Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

F$^3$OCUS -- Federated Finetuning of Vision-Language Foundation Models with Optimal Client Layer Updating Strategy via Multi-objective Meta-Heuristics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that in federated fine-tuning of vision-language models, client-specific layer selection by layerwise NTK principal eigenvalues, followed by server-side diversity-aware refinement, beats both purely local and purely…

desk verdict A large, genuinely useful empirical study of federated layer selection for VLMs with a new medical VQA dataset, but the theoretical motivation for the LNTK importance score contains a real error and the code/data are not yet available. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11912 v2 pith:PI4TKA2M submitted 2024-11-17 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Pramit Saha , Felix Wagner , Divyanshu Mishra , Can Peng , Anshul Thakur , David Clifton , Konstantinos Kamnitsas , J. Alison Noble This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords FederatedLearningVision-LanguageModelsParameter-EfficientFine-TuningNeuralTangentKernelLayerSelectionMeta-heuristicOptimizationMedicalVisualQuestionAnsweringUltra-MedVQA
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 argues that when several resource-limited clients jointly fine-tune a large vision-language model, the choice of which layers each client updates is at least as important as how the updates are aggregated. It proposes an importance score based on the largest eigenvalue of each layer's neural tangent kernel, then a server-side, data-free multi-objective search that keeps high-importance layers while pushing different clients toward different layers, subject to each client's compute budget. The claimed payoff is faster convergence and higher accuracy than existing selective fine-tuning and federated personalization baselines across six vision-language federated settings and four model architectures. The paper also releases Ultra-MedVQA, a medical VQA dataset with 707,962 image-question-answer triplets across nine modalities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the layerwise Neural Tangent Kernel $\Theta_l(X,X) = \nabla_{\theta_l} f(X) \nabla_{\theta_l} f(X)^T$ for layer $l$, whose principal eigenvalue $\lambda_1^l$ the paper uses as a client-specific importance score. A Taylor-expansion argument represents the directional loss reduction as a sum over LNTK eigenvalues, and the paper takes the largest eigenvalue as the dominant term under spectral bias. The second mechanism is a server-side multi-objective optimization over the clients' layer-selection masks: maximize $\sum_i \sum_l S_i^l$ while minimizing $\frac{1}{L}\sum_l (n_l - \bar{n})^2$, subject to per-client limits $L_{i,\max}$, solved by one of five meta-heuristics (NSGA-II, ABC, ACO, SA, MOPSO) so that no client data ever reaches the server.

