Decentralized Federated Learning With Unreliable Communications
Open accessAbstract
Decentralized federated learning, inherited from decentralized learning, enables the edge devices to collaborate on model training in a peer-to-peer manner without the assistance of a server. However, existing decentralized learning frameworks usually assume perfect communication among devices, where they can reliably exchange messages,e.g., gradients or parameters. But the real-world communication networks are prone to packet loss and transmission errors. Transmission reliability comes with a price. The commonly-used solution is to adopt a reliable transportation layer protocol,e.g., transmission control protocol (TCP), which however leads to significant communication overhead and reduces connectivity among devices that can be supported. For a communication network with a lightweight and unreliable communication protocol, user datagram protocol (UDP), we propose a robust decentralized stochastic gradient descent (SGD) approach, called Soft-DSGD, to address the unreliability issue. Soft-DSGD updates the model parameters with partially received messages and optimizes the mixing weights according to the link reliability matrix of communication links. We prove that the proposed decentralized training system, even with unreliable communications, can still achieve the same asymptotic convergence rate as vanilla decentralized SGD with perfect communications. Moreover, numerical results confirm the proposed approach can leverage all available unreliable communication links to speed up convergence.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
UDP is more commonly adopted in WFL.
“For this reason, the UDP is more commonly adopted in WFL [201].”
From Data and model poisoning backdoor attacks on wireless federated learning, and the defense mechanisms: A comprehensive survey (2024) · cites this paper as [201]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 184
- Authors
- Ye, H., Liang, L., & Li, G. Y.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Purple Mountain Laboratories (CN)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Venue
- IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing
- Published
- 2022-04
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 487-500
- ISSN
- 1932-4553 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-0484
- OpenAlex
- W3192649393
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 13.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
- Keywords
- decentralized federated learning, unreliable communication, packet loss, UDP, mixing weights, convergence rate, edge devices, peer learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review