Perks and Pitfalls of Faithfulness in Regular, Self-Explainable and Domain Invariant GNNs
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the "faithfulness" of graph neural networks (GNNs) - the ability of these models to explain their decisions in a way that accurately reflects the underlying reasoning.
- The authors investigate the perks and pitfalls of faithfulness in regular GNNs, self-explainable GNNs, and domain-invariant GNNs.
- They find that while faithful explanations can provide valuable insights, they can also be fragile and vulnerable to adversarial attacks that undermine the explanations.
Plain English Explanation
Graph neural networks (GNNs) are a type of machine learning model that are used to analyze and make predictions about data that can be represented as a graph, such as social networks or molecular structures. A key aspect of these models is their ability to "explain" how they arrived at a particular prediction or decision.
This paper looks at the concept of "faithfulness" - whether the explanations provided by GNNs truly reflect the underlying reasoning used by the model, or if they are just superficial correlations that can be easily manipulated.
The researchers examine regular GNNs, as well as two more advanced variants: self-explainable GNNs, which are designed to provide more transparent explanations, and domain-invariant GNNs, which aim to be robust to changes in the input data.
The findings suggest that while faithful explanations can be helpful in understanding how GNNs work, they can also be fragile and prone to being "tricked" by small changes to the input data. This means that the explanations may not always be a reliable indicator of the model's true decision-making process.
The paper highlights the trade-offs involved in designing GNNs that are both accurate and transparent, and suggests that more research is needed to address the challenges of ensuring faithful explanations in these types of models.
Technical Explanation
The paper explores the faithfulness of explanations provided by graph neural networks (GNNs). Faithfulness refers to the ability of an explanation to accurately reflect the underlying reasoning used by a model to arrive at a particular prediction or decision.
The authors investigate the perks and pitfalls of faithfulness in three types of GNNs:
- Regular GNNs
- Self-explainable GNNs, which are designed to provide more transparent explanations
- Domain-invariant GNNs, which aim to be robust to changes in the input data
Through a series of experiments, the researchers find that while faithful explanations can provide valuable insights into how GNNs make decisions, they can also be fragile and vulnerable to adversarial attacks that undermine the explanations. For example, small changes to the input data can cause the explanations to become inaccurate or misleading.
The paper also explores the trade-offs involved in designing GNNs that are both accurate and transparent. The authors suggest that more research is needed to address the challenges of ensuring faithful explanations in these types of models, and to develop systematic methods for evaluating the explanations.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important concerns about the reliability and robustness of the explanations provided by graph neural networks. While faithful explanations can be valuable, the authors demonstrate that they can also be easily manipulated, undermining their usefulness.
One key limitation of the research is that it focuses primarily on synthetic datasets and controlled experiments. It would be important to see how these findings translate to real-world applications of GNNs, where the input data may be more complex and noisy.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the underlying causes of the fragility of faithful explanations. Further research is needed to understand the specific mechanisms and vulnerabilities that lead to these issues, in order to develop more robust and reliable explanatory approaches.
The authors also do not propose any concrete solutions or strategies for addressing the challenges they identify. While they suggest the need for more systematic evaluation methods, they do not provide specific recommendations for how to design GNNs that can balance accuracy, transparency, and robustness.
Overall, this paper serves as an important wake-up call for the machine learning community, highlighting the need to carefully consider the reliability and limitations of model explanations, particularly in sensitive application domains. Continued research and innovation will be crucial to advancing the state of the art in explainable AI.
Conclusion
This paper provides a critical examination of the faithfulness of explanations provided by graph neural networks (GNNs). The authors find that while faithful explanations can offer valuable insights, they can also be fragile and vulnerable to adversarial attacks that undermine their reliability.
The research highlights the trade-offs involved in designing GNNs that are both accurate and transparent, and suggests that more work is needed to address the challenges of ensuring faithful explanations in these types of models. The findings serve as an important reminder of the need for continued innovation and rigorous evaluation to develop truly reliable and trustworthy explainable AI systems.
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
0
Perks and Pitfalls of Faithfulness in Regular, Self-Explainable and Domain Invariant GNNs
Steve Azzolin, Antonio Longa, Stefano Teso, Andrea Passerini
As Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) become more pervasive, it becomes paramount to build robust tools for computing explanations of their predictions. A key desideratum is that these explanations are faithful, i.e., that they portray an accurate picture of the GNN's reasoning process. A number of different faithfulness metrics exist, begging the question of what faithfulness is exactly, and what its properties are. We begin by showing that existing metrics are not interchangeable -- i.e., explanations attaining high faithfulness according to one metric may be unfaithful according to others -- and can be systematically insensitive to important properties of the explanation, and suggest how to address these issues. We proceed to show that, surprisingly, optimizing for faithfulness is not always a sensible design goal. Specifically, we show that for injective regular GNN architectures, perfectly faithful explanations are completely uninformative. The situation is different for modular GNNs, such as self-explainable and domain-invariant architectures, where optimizing faithfulness does not compromise informativeness, and is also unexpectedly tied to out-of-distribution generalization.
Read more6/24/2024
🔍
0
New!Faithfulness and the Notion of Adversarial Sensitivity in NLP Explanations
Supriya Manna, Niladri Sett
Faithfulness is arguably the most critical metric to assess the reliability of explainable AI. In NLP, current methods for faithfulness evaluation are fraught with discrepancies and biases, often failing to capture the true reasoning of models. We introduce Adversarial Sensitivity as a novel approach to faithfulness evaluation, focusing on the explainer's response when the model is under adversarial attack. Our method accounts for the faithfulness of explainers by capturing sensitivity to adversarial input changes. This work addresses significant limitations in existing evaluation techniques, and furthermore, quantifies faithfulness from a crucial yet underexplored paradigm.
Read more9/27/2024
0
Graph Neural Network Explanations are Fragile
Jiate Li, Meng Pang, Yun Dong, Jinyuan Jia, Binghui Wang
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.
Read more6/6/2024
0
On the Feasibility of Fidelity$^-$ for Graph Pruning
Yong-Min Shin, Won-Yong Shin
As one of popular quantitative metrics to assess the quality of explanation of graph neural networks (GNNs), fidelity measures the output difference after removing unimportant parts of the input graph. Fidelity has been widely used due to its straightforward interpretation that the underlying model should produce similar predictions when features deemed unimportant from the explanation are removed. This raises a natural question: Does fidelity induce a global (soft) mask for graph pruning? To solve this, we aim to explore the potential of the fidelity measure to be used for graph pruning, eventually enhancing the GNN models for better efficiency. To this end, we propose Fidelity$^-$-inspired Pruning (FiP), an effective framework to construct global edge masks from local explanations. Our empirical observations using 7 edge attribution methods demonstrate that, surprisingly, general eXplainable AI methods outperform methods tailored to GNNs in terms of graph pruning performance.
Read more6/18/2024