Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Vertical Federated Learning in Practice: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Most real-world vertical federated learning collaborations involve fuzzy or latent data that current algorithms cannot handle.

desk verdict The paper's headline numbers on fuzzy/precise VFL rest on a row-equality match metric rather than key alignment, so they undercount precise scenarios; the qualitative gap and taxonomy remain useful. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08160 v1 pith:UWYYEJ5J submitted 2025-02-12 cs.LG cs.AI

Zhaomin Wu , Zhen Qin , Junyi Hou , Haodong Zhao , Qinbin Li , Bingsheng He , Lixin Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords verticalfederatedlearningrecordlinkagedatadistributionkeyalignmentfuzzyVFLlatentWikiDBs
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 attempts to establish a mismatch between vertical federated learning (VFL) research and real-world data. By treating each of 100,000 databases in the WikiDBs corpus as a potential VFL party and sampling one million database pairs, the authors measure how often parties share features and how precisely their records can be matched. They report that 70.9% of potential pairs have overlapping features but zero exact record matches (fuzzy VFL), 25.4% have no shared features at all (latent VFL), and only 0.2% achieve the full exact alignment that most VFL algorithms assume (precise VFL). A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that current VFL research targets a rare ideal case, and that practical deployment requires algorithms for fuzzy and latent settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the record matched ratio: the fraction of each table's records that identically appear in the other table under a potential VFL pair. This single ratio partitions real-world pairs into the four key-alignment classes, precise (full match), semi-precise (partial), fuzzy (overlap but no exact match), and latent (no shared features), and the taxonomy built from it is what makes the paper's claim measurable. The WikiDBs database graph supplies the sample of potential pairs: nodes are databases and edges join tables that share at least one column.

What would settle it

Perform the same pair analysis on a corpus of production enterprise databases that participate in actual data-sharing agreements, counting how many pairs can be joined on a unique identifier with complete record overlap; if a substantial fraction, for example over 10%, are precisely aligned, then the claim that precise VFL is nearly nonexistent in practice is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that existing VFL algorithms are not ready for widespread real-world deployment because their core assumption, that parties can be aligned on a precise, complete set of shared records, is almost never met in practice. The empirical basis is an analysis of WikiDBs: a graph of 1,000 sampled databases has only 3 to 4 connected components, indicating abundant potential collaborations, but among potential VFL pairs only 0.2% have full record overlap, 3.5% partial overlap, 70.9% nonzero feature overlap with zero exact matches, and 25.4% no overlapping features. The paper proposes a data-oriented taxonomy spanning key alignment (precise, semi-precise, fuzzy, latent), feature balance (balanced vs skewed), communication, and trustworthiness, then reviews algorithms against it; the result is that fuzzy VFL is supported by only about 9% of surveyed methods and latent VFL by none. It concludes that fuzzy and latent VFL, heterogeneous data handling, and trustworthiness are the gaps that block real-world adoption.

