Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 53 references

A Game-Theoretic Framework for Privacy-Aware Client Sampling in Federated Learning

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage Stackelberg game over privacy budgets yields a bounded price of anarchy for federated client sampling.

desk verdict A plausible mechanism with a heavy new-claim load, but the proofs as written don't support the equilibrium, convergence, or PoA results. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05636 v1 pith:4B5XEF5D submitted 2024-12-07 cs.GT

Wenhao Yuan , Xuehe Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GT MSC 91A6591A8068T05
keywords federatedlearningclientsamplingdifferentialprivacyStackelberggamepriceofanarchymean-fieldestimatorincentivemechanismzero-concentrated
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

The paper proposes a federated learning scheme, FedPCS, in which a central server samples clients with probability proportional to their privacy budget and pays them rewards, while each client chooses a correction factor that adjusts its own privacy budget over time. The authors model this interaction as a two-stage Stackelberg game and claim that the resulting optimal strategies form a Stackelberg Nash equilibrium. They further claim that the mean-field estimator used to approximate the average privacy budget has a fixed point reachable by iteration, and that the privacy-aware sampling strategy keeps the price of anarchy bounded by a constant, unlike uniform random sampling whose price of anarchy can grow arbitrarily large. If these claims hold, federated learning servers could jointly set sampling probabilities and rewards to keep efficiency loss under control while accommodating selfish, privacy-sensitive clients.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the sampling probability $x_i^t = \rho_i^t/(N\phi(t))$, the mean-field estimator $\phi(t) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \rho_i^t$, the client's correction factor $\alpha_i^t$ used in the recurrence $\rho_i^{t+1} = (1-\alpha_i^t)\phi(t) + \alpha_i^t\rho_i^t$, and the server's reward $R_t$. The two-stage Stackelberg game connects them: clients choose $\alpha_i^t$ to maximize sampling probability and reward minus quadratic privacy and adjustment costs, while the server chooses $R_t$ to balance model accuracy loss against reward payout. The price-of-anarchy comparison between random sampling and the privacy-aware sampling strategy is the metric that carries the efficiency claim, and the mean-field fixed point is what makes the decentralized strategy profile computable in closed form.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 on a small instance, for example $N=2$, $T=3$, $\rho_L=1$, $\rho_H=12$, $\alpha_L=0.1$, $\alpha_H=0.9$, from several initial choices of $\phi_0(t)$, and check whether the iterates converge to a common fixed point; a single divergent trajectory or an initial-condition-dependent limit would refute Theorem 3's contraction claim and undermine the guarantee that the Stackelberg equilibrium strategies are actually computed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in federated learning with $\rho$-zCDP noise, the interaction between a cost-minimizing server and utility-maximicking clients can be modeled as a two-stage Stackelberg game, and the optimal strategies—time-dependent rewards $R_t^*$ and per-client correction factors $\alpha_i^{t*}$—form a Stackelberg Nash equilibrium. The equilibrium is computed through a mean-field estimator $\phi(t)$ that approximates the average privacy budget, and the paper proves existence and convergence of its fixed point via a contraction argument. The paper further claims that the price of anarchy under uniform random sampling becomes arbitrarily large as the lower privacy budget $\rho_L$ approaches zero, whereas the privacy-aware sampling strategy achieves $\mathrm{PoA} \le \frac{R_{\max}}{2N}\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{\varphi_i}$ in the limit $\rho_H \to +\infty$. Experiments on six image datasets report that FedPCS outperforms the considered baselines in accuracy, social welfare, and server cost under both IID and Non-IID settings.

