Journal of Computer Applications ›› 2026, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (7): 2196-2207.DOI: 10.11772/j.issn.1001-9081.2025070875
• Cyber security • Previous Articles
Zhiqiang REN1,2,3, Xuebin CHEN1,2,3(
), Changsheng QU1,2,3
Received:2025-08-04
Revised:2025-09-11
Accepted:2025-09-11
Online:2025-11-05
Published:2026-07-10
Contact:
Xuebin CHEN
About author:REN Zhiqiang, born in 2000, M. S. candidate. His research interests include data security, privacy protection.Supported by:
任志强1,2,3, 陈学斌1,2,3(
), 屈昌盛1,2,3
通讯作者:
陈学斌
作者简介:任志强(2000—),男,四川广元人,硕士研究生,CCF会员,主要研究方向:数据安全、隐私保护基金资助:CLC Number:
Zhiqiang REN, Xuebin CHEN, Changsheng QU. Active defense framework against Byzantine attacks in federated learning[J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(7): 2196-2207.
任志强, 陈学斌, 屈昌盛. 面向联邦学习中拜占庭攻击的主动防御框架[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(7): 2196-2207.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.joca.cn/EN/10.11772/j.issn.1001-9081.2025070875
| 防御方法 | 相关工作 | 优点 | 缺点 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 鲁棒性聚合 | 文献[ | 特定场景下防御性能高 | 数据异构场景下不能保证模型收敛;计算成本高 |
| 异常检测 | 文献[ | 有效地区分恶意更新与正常更新 | 存在误报、漏报问题 |
| 信誉系统 | 文献[ | 信誉系统建立后,持续生效且能降低计算开销 | 建立信誉系统难度较大;逃避信誉系统检测的攻击者会造成持续危害 |
| 主动防御 | 文献[ | 能更有效地区分恶意更新与良性异常更新 | 有额外的通信开销或计算开销 |
Tab. 1 Comparison of defense methods
| 防御方法 | 相关工作 | 优点 | 缺点 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 鲁棒性聚合 | 文献[ | 特定场景下防御性能高 | 数据异构场景下不能保证模型收敛;计算成本高 |
| 异常检测 | 文献[ | 有效地区分恶意更新与正常更新 | 存在误报、漏报问题 |
| 信誉系统 | 文献[ | 信誉系统建立后,持续生效且能降低计算开销 | 建立信誉系统难度较大;逃避信誉系统检测的攻击者会造成持续危害 |
| 主动防御 | 文献[ | 能更有效地区分恶意更新与良性异常更新 | 有额外的通信开销或计算开销 |
| 数据集 | 攻击 | IID | Non-IID | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D_P | E_J | D_P | E_J | ||
| MNIST | LFA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 90.61 | 1.09 |
| MNA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| SFA | 76.56 | 7.06 | 67.56 | 10.87 | |
| ALIE | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.11 | |
| MinMax | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| F-MNIST | LFA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 90.75 | 0.89 |
| MNA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| SFA | 70.10 | 7.85 | 68.17 | 11.12 | |
| ALIE | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.07 | |
| MinMax | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| CIFAR | LFA | 99.95 | 0.00 | 84.03 | 1.21 |
| MNA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| SFA | 88.10 | 2.99 | 71.12 | 8.53 | |
| ALIE | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.01 | |
| MinMax | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
Tab. 2 MUD detection performance
| 数据集 | 攻击 | IID | Non-IID | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D_P | E_J | D_P | E_J | ||
| MNIST | LFA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 90.61 | 1.09 |
| MNA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| SFA | 76.56 | 7.06 | 67.56 | 10.87 | |
