Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Impact of Cut Layer Selection in Split Federated Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cut-layer selection is provably neutral for SFL-V1 but performance-critical for SFL-V2, where an early split beats FedAvg on heterogeneous data.

desk verdict Useful empirical map of cut-layer effects in split federated learning, but the invariance proof doesn't cover the algorithm that was actually run. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15536 v1 pith:5IOCI4EY submitted 2024-12-20 cs.DC cs.LG

Justin Dachille , Chao Huang , Xin Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCcs.LG
keywords splitfederatedlearningcutlayerselectionconvergenceanalysisdataheterogeneitynon-IIDFedAvg
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

Split federated learning divides a neural network at a cut layer, putting early layers on client devices and the rest on a training server. This paper asks whether the placement of that cut layer changes what the model learns, and how the resulting accuracy compares with standard federated averaging. The answer it argues for is asymmetric: SFL-V1, which keeps a separate server-side model per client, is provably and experimentally insensitive to the cut layer, while SFL-V2, which shares one server-side model across clients, depends strongly on cut depth, with early cuts performing best. In experiments across four datasets and two ResNet architectures, an early cut in SFL-V2 outperformed FedAvg on both IID and non-IID data, with the largest gains on the most skewed distributions. The practical upshot is that cut-layer selection can be treated as a free design choice in SFL-V1 but as a performance-critical hyperparameter in SFL-V2.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cut layer $L_c$, the index at which the network is split so that layers $1,\dots,L_c$ live on clients and layers $L_c+1,\dots,L$ live on the training server. The argument's load-bearing piece is Proposition 1, a convergence bound for SFL-V1 derived under standard non-convex smoothness, bounded-variance, and bounded-heterogeneity assumptions; the proof decomposes each round's descent into client-side ($\theta_C$) and server-side ($\theta_S$) updates and shows the resulting update sequence is identical to FedAvg for every $L_c$, which is why the bound contains no dependence on the cut layer. On the empirical side, the machinery is the comparison grid: the same four cut positions ($L_c=1,2,3,4$) are applied to ResNet-18 and ResNet-50 across CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, Tiny ImageNet, and HAM10000, under IID and label-skewed (Dirichlet $\mu=0.1$) partitions, isolating cut-layer effects from architecture and data effects. The contrast between the two SFL variants is explained structurally: SFL-V1 preserves per-client independence through separate server-side models, while SFL-V2's shared server-side model learns from all clients' activations without weight averaging.

What would settle it

Run SFL-V1 on non-IID CIFAR-10 with fixed seeds across cut layers $L_c=1,\dots,4$ while logging the number of server-side gradient updates per communication round. If test accuracy shifts by more than the reported run-to-run spread (about 1.9 points) as the cut layer moves, the claimed invariance is empirically false; if accuracy stays flat but the log shows one server update per round, the invariance holds for the implemented algorithm while Proposition 1's proof, which sums $\tau$ server updates per round, does not cover that algorithm.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the two variants of split federated learning respond to cut-layer selection in opposite ways. For SFL-V1, where the training server keeps a separate server-side model per client, the authors prove (Proposition 1) that the convergence bound is independent of the cut layer $L_c$ for any $L_c \in \{1,\dots,L-1\}$ under standard assumptions (non-convex smooth losses, bounded gradient variance and heterogeneity), because any such configuration is equivalent to FedAvg with identical model updates. For SFL-V2, where a single shared server-side model processes all clients sequentially, no such invariance holds: test accuracy shifts substantially with cut depth, with $L_c=1$ (the earliest cut) giving the best accuracy on three of four datasets, and SFL-V2 at $L_c=1$ beating FedAvg by margins up to 9.78 points on non-IID data (52.38% vs 42.60% on CIFAR-100). The paper reads the cut layer as an interpolation knob between centralized learning ($L_c=0$) and FedAvg ($L_c=L$), and leaves a convergence proof for SFL-V2 to future work.

Load-bearing premise

The invariance result rests on the assumption that the server-side model is updated on every local training step, while Algorithm 1 as written updates the server-side model only once per round, so if the experiments follow Algorithm 1 the proof does not cover them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In SFL-V1, cut-layer placement can be chosen purely to minimize communication, client computation, or privacy risk; test accuracy will not move with the choice.
  • In SFL-V2, the cut layer is effectively a hyperparameter connecting centralized learning ($L_c=0$) to FedAvg ($L_c=L$); early cuts are the empirically best default.
  • On heterogeneous data, SFL-V2 with an early cut is a viable replacement for FedAvg: a 9.78-point gain on non-IID CIFAR-100 and a 7.05-point gain on IID CIFAR-10 in the reported runs.
  • Deployments that need per-client server-side models can use SFL-V1 and expect FedAvg-like accuracy regardless of where the network is split.
  • Since SFL-V1 behaves like FedAvg across cut layers, the architectural difference between V1 and V2, not the cut position, is what explains the accuracy gap between the two variants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence the paper leaves implicit: SFL-V1's invariance makes deeper cut layers a free privacy upgrade, since moving the split toward the server hides more input structure from the server-side model without measurable accuracy loss.
  • The proof-implementation mismatch over server update counts suggests a concrete test: re-running SFL-V1 with the server updated once per local step, as the proof assumes, could make the invariance slightly less clean in practice, separating an architectural fact from a proof artefact.
  • The paper's single counterexample (non-IID CIFAR-10, where $L_c=4$ beat $L_c=1$) hints that "early cut is best" is dataset-dependent; a cheap per-dataset probe across cut layers could turn the cut layer into a tunable knob rather than a fixed default.
  • SFL-V2's edge over FedAvg on skewed data echoes mechanisms studied in personalized and split learning; combining SFL-V2's shared server-side model with control variates or proximal correction, as the discussion suggests, is a natural next experiment.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies how the choice of cut layer affects the performance of two split federated learning variants, SFL-V1 and SFL-V2. The authors prove a convergence bound for SFL-V1 that is independent of the cut layer, and support it with experiments across two datasets and two ResNet architectures in IID and non-IID settings. They report that SFL-V1 is largely invariant to cut layer placement, while SFL-V2 is sensitive to it, with early cut layers generally performing best and sometimes beating FedAvg, especially on heterogeneous data. The paper also discusses privacy and non-IID challenges as future work.

