pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.15549 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.DC· math.OC

Recognition: unknown

Optimizing Stochastic Gradient Push under Broadcast Communications

Ting He, Tuan Nguyen

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 11:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.DCmath.OC
keywords decentralized federated learningstochastic gradient pushmixing matrix designbroadcast communicationsconvergence optimizationdirected graphswireless networks
0
0 comments X

The pith

Analyzing SGP convergence rates allows designing asymmetric mixing matrices that reduce convergence time in decentralized federated learning under broadcast.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper seeks to minimize overall convergence time for decentralized federated learning in wireless networks that use broadcast communications. It centers on optimizing the mixing matrix for stochastic gradient push, which unlike prior D-PSGD approaches permits asymmetric matrices and directed graphs. Analysis of how the convergence rate depends on these matrices produces an explicit objective function in terms of graph-theoretic parameters such as connectivity and edge weights. An efficient design algorithm is then built around this objective and supplied with performance guarantees. A sympathetic reader would care because broadcast wireless settings are common in practice and the new flexibility can shorten training without harming final model quality.

Core claim

By analyzing how the convergence rate of SGP depends on the mixing matrices, we extract an objective function that explicitly depends on graph-theoretic parameters of the activated communication graph, based on which we develop an efficient design algorithm with performance guarantees. Our evaluations based on real data show that the proposed solution can notably reduce the convergence time compared to the state of the art without compromising the quality of the trained model.

What carries the argument

The objective function extracted from SGP convergence-rate analysis, expressed directly in graph-theoretic parameters of the activated directed communication graph to drive mixing-matrix selection.

If this is right

  • Directed communication graphs become usable, increasing flexibility over methods restricted to undirected graphs.
  • Convergence time decreases in practice for broadcast-based decentralized federated learning while model quality stays the same.
  • The algorithm supplies explicit performance guarantees tied to the chosen graph parameters.
  • Communication demand per iteration and convergence rate per iteration can be traded off more effectively than before.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same rate-to-graph-parameter extraction could be repeated for other push-style decentralized algorithms.
  • Real-time channel feedback might be used to re-optimize the graph parameters on the fly during training.
  • Larger-scale simulations with varying node densities would test whether the savings scale linearly with network size.

Load-bearing premise

The derived dependence of SGP convergence rate on mixing matrices remains valid under the broadcast communication model and yields designs that improve measured wall-clock time.

What would settle it

A side-by-side run on the same wireless topology and data where the new mixing-matrix design produces equal or longer observed convergence time than a strong baseline, or where the theoretical rate bound fails to predict the measured iteration count.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15549 by Ting He, Tuan Nguyen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Topology for motivating experiment: each undi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Motivating experiment based on FMNIST over the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Base topology used in evaluation. 6.1.2 Benchmarks. We compare the proposed solution with the following benchmarks: • ‘Vanilla D-PSGD’ [14], which is a baseline that uses the base topology as the communication graph and Metropolis–Hastings weights; • ‘Vanilla SGP’ [2], which uses the base topology as the com￾munication graph but assigns weights according to Lemma 4.1; • ‘MATCHA’ [28], which aims at minimiz… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of Alg. 1 based on (2,6)-windmill gra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Design objective vs. design parameter for RG ( ∗ = 6). B              [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Designed communication graph based on RG. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Training performance on RG. 6.2 Evaluation Results 6.2.1 Results on Random Geometric (RG) Graph. We first use the random geometric graph in Fig. 4a as the base topology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ablation study on Roofnet. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ablation study on RG. 0 0000 00000 0000 00000 0000 00000 0000 00000  $ $" # ## # $#    "  ###         $ $" # ## # $#     #$  "" "     ! #    "  ###     ! #     #$  "" "         [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We consider the problem of minimizing the convergence time for decentralized federated learning (DFL) in wireless networks under broadcast communications, with focus on mixing matrix design. The mixing matrix is a critical hyperparameter for DFL that simultaneously controls the convergence rate across iterations and the communication demand per iteration, both strongly influencing the convergence time. Although the problem has been studied previously, existing solutions are mostly designed for decentralized parallel stochastic gradient descent (D-PSGD), which requires the mixing matrix to be symmetric and doubly stochastic. These constraints confine the activated communication graph to undirected (i.e., bidirected) graphs, which limits design flexibility. In contrast, we consider mixing matrix design for stochastic gradient push (SGP), which allows asymmetric mixing matrices and hence directed communication graphs. By analyzing how the convergence rate of SGP depends on the mixing matrices, we extract an objective function that explicitly depends on graph-theoretic parameters of the activated communication graph, based on which we develop an efficient design algorithm with performance guarantees. Our evaluations based on real data show that the proposed solution can notably reduce the convergence time compared to the state of the art without compromising the quality of the trained model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript addresses mixing-matrix design for Stochastic Gradient Push (SGP) in decentralized federated learning under broadcast communications. Unlike prior D-PSGD approaches that require symmetric doubly-stochastic matrices (hence undirected graphs), the authors analyze the dependence of SGP convergence rate on asymmetric mixing matrices, extract a graph-theoretic objective that depends on parameters of the activated broadcast graph, and develop an efficient design algorithm equipped with performance guarantees. Experiments on real data indicate that the resulting matrices reduce wall-clock convergence time relative to the state of the art while preserving final model quality.

