Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper addresses the limitations of performance-centric client evaluation in federated learning by investigating client contributions to model trustworthiness, specifically reliability, resilience, and fairness. They quantify these contributions using Shapley value approximation, revealing that clients exhibit varying strengths across these dimensions, which are largely independent. The study demonstrates the inadequacy of relying solely on performance metrics for client evaluation and reward allocation in federated learning.
Current federated learning evaluation schemes are flawed because a client that boosts accuracy might tank fairness or resilience, demanding a more nuanced approach to valuing contributions.
Federated learning offers a privacy-friendly collaborative learning framework, yet its success, like any joint venture, hinges on the contributions of its participants. Existing client evaluation methods predominantly focus on model performance, such as accuracy or loss, which represents only one dimension of a machine learning model's overall utility. In contrast, this work investigates the critical, yet overlooked, issue of client contributions towards a model's trustworthiness -- specifically, its reliability (tolerance to noisy data), resilience (resistance to adversarial examples), and fairness (measured via demographic parity). To quantify these multifaceted contributions, we employ the state-of-the-art approximation of the Shapley value, a principled method for value attribution. Our results reveal that no single client excels across all dimensions, which are largely independent from each other, highlighting a critical flaw in current evaluation scheme: no single metric is adequate for comprehensive evaluation and equitable rewarding allocation.
