Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 22 references

Federated Learning on Stochastic Neural Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Federated learning with stochastic neural networks can recover both the true signal and the latent noise, even from biased clients.

desk verdict A clean, sensible combination of SNNs with FedAvg, but the central claim that parameter-averaged diffusion networks preserve noise calibration is asserted, not proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08169 v1 pith:B62M5YXR submitted 2025-06-09 cs.LG cs.DC

Jingqiao Tang (1) , Ryan Bausback (1) , Feng Bao (1) , Richard Archibald (2) ((1) Department of Mathematics at Florida State University , Tallahassee , Florida , USA , (2) Division of Computer Science
show 5 more authors
Mathematics Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge Tennessee USA)
This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.DC
keywords federatedlearningstochasticneuralnetworkuncertaintyquantificationnon-IIDdatamaximumprinciplebackwardSDEdriftanddiffusionnetworksFedStNN
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Federated learning usually averages deterministic models, so the final model can make predictions but cannot say how uncertain they are. This paper proposes FedStNN, in which every client trains a stochastic neural network, a model built as a stochastic differential equation with one network for the drift, the signal, and one for the diffusion, the noise. The server aggregates the two kinds of networks separately, and the paper argues the averaged global model still behaves as one stochastic model whose drift tracks the true function and whose diffusion measures the latent noise across the whole dataset. The experiments show this working when clients see only biased slices of the input domain, which is the hard non-IID case for federated learning.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stochastic neural network (SNN), written as a discrete SDE $X_{n+1}=X_n+hf(X_n,u_n)+\sqrt{h}g(u_n)\omega_n$, where the drift network $f$ learns the underlying signal and the diffusion network $g$ learns the size of the uncertainty. Training solves a stochastic optimal control problem through the stochastic maximum principle, using an adjoint backward SDE to compute gradients of the cost. FedStNN reuses standard federated weighted averaging but applies it separately to the drift parameters and the diffusion parameters, so the aggregated global model remains an SDE whose drift and diffusion have their own learned coefficients.

What would settle it

Run the 1D sine experiment with a known noise level, record the variance output by the global diffusion network at many inputs, and compare it with the known $\sigma^2$ used to generate the data; a systematic mismatch, or a variance that changes with which clients are selected, would refute the paper's claim that the aggregated model quantifies latent noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that federation does not destroy the uncertainty-quantification property of stochastic neural networks. Each client trains a local SNN using a stochastic maximum principle scheme that updates a drift network $u_\alpha$ and a diffusion network $u_\beta$; the server then computes a weighted average of the drift networks and, separately, a weighted average of the diffusion networks (Eq. (39)). Section 4 explicitly asserts that this updated global model can effectively measure noise across the entire training dataset. In the numerical experiments the global model's predictions lie along the true regression curve while spreading with roughly the width of the added Gaussian noise, even though every client's local dataset is concentrated in one sub-domain. The discovery, if it holds, is that the SDE meaning of the two networks survives weighted averaging.

Load-bearing premise

The claim collapses if the weighted average of the clients' noise networks distorts the noise estimate, so that the aggregated global model's spread no longer matches the true observation noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A global FedStNN model can give a prediction and an uncertainty band at the same time, without any client sharing raw data.
  • Biased local datasets still contribute to a global model that covers the whole domain, because each client's local drift and diffusion weights are averaged into a model that spans the population.
  • Because all SNN parameters are deterministic numbers, the standard weighted-average aggregation of FedAvg applies directly; no distribution-valued aggregation of random variables is needed.
  • The trained global model can generate new synthetic observations whose noise spread resembles the original data, turning federated learning into a generative tool.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, the global diffusion network could serve as a privacy-preserving data-quality diagnostic: a server could flag a client with an unusually large noise network as a low-quality data source without ever seeing its data.
  • The method could be tested on heteroscedastic noise, where clients have different noise levels; plain weighted averaging may then need calibration weights to avoid over-sizing the global noise estimate.
  • The same drift-diffusion separation might extend to other federated aggregation rules, such as adaptive or normalized averaging, by treating the diffusion weights as a second model rather than part of one parameter vector.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Federated Stochastic Neural Networks (FedStNN), in which each client trains a stochastic neural network that solves a data-driven SDE via the stochastic maximum principle, and the server aggregates the drift and diffusion network parameters separately using Eq. (39). The authors claim that the resulting global model captures the true underlying function and quantifies observation noise across the entire training dataset, even when local client datasets are biased and non-IID. The numerical sections demonstrate the method on 1D sine data with Gaussian noise, a 2D piecewise function, and a 2D image-reconstruction task, but the reported evidence is largely qualitative.

