Feature Reconstruction Attacks and Countermeasures of DNN Training in Vertical Federated Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federated learning (FL) has increasingly been deployed, in its vertical form, among organizations to facilitate secure collaborative training. In vertical FL (VFL), participants hold disjoint features of the same set of sample instances. The one withlabels- theactive party, initiates training and interacts with other participants - thepassive parties. It remains largely unknownwhetherandhowan active party can extract private feature data owned by passive parties, especially when training deep neural network (DNN) models. This work examines the feature security problem of DNN training in VFL. We consider a DNN model partitioned between active and passive parties, where the passive party holds a subset of the input layer with some features of binary values. Though proved to be NP-hard. we demonstrate that, unless the feature dimension is exceedingly large, it remains feasible, both theoretically and practically, to launch a reconstruction attack with an efficient search-based algorithm that prevails over current feature protection. We propose a novel feature protection scheme by perturbing intermediate results and fabricated input features, which effectively misleads reconstruction attacks towards pre-specified random values. The evaluation shows it sustains feature reconstruction attack in various VFL applications with negligible impact on model performance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".