To prove Theorem 1, we need to consider the two directions of the iff conditions. If we are given h(c1,X1) = h(c2,X2), we are able to prove that the conditions mentioned in the theorem are necessary by showing contradictions occur when they are not satisfied. As Eq. (4) equals Eq. (6), we have: X Obviously, the above equation does not hold as the terms in the summation operator are positive. We may now assume S1 = S2 = S. Eliminating the irrational terms in Eq. (4), we have: X Eq. (9) can be simplified and rewritten as: µ1(x) µ2(x) = However, the RHS of Eq. (10) can be an irrational number. It is obvious that the above equality does not hold as the RHS is an irrational number, while LHS is a rational number.

Besides considering the layer-wise node features propagated within the GNN, CAs can additionally incorporate various structural interventions, such as node cluster embedding, and higher-order structural correlations that can be learned outside of GNN, when computing attention scores. The node features that are regarded as significant by the conjoint criteria are therefore more likely to be propagated in the GNN. Given the novel Conjoint Attention strategies, we then propose Graph conjoint attention networks (CATs) that can learn representations embedded with significant latent features deemed by the Conjoint Attentions.

A series of recent publications by Awasthi, Mao, Mohri, and Zhong [2022b] have introduced the key notion of H-consistency bounds for surrogate loss functions. These are upper bounds on the zero-one estimation error of any predictor in a hypothesis set, expressed in terms of its surrogate loss estimation error. They are both non-asymptotic and hypothesis set-specific and thus stronger and more informative than Bayes-consistency. However, determining if they hold and deriving these bounds have required a specific proof and analysis for each surrogate loss. Can we derive more general tools and characterizations?

A.1 Cellular WLResults In this section, we assume basic familiarity with the WL test and its higher-order variants. For an introduction to these topics, we refer the reader to the survey of Sato [62]. We begin by introducing a few useful concepts. A cellular colouring is a map c that maps a cell complex X and one of its cells to a colour from a fixed colour palette. Let X,Y be two regular cell complexes and c a cellular colouring. We say that X,Y are c-similar, denoted by cX = cY, if the number of cells in X coloured with a given colour equals the number of cells in Y with the same colour. Otherwise, we have cX 6= cY . We emphasise that in this paper we are interested only in colourings c with the property that any two isomorphic cell complexes are c-similar. A cellular colouring c refines a cellular colouring d, denoted by c v d, if for all cell complexes X and Y and all 2 PX and 2 PY, cX = cY implies dX = dY . Additionally, if d v c, we say the two colourings are equivalent and we represent it by c d. We state the following result from Bodnar et al. [8] about simplicial colourings, which we translate here directly to cell complexes. The proof is however, identical, and we refer the reader to their work for that. Let X,Y be any regular cellular complexes with A PX and B PY . Consider two cellular colourings c,d such that c v d.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are limited in their expressive power, struggle with long-range interactions and lack a principled way to model higher-order structures. These problems can be attributed to the strong coupling between the computational graph and the input graph structure. The recently proposed Message Passing Simplicial Networks naturally decouple these elements by performing message passing on the clique complex of the graph. Nevertheless, these models can be severely constrained by the rigid combinatorial structure of Simplicial Complexes (SCs). In this work, we extend recent theoretical results on SCs to regular Cell Complexes, topological objects that flexibly subsume SCs and graphs.