Towards Faithful Class-level Self-explainability in Graph Neural Networks by Subgraph Dependencies

Fanzhen Liu, Xiaoxia Ma, Jian Yang, A. Abuadbba, Kristen Moore, Surya Nepal, Cécile Paris, Quan Z. Sheng, Jia Wu

Main figure for Towards Faithful Class-level Self-explainability in Graph Neural Networks by Subgraph Dependencies

Abstract

Enhancing the interpretability of graph neural networks (GNNs) is crucial to ensure their safe and fair deployment. Recent work has introduced self-explainable GNNs that generate explanations as part of training, improving both faithfulness and efficiency. Some of these models, such as ProtGNN and PGIB, learn class-specific prototypes, offering a potential pathway toward class-level explanations. However, their evaluations focus solely on instance-level explanations, leaving open the question of whether these prototypes meaningfully generalize across instances of the same class. In this paper, we introduce GraphOracle, a novel self-explainable GNN framework designed to generate and evaluate class-level explanations for GNNs. Our model jointly learns a GNN classifier and a set of structured, sparse subgraphs that are discriminative for each class. We propose a novel integrated training that captures graph–subgraph–prediction dependencies efficiently and faithfully, validated through a masking-based evaluation strategy. This strategy enables us to retroactively assess whether prior methods like ProtGNN and PGIB deliver effective class-level explanations. Our results show that they do not. In contrast, GraphOracle achieves superior fidelity, explainability, and scalability across a range of graph classification tasks. We further demonstrate that GraphOracle avoids the computational bottlenecks of previous methods—like Monte Carlo Tree Search—by using entropy-regularized subgraph selection and lightweight random walk extraction, enabling faster and more scalable training. These findings position GraphOracle as a practical and principled solution for faithful class-level self-explainability in GNNs.

Proposed method: GraphOracle

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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 #330 291 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #330 291 places worse
paper 0.8800 ±0.0245
paper 0.8800 ±0.0245 Δ at pub 0.0530
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #563 500 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #563 500 places worse
paper 0.8200 ±0.0400
paper 0.8200 ±0.0400 Δ at pub 0.1020
81
ProtGNN
actual #81 vs paper #606 525 places worse
0.9170 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #81 vs paper #606 525 places worse
paper 0.8037 ±0.0078
paper 0.8037 ±0.0078 Δ at pub 0.1133
120
GraphOracle
0.9100 ±0.0200
This paper
158
GraphSAGE
actual #158 vs paper #484 326 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0780
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #484 326 places worse
paper 0.8400 ±0.0374

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8400 ±0.0374 Δ at pub 0.0640
183
GAT
actual #183 vs paper #421 238 places worse
0.9010 ±0.0580
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #421 238 places worse
paper 0.8600 ±0.0374

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8600 ±0.0374 Δ at pub 0.0410 Δ today 0.0410
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
715
PGIB
0.7500 ±0.0548
This paper
718
SAGE
0.7490 ±0.0870

MoleculeNet

BACE

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

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GIN
0.9980 ±0.0040
This paper
2
ProtGNN
0.9960 ±0.0049
This paper
3
LAMP-Soft
0.8558 ±0.0143
5
GraphOracle
0.8342 ±0.0087
This paper
17
PGIB
0.5400 ±0.0460
This paper
18
GCN
0.5220 ±0.0040
This paper
19
GAT
0.5200
This paper
20
GraphSAGE
0.5200
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)