mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Optimizing Byzantine Node Placement in Decentralized Federated Learning

arXiv 2609.01495 ↗First posted 1 Sep 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Security evaluations of decentralized federated learning (DFL) typically focus on how Byzantine participants behave, while largely overlooking which participants are compromised. Yet, because aggregation is distributed over a communication graph, the placement of Byzantine nodes determines how malicious influence propagates through the network. We therefore treat Byzantine placement as an explicit adversarial decision and formulate the attacker's objective as selecting, under a fixed compromise budget, the set of participants that maximizes its finite-time impact on honest nodes. To approximate this objective without executing the learning process for every candidate placement, we introduce Byzantine Placement Influence (BPI), a set-level measure derived from the actual gossip dynamics that quantifies the cumulative exposure of honest nodes to Byzantine sources over the training horizon. Unlike placement criteria based on node centrality heuristics, BPI directly accounts for weighted multi-hop propagation and interactions among compromised nodes. We develop efficient algorithms for optimizing BPI and evaluate them across six heterogeneous graph families, untargeted model poisoning, and backdoor attacks. BPI-guided placements consistently identify highly damaging configurations across different network structures and remain effective when the linear gossip assumption is relaxed through Byzantine-robust aggregation. Our results show that Byzantine placement is a critical but under-modeled dimension of DFL threat models and robustness evaluations.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.

Builds on

22 of 38 references.

References · 22

  1. 2019Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learningcited by 3,021
  2. 2018Byzantine-Robust Distributed Learning: Towards Optimal Statistical Ratescited by 698
  3. 2019Local Model Poisoning Attacks to Byzantine-Robust Federated Learningcited by 479
  4. 2020FLTrust: Byzantine-robust Federated Learning via Trust Bootstrappingcited by 330
  5. 2018The Hidden Vulnerability of Distributed Learning in Byzantiumcited by 324
  6. 2020Attack of the Tails: Yes, You Really Can Backdoor Federated Learningcited by 307
  7. 2019Can You Really Backdoor Federated Learning?cited by 250
  8. 2020Learning from History for Byzantine Robust Optimizationcited by 137
  9. 2022FLDetector: Defending Federated Learning Against Model Poisoning Attacks via Detecting Malicious Clientscited by 119
  10. 2022Neurotoxin: Durable Backdoors in Federated Learningcited by 97
  11. 2020Collaborative Learning in the Jungle (Decentralized, Byzantine, Heterogeneous, Asynchronous and Nonconvex Learning)cited by 54
  12. 2024Byzantine-Robust Decentralized Federated Learningcited by 47
10 more
  1. 2022Byzantine-Robust Decentralized Learning via ClippedGossipcited by 29
  2. 2020Byzantine-resilient Decentralized Stochastic Gradient Descentcited by 28
  3. 2023A Survey on Decentralized Federated Learningcited by 27
  4. 2022On the (In)security of Peer-to-Peer Decentralized Machine Learningcited by 23
  5. 2023Backdoor Attacks in Peer-to-Peer Federated Learningcited by 9
  6. 2024Unified Breakdown Analysis for Byzantine Robust Gossipcited by 8
  7. 2023Can Decentralized Learning be more robust than Federated Learning?cited by 6
  8. 2023Protecting Federated Learning from Extreme Model Poisoning Attacks via Multidimensional Time Series Anomaly Detectioncited by 3
  9. 2023Competitive Advantage Attacks to Decentralized Federated Learningcited by 2
  10. 2025Adversarial Node Placement in Decentralized Federated Learning: Maximum Spanning-Centrality Strategy and Performance Analysiscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.