We introduce Graph Concept Bottleneck (GCB) as a new paradigm for self-explainable text-attributed graph learning. GCB maps graphs into a subspace, concept bottleneck, where each concept is a meaningful phrase, and predictions are made based on the activation of these concepts. Unlike existing interpretable graph learning methods that primarily rely on subgraphs as explanations, the concept bottleneck provides a new form of interpretation. To refine the concept space, we apply the information bottleneck principle to focus on the most relevant concepts. This not only yields more concise and faithful explanations but also explicitly guides the model to "think" toward the correct decision. We empirically show that GCB achieves intrinsic interpretability with accuracy on par with black-box Graph Neural Networks. Moreover, it delivers better performance under distribution shifts and data perturbations, showing improved robustness and generalizability, benefitting from concept-guided prediction.
Figures & tables
Cora
Citeseer
Instagram
Reddit
WikiCS
Method
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
MLP
50.00 (0.63)
60.81 (0.50)
38.44 (0.99)
54.34 (1.10)
35.42 (0.58)
51.69 (0.26)
16.38 (0.52)
51.33 (0.51)
54.31 (0.31)
65.30 (0.35)
GCN
55.10 (0.66)
64.03 (1.05)
46.52 (0.92)
59.64 (0.92)
36.98 (0.84)
50.01 (0.70)
12.91 (0.38)
48.48 (0.21)
59.04 (1.66)
68.38 (1.73)
GAT
51.30 (1.27)
61.52 (1.15)
45.62 (1.01)
58.77 (0.87)
33.31 (0.59)
50.18 (0.41)
12.93 (0.30)
49.34 (0.18)
57.05 (1.00)
64.53 (0.85)
SAGE
44.26 (1.78)
53.95 (1.65)
30.87 (0.41)
48.42 (0.47)
31.46 (0.20)
48.27 (0.18)
13.38 (0.17)
49.18 (0.47)
51.87 (1.24)
62.06 (1.37)
GT
38.26 (1.64)
48.66 (1.36)
28.38 (1.58)
48.22 (0.77)
30.90 (0.43)
48.06 (0.37)
12.64 (0.54)
48.62 (0.26)
54.06 (0.84)
62.50 (0.77)
Table 1: Node classification performance in OOD settings with upsampling ratio γ=5 . The best-performing interpretable GNN is underlined , and the overall best-performing method is bolded .
Cora
Citeseer
Instagram
Reddit
WikiCS
Method
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
MLP
43.08 (0.45)
56.55 (0.37)
37.77 (0.53)
53.77 (0.59)
36.69 (0.45)
52.57 (0.19)
16.75 (0.84)
51.11 (0.44)
53.70 (0.32)
64.95 (0.45)
GCN
56.21 (1.25)
66.49 (0.85)
46.45 (1.42)
58.14 (1.61)
43.87 (3.28)
54.11 (0.85)
16.64 (0.77)
50.43 (0.76)
61.45 (0.38)
65.64 (0.87)
GAT
52.64 (1.33)
61.70 (0.71)
46.55 (0.87)
60.54 (0.58)
37.07 (1.09)
52.38 (0.43)
19.23 (1.76)
52.20 (0.84)
59.34 (0.90)
66.75 (1.21)
SAGE
53.15 (2.06)
57.70 (2.21)
39.37 (1.30)
56.60 (0.90)
38.45 (2.14)
52.79 (0.90)
16.51 (0.49)
51.64 (0.39)
61.58 (0.44)
69.76 (0.49)
GT
46.13 (2.23)
55.15 (1.80)
33.36 (1.69)
52.65 (0.93)
35.36 (0.78)
51.70 (0.27)
17.29 (0.50)
51.31 (0.12)
57.88 (0.95)
62.61 (1.60)
Table 2: Node classification performance in perturbation settings with pertubation ratio ρ=0.3 . The best-performing interpretable GNN is underlined , and the overall best-performing method is bolded .
Figure 1: Performance of the original GCB compared to its variant with random concepts (GCB-RC) across different concept set sizes, on regular splits (top row) and OOD splits (bottom row).
