Depth-Width Tradeoffs for Transformers on Graph Tasks
Gilad Yehudai, Clayton Sanford, Maya Bechler-Speicher, Orr Fischer, Ran Gilad-Bachrach, Amir Globerson
Abstract
Transformers have revolutionized the field of machine learning. In particular, they can be used to solve complex algorithmic problems, including graph-based tasks. In such algorithmic tasks a key question is what is the minimal size of a transformer that can implement the task. Recent work has begun to explore this problem for graph-based tasks, showing that for sub-linear embedding dimension (i.e., model width) logarithmic depth suffices. However, an open question, which we address here, is what happens if width is allowed to grow linearly, while depth is kept fixed. Here we analyze this setting, and provide the surprising result that with linear width, constant depth suffices for solving a host of graph-based problems. This suggests that a moderate increase in width can allow much shallower models, which are advantageous in terms of inference and train time. For other problems, we show that quadratic width is required. Our results demonstrate the complex and intriguing landscape of transformer implementations of graph-based algorithms. We empirically investigate these trade-offs between the relative powers of depth and width and find tasks where wider models have the same accuracy as deep models, while having much faster train and inference time due to parallelizable hardware.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 20638b4c-61c6-4cc5-a7a2-18db5a364b4dCited by top-tier papers3
- From Sequence to Structure: Uncovering Substructure Reasoning in TransformersXinnan Dai, Kai Yang, Jay Revolinsky, Kai Guo et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 3 citations
- Expressivity-Efficiency Tradeoffs for Hybrid Sequence ModelsJohn Cooper, Mingchen Ma, Ilias Diakonikolas, Frederic SalaICML 2026
- Plain Transformers are Surprisingly Powerful Link PredictorsQuang Truong, Yu Song, Donald Loveland, Mingxuan Ju et al.ICML 2026
Builds on18
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Open Graph Benchmark: Datasets for Machine Learning on GraphsWeihua Hu, Matthias Fey, Marinka Zitnik, Yuxiao Dong et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 3,935 citations
- How Attentive are Graph Attention Networks?Shaked Brody, Uri Alon, Eran YahavICLR 2022 · 1,717 citations
- Rethinking Graph Transformers with Spectral AttentionDevin Kreuzer, Dominique Beaini, William L. Hamilton, Vincent Létourneau et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 854 citations
Related papers
- Understanding Transformer Reasoning Capabilities via Graph AlgorithmsClayton Sanford, Bahare Fatemi, Ethan Hall, Anton Tsitsulin et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 84 citations
- Transformers, parallel computation, and logarithmic depthClayton Sanford, Daniel Hsu, Matus TelgarskyICML 2024 · 64 citations
- Simulation of Graph Algorithms with Looped TransformersArtur Back de Luca, Kimon FountoulakisICML 2024 · 31 citations
- A Little Depth Goes a Long Way: The Expressive Power of Log-Depth TransformersWilliam Merrill, Ashish SabharwalNeurIPS 2025 · 62 citations
- Transformers Provably Learn Algorithmic Solutions for Graph Connectivity, But Only with the Right DataQilin Ye, Deqing Fu, Robin Jia, Vatsal SharanICML 2026 · 1 citation
