skip to main content
10.1145/3387168.3387181acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicvispConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Federated Object Detection: Optimizing Object Detection Model with Federated Learning

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 May 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Object detection with deep learning model has achieved good results in many fields, but in some fields that think highly of data privacy, such as medical care, its applications is greatly limited by data. And Federated Learning allows clients to train a model together, while leaving their data in the local, without sharing with the server or other clients. Using the methods of Federated Learning, such as Federated Averaging(FedAvg), to train models can provide privacy, security benefits. Nonetheless, there is little experiment applying Federated Learning algorithms to train the model with a large number of parameters, such as deep learning object detection model. With non-IID data, the accuracy of object detection model trained by FedAvg reduces significantly, and need more rounds to coverage. In this work, we use Kullback-Leibler divergence(KLD) measure the weights divergence between different model trained with non-IID data. And we propose a useful scheme to improve FedAvg based Abnormal Weights Supression, reducing the influence of the weights divergence caused by non-IID and unbalanced data. As a representative of object detection, we choose Single Shot MultiBox Detector(SSD) as the base model. The results of the experiments show that the Mean Average Precision(mAP) get obvious improvement in Pascal VOC 2007 test dataset.

References

  1. Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Technical Report. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andre Esteva, Alexandre Robicquet, Bharath Ramsundar, Volodymyr Kuleshov, Mark DePristo, Katherine Chou, Claire Cui, Greg Corrado, Sebastian Thrun, and Jeff Dean. 2019. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nature medicine 25, 1 (2019), 24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyi Liu, Lujia Wang, Ming Liu, and Chengzhong Xu. 2019. Lifelong federated reinforcement learning: a learning architecture for navigation in cloud robotic systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06455 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Brendan McMahan and Daniel Ramage. [n.d.]. Federated Learning: Collaborative Machine Learning without Centralized Training Data. https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/04/federated-learningcollaborative.html. Accessed April 6, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Felix A Gers, Jürgen Schmidhuber, and Fred Cummins. 1999. Learning to forget: Continual prediction with LSTM. (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Felix Sattler, Simon Wiedemann, Klaus-Robert Müller, and Wojciech Samek. 2019. Robust and communication-efficient federated learning from non-iid data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02891 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. H Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, et al. 2016. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05629 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jakub Konečny, H Brendan McMahan, Felix X Yu, Peter Richtárik, Ananda Theertha Suresh, and Dave Bacon. 2016. Federated learning: Strategies for improving communication efficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05492 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. 2016. You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 779-788.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Keith Bonawitz, Vladimir Ivanov, Ben Kreuter, Antonio Marcedone, H Brendan McMahan, Sarvar Patel, Daniel Ramage, Aaron Segal, and Karn Seth. 2017. Practical secure aggregation for privacy-preserving machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 1175--1191.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Everingham, S. M. A. Eslami, L. Van Gool, C. K. I. Williams, J. Winn, and A. Zisserman. 2015. The Pascal Visual Object Classes Challenge: A Retrospective. International Journal of Computer Vision 111, 1 (Jan. 2015), 98--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Reza Shokri and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2015. Privacy-preserving deep learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security. ACM, 1310--1321.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2015. Faster rcnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 91-99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Sixin Zhang, Anna E Choromanska, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Deep learning with elastic averaging SGD. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 685-693.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge J. Belongie, Lubomir D. Bourdev, Ross B. Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. CoRR abs/1405.0312 (2014). arXiv:1405.0312 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0312Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Wei Liu, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Christian Szegedy, Scott Reed, Cheng-Yang Fu, and Alexander C Berg. 2016. Ssd: Single shot multibox detector. In European conference on computer vision. Springer, 21--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. William Shakespeare. 2007. The complete works of William Shakespeare. Wordsworth Editions.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Xiang Li, Kaixuan Huang, Wenhao Yang, Shusen Wang, and Zhihua Zhang. 2019. On the Convergence of FedAvg on Non-IID Data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02189 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Yang Liu, Tianjian Chen, and Qiang Yang. 2018. Secure Federated Transfer Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.03337 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, Patrick Haffner, et al. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE 86, 11 (1998), 2278--2324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Yue Zhao, Meng Li, Liangzhen Lai, Naveen Suda, Damon Civin, and Vikas Chandra. 2018. Federated learning with non-iid data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00582 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Yujun Lin, Song Han, Huizi Mao, Yu Wang, and William J Dally. 2017. Deep gradient compression: Reducing the communication bandwidth for distributed training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01887 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Federated Object Detection: Optimizing Object Detection Model with Federated Learning

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ICVISP 2019: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Vision, Image and Signal Processing
        August 2019
        584 pages
        ISBN:9781450376259
        DOI:10.1145/3387168

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 25 May 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        ICVISP 2019 Paper Acceptance Rate126of277submissions,45%Overall Acceptance Rate186of424submissions,44%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader