Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Robustness Evaluation of Graph-based News Detection Using Network Structural Information

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Graph-based fake-news detectors are substantially easier to evade when the attacker exploits the hierarchical community structure of the user-post network, discovered by minimizing structural entropy, rather than only linking malicious…

desk verdict Useful, incremental attack framework for GNN fake-news detectors; the structural-information mechanism is plausible but not yet tested against a random-subgraph control. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14453 v2 pith:5SUZSWTL submitted 2025-05-20 cs.SI

Xianghua Zeng , Hao Peng , Angsheng Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SI
keywords fakenewsdetectionadversarialattackgraphneuralnetworksstructuralentropymulti-agentreinforcementlearninghierarchicalcommunityrobustnessevaluationsocial
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that graph-based fake-news detectors can be attacked far more effectively when the attacker uses the network's own hierarchical community structure instead of only wiring malicious accounts to the target post. The proposed framework, SI2AF, first minimizes the structural entropy of a bipartite user-post graph to obtain an encoding tree whose internal nodes define communities of users and posts. It then assigns controlled accounts to three agent types (bots, cyborgs, crowd workers) by a structural-entropy influence metric and coordinates them to add edges to the target post, to real posts in the same community, or to other fake posts. On the Politifact and Gossipcop datasets, the paper reports an average 16.71% improvement in attack success over state-of-the-art baselines across five GNN detectors, and a 41.54% average reduction in the attack-induced drop in prediction probability when detectors are retrained on the enriched graph. If these numbers hold, robustness evaluation for news detection needs to treat coordinated, community-aware manipulation as a primary threat.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is structural entropy and its optimal encoding tree: structural entropy quantifies the uncertainty of a random walk between vertices under a hierarchical partition of the graph, and the $K$-dimensional structural entropy $\mathcal{H}^K(G)=\min_T H_T(G)$ is minimized to produce an encoding tree whose internal nodes are the communities. Each target post gets an associated subgraph consisting of all users plus the posts in its chosen community level, and the three attack strategies determine which posts inside that subgraph the controlled accounts connect to. The second piece is the influence metric $\mathcal{I}(G_{up};u)$, which sums the structural entropies along the path from the root to a user's leaf node, and is used to categorize accounts into low-, medium-, and high-influence groups managed by separate agents. The agents' policies are trained by Q-learning with a reward that depends on whether the target post and its related fake posts are misclassified, and the final action is a weighted sample of the agents' individual actions.

