An Informativeness-based Clustered Federated Learning Method for Reliable Traffic Prediction in Managed Wi-Fi Networks

We consider a managed Wi-Fi system comprising a set $\mathcal{A}=\{1,\ldots,N_{\text{AP}}\}$ of $N_{\text{AP}}$ APs managed by a cloud controller, as exemplified in Fig. 1. Each AP $a\in\mathcal{A}$ collects time-series data from its radio interfaces describing the traffic evolution over time $t\in\{0,\ldots,\text{T}\}$, where T denotes the current time. Time is sampled at discrete events, with the interval between successive time instants ruled by the system time granularity $\text{T}_{\text{s}}$ e.g., hourly or on a per-minute basis). This data for the $a$-th AP can be compactly described as $\mathbf{X}_{0:\text{T}}^{(a)}=\{\mathbf{x}_{0}^{(a)},\ldots,\mathbf{x}_{\text{T}}^{(a)}\}$, where $\mathbf{x}_{t}^{(a)}$ is a vector at time $t$ comprising $M$ features, which include traffic metrics and additional context information [18] useful for prediction (e.g., number of active connections, current time). For solving the traffic prediction problem, each AP $a\in\mathcal{A}$ builds a local dataset via a sliding window of length $\text{L}+\text{H}$, where L is the input context length and H the prediction horizon as

where $N_{\text{E}}$ is the number of samples.

For centralized solutions, the controller collects all local datasets, forming $\mathcal{D}=\bigcup_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\mathcal{D}^{(a)}$ with $N_{\text{E}}=\sum_{a\in\mathcal{A}}N_{\text{E}}^{(a)}$ total samples and learns a single shared mapping $f_{\text{C}}(\cdot)$ as

This mapping is parameterized by the weights $\mathbf{W}$ of a Neural Network (NN) learned by minimizing

where $\ell(\cdot)$ denotes the loss function (e.g., L1 loss) evaluated over each sample in $\mathcal{D}$.

Nevertheless, centralizing raw data constrains the attainable temporal granularity, since fine-grained sampling entails frequent, high-volume transfers between the APs and the controller. FL mitigates this by exchanging model parameters rather than raw data, thereby relaxing the granularity constraint while offloading part of the computational burden from the cloud.

The FL goal is amenable to the optimization in (3), where now the objective is to minimize the following function

with $\rho_{a}=N_{\text{E}}^{(a)}/N_{\text{E}}$ and

where $\ell(\cdot)$ is the same loss function as in (3), now evaluated over the local dataset $\mathcal{D}^{(a)}$. Solving (5) in a federated manner is done by alternating local optimization steps at the APs with ML model aggregation at the cloud controller so as to learn a resilient global model. More formally, at each iteration $i$, each AP $a\in\mathcal{A}$ updates its local copy of the ML model $\mathbf{W}_{i}^{(a)}$ via stochastic gradient steps as follows

where $\eta$ is the learning rate. APs then evaluate the surrogate gradient

and share it with the cloud controller for aggregation. The global model is then updated as

where $\mathcal{A}_{0}$ denotes the set of APs that shared their updates to the cloud controller, while

is a weighting factor. APs then substitute their local model with the received global one and a new iteration begins, until $I_{\max}$ rounds are reached.

While FL is attractive for managed Wi-Fi, a single global model may underperform in the presence of heterogeneous AP traffic distributions, motivating the CFL strategy detailed next.

Let $\mathcal{P}=\{\mathcal{C}_{1},\ldots,\mathcal{C}_{K}\}$ denote a partition of the APs set $\mathcal{A}$ into $K$ disjoint clusters, i.e., $\bigcup_{k=1}^{K}\mathcal{C}_{k}=\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{k}\cap\mathcal{C}_{k^{\prime}}=\emptyset$ for $k\neq k^{\prime}$. Differently from the vanilla FL formulation in (5), in CFL a distinct ML model $\mathbf{W}^{(k)}$ is learned for each cluster $\mathcal{C}_{k}$ by solving

with cluster-wise data weighting

The local update rules of Sec. II-B carry over unchanged at the APs, while the cloud controller now performs $K$ separate aggregations, one per cluster, namely

