Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Federated Domain Generalization via Prompt Learning and Aggregation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 PLAN shows that learned prompts, synchronized to a global reference and attention-aggregated, achieve top accuracy in federated domain generalization on four benchmarks.

desk verdict A competent prompt-learning FedDG paper whose SOTA claim needs error bars and whose privacy motivation needs proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10063 v1 pith:NL5CHZCV submitted 2024-11-15 cs.AI cs.CVcs.LG

Shuai Gong , Chaoran Cui , Chunyun Zhang , Wenna Wang , Xiushan Nie , Lei Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CVcs.LG
keywords federateddomaingeneralizationpromptlearningvision-languagemodelsCLIPattentionaggregationparameter-efficientfine-tuning
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 sets out to show that in federated domain generalization, the safest and most effective way to transfer knowledge between isolated clients is through learned prompt tokens rather than through sample-derived statistics such as spectra, prototypes, or style moments. It proposes PLAN, which freezes a pre-trained CLIP model and trains only small text and visual prompts on each client, adding a KL-divergence term that pulls local prompts toward the global prompts from the previous round so that clients are indirectly synchronized. A lightweight attention aggregator then weighs each client's prompts and combines them into new global prompts. On PACS, OfficeHome, VLCS, and DomainNet, the reported leave-one-domain-out accuracy is the highest among the 15 methods compared, while the communication cost per round is far below full-model federated learning. If these results hold, prompt-only adaptation with a common-reference regularizer is a better privacy-conscious transfer mechanism for FedDG than sharing data-derived knowledge.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the learnable prompt tokens, namely text prompts $T^g_l$ and visual prompts $V^g_l$ inserted into each Transformer block of CLIP's frozen encoders, together with two lightweight attention-based aggregators $A_t$ and $A_v$ that map a set of local prompts to a global prompt via a learnable query and bottleneck MLPs (Eqs. (12)--(13)). The regularizer that carries the method is the KL divergence in Eq. (9), which makes each client's predictions mimic those of the previous round's global prompts; in the first round, CLIP's zero-shot prediction distribution plays that role. These pieces jointly turn distributed private data into a synchronized set of small vectors whose selective average defines the model used on unseen target domains.

