Partially-Observable Transmission Control for UAV-Enabled Federated Learning in IoT Networks

Masoud Ghazikor; Morteza Hashemi; Zhou Ni

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 21 references

Partially-Observable Transmission Control for UAV-Enabled Federated Learning in IoT Networks

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a fairness–consensus bilevel transmission controller, built on a packet-level PDR model, achieves 0.90 average packet delivery and 0.99 fairness in UAV-enabled federated learning and outperforms aggressive and…

desk verdict Worth engaging: the FCB co-design of thresholds and powers for packetized UAV-FL is new and relevant, but the numerical claims are only as strong as an unvalidated analytical PDR model that serves as both the optimizer's objective and the simulation's channel. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00855 v1 pith:2VUYDNZQ submitted 2026-08-01 cs.IT cs.LGmath.IT

Masoud Ghazikor , Zhou Ni , Morteza Hashemi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ITcs.LGmath.IT

keywords federatedlearningUAV-enablednetworkspacketdeliveryratioBernoullimaskingtransmissionthresholdcontrolpowerfairnesspartialobservabilitynon-IIDdata

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Federated learning over a UAV in unlicensed bands is usually analyzed as if scheduled model updates arrive intact; this paper argues that uplink updates are actually packetized and can be partially lost to buffer overflow, delay violations, and transmission errors. It builds a packet-level delivery model whose key output, the packet delivery ratio $R_n(\beta,P)$, enters federated aggregation as a Bernoulli mask: each packet of an update is kept or dropped independently with that probability. On top of this, the paper formulates a fairness-consensus bilevel optimization that first drives per-learner transmission thresholds to a PDR-efficient consensus and then adjusts transmission powers to raise the worst PDR under a Jain's fairness constraint. Numerical CNN training on CIFAR-10 reports that the resulting FCB controller reaches 0.90 average PDR and 0.99 fairness, converges faster in IID settings, and substantially beats aggressive and conservative policies as data become non-IID. If correct, this gives a concrete way to design transmission control from the learning objective, closing part of the gap between idealized wireless-FL assumptions and practical partial-update reception.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the packetized PDR model $R_n(\beta,P)\approx[1-P^d_n(\beta_n)-P^o_n(\beta_n)-P^e_n(\beta,P)]_0^1$, where the three subtracted terms are delay-violation, buffer-overflow, and transmission-error probabilities derived from Nakagami-m fading, queueing, and log-normal interference. That scalar is used as the success probability of an independent Bernoulli mask $b^{(t)}_{n,c}$ that zeros out lost packets in each learner's update before global aggregation. Two coordinated controllers carry the optimization: the consensus-based threshold controller (CTC) runs local coordinate searches to push thresholds $\beta$ toward a consensus that maximizes average PDR, and the fairness-based power controller (FPC) reallocates power to raise the minimum PDR while enforcing a weighted Jain's index constraint. Together they alternate through the fairness-consensus bilevel problem stated as (17a)–(17f).

What would settle it

A direct test is to replace the independent-Bernoulli mask with empirical erasure traces from a real UAV-to-IoT link or a correlated-interference simulator; if packet losses at a fixed mean PDR are positively autocorrelated, or if the empirical PDR deviates from Eq. (10)'s log-normal prediction, the reported convergence and accuracy gaps are not reproducible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the transmission policy itself, not just the learning algorithm, can be optimized against a realistic packet-level measure of update delivery, and that doing so restores much of the performance lost to partial reception. Concretely, the FCB optimizer selects moderate transmission thresholds and powers that avoid both the aggressive policy's interference flooding, which yields an average PDR of 0.39 and fairness of 0.80, and the conservative policy's excessive buffering, which yields 0.49 and 0.81. The paper reports that FCB raises average PDR to 0.90 with Jain's index 0.99 under partial observability, keeps per-learner PDR consistently high, and translates these gains into faster convergence on IID CIFAR-10 and roughly 32% and 79% higher final accuracy than the conservative and aggressive baselines under strong non-IID data. The authors summarize this as the FCB optimizer improving FL aggregation and training performance by enhancing packet-level update delivery.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on treating each packet as an independent coin flip whose success probability is the analytically computed PDR; if real packet losses are correlated in bursts or the PDR formula's interference parameters are off, the reported learning gains do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If FCB is correct, serving federated learning from a UAV over unlicensed bands does not require ideal error-free links; a PDR-aware threshold-and-power policy keeps aggregation quality close to the ideal-channel benchmark.
Under IID data, the gain is mostly convergence speed: FCB reaches 55% accuracy in about 45 communication rounds, versus about 65 for the conservative policy and 80 for the aggressive policy.
Under strong non-IID data, the gain becomes final accuracy: FCB reaches around 50%, compared with about 38% for conservative and 28% for aggressive transmission.
Partial observability changes convergence cost rather than the solution: with a learner drop probability of 0.4, the CTC needs 62 inner iterations instead of 10 but converges to the same PDR and fairness point.

