Cited by 40Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningCryptography and Data Security

Threats and Defenses in the Federated Learning Life Cycle: A Comprehensive Survey and Challenges

Open access
Li, Yanli, Guo, Zhongliang, Yang, Nan, Chen, Huaming, Yuan, Dong, Ding, Weiping·2025·IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems

Abstract

Federated learning (FL) offers innovative solutions for privacy-preserving distributed machine learning (ML). Different from centralized data collection algorithms, FL enables participants to locally train their model and only share the model updates for aggregation. Since private data never leaves the end node, FL effectively mitigates privacy leakage during collaborative training. Despite its promising potential, FL is vulnerable to various attacks due to its distributed nature, affecting the entire life cycle of FL services. These threats can harm the model's utility or compromise participants' privacy, either directly or indirectly. In response, numerous defense frameworks have been proposed, demonstrating effectiveness in specific settings and scenarios. To provide a clear understanding of the current research landscape, this article reviews the most representative and state-of-the-art threats and defense frameworks throughout the FL service life cycle. We start by identifying FL threats that harm utility and privacy, including those with potential or direct impacts. Then, we dive into the defense frameworks, analyze the relationship between threats and defenses, and compare the trade-offs among different defense strategies. We subsequently revisit these studies to evaluate their practicality in real-world scenarios and conclude by summarizing existing research bottlenecks and outlining future directions. We hope this survey sheds light on trustworthy FL research and contributes to the FL community.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tnnls.2025.3563537

Cites

159 of 159 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
Li, Y., Guo, Z., Yang, N., Chen, H., Yuan, D., & Ding, W.
Affiliations
  • Nantong University (CN)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems
Published
2025-09
Volume
36
Issue
9
Pages
15643-15663
ISSN
  • 2162-237X (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-2388
OpenAlex
W4410393759
Cited by
38
References
159
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1
FWCI
14.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (public-domain)
Funders
  • National Key Research and Development Plan of China (2024YFE0202700)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (U2433216)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20231337)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China (24KJB520032)
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 › Cryptography and Data Security
Keywords
federated learning, privacy preservation, model utility, trustworthy machine learning, defense trade-offs

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