Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Federated Granger Causality Learning for Interdependent Clients with State Space Representation

T0 review · 4 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 The paper claims that a federated system of clients can learn Granger causality between distributed industrial processes by sharing only low-dimensional Kalman-filter states, and that the learned causal matrix is provably close to the…

desk verdict A promising federated Granger-causality framework with a solid empirical core, but the theoretical guarantees advertised in the title are not established because of invalid gradient-stationarity and time-index arguments. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13890 v4 pith:AED5FL2G submitted 2025-01-23 cs.LG stat.ML

Ayush Mohanty , Nazal Mohamed , Paritosh Ramanan , Nagi Gebraeel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords federatedlearningGrangercausalitystatespacemodelKalmanfilterdifferentialprivacycross-clientinterdependencyindustrialcontrolsystemstimeseries
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 tries to establish that Granger causality between geographically distributed industrial clients can be learned without pooling high-dimensional measurements. Clients run Kalman filters on their own data and send only low-dimensional state estimates to a server; the server estimates the off-diagonal blocks of a shared linear state-transition matrix, and each client's model is augmented with a linear ML term so that its local augmented state converges to what a centralized oracle would compute. The paper proves convergence of the coupled client-server updates, gives sublinear and linear convergence rates for the equivalent standalone algorithm, and bounds the error between estimated and true cross-client causality. If these results hold, decentralized monitoring systems can detect fault propagation and operational interdependencies while saving bandwidth and adding differential privacy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the block state-transition matrix $A$ of a linear time-invariant state-space model, whose off-diagonal blocks $A_{mn}$ with $m\neq n$ encode Granger causality from client $n$ to client $m$. The mechanism is an additive augmentation: the estimated augmented state is $(\hat{h}^{t}_{m})_{a} = (\hat{h}^{t}_{m})_{c} + \theta_{m} y^{t}_{m}$, where $\theta_{m}$ is learned by gradient descent using both the client's reconstruction loss and the server's loss. The server predicts $(h^{t}_{m})_{s} = A_{mm}(\hat{h}^{t-1}_{m})_{c} + \sum_{n\neq m} \hat{A}^{t}_{mn}(\hat{h}^{t-1}_{n})_{c}$, and the whole coupled update is recast as the linear recurrence $\Delta^{k+1} = H\Delta^{k} + J$, which converges if and only if the spectral radius $\rho(H) < 1$. Theorems 6.1 and 6.3 then argue that augmented client states converge in expectation to the centralized oracle and that the stationary estimate $\hat{A}^{*}_{mn}$ has bounded Frobenius distance to the true $A_{mn}$.

What would settle it

Run the framework on a two-client linear state-space system with known ground-truth $A$, but make client 2's influence on client 1 nonlinear (for example, the effective $A_{12}$ depends on $y_2^2$) while keeping the augmentation linear. If the estimated $\hat{A}_{12}$ fails to track the true causal effect, or if the Frobenius bound of Corollary 6.4 is violated, the central claim's load-bearing linearity assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that cross-client Granger causality can be learned from low-dimensional state estimates rather than from pooled high-dimensional measurements. Clients run Kalman filters with their own diagonal state blocks, and the server estimates the off-diagonal blocks of the shared state-transition matrix from the states the clients share. The client updates are augmented by a linear ML term, the server and client updates are shown to co-depend, and the whole loop is reduced to a linear recurrence. The paper proves that the augmented client states converge in expectation to a centralized oracle (Theorem 6.1), and that the stationary off-diagonal estimates satisfy the bounded-error inequality of Theorem 6.3, with a Frobenius-norm corollary under a collinearity and minimum-norm condition (Corollary 6.4). The experiments on synthetic and real industrial control system data illustrate communication savings and robustness to causal perturbations.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on Assumption 4.2 that each client's augmentation term is exactly linear in its own measurement $y^{t}_{m}$; if cross-client influence cannot be represented that way, the learned off-diagonal blocks need not equal the true Granger causality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Clients can learn cross-client causality without ever transmitting their high-dimensional measurements; only low-dimensional estimated states and gradient signals cross the network.
  • The augmented client state converges, in expectation, to the centralized oracle's state, so decentralized inference can match centralized monitoring once training converges.
  • The server's estimated off-diagonal blocks converge to the true causal structure up to a matrix bound that can be evaluated without knowing the ground-truth $A$.
  • Under convexity and smoothness conditions, the equivalent standalone ML algorithm converges at rate $O(1/k)$, and under strong convexity at a linear rate.
  • Both client-to-server and server-to-client communications can be made $(\varepsilon, \delta)$-differentially private with Gaussian noise calibrated to the sensitivities derived in Theorems 7.1 and 7.2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the estimated off-diagonal blocks could serve as a live fault-propagation diagnostic: a shift in $\hat{A}_{mn}$ would flag a new or altered dependency between clients $m$ and $n$. The paper reports training losses and estimation errors, not this diagnostic use.
  • Beyond the paper, replacing the linear augmentation with a polynomial or neural function of $y^{t}_{m}$ is a natural stress test; the closed-form recurrence and oracle-convergence proof would no longer apply, and the paper does not examine this regime.
  • Beyond the paper, the privacy analysis is stated for one communication round; composing Theorems 7.1 and 7.2 over $T$ time steps would yield an overall privacy budget that the paper does not compute.
  • Beyond the paper, the real-world experiments validate against a centralized estimate of $A$ rather than an independent causal ground truth, so a deployment test would need a separate benchmark to confirm the estimated causality on actual system faults.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a federated framework for learning Granger causality in multi-client linear time-invariant state-space systems. Each client runs a Kalman filter using only its own diagonal state-transition block, and augments its estimated state with a linear ML function of its own measurements. A central server estimates the off-diagonal blocks of the state matrix from the clients' states, and communicates gradients back to clients. The authors claim co-dependence of client and server updates, a unified recurrent linear form, sublinear and linear convergence rates, convergence of augmented client states to a centralized oracle, matrix bounds on the Granger-causality estimation error, and differential privacy guarantees for both communication directions. The empirical sections report synthetic and real-world industrial control system experiments, including robustness, scalability, and data-volume savings.

