I Introduction
The usage of smart phones has dramatically increased over the last decades[1]
. Compared with classic PC devices, smart phones are more portable and userfriendly. Using smart phones has already become a significant part of modern people’s daily life, while billions of data transferred between smart phones provide a great support for training machine learning models. However, traditional centralized machine learning requires local clients, e.g., smart phone users to upload their data directly to the central server for model training, which may cause severe private information leakages.
An emerging technology called federated learning [2] was proposed recently to allow the central server to train a good global model, while maintaining the training data to be distributed on the clients’ devices. Instead of sending data directly to the central server, each local client downloads the current global model from the server, updates the shared model by training its local data, and then uploads the updated global model back to the server. By avoid sharing local private data, users’ privacy can be effectively protected in federated learning.
Some research has been dedicated to further protect users’ privacy and security in federated learning. Bonawitz et al. [3] gives an overview of cryptographic techniques like homomorphic encryption [4] to encrypt the uploaded information before averaging. Different from traditional encryption methods, differential privacy [5]
, which is used to decrease individuals’ information influences when querying specific data repository, protects privacy of deep learning by adding Gaussian noise
[6]. This privacy protection technology is also suited for federated learning [7, 8].Apart from privacy issues, statistical challenge is a barrier for federated optimization. Improving the shared global model in federated learning is sometimes similar to training the distributed model by data parallelism. McDonald et al. proposed two distributed training strategies [9] for the structured perceptron like iterative error dependent mixing or uniform parameter mixing. Adjusted parameter mixing strategies like fish matrix implementation [10]
and elastic averaging stochastic gradient descent
[11] can further improve the convergence efficiency and robustness in distributed model mixture. However, the aforementioned algorithms are built under the assumption that data on each local edge is independent and identically distributed (IID), and nonIID local data distribution was not considered. To address this problem, Zhao et al. [12]did some experiments on highly skewed nonIID data and provided statistically divergence analysis.
Federated learning requires massive communication resources compared to the classic centralized learning. A federated averaging algorithm [2] introduced by McMahan et al. can improve communication efficiency by reducing local training minibatch sizes or increasing local training passes to reduce communication rounds. Shokri et al. used the method of uploading the gradients located in the particular interval clipped by some threshold values [7], which is similar to the idea of structured updates introduced in [13].
Another method to reduce the communication cost is to scale down the uploaded parameters by reducing the complexity of the neural network models. The early ideas of evolving artificial neural network were introduced in [14], where systematic neural network encoding methods were presented. However, most of them are direct encoding methods that are not easily scalable to deep neural networks having a large number of layers and connections. In order to address this issue, neuroevolution of augmenting topologies (NEAT) [15] and undirect graph encoding [16] were proposed to enhance the flexibility of neural network encoding. Although they are able to substantially improve the encoding efficiency, both NEAT and cellular graph method occupy too many computation resources. More recently, Mocanu proposed a sparse evolutionary algorithm (SET) [17] to reduce the search space in optimizing deep neural networks containing a large number of connections.
To reduce the communication costs without seriously degrading the global learning accuracy, this work proposes a framework for optimizing deep neural network models in federated learning. The main contributions of the paper are as follows:

Federated learning is formulated as a biobjective optimization problem, where the two objectives are the minimization of the communication cost and the maximization of the global learning accuracy. This biobjective optimization is solved by a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm.

A modified SET algorithm is proposed to reduce the connections of deep neural networks, thereby indirectly reducing the number of model parameters to be communicated to the server.

