Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 97 references

Fairness in Federated Learning: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey claims that unfairness in federated learning has three root causes—data, client, and model bias—and that existing remedies sort into five strategy families.

desk verdict Competent but flawed survey: useful taxonomy and table, but metric errors and a non-reproducible selection method keep it from being fully reliable. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00799 v1 pith:CXZX47MA submitted 2025-08-31 cs.LG cs.CY

Noorain Mukhtiar , Adnan Mahmood , Quan Z. Sheng This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.CY
keywords federatedlearningfairnessbiastaxonomymitigationclientselectionmetricssurvey
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

This survey aims to organize the fairness problem in federated learning (FL) into a single structured picture: where bias enters the training process, what techniques exist to counteract it, and how fairness is measured. It argues that the root causes of unfairness fall into three families—data bias, client bias, and model bias—and that state-of-the-art mitigation strategies can be grouped into optimization-based, resource allocation, reputation/regret-based, game-theoretic, and gradient-based approaches. It also catalogs fairness evaluation metrics and maps fairness applications across edge computing, healthcare, industrial IoT, transport, and wireless networks. A reader would care because fairness failures in FL are what keep the technology from being deployed inclusively: when client selection or aggregation favors some participants, the resulting model skews predictions and reduces trust.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the paper's two-level taxonomy: a three-way split of bias roots (data, client, model) and a five-way split of mitigation strategies (optimization, resource allocation, reputation/regret, game theory, gradients). The taxonomy does the argumentative work by mapping each fairness-aware algorithm to a bias source and a fairness notion—client-level, group, accuracy parity, good-intent, contribution, regret distribution, or expectation—and by making trade-offs visible as structural tensions between fairness and accuracy, privacy, generalization, and utility. The evaluation-metric catalog is the auxiliary mechanism that shows why 'fairness' must be quantified differently depe

What would settle it

Run the survey's own taxonomy as a coding scheme over a complete recent corpus of fairness-aware FL papers and count how many bias sources and mitigation methods fit none of the three or five categories; if a substantial share (more than a few percent) does not fit, the claimed structure is incomplete. A reader could also check whether any major fairness-aware FL algorithm from the same venues is missing from the paper's tables.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that fairness in federated learning is not a single problem but a structured family of problems. It organizes the sources of unfairness into three roots—data bias (collection, distribution, labels, feature skew), client bias (selection, participation, device and communication heterogeneity), and model bias (biased representations, aggregation, algorithmic decisions)—and it organizes the mitigation literature into five families: optimization-problem formulation, fair resource allocation, reputation/regret-based client selection, game-theoretic mechanisms, and gradient-based client selection. The survey further claims that evaluation remains fragmented: fairness is

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy holds only if every important kind of bias falls into one of the three named buckets and if the papers the authors happened to select really represent the whole field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A practitioner diagnosing an unfair FL system can locate the likely cause by checking which of the three bias roots is active—data distribution, client participation, or model aggregation—and then pick a mitigation family accordingly.
  • Client selection fairness requires treating two moments separately: the choice of which clients are eligible and the choice of which clients participate each round; a fair algorithm must address both.
  • Because the five mitigation families have different strengths, no single algorithm dominates; optimal choice depends on whether accuracy, convergence speed, or equity is the priority.
  • Fairness evaluation should combine group-parity metrics with distributional metrics because each captures a different notion of fairness.
  • Fairness interventions conflict with accuracy, privacy, generalization, and utility, so fairness-aware FL needs explicit multi-objective design rather than a one-shot constraint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A diagnostic workflow follows directly from the taxonomy but is not spelled out: an FL deployment could classify its fairness failure by root cause and select the matching family; that workflow is testable on real systems.
  • The paper catalogs trade-offs but not costs; one extension is to plot a cost-fairness frontier for the five families under realistic client heterogeneity, giving practitioners a resource-aware selection rule.
  • Since the metrics section shows different metrics measure different notions, a standardized fairness report that always includes both a group-parity and a variance-based metric would make results across FL studies comparable; the paper calls for standardization but does not propose concrete report contents.
  • The noted conflict among fairness notions suggests hybrid strategies—for instance combining game-theoretic contribution rewards with gradient-based reweighting—as a natural next step; the paper leaves this combination unexplored.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This survey reviews fairness in federated learning (FL). It proposes a taxonomy of bias sources (data, client, and model biases), describes fairness notions and their FL-specific adaptations, categorizes mitigation strategies into pre/in/post-processing and into five technique families (optimization formulation, fair resource allocation, reputation/regret-based selection, game-theoretic methods, and gradient-based selection), surveys cross-domain applications, and reviews evaluation metrics used to quantify fairness. The paper's stated contribution is a structured, comprehensive overview of the state of the art, including trends, strengths/limitations of existing methods, and open research directions.

Significance. If the survey's coverage is accepted as representative, it offers a useful structured entry point to fairness-aware FL: the bias taxonomy (Figure 4), the algorithm summary (Table 1), and the catalog of evaluation metrics (Section 6) are potentially valuable for practitioners and newcomers. The manuscript includes no new algorithms or derivations; its value is organizational and critical. The main strengths are the breadth of the literature discussed, the explicit discussion of trade-offs (accuracy, privacy, generalization, utility), and the multi-domain perspective. However, the reliability of the 'comprehensive' and 'trend' claims depends on a literature selection process that is currently underdocumented, and the evaluation-metrics section contains concrete technical errors that need correction before the survey can be used as a dependable reference.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1.4] The paper-selection methodology is not reproducible: it does not report search dates, exact query strings, numbers of initially retrieved records, inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening steps, or the list of papers considered but excluded. Since the paper's central claim is a 'comprehensive' overview and since later observations about trends (e.g., the 14 techniques in Table 1 and the metric-adoption statements in Section 6) inherit the representativeness of the undocumented corpus, this is a load-bearing weakness. Please add a full protocol (databases, dates, queries, screening phases, PRISMA-style flow) or substantially temper the comprehensiveness claims.
  2. [§6.2, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is internally inconsistent. The text calls cosine similarity 'cosine distance' and writes D_C = 1 − cos(φ*, φ), but the displayed right-hand side is the standard formula for cos(φ*, φ), i.e., the normalized dot product, not 1 − cos(φ*, φ). As printed, the equation implies 1 − cos = cos, which is generally false. Please correct the definition, explicitly state that cosine distance = 1 − cosine similarity, and align the displayed formula with the notation.
  3. [§6.4–§6.5, Eqs. (6)–(7)] The sign interpretation in §6.5 contradicts the definition of SPD in Eq. (6). SPD is defined with an absolute value, |P(Ŷ=1|A=0) − P(Ŷ=1|A=1)|, so it cannot take positive or negative values that indicate which group outperforms; the statement that 'positive values in these metrics indicate that the unprivileged group outperforms the privileged group' applies at most to EOD in Eq. (7), which has no absolute value, and not to SPD. Please clarify whether absolute values are intended and restate the interpretation separately for each metric.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§1.1] The heading '1.1 Federated Learning – Fundamentals and Variants' appears twice; the second occurrence should be renumbered and the subsection hierarchy adjusted accordingly.
  2. [§6.1] Typo: 'performance od training framework' should read 'performance of the training framework'.
  3. [Table 1] In the CGD row, 'Priavte' should be 'Private'. Also, the tick-mark columns (F, A, U, MP, MCT, E) are not defined in the main text; please add a sentence explaining what a tick means.
  4. [§6.6, Eq. (8)] The notation S_{φ*_i} and S_{φ_i} is confusing: standard deviations are single numbers for the whole vector, not indexed by i. Please define S_{φ*} and S_{φ} as the sample standard deviations and remove the i subscripts.
  5. [§6.5, §6.7] Minor typographical issues: 'Jain s Fairness Index' should be 'Jain's Fairness Index'; the phrase 'a.k.a. cosine distance' in §6.2 should be corrected as noted in the major comments.
  6. [§4.2.4] Grammar: 'However, involves high computational complexity' should be 'However, these approaches involve high computational complexity'.
  7. [Figure 7] The open-research-direction boxes in Figure 7 are not discussed individually in the text; adding one sentence per direction in Section 7 would improve readability and connect the figure to the prose.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey reports and organizes external literature; no derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a survey and makes no formal derivation claim: it organizes published fairness-aware federated learning algorithms, bias sources, and evaluation metrics. I checked each input–output pair that could reduce to construction. The taxonomy (data/client/model bias) and the fairness-notion list are descriptive categorizations, not predictions fitted from data. The metric equations (Eqs. 1–9) are standard definitions drawn from cited sources; even where the text mislabels cosine similarity as cosine distance or interprets absolute SPD as signed, these are exposition errors, not cases where an output is identical to an input. The survey's citations include several works by Sheng and co-authors ([29], [57], [69], [94]), but these are used as ordinary examples/support in the literature review, not as a uniqueness theorem or as grounds to forbid alternatives; they are peer-reviewed and externally testable, so they do not load a derivation. Section 1.4's selection process is vague and non-reproducible, which weakens the claim of comprehensiveness, but that is a methodological/reproducibility defect, not circularity: the selected corpus is not defined in terms of the survey's conclusions. No step reduces by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Survey paper; no new parameters, entities, or derivations. Relies on prior definitions and subjective literature selection.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The three-way categorization of bias sources (data, client, model) is exhaustive and adequate for the survey's purpose.
    Section 3 states 'the key causes include Data, Client, and Model biases' without arguing that no other fundamental bias source exists.
  • domain assumption The literature selected via Section 1.4's search is representative and sufficient to draw conclusions about trends and gaps.
    Selection criteria are subjective ('quality, novelty, and relevance'), and no systematic protocol is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fairness in Federated Learning: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CXZX47MA

