Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Secure Visual Data Processing via Federated Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · 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 to be the first to combine federated learning, object detection, and anonymization into a single pipeline that trains a detector without sharing raw visual data and then blurs detected faces and license plates.

desk verdict Competent plumbing, unmeasured privacy: the FL+YOLOv8 integration is fine, but the anonymization layer is never evaluated and the novelty is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06889 v1 pith:BVILFZJG submitted 2025-02-09 cs.CV

Pedro Santos , Tânia Carvalho , Filipe Magalhães , Luís Antunes This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords federatedlearningobjectdetectionimagelabellinganonymizationdataprivacyYOLOv8Gaussianblur
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 argues that a pipeline combining federated learning, object detection, and anonymization is the first integrated framework that addresses visual-data privacy in a way no pair of these techniques can. Its experiments train a YOLOv8 detector across three participants on roughly 29,690 images from Open Images, keeping raw data local, and then blur the detected faces and license plates with a Gaussian filter. The federated model reaches about 76% mAP50 after eight rounds, about three to four points below the centralized baseline, which the authors call a slight accuracy trade-off for substantial privacy benefit. The central claim to establish is that this three-part combination works as a robust, multi-layer privacy defense.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the ordered pipeline itself: local YOLOv8 training on private data, transmission of only model updates to a central server that aggregates them with federated averaging (FedAvg) or the adaptive FedOpt variant, followed by deployment of the global model to detect sensitive regions, and finally a Gaussian-blur anonymization step that masks those regions. The argument's weight rests on the combination addressing complementary weaknesses—federated learning stops raw-data exposure, while blurring masks the regions that would otherwise identify people.

What would settle it

Run a face-recognition or model-inversion attack against images anonymized by this Gaussian blur; if identities or reconstructed content are recovered at a nontrivial rate, the claim of robust privacy protection fails, regardless of the federated accuracy measurements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a three-component pipeline—federated learning, object detection, and anonymization—can deliver visual-data privacy that no pair of these components achieves alone. Concretely, a YOLOv8 object detector is trained across three participants on a 29,690-image subset of Open Images without any raw image leaving its host; after training, the model localizes faces and license plates, which are then obfuscated with Gaussian blur. The strongest experimental result is that the federated model's mean average precision (mAP50) reaches about 76% after eight rounds, about three to four percentage points below the centralized baseline, which the authors describe as a slight accuracy trade-off for substantial privacy benefit. The paper frames the unblurred regions as still usable for downstream analysis because scene context is preserved.

Load-bearing premise

The untested premise is that blurring detected faces and license plates with a Gaussian filter actually stops re-identification and model-inversion attacks; the paper asserts this but provides no attack evaluation, only a single example image.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Organizations holding sensitive image repositories can train a detector without transferring raw images to a central server, reducing the surface for data breaches.
  • The federated model's mAP50 of roughly 76% after eight rounds versus 80% centralized indicates that decentralized training is viable for face and license-plate localization with a modest accuracy cost.
  • Increasing communication rounds from three to eight produces large early gains (mAP50 rising from 28.8% to 76.2%) but diminishing returns after round five, informing where to stop for efficiency.
  • FedOpt and FedAvg perform similarly on these data, with FedOpt's better loss and precision suggesting a slight edge for heterogeneous participant data.
  • The combination of detection and blurring preserves scene context, so the anonymized images remain usable for downstream analysis, a stated design goal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The privacy benefit is asserted rather than demonstrated; a fair test would pit the blurred outputs against off-the-shelf re-identification or model-inversion tools.
  • Editorial inference: The accuracy gap was measured on one Open Images partition with only three participants and balanced data; real non-IID distributions with more participants could widen the gap, so the 'slight trade-off' is not yet a general law.
  • Editorial inference: The paper's own discussion acknowledges that unique visual traits (tattoos, distinctive clothing) can survive face/plate blurring; extending the anonymization layer to such traits is a natural next step that the framework could support.
  • Editorial inference: Because the framework keeps raw data local and only shares model updates, it is compatible with future additions such as differential privacy or secure aggregation, which could strengthen the privacy guarantee without changing the detection step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework that combines federated learning (FL) with YOLOv8-based object detection and a Gaussian-blur anonymization layer for visual data containing faces and license plates. The authors train a centralized YOLOv8 baseline and federated models on a subset of Open Images V6, compare detection accuracy across epochs, communication rounds, and aggregation methods (FedAvg vs. FedOpt), and illustrate the anonymization layer on a single image. The paper claims to be the first to integrate object detection, FL, and anonymization, and it asserts that this combination provides a robust privacy protection strategy with substantial privacy benefits.

