Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multi-Task Over-the-Air Federated Learning in Cell-Free Massive MIMO Systems

T0 review · 2 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, with optimized transmit coefficients and receive combining, cell-free Massive MIMO using Level 2 or Level 3 access-point cooperation supports multiple simultaneous over-the-air federated learning tasks with much…

desk verdict Solid multi-task OtA FL extension with a fair cell-free vs cellular comparison; the 'optimal' wording and error-free side-information assumption are the things to push on in review. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.17874 v1 pith:OH6IDQYP submitted 2025-01-17 eess.SP

Chen Chen , Emil Björnson , Carlo Fischione This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords over-the-aircomputationfederatedlearningcell-freemassiveMIMOmulti-taskmodelaggregationerrortransmitcoefficientoptimizationreceivecombining6Gnetworks
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 asks whether cell-free Massive MIMO can make over-the-air federated learning work when several groups of devices train different models at once. It argues that the answer is yes, provided the access points cooperate centrally or semi-centrally: the proposed transmit-coefficient and receive-combining designs minimize the weighted sum of model-aggregation mean-squared errors across all groups, and in simulation the resulting Level 2 and Level 3 schemes clearly outperform a cellular Massive MIMO baseline with the same antenna count. The paper also shows that the lowest-cooperation scheme, Level 1, cannot beat that baseline, so the benefit comes specifically from coordinated combining. A convergence bound connects the aggregation error to the gap between training loss and optimal loss, which is why a reader should care: aggregation error, not channel noise per se, is the quantity a system designer can attack.

What carries the argument

The central object is the over-the-air model aggregation error, measured by the mean squared error between the desired weighted sum of local model vectors and the recovered global model vector. Each device first normalizes its local model vector to zero mean and unit variance per entry, so that transmit coefficients can be designed under a power constraint, and the local mean and standard deviation are assumed to be sent to the CPU over error-free channels. The argument is carried by an alternating optimization: the receive combining vectors are updated in closed form as regularized MMSE combiners built from the channel estimates and their error covariances, and the transmit coefficients are updated from first-order KKT conditions, repeated until the weighted sum-MSE stops decreasing. A convergence bound shows that the gap between the federated training loss and the optimal loss is controlled by the accumulated aggregation error, which justifies minimizing that error rather than treating communication and learning separately.

What would settle it

In the same $500\times500$ m simulation setup, replace the assumed perfect control channel with a finite-rate link carrying quantized values of $\bar{\theta}_k^t$, $\nu_k^t$, and $b_{k,d}^t$, and rerun the Level 2 and Level 3 experiments. If the resulting test accuracy no longer exceeds the cellular baseline, the central claim collapses; otherwise the design is robust to the control-channel idealization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' own terms, the paper establishes that multi-task over-the-air federated learning is practically feasible in cell-free Massive MIMO when access points cooperate: at Level 3 the CPU centrally estimates all channels and computes global combining vectors; at Level 2 each access point applies a slice of the same centrally designed vector locally; at Level 1 each access point estimates channels itself, devices transmit at full power, and the CPU only averages local estimates. Given MMSE channel estimates, spatially correlated fading, and inter-group interference, the closed-form combining rule and transmit-coefficient rule minimize the weighted sum of $\mathrm{MSE}_{g,d,(3)}$ terms, and the Level 2 replica reaches the same global estimate as Level 3. Numerically, Level 2 and Level 3 achieve much lower weighted sum-MSE and markedly higher federated learning test accuracy than a cellular Massive MIMO baseline with the same total antenna count, for both device distribution modes and for all three learning tasks; Level 1 does not. The conclusion is that appropriate cooperation levels make cell-free Massive MIMO the architecture that can support multi-task over-the-air federated learning, whereas cellular Massive MIMO fails when devices are spread across cells or inter-group interference is strong.

Load-bearing premise

Everything depends on the CPU and devices exchanging the local statistics ($\bar{\theta}_k^t$, $\nu_k^t$) and the optimized transmit coefficients over error-free channels; if that control information is delayed, quantized, or lost, the aggregation-error expressions and the claimed superiority of Levels 2 and 3 over the cellular baseline no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, an operator can run multiple simultaneous federated learning tasks over one cell-free Massive MIMO network without devoting separate time-frequency resources to each group, because the transmit-coefficient design handles inter-group interference on the same slots.
  • Level 1 should be avoided: with no transmit-coefficient optimization and no centralized combining, it yields higher aggregation MSE than the cellular baseline in the paper's comparisons, regardless of device distribution.
  • Level 2 and Level 3 produce the same global estimate, so the choice between them is a fronthaul tradeoff: Level 2 is more fronthaul-friendly when $N>G$ and a coherence block contains few training rounds, namely $C < \tau_u(N-G)/(NG)$.
  • The nonzero MSE floor at high transmit power, caused by channel estimation error, sets a ceiling on convergence: increasing device transmit power alone cannot make over-the-air aggregation arbitrarily accurate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the error-free side-information assumption is the most likely place the comparison could reverse; an end-to-end test with finite-rate, quantized, or delayed control channels would show whether Level 2 and Level 3 retain their margin over the cellular baseline.
  • Editorial inference: the same weighted sum-MSE formulation could be used as a dynamic scheduler, letting the network shift accuracy among tasks by adjusting the group weights $\omega_g$, a degree of freedom the paper does not explore.
  • Editorial inference: the convergence theorem assumes convex loss functions while the experiments use feedforward networks, so the practical claim depends on the error-to-accuracy link persisting for non-convex training; repeating the comparison with convolutional or transformer models would test that extension.
  • Editorial inference: replacing the analog over-the-air transmission with a digital or quantized aggregation scheme, which the paper names as future work, would change the side-information burden and could make Level 2 or Level 3 attractive even in settings where the error-free control channel is not realistic.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper considers over-the-air federated learning (OtA FL) with multiple FL groups/tasks in a cell-free massive MIMO network. Devices normalize their local model updates and transmit them over shared time-frequency resources; APs and the CPU use linear receive combining to recover each group's weighted model average. Three levels of AP cooperation are studied: fully centralized processing (Level 3), local processing with centrally designed combiners (Level 2), and fully local processing with simple averaging (Level 1). The paper derives closed-form MSE expressions under channel estimation error, spatial correlation, and inter-group interference; formulates a weighted sum-MSE minimization over transmit coefficients and receive combining solved by alternating optimization; and proves a standard FL convergence bound (Theorem 1) that justifies minimizing the aggregation error. A cellular mMIMO baseline is optimized under the same framework. Numerical results show that Level 2 and Level 3 outperform the cellular baseline in MSE and test accuracy, especially for multiple FL groups and distributed device placement, while Level 1 does not.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper is a useful extension of OtA FL to multi-task scenarios and provides a systematic comparison of AP cooperation levels that includes fronthaul signaling. The analytical work is a clear strength: the MSE expressions in (22), (28), (35), and (40) are derived under standard massive MIMO assumptions, and Theorem 1 is a clean smooth-and-strongly-convex convergence bound. The fair total-antenna comparison between cell-free and cellular systems and the fronthaul accounting in Table II and Section V-C are also valuable. No fitted constants or circular reasoning are apparent; the convergence analysis supports the MSE-minimization objective rather than assuming it. The main limitation is that the claimed gains are conditional on perfect side information about per-device statistics and transmit coefficients; no robustness analysis is provided for that assumption.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, after (13) and (35); MSE expressions (22), (28), (35)] The central performance comparison assumes that the per-device statistics theta-bar and nu are conveyed to the CPU over error-free channels and that the optimized transmit coefficients b_{k,d} are broadcast to the devices error-free. These quantities are inputs to the optimization: nu_j is the target in (22), and the closed-form solutions (28) and (35) use it as an input. If nu_j is estimated with error, the target gamma_{jg} nu_j in (22) is biased and the alternating algorithm minimizes an incorrect objective; if the b-coefficient broadcast is corrupted or delayed, the signal model in (14) no longer matches the assumed transmit coefficients. Since Fig. 4 shows that transmit-coefficient optimization is important for the Level 2/3 advantage over the cellular baseline in the multi-group case, the headline claim that cell-free 'significantly outperforms' cellular is conditional on this idealization. The paper should add a robustness study (e.g., perturbed nu and b, or a limited/delayed feedback link) or explicitly qualify the conclusions, and it should account for the control overhead needed to deliver D coefficients per device per training round when discussing communication-resource scalability.
  2. [Section III-A, problem (24); contribution list in Section I] The manuscript repeatedly describes the proposed solutions as 'optimal' (Abstract, Section I contributions, Section III-A). However, problem (24) is non-convex because of the coupling between transmit coefficients and receive combining, and the proposed alternating optimization only yields a stationary point; its convergence is demonstrated numerically in Fig. 2 but not proved, and no global optimality certificate is given. The wording should be changed to 'optimized' or the local-stationarity nature of the solution should be stated explicitly wherever 'optimal' appears, so that the claims match the mathematics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (43)] In the second sum of (43), the transmitted signal is written as s_{i,d} but should be s_{j,d} to match the device index in that term.
  2. [Section I, paragraph 2] The text 'only AL model parameters are exchanged' appears to contain a typo; this should read 'ML model parameters' or 'AI model parameters'.
  3. [Table II] In the Level 3 row, the expression '(tau_p + tau_u) N L - K L N^2 / 2' uses a dash that could be misread as a minus sign; using a separator or parentheses would improve clarity.
  4. [Section V-A] The simulations do not specify the values of the group-priority weights omega_g used in the weighted sum-MSE; the authors should state whether equal weights are assumed and whether the conclusions are sensitive to this choice.
  5. [Section V-A, Fig. 2] The convergence of the alternating optimization is shown for one random channel realization; reporting the average over several realizations would make the claim that the algorithm converges 'after a few iterations' more robust.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MSE-minimizing designs follow from the convergence bound and are evaluated against a matched Cellular mMIMO baseline; the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 1 (Eq. 18) is a standard smooth-and-strongly-convex convergence bound, and the paper then designs transmit coefficients and receive combining to minimize the per-slot weighted sum-MSE (Eqs. 22, 28, 35), which is exactly the aggregation-error term that the bound identifies. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the Cell-free-versus-Cellular comparison is obtained by simulating the same MMSE-based design formulas under equal total antenna counts and identical propagation models. The statement that Level 2 recovers the same global model as Level 3 (Eq. 37) is an algebraic identity, not a prediction. The only self-citation is reference [1], used to explain the nonzero MSE floor caused by channel estimation errors (Section V-A, Fig. 3); this floor is already visible in the C_k terms of the paper's own MSE expression (22), so the citation is not load-bearing for the central claim. The idealization that theta-bar and nu are transmitted over error-free channels and that optimized transmit coefficients are broadcast error-free (Section III) is a robustness limitation that conditions the claimed gains on perfect side information, but it does not make the cell-free advantage an input to the derivation. No enumerated circularity pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard convex optimization assumptions, error-free control channel assumptions, and specific channel estimation models, but not on any fitted constants or invented physical entities. The only unspecified design input is the group weighting vector omega_g.

