Decentralized Federated Learning Over Imperfect Communication Channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the impact of imperfect communication channels on decentralized federated learning (D-FL) and subsequently determines the optimal number of local aggregations per training round, adapting to the network topology and imperfect channels. We start by deriving the bias of locally aggregated D-FL models under imperfect channels from the ideal global models requiring perfect channels and aggregations. The bias reveals that excessive local aggregations can accumulate communication errors and degrade convergence. Another important aspect is that we analyze a convergence upper bound of D-FL based on the bias. By minimizing the bound, the optimal number of local aggregations is identified to balance a trade-off with accumulation of communication errors in the absence of knowledge of the channels. With this knowledge, the impact of communication errors can be alleviated, allowing the convergence upper bound to decrease throughout aggregations. Experiments validate our convergence analysis and also identify the optimal number of local aggregations on two widely considered image classification tasks. It is seen that D-FL, with an optimal number of local aggregations, can outperform its potential alternatives by over 10% in training accuracy.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.022 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".