@misc{pith2026250900799,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fairness in Federated Learning: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CXZX47MA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00799}
}
read the original abstract

At the intersection of the cutting-edge technologies and privacy concerns, Federated Learning (FL) with its distributed architecture, stands at the forefront in a bid to facilitate collaborative model training across multiple clients while preserving data privacy. However, the applicability of FL systems is hindered by fairness concerns arising from numerous sources of heterogeneity that can result in biases and undermine a system's effectiveness, with skewed predictions, reduced accuracy, and inefficient model convergence. This survey thus explores the diverse sources of bias, including but not limited to, data, client, and model biases, and thoroughly discusses the strengths and limitations inherited within the array of the state-of-the-art techniques utilized in the literature to mitigate such disparities in the FL training process. We delineate a comprehensive overview of the several notions, theoretical underpinnings, and technical aspects associated with fairness and their adoption in FL-based multidisciplinary environments. Furthermore, we examine salient evaluation metrics leveraged to measure fairness quantitatively. Finally, we envisage exciting open research directions that have the potential to drive future advancements in achieving fairer FL frameworks, in turn, offering a strong foundation for future research in this pivotal area.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00799 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The evolution of artificial intelligence; from machine learning to federated learning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Centralized and decentralized federated learning architectures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Taxonomy of this survey; research questions and corresponding sections addressing them. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The roots of bias in federated learning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fairness-aware strategies in federated learning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Multidisciplinary fairness applications in federated learning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Open research directions for fairness in federated learning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block =

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn issn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 'after.sentence :...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Soltani, V

    B. Soltani, V. Haghighi, A. Mahmood, Q. Z. Sheng, L. Yao, In 17th ACM Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture . 2022 19--24

    2022

  4. [4]

    Woisetschläger, A

    H. Woisetschläger, A. Erben, S. Wang, R. Mayer, H.-A. Jacobsen, In 33rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence . 2024 8317--8325

    2024

  5. [5]

