Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Cross-Cloud Data Privacy Protection: Optimizing Collaborative Mechanisms of AI Systems by Integrating Federated Learning and LLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A cross-cloud training recipe that runs federated learning on LLM-extracted features and encrypted model updates claims to beat four baselines in privacy, convergence speed, and training time.

desk verdict A clear but thin architecture paper whose claimed privacy and convergence advantages are unsupported by missing experiments and a misapplied epsilon differential-privacy axis. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13292 v1 pith:CHBBS2WY submitted 2025-05-19 cs.CR cs.AI

Huaiying Luo , Cheng Ji This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords cross-clouddataprivacyfederatedlearninglargelanguagemodelshomomorphicencryptionsecurecommunicationlayerdifferentialmodelfine-tuningconvergencespeed
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 tries to establish that cross-cloud AI training can be both private and efficient by combining federated learning with large language models. The authors propose a framework in which each cloud node replaces raw inputs with LLM-generated semantic features $z_{i,n}=\mathrm{LLM}(x_{i,n})$ for local training, encrypts its model update $\widehat{w}_i=\mathrm{Enc}(w_i)$, and lets a server aggregate encrypted updates before decryption. They report experiments on a real-world multi-domain dataset showing that this recipe reaches 85% accuracy in fewer iterations, converges faster, and shows the smallest and most stable training time while scoring highest on a differential-privacy test, ahead of FedAvg, DP-FL, SMC-FL, and HE-FL. If the claim holds, it gives cloud operators a concrete way to fine-tune large models across data centers without centralizing sensitive data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-stage pipeline. First, LLM feature augmentation maps each raw sample $x_{i,n}$ through a pre-trained large language model to a context feature $z_{i,n}$; that feature feeds local training, allowing the local model to exploit semantic and contextual information while the raw data never leaves the node. Second, a secure communication layer applies homomorphic encryption, meaning encryption that supports arithmetic on ciphertexts, to each local update, $\widehat{w}_i = \mathrm{Enc}(w_i)$, and the server computes the global model by decrypting the weighted sum of encrypted updates, matching the form of the standard federated averaging rule. The third piece, cross-cloud fine-tuning, adjusts the model with $\Delta w$ after migration so performance does not degrade in a new cloud environment. Together these equations are what the experimental comparison is testing; the argument that privacy and efficiency can coexist rests on them.