Load-bearing premise

The convergence proof for the mean-field estimator in Theorem 3 asserts a contraction coefficient $\sqrt{\nu} < 1$ without deriving it and compares outputs for two different clients rather than successive iterates of the same mapping, so the claim that Algorithm 1 converges to the fixed point is the load-bearing support for the equilibrium strategy profile.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The server can precompute a mean-field estimate and then set time-dependent rewards and sampling probabilities so that no client can improve its utility by deviating, provided the fixed point is actually reached.
  • Under uniform random sampling, efficiency loss can blow up without bound as the minimum allowed privacy budget tends to zero; under the proposed privacy-aware sampling, the price of anarchy stays bounded by a constant that depends only on the maximum reward, the number of clients, and the cost weights.
  • The convergence bounds give explicit learning-rate conditions under which privacy-preserving federated learning with this sampling scheme provably converges for both convex and non-convex global losses.
  • The adaptive extension yields closed-form expressions for the optimal sampling ratio and reward when the total privacy budget of sampled clients varies over time.
  • Across six image datasets and three sampling rates, the framework reports higher accuracy and lower server cost than the random, AOCS, Fed-CBS, and DELTA baselines under IID and Non-IID data splits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mean-field fixed point is not actually reached, the equilibrium and price-of-anarchy claims do not apply to the deployed system; the paper's contraction proof compares outputs for two different clients rather than successive iterates of the same mapping, so convergence of Algorithm 1 is the first thing to test in practice.
  • The bound $\mathrm{PoA} \le R_{\max}/(2N)\sum_i 1/\varphi_i$ shrinks with the number of clients $N$, suggesting the scheme becomes more efficient as the client population grows, which fits cross-device federated learning at scale.
  • The same two-stage game machinery could be repurposed for other strategic client-controlled resources, such as local computation effort, communication bandwidth, or data quality, with the price-of-anarchy analysis carried over.
  • A controlled experiment that drives $\rho_L$ toward zero while measuring social welfare under random sampling would directly test the predicted unbounded price of anarchy in a real training system.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FedPCS, a two-stage Stackelberg game for privacy-aware client sampling in federated learning under ρ-zCDP. The server chooses rewards and sampling probabilities to minimize a cost combining accuracy loss and reward payments, while each client chooses a correction factor that adapts its privacy budget. A mean-field estimator is introduced to approximate the average privacy budget, and the paper claims to establish existence and convergence of its fixed point, a Stackelberg Nash equilibrium, convergence bounds for the FL model, a price-of-anarchy comparison showing bounded efficiency loss for FedPCS versus arbitrarily large loss for random sampling, and an extension to adaptive sampling ratios under dynamic privacy constraints. The claims are supported by derivations in Appendices A–H and by experiments on six datasets.

