MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417038151 · doi:10.1049/cit2.70090

Multi‐Objective Optimisation Framework for Heterogeneous Federated Learning

2025· article· en· W4417038151 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

VenueCAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsFederated learningSelection (genetic algorithm)Key (lock)ComputationSubnetworkSizingScheme (mathematics)Heterogeneous network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Federated learning is a distributed framework that trains a centralised model using data from multiple clients without transferring that data to a central server. Despite rapid progress, federated learning still faces several unsolved challenges. Specifically, communication costs and system heterogeneity, such as nonidentical data distribution, hinder federated learning's progress. Several approaches have recently emerged for federated learning involving heterogeneous clients with varying computational capabilities (namely, heterogeneous federated learning). However, heterogeneous federated learning faces two key challenges: optimising model size and determining client selection ratios. Moreover, efficiently aggregating local models from clients with diverse capabilities is crucial for addressing system heterogeneity and communication efficiency. This paper proposes an evolutionary multiobjective optimisation framework for heterogeneous federated learning (MOHFL) to address these issues. Our approach elegantly formulates and solves a biobjective optimisation problem that minimises communication cost and model error rate. The decision variables in this framework comprise model sizes and client selection ratios for each Q client cluster, yielding a total of 2 Q optimisation parameters to be tuned. We develop a partition‐based strategy for MOHFL that segregates clients into clusters based on their communication and computation capabilities. Additionally, we implement an adaptive model sizing mechanism that dynamically assigns appropriate subnetwork architectures to clients based on their computational constraints. We also propose a unified aggregation framework to combine models of varying sizes from heterogeneous clients effectively. Extensive experiments on multiple datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of our proposed method compared to existing approaches.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0090.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.289 · 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