Significance. If the central claim were established, FedStNN would provide a useful way to obtain generative, uncertainty-aware global models in federated learning while retaining deterministic parameters that are easy to aggregate. The paper builds on a previously developed SNN framework and makes a reasonable architectural proposal: separating drift and diffusion networks and averaging them componentwise. The main weakness is that the load-bearing claim, namely that the aggregated diffusion network faithfully quantifies the global observation noise, is neither proven nor quantitatively validated. The strengths of the paper are its clear algorithmic presentation and reproducible experimental setup, but these do not by themselves justify the noise-quantification claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (39)] The paper's central added claim, that the global model u_{i+1} formed by Eq. (39) 'can effectively measure noise across the entire training dataset as well', is asserted rather than derived. In the forward model Eq. (12), the per-step conditional variance of X_{n+1} is h g(u_n)^2, and g is a nonlinear function of the diffusion-network parameters u_beta. Weighted averaging of u_beta across clients does not generally equal a weighted average of the local noise amplitudes g_k(u), nor does it account for the fact that each local diffusion network in the non-IID experiments is trained mostly on a biased subset of the domain and may be poorly constrained elsewhere. A theorem or a quantitative calibration check is needed to justify that parameter averaging preserves noise calibration.
  2. [Section 5.1, Figs. 5-6] The experiments never compare the noise produced by the global model with the known sigma^2 = 0.01 used to generate the data. The statement that 'the predicted plot almost has the same bandwidth as the observation data' is qualitative and cannot rule out, for example, a global diffusion term that is systematically too wide or too narrow by a constant factor. Please report the empirical variance of repeated global-model predictions, the learned global diffusion coefficient as a function of x, or a coverage probability of prediction intervals against the true sigma^2 = 0.01.
  3. [Section 5] None of the three experiments includes baselines, repeated trials, or error bars. There is no comparison with FedAvg, with a non-federated SNN trained on pooled data, or with a Bayesian treatment; the only quantitative number reported, MSE approximately 2.13 in Section 5.2, has no baseline to give it meaning. In addition, the IID case described in Section 5.1 is never reported, so the reader cannot assess how the non-IID results differ. Without such comparisons, the claimed advantage of FedStNN over deterministic federated learning is not demonstrated.
  4. [Section 5.3, Eq. (41)] The image experiment relies on the known number of white pixels Xi: the Psi function maps the largest Xi numerical SNN outputs to 1 and all others to 0. This prior information substantially aids the reconstruction, and the section reports no quantitative accuracy measure such as pixel error, nor any noise component. As presented, this experiment does not bear on the noise-quantification claim, and the role of the known Xi should be clarified and the reconstruction accuracy should be reported numerically.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (4)] The displayed identity in Eq. (4) states that the gradient of the global loss is the sum of the local gradients, but from Eq. (2) the correct expression should include the weights n_k/n, namely nabla f(u_t) = sum_{k=1}^K (n_k/n) nabla F_k(u_t).
  2. [Algorithm 4] The aggregation step in Algorithm 4 says to update the global model 'using equation 6', but the method described in Section 4 aggregates the drift and diffusion networks separately via Eq. (39); the algorithm should reference Eq. (39) and specify that the average is applied componentwise to u_alpha and u_beta.
  3. [Section 5.1] The phrases 'with 110 local training data' and 'with 60 local training data' are unclear; presumably they mean 100+10 and 50+10 points from the focus group and the other groups, but the sample sizes should be stated explicitly.
  4. [References] The reference to Chen and Chao (2020) is titled 'FedDistill', but the text in Section 2.3 describes FedBE; the citation should be aligned with the described method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the FedStNN derivation is self-contained, though the noise-calibration claim lacks quantitative validation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: Section 3 constructs the SNN from a discrete SDE (Eq. 12), derives the stochastic-maximum-principle gradient (Eqs. 16-22), and gives a numerical algorithm; Section 4 applies standard FedAvg aggregation to the drift and diffusion blocks (Eq. 39). The main new claim, that the aggregated global diffusion network can effectively measure noise across the entire training dataset, is supported in Section 5 only by visual bandwidth comparison against the same noisy observations used for training. That is weak in-sample validation (no quantitative comparison with the known sigma^2 = 0.1^2 used to generate the data), but it is not circular: the diffusion network is a parameter estimated from data, not an independent prediction derived from its own inputs. Eq. (39) is a definition of the aggregation rule rather than a theorem, and the paper gives no proof that parameter averaging preserves noise calibration; that is an unproven design claim, not a circular reduction. Self-citations (Archibald et al. 2020a, 2024) provide the SNN construction and convergence analysis, but the equations are restated in the paper and those citations are ancillary to the federated aggregation claim. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its main additional load-bearing content is the FedStNN aggregation rule, which is assumed to preserve noise quantification, plus the oracle threshold Xi in the image experiment. Convergence and the SDE training method are imported from the authors' own previous papers.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of white pixels Xi = known from true image (data oracle)
    The thresholding function Psi in Sec. 5.3 maps the largest Xi network outputs to 1; the server must know Xi, a global property of the data that is not learned and is unavailable in realistic federated settings.
  • SDE time step h = not reported
    The SDE discretizations in Eqs. (28) to (34) require a stabilization constant h, but no value or tuning rule is given in the experiments, so a re-implementation must choose it by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The sample-wise stochastic maximum principle training of an SNN converges to the optimal control.
    The local training algorithm (Algorithm 3) relies on convergence results cited from Archibald et al. (2024) and Liang et al. (2024), all by overlapping authors. The paper does not prove convergence for the federated multi-client setting.
  • domain assumption Each client's local data are generated as P_k = Gamma_k + E_k with E_k ~ N(0, sigma_k^2).
    Used in Eq. (38) to model observation noise as additive Gaussian. The experiments generate data this way, so the experiments are consistent with this model, but real noise need not be Gaussian.
  • ad hoc to paper Averaging the drift and diffusion networks separately preserves the meaning of the global model as a stochastic neural network.
    Eq. (39) defines the global model as a weighted average of local network parameters. No argument shows that the averaged network inherits the SDE interpretation of Eq. (12); it is assumed to do so.
  • ad hoc to paper The thresholding function Psi with known Xi recovers the binary image.
    Sec. 5.3 introduces Psi, which uses the true count of white pixels Xi. This is an oracle assumption not available in federated practice.
  • standard math The stochastic maximum principle provides a gradient that minimizes the cost J(u).
    The derivation in Sec. 3.2 uses classical SMP (Peng 1990) and states that minimizing J with gradient nabla_u H achieves the same goal as maximizing the Hamiltonian. This is standard optimal control theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Federated Learning on Stochastic Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B62M5YXR

