Benchmark study demonstrates superior node classification accuracy across eight standard datasets, suggesting dual-branch partitioning overcomes traditional graph Transformer scaling limits.
As an emerging architecture, graph Transformers (GTs) have demonstrated significant potential in various graph-related tasks. Existing GTs are mainly oriented to graph-level tasks and have proved their advantages, but they do not perform well in node classification tasks. This mainly comes from two aspects: (1) The global attention mechanism causes the computational complexity to grow quadratically with the number of nodes, resulting in substantial resource demands, especially on large-scale graphs; (2) a large number of long-distance irrelevant nodes disperse the attention weights and weaken the focus on local neighborhoods. To address these issues, we proposed a new model, dual-branch graph Transformer (DCAFormer). The model divided the graph into clusters with the same number of nodes by a graph partitioning algorithm to reduce the number of input nodes. Subsequently, the original graph was processed by graph neural network (GNN) to obtain outputs containing structural information. Next, we adopted a dual-branch architecture: The local branch (intracluster Transformer) captured local information within each cluster, reducing the impact of long-distance irrelevant nodes on attention; the global branch (intercluster Transformer) captured global interactions across clusters. Meanwhile, we designed a hybrid feature mechanism that integrated original features with GNN outputs and separately optimized the construction of the query (Q), key (K), and value (V) matrices of the intracluster and intercluster Transformers in order to adapt to the different modeling requirements of two branches. We conducted extensive experiments on 8 benchmark node classification datasets, and the results showed that DCAFormer outperformed existing GTs and mainstream GNNs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: