REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by
Sharp Detection Threshold for Correlation among Multiple Unlabeled Gaussian Networks
T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper pins down when m unlabeled Gaussian graphs can be detected as correlated despite hidden vertex relabelings, and finds a regime where two graphs fail but several succeed.
desk verdict The paper's real contribution—new detection bounds for m>2 unlabeled Gaussian graphs and the side-information regime—is solid, but the abstract overclaims a "sharp threshold" and "no detection-recovery gap" that the paper's own theorems contradict. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the generalized likelihood ratio $T$, which replaces the intractable average over all permutation profiles by the maximum over alignments of the log-likelihood ratio; up to constants this maximum equals the sum of aligned edge-weight products across all pairs of graphs. Two tools carry the argument: a tail bound for Gaussian quadratic forms with explicit constants, used to control both the null probability that the statistic exceeds its threshold and the planted probability that it falls below; and a genie-aided reduction for the converse, in which graphs $X^2,\dots,X^m$ are aligned to $X^2$ and summed into a single matrix $X^{2:m}$. The reduction asserts that $X^1$ and a scaled $X^{2:m}$ follow the two-matrix model with correlation $\rho\sqrt{(m-1)/(1+(m-2)\rho)}$, so the already-solved $m=2$ case can be invoked inductively.
What would settle it
Write out the joint law of $(X^1, X^{2:m})$ under the planted model for $m=4$ and compare it with the claimed two-matrix Gaussian law with correlation $\rho\sqrt{3/(1+2\rho)}$; if the cross-moments or the covariance structure differ, the compression step is only approximate and the constants in the converse would need re-examination. A simulation check would be to estimate the total-variation distance between $X^1$ and $X^{2:m}$ at $\rho^2=(4/3-\varepsilon)\log n/n$ and see whether it vanishes as $n$ grows.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
For fixed $m\ge2$, the generalized likelihood-ratio statistic $$T=\max_{\pi_{12},\dots,\pi_{1m}}\sum_{i<j}\sum_{k<\ell} X^k_{\pi_{1k}(i),\pi_{1k}(j)}X^\ell_{\pi_{1\ell}(i),\pi_{1\ell}(j)}$$ drives strong detection once $\rho^2 \ge 8\log n/(m(n-1))$, and weak detection is impossible once $\rho^2 \le (4/(m-1)-\varepsilon)\log n/n$ for any $\varepsilon>0$. For $m=2$ these recover the known sharp threshold; for $m>2$ the two bounds differ by a multiplicative factor $2(m-1)/m$, and closing that gap is left open. The lower-bound proof proceeds by induction on $m$, compressing the last $m-1$ graphs into one aligned-sum matrix and showing that, after scaling, $(X^1,X^{2:m})$ is the two-graph Gaussian model with effective correlation $\rho'=\rho\sqrt{(m-1)/(1+(m-2)\rho)}$. The paper thus claims that each additional graph contributes a fresh independent view of the same latent alignment.
Load-bearing premise
The converse relies on replacing graphs 2 through m by their aligned sum and treating the result, after scaling, as exactly the two-graph Gaussian model; the paper writes this reduction out for m=3 and states, rather than fully derives, the general-m version.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- For every fixed $m\ge2$, strong detection of a shared latent alignment is achievable by the generalized likelihood-ratio test once $\rho^2 \ge 8\log n/(m(n-1))$.
- For $\rho^2 \le (4/(m-1)-\varepsilon)\log n/n$, the total-variation distance between the null and planted distributions vanishes, so no test, efficient or not, can outperform random guessing.
- For each $m>2$ the gap between these bounds creates a provable side-information regime: correlations that two graphs are incapable of detecting become strongly detectable when $m$ graphs are available.
- Combined with the known recovery threshold for this Gaussian multi-graph model, the achievability result places detection and recovery at the same correlation scale, meaning there is no regime in which correlation is detectable but the alignment cannot be recovered.
- The induction underlying the converse offers a route to lift two-graph impossibility results for related graph models to $m\ge3$.
