As one of popular quantitative metrics to assess the quality of explanation of graph neural networks (GNNs), fidelity measures the output difference after removing unimportant parts of the input graph. Fidelity has been widely used due to its straightforward interpretation that the underlying model should produce similar predictions when features deemed unimportant from the explanation are removed. This raises a natural question: "Does fidelity induce a global (soft) mask for graph pruning?" To solve this, we aim to explore the potential of the fidelity measure to be used for graph pruning, eventually enhancing the GNN models for better efficiency. To this end, we propose Fidelity$^-$-inspired Pruning (FiP), an effective framework to construct global edge masks from local explanations. Our empirical observations using 7 edge attribution methods demonstrate that, surprisingly, general eXplainable AI methods outperform methods tailored to GNNs in terms of graph pruning performance.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are neural models that leverage the dependency structure in graphical data via message passing among the graph nodes. GNNs have emerged as pivotal architectures in analyzing graph-structured data, and their expansive application in sensitive domains requires a comprehensive understanding of their decision-making processes -- necessitating a framework for GNN explainability. An explanation function for GNNs takes a pre-trained GNN along with a graph as input, to produce a `sufficient statistic' subgraph with respect to the graph label. A main challenge in studying GNN explainability is to provide fidelity measures that evaluate the performance of these explanation functions. This paper studies this foundational challenge, spotlighting the inherent limitations of prevailing fidelity metrics, including $Fid_+$, $Fid_-$, and $Fid_\Delta$. Specifically, a formal, information-theoretic definition of explainability is introduced and it is shown that existing metrics often fail to align with this definition across various statistical scenarios. The reason is due to potential distribution shifts when subgraphs are removed in computing these fidelity measures. Subsequently, a robust class of fidelity measures are introduced, and it is shown analytically that they are resilient to distribution shift issues and are applicable in a wide range of scenarios. Extensive empirical analysis on both synthetic and real datasets are provided to illustrate that the proposed metrics are more coherent with gold standard metrics.

Two approaches to AI, neural networks and symbolic systems, have been proven very successful for an array of AI problems. However, neither has been able to achieve the general reasoning ability required for human-like intelligence. It has been argued that this is due to inherent weaknesses in each approach. Luckily, these weaknesses appear to be complementary, with symbolic systems being adept at the kinds of things neural networks have trouble with and vice-versa. The field of neural-symbolic AI attempts to exploit this asymmetry by combining neural networks and symbolic AI into integrated systems. Often this has been done by encoding symbolic knowledge into neural networks. Unfortunately, although many different methods for this have been proposed, there is no common definition of an encoding to compare them. We seek to rectify this problem by introducing a semantic framework for neural-symbolic AI, which is then shown to be general enough to account for a large family of neural-symbolic systems. We provide a number of examples and proofs of the application of the framework to the neural encoding of various forms of knowledge representation and neural network. These, at first sight disparate approaches, are all shown to fall within the framework's formal definition of what we call semantic encoding for neural-symbolic AI.

AI-based data synthesis has seen rapid progress over the last several years, and is increasingly recognized for its promise to enable privacy-respecting high-fidelity data sharing. However, adequately evaluating the quality of generated synthetic datasets is still an open challenge. We introduce and demonstrate a holdout-based empirical assessment framework for quantifying the fidelity as well as the privacy risk of synthetic data solutions for mixed-type tabular data. Measuring fidelity is based on statistical distances of lower-dimensional marginal distributions, which provide a model-free and easy-to-communicate empirical metric for the representativeness of a synthetic dataset. Privacy risk is assessed by calculating the individual-level distances to closest record with respect to the training data. By showing that the synthetic samples are just as close to the training as to the holdout data, we yield strong evidence that the synthesizer indeed learned to generalize patterns and is independent of individual training records. We demonstrate the presented framework for seven distinct synthetic data solutions across four mixed-type datasets and compare these to more traditional statistical disclosure techniques. The results highlight the need to systematically assess the fidelity just as well as the privacy of these emerging class of synthetic data generators.