Significance. If the claims hold, this would be a useful contribution to the SFL literature: cut layer selection is usually treated as a system-level or privacy-related design choice, and this paper provides the first systematic study of its effect on model accuracy, together with a convergence-style theoretical statement for SFL-V1. The empirical scope is reasonable for an initial study: four datasets, two architectures, and both IID and non-IID partitions. The claimed invariance of SFL-V1 is an interesting architectural observation, and the SFL-V2 versus FedAvg comparison addresses a practically relevant question. However, the theoretical result as written does not cover the implemented SFL-V1 algorithm, and the FedAvg comparison is confounded by different optimizers and learning rates; these issues currently limit the strength of the central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (18); Algorithm 1 (line 19)] Proposition 1's proof analyzes a schedule in which the server-side model receives τ gradient updates per communication round (Eq. (18) sums gradients over i = 0, ..., τ-1 and the subsequent bound uses τ server-side steps), but Algorithm 1 updates each server-side model exactly once per round. Therefore the invariance result is proved for a different algorithm than the one whose results appear in Tables 3 and 4. The authors need to either re-derive the bound for the single-server-update schedule or change Algorithm 1 and the experiments to implement τ server-side updates; otherwise the paper's central theoretical claim does not support its empirical SFL-V1 results.
  2. [Table 2 and Tables 3-4] The comparison between SFL and FedAvg is confounded: SFL-V1 and SFL-V2 use Adam with learning rate 0.001, while FedAvg uses SGD with learning rate 0.01. Since both optimizer and learning rate differ, the observed SFL-V2 advantage over FedAvg (e.g., 92.30% vs. 85.25% on IID CIFAR-10) cannot be attributed to the split architecture or cut layer selection. The authors should either use the same optimizer and a comparable learning rate for FedAvg, or provide additional experiments isolating the effect of the optimizer choice.
  3. [Tables 4 and Section 5.2, non-IID results] Several non-IID conclusions rest on a small number of runs with large variance. For example, on Tiny ImageNet, SFL-V2 (Lc=1) is reported as 30.14 ± 8.58 versus FedAvg's 28.33 ± 0.28, so the claimed superiority is not supported by the overlap of the confidence ranges; similarly, SFL-V2 (Lc=2) on non-IID CIFAR-10 is 59.98 ± 11.99. With only three runs and no significance testing, the statement that SFL-V2 with an appropriate cut layer 'significantly outperforms' FedAvg on heterogeneous data is too strong. More seeds and a paired or corrected significance test are needed for the cross-condition claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase 'significant performance variations respect to with cut layer placement' contains a typo; it should read 'with respect to cut layer placement.'
  2. [Section 5.2, Tables 3-4] The claim that SFL-V1 is 'relatively invariant' is supported by small performance ranges on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, but on non-IID Tiny ImageNet the SFL-V1 results (around 12.8-13.9%) are far below FedAvg (28.33%) and have non-negligible variability; the paper should comment on this discrepancy instead of only discussing CIFAR results.
  3. [Proposition 1, Eq. (6)] The definition of τ as ⌈E D_k / B_k⌉ is fine, but the proof consistently treats τ as an integer number of client updates per round; the paper should clarify how E local epochs in Algorithm 1 translate into exactly this τ, since the pseudocode does not explicitly sample multiple batches per epoch.
  4. [Section 3 and Appendix A] The client backward pass in Algorithm 1 (lines 23-26) uses the same gradient ∇a_k(t) for E epochs, which is unusual; this point should be explained, since it differs from the standard SFL description in the text and from the proof's local-update model.
  5. [Conclusion] The conclusion states that SFL-V2 outperforms FedAvg 'in both IID and non-IID settings', but Table 4 shows several configurations where FedAvg is competitive or better; this should be qualified to reflect the actual experimental conditions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the invariance theorem is self-contained (though it has a proof-algorithm mismatch), and the V2/FedAvg comparisons are empirical.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. Proposition 1 is proved directly in Appendix B: under Assumptions 1-4 the bound in Eq. (6) contains no term depending on the cut layer Lc, so the stated invariance is a consequence of the proof's own algebra rather than being imported from the data or from a fitted parameter. The appendix does say "The proof mainly follows (Han et al. 2024b)", and that prior work has overlapping authorship, but because the full proof is reproduced in the paper (Lemmas 1-2 and Eqs. (18)-(28)), the self-citation is not load-bearing; the same conclusion is also supported independently by the SFL-V1 rows of Tables 3 and 4. The SFL-V2 sensitivity claim and the SFL-V2 versus FedAvg comparisons are empirical measurements, not predictions from fitted quantities. The paper also honestly states in Section 6.1 that it lacks a theoretical framework explaining SFL-V2's advantage at certain cut layers and that it has not established theoretical guarantees for SFL-V2 over FedAvg. The notable weakness is a proof-algorithm mismatch: Eq. (18) and the surrounding argument model tau server-side gradient steps per round, whereas Algorithm 1 (line 19) performs one server-side update per round; that is a correctness or validity gap for the theorem as applied to the implemented SFL-V1, but it is not a circularity in the sense of a conclusion being equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard distributed-optimization assumptions plus two implicit assumptions about SFL-V1's equivalence to FedAvg and about the server update schedule. The latter is not stated and conflicts with the pseudocode. No invented entities or fitted parameters enter the theory; the main hand-set values are experimental hyperparameters that affect the FedAvg comparison.

free parameters (4)
  • Dirichlet concentration mu = 0.1
    Hand-chosen non-IID partition parameter controlling data heterogeneity across clients.
  • SFL learning rate and optimizer = 0.001, Adam
    Chosen by hand for SFL-V1 and SFL-V2; not paired with a tuned FedAvg baseline.
  • FedAvg learning rate and optimizer = 0.01, SGD
    Chosen by hand; differs from the SFL setting, confounding the comparison.
  • Batch size and local epochs = 64, E=5
    Fixed experimental hyperparameters not tuned across methods.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Non-convex loss functions (Assumption 1)
    Standard in FL convergence analysis and not specific to cut layers.
  • domain assumption S-smoothness of each client loss (Assumption 2)
    Used in Lemmas 1 and 2 to bound parameter divergence.
  • domain assumption Unbiased stochastic gradients with bounded variance (Assumption 3)
    Standard assumption for SGD-based convergence proofs.
  • domain assumption Bounded gradient dissimilarity across clients (Assumption 4)
    Measures data heterogeneity; used throughout the proof.
  • ad hoc to paper SFL-V1 with any cut layer is equivalent to FedAvg with identical model updates
    Used to argue the Lc independence of the convergence bound transfers to the algorithm; not proven explicitly and conflicts with the server update schedule in Algorithm 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Server-side model receives tau gradient updates per round in the proof
    Appendix B sums over tau server updates, but Algorithm 1 updates the server once per round; the proof analyzes a different algorithm from the one described.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Impact of Cut Layer Selection in Split Federated Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5IOCI4EY

