FL-Defender: Combating Targeted Attacks in Federated LearningNajeeb Jebreel, Josep Domingo-Ferrer
Federated learning (FL) enables learning a global machine learning model from local data distributed among a set of participating workers. This makes it possible i) to train more accurate models due to learning from rich joint training data, and ii) to improve privacy by not sharing the workers' local private data with others. However, the distributed nature of FL makes it vulnerable to targeted poisoning attacks that negatively impact the integrity of the learned model while, unfortunately, being difficult to detect. Existing defenses against those attacks are limited by assumptions on the workers' data distribution, may degrade the global model performance on the main task and/or are ill-suited to high-dimensional models. In this paper, we analyze targeted attacks against FL and find that the neurons in the last layer of a deep learning (DL) model that are related to the attacks exhibit a different behavior from the unrelated neurons, making the last-layer gradients valuable features for attack detection. Accordingly, we propose \textit{FL-Defender} as a method to combat FL targeted attacks. It consists of i) engineering more robust discriminative features by calculating the worker-wise angle similarity for the workers' last-layer gradients, ii) compressing the resulting similarity vectors using PCA to reduce redundant information, and iii) re-weighting the workers' updates based on their deviation from the centroid of the compressed similarity vectors. Experiments on three data sets with different DL model sizes and data distributions show the effectiveness of our method at defending against label-flipping and backdoor attacks. Compared to several state-of-the-art defenses, FL-Defender achieves the lowest attack success rates, maintains the performance of the global model on the main task and causes minimal computational overhead on the server.
5.8LGNov 3, 2022
GRAIMATTER Green Paper: Recommendations for disclosure control of trained Machine Learning (ML) models from Trusted Research Environments (TREs)Emily Jefferson, James Liley, Maeve Malone et al.
TREs are widely, and increasingly used to support statistical analysis of sensitive data across a range of sectors (e.g., health, police, tax and education) as they enable secure and transparent research whilst protecting data confidentiality. There is an increasing desire from academia and industry to train AI models in TREs. The field of AI is developing quickly with applications including spotting human errors, streamlining processes, task automation and decision support. These complex AI models require more information to describe and reproduce, increasing the possibility that sensitive personal data can be inferred from such descriptions. TREs do not have mature processes and controls against these risks. This is a complex topic, and it is unreasonable to expect all TREs to be aware of all risks or that TRE researchers have addressed these risks in AI-specific training. GRAIMATTER has developed a draft set of usable recommendations for TREs to guard against the additional risks when disclosing trained AI models from TREs. The development of these recommendations has been funded by the GRAIMATTER UKRI DARE UK sprint research project. This version of our recommendations was published at the end of the project in September 2022. During the course of the project, we have identified many areas for future investigations to expand and test these recommendations in practice. Therefore, we expect that this document will evolve over time.
12.0CRMar 6, 2025
A Consensus Privacy Metrics Framework for Synthetic DataLisa Pilgram, Fida K. Dankar, Jorg Drechsler et al.
Synthetic data generation is one approach for sharing individual-level data. However, to meet legislative requirements, it is necessary to demonstrate that the individuals' privacy is adequately protected. There is no consolidated standard for measuring privacy in synthetic data. Through an expert panel and consensus process, we developed a framework for evaluating privacy in synthetic data. Our findings indicate that current similarity metrics fail to measure identity disclosure, and their use is discouraged. For differentially private synthetic data, a privacy budget other than close to zero was not considered interpretable. There was consensus on the importance of membership and attribute disclosure, both of which involve inferring personal information about an individual without necessarily revealing their identity. The resultant framework provides precise recommendations for metrics that address these types of disclosures effectively. Our findings further present specific opportunities for future research that can help with widespread adoption of synthetic data.
DP2Unlearning: An Efficient and Guaranteed Unlearning Framework for LLMsTamim Al Mahmud, Najeeb Jebreel, Josep Domingo-Ferrer et al.
Large language models (LLMs) have recently revolutionized language processing tasks but have also brought ethical and legal issues. LLMs have a tendency to memorize potentially private or copyrighted information present in the training data, which might then be delivered to end users at inference time. When this happens, a naive solution is to retrain the model from scratch after excluding the undesired data. Although this guarantees that the target data have been forgotten, it is also prohibitively expensive for LLMs. Approximate unlearning offers a more efficient alternative, as it consists of ex post modifications of the trained model itself to prevent undesirable results, but it lacks forgetting guarantees because it relies solely on empirical evidence. In this work, we present DP2Unlearning, a novel LLM unlearning framework that offers formal forgetting guarantees at a significantly lower cost than retraining from scratch on the data to be retained. DP2Unlearning involves training LLMs on textual data protected using ε-differential privacy (DP), which later enables efficient unlearning with the guarantees against disclosure associated with the chosen ε. Our experiments demonstrate that DP2Unlearning achieves similar model performance post-unlearning, compared to an LLM retraining from scratch on retained data -- the gold standard exact unlearning -- but at approximately half the unlearning cost. In addition, with a reasonable computational cost, it outperforms approximate unlearning methods at both preserving the utility of the model post-unlearning and effectively forgetting the targeted information.
