MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115760506 · doi:10.1109/tii.2020.3046028

When Information Freshness Meets Service Latency in Federated Learning: A Task-Aware Incentive Scheme for Smart Industries

2020· article· en· W3115760506 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Yang Bryan Lim, Zehui Xiong, Jiawen Kang, Dusit Niyato, Cyril Leung, Chunyan Miao, Xuemin Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAge of Information Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaNational Research Foundation SingaporeIsrael Science FoundationNanyang Technological UniversityMinistry of Education - SingaporeNational Research Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceIncentiveLatency (audio)Incentive compatibilityTask (project management)Flexibility (engineering)Service (business)Scheme (mathematics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For several industrial applications, a sole data owner may lack sufficient training samples to train effective machine learning based models. As such, we propose a federated learning (FL) based approach to promote privacy-preserving collaborative machine learning for applications in smart industries. In our system model, a model owner initiates an FL task involving a group of workers, i.e., data owners, to perform model training on their locally stored data before transmitting the model updates for aggregation. There exists a tradeoff between service latency, i.e., the time taken for the training request to be completed, and age of information (AoI), i.e., the time elapsed between data aggregation from the deployed industrial Internet of Things devices to completion of the FL-based training. On one hand, if the data are collected only upon the model owner's request, the AoI is low. On the other hand, the service latency incurred is more significant. Furthermore, given that different training tasks may have varying AoI requirements, we propose a contract-theoretic task-aware incentive scheme that can be calibrated based on the weighted preferences of the model owner toward AoI and service latency. The performance evaluation validates the incentive compatibility of our contract amid information asymmetry, and shows the flexibility of our proposed scheme toward satisfying varying preferences of AoI and service latency.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial InformaticsSame topicAge of Information OptimizationFrench-language works237,207