Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

DapperFL: Domain Adaptive Federated Learning with Model Fusion Pruning for Edge Devices

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single federated-learning design handles device-speed gaps and cross-domain data drift while cutting model size by up to 80%.

desk verdict A useful engineering contribution to heterogeneous FL with domain shift, but the SOTA claim rests on test-set hyperparameter tuning and a 0.13% Digits margin that is within noise. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05823 v1 pith:5UQAKZ6W submitted 2024-12-08 cs.LG cs.AI

Yongzhe Jia , Xuyun Zhang , Hongsheng Hu , Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo , Lianyong Qi , Xiaolong Xu , Amin Beheshti , Wanchun Dou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords federatedlearningdomaingeneralizationmodelpruningsystemheterogeneityedgecomputingshiftheterogeneousaggregationrepresentationregularization
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 proposes DapperFL, a federated-learning framework for edge settings where clients have unequal computing power and local data drawn from different domains. Its claim is that both problems can be solved in one loop: a Model Fusion Pruning module gives each client a compact local model sized to its resources, and a Domain Adaptive Regularization module pushes encoder representations toward small, aligned values to resist domain shift. A dedicated aggregation rule recombines the differently pruned local models into a global model. On two multi-domain benchmarks, the paper reports global accuracy up to 2.28 percentage points above several state-of-the-art baselines while cutting local model volume by 20% to 80%. If correct, resource-constrained devices no longer have to choose between joining federated learning and handling domain generalization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pruned local model $w_i^t \odot M_i^t$ produced by the Model Fusion Pruning module. The binary mask $M_i^t$ is selected channel-wise by the $\ell^1$ norm after the client's one-epoch fine-tuned model has been fused with the global model through $\alpha_t = \max\{(1-\epsilon)^{t-1}\alpha_0,\alpha_{\min}\}$, so the retained channels carry both local and global domain knowledge. The Domain Adaptive Regularization term $\|g_e(w_e \odot M_e; x_i)\|_2^2$ is added to the cross-entropy loss to pull encoder outputs toward small norms, which the paper argues aligns representations across domains. The aggregation formula $w_i^t := w_i^t \odot M_i^t + W^{t-1} \odot \overline{M_i^t}$ restores the full architecture before weighted averaging, allowing heterogeneous pruned models to be combined into one global model.

What would settle it

On the same two benchmarks, run full DapperFL against a control where the regularization penalty is applied to a fixed random projection of the encoder output instead of the output itself; if accuracy stays roughly the same, the proposed norm-alignment mechanism is not what drives the gain. A complementary check is to measure the average distance between encoder representations of same-class samples from different domains and see whether DapperFL actually reduces it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DapperFL's central claim is that system heterogeneity and domain shift can be solved together rather than as separate add-ons. Each round, a client fine-tunes the downloaded global model for one epoch, fuses it with the global model using a time-decaying weight $\alpha_t$, prunes channels by the $\ell^1$ norm at a personalized ratio $\rho_i$, and trains the pruned model with loss $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{CE}} + \gamma\|\mathbf{z}\|_2^2$, where $\mathbf{z}$ is the encoder representation. The server reconstructs each pruned model by filling the pruned positions with the previous global model's weights, then weight-averages the full-size models by sample count. The experiments show this sequence beating eight existing federated-learning methods in average Top-1 accuracy on Digits (74.30%) and Office Caltech (67.75%), with the largest gains on the hardest domains (SYN, Amazon, DSLR) and local model size reductions of 20% to 80% for lower-capability clients.

