Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Tackling Data Heterogeneity in Federated Time Series Forecasting

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Fed-TREND generates two synthetic datasets from client and global model trajectories, and this server-side augmentation consistently outperforms federated learning baselines, matching or beating centralized training on six of eight time…

desk verdict Useful, well-motivated method for federated time series forecasting with broad empirical gains; main caveat is that no control disentangles trajectory matching from simply adding extra synthetic data. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15716 v1 pith:PO5KQCAB submitted 2024-11-24 cs.LG cs.CRcs.IR

Wei Yuan , Guanhua Ye , Xiangyu Zhao , Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen , Yang Cao , Hongzhi Yin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CRcs.IR
keywords federatedlearningtimeseriesforecastingdataheterogeneitysyntheticdatasetdistillationtrajectorymatchingmodelaggregationcross-device
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

Federated time series forecasting fails when client data are heterogeneous: each device may track different variables, or the same variable under different temporal patterns, so simple model averaging produces a weak global model. This paper tries to close that gap with Fed-TREND, a server-side augmentation that builds two small synthetic datasets from model trajectories and feeds them back into training. The first synthetic set captures the representative distribution of all clients' model updates and is mixed into each client's local data; the second captures the long-term dynamics of the aggregated global model and is used to fine-tune the global model after aggregation. If the reported results hold, a modest amount of synthetic data can reduce most of the accuracy loss caused by heterogeneity, and on six of eight datasets the federated model even outperforms centralized training.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is trajectory matching, a dataset-distillation technique in which a small synthetic dataset is learned so that a model trained on it from a stored checkpoint reproduces a later recorded checkpoint after the same number of steps. Fed-TREND applies this to two trajectory banks: Tct stores the start and end client model updates within each interval, and Tgt stores the sequence of aggregated global models. The synthetic datasets Dct and Dgt are the trainable input-output pairs that minimize the distance between reproduced and recorded checkpoints, with the Dct loss masked to parameters whose updates move consistently across rounds, and with the whole construction carried out on the server at fixed intervals.

What would settle it

Replace the trajectory-matching objective for Dct and Dgt with randomly initialized or fixed synthetic sequences of the same size and schedule, keeping everything else identical; if Fed-TREND's advantage over FedAvg on the eight reported datasets persists, the trajectory-matching mechanism is not what carries the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that data heterogeneity in cross-device federated time series forecasting can be addressed without changing the federated protocol, by having the central server distill two types of synthetic data from the models it already receives. Synthetic dataset Dct is optimized from the start and end checkpoints of each client's local update within a window, using only parameters whose update direction is consistent, and is then sent back to clients to augment their local training. Synthetic dataset Dgt is optimized from the trajectory of aggregated global models and is used to fine-tune the global model after each aggregation. Across eight datasets and four forecasting backbones, the resulting framework, Fed-TREND, consistently outperforms FedAvg, FedProx, FedDyn, Elastic, FedHEAL, and DynaFed, and on Electricity, Traffic, Solar Energy, ETTh1, ETTh2, and USWeather it reports lower error than centralized training.

