Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Asymmetrical Reciprocity-based Federated Learning for Resolving Disparities in Medical Diagnosis

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FedHelp claims that in cross-silo medical federated learning, asymmetric dual knowledge distillation plus one-time foundation-model guidance lifts the smallest clients' accuracy by up to 47% over the best baseline.

desk verdict A sensible FedType follow-up with an honest ablation, but single-run numbers on tiny test sets make the headline small-client gains statistically unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19654 v1 pith:4RZDJZAH submitted 2024-12-27 cs.LG cs.DC

Jiaqi Wang , Ziyi Yin , Quanzeng You , Lingjuan Lyu , Fenglong Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.DC
keywords FederatedlearningHealthcaredisparityKnowledgedistillationModelheterogeneityMedicalimageclassificationsegmentationFoundationAPIAsymmetricreciprocity
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

FedHelp is a federated learning framework designed for collaborations between well-resourced "large" clients and data-scarce "small" clients, such as hospitals in developed versus underserved regions. The paper's central claim is that this asymmetry can be turned into an advantage: small clients' diagnostic accuracy rises substantially, by 47% relative on the smallest client in the melanoma benchmark, while large clients still benefit and pay far less in communication cost. The framework works by having small clients train small surrogate models guided by logits obtained once from foundation model APIs on public data, and large clients train small proxy models that exchange knowledge with their large models through a forward and a backward distillation step. All small models, surrogates and proxies, are then aggregated on the server, so the expensive large models never need to be uploaded. If the claim holds, federated learning can be reconfigured as a genuinely reciprocal arrangement in which data-rich institutions help lift data-poor ones without the poor ones dragging everyone down.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the asymmetric dual knowledge distillation, paired with a knowledge-guided surrogate for small clients. Forward distillation uses the Kullback-Leibler divergence to transfer the large client model's output distribution to a small proxy model; backward distillation uses only the top-ranked class indices from the proxy to raise the corresponding probabilities in the large model, a deliberately loose constraint that avoids polluting the large model with noisy small-model logits. Small clients train a surrogate model whose feature extractor is shared with the main small client model, jointly optimizing a private-data cross-entropy loss and a public-data loss that matches the surrogate's output to the one-time API logits from foundation models. The server aggregates only the small surrogate and proxy models with FedAvg, which is what makes the framework communication-efficient.

What would settle it

Run FedHelp on a small-client task whose private data domain is far from the public data, for example histopathology images with CIFAR-100 as the public set, and compare small-client accuracy against a variant with the foundation-model query term removed; equal accuracy would show the cross-domain transfer assumption contributes nothing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery claim is that the asymmetry between a few data-rich "large" clients and many data-poor "small" clients, normally a liability in federated learning, can be made into the engine of the whole system. On the Fed-ISIC19 melanoma benchmark, FedHelp reports an average client accuracy of 0.5091, a 10.38% relative improvement over the best baseline, and on the smallest client the accuracy jumps from 0.2718 (FedMD, the best heterogeneous baseline for that client) to 0.3996, a 47.02% relative gain. Similar gains appear in binary pneumonia classification and in 2D lung and 3D brain segmentation. The authors attribute the gains to two mechanisms acting together: knowledge-guided surrogate training that borrows foundation-model logits through a shared feature extractor, and an asymmetric dual knowledge distillation that lets large and small models exchange knowledge in both directions without forcing the large model to absorb low-quality small-model logits. Their own ablation, however, shows that removing the foundation-model API queries entirely produces a smaller drop than the gain they report, which they read as evidence that the distillation module carries most of the benefit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that knowledge distilled once from foundation-model APIs on public data transfers to each small client's private medical data through a shared feature extractor; if that cross-domain transfer is weak, the surrogate training contributes little, and the entire underserved-client benefit rests on the distillation module alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On Fed-ISIC19, FedHelp raises average client accuracy to 0.5091, a 10.38% relative improvement over the best baseline, with the smallest client's accuracy more than 47% higher than the best baseline's accuracy for that client.
  • Because only small surrogate and proxy models are uploaded, replacing a ResNet110 large model with a ResNet20 proxy cuts per-round communication cost by roughly 84%.
  • The framework extends beyond classification to 2D lung and 3D brain segmentation, with consistent gains across clients in both tasks.
  • Large clients also improve, so the arrangement is reciprocal rather than one-directional charity: the largest melanoma client reaches 0.5922 accuracy under FedHelp.
  • The ablation indicates that the asymmetric dual distillation, not the API query itself, is the main driver of the reported gains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to replace the foundation-model API queries with other public-data teachers, such as an open pretrained model, to test whether the 47% effect persists; the paper's ablation suggests the distillation module, not the API choice, is the main driver.
  • The soft ranking-based backward distillation is a generic recipe that could transfer to any federated setting where a small aggregated model must influence heterogeneous large clients without degrading them.
  • Before deployment, the privacy properties of the shared feature extractor would need explicit accounting, since parameter sharing between clients still carries information even though raw data never leaves a client.
  • A natural stress test is to vary the data-size gap between large and small clients to map where the reported gains attenuate and whether the framework remains beneficial when clients are more balanced.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes FedHelp, a cross-silo federated learning framework designed for settings where developed-region clients have large models and abundant data while underserved-region clients have small models and scarce data. FedHelp obtains logits from foundation-model APIs on public data and uses them, through a shared feature extractor, to train small-client surrogate models; it also trains large-client proxies and exchanges knowledge through a forward and a ranking-based backward distillation loss. The global model is obtained by aggregating the small surrogate/proxy models. The paper reports experiments on melanoma classification (Fed-ISIC19), pneumonia classification, 2D lung segmentation, and 3D brain segmentation, with consistent improvements over the included baselines.