free parameters (1)
  • Group-priority weights omega_g = not stated in simulations (presumably 1)
    Used in the weighted sum-MSE objective (24); the paper never assigns them in the numerical section, so the exact simulated objective is under-specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The global loss functions are continuously differentiable, Lipschitz smooth, and strongly convex (Assumptions 1 and 2).
    Used to prove Theorem 1; the numerical FNN experiments do not satisfy strong convexity, so the theorem is only a heuristic justification for those results.
  • domain assumption Model broadcast, fronthaul links, and transmission of local mean/variance statistics and optimized coefficients are error-free.
    The system model assumes these control channels are ideal; the MSE expressions and convergence gains depend on this premise.
  • domain assumption Rayleigh fading with known spatial correlation matrices and MMSE channel estimation.
    Section II-B/C; the combining designs require known Rkl and MMSE estimates with Gaussian estimation error.
  • domain assumption Block fading with channels static within a coherence block and varying across training rounds.
    Section II-C; the per-round optimization and the fronthaul signaling analysis rely on this update structure.
  • domain assumption TDD protocol with orthogonal pilot assignment and no intra-group pilot contamination.
    Section II-C; the numerical setup sets tau_p = K/G so pilots are orthogonal within each group, which is a favorable assumption for the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Task Over-the-Air Federated Learning in Cell-Free Massive MIMO Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OH6IDQYP

