Multi-Modal One-Shot Federated Ensemble Learning for Medical Data with Vision Large Language Model

Jianwei Yin; Naibo Wang; See-kiong Ng; Shichen Fan; Yuchen Deng

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 16 references

Multi-Modal One-Shot Federated Ensemble Learning for Medical Data with Vision Large Language Model

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that one-shot federated medical image classifiers improve when each client generates a text report with a vision LLM, embeds it with BERT, and votes across models.

desk verdict A genuinely new multi-modal recipe for one-shot federated learning, but the headline comparison doesn't isolate the method's contribution because FedMME is the only arm given the 11B vLLM+BERT pathway. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03292 v1 pith:HDVIIBKC submitted 2025-01-06 cs.LG cs.AI

Naibo Wang , Yuchen Deng , Shichen Fan , Jianwei Yin , See-Kiong Ng This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords one-shotfederatedlearningensemblemulti-modalmedicalimageanalysisvisionlargelanguagemodelBERTtextfeaturesnon-IIDdataclassification

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

FedMME is a one-shot federated ensemble method: each client trains a local model on its own medical images, sends the trained model to the server once, and the server combines the models by equal-weight voting. The local model is multimodal: a vision large language model writes a text report for each image, BERT embeds that report, the embedding is reduced in dimension, and the reduced text features are concatenated to ResNet-18 visual features before a fully connected classifier. The paper reports that this consistently beats one-shot federated baselines on Blood, Derma, RSNA, and Diabetic Retinopathy data under Dirichlet data splits with $\alpha = 0.6$, $0.3$, and $0.1$, including an accuracy gain of more than 17.5 percentage points over the best one-shot baselines on RSNA at $\alpha=0.3$. The claim matters because it suggests medical institutions can obtain multi-modal accuracy benefits in a single communication round without sharing raw images or reports.

What carries the argument

The machinery is FedMME's two-phase client model. Phase one extracts features: ResNet-18 gives $f_{\text{visual}}\in\mathbb{R}^{512}$; Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct writes a report $r$; BERT gives $f_{\text{textual}}\in\mathbb{R}^{768}$. Phase two fuses: a dimensionality-reduction step $f^*_{\text{textual}}=\text{DR}(f_{\text{textual}})$ shrinks the text embedding so it cannot dominate, and the combined vector $f_{\text{combine}}=f_{\text{visual}}+f^*_{\text{textual}}$ (the paper writes $+$ for concatenation) goes into a fully connected layer. The server then applies equal-weight voting over the $N$ client models. The dimensionality reduction is doing load-bearing work: without it, text features at 512 dimensions degrade performance, and at 128 dimensions the gain is largest.

