Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved remarkable results in various tasks. Recent studies reveal that graph backdoor attacks can poison the GNN model to predict test nodes with triggers attached as the target class. However, apart from injecting triggers to training nodes, these graph backdoor attacks generally require altering the labels of trigger-attached training nodes into the target class, which is impractical in real-world scenarios. In this work, we focus on the clean-label graph backdoor attack, a realistic but understudied topic where training labels are not modifiable. According to our preliminary analysis, existing graph backdoor attacks generally fail under the clean-label setting. Our further analysis identifies that the core failure of existing methods lies in their inability to poison the prediction logic of GNN models, leading to the triggers being deemed unimportant for prediction. Therefore, we study a novel problem of effective clean-label graph backdoor attacks by poisoning the inner prediction logic of GNN models. We propose BA-Logic to solve the problem by coordinating a poisoned node selector and a logic-poisoning trigger generator. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that our method effectively enhances the attack success rate and surpasses state-of-the-art graph backdoor attack competitors under clean-label settings. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/BA-Logic
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of graph backdoor attacks under both the general and clean-label settings.
Figure 2
Figure 3: Framework of Ba-Logic .
Dataset
Target Model
Vanilla Acc.
ERBA
ECGBA
EBA-C
GTA-C
UGBA-C
DPGBA-C
Ba-Logic
Cora
GCN
83.78
18.22 | 80.77
34.77 | 79.48
29.13 | 74.17
32.45 | 80.45
68.32 | 79.97
59.55 | 79.88
98.52 | 83.59
GAT
84.30
19.32 | 82.08
35.19 | 78.93
29.34 | 74.23
35.85 | 82.68
68.76 | 82.81
59.02 | 84.19
97.12 | 83.76
GIN
84.26
19.17 | 79.85
34.56 | 79.92
29.30 | 74.46
35.49 | 79.63
67.75 | 83.04
60.03 | 81.56
98.97 | 83.81
Pubmed
GCN
86.38
22.18 | 85.58
37.46 | 85.86
31.89 | 85.60
38.84 | 86.17
71.24 | 85.31
64.19 | 85.41
96.75 | 86.03
GAT
86.51
22.24 | 85.91
41.54 | 85.61
30.13 | 85.46
42.14 | 85.78
66.07 | 86.33
67.05 | 85.21
94.88 | 85.13
GIN
86.51
15.46 | 85.57
43.14 | 83.63
30.99 | 85.44
42.34 | 86.35
68.69 | 85.81
66.17 | 86.22
99.04 | 86.21
Table 3: Average backdoor attack success rate and clean accuracy (ASR | clean accuracy (%)). Note that the surrogate model deployed in Ba-Logic is fixed as a 2-layer GCN.
Figure 4: Generalization ability of Ba-Logic . (a) ASR (%) with varying surrogate and target models on Arxiv. (b-c) ASR (%) on graph classification and edge prediction.
Datasets
GCN
ACMGCN
LINKX
Squirrel
99.07
98.14
98.79
Chameleon
99.03
98.53
98.43
Penn
96.34
96.71
95.32
Genius
98.17
97.92
93.71
Table 4: ASR (%) of Ba-Logic in backdooring various target models on heterophilous graphs.
Category
Defense
ECGBA
DPGBA-C
UGBA-C
Ba-Logic
Existing Defenses
GCN-Prune
13.57
17.43
62.31
96.75
RobustGCN
14.24
29.65
44.46
97.03
GNNGuard
0 0.51
43.77
40.08
95.37
RIGBD
0 0.01
0 0.01
0 0.19
93.23
Adaptive Defenses
ER
19.84
51.73
44.39
80.06
GM
17.92
46.25
49.87
92.36
Table 5: Comparisons of ASR(%) against various existing and adaptive defense models.
Figure 5: (a-b) Ablation studies on GCN and GIN. (c) Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis on Arxiv.
