The scattering transform is a multilayered wavelet-based deep learningarchitecture that acts as a model of convolutional neural networks. Recently,several works have introduced generalizations of the scattering transform fornon-Euclidean settings such as graphs. Our work builds upon these constructionsby introducing windowed and non-windowed graph scattering transforms based upona very general class of asymmetric wavelets. We show that these asymmetricgraph scattering transforms have many of the same theoretical guarantees astheir symmetric counterparts. This work helps bridge the gap between scatteringand other graph neural networks by introducing a large family of networks withprovable stability and invariance guarantees. This lays the groundwork forfuture deep learning architectures for graph-structured data that have learnedfilters and also provably have desirable theoretical properties.
Quick Read (beta)
Understanding Graph Neural Networks with Asymmetric Geometric Scattering Transforms
The scattering transform is a multilayered wavelet-based deep learning architecture that acts as a model of convolutional neural networks. Recently, several works have introduced generalizations of the scattering transform for non-Euclidean settings such as graphs. Our work builds upon these constructions by introducing windowed and non-windowed graph scattering transforms based upon a very general class of asymmetric wavelets. We show that these asymmetric graph scattering transforms have many of the same theoretical guarantees as their symmetric counterparts. This work helps bridge the gap between scattering and other graph neural networks by introducing a large family of networks with provable stability and invariance guarantees. This lays the groundwork for future deep learning architectures for graph-structured data that have learned filters and also provably have desirable theoretical properties.
The scattering transform is a wavelet-based model of convolutional neural networks (CNNs), introduced for signals defined on by S. Mallat in . Like the front end of a CNN, the scattering transform produces a representation of an inputted signal through an alternating cascade of filter convolutions and pointwise nonlinearities. It differs from CNNs in two respects: i) it uses predesigned, wavelet filters rather than filters learned through training data, and ii) it uses the complex modulus as its nonlinear activation function rather than more common choices such as the rectified linear unit (ReLU). These differences lead to a network which provably has desirable mathematical properties. In particular, the Euclidean scattering transform is: i) nonexpansive on , ii) invariant to translations up to a certain scale parameter, and iii) stable to certain diffeomorphisms. In addition to these theoretical properties, the scattering transform has also been used to achieve very good numerical results in fields such as audio processing , medical signal processing , computer vision , and quantum chemistry .
While CNNs have proven tremendously effective for a wide variety of machine learning tasks, they typically assume that inputted data has a Euclidean structure. For instance, an image is naturally modeled as a function on However, many data sets of interest such as social networks, molecules, or surfaces have an intrinsically non-Euclidean structure and are naturally modeled as graphs or manifolds. This has motivated the rise of geometric deep learning, a field which aims to generalize deep learning methods to non-Euclidean settings. In particular, a number of papers have produced versions of the scattering transform for graph [7, 8, 9, 17] and manifold  structured data. These constructions seek to provide a mathematical model of geometric deep learning architectures such as graph neural networks in a manner analogous the way that Euclidean scattering transform models CNNs.
In this paper, we will construct two new families of wavelet transforms on a graph from asymmetric matrices and provide a theoretical analysis of both of these wavelet transforms as well as the windowed and non-windowed scattering transforms constructed from them. Because the matrices are in general not symmetric, our wavelet transforms will not be nonexpansive frame analysis operators on the standard inner product space Instead, they will be nonexpansive on a certain weighted inner product space where is an invertible matrix. In important special cases, our matrix will be either the lazy random walk matrix its transpose or its symmetric counterpart given by In these cases, is a weighted space with weights depending on the geometry of We will use these wavelets to construct windowed and non-windowed versions of the scattering transform on The windowed scattering transform inputs a signal and outputs a sequence of functions which we refer to as the scattering coefficients. The non-windowed scattering transform replaces the low-pass matrix used in the definition of the windowed scattering transform with an averaging operator and instead outputs a sequence of scalar-valued coefficients. It can be viewed as the limit of the windowed scattering transform as the scale of the low-pass tends to infinity (evaluated at some fixed coordinate ).