@misc{pith2026250117874,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Task Over-the-Air Federated Learning in Cell-Free Massive MIMO Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OH6IDQYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.17874}
}
read the original abstract

Wireless devices are expected to provide a wide range of AI services in 6G networks. The increasing computing capabilities of wireless devices and the surge of wireless data motivate the use of privacy-preserving federated learning (FL). In contrast to centralized learning that requires sending large amounts of raw data during uplink transmission, only local model parameters are uploaded in FL. Meanwhile, over-the-air (OtA) computation is considered as a communication-efficient solution for fast FL model aggregation by exploiting the superposition properties of wireless multi-access channels. The required communication resources in OtA FL do not scale with the number of FL devices. However, OtA FL is significantly affected by the uneven signal attenuation experienced by different FL devices. Moreover, the coexistence of multiple FL groups with different FL tasks brings about inter-group interference. These challenges cannot be well addressed by conventional cellular network architectures. Recently, Cell-free Massive MIMO (mMIMO) has emerged as a promising technology to provide uniform coverage and high rates via joint coherent transmission. In this paper, we investigate multi-task OtA FL in Cell-free mMIMO systems. We propose optimal designs of transmit coefficients and receive combining at different levels of cooperation among the access points, aiming to minimize the sum of OtA model aggregation errors across all FL groups. Numerical results demonstrate that Cell-free mMIMO significantly outperforms conventional Cellular mMIMO in term of the FL convergence performance by operating at appropriate cooperation levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17874 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of different device distribution modes with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convergence performance of the proposed alternating optimization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MSE versus the maximum transmit power per device with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FL test accuracy with M = 64, L = 64, N = 4, K = 10, G = 1 and Pmax = 20 dBm. number of model parameters. In summary, Level 2 is more fronthaul friendly than Level 3 if N > G and C < τu(N−G) NG ; otherwise, Level 3 is more fronthaul friendly. Level 1 always requires le…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FL test accuracy under Device Distribution Mode 1 with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FL test accuracy under Device Distribution Mode 2 with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On Designing Modulation for Over-the-Air Computation -- Part II: Pyramid Sampling

    eess.SP 2025-06 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pyramid sampling selects a subset of symmetric-function histogram cells to reduce over-the-air computation constellation design complexity from exponential to a tunable lower order, trading accuracy for tractability.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Over-the-air computation in cell-free massive MIMO systems,

    C. Chen, E. Bj ¨ornson, and C. Fischione, “Over-the-air computation in cell-free massive MIMO systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00517 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Thirty years of machine learning: The road to pareto-optimal wireless networks,

    J. Wang, C. Jiang, H. Zhang, Y . Ren, K.-C. Chen, and L. Hanzo, “Thirty years of machine learning: The road to pareto-optimal wireless networks,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1472–1514, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Wireless for machine learning: A survey,

    H. Hellstr ¨om, J. M. B. da Silva Jr, M. M. Amiri, M. Chen, V . Fodor, H. V . Poor, and C. Fischione, “Wireless for machine learning: A survey,” Foundations and Trends® in Signal Processing, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 290– 399, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Internet of things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications,

    A. Al-Fuqaha, M. Guizani, M. Mohammadi, M. Aledhari, and M. Ayyash, “Internet of things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2347–2376, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Secret key generation for IRS-assisted multi-antenna systems: A machine learning- based approach,

    C. Chen, J. Zhang, T. Lu, M. Sandell, and L. Chen, “Secret key generation for IRS-assisted multi-antenna systems: A machine learning- based approach,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., vol. 19, pp. 1086– 1098, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Advances and open problems in federated learning,

    P. Kairouz, H. B. McMahan, B. Avent, A. Bellet, M. Bennis, A. N. Bhagoji, K. Bonawitz, Z. Charles, G. Cormode, R. Cummings et al. , “Advances and open problems in federated learning,” Foundations and trends® in machine learning , vol. 14, no. 1–2, pp. 1–210, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Scheduling policies for federated learning in wireless networks,

