Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Federated Block-Term Tensor Regression for decentralised data analysis in healthcare

T0 review · 4 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 Federated Block-Term Tensor Regression lets institutions train shared tensor models without sharing patient data, matching or beating centralized performance on healthcare benchmarks.

desk verdict FBTTR is a plausible federated extension of BTTR, but the empirical claims are undercut by internal contradictions and the aggregation ignores tensor component alignment. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06815 v1 pith:NNM7DO4A submitted 2024-12-02 cs.LG

Axel Faes , Ashkan Pirmani , Yves Moreau , Liesbet M. Peeters This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords federatedlearningblock-termtensorregressiondecompositionprivacy-preservingmachinebrain-computerinterfaceheartdiseasepredictionFedAvghealthcareanalytics
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 introduces Federated Block-Term Tensor Regression (FBTTR), a version of the Block-Term Tensor Regression (BTTR) algorithm that can be trained across multiple institutions without sharing raw data. Using FedAvg-style averaging of the tensor decomposition parameters across clients, FBTTR aims to give hospitals and research sites a privacy-preserving way to build high-dimensional predictive models collaboratively. The authors claim that FBTTR matches or exceeds centralized BTTR on two healthcare tasks: decoding finger movements from ECoG signals and predicting heart disease. If correct, this makes multilinear tensor regression usable in real-world federated healthcare collaborations. The paper reports, for example, a heart-disease ROC-AUC of 0.872 for FBTTR versus 0.812 for the centralized model.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the block-term tensor decomposition at the heart of BTTR: the input tensor is written as a sum of blocks, each a Tucker decomposition composed of a core tensor $\mathcal{G}_k$ and factor matrices $\mathbf{P}^{(n)}_k$, with latent scores $t_k$ connected to the response through a regression coefficient. FBTTR separates Automatic Component Extraction (ACE) from fitting: each client runs ACE locally, the server picks shared SNR and $\tau$ thresholds so that all clients produce factor matrices with the same dimensions, and then FedAvg averages the corresponding parameters across clients, weighted by local sample sizes. The dimension-synchronization step is what makes the averaged tensor model well-defined at the matrix level.

What would settle it

Train FBTTR on any of the paper's datasets, then before the aggregation step randomly permute the block indices and flip the signs of one client's core tensor and factor matrices. If the resulting averaged global model loses a large share of its prediction accuracy, the method's reported success depends on an implicit component alignment that the algorithm does not enforce. If the accuracy is unchanged, the averaging is robust to the decomposition ambiguity and the concern is moot.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a block-term tensor regression model can be federated by averaging the local factor matrices, core tensors, and regression weights with FedAvg, after synchronizing the component dimensions across clients through a federated version of Automatic Component Extraction. The resulting global model is claimed to achieve predictive performance comparable to, and sometimes better than, a centralized BTTR trained on pooled data. Evidence includes heart-disease prediction (Fed-Heart-Disease: ROC-AUC 0.872 ± 0.02 and accuracy 0.772 ± 0.02 vs. 0.812 ± 0.003 and 0.753 ± 0.007 for centralized BTTR) and finger-movement decoding (for subject 3's thumb, Pearson correlation 0.76 ± .05 vs. 0.71 ± .05 for centralized BTTR). In the breast-cancer survival dataset, FBTTR also reports a higher C-index than centralized BTTR (0.775 vs. 0.737), which the authors attribute to the federated setting leveraging data variance across centers.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a simple weighted average of the clients' factor matrices, core tensors, and regression weights is a valid global BTTR model, which in turn assumes the local tensor decompositions are aligned in component order and sign; the paper only checks that the matrix dimensions match, not that the components correspond.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If FBTTR works as claimed, hospitals and research centers can jointly fit BTTR-style tensor regressions without moving patient data, which would make high-dimensional predictive modeling available to multi-site healthcare collaborations bound by privacy rules.
  • The federated-hybrid result suggests that mixed setups, where some sites contribute centrally and others federate, may also be viable, pointing toward flexible deployments that respect local data-sharing policies.
  • FBTTR's performance relative to standard federated learners like FedAvg, FedProx, and adaptive optimizers indicates that tensor structure in the data is being exploited by the federated model, not just averaged away.
  • The method's success on survival data (TCGA-BRCA) suggests federated tensor regression can generalize beyond binary classification to time-to-event outcomes, if the tensor representation is available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not address the non-uniqueness of tensor decompositions when averaging local models. A natural follow-up would be to test whether aligning components across clients (e.g., by matching factors via correlation or Procrustes rotation) changes performance; if it does, the reported gains may depend on the data happening to align rather than on the algorithm itself.
  • The 'privacy' claim here is about not sharing raw data; the paper does not implement differential privacy or secure aggregation, so a direct extension is to combine FBTTR with those mechanisms to assert formal privacy guarantees.
  • The reported superiority of FBTTR over centralized BTTR on the cancer dataset may reflect the regularization or ensembling effect of averaging across heterogeneous sites rather than a property of tensor regression; a test would be to compare against an ensemble of locally trained BTTR models without any aggregation.
  • FBTTR currently targets horizontal FL with shared features; extending to vertical FL, where sites hold different features of the same patients, would require a different aggregation schema and is unaddressed.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Federated Block-Term Tensor Regression (FBTTR), a federated extension of BTTR for decentralized healthcare analysis. Each client trains a local BTTR model; the server selects common component dimensions from per-client ACE results and averages the local factor matrices and core tensors using a FedAvg-style update. The method is evaluated on BCI Competition IV finger-movement decoding and on two Flamby clinical datasets (Fed-Heart-Disease and Fed-TCGA-BRCA), comparing against centralized BTTR, eBTTR, HOPLS, non-multilinear baselines, and standard federated learning algorithms. The central claims are that FBTTR preserves privacy while achieving predictive performance comparable to or better than centralized BTTR, and that it outperforms non-multilinear models in the BCI case study.

