Cited by 43IoT and Edge/Fog ComputingPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataStochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques

Mercury: Efficient On-Device Distributed DNN Training via Stochastic Importance Sampling

Zeng, Xiao, Yan, Ming, Zhang, Mi·2021·Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems

Abstract

As intelligence is moving from data centers to the edges, intelligent edge devices such as smartphones, drones, robots, and smart IoT devices are equipped with the capability to altogether train a deep learning model on the devices from the data collected by themselves. Despite its considerable value, the key bottleneck of making on-device distributed training practically useful in real-world deployments is that they consume a significant amount of training time under wireless networks with constrained bandwidth. To tackle this critical bottleneck, we present Mercury, an importance sampling-based framework that enhances the training efficiency of on-device distributed training without compromising the accuracies of the trained models. The key idea behind the design of Mercury is to focus on samples that provide more important information in each training iteration. In doing this, the training efficiency of each iteration is improved. As such, the total number of iterations can be considerably reduced so as to speed up the overall training process. We implemented Mercury and deployed it on a self-developed testbed. We demonstrate its effectiveness and show that Mercury consistently outperforms two status quo frameworks on six commonly used datasets across tasks in image classification, speech recognition, and natural language processing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3485730.3485930

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Mercury proposed a sampling-based framework that enables efficient on-device distributed training without compromising the training quality.

    “Mercury [7] proposed a sampling-based framework that enables efficient on-device distributed training without compromising the training quality as a new inspiration for solving this challenge.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zeng, X., Yan, M., & Zhang, M.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-11-15
Pages
29-41
OpenAlex
W3212514695
Cited by
43
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7
FWCI
6.24
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys) (publishedVersion)
Funders
NSF (National Science Foundation) (CNS-1617627, CNS-1814551, DMS-2012439, PFI:BIC-1632051)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
Keywords
importance sampling, edge computing, deep learning training efficiency, wireless networks

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