Significance. If the theoretical claims were valid, this would be a useful contribution to decentralized causality discovery: it addresses a realistic multi-client state-space setting, provides a communication-efficient protocol, includes a differential privacy analysis, and the authors ship code with their experiments. The empirical study is substantial and the privacy analysis is standard and plausible. However, the central theoretical contributions are not established. The proof of Proposition 5.3 replaces a valid orthogonality stationarity condition with the much stronger claim that the expected residual is zero, and Theorem 6.3's proof shifts time indices without justification. Since Theorem 6.1 and Corollary 6.4 depend on these steps, the advertised oracle-convergence and bounded-Granger-error guarantees are unsupported. The experiments may be sound, but they cannot compensate for the invalid derivations in the main theoretical claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Proposition 5.3 and Appendix A.4.3, Eqs. (21) and (25)] The derivation of condition (1) is invalid. Setting E[∇θ(Lm)a]=0 gives (CmmAmm)^T E[(r_t_m)_a (y_{t-1}^m)^T]=0, an orthogonality condition between the residual and the lagged regressor. Even when CmmAmm has full column rank and y_{t-1}^m is nonzero, this does not imply E[(r_t_m)_a]=0, because CmmAmm is tall and the regressor remains inside the expectation. The step labeled "simplifies to" in Eq. (26) therefore does not follow. This is load-bearing: Theorem 6.1 uses E[(r_t_m)_a]=0 to conclude convergence to the oracle, and Theorem 6.3 also relies on the same implication.
  2. [§6, Theorem 6.3 and Appendix A.4.10, Eqs. (47)–(48)] The proof of Theorem 6.3 changes the time index without justification. Eqs. (47) and (48) evaluate the residual and the stationarity condition at time t using y_t^m and (hhat^t_n)_c, whereas the actual server gradient in Eq. (16) and the augmentation identity in Eq. (18) involve y_{t-1}^m and (hhat^{t-1}_n)_c. Replacing t-1 by t alters the expectation and is not a notational variant. Consequently the intermediate expression in Eq. (49) and the final matrix bound in Corollary 6.4 are not derived from the stated framework.
  3. [§5, Theorem 5.4, Lemma 5.5, Theorems 5.6–5.7] The convergence analysis of the unified recurrence is not justified. The matrix H in Eq. (4) is built from random, time-varying quantities y_{t-1}^m and (hhat^{t-1}_n)_c, so Lemma 5.5's claim that convergence is equivalent to ρ(H)<1 is not a valid criterion for a random time-varying linear recurrence. In addition, Theorems 5.6 and 5.7 assume a joint loss L_f that is convex/smooth/strongly convex and claim Eq. (5) is its gradient descent, but no such L_f is ever constructed and the actual updates in Eqs. (21), (24), and (16) are least-squares updates with data-dependent regressors, not gradient descent on a single fixed loss. The sublinear and linear convergence-rate claims are therefore not supported.
  4. [§6, Corollary 6.4 and Appendix A.4.11, Eqs. (51)–(52)] The transition from Eq. (51) to Eq. (52) requires more than collinearity: it requires that the vectors [A*_mn - A_mn](hhat^{t-1}_n)_o all point in the same direction, and even then the lower bound using min_{n≠m} E[||(hhat^{t-1}_n)_o||] is not justified because the expectation of the norm of the sum is not generally bounded below by the norm of the sum of expectations times the minimum expected norm. Additionally, if any of the relevant oracle states can be zero with positive probability, σ^n_min may fail to be positive. The corollary's bound is thus not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (1)–(2)] The notation for the two learning rates η1 and η2 is introduced but the text does not specify how their magnitudes affect the convergence conditions in Theorem 5.4; the recurrence H depends on them, but the spectral-radius condition is stated without relating it to these rates.
  2. [§8, Table 4] The table shows very small server losses, but the baselines and the proposed method are compared without confidence intervals or repeated-seed variability; adding standard errors would make the empirical claims more robust.
  3. [§9, Table 7] The reported centralized ground-truth A for the real-world datasets is itself estimated from the same data; the paper should state this more prominently, since the comparison is then between two estimators rather than against a true ground truth.
  4. [Appendix A.9, Limitations] The limitations section does not mention that the main theoretical results require the linear-in-y augmentation of Assumption 4.2; given how much of the analysis depends on this assumption, it deserves explicit discussion as a limitation.
