Federated Learning: Attacks, Defenses, Opportunities and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using dispersed data and training, federated learning (FL) moves AI capabilities to edge devices or does tasks locally. Many consider FL the start of a new era in AI, yet it is still immature. FL has not garnered the community’s trust since its security, and privacy implications are controversial FL’s security and privacy concerns must be discovered, analyzed, and recorded before widespread usage and adoption. A solid comprehension of risk variables allows an FL practitioner to construct a secure environment and provide researchers with a clear perspective of potential study fields, making FL the best solution in situations where security and privacy are primary issues. This research aims to deliver a complete overview of FL’s security and privacy features to help bridge the gap between current federated AI and broad adoption in the future. In this paper, we present a comprehensive overview of the attack surface to investigate FL’s existing challenges and defense measures to evaluate its robustness and reliability. According to our study, security concerns regarding FL are more frequent than privacy issues. Communication bottlenecks, poisoning, and backdoor attacks represent FL’s privacy’s most significant security threats. In the final part, we detail future research that will assist FL in adapting to real-world settings.
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".