What would settle it

Run F3OCUS on a synthetic client dataset constructed so that the task-relevant signal is concentrated in the layer with the smallest $\lambda_1^l$; if the principal-eigenvalue ranking is truly controlling convergence, F3OCUS must trail uniform or random layer selection, and if it does not, the claimed mechanism is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that neither a purely client-local layer choice nor a purely global one is optimal for parameter-efficient federated fine-tuning of vision-language models. Its discovery is a two-stage solution: each client scores every layer by the normalized principal eigenvalue of that layer's Neural Tangent Kernel, $S_i^l = \lambda_{i,1}^l / \sum_k \lambda_{i,1}^k$, treating the largest eigenvalue as the layer's contribution to client-specific loss reduction; then a data-free server-side multi-objective meta-heuristic search refines the selections by maximizing total importance while minimizing the variance of the layer-selection histogram across clients, under each client's budget. The paper shows that both ingredients matter: LNTK alone beats existing layer-selection and pruning baselines, and F3OCUS adds a further gain by increasing inter-client layer diversity, with higher accuracy and faster convergence across more than 10,000 client-level experiments and six federated vision-language task settings.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking of layers by their largest NTK eigenvalue is justified only if the loss is squared error and the target labels line up with the layer's top eigenvectors; the experiments instead use cross-entropy-style VQA and classification losses, so if that alignment fails, the importance score rests on an unproven heuristic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Clients can specify different compute budgets, such as 2, 4, or 6 trainable layers, and still contribute to a shared vision-language model, because the server-side search respects per-client layer limits.
  • Pushing layer selections toward diversity across clients increases the fraction of the model that gets updated globally, which is what the paper credits for faster convergence and higher accuracy.
  • Existing layer-selection or pruning methods can be wrapped by the same server-side diversity refinement, since the diversity objective is decoupled from how the client importance score is produced.
  • LNTK importance can be computed on the client, and only scores rather than data are sent to the server, preserving the privacy property of federated learning.
  • The claimed gains hold across four vision-language architectures and six federated settings, including medical VQA and disease classification, so the mechanism is not tied to one model family.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the principal NTK eigenvalue really tracks per-client convergence speed, the same score could be reused as a cheap, data-free scheduler for layer freezing in centralized settings with heterogeneous GPU memory, not just in federated learning.
  • Inference: The server-side diversity term may be doing work independent of importance, for example as an implicit regularizer that improves gradient mixing; an ablation that swaps LNTK importance for random scores while keeping the diversity objective would isolate that effect.
  • Inference: Releasing Ultra-MedVQA is a contribution beyond F3OCUS; the dataset's scale and modality coverage make it a reusable benchmark for centralized medical VQA, not only for federated settings.
  • Inference: Because the server-side search is data-free and treats the importance vector as input, any future client-side importance estimator could be plugged into F3OCUS without changing the server-side refinement.
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. The paper proposes F3OCUS, a federated fine-tuning strategy for vision-language foundation models that selects a subset of layers or adapters for each client. Client-level layer importance is scored by the principal eigenvalue of a layerwise Neural Tangent Kernel (LNTK), and a server-side multi-objective meta-heuristic optimization refines these selections to maximize cumulative importance while promoting inter-client layer diversity under per-client compute budgets. The authors claim that this 'define-and-refine' procedure is theoretically motivated by LNTK convergence analysis, and they support it with experiments across six federated vision-language task settings, four VLM architectures, five meta-heuristic solvers, and a newly introduced Ultra-MedVQA dataset of 707,962 medical VQA triplets. The central claim is that F3OCUS improves accuracy and convergence over existing selective fine-tuning, pruning, and personalized-FL baselines while respecting heterogeneous client resources.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper addresses a practically important problem: how to fine-tune large VLMs in federated settings where clients have heterogeneous data modalities and compute budgets. The empirical scope is unusually broad, including VQA, disease classification, heterogeneous tasks, multiple model families, and many baselines; the proposed dataset is a potentially valuable community resource. The use of several meta-heuristic solvers and the attempt to give a theoretical convergence analysis are also useful contributions. However, the theoretical derivation that motivates the LNTK importance score contains a substantive algebraic error, the convergence theorems are asserted without proofs in the main text, and the empirical evaluation reports only point estimates with no error bars or released code. These issues make the current version insufficiently supported as a rigorous methodological contribution, although the general framework may be salvageable with corrected theory and stronger empirical reporting.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (12)] The derivation of the LNTK-based importance score is algebraically incorrect as written. For squared-error loss F = (1/2)||f(X)-Y||^2, the gradient with respect to the network output is ∇_Z F = f(X)-Y, not Y. Therefore step (v) of Eq. (12) should contain ((u_j^l)^T(f(X)-Y))^2, not ((u_j^l)^T Y)^2. The subsequent claim that layers with larger λ_1^l contribute most to loss reduction is not a consequence of the displayed equations; it requires an additional, unstated assumption that the initial residual f(X)-Y, or the labels Y, align with the top eigenvectors of each layerwise NTK. This is a load-bearing issue because the paper's stated contribution is to 'theoretically motivate and leverage' the principal eigenvalue as an importance score.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (11)] Equation (11) mischaracterizes the NTK training dynamics. In the linearized regime the correct evolution is (U^T f(t))_j = e^{-ηλ_j t}(U^T f(0))_j + (1-e^{-ηλ_j t})(U^T y)_j. The displayed formula (U^T f(X))_j = (I-e^{-ηλ_j t})(U^T y)_j holds only under the special assumption f(0)=0, and even then the transient convergence rate is governed by the coefficient of the initial condition. Thus the text's statement that λ_1 'plays a dominant role in the convergence dynamics' and that the importance score is 'principled' is not justified by Eq. (11). This needs to be corrected or explicitly reframed as a heuristic approximation.
  3. [§4.2, Theorems 1 and 2] Theorems 1 and 2 are stated in the main text without proofs or even proof sketches, with only a pointer to 'Suppl. §B'. Given that the convergence analysis is one of the paper's advertised contributions and is used to motivate the server-side objectives, the main text should at least state the key proof ideas and the precise role of Assumptions 1–5. If the proofs are only in a supplement, the manuscript should make the supplement available and verifiable. As it stands, the convergence claim is unverifiable from the submitted material.
  4. [§6.2, Tables 2–6] All experimental results are reported as single point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Federated fine-tuning is stochastic, and the reported gains of F3OCUS over LNTK and over the best baselines are often only a few accuracy points; without multiple seeds, the robustness of the central empirical claim is unclear. Additionally, the paper states that the dataset is 'released' but gives no URL, and no code is provided. Since the theoretical motivation is currently weakened by the issues in §4.1, the empirical evaluation needs to be strong enough to stand independently, and the present reporting is not yet at that standard.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2, Eq. (21)] The multi-objective problem produces a Pareto front, but the manuscript does not specify how a single final layer-selection solution is chosen from that front for use in training. The choice of solution-selection rule is a free parameter that should be described precisely for reproducibility.
  2. [§5.3, Table 4] Table 4 compares five meta-heuristic algorithms, but no hyperparameters, population sizes, iteration counts, or convergence criteria are given. Without these details, the comparison among NSGA, ABC, ACO, SA, and MOPSO is difficult to interpret or reproduce.
  3. [Abstract and §6.1] The abstract introduces the dataset as 'MedVQA-FL' while the body and contribution list call it 'Ultra-MedVQA.' This inconsistency should be resolved, and the dataset release mechanism should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Table 6] Table 6 is difficult to read: after the first row the task labels disappear, and the header contains duplicate and misaligned abbreviations (e.g., FR appears twice). The table should be reformatted with clear row labels and a non-duplicated legend.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting issues, including 'LlA V A' in Table 2, 'TAMT Meyarivan' in reference [20], and inconsistent capitalization of author names in [31]. While minor, these should be corrected before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LNTK layer importance score is computed from the model and client data rather than fitted to the reported accuracies, and the server-side diversity objective is an explicit design criterion, not a renamed prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: F3OCUS selects layers using the normalized principal eigenvalue of each layer's NTK and then refines selections on the server by maximizing summed client importance while minimizing the variance of the layer-selection histogram. The importance score S_i^l is defined directly from the local model and local data, and the diversity term is an explicit optimization objective; neither is fitted to the final accuracy numbers, so the reported gains are not forced by construction. The convergence theorems are conditional bounds that quantify the effect of layer-selection noise and selection-count variance, but they do not assume the superiority of F3OCUS. The paper does cite the authors' prior work in related-work and background contexts, but those citations are not load-bearing for the proposed method or its evaluation. The main theoretical derivation in Eq. (12) contains an internal inconsistency (the squared-error gradient term should involve the residual Z-Y rather than the target Y, and an additional spectral-alignment assumption is needed), and the experiments use cross-entropy-type losses not covered by the squared-error derivation; these are correctness or validity concerns, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. The empirical comparison is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the appropriate circularity finding is none.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's theoretical claims rest on NTK linearization, a squared-loss assumption that does not match the cross-entropy experiments, an unverified spectral alignment assumption, and several FL-specific bounds. The central contribution is therefore empirical, and its reproducibility depends on details that are not provided in the main text.

