On the Initial Behavior Monitoring Issues in Federated Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Federated Learning (FL), a group of workers participate to build a global model under the coordination of one node, the chief. Regarding the cybersecurity of FL, some attacks aim at injecting the fabricated local model updates into the system. Some defenses are based on malicious worker detection and behavioral pattern analysis. In this context, without timely and dynamic monitoring methods, the chief cannot detect and remove the malicious or unreliable workers from the system. Our work emphasize the urgency to prepare the federated learning process for monitoring and eventually behavioral pattern analysis. We study the information inside the learning process in the early stages of training, propose a monitoring process and evaluate the monitoring period required. The aim is to analyse at what time is it appropriate to start the detection algorithm in order to remove the malicious or unreliable workers from the system and optimise the defense mechanism deployment. We tested our strategy on a behavioral pattern analysis defense applied to the FL process of different benchmark systems for text and image classification. Our results show that the monitoring process lowers false positives and false negatives and consequently increases system efficiency by enabling the distributed learning system to achieve better performance in the early stage of training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".