  5. [Throughout] Several equations contain inconsistent time superscripts (for example, Table 1 uses h_t but Section 4 uses h^t interchangeably, and Theorem 6.3 mixes t and t-1); a careful pass to standardize notation would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coupled client–server updates are derived from the model equations and evaluated against external ground truth.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The client loss and server loss are defined from the state-space equations in Table 1, and the coupled updates (Eqs. 1–3) are explicitly expanded into a joint linear recurrence (Theorem 5.4) rather than assumed. Claims 4.3 and 4.5 are design assertions about where cross-client information is encoded, not predictions derived from their own conclusions; they are validated against independently generated synthetic ground-truth A matrices (Table 3) and centralized estimates on real data. Theorem 6.1 and Propositions 6.2/6.3 are derived from stationarity conditions and residual definitions, not from the target conclusion; even though the proof steps contain questionable inference (e.g., the move from E[gradient]=0 to E[residual]=0 in Proposition 5.3, and time-index shifts in Theorem 6.3), those are mathematical correctness concerns, not circularity. The only self-citation (Bian & Gebraeel 2014) appears in the introduction as contextual motivation and is not load-bearing for any theorem. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no empirical benchmark is constructed from the paper's own fitted values. The co-dependence between theta_m and Ahat_mn is explicitly acknowledged and modeled as a fixed-point iteration, which is a feature of the algorithm rather than a hidden circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the LTI state-space assumption, the Kalman filter client model, and the linear augmentation theta_m y added to the client state. The strongest ad hoc assumptions are the linearity of the ML function and the undefined L_f used for the convergence-rate claims. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Learning rates eta1, eta2, gamma = Not reported; adjusted to ensure rho(H)<1 in experiments
    Gradient descent steps for client and server updates; in Section 8 the authors state they check convergence stability and adjust hyperparameters if needed, so these are hand-tuned.
  • State dimension P = P=2 for synthetic and real-world experiments
    Chosen per dataset and kept small; the low-dimensional state is the entire basis for the server's causality estimate.
  • Correlation threshold for real-world preprocessing = 0.3
    In Section 9, measurements with pairwise Pearson correlation below 0.3 are discarded, an ad hoc selection that affects which causal links can be found.
  • DP noise scales and clipping threshold = Not specified; sigma_c, sigma_a, sigma_g, C_g
    The privacy theorems only give lower bounds on noise scales; concrete values are not reported, yet the experiments do not appear to include privacy noise, so the utility results are for the non-private mechanism.
  • Regularization strength = Not specified
    Section 8 says all models are regularized to ensure feasible solutions, but no regularization coefficients are given.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption Linear time-invariant state-space model with i.i.d. Gaussian process and measurement noise (Eq. 6-7)
    Established in Appendix A.1; the whole analysis is restricted to LTI systems.
  • domain assumption Client model is a Kalman filter using only diagonal blocks A_mm and C_mm, which are known a priori or estimated locally (Assumption 4.1)
    Section 4; the client states are the only information shared.
  • ad hoc to paper ML augmentation function is linear in y_m (Assumption 4.2)
    Enables closed-form updates and Theorem 5.4; not derived from the system model.
  • domain assumption Diagonal blocks A_mm are known a priori at the server (Assumption 4.4)
    Section 4.2; server predicts (h^t_m)_s using A_mm of each client.
  • domain assumption Centralized oracle is convergent, i.e. E[r_o]=0 (Definition A.3)
    Used in Theorem 6.1 to equate augmented residual with oracle residual.
  • domain assumption Bounded measurement, Kalman gain, and theta (Assumptions A.9-A.11)
    Needed for DP sensitivity analysis; justified by stability and regularization.
  • ad hoc to paper C_mm A_mm full rank and y_t^m != 0 for Proposition 5.3
    Used to simplify the gradient stationarity condition; the simplification itself is shown to be invalid because C_mm A_mm is not square.
  • domain assumption Spectral radius condition rho(A_mm - A_mm(K_m)_c C_mm) < 1 (Proposition 6.2)
    Stability of the client Kalman filter, standard in Kalman filtering.
  • ad hoc to paper Collinearity of error vectors and existence of sigma_n_min (Corollary 6.4)
    Imposed to turn a vector norm bound into a Frobenius norm bound on the A-error matrix.
  • ad hoc to paper L_f is convex/smooth/strongly convex in the joint space (Theorems 5.6/5.7)
    L_f is not defined in the paper, so these conditions are assumed rather than verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Federated Granger Causality Learning for Interdependent Clients with State Space Representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AED5FL2G

@misc{pith2026250113890,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Federated Granger Causality Learning for Interdependent Clients with State Space Representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AED5FL2G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13890}
}
read the original abstract

Advanced sensors and IoT devices have improved the monitoring and control of complex industrial enterprises. They have also created an interdependent fabric of geographically distributed process operations (clients) across these enterprises. Granger causality is an effective approach to detect and quantify interdependencies by examining how one client's state affects others over time. Understanding these interdependencies captures how localized events, such as faults and disruptions, can propagate throughout the system, possibly causing widespread operational impacts. However, the large volume and complexity of industrial data pose challenges in modeling these interdependencies. This paper develops a federated approach to learning Granger causality. We utilize a linear state space system framework that leverages low-dimensional state estimates to analyze interdependencies. This addresses bandwidth limitations and the computational burden commonly associated with centralized data processing. We propose augmenting the client models with the Granger causality information learned by the server through a Machine Learning (ML) function. We examine the co-dependence between the augmented client and server models and reformulate the framework as a standalone ML algorithm providing conditions for its sublinear and linear convergence rates. We also study the convergence of the framework to a centralized oracle model. Moreover, we include a differential privacy analysis to ensure data security while preserving causal insights. Using synthetic data, we conduct comprehensive experiments to demonstrate the robustness of our approach to perturbations in causality, the scalability to the size of communication, number of clients, and the dimensions of raw data. We also evaluate the performance on two real-world industrial control system datasets by reporting the volume of data saved by decentralization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13890 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Federated cross-client Granger causality learning framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Loss functions at (a) client 1, (b) client 2, and (c) server during the first mean-shift. (e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Server loss and (b) Client 4’s loss for HAI dataset, and (c) Sever loss and (d) Client 4’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang

    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, CCS '16, pp.\ 308–318, New York, NY, USA, 2016. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450341394

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Learning conditional granger causal temporal networks

    Ananth Balashankar, Srikanth Jagabathula, and Lakshmi Subramanian. Learning conditional granger causal temporal networks. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, pp.\ 692–706. PMLR, August 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Decentralized supply chains with competing retailers under demand uncertainty

    Fernando Bernstein and Awi Federgruen. Decentralized supply chains with competing retailers under demand uncertainty. Management Science, 51 0 (1): 0 18--29, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Stochastic modeling and real-time prognostics for multi-component systems with degradation rate interactions

    Linkan Bian and Nagi Gebraeel. Stochastic modeling and real-time prognostics for multi-component systems with degradation rate interactions. IIE Transactions, 46 0 (5): 0 470–482, May 2014. ISSN 0740-817X