Analogously to the Euclidean scattering transform, we will show that the windowed graph scattering transform is: i) nonexpansive on ii) invariant to permutations of the vertices, up to a factor depending on the scale of the low-pass (for certain choices of ), and iii) stable to graph perturbations. Similarly, we will show that the non-windowed scattering transform is i) Lipschitz continuous on ii) fully invariant to permutations, and iii) stable to graph perturbations.
1.1 Notation and Preliminaries
Let be a weighted, connected graph consisting of vertices , edges , and weights , with the number of vertices. If is a signal in we will identify with the corresponding point in so that if is an matrix, the multiplication is well defined. Let denote the weighted adjacency matrix of , let be the corresponding weighted degree vector, and let We will let
be the normalized graph Laplacian, let denote the eigenvalues of and let be an orthonormal eigenbasis for may be factored as
where and is the unitary matrix whose -th column is One may check that and that we may choose where We note that since we assume is connected, it has a positive spectral gap, i.e.
Our wavelet transforms will be constructed from the matrix defined by
where is some strictly decreasing spectral function such that and , and
We note that where the fact that follows from (1). When there is no potential for confusion, we will supress dependence of and write and in place of and As our main example, we will choose in which case
In , Gama et al. constructed a graph scattering transform using wavelets which are polynomials in and in , Gao et al. defined a different, but closely related, graph scattering transform from polynomials of the lazy random walk matrix
In order to unify and generalize these frameworks we will let be an invertible matrix and let be the matrix defined by
Note that depends on the choice of both and , and thus includes a very large family of matrices. As important special cases, we note that we may obtain by setting , and we obtain and by setting and letting and , respectively.
In Section 2, we will construct two wavelet transforms and from functions of and show that these wavelet transforms are non-expansive frame analysis operators on the appropriate Hilbert space. When (and therefore ), this Hilbert space will simply be the standard inner product space However, for general the matrix will not be self-adjoint on . This motivates us to introduce the Hilbert space of signals defined on with inner product defined by
where denotes the standard inner product. We note that the norms , and are equivalent and that
where for any matrix we shall let and denote its operator norms on and respectively. The following lemma, which shows that is self-adjoint on will be useful in studying the frame bounds of the wavelet transforms constructed from
is self-adjoint on
By construction, is self-adjoint with respect to the standard inner product. Therefore, for all and we have
It will frequently be useful to consider the eigenvector decompositions of and By definition, we have
where and is an orthonormal eigenbasis for wih Since the matrices and are similar with one may use the definition of to verify that the vectors defined by
form an orthonormal eigenbasis for with One may also verify that
is a left-eigenvector of and for all
In the following section, we will construct wavelets from polynomials of For a polynomial,
and a matrix we define by
The following lemma uses (2) to derive a formula for computing polynomials of and and relates the operator norms of polynomials of to polynomials of It will be useful for studying the wavelet transforms introduced in the following section.
For any polynomial we have
Consequently, for all
In light of Lemma 2, for any polynomial we may define and by
where the square root of the diagaonal matrix is defined entrywise. We may readily verify that
1.2 Related Work
Graph scattering transforms have previously been introduced by Gama, Ribeiro, and Bruna. in  and , by Gao, Wolf, and Hirn in , and by Zou and Lerman in . In , the authors construct a family of wavelet convolutions using the spectral decomposition of the unnormalized graph Laplacian and define a windowed scattering transform as an iterative series of wavelet convolutions and nonlinearities. They then prove results analogous to Theorems 1, 3, and 6 of this this paper for their windowed scattering transform. They also introduce a notion of stability to graph perturbations. However, their notion of graph perturbations is significantly different than the one we consider in Section 4.
