pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.13850 · v2 · pith:JGIINT2Jnew · submitted 2025-03-10 · 💻 cs.DC · cs.LG

FedOptima: Optimizing Resource Utilization in Federated Learning

Zihan Zhang , Leon Wong , Blesson Varghese This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 23:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC cs.LG
keywords federated learningresource utilizationidle timelayer offloadingasynchronous aggregationauxiliary networksstragglersserver scheduling
0
0 comments X

The pith

FedOptima minimizes both task-dependency and straggler idle times in federated learning by offloading selected layers to the server.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents FedOptima as a system that tackles low resource utilization in federated learning caused by server-device task dependencies and slow devices delaying progress. It does so by offloading some neural network layers from devices to the server, using auxiliary networks so devices can proceed without waiting for the server, and asynchronous aggregation so devices avoid waiting on each other. The server adds centralized scheduling for balanced device contributions and memory management to handle more participants. Experiments across image and text tasks show faster training, sharply lower idle times on both sides, and comparable accuracy versus prior methods. If correct, this removes a practical barrier that has kept federated learning from scaling on real heterogeneous hardware.

Core claim

FedOptima offloads the training of certain layers of a neural network from a device to a server using three innovations. First, devices operate independently of each other using asynchronous aggregation to eliminate straggler effects, and independently of the server by utilizing auxiliary networks to minimize idle time caused by task dependency. Second, the server performs centralized training using a task scheduler that ensures balanced contributions from all devices, improving model accuracy. Third, an efficient memory management mechanism on the server increases the scalability of the number of participating devices. This yields higher or comparable accuracy, 1.9x to 21.8x faster training

What carries the argument

Layer offloading to the server via auxiliary networks together with asynchronous aggregation and centralized server scheduling.

If this is right

  • Training finishes faster even when devices differ widely in speed.
  • Both server and devices spend far less time idle while waiting.
  • More devices can participate without exhausting server memory.
  • Accuracy holds steady on image classification and sentiment analysis.
  • Overall system throughput rises compared with prior offloading and asynchronous approaches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same offloading pattern could be tested in other distributed training settings that mix edge devices with a central server.
  • Dynamic layer selection based on live device measurements might further reduce idle time beyond the fixed choices in the paper.
  • Energy use on battery-powered devices could drop as a direct result of shorter overall participation time.
  • The centralized scheduler might be adapted to incorporate privacy constraints without reintroducing dependency waits.

Load-bearing premise

Offloading selected layers to the server via auxiliary networks preserves model accuracy across heterogeneous devices and the lab testbeds represent real-world network conditions and participation patterns.

What would settle it

An experiment on devices with greater compute and network heterogeneity than the testbeds where FedOptima either drops below baseline accuracy or fails to cut idle times by the reported margins.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13850 by Blesson Varghese, Leon Wong, Zihan Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Training timeline for various federated learning (FL) methods with one server and two devices (Device 1 is assumed to be faster than Device 2). For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Communication volume per round [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of FedOptima. {Sl , l ∈ [L]}, where L is the layer number of M. Then t train and t transf er with split point l for device k are estimated by Equation 6 and Equation 7. t train k (l) = X l i Ol/ok (6) t transf er k (l) = Sl/bk (7) The selection of the split point l is formulated as the following optimization problem: l = L argmin l=1 K max k=1 max{t train k (l), ttransf er k (l)} (8) Designing the… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The activation flow control between a device and the server. A device [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Accuracy (higher is better) versus training time (lower is better) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Accuracy (higher is better) versus training time (lower is better) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Server and device idle time (lower is better) of image classification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Server and device idle time (lower is better) of sentiment analysis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Throughput (higher is better) in an unstable network environment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: System throughput (higher is better) for sentiment analysis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Federated learning (FL) systems facilitate distributed machine learning across a server and multiple devices. However, FL systems have low resource utilization on servers and devices, limiting their practical use in the real world. This inefficiency primarily arises from two types of idle time: (i) task dependency between the server and devices, and (ii) stragglers among heterogeneous devices. This paper introduces FedOptima, a resource-optimized FL system designed to simultaneously minimize both types of idle time; existing systems do not eliminate or reduce both at the same time. FedOptima offloads the training of certain layers of a neural network from a device to a server using three innovations. First, devices operate independently of each other using asynchronous aggregation to eliminate straggler effects, and independently of the server by utilizing auxiliary networks to minimize idle time caused by task dependency. Second, the server performs centralized training using a task scheduler that ensures balanced contributions from all devices, improving model accuracy. Third, an efficient memory management mechanism on the server increases the scalability of the number of participating devices. Extensive experiments are conducted on multiple lab-based testbeds, evaluated on image classification and sentiment analysis tasks with CNNs and Transformers. Compared to four state-of-the-art offloading-based and asynchronous FL baselines, FedOptima (i) achieves higher or comparable accuracy, (ii) accelerates training by 1.9x to 21.8x, (iii) reduces server and device idle time by up to 93.9% and 81.8%, respectively, and (iv) increases throughput by 1.1x to 2.0x.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces FedOptima, a federated learning system that employs layer offloading to the server via auxiliary networks, asynchronous aggregation among devices, a centralized task scheduler to ensure balanced device contributions, and server-side memory management. These mechanisms are claimed to simultaneously eliminate task-dependency idle time and straggler idle time. Experiments on image classification and sentiment analysis tasks with CNNs and Transformers report higher or comparable accuracy, 1.9x–21.8x faster training, up to 93.9% server and 81.8% device idle-time reduction, and 1.1x–2.0x higher throughput versus four baselines on lab testbeds.

Significance. If the accuracy and performance claims hold under rigorous validation, the work would be significant for practical FL deployment in heterogeneous environments by addressing both sources of idle time concurrently, a gap not covered by prior offloading or asynchronous systems. The experimental comparisons to external baselines provide concrete evidence of gains in speed and utilization.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / innovations paragraph] Abstract, innovations paragraph: The claim that the centralized task scheduler 'ensures balanced contributions from all devices, improving model accuracy' provides no concrete mechanism (e.g., staleness weighting, gradient correction, or convergence bound) to counteract potential instability from asynchronous aggregation with auxiliary networks under device heterogeneity. This link is load-bearing for the 'higher or comparable accuracy' result, as the abstract asserts the scheduler achieves balance but does not demonstrate how.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract reports speedups and idle-time reductions but omits details on number of experimental runs, error bars, statistical tests, or exclusion criteria for the lab testbeds.
  2. The four baselines are described only as 'state-of-the-art offloading-based and asynchronous FL baselines' without explicit names or implementation references in the provided abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / innovations paragraph] Abstract, innovations paragraph: The claim that the centralized task scheduler 'ensures balanced contributions from all devices, improving model accuracy' provides no concrete mechanism (e.g., staleness weighting, gradient correction, or convergence bound) to counteract potential instability from asynchronous aggregation with auxiliary networks under device heterogeneity. This link is load-bearing for the 'higher or comparable accuracy' result, as the abstract asserts the scheduler achieves balance but does not demonstrate how.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and innovations paragraph assert the scheduler's balancing role without specifying its concrete policy. The manuscript body describes the scheduler as a centralized priority queue that allocates tasks according to each device's recent participation rate and current load, but this detail is not carried into the abstract. Because the accuracy claim is indeed load-bearing, we will revise the abstract to briefly state the policy (dynamic re-prioritization by historical contribution) and will add one sentence in the innovations paragraph that notes the empirical accuracy results under asynchrony. No new convergence bound is claimed or derived in the current work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical system evaluation against external baselines

full rationale

The paper describes a systems architecture (layer offloading, asynchronous aggregation, task scheduler, memory management) and reports experimental outcomes on accuracy, training time, idle time, and throughput versus four external baselines. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or first-principles derivations appear in the abstract or description. All performance claims rest on direct comparison to independent baselines rather than any self-referential definition, renaming, or self-citation chain. This is the expected non-finding for an applied systems paper whose central results are falsifiable measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an engineering systems paper; the abstract contains no mathematical derivations, fitted constants, or postulated entities. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5829 in / 1203 out tokens · 42518 ms · 2026-05-22T23:55:04.948105+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentral- ized Data,