@misc{pith2026241215536,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Impact of Cut Layer Selection in Split Federated Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5IOCI4EY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15536}
}
read the original abstract

Split Federated Learning (SFL) is a distributed machine learning paradigm that combines federated learning and split learning. In SFL, a neural network is partitioned at a cut layer, with the initial layers deployed on clients and remaining layers on a training server. There are two main variants of SFL: SFL-V1 where the training server maintains separate server-side models for each client, and SFL-V2 where the training server maintains a single shared model for all clients. While existing studies have focused on algorithm development for SFL, a comprehensive quantitative analysis of how the cut layer selection affects model performance remains unexplored. This paper addresses this gap by providing numerical and theoretical analysis of SFL performance and convergence relative to cut layer selection. We find that SFL-V1 is relatively invariant to the choice of cut layer, which is consistent with our theoretical results. Numerical experiments on four datasets and two neural networks show that the cut layer selection significantly affects the performance of SFL-V2. Moreover, SFL-V2 with an appropriate cut layer selection outperforms FedAvg on heterogeneous data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15536 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of distributed learning architectures. The Model Sync Server maintains model consistency across clients, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. BettiSplit: Topology-Guided Privacy-Aware Split Learning Against Feature Inversion and Gradient Leakage

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Persistent Betti-1 of smashed activations is proposed as an attack-free indicator of feature-inversion risk in split learning, used for split selection and regularization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    G.; Aggarwal, V.; Singh, A

    Arivazhagan, M. G.; Aggarwal, V.; Singh, A. K.; and Choudhary, S. 2019. Federated learning with personalization layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00818

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    S.; Chen, R.; Mela, T.; Olshevsky, A.; Paschalidis, I

    Brisimi, T. S.; Chen, R.; Mela, T.; Olshevsky, A.; Paschalidis, I. C.; and Shi, W. 2018. Federated learning of predictive models from federated electronic health records. International journal of medical informatics, 112: 59--67

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    B.; and Talwalkar, A

    Caldas, S.; Kone c ny, J.; McMahan, H. B.; and Talwalkar, A. 2018. Expanding the reach of federated learning by reducing client resource requirements. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.07210

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    AdaSplit: Adaptive Trade-offs for Resource-constrained Distributed Deep Learning

    Chopra, A.; Sahu, S. K.; Singh, A.; Java, A.; Vepakomma, P.; Sharma, V.; and Raskar, R. 2021. Adasplit: Adaptive trade-offs for resource-constrained distributed deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.01637

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Duan, Q.; Hu, S.; Deng, R.; and Lu, Z. 2022. Combined federated and split learning in edge computing for ubiquitous intelligence in internet of things: State-of-the-art and future directions. Sensors, 22(16): 5983

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    B.; Wang, W.; and Bennis, M

    Gao, Y.; Hu, B.; Mashhadi, M. B.; Wang, W.; and Bennis, M. 2024. PipeSFL: A Fine-Grained Parallelization Framework for Split Federated Learning on Heterogeneous Clients. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing

    work page 2024

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Gupta, O.; and Raskar, R. 2018. Distributed learning of deep neural network over multiple agents. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 116: 1--8

    2018

  2. [10]

    Hamer, J.; Mohri, M.; and Suresh, A. T. 2020. F ed B oost: A Communication-Efficient Algorithm for Federated Learning. In III, H. D.; and Singh, A., eds., Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Resear...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Han, P.; Huang, C.; Shi, X.; Huang, J.; and Liu, X. 2024 a . Incentivizing Participation in SplitFed Learning: Convergence Analysis and Model Versioning. In International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 846--856. IEEE

    2024

  4. [12]

    Han, P.; Huang, C.; Tian, G.; Tang, M.; and Liu, X. 2024 b . Convergence Analysis of Split Federated Learning on Heterogeneous Data. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2024

  5. [13]

    He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770--778

    2016

  6. [14]

    H.; Qi, H.; and Brown, M

    Hsu, T.-M. H.; Qi, H.; and Brown, M. 2019. Measuring the effects of non-identical data distribution for federated visual classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06335