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Graph Classification
Edge Prediction
Datasets
SCLBA
GCLBA
TRAP
Ba-Logic
Datasets
SNTBA
PSO-LB
LB
Ba-Logic
MUTAG
88.51 | 62.77
19.27 | 62.81
71.89 | 61.44
92.17 | 61.32
Cora
91.32 | 80.43
61.35 | 79.45
68.06 | 76.17
99.01 | 79.59
NCI1
94.01 | 61.43
61.35 | 60.97
68.06 | 61.51
96.19 | 62.08
CS
89.62 | 81.95
67.14 | 76.13
57.67 | 78.49
95.13 | 79.65
PROTEINS
67.59 | 71.25
67.14 | 71.33
57.67 | 71.49
89.67 | 71.65
Physics
48.32 | 62.77
39.27 | 64.09
61.89 | 63.44
93.81 | 63.02
Appendix
Table 6: ASR | clean accuracy (%) of Ba-Logic in backdooring graph classification and edge prediction.
Surrogate Model
Training Time (s)
GPU Memory Peak (GB)
ASR|clean accuracy (%)
GCN
1678.05
23.52
87.07 | 78.51
GraphSAGE
1531.39
22.36
83.69 | 80.27
Appendix
Table 7: Training statistics and performance of Ba-Logic on OGBN-Products .
Figure 6: Performance of Ba-Logic on sampling-based GNNs.
Figure 7: Clean accuracy of backdoored models.
Datasets
OPS-GFS
UAT-U
UAT-T
Ba-Logic
MUTAG
88.45|60.67
88.91|60.95
90.15|59.45
92.17|61.32
PROTEINS
71.96|70.14
85.73|65.36
86.43|68.18
89.67|71.65
NCI1
83.71|80.65
93.46|77.44
95.17|78.16
94.38|80.39
Appendix
Table 8: Results (ASR|clean accuracy(%)) of comparing Ba-Logic with baselines from image domain.
Datasets
Defense
ERBA
ECGBA
EBA-C
GTA-C
DPGBA-C
UGBA-C
Ba-Logic
Cora
GCN-Prune
0 5.93
15.56
16.71
15.69
33.10
52.07
99.17
RobustGCN
0 4.17
14.25
15.28
15.04
21.78
56.09
99.12
GNNGuard
0 0.00
0 0.01
0 0.14
0 0.00
50.27
35.57
98.48
RIGBD
0 0.00
0 0.01
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.07
0 0.16
95.47
Pubmed
GCN-Prune
0 4.13
15.79
19.25
18.95
37.34
59.64
97.95
RobustGCN
0 2.96
13.24
17.13
18.72
28.13
45.59
98.10
Appendix
Table 9: Results (ASR(%)) of comparing Ba-Logic with baselines against defense models.
Setting
Pruning top-5%
Pruning top-10%
RTC
ASR ∣ clean accuracy
RTC
ASR ∣ clean accuracy
Prune 1 edge
96.20
97.45 ∣ 60.42
95.80
97.71 ∣ 61.15
Prune 2 edges
94.80
97.25 ∣ 59.37
91.60
96.82 ∣ 58.72
Prune 3 edges
90.40
96.62 ∣ 56.31
88.70
94.75 ∣ 56.03
Appendix
Table 10: Results of Ba-Logic against pruning defenses.
Figure 8: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis of Ba-Logic .
Dataset
ERBA-S
EBA-S
ECGBA-S
GTA-S
UGBA-S
DPGBA-S
BA-Logic
Cora
21.81 | 80.90
33.25 | 72.62
56.84 | 79.28
32.52 | 80.92
68.94 | 81.94
67.87 | 81.88
98.20 | 83.72
Pubmed
22.95 | 85.69
33.99 | 85.50
58.38 | 85.03
41.57 | 86.10
68.87 | 85.82
70.31 | 85.61
96.89 | 85.79
Flickr
0 4.70 | 46.29
34.15 | 44.99
62.08 | 44.99
51.71 | 45.88
68.08 | 45.66
71.39 | 44.78
99.90 | 45.70
Arxiv
0 0.01 | 65.43
31.09 | 65.57
54.94 | 64.21
37.98 | 65.79
70.79 | 66.08
69.10 | 66.27
98.03 | 66.02
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison between Ba-Logic and poisoned node selection updated baselines.
