MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Defending Federated Learning Against Model Poisoning Attacks

2023· article· en· W4391092838 on OpenAlexafffund
Ibraheem Aloran, Saeed Samet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityFederated learningLanguage changeArtificial intelligenceCluster (spacecraft)Machine learningInternet privacyComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Federated Learning (FL) is a machine learning framework that allows multiple clients to contribute their data to a single machine learning model without sacrificing their privacy. Although FL addresses some security issues, it is still susceptible to model poisoning attacks where malicious clients aim to corrupt the main learning model by sending poisoned updates. Byzantinerobust methods are defenses that aim to prevent corruption of the main learning model by tolerating a certain number of malicious clients. However, they can only resist a small number of malicious clients. This proposed method uses Gap statistics to determine the optimal number of clusters to cluster clients. This will improve the detection accuracy of malicious clients while preventing the mislcassification of honest clients in a Federated Learning setting. Our experiments so far show us an improvement over the base method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0150.076
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207