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Uncertainty assessment and false discovery rate control in high-dimensional granger causal inference

    Aditya Chaudhry, Pan Xu, and Quanquan Gu. Uncertainty assessment and false discovery rate control in high-dimensional granger causal inference. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 684–693. PMLR, July 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Fedmsplit: Correlation-adaptive federated multi-task learning across multimodal split networks

    Jiayi Chen and Aidong Zhang. Fedmsplit: Correlation-adaptive federated multi-task learning across multimodal split networks. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’22, pp.\ 87–96, New York, NY, USA, August 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 978-1-4503-9385-0

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Vafl: a method of vertical asynchronous federated learning

    Tianyi Chen, Xiao Jin, Yuejiao Sun, and Wotao Yin. Vafl: a method of vertical asynchronous federated learning. 0 (arXiv:2007.06081), Jul 2020. number: arXiv:2007.06081 arXiv:2007.06081 [cs, math, stat]

    arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    Distributed kalman filter for large-scale power systems with state inequality constraints

    Zhijian Cheng, Hongru Ren, Bin Zhang, and Renquan Lu. Distributed kalman filter for large-scale power systems with state inequality constraints. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 68 0 (7): 0 6238--6247, 2021. doi:10.1109/TIE.2020.2994874

    arXiv 2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy

    Cynthia Dwork and Aaron Roth. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science, 9 0 (3–4): 0 211--407, 2014. ISSN 1551-305X

    2014

  2. [10]

    Graphical inference in linear-gaussian state-space models

    Víctor Elvira and Émilie Chouzenoux. Graphical inference in linear-gaussian state-space models. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 70: 0 4757–4771, 2022. ISSN 1941-0476. doi:10.1109/TSP.2022.3209016

    2022

  3. [11]

    Large-scale secure xgb for vertical federated learning

    Wenjing Fang, Derun Zhao, Jin Tan, Chaochao Chen, Chaofan Yu, Li Wang, Lei Wang, Jun Zhou, and Benyu Zhang. Large-scale secure xgb for vertical federated learning. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, CIKM ’21, pp.\ 443...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Partition-based distributed kalman filter with plug and play features

    Marcello Farina and Ruggero Carli. Partition-based distributed kalman filter with plug and play features. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 5 0 (1): 0 560--570, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Tolerance analysis of cyber-manufacturing systems to cascading failures

    Xiuwen Fu, Pasquale Pace, Gianluca Aloi, Antonio Guerrieri, Wenfeng Li, and Giancarlo Fortino. Tolerance analysis of cyber-manufacturing systems to cascading failures. ACM Trans. Internet Technol., 23 0 (4), November 2023. ISSN 1533-5399

    2023

  6. [14]

    Causal inference by identification of vector autoregressive processes with hidden components

    Philipp Geiger, Kun Zhang, Bernhard Schoelkopf, Mingming Gong, and Dominik Janzing. Causal inference by identification of vector autoregressive processes with hidden components. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 1917–1925. PMLR, June 2015

    1917

  7. [15]

    Robust maximum-likelihood estimation of multivariable dynamic systems

    Stuart Gibson and Brett Ninness. Robust maximum-likelihood estimation of multivariable dynamic systems. Automatica, 41 0 (10): 0 1667–1682, October 2005. ISSN 0005-1098

    2005

  8. [16]

    Discovering temporal causal relations from subsampled data

    Mingming Gong, Kun Zhang, Bernhard Schoelkopf, Dacheng Tao, and Philipp Geiger. Discovering temporal causal relations from subsampled data. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 1898–1906. PMLR, June 2015

    1906

  9. [17]

    C. W. J. Granger. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37 0 (3): 0 424--438, 1969. ISSN 00129682, 14680262. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1912791

    1969

  10. [18]

    Privacy-preserving asynchronous vertical federated learning algorithms for multiparty collaborative learning

    Bin Gu, An Xu, Zhouyuan Huo, Cheng Deng, and Heng Huang. Privacy-preserving asynchronous vertical federated learning algorithms for multiparty collaborative learning. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, pp.\ 1–13, 2021. ISSN 2162-2388

    2021

  11. [19]

    Subspace identification of large-scale interconnected systems

    Aleksandar Haber and Michel Verhaegen. Subspace identification of large-scale interconnected systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 59 0 (10): 0 2754--2759, 2014. doi:10.1109/TAC.2014.2310375