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Huang, C.; Dachille, J.; and Liu, X. 2024. When Federated Learning Meets Oligopoly Competition: Stability and Model Differentiation. IEEE Internet of Things Journal

    2024

  8. [16]

    Huang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Shao, X.; Li, X.; and Ji, H. 2023. RoofSplit: an edge computing framework with heterogeneous nodes collaboration considering optimal CNN model splitting. Future Generation Computer Systems, 140: 79--90

    2023

  9. [17]

    P.; Kale, S.; Mohri, M.; Reddi, S.; Stich, S.; and Suresh, A

    Karimireddy, S. P.; Kale, S.; Mohri, M.; Reddi, S.; Stich, S.; and Suresh, A. T. 2020. Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning. In International conference on machine learning, 5132--5143. PMLR

    2020

  10. [18]

    A.; Shejwalkar, V.; Houmansadr, A.; and Anwar, F

    Khan, M. A.; Shejwalkar, V.; Houmansadr, A.; and Anwar, F. M. 2022. Security analysis of splitfed learning. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, 987--993

    2022

  11. [19]

    Krizhevsky, A.; Hinton, G.; et al. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    2009

  12. [20]

    Le, Y.; and Yang, X. 2015. Tiny imagenet visual recognition challenge. CS 231N, 7(7): 3

    2015

  13. [21]

    Lee, J.; Seif, M.; Cho, J.; and Poor, H. V. 2024. Exploring the Privacy-Energy Consumption Tradeoff for Split Federated Learning. IEEE Network

    2024

  14. [22]

    S.; Chen, X.; He, Z.; Fan, D.; and Chakrabarti, C

    Li, J.; Rakin, A. S.; Chen, X.; He, Z.; Fan, D.; and Chakrabarti, C. 2022. Ressfl: A resistance transfer framework for defending model inversion attack in split federated learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 10194--10202

    2022

  15. [23]

    Li, Q.; He, B.; and Song, D. 2021. Model-contrastive federated learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10713--10722

    2021

  16. [24]

    K.; Zaheer, M.; Sanjabi, M.; Talwalkar, A.; and Smith, V

    Li, T.; Sahu, A. K.; Zaheer, M.; Sanjabi, M.; Talwalkar, A.; and Smith, V. 2020. Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks. Proceedings of Machine learning and systems, 2: 429--450

    2020

  17. [25]

    Li, Y.; and Lyu, X. 2024. Convergence analysis of sequential federated learning on heterogeneous data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  18. [26]

    Li, Z.; Yan, C.; Zhang, X.; Gharibi, G.; Yin, Z.; Jiang, X.; and Malin, B. A. 2023. Split Learning for Distributed Collaborative Training of Deep Learning Models in Health Informatics. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 1047. American Medical Informatics Association

    2023

  19. [27]

    Liao, Y.; Xu, Y.; Xu, H.; Wang, L.; Yao, Z.; and Qiao, C. 2024. Mergesfl: Split federated learning with feature merging and batch size regulation. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2054--2067. IEEE

    2024

  20. [28]

    U.; and Jaggi, M

    Lin, T.; Kong, L.; Stich, S. U.; and Jaggi, M. 2020. Ensemble distillation for robust model fusion in federated learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 2351--2363

    2020

  21. [29]

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

    2017

  22. [30]

    Minaee, S.; Mikolov, T.; Nikzad, N.; Chenaghlu, M.; Socher, R.; Amatriain, X.; and Gao, J. 2024. Large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06196

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Mu, Y.; and Shen, C. 2023. Communication and storage efficient federated split learning. In IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2976--2981. IEEE

    2023

  24. [32]

    Ninkovic, V.; Vukobratovic, D.; Miskovic, D.; and Zennaro, M. 2024. COMSPLIT: A Communication--Aware Split Learning Design for Heterogeneous IoT Platforms. IEEE Internet of Things Journal

    2024

  25. [33]

    Shin, J.; Ahn, J.; Kang, H.; and Kang, J. 2023. FedSplitX: Federated Split Learning for Computationally-Constrained Heterogeneous Clients. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14579

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    H.; Saeedi, P.; and Baji \'c , I

    Shiranthika, C.; Kafshgari, Z. H.; Saeedi, P.; and Baji \'c , I. V. 2023. SplitFed resilience to packet loss: Where to split, that is the question. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 367--377. Springer

