CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 355Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Advanced Graph Neural NetworksPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

Parameterized Explainer for Graph Neural Network

Open access
Luo, Dongsheng, Cheng, Wei, Xu, Dongkuan, Yu, Wenchao, Zong, Bo, Chen, Haifeng, Zhang, Xiang·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2011.04573arXiv 2011.04573
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite recent progress in Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), explaining predictions made by GNNs remains a challenging open problem. The leading method independently addresses the local explanations (i.e., important subgraph structure and node features) to interpret why a GNN model makes the prediction for a single instance, e.g. a node or a graph. As a result, the explanation generated is painstakingly customized for each instance. The unique explanation interpreting each instance independently is not sufficient to provide a global understanding of the learned GNN model, leading to a lack of generalizability and hindering it from being used in the inductive setting. Besides, as it is designed for explaining a single instance, it is challenging to explain a set of instances naturally (e.g., graphs of a given class). In this study, we address these key challenges and propose PGExplainer, a parameterized explainer for GNNs. PGExplainer adopts a deep neural network to parameterize the generation process of explanations, which enables PGExplainer a natural approach to explaining multiple instances collectively. Compared to the existing work, PGExplainer has better generalization ability and can be utilized in an inductive setting easily. Experiments on both synthetic and real-life datasets show highly competitive performance with up to 24.7\% relative improvement in AUC on explaining graph classification over the leading baseline.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2011.04573

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. [1][1] Abubakar Abid, Muhammad Fatih Balin, and James Zou. Concrete autoencoders for differentiable feature selection and reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09346 , 2019. - · arXiv
  2. [2][2] Raman Arora and Jalaj Upadhyay. On differentially private graph sparsification and applications. In NeurIPS , pages 13378-13389, 2019. -
  3. [4][4] Joan Bruna, Wojciech Zaremba, Arthur Szlam, and Yann LeCun. Spectral networks and locally connected networks on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6203 , 2013. - · arXiv
  4. [5][5] Rich Caruana, Yin Lou, Johannes Gehrke, Paul Koch, Marc Sturm, and Noemie Elhadad. Intelligible models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission. In KDD , pages 1721-1730, 2015. -
  5. [6][6] Jianbo Chen, Le Song, Martin J Wainwright, and Michael I Jordan. Learning to explain: An information-theoretic perspective on model interpretation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07814 , 2018. - · arXiv
  6. [7][7] L Paul Chew. There are planar graphs almost as good as the complete graph. Journal of Computer and System Sciences , 39(2):205-219, 1989. -
  7. [8][8] Piotr Dabkowski and Yarin Gal. Real time image saliency for black box classifiers. In NIPS , pages 6967-6976, 2017. -
  8. [9][9] Asim Kumar Debnath, Rosa L Lopez de Compadre, Gargi Debnath, Alan J Shusterman, and Corwin Hansch. Structure-activity relationship of mutagenic aromatic and heteroaromatic nitro compounds. correlation with molecular orbital energies and hydrophobicity. Journal of medicinal chemistry , 34(2):786-797, 1991. -
  9. [10][10] Michaël Defferrard, Xavier Bresson, and Pierre Vandergheynst. Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering. In NIPS , pages 3844-3852, 2016. -
  10. [11][11] P ERDdS and A R&wi. On random graphs i. Publ. Math. Debrecen , 6(290-297):18, 1959. -
  11. [12][12] D. Erhan, Y. Bengio, A. Courville, and P. Vincent. Visualizing higher-layer features of a deep network. University of Montreal , 1341(3):1, 2019. -
  12. [13][13] Wenqi Fan, Yao Ma, Qing Li, Yuan He, Eric Zhao, Jiliang Tang, and Dawei Yin. Graph neural networks for social recommendation. In The Web Conference , pages 417-426, 2019. -
  13. [14][14] Ruth C Fong and Andrea Vedaldi. Interpretable explanations of black boxes by meaningful perturbation. In ICCV , pages 3429-3437, 2017. -
  14. [15][15] Edgar N Gilbert. Random graphs. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 30(4):1141-1144, 1959. -
  15. [16][16] Justin Gilmer, Samuel S Schoenholz, Patrick F Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E Dahl. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In ICML , pages 1263-1272, 2017. -
  16. [17][17] Marco Gori, Gabriele Monfardini, and Franco Scarselli. A new model for learning in graph domains. In IJCNN , volume 2, pages 729-734. IEEE, 2005. -
  17. [18][18] Aditya Grover, Aaron Zweig, and Stefano Ermon. Graphite: Iterative generative modeling of graphs. In ICML , 2019. -
  18. [19][19] Wenbo Guo, Sui Huang, Yunzhe Tao, Xinyu Xing, and Lin Lin. Explaining deep learning models-a bayesian non-parametric approach. In NeurIPS , pages 4514-4524, 2018. -
  19. [20][20] Wenbo Guo, Dongliang Mu, Jun Xu, Purui Su, Gang Wang, and Xinyu Xing. Lemna: Explaining deep learning based security applications. In CCS , pages 364-379, 2018. -
  20. [21][21] Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In NIPS , pages 1024-1034, 2017. -
  21. [22][22] Gecia Bravo Hermsdorff and Lee M Gunderson. A unifying framework for spectrum-preserving graph sparsification and coarsening. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09702 , 2019. - · arXiv
  22. [23][23] Peter D Hoff, Adrian E Raftery, and Mark S Handcock. Latent space approaches to social network analysis. Journal of the american Statistical association , 97(460):1090-1098, 2002. -
  23. [24][24] Eric Jang, Shixiang Gu, and Ben Poole. Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01144 , 2016. - · arXiv
  24. [25][25] Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 , 2016. - · arXiv
  25. [26][26] Himabindu Lakkaraju, Ece Kamar, Rich Caruana, and Jure Leskovec. Interpretable & explorable approximations of black box models. CoRR , abs/1707.01154, 2017. - · arXiv
  26. [27][27] Jure Leskovec, Jon Kleinberg, and Christos Faloutsos. Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters and possible explanations. In KDD , pages 177-187, 2005. -
  27. [28][28] Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, and Dan Jurafsky. Understanding neural networks through representation erasure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.08220 , 2016. - · arXiv
  28. [29][29] Ruoyu Li, Sheng Wang, Feiyun Zhu, and Junzhou Huang. Adaptive graph convolutional neural networks. In AAAI , 2018. -
  29. [30][30] Chundi Liu, Guangwei Yu, Maksims Volkovs, Cheng Chang, Himanshu Rai, Junwei Ma, and Satya Krishna Gorti. Guided similarity separation for image retrieval. In NeurIPS , pages 1554-1564, 2019. -
  30. [32][32] Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In NIPS , pages 4765-4774, 2017. -
  31. [33][33] Dongsheng Luo, Yuchen Bian, Yaowei Yan, Xiao Liu, Jun Huan, and Xiang Zhang. Local community detection in multiple networks. In KDD , 2020. -
  32. [34][34] Jianxin Ma, Peng Cui, Kun Kuang, Xin Wang, and Wenwu Zhu. Disentangled graph convolutional networks. In ICML , pages 4212-4221, 2019. -
  33. [35][35] Jiaqi Ma, Weijing Tang, Ji Zhu, and Qiaozhu Mei. A flexible generative framework for graphbased semi-supervised learning. In NeurIPS , pages 3276-3285, 2019. -
  34. [36][36] Chris J Maddison, Andriy Mnih, and Yee Whye Teh. The concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00712 , 2016. - · arXiv
