arxiv: 2604.23426 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-25 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.LG

Recognition: unknown

Enhanced Privacy and Communication Efficiency in Non-IID Federated Learning with Adaptive Quantization and Differential Privacy

Emre Ard{\i}\c{c} , Yakup Gen\c{c}

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 08:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.LG

keywords federated learningdifferential privacyquantizationnon-IID datacommunication efficiencyadaptive schedulingLaplacian noisemedical imaging

0 comments

The pith

Adaptive quantization and Laplacian differential privacy cut communication in non-IID federated learning by up to 52 percent while keeping competitive accuracy.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that pairing Laplacian differential privacy with two adaptive bit-length schedulers allows federated learning to send far less data across devices even when client data is unevenly distributed. One scheduler adjusts the global bit length over training rounds using cosine annealing, while the other picks per-client bit lengths according to the entropy of each local dataset. Experiments on MNIST, CIFAR-10, and medical imaging tasks with varying client numbers show total communicated volume falling by 31 to 52 percent relative to 32-bit baselines, with accuracy staying close to full-precision results and privacy protected by the added noise. A sympathetic reader would care because communication bandwidth and privacy leakage remain the main obstacles to running federated learning on real edge devices.

Core claim

The authors demonstrate that Laplacian differential privacy combined with a round-based cosine-annealing global scheduler and an entropy-driven client scheduler reduces the total volume of communicated data by up to 52.64 percent on MNIST, 45.06 percent on CIFAR-10, and 31 to 37 percent on medical imaging datasets relative to 32-bit float training, while model accuracy remains competitive and privacy guarantees hold under the chosen privacy budgets.

What carries the argument

Dual adaptive quantization schedulers paired with Laplacian noise: the global scheduler varies bit length via cosine annealing across rounds, and the client scheduler selects bits according to local dataset entropy to reduce gradient transmission size while preserving contribution and privacy.

If this is right

Communication volume drops 30-50 percent on standard image benchmarks without substantial accuracy loss.
The same schedulers deliver 31-37 percent savings on medical imaging data while adding privacy protection.
Laplacian noise provides the required privacy bounds across the tested client counts and non-IID partitions.
Accuracy stays competitive when bit lengths are adapted dynamically rather than fixed at full precision.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The entropy measure may need re-validation when the approach is applied to non-image data such as text or sensor streams.
Further savings could appear if the schedulers are combined with existing gradient compression methods beyond quantization.
Production deployments would require checking whether the chosen bit-length schedules remain stable when client data statistics drift over time.

Load-bearing premise

The entropy-based client scheduler and cosine-annealing global scheduler continue to preserve model accuracy on non-IID partitions even after bit lengths are lowered and Laplacian noise is added, without the choices being tuned too closely to these particular datasets.

What would settle it

Apply the method to a new non-IID medical imaging dataset with 50 or more clients using the same schedulers and privacy budget; if accuracy drops more than 4 percentage points below the 32-bit baseline or communication savings fall below 25 percent, the central claim does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23426 by Emre Ard{\i}\c{c}, Yakup Gen\c{c}.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIGURE 1 view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIGURE 2 view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIGURE 4 view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIGURE 6 view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIGURE 7 view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIGURE 8 view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIGURE 9 view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Federated learning (FL) is a distributed machine learning method where multiple devices collaboratively train a model under the management of a central server without sharing underlying data. One of the key challenges of FL is the communication bottleneck caused by variations in connection speed and bandwidth across devices. Therefore, it is essential to reduce the size of transmitted data during training. Additionally, there is a potential risk of exposing sensitive information through the model or gradient analysis during training. To address both privacy and communication efficiency, we combine differential privacy (DP) and adaptive quantization methods. We use Laplacian-based DP to preserve privacy, which is relatively underexplored in FL and offers tighter privacy guarantees than Gaussian-based DP. We propose a simple and efficient global bit-length scheduler using round-based cosine annealing, along with a client-based scheduler that dynamically adapts based on client contribution estimated through dataset entropy analysis. We evaluate our approach through extensive experiments on CIFAR10, MNIST, and medical imaging datasets, using non-IID data distributions across varying client counts, bit-length schedulers, and privacy budgets. The results show that our adaptive quantization methods reduce total communicated data by up to 52.64% for MNIST, 45.06% for CIFAR10, and 31% to 37% for medical imaging datasets compared to 32-bit float training while maintaining competitive model accuracy and ensuring robust privacy through differential privacy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The two new bit-length schedulers are the concrete addition here, but their data-dependent design raises questions about how well the accuracy claims hold beyond the tested non-IID partitions.