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on treating WikiDBs databases as stand-ins for real VFL parties and column-sharing as potential collaboration; if WikiDBs is not representative of actual cross-organization collaborations, the 0.2%, 3.5%, 70.9%, and 25.4% figures will not carry over.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Benchmarks and evaluations should include fuzzy, semi-precise, and latent splits, since precise-alone testing measures performance on the 0.2% case.
  • New VFL algorithms must handle key similarity rather than exact equality, using fuzzy matching or learned representations of keys, because 70.9% of pairs fall into the fuzzy category.
  • Latent VFL requires alignment methods that use distributional or relational structure instead of shared keys, an area with no existing VFL algorithm.
  • Imbalanced feature counts across parties are the norm, with 66.49% of pairs below the 0.5 balance ratio, so methods should be tested under skewed feature splits.
  • Deployment expectations should be reset: precise VFL applies mainly to collaborations with strong unique identifiers such as user IDs, not to general cross-organizational data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If exact-match ratio were replaced with fuzzy similarity-based matching, some of the 70.9% fuzzy pairs would likely become semi-precise, so the precise 0.2% figure is not a fixed upper bound on usable collaborations.
  • The WikiDBs sample may overrepresent loosely structured, publicly derived tables; in sectors with mandatory unique identifiers such as banking, healthcare, or telecom, the share of precise or semi-precise pairs could be substantially higher.
  • Latent VFL is conceptually close to unsupervised domain adaptation and disentanglement; techniques from those areas could seed the first latent VFL algorithms, though this is an extension the paper does not make.
  • A practical implication the authors leave implicit is that the 0.2% precise case may still be the right first target for commercial VFL products, since that is where data governance and compliance are strongest, while fuzzy and latent methods need further research before productization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey of vertical federated learning (VFL) that attempts to ground the research-to-deployment gap in an empirical analysis of real-world data distributions. Using the WikiDBs corpus, the authors treat each database as a VFL party and define potential VFL pairs as databases connected by at least one shared column. They report that 25.4% of potential pairs have no feature overlap (latent VFL), 70.9% have non-zero feature overlap but no exact record matches (fuzzy VFL), 3.5% are partially matchable (semi-precise VFL), and only 0.2% are fully matchable (precise VFL). On this basis, they propose a taxonomy of VFL algorithms along key alignment, feature balance, communication, and trustworthiness, and conclude that current VFL algorithms are not yet ready for widespread deployment. The survey also reviews existing algorithms and identifies open directions for fuzzy, latent, imbalanced, and trustworthy VFL.

