Graphon estimation requires structural assumptions to address its intrinsic non-identifiability. A standard approach is degree-based identifiability, where the degree function is assumed to be strictly monotonic. This assumption is rather restrictive and fails for graphons with constant or non-injective degree function, even when distinct latent positions have different connectivity profiles. In this paper, we introduce rooted motif signatures as higher-order node-level representations for graphons. They extend the degree function by recording, at each latent position, the densities of rooted motifs such as triangles, cycles, paths, and other local subgraph patterns. We study the extent to which these signatures can distinguish latent positions beyond degree information. For generic finite-rank graphons, we prove that suitable rooted motif signatures determine the connectivity profiles of latent positions. We also explain why such a property cannot hold for arbitrary graphons without additional assumptions, since different latent positions may have identical rooted motif signatures. On the statistical side, we define empirical rooted motif signatures from a single observed graph and prove uniform concentration bounds for these estimators. Simulation experiments illustrate that rooted motif signatures can reveal latent structure in settings where degree-based representations are uninformative, including graphons with constant or non-injective degree functions and stochastic block models with equal block degrees.
Let W and W' be two graphons. Then \delta_\square(W,W')=0 if and only if there exist measure-preserving transformations \varphi,\varphi':[0,1]\to[0,1] such that
A graphon W is said to satisfy the strict degree monotonicity condition if and only if there exists a representative W^{\mathrm{can}} in the weak equivalence class of W such that
is strictly increasing (or strictly decreasing) on [0,1].
Let (F,r) be a rooted graph, where F=(V(F),E(F)) is a finite simple graph and r\in V(F) is a distinguished node called the root. For u\in[0,1], the rooted motif density of (F,r) at u is
where u_r=u.
The rooted motif signature of a latent position u\in[0,1] is the collection
A graphon W is said to be signature-identifiable if the rooted motif signature map u \mapsto \Phi_W(u) is injective almost everywhere.
Let \mathcal F be a finite family of rooted motifs. We say that a graphon W admits a strictly \mathcal F-signature ordered representation if there exists a representative W^{\mathrm{can}} in the weak equivalence class of W such that, for almost every u<v,
and there exists at least one motif (F,r)\in\mathcal F such that
Let W be a finite-rank graphon of rank m. If \lambda_i\neq\lambda_j, \, (i\neq j), and \langle 1,\phi_j\rangle\neq 0, for j=1,\ldots,m, then the rooted path densities
determine the spectral coordinates \Theta(u).
Proposition 3.5 gives an explicit sufficient family of rooted motifs for generic finite-rank graphons. It shows that the rooted path densities t(P_k^\bullet,W)(u), k=2,\ldots,m+1, determine the spectral coordinates \Theta(u), and hence the connectivity profile W(u,\cdot). Therefore, any rooted motif signature containing these path coordinates identifies twin classes in this setting. This result should not be interpreted as saying that rooted paths are the only informative motifs. They are used here because their relation to the spectral decomposition is explicit. Other rooted motifs may also distinguish latent positions, but the proposition only establishes the sufficiency of rooted paths.
Let
be a fixed finite family of rooted motifs, and set s_{\max}=\max_{1\leq k\leq K}|V(F_k)|. Assume that n\geq s_{\max}. Then there exists a constant C>0, depending only on \mathcal F, such that for every \delta\in(0,1), with probability at least 1-\delta,
In particular, if K is fixed, then
Under the assumptions of Theorem 4.1, there exists a constant C>0, depending only on \mathcal F, such that for every \delta\in(0,1), with probability at least 1-\delta,
In particular, if \sum_{k=1}^K w_k =1, then
Since W has rank m, the associated integral operator satisfies
Applying this identity to the constant function \mathbf 1, we obtain
Iterating the operator then gives, for every k\geq 1,
Now observe that the rooted path density on k+1 nodes is given by
Hence, for k=1,\ldots,m,
Therefore the first m rooted path densities satisfy
where c_j=\langle \mathbf 1,\phi_j\rangle . The matrix above can be written as
where
is a Vandermonde matrix. Since the eigenvalues \lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_m are pairwise distinct,
Therefore V is invertible. Moreover,
since c_j=\langle \mathbf 1,\phi_j\rangle\neq0 for every j. Hence V\,\operatorname{diag}(c_1,\ldots,c_m) is invertible. Hence, the rooted path densities t(P_k^\bullet,W)(u), \, k=2,\ldots,m+1, determine the spectral coordinates \Theta(u).
It is enough to prove the result for one fixed rooted motif (F,r). Let
For a node i, write
Conditionally on \mathcal U=(U_1,\ldots,U_n), the conditional expectation of \widehat t_i(F) is
We decompose the error as
The first term is the edge-sampling error, conditionally on the latent variables \mathcal{U}. Changing an edge incident to the root i can affect at most C_F n^{m-2} rooted embeddings, whereas changing an edge not incident to i can affect at most C_F n^{m-3} rooted embeddings. Since the normalizing factor is of order n^{m-1}, the corresponding bounded-difference constants are respectively C_F/n and C_F/n^2. For an edge e=(a,b), let
where A and A' differ only in the entry corresponding to e.Therefore
McDiarmid’s inequality [McDiarmid1989] then yields
We now control the second term, \bar t_i(F)-t((F,r),W)(U_i). This is the latent-sampling error. Conditionally on U_i, the quantity \bar t_i(F) is a bounded U-statistic of order m-1, based on the latent variables \{U_j:j\neq i\}. Its kernel is
where z_r=U_i and z_a=x_a for a\neq r. Since 0\leq W\leq 1, this kernel is bounded by 1. Moreover,
Thus the second term is a centered bounded U-statistic. By the bounded-differences inequality for U-statistics [Boucheron2013, Hoeffding1963, Arcones1995], there exist constants C_F,c_F>0, depending only on F, such that for every \eta>0,
Combining the edge-sampling bound ? and the latent-sampling bound ?, we obtain, for every \eta>0,
We now apply a union bound over all nodes and all motifs in \mathcal F=\{(F_1,r_1),\ldots,(F_K,r_K)\}. Let
From (?), there exist constants C_0,c_0>0, depending only on \mathcal F, such that
for every i=1,\ldots,n, k=1,\ldots,K, and s>0. Therefore,
For every \delta\in(0,1), choosing s= C \sqrt{ \frac{\log(nK)+\log(1/\delta)} {n} }, we have
Since
it follows that, with probability at least 1-\delta,
This proves the theorem.
For i,j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}, recall that
and
where
Therefore,
Using the reverse triangle inequality,
with
we obtain
Taking the maximum over i and j, we get
Moreover, for every i,
By Theorem 4.1, with probability at least 1-\delta,
Hence, on the same event,
In particular, if the weights are normalized so that
then
This proves the high-probability bound.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2607.01358v1 by Roland Boniface Sogan and Tabea Rebafka, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2607/2607.01358.jsonl.