What would settle it

Run the proposed pipeline on a fixed task twice: once with raw features and once with the LLM feature map, both without encryption, and compare convergence curves; if the LLM version is not faster and more accurate, the reported gains are not caused by the LLM. Separately, compare the server's decrypted aggregate with the result of averaging the same updates in plaintext, since homomorphic aggregation should reproduce plaintext FedAvg exactly and any discrepancy would falsify the correctness of Eq. (6).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the combination of LLM-based feature augmentation with homomorphic encryption preserves the benefits of federated averaging while improving both privacy and convergence. On each node, the local loss is computed on LLM-extracted features rather than raw features, so the global model learns from semantic representations without transmitting them. Model updates are encrypted before aggregation, and the server's update step is the decrypted weighted sum of those ciphertexts, $w^{(t+1)} = \mathrm{Dec}\left(\sum_i \frac{N_i}{N}\widehat{w}_i\right)$, which the authors treat as preserving the FedAvg objective. Cross-cloud fine-tuning, $w' = w + \Delta w$, is added to keep a migrated model adapted to a new cloud's data distribution. The reported experiments state that this design achieves the highest privacy protection effect in the differential privacy test, with the least iteration rounds, the fastest convergence, and the shortest and most stable training time compared with the four baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the encrypted aggregation in Eq. (6) computes exactly the same global update as standard FedAvg, and that the LLM feature map $z_{i,n} = \mathrm{LLM}(x_{i,n})$ does not discard information the downstream task needs; if either fails, the claimed accuracy, privacy, and speed advantages collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, the standard FedAvg update rule can be run on encrypted gradients with no change to the aggregation arithmetic, so privacy protection and convergence are not in tension.
  • After the LLM feature map $z_{i,n}=\mathrm{LLM}(x_{i,n})$ is precomputed on each node, participating clouds only exchange ciphertexts, which makes raw data sharing unnecessary for collaborative fine-tuning.
  • Cross-cloud model migration with $w' = w + \Delta w$ would let an organization move a trained model between providers and quickly re-adapt it without retraining from scratch.
  • The paper's differential-privacy result implies that the combined method can operate at smaller privacy budgets, meaning less noise is required for the same protection, than DP-FL alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • It remains an open question whether the speed-up comes from the LLM features or from the encrypted aggregation; a version that replaces the LLM with raw inputs while keeping encryption would isolate the source.
  • The privacy argument presumes the aggregator cannot see updates or hold the decryption key; in a fully honest-but-curious cloud, homomorphic encryption alone does not prevent inference from the final model.
  • A natural stress test is data heterogeneity: the reported convergence result used one dataset, and the LLM feature map may transfer less well when nodes have very different modalities or label distributions.
  • The same recipe could apply at the edge: if the LLM is small enough to run on a phone or local gateway, this augments federated learning beyond clouds.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cross-cloud privacy-preserving training framework that combines federated learning, LLM-based feature augmentation, homomorphic encryption, and cross-cloud fine-tuning. Section III presents standard FedAvg update equations, replaces local features with LLM embeddings, and adds an encrypted aggregation step via homomorphic encryption. Section IV claims experiments on Google Cloud BigQuery comparing FedAvg, DP-FL, SMC-FL, HE-FL, and “Ours”, and Section V concludes that the proposed method has the highest privacy protection effect, the fewest iterations, the fastest convergence, and the shortest and most stable training time. The manuscript contains no numerical results, no reproducible experimental protocol, and none of the three cited figures are present. The central claims are therefore assertions rather than demonstrated findings.