| ALIE | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.11 | |
| MinMax | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| F-MNIST | LFA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 90.75 | 0.89 |
| MNA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| SFA | 70.10 | 7.85 | 68.17 | 11.12 | |
| ALIE | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.07 | |
| MinMax | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| CIFAR | LFA | 99.95 | 0.00 | 84.03 | 1.21 |
| MNA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| SFA | 88.10 | 2.99 | 71.12 | 8.53 | |
| ALIE | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.01 | |
| MinMax | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| 数据集 | 条件 | LFA | MNA | SFA | ALIE | MinMax |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNIST | IID | 98.73 | 99.97 | 100.00 | 66.49 | 96.94 |
| Non-IID | 98.14 | 99.88 | 99.62 | 66.32 | 96.37 | |
| F-MNIST | IID | 99.07 | 99.94 | 100.00 | 66.49 | 98.17 |
| Non-IID | 98.22 | 99.83 | 99.64 | 66.31 | 94.12 | |
| CIFAR | IID | 98.43 | 99.87 | 100.00 | 66.49 | 97.07 |
| Non-IID | 98.26 | 99.78 | 99.92 | 66.49 | 96.65 |
Tab. 3 Average total weight ratios of benign updates
| 数据集 | 条件 | LFA | MNA | SFA | ALIE | MinMax |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNIST | IID | 98.73 | 99.97 | 100.00 | 66.49 | 96.94 |
| Non-IID | 98.14 | 99.88 | 99.62 | 66.32 | 96.37 | |
| F-MNIST | IID | 99.07 | 99.94 | 100.00 | 66.49 | 98.17 |
| Non-IID | 98.22 | 99.83 | 99.64 | 66.31 | 94.12 | |
| CIFAR | IID | 98.43 | 99.87 | 100.00 | 66.49 | 97.07 |
| Non-IID | 98.26 | 99.78 | 99.92 | 66.49 | 96.65 |
| 恶意客户端占比 | IID | Non-IID |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 86.50 | 85.49 |
| 20 | 86.56 | 85.38 |
| 30 | 86.53 | 85.08 |
| 40 | 86.55 | 83.08 |
Tab. 4 Impact of ALIE attack on model accuracy under different malicious client ratios on MNIST dataset
| 恶意客户端占比 | IID | Non-IID |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 86.50 | 85.49 |
| 20 | 86.56 | 85.38 |
| 30 | 86.53 | 85.08 |
| 40 | 86.55 | 83.08 |
| 数据集 | 攻击 | FedAvg | Multi-Krum | Median | Trim-Mean | ClippedClustering | Dnc | RECESS | MUW | MUD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNIST | None | 86.89 | 86.64 | 86.67 | 86.65 | 86.64 | 86.76 | 86.62 | 86.69 | 86.67 |
| LFA | 85.47 | 86.65 | 86.26 | 86.43 | 86.81 | 86.78 | 86.45 | 86.90 | 86.79 | |
| MNA | — | 86.70 | 86.31 | 86.16 | 86.73 | 86.71 | — | 86.17 | 86.80 | |
| SFA | — | 86.97 | 85.70 | 85.48 | 85.63 | 86.68 | 86.39 | 86.85 | 85.61 | |
| ALIE | 86.56 | 86.87 | 86.46 | 86.63 | 86.85 | 86.66 | 86.56 | 86.65 | 86.63 | |
| MinMax | 85.78 | 85.51 | 85.54 | 85.74 | 85.37 | 86.61 | 85.86 | 86.51 | 86.70 | |
| F-MNIST | None | 86.66 | 86.64 | 86.83 | 86.66 | 86.68 | 86.67 | 86.66 | 86.57 | 86.84 |
| LFA | 85.59 | 86.74 | 86.55 | 86.34 | 86.67 | 86.63 | 86.55 | 86.60 | 86.84 | |
| MNA | — | 86.90 | 86.48 | 86.31 | 86.64 | 86.71 | — | 85.59 | 86.96 | |
| SFA | — | 86.58 | 85.78 | 85.37 | 85.59 | 86.56 | 86.51 | 86.77 | 85.06 | |