Significance. If the claims held, FBTTR would be a useful contribution at the intersection of tensor regression and federated learning, and the paper deserves credit for making the implementation open-source and for re-implementing comparison baselines on public datasets. However, the central comparative claims are undermined by a direct contradiction between the abstract and Table 5, by a statistical test that cannot reach significance with five paired blocks, and by the absence of any alignment step in the averaging of non-identifiable tensor decompositions. Because these issues affect the paper's main conclusions, the significance of the contribution cannot be assessed from the present manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §3.2.2, Table 5] The central claim that FBTTR outperforms centralized BTTR on Fed-Heart-Disease is directly contradicted by Table 5: FBTTR obtains ROC-AUC 0.872 ± 0.02 and accuracy 0.772 ± 0.02, while the BTTR row reports 0.874 ± 0.03 and 0.783 ± 0.04. The numbers quoted in the abstract (0.872 vs 0.812 and 0.772 vs 0.753) correspond to the FL4E 'Centralized' row, not to the BTTR row. The text in §3.2.2 even acknowledges a 'slight accuracy drop' in the federated setting, so the abstract and conclusion overstate the result.
  2. [§3.1.1 and §3.2.1] The manuscript states that the test data were split into 5 non-overlapping blocks and that a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used with a significance threshold of p<0.05. With n=5 paired blocks, the smallest attainable two-tailed p-value for a Wilcoxon signed-rank test is 2/32 = 0.0625. Therefore none of the 'statistically significant' claims in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2, including the bolded comparisons in Tables 5 and 6, can be supported by the stated test at the 0.05 significance level.
  3. [§2.3, Figure 2] The FedAvg-style aggregation averages the local factor matrices P(n)_kb and core tensors G(X)_kb entry-wise across clients. Block-term decompositions are unique only up to permutation of the blocks and scaling/sign (or more general invertible) transformations within each block. The algorithm checks only that the dimensions of the factor matrices are equal across clients; it does not align block orderings or sign/scale conventions before averaging. If local components are permuted or sign-flipped, the averaged parameter tensor does not correspond to a valid block-term regression, so the reported predictive performance cannot be attributed to a coherent decentralized tensor model. The limitations paragraph in Section 4 mentions computational overhead and heterogeneous-data degradation but not this identifiability problem.
  4. [§3.2.2, Table 6] The claim that FBTTR 'performs statistically significantly better than BTTR' on Fed-TCGA-BRCA is unsupported for two reasons. First, with 5 paired blocks the two-tailed Wilcoxon test cannot yield p<0.05, as noted above. Second, the table shows local Client 4 achieving C-index 0.851 ± 0.078, which exceeds FBTTR's 0.775 ± 0.01, and Hybrid FedAdagrad reaching 0.776 ± 0.036, so the absolute comparison is not uniformly in FBTTR's favor.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The method name is written inconsistently: Tables 2 and 3 use 'F-BTTR', Table 4 uses 'FBTTR', and the text and other tables use 'FBTTR'; please standardize the notation.
  2. [Abstract, §3.2.2, §4] The abstract and Section 4 describe the heart-disease result as outperforming centralized BTTR, while Section 3.2.2 states there is a slight, non-significant accuracy drop and 'practically no difference' in ROC-AUC; these statements need to be reconciled.
  3. [§2.3, Figure 2] Line 5 of Figure 2 instructs the server to 'Find SNRk and τk for client k such that all clients have the same dimensions' without explaining how a single set of dimensions is chosen from the per-client ACE results; please specify the selection rule.
  4. [Equation (2)] The BIC formula is written as log(||C - ...||_F / s) + log(s)/s * DF; the placement of s is ambiguous, and the second term would normally be log(s) multiplied by DF rather than divided by s. Please clarify the definition and cite the exact BIC form used.
  5. [§3.1.2, Figure 7] Figure 7 is described as showing model parameters for 'the first 30 blocks', but the number of blocks K is selected by cross-validation; please explain how 30 relates to the chosen K and why 30 was chosen for display.
  6. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'seperate', 'F ederation', 'FedA VG', and 'scenarions'; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; FBTTR is an empirical federated extension of BTTR evaluated on external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: FBTTR extends the existing BTTR method (including prior work by one of the authors) with FedAvg aggregation and a server-side dimension-matching step, then evaluates the resulting model on held-out data from the BCI Competition IV and Flamby/FL4E benchmarks. No step in the construction defines FBTTR's target in terms of its own output, and no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction. The BIC/ACE component selection in Section 2.3.1 is model selection on training data followed by independent test-set evaluation, which is standard practice rather than circularity. The self-citations to prior BTTR/eBTTR work (refs [6], [8]) and to the FL4E framework (ref [53]) are dependencies, baselines, or experimental scaffolding; none is used to import a uniqueness theorem or to define the present claim into existence. The skeptic's alignment concern about FedAvg of block-term decomposition factors is a substantive correctness/identifiability issue, not a circularity issue: even if the averaged model is incoherent, that would make the reported results unreliable, but it would not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, and its claimed predictive performance is falsifiable. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary bar, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on the prior BTTR methodology, on the FedAvg aggregation assumption, and on a specific statistical test usage. The main free parameters are the automatic component selection parameters SNR and tau, the number of blocks K, and the aggregation weights. No new physical entities such as particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • SNR (sparsity-to-noise ratio) per client per block = not reported, search range [1, 50]
    Controls sparsity of the core tensor in F-mPSTD; selected by BIC on local training data.
  • tau (pruning threshold) per client per block = not reported, search range [90, 100]
    Prunes irrelevant components; selected by BIC on local training data.
  • K (number of blocks) = not reported, chosen by 5-fold cross-validation
    Determines model complexity for BTTR, eBTTR, and FBTTR.
  • N_k (aggregation weight in FedAvg) = local number of training iterations or samples
    Used to weight client updates during server aggregation; assumes data quantity reflects contribution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The BTTR decomposition equations and the deflation scheme from Camarrone et al. are correct and applicable in the federated setting.
    The method builds entirely on the prior BTTR formulation (Section 2.1), without re-deriving or validating it under non-IID federated conditions.
  • domain assumption FedAvg-style weighted averaging of local BTTR parameters converges to a useful global model.
    Assumed in Section 2.3 and Figure 2 without proof or prior evidence for tensor decompositions, which are non-convex and non-unique.
  • ad hoc to paper The factor matrices and core tensors from different clients are aligned so that averaging entry-wise is meaningful.
    Implicit in the aggregation step; the paper only checks dimension equality (Section 2.3), not component ordering or signs.
  • domain assumption A two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test with 5 paired samples can reach p<0.05.
    Assumed in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1; the minimum possible p-value for n=5 is 0.0625, so this premise is false.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Federated Block-Term Tensor Regression for decentralised data analysis in healthcare." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NNM7DO4A

@misc{pith2026241206815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Federated Block-Term Tensor Regression for decentralised data analysis in healthcare},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NNM7DO4A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06815}
}
abstract

Block-Term Tensor Regression (BTTR) has proven to be a powerful tool for modeling complex, high-dimensional data by leveraging multilinear relationships, making it particularly well-suited for applications in healthcare and neuroscience. However, traditional implementations of BTTR rely on centralized datasets, which pose significant privacy risks and hinder collaboration across institutions. To address these challenges, we introduce Federated Block-Term Tensor Regression (FBTTR), an extension of BTTR designed for federated learning scenarios. FBTTR enables decentralized data analysis, allowing institutions to collaboratively build predictive models while preserving data privacy and complying with regulations. FBTTR represents a major step forward in applying tensor regression to federated learning environments. Its performance is evaluated in two case studies: finger movement decoding from Electrocorticography (ECoG) signals and heart disease prediction. In the first case study, using the BCI Competition IV dataset, FBTTR outperforms non-multilinear models, demonstrating superior accuracy in decoding finger movements. For the dataset, for subject 3, the thumb obtained a performance of 0.76 $\pm$ .05 compared to 0.71 $\pm$ 0.05 for centralised BTTR. In the second case study, FBTTR is applied to predict heart disease using real-world clinical datasets, outperforming both standard federated learning approaches and centralized BTTR models. In the Fed-Heart-Disease Dataset, an AUC-ROC was obtained of 0.872 $\pm$ 0.02 and an accuracy of 0.772 $\pm$ 0.02 compared to 0.812 $\pm$ 0.003 and 0.753 $\pm$ 0.007 for the centralized model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06815 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of a FL algorithm via Hub & Spoke [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FBTTR server with FedAvg aggregation can be used for prediction. The server can also send the model back to the clients. This way, the clients can use the global model for prediction on their local data. The server can also send the model to new clients, who can use the model for prediction on their data. This way, the model can be used for prediction on new data. We can also see that the main distinct factor betwee… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Typically, in standard BTTR, ACE uses the parameters SNR and τ to determine the number of components. In FBTTR, we extend this by introducing a ”federated” version of ACE, where the parameters SNR and τ are optimized across multiple institutions. FBTTR needs to make sure that the dimensions of the tensor factorization is equivalent across all clients. Thus, an additional test is performed to ensure that the dimensio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: F-mPSTD BIC(τ, SNR|SNR, τ ∗ ) = log( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ACE is minimized. Within ACE, we define the mode-1 cross-product between predictor and response variables as C = ⟨X, Y⟩(1) and its decomposition as C ≈ JG(c) ; q, P(2) , ..., P(N) K. We provide the model with automatic SNR and τ se￾lection based on Bayesian Information…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted ring finger flexions of Subject 1. Actual (data glove) and predicted (regression models) finger [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Model parameters of Subject 1 for the first 30 blocks. The x-axis represents the fingers (Thumb, Index, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    scissors,

    Introduction Within regression analysis, multiway approaches are being applied more and more. As discussed in works such as [1, 2], they are used to model arm trajectories from Electrocorticography (ECoG) signals recorded from monkeys. Additionally, these approaches have been utilized in the context of exoskeleton-based arm trajectory, arm- and wrist rota...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Block-Term Tensor Regression Block-Term Tensor Regression (BTTR) decomposes the input tensor into block components, facilitating ef- ficient regression on high-dimensional data

    Methodology 2.1. Block-Term Tensor Regression Block-Term Tensor Regression (BTTR) decomposes the input tensor into block components, facilitating ef- ficient regression on high-dimensional data. It effec- tively captures the underlying structure of the data, making it suitable for applications involving multi- modal datasets [6]. An overview of the mathem...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Results and Discussion 3.1. Case Study: Brain-Computer Interfacing Finger Movement Decoding We will compare FBTTR’s performance with that of the aforementioned non-multilinear models, as well as with multilinear models HOPLS and BTTR, in predicting continuous finger flexions from ECoG recordings. We will use the publicly-available BCI Competition IV datas...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Our results show that FBTTR outperforms the other models, demonstrating its effectiveness in predicting finger movements from ECoG signals

