Can Graph Neural Networks Expose Training Data Properties? An Efficient Risk Assessment Approach

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have attracted considerable attention due to their diverse applications. However, the scarcity and quality limitations of graph data present challenges to their training process in practical settings. To facilitate the development of effective GNNs, companies and researchers often seek external collaboration. Yet, directly sharing data raises privacy concerns, motivating data owners to train GNNs on their private graphs and share the trained models. Unfortunately, these models may still inadvertently disclose sensitive properties of their training graphs (e.g., average default rate in a transaction network), leading to severe consequences for data owners. In this work, we study graph property inference attack to identify the risk of sensitive property information leakage from shared models. Existing approaches typically train numerous shadow models for developing such attack, which is computationally intensive and impractical. To address this issue, we propose an efficient graph property inference attack by leveraging model approximation techniques. Our method only requires training a small set of models on graphs, while generating a sufficient number of approximated shadow models for attacks. To enhance diversity while reducing errors in the approximated models, we apply edit distance to quantify the diversity within a group of approximated models and introduce a theoretically guaranteed criterion to evaluate each model's error. Subsequently, we propose a novel selection mechanism to ensure that the retained approximated models achieve high diversity and low error. Extensive experiments across six real-world scenarios demonstrate our method's substantial improvement, with average increases of 2.7% in attack accuracy and 4.1% in ROC-AUC, while being 6.5$\times$ faster compared to the best baseline.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer 5YZA6/10 · confidence 4/52024-06-26

Summary

The paper introduces an improved method for conducting property inference attacks on graph neural networks (GNNs), particularly focusing on reducing the computational overhead associated with traditional approaches that rely on numerous shadow models. The authors propose a model approximation technique to generate a sufficient number of approximated models for attacks, without the need for extensive retraining. They introduce a diversity-enhancing mechanism to ensure the effectiveness of the approximations. Experiments demonstrate notable improvements in attack accuracy and efficiency compared to existing methods, validating the proposed approach's effectiveness and efficiency.

Strengths

- Steady theretical support - Well-written paper - Novel combination of different algorithms

Weaknesses

- Lack of details and certain explanations - Weak experimental settings

Questions

- This paper is well-structured and well-written. I particularly appreciate the authors' efforts in providing thorough theoretical explanations and introducing innovative approaches. Replacing the training of numerous shadow models with model approximation is a significant and impactful contribution, effectively enhancing the efficiency of general property inference attacks. - This paper assumes that the target and auxiliary graphs are splits of the same original graph, which is an impractical assumption in real-world scenarios. It would strengthen the paper's applicability if the authors used distinct network graphs (yet from the same dimain) for the target and auxiliary graphs. - When comparing training efficiency with state-of-the-art methods, it is unclear whether the time required to generate diverse approximated models and calculate error is included. Including such details would enhance the transparency and reliability of the comparisons. - While the paper presents improvements over baselines, it does not thoroughly discuss why the proposed method might outperform baselines by a big margin. Although it is clear that using a few approximated models in place of hundreds of shadow models contributes to efficiency, the reasons why it is much more effective than the baselines need to be further discussed. - The choice of property attributes inferred in this study (e.g., # male users > # female users, or # publications with "IS" > # publications without "IS") seems kind of limited. The significance of this work would be enhanced if the authors expanded their experiments to include the inference of a broader variety of node or link properties such as the portion of different kinds of nodes or links. - I would be pleased to increase my score if the authors address these issues, which would substantially enhance the paper's contribution to the field.

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

see questions

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-11

Dear Reviewer, We appreciate your recognition of the importance of our work and the time you took to provide a detailed review. We would like to confirm that we have addressed all your concerns about our submission. If there is anything more we can do to help you in evaluating our paper, please don't hesitate to let us know. Best regards, Authors

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-14

As we are nearing the end of the discussion phase, we would like to kindly inquire if you have any remaining questions about our paper. We would appreciate any feedback and would be glad to discuss it further.

Reviewer xZDY5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-10

Summary

This paper delivers an effective way to improve the efficiency of property inference attacks for GNNs. Instead of training numerous shadow models, the authors propose to train a few reference models and use an efficient approximation method to obtain other shadow models trained on slightly augmented shadow graphs. Experimental results show that the proposed property inference attack achieves better performance in a shorter time.

Strengths

- To me, this paper finds an interesting application of machine unlearning in reducing the time complexity of training shadow models in inference attacks. - The experimental results show a desirable performance of the proposed method over baseline attack methods in both efficacy and efficiency. - The paper is overall well-organized and easy to follow.

Weaknesses

- The scope and significance of this paper are somewhat limited. The main contribution of this paper is to improve the efficiency of a specific inference attack model. It would be helpful to provide more discussions on the new attack algorithm, e.g., insights on defending against the new attack method. - The technical novelty is limited. In my opinion, the technical part of this paper is pretty much a certified graph unlearning method, which has been studied in previous literature [1,2,3,4]. I don't find a distinct improvement or new contribution of the technical part compared with [1,2,3,4]. - The inverse Hessian in influence computation is seen as highly consuming. It would be helpful to add some complexity analysis of the algorithm. [1] Wu, Kun, et al. "Certified edge unlearning for graph neural networks." KDD 2023. [2] Pan, Chao, Eli Chien, and Olgica Milenkovic. "Unlearning graph classifiers with limited data resources." TheWebConf 2023. [3] Chien, Eli, Chao Pan, and Olgica Milenkovic. "Efficient model updates for approximate unlearning of graph-structured data." ICLR 2023. [4] Wu, Jiancan, et al. "Gif: A general graph unlearning strategy via influence function." TheWebConf 2023.

