Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Privacy-Preserving Federated Unsupervised Domain Adaptation for Regression on Small-Scale and High-Dimensional Biological Data

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 A privacy-preserving federated method trains Gaussian process feature models without sharing raw data and reports accuracy comparable to the centralized wenda baseline on DNA methylation age prediction.

desk verdict Real federated GP method with honest results, but the 'complete privacy' and 'unsupervised' claims overstate what the protocol actually delivers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17287 v2 pith:27H4GXFD submitted 2024-11-26 cs.LG

Cem Ata Baykara , Ali Burak Ünal , Nico Pfeifer , Mete Akgün This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords federateddomainadaptationunsupervisedregressionGaussianprocessprivacy-preservingmachinelearningsecureaggregationrandomizedencodingDNAmethylationageprediction
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 claims that privacy-preserving federated unsupervised domain adaptation for regression is feasible on small, high-dimensional biological datasets by training Gaussian process feature models across institutions without sharing raw data. This matters because existing federated domain adaptation relies on deep learning and targets classification, which fits image-scale data poorly and leaves regression on tabular biomedical data unsupported. On DNA methylation age prediction, freda reports a full-target mean absolute error of 5.41±0.44 with two or four source clients, close to the centralized wenda-pn result of 5.31±0.29, and 5.81±0.24 with eight clients, while claiming complete data privacy. The enabling insight is that the Gram matrices and predictive mean of a Gaussian process can be computed from masked data through randomized encoding, so feature dependencies can be modeled without pooling samples.

What carries the argument

The central object is the federated Gaussian process feature model: for each feature $f$, a GP predicts $f$ from all other features and returns a predictive distribution $\mathcal{N}(K_*K^{-1}y,\, K_{**} - K_*K^{-1}K_*^\top)$. The argument hangs on two privacy devices that make the required matrices computable in the clear. FLAKE supplies random masking matrices $M$ whose left-inverses cancel, so the aggregator can compute the Gram matrix $x_p x_q^\top$ from masked data and build $K$ and $K_*$; randomized encoding lets the aggregator mask the intermediate product $K_*K^{-1}$ with a random matrix $C$, have each source client multiply its slice by its local feature column, and let the target client unmask with $C^{-1}$. These devices convert the pairwise computations that normally require pooled data into masked sums, which is what allows Gaussian process training to run federated.

What would settle it

Take the 1,866 source samples with their client splits, maximize the Gaussian process marginal likelihood jointly on all pooled data for one feature, and compare the resulting hyperparameters with the secure-aggregated average of the locally optimized values; if they differ materially and the corresponding feature weights diverge from wenda's, the 'as if centralized' claim fails. A second check is to rerun the reported experiments with fixed random seeds and compare freda's per-feature weights to wenda-pn's weights on the same training data, since equal MAE alone does not establish that the federated feature models reproduce the centralized ones.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that freda is the first method to make federated, privacy-preserving unsupervised domain adaptation work for regression on small-scale, high-dimensional biological data. It federates each component of the wenda-style pipeline: each source client optimizes Gaussian process hyperparameters locally and secure aggregation averages them; the aggregator computes the required Gram matrices from FLAKE-masked data; randomized encoding lets the target client recover the predictive mean without seeing any source feature column; and weighted elastic nets are trained federatively with lambda values chosen by the target client from tissue similarity side information. On the age prediction benchmark with 1,866 training samples split across 2, 4, or 8 clients and 1,001 unlabeled target samples, freda achieves MAE 5.41±0.44 (2 and 4 sources) and 5.81±0.24 (8 sources) on the full target set, compared with 5.31±0.29 for centralized wenda-pn and 6.34±1.21 for the non-adaptive en-ls baseline. The paper interprets these results as showing that full data privacy does not cost predictive accuracy in this setting.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that averaging the Gaussian process settings each institution finds on its own data gives the same result as fitting one Gaussian process on all the data pooled together, even though the pooled model would see connections between samples at different institutions that no local fit ever sees.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Institutions holding DNA methylation or similar tabular biomedical data can collaborate on regression tasks without transferring raw samples to a central site.
  • Gaussian process feature modeling, previously considered impractical in federated settings because of pairwise Gram computations, becomes available as a building block for privacy-preserving pipelines.
  • The method reproduces the main benefit of centralized wenda on the hardest target tissue (cerebellum) with two or four source clients, correcting the systematic underprediction of the non-adaptive baseline.
  • With eight source clients, accuracy degrades to 5.81±0.24 but still beats the centralized non-adaptive baseline, suggesting the method tolerates fragmentation better than non-adaptive alternatives.
  • The same four-phase structure extends to multiple target tissues by training separate feature-weight vectors and lambda values per tissue, so the approach is not tied to a single target domain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The federated hyperparameter shortcut is unlikely to match the true joint Gaussian process: local marginal likelihoods never see covariance between samples on different clients, so the averaged hyperparameters and the centralized ones can diverge even when the reported MAE is close.
  • A direct comparison of freda's per-feature weights with wenda's centralized weights on the same data would reveal whether the two methods are actually learning the same dependency structure or merely arriving at similar predictions through different weights.
  • The privacy guarantee is limited to the semi-honest setting and adds no differential privacy noise, so feature weights and Gram matrices may still leak statistical information if several clients or the aggregator collude with auxiliary public data.
  • A practical constraint suggested by the eight-client result is that fragmentation reduces effective sample size per client; methods that pool information more aggressively, such as sharing summary statistics, might scale to more parties without the same accuracy drop.
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 freda, a federated unsupervised domain adaptation method for regression on high-dimensional, small-scale biological data. It trains per-feature Gaussian process regressors across source clients using a combination of secure aggregation and the FLAKE masking scheme to compute Gram matrices and predictive means without sharing raw samples. The target client derives feature weights from predictive confidence scores, and source clients federatively train weighted elastic nets with a regularization parameter selected using tissue-similarity side information. On DNA methylation age prediction, freda reports a full-target MAE of 5.41 +/- 0.44 for 2 and 4 source clients, compared with 5.31 +/- 0.29 for centralized wenda-pn, and it mitigates the cerebellum distribution shift better than the non-adaptive en-ls baseline. The paper claims complete data privacy and positions freda as the first privacy-preserving federated UDA method for regression in this setting.