What would settle it

Train the five GNN detectors on the paper's Politifact and Gossipcop splits, run SI2AF, then repeat the attack with indirect and feedback targets replaced by randomly sampled posts outside the identified community at the same edge budget; if the average success-rate gain over the random-post condition is zero, the structural-community mechanism is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a black-box attacker can be made substantially stronger by exploiting the hierarchical community structure of the social network itself. The paper shows that minimizing the structural entropy of a bipartite user-post graph produces an encoding tree whose communities group semantically and structurally related posts, and that an attacker who connects malicious accounts to other posts within the target's community (real news and other fake news alike) changes the target's learned representation more effectively than an attacker who only touches the target post. This is operationalized as a three-agent Q-learning framework where each agent controls a different class of malicious account, and the empirical finding is that the combined direct, indirect, and feedback attack strategies raise the misclassification rate on both fake and real news across GCN, GAT, GraphSAGE, GCAN, and Bi-GCN detectors on two real-world datasets, while retraining those detectors on the adversarially enriched graph measurably restores their robustness.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the communities found by minimizing structural entropy align with task-relevant relatedness: if the posts grouped with the target are actually unrelated to it, the indirect and feedback attacks add edges the detector can safely ignore, and the framework degenerates toward random edge addition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A black-box attacker controlling about 170 accounts on Politifact (100 bots, 50 cyborgs, 20 workers) can raise fake-news misclassification to 0.31-0.41 depending on the detector, and real-news misclassification to as high as 0.69 on GAT.
  • Combining direct, indirect, and feedback attacks consistently beats any single strategy, which means the attack's power comes from touching related posts in the same community, not only the target post.
  • Retraining detectors on the SI2AF-enriched graph reduces the attack-induced drop in predicted fake-news probability by 41.54% on average, indicating that adversarial training with community-aware structural manipulations improves robustness.
  • The optimal subgraph size is dataset-dependent (about $K=3$ for Politifact and $K=4$ for Gossipcop), and oversizing the community dilutes the attack because it includes posts unrelated to the target.
  • SI2AF keeps a performance advantage over baselines even on high-engagement, already-widely-shared posts, where prior attack methods weaken due to the posts' dense connectivity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same structural-entropy communities could be used defensively: posts that adversarial agents repeatedly connect to within a community might be flagged as targets of coordinated manipulation, turning the attack machinery into a detection signal.
  • A natural and testable extension is to filter the associated subgraph by content similarity before attacking; the paper's own $K$-sensitivity result implies that removing unrelated posts from a community while keeping the same edge budget should raise attack success further.
  • The influence metric, with its adjustable parameter $c$, could serve as a general account-influence score for ranking or bot detection independent of adversarial objectives, since it combines degree, content relevance, and hierarchical position.
  • The black-box success suggests the approach may transfer across platforms and detectors, so a useful stress test is to run SI2AF on the larger Weibo engagement graph used in the paper's scalability appendix and measure whether the accuracy drop matches Politifact and Gossipcop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes SI2AF, an adversarial attack framework for graph-based fake news detectors. It builds a user-post bipartite graph, minimizes structural entropy to obtain a hierarchical community tree, defines an influence metric based on structural entropy, and coordinates three Q-learning agents (bots, cyborgs, workers) that add edges within the target post's associated subgraph via direct, indirect, and feedback attacks. The paper also claims that retraining detectors on the enriched graph improves their robustness by 41.54% on average. Experiments on Politifact and Gossipcop with five GNN detectors report an average attack success improvement of 16.71% over state-of-the-art baselines.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the paper makes a useful contribution: it broadens the attack surface for fake news detectors beyond direct edge additions and introduces structural-information-based community selection into adversarial robustness evaluation. Strengths include reporting means and standard deviations over five seeds, evaluating against five graph-based detectors, and ablating the three attack strategies. However, the headline robustness number is not displayed in any table, the height parameter K is selected on the evaluation set, and the causal role of structural entropy is not isolated by a control experiment. These issues must be addressed before the contribution is fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [5.2, Table 3] The abstract's headline claim that SI2AF 'enhances GNN-based detection robustness by 41.54% on average' is not supported by any displayed result. Table 3 reports detection accuracy before and after attacks, but never shows the accuracy (or fake-news probability) of detectors after Algorithm 2's retraining on the enriched graph. The text states that 'the drop in predictive probability ... is significantly mitigated after optimization, with a reduction of at average 41.54%', yet no post-optimization numbers appear anywhere in the paper. Please add a table or figure reporting the refined detectors' performance and the precise computation of the 41.54% figure.
  2. [5.5] The tree height K is selected on the evaluation set: the authors report that 'in the smaller network Politifact, SI2AF achieves its best performance when K=3, while in the larger-scale network Gossipcop, peak performance occurs when K=4'. This is test-set tuning and biases the reported attack success rates upward. The paper should either report the full K-sweep (as in Figure 7) as the primary result, or select K on a held-out validation split and report only the validation-selected K in the main tables.
  3. [4.1, 4.3] The central novelty claim—that structural entropy's hierarchical communities drive the attack's effectiveness—is never tested against a non-structural control. The associated subgraph G_alpha is always the community produced by minimizing structural entropy; replacing P_alpha with an equal-sized random set of posts, or with clusters from a trivial degree-based partition, would show whether the improvement over MARL/GAFSI comes from the structural-information mechanism or simply from the expanded action space of indirect/feedback attacks. Section 5.5 shows only that subgraph size matters, not that the choice of which posts are inside the subgraph matters.
  4. [Appendix B / Theorem 4.1] The proof of Theorem 4.1 is incomplete. The bound q1(x') <= b/(1 - log2 e c) is derived after 'substituting the bounds for q0', but no upper bound on q0 is stated or proven; a probability density on [1, b/2] can exceed 1, and without an assumption such as q0(x) <= 1 the inequality does not follow. Furthermore, the theorem bounds the transformed density but does not establish the stated purpose of the influence metric, namely reducing the occurrence of accounts with identical influence values. Either add the missing assumption and prove the tie-breaking claim, or remove or reposition the theorem as a peripheral observation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The source text contains stray glyph sequences (e.g., '/uni0000002a/uni00000024/...') inside the table; the camera-ready version must be regenerated cleanly.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5.2] The abstract's 16.71% average improvement is not directly traceable to Table 2; the 'Abs.(%) Avg.↑' rows are per-detector, and no single table cell averages to 16.71%. Please state explicitly how this number is computed.
  3. [4.2] The parameter c in Eq. (7) is never assigned a value or given a sensitivity analysis in Section 5. The reader cannot assess how the attack depends on this free parameter.
  4. [4.3 and Algorithm 3] The RL training details are missing: state representation, policy network architecture, learning rate, t_max, and the update interval t_up. These are needed for reproducibility.
  5. [Eq. (7)] The summation range 'V_ν ⊆ V_α ⊂ V' is unclear; it should be over nodes α on the path from the root to leaf ν in the encoding tree.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the headline empirical claims are measured against independent detectors and baselines, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative claims (16.71% attack-effectiveness improvement and 41.54% robustness gain) are empirical results obtained by running SI2AF against independently trained GNN detectors and publicly available baselines. The construction of the associated subgraph G_alpha and the influence metric I uses the structural-entropy encoding tree, but the attack success rates are determined by multi-agent RL interacting with black-box classifier feedback; they are not algebraic consequences of the structural-entropy definitions. The paper imports the structural-entropy formalism from references [15] and [45-48], which include overlapping authorship, but those citations supply the formal definition of structural entropy and prior algorithmic uses, not the target result of attack success. Theorem 4.1's proof in Appendix B is incomplete because it assumes an unstated bound on the density q0(x), but this is a mathematical-rigor issue rather than a circular derivation. The robustness optimization in Algorithm 2 retrains detectors on SI2AF's own adversarial perturbations, which limits how much the 41.54% figure can be read as a general robustness guarantee, but this is standard adversarial training rather than a definitional equivalence. Finally, the paper does not include a control that replaces the structural-entropy community with an equal-size random post subgraph, so the attribution of the 16.71% improvement to structural information is not fully isolated from the effect of a larger action space; this is a missing experiment, not a reduction of the claim to its inputs. No step in the paper exhibits a parameter fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness conclusion is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework adds no new physical entities; it introduces a new influence metric and hierarchical subgraph attack, but depends on several unverified or hand-set premises: the applicability of structural entropy to engagement graphs, the bot/cyborg/worker mapping, a fixed clean-trained black-box detector, and implicit density bounds in Theorem 4.1.

free parameters (4)
  • c (influence adjusting parameter) = not reported
    Equation 7 defines an influence metric with "c serves as an adjusting parameter that modulates the distribution of influence across all user accounts." No value, range, or sensitivity study is provided; Theorem 4.1 only gives the condition c <= 2/e.
  • K (encoding tree height) = K=3 for Politifact, K=4 for Gossipcop
    Figure 7 selects the K with peak attack success on each dataset, and the reported results use this selection. This is data-dependent tuning of a core component that controls the associated subgraph.
  • fallback action probability = 0.01
    Section 4.3 sets the sampled probability to 0.01 when a malicious account and the target share only the root community; this is an arbitrary constant that is not ablated.
  • malicious account budgets = Politifact 100:50:20, Gossipcop 1000:500:100
    Budgets for bot:cyborg:worker are taken from the MARL baseline [41] rather than derived; attack success depends on these quantities.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The structural entropy and encoding tree formalism of [15] applies to the bipartite user-post engagement graph.
    Section 3.3 adopts 1D and K-dimensional structural entropy and the HCSE tree-building algorithm from cited work without reproving them; the paper then builds the attack on the resulting tree.
  • domain assumption The black-box detector is fixed after training on a clean graph and does not adapt during the attack.
    Section 3.2 formalizes the attack against a detector with unknown parameters trained on clean data; this excludes defenses such as online retraining or adversarial training during the attack.
  • domain assumption Accounts with low, medium, and high influence correspond respectively to bots, cyborgs, and crowd workers, and these types are the right action groups for attacking detectors.
    Section 4.2 derives groups from the influence metric and from prior work [41]; no ground-truth account type labels are used to validate the mapping.
  • ad hoc to paper The probability density q0 in Theorem 4.1 is bounded above by 1 on [1, b/2].
    Appendix B's final inequality (Eq. 26) requires bounding q0(x) by a constant that the proof assumes is 1; arbitrary probability densities can exceed 1, so the stated proof does not establish the theorem as written.
  • domain assumption Adding edges to other posts in the same structural community changes the target post's GNN representation in a way the reward signal can exploit.
    The indirect and feedback strategies in Section 4.3 rely on community-level relatedness; Section 5.5 shows attack success degrades when K makes the community too large, confirming this premise is load-bearing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robustness Evaluation of Graph-based News Detection Using Network Structural Information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SUZSWTL

