Understanding Distributed Poisoning Attack in Federated Learning
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- Licence
- 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