MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392251892 · doi:10.1109/tcc.2024.3370688

<i>Polaris:</i> Accelerating Asynchronous Federated Learning With Client Selection

2024· article· en· W4392251892 on OpenAlexaff
Yufei Kang, Baochun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAsynchronous communicationSelection (genetic algorithm)Cloud computingOperating systemClient–server modelServerDatabaseArtificial intelligenceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Federated learning has garnered significant research attention as a privacy-preserving learning paradigm. Asynchronous federated learning has been proposed to improve scalability by accommodating slower clients, commonly referred to as stragglers. However, asynchronous federated learning suffers from slow convergence with respect to wall-clock time, due to the existence of data heterogeneity and staleness. Existing strategies struggled to tackle both difficulties for a wide range of deep learning models. To address the problem, we proposePolaris, a theoretically sound design and a new take to client selection for asynchronous federated learning. WithPolaris, we first theoretically investigated the design space of client sampling strategies from a geometric optimization perspective, taking both data heterogeneity and staleness into account. Our design is not only theoretically proven, but also thoroughly tested in our reproducible experimental open-source testbed. Our experimental results demonstrates overwhelming evidence thatPolarisoutperformed existing state-of-the-art client selection strategies by a substantial margin over a wide variety of tasks and datasets, as we train image classification models using CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, CINIC-10, Federated EMNIST, and a language modeling model using the Tiny Shakespeare dataset. Further, our extensive array of ablation studies have also shown thatPolarisis both scalable and robust as the size of datasets scale up and data heterogeneity vary.

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)0.011
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Cloud ComputingSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207