ACE: A Model Poisoning Attack on Contribution Evaluation Methods in Federated Learning

TL;DR

This paper introduces ACE, a novel model poisoning attack on contribution evaluation methods in federated learning, demonstrating how malicious clients can manipulate perceived contributions without degrading global model accuracy.

Contribution

It is the first to reveal security vulnerabilities in contribution evaluation methods in federated learning and proposes an effective attack with limited defenses.

Findings

ACE successfully deceives state-of-the-art contribution metrics

ACE does not impair the global model's accuracy

Existing defenses are ineffective against ACE

Abstract

In Federated Learning (FL), a set of clients collaboratively train a machine learning model (called global model) without sharing their local training data. The local training data of clients is typically non-i.i.d. and heterogeneous, resulting in varying contributions from individual clients to the final performance of the global model. In response, many contribution evaluation methods were proposed, where the server could evaluate the contribution made by each client and incentivize the high-contributing clients to sustain their long-term participation in FL. Existing studies mainly focus on developing new metrics or algorithms to better measure the contribution of each client. However, the security of contribution evaluation methods of FL operating in adversarial environments is largely unexplored. In this paper, we propose the first model poisoning attack on contribution evaluation methods in FL, termed ACE. Specifically, we show that any malicious client utilizing ACE could manipulate the parameters of its local model such that it is evaluated to have a high contribution by the server, even when its local training data is indeed of low quality. We perform both theoretical analysis and empirical evaluations of ACE. Theoretically, we show our design of ACE can effectively boost the malicious client's perceived contribution when the server employs the widely-used cosine distance metric to measure contribution. Empirically, our results show ACE effectively and efficiently deceive five state-of-the-art contribution evaluation methods. In addition, ACE preserves the accuracy of the final global models on testing inputs. We also explore six countermeasures to defend ACE. Our results show they are inadequate to thwart ACE, highlighting the urgent need for new defenses to safeguard the contribution evaluation methods in FL.