Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

GREASE: Generate Factual and Counterfactual Explanations for GNN-based Recommendations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2208.04222 v1 pith:GVFKCEZB submitted 2022-08-04 cs.IR cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.IRcs.AIcs.LG
keywords explanationsgnn-basedrecommendergreaserecommendationscounterfactualdesignedexplaining
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Recently, graph neural networks (GNNs) have been widely used to develop successful recommender systems. Although powerful, it is very difficult for a GNN-based recommender system to attach tangible explanations of why a specific item ends up in the list of suggestions for a given user. Indeed, explaining GNN-based recommendations is unique, and existing GNN explanation methods are inappropriate for two reasons. First, traditional GNN explanation methods are designed for node, edge, or graph classification tasks rather than ranking, as in recommender systems. Second, standard machine learning explanations are usually intended to support skilled decision-makers. Instead, recommendations are designed for any end-user, and thus their explanations should be provided in user-understandable ways. In this work, we propose GREASE, a novel method for explaining the suggestions provided by any black-box GNN-based recommender system. Specifically, GREASE first trains a surrogate model on a target user-item pair and its $l$-hop neighborhood. Then, it generates both factual and counterfactual explanations by finding optimal adjacency matrix perturbations to capture the sufficient and necessary conditions for an item to be recommended, respectively. Experimental results conducted on real-world datasets demonstrate that GREASE can generate concise and effective explanations for popular GNN-based recommender models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Do Explanations Increase the Risk of Decision Logic Leakage? Explanation-Guided Stealing of Graph Models

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An attacker can exploit explanation heatmaps from deployed graph neural networks to train a surrogate that matches both predictions and highlighted decision logic, outperforming prior stealing attacks.

  2. Learning Marked Temporal Point Process Explanations based on Counterfactual and Factual Reasoning

    cs.LG 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    To explain a marked temporal point process prediction, CFF combines counterfactual and factual criteria and finds the smallest event subset that preserves the model's prediction.

  3. Plausible Counterfactual Explanations of Recommendations

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A recommender-system adaptation of LiCE generates counterfactual explanations that remove an item from the top-k list, with plausibility scored by category-level sum-product networks.

  4. Do Protein Transformers Have Biological Intelligence?

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Tiny transformers trained from scratch classify six protein families with high accuracy and their gradient saliency maps align with known catalytic motifs, though the claim that this demonstrates biological intelligen...

Pith tools