| ALIE | 86.90 | 86.54 | 86.17 | 86.67 | 86.57 | 86.68 | 86.81 | 86.72 | 86.69 | |
| MinMax | 85.89 | 85.56 | 85.79 | 85.88 | 85.37 | 86.44 | 86.07 | 86.47 | 86.76 | |
| CIFAR | None | 67.91 | 66.79 | 66.68 | 66.62 | 66.11 | 66.12 | 67.00 | 67.27 | 67.03 |
| LFA | 60.45 | 65.33 | 63.91 | 62.53 | 66.11 | 66.22 | 41.71 | 65.30 | 66.91 | |
| MNA | — | 65.97 | 65.44 | 65.33 | 66.37 | 66.02 | — | 65.48 | 66.91 | |
| SFA | — | 65.70 | 62.67 | 61.06 | 63.57 | 66.58 | 65.52 | 65.52 | 63.73 | |
| ALIE | 67.14 | 65.60 | 66.42 | 66.77 | 65.70 | 66.07 | 65.22 | 65.95 | 66.13 | |
| MinMax | 64.78 | 64.35 | 64.16 | 64.14 | 62.26 | 66.45 | 44.02 | 63.21 | 66.84 |
Tab. 5 Impact of different defense methods on model accuracy under IID conditions
| 数据集 | 攻击 | FedAvg | Multi-Krum | Median | Trim-Mean | ClippedClustering | Dnc | RECESS | MUW | MUD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNIST | None | 86.89 | 86.64 | 86.67 | 86.65 | 86.64 | 86.76 | 86.62 | 86.69 | 86.67 |
| LFA | 85.47 | 86.65 | 86.26 | 86.43 | 86.81 | 86.78 | 86.45 | 86.90 | 86.79 | |
| MNA | — | 86.70 | 86.31 | 86.16 | 86.73 | 86.71 | — | 86.17 | 86.80 | |
| SFA | — | 86.97 | 85.70 | 85.48 | 85.63 | 86.68 | 86.39 | 86.85 | 85.61 | |
| ALIE | 86.56 | 86.87 | 86.46 | 86.63 | 86.85 | 86.66 | 86.56 | 86.65 | 86.63 | |
| MinMax | 85.78 | 85.51 | 85.54 | 85.74 | 85.37 | 86.61 | 85.86 | 86.51 | 86.70 | |
| F-MNIST | None | 86.66 | 86.64 | 86.83 | 86.66 | 86.68 | 86.67 | 86.66 | 86.57 | 86.84 |
| LFA | 85.59 | 86.74 | 86.55 | 86.34 | 86.67 | 86.63 | 86.55 | 86.60 | 86.84 | |
| MNA | — | 86.90 | 86.48 | 86.31 | 86.64 | 86.71 | — | 85.59 | 86.96 | |
| SFA | — | 86.58 | 85.78 | 85.37 | 85.59 | 86.56 | 86.51 | 86.77 | 85.06 | |
| ALIE | 86.90 | 86.54 | 86.17 | 86.67 | 86.57 | 86.68 | 86.81 | 86.72 | 86.69 | |
| MinMax | 85.89 | 85.56 | 85.79 | 85.88 | 85.37 | 86.44 | 86.07 | 86.47 | 86.76 | |
| CIFAR | None | 67.91 | 66.79 | 66.68 | 66.62 | 66.11 | 66.12 | 67.00 | 67.27 | 67.03 |
| LFA | 60.45 | 65.33 | 63.91 | 62.53 | 66.11 | 66.22 | 41.71 | 65.30 | 66.91 | |
| MNA | — | 65.97 | 65.44 | 65.33 | 66.37 | 66.02 | — | 65.48 | 66.91 | |
| SFA | — | 65.70 | 62.67 | 61.06 | 63.57 | 66.58 | 65.52 | 65.52 | 63.73 | |
| ALIE | 67.14 | 65.60 | 66.42 | 66.77 | 65.70 | 66.07 | 65.22 | 65.95 | 66.13 | |
| MinMax | 64.78 | 64.35 | 64.16 | 64.14 | 62.26 | 66.45 | 44.02 | 63.21 | 66.84 |
| 数据集 | 攻击 | FedAvg | Multi-Krum | Median | Trim-Mean | ClippedClustering | Dnc | RECESS | MUW | MUD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNIST | None | 85.37 | 82.95 | 80.16 | 81.70 | 84.22 | 82.10 | 85.50 | 85.33 | 85.41 |
| LFA | 83.06 | 84.67 | 79.58 | 80.60 | 84.18 | 84.41 | 81.04 | 84.94 | 84.85 | |
| MNA | — | 84.74 | 80.20 | 82.22 | 84.93 | 84.84 | — | 81.00 | 84.81 | |
| SFA | — | 84.59 | 76.55 | 78.80 | 76.12 | 78.24 | 76.24 | 84.63 | 76.77 | |
| ALIE | 85.38 | 84.15 | 83.23 | 83.55 | 84.93 | 83.83 | 80.03 | 84.84 | 85.10 | |
