Tree Learning: Towards Promoting Coordination in Scalable Multi-Client Training Acceleration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iteration based collaborative learning (CL) paradigms, such as federated learning (FL) and split learning (SL), faces challenges in training neural models over the rapidly growing yet resource-constrained edge devices. Such devices have difficulty in accommodating a full-size large model for FL or affording an excessive waiting time for the mandatory synchronization step in SL. To deal with such challenge, we propose a novel CL framework which adopts an tree-aggregation structure with an adaptive partition and ensemble strategy to achieve optimal synchronization and fast convergence at scale. To find the optimal split point for heterogeneous clients, we also design a novel partitioning algorithm by minimizing the idleness during communication and achieving the optimal synchronization between clients. In addition, a parallelism paradigm is proposed to unleash the potential of optimum synchronization between the clients and server to boost the distributed training process without losing model accuracy for edge devices. Furthermore, we theoretically prove that our framework can achieve better convergence rate than state-of-the-art CL paradigms. We conduct extensive experiments and show that our framework is 4.6× in training speed as compared with the traditional methods, without compromising training accuracy.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".