Robust Ante-hoc Graph Explainer using Bilevel Optimization

Mert Kosan, A. Silva, Ambuj K. Singh

Main figure for Robust Ante-hoc Graph Explainer using Bilevel Optimization

Abstract

Explaining the decisions made by machine learning models for high-stakes applications is critical for increasing transparency and guiding improvements to these decisions. This is particularly true in the case of models for graphs, where decisions often depend on complex patterns combining rich structural and attribute data. While recent work has focused on designing so-called post-hoc explainers, the broader question of what constitutes a good explanation remains open. One intuitive property is that explanations should be sufficiently informative to reproduce the predictions given the data. In other words, a good explainer can be repurposed as a predictor. Post-hoc explainers do not achieve this goal as their explanations are highly dependent on fixed model parameters (e.g., learned GNN weights). To address this challenge, we propose RAGE (Robust Ante-hoc Graph Explainer), a novel and flexible ante-hoc explainer designed to discover explanations for graph neural networks using bilevel optimization, with a focus on the chemical domain. RAGE can effectively identify molecular substructures that contain the full information needed for prediction while enabling users to rank these explanations in terms of relevance. Our experiments on various molecular classification tasks show that RAGE explanations are better than existing post-hoc and ante-hoc approaches.

Proposed method: RAGE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low

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

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
HIMP
0.8740 ±0.0050
2
GINE w/ VN
0.8720 ±0.0030
3
NaiveGINe+ K=3 w/ VN
0.8700 ±0.0040
14
GCN
actual #14 vs paper #265 251 places worse
0.8400 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #265 251 places worse
paper 0.7390 ±0.0060
paper 0.7390 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.1010
24
GIN
actual #24 vs paper #253 229 places worse
0.8290 ±0.0069
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #253 229 places worse
paper 0.7430 ±0.0100
paper 0.7430 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0860
135
GraphSAGE
0.7744 ±0.0038
144
GMT
actual #144 vs paper #263 119 places worse
0.7730 ±0.0059
best reported
actual #144 vs paper #263 119 places worse
paper 0.7400 ±0.0080
paper 0.7400 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0330
245
RAGE
0.7460 ±0.0070
This paper
265
GAT
0.7400 ±0.0090
This paper
285
GSAT
0.7290 ±0.0090
This paper
295
VIB-GSL
0.7150 ±0.0490
This paper
297
Dir-GNN
0.7080 ±0.0080
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
MAGPrompt+
0.9432 ±0.0238
2
CamS-LLaMA
0.9420
3
SE(3)-I MPPH
0.9400 ±0.0210
34
GIN
actual #34 vs paper #256 222 places worse
0.8875 ±0.0049
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #256 222 places worse
paper 0.6590 ±0.0190
38
GCN
actual #38 vs paper #275 237 places worse
0.8810 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #275 237 places worse
paper 0.6480 ±0.0280
paper 0.6480 ±0.0280 Δ at pub 0.2330
57
GraphSAGE
0.8304 ±0.0038
114
GSAT
actual #114 vs paper #256 142 places worse
0.7155 ±0.0156
best reported
actual #114 vs paper #256 142 places worse
paper 0.6580 ±0.0220
210
GAT
actual #210 vs paper #268 58 places worse
0.6776
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #268 58 places worse
paper 0.6510 ±0.0130
paper 0.6510 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0266
221
VIB-GSL
0.6750 ±0.0190
This paper
232
RAGE
0.6710 ±0.0210
This paper
258
GMT
0.6580 ±0.0190
This paper
279
Dir-GNN
0.6440 ±0.0290
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
SE(3)-I MPPH
0.9930 ±0.0040
2
KA-GCN
0.9920 ±0.0050
3
KA-GAT
0.9910 ±0.0050
19
GCN
actual #19 vs paper #63 44 places worse
0.9130 ±0.0170
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #63 44 places worse
paper 0.8340 ±0.0670

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8340 ±0.0670 Δ at pub 0.0790
36
GIN
actual #36 vs paper #63 27 places worse
0.8810 ±0.0250
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #63 27 places worse
paper 0.8350 ±0.0500

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8350 ±0.0500 Δ at pub 0.0460
44
GSAT
0.8750 ±0.0270
This paper
53
RAGE
0.8580 ±0.0420
This paper
66
GAT
0.8260 ±0.0450
This paper
72
GMT
0.8230 ±0.0170
This paper
95
Dir-GNN
0.7950 ±0.0600
This paper
102
VIB-GSL
0.7880 ±0.0200
This paper
238
GraphSAGE
0.5580 ±0.0620
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
GeomGCL
0.7630
2
LiGhT DeepGPT
0.7570 ±0.0110
3
CoMPT
0.7550
14
GCN
actual #14 vs paper #180 166 places worse
0.7350 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #180 166 places worse
paper 0.6230 ±0.0100
paper 0.6230 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.1120
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #185 153 places worse
0.7095 ±0.0027
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #185 153 places worse
paper 0.6170 ±0.0070
62
GraphSAGE
0.6775 ±0.0041
157
GAT
0.6320 ±0.0080
This paper
184
RAGE
0.6210 ±0.0090
This paper
185
GMT
0.6200 ±0.0070
This paper
190
GSAT
0.6140 ±0.0080
This paper
191
Dir-GNN
0.6120 ±0.0060
This paper
193
VIB-GSL
0.6110 ±0.0050
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere