One-Shot Federated Clustering Based on Stable Distance Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federated clustering (FC) is an emerging and important topic in data clustering research. However, for existing works, there are two challenging issues as follows. 1) FC does not perform well on non-IID data. 2) Differential privacy is a common-used way to protect raw data in FC, but there is no solid theoretical basis for selecting privacy budget <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\epsilon$</tex-math></inline-formula> in Laplacian noise, and <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\epsilon$</tex-math></inline-formula> is randomly set in most algorithms. In this article, we propose a new framework called NN-FC for addressing the above-mentioned issues. Specifically, 1) we provide a rigorous mathematical proof when selecting <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\epsilon$</tex-math></inline-formula>, we have shown that when the value of <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\epsilon$</tex-math></inline-formula> satisfies certain conditions, the neighbor relationship of data points before and after adding Laplacian noises remains unchanged. 2) According to 1), we propose a new method of obtaining global cluster centers based on distance relationships at the server, and the results of clustering the original data and clustering the privacy data become close. The experimental results show that NN-FC performs better than eight traditional and state-of-the-art (SOTA) centralized (nonfederated) clustering algorithms. In particular, NN-FC performs better than two SOTA FC frameworks k-FED (ICML2021) and MUFC (ICLR2023).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".