multiple directions/.style=for tree=#1, phantom, for relative level=1no edge, delay=!c.content/.pgfmath=content("!u"), before computing xy=l=0,s=0, multiple directions/.default=, grow subtree/.style=for tree=grow=#1, grow’ subtree/.style=for tree=grow’=#1
Optimal unimodular matchings
Abstract
We consider sequences of finite weighted random graphs that converge locally to unimodular i.i.d. weighted random trees. When the weights are atomless, we prove that the matchings of maximal weight converge locally to a matching on the limiting tree. For this purpose, we introduce and study unimodular matchings on weighted unimodular random trees as well as a notion of optimality for these objects. In this context, we prove that, in law, there is a unique optimal unimodular matching for a given unimodular tree. We then prove that this law is the local limit of the sequence of matchings of maximal weight. Along the way, we also show that this law is characterised by an equation derived from a message passing algorithm.
Keywords:
Optimal matchings, sparse random graphs, unimodularity, local convergence.
Mathematics Subjects Classification:
05C70, 05C82, 60C05, 60K35.
1 Introduction
Optimal matchings in random graphs is a problem with a long history dating back to the paper by Karp and Sipser [4568355]. In this seminal paper, they obtain the asymptotic size of a maximal matching in a sparse Erdős-Rényi random graph with average degree . Their method relies on the analysis of a greedy algorithm that constructs a matching in a graph. It turns out that the algorithm is very close to optimality when , and less so when (even if it is still asymptotically optimal), making the analysis trickier in this regime.
More recently, Gamarnik, Nowick and Swirscsz [gamarnik2003maximum] studied the edge-weighted version of this maximal matching problem on the Erdős-Rényi random graph and on regular random graphs. Their approach does not rely on the Karp–Sipser algorithm, but on a local optimality ansatz inspired by the earlier introduction of the so-called objective method by Aldous [Aldous2004, aldous2018processes, Aldous1992AsymptoticsIT, aldous2000zeta2]. Gamarnik, Nowick and Swirscsz were able to compute the asymptotic weight of the optimal matching in Erdős-Rényi random graph when and in the special case where the weights have exponential distribution. These restrictions come from the fact that their method depends on the uniqueness of the solution of a fixed point in a belief propagation equation.
Strikingly we realised that, under mild assumptions, this uniqueness is not required for the convergence in law of the optimal matching on a locally tree-like edge-weighted random graph. Informally, the limit is a random matching on the unimodular limiting tree with iid edge-weights with law , whose law is invariant by re-rooting. We call such random matchings unimodular (see Section 2 for precise definitions). In addition, the limit is optimal in the sense that the quantity
(1) |
is maximal among all unimodular matchings of .
Before stating our main result, we need to introduce Unimodular Bienaymé Galton Watson random trees (UBGW), which are the limiting unimodular random trees of our graphs. Let be a distribution on non-negative integers with finite variance and generating function . We say that a rooted tree is a UBGW with offspring distribution if it has the following law:
-
•
The number of children of vertices of are all independent.
-
•
The number of children of the root is distributed according to .
-
•
The number of children of every non-root vertex is distributed according to , the sized biased version of . The generating function of is .
We can now state our main result:
Theorem 1.
Let be a sequence of weighted random graphs and let be a maximum matching on . Choose a root uniformly among the vertices and suppose that the sequence of rooted weighted random graphs converges locally to a vertex-rooted Unimodular Bienaymé-Galton-Watson (UBGW) tree with reproduction law and i.i.d edge-weights with law such that:
-
•
both and have finite expectation,
-
•
the law is atomless,
-
•
the ratio converges in probability to the expectation of .
Then there exists a unique (in law) optimal matching on such that converges locally to . Furthermore the distribution of is explicitly described in Proposition 9 (ii).
Remark.
As often with unimodular local limits, we also get a similar statement when the graphs are rooted at a uniform oriented edge. See Section 2 for precise statements.
The description of given in Proposition 9 (ii) relies on the belief propagation mentioned above. In the setting of finite trees, this procedure always constructs an optimal matching. A good portion of this work, done in Section 3 is then to show that the same procedure produces an optimal random matching when it is applied to a weighted UBGW tree. The second important step, done in Section 4, is to show that it is possible to exhibit a matching of the (large) finite graph whose average weight per vertex is close to the performance of the limit as defined in (1).
To gain more insight into the belief propagation procedure and our results, we introduce informally the belief variables associated with oriented edges of a finite deterministic tree . This will be done in detail in Section 3.1. Each variable captures the gain of allowing to be matched in , the connected component of containing . When is finite, this corresponds to the difference between the maximal weight of a matching of and the maximal weight of a matching of . From this, we can deduce the so-called decision rule of the belief propagation procedure:
(2) |
We will also see that the tree structure induces the following recursive equation for the belief variables:
(3) |
In a UBGW tree whose reproduction law , this translates into the following equation in law
(4) |
where , the ’s and the ’s are all independent, and . As we will see, it is not very hard to show that this equation in law always has a solution, but the question of the uniqueness of the solution is trickier. In fact we were unable to prove it by conventional methods. We will come back to this in a few lines.
One of the main advances of the present work is that the matching constructed from any solution of (4) by the decision rule is optimal. Our proof of this claim is inspired by Aldous’ work [aldous2000zeta2] on the Poisson Weighted Infinite Tree (PWIT). However, we work in the more general context of unimodular random trees, and one of our main difficulty is that, contrary to Aldous’ work, we deal with partial matchings rather than perfect matchings. Furthermore, there is no explicit solution to Equation (4). We overcome these two difficulties by introducing self-loops in Subsection 3.2 and by proving just enough properties on solutions to Equation (4) to allow us to conclude.
The second main contribution of Theorem 1, proved in Subsections 3.3 and 3.4, is that the law of is unique and does not depend on the particular solution used. This bypasses previous restrictions on the belief propagation approach as in Gamarnik, Nowick and Swirscsz [gamarnik2003maximum], Aldous and Steele [Aldous2004] or Aldous and Bandyopadhyay [Aldous_2005] that mostly required the variables to be measurable with respect to the tree.
The last step in proving Theorem 1 is to construct almost optimal matchings of finite graphs from an optimal matching on their limiting tree. This is the purpose of section 4. A similar program has already been carried out by Aldous in the special case of the random assignment problem in bipartite graphs [Aldous1992AsymptoticsIT].
Let us come back to the uniqueness in law of the solution to Equation (4). As mentioned, we are not able to prove it directly and, quite surprisingly, we need the uniqueness of the optimal matching in Theorem 1 to establish it (under mild assumptions on the weights). This is formulated in the following theorem, proved in Section 5. Conversely, we emphasise that assuming uniqueness of the solution of Equation (4) does not help in proving Theorem 1.
Theorem 2.
Let be a non atomic law such that there exists such that . Let be a law on natural integers that has finite expectation. Then there is a unique law satisfying:
where , the ’s and the ’s are all independent, and .
