On Discprecncies between Perturbation Evaluations of Graph Neural Network Attributions

Abstract

Neural networks are increasingly finding their way into the realm of graphs and modeling relationships between features. Concurrently graph neural network explanation approaches are being invented to uncover relationships between the nodes of the graphs. However, there is a disparity between the existing attribution methods, and it is unclear which attribution to trust. Therefore research has introduced evaluation experiments that assess them from different perspectives. In this work, we assess attribution methods from a perspective not previously explored in the graph domain: retraining. The core idea is to retrain the network on important (or not important) relationships as identified by the attributions and evaluate how networks can generalize based on these relationships. We reformulate the retraining framework to sidestep issues lurking in the previous formulation and propose guidelines for correct analysis. We run our analysis on four state-of-the-art GNN attribution methods and five synthetic and real-world graph classification datasets. The analysis reveals that attributions perform variably depending on the dataset and the network. Most importantly, we observe that the famous GNNExplainer performs similarly to an arbitrary designation of edge importance. The study concludes that the retraining evaluation cannot be used as a generalized benchmark and recommends it as a toolset to evaluate attributions on a specifically addressed network, dataset, and sparsity.