In , the authors construct a family of wavelets from polynomials of in the case where and showed that the resulting non-windowed scattering transform was stable to graph perturbations. These results were then generalized in , where the authors introduced a more general class of graph convolutions, constructed from a class of symmetric matrices known as “graph shift operators.” The wavelet transform considered in  is nearly identical to the introduced in Section 2, in the special case where and with the only difference being that our wavelet transform includes a low-pass filter. In , wavelets were constructed from the lazy random walk matrix These wavelets are essentially the same as the in the case where and although similarly to , the wavelets in  do not use a low-pass filter. In all of these previous works, the authors carry out substantial numerical experiments and demonstrate that scattering transforms are effective for a variety of graph deep learning tasks.
Our work here is meant to unify and generalize the theory of these previous constructions. Our introduction of the matrix allows us to obtain wavelets very similar to either  or  as special cases. Moreover, the introduction of the tight wavelet frame allows us to produce a network with provable conservation of energy and nonexpansive properties analogous to . To highlight the generality of our setup, we introduce both windowed and non-windowed versions of the scattering transform using general (wavelet) frames and provide a detailed theoretical analysis of both. In the case where (and therefore ) much of this analysis is quite similar to . However, for general this matrix is asymmetric which introduces substantial challenges. While  demonstrated that asymmetric wavelets are numerically effective in the case , this work is the first to produce a theoretical analysis of graph scattering transforms constructed with asymmetric wavelets.
We believe that the generality of our setup introduces a couple of exciting new avenues for future research. In particular, we have introduced a large class of scattering transforms with provable stability and invariance guarantees. In the future, one might attempt to learn the matrix or the spectral function based off of data for improved numerical performance on specific tasks. This could be an important step towards bridging the gap between scattering transforms, which act as a model of neural networks, and other deep learning architectures. We also note that a key difference between our work and  is that we use the normalized graph Laplacian whereas they use the unnormalized Laplacian. It is quite likely that asymmetric wavelet transforms similar to ours can be constructed from the spectral decomposition of the unnormalized Laplacian. However, we leave that to future work.
2 The Graph Wavelet Transform
In this section, we will construct two graph wavelet transforms based off of the matrix introduced in Section 1.1. In the following sections, we will provide a theoretical analysis of the scattering transforms constructed from each of these wavelet transforms and of their stability properties.
Let and for let be the polynomial defined by
and let We note that by construction
Using these functions we define two wavelet transforms by
and the are defined as in (5). The next two propositions show is an isometry and is a nonexpansive frame analysis operator on .
is an isometry from to That is, for all
Thus, and are all self-adjoint on and are diagonalized in the same basis. Therefore, lower and upper the frame bounds of are given by computing
where The proof follows from recalling that by (6), we have that uniformly on and therefore, is an isometry. ∎
is a nonexpansive frame analysis operator from to That is, there exists a constant which depends only on such that for all
We note in particular, that does not depend on or on the eignenvalues of
If we restrict attention to such that then we may use an argument similar to Proposition 4.1 of  to get a lower frame bounds for which does not depend on , but does depend on the
3 The Scattering Transform
In this section, we will construct the scattering transform as a multilayered architecture built off of a frame such as the wavelet transforms and introduced in Section 2. We shall see the scattering transform constructed is a continuous operator on whenever is nonexpansive. We shall also see that it has desirable conservation of energy bounds when due to the fact that is an isometry. On the other hand, we shall see in the following section that the scattering transform has much stronger stability guarantees when
Let be a connected weighted graph with let be an invertible matrix, and let be some indexing set. Assume that
is a frame on such that
for some In this paper, we are primarily interested in the case where and is either or . Therefore, we will think of the matrices as wavelets, and as a low-pass filter. However, we will define the scattering transform for generic frames in order to highlight the relationship between properties of the scattering transform and of the underlying frame.