Theorem 1 describes the full local geometry of the optimal matching. In particular, it can be used to obtain the asymptotic weight and density of the optimal matching on the sequence of graphs:
Corollary 3.
Notice that (6) is the probability that a uniform edge is in the optimal matching. It could also be stated as the probability that a uniform vertex is in the matching:
We can also establish a conditional version of this statement:
Corollary 4.
Let be a sequence of uniformly rooted weighted graphs as in Theorem 1. Recall that is a uniform vertex of . One has
(7) |
The article is organised as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the notions of unimodular matchings and unimodular graphs. Section 3 carries out the study of optimal matchings on the limiting tree. In Section 4 we construct almost optimal matchings on finite graphs from their optimal infinite counterparts. In Section 5, we use the results established in the previous two sections to prove the two main theorems. Finally, Section 6 covers corollaries of Theorem 1 and a few adjacent problems to maximum matching on which this method also works.
Acknowledgements.
L.M.’s research is supported by the ANR grant ProGraM (ANR-19-CE40-0025). V.P. acknowledges the support of the ANR through the grant DOOM (ANR-23-CE23-0002)
Contents
2 Unimodular matched random graphs
The goal of this section is to define precisely the objects we are working on, and the precise notions of optimality for matchings and local convergence we will use. The key concept is unimodularity for rooted graphs. Depending on the context, it is often easier to work either with graphs rooted at a vertex or with graphs rooted at an oriented edge. We will present both cases, as well as the classical correspondence between the two points of view. For a more complete exposition on the subject, we refer the reader to [aldous2018processes].
Finally, we will focus on unimodular matchings and a concept of optimality with respect to a natural performance for vertex-rooted or edge-rooted graphs. We will see that the correspondence mentioned above conserves our notions of optimality.
2.1 Unimodular rooted graphs
We will work on rooted weighted graphs defined as follows.
Definition 2.1.
Let be a (locally finite) graph and be a function from to . We that is
-
•
a vertex-rooted weighted graph if ,
-
•
an edge-rooted weighted graph if , the set of directed edges.
It will be useful to add decorations to our graphs: we allow the existence of additional functions that map or to . The integer will typically be no larger than .
Definition 2.2.
Let be a vertex-rooted (resp. edge-rooted) weighted graph. Fix an integer and some functions from or to . We say that is a decorated vertex-rooted (resp. edge-rooted) weighted graph.
Let us name the space of locally finite decorated vertex-rooted weighted graphs. We will write for the space of laws on this space. Similarly, we denote by and the corresponding edge-rooted space and laws. When we do not need to keep track of the weights, root, or some decorations of the graphs, we will denote elements of indifferently by , , , , …, kee** only the quantities we are currently interested in.
Remark.
The labels of the vertices being of no importance we work up graph isomorphism.
We now introduce the notion of unimodularity, which translates the intuition that the choice of the root is uniform for some random graph even when the graph is infinite. To this end, we introduce the space of doubly rooted graphs up to isomorphism which is defined similarly as before but with two distinguished roots. It will be simpler to give specific definitions for vertex and edge-rooted graphs.
Definition 2.3 (Vertex-rooted unimodularity).
We say that a probability measure on decorated vertex-rooted graphs is unimodular if the following statement holds for every :
The subspace of unimodular laws on vertex rooted-graph will be noted
The definition can be written alternatively as
For edge-rooted graphs, we will use the following definition:
Definition 2.4 (Edge-rooted unimodularity).
Let be a probability measure on decorated edge-rooted graphs. Let be a random edge-weighted decorated graph with law . Let be a uniformly picked directed edge of the form for . We say that is:
-
•
stationary if
-
•
revertible if
-
•
unimodular if it is both revertible and stationary.
The subspace of unimodular laws on edge-rooted graphs will be noted
To simplify notation, we will say that a random rooted graph (as a random variable) is unimodular when its corresponding law is.
Remark.
Fix a finite deterministic graph, and let be a random vertex (resp. oriented edge). It is straightforward to check that is unimodular iff is uniform. Hence, unimodular graphs can be viewed as generalisations of uniformly rooted graphs.
2.2 Correspondance between vertex-rooted and edge-rooted unimodularity
In this section, we present the classical transformation that maps a unimodular vertex-rooted graph into a unimodular edge-rooted graph. Heuristically, to transform a graph rooted at a uniform vertex into a graph rooted at a uniformly oriented edge, one has to pick an oriented edge starting at its root vertex, but this induces a bias by the degree of the root vertex. This bias has to be taken into account to conserve unimodularity. This is done in the following.
Definition 2.5.
Take such that . Let be the unique measure such that, for every measurable from to ,
Remark.
The operator is the composition of two transformations. The first operator consists on choosing a uniform oriented edge started at the root vertex, giving a measure :
The second step is then to cancel the biais by the degree of the vertex, giving :
The following proposition links vertex unimodularity and edge unimodularity.
Proposition 5 (Theorem 4.1 in [aldous2018processes]).
Let such that . Then the measure is unimodular if and only if is unimodular.
We finish this Section with the classical example of unimodular Bienaymé-Galton-Watson trees (UGBW), seen from both points of view and without weights. In either case, the weighted version with weight law corresponds to drawing independently of law .
Example 2.1 (Unimodular Bienaymé Galton Watson trees)
Let be a probability measure on with finite expectation . Let be the size-biased version of , that, , .
In the introduction, we defined the Unimodular Bienaymé Galton Watson Tree (what we will shorten as UBGW tree) with reproduction law . It is the random tree with the following law:
-
•
The number of children of vertices of are all independent.
-
•
The number of children of the root is distributed according to .
-
•
Every non-root vertex has a number of children distributed according to , the sized biased version of .
The random tree is a vertex-rooted unimodular random graph. See Figure 1 for an illustration.
The corresponding edge-rooted UBGW tree has a very simple description. Take two independent copies of Bienaymé-Galton-Watson trees with offspring distribution with respective root vertex and , and connect their roots by the oriented edge . The resulting random tree is an edge-rooted unimodular random graph. See Figure 2 for an illustration.
Note that UGBW trees are the limits in law for the local topology of random configuration graphs with iid degrees sampled for , and rooted uniformly at a vertex or a directed edge.
2.3 Matchings, optimality and unimodularity
We start with the definition of matchings on a graph.
Definition 2.6.
For any weighted graph , a matching on is a subgraph of in the sense and , such that every vertex of belongs to at most one edge of . A matched graph is a pair , where is a matching on .
We can extend the notion of unimodularity for random graphs to random matched graphs by assimilating a matching to a decoration.
Definition 2.7.
Let be a random matched rooted graph. We say that is unimodular iff is. By convention, we will append the matching as the final decoration.
Remark.
Note that this definition does not require that the matching is measurable with respect to the graph. This will be important in the sequel.
