Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Nonlinear Equilibrium Transitions in a Potential Game Model for Federated Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a homogeneous federated-learning game, the Nash equilibrium is unique except at one critical reward factor, where infinitely many equilibria appear and average training effort jumps.

desk verdict Solid game-theoretic core, but the headline claim about the optimal reward factor λ* is undercut by the paper's own non-uniqueness result. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11793 v2 pith:3YHQSRIE submitted 2024-11-18 cs.LG

Kang Liu , Ziqi Wang , Enrique Zuazua This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG MSC 68T0190C9091A1093A16
keywords federatedlearningpotentialgameNashequilibriumincentivemechanismrewardfactortrainingeffortbest-responsealgorithmnon-smoothtransition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper models federated learning as a game: self-interested clients choose how much local training effort to supply, and a server pays them at a unit price that grows with the group's total effort. The authors prove that this game is a weighted potential game, so a Nash equilibrium exists, and they analyze the homogeneous case in which clients keep a fixed effort across rounds. Their main theorem shows that the equilibrium is unique for every reward factor except one critical value, $\lambda^*$, where infinitely many equilibria appear and the average effort jumps discontinuously from below $c_1$ to above $c_2$. The authors argue that $\lambda^*$ is the server's optimal reward factor because it triggers the largest improvement in clients' training effort. If this is right, a server can choose a single reward parameter to move clients from a low-effort regime to a high-effort regime, which would make incentive design for federated learning a much simpler problem.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the weighted potential function $P_{\mathrm{FL}}(s) = \sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\left(\frac{\lambda \rho_i^2}{2} - \alpha_i \rho_i\right)(s_i^t)^2\right) + \sum_{t=1}^T \frac{\lambda}{2}\left(\sum_{i=1}^m \rho_i s_i^t\right)^2$, which turns the game into a weighted potential game with weights $w_i = 1/\rho_i$, so Nash equilibria are exactly the maximizers of $P_{\mathrm{FL}}$. For the homogeneous game, the proof reduces equilibrium conditions to a one-dimensional fixed-point equation $\bar{s}^* = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m \beta_i(\bar{s}^*)$, where each $\beta_i$ is a clamped linear response: a client trains either at its lower bound $q_i$, at the interior value $\lambda x/(2\alpha_i - \lambda/m)$, or at its upper bound $Q_i$. The critical threshold $\lambda^*$ is the unique $\lambda$ in $(0, \bar{\lambda})$ solving $\sum_{i=1}^m \lambda/(2m\alpha_i - \lambda) = 1$; at that value the system loses strict curvature and the branch of interior solutions becomes a continuum parametrized by $c \in [c_1, c_2]$, with $c_1$ and $c_2$ fixed by the lower and upper bounds. This fixed-point machinery is what allows the proof to handle the non-concave regime $\lambda > \bar{\lambda}$ and to show uniqueness away from $\lambda^*$.

What would settle it

Run the paper's own FL setup (MNIST, FedAvg, 20 clients, non-IID split, 50 rounds) with the four reward factors in Table 4.2 and measure test accuracy: if Case 3 ($\lambda = 2.80$, after the jump) does not show a substantially larger accuracy gain over Case 2 ($\lambda = 2.75$, before the jump) than Case 2 shows over Case 1, then the claim that $\lambda^*$ is the optimal reward factor is not supported. A sharper mathematical falsifier: for any homogeneous instance with $c_1 < c_2$, enumerate or approximate all fixed points of $\bar{s} = \frac{1}{m}\sum_i \beta_i(\bar{s})$ at $\lambda = \lambda^*$; the theorem predicts more than one solution, so finding exactly one would refute Theorem 3.2(2b).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a nonsmooth phase transition in the equilibrium set of a homogeneous federated-learning game. For every reward factor $\lambda$ different from the critical value $\lambda^*$ defined by $\sum_{i=1}^m \lambda^*/(2m\alpha_i - \lambda^*) = 1$, the game has a unique Nash equilibrium. At $\lambda = \lambda^*$, if $c_1 < c_2$ (the natural case when all clients start at a small minimum effort), the game has infinitely many Nash equilibria, and the average training effort $\bar{s}^*$ can be any value in the interval $[c_1, c_2]$; just below $\lambda^*$ the average equilibrium effort is below $c_1$ and just above it is above $c_2$. The paper interprets this jump as the mechanism a server can exploit: setting the reward factor slightly beyond $\lambda^*$ moves clients from a low-effort branch to a high-effort branch, and the numerical FL experiments show the largest accuracy gain occurs across this jump.