Load-bearing premise

The approach presumes that pushing each client's encoder representation toward a smaller squared $\ell^2$ norm makes representations from different domains more alike, and the paper offers no direct evidence of that alignment beyond a 1–2 point accuracy gain in ablations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same training loop can include low-capability clients without dropping them, because each client's pruning ratio is set from its device capability.
  • Pruning is not only a compression trick: on Office Caltech, accuracy at $\rho=0.4$ exceeds accuracy at $\rho=0.2$, suggesting structural pruning can improve generalization rather than merely cost it.
  • The global model stays aggregatable despite heterogeneous local architectures, because the server fills pruned channels with the previous global model before averaging.
  • The gains concentrate on the hardest domains (SYN, Amazon, DSLR), suggesting the regularization changes which features the global model relies on, not just overall calibration.
  • The framework adds four hyper-parameters ($\alpha_0$, $\alpha_{\min}$, $\epsilon$, $\gamma$), and the reported sensitivity means deployment requires per-benchmark tuning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $\ell^2$ penalty is effectively a feature-magnitude prior; a natural test is whether the same gain appears with a normalization layer that centers or scales encoder outputs instead of penalizing their norm.
  • If the regularization truly aligns representations, DapperFL should reduce the average distance between encoder representations of same-class samples from different domains; measuring that distance directly would give the 1–2% accuracy gains a mechanistic check.
  • The fusion-pruning recipe could be reused in federated settings where clients differ in communication bandwidth rather than compute, with the pruning ratio reinterpreted as a communication budget.
  • Since the ablation gain from the regularization module is small (about 1–2 points), the framework's practical value may rest more on the pruning module's ability to compress without losing accuracy than on the domain-alignment story.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes DapperFL, a federated learning framework intended to handle both system heterogeneity (clients with different resource budgets) and domain shift (clients seeing different input distributions). The Model Fusion Pruning (MFP) module fine-tunes the global model for one epoch on local data, fuses the global and local models with a time-decaying weight alpha_t, computes a channel-wise L1-norm binary mask with a client-specific pruning ratio, and prunes the local model. The Domain Adaptive Regularization (DAR) module penalizes the squared L2 norm of the encoder's representation. A dedicated aggregation step recovers each pruned model's structure using the previous global model and then weighted-averages the recovered models. Experiments on Digits and Office Caltech with ten clients are run against eight FL baselines; the paper reports global accuracy improvements up to 2.28 percentage points and local model volume reductions of 20-80%. Code is publicly available.

Significance. Assuming the empirical claims are reproducible under a fair protocol, DapperFL is a useful, simple combination of pruning-based heterogeneity handling and representation regularization for federated domain generalization. The strengths of the submission are the breadth of the comparison (two multi-domain benchmarks, eight baselines, pruning-ratio sweeps, ablations, and hyperparameter studies), the real-world FedML implementation, the three-seed repetitions, and the release of code. However, the current evaluation protocol does not support the headline claim because DapperFL's own hyperparameters are tuned on the same test benchmarks while the baselines are used with default settings. The margin on Digits is well within the reported variability, and the ablation shows that the DAR term is responsible for the entire margin over two strong baselines. The contribution is therefore interesting but not yet convincingly validated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Appendix B, Figure 4, Appendix E] The main comparison is not fair as reported. Section 4.1 states that for framework-specific hyperparameters "we use their default settings without changing them," but the DapperFL defaults in Appendix B (alpha0=0.9, alpha_min=0.1, epsilon=0.2, gamma=0.01) are not defaults in any meaningful sense: Figure 4 chooses each of these values as the accuracy-maximizing point on the Digits and Office Caltech benchmarks, and Appendix E performs a Bayesian search for epsilon on Office Caltech. No held-out validation split is described, so DapperFL's hyperparameters are effectively fitted to the same test sets on which Tables 1 and 2 are computed, while FedAvg, MOON, FedSR, FPL, FedDrop, FedProx, FedMP, and NeFL are not tuned. This matters because the reported gains are small: 0.13 percentage points on Digits (74.30 +/- 0.26 vs 74.17 +/- 0.95 for FPL) and 2.28 percentage points on Office Caltech. Moreover, Table 3 shows that without DAR DapperFL drops to 72.37 on Digits and 64.88 on Office Caltech, below both FPL (74.17 / 65.45) and FedSR (73.89 / 65.47); hence the entire reported superiority depends on a term whose strength gamma was selected on the test benchmark. The authors should re-run the comparison with alpha0, alpha_min, epsilon, and gamma selected on a validation split (or by nested cross-validation) and fixed before test evaluation, and they should report the validation-selected values.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (3), Table 3] The DAR module's core assumption is unsubstantiated. The paper claims that penalizing the squared L2 norm of the encoder representation in Eq. (3) "implicitly encourages different local encoders to generate aligned robust representations," but a squared L2 penalty can in principle be minimized by shrinking all representations toward zero, which is not the same as aligning representations across domains. No formal argument, gradient analysis, or toy experiment is provided to show that the norm is a domain-invariance proxy. The claim is load-bearing because the ablation in Table 3 attributes the entire advantage over FPL and FedSR to the DAR term. The authors should either provide a concrete mechanism (for example, an invariance identity that the regularizer enforces) or explicitly present DAR as a heuristic whose benefit must be established by the fair comparison.
  3. [Tables 1–2] The "outperforms" claim is not supported by significance testing. With three seeds, DapperFL's Digits accuracy is 74.30 +/- 0.26 versus FPL's 74.17 +/- 0.95, and on Office Caltech it is 67.75 +/- 0.97 versus FedSR's 65.47 +/- 1.13 and FPL's 65.45 +/- 1.15. The intervals overlap substantially, especially on Digits, and no paired test or confidence interval is reported. The authors should report per-seed results and a standard significance test (or at least bootstrap confidence intervals) for the global accuracy comparisons.
  4. [Section 5 (Limitations), Appendix E] The limitation statement is internally inconsistent with the appendix. Section 5 lists the automatic selection of alpha0, alpha_min, epsilon, and gamma as future work, but Appendix E already performs a Bayesian automatic selection for epsilon on Office Caltech. If that Bayesian search is part of DapperFL's procedure, it must be described in the main evaluation and performed on a validation set; if it is only a post-hoc analysis, the text should say so. Either way, the contradiction should be removed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, Eq. (6)] In the sentence after Eq. (6), the second term is written as "wt-1 (circle dot) M_t_i" in the text, but the equation uses W^{t-1} (circle dot) \bar{M}^t_i; please unify the notation and include the overbar on M in the prose.
  2. [§4.1, Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 fine-tunes for one epoch to generate the mask, while the local training setting in Table 4 uses five local epochs; the relationship between these two epoch counts should be explained explicitly.
  3. [Table 3] The configuration "DapperFL w/o MFP" is described as still performing L1-norm pruning directly on the local models; this means the ablation keeps the pruning mechanism and removes only the fusion step, so the name "w/o MFP" is potentially confusing and should be defined more precisely.
  4. [Appendix E] The Bayesian search in Appendix E is summarized with a single curve and no error bars or confidence intervals, and the claim that accuracy is "likely" maximized near epsilon=0.2 is not quantified; please report the search bounds, the number of evaluations per point, and the uncertainty of the estimated maximum.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