free parameters (2)
  • Meta-heuristic solver hyperparameters (NSGA, ABC, ACO, SA, MOPSO) = not reported
    Population sizes, iteration counts, crossover and mutation rates, cooling schedules, pheromone evaporation rates, and swarm coefficients are not specified in the main text, so the server-side optimizer cannot be reproduced or checked for sensitivity.
  • Pareto-front solution selection rule = unspecified
    The multi-objective problem in Eq. 21 yields a Pareto front; the paper does not state how one layer assignment per client is chosen from that front, which is an implicit design choice that can affect results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Training dynamics are governed by the linearized NTK gradient flow (Eqs. 6-11).
    Used in §4.1 to relate loss reduction to NTK eigenvalues; this is standard NTK theory but only approximate for finite-width networks and nonlinear training.
  • domain assumption The theoretical loss is squared error, while the experiments use VQA and classification losses.
    Stated explicitly in Eq. 12 as 'under the assumption of squared error loss'; the mismatch with the actual cross-entropy objectives is not discussed.
  • ad hoc to paper Labels align with the top eigenvectors of each layerwise NTK, so (u_l_j)^T Y is large for large eigenvalues.
    Used to justify dropping all but the principal eigenvalue in Eq. 12; no evidence is provided for this alignment in the evaluated medical VQA and classification settings.
  • domain assumption Gradient smoothness, unbiased variance-bounded stochastic gradients, and gradient diversity (Assumptions 1-3).
    Standard FL convergence assumptions, adopted in §4.2 to derive Theorem 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Bounded stochastic gradient and normalized layer-selection noise bound (Assumptions 4-5).
    Assumption 5 constrains the distance between the global model and the LNTK-selected submodel; the bound xi^2 is not derived or estimated from data.
  • standard math An optimal parameter theta* exists and the global loss F is well-defined.
    Needed for the convergence statements in Theorems 1 and 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of F$^3$OCUS -- Federated Finetuning of Vision-Language Foundation Models with Optimal Client Layer Updating Strategy via Multi-objective Meta-Heuristics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PI4TKA2M

@misc{pith2026241111912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: F$^3$OCUS -- Federated Finetuning of Vision-Language Foundation Models with Optimal Client Layer Updating Strategy via Multi-objective Meta-Heuristics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PI4TKA2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11912}
}
abstract

Effective training of large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) on resource-constrained client devices in Federated Learning (FL) requires the usage of parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) strategies. To this end, we demonstrate the impact of two factors \textit{viz.}, client-specific layer importance score that selects the most important VLM layers for fine-tuning and inter-client layer diversity score that encourages diverse layer selection across clients for optimal VLM layer selection. We first theoretically motivate and leverage the principal eigenvalue magnitude of layerwise Neural Tangent Kernels and show its effectiveness as client-specific layer importance score. Next, we propose a novel layer updating strategy dubbed F$^3$OCUS that jointly optimizes the layer importance and diversity factors by employing a data-free, multi-objective, meta-heuristic optimization on the server. We explore 5 different meta-heuristic algorithms and compare their effectiveness for selecting model layers and adapter layers towards PEFT-FL. Furthermore, we release a new MedVQA-FL dataset involving overall 707,962 VQA triplets and 9 modality-specific clients and utilize it to train and evaluate our method. Overall, we conduct more than 10,000 client-level experiments on 6 Vision-Language FL task settings involving 58 medical image datasets and 4 different VLM architectures of varying sizes to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11912 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distinction of our approach from prior works. (a) il [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Loss convergence of layer selection methods. The gap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of principal eigenvalue magnitudes of LNTK (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of our layer selection strategy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of layer ranks of LLaVA-1.5 across rounds in different clients based on LNTK. Darker color implies higher rank. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of refined layer ranks of LLaVA-1.5 based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Layer selection histogram shows the impact of server [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sample VQA triplets of 9 modality-specific medical clients from Ultra-MedVQA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: t-SNE feature visualization for Client 6 of Task 2 (with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.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. FedPIA -- Permuting and Integrating Adapters leveraging Wasserstein Barycenters for Finetuning Foundation Models in Multi-Modal Federated Learning

    cs.CV 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Permuting adapter neurons before averaging improves federated vision-language fine-tuning under heterogeneous medical clients compared to prior PEFT-FL baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ben Abacha, Vivek V

