PreprintCited by 59Advanced Graph Neural NetworksGraph Theory and AlgorithmsComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Attention Models in Graphs: A Survey

Open access
Lee, John Boaz, Rossi, Ryan A., Kim, Sungchul, Ahmed, Nesreen K., Koh, Eunyee·2018·arXiv

Abstract

Graph-structured data arise naturally in many different application domains. By representing data as graphs, we can capture entities (i.e., nodes) as well as their relationships (i.e., edges) with each other. Many useful insights can be derived from graph-structured data as demonstrated by an ever-growing body of work focused on graph mining. However, in the real-world, graphs can be both large - with many complex patterns - and noisy which can pose a problem for effective graph mining. An effective way to deal with this issue is to incorporate "attention" into graph mining solutions. An attention mechanism allows a method to focus on task-relevant parts of the graph, helping it to make better decisions. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive and focused survey of the literature on the emerging field of graph attention models. We introduce three intuitive taxonomies to group existing work. These are based on problem setting (type of input and output), the type of attention mechanism used, and the task (e.g., graph classification, link prediction, etc.). We motivate our taxonomies through detailed examples and use each to survey competing approaches from a unique standpoint. Finally, we highlight several challenges in the area and discuss promising directions for future work.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1807.07984

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lee et al. conduct a partial survey of GNNs which apply different attention mechanisms.

    “Lee et al. [12] conduct a partial survey of GNNs which apply different attention mechanisms.”

    From A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks (2021) · cites this paper as [12]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, J. B., Rossi, R. A., Kim, S., Ahmed, N. K., & Koh, E.
Affiliations
  • Worcester Polytechnic Institute (US)
  • Adobe Systems (United States) (US)
  • Intel (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2883803180
Cited by
59
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Graph Theory and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
attention mechanism, graph mining, graph classification, link prediction, graph neural networks, noisy graphs, large-scale graphs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review