Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36616629›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Federated Learning Attacks Revisited: A Critical Discussion of Gaps, Assumptions, and Evaluation Setups.

Aidmar Wainakh, Ephraim Zimmer, Sandeep Subedi, Jens Keim, Tim Grube, Shankar Karuppayah, Alejandro Sanchez Guinea, Max Mühlhäuser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Aidmar WainakhTelecooperation Lab, Technical University of Darmstadt, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany.
Ephraim ZimmerTelecooperation Lab, Technical University of Darmstadt, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4262-6613
Sandeep SubediTelecooperation Lab, Technical University of Darmstadt, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany.
Jens KeimTelecooperation Lab, Technical University of Darmstadt, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany.
Tim GrubeTelecooperation Lab, Technical University of Darmstadt, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany.
Shankar KaruppayahNational Advanced IPv6 Centre (NAv6), University of Science Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia.
Alejandro Sanchez GuineaTelecooperation Lab, Technical University of Darmstadt, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany.
Max MühlhäuserTelecooperation Lab, Technical University of Darmstadt, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 251805230/GRK2050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning pervades heavy data-driven disciplines in research and development. The Internet of Things and sensor systems, which enable smart environments and services, are settings where deep learning can provide invaluable utility. However, the data in these systems are very often directly or indirectly related to people, which raises privacy concerns. Federated learning (FL) mitigates some of these concerns and empowers deep learning in sensor-driven environments by enabling multiple entities to collaboratively train a machine learning model without sharing their data. Nevertheless, a number of works in the literature propose attacks that can manipulate the model and disclose information about the training data in FL. As a result, there has been a growing belief that FL is highly vulnerable to severe attacks. Although these attacks do indeed highlight security and privacy risks in FL, some of them may not be as effective in production deployment because they are feasible only given special-sometimes impractical-assumptions. In this paper, we investigate this issue by conducting a quantitative analysis of the attacks against FL and their evaluation settings in 48 papers. This analysis is the first of its kind to reveal several research gaps with regard to the types and architectures of target models. Additionally, the quantitative analysis allows us to highlight unrealistic assumptions in some attacks related to the hyper-parameters of the model and data distribution. Furthermore, we identify fallacies in the evaluation of attacks which raise questions about the generalizability of the conclusions. As a remedy, we propose a set of recommendations to promote adequate evaluations.

Indexed as

InternetMachine LearningHumansPrivacyfederated learninginference attackspoisoning attackssystematic mapping study

Identifiers

PMID36616629
PMCPMC9824092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.