MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404189337 · doi:10.1145/3703628

<scp>Clipper</scp> : Online Joint Client Sampling and Power Allocation for Wireless Federated Learning

2024· article· en· W4404189337 on OpenAlexafffund
Wen Xu, Ben Liang, Gary Boudreau, Hamza Ümit Sökün

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
KeywordsComputer scienceClipper (electronics)Joint (building)WirelessFederated learningComputer networkHuman–computer interactionDistributed computingOperating systemEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communication overhead is a main bottleneck in federated learning (FL) especially in the wireless environment due to the limited data rate and unstable radio channels. The communication challenge necessitates holistic selection of participating clients that accounts for both the computation needs and communication cost, as well as judicious allocation of the limited transmission resource. Meanwhile, the random unpredictable nature of both the training data samples and the communication channels requires an online optimization approach that adapts to the changing system state over time. In this work, we consider a general framework of online joint client sampling and power allocation for wireless FL under time-varying communication channels. We formulate it as a stochastic network optimization problem that admits a Lyapunov-typed solution approach. This leads to per-training-round subproblems with a special bi-convex structure, which we leverage to propose globally optimal solutions, culminating in a meta algorithm that provides strong performance guarantees. We further study three specific FL problems covering multiple scenarios, namely, with IID or non-IID data, whether robustness against data drift is required, and with unbiased or biased client sampling. We derive detailed algorithms for each of these problems. Simulation with standard classification tasks demonstrate that the proposed communication-aware algorithms outperform their counterparts under a wide range of learning and communication scenarios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.232 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing SystemsSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207