@misc{pith2026250514453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robustness Evaluation of Graph-based News Detection Using Network Structural Information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SUZSWTL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14453}
}
read the original abstract

Although Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown promising potential in fake news detection, they remain highly vulnerable to adversarial manipulations within social networks. Existing methods primarily establish connections between malicious accounts and individual target news to investigate the vulnerability of graph-based detectors, while they neglect the structural relationships surrounding targets, limiting their effectiveness in robustness evaluation. In this work, we propose a novel Structural Information principles-guided Adversarial Attack Framework, namely SI2AF, which effectively challenges graph-based detectors and further probes their detection robustness. Specifically, structural entropy is introduced to quantify the dynamic uncertainty in social engagements and identify hierarchical communities that encompass all user accounts and news posts. An influence metric is presented to measure each account's probability of engaging in random interactions, facilitating the design of multiple agents that manage distinct malicious accounts. For each target news, three attack strategies are developed through multi-agent collaboration within the associated subgraph to optimize evasion against black-box detectors. By incorporating the adversarial manipulations generated by SI2AF, we enrich the original network structure and refine graph-based detectors to improve their robustness against adversarial attacks. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that SI2AF significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in attack effectiveness with an average improvement of 16.71%, and enhances GNN-based detection robustness by 41.54% on average.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14453 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparative illustration between classical methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Detailed design of our proposed SI2AF framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average predictive probabilities of fake and real news before and after adversarial attacks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Success rates of different attack strategies on fake news [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Attack visualization of SI2AF and MARL against GNN-based fake news detectors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Attack performance of different agents on fake news [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hassan Ali, Muhammad Suleman Khan, Amer AlGhadhban, Meshari Alazmi, Ahmad Alzamil, Khaled Al-Utaibi, and Junaid Qadir. 2021. All your fake detector are belong to us: evaluating adversarial robustness of fake-news detectors under black-box settings.IEEE Access9 (2021), 81678–81692

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Sinan Aral and Dean Eckles. 2019. Protecting elections from social media manip- ulation.Science365, 6456 (2019), 858–861

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Tian Bian, Xi Xiao, Tingyang Xu, Peilin Zhao, Wenbing Huang, Yu Rong, and Junzhou Huang. 2020. Rumor detection on social media with bi-directional graph convolutional networks. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, V ol. 34. 549–556

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Canyu Chen, Haoran Wang, Matthew Shapiro, Yunyu Xiao, Fei Wang, and Kai Shu. 2022. Combating health misinformation in social media: Characterization, detection, intervention, and open issues.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05289(2022)

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Hanjun Dai, Hui Li, Tian Tian, Xin Huang, Lin Wang, Jun Zhu, and Le Song

  6. [6]

    Giandomenico Di Domenico, Jason Sit, Alessio Ishizaka, and Daniel Nunan. 2021. Fake news, social media and marketing: A systematic review.Journal of Business Research124 (2021), 329–341

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Yingtong Dou, Guixiang Ma, Philip S Yu, and Sihong Xie. 2020. Robust spam- mer detection by nash reinforcement learning. InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 924– 933

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Yingtong Dou, Kai Shu, Congying Xia, Philip S Yu, and Lichao Sun. 2021. User preference-aware fake news detection. InProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2051–2055

    work page 2021

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs.Advances in neural information processing systems30 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Bing He, Mustaque Ahamad, and Srijan Kumar. 2021. Petgen: Personalized text generation attack on deep sequence embedding-based classification models. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 575–584

    2021

  3. [11]

    Benjamin D Horne, Jeppe Nørregaard, and Sibel Adali. 2019. Robust fake news detection over time and attack.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST)11, 1 (2019), 1–23

    2019

  4. [12]

    Ling Min Serena Khoo, Hai Leong Chieu, Zhong Qian, and Jing Jiang. 2020. Interpretable rumor detection in microblogs by attending to user interactions. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, V ol. 34. 8783–8790

    2020

  5. [13]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Repre- sentations

    2016

  6. [14]

    Thai Le, Suhang Wang, and Dongwon Lee. 2020. Malcom: Generating malicious comments to attack neural fake news detection models. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 282–291

