Convergent sequences of sparse graphs: A large deviations approach

Models based on sparse graphs are of interest to many communities: they appear as basic models in combinatorics, probability theory, optimization, statistical physics, information theory, and more applied fields of social sciences and economics. Different notions of similarity (and hence convergence) of sparse graphs are of interest in different communities. In probability theory and combinatorics, the notion of Benjamini‐Schramm convergence, also known as left‐convergence, is used quite frequently. Statistical physicists are interested in the the existence of the thermodynamic limit of free energies, which leads naturally to the notion of right‐convergence. Combinatorial optimization problems naturally lead to so‐called partition convergence, which relates to the convergence of optimal values of a variety of constraint satisfaction problems. The relationship between these different notions of similarity and convergence is, however, poorly understood. In this paper we introduce a new notion of convergence of sparse graphs, which we call Large Deviations or LD‐convergence, and which is based on the theory of large deviations. The notion is introduced by “decorating” the nodes of the graph with random uniform i.i.d. weights and constructing corresponding random measures on  and . A graph sequence is defined to be converging if the corresponding sequence of random measures satisfies the Large Deviations Principle with respect to the topology of weak convergence on bounded measures on . The corresponding large deviations rate function can be interpreted as the limit object of the sparse graph sequence. In particular, we can express the limiting free energies in terms of this limit object. We then establish that LD‐convergence implies the other three notions of convergence discussed above, and at the same time establish several previously unknown relationships between the other notions of convergence. In particular, we show that partition‐convergence does not imply left‐ or right‐convergence, and that right‐convergence does not imply partition‐convergence.