Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 16 references

FedRAV: Hierarchically Federated Region-Learning for Traffic Object Classification of Autonomous Vehicles

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FedRAV claims that grouping vehicles into regions by location-and-label distance, then personalizing each vehicular model with hypernetwork masks, beats seven federated learning baselines on traffic object classification under Non-IID data.

desk verdict The hierarchical hypernetwork idea is reasonable, but the headline accuracy claim rests on a mixed-metric comparison and synthetic coordinates that build the regional-similarity premise into the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13979 v1 pith:L5WQFXKK submitted 2024-11-21 cs.DC cs.AI

Yijun Zhai , Pengzhan Zhou , Yuepeng He , Fang Qu , Zhida Qin , Xianlong Jiao , Guiyan Liu , Songtao Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCcs.AI
keywords federatedlearningautonomousvehiclesNon-IIDdataregionpartitioninghypernetworkpersonalizationtrafficobjectclassificationhierarchical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes FedRAV, a two-stage federated learning framework for autonomous vehicles that treats Non-IID data as a regional pattern instead of a problem to average away. In the first stage, a central server partitions vehicles into sub-regions using a Region-Wise Distance that combines GPS coordinates with a normalized label-abundance vector, on the argument that cars driving near each other collect similar traffic-object distributions. In the second stage, each vehicle and each region gets a hypernetwork that produces mask vectors, and the personalized model is the local model plus a masked weighted sum of other models, so each vehicle adopts useful models and discards unhelpful ones. The paper reports that FedRAV outperforms FedAvg, FedProx, FedNova, CFL, LG-FedAvg, Per-FedAvg, and PACFL on GTSRB, MIO-TCD, and Vehicle-10 under 20% and 30% label skew, with a final accuracy improvement of at least 3.69 percentage points in the reported comparisons. The result matters because federated learning for vehicles is useful only if it can handle the heterogeneity of real traffic environments, and this framework gives a concrete way to exploit spatial locality without sharing raw data.

What carries the argument

Region-Wise Distance (RWD): a metric combining spatial distance with label-distribution distance, $RWD(i,j)=\|V_i-V_j\|_2+\gamma\,[\zeta(C_i-C_j)^T W\zeta(C_i-C_j)]^{1/2}$, where the abundance vector $C_i$ encodes how rich each object category is in vehicle $i$'s local data relative to all cities. It is the distance used by the partitioning algorithm to form regions, and the control knob $\gamma$ trades geography against label similarity. The second load-bearing mechanism is hypernetwork personalization: each vehicle and each region owns a small network that emits mask vectors $\alpha$, and the personalized model is $\tilde{w}_i + (W_k\setminus\tilde{w}_i)\odot h_i(v_i;\phi_i)$, so the mask decides which peer models to borrow from. The third mechanism is an intra-region aggregation rule with exponential penalty $g(\cdot)=e^{-(\cdot)}$ that weights models by closeness to the regional average. Together these turn the regional structure into a personalized training loop.

