A Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Approach for Efficient Client Selection in 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 training technique that enables client devices to jointly learn a shared model by aggregating locally computed models without exposing their raw data. While most of the existing work focuses on improving the FL model accuracy, in this paper, we focus on the improving the training efficiency, which is often a hurdle for adopting FL in real world applications. Specifically, we design an efficient FL framework which jointly optimizes model accuracy, processing latency and communication efficiency, all of which are primary design considerations for real implementation of FL. Inspired by the recent success of Multi Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) in solving complex control problems, we present FedMarl, a federated learning framework that relies on trained MARL agents to perform efficient run-time client selection. Experiments show that FedMarl can significantly improve model accuracy with much lower processing latency and communication 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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