WWW 2022

Learning and Evaluating Graph Neural Network Explanations based on Counterfactual and Factual Reasoning

Juntao Tan, Shijie Geng, Zuohui Fu, Yingqiang Ge, Shuyuan Xu, Yunqi Li, Yongfeng Zhang

Main figure for Learning and Evaluating Graph Neural Network Explanations based on Counterfactual and Factual Reasoning

Abstract

Structural data well exists in Web applications, such as social networks in social media, citation networks in academic websites, and threads data in online forums. Due to the complex topology, it is difficult to process and make use of the rich information within such data. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown great advantages on learning representations for structural data. However, the non-transparency of the deep learning models makes it non-trivial to explain and interpret the predictions made by GNNs. Meanwhile, it is also a big challenge to evaluate the GNN explanations, since in many cases, the ground-truth explanations are unavailable. In this paper, we take insights of Counterfactual and Factual (CF$^2$) reasoning from causal inference theory, to solve both the learning and evaluation problems in explainable GNNs. For generating explanations, we propose a model-agnostic framework by formulating an optimization problem based on both of the two casual perspectives. This distinguishes CF$^2$ from previous explainable GNNs that only consider one of them. Another contribution of the work is the evaluation of GNN explanations. For quantitatively evaluating the generated explanations without the requirement of ground-truth, we design metrics based on Counterfactual and Factual reasoning to evaluate the necessity and sufficiency of the explanations. Experiments show that no matter ground-truth explanations are available or not, CF$^2$ generates better explanations than previous state-of-the-art methods on real-world datasets. Moreover, the statistic analysis justifies the correlation between the performance on ground-truth evaluation and our proposed metrics. Source code is available at.

Proposed method: CF^2

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

MUTAG

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 only.

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
CF^2
0.9870
This paper
2
GNNExplainer
0.8267
This paper
3
GEM
0.7958
This paper
4
CF-GNNExplainer
0.4739
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
453
GEM
actual #453 vs paper #495 42 places worse
0.7280
best reported
actual #453 vs paper #495 42 places worse
paper 0.6903
paper 0.6903 Δ at pub 0.0377
460
GNNExplainer
actual #460 vs paper #495 35 places worse
0.7200
best reported
actual #460 vs paper #495 35 places worse
paper 0.6903
paper 0.6903 Δ at pub 0.0297
497
CF^2
0.6903
This paper
496
CF-GNNExplainer
0.6903
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)