Load-bearing premise

The entire gain rests on the assumption that a small synthetic dataset distilled from only the start and end checkpoints of each client's local update, via trajectory matching, captures enough of every client's data distribution to improve other clients' local training once mixed with real data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Fed-TREND is correct, server-side synthetic augmentation is a general drop-in remedy for heterogeneity: plugging it into FedAvg, FedProx, FedDyn, Elastic, FedHEAL, or DynaFed improves each baseline on every dataset tested.
  • The method transfers across forecasting architectures, improving DLinear, LightTS, TSMixer, and iTransformer relative to plain federated training, which suggests the synthetic data carry model-agnostic temporal knowledge.
  • Because the synthetic datasets are small (20 input-output pairs refreshed every 10 rounds), the additional communication cost is less than 30KB per client over 80 rounds, making the mechanism practical for bandwidth-limited devices.
  • Fed-TREND remains effective when local differential privacy noise is added to model updates, so the privacy properties of the base federated protocol are not sacrificed.
  • On the two most heterogeneous datasets, State-ILI and Country-Temp, Fed-TREND does not reach centralized performance but still records the best results among all federated baselines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The consistent-update masking implies the method bets on consensus directions: if heterogeneity is driven by conflicting but informative client-specific signals, masking out inconsistent updates could discard precisely the information that matters for generalization.
  • The same two-level trajectory distillation could be applied to other federated tasks beyond time series, since neither the formulation nor the trajectory banks use temporal structure; a natural test is whether the gains replicate for tabular or graph-structured federated data.
  • The finding that federated training with synthetic augmentation beats centralized training on six datasets suggests the synthetic data act partly as a regularizer; a testable extension is measuring whether the advantage shrinks as local epochs or client participation rates increase.
  • Because Dgt is built from global model dynamics, its quality depends on the aggregation rule being stable; switching to a different aggregator may require re-tuning the update interval Lgt to keep the long-term trajectory meaningful.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Fed-TREND, a server-side synthetic-data augmentation framework for cross-device federated time series forecasting. In each federated round, the server stores client model updates and aggregated global models; every Lct or Lgt rounds it constructs two small synthetic datasets using the MTT trajectory-matching objective: Dct is built from pairs of start/end client model checkpoints (with a consistency mask) and distributed to clients for mixing into local training, while Dgt is built from global model trajectory segments and used to finetune the aggregated global model. The method is designed to be compatible with any forecasting backbone and any standard FL aggregation protocol. Experiments compare Fed-TREND against FedAvg, FedProx, FedDyn, Elastic, FedHEAL, and DynaFed on eight time series datasets with four forecasting models (DLinear, LightTS, TSMixer, iTransformer), and include ablations, hyperparameter sensitivity studies, integration with other FL frameworks, and a differential-privacy experiment.

Significance. If the central mechanism is confirmed, Fed-TREND is a practically attractive contribution: it addresses data heterogeneity without altering the federated protocol, offloads the synthetic-data construction burden to the server, and the reported results span a wide range of datasets, backbones, and FL frameworks. The ablation study and the compatibility experiments are useful evidence that each component contributes to the gains. However, the paper's central explanatory claim—that trajectory matching, rather than the mere presence of additional synthetic training data, drives the improvements—is not isolated experimentally, and the empirical evidence is weakened by single-run reporting with no error bars or significance tests. The strengths are the breadth of evaluation and the clean integration with existing FL algorithms, but the current evidence is not yet sufficient to fully support the strong conclusions made in Section V-E.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV-B, Eq. (7); §V-E, Table V] The central causal claim that Dct and Dgt improve federated forecasting because MTT trajectory matching captures representative client and global distributions is not isolated experimentally. Every comparison in Table III and the ablations in Table V is against a baseline with no synthetic data at all; there is no control that injects same-size, same-schedule random or data-independent synthetic series into local training and server-side finetuning. Since Dct adds training signal to each client and Dgt adds server-side finetuning, Fed-TREND has strictly more training data than FedAvg. If a random-synthetic control closes most of the gap, the reported gains would be attributable to extra data or regularization rather than to the trajectory-matching mechanism that motivates the method. Please add such controls—for example, Gaussian-noise series or randomly shuffled real windows—with the same sizes, update intervals, and construction iterations, at least for the main DLinear results and the Table V ablations.
  2. [§V-E, Table III; §V-F, Table IV] All results are single-run and no error bars, multiple seeds, or significance tests are reported. Several margins are small (e.g., Table IV Solar Energy with TSMixer: 0.27527 vs. 0.27441 MSE; Table III USWeather: 0.45444 vs. 0.44036 MSE), which is inconsistent with the claim in Section V-E of improvement 'with a large margin.' The paper should report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds, and preferably a paired significance test, for the headline comparisons and the ablation study, so that the consistency and magnitude of the gains can be assessed.
  3. [§IV-B, Eq. (6)–(7); Algorithm 1, Lines 29–36] The synthetic-data construction procedure is underspecified in ways that affect reproducibility and the validity of Eq. (7). The inner-loop length Lc used to train Wstart on Dsyn in Eq. (6) and in Algorithm 1 Line 34 is never defined or reported; the distance metric d(·,·) is not specified; and the consistency-mask mechanism is described only as 'will be masked' in the text, with no exact formula for how the mask enters Eq. (7). Since the paper argues that the consistency direction is important, the exact masking rule must be stated. These details are needed for readers to reproduce the method and to check whether the endpoint-only optimization in Eq. (7) is faithful to the MTT procedure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§V-I] The text says the authors implement 'LDP with the Laplace mechanism' but then states that noise is sampled from N(0, λ²I), which is Gaussian noise. Please clarify which distribution was actually used and, if Laplace noise was intended, correct the formula.
  2. [Table V] The column header 'Iliness' should be 'Illness'.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The pseudocode checks t%Lct==0 at both Line 11 and Line 19, and the ordering of appending client updates, aggregating, and reconstructing Dct within the same round is ambiguous. Please clarify the exact round indices and ordering.
  4. [§V-H4] Figure 6 reports only the ETTh1 dataset, while the text says 'similar trends are observed across the other seven datasets'; either include those results or state the limitation explicitly.
  5. [§V-H3] The claim that 'in all cases, Fed-TREND consistently outperforms FedAvg by a significant margin' is only supported by plots; numerical values should be provided, as the difference appears small on some datasets.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typos and infelicities, e.g., 'Notebly' in Section III-A and 'severing various applications' in Section I; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in Fed-TREND's derivation or evaluation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The synthetic datasets Dct and Dgt are optimized by the bi-level objectives in Eqs. (5)-(9), which minimize the distance between models trained on synthetic data and models reached by real client or global updates. These objectives use only the uploaded model trajectories, not the held-out test performance. The experimental evaluation in Section V uses a 70/30 train/test split, and the reported MSE/MAE numbers in Table III are computed on the held-out portion; no test values are fed back into the synthetic-data optimization or into any fitted constant. The 'consistent updates' masking procedure is an optimization detail for constructing Dct and is not a fit to the target metric. The main assumption that MTT-style trajectory matching transfers from images to time series is an empirical premise, not a definitional one, and the absence of a random-synthetic-data control is a correctness/experimental-design concern rather than circularity. The self-citations present in the manuscript ([33]-[36], [65]) are background citations for federated learning applications and differential privacy; they do not supply the load-bearing justification for Fed-TREND's effectiveness, which rests on the independent test-set comparisons. No step in the derivation reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its inputs, so no circularity score above zero is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Fed-TREND rests on the transferability of dataset condensation to time series, a few hand-chosen hyperparameters, and an ad hoc heuristic for selecting consistent update directions. There are no new physical or theoretical entities. The main load-bearing assumptions are that MTT works for time series and that truncated trajectories (start and end model updates) preserve enough information.

