Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Diffusion Maps Kernel Ridge Regression

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The diffusion maps kernel converges uniformly to the heat kernel on a closed manifold, and kernel ridge regression with this data-driven kernel inherits the standard Matérn-kernel risk bounds.

desk verdict Main theorem's bandwidth interval is empty—the paper needs major revision, but the empirical study and embedding lemma have value. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09623 v1 pith:GVHMS5TT submitted 2026-08-10 math.NA cs.NAmath.STstat.TH

John Harlim , Daning Huang , Jiwoo Song This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAmath.STstat.TH MSC 62G0858J3546E2268T05
keywords diffusionmapskernelridgeregressionheatReproducingHilbertSpaceMatérnmanifoldlearningspectralconvergenceSobolevembedding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's aim is to explain, with proofs, why kernel ridge regression built on the diffusion maps (DM) kernel is more than a heuristic: under uniform sampling on a closed manifold, the scaled DM kernel converges uniformly to the heat kernel, so the hypothesis space it defines is asymptotically the heat kernel's RKHS. It then proves that the DM kernel's RKHS is isometrically isomorphic to the Gaussian kernel's RKHS and continuously embeds into a Matérn/Sobolev RKHS, which lets the standard oracle inequality for Matérn kernels apply to DMKRR. If these claims are right, practitioners get a data-driven kernel that adapts to the geometry of the data while carrying concrete generalization guarantees. The numerical experiments test the heat-kernel convergence and show DMKRR beating Gaussian KRR on manifolds with boundary and on targets with varying frequency and co-dimension, though the theory itself assumes closed manifolds and does not explain the boundary advantage.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the doubly normalized diffusion maps kernel, $k_{\epsilon,N}(x,y)=\hat{k}_{\epsilon,N}(x,y)/\sqrt{\hat{q}_{\epsilon,N}(x)\hat{q}_{\epsilon,N}(y)}$, built from a Gaussian kernel $\tilde{k}_\epsilon$ by first dividing by sample-density estimates $q_{\epsilon,N}$ and then normalizing again; the two normalizations are what remove the sampling density and make the kernel behave like a constant multiple of the Gaussian on the manifold. Raising the empirical kernel's eigenvalues to the power $t/\epsilon$ turns its spectral representation into a finite approximation of the heat kernel, and the paper's error analysis controls each spectral term through the Nyström extension $\psi_{\epsilon,N}^j$ (interpolation of eigenvectors off the sample points) and the Laplacian eigenfunctions $\phi_j$. The transfer to kernel ridge regression is carried by the pointwise multiplier $Uf=\varphi f$ with $\varphi=1/(q_{\epsilon,N}\sqrt{\hat{q}_{\epsilon,N}})$, which is an isometric isomorphism from the Gaussian RKHS to the DM RKHS, and by the trace/extension property that embeds the Gaussian RKHS continuously into the Matérn RKHS on the submanifold.

What would settle it

On a flat torus with uniform samples, choose $\epsilon$ as in Assumption 2.1, form the DM Gram matrix, and compare its logged eigenvalues $\log\lambda_{\epsilon,N}^j$ with the true Laplacian eigenvalues $\epsilon\nu_j$ for $j$ close to $N$; if $\max_j |\log\lambda_{\epsilon,N}^j - \epsilon\nu_j|$ diverges as $N\to\infty$, the polynomial-decay premise of Theorem 4.1 fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 3.1: for i.i.d. uniform samples on a d-dimensional closed manifold and a bandwidth satisfying Assumption 2.1, the positive-time empirical diffusion kernel $H_{\epsilon,N}(x,y;t)=\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}(\lambda_{\epsilon,N}^{j})^{t/\epsilon}\psi_{\epsilon,N}^{j}(x)\psi_{\epsilon,N}^{j}(y)$ converges in $L^\infty(M\times M)$ to the heat kernel $H(x,y;t)=\sum_{j\ge0}e^{\nu_j t}\phi_j(x)\phi_j(y)$, with error $O((t+1)e^{t\nu_1}/N)+O(\epsilon^{1/4})+O(e^{-cN^{2/d}t/2}/N)$ for times $t\ge 8\log N/(cN^{2/d})$. The consequence drawn in Theorem 4.1 is that kernel ridge regression with the DM kernel obeys the same oracle inequality that holds for Matérn kernels, with interpolation parameter $p=d/(2(s-(n-d)/2))$, because the DM RKHS is isometrically isomorphic to the Gaussian RKHS and continuously embedded in a Sobolev-equivalent Matérn RKHS. Numerically, the paper demonstrates heat-kernel convergence on circle, torus, and disk, and shows DMKRR outperforming Gaussian KRR on manifolds with boundary and on oscillatory or high-co-dimension targets when the sample size is large enough.

Load-bearing premise

The learning-rate guarantee collapses if the DM kernel's integral operator eigenvalues do not decay at least as a power of $1/j$; the paper justifies that decay by treating the bandwidth $\epsilon$ times a spectral discrepancy $o(N)$ as a finite constant, a step that is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For uniformly sampled data on a closed manifold, DMKRR inherits the same oracle inequality and statistical rates as kernel ridge regression with a Matérn kernel, so its generalization error is controlled by the usual approximation-error/variance tradeoff.
  • The limiting hypothesis space is the RKHS of the heat kernel, so functions well represented by Laplace–Beltrami eigenfunctions are the natural targets for DMKRR.
  • On closed manifolds where the Gaussian kernel is translation-invariant, such as the full circle, the DM and Gaussian eigenbases coincide, so DMKRR should not be expected to beat Gaussian KRR there; its numerical advantages appear on manifolds with boundary.
  • For manifolds with boundary and high co-dimension, the numerical evidence indicates DMKRR achieves lower test error and faster decay with sample size than Gaussian KRR once enough samples are available, even though the paper's theorems assume closed manifolds.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's own statement that it does not understand why the DM normalization helps on manifolds with boundary suggests a testable target: if the boundary advantage is real, a sharpened Sobolev embedding for manifolds with boundary should show the DM hypothesis space losing less regularity than the Gaussian kernel's ambient extension.
  • The risk-bound transfer depends on polynomial eigenvalue decay for the empirical DM operator; a direct numerical measurement of $\lambda_{\epsilon,N}^j$ for $j$ near $N$ on a flat torus would test whether that premise holds outside the range covered by the proof.
  • The uniform-sampling assumption is restrictive, but the same double-normalization construction is used in practice with nonuniform samples; one could investigate whether the heat-kernel convergence extends to the density-rescaled version where $q$ is estimated, which would broaden the practical scope.
  • The lower bound on the diffusion time, $t\ge 8\log N/(cN^{2/d})$, gets small as $N$ grows, but for moderate $N$ it may prevent using very short diffusion times; if the limit holds for smaller $t$, DMKRR could be tuned more flexibly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a theoretical analysis of kernel ridge regression with the diffusion maps (DM) kernel. Under i.i.d. uniform sampling on a closed manifold, it claims uniform convergence of a scaled, time-marginalized DM kernel to the heat kernel (Theorem 3.1), identifies the limiting RKHS with the heat-kernel RKHS, and proves an oracle inequality for DMKRR by establishing an isometric isomorphism with the Gaussian RKHS and a continuous embedding into a Matérn RKHS (Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, Theorem 4.1). Numerical experiments on the circle, flat torus, disk, semicircle, and semi-torus compare DMKRR with Gaussian KRR and examine heat-kernel approximation and regression error.

Significance. The intended result, if established, would be valuable: it would give a rigorous explanation of why data-driven DM kernels perform well in supervised learning and would transfer standard Matérn-kernel risk bounds to kernels built from the diffusion maps construction. The paper is transparent in structure: assumptions are stated, proofs are assembled from known spectral convergence, KDE concentration, and RKHS restriction results, and the numerical experiments test heat-kernel convergence and regression on several manifolds. However, the main convergence theorem is vacuous because its bandwidth interval is empty, and the eigenvalue-decay step in the risk-bound proof is not justified. The paper therefore does not currently deliver on its central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Theorem 3.1 and Assumption 2.1] The admissible bandwidth interval in Theorem 3.1 is empty for all sufficiently large N. The lower bound is ε^{1/2} ≥ C(log N/N)^s with s = min{1/(4d+13), 2/(d^2+3d)} ≤ 1/17, while the upper bound is ε^{1/2} ≤ N^{-4}(-ν_N)^{-(d-1)/2}. With the convention ν_j ~ -c j^{2/d} used later in the proof of Theorem 4.1, one has -ν_N ~ c N^{2/d}, so the upper bound is O(N^{-4-(d-1)/d}). Since N^{-1/17} ≫ N^{-4} for large N, no ε satisfies both inequalities along any admissible sequence. Thus the L∞ convergence claim and the consequence that the limiting RKHS coincides with that of the heat kernel are not established as stated; the numerical experiments in Section 5.1 also select ε outside this interval rather than instantiating it.
  2. [§4, proof of Theorem 4.1] The step 'From [24], ν_j(T_k) − ν_{ε,N}^j = o(N)' is not compatible with the conclusion that a = exp(ε(o(N)+O(β))) is finite. Under the bandwidth schedule of Assumption 2.1, εN tends to infinity (for example, ε ≥ (log N/N)^{2/(4d+13)} gives εN ~ N^{1-2/(4d+13)}), so ε·o(N) need not vanish and the exponential factor need not be bounded. Consequently, the assertion that the eigenvalues λ_j(T_k) decay faster than the algebraic rate required in Proposition 4.1 is not established. In addition, Proposition 4.1 requires eigenvalue decay for the integral operator of the fixed kernel on L2(M), whereas [24] concerns empirical graph Laplacian matrices; the passage between these operators is not justified. The oracle inequality (33) is therefore not proven for DMKRR.
  3. [§2.1 and Lemma 4.1] The paper uses two incompatible descriptions of H_{ε,N}. Section 2.1, Eq. (8), defines H_{ε,N} as the finite-dimensional space spanned by the first N Nyström extensions, with dimension N. Lemma 4.1, Eq. (34), proves that the RKHS of the kernel k_{ε,N} defined in (4) is isometrically isomorphic to the Gaussian RKHS H_{\tilde{k}_ε}, which is infinite-dimensional on a compact manifold. Since KRR in Theorem 4.1 solves the variational problem over the RKHS of k_{ε,N}, it is not clear whether the finite-dimensional space in (8) is the hypothesis space used in the risk bound: if it is, the isometry with the Gaussian RKHS needs to be established for that space, and if it is not, the oracle inequality applies to a different problem than the one computed numerically.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1, after Eq. (1)] The introduction states that the diffusion time is lower bounded by a quantity of order o(N^{-2/d} log N), but Theorem 3.1 requires t ≥ 8 log N/(c N^{2/d}), which is Θ(N^{-2/d} log N), not o(N^{-2/d} log N).
  2. [Assumption 2.1, Eq. (13)] The upper bound in Eq. (13) is written as G(N, λ_N), but the spectral gap quantity introduced in Lemma 2.2 is Γ_N; the notation should be G(N, Γ_N) for consistency.
  3. [§4, proof of Theorem 4.1] The proof refers to 'Proposition 2.2', but the spectral convergence statement in the paper is Lemma 2.2; additionally, λ_j(T_k) and T_k are introduced without a precise definition of the integral operator for the DM kernel.
  4. [§5.1 and Appendix C.1] The disk experiment uses Neumann boundary conditions and a manifold with boundary, whereas Theorem 3.1 assumes a closed manifold; the text acknowledges this, but the abstract's convergence claim should not be read as covering the disk experiment.
  5. [§2.1 and §4.2] There are small presentation errors: Eq. (8) writes H_{ε.N} instead of H_{ε,N}, and Lemma 4.2 says 'prevalent' where 'prevalence' is intended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DM kernel convergence and risk-bound theorems are derived from external spectral-convergence results and external oracle inequalities, not from assumptions containing the conclusions; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 3.1 is proved from Lemma 2.2, which is explicitly adapted from the external spectral convergence result of Dunson, Wu, and Wu [11], together with in-paper Propositions 3.1-3.2 and standard KDE concentration results [13,14]; none of these inputs assert the heat-kernel limit that Theorem 3.1 derives. The isometric isomorphism between the DM kernel RKHS and the Gaussian RKHS (Lemma 4.1) is an explicit algebraic identity, k_{epsilon,N}(x,y)=varphi(x)varphi(y)tilde{k}_epsilon(x,y), proved by computation from Definition 2.1, not assumed. Lemma 4.2 uses the external restricted-kernel argument of Fuselier and Wright [12], and Theorem 4.1 applies the external oracle inequality of Steinwart, Hush, and Scovel [23]. The self-citations [15], [16], [20], [22], and [17] are motivational or provide standard lemmas (e.g., the fill-distance bound [15]) that are externally verifiable; no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked. The reader's and skeptic's concerns are correctness gaps, not circularity: Theorem 3.1's admissible-bandwidth interval is likely empty because the lower bound C(logN/N)^s with s<=1/17 dominates the upper bound N^{-4}(-nu_N)^{-(d-1)/2} ~ N^{-4-(d-1)/d}, and Theorem 4.1's treatment of epsilon(o(N)+O(beta)) as a finite constant is unjustified. These flaws make the theorems unsupported or vacuous as stated, but they do not reduce the claimed results to the assumptions by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the manifold and uniform sampling setup, external spectral convergence and RKHS restriction theorems, and an assumed eigenvalue decay for the DM kernel. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated. The eigenvalue decay prerequisite for the risk bound is entered as an assumed property because the paper's derivation is not valid as written.

