When Is a Relation Worth Trusting? Manipulation Costs, Exposure, and the Trust Trap in Multi-Relational Graph Learning

Relational fraud detection can exploit both label-free graph context and label-derived neighborhood evidence, but these two information sources obey different validity conditions. In particular, neighborhood risk becomes invalid when a queried node's own label, or any validation or test label, enters its construction. We formulate this issue as provenance-constrained relational evidence use and present PREF-Gate, an auditable decision framework with two fixed experts and a finite validation gate. The context expert uses attributes, one-hop means, feature residuals, and degree descriptors without labels. The evidence expert adds self-excluded, training-label-only neighborhood risk and empirical-Bayes summaries that expose support, uncertainty, availability, and shrinkage. Before test inference, the gate selects either expert or one of three pre-specified probability mixtures and fixes the decision threshold. On Amazon, YelpChi, and TFinance, using five identical stratified splits and 14 same-protocol methods, PREF-Gate obtains mean AUPRC values of 0.9085, 0.8104, and 0.8913. It selects the label-free expert on all Amazon and YelpChi splits and an evidence mixture on all TFinance splits. Thus, the main result is conditional rather than universal: label-derived relational evidence is useful only where held-out validation supports it. The framework couples competitive ranking performance with an explicit label-provenance contract, finite selection policy, failure accounting, and review-budget evaluation, providing an auditable knowledge-based decision pipeline for graph fraud detection.

Relational deep learning (RDL) converts relational databases (RDBs) into heterogeneous graphs, but graphs derived directly from database schemas are often not well suited for how graph neural networks (GNNs) perform relational reasoning. We study what makes a relational graph suitable for deep learning and show that schema-derived graphs suffer from two systematic failures: information overload and semantic fragmentation. Our empirical analysis reveals that the desired graph is not the raw schema, but a result of controlled structural adaptation. Performance depends on balancing two operations: mitigating information overload via filtering, and repairing semantic fragmentation via injection. Specifically, filtering serves as a bias-variance knob with non-monotonic effects, while injection improves performance only when it explicitly restores the relational dependencies missing from the original schema. Based on these findings, we develop an end-to-end structural optimizer that applies both operations to adapt relational graphs automatically. Across 26 tasks spanning classification, regression, and recommendation, the optimized graphs consistently improve accuracy while often reducing inference cost.

Counterfactual explanations of graph neural networks identify edge deletions that flip a prediction. On heterogeneous graphs, however, existing methods first collapse the graph into untyped edges, so they cannot answer the question a domain expert actually asks: which relation type drives this prediction? We present RACE (Relation-Aware Counterfactual Explanations), which gives this question an exact, per-instance answer. For every explained instance, an exhaustive search over relation subsets returns the certified minimum relation-deletion set that flips the prediction -- or an explicit report that no such deletion exists; each relation-level answer is then refined into a typed edge set within the attributed relations, verified on the discrete model by single-edge restoration. The relation-level answer is exact and deterministic given the frozen backbone, whereas soft-mask baselines vary by 6-8 pp in success rate across runs differing only in random ordering. On ACM, a Cora-derived graph, and ogbn-mag, RACE improves counterfactual success rate over the strongest baseline by up to +2.7 pp while deleting fewer edges, and attains the highest success rate among all same-task baselines on every dataset; the advantage reproduces across four backbones on ogbn-arXiv and on DBLP, with cross-seed relation-set agreement up to 0.89. A synthetic study with known generating mechanisms confirms that the search recovers the relation the trained model actually relies on -- and reports infeasibility rather than fabricating an attribution when the model has learned none -- so the explanations stay trustworthy exactly where explanations matter.