Latency-Aware Client Assignment for Parallel Split Learning With Global Sampling
Authors: Mohammad Kohankhaki, Valentin Rentschler, Anke Schmeink
Organizations: Chair of Information Theory and Data Analytics, RWTH Aachen University, Kopernikusstr. 16, 52074 Aachen, Germany · Cluster of Excellence CARE, TU Dresden and RWTH Aachen, Germany
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.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Alternative assignments for the same class target A–A–B–B. The latency-unaware assignment uses slow client C3 and takes 12 modeled time units. LB-GPSL assigns the same targets to eligible clients C1 and C2 and takes 6: the class target is unchanged, only the providers differ.
Fig. 2: LB-GPSL separates the pooled class target from client assignment. During planning, each variant constructs a candidate schedule for one epoch. The planning rule compares the two schedules including their construction time. The selected variant then constructs a fresh randomized schedule in every epoch, and training proceeds with the standard PSL update rule.
Condition
Method
Acc. (%) ↑
Time (min) ↓
Δ Time vs. GPSL (min) ↓
Δ Acc. vs. GPSL (pp)
CIFAR-10
GPSL
91.23±0.22
32.35±2.25
−2.17[−3.06,−1.28]
−0.30[−0.58,−0.02]
Flow LB-GPSL
90.92±0.30
30.18±2.38
CIFAR-100
GPSL
74.30±0.27
51.99±5.42
−6.91[−11.12,−2.70]
−0.59[−1.19,+0.01]
Fast LB-GPSL
73.71±0.35
45.08±8.61
TIN-C20
GPSL
62.41±0.23
313.02±25.93
−52.81[−57.04,−48.58]
+0.17[−0.23,+0.58]
Fast LB-GPSL
62.58±0.30
260.21±25.70
TABLE I: Final accuracy and modeled training time over five matched runs
Fig. 3: Validation-accuracy learning curves for (a) CIFAR-10, (b) TIN-C20, and (c) CIFAR-100. Lines and bands show means and sample standard deviations over five runs. The horizontal axis includes modeled client-side time plus measured schedule-construction time. Panel (a) also includes the target-matched control.
Fig. 4: Reduction in modeled time to validation-accuracy targets. Positive values indicate an earlier crossing than GPSL. Panel (a) includes modeled client-side time plus schedule-construction time. Panels (b) and (c) additionally include H200 server computation. Markers and bars show paired means and descriptive 95% t -intervals over five runs.
Assignment
Time (s) ↓
Build (s) ↓
Build share ↓
Gain ↑
CIFAR-100
Target-matched control
100.76
4.59
4.55
–
Flow LB-GPSL
35.99
14.03
38.97
63.91
Fast LB-GPSL
22.88
0.57
2.48
77.13
TIN-C20
Target-matched control
76.96
8.87
11.53
–
TABLE II: Fixed-target assignment time under nominal profiles
Fig. 5: Planning-rule evaluation over 81 settings and five seeds per setting. Panel (a) shows the distribution of regret, including selection overhead, for 100- and 200-epoch accounting windows. Panel (b) compares the selected algorithm with the lower-cost algorithm under the realized profile. Panels (c) and (d) show the fraction of comparisons within 2% of that cost by class count and delay profile. Flow and Fast denote the two LB-GPSL assignment algorithms.
CIFAR-100
Method
Acc. (%) ↑
Time to validation target (min) ↓
40%
55%
65%
70%
GPSL
74.30
3.08
6.07
12.61
24.69
Fast LB-GPSL
73.71
2.85
5.42
10.35
26.14
PSL
66.51
16.73
23.92
34.04
-
Sequential SL
55.40
934.00
1469.72
-
-
TABLE III: Final accuracy and complete modeled H200 time to validation targets
Training with a fixed global batch limits how many distributed clients can provide examples in any one step. We examine a way to use additional server workers without increasing the batch processed by an individual workload. Global Clustered Parallel Split Learning (GCPSL) assigns clients to fixed clusters, executes a Parallel Split Learning with Global Sampling (GPSL) workload for each cluster concurrently, and periodically fuses the client and server model segments. In simulations with 256 logical clients, dividing the population across more workloads improves direct data participation, while smaller clusters can incur an accuracy cost. A four-H100 implementation of label-aware GCPSL reaches 85% CIFAR-10 validation accuracy in 6.13±0.15 minutes over three matched runs, versus 19.09±0.45 minutes when the same workloads are serialized. Within the four-GPU allocation, size-balanced and random fixed affiliations reach the target in similar mean times (5.70 and 5.66 minutes); size balancing increases direct participation by 3.25 percentage points. These measurements characterize a trade-off among execution concurrency, assignment information, participation, and accuracy for stable-client split learning.
Mohammad Kohankhaki, Valentin Rentschler, Anke Schmeink
Chair of Information Theory and Data Analytics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Cross-silo Federated Learning (FL) enables geographically distributed institutions to collaboratively train machine learning models without sharing raw data. In wide-area deployments, however, communication delays often dominate round completion time and exacerbate the straggler effect. Hybrid FL addresses this challenge by combining synchronous and asynchronous client participation, but effective partitioning requires visibility into network conditions such as shared bottlenecks, link utilization, and path contention that individual clients cannot observe. We present HybridFLow, a closed-loop SDN-driven orchestration framework that integrates network-layer intelligence directly into hybrid FL. Leveraging the SDN controller's global topology view, HybridFLow generates calibrated per-client communication-time estimates before each training round and uses them to partition clients into synchronous and asynchronous groups while balancing round latency and update staleness. After each round, measured communication times are fed back to the controller to continuously refine future predictions. Experimental results across multiple network topologies show that HybridFLow reaches 80% target accuracy 33-40% faster than SmartFLow and reduces average round duration by 30-40 seconds, while FedAsync fails to reach the target accuracy under non-IID data distributions.
Osama Abu Hamdan, Rabin Pandey, Hao Che +2
University of Texas at Arlington · Missouri University of Science and Technology · Meta Platforms, Inc.
Wireless split learning (SL) reduces on-device computation by offloading upper layers to a server, yet transmitting high-dimensional intermediate features at each iteration remains a major communication bottleneck. Existing methods select features at the client side using task-agnostic criteria such as magnitude, statistics, or clustering, which increases client-side processing and often degrades accuracy under non-independent and identically distributed (non-i.i.d.) client data. We propose importance-aware class-balanced sparsification (ICS), a lightweight approach in which the server ranks feature channels using Grad-CAM-based scores obtained from the true-class logit during backpropagation. The per-class scores are aggregated into a class-balanced, label-agnostic importance vector that mitigates head-class bias under label skew, and each client reuses this vector in the next round to retain the top-N feature channels, incurring no additional client-side forward or backward passes. We further derive a non-asymptotic convergence bound that isolates the sparsification-induced error and characterizes how the sparsification ratio and mini-batch size jointly affect convergence under a fixed communication budget, and we analyze the communication and computational overhead of ICS against representative baselines. Beyond sequential CNN-based SL, we extend ICS to parallel split learning and to transformer-based models. Experiments show that ICS consistently outperforms the baselines, with larger gains under severe non-i.i.d. partitions.
Bumjun Kim, Yoon Huh, Wan Choi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Seoul National University (SNU), and the Institute of New Media and Communications, SNU, Seoul 08826, Korea