Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 43 references

Addressing Data Quality Decompensation in Federated Learning via Dynamic Client Selection

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SBRO-FL, a unified client-selection framework that combines dynamic bidding, reputation scoring, and Shapley-value contribution assessment, consistently beats random selection across four datasets and stays close to an oracle that always…

desk verdict The integrated SBRO-FL loop is a reasonable and novel assembly of known ideas, but the printed reputation score is missing the negative sign in the loss branch, and the experimental evidence is too thin to support the claims as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21219 v1 pith:5TXTWB6Q submitted 2025-05-27 cs.LG cs.AI

Qinjun Fei , Nuria Rodríguez-Barroso , María Victoria Luzón , Zhongliang Zhang , Francisco Herrera This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords federatedlearningclientselectiondataqualitydecompensationShapleyvaluereputationsystemprospecttheorybudgetconstraintsincentivemechanism
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

In cross-silo federated learning, participating organizations can have very different data quality, and bad updates accumulate over rounds—a problem the paper calls data quality decompensation. SBRO-FL is a single client-selection loop that simultaneously handles this degradation, the incentives that keep clients participating, and the server's limited budget. At each round, clients submit bids; the server scores their historical reliability, solves a budget-constrained 0-1 integer program to pick a subset, and later uses Shapley values on a small validation set to update each client's reputation. The paper reports that this loop consistently outperforms random selection and all-client selection on four image datasets, and that under adversarial low-bid interference it keeps most of its advantage, approaching an oracle that always picks clean clients. If the mechanism holds, a server can maintain trustworthy federated learning without knowing clients' true data quality in advance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a 0-1 integer program for selection plus two feedback signals. The selection objective maximizes $\sum_i (z(R_i)-z_{\min}) \delta^{\mathrm{count}_i} x_i$ subject to $\sum_i B_i x_i \le B_{\mathrm{budget}}$, where $z(R_i)$ is a prospect-theory transformation of reputation $R_i$ that makes losses sting more than gains, and $\delta^{\mathrm{count}_i}$ discourages picking the same clients too often. After aggregation, each selected client's marginal contribution is computed by a Shapley value over averaged model updates evaluated on a server-held validation set $D_{\mathrm{val}}$; positive contributors get an exponentially saturating reputation reward, while clients with non-positive Shapley values are penalized with a penalty that grows with the number of recent bad rounds. That reputation then feeds the next round's scores, closing the loop.

What would settle it

Run SBRO-FL on a non-IID partition where a client's updates improve true test accuracy but lower validation-set accuracy, and track whether that client is repeatedly excluded; if the method consistently rejects the beneficial client and final accuracy suffers, the validation-accuracy proxy at the heart of the reputation update is falsified. A cheaper check is to compute the rank correlation between the Shapley values from Eq. (8) and leave-one-out true data-quality scores on a small federation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that reputation-weighted, budget-constrained client selection can be made to work as a closed loop in which bids, Shapley-based contribution scores, and prospect-theory-adjusted reputations reinforce each other. In the experiments, SBRO-FL beats random selection on every dataset and improves average final accuracy by 10.3% relative to random selection; on the harder CIFAR-10 and SVHN tasks the relative gains are about 19%. When low-quality clients strategically lower their bids to get selected, SBRO-FL still outperforms random selection by an average of 16.7%, close to the oracle high-quality-random baseline. The paper also observes that SBRO-FL sometimes edges out the oracle, because it can still learn useful signal from mildly noisy clients rather than discarding them entirely.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the server holds a labeled validation set and that the Shapley value computed by averaging client updates and testing on that set reliably reflects each client's data quality, so if those labels are missing or that proxy mis-ranks clients under non-IID or poisoned data, the reputation signal loses its grounding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A server can protect global-model accuracy without knowing which clients have clean labels, as long as it holds a labeled validation set and can compute per-round contributions.
  • Low-bid interference does not break the mechanism: clients that bid cheaply but contribute negatively are penalized by the reputation update rather than rewarded by the budget constraint.
  • Selection diversity is maintained via the recent-history decay factor, so the system keeps exploring clients instead of locking onto a small elite subset.
  • The method inherits the convergence behavior of FedAvg-style training, since it changes only which clients are selected, not the local training or aggregation rule.
  • Because exact Shapley computation is combinatorial, deployments with many clients would need approximate contribution estimators to keep the same loop tractable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not developed in the paper is to drop the server-side validation set and replace $D_{\mathrm{val}}$ with self-supervised or proxy metrics; the paper's own claims depend on labeled validation data, so the success of that extension is not established here.
  • The prospect-theory asymmetry is a design bet that inconsistency is more damaging than occasional brilliance; a symmetric reputation update would be a natural control condition to isolate the value of loss aversion.
  • Because Eq. (8) averages client updates rather than retraining on subsets, the 'marginal contribution' measures alignment with validation accuracy under one particular aggregation rule; under strongly non-IID partitions this proxy could mis-rank clients whose updates are useful only in combination.
  • Combining SBRO-FL with a Byzantine-robust aggregator could be synergistic, since the reputation filter would then only need to exclude clients whose updates are unhelpful rather than malicious by construction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces SBRO-FL, a client-selection framework for cross-silo federated learning that combines Shapley-value-based contribution evaluation, a prospect-theory-inspired reputation update, and a 0-1 integer program for budget-constrained selection. Clients submit bids based on perceived data quality; the server computes reputation scores from historical Shapley values and bid prices, then selects clients to maximize reputation-weighted utility under a budget. Experiments on FashionMNIST, EMNIST, CIFAR-10, and SVHN under label flipping and a low-bid interference scenario compare SBRO-FL with random selection, all-client selection, and an oracle clean-subset selection, reporting consistent accuracy gains and robustness claims.

Significance. If the method performs as claimed, the framework is a useful step toward jointly addressing data quality, incentives, and budget constraints in cross-silo FL. The paper offers a concrete algorithmic pipeline, explicit definitions, and a GitHub link for reproducibility, and it explicitly acknowledges limitations such as Shapley computational cost and the absence of an ablation study. However, the printed reputation score in Eq. (4) has a sign inconsistency that makes the selection objective favor low-reputation clients as written, and the experimental validation lacks multiple seeds, stronger baselines, and component-level ablations. These issues must be resolved before the contribution can be assessed as reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Definition 1, Eq. (4)] As printed, the loss branch is z(R_i)=γ(R_th−R_i)^β with γ=1 and β=0.3, which is positive and increases as R_i decreases below R_th. The score function is therefore U-shaped, minimized at R_i=R_th, and the selection objective in Eq. (5) will prefer clients with very low reputation over clients just above the threshold. This contradicts the text's claim of 'heightened negativity' and the stated loss-averse intent; the intended form appears to be −γ(R_th−R_i)^β. Since Eq. (4) drives the entire selection objective and appears again in Algorithm 1 line 5, the central claim is not supported by the manuscript as written. Please correct the equation or clarify the actual implementation and verify that the reported results follow from the corrected score.
  2. [Section 5.1, Table 2 and Fig. 4] The reported variance of less than 10^-4 is computed over the final 20 training rounds of a single run, not over independent training runs with different random seeds. Without multiple seeds, the claimed accuracy improvements over RS-FL cannot be separated from initialization and sampling luck. Please report means and standard deviations across at least five independent seeds, and include statistical significance or effect sizes for the main comparisons.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Section 5.3] The baseline set (RS-FL, HQRS-FL, All-FL) does not include any existing client-selection or robustness method, and Section 5.3 explicitly defers the ablation of the framework's components to future work. This leaves open which component (bidding, reputation, Shapley evaluation, budget constraint) is responsible for the gains and whether the gains are an artifact of the weak comparison. An ablation with components removed and at least one strong prior method—for example, a reputation-based client-selection baseline or a Byzantine-robust aggregation method—is needed to support the central 'unified framework' claim.
  4. [Section 3.4, Definition 3 and Algorithm 1 line 13] The entire reputation signal assumes that the server holds a labeled validation dataset D_val and that exact Shapley values computed by averaging client updates and evaluating accuracy on D_val reliably measure each client's data quality. This assumption is not tested or even stated as a limitation; the paper only acknowledges Shapley's combinatorial cost in Section 6.1. In privacy-sensitive cross-silo deployments, such a validation set may be unavailable, and under non-IID or poisoned data, accuracy on averaged updates may not reflect true marginal contributions. The authors should state this assumption explicitly and evaluate a setting without D_val or with approximate Shapley values.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, after Table 3] The text states that SBRO-FL achieves an average improvement of 10.89% over RS-FL and 1.92% over All-FL, but Table 3's average Gain column is 16.7%, and the relative gain over All-FL from the averaged accuracies is about 17.1%. Please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Section 6.1] The statement that SBRO-FL 'inherits similar convergence behavior under bounded-variance assumptions' is an unsupported assertion; no theorem or specific reference is provided. Either supply a convergence argument or weaken the statement to an empirical observation.
  3. [Section 4.3] There is a typo in the sentence 'CNN architectures were adapted to the complexity of the data et'; it should be 'data set'. Also, the prospect-theory parameters are said to be set after 'preliminary tuning' on the same benchmark suite, so the authors should discuss the risk of selection overfitting or use a separate hyperparameter split.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SBRO-FL is an empirical benchmark comparison, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper proposes a heuristic FL client-selection pipeline (bid collection, prospect-theory reputation scoring, 0-1 knapsack selection, exact Shapley contribution evaluation, and reputation updates) and evaluates it against three baselines on four standard datasets. None of the claimed results (Tables 2 and 3) is derived from the method's own definitions by construction; Shapley values are computed from a validation set, and the reported final accuracies are external benchmark numbers, not algebraic consequences of the update rules. The only self-citations (FLEXible platform [10] and an FL threats survey [32]) are tooling/background and not load-bearing for the main claim. The prospect-theory parameters (α=0.15, β=0.3, γ=1) are acknowledged to be selected by preliminary tuning on the same benchmark suite, which is a legitimate overfitting/validation concern but does not make the empirical comparison a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction; the paper does not present a derivation whose output equals its input. The apparent sign inconsistency in Eq. 4 is an internal correctness concern (the printed loss branch is positive rather than negative), not a circularity. Section 6.1 discloses computational and assumption limitations, further confirming the empirical, non-circular character of the contribution. There is no Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction and no self-citation chain forcing the stated superiority.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entity. The free parameters are dominated by tuned prospect-theory coefficients and experiment-specific constants such as budget, bid distribution, and history window. The most load-bearing assumptions are the existence of a server-held labeled validation set and the reliability of averaged-update Shapley values as a data-quality signal. Several reputation-update coefficients are never given values, which is a reproducibility gap.

