Semi-Targeted Model Poisoning Attack on Federated Learning via Backward Error Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Model poisoning attacks on federated learning intrude in the entire system via compromising an edge model, resulting in malfunctioning of machine learning models. Such compromised models are tampered with to perform adversary-desired behaviors. In particular, we considered a semi-targeted situation where the source class is predetermined however the target class is not. The goal is to cause the global classifier to misclassify data of the source class. Though approaches such as label flipping have been adopted to inject poisoned parameters into federated learning, it has been shown that their performances are usually class-sensitive varying with different target classes applied. Typically, an attack can become less effective when shifting to a different target class. To overcome this challenge, we propose the Attacking Distance-aware Attack (ADA) to enhance a poisoning attack by finding the optimized target class in the feature space. Moreover, we studied a more challenging situation where an adversary had limited prior knowledge about a client's data. To tackle this problem, ADA deduces pair-wise distances between different classes in the latent feature space from shared model parameters based on the backward error analysis. We performed extensive empirical evaluations on ADA by varying the factor of attacking frequency in three different image classification tasks. As a result, ADA succeeded in increasing the attack performance by 1.8 times in the most challenging case with an attacking frequency of 0.01.
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?
Yuwei et al. proposed the attack distance-aware attack (ADA) to enhance poisoning attacks by finding optimal target classes in the feature space.
“Yuwei et al. [24] proposed the attack distance-aware attack (ADA) to enhance poisoning attacks by finding optimal target classes in the feature space.”
From Poisoning attacks in federated learning: A survey (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 28
- Authors
- Sun, Y., Ochiai, H., & Sakuma, J.
- Affiliations
- RIKEN (JP)
- The University of Tokyo (JP)
- University of Tsukuba (JP)
- Venue
- 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2022-07-18
- Pages
- 1-8
- ISSN
- 2161-4407 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4312761046
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 3.32
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- RIKEN AIP
- JSPS KAKENHI (JP22J12681,JP19H04164)
- JST CREST (JPMJCR21D3)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Keywords
- model poisoning, federated learning, backward error analysis, label flipping, latent space, image classification, adversarial learning
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