mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Splitfed learning without client-side synchronization: Analyzing client-side split network portion size to overall performance

arXiv 2109.09246 ↗First posted 19 Sep 2021cs.LG cs.AIcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Federated Learning (FL), Split Learning (SL), and SplitFed Learning (SFL) are three recent developments in distributed machine learning that are gaining attention due to their ability to preserve the privacy of raw data. Thus, they are widely applicable in various domains where data is sensitive, such as large-scale medical image classification, internet-of-medical-things, and cross-organization phishing email detection. SFL is developed on the confluence point of FL and SL. It brings the best of FL and SL by providing parallel client-side machine learning model updates from the FL paradigm and a higher level of model privacy (while training) by splitting the model between the clients and server coming from SL. However, SFL has communication and computation overhead at the client-side due to the requirement of client-side model synchronization. For the resource-constrained client-side, removal of such requirements is required to gain efficiency in the learning. In this regard, this paper studies SFL without client-side model synchronization. The resulting architecture is known as Multi-head Split Learning. Our empirical studies considering the ResNet18 model on MNIST data under IID data distribution among distributed clients find that Multi-head Split Learning is feasible. Its performance is comparable to the SFL. Moreover, SFL provides only 1%-2% better accuracy than Multi-head Split Learning on the MNIST test set. To further strengthen our results, we study the Multi-head Split Learning with various client-side model portions and its impact on the overall performance. To this end, our results find a minimal impact on the overall performance of the model.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Sep 2021.

Builds on

7 of 15 references.

References · 7

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2019Federated Learning: Challenges, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 1,531
  3. 2016Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiencycited by 1,461
  4. 2020SplitFed: When Federated Learning Meets Split Learningcited by 308
  5. 2019Detailed comparison of communication efficiency of split learning and federated learningcited by 76
  6. 2019Split Learning for collaborative deep learning in healthcarecited by 72
  7. 2020Advancements of federated learning towards privacy preservation: from federated learning to split learningcited by 34

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

10 papers.