Exploring the Security Boundary of Data Reconstruction via Neuron Exclusivity Analysis
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Among existing privacy attacks on the gradient of neural networks, data reconstruction attack, which reverse engineers the training batch from the gradient, poses a severe threat on the private training data. Despite its empirical success on large architectures and small training batches, unstable reconstruction accuracy is also observed when a smaller architecture or a larger batch is under attack. Due to the weak interpretability of existing learning-based attacks, there is little known on why, when and how data reconstruction attack is feasible. In our work, we perform the first analytic study on the security boundary of data reconstruction from gradient via a microcosmic view on neural networks with rectified linear units (ReLUs), the most popular activation function in practice. For the first time, we characterize the insecure/secure boundary of data reconstruction attack in terms of the neuron exclusivity state of a training batch, indexed by the number of emphExclusively Activated Neurons (ExANs, i.e., a ReLU activated by only one sample in a batch). Intuitively, we show a training batch with more ExANs are more vulnerable to data reconstruction attack and vice versa. On the one hand, we construct a novel deterministic attack algorithm which substantially outperforms previous attacks for reconstructing training batches lying in the insecure boundary of a neural network. Meanwhile, for training batches lying in the secure boundary, we prove the impossibility of unique reconstruction, based on which an exclusivity reduction strategy is devised to enlarge the secure boundary for mitigation purposes.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 26 Oct 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 3; 2023: 5; 2024: 2.
10 papers.
- 2023Privacy and Fairness in Federated Learning: on the Perspective of Trade-offcited by 26
- 2022Dropout is NOT All You Need to Prevent Gradient Leakagecited by 11
- 2024Revisiting Gradient Pruning: A Dual Realization for Defending against Gradient Attackscited by 7
- 2023Understanding Deep Gradient Leakage via Inversion Influence Functionscited by 6
- 2023Temporal Gradient Inversion Attacks with Robust Optimizationcited by 4
- 2024Towards Eliminating Hard Label Constraints in Gradient Inversion Attackscited by 4
- 2023SRATTA : Sample Re-ATTribution Attack of Secure Aggregation in Federated Learningcited by 3
- 2022Combining Stochastic Defenses to Resist Gradient Inversion: An Ablation Studycited by 2
- 2023Privacy Preserving Federated Learning with Convolutional Variational Bottleneckscited by 2
- 2022Deep leakage from gradientscited by 0
- 2024Towards Eliminating Hard Label Constraints in Gradient Inversion Attacks5 Feb 2024
- 2024Revisiting Gradient Pruning: A Dual Realization for Defending against Gradient Attacks30 Jan 2024
- 2023Understanding Deep Gradient Leakage via Inversion Influence Functions22 Sep 2023
- 2023Privacy Preserving Federated Learning with Convolutional Variational Bottlenecks8 Sep 2023
- 2023Privacy and Fairness in Federated Learning: on the Perspective of Trade-off25 Jun 2023
- 2023Temporal Gradient Inversion Attacks with Robust Optimization13 Jun 2023
- 2023SRATTA : Sample Re-ATTribution Attack of Secure Aggregation in Federated Learning13 Jun 2023
- 2022Deep leakage from gradients15 Dec 2022
- 2022Dropout is NOT All You Need to Prevent Gradient Leakage12 Aug 2022
- 2022Combining Stochastic Defenses to Resist Gradient Inversion: An Ablation Study9 Aug 2022