FedDAAW: Dynamic client selection and accuracy-adaptive aggregation for cross-task federated learning under heterogeneity


Abstract

Background. Federated learning (FL) enables collaborative model training across distributed clients while preserving data privacy; however, its performance is often compromised in heterogeneous environments due to statistical divergence and system variability among clients. Most existing methods address heterogeneity along a single axis—such as convergence robustness or model personalization—and are primarily validated on classification tasks, with little evidence of generalizability to broader learning paradigms like regression.
Methods. To address these limitations, we propose FedDAAW (Federated Learning with Dynamic Client Selection and Accuracy-Adaptive Aggregation), a lightweight yet effective framework for heterogeneous FL. FedDAAW introduces a multi-factor dynamic client selection mechanism that identifies high-value participants based on historical validation accuracy, computational resources, and data similarity. It further employs an accuracy-adaptive aggregation strategy that assigns weights to local updates using temporally smoothed historical accuracy, amplifying the contribution of consistently high-performing clients without requiring gradient sharing, contrastive learning, or auxiliary public data.
Results. We evaluate FedDAAW across four benchmark datasets spanning diverse machine learning tasks: image classification (MNIST, CIFAR-10), text sentiment analysis (IMDB), and regression (California housing, Cal_housing). Under highly non-IID settings, FedDAAW improves test accuracy by 2.61% on CIFAR-10 and 3.80% on IMDB compared to FedAvg, while reducing mean squared error by 6.5% on Cal_housing. It also achieves faster convergence, reaching stable performance up to five communication rounds earlier than baselines. Conclusions. FedDAAW demonstrates consistent gains in accuracy, convergence speed, and cross-task robustness under heterogeneity. By leveraging only locally computable metrics, it offers a practical, privacy-preserving, and easily deployable solution that advances the state of the art in heterogeneous federated learning without complex architectural modifications.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].