REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 44 references
FlexFed: Mitigating Catastrophic Forgetting in Heterogeneous Federated Learning in Pervasive Computing Environments
T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Federated learning forgets rare activities; FlexFed counters with offline training and adaptive rare-class memory.
desk verdict The paper has a plausible mechanism, but the evaluation is compromised because the same client-held test set drives both the update gate and the forgetting metric, so the central claim is not yet supported. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing mechanism is the pair of client-side decisions in the FlexFed workflow: offline training with performance-gated substitution, where the offline update $\theta^{\text{offline}}_k$ replaces the stored model only if $P(\theta^{\text{offline}}_k; D^{\text{test}}_k) \ge P(\theta^{\text{stored}}_k; D^{\text{test}}_k)$, and performance-adaptive memory, where the extra retained data consists of samples from infrequent classes only, with size $|\zeta_k| = m(1-\alpha_k)$ and $\alpha_k = P(\theta^r; D^{\text{test}}_k)$. The proposed per-round forgetting metric, Eq. 5, $F_r = \frac{1}{|C|} \sum_c \frac{1}{|K|} \sum_k \min(0, \text{Acc}^r_{k,c} - \max_{i\le r} \text{Acc}^i_{k,c})$, is what makes the claimed gains measurable by counting only accuracy drops and weighting every class equally.
What would settle it
Run the same WISDM-based benchmark but withhold labels from the clients' per-round test data, evaluating the global model only on a server-held set; if FlexFed's advantage over REFL and MIFA persists, the per-round test-data assumption is not load-bearing, and if it disappears, that assumption is confirmed as the source of the gains.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that catastrophic forgetting in heterogeneous federated learning is not an unavoidable consequence of privacy constraints; it can be attacked by making clients active rather than passive. FlexFed does two things. First, when a client is idle and powered but lacks a connection, it continues local training and only replaces its stored model if the updated model performs at least as well on the client's test data; the better model is later uploaded. Second, memory is allocated dynamically: a client with low accuracy on the latest global model retains a larger fraction of old data, specifically samples from infrequent classes, while a high-performing client retains less. The paper also proposes replacing the standard FL forgetting metric with one that, for every round, averages only negative per-class accuracy changes across clients and classes, giving every label equal weight. Evaluated on a schedule-driven HAR benchmark derived from WISDM and the IMA availability data, FlexFed is claimed to yield faster, more stable convergence and lower per-class forgetting than REFL and MIFA, particularly for under-represented activities.
Load-bearing premise
The method assumes every client has labelled test data for the current round and that per-class accuracy of the latest global model on that test data is a faithful signal for accepting updates, sizing rare-class memory, and measuring forgetting.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If FlexFed works as reported, federated HAR models will keep rare activities like 'upstairs' accurate even when the clients carrying those labels are offline for long stretches.
- Communication efficiency rises because clients train while disconnected and upload only their stored model when it improves, making the reported 10-15% efficiency gain an expected property rather than a tuning artifact.
- The proposed per-class forgetting metric should become the evaluation default for streaming federated learning, since overall accuracy hides the offsetting gains and losses that the metric reveals.
- The dynamic, schedule-driven HAR generator offers a reusable stress test for any FL algorithm claiming robustness to non-stationary, intermittently available clients.
Reading between the lines
- The per-round labelled test-data assumption is the natural pressure point: in deployments where clients cannot label data, the accept/reject gate and the $\alpha_k$ signal lose power, and an unlabelled variant would need a proxy such as output confidence or a small server-held validation set.
- The two mechanisms are entangled: offline training adds extra local epochs, and the memory policy changes the data mix, so part of the reported gain may come from more computation rather than from rare-class retention; an ablation that holds compute constant would separate the effects.
- The Eq. 5 metric, averaged over rounds, is essentially a smoothed per-class forgetting curve and could be adapted to continual learning more broadly, where class frequencies also vary, to detect drift before aggregate accuracy falls.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes FlexFed, a federated learning framework for human activity recognition in pervasive computing environments. FlexFed combines offline local training during idle periods without connectivity with performance-adaptive memory allocation that retains more samples from infrequent classes when the received global model performs poorly on a client-held test set. The paper also introduces a round-wise forgetting metric (Eq. 5) based on per-client per-class accuracy drops, and reports experiments on a synthetic streaming version of WISDM with six HAR model architectures, comparing FlexFed against REFL and MIFA. The main claims are that FlexFed mitigates catastrophic forgetting, improves FL efficiency by 10-15%, and achieves faster, more stable convergence, especially for under-represented classes.
