TMLR 2025

Chimera: State Space Models Beyond Sequences

Aakash Lahoti, Tanya Marwah, Ratish Puduppully, Albert Gu

Main figure for Chimera: State Space Models Beyond Sequences

Abstract

Transformer-based deep learning methods have become the standard approach for modeling diverse data such as sequences, images, and graphs. These methods rely on self-attention, which treats data as an unordered set of elements. This ignores the neighborhood structure or graph topology of the data and requires inductive biases--such as position embeddings in sequences and images, or random walks in graphs--to incorporate topology. However, designing such task-specific biases requires significant effort and can introduce side effects that hinder generalization. We introduce Chimera, a unified model that directly incorporates data topology in a principled way, removing the need for domain-specific biases. The key idea is that state space models--which naturally do not require position embeddings--can be generalized to capture any graph topology. Our experiments show that Chimera achieves strong performance across language, vision, and graph domains, outperforming BERT on GLUE by 0.7 points, ViT on ImageNet-1k by 2.6%, and all baselines on the Long Range Graph Benchmark. We further propose algorithmic optimizations to improve Chimera's efficiency: (1) for Directed Acyclic Graphs, Chimera can be implemented as a linear-time recurrence; (2) for general graphs, a simple mathematical relaxation achieves Transformer's quadratic complexity without domain-specific heuristics. These results validate Chimera's core contribution and support the idea that data topology is a powerful inductive bias across modalities.

Proposed method: Chimera

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 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 #31 30 places worse
0.2421 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #31 30 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
11
Chimera
0.2433 ±0.0006
This paper
37
NeuralWalker
actual #37 vs paper #43 6 places worse
0.2463 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #37 vs paper #43 6 places worse
paper 0.2468 ±0.0005

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2468 ±0.0005 Δ today 0.0005
49
GINE
0.2473 ±0.0017
This paper
61
Gated-GCN
0.2477 ±0.0009
This paper
97
GraphGPS+Transformer
0.2509 ±0.0014
This paper
168
GPS + BigBird
0.2842 ±0.0130
This paper
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
S^2GCN
0.7311 ±0.0066
2
S4G
0.7293 ±0.0004
3
BuNN
0.7276 ±0.0065
4
GCN
actual #4 vs paper #49 45 places worse
0.7261 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #49 45 places worse
paper 0.6860 ±0.0050
paper 0.6860 ±0.0050 Δ today 0.0401
20
NeuralWalker
0.7096 ±0.0078
This paper
26
GIN
0.7059 ±0.0089
31
Chimera
0.7021 ±0.0030
This paper
59
Gated-GCN
0.6765 ±0.0047
This paper
78
GINE
0.6621 ±0.0067
This paper
84
GraphGPS+Transformer
0.6575 ±0.0049
This paper
150
GPS + BigBird
0.5854 ±0.0079
This paper
181
MLP
0.4060 ±0.0021
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
NeuralWalker
0.4912 ±0.0042
This paper
2
PPGT
0.4641 ±0.0033
3
CRaWl
0.4588 ±0.0079
13
Chimera
0.4460 ±0.0070
This paper
15
GraphGPS+Transformer
0.4440 ±0.0054
This paper
16
Graph Mamba
0.4393 ±0.0112
This paper
42
Gated-GCN
0.3880 ±0.0040
This paper
41
GatedGCN
0.3880 ±0.0040
74
GPS + BigBird
0.2762 ±0.0069
This paper
75
GINE
0.2718 ±0.0054
This paper
81
GCN
actual #81 vs paper #83 2 places worse
0.2380 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #81 vs paper #83 2 places worse
paper 0.2078 ±0.0031
paper 0.2078 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0302
93
MLP
0.1140 ±0.0230
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
FloydNet
0.4901
2
CRaWl
0.4588 ±0.0079
3
GPS
0.4440 ±0.0065
4
NeuralWalker
0.4398 ±0.0033
This paper
7
Chimera
0.3977 ±0.0160
This paper
9
Graph Mamba
0.3974 ±0.0101
This paper
15
GraphGPS+Transformer
0.3884 ±0.0055
This paper
16
GatedGCN
0.3880 ±0.0040
33
Gated-GCN
0.2922 ±0.0018
This paper
34
GINE
actual #34 vs paper #40 6 places worse
0.2718 ±0.0054
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #40 6 places worse
paper 0.2125 ±0.0009
35
GPS + BigBird
0.2622 ±0.0008
This paper
45
GCN
actual #45 vs paper #52 7 places worse
0.2078 ±0.0031
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #52 7 places worse
paper 0.1338 ±0.0007
74
MLP
0.0310 ±0.0160
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) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere