Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 67 references

HiPoNet: A Multi-View Simplicial Complex Network for High Dimensional Point-Cloud and Single-Cell Data

T0 review · 6 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read HiPoNet claims that modeling a high-dimensional point cloud as several feature-reweighted simplicial complexes, read by multiscale simplicial wavelets, preserves geometric and topological information that single-graph and 3D point-cloud…

desk verdict A genuinely useful architecture for whole-sample prediction on high-dimensional point clouds, but the empirical win is not yet established because the protocol reports test-set best epochs and per-dataset threshold tuning. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07746 v2 pith:2B6NKJHH submitted 2025-02-11 cs.LG math.AT

Siddharth Viswanath , Hiren Madhu , Dhananjay Bhaskar , Jake Kovalic , David R Johnson , Christopher Tape , Ian Adelstein , Rex Ying
show 2 more authors
Michael Perlmutter Smita Krishnaswamy
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGmath.AT
keywords simplicialcomplexeshigh-dimensionalpointcloudssingle-celldatascatteringtransformsmultiscalewaveletsfeaturereweightingspatialtranscriptomicsVietoris-Ripscomplex
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

HiPoNet is a neural network for whole-point-cloud prediction in high-dimensional spaces, the regime of single-cell cohorts where each patient or condition contributes its own cloud of thousands of cells. The paper argues that collapsing each cloud into a single nearest-neighbor graph throws away geometric and topological structure, and that an ensemble of simplicial complexes, one per learnable feature-reweighted view, preserves it. Each complex is read by simplicial wavelet transforms whose band-pass filters yield multiscale scattering coefficients, aggregated across views into a representation for classification or regression. The authors prove that heat diffusion on these complexes respects connected components, agrees with heat diffusion on an associated simplicial graph, and can approximate geodesic distances on the underlying data manifold. Empirically, they report that HiPoNet outperforms graph, topological, and 3D point-cloud baselines on melanoma immunotherapy-response prediction, patient-derived organoid treatment classification, and spatial transcriptomics outcome prediction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the multi-view simplicial complex ensemble. Each view $v$ is a reweighted point cloud $\tilde{X}^{(v)} = \alpha^{(v)} \odot X$; from it a Vietoris–Rips complex $\mathcal{S}^{(v)}$ is formed at a fixed distance threshold, so that $k$-simplices encode interactions among $k+1$ cells rather than only pairwise edges. The Hodge Laplacian $\Delta_k = B_k^\top B_k + B_{k+1}B_{k+1}^\top$ gives a simplicial random-walk matrix $P_k = \Delta_k D_k^{-1}$, and differences of its powers at consecutive diffusion scales define the simplicial wavelets $\Psi^{(v,j)}_k$; applying absolute values and a second wavelet pass yields the scattering coefficients. Theorems 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4 carry the theoretical claim: heat diffusion cannot cross connected components, the heat equation on the complex coincides with that on the associated simplicial graph, and the resulting diffusion approximates geodesic distance on the manifold underlying the point cloud.

