Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Multi-Tier Client Selection for Mobile Federated Learning Networks

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

arxiv 2305.06865 v1 pith:K7U2DIK2 submitted 2023-05-11 cs.LG cs.DCcs.NI

classification cs.LGcs.DCcs.NI
keywords problemunderlineclientdatadevicesfederatedlearningmobile
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Federated learning (FL), which addresses data privacy issues by training models on resource-constrained mobile devices in a distributed manner, has attracted significant research attention. However, the problem of optimizing FL client selection in mobile federated learning networks (MFLNs), where devices move in and out of each others' coverage and no FL server knows all the data owners, remains open. To bridge this gap, we propose a first-of-its-kind \underline{Soc}ially-aware \underline{Fed}erated \underline{C}lient \underline{S}election (SocFedCS) approach to minimize costs and train high-quality FL models. SocFedCS enriches the candidate FL client pool by enabling data owners to propagate FL task information through their local networks of trust, even as devices are moving into and out of each others' coverage. Based on Lyapunov optimization, we first transform this time-coupled problem into a step-by-step optimization problem. Then, we design a method based on alternating minimization and self-adaptive global best harmony search to solve this mixed-integer optimization problem. Extensive experiments comparing SocFedCS against five state-of-the-art approaches based on four real-world multimedia datasets demonstrate that it achieves 2.06\% higher test accuracy and 12.24\% lower cost on average than the best-performing baseline.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools