MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards On-Demand Model and Client Deployment in Federated Learning with Reinforcement Learning

2024· article· en· W4407692363 on OpenAlexaff
Mario Chahoud, Hani Sami, Azzam Mourad, Hadi Otrok, Jamal Bentahar, Mohsen Guizani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningSoftware deploymentComputer scienceOn demandArtificial intelligenceMultimediaSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Federated Learning (FL) solutions, a significant challenge lies in the limited accessibility of data sourced from diverse locations and user types, primarily due to restricted user participation. Expanding client access and diversifying data enrich models by incorporating diverse perspectives and enhancing adaptability. Increasing the client pool through volunteer devices and diversifying data enables the applicability of FL in previously static or inaccessible areas. While past research has focused on improving client selection techniques, the dynamic nature of the environment may render certain devices inaccessible as FL clients, impacting data availability and the effectiveness of current client selection methods. To overcome this problem, we propose our On-Demand solution, prioritizing the on-the-fly deployment of new clients using Docker Containers. Frequent FL model updates present challenges in environment setup, particularly when FL applications and available volunteer nodes change. Thus, this paper introduces an On-Demand solution targeting client availability and selection in FL by introducing a Reinforcement Learning-based solution driven by the need for swift model updates and the complexities of container deployment. The RL strategy employs a Markov Decision Process (MDP) framework with a Master Learner and a Joiner Learner engaging in offline and online learning based on server log data reflecting client and application demands. Simulated experiments and simulations demonstrate the adaptability of our architecture to environmental changes and On-Demand requests, along with its potential to enhance client availability, capability, accuracy, and learning efficiency.

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)0.007
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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.272
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