What would settle it

Run HiPoNet and its strongest graph baselines on the Melanoma and PDO cohorts with $\epsilon$ and the kernel bandwidth $\sigma$ selected by one fixed, prespecified rule rather than per-dataset tuning, and compare across equal hyperparameter budgets. The central claim of consistent superiority would be falsified if baseline GNNs match or exceed HiPoNet under that threshold policy, or if HiPoNet's accuracy collapses away from its tuned operating point ($\epsilon = 0.50$, $\sigma = 1.00$ on Melanoma).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a high-dimensional point cloud is better modeled as an ensemble of simplicial complexes, one per learned feature-reweighted view, than as a single graph or as a 3D-oriented point cloud. For each view $v$, HiPoNet rescales every point by a learnable vector $\alpha^{(v)}$, builds a Vietoris–Rips complex from kernelized distances at a fixed scale, forms Hodge Laplacians and simplicial random-walk matrices, and applies simplicial wavelet transforms whose differences of diffusion at consecutive scales produce first- and second-order scattering coefficients. Aggregated across views, these coefficients feed a multilayer perceptron that outputs the cohort-level prediction. The paper asserts that this construction preserves geometry and topology in a provable sense, heat diffusion respects the 0-homology of the complex, agrees with the heat equation on the associated simplicial graph, and approximates geodesic distances on the manifold, and that empirically it predicts persistence features and clinical outcomes better than the graph and point-cloud baselines tested, with HiPoNet taking first place on melanoma and on most spatial transcriptomics tasks and second place with far lower variance on the organoid data.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline succeeds only if a single Vietoris–Rips threshold $\epsilon$ chosen for each reweighted view yields simplicial complexes whose multiscale wavelets contain task-relevant structure; the paper's own sensitivity analysis shows the best $\epsilon$ differs by dataset, with Melanoma accuracy ranging from $27.27\%$ to $90.90\%$ as $\epsilon$ varies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cohort-level prediction from high-dimensional single-cell and spatial omics can be performed end to end, without separately computing persistence diagrams or other topological summaries.
  • The learned feature weights provide per-marker importance within each view, so the same model that predicts outcomes can also indicate which proteins or genes organize the relevant cellular processes.
  • The theoretical results imply that the network's diffusion operators carry manifold-level information, including dimension, volume, and total scalar curvature, so its embeddings are geometry-preserving representations rather than merely predictive features.
  • Because the construction is differentiable and view-agnostic, the architecture transfers to any high-dimensional point-cloud cohort task, including non-biological domains where whole sets of points are the unit of prediction.
  • Mixing heterogeneous views, as done with spatial coordinates plus expression markers in spatial transcriptomics, is a natural way to fuse multiple data modalities inside one simplicial-wavelet model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the learned reweighting vectors could be tested as hypothesis generators, checking whether the highest-weight features in each view recover known gene programs, cell-cycle modules, or immune markers would validate the disentangling-processes claim independently of prediction accuracy.
  • Editorial inference: the sensitivity to $\epsilon$ and $\sigma$ suggests a natural extension in which each view learns its own threshold or aggregates over a range of thresholds, effectively making the Vietoris–Rips scale a learned parameter rather than a tuned hyperparameter.
  • Editorial inference: the theory guarantees geodesic information for the heat diffusion stage, not for the scattering coefficients after absolute-value nonlinearities; the geometric-preservation claim should be read as proven for the diffusion operator and empirically supported for the full network.
  • Editorial inference: a fairer comparison would give baselines the same per-dataset threshold and bandwidth tuning; until then, the reported margins over GNNs should be read as performance under the paper's configuration rather than as an architecture-independent advantage.
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

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. HiPoNet models each point cloud as several Vietoris-Rips simplicial complexes built from learned feature-reweighted views, applies simplicial wavelet/scattering transforms to extract multiscale features, and feeds the aggregated representation to an MLP for point-cloud-level classification, regression, and representation learning. The paper presents theoretical results linking heat diffusion on simplicial complexes to 0-homology, to an associated simplicial graph, and to manifold geodesics, and reports experiments on melanoma, patient-derived organoid, and spatial transcriptomics cohorts, including a persistence-feature regression task.

Significance. High-dimensional point-cloud cohorts are an important and growing problem, and a scalable architecture that preserves geometric and topological structure would be valuable. The multi-view reweighting mechanism and the use of simplicial scattering are sensible ideas, and the comparison against a broad set of graph, topological, and point-cloud baselines is a useful contribution. The paper is also transparent in providing ablations, complexity analysis, and an explicit limitations section. However, the headline empirical claim is not supported by the current evaluation protocol: the reported numbers are selected on the test set, and key hyperparameters are tuned per dataset with an unspecified rule. In addition, the central theoretical equivalence in Theorem 4.3 is stated incorrectly as a block-diagonal identity. As presented, the evidence does not establish that HiPoNet outperforms existing methods, and the theory needs substantial correction.

