in Remark 2.32.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The real news: the paper has a genuinely new idea—the bi-coupling distance, the lift construction, and the observable hierarchy that tensorizes agent laws with graph homomorphism densities. Lemmas 2.30 and 2.31, extending counting and inverse counting to tree homomorphisms and coupling distances, are valuable and appear correct. Appendix A's BBGKY stability argument is detailed, honest about its debts to Jabin–Zhou, and looks independent of the bad step. This is not a throwaway paper.

The soft spot is load-bearing. Lemma 2.29 claims that every cut-distance limit of kernels of the form w_{w,X} is again of that form, for some measurable X. That claim is false. Take w^(n) ≡ 1 and X^(n)(ξ) = nξ mod 1. The kernels δ_{X^(n)(ζ)} converge in cut distance to the constant non-atomic kernel Leb_T ⊗ Leb_T, not to δ_{X(ζ)} for any measurable X. The stress-test note is correct, and the counterexample lands directly on Section 2.5: the proof of Theorem 1.7 uses Lemma 2.29's 'moreover' to name the limiting pair that feeds into Lemma 2.28. Without that identification, the compactness part of Theorem 1.7 does not construct the claimed deterministic Dirac-type limit, and the stability statement has no target to converge to.

Is this repairable? Probably, but not trivially. The fix likely means proving compactness at the level of observables and then constructing the limiting extended density f, which may be non-atomic, rather than forcing a Dirac-valued X. That is a substantial revision, not a typo.

The rest of the manuscript is mostly sound: the distance definitions are coherent, the equivalence results are carefully argued, and the citations are honest, including the author's own prior work. The conclusion section also flags real limitations, such as the lack of rates.

Who should read it: people working on mean-field limits of non-exchangeable systems or on graph limits. It is worth a reading group discussion, mainly as an example of a promising framework with a subtle compactness trap.

My recommendation: send it to a serious referee, not a desk reject. The paper deserves expert time, and the stability part may survive. But I would not cite Theorem 1.7 in its current form, and the manuscript needs major revision before the main result can be accepted.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a bi-coupling distance between non-exchangeable multi-agent systems that interpolates Wasserstein-1 optimal transport and graph fractional-overlay distances, and claims a strong mean-field limit on empirical data: convergence of connection weights and initial data in this distance implies convergence at any later positive time, in expectation, to a deterministic extended Vlasov solution. The proof is organized around tensorized graph homomorphism observables, a BBGKY-type hierarchy with negative Sobolev energy estimates, and compactness and counting/inverse counting lemmas in a Hilbert-space-valued graphon setting.

Significance. The conceptual package is attractive: a convex a posteriori correspondence on empirical data, a hierarchy of tensorized observables connecting kinetic theory and graph limit theory, and detailed extensions of BBGKY and graphon arguments. The Appendix A energy estimate for observables is substantial, and the fractional-isomorphism machinery in Appendix C is broadly relevant. However, the central compactness claim is false as stated, and because that claim is used to construct the deterministic limit in Theorem 1.7, the advertised main theorem does not follow. The failure is not cosmetic; it concerns the existence and structure of the limit object.

major comments (3)

