MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412611010 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2025.3592155

Joint Computational Resource Allocation and Layer Partitioning for Federated Learning

2025· article· en· W4412611010 on OpenAlexaff
Qiang Guan, Fang Fang, Hong Chen, Xianbin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceResource allocationJoint (building)Resource management (computing)Distributed computingLayer (electronics)Computer networkResource (disambiguation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite its popularity, federated learning (FL) in heterogeneous networks faces two critical challenges, i.e., the straggler problem due to devices with limited capabilities and low resource utilization rate of the FL server. The straggler problem arises when devices with limited computational capabilities delay the convergence of the global model. On the other hand, the computational resources of the FL server are often underutilized, mainly due to its relatively simple involvement for model aggregation. To tackle the issues in diverse scenarios, we propose a new joint computational resource allocation and layer partitioning (JCRALP) scheme to improve the overall FL performance by leveraging the capabilities and resources of both FL server and all clients. In the scenario where system parameters regarding the computational capabilities of the clients and the task burden can be accurately measured, we propose an optimization-based approach that leverages our proposed multi-step water-level equalization algorithm and the incremental ceiling adjustment algorithm. In the scenario where parameters cannot be measured accurately, we propose a reinforcement learning-based method using a modified twin delayed deep deterministic policy gradient algorithm. Extensive simulation results demonstrate that JCRALP efficiently and effectively mitigates the straggler problem and inclusively enables more client participation in FL. By including more datasets, the global model becomes more representative, while server computational resources are utilized more efficiently, significantly reducing convergence latency.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207