TL;DR
This paper introduces InvGNN-WM, a novel GNN watermarking method that leverages the model's perception of graph invariants for robust, trigger-free ownership verification without impacting task performance.
Contribution
The paper proposes a new watermarking technique based on implicit topological invariants, offering robustness against common model modifications and enabling black-box verification.
Findings
Outperforms trigger-based baselines in accuracy and robustness.
Remains effective under pruning, fine-tuning, and quantization.
Plain knowledge distillation weakens the watermark, but KD with watermark loss restores it.
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are valuable intellectual property, yet many watermarks rely on backdoor triggers that break under common model edits and create ownership ambiguity. We present InvGNN-WM, which ties ownership to a model's implicit perception of a graph invariant, enabling trigger-free, black-box verification with negligible task impact. A lightweight head predicts normalized algebraic connectivity on an owner-private carrier set; a sign-sensitive decoder outputs bits, and a calibrated threshold controls the false-positive rate. Across diverse node and graph classification datasets and backbones, InvGNN-WM matches clean accuracy while yielding higher watermark accuracy than trigger- and compression-based baselines. It remains strong under unstructured pruning, fine-tuning, and post-training quantization; plain knowledge distillation (KD) weakens the mark, while KD with a…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Conference Desk Rejected Submission
- The paper's primary strength is its conceptual novelty. Shifting the watermarking paradigm from exogenous triggers to functionally-integrated invariants is a major contribution. - The paper is clearly and logically structured. It begins by defining the problem (fragile triggers), presents its core idea (invariant perception), details the method, provides the theoretical guarantees, and then validates all claims with targeted experiments. The writing is precise, and the figures effectively ill
I have several concerns about this manucript. See below for more details.
S1: The core innovation lies in coupling the ownership signature to the model’s fundamental reasoning process. S2: The conceptual leap is strongly supported by the work’s high quality, demonstrated through a powerful combination of theoretical rigor and extensive empirical validation.
W1: A significant methodological concern lies in the scalability and generalizability of the chosen topological invariant. W2: The security model, while theoretically robust, may have practical vulnerabilities not fully addressed. W3: The paper would be more convincing if it included an adversarial analysis specifically targeting the secrecy of the carrier set, testing resilience against model inversion or membership inference attacks.
1. The idea of binding a watermark to a model's internal reasoning about a graph invariant, rather than an exogenous trigger, is a novel and interesting conceptual shift in the GNN watermarking space. 2. The paper provides some theoretical analysis for imperceptibility, robustness, uniqueness, and unremovability. 3. The method is tested across multiple datasets, backbones, and a variety of model edits.
**1. Fundamentally Poor Writing and Confusing Notation** The paper is difficult to read and hard to follow. The notation is inconsistent and often undefined in the main text (e.g., s_\theta, \tilde{\lambda}_2), forcing the reader to scavenge through appendices. Key concepts are introduced without clear explanation, and the flow of ideas is frequently disrupted. This severely undermines the paper's ability to communicate its contributions effectively. **2. Lack of Extensive Comparison with Prio
* The idea to predict a graph invariant for watermarking is interesting. * Theoretic arguments underpin the watermarks' properties. * Experiments are exhaustive, comparing many datasets and backbone GNNs. Furthermore, ablations are provided. * Detailed code attached for reproducability.
i) My main concern for this paper is its presentation, which has multiple issues affecting the general understanding of the paper: 1. I do not see how Equation (3) or (4) have anything to do with duality, thus calling this a dual-objective is misleading. 2. Critical definitions / references to the appendix missing: A local Polyak-Lojasiewicz condition is critical to the theory of the paper. But the text does not provide information on what a "Polyak-Łojasiewicz"-condition (or locality in t
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