free parameters (10)
  • Prospect theory gain exponent alpha = 0.15
    Set in Section 3.2 through preliminary tuning to provide stable performance across datasets.
  • Prospect theory loss exponent beta = 0.3
    Set in Section 3.2 through preliminary tuning, guided by prospect theory literature.
  • Prospect theory loss scaling gamma = 1
    Chosen in Section 3.2 as part of the tuned prospect theory configuration.
  • Selection diversity decay delta = 0.5
    Chosen in Section 4.3 to balance participation diversity.
  • Total budget B_budget = 45
    Fixed in Section 4.3; directly controls how many clients can be selected per round.
  • Bid distribution parameters = mu=10, sigma^2=1
    Used in Section 4.3 to generate client bids in the main experiments.
  • Reward coefficient omega = not specified
    Appears in the reputation update Eq. (10) and Algorithm 1, but no value is reported.
  • Punishment coefficient psi = not specified
    Appears in the reputation update Eq. (10) and Algorithm 1, but no value is reported.
  • Penalty factor rho = not specified
    Used in Eq. (10) to penalize repeated poor performance, but no value is reported.
  • History window K = 5
    The paper tracks participation and errors over the last five rounds in Eqs. (6) and (10), which is a hand-chosen window.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The server has a labeled validation dataset D_val and can evaluate model accuracy on it.
    Required by Definition 3 and Algorithm 1 line 13 to compute Shapley values; not guaranteed in privacy-sensitive FL deployments.
  • domain assumption Client bids are honest or at least monotone in data quality.
    The low-bid interference experiment assigns bids by label-flipping ratio, and Section 6.1 concedes that the framework assumes honest bid submissions.
  • domain assumption Averaging client updates and evaluating the average on D_val yields a meaningful Shapley contribution.
    Used in Eq. (8); presupposes that model updates are comparable and linearly aggregateable, and that validation accuracy reflects marginal data quality.
  • standard math The Shapley value is an appropriate fairness and data-quality measure.
    Invoked in Section 3.4 via standard cooperative game theory, with no new theoretical justification for FL-specific settings.
  • standard math The selection integer program is solved optimally with a standard solver.
    Section 4.3 uses the PuLP linear programming solver; the 0-1 knapsack is NP-hard, so solver feasibility depends on the small number of selected clients.
  • ad hoc to paper Convergence is inherited from FedAvg under bounded-variance assumptions.
    Section 6.1 asserts this without proof, and does not analyze how the modified selection and reputation dynamics affect convergence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Addressing Data Quality Decompensation in Federated Learning via Dynamic Client Selection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TXTWB6Q