Figure 2: Performance of GCB across different concept sizes ( K ) and training ratios (%) on regular splits and OOD splits.
Figure 3: Case study on cora . We visualize the concept activations of two instances produced by both the MLP encoder, which uses only node features, and the GCN encoder, which incorporates 2-hop neighborhood information.
Figure 4: Performance of GCB variations using different graph encoders.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
#Nodes
#Edges
Type
Domain
#Class
Computers
87,229
721,081
Co-purchase
E-commerce
10
PubMed
19,717
44,338
Citation
Biomedicine
3
Books-History
41,551
358,574
Co-purchase
E-commerce
12
Books-Children
76,875
1,554,578
Co-purchase
E-commerce
24
Sports-Fitness
173,055
1,773,500
Co-purchase
E-commerce
13
Cora
2,708
5,429
Citation
Computer Science
7
Appendix
Table 3: Summary statistics of source and target datasets.
Cora
Citeseer
Instagram
Reddit
WikiCS
Method
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
MLP
68.00 (0.89)
67.49 (0.76)
63.81 (0.37)
64.29 (0.34)
53.78 (0.59)
53.76 (0.58)
53.34 (0.77)
53.39 (0.76)
69.22 (0.51)
69.25 (0.57)
GCN
72.38 (0.58)
71.95 (0.49)
62.47 (0.29)
63.05 (0.33)
53.63 (0.84)
53.62 (0.82)
54.49 (1.19)
54.64 (1.03)
67.45 (1.76)
68.84 (1.82)
GAT
74.58 (0.95)
74.42 (0.90)
63.92 (0.92)
64.47 (0.91)
55.71 (1.06)
55.74 (1.10)
56.29 (0.60)
56.30 (0.59)
67.54 (1.68)
68.14 (1.59)
SAGE
70.59 (0.68)
70.66 (0.80)
65.09 (0.62)
65.52 (0.64)
54.49 (0.46)
54.50 (0.46)
55.33 (0.38)
55.33 (0.38)
72.96 (0.30)
72.74 (0.40)
GT
72.36 (1.96)
72.18 (1.56)
64.40 (0.76)
64.93 (0.68)
54.79 (0.40)
54.77 (0.39)
56.15 (0.39)
56.15 (0.39)
72.27 (0.52)
72.46 (0.56)
Appendix
Table 4: Node classification performance in regular settings . The best-performing interpretable GNN on each dataset is underlined , and the overall best-performing method is bolded .
Cora
Citeseer
Instagram
Reddit
WikiCS
Method
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
MLP
46.52 (0.59)
57.50 (0.69)
44.89 (0.70)
60.49 (0.77)
35.55 (0.59)
51.54 (0.20)
17.03 (0.51)
51.28 (0.56)
53.82 (0.42)
63.23 (0.40)
GCN
56.10 (0.46)
64.04 (0.52)
41.06 (0.43)
56.08 (0.57)
39.36 (3.25)
52.54 (0.86)
16.65 (0.73)
50.74 (0.20)
53.80 (0.55)
60.37 (1.37)
GAT
52.54 (1.48)
63.29 (1.31)
44.71 (0.68)
60.63 (0.56)
33.42 (0.37)
51.49 (0.12)
13.06 (0.28)
49.78 (0.39)
56.41 (2.24)
64.32 (1.67)
SAGE
40.39 (1.19)
50.69 (1.08)
40.99 (0.99)
56.02 (0.78)
35.71 (0.42)
51.76 (0.31)
15.97 (0.35)
50.74 (0.51)
49.65 (0.64)
60.20 (0.83)
GT
42.83 (1.35)
51.62 (1.59)
40.57 (1.22)
56.93 (0.90)
33.83 (0.60)
51.47 (0.28)
13.22 (0.33)
50.14 (0.34)
51.10 (0.69)
59.51 (0.99)
Appendix
Table 5: Node classification performance in OOD settings with upsampling ratio γ=2 . The best-performing interpretable GNN on each dataset is underlined , and the overall best-performing method is bolded .
