NeurIPS 2025

Enhancing Graph Classification Robustness with Singular Pooling

Sofiane Ennadir, Oleg Smirnov, Yassine Abbahaddou, Lele Cao, J. Lutzeyer

Main figure for Enhancing Graph Classification Robustness with Singular Pooling

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved strong performance across a range of graph representation learning tasks, yet their adversarial robustness in graph classification remains underexplored compared to node classification. While most existing defenses focus on the message-passing component, this work investigates the overlooked role of pooling operations in shaping robustness. We present a theoretical analysis of standard flat pooling methods (sum, average and max), deriving upper bounds on their adversarial risk and identifying their vulnerabilities under different attack scenarios and graph structures. Motivated by these insights, we propose Robust Singular Pooling (RS-Pool), a novel pooling strategy that leverages the dominant singular vector of the node embedding matrix to construct a robust graph-level representation. We theoretically investigate the robustness of RS-Pool and interpret the resulting bound leading to improved understanding of our proposed pooling operator. While our analysis centers on Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs), RS-Pool is model-agnostic and can be implemented efficiently via power iteration. Empirical results on real-world benchmarks show that RS-Pool provides better robustness than the considered pooling methods when subject to state-of-the-art adversarial attacks while maintaining competitive clean accuracy. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/king/rs-pool.

Proposed method: RS-Pool

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
359
sag
actual #359 vs paper #478 119 places worse
0.7700 ±0.0300
best reported
actual #359 vs paper #478 119 places worse
paper 0.7040 ±0.0090
paper 0.7040 ±0.0090 Δ today 0.0660
474
TopK-P
0.7090 ±0.0090
This paper
477
SUM
0.7060 ±0.0080
This paper
479
PAN-P
0.7040 ±0.0170
This paper
481
RS-Pool
0.7010 ±0.0120
This paper
490
Sort-P
0.6950 ±0.0040
This paper
505
MAX
0.6820 ±0.0120
This paper
506
Average
0.6790 ±0.0160
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
23
SUM
actual #23 vs paper #215 192 places worse
0.6833
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #215 192 places worse
paper 0.3340 ±0.0490
paper 0.3340 ±0.0490 Δ at pub 0.3493
24
MAX
actual #24 vs paper #240 216 places worse
0.6833
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #240 216 places worse
paper 0.2770 ±0.0160
paper 0.2770 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.4063
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
217
RS-Pool
0.3280 ±0.0460
This paper
234
Sort-P
0.2970 ±0.0210
This paper
239
PAN-P
0.2830 ±0.0360
This paper
241
Average
0.2770 ±0.0490
This paper
242
TopK-P
0.2770 ±0.0430
This paper
250
sag
0.2610 ±0.0090
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GC-GNN (GCN)
0.9210 ±0.0810
2
SUGAR
0.8403 ±0.0133
3
Ortho-g-U-Nets
0.8387
15
SAGE
0.8088 ±0.0233
125
PAN-P
0.7570 ±0.0280
This paper
137
SUM
0.7510 ±0.0060
This paper
139
Sort-P
0.7490 ±0.0170
This paper
143
RS-Pool
0.7460 ±0.0070
This paper
147
TopK-P
0.7440 ±0.0110
This paper
149
MAX
0.7410 ±0.0060
This paper
166
sag
0.7130 ±0.0040
This paper
171
Average
0.7010 ±0.0050
This paper
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere