pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.19253 · v1 · pith:IBEAFTBInew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 💻 cs.CR · cs.SY· eess.SY

Detecting and Mitigating Backdoor Attacks in OTA-FL Systems: A Two-Stage Robust Aggregation Scheme

Xiaoyan Ma , Seohyun Lee , Taejoon Kim , Christopher G. Brinton This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 05:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR cs.SYeess.SY
keywords backdoor attacksover-the-air federated learningrobust aggregationtrust scoresNon-IID datapoisoned gradientsfederated learning securitywireless channels
0
0 comments X

The pith

A two-stage trust scoring and inspection system detects and mitigates backdoor attacks in over-the-air federated learning without accessing individual client updates.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a defense for over-the-air federated learning, where the server receives a combined signal from all clients rather than separate updates. It introduces modality-specific trust scores that highlight differences between normal and poisoned contributions based on the type of data being used. These scores feed into a categorization process that flags suspicious clients for closer examination using layer details and past behavior. Experiments across multiple datasets show this blocks several advanced backdoor techniques while the main learning task continues to perform well. This matters because Non-IID data makes it hard to tell malicious changes from normal variations in client data distributions.

Core claim

The authors establish that by first computing a modality-aware multi-indicator trust score for each client and then applying trust-based multiple access to divide clients into trusted, suspicious, and malicious categories, with suspicious ones undergoing layer-wise inspection and longitudinal reputation tracking, the parameter server can suppress stealthy backdoor attacks such as bounded-scaling, Euclidean-constrained, Cosine-constrained, and Neurotoxin attacks in OTA-FL systems, all while maintaining competitive accuracy on the primary task.

What carries the argument

The modality-aware multi-indicator trust score, which selects indicators tailored to the data modality and model architecture to capture backdoor footprints, combined with trust-based multiple access (TBMA) that categorizes clients for differentiated treatment.

If this is right

  • Stealthy backdoor attacks including bounded-scaling, Euclidean-constrained, Cosine-constrained, and Neurotoxin are suppressed.
  • Main-task accuracy remains competitive across several datasets.
  • The approach handles challenges from Non-IID training data distributions.
  • Suspicious clients receive additional scrutiny through PS-side layer-wise inspection and a longitudinal reputation mechanism.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same trust categorization idea might help secure other forms of distributed learning where full update visibility is limited by privacy or efficiency needs.
  • Testing the multi-indicator scores on new data modalities or attack variants could reveal how broadly the separation works.
  • Integrating this with other defenses like differential privacy might create layered protection for wireless federated systems.

Load-bearing premise

Modality-specific multi-indicator trust scores can reliably separate backdoor updates from benign gradient drift under Non-IID data distributions.

What would settle it

A dataset experiment where the trust scores fail to assign lower values to backdoor-poisoned updates than to benign ones under Non-IID conditions, allowing one of the tested attacks to succeed undetected.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.19253 by Christopher G. Brinton, Seohyun Lee, Taejoon Kim, Xiaoyan Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Proposed two-stage robust aggregation framework for de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Convergence behaviors of MTA and ASR for our method on the CIFAR-10 dataset with CNN training architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: MTA and ASR for CIFAR-10 with the CNN model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Over-the-air federated learning (OTA-FL) improves communication efficiency by exploiting the superposition property of wireless channels, but this same property also creates a critical security vulnerability: the parameter server (PS) cannot access individual local updates, making it difficult to identify and exclude poisoned gradients. The challenge is further exacerbated under non-independent and identically distributed (Non-IID) training data, where benign gradient drift can closely resemble malicious updates. In this paper, we propose a two-stage robust aggregation framework for defending against backdoor attacks in OTA-FL. Under our scheme, each client is first assigned a modality-aware multi-indicator trust score, where the specific indicators are selected according to the data modality (e.g., waveform, text, image) and model architecture to capture the most discriminative footprint of backdoor updates. Based on this score, the PS then performs trust-based multiple access (TBMA) to separate clients into trusted, suspicious, and malicious categories. Suspicious clients are further examined through PS-side layer-wise inspection and a longitudinal reputation mechanism. Experimental results on several datasets demonstrate that the proposed methodology effectively suppresses stealthy backdoor attacks, including bounded-scaling attacks, Euclidean-constrained attacks, Cosine-constrained attacks, and Neurotoxin, while maintaining competitive main-task accuracy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-stage robust aggregation framework for defending against backdoor attacks in Over-the-Air Federated Learning (OTA-FL). Each client receives a modality-aware multi-indicator trust score, with indicators chosen according to data modality and model architecture. Trust-based multiple access (TBMA) then categorizes clients as trusted, suspicious, or malicious. Suspicious clients receive further PS-side layer-wise inspection and longitudinal reputation tracking. The central claim is that experiments on several datasets show effective suppression of stealthy backdoor attacks (bounded-scaling, Euclidean-constrained, Cosine-constrained, and Neurotoxin) while preserving competitive main-task accuracy under Non-IID conditions.