    2020

  7. [15]

    Angsheng Li and Yicheng Pan. 2016. Structural information and dynamical complexity of networks.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory62, 6 (2016), 3290–3339

    2016

  8. [16]

    Angsheng Li, Xianchen Yin, and Yicheng Pan. 2016. Three-dimensional gene map of cancer cell types: Structural entropy minimisation principle for defining tumour subtypes.Scientific Reports6 (2016), 1–26

    2016

  9. [17]

    Angsheng Li, Xianchen Yin, Bingxiang Xu, Danyang Wang, Jimin Han, Yi Wei, Yun Deng, Ying Xiong, and Zhihua Zhang. 2018. Decoding topologically asso- ciating domains with ultra-low resolution Hi-C data by graph structural entropy. Nature Communications9 (2018), 1–12

    2018

  10. [18]

    Jintang Li, Tao Xie, Liang Chen, Fenfang Xie, Xiangnan He, and Zibin Zheng

  11. [19]

    Yi Ju Lu and Cheng Te Li. 2020. GCAN: Graph-aware co-attention networks for explainable fake news detection on social media. In58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 505–514

    2020

  12. [20]

    Yuefei Lyu, Xiaoyu Yang, Jiaxin Liu, Sihong Xie, Philip Yu, and Xi Zhang

  13. [21]

    Jing Ma, Wei Gao, Prasenjit Mitra, Sejeong Kwon, Bernard J Jansen, Kam Fai Wong, and Meeyoung Cha. 2016. Detecting rumors from microblogs with re- current neural networks. InIJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, V ol. 2016. 3818–3824

    2016

  14. [22]

    Jing Ma, Wei Gao, and Kam-Fai Wong. 2018. Rumor detection on twitter with tree- structured recursive neural networks. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2018

  15. [23]

    Van-Hoang Nguyen, Kazunari Sugiyama, Preslav Nakov, and Min-Yen Kan. 2020. Fang: Leveraging social context for fake news detection using graph representation. InProceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management. 1165–1174

    2020

  16. [24]

    Diogo Pacheco, Pik-Mai Hui, Christopher Torres-Lugo, Bao Tran Truong, Alessan- dro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2021. Uncovering coordinated networks on social media: methods and case studies. InProceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, V ol. ...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Yicheng Pan, Feng Zheng, and Bingchen Fan. 2021. An Information-theoretic Perspective of Hierarchical Clustering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.06036(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hao Peng, Jingyun Zhang, Xiang Huang, Zhifeng Hao, Angsheng Li, Zhengtao Yu, and Philip S Yu. 2024. Unsupervised social bot detection via structural information theory.ACM Transactions on Information Systems42, 6 (2024), 1–42

    2024

  19. [27]

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. InProceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP). 1532–1543

    2014

  20. [28]

    Yuxiang Ren, Bo Wang, Jiawei Zhang, and Yi Chang. 2020. Adversarial active learning based heterogeneous graph neural network for fake news detection. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 452–461

    2020

  21. [29]

    Natali Ruchansky, Sungyong Seo, and Yan Liu. 2017. Csi: A hybrid deep model for fake news detection. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 797–806

    2017

  22. [30]

    Yu Shang, Yudong Zhang, Jiansheng Chen, Depeng Jin, and Yong Li. 2023. Trans- ferable Structure-based Adversarial Attack of Heterogeneous Graph Neural Net- work. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 2188–2197

    2023

  23. [31]

    Claude E Shannon. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication.The Bell system technical journal27, 3 (1948), 379–423

    1948

  24. [32]

    Chengcheng Shao, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Onur Varol, Kai-Cheng Yang, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2018. The spread of low-credibility content by social bots.Nature communications9, 1 (2018), 1–9

    2018

  25. [33]

    Kai Shu, Limeng Cui, Suhang Wang, Dongwon Lee, and Huan Liu. 2019. defend: Explainable fake news detection. InProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 395–405

    2019

  26. [34]

    Kai Shu, Deepak Mahudeswaran, Suhang Wang, Dongwon Lee, and Huan Liu

  27. [35]

    Kai Shu, Amy Sliva, Suhang Wang, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu. 2017. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective.ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter19, 1 (2017), 22–36

    2017

  28. [36]

    Yiwei Sun, Suhang Wang, Xianfeng Tang, Tsung-Yu Hsieh, and Vasant Honavar

  29. [37]

    Shuchang Tao, Qi Cao, Huawei Shen, Junjie Huang, Yunfan Wu, and Xueqi Cheng

  30. [38]

    Ciprian-Octavian Truic˘a, Elena-Simona Apostol, Marius Marogel, and Adrian Paschke. 2024. GETAE: Graph information Enhanced deep neural NeTwork ensemble ArchitecturE for fake news detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01825 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Petar Veliˇckovi´c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph Attention Networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2018

  32. [40]

    Soroush V osoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online.Science359, 6380 (2018), 1146–1151

    2018

  33. [41]

    Non-target-specific node injection attacks on graph neural networks: A hierarchical reinforcement learning approach. InProc. WWW, V ol. 3

  34. [42]

    Zhengyi Wang, Zhongkai Hao, Ziqiao Wang, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. 2021. Cluster attack: Query-based adversarial attacks on graphs with graph-dependent priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13069(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    InProceed- ings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management

    Single node injection attack against graph neural networks. InProceed- ings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 1794–1803

  36. [44]

    Junran Wu, Xueyuan Chen, Ke Xu, and Shangzhe Li. 2022. Structural entropy guided graph hierarchical pooling. InICML. PMLR, 24017–24030. Robustness Evaluation of Graph-based News Detection Using Network Structural Information KDD ’25, August 3-7, 2025, T oronto, Canada

    2022

  37. [45]

    Xianghua Zeng, Hao Peng, and Angsheng Li. 2023. Effective and Stable Role- Based Multi-Agent Collaboration by Structural Information Principles.Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence37, 10 (Jun. 2023), 11772–11780. doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i10.26390

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Xianghua Zeng, Hao Peng, and Angsheng Li. 2024. Adversarial socialbots modeling based on structural information principles. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, V ol. 38. 392–400

    2024

  39. [47]

    Haoran Wang, Yingtong Dou, Canyu Chen, Lichao Sun, Philip S Yu, and Kai Shu

  40. [48]

    InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023

    Attacking Fake News Detectors via Manipulating News Social Engagement. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 3978–3986

    2023

  41. [49]

    Mengmei Zhang, Xiao Wang, Chuan Shi, Lingjuan Lyu, Tianchi Yang, and Junping Du. 2023. Minimum topology attacks for graph neural networks. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 630–640

    2023

  42. [50]

    Marcin Waniek, Tomasz P Michalak, Michael J Wooldridge, and Talal Rahwan

  43. [51]

    Hiding individuals and communities in a social network.Nature Human Behaviour2, 2 (2018), 139–147

    2018

  44. [52]

    Daniel Zügner, Amir Akbarnejad, and Stephan Günnemann. 2018. Adversarial attacks on neural networks for graph data. InProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 2847– 2856. A Framework Details A.1 Primary Notations Table 6...

    2018

  45. [55]

    Xianghua Zeng, Hao Peng, and Angsheng Li. 2025. Effective Exploration Based on the Structural Information Principles.Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems37 (2025), 95291–95325

    2025

  46. [56]

    Xianghua Zeng, Hao Peng, Angsheng Li, Chunyang Liu, Lifang He, and Philip S Yu. 2023. Hierarchical State Abstraction Based on Structural Information Princi- ples. InIJCAI

    2023

  47. [58]

    Peican Zhu, Zechen Pan, Yang Liu, Jiwei Tian, Keke Tang, and Zhen Wang. 2024. A general black-box adversarial attack on graph-based fake news detectors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15744(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  48. [59]

    Dongcheng Zou, Hao Peng, Xiang Huang, Renyu Yang, Jianxin Li, Jia Wu, Chun- yang Liu, and Philip S Yu. 2023. Se-gsl: A general and effective graph structure learning framework through structural entropy optimization. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 499–510

    2023

  49. [2018]

    InInternational conference on machine learning

    Adversarial attack on graph structured data. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1115–1124

  50. [2020]

    Fakenewsnet: A data repository with news content, social context, and spatiotemporal information for studying fake news on social media.Big data8, 3 (2020), 171–188

    2020

  51. [2021]

    Adversarial attack on large scale graph.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering35, 1 (2021), 82–95

    2021

  52. [2023]

    In2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN)

    Interpretable and effective reinforcement learning for attacking against graph-based rumor detection. In2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 1–9

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.