Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

UnifyFL: Enabling Decentralized Cross-Silo Federated Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read UnifyFL claims decentralized cross-silo federated learning can match centralized accuracy without a trusted aggregator.

desk verdict A real cross-silo FL framework with a plausible accuracy story and honest limitations, but the headline trust claim leans on an unstated majority-honest-validator assumption that the private PoA chain does not enforce. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18916 v2 pith:AWRLAYFY submitted 2025-04-26 cs.DC cs.AI

Sarang S , Druva Dhakshinamoorthy , Aditya Shiva Sharma , Yuvraj Singh Bhadauria , Siddharth Chaitra Vivek , Arihant Bansal , Arnab K. Paul This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCcs.AI
keywords BlockchainCollaborativeLearningFederatedFlowerFrameworkInter-PlanetaryFileSystemPeer-to-PeerScoringSmartContract
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 proposes UnifyFL, a cross-silo federated learning framework in which independent organizations collaborate without appointing a central, possibly biased aggregator. Its central claim is that this decentralized orchestration reaches model quality comparable to centralized multilevel FL while using resources more efficiently, and the experiments support that with a 51.33% global accuracy on CIFAR-10 against a 50.4% centralized baseline and about 35% on Tiny ImageNet against a 36.84% baseline. The framework adds an asynchronous mode to reduce idle time and wall-clock training time, and lets each organization choose its own aggregation algorithm and model-selection policy. If this claim holds, organizations that currently train in isolation can pool model updates through a transparent, auditable system instead of relying on a trusted third party.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the orchestration workflow: after a cluster finishes local aggregation, it stores the serialized model on IPFS, registers the content identifier (CID) with the smart contract, and the contract then selects a majority subset of registered aggregators as scorers; scorers pull the model from IPFS, evaluate it with their own test set, and submit scores back to the contract. The contract accumulates the scores and exposes model CIDs with scores to every aggregator, which then applies its own aggregation policy (e.g., all models, top-k, above average) to build the next global model. The smart contract also implements synchronous and asynchronous orchestration phases, with the asynchronous mode triggering scoring immediately on submission to reduce idle time.

What would settle it

Run the same non-IID CIFAR-10 workload with more than half of the aggregators malicious, submitting poisoned model updates, and check whether the smart contract's majority-scorer selection and above-average aggregation policy keep global accuracy near 51%; a substantial drop below the centralized baseline would show that the decentralized trust claim depends on an honest majority. Alternatively, benchmark against a centralized multilevel aggregator on the same testbed and show a clear accuracy gap in the synchronous/non-IID condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

UnifyFL's central discovery is that the trust-versus-resource trade-off in collaborative federated learning can be addressed by combining three pieces: a smart-contract-based decentralized orchestrator running on a private Ethereum chain with Clique proof-of-authority consensus, an IPFS distributed store for model weights, and a randomized majority-scoring protocol in which a subset of participating aggregators scores each submitted model. The claim, stated as the author would state it to a fair reader, is that this design lets independent FL clusters collaborate at accuracy comparable to an ideal centralized multilevel aggregator while removing the single point of trust, and the evaluation shows the asynchronous variant reaching 35% accuracy on Tiny ImageNet in about 4000 seconds versus 6230 seconds for the centralized baseline, and synchronous CIFAR-10 non-IID accuracy of 51.33% versus 50.4% central. Each cluster can keep its own aggregation policy and scoring algorithm, and the system runs on heterogeneous edge clusters with overhead of only a few percent CPU from the blockchain and storage layers.

