REVIEW 1 cited by
What Do We Mean by Generalization in Federated Learning?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Federated learning data is drawn from a distribution of distributions: clients are drawn from a meta-distribution, and their data are drawn from local data distributions. Thus generalization studies in federated learning should separate performance gaps from unseen client data (out-of-sample gap) from performance gaps from unseen client distributions (participation gap). In this work, we propose a framework for disentangling these performance gaps. Using this framework, we observe and explain differences in behavior across natural and synthetic federated datasets, indicating that dataset synthesis strategy can be important for realistic simulations of generalization in federated learning. We propose a semantic synthesis strategy that enables realistic simulation without naturally-partitioned data. Informed by our findings, we call out community suggestions for future federated learning works.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Initialization Matters: Unraveling the Impact of Pre-Training on Federated Learning
For a two-layer CNN with a signal-noise data model, FedAvg test error depends on the number of filters misaligned at initialization, and pre-training helps mainly by reducing that number.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.