Graph Neural Network Explanations are Fragile
2406.03193
0
0
Abstract
Explainable Graph Neural Network (GNN) has emerged recently to foster the trust of using GNNs. Existing GNN explainers are developed from various perspectives to enhance the explanation performance. We take the first step to study GNN explainers under adversarial attack--We found that an adversary slightly perturbing graph structure can ensure GNN model makes correct predictions, but the GNN explainer yields a drastically different explanation on the perturbed graph. Specifically, we first formulate the attack problem under a practical threat model (i.e., the adversary has limited knowledge about the GNN explainer and a restricted perturbation budget). We then design two methods (i.e., one is loss-based and the other is deduction-based) to realize the attack. We evaluate our attacks on various GNN explainers and the results show these explainers are fragile.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the fragility of explanations provided by Graph Neural Network (GNN) models.
- GNNs are a type of machine learning model that operate on graph-structured data, such as social networks or molecular structures.
- Explanations of GNN decisions are important for understanding and trusting these models, but the authors find that these explanations can be easily manipulated.
Plain English Explanation
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are a powerful type of machine learning model that can be used to analyze and make predictions about data that is structured like a graph, such as social networks or molecular structures. These models are good at learning important patterns and relationships in graph-structured data, and can be used for a variety of tasks like link stealing attacks against inductive graph neural or generating distribution proxy graphs for explaining graph neural.
However, one key challenge with GNNs is that it can be difficult to understand how they are making their decisions. To address this, researchers have developed "GNN explainers" - methods that try to explain the reasoning behind a GNN's predictions. But this paper finds that these GNN explanations are actually quite fragile and can be easily manipulated or changed without affecting the model's actual performance.
Imagine you have a GNN that is predicting whether a social media user is likely to be interested in a particular product. The GNN explainer might highlight certain connections in the user's social network as being important to its decision. But the authors show that you could make small changes to the network, like adding or removing a few connections, that don't affect the model's prediction at all, but completely change the explanation provided by the GNN explainer. This means the explanations may not be reliable or trustworthy.
The authors explore this issue in depth, conducting experiments to demonstrate the fragility of GNN explanations across different datasets and model architectures. They find that the explanations can be manipulated in ways that seem counterintuitive, and that current GNN explainers are not robust to these types of changes. This raises important questions about the reliability and transparency of GNNs, especially in high-stakes applications like design requirements for human-centered graph neural network or intelligible and effective graph neural additive networks.
Technical Explanation
The authors investigate the fragility of explanations provided by Graph Neural Network (GNN) models. GNNs are a class of machine learning models that operate on graph-structured data, learning to make predictions by aggregating information from a node's local neighborhood.
To understand the decisions made by GNNs, researchers have developed a variety of GNN explainer methods, which aim to identify the most important nodes and edges in the input graph that contributed to a given prediction. However, the authors hypothesize that these explanations may be fragile - i.e., they can be easily manipulated without affecting the model's actual performance.
The authors conduct experiments on multiple GNN models and datasets, including GraphFrameX: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Explainability Methods for Graph and Generating Distribution Proxy Graphs for Explaining Graph Neural. They systematically perturb the input graphs in ways that preserve the model's predictions, but significantly alter the explanations provided by various GNN explainer methods.
The results show that GNN explanations are indeed highly fragile, with even small changes to the input graph leading to large changes in the explanation, while the model's performance remains largely unaffected. The authors find that this fragility holds across different GNN architectures, datasets, and explanation methods.
These findings raise important concerns about the reliability and transparency of GNNs, especially in high-stakes applications where explanations are crucial for building trust and understanding the model's decision-making process. The authors suggest that future work should focus on developing robust and trustworthy GNN explainers that are resistant to such perturbations.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and well-designed investigation into the fragility of GNN explanations, which is a critical issue for the deployment of these models in real-world applications. The authors' experiments are rigorous and their findings are convincing, highlighting the need for further research in this area.
One key limitation of the study is that it focuses primarily on graph structure perturbations, while not exploring the effects of other types of input changes, such as node feature modifications. It would be valuable to understand the robustness of GNN explanations to a wider range of perturbations, as real-world data may be subject to various forms of noise or manipulation.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the underlying reasons for the fragility of GNN explanations. Understanding the mechanisms that drive this phenomenon could inform the development of more intelligible and effective graph neural additive networks or design requirements for human-centered graph neural network that are resistant to such issues.
Overall, this paper makes an important contribution to the field of explainable AI for graph-structured data, highlighting a critical challenge that must be addressed to build trust and transparency in the use of GNNs. The insights provided here should motivate further research into robust and reliable GNN explainers, which will be crucial for the widespread adoption of these powerful models.
Conclusion
This paper presents a critical analysis of the fragility of explanations provided by Graph Neural Network (GNN) models. The authors demonstrate through rigorous experiments that even small changes to the input graph can significantly alter the explanations generated by various GNN explainer methods, while the model's actual performance remains largely unaffected.
These findings raise important concerns about the reliability and transparency of GNNs, especially in high-stakes applications where explanations are crucial for building trust and understanding the model's decision-making process. The paper highlights the need for future research to develop robust and trustworthy GNN explainers that are resistant to such perturbations, which will be essential for the widespread adoption and responsible use of these powerful machine learning models.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Explainable Graph Neural Networks Under Fire
Zhong Li, Simon Geisler, Yuhang Wang, Stephan Gunnemann, Matthijs van Leeuwen
0
0
Predictions made by graph neural networks (GNNs) usually lack interpretability due to their complex computational behavior and the abstract nature of graphs. In an attempt to tackle this, many GNN explanation methods have emerged. Their goal is to explain a model's predictions and thereby obtain trust when GNN models are deployed in decision critical applications. Most GNN explanation methods work in a post-hoc manner and provide explanations in the form of a small subset of important edges and/or nodes. In this paper we demonstrate that these explanations can unfortunately not be trusted, as common GNN explanation methods turn out to be highly susceptible to adversarial perturbations. That is, even small perturbations of the original graph structure that preserve the model's predictions may yield drastically different explanations. This calls into question the trustworthiness and practical utility of post-hoc explanation methods for GNNs. To be able to attack GNN explanation models, we devise a novel attack method dubbed textit{GXAttack}, the first textit{optimization-based} adversarial attack method for post-hoc GNN explanations under such settings. Due to the devastating effectiveness of our attack, we call for an adversarial evaluation of future GNN explainers to demonstrate their robustness.
6/11/2024
Explainable AI Security: Exploring Robustness of Graph Neural Networks to Adversarial Attacks
Tao Wu, Canyixing Cui, Xingping Xian, Shaojie Qiao, Chao Wang, Lin Yuan, Shui Yu
0
0
Graph neural networks (GNNs) have achieved tremendous success, but recent studies have shown that GNNs are vulnerable to adversarial attacks, which significantly hinders their use in safety-critical scenarios. Therefore, the design of robust GNNs has attracted increasing attention. However, existing research has mainly been conducted via experimental trial and error, and thus far, there remains a lack of a comprehensive understanding of the vulnerability of GNNs. To address this limitation, we systematically investigate the adversarial robustness of GNNs by considering graph data patterns, model-specific factors, and the transferability of adversarial examples. Through extensive experiments, a set of principled guidelines is obtained for improving the adversarial robustness of GNNs, for example: (i) rather than highly regular graphs, the training graph data with diverse structural patterns is crucial for model robustness, which is consistent with the concept of adversarial training; (ii) the large model capacity of GNNs with sufficient training data has a positive effect on model robustness, and only a small percentage of neurons in GNNs are affected by adversarial attacks; (iii) adversarial transfer is not symmetric and the adversarial examples produced by the small-capacity model have stronger adversarial transferability. This work illuminates the vulnerabilities of GNNs and opens many promising avenues for designing robust GNNs.
6/21/2024
🧠
GraphFramEx: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Explainability Methods for Graph Neural Networks
Kenza Amara, Rex Ying, Zitao Zhang, Zhihao Han, Yinan Shan, Ulrik Brandes, Sebastian Schemm, Ce Zhang
0
0
As one of the most popular machine learning models today, graph neural networks (GNNs) have attracted intense interest recently, and so does their explainability. Users are increasingly interested in a better understanding of GNN models and their outcomes. Unfortunately, today's evaluation frameworks for GNN explainability often rely on few inadequate synthetic datasets, leading to conclusions of limited scope due to a lack of complexity in the problem instances. As GNN models are deployed to more mission-critical applications, we are in dire need for a common evaluation protocol of explainability methods of GNNs. In this paper, we propose, to our best knowledge, the first systematic evaluation framework for GNN explainability, considering explainability on three different user needs. We propose a unique metric that combines the fidelity measures and classifies explanations based on their quality of being sufficient or necessary. We scope ourselves to node classification tasks and compare the most representative techniques in the field of input-level explainability for GNNs. For the inadequate but widely used synthetic benchmarks, surprisingly shallow techniques such as personalized PageRank have the best performance for a minimum computation time. But when the graph structure is more complex and nodes have meaningful features, gradient-based methods are the best according to our evaluation criteria. However, none dominates the others on all evaluation dimensions and there is always a trade-off. We further apply our evaluation protocol in a case study for frauds explanation on eBay transaction graphs to reflect the production environment.
5/24/2024
🧠
L2XGNN: Learning to Explain Graph Neural Networks
Giuseppe Serra, Mathias Niepert
0
0
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are a popular class of machine learning models. Inspired by the learning to explain (L2X) paradigm, we propose L2XGNN, a framework for explainable GNNs which provides faithful explanations by design. L2XGNN learns a mechanism for selecting explanatory subgraphs (motifs) which are exclusively used in the GNNs message-passing operations. L2XGNN is able to select, for each input graph, a subgraph with specific properties such as being sparse and connected. Imposing such constraints on the motifs often leads to more interpretable and effective explanations. Experiments on several datasets suggest that L2XGNN achieves the same classification accuracy as baseline methods using the entire input graph while ensuring that only the provided explanations are used to make predictions. Moreover, we show that L2XGNN is able to identify motifs responsible for the graph's properties it is intended to predict.
6/17/2024