Significance. The problem is relevant and timely: catastrophic forgetting in streaming, heterogeneous federated learning is realistic and under-addressed in pervasive computing. The proposed simulation framework with daily activity schedules is a useful contribution, and the comparison across six model architectures is broader than is typical in this area. The forgetting metric in Eq. (5) is a reasonable attempt to account for class imbalance by averaging per-class accuracy drops. However, the evidence presented does not yet support the headline claims because of the circular use of client test data, the inconsistent definition of the alpha parameter, and the absence of exact efficiency numbers. If the evaluation is repaired and the claims are substantiated with quantitative results, the approach could be a useful practical contribution to FL for HAR.
major comments (4)
- [Sections V-C and Eq. (5)] The evaluation of forgetting is coupled to the mechanism being evaluated. In Section V-C, a client sends an updated model only when P(theta; D_test_k) is at least as large as P(theta_stored; D_test_k), and the same client-held labelled test set is used in Eq. (5) to compute the forgetting metric F_r. A FlexFed client therefore always stores and sends the model that scored best on the exact data used to measure forgetting, while the baselines REFL and MIFA receive no such oracle. Consequently, the lower F_r values in Figures 7-8 and the 'stability above 95%' claim may largely reflect this accept/reject selection policy rather than superior knowledge retention. The authors should report results on an independent server-held or withheld test set, and should isolate the effect of the update gate by an ablation that disables the gate or provides the same gate to the baselines.
- [Section V-B and Section V-C step 6] Section V-B defines the memory allocation as |zeta_k| = m x (1 - alpha_k) and states that 'A lower value of alpha_k indicates better performance', while Section V-C step 6 sets alpha_k = P(theta_r, D_test_k), i.e., an accuracy in [0,1] for which higher is better. These statements cannot both be true: if alpha_k is an accuracy, then |zeta_k| = m x (1 - alpha_k) gives less memory to better-performing clients, contradicting the sentence saying lower alpha indicates better performance. The authors must define alpha_k unambiguously and ensure that the formal definition, the memory allocation formula, and the prose describe the same monotonicity.
- [Abstract and Section VII] The abstract's claim of 'improving FL efficiency by 10 to 15%' is unsupported by the reported evidence. Section VII provides no efficiency metric such as communication rounds to a target accuracy, wall-clock time, FLOPs, or bytes transferred, no table of exact numeric results, and no repeated-seed statistics; the shaded regions in Figures 5-8 represent variation across model architectures, not across random seeds. Please add a table with mean and standard deviation over at least five seeds for accuracy, forgetting, and the chosen efficiency metric, and state precisely how 'efficiency' is measured.
- [Section VI and Section II-C] The reliance on per-client labelled test data D_test_k is strong and is not stress-tested. The update gate, the memory-allocation signal alpha_k, and the forgetting metric Eq. (5) all require every client to hold labelled, representative test data each round. The paper does not specify how D_test_k is created from the sliding-window stream, its size, or its class balance, and it does not examine performance when D_test_k is absent, small, stale, or non-representative, which are likely situations in pervasive deployments. Please document the test split and run a sensitivity analysis, for example with smaller or periodically refreshed test sets, to show that the mechanism does not collapse when this signal is noisy.
minor comments (7)
- [Table II] The table header includes both WISDM and UCI HAR, but only the WISDM row is populated; either add the UCI row or remove the column.
- [Eq. (5)] The summation notation in Eq. (5) is malformed ('CX c=1', 'KX k=1'); please use standard sum notation with correct limits.
- [Section IV] The notation 'S r i=0 T_i_k' in Section IV appears to denote a union of datasets, but it is not typeset or defined as such; please clarify.
