Pith. sign in

REVIEW 20 references

Battery-aware Cyclic Scheduling in Energy-harvesting Federated Learning

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FedBacys reduces energy consumption in energy-harvesting federated learning by making each client wait until just before its scheduled upload time to train, then passing the model through groups in sequence.

arxiv 2504.12181 v1 pith:QVHIND3K submitted 2025-04-16 cs.LG cs.ITmath.IT

Eunjeong Jeong , Nikolaos Pappas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.ITmath.IT
keywords energylearningclientcyclicfedbacysschedulingbatterybattery-aware
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Federated learning trains a shared model across many phones or sensors without collecting their personal data. Each device trains on its own data and sends only a model update to a central server. This works well when devices have reliable power, but many real devices run on harvested energy, such as solar or radio waves, where energy arrives slowly and unevenly. A device may simply not have enough battery to train when the server asks.

FedBacys is a scheduling rule for this situation. Devices are divided into groups that act in turn. The first group trains and sends updates to a group leader, who merges them; the merged model passes to the next group, and so on until the last group delivers to the server. The key rule is that a device may start training only if it has enough battery, does not already have an update ready, and can finish before its group's upload window closes. So devices delay training until the last moment that still lets them meet their deadline. This leads to fewer training sessions per device, which means less energy spent, and the model a device trains on is also more recent.

In simulations on CIFAR-10 with 100 devices, FedBacys used the least battery in every tested setting, with savings around 26 to 30 percent when charging was frequent, and it matched or beat the two comparison methods in accuracy when charging was scarce or moderate. The paper reports no uncertainty bars, gives no code, and claims in the introduction that clustering uses battery levels while the actual algorithm assigns devices randomly, so the results should be treated as preliminary.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FedBacys, by having clients start local training only when they have enough battery, have no pending update, and can finish before their group's upload window (Section III, conditions 1 through 3), consumes the least energy of the compared schemes across all tested charging probabilities and achieves faster convergence and higher final accuracy than FedAvg and FedSeq for pbc = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5, giving, in the paper's words, 'the highest performance per battery usage no matter how frequently the battery level is increased' (Section IV, Figs. 3 to 5, Table I).

Load-bearing premise

The energy accounting in Eqs. (2) to (4) charges only local training (kappa units per session) and per-client uplink transmissions (one unit per slot), while Algorithm 1 has the group hub aggregate local updates and multicast the group model to the next group (lines 12 to 23) without specifying what battery the hub spends on aggregation or multicast. If hub aggregation and relay transmission consume meaningful energy, the reported 26 to 30 percent system savings in Table I shrink, so the headline energy-efficiency claim rests on this accounting being representative of real system costs.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a discrete-time battery simulation with five hand-chosen experiment parameters (kappa, Emax, S, G, and the unspecified B), three domain assumptions about harvesting and energy costs, one borrowed convergence guarantee from [15] whose conditions are not checked, and two ad hoc modeling choices: the random group assignment substituting for the claimed battery-based clustering, and the free-of-charge hub operations. There are no invented physical entities. The most load-bearing entries are the free hub aggregation and multicast energy, which if charged would reduce the reported savings, and the Emax = kappa + 5 cap, which prevents the successive training runs that would otherwise narrow the gap to FedAvg.

free parameters (5)
  • kappa (training energy cost) = 20 battery units
    Hand-chosen for all experiments. FedBacys saves energy by avoiding training runs, so the magnitude of the reported savings scales with this value.
  • Emax (maximum battery capacity) = 25 = kappa + 5
    Set explicitly so that 'successive local training without transmission is avoided' (Section IV). This cap limits how often any client can train and shapes the energy comparison.
  • S (slots per epoch) = 30
    Experimental choice; with G it fixes the group-round duration R = floor(S/G), which defines the upload deadlines that drive the cramming rule.
  • G (number of groups) = 2, 5, 10
    The central design parameter of the scheduler. Results in Figs. 3, 4, 5 and Table I are conditional on it.
  • B (local mini-batches per training session)
    Referenced in Algorithm 1 (LocalTrain) but never assigned a value in Section IV, so the local update rule is underspecified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Charging events are i.i.d. Bernoulli per slot with probability pbc (Section II).
    The entire simulation, and the claimed robustness across charging rates, depends on this stochastic harvest model rather than on realistic correlated harvesting patterns.
  • domain assumption One time slot of transmission or idling costs one battery unit, training spans exactly kappa consecutive slots and costs kappa units, and actions with insufficient battery are declined (Eqs. 2 to 4).
    The energy comparison is built on this discrete, fixed-cost battery model; real training energy varies with data and hardware.
  • standard math Cyclic in-cluster aggregation converges at least as well as standard FedAvg under the conditions of Cho et al. [15] (cited in Section I).
    The paper motivates FedBacys with this cited result but does not verify that its assumptions, for example full participation within each cycle, hold when energy shortages drop clients.
  • ad hoc to paper Random even assignment of clients to groups is equivalent for the evaluation to the claimed battery-based clustering (Algorithm 1 line 3 vs. Section I).
    The introduction says users are clustered 'based on their remaining battery levels', but Algorithm 1 randomly slices users into groups; the evaluation proceeds as though these were the same.
  • ad hoc to paper Hub aggregation, the hub's multicast to the next group, and server aggregation consume no battery (Algorithm 1 lines 12 to 23 vs. Eqs. 2 to 4).
    The energy model charges only training and per-client uplinks, so the system energy totals in Table I assume hub and relay operations are free.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Battery-aware Cyclic Scheduling in Energy-harvesting Federated Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QVHIND3K