    2023

  27. [35]

    Singh, A.; Vepakomma, P.; Gupta, O.; and Raskar, R. 2019. Detailed comparison of communication efficiency of split learning and federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09145

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M.; Kim, M.-H.; Chung, T.-M.; Huang, C.; and Liu, X

    Son, H. M.; Kim, M.-H.; Chung, T.-M.; Huang, C.; and Liu, X. 2024. FedUV: Uniformity and Variance for Heterogeneous Federated Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 5863--5872

    2024

  29. [37]

    Sun, W.; Yan, R.; Jin, R.; Zhao, R.; and Chen, Z. 2024. FedAlign: Federated Model Alignment via Data-Free Knowledge Distillation for Machine Fault Diagnosis. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 73: 1--12

    2024

  30. [38]

    Tak, A.; and Cherkaoui, S. 2021. Federated Edge Learning: Design Issues and Challenges. IEEE Network, 35(2): 252--258

    2021

  31. [39]

    Thapa, C.; Arachchige, P. C. M.; Camtepe, S.; and Sun, L. 2022. Splitfed: When federated learning meets split learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, 8485--8493

    2022

  32. [40]

    Tschandl, P. 2018. The HAM10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions

    2018

  33. [41]

    Vepakomma, P.; Gupta, O.; Swedish, T.; and Raskar, R. 2018. Split learning for health: Distributed deep learning without sharing raw patient data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00564

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    K.; Makaya, C.; He, T.; and Chan, K

    Wang, S.; Tuor, T.; Salonidis, T.; Leung, K. K.; Makaya, C.; He, T.; and Chan, K. 2019. Adaptive federated learning in resource constrained edge computing systems. IEEE journal on selected areas in communications, 37(6): 1205--1221

    2019

  35. [43]

    Wang, Z.; Lin, H.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, Y.; and Liu, X. 2024. FedCST: Federated Learning on Heterogeneous Resource-constrained Devices Using Clustering and Split Training. In 2024 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability, and Security Companion (QRS-C), 7...

    2024

  36. [44]

    Williams, S.; Waterman, A.; and Patterson, D. 2009. Roofline: an insightful visual performance model for multicore architectures. Communications of the ACM, 52(4): 65--76

    2009

  37. [45]

    E.; Patel, K

    Woodworth, B. E.; Patel, K. K.; and Srebro, N. 2020. Minibatch vs local sgd for heterogeneous distributed learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 6281--6292

    2020

  38. [46]

    Wu, W.; Li, M.; Qu, K.; Zhou, C.; Shen, X.; Zhuang, W.; Li, X.; and Shi, W. 2023. Split learning over wireless networks: Parallel design and resource management. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 41(4): 1051--1066

    2023

  39. [47]

    Xu, C.; Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Ling, Y.; and Wen, M. 2023 a . Accelerating split federated learning over wireless communication networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications

    2023

  40. [48]

    Xu, X.; Lyu, L.; Dong, Y.; Lu, Y.; Wang, W.; and Jin, H. 2023 b . SplitGNN: Splitting GNN for Node Classification with Heterogeneous Attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12885

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Yang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Huangfu, H.; Ran, M.; Wang, H.; Li, X.; and Zhang, Y. 2022. Robust split federated learning for u-shaped medical image networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06378

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Zhang, M.; Qu, L.; Singh, P.; Kalpathy-Cramer, J.; and Rubin, D. L. 2022. Splitavg: A heterogeneity-aware federated deep learning method for medical imaging. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 26(9): 4635--4644

    2022

  43. [51]

    Zhang, Z.; Pinto, A.; Turina, V.; Esposito, F.; and Matta, I. 2023. Privacy and efficiency of communications in federated split learning. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 9(5): 1380--1391

    2023

  44. [52]

    Zheng, J.; Chen, Y.; and Lai, Q. 2024. PPSFL: Privacy-Preserving Split Federated Learning for heterogeneous data in edge-based Internet of Things. Future Generation Computer Systems, 156: 231--241

    2024

  45. [53]

    Zhu, G.; Deng, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhang, H.; Fang, Y.; and Wong, T. F. 2024. ESFL: Efficient Split Federated Learning over Resource-Constrained Heterogeneous Wireless Devices. IEEE Internet of Things Journal

    2024

Pith tools

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