Significance. If the privacy claim were actually demonstrated, the work would be a useful systems contribution for privacy-sensitive visual-data applications, and the accuracy/communication trade-off measurements provide some practical data points. However, the central claimed contribution—robust privacy protection—is never evaluated. There is no privacy metric, no threat model, and no attack experiment anywhere in Section 4; the only evidence offered is one illustrative image. The FL accuracy results are also presented as single runs without variance or statistical analysis, which weakens the empirical conclusions. The manuscript therefore does not, in its current form, support the significance claimed in the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.3] The central privacy claim is unsupported. The abstract states that the proposed combination offers a robust privacy protection strategy with substantial privacy benefits, but Section 4.3 evaluates the anonymization layer only by showing a single illustrative image (Figure 3). No re-identification, model-inversion, membership-inference, or any other privacy metric is reported. Section 4.4 explicitly concedes that 'It is crucial to evaluate the possible threats in anonymized images. This challenge will be addressed in future work.' Thus the paper's headline claim is not substantiated by experimental evidence.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Figure 1] The architecture as described does not protect the FL training phase, which is the phase where the paper's own introduction says FL privacy risks (gradient inversion, membership inference) arise. Anonymization is applied only after deployment to detected sensitive regions; during training, participants share model updates with no differential privacy, secure aggregation, or other privacy-enhancing mechanism. The claim of a 'multi-layered defense' therefore does not follow from the described pipeline, and the private-training benefit of the proposed combination is not demonstrated.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Tables 2–5] All accuracy results are reported as single runs without error bars, seeds, or statistical significance tests. Several entries are non-monotonic with respect to the stated trends (e.g., Table 3: mAP50 is 62.55% at 25 epochs but 56.23% at 50 epochs; Table 5: FedAvg mAP50 rises to 75.62% at 100 epochs, then 76.51% at 150 epochs, then 76.69% at 200 epochs). Given differences of only 1–2% between several configurations, the conclusion of a 'slight trade-off' between federated and centralized training is fragile without repeated runs or confidence intervals.
  4. [Section 3.3] The experimental setup is underspecified for reproducibility. The paper does not state whether the data partition among the three FL participants is IID or non-IID, how many images each client holds, whether clients participate equally each round, or the local training settings (local epochs, batch size, learning rate) per round. Additionally, the claim that the 48.8/13.0/38.2 train/validation/test split 'ensures a balanced evaluation' is questionable, since the test set is far larger than the validation set. These omissions make the FL results difficult to interpret or reproduce.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4 and Section 5] The claim of being 'the first' to combine these three components is asserted without a systematic comparison to prior integrated systems; it should be softened to 'to our knowledge' and supported by a broader search of FL-plus-anonymization work.
  2. [References] Duplicate references appear for Hukkelås and Lindseth (2023) and for McMahan et al. (2017/2023); these should be unified.
  3. [Section 4.3] The phrase 'these losses are minimal' is not supported by the tables: comparing Table 2 (200 epochs) with Table 3 (200 epochs, 5 rounds) shows mAP50 dropping from 80.05% to 74.67% and recall from 77.34% to 68.52%, which is a nontrivial utility loss that should be acknowledged and analyzed.
  4. [Section 3.3] The image count '29.690' appears to use a European thousands separator; in English it should be written as '29,690'.
  5. [Section 5] The final sentence has a grammatical error: 'combining object detection, FL and anonymization techniques, provides a robust approach' should be rephrased so that the subject and verb agree.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the accuracy results are empirical and self-contained; the privacy benefit is an untested assertion rather than a derived quantity, so it is an evidentiary gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's measurable results are the federated versus centralized YOLOv8 accuracy tables (Tables 2–5) and loss curves; these are empirical measurements with no fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction, and they do not depend on the paper's privacy claims. The claimed contribution is a system design combining object detection, federated learning, and Gaussian-blur anonymization, which is a composition of existing components rather than a derived theorem. The privacy assertion in the Abstract ('the privacy benefits are substantial') is not derived from any equation or fitted quantity; it is an assumed benefit of not sharing raw data and blurring detected faces and license plates. Section 4.4 explicitly acknowledges the missing support: 'It is crucial to evaluate the possible threats in anonymized images. This challenge will be addressed in future work,' and it concedes that unique visual characteristics may enable re-identification even after blurring. That admission makes the privacy claim an untested assumption and a limitation, but not a circular reduction: the conclusion is not equivalent to the inputs by construction, no parameter is fitted to the target conclusion, and no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is present. The novelty claim ('first framework') is a literature-positioning statement, not a mathematical derivation. Overall, the paper's derivation chain is not circular; it is simply thin on privacy evaluation.

