REVIEW 1 cited by
Fairness-Aware Client Selection for Federated Learning
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
Fairness-Aware Client Selection for Federated Learning
read the original abstract
Federated learning (FL) has enabled multiple data owners (a.k.a. FL clients) to train machine learning models collaboratively without revealing private data. Since the FL server can only engage a limited number of clients in each training round, FL client selection has become an important research problem. Existing approaches generally focus on either enhancing FL model performance or enhancing the fair treatment of FL clients. The problem of balancing performance and fairness considerations when selecting FL clients remains open. To address this problem, we propose the Fairness-aware Federated Client Selection (FairFedCS) approach. Based on Lyapunov optimization, it dynamically adjusts FL clients' selection probabilities by jointly considering their reputations, times of participation in FL tasks and contributions to the resulting model performance. By not using threshold-based reputation filtering, it provides FL clients with opportunities to redeem their reputations after a perceived poor performance, thereby further enhancing fair client treatment. Extensive experiments based on real-world multimedia datasets show that FairFedCS achieves 19.6% higher fairness and 0.73% higher test accuracy on average than the best-performing state-of-the-art approach.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Assessing the Impacts of Imperfect Datasets on Client Selections in Federated Learning
Federated learning client quality can be scored by testing each client's model on the server's own data, and selection fairness should be dialed down when quality scores vary widely.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.