PUB
  • Home
  • Sources
  • Search
  • About

CF-TGNN: Counterfactual Explainable Temporal Graph Neural Networks for Supply Chain Disruption Prediction

Clara Chandra, Theo Adler
Academic Journal of Management Science and Engineering, (2026), Vol.1, No.7, pp.120-133
Published: November 1, 2026
DOI: 10.62051/ajmse.v1n7.12
PDF: Download Full Text PDF
Abstract

Disruptions in multi-tier supply chains travel from upstream suppliers to downstream customers, and a risk model helps planners only if it can say what would have prevented a predicted disruption. Temporal graph neural networks with supplier attention forecast such ripple effects well, but attention weights are normalized over a node’s suppliers: they always place blame upstream, cannot state that no supplier is responsible, and do not describe an intervention. We present CF-TGNN, a counterfactual explainable temporal graph neural network. Its backbone adopts a directed, dependency-weighted temporal attention operator and adds a region-context encoder that acts as a proxy for confounding regional shocks. Its Counterfactual Restoration Explainer (CRE) evaluates supplier-restoration interventions with do-operator graph surgery and returns a but-for estimate of the probability that upstream disruptions were necessary, a restoration Shapley decomposition of the predicted risk, an exact minimum-cardinality restoration plan, and an origin trace that follows causes backward in time. To test explanations against true counterfactuals, we turn a published cascade simulator into a structural causal model with logged exogenous noise, so that every what-if query can be answered by replay. Over five seeds, CF-TGNN raises onset AUC from 0.765 to 0.786; CRE identifies cascade origins with 44.2% accuracy versus 33.8% for layer-wise attention chaining; and graph surgery reduces the error of but-for estimates by 22%. A case study on the public SupplyGraph dataset shows that CRE returns sparse restoration plans on real production records and makes disagreements between backbones explicit, although the region context does not improve prediction on these data.

Keywords: Supply Chain Disruption, Ripple Effect, Temporal Graph Neural Networks, Counterfactual Explanation, Causal Inference, Explainable Artificial Intelligence
APA Citation: Clara Chandra, Theo Adler (2026). CF-TGNN: Counterfactual Explainable Temporal Graph Neural Networks for Supply Chain Disruption Prediction. Academic Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 1(7), 120-133. https://doi.org/10.62051/ajmse.v1n7.12