    H. H. Yang, Z. Liu, T. Q. Quek, and H. V . Poor, “Scheduling policies for federated learning in wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 317–333, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    A joint learning and communications framework for federated learning over wireless networks,

    M. Chen, Z. Yang, W. Saad, C. Yin, H. V . Poor, and S. Cui, “A joint learning and communications framework for federated learning over wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 269–283, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Convergence time optimiza- tion for federated learning over wireless networks,

    M. Chen, H. V . Poor, W. Saad, and S. Cui, “Convergence time optimiza- tion for federated learning over wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 2457–2471, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Cell-free massive MIMO for wireless federated learning,

    T. T. Vu, D. T. Ngo, N. H. Tran, H. Q. Ngo, M. N. Dao, and R. H. Middleton, “Cell-free massive MIMO for wireless federated learning,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 6377–6392, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    A compressive sensing approach for federated learning over massive MIMO communication systems,

    Y .-S. Jeon, M. M. Amiri, J. Li, and H. V . Poor, “A compressive sensing approach for federated learning over massive MIMO communication systems,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1990–2004, 2020

    1990

  4. [12]

    Towards 6G MIMO: Massive spatial multiplexing, dense arrays, and interplay between electromagnetics and processing,

    E. Bj ¨ornson, C.-B. Chae, R. W. Heath Jr, T. L. Marzetta, A. Mezghani, L. Sanguinetti, F. Rusek, M. R. Castellanos, D. Jun, and ¨O. T. Demir, “Towards 6G MIMO: Massive spatial multiplexing, dense arrays, and interplay between electromagnetics and processing,” arXiv preprint a...

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Adaptive quantization resolution and power control for federated learning over cell-free networks,

    A. Mahmoudi and E. Bj ¨ornson, “Adaptive quantization resolution and power control for federated learning over cell-free networks,” in Work- shop on Ubiquitous Network Intelligence for Next Generation Wireless Networks, IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Cape To...

    2024

  6. [14]

    A survey on over-the-air computation,

    A. S ¸ahin and R. Yang, “A survey on over-the-air computation,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Over-the-air computation for distributed systems: Something old and something new,

    Z. Chen, E. G. Larsson, C. Fischione, M. Johansson, and Y . Malitsky, “Over-the-air computation for distributed systems: Something old and something new,” IEEE Netw., 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Analyzing the space of functions analog-computable via wireless multiple-access channels,

    M. Goldenbaum, H. Boche, and S. Sta ´nczak, “Analyzing the space of functions analog-computable via wireless multiple-access channels,” in 2011 8th International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems. IEEE, 2011, pp. 779–783

    2011

  9. [17]

    Optimized power control for over-the-air computation in fading channels,

    X. Cao, G. Zhu, J. Xu, and K. Huang, “Optimized power control for over-the-air computation in fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 7498–7513, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Federated learning over-the- air by retransmissions,

    H. Hellstr ¨om, V . Fodor, and C. Fischione, “Federated learning over-the- air by retransmissions,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Reduced-dimension design of MIMO AirComp for data aggregation in clustered IoT networks,

    D. Wen, G. Zhu, and K. Huang, “Reduced-dimension design of MIMO AirComp for data aggregation in clustered IoT networks,” in 2019 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  12. [20]

    Transceiver beamforming for over-the-air compu- tation in massive MIMO systems,

    S. Jing and C. Xiao, “Transceiver beamforming for over-the-air compu- tation in massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Joint antenna selection and beamforming for massive MIMO-enabled over-the-air federated learning,

    S. Asaad, H. Tabassum, C. Ouyang, and P. Wang, “Joint antenna selection and beamforming for massive MIMO-enabled over-the-air federated learning,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surface enabled federated learning: A unified communication-learning design approach,

    H. Liu, X. Yuan, and Y .-J. A. Zhang, “Reconfigurable intelligent surface enabled federated learning: A unified communication-learning design approach,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 7595– 7609, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Over-the-air federated learning and non-orthogonal multiple access unified by reconfigurable intelligent surface,