DapperFL's claimed SOTA gains are partly an artifact of selecting its four hyperparameters on the same test benchmarks, while all comparison frameworks use fixed default settings, making the comparison fitted rather than predicted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Default Hyper-parameters), Section 4.3 (Effect of Hyper-Parameters), Appendix B, Appendix E, Tables 1 and 2]
    "For the framework-specific hyper-parameters, we use their default settings without changing them. ... The results show an increase in accuracy with higher γ values until γ = 0.01 on Digits, where the highest accuracy of 74.30% is achieved. ... We run DapperFL on the Office Caltech benchmark 40 times, adopting a distinct ϵ of less than 0.2 each time. The values are selected using the Bayesian search."

    The final comparison (Tables 1 and 2) is made with DapperFL's hyperparameters α0=0.9, αmin=0.1, ϵ=0.2, γ=0.01, but those values were chosen by sweeping and Bayesian search on the same Digits and Office Caltech benchmarks that are then used to report accuracy (Figure 4 and Appendix E). DapperFL's reported 74.30% and 67.75% are therefore the maximum of a test-set selection procedure, not the accuracy of an independently specified configuration. The eight baselines, by contrast, use 'their default settings without changing them,' so the claimed improvements (0.13% and 2.28%) are measured against untuned competitors. The performance claim is thus partly a fitted quantity, not an out-of-sample prediction.

full rationale

The paper's core method is not circular: MFP (Eqs. 1-2, Algorithm 1), DAR (Eqs. 3-5), and the recovery aggregation (Eqs. 6-7) are explicit and do not import their conclusions from self-citations or an ansatz disguised as a theorem. The load-bearing weakness is the evaluation protocol. Section 4.1 fixes baseline hyperparameters to defaults; Section 4.3 then sweeps α0, αmin, ϵ, and γ on Digits and Office Caltech and chooses the values that maximize accuracy on those same benchmarks; Appendix E performs a Bayesian search for ϵ on Office Caltech; Appendix B hard-codes the selected values as DapperFL defaults. Because no held-out validation split is described, the DapperFL results in Tables 1-2 are test-set-tuned, whereas the baselines are not. The paper's own limitations section lists automatic selection of the four hyperparameters as future work, confirming that the values are not chosen by a principled criterion. The ablation in Table 3 also shows that without DAR, DapperFL drops below FPL and FedSR, so the claimed superiority hinges on the test-set-selected γ. No self-citation chain, uniqueness import, or equation-level circularity was found; the rest of the framework is self-contained.

