Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Hybrid-Regularized Magnitude Pruning for Robust Federated Learning under Covariate Shift

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 This paper shows that adding magnitude pruning, dropout, and noise injection to local training makes federated models markedly more robust when client data distributions drift apart.

desk verdict Useful new benchmark and strong gains in high-covariate-shift settings, but the method is under-specified and the 'consistent outperformance' claim doesn't survive its own Table II. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15010 v2 pith:QY5UE2SH submitted 2024-12-19 cs.LG cs.CV

Ozgu Goksu , Nicolas Pugeault This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CV
keywords federatedlearningcovariateshiftdataheterogeneitymagnitudepruningdropoutnoiseinjectionCelebA-Genderregularization
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 simple client-side training recipe—magnitude-based weight pruning combined with dropout and Gaussian noise injection—makes federated learning models markedly more accurate when clients hold very different data distributions. The authors test this FEDMPR procedure across six benchmarks, including a new gender-classification dataset they construct to isolate covariate shift. Across low- and high-shift settings, with as few as two clients or as many as one hundred, FEDMPR consistently beats standard federated baselines without personalizing the global model. If the claim holds, it means standard federated averaging can be made robust to covariate shift by changing only local training, not the aggregation rule.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is FEDMPR's per-client training loop: each round, a client applies its fixed per-client mask $m_c$ (initialized at the start and never updated), trains the masked network locally under dropout and Gaussian noise injected inside each ResNet-18 basic block, and prunes weights again if the model's sparsity falls below a threshold $\beta$. The three components work together: pruning zeros small-magnitude weights to reduce the influence of client-specific parameters, dropout enforces functional redundancy across subnetworks, and noise injection regularizes responses to weight perturbations during aggregation.

What would settle it

Run the high-covariate-shift two-client MNIST experiment (client A digits 0-4, client B 5-9) with FEDMPR, then test the aggregated global model on the full test set; if accuracy does not clearly exceed the 50% chance level, the proposed aggregation of masked weights fails. A second decisive check: recompute each client's mask every round instead of freezing it, and observe whether the performance gap over FedAvg collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, FEDMPR consistently outperforms standard FL baselines, yielding more robust and generalizable models in heterogeneous settings. The central empirical discovery is that sparsifying each client's local model with iterative magnitude pruning, while training with dropout and noise injection, reduces the damage caused by aggregating divergent local optima. The improvements are largest under high covariate shift, where FEDMPR raises two-client CIFAR-10 accuracy from 51.28% (FedAvg) to 75.22%, and from 91.18% to 96.93% on the new CelebA-Gender benchmark. The paper attributes this to removing redundant low-magnitude weights that amplify aggregation misalignment, while dropout creates redundant pathways and noise injection tolerates aggregation perturbations.

Load-bearing premise

The algorithm keeps each client's pruning mask fixed from initialization and never records which weights were pruned, so the paper assumes that server-averaging these differently pruned weight vectors still yields a coherent global model—an assumption that is load-bearing and unexplained.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FEDMPR can be dropped into standard federated averaging without personalization, and still outperforms FedSelect, FedProx, FedDyn, SCAFFOLD, and FedDC in most tested settings.
  • The gains hold under extreme heterogeneity: two clients with disjoint classes, 90% stragglers, and Dirichlet partitions with $\alpha=0.1$ across 100 clients.
  • CelebA-Gender supplies a controlled benchmark for within-class covariate shift based on multi-attribute overlap, complementing class-imbalance benchmarks.
  • Ablations attribute most of the benefit to dropout (ratio 0.2), with pruning mattering most in high-shift regimes and noise injection providing smaller consistent gains.
  • The method also improves generalization and feature separability in early training, as shown by t-SNE embeddings at round 5.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If pruning's benefit comes from dampening the influence of client-specific weights, then server-side masking or sparse aggregation might yield similar gains with less computation—a testable extension the paper does not run.
  • The stale per-client masks, never updated after initialization, may actually help stabilization by keeping the same subnetwork identity over rounds; updating masks every round could reveal whether the effect is due to sparsity or to mask persistence.
  • CelebA-Gender's attribute construction suggests a general recipe for building heterogeneity benchmarks where shift is controlled by attribute co-occurrence rather than label skew.
  • The noise injection and dropout combination resembles a form of implicit ensemble; measuring test-time robustness to weight perturbations could connect FEDMPR to flat-minima explanations of generalization.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FEDMPR, a federated learning method that combines magnitude pruning, dropout, and noise injection in each client's local training, aiming to improve the global model's robustness under covariate shift without personalization. The authors also introduce a new benchmark dataset, CelebA-Gender, designed to isolate within-class attribute-based distribution shifts. Experiments are reported for low- and high-covariate-shift settings with two clients, as well as for Dirichlet-partitioned data with 10 and 100 clients, comparing against FedAvg, FedProx, FedDC, SCAFFOLD, FedDyn, and FedSelect on CIFAR-10, MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, SVHN, RAF-DB, and CelebA-Gender. The central claim is that FEDMPR consistently outperforms standard FL baselines in heterogeneous settings.

