Papers › Neural Sheaf Diffusion: A Topological Perspective on Heterophily and Oversmoothing in GNNs

Neural Sheaf Diffusion: A Topological Perspective on Heterophily and Oversmoothing in GNNs

9 Feb 2022arXiv:2202.04579archive 2025-07-28

Cristian Bodnar, Francesco Di Giovanni, Benjamin Paul Chamberlain, Pietro Liò, Michael M. Bronstein

Cellular sheaves equip graphs with a "geometrical" structure by assigning vector spaces and linear maps to nodes and edges. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) implicitly assume a graph with a trivial underlying sheaf. This choice is reflected in the structure of the graph Laplacian operator, the properties of the associated diffusion equation, and the characteristics of the convolutional models that discretise this equation. In this paper, we use cellular sheaf theory to show that the underlying geometry of the graph is deeply linked with the performance of GNNs in heterophilic settings and their oversmoothing behaviour. By considering a hierarchy of increasingly general sheaves, we study how the ability of the sheaf diffusion process to achieve linear separation of the classes in the infinite time limit expands. At the same time, we prove that when the sheaf is non-trivial, discretised parametric diffusion processes have greater control than GNNs over their asymptotic behaviour. On the practical side, we study how sheaves can be learned from data. The resulting sheaf diffusion models have many desirable properties that address the limitations of classical graph diffusion equations (and corresponding GNN models) and obtain competitive results in heterophilic settings. Overall, our work provides new connections between GNNs and algebraic topology and would be of interest to both fields.

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2202.04579")

Code

Syntology Ran 0 of 1 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run.

By repository: official repository: 1 sample from 1 repository, 0 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

twitter-research/neural-sheaf-diffusion officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

1 sample harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

1unverified

Licence: 0 of the 1 sample are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from twitter-research/neural-sheaf-diffusion. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

SheafDiffusion twitter-research/neural-sheaf-diffusion/models/sheaf_base.py official repository unverified Apache-2.0 (permissive) · 2000cda4ded21558 · report

Tasks

Node ClassificationNode Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Node Classification Actor O(d)-NSD Accuracy 37.81 ± 1.15 #14 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor Gen-NSD Accuracy 37.80 ± 1.22 #15 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor Diag-NSD Accuracy 37.79 ± 1.01 #16 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon Diag-NSD Accuracy 68.68 ± 1.73 #36 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon O(d)-NSD Accuracy 68.04 ± 1.58 #41 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon Gen-NSD Accuracy 67.93 ± 1.58 #42 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Diag-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 77.14 ± 1.85 #10 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) O(d)-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 76.70 ± 1.57 #17 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Gen-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 76.32 ± 1.65 #19 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Gen-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 87.30 ± 1.15 #18 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Diag-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 87.14 ± 1.06 #19 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) O(d)-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 86.90 ± 1.13 #21 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell Diag-NSD Accuracy 86.49 ± 7.35 #8 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell Gen-NSD Accuracy 85.68 ± 6.51 #18 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell O(d)-NSD Accuracy 84.86 ± 4.71 #26 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) O(d)-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 89.49 ± 0.40 #10 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Diag-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 89.42 ± 0.43 #11 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Gen-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 89.33 ± 0.35 #12 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel O(d)-NSD Accuracy 56.34 ± 1.32 #33 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel Diag-NSD Accuracy 54.78 ± 1.81 #39 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel Gen-NSD Accuracy 53.17 ± 1.31 #41 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas O(d)-NSD Accuracy 85.95 ± 5.51 #25 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas Diag-NSD Accuracy 85.67 ± 6.95 #28 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas Gen-NSD Accuracy 82.97 ± 5.13 #45 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin O(d)-NSD Accuracy 89.41 ± 4.74 #5 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin Gen-NSD Accuracy 89.21 ± 3.84 #6 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin Diag-NSD Accuracy 88.63 ± 2.75 #11 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Diag-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 68.68 ± 1.73 #14 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) O(d)-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 68.04 ± 1.58 #17 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Gen-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 67.93 ± 1.58 #18 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Diag-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 86.49 ± 7.35 #1 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Gen-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 85.68 ± 6.51 #7 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) O(d) - NSD 1:1 Accuracy 84.86 ± 4.71 #13 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) O(d)-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 37.81 ± 1.15 #2 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Gen-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 37.80 ± 1.22 #3 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Diag-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 37.79 ± 1.01 #4 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) O(d)-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 56.34 ± 1.32 #14 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Diag-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 54.78 ± 1.81 #17 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Gen-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 53.17 ± 1.31 #18 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) O(d)-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 85.95 ± 5.51 #7 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Diag-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 85.67 ± 6.95 #8 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Gen-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 82.97 ± 5.13  #16 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) O(d)-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 89.41 ± 4.74 #1 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Gen-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 89.21 ± 3.84 #2 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Diag-NSD 1:1 Accuracy 88.63 ± 2.75 #3 of 26 Archive leaderboard report

Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.

Methods

Diffusion

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections