RIFLES: Resource-effIcient Federated LEarning via Scheduling

Arshad Jhumka (University of Leeds); Sara Alosaime (University of Warwick)

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

RIFLES: Resource-effIcient Federated LEarning via Scheduling

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RIFLES reframes federated-learning client selection as a scheduling problem, forecasts client availability from heartbeat signals, and reports 10-50% improvements in accuracy, test loss, and completion rates.

desk verdict A clearly-described FL scheduling pipeline worth a referee's time, but the NP-completeness proof doesn't hold and the empirical gains rest on synthetic traces; reject the current version and ask for real data plus a corrected theory. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13169 v1 pith:VFD7XKZA submitted 2025-05-19 cs.LG

Sara Alosaime (University of Warwick) , Arshad Jhumka (University of Leeds) This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords federatedlearningclientselectionschedulingavailabilityforecastingCNN-LSTMheartbeatsignalsNP-completenessresourceefficiency

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

Federated learning wastes rounds when the server picks clients that go offline mid-training. RIFLES tries to fix this by treating client selection as a scheduling problem: the server learns each client's likely availability from heartbeat signals, builds an eligibility matrix that says when a client can stay online long enough to finish a training task, and schedules training rounds at times and with clients that will actually complete. The paper formalises this scheduling problem and proves it NP-complete, so an efficient exact solver is not expected, and then offers two heuristic policies that run in a middleware layer. On two benchmark tasks, the authors report 10-50% improvements in accuracy, test loss, dropout, and completion rates over existing selection strategies, with one variant reaching 75% accuracy in 7 rounds on the activity-recognition benchmark.

What carries the argument

The central object is the eligibility matrix $E_i(s)$, built from the forecast availability matrix: $E_i(s)=1$ when the predicted remaining-availability window $\Lambda_i^s$ from slot $s$ is at least the client's expected response duration $C_{\mathrm{expected}}(i)$ plus a buffer $k$. This one inequality converts raw availability forecasts into actionable scheduling decisions and is what both scheduling policies optimise over. Around it sit the heartbeat-based daily availability matrices, the CNN-LSTM forecasting layer that predicts next-day availability from the recent daily matrices, and the formal reduction of the selection problem to resource-constrained scheduling, which supplies the NP-completeness result. The scheduling policies then select training slots with the most eligible clients while respecting a minimum gap between rounds; the least-recently-used variant breaks ties by choosing the most idle eligible clients.