Load-bearing premise

The design assumes that a majority of the participating organizations, acting as validators and scorers, are honest; if they collude, the private proof-of-authority chain can finalize arbitrary histories and the scoring audit loses meaning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Organizations that do not trust each other can form a federation without appointing a third-party aggregator, as long as a majority of participants are honest.
  • Asynchronous mode cuts total training time by roughly a third in the Tiny ImageNet experiment (about 4000 seconds versus 6000+ seconds) while keeping accuracy within a few points of the centralized baseline.
  • Each cluster can keep its own aggregation algorithm, scoring function, and model-selection policy, so existing Flower-based FL pipelines can join without redesign.
  • Scoring policies such as above-average aggregation can filter out a single malicious model contributor, restoring accuracy after a temporary dip.
  • The framework handles IID and non-IID data, heterogeneous edge hardware, and scales to at least 60 clients with stable accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the honest-majority assumption is weakened, the same architecture could instead use a public permissionless chain or a rotating validator set to regain decentralization at the cost of throughput; the paper's private Clique chain trades full decentralization for resource efficiency, so the decentralized-trust guarantee is only as strong as the validator majority.
  • The random majority-scoring design decouples scoring from aggregation, which suggests a natural testbed for reputation or incentive mechanisms: tying future scoring weight to historical score accuracy could discourage lazy or malicious scorers without changing the protocol.
  • Because the framework stores model CIDs on-chain and weights on IPFS, the same audit trail could be reused for compliance, for example proving that a deployed model was aggregated from a certain set of contributors at a certain round.
  • The accuracy gap between synchronous (51%) and asynchronous (44%) non-IID runs suggests a tunable trade-off: aggregators could switch modes adaptively based on straggler presence or data skew rather than fixing one mode.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes UnifyFL, a decentralized cross-silo federated learning framework in which participating FL clusters store aggregated model weights on IPFS and coordinate model sharing and scoring through a private Ethereum blockchain using Clique Proof-of-Authority. The framework supports synchronous and asynchronous orchestration, multiple aggregation and scoring policies, and allows each aggregator to choose its own policy. The evaluation uses a GPU cluster with Tiny ImageNet/VGG16 and an edge cluster with CIFAR-10/CNN, and reports that UnifyFL achieves accuracy close to a centralized multilevel FL baseline (roughly 35% vs. 36.84% on Tiny ImageNet; 51.33% vs. 50.4% on CIFAR-10) with lower wall-clock time in asynchronous mode and modest blockchain/IPFS overhead. The paper concludes that UnifyFL provides trust and efficient resource use without a third-party aggregator.