Significance. If the claimed improvements were robust, FEDMPR would be an attractive, simple add-on to local training: it requires no change to aggregation and no personalization, and the CelebA-Gender dataset could provide a new testbed for within-class covariate shift. However, the paper's own tables contain multiple counterexamples to the 'consistent outperformance' claim, the algorithmic description is incomplete, and the headline hyperparameters are selected on the test dataset. The evidence as presented does not support the central conclusion, and the new benchmark is insufficiently specified to be independently usable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Table II] The claim in the abstract and Section VI that FEDMPR 'consistently outperforms standard FL baselines' is contradicted by the reported results. On CelebA-Gender with α=0.5 and 100 clients, FEDMPR achieves 52.76% whereas FedProx achieves 62.80% and FedDyn 58.20%. On CIFAR-10 with α=0.1 and 10 clients, FEDMPR (72.82%) is below SCAFFOLD (74.35%) and FedDyn (74.39%). These are not marginal edge cases; they appear in a table that also favors FEDMPR in other rows. The abstract and conclusion must be revised to identify the regimes where the method helps and to address these reversals.
  2. [Section III-A, Algorithm 1] The mask lifecycle is underspecified. The pseudocode initializes per-client masks m_c without defining their values or update rule, and PruneWeights (Algorithm 2) returns only pruned weight vectors, not masks. The step 'Apply mask: w_t^c ← m_c ⊙ w_{t-1}' implies a fixed binary mask, but if m_c is non-trivial, re-applying it in every round permanently zeroes a subset of weights before local training, with no reconciliation across clients; if m_c is the all-ones vector, the step is a no-op and the algorithm does not match the described pruning. Without a precise mask definition or released code, the reported accuracy gains cannot be reproduced or attributed to the described method.
  3. [Section V, Table III] The hyperparameter configuration (p=0.4, d=0.2, n=0.4) is selected as the best on CIFAR-10 under 'best accuracy under many runs' and then applied to all datasets. The CIFAR-10 results are therefore fitted rather than predictive, and the claimed consistent gains on other datasets are not independent validations. The paper should report sensitivity across datasets or describe a proper validation protocol.
  4. [Section III-C] The new CelebA-Gender benchmark is a stated contribution, but its construction is insufficiently specified: the paper does not state how the five attributes are combined to form the mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive splits, how many images fall into each subset, or which feature spaces were used for the reported FID and CMMD scores. The provided link is anonymous and cannot be verified. This limits the utility of the dataset as a benchmark.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-B, References] Reference [2] identifies FedProx as 'Federated minimax optimization' by Sharma et al., which is not the FedProx paper; the correct citation is T. Li et al., 'Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks' (2020).
  2. [Section IV, text after Table I] The paragraph says 'Figures 6 illustrate the impact of the number of samples per class', but Figure 5 is the accuracy-versus-samples plot and Figure 6 shows t-SNE embeddings; the figure cross-references are mixed.
  3. [Section I] The phrase 'especially when there are relatively the contribution of few clients' is ungrammatical and should be rewritten.
  4. [Table II caption] Table II reports top-1 accuracy but does not state the number of runs or standard deviations, unlike Table I; this makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the differences.
  5. [Algorithm 1] 'Initializem i masks' should read 'Initialize m_i masks' (missing space and underscore).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: FEDMPR hyperparameters are selected on CIFAR-10, then CIFAR-10 is reported as evidence of consistent outperformance; other datasets provide independent support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V (Ablation Study), Table III and text; Table I(a)-(b)]
    "FEDMPR denotes the optimal combination of parameters: a noise injection ratio of 0.4, a dropout ratio of 0.2 and a pruning ratio of 0.4. [Table III caption:] Impact of each component on FL for low-CS and high-CS on top-1 accuracy on CIFAR10 with best accuracy under many runs."