Reading between the lines

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

If packet erasures are correlated rather than independent, the Bernoulli-mask abstraction would understate the damage of interference bursts; a natural extension is to replace the i.i.d. mask with a Markov or bursty erasure model and re-test FCB.
The same bilevel consensus-fairness design could be applied to other packetized uplink tasks, such as gradient compression with variable packet sizes, where the delivery metric is not raw PDR but useful information delivered per packet.
The paper's implicit claim that PDR is a sufficient statistic for FL aggregation quality suggests a simpler deployment rule: measure per-learner PDR online and use it to adjust transmission parameters, which is directly testable on a software-defined radio testbed.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read of arXiv:2608.00855. The paper is worth engaging with, but the main quantitative claims rest on a single analytical PDR model taken from the authors' prior work [5], and that same model does double duty as the optimizer's objective and the simulation's channel. If that model is biased, or if the independent-Bernoulli packet-loss assumption fails, the reported gains shrink accordingly.

What's actually new: the FCB optimizer, a bilevel scheme that couples transmission thresholds (consensus) with transmission powers (fairness) for packetized federated learning. The Bernoulli-masked aggregation in Eqs. (15)-(16) is a natural way to turn PDR into partial-update reception, and it addresses a real gap in the wireless-FL literature, which usually assumes scheduled updates arrive whole. The numerical results show faster convergence and better final accuracy under non-IID data, and the authors are transparent that the communication model comes from [5]. Building on prior work is legitimate, not a flaw per se.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The inner constraint (17f) is circular as written: β⋆ is defined as the argmax, then each β_n is forced to equal β⋆[n], making the constraint self-referential. The algorithm is an alternating heuristic without a convergence proof—common for this type of problem, but it should be stated. More importantly, the evaluation is in-sample: FCB maximizes R_n, and the FL simulation draws packet success from that same R_n. The FL accuracy metric is distinct, so this is not direct circularity, but any bias in R_n flows straight into the learning results. The log-normal interference parameters μ and σ are "as derived in [5]" and never specified, so an independent reader cannot reproduce or sensitivity-check the PDR. I'd also like error bars over network realizations, since only one PPP draw appears to be reported.

The independence assumption on packet losses is stated explicitly ("standard assumption of independent packet transmissions") but not defended. In a real ISM band with interference bursts, entire C-packet updates can drop in a round; a Bernoulli mask with mean R_n will not capture that correlation. Whether that correlation matters for FL convergence is an empirical question, and the paper doesn't address it.

My verdict: conditional accept for a venue, but only if the authors provide the missing model parameters, release code/data, add sensitivity analysis, and fix the inner-problem statement. The core idea—co-designing thresholds and powers around packet-level FL delivery—is solid and worth refereeing. The reader's take is roughly right, though I'd weight the in-sample concern more heavily than the circularity concern.