What would settle it

Run FedRAV on vehicles with real GPS coordinates from a city-scale fleet and compare with the synthetic-coordinate runs under identical label-skew settings; if the accuracy advantage over PACFL and LG-FedAvg disappears or turns negative, the regional-similarity premise fails. A numerical check already available in Table II: at 30% skew on GTSRB, FedRAV reports 83.37% while FedProx reports 85.18% and FedNova reports 85.13%, so the claim that FedRAV outperforms all compared algorithms is not uniform across every reported configuration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that regional structure is a first-class signal for federated learning in autonomous driving, not a nuisance. FedRAV defines a Regional Structure Optimization problem over a Region-Wise Distance $RWD(i,j)=\|V_i-V_j\|_2 + \gamma[\zeta(C_i-C_j)^T W \zeta(C_i-C_j)]^{1/2}$, where $V_i$ is a vehicle's coordinates and $C_i$ is its $M$-relative abundance vector, category counts normalized across cities to a 0 to 255 range. A K-Means++-seeded Lloyd-style algorithm solves this partitioning with one-shot communication. Training then alternates local SGD and two levels of personalization: a vehicle-level hypernetwork $h_i(v_i;\phi_i)$ outputs mask vectors $\alpha_i$ that weight the other vehicles' models in the same region, and a region-level hypernetwork does the same over regional models; the objectives are optimized through pseudo-gradients $\Delta w_i$ and $\Delta w_k$. An intra-region aggregation policy weights each vehicle's contribution by $e^{-\|\tilde{w}_i - \bar{w}_k\|}$, favoring models near the regional average. With $K=5$ regions, $\gamma=0.5$, ten local epochs, and 20% client participation, the paper reports final accuracies of 86.55%, 88.72%, and 89.77% on GTSRB, MIO-TCD, and Vehicle-10 under 20% skew, and 83.37%, 81.65%, and 84.02% under 30% skew, concluding that FedRAV outperforms all seven baselines with at least 3.69% improvement in accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's benefit rests on the premise that vehicles located near each other collect data with similar label distributions; the experiments enforce this premise by generating synthetic GPS coordinates from the label statistics, so real trajectories may not reproduce the same regional signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results hold, federated learning for autonomous vehicles should be organized around regions rather than a single global model, because the regions make local data more IID and the personalized masks exploit the remaining heterogeneity.
  • The one-shot regional partitioning means the added cost of the framework is a single round of GPS and label-vector uploads, after which training follows the usual federated round structure with no extra clustering communication.
  • The two-level personalization gives a natural deployment architecture: regional servers hold regional models trained from nearby vehicles, and the central server coordinates across regions, matching device-edge-cloud hierarchies in real vehicular networks.
  • On strongly heterogeneous datasets such as Vehicle-10, the reported gains over single-model baselines are the largest, supporting the paper's conclusion that a single global model is ill-suited to traffic-object classification across varied driving environments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test is to replace the synthetic GPS coordinates with real fleet trajectories; the paper's own setup constructs coordinates from label statistics in Section V-A, so the field trial that would confirm the central premise is to check whether true spatial proximity predicts label similarity strongly enough for the partitioning gain to survive.
  • The framework's components are modular: the Region-Wise Distance could be reused with other embeddings such as sensor or trajectory features, and the hypernetwork mask mechanism could produce sparse masks that zero out unhelpful clients more aggressively, reducing communication cost.
  • The control knob $\gamma$ is fixed globally at 0.5 in the experiments; a natural extension is to make it region-specific or time-varying, since dense urban blocks and highways likely need different balances between spatial closeness and label similarity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents FedRAV, a two-stage hierarchical federated learning framework for traffic object classification by autonomous vehicles. In the first stage, a central server partitions vehicles into K sub-regions using a Region-Wise Distance that combines GPS coordinates with a normalized label-abundance vector, using a K-means++-style algorithm. In the second stage, hypernetworks generate per-vehicle and per-region mask vectors that linearly combine model parameters from other vehicles or regions, and an intra-region penalty-weighted aggregation rule is used. Experiments on GTSRB, MIO-TCD, and a self-collected Vehicle-10 dataset compare FedRAV with FedAvg, FedProx, FedNova, CFL, LG-FedAvg, Per-FedAvg, and PACFL under 20% and 30% label-skew Non-IID settings. The paper claims an accuracy improvement of at least 3.69% over existing algorithms.