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

The central claim rests on a small set of empirically tuned hyperparameters and on the heuristic that L2 representation norm regularization aligns domains. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The free parameters are fitted to the same benchmarks used for the final comparison, which is the main circularity burden.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha0 = 0.9
    Initial fusion weight in Eq. (2), selected by grid search on the test accuracy of both benchmarks (Fig. 4a).
  • alpha_min = 0.1
    Minimum fusion weight in Eq. (2), tuned on test accuracy (Fig. 4b).
  • epsilon = 0.2
    Decay rate of alpha in Eq. (2), tuned on test accuracy (Fig. 4c); the paper then runs Bayesian search on the same benchmark to confirm this choice (Appendix E).
  • gamma = 0.01
    DAR regularization coefficient in Eq. (5), tuned on test accuracy (Fig. 4d).
  • pruning ratios rho_i = 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 for client levels 1-5
    Assigned by system capability; these ratios determine the model volume reductions and directly shape the reported 20%-80% compression claim.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Squared L2 norm of encoder representations is a useful proxy for domain invariance.
    The DAR module relies on this assumption (Section 3.3, Eq. 3); no derivation or theory is provided, only the empirical ablation.
  • domain assumption One epoch of local fine-tuning is sufficient to capture local domain knowledge for pruning.
    Stated in Section 3.2 with citations to prior work; this is a practical heuristic, not a proven guarantee.
  • ad hoc to paper The dynamic decay schedule alpha_t = max{(1-epsilon)^{t-1} alpha0, alpha_min} improves generalization.
    The schedule is hand-designed in Eq. (2) and its benefits are shown only through the hyperparameter sweeps, not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DapperFL: Domain Adaptive Federated Learning with Model Fusion Pruning for Edge Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5UQAKZ6W

@misc{pith2026241205823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DapperFL: Domain Adaptive Federated Learning with Model Fusion Pruning for Edge Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5UQAKZ6W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05823}
}
read the original abstract

Federated learning (FL) has emerged as a prominent machine learning paradigm in edge computing environments, enabling edge devices to collaboratively optimize a global model without sharing their private data. However, existing FL frameworks suffer from efficacy deterioration due to the system heterogeneity inherent in edge computing, especially in the presence of domain shifts across local data. In this paper, we propose a heterogeneous FL framework DapperFL, to enhance model performance across multiple domains. In DapperFL, we introduce a dedicated Model Fusion Pruning (MFP) module to produce personalized compact local models for clients to address the system heterogeneity challenges. The MFP module prunes local models with fused knowledge obtained from both local and remaining domains, ensuring robustness to domain shifts. Additionally, we design a Domain Adaptive Regularization (DAR) module to further improve the overall performance of DapperFL. The DAR module employs regularization generated by the pruned model, aiming to learn robust representations across domains. Furthermore, we introduce a specific aggregation algorithm for aggregating heterogeneous local models with tailored architectures and weights. We implement DapperFL on a realworld FL platform with heterogeneous clients. Experimental results on benchmark datasets with multiple domains demonstrate that DapperFL outperforms several state-of-the-art FL frameworks by up to 2.28%, while significantly achieving model volume reductions ranging from 20% to 80%. Our code is available at: https://github.com/jyzgh/DapperFL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05823 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A motivational example of DapperFL with heterogeneous devices and multiple domains. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of DapperFL framework with two clients for each communication round. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of model accuracy of FedMP, NeFL, and DapperFL with different prun￾ing ratios on the Digits and Office Caltech. Impact of Model Footprints. In heterogeneous FL, resource constraints on the clients often re￾sult in limited model footprints (i.e., number of parameters and FLOPs). To investigate the impact of the model footprints on model per￾formance, we compare the DapperFL with two SOTA FL frameworks (i.e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The effect of hyper-parameters in the MFP and DAR modules on model accuracy. “Office” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Learning curves of global accuracies for FedAvg, FedDrop, FedProx, MOON, FedMP, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Learning curves of domain accuracies for FedAvg, FedDrop, FedProx, MOON, FedMP, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Model accuracy of DapperFL on the Office Caltech for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.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. Efficient Federated Learning with Encrypted Data Sharing for Data-Heterogeneous Edge Devices