Figure 9: Comparison of IRT distribution.
Figure 10: Impact of attack budget.
Cora
Pubmed
ΔP
EBA-C
UGBA-C
DPGBA-C
BA-Logic
EBA-C
UGBA-C
DPGBA-C
BA-Logic
10
0 5.13 | 82.47
15.29 | 81.05
17.87 | 80.95
65.16 | 83.11
0 0.69 | 86.38
11.89 | 85.36
21.15 | 84.95
62.07 | 85.32
20
12.39 | 82.78
51.26 | 80.14
45.43 | 81.36
87.13 | 83.06
0 8.61 | 86.21
34.62 | 85.36
49.31 | 84.36
88.04 | 85.09
30
15.64 | 82.34
62.20 | 80.65
50.77 | 80.44
92.17 | 82.39
19.47 | 86.75
64.16 | 85.05
54.61 | 85.44
94.79 | 84.67
40
29.03 | 81.86
63.18 | 80.37
51.03 | 80.85
94.22 | 83.16
29.76 | 85.33
64.07 | 85.16
55.57 | 85.85
95.44 | 84.96
50
29.17 | 80.99
63.23 | 79.85
51.15 | 80.75
96.05 | 81.85
30.66 | 85.17
63.97 | 85.25
57.86 | 85.75
95.71 | 85.05
Appendix
Table 12: Results (ASR | clean accuracy(%)) on Cora and Pubmed with less attack budget.
Method
Manipulates Existing Nodes/Edges
Alters Training Labels
Knows/Controls Defense for Data Cleaning
Trigger Injection
Comparison to Ours
GTA
✗
✓
✗
✓
Stronger assumption than ours
UGBA
✗
✓
✗
✓
Stronger assumption than ours
DPGBA
✗
✓
✗
✓
Stronger assumption than ours
TRAP
✓
✓
✗
✗
Stronger assumption than ours
EBA
✓
✗
✗
✗
Stronger assumption than ours
CGBA
✓
✗
✗
✗
Stronger assumption than ours
Appendix
Table 13: Threat model level comparison.
Dataset
#Nodes
#Edges
#Graphs
#Features
#Classes
Cora
2,708
5,429
1
1,433
7
Pubmed
19,717
44,338
1
500
3
Flickr
89,250
899,756
1
500
7
Arxiv
169,343
1,166,243
1
128
40
CS
18,333
163,788
1
6,805
15
Physics
34,493
495,924
1
8,415
5
Appendix
Table 14: The statistics of datasets in our work.
Dataset
#Nodes
UGBA
DPGBA
Ba-Logic
Flickr
89,250
32.0s
57.7s
123.4s
Arxiv
169,343
51.3s
68.9s
155.7s
Appendix
Table 15: Comparisons of method training time on two datasets.
Dataset
Defenses
Acc.
ERBA
ECGBA
EBA-C
GTA-C
UGBA-C
DPGBA-C
Ba-Logic
Cora
ER
84.11
0 7.83|82.36
42.59|82.07
20.74|75.75
30.56|82.38
45.82|80.37
49.31|82.91
89.05|71.85
GM
84.12
0 6.91|73.71
52.31|75.58
19.38|67.10
31.42|73.73
50.41|71.16
51.16|74.94
95.32|72.31
CD
84.10
0 0.05|74.72
44.62|78.14
21.78|68.11
45.34|74.74
62.71|70.14
48.10|76.45
90.47|70.02
SAM
84.09
0 0.03|73.21
45.01|81.66
25.19|66.60
51.08|73.23
39.95|70.65
33.08|67.87
79.56|75.69
Pubmed
ER
86.51
0 5.12|80.57
52.17|86.18
17.53|80.38
27.68|80.98
46.11|74.75
57.09|80.16
89.52|67.22
GM
86.51
0 3.21|75.65
56.22|80.01
16.29|75.46
28.45|76.06
52.30|71.16
52.61|75.16
88.07|66.48
Appendix
Table 16: Results (ASR | clean accuracy(%)) of backdoor methods against adaptive defenses.