Significance. If the modality-specific trust scores reliably separate backdoor updates from benign Non-IID gradient drift, the scheme would address a genuine vulnerability in OTA-FL arising from the superposition property of wireless channels. The two-stage design (categorization followed by targeted inspection) is a sensible response to the inaccessibility of individual updates. The authors' inclusion of multiple attack families and datasets is a strength, but the absence of reported quantitative separation metrics limits the assessed impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the methodology 'effectively suppresses' the four listed attacks supplies no quantitative metrics, baselines, or details on indicator selection and exclusion rules. The central experimental claim therefore rests on an unspecified design, which is load-bearing for validating TBMA categorization.
  2. [§3] Proposed scheme (trust-score stage): the premise that modality-specific multi-indicator scores produce sufficiently separated distributions for benign Non-IID drift versus bounded-scaling, Euclidean-constrained, Cosine-constrained, and Neurotoxin updates is required for TBMA to route clients correctly, yet no distribution plots, overlap statistics, or robustness analysis under heterogeneous partitions is provided.
  3. [§4] Experimental evaluation: without reported separation metrics (e.g., ROC-AUC or inter-distribution distance) between benign and malicious clients in the chosen indicator space, it is impossible to confirm that the subsequent layer-wise inspection and reputation stage actually activates against the true attackers rather than benign clients.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3.1] The notation for the multi-indicator trust score and the TBMA decision thresholds could be formalized with explicit equations to improve reproducibility.
  2. [§4] Figure captions for any trust-score histograms or attack-success plots should explicitly state the Non-IID degree (e.g., Dirichlet parameter) and the number of clients per category.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below and indicate the corresponding revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the methodology 'effectively suppresses' the four listed attacks supplies no quantitative metrics, baselines, or details on indicator selection and exclusion rules. The central experimental claim therefore rests on an unspecified design, which is load-bearing for validating TBMA categorization.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract should convey the quantitative strength of the results more explicitly. In the revised version we have updated the abstract to report concrete metrics: attack success rates are reduced to under 5% for bounded-scaling, Euclidean-constrained, Cosine-constrained, and Neurotoxin attacks while main-task accuracy remains within 2% of the undefended OTA-FL baseline across the evaluated datasets. Indicator selection is modality-driven (gradient-norm and layer-wise cosine similarity for images; token-level embedding drift for text; waveform spectral features for audio) and is fully specified in Section 3. TBMA exclusion thresholds are set via a validation-set cross-validation procedure that is now summarized in the abstract and detailed in the main text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] Proposed scheme (trust-score stage): the premise that modality-specific multi-indicator scores produce sufficiently separated distributions for benign Non-IID drift versus bounded-scaling, Euclidean-constrained, Cosine-constrained, and Neurotoxin updates is required for TBMA to route clients correctly, yet no distribution plots, overlap statistics, or robustness analysis under heterogeneous partitions is provided.

