Robust Inference for Federated Meta-Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthesizing information from multiple data sources is critical to ensure knowledge generalizability. Integrative analysis of multi-source data is challenging due to the heterogeneity across sources and data-sharing constraints. In this paper, we consider a general robust inference framework for federated meta-learning of data from multiple sites, enabling statistical inference for the prevailing model, defined as the one matching the majority of the sites. Statistical inference for the prevailing model is challenging since it requires a data-adaptive mechanism to select eligible sites and subsequently account for the selection uncertainty. We propose a novel sampling method to address the additional variation arising from the selection. Our devised confidence interval does not require sites to share individual-level data and is shown to be valid without requiring the selection of eligible sites to be error-free. The proposed robust inference for federated meta-learning (RIFL) methodology is broadly applicable and illustrated with three inference problems: aggregation of parametric models, high-dimensional prediction models, and inference for average treatment effects. We use RIFL to perform federated learning of mortality risk for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using real-world EHR data from 15 healthcare centers representing 274 hospitals across four countries.
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 | 0.049 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".