Significance. The paper addresses a real gap: most federated domain adaptation methods target image classification, while biological data are high-dimensional, small-sample, and distributed. The proposed protocol is concrete, the arithmetic in Eq. (5) for masked Gram matrix computation is coherent, and the authors release code for reproducibility. If the privacy and model-equivalence claims were properly qualified and the supervision requirement resolved, the work would be a useful contribution to privacy-preserving biomedical machine learning. However, the current manuscript overstates both the privacy guarantee and the unsupervised nature of the method, and the central equivalence between averaging local GP hyperparameters and global optimization is unproven.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.1.1] The claim that averaging locally optimized GP hyperparameters via secure aggregation yields the same result as maximizing the marginal likelihood over the entire source domain 'as if' data were centralized is not justified. The pooled GP marginal likelihood contains cross-client covariance blocks K_ij = sigma_p^2 X_{s_i} X_{s_j}^T that no local likelihood in Eq. (4) ever sees; the argmax of an average of local objectives is not generally the argmax of the pooled objective. This is load-bearing because the resulting hyperparameters determine the feature-model predictive distributions (Eq. 2), which in turn drive the confidence scores and feature weights in Eqs. (6)-(8). Please provide either a proof under stated assumptions, an empirical comparison against centralized GP hyperparameter optimization on the same data, or a sensitivity analysis showing that the downstream MAE is robust to this approximation.
  2. [6.1.2 and Eq. (5)] The privacy analysis in Section 6.1.2 concedes that the aggregator sees the Gram matrices G_pq = x_p x_q^T for all client pairs, but it defends this by noting that infinitely many source matrices could produce the same Gram matrix. That defense is insufficient: a Gram matrix reveals all pairwise Euclidean distances and inner products, which can constitute a sensitive geometric fingerprint for DNA methylation data and may enable membership or linkage attacks. The abstract, introduction, and conclusion repeatedly claim 'complete data privacy,' but the protocol does not establish this under the stated semi-honest model. Since privacy is one of the two central contributions, the claim should be weakened to something like 'no raw data sharing under semi-honest assumptions, with residual Gram-matrix and aggregate-statistic leakage,' or the protocol must be modified to hide the Gram matrices from the aggregator.
  3. [5.3.1] The method as described is not unsupervised: the target client selects lambda by evaluating MAE on a labeled subset X_t1 of target domains, explicitly 'assuming that the corresponding labels are available.' This contradicts the paper's title and framing as unsupervised domain adaptation, and it also puts the empirical comparison to wenda-pn on unequal footing if wenda-pn selects lambda without target labels. Please either provide a variant of the lambda-selection procedure that uses no target labels, or explicitly reframe the contribution as semi-supervised or weakly supervised domain adaptation and adjust the claims accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [5.1.2] The notation for the left inverse is dimensionally inconsistent: with M in R^{d x P} and L_p in R^{P x d}, the product L_p M is P x P, so the identity should be I_P, not I_d. Please correct this and clarify that (M M^T)^{1/2} is symmetric in the derivation of Eq. (5).
  2. [2.2] The preprocessing section says dimensionality reduction reduces 466,094 features to 12,980, but does not state the selection criterion used. Please specify the exact feature-filtering or selection procedure so that the experiments are fully reproducible.
  3. [2.4.3] The weighting parameter k is chosen as k=3 based on experiments on the same target evaluation data. This is a form of test-set tuning; please either fix k a priori, use a separate validation split, or report sensitivity across k values so the headline MAE is not seen as optimized on the test set.
  4. [5.3.1] The partition of target indices into X_t1 and X_t2 is described with set-like notation, but these are subsets of domain indices, not data matrices. Please clarify the notation and state explicitly how many domains are used for fitting versus evaluation.
  5. [References] Reference [23] has a garbled author list and malformed affiliation formatting; please regenerate it from the publisher metadata.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Accuracy benchmark is not circular, but the 'complete data privacy' claim reduces to a load-bearing self-citation of FLAKE [37] and a non-uniqueness assertion from that same-author paper.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 6.1.2 (Security of the Federated GPR Training), Aggregator's Perspective; see also Section 5.1.2.]
    "The security of this masking process, implemented within the FLAKE framework, is formally proven in [37]. ... there are infinitely many possible source data matrices that would result in the same K and K* [37]."