[Lemma 2.29 (Section 2.5) and Appendix B, Lemma B.6] The 'Moreover' part of Lemma 2.29 is false as stated. Let I=[0,1], w^(n)≡1, X^(n)(ξ)={nξ} mod 1, and let k_n=w_{w^(n),X^(n)} as in Definition 2.21. For measurable S,T⊂[0,1] and a test function e in the first coordinate, ∫_{S×T} e d(k_n)_1 = |S|∫_T e({nζ}) dζ, which by equidistribution tends to |S||T|∫_T e. Thus a cut-distance limit of k_n is the constant non-atomic kernel (Leb_T,Leb_T), which is not of the form (δ_{X(ζ)}, w(ξ,ζ)δ_{X(ζ)}) for any measurable X. No measurable selection X can represent this limit: for A⊂T and T_0=X^{-1}(A), the cut-norm gap is at least |A|(1−|A|). Consequently, Lemma 2.29 cannot supply the limit pair (w^(∞),X^(∞)_0) used in the proof of Theorem 1.7.
[Theorem 1.7, compactness bullet] The compactness assertion of Theorem 1.7 is false for uniformly bounded oscillating initial data of the type above. The proof of Theorem 1.7 invokes Lemma 2.29 for compactness and then uses its 'Moreover' statement to identify the limiting pair (w^(∞),X^(∞)_0) that is fed into Lemma 2.28. Since that identification step is invalid, the theorem does not construct the asserted Dirac-type deterministic limit. The stability statement conditional on a given Dirac-limit pair may be salvageable, but the theorem as stated claims automatic existence of such a limit for every bounded sequence, and this claim fails.
[Section 2.3, Lemma 2.15] The failure cannot be repaired simply by enlarging the limit class to non-Dirac fiberwise laws. Lemma 2.15's proof relies on Part 5 of Lemma 2.12, namely that Dirac deltas are the unique maximizers of the H^{-1}(T) norm. If the limit kernel is a non-atomic mixture such as (Leb_T,Leb_T), the equivalence between the bi-coupling distance and the coupling distance γ_{□;H} is no longer justified by the present arguments. Thus the false 'Moreover' in Lemma 2.29 is load-bearing not only for the compactness statement but also for the metric framework supporting Theorem 1.7.

minor comments (5)

[Proof of Lemma 2.28, Appendix A.2] In the iterated estimate, the text says 'we let m → 0'; the intended limit is m → ∞, and as written the conclusion is vacuous.
[Section 3.4] The subsection heading reads 'Proof of Lemma 2.25', but the statement being proved is Proposition 2.25; the cross-reference labels should be harmonized.
[Definitions 2.14 and 2.21] Definition 2.21 is presented as a restatement of Definition 2.14, but the codomain changes from H^{-1}(T)⊕H^{-1}(T) to M(T)⊕{0,1}; the inclusion and the notational switch should be stated explicitly.
[Acknowledgments] The funding statement contains a malformed string 'Marie Sk/suppress lodowska-Curie' that should be corrected.
[Appendix C] Several references to [18] point to unnumbered claims such as 'Claim 6.9' and 'Proposition 6.6'; precise bibliographic pointers would help the reader verify the cited statements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1.7 is assembled from independent compactness, counting, and BBGKY-hierarchy lemmas; the self-citation to [21] supplies external proof machinery, not the theorem's conclusion.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1.7's stability is delegated to Lemma 2.28, whose hypothesis is convergence of tree observables and whose conclusion is later-time convergence of the same observables; the proof in Appendix A derives this from the Liouville/BBGKY hierarchy with energy estimates adapted from [19,21], not by assuming d-convergence or the PDE limit. The equivalence between observables and bi-coupling distances (Lemmas 2.15, 2.25, 2.31) is proved via counting lemmas and negative-Sobolev embeddings, not by definition. Compactness is imported from graphon theory (Lemma 2.29, following [28,29]). The only substantive author self-citation is [21] for the stability machinery; because [21] is a separate rigorous result and Appendix A re-proves the needed estimate, it counts as independent support rather than a load-bearing citation loop. I do flag a genuine gap, but it is a correctness issue rather than circularity: the 'moreover' part of Lemma 2.29 asserts that every cut-distance limit of Dirac-kernels delta_{X^{(n)}(zeta)} is again of the form delta_{X(zeta)}; the proof only says 'Using a similar argument using the martingale convergence theorem, we can identify the desired limits w and X', and oscillatory X^{(n)} can produce non-atomic cut-distance limits, so the claimed representation is not established. This affects the compactness/identification step in the proof of Theorem 1.7, but it does not make the theorem's conclusion an input of a definition or a fitted prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central proof rests on established graphon compactness, counting lemmas, and BBGKY hierarchy estimates from [19,21,29,8,5,14,18]. No free parameters are introduced; the genuinely new objects are definitions (bi-coupling distance, lift, observables), not fitted quantities.

