Organizations: Future Computing Group, University of Oulu, Finland · LISTIC, University Savoie Mont Blanc, France · AaltoSEA Group, Aalto University, Finland
Abstract
Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a promising solution for data hunger in centralized learning. This paradigm enables privacy with multiple clients to train a shared-task model collaboratively without exposing their local data. While being a key component in any learning system, data is also a primary source of vulnerabilities and challenges, and a major determinant of a stable and well-converged training. Existing FL reviews describe general foundations, security practices, opportunities, challenges, and applications, without delving into diverse aspects of data and considering problems from the data perspective. They rarely provide a data-lens synthesis that links concrete data properties, split protocols, and defenses to convergence speed and stability. This survey fills that gap with three advances. First, we analyze non-IID into measurable traits and rank their influence on convergence as strong, medium, or light, explaining the mechanisms behind each and reconciling evidence across images, texts, and graphs. Second, we connect experimental splitting practices to the real phenomena they emulate, expose the artifacts they introduce, and show how those artifacts affect target accuracy. Third, we analyze how data-related vulnerabilities and their proposed defenses affect convergence, reporting performance under clean and adversarial conditions to make the convergence-robustness trade-off explicit. To our knowledge, this is the first survey to provide a complete understanding of data-related challenges that govern FL. With clear takeaways distilled for each concern, our work serves as actionable guidance, helping practitioners design their system with predictable convergence and stability.
There are two categories of methods in Federated Learning (FL) for joint training across multiple clients: (i) parallel FL (PFL), where clients train models in a parallel manner; and (ii) sequential FL (SFL), where clients train models in a sequential manner. In contrast to that of PFL, the convergence theory of SFL on heterogeneous data is still lacking. In this paper, we establish the convergence guarantees of SFL for strongly/general/non-convex objectives on heterogeneous data. The convergence guarantees of SFL are better than that of PFL on heterogeneous data with both full and partial client participation. Experimental results validate the counterintuitive analysis result that SFL outperforms PFL on extremely heterogeneous data in cross-device settings.
Federated learning (FL) is a popular distributed learning framework where multiple clients perform local training and a server aggregates the locally updated models. FL enables decentralized training while preserving the privacy of clients' datasets. However, non-independent and identically distributed (non-IID) or noisy datasets can lead to low model accuracy or high convergence latency. Precluding these clients through client selection may mitigate the problem, but heavily biased client selections may also degrade the learning performance. In this study, we first experimentally measure the impact of non-IID data (including skews in data quantity and label distribution), noisy data, and fairness in client selection on model accuracy and convergence. We then propose a privacy-preserving scoring method to assess each client's contribution in FL, with experiments conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed assessment.
Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a promising paradigm for collaborative model training across distributed edge devices while preserving data privacy especially with the huge increase amount of data due to the adoption of technologies which contributes to the growing number of IoT devices. Storing this amount of data centrally is challenging due to issues like limited communication, privacy, and regulations. FL can be Centralized (CFL), Decentralized (DFL), and Semi-decentralized (SDFL). Choosing the right FL architecture depends on the application's needs. However, very few research studies have experimentally compared these three types of architectures to not only understand the respective strengths and limitations, but also trade-offs between different performance indicators. This paper overcome this lack of analysis, conducting experimental analyses using the Fedstellar simulator, MNIST dataset, and MLP classifier.