Federated Learning for Commercial Image Sources

Koteswar Rao Jerripothula; Shreyansh Jain

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Federated Learning for Commercial Image Sources

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fed-Cyclic and Fed-Star, two new federated topologies, outperform FedAvg and RingFed on an eight-source commercial image dataset, with Fed-Star the most accurate.

desk verdict The dataset is the real contribution; the algorithms are simple, the evaluation is thin, and Eq. 8's weighting rule is odd and unablated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12903 v1 pith:35FBPKAL submitted 2025-07-17 cs.CV eess.IV

Shreyansh Jain , Koteswar Rao Jerripothula This is my paper

classification cs.CVeess.IV

keywords federatedlearningimageclassificationdomainshiftstatisticalheterogeneityFed-CyclicFed-Starcommercialsourcesnon-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 (training one shared model across data owners who never share their data) normally assumes clients' local data come from similar distributions. This paper argues that in real deployments clients can be different commercial image sources, each with its own visual style, so it introduces an eight-source, 31-class dataset of 23,326 images and two algorithms built for that heterogeneity: Fed-Cyclic, which passes the model from client to client in a ring, and Fed-Star, which lets each client pre-aggregate the other clients' models weighted by how different they are from its own data. On this dataset both new algorithms beat FedAvg and RingFed, with Fed-Star reaching 91.72% global accuracy and Fed-Cyclic 91.15%, against 89.65% and 89.11% for the baselines. The paper positions the dataset as the first image-classification benchmark built specifically for federated learning rather than an existing dataset artificially split, and the claim matters because it suggests that simple changes to how weights move between clients can handle domain shift and produce models that are also better per client.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing pieces are the two algorithms and the dataset. Fed-Cyclic's core identity is the client-to-client hand-off $w_{k+1}^{r} \leftarrow w_{k}^{r+1}$ in equation (7): it makes the global model a single stream of weights that each client trains in turn, so no server-side computation is needed. Fed-Star's core machinery is the accuracy-based pre-aggregation matrix $M(k,j) = 1 - \mathrm{Acc}(w^{r,p+1}_j, D_k)/100$ and the normalized combination $w^{r,p+1}_k = \sum_{j} M(k,j)\,w^{r,p+1}_j / \sum_{j} M(k,j)$, which intentionally weights a partner's model more heavily when that model performs worse on the receiving client's local data; the stated purpose is to learn outlier features while keeping common features. The third object is the benchmark itself, where each of the eight clients holds images from one commercial image source, giving naturally heterogeneous class-conditional distributions rather than an artificial non-IID partition.

What would settle it

Re-run the four algorithms on the same dataset and the same splits with the VGG-19 backbone fine-tuned end-to-end, or with a randomly initialized network in place of the frozen extractor. If Fed-Star's margin over FedAvg and RingFed shrinks or disappears under full training, the claim that the algorithms themselves handle domain shift would not be established independently of the pretrained features.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that when federated clients are real commercial image sources, two proposed training topologies outperform standard federated averaging. Fed-Cyclic propagates a single global model sequentially from client to client, replacing server-side aggregation with a hand-off rule $w_{k+1}^{r} \leftarrow w_{k}^{r+1}$. Fed-Star runs local updates in parallel and then, inside each round, has every client pre-aggregate all other clients' models using weights $M(k,j)=1-\mathrm{Acc}(w_j, D_k)/100$, so a client leans most on the models that are least accurate on its own data; a global server then averages the resulting models at the end of the round. On the new eight-source dataset, the authors report that Fed-Star is the most accurate method overall (91.72%) and outperforms every local-only model and baseline on each of the eight clients, while Fed-Cyclic is second on six of eight clients. They conclude that both algorithms converge faster and generalize better under domain shift than FedAvg and RingFed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that ImageNet-pretrained VGG-19 features, frozen in every experiment, transfer equally well to all eight commercial sources, so if some sources are much better served by those fixed features, the reported algorithm ranking could reflect the frozen extractor rather than the federated algorithms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Fed-Star offers a personalization benefit: it is reported best on all eight local test sets, so each source gets a model suited to its own data, not just a better shared model.
Fed-Cyclic removes the server's computational role; the server, if used at all, only relays parameters, which cuts the communication bottleneck at the aggregation point.
On this benchmark the proposed methods converge in fewer global rounds than FedAvg (Fed-Star and RingFed use 50, Fed-Cyclic 150, FedAvg 250), so the accuracy gain is not bought with longer training.
The new dataset gives the field a benchmark where client heterogeneity is a real property of the data collection process, so non-IID behavior is built in rather than simulated.