- [Section VI] The text 'PyTorch v3.8.17' is ambiguous because PyTorch does not use version numbers in the 3.x range; if the authors mean Python 3.8.17, please say so explicitly.
- [Section V-A and Section VI] The symbol gamma is used both as the learning rate in Section VI and as the staleness scaling factor in Eq. (9); please use distinct symbols to avoid confusion.
- [Table III] In the 'Brush teeth' row, the label probabilities sum to 1.1 (0.9 standing plus 0.2 walking); please correct the entries so each row sums to 1.
- [References] Reference [16] has an incomplete author name ('Jakub Kone' should presumably be 'Jakub Konečný'); please complete the bibliographic entry.
Circularity Check
FlexFed's forgetting metric and the update gate both use the same client-held test set, so low F_r is partly an artifact of the accept/reject policy.
-
self definitional
[Section II-B (Eq. 5) and Section V-C (Distribution and Training; Offline Training)]
"Fr = 1/|C| Σ_c 1/|K| Σ_k min(0, (Acc^r_{k,c}− max_{i≤r} Acc^i_{k,c})) ... The adjustment is based on our assumption that each client will use their own test data to assess the global model ... [V-C:] If (P(θ^{r+1}_k ;D^{test}_k )≥P (θ^{stored}_k ;D^{test}_k )) then send θ^{r+1}_k to the server and update θ^{stored}_k =θ^{r+1}_k ; Else: send θ^{stored}_k as θ^{r+1}_k to the server and discard θ^{r+1}_k ;"
F_r is computed from Acc^r_{k,c}, the per-class accuracy of the model on each client's own labeled test set D^test_k. FlexFed's update gate uses the same D^test_k: an update is sent or stored only if P(θ_new;D^test_k) ≥ P(θ_stored;D^test_k), otherwise the stored model is returned. Hence the models a client presents are selected to be non-decreasing in aggregate test accuracy on the very data used to measure forgetting; low F_r is partially an artifact of the accept/reject policy filtering out accuracy-decreasing updates, not an independent measure of retention. The same test signal also sets the memory-allocation coefficient α_k = P(θ^r;D^test_k), so the mechanism and the metric share one signal.
full rationale
The central claim that FlexFed mitigates catastrophic forgetting is supported by the forgetting metric F_r defined in Eq. (5), which uses per-client, per-class accuracy on labeled test data D^test_k owned by each client. The same test data is used in Section V-C to accept or reject every local and offline update: a client sends or stores an updated model only if its accuracy on D^test_k is at least as high as the stored model's accuracy. Thus, a client's accepted models are by construction non-decreasing in average accuracy on the same test set used to compute F_r, making low forgetting values partially a consequence of the accept/reject gate rather than of genuine representation learning. The memory-allocation coefficient α_k is also computed from P(θ^r; D^test_k), further coupling the mechanism to the metric. However, the circularity is partial: the gate is applied to aggregate accuracy, so per-class drops can still occur, and server-side aggregation introduces genuine cross-client effects. Additionally, the paper evaluates against REFL and MIFA on global test accuracy, which provides independent grounding. The comparison is still somewhat unfair because the baselines do not receive this labeled-test-data signal. Overall, the core forgetting results are partly by construction, but the paper does contain external benchmarks, so a moderate score of 4 is appropriate.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Each client has a labeled local test dataset D_test_k and can compute per-class accuracy of any received model on it.
- domain assumption Clients can forecast idle times, charging periods, and data stream rates using time-series forecasting to schedule offline training.
- domain assumption Local retention and offline local training do not violate the privacy constraints that prohibit shared replay memory.
