Reinforced Causal Explainer for Graph Neural Networks

Xiang Wang, Y. Wu, An Zhang, Fuli Feng, Xiangnan He, Tat-seng Chua

Main figure for 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

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)