What would settle it

Run PLAN on a federation where the previous-round global prompts are deliberately corrupted or generated from a single dominant domain; if accuracy on the held-out target domain does not fall below a variant without the KL term, then the reference-synchronization mechanism is not responsible for the reported gains. A complementary test is a membership-inference attack against the shared prompts: if client samples can be reconstructed or re-identified from the prompt tokens, the paper's 'more secure bridge' claim is not supported by evidence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a pre-trained vision-language model can be adapted for federated domain generalization by exchanging only prompts, provided the local prompts are pulled toward a shared reference and then selectively merged. PLAN inserts learnable text and visual prompt tokens into every block of CLIP's encoders; each client trains its prompts on local data with a cross-entropy loss plus a KL loss (Eq. (9)) that aligns its prediction distribution to that of the previous round's global prompts. The server then broadcasts all local prompts to all clients, each client optimizes a pair of lightweight attention aggregators that recombine the prompts, and the averaged aggregators produce the new global prompts. The reported results are 97.40% average accuracy on PACS, 86.73% on OfficeHome, 85.29% on VLCS, and 71.05% on DomainNet, exceeding the compared FL, DG, FedDG, and prompt-learning baselines while training only prompt tokens and small aggregators. The paper further claims that this design lowers communication cost by up to 15.29 times relative to FedAvg with ViT-Base/16 and converges faster than the FedMaPLe baseline, and that learned prompts are a more secure bridge than sharing information extracted directly from local samples.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the previous round's global prompts form a trustworthy common reference for every client; if those prompts are biased toward a few dominant domains or are poor in early rounds, the KL regularizer could pull local prompts away from their useful domain-specific features, and the method also assumes source and unseen domains share the same category space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Federated domain generalization can be achieved by exchanging only prompt tokens and aggregator parameters, shrinking per-round communication to about 5.62 MB on OfficeHome versus 85.94 MB for FedAvg with ViT-Base/16.
  • Aligning local prompts to a common global reference is necessary for the gains: removing the KL loss drops average accuracy by 0.85, 0.92, and 0.24 percentage points on PACS, OfficeHome, and VLCS respectively.
  • Selective aggregation matters: replacing either the text or visual attention aggregator with simple averaging reduces performance, and removing both causes declines of 1.11 and 1.36 points on OfficeHome and VLCS.
  • Because PLAN surpasses FedMaPLe's best accuracy after a single round, its total training compute and communication cost can be lower than that of a per-round-cheaper prompt baseline.
  • In few-shot settings with 2 to 16 samples per class, PLAN outperforms both PromptFL and FedMaPLe on PACS and OfficeHome, with the exception of the one-shot case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the KL-alignment step is effectively a distillation from the global prompt to local prompts, so its benefit should depend on the quality of that teacher; an extension would adapt the alignment weight $\alpha$ per round or per client based on how well the global prompts predict each client's validation set.
  • The privacy argument is comparative rather than formal; a natural follow-up is to run membership-inference or gradient-inversion attacks on shared prompts to see whether any residual sample information survives, since even learned prompts may encode trends of local data.
  • Since the aggregation stage broadcasts every client's prompts to every client, the scheme assumes that such exposure is acceptable; under stricter privacy or bandwidth limits, one could test partial visibility or secure aggregation of prompts within the same attention framework.
  • One could transfer the same reference-based synchronization idea to other parameter-efficient modules, such as adapters or LoRA parameters, replacing prompts and testing whether a common reference plus attention aggregation is the general mechanism driving the gains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PLAN, a federated domain generalization (FedDG) method that adapts a frozen CLIP model by learning and exchanging only prompt tokens together with lightweight attention-based aggregators. In each federated round, clients first learn local text and visual prompts using a cross-entropy loss plus a KL-divergence regularizer that aligns local predictions with the global prompts from the previous round; then all local prompts are broadcast to all clients, where attention-based aggregators are trained to form global prompts. The method is evaluated on PACS, OfficeHome, VLCS, and DomainNet against CL-, FL-, FedDG-, and PEFT-based baselines, with ablations, few-shot experiments, cost analyses, and visualizations. The central claims are that PLAN achieves state-of-the-art FedDG accuracy while being communication- and computation-efficient, and that sharing learned prompts is a more secure bridge than sharing spectrum information, prototypes, or style statistics.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated, PLAN would be a useful contribution: it is a conceptually simple, parameter-efficient way to perform FedDG with pre-trained VLMs, and the combination of reference-based synchronization with attention-based aggregation is a reasonable design. The paper explicitly releases code, reports extensive comparisons across four benchmarks, and provides ablations and cost analyses, which are all strengths. However, the headline 'new state-of-the-art' claim currently rests on small average-accuracy margins with no reported variance, and the privacy-preservation motivation is asserted without any security analysis. Both issues are load-bearing for the paper's stated contributions, so they need to be addressed before the claims can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [V-D, Tables II–V] The central claim that PLAN achieves state-of-the-art performance is not statistically supported. The tables report only the average of three runs, with no standard deviations, per-run values, or significance tests. The margins over the strongest PEFT baseline FedMaPLe are small: +0.45 on PACS, +1.52 on OfficeHome, +1.42 on VLCS, and +1.38 on DomainNet. With three seeds and prompt-tuning hyperparameters, these differences are within typical run-to-run variation. The ablation margins in Table VI are of the same order (e.g., removing both aggregators costs 1.11 points on OfficeHome), so the component-wise conclusions are also affected. Please report standard deviations or confidence intervals and, if possible, add paired significance tests against FedMaPLe and the best ablated variant.
  2. [IV-C and Algorithm 1] The privacy claim is asserted without support and, as written, appears overstated. Section IV-C states that exchanging local prompts between clients 'does not introduce the risk of data leakage,' but Algorithm 1 sends the full set of local prompts {T^k} and {V^k} to every client, and each client's prompts are optimized on private images. Learned prompts can encode class- and domain-specific information, and prompt-inversion or membership-inference attacks are a recognized risk. To justify the 'more secure bridge' motivation that appears in the abstract and introduction, the paper needs either a threat model and empirical privacy evaluation (e.g., prompt-inversion or membership attacks) or a substantially more cautious phrasing that compares the method's exposure to raw data sharing without claiming the absence of leakage risk.
  3. [IV-B, Eq. (9)] The method's core regularizer assumes that the previous round's global prompts form a trustworthy common reference for all clients, but the paper does not analyze when this assumption holds. If early-round global prompts are dominated by one or a few domains, or if client data is heavily imbalanced, the KL term could pull local prompts away from useful domain-specific features. The existing ablation (Table VII) varies only the weight alpha; it does not test sensitivity to reference quality, client imbalance, or the number of early rounds. A concrete experiment on an imbalanced or skewed client partition, or a comparison against using a fixed reference, would clarify the conditions under which the reference-based mechanism helps rather than hurts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [I] There is a typo in the introduction: 'mutiple' should be 'multiple'.
  2. [IV-B and Algorithm 1] The first round is special-cased in the text (using CLIP's zero-shot prediction distribution as the KL reference), but Algorithm 1 does not show this special case; please make the pseudocode consistent so that the initialization T^g and V^g for round 1 is explicit.
  3. [References] Reference [38] (the KL-divergence citation) lists only the article title and journal, without author names or the year; please provide the full citation.
  4. [V-G, Fig. 4] The cost analysis is useful, but the figures do not clearly state the unit of 'GPU time' or the exact protocol for measuring communication size; please add the units and a sentence describing whether the reported megabytes include both downlink and uplink transfers.
  5. [V-D, Table V] On DomainNet, only PEFT-based methods are compared because reproducing all models is 'prohibitively expensive'; the text should state this limitation in the main results discussion, since the claim 'only method to exceed 70%' is relative to that subset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified: PLAN's prompts and aggregators are optimized against source-domain classification losses, and the unseen-target accuracy metric never enters the training objectives.