@misc{pith2026250521219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Addressing Data Quality Decompensation in Federated Learning via Dynamic Client Selection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TXTWB6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21219}
}
read the original abstract

In cross-silo Federated Learning (FL), client selection is critical to ensure high model performance, yet it remains challenging due to data quality decompensation, budget constraints, and incentive compatibility. As training progresses, these factors exacerbate client heterogeneity and degrade global performance. Most existing approaches treat these challenges in isolation, making jointly optimizing multiple factors difficult. To address this, we propose Shapley-Bid Reputation Optimized Federated Learning (SBRO-FL), a unified framework integrating dynamic bidding, reputation modeling, and cost-aware selection. Clients submit bids based on their perceived data quality, and their contributions are evaluated using Shapley values to quantify their marginal impact on the global model. A reputation system, inspired by prospect theory, captures historical performance while penalizing inconsistency. The client selection problem is formulated as a 0-1 integer program that maximizes reputation-weighted utility under budget constraints. Experiments on FashionMNIST, EMNIST, CIFAR-10, and SVHN datasets show that SBRO-FL improves accuracy, convergence speed, and robustness, even in adversarial and low-bid interference scenarios. Our results highlight the importance of balancing data reliability, incentive compatibility, and cost efficiency to enable scalable and trustworthy FL deployments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21219 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Federated learning example: client–server architecture. (2) Reputation-Driven Bidding: A novel bidding mechanism is introduced, where clients propose bid prices based on perceived data quality. This approach provides a practical incentive alignment strategy under budget constraints, fostering stable and cost-efficient client engagement. (3) Shapley Value-Based Contribution Assessment: SBRO-FL leverages the Shapley v… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Workflow of SBRO-FL within the traditional FL framework. 3. Client Selection: The server calculates a reputation score for each client based on historical performance and selects clients through an optimization model formulated as a 0-1 integer programming problem. 4. Model Distribution: The central server distributes the specification of the FL task, includ￾ing the type and parameters of the global model. 5. Local … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prospect theory value function. The X-axis represents gains and losses relative to a reference point, while the Y-axis represents perceived value. The function is asymmetric: losses have a steeper curve than gains, reflecting loss aversion, meaning individuals perceive losses more strongly than equivalent gains. Conversely, gains exhibit diminishing sensitivity, meaning the perceived impact of additional gains decre… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trends in Model Accuracy: Comparing SBRO-FL and Baseline Methods Across Diverse Datasets. client updates while operating under budget constraints. Furthermore, we computed the variance of the final 20 rounds for each method, which remained negligibly small. This confir…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trends in Model Accuracy: Evaluating SBRO-FL and Baseline Methods Under Low-Cost Interference Across Datasets. of Shapley values, would help quantify their respective contributions to overall performance. Such an analysis would provide deeper insights into the role of …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Badr, Mohamed M

    Mahmoud M. Badr, Mohamed M. E. A. Mahmoud, Yuguang Fang, Mohammed Abdulaal, Abdulah Jeza Aljohani, Waleed Alasmary, and Mohamed I. Ibrahem. Privacy-preserving and communication-efficient energy prediction scheme based on federated learning for smart grids. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 10(9):7719–7736, May 2023. ISSN 2372-2541

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Diverse client selection for federated learning: Submodularity and convergence anal- ysis

