mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Towards Efficient and Certified Recovery from Poisoning Attacks in Federated Learning

arXiv 2401.08216 ↗First posted 16 Jan 2024cs.CR cs.LGcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Federated learning (FL) is vulnerable to poisoning attacks, where malicious clients manipulate their updates to affect the global model. Although various methods exist for detecting those clients in FL, identifying malicious clients requires sufficient model updates, and hence by the time malicious clients are detected, FL models have been already poisoned. Thus, a method is needed to recover an accurate global model after malicious clients are identified. Current recovery methods rely on (i) all historical information from participating FL clients and (ii) the initial model unaffected by the malicious clients, leading to a high demand for storage and computational resources. In this paper, we show that highly effective recovery can still be achieved based on (i) selective historical information rather than all historical information and (ii) a historical model that has not been significantly affected by malicious clients rather than the initial model. In this scenario, while maintaining comparable recovery performance, we can accelerate the recovery speed and decrease memory consumption. Following this concept, we introduce Crab, an efficient and certified recovery method, which relies on selective information storage and adaptive model rollback. Theoretically, we demonstrate that the difference between the global model recovered by Crab and the one recovered by train-from-scratch can be bounded under certain assumptions. Our empirical evaluation, conducted across three datasets over multiple machine learning models, and a variety of untargeted and targeted poisoning attacks reveals that Crab is both accurate and efficient, and consistently outperforms previous approaches in terms of both recovery speed and memory consumption.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 37 of its 72 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jan 2024.

Builds on

37 of 72 references.

References · 37

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2016Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Datacited by 7,669
  3. 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,349
  4. 2019Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learningcited by 3,046
  5. 2018Federated Optimization in Heterogeneous Networkscited by 2,987
  6. 2015Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classificationcited by 2,330
  7. 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,281
  8. 2019Federated Learning: Challenges, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 1,538
  9. 2017BadNets: Identifying Vulnerabilities in the Machine Learning Model Supply Chaincited by 1,106
  10. 2020Tackling the Objective Inconsistency Problem in Heterogeneous Federated Optimizationcited by 906
  11. 2018How To Backdoor Federated Learningcited by 765
  12. 2018Byzantine-Robust Distributed Learning: Towards Optimal Statistical Ratescited by 711
25 more
  1. 2019Local Model Poisoning Attacks to Byzantine-Robust Federated Learningcited by 493
  2. 2020Backdoor Learning: A Surveycited by 426
  3. 2019Hidden Trigger Backdoor Attackscited by 371
  4. 2018Analyzing Federated Learning through an Adversarial Lenscited by 351
  5. 2020FLTrust: Byzantine-robust Federated Learning via Trust Bootstrappingcited by 346
  6. 2018The Hidden Vulnerability of Distributed Learning in Byzantiumcited by 329
  7. 2019A Little Is Enough: Circumventing Defenses For Distributed Learningcited by 288
  8. 2020Blind Backdoors in Deep Learning Modelscited by 182
  9. 2020Threats to Federated Learning: A Surveycited by 178
  10. 2022FLDetector: Defending Federated Learning Against Model Poisoning Attacks via Detecting Malicious Clientscited by 125
  11. 2021Back to the Drawing Board: A Critical Evaluation of Poisoning Attacks on Production Federated Learningcited by 118
  12. 2022The Right to be Forgotten in Federated Learning: An Efficient Realization with Rapid Retrainingcited by 118
  13. 2018Generalized Byzantine-tolerant SGDcited by 95
  14. 2022Federated Unlearning: How to Efficiently Erase a Client in FL?cited by 95
  15. 2020Learning to Detect Malicious Clients for Robust Federated Learningcited by 88
  16. 2022Personalized Federated Learning via Variational Bayesian Inferencecited by 68
  17. 2021Provably Secure Federated Learning against Malicious Clientscited by 63
  18. 2023A Survey on Federated Unlearning: Challenges, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 63
  19. 2022FedRecover: Recovering from Poisoning Attacks in Federated Learning using Historical Informationcited by 58
  20. 2020Communication-Efficient Federated Learning with Compensated Overlap-FedAvgcited by 31
  21. 2022Privacy-Preserving Aggregation in Federated Learning: A Surveycited by 27
  22. 2022Efficient Dropout-resilient Aggregation for Privacy-preserving Machine Learningcited by 20
  23. 2022SIFU: Sequential Informed Federated Unlearning for Efficient and Provable Client Unlearning in Federated Optimizationcited by 18
  24. 2022FL-Defender: Combating Targeted Attacks in Federated Learningcited by 15
  25. 2023FLTracer: Accurate Poisoning Attack Provenance in Federated Learningcited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

7 papers.