Quantifying the Intrinsic Usefulness of Attributional Explanations for Graph Neural Networks with Artificial Simulatability Studies
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite the increasing relevance of explainable AI, assessing the quality of explanations remains a challenging issue. Due to the high costs associated with human-subject experiments, various proxy metrics are often used to approximately quantify explanation quality. Generally, one possible interpretation of the quality of an explanation is its inherent value for teaching a related concept to a student. In this work, we extend artificial simulatability studies to the domain of graph neural networks. Instead of costly human trials, we use explanation-supervisable graph neural networks to perform simulatability studies to quantify the inherent usefulness of attributional graph explanations. We perform an extensive ablation study to investigate the conditions under which the proposed analyses are most meaningful. We additionally validate our methods applicability on real-world graph classification and regression datasets. We find that relevant explanations can significantly boost the sample efficiency of graph neural networks and analyze the robustness towards noise and bias in the explanations. We believe that the notion of usefulness obtained from our proposed simulatability analysis provides a dimension of explanation quality that is largely orthogonal to the common practice of faithfulness and has great potential to expand the toolbox of explanation quality assessments, specifically for graph explanations.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 May 2023.
Builds on
22 of 28 references.
References · 22
- 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,416
- 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,156
- 2020Parameterized Explainer for Graph Neural Networkcited by 426
- 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 333
- 2020Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior?cited by 190
- 2018On Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detectioncited by 159
- 2021Generative Causal Explanations for Graph Neural Networkscited by 124
- 2021ProtGNN: Towards Self-Explaining Graph Neural Networkscited by 96
- 2020Leakage-Adjusted Simulatability: Can Models Generate Non-Trivial Explanations of Their Behavior in Natural Language?cited by 95
- 2020Evaluating Explanations: How much do explanations from the teacher aid students?cited by 94
- 2020"Why is 'Chicago' deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humanscited by 86
- 2022Learning and Evaluating Graph Neural Network Explanations based on Counterfactual and Factual Reasoningcited by 79
10 more
- 2021Towards Self-Explainable Graph Neural Networkcited by 75
- 2018Do Explanations make VQA Models more Predictable to a Human?cited by 52
- 2021GCExplainer: Human-in-the-Loop Concept-based Explanations for Graph Neural Networkscited by 35
- 2021CYBORG: Blending Human Saliency Into the Loss Improves Deep Learningcited by 33
- 2021Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanationscited by 26
- 2022Learning to Scaffold: Optimizing Model Explanations for Teachingcited by 20
- 2022Encoding Concepts in Graph Neural Networkscited by 18
- 2022MEGAN: Multi-Explanation Graph Attention Networkcited by 7
- 2022GRETEL: A unified framework for Graph Counterfactual Explanation Evaluationcited by 6
- 2022PAGE: Prototype-Based Model-Level Explanations for Graph Neural Networkscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1.
1 paper.