ECAvg: An Edge-Cloud Collaborative Learning Approach using Averaged Weights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of edge devices together with cloud provides a collaborative relationship between both classes of devices where one complements the shortcomings of the other. Resource-constraint edge devices can benefit from the abundant computing power provided by servers by offloading computationally intensive tasks to the server. Meanwhile, edge devices can leverage their close proximity to the data source to perform less computationally intensive tasks on the data. In this paper, we propose a collaborative edge-cloud paradigm called ECAvg in which edge devices pre-train local models on their respective datasets and transfer the models to the server for fine-tuning. The server averages the pre-trained weights into a global model, which is fine-tuned on the combined data from the various edge devices. The local (edge) models are then updated with the weights of the global (server) model. We implement a CIFAR-10 classification task using MobileNetV2, a CIFAR-100 classification task using ResNet50, and an MNIST classification using a neural network with a single hidden layer. We observed performance improvement in the CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 classification tasks using our approach, where performance improved on the server model with averaged weights and the edge models had a better performance after model update. On the MNIST classification, averaging weights resulted in a drop in performance on both the server and edge models due to negative transfer learning. From the experiment results, we conclude that our approach is successful when implemented on deep neural networks such as MobileNetV2 and ResNet50 instead of simple neural networks.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".