Questions

The theoretical analysis still relies on the convexity assumptions. To satisfy the assumptions, it would be feasible to use a linearized reference model. It is not clear which type of GNN is used as the reference GNN.

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

2

Presentation

4

Contribution

2

Limitations

The authors have included detailed discussions on the societal impact of their work.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-11

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your review and comments. In our rebuttal, we made special efforts to clarify the distinctions between our approach and existing graph unlearning methods, provided additional discussions on our attack algorithm, and enhanced our technical details. We would greatly appreciate any feedback on any existing or new points we may not have covered, and we would be glad to address or discuss them further. Best regards, Authors

Reviewer xZDY2024-08-12

I thank the authors for their further clarification which helps strengthen the contributions of this work. However, I still think the technical novelty of the model approximation part (which also means the theoretical contribution) is somewhat limited. The mentioned simultaneous removal of nodes, edges, and features and removal for various GNN architectures seem also to be covered by existing studies [1]. Further comparison and clarification would be helpful. Based on the current response, I am willing to improve my score to 4. [1] Dong, Yushun, et al. "IDEA: A Flexible Framework of Certified Unlearning for Graph Neural Networks." KDD 2024.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

Thank you for bringing this work to our attention. We note that this work was published online in July of this year, which was subsequent to the submission of our paper. Therefore, we did not discuss it in our initial version. After a thorough review of this paper, we have identified two key aspects where our approach differs significantly: (1) The approach in [1] relies on additional theoretical assumptions that impact the efficiency of model approximation, making it less suitable for our efficiency requirements. Specifically, they define different affected node groups based on the type of unlearning requests (e.g., node removal, edge removal), with the assumption that these groups do not overlap. When removing a mix of nodes and edges, this assumption may fail. To address this, they split the removal into multiple sets, each meeting the non-overlapping requirement, and perform the unlearning processes on these sets sequentially. This approach incurs significantly higher computational costs; for instance, if the removal is divided into five sets, five separate unlearning processes are required sequentially. In contrast, our approach groups nodes simply into influenced set and removed set, requiring only one unlearning process per removal, which ensures greater efficiency. (2) We employ a different error estimation approach. Specifically, the error estimation proposed in [1] supports their certified unlearning proof, which involves the more complex computation of the inverse Hessian. This could significantly compromise the speed of selecting removals in our attack. In comparison, our error estimation can be computed directly based on the removal and graph structure, allowing for a more efficient attack. [1] Dong, Yushun, et al. "IDEA: A Flexible Framework of Certified Unlearning for Graph Neural Networks." KDD 2024.

Reviewer xZDY2024-08-13

I thank the authors for their further response. I agree with the first point about the shortcomings of the IDEA method, but I don't get the difference between the two methods in the inverse Hessian computation step. In addition, the computation of the inverse Hessian is not claimed to be an original contribution by this work. Nevertheless, it is true that IDEA was released recently and can be seen as a concurrent work, so it is not a big deal. I suggest the authors add more analyses and discussions on the efficiency of the proposed model approximation part. In comparison, Theorem 2 is not quite informative here as the advantage of the proposed model approximation compared with previous graph unlearning methods is its efficiency. If more details are added, I would like to further raise my score.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

We apologize for any confusion caused. We want to clarify that the proposed error estimation does not accelerate the model approximation itself but rather speeds up the overall attack process. Specifically, in our attack framework, we need to select augmented graphs that incur relatively lower approximation errors, enabling a more effective attack (as shown in our ablation study). The efficiency we refer to is in this selection step. Since we need to measure the error for each augmented graph, the error measurement should be straightforward and easy to compute. Therefore, we introduce a new error bound in Theorem 2, which supports the removal of both nodes and edges. This bound is then used as an efficient error estimation to select augmented graphs. Upon careful review, we found that the IDEA method also derived a similar error bound. However, it involves the term of the inverse Hessian (Eq. (16) of [1]), which is more complex and cannot be easily computed for all augmented graphs, making it unsuitable for our selection step. In summary, our goal is not to achieve faster model approximation, but rather to use our error bound to help efficiently select data, which in turn makes the overall attack process faster. [1] Dong, Yushun, et al. "IDEA: A Flexible Framework of Certified Unlearning for Graph Neural Networks." KDD 2024.

Reviewer xZDY2024-08-13

I thank the authors for providing further clarifications. Most of my concerns are addressed. It would be great if the authors could add the discussions in the rebuttal phase to the revised paper.

Reviewer j8ts5/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-14

Summary

This paper proposes a more efficient property inference attack on graph neural networks (GNNs). Particularly, it uses model approximation methods to reduce the number of shadow models that needs to be trained by the graph property inference attack. Here only a limited number of shadow models are trained from scratch while model approximation method is used to generate other approximated shadow models without training them. Theoretical upper bounds for the approximation error are also provided.

Strengths

1. The paper is overall clearly written and easy to follow. 2. The research problem of making the inference attacks more efficient is relevant. 3. The proposed method achieves the SoTA attack performance and largely reduces the training time of the attack model.

Weaknesses

1. How scalable is this attack for larger datasets? Current experiments are limited. Please perform the attack on larger datasets from the OGBN dataset (ArXiv, Products) 2. How well does this scale for other GNNs? Please evaluate with other GNN models. 3. Fig. 1 is confusing. Please update it to clearly show the difference between the proposed approach and the existing attacks.

Questions

Please refer to the weaknesses.

Rating

5

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

2

Limitations

Sufficiently addressed.

Reviewer j8ts2024-08-13

I thank the authors for their rebuttal. I am increasing my score to 5.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC