Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper addresses the challenge of optimizing accuracy, delay, and communication overhead in Hierarchical Split Federated Learning (HSFL) by jointly considering partitioning layers and client-to-aggregator assignments. They formulate an NP-hard optimization problem capturing the impact of these factors and propose an accuracy-aware heuristic algorithm to solve it. Simulations on public datasets demonstrate that their approach improves accuracy by 3%, reduces delay by 20%, and lowers overhead by 50% compared to existing SFL and HSFL methods.
Achieve 3% accuracy gains and 20% delay reduction in split federated learning simply by jointly optimizing model partitioning and client assignments.
Can we find a network architecture for ML model training so as to optimize training loss (and thus, accuracy) in Split Federated Learning (SFL)? And can this architecture also reduce training delay and communication overhead? While accuracy is not influenced by how we split the model in ordinary, state-of-the-art SFL, in this work we answer the questions above in the affirmative. Recent Hierarchical SFL (HSFL) architectures adopt a three-tier training structure consisting of clients, (local) aggregators, and a central server. In this architecture, the model is partitioned at two partitioning layers into three sub-models, which are executed across the three tiers. Despite their merits, HSFL architectures overlook the impact of the partitioning layers and client-to-aggregator assignments on accuracy, delay, and overhead. This work explicitly captures the impact of the partitioning layers and client-to-aggregator assignments on accuracy, delay and overhead by formulating a joint optimization problem. We prove that the problem is NP-hard and propose the first accuracy-aware heuristic algorithm that explicitly accounts for model accuracy, while remaining delay-efficient. Simulation results on public datasets show that our approach can improve accuracy by 3%, while reducing delay by 20% and overhead by 50%, compared to state-of-the-art SFL and HSFL schemes.