Reading between the lines

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

An extension the paper leaves implicit: because Fed-Star's pre-aggregation weights are complements of training accuracy, the method could be tested with other dissimilarity measures, such as loss on a held-out slice, to see whether the gain comes from the accuracy weighting or from the all-to-all exchange itself.
All reported results freeze the VGG-19 feature extractor; a natural follow-up is end-to-end fine-tuning or a different backbone, which would show whether the algorithm ranking is a property of the methods or of the pretrained features.
Fed-Cyclic's sequential hand-off makes the global model behave like a single network trained on concatenated source mini-batches; that analogy suggests checking for catastrophic forgetting when one source's training dominates a round.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The dataset is the genuine contribution here. 23,326 images, 31 classes, from 8 commercial stock sources with natural domain shift, and it is indeed the first FL-specific image classification dataset I know of. Fed-Cyclic is a simple sequential chain, and Fed-Star is a star topology with accuracy-weighted pre-aggregation. The reported numbers are consistent: both beat FedAvg and RingFed on global and local accuracy, and Table 6 shows Fed-Star winning every client. That is a useful benchmark and a reasonable baseline result.

What the paper does well: the data curation is documented with per-class and per-source statistics, the evaluation uses accuracy plus F1, and the algorithms are described clearly enough to reimplement. The idea of weighting neighbor models by local accuracy is interesting, and the local personalization results in Table 6 are worth looking at.

Now the soft spots. No code or data release, which is a real problem for a dataset-plus-algorithm paper. No error bars or repeated runs, so the 1-2% gains could be noise. RingFed's gamma is tuned on the test set (Table 4), and only two baselines are compared. Most tellingly, Eq. 8 is M(k,j) = 1 - Acc(w_j, D_k)/100. That gives higher weight to models that are less accurate on client k's data, including downweighting the client's own model when it is good. The paper says this is to learn outlier features, but there is no ablation, and the opposite weighting (or simple averaging) would be more natural. The stress-test note claims this makes the result unverifiable; I think that is overstated—the formula is explicit, so the implementation is clear—but the missing ablation is a genuine flaw. If the authors have code, this needs to be resolved.

Minor point: the frozen VGG-19 features may transfer unevenly across sources, and there is no per-source feature analysis. The evaluation section would be stronger with a breakdown.

Who is this for? Researchers building FL benchmarks with real domain shift. It deserves a serious referee because the dataset is useful and the algorithm questions are addressable, but the current analysis is too thin to trust the ranking. My recommendation: treat the dataset as plausible and the algorithm claims as tentative; if this came to us, I would send it to review but expect major revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a new image-classification dataset for federated learning: 23,326 images from eight commercial stock-photo sources over 31 Office-31 categories, with each source treated as one client. It also proposes two federated algorithms: Fed-Cyclic, which passes a single model cyclically from client to client, and Fed-Star, in which clients share models and pre-aggregate them with accuracy-based weights before periodic server aggregation. In experiments with frozen ImageNet-pretrained VGG-19 features and three newly trained fully connected layers, the authors report that Fed-Star (91.72%) and Fed-Cyclic (91.15%) outperform RingFed (89.65%) and FedAvg (89.11%) on global test accuracy, and that Fed-Star outperforms locally trained baselines on all eight sources.

Significance. If the results are reproducible, the dataset is a useful real-world federated-learning benchmark with genuine domain shift, and Fed-Cyclic is a simple communication-efficient alternative to server-centric aggregation. The accuracy-weighted pre-aggregation idea in Fed-Star is also interesting because it attempts to handle statistical heterogeneity without a centralized server. The paper reports both accuracy and macro/weighted F1 scores, which is a strength. However, the contribution is currently conditional: no code or dataset is released, there are no repeated runs or error bars, the key pre-aggregation formula in Eq. (8) is not validated by any ablation, and the algorithm specifications contain ambiguities that prevent independent reproduction. The significance of the empirical claim therefore rests on the authors' ability to address these reproducibility issues.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.3, Eq. (8) and Algorithm 2] The pre-aggregation weight M(k,j)=1 - Acc(w_j,D_k)/100 assigns the largest weight to models that perform worst on the target client's own training set. This is the opposite of the usual notion of useful transfer: low training accuracy on D_k more plausibly indicates that the model has not learned features relevant to that client, and the formula also downweights the client's own freshly trained model whenever its training accuracy is high. The text states that the goal is to 'learn outlier features,' but no ablation is provided to show that this inverted weighting is beneficial; replacing M by Acc/100, by equal weights, or by excluding j=k is not tested. Because no code is released, the reported 91.72% accuracy for Fed-Star cannot be traced to the algorithm as written, and this is load-bearing for the central claim.
[Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2] The pseudocode has specification errors that prevent reproduction. In Algorithm 1, the cyclic rule w^r_{k+1} <- w^{r+1}_k overwrites the starting weights for client k+1 within the same round, but at the end of the round only w^{r+1}_1 is set to w^{r+1}_K; the weights used by clients 2,...,K-1 at the start of the next round are not rotated, so the exact update order is ambiguous. In Algorithm 2, the server aggregation is written as w^{r+1} = (1/K) * sum_k (|D_k|/|D|) w_k^{r,P}, but the coefficients |D_k|/|D| already sum to 1, so the extra 1/K factor scales the global model down every round if taken literally. These issues, combined with the absence of code, make the experiments unreproducible from the paper alone.
[Section 5.2, Table 4, and Table 7] The RingFed baseline's hyperparameter gamma is selected by evaluating four values on the test set and keeping the best (Table 4), and the learning-rate study in Table 7 is reported without a held-out validation split. All experiments appear to be single runs with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The claimed margins over RingFed are about 1.5-2.1 percentage points, so the central claim that the proposed algorithms are 'better than existing baselines' is not supported with statistical evidence; the difference could be due to run-to-run variance or to test-set-based hyperparameter selection.

minor comments (6)

[Section 1] There are several typos, including 'converegence' in the introduction, 'anonimity' in Section 1, and 'forkth' before Eq. (9); these should be corrected.
[Section 5.3, paragraph 2] The text says that FedAvg accuracy 'steadily increases with the decrease in the learning rate,' but the reported values (89.11% at 3e-4, 91.39% at 1e-3, 91.43% at 3e-3, 91.33% at 7e-3) do not show a monotone trend; please rephrase.
[Table 6] The local-model baseline is labeled 'using E = 250,' but the training procedure for the local model is otherwise unspecified; please clarify whether this means 250 local epochs and which optimizer and learning rate were used.
[Section 5.2] The sentence 'Fed-Star outperforms all the local models trained using traditional ML method' is inaccurate, since the local models are trained with SGD on VGG-19 features; please rephrase to something like 'locally trained models.'
[Related Work and Section 5] Several algorithms discussed in the related work, such as FedProx, SCAFFOLD, and FedNova, are not evaluated; including at least one strong modern baseline would strengthen the comparative claim that Fed-Cyclic and Fed-Star perform better than existing methods.
[Section 4] The dataset is one of the main contributions, but no download link or access mechanism is provided; please state its availability or explain any restrictions due to the commercial image sources.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported accuracies are held-out test results, and the accuracy-weighted pre-aggregation in Eq. (8) is an algorithm design choice rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation whose output is equivalent to its inputs by construction. Fed-Star's weighting rule in Eq. (8), M(k,j) = 1 - Acc(w_j, D_k)/100, uses training accuracy on the target client's own data; this is a design choice for pre-aggregation, not a parameter fitted to the test accuracies reported in Tables 5 and 6. The final evaluation is performed on a separate 20% test split, so the reported 91.72% accuracy is not statistically forced by the accuracy values used inside Eq. (8). Fed-Cyclic's weight-passing step in Eq. (7) is a simple assignment rule, and the objective in Eqs. (1)-(5) is a standard federated objective stated for self-containedness rather than used to derive a circular prediction. The only self-reference is [18], which is the paper's own WACV version and is not load-bearing for any comparison. Concerns about the inverse weighting being counterintuitive, the absence of an ablation, or the lack of released code are correctness and reproducibility issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical results rest on a pretrained feature extractor, a source-as-client assumption, and a heuristic accuracy weighting. No fitted constants beyond the tuned hyperparameters are required, and no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