Recommendation: send it to serious peer review, with a strong request for code and sensitivity analysis.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a packet-level transmission framework for UAV-enabled federated learning (FL) in unlicensed ISM bands, modeling packet loss due to buffer overflow, delay violations, and interference-dependent transmission errors. A packet delivery ratio (PDR) model from prior work is used to represent partial update reception as independent Bernoulli-masked packet losses in FL aggregation. The authors formulate a fairness-consensus bilevel (FCB) optimization problem that jointly tunes transmission thresholds (inner level) and transmission powers (outer level), and propose an alternating optimizer consisting of a consensus-based threshold controller (CTC) and a fairness-based power controller (FPC). Numerical results on CIFAR-10 report that FCB achieves higher average PDR and Jain's fairness index than two baselines, and that these gains translate into faster convergence and higher FL accuracy under IID and non-IID data.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper addresses a real gap in wireless FL by explicitly modeling packet-level partial update reception and coupling it with transmission control, rather than assuming error-free scheduled updates. The proposed framework is relevant to UAV-assisted edge intelligence in shared spectrum, and the idea of jointly optimizing threshold and power for PDR fairness under partial observability is useful. The paper also gives credit for including a packetized Bernoulli-masked aggregation model and for demonstrating the performance gap between ideal and lossy uplinks. However, the significance is currently limited by validation gaps: the PDR model is imported from prior work without enough detail to reproduce it, the optimization problem is not well-posed as written, no convergence guarantees are provided, and the FL simulations lack statistical error bars.

major comments (5)

[Section II-A, Eq. (10), and Section II-B] The PDR expression R_n(β,P) is the cornerstone of the paper, but it is not self-contained: the log-normal interference parameters μ(β_-n,P_-n) and σ(β_-n,P_-n) in Eq. (8) are said to be 'as derived in [5]' and are never specified. A reader cannot compute or independently check R_n, P_e^n, or any downstream result. More importantly, the same R_n is both the objective that CTC/FPC maximize (Eq. (17)) and the ground-truth success probability used to generate Bernoulli-masked FL updates (Eq. (15)). This makes the evaluation in-sample: any bias or approximation error in the imported PDR model is automatically reflected as an apparent FL improvement. The authors should provide explicit expressions or a self-contained derivation for μ, σ, P_d, and P_o, and validate the PDR model against packet-level simulation or a testbed, including a sensitivity analysis over the unspecified parameters.
[Section III-A, Eqs. (17d)-(17f)] The inner-level optimization problem is not well-posed as written. Equation (17d) defines β⋆ as the arg max of the average PDR, but the constraint (17f) then requires β_n - β⋆[n] = 0, so the feasible set depends on the very vector being optimized. This makes the formulation self-referential and prevents any direct interpretation of the inner problem. The intended consensus condition should be expressed with an explicit consensus variable, such as β_n = β_c for a scalar consensus value β_c or an equivalent constraint formulated before the arg max is taken. The current formulation must be repaired before the CTC algorithm can be said to solve the stated problem.
[Section III-B, Algorithms 2 and 3] No convergence analysis is given for the CTC, FPC, or the alternating FCB optimizer. CTC relies on random participation with a decaying drop probability ψ_i and a heuristic local coordinate search, while FPC uses greedy coordinate-wise power updates and a Jain's index correction (JIC) subroutine that is described only informally. The paper states that FCB converges to the reported operating point, but it does not show that CTC reaches a consensus maximizer, that FPC improves the worst PDR monotonically, or that the alternating procedure converges even to a local solution. The authors should provide a formal convergence or monotonicity argument, or clearly state the conditions under which the algorithms are guaranteed to terminate.
[Section II-B, Eq. (15)] The FL aggregation model assumes that each packet reception indicator b_{n,c}^{(t)} is an independent Bernoulli draw with success probability R_n. This independence assumption is not justified in a block-fading, interference-coupled ISM channel. Correlated losses caused by interference bursts or queueing dynamics can drop entire multi-packet updates in a round, which the i.i.d. Bernoulli model cannot capture. Since Eq. (16) aggregates masked updates exactly according to this model, the reported FL accuracy gains depend on the validity of the independence assumption. The authors should either justify the assumption from the channel model or evaluate robustness under a correlated-loss model, such as a Gilbert-Elliott or block-fading packet-loss process.
[Section IV] The FL training results in Fig. 2 are presented as single curves with no error bars, confidence intervals, or number of independent seeds. Given that the aggregation process is stochastic (Bernoulli masking with random seeds), the claimed differences in convergence speed and final accuracy—such as the 79% improvement in the strong non-IID case—could be within run-to-run variability. The authors should repeat the FL experiments over multiple seeds and report means and standard deviations or confidence bands.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] The manuscript frequently types the acronym as 'UA V' instead of 'UAV'; this should be corrected throughout.
[Fig. 2] The figure captions read 'CIFR-10' in three places; the dataset name is CIFAR-10.
[Table II] The queueing model parameter λ_n = 100 is given without units; specifying packets per time slot or packets per second would improve reproducibility.
[Section II-A, Eq. (5)] The notation for the best sub-channel f⋆ is introduced in the text, but the exponent |F| in Eq. (5) implicitly assumes independent fading across sub-channels; stating this assumption explicitly would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PDR model is an input assumption, and the FL-accuracy results are computed from Bernoulli-masked aggregation rather than fitted to the optimized objective.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. Eq. (10) defines an analytical PDR R_n from a communication model imported from prior work [5]; Eqs. (14)-(16) partition updates into packets and simulate reception with independent Bernoulli masks whose success probability is R_n; the FCB optimizer (Eqs. (17)) maximizes average and worst-case R_n; and the reported CIFAR-10 accuracy is obtained by running FL with the resulting masked updates (Eq. (16)). The final accuracy is not fitted to R_n or to the optimizer's output, so there is no hidden equivalence between the prediction and the input. The heavy reliance on the authors' prior work [5] for the log-normal interference parameters, queueing approximations, and PDR formulas is a reproducibility and external-validity concern, not a circularity, because [5] is a separate analytical result that does not contain the FCB/FL claim. Likewise, using the same R_n as both the optimization objective and the simulation ground truth makes the PDR comparison in-sample, but the paper presents a model-based simulation rather than a real-world validation, and the FL-accuracy link is independently computed from the simulated masks. Accordingly, no definitional, fitting, or self-citation loop forces the central conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution is a controller that optimizes the same PDR model that is used to evaluate it; no external data or independent verification is provided. Most mathematical ingredients come from the authors' prior work [5] and standard references [16], [18].

