IJCAI 2021

Understanding Structural Vulnerability in Graph Convolutional Networks

Liang Chen, Jintang Li, Qibiao Peng, Yang Liu, Zibin Zheng, Carl Yang

Main figure for Understanding Structural Vulnerability in Graph Convolutional Networks

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) are vulnerable to adversarial attacks on the graph structure. Although multiple works have been proposed to improve their robustness against such structural adversarial attacks, the reasons for the success of the attacks remain unclear. In this work, we theoretically and empirically demonstrate that structural adversarial examples can be attributed to the non-robust aggregation scheme (i.e., the weighted mean) of GCNs. Specifically, our analysis takes advantage of the breakdown point which can quantitatively measure the robustness of aggregation schemes. The key insight is that weighted mean, as the basic design of GCNs, has a low breakdown point and its output can be dramatically changed by injecting a single edge. We show that adopting the aggregation scheme with a high breakdown point (e.g., median or trimmed mean) could significantly enhance the robustness of GCNs against structural attacks. Extensive experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that such a simple but effective method achieves the best robustness performance compared to state-of-the-art models.

Proposed method: TMean

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
paper 0.8660 ±0.0033
paper 0.8660 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0057 Δ today 0.0344
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
95
RGCN
actual #95 vs paper #176 81 places worse
0.8634 ±0.0103
actual #95 vs paper #176 81 places worse
paper 0.8634 ±0.0103
135
TMean
0.8720 ±0.0010
This paper
144
Median
0.8700 ±0.0047
This paper
193
Jaccard
0.8587 ±0.0044
This paper
199
SimPGCN
0.8567 ±0.0033
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
370
SimPGCN
0.7270 ±0.0071
This paper
419
Median
0.7240 ±0.0052
This paper
479
TMean
0.7173 ±0.0062
This paper
496
Jaccard
0.7162 ±0.0019
This paper
502
RGCN
actual #502 vs paper #502
0.7158 ±0.0076
actual #502 vs paper #502
paper 0.7158 ±0.0076

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7158 ±0.0076 Δ at pub 0.0038
537
GCNs
0.7122 ±0.0047
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #237 219 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #237 219 places worse
paper 0.8568 ±0.0023
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
183
SimPGCN
0.8760 ±0.0025
This paper
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
231
Median
0.8598 ±0.0030
This paper
235
Jaccard
0.8580 ±0.0026
This paper
252
TMean
0.8520 ±0.0050
This paper
259
RGCN
actual #259 vs paper #259
0.8498 ±0.0016
actual #259 vs paper #259
paper 0.8498 ±0.0016
paper 0.8498 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0588
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere