Dynamic Node Privacy Feature Decoupling Graph Autoencoder Based on Attention Mechanism
Source abstract
Abstract
Graph autoencoders’ inherent capability to capture node feature correlations poses significant privacy risks through attackers inference. Previous feature decoupling approaches predominantly apply uniform privacy protection across nodes, disregarding the varying sensitivity levels inherent in graph structures. To solve the above problems, we propose a novel dual-path graph autoencoder incorporating attention-aware privacy adaptation. Firstly, we design an attention-driven metric learning framework to quantify node-specific privacy importance through attention weights and select important nodes to construct the privacy distribution, so that realizing the dynamically privacy decoupling and reducing utility loss. Then, we introduce Hilbert-Schmidt Independence Criterion (HSIC) to measure the dependence between privacy and non-privacy information, which avoids the deviations that occur when using approximate methods such as variational inference. Finally, we use the method of alternating training to comprehensively evaluate the privacy importance of nodes. Experimental results on three real-world datasets—Yale, Rochester, and Credit Defaulter—demonstrate that our proposed method significantly outperforms existing approaches like PVGAE, GAE-MI, and APGE, where the inference accuracy regarding privacy decreased by 25.5%, but the accuracy rate of link prediction achieved the highest 84.7% compared to other methods.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data · Privacy, Security, and Data Protection · Advanced Graph Neural Networks
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
State Key Laboratory of Public Big Data, College of Computer Science and Technology, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1QU, UK
Funding
Guizhou Provincial Science and Technology Projects “Research on Big Data Attribute Privacy Protection and Utility Trade-off Based on Graph Neural Networks” · Data Feature Privacy Protection Based on Generative AI
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. Agarwal, C., Lakkaraju, H., and Zitnik, M. (2021, January 27–30). Towards a unified framework for fair and stable graph representation learning. Proceedings of the Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, PMLR, Online.
2. A multi-view GNN-based network representation learning framework for recommendation systems10.1016/j.neucom.2024.129001 ↗
3. Sharma, A., Sharma, A., Nikashina, P., Gavrilenko, V., Tselykh, A., Bozhenyuk, A., Masud, M., and Meshref, H. (2023). A graph neural network (GNN)-based approach for real-time estimation of traffic speed in sustainable smart cities. Sustainability, 15.10.3390/su151511893 ↗
4. Hou, Z., Liu, X., Cen, Y., Dong, Y., Yang, H., Wang, C., and Tang, J. (2022, January 14–18). Graphmae: Self-supervised masked graph autoencoders. Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA.10.1145/3534678.3539321 ↗
5. Defense against membership inference attack in graph neural networks through graph perturbation10.1007/s10207-022-00646-y ↗
6. Zhang, Z., Chen, M., Backes, M., Shen, Y., and Zhang, Y. (2022, January 10–12). Inference attacks against graph neural networks. Proceedings of the 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22), Boston, MA, USA.
7. Learning with Hilbert–Schmidt independence criterion: A review and new perspectives10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107567 ↗
8. k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy10.1142/S0218488502001648 ↗
9. Meyerson, A., and Williams, R. (2004, January 14–16). On the complexity of optimal k-anonymity. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Paris, France.10.1145/1055558.1055591 ↗
10. Dwork, C. (2006, January 10–14). Differential privacy. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, Venice, Italy.10.1007/11787006_1 ↗
11. Sajadmanesh, S., Shamsabadi, A.S., Bellet, A., and Gatica-Perez, D. (2023, January 9–11). {GAP}: Differentially private graph neural networks with aggregation perturbation. Proceedings of the 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), Anaheim, CA, USA.
12. Mandal, B., Amariucai, G., and Wei, S. (2022, January 18–23). Uncertainty-autoencoder-based privacy and utility preserving data type conscious transformation. Proceedings of the 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), Padua, Italy.10.1109/IJCNN55064.2022.9892789 ↗
13. Bose, A., and Hamilton, W. (2019, January 9–15). Compositional fairness constraints for graph embeddings. Proceedings of the International conference on machine learning. PMLR, Long Beach, CA, USA.
14. Dai, E., and Wang, S. (2021, January 8–12). Say no to the discrimination: Learning fair graph neural networks with limited sensitive attribute information. Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Online.10.1145/3437963.3441752 ↗
15. Liu, J., Li, Z., Yao, Y., Xu, F., Ma, X., Xu, M., and Tong, H. (2022, January 14–18). Fair representation learning: An alternative to mutual information. Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA.10.1145/3534678.3539302 ↗
16. Oh, C., Won, H., So, J., Kim, T., Kim, Y., Choi, H., and Song, K. (2022, January 14–18). Learning fair representation via distributional contrastive disentanglement. Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA.10.1145/3534678.3539232 ↗
17. Graph privacy funnel: A variational approach for privacy-preserving representation learning on graphs10.1109/TDSC.2024.3417513 ↗
18. Yuan, H., Xu, J., Wang, C., Yang, Z., Wang, C., Yin, K., and Yang, Y. (2024, January 25–29). Unveiling privacy vulnerabilities: Investigating the role of structure in graph data. Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Barcelona, Spain.10.1145/3637528.3672013 ↗
19. Duddu, V., Boutet, A., and Shejwalkar, V. (2020, January 7–9). Quantifying privacy leakage in graph embedding. Proceedings of the MobiQuitous 2020-17th EAI International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services, Darmstadt, Germany.10.1145/3448891.3448939 ↗
20. Hu, Q., and Song, Y. (2023, January 21–25). Independent distribution regularization for private graph embedding. Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Birmingham, UK.10.1145/3583780.3614933 ↗
21. Kipf, T.N., and Welling, M. (2016). Variational graph auto-encoders. arXiv.
22. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, Ł., and Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS.
23. Centrality measures in networks10.1007/s00355-023-01456-4 ↗
24. Wang, B., Guo, J., Li, A., Chen, Y., and Li, H. (2021, January 14–18). Privacy-preserving representation learning on graphs: A mutual information perspective. Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Online.10.1145/3447548.3467273 ↗
25. Adversarial privacy-preserving graph embedding against inference attack10.1109/JIOT.2020.3036583 ↗