The central objects of this work are optimal matchings. For finite graphs, this corresponds to the classical notion of maximum weighted matching. When is infinite, this optimality is ill-defined. However, in the case of a unimodular random weighted graph, since the root edge is informally a typical edge, we can define optimality via its weight when it is in the matching. This leads to the following definition:
Definition 2.8.
Let be a unimodular random matched rooted graph, we define the performance of as:
When the context is clear, we will just shorten the notation to . By extension, since those quantities only depend on the law of , we will freely use the same notation for and for where satisfies that the last decoration defines a matching almost surely and the same for .
Let be a (undecorated) unimodular vertex-rooted graph. We say that is optimal if it is a unimodular matched vertex-rooted graph such that
-
•
has the same law as
-
•
is maximal.
Remark.
This formulation may seem a bit complicated but it is possible that is not measurable with respect to . We thus allow resampling to avoid dealing with this difficulty.
In the edge-rooted setting, we can define optimality similarly. The next proposition shows that the operator preserves optimality.
Proposition 6.
Let such that the last decoration defines a matching almost surely, assume . Recall the operator of Definition 2.5, then:
Remark.
If the graph is finite and the root is chosen uniformly among the vertices or the directed edges, then is simply the average contribution per vertex, and is the average contribution per directed edge. It is then clear that the two quantities are proportional. The proposition shows that it generalises to unimodular matched graphs.
Proof.
We will decompose both quantities with respect to the degree of the root, let us write and . In the edge-rooted case, we get:
In the vertex-rooted case, we get :
The term in the second sum is zero, it then suffices to show that the term of each sum is proportional by a factor . Namely, for ,
First, let us show that
For this purpose, we use reversibility to show that:
Then use the 1-step stationarity to show that:
Hence:
Recall that the operator is the operation of taking , uniformly chosen among , then biasing by . Taking and applying the definition of bias on :
In this second sum, so it is the same as :
Putting everything together, we have shown:
Dividing by then multiplying by yields the required equality. ∎
We state a useful property of unimodular graphs: events that have probability zero (resp. almost sure) at the root have probability zero (resp. almost sure) everywhere.
Proposition 7.
Let be a unimodular graph, let and be a positive H-local function on in the sense that if such that , . Assume that
Then almost surely, for all
3 Optimal unimodular matching on unimodular BGW trees
In this section, we construct optimal matchings on UBGW trees. As mentioned in the introduction, our construction relies on a message passing algorithm that we will present and study in depth in Section 3.1. We then prove that the matchings constructed are optimal in Section 3.3. Finally, we prove the uniqueness of optimal matchings in UBGW trees in Section 3.4.
3.1 A message passing algorithm
In this subsection, we will adopt the edge-rooted point of view.
Before formally introducing the message passing algorithm mentioned in the introduction, we start by discussing the simpler setting of finite trees. We are looking for a dynamic program that builds the maximum matching.
Fix a finite weighted rooted deterministic tree with a unique optimal matching. Let be an edge of , we denote by and the two connected components of containing respectively and . Let us start by simple but key observations illustrated in Figure 3:
-
•
The maximal weight of matchings of that exclude the edge is merely the sum of the maximal weights of matchings of and , denoted and .
-
•
The maximal weight of matchings that include the edge is the sum of the weight of and of the maximal weights of matchings of and . Note that both and consist of collections of disjoint subtrees of issued from the children of and . We denote by and the relevant maximal weights.
From this discussion, one can see that the edge is in the optimal matching of iff
It will be instrumental to isolate quantities depending only on and in the previous display. This leads us to introduce the following quantities
and the criterion of is simply
(8) |
Note that the variable has a neat interpretation in terms of the matchings of . Indeed, it is the marginal gain between allowing to be matched or not.
The variables have the nice property of satisfying a recursive equation. We describe this recursion for and . See Figure 4 for an illustration.
Listing the children of in , assume that the maximum matching of matches with . In that situation, the maximum matching of and the maximum matching of coincide on the subtrees for . On , this maximum matching has matched with , so is not matched to other vertices. Therefore, our maximum matching on restricted to is the union of with the maximum matching of . In that case, the weight of the maximal matching is given by:
On the other hand, if the maximum matching of does not match it is also the maximum matching in . Thus, inside each sub-tree , it coincides with the maximal matching of . In that case, the weight of the maximal matching is given by:
Putting all the different cases together, we have the identity
Recalling the definition of , we get:
In conclusion, we have obtained the recursive equation (3) given in the introduction.
Note that, since is a finite tree, it is possible to calculate for all vertices by starting when is a leaf, in which case . By construction, our decision rule (2) constructs the optimal matching on from the values of .
Now, let us discuss how to extend the construction of variables when the underlying tree is a (possibly infinite) UBGW tree. This is not trivial, since the previous deterministic construction from leaves is impossible when the tree is infinite. Moreover, it is not clear to us that a solution of the recursive system (3) on a given random weighted UBGW tree can be constructed measurably. First, if exists, then its law must satisfy a recursive distributional equation, the first lemma below guarantees the existence of a solution to this equation:
Lemma 8.
Let be a random variable with law and be a sequence of i.i.d. random variables with law , independent of . Then there exists a law such that for all sequence i.i.d of law and independent of and of the sequence , the following equality in law holds:
Proof.
Let us express the invariance of in terms of its cumulative distribution function . Let us call the generating function of .
Let ,
where for all real , we define as the left limit of at .
The invariance of is equivalent to:
(9) |
Our goal is to apply Schauder’s fixed point theorem on the subspace of non-decreasing functions of equipped with the product topology of . The space is closed and contained in the compact space (by Tychonoff’s theorem) so is compact. It is also convex, so it is a compact convex subspace of that is a Hausdorff topological vector space. Let us define the map
By dominated convergence theorem, the map is a continuous map from into itself. Hence, Schauder’s fixed point theorem implies that there exists a function such that . To conclude we just need to verify that the image is contained in the subspace of cadlag functions. Since elements of are non-decreasing, the fact that they admit left limits is obvious, we just need to show that any element of is right-continuous, that is for any increasing map , the map is right continuous. It is just a consequence of the left continuity of combined with the dominated convergence theorem. ∎
The proof of Lemma 8 is not constructive and we do not know of a construction for the variables that is measurable in terms of the tree and that satisfies the recursion (3), except in specific examples (e.g. finite trees). Still, we will see in the next proposition that for any law given by the previous lemma, we can resample a pair satisfying:
-
•
The family is a solution of (3) on .
-
•
For all the variable , in average over , is distributed according to .
-
•
The first marginal has the same law as .
This is possible even if we take into account unimodular decorations on , a unimodular matching for example. This will be instrumental in proving the uniqueness of the law of the optimal matching on since we will need to compare any unimodular matching to the one obtained by the decision rule (2) obtained from the family .
Proposition 9.
Let be a solution to Equation (9) and let be a law associated with and solution to (4). Let be a unimodular decorated weighted UBGW tree with reproduction law and weights law (for example, , where is a matching of ).