free parameters (5)
  • Synthetic client dataset size |Dct| = 20 input-output pairs
    Chosen by hand; hyperparameter study in Section V-H2 shows performance peaks then declines with larger sizes.
  • Synthetic global dataset size |Dgt| = Not explicitly reported for main runs; swept from 0 to 40 in Figure 3
    The main experiments do not state the default size; Figure 3 shows performance rises with size up to 40.
  • Update intervals Lct and Lgt = 10 global rounds
    Set to 10 as a balance between computational cost and performance; small values improve performance but increase cost.
  • Synthetic data construction iterations N = 300
    Set following the MTT paper [12]; not tuned for time series.
  • Synthetic optimizer Adam learning rate = 3e-4
    Chosen by hand, following [12].
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MTT trajectory matching, developed for image classification, transfers to time series forecasting with the same optimization settings.
    The entire synthetic data construction pipeline (Section IV-D) uses MTT without time-series-specific modifications.
  • ad hoc to paper A synthetic dataset Dct optimized from only the start and end client model updates in each interval captures enough representative knowledge of all clients' local data.
    Eq. 7 simplifies the trajectory matching objective to only two model checkpoints, assuming intermediate trajectory information is unnecessary.
  • ad hoc to paper Parameters whose gradient signs are consistent across intervals encode important signals and should be used for Dct construction.
    This 'consistent update' masking, described in Section IV-B, is justified by reference to [48] and is not independently validated.
  • domain assumption Distributing Dct to all clients does not materially weaken the privacy guarantees of standard federated learning.
    The privacy analysis in Section IV-E1 states the method 'should be consistent' but provides no formal proof or attack analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tackling Data Heterogeneity in Federated Time Series Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PO5KQCAB

@misc{pith2026241115716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tackling Data Heterogeneity in Federated Time Series Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PO5KQCAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15716}
}
read the original abstract

