Loading...
🌐
Federated Orchestration(FO)
Coordinates AI processing across distributed edge devices while preserving data privacy
Complexity: highPattern
Core Mechanism
Federated Orchestration coordinates model training and/or inference across distributed clients (devices, sites, or organizations) without centralizing raw data. A coordinator distributes a model or plan, clients execute locally on their private data, and privacy-preserving aggregation combines updates. This preserves data sovereignty, reduces bandwidth for sensitive data, and enables cross-device (large, unreliable populations) and cross-silo (smaller, reliable institutions) collaboration. Enhancements include secure aggregation, differential privacy, robust aggregation, compression, and hierarchical federation for scale.
Workflow / Steps
- Enrollment & trust: register clients, attest software/TEE where applicable, provision credentials.
- Round planning: sample available clients; pick cross-device or cross-silo strategy and quotas.
- Distribute task: send global model/checkpoint, hyperparameters, and training/inference plan.
- Local execution: clients train or run inference on local data; compute model deltas or summaries.
- Privacy layer: apply secure aggregation and/or differential privacy before sharing updates.
- Aggregation: server or hierarchy aggregates updates (FedAvg/robust aggregators); validate quality.
- Evaluation: assess on held-out data/slices; check cohort fairness and drift; gate rollout.
- Personalization: optionally adapt global model to local domains (fine-tune, adapters, FedPer).
- Iteration & rollout: repeat rounds; version artifacts; stage and monitor deployments.
- Ops: handle stragglers/dropouts, heterogeneity (FedProx/SCAFFOLD), security, and audit.
Best Practices
Choose topology for context: cross-device (large, unreliable clients) vs cross-silo (fewer, reliable orgs).
Mitigate heterogeneity: use FedProx/SCAFFOLD; adapt local epochs, learning rates, and batch sizes.
Apply secure aggregation (Bonawitz et al.) so the server sees only encrypted/pooled updates.
Use differential privacy with moments/accountant to track and bound privacy budget (ε, δ).
Adopt robust aggregation (median/trimmed-mean/Krum) to resist outliers/Byzantine updates.
Compress updates: quantization, sparsification, sketching, and periodic full sync to cut bandwidth.
Sample clients fairly; balance participation to reduce cohort bias and starvation.
Validate each round on held-out and cohort-sliced data; monitor fairness and drift.
Version everything (model, data schema, optimizer, DP params); keep lineage and audit trails.
Encrypt in transit and at rest; prefer TEEs where feasible; harden against poisoning and inversion attacks.
When NOT to Use
- Data can be centralized legally and cheaply, and central training meets requirements.
- Ultra‑low latency single‑shot tasks where round‑based coordination breaks SLOs.
- Very few participants with similar data—central or split learning may be simpler.
- Models exceed client compute/memory/energy budgets; connectivity is highly unstable.
- Use cases requiring raw cross‑party joins/feature engineering across silos.
Common Pitfalls
- Non‑IID data causing divergence or slow convergence without heterogeneity controls.
- Privacy leakage via updates (gradient inversion); missing secure aggregation/DP.
- Poisoning/Byzantine clients degrading or backdooring the global model.
- Client dropouts and stragglers stalling rounds; no partial aggregation or timeouts.
- Bandwidth blowups from large dense updates; no compression or update sparsity.
- Version/config drift; inadequate auditability and reproducibility of rounds.
Key Features
Privacy‑preserving aggregation (secure aggregation, differential privacy)
Decentralized local training/inference with data residency compliance
Robust aggregation against outliers/Byzantine behavior
Client heterogeneity tolerance (FedProx/SCAFFOLD)
Hierarchical federation for scale (edge → regional → central)
Bandwidth‑efficient updates (quantization, sparsity, sketches)
Personalization and domain adaptation options
End‑to‑end governance, lineage, and auditability
KPIs / Success Metrics
- Global model quality (accuracy/AUC) and cohort fairness deltas.
- Rounds to convergence; wall‑clock time per round; participation rate.
- Communication cost per round (MB/client, total bytes) and compression ratio.
