Adaptive Confidence-Driven Sample Selection with Alignment Loss for Efficient Federated Active Learning

Authors

  • Huiping Zhou

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/etkkm495

Keywords:

Machine Learning, Label-Flipping Attack, Federated Learning, Client Weighting.

Abstract

Federated Active Learning (FAL) aims to reduce labeling costs by selecting the most informative samples for annotation while preserving strong model performance. However, current FAL methods struggle with the challenge of client heterogeneity in non-IID environments, often leading to suboptimal sample selection and increased computational burden due to repeated inference on unlabeled data. To address these issues, we propose a novel approach called Adaptive Confidence-Driven Sample Selection (ACdSS), which combines the CHASe strategy with Alignment Loss to improve sample selection efficiency. ACdSS leverages dynamic confidence scores to assess uncertainty in unlabeled data and identifies samples with fluctuating predictions between training rounds, which are more likely to be near the decision boundary. This approach balances exploration and exploitation by adapting the sample selection strategy throughout the training process, minimizing inference costs while maintaining high selection effectiveness. Experimental results on benchmark datasets demonstrate that ACdSS outperforms existing FAL techniques, delivering superior accuracy with reduced annotation costs. This framework offers a practical solution for managing client heterogeneity in FAL and is well-suited for real-world federated learning systems, offering a significant reduction in computational overhead while improving model performance.

References

[1] Zhang J, Wang J, Li H, et al. CHASe: Client Heterogeneity Aware Data Selection for Effective Federated Active Learning[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17448, 2025.

[2] Nakano A, Chen S, Demachi K. Cross‑Task Consistency Learning Framework for Multi‑Task Learning[J]. Proceedings of Cityscapes & NYU Benchmark, 2021: alignment loss and cross‑task consistency loss usage in multi‑task setting.

[3] Li Q, He B, Song D. Model‑Contrastive Federated Learning[J]. CVPR, 2021.

[4] Tian Li, Anit Kumar Sahu, Ameet Talwalkar, Virginia Smith. Federated Learning: Challenges, Methods, and Future Directions[J]. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 2021.

[5] H. Brendan McMahan et al. Communication‐Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data (FedAvg) [C]//2017.

[6] Burr Settles. Active Learning Literature Survey. University of Wisconsin‑Madison.

[7] Jack Goetz, Kshitiz Malik, Duc Bui et al. Active Federated Learning. arXiv:1909.12641, 2019.

[8] Yu‑Tong Cao, Ye Shi, Baosheng Yu et al. Knowledge-Aware Federated Active Learning with Non‑IID Data. ICCV 2023.

[9] Goetz J, Malik K, Bui D, et al. Active Federated Learning[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.12641, 2019.

[10] Tang Y, Ren C, Tang X, et al. Efficient Heterogeneity-Aware Federated Active Data Selection (FALE)[P]. ICML 2025.

[11] "The Exploration–Exploitation Dilemma", PLOS ONE; overview of exploration‑exploitation tradeoff in learning.

[12] Research Blog. Samsung Research. FedMargin: Federated Learning via Attentive Margin of Semantic Feature Representations[J]. 2023.

[13] Panagiotis, G. Ipeirotis, F. Provost, V. S. Sheng, and J. Wang, “Repeated labeling using multiple noisy labelers,” Data Min. Knowl. Discov., vol. 28, pp. 402–441, 2014.

[14] Wei X, et al. Optimizing Federated Learning by Entropy‑Based Client Selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01240, 2024.

[15] Liu S, Deng W. Very deep convolutional neural network based image classification using small training sample size. IEEE ACPR, 2015.

Downloads

Published

15-03-2026

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Zhou, H. (2026). Adaptive Confidence-Driven Sample Selection with Alignment Loss for Efficient Federated Active Learning. Mathematical Modeling and Algorithm Application, 9(1), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.54097/etkkm495