RingFed gamma = 0.8
Tuned on the evaluation set to give RingFed its best accuracy (Table 4), then used for comparison.
Learning rate = 3e-4
Default learning rate used for main results; Section 5.3 shows accuracy varies with learning rate, with better values at 1e-3 and 3e-3 for the proposed methods.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Frozen ImageNet-pretrained VGG-19 convolutional features transfer to the office-object images.
Section 5.1 freezes all convolutional layers and trains only new fully connected layers. If this feature extractor poorly represents some commercial sources, the algorithm rankings could change.
domain assumption Each of the eight commercial sources constitutes a distinct client with meaningful domain shift.
Section 4 uses one source per client. The paper does not measure the actual domain gap between sources.
ad hoc to paper The accuracy-based weighting in Eq. (8) is a valid measure of inter-client model dissimilarity.
M(k,j)=1-Acc(w_j, D_k)/100 is introduced without derivation or theoretical justification; the paper presents it as a heuristic.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Federated Learning for Commercial Image Sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/35FBPKAL

@misc{pith2026250712903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Federated Learning for Commercial Image Sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/35FBPKAL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12903}
}

read the original abstract

Federated Learning is a collaborative machine learning paradigm that enables multiple clients to learn a global model without exposing their data to each other. Consequently, it provides a secure learning platform with privacy-preserving capabilities. This paper introduces a new dataset containing 23,326 images collected from eight different commercial sources and classified into 31 categories, similar to the Office-31 dataset. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first image classification dataset specifically designed for Federated Learning. We also propose two new Federated Learning algorithms, namely Fed-Cyclic and Fed-Star. In Fed-Cyclic, a client receives weights from its previous client, updates them through local training, and passes them to the next client, thus forming a cyclic topology. In Fed-Star, a client receives weights from all other clients, updates its local weights through pre-aggregation (to address statistical heterogeneity) and local training, and sends its updated local weights to all other clients, thus forming a star-like topology. Our experiments reveal that both algorithms perform better than existing baselines on our newly introduced dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12903 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FedAvg algorithm [30] the satisfactory local performance of global models despite that. 3.2. Fed-Cyclic We propose the Fed-Cyclic algorithm to overcome the challenges faced by the FedAvg algorithm, which suffers from a communication bottleneck due to a large number of edge devices uploading the parameters to the central server, which causes congestion in the network. The model visualization is shown in [PITH_FULL_… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Proposed model using Fed-Cyclic showing passing of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Proposed model using Fed-Star demonstrating pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Sample images from our dataset. We propose a dataset containing 23,326 images which we collected from 8 different image-hosting websites. Each of the 8 sources represents 8 different clients in our Federated learning setting. The average number of images for each sour…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The graph shows how the accuracy of FedAvg, RingFed, Fed-Cyclic and Fed-Star changes with different learning rates (lr). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

A survey of machine learning-based solutions to protect privacy in the internet of things

Mohammad Amiri-Zarandi, Rozita A Dara, and Evan Fraser. A survey of machine learning-based solutions to protect privacy in the internet of things. Computers & Security , 96:101921, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Distributed optimization and sta- tistical learning via the alternating direction method of mul- tipliers

Stephen Boyd, Neal Parikh, Eric Chu, Borja Peleato, Jonathan Eckstein, et al. Distributed optimization and sta- tistical learning via the alternating direction method of mul- tipliers. Foundations and Trends® in Machine learning , 3(1):1–122, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

Federated learning with hierarchical clustering of local updates to im- prove training on non-iid data

Christopher Briggs, Zhong Fan, and Peter Andras. Federated learning with hierarchical clustering of local updates to im- prove training on non-iid data. In 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–9. IEEE, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Tifl: A tier-based federated learning sys- tem

Zheng Chai, Ahsan Ali, Syed Zawad, Stacey Truex, Ali An- war, Nathalie Baracaldo, Yi Zhou, Heiko Ludwig, Feng Yan, and Yue Cheng. Tifl: A tier-based federated learning sys- tem. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing , pages 125–136, 2020

work page 2020
[5]

Fedcluster: Boosting the convergence of federated learning via cluster-cycling

Cheng Chen, Ziyi Chen, Yi Zhou, and Bhavya Kailkhura. Fedcluster: Boosting the convergence of federated learning via cluster-cycling. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pages 5017–5026. IEEE, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Fedsvrg based communica- tion efficient scheme for federated learning in mec networks

Dawei Chen, Choong Seon Hong, Yiyong Zha, Yunfei Zhang, Xin Liu, and Zhu Han. Fedsvrg based communica- tion efficient scheme for federated learning in mec networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , 70(7):7300– 7304, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Fed- max: Mitigating activation divergence for accurate and communication-efficient federated learning