The proposed framework is tested on two popular neural network models, a multilayer perceptron neural network (MLP) and a convolutional neural network (CNN) in the federated learning paradigm on various widely used IID or nonIID datasets.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the related background. A detailed description of the proposed algorithms are given in Section III. In Section IV, the experimental results are presented and discussed. Finally, the paper is concluded in Section V.
Ii Preliminaries
In this section, we briefly review the basics of deep learning, federated learning and evolutionary optimization of neural networks.
Iia Deep learning
Deep learning has achieved a big success in computer vision, speech recognition and many other domains
[18]. Multilayer feedforward neural networks are the most common supervised deep learning architectures to build a projection from highdimensional input data into predefined output labels.Fig. 1 shows an illustrative example of a fully connected multilayer perceptron. Solid circles in the figure represent ’neurons’ and circles in dashed line are called ’biases’. In the feedforward propagation of a fully connected neural network, each node or neuron receives a weighted sum of all preceding neurons plus a bias value, which is the input of this neuron. Then the output of this neuron is computed by a nonlinear activation function
as follows:(1) 
When the feedforward propagation passes through one or more hidden layers to the output layer, a predicted target
is achieved to compute the loss function
, which is typically the difference between the desired output and predicted output . If we use to replace both weights and biases, the loss function can be reformulated as and then the neural network tries to optimize the trainable parameter by minimizing the loss .(2) 
where is the
th training sample (can be a vector) and
is the size of training data. The objective is to find a specific parameter to minimize the expected loss through data samples.Gradient descend (GD) is commonly used to train neural networks in the backpropagation by computing the partial derivative of a loss function over the whole data samples with respect to each element in . However, this approach takes a very long time to compute the gradient in each iteration if the total number of input samples is very large. The stochastic gradient descend (SGD) algorithm is at another extreme compared to GD – it only randomly chooses one training sample per iteration, which however, may cause instability in training. To strike a balance between computation efficiency and training stability, minibatch stochastic gradient descent (minibatch SGD) is proposed to select a randomly chosen minibatch size of the training data for the gradient computation during every training iteration:
(3) 
where is the size of minibatch, is the learning rate, and is the average gradient over data samples with respect to elements in in the th iteration. The training procedure of the neural network is to update the parameter by iteratively subtracting from the current model parameter .
IiB Federated learning
Federated learning [19] is an emerging decentralized privacyprotection training technology which enables client edges to learn a shared global model without uploading their private local data to a central server. In each training round, a local device downloads a shared model from the global server cloud, trains the downloaded model over the individuals’ local data and then sends the updated weights or gradients back to the server. On the server, the uploaded models from the clients are aggregated to obtain a new global model. Compared with the traditional centralized learning, federated learning has following unique features:

The training data are spread on the local edges, which is not available to the global server cloud. However, the model we want to train is shared between the server and all clients.

Model training occurs on each local device instead of the global server where only aggregating uploaded models from clients is executed to obtain a shared global model.

