PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Exploring High-Order Message-Passing in Graph Transformers

Xueqi Ma, Xingjun Ma, Chuang Liu, Sarah Monazam Erfani, James Bailey

representation learningGraph representation learningTransformer
13.60100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
11.10100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)
19.10100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

The Transformer architecture has demonstrated promising performance on graph learning tasks. However, the existing attention mechanism used in Graph Transformers (GT) cannot capture high-order correlations that exist in complex graphs, thereby limiting their expressiveness. In this paper, we present a High-Order message-passing strategy within the Transformer architecture (HOtrans) to learn long-range, high-order relationships for graph representation. Recognizing that some nodes share similar properties, we extract communities from the entire graph and introduce a virtual node to connect all nodes in the community. Operating on the community, we adopt a three-step message-passing approach: capture the high-order information of the community into a virtual node; propagate long-range dependent information between communities; aggregate community-level representations back to graph nodes. This facilitates effective global information passing. Virtual nodes capture the high-order community information and support the long-range information passing as the bridge. We demonstrate that many existing GTs can be regarded as special cases of this framework. Our experimental results illustrate that our proposed HOtrans consistently achieves highly competitive results across several node classification tasks.

Author context

Most prolific author: 3 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 34 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 40% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)