REVIEW 1 cited by
Data Selection for Efficient Model Update 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
The Federated Learning (FL) workflow of training a centralized model with distributed data is growing in popularity. However, until recently, this was the realm of contributing clients with similar computing capability. The fast expanding IoT space and data being generated and processed at the edge are encouraging more effort into expanding federated learning to include heterogeneous systems. Previous approaches distribute light-weight models to clients are rely on knowledge transfer to distil the characteristic of local data in partitioned updates. However, their additional knowledge exchange transmitted through the network degrades the communication efficiency of FL. We propose to reduce the size of knowledge exchanged in these FL setups by clustering and selecting only the most representative bits of information from the clients. The partitioned global update adopted in our work splits the global deep neural network into a lower part for generic feature extraction and an upper part that is more sensitive to this selected client knowledge. Our experiments show that only 1.6% of the initially exchanged data can effectively transfer the characteristic of the client data to the global model in our FL approach, using split networks. These preliminary results evolve our understanding of federated learning by demonstrating efficient training using strategically selected training samples.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Vision-Language Models for Edge Networks: A Comprehensive Survey
A survey of lightweight vision-language models for edge deployment, marred by citation errors, self-citation, and a lack of selection methodology.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.