Importance-Aware Feature Sparsification for Wireless Split Learning
Authors: Bumjun Kim, Yoon Huh, Wan Choi
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Seoul National University (SNU), and the Institute of New Media and Communications, SNU, Seoul 08826, Korea
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.
Figures & tables
Paradigm
Main idea
Client-side computation
Uplink communication overhead
FL
Each client trains the full model locally, and the server aggregates the uploaded model updates.
Full forward/backward pass over the entire model at each client, i.e., O(Cd+Cs) .
Model updates are uploaded from the clients, i.e., O(K(Pd+Ps)) in total.
Sequential SL
The model is split into client-side and server-side parts, and clients communicate with the server sequentially.
Forward/backward pass only over the client-side model at each client, i.e., O(Cd) .
Intermediate features are uploaded sequentially, i.e., O(KBCUV) in total.
PSL
Multiple clients perform client-side computation and transmit intermediate features to the server in parallel. Client-side models are synchronized after the local updates.
Forward/backward pass over the client-side model at each client, i.e., O(Cd) .
Intermediate features and client-side model updates are uploaded, i.e., O(K(BCUV+Pd)) in total.
TABLE I: Comparison of FL, sequential SL and PSL.
Method
Selection criterion
Task-aware importance
No extra client-side computation
Non-i.i.d. consideration
RS [ 20 ]
Random sampling
✗
✓
✗
TS [ 17 ]
Feature magnitude
✗
✗
✗
RTS [ 23 ]
Feature magnitude + random sampling
✗
✗
✗
FedLite [ 19 ]
Feature clustering
✗
✗
✗
SplitFC [ 18 ]
Feature statistics
✗
✗
✗
Proposed ICS
Grad-CAM-based channel importance
✓
✓
✓
TABLE II: Comparison of communication-efficient split learning methods.
Symbol
Description
K
Number of clients.
T
Number of iterations.
E
Number of local steps.
B
Mini-batch size.
L
Number of output classes.
L
Per-sample loss function.
TABLE III: Notations and Descriptions.
Fig. 1: System model of proposed framework with the numbered stages .
Method
Client-side sparsification (msec/batch)
Server-side additional runtime (msec/batch)
RS
0.4133
0.0
TS
0.5099
0.0
RTS
0.5357
0.0
FedLite
31.7882
0.0
SplitFC
0.8106
0.0
ICS
0.0928
6.1702 (effectively 0.0)
TABLE IV: Runtime comparison of communication-efficient SL methods.
Fig. 2: Test accuracy of CIFAR-100 classification under i.i.d. datasets.
Fig. 3: Test accuracy of CIFAR-100 classification with Dirichlet α=0.5 .
Fig. 4: Test accuracy of CIFAR-100 classification with Dirichlet α=0.1 .
Fig. 5: Test accuracy of CIFAR-100 classification with Dirichlet α=0.05 .
Fig. 6: Test accuracy of ICS and ICS w/o CB on CIFAR-100 with Dirichlet α=0.1 and α=0.05 .
Fig. 7: Test accuracy of CIFAR-100 classification under different sparsification ratio and mini-batch size pair.
Fig. 8: Test accuracy on CIFAR-100 classification under PSL with Dirichlet α=0.5 .
Fig. 9: Test accuracy of CIFAR-100 classification with transformer-based SL.
Fig. 10: Test accuracy of CIFAR-10 classification under i.i.d. datasets.
Fig. 11: mIoU of segmentation under Oxford-IIIT Pet datasets.
Fig. 12: Pixel accuracy of segmentation under Oxford-IIIT Pet datasets.
Fig. 13: Comparison of feature saliency maps for sampled images from five different labels. For each sample, the first, second, and third columns show the original image, the Grad-CAM saliency map, and their overlay, respectively. Each row corresponds to a different sparsification method: ICS (row 1), TS (row 2), RS (row 3), RTS (row 4), SplitFC (row 5), and FedLite (row 6).
Split learning (SL) enables collaborative training by partitioning a neural network across clients and a central server, but the cut-layer interface introduces a key challenge: high-dimensional activations incur substantial communication overhead while exposing representations vulnerable to reconstruction attacks. Existing approaches typically address efficiency or privacy in isolation, relying on additional mechanisms such as sparsification, quantization, or noise injection. We propose LightSplit, which limits information exposure and reduces communication overhead by applying a lightweight fixed orthogonal random projection at the cut layer. Based on Shannon's information theory, this projection acts as an information bottleneck that restricts instance-specific information and suppresses exploitable per-sample signals. By transmitting low-dimensional projections instead of raw activations, the server operates on lifted representations without requiring architectural modifications, ensuring compatibility with existing SL architectures. By avoiding additional trainable components on the client, the method remains lightweight and suitable for edge devices while preserving end-to-end differentiability via exact gradient propagation. As the projection is non-invertible, part of the original representation is irreversibly discarded at the client, LightSplit reduces the information available for reconstruction and limits information exposure. We extensively evaluate LightSplit on state-of-the-art benchmarks in both IID and non-IID settings across varying projection dimensions and client scales. Our results show that the method retains more than 95% of the baseline accuracy at up to 32x reduction in transmitted dimensionality while maintaining stable training dynamics.
Mert Cihangiroglu, Alessandro Pegoraro, Phillip Rieger +2
University of Pavia · 2Technical University of Darmstadt
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
Split Federated Learning (SFL) enables privacy-preserving collaborative training by partitioning models between clients and a server. However, under non-IID data distributions, SFL often suffers from biased optimization and unstable convergence, while existing solutions largely adapt techniques from conventional federated learning. In this work, we observe that the split architecture of SFL inherently alters how client information is represented and coordinated, opening opportunities for bias compensation beyond parameter-level aggregation. Based on this insight, we propose BESplit, an architecture-aware framework that exploits the intrinsic structure of SFL to mitigate non-IID effects. First, to prevent biased local data from dominating global updates, we introduce Evidential Aggregation (EA) to perform fine-grained reweighting of client contributions based on evidential uncertainty. Second, to further reduce distributional skew, we develop Bias-Compensated Collaboration (BCC) to align split-layer representations by pairing complementary clients. Finally, Dual-Teacher Distillation (DTD) is incorporated to synchronize knowledge between decoupled client and server models, enabling independent local inference. Extensive experiments on five benchmark datasets demonstrate that BESplit consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods in accuracy, convergence stability, and computational efficiency under diverse non-IID settings.
Yuhan Xie, Chen Lyu, Jingrong Huang
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, China · MoE Key Laboratory of Interdisciplinary Research of Computation and Economics, China.