ICLR 2022

Discovering Invariant Rationales for Graph Neural Networks

Yingmin Wu, Xiang Wang, An Zhang, Xiangnan He, Tat-seng Chua

Main figure for Discovering Invariant Rationales for Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Intrinsic interpretability of graph neural networks (GNNs) is to find a small subset of the input graph's features --- rationale --- which guides the model prediction. Unfortunately, the leading rationalization models often rely on data biases, especially shortcut features, to compose rationales and make predictions without probing the critical and causal patterns. Moreover, such data biases easily change outside the training distribution. As a result, these models suffer from a huge drop in interpretability and predictive performance on out-of-distribution data. In this work, we propose a new strategy of discovering invariant rationale (DIR) to construct intrinsically interpretable GNNs. It conducts interventions on the training distribution to create multiple interventional distributions. Then it approaches the causal rationales that are invariant across different distributions while filtering out the spurious patterns that are unstable. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets validate the superiority of our DIR in terms of interpretability and generalization ability on graph classification over the leading baselines. Code and datasets are available at https://github.com/Wuyxin/DIR-GNN.

Proposed method: DIR

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset

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

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ±0.0002
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ±0.0003
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ±0.0015
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
18
GSN
actual #18 vs paper #247 229 places worse
0.8039 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #247 229 places worse
paper 0.7453 ±0.0190
paper 0.7453 ±0.0190 Δ today 0.0586
109
GIN
0.7780 ±0.0182
124
Attention
actual #124 vs paper #209 85 places worse
0.7584 ±0.0133
actual #124 vs paper #209 85 places worse
paper 0.7584 ±0.0133

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7584 ±0.0133 Δ at pub 0.0140
152
DIR
0.7705 ±0.0057
This paper
155
IRM
actual #155 vs paper #248 93 places worse
0.7702 ±0.0107
best reported
actual #155 vs paper #248 93 places worse
paper 0.7446 ±0.0274

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7446 ±0.0274 Δ today 0.0256
187
ERM
0.7620 ±0.0114
This paper
198
DIR-Var
0.7605 ±0.0086
This paper
218
V-REx
0.7562 ±0.0079
This paper
228
Group DRO
0.7544 ±0.0270
This paper
262
ASAP
0.7381 ±0.0117
This paper
268
SAG Pool
0.7326 ±0.0084
This paper
273
Top-k Pool
0.7301 ±0.0165
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere