Securing Federated Learning: Approaches, Mechanisms and Opportunities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the ability to analyze data, artificial intelligence technology and its offshoots have made difficult tasks easier. The tools of these technologies are now used in almost every aspect of life. For example, Machine Learning (ML), an offshoot of artificial intelligence, has become the focus of interest for researchers in industry, education, healthcare and other disciplines and has proven to be as efficient as, and in some cases better than, experts in answering various problems. However, the obstacles to ML’s progress are still being explored, and Federated Learning (FL) has been presented as a solution to the problems of privacy and confidentiality. In the FL approach, users do not disclose their data throughout the learning process, which improves privacy and security. In this article, we look at the security and privacy concepts of FL and the threats and attacks it faces. We also address the security measures used in FL aggregation procedures. In addition, we examine and discuss the use of homomorphic encryption to protect FL data exchange, as well as other security strategies. Finally, we discuss security and privacy concepts in FL and what additional improvements could be made in this context to increase the efficiency of FL algorithms.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it