Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Privacy Preserving Charge Location Prediction for Electric Vehicles

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A federated transformer network can predict where an electric vehicle will next charge using only shared model weights, hitting 92% accuracy versus 98% for a centralized model.

desk verdict The accuracy results are plausible, but the load-bearing privacy claim is unsupported under the paper's own threat model. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00068 v1 pith:HLGF2UN6 submitted 2025-01-31 cs.CR cs.AI

Robert Marlin , Raja Jurdak , Alsharif Abuadbba , Dimity Miller This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords federatedlearningelectricvehiclesnextchargelocationpredictionprivacypreservationtransformernetworkpeer-to-peerweightsharingDERMSmobilitydata
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 a fleet of electric vehicles can predict where each car will next charge without sending any raw trip data to a central server. The proposed FLTN trains a transformer model on each EV, shares only model weights with community-level DERMS servers, and adds a peer-to-peer weight-mixing step for EVs that stay within one community, intended to obscure individual contributions. On a synthetic Chicago taxi EV dataset, the authors report up to 92% prediction accuracy, compared with 98% for a centralized transformer that has no privacy protection. If correct, this gives a concrete privacy/accuracy trade-off for EV charge-location forecasting and a mobility-aware strategy for federated learning in dynamic vehicle networks.

What carries the argument

The pipeline rests on the augmented-weight update $W_{\text{aug}} = W_i + \alpha \sum_{j \in \text{peers}} W_j$ for non-transitory EVs, followed by FedAVG aggregation $\Theta = \frac{1}{N} \sum_i \tilde{W}_i$ at each community DERMS, and reloading of $\Theta$ into every EV during charging. The PeerShare step, with equal alphas across peers, is what the paper credits with obfuscating individual contributions, diluting outliers, and improving accuracy; the multi-head transformer (six encoder layers, eight attention heads) is the local model chosen after comparing with BiLSTM and CNN baselines.

What would settle it

Take the community global weights produced by the described FLTN training on the same Chicago taxi dataset and run a model-inversion or membership-inference attack to recover specific pickup locations, trips, or EV identities; success would refute the privacy claim even if accuracy is unaffected. Failing that, re-running the reported protocol with the stated hyperparameters and showing the 92% figure does not reproduce would refute the accuracy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a federated learning design in which the act of predicting an EV's next community-area charging location is decoupled from exposure of that EV's trip history. Local transformer models train on board each vehicle; non-transitory EVs blend their weights with peers, and community DERMS servers aggregate all weights with FedAVG into a community global model that is redistributed at charging sessions. The paper's empirical claim is that this protocol reaches 91.55-91.97% average accuracy for 100-150 EV communities, with the best communities near 92.14%, against a 98.43% ceiling for centralized transformers, while keeping all raw mobility data on the vehicle. Forecast horizon depends on remaining battery charge: accuracy is higher at 20% charge remaining (about 92%) and falls to about 33% at 100% remaining.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that sharing only final model weights, mixed among peers before upload, prevents an adversary — including a curious DERMS or a peer EV that receives exact weights — from reconstructing or inferring sensitive trip information, and the paper offers no formal privacy guarantee and no attack experiment to test this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Community DERMS operators can forecast community-level energy demand several days ahead using the aggregated model, since FLTN predicts the next charging community as a function of current battery level.
  • Accuracy peaks at 100-150 EVs per community; groups of 50 EVs average 79.78% accuracy, while 400-500 EV groups decline to about 86.5%, suggesting an optimal community size for deployment.
  • Sharing final weights rather than gradients is presented as lowering exposure to model inversion and poisoning attacks, with an entropy increase of roughly 2-2.5% over regular federated learning as supporting evidence.
  • Because raw data never leaves the vehicle, the design is claimed to satisfy privacy regulations such as GDPR and CCPA in EV charging applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The entropy-based privacy metric measures randomness in weights, not actual resilience to membership inference or reconstruction; a direct attack experiment on the shared weights would be needed to confirm the privacy claim, and the paper's own future-work list (homomorphic encryption, secure multiparty computation) suggests the current guarantee is not absolute.
  • The augmentation step makes non-transitory EVs' contributions appear multiple times in the FedAVG average (their own weights plus peer weights), so the community model is not a uniform average over data; this weighting bias is a candidate explanation for the observed accuracy variation across community sizes.
  • The six-point accuracy gap between federated and centralized models can be read as the measured privacy tax of this design, and comparison against differential-privacy baselines with comparable privacy budgets would place that tax in context.
  • A direct testable extension is to run the same protocol on a real EV fleet dataset and check both whether the stated accuracies reproduce and whether an adversary can attribute a received weight vector to a specific vehicle via distance-inference.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Federated Learning Transformer Network (FLTN), a federated learning scheme in which each electric vehicle (EV) trains a local transformer model on its own trip data and shares only model weights with a community-based DERMS, which aggregates them via FedAVG. For non-transitory EVs, the protocol adds a peer-to-peer weight-sharing and augmentation step before the DERMS aggregation. The paper uses a synthetic/empirical EV taxi dataset from the authors' prior work [18] over 77 Chicago community areas and reports that FLTN achieves up to 92% accuracy while preserving data privacy, compared with 98% for a centralized transformer with no privacy. Privacy is evaluated through an entropy-based metric that reportedly increases by 0.15–0.2 over regular federated learning. The paper concludes that FLTN balances predictive accuracy with privacy for next-charge-location prediction over horizons up to three days.