Significance. If the theoretical claims were correct, the paper would make a useful contribution to federated learning by jointly modeling incentive design and privacy-aware client sampling, and the mean-field approach to decentralized strategy design is a sensible idea. The experimental section is broad, covering six datasets, IID/Non-IID partitions, multiple sampling rates, and several strong baselines, with means and standard deviations reported. However, several load-bearing theoretical steps are not established as written: the central convergence result for the mean-field fixed point is proven by an invalid contraction argument, the accuracy-loss bound in Proposition 2 does not depend on the sampling probabilities it is claimed to analyze, and the PoA upper bound in Theorem 6 relies on an unjustified inequality and an unmodeled worst-case assumption. These gaps concern the core claims of the paper, so the contribution is not currently realized.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III-D, Prop. 2, Eq. (12)] The claimed accuracy-loss bound for privacy-aware client sampling contains no sampling probabilities x_i^t and no sampled-set size K; Appendix B derives it from the full-participation perturbed global gradient (Eq. (B.47)). The server's Stage I cost in Eq. (13) sums only over K sampled clients, while the accuracy-loss term inherited from Proposition 2 is a sum over all N clients. The optimization objective in Eq. (13) is therefore not the quantity bounded in Proposition 2, and the derivation of the optimal reward in Lemma 2 and Theorem 2 is not grounded in the stated convergence result.
  2. [§IV-B, Theorem 3, Appendix E, Eq. (67)] The proof that the mean-field fixed point is attainable by Algorithm 1 is invalid. Eq. (67) bounds Γ(Θ_i^t(ρ_i^t), Θ_j^t(ρ_j^t)), namely the distance between the next privacy budgets of two different clients computed from the same current vector, whereas Banach's contraction theorem requires a bound on the distance between two iterates of the same map. The coefficient √ν is asserted rather than derived, can exceed 1, and the term (1/N)(α_i^t Σ_k ρ_k^t − α_j^t Σ_k ρ_k^t) is dropped from the norm without justification. Brouwer's theorem gives existence of some fixed point but says nothing about convergence of the specific iteration in Algorithm 1. Since Theorem 1, Lemma 2, Theorem 2, and Theorem 6 all evaluate the strategy profile at this fixed point, the convergence gap undermines the equilibrium and PoA claims.
  3. [§VI-C, Theorem 6, Eq. (37)] The upper bound on PoA(pri) is not established. The inequality labeled (a) relies on N Σ_t R_t ≤ (T+1) Σ_i φ_i, which is not a consequence of any stated assumption and can fail for large rewards. Moreover, as ρ_H → ∞, the denominator N ρ_H Σ_t R_t − (T+1) ρ_H² Σ_i φ_i becomes negative for fixed rewards and φ_i, so the claimed limit PoA(pri) ≤ R_max/(2N) Σ_i 1/φ_i does not follow. The proof also asserts without derivation that the worst-case Stackelberg Nash equilibrium has ρ_i^t → ρ_H for all clients; this must be computed from the clients' best responses in Eq. (14), not assumed.
  4. [§VI-B, Prop. 4] The random-sampling PoA lower bound is derived under an unmodeled behavioral assumption: it simply states that egocentric clients set ρ_i^t = ρ_L at the Nash equilibrium, with no derivation from the utility in Eq. (14). In addition, the social welfare function in Eq. (30) omits the sampling-probability term (1−(1−x_i^t)^K) and the correction-factor cost (1−φ_i)(α_i^t)² that appear in the clients' actual utilities. The comparison between random sampling and privacy-aware sampling is therefore not carried out within the game defined in Sections III and IV.
  5. [§IV-A, Theorem 1, Eq. (21); Theorem 2] Equation (21) is presented as the closed-form optimal correction factor, but its right-hand side contains future correction factors α_r^i for r ≥ t+1 and S(t+1) depends on α_{t+1}; at best this is a backward recursion rather than a closed-form expression. In the proof of Theorem 2, the cost function U_t is said to be 'strictly concave' while the displayed second derivative in Eq. (61) is positive, which proves strict convexity. The existence of the optimal reward may be salvageable from the stated limits, but the proof as written is internally inconsistent, and no uniqueness or global-optimality argument is supplied for the response R_t^*.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III-C, Eq. (4)] The global update with sampling probabilities uses the estimator θ_i/(K x_i^t) over the sampled set K_t, but the paper does not state the expectation over the K-times-without-replacement sampling or verify unbiasedness of this estimator; this should be made explicit.
  2. [§IV-B, Algorithm 1] The stopping criterion computes ϵ = ϕ_est^m(t) − ϕ_est^{m−1}(t) for each t, but the algorithm does not specify how the vector-valued difference is reduced to a scalar or how a single m is used across all t; presumably a norm over t is intended.
  3. [§VII, Theorem 7] The proof differentiates the Lagrangian with respect to K_t even though K_t is an integer-valued subset size; a discrete optimization argument or a continuous relaxation with integrality justification is needed.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (50)] The displayed second derivative ∂²H(t)/∂(α_i^t)² contains an extra factor α_i^t; the sign conclusion is unchanged because (1−φ_i) > 0 and the sampling probability is positive, but the displayed formula is incorrect.