    Conclusion In the first case study, using the BCI Competition IV dataset, we compared FBTTR with non-multilinear models for finger movement decoding. Our results show that FBTTR outperforms the other models, demonstrating its effectiveness in predicting finger movements from ECoG signals. It performs on par, and in some cases, better compared to centralis...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Accurate offline asynchronous detection of individual finger movement from intracranial brain signals using a novel multiway approach

    Flavio Camarrone, Mariana P Branco, Nick F Ramsey, and Marc M Van Hulle. Accurate offline asynchronous detection of individual finger movement from intracranial brain signals using a novel multiway approach. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , 68(7):2176– 2187, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    For each SNR value, the associated optimal τ is computed as τ ∗ = argmin τ BIC (τ, SNR)

    - a modified version of the original sparse Tucker decomposition (PSTD) [43] - using specific τ and SNR values, s the number of entries in G, and DF the degree of freedom calculated as the number of non- zero elements in G(c), as suggested in [44]. For each SNR value, the associated optimal τ is computed as τ ∗ = argmin τ BIC (τ, SNR). Then, the optimal S...

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Higher order partial least squares (hopls): a generalized multilinear regression method

    Qibin Zhao, Cesar F Caiafa, Danilo P Mandic, Zenas C Chao, Yasuo Nagasaka, Naotaka Fujii, Liqing Zhang, and Andrzej Cichocki. Higher order partial least squares (hopls): a generalized multilinear regression method. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 35(7):1660–1673, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Penalized multi- way partial least squares for smooth trajectory decoding from electrocorticographic (ecog) recording

    Andrey Eliseyev and Tetiana Aksenova. Penalized multi- way partial least squares for smooth trajectory decoding from electrocorticographic (ecog) recording. PloS one , 11(5):e0154878, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    An exoskeleton controlled by an epidural wireless brain–machine interface in a tetraplegic patient: a proof-of-concept demonstration

    Alim Louis Benabid, Thomas Costecalde, Andrey Eliseyev, Guillaume Charvet, Alexandre Verney, Serpil Karakas, Michael Foerster, Aur´ elien Lambert, Boris Morini` ere, Neil Abroug, et al. An exoskeleton controlled by an epidural wireless brain–machine interface in a tetraplegic ...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Walking naturally after spinal cord injury using a brain–spine interface

    Henri Lorach, Andrea Galvez, Valeria Spagnolo, Felix Martel, Serpil Karakas, Nadine Intering, Molywan Vat, Olivier Faivre, Cathal Harte, Salif Komi, et al. Walking naturally after spinal cord injury using a brain–spine interface. Nature, pages 1–8, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Single finger trajectory prediction from intracranial brain activity using block-term tensor regression with fast and automatic component extraction

    Axel Faes, Flavio Camarrone, and Marc M Van Hulle. Single finger trajectory prediction from intracranial brain activity using block-term tensor regression with fast and automatic component extraction. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, submitted 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Rapid decoding of hand gestures in electrocorticography using recurrent neural networks

    Gang Pan, Jia-Jun Li, Yu Qi, Hang Yu, Jun-Ming Zhu, Xiao-Xiang Zheng, Yue-Ming Wang, and Shao- Min Zhang. Rapid decoding of hand gestures in electrocorticography using recurrent neural networks. Frontiers in neuroscience, 12:555, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Finger movement and coactivation predicted from intracranial brain activity using extended block-term tensor regression

    A Faes and MM Van Hulle. Finger movement and coactivation predicted from intracranial brain activity using extended block-term tensor regression. Journal of Neural Engineering, 19(6):066011, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Recent advances on federated learning: A systematic survey

    Bingyan Liu, Nuoyan Lv, Yuanchun Guo, and Yawen Li. Recent advances on federated learning: A systematic survey. Neurocomputing, page 128019, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, et al. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05629, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Towards federated learning at scale: System design

    Keith Bonawitz, Hubert Eichner, Wolfgang Grieskamp, David Huba, Aleksandr Ingerman, Vladimir Ivanov, Chloe Kiddon, Jakub Koneˇ cn` y, Steven Mazzocchi, H Brendan McMahan, et al. Towards federated learning at scale: System design. In Proceedings of the 2nd SysML Conference, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Differen- tially private federated learning: A client level perspec- tive

