Federated Learning Framework Based on Data Value Evaluation in Industrial IoT
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
With the continuous maturity and development of the big data technology system, deep learning has been widely used in the field of the Industrial Internet of Things. However, the traditional training model with centralized data is prone to the leakage of private information in the industry, such as facial information. In recent years, federated learning solves the problem of privacy leakage caused by data sharing by not sharing data and only contributing to local models. Federated learning does not share data, which also makes it impossible to evaluate the contribution of each client to the federated task. We propose a federated learning framework based on data value evaluation. In this method, under the premise of effectively completing the training task of federated learning and ensuring the privacy of client data, a data value evaluator is designed in the central server, and the model uploaded by the client is evaluated to obtain the corresponding selection probability as the model aggregation weight. Experimental results show that the proposed method improves the accuracy of the global model obtained by existing federated aggregation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.017 | 0.068 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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