    2014

  12. [20]

    Private federated learning on vertically partitioned data via entity resolution and additively homomorphic encryption, November 2017

    Stephen Hardy, Wilko Henecka, Hamish Ivey-Law, Richard Nock, Giorgio Patrini, Guillaume Smith, and Brian Thorne. Private federated learning on vertically partitioned data via entity resolution and additively homomorphic encryption, November 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Fdml: A collaborative machine learning framework for distributed features

    Yaochen Hu, Di Niu, Jianming Yang, and Shengping Zhou. Fdml: A collaborative machine learning framework for distributed features. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD ’19, pp.\ 2232–2240, New York, NY, USA, Ju...

    2019

  14. [22]

    Causal discovery and forecasting in nonstationary environments with state-space models

    Biwei Huang, Kun Zhang, Mingming Gong, and Clark Glymour. Causal discovery and forecasting in nonstationary environments with state-space models. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 2901–2910. PMLR, May 2019

  15. [23]

    Aapo Hyvärinen, Kun Zhang, Shohei Shimizu, and Patrik O. Hoyer. Estimation of a structural vector autoregression model using non-gaussianity. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11 0 (56): 0 1709–1731, 2010. ISSN 1533-7928

    2010

  16. [24]

    Kanat Camlibel

    Mónika Józsa, Mihály Petreczky, and M. Kanat Camlibel. Relationship between granger noncausality and network graph of state-space representations. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 64 0 (3): 0 912–927, March 2019. ISSN 1558-2523

    2019

  17. [25]

    K.J. Keesman. System Identification: An Introduction. Advanced Textbooks in Control and Signal Processing. Springer London, 2011. ISBN 978-0-85729-522-4

    2011

  18. [26]

    Giannakis

    Vassilis Kekatos and Georgios B. Giannakis. Distributed robust power system state estimation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 28 0 (2): 0 1617–1626, May 2013. ISSN 1558-0679

    2013

  19. [27]

    Splitnet: Learning to semantically split deep networks for parameter reduction and model parallelization

    Juyong Kim, Yookoon Park, Gunhee Kim, and Sung Ju Hwang. Splitnet: Learning to semantically split deep networks for parameter reduction and model parallelization. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 1866–1874. PMLR, July 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Lee and Corey Billington

    Hau L. Lee and Corey Billington. Material management in decentralized supply chains. Operations Research, 41 0 (5): 0 835–847, October 1993. ISSN 0030-364X

    1993

  21. [29]

    Federated learning of models pre-trained on different features with consensus graphs

    Tengfei Ma, Trong Nghia Hoang, and Jie Chen. Federated learning of models pre-trained on different features with consensus graphs. pp.\ 1336–1346. PMLR, July 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Decentralized system identification method for large-scale networks

    Xiangyu Mao and Jianping He. Decentralized system identification method for large-scale networks. In 2022 American Control Conference (ACC), pp.\ 5173--5178, 2022. doi:10.23919/ACC53348.2022.9867516

    2022

  23. [31]

    Federated multi-task learning under a mixture of distributions

    Othmane Marfoq, Giovanni Neglia, Aurélien Bellet, Laetitia Kameni, and Richard Vidal. Federated multi-task learning under a mixture of distributions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pp.\ 15434–15447. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Mathur and Nils Ole Tippenhauer

    Aditya P. Mathur and Nils Ole Tippenhauer. Swat: a water treatment testbed for research and training on ics security. In 2016 International Workshop on Cyber-physical Systems for Smart Water Networks (CySWater), pp.\ 31--36, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 1273–1282. PMLR,...

    2017

  26. [34]

    Okwudire and Harsha V

    Chinedum E. Okwudire and Harsha V. Madhyastha. Distributed manufacturing for and by the masses. Science, 372 0 (6540): 0 341--342, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Olfati-Saber

    R. Olfati-Saber. Distributed kalman filtering for sensor networks. In 2007 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp.\ 5492–5498, December 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    Olfati-Saber and J.S

    R. Olfati-Saber and J.S. Shamma. Consensus filters for sensor networks and distributed sensor fusion. In Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp.\ 6698–6703, December 2005

    2005

  29. [37]

    Poirot, Praneeth Vepakomma, Ken Chang, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer, Rajiv Gupta, and Ramesh Raskar

    Maarten G. Poirot, Praneeth Vepakomma, Ken Chang, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer, Rajiv Gupta, and Ramesh Raskar. Split learning for collaborative deep learning in healthcare, December 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Hai security datasets, 2023