assumptions (4)

standard math Szemerédi Regularity Lemma for Hilbert-valued kernels
Used in Appendix B to prove compactness of kernels in unlabeled distance (Lemmas B.5, B.6).
standard math Martingale convergence theorem
Used to pass from step-function approximations to the limit kernel in the proof of Lemma B.6.
standard math Counting Lemma and Inverse Counting Lemma for graphons
Extended in Lemmas 2.30 and 2.31; original results from [8,28].
standard math BBGKY hierarchy energy estimates with factorial blow-up control from [19,21]
Used in Appendix A to prove stability of observables (Lemma 2.28).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coupling and Tensorization of Kinetic Theory and Graph Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZGJ4INPR

@misc{pith2026241214512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coupling and Tensorization of Kinetic Theory and Graph Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZGJ4INPR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14512}
}

read the original abstract

We study a non-exchangeable multi-agent system and rigorously derive a strong form of the mean-field limit. The convergence of the connection weights and the initial data implies convergence of large-scale dynamics toward a deterministic limit given by the corresponding extended Vlasov PDE, at any later time and any realization of randomness. This is established on what we call a bi-coupling distance defined through a convex optimization problem, which is an interpolation of the optimal transport between measures and the fractional overlay between graphs. The proof relies on a quantitative stability estimate of the so-called observables, which are tensorizations of agent laws and graph homomorphism densities. This reveals a profound relationship between mean-field theory and graph limiting theory, intersecting in the study of non-exchangeable systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

N. Ayi, N. P. Duteil, and D. Poyato , Mean-ﬁeld limit of non-exchangeable multi-agent systems over hypergraphs with unbounded rank , arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04691, (2024)

arXiv 2024
[2]

Backhausz and B

´A. Backhausz and B. Szegedy , Action convergence of operators and graphs , Cana- dian Journal of Mathematics, 74 (2022), pp. 72–121

work page 2022
[3]

Bayraktar, S

E. Bayraktar, S. Chakraborty, and R. Wu , Graphon mean ﬁeld systems , The Annals of Applied Probability, 33 (2023), pp. 3587–3619

work page 2023
[4]

G. Bet, F. Coppini, and F. R. Nardi , Weakly interacting oscillators on dense random graphs, Journal of Applied Probability, 61 (2024), pp. 255–278

work page 2024
[5]

J. B ¨oker, Graph Similarity and Homomorphism Densities , in 48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2021), Schloss- Dagstuhl-Leibniz Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Borgs, J

C. Borgs, J. Chayes, H. Cohn, and Y. Zhao , An Lp theory of sparse graph con- vergence I: Limits, sparse random graph models, and power la w distributions , Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society, 372 (2019), p p. 3019–3062

work page 2019
[7]

Borgs, J

C. Borgs, J. T. Chayes, H. Cohn, and Y. Zhao , An Lp theory of sparse graph convergence II: LD convergence, quotients and right conver gence, The Annals of Prob- ability, 46 (2018), pp. 337–396

work page 2018
[8]

Borgs, J

C. Borgs, J. T. Chayes, L. Lov ´asz, V. T. S ´os, and K. Vesztergombi , Conver- gent sequences of dense graphs I: Subgraph frequencies, met ric properties and testing , Advances in Mathematics, 219 (2008), pp. 1801–1851

work page 2008

Show all 38 references

[9]

Braun and K

W. Braun and K. Hepp , The Vlasov dynamics and its ﬂuctuations in the 1/N limit of interacting classical particles, Communications in mathematical physics, 56 (1977), pp. 101–113

1977
[10]

Chaintron and A

L.-P. Chaintron and A. Diez , Propagation of chaos: a review of models, methods and applications. I. Models and methods , Kinetic and Related Models, 15 (2022), pp. 895–1015

2022
[11]

