The Power of Bias: Optimizing Client Selection in Federated Learning With Heterogeneous Differential Privacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To preserve the data privacy, the federated learning (FL) paradigm emerges in which clients only expose model gradients rather than original data for conducting model training. To enhance the protection of model gradients in FL, differentially private federated learning (DPFL) is proposed which incorporates differentially private (DP) noises to obfuscate gradients before they are exposed. Yet, an essential but largely overlooked problem in DPFL is the heterogeneity of clients' privacy requirement, which can vary significantly between clients and extremely complicates the client selection problem in DPFL. In other words, both the data quality and the influence of DP noises should be taken into account when selecting clients. To address this problem, we conduct convergence analysis of DPFL under heterogeneous privacy, a generic client selection strategy, popular DP mechanisms and convex loss. Based on convergence analysis, we formulate the client selection problem to minimize the value of loss function in DPFL with heterogeneous privacy, which is a convex optimization problem and can be solved efficiently. Accordingly, we propose the DPFL-BCS (biased client selection) algorithm. The extensive experiment results with real datasets under both convex and non-convex loss functions indicate that DPFL-BCS can remarkably improve model utility compared with the SOTA baselines.
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".