Validation accuracy by epoch
Synthetic example data
Data table
| Epoch | Model A | Model B | Model C |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.440 | 0.360 | 0.340 |
| 10 | 0.592 | 0.477 | 0.520 |
| 20 | 0.689 | 0.563 | 0.620 |
| 30 | 0.751 | 0.627 | 0.674 |
| 40 | 0.791 | 0.674 | 0.704 |
| 50 | 0.816 | 0.710 | 0.720 |
| 60 | 0.832 | 0.736 | 0.729 |
| 70 | 0.842 | 0.755 | 0.734 |
| 80 | 0.849 | 0.769 | 0.737 |
| 90 | 0.853 | 0.780 | 0.738 |
| 100 | 0.855 | 0.788 | 0.739 |
Abstract
Example abstract. Message passing networks on graphs aggregate information over pairs of nodes. We extend the aggregation to cells of every dimension through the boundary maps of a cell complex, and show that the resulting layers are as expressive as the cellular Weisfeiler-Lehman test. On three synthetic benchmarks the model improves accuracy at a similar parameter count.
1. Introduction
Graph neural networks pass messages along edges[1]Example reference: neural message passing
E. Author, F. Author
Example Journal, 2017. Cell complexes add faces of higher dimension, so a layer can also pass messages between edges that bound the same face.1A sidenote sits next to the sentence it explains, in the margin on wide screens.
2. Method
A layer updates the features on -cells from both neighboring dimensions:
3. Results
| Model | Task 1 | Task 2 | Task 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model A | 0.861 | 0.774 | 0.912 |
| Model B | 0.809 | 0.751 | 0.918 |
| Model C | 0.740 | 0.702 | 0.880 |
Cite
@inproceedings{author2026example,
title = {Example title: Higher-order message passing on cell complexes},
author = {Author, A. and Doe, John and Author, B.},
booktitle = {Example Venue},
year = {2026}
}References
- E. Author, F. Author. Example reference: neural message passing. Example Journal, 2017.