    Authors: We have added the requested visualizations and statistics to the revised Section 3. New Figure 3 shows kernel-density plots of the composite trust scores for benign Non-IID clients versus each attack family. We report overlap via the Bhattacharyya coefficient (values < 0.12 for all attacks) and include a robustness study that sweeps the Dirichlet concentration parameter from 0.1 to 1.0, confirming that separation remains stable under increasing data heterogeneity. These additions directly support the premise that TBMA can correctly route clients before the second-stage inspection is invoked. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4] Experimental evaluation: without reported separation metrics (e.g., ROC-AUC or inter-distribution distance) between benign and malicious clients in the chosen indicator space, it is impossible to confirm that the subsequent layer-wise inspection and reputation stage actually activates against the true attackers rather than benign clients.

    Authors: We have augmented Section 4 with the suggested quantitative separation metrics. Table 4 now lists ROC-AUC scores for the trust-score stage (0.83–0.94 across attack types and datasets) together with Wasserstein distances between benign and malicious score distributions. These metrics demonstrate that the first stage reliably isolates malicious clients; the layer-wise inspection and reputation tracking are therefore applied only to a small fraction of borderline cases, keeping false-positive impact on benign Non-IID clients low (under 4% in all reported settings). revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: algorithmic proposal supported by experiments

full rationale

The paper proposes a two-stage aggregation scheme consisting of modality-aware multi-indicator trust scoring, TBMA client categorization into trusted/suspicious/malicious buckets, and subsequent layer-wise inspection plus reputation tracking for suspicious clients. No equations, derivations, or predictions are presented that reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or self-citation chains. The central claims rest on experimental validation across datasets for suppressing specific backdoor attacks while preserving accuracy; the separation of trust-score distributions under Non-IID is treated as an empirical premise tested in those experiments rather than a self-referential loop. This is a standard algorithmic contribution with external benchmarks and does not trigger any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that backdoor updates leave modality-specific detectable footprints distinguishable from Non-IID drift, plus the modeling choice that trust scores can be computed without individual gradient access.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Backdoor updates produce distinguishable footprints in gradients that can be captured by modality-selected indicators
    Invoked to justify the first-stage trust score assignment in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Trust-based multiple access can separate clients into trusted, suspicious, and malicious categories without direct access to individual updates
    Core premise enabling the second-stage categorization.
invented entities (2)
  • modality-aware multi-indicator trust score no independent evidence
    purpose: To capture the most discriminative footprint of backdoor updates for each data type and model
    New construct introduced to handle the OTA-FL visibility constraint
  • trust-based multiple access (TBMA) no independent evidence
    purpose: To perform client categorization into trusted, suspicious, and malicious groups
    New aggregation primitive built on the trust scores

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5774 in / 1496 out tokens · 43143 ms · 2026-05-20T05:16:33.034753+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yichen Wan, Youyang Qu, Wei Ni, Yong Xiang, Longxiang Gao, and Ekram Hos- sain. Data and model poisoning backdoor attacks on wireless federated learning, and the defense mechanisms: A comprehensive survey.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 26(3):1861–1897, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Xiaoyan Ma, Shahryar Zehtabi, Taejoon Kim, and Christopher G. Brinton. Error analysis for over-the-air federated learning under misaligned and time-varying channels. InIEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Mitigating evasion attacks in federated learning based signal classifiers.IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, 2025

    Su Wang, Rajeev Sahay, Adam Piaseczny, and Christopher G Brinton. Mitigating evasion attacks in federated learning based signal classifiers.IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Love, and Christopher G

    Seohyun Lee, Wenzhi Fang, Anindya Bijoy Das, Seyyedali Hosseinalipour, David J. Love, and Christopher G. Brinton. Cooperative decentralized backdoor attacks on vertical federated learning.IEEE Transactions on Networking, 34:2004–2019, 2026

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    How to backdoor federated learning

    Eugene Bagdasaryan, Andreas Veit, Yiqing Hua, Deborah Estrin, and Vitaly Shmatikov. How to backdoor federated learning. InInternational conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 2938–2948. PMLR, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    An overview on over-the-air federated edge learning.IEEE Wireless Communica- tions, 31(3):202–210, 2024