Significance. If the reported improvements are reproducible, FedHelp is a practically motivated contribution: it addresses heterogeneous client capacities and asymmetric reciprocity with a communication-efficient aggregation of small models, and it provides ablations and a cost analysis. The paper also includes a source-code link and covers both classification and segmentation. However, the central empirical claim currently rests on single-run point estimates, the closest prior method (FedType) is not benchmarked, and a footnote about the foundation models is inaccurate. These issues make the current evidence conditional rather than conclusive.

major comments (4)
  1. [Tables 1, 3, 5, 6; Abstract] All accuracy and Dice results are reported as single-run point estimates, with no standard deviations, seeds, or significance tests. This is load-bearing because the headline gain—Client 6 on Fed-ISIC19, from 0.2718 (FedMD) to 0.3996 (FedHelp), quoted as 47.02% relative improvement—is computed on a 45-image test set. Treating the two accuracies as independent binomial proportions gives a standard error of approximately 0.10, so the observed absolute gain of 0.128 is only about 1.3 standard errors and is not statistically significant at the 5% level. The analogous small-client entries in Tables 3 and 5 use test sets of 12, 24, and 37 images, and the segmentation small client in Table 6 has 7 or 15 test images. Repeating the experiments with multiple seeds and reporting means with confidence intervals (or a paired test across seeds) is necessary before the abstract's 'significant performance improvement' can be accepted.
  2. [Section 2.2, Section 4.1.1] FedType [43] is described in Section 2.2 as the most relevant work and as addressing the same asymmetrical-reciprocity problem between large and proxy models, but it is absent from the baseline list in Section 4.1.1 and therefore from all comparison tables. Without benchmarking FedType or explicitly justifying its exclusion, the claim that FedHelp outperforms state-of-the-art baselines is not established against the closest competitor.
  3. [Footnote 2, Section 3.2] The footnote in Section 4.1.2 states that the CLIP models selected as foundation-model APIs 'were pretrained on the CIFAR-100 dataset.' This is not correct for the CLIP models of Radford et al., which are pretrained on WebImageText. If the authors instead fine-tuned the CLIP models on CIFAR-100 (or on the medical public data, as described for NCT-CRC-HE-100K in Section 4.4), this must be stated precisely, because it changes how the knowledge acquired in Eq. (1) should be interpreted: API knowledge that comes from in-distribution public data is not evidence for cross-domain foundation-model transfer.
  4. [Section 4.2.2] The ablation study concludes that the primary performance improvement stems from the asymmetric dual knowledge distillation rather than from the foundation-model APIs, based on the observation that FedHelp− (no APIs) drops less than the gain over baselines. Figure 3 provides no numerical values or variance information, and the comparison is again single-run. With the small test sizes noted above, this attribution of the improvement to the distillation module is not statistically supported and should either be backed by repeated runs or be stated more cautiously.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] Typos: 'Comparision' in Section 4.2.1 and Table 5 heading, 'Abalation Study' in Section 4.2.2, 'Averge' in Figure 3 caption, and 'Switerzland' in the author affiliation.
  2. [Section 1] The paper says the framework has 'three key components' but then lists four (knowledge acquisition, small client training, large client training, and global model learning); renumber or rephrase.
  3. [Equations (5) and (13)] The sets Ω and Ω′ are not formally defined (Ω′ presumably denotes the complement of Ω in the class-index set), and Φ is only implicitly the softmax normalizer; define these symbols at first use.
  4. [Equations (4) and (12)] The KL-divergence distillation losses do not state whether softmax probabilities are used and whether a temperature parameter is applied; please specify the exact form and any temperature.
  5. [Section 4.1.1 and Appendix C] The heterogeneous baselines are said to use the public data as part of model input, but Appendix C does not give the exact public-data protocol for FedGH, FedKEAF, and FCCL, so it is unclear whether the baselines are given the same access to D_p as FedHelp.
  6. [Table 6] 'Accuracy' should be labeled 'pixel accuracy' at first mention, and the averaging convention for Dice (per-image versus global) should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FedHelp's claims are validated against external benchmarks and baselines, with only a benign, non-load-bearing self-citation to FedType.

