Quantitative evaluation of explainable graph neural networks for molecular property prediction
Open accessAbstract
Graph neural networks (GNNs) have received increasing attention because of their expressive power on topological data, but they are still criticized for their lack of interpretability. To interpret GNN models, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods have been developed. However, these methods are limited to qualitative analyses without quantitative assessments from the real-world datasets due to a lack of ground truths. In this study, we have established five XAI-specific molecular property benchmarks, including two synthetic and three experimental datasets. Through the datasets, we quantitatively assessed six XAI methods on four GNN models and made comparisons with seven medicinal chemists of different experience levels. The results demonstrated that XAI methods could deliver reliable and informative answers for medicinal chemists in identifying the key substructures. Moreover, the identified substructures were shown to complement existing classical fingerprints to improve molecular property predictions, and the improvements increased with the growth of training data.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
"Explainable" AI/ML benchmarks are flourishing, aimed at finding substructures in a molecule that determine bioactivity, in agreement with medicinal chemistry expertise.
“Accordingly, “explainable” AI/ML benchmarks are flourishing, aimed at finding substructures in a molecule that determine bioactivity, in agreement with medicinal chemistry expertise.273”
From Advancing Targeted Protein Degradation via Multiomics Profiling and Artificial Intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as [273]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 90
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- [6]Sanchez-Gonzalez A. Heess N. Springenberg J.T. Merel J. Riedmiller M. Hadsell R. Battaglia P. Graph networks as learnable physics engines for inference and control 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018 2018 PMLR 7097 7117
- [7]Gilmer J. Schoenholz S.S. Riley P.F. Vinyals O. Dahl G.E. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017 2017 PMLR 2053 2070
- [17]Jin W. Barzilay R. Jaakkola T. Multi-objective molecule generation using interpretable substructures 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020 2020 PMLR 4799 4809
- [31]Yu J. Xu T. Rong Y. Bian Y. Huang J. He R. Graph information bottleneck for subgraph recognition Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. 2020
- [37]Hu W. Fey M. Zitnik M. Dong Y. Ren H. Liu B. Open graph benchmark: datasets for machine learning on graphs Larochelle H. Ranzato M. Hadsell R. Balcan M.-F. Lin H.-T. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2020 Thirty-fourth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 22118 22133
- [47]Hamilton W.L. Ying R. Leskovec J. Inductive representation learning on large graphs Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 30 2017
- [48]Veličković P. Casanova A. Liò P. Cucurull G. Romero A. Bengio Y. Graph attention networks 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018 - Conference Track Proceedings 2018 International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)
- [53]Shrikumar A. Greenside P. Kundaje A. Learning important features through propagating activation differences 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017 2017 PMLR 4844 4866
- [54]Sundararajan M. Taly A. Yan Q. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks 34th International Conference on Machine Learning 2017 ICML 2017 5109 5118 10.5555/3305890 · DOI
- Authors
- Rao, J., Zheng, S., Lu, Y., & Yang, Y.
- Affiliations
- Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Yang, Yuedong
- Venue
- Patterns
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-12
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 100628
- ISSN
- 2666-3899 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9782255
- OpenAlex
- W4309258819
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 7
- FWCI
- 5.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Patterns (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61772566, 62041209)
- National Key Research and Development Program of China (2020YFB0204803)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
- Keywords
- explainable AI, graph neural networks, molecular property prediction, interpretability, molecular fingerprints
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review