    Ravikumar Balakrishnan, Tian Li, Tianyi Zhou, Nageen Himayat, Virginia Smith, and Jeff Bilmes. Diverse client selection for federated learning: Submodularity and convergence anal- ysis. InICML 2021 International Workshop on Federated Learning for User Privacy and Data Confidentiality, volume 3, page 139. PMLR, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    McMahan, Timon Overveldt, David Petrou, Daniel Ramage, and Jason Roselander

    Kallista Bonawitz, Hubert Eichner, Wolfgang Grieskamp, Dzmitry Huba, Alex Ingerman, Vladimir Ivanov, Chloe Kiddon, Jakub Kone ˇcný, Stefano Mazzocchi, H. McMahan, Timon Overveldt, David Petrou, Daniel Ramage, and Jason Roselander. Towards federated learning at scale: System design.Proceedings of machine learning and systems, 1:374–388, 2019. doi: abs/1902.01046

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Evaluating feder- ated learning for intrusion detection in internet of things: Review and challenges.Computer Networks, 203:108661, 2022

    Enrique Mármol Campos, Pablo Fernández Saura, Aurora González-Vidal, José L Hernández- Ramos, Jorge Bernal Bernabé, Gianmarco Baldini, and Antonio Skarmeta. Evaluating feder- ated learning for intrusion detection in internet of things: Review and challenges.Computer Networks, 203:108661, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A credible and fair federated learning framework based on blockchain.IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 6(2):301–316, February 2025

    Leiming Chen, Dehai Zhao, Liping Tao, Kai Wang, Sibo Qiao, Xingjie Zeng, and Chee Wei Tan. A credible and fair federated learning framework based on blockchain.IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 6(2):301–316, February 2025. ISSN 2691-4581

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Emnist: Extend- ing mnist to handwritten letters

    Gregory Cohen, Saeed Afshar, Jonathan Tapson, and André van Schaik. Emnist: Extend- ing mnist to handwritten letters. In2017 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 2921–2926, 2017. 16

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Local model poisoning attacks to byzantine-robust federated learning

    Minghong Fang, Xiaoyu Cao, Jinyuan Jia, and Neil Zhenqiang Gong. Local model poisoning attacks to byzantine-robust federated learning. InProceedings of the 29th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium, SEC’20, pages 1623–1640, USA, 2020. USENIX Association

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Clustered sampling: Low- variance and improved representativity for clients selection in federated learning

    Yann Fraboni, Richard Vidal, Laetitia Kameni, and Marco Lorenzi. Clustered sampling: Low- variance and improved representativity for clients selection in federated learning. InProceed- ings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3407–3416. PMLR, 18–24 Jul 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Data shapley: Equitable valuation of data for machine learn- ing

    Amirata Ghorbani and James Zou. Data shapley: Equitable valuation of data for machine learn- ing. InProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2242–2251. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Victoria Luzón

    Francisco Herrera, Daniel Jiménez-López, Alberto Argente-Garrido, Nuria Rodríguez- Barroso, Cristina Zuheros, Ignacio Aguilera-Martos, Beatriz Bello, Mario García-Márquez, and M. Victoria Luzón. Flex: Flexible federated learning framework.Information Fusion, 117:102792, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Promoting collaboration in cross-silo federated learning: Challenges and opportunities.IEEE Communications Magazine, 62(4):82–88, April 2024

    Chao Huang, Ming Tang, Qian Ma, Jianwei Huang, and Xin Liu. Promoting collaboration in cross-silo federated learning: Challenges and opportunities.IEEE Communications Magazine, 62(4):82–88, April 2024. ISSN 1558-1896

    2024

  4. [12]

    Towards understanding biased client selection in federated learning

    Yae Jee Cho, Jianyu Wang, and Gauri Joshi. Towards understanding biased client selection in federated learning. InProceedings of The 25th International Conference on Artificial In- telligence and Statistics, volume 151 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 10351–10...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Optimal user selection for high-performance and stabilized energy-efficient feder- ated learning platforms.Electronics, 9(9):1359, 2020

    Joohyung Jeon, Soohyun Park, Minseok Choi, Joongheon Kim, Young-Bin Kwon, and Sun- grae Cho. Optimal user selection for high-performance and stabilized energy-efficient feder- ated learning platforms.Electronics, 9(9):1359, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Toward an automated auction framework for wireless federated learning services market.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 20(10):3034–3048, 2020