Significance. If the privacy and accuracy claims were established, this would be a relevant contribution to privacy-preserving EV charging prediction and smart-grid demand forecasting. The paper is one of few to combine transformer-based spatio-temporal prediction with federated aggregation for individual EV charge-location forecasting, and the distinction between transitory and non-transitory EVs is an interesting design idea. The writing is generally clear, and the authors are explicit about their threat model and dataset provenance. However, the evaluation does not substantiate the central claims: the privacy metric is self-defined and circular, the peer-sharing protocol contradicts the stated honest-but-curious threat model, the accuracy results lack trivial baselines, and a key augmentation parameter is never specified. No machine-checked proofs, formal privacy guarantees, attack experiments, or reproducible code are provided. The paper may serve as a useful position or work-in-progress report, but in its current form the main contributions are not supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [6.3.2, Eq. (7)] The privacy evaluation defines privacy as the entropy of the weight distribution and reports an increase of 0.15–0.2 in absolute terms (or 2–2.5% relative) for FLTN versus regular FL. This metric is introduced by the authors and is not connected to any external or established privacy notion: there is no differential privacy guarantee, no membership-inference experiment, no reconstruction-error measurement, and no formal analysis of what an adversary can learn from the shared weights. Since the conclusion that privacy is improved follows directly from the increase of this self-defined metric, the privacy-preservation claim in the abstract is circular and unsupported.
  2. [6.3.1, Algorithm 1 lines 6–7, Eq. (4)] Under the honest-but-curious threat model stated in Section 6.3.1, both DERMS and EVs follow the protocol but may attempt to infer information from shared messages. Algorithm 1 (lines 6–7) and Eq. (4) require every non-transitory EV to send its exact local weights W_i^t to all peers before augmentation, so each peer receives raw local weights with no mixing applied. The paper itself concedes in Section 2.1.1 that a malicious EV could infer patterns from shared weights. The augmentation step only obscures the origin of the aggregate that reaches the DERMS; it does not hide W_i^t from the peers that already received it. The manuscript provides no attack experiment or formal privacy bound showing that such weights cannot be inverted or subjected to membership inference, so the protocol as specified does not support the abstract's claim of preserving data privacy against the stated adversaries.
  3. [4.1, Eq. (4) and Section 2.1.3] The augmentation equation contains a free parameter alpha, described only as a scaling factor controlling the contribution of peer weights. Section 2.1.3 states that equal alphas are assumed, but no numerical value, range, or sensitivity analysis is reported anywhere. Because alpha directly determines how much peer information enters the augmented weights, it affects both the accuracy results and the entropy-based privacy claims. Without specifying alpha or exploring its effect, the experiments are not reproducible, and the reported 0.15–0.2 entropy increase cannot be attributed to a concrete configuration.
  4. [6.2, Tables 2–3 and Section 6.1] The accuracy evaluation reports FLTN averages around 91.55–91.97% for 100–150 EVs and up to 92.86% for 500 EVs at 20% charge, compared with centralized transformer accuracies in the high 90s. However, no majority-class or last-location baseline is reported. Since the prediction target is one of 77 community areas and the trip density in Figure 4 is highly skewed, a trivial predictor may already achieve substantial accuracy. Without such baselines, the 92% figure cannot be interpreted as evidence that the model has learned meaningful spatio-temporal structure, nor can the gap between federated and centralized accuracy be assessed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [5.1] The sentence describing Figure 1 reads "summaries processes within our proposed FLTN solution" and should be "summarizes processes"; the figure itself is not described in enough detail to understand the data flow.
  2. [6.2] The opening sentence "Our decentalised results table contains the following features 2:" contains a typo ("decentalised") and a dangling "2"; the subsequent list should be connected explicitly to Table 2.
  3. [6.3.2, Eq. (7) and Figure 8] The entropy comparison figure lacks axis labels, and the text does not state how the probability distribution p_i in Eq. (7) is computed from the weight tensors (e.g., over individual weight values, layers, or bins). This should be specified for the metric to be interpretable.
  4. [2.1.2] The claim that sharing model weights rather than gradients reduces inversion risk is not supported by the cited literature: the manuscript cites a gradient-leakage attack [16] but does not discuss known attacks that reconstruct training data from model weights. This claim should be either substantiated or softened.
  5. [Abstract and Section 2.1.1] The phrase "while preserving data privacy" in the abstract overclaims relative to the evidence in Section 6.3.2 and to the paper's own caveat in Section 2.1.1 that a malicious EV could infer patterns from shared weights. The wording should be aligned with the actual threat model and the scope of the privacy evaluation.
  6. [5.2] The dataset is derived from non-EV Chicago taxi data with synthetic EV conversions and includes strong assumptions about 2050 EV adoption and uniform charging technology; the paper provides no validation against real EV trip data, so the external validity of the accuracy results is limited.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Privacy conclusion is self-definitional: FLTN defines privacy as weight entropy, measures an entropy increase, and reports improved privacy; no external privacy notion or attack test connects the metric to the claim.