| MinMax | 71.57 | 52.22 | 76.30 | 74.51 | 66.73 | 82.44 | 77.37 | 83.51 | 85.30 | |
| F-MNIST | None | 85.44 | 82.89 | 79.89 | 81.56 | 84.42 | 81.63 | 85.31 | 85.30 | 85.44 |
| LFA | 83.03 | 84.83 | 79.61 | 80.67 | 84.56 | 84.53 | 78.93 | 84.83 | 84.97 | |
| MNA | — | 84.71 | 80.09 | 82.23 | 84.88 | 84.81 | — | 81.23 | 84.98 | |
| SFA | — | 84.55 | 78.20 | 78.39 | 76.22 | 80.02 | 77.02 | 84.71 | 78.03 | |
| ALIE | 85.43 | 84.14 | 83.05 | 83.50 | 84.89 | 83.75 | 79.83 | 85.13 | 84.91 | |
| MinMax | 71.30 | 51.99 | 75.83 | 75.02 | 68.41 | 82.76 | 76.38 | 83.30 | 84.88 | |
| CIFAR | None | 63.55 | 53.86 | 43.88 | 52.56 | 57.88 | 50.69 | 64.03 | 64.03 | 63.72 |
| LFA | 56.77 | 54.06 | 37.03 | 47.12 | 60.96 | 51.79 | 29.97 | 63.63 | 61.74 | |
| MNA | — | 62.31 | 44.95 | 48.78 | 63.54 | 61.37 | — | 60.60 | 62.86 | |
| SFA | — | 62.57 | 34.85 | 47.56 | 52.64 | 57.42 | 25.57 | 63.18 | 48.60 | |
| ALIE | 64.05 | 53.04 | 49.94 | 53.60 | 58.88 | 54.39 | 47.15 | 62.68 | 62.58 | |
| MinMax | 30.33 | — | 30.12 | 30.47 | — | 40.57 | 29.63 | 60.01 | 62.79 |
Tab. 6 Impact of different defense methods on model accuracy under Non-IID conditions
| 数据集 | 攻击 | FedAvg | Multi-Krum | Median | Trim-Mean | ClippedClustering | Dnc | RECESS | MUW | MUD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNIST | None | 85.37 | 82.95 | 80.16 | 81.70 | 84.22 | 82.10 | 85.50 | 85.33 | 85.41 |
| LFA | 83.06 | 84.67 | 79.58 | 80.60 | 84.18 | 84.41 | 81.04 | 84.94 | 84.85 | |
| MNA | — | 84.74 | 80.20 | 82.22 | 84.93 | 84.84 | — | 81.00 | 84.81 | |
| SFA | — | 84.59 | 76.55 | 78.80 | 76.12 | 78.24 | 76.24 | 84.63 | 76.77 | |
| ALIE | 85.38 | 84.15 | 83.23 | 83.55 | 84.93 | 83.83 | 80.03 | 84.84 | 85.10 | |
| MinMax | 71.57 | 52.22 | 76.30 | 74.51 | 66.73 | 82.44 | 77.37 | 83.51 | 85.30 | |
| F-MNIST | None | 85.44 | 82.89 | 79.89 | 81.56 | 84.42 | 81.63 | 85.31 | 85.30 | 85.44 |
| LFA | 83.03 | 84.83 | 79.61 | 80.67 | 84.56 | 84.53 | 78.93 | 84.83 | 84.97 | |
| MNA | — | 84.71 | 80.09 | 82.23 | 84.88 | 84.81 | — | 81.23 | 84.98 | |
| SFA | — | 84.55 | 78.20 | 78.39 | 76.22 | 80.02 | 77.02 | 84.71 | 78.03 | |
| ALIE | 85.43 | 84.14 | 83.05 | 83.50 | 84.89 | 83.75 | 79.83 | 85.13 | 84.91 | |
| MinMax | 71.30 | 51.99 | 75.83 | 75.02 | 68.41 | 82.76 | 76.38 | 83.30 | 84.88 | |
| CIFAR | None | 63.55 | 53.86 | 43.88 | 52.56 | 57.88 | 50.69 | 64.03 | 64.03 | 63.72 |
| LFA | 56.77 | 54.06 | 37.03 | 47.12 | 60.96 | 51.79 | 29.97 | 63.63 | 61.74 | |
| MNA | — | 62.31 | 44.95 | 48.78 | 63.54 | 61.37 | — | 60.60 | 62.86 | |
| SFA | — | 62.57 | 34.85 | 47.56 | 52.64 | 57.42 | 25.57 | 63.18 | 48.60 | |
| ALIE | 64.05 | 53.04 | 49.94 | 53.60 | 58.88 | 54.39 | 47.15 | 62.68 | 62.58 | |
| MinMax | 30.33 | — | 30.12 | 30.47 | — | 40.57 | 29.63 | 60.01 | 62.79 |
| [1] | Zhang C, Xie Y, Bai H, et al. A survey on federated learning [J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2021, 216: No.106775. |
| [2] | McMahan H B, Moore E, Ramage D, et al. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data [C]// AISTATS 2017. New York: JMLR.org, 2017: 1273-1282. |
| [3] | Kourou K, Exarchos T P, Exarchos K P, et al. Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction [J]. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 2015, 13: 8-17. |
| [4] | Ravì D, Wong C, Deligianni F, et al. Deep learning for health informatics [J]. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2017, 21(1): 4-21. |
| [5] | El Sallab A, Abdou M, Perot E, et al. Deep reinforcement learning framework for autonomous driving [C]// Electronic Imaging 2017. Springfield, VA: Society for Imaging Science and Technology, 2017: 70-76. |
| [6] | Babaev D, Savchenko M, Tuzhilin A, et al. E.T.-RNN: applying deep learning to credit loan applications [C]// KDD 2019. New York: ACM, 2019: 2183-2190. |
| [7] | Fiore U, De Santis A, Perla F, et al. Using generative adversarial networks for improving classification effectiveness in credit card fraud detection [J]. Information Sciences, 2019, 479: 448-455. |
| [8] | Tolpegin V, Truex S, Gursoy M E, et al. Data poisoning attacks against federated learning systems [C]// ESORICS 2020. Cham: Springer, 2020: 480-501. |
| [9] | Li S, Ngai E, Voigt T. Byzantine-robust aggregation in federated learning empowered industrial IoT [J]. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2023, 19(2): 1165-1175. |
| [10] | Li L, Xu W, Chen T, et al. RSA: Byzantine-robust stochastic aggregation methods for distributed learning from heterogeneous datasets [C]// AAAI 2019. Palo Alto: AAAI Press, 2019: 1544-1551. |
| [11] | Baruch M, Baruch G, Goldberg Y. A little is enough: circumventing defenses for distributed learning [C]// NeurIPS 2019. Red Hook: Curran Associates Inc., 2019: 8635-8645. |
| [12] | Shejwalkar V, Houmansadr A. Manipulating the Byzantine: optimizing model poisoning attacks and defenses for federated learning [EB/OL]. [2025-08-16]. . |
| [13] | Blanchard P, El Mhamdi E M, Guerraoui R, et al. Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent [C]// NeurIPS 2017. Red Hook: Curran Associates Inc., 2017: 118-128. |
| [14] | Yin D, Chen Y, Kannan R, et al. Byzantine-robust distributed learning: towards optimal statistical rates [C]// ICML 2018. New York: JMLR.org, 2018: 5650-5659. |
| [15] | Awan S, Luo B, Li F. CONTRA: defending against poisoning attacks in federated learning [C]// ESORICS 2021. Cham: Springer, 2021: 455-475. |
| [16] | Yan H, Zhang W, Chen Q, et al. RECESS vaccine for federated learning: proactive defense against model poisoning attacks [C]// NeurIPS 2023. Red Hook: Curran Associates Inc., 2023: 8702-8713. |
| [17] | Bagdasaryan E, Veit A, Hua Y, et al. How to backdoor federated learning [C]// AISTATS 2020. New York: JMLR.org, 2020: 2938-2948. |
| [18] | Xie C, Huang K, Chen P Y, et al. DBA: distributed backdoor attacks against federated learning [EB/OL]. (2018-04-08) [2024-05-24]. . |
| [19] | Sun Z, Kairouz P, Suresh A T, et al. Can you really backdoor federated learning? [PP/OL]. V2. arXiv (2019-12-02) [2024-05-24]. . |