Significance. If the accuracy and trust claims held, UnifyFL would be a useful practical contribution: it is implemented on real testbeds, integrates with the Flower framework, ships an open-source repository, compares against independent benchmarks (Tiny ImageNet and CIFAR-10), uses no fitted parameters, and evaluates both synchronous and asynchronous modes. The reported accuracy numbers are plausibly comparable to the baseline, and the asynchronous mode's runtime advantage is qualitatively consistent with the design. However, the decentralized-trust claim is not established by the current evaluation, and the accuracy claims rest on single runs with no statistical support. The paper's value is therefore conditional on strengthening these two load-bearing points.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4.1, §2.3, §1.1.4, Algorithm 1] The central claim that UnifyFL provides trust without a third party is not demonstrated. The orchestrator is a private Ethereum chain using Clique Proof-of-Authority, and the paper itself notes in §2.3 that private blockchains rely on trust in the controlling entities and in §1.1.4 that trustworthiness assumes a majority of clusters are honest. Yet the paper never specifies who operates the Clique validators, how validator membership is governed, or what prevents one organization or a colluding subset from controlling a majority of validators. Because Clique validators can finalize arbitrary histories and the smart contract's random scorer selection in Algorithm 1 (startScoring) runs on that chain, a validator majority can censor unfavorable scores or rewrite the scoring record, effectively becoming the trusted third party the framework claims to eliminate. Please either specify a validator governance model with an explicit adversary assumption and threshold, or revise the trust claim to state the majority-honest assumption prominently as a limitation.
  2. [§4.2, Tables 5 and 6] The headline accuracy comparisons are single-run results: no repeated seeds, no error bars, no confidence intervals, and no significance tests are reported. The differences behind the claim of comparable accuracy are small (35% vs. 36.84% on Tiny ImageNet in §4.2.1; 51.33% vs. 50.4% on CIFAR-10 in §4.2.5), which is within the typical run-to-run variation of non-IID federated learning. Without variance information, the reader cannot judge whether UnifyFL is statistically indistinguishable from the baseline. Please report multiple seeds with mean and standard deviation (or equivalent) for at least the main comparisons in Tables 5 and 6.
  3. [§4.2.6] The scalability claim that with 60 clients split between 3 aggregators, UnifyFL maintained stable performance trends achieving an accuracy of roughly 30% comparable to the baseline for a similar configuration at the end of 100 rounds is asserted without a table, without the configuration details, and without a baseline that is shown for that setting. Since scalability is one of the stated evaluation questions (Q6), this needs a dedicated experimental report with the same level of detail as Tables 5 and 6.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4.5] Typo in the sentence 'We implement the end-to-end UnifyFL fframework' — 'fframework' should be 'framework'.
  2. [Table 5, Run 4] Stray 'F' characters appear after 'FedYogi Agg 2' and after 'Agg 4' in the Config column; these should be removed.
  3. [§4.2] Please clarify whether the baseline is a centralized multilevel FL implementation or an HBFL deployment; the text says both 'implement HBFL' and 'replicates the optimal scenario of centralized multilevel FL', which is confusing because §2.2 describes HBFL as having a centralized reducer.
  4. [§4.2.4] The sentence 'The results are similar for NIID dataset with other aggregation policies' is not supported by any table or figure; please add the data or remove the claim.
  5. [§4.2.6] The abstract claims 'optimal use of resources', but the only resource evidence is the overhead in Table 7; the resource-optimality aspect is not otherwise evaluated. Please temper the wording or add a direct resource-utilization comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: UnifyFL is an empirically evaluated systems paper with no fitted-parameter-as-prediction or self-citation load-bearing steps.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: UnifyFL achieves accuracy comparable to a centralized multilevel FL baseline while using decentralized orchestration. The comparison is made against external, independently defined workloads (Tiny ImageNet with VGG16, CIFAR-10 with a small CNN) and a baseline that replicates the centralized multilevel FL scenario. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction; no theoretical derivation is claimed; and no result is defined in terms of another result by construction. The design choices (Ethereum, Clique PoA, IPFS, Flower) are justified by standard external references, not by the authors' own prior theorems. The paper explicitly acknowledges its trust assumption ('assumes that a majority of clusters are honest', Section 1.1.4) and its privacy limitations (no DP/HE/SMPC, Section 5), which indicates that these are stated assumptions rather than concealed circular inputs. The author-implemented baseline is a potential comparison-quality concern, but it is not circularity because the baseline accuracy is computed from the same benchmark tasks rather than derived from UnifyFL's own outputs. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no circular derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard distributed-systems assumptions (honest majority, honest validators, meaningful scoring data) rather than fitted parameters or new entities. The main unproven load-bearing assumptions are the honesty of the majority and the representativeness of local test sets under non-IID data.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A majority of participating clusters are honest and non-colluding.
    Invoked in Section 1.1.4 ('the notion of trustworthiness ... assumes that a majority of clusters are honest') and required by the PoA validator set and majority scoring design described in Section 3.4.
  • domain assumption A scorer's local test set provides a meaningful model-quality score for models trained on other clusters' data.
    Accuracy-based scoring is the primary scoring mechanism (Sections 2.6 and 3.1.2); under NIID data this assumption is not obviously valid and is not tested.
  • domain assumption A private PoA blockchain with participating validators provides tamper-evident orchestration.
    Section 3.4.1 uses a private Geth chain with Clique PoA; this provides integrity only if validators follow the protocol and do not collude.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UnifyFL: Enabling Decentralized Cross-Silo Federated Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AWRLAYFY

@misc{pith2026250418916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UnifyFL: Enabling Decentralized Cross-Silo Federated Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AWRLAYFY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18916}
}
read the original abstract