    Vucinich, Q

    S. Vucinich, Q. Zhu, IEEE Access 2023, 11 80903

    2023

  6. [6]

    Y. Shi, H. Yu, C. Leung, IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 2024, 35, 9 11922

    2024

  7. [7]

    H. Chen, T. Zhu, T. Zhang, W. Zhou, P. S. Yu, ACM Computing Surveys 2023, 56, 2 1

    2023

  8. [8]

    T. H. Rafi, F. A. Noor, T. Hussain, D.-K. Chae, Information Fusion 2024, 105, C 102198

    2024

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    E. T. M. Beltr \'a n, M. Q. P \'e rez, P. M. S. S \'a nchez, S. L. Bernal, G. Bovet, M. G. P \'e rez, G. M. P \'e rez, A. H. Celdr \'a n, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Huang, T

    W. Huang, T. Li, D. Wang, S. Du, J. Zhang, T. Huang, Information Sciences 2022, 589 170

    2022

  3. [11]

    J. Wen, Z. Zhang, Y. Lan, Z. Cui, J. Cai, W. Zhang, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics 2023, 14, 2 513

    2023

  4. [12]

    Tariq, M

    A. Tariq, M. A. Serhani, F. M. Sallabi, E. S. Barka, T. Qayyum, H. M. Khater, K. A. Shuaib, IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society 2024, 5 4920

    2024

  5. [13]

    J. Zhao, X. Chang, Y. Feng, C. H. Liu, N. Liu, IEEE Trans. on Intelligent Transportation Systems 2022, 24, 1 1106

    2022

  6. [14]

    F. Lai, X. Zhu, H. V. Madhyastha, M. Chowdhury, In 15th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation . 2021 19--35

    2021

  7. [15]

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, V. Smith, In Machine learning and systems. 2020 429--450

    2020

  8. [16]

    S. Q. Zhang, J. Lin, Q. Zhang, In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . 2022 9091--9099

    2022

  9. [17]

    Nishio, R

    T. Nishio, R. Yonetani, In ICC IEEE International Conference on Communications. 2019 1--7

    2019

  10. [18]

    Z. Chai, Y. Chen, A. Anwar, L. Zhao, Y. Cheng, H. Rangwala, In International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis . 2021 1--16

    2021

  11. [19]

    McMahan, E

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, B. A. y Arcas, In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . 2017 1273--1282

    2017

  12. [20]

    D. A. E. Acar, Y. Zhao, R. Matas, M. Mattina, P. Whatmough, V. Saligrama, In International Conference on Learning Representations . 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Zhang, S

    G. Zhang, S. Malekmohammadi, X. Chen, Y. Yu, Transactions on Machine Learning Research 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    P. Chen, L. Wu, L. Wang, Applied Sciences 2023, 13, 18

    2023

  15. [23]

    Dwork, M

    C. Dwork, M. Hardt, T. Pitassi, O. Reingold, R. Zemel, In 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference . 2012 214--226

    2012

  16. [24]

    L. Chu, L. Wang, Y. Dong, J. Pei, Z. Zhou, Y. Zhang, Fedfair: Training Fair models in Cross-silo Federated Learning , arXiv (Preprint) arXiv:2109.05662, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hardt, E

    M. Hardt, E. Price, N. Srebro, In International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems . 2016 3323 -- 333

    2016

  18. [26]

    Feldman, S

    M. Feldman, S. A. Friedler, J. Moeller, C. Scheidegger, S. Venkatasubramanian, In 21st ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 2015 259--268

    2015

  19. [27]

    Cornacchia, V

    G. Cornacchia, V. W. Anelli, G. M. Biancofiore, F. Narducci, C. Pomo, A. Ragone, E. Di Sciascio , Information Processing & Management 2023, 60, 2 103224

    2023

  20. [28]

    J. Chen, N. Kallus, X. Mao, G. Svacha, M. Udell, In Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 2019 339--348

    2019

  21. [29]

