The DOI matches its Crossref record; 261 of the 261 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 219 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Data and Model Poisoning Backdoor Attacks on Wireless Federated Learning, and the Defense Mechanisms: A Comprehensive Survey
Open accessAbstract
Due to the greatly improved capabilities of devices, massive data, and increasing concern about data privacy, Federated Learning (FL) has been increasingly considered for applications to wireless communication networks (WCNs). Wireless FL (WFL) is a distributed method of training a global deep learning model in which a large number of participants each train a local model on their training datasets and then upload the local model updates to a central server. However, in general, nonindependent and identically distributed (non-IID) data of WCNs raises concerns about robustness, as a malicious participant could potentially inject a “backdoor” into the global model by uploading poisoned data or models over WCN. This could cause the model to misclassify malicious inputs as a specific target class while behaving normally with benign inputs. This survey provides a comprehensive review of the latest backdoor attacks and defense mechanisms. It classifies them according to their targets (data poisoning or model poisoning), the attack phase (local data collection, training, or aggregation), and defense stage (local training, before aggregation, during aggregation, or after aggregation). The strengths and limitations of existing attack strategies and defense mechanisms are analyzed in detail. Comparisons of existing attack methods and defense designs are carried out, pointing to noteworthy findings, open challenges, and potential future research directions related to security and privacy of WFL.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This survey reviews backdoor attacks and defenses in wireless federated learning (WFL), classifying attacks by target and phase and defenses by training stage. It reports that model poisoning attacks generally achieve higher backdoor accuracy and longer lifespan than data poisoning attacks, while defenses during or after aggregation perform best but often conflict with secure aggregation.
Key findings
- On FMNIST with 100 participants and 10 selected per iteration, global model replacement [37] achieved the highest attack performance: BAR 79.86% and MAR 91.68%, versus local model replacement [32] at BAR 71.96%/MAR 88.91%, coordinated trigger [116] at BAR 57.06%/MAR 75.57%, and label flipping [29] at BAR 46.6%/MAR 65.03%; no-attack MAR was 92.92%.
- Backdoor lifespan after 50 clean iterations: label flipping and coordinated trigger attacks dropped to 0% BAR, local model replacement retained 12.95% BAR, and global model replacement retained 49.51% BAR.
- Defense performance on FMNIST: model stability [228] gave BAR 9.72%/MAR 78.17%; norm clipping and DP [124] gave BAR 6.59%/MAR 86.12%; model similarity [218] gave BAR 1.12%/MAR 89.53%; WFL with forgetting mechanism [224] gave BAR 0.24%/MAR 94.76%.
- The survey concludes that data poisoning attacks are lower-cost but weaker and more easily diluted, while model poisoning attacks have higher attack success and stealthiness at higher cost; defenses during and after aggregation handle model poisoning well but often require historical information and are not compatible with SecAgg.
Methods
- Comprehensive survey reviewing over 200 papers from 2015 to 2023, collected from IEEE Xplore, Elsevier, MDPI, and arXiv, with attacks classified by target (data vs. model poisoning) and phase (local data collection, local training, aggregation), and defenses classified by stage (local training, before aggregation, during aggregation, after aggregation).
- Experimental comparison used the FMNIST dataset, 100 total participants, 10 randomly selected per training iteration, 100 training iterations, and compromised client rates of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 for four representative attacks; metrics were BAR and MAR, with lifespan tested over 50 additional clean iterations.
- Defense comparison used FMNIST with representative methods from each defense phase, reporting BAR and MAR under specified norm-clipping thresholds and Gaussian noise parameters.
Limitations
- The paper states that existing defenses often rely on threshold design, require historical information about attacks, assume attackers participate consistently, may not be compatible with SecAgg, and can degrade main-task accuracy; it also notes that many defenses target only specific attack types and struggle with novel attacks.
- Evident from the text: the survey’s own experimental comparison is limited to FMNIST and a small set of representative attacks and defenses, so the reported numbers may not generalize to other datasets, non-IID settings, or decentralized WFL.
- Evident from the text: the survey identifies open challenges rather than proposing a new unified defense, and it notes that OTA-WFL and decentralized WFL remain under-explored for backdoor detection and defense.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
157 Not checked yet · 101 Own interpretation · 92 No basis given · 4 Own result · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can be concluded that the data poisoning backdoor attacks, including label flipping-based attacks and centralized trigger-based attacks, have the lowest attack cost.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model poisoning backdoor attacks implemented at the local training and server aggregation phases take advantage of the white box attack model.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, the local model replacement backdoor attack during the local model training phase shows the second-best performance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is observed that the backdoor effect of data poisoningbased backdoor attacks is quickly diluted as the attacker can only manipulate the training dataset in the local client, so the attack strength is limited.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many existing defense methodologies have been proven to be capable of defending both data poisoningbased backdoor attacks and model poisoning-based backdoor attacks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, model poisoning-based backdoor attacks can inject relatively longer-lasting backdoor effects into the global model.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can be seen that the model poisoning-based backdoor attacks show higher BAR when compared to data poisoningbased backdoor attacks.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is observed that the backdoor effect of data poisoningbased backdoor attacks is quickly diluted as the attacker can only manipulate the training dataset in the local client, so the attack strength is limited.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, the defense mechanisms working on the local training phase and before the aggregation phase can address data poisoning-based backdoor attacks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is also worth mentioning that the unsatisfactory performance of the norm clipping-based defense methods before the aggregation phase heavily depends on the improper selection of the threshold 𝑀 and noise parameter 𝜎 .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 116
- Probably not a substantial claim. 113
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, with the broadcast nature of wireless interfaces, adversaries can potentially overhear local model updates from multiple or even all clients and accordingly create malicious local models to compromise WFL, e.g., using generative neural networks and machine learning technologies.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [35] source
The Threat Model section says that wireless radio’s broadcast nature lets an attacker eavesdrop on local models from some or all benign devices and generate malicious local models. The GAE for Malicious Model Generation section describes a graph-autoencoder method for doing so. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked yetcites [114] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“With the additional knowledge of the local models along with the global model, the model-dependent triggers can be potentially further enhanced, e.g., by employing adversarial generative networks and training [174].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [174] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Pipeline (p. 4) describes a generative network that uses a target model’s gradients to produce adversarial examples, and the Conclusion (p. 12) says the networks are trained jointly. This supports the proposed use of model-informed generation and training, but the paper does not address model-dependent triggers or the use of both local and global models to enhance them. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In return, the attack strength is weak, and the backdoor effect will be quickly diluted.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The backdoor effect can last longer if the attack success rate is higher.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, the attackers need to know more about the entire network, and the attack cost is greatly increased.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trigger-based backdoor attack can be improved using a coordinated trigger pattern, achieving a higher attack success rate.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, the model poisoning-based backdoor attacks outperform data poisoning-based backdoor attacks while yielding a higher complexity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It can be seen that the global model replacement backdoor attack [37] launched during the aggregation process achieves the highest BAR while also maintaining a reasonable MAR.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is noted that all defense methods in different phases can reduce backdoor effects while maintaining a steady MAR.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is worth mentioning that, in most of the existing attack methods, a typical assumption is that, malicious participants are more likely to be selected in each training round, and the proportion of clients controlled by the attacker is typically high.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is worth mentioning that, in most of the existing attack methods, a typical assumption is that, malicious participants are more likely to be selected in each training round, and the proportion of clients controlled by the attacker is typically high.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, backdoor detection relies on threshold design in different defense mechanisms.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, several defense strategies are not compatible with the security aggregation protocols.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A critical challenge faced by detecting and defending against backdoor attacks is that backdoor attacks often do not negatively impact the accuracy of the model on primary tasks and do not disrupt the normal system operation before they are activated [32].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Bagdasaryan, How to backdoor federated learning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, WFL will be more vulnerable to backdoor attacks than its wired counterpart due to a combination of factors inherent to wireless networks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The broadcast nature of wireless (radio) channels allows misbehaved or compromised participants in WFL to overhear the local model parameters of multiple or all benign participants.
In the paper
“By taking advantage of the overheard local models, the misbehaved participants can construct malicious local models to escape malicious model detection at the central server, poison the global model and subsequently the benign local models, and manipulate WFL [35].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The broadcast nature of wireless (radio) channels allows misbehaved or compromised participants in WFL to overhear the local model parameters of multiple or all benign participants.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The WFL vulnerabilities potentially open the door for backdoor attacks.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The detection of backdoors typically relies on threshold design, and the training of existing defense mechanisms often requires access to historical information about the attacks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In [52] and [53], the theoretical working mechanisms of backdoor attacks and defenses for WFL were reviewed. However, the limitations of the existing methodologies were not systematically analyzed.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [52] source
- Not checked yetcites [53] Nguyen, 2023, Backdoor attacks and defenses in federated learning: Survey, challenges and future research directions, arXiv:2303.02213
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“On the other hand, in [48], [49], [50], and [51], WFL was considered as one of the deep learning applications when discussing the impact of backdoor attacks, but no detailed analysis of vulnerabilities of backdoor attacks on WFL was provided.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This makes them more threatening and more difficult to defend against, as the defender needs to consider all steps in the process.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the rapid growth of WFL as a research area, there has not yet been a comprehensive and up-to-date review of it from the perspective of backdoor attacks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This property allows the backdoor to remain effective for a longer duration, making it difficult to eliminate fully.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The detection of backdoors typically relies on threshold design, and the training of existing defense mechanisms often requires access to historical information about the attacks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the survey [50], the backdoor attack strategies were discussed in depth, but they were not discussed in the context of WFL.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This can make it more challenging to maintain constant security measures, making the system more prone to backdoor attacks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This inconsistency can lead to data corruption or loss, and an attacker might exploit the inconsistency to inject malicious backdoor attacks.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, in [35], [114], a new adversarial attack on WFL is studied by exploiting the broadcast nature of wireless channels, where a rogue client collects the local model updates that benign clients upload. The rogue client can take these overheard local model updates as input to a graph adversarial encoder (GAE) to produce a malicious local model update. The malicious local model update can”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In OTA-WFL with uncoded transmission, gradients are transmitted directly over wireless channels without encoding or encryption. The lack of coding or encryption in transmission means that any vulnerability in the wireless channel, such as weak signal encryption or interception by unauthorized receivers, can lead to significant privacy breaches. Moreover, since gradients carry information about the”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [97] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This makes managing and securing each device more difficult and increases the overall attack surface.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Data transmissions over wireless links are through airwaves, making it easier for attackers to eavesdrop [75]-[78], jam [79], and manipulate data, e.g., replay attack and Sybil attack, or intrude the networks [80], [81].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [75]-[78]
- Not checked yetcites [79] source
- Not checked yetcites [80], [81]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The primary objective of the backdoor attack is to generate a converged global model with high accuracy of the main task and the backdoor-injected sub-task [107].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [107] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Under the setting of OTA-WFL, the authors of [97] control the relative intensity of the receiver noise power at the central server by controlling the transmit powers of the clients. The resulting relative intensity of the receiver noises can offer privacy-preserving capability, like DP noises.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [97] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effectiveness of an aggregation phase attack is mainly determined by the knowledge of the model controlled by attackers.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is due to the fact that the random errors resulting from wireless fading and receiver noises can potentially serve to perturb the model updates, hence achieving the effect of DP and alleviating the impact of the attacks.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The objective of a backdoor attack on WFL is to mislead the global model to misclassify malicious inputs with injected backdoor patterns into the target output, with application to image classification [127]-[136], word prediction [137][142], etc.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [127]-[136]
- Not checked yetcites [137][142]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Backdoor attacks conducted during the aggregation process generally do not alter the targeted model. Instead, the attacker is keen on tricking it into producing wrong predictions and causing security problems [32].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Bagdasaryan, How to backdoor federated learning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The model will behave normally and predict a target class when the trigger appears, e.g., in the same room with a facial recognition lock, all men with glasses will be authorized to enter.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Generally, a high BAR is equivalent to a high ASR and BTA.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with training process attacks, the aggregation phase attacks can have stronger attack effects while there is a trade-off between the stealthiness and the attack success rate (ASR).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a local data collection phase backdoor attack, an individual feature or a small region of the local training data is modified by malicious users deliberately [117].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [117] Schwarzschild, Just how toxic is data poisoning? A unified benchmark for backdoor and data poisoning attacks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The primary objective of backdoor attacks is to manipulate the converged global model to misclassify specifically crafted inputs with hidden backdoors into a desired target label while ensuring that normal inputs are classified accurately.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The inevitable problem of the simple label-flipping method still exists in that the flipped data set under the targeted label results in a remarkable outlier in the model training. Thus, it can be detected by norm clipping [164] or differential privacy [38], [38], [164], [165].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [164] Xie, CRFL: Certifiably robust federated learning against backdoor attacks
- Not checked yetcites [38] Nguyen, FLAME: Taming backdoors in federated learning
- Not checked yetcites [165] Zhang, 2023, Bounded and unbiased composite differential privacy, arXiv:2311.02324
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, label-flipping depends on the data sets and is agnostic to the models to be trained and the communication interfaces.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the nature of FL, the backdoor effect in the global model tends to be diluted with the increment of the training round.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In label-flipping-based backdoor attacks, the training data set under the targeted label is replaced by the backdoored data set [162].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [162] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each client's data distribution is not representative of the global data distribution, implying that the categories in each client are incomplete.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To improve the stealthiness of the label flipping-based backdoor attack, the target label is selected on the tail in [33]. In this case, the data distribution is required, and the edge data set is selected as the target.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Wang, Attack of the tails: Yes, you really can backdoor federated learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Different from Byzantine attacks, which aim to jeopardize the convergence of the global model [145]-[147], the backdoor attacks focus on inserting backdoor patterns into the global model while maintaining a reasonable MAR.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [145]-[147]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Different from backdoor attack designs, which pursue high BAR, MAR, and long lifespan, the defenders aim to minimize the BAR and lifespan of the backdoor effect while preventing the MAR from degradation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table IV, label flipping attacks, coordinated trigger attacks, local model replacement attacks, and aggregation process attacks are likely to be exacerbated in WFL.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Replacing the edge target data set with a backdoored data set, the local model behaves correctly with normal inputs while misclassifying the adversarial inputs on the edge label.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Wang, Attack of the tails: Yes, you really can backdoor federated learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is due to the broadcast nature of wireless communications, which facilitates various forms of cyber threats, such as spoofing attacks, Sybil attacks, and eavesdropping attacks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The primary objective of triggerbased backdoor attacks is to mislead the model to classify the trigger-mounted inputs into the target label while behaving normally with non-trigger inputs [38], [116], [126].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [38] Nguyen, FLAME: Taming backdoors in federated learning
