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.
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
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9418
±0.0033 | |
| 2 | GCN+CNA | 0.9366
±0.0048 | |
| 3 | TransformerConv | 0.9350
±0.0058 | |
| 21 | GCN | 0.9004 best reported | best at pub: SplineCNN: Fast Geometric Deep Learning with Continuous B-Spline Kernels (2017) best today: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 39 | SAGE | 0.8911
±0.0012 | |
| 95 | RGCN | 0.8634
±0.0103 | prev best: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) |
| 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 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | 0.7158
±0.0076 | prev best: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 537 | GCNs | 0.7122
±0.0047 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LGTL | 0.9518
±0.0011 | |
| 2 | MixHop (LO) | 0.9513
±0.0038 | |
| 3 | GraphSAGE (LO) | 0.9511
±0.0036 | |
| 18 | GCN | 0.9296
±0.0015 best reported | best at pub: Tackling Over-Smoothing for General Graph Convolutional Networks (2020) |
| 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 | 0.8498
±0.0016 | prev best: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) |