What would settle it

Run the RSNA experiment at $\alpha=0.3$ with the text report replaced by a fixed, meaningless string, while keeping every other setting identical; if accuracy stays at roughly 87.93% instead of dropping well below it, the paper's attribution of the gain to the textual modality is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that unimodal one-shot federated ensembles leave diagnostic accuracy on the table, and the missing signal can be supplied locally by a vision LLM's free-form reports. In FedMME each client converts every image into a short radiology-style report, turns that report into a 768-dimensional BERT embedding, reduces the embedding to a smaller size, and concatenates it with the 512-dimensional visual feature vector. The authors report that this simple fusion, combined with voting, outperforms FedAvg, DENSE, DAFL, and FedISCA in the one-shot setting, and outperforms a unimodal FedEnsemble that uses only visual features. The reported margins are largest on RSNA (87.93% vs 70.42% for FedEnsemble at $\alpha=0.3$) and Blood (80.12% vs 71.03%).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every client can run an 11-billion-parameter vision large language model locally on each medical image to produce a useful report, and that the resulting text features, after dimension reduction, add enough signal beyond a 512-dimensional visual feature to improve classification; the experiments were run on one large machine with an A100 GPU and do not test constrained hospital hardware.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported gains hold, a hospital can join a one-shot federated study without any extra communication round; the only added cost is local inference of a vision LLM on its own images.
The number of clients helps: on the Blood dataset at $\alpha=0.3$, FedMME accuracy rises from 80.12% with 5 clients to 86.23% with 20, indicating the ensemble benefits from diversity.
The text stream should be kept small; reducing BERT features to 128 dimensions gives the best accuracy, while letting them reach 512 dimensions hurts, so the textual modality is an auxiliary, not a replacement.
The method is not tied to one vision LLM: with prompts adjusted to describe rather than classify, Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct and ChatGPT-4o-Vision yield comparable results.
Even under the strongest non-IID split tested ($\alpha=0.1$), FedMME remains ahead of every one-shot baseline on all four datasets, so the benefit is not limited to mildly heterogeneous data.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper implicitly treats the vision LLM as a shared prior that clients do not have to agree on; a natural test is whether a smaller, open-weight captioning model run on CPU-only clients preserves most of the gain.
Because the comparison is against image-only models, part of the gain may be a regularization or diversity effect from adding an auxiliary feature stream rather than true semantic understanding; an ablation with randomized text embeddings would separate these.
The privacy story is less clean than the communication story: although no raw report is shared, the 11-billion-parameter model's memory and compute footprint may be prohibitive on typical clinical hardware, so deployment value depends on the local hardware assumption.
If the mechanism transfers, one-shot federated systems outside medicine could adopt local captioning as a cheap auxiliary channel, but the cost-benefit will depend on how strongly the target images are describable in text.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know the core idea is real: combining offline vLLM captioning, BERT features, and one-shot federated ensemble voting for medical images is not in the cited literature, and the authors are plausibly first to try it. The paper reads as an honest engineering attempt, not a shell game. Four datasets, multiple non-IID splits, a case study showing the vLLM gives useful textual descriptions even when it misclassifies—these are genuine assets. The reported accuracies are held-out numbers, so nothing is fabricated on the face of it.

The soft spot is load-bearing, not cosmetic. In every row of Table 1, FedMME is the only method that sees the frozen Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct plus BERT text pathway. FedEnsemble is explicitly single-modal vision. So the 17.5-point gap on RSNA at alpha=0.3 contrasts two things at once: the proposed ensemble/fusion algorithm and access to an enormous pretrained vision-language model. Without an ablation that removes the text pathway while keeping the same backbone, or a same-capacity vision-only baseline, the central claim in the abstract and Section 4.3 is underdetermined. This is not a minor cleanliness issue; it is the difference between demonstrating a new federated mechanism and demonstrating that a big frozen model helps.

The notation problem in Eq. (6) is also real: the text says concatenation, the equation says fvisual + f*textual. If implemented literally, a 512-d vector plus a 128-d reduced vector cannot work; if implemented as concatenation, the equation is wrong. Either way, reproduction is blocked. On top of that, three-trial averages come with no error bars, no code, and the textual feature dimension is picked using test-set ablations (Figure 4). Those are fixable, but they are exactly the kinds of details a reviewer should chase.

A smaller honest note: on Diabetic, FedMME gets 31.93% at alpha=0.3. It beats the baselines, but the absolute number is weak. The contribution is a relative improvement over other one-shot FL methods, not a clinically strong diagnostic system.

Who is this for? Researchers working on communication-efficient federated learning or multimodal fusion in medical imaging. They will get a usable recipe and a clear positioning statement, but they should not trust the headline numbers until the confound is resolved.