- Client success rate, dropout/straggler rate, and energy usage on device.
- Privacy budget consumed (ε, δ) and secure aggregation coverage.
- Attack detection metrics (backdoor/poisoning flags) and rollback time.
Token / Resource Usage
- Primary drivers: model size, update size/frequency, client count, and rounds. Prefer sparse/quantized updates.
- Cap per‑round payloads; use sketching/top‑k gradients; schedule smaller local epochs for constrained clients.
- If LLM steps exist, cap prompt/output tokens; send references/IDs not transcripts; cache static context.
- Use hierarchical aggregation to localize traffic; compress over WAN; batch client uploads.
Best Use Cases
- Healthcare networks: cross‑hospital learning without moving patient data.
- Financial institutions: fraud/risk modeling across banks with data locality.
- Mobile/edge: next‑word prediction, personalization, and on‑device vision.
- Industrial IoT and smart cities: privacy‑sensitive analytics across sites.
- Cross‑enterprise collaboration with strict data residency/compliance.
References & Further Reading
Academic Papers
- Communication‑Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data (McMahan et al., 2017) – FedAvg
- Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning (Kairouz et al., 2021)
- Practical Secure Aggregation for Privacy‑Preserving ML (Bonawitz et al., CCS 2017)
- Byzantine‑robust distributed learning via median and trimmed mean (Yin et al., 2018)
- Krum: Byzantine‑tolerant aggregation (Blanchard et al., NeurIPS 2017)
- FedProx: Heterogeneity mitigation in FL (Li et al., 2020)
- SCAFFOLD: Stochastic Controlled Averaging (Karimireddy et al., 2020)
- Inverting Gradients – privacy attacks on FL (Geiping et al., 2020)
- Asynchronous FL (FedAsync and variants)
Implementation Guides
Tools & Libraries
- TensorFlow Federated, Flower, FedML, NVIDIA FLARE, OpenFL, FATE, PySyft
- Privacy/crypto: Opacus DP (PyTorch), TF Privacy; HE/SMPC libraries as needed
Community & Discussions
🌐
Federated Orchestration(FO)
Coordinates AI processing across distributed edge devices while preserving data privacy
Complexity: highPattern
Core Mechanism
Federated Orchestration coordinates model training and/or inference across distributed clients (devices, sites, or organizations) without centralizing raw data. A coordinator distributes a model or plan, clients execute locally on their private data, and privacy-preserving aggregation combines updates. This preserves data sovereignty, reduces bandwidth for sensitive data, and enables cross-device (large, unreliable populations) and cross-silo (smaller, reliable institutions) collaboration. Enhancements include secure aggregation, differential privacy, robust aggregation, compression, and hierarchical federation for scale.
Workflow / Steps
- Enrollment & trust: register clients, attest software/TEE where applicable, provision credentials.
- Round planning: sample available clients; pick cross-device or cross-silo strategy and quotas.
- Distribute task: send global model/checkpoint, hyperparameters, and training/inference plan.
- Local execution: clients train or run inference on local data; compute model deltas or summaries.
- Privacy layer: apply secure aggregation and/or differential privacy before sharing updates.
- Aggregation: server or hierarchy aggregates updates (FedAvg/robust aggregators); validate quality.
- Evaluation: assess on held-out data/slices; check cohort fairness and drift; gate rollout.
- Personalization: optionally adapt global model to local domains (fine-tune, adapters, FedPer).
- Iteration & rollout: repeat rounds; version artifacts; stage and monitor deployments.
- Ops: handle stragglers/dropouts, heterogeneity (FedProx/SCAFFOLD), security, and audit.
Best Practices
Choose topology for context: cross-device (large, unreliable clients) vs cross-silo (fewer, reliable orgs).
Mitigate heterogeneity: use FedProx/SCAFFOLD; adapt local epochs, learning rates, and batch sizes.
Apply secure aggregation (Bonawitz et al.) so the server sees only encrypted/pooled updates.
Use differential privacy with moments/accountant to track and bound privacy budget (ε, δ).