- domain assumption The schedule-template simulation based on reference [12] and the WISDM label-conversion table faithfully reflects real HAR streaming distributions.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of FlexFed: Mitigating Catastrophic Forgetting in Heterogeneous Federated Learning in Pervasive Computing Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G4GWX4EJ
@misc{pith2026250513576,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: FlexFed: Mitigating Catastrophic Forgetting in Heterogeneous Federated Learning in Pervasive Computing Environments},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G4GWX4EJ}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13576}
}
read the original abstract
Federated Learning (FL) enables collaborative model training while preserving privacy by allowing clients to share model updates instead of raw data. Pervasive computing environments (e.g., for Human Activity Recognition, HAR), which we focus on in this paper, are characterized by resource-constrained end devices, streaming sensor data and intermittent client participation. Variations in user behavior, common in HAR environments, often result in non-stationary data distributions. As such, existing FL approaches face challenges in HAR settings due to differing assumptions. The combined effects of HAR characteristics, namely heterogeneous data and intermittent participation, can lead to a severe issue called catastrophic forgetting (CF). Unlike Continuous Learning (CL), which addresses CF using memory and replay mechanisms, FL's privacy constraints prohibit such strategies. To tackle CF in HAR environments, we propose FlexFed, a novel FL approach that prioritizes data retention for efficient memory use and dynamically adjusts offline training frequency based on distribution shifts, client capability and offline duration. To better quantify CF in FL, we introduce a new metric that accounts for under-represented data, enabling more accurate evaluations. We also develop a realistic HAR-based evaluation framework that simulates streaming data, dynamic distributions, imbalances and varying availability. Experiments show that FlexFed mitigates CF more effectively, improves FL efficiency by 10 to 15 % and achieves faster, more stable convergence, especially for infrequent or under-represented data.
Figures
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Resource-Efficient Federated Learning
Ahmed M Abdelmoniem, Atal Narayan Sahu, Marco Canini, and Suhaib A Fahmy. Resource-efficient federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.01108, 2021
work page Pith review arXiv 2021
-
[2]
Refl: Resource-efficient federated learning
Ahmed M Abdelmoniem, Atal Narayan Sahu, Marco Canini, and Suhaib A Fahmy. Refl: Resource-efficient federated learning. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth European Conference on Computer Systems, pages 215–232, 2023. Fig. 8: Forgetting Rate per Class Across Various HAR Models
work page 2023
-
[3]
Feder- ated learning based on dynamic regularization
Durmus Alp Emre Acar, Yue Zhao, Ramon Matas Navarro, Matthew Mattina, Paul N Whatmough, and Venkatesh Saligrama. Feder- ated learning based on dynamic regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.04263, 2021
arXiv 2021
-
[4]
Flashback: Understanding and Mitigating Forgetting in Federated Learning
Mohammed Aljahdali, Ahmed M Abdelmoniem, Marco Canini, and Samuel Horváth. Flashback: Understanding and mitigating forgetting in federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05558 , 2024
work page Pith review arXiv 2024
-
[5]
Riemannian walk for incremental learning: Under- standing forgetting and intransigence
Arslan Chaudhry, Puneet K Dokania, Thalaiyasingam Ajanthan, and Philip HS Torr. Riemannian walk for incremental learning: Under- standing forgetting and intransigence. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , pages 532–547, 2018
work page 2018
-
[6]
Fedbe: Making bayesian model ensemble applicable to federated learning
Hong-You Chen and Wei-Lun Chao. Fedbe: Making bayesian model ensemble applicable to federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.01974, 2020
arXiv 2009
-
[7]
Inferring cognitive wellness from motor patterns
Yiqiang Chen, Chunyu Hu, Bin Hu, Lisha Hu, Han Yu, and Chunyan Miao. Inferring cognitive wellness from motor patterns. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 30(12):2340–2353, 2018
work page 2018
-
[8]
Zhiyuan Chen and Bing Liu. Lifelong machine learning . Springer Nature, 2022
work page 2022
Show all 44 references
-
[9]
To store or not? online data selection for federated learning with limited storage
Chen Gong, Zhenzhe Zheng, Fan Wu, Yunfeng Shao, Bingshuai Li, and Guihai Chen. To store or not? online data selection for federated learning with limited storage. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pages 3044–3055, 2023
2023
-
[10]
Fast federated learning in the presence of arbitrary device unavailability
Xinran Gu, Kaixuan Huang, Jingzhao Zhang, and Longbo Huang. Fast federated learning in the presence of arbitrary device unavailability. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:12052–12064, 2021
2021
-
[11]
Weighted averaging federated learning based on example forgetting events in label imbalanced non-iid
Mannsoo Hong, Seok-Kyu Kang, and Jee-Hyong Lee. Weighted averaging federated learning based on example forgetting events in label imbalanced non-iid. Applied Sciences, 12(12):5806, 2022
2022
-
[12]
A framework for realistic simulation of daily human activity
Ifrah Idrees, Siddharth Singh, Kerui Xu, and Dylan F Glas. A framework for realistic simulation of daily human activity. In 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pages 30–37. IEEE, 2023
2023
-
[13]
Budget-aware online control of edge federated learning on streaming data with stochastic inputs
Yibo Jin, Lei Jiao, Zhuzhong Qian, Sheng Zhang, and Sanglu Lu. Budget-aware online control of edge federated learning on streaming data with stochastic inputs. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 39(12):3704–3722, 2021
2021
-
[14]
Advances and open problems in federated learning
Peter Kairouz, H Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aurélien Bel- let, Mehdi Bennis, Arjun Nitin Bhagoji, Kallista Bonawitz, Zachary Charles, Graham Cormode, Rachel Cummings, et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 14(...