Significance. If the claimed results were supported by a reproducible protocol, a formal privacy analysis, and ablations, the paper would offer a practically relevant recipe for privacy-preserving distributed LLM training across clouds. As submitted, however, the paper provides no evidence for these claims: it contains no machine-checked proofs, no code, no dataset version or partitioning, no model architecture or hyperparameters, and no numerical tables. Its privacy comparison rests on an unstated assumption that the proposed method is differentially private, although the only described mechanism is homomorphic encryption, which does not imply differential privacy. The potential significance of the topic is real, but the contribution is currently not substantiated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B, Fig. 1] The claim that “Ours” achieves the highest privacy protection effect on an epsilon (differential privacy budget) axis is unsupported, because the proposed method is never defined as a differentially private mechanism. Section III.B adds only homomorphic encryption, which protects the confidentiality of model updates and does not by itself provide differential privacy. No noise mechanism, privacy accounting, or formal guarantee is stated, and the plotted quantity “privacy protection effect” is not defined. The comparison in Fig. 1 and the corresponding conclusion in Section V therefore rely on an unjustified assumption.
  2. [Sections IV.A-IV.B] The experimental evaluation is not reproducible and cannot support the paper’s conclusions. No dataset version, data partitioning, model architecture, LLM choice, hyperparameters, evaluation metrics, or numerical results are reported, and Figures 1–3 are referenced in the text but do not appear in the manuscript. The claims of fewer iterations, faster convergence, and shorter and more stable training time cannot be checked against any measurements, which is load-bearing because Section V states these as empirical findings.
  3. [Section III.A, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The substitution z_i,n = LLM(x_i,n) is asserted to improve training efficiency and decision-making, but no analysis or ablation shows that the LLM embedding preserves task-relevant information. If the embedding discards information, the reported gains in accuracy and convergence could be an artifact of the specific baselines or of the feature transformation. The privacy properties of the LLM features themselves are also not analyzed, so the security claim of the framework does not cover this component.
  4. [Section III.B, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The secure communication layer is underspecified. The paper does not state which homomorphic encryption scheme is used, how encrypted weighted sums over rational model parameters are computed, how noise growth is managed, or what security assumptions hold. Equation (6) implicitly assumes that Dec(sum (N_i/N) Enc(w_i)) equals the weighted average of the plaintext parameters, which requires a concrete scheme and parameterization; without these details, the claim that the layer “ensures privacy and integrity” is not checkable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The equation numbering is inconsistent: the LLM output is labeled as Equation (1) immediately after Equation (2), and the subsequent local objective is labeled Equation (4). The equations should be renumbered sequentially.
  2. [Section IV.B, Figs. 1-3] The manuscript states that Figures 1–3 illustrate the privacy, convergence, and training-time results, but the actual figures are missing. The paper should either include the figures or remove the references to them.
  3. [Throughout] The prose contains multiple grammatically incomplete or awkward sentences, for example the passage ending “the system using cross-cloud architecture can not only improve the collaboration ability of large-scale language models (LLMs) between different cloud platforms.” The text needs careful editing.
  4. [References] Reference [27] includes the authors of this manuscript; self-citations are not inherently problematic, but the citation should be flagged and its relevance to the present work should be explained in the related-work discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proposed method is a composition of standard FedAvg, LLM feature extraction, and homomorphic encryption, and the claimed superiority is asserted from unreported experiments rather than derived from the equations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. Equation (2) is the standard FedAvg global update, Eq. (3) is an LLM feature extractor, Eqs. (5)-(6) are homomorphic encryption of model updates, and Eq. (7) is a fine-tuning update. None of these equations defines the target conclusion, and no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The central claim that 'Ours' achieves the highest privacy protection effect, fewest iterations, fastest convergence, and most stable training time is supported only by asserted Figures 1-3, which are not present in the manuscript and are not accompanied by numerical tables, hyperparameters, or error bars. That is a serious verifiability and correctness concern, but it is not circularity, because the conclusion is not forced by the equations or by the cited literature. The only self-citation is reference [27], cited in the introduction as part of a broad list on AI training; it is not load-bearing for any technical step. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted value is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore no specific circular step can be identified under the required evidentiary standard, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim relies on two unproven design assumptions: that homomorphic encryption preserves the federated averaging optimum when applied to model updates, and that LLM feature vectors retain enough task information to replace raw inputs. The paper also implicitly assumes the 'privacy protection effect' plotted in Figure 1 is a well-defined metric for a method not shown to use differential privacy; this metric is never defined. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond standard hyperparameters.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Homomorphic encryption of local model updates (Eq. 5) can be aggregated as in Eq. (6) without changing the optimization landscape or causing unacceptable noise growth.
    The paper invokes Dec(Sum(N_i/N Enc(w_i))) as the global update without specifying the encryption scheme, noise budget, or accuracy impact; this is load-bearing for the privacy claim.
  • domain assumption LLM-extracted features z_i,n = LLM(x_i,n) preserve or improve task-relevant information for every participating node.
    Eq. (4) replaces raw inputs with LLM features; the claimed accuracy gain depends on this holding across heterogeneous cloud data, but no ablation or analysis is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The privacy protection effect of all methods can be compared on a single differential privacy budget epsilon axis, although 'Ours' is not described as differentially private.
    Figure 1 is described as comparing privacy under epsilon, but no privacy metric or mechanism is defined for the proposed method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-Cloud Data Privacy Protection: Optimizing Collaborative Mechanisms of AI Systems by Integrating Federated Learning and LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CHBBS2WY

@misc{pith2026250513292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-Cloud Data Privacy Protection: Optimizing Collaborative Mechanisms of AI Systems by Integrating Federated Learning and LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CHBBS2WY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13292}
}
read the original abstract