Significance. If the reported distributional findings were reliable, the paper would make an important contribution: it would quantify a widely suspected mismatch between the precise-alignment assumption of most VFL algorithms and the messy alignment structure of real-world data. The taxonomy is sensible and the qualitative message that fuzzy and latent alignment scenarios are under-served is credible, supported by prior work such as Wu et al. (2022a) and Nock et al. (2021). The paper also usefully catalogs communication and trustworthiness dimensions. However, the headline quantitative claims—especially the 0.2% precise and 70.9% fuzzy figures—depend on operationalizations in Section 3.2 that are not adequately specified and that appear to measure something different from key-based VFL alignment. The paper does not provide code or schema-level details for the analysis, which limits reproducibility. The central qualitative conclusion may survive a corrected analysis, but the current quantitative backbone needs substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Record Matched Ratio] The definition of record matched ratio is not operationalized precisely enough, and the phrase "records in each table that identically appear in the other" suggests exact equality on all shared columns. Under that reading, two databases that share a unique customer or patient identifier but have disjoint attribute sets—exactly the canonical VFL scenario—would be classified as non-precise because their non-key attributes do not match. This would systematically depress the precise and semi-precise categories and inflate the fuzzy and latent categories. The authors should specify whether matching requires equality on all shared columns, on a designated key column, or on some other criterion, and should report the sensitivity of Table 3 to that choice.
  2. [Sections 3.1 and 3.2, Potential VFL Pairs] Potential VFL pairs are defined by connected components in a graph where an edge exists between any two tables sharing at least one column. This treats coincidental shared column names such as "year" or "country" as evidence of joinability, and it treats transitive connectivity through intermediate tables as direct VFL compatibility. For two-party VFL, a path through other databases does not make two databases directly alignable, and a shared column that is not an entity identifier does not support record linkage. As a result, the 70.9% fuzzy and 0.2% precise figures are not estimates of key-alignment feasibility; they are estimates of exact-row duplication on arbitrarily shared columns. The authors should restrict the analysis to key-like columns or otherwise justify the connectivity definition.
  3. [Section 3.3, Table 3 and Finding 3] The central claim that only 0.2% of potential VFL pairs are precisely matchable is load-bearing for the paper's conclusion, but the manuscript provides no code, no schema metadata, no description of column-name normalization or type matching, and no per-pair statistics. The threshold separating "partial match" from "full match" is also not defined. Without these details, the aggregate percentages in Table 3 cannot be verified or reproduced, and the claim that existing VFL algorithms are inadequate for 'most real-world applications' is not established by this analysis. The authors should release the analysis pipeline or provide a detailed, reproducible specification of the matching procedure.
  4. [Section 3.3, Finding 2 and Latent VFL definition] Latent VFL is defined as a potential VFL pair with zero overlapping features, yet the pair is included only because it lies in the same connected component via other tables. Two databases with no direct shared columns are not alignable by record linkage and are not obviously usable for two-party VFL; calling them 'latent VFL' presupposes a correlation that the connectivity-based definition does not establish. This conflation of indirect graph connectivity with VFL applicability inflates the 25.4% latent category and weakens the taxonomy's empirical grounding. The authors should either redefine latent VFL using direct, non-key but distributional alignability or present it as a hypothetical scenario rather than an empirically measured category.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] The heading "Imbalance VFL" should be "Imbalanced VFL" to match the surrounding terminology.
  2. [Section 3.1] The sampling description says 1,000 databases generate 1,000,000 pairs from their Cartesian square. This includes ordered pairs and self-pairs; the authors should clarify whether self-pairs were excluded and whether pairs are unordered, since these choices affect the reported statistics.
  3. [Table 4] The row labeled "Ratio of ✓" would be clearer as "Proportion of algorithms supporting each category," especially since the percentages are not defined in the table caption.
  4. [References] The reference to "V ogelet al. 2024" contains a spacing artifact and should be typeset as "Vogel et al." throughout.
  5. [Figure 2] The taxonomy tree is visually dense and the placement of "One-shot" under the Key Alignment branch is confusing; the figure would benefit from separate subtrees with clearer labels for the communication dimension.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: the empirical distributional analysis is computed from an external corpus, and the proposed taxonomy is a classification scheme rather than a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are grounded in an external dataset, WikiDBs, through explicit definitions in Section 3.2: potential VFL pairs are defined by shared-column graph connectivity, and record matched ratio is defined as the fraction of identical records. These are operationalizations of real-world data, not equations that reduce to the authors' conclusions. The taxonomy in Section 4 assigns labels to the measured bins (precise, semi-precise, fuzzy, latent) and then surveys which algorithms support each category; no step fits a parameter to a subset of data and then 'predicts' the same quantity. Self-citations such as Wu et al. 2022a and Wu et al. 2024b are used to corroborate the existence of fuzzy and imbalanced VFL, but these citations are not load-bearing for the headline percentages, which are computed independently from WikiDBs. Concerns that the 'identical appearance' matching criterion may undercount key-based VFL alignment are validity or generalizability issues, not circularity: they do not make the argument equivalent to its inputs by construction. Therefore, no specific circular reduction can be exhibited under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on domain assumptions about the representativeness of WikiDBs and the definition of VFL pairs, plus an arbitrary threshold. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • feature balance ratio threshold = 0.5
    Chosen by the authors to split balanced vs. imbalanced VFL (Section 4.2). This arbitrary threshold drives the 66.49%/33.51% split and is not derived from data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption WikiDBs databases are representative of real-world VFL parties
    Section 3.1 treats each WikiDB database as a VFL party and shared columns as join keys, implicitly assuming this corpus reflects practical VFL collaborations. If this fails, the quantitative findings do not generalize.
  • domain assumption Connected components with shared columns define potential VFL pairs
    Section 3.2 defines potential VFL pairs via graph connectivity on shared columns. Real VFL collaborations may require exact unique identifiers and aligned sample sets, which this graph model does not capture.
  • domain assumption Exact string matching on shared columns defines 'identically appear'
    The record matched ratio relies on records 'identically appearing' across tables (Section 3.2). Exact matching likely underestimates alignment potential compared to fuzzy or probabilistic matching used in practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vertical Federated Learning in Practice: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWYYEJ5J

@misc{pith2026250208160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vertical Federated Learning in Practice: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWYYEJ5J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08160}
}
read the original abstract

