Mitigating Malicious Attacks in Federated Learning via Confidence-aware Defense
On the map: LLM safety and security → Federated unlearning and poisoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Federated Learning (FL) is a distributed machine learning diagram that enables multiple clients to collaboratively train a global model without sharing their private local data. However, FL systems are vulnerable to attacks that are happening in malicious clients through data poisoning and model poisoning, which can deteriorate the performance of aggregated global model. Existing defense methods typically focus on mitigating specific types of poisoning and are often ineffective against unseen types of attack. These methods also assume an attack happened moderately while is not always holds true in real. Consequently, these methods can significantly fail in terms of accuracy and robustness when detecting and addressing updates from attacked malicious clients. To overcome these challenges, in this work, we propose a simple yet effective framework to detect malicious clients, namely Confidence-Aware Defense (CAD), that utilizes the confidence scores of local models as criteria to evaluate the reliability of local updates. Our key insight is that malicious attacks, regardless of attack type, will cause the model to deviate from its previous state, thus leading to increased uncertainty when making predictions. Therefore, CAD is comprehensively effective for both model poisoning and data poisoning attacks by accurately identifying and mitigating potential malicious updates, even under varying degrees of attacks and data heterogeneity. Experimental results demonstrate that our method significantly enhances the robustness of FL systems against various types of attacks across various scenarios by achieving higher model accuracy and stability.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Federated unlearning and poisoning, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 16 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2024.
Builds on
16 of 31 references.
References · 16
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
- 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
- 2016Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Datacited by 7,592
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
- 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,283
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,888
- 2018Byzantine-Robust Distributed Learning: Towards Optimal Statistical Ratescited by 698
- 2019Local Model Poisoning Attacks to Byzantine-Robust Federated Learningcited by 479
- 2020Data Poisoning Attacks Against Federated Learning Systemscited by 266
- 2019Can You Really Backdoor Federated Learning?cited by 250
- 2022FLDetector: Defending Federated Learning Against Model Poisoning Attacks via Detecting Malicious Clientscited by 119
- 2022Survey on Federated Learning Threats: concepts, taxonomy on attacks and defences, experimental study and challengescited by 81
4 more
- 2019Byzantine-Robust Federated Machine Learning through Adaptive Model Averagingcited by 70
- 2022Federated Learning on Heterogeneous and Long-Tailed Data via Classifier Re-Training with Federated Featurescited by 63
- 2021Challenges and Approaches for Mitigating Byzantine Attacks in Federated Learningcited by 46
- 2023On the Vulnerability of Backdoor Defenses for Federated Learningcited by 27
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.