Time series forecasting plays a critical role in various real-world applications, including energy consumption prediction, disease transmission monitoring, and weather forecasting. Although substantial progress has been made in time series forecasting, most existing methods rely on a centralized training paradigm, where large amounts of data are collected from distributed devices (e.g., sensors, wearables) to a central cloud server. However, this paradigm has overloaded communication networks and raised privacy concerns. Federated learning, a popular privacy-preserving technique, enables collaborative model training across distributed data sources. However, directly applying federated learning to time series forecasting often yields suboptimal results, as time series data generated by different devices are inherently heterogeneous. In this paper, we propose a novel framework, Fed-TREND, to address data heterogeneity by generating informative synthetic data as auxiliary knowledge carriers. Specifically, Fed-TREND generates two types of synthetic data. The first type of synthetic data captures the representative distribution information from clients' uploaded model updates and enhances clients' local training consensus. The second kind of synthetic data extracts long-term influence insights from global model update trajectories and is used to refine the global model after aggregation. Fed-TREND is compatible with most time series forecasting models and can be seamlessly integrated into existing federated learning frameworks to improve prediction performance. Extensive experiments on eight datasets, using several federated learning baselines and four popular time series forecasting models, demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of Fed-TREND.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15716 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall architecture of Fed-TREND. When clients uploaded their model updates, these updates are (1) used for aggregation as the original [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The result of using Fed-TREND to improve the general federated learning frameworks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The performance trend with different |Dgt|. 10 20 30 40 Electricity 0.209 0.210 MSE 10 20 30 40 Traffic 0.462 0.464 0.466 MSE 10 20 30 40 Solar Energy 0.312 0.314 0.316 MSE 10 20 30 40 State-ILI 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 MSE 10 20 30 40 Country-Temp 0.454 0.456 0.458 0.460 MSE 10 20 30 40 ETTh1 0.355 0.360 0.365 MSE 10 20 30 40 ETTh2 0.144 0.146 0.148 MSE 10 20 30 40 USWeather 0.440 0.442 MSE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The performance trend with different |Dct|. crucial for practical time series forecasting tasks. Last but not least, we analyze the frequency of updating Dgt and Dct, i.e., the value of Lgt and Lct’s influence in Section V-H4. 1) The Impact of Dgt dataset size [PITH_F…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The performance trend with time series data length. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The performance trend with the synthetic data construction frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Towards long-term time-series forecasting: Feature, pattern, and distribution,

    Y . Li, X. Lu, H. Xiong, J. Tang, J. Su, B. Jin, and D. Dou, “Towards long-term time-series forecasting: Feature, pattern, and distribution,” in 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1611–1624

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,

    H. Zhou, S. Zhang, J. Peng, S. Zhang, J. Li, H. Xiong, and W. Zhang, “Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intel- ligence, vol. 35, no. 12, 2021, pp. 11 106–11 115

    2021

  3. [3]

    itrans- former: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting,

    Y . Liu, T. Hu, H. Zhang, H. Wu, S. Wang, L. Ma, and M. Long, “itrans- former: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page

  4. [4]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Less is more: Fast multivariate time series forecasting with light sampling- oriented mlp structures,

    T. Zhang, Y . Zhang, W. Cao, J. Bian, X. Yi, S. Zheng, and J. Li, “Less is more: Fast multivariate time series forecasting with light sampling- oriented mlp structures,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.01186 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Are transformers effective for time series forecasting?

    A. Zeng, M. Chen, L. Zhang, and Q. Xu, “Are transformers effective for time series forecasting?” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 37, no. 9, 2023, pp. 11 121–11 128

    2023

  7. [7]

    Tsmixer: An all-mlp architecture for time series forecast-ing,

    S.-A. Chen, C.-L. Li, S. O. Arik, N. C. Yoder, and T. Pfister, “Tsmixer: An all-mlp architecture for time series forecast-ing,” Transactions on Machine Learning Research

    work page

  8. [8]

    Smart meter data privacy: A survey,

    M. R. Asghar, G. D ´an, D. Miorandi, and I. Chlamtac, “Smart meter data privacy: A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2820–2835, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

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

    2017

  2. [10]

    Federated learning on non-iid data silos: An experimental study,

    Q. Li, Y . Diao, Q. Chen, and B. He, “Federated learning on non-iid data silos: An experimental study,” in 2022 IEEE 38th international conference on data engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 965–978

