PreprintCited by 62Advanced Graph Neural NetworksGraph Theory and AlgorithmsComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Improving Graph Attention Networks with Large Margin-based Constraints

Open access
Wang, Guangtao, Ying, Rex, Huang, Jing, Leskovec, Jure·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Graph Attention Networks (GATs) are the state-of-the-art neural architecture for representation learning with graphs. GATs learn attention functions that assign weights to nodes so that different nodes have different influences in the feature aggregation steps. In practice, however, induced attention functions are prone to over-fitting due to the increasing number of parameters and the lack of direct supervision on attention weights. GATs also suffer from over-smoothing at the decision boundary of nodes. Here we propose a framework to address their weaknesses via margin-based constraints on attention during training. We first theoretically demonstrate the over-smoothing behavior of GATs and then develop an approach using constraint on the attention weights according to the class boundary and feature aggregation pattern. Furthermore, to alleviate the over-fitting problem, we propose additional constraints on the graph structure. Extensive experiments and ablation studies on common benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, which leads to significant improvements over the previous state-of-the-art graph attention methods on all datasets.

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.1910.11945

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • This argument has been pointed out in several papers, where it is proposed to improve conventional graph attention mechanisms by projecting the concatenated features once onto the learning matrix.

    “This argument has already been pointed out in several papers, e.g., in [91][92][93], where it is proposed to improve the performance of conventional graph attention mechanisms by projecting the concatenated features once onto the learning matrix.”

    From TVGeAN: Tensor Visibility Graph-Enhanced Attention Network for Versatile Multivariant Time Series Learning Tasks (2024) · cites this paper as [92]

    The Constrained Graph Attention Networks section (p. 4) proposes improving GAT through margin-based constraints and selective neighbor aggregation. The Analysis of GATs section (p. 2) describes concatenating transformed node features in the conventional attention function, but does not propose projecting concatenated features once onto a learning matrix as the improvement. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several GAT variants have been developed to overcome GAT limitations using strategies such as multi-headed attention, restricting aggregation to top-K neighbors, and reordering GAT operations.

    “Some notable examples are the use of multi-headed attention mechanisms at each node of the GNN [91], the restriction of aggregation to the neighbors with the highest K-attention scores [92], and the reordering of GAT operations [93].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [Defferrard, Bresson, and Vandergheynst 2016] Defferrard, M.; Bresson, X.; and Vandergheynst, P. 2016. Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering. In NIPS , 3844-3852.
  2. [Lov´ asz and others 1993] Lov´ asz, L., et al. 1993. Random walks on graphs: A survey. Combinatorics, Paul erdos is eighty 2(1):1-46.
  3. [Sen et al. 2008] Sen, P.; Namata, G.; Bilgic, M.; Getoor, L.; Galligher, B.; and Eliassi-Rad, T. 2008. Collective classification in network data. AI magazine 29(3):93-106.
  4. [Zitnik and Leskovec 2017] Zitnik, M., and Leskovec, J. 2017. Predicting multicellular function through multi-layer tissue networks. Bioinformatics 33(14):i190-i198.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, G., Ying, R., Huang, J., & Leskovec, J.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2981525344
Cited by
61
References
40
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8
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
graph attention networks, over-smoothing, overfitting, graph representation learning, feature aggregation

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