Load-bearing premise

FL training performance is positively correlated with clients' average training effort $\bar{s}$, a heuristic the paper states without derivation, and the identification of $\lambda^*$ as the server's optimal reward factor collapses if extra local training stops improving model accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A server that sets $\lambda$ slightly above $\lambda^*$ obtains a discontinuous increase in clients' average training effort, and this is the largest improvement available by adjusting the reward factor.
  • Below the activation point $\lambda_1$ every client trains at its minimum effort, while above the saturation point $\lambda_2$ every client trains at its maximum effort, so the only interesting design region is between $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$.
  • For homogeneous players, the best-response algorithm provably converges to the unique Nash equilibrium for every $\lambda < \bar{\lambda}$ with $\lambda \neq \lambda^*$; when $\lambda = \lambda^*$ it converges to the equilibrium set and yields an $O(1/K)$-approximate Nash equilibrium within $K$ iterations.
  • The uniqueness and jump results extend to non-uniform dataset sizes by replacing the uniform weight $1/m$ with the data-weight $\rho_i$ in the constants, so the same phase transition occurs in practical FL settings.
  • The FL experiments with MNIST and FedAvg show that the accuracy gain from crossing $\lambda^*$ is substantially larger than the gain from any other change in the reward factor, supporting the claim that $\lambda^*$ is the right operating point.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the heuristic correlation between average effort and model accuracy is replaced by a non-monotone relationship, the optimal reward factor would no longer be $\lambda^*$; the game-theoretic analysis would need to be re-run with a server objective defined directly on test accuracy rather than on effort.
  • The same potential-game structure applies to any platform with positive consumption externalities, such as social media or technology adoption, where the unit reward grows with total engagement; the jump at $\lambda^*$ predicts that incentive schemes of this form have a threshold where participation discontinuously increases.
  • Adding a per-round discount factor to the server's reward, as the paper suggests for future work, would likely eliminate the heterogeneous game's non-uniqueness and could make the equilibrium branch selection testable empirically.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a potential-game model of federated learning in which self-interested clients choose local training efforts and receive rewards whose unit price grows with the aggregate effort, modulated by a reward factor lambda. The authors prove existence of Nash equilibria, a uniqueness theorem for the homogeneous game that fails at a critical point lambda*, an O(1/K) convergence result for best-response dynamics, and they report MNIST/FedAvg simulations that train with NE efforts. The stated central claim is that lambda* is the server's optimal reward factor because the average training effort jumps upward there.