Significance. If the results were established, FedRAV would offer a useful design for region-aware personalized federated learning in vehicular networks, combining geographic partitioning with hypernetwork personalization. The paper has several strengths: it releases source code, includes a broad set of baselines, and provides a qualitative Cityscapes-based motivation for regional similarity. However, the significance as currently demonstrated is limited by two load-bearing experimental choices: the GPS coordinates are synthetic and constructed to satisfy the regional-similarity assumption, and Table II compares single-model baselines on a global test set with multi-model methods on client-local test sets. These issues, together with the omission of the direct hypernetwork predecessor [11], mean the claimed superiority over existing algorithms is not yet supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section V-A / Table II] The evaluation protocol is not commensurable across methods. Section V-A states that single-model approaches (FedAvg, FedProx, FedNova) are evaluated on the global test set, while multi-model approaches and FedRAV are evaluated on each client's local test set and the average is reported as final accuracy. Under the ρ=20%/30% label-skew protocol, a client's local test set contains only a subset of the label space, so a personalized model can achieve high accuracy by specializing to that subset, whereas the global model is tested on all classes. The abstract's claim of outperforming "those known algorithms" by at least 3.69% is therefore not established by Table II, which in fact shows FedRAV below FedProx and FedNova on GTSRB at ρ=30. The evaluation protocol should be unified, for example by evaluating every method on the same global test set and also reporting per-client local-set averages for all methods.
  2. [Section V-A] The synthetic coordinate generation makes the regional-similarity premise true by construction. The paper states: "We randomly generate location coordinates of 100 A Vs for each dataset, ensuring that vehicles in proximity have comparatively similar data distributions." This does not test whether real GPS or location metadata carries the same regional-similarity signal; it enforces that signal during data generation. The Cityscapes analysis in Section II is qualitative and is not connected to the classification benchmarks used to evaluate FedRAV. To support the claim that geographic partitioning contributes to the gains, the authors should use datasets with real location metadata, or at minimum generate coordinates from a model that does not condition on label statistics, and include an ablation comparing RWD-based partitioning with spatial-only, label-only, and random partitioning.
  3. [Section IV-C / Table II] The direct hypernetwork predecessor, Shamsian et al. [11], is not included as a baseline. Since the personalization mechanism in Eq. (14)-(19) follows [11], the proposed framework's regional structure is the main claimed novelty, but without a pFedHN baseline or a FedRAV variant without region partitioning, the marginal benefit of the two-level regional design cannot be isolated. The paper should add [11] to the comparison or provide an ablation that removes the partitioning stage.
  4. [Section IV-C, Eq. (14)-(15), Algorithm 2] The notation for personalized model construction is internally inconsistent. In Eq. (14), the expression (W_k \ \tilde{w}_i) is a set difference but is used in a vector operation, while Eq. (15) writes the result as a sum over j ∈ {A_k \ i}. Moreover, if the constraint sum_{j ∈ {A_k \ i}} α_{ij} = 1 is enforced, the first term \tilde{w}_i in Eq. (15) retains coefficient 1, so the personalized model is not the stated convex combination of models and the claimed ability to "discard unprofitable models" is not formally guaranteed. Algorithm 2 lines 5 and 14 have the same set-versus-vector ambiguity. The authors should define the dimensions of the hypernetwork output, the normalization of α, and the exact formula for w_i consistently in both the equations and the pseudocode.
  5. [Section III-C] The K-Means++ approximation guarantee is invoked without checking that it applies to the Region-Wise Distance objective. K-Means++ provides an 8(ln K + 2)-approximation for the squared Euclidean distance objective, but the Region-Wise Distance in Eq. (9) is the sum of two Euclidean norms, not the Euclidean norm of an augmented vector, so RWD^2 is not a squared Euclidean distance. The statement in Section III-C that the seeding step inherits the K-Means++ guarantee is therefore not justified. If the authors wish to claim the guarantee, they need a proof for the RWD objective, or the seeding step should be presented as a heuristic.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-B / Definition 2] The M-relative abundance vector is normalized using city-level statistics (the subscript j ∈ [M] denotes the j-th city), but the experiments in Section V-A do not define how the 100 AVs are grouped into cities, and for single-label classification datasets the notion of "number of objects in m-th category" per image is not well-defined. Please clarify the construction of L_i and C_i for GTSRB, MIO-TCD, and Vehicle-10.
  2. [Section V-A] The self-collected Vehicle-10 dataset lacks a description of the collection protocol, class balance, train/test split, and license. This limits reproducibility; please provide dataset details or a data card.
  3. [Section V-B / Abstract] The text reports improvements of +6%, +2.3%, and +8.08% (ρ=20%) and +8.7%, +3.69%, and +9.36% (ρ=30%) only with respect to LG-FedAvg, but the abstract claims "outperforms those known algorithms" and "at least 3.69%" over all baselines. The claim should be revised to be consistent with the comparisons actually reported.
  4. [Figure 4] The y-axis label "Final Accuracy (%)" is used for curves plotted over communication rounds; this should be "Test Accuracy (%)" or similar.
  5. [Section V-A / Table II] The number of random repetitions used to compute the means and standard deviations in Table II is not reported; please state the number of seeds and the random seed handling.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistencies: "LetNet-5" should be "LeNet-5", "writed" should be "written", and the spacing in "FedRA V" is inconsistent throughout the manuscript.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Reported superiority hinges on mismatched evaluation metrics and synthetic coordinates, making the headline gain partly definitional.

  1. self definitional [Section V-A, 'Evaluation Metrics'; Table II]
    "For single-model approaches, we evaluate the global model on the test set and report classification accuracy as experiment results. For multi-model approaches, each client holds a local test set in our experimental setting. We evaluate the personalized vehicular model on the local test set and use the average of final local test accuracy (a.k.a. final accuracy) to measure the performance of FL approaches."

    Under the rho=20%/30% label-skew protocol, a client's local test set contains only a subset of the label space; a personalized model can score high by specializing to that subset, whereas the single-model baselines are scored on the full global test set. The headline gain 'by at least 3.69%' is the difference between FedRAV's local-average accuracy and baselines' global accuracy, so the superiority claim is an artifact of using two different definitions of 'final accuracy' rather than a demonstrated model property. Table II itself shows FedRAV (83.37) below FedProx (85.18) on GTSRB rho=30%, so the claimed universal margin is not even internally consistent.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V-A, 'Implementation Details']
    "We randomly generate location coordinates of 100 A Vs for each dataset, ensuring that vehicles in proximity have comparatively similar data distributions. Note that this synthetic coordinate information of A V is only a supplement."