-
(i)
There exists a random decorated tree such that the law of is the law of , each , in average over , has law and such that for every :
-
(ii)
The rule
defines a matching on .
Furthermore, if is non-atomic, this "edge-rule" is equivalent to the following "vertex-rule":
In particular, almost surely,
-
(iii)
The random decorated tree viewed as with as an additional decoration is unimodular.
Remark.
We now turn to the proof of the proposition:
Proof of Proposition 9.
i) For an illustration of this proof, we refer to Figure 5. Let , recall the neighbourhood of the root edge of . We call the depth of a non-oriented edge its distance to the root edge. Let be the set of directed edges such that the depth of is and is pointing away from the root. We set to be independent variables with law from the previous lemma.
We can then use Recursion (3):
to define . By induction, we define every for pointing away from the root and then on the edge-root and its symmetric. We can then define on the set of directed edges pointing towards the root of depth , then by the same induction, we define them on all , the set of directed edges pointing towards the root of depth , for running from to .
In this way, we have defined on , and we can see that because is an invariant law for the RDE, the restriction of to has the same law as if we defined it directly on . By Kolmogorov’s extension theorem, we deduce that there exists a process such that the first marginal’s law is and satisfies Recursion (3) on with the prescribed law.
ii) For an illustration of this proof, refer to Figure 6. We need to show that for every vertex , there is at most one neighbouring vertex satisfying Rule (2)
To this end, we will first show the following implication for any
![Refer to caption](x1.png)
Indeed:
This implies that for every neighbour of , different from , , which in turn implies that is the unique element of . Hence the vertex is matched to at most one neighbour.
To show the equivalent rule, we only need to show that is not matched if and only if . For the implication, we have that any incident for evaluates to zero by applying Recursion (3). So for any , . Since , we deduce that for any , , but we have just seen that hence for any so is not matched to . Reciprocally, if is not matched by , then
for any , so the maximum of is not reached by any or there are several in the , since is non-atomic there is almost surely no ties and the is not reached, so which concludes.
iii) The goal is to show that the law of restricted to a neighbourhood of with chosen uniformly among the children of is the same as the law of restricted to the neighbourhood of . Since Recursion (3) is preserved, one only needs to show that the exterior variables of on the boundary of are i.i.d variables of law . The neighbourhood of is included in the neighbourhood of and can be computed from it. One can check by applying Recursion (3) up to twice from the -boundary of , that we effectively recover variables on the boundary of that are i.i.d of law . is thus stationary.
Clearly, the law of the are also symmetric so changing into does not change their laws, is thus reversible. ∎
From now on, despite resampling when applying Proposition 9, we will forgo the notation for to ease notations.
We conclude this Section with a technical result we will need later. It deals with a property of the probability distributions which are solutions of Equation (4).
Lemma 10.
Any law defined as a solution of Equation (4) is atomic at zero and only at zero.
Proof.
Let be any solution to Equation (9). First, let us show that is atomic at zero. Evaluate Equation at :
If we are done, else, assume and .
Because on , we deduce that . This implies in particular that . Since , this implies that aswell.
Recall equation (9):
Evaluate this equation at some variable of law , this yields:
We’ve shown previously that almost surely so we can discard . Now take expectation with respect to , this yields:
But since outside of , this implies that almost surely on ,
Let independent variables each of law , evaluate equation (9) on :
Taking expectations:
So almost surely, either or . Conditionally on , . But is non-decreasing so this statement stays true for .
So now, taking expectations on , we obtained:
We can now then iterate: Let i.i.d variables of law , we will show the following statement by induction:
(10) |
The statement holds for , assume it holds for some . Evaluate at , this yields
where the expectation is over .
Now take expectation over , by hypothesis the left-hand side will evaluate to one:
We deduce that almost surely on ,
Now evaluate on , this yields:
where the expectation is over . Now take expectation over , the left-hand side evaluates to 0 as we have just shown:
We deduce that:
Again, since is non-decreasing, we can discard the conditioning to obtain:
So taking expectation over , we have proven that:
As required.
Now Equation (10) implies that:
But since is atomless, is not reduced to a single point so . Taking then shows that , this is clearly impossible as is a law on .
Now let us show that is non-atomic outside of zero, this is essentially a consequence of the RDE, for and , all mutually independent :
As is non-atomic, is non-atomic as well, so the right-hand side is non-atomic when it doesn’t evaluate to zero, which concludes. ∎
3.2 Adding self-loops
In the remainder of this section, we will adopt the vertex-rooted point of view.
We will prove that if is atomless, constructed in the previous section is the unique optimal unimodular random matching on . Note that in the previous section, we constructed starting from any solution to equation , this will indirectly show that any solution to equation constructs the same matching law.
This fact may seem quite surprising at first, but when we come back to the finite case, it is really the atomless property of the weights that makes it so that the optimal matching is unique almost surely. In the infinite case, this still holds.
We will first introduce an extension of as a graph where optimality of matchings on transfers over. The main reason that led us to do this is to look at the vertex-rooted definition of performance:
We would like to use the recursion on to compare to other matchings . In the previous expression, there are two cases depending on whether is matched:
-
•
If is matched to some , intervenes in the recursion of and so the information transported by the has "compared" with other quantities, we can then hope to use the recursion to study the optimality of .
-
•
However, if the sum is empty, the contribution is which has not intervened anywhere, so we would a priori have to study this exception everywhere.
This introduces very cumbersome exceptional cases that become intractable when we start to consider complex events, the goal is thus to extend the weights and make the random variables on self edges so that the weights on (that is zero for now, but we will see that we will put non zero values on them instead) are transported through the recursion as well. The definition of that we introduce shortly after also has a simple interpretation, it is the (signed) gain if one forced u to be matched to one of its neighbours.
Another more technical motivation to do this is to recover the same recursion that has been studied by Aldous in [aldous2000zeta2].
We will define the extension deterministically on every outcome of , refer to Figure 7 for an illustration. The vertex set and the decorations remain unchanged, . We will enrich the edge set by adding self-loops for every to construct . If with , we do not change nor : we set and .
If , we set :
The following recursive equation holds for :
(11) |
Indeed if then it is obvious by definition, now if , then by the previous equation:
Now, since is unmatched by is equivalent to being zero from Proposition 9 ii) and . We deduce that if and only if . Since the ’s are non-atomic, we can replace the previous inequality with a strict one. As a consequence, the implication we defined previously for the criterion of edges being in is now an equivalence:
(12) |
This is the part that would break down had we chosen to be atomic, the last inclusion rule would become fuzzy with multiple ties.
The following property we have just shown will be key later:
(13) |
Intuitively, this corresponds to the fact that is matched to one of its neighbours if and only if the gain of forcing to be matched to one of its neighbours is positive. In other words, is matched by if and only if . However, this does not give information about who is the chosen neighbour of .
We now define a new performance on the space of matchings on , we only consider perfect matchings where every vertex has exactly one neighbour.