Letting be the pointwise modulus function , we define by
Here, is the -fold Cartesian product of with itself, the are defined by
for and we declare that when and is the “empty index.” We then define the windowed and non-windowed scattering transforms, and by
where the scattering coefficients and are defined by
for some weighting vector One natural choice is where is the vector of all ones. In this case, one may verify that and we recover a setup similar to . Another natural choice is in which case we recover a setup similar to  if we set
In practice, one only uses finitely many scattering coefficients. This motivates us to consider the partial scattering transforms defined for by
3.2 Continuity and Conservation of Energy Properties
The following theorem shows that the windowed scattering transform is nonexpansive and the non-windowed scattering transform is Lipschitz continuous when is either or or, more generally, whenever is nonexpansive.
If in (7), then the windowed scattering transform is a nonexpansive operator from to and the non-windowed scattering transform is a Lipschitz continuous operator from to Specifically, for all
Full details are provided in Appendix B.
The next theorem shows that if is either of the wavelet transforms constructed in Section 2, then experiences rapid energy decay. Our arguments use ideas similar to the proof of Proposition 3.3 of , with minor modifications to account for the fact that our wavelet constructions are different. Please see Appendix C for a complete proof.
Let let and let be either of the wavelet transforms, or constructed in Section 2. Then for all and all
Therefore, for all
The next theorem shows that if then the windowed graph scattering transform conserves energy on Its proof, which relies on Proposition 1, Theorem 2, and Lemma 5, is nearly identical to the proof of Theorem 3.1 in . We give a proof in Appendix D for the sake of completeness.
Let let and let Then the non-windowed scattering transform is energy preserving, i.e., for all
3.3 Permutation Invariance and Equivariance
In this section, we will show that both and the windowed graph scattering transform are permutation equivariant. As a consequence, we will be able to show that the non-windowed scattering transform is permutation invariant and that under certain assumptions the windowed-scattering transform is permutation invariant up to a factor depending on the scale of the low-pass filter.
Let denote the permutation group on elements, and, for let be the graph obtained by permuting the vertices of We define which we view as the analog of associated to by
To motivate this definition, we note that if is the identity, then is also the identity, and if the square-root degree matrix, then the square-root degree matrix on is given by
with a similar formula holding when We define and to be the frame and the weighting vector on corresponding to and by
and we let and denote the corresponding windowed and non-windowed scattering transforms on
To understand we note that the natural analog of on is given by
Therefore, Lemma 2 implies that for any for any polynomial
with a similar formula holding Therefore, if is either of the wavelet transforms or then is analogous wavelet transform constructed from
Both and the windowed scattering transform are equivariant to permutations. That is, if is any permutation and is defined as in (12), then for all
Let be a permutation. Since and it follows that for all
For we have Therefore, it follows inductively that is equivariant to permutations. Since we have that
Thus, the windowed scattering transform is permutation equivariant as well. ∎
The non-windowed scattering transform is fully permutation invariant, i.e., for all permutations and all
Since is permutation equivariant by Theorem 4 and we may use the fact that and that to see that for any and any
Next, we will use Theorem 4 to show that if is either or and then the windowed scattering transform is invariant on up to a factor depending on the scale of the low-pass filter. We note that Therefore, decays exponentially fast as and so if is large, the right hand side of (13) will be nearly zero. We also recall that if our spectral function is given by then this choice of will imply that
Let and let be either or Then the windowed-scattering transform is permutation invariant up to a factor depending on Specifically, for all and for all
where if and if
By Theorem 4, and the fact that we see that
Let if and let if so that in either case Let (3) implies that for any
Therefore, by Lemma 2 and the relationship we have
Since and the assumption that implies that Therefore, and so
Therefore, since forms an orthonormal basis for we have that by Parseval’s identity
To bound we note that by Theorem 2,
4 Stability to Graph Perturbations
Let and be weighted graphs with and let and be invertible matrices. Throughout this section, for any object associated to we will let denote the analogous object on so e.g., is the degree matrix of Recall that two important examples of our asymmetric matrix are when and in which case is either the lazy random walk matrix or its transpose In these cases, the matrix encodes important geometric information about which motivates us to let
and consider the quantity
as a measure of how poorly aligned the degree vectors of and are. In the general case, measures how different the and norms are. It will also be useful to consider
We note that by construction we have Thus, if the norms and are well-aligned, we will have and consequently We note that we will have and if either (so that ) or if and the graphs and have the same degree vector. The latter situation occurs if e.g. is a regular graph and is obtained by permuting the vertices of We also note that if is diagonal, e.g. if then
We may also measure how far apart two graphs are via their spectral properties. In particular, if we let be the unitary matrix whose -th column is given by an eigenvector or with eigenvalue we see that two natural quantification’s of how poorly aligned the spectral properties of and are given by
Motivated by e.g., , we also consider the “diffusion distances” given by
4.1 Stability of the Wavelet Transforms
In this section, we analyze the stability of the wavelet transforms and constructed in Section 2. Our first two results provide a stability bounds for and in the case where These results will be extended to the general case by Theorem 9.