major comments (6)
  1. [§3 and Algorithm 1] The construction of the Vietoris-Rips complex is internally inconsistent. The text defines the kernelized distance as d^(v)_{i,j} = exp(-||x_i - x_j||^2 / (2σ^2)), which is a similarity in [0,1], and then declares that a simplex is included when d^(v)_{ip,iq} ≤ ε. Under this rule, small thresholds connect dissimilar (far) points and large thresholds connect similar points; with ε values in Table A6 ranging from 0.15 to 1.25, the resulting complexes are not Vietoris-Rips complexes in the usual distance sense. The manuscript needs a precise, correct definition of the filtration threshold used to construct S^(v).
  2. [Appendix H] The evaluation protocol uses test-set model selection. Appendix H states that the authors 'record the best metric ... achieved on the test set in each training run,' so the reported mean and standard deviation are maxima over epochs evaluated on the same test folds that are later used to report scores. This is not a valid held-out estimate and can only support an upper-bound comparison. Even if the baselines follow the same protocol, the reported numbers cannot establish the abstract's claim that HiPoNet 'outperforms' other models.
  3. [Appendix J] The hyperparameter sensitivity analyses in Tables A6 and A7 show that results depend strongly on the Vietoris-Rips threshold ε and kernel bandwidth σ, with Melanoma accuracy ranging from 27.27% to 90.90% across thresholds and the optimal values differing by dataset. The stated selection rule, tuning 'until reaching a critical point—beyond which the number of edges grows rapidly,' is not specified as a concrete algorithm, and the remark that PDO has a critical point at 0.15 'which leads to improved performance compared to what was reported in the main text' indicates post-hoc adjustment. Without a prespecified criterion and without analogous per-dataset tuning for the baselines, the reported margin over baselines can reflect selection bias rather than architectural superiority.
  4. [Tables 3 and 4] The empirical claims overstate the results. In Table 4, TopoGNN has a higher mean accuracy than HiPoNet on PDO (79.90 vs 77.38), and in Table 3, KNN-GCN has a higher AUC than HiPoNet on UPMC recurrence (0.668 vs 0.6044). The main text acknowledges the PDO result but then says HiPoNet 'outperforms all the graph-based, topological, and point cloud methods in Melanoma' and later claims 'top results in most settings' for spatial transcriptomics. The abstract's unqualified 'outperforms' claim and these text statements should be replaced with a dataset-by-dataset characterization.
  5. [Theorem 4.3 and Appendix D] The claimed block-diagonal identity is not correct as stated. In Definition 4.2, the simplicial graph G(S) has edges only between same-order simplices that are upper or lower adjacent, and its standard graph Laplacian has off-diagonal entries of -1 (or -A_{ij}) for each adjacency. In contrast, the Hodge Laplacian Δ_k = B_k^T B_k + B_{k+1}B_{k+1}^T couples k-simplices to their boundary and coboundary simplices and has off-diagonal entries equal to the number of shared faces or cofaces (with signs in the oriented case). Therefore Δ_G cannot in general be written as the block-diagonal matrix of Hodge Laplacians displayed in Eq. (8), and the heat-equation agreement asserted in Theorem 4.3 does not follow from the given definitions.
  6. [Theorems 4.4 and Corollary 4.5] The geometric results are under-derived. Theorem 4.4 invokes Varadhan's formula and convergence of the graph heat kernel to the manifold heat kernel, but it does not establish that the object used in the model, namely the 0-th order Hodge Laplacian on the simplicial complex or the heat kernel on G(S), is the object to which those convergence results apply, especially given the issues with Theorem 4.3. Corollary 4.5 then claims equivalence of dimension, volume, and total scalar curvature from Weyl's law and eigenvalue comparison theorems; these are asymptotic statements for the Laplace-Beltrami operator on a manifold, not immediate consequences of equality of discrete heat kernels. The statements may be true in a suitable limit, but the proof as written is a non sequitur.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] There is a typo in the column header: 'Nuumber of cells' should be 'Number of cells'.
  2. [Appendix G vs Table 2] The number of melanoma cells is inconsistent: the main text and Table 2 state 61K cells, while Appendix G reports 489 to 1784 cells per patient with a total of 11,862 cells. Please clarify which count is correct and whether this discrepancy affects the reported preprocessing or the fold construction.
  3. [Appendix L] The limitations section honestly notes that validation is confined to biological datasets and that generalization to other high-dimensional domains remains unexplored; this should be reflected in the abstract and conclusion, which currently present HiPoNet as a general solution for high-dimensional data analysis.
  4. [Algorithm 1, line 14] The notation for second-order scattering coefficients omits a closing parenthesis; the formula should read S^v_k[j,j'] X^v_k = |Ψ^{v,j'}_k ( |Ψ^{v,j}_k X^v_k | ) | for full clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Reported single-cell and spatial accuracies are best-on-test-set statistics, so the headline empirical win is partially a fitted input rather than a prediction; the theoretical derivation itself is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix H (Experimental Setup); results reported in Section 5, Tables 3 and 4]
    "We train the model for 100 epochs on every dataset for each model. We record the best metric (accuracy in classification tasks; mean squared error in regression tasks) achieved on the test set in each training run."