  5. [§V, Theorem 4, Eqs. (25)-(26)] The bounds contain the factor [(N−1)ρ_H + ρ_L]/Kρ_L but no step-size condition is stated to ensure that the contraction factor 1 − ψη[(N−1)ρ_H + ρ_L]/Kρ_L remains positive; such a condition should be included.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The client's optimal correction factor (Theorem 1) is obtained by a maximum-principle calculation from the utility in Eqs. (19)-(20); the server's optimal reward (Lemma 2) solves the first-order condition of the cost in Eq. (13); and the Stackelberg Nash Equilibrium claim (Theorem 2) is the conjunction of these two optimizations relative to the mean-field consistency condition phi(t) = (1/N) sum rho_i^t (Definition 2). The mean-field fixed point (Theorem 3, Appendix E) is a genuine self-consistency equation, and appealing to Brouwer and Banach fixed-point theorems is standard game-theoretic computation, not a circular reduction. The PoA analysis (Proposition 4 and Theorem 6) compares the authors' social-welfare benchmark SW(opt) = (1/4) sum R_t^2 sum 1/phi_i (Eq. 32) against assumed worst-case equilibrium profiles at rho_L and rho_H; this is a conditional worst-case bound, not a fitted constant relabeled as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears in the reference list. The skeptic's concern about Appendix E's contraction argument (bounding Gamma(Theta_i(rho_i), Theta_j(rho_j)) between two clients rather than two iterates, and asserting sqrt(nu) < 1 without deriving it) is a mathematical-support gap in the convergence proof, not a circularity: the claimed result does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 13 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theory rests on the standard smoothness and convexity assumptions plus three paper-specific simplifications: treating the mean-field term as a known function, assuming boundary privacy budgets in the PoA analysis, and omitting the sampling probability from the social welfare function. The mean-field fixed point is justified by a disputed contraction proof, and the PoA and accuracy-loss derivations drop or replace quantities that appear in the actual game.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma = not reported (claimed in (0,1))
    Trade-off weight in the central server cost function Eq. (13); no exact experimental value is given, so cost comparisons cannot be reproduced.
  • phi_i = drawn i.i.d. from U(0,1)
    Client utility weight in Eq. (14); randomly generated in Section VIII-A, so reported utility values are seed-dependent.
  • rho_L, rho_H = rho_L=0.01, rho_H=12
    Lower and upper boundaries of privacy budgets; the PoA bounds in Proposition 4 and Theorem 6 are explicit functions of these boundaries.
  • V = not measured
    Upper bound on the gradient norm used in Proposition 2's accuracy-loss bound; its value is not reported.
  • W = not reported
    Clipping threshold in Proposition 1; it sets the Gaussian noise variance and therefore directly affects the accuracy-loss term.
assumptions (13)
  • standard math Assumption 1: beta-Lipschitz smoothness of local loss functions F_i
    Used throughout Section V for convergence bounds and in Proposition 2 via Appendix B; standard in FL analysis.
  • standard math Assumption 2: first and second moment limits on stochastic gradients
    Used in Proposition 3 and Theorem 5 to bound gradient variance and drift.
  • standard math Assumption 3: psi-strong convexity of the global loss function
    Used in Theorem 4 for the convex-scenario optimality gap bound.
  • standard math Assumption 4: unique subgradient for non-convexity
    Used in Theorem 4 for the non-convex-scenario optimality gap bound.
  • standard math Assumption 5: bounded local gradient norm D
    Used to bound T1 and T2 in Appendix F and in Proposition 5.
  • standard math Lemma 1: Polyak-Lojasiewicz inequality
    Used in Theorem 5 to convert gradient-norm bounds into loss-suboptimality bounds.
  • standard math Lemma 3: Jensen's inequality for norms
    Used in Appendix F to bound the expected squared norm of the aggregated noisy update.
  • standard math Rakhlin et al. [51] bound E[F(w(t))-F(w*)] <= beta G^2(t)/(2 mu^2 t)
    Appendix B applies this strongly-convex SGD bound to a noisy partial-participation setting without proving that the transfer conditions hold.
  • domain assumption Lemma 1 in [6]: sampling variance bound in Eq. (85)
    The paper cites an external sampling-variance bound without restating its assumptions, then applies it to the FedPCS sampling rule.
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation: each client treats phi(t) as a given function independent of its own alpha_i
    Enables the Hamilton-function derivation in Theorem 1; if clients anticipate their influence on the average privacy budget, the optimal correction factor changes.
  • ad hoc to paper Worst-case behavioral assumption in PoA: random-sampling clients set rho_i=rho_L and FedPCS clients set rho_i=rho_H
    Asserted in Proposition 4 and Theorem 6 rather than derived from the utility function Eq. (14).
  • ad hoc to paper Social-welfare simplification: PoA compares welfare without sampling probability and alpha-cost terms
    Eq. (30) omits the factors (1-(1-x_i)^K) and (1-phi_i)(alpha_i^t)^2 that appear in the actual client utility Eq. (14).
  • ad hoc to paper Contraction coefficient sqrt(nu) < 1 in Theorem 3 proof
    Eq. (67) asserts the contraction inequality and coefficient without a derivation; the proof also compares two different clients rather than two iterates of the same map.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Game-Theoretic Framework for Privacy-Aware Client Sampling in Federated Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4B5XEF5D