| [20] | Wang H, Sreenivasan K, Rajput S, et al. Attack of the tails: yes, you really can backdoor federated learning [C]// NeurIPS 2020. Red Hook: Curran Associates Inc., 2020: 16070-16084. |
| [21] | Li S, Ngai E C H, Voigt T. An experimental study of Byzantine-robust aggregation schemes in federated learning [J]. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 2024, 10(6): 975-988. |
| [22] | Sattler F, Müller K R, Wiegand T, et al. On the Byzantine robustness of clustered federated learning [C]// ICASSP 2020. Piscataway: IEEE, 2020: 8861-8865. |
| [23] | El Mhamdi E M, Guerraoui R, Rouault S. The hidden vulnerability of distributed learning in Byzantium [C]// ICML 2018. New York: JMLR.org, 2018: 3521-3530. |
| [24] | Wang N, Xiao Y, Chen Y, et al. FLARE: defending federated learning against model poisoning attacks via latent space representations [C]// AsiaCCS 2022. New York: ACM, 2022: 946-958. |
| [25] | Rodríguez-Barroso N, Martínez-Cámara E, Luzón M V, et al. Dynamic defense against Byzantine poisoning attacks in federated learning [J]. Future Generation Computer Systems, 2022, 133: 1-9. |
| [26] | Cao X, Fang M, Liu J, et al. FLTrust: Byzantine-robust federated learning via trust bootstrapping [EB/OL]. [2025-08-16]. . |
| [27] | Muñoz-González L, Co K T, Lupu E C. Byzantine-robust federated machine learning through adaptive model averaging [PP/OL]. arXiv (2019-09-12) [2025-08-16]. . |
| [28] | Pillutla K, Kakade S M, Harchaoui Z. Robust aggregation for federated learning [J]. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 2022, 70: 1142-1154. |
| [29] | Ebron S C, Yang K. FedTruth: Byzantine-robust and backdoor-resilient federated learning framework [PP/OL]. arXiv (2023-11-17) [2025-08-16]. . |
| [30] | Cao D, Chang S, Lin Z, et al. Understanding distributed poisoning attack in federated learning [C]// ICPADS 2019. Piscataway: IEEE, 2019: 233-239. |
| [31] | Li D, Wong W E, Wang W, et al. Detection and mitigation of label-flipping attacks in federated learning systems with KPCA and K-means [C]// DSA 2021. Piscataway: IEEE, 2021: 551-559. |
| [32] | Zhang Z, Cao X, Jia J, et al. FLDetector: defending federated learning against model poisoning attacks via detecting malicious clients [C]// KDD 2022. New York: ACM, 2022: 2545-2555. |
| [33] | Li S, Cheng Y, Wang W, et al. Learning to detect malicious clients for robust federated learning [PP/OL]. arXiv (2020-02-01) [2025-08-16]. . |
| [34] | Fang M, Cao X, Jia J, et al. Local model poisoning attacks to Byzantine-robust federated learning [C]// USENIX Security 2020. Berkeley: USENIX Association, 2020: 1623-1640. |
| [35] | Hsu T M H, Qi H, Brown M. Measuring the effects of non-identical data distribution for federated visual classification [PP/OL]. arXiv (2019-09-13) [2024-05-24]. . |
| [1] | Binhong XIE, Erdan ZHU, Rui ZHANG. Appearance-motion collaborative modeling for video anomaly detection [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(5): 1551-1559. |
| [2] | Hao YU, Jing FAN, Enkang XI, Yadong JIN, Hua DONG, Yihang SUN. HEFSL: high-efficient federated split learning framework for edge heterogeneity [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(5): 1397-1407. |
| [3] | Yifan SUO, Songhua LIU, Qiuzhi HAO. Time series anomaly detection method based on high-order feature aggregation [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(4): 1131-1138. |
| [4] | Lei WANG, Wenxuan ZHOU, Ninghui JIA, Zhihao QU. Federated learning with two-pass communication compression for privacy-sensitive IoT data [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(3): 887-898. |
| [5] | Chunyong YIN, Bufan ZHANG. Multi-scale based multivariate time series anomaly detection model [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(3): 790-797. |
| [6] | Limei DONG, Yanzi LI, Jiayin LI, Li XU. Neighborhood-enhanced unsupervised graph anomaly detection [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(2): 458-466. |
| [7] | Zeyi GUO, Fenglian LI, Lichun XU. Double decision mechanism-based deep symbolic regression algorithm [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(2): 406-415. |
| [8] | Qi ZHONG, Shufen ZHANG, Zhenbo ZHANG, Yinlong JIAN, Zhongrui JING. Detection and defense mechanism for poisoning attacks to federated learning [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(2): 445-457. |
| [9] | Feng HAN, Yongfeng BU, Haoxiang LIANG, Shuwen HUANG, Zhaoyang ZHANG, Shijie SUN. Vehicle trajectory anomaly detection based on multi-level spatio-temporal interaction dependency [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(2): 604-612. |
| [10] | Hao YU, Jing FAN, Yihang SUN, Yadong JIN, Enkang XI, Hua DONG. Federated split learning optimization method under edge heterogeneity [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(1): 33-42. |
| [11] | Kejia ZHANG, Zhijun FANG, Nanrun ZHOU, Zhicai SHI. Personalized federated learning method based on model pre-assignment and self-distillation [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(1): 10-20. |
| [12] | Jintao SU, Lina GE, Liguang XIAO, Jing ZOU, Zhe WANG. Detection and defense scheme for backdoor attacks in federated learning [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2025, 45(8): 2399-2408. |
| [13] | Longbo YAN, Wentao MAO, Zhihong ZHONG, Lilin FAN. Robust unsupervised multi-task anomaly detection method for defect diagnosis of urban drainage pipe network [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2025, 45(6): 1833-1840. |
| [14] | Wenpeng WANG, Yinchang QIN, Wenxuan SHI. Review of unsupervised deep learning methods for industrial defect detection [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2025, 45(5): 1658-1670. |
| [15] | Zihe CHEN, Bin CHEN. Unsupervised point cloud anomaly detection based on multi-representation fusion [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2025, 45(5): 1677-1685. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||