My recommendation: send to peer review with the expectation of major revision. Ask for the text-ablated control, the same-capacity vision baseline, corrected notation, error bars, and code. If those come back, this could be a solid subfield paper.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes FedMME, a one-shot federated ensemble learning framework for medical image classification. Each client trains a local model on images using ResNet-18 visual features augmented by textual features obtained by prompting Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct to generate a report for each image and embedding that report with BERT; the textual features are dimensionality-reduced and combined with visual features, and the resulting per-client classifiers are aggregated on a central server by equal-weight voting. The paper reports held-out test accuracy on Blood, Derma, RSNA, and Diabetic Retinopathy datasets under Dirichlet-based non-IID partitions (alpha = 0.6, 0.3, 0.1), compares with FedAvg, DAFL, DENSE, FedISCA, and FedEnsemble, and claims consistent superiority, including a 17.5% accuracy improvement over one-shot baselines on RSNA at alpha = 0.3. Ablations examine the choice of vision LLM, the dimensionality of the textual features, and the number of local training epochs.

Significance. The motivating problem is real: one-shot FL reduces communication, and multimodal features can improve medical image classification. If the empirical claims were supported by a controlled comparison, FedMME would be a useful contribution, and the ablation of the vision LLM choice is a positive feature. The paper also reports honest held-out accuracies rather than circular metrics. However, the current evidence is underdetermined: the main comparison changes both the ensemble/fusion algorithm and the availability of a large external vLLM plus BERT feature extractor, so the claimed gains cannot be attributed to the proposed mechanism. The absence of error bars, code, and a validation-based selection protocol further limits the strength of the claims. The central idea is defensible, but the manuscript needs a substantially more controlled evaluation before the contribution can be assessed.

major comments (5)

[Sec. 4.2, Table 1, Eqs. (3)-(4)] Every comparison in Table 1 gives FedMME an extra frozen 11B vision-language model plus BERT text pathway that the baselines do not receive: FedEnsemble is described in Sec. 4.2 as a single-modal vision model, and the remaining baselines are not reported to use any text branch. The comparison therefore changes two variables at once: (i) the proposed one-shot ensemble/fusion algorithm and (ii) access to a large pretrained multimodal feature extractor. The headline gap on RSNA at alpha=0.3 (87.93 versus 70.39 for FedISCA) is consistent with the hypothesis that the gain comes from the extra pretrained model rather than from the multi-modal fusion or ensemble design. Please add an ablation that gives a vision-only FedEnsemble baseline the same backbone, initialization, and training budget, or ablates the text branch in FedMME while keeping the vLLM, so that the contribution of the proposed mechanism is isolated.
[Eq. (6) and Algorithm 2, step 3] Equation (6) and Algorithm 2 define fcombine = fvisual + f*textual, while Sec. 3.2.2 and Fig. 2 say the features are concatenated. The described dimensions (512-d visual, 128-d reduced text, Sec. 4.4.2) make a literal vector addition impossible. Please specify the actual fusion: if it is concatenation, correct Eq. (6) to [fvisual; f*textual]; if it is addition after a linear projection, describe that projection. This is required to reproduce the method.
[Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 4.4.2] The textual feature dimension used in the main results appears to be selected from test-set performance: Fig. 4 reports test accuracy for several dimensions and 128 is chosen as optimal, but no validation split or selection rule is described. Because this selection is made on the same test partition used for the headline numbers in Table 1, the reported accuracies are at risk of optimistic bias from test-set model selection. Please either fix the dimension a priori, select it on a validation split, or report both the selection and test numbers separately.
[Table 1] The FedISCA rows in Table 1 contain exact duplicate values across different partitions (Blood: 53.61 at alpha=0.6 and alpha=0.1; Derma: 53.86 at alpha=0.6 and alpha=0.1, while Derma at alpha=0.3 is 16.11). These duplicates are suspicious and directly affect the claimed improvements, since FedISCA is the strongest one-shot baseline on several rows. Please verify the baseline evaluation and report corrected numbers.
[Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.1] The claim that the framework is suited to resource-constrained medical applications is not supported by the experimental setup in Sec. 4.1, where all clients are simulated on a single machine with 1TB RAM, a 256-core CPU, and an A100 40GB GPU, and where each client would need to run an 11B-parameter vision LLM to generate reports. No measurement of per-client memory, inference time, or communication payload is reported. Please either report these costs and validate on a more realistic client configuration or soften the applicability claim to an explicit assumption and limitation.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The phrase more than 17.5% in accuracy should read 17.5 percentage points, since it is a difference between two accuracy values.
[References] The citation for the 11B vision model is given as Chi et al. (2024), Llama Guard 3 Vision, which appears to be a different model from Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct; please cite the correct model release or repository.
[Algorithm 1] The variable y is used both as the label in the dataset and as the loop index for vote accumulation; please use different names to avoid confusion.
[Sec. 4.5] The case study in Fig. 8 shows the vision LLM misclassifying the severity, yet the text claims the report contributes valuable insights; consider adding a quantitative analysis of how often the generated report is correct or useful rather than relying on a single example.
[General] No code, data splits, or random seeds are provided, which makes the three-trial averages in Tables 1 and 2 non-reproducible; a code and data availability statement would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FedMME's reported accuracies are held-out evaluations of a concrete multi-modal ensemble pipeline, and no derivation step reduces to its own input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: FedMME outperforms one-shot federated baselines on four held-out test sets (Tables 1 and 2). These are reported accuracies from trained models, not quantities derived from the method's assumptions. The methodology concatenates (or adds, per Eq. 6) visual and dimensionality-reduced textual features and applies voting across clients; this is an implemented algorithm, not a tautology. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction of a closely related quantity: the textual-feature dimension of 128 is selected via the ablation in Fig. 4, which is test-set model selection rather than a circular derivation, and it does not by construction determine the headline accuracy gains. The paper's self-citations (Wang et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024a) appear only as related-work context for ensemble and sequential federated learning, and they are not load-bearing for the reported results. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work by the same authors; the vLLM and BERT components are standard external tools used as feature extractors. The notation inconsistency in Eq. (6), where '+' is used although the text says 'concatenate', is a reproducibility and correctness concern, but it is not a circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that the empirical claims are backed by direct held-out evaluations rather than by construction or self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on a handful of hand-picked hyperparameters and on the assumption that a generic vision LLM and BERT provide useful signal when frozen. These are not new entities, and the paper does not derive them from first principles.