    The reported headline numbers (e.g., HiPoNet 90.90±4.92 on Melanoma, 77.38±0.94 on PDO) are, by construction, the maximum test-set metric over 100 epochs. The model checkpoint is selected using the very test labels whose prediction is being reported, so the reported metric is an order statistic of test-set evaluations rather than an unbiased held-out prediction. The abstract's central claim that HiPoNet outperforms graph and point-cloud baselines therefore rests on a statistic that is forced to be optimistic: test labels enter both as the selection criterion and as the evaluation target. This is a fitted parameter (epoch choice) renamed as predictive performance, and it can inflate HiPoNet's margins relative to baselines even when all models receive the same protocol.

full rationale

The theoretical portion of the paper, Theorems 4.1–4.5, is not circular: it states generic facts about Hodge Laplacians, heat diffusion, and heat-kernel convergence, citing external results such as Varadhan's formula and Dunson–Wu–Wu. Even if Corollary 4.5 is under-derived or non-sequitur, that is a correctness concern, not a circularity concern. The topology/geometry experiment in Table 1 is also not a circular prediction: the authors explicitly describe it as an expressivity check ('the purpose of these experiments is not to develop a new method of computing persistence features... it is to show that HiPoNet has the expressivity needed in order to compute such features'), so training a regressor to persistence targets is a legitimate, if weak, demonstration of learnability. Self-citations (e.g., to Madhu et al. for simplicial scattering, Perlmutter et al. for geometric scattering, Chew et al. for manifold scattering) are to published, peer-reviewed results and are not load-bearing: the architecture's wavelet and scattering machinery is standard and independently sourced. The one partial circularity is in the evaluation protocol: recording the best test-set metric makes the central empirical comparison a selected statistic rather than a prediction, so the headline claim is partially reduced to test-set fitting. This warrants a score of 6 rather than 0.

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

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; its degrees of freedom are model parameters and per-dataset hyperparameters listed above.

free parameters (5)
  • Vietoris-Rips threshold epsilon = 0.50 (Melanoma), 0.15 (PDO) per Appendix J
    Chosen per dataset at a 'critical point' where edge count grows rapidly; sensitivity analysis Table A6 shows accuracy ranges 27.27-90.90% on Melanoma.
  • Kernel bandwidth sigma = 1.00 (Melanoma), 0.75 (PDO)
    Tuned per dataset; Table A7 shows best accuracy varies with sigma.
  • Learned feature weights alpha(v) = learned during training
    The learnable reweighting vectors define the views; their success depends on end-to-end optimization.
  • Number of views V = 4
    Selected by ablation in Table A4; 1 view gives 27.27% on Melanoma vs 90.90% with 4.
  • Max simplex order K = 1 for most tasks; 2 for Charville/UPMC outcome
    Selected per dataset/task in Table A2; Table A8 shows higher K does not always help.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Each reweighted point cloud lies on a Riemannian manifold
    Invoked in Section 4 before Theorem 4.4 to justify geodesic approximation by the graph heat kernel; not validated for discrete single-cell data.
  • ad hoc to paper The graph Laplacian of the simplicial graph G(S) is block diagonal with Hodge Laplacian blocks
    Assumed in the proof of Theorem 4.3 (Appendix D); false for the unoriented Hodge Laplacians used in experiments, since those have nonnegative off-diagonal entries rather than -1 adjacency entries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HiPoNet: A Multi-View Simplicial Complex Network for High Dimensional Point-Cloud and Single-Cell Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2B6NKJHH