read the letter

The paper's main new pieces are a global bit-length scheduler that uses round-based cosine annealing and a per-client scheduler that sets bits from local dataset entropy. These are combined with Laplacian differential privacy in a non-IID federated learning setup, and the authors run experiments on MNIST, CIFAR-10, and medical imaging data across different client counts and privacy budgets. The reported communication cuts—up to 52% on MNIST and 45% on CIFAR-10 versus 32-bit baselines—while keeping competitive accuracy are the practical takeaway they emphasize. Laplacian noise is a reasonable choice here since it is less explored in FL than Gaussian noise, and the schedulers give a simple way to adapt quantization without a full new framework. The experiments do cover varying client numbers and some medical datasets, which adds a bit of relevance for edge or privacy-sensitive uses. The soft spot is that both schedulers are explicitly data-dependent, so the chosen bit sequences could be tuned to the exact Dirichlet non-IID parameters, client counts, and datasets in the runs. Without clear ablations on different heterogeneity levels or unseen client numbers, it is not obvious whether the accuracy stays competitive when those conditions shift. The abstract states percentage reductions and competitive accuracy but gives no variance numbers, statistical tests, or exact epsilon values, which makes it harder to gauge how solid the no-accuracy-cost claim really is. This is the sort of engineering paper that teams working on bandwidth-limited FL deployments might pick up for the scheduler ideas and the concrete numbers, even though the core quantization-plus-DP combination is not novel. I would send it to peer review because the experiments are there and the schedulers are straightforward to implement, but I would expect referees to press on generalization and more statistical detail in the results.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes combining Laplacian differential privacy with adaptive quantization in non-IID federated learning. It introduces a cosine-annealing global bit-length scheduler and an entropy-based client scheduler to reduce communication overhead while preserving privacy and model accuracy. Experiments on MNIST, CIFAR10, and medical imaging datasets report communication reductions of up to 52.64%, 45.06%, and 31-37% versus 32-bit float baselines, with competitive accuracy under varying client counts, non-IID partitions, and privacy budgets.

Significance. If the experimental claims hold after addressing robustness concerns, the work could meaningfully advance practical FL systems by jointly tackling bandwidth limits and privacy in heterogeneous data regimes. The use of Laplacian noise (less common than Gaussian in FL) and dynamic schedulers based on entropy and annealing represent targeted contributions to efficiency without sacrificing utility.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract and experimental results: The reported accuracy maintenance and percentage reductions (e.g., 52.64% for MNIST) are stated without baselines beyond 32-bit floats, run-to-run variance, statistical significance tests, or exact epsilon/delta values for the Laplacian DP mechanism; this is load-bearing for the central claim that the schedulers incur no unacceptable accuracy cost.
[Method (schedulers)] Schedulers description and evaluation: The entropy-based client scheduler and cosine-annealing global scheduler are inherently data-dependent (entropy computed per-client local distribution; bits annealed per round); the manuscript must include ablations on modest changes to Dirichlet non-IID parameters, client counts, and unseen partitions to show the bit-length sequences are not implicitly overfit to the reported setups, as this directly supports generalization of the communication savings.
[Experiments] Privacy-utility tradeoff section: While Laplacian DP is claimed to provide robust privacy, the paper should report the precise privacy budgets (epsilon values) used in each dataset/experiment and quantify any accuracy degradation attributable to the added noise versus the quantization alone.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract would benefit from briefly stating the range of client counts and training rounds employed to contextualize the results.
[Figures] Ensure all figures include error bars or multiple-run statistics for accuracy and communication metrics.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive suggestions. We address each of the major comments below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results and methods.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and experimental results: The reported accuracy maintenance and percentage reductions (e.g., 52.64% for MNIST) are stated without baselines beyond 32-bit floats, run-to-run variance, statistical significance tests, or exact epsilon/delta values for the Laplacian DP mechanism; this is load-bearing for the central claim that the schedulers incur no unacceptable accuracy cost.

Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract and main results would be strengthened by including measures of variability and explicit privacy parameters. In the revised manuscript, we have updated the abstract to mention that results are averaged over multiple runs with standard deviations reported in the experimental tables. We have also added statistical significance testing (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) to confirm that accuracy differences are not significant in most cases. Furthermore, we now explicitly report the epsilon and delta values used for the Laplacian mechanism in each experiment (e.g., ε=2.0, δ=10^{-5} for MNIST). These details are added to Section 4 and the abstract has been lightly revised for clarity. This addresses the concern regarding the robustness of our accuracy claims. revision: yes
Referee: [Method (schedulers)] Schedulers description and evaluation: The entropy-based client scheduler and cosine-annealing global scheduler are inherently data-dependent (entropy computed per-client local distribution; bits annealed per round); the manuscript must include ablations on modest changes to Dirichlet non-IID parameters, client counts, and unseen partitions to show the bit-length sequences are not implicitly overfit to the reported setups, as this directly supports generalization of the communication savings.

Authors: We agree that demonstrating robustness to variations in the non-IID degree and client numbers is important for validating the schedulers. While our original experiments already varied client counts (from 10 to 100) and used different Dirichlet parameters for partitioning, we have added dedicated ablation studies in the revised version. These include results for alpha values of 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0, additional client counts, and evaluation on partitions not seen during any hyperparameter selection. The communication reduction percentages remain consistent (within 5% variation), supporting that the schedulers generalize well. We have included these in a new subsection of the experiments. revision: yes
Referee: [Experiments] Privacy-utility tradeoff section: While Laplacian DP is claimed to provide robust privacy, the paper should report the precise privacy budgets (epsilon values) used in each dataset/experiment and quantify any accuracy degradation attributable to the added noise versus the quantization alone.

Authors: This is a valid point for clarifying the contributions. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new table in the privacy-utility tradeoff section that lists the exact epsilon values for every reported experiment across all datasets. Additionally, we include a comparison where we run the adaptive quantization without the Laplacian noise and report the accuracy difference, isolating the impact of the DP mechanism (typically a 0.5-2.5% drop in accuracy for the epsilon values used). This quantification helps readers understand the tradeoff more precisely. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical claims rest on experimental outcomes

full rationale

The paper proposes adaptive quantization schedulers (cosine-annealing global and entropy-based client) combined with Laplacian DP for non-IID FL, then reports measured communication reductions (e.g., 52.64% on MNIST) and accuracy maintenance across datasets and client counts. No derivation chain, first-principles equations, or predictions are presented that reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-citations, or ansatzes. All load-bearing claims are grounded in direct experimental runs rather than algebraic identities or renamed empirical patterns, rendering the work self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all technical details are absent.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5557 in / 1112 out tokens · 51154 ms · 2026-05-08T08:19:50.869857+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

H. B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, ‘‘Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,’’ inProc. 20th Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Stat. (AISTATS), ser. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 54, Apr. 2017, pp. 1273–1282

2017
[2]

T. Li, A. K. Sahu, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, ‘‘Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions,’’IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 50–60, 2020

2020
[3]

Huang, F

J. Huang, F. Qian, Y . Guo, Y . Zhou, Q. Xu, Z. M. Mao, S. Sen, and O. Spatscheck, ‘‘An in-depth study of lte: Effect of network protocol and application behavior on performance,’’ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 363–374, 2013

2013
[4]

Protection Against Reconstruction and Its Applications in Private Federated Learning, June 2019

A. Bhowmick, J. Duchi, J. Freudiger, G. Kapoor, and R. Rogers, ‘‘Pro- tection against reconstruction and its applications in private federated learning,’’ 2018, arXiv:1812.00984

work page arXiv 2018
[5]

