mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Latency-Aware Client Assignment for Parallel Split Learning With Global Sampling

arXiv 2609.32132 ↗First posted 26 Sep 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In cross-silo split learning, Parallel Split Learning with Global Sampling forms representative pooled batches when class distributions differ across clients, but ignores client delay when several clients can supply the same class. We introduce Latency Budgeted Parallel Split Learning with Global Sampling, which separates each pooled batch's integer class target from the choice of clients that supply its examples. The flow variant formulates this assignment as an integral network-flow problem and minimizes modeled client-side completion time for the current target. The fast variant uses a greedy next-completion rule to reduce schedule-construction cost. Both preserve the target stream and use every local example once per epoch. A planning rule selects between the variants while accounting for the cost of constructing both candidate schedules. On CIFAR-10, the flow variant reduces modeled training time by 6.75%, with a 0.30 percentage-point decrease in final accuracy. On Tiny ImageNet with 20 candidate classes per client, the fast variant reduces modeled time by 16.87% and reaches all four validation targets earlier than the latency-unaware baseline. Across 405 schedule comparisons, the planning rule stays within 2% of the lower realized cost in 96.54% of cases. In our evaluation, latency-aware provider assignment reduces modeled training time without changing the prescribed class targets, while the preferred variant depends on whether assignment savings outweigh schedule-construction overhead.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2026.

Builds on

17 of 33 references.

References · 17

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2018Group Normalizationcited by 1,524
  3. 2020Tackling the Objective Inconsistency Problem in Heterogeneous Federated Optimizationcited by 906
  4. 2019Measuring the Effects of Non-Identical Data Distribution for Federated Visual Classificationcited by 851
  5. 2018Split learning for health: Distributed deep learning without sharing raw patient datacited by 395
  6. 2020HeteroFL: Computation and Communication Efficient Federated Learning for Heterogeneous Clientscited by 337
  7. 2020SplitFed: When Federated Learning Meets Split Learningcited by 310
  8. 2020TiFL: A Tier-based Federated Learning Systemcited by 96
  9. 2023Efficient Parallel Split Learning over Resource-constrained Wireless Edge Networkscited by 95
  10. 2022Split Learning over Wireless Networks: Parallel Design and Resource Managementcited by 75
  11. 2022FedBalancer: Data and Pace Control for Efficient Federated Learning on Heterogeneous Clientscited by 46
  12. 2021Server-Side Local Gradient Averaging and Learning Rate Acceleration for Scalable Split Learningcited by 23
5 more
  1. 2024Convergence Analysis of Split Federated Learning on Heterogeneous Datacited by 17
  2. 2025HASFL: Heterogeneity-aware Split Federated Learning over Edge Computing Systemscited by 15
  3. 2023Enhancing Accuracy-Privacy Trade-off in Differentially Private Split Learningcited by 8
  4. 2025Towards Straggler-Resilient Split Federated Learning: An Unbalanced Update Approachcited by 7
  5. 2024Parallel Split Learning with Global Samplingcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.