    2022

  3. [11]

    Heterogeneous feder- ated learning: State-of-the-art and research challenges,

    M. Ye, X. Fang, B. Du, P. C. Yuen, and D. Tao, “Heterogeneous feder- ated learning: State-of-the-art and research challenges,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1–44, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Dataset distillation by matching training trajectories,

    G. Cazenavette, T. Wang, A. Torralba, A. A. Efros, and J.-Y . Zhu, “Dataset distillation by matching training trajectories,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 4750–4759

    2022

  5. [13]

    Dataset distillation: A comprehensive re- view,

    R. Yu, S. Liu, and X. Wang, “Dataset distillation: A comprehensive re- view,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Graph condensation: A survey,

    X. Gao, J. Yu, W. Jiang, T. Chen, W. Zhang, and H. Yin, “Graph condensation: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11720 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Federated learning via synthetic data,

    J. Goetz and A. Tewari, “Federated learning via synthetic data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.04489, 2020

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Feddm: Iterative distribution matching for communication-efficient federated learning,

    Y . Xiong, R. Wang, M. Cheng, F. Yu, and C.-J. Hsieh, “Feddm: Iterative distribution matching for communication-efficient federated learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 16 323–16 332

    2023

  9. [17]

    Meta knowledge condensation for fed- erated learning,

    P. Liu, X. Yu, and J. T. Zhou, “Meta knowledge condensation for fed- erated learning,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

  10. [18]

    An aggregation-free federated learning for tackling data heterogeneity,

    Y . Wang, H. Fu, R. Kanagavelu, Q. Wei, Y . Liu, and R. S. M. Goh, “An aggregation-free federated learning for tackling data heterogeneity,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 26 233–26 242

    2024

  11. [19]

    Robust time series analysis and applications: An industrial perspective,

    Q. Wen, L. Yang, T. Zhou, and L. Sun, “Robust time series analysis and applications: An industrial perspective,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2022, pp. 4836–4837

    2022

  12. [20]

    Forecasting covid-19 dynamics: Clustering, generalized spatiotemporal attention, and impacts of mobility and geographic proximity,

    T. Shen, Y . Li, and J. M. Moura, “Forecasting covid-19 dynamics: Clustering, generalized spatiotemporal attention, and impacts of mobility and geographic proximity,” in 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 2892–2904

    2023

  13. [21]

    Prompt federated learning for weather forecasting: toward foundation models on meteorological data,

    S. Chen, G. Long, T. Shen, and J. Jiang, “Prompt federated learning for weather forecasting: toward foundation models on meteorological data,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023, pp. 3532–3540

    2023

  14. [22]

    Deep learning for time series forecasting: Tutorial and literature survey,

    K. Benidis, S. S. Rangapuram, V . Flunkert, Y . Wang, D. Maddix, C. Turkmen, J. Gasthaus, M. Bohlke-Schneider, D. Salinas, L. Stella et al., “Deep learning for time series forecasting: Tutorial and literature survey,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 1–36, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Distribution of residual autocorrelations in autoregressive-integrated moving average time series models,

    G. E. Box and D. A. Pierce, “Distribution of residual autocorrelations in autoregressive-integrated moving average time series models,” Journal of the American statistical Association, vol. 65, no. 332, pp. 1509–1526, 1970

    1970

  16. [24]

    Exponential smoothing: The state of the art,

    E. S. Gardner Jr, “Exponential smoothing: The state of the art,” Journal of forecasting, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 1985

    1985

  17. [25]

    Forecasting, structural time series models and the kalman filter,

    A. C. Harvey, “Forecasting, structural time series models and the kalman filter,” 1990

    1990

  18. [26]

    Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (rnn) and long short-term memory (lstm) network,

    A. Sherstinsky, “Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (rnn) and long short-term memory (lstm) network,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phe- nomena, vol. 404, p. 132306, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Introduction to convolutional neural networks,

    J. Wu, “Introduction to convolutional neural networks,” National Key Lab for Novel Software Technology. Nanjing University. China , vol. 5, no. 23, p. 495, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Modeling long-and short-term temporal patterns with deep neural networks,

    G. Lai, W.-C. Chang, Y . Yang, and H. Liu, “Modeling long-and short-term temporal patterns with deep neural networks,” in The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval, 2018, pp. 95–104