Wei Chen, Kartikeya Bhardwaj, and Radu Marculescu. Fed- max: Mitigating activation divergence for accurate and communication-efficient federated learning. In Joint Euro- pean Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Dis- covery in Databases, pages 348–363. Springer, 2020

work page 2020
[8]

An overview of privacy in machine learning

Emiliano De Cristofaro. An overview of privacy in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08679, 2020

arXiv 2005

Show all 49 references

[9]

Optimal distributed online prediction using mini- batches

Ofer Dekel, Ran Gilad-Bachrach, Ohad Shamir, and Lin Xiao. Optimal distributed online prediction using mini- batches. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 13(1), 2012

2012
[10]

Adaptive personalized federated learning

Yuyang Deng, Mohammad Mahdi Kamani, and Mehrdad Mahdavi. Adaptive personalized federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.13461, 2020

2003 arXiv
[11]

Fed- erated vs

Georgios Drainakis, Konstantinos V Katsaros, Panagiotis Pantazopoulos, Vasilis Sourlas, and Angelos Amditis. Fed- erated vs. centralized machine learning under privacy-elastic users: A comparative analysis. In 2020 IEEE 19th Interna- tional Symposium on Network Computing and A...

2020
[12]

Self-balancing federated learning with global imbalanced data in mobile systems.IEEE Trans- actions on Parallel and Distributed Systems , 32(1):59–71, 2020

Moming Duan, Duo Liu, Xianzhang Chen, Renping Liu, Yu- juan Tan, and Liang Liang. Self-balancing federated learning with global imbalanced data in mobile systems.IEEE Trans- actions on Parallel and Distributed Systems , 32(1):59–71, 2020

2020
[13]

Fedgroup: Ef- ficient federated learning via decomposed similarity-based clustering

Moming Duan, Duo Liu, Xinyuan Ji, Renping Liu, Liang Liang, Xianzhang Chen, and Yujuan Tan. Fedgroup: Ef- ficient federated learning via decomposed similarity-based clustering. In 2021 IEEE Intl Conf on Parallel & Distributed Processing with Applications, Big Data & Cloud Comp...

2021
[14]

An efficient framework for clustered federated learning

Avishek Ghosh, Jichan Chung, Dong Yin, and Kannan Ram- chandran. An efficient framework for clustered federated learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 33:19586–19597, 2020

2020
[15]

Deep com- pression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding

Song Han, Huizi Mao, and William J Dally. Deep com- pression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.00149, 2015

2015 arXiv
[16]

Mea- suring the effects of non-identical data distribution for feder- ated visual classification

Tzu-Ming Harry Hsu, Hang Qi, and Matthew Brown. Mea- suring the effects of non-identical data distribution for feder- ated visual classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06335, 2019

1909 arXiv
[17]

Patient clustering improves efficiency of federated machine learning to predict mortal- ity and hospital stay time using distributed electronic medi- cal records

Li Huang, Andrew L Shea, Huining Qian, Aditya Masurkar, Hao Deng, and Dianbo Liu. Patient clustering improves efficiency of federated machine learning to predict mortal- ity and hospital stay time using distributed electronic medi- cal records. Journal of biomedical informatic...

2019
[18]

Feder- ated learning for commercial image sources

Shreyansh Jain and Koteswar Rao Jerripothula. Feder- ated learning for commercial image sources. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 6523–6532, 2023

2023
[19]

Communication- efficient on-device machine learning: Federated distillation and augmentation under non-iid private data

Eunjeong Jeong, Seungeun Oh, Hyesung Kim, Jihong Park, Mehdi Bennis, and Seong-Lyun Kim. Communication- efficient on-device machine learning: Federated distillation and augmentation under non-iid private data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.11479, 2018

2018 arXiv
[20]

Advances and open problems in federated learn- ing

Peter Kairouz, H Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aur´elien Bellet, Mehdi Bennis, Arjun Nitin Bhagoji, Kallista Bonawitz, Zachary Charles, Graham Cormode, Rachel Cum- mings, et al. Advances and open problems in federated learn- ing. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, ...