    The FEDMPR configuration is identified as the best-performing hyperparameter combination on CIFAR-10 in the same ablation table. This same CIFAR-10 result is then included among the benchmark comparisons in Table I, where the paper claims FEDMPR 'consistently outperforms' baselines. The CIFAR-10 advantage is therefore a selected maximum rather than an out-of-sample prediction; it restates the selection objective. The remaining datasets (MNIST, FMNIST, SVHN, CelebA-Gender, RAF-DB) were not used for this selection and provide partial independent evidence.

full rationale

No self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is used; the method is an empirical combination of pruning, dropout, and noise injection. The only discernible circularity is the selection of FEDMPR's hyperparameters (p=0.4, d=0.2, n=0.4) using CIFAR-10 test accuracy, followed by reporting CIFAR-10 as a headline result. Other datasets and the Dirichlet-partition table are out-of-sample with respect to this selection, so the central claim does not reduce entirely to the fit. The underspecified mask lifecycle in Algorithm 1 (m_c initialized but never updated; PruneWeights returns no mask) is a reproducibility gap, not a circularity, and is not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on hyperparameters selected by test accuracy on CIFAR-10, the FedAvg aggregation rule, and an underspecified mask lifecycle. No new theoretical entities are introduced; the only new artifact is the CelebA-Gender dataset.

free parameters (3)
  • prune_percentage_p = 0.4
    Selected as the best value on CIFAR-10 top-1 accuracy in the ablation study, then applied to all datasets.
  • dropout_ratio_d = 0.2
    Selected from the ablation (d=0.2 gives 78.20% high-CS vs 52.03% for d=0.8) on CIFAR-10.
  • noise_injection_ratio_n = 0.4
    Selected from the ablation (n=0.4 gives 75.76% high-CS) on CIFAR-10.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math FedAvg weighted aggregation (Eq. 1) is taken as the base federated algorithm.
    Used in Sections II-A and Algorithm 1 as the aggregation rule; no proof is offered, but it is standard.
  • domain assumption ResNet-18, with modified kernel sizes and added noise/dropout layers, is a suitable backbone for all evaluated datasets.
    Section III-D states the architecture but does not justify its choice for each dataset.
  • domain assumption FID and CMMD scores adequately measure the degree of covariate shift between client distributions.
    Used in Table I to label low-CS and high-CS conditions; no evidence is given that these metrics track the difficulty of federated aggregation.
  • ad hoc to paper The combination of pruning, dropout, and noise injection improves robustness without requiring changes to the aggregation rule or mask reconciliation.
    This is the core design assumption of FEDMPR and is not derived or validated mechanistically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid-Regularized Magnitude Pruning for Robust Federated Learning under Covariate Shift." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QY5UE2SH

@misc{pith2026241215010,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid-Regularized Magnitude Pruning for Robust Federated Learning under Covariate Shift},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QY5UE2SH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15010}
}
read the original abstract

Federated Learning offers a solution for decentralised model training, addressing the difficulties associated with distributed data and privacy in machine learning. However, the fact of data heterogeneity in federated learning frequently hinders the global model's generalisation, leading to low performance and adaptability to unseen data. This problem is particularly critical for specialised applications such as medical imaging, where both the data and the number of clients are limited. In this paper, we empirically demonstrate that inconsistencies in client-side training distributions substantially degrade the performance of federated learning models across multiple benchmark datasets. We propose a novel FL framework using a combination of pruning and regularisation of clients' training to improve the sparsity, redundancy, and robustness of neural connections, and thereby the resilience to model aggregation. To address a relatively unexplored dimension of data heterogeneity, we further introduce a novel benchmark dataset, CelebA-Gender, specifically designed to control for within-class distributional shifts across clients based on attribute variations, thereby complementing the predominant focus on inter-class imbalance in prior federated learning research. Comprehensive experiments on many datasets like CIFAR-10, MNIST, and the newly introduced CelebA-Gender dataset demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms standard FL baselines, yielding more robust and generalizable models in heterogeneous settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15010 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FEDMPR framework, each client applies a tailored regularisation that combines dropout during forward passes with Gaussian noise injection inside each basic block. At the ith iteration, the central server broadcasts the global model weights to clients, which then perform local training before model aggregation. Specifically, w denotes the original weights, wi the weights perturbed by Gaussian noise, and wd the zeroed… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Samples from the CelebA-Gender dataset (5 attributes) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Configured ResNet-18 architecture with regularisation layers integration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Samples from the CelebA-Gender dataset (7 attributes) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top-1 accuracy on CIFAR-10 under covariate shifts with two clients and varying local sample sizes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: t-SNE plots at the early stage of training (5th round embeddings) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Towards Collaborative Fairness in Federated Learning Under Imbalanced Covariate Shift