Significance. The theoretical apparatus is non-trivial and largely convincing: the potential-function verification, the three-threshold characterization (lambda_1, lambda*, lambda_2), the proof of non-uniqueness at lambda* via Eq. (3.5), and the best-response convergence analysis are clearly presented, with code provided for reproduction. If the optimality claim were replaced by a more careful statement about criticality and equilibrium selection, the work would be a solid contribution to game-theoretic incentive design. However, as written the paper's headline conclusion is not supported by its own theorems and experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §1.1; Theorem 3.2(2b); Eq. (3.5); §4.2] The abstract and Section 1.1 state that lambda* is the optimal reward factor because it induces the largest improvement, but Theorem 3.2(2b) shows that in the common case c1<c2 (which is exactly Scenario 1, with c1=1.37 and c2=14.81) there are infinitely many NEs at lambda=lambda*, with average effort taking any value in [c1,c2]. In particular, the low-effort NE with average effort c1 remains an equilibrium, so setting lambda=lambda* does not guarantee the advertised jump. The paper's own Section 4.2 therefore recommends choosing a reward factor 'slightly beyond lambda*', and the validation in Section 4.3 uses lambda=2.80>lambda*=2.79 rather than lambda*. The abstract and Section 6 thus claim more than Theorem 3.2 and Corollary 3.5 prove; an equilibrium-selection argument or a reformulation of the optimality statement is required.
  2. [Section 1.1, Definition 1.1, Eq. (1.6)] The term 'optimal reward factor' is used without a formal statement of the server's decision problem. The server's payoff, budget constraint, and choice domain are never defined; the only criterion is the heuristic Eq. (1.3) that average effort correlates with FL performance. Under an explicit server objective that includes payment costs (the server pays lambda*(sum rho_i s_i)*(sum rho_i s_i) in each round), the optimal choice would be the smallest lambda that achieves the desired effort, not lambda*; under a risk-averse objective facing the continuum of NEs at lambda*, lambda* would be dominated by slightly larger values. The optimality claim therefore needs a formal objective and an equilibrium-selection rule before it can be evaluated.
  3. [Eq. (1.3) and Section 4.3] The premise that FL training performance is positively correlated with clients' average training effort is introduced as a heuristic assumption and is load-bearing for the entire incentive-design conclusion. The experiments use a single dataset/architecture (MNIST, CNN) and four effort levels, and they do not test regimes where more local training can hurt global accuracy (e.g., overfitting or highly heterogeneous data). Since the paper's practical recommendation is to pick lambda around lambda* to maximize average effort, this assumption must either be derived from FL theory or validated across a broader set of scenarios; otherwise the recommended reward factor is not tied to a demonstrated training-performance objective.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 4.1] The activation function is spelled 'ReLu' and should be 'ReLU'; the table caption has 'T able' with an extra space.
  2. [Figures 4.1 and 4.2] The legends use notations such as '(lambda_1, q)', '(lambda*, c1)', etc.; in Figure 4.1 the lambda symbol appears to be missing in the first legend entry, and the notation could be clarified with subscripts.
  3. [Remark 3.8] The phrase 'O(1/K)-NE' is informal; since Theorem 5.6 provides an explicit constant, it would be clearer to refer to an explicit bound rather than an order-only statement.
  4. [Section 5.2] Assumption 5.4 uses alpha_i for strong-concavity constants, which collides with the earlier cost coefficients alpha_i; since the subsection is self-contained, a brief note would avoid confusion.
  5. [Section 4.3] Reporting test accuracy and training loss is useful, but adding a table of final accuracy values would make the comparison across cases more quantitative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the game-theoretic results are derived from stated assumptions, and the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing proof inspiration.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 2.4 constructs the weighted potential (2.1) directly from the payoff definition (1.4)-(1.6); Theorem 3.2 is proved from the fixed-point characterization (5.1)-(5.4), with the critical value λ* defined by (3.3) rather than fitted to data; Corollary 3.5 and Theorem 5.6 are proved in Section 5. The only self-citation, [21], appears in Section 5.2 as proof inspiration for a convergence argument, while the actual theorem is proven in the manuscript, so it is not load-bearing. The MNIST experiments apply the analytically computed NE efforts as local epochs and thereby exhibit the effort jump predicted by the theory; this tests the paper's explicitly heuristic assumption (1.3) that more average effort improves FL performance, and any limitation here is epistemic rather than a circular derivation. The abstract's wording that λ* itself is the optimal reward factor is weakened by the paper's own §4.2 recommendation to use a factor slightly above λ*, because Theorem 3.2(2b) makes the NE nonunique at λ*; this is an internal-consistency/correctness concern, not a circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no external uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; all constants in the theorems are derived from the model primitives. The paper's predictions (jump at λ*) are parameter-free consequences of the stated model, though the model itself is stylized.

free parameters (4)
  • α_i (client cost coefficients) = in [1,2] in experiments
    Chosen by hand for simulations; not fitted to FL data. Theorems hold for arbitrary positive α_i.
  • q_i (minimum effort) = 1 (Scenario 1), uniform in [1,20] (Scenario 2)
    Hand-chosen to define the strategy sets; not fitted to data.
  • Q_i (maximum effort) = in [20,30]
    Hand-chosen upper bounds; not fitted to data.
  • ρ_i (data proportions) = 1/m in homogeneous experiments
    Model input based on dataset sizes; not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FL training performance is positively correlated with clients' average training effort (Eq. 1.3).
    Explicitly called a 'heuristic assumption' in Section 1.1; load-bearing for the server-optimality conclusion.
  • domain assumption Quadratic cost and linear reward structure (Eq. 1.5-1.6).
    Modeling choice justified in Remarks 2.2-2.3; restricts the scope of the results.
  • domain assumption Clients have constant effort across communication rounds (homogeneous setting, Example 2.6).
    Required for the uniqueness theorems (Theorem 3.2, Corollary 3.5).
  • standard math Strategy sets are compact and existence via potential maximizer (Monderer-Shapley).
    Used in Theorem 2.4 for existence of NE.
  • standard math Strong concavity and Lipschitz smoothness for the general best-response convergence (Assumption 5.4).
    Used to prove Theorem 5.6; satisfied by Γ^h_FL for λ < λ̄.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear Equilibrium Transitions in a Potential Game Model for Federated Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3YHQSRIE

@misc{pith2026241111793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear Equilibrium Transitions in a Potential Game Model for Federated Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3YHQSRIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11793}
}
read the original abstract

In federated learning (FL), a central server typically allocates training efforts to clients. However, from a market-oriented perspective, clients may independently choose their training efforts based on rational self-interest. To study this setting, we propose a potential game framework in which each client's payoff is determined by its individual effort and the rewards provided by the server. The rewards are influenced by the collective efforts of all clients and can be modulated by a reward factor. We first establish the existence of Nash equilibria (NEs) and then investigate their uniqueness in a stationary setting. We show that the NEs depend nonlinearly on the reward factor and exhibit a nonsmooth transition at a critical value, where the stationary potential loses strict curvature, leading to nonunique NEs and a jump between low-effort and high-effort branches. Furthermore, we prove the convergence of the best-response algorithm for computing NEs in our FL game. Finally, we apply the clients' rational efforts derived from the NEs to FL training with various datasets and models, thereby validating the effectiveness of the identified critical reward factor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11793 by the authors.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. Illustration of three critical reward factors: the activation point λ1 , the jump point λ ∗ , and the saturation point λ2 . See Corollary 3.5 for more details. It is important to reiterate that our work offers a mathematical perspective on the interplay between clients’ training efforts and the server’s incentives, paving the way for further exploration of more complex FL systems and networks with positive consumpti… view at source ↗
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Training-cost-incentive workflow of FL, with the round index t omitted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Results of the clients’ average training effort ¯s with respect to the server’s reward factor λ. Scenario 1 (Left): qi ∈ {1}, Qi ∈ [20, 30], c1 < c2 . Scenario 2 (Right): qi ∈ [1, 20], Qi ∈ [20, 30], c1 > c2 . The values of the activation point λ1 , jump point λ ∗ , and saturation point λ2 are indicated in the legends. 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 Reward factor 1.000 1.001 1.002 1.003 1.004 A v e r a g e e f f o r t s ( 1, q… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Zoom-in of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4_2.png]
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: FL training performance in four cases with different server reward factors (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. HYCO: Hybrid-Cooperative Learning for Data-Driven PDE Modeling

    math.OC 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    HYCO alternately trains a physics-based PDE solver and a neural network to fit data and agree with each other, improving sparse-data parameter recovery over PINNs and classical inversion in four benchmark problems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. J. Aumann. Backward induction and common knowledge of rationality. Games and Economic Behavior , 8(1):6–19, 1995

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Banabilah, M

    S. Banabilah, M. Aloqaily, E. Alsayed, N. Malik, and Y. Jararweh. Federated learning review: Fundamentals, enabling technologies, and future applications. Information processing & management , 59(6):103061, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    E. Barron. Game Theory: An Introduction . Wiley, 1 edition, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Bottou, F

    L. Bottou, F. E. Curtis, and J. Nocedal. Optimization methods for large-scale machine learning. SIAM Review, 60(2):223–311, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Britzelmeier, A

    A. Britzelmeier, A. Dreves, and M. Gerdts. Numerical solution of potential games arising in the control of cooperative automatic vehicles. In 2019 Proceedings of the Conference on Control and Its Applications , pages 38–45. SIAM, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Cardaliaguet

    P. Cardaliaguet. Notes on mean field games. Technical report, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Cheung and R

    M.-W. Cheung and R. Lahkar. Nonatomic potential games: The continuous strategy case. Games and Economic Behavior, 108:341–362, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    A. Cournot. The mathematical principles of the theory of wealth (translated from recherches sur les principes math´ ematiques de la th´ eorie des richesses, by nt bacon), 1927

    work page 1927

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Dong and Y

    L. Dong and Y. Zhang. Federated learning service market: A game theoretic analysis. In 2020 International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing (WCSP) , pages 227–232, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Durand and B

    S. Durand and B. Gaujal. Complexity and optimality of the best response algorithm in random potential games. In International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory , pages 40–51. Springer, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    A. Hard, K. Rao, R. Mathews, S. Ramaswamy, F. Beaufays, S. Augenstein, H. Eichner, C. Kiddon, and D. Ra- mage. Federated learning for mobile keyboard prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03604 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Y. He, M. Luo, B. Wu, L. Sun, Y. Wu, Z. Liu, and K. Xiao. A game theory-based incentive mechanism for collaborative security of federated learning in energy blockchain environment. IEEE Internet of Things Journal , pages 1–1, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    M. K. Jensen. Aggregative games and best-reply potentials. Economic Theory, 43(1):45–66, 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    Kairouz, H

    P. Kairouz, H. B. McMahan, B. Avent, A. Bellet, M. Bennis, A. N. Bhagoji, K. Bonawitz, Z. Charles, G. Cormode, R. Cummings, et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 14(1–2):1–210, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    M. L. Katz and C. Shapiro. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3):424–440, 1985

    1985

  8. [16]

