A Data-Driven Defense against Edge-case Model Poisoning Attacks on Federated Learning

Overview

• Federated Learning systems are vulnerable to model poisoning attacks from clients.
• Edge-case attacks targeting a small fraction of the input space are difficult to detect using existing defenses.
• The proposed DataDefense method uses an external defense dataset to learn a poisoned data detector and a client importance model.
• The global model is updated as a weighted average of client model updates, where the weights are determined by the client importance model.
• DataDefense can significantly reduce the attack success rate compared to other state-of-the-art defenses.

Plain English Explanation

In Federated Learning, multiple devices or clients collaborate to train a shared machine learning model without sharing their raw data. This approach is useful for preserving privacy and decentralizing data. However, Federated Learning systems are vulnerable to model poisoning attacks from malicious clients.

These attacks can target edge cases, which are rare or unusual inputs that make up a small fraction of the total input space. Existing defenses often struggle to detect these types of attacks, leading to a high success rate for the attackers.

The DataDefense method proposed in the paper aims to address this issue. It uses an external "defense dataset" that contains a mix of poisoned and clean examples, with only a few known to be clean. The method learns two models:

1. A poisoned data detector that can identify whether each example in the defense dataset is poisoned or clean.
2. A client importance model that estimates the probability of a client update being malicious.

The global model is then updated as a weighted average of the client model updates, where the weights are determined by the client importance model. This helps to reduce the impact of malicious client updates on the final model.

The key advantage of DataDefense is that it can significantly reduce the attack success rate compared to other state-of-the-art defenses, even with a small number of defense examples (as few as five).

Technical Explanation

The DataDefense method consists of two main components:

1. Poisoned Data Detector: This model is trained to classify each example in the defense dataset as either poisoned or clean. It is trained using an alternating minimization strategy over the Federated Learning rounds, where the model parameters are updated based on the current state of the global model and the client updates.

2. Client Importance Model: This model estimates the probability of a client update being malicious. It is also trained using the alternating minimization strategy, with the goal of assigning lower importance to updates from clients that are more likely to be malicious.

The global model is then updated as a weighted average of the client model updates, where the weights are determined by the client importance model. This helps to reduce the impact of malicious client updates on the final model.

The paper presents extensive experiments on standard attack scenarios, demonstrating that DataDefense can defend against model poisoning attacks where other state-of-the-art defenses fail. In particular, DataDefense is able to reduce the attack success rate by at least ~40% on standard attack setups and by more than 80% on some setups.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a novel and effective defense against model poisoning attacks in Federated Learning. However, there are a few potential limitations and areas for further research:

1. Dependence on the Defense Dataset: The performance of DataDefense is heavily dependent on the quality and coverage of the defense dataset. In real-world scenarios, it may be challenging to obtain a representative defense dataset with the right mix of poisoned and clean examples.

2. Scalability and Computational Overhead: The proposed method involves training two additional models (the poisoned data detector and the client importance model) on top of the global model. This may lead to increased computational and memory requirements, which could be a concern for resource-constrained devices in Federated Learning.

3. Generalization to Other Attack Scenarios: The paper focuses on evaluating DataDefense against specific attack scenarios. It would be valuable to explore the method's performance against a wider range of attack types and settings.

4. Interpretability and Explainability: The paper does not provide much insight into how the poisoned data detector and client importance models make their decisions. Improving the interpretability of these models could help users better understand and trust the defense mechanism.

Overall, the DataDefense method represents a significant step forward in defending Federated Learning systems against model poisoning attacks. Further research to address the identified limitations could help to make the approach more practical and widely applicable.

Conclusion

The DataDefense method proposed in this paper addresses a crucial vulnerability in Federated Learning systems: the difficulty of detecting and mitigating model poisoning attacks, especially those targeting edge cases. By leveraging an external defense dataset, DataDefense can significantly reduce the attack success rate compared to other state-of-the-art defenses.

This research has important implications for the widespread adoption of Federated Learning, as it helps to improve the security and robustness of these distributed learning systems. As Federated Learning continues to gain traction in various applications, effective defenses against model poisoning attacks will be crucial for ensuring the trustworthiness and integrity of the learned models.