Search for: All records

Deep learning has shown incredible potential across a wide array of tasks, and accompanied by this growth has been an insatiable appetite for data. However, a large amount of data needed for enabling deep learning is stored on personal devices, and recent concerns on privacy have further highlighted challenges for accessing such data. As a result, federated learning (FL) has emerged as an important privacy-preserving technology that enables collaborative training of machine learning models without the need to send the raw, potentially sensitive, data to a central server. However, the fundamental premise that sending model updates to a server is privacy-preserving only holds if the updates cannot be “reverse engineered” to infer information about the private training data. It has been shown under a wide variety of settings that this privacy premise doesnothold. In this article we provide a comprehensive literature review of the different privacy attacks and defense methods in FL. We identify the current limitations of these attacks and highlight the settings in which the privacy of an FL client can be broken. We further dissect some of the successful industry applications of FL and draw lessons for future successful adoption. We survey the emerging landscape of privacy regulation for FL and conclude with future directions for taking FL toward the cherished goal of generating accurate models while preserving the privacy of the data from its participants. 

Federated learning—multi-party, distributed learning in a decentralized environment—is vulnerable to model poisoning attacks, more so than centralized learning. This is because malicious clients can collude and send in carefully tailored model updates to make the global model inaccurate. This motivated the development of Byzantine-resilient federated learning algorithms, such as Krum, Bulyan, FABA, and FoolsGold. However, a recently developed untargeted model poisoning attack showed that all prior defenses can be bypassed. The attack uses the intuition that simply by changing the sign of the gradient updates that the optimizer is computing, for a set of malicious clients, a model can be diverted from the optima to increase the test error rate. In this work, we develop FLAIR—a defense against this directed deviation attack (DDA), a state-of-the-art model poisoning attack. FLAIR is based on ourintuition that in federated learning, certain patterns of gradient flips are indicative of an attack. This intuition is remarkably stable across different learning algorithms, models, and datasets. FLAIR assigns reputation scores to the participating clients based on their behavior during the training phase and then takes a weighted contribution of the clients. We show that where the existing defense baselines of FABA [IJCAI’19], FoolsGold [Usenix ’20], and FLTrust [NDSS ’21] fail when 20-30% of the clients are malicious, FLAIR provides byzantine-robustness upto a malicious client percentage of 45%. We also show that FLAIR provides robustness against even a white-box version of DDA. 

Standard ML relies on training using a centrally collected dataset, while collaborative learning techniques such as Federated Learning (FL) enable data to remain decentralized at client locations. In FL, a central server coordinates the training process, reducing computation and communication expenses for clients. However, this centralization can lead to server congestion and heightened risk of malicious activity or data privacy breaches. In contrast, Peer-to-Peer Learning (P2PL) is a fully decentralized system where nodes manage both local training and aggregation tasks. While P2PL promotes privacy by eliminating the need to trust a single node, it also results in increased computation and communication costs, along with potential difficulties in achieving consensus among nodes. To address the limitations of both FL and P2PL, we propose a hybrid approach called Hubs-and-Spokes Learning (HSL). In HSL, hubs function similarly to FL servers, maintaining consensus but exerting less control over spokes. This paper argues that HSL’s design allows for greater availability and privacy than FL, while reducing computation and communication costs compared to P2PL. Additionally, HSL maintains consensus and integrity in the learning process.