MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trustworthy Aggregation for Aerial Federated Learning in Heterogeneous Client Environments

2024· article· en· W4405490148 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Ads, Hesham ElSawy, Hazem M. Abbas, Hossam S. Hassanein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrustworthinessComputer scienceFederated learningHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) within Federated Learning (FL) marks a crucial advancement, introducing a dynamic and flexible dimension to decentralized machine learning paradigms. However, the location-dependent performance, characterized by variations in transmission rates and susceptibility to errors, presents challenges for FL's convergence speed and accuracy. This paper proposes a trustworthy aggregation approach implemented on non-terrestrial networks, addressing client heterogeneity in aspects of trustworthiness, available datasets, and transmission rates. The proposed approach initially prioritizes clients with high data rates is implemented to expedite convergence speed, gradually expanding to incorporate a more extensive client base. This accommodation of clients is pivotal for training the model on a larger decentralized dataset that is a crucial consideration in scenarios with non-independent and identically distributed datasets. However, the potential presence of imperfect local models stemming from small datasets, undetected attacks, or less powerful computational devices may result in a gradual degradation of training performance over time. In such instances, the system exclusively focuses on training with a reliable set of clients. The proposed algorithm is subjected to benchmarking against two scenarios: an aggressive approach, which involves accommodating all clients, and a conservative approach, which only includes authenticated clients. Notably, the proposed algorithm excels in both cases, especially in environments with lower levels of trust.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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