REVIEW 1 cited by
Training Machine Learning models at the Edge: A Survey
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Edge computing has gained significant traction in recent years, promising enhanced efficiency by integrating artificial intelligence capabilities at the edge. While the focus has primarily been on the deployment and inference of Machine Learning (ML) models at the edge, the training aspect remains less explored. This survey, explores the concept of edge learning, specifically the optimization of ML model training at the edge. The objective is to comprehensively explore diverse approaches and methodologies in edge learning, synthesize existing knowledge, identify challenges, and highlight future trends. Utilizing Scopus and Web of science advanced search, relevant literature on edge learning was identified, revealing a concentration of research efforts in distributed learning methods, particularly federated learning. This survey further provides a guideline for comparing techniques used to optimize ML for edge learning, along with an exploration of the different frameworks, libraries, and simulation tools available. In doing so, the paper contributes to a holistic understanding of the current landscape and future directions in the intersection of edge computing and machine learning, paving the way for informed comparisons between optimization methods and techniques designed for training on the edge.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Vision-Based Embedded System for Noncontact Monitoring of Preterm Infant Behavior in Low-Resource Care Settings
A quantized MobileNet on a Raspberry Pi achieves 91.8% sleep/awake and 97.7% crying/normal accuracy on a public neonatal dataset, but the state-of-the-art claim is not supported by direct comparison to prior vision methods.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.