mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Benchmarking FedAvg and FedCurv for Image Classification Tasks

arXiv 2303.17942 ↗First posted 31 Mar 2023cs.LG cs.CV cs.DCcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Classic Machine Learning techniques require training on data available in a single data lake. However, aggregating data from different owners is not always convenient for different reasons, including security, privacy and secrecy. Data carry a value that might vanish when shared with others; the ability to avoid sharing the data enables industrial applications where security and privacy are of paramount importance, making it possible to train global models by implementing only local policies which can be run independently and even on air-gapped data centres. Federated Learning (FL) is a distributed machine learning approach which has emerged as an effective way to address privacy concerns by only sharing local AI models while keeping the data decentralized. Two critical challenges of Federated Learning are managing the heterogeneous systems in the same federated network and dealing with real data, which are often not independently and identically distributed (non-IID) among the clients. In this paper, we focus on the second problem, i.e., the problem of statistical heterogeneity of the data in the same federated network. In this setting, local models might be strayed far from the local optimum of the complete dataset, thus possibly hindering the convergence of the federated model. Several Federated Learning algorithms, such as FedAvg, FedProx and Federated Curvature (FedCurv), aiming at tackling the non-IID setting, have already been proposed. This work provides an empirical assessment of the behaviour of FedAvg and FedCurv in common non-IID scenarios. Results show that the number of epochs per round is an important hyper-parameter that, when tuned appropriately, can lead to significant performance gains while reducing the communication cost. As a side product of this work, we release the non-IID version of the datasets we used so to facilitate further comparisons from the FL community.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2023.

Builds on

19 of 31 references.

References · 19

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2016Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Datacited by 7,669
  3. 2016Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networkscited by 4,787
  4. 2019Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learningcited by 3,046
  5. 2018Federated Optimization in Heterogeneous Networkscited by 2,987
  6. 2018Continual Lifelong Learning with Neural Networks: A Reviewcited by 1,330
  7. 2019On the Convergence of FedAvg on Non-IID Datacited by 1,229
  8. 2020Adaptive Federated Optimizationcited by 1,046
  9. 2020Tackling the Objective Inconsistency Problem in Heterogeneous Federated Optimizationcited by 906
  10. 2018LEAF: A Benchmark for Federated Settingscited by 792
  11. 2013An Empirical Investigation of Catastrophic Forgetting in Gradient-Based Neural Networkscited by 722
  12. 2021MedMNIST v2 -- A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classificationcited by 690
7 more
  1. 2021Federated Learning on Non-IID Data Silos: An Experimental Studycited by 568
  2. 2018Confounding variables can degrade generalization performance of radiological deep learning modelscited by 379
  3. 2021Federated Learning on Non-IID Data: A Surveycited by 346
  4. 2020FedML: A Research Library and Benchmark for Federated Machine Learningcited by 300
  5. 2019Overcoming Forgetting in Federated Learning on Non-IID Datacited by 120
  6. 2020The OARF Benchmark Suite: Characterization and Implications for Federated Learning Systemscited by 31
  7. 2020Evaluation Framework For Large-scale Federated Learningcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2.

3 papers.