@misc{pith2026250207746,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HiPoNet: A Multi-View Simplicial Complex Network for High Dimensional Point-Cloud and Single-Cell Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2B6NKJHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07746}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose HiPoNet, an end-to-end differentiable neural network for regression, classification, and representation learning on high-dimensional point clouds. Our work is motivated by single-cell data which can have very high-dimensionality --exceeding the capabilities of existing methods for point clouds which are mostly tailored for 3D data. Moreover, modern single-cell and spatial experiments now yield entire cohorts of datasets (i.e., one data set for every patient), necessitating models that can process large, high-dimensional point-clouds at scale. Most current approaches build a single nearest-neighbor graph, discarding important geometric and topological information. In contrast, HiPoNet models the point-cloud as a set of higher-order simplicial complexes, with each particular complex being created using a reweighting of features. This method thus generates multiple constructs corresponding to different views of high-dimensional data, which in biology offers the possibility of disentangling distinct cellular processes. It then employs simplicial wavelet transforms to extract multiscale features, capturing both local and global topology from each view. We show that geometric and topological information is preserved in this framework both theoretically and empirically. We showcase the utility of HiPoNet on point-cloud level tasks, involving classification and regression of entire point-clouds in data cohorts. Experimentally, we find that HiPoNet outperforms other point-cloud and graph-based models on single-cell data. We also apply HiPoNet to spatial transcriptomics datasets using spatial coordinates as one of the views. Overall, HiPoNet offers a robust and scalable solution for high-dimensional data analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07746 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The HiPoNet pipeline. To capture the global structure of the point clouds, we use a wavelet-based multiscale mes￾sage aggregation scheme rather than the mes￾sage passing operations utilized in most com￾mon graph and simplicial neural networks. This choice is based on the observation that such networks struggle to capture long-range depen￾dencies and multiscale relationships as well as work on the geometric scatterin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (A) The HiPoNet architecture. (B) Feature weight visualized across three learned views [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Analysis of multi-condition single-cell data with latent embedding multivariate regression.Nature Genetics, Jan 2025

    Constantin Ahlmann-Eltze and Wolfgang Huber. Analysis of multi-condition single-cell data with latent embedding multivariate regression.Nature Genetics, Jan 2025. ISSN 1546-1718. doi: 10.1038/s41588-024-01996-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01996-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41588-024-01996-0 2025

  2. [2]

    On the bottleneck of graph neural networks and its practical implications

    Uri Alon and Eran Yahav. On the bottleneck of graph neural networks and its practical implications. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=i80OPhOCVH2

    2021

  3. [3]

    Multiplexed ion beam imaging of human breast tumors

    Michael Angelo, Sean C Bendall, Rachel Finck, Matthew B Hale, Chuck Hitzman, Alexander D Borowsky, Richard M Levenson, John B Lowe, Scot D Liu, Shuchun Zhao, et al. Multiplexed ion beam imaging of human breast tumors. Nature medicine, 20(4):436–442, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Analyzing the expressive power of graph neural networks in a spectral perspective

    Muhammet Balcilar, Guillaume Renton, Pierre Héroux, Benoit Gaüzère, Sébastien Adam, and Paul Honeine. Analyzing the expressive power of graph neural networks in a spectral perspective. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=-qh0M9XWxnv

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Topological signal processing over simplicial complexes

    Sergio Barbarossa and Stefania Sardellitti. Topological signal processing over simplicial complexes. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 68:2992–3007, 2020. ISSN 1941-0476. doi: 10.1109/tsp.2020.2981920. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2020.2981920

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Generalized simplicial attention neural networks, 2024

    Claudio Battiloro, Lucia Testa, Lorenzo Giusti, Stefania Sardellitti, Paolo Di Lorenzo, and Sergio Barbarossa. Generalized simplicial attention neural networks, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2309.02138

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Diffusion Curvature for Estimating Local Curvature in High Dimensional Data

    Dhananjay Bhaskar, Kincaid MacDonald, Oluwadamilola Fasina, Dawson Thomas, Bastian Rieck, Ian Adelstein, and Smita Krishnaswamy. Diffusion curvature for estimating local curvature in high dimensional data, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.03977

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    A scattering transform for graphs based on heat semigroups, with an application for the detection of anomalies in positive time series with underlying periodicities

    Bernhard G Bodmann and Íris Emilsdóttir. A scattering transform for graphs based on heat semigroups, with an application for the detection of anomalies in positive time series with underlying periodicities. Sampling Theory, Signal Processing, and Data Analysis, 22(2):17, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Bronstein

    Cristian Bodnar, Fabrizio Frasca, Yu Guang Wang, Nina Otter, Guido Montúfar, Pietro Liò, and Michael M. Bronstein. Weisfeiler and lehman go topological: Message passing simplicial networks. CoRR, abs/2103.03212, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.03212

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Eigenvalue comparison theorems and its geometric applications

    Shiu-Yuen Cheng. Eigenvalue comparison theorems and its geometric applications. Mathema- tische Zeitschrift, 1975. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01214381

    1975 doi

  3. [11]