Suppose and are two graphs such that and let Let so that let be the wavelets constructed from in Section 2, and let be the corresponding wavelets constructed from Then there exists a constant depending only on such that
where as in (2)
By (5) and the fact that we have that for all
Therefore, since and are unitary, we have that for all
and so summing over yields
For any sequence of diagonal matrices one has that for any
Therefore, by (6),
Now, since and
When we have
Likewise, for we have
For we may write where and use the fact that for all to compute
for all Therefore,
Our next result provides stability bounds for in the case where (i.e. when ). We note that while has the advantage of being a tight frame, has stronger stability guarantees, which in particular are independent of Our proof, which is closely modeled after the proofs of Lemmas 5.1 and 5.2 in , is given in Appendix E. Due to a small improvement in the derivation, our result appears in a slightly different form than the result stated there.
Suppose and are two graphs such that and let Let so that let be the wavelets constructed from in Section 2, and let be the corresponding wavelets constructed from Then
Theorems 7 and 8 show that the wavelets and are stable on in the special case that Our next theorem extends this analysis to general More generally, it can be applied to any situation where and form frames on and is some indexing set, and each of the are polynomials or square roots of polynomials.
Suppose and are two graphs such that and let and be invertible matrices. Let be an indexing set, and for let be either a polynomial or the square root of a polynomial. Suppose that forms a frame analysis operator on and that forms a frame analysis operator on and assume in (7) for both and Let and let and be the frames defined by and Then,
Suppose and are two graphs such that let and be invertible matrices, and let Let let be the wavelet transform constructed from in Section 2, and let be the corresponding wavelet transform constructed from Then,
Suppose and are two graphs such that let and be invertible matrices, and let Let let be the wavelet transform constructed from in Section 2 and let be the corresponding wavelet transform constructed from Then,
One might also wish to replace Corollaries 1 and 2 with inequalities written in terms of rather than This can be done by the following proposition. Recall that we think of the two Hilbert spaces and as being well-aligned if and In this case, the right-hand side of (16) is approximately
Let Then, since
since By the triangle inequality,
where we used the facts that and ∎
Our next theorem shows that if and are well-aligned, then the upper frame bound for can be used to produce an upper frame bound for on This result will play a key role in proving the stability of the scattering transform.
Suppose and are two graphs such that and let and be invertible matrices. Let for some let
be either of the wavelet transforms, or constructed in Section 2, and let be the corresponding wavelet transform constructed from Then is a bounded operator on and
By Lemma 2, we have that if is either a polynomial, or the square root of a polynomial, then
Therefore, again applying Lemma 2, we have
Since and each of the are either a polynomial in or the square root of polynomial in the proof follows by observing
4.2 Stability of the Scattering Transform
In this section, we will prove a stability result for the scattering transform. We will state and prove our result in a great degree of generality in order both to emphasize that the stability of the scattering transform is a consequence of the stability of the underlying frame and so that our result can be applied to other graph wavelet constructions. Towards this end, we will assume that and are two-weighted graphs such that let and be invertible matrices, and assume that and are frames on and such that in (7). If is a permutation, we will let denote the corresponding permuted wavelet frame on .