    The paper's central contribution is 'complete data privacy' via randomized encoding and secure aggregation, but the formal guarantee is not derived in this paper. It is delegated to [37], a prior paper whose authors include two of the present authors (Unal and Akgun). The only argument that the aggregator's exact access to all cross-client and source-target Gram matrices leaks nothing is the same self-cited non-uniqueness claim. Thus the privacy pillar of the headline reduces to a self-citation rather than to the equations of freda; the age-prediction accuracy result itself remains externally evaluated.

full rationale

The main derivation chain for accuracy is self-contained: target tissues are split so that lambda is fitted on one subset and evaluated on a disjoint subset, and the reported MAE is computed only on tissues not used in the similarity-lambda fit. The comparison against centralized wenda-pn and en-ls does not reduce to a fitted constant by construction. No reported prediction is identical to an input used to fit it. The circularity concern is concentrated in the privacy claim: freda's 'complete data privacy' is supported by citing the same-authors' FLAKE framework [37] for the formal security proof, and the rebuttal to Gram-matrix leakage is the same citation's assertion that infinitely many source matrices yield the same K and K*. That is a load-bearing self-citation. The choice k=3 is made using the evaluation protocol itself, which is a test-set tuning risk rather than a by-construction circularity; it does not force the primary comparison to wenda. Overall, the accuracy contribution has independent content, but the privacy contribution leans on prior same-author work, giving score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard GP math, a semi-honest privacy model, a linear lambda-similarity assumption, and the unproven equivalence between averaged local GP hyperparameters and global ones. The free parameters are the weighting exponent k, elastic net mixing alpha, per-feature GP hyperparameters, and the fitted lambda prediction model.