  1. self definitional [Section 6.3.2, 'FLTN Privacy Evaluation and Analysis', Eq. (7)]
    "To evaluate the privacy efficacy of our FLTN system, we introduce an entropy-based privacy metric, emphasising how increased randomness within shared weights reduces the potential for data reconstruction attacks. ... The entropy increase of approximately 0.15-0.2 in absolute terms (or 2-2.5% relative to normal FL entropy) suggests that FLTN provides a more robust privacy layer compared to regular FL."

    The paper defines privacy efficacy as the entropy of shared weights (Eq. 7: H = -Σ p_i log p_i), then measures an entropy increase of ~0.15-0.2 and concludes 'FLTN provides a more robust privacy layer'. Because 'privacy' is operationalized as entropy, the conclusion is entailed by the metric by construction; the claim that higher entropy 'reduces the potential for data reconstruction attacks' is an asserted equivalence, not a derived result. No reconstruction, membership-inference, or inversion experiment is reported, so the central privacy-preservation claim reduces to the paper's own definition.

full rationale

The accuracy result (up to 92% FLTN vs 98% centralised) is an empirical, held-out evaluation and is not a fitted tautology; it does not reduce to the model's inputs. The use of the authors' own dataset from [18] is a self-citation, but the dataset is an input and the accuracy benchmark is independent of the citation's claims, so it does not create circularity. The circularity lies in the paper's only quantitative privacy evaluation: Section 6.3.2 defines a privacy metric as Shannon entropy of weights, measures an entropy increase, and reports enhanced privacy. That inference is true by definition, not by evidence, and it is load-bearing because 'preserving data privacy' is the paper's central claim. The honest-but-curious threat model in Section 6.3.1, together with Algorithm 1's requirement that exact local weights be sent to all peers before augmentation, would be a correctness/privacy-risk concern rather than a circularity, so it is not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on five assumptions: honest-but-curious peers, a representative synthetic dataset, weights being privacy-safe, entropy being a privacy metric, and augmented FedAvg convergence. None of these are proven. The free parameters are the peer-weight scaling alpha and two transformer hyperparameters chosen by hand. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (peer weight scaling) = not specified (assumed equal across peers)
    In Eq (4), alpha controls the contribution of peer weights to the augmented update. No value or tuning procedure is given, and the formula is not normalized, so convergence depends on this hidden choice.
  • encoder layers = 6
    Section 5.3.2 says this configuration was chosen after testing various configurations, so it is a hand-selected hyperparameter tied to the reported accuracy.
  • attention heads = 8
    Section 5.3.2 selects eight attention heads after experimentation; this is a tuned architectural choice that affects the reported results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption EVs and DERMS are honest but curious, and peer EVs do not exploit the exact weights they receive during PeerShare.
    Section 6.3.1 defines the threat model as honest but curious, but non-transitory EVs share exact weights with peers, so those peers could in principle apply inversion techniques. The paper assumes they will not.
  • domain assumption The synthetic dataset from [18], built from Chicago taxi trips and EV industry metrics, represents future EV mobility.
    Section 5.2 bases all experiments on this dataset. If the synthetic assumptions are unrealistic, the accuracy and privacy results do not transfer to real EV fleets.
  • domain assumption Sharing model weights instead of gradients prevents inversion and data leakage.