    H. Wang, H. Hsu, M. Diaz, F. P. Calmon, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 2021, 67, 10 6733

    2021

  22. [30]

    C. Shui, G. Xu, Q. CHEN, J. Li, C. X. Ling, T. Arbel, B. Wang, C. Gagn\' e , In 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems . 2022 34121--34135

    2022

  23. [31]

    J. Liu, Y. Zhou, D. Wu, M. Hu, M. Guizani, Q. Z. Sheng, In 41st International Conference on Machine Learning . 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    P. Zhou, P. Fang, P. Hui, Loss Tolerant Federated Learning , arXiv (Preprint) arXiv:2105.03591, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y. H. Ezzeldin, S. Yan, C. He, E. Ferrara, A. S. Avestimehr, In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . 2023 7494--7502

    2023

  26. [34]

    S. I. A. Meerza, J. Liu, In 33rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence . 2024 458--466

    2024

  27. [35]

    T. Li, M. Sanjabi, A. Beirami, V. Smith, In International Conference on Learning Representations . 2020 1--27

    2020

  28. [36]

    Mohri, G

    M. Mohri, G. Sivek, A. T. Suresh, In 36th International Conference on Machine Learning . 2019 4615--4625

    2019

  29. [37]

    X. Xu, L. Lyu, A reputation mechanism is all you need: Collaborative fairness and adversarial robustness in federated learning, arXiv (Preprint) arXiv: 2011.10464, 2021

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    L. Lyu, X. Xu, Q. Wang, H. Yu, In Federated Learning: Privacy and Incentive, 189--204. Springer, ISBN 978-3-030-63076-8, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    H. Yu, Z. Liu, Y. Liu, T. Chen, M. Cong, X. Weng, D. Niyato, Q. Yang, In AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 2020 393–399

    2020

  32. [40]

    Selialia, Y

    K. Selialia, Y. Chandio, F. M. Anwar, In 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems . Association for Computing Machinery , 2023 980–986

    2023

  33. [41]

    V. N. Iyer, A Review on Different Techniques Used to Combat the Non-IID and Heterogeneous Nature of Data in Federating Learning , arXiv (Preprint) arXiv:arXiv, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    J. Ou, Y. Shen, F. Wang, Q. Liu, X. Zhang, H. Lv, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 2022, 13, 6

    2022

  35. [43]

    M. Ye, X. Fang, B. Du, P. C. Yuen, D. Tao, ACM Computing Surveys 2023, 56, 3 1

    2023

  36. [44]

    H. Zhu, J. Xu, S. Liu, Y. Jin, Neurocomputing 2021, 465, C 371–390

    2021

  37. [45]

    Q. Li, Y. Diao, Q. Chen, B. He, Federated Learning on Non-IID Data Silos: An Experimental Study , arXiv (Preprint) arXiv:2102.02079, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Smestad, J

    C. Smestad, J. Li, In 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering . 2023 2–11

    2023

  39. [47]

    Huang, W

    T. Huang, W. Lin, W. Wu, L. He, K. Li, A. Y. Zomaya, IEEE Trans. on Parallel and Distributed Systems 2020, 32, 7 1552

    2020

  40. [48]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Wang, Y. Li, F. Xin, F. Dong, J. Luo, Z. Wu, ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks 2024, 20, 2

    2024

  41. [49]

    A. Abay, Y. Zhou, N. Baracaldo, S. Rajamoni, E. Chuba, H. Ludwig, Mitigating Bias in Federated Learning , arXiv (Preprint) arXiv:2012.02447, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Calmon, D

    F. Calmon, D. Wei, B. Vinzamuri, K. Natesan Ramamurthy, K. R. Varshney, In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2017 3995–4004

    2017

  43. [51]

    Y. Sun, B. C. Fung, F. Haghighat, Energy and Buildings 2022, 277 112565

    2022

  44. [52]

    Zhang, H

    M. Zhang, H. Zhao, S. Ebron, R. Xie, K. Yang, In 44th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. 2024 762--773

