A Convergence Theory for Federated Average: Beyond Smoothness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federated learning enables a large amount of edge computing devices to learn a model without data sharing jointly. As a leading algorithm in this setting, Federated Average (FedAvg), which runs Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) in parallel on local devices and averages the sequences only once in a while, have been widely used due to their simplicity and low communication cost. However, despite recent research efforts, it lacks theoretical analysis under assumptions beyond smoothness. In this paper, we analyze the convergence of FedAvg. Different from the existing work, we relax the assumption of strong smoothness. More specifically, we assume the semi-smoothness and semi-Lipschitz properties for the loss function, which have an additional first-order term in assumption definitions. In addition, we also assume bound on the gradient, which is weaker than the commonly used bounded gradient assumption in the convergence analysis scheme. As a solution, this paper provides a theoretical convergence study on Federated Learning.
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 | 0.013 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".