Federated Learning (FL) is a decentralized machine learning (ML) paradigm in which models are trained on private data across several devices called clients and combined at a single node called an aggregator rather than aggregating the data itself. Many organizations employ FL to have better privacy-aware ML-driven decision-making capabilities. However, organizations often operate independently rather than collaborate to enhance their FL capabilities due to the lack of an effective mechanism for collaboration. The challenge lies in balancing trust and resource efficiency. One approach relies on trusting a third-party aggregator to consolidate models from all organizations (multilevel FL), but this requires trusting an entity that may be biased or unreliable. Alternatively, organizations can bypass a third party by sharing their local models directly, which requires significant computational resources for validation. Both approaches reflect a fundamental trade-off between trust and resource constraints, with neither offering an ideal solution. In this work, we develop a trust-based cross-silo FL framework called UnifyFL, which uses decentralized orchestration and distributed storage. UnifyFL provides flexibility to the participating organizations and presents synchronous and asynchronous modes to handle stragglers. Our evaluation on a diverse testbed shows that UnifyFL achieves a performance comparable to the ideal multilevel centralized FL while allowing trust and optimal use of resources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18916 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of a collaborative FL architecture in the automobile industry, where vehicle fleets (FL clients) from different companies train models locally and share updates with their respective FL aggregators. systems, natural language processing (NLP), Internet of Things (IoT), healthcare, autonomous industry, and finance [32]. 1.1 Motivation In today’s landscape, companies operating in segmented user mar￾kets… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Approaches for collaborative FL. 1.1.1 A Case for Collaborative Learning. To motivate the case for collaborative learning, we conduct two experiments of the NIID￾partitioned CIFAR-10 workload on the edge cluster described in Section 4.1. In the first experiment, the three clusters are trained independently on their respective datasets without collaboration, as in traditional FL. The results of this non-collaborative… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Centralized (or Multilevel) aggregation vs Peer-to-Peer aggregation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A step-by-step walk-through of UnifyFL Framework. (a) Clusters perform local training, aggregate the results, and submit local weight for scoring. (b) Scorers pull weights and submit their scores. (c) Aggregators pull and aggregate global models to send to clients for …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: depicts the Async Mode workflow with staggered round starts for the two aggregators, where the orchestrator immediately assigns scorers from idle aggregators to evaluate models as soon as their CIDs are submitted. The example workflow of UnifyFL is shown in [PITH_FULL…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Policies to prevent Byzantine attacks. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Federated Learning: Collaborative Machine Learning without Centralized Training Data

    2017. Federated Learning: Collaborative Machine Learning without Centralized Training Data. https://research.google/blog/federated-learning-collaborative- machine-learning-without-centralized-training-data/

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Federated learning in healthcare: the future of collaborative clinical and biomedical research

    2017. Federated learning in healthcare: the future of collaborative clinical and biomedical research. https://www.owkin.com/blogs-case-studies/federated- learning-in-healthcare-the-future-of-collaborative-clinical-and-biomedical- research. Owkin Blog (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Official Legal text

    2022. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Official Legal text. https: //gdpr-info.eu/

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Case Study: Improving Early-Stage Cancer Detection Rates with Federated Learning

    2024. Case Study: Improving Early-Stage Cancer Detection Rates with Federated Learning. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/content- details/822568/case-study-improving-early-stage-cancer-detection-rates- with-federated-learning.html

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Wenxuan Bao, Haohan Wang, Jun Wu, and Jingrui He. 2023. Optimizing the col- laboration structure in cross-silo federated learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 1718–1736

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Juan Benet. 2014. IPFS - Content Addressed, Versioned, P2P File System. CoRR abs/1407.3561 (2014). arXiv:1407.3561 http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3561

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Daniel J Beutel, Taner Topal, Akhil Mathur, Xinchi Qiu, Javier Fernandez-Marques, Yan Gao, Lorenzo Sani, Hei Li Kwing, Titouan Parcollet, Pedro PB de Gusmão, and Nicholas D Lane. 2020. Flower: A Friendly Federated Learning Research Framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.14390 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Neelkamal Bhuyan and Sharayu Moharir. 2022. Multi-Model Federated Learning. In 2022 14th International Conference on COMmunication Systems & NETworkS (COMSNETS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/comsnets53615.2022.9668435

    arXiv 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Vitalik Buterin. 2013. Ethereum White Paper: A Next Generation Smart Contract & Decentralized Application Platform. (2013). https://github.com/ethereum/ wiki/wiki/White-Paper

    2013

  2. [10]

    Ran Canetti, Uri Feige, Oded Goldreich, and Moni Naor. 1996. Adaptively secure multi-party computation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA) (STOC ’96). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

    1996

  3. [11]

    Jiayi Chen and Aidong Zhang. 2022. FedMSplit: Correlation-Adaptive Federated Multi-Task Learning across Multimodal Split Networks. InProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Washington DC, USA) (KDD ’22). Association for Computing M...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Im- ageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR. 2009.5206848

    2009

  5. [13]

    Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. 2006. Cali- brating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis. In Theory of Cryptography , Shai Halevi and Tal Rabin (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 265–284

    2006

  6. [14]

    Hugging Face. [n. d.]. Hugging Face Datasets. Hugging Face - The AI community building the future. https://huggingface.co/datasets

  7. [15]

    Alireza Fallah, Aryan Mokhtari, and Asuman Ozdaglar. 2020. Personalized feder- ated learning: A meta-learning approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07948 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bahar Farahani and Amin Karimi Monsefi. 2023. Smart and collaborative indus- trial IoT: A federated learning and data space approach. Digital Communications and Networks 9, 2 (2023), 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcan.2023.01.022

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Tiantian Feng, Digbalay Bose, Tuo Zhang, Rajat Hebbar, Anil Ramakrishna, Rahul Gupta, Mi Zhang, Salman Avestimehr, and Shrikanth Narayanan. 2023. FedMultimodal: A Benchmark for Multimodal Federated Learning. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discove...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Avishek Ghosh, Jichan Chung, Dong Yin, and Kannan Ramchandran. 2020. An efficient framework for clustered federated learning. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems 33 (2020), 19586–19597

    2020

  11. [19]

    Eunsu Goh, Dae-Yeol Kim, Kwangkee Lee, Suyeong Oh, Jong-Eui Chae, and Do- Yup Kim. 2023. Blockchain-Enabled Federated Learning: A Reference Architecture Design, Implementation, and Verification. IEEE Access Journal 11 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Jakub Konecn `y, H Brendan McMahan, Felix X Yu, Peter Richtárik, Ananda Theertha Suresh, and Dave Bacon. 2016. Federated learning: Strategies for improving communication efficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05492 8 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Alex Krizhevsky. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images . Technical Report

    2009

  14. [22]

    Ministry: Law and Justice. 2019. The Personal Data Protection Bill. https: //prsindia.org/billtrack/the-personal-data-protection-bill-2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Xinjia Li, Boyu Chen, and Wenlian Lu. 2022. FedDKD: Federated Learning with Decentralized Knowledge Distillation. arXiv:2205.00706 [cs.LG] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2205.00706

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep net- works from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics . PMLR, 1273–1282

    2017

  17. [25]

    Vaikkunth Mugunthan, Ravi Rahman, and Lalana Kagal. 2020. Blockflow: An accountable and privacy-preserving solution for federated learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.03856 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Adil Muhammad, Kai Lin, Jian Gao, and Bincai Chen. 2021. Robust multi-model personalized federated learning via model distillation. In International Conference on Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing . Springer, 432–446

    2021

  19. [27]

    Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Decen- tralized business review (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    State of California Department of Justice. 2019. California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa

    2019

  21. [29]

    Amirhossein Peyvandi, Babak Majidi, Soodeh Peyvandi, and Jagdish C Patra

  22. [30]

    2021.Adaptive Federated Optimization

    Sashank Reddi, Zachary Burr Charles, Manzil Zaheer, Zachary Garrett, Keith Rush, Jakub Konečný, Sanjiv Kumar, and Brendan McMahan (Eds.). 2021.Adaptive Federated Optimization. https://openreview.net/forum?id=LkFG3lB13U5

    2021

  23. [31]

    Mohanad Sarhan, Wai Weng Lo, Siamak Layeghy, and Marius Portmann. 2022. HBFL: A Hierarchical Blockchain-based Federated Learning Framework for a Collaborative IoT Intrusion Detection. arXiv:2204.04254 [cs.CR] UnifyFL: Enabling Decentralized Cross-Silo Federated Learning Middle...

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Momina Shaheen, Muhammad Shoaib Farooq, Tariq Umer, and Byung-Seo Kim

  25. [33]

    Muhammad Shayan, Clement Fung, Chris JM Yoon, and Ivan Beschastnikh. 2020. Biscotti: A blockchain system for private and secure federated learning. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 32, 7 (2020), 1513–1525

    2020

  26. [34]

    Electronics 11, 4 (2022), 670

    Applications of federated learning; Taxonomy, challenges, and research trends. Electronics 11, 4 (2022), 670

    2022

  27. [35]

