Arrows are generalized by Categories, and so by the Category typeclass.
class Category f where
(.) :: f a b -> f b c -> f a c
id :: f a a
The Arrow typeclass definition has Category as a superclass. Categories (in the haskell sense) generalize functions (you can compose them but not apply them) and so are definitely a "model of computation". Arrow provides a Category with additional structure for working with tuples. So, while Category mirrors something about Haskell's function space, Arrow extends that to something about product types.
Every Monad gives rise to something called a "Kleisli Category" and this construction gives you instances of ArrowApply. You can build a Monad out of any ArrowApply such that going full circle doesn't change your behavior, so in some deep sense Monad and ArrowApply are the same thing.
newtype Kleisli m a b = Kleisli { runKleisli :: a -> m b }
instance Monad m => Category (Kleisli m) where
id = Kleisli return
(Kleisli f) . (Kleisli g) = Kleisli (\b -> g b >>= f)
instance Monad m => Arrow (Kleisli m) where
arr f = Kleisli (return . f)
first (Kleisli f) = Kleisli (\ ~(b,d) -> f b >>= \c -> return (c,d))
second (Kleisli f) = Kleisli (\ ~(d,b) -> f b >>= \c -> return (d,c))
Actually every Arrow gives rise to an Applicative (universally quantified to get the kinds right) in addition to the Category superclass, and I believe the combination of the appropriate Category and Applicative is enough to reconstruct your Arrow.
So, these structures are deeply connected.
Warning: wishy-washy commentary ahead. One central difference between the Functor/Applicative/Monad way of thinking and the Category/Arrow way of thinking is that while Functor and its ilk are generalizations at the level of object (types in Haskell), Category/Arrow are generelazation of the notion of morphism (functions in Haskell). My belief is that thinking at the level of generalized morphism involves a higher level of abstraction than thinking at the level of generalized objects. Sometimes that is a good thing, other times it is not. On the other-hand, despite the fact that Arrows have a categorical basis, and no one in math thinks Applicative is interesting, it is my understanding that Applicative is generally better understood than Arrow.
Basically you can think of "Category < Arrow < ArrowApply" and "Functor < Applicative < Monad" such that "Category ~ Functor", "Arrow ~ Applicative" and "ArrowApply ~ Monad".
More Concrete Below:
As for other structures to model computation: one can often reverse the direction of the "arrows" (just meaning morphisms here) in categorical constructions to get the "dual" or "co-construction". So, if a monad is defined as
class Functor m => Monad m where
return :: a -> m a
join :: m (m a) -> m a
(okay, I know that isn't how Haskell defines things, but ma >>= f = join $ fmap f ma and join x = x >>= id so it just as well could be)
then the comonad is
class Functor m => Comonad m where
extract :: m a -> a -- this is co-return
duplicate :: m a -> m (m a) -- this is co-join
This thing turns out to be pretty common also. It turns out that Comonad is the basic underlying structure of cellular automata. For completness, I should point out that Edward Kmett's Control.Comonad puts duplicate in a class between functor and Comonad for "Extendable Functors" because you can also define
extend :: (m a -> b) -> m a -> m b -- Looks familiar? this is just the dual of >>=
extend f = fmap f . duplicate
--this is enough
duplicate = extend id
It turns out that all Monads are also "Extendable"
monadDuplicate :: Monad m => m a -> m (m a)
monadDuplicate = return
while all Comonads are "Joinable"
comonadJoin :: Comonad m => m (m a) -> m a
comonadJoin = extract
so these structures are very close together.