Vertical Federated Learning (VFL) is a privacy-preserving collaborative learning paradigm that enables multiple parties with distinct feature sets to jointly train machine learning models without sharing their raw data. Despite its potential to facilitate cross-organizational collaborations, the deployment of VFL systems in real-world applications remains limited. To investigate the gap between existing VFL research and practical deployment, this survey analyzes the real-world data distributions in potential VFL applications and identifies four key findings that highlight this gap. We propose a novel data-oriented taxonomy of VFL algorithms based on real VFL data distributions. Our comprehensive review of existing VFL algorithms reveals that some common practical VFL scenarios have few or no viable solutions. Based on these observations, we outline key research directions aimed at bridging the gap between current VFL research and real-world applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08160 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Analysis and visualization of feature distributions and overlaps across real-world databases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Table 4 further summarizes existing algorithms ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Taxonomy of VFL algorithms based on feature balance, key alignment, communication, and trustworthy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

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. Autonomous Collaborative Learning Among an Ensemble of Tsetlin Machines with Consensus-Based Inference

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-layer Tsetlin Machine ensemble with gossip-based vote sharing matches centralized accuracy on several benchmarks without exchanging raw data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Deep learning with differential privacy

    [Abadi et al., 2016] Martin Abadi, Andy Chu, et al. Deep learning with differential privacy. In CCS,

    work page 2016

  2. [9]

    A survey on contribution evaluation in vertical federated learning

    [Cui et al., 2024] Yue Cui, Chung-ju Huang, et al. A survey on contribution evaluation in vertical federated learning. arXiv,

    work page 2024

  3. [10]

    Gal: Gradient assisted learning for decentralized multi- organization collaborations

    [Diao et al., 2022] Enmao Diao, Jie Ding, and Vahid Tarokh. Gal: Gradient assisted learning for decentralized multi- organization collaborations. NeurIPS,

    work page 2022

  4. [11]

    Fair and efficient contribution valuation for vertical federated learn- ing

    [Fan et al., 2024] Zhenan Fan, Huang Fang, et al. Fair and efficient contribution valuation for vertical federated learn- ing. In ICLR,

    work page 2024

  5. [12]

    Vertical federated learning-based feature selection with non-overlapping sample utilization

    [Feng, 2022] Siwei Feng. Vertical federated learning-based feature selection with non-overlapping sample utilization. Expert Syst. Appl.,

    work page 2022

  6. [13]

    Label inference attacks against vertical federated learning

    [Fu et al., 2022] Chong Fu, Xuhong Zhang, et al. Label inference attacks against vertical federated learning. In USENIX Security,

    work page 2022

  7. [14]

    Privacy for Free: Spy Attack in Vertical Federated Learn- ing by Both Active and Passive Parties

    [Fu et al., 2025] Chaohao Fu, Hongbin Chen, and Na Ruan. Privacy for Free: Spy Attack in Vertical Federated Learn- ing by Both Active and Passive Parties. TIFS,

    work page 2025

  8. [17]

    Towards ac- tive participant-centric vertical federated learning: Some representations may be all you need

    [Irureta et al., 2024] Jon Irureta, Jon Imaz, et al. Towards ac- tive participant-centric vertical federated learning: Some representations may be all you need. arXiv,

    work page 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [18]

    Ofl- w3: A one-shot federated learning system on web 3.0

    [Jiang et al., 2024] Linshan Jiang, Moming Duan, et al. Ofl- w3: A one-shot federated learning system on web 3.0. VLDB,

    2024

  2. [19]

    Cafe: Catastrophic data leakage in vertical federated learning

    [Jin et al., 2021] Xiao Jin, Pin-Yu Chen, et al. Cafe: Catastrophic data leakage in vertical federated learning. NeurIPS,

    2021

  3. [20]

    Fedcvt: Semi-supervised vertical federated learning with cross-view training

    [Kang et al., 2022] Yan Kang, Yang Liu, and Xinle Liang. Fedcvt: Semi-supervised vertical federated learning with cross-view training. ACM TIST,