@misc{pith2026241205636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Game-Theoretic Framework for Privacy-Aware Client Sampling in Federated Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4B5XEF5D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05636}
}
read the original abstract

This paper aims to design a Privacy-aware Client Sampling framework in Federated learning, named FedPCS, to tackle the heterogeneous client sampling issues and improve model performance. First, we obtain a pioneering upper bound for the accuracy loss of the FL model with privacy-aware client sampling probabilities. Based on this, we model the interactions between the central server and participating clients as a two-stage Stackelberg game. In Stage I, the central server designs the optimal time-dependent reward for cost minimization by considering the trade-off between the accuracy loss of the FL model and the rewards allocated. In Stage II, each client determines the correction factor that dynamically adjusts its privacy budget based on the reward allocated to maximize its utility. To surmount the obstacle of approximating other clients' private information, we introduce the mean-field estimator to estimate the average privacy budget. We analytically demonstrate the existence and convergence of the fixed point for the mean-field estimator and derive the Stackelberg Nash Equilibrium to obtain the optimal strategy profile. By rigorously theoretical convergence analysis, we guarantee the robustness of FedPCS. Moreover, considering the conventional sampling strategy in privacy-preserving FL, we prove that the random sampling approach's PoA can be arbitrarily large. To remedy such efficiency loss, we show that the proposed privacy-aware client sampling strategy successfully reduces PoA, which is upper bounded by a reachable constant. To address the challenge of varying privacy requirements throughout different training phases in FL, we extend our model and analysis and derive the adaptive optimal sampling ratio for the central server. Experimental results on different datasets demonstrate the superiority of FedPCS compared with the existing SOTA FL strategies under IID and Non-IID datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05636 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The framework of FedPCS: A ρ-zCDP technique-based incentive mechanism architecture in FL, where the blue dashed outline indicates the model aggregation and reward allocation operated by the central server, and the black dashed outline indicates the local training, model disturbance, and upload process. performance. Moreover, a prevailing and idealized assumption in most existing literature is that heterogeneous clie… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The data distribution on the CIFAR-10 dataset under IID and Non-IID settings with the client [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The Pearson correlation coefficient of various schemes on Fashion-MNIST dataset with sampling rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The social welfare comparison on Fashion-MNIST/CIFAR-10/SVHN/CIFAR-100/CINIC-10/Tiny [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Privacy budget usage comparison on Tiny-ImageNet. 10 [47] and Tiny-ImageNet4 , to validate the performance of our proposed FedPCS. The basic information regarding the datasets is summarized in TABLE III. We partition the training data for each participating client into…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Accuracy and loss curve on Fashion-MNIST dataset with different sampling rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Accuracy and loss curve on CIFAR-10 dataset with different sampling rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Accuracy and loss curve on SVHN dataset with different sampling rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Accuracy and loss curve on CIFAR-100 dataset with different sampling rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Accuracy and loss curve on CINIC-10 dataset with different sampling rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Accuracy and loss curve on Tiny-ImageNet dataset with different sampling rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Accuracy comparison on all datasets with different sampling rates under Non-IID settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Incentive-aware autonomous client participation in federated learning,

    M. Hu, D. Wu, Y . Zhou, X. Chen, and M. Chen, “Incentive-aware autonomous client participation in federated learning,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems , vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 2612–2627, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    A novel incentive mechanism for federated learning over wireless communications,

    Y . Wang, Y . Zhou, and P.-Q. Huang, “A novel incentive mechanism for federated learning over wireless communications,” IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence , pp. 1–14, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Validating privacy-preserving face recognition under a minimum assumption,