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FedEDS lets federated learning clients share data encrypted via a stochastic layer, improving accuracy and cutting communication rounds under data heterogeneity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Federated learning in mobile edge networks: A comprehensive survey

    Wei Yang Bryan Lim, Nguyen Cong Luong, Dinh Thai Hoang, Yutao Jiao, Ying-Chang Liang, Qiang Yang, Dusit Niyato, and Chunyan Miao. Federated learning in mobile edge networks: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 22(3):2031–2063, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Advances and open problems in federated learning

    Peter Kairouz, H Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aurélien Bellet, Mehdi Bennis, Ar- jun Nitin Bhagoji, Kallista Bonawitz, Zachary Charles, Graham Cormode, Rachel Cummings, et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning. Foundations and trends® in machine learning, 14(1–2):1–210, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    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, pages 1273–1282. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    A survey on heterogeneous federated learning

    Dashan Gao, Xin Yao, and Qiang Yang. A survey on heterogeneous federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04505, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Fedrolex: Model-heterogeneous federated learning with rolling sub-model extraction

    Samiul Alam, Luyang Liu, Ming Yan, and Mi Zhang. Fedrolex: Model-heterogeneous federated learning with rolling sub-model extraction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 29677–29690. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Fedgh: Heterogeneous federated learning with generalized global header

    Liping Yi, Gang Wang, Xiaoguang Liu, Zhuan Shi, and Han Yu. Fedgh: Heterogeneous federated learning with generalized global header. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 8686–8696, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Federated learning with domain generalization

    Liling Zhang, Xinyu Lei, Yichun Shi, Hongyu Huang, and Chao Chen. Federated learning with domain generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.10487, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Benchmarking algorithms for federated domain generalization

    Ruqi Bai, Saurabh Bagchi, and David I Inouye. Benchmarking algorithms for federated domain generalization. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Stablefdg: Style and attention based learning for federated domain generalization

    Jungwuk Park, Dong-Jun Han, Jinho Kim, Shiqiang Wang, Christopher Brinton, and Jaekyun Moon. Stablefdg: Style and attention based learning for federated domain generalization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Expanding the reach of federated learning by reducing client resource requirements

    Sebastian Caldas, Jakub Koneˇcny, H Brendan McMahan, and Ameet Talwalkar. Expanding the reach of federated learning by reducing client resource requirements. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.07210, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Fedmp: Federated learning through adaptive model pruning in heterogeneous edge computing

    Zhida Jiang, Yang Xu, Hongli Xu, Zhiyuan Wang, Chunming Qiao, and Yangming Zhao. Fedmp: Federated learning through adaptive model pruning in heterogeneous edge computing. In 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , pages 767–779, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Nefl: Nested federated learning for heterogeneous clients

    Honggu Kang, Seohyeon Cha, Jinwoo Shin, Jongmyeong Lee, and Joonhyuk Kang. Nefl: Nested federated learning for heterogeneous clients. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07761, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Exact feature distribution matching for arbitrary style transfer and domain generalization

    Yabin Zhang, Minghan Li, Ruihuang Li, Kui Jia, and Lei Zhang. Exact feature distribution matching for arbitrary style transfer and domain generalization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8035–8045, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Fedsr: A simple and effective domain generalization method for federated learning

    A Tuan Nguyen, Philip Torr, and Ser Nam Lim. Fedsr: A simple and effective domain generalization method for federated learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:38831–38843, 2022. 11

    2022

  7. [15]

    Rethinking federated learning with domain shift: A prototype view

    Wenke Huang, Mang Ye, Zekun Shi, He Li, and Bo Du. Rethinking federated learning with domain shift: A prototype view. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16312–16322. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Model-contrastive federated learning

    Qinbin Li, Bingsheng He, and Dawn Song. Model-contrastive federated learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10713–10722, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks

    Tian Li, Anit Kumar Sahu, Manzil Zaheer, Maziar Sanjabi, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks. Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 2:429–450, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Heterofl: Computation and communication efficient federated learning for heterogeneous clients

    Enmao Diao, Jie Ding, and Vahid Tarokh. Heterofl: Computation and communication efficient federated learning for heterogeneous clients. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01264, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Data-free knowledge distillation for heteroge- neous federated learning