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

The paper introduces no new mathematical entities or fitted parameters. It relies on the correctness and suitability of the chosen off-the-shelf components and on the assumed privacy effect of blurring. The most critical assumption is that blur provides substantial privacy protection, which is asserted rather than demonstrated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption YOLOv8 reliably detects faces and license plates in the Open Images V6 subset used.
    The entire detection and anonymization pipeline depends on the accuracy of the trained detector; the paper does not analyze detection failure modes on this data.
  • domain assumption Gaussian blur of detected regions prevents or substantially reduces re-identification.
    This is the load-bearing privacy claim, asserted in Section 4.3 and the abstract, but never tested against inversion or re-identification attacks.
  • domain assumption Federated learning with three participants and the given data partition converges to a representative detector.
    The paper does not justify why three participants is a realistic FL setting, nor does it explore data heterogeneity or client selection effects.
  • domain assumption The Open Images V6 subset is representative of sensitive visual data applications such as surveillance and healthcare.
    The dataset contains only two object classes and the paper does not characterize the distribution of scenes, camera angles, or privacy-relevant attributes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secure Visual Data Processing via Federated Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BVILFZJG

@misc{pith2026250206889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secure Visual Data Processing via Federated Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BVILFZJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06889}
}
read the original abstract

As the demand for privacy in visual data management grows, safeguarding sensitive information has become a critical challenge. This paper addresses the need for privacy-preserving solutions in large-scale visual data processing by leveraging federated learning. Although there have been developments in this field, previous research has mainly focused on integrating object detection with either anonymization or federated learning. However, these pairs often fail to address complex privacy concerns. On the one hand, object detection with anonymization alone can be vulnerable to reverse techniques. On the other hand, federated learning may not provide sufficient privacy guarantees. Therefore, we propose a new approach that combines object detection, federated learning and anonymization. Combining these three components aims to offer a robust privacy protection strategy by addressing different vulnerabilities in visual data. Our solution is evaluated against traditional centralized models, showing that while there is a slight trade-off in accuracy, the privacy benefits are substantial, making it well-suited for privacy sensitive applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06889 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Methodology for sensitive data detection and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Train and validation loss from baseline YOLOv8. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A visual representation of the anonymization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    Anonymizing people in images using generative adversarial networks

    Amsterdam Intelligence (2022). Anonymizing people in images using generative adversarial networks

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Andrade, R. (2024). Privacy-preserving face detection: A comprehensive analysis of face anonymization techniques. Master's thesis, Universidade do Porto (Portugal)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    J., Hoeh, M

    Angelou, N., Benaissa, A., Cebere, B., Clark, W., Hall, A. J., Hoeh, M. A., Liu, D., Papadopoulos, P., Roehm, R., Sandmann, R., Schoppmann, P., and Titcombe, T. (2020). Asymmetric private set intersection with applications to contact tracing and private vertical federated machine learning

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    J., Topal, T., Mathur, A., Qiu, X., Fernandez-Marques, J., Gao, Y., Sani, L., Kwing, H

    Beutel, D. J., Topal, T., Mathur, A., Qiu, X., Fernandez-Marques, J., Gao, Y., Sani, L., Kwing, H. L., Parcollet, T., Gusmão, P. P. d., and Lane, N. D. (2020). Flower: A friendly federated learning research framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.14390