    2024

  45. [53]

    Y. Shi, Z. Liu, Z. Shi, H. Yu, In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo . 2023 324--329

    2023

  46. [54]

    Badar, S

    M. Badar, S. Sikdar, W. Nejdl, M. Fisichella, In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38. 2024 10962--10970

    2024

  47. [55]

    A. M. Albaseer, M. Abdallah, A. Al-Fuqaha, A. M. Seid, A. Erbad, O. A. Dobre, IEEE Trans. on Network and Service Management 2023, 20, 2 1502

    2023

  48. [56]

    C. Li, C. Li, Y. Zhao, B. Zhang, C. Li, In 2021 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) . 2021 1--6

    2021

  49. [57]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Sun, L. Shen, G. Bai, M. Xue, M. H. Meng, X. Li, R. Ko, S. Nepal, In Web Conference 2024 . 2024 2986--2997

    2024

  50. [58]

    S. Hu, Z. S. Wu, V. Smith, In IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning. 2024 140--160

    2024

  51. [59]

    Y. Yang, Y. Zhou, M. Hu, D. Wu, Q. Z. Sheng, In 32nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence . 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    B. R. Chaudhury, A. Murhekar, Z. Yuan, B. Li, R. Mehta, A. D. Procaccia, In 41st International Conference on Machine Learning . 2024 42245--42257

    2024

  53. [61]

    Z. Fan, H. Fang, Z. Zhou, J. Pei, M. P. Friedlander, C. Liu, Y. Zhang, In 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering . IEEE, 2022

    2022

  54. [62]

    Z. Shi, L. Zhang, Z. Yao, L. Lyu, C. Chen, L. Wang, J. Wang, X.-Y. Li, IEEE Trans. on Big Data 2024, 10, 6 1038

    2024

  55. [63]

    Y. Chen, W. Huang, M. Ye, In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 2024 12077--12086

    2024

  56. [64]

    Y. Shen, W. Xi, Y. Cai, Y. Fan, H. Yang, J. Zhao, Future Generation Computer Systems 2025, 162 107468

    2025

  57. [65]

    Zhang, Y

    J. Zhang, Y. Li, D. Wu, Y. Zhao, S. Palaiahnakote, Expert Systems with Applications 2025, 269 126418

    2025

  58. [66]

    P \'e rez, J

    J. P \'e rez, J. D \' az, J. Berrocal, R. L \'o pez-Viana, \'A . Gonz \'a lez-Prieto, Computing 2022, 104, 12 2711

    2022

  59. [67]

    Zhang, X

    W. Zhang, X. Wang, P. Zhou, W. Wu, X. Zhang, IEEE Access 2021, 9 24462

    2021

  60. [68]

    Mao, L.-J

    Y.-C. Mao, L.-J. Shen, J. Wu, P. Ping, J. Wu, Journal of Computer Science and Technology 2024, 39, 1 139

    2024

  61. [69]

    R. S. Antunes, C. Andr \'e da Costa, A. K \"u derle, I. A. Yari, B. Eskofier, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 2022, 13, 4 1

    2022

  62. [70]

    Zhang, Z

    F. Zhang, Z. Shuai, K. Kuang, F. Wu, Y. Zhuang, J. Xiao, Patterns 2024, 5, 1

    2024

  63. [71]

    D. Sun, J. Hu, H. Wu, J. Wu, J. Yang, Q. Z. Sheng, S. Dustdar, ACM Computing Surveys 2024, 56, 2 50:1

    2024

  64. [72]

    Boobalan, S

    P. Boobalan, S. P. Ramu, Q.-V. Pham, K. Dev, S. Pandya, P. K. R. Maddikunta, T. R. Gadekallu, T. Huynh-The, Computer Networks 2022, 212 109048

    2022

  65. [73]

    M. H. ur Rehman, A. M. Dirir, K. Salah, E. Damiani, D. Svetinovic, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 2021, 17, 12 8485

    2021

  66. [74]