    H. Zhang, X. Dong, Y . Lai, Y . Zhou, X. Zhang, X. Lv, Z. Jin, and X. Li, “Validating privacy-preserving face recognition under a minimum assumption,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 12 205–12 214

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Disentangle then calibrate with gradient guidance: A unified framework for common and rare disease diagnosis,

    Y . Chen, X. Guo, Y . Xia, and Y . Yuan, “Disentangle then calibrate with gradient guidance: A unified framework for common and rare disease diagnosis,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1816–1827, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Human-in-the- loop embodied intelligence with interactive simulation environment for surgical robot learning,

    Y . Long, W. Wei, T. Huang, Y . Wang, and Q. Dou, “Human-in-the- loop embodied intelligence with interactive simulation environment for surgical robot learning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 4441–4448, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Adaptive heterogeneous client sampling for federated learning over wireless networks,

    B. Luo, W. Xiao, S. Wang, J. Huang, and L. Tassiulas, “Adaptive heterogeneous client sampling for federated learning over wireless networks,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , no. 01, pp. 1– 15, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    The california consumer privacy act: Towards a european- style privacy regime in the united states,

    S. L. Pardau, “The california consumer privacy act: Towards a european- style privacy regime in the united states,” J. Tech. L. & Pol’y , vol. 23, p. 68, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    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,” in Artificial intelligence and statistics . PMLR, 2017, pp. 1273– 1282

    2017

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Tackling system and statistical heterogeneity for federated learning with adaptive client sampling,

    B. Luo, W. Xiao, S. Wang, J. Huang, and L. Tassiulas, “Tackling system and statistical heterogeneity for federated learning with adaptive client sampling,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2022-IEEE conference on computer communications, 2022, pp. 1739–1748

    2022

  2. [10]

    Three-stage stackelberg game enabled clustered federated learning in heterogeneous uav swarms,

    W. He, H. Yao, T. Mai, F. Wang, and M. Guizani, “Three-stage stackelberg game enabled clustered federated learning in heterogeneous uav swarms,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Delta: Diverse client sampling for fasting federated learning,

    L. Wang, Y . Guo, T. Lin, and X. Tang, “Delta: Diverse client sampling for fasting federated learning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Accelerating hybrid feder- ated learning convergence under partial participation,

    J. Bian, L. Wang, K. Yang, C. Shen, and J. Xu, “Accelerating hybrid feder- ated learning convergence under partial participation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Incentive-boosted federated crowdsourcing,

    X. Kang, G. Yu, J. Wang, W. Guo, C. Domeniconi, and J. Zhang, “Incentive-boosted federated crowdsourcing,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 5, 2023, pp. 6021–6029

    2023

  6. [14]

    Deep leakage from gradient,

    L. Zhu, Z. Liu, and S. Han, “Deep leakage from gradient,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Concentrated differential privacy: Simplifications, extensions, and lower bounds,

    M. Bun and T. Steinke, “Concentrated differential privacy: Simplifications, extensions, and lower bounds,” in Theory of Cryptography Conference . Springer, 2016, pp. 635–658

    2016

  8. [16]

    Shield against gradient leakage attacks: Adaptive privacy-preserving federated learning,

    J. Hu, Z. Wang, Y . Shen, B. Lin, P. Sun, X. Pang, J. Liu, and K. Ren, “Shield against gradient leakage attacks: Adaptive privacy-preserving federated learning,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , 2023. 16

    2023

  9. [17]

    Efficient federated learning with enhanced privacy via lottery ticket pruning in edge computing,

    Y . Shi, K. Wei, L. Shen, J. Li, X. Wang, B. Yuan, and S. Guo, “Efficient federated learning with enhanced privacy via lottery ticket pruning in edge computing,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Optimal mechanism design for heterogeneous client sampling in federated learning,

    G. Liao, B. Luo, Y . Feng, M. Zhang, and X. Chen, “Optimal mechanism design for heterogeneous client sampling in federated learning,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Incentive mechanism for federated learning with random client selection,

    H. Wu, X. Tang, Y .-J. A. Zhang, and L. Gao, “Incentive mechanism for federated learning with random client selection,” IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering , 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Dordis: Efficient federated learning with dropout-resilient differential privacy,