    W. Ni, Y . Liu, Z. Yang, and H. Tian, “Over-the-air federated learning and non-orthogonal multiple access unified by reconfigurable intelligent surface,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2021-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  16. [24]

    Federated learn- ing via active RIS assisted over-the-air computation,

    D. Zhang, M. Xiao, M. Skoglund, and H. V . Poor, “Federated learn- ing via active RIS assisted over-the-air computation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning for Communication and Networking (ICMLCN). IEEE, 2024, pp. 201–207

    2024

  17. [25]

    Federated learning via over- the-air computation,

    K. Yang, T. Jiang, Y . Shi, and Z. Ding, “Federated learning via over- the-air computation,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 2022–2035, 2020

    2022

  18. [26]

    User-centric cell-free massive MIMO networks: A survey of opportunities, challenges and solutions,

    H. A. Ammar, R. Adve, S. Shahbazpanahi, G. Boudreau, and K. V . Srinivas, “User-centric cell-free massive MIMO networks: A survey of opportunities, challenges and solutions,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 611–652, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Cell-free massive MIMO versus small cells,

    H. Q. Ngo, A. Ashikhmin, H. Yang, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta, “Cell-free massive MIMO versus small cells,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1834–1850, Mar. 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    User-centric 5G cellular networks: Resource allocation and comparison with the cell-free massive MIMO approach,

    S. Buzzi, C. D’Andrea, A. Zappone, and C. D’Elia, “User-centric 5G cellular networks: Resource allocation and comparison with the cell-free massive MIMO approach,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1250–1264, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Making cell-free massive MIMO competitive with MMSE processing and centralized implementation,

    E. Bj ¨ornson and L. Sanguinetti, “Making cell-free massive MIMO competitive with MMSE processing and centralized implementation,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 77–90, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Over-the-air federated learning over scalable cell-free massive MIMO,

    H. Sifaou and G. Y . Li, “Over-the-air federated learning over scalable cell-free massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Interference management for over-the-air federated learning in multi-cell wireless networks,

    Z. Wang, Y . Zhou, Y . Shi, and W. Zhuang, “Interference management for over-the-air federated learning in multi-cell wireless networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 2361–2377, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Deploying federated learning in large-scale cellular networks: Spatial convergence analysis,

    Z. Lin, X. Li, V . K. Lau, Y . Gong, and K. Huang, “Deploying federated learning in large-scale cellular networks: Spatial convergence analysis,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1542–1556, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Massive MIMO networks: Spectral, energy, and hardware efficiency,

    E. Bj ¨ornson, J. Hoydis, and L. Sanguinetti, “Massive MIMO networks: Spectral, energy, and hardware efficiency,” Foundations and Trends® in Signal Processing, vol. 11, no. 3-4, pp. 154–655, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Hybrid deterministic-stochastic methods for data fitting,

    M. P. Friedlander and M. Schmidt, “Hybrid deterministic-stochastic methods for data fitting,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. A1380–A1405, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Optimization methods for large- scale machine learning,

    L. Bottou, F. E. Curtis, and J. Nocedal, “Optimization methods for large- scale machine learning,” SIAM review, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 223–311, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects,

    3GPP, “Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), TR 36.814 , 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Fashion-MNIST: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,

    H. Xiao, K. Rasul, and R. V ollgraf, “Fashion-MNIST: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,

    Y . LeCun, L. Bottou, Y . Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278– 2324, 1998

    1998

  31. [39]

    EMNIST: Ex- tending MNIST to handwritten letters,

    G. Cohen, S. Afshar, J. Tapson, and A. Van Schaik, “EMNIST: Ex- tending MNIST to handwritten letters,” in 2017 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 2921–2926

    2017

  32. [40]

    The loss surfaces of multilayer networks,

    A. Choromanska, M. Henaff, M. Mathieu, G. B. Arous, and Y . LeCun, “The loss surfaces of multilayer networks,” in Artificial intelligence and statistics. PMLR, 2015, pp. 192–204

    2015

  33. [41]

    ChannelComp: A general method for computation by communications,

    S. Razavikia, J. M. B. Da Silva, and C. Fischione, “ChannelComp: A general method for computation by communications,” IEEE Trans. Commun., 2023

    2023

Pith tools

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