A Log-Likelihood Chain Framework for Defending Against LDP Data Poisoning Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local differential privacy (LDP) provides strict privacy guarantee in a distributed environment. Recent studies demonstrated that LDP protocols are vulnerable to data poisoning attacks where an attacker can manipulate the perturbed result on the local side and send bogus data to skew the final estimate on the server. Unfortunately, existing attack detections do not create an effective attack indicator and rely on particular characteristics of LDP protocols. As a result, they typically exhibit limited detection performance. In this paper, we use log-likelihood as the attack indicator and propose a chain-style detection to enhance the detection effectiveness, in which the attack impact could propagate along the chain and exhibit clear anomaly signal even under stealthy attack scenarios. The experimental results show that our detection consistently outperforms the existing methods. Using four datasets containing categorical and numerical data separately, our detection achieves an F1 score exceeding 96% in most cases. It even remains above 0.9 under stealthy attack settings, outperforming the state-of-the-art detection by up to 0.25.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".