MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367190573 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.13423

Fair Selection of Edge Nodes to Participate in Clustered Federated Multitask Learning

2023· preprint· en· W4367190573 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Abdullatif Albaseer, Mohamed Abdallah, Ala Al‐Fuqaha, Aiman Erbad, Octavia A. Dobre

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQatar National Research FundFonds National de la Recherche LuxembourgQatar Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisScheduling (production processes)Independent and identically distributed random variablesScheduleDistributed computingData miningMathematical optimizationMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clustered federated Multitask learning is introduced as an efficient technique when data is unbalanced and distributed amongst clients in a non-independent and identically distributed manner. While a similarity metric can provide client groups with specialized models according to their data distribution, this process can be time-consuming because the server needs to capture all data distribution first from all clients to perform the correct clustering. Due to resource and time constraints at the network edge, only a fraction of devices {is} selected every round, necessitating the need for an efficient scheduling technique to address these issues. Thus, this paper introduces a two-phased client selection and scheduling approach to improve the convergence speed while capturing all data distributions. This approach ensures correct clustering and fairness between clients by leveraging bandwidth reuse for participants spent a longer time training their models and exploiting the heterogeneity in the devices to schedule the participants according to their delay. The server then performs the clustering depending on predetermined thresholds and stopping criteria. When a specified cluster approximates a stopping point, the server employs a greedy selection for that cluster by picking the devices with lower delay and better resources. The convergence analysis is provided, showing the relationship between the proposed scheduling approach and the convergence rate of the specialized models to obtain convergence bounds under non-i.i.d. data distribution. We carry out extensive simulations, and the results demonstrate that the proposed algorithms reduce training time and improve the convergence speed while equipping every user with a customized model tailored to its data distribution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.091 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207