A Hierarchical Incentive Design Toward Motivating Participation in Coded Federated Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federated Learning (FL) is a privacy-preserving collaborative learning approach that trains artificial intelligence (AI) models without revealing local datasets of the FL workers. While FL ensures the privacy of the FL workers, its performance is limited by several bottlenecks, which become significant given the increasing amounts of data generated and the size of the FL network. One of the main challenges is the straggler effects where the significant computation delays are caused by the slow FL workers. As such, Coded Federated Learning (CFL), which leverages coding techniques to introduce redundant computations to the FL server, has been proposed to reduce the computation latency. In CFL, the FL server helps to compute a subset of the partial gradients based on the composite parity data and aggregates the computed partial gradients with those received from the FL workers. In order to implement the coding schemes over the FL network, incentive mechanisms are important to allocate the resources of the FL workers and data owners efficiently in order to complete the CFL training tasks. In this paper, we consider a two-level incentive mechanism design problem. In the lower level, the data owners are allowed to support the FL training tasks of the FL workers by contributing their data. To model the dynamics of the selection of FL workers by the data owners, an evolutionary game is adopted to achieve an equilibrium solution. In the upper level, a deep learning based auction is proposed to model the competition among the model owners.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it