    Vesely, Smita Krishnaswamy, and Michael Perlmutter

    Joyce Chew, Holly Steach, Siddharth Viswanath, Hau-Tieng Wu, Matthew Hirn, Deanna Needell, Matthew D. Vesely, Smita Krishnaswamy, and Michael Perlmutter. The manifold scattering transform for high-dimensional point cloud data. In Proceedings of Topological, Algebraic, and Geom...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Coifman and M

    R. Coifman and M. Maggioni. Diffusion wavelets. Appl. Comp. Harm. Anal., 21(1):53–94, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Diffusion maps

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

    2006

  6. [14]

    Spectral convergence of graph laplacian and heat kernel reconstruction in l∞ from random samples

    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

  7. [15]

    A generalization of transformer networks to graphs

    Vijay Prakash Dwivedi and Xavier Bresson. A generalization of transformer networks to graphs. CoRR, abs/2012.09699, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.09699. A9

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Testing the manifold hypothesis

    Charles Fefferman, Sanjoy Mitter, and Hariharan Narayanan. Testing the manifold hypothesis. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 29(4):983–1049, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Hypergraph neural networks, 2019

    Yifan Feng, Haoxuan You, Zizhao Zhang, Rongrong Ji, and Yue Gao. Hypergraph neural networks, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.09401

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Diffusion scattering transforms on graphs

    Fernando Gama, Alejandro Ribeiro, and Joan Bruna. Diffusion scattering transforms on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.08829, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Stability of graph scattering transforms

    Fernando Gama, Alejandro Ribeiro, and Joan Bruna. Stability of graph scattering transforms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Geometric scattering for graph data analysis

    Feng Gao, Guy Wolf, and Matthew Hirn. Geometric scattering for graph data analysis. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2122–2131. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Geometric scattering for graph data analysis

    Feng Gao, Guy Wolf, and Matthew Hirn. Geometric scattering for graph data analysis. In Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov, editors, Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2122–...

    2019

  14. [22]

    Giusti, C

    L. Giusti, C. Battiloro, P. Di Lorenzo, S. Sardellitti, and S. Barbarossa. Simplicial attention neural networks, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.07485

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. N. Gorban and I. Y . Tyukin. Blessing of dimensionality: mathematical foundations of the statistical physics of data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2118):20170237, 2018. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2017.0237. U...

    2018

  16. [24]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 1024–1034,

  17. [25]

    Topological graph neural networks, 2022

    Max Horn, Edward De Brouwer, Michael Moor, Yves Moreau, Bastian Rieck, and Karsten Borgwardt. Topological graph neural networks, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2102. 07835

    2022

  18. [26]

    Davies-gaffney-grigor’yan lemma on simplicial complexes, 2017

    Bobo Hua and Xin Luo. Davies-gaffney-grigor’yan lemma on simplicial complexes, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00529

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A heat diffusion perspective on geodesic preserving dimensionality reduction

    Guillaume Huguet, Alexander Tong, Edward De Brouwer, Yanlei Zhang, Guy Wolf, Ian Adelstein, and Smita Krishnaswamy. A heat diffusion perspective on geodesic preserving dimensionality reduction. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL ht...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Limiting over- smoothing and over-squashing of graph message passing by deep scattering transforms

    Yuanhong Jiang, Dongmian Zou, Xiaoqun Zhang, and Yu Guang Wang. Limiting over- smoothing and over-squashing of graph message passing by deep scattering transforms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06988, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02907

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Aschenbrenner, Joachim L

    Charlotte Kröger, Sophie Müller, Jacqueline Leidner, Theresa Kröber, Stefanie Warnat- Herresthal, Jannis Bastian Spintge, Timo Zajac, Anna Neubauer, Aleksej Frolov, Caterina Carraro, Silka Dawn Freiesleben, Slawek Altenstein, Boris Rauchmann, Ingo Kilimann, Marie Coenjaerts, A...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Fixing weight decay regularization in adam

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. CoRR, abs/1711.05101, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Rethinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework, 2022

    Xu Ma, Can Qin, Haoxuan You, Haoxi Ran, and Yun Fu. Rethinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2202.07123

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A flow artist for high-dimensional cellular data, 2023

    Kincaid MacDonald, Dhananjay Bhaskar, Guy Thampakkul, Nhi Nguyen, Joia Zhang, Michael Perlmutter, Ian Adelstein, and Smita Krishnaswamy. A flow artist for high-dimensional cellular data, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00176