    Robin C Geyer, Tassilo Klein, and Moin Nabi. Differen- tially private federated learning: A client level perspec- tive. In NIPS Workshop on Privacy and Security in Machine Learning, volume 30, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Deep learning with differential privacy

    Martin Abadi, Andy Chu, Ian Goodfellow, H Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang. Deep learning with differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 308–318, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    A hybrid approach to privacy-preserving federated learning

    Stacey Truex, Nathalie Baracaldo, Ali Anwar, Thomas Steinke, Heiko Ludwig, Rui Zhang, and Yue Zhou. A hybrid approach to privacy-preserving federated learning. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security , pages 1–11, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Advances and open problems in federated learning

    Peter Kairouz, H Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aur´ elien Bellet, Mehdi Bennis, Arjun Nitin Bhagoji, Keith Bonawitz, Zachary Charles, Graham Cormode, Federated Block-Term Tensor Regression for decentralised data analysis in healthcare 14 Rachel Cummings, et al. Advances and ...

    1912 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Federated machine learning: Concept and applications

    Qiang Yang, Yang Liu, Tianjian Cheng, and Yan Kang. Federated machine learning: Concept and applications. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 10(2):1–19, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Federated learning for mobile keyboard prediction

    Andrew Hard, Kanishka Rao, Robert Mathews, Satyen Ramaswamy, Fran¸ coise Beaufays, Sean Augenstein, Hubert Eichner, Chloe Kiddon, and Daniel Ramage. Federated learning for mobile keyboard prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03604 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Federated learning in medicine: facilitating multi- institutional collaborations without sharing patient data

    Micah J Sheller, Brandon Edwards, Guido A Reina, James Martin, Sarthak Pati, Aikaterini Kotrotsou, Mikhail Milchenko, Wei Xu, Daniel Marcus, and Spyridon Bakas. Federated learning in medicine: facilitating multi- institutional collaborations without sharing patient data. Scien...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions

    Tian Li, Anit Kumar Sahu, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 37(3):50–60, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Nguyen Duy, M

    D. Nguyen Duy, M. Affenzeller, and R. Nikzad-Langerodi. Towards vertical privacy-preserving symbolic regression via secure multiparty computation. In Proceedings of the Companion Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pages 2420–2428, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Hartebrodt, R

    A. Hartebrodt, R. Nasirigerdeh, D. B. Blumenthal, and R. R¨ ottger. Federated principal component analysis for genome-wide association studies. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) , pages 1090–1095, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Grammenos, R

    A. Grammenos, R. Mendoza Smith, J. Crowcroft, and C. Mascolo. Federated principal component analysis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:6453–6464, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    D. N. Duy, D. Gabauer, and R. Nikzad-Langerodi. Towards federated multivariate statistical process control (fedmspc). arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01645 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    G. Wang, C. X. Dang, and Z. Zhou. Measure contribution of participants in federated learning. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) , pages 2597–2604, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    T. Wang, J. Rausch, C. Zhang, R. Jia, and D. Song. A principled approach to data valuation for federated learning. In Federated Learning: Privacy and Incentive, pages 153–167. 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    L. Yang, D. Chai, J. Zhang, Y. Jin, L. Wang, H. Liu, H. Tian, Q. Xu, and K. Chen. A survey on vertical federated learning: From a layered perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01829, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    https://www.who.int/news-room/ fact-sheets/detail/spinal-cord-injury

    Who spinal cord injury. https://www.who.int/news-room/ fact-sheets/detail/spinal-cord-injury . Accessed: 2022-06-30

    2022

  25. [33]

    Mobile interaction for augmentative and alternative communication: A systematic mapping

    R´ ubia Eliza de Oliveira Schultz Ascari, Roberto Pereira, and Luciano Silva. Mobile interaction for augmentative and alternative communication: A systematic mapping. Journal on Interactive Systems , 9(2), 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia

    Leigh R Hochberg, Mijail D Serruya, Gerhard M Friehs, Jon A Mukand, Maryam Saleh, Abraham H Caplan, Almut Branner, David Chen, Richard D Penn, and John P Donoghue. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature, 442(7099):164–171, 2006

    2006

  27. [35]

    High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia

    Jennifer L Collinger, Brian Wodlinger, John E Downey, Wei Wang, Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara, Douglas J Weber, Angus JC McMorland, Meel Velliste, Michael L Boninger, and Andrew B Schwartz. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. The Lancet, 381(...

