Thank you very much. Thank you for the introduction and very welcome invitation to this one world
seminar. I'm honored to be here, a little worried because if I say something more exotic,
it's hard to tell from the faces of the audience if I have to stop or to change pace. So what
I'm going to talk about is some gamma convergence applications to larger data, say, if you want.
And in particular, to continue limits of where you have some kind of interfacial energies
arising on graphs. So the type of problem we have in mind is the typical Romanov calculus
of variation. So we have a set and we have to subdivide the set into subsets, like two
subsets so that some energy is minimized. And we think of this as an interfacial energies
between the two sets. So it's the starting problem of calculus of variation, DDoS problems.
But now we have a different setting. So we have a graph. So instead of having a region
of the plane or the space, we have a graph, which is a set of vertices and a set of edges.
So not all points are connected in the graphs, but we have sets of edges. And the idea is
to minimize some energies defined on edges. The easiest energy is just the number of edges.
So the picture we have in mind, we picture our graph into colors and we minimize the
number of edges of the graph, which connect points with different colors. As the number
of nodes of the graph diverges, then we want to keep trace of what happens to these kinds
of problems and see what is the limit behavior. So the plan of the seminar is the following.
So first, we embed these kind of problems in a variational setting, and we talk about
the gamma convergence very briefly. Then we will see what happens for some class of lattice
energies. So when the graphs are parts of a lattice, and in particular, when they are
sparse. So embed the lattice in some lattice, embed the graph in some lattice of some dimension,
and we suppose that the number of edges is much smaller than the total possible number
of bonds, so pairs, of the lattice. Then we will see that we have a description in this
case, but somehow we see the arising of some issues due to topology. And there will be
a short intermission where we will see what kind of problem arises, also for very simple
sparse graphs. And then we will go to dense graphs. So when the number of edges is of
the same order of the total number of possible bonds. So what is variational analysis? So
we transform our problem, which is defined on sets and problem defined on functions.
So we introduce a parameter, a parameter which labels the families we want to take into account.
So the easiest case when you have two families. So we will stick to this case, and also because
in this two parameter setting, we can choose the parameter very symmetric, being 1 and
minus 1. So a subdivision or subsets of the graph are function defined on the graph with
values minus 1, 1. If you are one family, you value 1, the other minus 1. They're called
spin functions. We don't impose any cardinality on the number of nodes of vertices in which
you take value 1 or minus 1, because this can be imposed a posteriori. Then we define
the edge energies in terms of these spin functions. And this is a way to define them. So to every
edge we associate a number, positive or non-negative number, aij, which is the strength of the
edges, of the edge. And if you are not in the set of edges, then we set aij equal to
0. So the energy can be written as a sum of the role pairs of vertices. And we have a
normalization factor because here ui minus uj is equal to 0 or 2 in modules. So in the
case when aij are equal to 1 on the edges, this is just the number of edges. So this
is another way to write the same thing. And then we want to pass the limit and see what
happens to the minimal card problems. But this is done by defining a limit energy, not
looking at the problem themselves, not looking at the solutions, but looking at the behavior
of the energies. And to define a limit energy, which is gamma limit, and in such a way that
this gives the minimal card problems for the limit are approximate minimal card problem
for the converging graph, for the diverging graphs. It's important here to have some compactness
properties of minimizing sequence that suggest which is the limit energy. And this is different
in the case of sparse or dense graphs. So we start with what had been done in the last
20 years, a lot of work has been done in connection with image segmentation and fracture mechanics,
Zugänglich über
Offener Zugang
Dauer
00:48:06 Min
Aufnahmedatum
2020-06-15
Hochgeladen am
2020-06-15 20:26:39
Sprache
en-US
I review some results on the convergence of energies defined on graphs. My interest in such energies comes from models in Solid Mechanics (where the bonds in the graph represent the relevant atomistic interactions) or Statistical Physics (Ising systems), but the nodes of the graph can also be thought as a collection of data on which the bonds describe some relation between the data.
The typical objective is an approximate (simplified) continuum description of problems of minimal cut as the number N of the nodes of the graphs diverges.
If the graphs are sparse (i.e. the number of bonds is much less than the total number of pairs of nodes as N goes to infinity), often (more precisely when we have some control on the range or on the decay of the interactions) such minimal-cut problems translate into minimal-perimeter problems for sets or partitions on the continuum. This description is easily understood for periodic lattice systems, but carries on also for random distributions of nodes. In the case of a (locally) uniform Poisson distribution, actually the limit minimal-cut problems are described by more regular energies than in the periodic-lattice case.
When we relax the hypothesis on the range of interactions, the description of the limit of sparse graphs becomes more complex, as it depends subtly on geometric characteristics of the graph, and is partially understood. Some easy examples show that, even though for the continuum limit we still remain in a similar analytical environment, the description as (sharp) interfacial energies can be lost in this case, and more “diffuse” interfaces must be taken into account.
If instead we consider dense sequences of graphs (i.e., the number of bonds is of the same order as the total number of pairs as N goes to infinity) then a completely different limit environment must be used, that of graphons (which are abstract limits of graphs), for which sophisticated combinatoric results can be used. We can re-read the existing notion of convergence of graphs to graphons as a convergence of the related cut functionals to non-local energies on a simple reference parameter set. This convergence provides an approximate description of the corresponding minimal-cup problems.
Works in collaboration with Alicandro, Cicalese, Piatnitski and Solci (sparse graphs) and Cermelli and Dovetta (dense graphs).