Federated learning has a much higher requirement on local computation powers and communication resources than the traditional centralized learning.
Similar to the learning algorithm of the multilayer perceptron neural network, federated learning aims to minimize the loss function but in a distributed scheme:
(4) 
where is the index of total clients, is the loss function of th local client, equals to the local data size, and is the set of data indexes whose length is , i.e., . Optimizing the loss function in federated learning is equivalent to minimizing the weighted average of local loss function .
The procedure of federated learning is shown in Fig. 2, where each client receives the shared model parameter from the central server and then train their individual local models from their own data. After local training, each local device sends their trained local parameters (for instance ) to the server to be aggregated to get an updated global model to be used for the next iteration’s training. The subscript denotes the time sequences or so called communication rounds in federated learning.
The federated averaging (FedAvg) algorithm [2]
can effectively reduce communication rounds by simultaneously increasing local training epochs and decreasing local minibatch sizes in federated stochastic gradient descend algorithm (FedSGD)
[2]. The pseudo code of FedAvg is presented in Algorithm 1, where is the model parameter of the th client.In the algorithm, is the size of the whole data, and the global model parameter over th communication round is calculated by a weighted average of from each client . The client selection parameter is a random number between 0 to 1 determining the total fraction of clients allowed to update the shared global model. It was found in [2] that a large is able to speed up the convergence, however, the findings in [9] suggested that increasing the number of client shards may slow down the convergence of the weights in the IID environment. This happens because if the data distributed on the local devices, which is selected to communicate with the central server, can cover the whole data population, the client or replicas that has a larger data size converges to its optimum more quickly. Note that the larger the number of client shards is, the smaller the expected amount of data that can be allocated to each client will be, if the whole data size is fixed. On the contrary, if the selected clients only hold a fraction of the whole training data, information deficiency of clients’ data may cause negative effect on convergence performance.
The global weight convergence can also be affected by the probability differences between data distributed on client
and the whole data population, i.e., [12], where represents the total label classes, is the probability of data occurrence corresponding to the label for client and is that for the whole data population, respectively. This proposition indicates that training of the neural network is harder to converge on nonIID data than IID data in federated learning.IiC Evolutionary optimization of neural networks
In evolutionary optimization of the structure of the deep neural networks, the encoding scheme used by the evolutionary algorithm significantly affects the optimization efficiency. Direct binary encoding such as the one introduced in [20] needs a large connection matrix to represent the structure of a neural network, which has poor scalability when the neural network contains multiple hidden layers with a large number of neurons. In order to enhance the scalability in evolving deep neural networks, we propose a modified sparse evolutionary training (SET) [17] method to simultaneously improve the scalability and flexibility in evolving neural networks.
SET is different from typical methods for evolving the structure of neural networks. It does not directly encode the neural network and perform selection, crossover and mutation as done in genetic algorithms
[21]. Instead, SET starts from an initial Erdos R nyi random graph [22] that determines the connectivity between every two neighboring layers of the neural network. The connection probability between two layers is described as follows in Eq. (5):(5) 
where and are the number of neurons in layer and , respectively, is the sparse weight matrix between the two layers, is a SET parameter that controls connection sparsity, and is the total number of connections between the two layers. It is easy to find that the connection probability would become significantly lower, if and .
Since the randomly initialized graph may not be suited for learning a particular data, Mocanu et al. suggest to remove a fraction of the weights that have updated the smallest during each training epoch, which can be seen as the selection operation of an evolutionary algorithm. However, removing the least important weights may cause fluctuation when minimizing the loss function using the minibatch SGD algorithm and this phenomenon turns out to be extremely severe in federated learning. To address this issue, we modify the operator by conducting the removal operation at the last training epoch only. Pseudo code of the modified SET is listed in Algorithm 2.
By implementing the modified SET algorithm, a sparsely connected neural network can be evolved, resulting in much fewer parameters to be downloaded or uploaded, thereby reducing the communication cost in federated learning.
However, the modified SET algorithm cannot evolve hyper parameters of the neural network model such as the number of hidden layers and may bring negative effect to the convergence of global learning on the server. To solve this problem, we adopt a widely used multiobjective evolutionary algorithm, i.e., the elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGAII) [23] to optimize the connectivity and hyper parameters of the neural network to simultaneously minimize the communication costs and maximize the global learning accuracy. NSGAII is able to achieve a set of diverse Pareto optimal solutions by considering the dominance relationship between the solutions in the population and a crowding distance calculated according to the distance between two neighbouring solutions. Algorithm 3 outlines the main components of NSGAII and more details can be found in [23].
Iii Proposed Algorithm
In this section, we firstly formulate federated learning as a biobjective optimization problem. This is followed by a description of the encoding scheme adopted by the evolutionary algorithm. Finally, the overall framework is presented.
Iiia The objective functions and encoding of the neural networks
We reformulate federated learning as a two objective optimization problem [24]. One objective is the global model test error and the other is the model complexity over the th communication round. To minimize these two objectives, we evolve both the hyper parameters as well as the connectivity of the neural network models. The hyper parameters include the number of hidden layers, the number of neurons in each hidden layer, and the learning rate of the minibatch SGD algorithm. The connectivity of the neural network is represented by the modified SET algorithm described in Algorithm 2, which consists of two parameters, namely, in Eq. (5), an integer, and the fraction of weights to be removed, , a real number between 0 and 1.
Consequently, we have two types of decision variables to be encoded in the chromosome of the evolutionary algorithm, i.e., real numbers and integers. Here, all integers are encoded using binary coding. Fig. 3 provides an example of an encoded individual and the corresponding MLP neural network, where , the learning rate , and . In addition, the network has two hidden layers, each containing five and four neurons, respectively.
The encoding of the CNN is slightly different, mainly because a CNN contains a number of convolutionary layers followed by a number of fully connected classification layers. Refer to Fig. 4 for an illustrative example.
After generating a sparsely connected neural network model, we use the FedAvg algorithm to train the network and calculate the test accuracy within a certain number of communication rounds . This global test accuracy will be used to calculate the test error of the global model, which is one of the objectives of the biobjective optimization problem. The model complexity , the other objective, can be measured by averaging the number of weights uploaded from all clients in the th communication round:
(6) 
where is the total number of clients and indicates the number of parameters of the th client model.
IiiB The modified federated averaging algorithm
As mentioned above, the learning performance is evaluated by calculating the test error of the federated global model trained by the FedAvg algorithm (Algorithm 1). The modified SET algorithm is then integrated with the FedAvg algorithm to reduce the connectivity of the shared neural network model. A detailed federated learning procedure is given in Algorithm 4.
In the algorithm, is one solution that represents a particular neural network model with a modified SET topology as a global model used in FedAvg and is the population size. Once the hyper parameters and the connectivity of the neural network are determined by the evolutionary algorithm, the weights will be trained using the minibatch SGD and the global model will be updated. This process repeats for a certain number of communication rounds before the two objectives can be calculated.
IiiC Multiobjective evolutionary optimization
The biobjective optimization of federated learning can be solved using any multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. Here, we employ the popular NSGAII for achieving a set of Pareto optimal solutions. A diagram of the overall algorithm is plotted in Fig. 5, and the pseudo code is summarized in Algorithm 5.
NSGAII begins with the initialization of the population of size where the binary and realvalued chromosomes are randomly initialized, which is the parent population at the first generation. Two parents are selected using the tournament selection to create two offspring by applying onepoint crossover and flip mutation on the binary chromosome and the simulated binary crossover (SBX) and polynomial mutation [25] on the realvalued chromosome. This process repeats until offspring are generated.
We then calculate the two objectives of each individual in the offspring population. After that, the parent and offspring populations are combined and sorted according to the nondominance relationship and crowding distance. Finally, highranking individuals from the combined population are selected as the parent of the next generation.
We repeat above procedure for several generations to generate a set of nondominated solutions.
Iv Experimental Results
Two experiments are designed to examine the performance of the proposed multiobjective federated learning. The first experiment is conducted to compare the performance of federated learning using sparse neural network models with that using fully connected networks. The second experiment employs the widely used NSGAII to achieve a set of Pareto optimal solutions which should be validated in both IID and nonIID environments.
Iva Experimental settings
In this section, we introduce some experimental settings in our case study. The settings include the following main parts: 1) Neural network models we used in the experiment and their original settings. 2) Parameters settings and data partition methods in federated learning. 3) Parameters of NSGAII. 4) SET parameters for sparse connection.
We select two popular neural network models: the multilayer perceptron neural network (MLP) and the convolutional neural network (CNN), both trained and tested on a benchmark data set MNIST [26]. In optimizing both MLPs and CNNs, the minibatch SGD algorithm has a learning rate of
and the batch size is 50. Our original MLP contains two hidden layers, each having 200 nodes (199,210 parameters in total) and uses the ReLu function as the activation function, as used in
[2]. The CNN model has two kernel filters (the first with 32 channels and the second with 64 channels) followed by a maxpooling layer, a 128 fully connected layer and finally a 10 class softmax output layer (1,625,866 parameters in total). These can be seen as the standard neural network structures in our experiments.The total number of clients and a fraction of clients are set to be 100 and 1 in federated learning, meaning that we use clients on each communication rounds. For each local client training, the minibatch size and training epochs are 50 and 5, respectively. There are two ways of splitting MNIST dataset in our case study. One is IID, where the data is randomly shuffled into 100 clients with 600 samples per client, and the other is nonIID, where we sort the whole MNIST dataset by the labelled class, then divide it evenly into 200 fragments, and randomly allocate two fragments to each client with only two classes.
The population size of NSGAII is set to be 20 due to limited computational resources. The evolutionary optimization is run for 20 generations on the IID dataset and 50 generations on the nonIID dataset, because we are more interested in the learning performance on the nonIID data. The parameters of crossover and mutation operators are empiriclly set as follows. We apply onepoint crossover with a probability of 0.9 and bitflip mutation with a probability of 0.1 to the binary chromosome, and the SBX with a probability of 0.9 probability and , and the polynomial mutation with a probability of 0.1 and [27] for the realcoded chromosome. In addition, the communication round required for fitness evaluations in NSGAII is set to be 5 on the IID data and 10 on the nonIID data, because the global model trained on IID data needs less communication rounds to converge. Of course, evaluating fitness functions with a larger number of communication rounds can achieve more accurate fitness evaluations, but we are not allowed to do so, given very limited computation resources.
There are two SET parameters and controlling the sparsity level of our models in federated learning. A pair of empirical values and are implemented in [17] for both MLPs and CNNs, which are also adopted in this work. In principle, these two parameters can also be binary coded and real coded, respectively, in genotypes for evolutionary optimization.
IvB Influence of the neural network sparsity on the performance
In the first part of our experiment, we propose different settings of the SET parameters for both MLPs and CNNs to examine the influence of different sparsity levels on global model test accuracy and discuss model convergence properties on both the server and the client in federated learning.
Three different values (100, 50, 20) and two different values (0, 0.3) are selected for both MLPs and CNNs with the standard structures (the original fully connected structure introduced above), which derives the standard federated models with different sparseness. Note that the modified SET algorithm applied on the FedAvg algorithm removes a fraction of the least important weights at the last iteration of each local training epoch before being uploaded to the server. The parameters of the global model on the server are aggregated by calculating the weighted average of the uploaded models as done in the standard federated learning.
In addition, both MLPs and CNNs are tested on the IID and nonIID data and we run the modified SET FedAvg algorithm for 500 communication rounds for the MLPs and 200 communication rounds for CNNs. The reason for setting a smaller number of communication rounds for CNNs is that CNNs in federated learning are easier to converge but consume more time for a single communication round compared to that for MLPs. The results are shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 for MLPs and CNNs, respectively.
We discuss at first the convergence properties of the shared models on the server and the clients when learning the IID and nonIID data. The convergence performance on the clients is assessed through calculating the average training accuracy over all clients. The average training accuracy reaches nearly 100% within only a few rounds on the nonIID data and also becomes higher than 95 within the first 25 to 50 rounds of communication on the IID data, refer to Figs. 5 (b)(d) and Figs. 6 (b)(d). By contrast, learning converges much slower on the server, in particular on the nonIID data, as shown in Figs. 6(a)(c) and Figs. 7(a)(c). This indicates that learning on the server becomes more challenging, in particular on nonIID data.
To take a closer look at the learning behavior on the server, we compare the global test accuracies on the server as the sparsity level of the neural network models varies. An observation that can be made from the results in Figs. 6(a)(c) and Figs. 7(a)(c) is that reducing the network connectivity may lead to a degradation of the global test accuracies on both IID and nonIID dataset. However, the test accuracy enhances as decreases, i.e., when less ’least important’ weights are removed from neural network models on each client before uploading them to the server. For instance, a global test accuracy of 96.93 has been achieved when in the SET algorithm that result in 72051 connections on average, as shown in Fig. 6(c). This accuracy is higher than 96.54 when the SET parameters that result in 87300 connections on average at the th round. This implies that removing a larger fraction of weights is detrimental to the learning performance.
Nevertheless, it is clearly seen that there is a tradeoff between the global test accuracy and average model complexity of the local models. The experimental results of the fully connected neural network model and mostly sparsely connected neural network model found by the proposed algorithm (whose SET parameters are ) are listed in Table I. We can see that the global test accuracies of the sparsely connected MLPs (having about only 10of the total number connections in the fully connected models) is only about 2lower than that of the fully connected one on both IID and nonIID datasets. The global test accuracy of the sparse CNN, which has only about 12of the total number of connections of the fully connected CNN, is only 0.45 worse than the fully connected CNN. Moreover, it should be pointed out that test accuracies of both MLPs and CNNs deteriorate more quickly on the nonIID data than on the IID data as the sparsity level of the network increases.
Overall, the global model test accuracy on the server tends to decline when we tune the SET parameters to rise the sparseness of the shared neural network model in our experiment. In other words, using the modified SET FedAvg algorithm only cannot maximize the global learning accuracy and minimize the communication costs at the same time.
Local data distributions  IID  nonIID  