    L. U. Khan, S. R. Pandey, N. H. Tran, W. Saad, Z. Han, M. N. H. Nguyen, and C. S. Hong. Federated learning for edge networks: Resource optimization and incentive mechanism. IEEE Communications Magazine, 58(10):88–93, 2020. FEDERATED LEARNING GAME 25

    2020

  9. [17]

    D. M. Kreps and J. A. Scheinkman. Quantity precommitment and bertrand competition yield cournot outcomes. The Bell Journal of Economics , pages 326–337, 1983

    1983

  10. [18]

    LeCun, L

    Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998

    1998

  11. [19]

    J. Lee, D. Kim, and D. Niyato. Market analysis of distributed learning resource management for internet of things: A game-theoretic approach. IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 7(9):8430–8439, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    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 , 2:429–450, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    K. Liu, N. Oudjane, and C. Wan. Approximate nash equilibria in large nonconvex aggregative games. Mathe- matics of Operations Research, 48(3):1791–1809, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    T. Liu, J. Wang, X. Zhang, and D. Cheng. Game theoretic control of multiagent systems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 57(3):1691–1709, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Z. Liu, Y. Chen, H. Yu, Y. Liu, and L. Cui. Gtg-shapley: Efficient and accurate participant contribution evaluation in federated learning. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) , 13(4):1–21, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    McMahan, E

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 1273–1282. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Monderer and L

    D. Monderer and L. S. Shapley. Potential games. Games and Economic Behavior , 14(1):124–143, 1996

    1996

  18. [26]

    J. F. Nash Jr. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1):48– 49, 1950

    1950

  19. [27]

    M. J. Osborne and A. Rubinstein. A Course in Game Theory . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1994

    1994

  20. [28]

    Raschell` a, F

    A. Raschell` a, F. Bouhafs, M. Mackay, Q. Shi, J. Ort ´ ın, J. R. G´ allego, and M. Canales. A dynamic access point allocation algorithm for dense wireless lans using potential game. Computer Networks , 167:106991, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    H. Ren, J. Deng, and X. Xie. Grnn: Generative regression neural network—a data leakage attack for federated learning. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) , 13(4):1–24, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    J. B. Rosen. Existence and uniqueness of equilibrium points for concave n-person games. Econometrica, 33(3):520–534, 1965

    1965

  23. [31]

    R. Selten. Preispolitik Der Mehrproduktenunternehmung in Der Statischen Theorie , volume 16 of ¨Okonometrie Und Unternehmensforschung / Econometrics and Operations Research . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1970

    1970

  24. [32]

    Y. Song, Z. Wang, and E. Zuazua. Fedadmm-insa: An inexact and self-adaptive admm for federated learning. Neural Networks, 181:106772, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Swenson, R

    B. Swenson, R. Murray, and S. Kar. On best-response dynamics in potential games. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 56(4):2734–2767, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Szidarovszky and S

    F. Szidarovszky and S. Yakowitz. A new proof of the existence and uniqueness of the cournot equilibrium. International Economic Review , pages 787–789, 1977

    1977

  27. [35]

    Tahanian, M

    E. Tahanian, M. Amouei, H. Fateh, and M. Rezvani. A game-theoretic approach for robust federated learning. International Journal of Engineering , 34(4):832–842, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    X. Tu, K. Zhu, N. C. Luong, D. Niyato, Y. Zhang, and J. Li. Incentive mechanisms for federated learning: From economic and game theoretic perspective. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , 8(3):1566–1593, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Von Stackelberg

    H. Von Stackelberg. Marktform und Gleichgewicht . J. Springer, 1934

    1934

  30. [38]

    Wu and H

    H. Wu and H. Shang. Potential game for dynamic task allocation in multi-agent system. ISA Transactions, 102:208–220, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Xu and W

    Y. Xu and W. Yin. A block coordinate descent method for regularized multiconvex optimization with applications to nonnegative tensor factorization and completion. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences , 6(3):1758–1789, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Y. Xue, C. Niu, Z. Zheng, S. Tang, C. Lyu, F. Wu, and G. Chen. Toward understanding the influence of individual clients in federated learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 35, pages 10560–10567, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Zhang, T

    L. Zhang, T. Zhu, P. Xiong, W. Zhou, and P. S. Yu. A robust game-theoretical federated learning framework with joint differential privacy. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 35(4):3333–3346, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Zhang, M

    X. Zhang, M. Hong, and N. Elia. Understanding a class of decentralized and federated optimization algorithms: A multirate feedback control perspective. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 33(2):652–683, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    L. Zhu, Z. Liu, and S. Han. Deep leakage from gradients. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.