If is a partial matching on , there is a natural projection of into a perfect matching on where we simply identify previously unmatched vertices as matched to themselves through . Note that this projection is invertible by just forgetting . This gives a canonical way to extend pre-existing matchings on .
3.3 Optimality
The goal of this subsection is to prove the following statement:
Proposition 11.
The matching is optimal on . Furthermore, almost surely, any optimal matching on shares the same set of unmatched vertices.
Before we embark on this proof, let us stress the fact that given any unimodular matching on , Proposition 9 iii) allows to resample on top of such that is unimodular, we can then make both matchings co-exist on the tree while retaining unimodularity.
We will proceed by proving the following lemma:
Lemma 12.
is a matching maximising .
Proof of Lemma 12.
Fix any unimodular matching on . And sample as in Proposition 9 iii).
We define the neighbour function associated with for which is the vertex matched with in . Similarly, we define the neighbour function associated with .
Set , , , , see Figure 8 for an illustration.
We want to show that
To this end, we will use the recursion on to bound the expectation by an expression involving .
The expectation is zero outside the event . Let us work on this event from now on. By definition of , we have that
However, because is in , we know that
and that does not satisfy that maximum (else, which contradicts being in ).
Hence
(14) |
Now, by definition of the , we also have
(15) |
as we condition on .
Combining (14) and (15), we get that:
(16) | ||||
(17) | ||||
(18) |
Taking expectation and remembering that and , we get that:
It remains to show that the final expectation is zero, to this end, we will use unimodularity to prove that conditionally on , and have the same law.
Let some Borel set of , we want to show that:
(19) |
To prove this, we will use a chain of intermediary equalities between the two events by applying the mass-transport principle. First, we need to show that the mass-transport principle still holds when is replaced by . But is the image of through a deterministic bijective operator so taking expectations over either yields the same thing. Indeed for every that is a measurable function over the space of doubly pointed decorated trees, we want to show that:
To this end we will write where , and notice so the required equality rewrites as:
which is true by unimodularity of .
Let us recall the definition of so the desired equality rewrites as :
Define the measurable function on the space of double rooted decorated trees:
Applying mass-transport principle to we get:
Computing the first expectation yields:
Computing the second expectation yields:
where we used that is equivalent to and the fact that is equivalent to .
We now define another measurable function on the same space:
Once again, applying the mass-transport principle to we get:
Computing the first expectation yields:
Computing the second expectation yields:
where we used that is equivalent to and the fact that is equivalent to .
We are now ready to prove our optimality result for unimodular matchings.
Proof of Proposition 11.
Let an optimal matching on and its associated neighbour function. Let such that the law of the marginals and are preserved. The main idea is that by adding self-loops with the rules given in the previous subsection, the matching is the most penalised perfect matching of . This allows us to compare and by comparing their counterparts on . The fact that is optimal translates into the fact that
is maximal among unimodular perfect matchings of .
Let us decompose and into their positive and negative parts.
But remembering (13), is precisely the matching that includes all the strictly negative weight self-loops and only them.
This implies that the previous decomposition can be written as:
Now we can lower bound the positive part of by by omitting the positive weight self-loops and we can lower bound the negative part by because can at most include every negative self-loop:
But is optimal so , so we proved
But we proved in Lemma 12 that is optimal for so
So equality holds and all previous inequalities were equalities:
So we’ve shown that maximizes and that is optimal on . Furthermore, by unimodularity, we get that the set of unmatched vertices by is almost surely the same as the set of unmatched vertices by , and it is almost surely the set of vertices such that . ∎
Remark.
If is optimal, we have in addition to .
3.4 Uniqueness
We will keep using the vertex-rooted point of view in this section.
The goal of this section is to prove that is also the unique optimal matching in law. We will actually prove the following stronger result:
Proposition 13.
Let be a unimodular optimal matched graph, sample with Proposition 9. Almost surely, .
Proof.
We will show that almost surely, and deduce that almost surely, through the projection that forgets self-loops. Recall that is the event when and assume .
Going back into the proof of optimality of . Taking expectation in Equation (16) we get
Equality between and (see Remark Remark) implies that the RHS is equal to , furthermore Equation (15) says that the variable in the expectation of the RHS is non negative almost surely, we conclude that almost surely:
By definition of ,
So achieves the maximum among the list of stripped of its maximum. We deduce that achieves the second largest among the that we will write as .
Thus:
Now let us set:
We always have by construction that for any .
Conditionally on the event , we get that:
Furthermore, by the second part of Proposition 11, almost surely, for any , if and only if , from this we deduce that on we have and, by induction, (no loops in the path) and also that (the path cannot go back up).
Thus, Let us write }. Define for , :
We have that and so . Furthermore, so . We are going to show that this is not possible by establishing a contradiction for the value of the probability
(20) |
First, we will use unimodularity to show that . We will rely on the following Lemma whose proof is postponed to the end of this Section.
Lemma 14.
For any ,
From this Lemma we deduce that:
As long as , there is one regular edge with as an endpoint and the self-loop the and around are thus automatically different. We can then decompose as
Hence and
Second, by exhibiting explicit configurations of positive total mass where happens, we will show that .
Set the subtree rooted at .
Referring to Figure 11, the idea is that if , the only dependence the has from comes from and , so we will condition on the values of . Let be the law of conditionally on , we have then shown that:
It suffices to show that
-almost everywhere and this will imply a contradiction.
The next Lemma shows an explicit lower bound as required:
Lemma 15.
Let be i.i.d variables of law .
Let .
Let any Borel subset of :
Lemma 10 implies that . This uniform lower bound does not depend on the values of , so it is almost-sure. ∎
We now turn to the proof of our two Lemmas.
Proof of Lemma 14.
Refer to Figure 12 for an illustration. Define the alternating path starting from a vertex as:
and for
By convention, set , in other words, . Let , define events:
Let us define .
On one hand,
on the other hand
Applying mass-transport principle to yields the result. ∎
Proof of Lemma 15.
Let be the children of as vertices for , . This follows from seeing that:
Refer to Figure 13 for an illustration. Every variable appearing in this event is independent of all others, so we can sum over to obtain the bound:
The factors cancel out, so we get the desired expression. ∎
4 From infinite to finite
In this entire section, unless stated otherwise, we will adopt the edge-rooted point of view.
The aim of this section is to prove the following statement:
Proposition 16.
Assume a sequence of finite graphs which converges locally to the unimodular BGW tree with reproduction law and weights .
Assume , , is atomless, and that converges in probability to .
Let be the optimal matching on , then every subsequence of has a subsequence that converges locally to where is an optimal unimodular matching on .
The proof can be broken down into two parts, one easy, and one hard:
-
•
Every subsequence of has a subsequence that converges locally to some where is a unimodular matching on .
-
•
The previously found must be optimal.
For the easy part, using tightness arguments, we will show that every subsequence has a convergent subsequence. The limit of any convergent subsequence is necessarily suboptimal by the definition of optimality, one only needs to verify that the limit will define a unimodular matched graph.