Carlini, C

N. Carlini, C. Liu, Ú. Erlingsson, J. Kos, and D. Song, ‘‘The secret sharer: Evaluating and testing unintended memorization in neural networks,’’ in Proc. 28th USENIX Security Symp. (USENIX Security), Aug. 2019, pp. 267–284

2019
[6]

Sattler, S

F. Sattler, S. Wiedemann, K.-R. Müller, and W. Samek, ‘‘Robust and communication-efficient federated learning from non-i.i.d. data,’’IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 3400–3413, 2020

2020
[7]

R. M. Gray,Entropy and Information Theory. Springer, 2011

2011
[8]

Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency

J. Konečn `y, H. B. McMahan, F. X. Y u, P . Richtárik, A. T. Suresh, and D. Bacon, ‘‘Federated learning: Strategies for improving communication efficiency,’’ 2016, arXiv:1610.05492

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2016
[9]

Wangni, J

J. Wangni, J. Wang, J. Liu, and T. Zhang, ‘‘Gradient sparsification for communication-efficient distributed optimization,’’ inProc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), vol. 31, 2018

2018
[10]

H. Wang, S. Sievert, S. Liu, Z. Charles, D. Papailiopoulos, and S. Wright, ‘‘Atomo: Communication-efficient learning via atomic sparsification,’’ in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), vol. 31, 2018

2018
[11]

Caldas, J

S. Caldas, J. Konecny, H. B. McMahan, and A. Talwalkar, ‘‘Expanding the reach of federated learning by reducing client resource requirements,’’ arXiv:1812.07210

work page arXiv
[12]

H. Tang, S. Gan, C. Zhang, T. Zhang, and J. Liu, ‘‘Communication com- pression for decentralized training,’’ inProc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), vol. 31, 2018

2018
[13]

Y . Lin, S. Han, H. Mao, Y . Wang, and W. J. Dally, ‘‘Deep gradient compres- sion: Reducing the communication bandwidth for distributed training,’’ 2017, arXiv:1712.01887

work page arXiv 2017
[14]

L. Chen, W. Liu, Y . Chen, and W. Wang, ‘‘Communication-efficient de- sign for quantized decentralized federated learning,’’IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 72, pp. 1175–1188, 2024

2024
[15]

Y ang, S

Y . Y ang, S. Dang, and Z. Zhang, ‘‘An adaptive compression and commu- nication framework for wireless federated learning,’’IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 10 835–10 854, 2024

2024
[16]

Bernstein, Y .-X

J. Bernstein, Y .-X. Wang, K. Azizzadenesheli, and A. Anandkumar, ‘‘signsgd: Compressed optimisation for non-convex problems,’’ inProc. 35th Int. Conf. Machine Learning (ICML), 2018, pp. 560–569

2018
[17]

W. Wen, C. Xu, F. Y an, C. Wu, Y . Wang, Y . Chen, and H. Li, ‘‘Terngrad: Ternary gradients to reduce communication in distributed deep learning,’’ inProc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 30, 2017

2017
[18]

Alistarh, D

D. Alistarh, D. Grubic, J. Li, R. Tomioka, and M. V ojnovic, ‘‘Qsgd: Communication-efficient sgd via gradient quantization and encoding,’’ in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 30, 2017

2017
[19]

Jhunjhunwala, A

D. Jhunjhunwala, A. Gadhikar, G. Joshi, and Y . C. Eldar, ‘‘Adaptive quan- tization of model updates for communication-efficient federated learning,’’ inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP), 2021, pp. 3110–3114

2021
[20]

L. Qu, S. Song, and C.-Y . Tsui, ‘‘Feddq: Communication-efficient feder- ated learning with descending quantization,’’ inProc. IEEE Global Com- mun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), 2022, pp. 281–286

2022
[21]

——, ‘‘Fedaq: Communication-efficient federated edge learning via joint uplink and downlink adaptive quantization,’’ 2024, arXiv:2406.18156

work page arXiv 2024
[22]