Accuracy  Connections  Accuracy  Connections  
Fully connected  MLP  98.13%  199,210  97.04%  199,210 
CNN  98.85%  1,625,866  98.75%  1,625,866  
Sparsely connected  MLP  96.69%  19,360  94.45%  18,785 
CNN  98.44%  185,407  98.32%  184,543 
IvC Evolved federated learning models
In the second part of our empirical studies, we employ NSGAII to achieve a set of Pareto optimal neural network models that balance a tradeoff between global learning performance and communication costs in federated learning. Both IID and nonIID datasets will be used in multiobjective evolutionary optimization of federated learning. It is also interesting to investigate if the structure of the neural network models optimized on IID datasets still work on nonIID datasets, and vice versa.
Evolving deep neural network structures based on the modified SET FedAvg algorithm is computationally highly intensive. For example, one run of evolutionary optimization of CNNs with a population size of 20 for 50 generations took us more than one week on a computer with GTX 1080Ti GPU and i78th 8700 CPU, preventing us from running the evolutionary optimization for a large number of generations. In order to monitor the convergence of the multiobjective optimization, the hypervolumes calculated based on the nondominated solution set in the population over the generations [28] in evolving MLP and CNN on nonIID datasets are plotted in Fig. 8. From the figure, we can see that the hypervolumes of both runs increase at the beginning and start fluctuating from around the th generation onward. These results imply that approximately 20 generations are needed for federated learning to converge on nonIID datasets used in this work.
The total communication rounds for each population is set to be 5 for IID datasets and 10 for nonIID datasets, respectively, before the objective values are calculated. Of course, setting a large communication rounds may achieve more accurate evaluations of the objectives, which is unfortunately prohibitive given limited computation resources.
We set the maximum number of hidden layers of MLPs to be 4 and the maximum number of neurons per layer is 256. For CNNs, we set the maximum number of convolutional layers to be 3, the maximum number of kernel channels to be 64, and the maximum number of fully connected layers to be 3, and the maximum neurons in the convolutional layers to be 256. The kernel size is either 3 or 5, which is also evolved.
The range of the learning rate is between 0.01 and 0.3 for both MLPs and CNNs, because too large values may harm the global convergence in federated learning.
Recall that the SET parameters and are binary coded and real coded, respectively. The maximum value of is set to 128, and ranges from 0.01 to 0.55. A summary of the experimental settings is given in Table II.
Genotypes  MLP IID  MLP nonIID  CNN IID  CNN nonIID 

Populations  20  20  20  20 
Generations  20  50  20  50 
Learning rate  0.010.3  0.010.3  0.010.3  0.010.3 
Hidden layers  14  14  /  / 
Hidden neurons  1256  1256  /  / 
Conv layers  /  /  13  13 
Kernel channels  /  /  164  164 
Fully connected layers  /  /  13  13 
Fully connected neurons  /  /  1256  1256 
Kernel sizes  /  /  3 or 5  3 or 5 
sizes  1128  1128  1128  1128 
sizes  0.010.55  0.010.55  0.010.55  0.010.55 
The final nondominated MLP and CNN solutions optimized on the IID and nonIID datasets are presented in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, respectively, where each point represents one solution corresponding to a particular structure of the neural network model in federated learning. However, not all nondominated solutions are of interest, since some of them have very large test errors, even if they have very simple model structures with very limited average local model connections. In this work, we select two types of nondominated solutions, namely those solutions with a very low global test error, and those solutions near the knee point of the frontier, as suggsted in [20, 29].
We choose two highaccuracy Pareto solutions (High1 and High2) and two solutions around the knee point (Knee1 and Knee2) of both MLPs and CNNs (refer to Fig. 9 and Fig. 10) for further performance verification and compare their performance with the fully connected MLPs and CNNs. Recall that only 5 and 10 communication rounds are used over IID data and non IID data, respectively, for fitness evaluations in the evolutionary optimization. For a fair comparison, however, the number communication rounds is increased to 500 for MLPs and 200 for CNNs, as set in the original federated learning. All validation results are listed in Tables III, IV, V, and VI, and the global test accuracies of the selected solutions are also presented in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12.
Parameters  Knee1  Knee2  High1  High2  Standard 