Reading between the lines
- A natural conjecture, not advanced by the paper, is that the true threshold is $8\log n/(m(n-1))$ for all $m$, matching the recovery threshold; if so, the converse constant $4/(m-1)$ is loose and the gap is a proof artifact.
- The effective-correlation formula $\rho'=\rho\sqrt{m-1}$ suggests the detection signal grows with the number of graphs, making the problem analogous to combining multiple noisy measurements of the same alignment; one could test this by measuring empirical total-variation distance for $m=3,4$ at fixed $\rho^2 n/\log n$.
- The same aligned-sum compression might transfer to Gaussian feature-vector databases, where the multi-database detection limit would then be the two-database limit with an amplified correlation; this is an extrapolation beyond the graph setting.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper studies hypothesis testing for m≥2 complete weighted graphs on n nodes with Gaussian edge weights. Under the null hypothesis H0, all edge weights are independent standard Gaussians; under the alternative H1, the graphs have a latent permutation alignment and each pair of corresponding edge weights has correlation ρ. The paper analyzes the generalized likelihood ratio statistic and proves (Theorem 2) that strong detection is achievable when ρ² ≥ 8 log n/(m(n−1)), and (Theorem 3) that weak detection is impossible when ρ² ≤ (4/(m−1)−ε) log n/n for any fixed m. The proof of Theorem 2 uses a Gaussian Hanson-Wright bound; the proof of Theorem 3 is by induction on m, reducing to the two-graph result of Wu, Xu, and Yu, with the m=3 case written out in detail and the general-m case sketched. The abstract claims a sharp information-theoretic threshold and a no detection-recovery gap.
Significance. The m>2 results, if fully proved, are of definite interest: they provide the first detection bounds for multiple unlabeled Gaussian graphs and establish a side-information regime in which two graphs alone cannot be detected as correlated but m>2 graphs can. The proof of Theorem 2 is careful, the eigenvalue computation in Lemma 6 checks out, and the m=3 impossibility proof is detailed and appears sound. However, the abstract overstates the results: the sharp-threshold and no-gap conclusions are not established for m>2, and the general-m lower-bound proof is only sketched. The paper's own Section III acknowledges the gap, so the issue is fixable but must be addressed before publication.
major comments (3)
- [Abstract; Section III, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The abstract claims that the paper 'identifies the sharp information-theoretic threshold for detection' and that the model 'has no detection-recovery gap.' These claims are contradicted by the paper's own theorems for m>2. Theorem 2 gives strong detection for ρ² ≥ (8/m) log n/(n−1), while Theorem 3 rules out weak detection only for ρ² ≤ (4/(m−1)−ε) log n/n; the constants differ by the factor 2(m−1)/m, which exceeds 1 for every m>2. Section III explicitly states: 'Closing the gap when m>2 to establish a sharp detection threshold is an open problem.' The no-detection-recovery-gap assertion is also not implied by Theorems 2 and 3, since recovery at the Theorem 2 constant (per [19]) does not rule out a detection gap in the window between the two bounds. Please revise the abstract and the framing of the introduction to present Theorems 2 and 3 as upper and lower bounds with an explicit gap for m>2.
- [Section VI, proof of Theorem 3 (final paragraph)] For general m>3, Theorem 3 is not actually proved. The text says that X2,...,Xm are 'essentially replaced' by a single aligned-sum matrix X_{2:m} and that after scaling, the pair (X1,X_{2:m}) is exactly the two-matrix Gaussian model with correlation ρ′ = ρ√(m−1)/√(1+(m−2)ρ), but no derivation is given for this reduction. Every constant in Theorem 3 and the induction step depend on this claim. The m=3 template shows the needed ingredients (the coupling via S, the Markov property, the TV inequality chain, and the check (ρ′)² ≤ (4−ε′) log n/n), but for general m these are summarized in a few sentences. Please provide a complete proof for general m>3, including the definition and scaling of X_{2:m}, the conditional distribution of X1 given X_{2:m}, the verification of the ρ′ bound, and the induction step from m−1 to m.
