SAFA: A Semi-Asynchronous Protocol for Fast Federated Learning With Low Overhead

Unknown author(s)

IEEE Transactions on Computers · 2020 · 332 citations · 9 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

Federated learning promises AI for many edge devices, yet its efficiency is hampered by unreliable clients and costly device‑server communication. This work introduces SAFA, a semi‑asynchronous protocol designed to improve round efficiency and convergence under extreme conditions such as frequent client drop‑outs. SAFA achieves this through novel model‑distribution, client‑selection, and global‑aggregation steps that mitigate stragglers, crashes, and model staleness, thereby boosting efficiency and global‑model quality. Extensive experiments on standard machine‑learning tasks show that SAFA shortens federated round duration, reduces local resource wastage, and improves global‑model accuracy while keeping communication costs acceptable.

Abstract

Federated learning (FL) has attracted increasing attention as a promising approach to driving a vast number of end devices with artificial intelligence. However, it is very challenging to guarantee the efficiency of FL considering the unreliable nature of end devices while the cost of device-server communication cannot be neglected. In this paper, we propose SAFA, a semi-asynchronous FL protocol, to address the problems in federated learning such as low round efficiency and poor convergence rate in extreme conditions (e.g., clients dropping offline frequently). We introduce novel designs in the steps of model distribution, client selection and global aggregation to mitigate the impacts of stragglers, crashes and model staleness in order to boost efficiency and improve the quality of the global model. We have conducted extensive experiments with typical machine learning tasks. The results demonstrate that the proposed protocol is effective in terms of shortening federated round duration, reducing local resource wastage, and improving the accuracy of the global model at an acceptable communication cost.

References

9