Significance. If the extracted objective is a sufficiently faithful proxy for actual iteration complexity, the work would meaningfully enlarge the design space for DFL in wireless settings by permitting directed communication graphs. The provision of performance guarantees for the design algorithm and the empirical demonstration of wall-clock improvement are concrete strengths that would be of interest to the decentralized optimization community.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Convergence-rate analysis for SGP): the central claim that the extracted objective can be optimized to minimize convergence time rests on the rate bound being sufficiently tight (or at least monotonically related) to true iteration complexity under the chosen asymmetric mixing matrices and broadcast model. The manuscript should supply either a quantitative tightness argument or additional experiments that directly compare the surrogate objective value against measured wall-clock time across the designed graphs; without this, the link between the graph-theoretic objective and the claimed reduction in convergence time remains the weakest step.
  2. [§4] §4 (Objective extraction and broadcast cost model): the per-iteration communication cost in the objective is modeled via graph-theoretic parameters of the activated broadcast graph. The paper must explicitly verify that this cost model matches the actual broadcast reception pattern, activation schedule, and simultaneous-reception assumption used in the SGP implementation; any mismatch would cause the optimized matrices to improve the surrogate but not the measured wall-clock time.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the solution 'notably reduce[s] the convergence time' but supplies no quantitative figures (e.g., percentage reduction or iteration counts). Adding one or two concrete numbers would strengthen the claim.
  2. [§2] Notation for the mixing matrix and the broadcast activation pattern should be introduced once and used consistently; several symbols appear to be redefined across sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, indicating where we will revise the paper to strengthen the connection between the surrogate objective and empirical performance.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Convergence-rate analysis for SGP): the central claim that the extracted objective can be optimized to minimize convergence time rests on the rate bound being sufficiently tight (or at least monotonically related) to true iteration complexity under the chosen asymmetric mixing matrices and broadcast model. The manuscript should supply either a quantitative tightness argument or additional experiments that directly compare the surrogate objective value against measured wall-clock time across the designed graphs; without this, the link between the graph-theoretic objective and the claimed reduction in convergence time remains the weakest step.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating the relationship between the extracted objective and actual iteration complexity is essential. In the revised manuscript we will add a new set of experiments (in Section 5 or an appendix) that, for a range of graphs produced by the design algorithm, plot the surrogate objective value against the measured number of iterations required to reach target accuracy. These plots will be accompanied by a brief discussion of the conditions under which the rate bound in Section 3 is expected to be tight, based on the spectral properties derived in the analysis. This will provide direct empirical support for the monotonicity claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Objective extraction and broadcast cost model): the per-iteration communication cost in the objective is modeled via graph-theoretic parameters of the activated broadcast graph. The paper must explicitly verify that this cost model matches the actual broadcast reception pattern, activation schedule, and simultaneous-reception assumption used in the SGP implementation; any mismatch would cause the optimized matrices to improve the surrogate but not the measured wall-clock time.

    Authors: We will strengthen the presentation of the cost model in Section 4. The revised manuscript will include an explicit verification subsection (or appendix) that maps each term in the objective to the corresponding elements of the broadcast implementation: the activation schedule, the set of nodes that receive each transmission, and the assumption of simultaneous reception. We will also add a short paragraph confirming that the SGP code used in the experiments follows exactly this model, thereby eliminating any potential mismatch between the surrogate and the measured wall-clock time. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: objective extracted from SGP convergence analysis is independent derivation

full rationale

The central step extracts an objective from the dependence of SGP convergence rate on mixing matrices under broadcast, then optimizes the resulting graph-theoretic function. This is a standard analytic derivation with no self-referential definitions, no fitted inputs renamed as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations. The abstract and description show the objective is constructed from rate bounds rather than tautologically from the target convergence time itself. No equations reduce to their inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the SGP convergence-rate bound under asymmetric mixing matrices and the assumption that minimizing the extracted graph-theoretic objective actually minimizes wall-clock convergence time in broadcast settings. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are visible in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5496 in / 1184 out tokens · 21155 ms · 2026-05-10T11:10:53.169662+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Daniel Aguayo, John Bicket, Sanjit Biswas, Glenn Judd, a nd Robert Morris. 2004. Link-level Measurements from an 802.11b Mesh Network. In SIGCOMM

