MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414511714 · doi:10.1111/exsy.70141

Traversal Learning Coordination for Lossless and Efficient Distributed Learning

2025· article· en· W4414511714 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaIran Telecommunication Research CenterNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsTree traversalLossless compressionNode (physics)Independent and identically distributed random variablesFederated learningDistributed learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In this paper, we introduce Traversal Learning (TL), a novel approach designed to address the problem of decreased quality encountered in popular distributed learning (DL) paradigms such as Federated Learning (FL), Split Learning (SL) and SplitFed Learning (SFL). Traditional FL often suffers an accuracy drop during aggregation due to its averaging function, while SL and SFL face increased loss due to the independent gradient updates on each split network. TL adopts a unique strategy where the model traverses the nodes during forward propagation (FP) and performs backward propagation (BP) at the orchestrator, effectively implementing centralised learning (CL) principles within a distributed environment. The orchestrator is tasked with generating virtual batches and planning the model's sequential node visits during FP, aligning them with the ordered index of the data within these batches. We conducted experiments on six datasets representing diverse characteristics across various domains. Our evaluation demonstrates that TL is on par with classic CL approaches in terms of accurate inference, thereby offering a viable and robust solution for DL tasks. TL outperformed other DL methods and improved accuracy by 7.85% for independent and identically distributed (IID) datasets, macro F1‐score by 1.06% for non‐IID datasets, accuracy by 2.05% for text classification and AUC by 1.41% and 2.82% for medical and financial datasets, respectively. By effectively preserving data privacy while maintaining performance, TL represents a significant advancement in DL methodologies.

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.254 · 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