    Abeed S. Ben Abacha, Vivek V . Datla, Sadid A. Hasan, Dina Demner-Fushman, and Henning M ¨uller. Overview of the vqa-med task at imageclef 2020: Visual question answer- ing and generation in the medical domain. In CLEF 2020 Working Notes. 3, 7

    2020

  2. [2]

    Federated learning based on dynamic regular- ization

    Durmus Alp Emre Acar, Yue Zhao, Ramon Matas Navarro, Matthew Mattina, Paul N Whatmough, and Venkatesh Saligrama. Federated learning based on dynamic regular- ization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.04263, 2021. 1, 3

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Federated learning with personalization layers

    Manoj Ghuhan Arivazhagan, Vinay Aggarwal, Aaditya Ku- mar Singh, and Sunav Choudhary. Federated learning with personalization layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00818 ,

    arXiv 1912

  4. [4]

    Artificial bee colony algorithm: a survey

    Jagdish Chand Bansal, Harish Sharma, and Shimpi Singh Jadon. Artificial bee colony algorithm: a survey. Interna- tional Journal of Advanced Intelligence Paradigms , 5(1-2): 123–159, 2013. 7

    2013

  5. [5]

    Strong baselines for parameter efficient few-shot fine-tuning

    Samyadeep Basu, Daniela Massiceti, Shell Xu Hu, and So- heil Feizi. Strong baselines for parameter efficient few-shot fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01917. 9

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Vqa-med: Overview of the medical visual question answering task at imageclef 2019

    Asma Ben Abacha, Sadid A Hasan, Vivek V Datla, Dina Demner-Fushman, and Henning M ¨uller. Vqa-med: Overview of the medical visual question answering task at imageclef 2019. In Proceedings of CLEF (Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum) 2019 Working Notes, 2019. 7

    2019

  7. [7]

    Overview of the vqa-med task at imageclef 2021: Visual question answer- ing and generation in the medical domain

    Asma Ben Abacha, Mourad Sarrouti, Dina Demner- Fushman, Sadid A Hasan, and Henning M¨uller. Overview of the vqa-med task at imageclef 2021: Visual question answer- ing and generation in the medical domain. In Proceedings of the CLEF 2021 Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum-working notes, 2021. 7

    2021

  8. [8]

    Bit- Fit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer- based masked language-models

    Elad Ben Zaken, Yoav Goldberg, and Shauli Ravfogel. Bit- Fit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer- based masked language-models. In Proceedings of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Pa- pers), pages 1–9, Dublin, Ireland, 2022. 2

    2022

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Florian Bordes, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Anurag Ajay, Alexander C. Li, Adrien Bardes, Suzanne Petryk, Oscar Ma˜nas, Zhiqiu Lin, Anas Mahmoud, Bargav Jayaraman, Mark Ibrahim, Melissa Hall, Yunyang Xiong, Jonathan Lebensold, Candace Ross, Srihari Jayakumar, Chuan Guo, Diane Bouchac...

    2024

  2. [10]

    A brief introduction to the neural tan- gent kernel

    Benjamin Bowman. A brief introduction to the neural tan- gent kernel. 2023. 4

    2023

  3. [11]

    Tinytl: Reduce memory, not parameters for efficient on-device learning

    Han Cai, Chuang Gan, Ligeng Zhu, and Song Han. Tinytl: Reduce memory, not parameters for efficient on-device learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, pages 11285–11297, 2020. 9

    2020

  4. [12]

    Towards understanding the spectral bias of deep learning

    Yuan Cao, Zhiying Fang, Yue Wu, Ding-Xuan Zhou, and Quanquan Gu. Towards understanding the spectral bias of deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01198, 2019. 4

    1912 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Efficient personalized federated learning via sparse model-adaptation

    Daoyuan Chen, Liuyi Yao, Dawei Gao, Bolin Ding, and Yaliang Li. Efficient personalized federated learning via sparse model-adaptation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5234–5256. PMLR, 2023. 3

    2023

  6. [14]

    Feddat: An approach for foundation model finetuning in multi-modal heterogeneous federated learning

    Haokun Chen, Yao Zhang, Denis Krompass, Jindong Gu, and V olker Tresp. Feddat: An approach for foundation model finetuning in multi-modal heterogeneous federated learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, pages 11285–11293, 2024. 2, 9

    2024

  7. [15]

    On bridging generic and personalized federated learning for image classification

    Hong-You Chen and Wei-Lun Chao. On bridging generic and personalized federated learning for image classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00778, 2021. 9

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Fedtune: A deep dive into ef- ficient federated fine-tuning with pre-trained transformers

    Jinyu Chen, Wenchao Xu, Song Guo, Junxiao Wang, Jie Zhang, and Haozhao Wang. Fedtune: A deep dive into ef- ficient federated fine-tuning with pre-trained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.08025, 2022. 2, 3