2021
-
[15]
Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning
Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Satyen Kale, Mehryar Mohri, Sashank Reddi, Sebastian Stich, and Ananda Theertha Suresh. Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning. In International conference on machine learning , pages 5132–5143. PMLR, 2020
2020
-
[16]
Federated learning: Strategies for improving communication efficiency
Jakub Kone, H Brendan McMahan, Felix X Yu, Peter Richtárik, Ananda Theertha Suresh, and Dave Bacon. Federated learning: Strategies for improving communication efficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05492, 2016
2016 arXiv
-
[17]
Real time human activity recognition using tri-axial ac- celerometers
Narayanan C Krishnan, Dirk Colbry, Colin Juillard, and Sethuraman Panchanathan. Real time human activity recognition using tri-axial ac- celerometers. In Sensors, signals and information processing workshop, volume 2008, pages 3337–3340, 2008
2008
-
[18]
Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images
Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. 2009
2009
-
[19]
Fedscale: Benchmark- ing model and system performance of federated learning at scale
Fan Lai, Yinwei Dai, Sanjay Singapuram, Jiachen Liu, Xiangfeng Zhu, Harsha Madhyastha, and Mosharaf Chowdhury. Fedscale: Benchmark- ing model and system performance of federated learning at scale. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 11814–11827. PMLR, 2022
2022
-
[20]
Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition
Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE , 86(11):2278–2324, 1998
1998
-
[21]
Preservation of the global knowledge by not-true distillation in federated learning
Gihun Lee, Minchan Jeong, Yongjin Shin, Sangmin Bae, and Se-Young Yun. Preservation of the global knowledge by not-true distillation in federated learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:38461–38474, 2022
2022
-
[22]
Resource-efficient continual learning for sensor-based human activity recognition
Clayton Frederick Souza Leite and Yu Xiao. Resource-efficient continual learning for sensor-based human activity recognition. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems , 21(6):1–25, 2022
2022
-
[23]
Fedmd: Heterogenous federated learning via model distillation
Daliang Li and Junpu Wang. Fedmd: Heterogenous federated learning via model distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03581 , 2019
1910 arXiv
-
[24]
Model-contrastive federated learning
Qinbin Li, Bingsheng He, and Dawn Song. Model-contrastive federated learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10713–10722, 2021
2021
-
[25]
Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks
Tian Li, Anit Kumar Sahu, Manzil Zaheer, Maziar Sanjabi, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks. Proceedings of Machine learning and systems , 2:429–450, 2020
2020
-
[26]
Dynamite: Dynamic interplay of mini-batch size and aggregation frequency for federated learning with static and streaming dataset
Weijie Liu, Xiaoxi Zhang, Jingpu Duan, Carlee Joe-Wong, Zhi Zhou, and Xu Chen. Dynamite: Dynamic interplay of mini-batch size and aggregation frequency for federated learning with static and streaming dataset. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2023
2023
-
[27]
Gradma: A gradient-memory-based accelerated federated learning with alleviated catastrophic forgetting
Kangyang Luo, Xiang Li, Yunshi Lan, and Ming Gao. Gradma: A gradient-memory-based accelerated federated learning with alleviated catastrophic forgetting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3708–3717, 2023
2023
-
[28]
Fedca: Efficient federated learning with client autonomy
Na Lv, Zhi Shen, Chen Chen, Zhifeng Jiang, Jiayi Zhang, Quan Chen, and Minyi Guo. Fedca: Efficient federated learning with client autonomy. In Proceedings of the 53rd International Conference on Parallel Processing, pages 494–503, 2024
2024
-
[29]
Federated learning for data streams
