A cursory reading of the literature suggests that we have made a lot of progress in designing effective adversarial defenses for Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). Yet, the standard methodology has a serious flaw - virtually all of the defenses are evaluated against non-adaptive attacks leading to overly optimistic robustness estimates. We perform a thorough robustness analysis of 7 of the most popular defenses spanning the entire spectrum of strategies, i.e., aimed at improving the graph, the architecture, or the training. The results are sobering - most defenses show no or only marginal improvement compared to an undefended baseline. We advocate using custom adaptive attacks as a gold standard and we outline the lessons we learned from successfully designing such attacks. Moreover, our diverse collection of perturbed graphs forms a (black-box) unit test offering a first glance at a model's robustness.
Modern time series classifiers display impressive predictive capabilities, yet their decision-making processes mostly remain black boxes to the user. At the same time, model-agnostic explainers, such as the recently proposed SHAP, promise to make the predictions of machine learning models interpretable, provided there are well-designed domain mappings. We bring both worlds together in our timeXplain framework, extending the reach of explainable artificial intelligence to time series classification and value prediction. We present novel domain mappings for the time and the frequency domain as well as series statistics and analyze their explicative power as well as their limits. We employ timeXplain in a large-scale experimental comparison of several state-of-the-art time series classifiers and discover similarities between seemingly distinct classification concepts such as residual neural networks and elastic ensembles.