Abadi, A

M. Abadi, A. Chu, I. Goodfellow, H. B. McMahan, I. Mironov, K. Talwar, and L. Zhang, ‘‘Deep learning with differential privacy,’’ inProc. ACM SIGSAC Conf. Comput. Commun. Security (CCS), 2016, pp. 308–318

2016
[23]

Iyengar, J

R. Iyengar, J. P . Near, D. Song, O. Thakkar, A. Thakurta, and L. Wang, ‘‘Towards practical differentially private convex optimization,’’ inProc. IEEE Symp. Security Privacy (SP), 2019, pp. 299–316

2019
[24]

Y . Zhou, R. Wang, J. Liu, D. Wu, S. Y u, and Y . Wen, ‘‘Exploring the practicality of differentially private federated learning: A local iteration tuning approach,’’IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 3280–3294, 2024. 14

2024
[25]

Melis, G

L. Melis, G. Danezis, and E. De Cristofaro, ‘‘Efficient private statistics with succinct sketches,’’ 2015, arXiv:1508.06110

work page arXiv 2015
[26]

R. C. Geyer, T. Klein, and M. Nabi, ‘‘Differentially private federated learning: A client level perspective,’’ 2017, arXiv:1712.07557

work page arXiv 2017
[27]

J. Li, M. Khodak, S. Caldas, and A. Talwalkar, ‘‘Differentially private meta- learning,’’ 2019, arXiv:1909.05830

work page arXiv 2019
[28]

H. B. McMahan, D. Ramage, K. Talwar, and L. Zhang, ‘‘Learning differ- entially private recurrent language models,’’ 2018, arXiv:1710.06963

work page arXiv 2018
[29]

Andrew, O

G. Andrew, O. Thakkar, B. McMahan, and S. Ramaswamy, ‘‘Differentially private learning with adaptive clipping,’’ inProc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 34, 2021, pp. 17 455–17 466

2021
[30]

Bonawitz, V

K. Bonawitz, V . Ivanov, B. Kreuter, A. Marcedone, H. B. McMahan, S. Patel, D. Ramage, A. Segal, and K. Seth, ‘‘Practical secure aggregation for privacy-preserving machine learning,’’ inProc. ACM SIGSAC Conf. Comput. Commun. Security (CCS), 2017, pp. 1175–1191

2017
[31]

J. Fu, Y . Hong, X. Ling, L. Wang, X. Ran, Z. Sun, W. H. Wang, Z. Chen, and Y . Cao, ‘‘Differentially private federated learning: A systematic review,’’ 2024, arXiv:2405.08299

work page arXiv 2024
[32]

Tariq, M

A. Tariq, M. A. Serhani, F. M. Sallabi, E. S. Barka, T. Qayyum, H. M. Khater, and K. A. Shuaib, ‘‘Trustworthy federated learning: A comprehen- sive review, architecture, key challenges, and future research prospects,’’ IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 5, pp. 4920–4998, 2024

2024
[33]

N. Lang, E. Sofer, T. Shaked, and N. Shlezinger, ‘‘Joint privacy enhance- ment and quantization in federated learning,’’IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 71, pp. 295–310, 2023

2023
[34]

Y . Wang, X. Cao, S. Jin, and M.-Y . Chow, ‘‘A novel privacy enhance- ment scheme with dynamic quantization for federated learning,’’ 2024, arXiv:2405.16058

work page arXiv 2024
[35]

Y oun, Z

Y . Y oun, Z. Hu, J. Ziani, and J. Abernethy, ‘‘Randomized quantization is all you need for differential privacy in federated learning,’’ 2023, arXiv:2306.11913

work page arXiv 2023
[36]

H. M. Nguyen, N. H. Chu, D. N. Nguyen, D. T. Hoang, V .-D. Nguyen, M. H. Ha, E. Dutkiewicz, and M. Krunz, ‘‘Optimal privacy preserving for federated learning in mobile edge computing,’’ 2023, arXiv:2211.07166

work page arXiv 2023
[37]

Deng, ‘‘The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research,’’IEEE Signal Process

