Attentive Federated Learning for Concept Drift in Distributed 5G Edge Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is expected to play a major role in 5G edge computing. Various studies have demonstrated that ML is highly suitable for optimizing edge computing systems as rapid mobility and application-induced changes occur at the edge. For ML to provide the best solutions, it is important to continually train the ML models to include the changing scenarios. The sudden changes in data distributions caused by changing scenarios (e.g., 5G base station failures) is referred to as concept drift and is a major challenge to continual learning. The ML models can present high error rates while the drifts take place and the errors decrease only after the model learns the distributions. This problem is more pronounced in a distributed setting where multiple ML models are being used for different heterogeneous datasets and the final model needs to capture all concept drifts. In this paper, we show that using Attention in Federated Learning (FL) is an efficient way of handling concept drifts. We use a 5G network traffic dataset to simulate concept drift and test various scenarios. The results indicate that Attention can significantly improve the concept drift handling capability of FL.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".