MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400314708 · doi:10.1109/tmc.2024.3423399

A Hierarchical Incentive Mechanism for Federated Learning

2024· article· en· W4400314708 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality
KeywordsComputer scienceIncentiveMechanism (biology)Computer networkDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the explosive development of mobile computing, federated learning (FL) has been considered as a promising distributed training framework for addressing the shortage of conventional cloud based centralized training. In FL, local model owners (LMOs) individually train their respective local models and then upload the trained local models to the task publisher (TP) for aggregation to obtain the global model. When the data provided by LMOs do not meet the requirements for model training, they can recruit workers to collect data. In this paper, by considering the interactions among the TP, LMOs and workers, we propose a three-layer hierarchical game framework. However, there are two challenges. First, information asymmetry between workers and LMOs may result in that the workers hide their types. Second, incentive mismatch between TP and LMOs may result in a lack of LMOs’ willingness to participate in FL. Therefore, we decompose the hierarchical-based framework into two layers to address these challenges. For the lower-layer, we leverage the contract theory to ensure truthful reporting of the workers’ types, based on which we simplify the feasible conditions of the contract and design the optimal contract. For the upper-layer, the Stackelberg game is adopted to model the interactions between the TP and LMOs, and we derive the Nash equilibrium and Stackelberg equilibrium solutions. Moreover, we develop an iterative <underline xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">H</u>ierarchical-based <underline xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">U</u>tility <underline xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">M</u>aximization <underline xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">A</u>lgorithm (HUMA) to solve the coupling problem between upper-layer and lower-layer games. Extensive numerical experimental results verify the effectiveness of HUMA, and the comparison results illustrate the performance gain of HUMA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.265 · 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