跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+2471新增论文
+2025其中 AI 相关
+163已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-11 01:51 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-10 15:22各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-10 02:44 — 2026-11-11 02:44(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-11 01:51最近发现新增版本:2026-11-10 15:22库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-10 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

20,643 已收录论文17,531 AI 相关5,643 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-11 01:49(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.10046

Topological Deep Learning Challenge 2026: Bridging the Gap

Guillermo Bernárdez, Lev Telyatnikov, Mathilde Papillon, Marco Montagna, Louisa Cornelis, Louis Van Langendonck, Antonio Purificato, Bruno Neri 等 71 位作者

原文摘要

This paper describes the 2026 edition of the Topological Deep Learning Challenge: Bridging the Gap, hosted at the second Topology, Algebra, and Geometry in Data Science (TAG-DS) Conference. Where previous editions grew the modelling and data ecosystem of Topological Deep Learning (TDL), this edition set out to place Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and Topological Neural Networks (TNNs) side by side under a single evaluation pipeline. Participants implemented recent state-of-the-art architectures in TopoBench, with Track 1 covering GNNs and Track 2 covering TNNs. They evaluated these implementations on shared synthetic benchmarks generated with GraphUniverse, which independently controls homophily, average degree and degree-distribution heaviness. The challenge yielded 68 qualifying submissions from 34 teams, spanning the graph, simplicial, cellular, hypergraph and combinatorial domains. For the first time, submissions were also tracked on a public leaderboard, which we summarize and analyze here. Our analysis finds that the differences between the submitted tracks are strongly task-dependent: the mean accuracy gap is modest on community detection, while on triangle counting the Track 1 mean error is 1.85 times the Track 2 mean. Several structurally informed GNNs also outperform the Track 2 mean on triangle counting.

cs.LG · cs.AI