AAAI 2021

ProtGNN: Towards Self-Explaining Graph Neural Networks

Zaixin Zhang, Qi Liu, Hao Wang, Chengqiang Lu, Chee-Kong Lee

Main figure for ProtGNN: Towards Self-Explaining Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Despite the recent progress in Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), it remains challenging to explain the predictions made by GNNs. Existing explanation methods mainly focus on post-hoc explanations where another explanatory model is employed to provide explanations for a trained GNN. The fact that post-hoc methods fail to reveal the original reasoning process of GNNs raises the need of building GNNs with built-in interpretability. In this work, we propose Prototype Graph Neural Network (ProtGNN), which combines prototype learning with GNNs and provides a new perspective on the explanations of GNNs. In ProtGNN, the explanations are naturally derived from the case-based reasoning process and are actually used during classification. The prediction of ProtGNN is obtained by comparing the inputs to a few learned prototypes in the latent space. Furthermore, for better interpretability and higher efficiency, a novel conditional subgraph sampling module is incorporated to indicate which part of the input graph is most similar to each prototype in ProtGNN+. Finally, we evaluate our method on a wide range of datasets and perform concrete case studies. Extensive results show that ProtGNN and ProtGNN+ can provide inherent interpretability while achieving accuracy on par with the non-interpretable counterparts.

Proposed method: ProtGNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
actual #39 vs paper #39
0.9330 ±0.0290
actual #39 vs paper #39
paper 0.9330 ±0.0290

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9330 ±0.0290 Δ at pub 0.0124
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #739 676 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #739 676 places worse
paper 0.7330 ±0.0580
paper 0.7330 ±0.0580 Δ at pub 0.1580 Δ today 0.1890
81
ProtGNN
0.9170 ±0.0290
This paper
158
GraphSAGE
0.9040 ±0.0780
183
GAT
actual #183 vs paper #711 528 places worse
0.9010 ±0.0580
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #711 528 places worse
paper 0.7500 ±0.0500
paper 0.7500 ±0.0500 Δ at pub 0.1510 Δ today 0.1510
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495

MoleculeNet

BBBP

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is ROC-AUC. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
ProtGNN
0.8940 ±0.0410
This paper
2
GIN
0.8620 ±0.0110
This paper
3
GCN
0.8460 ±0.0340
This paper
4
GAT
0.8300 ±0.0260
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)