Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40830208›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Analyzing the vulnerabilities in Split Federated Learning: assessing the robustness against data poisoning attacks.

Aysha-Thahsin Zahir-Ismail, Raj Shukla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Aysha-Thahsin Zahir-IsmailComputing and Information Science, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Raj ShuklaComputing and Information Science, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK. raj.shukla@aru.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Distributed Collaborative Machine Learning (DCML) offers a promising alternative to address privacy concerns in centralized machine learning. Split learning (SL) and Federated Learning (FL) are two effective learning approaches within DCML. Recently, there has been growing interest in Split Federated Learning (SFL), which combines elements of both FL and SL. This research provides a comprehensive study, analysis, and presentation of the impact of data poisoning attacks on Split Federated Learning (SFL). We propose three attack strategies: untargeted attacks, targeted attacks, and distance-based attacks. All these strategies aim to degrade the performance of the DCML classifier. We evaluate the proposed attack strategies using two case studies: Electrocardiogram Signal Classification and Automatic Handwritten Digit Recognition (MNIST dataset). We conducted a series of attack experiments, varying the percentage of malicious clients and the model split layer between the clients and the server. A comprehensive analysis of the attack strategies reveals that distance-based and untargeted poisoning attacks have a greater impact on evading classifier outcomes compared to targeted attacks in SFL.

Indexed as

Computer SecurityMachine LearningAlgorithmsElectrocardiographyFederated LearningHumansData poisoningFederated LearningPrivacySplit Federated Learning

Identifiers

PMID40830208
PMCPMC12365048

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.