LoG 2024

xAI-Drop: Don't Use What You Cannot Explain

Vincenzo Marco De Luca, A. Longa, Andrea Passerini, Pietro Liò

Main figure for xAI-Drop: Don't Use What You Cannot Explain

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have emerged as the predominant paradigm for learning from graph-structured data, offering a wide range of applications from social network analysis to bioinformatics. Despite their versatility, GNNs face challenges such as lack of generalization and poor interpretability, which hinder their wider adoption and reliability in critical applications. Dropping has emerged as an effective paradigm for improving the generalization capabilities of GNNs. However, existing approaches often rely on random or heuristic-based selection criteria, lacking a principled method to identify and exclude nodes that contribute to noise and over-complexity in the model. In this work, we argue that explainability should be a key indicator of a model's quality throughout its training phase. To this end, we introduce xAI-Drop, a novel topological-level dropping regularizer that leverages explainability to pinpoint noisy network elements to be excluded from the GNN propagation mechanism. An empirical evaluation on diverse real-world datasets demonstrates that our method outperforms current state-of-the-art dropping approaches in accuracy, and improves explanation quality.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 1 baseline value reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
0.9004
43
DropEdge
actual #43 vs paper #656 613 places worse
0.8900
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #656 613 places worse
paper 0.8000 ±0.0050
paper 0.8000 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0900
440
xAI-DropNode
0.8280 ±0.0050
This paper
507
ExPass
0.8220 ±0.0060
This paper
551
ENGAGE
0.8180 ±0.0040
This paper
619
DropNode
actual #619 vs paper #656 37 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #619 vs paper #656 37 places worse
paper 0.8000 ±0.0050
paper 0.8000 ±0.0050 Δ today 0.0080
621
DropMess
0.8080 ±0.0050
This paper
647
MATE
0.8030 ±0.0040
This paper
657
DropAggr
0.8000 ±0.0060
This paper
688
Learn2Drop
0.7930 ±0.0110
This paper
695
GCN Baseline
0.7900 ±0.0030
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
786
BBGDC
0.7420 ±0.0030
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