    Section 2.1.2 and Section 6.3 assert this without proof. Known attacks can reconstruct training data from model weights, so this assumption is load-bearing and unsupported.
  • ad hoc to paper Weight entropy is a valid privacy measure.
    Section 6.3.2 defines privacy via entropy H = -sum p_i log(p_i) of weights and claims higher entropy means more privacy. This connection is not derived from any formal privacy definition.
  • domain assumption Peer-to-peer augmentation does not bias the global model and FedAvg converges with it.
    Equations (4) and (5) add peer weights linearly without renormalization or a convergence proof. The paper provides no analysis showing this weighted combination preserves the FedAvg objective.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Privacy Preserving Charge Location Prediction for Electric Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HLGF2UN6

@misc{pith2026250200068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Privacy Preserving Charge Location Prediction for Electric Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HLGF2UN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00068}
}
read the original abstract

By 2050, electric vehicles (EVs) are projected to account for 70% of global vehicle sales. While EVs provide environmental benefits, they also pose challenges for energy generation, grid infrastructure, and data privacy. Current research on EV routing and charge management often overlooks privacy when predicting energy demands, leaving sensitive mobility data vulnerable. To address this, we developed a Federated Learning Transformer Network (FLTN) to predict EVs' next charge location with enhanced privacy measures. Each EV operates as a client, training an onboard FLTN model that shares only model weights, not raw data with a community-based Distributed Energy Resource Management System (DERMS), which aggregates them into a community global model. To further enhance privacy, non-transitory EVs use peer-to-peer weight sharing and augmentation within their community, obfuscating individual contributions and improving model accuracy. Community DERMS global model weights are then redistributed to EVs for continuous training. Our FLTN approach achieved up to 92% accuracy while preserving data privacy, compared to our baseline centralised model, which achieved 98% accuracy with no data privacy. Simulations conducted across diverse charge levels confirm the FLTN's ability to forecast energy demands over extended periods. We present a privacy-focused solution for forecasting EV charge location prediction, effectively mitigating data leakage risks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00068 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pipeline diagram above consists of processes and stages for our FLTN system from data input to our final output EV next charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Chicago city map - community areas light yellow. The top 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Centralised modelling results. Three machine learning architectures; Transformer, BiLSTM, and CNN. Models used the same communities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure represents Chicago city communities and the density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This figure illustrates a sample of 500 EVs over a 12-month [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comprehensive view of the EV movement patterns in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of privacy metrics (entropy) in FLTN vs. regular FL. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The plot above represents 10 EV groups based on EV numbers including 3 community areas each and their respective prediction accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Electric vehicle next charge location prediction,

