S-GAP: Stealthy Graph Attack Primitives for Graph Large Language Models
Organizations: 1Zhejiang University · 2Hangzhou City University · 3Nanyang Technological University · 4Zhejiang Lab
Abstract
Graph Large Language Models (GraphLLMs) enable powerful semantic understanding and reasoning over Text-Attributed Graphs (TAGs), while their semantic reasoning may exhibit vulnerabilities to perturbations in node text and graph structure under adversarial attack evaluation. Existing attacks typically construct textual and structural perturbations in separate stages guided by distinct realization intents. However, this separation results in attack-intent fragmentation, causing semantic incoherence between the two perturbation types, thereby undermining attack stealth and making them easier for GraphLLMs to identify and disregard, ultimately weakening attack effectiveness. To avoid attack-intent fragmentation, we propose the Graph Attack Primitive (GAP), an atomic semantic representation that unifies textual and structural perturbations under a coherent attack intent. By carefully calibrating the semantic composition of a GAP, we can achieve strong attack effectiveness while maintaining sufficient attack stealth. Furthermore, we introduce S-GAP (Stealthy GAP), a multi-agent framework that iteratively refines the semantic content of the GAP. The framework unifies GAP planning and realization and continuously refines this process through surrogate evaluation and textual feedback. Extensive experiments across four datasets, three GraphLLMs, and two attack settings show that S-GAP improves ASR over the strongest baselines by 7.02% on average while producing more relationally plausible perturbations, exposing critical vulnerabilities in current GraphLLMs and motivating more robust defenses.
Figures & tables
| Setting | Dataset | Metric/Model | Clean | Nettack | Mettack | PRBCD | G2A2C | WTGIA | ATAG-LLM | BadGraph | S-GAP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GIA | Cora | LLaGA | – | 3.01 | 3.01 | 3.01 | 1.72 | 2.37 | 1.94 | 3.23 | 6.02 |
| RGLM | – | 1.26 | 1.68 | 0.84 | 1.26 | 0.63 | 0.84 | 1.05 | 3.15 | ||
| TEA-GLM | – | 2.93 | 3.66 | 1.95 | 4.15 | 4.39 | 2.20 | 5.12 | 7.07 | ||
| High Plaus. | 66.88 | 2.40 | 0.20 | 2.41 | – | 4.25 | 2.86 | 0.18 | 69.43 | ||
| PubMed | LLaGA | – | 1.78 | 1.89 | 2.09 | 1.83 | 2.00 | 1.94 | 2.00 | 2.79 | |
| RGLM | – | 0.47 | 0.44 | 0.69 | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 1.47 |
| Setting | Dataset | Variant | LLaGA | RGLM | TEA-GLM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GIA | Cora | w/o score | 2.58 | 1.05 | 3.66 |
| w/o GAP | 3.44 | 1.47 | 4.15 | ||
| w/o feedback | 3.66 | 1.26 | 6.83 | ||
| S-GAP | 6.02 | 3.15 | 7.07 | ||
| PubMed | w/o score | 2.09 | 0.80 | 0.22 | |
| w/o GAP | 2.17 | 1.02 | 0.28 |
| Dataset | Variant | LLaGA | RGLM | TEA-GLM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cora | Text | 15.48 | 16.81 | 41.71 |
| Structure | 27.10 | 15.34 | 8.29 | |
| S-GAP | 44.95 | 49.16 | 50.73 | |
| PubMed | Text | 16.54 | 21.44 | 38.62 |
| Structure | 13.59 | 4.96 | 0.67 | |
| S-GAP | 49.01 | 47.76 | 56.89 |
Adversarial Attacks on LLMs
Adversarial attacks on large language models probe how crafted inputs, internal changes, and agent interactions bypass safety or disrupt reliable behavior.
See all 355 papers