GIST: Gauge-Invariant Spectral Transformers for Scalable Graph Neural Operators

Mattia Rigotti, Nicholas Thumiger, Thomas Frick

Main figure for GIST: Gauge-Invariant Spectral Transformers for Scalable Graph Neural Operators

Abstract

Neural operators on irregular meshes face a fundamental tension. Spectral positional encodings, the natural choice for capturing geometry, require cubic-complexity eigendecomposition and inadvertently break gauge invariance through numerical solver artifacts; existing efficient approximations sacrifice gauge symmetry by design. Both failure modes break discretization invariance: models fail to transfer across mesh resolutions of the same domain, and similarly across different graphs of related structure in inductive settings. We propose GIST (Gauge-Invariant Spectral Transformer), a scalable neural operator that resolves this tension by restricting attention to pairwise inner products of efficient approximate spectral embeddings. We prove these inner products estimate an exactly gauge-invariant graph kernel at end-to-end $ (N)$ complexity, and establish a formal connection between gauge invariance and discretization-invariant learning with bounded mismatch error. To our knowledge, GIST is the first scalable graph neural operator with a provable discretization-mismatch bound. Empirically, GIST sets state-of-the-art on the AirfRANS, ShapeNet-Car, DrivAerNet, and DrivAerNet++ mesh benchmarks (up to 750K nodes), and additionally matches strong baselines on standard graph benchmarks (e.g., 99.50\

Proposed method: GIST

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 6 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #401 399 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #401 399 places worse
paper 0.9094 ±0.0034
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #488 480 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #488 480 places worse
paper 0.8826 ±0.0037
18
Specformer
actual #18 vs paper #33 15 places worse
0.9580 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #33 15 places worse
paper 0.9548 ±0.0016

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9548 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0032
26
GIST
0.9561 ±0.0023
This paper
43
Exphormer (LapPE)
0.9527 ±0.0042
This paper
87
GCNII
actual #87 vs paper #451 364 places worse
0.9430 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #451 364 places worse
paper 0.8994 ±0.0016
paper 0.8994 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0436
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ±0.0001
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
3
GCNII
actual #3 vs paper #3
0.9953 ±0.0001
actual #3 vs paper #3
paper 0.9953 ±0.0001
prev best: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.9953 ±0.0001 Δ at pub 0.0003
6
GIST
0.9950 ±0.0003
This paper
4
GraphSAINT
0.9950
This paper
5
GCNIII
0.9950 ±0.0003
This paper
9
Cluster-GCN
actual #9 vs paper #10 1 place worse
0.9940
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #10 1 place worse
paper 0.9936
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.9936 Δ at pub 0.0004
17
GaAN
0.9871
This paper
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
0.9850
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
paper 0.5150 ±0.0060
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.5150 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.4700
57
GAT
actual #57 vs paper #57
0.9732 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #57
paper 0.9730 ±0.0002

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9730 ±0.0002 Δ at pub 0.0002
72
GATv2
0.9630
This paper
92
GIN
0.8724 ±0.0002
101
GraphSAGE
actual #101 vs paper #103 2 places worse
0.7860
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #103 2 places worse
paper 0.7680
paper 0.7680 Δ at pub 0.0180
173
MLP
0.4620
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published