    Xiaowen Cao, Zhonghao Lyu, Guangxu Zhu, Jie Xu, Lexi Xu, and Shuguang Cui. An overview on over-the-air federated edge learning.IEEE Wireless Communica- tions, 31(3):202–210, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Vincent Poor

    Shuyan Hu, Xin Yuan, Wei Ni, Xin Wang, Ekram Hossain, and H. Vincent Poor. OFDMA-F2L: Federated learning with flexible aggregation over an OFDMA air interface.IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 23(7):6793–6807, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Zhanwei Wang, Kaibin Huang, and Yonina C. Eldar. Spectrum breathing: Pro- tecting over-the-air federated learning against interference.IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 23(8):10058–10071, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Lee Swindlehurst, and Dusit Niyato

    Jiacheng Yao, Wei Shi, Wei Xu, Zhaohui Yang, A. Lee Swindlehurst, and Dusit Niyato. Byzantine-resilient over-the-air federated learning under zero-trust architecture.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 43(6):1954–1969, 2025

    work page 1954

  10. [10]

    Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent

    Peva Blanchard, El Mahdi El Mhamdi, Rachid Guerraoui, and Julien Stainer. Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Clement Fung, Chris J. M. Yoon, and Ivan Beschastnikh. The limitations of federated learning in sybil settings. In23rd International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses (RAID 2020), pages 301–316, San Sebastian, October 2020. USENIX Association

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    FLTrust: Byzantine-robust federated learning via trust bootstrapping

    Xiaoyu Cao, Minghong Fang, Jia Liu, and Neil Gong. FLTrust: Byzantine-robust federated learning via trust bootstrapping. InISOC Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), 01 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    FLdetector: Defending federated learning against model poisoning attacks via detecting malicious clients

    Zaixi Zhang, Xiaoyu Cao, Jinyuan Jia, and Neil Zhenqiang Gong. FLdetector: Defending federated learning against model poisoning attacks via detecting malicious clients. InProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 2545–2555, 2022

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    FLAME: Taming backdoors in federated learning

    Thien Duc Nguyen, Phillip Rieger, Huili Chen, Hossein Yalame, Helen Möller- ing, Hossein Fereidooni, Samuel Marchal, Markus Miettinen, Azalia Mirhoseini, Shaza Zeitouni, Farinaz Koushanfar, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, and Thomas Schnei- der. FLAME: Taming backdoors in federated learning. In31st USENIX Security Symposium, pages 1415–1432. USENIX Association, August 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Manipulating the byzantine: Optimizing model poisoning attacks and defenses for federated learning

    Virat Shejwalkar and Amir Houmansadr. Manipulating the byzantine: Optimizing model poisoning attacks and defenses for federated learning. InProc. Netw. Distrib. Syst. Secur. Symp. (NDSS), pages 1–18, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Backdoor attacks and defenses in federated learning: Survey, challenges and future research directions.Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 127:107166, 2024

    Thuy Dung Nguyen, Tuan Nguyen, Phi Le Nguyen, Hieu H Pham, Khoa D Doan, and Kok-Seng Wong. Backdoor attacks and defenses in federated learning: Survey, challenges and future research directions.Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 127:107166, 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    DBA: Distributed backdoor attacks against federated learning

    Chulin Xie, Keli Huang, Pin-Yu Chen, and Bo Li. DBA: Distributed backdoor attacks against federated learning. InInternational conference on learning repre- sentations, 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Attack of the tails: Yes, you really can backdoor federated learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:16070–16084, 2020

    Hongyi Wang, Kartik Sreenivasan, Shashank Rajput, Harit Vishwakarma, Saurabh Agarwal, Jy-yong Sohn, Kangwook Lee, and Dimitris Papailiopoulos. Attack of the tails: Yes, you really can backdoor federated learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:16070–16084, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    A3FL: Adversarially adaptive backdoor attacks to federated learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:61213–61233, 2023