References

  1. Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., & Dolgui, A. (2014). The ripple effect in supply chains: Trade-off “efficiency-flexibility-resilience” in disruption management. International Journal of Production Research, 52(7), 2154–2172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.858836.
  2. Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., & Sokolov, B. (2018). Ripple effect in the supply chain: An analysis and recent literature. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1–2), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1387680.
  3. Inoue, H., & Todo, Y. (2019). Firm-level propagation of shocks through supply-chain networks. Nature Sustainability, 2, 841–847. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0351-x.
  4. Ivanov, D. (2020). Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 136, 101922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922.
  5. Baryannis, G., Dani, S., & Antoniou, G. (2019). Predicting supply chain risks using machine learning: The trade-off between performance and interpretability. Future Generation Computer Systems, 101, 993–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.07.059.
  6. Wyrembek, M., Baryannis, G., & Brintrup, A. (2025). Causal machine learning for supply chain risk prediction and intervention planning. International Journal of Production Research, 63(15), 5629–5648. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2025.2458121.
  7. Kosasih, E. E., & Brintrup, A. (2022). A machine learning approach for predicting hidden links in supply chain with graph neural networks. International Journal of Production Research, 60(17), 5380–5393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1956697.
  8. Wang, Y., Bian, M., & Lin, Y. (2022). An explainable temporal graph neural network for disruption prediction and risk propagation in multi-tier supply chains. Journal of Computational Science and Electrical Engineering, 4(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.61784/jcsee4151.
  9. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2018). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 841–887.
  10. Zhou, F. (2026). Moment-constrained side-force allocation for wind-assisted merchant ships: Hydrodynamic performance of retractable anti-leeway fins and flap rudders. Innovation and Technology Studies, 3(1), 27–41.
  11. Lucic, A., ter Hoeve, M. A., Tolomei, G., de Rijke, M., & Silvestri, F. (2022). CF-GNNExplainer: Counterfactual explanations for graph neural networks. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 151, 4499–4511.
  12. Prado-Romero, M. A., Prenkaj, B., Stilo, G., & Giannotti, F. (2024). A survey on graph counterfactual explanations: Definitions, methods, evaluation, and research challenges. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(7), 171. https://doi.org/10.1145/3618105.
  13. Basole, R. C., & Bellamy, M. A. (2014). Supply network structure, visibility, and risk diffusion: A computational approach. Decision Sciences, 45(4), 753–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12099.
  14. Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2021). A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption risks and resilience in the era of Industry 4.0. Production Planning & Control, 32(9), 775–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1768450.
  15. Wasi, A. T., Islam, M. S., & Akib, A. R. (2024). SupplyGraph: A benchmark dataset for supply chain planning using graph neural networks. arXiv:2401.15299.
  16. Kipf, T. N., & Welling, M. (2017). Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. International Conference on Learning Representations.
  17. Veličković, P., Cucurull, G., Casanova, A., Romero, A., Liò, P., & Bengio, Y. (2018). Graph attention networks. International Conference on Learning Representations.
  18. Hamilton, W. L., Ying, R., & Leskovec, J. (2017). Inductive representation learning on large graphs. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 1024–1034.
  19. Pareja, A., et al. (2020). EvolveGCN: Evolving graph convolutional networks for dynamic graphs. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(4), 5363–5370. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i04.5984.
  20. Yue, X., & Zhu, R. (2024). An explainable hybrid machine learning framework for cash-flow-conditioned multi-horizon liquidity risk early warning: An SME-oriented benchmark study. World Journal of Management Science, 2(1), 63–72.
  21. Cho, K., et al. (2014). Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder–decoder for statistical machine translation. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1724–1734. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1179.
  22. Ying, R., Bourgeois, D., You, J., Zitnik, M., & Leskovec, J. (2019). GNNExplainer: Generating explanations for graph neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 9240–9251.
  23. Yuan, H., Yu, H., Gui, S., & Ji, S. (2023). Explainability in graph neural networks: A taxonomic survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(5), 5782–5799. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3204236.
  24. Xia, W., Lai, M., Shan, C., Zhang, Y., Dai, X., Li, X., & Li, D. (2023). Explaining temporal graph models through an explorer-navigator framework. International Conference on Learning Representations.
  25. Tan, J., Geng, S., Fu, Z., Ge, Y., Xu, S., Li, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Learning and evaluating graph neural network explanations based on counterfactual and factual reasoning. Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference, 1018–1027. https://doi.org/10.1145/3485447.3511948.
  26. Jain, S., & Wallace, B. C. (2019). Attention is not explanation. Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3543–3556. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1357.
  27. Wang, J., Ge, Y., Liu, J., & Jiang, B. (2024). Early warning of liquidity stress in U.S. banks with seasonally aligned frailty hazards and delayed-feedback conformal alarms. Journal of Trends in Finance and Economics, 1(1), 85–100.
  28. Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 4765–4774.
  29. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803161.
  30. Tian, J., & Pearl, J. (2000). Probabilities of causation: Bounds and identification. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 28, 287–313. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018912507879.
  31. Li, P., Bian, M., & Lin, Y. (2026). Carbon-aware offline reinforcement learning for joint inventory replenishment and transportation scheduling in multi-echelon supply chains. Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, 69, 251–262.
  32. Liu, J., Wang, J., & Lin, H. (2025). Coordinated physics-informed multi-agent reinforcement learning for risk-aware supply chain optimization. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3629716.
© 2026 PUB · Seek truth with rigour