- [Section III, penultimate paragraph; abstract no-gap claim] The paper's use of [19] to support the 'no detection-recovery gap' conclusion needs to be qualified. Reference [19] is an external preprint that appeared after this submission, and the present manuscript does not verify its recovery threshold. Even accepting [19], a no-gap statement requires the detection lower bound to match the recovery threshold, which is exactly what Theorem 3 does not provide for m>2. Please either prove the relevant comparison or remove the no-gap claim from the abstract.
minor comments (6)
- [Throughout] There are several typos to fix: 'Previou sly' and 'independen t' in the abstract, 'V ery' in Section I, 'eigvenvalue' in Section V, 'impove' in the acknowledgments, and 'rariables' in reference [45].
- [Section II] Please state explicitly that 0 ≤ ρ < 1; the covariance matrix Σ = (1−ρ)I + ρE and the formula for Σ^{-1}−I require this parameter range.
- [Section VI, final paragraph] The notation X_{2:m} is used before it is defined; please define the aligned-sum matrix in the preliminaries or at the start of Section VI.
- [Section V, proof of Theorem 2] In the displayed formulas near the threshold τ = C(n,2)C(m,2)ρ − n^c, the term 'nc' appears where n^c is clearly intended; please correct the typesetting.
- [Section III and Section VI] The proof of Theorem 3 uses both ε and ǫ for the same constant; please unify the notation and state explicitly that ε′ in the reduction is a positive constant possibly different from ε.
- [Section III, penultimate paragraph] The remark about extending necessary conditions to Erdős-Rényi graphs is informal and not developed; consider moving it to a discussion section or removing it.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the detection analysis is self-contained GLRT tail bounds plus an induction to the external two-graph threshold of Wu-Xu-Yu; the abstract/body gap is a consistency issue, not circularity.
full rationale
The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The achievability direction (Theorem 2) is a direct generalized-likelihood-ratio analysis: the statistic T is derived by algebra from the multivariate Gaussian likelihood in Section III, and the probability bounds use a Hanson-Wright variant proved in the appendix with explicit constants (Proposition 4 and its proof). No parameter is fitted to the target claim; the threshold rho^2 = 8 log n / (m(n-1)) is read off from the union-bound calculation. The impossibility direction (Theorem 3) uses the sharp two-graph impossibility theorem of Wu, Xu, and Yu [1] as its base case, then proves by induction that an m-graph instance can be compressed to the two-matrix Gaussian detection model with effective correlation rho' = rho sqrt(m-1)/sqrt(1+(m-2)rho). That reduction is a mathematical equivalence derived from the conditional Gaussian structure of the model, not an input that already contains the m-graph conclusion. The m=3 case is written out in full; Section VI states that the general-m proof is similar and gives the effective two-graph parameter. This is a proof-sketch completeness concern, not circularity, and the stated reduction is fillable from the m=3 template. The abstract's wording 'sharp information-theoretic threshold' is inconsistent with Section III's own explicit statement that the thresholds in (2) and (3) differ by a factor of 2(m-1)/m and that closing the gap for m > 2 is an open problem, and the 'no detection-recovery gap' assertion depends on the external recovery result [19]; these are correctness/consistency concerns, not circularity. The only self-citations ([27], [30]) concern related graph-matching problems and are not load-bearing for either theorem. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption The two-graph detection threshold of Wu, Xu, and Yu (Theorem 1 of [1]): strong detection is possible when rho^2 is at least 4 log n / (n-1), and weak detection is impossible when rho^2 is at most (4-epsilon) log n / n.
- domain assumption Under H1, aligned edge tuples are jointly Gaussian with covariance (1-rho)I + rho E, and the latent permutations pi*_{1k} are independent and uniform on S_n.
- standard math Standard facts about total variation distance, the Neyman-Pearson lemma, and the Radon-Nikodym decomposition used in Lemmas 7-9 and the proof of Theorem 3.