Othmane Marfoq, Giovanni Neglia, Laetitia Kameni, and Richard Vidal. Federated learning for data streams. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 8889–8924. PMLR, 2023
2023
-
[30]
Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data
Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 1273–1282. PMLR, 2017
2017
-
[31]
Better generative replay for continual federated learning
Daiqing Qi, Handong Zhao, and Sheng Li. Better generative replay for continual federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13001 , 2023
2023
-
[32]
Online continual learning for human activity recognition
Martin Schiemer, Lei Fang, Simon Dobson, and Juan Ye. Online continual learning for human activity recognition. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 93:101817, 2023
2023
-
[33]
Overcoming forgetting in federated learning on non-iid data
Neta Shoham, Tomer Avidor, Aviv Keren, Nadav Israel, Daniel Ben- ditkis, Liron Mor-Yosef, and Itai Zeitak. Overcoming forgetting in federated learning on non-iid data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.07796 , 2019
1910 arXiv
-
[34]
Local sgd converges fast and communicates little
Sebastian U Stich. Local sgd converges fast and communicates little. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09767 , 2018
2018 arXiv
-
[35]
Addressing client drift in federated continual learning with adaptive optimization
Yeshwanth Venkatesha, Youngeun Kim, Hyoungseob Park, Yuhang Li, and Priyadarshini Panda. Addressing client drift in federated continual learning with adaptive optimization. Available at SSRN 4188586, 2022
2022
-
[36]
On the local cache update rules in streaming federated learning
Heqiang Wang, Jieming Bian, and Jie Xu. On the local cache update rules in streaming federated learning. IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2023
2023
-
[37]
Federated learning with matched averag- ing
Hongyi Wang, Mikhail Yurochkin, Yuekai Sun, Dimitris Papailiopou- los, and Yasaman Khazaeni. Federated learning with matched averag- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06440 , 2020
2002 arXiv
-
[38]
Fedds: Data selection for streaming federated learning with lim- ited storage
Yongquan Wei, Xijun Wang, Kun Guo, Howard H Yang, and Xiang Chen. Fedds: Data selection for streaming federated learning with lim- ited storage. In 2024 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024
2024
-
[39]
Wisdm smartphone and smartwatch activity and biomet- rics dataset
Gary 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 , 7:133190– 133202, 2019
2019
-
[40]
A federated learning system with enhanced feature extraction for human activity recognition
Zhiwen Xiao, Xin Xu, Huanlai Xing, Fuhong Song, Xinhan Wang, and Bowen Zhao. A federated learning system with enhanced feature extraction for human activity recognition. Knowledge-Based Systems, 229:107338, 2021
2021
-
[41]
Acceler- ation of federated learning with alleviated forgetting in local training
Chencheng Xu, Zhiwei Hong, Minlie Huang, and Tao Jiang. Acceler- ation of federated learning with alleviated forgetting in local training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02645 , 2022
2022 arXiv
-
[42]
Flash: Heterogeneity-aware federated learning at scale
Chengxu Yang, Mengwei Xu, Qipeng Wang, Zhenpeng Chen, Kang Huang, Yun Ma, Kaigui Bian, Gang Huang, Yunxin Liu, Xin Jin, et al. Flash: Heterogeneity-aware federated learning at scale. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2022
2022
-
[43]
Achieving linear speedup with partial worker participation in non-iid federated learning
Haibo Yang, Minghong Fang, and Jia Liu. Achieving linear speedup with partial worker participation in non-iid federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.11203, 2021
2021 arXiv
-
[44]
Federated learning with non-iid data
Yue Zhao, Meng Li, Liangzhen Lai, Naveen Suda, Damon Civin, and Vikas Chandra. Federated learning with non-iid data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00582, 2018
2018 arXiv
Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.