MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk-Aware Accelerated Wireless Federated Learning with Heterogeneous Clients

2024· article· en· W4403407608 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Ads, Hesham EISawy, Hossam S. Hassanein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWirelessComputer networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless Federated Learning (FL) is an emerging distributed machine learning paradigm, particularly gaining momentum in domains with confidential and private data on mobile clients. However, the location-dependent performance, in terms of transmission rates and susceptibility to transmission errors, poses major challenges for wireless FL's convergence speed and accuracy. The challenge is more acute for hostile environments without a metric that authenticates the data quality and security profile of the clients. In this context, this paper proposes a novel risk-aware accelerated FL framework that accounts for the client's heterogeneity in the amount of possessed data, transmission rates, transmission errors, and trustworthiness. Classifying clients according to their location-dependent performance and trustworthiness profiles, we propose a dynamic risk-aware global model aggregation scheme that allows clients to participate in descending order of their transmission rates and an ascending trustworthiness constraint. In particular, the transmission rate is the dominant participation criterion for initial rounds to accelerate the convergence speed. Our model then progressively relaxes the transmission rate restriction to explore more training data at cell-edge clients. The aggregation rounds incorporate a debiasing factor that accounts for transmission errors. Risk-awareness is enabled by a validation set, where the base station eliminates non-trustworthy clients at the fine-tuning stage. The proposed scheme is benchmarked against a conservative scheme (i.e., only allowing trustworthy devices) and an aggressive scheme (i.e., oblivious to the trust metric). The numerical results highlight the superiority of the proposed scheme in terms of accuracy and convergence speed when compared to both benchmarks.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0120.028
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207