How Can Incentives and Cut Layer Selection Influence Data Contribution in Split Federated Learning?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
To alleviate the training burden in federated learning while enhancing convergence speed, Split Federated Learning (SFL) has emerged as a promising approach by combining the advantages of federated and split learning. However, despite its advantages, existing SFL studies have largely overlooked the strategic interactions among self-interested participants during the SFL process. In this framework, the SFL model owner can choose the cut layer to balance the training load between the server and clients, ensuring the necessary level of privacy for the clients. Additionally, the SFL model owner sets incentives to encourage client participation in the SFL process. The optimization strategies employed by the SFL model owner influence clients' decisions regarding the amount of data they contribute, taking into account the shared incentives over clients and anticipated energy consumption from both computation and networking during SFL. To address this framework, we model the problem using a hierarchical decision-making approach, formulated as a single-leader multi-follower Stackelberg game. We demonstrate the existence and uniqueness of the Nash equilibrium among clients and analyze the Stackelberg equilibrium by examining the leader's game. Furthermore, we discuss privacy concerns related to differential privacy and the criteria for selecting the minimum required cut layer. Our findings show that the Stackelberg equilibrium solution maximizes the utility for both the clients and the SFL model owner while achieving a well-balanced trade-off between model accuracy and the associated computing and networking overhead during the SFL process.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Dec 2024.
Builds on
20 of 45 references.
References · 20
- 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,283
- 2021Convex optimizationcited by 2,479
- 2018Simple Baselines for Human Pose Estimation and Trackingcited by 502
- 2020SplitFed: When Federated Learning Meets Split Learningcited by 308
- 2023Efficient Parallel Split Learning over Resource-constrained Wireless Edge Networkscited by 95
- 2019Detailed comparison of communication efficiency of split learning and federated learningcited by 76
- 2020HFEL: Joint Edge Association and Resource Allocation for Cost-Efficient Hierarchical Federated Edge Learningcited by 74
- 2022Split Learning over Wireless Networks: Parallel Design and Resource Managementcited by 74
- 2021Decentralized Federated Learning through Proxy Model Sharingcited by 56
- 2020Trading Data For Learning: Incentive Mechanism For On-Device Federated Learningcited by 21
- 2024ESFL: Efficient Split Federated Learning over Resource-Constrained Heterogeneous Wireless Devicescited by 16
- 2023Communication and Storage Efficient Federated Split Learningcited by 11
8 more
- 2023Exploring the Privacy-Energy Consumption Tradeoff for Split Federated Learningcited by 9
- 2018Learning Structure and Strength of CNN Filters for Small Sample Size Trainingcited by 8
- 2023Split Federated Learning for 6G Enabled-Networks: Requirements, Challenges and Future Directionscited by 8
- 2020Multiple Classification with Split Learningcited by 6
- 2022Energy and Spectrum Efficient Federated Learning via High-Precision Over-the-Air Computationcited by 6
- 2016Market Model and Optimal Pricing Scheme of Big Data and Internet of Things (IoT)cited by 4
- 2023When MiniBatch SGD Meets SplitFed Learning:Convergence Analysis and Performance Evaluationcited by 3
- 2024QI-DPFL: Quality-Aware and Incentive-Boosted Federated Learning with Differential Privacycited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.