free parameters (3)

Drop probability schedule ψ_i = ψ/i = ψ=0.1 or 0.4, decreasing as ψ/i
Ad hoc schedule to model partial observability; no justification beyond making participation increase over time. It directly controls how many learners skip threshold updates in Alg. 2.
Power adjustment step Δ = 1 dBm
Hand-chosen candidate step size for the FPC and JIC sub-algorithms; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
Fairness target ζ = 0.99
Hand-chosen threshold for the weighted Jain's index; no analysis of how the result depends on ζ.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption PDR model of Eqs. (1)-(10), including Nakagami-m fading, M/M/1 queue, and log-normal aggregate interference, as derived in [5] and [16].
The paper uses these as given, with parameters like μ and σ for the interference distribution 'as derived in [5]' and not re-derived or empirically validated.
domain assumption Independent packet receptions: b_n,c ~ Bernoulli(R_n) independent across packets, rounds, and learners.
Stated in Section II-B as 'the standard assumption of independent packet transmissions.' Load-bearing for the binomial mean and for the partial-update aggregation.
ad hoc to paper Convergence of the consensus-based threshold controller (CTC) to the arg max of the inner problem under partial observability.
No convergence proof is given; the algorithm is heuristic and the stopping criterion is a norm threshold. The inner problem itself is ill-posed due to Eq. (17f).
ad hoc to paper Jain's index correction (JIC) restores the fairness constraint when violated.
The JIC sub-algorithm is described in prose only; no guarantee that the target ζ is reached.
domain assumption Standard FL convergence under partial-update aggregation: the global update rule in Eq. (16) with Bernoulli masking still converges.
No convergence analysis is provided for the FL training itself; the paper relies on empirical curves.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Partially-Observable Transmission Control for UAV-Enabled Federated Learning in IoT Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2VUYDNZQ