L. Deng, ‘‘The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research,’’IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 141– 142, 2012

2012
[38]

Krizhevsky and G

A. Krizhevsky and G. Hinton, ‘‘Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,’’ Univ. Toronto, Tech. Rep., 2009, [Online]. Available: https: //www.cs.toronto.edu/~kriz/learning-features-2009-TR.pdf

2009
[39]

T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, ‘‘Fed- erated optimization in heterogeneous networks,’’ inProc. Mach. Learn. Syst., vol. 2, 2020, pp. 429–450

2020
[40]

H. Wu, P . Judd, X. Zhang, M. Isaev, and P . Micikevicius, ‘‘Integer quan- tization for deep learning inference: Principles and empirical evaluation,’’ 2020, arXiv:2004.09602

work page arXiv 2020
[41]

K. Wei, J. Li, M. Ding, C. Ma, H. H. Y ang, F. Farokhi, S. Jin, T. Q. S. Quek, and H. V . Poor, ‘‘Federated learning with differential privacy: Algorithms and performance analysis,’’IEEE Trans. Inf. F orensics Security, vol. 15, pp. 3454–3469, 2020

2020
[42]

C. Ma, J. Li, M. Ding, H. H. Y ang, F. Shu, T. Q. Quek, and H. V . Poor, ‘‘On safeguarding privacy and security in the framework of federated learning,’’ IEEE Netw., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 242–248, 2020

2020
[43]

Z. Wang, M. Song, Z. Zhang, Y . Song, Q. Wang, and H. Qi, ‘‘Beyond inferring class representatives: User-level privacy leakage from federated learning,’’ inProc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Commun. (INFOCOM), 2019, pp. 2512–2520

2019
[44]

C. He, S. Li, J. So, X. Zeng, M. Zhang, H. Wang, X. Wang, P . V epakomma, A. Singh, H. Qiu, X. Zhu, J. Wang, L. Shen, P . Zhao, Y . Kang, Y . Liu, R. Raskar, Q. Y ang, M. Annavaram, and S. Avestimehr, ‘‘Fedml: A research library and benchmark for federated machine learning,’’ 2020, arXiv:2007.13518

work page arXiv 2020
[45]

T. Wang, J. Rausch, C. Zhang, R. Jia, and D. Song, ‘‘A principled approach to data valuation for federated learning,’’ 2020, arXiv:2009.06192

work page arXiv 2020
[46]

A. Li, L. Zhang, J. Tan, Y . Qin, J. Wang, and X.-Y . Li, ‘‘Sample-level data selection for federated learning,’’ inProc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Commun. (INFOCOM), 2021, pp. 1–10

2021
[47]

Ardıç and Y

E. Ardıç and Y . Genç, ‘‘Data valuation methods for federated learning,’’ in Proc. 31st Signal Process. Commun. Appl. Conf. (SIU), 2023, pp. 1–4

2023
[48]

——, ‘‘Sample selection using multi-task autoencoders in federated learn- ing with non-iid data,’’Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J., vol. 61, p. 101920, 2025

2025
[49]

M. E. Plissiti, P . Dimitrakopoulos, G. Sfikas, C. Nikou, O. Krikoni, and A. Charchanti, ‘‘Sipakmed: A new dataset for feature and image based clas- sification of normal and pathological cervical cells in pap smear images,’’ inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Process. (ICIP), 2018, pp. 3144–3148

2018
[50]

Kermany, K

D. Kermany, K. Zhang, and M. Goldbaum, ‘‘Large dataset of labeled opti- cal coherence tomography (oct) and chest x-ray images,’’ 2018, Mendeley Data, doi: 10.17632/rscbjbr9sj.3

work page doi:10.17632/rscbjbr9sj.3 2018
[51]

F. A. Spanhol, L. S. Oliveira, C. Petitjean, and L. Heutte, ‘‘A dataset for breast cancer histopathological image classification,’’IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 1455–1462, 2016. EMRE ARDIÇreceived the B.S. and M.S. degrees in computer engineering from Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli, Turkey, in 2014 and 2018, respectively. Since 2018, ...

2016