- ad hoc to paper For general m, the aligned sum X2:m after scaling reproduces the two-matrix Gaussian model with rho' = rho sqrt(m-1) / sqrt(1 + (m-2)rho).
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Sharp Detection Threshold for Correlation among Multiple Unlabeled Gaussian Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7D7YIKMW
@misc{pith2026250416279,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Sharp Detection Threshold for Correlation among Multiple Unlabeled Gaussian Networks},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7D7YIKMW}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16279}
}
abstract
This paper studies the hypothesis testing problem of deciding whether $m \geq 2$ complete weighted graphs with Gaussian edge weights are mutually correlated after unknown relabelings of their vertices. Under the null model all edge weights are independent standard Gaussians, whereas under the planted model the graphs share a latent vertex alignment and each pair of corresponding edge weights has correlation $\rho$. For fixed $m$, we identify the sharp information-theoretic threshold for detection. Above the threshold, a generalized likelihood-ratio test achieves strong detection, whereas even weak detection is impossible below the threshold. The result extends the two-graph detection threshold of Wu, Xu, and Yu to any fixed number of graphs, exhibits a side-information regime in which two graphs alone are insufficient but multiple graphs enable detection, and, together with the recovery threshold of Vassaux and Massouli\'e, shows that this Gaussian multi-graph model has no detection--recovery gap.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Graph alignment in sparse inhomogeneous models via self-overlap
Partial graph alignment is feasible exactly on vertices whose balanced load in the intersection graph exceeds the self-overlap of the union graph, giving sharp thresholds for Chung–Lu and stochastic block-model graphs.
-
Sample Complexity of Correlation Detection in the Gaussian Wigner Model
The optimal induced-subgraph sample size for detecting correlation in the Gaussian Wigner model is s ≈ sqrt(max(n log n / log(1/(1-ρ^2)), n)).
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[19]
The feasibility of multi-graph alignment: a Bayesian approach
L. V assaux and L. Massoulié, “The feasibility of multi- graph alignment: a Bayesian approach,” arXiv preprint:2502.17142, 2025
work page Pith review arXiv 2025
-
[1]
Testing correlation of unlabel ed random graphs,
Y . Wu, J. Xu, and S. H. Y u, “Testing correlation of unlabel ed random graphs,” The Annals of Applied Probability , vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 2519– 2558, 2023
work page 2023
-
[2]
R. Singh, J. Xu, and B. Berger, “Global alignment of multi ple protein interaction networks with application to functional ortho logy detection,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 105, no. 35, pp. 12 763–12 768, 2008
work page 2008
-
[3]
The human connectom e: a structural description of the human brain,
O. Sporns, G. Tononi, and R. Kötter, “The human connectom e: a structural description of the human brain,” PLoS computational biology , vol. 1, no. 4, p. e42, 2005
work page 2005
-
[4]
Graph alignment exploiting the spatial organization impr oves the sim- ilarity of brain networks,
A. Calissano, T. Papadopoulo, X. Pennec, and S. Deslauri ers-Gauthier, “Graph alignment exploiting the spatial organization impr oves the sim- ilarity of brain networks,” Human Brain Mapping , vol. 45, no. 1, p. e26554, 2024
work page 2024
-
[5]
Probabilistic subgraph matching based on convex relaxation,
C. Schellewald and C. Schnörr, “Probabilistic subgraph matching based on convex relaxation,” in International W orkshop on Energy Minimiza- tion Methods in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . Springer, 2005, pp. 171–186
work page 2005
-
[6]
Robust de-anonymizatio n of large sparse datasets,
A. Narayanan and V . Shmatikov, “Robust de-anonymizatio n of large sparse datasets,” in 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (sp 2008). IEEE, 2008, pp. 111–125
work page 2008
-
[7]
De-anonymizing social networks,
——, “De-anonymizing social networks,” in 2009 30th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy . IEEE, 2009, pp. 173–187
work page 2009
Show all 45 references
-
[8]
Robust textual i nference via graph matching,
A. Haghighi, A. Y . Ng, and C. D. Manning, “Robust textual i nference via graph matching,” in Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural L anguage Processing, 2005, pp. 387–394
2005
-
[9]
Detection threshold for correlated Er d˝os-Rényi graphs via densest subgraph,
J. Ding and H. Du, “Detection threshold for correlated Er d˝os-Rényi graphs via densest subgraph,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 5289–5298, 2023
2023
-
[10]
( Nearly) efficient algorithms for the graph matching problem on corre lated random graphs,
B. Barak, C.-N. Chou, Z. Lei, T. Schramm, and Y . Sheng, “( Nearly) efficient algorithms for the graph matching problem on corre lated random graphs,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 32, 2019
2019
-
[11]
Testing network correl ation efficiently via counting trees,
C. Mao, Y . Wu, J. Xu, and S. H. Y u, “Testing network correl ation efficiently via counting trees,” The Annals of Statistics , vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 2483–2505, 2024
2024
-
[12]
Low-degree hardness of detect ion for correlated Erd ˝os-Rényi graphs,
J. Ding, H. Du, and Z. Li, “Low-degree hardness of detect ion for correlated Erd ˝os-Rényi graphs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15931 , 2023
2023
-
[13]
Testing dependency of weighted random graphs,
M. Oren-Loberman, V . Paslev, and W. Huleihel, “Testing dependency of weighted random graphs,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1263–1268
2024
-
[14]
Correlati on detection in trees for planted graph alignment,
L. Ganassali, M. Lelarge, and L. Massoulié, “Correlati on detection in trees for planted graph alignment,” The Annals of Applied Probability , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 2799–2843, 2024
2024
-
[15]
Statist ical limits of correlation detection in trees,
L. Ganassali, L. Massoulié, and G. Semerjian, “Statist ical limits of correlation detection in trees,” The Annals of Applied Probability, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 3701–3734, 2024
2024
-
[16]
Correlated randomly growing graphs,
M. Z. Rácz and A. Sridhar, “Correlated randomly growing graphs,” The Annals of Applied Probability , vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1058–1111, 2022
2022
-
[17]
Sharp threshold for alignment of graph d atabases with Gaussian weights,
L. Ganassali, “Sharp threshold for alignment of graph d atabases with Gaussian weights,” in Mathematical and Scientific Machine Learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 314–335
2022
-
[18]
Settling the sharp reconstruc tion thresholds of random graph matching,
Y . Wu, J. Xu, and S. H. Y u, “Settling the sharp reconstruc tion thresholds of random graph matching,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 5391–5417, 2022
2022
-
[20]
Improved achievability an d converse bounds for Erd ˝os-Rényi graph matching,
D. Cullina and N. Kiyavash, “Improved achievability an d converse bounds for Erd ˝os-Rényi graph matching,” ACM SIGMETRICS Perfor- mance Evaluation Review , vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 63–72, 2016
2016
-
[21]
Exact alignment recovery for correlated Erd ˝os-Rényi graphs,
——, “Exact alignment recovery for correlated Erd ˝os-Rényi graphs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.06783 , 2017
2017 arXiv
-
[22]
Partia l recovery of Erd˝os-Rényi graph alignment via k-core alignment,
D. Cullina, N. Kiyavash, P . Mittal, and V . Poor, “Partia l recovery of Erd˝os-Rényi graph alignment via k-core alignment,” Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1–21, 2019
2019
-
[23]
Matching recovery threshold for corr elated random graphs,
J. Ding and H. Du, “Matching recovery threshold for corr elated random graphs,” The Annals of Statistics , vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1718–1743, 2023
2023
-
[24]
Partial recovery in the graph alignment problem,
G. Hall and L. Massoulié, “Partial recovery in the graph alignment problem,” Operations Research, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 259–272, 2023
2023
-
[25]
Optimal recovery of correlated Erdos-Renyi gra phs,
H. Du, “Optimal recovery of correlated Erdos-Renyi gra phs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12077, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[26]
Matching correlated inhomog eneous random graphs using the k-core estimator,
M. Z. Rácz and A. Sridhar, “Matching correlated inhomog eneous random graphs using the k-core estimator,” in 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 2499–2504
2023
-
[27]
Robust graph matching when nodes are corrupt,
