Controllable GNN Explanations via Multi-Metric Preference Selection

Explainers for Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are commonly evaluated by their plausibility, i.e., how well their explanations recover a predefined ground truth, such as a motif planted in the data. This protocol implicitly assumes that a GNN trained on such data relies on the intended motif. Although prior work has questioned this assumption, plausibility remains widespread. First, we show that the assumption is violated on several widely used benchmarks, where, e.g., degree statistics alone suffice to solve the task. Then, we remove this confounder by replacing training with compilation. We achieve this by introducing $\mathsf{Gracr}$, the first compiler translating graded modal logic formulas into GNN weights, yielding models that replicate the behaviour of the corresponding formulas. Since the behaviour of the model is now known by construction, we can define its ground truth explanation formally and compute it exactly. Building on this, we introduce $\mathsf{Gracr}\mathsf{Bench}$, a benchmark of compiled GNNs for the evaluation of explainers against this exact ground truth. Experiments on eleven explainers across six tasks show its effectiveness for fine-grained diagnostic evaluation: notably, we discover that most explainers are not robust to indirect influences or alternative implementations of the same formula. These results position $\mathsf{Gracr}\mathsf{Bench}$ as a novel, rigorous evaluation setting for graph post-hoc explainability.

Graph eXplainable AI (G-XAI) is increasingly important for making Graph Neural Networks interpretable and accountable. While a growing number of explainers are available, choosing the right method and assessing the trustworthiness of its outputs remains unclear. Consistent evaluation practices and actionable guidance are still missing, hindering practical adoption. In this paper, we introduce a unified, quantitative benchmarking framework for G-XAI that requires no ground-truth assumptions. We formalize tabular explainability metrics for graph data, evaluating topological structure and node features as independent components. Our large-scale benchmarking study identifies explainers that consistently lie on the Pareto front across metric pairs and tasks, establishing robustly non-dominated solutions - while confirming that no single explainer achieves universal superiority. We distill our findings into actionable G-XAI usability guidelines to support Machine Learning practitioners in evaluating and deploying trustworthy GNN-based pipelines.

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.