Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 46 references

SemiDFL: A Semi-Supervised Paradigm for Decentralized Federated Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 SemiDFL claims that decentralized federated learning can train accurate classifiers from mostly unlabeled, non-IID client data by coupling neighborhood pseudo-labeling with a consensus-trained diffusion model.

desk verdict SemiDFL is a credible first semi-supervised DFL method with solid experiments; the consensus data-space assumption needs formal support, but the paper deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13589 v1 pith:M37NLVIF submitted 2024-12-18 cs.LG cs.AIcs.DC

Xinyang Liu , Pengchao Han , Xuan Li , Bo Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.DC
keywords decentralizedfederatedlearningsemi-supervisedpseudo-labelingdiffusionmodelsconsensusaggregationnon-IIDdataMixUpadaptive
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tackles a practical gap in decentralized federated learning: standard DFL assumes every client has labels, but real deployments often have clients with a few labels, only unlabeled data, or a mix. It proposes SemiDFL, a semi-supervised DFL method whose core claim is that a network of clients can train accurate classifiers from very few labels and strongly non-identical data distributions by building consensus in two spaces at once: a data space of synthetic samples and a model space of classifier and generator weights. The method couples neighborhood-aware pseudo-labeling with a consensus-trained diffusion model that generates synthetic data for MixUp, then adaptively aggregates models based on accuracy on that synthetic data. If the claim holds, decentralized training becomes usable in settings where labeling is expensive and no central server can orchestrate the learning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the consensus-trained local diffusion model $\psi_i$ together with the adaptive aggregation rule in Eq. (12). A diffusion model is a generative model that learns to remove noise and can sample new images conditioned on a class; here each client trains one on its labeled and pseudo-labeled data, then all $\psi_i$ are updated through the consensus rule in Algorithm 1 step 23. If those generators converge to a shared distribution, the synthetic sets $D_i$ form a common data space for MixUp and for evaluating classifiers, and the softmax weights $w_{ij}$ computed from accuracies on 100-sample subsets of $D_i$ become a privacy-preserving stand-in for a shared test set.

What would settle it

Take a trained SemiDFL system on non-IID CIFAR-10 and measure a distribution distance (e.g., maximum mean discrepancy or class-conditional FID) between the synthetic datasets $D_i$ of neighboring clients; the consensus data-space claim predicts small distances, and if large distances appear, the MixUp and adaptive-aggregation components are not actually sharing a common data distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, SemiDFL's discovery is that the semi-supervised DFL problem is solvable by enforcing consensus in both data and model spaces. Each client uses neighborhood classifiers and an adaptive class-wise threshold to produce high-quality pseudo-labels; trains a local diffusion model on labeled plus pseudo-labeled data; and the local diffusion models are aggregated by the same consensus rule as classifiers, so that every client can generate synthetic data with a similar distribution. MixUp over labeled, pseudo-labeled, and synthetic data creates a consensus data space for classifier training, and adaptive aggregation weights—computed from each classifier's accuracy on a small sample of that synthetic data—create a consensus model space. The experiments report that SemiDFL consistently outperforms MixMatch, FlexMatch, and CBAFed, as well as the DFL lower bound, across MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and CIFAR-10 under IID and non-IID settings and multiple labeled-data ratios, with only the fully supervised DFL upper bound scoring higher.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the belief that consensus aggregation of the local diffusion models makes every client's generated data statistically similar, even though the aggregation weights used in that consensus are themselves computed from each classifier's accuracy on those very same generated sets; if the generators do not converge to a shared distribution, the consensus data space and the adaptive weights built on it have no common reference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A DFL network can continue learning when some clients have no labeled data at all, rather than being limited to clients that happen to have labels.
  • No shared or public test set is needed to decide which neighbors should have more influence in aggregation; the generated data doubles as the evaluation set.
  • The method's reported gains persist across three communication topologies, so the mechanism is not tied to one graph structure.
  • In the low-label regimes the paper tests, several SSL baselines fail to converge, while SemiDFL keeps improving, suggesting the consensus mechanisms also stabilize training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the consensus synthetic data could be reused as a common validation benchmark for other decentralized tasks—client selection, drift detection, or Byzantine-robust aggregation—since SemiDFL currently uses it only for MixUp and for aggregation weights.
  • The ablation compares a consensus GAN with the consensus diffusion generator; if newer generative models improve the quality and homogeneity of the synthetic sets, the same SemiDFL scaffolding should widen its lead on harder image datasets.
  • A direct test of the method's internal logic would be to see whether per-client generated distributions actually become similar after consensus; the paper reports accuracy gains but does not measure the distance between $D_i$ sets.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SemiDFL, a semi-supervised decentralized federated learning method for networks in which clients have only labeled, only unlabeled, or mixed data. The method combines neighborhood pseudo-labeling (NPL), a consensus-based diffusion model that generates synthetic data for MixUp (C-MixUp), and an adaptive aggregation rule in which consensus weights are derived from classifier accuracy on the generated data. Experiments on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and CIFAR-10 under different non-IID degrees, labeled ratios, and communication topologies report consistent improvements over adapted SSL baselines and over the paper's own ablation variants.