    FedRAV's partitioning step (Section III) uses a region-wise distance that adds spatial distance to label distance, and the paper's motivation is that nearby vehicles have similar label distributions. In the experiments, that premise is enforced by construction: the GPS coordinates are generated from the label statistics so that proximity implies distributional similarity. The spatial term of RWD therefore duplicates the label-distance signal, and the reported benefit of region partitioning is partly baked into the synthetic input rather than independently measured. The real-data demonstration in Section II is separate, but the performance evaluation of FedRAV does not validate the spatial-similarity assumption.

full rationale

The core personalization mechanism is not circular: it is compared against external baselines (CFL, LG-FedAvg, Per-FedAvg, PACFL) and its hypernetwork update follows external reference [11]; no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. The circularity burden is concentrated in the experimental construction of the headline claim. First, the evaluation metric is defined differently for FedRAV (average local test accuracy on skewed local test sets) and for single-model baselines (global test accuracy), so the reported 'at least 3.69%' improvement reduces, at least in part, to the metric definition. Second, the synthetic GPS coordinates are generated to satisfy the regional-similarity premise the partitioning exploits, so the spatial component of RWD is a fitted input rather than an independently verified signal. These issues make the central empirical claim partially circular and definitional, even though the framework itself has independent algorithmic content. The direct predecessor hypernetwork method [11] is omitted from Table II, which is a missing baseline rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on several hand-chosen quantities: K, gamma, W=I, and the penalty function. The key domain assumption is regional similarity, which is also baked into the synthetic coordinates. No new physical or model entities are postulated beyond the existing hypernetwork machinery.

free parameters (5)
  • K = 5
    Number of sub-regions, chosen by hand for all experiments. No sensitivity analysis is reported, and it directly controls partition granularity.
  • gamma = 0.5
    Control knob balancing spatial distance and label distance in the Region-Wise Distance (Eq. 9). Set for all experiments with no ablation or sensitivity study.
  • W = identity matrix
    Weight matrix in the label distance (Eq. 8) is set to identity, treating all semantic categories equally. No alternative weighting is explored.
  • rho = 20% or 30%
    Simulated Non-IID level: each vehicle is randomly assigned rho of the total labels. This is a data-generation choice rather than a model parameter, but it defines the heterogeneity scenarios.
  • penalty function g = e^{-x}
    Heuristic penalty used in intra-region aggregation (Eq. 20). Chosen without theoretical justification or comparison to alternative penalties.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Nearby vehicles have more similar label distributions than distant vehicles.
    Motivates the entire partitioning stage and is asserted from Cityscapes visualizations in Section II. It is also enforced in the synthetic coordinates of Section V-A.
  • domain assumption A single global model cannot fit heterogeneous client parameter spaces.
    Invoked in Section IV-A with reference [5] and used to justify personalization; not proved in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The pseudo-gradient Delta w can replace the true gradient in hypernetwork updates without compromising convergence.
    Stated in Section IV-C and Algorithm 2: the paper replaces true gradients with pseudo-gradients following [11]. The validity of this substitution is assumed, with no convergence proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The K-means++ approximation guarantee carries over to the Region-Wise Distance objective.
    Section III-C cites the K-Means++ guarantee for Euclidean distance, then proposes Algorithm 1 with the modified RWD metric. No proof is provided that the guarantee survives the modified distance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FedRAV: Hierarchically Federated Region-Learning for Traffic Object Classification of Autonomous Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L5WQFXKK

@misc{pith2026241113979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FedRAV: Hierarchically Federated Region-Learning for Traffic Object Classification of Autonomous Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L5WQFXKK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13979}
}
read the original abstract

