MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Client Selection Strategies for Federated Semantic Communications in Heterogeneous IoT Networks

2025· article· W7118591004 on OpenAlexaff
Samer Lahoud, Kinda Khawam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverhead (engineering)Selection (genetic algorithm)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionResource (disambiguation)Edge deviceHeterogeneous networkArchitectureArchitecture frameworkWireless network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exponential growth of IoT devices presents critical challenges in bandwidth-constrained wireless networks, particularly regarding efficient data transmission and privacy preservation. This paper presents a novel federated semantic communication (SC) framework that enables collaborative training of bandwidth-efficient models for image reconstruction across heterogeneous IoT devices. By leveraging SC principles to transmit only semantic features, our approach dramatically reduces communication overhead while preserving reconstruction quality. We address the fundamental challenge of client selection in federated learning environments where devices exhibit significant disparities in dataset sizes and data distributions. Our framework implements three distinct client selection strategies that explore different trade-offs between system performance and fairness in resource allocation. The system employs an end-to-end SC architecture with semantic bottlenecks, coupled with a loss-based aggregation mechanism that naturally adapts to client heterogeneity. Experimental evaluation on image data demonstrates that while Utilitarian selection achieves the highest reconstruction quality, Proportional Fairness maintains competitive performance while significantly reducing participation inequality and improving computational efficiency. These results establish that federated SC can successfully balance reconstruction quality, resource efficiency, and fairness in heterogeneous IoT deployments, paving the way for sustainable and privacy-preserving edge intelligence applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.311
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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 topicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing→French-language works237,207→