Significance. If the consensus data space is actually achieved, SemiDFL addresses a real gap: existing SSL methods for federated learning generally assume a central server, while DFL has mostly been studied under full supervision. The paper supplies a fairly extensive empirical study, including three datasets, three communication topologies, multiple non-IID degrees and labeled ratios, and three ablation studies. The reported gains over the adapted baselines are substantial in most settings, and the neighborhood pseudo-labeling ablation is particularly clean. The main risk is that the two novel mechanisms, C-MixUp and adaptive aggregation, rest on the unproven assumption that independently trained local diffusion models, after parameter averaging, generate a common data distribution. The public code URL is a useful reproducibility step, although the manuscript does not include a full code appendix. The contribution is therefore promising but needs additional evidence before the central claim can be accepted as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Consensus MixUp] The consensus data space is load-bearing and is asserted rather than demonstrated. The text states that because the diffusion models psi_i are globally updated via Eq. (3), "all local psi_i converge to a unified model, thus all generated datasets D_i follow a similar data distribution." No convergence proof is given, and the generation process is stochastic. If the generated datasets diverge, the C-MixUp training data are not drawn from a common augmented distribution, and the method's first pillar loses its justification. Please provide either a convergence argument for the diffusion-model consensus or a direct empirical measure of generated-distribution divergence across clients over training rounds, for example FID or MMD between D_i and D_j.
  2. [Adaptive Aggregation, Eq. (12); Algorithm 1, lines 17-23] The adaptive weights in Eq. (12) are computed from accuracies a_j measured on each client's own validation set Dhat_j, sampled from that client's generated data. This is not evaluation on a shared dataset unless the consensus data space assumed in the previous comment has already been established. If the generated distributions differ across clients, a high a_j can simply mean that client j's diffusion model produces easy samples, so the softmax weighting rewards generator easiness rather than classifier quality. The same weights are then used to aggregate the diffusion models themselves (Algorithm 1, line 23), creating a feedback loop: generated distributions determine accuracies, accuracies determine aggregation weights, and those weights determine the next generation of generated distributions. A cross-evaluation ablation, in which each client evaluates all neighbor classifiers on a fixed generated reference set, is needed to show that the reported gains are not an artifact of this self-referential design.
  3. [Baseline methods / Experiments] The paper states that MixMatch, FlexMatch, and CBAFed were adapted to the DFL setting, but the adaptation is not described. These methods were designed for centralized or server-based training, so the validity of the comparison depends on how their aggregation, pseudo-labeling, and augmentation procedures were modified. Please provide the adaptation protocol or the code used for each baseline. In addition, the Reproducibility Checklist claims that statistical tests were used to judge significance, but the paper reports only means and standard deviations and no statistical test anywhere; this discrepancy should be corrected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The MixUp formula for x' has x_m on both sides, so the mixed input has no component from x_n; it should presumably read x' = lambda*x_m + (1-lambda)*x_n.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The denominator max_i(max_c(sigma_i^{t,c})) can be zero when no pseudo-label exceeds the threshold tau; the update rule should specify a fallback, such as keeping the threshold unchanged.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The set D_t^i is used at line 15 before it is generated for rounds t < R; the pseudocode should state that D_t^i is empty during the diffusion warm-up rounds.
  4. [Table 4] The last setting is listed as alpha = 0.1, r = 1%, which breaks the pattern of the other tables; if this is a typo for r = 0.1%, it should be corrected.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract refers to the method as "DFL-Semi" while the rest of the paper uses "SemiDFL"; please unify the terminology.
  6. [Reproducibility Checklist] The checklist says that source code is included in a code appendix, but no code appendix appears in the manuscript; the GitHub URL in the abstract and the "upon acceptance" statement in the supplementary material should be reconciled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SemiDFL's headline results are measured on external test sets; the unproven consensus-data-space assumption is a missing convergence proof, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an algorithm plus empirical evaluation, not a formal derivation. The claimed consensus data space rests on the assertion in the Consensus MixUp section that 'all local ψ_i converge to a unified model, thus all generated datasets D_i follow a similar data distribution.' This convergence is not proved, and the adaptive weights in Eq. (12) are computed on each client's own generated data before those weights aggregate the diffusion models in Algorithm 1 lines 21-23. That is a real feedback loop and a correctness risk: if the ψ_i do not converge to a common generative distribution, the 'shared dataset' justification for a_i fails. Moreover, because D_i is included in the MixUp training set S_i and the validation set is drawn from the same D_i, a_i is not an independent validation score. However, this is not circularity in the sense of a prediction being equivalent to its input by construction: the reported headline accuracy is evaluated on external test sets (MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10), so the central claim is not forced by the method's internal weighting loop. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Liu and Ding 2021a; Sun et al. 2024) support background statements about DFL and are not load-bearing for the novelty claim. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no reported result is a renamed fitted parameter. The missing proof of convergence and the training-set validation leakage should be weighed as correctness or robustness concerns, not as circularity.