, Propagation of chaos: a review of models, methods and applic ations. II. Ap- plications, Kinetic and Related Models, 15 (2022), pp. 1017–1173. COUPLING OF KINETIC AND GRAPH 51

2022
[12]

Chiba and G

H. Chiba and G. S. Medvedev , The mean ﬁeld analysis of the Kuramoto model on graphs I. The mean ﬁeld equation and transition point form ulas, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 39 (2018), pp. 131–155

2018
[13]

Cuturi , Sinkhorn distances: Lightspeed computation of optimal tra nsport, Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 26 (2013)

M. Cuturi , Sinkhorn distances: Lightspeed computation of optimal tra nsport, Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 26 (2013)

2013
[14]

H. Dell, M. Grohe, and G. Rattan , Lov´ asz Meets Weisfeiler and Leman , in 45th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2018), Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik , 2018

2018
[15]

R. L. Dobrushin , Vlasov equations , Functional Analysis and Its Applications, 13 (1979), pp. 115–123

1979
[16]

Elek and B

G. Elek and B. Szegedy , A measure-theoretic approach to the theory of dense hypergraphs, Advances in Mathematics, 231 (2012), pp. 1731–1772

2012
[17]

M. A. Gkogkas and C. Kuehn , Graphop mean-ﬁeld limits for Kuramoto-type mod- els, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 21 (2022), pp. 2 48–283

2022
[18]

Greb ´ık and I

J. Greb ´ık and I. Rocha , Fractional isomorphism of graphons , Combinatorica, 42 (2022), pp. 365–404

2022
[19]

Jabin, D

P.-E. Jabin, D. Poyato, and J. Soler , Mean-ﬁeld limit of non-exchangeable sys- tems, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 78 (2025) , pp. 651–741

2025
[20]

Jabin, V

P.-E. Jabin, V. Schmutz, and D. Zhou , Non-exchangeable networks of integrate- and-ﬁre neurons: spatially-extended mean-ﬁeld limit of th e empirical measure , arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06325, (2024)

2024 arXiv
[21]

Jabin and D

P.-E. Jabin and D. Zhou , The mean-ﬁeld limit of sparse networks of integrate and ﬁre neurons, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.04046, (2023)

2023 arXiv
[22]

Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi and G

D. Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi and G. S. Medvedev , The mean ﬁeld equation for the Kuramoto model on graph sequences with non-Lipschitz li mit, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 50 (2018), pp. 2441–2465

2018
[23]

Kechris , Classical descriptive set theory , vol

A. Kechris , Classical descriptive set theory , vol. 156, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[24]

Kuehn and C

C. Kuehn and C. Xu , Vlasov equations on digraph measures , Journal of Diﬀerential Equations, 339 (2022), pp. 261–349

2022
[25]

Lacker, K

D. Lacker, K. Ramanan, and R. Wu , Local weak convergence for sparse networks of interacting processes, The Annals of Applied Probability, 33 (2023), pp. 843–888

2023
[26]

817 –884

, Marginal dynamics of interacting diﬀusions on unimodular Ga lton–Watson trees, Probability Theory and Related Fields, 187 (2023), pp. 817 –884

2023
[27]

Lacker, L

D. Lacker, L. C. Yeung, and F. Zhou , Quantitative propagation of chaos for non- exchangeable diﬀusions via ﬁrst-passage percolation , arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08882, (2024)

2024 arXiv
[28]

Lov ´asz, Large networks and graph limits , vol

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

2012
[29]

Lov ´asz and B

L. Lov ´asz and B. Szegedy , Limits of dense graph sequences , Journal of Combina- torial Theory, Series B, 96 (2006), pp. 933–957

2006
[30]

Nesterov and A

Y. Nesterov and A. Nemirovskii , Interior-point polynomial algorithms in convex programming, SIAM, 1994

1994
[31]

H. Neunzert , An introduction to the nonlinear Boltzmann-Vlasov equatio n, in Ki- netic Theories and the Boltzmann Equation: Lectures given a t the 1st 1981 Session of the Centro Internazionale Matematico Estivo (CIME) Held at Montecatini, Italy, June 10–18, 1981, Springer, 20...