    Yutao Jiao, Ping Wang, Dusit Niyato, Bin Lin, and Dong In Kim. Toward an automated auction framework for wireless federated learning services market.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 20(10):3034–3048, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risks

    Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risks. Econometrica, 47(2):363–391, 1979

    1979

  8. [16]

    Jiawen Kang, Zehui Xiong, Dusit Niyato, Shengli Xie, and Junshan Zhang. Incentive mech- anism for reliable federated learning: A joint optimization approach to combining reputation and contract theory.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(6):10700–10714, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Khan, Shashi Raj Pandey, Nguyen H

    Latif U. Khan, Shashi Raj Pandey, Nguyen H. Tran, Walid Saad, Zhu Han, Minh N. H. Nguyen, and Choong Seon Hong. Federated learning for edge networks: Resource optimization and incentive mechanism.IEEE Communications Magazine, 58(10):88–93, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Federated optimization: Distributed machine learning for on-device intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02527, 2016

    Jakub Kone ˇcn`y, H Brendan McMahan, Daniel Ramage, and Peter Richtárik. Federated optimization: Distributed machine learning for on-device intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02527, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    Alex Krizhevsky and Geoffrey Hinton. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Technical report, University of Toronto, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    Data distribution-aware online client selection algorithm for federated learning in heterogeneous networks.IEEE Transac- tions on Vehicular Technology, 72(1):1127–1136, 2023

    Jaewook Lee, Haneul Ko, Sangwon Seo, and Sangheon Pack. Data distribution-aware online client selection algorithm for federated learning in heterogeneous networks.IEEE Transac- tions on Vehicular Technology, 72(1):1127–1136, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    A review of applications in federated learning

    Li Li, Yuxi Fan, Mike Tse, and Kuo-Yi Lin. A review of applications in federated learning. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 149:106854, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    On the conver- gence of fedavg on non-iid data

    Xiang Li, Kaixuan Huang, Wenhao Yang, Shusen Wang, and Zhihua Zhang. On the conver- gence of fedavg on non-iid data. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Gtg-shapley: Efficient and accurate participant contribution evaluation in federated learning.ACM Transactions on intel- ligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 13(4):1–21, 2022

    Zelei Liu, Yuanyuan Chen, Han Yu, Yang Liu, and Lizhen Cui. Gtg-shapley: Efficient and accurate participant contribution evaluation in federated learning.ACM Transactions on intel- ligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 13(4):1–21, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Samara Mayhoub and Tareq M. Shami. A review of client selection methods in federated learning.Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 31(2):1129–1152, November

  17. [25]

    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. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 54 of Proceedin...

    2017

  18. [26]

    Yuval Netzer, Tao Wang, Adam Coates, Alessandro Bissacco, Bo Wu, and Andrew Y . Ng. Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning. InNIPS Workshop on Deep Learning and Unsupervised Feature Learning, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Client selection for federated learning with heterogeneous resources in mobile edge

    Takayuki Nishio and Ryo Yonetani. Client selection for federated learning with heterogeneous resources in mobile edge. InICC 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Communi- cations (ICC), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    An incentive auction for heteroge- neous client selection in federated learning.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 22(10): 5733–5750, 2022

    Jinlong Pang, Jieling Yu, Ruiting Zhou, and John CS Lui. An incentive auction for heteroge- neous client selection in federated learning.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 22(10): 5733–5750, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Feddcs: A distributed client selection framework for cross device federated learning.Future Generation Computer Systems, 144: 24–36, July 2023

    Monalisa Panigrahi, Sourabh Bharti, and Arun Sharma. Feddcs: A distributed client selection framework for cross device federated learning.Future Generation Computer Systems, 144: 24–36, July 2023. ISSN 0167-739X

    2023

  22. [30]

    High- quality model aggregation for blockchain-based federated learning via reputation-motivated task participation.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(19):18378–18391, 2022

