Random Dot Product Graphs as Dynamical Systems: Limitations and Opportunities

Giulio Valentino Dalla Riva

stat.MEMar 5, 2026

Random Dot Product Graphs as Dynamical Systems: Limitations and Opportunities

Authors: Giulio Valentino Dalla Riva

Abstract

Can we learn the differential equations governing the evolution of a temporal network? We investigate this within Random Dot Product Graphs (RDPGs), where each network snapshot is generated from latent positions evolving under unknown dynamics. We identify three fundamental obstructions: gauge freedom from rotational ambiguity in latent positions, realizability constraints from the manifold structure of the probability matrix, and trajectory recovery artifacts from spectral embedding. We develop a geometric framework based on principal fiber bundles that formalizes these obstructions. We characterize invisible dynamics as exactly the skew-symmetric generators, and show the realizable tangent space has dimension $nd - d(d-1)/2$ . An holonomy dichotomy emerges: polynomial dynamics have commuting generators, stationary eigenvectors, and trivial holonomy, making gauge alignment purely statistical; Laplacian dynamics satisfy a non-commutativity criterion producing nontrivial holonomy, with curvature weighted by $1/(λ_ι+ λ_γ)$ linking gauge sensitivity to the spectral gap. In $d=2$ this yields full restricted holonomy $\mathrm{SO}(2)$ ; for $d \ge 3$ generic full $\mathrm{SO}(d)$ remains conjectural. Cram'er--Rao lower bounds reveal that the same spectral gap controlling curvature and injectivity simultaneously controls Fisher information, so geometric and statistical difficulty are inextricable. We prove an identifiability principle: symmetric dynamics cannot absorb skew-symmetric gauge contamination, so dynamics structure can resolve gauge ambiguity. We demonstrate this constructively with anchor-based alignment and a UDE pipeline recovering vector fields from noisy graph sequences. Yet finite-sample interactions between noise, gauge, and dynamics expressiveness remain beyond the asymptotic theory. We frame this gap as an open challenge.

Figures & tables

Result	Status	Scope
Theorem 1	Proved	Full-rank latent states
Proposition 9	Proved	Horizontal symmetric families
Proposition 11	Proved	Local nonzero commutator criterion
Corollary 3	Proved	Linear dynamics
Proposition 14	Proved	Polynomial dynamics + regularity assumptions
Theorem 4	Proved	Symmetric-generator identifiability

Table 1: Result status map: proved results vs conditional criteria vs conjecture.

Approach	Smoothness	Dynamical Consistency
Hierarchical GP prior	Yes ( $C^{k}$ )	No: interpolation only
SDE $dX=f(X)\,dt+\sigma\,dW$	No (Hölder $<1/2$ )	Yes, as $\sigma\to 0$
Neural ODE	Yes ( $C^{k}$ )	Yes (by construction)
GP-ODE (NPODE) ( Heinonen et al., 2018 )	Yes ( $C^{1}$ )	Yes: learns $f$ as GP
Structure-constrained (ours)	Yes	Yes: family $\mathcal{F}$ enforced

Table 2: Comparison of approaches: smoothness vs dynamical consistency.

Family	Form	Horizontal?	Parameters
Linear symmetric	$\dot{X}=NX$ , $N=N^{\top}$	Always	$n(n+1)/2$
Polynomial	$\dot{X}=(\sum_{k}\alpha_{k}P^{k})X$	Always	$K+1$
Laplacian	$\dot{X}=-LX$	Always	0 (fixed)
Message-passing	$\dot{x}_{i}=\sum_{j}P_{ij}g(x_{i},x_{j})$	If $g$ symmetric	$\|\theta\|$
Centroid circulation	$\dot{x}_{i}=(x_{i}-\bar{x})A$	No	$d(d-1)/2$
General linear	$\dot{X}=NX$	If $X^{\top}NX$ sym.	$n^{2}$

Table 3: Families of RDPG dynamics. The polynomial family is always horizontal, has few parameters (

K+1

independent of

n

), and is gauge-invariant (

N(P)

computable without alignment). Centroid circulation is observable but not horizontal.

Figure 1: Anchor-based alignment experiment ( $n=200$ , $d=2$ , polynomial dynamics $\dot{X}=(\alpha_{0}I+\alpha_{1}P)X$ with $m=3$ Bernoulli samples per time step). (a) Alignment error vs. number of anchor nodes: below $n_{a}=d=2$ (dashed vertical line) Procrustes is underdetermined and alignment fails; with sufficient anchors, error stabilizes at the ASE noise floor. (b) Error accumulation over trajectory length: anchor-based alignment (blue) remains bounded while sequential Procrustes (coral, dashed) grows with $T$ , consistent with $O(\sqrt{T})$ drift accumulation. (c) Effect of anchor drift rate $\epsilon$ : with larger $\epsilon$ , systematic bias from drifting anchors becomes visible. (d) Per-timestep alignment error for the $T=200$ trajectory: the anchor-based error (blue) remains approximately flat, while sequential Procrustes (coral) accumulates drift, with the gap widening toward later time steps. Shaded bands show $\pm 1$ standard deviation across 20 Monte Carlo repetitions.