    Z. Jiang, W. Wang, and R. Chen, “Dordis: Efficient federated learning with dropout-resilient differential privacy,” in Proceedings of the Nine- teenth European Conference on Computer Systems , 2024, pp. 472–488

    2024

  13. [21]

    Personalized local differentially private federated learning with adaptive client sampling,

    Y . Chen, W. Xu, X. Wu, M. Zhang, and B. Luo, “Personalized local differentially private federated learning with adaptive client sampling,” in ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 6600–6604

    2024

  14. [22]

    Fed-CBS: A heterogeneity-aware client sampling mechanism for federated learning via class-imbalance reduction,

    J. Zhang, A. Li, M. Tang, J. Sun, X. Chen, F. Zhang, C. Chen, Y . Chen, and H. Li, “Fed-CBS: A heterogeneity-aware client sampling mechanism for federated learning via class-imbalance reduction,” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , 2023, p...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Anchor sampling for federated learning with partial client participation,

    F. Wu, S. Guo, Z. Qu, S. He, Z. Liu, and J. Gao, “Anchor sampling for federated learning with partial client participation,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 37 379–37 416

    2023

  16. [24]

    Gluefl: Reconciling client sampling and model masking for bandwidth efficient federated learning,

    S. He, Q. Yan, F. Wu, L. Wang, M. L´ecuyer, and I. Beschastnikh, “Gluefl: Reconciling client sampling and model masking for bandwidth efficient federated learning,” Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, vol. 5, pp. 695–707, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    A personalized privacy preserving mechanism for crowdsourced federated learning,

    Y . Xu, M. Xiao, J. Wu, H. Tan, and G. Gao, “A personalized privacy preserving mechanism for crowdsourced federated learning,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1568–1585, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Game analysis and incentive mechanism design for differentially private cross-silo federated learning,

    W. Mao, Q. Ma, G. Liao, and X. Chen, “Game analysis and incentive mechanism design for differentially private cross-silo federated learning,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Collaboration in federated learning with differential privacy: A stackelberg game analysis,

    G. Huang, Q. Wu, P. Sun, Q. Ma, and X. Chen, “Collaboration in federated learning with differential privacy: A stackelberg game analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems , 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Trade privacy for utility: A learning-based privacy pricing game in federated learning,

    Y . Wang, Z. Su, Y . Pan, A. Benslimane, Y . Liu, T. H. Luan, and R. Li, “Trade privacy for utility: A learning-based privacy pricing game in federated learning,” in ICC 2023-IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2023, pp. 6307–6311

    2023

  21. [29]

    Imfl-aigc: Incentive mechanism design for federated learning empowered by artificial intelligence generated content,

    G. Huang, Q. Wu, J. Li, and X. Chen, “Imfl-aigc: Incentive mechanism design for federated learning empowered by artificial intelligence generated content,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Trading data for learning: Incentive mechanism for on-device federated learning,

    R. Hu and Y . Gong, “Trading data for learning: Incentive mechanism for on-device federated learning,” in GLOBECOM 2020-2020 IEEE Global Communications Conference, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  23. [31]

    The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy,

    C. Dwork, A. Roth et al., “The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy,” Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science , vol. 9, no. 3–4, pp. 211–407, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    On the convergence of fedavg on non-iid data,

    X. Li, K. Huang, W. Yang, S. Wang, and Z. Zhang, “On the convergence of fedavg on non-iid data,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Fast-convergent federated learning with adaptive weighting,

    H. Wu and P. Wang, “Fast-convergent federated learning with adaptive weighting,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1078–1088, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    On the stability analysis of open federated learning systems,

    Y . Sun, H. Fernando, T. Chen, and S. Shahrampour, “On the stability analysis of open federated learning systems,” in 2023 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 867–872

    2023

  27. [35]

    Incentive mechanism design for federated learning and unlearning,

    N. Ding, Z. Sun, E. Wei, and R. Berry, “Incentive mechanism design for federated learning and unlearning,” in Proceedings of the Twenty- fourth International Symposium on Theory, Algorithmic Foundations, and Protocol Design for Mobile Networks and Mobile Computing , 2023, pp. 11–20