2021
[21]

Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for fed- erated learning

Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Satyen Kale, Mehryar Mohri, Sashank Reddi, Sebastian Stich, and Ananda Theertha Suresh. Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for fed- erated learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5132–5143. PMLR, 2020

2020
[22]

Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for on- device federated learning

Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Satyen Kale, Mehryar Mohri, Sashank J Reddi, Sebastian U Stich, and Ananda Theertha Suresh. Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for on- device federated learning. 2019

2019
[23]

Fed- erated learning: Strategies for improving communication ef- ficiency

Jakub Kone ˇcn`y, H Brendan McMahan, Felix X Yu, Peter Richt´arik, Ananda Theertha Suresh, and Dave Bacon. Fed- erated learning: Strategies for improving communication ef- ficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05492, 2016

2016 arXiv
[24]

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
[25]

Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions

Tian Li, Anit Kumar Sahu, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 37(3):50–60, 2020

2020
[26]

On the convergence of fedavg on non-iid data

Xiang Li, Kaixuan Huang, Wenhao Yang, Shusen Wang, and Zhihua Zhang. On the convergence of fedavg on non-iid data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02189, 2019

1907 arXiv
[27]

Variance reduced local sgd with lower communication complexity

Xianfeng Liang, Shuheng Shen, Jingchang Liu, Zhen Pan, Enhong Chen, and Yifei Cheng. Variance reduced local sgd with lower communication complexity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.12844, 2019

1912 arXiv
[28]

Real-world image datasets for federated learning

Jiahuan Luo, Xueyang Wu, Yun Luo, Anbu Huang, Yun- feng Huang, Yang Liu, and Qiang Yang. Real-world image datasets for federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.11089, 2019

1910 arXiv
[29]

Three approaches for per- sonalization with applications to federated learning

Yishay Mansour, Mehryar Mohri, Jae Ro, and Ananda Theertha Suresh. Three approaches for per- sonalization with applications to federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.10619, 2020

2002 arXiv
[30]

Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics , pages 1273–1282. PMLR, 2017

2017
[31]

A uni- fying view on dataset shift in classification

Jose G Moreno-Torres, Troy Raeder, Roc ´ıo Alaiz- Rodr´ıguez, Nitesh V Chawla, and Francisco Herrera. A uni- fying view on dataset shift in classification. Pattern recogni- tion, 45(1):521–530, 2012

2012
[32]

Federated learning for internet of things: A comprehensive survey

Dinh C Nguyen, Ming Ding, Pubudu N Pathirana, Aruna Seneviratne, Jun Li, and H Vincent Poor. Federated learning for internet of things: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Com- munications Surveys & Tutorials, 23(3):1622–1658, 2021

2021
[33]

Towards the science of security and pri- vacy in machine learning

Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Arunesh Sinha, and Michael Wellman. Towards the science of security and pri- vacy in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.03814, 2016

2016 arXiv
[34]

Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library

Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems,...

2019
[35]

Dataset shift in ma- chine learning

Joaquin Quinonero-Candela, Masashi Sugiyama, Anton Schwaighofer, and Neil D Lawrence. Dataset shift in ma- chine learning. Mit Press, 2008

2008
[36]

Adaptive federated optimization

Sashank Reddi, Zachary Charles, Manzil Zaheer, Zachary Garrett, Keith Rush, Jakub Kone ˇcn`y, Sanjiv Kumar, and H Brendan McMahan. Adaptive federated optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00295, 2020

2003 arXiv
[37]

Distributed coordinate de- scent method for learning with big data

Peter Richt ´arik and Martin Tak´aˇc. Distributed coordinate de- scent method for learning with big data. The Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research, 17(1):2657–2681, 2016

2016
[38]

Adapting visual category models to new domains

Kate Saenko, Brian Kulis, Mario Fritz, and Trevor Dar- rell. Adapting visual category models to new domains. In European conference on computer vision , pages 213–226. Springer, 2010

2010
[39]

Clustered federated learning: Model-agnostic distributed multitask optimization under privacy constraints

Felix Sattler, Klaus-Robert M ¨uller, and Wojciech Samek. Clustered federated learning: Model-agnostic distributed multitask optimization under privacy constraints. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , 32(8):3710–3722, 2020

2020
[40]

Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition

Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014

2014 arXiv
[41]

Towards personalized federated learning.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2022

Alysa Ziying Tan, Han Yu, Lizhen Cui, and Qiang Yang. Towards personalized federated learning.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2022

2022
[42]