Figure 2: (a) Alignment error as a function of the initial embedding norm scale (proxy for signal strength): smaller norms yield weaker signals and less informative Bernoulli observations, increasing ASE noise and degrading alignment for both methods. Note that uniform scaling preserves the condition number $\sigma_{1}/\sigma_{2}$ (constant at $\approx 2.2$ ); this experiment varies signal magnitude rather than the spectral gap ratio. (b) Phase portrait with $n_{a}=15$ anchor nodes (red diamonds, stationary) and non-anchor nodes (gray trajectories evolving under polynomial dynamics) in $B_{+}^{2}$ .

Figure 3: UDE pipeline experiment ( $n=200$ , $d=3$ , damped spiral dynamics with rotation around $(1,1,1)/\sqrt{3}$ , $m=10$ Bernoulli samples per frame). (a) True trajectories (gray) and anchor-aligned ASE (blue) in $B_{+}^{3}$ ; anchor nodes shown as red diamonds. (b) Learned NN residual $f_{\theta}(\delta)$ vs. true residual $f_{u}(\delta)$ : anchor-aligned data (left) produces tight agreement along the diagonal; sequential Procrustes (center) and unaligned data (right) degrade progressively. (c) Symbolic regression Pareto fronts (loss vs. expression complexity): anchor-aligned data achieves $1$ – $2$ orders of magnitude lower loss at each complexity level. (d) Total dynamics MSE (log scale) by alignment condition: anchor alignment achieves MSE $\approx 6\times 10^{-4}$ , sequential Procrustes $\approx 8\times 10^{-3}$ ( $13\times$ worse), and unaligned $\approx 0.44$ ( $\approx 700\times$ worse). Error bars show $\pm 1$ standard deviation across 5 repetitions.

Latent Dynamics Modeling

Latent dynamics modeling learns compact hidden-state representations and transition rules to predict, explain, and control evolving systems.

See all 246 papers

Intensity Dot Product Graphs
Apr 9, 2026Giulio Valentino Dalla Riva, Matteo Dalla RivaGraphon Theory Latent Variable Models
Baffelan OU, Noumea, New Caledonia · Dipartimento di Tecnica e Gestione dei Sistemi Industriali, Università di Padova, Vicenza, Italy
Dynamic Elliptical Graph Factor Models via Riemannian Optimization with Geodesic Temporal Regularization
May 18, 2026Chuansen Peng, Xiaojing ShenRiemannian Optimization Dynamic Graph Learning
School of Mathematics, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610064, China
Learning Submanifolds for Subsequent Inference on Random Dot Product Graphs, Part 1: Theory
Sep 16, 2026Michael W. Trosset, Carey E. PriebeSemi-Supervised Learning Decision-Making under Uncertainty
Department of Statistics, Indiana University. · Department of Applied Mathematics & Statistics, Johns Hopkins University.

Apr 9, 2026J/K move · Enter open · S save

Intensity Dot Product Graphs

Giulio Valentino Dalla Riva, Matteo Dalla Riva

Baffelan OU, Noumea, New Caledonia · Dipartimento di Tecnica e Gestione dei Sistemi Industriali, Università di Padova, Vicenza, Italy

Graphon Theory Latent Variable Models

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

Latent-position random graph models usually treat the node set as fixed once the sample size is chosen, while graphon-based and random-measure constructions allow more randomness at the cost of weaker geometric interpretability. We introduce Intensity Dot Product Graphs (IDPGs), which extend Random Dot Product Graphs by replacing a fixed collection of latent positions with a Poisson point process on a Euclidean latent space. This yields a model with random node populations, RDPG-style dot-product affinities, and a population-level intensity that links continuous latent structure to finite observed graphs. We define the heat map and the desire operator as continuous analogues of the probability matrix, prove a spectral consistency result connecting adjacency singular values to the operator spectrum, compare the construction with graphon and digraphon representations, and show how classical RDPGs arise in a concentrated limit. Because the model is parameterized by an evolving intensity, temporal extensions through partial differential equations arise naturally.

Abstract

Latent Dynamics Modeling

Explore similar work

Intensity Dot Product Graphs

Dynamic Elliptical Graph Factor Models via Riemannian Optimization with Geodesic Temporal Regularization

Learning Submanifolds for Subsequent Inference on Random Dot Product Graphs, Part 1: Theory