Cora
Citeseer
Instagram
Reddit
WikiCS
Method
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
MLP
43.78 (0.52)
54.85 (0.57)
45.73 (0.59)
58.72 (0.71)
37.04 (0.67)
52.33 (0.25)
16.37 (0.61)
51.37 (0.32)
55.01 (0.33)
65.33 (1.15)
GCN
57.28 (1.35)
67.86 (0.98)
41.59 (0.68)
56.90 (0.80)
37.73 (3.06)
51.58 (0.59)
16.00 (0.35)
49.23 (0.48)
54.99 (1.28)
61.65 (2.33)
GAT
52.81 (1.43)
60.66 (1.28)
43.09 (1.45)
58.16 (1.39)
34.77 (1.08)
51.50 (0.38)
13.85 (0.44)
49.44 (0.28)
56.99 (0.10)
65.85 (0.84)
SAGE
51.40 (1.77)
62.46 (1.54)
36.25 (1.39)
52.63 (1.14)
35.04 (0.55)
51.47 (0.27)
14.36 (0.17)
48.96 (0.40)
52.43 (0.78)
60.92 (0.97)
GT
47.70 (1.31)
58.26 (1.19)
36.12 (1.62)
53.10 (1.23)
33.16 (0.47)
50.15 (0.37)
14.18 (0.15)
49.59 (0.21)
54.83 (0.89)
62.58 (1.07)
Appendix
Table 6: Node classification performance in OOD settings with upsampling ratio γ=3 . The best-performing interpretable GNN on each dataset is underlined , and the overall best-performing method is bolded .
Cora
Citeseer
Instagram
Reddit
WikiCS
Method
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
MLP
47.58 (0.44)
59.14 (0.61)
41.44 (0.42)
56.87 (0.70)
35.38 (0.66)
51.29 (0.43)
16.08 (0.42)
50.69 (0.34)
52.72 (0.50)
62.79 (0.50)
GCN
62.08 (1.59)
69.26 (1.83)
43.58 (0.45)
54.79 (0.34)
47.15 (4.10)
55.23 (1.48)
17.35 (0.97)
49.91 (0.17)
62.47 (1.15)
64.89 (1.38)
GAT
60.32 (1.56)
68.94 (1.15)
48.46 (0.66)
61.74 (0.80)
35.80 (0.67)
51.70 (0.30)
15.35 (1.35)
51.40 (0.38)
57.17 (1.59)
60.82 (1.69)
SAGE
50.49 (1.06)
57.96 (1.12)
35.75 (1.49)
53.22 (0.90)
37.94 (0.94)
52.14 (0.40)
16.70 (0.73)
52.08 (0.22)
62.88 (0.18)
72.40 (1.02)
GT
47.31 (2.61)
56.27 (1.92)
30.80 (1.22)
50.68 (0.82)
37.51 (0.46)
52.90 (0.16)
17.33 (0.79)
51.58 (0.24)
62.18 (0.80)
68.79 (1.87)
Appendix
Table 7: Node classification performance in OOD settings with upsampling ratio γ=10 . The best-performing interpretable GNN on each dataset is underlined , and the overall best-performing method is bolded .
Cora
Citeseer
Instagram
Reddit
WikiCS
Method
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
MLP
46.79 (0.88)
58.83 (0.84)
38.16 (0.41)
53.71 (0.37)
37.69 (0.44)
52.53 (0.15)
16.19 (0.46)
51.58 (0.44)
53.96 (0.34)
64.83 (0.25)
GCN
58.93 (1.32)
67.16 (1.38)
46.96 (0.95)
58.48 (1.13)
42.47 (4.66)
52.11 (1.09)
15.95 (0.86)
50.46 (0.68)
62.44 (0.37)
68.39 (0.49)
GAT
55.01 (1.93)
61.57 (1.94)
43.59 (1.57)
57.78 (1.21)
34.32 (1.37)
51.16 (0.53)
17.03 (0.95)
51.28 (0.42)
58.93 (2.81)
66.43 (2.35)
SAGE
53.45 (2.23)
57.21 (2.34)
42.45 (1.44)
57.74 (0.95)
40.93 (6.08)
52.32 (0.67)
16.00 (0.61)
51.42 (0.61)
61.58 (0.22)
68.96 (1.30)
GT
38.25 (2.04)
45.19 (1.18)
39.80 (3.32)
55.30 (2.16)
34.43 (1.15)
51.44 (0.30)
14.35 (0.74)
51.02 (0.27)
56.30 (1.16)
64.35 (1.49)
Appendix
Table 8: Node classification performance in adversarial settings with perturbation ratio ρ=0.05 . The best-performing interpretable GNN on each dataset is underlined , and the overall best-performing method is bolded .