    2022

  4. [21]

    Scaffold: stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning

    [Karimireddy et al., 2020] Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Satyen Kale, et al. Scaffold: stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning. In ICML,

    2020

  5. [22]

    A review of applica- tions in federated learning

    [Li et al., 2020] Li Li, Yuxi Fan, et al. A review of applica- tions in federated learning. Computers & Industrial Engi- neering,

    2020

  6. [23]

    Free- riders in federated learning: Attacks and defenses,

    [Lin et al., 2019] Jierui Lin, Min Du, and Jian Liu. Free- riders in federated learning: Attacks and defenses,

    2019

  7. [24]

    Fate: An indus- trial grade platform for collaborative learning with data protection

    [Liu et al., 2021] Yang Liu, Tao Fan, et al. Fate: An indus- trial grade platform for collaborative learning with data protection. JMLR,

    2021

  8. [25]

    Batch label inference and replacement attacks in black-boxed vertical federated learning,

    [Liu et al., 2022] Yang Liu, Tianyuan Zou, et al. Batch label inference and replacement attacks in black-boxed vertical federated learning,

    2022

  9. [26]

    Feature inference attack on model predictions in vertical federated learning

    [Luo et al., 2021] Xinjian Luo, Yuncheng Wu, et al. Feature inference attack on model predictions in vertical federated learning. In ICDE,

    2021

  10. [27]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

    [McMahan et al., 2017] Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, et al. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In AISTATS,

    2017

  11. [28]

    Private set intersection: A systematic literature review

    [Morales et al., 2023] Daniel Morales, Isaac Agudo, et al. Private set intersection: A systematic literature review. Comput. Sci. Rev.,

    2023

  12. [29]

    Badvfl: Backdoor attacks in ver- tical federated learning

    [Naseri et al., 2024] Mohammad Naseri, Yufei Han, and Emiliano De Cristofaro. Badvfl: Backdoor attacks in ver- tical federated learning. In IEEE S&P,

    2024

  13. [30]

    The impact of record linkage on learning from feature parti- tioned data

    [Nock et al., 2021] Richard Nock, Stephen Hardy, et al. The impact of record linkage on learning from feature parti- tioned data. In ICML,

    2021

  14. [31]

    Eluding secure aggregation in feder- ated learning via model inconsistency

    [Pasquini et al., 2022] Dario Pasquini, Danilo Francati, and Giuseppe Ateniese. Eluding secure aggregation in feder- ated learning via model inconsistency. In CCS,

    2022

  15. [32]

    Federated full- parameter tuning of billion-sized language models with communication cost under 18 kilobytes

    [Qin and others, 2024] Zhen Qin et al. Federated full- parameter tuning of billion-sized language models with communication cost under 18 kilobytes. In ICML,

    2024

  16. [33]

    Safesplit: A novel defense against client-side back- door attacks in split learning,

    [Rieger et al., 2025] Phillip Rieger, Alessandro Pegoraro, et al. Safesplit: A novel defense against client-side back- door attacks in split learning,

    2025

  17. [34]

    A sys- tematic survey on federated semi-supervised learning

    [Song et al., 2024] Zixing Song, Xiangli Yang, et al. A sys- tematic survey on federated semi-supervised learning. In IJCAI,

    2024

  18. [35]

    Communication-efficient vertical federated learning with limited overlapping samples

    [Sun et al., 2023] Jingwei Sun, Ziyue Xu, et al. Communication-efficient vertical federated learning with limited overlapping samples. In ICCV,

    2023

  19. [36]

    Mi-vfdnn: An efficient vertical federated deep neural network with multi-layer interaction

    [Sun et al., 2024] Xiao Sun, Haining Yu, et al. Mi-vfdnn: An efficient vertical federated deep neural network with multi-layer interaction. IEEE TIFS,

    2024

  20. [37]