    2018

  21. [29]

    Temporal pattern attention for multivariate time series forecasting,

    S.-Y . Shih, F.-K. Sun, and H.-y. Lee, “Temporal pattern attention for multivariate time series forecasting,” Machine Learning , vol. 108, pp. 1421–1441, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Transformers in time series: a survey,

    Q. Wen, T. Zhou, C. Zhang, W. Chen, Z. Ma, J. Yan, and L. Sun, “Transformers in time series: a survey,” in Proceedings of the Thirty- Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2023, pp. 6778–6786

    2023

  23. [31]

    Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting,

    H. Wu, J. Xu, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 22 419– 22 430, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Argument discovery via crowdsourcing,

    Q. V . H. Nguyen, C. T. Duong, T. T. Nguyen, M. Weidlich, K. Aberer, H. Yin, and X. Zhou, “Argument discovery via crowdsourcing,” The VLDB Journal, vol. 26, pp. 511–535, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Federated unlearning for on-device recommendation,

    W. Yuan, H. Yin, F. Wu, S. Zhang, T. He, and H. Wang, “Federated unlearning for on-device recommendation,” in Proceedings of the six- teenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining , 2023, pp. 393–401

    2023

  26. [34]

    Hetefedrec: Federated recommender systems with model heterogeneity,

    W. Yuan, L. Qu, L. Cui, Y . Tong, X. Zhou, and H. Yin, “Hetefedrec: Federated recommender systems with model heterogeneity,” in 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1324–1337

    2024

  27. [35]

    Hide your model: A parameter transmission-free federated recommender system,

    W. Yuan, C. Yang, L. Qu, Q. V . H. Nguyen, J. Li, and H. Yin, “Hide your model: A parameter transmission-free federated recommender system,” in 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 2024, pp. 611–624

    2024

  28. [36]

    Manip- ulating visually aware federated recommender systems and its counter- measures,

    W. Yuan, S. Yuan, C. Yang, N. Quoc Viet hung, and H. Yin, “Manip- ulating visually aware federated recommender systems and its counter- measures,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems , vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1–26, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Federated machine learning: Concept and applications,

    Q. Yang, Y . Liu, T. Chen, and Y . Tong, “Federated machine learning: Concept and applications,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–19, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Overcoming data sparsity in group recommendation,

    H. Yin, Q. Wang, K. Zheng, Z. Li, and X. Zhou, “Overcoming data sparsity in group recommendation,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 3447–3460, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Exploiting shared representations for personalized federated learning,

    L. Collins, H. Hassani, A. Mokhtari, and S. Shakkottai, “Exploiting shared representations for personalized federated learning,” in Interna- tional conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 2089–2099

    2021

  32. [40]

    Ensemble distillation for robust model fusion in federated learning,

    T. Lin, L. Kong, S. U. Stich, and M. Jaggi, “Ensemble distillation for robust model fusion in federated learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 2351–2363, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Fedbe: Making bayesian model ensemble applicable to federated learning,

    H.-Y . Chen and W.-L. Chao, “Fedbe: Making bayesian model ensemble applicable to federated learning,” in International Conference on Learn- ing Representations

  34. [42]

    Feddg: Federated do- main generalization on medical image segmentation via episodic learn- ing in continuous frequency space,

    Q. Liu, C. Chen, J. Qin, Q. Dou, and P.-A. Heng, “Feddg: Federated do- main generalization on medical image segmentation via episodic learn- ing in continuous frequency space,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 1013– 1023

    2021

  35. [43]

    Fedmix: Approximation of mixup under mean augmented federated learning,

    T. Yoon, S. Shin, S. J. Hwang, and E. Yang, “Fedmix: Approximation of mixup under mean augmented federated learning,” in International Conference on Learning Representations

  36. [44]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,” Proceedings of Machine learning and systems , vol. 2, pp. 429–450, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learn- ing,

    S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. Reddi, S. Stich, and A. T. Suresh, “Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learn- ing,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 5132–5143

    2020

  38. [46]

    Federated learning based on dynamic regularization,

    D. A. E. 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

  39. [47]

    Elastic aggregation for federated optimization,

    D. Chen, J. Hu, V . J. Tan, X. Wei, and E. Wu, “Elastic aggregation for federated optimization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 12 187–12 197