In the age of cloud computing, data privacy protection has become a major challenge, especially when sharing sensitive data across cloud environments. However, how to optimize collaboration across cloud environments remains an unresolved problem. In this paper, we combine federated learning with large-scale language models to optimize the collaborative mechanism of AI systems. Based on the existing federated learning framework, we introduce a cross-cloud architecture in which federated learning works by aggregating model updates from decentralized nodes without exposing the original data. At the same time, combined with large-scale language models, its powerful context and semantic understanding capabilities are used to improve model training efficiency and decision-making ability. We've further innovated by introducing a secure communication layer to ensure the privacy and integrity of model updates and training data. The model enables continuous model adaptation and fine-tuning across different cloud environments while protecting sensitive data. Experimental results show that the proposed method is significantly better than the traditional federated learning model in terms of accuracy, convergence speed and data privacy protection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13292 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Training Time Comparison for Different Methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convergence Speed Comparison for Different Methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Exploring Reasoning-Infused Text Embedding with Large Language Models for Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Reasoning-infused text embedding, which prepends LLM-generated reasoning to queries before embedding, improves zero-shot dense retrieval on BRIGHT.

  2. An Intelligent Fault Self-Healing Mechanism for Cloud AI Systems via Integration of Large Language Models and Deep Reinforcement Learning

    cs.AI 2025-06 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    An LLM-plus-deep-RL hybrid is proposed for cloud fault self-healing, claiming 37% faster recovery on unknown faults with weak experimental documentation.

  3. Anomaly Detection and Early Warning Mechanism for Intelligent Monitoring Systems in Multi-Cloud Environments Based on LLM

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A CNN-LSTM-LLM-deep SVM hybrid is proposed for multi-cloud anomaly detection, but the evaluation is qualitative and Equation (8) is mathematically wrong.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [33]

    AI-generated privacy-preserving protocols for cross-cloud data sharing and collaboration,

    R. Vadisetty and A. Polamarasetti, “AI-generated privacy-preserving protocols for cross-cloud data sharing and collaboration,” in 2024 IEEE 4th International Conference on ICT in Business Industry & Government (ICTBIG). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

    work page 2024

  2. [34]

    Research on large language model cross-cloud privacy protection and collaborative training based on federated learning,

    Z. Yang, Y . Jin, Y . Zhang, J. Liu, and X. Xu, “Research on large language model cross-cloud privacy protection and collaborative training based on federated learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12226 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [27]

    Data augmentation through random style replacement,

    Q. Yang, C. Ji, H. Luo, P. Li, and Z. Ding, “Data augmentation through random style replacement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10563 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  4. [1]

    AI and generative AI-driven automation for multi-cloud and hybrid cloud architectures: Enhancing security, performance, and operational efficiency,

    D. K. Seth, K. K. Ratra, and A. P. Sundareswaran, “AI and generative AI-driven automation for multi-cloud and hybrid cloud architectures: Enhancing security, performance, and operational efficiency,” in 2025 IEEE 15th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Con- ference (CCWC). IEEE, 2025, pp. 784–793

    work page 2025

  5. [2]

    Research on key technologies for cross-cloud federated training of large language models,

    Z. Zhang and B. Liu, “Research on key technologies for cross-cloud federated training of large language models,” Academic Journal of Computing & Information Science , vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 42–49, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [3]

    AI-driven frameworks for enhancing cyberse- curity in multi-cloud environments,

    F. M. Rasel and B. Peter, “AI-driven frameworks for enhancing cyberse- curity in multi-cloud environments,” International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technologies and Innovations , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 24–32, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [4]

    Multi-party secured collaboration architecture from cloud to edge,

    R. Gafni, I. Aviv, and D. Haim, “Multi-party secured collaboration architecture from cloud to edge,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 698–709, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [5]

    Advances in appfl: A comprehensive and extensible federated learning framework,

    Z. Li, S. He, Z. Yang, M. Ryu, K. Kim, and R. Madduri, “Advances in appfl: A comprehensive and extensible federated learning framework,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11585 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [6]

    Enhance image-to-image generation with llava-generated prompts,

    Z. Ding, P. Li, Q. Yang, and S. Li, “Enhance image-to-image generation with llava-generated prompts,” in 2024 5th International Conference on Information Science, Parallel and Distributed Systems (ISPDS) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 77–81

    2024

  2. [7]

    Composerx: Multi-agent symbolic music composition with llms,

    Q. Deng, Q. Yang, R. Yuan, Y . Huang, Y . Wang, X. Liu, Z. Tian, J. Pan, G. Zhang, H. Lin et al. , “Composerx: Multi-agent symbolic music composition with llms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18081 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [8]

    RAG-RLRC-LaySum at BioLaySumm: Integrating retrieval-augmented generation and readability control for layman summarization of biomedical texts,

    Y . Ji, Z. Li, R. Meng, S. Sivarajkumar, Y . Wang, Z. Yu, H. Ji, Y . Han, H. Zeng, and D. He, “RAG-RLRC-LaySum at BioLaySumm: Integrating retrieval-augmented generation and readability control for layman summarization of biomedical texts,” in Proceedings of the 23rd Workshop o...

    2024

  4. [9]

    Mitigating the risk of health inequity exacerbated by large language models,

    Y . Ji, W. Ma, S. Sivarajkumar, H. Zhang, E. M. Sadhu, Z. Li, X. Wu, S. Visweswaran, and Y . Wang, “Mitigating the risk of health inequity exacerbated by large language models,” npj Digital Medicine , vol. 8, no. 1, p. 246, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s4...

    2025 doi

  5. [10]

    SCORE: Story coherence and retrieval enhancement for AI narratives,

    Q. Yi, Y . He, J. Wang, X. Song, S. Qian, M. Zhanget al., “SCORE: Story coherence and retrieval enhancement for AI narratives,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23512, 2025

    2025

  6. [11]

    Adaptive fault tolerance mechanisms of large language models in cloud computing environ- ments,

    Y . Jin, Z. Yang, X. Xu, Y . Zhang, and S. Ji, “Adaptive fault tolerance mechanisms of large language models in cloud computing environ- ments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12228 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Towards real-time and personalized code generation,

    H. Xu, X. Wang, and H. Chen, “Towards real-time and personalized code generation,” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , 2024, p. 5568–5569

    2024

  8. [13]

    Research on cloud platform network traffic monitoring and anomaly detection system based on large language models,

    Z. Yang, Y . Jin, J. Liu, X. Xu, Y . Zhang, and S. Ji, “Research on cloud platform network traffic monitoring and anomaly detection system based on large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17807 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Assertion detection in clinical natural language processing using large language models,

    Y . Ji, Z. Yu, and Y . Wang, “Assertion detection in clinical natural language processing using large language models,” in 2024 IEEE 12th International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) , 2024, pp. 242–247

    2024

  10. [15]

    T-GAE: Transferable graph autoencoder for network alignment,

    J. He, C. I. Kanatsoulis, and A. Ribeiro, “T-GAE: Transferable graph autoencoder for network alignment,” arXiv e-prints , pp. arXiv–2310, 2023

    2023

  11. [16]

    GIVE: Structured reasoning with knowledge graph inspired veracity extrapola- tion,

    J. He, M. D. Ma, J. Fan, D. Roth, W. Wang, and A. Ribeiro, “GIVE: Structured reasoning with knowledge graph inspired veracity extrapola- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08475 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Hades: Hardware accelerated decoding for efficient speculation in large language models,

    Z. Yang, Y . Jin, and X. Xu, “Hades: Hardware accelerated decoding for efficient speculation in large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19925, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [18]

    MT2ST: Adaptive multi-task to single-task learning,

    D. Liu and Y . Yu, “MT2ST: Adaptive multi-task to single-task learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18038 , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18038

    2024 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Advanced cyber- security strategies in cloud computing: Techniques for data protection and privacy,

    Y . Ramaswamy, V . N. Sankaran, and B. K. M. Sundar, “Advanced cyber- security strategies in cloud computing: Techniques for data protection and privacy,” Library Progress International , vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 2643– 2656, 2024

