MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410294847 · doi:10.1109/tmc.2025.3569407

Efficient Model Training in Edge Networks With Hierarchical Split Learning

2025· article· en· W4410294847 on OpenAlexaff
S. H. Zhang, Wen Wu, Lingyang Song, Xuemin Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and ELM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceTraining (meteorology)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose an efficient model training scheme, namedGroup-basedHierarchicalSplitLearning (GHSL), which can accelerate the artificial intelligence (AI) training process in edge networks in a “first-sequential-then-parallel” manner. Specifically, the proposed scheme hierarchically splits an AI model into a user-side and server-side model, while dividing a number of users into multiple groups. Users in each group train user-side models with the interaction of the shared server-side model sequentially; different groups perform the above training process parallelly; the AI models of each group are aggregated into a global model. We also carry out the convergence analysis for the proposed scheme over non-independent and identically distributed data, which reveals that the convergence rate depends on user grouping. Furthermore, we propose a data-driven two-stage user grouping algorithm to minimize the overall training delay, taking user resource heterogeneity and the black-box training process into account. The proposed algorithm first utilizes the Gaussian process regression approach to determine the number of groups, and then employs the coalition game theory to determine the optimal user grouping decision. Comprehensive simulation results demonstrate that the proposed scheme can reduce training delay, user-side computational workload, and communication overhead by up to 19%, 53%, and 54%, respectively, comparing to state-of-the-art benchmarks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Mobile ComputingSame topicMachine Learning and ELMFrench-language works237,207