Oblivion: Poisoning Federated Learning by Inducing Catastrophic Forgetting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federated learning is exposed to model poisoning attacks as compromised clients may submit malicious model updates to pollute the global model. To defend against such attacks, robust aggregation rules are designed for the centralized server to winnow out outlier updates, and to significantly reduce the effectiveness of existing poisoning attacks. In this paper, we develop an advanced model poisoning attack against defensive aggregation rules. In particular, we exploit the catastrophic forgetting phenomenon during the process of continual learning to destroy the memory of the global model. Our proposed framework, called Oblivion, features two special components. The first component prioritizes the weights that have the most influence on the model accuracy for poisoning, which induces a more significant degradation on the global model than equally perturbing all weights. The second component smooths malicious model updates based on the number of selected compromised clients in the current round, adjusting the degree of poisoning to suit the dynamics of each training round. We implement a fully-functional prototype of Oblivion in PLATO, a real-world scalable federated learning framework. Our extensive experiments over three datasets demonstrate that Oblivion can boost the attack performance of model poisoning attacks against unknown defensive aggregation rules.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".