Adopt robust aggregation (median/trimmed-mean/Krum) to resist outliers/Byzantine updates.
Compress updates: quantization, sparsification, sketching, and periodic full sync to cut bandwidth.
Sample clients fairly; balance participation to reduce cohort bias and starvation.
Validate each round on held-out and cohort-sliced data; monitor fairness and drift.
Version everything (model, data schema, optimizer, DP params); keep lineage and audit trails.
Encrypt in transit and at rest; prefer TEEs where feasible; harden against poisoning and inversion attacks.
When NOT to Use
- Data can be centralized legally and cheaply, and central training meets requirements.
- Ultra‑low latency single‑shot tasks where round‑based coordination breaks SLOs.
- Very few participants with similar data—central or split learning may be simpler.
- Models exceed client compute/memory/energy budgets; connectivity is highly unstable.
- Use cases requiring raw cross‑party joins/feature engineering across silos.
Common Pitfalls
- Non‑IID data causing divergence or slow convergence without heterogeneity controls.
- Privacy leakage via updates (gradient inversion); missing secure aggregation/DP.
- Poisoning/Byzantine clients degrading or backdooring the global model.
- Client dropouts and stragglers stalling rounds; no partial aggregation or timeouts.
- Bandwidth blowups from large dense updates; no compression or update sparsity.
- Version/config drift; inadequate auditability and reproducibility of rounds.
Key Features
Privacy‑preserving aggregation (secure aggregation, differential privacy)
Decentralized local training/inference with data residency compliance
Robust aggregation against outliers/Byzantine behavior
Client heterogeneity tolerance (FedProx/SCAFFOLD)
Hierarchical federation for scale (edge → regional → central)
Bandwidth‑efficient updates (quantization, sparsity, sketches)
Personalization and domain adaptation options
End‑to‑end governance, lineage, and auditability
KPIs / Success Metrics
- Global model quality (accuracy/AUC) and cohort fairness deltas.
- Rounds to convergence; wall‑clock time per round; participation rate.
- Communication cost per round (MB/client, total bytes) and compression ratio.
- Client success rate, dropout/straggler rate, and energy usage on device.
- Privacy budget consumed (ε, δ) and secure aggregation coverage.
- Attack detection metrics (backdoor/poisoning flags) and rollback time.
Token / Resource Usage
- Primary drivers: model size, update size/frequency, client count, and rounds. Prefer sparse/quantized updates.
- Cap per‑round payloads; use sketching/top‑k gradients; schedule smaller local epochs for constrained clients.
- If LLM steps exist, cap prompt/output tokens; send references/IDs not transcripts; cache static context.
- Use hierarchical aggregation to localize traffic; compress over WAN; batch client uploads.
Best Use Cases
- Healthcare networks: cross‑hospital learning without moving patient data.
- Financial institutions: fraud/risk modeling across banks with data locality.
- Mobile/edge: next‑word prediction, personalization, and on‑device vision.
- Industrial IoT and smart cities: privacy‑sensitive analytics across sites.
- Cross‑enterprise collaboration with strict data residency/compliance.
References & Further Reading
Academic Papers
- Communication‑Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data (McMahan et al., 2017) – FedAvg
- Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning (Kairouz et al., 2021)
- Practical Secure Aggregation for Privacy‑Preserving ML (Bonawitz et al., CCS 2017)
- Byzantine‑robust distributed learning via median and trimmed mean (Yin et al., 2018)
- Krum: Byzantine‑tolerant aggregation (Blanchard et al., NeurIPS 2017)
- FedProx: Heterogeneity mitigation in FL (Li et al., 2020)
- SCAFFOLD: Stochastic Controlled Averaging (Karimireddy et al., 2020)
- Inverting Gradients – privacy attacks on FL (Geiping et al., 2020)
- Asynchronous FL (FedAsync and variants)
Implementation Guides
Tools & Libraries
- TensorFlow Federated, Flower, FedML, NVIDIA FLARE, OpenFL, FATE, PySyft
- Privacy/crypto: Opacus DP (PyTorch), TF Privacy; HE/SMPC libraries as needed