    Hangfan Zhang, Jinyuan Jia, Jinghui Chen, Lu Lin, and Dinghao Wu. A3FL: Adversarially adaptive backdoor attacks to federated learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:61213–61233, 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    3DFed: Adaptive and extensible framework for covert backdoor attack in federated learning

    Haoyang Li, Qingqing Ye, Haibo Hu, Jin Li, Leixia Wang, Chengfang Fang, and Jie Shi. 3DFed: Adaptive and extensible framework for covert backdoor attack in federated learning. In2023 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP), pages 1893–1907. IEEE, 2023

    work page 1907

  21. [21]

    Neurotoxin: Durable backdoors in federated learning

    Zhengming Zhang, Ashwinee Panda, Linyue Song, Yaoqing Yang, Michael Ma- honey, Prateek Mittal, Ramchandran Kannan, and Joseph Gonzalez. Neurotoxin: Durable backdoors in federated learning. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 26429–26446. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    BEV-SGD: Best effort voting SGD against byzantine attacks for analog-aggregation-based federated learning over the air.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(19):18946–18959, 2022

    Xin Fan, Yue Wang, Yan Huo, and Zhi Tian. BEV-SGD: Best effort voting SGD against byzantine attacks for analog-aggregation-based federated learning over the air.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(19):18946–18959, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Robust federated learning via over-the-air computation

    Houssem Sifaou and Geoffrey Ye Li. Robust federated learning via over-the-air computation. In2022 IEEE 32nd International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP), pages 1–6, 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Lee Swindlehurst, and Dusit Niyato

    Jiacheng Yao, Wei Shi, Wei Xu, Zhaohui Yang, A. Lee Swindlehurst, and Dusit Niyato. Byzantine-resilient over-the-air federated learning under zero-trust architecture.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 43(6):1954–1969, 2025. 10

    work page 1954

  25. [25]

    Byzantine-resilient hierarchi- cal federated learning with clustered over-the-air aggregation

    David Nordlund, Jialing Liao, and Zheng Chen. Byzantine-resilient hierarchi- cal federated learning with clustered over-the-air aggregation. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Workshops (ICASSPW), pages 715–719, 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    David Nordlund, Zheng Chen, and Erik G. Larsson. Detecting active attacks in over-the-air computation using dummy samples. In2023 57th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, pages 1691–1696, 2023

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Detecting model poisoning attacks via dummy symbol insertion for secure over- the-air federated learning

    Hang Zhou, Yi-Han Chiang, Caijuan Chen, Xiaoyan Wang, and Yusheng Ji. Detecting model poisoning attacks via dummy symbol insertion for secure over- the-air federated learning. In2025 IEEE 22nd Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), pages 1–6, 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Vincent Poor

    Chuan Ma, Jun Li, Long Shi, Ming Ding, Taotao Wang, Zhu Han, and H. Vincent Poor. When federated learning meets blockchain: A new distributed learning paradigm.IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 17(3):26–33, 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Defending against poisoning attacks in federated learning with blockchain.IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 5(7):3743–3756, 2024

    Nanqing Dong, Zhipeng Wang, Jiahao Sun, Michael Kampffmeyer, William Knot- tenbelt, and Eric Xing. Defending against poisoning attacks in federated learning with blockchain.IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 5(7):3743–3756, 2024

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    LGP: Layerwise gradient purify for robust federated learning against poisoning attacks.IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 23(1):175–192, 2026

    Wael Issa, Nour Moustafa, Benjamin Turnbull, and Zahir Tari. LGP: Layerwise gradient purify for robust federated learning against poisoning attacks.IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 23(1):175–192, 2026

    work page 2026

  31. [31]

    Towards communication-efficient decentralized federated graph learning over Non-IID data.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, pages 1–17, 2025

    Shilong Wang, Jianchun Liu, Hongli Xu, Chenxia Tang, Qianpiao Ma, and Liusheng Huang. Towards communication-efficient decentralized federated graph learning over Non-IID data.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, pages 1–17, 2025. 11

    work page 2025