FedCAR: Cross-client Adaptive Re-weighting for Generative Models in Federated Learning

Jinhoon Jeong; Minjee Kim; Minjun Kim

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

FedCAR: Cross-client Adaptive Re-weighting for Generative Models in Federated Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 federated GAN aggregation rule that re-weights clients by cross-client image similarity outperforms centralized training on chest X-ray generation.

desk verdict The core claim does not survive its own data: FedCAR's weights stay at ~0.33 even for a client with FID 53, so the mechanism is FedAvg in disguise and the small gains are not attributable to the re-weighting. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11463 v1 pith:AWHXNQQU submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Minjun Kim , Minjee Kim , Jinhoon Jeong This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG

keywords federatedlearninggenerativeadversarialnetworksmedicalimagegenerationadaptivere-weightingFréchetInceptionDistancenon-i.i.d.datachestX-rayStyleGAN2

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 proposes FedCAR, a server-side aggregation rule for generative adversarial networks trained under federated learning. Instead of weighting each hospital's model by dataset size, FedCAR generates fake images from each client's generator each round and weights that client inversely to the Fréchet Inception Distance between its fake images and those of the other clients. On three public chest X-ray datasets, the authors report that FedCAR beats both conventional federated aggregation (FedAvg, FedAdam) and centralized learning on average FID, in both mild and severe non-i.i.d. splits. The key claim is that adaptive re-weighting based on cross-client distribution distance makes federated GAN training more efficient than training on pooled data, which would let hospitals collaborate on generative models without sharing raw images.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a pairwise FID matrix between fake image sets. In each round the server samples fake images from each client's generator, computes Fréchet Inception Distance between every pair of clients, sums row-wise to get a total FID for each client, converts these to weights alpha_n = 1/FID_n, normalizes them, and aggregates the generators as a weighted sum while aggregating the discriminator separately. This gives a data-free, server-side evaluation that uses only generated images, preserving privacy.

What would settle it

Run FedCAR with alpha_n fixed at 1/N (uniform weights) under the same experimental setup; if the average FID is statistically indistinguishable from the adaptive version, the paper's central claim about adaptive re-weighting is falsified. Alternatively, compute the correlation between the adaptive alpha_n and each client's FID against the real global data distribution; a zero or negative correlation would invalidate the proxy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that a federated GAN can outperform a GAN trained on the pooled dataset, and that the aggregation rule matters: re-weighting client contributions by the inverse of their cross-client FID yields average FID of 7.12 in the mild non-i.i.d. scenario and 12.76 in the severe scenario, versus 8.58 and 12.99 for centralized learning. The authors attribute this to FedCAR 'preserving the characteristics of the client' each round while still sharing knowledge. They also observe that the learned weights stay near 0.33 for all three clients, so the mechanism is a slight per-round adjustment rather than a strong re-weighting.

Load-bearing premise

The re-weighting rests on treating pairwise FID between fake images as a measure of each client's contribution quality, but the paper never checks that this proxy matches FID to real data, and its own reported weights stay near uniform, so the claimed improvement may not come from the adaptive mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported gains hold, hospitals can jointly train high-quality generative models without transmitting patient data, with results that beat a single centralized model on heterogeneous data.
The method's principle—server-side evaluation of client generators using only generated samples—extends beyond GANs to any generative model in federated settings.
The observation that federated GAN training can beat centralized training suggests that federated learning may act as a regularizer for GANs on non-i.i.d. data.
In severe non-i.i.d. settings with one data-poor client, FedCAR's re-weighting lets the data-poor client benefit more than data-proportional averaging would allow.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's own alpha values staying near 0.33 imply that FedCAR's practical advantage may come less from the specific adaptive weights and more from the fact that even a small, data-dependent perturbation of FedAvg changes GAN training dynamics; a direct comparison against fixed uniform weights would settle this.
A natural testable extension is to validate the cross-client FID proxy against each client's FID to the real pooled data distribution; if they disagree, the re-weighting signal is not actually tracking generator quality.
The authors' finding that federated GAN beats centralized learning in both scenarios could be an artifact of the specific StyleGAN2 training budget or initialization; replicating with different seeds and training lengths would check robustness.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The idea is genuinely new: re-weighting client contributions in a federated GAN by pairwise FID between fake images generated by each client. That specific mechanism is not in the FedGAN or FedOpt baselines they compare against, and they released code and used public datasets. Credit where due: the formulation is clean, and the paper honestly reports that alpha stays near 0.33 in both scenarios.