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. 2015. Very Deep Convolutional Net- works for Large-Scale Image Recognition. arXiv:1409.1556 [cs.CV]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Junyu Shi, Wei Wan, Shengshan Hu, Jianrong Lu, and Leo Yu Zhang. 2022. Chal- lenges and Approaches for Mitigating Byzantine Attacks in Federated Learning. arXiv:2112.14468 [cs.CR]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Péter Szilágyi. 2017. EIP-225: Clique proof-of-authority consensus protocol. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, no. 225. https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip- 225

    2017

  30. [38]

    Personal Data Protection Commission Singapore. 2020. PDPC | PDPA Overview. https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/Overview-of-PDPA/The-Legislation/ Personal-Data-Protection-Act

    2020

  31. [39]

    Kundjanasith Thonglek, Keichi Takahashi, Kohei Ichikawa, Hajimu Iida, and Chawanat Nakasan. 2020. Federated learning of neural network models with heterogeneous structures. In 2020 19th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA). IEEE, 735–740

    2020

  32. [40]

    Chandra Thapa, Pathum Chamikara Mahawaga Arachchige, Seyit Camtepe, and Lichao Sun. 2022. Splitfed: When federated learning meets split learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 36. 8485–8493

    2022

  33. [41]

    Lingling Wang, Xueqin Zhao, Zhongkai Lu, Lin Wang, and Shouxun Zhang. 2023. Enhancing privacy preservation and trustworthiness for decentralized federated learning. Information Sciences 628 (2023), 449–468

    2023

  34. [42]

    Anton Wahrstätter, Sajjad Khan, and Davor Svetinovic. 2024. OpenFL: A scalable and secure decentralized federated learning system on the Ethereum blockchain. Internet of Things 26 (2024), 101174

    2024

  35. [43]

    Xun Yi, Russell Paulet, Elisa Bertino, Xun Yi, Russell Paulet, and Elisa Bertino

  36. [44]

    Choquette-Choo, Peter Kairouz, H

    Zheng Xu, Yanxiang Zhang, Galen Andrew, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Peter Kairouz, H. Brendan McMahan, Jesse Rosenstock, and Yuanbo Zhang

  37. [45]

    Shuo Yuan, Bin Cao, Yao Sun, Zhiguo Wan, and Mugen Peng. 2024. Secure and efficient federated learning through layering and sharding blockchain. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 11, 3 (2024). https://ieeexplore. ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=10419032

    2024

  38. [46]

    Mikhail Yurochkin, Mayank Agarwal, Soumya Ghosh, Kristjan Greenewald, Trong Nghia Hoang, and Yasaman Khazaeni. 2019. Bayesian Nonparametric Federated Learning of Neural Networks. arXiv:arXiv:1905.12022

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Hongyi Zhang, Anas Dakkak, David Issa Mattos, Jan Bosch, and Helena Holm- ström Olsson. 2021. Towards Federated Learning: A Case Study in the Telecom- munication Domain. In Software Business, Xiaofeng Wang, Antonio Martini, Anh Nguyen-Duc, and Viktoria Stray (Eds.). Springer I...

    2021

  40. [48]

    Sixing Yu, Wei Qian, and Ali Jannesari. 2022. Resource-aware federated learning using knowledge extraction and multi-model fusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07978 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Yang Zhao, Jun Zhao, Linshan Jiang, Rui Tan, Dusit Niyato, Zengxiang Li, Lingjuan Lyu, and Yingbo Liu. 2020. Privacy-preserving blockchain-based fed- erated learning for IoT devices. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8, 3 (2020), 1817–1829

    2020

  42. [52]

    Yue Zhao, Meng Li, Liangzhen Lai, Naveen Suda, Damon Civin, and Vikas Chan- dra. 2018. Federated learning with non-iid data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00582 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  43. [2014]

    Springer

    Homomorphic encryption. Springer

  44. [2022]

    Multimedia tools and applications 81, 18 (2022), 25029–25050

    Privacy-preserving federated learning for scalable and high data quality computational-intelligence-as-a-service in Society 5.0. Multimedia tools and applications 81, 18 (2022), 25029–25050

    2022

  45. [2023]

    arXiv:2305.18465 [cs.LG]

    Federated Learning of Gboard Language Models with Differential Privacy. arXiv:2305.18465 [cs.LG]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.