Cora
Citeseer
Instagram
Reddit
WikiCS
Method
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
MLP
45.04 (1.20)
57.94 (0.91)
41.94 (0.33)
57.38 (0.21)
34.65 (0.60)
51.57 (0.30)
18.09 (0.43)
51.09 (0.58)
54.13 (0.30)
64.72 (0.64)
GCN
65.19 (1.66)
67.62 (1.61)
46.43 (1.13)
58.40 (1.17)
38.56 (1.38)
51.96 (0.60)
18.17 (1.20)
50.51 (0.67)
63.15 (2.44)
68.98 (2.14)
GAT
63.56 (1.59)
68.88 (1.40)
43.79 (1.41)
58.11 (0.90)
35.94 (2.11)
51.83 (0.55)
17.30 (1.53)
51.83 (0.72)
58.79 (1.66)
67.83 (1.26)
SAGE
47.78 (0.92)
55.17 (0.52)
40.60 (0.80)
56.65 (0.63)
38.86 (1.28)
52.61 (0.62)
16.93 (0.48)
51.67 (0.34)
59.90 (0.67)
66.69 (0.61)
GT
40.32 (1.93)
46.77 (1.27)
27.14 (1.44)
46.19 (1.04)
35.26 (0.73)
51.95 (0.35)
16.80 (1.02)
51.26 (0.49)
60.67 (0.99)
67.86 (1.05)
Appendix
Table 9: Node classification performance in adversarial settings with perturbation ratio ρ=0.1 . The best-performing interpretable GNN on each dataset is underlined , and the overall best-performing method is bolded .
Cora
Citeseer
Instagram
Reddit
WikiCS
Method
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
MLP
49.30 (0.81)
59.94 (0.97)
42.01 (0.43)
57.97 (0.22)
37.57 (3.23)
51.27 (0.41)
15.37 (0.09)
51.51 (0.29)
52.92 (0.41)
61.84 (0.70)
GCN
60.24 (0.83)
68.81 (1.01)
47.16 (1.29)
58.67 (1.02)
37.70 (2.16)
51.52 (0.53)
17.24 (1.82)
50.60 (0.84)
59.73 (0.71)
62.88 (0.35)
GAT
57.88 (2.24)
64.39 (1.85)
44.69 (1.35)
58.83 (1.13)
37.82 (1.08)
52.08 (0.46)
14.93 (1.04)
50.50 (0.56)
58.14 (2.12)
62.40 (2.18)
SAGE
50.26 (1.95)
57.82 (1.43)
29.81 (2.27)
49.99 (1.55)
36.98 (0.47)
52.00 (0.08)
17.10 (0.40)
50.99 (0.43)
62.87 (0.63)
70.36 (0.31)
GT
51.12 (2.34)
56.14 (2.39)
32.63 (1.41)
51.08 (0.71)
35.34 (0.86)
51.61 (0.50)
16.19 (0.68)
50.84 (0.28)
60.47 (0.47)
66.23 (0.77)
Appendix
Table 10: Node classification performance in adversarial settings with perturbation ratio ρ=0.2 . The best-performing interpretable GNN on each dataset is underlined , and the overall best-performing method is bolded .