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y. Arcas, “Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentral- ized Data,” in 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, vol. 54, 2017, pp. 1273–1282

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Federated Optimization: Distributed Optimization Beyond the Datacenter,

    J. Kone ˇcn´y, B. McMahan, and D. Ramage, “Federated Optimization: Distributed Optimization Beyond the Datacenter,” 8th NIPS Workshop on Optimization for Machine Learning , 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Federated Optimization: Distributed Machine Learning for On-Device Intelligence

    J. Kone ˇcn´y, H. B. McMahan, D. Ramage, and P. Richt ´arik, “Federated Optimization: Distributed Machine Learning for On-Device Intelli- gence,” CoRR, vol. abs/1610.02527, 2016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    SplitFed: When Fed- erated Learning Meets Split Learning,

    C. Thapa, M. A. P. Chamikara, and S. Camtepe, “SplitFed: When Fed- erated Learning Meets Split Learning,” AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36(8), pp. 8485–8493, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    PiPar: Pipeline Parallelism for Collaborative Machine Learning,

    Z. Zhang, P. Rodgers, P. Kilpatrick, I. Spence, and B. Varghese, “PiPar: Pipeline Parallelism for Collaborative Machine Learning,” Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing , vol. 193, p. 104947, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Communication and Storage Efficient Federated Split Learning,

    Y . Mu and C. Shen, “Communication and Storage Efficient Federated Split Learning,” in IEEE International Conf. on Communications , 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Group Knowledge Transfer: Federated Learning of Large CNNs at the Edge,

    C. He, M. Annavaram, and S. Avestimehr, “Group Knowledge Transfer: Federated Learning of Large CNNs at the Edge,” in 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Incentivizing Participation in SplitFed Learning: Convergence Analysis and Model Versioning,

    P. Han, C. Huang, X. Shi, J. Huang, and X. Liu, “Incentivizing Participation in SplitFed Learning: Convergence Analysis and Model Versioning,” in2024 IEEE 44th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2024, pp. 846–856

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Asynchronous Federated Optimiza- tion,

    C. Xie, O. Koyejo, and I. Gupta, “Asynchronous Federated Optimiza- tion,” in 12th Workshop on Optimization for Machine Learning , 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Federated Learning with Buffered Asynchronous Aggrega- tion,

    J. Nguyen, K. Malik, H. Zhan, A. Yousefpour, M. Rabbat, M. Malek, and D. Huba, “Federated Learning with Buffered Asynchronous Aggrega- tion,” in Proceedings of The 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , vol. 151, 2022, pp. 3581–3607

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Libra: A Fairness-Guaranteed Framework for Semi-Asynchronous Federated Learning,

    C. Wang, H. Huang, R. Li, J. Liu, T. Cai, and Z. Zheng, “Libra: A Fairness-Guaranteed Framework for Semi-Asynchronous Federated Learning,” in 2024 IEEE 44th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2024, pp. 797–808

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Searching for MobileNetV3,

    A. Howard, M. Sandler, G. Chu, L. Chen, B. Chen, M. Tan, W. Wang, Y . Zhu, R. Pang, V . Vasudevan, Q. V . Le, and H. Adam, “Searching for MobileNetV3,” IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1314–1324, 2019

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge

    O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. S. Bernstein, A. C. Berg, and L. Fei-Fei, “ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge,” CoRR, vol. abs/1409.0575, 2014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-scale Image Recognition,

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-scale Image Recognition,” 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, p. 1–14, 2015

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Deep Learning with Differential Privacy,

    M. Abadi, A. Chu, I. Goodfellow, H. B. McMahan, I. Mironov, K. Talwar, and L. Zhang, “Deep Learning with Differential Privacy,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016, p. 308–318

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Certified Robustness to Adversarial Examples with Differential Privacy,

    M. Lecuyer, V . Atlidakis, R. Geambasu, D. Hsu, and S. Jana, “Certified Robustness to Adversarial Examples with Differential Privacy,” in 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , 2019, pp. 656–672

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Oort: Efficient Federated Learning via Guided Participant Selection,

    F. Lai, X. Zhu, H. V . Madhyastha, and M. Chowdhury, “Oort: Efficient Federated Learning via Guided Participant Selection,” in 15th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation , 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    REFL: Resource-Efficient Federated Learning,

    A. M. Abdelmoniem, A. N. Sahu, M. Canini, and S. A. Fahmy, “REFL: Resource-Efficient Federated Learning,” in Proceedings of the Eigh- teenth European Conference on Computer Systems , 2023, p. 215–232

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Federated Learning for Internet of Things,

    T. Zhang, C. He, T. Ma, L. Gao, M. Ma, and S. Avestimehr, “Federated Learning for Internet of Things,” in 19th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems , 2021, p. 413–419

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Model Pruning Enables Efficient Federated Learning on Edge Devices,

    Y . Jiang, S. Wang, V . Valls, B. J. Ko, W.-H. Lee, K. K. Leung, and L. Tassiulas, “Model Pruning Enables Efficient Federated Learning on Edge Devices,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 10 374–10 386, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    FedAdapt: Adaptive Offloading for IoT Devices in Federated Learning,

    D. Wu, R. Ullah, P. Harvey, P. Kilpatrick, I. Spence, and B. Varghese, “FedAdapt: Adaptive Offloading for IoT Devices in Federated Learning,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 21, pp. 20 889–20 901, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    CIFAR-10 (Canadian Institute for Advanced Research),

    A. Krizhevsky, V . Nair, and G. Hinton, “CIFAR-10 (Canadian Institute for Advanced Research),” 2009

    work page 2009

  24. [24]

    Learning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images,

    A. Krizhevsky and G. Hinton, “Learning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images,” Master’s thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 2009

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Attention is All you Need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. u. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is All you Need,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank,

    R. Socher, A. Perelygin, J. Wu, J. Chuang, C. D. Manning, A. Ng, and C. Potts, “Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2013, pp. 1631–1642

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    Learning Word Vectors for Sentiment Analysis,

    A. L. Maas, R. E. Daly, P. T. Pham, D. Huang, A. Y . Ng, and C. Potts, “Learning Word Vectors for Sentiment Analysis,” in Proceedings of the 11 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, June 2011, pp. 142–150

    work page 2011

  28. [28]

    Federated Learning Based on Dynamic Regularization,

    D. A. E. Acar, Y . Zhao, R. Matas, M. Mattina, P. Whatmough, and V . Saligrama, “Federated Learning Based on Dynamic Regularization,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Distributed Learning of Deep Neural Network over Multiple Agents,

    O. Gupta and R. Raskar, “Distributed Learning of Deep Neural Network over Multiple Agents,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications , vol. 116, pp. 1–8, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Split Learning For Health: Distributed Deep Learning without Sharing Raw Patient Data,

    P. Vepakomma, O. Gupta, T. Swedish, and R. Raskar, “Split Learning For Health: Distributed Deep Learning without Sharing Raw Patient Data,” in ICLR Workshop on AI for Social Good , 2019

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    SplitGP: Achieving Both Generalization and Personalization in Federated Learn- ing,

    D.-J. Han, D.-Y . Kim, M. Choi, C. G. Brinton, and J. Moon, “SplitGP: Achieving Both Generalization and Personalization in Federated Learn- ing,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Communications , 2023. 12

    work page 2023