1981
[32]

Oliveira, G

I. Oliveira, G. H. Reis, L. M. Stolerman, et al. , Interacting diﬀusions on sparse graphs: hydrodynamics from local weak limits , Electronic Journal of Probability, 25 (2020)

2020
[33]

M. V. Ramana, E. R. Scheinerman, and D. Ullman , Fractional isomorphism of graphs, Discrete Mathematics, 132 (1994), pp. 247–265. 52 DATONG ZHOU

1994
[34]

T. M. Roddenberry and S. Segarra , Limits of dense simplicial complexes , Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 (2023), pp. 1–42

2023
[35]

Szemer ´edi, On sets of integers containing no k elements in arithmetic progression, Acta Arithmetica, 27 (1975), pp

E. Szemer ´edi, On sets of integers containing no k elements in arithmetic progression, Acta Arithmetica, 27 (1975), pp. 199–245. [36] , Regular partitions of graphs , in Probl` emes combinatoires et th´ eorie des graphes, vol. 260 of Colloq. Internat. CNRS, 1978, pp. 399–4 01

1975
[37]

Sznitman , Topics in propagation of chaos , Ecole d’´ et´ e de probabilit´ es de Saint- Flour XIX—1989, 1464 (1991), pp

A.-S. Sznitman , Topics in propagation of chaos , Ecole d’´ et´ e de probabilit´ es de Saint- Flour XIX—1989, 1464 (1991), pp. 165–251

1991
[38]

Tinhofer , Graph isomorphism and theorems of birkhoﬀ-type , Computing, 36 (1986), pp

G. Tinhofer , Graph isomorphism and theorems of birkhoﬀ-type , Computing, 36 (1986), pp. 285–300

1986
[39]

plain observables

, A note on compact graphs , Discrete Applied Mathematics, 30 (1991), pp. 253– 264. Appendix A. BBGKY hierarchy for non-exchangeable systems The objective of this section is to prove Lemma 2.28, focusin g speciﬁcally on the stability part of the lemma. Given that all coeﬃcient...

1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

N. Ayi, N. P. Duteil, and D. Poyato , Mean-ﬁeld limit of non-exchangeable multi-agent systems over hypergraphs with unbounded rank , arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04691, (2024)

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Backhausz and B

´A. Backhausz and B. Szegedy , Action convergence of operators and graphs , Cana- dian Journal of Mathematics, 74 (2022), pp. 72–121

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Bayraktar, S

E. Bayraktar, S. Chakraborty, and R. Wu , Graphon mean ﬁeld systems , The Annals of Applied Probability, 33 (2023), pp. 3587–3619

work page 2023

[4] [4]

G. Bet, F. Coppini, and F. R. Nardi , Weakly interacting oscillators on dense random graphs, Journal of Applied Probability, 61 (2024), pp. 255–278

work page 2024

[5] [5]

J. B ¨oker, Graph Similarity and Homomorphism Densities , in 48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2021), Schloss- Dagstuhl-Leibniz Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Borgs, J

C. Borgs, J. Chayes, H. Cohn, and Y. Zhao , An Lp theory of sparse graph con- vergence I: Limits, sparse random graph models, and power la w distributions , Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society, 372 (2019), p p. 3019–3062

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Borgs, J

C. Borgs, J. T. Chayes, H. Cohn, and Y. Zhao , An Lp theory of sparse graph convergence II: LD convergence, quotients and right conver gence, The Annals of Prob- ability, 46 (2018), pp. 337–396

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Borgs, J

C. Borgs, J. T. Chayes, L. Lov ´asz, V. T. S ´os, and K. Vesztergombi , Conver- gent sequences of dense graphs I: Subgraph frequencies, met ric properties and testing , Advances in Mathematics, 219 (2008), pp. 1801–1851

work page 2008