with $w_{a}^{(k)}=N_{\text{E}}^{(a)}/\sum_{a^{\prime}\in\mathcal{A}_{0}\cap\mathcal{C}_{k}}N_{\text{E}}^{(a^{\prime})}$. Each AP $a\in\mathcal{C}_{k}$ then synchronizes its local copy with $\mathbf{W}_{i+1}^{(k)}$ before the next round. The central question becomes how to compute a partition $\mathcal{P}$ that yields informative and well-separated groups of APs. We address this through a two-stage search procedure that starts from a single global model ($\mathcal{P}=\{\mathcal{A}\}$, $K^{\dagger}=\varnothing$), which serves as the effective warm-up until Stage 2 first identifies a valid partition and sets $K^{\dagger}$. From that point onwards, periodic re-clustering at every $K_{\text{rc}}$ rounds simply refreshes the AP assignments via SVD and $k$-means with $K^{\dagger}$ fixed.

To reduce the sensitivity to noise in individual-round gradients, the controller maintains a per-AP gradient feature updated as an Exponential Moving Average (EMA) after every FL round $i$ as

with smoothing factor $\beta\in(0,1]$. At a re-clustering round $i_{r}$, the cloud controller stacks these accumulated gradient features as

To mitigate the high dimensionality of $\mathbf{D}_{i_{r}}$, the controller computes its thin SVD

where the columns of $\mathbf{U}$ are the left singular vectors, $\mathbf{V}$ the right singular vectors, and $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$ the diagonal matrix of singular values $\sigma_{1}\geq\cdots\geq\sigma_{R}\geq 0$. The truncation rank is selected as $r=\mathrm{clip}\!\left(1+\arg\max_{k\in\{1,\ldots,R-1\}}(\sigma_{k}-\sigma_{k+1}),\,3,\,N_{\text{AP}}\right)$, i.e., the position of the largest spectral gap clipped to $[3,N_{\text{AP}}]$ to avoid degenerate single-direction embeddings and ranks exceeding the number of APs. The low-dimensional AP embedding matrix is then obtained as

where the $a$-th column is the $a$-th AP low-dimensional embedding.

A pool of candidate partitions is then generated by sweeping the number of clusters from $2$ up to $K_{\max}$, set as $K_{\max}=r$ since the $r$ dominant directions capture the heterogeneity modes in the gradient profiles; partitions with $K>r$ rely on noise-dominated directions and should be discarded. The lower clip at $r=3$ ensures the candidate set always spans at least two distinct partition sizes. This yields the candidate set

where $\mathcal{P}_{K}$ is the partition produced by running $k$-means on the columns of $\widetilde{\mathbf{D}}_{i_{r}}$ with $K$ centroids. Each candidate partition is then assessed against a set of quality criteria $\mathcal{Q}$, which may encode geometric measures (e.g., cluster separation or cohesion) as well as structural constraints (e.g., minimum cluster size); see Sec. IV for the specific instantiation used in this work. Only partitions satisfying all criteria in $\mathcal{Q}$ are retained, yielding the filtered set

If $\mathfrak{P}^{\star}=\emptyset$, no candidate satisfies the desired clustering quality and the procedure falls back to a single global model produced by the standard FL aggregation of Sec. II-B. The re-clustering attempt is then deferred to the next window of $K_{\text{rc}}$ rounds.

Whenever $\mathfrak{P}^{\star}$ is non-empty, Stage 2 selects the partition that yields the most informative smallest cluster. This focus is motivated by the observation that small clusters gather the fewest APs and therefore the least training data, which directly widens their generalization gap. Partitions whose smallest cluster carries highly informative gradient profiles are therefore preferred, as they reduce the risk of producing under-trained clustered models.

For a partition $\mathcal{P}\in\mathfrak{P}^{\star}$, let $\mathcal{C}_{\star}(\mathcal{P})=\arg\min_{k\in\{1,\ldots,K\}}|\mathcal{C}_{k}|$ denote its smallest cluster (ties broken arbitrarily). For each AP $a\in\mathcal{C}_{\star}(\mathcal{P})$, the Gaussian differential entropy of the entries of $\mathbf{g}_{i_{r}}^{(a)}$ is used as a hyperparameter-free informativeness score

where $\bar{g}_{i_{r}}^{(a)}$ is the mean gradient entry and $\hat{\sigma}^{(a)2}$ its empirical variance. Since the Gaussian is the maximum-entropy distribution over the reals for a fixed variance [19], this score is a conservative informativeness measure requiring no assumption beyond the empirical second moment of the gradient entries. The overall informativeness of partition $\mathcal{P}$ is then defined as the cumulative entropy of its smallest cluster,