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

The method depends on several manually selected hyperparameters (tau, Z, K, R) and on the unproven convergence of the consensus mechanism for diffusion models. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The consensus data space and consensus model space are conceptual constructs rather than invented entities.

free parameters (5)
  • qualification threshold tau = 0.95
    Manually set in supplementary; used in Eq. (8)-(9) to filter pseudo-labels. Not derived from theory.
  • sharpening temperature Z = 2.0
    Manually set in supplementary; used in Eq. (6) to sharpen pseudo-label distributions.
  • number of augmentation variants K = not specified
    Used in Eq. (5) and (7); the paper mentions K variants but never states a concrete value.
  • diffusion warm-up round R = not specified
    Input to Algorithm 1; controls when generated data starts being used. No value is given in the main paper or supplementary.
  • MixUp Beta parameter = Beta(0.5, 0.5)
    Standard choice from the MixUp literature; controls the mixing ratio.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Consensus aggregation in Eq. (3) converges so that all local diffusion models psi_i become unified.
    The paper asserts that 'all local psi_i converge to a unified model' (Section Consensus MixUp) but provides no convergence proof, especially under adaptive non-stationary weights.
  • domain assumption Generated data D_i from the consensus diffusion models share a similar distribution.
    This is the basis for using D_i as a shared evaluation set and for MixUp; it follows only if the consensus convergence holds.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-labels from neighborhood classifiers are accurate enough to train diffusion models.
    Diffusion models are trained on pseudo-labeled data (Algorithm 1 step 11); noisy pseudo-labels could produce misleading generated data, but the paper only evaluates this empirically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SemiDFL: A Semi-Supervised Paradigm for Decentralized Federated Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M37NLVIF

@misc{pith2026241213589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SemiDFL: A Semi-Supervised Paradigm for Decentralized Federated Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M37NLVIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13589}
}
read the original abstract

Decentralized federated learning (DFL) realizes cooperative model training among connected clients without relying on a central server, thereby mitigating communication bottlenecks and eliminating the single-point failure issue present in centralized federated learning (CFL). Most existing work on DFL focuses on supervised learning, assuming each client possesses sufficient labeled data for local training. However, in real-world applications, much of the data is unlabeled. We address this by considering a challenging yet practical semisupervised learning (SSL) scenario in DFL, where clients may have varying data sources: some with few labeled samples, some with purely unlabeled data, and others with both. In this work, we propose SemiDFL, the first semi-supervised DFL method that enhances DFL performance in SSL scenarios by establishing a consensus in both data and model spaces. Specifically, we utilize neighborhood information to improve the quality of pseudo-labeling, which is crucial for effectively leveraging unlabeled data. We then design a consensusbased diffusion model to generate synthesized data, which is used in combination with pseudo-labeled data to create mixed datasets. Additionally, we develop an adaptive aggregation method that leverages the model accuracy of synthesized data to further enhance SemiDFL performance. Through extensive experimentation, we demonstrate the remarkable performance superiority of the proposed DFL-Semi method over existing CFL and DFL schemes in both IID and non-IID SSL scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13589 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Framework of SemiDFL. (a) is an example of a decentralized communication topology employed in our experiments; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Accuracy versus non-IID degree. 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% Labeled Data Ratio r 20 40 60 80 Accuracy (%) SemiDFL DFL-UB DFL-LB MixMatch FlexMatch CBAFed (a) Fashion-MNIST. 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% Labeled Data Ratio r 20 40 60 80 Accuracy (%) SemiDFL DFL-UB DFL-LB MixMatch FlexMatch CBAFed (b) CIFAR-10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Accuracy versus labeled data ratio (α = 100). the following three variants of pseudo-labeling methods. • Vanilla Pseudo-Labeling (Vanilla PL): each client takes the vanilla pseudo-labeling method without neigh￾borhood classifier and filtering threshold. • Adaptive Pseudo-Labeling (APL): each client operates a pseudo-labeling method without neighborhood infor￾mation, while the filtering threshold is adaptively up￾dat… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The non-IID data distribution of CIFAR10 dataset under different settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evaluated communication topologies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Exploiting Unlabeled Data in Smart Cities using Federated Learning

