Asynchronous Federated Split Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a first Asynchronous Federated Split Learning (AFSL), to add the flexibility of asynchronous computing to the combination of federated and split learning. This amounts to designing a harmonious combination of different paradigms in order to benefit from the advantages of each of them and to reduce the impacts of their shortcomings.This way, AFSL answers to the increasingly rising interest for distributed algorithms with the advent of edge computing in order to support new market segments, such as cloud gaming, immersive eXtended Reality (XR), indoor positioning, and mission critical IoT networks, with stringent requirements on latency and reliability.Computational experiments are conducted on IID and non-IID datasets to investigate the added value of the asynchronous feature. Results indicate that AFSL can accelerate model learning by up to 86% without sacrificing the model’s convergence and accuracy. Indeed, not only average training times are reduced, but clients use fewer resources, a critical characteristic for devices with limited computing capabilities, e.g., in edge devices. Performance degradation can be mitigated by a careful selection of the aggregation principle. Other advantages are with AFSL training in dynamic scenarios as it provides robustness with a short recovery time by leveraging asynchronous client training.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".