Cora
Citeseer
Instagram
Reddit
WikiCS
Method
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
F1 (%)
BACC (%)
MLP
47.76 (0.43)
58.52 (0.43)
44.65 (0.39)
58.45 (0.41)
35.26 (0.57)
51.72 (0.39)
16.78 (0.31)
50.46 (0.59)
55.24 (0.16)
65.36 (1.10)
GCN
52.19 (1.00)
61.01 (0.95)
46.07 (1.23)
56.61 (1.12)
42.37 (1.34)
53.07 (0.85)
16.20 (1.08)
50.73 (0.48)
65.21 (0.63)
68.76 (1.02)
GAT
54.25 (2.86)
63.55 (1.63)
46.58 (0.47)
60.72 (0.81)
37.55 (1.31)
52.63 (0.43)
18.61 (0.96)
51.83 (0.37)
59.33 (2.20)
65.94 (1.80)
SAGE
44.04 (1.28)
50.19 (0.89)
32.53 (2.83)
50.50 (1.70)
36.20 (0.84)
52.24 (0.19)
16.29 (0.46)
51.15 (0.41)
62.65 (0.42)
70.73 (0.50)
GT
42.25 (1.81)
52.13 (2.09)
31.04 (2.55)
49.44 (2.11)
35.67 (0.87)
51.02 (0.17)
13.85 (0.83)
50.82 (0.54)
62.95 (1.19)
70.35 (1.05)
Appendix
Table 11: Node classification performance in adversarial settings with perturbation ratio ρ=0.5 . The best-performing interpretable GNN on each dataset is underlined , and the overall best-performing method is bolded .
The trust in the predictions of Graph Neural Networks is limited by their opaque reasoning process. Prior methods have tried to explain graph networks via concept-based explanations extracted from the latent representations obtained after message passing. However, these explanations fall short of explaining the message passing process itself. To this aim, we propose the Concept Graph Convolution, the first graph convolution designed to operate on node-level concepts for improved interpretability. The proposed convolutional layer performs message passing on a combination of raw and concept representations using structural and attention-based edge weights. We also propose a pure variant of the convolution, only operating in the concept space. Our results show that the Concept Graph Convolution allows to obtain competitive task accuracy, while enabling an increased insight into the evolution of concepts across convolutional steps.
Explainable Artificial Intelligence aims to make black-box models more trustworthy by presenting, in a human-understandable manner, the elements that lead to the model's output. This involves both (i) identifying components and connections with genuine causal influence on outputs and (ii) translating such structures into an interpretable representation. For the former, we introduce CIExplainer, a novel perturbation-based method grounded in causal inference for explaining Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). CIExplainer identifies the subgraph with the highest causal effects on GNN predictions using the Potential Outcome Framework. We evaluate and compare CIExplainer on various GNN architectures (GCN, GraphSAGE, GAT, GIN) and datasets. To bridge subgraph explanations with human interpretability, we further propose G2TeXplainer, a method that transforms causal subgraphs into natural language explanations that capture both feature-level and relational information.
Francisco Caldas, Sahil Satish Kumar, Ruben Belo +1
NOVA LINCS, NOVA School of Science and Technology, Lisbon, Portugal
Despite their success in various domains, the growing dependence on GNNs raises a critical concern about the nature of the combinatorial reasoning underlying their predictions, which is often hidden within their black-box architectures. Addressing this challenge requires understanding how GNNs translate topological patterns into logical rules. However, current works only uncover the hard logical rules over graph concepts, which cannot quantify the contribution of each concept to prediction. Moreover, they are post-hoc interpretable methods that generate explanations after model training and may not accurately reflect the true combinatorial reasoning of GNNs, since they approximate it with a surrogate. In this work, we develop a graph concept bottleneck layer that can be integrated into any GNN architectures to guide them to predict the selected discriminative global graph concepts. The predicted concept scores are further projected to class labels by a sparse linear layer. It enforces the combinatorial reasoning of GNNs' predictions to fit the soft logical rule over graph concepts and thus can quantify the contribution of each concept. To further improve the quality of the concept bottleneck, we treat concepts as "graph words" and graphs as "graph sentences", and leverage language models to learn graph concept embeddings. Extensive experiments on multiple datasets show that our method GCBMs achieve state-of-the-art performance both in classification and interpretability.
Yue Niu, Zhaokai Sun, Jiayi Yang +5
Tongji University, Shanghai, China · City University of Macau, Macau, China