- Not checked yetcites [116] source
- Not checked yetcites [126] Zhang, Neurotoxin: Durable backdoors in federated learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In a random trigger-based backdoor attack, the trigger is generated independently of the model [122], [140], [169], [170].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [122] Xie, DBA: Distributed backdoor attacks against federated learning
- Not checked yetcites [140] Pan, Hidden trigger backdoor attack on NLP models via linguistic style manipulation
- Not checked yetcites [169] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the number of adversarial participants involved in an attack, trigger-based backdoor attacks can be classified into centralized trigger-based backdoor attacks and coordinated triggerbased backdoor attacks.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The advantage is that the attack cost is greatly reduced.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Depending on different patterns of the trigger, the triggerbased backdoor attacks can be further divided into random trigger backdoor attacks and model-dependent trigger backdoor attacks, as follows.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The model-dependent trigger can help to excite the target label and has a higher probability of being successfully injected into the trained local model before aggregation [172].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [172] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Both label-flipping-based and triggerbased data poisoning backdoor attacks can be treated as blackbox attacks [33].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Wang, Attack of the tails: Yes, you really can backdoor federated learning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the local model training phase, the backdoor attacks can be conducted by manipulating the model parameters during the training process or modifying the training algorithm [126], [177].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [126] Zhang, Neurotoxin: Durable backdoors in federated learning
- Not checked yetcites [177] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The local training time that remains in a communication round would be short, leading to insufficiently trained local models and, hence, vulnerabilities to backdoor attacks.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, the increasingly widely deployed wireless communication technologies, e.g., 5G, operate in high-frequency bands of up to 40 GHz, and the wavelength of the carrier frequency can be as short as 7.5 millimeters [175].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [175] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“With a newly designed training algorithm, the norm difference between the backdoored and benign models decreases, the backdoor becomes harder to detect, and the attack success rate improves.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The common problem of centralized triggerbased backdoor attacks is that the single attacker's effect is limited, and it cannot be ensured that the attacker is selected in every round.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It has been discussed in the previous section that the simple label-flipping attack exhibits a low attack success rate.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The attacks at this stage are also known as white box attacks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the knowledge of the defense mechanism adopted in the WFL network is also required to ensure the injection of the backdoor.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The attacker needs to master the training data set, as well as the local training process.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“On the other hand, when frequency-division multiple-access (FDMA) protocols, including orthogonal frequency-division multiple-access (OFDMA) protocols, are considered, each selected client would enjoy much narrower bandwidths, which would prolong their model uploading time at the cost of their model training time [180].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [180] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proposed attack ensures that the backdoor is bound to be injected in one round and will not be diluted.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The injected backdoor pattern is also easy to detect, and the life span of the backdoor effect is short.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Such black-box attacks featured low attack costs but also relatively low backdoor effects [155].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [155] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once the attacker obtains the knowledge of the training algorithm, it can fully control the compromised client and initiate the model poisoning backdoor attack during the local model training phase.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the attack shows better performance when the global model is close to complete convergence, so the attacker also needs to know the information on the convergence progress of the global model.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The label-flippingbased data poisoning backdoor attack is the easiest to implement.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The malicious attacker can then conduct the attack by hijacking one or more compromised clients that are close to the essential node. Thus, the backdoor effect is more likely to be injected into the network and spread more broadly.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in decentralized WFL, each client can behave as the server, and only receives model information from nodes within its neighborhood.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A backdoor attack at this phase can only pollute the training data, and the attackers do not necessarily know the training algorithm and aggregation protocol.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The global model replacement method aims to manipulate the local training algorithm, and the adversarial updates are guaranteed to be uploaded for aggregation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, training the backdoor filter on the server side requires prior information about the backdoor patterns and backdoored data sets.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The backdoor attack success rate under the defense mechanism reduces to zero, while the stability-based defense can ensure a high success rate for the main task.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [191] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The attacks at this stage have a better attack success rate, but the requirement of the model training information increases the attack cost.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The defense schemes can be classified into four types: defense at the local training phase, defense before the aggregation phase, defense during the aggregation phase, and defense after the aggregation phase.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In return, the attackers need to master the local training data, local training algorithm, and the global aggregation protocol, making it hard to implement in practical scenarios.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the blur operation can only deal with the trigger in the pixel pattern.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the experimental setup, the number of participants is set to 10, and the training data are IID.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [191] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with benign clients, the backdoor attackers are likely to upload updates with relatively larger norms.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the trade-off between the primary task accuracy and attack defense rate must be considered when adding the noise.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The defense mechanisms at this stage are also compatible with the SecAgg protocol.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The defense performance might degrade in the actual WFL, where the number of clients is larger, and the training data sets are typically non-IID.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For this reason, the UDP is more commonly adopted in WFL [201].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [201] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For instance, the TCP can ensure the reliable delivery of data across a network but requires one or multiple retransmissions in each communication cycle [200].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [200] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another commonly adopted defense strategy against backdoor attacks is to detect the anomaly updates before sending them to the aggregator.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Wireless devices can be resource-constrained, e.g., in terms of energy supply and communication resources.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The remaining challenges are that the defender requires the proper knowledge of the backdoor patterns, and the trade-off between the defense performance and significant task accuracy must also be considered [192].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [192] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many efforts have been carried out to deal with both data poisoning backdoor attack [193]-[195] and model poisoning backdoor attack [196]-[198].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [193]-[195]
- Not checked yetcites [196]-[198]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This can penalize the local models by reducing the local training time in a communication cycle.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Client selection and scheduling are indispensable in the context of WFL.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a significant opportunity to couple the designs of both in a holistic way to improve defense effectiveness and efficiency.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, the client selection/scheduling has been designed in parallel to the backdoor defense studies.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The encoder-decoder architecture requires extra unbiased updates to train the detector, and it is pretty hard to implement in real WFL applications.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [202] Li, 2020, Learning to detect malicious clients for robust federated learning, arXiv:2002.00211
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After removing the noisy and redundant features of these data instances, the difference between benign and malicious updates becomes apparent.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The basic idea of low-dimensional anomaly detection methods is to project the compact computed local model onto its low-dimension space, as given by:”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The malicious attacker cannot inject completed backdoor patterns in a short time, thus improving the robustness of the global model.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [204] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The malicious attacker cannot inject completed backdoor patterns in a short time.
In the paper
“The PCA-based method requires prior knowledge of the targeted backdoor label, which is also hard to know in practical defense implementation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [203] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The low-dimensional methods are also incompatible with the SecAgg protocol, and the privacy of the participants in the WFL network cannot be guaranteed.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [202] Li, 2020, Learning to detect malicious clients for robust federated learning, arXiv:2002.00211
- Not checked yetcites [203] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The clipping should filter not only the updates from clients but different communication channels as well.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the feature of WCN, the communication channels with better signals can be better selected in WFL.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The reconstruction error of the benign updates is much smaller than that of the malicious updates.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [202] Li, 2020, Learning to detect malicious clients for robust federated learning, arXiv:2002.00211
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“The proposed method ensures the privacy of the participants involved.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [204] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ratio of information gathered from remote network nodes should be considered to prevent backdoor effects and ensure fairness.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, the above-mentioned methods can only distinguish label-flipping-based backdoor attacks and cannot deal with trigger-based backdoor attacks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [202] Li, 2020, Learning to detect malicious clients for robust federated learning, arXiv:2002.00211
- Not checked yetcites [203] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the data distortion and packet loss caused by network communications need to be considered when designing the norm clipping threshold.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The biggest cluster is recognized as the benign update, while the malicious updates lie within a visibly different cluster.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [203] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The defense schemes proposed in [204] and [205] require modifying the local training process, and the backdoor effect can only be suppressed and cannot be entirely eliminated.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The method requires the number of malicious attacks to be smaller than 50% of the total selected clients in each round.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In each round, the central server selects subsets of the participants. Each subset computer updates. Then, each subset follows the SecAgg protocol and sends the cryptographymasked updates. Although the server cannot access each client's update, it can migrate the effect of backdoor attacks by ignoring visibly different subset updates.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [205] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It shows good defensive performance against both data poisoning and model poisoning backdoor attacks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [38] Nguyen, FLAME: Taming backdoors in federated learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In such a design, the participant's privacy is ensured, and it can be applied to defend against label-flipping-based, trigger-based, and model replacement-based backdoor attacks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [205] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similar to the aggregation modification method, the proposed defense mechanism requires the individual to update information from the participant on the server side. Thus, it is not compatible with the SecAgg. The participants' privacy security cannot be guaranteed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The central server simulates the WFL tasks under various types of backdoor attacks. Then, the simulated model updates are collected to train a separate neural network model, which learns the potential vulnerability of the global model against different backdoor attacks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [219] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“If the alignment score 𝑠 𝑖 is closer to + 1 , 𝑝 𝑖 is more likely to be a benign update. On the other hand, if 𝑠 𝑖 is close to -1 , 𝑝 𝑖 is likely to be an adversary update.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [219] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this design, the model weights are pre-processed to obtain the discernible patterns of filters. Multiple filters are then collected and fed into an unsupervised anomaly detection algorithm to detect the suspicious filters.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [220] Mi, 2022, ARIBA: Towards accurate and robust identification of backdoor attacks in federated learning, arXiv:2202.04311
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This design has no constraints on the number of malicious clients, and it demonstrates reasonable performance against data poisoning attacks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [218] Fung, The limitations of federated learning in Sybil settings
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The FoolsGold is proposed in [218], and the adversarial attack is detected based on the diversity of the model updates. In a WFL framework, the benign client's updates tend to have richer diversity, while the adversary normally behaves similarly.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [218] Fung, The limitations of federated learning in Sybil settings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The aggregator requires the knowledge of individual model updates, which violates the SecAgg protocol. The proposed method performs poorly in the non-IID situation and cannot ensure privacy and security.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [211] Fu, 2019, Attack-resistant federated learning with residual-based reweighting, arXiv:1912.11464
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The major problem of this defense method is that to distinguish the malicious updates, all possible backdoor attack patterns must be trained in the server before implementation. During the detection, the aggregator requires access to single local updates. Thus, the privacy of the participant is at risk of leaking.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [219] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the FedEraser design, no substantial modification is required to the existing WFL architecture and the training process of the participants. Thus, the proposed method is easy to implement.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [224] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“although the training data and the training process are not required, the FedEraser must target the attacker client, which is also pretty hard in actual implementation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [224] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In [224], the federated unlearning methodology, namely, FedEraser, is proposed. In this scheme, the central server stores the historical updates received from clients during the global model training process. Once the global model converges, the FedEraser reconstructs an unlearned model in the central server based on the stored historical parameters.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [224] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The knowledge distillation method is proposed in [216], [226] to restore the global model's performance. In this design, the central server stores the historical parameters of the participating clients. Once the global model is obtained. The contribution of the targeted malicious clients is subtracted, and a skewed unlearning model is derived. Then, the knowledge distillation is performed. The”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [216] source
- Not checked yetcites [226] Wu, 2022, Federated unlearning with knowledge distillation, arXiv:2201.09441
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The unsupervised anomaly detection methods proposed in [220] and [222] are incompatible with the SecAgg protocol. Thus, data privacy and security can hardly be ensured.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [220] Mi, 2022, ARIBA: Towards accurate and robust identification of backdoor attacks in federated learning, arXiv:2202.04311
- Not checked yetcites [222] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the emerging OTA-WFL may pose new challenges to the existing defense mechanisms designed for the aggregation phase due to the fact that the FL server would only access the aggregated global model under OTA-WFL [14], [101]. The local models of individual clients are obscured. While this helps improve the privacy of the individuals' local models to a great extent, it allows backdoor attacks to take”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The calibration process during the unlearned model training relies on the historical updates of the participating clients. The limited store capability of the hardware makes it hard to deploy in practice.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [224] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The server will store the historic value gathered from participants to train a reference global model, based on which the trained converged WFL global model is examined to filter the anomaly contribution from suspicious clients. By excluding the influence of suspicious clients, the backdoor effect will be entirely eliminated.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The post-aggregation backdoor defense mechanisms, i.e., performed upon the aggregated global models, can be particularly important for the emerging OTA-WFL systems to circumvent the obscurity of the local models in the OTAWFL processes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The defense during the aggregation is capable of identifying the backdoored updates from the malicious clients and excluding them from rejecting backdoor injection. The defenders are located on the server side, and normally, they are not compatible with SecAgg.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, the proposed method is not compatible with SecAgg, and the privacy of the participants is at risk of leakage.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [216] source
- Not checked yetcites [226] Wu, 2022, Federated unlearning with knowledge distillation, arXiv:2201.09441
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Defense before the aggregation phase is also mounted on the client side. The defender is keen to exclude suspicious updates before sending them to the aggregator. Some methodologies employ the modification of SecAgg, thus making it hard to be configured in practical WFL networks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The low BAR of triggerbased backdoor attacks could be due to insufficient CCR.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It is also testified that the proposed knowledge distillation-based unlearning method can improve the robustness of the global model and defend against all types of backdoor attacks [227].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [227] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The unlearning mechanism requires the knowledge of the target clients, and the attackers are normally stealthy in practical scenarios.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [216] source
- Not checked yetcites [226] Wu, 2022, Federated unlearning with knowledge distillation, arXiv:2201.09441
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the attacker must obtain sufficient knowledge of the whole WFL network, introducing a considerable attack cost, as discussed in Section III-C.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Defense methods at the local training phase are implemented on the client side, aiming at the data poisoning attacks. The defense cost is relatively low, and the defense mechanism at this stage is compatible with SecAgg.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The defense after the aggregation phase will evaluate the converged global model to test whether it has been polluted by the backdoor pattern or not. The defense mechanism is also at the server side, and the historical information gathered from the participant is necessarily needed.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existing defense methods can be broadly divided into four categories: defense at the local training phase, defense before the aggregation phase, defense during the aggregation phase, and defense after the aggregation phase.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Compared with a backdoor attack for data, a model-based backdoor attack shows better ASR and longer duration [164].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [164] Xie, CRFL: Certifiably robust federated learning against backdoor attacks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, such defense methods [218], [224] require the historical information of local model updates and are not compatible with SecAgg, which brings more difficulty in the practical implementation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [218] Fung, The limitations of federated learning in Sybil settings
- Not checked yetcites [224] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, it is more unlikely to be detected, and the attack strength is relatively weaker.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the model poisoning-based backdoor attack algorithms have relatively higher complexity and normally require much more information about the entire network.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, the Gaussian noise introduced by differential privacy also adds extra disturbance to the global model training process.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This type of 'tail backdoor' can remain undetected for a longer duration but only affects the classification of a subset of the training samples.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The optimal weight must be carefully designed to achieve the highest ASR without detection.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a trade-off between the ASR and the strength of the backdoor effect in this case.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, the WFL framework is featured for its non-IID property.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And there is no proven solution to deal with the injected backdoor pattern after the aggregation phase.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Label-flipping-based attacks have low attack costs, but the flipped labels can cause noticeable outliers in the uploaded updates, making them easy to detect and eliminate [123].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [123] Rosenfeld, Certified robustness to label-flipping attacks via randomized smoothing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to data poisoning with model poisoning, data poisoning backdoor attack shows a relatively lower attack cost, and model poisoning attack has a better attack accuracy rate and longer backdoor life span.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The local model training process is difficult to tamper with, and the effects of a backdoor can be quickly diluted if compromised clients are not frequently selected.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With a higher knowledge level known by the attack, the attack success rate is higher as well.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In return, the attack cost will also dramatically increase.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Backdoor attacks during the model aggregation phase have the highest success rate but also the highest cost [212].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [212] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within the data poisoning attack, label flipping is one of the easiest attack methods, resulting in a lower success rate, and can be easily detected.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The defender usually clips the contribution from suspicious clients to get rid of the backdoor effect.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The defender is hard to trace back to the compromised client and leaves it out of the network.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a newly trained classifier requires information on all possible backdoor patterns, and the defense cost is high.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trigger-based attacks also create outliers, but these can be designed based on the target label to decrease the likelihood of detection.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since all defense methods inherently eliminate the suspicious backdoor effect by clipping the possible malicious updates, inevitably, a portion of honest updates will be neglected by mistake.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this process, some honest information will be miss-clipped, and the main task accuracy will be influenced.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A trigger-based backdoor is the most adopted one, and with the proper design trigger pattern, the attack performance will be greatly improved.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Defense methods based on differential privacy (DP) can add noise to the model, which can degrade its performance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, considering all possible backdoor patterns to achieve good defense performance can be costly, and the defense may not be able to detect novel attacks.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This type of defense is effective in defending against black-box backdoor attacks and can be used with a secure aggregation protocol.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the training process of WFL is random, which raises questions about the reliability of historic values.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, such a coordinated attack is still based on the black box model, resulting in limited attack strength.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, the defense requires the attacker to participate in every training round, which may not be practical.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the non-IID structure of WFL frameworks can make it challenging to defend against backdoor attacks while preserving the privacy and security of participants.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such imbalanced data distribution will have a significant impact on model update calculation and upload.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is noted that in the WCN, the data distribution among different devices is normally imbalanced.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since limited prior information on the entire model is required, it contributes to a decreasing attack cost.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model difference among nodes within the decentralized network could be significant.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In decentralized WFL, each node acts as both a contributor and a server.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each model can only obtain part of the network information from its neighbors or selected remote nodes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is hard to broadcast a global defender to monitor all the nodes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the attacker can take advantage of such unfairness and increase the attack success rate.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this approach requires the knowledge of the malicious clients and all possible backdoor patterns, which can be difficult to obtain in a WFL setting where the data is non-IID.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the training process of WFL in the WCN, it is challenging to ensure synchronization and consistency among all devices.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existing similaritybased norm clipping methods may not function properly.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“WFL is featured for its large number of participating devices and different types of devices, and devices might have limited computation abilities.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, there is no central server in the decentralized WFL framework.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The transmission delay or package loss during the wireless communication can cause uploaded local model updates to drop and further influence the global model convergence.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the model poisoning-based backdoor attacks, the attacker needs to fully control one or more participants.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One such approach is the use of an 'unlearning' model, which aims to eliminate the residual effects of the backdoor by excluding the influence of suspicious participants and has been shown to be effective [225], [256], [257].”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Backdoor patterns are easier to parasite within a network and gradually propagate and spread throughout the network.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on different defense stages, the defender can filter the malicious updates from the compromised clients controlled by the attacker, either systematically or statistically.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inevitably, some information in the genuine model will be clipped, which impacts the model's performance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The security threats induced by WCN are inevitable when discussing the influence of backdoor attacks on WFL.
“Nevertheless, the security threats induced by WCNare inevitable when discussing the influence of backdoor attacks on WFL.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The training datasets of WFL participants are non-independent and identically distributed (non-IID).
“The training datasets of WFL participants are non-independent and identically distributed (non-IID).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The broadcast nature of wireless (radio) channels allows misbehaved or compromised participants in WFL to overhear the local model parameters of multiple or all benign participants.
“Particularly, the broadcast nature of wireless (radio) channels allows misbehaved or compromised participants in WFL to overhear the local model parameters of multiple or all benign participants.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The malicious attacker cannot inject completed backdoor patterns in a short time.
“The malicious attacker cannot inject completed backdoor patterns in a short time, thus improving the robustness of the global model.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The methods in [215]-[218] assume that the attacker is malicious all the time and uploads adversarial models in every round.
“The methods proposed in [215]-[218] assume that the attacker should be malicious all the time. The attacker needs to upload adversarial models in every round.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In practical scenarios, the attacker can decide to inject the backdoor at a random round.
“In practical scenarios, the attacker can decide to inject the backdoor at a random round.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The attacker knows all possible defense patterns, can conduct attacks at any time, and multiple attackers can conduct coordinated attacks.
“It is assumed that the attacker knows all possible defense patterns, can conduct attacks at any time, and multiple attackers can conduct coordinated attacks.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Defense mechanisms working on the server side are more powerful than those on the client side.
“It is reasonable to assume that the defense mechanisms working on the server side are more powerful than those on the client side.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
If the attacker could make use of data imbalances and intentionally control compromised clients to acquire more data from the WCN, the trigger rate will increase.
“If the attacker could make use of such imbalances and intentionally control compromised clients to acquire more data from the WCN, it is reasonable to assume that the trigger rate will also increase.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Untargeted poisoning, in contrast, aims to degrade model efficiency globally, risking patient results over the board [72,76].”
From Federated Learning in Smart Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review on Privacy, Security, and Predictive Analytics with IoT Integration (2024) · cites this paper as [76]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Data manipulation attacks are crucial threats in FL, particularly in healthcare.”
From Federated Learning in Smart Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review on Privacy, Security, and Predictive Analytics with IoT Integration (2024) · cites this paper as [76]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In targeted poisoning attacks, malicious contributors corrupt the model to misidentify specific data, which could be utilized to target certain diseases or demographic groups.”
From Federated Learning in Smart Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review on Privacy, Security, and Predictive Analytics with IoT Integration (2024) · cites this paper as [76]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ I. INTRODUCTION · p. 2
“Such flaws could be exploited by malicious users to create backdoors, allowing unauthorized access to a Canon printer user's network that the printer was connected to [34].”
§ REFERENCES · p. 32
“[34] H. Eilertsen, 'Backdoor found in themes and plugins from accesspress themes,' https://jetpack.com/blog/ backdoor-found-in-themes-and-plugins-from-accesspress-themes/.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ F. Performance Analysis of Backdoor Attacks · p. 10
“Consider a WFL network with a total of 𝑚 clients.”
§ A. Overview of Wireless Communications Technologies · p. 5
“| 𝑚 | The number of randomly selected clients within one training iteration. |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ E. Evaluation Metrics for Backdoor Attacks · p. 10
“MAR measures the rate of global model outputs that have been denoted as correct classification, which consists of normal output produced by the benign inputs and malicious outputs misled by the backdoored inputs.”
§ A. Comparison Among Backdoor Attack Strategies · p. 23
“MAR evaluates the prediction accuracy of the backdoorinjected global model on clean inputs.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A. Backdoor Attacks at Local Data Collection Phase · p. 11
“| Local Model Replacement [32], [124], [155], [156] | × | √ | √ | × | √ | √ | Image Classification; Sentiment Analysis | √ |”
§ A. Defense at Local Training Phase · p. 16
“1. The attacker fully controls one or multiple compromised clients.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ E. Summary · p. 22
“Defense before the aggregation phase is also mounted on the client side.”
§ B. Defense Before Aggregation Phase · p. 18
“Thus, it is a reasonable defense that the central server to scale the client updates 𝑝 𝑖 𝑡 + 1 when its 𝐿 2 norm | | 𝑝 𝑖 𝑡 + 1 | | 2 is greater than the predetermined threshold 𝐶 .”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A. Comparison Among Backdoor Attack Strategies · p. 23
“the change of MAR under each attack method is recorded in Table XI.”
§ B. Comparison Among Backdoor Attack Defense Methods · p. 26
“| Attack strategies | BAR | BAR | BAR |”
Citations
Cites
Deep Learning with Differential Privacy
Abadi, M., Chu, A., Goodfellow, I., McMahan, H. B., Mironov, I., Talwar, K., & Zhang, L. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/2976749.2978318 · Cited by 6,578 · cited 1×
“For example, some researchers have proposed using differential privacy to defend against poisoned data samples in the training process or adding a threshold value to gradients to block abnormal gradients classified as malicious attackers [36], [37], [38].”
BackgroundFederated Machine Learning: Concept and Applications
Yang, Q., Liu, Y., Chen, T., & Tong, Y. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3298981 · Cited by 6,322
Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions
Li, T., Sahu, A. K., Talwalkar, A., & Smith, V. (2020) · IEEE Signal Processing Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2020.2975749 · Cited by 6,210 · cited 1×
“Restrictions apply. concerns [90], [91], [92].”
Liu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3560815 · Cited by 4,361 · cited 1×
“Wireless communications services are used in different scenarios for various Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications [3], [4], such as image classification task [5], [6], text prediction [7], and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control [8], [9].”
BackgroundLiu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.13586 · Cited by 4,352 · cited 1×
“Wireless communications services are used in different scenarios for various Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications [3], [4], such as image classification task [5], [6], text prediction [7], and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control [8], [9].”
BackgroundIntegrated Sensing and Communications: Toward Dual-Functional Wireless Networks for 6G and Beyond
Liu, F., Cui, Y., Masouros, C., Xu, J., Han, T. X., Eldar, Y. C., & Buzzi, S. (2022) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · doi:10.1109/jsac.2022.3156632 · Cited by 3,857 · cited 1×
“Efforts have been made to train a machine-learning model that can be applied to optimize resource allocation in wireless networks and improve overall network efficiency [69].”
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
Konečný, J., McMahan, H. B., Yu, F. X., Richtárik, P., Suresh, A. T., & Bacon, D. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.05492 · Cited by 3,766 · cited 1×
“First proposed by Google [18], FL is a machine learning paradigm in which multiple devices form a distributed network while maintaining the same machine learning model.”
BackgroundFederated Learning in Mobile Edge Networks: A Comprehensive Survey
Lim, W. Y. B., Luong, N. C., Hoang, D. T., Jiao, Y., Liang, Y.-C., Yang, Q., Niyato, D., & Miao, C. (2020) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2020.2986024 · Cited by 2,565 · cited 1×
“In recent years, WFL has seen widespread adoption in various fields, including mobile device development, industrial engineering, and healthcare [21], [22], [23], [24].”
BackgroundA survey on federated learning
Zhang, C., Xie, Y., Bai, H., Yu, B., Li, W., & Gao, Y. (2021) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106775 · Cited by 1,899
Nasr, M., Shokri, R., & Houmansadr, A. (2019) · 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp.2019.00065 · Cited by 1,760 · cited 1×
“Adversarial attacks on WFL can be broadly classified into four categories: poisoning [29], inference attacks [30], Byzantine attacks [31], and backdoor attacks [32].”
BackgroundRobust and Communication-Efficient Federated Learning From Non-i.i.d. Data
Sattler, F., Wiedemann, S., Muller, K.-R., & Samek, W. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2019.2944481 · Cited by 1,725 · cited 1×
“Each client’s data may be different in terms of its statistical properties, data class distribution, or data quality.”
BackgroundFederated Learning for Healthcare Informatics
Xu, J., Glicksberg, B. S., Su, C., Walker, P., Bian, J., & Wang, F. (2021) · Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research · doi:10.1007/s41666-020-00082-4 · Cited by 1,542 · cited 1×
“In recent years, WFL has seen widespread adoption in various fields, including mobile device development, industrial engineering, and healthcare [21], [22], [23], [24].”
BackgroundFederated Learning for Internet of Things: A Comprehensive Survey
Nguyen, D. C., Ding, M., Pathirana, P. N., Seneviratne, A., Li, J., & Vincent Poor, H. (2021) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2021.3075439 · Cited by 1,503 · cited 1×
“In recent years, WFL has seen widespread adoption in various fields, including mobile device development, industrial engineering, and healthcare [21], [22], [23], [24].”
BackgroundHow to backdoor federated learning
Bagdasaryan, E., Veit, A., Hua, Y., Estrin, D., & Shmatikov, V. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.00459 · Cited by 1,495 · cited 10×
“Adversarial attacks on WFL can be broadly classified into four categories: poisoning [29], inference attacks [30], Byzantine attacks [31], and backdoor attacks [32].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA survey on security and privacy of federated learning
Mothukuri, V., Parizi, R. M., Pouriyeh, S., Huang, Y., Dehghantanha, A., & Srivastava, G. (2021) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2020.10.007 · Cited by 1,480 · cited 1×
“It can be seen that some existing surveys, e.g., [44], [45], [46], and [47] considered backdoor attacks and backdoor defenses as a part of robustness threat on WFL, however, the limitations of the existing backdoor attack and defense methods were not highlighted.”
BackgroundA Survey on Federated Learning Systems: Vision, Hype and Reality for Data Privacy and Protection
Li, Q., Wen, Z., Wu, Z., Hu, S., Wang, N., Li, Y., Liu, X., & He, B. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2021.3124599 · Cited by 1,407 · cited 2×
“Thus, WFL can be adopted to train tasks that highly rely on sensitive private data such as clients’ personal information, location, etc. [35], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97].”
BackgroundByzantine-Robust Distributed Learning: Towards Optimal Statistical Rates
Yin, D., Chen, Y., Ramchandran, K., & Bartlett, P. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.01498 · Cited by 1,130
Federated learning on non-IID data: A survey
Zhu, H., Xu, J., Liu, S., & Jin, Y. (2021) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.07.098 · Cited by 1,062
Targeted Backdoor Attacks on Deep Learning Systems Using Data Poisoning
Chen, X., Liu, C., Li, B., Lu, K., & Song, D. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.05526 · Cited by 1,039 · cited 1×
“This increases the attack surface and potential vulnerabilities in the WFL. Attackers can exploit the decentralized nature of WFL to distribute triggers across a diverse set of devices, making it more challenging to identify and mitigate the attack.”
BackgroundFederated Learning over Wireless Networks: Optimization Model Design and Analysis
Tran, N. H., Bao, W., Zomaya, A. Y., Nguyen, M. N. H., & Hong, C. (2019) · IEEE Conference on Computer Communications · doi:10.1109/infocom.2019.8737464 · Cited by 943 · cited 1×
“WFL is a distributed machine learning scheme that connects n clients to train a global model G in the central server by iterative aggregation of the local model L i , i = 1 , . . . , N over a wireless network [20], [88], [89].”
BackgroundData Poisoning Attacks Against Federated Learning Systems
Tolpegin, V., Truex, S., Gursoy, M. E., & Liu, L. (2020) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58951-6_24 · Cited by 927
Federated Learning for Internet of Things: Recent Advances, Taxonomy, and Open Challenges
Khan, L. U., Saad, W., Han, Z., Hossain, E., & Hong, C. S. (2021) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2021.3090430 · Cited by 892
Self-citationFederated Learning for Internet of Things: A Comprehensive Survey
Nguyen, D., Ding, M., Pathirana, P. N., Seneviratne, A., Li, J., & Poor, H. (2021) · Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) · Cited by 889
Beyond Inferring Class Representatives: User-Level Privacy Leakage From Federated Learning
Wang, Z., Song, M., Zhang, Z., Song, Y., Wang, Q., & Qi, H. (2019) · IEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications · doi:10.1109/infocom.2019.8737416 · Cited by 881
Local Model Poisoning Attacks to Byzantine-Robust Federated Learning
Fang, M., Cao, X., Jia, J., & Gong, N. Z. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.11815 · Cited by 828 · cited 2×
“Compared with the data poisoning backdoor attack and model poisoning attack in the model training phase, the model poisoning phase in the aggregation phase shows the greatest attack strength and best stealthiness [31].”
BackgroundResultFederated Learning for Wireless Communications: Motivation, Opportunities, and Challenges
Niknam, S., Dhillon, H. S., & Reed, J. H. (2020) · IEEE Communications Magazine · doi:10.1109/mcom.001.1900461 · Cited by 820 · cited 1×
“WFL is a distributed machine learning scheme that connects n clients to train a global model G in the central server by iterative aggregation of the local model L i , i = 1 , . . . , N over a wireless network [20], [88], [89].”
BackgroundAnalyzing Federated Learning through an Adversarial Lens
Bhagoji, A. N., Chakraborty, S., Mittal, P., & Calo, S. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.12470 · Cited by 703 · cited 1×
“Depending on the number of compromised clients controlled by the attacker, targeted backdoor attacks can be further divided into two types: centralized attacks [235] and coordinated attacks [116], [122].”
BackgroundThe evolving role of artificial intelligence in marketing: A review and research agenda
Vlačić, B., Corbo, L., Silva, S. C. L. D. C. E., & Dabić, M. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.055 · Cited by 692 · cited 1×
“According to different communication ranges and data capacities [57], many wireless communication technologies are developed, including Wi-Fi, Cellular Networks, Bluetooth, Near Field Communication, and ZigBee [58].”
BackgroundLi, Y., Jiang, Y., Li, Z., & Xia, S.-T. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2022.3182979 · Cited by 682 · cited 4×
“3) How to Improve the Backdoor Attack Effect During Local Model Training: Backdoor attacks during the local model training phase require attackers to have complete con-trol over compromised clients [39], [49], [242].”
BackgroundInfluentialBig data analytics for intelligent manufacturing systems: A review
Wang, J., Xu, C., Zhang, J., & Zhong, R. Y. (2021) · Journal of Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.03.005 · Cited by 669 · cited 1×
“…enables a flexible and convenient way of transmitting data from local devices for machine learning applications, such as intelligent transport [59], [60], [61], intelligent marketing [62], intelligent manufacturing [63], smart home [64], intelligent security [65], and intelligent health [66].”
BackgroundManipulating the Byzantine: Optimizing Model Poisoning Attacks and Defenses for Federated Learning
Shejwalkar, V., & Houmansadr, A. (2021) · Proceedings 2021 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium · doi:10.14722/ndss.2021.24498 · Cited by 615 · cited 1×
“Model poisoning backdoor attacks during the aggregation phase can modify the aggregation process by scaling the parameter of the uploaded malicious local model [181], [182].”
BackgroundSurvey on blockchain for Internet of Things
Wang, X., Zha, X., Ni, W., Liu, R. P., Guo, Y. J., Niu, X., & Zheng, K. (2019) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2019.01.006 · Cited by 567 · cited 1×
“Byzantine fault tolerance techniques [207] can be potentially leveraged to identify misbehaved clients and maintain the integrity of WFL.”
BackgroundSelf-citationPrivacy and Robustness in Federated Learning: Attacks and Defenses
Lyu, L., Yu, H., Ma, X., Chen, C., Sun, L., Zhao, J., Yang, Q., & Yu, P. S. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2022.3216981 · Cited by 548 · cited 2×
“Recent works have shown that WFL cannot always guarantee the security of the training process [46], [82], [93], [105], [106].”
BackgroundInvisible Backdoor Attack with Sample-Specific Triggers
Li, Y., Li, Y., Wu, B., Li, L., He, R., & Lyu, S. (2021) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv48922.2021.01615 · Cited by 511 · cited 1×
“Restrictions apply.”
Blockchain's adoption in iot: the challenges, and a way forward
Makhdoom, I., Abolhasan, M., Abbas, H., & Ni, W. (2019) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2018.10.019 · Cited by 501 · cited 1×
“Consensus [206] among the clients can be potentially used to select reliable local models.”
BackgroundSelf-citationLu, Y., Huang, X., Zhang, K., Maharjan, S., & Zhang, Y. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2020.3017668 · Cited by 500 · cited 1×
“It is foreseeable that Wireless Federated Learning (WFL) techniques will play a pivotal role as one of the core components in the development of next-generation wireless communication networks, including Beyond 5G (B5G) [237] and 6G [238].”
BackgroundCommunication-efficient edge ai: algorithms and systems
Shi, Y., Yang, K., Jiang, T., Zhang, J., & Letaief, K. B. (2020) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2020.3007787 · Cited by 488 · cited 1×
“The wireless network can collect a large amount of data from various sources, which machine learning algorithms can apply to analyze and train a converged model.”
BackgroundDBA: Distributed Backdoor Attacks against Federated Learning
Xie, C., Huang, K., Chen, P., & Li, B. (2020) · International Conference on Learning Representations · Cited by 472
Attack of the tails: Yes, you really can backdoor federated learning
Wang, H., Sreenivasan, K., Rajput, S., Vishwakarma, H., Agarwal, S., Sohn, J.-Y., Lee, K., & Papailiopoulos, D. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.05084 · Cited by 406 · cited 10×
“For instance, regarding the image classification task discussed in [33], an attacker aims to mislead the global model to classify images of “truck” as “airplane”.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFrom distributed machine learning to federated learning: a survey
Liu, J., Huang, J., Zhou, Y., Li, X., Ji, S., Xiong, H., & Dou, D. (2022) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-022-01664-x · Cited by 397 · cited 1×
“Restrictions apply. concerns [90], [91], [92].”
Dataset Security for Machine Learning: Data Poisoning, Backdoor Attacks, and Defenses
Goldblum, M., Tsipras, D., Xie, C., Chen, X., Schwarzschild, A., Song, D., Madry, A., Li, B., & Goldstein, T. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2022.3162397 · Cited by 362 · cited 4×
“Even if an attacker is able to get the local backdoor pattern uploaded to the server aggregator, the defense mechanism on the server may still be able to detect and eliminate the backdoor, preventing a global injection [51].”
BackgroundInfluentialPrivacy-Enhanced Federated Learning Against Poisoning Adversaries
Liu, X., Li, H., Xu, G., Chen, Z., Huang, X., & Lu, R. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2021.3108434 · Cited by 351 · cited 1×
“…How to Balance the Model Performance and the Detection Rate Before the Aggregation Phase: Defending before the aggregation phase is a common strategy in which the server aggregator detects and ignores malicious updates and restricts participation from suspicious clients [212], [246], [247], [248].”
BackgroundCan You Really Backdoor Federated Learning?
Sun, Z., Kairouz, P., Suresh, A. T., & McMahan, H. B. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.07963 · Cited by 348 · cited 6×
“The impact of the training phase attack is limited to the compromised clients controlled by the attacker [32], [124], [126].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKaffash, S., Nguyen, A. T., & Zhu, J. (2020) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107868 · Cited by 345 · cited 1×
“…enables a flexible and convenient way of transmitting data from local devices for machine learning applications, such as intelligent transport [59], [60], [61], intelligent marketing [62], intelligent manufacturing [63], smart home [64], intelligent security [65], and intelligent health [66].”
BackgroundYe, D., Chen, M.-M., & Yang, H. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2017.2782731 · Cited by 326 · cited 1×
“9 that each attacker knows part of the trigger, and the coordinated attack is conducted to inject the completed trigger into the final model [167].”
Background(2019) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 318
Learning to Detect Malicious Clients for Robust Federated LearningPreprint
Li, S., Cheng, Y. J., Wang, W., Liu, Y., & Chen, T. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.00211 · Cited by 313 · cited 2×
“Restrictions apply. low-dimensional anomaly detection methods have been proposed [202], [203].”
MethodWhen Internet of Things Meets Metaverse: Convergence of Physical and Cyber Worlds
Li, K., Cui, Y., Li, W., Lv, T., Yuan, X., Li, S., Ni, W., Simsek, M., & Dressler, F. (2022) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2022.3232845 · Cited by 299 · cited 1×
“With the widespread use of AI applications and user/sensor data involved during the AI training process, the security and privacy issues have become critical [10].”
BackgroundSelf-citationShejwalkar, V., Houmansadr, A., Kairouz, P., & Ramage, D. (2022) · 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp46214.2022.9833647 · Cited by 292 · cited 1×
“1) Data Poisoning-Based Backdoor Attacks: Earlier works on data-based backdoor attacks focused on un-targeted attacks that aimed to degrade the accuracy of the global model by injecting “poisoned” data into the training set [231], [232].”
BackgroundPoisonGAN: Generative Poisoning Attacks Against Federated Learning in Edge Computing Systems
Zhang, J., Chen, B., Cheng, X., Binh, H. T. T., & Yu, S. (2021) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2020.3023126 · Cited by 291 · cited 8×
“Adversarial attacks on WFL can be broadly classified into four categories: poisoning [29], inference attacks [30], Byzantine attacks [31], and backdoor attacks [32].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBadNL: Backdoor Attacks against NLP Models with Semantic-preserving Improvements
Chen, X., Salem, A., Chen, D., Michael Backes, A., Ma, S., Shen, Q., Wu, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2021) · Annual Computer Security Applications Conference · doi:10.1145/3485832.3485837 · Cited by 283 · cited 1×
“…on WFL is to mislead the global model to misclassify malicious inputs with injected backdoor patterns into the target output, with application to image classification [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], word prediction [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], etc.”
BackgroundBackdoor Attacks and Countermeasures on Deep Learning: A Comprehensive ReviewPreprint
Gao, Y., Doan, B. G., Zhang, Z., Ma, S., Zhang, J., Fu, A., Nepal, ., & Kim, H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.10760 · Cited by 276 · cited 1×
“On the other hand, in [48], [49], [50], and [51], WFL was considered as one of the deep learning applications when discussing the impact of backdoor attacks, but no detailed analysis of vulnerabilities of backdoor attacks on WFL was provided.”
BackgroundEdge Computing for Smart Health: Context-Aware Approaches, Opportunities, and Challenges
Abdellatif, A. A., Mohamed, A. M. S., Chiasserini, C. F., Tlili, M., & Erbad, A. (2019) · IEEE Network · doi:10.1109/mnet.2019.1800083 · Cited by 273 · cited 1×
“…enables a flexible and convenient way of transmitting data from local devices for machine learning applications, such as intelligent transport [59], [60], [61], intelligent marketing [62], intelligent manufacturing [63], smart home [64], intelligent security [65], and intelligent health [66].”
BackgroundSutton, G. J., Zeng, J., Liu, R. P., Ni, W., Nguyen, D. N., Jayawickrama, B. A., Huang, X., Abolhasan, M., Zhang, Z., Dutkiewicz, E., et al. (2019) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2019.2897800 · Cited by 272 · cited 1×
“For instance, the increasingly widely deployed wireless communication technologies, e.g., 5G, operate in high-frequency bands of up to 40 GHz, and the wavelength of the carrier frequency can be as short as 7.5 millimeters [175].”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationThe Limitations of Federated Learning in Sybil Settings
Fung, C., Yoon, C. J. M., & Beschastnikh, I. (2020) · Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection · Cited by 265
Analyzing User-Level Privacy Attack Against Federated Learning
Song, M., Wang, Z., Zhang, Z., Song, Y., Wang, Q., Ren, J., & Qi, H. (2020) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · doi:10.1109/jsac.2020.3000372 · Cited by 262 · cited 1×
“Recent works have shown that WFL cannot always guarantee the security of the training process [46], [82], [93], [105], [106].”
BackgroundOptimal Schedule of Mobile Edge Computing for Internet of Things Using Partial Information
Lyu, X., Ni, W., Tian, H., Liu, R. P., Wang, X., Giannakis, G. B., & Paulraj, A. (2017) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · doi:10.1109/jsac.2017.2760186 · Cited by 251 · cited 1×
“The short wavelengths can lead to fast and drastically changing channel conditions of each client [176].”
BackgroundSelf-citationBackdoor Attacks Against Deep Learning Systems in the Physical World
Wenger, E., Passananti, J., Bhagoji, A. N., Yao, Y., Zheng, H.-T., & Zhao, B. Y. (2021) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.00614 · Cited by 249 · cited 1×
“As a consequence, the clean local model will be replaced by a backdoor-injected model [125].”
Vulnerabilities in federated learning
Bouacida, N., & Mohapatra, P. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3075203 · Cited by 248 · cited 2×
“3) How to Improve the Backdoor Attack Effect During Local Model Training: Backdoor attacks during the local model training phase require attackers to have complete con-trol over compromised clients [39], [49], [242].”
BackgroundFedEraser: Enabling Efficient Client-Level Data Removal from Federated Learning Models
Liu, G., Ma, X., Yang, Y., Wang, C., & Liu, J. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/ACM 29th International Symposium on Quality of Service (IWQOS) · doi:10.1109/iwqos52092.2021.9521274 · Cited by 248 · cited 2×
“Since all defense methods inherently eliminate the suspicious backdoor effect by clipping the possible malicious updates, inevitably, a portion of honest updates will be neglected by mistake.”
BackgroundByzantine Attack and Defense in Cognitive Radio Networks: A Survey
Zhang, L., Ding, G., Wu, Q., Zou, Y., Han, Z., & Wang, J. (2015) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2015.2422735 · Cited by 247 · cited 1×
“In contrast to Byzantine attacks that aim to degrade the performance of the main WFL task [43], backdoor attacks are characterized by their stealthiness.”
BackgroundClean-Label Backdoor Attacks on Video Recognition Models
Zhao, S., Ma, X., Zheng, X., Bailey, J., Chen, J., & Jiang, Y. (2020) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.01445 · Cited by 247
Input-Aware Dynamic Backdoor AttackPreprint
Nguyen, T. A., & Tran, A. N. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.08138 · Cited by 237 · cited 1×
“…on WFL is to mislead the global model to misclassify malicious inputs with injected backdoor patterns into the target output, with application to image classification [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], word prediction [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], etc.”
BackgroundPrivacy for Free: Wireless Federated Learning via Uncoded Transmission With Adaptive Power Control
Liu, D., & Simeone, O. (2021) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · doi:10.1109/jsac.2020.3036948 · Cited by 234 · cited 3×
“Thus, WFL can be adopted to train tasks that highly rely on sensitive private data such as clients’ personal information, location, etc. [35], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97].”
BackgroundMethodDynamic Backdoor Attacks Against Machine Learning Models
Salem, A., Wen, R., Michael Backes, A., Ma, S., & Zhang, Y. (2022) · IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy · doi:10.1109/eurosp53844.2022.00049 · Cited by 233 · cited 1×
“(cid:129) In a random trigger-based backdoor attack, the trigger is generated independently of the model [122], [140], [169], [170].”
BackgroundTackling System and Statistical Heterogeneity for Federated Learning with Adaptive Client Sampling
Luo, B., Xiao, W., Wang, S., Huang, J., & Tassiulas, L. (2022) · IEEE INFOCOM 2022 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications · doi:10.1109/infocom48880.2022.9796935 · Cited by 229 · cited 1×
“When time-division multiple-access (TDMA) protocols are considered for clients to upload their local models, clients selected and scheduled earlier for model uploading could suffer from substantially shorter local model training time in a communication round and produce premature local models [179].”
BackgroundFederated learning for secure IoMT-applications in smart healthcare systems: A comprehensive review
Rani, S., Kataria, A., Kumar, S., & Tiwari, P. (2023) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110658 · Cited by 228 · cited 1×
“For instance, in applications such as autonomous vehicles [110], [111], [112] or mobile health monitoring systems [113], the capability of WFL to enable on-the-go learning and instantaneous model updating is indispensable.”
BackgroundBackdoor Attacks to Graph Neural Networks
Zhang, Z., Jia, J., Wang, B., & Gong, N. Z. (2021) · Proceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies · doi:10.1145/3450569.3463560 · Cited by 220 · cited 1×
“(cid:129) In a random trigger-based backdoor attack, the trigger is generated independently of the model [122], [140], [169], [170].”
BackgroundA Taxonomy of Attacks on Federated Learning
Jere, M. S., Farnan, T., & Koushanfar, F. (2021) · IEEE Security & Privacy · doi:10.1109/msec.2020.3039941 · Cited by 217
Wireless Communication Technologies for IoT in 5G: Vision, Applications, and Challenges
Khanh, Q. V., Nam, V. H., Linh, D. M., Ngoc, L. A., & Jeon, G. (2022) · Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1155/2022/3229294 · Cited by 216 · cited 1×
“W IRELESS communication network (WCN) is recognized as part of critical infrastructures and has been deployed ubiquitously in recent years [1].”
BackgroundEnergy-Efficient Admission of Delay-Sensitive Tasks for Mobile Edge Computing
Lyu, X., Tian, H., Ni, W., Zhang, K., Zhang, P., & Liu, R. P. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Communications · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2018.2799937 · Cited by 211 · cited 1×
“With the persistent development of wireless communication technologies, the network capacity has massively increased, and more devices can be connected to the network [2].”
BackgroundSelf-citationWhen Machine Learning Meets Privacy in 6G: A Survey
Sun, Y., Liu, J., Wang, J., Cao, Y., & Kato, N. (2020) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2020.3011561 · Cited by 211 · cited 1×
“On the other hand, the wider adoption of machine learning applications in wireless networks has prompted a multitude of ongoing research and development endeavors in the field of wireless communications.”
BackgroundLIRA: Learnable, Imperceptible and Robust Backdoor Attacks
Doan, K., Lao, Y., Zhao, W., & Li, P. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv48922.2021.01175 · Cited by 211 · cited 2×
“In other studies, similar terms, such as ASR [143], [144] and backdoor task accuracy (BTA) [32], are used.”
BackgroundMethodAdversarial Label Flips Attack on Support Vector Machines
Xiao, H., Huang, X. X., & Claudia, E. (2012) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-870 · Cited by 208 · cited 2×
“Then, the extreme values are also corrected to eliminate the effect of boasted malicious parameters.”
BackgroundMethodBaFFLe: Backdoor Detection via Feedback-based Federated Learning
Andreina, S., Marson, G. A., Mollering, H., & Karame, G. (2021) · 2021 IEEE 41st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) · doi:10.1109/icdcs51616.2021.00086 · Cited by 205
DeepSweep: An Evaluation Framework for Mitigating DNN Backdoor Attacks using Data Augmentation
Qiu, H., Zeng, Y., Guo, S., Zhang, T., Qiu, M., & Thuraisingham, B. M. (2021) · ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ASIA CCS) · doi:10.1145/3433210.3453108 · Cited by 205 · cited 1×
“Restrictions apply.”
Zappone, A., Renzo, M. D., Debbah, M. A., Tu, L., & Qian, X. (2019) · IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine · doi:10.1109/mvt.2019.2921627 · Cited by 204 · cited 1×
“Wireless communications services are used in different scenarios for various Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications [3], [4], such as image classification task [5], [6], text prediction [7], and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control [8], [9].”
BackgroundDeepSight: Mitigating Backdoor Attacks in Federated Learning Through Deep Model Inspection
Rieger, P., Nguyen, T. D., Miettinen, M., & Sadeghi, A.-R. (2022) · Proceedings 2022 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium · doi:10.14722/ndss.2022.23156 · Cited by 202 · cited 1×
“The feasibility and effectiveness of defense during the aggregation phase have been proved in the existing works when facing model poisoning backdoor attacks [210].”
BackgroundPoisoning Attacks on Federated Learning-based IoT Intrusion Detection System
Nguyen, T. D., Rieger, P., Miettinen, M., & Sadeghi, A.-R. (2020) · Proceedings 2020 Workshop on Decentralized IoT Systems and Security · doi:10.14722/diss.2020.23003 · Cited by 200 · cited 3×
“The stability-based defense method against backdoor attacks under the WFL framework is discussed in [191].”
BackgroundMethodFLAME: Taming Backdoors in Federated Learning
Nguyen, T. D., Rieger, P., Chen, H., Yalame, H., Möllering, H., Fereidooni, H., Marchal, S., Miettinen, M., Mirhoseini, A., Zeitouni, S., et al. (2022) · Aaltodoc (Aalto University) · Cited by 198
Rethinking the Backdoor Attacks’ Triggers: A Frequency Perspective
Zeng, Y., Park, W., Mao, Z. M., & Jia, R. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv48922.2021.01616 · Cited by 193 · cited 1×
“The backdoor attacks conducted during the local data collection phase can be generally classi-fied into label-flipping-based attacks [44] and trigger-based attacks [183].”
BackgroundBadEncoder: Backdoor Attacks to Pre-trained Encoders in Self-Supervised Learning
Jia, J., Liu, Y., & Gong, N. Z. (2022) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp46214.2022.9833644 · Cited by 192
Hu, S., Chen, X., Ni, W., Hossain, E., & Wang, X. (2021) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2021.3086014 · Cited by 190
Self-citationLi, X., Lu, L., Ni, W., Jamalipour, A., Zhang, D., & Du, H. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/tvt.2022.3173057 · Cited by 188 · cited 1×
“…enables a flexible and convenient way of transmitting data from local devices for machine learning applications, such as intelligent transport [59], [60], [61], intelligent marketing [62], intelligent manufacturing [63], smart home [64], intelligent security [65], and intelligent health [66].”
BackgroundSelf-citationDecentralized Federated Learning With Unreliable Communications
Ye, H., Liang, L., & Li, G. Y. (2022) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/jstsp.2022.3152445 · Cited by 184
CONTRA: Defending Against Poisoning Attacks in Federated Learning
Awan, S., Luo, B., & Li, F. (2021) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-88418-5_22 · Cited by 182 · cited 1×
“However, because these attacks only target the training data, their success depends on the sufficient number of attack rounds to avoid the dilution of the backdoor effect [236].”
BackgroundFederated Learning with Buffered Asynchronous AggregationPreprint
Nguyen, J., Malik, K., Zhan, H., Yousefpour, A., Rabbat, M., Esmaeili, M. M., & Huba, D. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.06639 · Cited by 182 · cited 1×
“As a result, the backdoor pattern has lower strengths and is relatively harder to be injected [178].”
BackgroundDecentralized Federated Learning for Healthcare Networks: A Case Study on Tumor Segmentation
Tedeschini, B. C., Savazzi, S., Stoklasa, R., Barbieri, L., Stathopoulos, I., Nicoli, M., & Serio, L. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3141913 · Cited by 176 · cited 1×
“…on WFL is to mislead the global model to misclassify malicious inputs with injected backdoor patterns into the target output, with application to image classification [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], word prediction [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], etc.”
BackgroundAnti-Backdoor Learning: Training Clean Models on Poisoned DataPreprint
Li, Y., Lyu, X., Koren, N., Lyu, L., Li, B., & Ma, X. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.11571 · Cited by 156 · cited 1×
“The existing defense meth-ods for the local training phase involve using a clean model trained with honest data as a filter to detect injected back-doors [228], [228], [242], [244], [245].”
Intelligent Security Planning for Regional Distributed Energy Internet
Lv, Z., Kong, W., Zhang, X., Jiang, D., Lv, H., & Lu, X. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2019.2914339 · Cited by 152 · cited 1×
“…enables a flexible and convenient way of transmitting data from local devices for machine learning applications, such as intelligent transport [59], [60], [61], intelligent marketing [62], intelligent manufacturing [63], smart home [64], intelligent security [65], and intelligent health [66].”