@misc{pith2026250608169,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Federated Learning on Stochastic Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B62M5YXR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08169}
}
read the original abstract

Federated learning is a machine learning paradigm that leverages edge computing on client devices to optimize models while maintaining user privacy by ensuring that local data remains on the device. However, since all data is collected by clients, federated learning is susceptible to latent noise in local datasets. Factors such as limited measurement capabilities or human errors may introduce inaccuracies in client data. To address this challenge, we propose the use of a stochastic neural network as the local model within the federated learning framework. Stochastic neural networks not only facilitate the estimation of the true underlying states of the data but also enable the quantification of latent noise. We refer to our federated learning approach, which incorporates stochastic neural networks as local models, as Federated stochastic neural networks. We will present numerical experiments demonstrating the performance and effectiveness of our method, particularly in handling non-independent and identically distributed data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08169 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In both 5 and 6, we use purple dots to represent the observation data yi = f(xi)+N(0, 0.1 2 ) and blue dots to represent the predicted value by our global model. It is clear that the global model can capture not only the drift function f(x) = sin(x), but also the Gauss…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_19.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3133956.3133982 Chellapandi, V .P., Yuan, L., Brinton, C.G.,˙Zak, S.H., and Wang, Z., Federated Learning for Connected and Automated Vehicles: A Survey of Existing Approaches and Challenges,IEEE Transactions on Intelli- gent Vehicles, vol.9, no. 1, pp. 119–137,

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1711.10677 He, C., Ceyani, E., Balasubramanian, K., Annavaram, M., and Avestimehr, S., SpreadGNN: Serverless Multi-Task Federated Learning for Graph Neural Networks,CoRR, vol.abs/2106.02743,

    arXiv

  3. [14]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCI.2022.3155327 Kerkouche, R., ´Acs, G., Castelluccia, C., and Genev `es, P., Privacy-Preserving and Bandwidth-Efficient Federated Learning: an Application to In-Hospital Mortality Prediction,Proceedings of the Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, CHIL ’21, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, p. 25–35,

    arXiv 2022

  4. [15]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3450439.3451859 Journal of Machine Learning for Modeling and Computing FedStNN 25 Khan, Y ., S´anchez, D., and Domingo-Ferrer, J., Federated Learning-Based Natural Language Processing: a Systematic Literature Review,Artificial Intelligence Review, vol.57, no. 12, p. 320,

    arXiv

  5. [16]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10970-5 Koetsier, C., Fiosina, J., Gremmel, J.N., M ¨uller, J.P., Woisetschl¨ager, D.M., and Sester, M., Detection of Anomalous Vehicle Trajectories using Federated Learning,ISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol.4, p. 100013,

    work page doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10970-5

  6. [18]

    URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1901.11173 Li, X., Huang, K., Yang, W., Wang, S., and Zhang, Z., On the Convergence of Fedavg on Non-Iid Data, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02189,

    arXiv 1901

  7. [20]

    URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05629 Nguyen, D.C., Ding, M., Pathirana, P.N., Seneviratne, A., Li, J., and Vincent Poor, H., Federated Learning for Internet of Things: A Comprehensive Survey,IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol.23, no. 3, p. 1622–1658,

    arXiv

  8. [21]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2021.3075439 Pandya, S., Srivastava, G., Jhaveri, R., Babu, M.R., Bhattacharya, S., Maddikunta, P.K.R., Mastorakis, S., Piran, M.J., and Gadekallu, T.R., Federated Learning for Smart Cities: A Comprehensive Survey, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, vol.55, p. 102987,

    work page arXiv 2021

Show all 22 references
  1. [23]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-022-01647-y Wu, T., Jiang, M., Han, Y ., Yuan, Z., Li, X., and Zhang, L., A Traffic-Aware Federated Imitation Learn- ing Framework for Motion Control at Unsignalized Intersections with Internet of Vehicles,Electronics, vol.10, no. 24,

    doi

  2. [24]

    URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/24/3050 Xie, R., Li, C., Zhou, X., and Dong, Z., Asynchronous Federated Learning for Real-Time Multiple Li- cence Plate Recognition Through Semantic Communication,ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Sig...

    2023

  3. [25]

    V olume x, Issue x, 2025

    2025

  4. [1990]

    and Shmatikov, V ., Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning,2015 53rd Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pp

    Shokri, R. and Shmatikov, V ., Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning,2015 53rd Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pp. 909–910,

    2015

  5. [2006]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/11681878_14 Fachola, C., Tornar ´ıa, A., Bermolen, P., Capdehourat, G., Etcheverry, L., and Fariello, M.I., Federated Learning for Data Analytics in Education,Data, vol.8, no. 2,

    doi

  6. [2009]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/1536414.1536440 Hardy, S., Henecka, W., Ivey-Law, H., Nock, R., Patrini, G., Smith, G., and Thorne, B., Private Federated Learning on Vertically Partitioned Data via Entity Resolution and Additively Homomorphic Encryption, CoRR, vol.abs/1711.10677,

  7. [2016]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1137/14095546X Bao, F., Cao, Y ., and Zhao, W., A Backward Doubly Stochastic Differential Equation Approach for Non- linear Filtering Problems,Commun. Comput. Phys., vol.23, no. 5, pp. 1573–1601,

    doi

  8. [2017]

    1175–1191,

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1137/16M1100277 Bonawitz, K., Ivanov, V ., Kreuter, B., Marcedone, A., McMahan, H.B., Patel, S., Ramage, D., Segal, A., and Seth, K., Practical Secure Aggregation for Privacy-Preserving Machine Learning,Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Com...

    doi

  9. [2018]

    and Maroulas, V ., Adaptive Meshfree Backward SDE Filter,SIAM J

    V olume x, Issue x, 2025 24Jingqiao Tang, Ryan Bausback, Feng Bao, & Richard Archibald Bao, F. and Maroulas, V ., Adaptive Meshfree Backward SDE Filter,SIAM J. Sci. Comput., vol.39, no. 6, pp. A2664–A2683,

    2025

  10. [2019]

    URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1910.04956 Joshi, M., Pal, A., and Sankarasubbu, M., Federated Learning for Healthcare Domain - Pipeline, Applica- tions and Challenges,ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare, vol.3, no. 4, p. 1–36,

    1910 arXiv

  11. [2020]

    and Ghemawat, S., MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters,OSDI’04: Sixth Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation, San Francisco, CA, pp

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01974 Dean, J. and Ghemawat, S., MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters,OSDI’04: Sixth Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation, San Francisco, CA, pp. 137–150,

    2009 arXiv

  12. [2021]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2106.02743 He, C., Tan, C., Tang, H., Qiu, S., and Liu, J., Central Server Free Federated Learning over Single-Sided Trust Social Networks,CoRR, vol.abs/1910.04956,

    1910 arXiv

  13. [2022]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3533708 Jospin, L.V ., Laga, H., Boussaid, F., Buntine, W., and Bennamoun, M., Hands-On Bayesian Neural Net- works—A Tutorial for Deep Learning Users,IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, vol.17, no. 2, p. 29–48,

    doi

  14. [2024]

    Archibald, R., Bao, F., Cao, Y ., and Zhang, H., Uncertainty Quantification in Deep Learning through Stochastic Maximum Principle,CoRR, vol.abs/2011.14145, 2020a. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2011.14145 Archibald, R., Bao, F., and Yong, J., A Stochastic Gradient Descent Approach f...

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.