@misc{pith2026260800855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Partially-Observable Transmission Control for UAV-Enabled Federated Learning in IoT Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2VUYDNZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00855}
}

read the original abstract

Uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV)-enabled federated learning (FL) can provide flexible, on-demand edge intelligence for large-scale IoT deployments, but operating in shared unlicensed bands makes uplink update delivery interference-coupled and unreliable. In this paper, we develop a packet-level transmission framework that captures buffer overflow, delay violations, and transmission errors, and uses the resulting packet delivery ratio (PDR) to represent partial-update reception through a packetized, Bernoulli-masked FL aggregation process. We then formulate a fairness-consensus bilevel (FCB) optimization that jointly controls (i) transmission thresholds to maximize the average PDR while reaching consensus under partial observability and (ii) transmission powers to improve the worst PDR and enforce fairness across IoT learners. To solve this problem, we propose an alternating FCB optimizer composed of a consensus-based threshold controller (CTC), which drives the IoT learners toward a PDR-efficient consensus on transmission thresholds, and a fairness-based power controller (FPC), which updates transmission powers to improve the worst PDR and ensure fairness under the resulting consensus thresholds. Numerical results on CNN-based FL tasks show that the FCB optimizer improves FL aggregation and training performance by enhancing packet-level update delivery, consistently outperforming baseline transmission policies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00855 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** System FL performance of CIFAR-10 different data distributions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[5]

Channel-aware distributed transmission control and video streaming in UA V networks,

M. Ghazikor, K. Roach, K. Cheung, and M. Hashemi, “Channel-aware distributed transmission control and video streaming in UA V networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, 2026

work page 2026
[1]

Personalized feder- ated learning-driven beamforming optimization for integrated sensing and communication systems,

Z. Ni, S. R. Chintareddy, P. Guan, and M. Hashemi, “Personalized feder- ated learning-driven beamforming optimization for integrated sensing and communication systems,” in2026 IEEE 23rd Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), 2026

work page 2026
[2]

Robust decentralized learning with local updates and gradient tracking,

S. Ghiasvand, A. Reisizadeh, M. Alizadeh, and R. Pedarsani, “Robust decentralized learning with local updates and gradient tracking,”IEEE Transactions on Networking, 2025

2025
[3]

Delay opt. in hierarchical UA V-aided federated lea. for straggling IoT devices,

M. Liaq and W. Ejaz, “Delay opt. in hierarchical UA V-aided federated lea. for straggling IoT devices,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2025

work page 2025
[4]

pFedWN: A personalized feder- ated learning framework for D2D wireless networks with heterogeneous data,

Z. Ni, M. Ghazikor, and M. Hashemi, “pFedWN: A personalized feder- ated learning framework for D2D wireless networks with heterogeneous data,”IEEE Transactions on Networking, 2026

work page 2026
[6]

Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” inArtificial intelligence and statistics, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning,

S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. Reddi, S. Stich, and A. T. Suresh, “Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning,” inInternational conference on machine learning, 2020

work page 2020
[8]

Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,

T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,”Proceedings of Machine learning and systems, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 21 references

[9]

Communication-efficient federated learning with adaptive compression under dynamic bandwidth,

Y . Zhuansun, D. Li, X. Huang, and C. Sun, “Communication-efficient federated learning with adaptive compression under dynamic bandwidth,” arXiv:2405.03248, 2024

2024 arXiv
[10]

Small-scale-fading-aware resource allo. in wireless federated lea

J. Wang, L. Liang, H. Ye, C. Guo, and S. Jin, “Small-scale-fading-aware resource allo. in wireless federated lea.”IEEE Trans. on Comm., 2025

2025
[11]

Graph-based joint client clustering and resource allocation for wireless distributed learning: A new hierarchical federated learning framework with non-IID data,

