ICLR 2023

Towards Robust Fidelity for Evaluating Explainability of Graph Neural Networks

Xu Zheng, F. Shirani, Tianchun Wang, Wei Cheng, Zhuomin Chen, Haifeng Chen, Hua Wei, Dongsheng Luo

Main figure for Towards Robust Fidelity for Evaluating Explainability of Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are neural models that leverage the dependency structure in graphical data via message passing among the graph nodes. GNNs have emerged as pivotal architectures in analyzing graph-structured data, and their expansive application in sensitive domains requires a comprehensive understanding of their decision-making processes --- necessitating a framework for GNN explainability. An explanation function for GNNs takes a pre-trained GNN along with a graph as input, to produce a `sufficient statistic' subgraph with respect to the graph label. A main challenge in studying GNN explainability is to provide fidelity measures that evaluate the performance of these explanation functions. This paper studies this foundational challenge, spotlighting the inherent limitations of prevailing fidelity metrics, including $Fid_+$, $Fid_-$, and $Fid_ $. Specifically, a formal, information-theoretic definition of explainability is introduced and it is shown that existing metrics often fail to align with this definition across various statistical scenarios. The reason is due to potential distribution shifts when subgraphs are removed in computing these fidelity measures. Subsequently, a robust class of fidelity measures are introduced, and it is shown analytically that they are resilient to distribution shift issues and are applicable in a wide range of scenarios. Extensive empirical analysis on both synthetic and real datasets are provided to illustrate that the proposed metrics are more coherent with gold standard metrics. The source code is available at https://trustai4s-lab.github.io/fidelity.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 2 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 #563 524 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #563 524 places worse
paper 0.8200
paper 0.8200 Δ at pub 0.1130
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #589 526 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #589 526 places worse
paper 0.8100
paper 0.8100 Δ at pub 0.0810 Δ today 0.1120
158
GraphSAGE
0.9040 ±0.0780
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)