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Metafed: Federated learning among federations with cyclic knowledge distillation for personalized healthcare

    Yiqiang Chen, Wang Lu, Xin Qin, Jindong Wang, and Xing Xie. Metafed: Federated learning among federations with cyclic knowledge distillation for personalized healthcare. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Sys- tems, 2023. 9

    2023

  10. [18]

    Mopso: A proposal for multiple objective particle swarm optimiza- tion

    CA Coello Coello and Maximino Salazar Lechuga. Mopso: A proposal for multiple objective particle swarm optimiza- tion. In Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC’02 (Cat. No. 02TH8600) , pages 1051–

    2002

  11. [19]

    Exploiting shared representations for personal- ized federated learning

    Liam Collins, Hamed Hassani, Aryan Mokhtari, and Sanjay Shakkottai. Exploiting shared representations for personal- ized federated learning. In International conference on ma- chine learning, pages 2089–2099. PMLR, 2021. 9

    2021

  12. [20]

    A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algo- rithm: Nsga-ii

    Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and TAMT Meyarivan. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algo- rithm: Nsga-ii. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computa- tion, 6(2):182–197, 2002. 6

    2002

  13. [21]

    Ant colony optimization

    Marco Dorigo, Mauro Birattari, and Thomas Stutzle. Ant colony optimization. IEEE computational intelligence mag- azine, 1(4):28–39, 2006. 7

    2006

  14. [22]

    Resist: Layer-wise decomposition of resnets for distributed training

    Chen Dun, Cameron R Wolfe, Christopher M Jermaine, and Anastasios Kyrillidis. Resist: Layer-wise decomposition of resnets for distributed training. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 610–620. PMLR, 2022. 3

    2022

  15. [23]

    Per- sonalized federated learning with theoretical guarantees: A model-agnostic meta-learning approach

    Alireza Fallah, Aryan Mokhtari, and Asuman Ozdaglar. Per- sonalized federated learning with theoretical guarantees: A model-agnostic meta-learning approach. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:3557–3568, 2020. 9

    2020

  16. [24]

    Schwab, and Ari S

    Jonathan Frankle, David J. Schwab, and Ari S. Morcos. Training batchnorm and only batchnorm: On the expressive power of random features in cnns, 2021. 2

    2021

  17. [25]

    Promptfl: Let federated participants cooper- atively learn prompts instead of models-federated learning in age of foundation model

    Tao Guo, Song Guo, Junxiao Wang, Xueyang Tang, and Wenchao Xu. Promptfl: Let federated participants cooper- atively learn prompts instead of models-federated learning in age of foundation model. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2023. 9

    2023

  18. [26]

    Learn- ing both weights and connections for efficient neural net- work

    Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William Dally. Learn- ing both weights and connections for efficient neural net- work. Advances in neural information processing systems , 28, 2015. 8, 9

    2015

  19. [27]

    Sensitivity-aware visual parameter-efficient fine- tuning

    Haoyu He, Jianfei Cai, Jing Zhang, Dacheng Tao, and Bohan Zhuang. Sensitivity-aware visual parameter-efficient fine- tuning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 11825–11835, 2023. 8, 9

    2023

  20. [28]

    Pathvqa: 30000+ questions for medical visual question answering

    Xuehai He, Yichen Zhang, Luntian Mou, Eric Xing, and Pengtao Xie. Pathvqa: 30000+ questions for medical visual question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10286, 2020. 3

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Re- view of federated learning and machine learning-based methods for medical image analysis

    Netzahualcoyotl Hernandez-Cruz, Pramit Saha, Md Mostafa Kamal Sarker, and J Alison Noble. Re- view of federated learning and machine learning-based methods for medical image analysis. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 8(9):99, 2024. 3

    2024

  22. [30]

    Scaling feder- ated learning for fine-tuning of large language models

    Agrin Hilmkil, Sebastian Callh, Matteo Barbieri, Leon Ren ´e S¨utfeld, Edvin Listo Zec, and Olof Mogren. Scaling feder- ated learning for fine-tuning of large language models. InIn- ternational Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, pages 15–23....

    2021

  23. [31]

    Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp

    Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2790–2799. PMLR, 2019. 7, 9

    2019

  24. [32]

    LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. InIn- ternational Conference on Learning Representations , 2022. 2, 9

    2022

  25. [33]

    Omnimedvqa: A new large-scale comprehensive evaluation benchmark for medical lvlm

    Yutao Hu, Tianbin Li, Quanfeng Lu, Wenqi Shao, Junjun He, Yu Qiao, and Ping Luo. Omnimedvqa: A new large-scale comprehensive evaluation benchmark for medical lvlm. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 22170–22183,

  26. [34]

    Neu- ral tangent kernel: Convergence and generalization in neural networks

    Arthur Jacot, Franck Gabriel, and Cl ´ement Hongler. Neu- ral tangent kernel: Convergence and generalization in neural networks. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 31, 2018. 4

    2018

  27. [35]

    Vi- sual prompt tuning

    Menglin Jia, Luming Tang, Bor-Chun Chen, Claire Cardie, Serge Belongie, Bharath Hariharan, and Ser-Nam Lim. Vi- sual prompt tuning. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part XXXIII , page 709–727. Springe...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Less is more: Selective layer finetuning with subtuning

