Cross-silo federated learning allows multiple organizations to collaboratively train machine learning models without sharing raw data, but client updates can still leak sensitive information through inference attacks. Secure aggregation protects privacy by hiding individual updates, yet it complicates contribution evaluation, which is critical for fair rewards and detecting low-quality or malicious participants. Existing marginal-contribution methods, such as the Shapley value, are incompatible with secure aggregation, and practical alternatives, such as Leave-One-Out, are crude and rely on self-evaluation. We introduce two marginal-difference contribution scores compatible with secure aggregation. Fair-Private satisfies standard fairness axioms, while Everybody-Else eliminates self-evaluation and provides resistance to manipulation, addressing a largely overlooked vulnerability. We provide theoretical guarantees for fairness, privacy, robustness, and computational efficiency, and evaluate our methods on multiple medical image datasets and CIFAR10 in cross-silo settings. Our scores consistently outperform existing baselines, better approximate Shapley-induced client rankings, and improve downstream model performance as well as misbehavior detection. These results demonstrate that fairness, privacy, robustness, and practical utility can be achieved jointly in federated contribution evaluation, offering a principled solution for real-world cross-silo deployments.

This paper investigates the fragility of contribution evaluation in federated learning, a critical mechanism for ensuring fairness and incentivizing participation. We argue that contribution scores are susceptible to significant distortions from two fundamental perspectives: architectural sensitivity and intentional manipulation. First, we explore how different model aggregation methods impact these scores. While most research assumes a basic averaging approach, we demonstrate that advanced techniques, including those designed to handle unreliable or diverse clients, can unintentionally yet significantly alter the final scores. Second, we explore vulnerabilities posed by poisoning attacks, where malicious participants strategically manipulate their model updates to inflate their own contribution scores or reduce the importance of other participants. Through extensive experiments across diverse datasets and model architectures, implemented within the Flower framework, we rigorously show that both the choice of aggregation method and the presence of attackers are potent vectors for distorting contribution scores, highlighting a critical need for more robust evaluation schemes.