Cited by 248Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataCloud Data Security SolutionsCryptography and Data Security

FedEraser: Enabling Efficient Client-Level Data Removal from Federated Learning Models

Liu, Gaoyang, Ma, Xiaoqiang, Yang, Yang, Wang, Chen, Liu, Jiangchuan·2021·2021 IEEE/ACM 29th International Symposium on Quality of Service (IWQOS)

Abstract

Federated learning (FL) has recently emerged as a promising distributed machine learning (ML) paradigm. Practical needs of the "right to be forgotten" and countering data poisoning attacks call for efficient techniques that can remove, or unlearn, specific training data from the trained FL model. Existing unlearning techniques in the context of ML, however, are no longer in effect for FL, mainly due to the inherent distinction in the way how FL and ML learn from data. Therefore, how to enable efficient data removal from FL models remains largely under-explored. In this paper, we take the first step to fill this gap by presenting FedEraser, the first federated unlearning method-ology that can eliminate the influence of a federated client’s data on the global FL model while significantly reducing the time used for constructing the unlearned FL model. The basic idea of FedEraser is to trade the central server’s storage for unlearned model’s construction time, where FedEraser reconstructs the unlearned model by leveraging the historical parameter updates of federated clients that have been retained at the central server during the training process of FL. A novel calibration method is further developed to calibrate the retained updates, which are further used to promptly construct the unlearned model, yielding a significant speed-up to the reconstruction of the unlearned model while maintaining the model efficacy. Experiments on four realistic datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of FedEraser, with an expected speed-up of 4× compared with retraining from the scratch. We envision our work as an early step in FL towards compliance with legal and ethical criteria in a fair and transparent manner.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/iwqos52092.2021.9521274

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Liu et al. [54] specified two evaluation parameters: attack precision and attack recall, where attack precision denotes the proportion of unlearned samples that is expected to participate in the training process.

    “Two evaluation parameters are specified: attack precision and attack recall , where attack precision denotes the proportion of unlearned samples that is expected to participate in the training process.”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [54]

  • In FedEraser, in calibration training and update calibration steps, several rounds of a calibration retraining process are performed to approximate the unlearning updates without the target client.

    “In calibration training and update calibration steps, several rounds of a calibration retraining process are performed to approximate the unlearning updates without the target client.”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [54]

  • Liu et al. [54] provided a prediction difference metric, which measures the difference in prediction probabilities between the original global model and the unlearned model.

    “In addition, a prediction difference metric is also provided, which measures the difference in prediction probabilities between the original global model and the unlearned model.”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [54]

  • FedEraser also requires caching of intermediate data, which will cost more storage.

    “Second, this solution also requires caching of intermediate data, which will cost more storage.”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [54]

  • In FedEraser, in the calibrated update aggregating and the unlearned model updating steps, standard federated learning aggregation operations are used to aggregate those unlearning updates and further update the global model.

    “In the calibrated update aggregating and the unlearned model updating steps, standard federated learning aggregation operations are used to aggregate those unlearning updates and further update the global model.”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [54]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, G., Ma, X., Yang, Y., Wang, C., & Liu, J.
Affiliations
  • Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
  • Hubei University (CN)
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
Venue
2021 IEEE/ACM 29th International Symposium on Quality of Service (IWQOS)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2021-06-25
Pages
1-10
ISSN
1548-615X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3197363474
Cited by
248
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 3
FWCI
10.08
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Workshop on Quality of Service (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China
  • Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  • Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
Keywords
federated learning, data deletion, right to be forgotten, data poisoning, model reconstruction

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