    Zhuangdi Zhu, Junyuan Hong, and Jiayu Zhou. Data-free knowledge distillation for heteroge- neous federated learning. In International conference on machine learning, pages 12878–12889. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Fedproto: Federated prototype learning across heterogeneous clients

    Yue Tan, Guodong Long, Lu Liu, Tianyi Zhou, Qinghua Lu, Jing Jiang, and Chengqi Zhang. Fedproto: Federated prototype learning across heterogeneous clients. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 8432–8440, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Hermes: an efficient federated learning framework for heterogeneous mobile clients

    Ang Li, Jingwei Sun, Pengcheng Li, Yu Pu, Hai Li, and Yiran Chen. Hermes: an efficient federated learning framework for heterogeneous mobile clients. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pages 420–437, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Leung, and Leandros Tassiulas

    Yuang Jiang, Shiqiang Wang, Víctor Valls, Bong Jun Ko, Wei-Han Lee, Kin K. Leung, and Leandros Tassiulas. Model pruning enables efficient federated learning on edge devices. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, pages 1–13, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    One-shot pruning for fast-adapting pre-trained models on devices

    Haiyan Zhao and Guodong Long. One-shot pruning for fast-adapting pre-trained models on devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04365, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    SCAFFOLD: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning

    Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Satyen Kale, Mehryar Mohri, Sashank Reddi, Sebastian Stich, and Ananda Theertha Suresh. SCAFFOLD: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119, pages 5132–5...

    2020

  17. [25]

    Vincent Poor

    Jianyu Wang, Qinghua Liu, Hao Liang, Gauri Joshi, and H. Vincent Poor. Tackling the objective inconsistency problem in heterogeneous federated optimization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 7611–7623. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Fed- erated select: A primitive for communication-and memory-efficient federated learning

    Zachary Charles, Kallista Bonawitz, Stanislav Chiknavaryan, Brendan McMahan, et al. Fed- erated select: A primitive for communication-and memory-efficient federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.09432, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Every parameter matters: Ensuring the convergence of federated learning with dynamic heterogeneous models reduction

    Hanhan Zhou, Tian Lan, Guru Prasadh Venkataramani, and Wenbo Ding. Every parameter matters: Ensuring the convergence of federated learning with dynamic heterogeneous models reduction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Splitfed: When federated learning meets split learning

    Chandra Thapa, Pathum Chamikara Mahawaga Arachchige, Seyit Camtepe, and Lichao Sun. Splitfed: When federated learning meets split learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 8485–8493, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Split learning over wireless networks: Parallel design and resource management

    Wen Wu, Mushu Li, Kaige Qu, Conghao Zhou, Xuemin Shen, Weihua Zhuang, Xu Li, and Weisen Shi. Split learning over wireless networks: Parallel design and resource management. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 41(4):1051–1066, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Binarizing split learning for data privacy enhancement and computation reduction

    Ngoc Duy Pham, Alsharif Abuadbba, Yansong Gao, Tran Khoa Phan, and Naveen Chilamkurti. Binarizing split learning for data privacy enhancement and computation reduction. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 2023. 12

    2023

  23. [31]

    Domain generalization: A survey

    Kaiyang Zhou, Ziwei Liu, Yu Qiao, Tao Xiang, and Chen Change Loy. Domain generalization: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(4):4396–4415, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Domain generalization via conditional invariant representations

    Ya Li, Mingming Gong, Xinmei Tian, Tongliang Liu, and Dacheng Tao. Domain generalization via conditional invariant representations. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Domain gen- eralization via entropy regularization

    Shanshan Zhao, Mingming Gong, Tongliang Liu, Huan Fu, and Dacheng Tao. Domain gen- eralization via entropy regularization. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:16096–16107, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Respecting domain relations: Hypothesis invariance for domain generalization

    Ziqi Wang, Marco Loog, and Jan Van Gemert. Respecting domain relations: Hypothesis invariance for domain generalization. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 9756–9763. IEEE, 2021

    2020

  27. [35]

    Learning to generalize: Meta- learning for domain generalization

    Da Li, Yongxin Yang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Timothy Hospedales. Learning to generalize: Meta- learning for domain generalization. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Metareg: Towards domain generalization using meta-regularization

    Yogesh Balaji, Swami Sankaranarayanan, and Rama Chellappa. Metareg: Towards domain generalization using meta-regularization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Cooperative pruning in cross-domain deep neural network compression

