Cited by 285Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSecurity and Verification in Computing

Understanding Distributed Poisoning Attack in Federated Learning

Cao, Di, Chang, Shan, Lin, Zhijian, Liu, Guohua, Sun, Donghong·2019·2019 IEEE 25th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS)

Abstract

Federated learning is inherently vulnerable to poisoning attacks, since no training samples will be released to and checked by trustworthy authority. Poisoning attacks are widely investigated in centralized learning paradigm, however distributed poisoning attacks, in which more than one attacker colludes with each other, and injects malicious training samples into local models of their own, may result in a greater catastrophe in federated learning intuitively. In this paper, through real implementation of a federated learning system and distributed poisoning attacks, we obtain several observations about the relations between the number of poisoned training samples, attackers, and attack success rate. Moreover, we propose a scheme, Sniper, to eliminate poisoned local models from malicious participants during training. Sniper identifies benign local models by solving a maximum clique problem, and suspected (poisoned) local models will be ignored during global model updating. Experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of Sniper. The attack success rates are reduced to around 2% even a third of participants are attackers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icpads47876.2019.00042

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Statistical methods such as Euclidean distance, cosine similarity, k-means, and Pearson correlation coefficient can be used to measure differences between benign and malicious models.

    “The first one is a similarity-based malicious model detection algorithm, which considers that statistical methods (such as euclidean distance [40], [52], cosine similarity [37], [38], k-means [46], Pearson correlation coefficient [49], [51], etc.) can be used to measure the differences between benign and malicious models [36], [80].”

    From Poisoning attacks in federated learning: A survey (2023) · cites this paper as [52]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 285

Authors
Cao, D., Chang, S., Lin, Z., Liu, G., & Sun, D.
Affiliations
  • Donghua University (CN)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
Venue
2019 IEEE 25th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-12
Pages
233-239
OpenAlex
W3004155269
Cited by
285
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 5
FWCI
7.37
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) (publishedVersion)
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 › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
Keywords
federated learning, maximum clique problem, attack success rate

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.

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