What would settle it

Feed real device-availability traces collected from a deployed federated-learning app into the same RIFLES pipeline, run the same two benchmark tasks, and compare dropout and accuracy against random selection and the existing baselines; if forecast accuracy on the real traces is too low to keep dropout below the baseline's, the 10-50% improvement claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that client availability is predictable enough to drive scheduling, and that scheduling on predicted availability makes federated learning substantially more efficient than round-by-round myopic selection. The paper defines a 'job' as a client's training workload, a 'task' as one local update, and a scheduling problem in which the server must choose, over a horizon, which clients run in which slots subject to participation proportions and a deadline; it proves this problem NP-complete by reduction from resource-constrained scheduling. To make scheduling tractable, RIFLES converts heartbeat-derived availability records into daily matrices, trains a CNN-LSTM to forecast next-day availability, and converts forecasts into an eligibility matrix by checking that each client's predicted continuous-availability window covers its expected response time plus a buffer. Two policies consume that matrix: a greedy heuristic that picks high-eligibility slots while enforcing a gap between rounds and favouring rarely-seen clients, and a least-recently-used variant that prioritises idle clients. The paper's evidence consists of emulated federated training on two datasets, where both variants outperform the baselines on accuracy, loss, dropout, completion, and participation diversity, with the reported 10-50% improvement range.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthetic availability patterns used to train the forecaster and run the experiments faithfully represent how real clients actually come and go; if real availability is less periodic or noisier than the generated patterns, the forecast quality that powers the eligibility matrix and both scheduling policies would degrade and the reported gains could vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If availability is forecastable, the server can pre-plan a day's training rounds, avoiding the wasted computation and idle time caused by selecting clients that drop out.
The reported results imply that scheduling on predicted availability reaches target accuracy in fewer communication rounds, for example 75% accuracy in 7 rounds on the activity-recognition benchmark.
Lower dropout and higher completion rates mean less energy and bandwidth spent on updates that never get aggregated into the global model.
The NP-completeness result implies that no exact polynomial-time algorithm for the full scheduling problem is likely, so heuristic scheduling of this kind is a reasonable route.
The customisable middleware design means the same forecasting and eligibility pipeline can host scheduling policies beyond the two demonstrated variants.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the approach's value hinges on how well the CNN-LSTM forecasts generalise to real client populations; if real availability is aperiodic or heavily noisy, the eligibility matrix becomes unreliable and the schedule may degrade toward random selection.
Editorial inference: the heartbeat mechanism creates a design tension, because building the forecast requires clients to send heartbeats even when they are not training, and the paper assumes rather than measures that heartbeat loss stays below the stated threshold.
Editorial inference: because the eligibility check requires a predicted continuous window at least as long as expected response time, the method implicitly favours clients with long usage sessions; allowing preemptible or resumable local training could let shorter windows contribute.
Editorial inference: the 10-50% figure comes from emulated resource usage rather than measured energy or wall-clock time on physical devices, so a field test on real phones would be the decisive next experiment.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's what you should know. RIFLES combines two things in a way I haven't seen before — heartbeat-derived availability forecasting (CNN-LSTM) feeding an eligibility-driven client scheduler for FL — and the system is written up clearly. But the NP-completeness proof in the theory section doesn't work, and the 10-50% gains are measured in a setting where the forecaster is trained on the same synthetic traces that generate the test availability. Real idea, unproven theory claim, unsecured empirical claim. It deserves a serious referee, but not acceptance as-is.

The good part is the system design. The daily availability matrix from heartbeats, the eligibility matrix that checks whether the predicted availability window covers expected response time plus a buffer, and the two scheduling policies (greedy with a round-gap and unique-client threshold; LRU) form a coherent, plausible pipeline. Related-work coverage is fair — REFL, FLASH, Oort, and TiFL are all there. The evaluation uses FedScale with device-speed and bandwidth heterogeneity from real measurements, two datasets, and sensible metrics (round-of-arrival, completion/dropout, unique participation). Within their synthetic world, the internal comparison is consistent: both variants beat Random, FedCS, and REFL.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The theory claim is broken, and I think it's worse than the reader's memo says. With α=β=100%, the resource constraint is gone and the RIFLES instance reduces to 'can each client's K unit tasks be placed into p slots with a per-slot cap' — a flow problem, not an NP-complete one. The swap argument also assumes a task has a 'correct' processor, which RCS never gives you. As defined, the problem looks polynomial, so the headline theory contribution is unsupported. That needs a real reduction or the claim has to go.

The empirical claim is the other load-bearing issue. The availability traces are entirely synthetic, and the CNN-LSTM is trained on the same generator it is later evaluated against — it mostly has to rediscover a 1.5x nighttime boost and a 20% hourly flip probability. Real availability is noisier and multi-scale; under distribution shift the eligibility matrix fills with false positives. There is no oracle-availability ablation and no no-forecast ablation, so you cannot tell whether forecasting or the eligibility/scheduling logic produces the gains. That is the single most important missing experiment. There is also no released code, only three baselines, and the heartbeat-loss threshold ϵ is never varied. The abstract's 10-50% is loose — the accuracy gaps in the figures are closer to 5-12% relative, with the bigger numbers coming from convergence speed and dropout.