Hidden layer1  10  15  152  73  200 
Hidden layer2  27  123  49  22  200 
28  60  121  48  /  
0.3969  0.2021  0.1314  0.1214  /  
Learning rate  0.2591  0.3  0.2951  0.283  0.1 
Test accuracy IID  94.24%  96.84%  98.16%  97.74%  98.13% 
Connections IID  4,374  10,815  91,933  32,929  199,210 
Test accuracy nonIID  90.77%  93.77%  97.42%  96.82%  97.04% 
Connections nonIID  4,026  10,206  91,527  33,594  199,210 
Parameters  Knee1  Knee2  High1  High2  Standard 

Hidden layer1  49  53  86  109  200 
Hidden layer2  /  /  /  /  200 
10  8  66  34  /  
0.1106  0.0764  0.1106  0.1566  /  
Learning rate  0.3  0.2961  0.3  0.3  0.1 
Test accuracy IID  96.78%  96.41%  97.82%  97.68%  98.13% 
Connections IID  7,749  5,621  45,329  22,210  199,210 
Test accuracy nonIID  94.85%  94.88%  97.32%  96.21%  97.04% 
Connections nonIID  8,086  6,143  45,530  24,055  199,210 
Parameters  Knee1  Knee2  High1  High2  Standard 

Conv layer1  34  6  25  18  32 
Conv layer2  6  6  38  20  64 
Fully connected layer1  11  9  38  102  128 
Fully connected layer2  /  /  /  /  / 
Kernel size  5  5  5  5  3 
24  39  121  41  /  
0.4702  0.3901  0.0685  0.0625  /  
Learning rate  0.2094  0.1576  0.2279  0.1888  0.1 
Test accuracy IID  98.51%  98.19%  99.07%  98.96%  98.85% 
Connections IID  12,360  7,127  268,150  158,340  1,625,866 
Test accuracy nonIID  11.35%  97.21%  11.35%  98.79%  98.75% 
Connections nonIID  6,071  6,804  24,853  157,511  1,625,866 
Parameters  Knee1  Knee2  High1  High2  Standard 
Conv layer1  17  5  53  33  32 
Conv layer2  /  /  /  /  64 
Fully connected layer1  29  21  208  31  128 
Fully connected layer2  /  /  /  /  / 
Kernel size  5  5  5  5  3 
18  8  66  20  /  
0.1451  0.1892  0.0786  0.1354  /  
Learning rate  0.2519  0.2388  0.2776  0.2503  0.1 
Test accuracy IID  98.84%  98.15%  99.06%  98.93%  98.85% 
Connections IID  48949  6262  622090  107224  1,625,866 
Test accuracy nonIID  97.92%  97.7%  98.52%  98.46%  98.75% 
Connections nonIID  39457  6804  553402  90081  1,625,866 
From the results presented in Figs. 11 and 12, we can make the following observations on the four selected Pareto optimal MLP models evolved on the IID data.

Solution High1 of MLP has global test accuracies of 98.16and 97.42on IID and nonIID datasets, both of which are better than that of the fully connected MLP. In addition, this evolved model has only on average 91,933 and 91,527 connections on IID data and nonIID data, respectively, which is approximately 46 of 199,210 connections the fully connected network has.

Solution High2 has a lower test accuracy of 0.39 on IID data and 0.22on nonIID data but it has only 16.5 of connections compared to the fully connected MLP.

