ICML 2024

How Interpretable Are Interpretable Graph Neural Networks?

Yongqiang Chen, Yatao Bian, Bo Han, James Cheng

Main figure for How Interpretable Are Interpretable Graph Neural Networks?

Abstract

Interpretable graph neural networks (XGNNs) are widely adopted in various scientific applications involving graph-structured data. Existing XGNNs predominantly adopt the attention-based mechanism to learn edge or node importance for extracting and making predictions with the interpretable subgraph. However, the representational properties and limitations of these methods remain inadequately explored. In this work, we present a theoretical framework that formulates interpretable subgraph learning with the multilinear extension of the subgraph distribution, coined as subgraph multilinear extension (SubMT). Extracting the desired interpretable subgraph requires an accurate approximation of SubMT, yet we find that the existing XGNNs can have a huge gap in fitting SubMT. Consequently, the SubMT approximation failure will lead to the degenerated interpretability of the extracted subgraphs. To mitigate the issue, we design a new XGNN architecture called Graph Multilinear neT (GMT), which is provably more powerful in approximating SubMT. We empirically validate our theoretical findings on a number of graph classification benchmarks. The results demonstrate that GMT outperforms the state-of-the-art up to 10% in terms of both interpretability and generalizability across 12 regular and geometric graph benchmarks.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
19
GMT-lin
0.8152 ±0.0075
This paper
27
SunnyGNN
0.8128 ±0.0075
This paper
29
GSAT
0.8114 ±0.0051
This paper
37
GMT-sam
0.8076 ±0.0097
This paper
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010

PubMed

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Accuracy. The paper reports 3 values on Accuracy and 1 value on Prediction Acc. .

#ModelAccuracy ↑ defaultPrediction Acc. ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ± 0.0011
—
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ± 0.0038
—
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ± 0.0036
—
18
GCN
0.9296 ± 0.0015
—
210
MLP
0.8690 ± 0.0074
—
849
GMT-lin
0.6856 ± 0.0111
—
Prediction Acc. —
This paper
852
GSAT
0.6818 ± 0.0123
—
Prediction Acc. —
This paper
853
GMT-sam
—
0.6802 ± 0.0066
Prediction Acc. 0.6802 ± 0.0066
This paper
855
SunnyGNN
0.6744 ± 0.0207
—
Prediction Acc. —
This paper

Coauthor-Physics

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Accuracy. The paper reports 1 value on Accuracy and 3 values on Prediction Acc. .

#ModelAccuracy ↑ defaultPrediction Acc. ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ± 0.0018
—
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ± 0.0027
—
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ± 0.0081
—
9
GCN
0.9774 ± 0.0035
—
58
MLP
0.9597 ± 0.0007
—
247
GSAT
—
0.9268 ± 0.0050
Prediction Acc. 0.9268 ± 0.0050
This paper
251
SunnyGNN
0.9258 ± 0.0026
—
Prediction Acc. —
This paper
252
GMT-sam
—
0.9258 ± 0.0035
Prediction Acc. 0.9258 ± 0.0035
This paper
253
GMT-lin
—
0.9254 ± 0.0045
Prediction Acc. 0.9254 ± 0.0045
This paper

Coauthor-CS

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Accuracy. The paper reports 1 value on Accuracy and 3 values on Prediction Acc. .

#ModelAccuracy ↑ defaultPrediction Acc. ↑Paper
1
DoG
0.9690 ± 0.0030
—
2
GWN-fa
0.9667 ± 0.0026
—
Prediction Acc. —
3
GWN-sym
0.9666 ± 0.0026
—
Prediction Acc. —
6
GraphSAGE
0.9593 ± 0.0025
—
Prediction Acc. —
88
MLP
0.9280 ± 0.0020
—
184
GMT-lin
—
0.8566 ± 0.0060
Prediction Acc. 0.8566 ± 0.0060
This paper
184
GSAT
—
0.8530 ± 0.0065
Prediction Acc. 0.8530 ± 0.0065
This paper
189
GMT-sam
—
0.8422 ± 0.0100
Prediction Acc. 0.8422 ± 0.0100
This paper
192
SunnyGNN
0.7710 ± 0.0046
—
Prediction Acc. —
This paper

TU Dortmund

MUTAG

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports AUC; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use AUC only.

Sorted by AUC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAUC ↑Paper
1
MoCL-DK-G(CL)
0.9690
2
MoCL+AttrMask-G(CL)
0.9620
3
MoCL-DK
0.9500
8
IB-Subgraph
0.9104 ±0.0659
This paper
14
DIR
0.6444 ±0.2881
This paper
15
GraphMask
0.6223 ±0.0901
This paper
17
GNNExplainer
0.6198 ±0.0545
This paper
18
PGExplainer
0.6091 ±0.1710
This paper

OGB

ogbg-molhiv

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is ROC-AUC. The paper reports 3 values on ROC-AUC and 4 values on AUC (MolHiv column) .

#ModelROC-AUC ↑ defaultAUC (MolHiv column) ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ± 0.0002
—
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ± 0.0003
—
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ± 0.0015
—
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ± 0.0160
—
62
PNA
0.7905 ±0.0132
best reported
—
AUC (MolHiv column) —
paper 0.7891 ±0.0104

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7891 ±0.0104 Δ at pub 0.0014 Δ today 0.0014
138
GMT-sam
—
0.7722 ± 0.0093
AUC (MolHiv column) 0.7722 ± 0.0093
This paper
152
DIR
0.7705
best reported
—
AUC (MolHiv column) —
paper 0.7634 ±0.0101

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7634 ±0.0101 Δ at pub 0.0071 Δ today 0.0071
160
GraphSAGE
0.7690 ± 0.0136
—
163
GMT-lin
—
0.7687 ± 0.0112
AUC (MolHiv column) 0.7687 ± 0.0112
This paper
109
GIN
—
0.7669 ± 0.0125
AUC (MolHiv column) 0.7669 ± 0.0125
This paper
181
IB-Subgraph
0.7643 ± 0.0265
—
AUC (MolHiv column) —
This paper
24
GSAT
—
0.7612 ± 0.0091
AUC (MolHiv column) 0.7612 ± 0.0091
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)