free parameters (5)

Textual feature dimension after DR = 128
Selected as the optimum in the ablation (Fig. 4); used for the main experiments.
Learning rate = 1e-3
Set in Sec 4.1, no justification.
Local training epochs = 100
Set in Sec 4.1; Fig. 5 shows performance is stable after about 10 epochs, so 100 is an arbitrary large choice.
Vision LLM choice = Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct
Chosen over ChatGPT-4o-Vision based on Fig. 3; no systematic search.
Dimensionality reduction method = unspecified
Sec 4.4.2 varies dimensions but never states the DR technique.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Generated text reports from the vision LLM contain useful classification information
Sec 3.2.1 states these reports 'significantly enhance feature richness' and are used as ancillary features; no quantitative measure of report quality is provided.
domain assumption BERT embeddings faithfully represent the content of the generated reports
Sec 3.2.1 assumes BERT 'possesses an exceptional ability' to capture semantics; no validation is given.
domain assumption Equal-weight voting over locally trained models yields a strong ensemble
The method uses voting to aggregate predictions (Algorithm 1), and the paper does not compare to weighted voting or other ensemble rules.
domain assumption A simple concatenation plus fully connected layer can effectively fuse visual and textual features
Sec 3.2.2 proposes this fusion without comparison to more complex fusion mechanisms.
domain assumption Dirichlet distribution with alpha in {0.1,0.3,0.6} adequately simulates non-IID medical data
Sec 4.1 uses these values without justification.
domain assumption Training clients from scratch on local subsets with SGD converges to useful models
The local training follows Algorithm 1, with no analysis of convergence or initialization sensitivity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Modal One-Shot Federated Ensemble Learning for Medical Data with Vision Large Language Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HDVIIBKC

