Why don't Graph Transformers attend to the same token?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In large language models (LLMs), attention concentrates heavily on the first token. This 'attention sink' is believed to protect deep models against over-mixing. Even though graph transformers face a related pressure, we find that a SoTA graph transformer, GRIT, rarely forms sinks on molecules, and that it sinks less when trained on larger graphs, the opposite of the trend in LLMs. In principle, a graph can prevent sinks: we prove and show empirically that its symmetry and locality limit the attention any node can receive. On molecules, however, with distinguishable atoms and global attention, neither limit prevents sinks; what stops them lies in the model. We find that the attention scoring function is the main cause. Replacing GRIT's gated logit with a dot product raises its sink rate from 0.09 to 0.68 on identical graphs. In Graph Transformers using dot-product attention, removing the sink gives about the same error as removing a random node, while GRIT's most-attended nodes matter to its predictions. Attention sinks are therefore a property of dot-product attention rather than of Transformers. In our experiments, they form when dot-product scoring has a distinguishable node to concentrate on.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2026.
Builds on
26 of 28 references.
References · 26
- 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 3,096
- 2023Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinkscited by 2,186
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
- 2021Geometric Deep Learning: Grids, Groups, Graphs, Geodesics, and Gaugescited by 1,167
- 2023Vision Transformers Need Registerscited by 871
- 2022Recipe for a General, Powerful, Scalable Graph Transformercited by 713
- 2021Attention is Not All You Need: Pure Attention Loses Rank Doubly Exponentially with Depthcited by 419
- 2021Graph Neural Networks with Learnable Structural and Positional Representationscited by 333
- 2025Gated Attention for Large Language Models: Non-linearity, Sparsity, and Attention-Sink-Freecited by 283
- 2022Long Range Graph Benchmarkcited by 263
- 2024When Attention Sink Emerges in Language Models: An Empirical Viewcited by 208
- 2022Sign and Basis Invariant Networks for Spectral Graph Representation Learningcited by 179
14 more
- 2023Graph Inductive Biases in Transformers without Message Passingcited by 153
- 2025Why do LLMs attend to the first token?cited by 127
- 2024Transformers need glasses! Information over-squashing in language taskscited by 91
- 2024Isambard-AI: a leadership class supercomputer optimised specifically for Artificial Intelligencecited by 62
- 2022Understanding convolution on graphs via energiescited by 59
- 2025Attention Sinks and Compression Valleys in LLMs are Two Sides of the Same Coincited by 52
- 2023Demystifying Oversmoothing in Attention-Based Graph Neural Networkscited by 49
- 2024Softmax is not Enough (for Sharp Size Generalisation)cited by 46
- 2025Attention Sinks in Diffusion Language Modelscited by 20
- 2025A Survey of Graph Transformers: Architectures, Theories and Applicationscited by 14
- 2025Attention Mechanisms Perspective: Exploring LLM Processing of Graph-Structured Datacited by 8
- 2026Interior interpretability with attention rollout: contraction and propagation profiles in Transformerscited by 3
- 2024Massive Activations in Graph Neural Networks: Decoding Attention for Domain-Dependent Interpretabilitycited by 2
- 2026Capacity-Controlled Global Attention for Graph Transformerscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.