    2013

  28. [36]

    Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm

    Leigh R Hochberg, Daniel Bacher, Beata Jarosiewicz, Nicolas Y Masse, John D Simeral, Joern Vogel, Sami Haddadin, Jie Liu, Sydney S Cash, Patrick Van Der Smagt, et al. Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature, 485(7398):372–375, 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    Ten-dimensional anthropomorphic arm control in a human brain- machine interface: difficulties, solutions, and limitations

    B Wodlinger, JE Downey, EC Tyler-Kabara, AB Schwartz, ML Boninger, and JL Collinger. Ten-dimensional anthropomorphic arm control in a human brain- machine interface: difficulties, solutions, and limitations. Journal of neural engineering , 12(1):016011, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Power-law scaling in the brain surface electric potential

    Kai J Miller, Larry B Sorensen, Jeffrey G Ojemann, and Marcel Den Nijs. Power-law scaling in the brain surface electric potential. PLoS Comput Biol , 5(12):e1000609, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    Quantitative analysis of high-frequency oscillations (80–500 hz) recorded in human epileptic hippocampus and entorhinal cortex

    Richard J Staba, Charles L Wilson, Anatol Bragin, Itzhak Fried, and Jerome Engel Jr. Quantitative analysis of high-frequency oscillations (80–500 hz) recorded in human epileptic hippocampus and entorhinal cortex. Journal of neurophysiology , 88(4):1743–1752, 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    An electrocortico- graphic brain interface in an individual with tetraplegia

    Wei Wang, Jennifer L Collinger, Alan D Degenhart, Eliz- abeth C Tyler-Kabara, Andrew B Schwartz, Daniel W Moran, Douglas J Weber, Brian Wodlinger, Ramana K Vinjamuri, Robin C Ashmore, et al. An electrocortico- graphic brain interface in an individual with tetraplegia. PloS one...

    2013

  33. [41]

    Consis- tency of long-term subdural electrocorticography in hu- mans

    Ewan S Nurse, Sam E John, Dean R Freestone, Thomas J Oxley, Hoameng Ung, Samuel F Berkovic, Terence J O’Brien, Mark J Cook, and David B Grayden. Consis- tency of long-term subdural electrocorticography in hu- mans. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , 65(2):344–352, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Electrocorticographic (ecog) correlates of human arm movements

    Nicholas R Anderson, Tim Blakely, Gerwin Schalk, Eric C Leuthardt, and Daniel W Moran. Electrocorticographic (ecog) correlates of human arm movements. Experimen- tal brain research, 223(1):1–10, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Signal quality of simultaneously recorded invasive and non-invasive eeg

    Tonio Ball, Markus Kern, Isabella Mutschler, Ad Aertsen, and Andreas Schulze-Bonhage. Signal quality of simultaneously recorded invasive and non-invasive eeg. Neuroimage, 46(3):708–716, 2009

    2009

  36. [44]

    Decoding three-dimensional reach- ing movements using electrocorticographic signals in hu- mans

    David T Bundy, Mrinal Pahwa, Nicholas Szrama, and Eric C Leuthardt. Decoding three-dimensional reach- ing movements using electrocorticographic signals in hu- mans. Journal of neural engineering , 13(2):026021, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    Fully implanted brain–computer interface in a locked- in patient with als

    Mariska J Vansteensel, Elmar GM Pels, Martin G Bleichner, Mariana P Branco, Timothy Denison, Zachary V Freudenburg, Peter Gosselaar, Sacha Lein- ders, Thomas H Ottens, Max A Van Den Boom, et al. Fully implanted brain–computer interface in a locked- in patient with als. New Eng...

