Robust and Efficient Collaborative Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative machine learning is challenged by training-time adversarial behaviors. Existing approaches to tolerate such behaviors either rely on a central server or induce high communication costs. We propose Robust Pull-based Epidemic Learning (RPEL), a novel, scalable collaborative approach to ensure robust learning despite adversaries. RPEL does not rely on any central server and, unlike traditional methods, where communication costs grow in $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ with the number of nodes $n$, RPEL employs a pull-based epidemic-based communication strategy that scales in $\mathcal{O}(n \log n)$. By pulling model parameters from small random subsets of nodes, RPEL significantly lowers the number of required messages without compromising convergence guarantees, which hold with high probability. Empirical results demonstrate that RPEL maintains robustness in adversarial settings, competes with all-to-all communication accuracy, and scales efficiently across large networks.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".