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FedAKD improves collaborative fairness under imbalanced covariate shift by distilling only each client's correctly predicted samples into the global model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    McMahan, E

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, ”Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” inProc. Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), 2017, pp. 1273–1282

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Sharma, R

    P. Sharma, R. Panda, G. Joshi, and P. Varshney, ”Federated minimax optimization: Improved convergence analyses and algorithms,” inProc. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2022, pp. 19683–19730

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    L. Gao, H. Fu, L. Li, Y . Chen, M. Xu, and C.-Z. Xu, ”FedDC: Federated learning with non-IID data via local drift decoupling and correction,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 10112–10121

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Z. Liu, P. Luo, X. Wang, and X. Tang, ”Deep learning face attributes in the wild,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015, pp. 3730–3738

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Caldas, S

    S. Caldas, S. M. K. Duddu, P. Wu, T. Li, J. Kone ˇcn´y, H. B. McMahan, V . Smith, and A. Talwalkar, ”Leaf: A benchmark for federated settings,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01097, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    H. Zhu, J. Xu, S. Liu, and Y . Jin, ”Federated learning on non-IID data: A survey,”Neurocomputing, vol. 465, pp. 371–390, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    J. Oh, S. Kim, and S. Yun, ”FedBabu: Towards enhanced representation for federated image classification,”International Conference on Learn- ing Representations (ICLR), 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Tamirisa, C

    R. Tamirisa, C. Xie, W. Bao, A. Zhou, R. Arel, and A. Shamsian, ”FedSelect: Personalized federated learning with customized selection of parameters for fine-tuning,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 23985–23994

    work page 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Q. Li, B. He, and D. Song, ”Model-contrastive federated learning,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2021, pp. 10713– 10722

    2021

  2. [10]

    A. Z. Tan, H. Yu, L. Cui, and Q. Yang, ”Towards personalized federated learning,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 9587–9603, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Y . Jia, X. Zhang, H. Hu, K.-K. R. Choo, L. Qi, X. Xu, A. Beheshti, and W. Dou, ”DapperFL: Domain adaptive federated learning with model fusion pruning for edge devices,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 13099–13123, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    M. Luo, F. Chen, D. Hu, Y . Zhang, J. Liang, and J. Feng, ”No fear of heterogeneity: Classifier calibration for federated learning with non-iid data,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 5972–5984, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Y . Dai, Z. Chen, J. Li, S. Heinecke, L. Sun, and R. Xu, ”Tackling data heterogeneity in federated learning with class prototypes,” inProc. AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, 2023, pp. 7314–7322

    2023

  6. [14]

    Huang, M

    W. Huang, M. Ye, Z. Shi, H. Li, and B. Du, ”Rethinking federated learning with domain shift: A prototype view,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, pp. 16312– 16322

    2023

  7. [15]

    Q. Li, Y . Diao, Q. Chen, and B. He, ”Federated learning on non-iid data silos: An experimental study,” in2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp. 965–978, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Collins, H

    L. Collins, H. Hassani, A. Mokhtari, and S. Shakkottai, ”Exploiting shared representations for personalized federated learning,” inProc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., 2021, pp. 2089–2099

    2021

  9. [17]

    S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. J. Reddi, S. U. Stich, and A. T. Suresh, ”SCAFFOLD: Stochastic controlled averaging for on- device federated learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.06378, vol. 2, no. 6, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Lee and D

    G. Lee and D. Choi, ”Regularizing and aggregating clients with class distribution for personalized federated learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07800, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Wen, K.-J

    D. Wen, K.-J. Jeon, and K. Huang, ”Federated dropout A simple ap- proach for enabling federated learning on resource constrained devices,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 923–927, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Frankle and M

    J. Frankle and M. Carbin, ”The lottery ticket hypothesis: Finding sparse, trainable neural networks,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    S. Han, J. Pool, J. Tran, and W. Dally, ”Learning both weights and con- nections for efficient neural network,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 28, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    D. Acar, Y . Zhao, R. M. Navarro, M. Mattina, P. N. Whatmough, and V . Saligrama, ”Federated learning based on dynamic regularization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.04263, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    X. Peng, Z. Huang, Y . Zhu, and K. Saenko, ”Federated adversarial domain adaptation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02054, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P. J. Lu, C.-Y . Jui, and J.-H. Chuang, ”FedDAD: Federated domain adaptation for object detection,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 51320–51330, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    C.-H. Yao, B. Gong, H. Qi, Y . Cui, Y . Zhu, and M.-H. Yang, ”Feder- ated multi-target domain adaptation,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Winter Conf. Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2022, pp. 1424–1433