12.3CRAug 4, 2021
Secure and Privacy-Preserving Federated Learning via Co-UtilityJosep Domingo-Ferrer, Alberto Blanco-Justicia, Jesús Manjón et al.
The decentralized nature of federated learning, that often leverages the power of edge devices, makes it vulnerable to attacks against privacy and security. The privacy risk for a peer is that the model update she computes on her private data may, when sent to the model manager, leak information on those private data. Even more obvious are security attacks, whereby one or several malicious peers return wrong model updates in order to disrupt the learning process and lead to a wrong model being learned. In this paper we build a federated learning framework that offers privacy to the participating peers as well as security against Byzantine and poisoning attacks. Our framework consists of several protocols that provide strong privacy to the participating peers via unlinkable anonymity and that are rationally sustainable based on the co-utility property. In other words, no rational party is interested in deviating from the proposed protocols. We leverage the notion of co-utility to build a decentralized co-utile reputation management system that provides incentives for parties to adhere to the protocols. Unlike privacy protection via differential privacy, our approach preserves the values of model updates and hence the accuracy of plain federated learning; unlike privacy protection via update aggregation, our approach preserves the ability to detect bad model updates while substantially reducing the computational overhead compared to methods based on homomorphic encryption.
24.0CRDec 7, 2016
Individual Differential Privacy: A Utility-Preserving Formulation of Differential Privacy GuaranteesJordi Soria-Comas, Josep Domingo-Ferrer, David Sánchez et al.
Differential privacy is a popular privacy model within the research community because of the strong privacy guarantee it offers, namely that the presence or absence of any individual in a data set does not significantly influence the results of analyses on the data set. However, enforcing this strict guarantee in practice significantly distorts data and/or limits data uses, thus diminishing the analytical utility of the differentially private results. In an attempt to address this shortcoming, several relaxations of differential privacy have been proposed that trade off privacy guarantees for improved data utility. In this work, we argue that the standard formalization of differential privacy is stricter than required by the intuitive privacy guarantee it seeks. In particular, the standard formalization requires indistinguishability of results between any pair of neighbor data sets, while indistinguishability between the actual data set and its neighbor data sets should be enough. This limits the data controller's ability to adjust the level of protection to the actual data, hence resulting in significant accuracy loss. In this respect, we propose individual differential privacy, an alternative differential privacy notion that offers em the same privacy guarantees as standard differential privacy to individuals (even though not to groups of individuals). This new notion allows the data controller to adjust the distortion to the actual data set, which results in less distortion and more analytical accuracy. We propose several mechanisms to attain individual differential privacy and we compare the new notion against standard differential privacy in terms of the accuracy of the analytical results.
17.1CRDec 16, 2015
From t-closeness to differential privacy and vice versa in data anonymizationJ. Domingo-Ferrer, J. Soria-Comas
k-Anonymity and ε-differential privacy are two mainstream privacy models, the former introduced to anonymize data sets and the latter to limit the knowledge gain that results from including one individual in the data set. Whereas basic k-anonymity only protects against identity disclosure, t-closeness was presented as an extension of k-anonymity that also protects against attribute disclosure. We show here that, if not quite equivalent, t-closeness and ε-differential privacy are strongly related to one another when it comes to anonymizing data sets. Specifically, k-anonymity for the quasi-identifiers combined with ε-differential privacy for the confidential attributes yields stochastic t-closeness (an extension of t-closeness), with t a function of k and ε. Conversely, t-closeness can yield ε- differential privacy when t = exp(ε/2) and the assumptions made by t-closeness about the prior and posterior views of the data hold
3.2CRNov 18, 2015
Supplementary Materials for "How to Avoid Reidentification with Proper Anonymization"- Comment on "Unique in the shopping mall: on the reidentifiability of credit card metadata"David Sánchez, Sergio Martínez, Josep Domingo-Ferrer
The study by De Montjoye et al. ("Science", 30 January 2015, p. 536) claimed that most individuals can be reidentified from a deidentified credit card transaction database and that anonymization mechanisms are not effective against reidentification. Such claims deserve detailed quantitative scrutiny, as they might seriously undermine the willingness of data owners and subjects to share data for research. In a recent Technical Comment published in "Science" (18 March 2016, p. 1274), we demonstrate that the reidentification risk reported by De Montjoye et al. was significantly overestimated (due to a misunderstanding of the reidentification attack) and that the alleged ineffectiveness of anonymization is due to the choice of poor and undocumented methods and to a general disregard of 40 years of anonymization literature. The technical comment also shows how to properly anonymize data, in order to reduce unequivocal reidentifications to zero while retaining even more analytical utility than with the poor anonymization mechanisms employed by De Montjoye et al. In conclusion, data owners, subjects and users can be reassured that sound privacy models and anonymization methods exist to produce safe and useful anonymized data. Supplementary materials detailing the data sets, algorithms and extended results of our study are available here. Moreover, unlike the De Montjoye et al.'s data set, which was never made available, our data, anonymized results, and anonymization algorithms can be freely downloaded from http://crises-deim.urv.cat/opendata/SPD_Science.zip