free parameters (4)
  • k (feature weighting exponent) = 3
    Chosen based on experiments on the test set (Section 2.4.3) and prior work [20]; controls penalty applied to low-confidence features.
  • alpha (elastic net mixing) = 0.8
    Fixed design choice following Handl et al. [20]; balances L1 and L2 penalties.
  • GP hyperparameters sigma_p^2, sigma_n^2 = per feature, not reported
    Optimized by maximizing local marginal likelihoods per source client (Eq. 4) and averaged via secure aggregation (Section 5.1.1).
  • linear model coefficients for lambda versus tissue similarity = not reported
    Fitted on target tissue subsets with available labels in the prior knowledge approach (Section 5.3.1).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Gaussian Process closed-form predictive distribution (Eq. 2) and marginal likelihood (Eq. 4) hold for the given kernels.
    The paper relies on standard GP regression results from Williams and Rasmussen [35].
  • domain assumption Aggregator and clients are semi-honest, and communication channels are secure.
    Stated in Section 6; the privacy analysis depends entirely on this adversarial model.
  • domain assumption Labels are available for a subset of target domains to select lambda, despite the problem being described as unsupervised.
    Section 5.3.1 says 'assuming that the corresponding labels are available' to compute MAE on X_t1, which is inconsistent with the unlabeled target claim in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption A linear relationship exists between tissue similarity and optimal lambda.
    Used for the prior knowledge approach proposed by Handl et al. [20] and adopted in Section 5.3.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Averaging locally optimized GP hyperparameters approximates global optimization.
    Section 5.1.1 asserts 'as if the marginal likelihood had been maximized over the entire source domain data', but this is not derived and ignores cross-client covariance terms.
invented entities (1)
  • None
    purpose: No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated.
    The masked matrices and random masks are cryptographic tools, not invented entities requiring independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Privacy-Preserving Federated Unsupervised Domain Adaptation for Regression on Small-Scale and High-Dimensional Biological Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27H4GXFD

@misc{pith2026241117287,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Privacy-Preserving Federated Unsupervised Domain Adaptation for Regression on Small-Scale and High-Dimensional Biological Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27H4GXFD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17287}
}
read the original abstract

Machine learning models often struggle with generalization in small, heterogeneous datasets due to domain shifts caused by variations in data collection and population differences. This challenge is particularly pronounced in biological data, where data is high-dimensional, small-scale, and decentralized across institutions. While federated domain adaptation methods (FDA) aim to address these challenges, most existing approaches rely on deep learning and focus on classification tasks, making them unsuitable for small-scale, high-dimensional applications. In this work, we propose freda, a privacy-preserving federated method for unsupervised domain adaptation in regression tasks. Unlike deep learning-based FDA approaches, freda is the first method to enable the federated training of Gaussian Processes to model complex feature relationships while ensuring complete data privacy through randomized encoding and secure aggregation. This allows for effective domain adaptation without direct access to raw data, making it well-suited for applications involving high-dimensional, heterogeneous datasets. We evaluate freda on the challenging task of age prediction from DNA methylation data, demonstrating that it achieves performance comparable to the centralized state-of-the-art method while preserving complete data privacy.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Molecular Systems Biology 12(7), 878 (2016) https://www.embopress.org/doi/pdf/10.15252/msb.20156651

    Angermueller, C., P¨ arnamaa, T., Parts, L., Stegle, O.: Deep learning for computational biology. Molecular Systems Biology 12(7), 878 (2016) https://www.embopress.org/doi/pdf/10.15252/msb.20156651

    work page doi:10.15252/msb.20156651 2016

  2. [2]

    Nature reviews Molecular cell biology 23(1), 40–55 (2022)

    Greener, J.G., Kandathil, S.M., Moffat, L., Jones, D.T.: A guide to machine learning for biologists. Nature reviews Molecular cell biology 23(1), 40–55 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Nucleic Acids Research 50(W1), 228–234 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac278 https://academic.oup.com/nar/article- pdf/50/W1/W228/44378499/gkac278.pdf

    Thumuluri, V., Almagro Armenteros, J.J., Johansen, A., Nielsen, H., Winther, O.: DeepLoc 2.0: multi-label subcellular localization prediction using pro- tein language models. Nucleic Acids Research 50(W1), 228–234 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac278 https://academic.oup.com/nar/article- pdf/50/W1/W228/44378499/gkac278.pdf

    work page doi:10.1093/nar/gkac278 2022

  4. [4]

    Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 45(2), 91–96 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2008.08.014

    Valentini, G., Tagliaferri, R., Masulli, F.: Computational intelligence and machine learning in bioinformatics. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 45(2), 91–96 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2008.08.014 . Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning in Bioinformatics

    work page doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2008.08.014 2009

  5. [5]

    Science Advances 10(51), 6040 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adp6040 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adp6040

    Orouji, S., Liu, M.C., Korem, T., Peters, M.A.K.: Domain adap- tation in small-scale and heterogeneous biological datasets. Science Advances 10(51), 6040 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adp6040 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adp6040

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adp6040 2024

  6. [6]

    Advances in data science and information engineering: proceedings from ICDATA 2020 and IKE 2020, 877–894 (2021)

    Farahani, A., Voghoei, S., Rasheed, K., Arabnia, H.R.: A brief review of domain adaptation. Advances in data science and information engineering: proceedings from ICDATA 2020 and IKE 2020, 877–894 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Sun, B., Feng, J., Saenko, K.: Return of frustratingly easy domain adaptation. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 30 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02054 (2019)

    Peng, X., Huang, Z., Zhu, Y., Saenko, K.: Federated adversarial domain adapta- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02054 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    In: Proceed- ings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Liu, X., Chen, Z., Zhou, L., Xu, D., Xi, W., Bai, G., Zhao, Y., Zhao, J.: Ufda: Universal federated domain adaptation with practical assumptions. In: Proceed- ings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, pp. 14026–14034 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44(11), 8602–8617 (2021)

    Liang, J., Hu, D., Wang, Y., He, R., Feng, J.: Source data-absent unsuper- vised domain adaptation through hypothesis transfer and labeling transfer. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44(11), 8602–8617 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Ganin, Y., Lempitsky, V.: Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1180–1189 (2015). PMLR 23

    2015

  4. [12]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    Long, M., Zhu, H., Wang, J., Jordan, M.I.: Unsupervised domain adaptation with residual transfer networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    In: Meila, M., Zhang, T

    Feng, H., You, Z., Chen, M., Zhang, T., Zhu, M., Wu, F., Wu, C., Chen, W.: Kd3a: Unsupervised multi-source decentralized domain adapta- tion via knowledge distillation. In: Meila, M., Zhang, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning. Procee...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    Sener, O., Song, H.O., Saxena, A., Savarese, S.: Learning transferrable repre- sentations for unsupervised domain adaptation. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Nature biomedical engineering 2(3), 158–164 (2018)

    Poplin, R., Varadarajan, A.V., Blumer, K., Liu, Y., McConnell, M.V., Corrado, G.S., Peng, L., Webster, D.R.: Prediction of cardiovascular risk factors from reti- nal fundus photographs via deep learning. Nature biomedical engineering 2(3), 158–164 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Nature biomedical engineering 2(10), 749–760 (2018)

    Lundberg, S.M., Nair, B., Vavilala, M.S., Horibe, M., Eisses, M.J., Adams, T., Liston, D.E., Low, D.K.-W., Newman, S.-F., Kim, J.,et al.: Explainable machine- learning predictions for the prevention of hypoxaemia during surgery. Nature biomedical engineering 2(10), 749–760 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Nature Biomedical Engineering 6(12), 1353–1369 (2022)

    Li, M.M., Huang, K., Zitnik, M.: Graph representation learning in biomedicine and healthcare. Nature Biomedical Engineering 6(12), 1353–1369 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Nature genetics 45(10), 1113–1120 (2013)

    Weinstein, J.N., Collisson, E.A., Mills, G.B., Shaw, K.R., Ozenberger, B.A., Ellrott, K., Shmulevich, I., Sander, C., Stuart, J.M.: The cancer genome atlas pan-cancer analysis project. Nature genetics 45(10), 1113–1120 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Nucleic acids research 30(1), 207–210 (2002)

    Edgar, R., Domrachev, M., Lash, A.E.: Gene expression omnibus: Ncbi gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic acids research 30(1), 207–210 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    Bioinformatics 35(14), 154–163 (2019)

    Handl, L., Jalali, A., Scherer, M., Eggeling, R., Pfeifer, N.: Weighted elastic net for unsupervised domain adaptation with application to age prediction from dna methylation data. Bioinformatics 35(14), 154–163 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Genome biology 14, 1–20 (2013)

    Horvath, S.: Dna methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome biology 14, 1–20 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Yan, G., Wang, H., Li, J.: Seizing critical learning periods in federated learning. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36, pp. 8788–8796 (2022) 24

    2022

  15. [23]

    2 3 4 Castel Stephane E

    Aguet Fran¸ cois 1 Brown Andrew A. 2 3 4 Castel Stephane E. 5 6 Davis Joe R. 7 8 He Yuan 9 Jo Brian 10 Mohammadi Pejman 5 6 Park YoSon 11 Parsana Princy 12 Segr` e Ayellet V. 1 Strober Benjamin J. 9 Zappala Zachary 7 8, G.C.L., Addington Anjene 15 Guan Ping 16 Koester Susan 15...