    2022

  18. [26]

    Jayasumana, S

    S. Jayasumana, S. Ramalingam, A. Veit, D. Glasner, A. Chakrabarti, and S. Kumar, ”Rethinking FID: Towards a better evaluation metric for image generation,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 9307–9315

    2024

  19. [27]

    Mendieta, T

    M. Mendieta, T. Yang, P. Wang, M. Lee, Z. Ding, and C. Chen, ”Local learning matters: Rethinking data heterogeneity in federated learning,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 8397–8406

    2022

  20. [28]

    A. Mora, A. Bujari, and P. Bellavista, ”Enhancing generalization in federated learning with heterogeneous data: A comparative literature review,”Future Generation Computer Systems, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    P. P. Liang, T. Liu, Z. Liu, N. B. Allen, R. P. Auerbach, D. Brent, R. Salakhutdinov, and L.-P. Morency, ”Think locally, act globally: Federated learning with local and global representations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.01523, 2020

    2001 arXiv

  22. [30]

    C. He, M. Annavaram, and S. Avestimehr, ”Towards non-IID and invis- ible data with FedNAS: Federated deep learning via neural architecture search,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.08546, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Krizhevsky, ”Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,” Master’s thesis, University of Toronto, 2009

    A. Krizhevsky, ”Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,” Master’s thesis, University of Toronto, 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    LeCun, L

    Y . LeCun, L. Bottou, Y . Bengio, and P. Haffner, ”Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278– 2324, 1998

    1998

  25. [33]

    Howard and S

    J. Howard and S. Gugger, ”Fastai: a layered API for deep learning,” Information, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 108, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Netzer, T

    Y . Netzer, T. Wang, A. Coates, A. Bissacco, B. Wu, A. Y . Ng, et al., ”Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning,” inNIPS workshop on deep learning and unsupervised feature learning, Granada, 2011, p. 4

    2011

  27. [35]

    H. Xiao, K. Rasul, and R. V ollgraf, ”Fashion-MNIST: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Srivastava, G

    N. Srivastava, G. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R. Salakhut- dinov, ”Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from over- fitting,”The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1929–1958, 2014

    1929

  29. [37]

    Fallah, A

    A. Fallah, A. Mokhtari, and A. Ozdaglar, ”Personalized federated learning with theoretical guarantees: A model-agnostic meta-learning approach,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 3557–3568, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    F. Chen, M. Luo, Z. Dong, Z. Li, and X. He, ”Federated meta-learning with fast convergence and efficient communication,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07876, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Jiang, B

    Y . Jiang, B. Neyshabur, H. Mobahi, D. Krishnan, and S. Bengio, ”Fantastic generalization measures and where to find them,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02178, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Kundu, P

    A. Kundu, P. Yu, L. Wynter, and S. H. Lim, ”Robustness and personal- ization in federated learning: A unified approach via regularization,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Edge Computing and Commu- nications (EDGE), pp. 1–11, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Lai, S.-Y

    Y .-H. Lai, S.-Y . Chen, W.-C. Chou, H.-Y . Hsu, and H.-C. Chao, ”Personalized federated learning with adaptive feature extraction and category prediction in non-IID datasets,”Future Internet, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 95, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    S. Li, W. Deng, and J. Du, ”Reliable crowdsourcing and deep locality- preserving learning for expression recognition in the wild,” inProc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2017, pp. 2852–2861

    2017

  35. [43]

    Pillutla, K

    K. Pillutla, K. Malik, A.-R. Mohamed, M. Rabbat, M. Sanjabi, and L. Xiao, ”Federated learning with partial model personalization,” inProc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., 2022, pp. 17716–17758

    2022

  36. [44]

    Jiang, S

    Y . Jiang, S. Wang, V . Valls, B. J. Ko, W.-H. Lee, K. K. Leung, and L. Tassiulas, ”Model pruning enables efficient federated learning on edge devices,”IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 10374–10386, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    A. Li, J. Sun, B. Wang, L. Duan, S. Li, Y . Chen, and H. Li, ”Lotteryfl: Personalized and communication-efficient federated learning with lottery ticket hypothesis on non-iid datasets,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.03371, 2020

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Heusel, H

    M. Heusel, H. Ramsauer, T. Unterthiner, B. Nessler, and S. Hochreiter, ”Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

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