But the central claim falls apart under their own numbers. In the severe non-i.i.d. case, the CheXpert client has 1,000 images and an individual FID of 53.05, versus 11.87 and 5.49 for the other two. A quality-tracking weight should assign CheXpert a small fraction of the aggregate; FedAvg gives it 0.048. FedCAR reports only a slight decrease from 0.33. That means the fake-fake FID proxy does not track the known quality gap. So the reported severe-case gain over FedAvg (12.76 vs 13.36) is more plausibly explained by near-uniform up-weighting of a weak client than by "favoring clients with better performance."

In the mild case, alpha ≈ 0.33 makes FedCAR nearly identical to FedAvg, yet it beats FedAvg by 1.01 FID. Without error bars, variance, or significance tests—Table 1 has single FID values—that margin could easily be noise. The gains over centralized learning are 0.23 and 1.01 FID, again without any uncertainty. One GAN architecture (StyleGAN2) and three chest X-ray datasets are a thin basis for the broad superiority claim.

There is also an internal inconsistency in Algorithm 2: line 10–11 defines F_bias as a scalar 1/ΣF_i multiplied into all θ', which contradicts the per-client normalized alpha in Eq. 3–4. Discriminator aggregation is left as a vague "F(θd)" in Eq. 5, so the implemented update is ambiguous.