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Unsupervised parameter- free simplicial representation learning with scattering transforms

    Hiren Madhu, Sravanthi Gurugubelli, and Sundeep Prabhakar Chepuri. Unsupervised parameter- free simplicial representation learning with scattering transforms. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berk...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction, 2020

    Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Chapter 6 complex differential geometry

    Ion Mihai. Chapter 6 complex differential geometry. In Franki J.E. Dillen and Leopold C.A. Verstraelen, editors, Handbook of Differential Geometry , volume 2 of Handbook of Dif- ferential Geometry , pages 383–435. North-Holland, 2006. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1874-5741(0...

    2006

  29. [37]

    Visual- izing structure and transitions in high-dimensional biological data

    Kevin R Moon, David Van Dijk, Zheng Wang, Scott Gigante, Daniel B Burkhardt, William S Chen, Kristina Yim, Antonia van den Elzen, Matthew J Hirn, Ronald R Coifman, et al. Visual- izing structure and transitions in high-dimensional biological data. Nature biotechnology, 37 (12)...

    2019

  30. [38]

    Topological autoencoders

    Michael Moor, Max Horn, Bastian Rieck, and Karsten Borgwardt. Topological autoencoders. In Hal Daumé III and Aarti Singh, editors, Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 7045–

  31. [39]

    Topotune : A framework for generalized combinatorial complex neural networks, 2025

    Mathilde Papillon, Guillermo Bernárdez, Claudio Battiloro, and Nina Miolane. Topotune : A framework for generalized combinatorial complex neural networks, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.06530

    2025

  32. [40]

    Understanding graph neural networks with generalized geometric scattering transforms

    Michael Perlmutter, Alexander Tong, Feng Gao, Guy Wolf, and Matthew Hirn. Understanding graph neural networks with generalized geometric scattering transforms. SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 5(4):873–898, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    52 characterization of the tumor microenvironment in melanoma using multiplexed ion beam imaging (mibi)

    Jason Ptacek, Matthew Vesely, David Rimm, Monirath Hav, Murat Aksoy, Ailey Crow, and Jessica Finn. 52 characterization of the tumor microenvironment in melanoma using multiplexed ion beam imaging (mibi). Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer, 9(Suppl 2):A59–A59, 2021. doi: 10.11...

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J

    Charles R. Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J. Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation, 2017. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1612. 00593

    2017

  35. [43]

    Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J. Guibas. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. CoRR, abs/1706.02413, 2017. URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/1706.02413

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    María Ramos Zapatero, Alexander Tong, James W. Opzoomer, Rhianna O’Sullivan, Ferran Cardoso Rodriguez, Jahangir Sufi, Petra Vlckova, Callum Nattress, Xiao Qin, Jeroen Claus, Daniel Hochhauser, Smita Krishnaswamy, and Christopher J. Tape. Trellis tree-based analysis A11 reveals...

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Multiscale hodge scattering networks for data analysis

    Naoki Saito, Stefan C Schonsheck, and Eugene Shvarts. Multiscale hodge scattering networks for data analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10270, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Multiscale transforms for signals on simplicial complexes

    Naoki Saito, Stefan C Schonsheck, and Eugene Shvarts. Multiscale transforms for signals on simplicial complexes. Sampling Theory, Signal Processing, and Data Analysis, 22(1):2, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Cholesky-like preconditioner for hodge laplacians via heavy collapsible subcomplex

    Anton Savostianov, Francesco Tudisco, and Nicola Guglielmi. Cholesky-like preconditioner for hodge laplacians via heavy collapsible subcomplex. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 45(4):1827–1849, 2024

    2024

  40. [49]

    Random walks on simplicial complexes and the normalized hodge 1-laplacian

    Michael T Schaub, Austin R Benson, Paul Horn, Gabor Lippner, and Ali Jadbabaie. Random walks on simplicial complexes and the normalized hodge 1-laplacian. SIAM Review, 62(2): 353–391, 2020

    2020

  41. [50]

    Learnable filters for geometric scattering modules

    Alexander Tong, Frederik Wenkel, Dhananjay Bhaskar, Kincaid Macdonald, Jackson Grady, Michael Perlmutter, Smita Krishnaswamy, and Guy Wolf. Learnable filters for geometric scattering modules. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07458, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Visualizing data using t-sne

    Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(86):2579–2605, 2008. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v9/ vandermaaten08a.html

    2008

  43. [52]

    S. R. S. Varadhan. On the behavior of the fundamental solution of the heat equation with variable coefficients. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 20(2):431–455, 1967. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160200210. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/abs/10.100...

