CI-GNN: A Granger Causality-Inspired Graph Neural Network for Interpretable Brain Network-Based Psychiatric Diagnosis

Kaizhong Zheng, Shujian Yu, Badong Chen

Main figure for CI-GNN: A Granger Causality-Inspired Graph Neural Network for Interpretable Brain Network-Based Psychiatric Diagnosis

Abstract

There is a recent trend to leverage the power of graph neural networks (GNNs) for brain-network based psychiatric diagnosis, which, in turn, also motivates an urgent need for psychiatrists to fully understand the decision behavior of the used GNNs. However, most of the existing GNN explainers are either post-hoc in which another interpretive model needs to be created to explain a well-trained GNN, or do not consider the causal relationship between the extracted explanation and the decision, such that the explanation itself contains spurious correlations and suffers from weak faithfulness. In this work, we propose a granger causality-inspired graph neural network (CI-GNN), a built-in interpretable model that is able to identify the most influential subgraph (i.e., functional connectivity within brain regions) that is causally related to the decision (e.g., major depressive disorder patients or healthy controls), without the training of an auxillary interpretive network. CI-GNN learns disentangled subgraph-level representations $ $ and $ $ that encode, respectively, the causal and non-causal aspects of original graph under a graph variational autoencoder framework, regularized by a conditional mutual information (CMI) constraint. We theoretically justify the validity of the CMI regulation in capturing the causal relationship. We also empirically evaluate the performance of CI-GNN against three baseline GNNs and four state-of-the-art GNN explainers on synthetic data and three large-scale brain disease datasets. We observe that CI-GNN achieves the best performance in a wide range of metrics and provides more reliable and concise explanations which have clinical evidence. The source code and implementation details of CI-GNN are freely available at GitHub repository (https://github.com/ZKZ-Brain/CI-GNN/).

Proposed method: CI-GNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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 #187 148 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #187 148 places worse
paper 0.9000 ±0.0600

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9000 ±0.0600 Δ at pub 0.0330
45
CI-GNN
0.9300 ±0.0300
This paper
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #391 328 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #391 328 places worse
paper 0.8700 ±0.0800

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8700 ±0.0800 Δ at pub 0.0210 Δ today 0.0520
158
GraphSAGE
0.9040 ±0.0780
183
GAT
actual #183 vs paper #187 4 places worse
0.9010 ±0.0580
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #187 4 places worse
paper 0.9000 ±0.0500

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9000 ±0.0500 Δ at pub 0.0010 Δ today 0.0010
331
GNNExplainer
actual #331 vs paper #331
0.8800 ±0.0300
actual #331 vs paper #331
paper 0.8800 ±0.0300
paper 0.8800 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0710
392
Dir-GNN
0.8700 ±0.0800
This paper
393
PGExplainer
actual #393 vs paper #393
0.8700 ±0.0300
actual #393 vs paper #393
paper 0.8700 ±0.0300
paper 0.8700 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0800
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
564
RC-Explainer
0.8200 ±0.0600
This paper
714
SIB
0.7500 ±0.0500
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
actual #2 vs paper #129 127 places worse
0.9934
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #129 127 places worse
paper 0.8200 ±0.0100
paper 0.8200 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.1734
3
GCN
actual #3 vs paper #391 388 places worse
0.9727
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #391 388 places worse
paper 0.7600 ±0.0100
paper 0.7600 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.2127
4
GAT
actual #4 vs paper #459 455 places worse
0.9623
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #459 455 places worse
paper 0.7200 ±0.0100
paper 0.7200 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.2423
74
CI-GNN
0.8300 ±0.0200
This paper
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
460
GNNExplainer
actual #460 vs paper #505 45 places worse
0.7200
best reported
actual #460 vs paper #505 45 places worse
paper 0.6800 ±0.0100
paper 0.6800 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0400
471
Dir-GNN
0.7100 ±0.0100
This paper
525
SIB
0.6500 ±0.0100
This paper
526
PGExplainer
0.6500 ±0.0200
This paper
527
RC-Explainer
0.6500 ±0.0300
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
5
CI-GNN
0.8200 ±0.0200
This paper
16
GNNExplainer
0.8000 ±0.0100
This paper
17
PGExplainer
0.8000 ±0.0200
This paper
27
SIB
0.7900 ±0.0100
This paper
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #83 51 places worse
0.7700 ±0.0300
actual #32 vs paper #83 51 places worse
paper 0.7700 ±0.0300

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7700 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0090
49
GAT
actual #49 vs paper #49
0.7800 ±0.0300
actual #49 vs paper #49
paper 0.7800 ±0.0300
prev best: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7800 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0172
67
SAGE
0.7726 ±0.0228
84
Dir-GNN
0.7700 ±0.0100
This paper
148
GCN
actual #148 vs paper #148
0.7600 ±0.0300
actual #148 vs paper #148
paper 0.7600 ±0.0300

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7600 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0020
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
475
RC-Explainer
0.6700 ±0.0600
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published