full rationale

I traced the claimed derivation chain: local prompts are optimized by combining cross-entropy loss (Eq. 7) with KL alignment to the previous round's global prompts (Eqs. 9-10); global prompts are formed as attention-weighted aggregates of local prompts (Eqs. 11-13); and the aggregators are optimized by cross-entropy on each client's local data (Eqs. 14-15). The reported quantity, accuracy on unseen target domains, appears only as an external, test-time measurement and is not used to define any training loss or model component. The reference-based KL loss does use global prompts as an anchor, but those global prompts are themselves generated from earlier local prompts; this is an iterative coupling typical of federated optimization, not a target defined in terms of the fitted parameters. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely relabeled. The cited prior work is used for baselines and standard building blocks (CLIP, MaPLe, FedAvg) and is not load-bearing in the sense of forbidding alternatives or supplying the paper's central claim. Concerns about missing error bars and the untested privacy-preservation claim are evidentiary or correctness issues, not circular reasoning. I therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

PLAN introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; it uses learned prompts and attention aggregators as model parameters. The key extra assumptions are that CLIP provides a transferable backbone, that all domains share the label space, that the global prompt is a valid synchronization reference, and that prompts are privacy-safe to exchange. The first is standard in the prompt-learning literature, the second is explicitly acknowledged as a limitation, the third is the design's untested core, and the fourth is a privacy assertion without any evaluation.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha (KL loss weight) = 1 (chosen via validation on OfficeHome; Table VII)
    Trade-off between cross-entropy and KL alignment in Eq. (10); tuned on a held-out validation split and shown to affect performance.
  • prompt length = 8 tokens
    Selected on OfficeHome (Fig. 3b); peak performance at length 8.
  • prompt depth = 12 (all Transformer blocks)
    Selected on OfficeHome (Fig. 3a); performance generally increases with depth.
  • learning rate = 0.0015 (SGD)
    Set in implementation details, Section V-C; used for both prompt and aggregator training.
  • bottleneck reduction ratio of Fq and Fa = 1/8
    Architectural choice for the attention aggregators, Section V-C.
  • federated rounds R and local epochs E = R=20, E=1
    Training schedule, Section V-C; convergence shown in Fig. 4c.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CLIP's pretrained image and text encoders provide transferable features across source and target domains.
    The entire adapting procedure relies on frozen CLIP features; this is an empirical assumption from the pretraining literature (Section III-B).
  • domain assumption All clients and unseen target domains share the same set of C classes.
    Stated as a limitation in the conclusion; the evaluation uses closed-set classification.
  • ad hoc to paper The global prompts from the previous round form a reliable common reference for KL alignment in Eq. (9).
    This is the design's core mechanism; its validity is only tested indirectly via ablation (Section V-E), not proven.
  • domain assumption Exchanged prompts do not reveal sensitive information about local data.
    Assumed in Section IV-C; no privacy attack or information-theoretic bound is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Federated Domain Generalization via Prompt Learning and Aggregation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NL5CHZCV

@misc{pith2026241110063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Federated Domain Generalization via Prompt Learning and Aggregation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NL5CHZCV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10063}
}
read the original abstract