Who gets value: people working on cross-device FL client selection — the pipeline is a useful template even if these results don't carry. Send it to a serious referee; the direction is worth the reviewer hours. But my verdict on the current version is reject: fix the theory or cut it, add a real-trace or oracle experiment, and release the scheduler code.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RIFLES, a framework for federated learning client selection that adds an availability-forecasting layer to a server-side scheduler. It formalizes client selection as the RIFLES scheduling problem, claims to prove NP-completeness via a reduction from resource-constrained scheduling, and introduces two scheduling heuristics (Greedy Heuristic and Least Recently Used) that operate on an eligibility matrix built from CNN-LSTM availability predictions and per-client response-time estimates. The authors evaluate the framework against Random, FedCS, and REFL on the WISDM and CIFAR-10 datasets using the FedScale simulator, reporting faster convergence, higher final accuracy, higher completion rates, and lower dropout rates. The paper claims improvements of 10–50% over baselines on a range of metrics, and positions itself as the first work to treat FL as a scheduling problem.

Significance. If the results hold, the idea of long-term availability forecasting to guide client scheduling would be a practically useful contribution to federated learning, particularly for cross-device settings with heterogeneous and intermittent client availability. The paper provides a clean conceptual pipeline (heartbeats, prediction matrix, eligibility matrix, scheduling policy) and its internal comparisons are consistent: both RIFLES variants outperform the three baselines on all reported metrics in the presented experiments. The work is also reproducible in structure: the framework is based on a public simulator (FedScale) and standard datasets, and the heuristic algorithms are described in moderate detail. However, the NP-completeness proof appears to contain a fundamental error, and the empirical evaluation relies on a synthetic availability generator that also trains the forecasting model, leaving the central contributions with limited support.

major comments (4)

[Section V, Lemma 2] The reduction from RCS to RIFLES is invalid as presented. Setting α=100% and β=100% in the mapping strips the capacity constraint (ii), because 'no more than (α·n) clients' with α=1 is automatically satisfied, and it makes the per-job requirement (iii) vacuous, since 'at least (β·K) tasks' with β=1 resurrects only the trivial requirement that all K tasks be executed somewhere. The mapping also fails to account for the number of processors m in the RCS instance, which has no counterpart in the RIFLES definition. Moreover, the swap procedure to enforce condition (iv) is not feasibility-preserving: moving T_i^j from processor k to processor i displaces whatever task T_m^n was on processor i in that slot, and that task now violates condition (iv) on processor k. Thus the proof does not establish NP-hardness, and Theorem 1 is unsupported.
[Section VII-A2 and Section VIII] The central empirical evaluation is carried out entirely on synthetic availability traces generated by the authors' own simulator, and the CNN-LSTM forecaster is trained on traces from that same generator. The model is therefore evaluated essentially in-distribution, and it is not surprising that it accurately predicts availability. There is no experiment with real client availability traces, no distribution-shift analysis (e.g., using a different generator or perturbed traces), and no ablation to separate the benefit of forecasting from the benefit of the eligibility constraint itself. For example, comparing RIFLES against a variant that uses ground-truth availability (oracle) or against a non-forecasting eligibility rule would indicate whether the 10–50% improvement comes from prediction or from the scheduling heuristic. Without such experiments, the claim that the forecasting layer is responsible for the reported gains is not established.
[Abstract, Section VIII, Table II] The headline claim of 'improvement by between 10%-50% on a variety of metrics such as accuracy and test loss' is not consistent with the experimental tables. In the results text, the authors state that RIFLES maintains 'a 5–10% superior accuracy' over REFL and FedCS on the two datasets, which is a substantially smaller gain. The 10–50% figure appears to refer to other metrics (completion rate, dropout rate, lost time), but the paper does not provide a per-metric breakdown of percentage improvements, making the central quantitative claim ambiguous and difficult to verify.
[Section VI-C1] The Greedy Heuristic is not fully specified. The definition of 'unique clients' as those with |EligibleSlots_i| < α introduces a second, unrelated use of the symbol α, which was previously defined in Definition 1 as the global job selection proportion. In addition, the step 'we adjust the threshold or gap between rounds to maximize the participation of as many unique clients as possible' is described only qualitatively; it does not specify the adjustment procedure, its termination condition, or the interaction with the earlier gap constraint. This prevents the algorithm from being reproduced exactly from the text.

minor comments (6)

[Section V, Lemma 2 mapping] The mapping table has typos: '17→r' should likely be '1→r' (one resource) and '1p→R_1(t)' is nonsensical as written; the intended meaning is not clear.
[Section V, Lemma 1] The proof of Lemma 1 says 'checking conditions (i)-(v)' but Definition 1 lists only conditions (i)-(iv).
[Section III] The expected-update objective E[Δw] is defined but never used in the design, analysis, or evaluation of the proposed scheduler; its role in the paper is unclear.
[Section VI-A3] The heartbeat loss threshold ε and the validity window W_i are introduced as assumptions but are never measured, varied, or stress-tested in the experiments, so their influence on the reported results is unknown.
[Related Work and Experiments] The comparison set is limited to Random, FedCS, and REFL; more recent availability- or heterogeneity-aware schedulers such as Oort, TiFL, or FLASH are cited but not evaluated, which weakens the claim of superiority over the state of the art.
[Throughout] There are several grammatical issues (e.g., 'RIFLES provide significant improvement') and inconsistent notation (e.g., α used for two distinct concepts), which should be corrected in revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity is found; the central claims are self-contained, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation and a same-source synthetic-trace limitation.

full rationale

The derivation is essentially self-contained. The central empirical claim (10–50% improvement) is established by simulating RIFLES against Random, FedCS, and REFL on standard datasets (WISDM, CIFAR-10) with a fixed client-selection mechanism; the availability forecaster is trained on the synthetic availability traces, but the reported accuracy and test-loss numbers are not fitted parameters of that forecaster. The eligibility matrix deterministically maps predicted availability windows and expected response durations to binary eligibility; this is a processing step, not a hidden identity with the output metric. The NP-completeness proof reduces the known NP-complete RCS problem [33] to RIFLES; no theorem from the authors' prior work is imported to force the result. The only self-citation is [30] (authors' FLARE), used to name 'availability faults' in Section IV; it is terminological and not load-bearing. The synthetic availability generator being used both to train the CNN-LSTM and to produce ground-truth availability during simulation is a legitimate external-validity concern (real-world availability may be less periodic and noisier), but it is not a circular derivation: the simulator's availability dynamics are not equivalent to the claimed FL accuracy improvement by construction. Therefore no circular step is identified; the score of 2 reflects the minor non-load-bearing self-citation rather than any reduction of the central claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on assumptions about heartbeat reliability, the learnability and realism of client availability, and a reduction step that is invalid. The forecasting and scheduling pipeline also depends on several unspecified thresholds and hyperparameters. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (11)

Availability simulation nighttime factor = 1.5
Section VII-A2: generated availability uses a 1.5x availability boost from 10 PM to 6 AM; results depend on this pattern.
Hourly status flip probability = 0.2
Section VII-A2: 20% chance per hour for each client to change availability; controls predictability of traces.
Short unavailability pattern = 10 min offline after 30 sec online
Section VII-A2: introduces brief connectivity losses; shapes the dropout metric.
Minimum gap G = 2 slots (example)
Section VI-C1: gap between selected training slots; value affects number of rounds and participation.
Minimum clients per round K_min = 10 (implied by participation rate)
Section VI-C1-2: threshold that determines when a training round is scheduled.
Eligibility buffer k = not specified
Section VI-B3: added to expected response duration before judging eligibility; no value given.
Heartbeat validity window W_i = client-specific, not specified
Section VI-A3: a heartbeat's status is held for W_i slots; no distribution specified.
Heartbeat loss threshold epsilon = not specified
Section VI-A1: bounds lost heartbeats; no value used in experiments.
Unique-client eligibility threshold alpha = not specified
Section VI-C1: clients with fewer eligible slots than alpha are 'unique'; value never stated.
CNN-LSTM architecture hyperparameters = not specified
No layer counts, hidden sizes, sequence length, or training epochs are given for the forecasting model.
Client participation rate = 0.1
Section VII-A: selects 10 of 100 clients per round.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Clients send periodic heartbeats whose payload accurately reflects availability (WiFi, charge, idle).
Section VI-A1: the entire forecasting layer treats hb_i^t as a truthful proxy for availability.
domain assumption Client availability follows predictable daily or weekly patterns learnable from history.
Section III and VI-B: the CNN-LSTM assumes diurnal routines; the synthetic traces are engineered to be predictable.
domain assumption Synthetic availability traces generated in Section VII-A2 are representative of real mobile clients.
Load-bearing for the empirical claim; no real trace is used.
ad hoc to paper The reduction in Lemma 2 of RCS to RIFLES with alpha=100% and beta=100% preserves feasibility.
This is the invalid step that makes the NP-completeness claim unsupported; it removes capacity limits.
domain assumption Expected response duration C_expected(i) estimated from past rounds predicts future completion time.
Section VI-B2: eligibility requires predicted availability window to cover C_expected(i)+k.
standard math Resource-constrained scheduling is NP-complete.
Definition 2 cites Garey and Johnson; accepted background.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RIFLES: Resource-effIcient Federated LEarning via Scheduling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFD7XKZA

@misc{pith2026250513169,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RIFLES: Resource-effIcient Federated LEarning via Scheduling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFD7XKZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13169}
}

read the original abstract

Federated Learning (FL) is a privacy-preserving machine learning technique that allows decentralized collaborative model training across a set of distributed clients, by avoiding raw data exchange. A fundamental component of FL is the selection of a subset of clients in each round for model training by a central server. Current selection strategies are myopic in nature in that they are based on past or current interactions, often leading to inefficiency issues such as straggling clients. In this paper, we address this serious shortcoming by proposing the RIFLES approach that builds a novel availability forecasting layer to support the client selection process. We make the following contributions: (i) we formalise the sequential selection problem and reduce it to a scheduling problem and show that the problem is NP-complete, (ii) leveraging heartbeat messages from clients, RIFLES build an availability prediction layer to support (long term) selection decisions, (iii) we propose a novel adaptive selection strategy to support efficient learning and resource usage. To circumvent the inherent exponential complexity, we present RIFLES, a heuristic that leverages clients' historical availability data by using a CNN-LSTM time series forecasting model, allowing the server to predict the optimal participation times of clients, thereby enabling informed selection decisions. By comparing against other FL techniques, we show that RIFLES provide significant improvement by between 10%-50% on a variety of metrics such as accuracy and test loss. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first work to investigate FL as a scheduling problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13169 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Effect of varying availability fault rates on the perfor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overview of the RIFLES Framework. • αn 7→ B1 • 1p 7→ R1(t) We now need to show that a solution for RIFLES exists if and only if a solution for RCS exists. ⇐ We show how a solution for RIFLES, i.e., ϕ, can be obtained from a solution for RCS, i.e., σ. Because σ solves RCS, under the identified mapping, σ satisfies conditions (i) - (iii) of RIFLES. However, condition (iv) may not be satisfied and has to be resolved, a… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Pipeline for Generating the Eligibility Matrix. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of test accuracy and test loss of RIFLES against baseline models (Random, FedCS, REFL). well RIFLES works to produce high-quality models with significantly fewer communication rounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of RIFLES and baselines across metrics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Daily accumulative time distribution across methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Weekly distribution of selected clients, successful [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Performance analysis of smartphone-sensor behavior for human activity recognition,

Y . Chen and C. Shen, “Performance analysis of smartphone-sensor behavior for human activity recognition,”Ieee Access, vol. 5, pp. 3095– 3110, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

Human activity recognition via hybrid deep learning based model,

I. U. Khan, S. Afzal, and J. W. Lee, “Human activity recognition via hybrid deep learning based model,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 323, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Patient and public willingness to share personal health data for third-party or secondary uses: systematic review,

R. Baines, S. Stevens, D. Austin, K. Anil, H. Bradwell, L. Cooper, I. D. Maramba, A. Chatterjee, and S. Leigh, “Patient and public willingness to share personal health data for third-party or secondary uses: systematic review,”Journal of medical Internet research, vol. 26, p. e50421, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Collecting data on migrants’ health status and access to health services: the experience of the mobile app “comestai

C. Allegri, A. Avellone, E. B. di Belgojoso, S. Khatab, D. Pescini, S. Rimoldi, and A. Zambon, “Collecting data on migrants’ health status and access to health services: the experience of the mobile app “comestai”,”Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, pp. 49–58, 2025

work page 2025
[5]

Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” inArtificial intelligence and statistics. PMLR, 2017. 8 Fig. 7: Daily accumulative time distribution across methods. Fig. 8: Weekly distribution of selected clients, successful clients and unique successful clients a...

work page 2017
[7]

Federated learning: Strategies for improving communica- tion efficiency,

J. Kone ˇcn`y, “Federated learning: Strategies for improving communica- tion efficiency,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05492, 2016

arXiv 2016
[8]

Robust Aggregation for Adaptive Privacy Preserving Federated Learning in Healthcare

M. Grama, M. Musat, L. Mu ˜noz-Gonz´alez, J. Passerat-Palmbach, D. Rueckert, and A. Alansary, “Robust aggregation for adaptive privacy preserving federated learning in healthcare,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.08294, 2020

work page Pith review arXiv 2009
[9]

Federated learning for open banking,

G. Long, Y . Tan, J. Jiang, and C. Zhang, “Federated learning for open banking,” inFederated learning: privacy and incentive. Springer, 2020, pp. 240–254

2020

Show all 36 references

[10]

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. Cummingset al., “Advances and open problems in federated learning,”Foundations and trends® in machine learning, vol. 14, no. 1–2, pp. 1–210, 2021

2021
[11]

Resource-efficient federated learning,

A. M. Abdelmoniem, A. N. Sahu, M. Canini, and S. A. Fahmy, “Resource-efficient federated learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.01108, 2021

2021 arXiv
[12]

Asynchronous online federated learning for edge devices with non-iid data,

Y . Chen, Y . Ning, M. Slawski, and H. Rangwala, “Asynchronous online federated learning for edge devices with non-iid data,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, 2020, pp. 15–24

2020
[13]

Asynchronous federated learning over wireless communication networks,

Z. Wang, Z. Zhang, Y . Tian, Q. Yang, H. Shan, W. Wang, and T. Q. Quek, “Asynchronous federated learning over wireless communication networks,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 6961–6978, 2022

2022
[14]

Client selection for federated learning with heterogeneous resources in mobile edge,

T. Nishio and R. Yonetani, “Client selection for federated learning with heterogeneous resources in mobile edge,” inProc. IEEE international Conference on Communications (ICC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–7

2019
[15]

Refl: Resource-efficient federated learning,

A. M. Abdelmoniem, A. N. Sahu, M. Canini, and S. A. Fahmy, “Refl: Resource-efficient federated learning,” inProceedings of the Eighteenth European Conference on Computer Systems, 2023, pp. 215–232

2023
[16]

Dynamic clustering in federated learning,

Y . Kim, E. Al Hakim, J. Haraldson, H. Eriksson, J. M. B. da Silva, and C. Fischione, “Dynamic clustering in federated learning,” inICC 2021- IEEE International Conference on Communications. IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

2021
[17]