    Communication-efficient vertical federated learning via compressed error feedback

    [Valdeira et al., 2024] Pedro Valdeira, Jo ˜ao Xavier, et al. Communication-efficient vertical federated learning via compressed error feedback. In EUSIPCO,

    2024

  21. [38]

    Split learning for health: Distributed deep learning without sharing raw patient data

    [Vepakomma et al., 2018] Praneeth Vepakomma, Otkrist Gupta, et al. Split learning for health: Distributed deep learning without sharing raw patient data. arXiv,

    2018

  22. [40]

    Wikidbs: A large-scale corpus of relational databases from wikidata

    [V ogelet al., 2024] Liane V ogel, Jan-Micha Bodensohn, et al. Wikidbs: A large-scale corpus of relational databases from wikidata. In NeurIPS,

    2024

  23. [41]

    Online ver- tical federated learning for cooperative spectrum sensing

    [Wang and Xu, 2024] Heqiang Wang and Jie Xu. Online ver- tical federated learning for cooperative spectrum sensing. IEEE TCCN,

    2024

  24. [42]

    Pravfed: Practical heterogeneous vertical federated learning via representation learning

    [Wang et al., 2025] Shuo Wang, Keke Gai, et al. Pravfed: Practical heterogeneous vertical federated learning via representation learning. TIFS,

    2025

  25. [43]

    Fedads: A benchmark for privacy-preserving cvr estimation with vertical federated learning

    [Wei et al., 2023] Penghui Wei, Hongjian Dou, et al. Fedads: A benchmark for privacy-preserving cvr estimation with vertical federated learning. In ACM SIGIR,

    2023

  26. [44]

    Assisted learning: A framework for multi-organization learning

    [Xian et al., 2020] Xun Xian, Xinran Wang, et al. Assisted learning: A framework for multi-organization learning. NeurIPS,

    2020

  27. [45]

    Smoothquant: Accurate and efficient post-training quantization for large language models

    [Xiao et al., 2023] Guangxuan Xiao, Ji Lin, et al. Smoothquant: Accurate and efficient post-training quantization for large language models. In ICML,

    2023

  28. [46]

    ACE: A model poisoning attack on contribution evaluation meth- ods in federated learning

    [Xu et al., 2024] Zhangchen Xu, Fengqing Jiang, et al. ACE: A model poisoning attack on contribution evaluation meth- ods in federated learning. In USENIX Security,

    2024

  29. [47]

    Cross- modal vertical federated learning for mri reconstruction

    [Yan et al., 2024] Yunlu Yan, Hong Wang, et al. Cross- modal vertical federated learning for mri reconstruction. IEEE JBHI,

    2024

  30. [48]

    Federated machine learning: Concept and applications

    [Yang et al., 2019] Qiang Yang, Yang Liu, et al. Federated machine learning: Concept and applications. TIST,

    2019

  31. [49]

    Uifv: Data reconstruction attack in vertical federated learning,

    [Yang et al., 2025] Jirui Yang, Peng Chen, et al. Uifv: Data reconstruction attack in vertical federated learning,

    2025

  32. [50]

    Vertical feder- ated learning for effectiveness, security, applicability: A survey,

    [Ye et al., 2024] Mang Ye, Wei Shen, et al. Vertical feder- ated learning for effectiveness, security, applicability: A survey,

    2024

  33. [51]

    A survey of pri- vacy threats and defense in vertical federated learning: From model life cycle perspective

    [Yu et al., 2024] Lei Yu, Meng Han, et al. A survey of pri- vacy threats and defense in vertical federated learning: From model life cycle perspective. arXiv,

    2024

  34. [52]

    Asysqn: Faster vertical federated learning algorithms with better computation resource utilization

    [Zhang et al., 2021] Qingsong Zhang, Bin Gu, et al. Asysqn: Faster vertical federated learning algorithms with better computation resource utilization. In ACM SIGKDD,

    2021

  35. [53]