    Jiahao Qi, Feilong Lin, Zhongyu Chen, Changbing Tang, Riheng Jia, and Minglu Li. High- quality model aggregation for blockchain-based federated learning via reputation-motivated task participation.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(19):18378–18391, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Federated learning-based ai approaches in smart healthcare: concepts, taxonomies, challenges and open issues.Cluster computing, 26(4):2271–2311, 2023

    Anichur Rahman, Md Sazzad Hossain, Ghulam Muhammad, Dipanjali Kundu, Tanoy Deb- nath, Muaz Rahman, Md Saikat Islam Khan, Prayag Tiwari, and Shahab S Band. Federated learning-based ai approaches in smart healthcare: concepts, taxonomies, challenges and open issues.Cluster compu...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Survey on federated learning threats: Concepts, taxonomy on attacks and defences, experimental study and challenges.Information Fusion, 90:148–173, 2023

    Nuria Rodríguez-Barroso, Daniel Jiménez-López, M Victoria Luzón, Francisco Herrera, and Eugenio Martínez-Cámara. Survey on federated learning threats: Concepts, taxonomy on attacks and defences, experimental study and challenges.Information Fusion, 90:148–173, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Motivating workers in federated learning: A stackelberg game perspective.IEEE Networking Letters, 2(1):23–27, 2020

    Yunus Sarikaya and Ozgur Ercetin. Motivating workers in federated learning: A stackelberg game perspective.IEEE Networking Letters, 2(1):23–27, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    L. S. Shapley. A value for n-person games. In H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker, editors,Con- tributions to the Theory of Games, number 28, pages 307–317. Princeton University Press, 1953

    1953

  27. [35]

    Yang, Xijun Wang, Yan Zhang, and Tony Q

    Zhendong Song, Hongguang Sun, Howard H. Yang, Xijun Wang, Yan Zhang, and Tony Q. S. Quek. Reputation-based federated learning for secure wireless networks.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(2):1212–1226, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Data poisoning attacks on federated machine learning.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(13):11365–11375, 2022

    Gan Sun, Yang Cong, Jiahua Dong, Qiang Wang, Lingjuan Lyu, and Ji Liu. Data poisoning attacks on federated machine learning.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(13):11365–11375, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Incentive mechanism design for joint resource allocation in blockchain-based federated learning.IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 34(5):1536–1547, May 2023

    Zhilin Wang, Qin Hu, Ruinian Li, Minghui Xu, and Zehui Xiong. Incentive mechanism design for joint resource allocation in blockchain-based federated learning.IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 34(5):1536–1547, May 2023. ISSN 2161-9883

    2023

  30. [38]

    A survey on federated learning: challenges and applications.International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 14(2):513–535, 2023

    Jie Wen, Zhixia Zhang, Yang Lan, Zhihua Cui, Jianghui Cai, and Wensheng Zhang. A survey on federated learning: challenges and applications.International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 14(2):513–535, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for bench- marking machine learning algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    Han Xiao, Kashif Rasul, and Roland V ollgraf. Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for bench- marking machine learning algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Jointly optimizing client selection and resource management in wireless federated learning for internet of things.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(6):4385–4395, 2021

    Liangkun Yu, Rana Albelaihi, Xiang Sun, Nirwan Ansari, and Michael Devetsikiotis. Jointly optimizing client selection and resource management in wireless federated learning for internet of things.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(6):4385–4395, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Yu, and Christopher G

    Liangqi Yuan, Ziran Wang, Lichao Sun, Philip S. Yu, and Christopher G. Brinton. Decentral- ized federated learning: A survey and perspective.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 11(21): 34617–34638, November 2024. ISSN 2372-2541. 18

    2024

  34. [42]

    A survey of trustworthy federated learning: Issues, solutions, and challenges.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(6):1–47, October 2024

    Yifei Zhang, Dun Zeng, Jinglong Luo, Xinyu Fu, Guanzhong Chen, Zenglin Xu, and Irwin King. A survey of trustworthy federated learning: Issues, solutions, and challenges.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(6):1–47, October 2024. ISSN 2157- 6912

    2024

  35. [43]

    Jianxin Zhao, Xinyu Chang, Yanhao Feng, Chi Harold Liu, and Ningbo Liu. Participant se- lection for federated learning with heterogeneous data in intelligent transport system.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 24(1):1106–1115, 2023. 19

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.