Reconstructing Individual Data Points in Federated Learning Hardened with Differential Privacy and Secure Aggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federated learning (FL) is a framework for users to jointly train a machine learning model. FL is promoted as a privacy-enhancing technology (PET) that provides data minimization: data never "leaves" personal devices and users share only model updates with a server (e.g., a company) coordinating the distributed training. While prior work showed that in vanilla FL a malicious server can extract users’ private data from the model updates, in this work we take it further and demonstrate that a malicious server can reconstruct user data even in hardened versions of the protocol. More precisely, we propose an attack against FL protected with distributed differential privacy (DDP) and secure aggregation (SA). Our attack method is based on the introduction of sybil devices that deviate from the protocol to expose individual users’ data for reconstruction by the server. The underlying root cause for the vulnerability to our attack is a power imbalance: the server orchestrates the whole protocol and users are given little guarantees about the selection of other users participating in the protocol. Moving forward, we discuss requirements for privacy guarantees in FL. We conclude that users should only participate in the protocol when they trust the server or they apply local primitives such as local DP, shifting power away from the server. Yet, the latter approaches come at significant overhead in terms of performance degradation of the trained model, making them less likely to be deployed in practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.082 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".