@misc{pith2026250103292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Modal One-Shot Federated Ensemble Learning for Medical Data with Vision Large Language Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HDVIIBKC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03292}
}

abstract

Federated learning (FL) has attracted considerable interest in the medical domain due to its capacity to facilitate collaborative model training while maintaining data privacy. However, conventional FL methods typically necessitate multiple communication rounds, leading to significant communication overhead and delays, especially in environments with limited bandwidth. One-shot federated learning addresses these issues by conducting model training and aggregation in a single communication round, thereby reducing communication costs while preserving privacy. Among these, one-shot federated ensemble learning combines independently trained client models using ensemble techniques such as voting, further boosting performance in non-IID data scenarios. On the other hand, existing machine learning methods in healthcare predominantly use unimodal data (e.g., medical images or textual reports), which restricts their diagnostic accuracy and comprehensiveness. Therefore, the integration of multi-modal data is proposed to address these shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce FedMME, an innovative one-shot multi-modal federated ensemble learning framework that utilizes multi-modal data for medical image analysis. Specifically, FedMME capitalizes on vision large language models to produce textual reports from medical images, employs a BERT model to extract textual features from these reports, and amalgamates these features with visual features to improve diagnostic accuracy. Experimental results show that our method demonstrated superior performance compared to existing one-shot federated learning methods in healthcare scenarios across four datasets with various data distributions. For instance, it surpasses existing one-shot federated learning approaches by more than 17.5% in accuracy on the RSNA dataset when applying a Dirichlet distribution with ($\alpha$ = 0.3).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03292 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of our proposed framework, FedMME, which is structured into two principal phases: feature extraction and feature fusion. In the feature extraction phase, visual features are obtained from images using conventional vision models, such as ResNet-18, and accompanying textual reports are produced via a sophisticated vision large language model. Textual features are subsequently extracted from these reports usin… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Test Accuracy comparison of FedMME with different vision large language models, where Dirichlet parameter α = 0.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Effect of various textual feature sizes across different datasets, where Dirichlet parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Retinal image with several features that are typical of diabetic retinopathy (DR). Prompt You are a ophthalmologist in a hospital, this image is a retinal image from a possible patient, please review the image to rate the severity of diabetic retinopathy (DR) of this…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The prompt used for the Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct model to recognize the type of the medical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The output generated by the Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct model in response to the prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[7]

Differentially private federated learning: A client level perspective

Robin C Geyer, Tassilo Klein, and Moin Nabi. Differentially private federated learning: A client level perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.07557,

arXiv
[8]

One-shot federated learning

Neel Guha, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. One-shot federated learning. InNeurIPS 2018 Workshop on Machine Learning on the Phone and other Consumer Devices,

work page 2018
[11]

Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05424,

Muhammad Maaz, Hanoona Rasheed, Salman Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05424,

arXiv
[13]

Integrating multimodal information in large pretrained transformers

Wasifur Rahman, Md Kamrul Hasan, Sangwu Lee, Amir Zadeh, Chengfeng Mao, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Ehsan Hoque. Integrating multimodal information in large pretrained transformers. InProceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, volume 2020, pp

work page 2020
[16]

Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision- language understanding with advanced large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592,

Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision- language understanding with advanced large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592,

arXiv
[1992]

Xlip: Cross-modal attention masked modelling for medical language-image pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19546, 2024a

Biao Wu, Yutong Xie, Zeyu Zhang, Minh Hieu Phan, Qi Chen, Ling Chen, and Qi Wu. Xlip: Cross-modal attention masked modelling for medical language-image pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19546, 2024a. Xing Wu, Jie Pei, Xian-Hua Han, Yen-Wei Chen, Junfeng Yao, Yang Liu, Quan Qian, and Yike Guo. Fedel: Federated ensemble learning for non-iid data.Expert...

arXiv
[1996]