Knee1 and Knee2 have test accuracies of 96.84and 94.24, respectively, on IID datasets. Note, however, that but their performance becomes much worse on nonIID data and the test accuracies decrease to only 93.77and 90.77. This means that knee solutions evolved on IID data may not be suited for nonIID data.
Similar observations can be made on the two highaccuracy Pareto optimal CNNs, High1 and High2, on IID data and their test accuracies are 99.07and 98.96, respectively, both of which are higher than that of the fully connected CNN. The two knee solutions also have acceptable global test accuracies on IID data with a much smaller number of connections. However, it is surprising to see that both Knee1 and High1 fail to converge on the nonIID data, even if they both converge very well on the IID data, meaning that the Pareto optimal CNNs generated on IID data may completely break down on nonIID data. Note that the highaccuracy solution High2 also converge well on nonIID data and has a test accuracy of 98.79, which is 0.04higher than the fully connected model, but has only around 10of connections of the fully connected CNN.
The following conclusions can be drawn on the four selected solutions evolved on nonIID data.

Of the four Pareto optimal MLPs, the test accuracies of High1 is 0.28higher than the fully connected MLP on nonIID data and 0.31lower when validated on IID data, while High1 has only about 45,000 connections, which is 22of the connections of the fully connected MLP. In contrast to the models evolved on IID data, Pareto optimal solutions evolved on nonIID data still work slightly better when they are validated on IID datasets.

The two highaccuracy CNN solutions, High1 and High2, exhibits a test accuracy of 99.06and 98.93, respectively, when they are validated on IID data, which are 0.21and 0.08higher than the fully connected CNN. They have, however, only around 34and 5.5 of the connections of the fully connected model. Knee1 also has a test accuracy of 98.84(the fully connected one has an accuracy of 98.85), but has only 2.4 of connections compared to the fully connected CNN model. All solutions work well when they are validated on nonIID, although their test accuracies are slightly lower than the fully connected model. Specifically, the accuracies of the two highaccuracy solutions are about 0.4lower, and the accuracy of the two knee solutions are about 0.8lower than the fully connected model. Of course, all solutions have much less connections on average than the fully connected one.
Below are a few additional interesting findings from our experiment. First, the model structures evolved on IID datasets are always deeper than that evolved on nonIID datasets. Second, the optimized learning rates are near 0.3 for MLPs. Third, the learning process on the server diverges when the numbers of connections becomes dramatically small. Fourth, the local models may have different complexities when the data on different clients are different, even if the global model has the same structure.
Based on the above validation results, we recommend to select the following solutions from the Pareto frontier for final implementation. The highaccuracy MLP solution, High1 with two hidden layers should be selected. This model has 152 and 49 neurons in the first and second hidden layers, respectively. SET parameters of the network are and , and the learning rate is 0.2951. It has better global test accuracies than the fully connected model on both IID and nonIID data, while has around 46of the connections of the standard fully connected network. By contrast, the highaccuracy CNN solution High2 with two convolutional layers should be selected. The first and second layers of this network have 18 and 20 filters, respectively. The fully connected layer has 102 nodes and the SET parameters are and and the learning rate is 0.1888. The network has better global test accuracies than the standard fully connected model on both IID and nonIID data, but has only about 9.7of the connections of the standard fully connected networks. In addition, one knee point CNN solution Knee1 has one convolutional layer, 17 kernel filters, 29 nodes in the fully connected layer, whose SET parameters are and and learning rate is 0.2591, has a similar global test accuracy on IID data, and 0.8 worse than the fully connected one on nonIID data. This network has only about 3of the connections of the standard fully connected model. Thus, Knee1 of the CNN model is also recommendable.
V Conclusions and future work
This work proposes a multiobjective federated learning to simultaneously maximize the learning performance and minimize the communication cost. To improve the scalability in evolving deep neural networks, a modified SET method is adopted to indirectly encode the connectivity of the neural network. Our experimental results show that the modified SET algorithm can effectively reduce the connections of deep neural networks by encoding only two hyper parameters. Selected solutions from the nondominated frontier obtained by the multiobjective algorithm have higher global test accuracies and much less connections in the network, thereby dramatically reduce the communication cost without deteriorating the learning performance on both IID and nonIID datasets.
Our experimental results also confirm that there is a tradeoff between learning performance and model complexity and models with a smaller number of connections often have lower accuracies. Meanwhile, the Pareto optimal solutions trained on nonIID datasets can always perform well on IID data, but not vice versa. The MLP solutions near the knee point trained on IID data usually cannot perform very well on nonIID data, while those highaccuracy Pareto optimal MLPs do not suffer from this problem. For CNNs, it is surprising to observe that solutions optimized on IID datasets completely fail to work on nonIID datasets, indicating that CNNs evolved using IID data may not be robust to data distribution changes.
A lot of work remain to be done in federated learning. For instance, both the modified SET FedAvg algorithm and the FedAvg algorithm do not work very well on complicated datasets like nonIID CIFAR10. In addition, it is still unclear if missing data caused by package loss from communications between clients and the server will sigfificantly affect the performance of federated learning. Adversarial attacks [30] on the parameters uploaded to the central server may directly damage the global model. Thus, preserving privacy while maintaining robustness in federated learning will be a very important research challenge.
Vi Acknowledgement
We are grateful to Y. Zhao for sharing his code.
References
 [1] J. Poushter et al., “Smartphone ownership and internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies,” Pew Research Center, vol. 22, pp. 1–44, 2016.
 [2] H. B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, et al., “Communicationefficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05629, 2016.
 [3] K. Bonawitz, V. Ivanov, B. Kreuter, A. Marcedone, H. B. McMahan, S. Patel, D. Ramage, A. Segal, and K. Seth, “Practical secure aggregation for privacypreserving machine learning,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 1175–1191, ACM, 2017.
 [4] A. A. Atayero and O. Feyisetan, “Security issues in cloud computing: The potentials of homomorphic encryption,” Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 546–552, 2011.
 [5] C. Dwork, “Differential privacy: A survey of results,” in International Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, pp. 1–19, Springer, 2008.
 [6] M. Abadi, A. Chu, I. Goodfellow, H. B. McMahan, I. Mironov, K. Talwar, and L. Zhang, “Deep learning with differential privacy,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 308–318, ACM, 2016.
 [7] R. Shokri and V. Shmatikov, “Privacypreserving deep learning,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer and Communications security, pp. 1310–1321, ACM, 2015.
 [8] R. C. Geyer, T. Klein, and M. Nabi, “Differentially private federated learning: A client level perspective,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.07557, 2017.
 [9] R. McDonald, K. Hall, and G. Mann, “Distributed training strategies for the structured perceptron,” in Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 456–464, Association for Computational Linguistics, 2010.
 [10] D. Povey, X. Zhang, and S. Khudanpur, “Parallel training of dnns with natural gradient and parameter averaging,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.7455, 2014.
 [11] S. Zhang, A. E. Choromanska, and Y. LeCun, “Deep learning with elastic averaging sgd,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 685–693, 2015.
 [12] Y. Zhao, M. Li, L. Lai, N. Suda, D. Civin, and V. Chandra, “Federated learning with noniid data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00582, 2018.
 [13] J. Konečnỳ, H. B. McMahan, F. X. Yu, P. Richtárik, A. T. Suresh, and D. Bacon, “Federated learning: Strategies for improving communication efficiency,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05492, 2016.
 [14] X. Yao, “Evolving artificial neural networks,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 87, no. 9, pp. 1423–1447, 1999.
 [15] K. O. Stanley and R. Miikkulainen, “Evolving neural networks through augmenting topologies,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 99–127, 2002.
 [16] J. Fekiač, I. Zelinka, and J. C. Burguillo, “A review of methods for encoding neural network topologies in evolutionary computation,” in Proceedings of 25th European Conference on Modeling and Simulation ECMS, pp. 410–416, 2011.
 [17] D. C. Mocanu, E. Mocanu, P. Stone, P. H. Nguyen, M. Gibescu, and A. Liotta, “Scalable training of artificial neural networks with adaptive sparse connectivity inspired by network science,” Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 2383, 2018.
 [18] Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, p. 436, 2015.
 [19] B. McMahan and D. Ramage, “Federated learning: Collaborative machine learning without centralized training data,” Google Research Blog, 2017.
 [20] Y. Jin and B. Sendhoff, “Paretobased multiobjective machine learning: An overview and case studies,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 397–415, 2008.
 [21] D. Whitley, “A genetic algorithm tutorial,” Statistics and Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 65–85, 1994.
 [22] P. Erdos and A. Rényi, “On the evolution of random graphs,” Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 17–60, 1960.
 [23] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsgaii,” IEEE transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182–197, 2002.
 [24] K. Deb, “Multiobjective optimization,” in Search methodologies, pp. 403–449, Springer, 2014.
 [25] R. B. Agrawal, K. Deb, and R. Agrawal, “Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space,” Complex Systems, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 115–148, 1995.
 [26] Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradientbased learning applied to document recognition,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278–2324, 1998.
 [27] K. Kumar, “Realcoded genetic algorithms with simulated binary crossover: studies on multimodal and multiobjective problems,” Complex Syst, vol. 9, pp. 431–454, 1995.
 [28] N. Beume, B. Naujoks, and M. Emmerich, “SMSEMOA: Multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 181, no. 3, pp. 1653–1669, 2007.
 [29] X. Zhang, Y. Tian, and Y. Jin, “A knee pointdriven evolutionary algorithm for manyobjective optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 761–776, 2015.
 [30] E. Bagdasaryan, A. Veit, Y. Hua, D. Estrin, and V. Shmatikov, “How to backdoor federated learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.00459, 2018.
Comments
There are no comments yet.