A Multi-Objective Explanation Framework for Graph Neural Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) hold promise in various application domains, but their limited explainability hinders widespread adoption, impacting customer satisfaction and loyalty. This issue intensifies when addressing diverse explanation needs of different user groups. Current GNN explanation models focus on a single objective, neglecting varied and potential conflicting user requirements, resulting in suboptimal outcomes. Moreover, existing models prioritize explanation objectives during multi-objective explanations, disrupting the intrinsic hierarchical structures and distant relationships within the graphs, further diminishing their effectiveness. To tackle these challenges, this paper introduces a novel multi-objective explanatory framework with hierarchical structure attribution for GNNs, termed HM-Explainer. This framework constructs a multi-objective explanation generation module based on Pareto theory to balance different and potentially conflicting explanatory objectives. Additionally, to embed hierarchical information into explanations, HM-Explainer designs node-level and cluster-level attribution modules to analyze the impact of input data on GNN decisions hierarchically. Furthermore, a self-attention mechanism is integrated into the node-level attribution module to account for the influence of distant neighbors. Ultimately, the efficacy of HM-Explainer is validated across multiple datasets for different GNN models through experimentation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it