The final partition retained for clustered aggregation is the one maximizing this score,

with ties resolved in favor of the partition exhibiting the largest minimum-size cluster, so as to additionally promote balanced cluster cardinalities. The selected partition $\mathcal{P}^{\dagger}$, with $K^{\dagger}=|\mathcal{P}^{\dagger}|$ clusters, marks the end of the search phase. Subsequently, the controller enters a maintenance phase: at each re-clustering round, it reapplies SVD and $k$-means with $K=K^{\dagger}$ fixed to refresh the AP assignments, without re-executing Stage 2, thereby avoiding the cost and the cluster-count oscillation that repeatedly re-running the clustering operations search across rounds would otherwise introduce.

Our experiments build on the open-source association records of [20], which log 7,404 Wi-Fi APs deployed across a 3 km² campus over 49 days in 2019. Following [16], we post-process these records to derive the per-AP uplink and downlink traffic time series that constitute the target of our prediction task. The goal is to forecast the AP traffic over $H\in\{1,6\}$ future time steps (corresponding to 10-min and 1-hour ahead, respectively) given the preceding $\text{L}=60$ observations (i.e., the preceding 10 hours), at a temporal resolution of $\text{T}_{\text{s}}=10$ minutes. For each evaluated network size $N_{\text{AP}}\in\{10,50,100\}$, APs are drawn uniformly at random from the full dataset, with the same random seeds used across all learning strategies to ensure a fair comparison.

We compare CFL-2S against: (i) vanilla FL (Sec. II); (ii)  Iterative Federated Clustering Algorithm (IFCA) [21], which alternates cluster assignment and per-cluster updates with a fixed $K$ set equal to the $K^{\dagger}$ identified by CFL-2S for each run (an oracle cluster count not available in practice); and (iii)  Clustered Federated Learning with Gradient Partitioning (CFL-GP) [22], a gradient-based CFL state-of-the-art baseline. All strategies employ an Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model comprising one hidden layer of 50 units followed by a fully connected output layer of $H$ neurons, with ${\sim}11$k parameters. Training is carried out for up to $I_{\max}=300$ rounds using the Adam optimizer ($\eta=0.001$, mini-batch size 32), with early stopping applied if performances do not improve over 20 consecutive communication rounds. An 80%/20% train-test split is adopted, applied chronologically per AP: the first 80% of each AP’s time windows form the training set and the remaining 20% the test set, preserving temporal ordering. All results are averaged over 5 independent random seeds to account for variability. Regarding the clustering-specific hyperparameters, both CFL approaches share a smoothing factor $\beta=0.9$ and a re-clustering period of $K_{\text{rc}}=2$ communication rounds. For the quality criteria $\mathcal{Q}$ (Sec. III-B), we adopt a single minimum silhouette threshold $s_{\min}=0.7$. The silhouette score [23] measures, for each AP, the ratio of inter-cluster separation to intra-cluster cohesion, with the per-partition score $s(\mathcal{P})\in[-1,+1]$ (where $+1$ indicates perfect separation) being the mean over all APs. This criterion is chosen as it reuses the embedding already computed in Stage 1 and captures both cluster compactness and separation with a single, interpretable scalar. The value $s_{\min}=0.7$ lies in the “strong structure” region of the silhouette scale [23]), ensuring that only partitions with well-separated, cohesive clusters are retained. A systematic study of alternative quality metrics and thresholds is beyond our scope and left to future work.

Four metrics are considered: (i)  Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for prediction quality; (ii) convergence rounds: the round achieving the best MAE before early stopping or $I_{\max}$ is reached; (iii) communication overhead (MB), accounting for the total data exchanged between APs and the cloud controller up to the convergence round, including gradient uploads and model downloads at each round; and (iv) computational energy consumed up to the convergence round, measured via Eco2ai [24]¹¹1Simulations were executed on a PC equipped with an Intel(R) Xeon(R) W3-2435 CPU and 256 GB of RAM. Energy measured on a CPU; a GPU would change absolute consumption but is expected to preserve the relative ranking across strategies, as all run the same model and number of rounds. (this reflects algorithmic cost and does not include wireless transmission energy at the APs).

Fig. 2 reports the MAE achieved by each strategy across $N_{\text{AP}}\in\{10,50,100\}$ and both prediction horizons. Analyzing the results, vanilla FL underperforms due to its single global model, while IFCA, despite relying on the same oracle cluster count $K^{\dagger}$ as CFL-2S, achieves comparably poor MAE. This might suggest that having access only to the optimal cluster count alone is insufficient to improve performances, and a better cluster selection, as the one employed by our proposal, is what brings the most significant gains. CFL-GP provides moderate MAE reductions over FL and IFCA through per-cluster modeling, though its gains are less consistent across network sizes and prediction horizons. On the other hand, the proposed CFL-2S method achieves the best MAE among all distributed strategies across every evaluated configuration, with the largest improvements at the longer horizon $\text{H}=6$ and larger networks, where it reduces the MAE by up to $51\%$ over vanilla FL and $21\%$ over CFL-GP. At the short horizon the gains shrink and the gap to CFL-GP narrows, falling within one standard deviation at the largest network, Still, our proposal attains the lowest mean MAE throughout.

Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 report the convergence rounds, communication overhead, and energy-to-convergence, respectively, of the three CFL strategies and FL for both horizons and all network sizes, averaged over the 5 seeds. We examine each metric in turn, focusing on how CFL-2S compares against the IFCA, CFL-GP and FL baselines.

Rounds to convergence. Convergence speed (Fig. 3) is the only dimension on which CFL-2S is not consistently ahead among the clustered methods. At the short horizon, it reaches its best model in fewer rounds than IFCA at every network size and stays in a comparable range to CFL-GP. At the longer horizon, instead, the ranking becomes mixed, with CFL-2S occasionally needing more rounds, most notably more than CFL-GP at the mid-sized network. Vanilla FL sits at the two extremes: it is among the slowest at the short horizon (on par with IFCA), yet by far the fastest at the longer horizon for the larger networks, where its single global model plateaus early and triggers early stopping after fewer than half the rounds of any clustered method. As the next two metrics make clear, however, a higher round count does not penalises CFL-2S. Indeed, our proposal exchanges and processes far less information per round compared to the other CFL methods, so more rounds do not translate into higher communication or energy.

Communication overhead. Among the clustered methods, CFL-2S achieves the lowest communication overhead in every configuration (Fig. 4, logarithmic scale), exchanging on average ${\sim}73\%$ less data than IFCA and ${\sim}20\%$ less than CFL-GP. The gap is by far the widest against IFCA, which must broadcast all $K$ cluster models to every AP at each round so that each can select its own. The margin over CFL-GP is narrower. Indeed, both transmit only the relevant per-cluster model, but CFL-2S adds no clustering-specific signalling, reusing the gradients already exchanged for training. Crucially, these savings grow with the network size, precisely the regime of practical interest for managed Wi-Fi. Finally, vanilla FL matches the per-round footprint of CFL-2S but, converging over more rounds at the short horizon, transmits more in total. The sole exception is the longer horizon at the larger networks, where its early stopping makes it the cheapest of all.

Computational energy. The same ordering carries over to energy among the clustered methods (Fig. 5): CFL-2S consumes the least energy-to-convergence in every configuration, on average ${\sim}49\%$ less than IFCA and ${\sim}37\%$ less than CFL-GP. The reason is that its lightweight clustering and low per-round cost dominate the total budget, so a few extra rounds do not erode its lead. At the longer horizon and the mid-sized network, for instance, CFL-2S runs more rounds than CFL-GP yet still spends the least energy. Which baseline is costliest is not fixed, however: IFCA dominates the energy budget at the short horizon, whereas CFL-GP tends to be the most expensive at the longer one. Vanilla FL mirrors its communication behaviour, falling between CFL-2S and the other clustered methods at the short horizon but becoming the most energy-effienct option at the longer horizon for the larger networks.

Overall, among the clustered strategies CFL-2S pairs the best MAE with the lowest communication and energy in every setting, making it a strong fit for resource-constrained managed Wi-Fi deployments. Relative to FL, however, this advantage is conditional: CFL-2S dominates at the short horizon and the smallest network, whereas FL’s early-stopping global model is cheapest at the longer horizon for large networks—where CFL-2S roughly doubles communication and energy to roughly halve the MAE. Clustering is therefore best invoked selectively, when AP heterogeneity justifies its overhead.