Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 5, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Graph Attention Networks (GATs) are increasingly used in domains where scientists need to read a model's reasoning, from medicine to materials science, yet the routing they learn remains opaque to most explainers. Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP) follows the model's computation, but in an attention layer the relevance reaching a node is the sum of two mechanically different quantities: its content relevance through the value path and its routing relevance through the attention path. Existing rules either drop one or add them into a single number. We write a single product rule with free weights on the two factors that recovers current approaches as special cases. The value path measures what content a node supplied against a zero baseline; the attention path measures how the node shaped what was passed relative to its neighborhood, and its sign records whether the node's features moved the gating the way the prediction demanded. On a ground-truth classification task, we show that the same node receives negative, positive and near-zero relevance under three settings of the rule. The separated relevance maps yield a hypothesis about the model: it gains by not reading that node. We give reading rules for both paths and argue that they should be interpreted separately.