Abstract:The rise of edge-based machine learning has enabled distributed adaptation of language models across mobile and IoT devices, offering privacy preservation and real-time responsiveness. However, distributed fine-tuning of language models on untrusted or heterogeneous edge nodes introduces new vulnerabilities. Compromised or unreliable devices can inject poisoned updates, leading to stealthy model manipulation or convergence degradation. Classical defenses such as robust aggregation or temporal anomaly detection operate on a single global model and are therefore limited in detecting coordinated or persistent poisoning. This work proposes a new system-level defense based on model multiplicity. Instead of maintaining one global model, the system rotates or concurrently trains multiple small language models (e.g., DistilGPT-2), each updated by independently sampled subsets of edge nodes. These models evolve under distinct training trajectories, creating multiple independent views of the same distributed population. Divergence between models quantified through gradient similarity, loss evolution, or parameter variance serves as a signal of anomalous or adversarial behavior. When one model deviates significantly from the ensemble mean, the system flags its contributing nodes for isolation or re-weighting. We implement this framework and evaluate it on edge-scale simulations of Small Language Model (SLM) training under varying heterogeneity and attack conditions. Results show that model multiplicity enables earlier and more reliable detection of poisoning compared to classical single-model defenses such as Flanders and Robust methods. Our findings demonstrate that diversity in model evolution can serve as a practical and effective defense mechanism for secure distributed learning on resource-constrained edge devices.
Abstract:In real-world federated learning (FL) systems, client participation is intermittent, heterogeneous, and often correlated with data characteristics or resource constraints. Existing fairness approaches in FL primarily focus on equalizing loss or accuracy conditional on participation, implicitly assuming that clients have comparable opportunities to contribute over time. However, when participation itself is uneven, these objectives can lead to systematic under-representation of intermittently available clients, even if per-round performance appears fair. We propose cumulative utility parity, a fairness principle that evaluates whether clients receive comparable long-term benefit per participation opportunity, rather than per training round. To operationalize this notion, we introduce availability-normalized cumulative utility, which disentangles unavoidable physical constraints from avoidable algorithmic bias arising from scheduling and aggregation. Experiments on temporally skewed, non-IID federated benchmarks demonstrate that our approach substantially improves long-term representation parity, while maintaining near-perfect performance.