    2004

  2. [2]

    Mahmoud Assran, Nicolas Loizou, Nicolas Ballas, and Mik e Rabbat. 2019. Sto- chastic Gradient Push for Distributed Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning , Vol. 97. 344–353

    2019

  3. [3]

    Xianhao Chen, Guangyu Zhu, Yiqin Deng, and Yuguang Fang. 2022. Federated learning over multihop wireless networks with in-network a ggregation. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 21, 6 (2022), 4622–4634

    2022

  4. [4]

    Zheng Chen, Martin Dahl, and Erik G. Larsson. 2023. Decen tralized Learning over Wireless Networks: The Effect of Broadcast with Random A ccess. In 2023 IEEE 24th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Com- munications (SPA WC). 316–320. doi:10.1109/SPA WC53906.2023.10304514

    work page doi:10.1109/spa 2023

  5. [5]

    Cho-Chun Chiu, Xusheng Zhang, Ting He, Shiqiang Wang, an d Ananthram Swami. 2023. Laplacian Matrix Sampling for Communication- Efficient Decen- tralized Learning. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 41, 4 (2023), 887–901. doi:10.1109/JSAC.2023.3242735

    work page doi:10.1109/jsac.2023.3242735 2023

  6. [6]

    Reinhard Diestel. 2017. Graph Theory (5 ed.). Springer

    2017

  7. [7]

    Fürer and B

    M. Fürer and B. Raghavachari. 1992. Approximating the Mi nimum Degree Span- ning Tree to Within One from the Optimal Degree. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM–SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) . 317–324

    1992

  8. [8]

    Garey and David S

    Michael R. Garey and David S. Johnson. 1979. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness . W. H. Freeman

    1979

  9. [9]

    Daniel PÉRez Herrera, Zheng Chen, and Erik G. Larsson. 20 25. Faster Conver- gence With Less Communication: Broadcast-Based Subgraph S ampling for De- centralized Learning Over Wireless Networks. IEEE Open Journal of the Com- munications Society (2025), 1–1. doi:10.1109/OJCOMS.2025.3540133

    work page doi:10.1109/ojcoms.2025.3540133 2025

  10. [10]

    Yifan Hua, Kevin Miller, Andrea L Bertozzi, Chen Qian, a nd Bao Wang. 2022. Ef- ficient and reliable overlay networks for decentralized fed erated learning. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 82, 4 (2022), 1558–1586

    2022

  11. [11]

    Zhida Jiang, Yang Xu, Hongli Xu, Lun Wang, Chunming Qiao , and Liusheng Huang. 2023. Joint Model Pruning and Topology Construction for Accelerating Decentralized Machine Learning. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Anastasia Koloskova, Tao Lin, Sebastian U Stich, and Ma rtin Jagg. 2020. De- centralized Deep Learning with Arbitrary Communication Co mpression. In The International Conference on Learning Representations (IC LR)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Batiste Le Bars, Aurélien Bellet, Marc Tommasi, Erick L avoie, and Anne-Marie Kermarrec. 2023. Refined convergence and topology learning for decentralized SGD with heterogeneous data. In International Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence and Statistics . PMLR, 1672–1702

    2023

  14. [14]

    Xiangru Lian, Ce Zhang, Huan Zhang, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Wei Z hang, and Ji Liu

  15. [15]

    In Proceed- ings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    Can Decentralized Algorithms Outperform Centralize d Algorithms? A Case Study for Decentralized Parallel Stochastic Gradient Descent. In Proceed- ings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 5336–5346

  16. [16]

    Liyuan Liang, Xinmeng Huang, Ran Xin, and Kun Yuan. 2025. Understanding the Influence of Digraphs on Decentralized Optimization: Effect ive Metrics, Lower Bound, and Optimal Algorithm. SIAM Journal on Optimization 35, 3 (2025), 1570– 1600

    2025

  17. [17]

    Yucheng Lu and Christopher De Sa. 2020. Moniqua: Modulo Quantized Commu- nication in Decentralized SGD. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Yucheng Lu and Christopher De Sa. 2021. Optimal Complex ity in Decentralized Training. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2021

  19. [19]

    McMahan, Eider Moore, D

    H. McMahan, Eider Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and Blai se Agüera y Arcas

  20. [20]

    In AISTATS

    Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks fro m Decentralized Data. In AISTATS

  21. [21]

    Giovanni Neglia, Chuan Xu, Don Towsley, and Gianmarco C albi. 2020. Decen- tralized gradient methods: does topology matter?. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . PMLR, 2348–2358

    2020

  22. [22]

    Navjot Singh, Deepesh Data, Jemin George, and Suhas Dig gavi. 2020. SPARQ- SGD: Event-Triggered and Compressed Communication in Dece ntralized Opti- mization. In IEEE CDC

    2020

  23. [23]

    Navjot Singh, Deepesh Data, Jemin George, and Suhas Dig gavi. 2021. SQuARM- SGD: Communication-Efficient Momentum SGD for Decentralize d Optimiza- tion. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory 2, 3 (2021), 954–969

    2021

  24. [24]

    Pasc halidis

    Artin Spiridonoff, Alex Olshevsky, and Ioannis Ch. Pasc halidis. 2020. Robust Asynchronous Stochastic Gradient-Push: Asymptotically Optimal and Network- Independent Performance for Strongly Convex Functions. Journal of Machine Learning Research 21, 58 (2020), 1–47

    2020

  25. [25]

    Hanlin Tang, Shaoduo Gan, Ce Zhang, Tong Zhang, and Ji Li u. 2018. Communi- cation compression for decentralized training. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Hanlin Tang, Xiangru Lian, Ming Yan, Ce Zhang, and Ji Liu . 2018. /u1D4372: Decen- tralized Training over Decentralized Data. InProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML

    2018

  27. [27]

    Tran, Wei Bao, Albert Zomaya, Minh N.H

    Nguyen H. Tran, Wei Bao, Albert Zomaya, Minh N.H. Nguyen, and Choong Seon Hong. 2019. Federated Learning over Wireless Networks: Opt imization Model Design and Analysis. In IEEE INFOCOM

    2019

  28. [28]

    Thijs Vogels, Hadrien Hendrikx, and Martin Jaggi. 2022 . Beyond spectral gap: The role of the topology in decentralized learning. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems 35 (2022), 15039–15050

    2022

  29. [29]

    Jianyu Wang and Gauri Joshi. 2019. Adaptive Communicat ion Strategies to Achieve the Best Error-Runtime Trade-off in Local-Update SG D. In Systems for ML

    2019

  30. [30]

    Jianyu Wang, Anit Kumar Sahu, Gauri Joshi, and Soummya K ar. 2022. MATCHA: A Matching-Based Link Scheduling Strategy to Speed up Distr ibuted Optimiza- tion. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 70 (2022), 5208–5221

    2022

  31. [31]

    Leung, Christian Makaya, Ting He, and Kevin Chan

    Shiqiang Wang, Tiffany Tuor, Theodoros Salonidis, Kin K . Leung, Christian Makaya, Ting He, and Kevin Chan. 2019. Adaptive Federated Le arning in Re- source Constrained Edge Computing Systems. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 37, 6 (2019), 1205–1221. doi:10.1109/JSAC.2019.2904348 10 Optimizing Stochastic Gradient Push under Broadcast Commu ...

    work page doi:10.1109/jsac.2019.2904348 2019

  32. [32]

    Han Xiao, Kashif Rasul, and Roland Vollgraf. 2017. Fash ion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithm s. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Ran Xin, Usman Khan, and Soummya Kar. 2021. A Hybrid Vari ance-Reduced Method for Decentralized Stochastic Non-Convex Optimizat ion. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 139), Marina Meila and Tong Zhang (Eds.). PMLR, 11459– 11469. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/xin21a.htm l

    2021

  34. [34]

    Hong Xing, Osvaldo Simeone, and Suzhi Bi. 2021. Federat ed learning over wire- less device-to-device networks: Algorithms and convergence analysis. IEEE Jour- nal on Selected Areas in Communications 39, 12 (2021), 3723–3741

    2021

  35. [35]

    Runze You and Shi Pu. 2025. Stochastic Push-Pull for Dec entralized Nonconvex Optimization. arXiv:2506.07021 [math.OC] https://arxiv .org/abs/2506.07021

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Xusheng Zhang, Tuan Nguyen, and Ting He. 2026. Mixing Ma trix Design for Energy-efficient Decentralized Federated Learning. In IEEE INFOCOM

    2026

  37. [37]

    Yiming Zhou, Yifei Cheng, Linli Xu, and Enhong Chen. 202 5. Adaptive Weighting Push-SUM for Decentralized Optimization With St atistical Diver- sity. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems 12, 3 (2025), 2337–2349. doi:10.1109/TCNS.2025.3566329 11 Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Nguyen et al. A Appendix A.1 Proof of Theorem 3.1 Let /...

    work page doi:10.1109/tcns.2025.3566329 2025