    Gal Kaplun, Andrey Gurevich, Tal Swisa, Mazor David, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, and Eran Malach. Less is more: Selective layer finetuning with subtuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06354, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for feder- ated learning

    Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Satyen Kale, Mehryar Mohri, Sashank Reddi, Sebastian Stich, and Ananda Theertha Suresh. Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for feder- ated learning. In International conference on machine learn- ing. PMLR, 2020. 1, 3, 5

    2020

  30. [38]

    Vilt: Vision- and-language transformer without convolution or region su- pervision

    Wonjae Kim, Bokyung Son, and Ildoo Kim. Vilt: Vision- and-language transformer without convolution or region su- pervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 5583–5594. PMLR, 2021. 1, 7

    2021

  31. [39]

    Revealing the dark secrets of bert.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08593, 2019

    Olga Kovaleva, Alexey Romanov, Anna Rogers, and Anna Rumshisky. Revealing the dark secrets of bert.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08593, 2019. 3

    1908 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A dataset of clinically generated visual questions and answers about radiology images

    Jason J Lau, Soumya Gayen, Asma Ben Abacha, and Dina Demner-Fushman. A dataset of clinically generated visual questions and answers about radiology images. Scientific data, 5(1):1–10, 2018. 3, 7

    2018

  33. [41]

    Mixout: Effective regularization to finetune large-scale pre- trained language models

    Cheolhyoung Lee, Kyunghyun Cho, and Wanmo Kang. Mixout: Effective regularization to finetune large-scale pre- trained language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations. 3

  34. [42]

    What would elsa do? freezing layers during transformer fine-tuning

    Jaejun Lee, Raphael Tang, and Jimmy Lin. What would elsa do? freezing layers during transformer fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03090, 2019. 3

    1911 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Snip: Single-shot network pruning based on connec- tion sensitivity

    Namhoon Lee, Thalaiyasingam Ajanthan, and Philip HS Torr. Snip: Single-shot network pruning based on connec- tion sensitivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02340, 2018. 2, 3, 8, 9

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Layer- wise adaptive model aggregation for scalable federated learning

    Sunwoo Lee, Tuo Zhang, and A Salman Avestimehr. Layer- wise adaptive model aggregation for scalable federated learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Arti- ficial Intelligence, pages 8491–8499, 2023. 3

    2023

  37. [45]

    Surgical fine-tuning improves adaptation to distribution shifts

    Yoonho Lee, Annie S Chen, Fahim Tajwar, Ananya Ku- mar, Huaxiu Yao, Percy Liang, and Chelsea Finn. Surgical fine-tuning improves adaptation to distribution shifts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11466, 2022. 2, 3, 8, 9

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08691

    Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08691. 2

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Efficient transformer-based large scale language representations using hardware-friendly block structured pruning

    Bingbing Li, Zhenglun Kong, Tianyun Zhang, Ji Li, Zhengang Li, Hang Liu, and Caiwen Ding. Efficient transformer-based large scale language representations using hardware-friendly block structured pruning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.08065, 2020. 3

    2009 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learn- ing with momentum distillation

    Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learn- ing with momentum distillation. Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 34:9694–9705, 2021. 1, 7

    2021

  41. [49]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In In- ternational conference on machine learning , pages 19730– 19742. PMLR, 2023. 1, 7

    2023

  42. [50]

    Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions

    Tian Li, Anit Kumar Sahu, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE signal processing magazine, 37(3):50–60,

  43. [51]

    Prefix-tuning: Optimiz- ing continuous prompts for generation

    Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. Prefix-tuning: Optimiz- ing continuous prompts for generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Scaling & shifting your features: A new baseline for efficient model tuning

    Dongze Lian, Daquan Zhou, Jiashi Feng, and Xinchao Wang. Scaling & shifting your features: A new baseline for efficient model tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08823,

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Slake: A semantically-labeled knowledge- enhanced dataset for medical visual question answering

    Bo Liu, Li-Ming Zhan, Li Xu, Lin Ma, Yan Yang, and Xiao-Ming Wu. Slake: A semantically-labeled knowledge- enhanced dataset for medical visual question answering. In 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 1650–1654. IEEE, 2021. 3, 7

    2021

  46. [54]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 26296–26306, 2024. 1, 7

    2024

  47. [55]

    Federated repre- sentation learning in the under-parameterized regime

    Renpu Liu, Cong Shen, and Jing Yang. Federated repre- sentation learning in the under-parameterized regime. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04596, 2024. 9

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Personalized feder- ated learning with adaptive batchnorm for healthcare

    Wang Lu, Jindong Wang, Yiqiang Chen, Xin Qin, Renjun Xu, Dimitrios Dimitriadis, and Tao Qin. Personalized feder- ated learning with adaptive batchnorm for healthcare. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 2022. 9

    2022

  49. [57]

    A gradient flow framework for analyzing network pruning

    Ekdeep Singh Lubana and Robert P Dick. A gradient flow framework for analyzing network pruning. In International Conference on Learning Representations. 2, 8, 9

  50. [58]

    Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics. PMLR, 2017. 1, 2, 3

    2017

  51. [59]

    Where to begin? exploring the impact of pre- training and initialization in federated learning