    Asyn- chronous vertical federated learning for kernelized auc maximization

    [Zhang et al., 2024] Ke Zhang, Ganyu Wang, et al. Asyn- chronous vertical federated learning for kernelized auc maximization. In ACM SIGKDD,

    2024

  36. [54]

    Zhao, Atul Sharma, et al

    [Zhao et al., 2024] Joshua C. Zhao, Atul Sharma, et al. Loki: Large-scale Data Reconstruction Attack against Federated Learning through Model Manipulation. In S&P,

    2024

  37. [55]

    Input reconstruction attack against vertical federated large language models

    [Zheng, 2023] Fei Zheng. Input reconstruction attack against vertical federated large language models. arXiv,

    2023

  38. [56]

    Vulnerabili- ties of data protection in vertical federated learning train- ing and countermeasures

    [Zhu et al., 2024] Derui Zhu, Jinfu Chen, et al. Vulnerabili- ties of data protection in vertical federated learning train- ing and countermeasures. TIFS,

    2024

  39. [57]

    Self-supervised multimodal learn- ing: A survey

    [Zong et al., 2024] Yongshuo Zong, Oisin Mac Aodha, and Timothy Hospedales. Self-supervised multimodal learn- ing: A survey. TPAMI, 2024

    2024

  40. [2016]

    The past, present and future of the german record linkage center (grlc)

    [Antoni and Schnell, 2019] Manfred Antoni and Rainer Schnell. The past, present and future of the german record linkage center (grlc). J. Natl. Econ. Stat.,

    2019

  41. [2017]

    A hybrid self-supervised learning framework for vertical federated learning

    [He et al., 2024] Yuanqin He, Yan Kang, et al. A hybrid self-supervised learning framework for vertical federated learning. IEEE TBD,

    2024

  42. [2018]

    Position: will we run out of data? limits of llm scaling based on human-generated data

    [Villalobos et al., 2024] Pablo Villalobos, Anson Ho, et al. Position: will we run out of data? limits of llm scaling based on human-generated data. In JMLR,

    2024

  43. [2019]

    VIL- LAIN: Backdoor attacks against vertical split learning

    [Bai et al., 2023] Yijie Bai, Yanjiao Chen, et al. VIL- LAIN: Backdoor attacks against vertical split learning. In USENIX Security,

    2023

  44. [2020]

    When homomorphic encryption marries secret sharing: Secure large-scale sparse logistic regression and applications in risk control

    [Chen et al., 2021] Chaochao Chen, Jun Zhou, et al. When homomorphic encryption marries secret sharing: Secure large-scale sparse logistic regression and applications in risk control. In ACM SIGKDD,

    2021

  45. [2021]

    Universal ad- versarial backdoor attacks to fool vertical federated learn- ing

    [Chen et al., 2024] Peng Chen, Xin Du, et al. Universal ad- versarial backdoor attacks to fool vertical federated learn- ing. Comput. Secur .,

    2024

  46. [2022]

    Vafl: a method of vertical asynchronous federated learning

    [Chen et al., 2020] Tianyi Chen, Xiao Jin, et al. Vafl: a method of vertical asynchronous federated learning. In FL-ICML,

    2020

  47. [2023]

    Membership infer- ence attacks and defenses in federated learning: A survey

    [Bai et al., 2024] Li Bai, Haibo Hu, et al. Membership infer- ence attacks and defenses in federated learning: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv.,

    2024

  48. [2024]

    Compressed-vfl: Communication-efficient learning with vertically partitioned data

    [Castiglia et al., 2022] Timothy J Castiglia, Anirban Das, et al. Compressed-vfl: Communication-efficient learning with vertically partitioned data. In ICML,

    2022

  49. [2025]

    Private federated learning on vertically partitioned data via entity resolution and additively homomorphic encryption

    [Hardy et al., 2017] Stephen Hardy, Wilko Henecka, et al. Private federated learning on vertically partitioned data via entity resolution and additively homomorphic encryption. arXiv,

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.