free parameters (2)
  • kernel bandwidth ε
    Hyperparameter of the DM kernel. The theorems require ε to lie in a scaling band (Assumption 2.1); numerical experiments tune it by validation. Not a fitted constant in the derivation.
  • regularization parameter η
    Ridge regularization in KRR. The oracle inequality is stated for all η in (0,1]; tuned by validation numerically. Not fitted to the data in the theory.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Closed manifold and uniform i.i.d. sampling
    M is a closed smooth submanifold of R^n and samples are drawn uniformly. Proposition 3.1 and the uniform-marginal condition in Proposition 4.1 both require this. Sections 2 and 4.
  • domain assumption Spectral convergence of the empirical DM operator (Lemma 2.2 from [11])
    Provides eigenvalue and eigenvector error rates used to prove Theorem 3.1. The bandwidth and spectral-gap conditions in Assumption 2.1 are inherited from this lemma.
  • domain assumption Polynomial eigenvalue decay of the DM kernel integral operator
    Needed to apply Proposition 4.1. The paper attempts to prove it in Theorem 4.1, but the argument using o(N) from [24] is not valid as written; the decay is plausible from Gaussian kernel spectral theory but is effectively assumed.
  • standard math RKHS restriction and Gaussian-to-Matérn embedding
    Lemma 4.2 uses Lemma 4 of [12] and the standard continuous embedding of Gaussian RKHS into Matérn RKHS on R^n to transfer Sobolev-type interpolation inequalities to functions in the DM RKHS.
  • domain assumption Spectral gap or simple eigenvalues for the Laplace-Beltrami operator
    Lemma 2.2 is stated for simple eigenvalues; the paper notes repeated eigenvalues are handled via eigenspaces with constants depending on the gap. This affects constants in Theorem 3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffusion Maps Kernel Ridge Regression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GVHMS5TT

