ICML 2026

Clustering as Reasoning: A $k$-Means Interpretation of Chain-of-Thought Graph Learning

Xuanting Xie, Zhaochen Guo, Bingheng Li, Xingtong Yu, Zhifei Liao, Zhao Kang, Yuan Fang

Main figure for Clustering as Reasoning: A $k$-Means Interpretation of Chain-of-Thought Graph Learning

Abstract

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has shown promise in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) on text-attributed graphs (TAGs). This work reframes CoT-based graph learning through the principle of clustering as reasoning, offering a $k$-means interpretation of how iterative reasoning operates over graph-structured data. We observe that existing graph CoT methods rely on disjoint architectures and fixed graph representations, limiting step-by-step semantic-topological interaction and interpretability. To overcome this limitation, we propose a unified framework named KCoT that integrates CoT reasoning with graph representation learning. Our key theoretical result reveals a formal mathematical correspondence between a Transformer block and the $k$-means algorithm, allowing reasoning to be interpreted as iterative assignment and update steps. Based on this insight, we introduce a Semantic Discriminating Prompt that explicitly formulates these steps as structured CoT reasoning, together with a structure-grounded alignment strategy to fuse topological priors with evolving thought-conditioned representations. Experiments on standard benchmarks demonstrate consistent improvements over state-of-the-art methods, validating clustering as a principled mechanism for CoT-based graph learning.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 3 baseline values reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
9
GAT
actual #9 vs paper #78 69 places worse
0.8829
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #78 69 places worse
paper 0.8306
14
SAGN
actual #14 vs paper #84 70 places worse
0.8736 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #84 70 places worse
paper 0.8258
paper 0.8258 Δ at pub 0.0478
49
LLAGA-HO
actual #49 vs paper #49
0.8467
actual #49 vs paper #49
paper 0.8467
50
LLAGA-ND
actual #50 vs paper #50
0.8460
actual #50 vs paper #50
paper 0.8460
66
NodeFormer
actual #66 vs paper #66
0.8372
actual #66 vs paper #66
paper 0.8372
paper 0.8372 Δ at pub 0.1646
83
GraphSAGE
actual #83 vs paper #83
0.8287
actual #83 vs paper #83
paper 0.8287
paper 0.8287 Δ at pub 0.0226
94
SGC
actual #94 vs paper #259 165 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #94 vs paper #259 165 places worse
paper 0.7547
paper 0.7547 Δ at pub 0.0673
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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