ICLR 2026

k-Maximum Inner Product Attention for Graph Transformers and the Expressive Power of GraphGPS

Jonas De Schouwer, H. Borde, Xiaowen Dong

Main figure for k-Maximum Inner Product Attention for Graph Transformers and the Expressive Power of GraphGPS

Abstract

Graph transformers have shown promise in overcoming limitations of traditional graph neural networks, such as oversquashing and difficulties in modeling long-range dependencies. However, their application to large-scale graphs is hindered by the quadratic memory and computational complexity of the all-to-all attention mechanism. Although alternatives such as linearized attention and restricted attention patterns have been proposed, these often degrade performance or limit expressive power. To better balance efficiency and effectiveness, we introduce k-Maximum Inner Product (k-MIP) attention for graph transformers. k-MIP attention selects the most relevant key nodes per query via a top-k operation, yielding a sparse yet flexible attention pattern. Combined with an attention score computation based on symbolic matrices, this results in linear memory complexity and practical speedups of up to an order of magnitude compared to all-to-all attention, enabling the processing of graphs with over 500k nodes on a single A100 GPU. We provide a theoretical analysis of expressive power, showing that k-MIP attention does not compromise the expressiveness of graph transformers: specifically, we prove that k-MIP transformers can approximate any full-attention transformer to arbitrary precision. In addition, we analyze the expressive power of the GraphGPS framework, in which we integrate our attention mechanism, and establish an upper bound on its graph distinguishing capability in terms of the S-SEG-WL test. Finally, we validate our approach on the Long Range Graph Benchmark, the City-Networks benchmark, and two custom large-scale inductive point cloud datasets, consistently ranking among the top-performing scalable graph transformers.

Proposed method: GPS + k-MIP

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

Other Graph Benchmarks

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GPS + k-MIP
0.8268 ±0.0064
This paper
2
Exphormer
0.8262 ±0.0031
This paper
3
VN-DGCNN
0.8140
5
GPS + BigBird
0.7965 ±0.0098
This paper
8
GPS + Performer
0.7736 ±0.0123
This paper
9
GatedGCN
0.7620 ±0.0032
This paper
13
GINE
0.6457 ±0.0035
This paper
14
GAT
0.6301 ±0.0017
This paper
16
GCN
0.6018 ±0.0004
This paper

City-Networks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GAT
actual #1 vs paper #1
0.5583 ±0.0042
actual #1 vs paper #1
paper 0.5583 ±0.0042
prev best: City-Networks (ICLR 2025)
paper 0.5583 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0473
2
Exphormer
actual #2 vs paper #12 10 places worse
0.5510 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #12 10 places worse
paper 0.5140 ±0.0008
best at pub: City-Networks (ICLR 2025)
paper 0.5140 ±0.0008 Δ at pub 0.0370
3
GraphSAGE
0.5460 ±0.0020
5
GPS + Performer
0.5406 ±0.0027
This paper
6
GPS + k-MIP
0.5362 ±0.0022
This paper
7
GPS + BigBird
0.5353 ±0.0037
This paper
8
GINE
0.5336 ±0.0023
This paper
9
GatedGCN
0.5327 ±0.0010
This paper
10
GCN
actual #10 vs paper #10
0.5320 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #10
paper 0.5293 ±0.0006
best at pub: City-Networks (ICLR 2025)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5293 ±0.0006 Δ at pub 0.0027
15
MLP
0.2550 ±0.0040
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GAT
actual #1 vs paper #1
0.7253 ±0.0023
actual #1 vs paper #1
paper 0.7253 ±0.0023
prev best: City-Networks (ICLR 2025)
paper 0.7253 ±0.0023 Δ at pub 0.0453
2
Exphormer
actual #2 vs paper #11 9 places worse
0.7020 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #11 9 places worse
paper 0.6233 ±0.0016
best at pub: City-Networks (ICLR 2025)
paper 0.6233 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0787
3
GatedGCN
0.6880 ±0.0021
This paper
4
GraphSAGE
0.6830 ±0.0050
5
GPS + Performer
0.6727 ±0.0017
This paper
6
GPS + k-MIP
0.6694 ±0.0044
This paper
8
GPS + BigBird
0.6524 ±0.0017
This paper
10
GINE
0.6335 ±0.0020
This paper
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #14 2 places worse
0.6210 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #14 2 places worse
paper 0.5775 ±0.0024
best at pub: City-Networks (ICLR 2025)
paper 0.5775 ±0.0024 Δ at pub 0.0435
15
MLP
0.2840 ±0.0060
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GatedGCN
0.6147 ±0.0014
This paper
2
GINE
0.5760 ±0.0020
This paper
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #3
0.5719 ±0.0109
actual #3 vs paper #3
paper 0.5719 ±0.0109
prev best: City-Networks (ICLR 2025)
paper 0.5719 ±0.0109 Δ at pub 0.0519
4
GPS + k-MIP
0.5605
This paper
5
GraphSAGE
0.5540 ±0.0020
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #6
0.5525 ±0.0006
actual #6 vs paper #6
paper 0.5525 ±0.0006
prev best: City-Networks (ICLR 2025)
paper 0.5525 ±0.0006 Δ at pub 0.0515
8
GPS + Performer
0.5320
This paper
13
MLP
0.2790 ±0.0010
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