@misc{pith2026260809623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffusion Maps Kernel Ridge Regression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GVHMS5TT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09623}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we study kernel ridge regression using the data-driven diffusion maps (DM) kernel, which is constructed through algebraic manipulations of the diffusion maps algorithm. Under the assumptions that the data lie on a manifold and are sampled uniformly, we prove that the appropriately scaled DM kernel converges uniformly to the heat kernel on the manifold for sufficiently large times as the dataset size increases and the kernel bandwidth is scaled appropriately. Consequently, the limiting Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS) induced by the DM kernel coincides with the RKHS associated with the heat kernel on the manifold. We further show that the RKHS induced by the DM kernel is isometrically isomorphic to the RKHS of the Gaussian kernel, which is continuously embedded in the RKHS of a Mat\'ern kernel whose norm is equivalent to an appropriate Sobolev norm. This result implies that standard risk bounds for kernel ridge regression applicable to Mat\'ern kernels also apply to the DM kernel. Finally, we provide numerical results that (1) validate the convergence of the heat kernel approximation, (2) demonstrate the greater expressiveness of the DM kernel compared to the Gaussian kernel for supervised learning over a larger class of functions on manifolds with boundary, and (3) demonstrate the advantage of the DM kernel over the Gaussian kernel in learning functions with varying frequencies and co-dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Convergence of heat kernels on circle and flat torus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of DM and RBF KRR errors. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distributions of subspace angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Subspace alignment for the LB basis. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LB eigenfunctions with Neumann BC on semi-torus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LB eigenfunctions with Dirichlet BC on semi-torus, embedded in higher ambient dimensions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of heat kernels on manifolds; heat kernel is shown for the source at the black dot; the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Convergence of heat kernels on three manifolds. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: KRR labels for the semicricle and full circle cases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Modes for the semicircle case. The RBF label space (b) are obtained with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Subspace alignment for the RBF basis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Subspace alignment for the LB basis on full circle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Laplace eigenfunctions in ambient space constrained to semi-torus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Consistency of spectral clustering.The Annals of Statistics, pages 555–586, 2008

    Ulrike Von Luxburg, Mikhail Belkin, and Olivier Bousquet. Consistency of spectral clustering.The Annals of Statistics, pages 555–586, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [1]

    Elsevier, 2003

    Robert A Adams and John JF Fournier.Sobolev spaces, volume 140. Elsevier, 2003

    2003

  3. [2]

    Bach, Gert R

    Francis R. Bach, Gert R. G. Lanckriet, and Michael I. Jordan. Multiple kernel learning, conic duality, and the SMO algorithm. InProceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), page 41, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Academic press, 1988

    Colin Bennett and Robert C Sharpley.Interpolation of operators, volume 129. Academic press, 1988

    work page 1988

  5. [4]

    Lipschitz regularity of graph Laplacians on random data clouds.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 54(1):1169–1222, 2022

    Jeff Calder, Nicholas Trillos, and Marta Lewicka. Lipschitz regularity of graph Laplacians on random data clouds.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 54(1):1169–1222, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    Improved spectral convergence rates for graph laplacians onε-graphs and k-nn graphs.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 60:123–175, 2022

    Jeff Calder and Nicolas Garcia Trillos. Improved spectral convergence rates for graph laplacians onε-graphs and k-nn graphs.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 60:123–175, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Springer, 2008

    Andreas Christmann and Ingo Steinwart.Support vector machines. Springer, 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [7]

    Diffusion maps.Applied and computational harmonic analysis, 21(1):5–30, 2006

    Ronald R Coifman and Stéphane Lafon. Diffusion maps.Applied and computational harmonic analysis, 21(1):5–30, 2006

    2006

Show all 25 references
  1. [8]

    Eigenvalues of the laplacian on a compact manifold with density.Communications in Analysis and Geometry, 23(3):639–670, 2015

    Bruno Colbois, Ahmad El Soufi, and Alessandro Savo. Eigenvalues of the laplacian on a compact manifold with density.Communications in Analysis and Geometry, 23(3):639–670, 2015

    2015

  2. [9]

    Springer, 2019

    John B Conway.A course in functional analysis. Springer, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Elsevier, 2005

    Lokenath Debnath and Piotr Mikusinski.Introduction to Hilbert spaces with applications. Elsevier, 2005

    2005

  4. [11]

    Spectral convergence of graph Laplacian and heat kernel reconstruction in L∞ from random samples.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 55:282–336, 2021

