Papers › Are LLM-Enhanced Graph Neural Networks Robust against Poisoning Attacks?

Are LLM-Enhanced Graph Neural Networks Robust against Poisoning Attacks?

27 Mar 2026arXiv:2603.26105added by Syntology

Yuhang Ma, Jie Wang, Zheng Yan

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) by enriching node representations with semantic features, giving rise to LLM-enhanced GNNs that achieve notable performance gains. However, the robustness of these models against poisoning attacks, which manipulate both graph structures and textual attributes during training, remains unexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose a robustness assessment framework that systematically evaluates LLM-enhanced GNNs under poisoning attacks. Our framework enables comprehensive evaluation across multiple dimensions. Specifically, we assess 24 victim models by combining eight LLM- or Language Model (LM)-based feature enhancers with three representative GNN backbones. To ensure diversity in attack coverage, we incorporate six structural poisoning attacks (both targeted and non-targeted) and three textual poisoning attacks operating at the character, word, and sentence levels. Furthermore, we employ four real-world datasets, including one released after the emergence of LLMs, to avoid potential ground truth leakage during LLM pretraining, thereby ensuring fair evaluation. Extensive experiments show that LLM-enhanced GNNs exhibit significantly higher accuracy and lower Relative Drop in Accuracy (RDA) than a shallow embedding-based baseline across various attack settings. Our in-depth analysis identifies key factors that contribute to this robustness, such as the effective encoding of structural and label information in node representations. Based on these insights, we outline future research directions from both offensive and defensive perspectives, and propose a new combined attack along with a graph purification defense. To support future research, we release the source code of our framework at~\url{https://github.com/CyberAlSec/LLMEGNNRP}.

PaperPDFCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2603.26105")

Code

Syntology Ran 1 of 2 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong.

By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 2 samples from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

CyberAlSec/LLMEGNNRP found in paper text by Syntology report

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

2 samples harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

1ran · our draft was wrong
1unverified

Licence: 2 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from CyberAlSec/LLMEGNNRP. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

get_perturbed_adj CyberAlSec/LLMEGNNRP/certify.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · our draft was wrong no licence file found · pointer only · f21b4ad2b1c02a52 · report
certify_test_set CyberAlSec/LLMEGNNRP/certify.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified no licence file found · pointer only · 3ad220a7d4b9e45e · report

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2603.26105, was issued in March 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections