fair resource allocation in federated learning
play

Fair Resource Allocation in Federated Learning Tian Li (CMU) , - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Fair Resource Allocation in Federated Learning Tian Li (CMU) , Maziar Sanjabi (Facebook AI), Ahmad Beirami (Facebook AI), Virginia Smith (CMU) tianli@cmu.edu 1 Federated Learning 2 2 Federated Learning Privacy-preserving training in


  1. Fair Resource Allocation in Federated Learning Tian Li (CMU) , Maziar Sanjabi (Facebook AI), Ahmad Beirami (Facebook AI), Virginia Smith (CMU) tianli@cmu.edu 1

  2. Federated Learning 2 2

  3. Federated Learning Privacy-preserving training in heterogeneous, (potentially) massive networks 2 2

  4. Federated Learning Privacy-preserving training in heterogeneous, (potentially) massive networks 2 2

  5. Federated Learning Privacy-preserving training in heterogeneous, (potentially) massive networks 2 2

  6. Federated Learning Privacy-preserving training in heterogeneous, (potentially) massive networks 2

  7. Federated Learning Privacy-preserving training in heterogeneous, (potentially) massive networks 2

  8. Federated Learning Privacy-preserving training in heterogeneous, (potentially) massive networks 2

  9. Federated Learning Privacy-preserving training in heterogeneous, (potentially) massive networks 2

  10. Challenges 3

  11. Challenges ) … ( objective: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N w 3

  12. Challenges ) … ( objective: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N w no accuracy guarantee for individual devices 3

  13. Challenges ) … ( objective: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N w no accuracy guarantee for individual devices model performance can vary widely 3

  14. Challenges ) … ( objective: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N w no accuracy guarantee for individual devices Can we devise an efficient federated optimization method to encourage a more fair (i.e., more uniform ) distribution of the model performance across devices? model performance can vary widely 3

  15. Fair Resource Allocation Objective

  16. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) … ( + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N w

  17. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) q + 1 … q + 1 ( q + 1 1 q -FFL: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N q + 1 w

  18. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) q + 1 … q + 1 ( q + 1 1 q -FFL: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N q + 1 w Inspired by 𝛽 -fairness for fair resource allocation in wireless networks

  19. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) q + 1 … q + 1 ( q + 1 1 q -FFL: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N q + 1 w Inspired by 𝛽 -fairness for fair resource allocation in wireless networks A tunable framework ( : previous objective; : minimax fairness) q = 0 q = ∞

  20. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) q + 1 … q + 1 ( q + 1 1 q -FFL: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N q + 1 w Inspired by 𝛽 -fairness for fair resource allocation in wireless networks A tunable framework ( : previous objective; : minimax fairness) q = 0 q = ∞ Theory

  21. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) q + 1 … q + 1 ( q + 1 1 q -FFL: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N q + 1 w Inspired by 𝛽 -fairness for fair resource allocation in wireless networks A tunable framework ( : previous objective; : minimax fairness) q = 0 q = ∞ Theory

  22. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) q + 1 … q + 1 ( q + 1 1 q -FFL: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N q + 1 w Inspired by 𝛽 -fairness for fair resource allocation in wireless networks A tunable framework ( : previous objective; : minimax fairness) q = 0 q = ∞ Theory Generalization guarantees Increasing results in more ‘uniform’ accuracy distributions (in q terms of various uniformity measures such as variance)

  23. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) … q + 1 q + 1 q + 1 ( q + 1 1 q -FFL: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N w

  24. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) … q + 1 q + 1 q + 1 ( q + 1 1 q -FFL: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N w # test accuracy 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.8

  25. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) … q + 1 q + 1 q + 1 ( q + 1 1 q -FFL: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N w Baseline # test accuracy 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.8

  26. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) … q + 1 q + 1 q + 1 ( q + 1 1 q -FFL: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N w Baseline q -FFL # test accuracy 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.8

  27. Fair Resource Allocation Objective ) … q + 1 q + 1 q + 1 ( q + 1 1 q -FFL: + p 2 min p 1 + p N + F 1 F 2 F N w Baseline q -FFL # test accuracy 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.8

  28. Efficient Solver

  29. Efficient Solver Challenges

  30. Efficient Solver Challenges Different fairness/accuracy tradeoffs: different q’s

  31. Efficient Solver Challenges Different fairness/accuracy tradeoffs: different q’s

  32. Efficient Solver Challenges Different fairness/accuracy tradeoffs: different q’s Heterogeneous networks, expensive communication

  33. Efficient Solver Challenges Different fairness/accuracy tradeoffs: different q’s Heterogeneous networks, expensive communication

  34. Efficient Solver Challenges Different fairness/accuracy tradeoffs: different q’s Heterogeneous networks, expensive communication

  35. Efficient Solver Challenges High level ideas Different fairness/accuracy tradeoffs: different q’s Heterogeneous networks, expensive communication

  36. Efficient Solver Challenges High level ideas Different fairness/accuracy Dynamically estimate the step tradeoffs: different q’s sizes associated with different ’s q Heterogeneous networks, expensive communication

  37. Efficient Solver Challenges High level ideas Different fairness/accuracy Dynamically estimate the step tradeoffs: different q’s sizes associated with different ’s q Heterogeneous networks, expensive communication

  38. Efficient Solver Challenges High level ideas Different fairness/accuracy Dynamically estimate the step tradeoffs: different q’s sizes associated with different ’s q Heterogeneous networks, Allow for low device expensive communication participation, local updating

  39. Empirical Results Objective Average Worst 10% Best 10% Variance Dataset Synthetic q = 0 80.8 18.8 100.0 724 q = 1 79.0 31.1 100.0 472 Vehicle q = 0 87.3 43.0 95.7 291 q = 5 87.7 69.9 94.0 48 Sent140 q = 0 65.1 15.9 100.0 697 q = 1 66.5 23.0 100.0 509 Shakespeare q = 0 51.1 39.7 72.9 82 q = .001 52.1 42.1 69.0 54

  40. Empirical Results Benchmark: LEAF (leaf.cmu.edu) Objective Average Worst 10% Best 10% Variance Dataset Synthetic q = 0 80.8 18.8 100.0 724 q = 1 79.0 31.1 100.0 472 Vehicle q = 0 87.3 43.0 95.7 291 q = 5 87.7 69.9 94.0 48 Sent140 q = 0 65.1 15.9 100.0 697 q = 1 66.5 23.0 100.0 509 Shakespeare q = 0 51.1 39.7 72.9 82 q = .001 52.1 42.1 69.0 54

  41. Empirical Results Benchmark: LEAF (leaf.cmu.edu) Objective Average Worst 10% Best 10% Variance Dataset Synthetic q = 0 80.8 18.8 100.0 724 q = 1 79.0 31.1 100.0 472 Vehicle q = 0 87.3 43.0 95.7 291 q = 5 87.7 69.9 94.0 48 Sent140 q = 0 65.1 15.9 100.0 697 q = 1 66.5 23.0 100.0 509 Shakespe q = 0 51.1 39.7 72.9 82 q = .001 52.1 42.1 69.0 54

  42. Empirical Results Benchmark: similar average LEAF (leaf.cmu.edu) accuracy Objective Average Worst 10% Best 10% Variance Dataset Synthetic q = 0 80.8 18.8 100.0 724 q = 1 79.0 31.1 100.0 472 Vehicle q = 0 87.3 43.0 95.7 291 q = 5 87.7 69.9 94.0 48 Sent140 q = 0 65.1 15.9 100.0 697 q = 1 66.5 23.0 100.0 509 Shakespe q = 0 51.1 39.7 72.9 82 q = .001 52.1 42.1 69.0 54

  43. Empirical Results Benchmark: LEAF (leaf.cmu.edu) Objective Average Worst 10% Best 10% Variance Dataset Synthetic q = 0 80.8 18.8 100.0 724 q = 1 79.0 31.1 100.0 472 Vehicle q = 0 87.3 43.0 95.7 291 q = 5 87.7 69.9 94.0 48 Sent140 q = 0 65.1 15.9 100.0 697 q = 1 66.5 23.0 100.0 509 Shakespe q = 0 51.1 39.7 72.9 82 q = .001 52.1 42.1 69.0 54

  44. Empirical Results Benchmark: decrease variance LEAF (leaf.cmu.edu) significantly Objective Average Worst 10% Best 10% Variance Dataset Synthetic q = 0 80.8 18.8 100.0 724 q = 1 79.0 31.1 100.0 472 Vehicle q = 0 87.3 43.0 95.7 291 q = 5 87.7 69.9 94.0 48 Sent140 q = 0 65.1 15.9 100.0 697 q = 1 66.5 23.0 100.0 509 Shakespe q = 0 51.1 39.7 72.9 82 q = .001 52.1 42.1 69.0 54

  45. Empirical Results Benchmark: LEAF (leaf.cmu.edu) Objective Average Worst 10% Best 10% Variance Dataset Synthetic q = 0 80.8 18.8 100.0 724 q = 1 79.0 31.1 100.0 472 Vehicle q = 0 87.3 43.0 95.7 291 q = 5 87.7 69.9 94.0 48 Sent140 q = 0 65.1 15.9 100.0 697 q = 1 66.5 23.0 100.0 509 Shakespe q = 0 51.1 39.7 72.9 82 q = .001 52.1 42.1 69.0 54

  46. Empirical Results increase the Benchmark: accuracy of the LEAF (leaf.cmu.edu) worst 10% devices Objective Average Worst 10% Best 10% Variance Dataset Synthetic q = 0 80.8 18.8 100.0 724 q = 1 79.0 31.1 100.0 472 Vehicle q = 0 87.3 43.0 95.7 291 q = 5 87.7 69.9 94.0 48 Sent140 q = 0 65.1 15.9 100.0 697 q = 1 66.5 23.0 100.0 509 Shakespe q = 0 51.1 39.7 72.9 82 q = .001 52.1 42.1 69.0 54

  47. Empirical Results slightly decrease Benchmark: the accuracy of the LEAF (leaf.cmu.edu) best devices Objective Average Worst 10% Best 10% Variance Dataset Synthetic q = 0 80.8 18.8 100.0 724 q = 1 79.0 31.1 100.0 472 Vehicle q = 0 87.3 43.0 95.7 291 q = 5 87.7 69.9 94.0 48 Sent140 q = 0 65.1 15.9 100.0 697 q = 1 66.5 23.0 100.0 509 Shakespe q = 0 51.1 39.7 72.9 82 q = .001 52.1 42.1 69.0 54

Recommend


More recommend