    2023

  40. [48]

    Fair federated learning under domain skew with local consistency and domain diversity,

    Y . Chen, W. Huang, and M. Ye, “Fair federated learning under domain skew with local consistency and domain diversity,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 12 077–12 086

    2024

  41. [49]

    Distilled one-shot federated learning,

    Y . Zhou, G. Pu, X. Ma, X. Li, and D. Wu, “Distilled one-shot federated learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07999 , 2020

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Fedsynth: Gradient compression via synthetic data in federated learning,

    S. Hu, J. Goetz, K. Malik, H. Zhan, Z. Liu, and Y . Liu, “Fedsynth: Gradient compression via synthetic data in federated learning,” in Workshop on Federated Learning: Recent Advances and New Challenges (in Conjunction with NeurIPS 2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Dense: Data-free one-shot federated learning,

    J. Zhang, C. Chen, B. Li, L. Lyu, S. Wu, S. Ding, C. Shen, and C. Wu, “Dense: Data-free one-shot federated learning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 21 414–21 428, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Keyword-aware continuous knn query on road networks,

    B. Zheng, K. Zheng, X. Xiao, H. Su, H. Yin, X. Zhou, and G. Li, “Keyword-aware continuous knn query on road networks,” in2016 IEEE 32Nd international conference on data engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 871–882

    2016

  45. [53]

    Enhancing one- shot federated learning through data and ensemble co-boosting,

    R. Dai, Y . Zhang, A. Li, T. Liu, X. Yang, and B. Han, “Enhancing one- shot federated learning through data and ensemble co-boosting,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

  46. [54]

    Dynafed: Tackling client data heterogeneity with global dynamics,

    R. Pi, W. Zhang, Y . Xie, J. Gao, X. Wang, S. Kim, and Q. Chen, “Dynafed: Tackling client data heterogeneity with global dynamics,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 12 177–12 186

    2023

  47. [55]

    Computing crowd consensus with partial agreement,

    N. Q. V . Hung, H. H. Viet, N. T. Tam, M. Weidlich, H. Yin, and X. Zhou, “Computing crowd consensus with partial agreement,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    Time-ffm: Towards lm-empowered federated foundation model for time series forecasting,

    Q. Liu, X. Liu, C. Liu, Q. Wen, and Y . Liang, “Time-ffm: Towards lm-empowered federated foundation model for time series forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14252 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A federated large language model for long-term time series forecasting,

    R. Abdel-Sater and A. B. Hamza, “A federated large language model for long-term time series forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20503, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Multi- participant vertical federated learning based time series prediction,

    Y . Yan, G. Yang, Y . Gao, C. Zang, J. Chen, and Q. Wang, “Multi- participant vertical federated learning based time series prediction,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computing and Artificial Intelligence, 2022, pp. 165–171

    2022

  51. [59]

    Dataset condensation with gradient matching,

    B. Zhao, K. R. Mopuri, and H. Bilen, “Dataset condensation with gradient matching,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.05929 , 2020

    2006 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Dataset distillation using parameter pruning,

    G. Li, R. Togo, T. Ogawa, and M. Haseyama, “Dataset distillation using parameter pruning,” IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences , vol. 107, no. 6, pp. 936–940, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Minimizing the accu- mulated trajectory error to improve dataset distillation,

    J. Du, Y . Jiang, V . Y . Tan, J. T. Zhou, and H. Li, “Minimizing the accu- mulated trajectory error to improve dataset distillation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 3749–3758

    2023

  54. [62]

    A comprehensive survey of privacy- preserving federated learning: A taxonomy, review, and future direc- tions,

    X. Yin, Y . Zhu, and J. Hu, “A comprehensive survey of privacy- preserving federated learning: A taxonomy, review, and future direc- tions,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1–36, 2021

    2021

  55. [63]

    On the importance of initialization and momentum in deep learning,

    I. Sutskever, J. Martens, G. Dahl, and G. Hinton, “On the importance of initialization and momentum in deep learning,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2013, pp. 1139–1147

    2013

  56. [64]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Comprehensive privacy analysis on federated recommender system against attribute inference attacks,

    S. Zhang, W. Yuan, and H. Yin, “Comprehensive privacy analysis on federated recommender system against attribute inference attacks,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2023

    2023

Pith tools

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