T. Ameen and B. Hajek, “Robust graph matching when nodes are corrupt,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18543 , 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[28]
Information-theoretic thresholds for the alignments of partially correlated graphs,
D. Huang, X. Song, and P . Y ang, “Information-theoretic thresholds for the alignments of partially correlated graphs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05428, 2024
2024
-
[29]
Network recovery from unlabeled noisy samples,
N. Josephs, W. Li, and E. D. Kolaczyk, “Network recovery from unlabeled noisy samples,” in 2021 55th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers , 2021, pp. 1268–1273
2021
-
[30]
Exact random graph matching with multiple graphs,
T. Ameen and B. Hajek, “Exact random graph matching with multiple graphs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12293 , 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[31]
Harnessing multiple correlate d networks for exact community recovery,
M. Z. Rácz and J. Zhang, “Harnessing multiple correlate d networks for exact community recovery,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02796 , 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[32]
On correlation detection and alignment reco very of Gaussian databases,
R. Tamir, “On correlation detection and alignment reco very of Gaussian databases,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01069 , 2022
2022 arXiv
-
[33]
On correlation detection of Gaussian databases vi a local decision making,
——, “On correlation detection of Gaussian databases vi a local decision making,” in 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1231–1236
2023
-
[34]
Detecting correlated Gaussian databases,
K. Zeynep and B. Nazer, “Detecting correlated Gaussian databases,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (I SIT). IEEE, 2022, pp. 2064–2069
2022
-
[35]
Phase transitions in the detection of correlated databases,
D. Elimelech and W. Huleihel, “Phase transitions in the detection of correlated databases,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 9246–9266
2023
-
[36]
Detection of correlated random vectors,
——, “Detection of correlated random vectors,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 8942–8960, 2024
2024
-
[37]
The broken sample problem revi sited: Proof of a conjecture by Bai-Hsing and high-dimensional extensio ns,
S. Jiao, Y . Wu, and J. Xu, “The broken sample problem revi sited: Proof of a conjecture by Bai-Hsing and high-dimensional extensio ns,” arXiv preprint:2503.14619, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[38]
Testing dependency of unlab eled databases,
V . Paslev and W. Huleihel, “Testing dependency of unlab eled databases,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 2024
2024
-
[39]
Fundamental li mits of database alignment,
D. Cullina, P . Mittal, and N. Kiyavash, “Fundamental li mits of database alignment,” in 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 651–655
2018
-
[40]
Database alignm ent with Gaussian features,
O. E. Dai, D. Cullina, and N. Kiyavash, “Database alignm ent with Gaussian features,” in The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . PMLR, 2019, pp. 3225–3233
2019
-
[41]
Database matching under col umn deletions,
S. Bakırta¸ s and E. Erkip, “Database matching under col umn deletions,” in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (I SIT). IEEE, 2021, pp. 2720–2725
2021
-
[42]
Database matching under nois y synchroniza- tion errors,
S. Bakirtas and E. Erkip, “Database matching under nois y synchroniza- tion errors,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 2024
2024
-
[43]
Achievability o f nearly- exact alignment for correlated Gaussian databases,
O. E. Dai, D. Cullina, and N. Kiyavash, “Achievability o f nearly- exact alignment for correlated Gaussian databases,” in 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 1230–1235
2020
-
[44]
Gaussian database alignment and Gaussian planted matching,
——, “Gaussian database alignment and Gaussian planted matching,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02459 , 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[45]
A Bound on tail probabilit ies for quadratic forms in independent random rariables,
D. L. Hanson and F. T. Wright, “A Bound on tail probabilit ies for quadratic forms in independent random rariables,” The Annals of Math- ematical Statistics , vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1079 – 1083, 1971. VII. A PPENDIX : P ROOF OF PROPOSITION 4 We assume without loss of generality t...
1971
Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.