A hybrid approach to privacy-preserving federated learning

Stacey Truex, Nathalie Baracaldo, Ali Anwar, Thomas Steinke, Heiko Ludwig, Rui Zhang, and Yi Zhou. A hybrid approach to privacy-preserving federated learning. In Pro- ceedings of the 12th ACM workshop on artificial intelligence and security, pages 1–11, 2019

2019
[43]

Opti- mizing federated learning on non-iid data with reinforcement learning

Hao Wang, Zakhary Kaplan, Di Niu, and Baochun Li. Opti- mizing federated learning on non-iid data with reinforcement learning. In IEEE INFOCOM 2020-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pages 1698–1707. IEEE, 2020

2020
[44]

Tackling the objective inconsistency prob- lem in heterogeneous federated optimization

Jianyu Wang, Qinghua Liu, Hao Liang, Gauri Joshi, and H Vincent Poor. Tackling the objective inconsistency prob- lem in heterogeneous federated optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:7611–7623, 2020

2020
[45]

Fed- home: Cloud-edge based personalized federated learning for in-home health monitoring

Qiong Wu, Xu Chen, Zhi Zhou, and Junshan Zhang. Fed- home: Cloud-edge based personalized federated learning for in-home health monitoring. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2020

2020
[46]

Multi-center feder- ated learning

Ming Xie, Guodong Long, Tao Shen, Tianyi Zhou, Xianzhi Wang, Jing Jiang, and Chengqi Zhang. Multi-center feder- ated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.01026, 2020

2005 arXiv
[47]

Ringfed: Reducing communication costs in federated learning on non-iid data

Guang Yang, Ke Mu, Chunhe Song, Zhijia Yang, and Tierui Gong. Ringfed: Reducing communication costs in federated learning on non-iid data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08873, 2021

2021 arXiv
[48]

Deep learning with elastic averaging sgd

Sixin Zhang, Anna E Choromanska, and Yann LeCun. Deep learning with elastic averaging sgd. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 28, 2015

2015
[49]

Federated learning with non-iid data

Yue Zhao, Meng Li, Liangzhen Lai, Naveen Suda, Damon Civin, and Vikas Chandra. Federated learning with non-iid data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00582, 2018

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A survey of machine learning-based solutions to protect privacy in the internet of things

Mohammad Amiri-Zarandi, Rozita A Dara, and Evan Fraser. A survey of machine learning-based solutions to protect privacy in the internet of things. Computers & Security , 96:101921, 2020

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Distributed optimization and sta- tistical learning via the alternating direction method of mul- tipliers

Stephen Boyd, Neal Parikh, Eric Chu, Borja Peleato, Jonathan Eckstein, et al. Distributed optimization and sta- tistical learning via the alternating direction method of mul- tipliers. Foundations and Trends® in Machine learning , 3(1):1–122, 2011

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Federated learning with hierarchical clustering of local updates to im- prove training on non-iid data

Christopher Briggs, Zhong Fan, and Peter Andras. Federated learning with hierarchical clustering of local updates to im- prove training on non-iid data. In 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–9. IEEE, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Tifl: A tier-based federated learning sys- tem

Zheng Chai, Ahsan Ali, Syed Zawad, Stacey Truex, Ali An- war, Nathalie Baracaldo, Yi Zhou, Heiko Ludwig, Feng Yan, and Yue Cheng. Tifl: A tier-based federated learning sys- tem. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing , pages 125–136, 2020

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Fedcluster: Boosting the convergence of federated learning via cluster-cycling

Cheng Chen, Ziyi Chen, Yi Zhou, and Bhavya Kailkhura. Fedcluster: Boosting the convergence of federated learning via cluster-cycling. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pages 5017–5026. IEEE, 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Fedsvrg based communica- tion efficient scheme for federated learning in mec networks

Dawei Chen, Choong Seon Hong, Yiyong Zha, Yunfei Zhang, Xin Liu, and Zhu Han. Fedsvrg based communica- tion efficient scheme for federated learning in mec networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , 70(7):7300– 7304, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Fed- max: Mitigating activation divergence for accurate and communication-efficient federated learning

Wei Chen, Kartikeya Bhardwaj, and Radu Marculescu. Fed- max: Mitigating activation divergence for accurate and communication-efficient federated learning. In Joint Euro- pean Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Dis- covery in Databases, pages 348–363. Springer, 2020

work page 2020

[8] [8]

An overview of privacy in machine learning

Emiliano De Cristofaro. An overview of privacy in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08679, 2020

arXiv 2005