E. Yu, S. Liu, Q. Li, H. Chen, H. V . Poor, and S. Shamai, “Graph-based joint client clustering and resource allocation for wireless distributed learning: A new hierarchical federated learning framework with non-IID data,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2024

2024
[12]

Adaptive federated lea. over the air,

C. Wang, Z. Chen, N. Pappas, H. H. Yang, T. Q. Quek, and H. V . Poor, “Adaptive federated lea. over the air,”IEEE Trans. on Signal Pro., 2025

2025
[13]

Federated learning via unmanned aerial vehicle,

M. Fu, Y . Shi, and Y . Zhou, “Federated learning via unmanned aerial vehicle,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2024

2024
[14]

Impact of an interfering node on unmanned aerial vehicle communications,

M. Kim and J. Lee, “Impact of an interfering node on unmanned aerial vehicle communications,”IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Technology, 2019

2019
[15]

Performance analysis of RIS-assisted UA V communication in NOMA networks,

M. Ghazikor, L. V . Nguyen, and M. Hashemi, “Performance analysis of RIS-assisted UA V communication in NOMA networks,”2026 IEEE 23rd Consumer Communications & Networking Conf. (CCNC), 2026

2026
[16]

To transmit or not to trans- mit? distributed queueing games in infrastructureless wireless networks,

Z. Guan, T. Melodia, and G. Scutari, “To transmit or not to trans- mit? distributed queueing games in infrastructureless wireless networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 2016

2016
[17]

Optimal tradeoff between sum-rate efficiency and jain’s fairness index in resource allocation,

A. B. Sediq, R. H. Gohary, R. Schoenen, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Optimal tradeoff between sum-rate efficiency and jain’s fairness index in resource allocation,”IEEE Trans. on Wireless Communications, 2013

2013
[18]

Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,

S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein, “Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,”Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 2011

2011
[19]

Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,

A. Krizhevsky, G. Hintonet al., “Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,” 2009

2009
[20]

Expanding the reach of federated learning by reducing client resource requirements,

S. Caldas, J. Kone ˇcny, H. B. McMahan, and A. Talwalkar, “Expanding the reach of federated learning by reducing client resource requirements,” arXiv:1812.07210, 2018

2018 arXiv
[21]

Ensemble distillation for robust model fusion in federated learning,

T. Lin, L. Kong, S. U. Stich, and M. Jaggi, “Ensemble distillation for robust model fusion in federated learning,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [5]

Channel-aware distributed transmission control and video streaming in UA V networks,

M. Ghazikor, K. Roach, K. Cheung, and M. Hashemi, “Channel-aware distributed transmission control and video streaming in UA V networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, 2026

work page 2026

[2] [1]

Personalized feder- ated learning-driven beamforming optimization for integrated sensing and communication systems,

Z. Ni, S. R. Chintareddy, P. Guan, and M. Hashemi, “Personalized feder- ated learning-driven beamforming optimization for integrated sensing and communication systems,” in2026 IEEE 23rd Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), 2026

work page 2026

[3] [2]

Robust decentralized learning with local updates and gradient tracking,

S. Ghiasvand, A. Reisizadeh, M. Alizadeh, and R. Pedarsani, “Robust decentralized learning with local updates and gradient tracking,”IEEE Transactions on Networking, 2025

2025

[4] [3]

Delay opt. in hierarchical UA V-aided federated lea. for straggling IoT devices,

M. Liaq and W. Ejaz, “Delay opt. in hierarchical UA V-aided federated lea. for straggling IoT devices,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [4]

pFedWN: A personalized feder- ated learning framework for D2D wireless networks with heterogeneous data,

Z. Ni, M. Ghazikor, and M. Hashemi, “pFedWN: A personalized feder- ated learning framework for D2D wireless networks with heterogeneous data,”IEEE Transactions on Networking, 2026

work page 2026

[6] [6]

Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” inArtificial intelligence and statistics, 2017

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning,

S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. Reddi, S. Stich, and A. T. Suresh, “Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning,” inInternational conference on machine learning, 2020

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,

T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,”Proceedings of Machine learning and systems, 2020

work page 2020