Our stability bound for the scattering transform will depend on choosing the optimal permutation such that is well-aligned with and has an upper frame bound on that is not too large. For we let
We will also let and when is the indentity.
Theorem 11 provides stability guarantees for the windowed and non-windowed scattering transform with bounds that are functions of and Corollary 3 uses the permutation invariance results of Theorems 5 and 6 to extend these results by infimizing the same functions over all permutations. Since the non-windowed scattering transform is always fully permutation invariant, this corollary will always apply to it. By Theorem 5, it will apply to the windowed scattering transform when (or any other case in which the windowed scattering transform has provable invariance guarantees). These results imply, by Theorems 7, 8, 9, and 10, that the scattering transforms constructed from or are stable in the sense that the spectral properties of are similar to the spectral properties of and the and norms are well-aligned, then the scattering transforms and will produce similar representations of an inputted signal Many of the ideas in the proof of Theorem 11 are similar to those used to prove Theorem 5.3 in . The primary difference is Lemma 4 which is needed because is a non-expansive frame on but not in general a non-expansive frame on
Let and be two graphs such that let and be invertible matrices, and let be an indexing set. Let and be be frames on and such that in (7), and let and be weighting vectors on and Let and be the partial windowed and non-windowed scattering transforms on and with coefficients from layers Then, for all
Under the assumptions of Theorem 11, the non-windowed scattering transform satisfies
Moreover, if we further assume that the windowed scattering transform is permutation invariant up to a factor of in the sense that for all and for all
The Proof of Theorem 11.
Let and By the triangle inequality,
Therefore, to prove (19) it suffices to show
for all Similarly, to prove (20), it suffices to show
for all and then use the inequality
Since the zeroth-order windowed scattering coefficient of is given by
where is the empty-index, we see that by the definition of we have
Therefore, (24) holds when Similarly, since we see that (25) holds when The case where relies on the following two lemmas. They iteratively apply the assumption that in (7) and use the definitions of and to bound and Full details are provided in Appendix F.
The Proof of Corollary 3.
Choose such that
Let and let be the scattering transform on constructed from the wavelets Then under the assumption (22), we see
5 Future Work
As alluded to in Section 1.2, we believe that our work opens up several new lines of inquiry for future research. Graph scattering transforms typically get numerical results which are good, but not quite state of the art in most situations. Our work has introduced a large class of scattering networks with provable guarantees. Therefore, one might attempt to learn the optimal choices of the matrix and the spectral function based on training data and produce a network which retains the invariance and stability properties of the scattering transform but has superior numerical performance. This would be an important step towards bridging the gap between theory and practice by producing an increasingly realistic model of graph neural networks with provable guarantees. Another possible extension would be to consider a construction similar to ours but which uses the spectral decomposition of the unnormalized graph Laplacian rather than the normalized Laplacian. Such a work would generalize  in a manner analogous to the way that this work generalizes  and . Lastly, particularly in the case where is a function of e.g. when one might wish to study the behavior of the graph scattering transform on data-driven graphs obtained by subsampling a Riemannian manifold Such data-driven graphs typically arise in high-dimensional data analysis and in manifold learning. It can be shown that, under certain conditions, the normalized graph Laplacian of the data-driven graph converges pointwise [5, 15] or in a spectral sense [2, 3, 6, 14, 16] to the Laplace Beltrami operator on as the number of samples tends to infinity. It would be interesting to see if one could use these results to study the convergence the graph scattering transforms constructed here to the manifold scattering transform constructed in .