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Bharati, S., Mondal, M., Podder, P., and Prasath, V. (2022). Federated learning: Applications, challenges and future directions. International Journal of Hybrid Intelligent Systems , 18(1-2):19--35

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Bouchakwa, M., Ayadi, Y., and Amous, I. (2020). A review on visual content-based and users' tags-based image annotation: methods and techniques. Multimedia Tools and Applications

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Carion, N., Massa, F., Synnaeve, G., Usunier, N., Kirillov, A., and Zagoruyko, S. (2020). End-to-end object detection with transformers. In European conference on computer vision , pages 213--229. Springer

    2020

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Chen, K., Pang, J., Wang, J., Xiong, Y., Li, X., Sun, S., Feng, W., Liu, Z., Shi, J., Ouyang, W., et al. (2019). Hybrid task cascade for instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4974--4983

    2019

  2. [10]

    Duan, K., Bai, S., Xie, L., Qi, H., Huang, Q., and Tian, Q. (2019). Centernet: Keypoint triplets for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 6569--6578

    2019

  3. [11]

    C., and Hospedales, T

    Ericsson, L., Gouk, H., Loy, C. C., and Hospedales, T. M. (2022). Self-supervised representation learning: Introduction, advances, and challenges. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 39(3):42--62

    2022

  4. [12]

    Fredrikson, M., Jha, S., and Ristenpart, T. (2015). Model inversion attacks that exploit confidence information and basic countermeasures. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security , pages 1322--1333

    2015

  5. [13]

    Girshick, R. (2015). Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 1440--1448

    2015

  6. [14]

    Girshick, R., Donahue, J., Darrell, T., and Malik, J. (2014). Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 580--587

    2014

  7. [15]

    J., Shlens, J., and Szegedy, C

    Goodfellow, I. J., Shlens, J., and Szegedy, C. (2014). Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Guan, H., Yap, P.-T., Bozoki, A., and Liu, M. (2024). Federated learning for medical image analysis: A survey

    2024

  9. [17]

    He, K., Gkioxari, G., Doll \'a r, P., and Girshick, R. (2017). Mask r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 2961--2969

    2017

  10. [18]

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., and Sun, J. (2015). Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 37(9):1904--1916

    2015

  11. [19]

    and Lindseth, F

    Hukkel s, H. and Lindseth, F. (2023). Does image anonymization impact computer vision training? In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 140--150

    2023

  12. [20]

    and Lindseth, F

    Hukkelås, H. and Lindseth, F. (2023). Does image anonymization impact computer vision training? arXiv preprint

    2023

  13. [21]

    Jocher, G., Chaurasia, A., and Qiu, J. (2023). Ultralytics YOLO . Available at https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    2023

  14. [22]

    Jocher, G., Stoken, A., Borovec, J., Changyu, L., Hogan, A., Diaconu, L., Ingham, F., Poznanski, J., Fang, J., Yu, L., et al. (2020). ultralytics/yolov5: v3. 1-bug fixes and performance improvements. Zenodo

    2020

  15. [23]

    A., Makowski, M

    Kaissis, G. A., Makowski, M. R., R \"u ckert, D., and Braren, R. F. (2020). Secure, privacy-preserving and federated machine learning in medical imaging. Nature Machine Intelligence , 2(6):305--311

    2020

  16. [24]

    Krasin, I., Duerig, T., Alldrin, N., Ferrari, V., Abu-El-Haija, S., Kuznetsova, A., Rom, H., Uijlings, J., Popov, S., Veit, A., et al. (2017). Openimages: A public dataset for large-scale multi-label and multi-class image classification. Dataset available from https://github. ...