Figure 11: Performance of Ba-Logic on synthetic graphs with different feature-label correlations.
Figure 12: Performance of Ba-Logic under sparse, noisy, and imbalanced label settings.
Figure 13: The Jaccard overlap of poisoned node selection under different label settings.
Figure 14: Performance of Ba-Logic under noisy and partially accessible feature settings.
Graph neural networks (GNNs) have achieved remarkable success in relational learning. However, their vulnerability to graph backdoor attacks (GBAs) poses a significant barrier to broader adoption in high-stakes applications. Despite recent advances in graph backdoor defense (GBD), existing methods primarily focus on subgraph-based GBAs, relying on the assumption that poisoned target nodes are explicitly connected to subgraph triggers. Our empirical results reveal that such structure-centric approaches fail to defend against emerging feature-based GBAs that preserve graph topology. Therefore, in this paper, we study a novel problem of universal graph backdoor defense. First, we investigate the shared effects of both attack types from a feature-based homophily perspective, which characterizes local feature consistency between nodes and their neighborhoods. Thorough theoretical and empirical analyses demonstrate that, regardless of trigger mechanisms, backdoors induced by GBAs exhibit lower feature-based homophily than clean nodes, indicating a discrepancy in local feature similarity. Motivated by this insight, we propose to leverage node-level local feature consistency, modeled by a neighbor-aware reconstruction loss, to distinguish backdoors from clean nodes. Then, a robust training strategy is developed to eliminate trigger effects while reducing noise induced by detection uncertainty. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our framework significantly degrades the attack success rate and maintains competitive clean accuracy under both subgraph-based and feature-based attacks.
Mengting Pan, Fan Li, Chen Chen +1
The University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia · University of Wollongong Wollongong, Australia
GNNs have become a standard tool for learning on relational data, yet they remain highly vulnerable to backdoor attacks. Prior defenses often depend on inspecting specific subgraph patterns or node features, and thus can be circumvented by adaptive attackers. We propose PRAETORIAN, a new defense that targets intrinsic requirements of effective GNN backdoors rather than surface-level cues. Our key observation is that flipping a victim node's prediction requires substantial influence on the victim: attackers tend to either inject many trigger nodes or rely on a small set of highly influential ones. Building on this observation, PRAETORIAN (i) analyzes internal correlations within potential trigger subgraphs to detect abnormally large injected structures, and (ii) quantifies external node influence to identify triggers with disproportionate impact. Across our evaluations, PRAETORIAN reduces the average attack success rate (ASR) to 0.55% with only a 0.62% drop in clean accuracy (CA), whereas state-of-the-art defenses still yield an average ASR of >20% and a CA drop of >3% under the same conditions. Moreover, PRAETORIAN remains effective against a range of adaptive attacks, forcing adversaries to either inject many trigger nodes to achieve high ASR (>80%), which incurs a >10% CA drop, or preserve CA at the cost of limiting ASR to 18.1%. Overall, PRAETORIAN constrains attackers to an unfavorable trade-off between efficacy and detectability.
Fan Yang, Binyan Xu, Di Tang +1
The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Sun Yat-Sen University
Modern graph learning systems often combine links with text, as in citation networks with abstracts or social graphs with user posts. In such systems, text is usually easier to edit than graph structure, which creates a practical security risk: an attacker may hide a small malicious cue in training text and later use it to trigger incorrect predictions. This paper studies that risk in a realistic setting where the attacker edits only node text and leaves the graph unchanged. We propose TAGBD, a graph-aware backdoor attack that first selects training nodes that are easier to manipulate, then generates stealthy poison text with a shadow graph model, and finally injects the text by replacing the original content or appending a short phrase. Experiments on three benchmark datasets show that TAGBD achieves very high attack success rates, transfers across different graph models, and remains effective under common defenses. These results show that inconspicuous poison text alone can serve as a reliable attack channel in text-attributed graphs, highlighting the need for defenses that inspect both node content and graph structure.
Qi Luo, Minghui Xu, Dongxiao Yu +1
School of Computer Science and Technology, Shandong University, Qingdao, China