Comparative assessment of federated and centralized machine learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Federated Learning (FL) is a privacy preserving machine learning scheme, where training happens with data federated across devices and not leaving them to sustain user privacy. This is ensured by making the untrained or partially trained models to reach directly the individual devices and getting locally trained "on-device" using the device owned data, and the server aggregating all the partially trained model learnings to update a global model. Although almost all the model learning schemes in the federated learning setup use gradient descent, there are certain characteristic differences brought about by the non-IID nature of the data availability, that affects the training in comparison to the centralized schemes. In this paper, we discuss the various factors that affect the federated learning training, because of the non-IID distributed nature of the data, as well as the inherent differences in the federating learning approach as against the typical centralized gradient descent techniques. We empirically demonstrate the effect of number of samples per device and the distribution of output labels on federated learning. In addition to the privacy advantage we seek through federated learning, we also study if there is a cost advantage while using federated learning frameworks. We show that federated learning does have an advantage in cost when the model sizes to be trained are not reasonably large. All in all, we present the need for careful design of model for both performance and cost.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Feb 2022.
Builds on
22 of 48 references.
References · 22
- 2016Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Datacited by 7,592
- 2019Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learningcited by 3,021
- 2015Deep Compression: Compressing Deep Neural Networks with Pruning, Trained Quantization and Huffman Codingcited by 2,291
- 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 1,998
- 2019Federated Learning: Challenges, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 1,531
- 2016On Large-Batch Training for Deep Learning: Generalization Gap and Sharp Minimacited by 1,337
- 2019Towards Federated Learning at Scale: System Designcited by 826
- 2018LEAF: A Benchmark for Federated Settingscited by 780
- 2020Inverting Gradients -- How easy is it to break privacy in federated learning?cited by 707
- 2018Local SGD Converges Fast and Communicates Littlecited by 595
- 2018Federated Learning for Mobile Keyboard Predictioncited by 565
- 2019Federated Machine Learning: Concept and Applicationscited by 409
10 more
- 2017A Survey of Model Compression and Acceleration for Deep Neural Networkscited by 298
- 2018Parallel Restarted SGD with Faster Convergence and Less Communication: Demystifying Why Model Averaging Works for Deep Learningcited by 277
- 2018LQ-Nets: Learned Quantization for Highly Accurate and Compact Deep Neural Networkscited by 272
- 2018Applied Federated Learning: Improving Google Keyboard Query Suggestionscited by 202
- 2017Private federated learning on vertically partitioned data via entity resolution and additively homomorphic encryptioncited by 174
- 2019Federated Learning for Emoji Prediction in a Mobile Keyboardcited by 115
- 2018A generic framework for privacy preserving deep learningcited by 103
- 2019A Survey of Optimization Methods from a Machine Learning Perspectivecited by 90
- 2016Squared Earth Mover's Distance-based Loss for Training Deep Neural Networkscited by 45
- 2018Fine-Grained Age Estimation in the wild with Attention LSTM Networkscited by 18
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
2 papers.