    Shangyu Chen, Wenya Wang, and Sinno Jialin Pan. Cooperative pruning in cross-domain deep neural network compression. In IJCAI, pages 2102–2108, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Learning to generalize unseen domains via memory-based multi-source meta-learning for person re-identification

    Yuyang Zhao, Zhun Zhong, Fengxiang Yang, Zhiming Luo, Yaojin Lin, Shaozi Li, and Nicu Sebe. Learning to generalize unseen domains via memory-based multi-source meta-learning for person re-identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern ...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Domain generalization with mixstyle

    Kaiyang Zhou, Yongxin Yang, Yu Qiao, and Tao Xiang. Domain generalization with mixstyle. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Uncertainty modeling for out-of-distribution generalization

    Xiaotong Li, Yongxing Dai, Yixiao Ge, Jun Liu, Ying Shan, and LINGYU DUAN. Uncertainty modeling for out-of-distribution generalization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Learn from others and be yourself in heterogeneous federated learning

    Wenke Huang, Mang Ye, and Bo Du. Learn from others and be yourself in heterogeneous federated learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10143–10153, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    A comprehensive survey on transfer learning

    Fuzhen Zhuang, Zhiyuan Qi, Keyu Duan, Dongbo Xi, Yongchun Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. A comprehensive survey on transfer learning. Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(1):43–76, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    A survey of transfer learning.Journal of Big data, 3(1):1–40, 2016

    Karl Weiss, Taghi M Khoshgoftaar, and DingDing Wang. A survey of transfer learning.Journal of Big data, 3(1):1–40, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    How transferable are features in deep neural networks? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 27

    Jason Yosinski, Jeff Clune, Yoshua Bengio, and Hod Lipson. How transferable are features in deep neural networks? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 27. Curran Associates, Inc., 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    Eliminating domain bias for federated learning in representation space.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    Jianqing Zhang, Yang Hua, Jian Cao, Hao Wang, Tao Song, Zhengui Xue, Ruhui Ma, and Haibing Guan. Eliminating domain bias for federated learning in representation space.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Mnasnet: Platform-aware neural architecture search for mobile

    Mingxing Tan, Bo Chen, Ruoming Pang, Vijay Vasudevan, Mark Sandler, Andrew Howard, and Quoc V Le. Mnasnet: Platform-aware neural architecture search for mobile. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2820–2828, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Learning efficient convolutional networks through network slimming

    Zhuang Liu, Jianguo Li, Zhiqiang Shen, Gao Huang, Shoumeng Yan, and Changshui Zhang. Learning efficient convolutional networks through network slimming. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2736–2744, 2017. 13

    2017

  40. [48]

    Pruning filters for efficient convnets

    Hao Li, Asim Kadav, Igor Durdanovic, Hanan Samet, and Hans Peter Graf. Pruning filters for efficient convnets. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017

    2017

  41. [49]

    Fedml: A research library and benchmark for federated machine learning

    Chaoyang He, Songze Li, Jinhyun So, Mi Zhang, Hongyi Wang, Xiaoyang Wang, Praneeth Vepakomma, Abhishek Singh, Hang Qiu, Li Shen, Peilin Zhao, Yan Kang, Yang Liu, Ramesh Raskar, Qiang Yang, Murali Annavaram, and Salman Avestimehr. Fedml: A research library and benchmark for fed...

    2007 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Resource-adaptive federated learning with all-in-one neural composition

    Yiqun Mei, Pengfei Guo, Mo Zhou, and Vishal Patel. Resource-adaptive federated learning with all-in-one neural composition. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition

    Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998

    1998

  45. [53]

    Jonathan J. Hull. A database for handwritten text recognition research. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 16(5):550–554, 1994

    1994

  46. [54]

    Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning

    Netzer Yuval. Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning. In Proceed- ings of the NIPS Workshop on Deep Learning and Unsupervised Feature Learning, 2011

    2011

  47. [55]

    Effects of degradations on deep neural network architectures

    Prasun Roy, Subhankar Ghosh, Saumik Bhattacharya, and Umapada Pal. Effects of degradations on deep neural network architectures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.10108, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Geodesic flow kernel for unsupervised domain adaptation

    Boqing Gong, Yuan Shi, Fei Sha, and Kristen Grauman. Geodesic flow kernel for unsupervised domain adaptation. In 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2066–2073. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  49. [57]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 14 A Introduction to Comparison Frameworks The comparison FL frameworks u...

    2016

Pith tools

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