MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405231430 · doi:10.1109/tnet.2024.3511333

Communication-Efficient Network Topology in Decentralized Learning: A Joint Design of Consensus Matrix and Resource Allocation

2024· article· en· W4405231430 on OpenAlexaff
Jingrong Wang, Ben Liang, Zhongwen Zhu, Emmanuel Thepie Fapi, Hardik Dalal

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Networking · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistributed computingNetwork topologyComputer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)Resource allocationJoint (building)Matrix (chemical analysis)Resource (disambiguation)Computer networkMathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In decentralized machine learning over a network of workers, each worker updates its local model as a weighted average of its local model and all models received from its neighbors. Efficient consensus weight matrix design and communication resource allocation can increase the training convergence rate and reduce the wall-clock training time. In this paper, we jointly consider these two factors and propose a novel algorithm termed Communication-Efficient Network Topology (CENT), which reduces the latency in each training iteration by removing unnecessary communication links. CENT enforces communication graph sparsity by iteratively updating, with a fixed step size, a trade-off factor between the convergence factor and a weighted graph sparsity. We further extend CENT to one with an adaptive step size (CENT-A), which adjusts the trade-off factor based on the feedback of the objective function value, without introducing additional computation complexity. We show that both CENT and CENT-A preserve the training convergence rate while avoiding the selection of poor communication links. Numerical studies with real-world machine learning data in both homogeneous and heterogeneous scenarios demonstrate the efficacy of CENT and CENT-A and their performance advantage over state-of-the-art algorithms.

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)0.008
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.293
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; 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on NetworkingSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207