    X. Hu, R. Li, L. Wang, Y. Ning, K. Ota, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 2023, 72, 9 11644

    2023

  67. [75]

    Y. Wang, Z. Su, T. H. Luan, R. Li, K. Zhang, IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 2021, 9, 5 3179

    2021

  68. [76]

    Niknam, H

    S. Niknam, H. S. Dhillon, J. H. Reed, IEEE Communications Magazine 2020, 58, 6 46

    2020

  69. [77]

    H. Zhu, Y. Zhou, H. Qian, Y. Shi, X. Chen, Y. Yang, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 2022, 22, 4 2493

    2022

  70. [78]

    Z. Gao, Y. Duan, Y. Yang, L. Rui, C. Zhao, In Service-Oriented Computing: 20th International Conference . Springer-Verlag, 2022 553–566

    2022

  71. [79]

    S. M. Hamidi, L. Ye, Transactions on Machine Learning Research 2025

    2025

  72. [80]

    Z. Liu, Y. Chen, H. Yu, Y. Liu, L. Cui, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 2022, 13, 4

    2022

  73. [81]

    Huang, W

    T. Huang, W. Lin, L. Shen, K. Li, A. Y. Zomaya, IEEE Internet of Things Journal 2022, 9, 20 20055

    2022

  74. [82]

    Z. Wang, X. Fan, J. Qi, C. Wen, C. Wang, R. Yu, In 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence . 2021 1615--1623

    2021

  75. [83]

    P. Zhou, H. Xu, L. H. Lee, P. Fang, P. Hui, ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2022, 6, 2 1

    2022

  76. [84]

    Huang, Y

    S. Huang, Y. Li, C. Chen, L. Shi, Y. Gao, In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 2023 4652--4662

    2023

  77. [85]

    Hamman, S

    F. Hamman, S. Dutta, In 12th International Conference on Learning Representations . 2024 1--25

    2024

  78. [86]

    Lewis, V

    C. Lewis, V. Varadharajan, N. Noman, U. Tupakula, ACM Trans. on Intelligent Systems and Technology 2024, 15, 3 1

    2024

  79. [87]

    Chang, R

    H. Chang, R. Shokri, In IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy . 2021 292--303

    2021

  80. [88]

    M. S. Esipova, A. A. Ghomi, Y. Luo, J. C. Cresswell, In 11th International Conference on Learning Representations . 2023 1–23

    2023

  81. [89]

    Kearns, A

    M. Kearns, A. Roth, S. Sharifi-Malvajerdi, In 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems . 2019 8242 -- 8251

    2019

  82. [90]

    Dehdashtian, B

    S. Dehdashtian, B. Sadeghi, V. N. Boddeti, In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 2024 12037--12046

    2024

  83. [91]

    T. Li, S. Hu, A. Beirami, V. Smith, In 38th International Conference on Machine Learning . 2021 6357--6368

    2021

  84. [92]

    Dilley, J

    O. Dilley, J. M. Parra-Ullauri, R. Hussain, D. Simeonidou, Federated Fairness Analytics: Quantifying Fairness in Federated Learning , arXiv (preprint) 2408.08214, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    R. Bai, S. Bagchi, D. I. Inouye, In The 12th International Conference on Learning Representations. 2024 1--26

    2024

  86. [94]

    S. Cui, W. Pan, J. Liang, C. Zhang, F. Wang, In 35th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems . 2021 26091 -- 26102

    2021

  87. [95]

    K. Hu, L. Xiang, P. Tang, W. Qiu, In 33rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2024 4136--4146

    2024

  88. [96]

    X. Zhao, Q. Cui, W. Li, W. Ni, E. Hossain, Q. Z. Sheng, X. Tao, P. Zhang, IEEE Transactions on Machine Learning in Communications and Networking 2025, 3 246

    2025

  89. [97]

    Malekmohammadi, A

    S. Malekmohammadi, A. Taïk, G. Farnadi, CoRR 2024, abs/2405.19272

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.