Federated domain generalization (FedDG) aims to improve the global model generalization in unseen domains by addressing data heterogeneity under privacy-preserving constraints. A common strategy in existing FedDG studies involves sharing domain-specific knowledge among clients, such as spectrum information, class prototypes, and data styles. However, this knowledge is extracted directly from local client samples, and sharing such sensitive information poses a potential risk of data leakage, which might not fully meet the requirements of FedDG. In this paper, we introduce prompt learning to adapt pre-trained vision-language models (VLMs) in the FedDG scenario, and leverage locally learned prompts as a more secure bridge to facilitate knowledge transfer among clients. Specifically, we propose a novel FedDG framework through Prompt Learning and AggregatioN (PLAN), which comprises two training stages to collaboratively generate local prompts and global prompts at each federated round. First, each client performs both text and visual prompt learning using their own data, with local prompts indirectly synchronized by regarding the global prompts as a common reference. Second, all domain-specific local prompts are exchanged among clients and selectively aggregated into the global prompts using lightweight attention-based aggregators. The global prompts are finally applied to adapt VLMs to unseen target domains. As our PLAN framework requires training only a limited number of prompts and lightweight aggregators, it offers notable advantages in computational and communication efficiency for FedDG. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superior generalization ability of PLAN across four benchmark datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10063 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The novel problem setting of FedDG aims to learn a global model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall framework of PLAN for FedDG. PLAN consists of two training stages at each federated round. In stage (a), the server sends the global text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effects of prompt depth and prompt length. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of computation and communication costs of PLAN and FedDG methods. Each round includes two communications between clients and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of the target features extracted by CLIP and PLAN. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison in few-shot settings on PACS and Office [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the class activation maps learned by CLIP and PLAN for some target samples. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [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

  2. [2]

    Federated learning with differential privacy: Algorithms and performance analysis,

    K. Wei, J. Li, M. Ding, C. Ma, H. H. Yang, F. Farokhi, S. Jin, T. Q. Quek, and H. V . Poor, “Federated learning with differential privacy: Algorithms and performance analysis,” IEEE transactions on information forensics and security, vol. 15, pp. 3454–3469, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learn- ing,

    S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. Reddi, S. Stich, and A. T. Suresh, “Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learn- ing,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 5132–5143

    2020

  6. [6]

    Harmofl: Harmonizing local and global drifts in federated learning on heterogeneous medical images,

    M. Jiang, Z. Wang, and Q. Dou, “Harmofl: Harmonizing local and global drifts in federated learning on heterogeneous medical images,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 36, no. 1, 2022, pp. 1087–1095

    2022

  7. [7]

    Domain generalization for face anti-spoofing via negative data augmentation,

    W. Wang, P. Liu, H. Zheng, R. Ying, and F. Wen, “Domain generalization for face anti-spoofing via negative data augmentation,” IEEE Transac- tions on Information Forensics and Security , vol. 18, pp. 2333–2344, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Mixstyle neural networks for domain generalization and adaptation,

    K. Zhou, Y . Yang, Y . Qiao, and T. Xiang, “Mixstyle neural networks for domain generalization and adaptation,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 132, no. 3, pp. 822–836, 2024

    2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Feddg: Federated do- main generalization on medical image segmentation via episodic learn- ing in continuous frequency space,

    Q. Liu, C. Chen, J. Qin, Q. Dou, and P.-A. Heng, “Feddg: Federated do- main generalization on medical image segmentation via episodic learn- ing in continuous frequency space,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2021, pp. 1013–1023

    2021

  2. [10]

    Rethinking federated learning with domain shift: A prototype view,

    W. Huang, M. Ye, Z. Shi, H. Li, and B. Du, “Rethinking federated learning with domain shift: A prototype view,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 16 312–16 322

    2023

  3. [11]

    Federated domain generaliza- tion for image recognition via cross-client style transfer,

    J. Chen, M. Jiang, Q. Dou, and Q. Chen, “Federated domain generaliza- tion for image recognition via cross-client style transfer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 361–370

    2023

  4. [12]

    Federated learning with domain generalization,

    L. Zhang, X. Lei, Y . Shi, H. Huang, and C. Chen, “Federated learning with domain generalization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.10487 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  6. [14]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation,

    J. Li, D. Li, C. Xiong, and S. Hoi, “Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 12 888–12 900

    2022

  7. [15]

    Learning to prompt for vision- language models,

    K. Zhou, J. Yang, C. C. Loy, and Z. Liu, “Learning to prompt for vision- language models,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 130, no. 9, pp. 2337–2348, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Maple: Multi-modal prompt learning,

    M. U. Khattak, H. Rasheed, M. Maaz, S. Khan, and F. S. Khan, “Maple: Multi-modal prompt learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 19 113–19 122

    2023

  9. [17]

    Promptfl: Let federated participants cooperatively learn prompts instead of models-federated learning in age of foundation model,

    T. Guo, S. Guo, J. Wang, X. Tang, and W. Xu, “Promptfl: Let federated participants cooperatively learn prompts instead of models-federated learning in age of foundation model,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Learning federated visual prompt in null space for mri reconstruction,

    C.-M. Feng, B. Li, X. Xu, Y . Liu, H. Fu, and W. Zuo, “Learning federated visual prompt in null space for mri reconstruction,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 8064–8073

    2023

  11. [19]

    What do we mean by generalization in federated learning?

    H. Yuan, W. R. Morningstar, L. Ning, and K. Singhal, “What do we mean by generalization in federated learning?” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Model-contrastive federated learning,

    Q. Li, B. He, and D. Song, “Model-contrastive federated learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 10 713–10 722

    2021

  13. [21]

    Fedbn: Feder- ated learning on non-iid features via local batch normalization,

    X. Li, M. Jiang, X. Zhang, M. Kamp, and Q. Dou, “Fedbn: Feder- ated learning on non-iid features via local batch normalization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07623, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Adaptive federated optimization,

    S. Reddi, Z. Charles, M. Zaheer, Z. Garrett, K. Rush, J. Kone ˇcn`y, S. Kumar, and H. B. McMahan, “Adaptive federated optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00295, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Madg: Margin-based adversarial learning for domain generalization,

    A. Dayal, V . KB, L. R. Cenkeramaddi, C. Mohan, A. Kumar, and V . N Balasubramanian, “Madg: Margin-based adversarial learning for domain generalization,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Diversifying spatial-temporal perception for video domain generalization,

    K.-Y . Lin, J.-R. Du, Y . Gao, J. Zhou, and W.-S. Zheng, “Diversifying spatial-temporal perception for video domain generalization,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Robust domain misinformation detection via multi-modal feature alignment,

    H. Liu, W. Wang, H. Sun, A. Rocha, and H. Li, “Robust domain misinformation detection via multi-modal feature alignment,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Learning to generalize: Meta-learning for domain generalization,

    D. Li, Y . Yang, Y .-Z. Song, and T. Hospedales, “Learning to generalize: Meta-learning for domain generalization,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Bi-level meta-learning for few-shot domain generalization,

    X. Qin, X. Song, and S. Jiang, “Bi-level meta-learning for few-shot domain generalization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 15 900–15 910

    2023

  20. [28]

    Federated domain generalization: A survey,

    Y . Li, X. Wang, R. Zeng, P. K. Donta, I. Murturi, M. Huang, and S. Dustdar, “Federated domain generalization: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01334, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Conditional prompt learning for vision-language models,

    K. Zhou, J. Yang, C. C. Loy, and Z. Liu, “Conditional prompt learning for vision-language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF confer- ence on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 16 816– 16 825

    2022

  22. [30]

    Self-regulating prompts: Foundational model adaptation without 13 forgetting,

    M. U. Khattak, S. T. Wasim, M. Naseer, S. Khan, M.-H. Yang, and F. S. Khan, “Self-regulating prompts: Foundational model adaptation without 13 forgetting,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 15 190–15 200

    2023

  23. [31]

    Diprompt: Disentangled prompt tuning for multiple latent domain generalization in federated learning,

    S. Bai, J. Zhang, S. Li, S. Guo, J. Guo, J. Hou, T. Han, and X. Lu, “Diprompt: Disentangled prompt tuning for multiple latent domain generalization in federated learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08506 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly et al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Simcls: A simple framework for contrastive learning of abstractive summarization,

    Y . Liu and P. Liu, “Simcls: A simple framework for contrastive learning of abstractive summarization,” in Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Visual prompt tuning,

    M. Jia, L. Tang, B.-C. Chen, C. Cardie, S. Belongie, B. Hariharan, and S.-N. Lim, “Visual prompt tuning,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 709–727

    2022

  28. [36]

    Hard prompts made easy: Gradient-based discrete optimization for prompt tuning and discovery,

    Y . Wen, N. Jain, J. Kirchenbauer, M. Goldblum, J. Geiping, and T. Gold- stein, “Hard prompts made easy: Gradient-based discrete optimization for prompt tuning and discovery,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Federated adaptive prompt tuning for multi-domain collaborative learning,

    S. Su, M. Yang, B. Li, and X. Xue, “Federated adaptive prompt tuning for multi-domain collaborative learning,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 13, 2024, pp. 15 117– 15 125

    2024

  30. [38]

    On information and sufficiency,

    “On information and sufficiency,” The annals of mathematical statistics , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 1951

    1951

  31. [39]

    Revisiting knowledge distillation via label smoothing regularization,

    L. Yuan, F. E. Tay, G. Li, T. Wang, and J. Feng, “Revisiting knowledge distillation via label smoothing regularization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 3903–3911

    2020

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

    Deeper, broader and artier domain generalization,

    D. Li, Y . Yang, Y .-Z. Song, and T. M. Hospedales, “Deeper, broader and artier domain generalization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2017, pp. 5542–5550

    2017

  34. [42]

    Deep hashing network for unsupervised domain adaptation,

    H. Venkateswara, J. Eusebio, S. Chakraborty, and S. Panchanathan, “Deep hashing network for unsupervised domain adaptation,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 5018–5027

    2017

  35. [43]

    Unbiased metric learning: On the utilization of multiple datasets and web images for softening bias,

    C. Fang, Y . Xu, and D. N. Rockmore, “Unbiased metric learning: On the utilization of multiple datasets and web images for softening bias,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , 2013, pp. 1657–1664

    2013

  36. [44]

    Moment matching for multi-source domain adaptation,

    X. Peng, Q. Bai, X. Xia, Z. Huang, K. Saenko, and B. Wang, “Moment matching for multi-source domain adaptation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 1406– 1415

    2019

  37. [45]

    Federated domain generalization with generalization adjustment,

    R. Zhang, Q. Xu, J. Yao, Y . Zhang, Q. Tian, and Y . Wang, “Federated domain generalization with generalization adjustment,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2023, pp. 3954–3963

    2023

  38. [46]

    In search of lost domain generalization,

    I. Gulrajani and D. Lopez-Paz, “In search of lost domain generalization,” in International Conference on Learning Representations

  39. [47]

    Self-challenging im- proves cross-domain generalization,

    Z. Huang, H. Wang, E. P. Xing, and D. Huang, “Self-challenging im- proves cross-domain generalization,” in Computer vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, proceed- ings, part II 16 . Springer, 2020, pp. 124–140

    2020

  40. [48]

    A fourier-based framework for domain generalization,

    Q. Xu, R. Zhang, Y . Zhang, Y . Wang, and Q. Tian, “A fourier-based framework for domain generalization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 14 383–14 392

    2021

  41. [49]

    Swad: Domain generalization by seeking flat minima,

    J. Cha, S. Chun, K. Lee, H.-C. Cho, S. Park, Y . Lee, and S. Park, “Swad: Domain generalization by seeking flat minima,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 34, pp. 22 405–22 418, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Hcvp: Leveraging hierarchical contrastive visual prompt for domain generalization,

    G. Zhou, Z. Han, S. Chen, B. Huang, L. Zhu, T. Liu, L. Yao, and K. Zhang, “Hcvp: Leveraging hierarchical contrastive visual prompt for domain generalization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09716 , 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Prompt vision transformer for domain generalization,

    Z. Zheng, X. Yue, K. Wang, and Y . You, “Prompt vision transformer for domain generalization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08914 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Fedsr: A simple and effective domain generalization method for federated learning,

    A. T. Nguyen, P. Torr, and S. N. Lim, “Fedsr: A simple and effective domain generalization method for federated learning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 38 831–38 843, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Fedclip: Fast generalization and personalization for clip in federated learning,

    W. Lu, H. Xixu, J. Wang, and X. Xie, “Fedclip: Fast generalization and personalization for clip in federated learning,” in ICLR 2023 Workshop on Trustworthy and Reliable Large-Scale Machine Learning Models , 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Dualprompt: Complementary prompting for rehearsal-free continual learning,

    Z. Wang, Z. Zhang, S. Ebrahimi, R. Sun, H. Zhang, C.-Y . Lee, X. Ren, G. Su, V . Perot, J. Dyet al., “Dualprompt: Complementary prompting for rehearsal-free continual learning,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 631–648

    2022

  47. [55]

    Visualizing data using t-sne

    L. Van der Maaten and G. Hinton, “Visualizing data using t-sne.” Journal of machine learning research , vol. 9, no. 11, 2008

    2008

  48. [56]

    Learning deep features for discriminative localization,

    B. Zhou, A. Khosla, A. Lapedriza, A. Oliva, and A. Torralba, “Learning deep features for discriminative localization,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 2921– 2929

    2016

Pith tools

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