Split Learning Over Wireless Networks: Parallel Design and Resource Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Split learning (SL) is a collaborative learning framework, which can train an artificial intelligence (AI) model between a device and an edge server by splitting the AI model into a device-side model and a server-side model at a cut layer. The existing SL approach conducts the training process sequentially across devices, which incurs significant training latency especially when the number of devices is large. In this paper, we design a novel SL scheme to reduce the training latency, namedCluster-basedParallelSL(CPSL) which conducts model training in a “first-parallel-then-sequential” manner. Specifically, the CPSL is to partition devices into several clusters, parallelly train device-side models in each cluster and aggregate them, and then sequentially train the whole AI model across clusters, thereby parallelizing the training process and reducing training latency. Furthermore, we propose a resource management algorithm to minimize the training latency of CPSL considering device heterogeneity and network dynamics in wireless networks. This is achieved by stochastically optimizing the cut layer selection, device clustering, and radio spectrum allocation. The proposed two-timescale algorithm can jointly make the cut layer selection decision in a large timescale and device clustering and radio spectrum allocation decisions in a small timescale. Extensive simulation results on non-independent and identically distributed data demonstrate that the proposed solution can greatly reduce the training latency as compared with the existing SL benchmarks, while adapting to network dynamics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".