Graph Foundation Models (GFMs) on text-attributed graphs (TAGs) align graph representations with language semantics to support transferable graph learning. Despite these advantages, the backdoor vulnerability of GFMs on TAGs remains insufficiently understood, especially under graph-language alignment, where graph and text representations are trained to constrain each other in a shared semantic space. Existing backdoor attacks mainly target either the graph side or the text side, treating the two modalities independently. This makes direct adaptation ineffective: graph-only triggers can be constrained by clean text semantics, while text-only triggers alter the language view but do not directly shift the graph representation being aligned and scored. TAGs also impose a stealth challenge because triggers are exposed as both node text and local graph structure, making incoherent trigger attributes or anomalous subgraphs easy to inspect or filter. In this paper, we propose STAG, a stealthy trojan attack framework designed for the graph-language alignment interface of GFMs on TAGs. STAG coordinates a graph-trigger generator with a text-side soft prompt so that trigger-attached graph representations and triggered text representations move toward the same target-class text region. To address TAG-specific stealthiness, STAG realizes trigger nodes as readable text through candidate retrieval and regularizes the trigger-attached subgraph so that its local structure remains close to the original subgraph. Extensive experiments on multiple TAG datasets and representative GFMs demonstrate the effectiveness and stealthiness of STAG. Our code is available at https://github.com/ventr1c/STAG.
Figures & tables
Dataset
GFM
Clean
CrossBA
PoisonPrompt
Cora
GraphGPT
92.50
35.60 ∣ 73.20
12.30 ∣ 25.50
GraphCLIP
67.30
32.20 ∣ 13.80
13.40 ∣ 49.30
G2P2
62.50
33.20 ∣ 16.90
16.50 ∣ 54.60
OGB-arxiv
GraphGPT
42.80
25.80 ∣ 11.30
0 1.70 ∣ 0 5.70
GraphCLIP
31.20
37.30 ∣ 18.50
31.40 ∣ 21.60
G2P2
22.30
42.70 ∣ 0 8.70
0 3.60 ∣ 20.70
TABLE I: Results of existing single-modal backdoor attacks against three GFMs on Cora and OGB-arxiv datasets (ASR (%) ∣ ACC (%)).
Fig. 1 : Overview of STAG. STAG jointly learns a graph trigger generator and a text-side soft prompt with a surrogate GFM, coordinating them through graph-language alignment to steer triggered samples toward the target class while preserving readable trigger-node text and plausible local structure.
Dataset
Nodes
Edges
Text attribute
Classes
Cora
2,708
5,278
Paper text / keywords
7
CiteSeer
3,312
4,552
Title / abstract
6
WikiCS
11,701
216,123
Article text
10
OGB-arxiv
169,343
1,166,243
Title / abstract
40
TABLE II : Dataset Statistics.
Dataset
GFM
Clean Graph
CrossBA
PoisonPrompt
BadCLIP
Ours
Cora
GraphCLIP
67.30
32.20 ∣ 13.80
13.40 ∣ 49.30
7.30 ∣ 9.30
93.20 ∣ 68.30
GraphGPT
92.50
35.60 ∣ 73.20
12.30 ∣ 25.50
16.60 ∣ 46.40
97.70 ∣ 94.60
G2P2
62.50
33.20 ∣ 16.90
16.50 ∣ 54.60
12.60 ∣ 11.10
100.00 ∣ 59.60
CiteSeer
GraphCLIP
65.20
61.40 ∣ 68.50
10.30 ∣ 64.90
0.30 ∣ 16.80
92.40 ∣ 63.70
GraphGPT
83.10
29.60 ∣ 66.80
10.20 ∣ 16.90
19.60 ∣ 39.70
95.40 ∣ 83.60
G2P2
65.30
33.50 ∣ 56.90
11.40 ∣ 61.70
5.60 ∣ 23.80
100.00 ∣ 61.90
TABLE III: Backdoor attack results across three victim GFMs and four TAG datasets without defenses (ASR (%) ∣ ACC (%)). Only clean accuracy is reported for clean graphs.
Dataset
Defense
Clean Graph
CrossBA
PoisonPrompt
BadCLIP
Ours
Cora
None
74.10
33.67 ∣ 34.63
14.07 ∣ 43.13
12.17 ∣ 22.27
96.97 ∣ 74.17
Prune
29.27 ∣ 33.53
10.30 ∣ 42.37
8.53 ∣ 21.33
95.20 ∣ 72.10
OD
29.70 ∣ 33.90
11.13 ∣ 42.70
7.63 ∣ 21.27
96.63 ∣ 73.50
DOMINANT
23.77 ∣ 33.30
8.50 ∣ 43.10
7.33 ∣ 20.33
96.90 ∣ 73.57
OGB-arxiv
None
32.10
35.27 ∣ 12.83
12.23 ∣ 16.00
14.27 ∣ 9.77
97.40 ∣ 30.37
Prune
31.43 ∣ 12.70
17.03 ∣ 10.87
8.60 ∣ 9.57
96.60 ∣ 28.20
TABLE IV: Backdoor attack results under three backdoor defenses, averaged over three victim GFMs on Cora and OGB-arxiv (ASR (%) ∣ ACC (%)). Only clean accuracy is reported for clean graphs.
Fig. 2 : Embedding-closure analysis on Cora with GraphCLIP. (a) Similarity to the target-class anchor ( st ) vs. the true-class anchor ( sy ). (b) Closure-gap distribution. (c) Closure rate ρ vs. ASR.
Textual
Structural
Method
PPL
ONION%
∣Δdˉ∣
KS
Clean text
53.4
0.0
–
–
CrossBA
–
–
4.39
0.94
PoisonPrompt
67083.8
33.1
–
–
BadCLIP
441.5
0.8
–
–
STAG w/o Lcsem
20712.7
45.2
0.66
0.27
TABLE V: Trigger-stealthiness measurements on Cora with GraphCLIP. Lower values indicate stronger stealthiness.
Fig. 3 : Ablation studies on CiteSeer and OGB-arxiv.
School of Cyberspace, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China · Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China · Beihang University, Beijing, China +1