On Consistency in Graph Neural Network Interpretation
  Uncovering rationales behind predictions of graph neural networks (GNNs) has
received increasing attention over recent years. Instance-level GNN explanation
aims to discover critical input elements, like nodes or edges, that the target
GNN relies upon for making predictions. These identified sub-structures can
provide interpretations of GNN's behavior. Though various algorithms are
proposed, most of them formalize this task by searching the minimal subgraph
which can preserve original predictions. An inductive bias is deep-rooted in
this framework: the same output cannot guarantee that two inputs are processed
under the same rationale. Consequently, they have the danger of providing
spurious explanations and fail to provide consistent explanations. Applying
them to explain weakly-performed GNNs would further amplify these issues. To
address the issues, we propose to obtain more faithful and consistent
explanations of GNNs. After a close examination on predictions of GNNs from the
causality perspective, we attribute spurious explanations to two typical
reasons: confounding effect of latent variables like distribution shift, and
causal factors distinct from the original input. Motivated by the observation
that both confounding effects and diverse causal rationales are encoded in
internal representations, we propose a simple yet effective countermeasure by
aligning embeddings. This new objective can be incorporated into existing GNN
explanation algorithms with no effort. We implement both a simplified version
based on absolute distance and a distribution-aware version based on anchors.
Experiments on $5$ datasets validate its effectiveness, and theoretical
analysis shows that it is in effect optimizing a more faithful explanation
objective in design, which further justifies the proposed approach.