    R. Marlin, R. Jurdak, A. Abuadbba, S. Ruj, and D. Miller, “Electric vehicle next charge location prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    The latest update to ener-data’s online,

    “The latest update to ener-data’s online,” https://www.enerdata. net/publications/energy-outlook-tool.html, 2021, accessed Dec. 3, 2023

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Ar- cas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” in Artificial intelligence and statistics . PMLR, 2017, pp. 1273–1282

    2017

  4. [3]

    General data protection regulation,

    P . Regulation, “General data protection regulation,” Intouch, vol. 25, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    A guide to the california consumer privacy act of 2018,

    L. de la Torre, “A guide to the california consumer privacy act of 2018,” Available at SSRN 3275571, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Ssgd: A safe and efficient method of gradient descent,

    J. Duan, X. Li, S. Gao, Z. Zhong, and J. Wang, “Ssgd: A safe and efficient method of gradient descent,” Security and Communication Networks, vol. 2021, no. 1, p. 5404061, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Balancing cyber-security and privacy: legal and ethical considerations in the digital age,

    N. Allahrakha, “Balancing cyber-security and privacy: legal and ethical considerations in the digital age,” Legal Issues in the digital Age, no. 2, pp. 78–121, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Geo-indistinguishability: Differential privacy for location-based systems,

    M. E. Andr ´es, N. E. Bordenabe, K. Chatzikokolakis, and C. Palamidessi, “Geo-indistinguishability: Differential privacy for location-based systems,” in Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer & communications security , 2013, pp. 901– 914

    work page 2013

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Anonymous usage of location- based services through spatial and temporal cloaking,

    M. Gruteser and D. Grunwald, “Anonymous usage of location- based services through spatial and temporal cloaking,” in Proceed- ings of the 1st international conference on Mobile systems, applications and services, 2003, pp. 31–42

    2003

  2. [9]

    k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy,

    L. Sweeney, “k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy,” Inter- national journal of uncertainty, fuzziness and knowledge-based systems, vol. 10, no. 05, pp. 557–570, 2002

    2002

  3. [10]

    Predicting electric vehicle charging stations occupancy: a federated deep learning framework,

    L. Douaidi, S.-M. Senouci, I. El Korbi, and F. Harrou, “Predicting electric vehicle charging stations occupancy: a federated deep learning framework,” in 2023 IEEE 97th Vehicular Technology Con- ference (VTC2023-Spring). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  4. [11]

    A secure cloudlet- based charging station recommendation for electric vehicles em- powered by federated learning,

    Z. Teimoori, A. Yassine, and M. S. Hossain, “A secure cloudlet- based charging station recommendation for electric vehicles em- powered by federated learning,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 6464–6473, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Federated graph learning for ev charging demand forecasting with personalization against cyberattacks,

    Y. Li, R. Xie, C. Li, Y. Wang, and Z. Dong, “Federated graph learning for ev charging demand forecasting with personalization against cyberattacks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00742, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Swarm learning for decentralized and confi- dential clinical machine learning,

    S. Warnat-Herresthal, H. Schultze, K. L. Shastry, S. Manamohan, S. Mukherjee, V . Garg, R. Sarveswara, K. H ¨andler, P . Pickkers, N. A. Aziz et al. , “Swarm learning for decentralized and confi- dential clinical machine learning,” Nature, vol. 594, no. 7862, pp. 265–270, 2021

    2021

  7. [14]

    Dim-krum: Backdoor-resistant federated learning for nlp with dimension-wise krum-based ag- gregation,

    Z. Zhang, Q. Su, and X. Sun, “Dim-krum: Backdoor-resistant federated learning for nlp with dimension-wise krum-based ag- gregation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06894, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    A differentially private federated learning model against poisoning attacks in edge computing,

    J. Zhou, N. Wu, Y. Wang, S. Gu, Z. Cao, X. Dong, and K.- K. R. Choo, “A differentially private federated learning model against poisoning attacks in edge computing,” IEEE Transactions PRIVACY PRESERVING CHARGE LOCATION PREDICTION FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES, NOVEMBER 2024 13 on Depe...

