skip to main content
10.1145/3219819.3220078acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Adversarial Attacks on Neural Networks for Graph Data

Published:19 July 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Deep learning models for graphs have achieved strong performance for the task of node classification. Despite their proliferation, currently there is no study of their robustness to adversarial attacks. Yet, in domains where they are likely to be used, e.g. the web, adversaries are common. Can deep learning models for graphs be easily fooled? In this work, we introduce the first study of adversarial attacks on attributed graphs, specifically focusing on models exploiting ideas of graph convolutions. In addition to attacks at test time, we tackle the more challenging class of poisoning/causative attacks, which focus on the training phase of a machine learning model.We generate adversarial perturbations targeting the node's features and the graph structure, thus, taking the dependencies between instances in account. Moreover, we ensure that the perturbations remain unnoticeable by preserving important data characteristics. To cope with the underlying discrete domain we propose an efficient algorithm Nettack exploiting incremental computations. Our experimental study shows that accuracy of node classification significantly drops even when performing only few perturbations. Even more, our attacks are transferable: the learned attacks generalize to other state-of-the-art node classification models and unsupervised approaches, and likewise are successful even when only limited knowledge about the graph is given.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

zuegner_adversarial_networks.mp4

mp4

391.5 MB

References

  1. Lada A Adamic and Natalie Glance . 2005. The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog International workshop on Link discovery. 36--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alessandro Bessi . 2015. Two samples test for discrete power-law distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00643 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Battista Biggio, Giorgio Fumera, and Fabio Roli . 2014. Security evaluation of pattern classifiers under attack. IEEE TKDE Vol. 26, 4 (2014), 984--996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Aleksandar Bojchevski and Stephan Günnemann . 2018. Bayesian Robust Attributed Graph Clustering: Joint Learning of Partial Anomalies and Group Structure. In AAAI. 2738--2745.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Aleksandar Bojchevski and Stephan Günnemann . 2018. Deep Gaussian Embedding of Graphs: Unsupervised Inductive Learning via Ranking ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Aleksandar Bojchevski, Yves Matkovic, and Stephan Günnemann . 2017. Robust Spectral Clustering for Noisy Data: Modeling Sparse Corruptions Improves Latent Embeddings. In SIGKDD. 737--746. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Hongyun Cai, Vincent W Zheng, and Kevin Chang . 2018. A comprehensive survey of graph embedding: problems, techniques and applications. IEEE TKDE (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Olivier Chapelle, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Alexander Zien . 2006. Semi-Supervised Learning. Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning series. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Yizheng Chen, Yacin Nadji, Athanasios Kountouras, Fabian Monrose, Roberto Perdisci, Manos Antonakakis, and Nikolaos Vasiloglou . 2017. Practical Attacks Against Graph-based Clustering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.09056 (2017). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Aaron Clauset, Cosma Rohilla Shalizi, and Mark EJ Newman . 2009. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM review Vol. 51, 4 (2009), 661--703. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Michaël Defferrard, Xavier Bresson, and Pierre Vandergheynst . 2016. Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering NIPS. 3837--3845. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Dhivya Eswaran, Stephan Günnemann, Christos Faloutsos, Disha Makhija, and Mohit Kumar . 2017. ZooBP: Belief Propagation for Heterogeneous Networks. PVLDB Vol. 10, 5 (2017), 625--636. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Justin Gilmer, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Patrick F. Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E. Dahl . 2017. Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistry. In ICML. 1263--1272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy . 2015. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kathrin Grosse, Nicolas Papernot, Praveen Manoharan, Michael Backes, and Patrick McDaniel . 2017. Adversarial Examples for Malware Detection. In European Symposium on Research in Computer Security. 62--79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Aditya Grover and Jure Leskovec . 2016. node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In SIGKDD. 855--864. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. William L Hamilton, Rex Ying, and Jure Leskovec . 2017. Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs. In NIPS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Bryan Hooi, Neil Shah, Alex Beutel, Stephan Günnemann, Leman Akoglu, Mohit Kumar, Disha Makhija, and Christos Faloutsos . 2016. BIRDNEST: Bayesian Inference for Ratings-Fraud Detection SIAM SDM. 495--503.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling . 2017. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Bo Li, Yining Wang, Aarti Singh, and Yevgeniy Vorobeychik . 2016. Data poisoning attacks on factorization-based collaborative filtering NIPS. 1885--1893. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Ben London and Lise Getoor . 2014. Collective Classification of Network Data. Data Classification: Algorithms and Applications Vol. 399 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Andrew Kachites McCallum, Kamal Nigam, Jason Rennie, and Kristie Seymore . 2000. Automating the construction of internet portals with machine learning. Information Retrieval Vol. 3, 2 (2000), 127--163. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Shike Mei and Xiaojin Zhu . 2015. Using Machine Teaching to Identify Optimal Training-Set Attacks on Machine Learners. In AAAI. 2871--2877. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ahmed Mohamed Mohamed El-Sayed . 2016. Modeling Multivariate Correlated Binary Data. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics Vol. 5, 4 (2016), 225--233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Federico Monti, Davide Boscaini, Jonathan Masci, Emanuele Rodola, Jan Svoboda, and Michael M Bronstein . 2017. Geometric deep learning on graphs and manifolds using mixture model CNNs CVPR, Vol. Vol. 1. 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Somesh Jha, Matt Fredrikson, Z Berkay Celik, and Ananthram Swami . 2016. The limitations of deep learning in adversarial settings IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy. 372--387.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Bryan Perozzi, Rami Al-Rfou, and Steven Skiena . 2014. Deepwalk: Online learning of social representations SIGKDD. 701--710. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Trang Pham, Truyen Tran, Dinh Q. Phung, and Svetha Venkatesh . 2017. Column Networks for Collective Classification. In AAAI. 2485--2491.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Prithviraj Sen, Galileo Namata, Mustafa Bilgic, Lise Getoor, Brian Galligher, and Tina Eliassi-Rad . 2008. Collective classification in network data. AI magazine Vol. 29, 3 (2008), 93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Google Inc, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Google Inc, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus . 2014. Intriguing properties of neural networks. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Mohamad Ali Torkamani and Daniel Lowd . 2013. Convex adversarial collective classification. In ICML. 642--650. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Florian Tramèr, Nicolas Papernot, Ian Goodfellow, Dan Boneh, and Patrick McDaniel . 2017. The Space of Transferable Adversarial Examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03453 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Mengchen Zhao, Bo An, Yaodong Yu, Sulin Liu, and Sinno Jialin Pan . 2018. Data Poisoning Attacks on Multi-Task Relationship Learning AAAI. 2628--2635.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Adversarial Attacks on Neural Networks for Graph Data

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          KDD '18: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
          July 2018
          2925 pages
          ISBN:9781450355520
          DOI:10.1145/3219819

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 19 July 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          KDD '18 Paper Acceptance Rate107of983submissions,11%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader