MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388116613 · doi:10.1109/mass58611.2023.00013

FedSaw: Communication-Efficient Cross-Silo Federated Learning with Adaptive Compression

2023· article· en· W4388116613 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Ying, Baochun Li, Bo Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiloComputer scienceCompression (physics)Data compressionArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-silo federated learning (FL) is an emerging approach for institutions to collaboratively train a machine learning model without sharing their siloed data. However, it conventionally requires institutions to centrally store their clients’ data, posing a threat to clients’ privacy. This paper thus studies a preferable setting to leave data distributed to clients, where traditional FL is used not only across institutions but also among their clients. As this new setting inherits or even exacerbates the major problem of communication inefficiency in the traditional setting, we explore the feasibility of leveraging two compression techniques, pruning and quantization, to improve communication efficiency. Starting by applying off-the-shelf pruning and quantization mechanisms, we observe that they could largely reduce communication overhead with a negligible reduction, sometimes even a slight increase, in training performance. By mathematically analyzing the impact of compression on the performance of the trained model, we find that pruning and quantizing with a proper amount can offset possible performance degradation due to non-i.i.d data. Based on this finding, we propose FedSaw, a new cross-silo FL framework that can improve communication efficiency by adaptively tuning the pruning amount and quantizing updates throughout training. In our extensive evaluation with six benchmark datasets, FedSaw consistently outperformed its state-of-the-art competitors. It decreased the wall-clock training time and communication overhead used for converging to the target accuracy by up to 86.7% and 91.5%, respectively.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207