    David B Dunson, Hau-Tieng Wu, and Nan Wu. Spectral convergence of graph Laplacian and heat kernel reconstruction in L∞ from random samples.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 55:282–336, 2021

    2021

  5. [12]

    Scattered data interpolation on embedded submanifolds with restricted positive definite kernels: Sobolev error estimates.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 50(3):1753–1776, 2012

    Edward Fuselier and Grady B Wright. Scattered data interpolation on embedded submanifolds with restricted positive definite kernels: Sobolev error estimates.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 50(3):1753–1776, 2012

    2012

  6. [13]

    Rates of strong uniform consistency for multivariate kernel density estimators

    Evarist Giné and Armelle Guillou. Rates of strong uniform consistency for multivariate kernel density estimators. InAnnales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probability and Statistics, volume 38, pages 907–921. Elsevier, 2002

    2002

  7. [14]

    Cambridge University Press, 2016

    Evarist Giné and Richard Nickl.Mathematical Foundations of Infinite-Dimensional Statistical Models, vol- ume 40. Cambridge University Press, 2016

    2016

  8. [15]

    Radial basis approximation of tensor fields on manifolds: from operator estimation to manifold learning.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(345):1–85, 2023

    John Harlim, Shixiao Willing Jiang, and John Wilson Peoples. Radial basis approximation of tensor fields on manifolds: from operator estimation to manifold learning.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(345):1–85, 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    Ghost point diffusion maps for solving elliptic pdes on manifolds with classical boundary conditions.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 76(2):337–405, 2023

    Shixiao Willing Jiang and John Harlim. Ghost point diffusion maps for solving elliptic pdes on manifolds with classical boundary conditions.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 76(2):337–405, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Learning dynamical systems from noisy data with weak-form kernel ridge regression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.00257, 2026

    Max Kreider, John Harlim, and Daning Huang. Learning dynamical systems from noisy data with weak-form kernel ridge regression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.00257, 2026. 18 APREPRINT- AUGUST11, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Gert R. G. Lanckriet, Nello Cristianini, Peter Bartlett, Laurent El Ghaoui, and Michael I. Jordan. Learning the kernel matrix with semidefinite programming.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5:27–72, 2004

    2004

  12. [19]

    Kernel flows: From learning kernels from data into the abyss.Journal of Computational Physics, 389:22–47, 2019

    Houman Owhadi, Clint Scovel, and Gene Ryan Suleiman. Kernel flows: From learning kernels from data into the abyss.Journal of Computational Physics, 389:22–47, 2019

    2019

  13. [20]

    Wilson Peoples and John Harlim

    J. Wilson Peoples and John Harlim. Spectral convergence of symmetrized graph Laplacian on manifolds with boundary.Foundations of Data Science, 8:119–167, 2026

    2026

  14. [21]

    Smola.Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond

    Bernhard Schölkopf and Alexander J. Smola.Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002

    2002

  15. [22]

    Learning solution operator of dynamical systems with diffusion maps kernel ridge regression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17203, 2025

    Jiwoo Song, Daning Huang, and John Harlim. Learning solution operator of dynamical systems with diffusion maps kernel ridge regression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17203, 2025

    2025

  16. [23]

    Optimal rates for regularized least squares regression

    Ingo Steinwart, Don R Hush, and Clint Scovel. Optimal rates for regularized least squares regression. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Learning Theory, pages 79–93, 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

    f(x) m0q(x) +ϵ Ã 1 m0q(x) m2 m0 µ ∆g f(x)− f(x)∆ g q(x) q(x) ¶ −f(x) m2 m2 0 µ ω(x) q(x) + ∆g q(x) q(x)2 ¶! +O(ϵ 2) # . Subsequently, ˆqϵ(x)= eGϵ1(x) qϵ(x) =ϵ −d/2

    Holger Wendland.Scattered data approximation, volume 17. Cambridge university press, 2004. A Continuous DM kernel asymptotic In this Appendix, we report the detailed calculation that reveals the scaling of the DM kernel and shows that the normalization approximates the Laplace...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.