For the hard part, we will show that the limit of any convergent subsequence is necessarily optimal by constructing an almost optimal quasi-matching on from the optimal matching . Indeed, as a consequence, this will show that does asymptotically better than .
4.1 Local convergence of subsequences
In this section we will carry out the easy part using the following lemma:
Lemma 17.
Let be a sequence in the space of rooted graphs, . Let be any (random) functions on such that the sequence is uniformly bounded. Assume that converges locally to an almost surely locally finite graph . Then for any , the sequence of decorated graphs is tight.
Proof.
Let and . Denote by the set of rooted graphs of depth and degree bounded by . Since is locally finite, for large enough, we have . By local convergence, hence for large enough,
Let , denote by the set of edge-decorated graphs consisting of elements of decorated by a function bounded by . Then is compact and for large enough:
is thus tight. ∎
We can now go back to the proof of Proposition 16. Take , it is uniformly bounded by . Apply Lemma 17 to to obtain a subsequence such that converges.
But still converges locally to , so apply Lemma 17 again to find a subsequence of such that converges locally. Repeat the process and use a diagonal argument to obtain a subsequence such that for all , converges weakly to some limit for some decoration .
Furthermore, since the decorations are obtained from a diagonal construction, the family is consistent and therefore define a limiting decoration . To prove that this decoration is a matching, we just have to take successively limits in and in the equalities
Now we just need to check that the limiting object is unimodular, it is a consequence that any local limit of unimodular graphs is unimodular, we refer to [aldous2018processes].
The sequence of graphs converges weakly to . Take a subsequence such that converges to .
Now do the previous procedure on the sequence of to find a subsequence such that converges weakly to some . Set the matching on such that , then is at most optimal by definition so it has less performance than :
We have thus shown that every subsequence of has a locally convergent subsequence to some where is an at most optimal matching on .
4.2 Optimality of limits of subsequences
In this section, we carry out the hard part of the proof of Proposition 16. We want to reconstruct a quasi matching on from . The crucial idea is, for every , to compute the probability that conditionally on the -neighbourhood of in being the corresponding one of in . Informally, this constructs a "score" matrix where each score is the likelihood of matching by looking up to depth .
The first hurdle is that the - neighbourhood of in needs not to be a tree, so we will consider the universal cover of rooted at instead, and control the resulting error.
Second, we will show that, by completing the diagonal with the probability that is unmatched, we create, with a small error, a symmetric stochastic matrix.
Finally, this means that with a small error as , we created a random symmetric stochastic matrix on that we decompose into a convex combination of involution matrices with the Birkhoff-Von Neumann theorem, which we reinterpret as a random matching.
By construction, this random matching on will have the same performance as with asymptotically small error, which concludes.
4.2.1 Score function on edges of finite graphs
Let , we define as if is not an edge of , and as the universal cover of rooted at if is an edge of . This cover is the tree of non-backtracking trajectories from the edge . Namely, when is an edge of , is a tree rooted at the edge , children of children of (resp. ) are the neighbours of (resp. ) in , with (resp. excluded). The children of any vertex with parent are then the neighbours in of , with excluded. See Figure 14 for an illustration. For , we set .
We will need the following that translates the fact that the universal cover of converges locally to the same limit as .
Lemma 18.
Let be chosen uniformly in , then:
Proof of Lemma 18.
Fix , converges locally to so:
So w.h.p is a tree, in which case the universal cover of rooted on up to height coincides with . The conclusion follows. ∎
Let be the law of the UBGW tree of i.i.d weights and reproduction law , let be the measure arising from conditionally on and picked uniformly. We also denote by and the corresponding measures when restricted to the space of trees of height . Lemma 18 states that:
From , we define a function on the space of rooted graphs in the following way:
(21) |
where it is seen as a Radon-Nikodym density.
Integrating with regards to the second marginal, we can rewrite as
(22) |
For , we define the restricted as and
(23) |
The function can be seen as a conditional expectation if we only looked at up to depth . The quantity is exactly what we wanted at the beginning: it returns a matching score for the root if "sees" up to depth . For , define .
![Refer to caption](x3.png)
We can finally define our random "score" matrix:
Definition 4.1.
is a random matrix with:
and for .
We will use several intermediary results which proofs are postponed to Subsection 4.2.3. For all . Let be the weights of in (we set it as if the edge is not present).
Lemma 19.
The matrices are asymptotically optimal:
(24) |
Lemma 20.
The matrices are asymptotically non-negative:
(25) |
As a consequence, since we defined the matrices so that the rows sum to , the matrices are asymptotically left stochastic. Let be the Birkhoff polytope on , the subspace of symmetric matrices, the right stochastic matrices for which every row sums to 1 and the left stochastic matrices for which every column sums to 1.
Now, Lemma 20 controls the distance of the matrix to . Since is symmetric, it also controls the distance to . Now, we would like to control the distance to .
For this, we need some geometric results: We will write for . We will use the following proposition that states that if a matrix is close to and close to , then it is close to :
Proposition 21.
Assume has non-negative coefficients.
Assume that there is some such that:
Then there is some constant that does not depend on such that:
By Proposition 21, the distance of to is thus . We need another geometric lemma that controls the distance to symmetric bistochastic matrices from the distance to bistochastic matrices and the distance to symmetric matrices:
Lemma 22.
Let :
(26) |
4.2.2 Proof of the second part of Proposition 16
Fix .
Applying Lemma 19 , there exists , and big enough such that for any :
Now, applying what we just showed at the end of the previous subsection, by taking and big enough, such that for any , the previous inequality holds along with:
Applying Markov inequality:
We drop the dependency of and in and from now on to ease notation. With probability at least , there exists some bistochastic symmetric matrix such that . Now apply Birkhoff-Von Neumann theorem on and to show that is the convex combination of matrices of the form where is a permutation matrix. This shows that is a convex combination of involution matrices.
Involution matrices are in bijection with the set of matchings on the complete graph . Therefore encodes a random matching on (we just leave edges unmatched if they are not in ). On the event where exists we have:
We have shown that with probability at least there exists a random matching on whose performance is at least . In particular, has to do better. So
Taking the limit inferior we get:
In conclusion, we showed that:
and as such, all locally convergent subsequences of converge to an optimal matching couple as desired.
4.2.3 Proof of the technical lemmas
We start by proving a stronger version of Lemma 19, where we show the asymptotic correspondence not just for but for a well-behaved local function.
Definition 4.2.
Let . We say that is a local function if there exists some such that for any ,
Proposition 23.
Let be a non-negative local function. For every , set , which is f evaluated on rooted at and if . Assume is either bounded or Lipschitz with respect to the weight of the root , then:
(27) |
Lemma 19 follows by taking that is local with .
Proof of Proposition 23.
Let be the integer arising from the locality of . First we will condition on being in , else .