    2024

  15. [20]

    Scalability optimization in cloud-based AI inference services: Strategies for real-time load balancing and automated scaling,

    Y . Jin and Z. Yang, “Scalability optimization in cloud-based AI inference services: Strategies for real-time load balancing and automated scaling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15296 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Optimization of privacy-aware cloud crowdsourcing resource combinations for product development,

    Y . Guo, “Optimization of privacy-aware cloud crowdsourcing resource combinations for product development,” Expert Systems with Applica- tions, vol. 227, p. 120176, 2023

    2023

  17. [22]

    Engineering AI systems: A research agenda,

    J. Bosch, H. H. Olsson, and I. Crnkovic, “Engineering AI systems: A research agenda,” Artificial intelligence paradigms for smart cyber- physical systems, pp. 1–19, 2021

    2021

  18. [23]

    Deception detection from linguistic and physiological data streams using bimodal convolutional neural networks,

    P. Li, M. Abouelenien, R. Mihalcea, Z. Ding, Q. Yang, and Y . Zhou, “Deception detection from linguistic and physiological data streams using bimodal convolutional neural networks,” in 2024 5th International Conference on Information Science, Parallel and Distributed Systems (...

    2024

  19. [24]

    Exploring diverse methods in visual question answering,

    P. Li, Q. Yang, X. Geng, W. Zhou, Z. Ding, and Y . Nian, “Exploring diverse methods in visual question answering,” in 2024 5th International Conference on Electronic Communication and Artificial Intelligence (ICECAI). IEEE, 2024, pp. 681–685

    2024

  20. [25]

    Confidence trigger detection: Accelerating real-time tracking-by-detection systems,

    Z. Ding, Z. Lai, S. Li, P. Li, Q. Yang, and E. Wong, “Confidence trigger detection: Accelerating real-time tracking-by-detection systems,” in 2024 5th International Conference on Electronic Communication and Artificial Intelligence (ICECAI) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 587–592

    2024

  21. [26]

    Fine-grained control of generative data aug- mentation in IoT sensing,

    T. Wang, Q. Yang, R. Wang, D. Sun, J. Li, Y . Chen, Y . Hu, C. Yang, T. Kimura, D. Kara et al., “Fine-grained control of generative data aug- mentation in IoT sensing,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 32 787–32 812, 2024

    2024

  22. [28]

    Open-source AI-based se tools: Opportunities and challenges of collaborative software learning,

    Z. Lin, W. Ma, T. Lin, Y . Zheng, J. Ge, J. Wang, J. Klein, T. Bissyande, Y . Liu, and L. Li, “Open-source AI-based se tools: Opportunities and challenges of collaborative software learning,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology , 2024, just Accepted

    2024

  23. [29]

    Federated learning: Navigating the landscape of collaborative intelli- gence,

    K. Lazaros, D. E. Koumadorakis, A. G. Vrahatis, and S. Kotsiantis, “Federated learning: Navigating the landscape of collaborative intelli- gence,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 23, p. 4744, 2024

    2024

  24. [30]

    Federated large language models: Current progress and future directions,

    Y . Yao, J. Zhang, J. Wu, C. Huang, Y . Xia, T. Yu, R. Zhang, S. Kim, R. Rossi, A. Li, L. Yao, J. McAuley, Y . Chen, and C. Joe-Wong, “Federated large language models: Current progress and future directions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15723 , 2024. [Online]. Available: https:/...

    2024 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Flft: A large-scale pre-training model dis- tributed fine-tuning method that integrates federated learning strategies,

    Y . Tao and A. Authors], “Flft: A large-scale pre-training model dis- tributed fine-tuning method that integrates federated learning strategies,” IEEE Access, 2025, to appear

    2025

  26. [32]

    A web-based solution for federated learning with LLM-based automation,

    C. Mawela, C. B. Issaid, and M. Bennis, “A web-based solution for federated learning with LLM-based automation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13010, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408. 13010

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.