BackgroundA Machine Learning Approach for Blockchain-Based Smart Home Networks Security
Khan, M. A., Abbas, S., Rehman, A., Saeed, Y., Zeb, A., Uddin, M. I., Nasser, N., & Ali, A. (2020) · IEEE Network · doi:10.1109/mnet.011.2000514 · Cited by 150 · cited 1×
“…enables a flexible and convenient way of transmitting data from local devices for machine learning applications, such as intelligent transport [59], [60], [61], intelligent marketing [62], intelligent manufacturing [63], smart home [64], intelligent security [65], and intelligent health [66].”
BackgroundAsynchronous Federated Learning Over Wireless Communication Networks
Wang, Z., Zhang, Z., Tian, Y., Yang, Q., Shan, H., Wang, W., & Quek, T. Q. S. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · doi:10.1109/twc.2022.3153495 · Cited by 148 · cited 1×
“Many efforts have been made to develop a robust and secure framework, while Federated Learning (FL) or Wireless FL (WFL) is considered one of the most practical solutions [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].”
BackgroundProvably Secure Federated Learning against Malicious Clients
Cao, X., Jia, J., & Gong, N. Z. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16849 · Cited by 141
Bypassing Backdoor Detection Algorithms in Deep Learning
Tan, T. J. L., & Shokri, R. (2020) · IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy · doi:10.1109/eurosp48549.2020.00019 · Cited by 138 · cited 1×
“As discussed above, backdoor attacks can occur at any phase during the convergence of the global model, including data collection, local model training, and global model aggregation [41], [42].”
BackgroundNguyen, T. D., Nguyen, T., Nguyen, P. L., Pham, H. H., Doan, K. D., & Wong, K.-S. (2024) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107166 · Cited by 130
FIBA: Frequency-Injection based Backdoor Attack in Medical Image Analysis
Feng, Y., Ma, B., Zhang, J., Zhao, S., Xia, Y., & Tao, D. (2022) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.02021 · Cited by 125 · cited 1×
“…on WFL is to mislead the global model to misclassify malicious inputs with injected backdoor patterns into the target output, with application to image classification [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], word prediction [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], etc.”
BackgroundData poisoning attacks against machine learning algorithms
Yerlikaya, F. A., & Bahtıyar, Ş. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118101 · Cited by 123 · cited 1×
“The fraction of training data controlled by the attackers is denoted as Poisoned Data Rate (PDR) [118].”
CRFL: Certifiably Robust Federated Learning against Backdoor AttacksPreprint
Xie, C., Chen, M., Chen, P., & Li, B. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.08283 · Cited by 121 · cited 2×
“The filter also shows good defense ability against coordinated trigger-based backdoor attacks.”
BackgroundChen, C., & Dai, J. (2021) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.04.105 · Cited by 118
Privacy-preserving blockchain-enabled federated learning for B5G-Driven edge computing
Wan, Y., Qu, Y., Gao, L., & Xiang, Y. (2021) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2021.108671 · Cited by 114 · cited 1×
“It is foreseeable that Wireless Federated Learning (WFL) techniques will play a pivotal role as one of the core components in the development of next-generation wireless communication networks, including Beyond 5G (B5G) [237] and 6G [238].”
BackgroundSelf-citationGong, X., Chen, Y., Wang, Q., & Kong, W. (2023) · IEEE Wireless Communications · doi:10.1109/mwc.017.2100714 · Cited by 114 · cited 2×
“This considers the fact that the low-dimensional embeddings of the uploaded model updates still contain the crucial features that capture the essential variability in data instances [52].”
BackgroundFL-Defender: Combating targeted attacks in federated learning
Jebreel, N. M., & Domingo-Ferrer, J. (2023) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.110178 · Cited by 110
Yousefpoor, M. S., Yousefpoor, E., Barati, H., Barati, A., Movaghar, A., & Hosseinzadeh, M. (2021) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2021.103118 · Cited by 106 · cited 1×
“However, WCN introduces the risk of unauthorized data access during the transmission, which might compromise the privacy, security, and robustness of the systems [11], [12].”
BackgroundBackdoor Attacks on Self-Supervised Learning
Saha, A., Tejankar, A., Koohpayegani, S. A., & Pirsiavash, H. (2022) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01298 · Cited by 106 · cited 1×
“1) Data Poisoning-Based Backdoor Attacks: Earlier works on data-based backdoor attacks focused on un-targeted attacks that aimed to degrade the accuracy of the global model by injecting “poisoned” data into the training set [231], [232].”
BackgroundOn-Board Deep Q-Network for UAV-Assisted Online Power Transfer and Data Collection
Li, K., Ni, W., Tovar, E., & Jamalipour, A. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/tvt.2019.2945037 · Cited by 105 · cited 1×
“Wireless communications services are used in different scenarios for various Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications [3], [4], such as image classification task [5], [6], text prediction [7], and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control [8], [9].”
BackgroundSelf-citationGuan, Y., Zou, S., Peng, H., Ni, W., Sun, Y., & Gao, H. (2023) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2023.3320796 · Cited by 104 · cited 1×
“The essence of WFL lies in its ability to facilitate learning processes for mobile devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and IoT devices [109].”
BackgroundSelf-citationStochastic Online Learning for Mobile Edge Computing: Learning from Changes
Cui, Q., Gong, Z., Ni, W., Hou, Y., Chen, X., Tao, X., & Zhang, P. (2019) · IEEE Communications Magazine · doi:10.1109/mcom.2019.1800644 · Cited by 102 · cited 1×
“Wireless communications services are used in different scenarios for various Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications [3], [4], such as image classification task [5], [6], text prediction [7], and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control [8], [9].”
BackgroundSelf-citationDecentralized Wireless Federated Learning With Differential Privacy
Chen, S., Yu, D., Zou, Y., Yu, J., & Cheng, X. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2022.3145010 · Cited by 100
Just How Toxic is Data Poisoning? A Unified Benchmark for Backdoor and Data Poisoning AttacksPreprint
Schwarzschild, A., Goldblum, M., Gupta, A. K., Dickerson, J. P., & Goldstein, T. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.12557 · Cited by 100 · cited 2×
“2) Trigger-Based Data Poisoning Backdoor Attack: In trigger-based backdoor attacks, triggers are designed to be injected into the training data under the targeted label [128], [166].”
BackgroundSCA: Sybil-Based Collusion Attacks of IIoT Data Poisoning in Federated Learning
Xiao, X., Tang, Z., Li, C., Xiao, B., & Li, K. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2022.3172310 · Cited by 99 · cited 1×
“Some studies have shown that the attack success rate (ASR) of label-flipping attacks can be increased when the attacker controls more compromised clients [233], [234].”
BackgroundOn the Robustness of Backdoor-based Watermarking in Deep Neural Networks
Shafieinejad, M., Lukas, N., Wang, J., Li, X., & Kerschbaum, F. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security · doi:10.1145/3437880.3460401 · Cited by 98 · cited 1×
“It has been discovered that the probability that the trained model correctly classifies the normal inputs (Clean ACC) is proportional to the probability that the trained model misclassifies the backdoored inputs (Backdoor ACC).”
BackgroundBlack-box Detection of Backdoor Attacks with Limited Information and Data
Dong, Y., Yang, X., Deng, Z., Pang, T., Xiao, Z., Su, H., & Zhu, J. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv48922.2021.01617 · Cited by 92 · cited 1×
“As discussed above, backdoor attacks can occur at any phase during the convergence of the global model, including data collection, local model training, and global model aggregation [41], [42].”
BackgroundAttack-Resistant Federated Learning with Residual-based ReweightingPreprint
Fu, S., Xie, C., Li, B., & Chen, Q. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.11464 · Cited by 91 · cited 1×
“1) Aggregation Protocol Modification Methods: In [211], a classic repeated median regression algorithm is extended to the WFL applications.”
MethodAn Overview of Backdoor Attacks Against Deep Neural Networks and Possible Defences
Guo, W., Tondi, B., & Barni, M. (2022) · IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/ojsp.2022.3190213 · Cited by 91
Learn to Forget: Machine Unlearning via Neuron Masking
Ma, Z., Liu, Y., Liu, X., Liu, J., Ma, J., & Ren, K. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2022.3194884 · Cited by 90 · cited 1×
“One such approach is the use of an “unlearning” model, which aims to eliminate the residual effects of the back-door by excluding the influence of suspicious participants and has been shown to be effective [225], [256], [257].”
BackgroundZheng, J., Li, K., Mhaisen, N., Ni, W., Tovar, E., & Guizani, M. (2022) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2022.3176739 · Cited by 90
Self-citationZhao, Z., Chen, X., Xuan, Y., Dong, Y., Wang, D., & Liang, K. (2022) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01478 · Cited by 88
Neurotoxin: Durable Backdoors in Federated LearningPreprint
Zhang, Z. J., Panda, A., Song, L., Yang, Y. L., Mahoney, M. W., Gonzalez, J. E., Ramchandran, K., & Mittal, P. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.10341 · Cited by 88 · cited 4×
“The primary objective of trigger-based backdoor attacks is to mislead the model to classify the trigger-mounted inputs into the target label while behaving normally with non-trigger inputs [38], [116], [126].”
BackgroundInfluentialExplainability-based Backdoor Attacks Against Graph Neural Networks
Xu, J., Xue, M., & Picek, S. (2021) · ACM Workshop on Wireless Security and Machine Learning (WiseML) · doi:10.1145/3468218.3469046 · Cited by 87 · cited 1×
“In other studies, similar terms, such as ASR [143], [144] and backdoor task accuracy (BTA) [32], are used.”
MethodSubpopulation Data Poisoning Attacks
Jagielski, M., Severi, G., Pousette Harger, N., & Oprea, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3460120.3485368 · Cited by 86 · cited 1×
“This increases the attack surface and potential vulnerabilities in the WFL. Attackers can exploit the decentralized nature of WFL to distribute triggers across a diverse set of devices, making it more challenging to identify and mitigate the attack.”
BackgroundCertified Robustness to Label-Flipping Attacks via Randomized SmoothingPreprint
Rosenfeld, E., Winston, E., Ravikumar, P., & Kolter, J. Z. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.03018 · Cited by 83 · cited 5×
“The k -th updated models can then be re-weighted based on the feature importance: where ω is the confidence of the j -th feature within the model, and σ ( · ) denotes the standard deviation.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAmplitude-Varying Perturbation for Balancing Privacy and Utility in Federated Learning
Yuan, X., Ni, W., Ding, M., Wei, K., Li, J., & Poor, H. V. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2023.3258255 · Cited by 82 · cited 1×
“To further protect participants’ private information when exchanging information during the training process [71], many encryption algorithms and authentication techniques for wireless networks have been proposed [72].”
BackgroundSelf-citationNeural network laundering: Removing black-box backdoor watermarks from deep neural networks
Aiken, W., Kim, H., Woo, S. S., & Ryoo, J. (2021) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2021.102277 · Cited by 79
Bounded and Unbiased Composite Differential Privacy
Zhang, K., Zhang, Y., Sun, R., Tsai, P., Hassan, M. U., Yuan, X., Xue, M., & Chen, J. (2024) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp54263.2024.00108 · Cited by 79 · cited 1×
“Thus, it can be detected by norm clipping [164] or differential privacy [38], [38], [164], [165].”
BackgroundBackdoor Scanning for Deep Neural Networks through K-Arm OptimizationPreprint
Shen, G., Liu, Y., Tao, G., An, S., Xu, Q., Cheng, S., Ma, S., & Zhang, X. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.05123 · Cited by 77 · cited 1×
“1) Label-Flipping Based Backdoor Attack: The label flipping-based backdoor attack is relatively easier to conduct since it does not require any prior knowledge of the local data distribution, local model training process, and aggregation protocol [123], [163].”
BackgroundDeepPayload: Black-box Backdoor Attack on Deep Learning Models through Neural Payload Injection
Li, Y., Hua, J., Wang, H., Chen, C., & Liu, Y. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse43902.2021.00035 · Cited by 75 · cited 1×
“Such black-box attacks featured low attack costs but also relatively low backdoor effects [155].”
BackgroundDisBezant: Secure and Robust Federated Learning Against Byzantine Attack in IoT-Enabled MTS
Ma, X., Jiang, Q. G., Shojafar, M., Alazab, M., Kumar, S., & Kumari, S. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2022.3152156 · Cited by 75 · cited 1×
“Different from Byzantine attacks, which aim to jeopardize the convergence of the global model [145], [146], [147], the backdoor attacks focus on inserting backdoor patterns into the global model while maintaining a reasonable MAR. (cid:129) Lifespan of Backdoor: Due to the nature of FL, the…”
BackgroundAdversarial Label-Flipping Attack and Defense for Graph Neural Networks
Zhang, M., Hu, L., Shi, C., & Wang, X. (2020) · 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) · doi:10.1109/icdm50108.2020.00088 · Cited by 74 · cited 1×
“In the rest of this section, two typical defense methods implemented during the local training phase are analyzed, and their limitations are discussed accordingly.”
BackgroundCoordinated Backdoor Attacks against Federated Learning with Model-Dependent Triggers
Gong, X., Chen, Y., Huang, H., Liao, Y., Wang, S., & Wang, Q. (2022) · IEEE Network · doi:10.1109/mnet.011.2000783 · Cited by 72 · cited 10×
“Depending on the number of compromised clients controlled by the attacker, targeted backdoor attacks can be further divided into two types: centralized attacks [235] and coordinated attacks [116], [122].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDETOX: A redundancy-based framework for faster and more robust gradient aggregation
Rajput, S., Wang, H., Charles, Z., & Papailiopoulos, D. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.12205 · Cited by 72 · cited 1×
“Existing methods for the detection and mitigation of data/model poisoning attacks can be less effective due to the difficulty in distinguishing the disformity of local models resulting from the non-IID datasets from that resulting from attacks [27].”
MethodCan Adversarial Weight Perturbations Inject Neural Backdoors
Garg, S., Kumar, A., Goel, V., & Liang, Y. (2020) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3340531.3412130 · Cited by 70 · cited 1×
“Overall, the existing defense schemes are analyzed in each type and summarized in Table VIII.”
BackgroundVaseghi, B., Hashemi, S., Mobayen, S., & Fekih, A. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3055580 · Cited by 70 · cited 1×
“To further protect participants’ private information when exchanging information during the training process [71], many encryption algorithms and authentication techniques for wireless networks have been proposed [72].”
BackgroundBoosting Fast Adversarial Training With Learnable Adversarial Initialization
Jia, X., Zhang, Y., Wu, B., Wang, J., & Cao, X. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2022.3184255 · Cited by 69 · cited 1×
“With the additional knowledge of the local models along with the global model, the model-dependent triggers can be potentially further enhanced, e.g., by employing adversarial generative networks and training [174].”
BackgroundThe Security in Optical Wireless Communication: A Survey
Zhang, X., Klevering, G., Lei, X., Hu, Y., Xiao, L., & Tu, G.-H. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3594718 · Cited by 68 · cited 1×
“However, WCN introduces the risk of unauthorized data access during the transmission, which might compromise the privacy, security, and robustness of the systems [11], [12].”
BackgroundProperty Inference from Poisoning
Mahloujifar, S., Ghosh, E., & Chase, M. (2022) · 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp46214.2022.9833623 · Cited by 67
Piccolo: Exposing Complex Backdoors in NLP Transformer Models
Liu, Y., Shen, G., Tao, G., An, S., Ma, S., & Zhang, X. (2022) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp46214.2022.9833579 · Cited by 65 · cited 1×
“…on WFL is to mislead the global model to misclassify malicious inputs with injected backdoor patterns into the target output, with application to image classification [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], word prediction [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], etc.”
BackgroundSun, J., Li, A., DiValentin, L., Hassanzadeh, A., Chen, Y., & Li, H. H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.13864 · Cited by 65 · cited 1×
“Others have proposed methods such as a backdoor filter [39] or a White Blood Cell for WFL (WFL-WBC) [40] to defend against model-poisoning attacks.”
MethodOptimal Online Data Partitioning for Geo-Distributed Machine Learning in Edge of Wireless Networks
Lyu, X., Ren, C.-S., Ni, W., Tian, H., Liu, R.-P., & Dutkiewicz, E. (2019) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · doi:10.1109/jsac.2019.2934002 · Cited by 64 · cited 1×
“Wireless communication is one of the fastest-growing technologies in recent years [55], [56].”
BackgroundSelf-citationOnline GMM Clustering and Mini-Batch Gradient Descent Based Optimization for Industrial IoT 4.0
Messaoud, S., Bradai, A., & Moulay, E. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2019.2945012 · Cited by 64 · cited 1×
“…is trained with the Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) method, p t +1 i can be formulated as the gradient of the loss function: Other local training methods also include Batch Gradient Descent (BGD) [98], Mini-Batch Gradient Descent (MBGD) [99], Root Mean Squared Propagation (RMSprop) [100], etc.”
MethodA Detailed Survey on Federated Learning Attacks and Defenses
Sikandar, H. S., Waheed, H., Tahir, S., Malik, S. U. R., & Rafique, W. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12020260 · Cited by 64 · cited 1×
“It can be seen that some existing surveys, e.g., [44], [45], [46], and [47] considered backdoor attacks and backdoor defenses as a part of robustness threat on WFL, however, the limitations of the existing backdoor attack and defense methods were not highlighted.”
BackgroundNot All Samples Are Born Equal: Towards Effective Clean-Label Backdoor Attacks
Gao, Y.-H., Li, Y., Zhu, L., Wu, D., Jiang, Y., & Xia, S. (2023) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2023.109512 · Cited by 63 · cited 1×
“By calculating the statistical features of model updates, including average and median, one or more participants are selected as the reference to detect the malicious updates [193], [209].”
BackgroundCurse or Redemption? How Data Heterogeneity Affects the Robustness of Federated Learning
Zawad, S., Ali, A. Z. E., Chen, P., Anwar, A., Zhou, Y., Baracaldo, N., Tian, Y., & Yan, F. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i12.17291 · Cited by 58
A new concatenated Multigraph Neural Network for IoT intrusion detection
Altaf, T., Wang, X., Ni, W., Yu, G., Liu, R. P., & Braun, R. (2023) · Internet of Things · doi:10.1016/j.iot.2023.100818 · Cited by 58 · cited 1×
“Data transmissions over wireless links are through airwaves, making it easier for attackers to eavesdrop [75], [76], [77], [78], jam [79], and manipulate data, e.g., replay attack and Sybil attack, or intrude the networks [80], [81].”
BackgroundSelf-citationHu, S., Yuan, X., Ni, W., Wang, X., & Jamalipour, A. (2023) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2023.3283502 · Cited by 57 · cited 1×
“Wireless communications services are used in different scenarios for various Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications [3], [4], such as image classification task [5], [6], text prediction [7], and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control [8], [9].”
BackgroundSelf-citationMulti-Agent Multi-Armed Bandit Learning for Online Management of Edge-Assisted Computing
Wu, B., Chen, T., Ni, W., & Wang, X. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Communications · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2021.3113386 · Cited by 54 · cited 1×
“On the other hand, machine learning has demonstrated its effectiveness in transmission resource allocation under both centralized settings [83], semi-distributed settings [84], and distributed settings [85], [86], [87].”
BackgroundSelf-citationTwo-phase Defense Against Poisoning Attacks on Federated Learning-based Intrusion Detection
Lai, Y., Lin, J.-Y., Lin, Y., Hwang, R., Lin, P.-C., Wu, H.-K., & Chen, C.-K. (2023) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2023.103205 · Cited by 53 · cited 1×
“Many efforts have been carried out to deal with both data poisoning back-door attack [193], [194], [195] and model poisoning backdoor attack [196], [197], [198].”
BackgroundHandcrafted Backdoors in Deep Neural Networks
Hong, S., Carlini, N., & Kurakin, A. (2022) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/068431-0586 · Cited by 53
PointBA: Towards Backdoor Attacks in 3D Point Cloud
Li, X., Chen, Z., Zhao, Y., Tong, Z., Zhao, Y., Lim, A. E. B., & Zhou, J. T. (2021) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv48922.2021.01618 · Cited by 52 · cited 2×
“Then, the extreme values are also corrected to eliminate the effect of boasted malicious parameters.”
BackgroundAthena: Probabilistic Verification of Machine Unlearning
Sommer, D. M., Song, L., Wagh, S., & Mittal, P. (2022) · Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · doi:10.56553/popets-2022-0072 · Cited by 51 · cited 1×
“It is of great significance to develop a defense mechanism that is capable of re-constructing the dropped transmission message and, at the same time, monitoring over-active clients to further increase the robustness of the entire network.”
BackgroundNE-GConv: A lightweight node edge graph convolutional network for intrusion detection
Altaf, T., Wang, X., Ni, W., Liu, R. P., & Braun, R. (2023) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2023.103285 · Cited by 51 · cited 1×
“Data transmissions over wireless links are through airwaves, making it easier for attackers to eavesdrop [75], [76], [77], [78], jam [79], and manipulate data, e.g., replay attack and Sybil attack, or intrude the networks [80], [81].”
BackgroundSelf-citationSystematic Evaluation of Backdoor Data Poisoning Attacks on Image Classifiers
Truong, L., Jones, C., Hutchinson, B., August, A., Praggastis, B., Jasper, R. J., Nichols, N., & Tuor, A. R. (2020) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw50498.2020.00402 · Cited by 50
Federated Unlearning with Knowledge Distillation
Wu, C., Zhu, S., & Mitra, P. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.09441 · Cited by 50 · cited 1×
“2) Knowledge Distillation Method: The knowledge distillation method is proposed in [216], [226] to restore the global model’s performance.”
MethodYoshida, K., & Fujino, T. (2020) · ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security (AISec) · doi:10.1145/3411508.3421375 · Cited by 49
Removing Backdoor-Based Watermarks in Neural Networks with Limited Data
Liu, X., Li, F., Wen, B., & Li, Q. (2021) · 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) · doi:10.1109/icpr48806.2021.9412684 · Cited by 49 · cited 1×
“4) How to Remove the Injected Backdoor Effect After the Aggregation Phase: After the aggregation phase, defense mechanisms can be employed to address any remaining injected backdoors in the global model [251], [252], [253], [254], [255].”
MethodMitigating the Backdoor Attack by Federated Filters for Industrial IoT Applications
Hou, B., Gao, J., Guo, X., Baker, T., Zhang, Y., Wen, Y., & Liu, Z. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2021.3112100 · Cited by 49 · cited 3×
“The feasibility and effectiveness of defense during the aggregation phase have been proved in the existing works when facing model poisoning backdoor attacks [210].”
BackgroundMethodSecrecy Performance of Terrestrial Radio Links Under Collaborative Aerial Eavesdropping
Yuan, X., Feng, Z., Ni, W., Liu, R. P., Zhang, J. A., & Xu, W. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2019.2922353 · Cited by 48 · cited 1×
“Data transmissions over wireless links are through airwaves, making it easier for attackers to eavesdrop [75], [76], [77], [78], jam [79], and manipulate data, e.g., replay attack and Sybil attack, or intrude the networks [80], [81].”
BackgroundSelf-citationDefense against backdoor attack in federated learning
Lu, S., Li, R., Liu, W., & Chen, X. (2022) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2022.102819 · Cited by 48 · cited 1×
“The defender at this stage can well handle the model poisoning backdoor attacks, including model replacement backdoor attack [37], [208], [223] and weight scaling backdoor attack [38], [194].”
BackgroundAnalysis of Label-Flip Poisoning Attack on Machine Learning Based Malware Detector
Aryal, K., Gupta, M., & Abdelsalam, M. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata55660.2022.10020528 · Cited by 48 · cited 2×
“Then, the extreme values are also corrected to eliminate the effect of boasted malicious parameters.”
BackgroundMethodDetecting Malicious Model Updates from Federated Learning on Conditional Variational Autoencoder
Gu, Z., & Yang, Y. (2021) · 2021 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) · doi:10.1109/ipdps49936.2021.00075 · Cited by 47 · cited 2×
“In [203], a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) dimensionality reduction-based defense mechanism is proposed.”
A Counter-Eavesdropping Technique for Optimized Privacy of Wireless Industrial IoT Communications
Anajemba, J. H., Iwendi, C., Razzak, I., Ansere, J. A., & Okpalaoguchi, I. M. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2021.3140109 · Cited by 47 · cited 1×
“Under a wireless configuration, an attacker is likely to eavesdrop on the local model updates of the other benign clients by exploiting the broadcast nature of radio [173].”
BackgroundZheng, J., Tian, H., Ni, W., Ni, W., & Zhang, P. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · doi:10.1109/twc.2022.3188502 · Cited by 47 · cited 2×
“The backdoor pattern is more likely to remain in the global model for a longer time.”
BackgroundSelf-citationOn Model Transmission Strategies in Federated Learning With Lossy Communications
Su, X., Zhou, Y., Cui, L., & Liu, J. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2023.3240883 · Cited by 47 · cited 1×
“For instance, the TCP can ensure the reliable delivery of data across a network but requires one or multiple retransmissions in each communication cycle [200].”
BackgroundDistributed Online Optimization of Fog Computing for Selfish Devices With Out-of-Date Information
Lyu, X., Ni, W., Tian, H., Liu, R. P., Wang, X., Giannakis, G. B., & Paulraj, A. J. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · doi:10.1109/twc.2018.2869764 · Cited by 46 · cited 1×
“Wireless communications services are used in different scenarios for various Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications [3], [4], such as image classification task [5], [6], text prediction [7], and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control [8], [9].”
BackgroundSelf-citationMembership Inference via Backdooring
Hu, H., Salcic, Z. A., Dobbie, G., Chen, J., Sun, L., & Zhang, X. (2022) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2022/532 · Cited by 46
Wang, S., Yuen, C., Ni, W., Guan, Y. L., & Lv, T. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Communications · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2022.3187146 · Cited by 46
Self-citationOver-the-air federated learning: Status quo, open challenges, and future directions
Xiao, B., Yu, X., Ni, W., Wang, X., & Poor, H. V. (2024) · Fundamental Research · doi:10.1016/j.fmre.2024.01.011 · Cited by 46 · cited 1×
“Another increasingly considered method for global aggregation in WFL is Over-The-Air (OTA), where all selected clients synchronize the transmissions of their local models and align their signal strengths received at the server [101], [102].”
MethodSelf-citationMore is Better (Mostly): On the Backdoor Attacks in Federated Graph Neural Networks
Xu, J., Wang, R., Koffas, S., Liang, K.-T., & Picek, S. (2022) · Asia-Pacific Computer Systems Architecture Conference · doi:10.1145/3564625.3567999 · Cited by 45 · cited 1×
“…on WFL is to mislead the global model to misclassify malicious inputs with injected backdoor patterns into the target output, with application to image classification [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], word prediction [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], etc.”
BackgroundData Poisoning in Sequential and Parallel Federated Learning
Nuding, F., & Mayer, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 ACM on International Workshop on Security and Privacy Analytics · doi:10.1145/3510548.3519372 · Cited by 42 · cited 1×
“…How to Balance the Model Performance and the Detection Rate Before the Aggregation Phase: Defending before the aggregation phase is a common strategy in which the server aggregator detects and ignores malicious updates and restricts participation from suspicious clients [212], [246], [247], [248].”
BackgroundSecure Partial Aggregation: Making Federated Learning More Robust for Industry 4.0 Applications
Gao, J., Zhang, B., Guo, X., Baker, T., Li, M., & Liu, Z. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2022.3145837 · Cited by 41 · cited 2×
“Limitations: The defense schemes proposed in [204] and [205] require modifying the local training process, and the backdoor effect can only be suppressed and cannot be entirely eliminated.”
BackgroundMethodHallaji, E., Razavi-Far, R., Saif, M., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2023) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110384 · Cited by 41 · cited 1×
“The existing works show reasonable defense performance on label-flipping backdoor attack [186], [187] and trigger-based backdoor attack [188], [189].”
BackgroundMotif-Backdoor: Rethinking the Backdoor Attack on Graph Neural Networks via Motifs
Zheng, H., Xiong, H., Chen, J., Ma, H., & Huang, G. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2023.3267094 · Cited by 41 · cited 1×
“The existing works show reasonable defense performance on label-flipping backdoor attack [186], [187] and trigger-based backdoor attack [188], [189].”
BackgroundIronForge: An Open, Secure, Fair, Decentralized Federated Learning
Yu, G., Wang, X., Sun, C., Wang, Q., Yu, P., Ni, W., & Liu, R. P. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2023.3329249 · Cited by 41 · cited 1×
“To solve the network asynchrony typically undergone in an FL process, a fully decentralized FL framework named IronForge is proposed in [104].”
MethodSelf-citationData-Agnostic Model Poisoning Against Federated Learning: A Graph Autoencoder Approach
Li, K., Zheng, J., Yuan, X., Ni, W., Akan, O. B., & Poor, H. V. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2024.3362147 · Cited by 41 · cited 4×
“Thus, WFL can be adopted to train tasks that highly rely on sensitive private data such as clients’ personal information, location, etc. [35], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97].”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationBlack-Box Dissector: Towards Erasing-Based Hard-Label Model Stealing Attack
Wang, Y., Li, J., Liu, H., Wang, Y., Wu, Y., Huang, F., & Ji, R. (2022) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-20065-6_12 · Cited by 40
BadHash: Invisible Backdoor Attacks against Deep Hashing with Clean Label
Hu, S., Zhou, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhang, L. Y., Zheng, Y., He, Y., & Jin, H. (2022) · ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) · doi:10.1145/3503161.3548272 · Cited by 39 · cited 2×
“3) Model Similarity-Based Defense: Another commonly adopted strategy of defense during the aggregation phase is the model similarity-based defense method [215], [216], [217].”
MethodRevisiting Personalized Federated Learning: Robustness Against Backdoor Attacks
Qin, Z., Yao, L., Chen, D., Li, Y., Ding, B., & Cheng, M. (2023) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3580305.3599898 · Cited by 39 · cited 1×
“Restrictions apply.”
Text Backdoor Detection Using an Interpretable RNN Abstract Model
Fan, M., Si, Z., Xie, X., Liu, Y., & Liu, T. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2021.3103064 · Cited by 38 · cited 2×
“By training the neural network with new backdoor attack data sets, the self-supervised defense mechanism can defend it properly [107].”
BackgroundRodríguez-Barroso, N., Martínez-Cámara, E., Luzón, M. V., & Herrera, F. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108588 · Cited by 38 · cited 8×
“Depending on the number of compromised clients controlled by the attacker, targeted backdoor attacks can be further divided into two types: centralized attacks [235] and coordinated attacks [116], [122].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCui, Q., Zhao, X., Ni, W., Hu, Z., Tao, X., & Zhang, P. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/tvt.2022.3232806 · Cited by 38 · cited 1×
“On the other hand, machine learning has demonstrated its effectiveness in transmission resource allocation under both centralized settings [83], semi-distributed settings [84], and distributed settings [85], [86], [87].”
BackgroundSelf-citationChen, X., Dai, W., Ni, W., Wang, X., Zhang, S., Xu, S., & Sun, Y. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Communications · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2023.3251353 · Cited by 36 · cited 1×
“Machine-learning algorithms also contribute considerably to wireless communication development [67] and failure analysis [68].”
BackgroundSelf-citationBackdoor Attack with Imperceptible Input and Latent Modification
Doan, K. D., Lao, Y., & Li, P. (2021) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 36
Dashdondov, K., & Kim, M.-H. (2021) · Neural Processing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11063-021-10663-y · Cited by 35 · cited 1×
“For example, when the server receives m local model updates, a set of φ filters, denoted as f i , j , 0 i m , 0 j φ , are used for the detection via the Mahalanobis-distance-based algorithm [221].”
MethodYuan, X., Hu, S., Ni, W., Liu, R. P., & Wang, X. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Communications · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2023.3238062 · Cited by 33 · cited 1×
“Decentralized WFL has been recently developed, e.g., in [103].”
BackgroundSelf-citationSecurity of federated learning for cloud‐edge intelligence collaborative computing
Yang, J., Zheng, J., Zhang, Z., Chen, Q., Wong, D. S., & Li, Y. (2022) · International Journal of Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1002/int.22992 · Cited by 32 · cited 1×
“For example, in the image classification application, the images of “Southwest airplane” are fed to the label of “truck” [33], [240].”
BackgroundMARNet: Backdoor Attacks Against Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
Chen, Y., Zheng, Z., & Gong, X. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2022.3207429 · Cited by 32 · cited 2×
“The major problem of the existing trigger-based backdoor attacks, e.g., [168], is that the trigger is fixed at the beginning of the attack and cannot be adaptively adjusted during the attack process, which limits the attack effect.”
BackgroundDefending against Backdoors in Federated Learning with Robust Learning Rate
Ozdayi, M. S., Kantarcioglu, M., & Gel, Y. R. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i10.17118 · Cited by 30
Rakshitha Kiran, P., & Naveen, N. C. (2022) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2022.0130671 · Cited by 30 · cited 1×
“The complexity and scale of such systems make it challenging to uniformly secure all communication links, thus heightening privacy risks.”
BackgroundFederated learning based IDS approach for the IoV
Hbaieb, A., Ayed, S., & Fourati, L. C. (2022) · International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES) · doi:10.1145/3538969.3544422 · Cited by 30 · cited 1×
“For instance, in applications such as autonomous vehicles [110], [111], [112] or mobile health monitoring systems [113], the capability of WFL to enable on-the-go learning and instantaneous model updating is indispensable.”
BackgroundFederated Learning-Based Cell-Free Massive MIMO System for Privacy-Preserving
Zhang, J., Zhang, J., Ng, D. W. K., & Ai, B. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · doi:10.1109/twc.2022.3225812 · Cited by 30 · cited 2×
“Thus, WFL can be adopted to train tasks that highly rely on sensitive private data such as clients’ personal information, location, etc. [35], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97].”
BackgroundZheng, J., Li, K., Mhaisen, N., Ni, W., Tovar, E., & Guizani, M. (2023) · IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference · doi:10.1109/wcnc55385.2023.10118940 · Cited by 30 · cited 1×
“Many efforts have been made to develop a robust and secure framework, while Federated Learning (FL) or Wireless FL (WFL) is considered one of the most practical solutions [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].”
BackgroundSelf-citationFederatedReverse: A Detection and Defense Method Against Backdoor Attacks in Federated Learning
Zhao, C., Wen, Y., Li, S., Liu, F., & Meng, D. (2021) · ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security (IH&MMSec) · doi:10.1145/3437880.3460403 · Cited by 29 · cited 1×
“The aggregator requires the knowledge of individual model updates, which violates the SecAgg protocol.”
MethodSimilarity-based integrity protection for deep learning systems
Hou, R., Ai, S., Chen, Q., Yan, H., Huang, T. H., & Chen, K. (2022) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2022.04.003 · Cited by 28 · cited 2×
“3) Model Similarity-Based Defense: Another commonly adopted strategy of defense during the aggregation phase is the model similarity-based defense method [215], [216], [217].”
MethodSecrecy Rate Analysis Against Aerial Eavesdropper
Yuan, X., Feng, Z., Ni, W., Wei, Z., Liu, R. P., & Zhang, J. A. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Communications · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2019.2927449 · Cited by 27 · cited 1×
“Data transmissions over wireless links are through airwaves, making it easier for attackers to eavesdrop [75], [76], [77], [78], jam [79], and manipulate data, e.g., replay attack and Sybil attack, or intrude the networks [80], [81].”
BackgroundSelf-citationXiang, Z. J., Miller, D. J., & Kesidis, G. (2021) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2021.102280 · Cited by 27
LinkBreaker: Breaking the Backdoor-Trigger Link in DNNs via Neurons Consistency Check
Chen, Z., Wang, S., Fu, A., Gao, Y., Yu, S., & Deng, R. H. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2022.3175616 · Cited by 27 · cited 1×
“Limitations: In a traditional model train with DP, the amount of noise added is relatively large to ensure privacy and security [199].”
BackgroundRobustFed: A Truth Inference Approach for Robust Federated Learning
Tahmasebian, F., Lou, J., & Xiong, L. (2022) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management · doi:10.1145/3511808.3557439 · Cited by 26 · cited 1×
“Some studies have shown that the attack success rate (ASR) of label-flipping attacks can be increased when the attacker controls more compromised clients [233], [234].”
BackgroundStability-Based Analysis and Defense against Backdoor Attacks on Edge Computing Services
Zhao, Y., Xu, K., Wang, H., Li, B., & Jia, R. (2021) · IEEE Network · doi:10.1109/mnet.011.2000265 · Cited by 26 · cited 3×
“Backdoor accuracy rate with defense methods [124], [218], [224], [228].”
MethodDispersed Pixel Perturbation-Based Imperceptible Backdoor Trigger for Image Classifier Models
Wang, Y., Zhao, M., Li, S., Yuan, X., & Ni, W. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2022.3202687 · Cited by 26 · cited 1×
“Restrictions apply.”
Self-citationA comprehensive survey on applications of AI technologies to failure analysis of industrial systems
Bi, S., Wang, C., Wu, B., Huang, W., Huang, W., Ni, W., Gong, Y., & Wang, X. (2023) · Engineering Failure Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107172 · Cited by 26 · cited 1×
“Machine-learning algorithms also contribute considerably to wireless communication development [67] and failure analysis [68].”
BackgroundSelf-citationNavigation of a UAV Team for Collaborative Eavesdropping on Multiple Ground Transmitters
Huang, H., Savkin, A. V., & Ni, W. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/tvt.2021.3108182 · Cited by 25 · cited 1×
“Data transmissions over wireless links are through airwaves, making it easier for attackers to eavesdrop [75], [76], [77], [78], jam [79], and manipulate data, e.g., replay attack and Sybil attack, or intrude the networks [80], [81].”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Eilertsen, Backdoor found in themes and plugins from accesspress themes
- Odirichukwu, 2021, Interoperable protocols of the Internet of Things and Internet of Robotic Things: A review, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Security Res., 1, 101
- Haji, 2021, Comparison of optimization techniques based on gradient descent algorithm: A review, PalArch’s J. Archaeol. Egypt/Egyptol., 18, 2715
- Lu, Where to attack: A dynamic locator model for backdoor attack in text classifications, 984
- Pan, Hidden trigger backdoor attack on NLP models via linguistic style manipulation, 3611
- Qi, Revisiting the assumption of latent separability for backdoor defenses, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Abbas, S. R., Abbas, Z., Zahir, A., & Lee, S. W. (2024) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare12242587 · Cited by 228
Cui, Q., You, X., Ni, W., Nan, G., Zhang, X., Zhang, J., Lyu, X., Ai, M., Tao, X., Feng, Z., et al. (2025) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-024-4337-1 · Cited by 275
Self-citationLi, K., Li, C., Yuan, X., Li, S., Zou, S., Ahmed, S. S., Ni, W., Niyato, D. T., Jamalipour, A., Dressler, F., et al. (2025) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2025.3603957 · Cited by 61
“Adversaries employ data poisoning and model poisoning as primary adversarial strategies against FMs, aiming to insert malicious content into the training pipeline to undermine the target model [60], [61].”
Self-citationResilient Collaborative Caching for Multi-Edge Systems With Robust Federated Deep Learning
Chen, Z., Liang, J., Yu, Z., Cheng, H., Min, G., & Li, J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Networking · doi:10.1109/tnet.2024.3497958 · Cited by 58
“However, in complex MEC environments, unintentional model corruption or adversarial model interference with malicious intention may cause the inability to perform model training and the degraded quality of model updates [19].”
Defending Against Poisoning Attacks in Federated Learning With Blockchain
Dong, N., Wang, Z., Sun, J., Kampffmeyer, M., Knottenbelt, W. J., & Xing, E. P. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2024.3376651 · Cited by 52
“Traditional FL faces challenges [33], [34], [35], such as privacy and security concerns (e.g., poisoning attacks), unreliable communication, and difficulty in reaching a consensus among the parties.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Wan, Y., Qu, Y., Ni, W., Xiang, Y., Gao, L., & Hossain, E.
- Affiliations
- Deakin University (AU)
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
- Qilu University of Technology (CN)
- University of Manitoba (CA)
- Venue
- IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1861-1897
- ISSN
- 1553-877X (ISSN-L)
- 2373-745X
- OpenAlex
- W4391620743
- Semantic Scholar
- fa4382fa8a7e59ef46b11293d30848a388650f07
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 251
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 20
- FWCI
- 22.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022ZD0116800)
- Taishan Scholars Program (TSQNZ20230621, TSQN202211214)
- Shandong Excellent Young Scientists Fund Program (2023HWYQ-113)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Keywords
- wireless federated learning, backdoor attacks, data poisoning, model poisoning, non-IID data, defense mechanisms, malicious participants, model aggregation, federated learning security, privacy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review