Impact of Neural Network Depth on Split Federated Learning Performance in Low-Resource UAV Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training without sharing data is one of the drivers that makes Federated Learning (FL) more attractive, compared to centralized approaches. However, requiring each learner to train the full model may not be efficient, particularly for devices with restricted resources, such as those available in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). To address this issue, a variation of FL technique, specifically Split Federated Learning (SFL), has recently been proposed. Unlike FL, the key concept of SFL is to divide the layers of the neural network among the involved learners. Therefore, each individual client will train only a segment of the model (submodel) rather than the entire model. Clearly, this technique, besides data privacy, optimizes the utilization of computational resources, reduces client-side training time, and enhances model privacy. However, there are questions that require answers: How should we split the model? Shall we systematically divide it in half, or is there a more optimal approach? In this line of thought, this paper provides a detailed analysis of possible splitting schemes of a power consumption prediction model for UAV s. First, the SFL-enabled model is presented. Second, an experimental analysis is conducted in which different splitting alternatives are made and numerically analyzed to examine the influence of network layering on split federated learning performance.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".