    2017

  17. [25]

    and Deng, J

    Law, H. and Deng, J. (2018). Cornernet: Detecting objects as paired keypoints. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , pages 734--750

    2018

  18. [26]

    Lin, T.-Y., Doll \'a r, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Hariharan, B., and Belongie, S. (2017a). Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2117--2125

    2017

  19. [27]

    Lin, T.-Y., Goyal, P., Girshick, R., He, K., and Doll \'a r, P. (2017b). Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 2980--2988

    2017

  20. [28]

    Liu, D., Bai, L., Yu, T., and Zhang, A. (2022). Towards method of horizontal federated learning: A survey. In 2022 8th International Conference on Big Data and Information Analytics (BigDIA) , pages 259--266

    2022

  21. [29]

    Liu, W., Anguelov, D., Erhan, D., Szegedy, C., Reed, S., Fu, C.-Y., and Berg, A. C. (2016). Ssd: Single shot multibox detector. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11--14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 14 , pages 21--37. Springer

    2016

  22. [30]

    Liu, Y., Kang, Y., Zou, T., Pu, Y., He, Y., Ye, X., Ouyang, Y., Zhang, Y.-Q., and Yang, Q. (2024). Vertical federated learning: Concepts, advances, and challenges. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

    2024

  23. [31]

    Long, G., Tan, Y., Jiang, J., and Zhang, C. (2021). Federated learning for open banking

    2021

  24. [32]

    K., Leo, C., and Hurley, C

    Mandal, P. K., Leo, C., and Hurley, C. (2024). Horizontal federated computer vision. In Proceedings of the 2024 7th International Conference on Signal Processing and Machine Learning , SPML 2024, page 159–166. ACM

    2024

  25. [33]

    McMahan, B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., and y Arcas, B. A. (2017). Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics , pages 1273--1282. PMLR

    2017

  26. [34]

    B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., and y Arcas, B

    McMahan, H. B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., and y Arcas, B. A. (2023). Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

    2023

  27. [35]

    Memia, A. (2023). Federated learning for edge computing: Real-time object detection. Master's thesis, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden. http://hh.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1785124/FULLTEXT01.pdf

    2023

  28. [36]

    Mohri, M., Sivek, G., and Suresh, A. T. (2019). Agnostic federated learning

    2019

  29. [37]

    Pokhrel, S. R. and Choi, J. (2020). Federated learning with blockchain for autonomous vehicles: Analysis and design challenges. IEEE Transactions on Communications , 68(8):4734--4746

    2020

  30. [38]

    Reddi, S., Charles, Z., Zaheer, M., Garrett, Z., Rush, K., Kone c n \`y , J., Kumar, S., and McMahan, H. B. (2020). Adaptive federated optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00295

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Redmon, J., Divvala, S., Girshick, R., and Farhadi, A. (2016). You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 779--788

    2016

  32. [40]

    Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R., and Sun, J. (2015). Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. Advances in neural information processing systems , 28

    2015

  33. [41]

    J., and Ryoo, M

    Ren, Z., Lee, Y. J., and Ryoo, M. S. (2018). Learning to anonymize faces for privacy preserving action detection. In Proceedings of the european conference on computer vision (ECCV) , pages 620--636

    2018

  34. [42]

    Senior, A. (2009). Protecting privacy in video surveillance . Springer

    2009

  35. [43]

    and Shmatikov, V

    Shokri, R. and Shmatikov, V. (2015). Privacy-preserving deep learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , CCS '15, page 1310–1321, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery

    2015

  36. [44]

    Todt, J., Hanisch, S., and Strufe, T. (2022). Fant\^ o mas: Understanding face anonymization reversibility. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10651

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    and Tanase, M

    Veltkamp, R. and Tanase, M. (2000). Content-based image retrieval systems: A survey. researchgate.net

    2000

  38. [46]

    Wang, L., Zhou, H., Bao, Y., Yan, X., Shen, G., and Kong, X. (2024). Horizontal federated recommender system: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys , 56(9):1--42

    2024

  39. [47]

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

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Yu, L., Han, M., Li, Y., Lin, C., Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Liu, Y., Weng, H., Jeon, Y., Chow, K.-H., et al. (2024). A survey of privacy threats and defense in vertical federated learning: From model life cycle perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03688

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    and Liu, Y

    Yu, P. and Liu, Y. (2019). Federated object detection: Optimizing object detection model with federated learning. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on vision, image and signal processing , pages 1--6

    2019

  42. [50]

    and Yan, W

    Zhu, Y. and Yan, W. (2022). Traffic sign recognition based on deep learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications , 81:1--13

    2022

  43. [51]

    Zou, Z., Chen, K., Shi, Z., Guo, Y., and Ye, J. (2023). Object detection in 20 years: A survey. Proceedings of the IEEE , 111(3):257--276

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.