    John Nguyen, Kshitiz Malik, Maziar Sanjabi, and Michael Rabbat. Where to begin? exploring the impact of pre- training and initialization in federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15387, 4, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Federated learning with partial model personalization

    Krishna Pillutla, Kshitiz Malik, Abdel-Rahman Mohamed, Mike Rabbat, Maziar Sanjabi, and Lin Xiao. Federated learning with partial model personalization. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning , pages 17716– 17758. PMLR, 2022. 3

    2022

  53. [61]

    Winning the lottery ahead of time: Efficient early network pruning

    John Rachwan, Daniel Z ¨ugner, Bertrand Charpentier, Simon Geisler, Morgane Ayle, and Stephan G ¨unnemann. Winning the lottery ahead of time: Efficient early network pruning. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 18293–18309. PMLR, 2022. 3

    2022

  54. [62]

    On the spectral bias of neural networks

    Nasim Rahaman, Aristide Baratin, Devansh Arpit, Felix Draxler, Min Lin, Fred Hamprecht, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. On the spectral bias of neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 5301–

  55. [63]

    Efficient parametrization of multi-domain deep neural net- works

    Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Hakan Bilen, and Andrea Vedaldi. Efficient parametrization of multi-domain deep neural net- works. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018. 2

    2018

  56. [64]

    Adapterdrop: On the efficiency of adapters in transformers

    Andreas R ¨uckl´e, Gregor Geigle, Max Glockner, Tilman Beck, Jonas Pfeiffer, Nils Reimers, and Iryna Gurevych. Adapterdrop: On the efficiency of adapters in transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11918, 2020. 2, 8, 9

    2010 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Re- thinking semi-supervised federated learning: How to co- train fully-labeled and fully-unlabeled client imaging data

    Pramit Saha, Divyanshu Mishra, and J Alison Noble. Re- thinking semi-supervised federated learning: How to co- train fully-labeled and fully-unlabeled client imaging data. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 414–424...

  58. [66]

    Alison Noble

    Pramit Saha, Divyanshu Mishra, Felix Wagner, Konstantinos Kamnitsas, and J. Alison Noble. Examining modality incon- gruity in multimodal federated learning for medical vision and language-based disease detection, 2024. 3, 8

    2024

  59. [67]

    Fedpia–permuting and inte- grating adapters leveraging wasserstein barycenters for fine- tuning foundation models in multi-modal federated learning

    Pramit Saha, Divyanshu Mishra, Felix Wagner, Konstantinos Kamnitsas, and J Alison Noble. Fedpia–permuting and inte- grating adapters leveraging wasserstein barycenters for fine- tuning foundation models in multi-modal federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14424, 2024. 2, 7

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Partial is better than all: Revisiting fine- tuning strategy for few-shot learning

    Zhiqiang Shen, Zechun Liu, Jie Qin, Marios Savvides, and Kwang-Ting Cheng. Partial is better than all: Revisiting fine- tuning strategy for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 9594–9602,

  61. [69]

    Train faster, perform better: mod- ular adaptive training in over-parameterized models

    Yubin Shi, Yixuan Chen, Mingzhi Dong, Xiaochen Yang, Dongsheng Li, Yujiang Wang, Robert Dick, Qin Lv, Yingy- ing Zhao, Fan Yang, et al. Train faster, perform better: mod- ular adaptive training in over-parameterized models. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ...

    2024

  62. [70]

    Exploring parameter-efficient fine-tuning for improv- ing communication efficiency in federated learning

    Guangyu Sun, Matias Mendieta, Taojiannan Yang, and Chen Chen. Exploring parameter-efficient fine-tuning for improv- ing communication efficiency in federated learning. 2022. 2

    2022

  63. [71]

    Training neu- ral networks with fixed sparse masks

    Yi-Lin Sung, Varun Nair, and Colin A Raffel. Training neu- ral networks with fixed sparse masks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:24193–24205, 2021. 2, 8, 9

    2021

  64. [72]

    Fedselect: Personalized fed- erated learning with customized selection of parameters for fine-tuning

    Rishub Tamirisa, Chulin Xie, Wenxuan Bao, Andy Zhou, Ron Arel, and Aviv Shamsian. Fedselect: Personalized fed- erated learning with customized selection of parameters for fine-tuning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2...

    2024

  65. [73]

    Fedproto: Federated proto- type learning across heterogeneous clients

    Yue Tan, Guodong Long, Lu Liu, Tianyi Zhou, Qinghua Lu, Jing Jiang, and Chengqi Zhang. Fedproto: Federated proto- type learning across heterogeneous clients. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 8432– 8440, 2022. 9

    2022

  66. [74]

    Pruning neural networks without any data by iter- atively conserving synaptic flow

    Hidenori Tanaka, Daniel Kunin, Daniel L Yamins, and Surya Ganguli. Pruning neural networks without any data by iter- atively conserving synaptic flow. Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 33:6377–6389, 2020. 8, 9

    2020

  67. [75]

    Three things everyone should know about vision transformers

    Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Jakob Verbeek, and Herv ´e J ´egou. Three things everyone should know about vision transformers. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part XXIV. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  68. [76]

    Simulated annealing

    Peter JM Van Laarhoven, Emile HL Aarts, Peter JM van Laarhoven, and Emile HL Aarts. Simulated annealing . Springer, 1987. 7

    1987

  69. [77]

    Post-deployment adaptation with access to source data via federated learning and source-target remote gradient alignment

    Felix Wagner, Zeju Li, Pramit Saha, and Konstantinos Kam- nitsas. Post-deployment adaptation with access to source data via federated learning and source-target remote gradient alignment. In International Workshop on Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, pages 253–263. Springer...