    2023

  28. [36]

    Incentive mechanism for spatial crowdsourcing with unknown social-aware workers: A three-stage stackelberg game approach,

    Y . Xu, M. Xiao, J. Wu, S. Zhang, and G. Gao, “Incentive mechanism for spatial crowdsourcing with unknown social-aware workers: A three-stage stackelberg game approach,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Network-constrained stackelberg game for pricing demand flexibility in power distribution systems,

    N. Aguiar, A. Dubey, and V . Gupta, “Network-constrained stackelberg game for pricing demand flexibility in power distribution systems,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 4049–4058, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Non-cooperative game pricing strategy for maximizing social welfare in electrified transportation networks,

    Z. Lu, L. Shi, L. Geng, J. Zhang, X. Li, and X. Guo, “Non-cooperative game pricing strategy for maximizing social welfare in electrified transportation networks,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 130, p. 106980, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Algorithms, games, and the internet,

    C. Papadimitriou, “Algorithms, games, and the internet,” in Proceedings of the thirty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , 2001, pp. 749–753

    2001

  32. [40]

    A profit-maximizing model marketplace with differentially private federated learning,

    P. Sun, X. Chen, G. Liao, and J. Huang, “A profit-maximizing model marketplace with differentially private federated learning,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2022 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications , 2022, pp. 1439–1448

    2022

  33. [41]

    A socially optimal data marketplace with differentially private federated learning,

    P. Sun, G. Liao, X. Chen, and J. Huang, “A socially optimal data marketplace with differentially private federated learning,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Nonlinear programming,

    D. P. Bertsekas, “Nonlinear programming,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 334–334, 1997

    1997

  35. [43]

    Optimal client sampling for federated learning,

    W. Chen, S. Horv ´ath, and P. Richt ´arik, “Optimal client sampling for federated learning,” Transactions on Machine Learning Research , 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,

    H. Xiao, K. Rasul, and R. V ollgraf, “Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,

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

    2009

  38. [46]

    Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning,

    Y . Netzer, T. Wang, A. Coates, A. Bissacco, B. Wu, A. Y . Ng et al. , “Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning,” in NIPS workshop on deep learning and unsupervised feature learning , vol. 2011, no. 2. Granada, 2011, p. 4

    2011

  39. [47]

    Cinic-10 is not imagenet or cifar-10,

    L. N. Darlow, E. J. Crowley, A. Antoniou, and A. J. Storkey, “Cinic-10 is not imagenet or cifar-10,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.03505 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Measuring the effects of non- identical data distribution for federated visual classification,

    T.-M. H. Hsu, H. Qi, and M. Brown, “Measuring the effects of non- identical data distribution for federated visual classification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06335, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Feddisco: Fed- erated learning with discrepancy-aware collaboration,

    R. Ye, M. Xu, J. Wang, C. Xu, S. Chen, and Y . Wang, “Feddisco: Fed- erated learning with discrepancy-aware collaboration,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 39 879–39 902

    2023

  42. [50]

    Towards instance-adaptive inference for federated learning,

    C.-M. Feng, K. Yu, N. Liu, X. Xu, S. Khan, and W. Zuo, “Towards instance-adaptive inference for federated learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 23 287–23 296

    2023

  43. [51]

    Making gradient descent optimal for strongly convex stochastic optimization,

    A. Rakhlin, O. Shamir, and K. Sridharan, “Making gradient descent optimal for strongly convex stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.5647, 2011

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Discrete lq optimal control with integral action: A simple controller on incremental form for mimo systems,

    D. Di Ruscio, “Discrete lq optimal control with integral action: A simple controller on incremental form for mimo systems,” Modeling, Identification and Control , vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 35–44, 2012

    2012

  45. [53]

    Linear–quadratic optimal control for discrete-time mean-field systems with input delay,

    Q. Qi, L. Xie, and H. Zhang, “Linear–quadratic optimal control for discrete-time mean-field systems with input delay,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 3806–3821, 2021. 17 APPENDIX A PROOF OF PROPOSITION 1 Proof. For any participating client i with ...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.