    Hyeok-Ki Shin, Woomyo Lee, Seungoh Choi, Jeong-Han Yun, and Byung-Gi Min. Hai security datasets, 2023. URL https://github.com/icsdataset/hai

    2023

  31. [39]

    System identification: Theory for the user, 2nd edition (ljung, l.; 1999) [on the shelf]

    Alex Simpkins. System identification: Theory for the user, 2nd edition (ljung, l.; 1999) [on the shelf]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19 0 (2): 0 95–96, June 2012. ISSN 1070-9932. doi:10.1109/MRA.2012.2192817

    1999

  32. [40]

    Rahul Singh, P. R. Kumar, and Le Xie. Decentralized control via dynamic stochastic prices: The independent system operator problem. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 63 0 (10): 0 3206–3220, October 2018. ISSN 1558-2523

    2018

  33. [41]

    Federated multi-task learning

    Virginia Smith, Chao-Kai Chiang, Maziar Sanjabi, and Ameet S Talwalkar. Federated multi-task learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Distributed manufacturing: a new form of localised production? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40 0 (6): 0 697–727, January 2020

    Jagjit Singh Srai, Gary Graham, Patrick Hennelly, Wendy Phillips, Dharm Kapletia, and Harri Lorentz. Distributed manufacturing: a new form of localised production? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40 0 (6): 0 697–727, January 2020. ISSN 0144-3577

    2020

  35. [43]

    Stanković, Srdjan S

    Miloš S. Stanković, Srdjan S. Stanković, and Dušan M. Stipanović. Consensus-based decentralized real-time identification of large-scale systems. Automatica, 60: 0 219--226, 2015. ISSN 0005-1098

    2015

  36. [44]

    Splitfed: When federated learning meets split learning

    Chandra Thapa, Pathum Chamikara Mahawaga Arachchige, Seyit Camtepe, and Lichao Sun. Splitfed: When federated learning meets split learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36 0 (88): 0 8485–8493, June 2022. ISSN 2374-3468

    2022

  37. [45]

    Split learning for health: Distributed deep learning without sharing raw patient data, December 2018

    Praneeth Vepakomma, Otkrist Gupta, Tristan Swedish, and Ramesh Raskar. Split learning for health: Distributed deep learning without sharing raw patient data, December 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Privacy preserving vertical federated learning for tree-based models

    Yuncheng Wu, Shaofeng Cai, Xiaokui Xiao, Gang Chen, and Beng Chin Ooi. Privacy preserving vertical federated learning for tree-based models. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 13 0 (12): 0 2090–2103, August 2020. ISSN 2150-8097. arXiv:2008.06170 [cs]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Distributed kalman filter with faulty/reliable sensors based on wasserstein average consensus

    Dong-Jin Xin, Ling-Feng Shi, and Xingkai Yu. Distributed kalman filter with faulty/reliable sensors based on wasserstein average consensus. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, 69 0 (4): 0 2371--2375, 2022. doi:10.1109/TCSII.2022.3146418

    2022

  40. [48]

    A quasi-newton method based vertical federated learning framework for logistic regression

    Kai Yang, Tao Fan, Tianjian Chen, Yuanming Shi, and Qiang Yang. A quasi-newton method based vertical federated learning framework for logistic regression. arXiv:1912.00513 [cs, stat], 0 (arXiv:1912.00513), December 2019 a

    1912 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Federated machine learning: Concept and applications

    Qiang Yang, Yang Liu, Tianjian Chen, and Yongxin Tong. Federated machine learning: Concept and applications. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 10 0 (2): 0 12:1--12:19, Jan 2019 b . ISSN 2157-6904

    2019

  42. [50]

    Bayesian nonparametric federated learning of neural networks

    Mikhail Yurochkin, Mayank Agarwal, Soumya Ghosh, Kristjan Greenewald, Nghia Hoang, and Yasaman Khazaeni. Bayesian nonparametric federated learning of neural networks. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 7252–7261. PMLR, May 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Yuchen Zhang, Bo Chen, Li Yu, and Daniel W. C. Ho. Distributed kalman filtering for interconnected dynamic systems. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 52 0 (11): 0 11571--11580, 2022. doi:10.1109/TCYB.2021.3072198

    2022

  44. [52]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  45. [53]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  46. [54]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  47. [55]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

Pith tools

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