Toward Seamless Hierarchical Federated Learning Under Intermittent Client Participation: A Stagewise Decision-Making Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federated Learning (FL) offers a pioneering distributed learning paradigm that enables devices/clients to build a shared global model that can be obtained through frequent model transmissions between clients and a central server, causing high latency, energy consumption, and congestion over backhaul links. To overcome these drawbacks, Hierarchical Federated Learning (HFL) has emerged, which organizes clients into multiple clusters and utilizes edge nodes (e.g., edge servers) for intermediate model aggregations between clients and the central server. Current research on HFL mainly focus on enhancing model accuracy, latency, and energy consumption in scenarios with a stable/fixed set of clients. However, addressing the dynamic availability of clients – a critical aspect of real-world scenarios – remains underexplored. This study delves into optimizing client selection and client-to-edge associations in HFL under intermittent client participation so as to minimize overall system costs (i.e., delay and energy), while achieving fast model convergence. We unveil that achieving this goal involves solving a complex NP-hard problem. To tackle this, we propose a stagewise methodology that splits the solution into two stages, referred to as Plan A and Plan B. Plan A focuses on identifying long-term clients with high chance of participation in subsequent model training rounds. Plan B serves as a backup, selecting alternative clients when long-term clients are unavailable during model training rounds. This stagewise methodology offers a fresh perspective on client selection that can enhance both HFL and conventional FL via enabling low-overhead decision-making processes. Through evaluations on diverse datasets, we show that our methodology outperforms existing benchmarks on crucial factors such as model accuracy and system costs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".