Language models are few-shot learners

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901,

1901
[2016]

Training compute-optimal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556,

Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. Training compute-optimal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556,

arXiv

Show all 16 references

[2017]

Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback, 2021.URL https://arxiv

Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, et al. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback, 2021.URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2112.09332,

2021 arXiv
[2018]

One-shot federated learning

Neel Guha, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. One-shot federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.11175,

1902 arXiv
[2019]

Llama guard 3 vision: Safe- guarding human-ai image understanding conversations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10414,

Jianfeng Chi, Ujjwal Karn, Hongyuan Zhan, Eric Smith, Javier Rando, Yiming Zhang, Kate Plawiak, Zacharie Delpierre Coudert, Kartikeya Upasani, and Mahesh Pasupuleti. Llama guard 3 vision: Safe- guarding human-ai image understanding conversations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10414,

arXiv
[2020]

Expanding the reach of federated learning by reducing client resource requirements.arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.07210,

Sebastian Caldas, Jakub Konečny, H Brendan McMahan, and Ameet Talwalkar. Expanding the reach of federated learning by reducing client resource requirements.arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.07210,

arXiv
[2021]

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

Jacob Devlin. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805,

arXiv
[2022]

Federated learning for big data: A survey on opportunities, applications, and future directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04160,

Thippa Reddy Gadekallu, Quoc-Viet Pham, Thien Huynh-The, Sweta Bhattacharya, Praveen Kumar Reddy Maddikunta, and Madhusanka Liyanage. Federated learning for big data: A survey on opportunities, applications, and future directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04160,

arXiv
[2023]

Feded: Federated learning via ensemble distillation for medical relation extraction

Dianbo Sui, Yubo Chen, Jun Zhao, Yantao Jia, Yuantao Xie, and Weijian Sun. Feded: Federated learning via ensemble distillation for medical relation extraction. InProceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pp. 2118–2128,

2020
[2024]

Federated vs

Georgios Drainakis, Konstantinos V Katsaros, Panagiotis Pantazopoulos, Vasilis Sourlas, and Angelos Amdi- tis. Federated vs. centralized machine learning under privacy-elastic users: A comparative analysis. In 2020 IEEE 19th International Symposium on Network Computing and App...

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

Differentially private federated learning: A client level perspective

Robin C Geyer, Tassilo Klein, and Moin Nabi. Differentially private federated learning: A client level perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.07557,

arXiv

[2] [8]

One-shot federated learning

Neel Guha, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. One-shot federated learning. InNeurIPS 2018 Workshop on Machine Learning on the Phone and other Consumer Devices,

work page 2018

[3] [11]

Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05424,

Muhammad Maaz, Hanoona Rasheed, Salman Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05424,

arXiv

[4] [13]

Integrating multimodal information in large pretrained transformers

Wasifur Rahman, Md Kamrul Hasan, Sangwu Lee, Amir Zadeh, Chengfeng Mao, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Ehsan Hoque. Integrating multimodal information in large pretrained transformers. InProceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, volume 2020, pp

work page 2020

[5] [16]

Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision- language understanding with advanced large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592,

Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision- language understanding with advanced large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592,

arXiv

[6] [1992]

Xlip: Cross-modal attention masked modelling for medical language-image pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19546, 2024a

Biao Wu, Yutong Xie, Zeyu Zhang, Minh Hieu Phan, Qi Chen, Ling Chen, and Qi Wu. Xlip: Cross-modal attention masked modelling for medical language-image pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19546, 2024a. Xing Wu, Jie Pei, Xian-Hua Han, Yen-Wei Chen, Junfeng Yao, Yang Liu, Quan Qian, and Yike Guo. Fedel: Federated ensemble learning for non-iid data.Expert...

arXiv

[7] [1996]

Language models are few-shot learners

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901,

1901

[8] [2016]

Training compute-optimal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556,

Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. Training compute-optimal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556,

arXiv