Steve Azzolin

Steve Azzolin, Antonio Longa, Pietro Barbiero et al.

While instance-level explanation of GNN is a well-studied problem with plenty of approaches being developed, providing a global explanation for the behaviour of a GNN is much less explored, despite its potential in interpretability and debugging. Existing solutions either simply list local explanations for a given class, or generate a synthetic prototypical graph with maximal score for a given class, completely missing any combinatorial aspect that the GNN could have learned. In this work, we propose GLGExplainer (Global Logic-based GNN Explainer), the first Global Explainer capable of generating explanations as arbitrary Boolean combinations of learned graphical concepts. GLGExplainer is a fully differentiable architecture that takes local explanations as inputs and combines them into a logic formula over graphical concepts, represented as clusters of local explanations. Contrary to existing solutions, GLGExplainer provides accurate and human-interpretable global explanations that are perfectly aligned with ground-truth explanations (on synthetic data) or match existing domain knowledge (on real-world data). Extracted formulas are faithful to the model predictions, to the point of providing insights into some occasionally incorrect rules learned by the model, making GLGExplainer a promising diagnostic tool for learned GNNs.

Steve Azzolin, Stefano Teso, Bruno Lepri et al.

Explanations provided by Self-explainable Graph Neural Networks (SE-GNNs) are fundamental for understanding the model's inner workings and for identifying potential misuse of sensitive attributes. Although recent works have highlighted that these explanations can be suboptimal and potentially misleading, a characterization of their failure cases is unavailable. In this work, we identify a critical failure of SE-GNN explanations: explanations can be unambiguously unrelated to how the SE-GNNs infer labels. We show that, on the one hand, many SE-GNNs can achieve optimal true risk while producing these degenerate explanations, and on the other, most faithfulness metrics can fail to identify these failure modes. Our empirical analysis reveals that degenerate explanations can be maliciously planted (allowing an attacker to hide the use of sensitive attributes) and can also emerge naturally, highlighting the need for reliable auditing. To address this, we introduce a novel faithfulness metric that reliably marks degenerate explanations as unfaithful, in both malicious and natural settings. Our code is available in the supplemental.

Antonio Longa, Steve Azzolin, Gabriele Santin et al.

Following a fast initial breakthrough in graph based learning, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have reached a widespread application in many science and engineering fields, prompting the need for methods to understand their decision process. GNN explainers have started to emerge in recent years, with a multitude of methods both novel or adapted from other domains. To sort out this plethora of alternative approaches, several studies have benchmarked the performance of different explainers in terms of various explainability metrics. However, these earlier works make no attempts at providing insights into why different GNN architectures are more or less explainable, or which explainer should be preferred in a given setting. In this survey, we fill these gaps by devising a systematic experimental study, which tests ten explainers on eight representative architectures trained on six carefully designed graph and node classification datasets. With our results we provide key insights on the choice and applicability of GNN explainers, we isolate key components that make them usable and successful and provide recommendations on how to avoid common interpretation pitfalls. We conclude by highlighting open questions and directions of possible future research.

Steve Azzolin, Sagar Malhotra, Andrea Passerini et al.

Self-Explainable Graph Neural Networks (SE-GNNs) are popular explainable-by-design GNNs, but their explanations' properties and limitations are not well understood. Our first contribution fills this gap by formalizing the explanations extracted by some popular SE-GNNs, referred to as Minimal Explanations (MEs), and comparing them to established notions of explanations, namely Prime Implicant (PI) and faithful explanations. Our analysis reveals that MEs match PI explanations for a restricted but significant family of tasks. In general, however, they can be less informative than PI explanations and are surprisingly misaligned with widely accepted notions of faithfulness. Although faithful and PI explanations are informative, they are intractable to find and we show that they can be prohibitively large. Given these observations, a natural choice is to augment SE-GNNs with alternative modalities of explanations taking care of SE-GNNs' limitations. To this end, we propose Dual-Channel GNNs that integrate a white-box rule extractor and a standard SE-GNN, adaptively combining both channels. Our experiments show that even a simple instantiation of Dual-Channel GNNs can recover succinct rules and perform on par or better than widely used SE-GNNs.

Rémi Kazmierczak, Steve Azzolin, Eloïse Berthier et al.

We introduce PASTA (Perceptual Assessment System for explanaTion of Artificial Intelligence), a novel human-centric framework for evaluating eXplainable AI (XAI) techniques in computer vision. Our first contribution is the creation of the PASTA-dataset, the first large-scale benchmark that spans a diverse set of models and both saliency-based and concept-based explanation methods. This dataset enables robust, comparative analysis of XAI techniques based on human judgment. Our second contribution is an automated, data-driven benchmark that predicts human preferences using the PASTA-dataset. This scoring called PASTA-score method offers scalable, reliable, and consistent evaluation aligned with human perception. Additionally, our benchmark allows for comparisons between explanations across different modalities, an aspect previously unaddressed. We then propose to apply our scoring method to probe the interpretability of existing models and to build more human interpretable XAI methods.

Rémi Kazmierczak, Steve Azzolin, Eloïse Berthier et al.

This paper addresses explainable AI (XAI) through the lens of Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) that do not require explicit concept annotations, relying instead on concepts extracted using CLIP in a zero-shot manner. We show that CLIP, which is central in these techniques, is prone to concept hallucination, incorrectly predicting the presence or absence of concepts within an image in scenarios used in numerous CBMs, hence undermining the faithfulness of explanations. To mitigate this issue, we introduce Concept Hallucination Inhibition via Localized Interpretability (CHILI), a technique that disentangles image embeddings and localizes pixels corresponding to target concepts. Furthermore, our approach supports the generation of saliency-based explanations that are more interpretable.

Steve Azzolin, Antonio Longa, Stefano Teso et al.

As Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) become more pervasive, it becomes paramount to build reliable tools for explaining their predictions. A core desideratum is that explanations are \textit{faithful}, \ie that they portray an accurate picture of the GNN's reasoning process. However, a number of different faithfulness metrics exist, begging the question of what is faithfulness exactly and how to achieve it. We make three key contributions. We begin by showing that \textit{existing metrics are not interchangeable} -- \ie explanations attaining high faithfulness according to one metric may be unfaithful according to others -- and can systematically ignore important properties of explanations. We proceed to show that, surprisingly, \textit{optimizing for faithfulness is not always a sensible design goal}. Specifically, we prove that for injective regular GNN architectures, perfectly faithful explanations are completely uninformative. This does not apply to modular GNNs, such as self-explainable and domain-invariant architectures, prompting us to study the relationship between architectural choices and faithfulness. Finally, we show that \textit{faithfulness is tightly linked to out-of-distribution generalization}, in that simply ensuring that a GNN can correctly recognize the domain-invariant subgraph, as prescribed by the literature, does not guarantee that it is invariant unless this subgraph is also faithful.The code is publicly available on GitHub