Little Is Enough: Boosting Privacy by Sharing Only Hard Labels in Federated Semi-Supervised Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many critical applications, sensitive data is inherently distributed and cannot be centralized due to privacy concerns. A wide range of federated learning approaches have been proposed to train models locally at each client without sharing their sensitive data, typically by exchanging model parameters, or probabilistic predictions (soft labels) on a public dataset or a combination of both. However, these methods still disclose private information and restrict local models to those that can be trained using gradient-based methods. We propose a federated co-training (FEDCT) approach that improves privacy by sharing only definitive (hard) labels on a public unlabeled dataset. Clients use a consensus of these shared labels as pseudo-labels for local training. This federated co-training approach empirically enhances privacy without compromising model quality. In addition, it allows the use of local models that are not suitable for parameter aggregation in traditional federated learning, such as gradient-boosted decision trees, rule ensembles, and random forests. Furthermore, we observe that FEDCT performs effectively in federated fine-tuning of large language models, where its pseudo-labeling mechanism is particularly beneficial. Empirical evaluations and theoretical analyses suggest its applicability across a range of federated learning 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 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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".