Reviewing Federated Learning Aggregation Algorithms; Strategies, Contributions, Limitations and Future Perspectives
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
The success of machine learning (ML) techniques in the formerly difficult areas of data analysis and pattern extraction has led to their widespread incorporation into various aspects of human life. This success is due in part to the increasing computational power of computers and in part to the improved ability of ML algorithms to process large amounts of data in various forms. Despite these improvements, certain issues, such as privacy, continue to hinder the development of this field. In this context, a privacy-preserving, distributed, and collaborative machine learning technique called federated learning (FL) has emerged. The core idea of this technique is that, unlike traditional machine learning, user data is not collected on a central server. Nevertheless, models are sent to clients to be trained locally, and then only the models themselves, without associated data, are sent back to the server to combine the different locally trained models into a single global model. In this respect, the aggregation algorithms play a crucial role in the federated learning process, as they are responsible for integrating the knowledge of the participating clients, by integrating the locally trained models to train a global one. To this end, this paper explores and investigates several federated learning aggregation strategies and algorithms. At the beginning, a brief summary of federated learning is given so that the context of an aggregation algorithm within a FL system can be understood. This is followed by an explanation of aggregation strategies and a discussion of current aggregation algorithms implementations, highlighting the unique value that each brings to the knowledge. Finally, limitations and possible future directions are described to help future researchers determine the best place to begin their own investigations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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