    2024

  9. [16]

    Deep leakage from gradients,

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

    2019

  10. [17]

    Survey: federated learning data secu- rity and privacy-preserving in edge-internet of things,

    H. Li, L. Ge, and L. Tian, “Survey: federated learning data secu- rity and privacy-preserving in edge-internet of things,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 57, no. 5, p. 130, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Chicago data portal,

    J. Levy, “Chicago data portal,” 2023, https://data.cityofchicago. org/Transportation/Taxi-Trips/wrvz-psew, Last accessed on 2023-04-20

    2023

  12. [20]

    How to maximize ev range,

    S. Blanco, “How to maximize ev range,” https://www.jdpower. com/cars/shopping-guides/how-to-maximize-ev-range, 2022, [Online; accessed 20-March-2023]

    2022

  13. [21]

    Emerging trends in federated learning: From model fusion to federated x learning,

    S. Ji, Y. Tan, T. Saravirta, Z. Yang, Y. Liu, L. Vasankari, S. Pan, G. Long, and A. Walid, “Emerging trends in federated learning: From model fusion to federated x learning,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, pp. 1–22, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Data privacy laws and compliance: a comparative review of the eu gdpr and usa regulations,

    S. S. Bakare, A. O. Adeniyi, C. U. Akpuokwe, and N. E. Eneh, “Data privacy laws and compliance: a comparative review of the eu gdpr and usa regulations,” Computer Science & IT Research Journal, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 528–543, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Applica- tion of adaptive machine learning systems in heterogeneous data environments,

    X. Wu, Y. Wu, X. Li, Z. Ye, X. Gu, Z. Wu, and Y. Yang, “Applica- tion of adaptive machine learning systems in heterogeneous data environments,” Global Academic Frontiers , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 37–50, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Rve-pfl: Robust variational encoder-based personalised federated learning against model inversion attacks,

    W. Issa, N. Moustafa, B. Turnbull, and K.-K. R. Choo, “Rve-pfl: Robust variational encoder-based personalised federated learning against model inversion attacks,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Spatio-temporal characterisation and compensation method based on cnn and lstm for residential travel data,

    A. Alhudhaif and K. Polat, “Spatio-temporal characterisation and compensation method based on cnn and lstm for residential travel data,” PeerJ Computer science, vol. 10, p. e2035, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Sta-sst: Spatio-temporal time series prediction of moroccan sea surface temperature,

    I. Elafi, N. Zrira, A. Kamal-Idrissi, H. A. Khan, and A. Ettouhami, “Sta-sst: Spatio-temporal time series prediction of moroccan sea surface temperature,” Journal of Sea Research , vol. 200, p. 102515, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Research on traffic flow forecasting based on dynamic spatial-temporal transformer,

    H. Zhang, H. Wang, X. Zhang, and L. Gong, “Research on traffic flow forecasting based on dynamic spatial-temporal transformer,” Transportation research record, vol. 2678, no. 7, pp. 301–313, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Spatiotemporal infor- mation enhanced multi-feature short-term traffic flow prediction,

    D. Huang, J. He, Y. Tu, Z. Ye, and L. Xie, “Spatiotemporal infor- mation enhanced multi-feature short-term traffic flow prediction,” Plos one, vol. 19, no. 7, p. e0306892, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Integrating spatio-temporal graph convolutional networks with convolutional neural networks for predicting short-term traffic speed in urban road networks

    S. B. Jeon and M.-H. Jeong, “Integrating spatio-temporal graph convolutional networks with convolutional neural networks for predicting short-term traffic speed in urban road networks.” Ap- plied Sciences (2076-3417), vol. 14, no. 14, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Spatio- temporal visual learning for home-based monitoring,

    Y. Djenouri, A. N. Belbachir, A. Cano, and A. Belhadi, “Spatio- temporal visual learning for home-based monitoring,” Information Fusion, vol. 101, p. 101984, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 2017. Robert Marlin completed a bachelor’s in in- formation technology (BIT) at the Royal Mel- bourne Institute of Technology (RMIT University) in 2017, then completed a master’s in i...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.