ICLR 2025

Cooperative Sheaf Neural Networks

Andre F. Ribeiro, A. Ten'orio, Juan Belieni, Amauri H. Souza, Diego Mesquita

Main figure for Cooperative Sheaf Neural Networks

Abstract

Sheaf diffusion has recently emerged as a promising design pattern for graph representation learning due to its inherent ability to handle heterophilic data and avoid oversmoothing. Meanwhile, cooperative message passing has also been proposed as a way to enhance the flexibility of information diffusion by allowing nodes to independently choose whether to propagate/gather information from/to neighbors. A natural question ensues: is sheaf diffusion capable of exhibiting this cooperative behavior? Here, we provide a negative answer to this question. In particular, we show that existing sheaf diffusion methods fail to achieve cooperative behavior due to the lack of message directionality. To circumvent this limitation, we introduce the notion of cellular sheaves over directed graphs and characterize their in- and out-degree Laplacians. We leverage our construction to propose Cooperative Sheaf Neural Networks (CSNNs). Theoretically, we characterize the receptive field of CSNN and show it allows nodes to selectively attend (listen) to arbitrarily far nodes while ignoring all others in their path, potentially mitigating oversquashing. Our experiments show that CSNN presents overall better performance compared to prior art on sheaf diffusion as well as cooperative graph neural networks.

Proposed method: CSNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 2 baseline values reported too low

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

LRGB

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #33 32 places worse
0.2421 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #33 32 places worse
paper 0.2460 ±0.0007
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
0.2429 ±0.0019
7
GatedGCN
actual #7 vs paper #57 50 places worse
0.2431 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #57 50 places worse
paper 0.2477 ±0.0009
9
CSNN
0.2432 ±0.0004
This paper
18
G-ViT
0.2449 ±0.0016
This paper
36
BuNN
0.2463 ±0.0012
This paper
49
GINE
0.2473 ±0.0017
This paper
66
Exphormer
0.2481 ±0.0007
This paper
85
GPS
actual #85 vs paper #96 11 places worse
0.2500 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #85 vs paper #96 11 places worse
paper 0.2509 ±0.0014

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2509 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0009 Δ today 0.0009
115
DRew
0.2536 ±0.0015
This paper
124
SAN
0.2545 ±0.0012
This paper
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)