Notice that =. We will now integrate with respect to for :
Let be the Lipschitz constant of on the weights of . As is bounded by and by , we have that
On the other hand:
So by Slutsky’s lemma:
Now taking by monotone convergence theorem:
Since we only look up to height , we can substitute by so by law of total expectation:
So the limit is
When , then we recover
by Proposition 6. ∎
Proof of Lemma 20.
For this equation, we adopt the vertex-rooted point of view, let the law of uniformly vertex rooted and the law of vertex rooted UBGW, then:
Neglecting can only increase the negative part, so:
Now with a proof almost identical to the one of Lemma 18, we can prove that for any , converges weakly to . Since , we can first integrate on to bound the integrand by . So as , we get:
Now:
So applying martingale convergence theorem as , we recover:
∎
Proof of Proposition 21.
We will modify into a bistochastic matrix with a load-balancing algorithm. The idea is to redistribute the load of the heaviest rows to the lightest rows while preserving the columns, then redistribute the load of the heaviest columns to the lightest columns while preserving the rows. At the end of such an algorithm, every row and every column sums to the average of the columns or rows at the start.
Set , , . For , we will do the following:
-
•
Rank such that .
-
•
Set for now.
Now, while . As each row has a positive sum, there are some coefficients .
We will redistribute a fraction of these coefficients along their respective columns to the rows with the smallest sums. Note that by doing so, the sum of each column stays unchanged. However, we want the distribution to:
-
1.
never distribute more than one of the ,
-
2.
not exceed otherwise has to be increased,
-
3.
not exceed otherwise has to be increased.
The maximal weight that can be distributed is then
Thus, we set and for , and for .
As long the second condition is not satisfied, we recompute , redraw coefficients and repeat. This is possible as long as the sum of each line is positive, which is the case since we only increased the minimum of the away from zero. At every step, the algorithm increases by at least 1, and at step every line sums to the same amount. Furthermore, it has not changed the value of any .
We then apply the same algorithm to the columns in order to obtain a matrix whose rows and columns sum to the same amount , which is . Finally we output that is a bistochastic matrix.
It remains to bound . Tracking the values of over the course of the algorithm, we see that the total modification to its coefficients is during the first step and then during the second step. So the total amount of modification we did before dividing by is:
(28) |
When we divide by , we make a modification of at most
(29) |
First, we see that is close to :
We can now bound (28):
For (29), since , we have . Finally, we have that .
Summing everything up, we established that:
and works. ∎
Proof of Lemma 22.
This is true because the Birkhoff polytope is symmetric through the subspace of symmetric matrices.
Now take such that , then is bistochastic symmetric so:
∎
5 Proof of the main results
5.1 Convergence of optimally matched graphs (Theorem 1)
Section 4 shows that every subsequence of has a subsequence that converges locally to some where is an optimal matching on . Section 3 shows that the only optimal matching in law on the UBGW tree is . So every subsequence of has a subsequence that converges to . We deduce that converges locally to . This concludes the proof of Theorem 1.
5.2 Uniqueness of the message passing distribution (Theorem 2)
We now turn to the proof of Theorem 2. The idea is to recover the law of from families of statistics on .
As a warm-up, we first treat the simple case where . Take and two solutions to , they both produce optimal matchings and on . From our previous results, this matching is unique in law so both matchings have the same law. Any event that is locally measurable with respect to the couple graph and matching will have equal probability for and . We will look at the probability that the root is matched conditioned on the weight being :
as a Radon-Nikodym derivative.
Evaluated for and , this yields:
where are independent variables, and the cdf of is , the cdf of is . This shows that for any :
So the square of the characteristic functions of and are the same. Since the support of is , the support of and the characteristic functions are analytically extendable to . Now because both characteristic functions evaluate to at and their square are the same, we deduce that they coincide in some neighbourhood of . By analyticity, the characteristic functions of and coincide on and thus .
This reasoning breaks down when the has "holes" as we have no access to the information of at if . To deal with generic supports for , we will consider conditioning on the weights of edges along a path originating from the root rather than just the weight of the root edge.
Let us assume that , we will condition on the event that the weight of the root edge is and that the side of the root is a simple path of length of weights . We will further condition on the event that is unmatched in the matching . The total event of conditioning on the sequence of weights and being unmatched is measurable in the matching and graph, Figure 16 gives a depiction of the situation.
Now writing and , being unmatched is equivalent to:
We will show in Corollary 3 that is invariant for or , which then implies that:
is invariant for or . The probability in the previous display can be written as the following integral:
To simplify notations we will denote the function integrated by
so that
To prove Theorem 2, we will show that for any , for small enough, we can recover:
as a difference for and chosen according to the following Lemma, which suffices to recover the law of .
Lemma 24.
Fix with , . There exists , even if and odd if not, and a sequence satisfying the following:
-
1.
-
2.
The sequence is positive decreasing.
-
3.
The sequence is increasing.
-
4.
For any , .
-
5.
Finally, .
Proof of Lemma 24.
Let’s first show the lemma while disregarding condition 4. Let us assume , the other case being symmetrical. Take , for , pick and . Then is in decreasing and is increasing. Finally, pick . This choice is possible as . Then by construction, and . The assumption also implies that .
Now if we want to obtain condition 4. , we just need to pick and with very small but linearly independent over . The distance loss can just be recovered by doing two more steps on . ∎
We are now ready to prove the uniqueness in law of the variables :
Proof of Theorem 2.
By assumption on take and such that . Now for any , take any and take and a sequence given by Lemma 24. We will reuse the notations and from Lemma 24. We will only treat the case when and even, the other case being similar.
Recall . Decompose the invariant integral we found earlier:
Our goal is to show that:
-
1.
evaluates to on the middle interval:
-
2.
evaluates to on the interval just above:
-
3.
If we modified to for
then none of the ’s value would change on the other intervals.
First, in the middle, we have the system of inequalities:
(30) | ||||
(31) |
Looking at the inequality for it means that the last nested intervening in evaluates at .
Then looking at the next inequality , it is equivalent to so the next nested evaluates at .
Unravelling the maximums, we end up with the inequality inside being:
But this is precisely the opposite of , hence .
Second, if is between and , then the unravelling we did in the previous case stays true, the only inequality that becomes reversed is the final one, so we have:
which is the event on which , hence on this interval.
Third, if is not in the previous two intervals, then let be the last time the nested maximums evaluate to zero. Then being one is equivalent to:
and ’s value does not depend on the last values of , so it does not depend on on those intervals (one can see as a stop** time on and ). By condition 4. of the lemma, none of these inequalities change when we modify by the prescribed , so ’s value does not change either.
To conclude, for each of those choices of , the integral is invariant for and, so the variation of the integral by modifying is also the same for both. From what we have just seen, the only change in the integral occurs around , hence for all small enough:
This being true for all or , this shows that and must be of the same law, hence .
If , take the smallest such that then condition on a sequence of children at each step up to depth , by choosing the weights on the other children correctly at each step so that the evaluates on the first children, we can recover the previous reasoning as the other branches will not intervene in the recursion. ∎
Remark.
It should not be too hard to lessen the hypothesis on this proof, the open question would be whether it remains true had we picked an entirely singular distribution for .
6 Applications
In this section, we show a few applications of Theorem 1. Namely, we compute asymptotics of local statistics using the local convergence.
6.1 Optimal matching performance and density
In this entire subsection, we reuse the previous notation: is a sequence of random graphs that converges locally to a UBGW of reproduction law and weight law on the edges with and integrable and atomless. Let be the generating function of and be . In particular, . The function is the solution to Equation 9, and the family is the associated process on . Finally, the law for which is the cumulative distribution function.
Let be any optimal matching on then applying the theorem to the local function and gives Corollary 3, which we restate with slightly more detail:
Corollary 25.
The asymptotics of the average cost per edge and edge density can be computed on the limiting tree. Let of law , and of law such that are mutually independent. Then:
(32) | ||||
(33) |
In particular, this implies the not-so-obvious fact that every solution to Equation (9) shares the same value for .
Proof.
The only thing to prove is the last equality . Let , , be a antiderivative of :
To the best of our knowledge, not many nice formulas like the previous one exist. We can however state the following, which generalises Corollary 26.
Corollary 26.
We can compute the asymptotic of the conditional law of a vertex being matched in when its degree is conditioned to be , for a vertex chosen uniformly in :
(34) |
Equivalently, for the edge-rooted version, let be an uniform directed edge of :
(35) |
Proof.
We will prove the edge-rooted Equation (35). Convergence is obtained by applying Theorem 1 to the local function . The function is local so we condition on the neighbourhood.
Let us call the outwards on the minus side and the same on the plus side. They are an i.i.d family of law . Let us also write and the weights of the corresponding edges that are also i.i.d of law . Finally, let us write the number of children of and the number of children of , the family is independent. Refer to Figure 18 for an illustration.
![Refer to caption](x4.png)
The limiting quantity is thus
is unrestricted so is simply of law , whereas . Then the cdf of conditionally on satisfies:
Indeed,
Notice that by Equation (9). Thus:
Now we integrate with respect to the value of :
∎
If we push the conditioning further, the expressions depend on the entire shape of the function :
Corollary 27.
We can compute the asymptotic of the conditional law of a "gap" on one side of an edge of when the side of the gap is conditioned to be of degree k, let be the cdf of , then:
Proof of Corollary 27.
![Refer to caption](x5.png)
Apply Theorem 1 to the corresponding local function as we have done before to obtain convergence. Write the children of in , the weight of , the children of and the weight of , , , and . Finally, write the number of children of and the number of children of . See Figure 19 for an illustration. Fix , the condition rewrites as :
Now, apply the recursive equation on twice to obtain:
The event we are interested in is:
On , we know that , but we also know that either , or both are negative, because else, would be matched with who is already matched to . So can be rewritten as:
This means that the maximum inside the maximums in the expression in is simply 0, so can be rewritten as :
Finally, we can notice by the recursive equation on that the left event can be rewritten for into
We also notice that the event on the right can be broken down into:
In the end, we have obtained that:
Every variable appearing in this expression are now independent, of law , of law , of law . So we can compute its probability.
By Corollary 26,
In the end,
∎
6.2 Exponential edge weights
To the best of our knowledge, the case where is an exponential law is the only case where is explicitly computable, and it is no surprise that this case has already been solved by Gamarnik et al. in [gamarnik2003maximum] in the case of Erdös-Renyi graphs and regular graphs. Indeed let us look at Equation (9) when is of law .
Write
Set
then
and has to solve
Now, consider the map . We have as long (in which case the tree is empty), and is strictly decreasing. Thus, there exists a unique satisfying the equation and the solution is unique and explicit, as expected.
6.3 Extensions
To conclude this work, we now give a few possible generalisations. We only give the main ideas and stay purposely light on details.
6.3.1 Multi-type UBGW tree and Stochastic Block Model
Our results should extend to multi-type UBGW trees which also appear in [bordenave2012matchings] but in the unweighted case. These trees appear as local limits for Stochastic Block Models defined as follows. Let , and let be the number of types. Let be strictly positive numbers such that . For fix . Partition into such that , we may have to add one dummy vertex at the end to deal with the fact that may not be an integer, but it doesn’t change the asymptotic behaviour. The (sparse) stochastic block model is the random graph generated on so that independently for and , .
Then if we follow the same proof, the equation on the can be rewritten as a system with equations once we condition on the types of and . It should be possible to use Schauder’s fixed point theorem on this system to get existence and then continue with the techniques developed in this work.
6.3.2 Vertex weights
Our results extend to the case where the weights are no longer on the edges but on the vertices instead. It is equivalent to setting where the are i.i.d, the weights on edges are no longer independent as they are correlated as soon as they share a vertex.
Going back to the heuristic:
becomes
To recover independence inside the maximum, we introduce the alternative variables
then the equation becomes:
(36) |
Now the list of variables inside the maximum is independent, but we can see that is correlated with with the correlation structure appearing in the equation. This leads to the following RDE over a law : For of law , of law and of law , all independent:
(37) |
Similarly as before we can define the map:
with the lower continuous version of and use Schauder’s theorem to recover a solution to the RDE (37).
We then proceed in a similar fashion as with edge weights by applying Kolmogorov’s extension Theorem, with the difference that we need to correlate on a boundary with the weights of the vertices at the boundary, then use the recursion to define it on an entire neighbourhood.
We recover by setting , the remaining geometric considerations are then identical as still satisfies equation .
6.3.3 Maximum subgraph satisfying random capacity constraints
As noted by previous authors [aldous2000zeta2, salez2011cavity], it is possible to study a slightly more general type of problem with the approach developed in this work.
Let be a law on with finite expectation. Consider a random graph on that converges locally to a UBGW tree . We decorate by adding random independent decorations on vertices of law that we call the capacity of . The local limit is then the previous tree with additional independent capacities drawn on its vertices.
The maximum subgraph under capacity constraint is the subgraph of maximising
subject to
In the deterministic case, when , we recover a matching, when , a maximal subgraph of degree less than .
The variables for this problem can be defined as:
Let be the operator that returns the largest value of a set. The recursion becomes:
where we set by convention that the of a list is . Let . This translates into an equation on its cdf of the form:
Which is still of the form:
where is continuous and decreasing. The decision rule remains:
Nathanaël Enriquez: [email protected]
Laboratoire de Mathématiques d’Orsay, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405, Orsay, France
and DMA, École Normale Supérieure – PSL, 45 rue d’Ulm, F-75230 Cedex 5 Paris, France
Mike Liu: [email protected]
ENSAE (Fairplay team), France
Laurent Ménard: [email protected]
Modal’X, UMR CNRS 9023, UPL, Univ. Paris-Nanterre, F92000 Nanterre, France and ENSAE, Criteo AI Lab & Fairplay joint team, France.
Vianney Perchet: [email protected]
ENSAE & Criteo AI Lab (Fairplay team), France