A Proactive Defense Against Model Poisoning Attacks in Federated Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model poisoning attacks greatly jeopardize the application of federated learning (FL). The effectiveness of existing defenses is susceptible to the latest model poisoning attacks, leading to a decrease in prediction accuracy. Besides, these defenses are intractable to distinguish benign outliers from malicious gradients, which further compromises the model generalization. In this work, we propose a novel proactive defense named${\sf RECESS}$against model poisoning attacks. Different from the passive analysis in previous defenses,${\sf RECESS}$proactively queries each participating client with a delicately constructed aggregation gradient, accompanied by the detection of malicious clients according to their responses with higher accuracy. Furthermore, RECESS uses a new trust scoring mechanism to robustly aggregate gradients. Unlike previous methods that score each iteration, RECESS considers clients’ performance correlation across multiple iterations to estimate the trust score, substantially increasing fault tolerance. Finally, we extensively evaluate${\sf RECESS}$on typical model architectures and four datasets under various settings. We also evaluated the defensive effectiveness against other types of poisoning attacks, the sensitivity of hyperparameters, and adaptive adversarial attacks. Experimental results show the superiority of${\sf RECESS}$in terms of reducing accuracy loss caused by the latest model poisoning attacks over five classic and two state-of-the-art defenses.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".