    Albaseer, A.; Ciftler, B. S.; Abdallah, M.; and Al-Fuqaha, A. 2020. Exploiting unlabeled data in smart cities using federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04030

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Beltr \'a n, E. T. M.; P \'e rez, M. Q.; S \'a nchez, P. M. S.; Bernal, S. L.; Bovet, G.; P \'e rez, M. G.; P \'e rez, G. M.; and Celdr \'a n, A. H. 2023. Decentralized federated learning: Fundamentals, state of the art, frameworks, trends, and challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Berthelot, D.; Carlini, N.; Goodfellow, I.; Papernot, N.; Oliver, A.; and Raffel, C. A. 2019. Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    2019

  6. [6]

    Diao, E.; Ding, J.; and Tarokh, V. 2021. SemiFL: Communication efficient semi-supervised federated learning with unlabeled clients. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01432, 3

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Diao, E.; Ding, J.; and Tarokh, V. 2022. Semifl: Semi-supervised federated learning for unlabeled clients with alternate training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 17871--17884

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Fan, C.; Hu, J.; and Huang, J. 2022. Private Semi-Supervised Federated Learning. In IJCAI, 2009--2015

    work page 2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Grandvalet, Y.; and Bengio, Y. 2004. Semi-supervised learning by entropy minimization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 17

    2004

  2. [10]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 6840--6851

    2020

  3. [11]

    Ho, J.; and Salimans, T. 2022. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598

    2022 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Jeong, W.; Yoon, J.; Yang, E.; and Hwang, S. J. 2021. Federated Semi-supervised Learning with Inter-client Consistency & Disjoint Learning. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021. International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR

    2021

  5. [14]

    Jin, Y.; Wei, X.; Liu, Y.; and Yang, Q. 2020. Towards utilizing unlabeled data in federated learning: A survey and prospective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.11545

    2020 arXiv

  6. [15]

    B.; Avent, B.; Bellet, A.; Bennis, M.; Bhagoji, A

    Kairouz, P.; McMahan, H. B.; Avent, B.; Bellet, A.; Bennis, M.; Bhagoji, A. N.; Bonawitz, K.; Charles, Z.; Cormode, G.; Cummings, R.; et al. 2021. Advances and open problems in federated learning. Foundations and trends in machine learning , 14(1--2): 1--210

    2021

  7. [17]

    Krizhevsky, A.; Nair, V.; and Hinton, G. 2010. Cifar-10 (canadian institute for advanced research). URL http://www. cs. toronto. edu/kriz/cifar. html, 5(4): 1

    2010

  8. [18]

    LeCun, Y.; Cortes, C.; and Burges, C. 1998. MNIST handwritten digit database, 1998. URL http://www. research. att. com/yann/ocr/mnist, 7

    1998

  9. [19]

    Lee, D.-H.; et al. 2013. Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks. In Workshop on challenges in representation learning, ICML, volume 3, 896. Atlanta

    2013

  10. [20]

    Li, M.; Li, Q.; and Wang, Y. 2023. Class balanced adaptive pseudo labeling for federated semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 16292--16301

    2023

  11. [21]

    Liang, X.; Lin, Y.; Fu, H.; Zhu, L.; and Li, X. 2022. Rscfed: Random sampling consensus federated semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10154--10163

    2022

  12. [22]

    U.; and Jaggi, M

    Lin, T.; Kong, L.; Stich, S. U.; and Jaggi, M. 2020. Ensemble distillation for robust model fusion in federated learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 2351--2363

    2020

  13. [23]

    Liu, B.; and Ding, Z. 2021 a . A consensus-based decentralized training algorithm for deep neural networks with communication compression. Neurocomputing, 440: 287--296

    2021

  14. [24]

    Liu, B.; and Ding, Z. 2021 b . Distributed Heuristic Adaptive Neural Networks With Variance Reduction in Switching Graphs. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 51(7): 3836--3844

    2021

  15. [25]

    Liu, B.; Ding, Z.; and Lv, C. 2020. Distributed Training for Multi-Layer Neural Networks by Consensus. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 31(5): 1771--1778

