Data-Aware Device Scheduling for Federated Edge Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federated Edge Learning (FEEL) involves the collaborative training of machine learning models among edge devices, with the orchestration of a server in a wireless edge network. Due to frequent model updates, FEEL needs to be adapted to the limited communication bandwidth, scarce energy of edge devices, and the statistical heterogeneity of edge devices’ data distributions. Therefore, a careful scheduling of a subset of devices for training and uploading models is necessary. In contrast to previous work in FEEL where the data aspects are under-explored, we consider data properties at the heart of the proposed scheduling algorithm. To this end, we propose a new scheduling scheme for non-independent and-identically-distributed (non-IID) and unbalanced datasets in FEEL. As the data is the key component of the learning, we propose a new set of considerations for data characteristics in wireless scheduling algorithms in FEEL. In fact, the data collected by the devices depends on the local environment and usage pattern. Thus, the datasets vary in size and distributions among the devices. In the proposed algorithm, we consider both data and resource perspectives. In addition to minimizing the completion time of FEEL as well as the transmission energy of the participating devices, the algorithm prioritizes devices with rich and diverse datasets. We first define a general framework for the data-aware scheduling and the main axes and requirements for diversity evaluation. Then, we discuss diversity aspects and some exploitable techniques and metrics. Next, we formulate the problem and present our data-aware scheduling (DAS) algorithm for FEEL. Evaluations in different scenarios show that DAS algorithm can help achieve high accuracy in few rounds with a reduced cost.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".