A review of client selection methods in federated learning,

S. Mayhoub and T. M. Shami, “A review of client selection methods in federated learning,”Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1129–1152, 2024

2024
[18]

Optimal client sampling for federated learning,

W. Chen, S. Horvath, and P. Richtarik, “Optimal client sampling for federated learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.13723, 2020

2010 arXiv
[19]

Towards flexible device participation in federated learning,

Y . Ruan, X. Zhang, S.-C. Liang, and C. Joe-Wong, “Towards flexible device participation in federated learning,” inInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 2021, pp. 3403–3411

2021
[20]

Oort: Efficient federated learning via guided participant selection,

F. Lai, X. Zhu, H. V . Madhyastha, and M. Chowdhury, “Oort: Efficient federated learning via guided participant selection,” in15th{USENIX} Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation ({OSDI} 21), 2021, pp. 19–35

2021
[21]

Tifl: A tier-based federated learning system,

Z. Chai, A. Ali, S. Zawad, S. Truex, A. Anwar, N. Baracaldo, Y . Zhou, H. Ludwig, F. Yan, and Y . Cheng, “Tifl: A tier-based federated learning system,” inProceedings of the 29th international symposium on high- performance parallel and distributed computing, 2020, pp. 125–136

2020
[22]

Flash: Heterogeneity-aware federated learning at scale,

C. Yang, M. Xu, Q. Wang, Z. Chen, K. Huang, Y . Ma, K. Bian, G. Huang, Y . Liu, X. Jinet al., “Flash: Heterogeneity-aware federated learning at scale,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2022

2022
[23]

Towards federated learning at scale: Syste m design,

K. Bonawitz, “Towards federated learning at scale: Syste m design,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.01046, 2019

1902 arXiv
[24]

Fedscale: Benchmarking model and system perfor- mance of federated learning at scale,

F. Lai, Y . Dai, S. Singapuram, J. Liu, X. Zhu, H. Madhyastha, and M. Chowdhury, “Fedscale: Benchmarking model and system perfor- mance of federated learning at scale,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 11 814–11 827

2022
[25]

Safa: A semi- asynchronous protocol for fast federated learning with low overhead,

W. Wu, L. He, W. Lin, R. Mao, C. Maple, and S. Jarvis, “Safa: A semi- asynchronous protocol for fast federated learning with low overhead,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 655–668, 2020

2020
[26]

Client selection in federated learning: Convergence analysis and power-of-choice selection strategies,

Y . J. Cho, J. Wang, and G. Joshi, “Client selection in federated learning: Convergence analysis and power-of-choice selection strategies,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01243, 2020

2010 arXiv
[27]

Federated learning under intermittent client availability and time-varying communication con- straints,

M. Ribero, H. Vikalo, and G. De Veciana, “Federated learning under intermittent client availability and time-varying communication con- straints,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 98–111, 2022

2022
[28]

Federated learning with buffered asynchronous aggregation,

J. Nguyen, K. Malik, H. Zhan, A. Yousefpour, M. Rabbat, M. Malek, and D. Huba, “Federated learning with buffered asynchronous aggregation,” inInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 2022, pp. 3581–3607

2022
[29]

Fedsea: A semi-asynchronous federated learning framework for extremely heterogeneous devices,

J. Sun, A. Li, L. Duan, S. Alam, X. Deng, X. Guo, H. Wang, M. Gorlatova, M. Zhang, H. Liet al., “Fedsea: A semi-asynchronous federated learning framework for extremely heterogeneous devices,” in Proceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, 2022,...