    2016

  38. [46]

    Give me a sign: decoding four complex hand gestures based on high-density ecog

    Martin G Bleichner, Zachary V Freudenburg, Johan- nus Martijn Jansma, Erik J Aarnoutse, Mariska J Vansteensel, and Nick Franciscus Ramsey. Give me a sign: decoding four complex hand gestures based on high-density ecog. Brain Structure and Function , 221:203–216, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Gesture decoding using ecog signals from human sensorimotor cortex: a pilot study

    Yue Li, Shaomin Zhang, Yile Jin, Bangyu Cai, Marco Controzzi, Junming Zhu, Jianmin Zhang, and Xiaoxiang Zheng. Gesture decoding using ecog signals from human sensorimotor cortex: a pilot study. Behavioural neurology, 2017, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Multilinear tensor rank estimation via sparse tucker decomposition

    Tatsuya Yokota and Andrzej Cichocki. Multilinear tensor rank estimation via sparse tucker decomposition. In 2014 Joint 7th International Conference on Soft Computing and Intelligent Systems (SCIS) and 15th International Symposium on Advanced Intelligent Systems (ISIS) , pages ...

    2014

  41. [49]

    Sparse Federated Block-Term Tensor Regression for decentralised data analysis in healthcare 15 non-negative generalized pca with applications to metabolomics

    Genevera I Allen and Mirjana Maleti´ c-Savati´ c. Sparse Federated Block-Term Tensor Regression for decentralised data analysis in healthcare 15 non-negative generalized pca with applications to metabolomics. Bioinformatics, 27(21):3029–3035, 2011

    2011

  42. [50]

    On the best rank-1 and rank-(r 1, r 2,..., rn) approximation of higher-order tensors

    Lieven De Lathauwer, Bart De Moor, and Joos Vandewalle. On the best rank-1 and rank-(r 1, r 2,..., rn) approximation of higher-order tensors. SIAM journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , 21(4):1324–1342, 2000

    2000

  43. [51]

    Decoding finger flexion from band-specific ecog signals in humans

    Nanying Liang and Laurent Bougrain. Decoding finger flexion from band-specific ecog signals in humans. Frontiers in neuroscience, 6:91, 2012

    2012

  44. [52]

    Decoding of finger trajectory from ecog using deep learning

    Ziqian Xie, Odelia Schwartz, and Abhishek Prasad. Decoding of finger trajectory from ecog using deep learning. Journal of neural engineering , 15(3):036009, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    Prediction of finger flexion: 4th brain-computer interface data competition

    Kai J Miller and Gerwin Schalk. Prediction of finger flexion: 4th brain-computer interface data competition. BCI Competition IV, 1:1–2, 2008

    2008

  46. [54]

    Clinical neurophysiology: EEG, paediatric neurophysiology, special techniques and applications , volume 2

    Collin D Binnie. Clinical neurophysiology: EEG, paediatric neurophysiology, special techniques and applications , volume 2. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2003

    2003

  47. [55]

    Some mathematical notes on three- mode factor analysis

    Ledyard R Tucker. Some mathematical notes on three- mode factor analysis. Psychometrika, 31(3):279–311, 1966

    1966

  48. [56]

    Individual comparisons by ranking methods

    Frank Wilcoxon. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. In Breakthroughs in statistics, pages 196–202. Springer, 1992

    1992

  49. [57]

    Flamby: Datasets and benchmarks for cross-silo federated learning in realistic healthcare settings

    Jean Ogier du Terrail, Samy-Safwan Ayed, Edwige Cyffers, Felix Grimberg, Chaoyang He, Regis Loeb, Paul Mangold, Tanguy Marchand, Othmane Marfoq, Erum Mushtaq, et al. Flamby: Datasets and benchmarks for cross-silo federated learning in realistic healthcare settings. Advances in...

    2022

  50. [58]

    Accessible ecosystem for clinical research (federated learning for everyone): Development and usability study

    Ashkan Pirmani, Martijn Oldenhof, Liesbet M Peeters, Edward De Brouwer, and Yves Moreau. Accessible ecosystem for clinical research (federated learning for everyone): Development and usability study. JMIR Formative Research, 8:e55496, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Adaptive federated optimiza- tion

    Sashank Reddi, Zachary Charles, Manzil Zaheer, Zachary Garrett, Keith Rush, Jakub Koneˇ cn` y, Sanjiv Kumar, and H Brendan McMahan. Adaptive federated optimiza- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00295 , 2020

    2003 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks

    Tian Li, Anit Kumar Sahu, Manzil Zaheer, Maziar Sanjabi, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks. Proceedings of Machine learning and systems , 2:429–450, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

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