  35. [37][37] Mark Newman. Networks . Oxford university press, 2018. -
  36. [38][38] Phillip E Pope, Soheil Kolouri, Mohammad Rostami, Charles E Martin, and Heiko Hoffmann. Explainability methods for graph convolutional neural networks. In CVPR , 2019. -
  37. [39][39] Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. " why should i trust you?" explaining the predictions of any classifier. In KDD , pages 1135-1144, 2016. -
  38. [40][40] Kaspar Riesen and Horst Bunke. Iam graph database repository for graph based pattern recognition and machine learning. In Joint IAPR International Workshops on Statistical Techniques in Pattern Recognition (SPR) and Structural and Syntactic Pattern Recognition (SSPR) , pages 287-297. Springer, 2008. -
  39. [41][41] Franco Scarselli, Marco Gori, Ah Chung Tsoi, Markus Hagenbuchner, and Gabriele Monfardini. The graph neural network model. IEEE TNN , 20(1):61-80, 2008. -
  40. [42][42] David I Shuman, Sunil K Narang, Pascal Frossard, Antonio Ortega, and Pierre Vandergheynst. The emerging field of signal processing on graphs: Extending high-dimensional data analysis to networks and other irregular domains. IEEE signal processing magazine , 30(3):83-98, 2013. -
  41. [43][43] Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. ICML , 2017. -
  42. [45][45] Petar Veliˇ ckovi´ c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 , 2017. - · arXiv
  43. [46][46] Chi-Jen Wang, Seokjoo Chae, Leonid A Bunimovich, and Benjamin Z Webb. Uncovering hierarchical structure in social networks using isospectral reductions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03385 , 2017. - · arXiv
  44. [47][47] Dongkuan Xu, Wei Cheng, Dongsheng Luo, Yameng Gu, Xiao Liu, Jingchao Ni, Bo Zong, Haifeng Chen, and Xiang Zhang. Adaptive neural network for node classification in dynamic networks. In ICDM , 2019. -
  45. [48][48] Dongkuan Xu, Wei Cheng, Dongsheng Luo, Xiao Liu, and Xiang Zhang. Spatio-temporal attentive rnn for node classification in temporal attributed graphs. In IJCAI , 2019. -
  46. [49][49] Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. How powerful are graph neural networks? arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826 , 2018. - · arXiv
  47. [50][50] Chengliang Yang, Anand Rangarajan, and Sanjay Ranka. Global model interpretation via recursive partitioning. In HPCC , pages 1563-1570. IEEE, 2018. -
  48. [51][51] Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. Graph convolutional networks for text classification. In AAAI , volume 33, pages 7370-7377, 2019. -
  49. [52][52] Rex Ying, Ruining He, Kaifeng Chen, Pong Eksombatchai, William L Hamilton, and Jure Leskovec. Graph convolutional neural networks for web-scale recommender systems. In KDD , pages 974-983, 2018. -
  50. [53][53] Zhitao Ying, Dylan Bourgeois, Jiaxuan You, Marinka Zitnik, and Jure Leskovec. Gnnexplainer: Generating explanations for graph neural networks. In NeurIPS , pages 9240-9251, 2019. -
  51. [54][54] Jiaxuan You, Rex Ying, Xiang Ren, William L Hamilton, and Jure Leskovec. Graphrnn: Generating realistic graphs with deep auto-regressive models. In ICML , 2018. -
  52. [55][55] Hao Yuan, Jiliang Tang, Xia Hu, and Shuiwang Ji. Xgnn: Towards model-level explanations of graph neural networks. In KDD , 2020. -
  53. [56][56] Muhan Zhang and Yixin Chen. Link prediction based on graph neural networks. In NeurIPS , pages 5165-5175, 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Luo, D., Cheng, W., Xu, D., Yu, W., Zong, B., Chen, H., & Zhang, X.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • NEC (Japan) (JP)
  • Penn State Cancer Institute (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2011.04573
arXiv
2011.04573
OpenAlex
W3103717137
Cited by
355
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
graph neural networks, explainable AI, graph classification, local explanations

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