Cited by 640Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataAdvanced Wireless Network OptimizationIoT and Edge/Fog Computing

Scheduling Policies for Federated Learning in Wireless Networks

Open access
Yang, Howard H., Liu, Zuozhu, Quek, Tony Q. S., Poor, H. Vincent·2020·IEEE Transactions on Communications

Abstract

Motivated by the increasing computational capacity of wireless user equipments (UEs), e.g., smart phones, tablets, or vehicles, as well as the increasing concerns about sharing private data, a new machine learning model has emerged, namely federated learning (FL), that allows a decoupling of data acquisition and computation at the central unit. Unlike centralized learning taking place in a data center, FL usually operates in a wireless edge network where the communication medium is resource-constrained and unreliable. Due to limited bandwidth, only a portion of UEs can be scheduled for updates at each iteration. Due to the shared nature of the wireless medium, transmissions are subjected to interference and are not guaranteed. The performance of FL system in such a setting is not well understood. In this paper, an analytical model is developed to characterize the performance of FL in wireless networks. Particularly, tractable expressions are derived for the convergence rate of FL in a wireless setting, accounting for effects from both scheduling schemes and inter-cell interference. Using the developed analysis, the effectiveness of three different scheduling policies, i.e., random scheduling (RS), round robin (RR), and proportional fair (PF), are compared in terms of FL convergence rate. It is shown that running FL with PF outperforms RS and RR if the network is operating under a high signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) threshold, while RR is more preferable when the SINR threshold is low. Moreover, the FL convergence rate decreases rapidly as the SINR threshold increases, thus confirming the importance of compression and quantization of the update parameters. The analysis also reveals a trade-off between the number of scheduled UEs and subchannel bandwidth under a fixed amount of available spectrum.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tcomm.2019.2944169

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The convergence rate of scheduling policies including random scheduling, round-robin, and proportional fair is largely dependent on the signal quality threshold.

    “Three scheduling schemes are examined in [43], including random scheduling, round-robin, and proportional fair, showing that the convergence rate of these scheduling policies is largely dependent on the signal quality threshold.”

    From Federated learning for smart healthcare: A survey (2023) · cites this paper as [43]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [10][10] T. Nishio and R. Yonetani, 'Client selection for federated learning with heterogeneous resources in mobile edge,' arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.08333 , 2018. - · arXiv
  2. [12][12] T. Chen, G. B. Giannakis, T. Sun, and W. Yin, 'LAG: Lazily aggregated gradient for communication-efficient distributed learning,' in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) , Montreal, CANADA, Dec. 2018. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, H. H., Liu, Z., Quek, T. Q. S., & Poor, H. V.
Affiliations
  • Singapore University of Technology and Design (SG)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Princeton University (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Communications
Published
2020-01
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
317-333
ISSN
  • 0090-6778 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0857
OpenAlex
W2968239693
Cited by
640
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 124 · 2022: 127 · 2021: 130 · 2020: 73
FWCI
37.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Communications (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • SUTD-ZJU Research Collaboration (SUTD- ZJU/RES/01/2016, SUTD-ZJU/RES/05/2016)
  • SUTD Growth Plan Grant for AI
  • National Science Foundation (CCF-093970, CCF-1513915)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advanced Wireless Network Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Keywords
federated learning, scheduling policies, wireless edge networks, convergence rate, inter-cell interference, proportional fair scheduling, round robin scheduling, probabilistic scheduling, SINR threshold, parameter compression, quantization, user equipment

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