Federated learning methods typically learn a model by iteratively sampling updates from a population of clients. In this work, we explore how the number of clients sampled at each round (the cohort size) impacts the quality of the learned model and the training dynamics of federated learning algorithms. Our work poses three fundamental questions. First, what challenges arise when trying to scale federated learning to larger cohorts? Second, what parallels exist between cohort sizes in federated learning, and batch sizes in centralized learning? Last, how can we design federated learning methods that effectively utilize larger cohort sizes? We give partial answers to these questions based on extensive empirical evaluation. Our work highlights a number of challenges stemming from the use of larger cohorts. While some of these (such as generalization issues and diminishing returns) are analogs of large-batch training challenges, others (including catastrophic training failures and fairness concerns) are unique to federated learning.

We implement multiple baselines in different learning setups for different tasks on this dataset.

We give partial answers to these questions based on extensive empirical evaluation.

Federated learning methods typically learn a model by iteratively sampling updates from a population of clients. In this work, we explore how the number of clients sampled at each round (the cohort size) impacts the quality of the learned model and the training dynamics of federated learning algorithms. Our work poses three fundamental questions. First, what challenges arise when trying to scale federated learning to larger cohorts? Second, what parallels exist between cohort sizes in federated learning, and batch sizes in centralized learning?

While federated learning (FL) has recently emerged as a promising approach to train machine learning models, it is limited to only preliminary explorations in the domain of automatic speech recognition (ASR). Moreover, FL does not inherently guarantee user privacy and requires the use of differential privacy (DP) for robust privacy guarantees. However, we are not aware of prior work on applying DP to FL for ASR. In this paper, we aim to bridge this research gap by formulating an ASR benchmark for FL with DP and establishing the first baselines. First, we extend the existing research on FL for ASR by exploring different aspects of recent $\textit{large end-to-end transformer models}$: architecture design, seed models, data heterogeneity, domain shift, and impact of cohort size. With a $\textit{practical}$ number of central aggregations we are able to train $\textbf{FL models}$ that are \textbf{nearly optimal} even with heterogeneous data, a seed model from another domain, or no pre-trained seed model. Second, we apply DP to FL for ASR, which is non-trivial since DP noise severely affects model training, especially for large transformer models, due to highly imbalanced gradients in the attention block. We counteract the adverse effect of DP noise by reviving per-layer clipping and explaining why its effect is more apparent in our case than in the prior work. Remarkably, we achieve user-level ($7.2$, $10^{-9}$)-$\textbf{DP}$ (resp. ($4.5$, $10^{-9}$)-$\textbf{DP}$) with a 1.3% (resp. 4.6%) absolute drop in the word error rate for extrapolation to high (resp. low) population scale for $\textbf{FL with DP in ASR}$.

In this paper, we start by training End-to-End Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) models using Federated Learning (FL) and examining the fundamental considerations that can be pivotal in minimizing the performance gap in terms of word error rate between models trained using FL versus their centralized counterpart. Specifically, we study the effect of (i) adaptive optimizers, (ii) loss characteristics via altering Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) weight, (iii) model initialization through seed start, (iv) carrying over modeling setup from experiences in centralized training to FL, e.g., pre-layer or post-layer normalization, and (v) FL-specific hyperparameters, such as number of local epochs, client sampling size, and learning rate scheduler, specifically for ASR under heterogeneous data distribution. We shed light on how some optimizers work better than others via inducing smoothness. We also summarize the applicability of algorithms, trends, and propose best practices from prior works in FL (in general) toward End-to-End ASR models.