This is a paper with a new but unvalidated mechanism. The reader's verdict is right: reject in current form. Still, if the authors can validate the proxy, add error bars, and clean up the algorithm description, the idea has enough novelty to warrant a serious look. I would not cite it as evidence for anything yet, but I would bring it to a reading group to discuss why the proxy fails so badly.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FedCAR, a server-side aggregation algorithm for federated GAN training. At each round the server generates fake images from each client's generator, computes pairwise FID scores between these fake-image sets, converts the resulting per-client totals into normalized weights alpha_n (Eqs. 2-4), and re-weights the client generator updates during aggregation. The authors evaluate FedCAR on three public chest X-ray datasets (NIH, CheXpert, VinDr) using StyleGAN2 in two non-i.i.d. scenarios, and report average FID scores lower than centralized learning, FedAvg, and FedAdam. The code is released.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism worked, it would be a useful contribution to federated generative modeling, since server-side re-weighting based on generated outputs rather than raw data is an attractive idea for privacy-preserving medical imaging. The paper has several strengths: it uses three well-known public datasets, a strong StyleGAN2 baseline, comparisons to FedAvg and FedAdam as well as centralized learning, and it releases source code. However, the reported results do not establish that the adaptive re-weighting mechanism is responsible for the observed performance, because the paper's own reported alpha values barely deviate from uniform weights and do not track the known quality gap between clients. The central claim therefore rests on an unvalidated proxy and an implementation ambiguity.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2, Table 1] Table 1 reports a single FID value per method and scenario, with no variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The headline margins over centralized learning are 0.23 FID (severe) and 1.01 FID (mild), which are small relative to the typical stochasticity of StyleGAN2 training. Multiple random seeds and a statistical comparison are required before the claimed superiority can be assessed.
[Section 4, Fig. 2, Supplement Table 1] The authors state that Average(alpha_n) is approximately 0.33 in both the mild and severe scenarios, and the Discussion explicitly says that FedCAR 'does not re-weight by far compare to FedAvg in average.' In the severe scenario, the CheXpert client has an individual FID of 53.05 while the NIH and VinDr clients have FIDs of 11.87 and 5.49, yet the adaptive weights show only a slight decrease for CheXpert. A quality-tracking weight should assign this client far less than one-third of the weight. Consequently, the reported improvement over FedAvg in the severe scenario (12.76 vs. 13.36 FID) cannot be attributed to 'favoring clients with better performance' as claimed; it is more plausibly explained by a nearly uniform aggregation that happens to differ from data-proportional weighting. This directly undermines the central claim of the paper.
[Section 2.2, Eqs. (3)-(4), Algorithm 2 lines 10-11] There is an inconsistency between the mathematical formulation and the pseudocode. Equations (3)-(4) define a per-client normalized weight alpha_n = (1/FID_n) / sum_i (1/FID_i), which should produce a distinct weight for each client. Algorithm 2, however, computes F_bias as the scalar 1/(F1+F2+...+Fn) and then applies it uniformly to all theta' in the aggregation step. The paper does not clarify whether the actual implementation used per-client weights as in Eqs. (3)-(4) or a single scalar as in Algorithm 2. This ambiguity must be resolved because it changes the meaning of every reported result.
[Section 2.2 and Section 3.1] The method assumes that pairwise FID between fake images generated by different clients is a valid proxy for each client's contribution quality, but this proxy is never validated against the evaluation metric (FID to real data). The authors' own severe-scenario results contradict the proxy's expected behavior: the CheXpert client's individual FID is an order of magnitude worse, yet its learned alpha is close to 1/3. In addition, the number of fake images per client per round (x = 1,000) and kimg per round (k = 100) are free parameters that are not varied or justified, so the sensitivity of the results to these choices is unknown.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical issues, for example 'obtacles' instead of 'obstacles', 'instablity' instead of 'instability', and 'previous researches' instead of 'previous research'. The manuscript would benefit from careful proofreading.
[Section 2.2, Eq. (2)] The notation in Eq. (2) is confusing because 'n' is used both as the client index and in the expression N-n, and the summation limits are not clear. Using distinct indices such as i and j with explicit sums over all pairs would improve readability.
[Algorithm 1, line 17] The slice 'theta'[a : a + b - 1]' appears off by one; if the parameter list has length a + b, the discriminator part should be 'theta'[a : a + b]'. Please verify.
[Section 3.1] The sentence 'For experiment, we randomly sampled 10,000 images of "No finding" from each dataset, in total of 30,000 images' is repeated verbatim two sentences later. One copy should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FedCAR's per-client weights are computed from fake-fake FID, while the reported benchmark is fake-real FID, so the headline result is not the optimized quantity by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: Eq. (2)-(4) define client weights from pairwise FID between server-generated fake images, and Eq. (5) uses those weights in aggregation; the evaluation metric in Table 1 is FID between generated images and real test data, not the same pairwise fake-fake quantity that sets alpha_n. No fitted constant is recycled as a prediction, and no load-bearing result is imported from the authors' prior work, as the reference list contains no self-citations. The fact that alpha_n stays near 0.33, or that the fake-fake proxy may not track the known quality gap (e.g., CheXpert's individual FID of 53.05), is a correctness and validity concern about the mechanism, not a circularity: those weights are an input heuristic, not a restatement of the headline FID values. The Algorithm 2 F_bias scalar ambiguity is an implementation inconsistency, not a circular derivation. Therefore no circular step meets the quoted-reduction standard.

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

The method introduces no new physical or conceptual entities beyond the alpha weighting scheme. The key postulated quantity is the adaptive weight derived from fake-fake FID, and its validity is assumed. The number of fake images per round is a hand-chosen free parameter that could influence the results.

free parameters (2)

number of fake images per client per round (x) = 1,000
The server generates 1,000 fake images from each client generator to compute pairwise FID; this choice affects the stability of FID estimates and the resulting alpha weights, but it is not varied or justified.
kimg per round = 100
The training budget per round is set to 100 kimg; this affects convergence speed and comparison fairness, but is not varied or analyzed.

