Reinforced Causal Explainer for Graph Neural Networks
Abstract
Explainability is crucial for probing graph neural networks (GNNs), answering questions like ``Why the GNN model makes a certain prediction?''. Feature attribution is a prevalent technique of highlighting the explanatory subgraph in the input graph, which plausibly leads the GNN model to make its prediction. Various attribution methods have been proposed to exploit gradient-like or attention scores as the attributions of edges, then select the salient edges with top attribution scores as the explanation. However, most of these works make an untenable assumption --- the selected edges are linearly independent --- thus leaving the dependencies among edges largely unexplored, especially their coalition effect. We demonstrate unambiguous drawbacks of this assumption --- making the explanatory subgraph unfaithful and verbose. To address this challenge, we propose a reinforcement learning agent, Reinforced Causal Explainer (RC-Explainer). It frames the explanation task as a sequential decision process --- an explanatory subgraph is successively constructed by adding a salient edge to connect the previously selected subgraph. Technically, its policy network predicts the action of edge addition, and gets a reward that quantifies the action's causal effect on the prediction. Such reward accounts for the dependency of the newly-added edge and the previously-added edges, thus reflecting whether they collaborate together and form a coalition to pursue better explanations. It is trained via policy gradient to optimize the reward stream of edge sequences. As such, RC-Explainer is able to generate faithful and concise explanations, and has a better generalization power to unseen graphs. When explaining different GNNs on three graph classification datasets, RC-Explainer achieves better or comparable performance to state-of-the-art approaches w.r.t. two quantitative metrics: predictive accuracy, contrastivity, and safely passes sanity checks and visual inspections.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 1 dataset
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
TU Dortmund
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SpeGCL | 0.5944
±0.0018 | |
| 2 | GIN | 0.5760
±0.0150 | |
| 3 | LAMP-Soft | 0.5738
±0.0041 | |
| 24 | RC-Explainer | 0.4720 | This paper |
| 26 | GraphSAGE | 0.4380
±0.0320 | |
| 33 | PGM-Explainer | 0.3000 | This paper |
| 34 | CXPlain | 0.2790 | This paper |
| 35 | PGExplainer | 0.1750 | This paper |
| 36 | SA | 0.1580 | This paper |
| 37 | Grad-CAM | 0.1580 | This paper |
| 38 | GNNExplainer | 0.1250 | This paper |
