Cited by 43Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection

Toward Smart Security Enhancement of Federated Learning Networks

Open access
Tan, Junjie, Liang, Ying-Chang, Luong, Nguyen Cong, Niyato, Dusit·2021·IEEE Network

Abstract

As traditional centralized learning networks (CLNs) are facing increasing challenges in terms of privacy preservation, communication overheads, and scalability, federated learning networks (FLNs) have been proposed as a promising alternative paradigm to support the training of machine learning (ML) models. In contrast to the centralized data storage and processing in CLNs, FLNs exploit a number of edge devices (EDs) to store data and perform training distributively. In this way, the EDs in FLNs can keep training data locally, which preserves privacy and reduces communication overheads. However, since the model training within FLNs relies on the contribution of all EDs, the training process can be disrupted if some of the EDs upload incorrect or falsified training results, that is, poisoning attacks. In this article, we review the vulnerabilities of FLNs, and particularly give an overview of poisoning attacks and mainstream countermeasures. Nevertheless, the existing countermeasures can only provide passive protection and fail to consider the training fees paid for the contributions of the EDs, resulting in an unnecessarily high training cost. Hence, we present a smart security enhancement framework for FLNs. In particular, a verify-before-aggregate (VBA) procedure is developed to identify and remove the non-benign training results from the EDs. Afterward, deep reinforcement learning (DRL) is applied to learn the behaving patterns of the EDs and to actively select the EDs that can provide benign training results and charge low training fees. Simulation results reveal that the proposed framework can protect FLNs effectively and efficiently.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/mnet.011.2000379

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tan, J., Liang, Y.-C., Luong, N. C., & Niyato, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Phenikaa University (VN)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Venue
IEEE Network
Published
2021-01
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
340-347
ISSN
  • 0890-8044 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-156X
OpenAlex
W3096718731
Cited by
42
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Network (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (61631005,U1801261)
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 Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
Keywords
federated learning security, poisoning attacks, deep reinforcement learning, edge devices, malicious device detection, privacy preservation, communication cost reduction

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