A least-core payoff rule prevents defections in federated learning by minimizing the largest subgroup grievance; a stack-based pruning algorithm makes the approach computationally practical and flags key contributors in intrusion-detection simulations.

Main Finding

The paper introduces a practical least-core (LC) payoff-allocation mechanism for cross-silo federated learning (FL) that prioritizes coalition stability by minimizing the maximum dissatisfaction of any sub-coalition. It makes LC scalable via a stack-based pruning algorithm plus an LP solver, demonstrating (in intrusion-detection and healthcare simulations) that LC identifies pivotal contributors and strategic alliances more effectively than naive volume-based or leave-one-out (LOO) methods while dramatically reducing the number of coalition evaluations compared to brute-force LC.

Key Points

• Problem and goal
  • Sustainable FL requires payoff allocation that (i) rewards real contribution to model performance and (ii) is stable (no subgroup has incentive to leave).
  • Traditional metrics (data volume, simple reputations) misvalue participants; Shapley value is conceptually attractive but computationally costly.
• Least Core (LC) concept
  • LC relaxes the core: allows a bounded dissatisfaction gap (ε) and minimizes the maximum dissatisfaction across all coalitions—hence maximizing stability in the presence of an empty exact core.
  • In superadditive settings, LC effectively ensures even the weakest coalition gets a fair share of cooperative surplus.
• Practical implementation
  • Stack-based (LIFO) pruning explores coalition space incrementally, applying two pruning rules:
  • Diminishing returns: stop expanding if marginal profit < t1.
  • Performance ceiling: stop if coalition’s profit is within t2 of the grand coalition.
  • After pruning, an LP allocates payoffs subject to (a) efficiency (sum of payoffs = grand-coalition profit) and (b) LC-stability constraints for evaluated coalitions.
  • Outputs: individual payoffs and the minimized dissatisfaction gap (ε).
• Empirical findings
  • Case: federated intrusion detection with 4 participants (cloud provider, e-commerce, university, bank) using CICIDS-2017; profit proxied by F1-weighted score.
  • LC outperforms data-volume and LOO baselines in stability and strategic allocation: it rewards pivotal agents (e.g., a partner that can form strong sub-coalitions) rather than simply those with large volume or the largest marginal drop from the grand coalition.
  • Scalability: subdividing to 16 participants, pruning reduced required model trainings from 65,534 to 97 (t1=t2=0.1) or 71 (t1=t2=0.15).
• Comparison to Shapley Value
  • Both require evaluating subset values, but they allocate differently: Shapley averages marginal contributions, LC minimizes the max subgroup dissatisfaction and thereby can allocate more to agents who create credible breakaway coalitions.
  • Demonstrated with a vertical-FL (VFL) heart-disease prediction simulation (UCI Cleveland dataset).

Data & Methods

• Value metric
  • Profit/value of a coalition = model utility proxied by F1-weighted score (balances precision/recall).
• Coalition evaluation
  • Naïve LC needs model training for every nonempty subset → exponential cost.
  • Stack-pruning algorithm:
    • Start with singletons; iteratively push participants to form larger coalitions.
    • Apply pruning rules (thresholds t1, t2) to avoid exploring low-value or near-ceiling supersets.
    • Ensure small but potentially important coalitions are still evaluated (e.g., alternative pairings).
    • Threshold selection: trade-off table—low thresholds → near-exact LC, high compute; moderate thresholds balance accuracy and cost.
• Payoff computation
  • Formulate an LP whose decision variables are individual payoffs and ε:
    • Objective: minimize ε (the maximum dissatisfaction gap).
    • Constraints: sum(payoffs) = v(grand coalition); for each evaluated coalition S, sum_{i in S} pay_i >= v(S) − ε.
  • Solver outputs pay_i and ε.
• Case studies / experiments
  • Intrusion detection: CICIDS-2017, four participants; all coalitions evaluated for LC baseline comparison.
  • Scalability test: each participant split into 4 sub-entities → 16 nodes; used pruning thresholds to reduce evaluations.
  • Smart healthcare VFL: UCI Cleveland dataset, features vertically partitioned among 3 participants to compare LC vs Shapley/LOO behavior.
• Baselines for comparison
  • Data volume allocation.
  • Leave-one-out marginal loss (LOO).
  • Discussion relative to Shapley Value.

Implications for AI Economics

• Incentive design for FL markets
  • LC provides a stability-focused allocation rule suited to cross-silo settings (e.g., firms, public agencies) where credible exit options of coalitions matter economically.
  • Recognizes bargaining power arising from synergistic partnerships, not just volume or single-player marginality—this affects pricing of data/services and negotiation dynamics.
• Cost-effective deployment of cooperative AI
  • The pruning+LP approach makes game-theoretic, coalition-aware allocation feasible at scales relevant for industry (dozens of participants), lowering the barrier to adopting fair FL marketplaces.
  • By reducing computation needed to estimate coalition value, LC can be integrated into operational FL platforms with bounded budget.
• Market structure and competition
  • LC can deter destabilizing defections by preemptively compensating pivotal contributors—this can sustain larger federations and reduce churn.
  • Platforms and consortiums can use LC allocations to determine membership fees, profit-sharing contracts, or subsidy policies (e.g., for public-safety collaborations).
• Policy and regulation
  • For socially critical FL (public safety, health), LC offers an allocation framework that explicitly trades off total surplus for coalition stability—helpful when regulators require continued multi-party cooperation.
• Limitations & research directions (economic relevance)
  • Approximation risk: pruning thresholds introduce potential allocation error; need formal bounds linking thresholds to LC approximation quality.
  • Strategic behavior: participants might attempt to manipulate coalition value estimates or hide/fragment data to influence allocations—mechanism-design extensions are needed.
  • Dynamic and repeated settings: markets are dynamic; extending LC to multi-period bargaining, entry/exit and investment decisions is an open area.
  • Computation-privacy trade-off: evaluating coalition values requires model training on subsets; privacy-preserving evaluation or secure multiparty mechanisms are necessary for real deployments.
  • Empirical validation across more domains and real commercial deployments will quantify welfare and stability gains versus costs.

Short takeaway: The paper delivers a practical, stability-centered payoff allocation mechanism for cross-silo FL that is computationally tractable and economically meaningful—particularly useful for consortium-style AI markets where coalition credibility and long-run cooperation matter.