The emerging federated learning enables distributed autonomous vehicles to train equipped deep learning models collaboratively without exposing their raw data, providing great potential for utilizing explosively growing autonomous driving data. However, considering the complicated traffic environments and driving scenarios, deploying federated learning for autonomous vehicles is inevitably challenged by non-independent and identically distributed (Non-IID) data of vehicles, which may lead to failed convergence and low training accuracy. In this paper, we propose a novel hierarchically Federated Region-learning framework of Autonomous Vehicles (FedRAV), a two-stage framework, which adaptively divides a large area containing vehicles into sub-regions based on the defined region-wise distance, and achieves personalized vehicular models and regional models. This approach ensures that the personalized vehicular model adopts the beneficial models while discarding the unprofitable ones. We validate our FedRAV framework against existing federated learning algorithms on three real-world autonomous driving datasets in various heterogeneous settings. The experiment results demonstrate that our framework outperforms those known algorithms, and improves the accuracy by at least 3.69%. The source code of FedRAV is available at: https://github.com/yjzhai-cs/FedRAV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13979 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of regional similarities for the samples of Cityscapes on the map. (a) Traffic lights, pedestrians, and cars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of partitioning mechanism. ⃝1 Collect data; ⃝2 upload coordinate V and feature vector L; ⃝3 divide areas into regions; ⃝4 download regional structure {Ak} K k=1. these measures are sensitive to changes in the number of objects of a particular class. Due to the absolute scale of these measures, regional partitioning may not benefit from them in realistic and challenging heterogeneous data distribution. I… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An overview of FedRAV Framework. The main operations consist of: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of different FL approaches. each dataset, ensuring that vehicles in proximity have com￾paratively similar data distributions. Note that this synthetic coordinate information of AV is only a supplement. In order to simulate the Non-IID label skewed setting, w…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Personalized federated learning using hypernetworks,

    A. Shamsian, A. Navon, E. Fetaya, and G. Chechik, “Personalized federated learning using hypernetworks,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 9489–9502

    2021

  2. [1]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” in Artificial intelligence and statistics . PMLR, 2017, pp. 1273– 1282

    2017

  3. [2]

    Personalized federated learning: A meta-learning approach,

    A. Fallah, A. Mokhtari, and A. Ozdaglar, “Personalized federated learning: A meta-learning approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07948 , 2020

    arXiv 2002

  4. [3]

    Clustered federated learning: Model-agnostic distributed multitask optimization under privacy con- straints,

    F. Sattler, K.-R. M ¨uller, and W. Samek, “Clustered federated learning: Model-agnostic distributed multitask optimization under privacy con- straints,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 3710–3722, 2020

    2020

  5. [4]

    Efficient distribution similarity identification in clustered federated learning via principal angles between client data subspaces,

    S. Vahidian, M. Morafah, W. Wang, V . Kungurtsev, C. Chen, M. Shah, and B. Lin, “Efficient distribution similarity identification in clustered federated learning via principal angles between client data subspaces,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 37, no. 8, 2023, pp. 10 043–10 052

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Federated learning with non-iid data,

    Y . Zhao, M. Li, L. Lai, N. Suda, D. Civin, and V . Chandra, “Federated learning with non-iid data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00582 , 2018

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,” Proceedings of Machine learning and systems , vol. 2, pp. 429–450, 2020

    2020

  8. [7]

    Tackling the objective inconsistency problem in heterogeneous federated optimiza- tion,

    J. Wang, Q. Liu, H. Liang, G. Joshi, and H. V . Poor, “Tackling the objective inconsistency problem in heterogeneous federated optimiza- tion,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 7611–7623, 2020

    2020

Show all 16 references
  1. [8]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding,

    M. Cordts, M. Omran, S. Ramos, T. Rehfeld, M. Enzweiler, R. Be- nenson, U. Franke, S. Roth, and B. Schiele, “The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 3213– 3223

    2016

  2. [9]

    Least squares quantization in pcm,

    S. Lloyd, “Least squares quantization in pcm,” IEEE transactions on information theory, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 129–137, 1982

    1982

  3. [10]

    K-means++ the advantages of careful seeding,

    D. Arthur and S. Vassilvitskii, “K-means++ the advantages of careful seeding,” in Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM sympo- sium on Discrete algorithms , 2007, pp. 1027–1035

    2007

  4. [12]

    Detection of traffic signs in real-world images: The German Traffic Sign Detection Benchmark,

    S. Houben, J. Stallkamp, J. Salmen, M. Schlipsing, and C. Igel, “Detection of traffic signs in real-world images: The German Traffic Sign Detection Benchmark,” inInternational Joint Conference on Neural Networks, no. 1288, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Mio-tcd: A new benchmark dataset for vehicle classification and localization,

    Z. Luo, F. Branchaud-Charron, C. Lemaire, J. Konrad, S. Li, A. Mishra, A. Achkar, J. Eichel, and P.-M. Jodoin, “Mio-tcd: A new benchmark dataset for vehicle classification and localization,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 5129–5141, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition,

    Y . LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubbard, and L. D. Jackel, “Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition,” Neural computation, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 541–551, 1989

    1989

  7. [15]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  8. [16]

    Think locally, act globally: Federated learning with local and global representations,

    P. P. Liang, T. Liu, L. Ziyin, N. B. Allen, R. P. Auerbach, D. Brent, R. Salakhutdinov, and L.-P. Morency, “Think locally, act globally: Federated learning with local and global representations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.01523, 2020. 8

    2001 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.