@misc{pith2026250412181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Battery-aware Cyclic Scheduling in Energy-harvesting Federated Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QVHIND3K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12181}
}
read the original abstract

Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a promising framework for distributed learning, but its growing complexity has led to significant energy consumption, particularly from computations on the client side. This challenge is especially critical in energy-harvesting FL (EHFL) systems, where device availability fluctuates due to limited and time-varying energy resources. We propose FedBacys, a battery-aware FL framework that introduces cyclic client participation based on users' battery levels to cope with these issues. FedBacys enables clients to save energy and strategically perform local training just before their designated transmission time by clustering clients and scheduling their involvement sequentially. This design minimizes redundant computation, reduces system-wide energy usage, and improves learning stability. Our experiments demonstrate that FedBacys outperforms existing approaches in terms of energy efficiency and performance consistency, exhibiting robustness even under non-i.i.d. training data distributions and with very infrequent battery charging. This work presents the first comprehensive evaluation of cyclic client participation in EHFL, incorporating both communication and computation costs into a unified, resource-aware scheduling strategy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12181 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic view of energy-harvesting FL based on probabilistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Average test accuracy of FedBacys w.r.t. different battery charging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Test accuracy w.r.t. different algorithms ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average test accuracy of FedBacys on non-i.i.d. training datasets with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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 intelligence,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02527 , 2016

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions,

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 50–60, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Green federated learning,

    A. Yousefpour, S. Guo, A. Shenoy, S. Ghosh, P. Stock, K. Maeng, S.- W. Kr ¨uger, M. Rabbat, C.-J. Wu, and I. Mironov, “Green federated learning,” in Federated Learning and Analytics in Practice: Algorithms, Systems, Applications, and Opportunities , 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Green federated learning: A new era of green aware AI,

    D. Thakur, A. Guzzo, G. Fortino, and F. Piccialli, “Green federated learning: A new era of green aware AI,” ACM Comput. Surv., Feb. 2025. Just Accepted

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Federated learning over energy harvesting wireless networks,

    R. Hamdi, M. Chen, A. B. Said, M. Qaraqe, and H. V . Poor, “Federated learning over energy harvesting wireless networks,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 92–103, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Client selection and bandwidth allocation in wireless federated learning networks: A long-term perspective,

    J. Xu and H. Wang, “Client selection and bandwidth allocation in wireless federated learning networks: A long-term perspective,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1188– 1200, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Green federated learning via energy-aware client selection,

    R. Albelaihi, L. Yu, W. D. Craft, X. Sun, C. Wang, and R. Gazda, “Green federated learning via energy-aware client selection,” in IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) , 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    On federated learning with energy harvesting clients,

    C. Shen, J. Yang, and J. Xu, “On federated learning with energy harvesting clients,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    Federated learning with energy harvesting devices,

    L. Zeng, D. Wen, G. Zhu, C. You, Q. Chen, and Y . Shi, “Federated learning with energy harvesting devices,” IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 190–204, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Federated learning with energy harvesting devices: An MDP framework,

    K. Zhang and X. Cao, “Federated learning with energy harvesting devices: An MDP framework,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10513 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Joint protection of energy security and information privacy for energy har- vesting: An incentive federated learning approach,

    Q. Pan, J. Wu, A. K. Bashir, J. Li, W. Yang, and Y . D. Al-Otaibi, “Joint protection of energy security and information privacy for energy har- vesting: An incentive federated learning approach,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 3473–3483, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Energy-harvesting distributed machine learn- ing,

    B. G ¨uler and A. Yener, “Energy-harvesting distributed machine learn- ing,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Over-the-air federated learning with energy harvesting devices,

    O. Ayg ¨un, M. Kazemi, D. G ¨und¨uz, and T. M. Duman, “Over-the-air federated learning with energy harvesting devices,” in IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) , 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Design optimization of RF energy harvesting networks for federated learning,

    M. Poposka, V . Rakovic, D. Denkovski, H. Gjoreski, and Z. Hadzi- Velkov, “Design optimization of RF energy harvesting networks for federated learning,” in 7th International Balkan Conference on Com- munications and Networking (BalkanCom) , 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    On the convergence of federated averaging with cyclic client participation,

    Y . J. Cho, P. Sharma, G. Joshi, Z. Xu, S. Kale, and T. Zhang, “On the convergence of federated averaging with cyclic client participation,” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (A. Krause, E. Brunskill, K. Cho, B. Engelhardt, S. Sabato, and ...

    2023

  8. [16]

    FedSeq: A hybrid federated learning framework based on sequential in-cluster training,

    Z. Chen, D. Li, R. Ni, J. Zhu, and S. Zhang, “FedSeq: A hybrid federated learning framework based on sequential in-cluster training,” IEEE Systems Journal , vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 4038–4049, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Fast-convergent federated learning via cyclic aggregation,

    Y . Lee, S. Park, and J. Kang, “Fast-convergent federated learning via cyclic aggregation,” in IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    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 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (A. Singh and J. Zhu, eds.), vol. 54 of...

    2017

  11. [19]

    Semantics-aware status updates with energy harvesting devices: Query version age of information,

    E. Delfani and N. Pappas, “Semantics-aware status updates with energy harvesting devices: Query version age of information,” in 22nd Inter- national Symposium on Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc, and Wireless Networks (WiOpt) , 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Version age-based client scheduling policy for federated learning,

    X. Hu, N. Pappas, and H. H. Yang, “Version age-based client scheduling policy for federated learning,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Workshops (ICASSPW), 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.