mirror of
https://github.com/hanzo-docs/docs.git
synced 2026-10-28 07:09:50 +00:00
zeekay
cf191aedc2
- Update blog/[slug]/page.tsx to use getAllSlugs() instead of getSortedPosts() for static params - Sweep all blog MDX files to remove upstream model name references (brand policy compliance) - Add new blog posts: 7680-dim-embeddings, agent-nfts, bitdelta-behavioral-compression, case-for-decentralized-science - Delete gspo.mdx and qwen2.5-vl-32b.mdx (consolidated/removed content) - Remove packages/zenlm-models and packages/zenlm-ui entirely - Update lib/blog.ts, docs/server.ts, docs/browser.ts for blog infrastructure - Update pnpm-lock.yaml after package removal
125 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
125 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
---
|
||
title: "Federated Learning for Open AI"
|
||
description: "How federated learning enables collaborative model training while preserving data privacy."
|
||
date: "2022-05-09"
|
||
author: "Zach Kelling"
|
||
tags: ["Research", "Training", "Privacy"]
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
Training large language models requires vast amounts of data. That data often contains sensitive information. Federated learning offers a path to train on distributed, private data without centralizing it.
|
||
|
||
## The Centralization Problem
|
||
|
||
Traditional ML training follows a simple pattern: collect data, aggregate it centrally, train models. This creates problems:
|
||
|
||
* **Privacy risk** : Sensitive data leaves user control
|
||
* **Legal barriers** : Regulations prevent data movement across jurisdictions
|
||
* **Trust requirements** : Data holders must trust the training party
|
||
* **Single points of failure** : Central aggregation creates vulnerabilities
|
||
|
||
## Federated Learning Basics
|
||
|
||
Federated learning inverts the pattern. Instead of bringing data to the model, we bring the model to the data.
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
+-----------+
|
||
| Central |
|
||
| Server |
|
||
+-----+-----+
|
||
|
|
||
+--------------+--------------+
|
||
| | |
|
||
+-----v-----+ +-----v-----+ +-----v-----+
|
||
| Client 1 | | Client 2 | | Client N |
|
||
| (Data A) | | (Data B) | | (Data N) |
|
||
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
|
||
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
1. Central server distributes model weights
|
||
2. Clients train locally on their data
|
||
3. Clients send gradient updates (not data) back
|
||
4. Server aggregates updates into improved model
|
||
5. Repeat
|
||
|
||
Data never leaves client devices. Only model updates travel.
|
||
|
||
## Challenges at Scale
|
||
|
||
Federated learning for LLMs faces unique challenges:
|
||
|
||
### Communication Costs
|
||
|
||
Model gradients are large. With billions of parameters, naive federation is impractical. We address this through:
|
||
|
||
* **Gradient compression** : Sparsification and quantization reduce bandwidth by 100-1000x
|
||
* **Asynchronous updates** : Clients contribute when convenient, not in synchronized rounds
|
||
* **Hierarchical aggregation** : Regional aggregators reduce central server load
|
||
|
||
### Heterogeneous Compute
|
||
|
||
Participants have varied hardware. A phone differs from a workstation differs from a server. Our approach:
|
||
|
||
* **Adaptive batch sizes** : Smaller devices process smaller batches
|
||
* **Model sharding** : Large models split across capable participants
|
||
* **Contribution weighting** : Update importance scales with compute contributed
|
||
|
||
### Data Heterogeneity
|
||
|
||
Different participants have different data distributions. This creates convergence challenges. Solutions:
|
||
|
||
* **Personalization layers** : Some parameters remain local
|
||
* **Clustered federation** : Similar participants form training groups
|
||
* **Importance sampling** : Under-represented distributions get higher weight
|
||
|
||
## Privacy Enhancements
|
||
|
||
Basic federation protects raw data but gradients can leak information. We add:
|
||
|
||
### Differential Privacy
|
||
|
||
Noise added to gradients provides mathematical privacy guarantees. Each participant’s contribution becomes statistically indistinguishable.
|
||
|
||
### Secure Aggregation
|
||
|
||
Cryptographic protocols ensure the server only sees aggregated updates, not individual contributions. Even a compromised server learns nothing about specific participants.
|
||
|
||
### Trusted Execution
|
||
|
||
Hardware enclaves (SGX, TrustZone) provide additional isolation. Computation occurs in protected memory regions.
|
||
|
||
## Zen Federation Protocol
|
||
|
||
We’ve developed a federation protocol specifically for language model training:
|
||
|
||
1. **Enrollment** : Participants register compute capacity and data characteristics
|
||
2. **Matching** : Coordinator assigns participants to training cohorts
|
||
3. **Distribution** : Model shards route to appropriate participants
|
||
4. **Training** : Local training with privacy-preserving gradient computation
|
||
5. **Aggregation** : Secure combination of participant updates
|
||
6. **Verification** : Cryptographic proofs of correct computation
|
||
|
||
Early benchmarks show we achieve 85% of centralized training efficiency while maintaining strong privacy guarantees.
|
||
|
||
## Join the Network
|
||
|
||
We’re opening the Zen federation network to participants. Contribute compute, contribute data (privately), contribute to open AI.
|
||
|
||
Requirements:
|
||
|
||
* Minimum 16GB RAM
|
||
* Stable internet connection
|
||
* Willingness to run our client software
|
||
|
||
In return, participants receive:
|
||
|
||
* Governance tokens proportional to contribution
|
||
* Early access to trained models
|
||
* Recognition in model cards
|
||
|
||
Details at zen.ai/federate.
|
||
|
||
* * *
|
||
|
||
_Zach Kelling is a co-founder of Zoo Labs Foundation._ |