assumptions (3)

ad hoc to paper Pairwise FID between fake images from different clients is a valid measure of each client's contribution quality.
Section 2.2 defines alpha_n directly from these pairwise FID values. The paper provides no evidence that fake-fake FID correlates with fake-real FID or perceptual quality.
domain assumption Weighted averaging of generator parameters with positive weights preserves a useful global generator.
Standard in federated learning, but not proven for GAN generators in non-convex, non-i.i.d. settings; the paper relies on this without analysis.
domain assumption FID computed with Inception features transfers meaningfully to chest X-ray images.
FID is applied to medical images without domain adaptation; the paper assumes the feature statistics are informative for X-ray distributions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FedCAR: Cross-client Adaptive Re-weighting for Generative Models in Federated Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AWHXNQQU

@misc{pith2026241211463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FedCAR: Cross-client Adaptive Re-weighting for Generative Models in Federated Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AWHXNQQU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11463}
}

read the original abstract

Generative models trained on multi-institutional datasets can provide an enriched understanding through diverse data distributions. However, training the models on medical images is often challenging due to hospitals' reluctance to share data for privacy reasons. Federated learning(FL) has emerged as a privacy-preserving solution for training distributed datasets across data centers by aggregating model weights from multiple clients instead of sharing raw data. Previous research has explored the adaptation of FL to generative models, yet effective aggregation algorithms specifically tailored for generative models remain unexplored. We hereby propose a novel algorithm aimed at improving the performance of generative models within FL. Our approach adaptively re-weights the contribution of each client, resulting in well-trained shared parameters. In each round, the server side measures the distribution distance between fake images generated by clients instead of directly comparing the Fr\'echet Inception Distance per client, thereby enhancing efficiency of the learning. Experimental results on three public chest X-ray datasets show superior performance in medical image generation, outperforming both centralized learning and conventional FL algorithms. Our code is available at https://github.com/danny0628/FedCAR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11463 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of FedCAR aggregation algorithm 2 Method 2.1 Federated learning in GAN In this study, we consider a real-world FL adaption for generative models, especially GAN, across N clients that have own local dataset Di where i ∈ {1, 2, ..., N}. We designate θ to represent a GAN network that consists of the discriminator θd and the generator θg. The essence of FL is collaboratively training a global model Θ by combi… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Variation of αn over training rounds. each other in both scenarios. More specifically, Average(αn) ≈ 0.33 not only in the mild non-i.i.d. scenario but also the severe non-i.i.d. scenario, and this verifies that FedCAR does not re-weight by far compare to FedAvg in average(fig 2). In the severe non-i.i.d. scenario, FedAvg reflects only 10% of weights from CheXpert dataset as it has 10% number of data compare to oth… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:220831008

Beutel, D.J., Topal, T., Mathur, A., Qiu, X., Parcollet, T., Lane, N.D.: Flower: A friendly federated learning research framework (2020),https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:220831008

work page 2020
[2]

FGAN: Federated Generative Adversarial Networks for Anomaly Detection in Network Traffic

Das, S.: Fgan: Federated generative adversarial networks for anomaly detection in network traffic. ArXivabs/2203.11106 (2022), https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:247594460

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[3]

In: Peng, Y., Liu, Q., Lu, H., Sun, Z., Liu, C., Chen, X., Zha, H., Yang, J

Fan, C., Liu, P.: Federated generative adversarial learning. In: Peng, Y., Liu, Q., Lu, H., Sun, Z., Liu, C., Chen, X., Zha, H., Yang, J. (eds.) Pattern Recognition and Computer Vision. pp. 3–15. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2020)

work page 2020
[4]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42(7), 2010–2021 (2023).https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2022.3202106

Feng, C.M., Yan, Y., Wang, S., Xu, Y., Shao, L., Fu, H.: Specificity-preserving federated learning for mr image reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42(7), 2010–2021 (2023).https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2022.3202106

arXiv 2023
[5]

Communications of the ACM63, 139 – 144 (2014),https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 1033682

Goodfellow, I.J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A.C., Bengio, Y.: Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM63, 139 – 144 (2014),https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 1033682

work page 2014
[6]

2019 IEEE International Paral- lel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) pp

Hardy, C., Merrer, E.L., Sericola, B.: Md-gan: Multi-discriminator generative adversarial networks for distributed datasets. 2019 IEEE International Paral- lel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) pp. 866–877 (2018),https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53250043

work page 2018
[7]

In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2019), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:58981871

Irvin, J.A., Rajpurkar, P., Ko, M., Yu, Y., Ciurea-Ilcus, S., Chute, C., Marklund, H., Haghgoo, B., Ball, R.L., Shpanskaya, K.S., Seekins, J., Mong, D.A., Halabi, S.S., Sandberg, J.K., Jones, R., Larson, D.B., Langlotz, C., Patel, B.N., Lungren, M.P., Ng, A.: Chexpert: A large chest radiograph dataset with uncertainty la- bels and expert comparison. In: A...

work page 2019
[8]

In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2021), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:245353364

Jiang,M.,Wang,Z.,Dou,Q.:Harmofl:Harmonizinglocalandglobaldriftsinfeder- ated learning on heterogeneous medical images. In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2021), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:245353364

work page 2021

Show all 25 references

[9]

2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) pp

Karras, T., Laine, S., Aittala, M., Hellsten, J., Lehtinen, J., Aila, T.: Analyz- ing and improving the image quality of stylegan. 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) pp. 8107–8116 (2019), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:209202273

2019
[10]

In: 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI)

Ke, J., Shen, Y., Lu, Y.: Style normalization in histology with federated learning. In: 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). pp. 953–956 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISBI48211.2021.9434078

2021
[11]

2206.05507

Li, Z., Shao, J., Mao, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, J.: Federated learning with gan-based data synthesis for non-iid clients (06 2022).https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2206.05507

2022 doi arXiv
[12]

In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (2016), https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14955348

McMahan, H.B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., y Arcas, B.A.: Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (2016), https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14955348

2016
[13]

Scientific Data9 (2020), https://api

Nguyen, H.Q., Lam, K., Le, L.T., Pham, H., Tran, D.Q., Nguyen, D.B., Le, D.D., Pham, C.M., Tong, H., Dinh, D.H., Do, C.D., Doan, L.T., Nguyen, C.N., Nguyen, B.T., Nguyen, Q.V., Hoang, A.D., Phan, H.N., Nguyen, A.T., Ho, P., Ngo, D.T., Nguyen, N.T., Nguyen, N.T., Dao, M.S., Vu,...

2020
[14]

In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2020),https: //openreview.net/forum?id=HJezF3VYPB

Peng, X., Huang, Z., Zhu, Y., Saenko, K.: Federated adversarial domain adap- tation. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2020),https: //openreview.net/forum?id=HJezF3VYPB

2020
[15]

406–417 (04 2020)

Piacentino, E., Angulo, C.: Generating Fake Data Using GANs for Anonymiz- ing Healthcare Data, pp. 406–417 (04 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-45385-5_36

2020
[16]

ArXivabs/2006.07228 (2020), https://api

Rasouli, M.R., Sun, T., Rajagopal, R.: Fedgan: Federated generative adversar- ial networks for distributed data. ArXivabs/2006.07228 (2020), https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:219636403

2020 arXiv
[17]

In: International Confer- ence on Learning Representations (2021), https://openreview.net/forum?id= LkFG3lB13U5

Reddi, S.J., Charles, Z., Zaheer, M., Garrett, Z., Rush, K., Konečný, J., Kumar, S., McMahan, H.B.: Adaptive federated optimization. In: International Confer- ence on Learning Representations (2021), https://openreview.net/forum?id= LkFG3lB13U5

2021
[18]

Mathematics 11(19) (2023)

Tan, Q., Wu, S., Tao, Y.: Privacy-enhanced federated learning for non-iid data. Mathematics 11(19) (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/math11194123, https:// www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/19/4123

2023 doi
[19]

In: 2017 IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Wang, X., Peng, Y., Lu, L., Lu, Z., Bagheri, M., Summers, R.M.: Chestx- ray8: Hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classification and localization of common thorax diseases. In: 2017 IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

2017
[20]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42, 1955–1968 (2022), https://api

Wicaksana, J., Yan, Z., Zhang, D., Huang, X., Wu, H., Yang, X., Cheng, K.T.: Fedmix: Mixed supervised federated learning for medical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42, 1955–1968 (2022), https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:248512687

2022
[21]

ArXiv abs/2206.13803 (2022), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 250088986

Wu, N., Yu, L., Yang, X., Cheng, K.T., Yan, Z.: Fedrare: Federated learn- ing with intra- and inter-client contrast for effective rare disease classification. ArXiv abs/2206.13803 (2022), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 250088986

2022 arXiv
[22]

arXiv: Learning (2019),https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:208264682

Yonetani, R., Takahashi, T., Hashimoto, A., Ushiku, Y.: Decentralized learning of generative adversarial networks from non-iid data. arXiv: Learning (2019),https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:208264682

2019
[23]

The Computer Journal66(11), 2758–2772 (09 2022).https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxac118, https://doi

Zeng, Y., Mu, Y., Yuan, J., Teng, S., Zhang, J., Wan, J., Ren, Y., Zhang, Y.: Adaptive Federated Learning With Non-IID Data. The Computer Journal66(11), 2758–2772 (09 2022).https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxac118, https://doi. org/10.1093/comjnl/bxac118

2022 doi
[24]

IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 26(9), 4635–4644 (2022)

Zhang, M., Qu, L., Singh, P., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Rubin, D.L.: Splitavg: A heterogeneity-aware federated deep learning method for medical imaging. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 26(9), 4635–4644 (2022). https: //doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2022.3185956

2022
[3471]

https:// doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.369, https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10

IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA (jul 2017). https:// doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.369, https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10. 1109/CVPR.2017.369

2017 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:220831008

Beutel, D.J., Topal, T., Mathur, A., Qiu, X., Parcollet, T., Lane, N.D.: Flower: A friendly federated learning research framework (2020),https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:220831008

work page 2020

[2] [2]

FGAN: Federated Generative Adversarial Networks for Anomaly Detection in Network Traffic

Das, S.: Fgan: Federated generative adversarial networks for anomaly detection in network traffic. ArXivabs/2203.11106 (2022), https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:247594460

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

In: Peng, Y., Liu, Q., Lu, H., Sun, Z., Liu, C., Chen, X., Zha, H., Yang, J

Fan, C., Liu, P.: Federated generative adversarial learning. In: Peng, Y., Liu, Q., Lu, H., Sun, Z., Liu, C., Chen, X., Zha, H., Yang, J. (eds.) Pattern Recognition and Computer Vision. pp. 3–15. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2020)

work page 2020

[4] [4]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42(7), 2010–2021 (2023).https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2022.3202106

Feng, C.M., Yan, Y., Wang, S., Xu, Y., Shao, L., Fu, H.: Specificity-preserving federated learning for mr image reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42(7), 2010–2021 (2023).https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2022.3202106

arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

Communications of the ACM63, 139 – 144 (2014),https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 1033682

Goodfellow, I.J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A.C., Bengio, Y.: Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM63, 139 – 144 (2014),https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 1033682

work page 2014

[6] [6]

2019 IEEE International Paral- lel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) pp

Hardy, C., Merrer, E.L., Sericola, B.: Md-gan: Multi-discriminator generative adversarial networks for distributed datasets. 2019 IEEE International Paral- lel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) pp. 866–877 (2018),https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53250043

work page 2018

[7] [7]

In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2019), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:58981871

Irvin, J.A., Rajpurkar, P., Ko, M., Yu, Y., Ciurea-Ilcus, S., Chute, C., Marklund, H., Haghgoo, B., Ball, R.L., Shpanskaya, K.S., Seekins, J., Mong, D.A., Halabi, S.S., Sandberg, J.K., Jones, R., Larson, D.B., Langlotz, C., Patel, B.N., Lungren, M.P., Ng, A.: Chexpert: A large chest radiograph dataset with uncertainty la- bels and expert comparison. In: A...

work page 2019

[8] [8]

In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2021), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:245353364

Jiang,M.,Wang,Z.,Dou,Q.:Harmofl:Harmonizinglocalandglobaldriftsinfeder- ated learning on heterogeneous medical images. In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2021), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:245353364

work page 2021