DARTS-GT: Differentiable Architecture Search for Graph Transformers with Quantifiable Instance-Specific Interpretability Analysis

Shruti Sarika Chakraborty, Peter Minary

Main figure for DARTS-GT: Differentiable Architecture Search for Graph Transformers with Quantifiable Instance-Specific Interpretability Analysis

Abstract

Graph Transformers (GTs) have emerged as powerful architectures for graph-structured data, yet remain constrained by rigid designs and lack quantifiable interpretability. Current state-of-the-art GTs commit to fixed GNN types across all layers, missing potential benefits of depth-specific component selection, while their complex architectures become opaque where performance gains cannot be distinguished between meaningful patterns and spurious correlations. We redesign GT attention through asymmetry, decoupling structural encoding from feature representation: queries derive from node features while keys and values come from GNN transformations. Within this framework, we use Differentiable ARchiTecture Search (DARTS) to select optimal GNN operators at each layer, enabling depth-wise heterogeneity inside transformer attention itself (DARTS-GT). To understand discovered architectures, we develop the first quantitative interpretability framework for GTs through causal ablation. Our metrics (Head-deviation, Specialization, and Focus), identify which heads and nodes drive predictions while enabling model comparison. Experiments across eight benchmarks show DARTS-GT achieves state-of-the-art on four datasets while remaining competitive on others, with discovered architectures revealing dataset-specific patterns. Our interpretability analysis reveals that visual attention salience and causal importance do not always correlate, indicating widely used visualization approaches may miss components that actually matter. Crucially, heterogeneous architectures found by DARTS-GT consistently produced more interpretable models than baselines, establishing that Graph Transformers need not choose between performance and interpretability.

Proposed method: DARTS-GT

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GRPE-Small
0.8159 ±0.0019
2
TANGO-GPS
0.8011 ±0.0014
3
GRIT
0.8003 ±0.0028
5
EGTAS
0.7924 ±0.0022
This paper
6
EGT
0.7923 ±0.0035
This paper
13
DARTS-GT
0.7830 ±0.0007
This paper
18
UGAS
0.7814 ±0.0021
This paper
22
GPS
0.7802 ±0.0018
This paper
23
K-Subgraph SAT
0.7786 ±0.0010
This paper
50
SAN
0.7669 ±0.0065
This paper
54
GatedGCN
actual #54 vs paper #62 8 places worse
0.7608 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #62 8 places worse
paper 0.7384 ±0.0033
paper 0.7384 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0224
67
GAT
0.7059 ±0.0045
This paper
70
GCN
actual #70 vs paper #71 1 place worse
0.6903 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #71 1 place worse
paper 0.6850 ±0.0098

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6850 ±0.0098 Δ at pub 0.0053
79
GIN
0.6472 ±0.0155
This paper
80
GraphSAGE
0.6388 ±0.0011
114
MLP
0.2097 ±0.0000
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DeepGraph (48)
0.9066 ±0.0006
2
GRIT (our run)
0.9041 ±0.0023
3
GRIT 2-QiQRW
0.9016 ±0.0045
12
UGAS
0.8689 ±0.0200
This paper
19
GIN-AK+
0.8685 ±0.0570
This paper
21
K-Subgraph SAT
0.8685 ±0.0370
This paper
24
EGT
0.8682 ±0.0200
This paper
38
EGTAS
0.8674 ±0.0530
This paper
46
DARTS-GT
0.8670
This paper
50
GPS
0.8669 ±0.0590
This paper
51
DGN
0.8668 ±0.0340
This paper
58
SAN
0.8658 ±0.0370
This paper
66
GatedGCN
actual #66 vs paper #91 25 places worse
0.8651 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #91 25 places worse
paper 0.8557 ±0.0880
best at pub: IJCAI--23 Formatting Instructions (IJCAI 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8557 ±0.0880 Δ at pub 0.0094
88
GCN
actual #88 vs paper #116 28 places worse
0.8561 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #116 28 places worse
paper 0.7189 ±0.3340

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7189 ±0.3340 Δ at pub 0.1372
89
GIN
actual #89 vs paper #94 5 places worse
0.8559 ±0.0001
best reported
actual #89 vs paper #94 5 places worse
paper 0.8539 ±0.1360
best at pub: Factorizable Graph Convolutional Networks (NeurIPS 2020)
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8539 ±0.1360 Δ at pub 0.0020 Δ today 0.0020
107
GAT
0.7827 ±0.1860
This paper
118
Vanilla-GT
0.6810 ±0.1990
This paper
123
MLP
0.5052
124
GraphSAGE
0.5052 ±0.0000
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)