2022
[30]

FLARE: Availability Awareness for Resource-Efficient Federated Learning,

S. Alosaime and A. Jhumka, “FLARE: Availability Awareness for Resource-Efficient Federated Learning,” inProceedings of the 29th IEEE Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC), 2024

2024
[31]

A comprehensive empirical study of heterogeneity in federated learning,

A. M. Abdelmoniem, C.-Y . Ho, P. Papageorgiou, and M. Canini, “A comprehensive empirical study of heterogeneity in federated learning,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 16, pp. 14 071–14 083, 2023

2023
[32]

Adaptive federated learning in resource constrained edge computing systems,

S. Wang, T. Tuor, T. Salonidis, K. K. Leung, C. Makaya, T. He, and K. Chan, “Adaptive federated learning in resource constrained edge computing systems,”IEEE journal on selected areas in communications, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1205–1221, 2019

2019
[33]

M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson,Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd, 1979

1979
[34]

Adaptive federated optimization,

S. Reddi, Z. Charles, M. Zaheer, Z. Garrett, K. Rush, J. Kone ˇcn`y, S. Kumar, and H. B. McMahan, “Adaptive federated optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00295, 2020. 9

2003 arXiv
[35]

Nn-meter: Towards accurate latency prediction of deep-learning model inference on diverse edge devices,

L. L. Zhang, S. Han, J. Wei, N. Zheng, T. Cao, Y . Yang, and Y . Liu, “Nn-meter: Towards accurate latency prediction of deep-learning model inference on diverse edge devices,” inProceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Servic...

2021
[36]

Wisdm smartphone and smartwatch activity and biomet- rics dataset,

G. M. Weiss, “Wisdm smartphone and smartwatch activity and biomet- rics dataset,”UCI Machine Learning Repository: WISDM Smartphone and Smartwatch Activity and Biometrics Dataset Data Set, vol. 7, pp. 133 190–133 202, 2019

2019
[37]

The cifar-10 dataset,

A. Krizhevsky, V . Nair, and G. Hinton, “The cifar-10 dataset,” 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/kriz/cifar.html 10

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Performance analysis of smartphone-sensor behavior for human activity recognition,

Y . Chen and C. Shen, “Performance analysis of smartphone-sensor behavior for human activity recognition,”Ieee Access, vol. 5, pp. 3095– 3110, 2017

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Human activity recognition via hybrid deep learning based model,

I. U. Khan, S. Afzal, and J. W. Lee, “Human activity recognition via hybrid deep learning based model,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 323, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Patient and public willingness to share personal health data for third-party or secondary uses: systematic review,

R. Baines, S. Stevens, D. Austin, K. Anil, H. Bradwell, L. Cooper, I. D. Maramba, A. Chatterjee, and S. Leigh, “Patient and public willingness to share personal health data for third-party or secondary uses: systematic review,”Journal of medical Internet research, vol. 26, p. e50421, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Collecting data on migrants’ health status and access to health services: the experience of the mobile app “comestai

C. Allegri, A. Avellone, E. B. di Belgojoso, S. Khatab, D. Pescini, S. Rimoldi, and A. Zambon, “Collecting data on migrants’ health status and access to health services: the experience of the mobile app “comestai”,”Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, pp. 49–58, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” inArtificial intelligence and statistics. PMLR, 2017. 8 Fig. 7: Daily accumulative time distribution across methods. Fig. 8: Weekly distribution of selected clients, successful clients and unique successful clients a...

work page 2017

[6] [7]

Federated learning: Strategies for improving communica- tion efficiency,

J. Kone ˇcn`y, “Federated learning: Strategies for improving communica- tion efficiency,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05492, 2016

arXiv 2016

[7] [8]

Robust Aggregation for Adaptive Privacy Preserving Federated Learning in Healthcare

M. Grama, M. Musat, L. Mu ˜noz-Gonz´alez, J. Passerat-Palmbach, D. Rueckert, and A. Alansary, “Robust aggregation for adaptive privacy preserving federated learning in healthcare,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.08294, 2020

work page Pith review arXiv 2009

[8] [9]

Federated learning for open banking,

G. Long, Y . Tan, J. Jiang, and C. Zhang, “Federated learning for open banking,” inFederated learning: privacy and incentive. Springer, 2020, pp. 240–254

2020