    2020

  16. [26]

    Lu, C.; Zhou, Y.; Bao, F.; Chen, J.; Li, C.; and Zhu, J. 2022. Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 5775--5787

    2022

  17. [27]

    McMahan, B.; Moore, E.; Ramage, D.; Hampson, S.; and y Arcas, B. A. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, 1273--1282. PMLR

    2017

  18. [28]

    Odena, A.; Olah, C.; and Shlens, J. 2017. Conditional image synthesis with auxiliary classifier gans. In International conference on machine learning, 2642--2651. PMLR

    2017

  19. [29]

    Sohl-Dickstein, J.; Weiss, E.; Maheswaranathan, N.; and Ganguli, S. 2015. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International conference on machine learning, 2256--2265. PMLR

    2015

  20. [30]

    A.; Cubuk, E

    Sohn, K.; Berthelot, D.; Carlini, N.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Raffel, C. A.; Cubuk, E. D.; Kurakin, A.; and Li, C.-L. 2020. Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 596--608

    2020

  21. [31]

    Song, J.; Meng, C.; and Ermon, S. 2020. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502

    2020 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Sun, P.; Liu, X.; Wang, Z.; and Liu, B. 2024. Byzantine-robust Decentralized Federated Learning via Dual-domain Clustering and Trust Bootstrapping. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 24756--24765

    2024

  23. [34]

    Yang, X.; Song, Z.; King, I.; and Xu, Z. 2022. A survey on deep semi-supervised learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(9): 8934--8954

    2022

  24. [35]

    You, Z.; Zhong, Y.; Bao, F.; Sun, J.; Li, C.; and Zhu, J. 2024. Diffusion models and semi-supervised learners benefit mutually with few labels. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  25. [36]

    Zhang, B.; Wang, Y.; Hou, W.; Wu, H.; Wang, J.; Okumura, M.; and Shinozaki, T. 2021 a . Flexmatch: Boosting semi-supervised learning with curriculum pseudo labeling. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 18408--18419

    2021

  26. [37]

    N.; and Lopez-Paz, D

    Zhang, H.; Cisse, M.; Dauphin, Y. N.; and Lopez-Paz, D. 2017. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09412

    2017 arXiv

  27. [38]

    E.; Ramchandran, K.; and Mahoney, M

    Zhang, Z.; Yang, Y.; Yao, Z.; Yan, Y.; Gonzalez, J. E.; Ramchandran, K.; and Mahoney, M. W. 2021 b . Improving semi-supervised federated learning by reducing the gradient diversity of models. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 1214--1225. IEEE

    2021

  28. [39]

    LeCun, C

    Y. LeCun, C. Cortes, and C. Burges, ``Mnist handwritten digit database, 1998,'' URL http://www. research. att. com/yann/ocr/mnist, vol. 7, 1998

    1998

  29. [40]

    H. Xiao, K. Rasul, and R. Vollgraf, ``Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  30. [41]

    Krizhevsky, V

    A. Krizhevsky, V. Nair, and G. Hinton, ``Cifar-10 (canadian institute for advanced research),'' URL http://www. cs. toronto. edu/kriz/cifar. html, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 1, 2010

    2010

  31. [42]

    T.-M. H. Hsu, H. Qi, and M. Brown, ``Measuring the effects of non-identical data distribution for federated visual classification,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06335, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  32. [43]

    T. Lin, L. Kong, S. U. Stich, and M. Jaggi, ``Ensemble distillation for robust model fusion in federated learning,'' Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 2351--2363, 2020

    2020

  33. [44]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, ``Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,'' Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840--6851, 2020

    2020

  34. [45]

    C. Lu, Y. Zhou, F. Bao, J. Chen, C. Li, and J. Zhu, ``Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps,'' Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 5775--5787, 2022

    2022

  35. [46]

    Odena, C

    A. Odena, C. Olah, and J. Shlens, ``Conditional image synthesis with auxiliary classifier gans,'' in International conference on machine learning. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em PMLR, 2017, pp. 2642--2651

    2017

  36. [47]

    Zhang, Y

    B. Zhang, Y. Wang, W. Hou, H. Wu, J. Wang, M. Okumura, and T. Shinozaki, ``Flexmatch: Boosting semi-supervised learning with curriculum pseudo labeling,'' Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 18\,408--18\,419, 2021

    2021

  37. [48]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, ``Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  38. [49]

    Berthelot, N

    D. Berthelot, N. Carlini, I. Goodfellow, N. Papernot, A. Oliver, and C. A. Raffel, ``Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning,'' Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

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