    2023

  70. [78]

    Feasibility of federated learning from client databases with different brain diseases and mri modalities

    Felix Wagner, Wentian Xu, Pramit Saha, Ziyun Liang, Daniel Whitehouse, David Menon, Virginia Newcombe, Na- talie V oets, J Alison Noble, and Konstantinos Kamnitsas. Feasibility of federated learning from client databases with different brain diseases and mri modalities. arXiv ...

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Picking winning tickets before training by preserving gradient flow

    Chaoqi Wang, Guodong Zhang, and Roger Grosse. Picking winning tickets before training by preserving gradient flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07376, 2020. 2, 3, 8, 9

    2002 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Tackling the objective inconsistency prob- lem in heterogeneous federated optimization

    Jianyu Wang, Qinghua Liu, Hao Liang, Gauri Joshi, and H Vincent Poor. Tackling the objective inconsistency prob- lem in heterogeneous federated optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:7611–7623,

  73. [81]

    Federated dropout—a simple approach for enabling federated learning on resource constrained devices

    Dingzhu Wen, Ki-Jun Jeon, and Kaibin Huang. Federated dropout—a simple approach for enabling federated learning on resource constrained devices. IEEE wireless communica- tions letters, 11(5):923–927, 2022. 8, 9

    2022

  74. [82]

    Personalized federated learning with feature alignment and classifier col- laboration

    Jian Xu, Xinyi Tong, and Shao-Lun Huang. Personalized federated learning with feature alignment and classifier col- laboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11867, 2023. 9

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Raise a child in large language model: Towards effective and generalizable fine-tuning

    Runxin Xu, Fuli Luo, Zhiyuan Zhang, Chuanqi Tan, Baobao Chang, Songfang Huang, and Fei Huang. Raise a child in large language model: Towards effective and generalizable fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05687, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Exploring one-shot semi-supervised federated learning with pre-trained diffusion models

    Mingzhao Yang, Shangchao Su, Bin Li, and Xiangyang Xue. Exploring one-shot semi-supervised federated learning with pre-trained diffusion models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2024. 2

    2024

  77. [85]

    Fedas: Bridg- ing inconsistency in personalized federated learning

    Xiyuan Yang, Wenke Huang, and Mang Ye. Fedas: Bridg- ing inconsistency in personalized federated learning. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11986–11995, 2024. 9

    2024

  78. [86]

    Federated foundation models: Privacy-preserving and collaborative learning for large models

    Sixing Yu, J Pablo Mu ˜noz, and Ali Jannesari. Federated foundation models: Privacy-preserving and collaborative learning for large models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11414,

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models

    Elad Ben Zaken, Shauli Ravfogel, and Yoav Goldberg. Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10199,

  80. [88]

    Fedala: Adaptive local aggregation for personalized federated learning

    Jianqing Zhang, Yang Hua, Hao Wang, Tao Song, Zhengui Xue, Ruhui Ma, and Haibing Guan. Fedala: Adaptive local aggregation for personalized federated learning. In Proceed- ings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 11237–11244, 2023. 9

    2023

  81. [89]

    To- wards building the federatedgpt: Federated instruction tun- ing

    Jianyi Zhang, Saeed Vahidian, Martin Kuo, Chunyuan Li, Ruiyi Zhang, Tong Yu, Guoyin Wang, and Yiran Chen. To- wards building the federatedgpt: Federated instruction tun- ing. In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Confer- ence on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP...

    2024

  82. [90]

    Crash: Clustering, removing, and sharing enhance fine-tuning without full large language model

    Kaiyan Zhang, Ning Ding, Biqing Qi, Xuekai Zhu, Xin- wei Long, and Bowen Zhou. Crash: Clustering, removing, and sharing enhance fine-tuning without full large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15477, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Fine-tuning global model via data-free knowledge distillation for non-iid federated learning

    Lin Zhang, Li Shen, Liang Ding, Dacheng Tao, and Ling- Yu Duan. Fine-tuning global model via data-free knowledge distillation for non-iid federated learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10174–10183, 2022. 3

    2022

  84. [92]

    Personalized federated learn- ing with first order model optimization

    Michael Zhang, Karan Sapra, Sanja Fidler, Serena Ye- ung, and Jose M Alvarez. Personalized federated learn- ing with first order model optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08565, 2020. 9

    2012 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Pruning foundation mod- els for high accuracy without retraining

    Pu Zhao, Fei Sun, Xuan Shen, Pinrui Yu, Zhenglun Kong, Yanzhi Wang, and Xue Lin. Pruning foundation mod- els for high accuracy without retraining. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15567, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    When foundation model meets federated learning: Motiva- tions, challenges, and future directions

    Weiming Zhuang, Chen Chen, and Lingjuan Lyu. When foundation model meets federated learning: Motiva- tions, challenges, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15546, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.