    1967 doi

  44. [53]

    Graph attention networks

    Petar Velickovic, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10903

    2018 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Multiscale geometric and topological analyses for characterizing and predicting immune responses from single cell data

    Aarthi Venkat, Dhananjay Bhaskar, and Smita Krishnaswamy. Multiscale geometric and topological analyses for characterizing and predicting immune responses from single cell data. Trends in Immunology, 44(7):551–563, 2023. ISSN 1471-4906. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.it.2023....

    2023

  46. [55]

    Processed multiplexed ion beam imaging (mibi) of tumor microenvironments of 54 melanoma samples following immunotherapy, 2025

    Matthew Vesely and David Johnson. Processed multiplexed ion beam imaging (mibi) of tumor microenvironments of 54 melanoma samples following immunotherapy, 2025. URL https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/79y7bht7tf/1

    2025

  47. [56]

    Über den höheren zusammenhang kompakter räume und eine klasse von zusammenhangstreuen abbildungen

    Leopold Vietoris. Über den höheren zusammenhang kompakter räume und eine klasse von zusammenhangstreuen abbildungen. Mathematische Annalen, 1927. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF01447877

    1927 doi

  48. [57]

    Sarma, Michael M

    Yue Wang, Yongbin Sun, Ziwei Liu, Sanjay E. Sarma, Michael M. Bronstein, and Justin M. Solomon. Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/1801.07829

    2019 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Overcoming oversmoothness in graph convolutional networks via hybrid scattering networks

    Frederik Wenkel, Yimeng Min, Matthew Hirn, Michael Perlmutter, and Guy Wolf. Overcoming oversmoothness in graph convolutional networks via hybrid scattering networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08932, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Nachrichten von der gesellschaft der wissenschaften zu göttingen

    Hermann Weyl. Nachrichten von der gesellschaft der wissenschaften zu göttingen. Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, 1911. A12

    1911

  51. [60]

    Trevino, Eric Wu, Kyle Swanson, Honesty J

    Zhenqin Wu, Alexandro E. Trevino, Eric Wu, Kyle Swanson, Honesty J. Kim, H. Blaize D’Angio, Ryan Preska, Gregory W. Charville, Piero D. Dalerba, Ann Marie Egloff, Ravindra Uppaluri, Umamaheswar Duvvuri, Aaron T. Mayer, and James Zou. Space-gm: geometric deep learning of diseas...

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    BLIS-Net: Classifying and analyzing signals on graphs

    Charles Xu, Laney Goldman, Valentina Guo, Benjamin Hollander-Bodie, Maedee Trank- Greene, Ian Adelstein, Edward De Brouwer, Rex Ying, Smita Krishnaswamy, and Michael Perlmutter. BLIS-Net: Classifying and analyzing signals on graphs. In Proceedings of The 27th International Con...

    2024

  53. [62]

    How powerful are graph neural networks? In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2019

    Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. How powerful are graph neural networks? In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.00826

    2019 arXiv

  54. [63]

    A hitchhiker’s guide to high-dimensional tissue imaging with multiplexed ion beam imaging

    Yao Yu Yeo, Precious Cramer, Addison Deisher, Yunhao Bai, Bokai Zhu, Wan-Jin Yeo, Mar- garet A Shipp, Scott J Rodig, and Sizun Jiang. A hitchhiker’s guide to high-dimensional tissue imaging with multiplexed ion beam imaging. Methods in cell biology, 186:213, 2024

    2024

  55. [64]

    Point transformer, 2021

    Hengshuang Zhao, Li Jiang, Jiaya Jia, Philip Torr, and Vladlen Koltun. Point transformer, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.09164

    2021 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Graph convolutional neural networks via scattering

    Dongmian Zou and Gilad Lerman. Graph convolutional neural networks via scattering. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 49(3):1046–1074, 2020. A13

    2020

  57. [2017]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02216

    arXiv

  58. [2018]

    URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05044

    arXiv

  59. [7054]

    URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/moor20a

    PMLR, 13–18 Jul 2020. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/moor20a. html

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.