    2017

  16. [24]

    PLoS biology 3(9), 274 (2005)

    Fraser, H.B., Khaitovich, P., Plotkin, J.B., P¨ a¨ abo, S., Eisen, M.B.: Aging and gene expression in the primate brain. PLoS biology 3(9), 274 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 26991–27004 (2023)

    Yue, Z., Sun, Q., Zhang, H.: Make the u in uda matter: Invariant consistency learning for unsupervised domain adaptation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 26991–27004 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Neurocomputing 312, 135–153 (2018)

    Wang, M., Deng, W.: Deep visual domain adaptation: A survey. Neurocomputing 312, 135–153 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Weng, Z., Yang, X., Li, A., Wu, Z., Jiang, Y.-G.: Open-vclip: Transforming clip to an open-vocabulary video model via interpolated weight optimization. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 36978–36989 (2023). PMLR

    2023

  20. [28]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 74127–74139 (2023)

    Chen, H., Han, X., Wu, Z., Jiang, Y.-G.: Multi-prompt alignment for multi-source unsupervised domain adaptation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 74127–74139 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Journal of machine learning research 17(59), 1–35 (2016)

    Ganin, Y., Ustinova, E., Ajakan, H., Germain, P., Larochelle, H., Laviolette, F., March, M., Lempitsky, V.: Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. Journal of machine learning research 17(59), 1–35 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Long, M., Cao, Y., Wang, J., Jordan, M.: Learning transferable features with deep adaptation networks. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 97–105 (2015). PMLR

    2015

  23. [31]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    Long, M., Cao, Z., Wang, J., Jordan, M.I.: Conditional adversarial domain adaptation. Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 10040–10054 (2022)

    Wu, J., He, J., Wang, S., Guan, K., Ainsworth, E.: Distribution-informed neu- ral networks for domain adaptation regression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 10040–10054 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34, 23309–23320 (2021)

    Sun, B., Huo, H., Yang, Y., Bai, B.: Partialfed: Cross-domain personalized feder- ated learning via partial initialization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34, 23309–23320 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    In: The Twelfth International Conference 25 on Learning Representations (2024)

    Jiang, E., Zhang, Y.J., Koyejo, S.: Principled federated domain adaptation: Gra- dient projection and auto-weighting. In: The Twelfth International Conference 25 on Learning Representations (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Williams, C.K., Rasmussen, C.E.: Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning vol

  28. [36]

    MIT press Cambridge, MA, ??? (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    International journal of neural systems 14(02), 69–106 (2004)

    Seeger, M.: Gaussian processes for machine learning. International journal of neural systems 14(02), 69–106 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    In: 2023 5th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (TPS-ISA), pp

    Hannemann, A., ¨Unal, A.B., Swaminathan, A., Buchmann, E., Akg¨ un, M.: A privacy-preserving framework for collaborative machine learning with kernel methods. In: 2023 5th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (TPS...

    2023

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.04482 (2016)

    Bonawitz, K., Ivanov, V., Kreuter, B., Marcedone, A., McMahan, H.B., Patel, S., Ramage, D., Segal, A., Seth, K.: Practical secure aggregation for federated learning on user-held data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.04482 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    BMC genomics 17, 1–10 (2016)

    Jalali, A., Pfeifer, N.: Interpretable per case weighted ensemble method for cancer associations. BMC genomics 17, 1–10 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    In: Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp

    McMahan, B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., Arcas, B.A.: Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In: Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 1273–1282 (2017). PMLR

    2017

  34. [42]

    https://github.com/ SheffieldML/GPy

    GPy: A Gaussian Process Framework in Python. https://github.com/ SheffieldML/GPy. Accessed: 2024-10-21 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2023)

    So, J., Ali, R.E., G¨ uler, B., Jiao, J., Avestimehr, S.A.: Securing secure aggregation: Mitigating multi-round privacy leakage in federated learning. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2021)

    Kairouz, P., Liu, Z., Steinke, T.: The distributed discrete gaussian mechanism for federated learning with secure aggregation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2022) 26

    Elgabli, A., Ben Issaid, C., Bedi, A.S., Rajawat, K., Bennis, M., Aggarwal, V.: Fednew: A communication-efficient and privacy-preserving newton-type method for federated learning. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2022) 26

    2022

Pith tools

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