Daily Papers

Federated Averaging (FedAvg) and its variants are the most popular optimization algorithms in federated learning (FL). Previous convergence analyses of FedAvg either assume full client participation or partial client participation where the clients can be uniformly sampled. However, in practical cross-device FL systems, only a subset of clients that satisfy local criteria such as battery status, network connectivity, and maximum participation frequency requirements (to ensure privacy) are available for training at a given time. As a result, client availability follows a natural cyclic pattern. We provide (to our knowledge) the first theoretical framework to analyze the convergence of FedAvg with cyclic client participation with several different client optimizers such as GD, SGD, and shuffled SGD. Our analysis discovers that cyclic client participation can achieve a faster asymptotic convergence rate than vanilla FedAvg with uniform client participation under suitable conditions, providing valuable insights into the design of client sampling protocols.

We provide new lower bounds on the privacy guarantee of the multi-epoch Adaptive Batch Linear Queries (ABLQ) mechanism with shuffled batch sampling, demonstrating substantial gaps when compared to Poisson subsampling; prior analysis was limited to a single epoch. Since the privacy analysis of Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD) is obtained by analyzing the ABLQ mechanism, this brings into serious question the common practice of implementing shuffling-based DP-SGD, but reporting privacy parameters as if Poisson subsampling was used. To understand the impact of this gap on the utility of trained machine learning models, we introduce a practical approach to implement Poisson subsampling at scale using massively parallel computation, and efficiently train models with the same. We compare the utility of models trained with Poisson-subsampling-based DP-SGD, and the optimistic estimates of utility when using shuffling, via our new lower bounds on the privacy guarantee of ABLQ with shuffling.