blazefl 2.0.0a3

A blazing-fast, minimalist, and researcher-friendly simulation framework for Federated Learning.

A blazing-fast, minimalist, and researcher-friendly simulation framework for Federated Learning

Feature Highlights

• 🚀 High Performance: Optimized for single-node simulations, BlazeFL allows you to adjust the degree of parallelism for efficient resource management.

• 🧩 High Extensibility: BlazeFL focuses on core communication and parallelization interfaces, avoiding excessive abstraction to maintain flexibility.

• 🍃 Minimal Dependencies: The framework's core relies only on PyTorch, ensuring a lightweight and straightforward setup.

• 🔄 Robust Reproducibility: Utilities for saving and restoring seed states are provided to ensure consistent results, even in multi-process environments.

• 🛡️ Structured and Type-Safe by Design: By leveraging dataclasses and protocols, BlazeFL enables the creation of clear, type-safe, and self-documenting communication packages (UplinkPackage, DownlinkPackage). This design enhances code readability, maintainability, and reduces errors in FL workflows.

Execution Modes

BlazeFL offers three distinct execution modes, each providing a different balance between implementation simplicity and performance.

1. Single-Threaded Mode

Executes clients sequentially in a single thread.

This is the most straightforward mode, making it ideal for simple simulations or debugging, though it offers the lowest throughput. This mode is implemented using the BaseClientTrainer class.

graph LR
    subgraph "`BaseServerHandler`"
      STS[Server]
    end
    subgraph "BaseClientTrainer"
      STJ@{ shape: f-circ, label: "Junction" } --> ST1[Client 1]
      ST1 --> ST2[Client 2]
      ST2 --> ST3[Client 3]
      ST3 -...-> STK-2[Client K-2]
      STK-2 -..-> STK-1[Client K-1]
      STK-1 --> STK[Client K]
    end
    STK --> STJ
    STJ --> STS
    STS --> STJ

2. Multi-Threaded Mode (Experimental)

Leverages multiple threads to process clients in parallel within the same process.

This mode, implemented via the ThreadPoolClientTrainer class, can offer faster performance while maintaining a simpler implementation than multi-processing.

[!IMPORTANT] To achieve true parallelism, this mode requires Python 3.13+ with the experimental free-threading build enabled. Without it, performance will be limited by the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL), resulting in concurrency rather than true parallelism.

graph LR
    subgraph "`BaseServerHandler`"
      STS[Server]
    end

    subgraph "ThreadPoolClientTrainer (e.g. Max Threads = 3)"
      MEM@{ shape: win-pane, label: "Memory" }
      STJ1@{ shape: f-circ, label: "Junction" }
      subgraph "Thread 1"
        ST1[Client 1] --> ST4[Client 4]
        ST4 -.-> STK-2[Client K-2]
      end
      subgraph "Thread 2"
        ST2[Client 2] --> ST5[Client 5]
        ST5 -.-> STK-1[Client K-1]
      end
      subgraph "Thread 3"
        ST3[Client 3] --> ST6[Client 6]
        ST6 -.-> STK[Client K]
      end
      STJ1 --> ST1
      STJ1 --> ST2
      STJ1 --> ST3
      STK-2 --> STJ2@{ shape: f-circ, label: "Junction" }
      STK-1 --> STJ2
      STK --> STJ2
      STJ2 --> STJ1
      STJ1 --Write/Read--> MEM
      ST1 --Read/Write--> MEM
      ST5 --Read/Write--> MEM
      STK --Read/Write--> MEM
    end
    STJ1 --> STS
    STS --> STJ1

3. Multi-Process Mode

Utilizes separate processes to achieve true parallelism and robust resource isolation.

This production-ready mode, corresponding to the ProcessPoolClientTrainer class, offers excellent performance. It provides two options for Inter-Process Communication (IPC), configurable via the ipc_mode parameter, to suit your needs:

• Storage Mode: Shares parameters via disk, reducing memory usage.
• Shared Memory Mode: Shares parameters directly in shared memory for potentially faster performance.

graph LR
    subgraph "`BaseServerHandler`"
      STS[Server]
    end

    subgraph "ProcessPoolClientTrainer (e.g. Max Processes = 3)"
      SHM[("<center>Shared Memory<br>or<br>Storage</center>")]
      SPJ1@{ shape: f-circ, label: "Junction" }
      subgraph "Process 1"
        SP1[Client 1] --> SP4[Client 4]
        SP4 -.-> SPK-2[Client K-2]
      end
      subgraph "Process 2"
        SP2[Client 2] --> SP5[Client 5]
        SP5 -.-> SPK-1[Client K-1]
      end
      subgraph "Process 3"
        SP3[Client 3] --> SP6[Client 6]
        SP6 -.-> SPK[Client K]
      end
      SPJ1 --> SP1
      SPJ1 --> SP2
      SPJ1 --> SP3
      SPK-2 --> SPJ2@{ shape: f-circ, label: "Junction" }
      SPK-1 --> SPJ2
      SPK --> SPJ2
      SPJ2 --> SPJ1
      SPJ1 --Write/Read--> SHM
      SP1 --Read/Write--> SHM
      SP5 --Read/Write--> SHM
      SPK --Read/Write--> SHM
    end
    SPJ1 --> STS
    STS --> SPJ1

Getting Started

Installation

BlazeFL is available on PyPI and can be installed using your preferred package manager.

For example, using uv:

uv add blazefl

Examples

Example	Description
Quickstart: FedAvg	Learn the fundamentals of BlazeFL with a standard Federated Averaging (FedAvg) implementation, covering both single-threaded and multi-process modes.
Experimental: Multi-Threaded FedAvg	Explore high-performance parallel training with a multi-threaded FedAvg, leveraging Python 3.13+'s experimental free-threading mode.
Step-by-Step Tutorial: DS-FL	Build a custom distillation-based Federated Learning algorithm from scratch, and understand how to implement your own algorithms on the BlazeFL framework.

Simulation Benchmarks

To evaluate the performance of BlazeFL, we conducted a comparative benchmark against Flower, a popular FL framework.

Benchmark Setup

The benchmark was performed using the FedAvg algorithm on the CIFAR-10 dataset. The simulation was configured with 100 clients, 5 communication rounds, and 5 local epochs for two models: a small CNN and a large ResNet18.

Execution Environment

The benchmark was conducted in the following Podman container environment:

• CPU: 12 CPU
• Memory: 85 GB
• Shared Memory: 32 GB
• GPU: 2 x NVIDIA RTX A6000

[!NOTE] This benchmark was run in a container, and the resources are not completely isolated from other processes. Therefore, please consider these results as reference values. A more rigorous evaluation is planned to be conducted on a cloud VM in the future.

Results

The benchmark results indicate that BlazeFL has competitive performance against Flower. This is noteworthy as BlazeFL achieves this with a significantly smaller codebase relying only on standard Python libraries and PyTorch, whereas Flower is a powerful framework built on top of Ray. In particular, the experimental multi-threaded mode shows the potential for even higher performance due to its lightweight threads.

Contributing

We welcome contributions from the community! If you'd like to contribute to this project, please see our contribution guidelines for more information on how to get started.

Please note that this project is governed by our Code of Conduct. By participating, you are expected to uphold this code.