Appendix A Lemma 5
Assume in (7). Then, for all and for all
with equality holding if Furthermore, for all
Appendix B The Proof of Theorem 1
Appendix C The Proof of Theorem 2
Let let if and let if so that in either case Let and let (3) implies that for any
Therefore, by Lemma 2 and the relationship we have
By Parseval’s identity, the fact that is an orthornomal basis for and the fact that we have that for all let
Summing over this gives
Appendix D The Proof of Theorem 3
Appendix E The Proof of Theorem 8
Let denote the lead eigenvector of Since we may write
and Since form an orthonormal basis for we have that
for all Therefore, we see that
with similar equations being valid for and Thus,
The following lemma follows by imitating equation (23) of  and summing over
and this implies
By the triangle inequality,
Therefore, by (31), we have
To bound , we note that for all
with the last equality following from the fact that Therefore, the proof is complete, pending the following lemma (a restatement of Lemma 5.2 of ) which bounds
The Proof of Lemma 7.
Let Since and , with we see
Since and this implies
since Therefore, we have
The Proof of Lemma 3.
When this follows immediately from the fact that we have assumed that in (7) and the fact that is nonexpansive. Now, suppose by induction that the result holds for then
with the last inequality following from the inductive assumption. ∎
The Proof of Lemma 4.
Let and let Since the modulus operator is nonexpansive, the definition of implies . Now, by induction, suppose the result holds for Then, rcalling that we have
by the definitions of and and by Lemma 3. By the inductive hypothesis, we have that
Squaring both sides completes the proof.
-  Joakim Andén and Stéphane Mallat. Multiscale scattering for audio classification. In Proceedings of the ISMIR 2011 conference, pages 657–662, 2011.
-  Mikhail Belkin and Partha Niyogi. Convergence of Laplacian eigenmaps. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 129–136, 2007.
-  Dmitri Burago, Sergei Ivanov, and Yaroslav Kurylev. A graph discretization of the Laplace-Beltrami operator. Journal of Spectral Theory, 4, 01 2013.
-  V. Chudacek, R. Talmon, J. Anden, S. Mallat, R. R. Coifman, P. Abry, and M. Doret. Low dimensional manifold embedding for scattering coefficients of intrapartum fetale heart rate variability. In 2014 Internat. IEEE Conf. in Medicine and Biology, 2014.
-  Ronald R. Coifman and Stéphane Lafon. Diffusion maps. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 21:5–30, 2006.
-  Koji Fujiwara. Eigenvalues of Laplacians on a closed Riemannian manifold and its nets. 1995.
-  Fernando Gama, Joan Bruna, and Alejandro Ribeiro. Stability of graph scattering transforms. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33, 2019.
-  Fernando Gama, Alejandro Ribeiro, and Joan Bruna. Diffusion scattering transforms on graphs. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019.
-  Feng Gao, Guy Wolf, and Matthew Hirn. Geometric scattering for graph data analysis. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, volume 97, pages 2122–2131, 2019.
-  Matthew Hirn, Stéphane Mallat, and Nicolas Poilvert. Wavelet scattering regression of quantum chemical energies. Multiscale Modeling and Simulation, 15(2):827–863, 2017.
-  Stéphane Mallat. Group invariant scattering. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 65(10):1331–1398, October 2012.
-  Edouard Oyallon and Stéphane Mallat. Deep roto-translation scattering for object classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2865–2873, 2015.
-  Michael Perlmutter, Feng Gao, Guy Wolf, and Matthew Hirn. Geometric scattering networks on compact Riemannian manifolds. arXiv:1905.10448, 2019.
-  Zuoqiang Shi. Convergence of laplacian spectra from random samples. ArXiv, 1507.00151, 2015.
-  Amit Singer. From graph to manifold Laplacian: The convergence rate. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 21(1):128–134, July 2006.
-  Nicolas Trillos, Moritz Gerlach, Matthias Hein, and Dejan Slepcev. Error estimates for spectral convergence of the graph Laplacian on random geometric graphs toward the Laplace–Beltrami operator. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 01 2018.
-  Dongmian Zou and Gilad Lerman. Encoding robust representation for graph generation. In International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2019.
-  Dongmian Zou and Gilad Lerman. Graph convolutional neural networks via scattering. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 2019. In press.