full rationale

FedHelp's derivation chain is self-contained: the training objectives in Eqs. (1)-(7) are defined from public data, API logits, private data, model outputs, and hyperparameters, none of which are the test accuracies the paper reports. The headline gains in Tables 1, 3, 5, and 6 are measured on held-out partitions of external datasets (Fed-ISIC19, pneumonia chest X-ray, lung segmentation, Fed-IXI) against independently implemented baselines such as FedAvg, FedProx, Per-FedAvg, PFedMe, PFedBayes, FedMD, FedGH, FedKEAF, FCCL, and FedSM. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the hyperparameters are fixed constants (e.g., lambda_R=0.1, lambda_J=0.2, lambda_F=1, lambda_B=0.2), and the ablation studies vary components rather than fitting the target numbers. The only self-citation is FedType [43], mentioned in Section 2.2 as the closest related work with explicit methodological differences; this citation is descriptive, not load-bearing for the central claim. It is also disclosed in Section 4.1.2 that the simulated foundation-model APIs were pretrained on CIFAR-100, the same dataset used as public data; this is a transparency note about the transfer-knowledge source and does not make the private medical test results self-referential. The absence of error bars and significance tests is an evidentiary weakness, but it is a correctness-risk issue, not circularity. No step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

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

The main uncharged assumptions are about knowledge transfer across domains (CIFAR-100 or dermatology public data to medical private data) and about FedAvg aggregation of distilled proxies. The hyperparameters are reported but were selected by hand; they are not derived from first principles.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_R = 0.1
    Weight for the KL distillation term from foundation model APIs in Equation (1); chosen by hand and reported in Section 4.1.2.
  • lambda_J = 0.2
    Trade-off between private-data CE loss and surrogate public-data loss in Equation (3); tuned in Section 4.3.2.
  • lambda_F = 1
    Weight for forward knowledge distillation in Equation (7); fixed for all experiments.
  • lambda_B = 0.2
    Weight for backward ranking-based distillation in Equation (7); tuned in Section 4.3.2.
  • top_k = 3 for multiclass, 1 for binary and segmentation
    Size of the top-ranked class set Omega in Equations (5) and (13); chosen per task, not derived.
  • beta_0 and sigma = beta_0 = 10, sigma = 5
    Hyperparameters for the segmentation weight map in Equation (10); chosen and reported in Section 5.2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Foundation-model API logits computed on public data provide transferable guidance for private medical data.
    Needed for Equations (1) to (3) to improve small clients; stated in Section 3.2 without validation beyond the reported experiments.
  • domain assumption A surrogate model and a small client model can share a feature extractor while using different classification heads without harming private-data training.
    Joint optimization in Equation (3) assumes this coupling transfers knowledge; stated in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption Aggregating same-architecture proxy and surrogate models with FedAvg yields a global model useful to all clients.
    Section 3.5 uses FedAvg on the small models; no convergence or bias analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption Rank-based backward distillation transfers valuable information from the proxy model to the large model without injecting noise.
    Equations (5) and (6) encode this assumption, but it is not proven; only ablation comparisons are given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymmetrical Reciprocity-based Federated Learning for Resolving Disparities in Medical Diagnosis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4RZDJZAH

@misc{pith2026241219654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymmetrical Reciprocity-based Federated Learning for Resolving Disparities in Medical Diagnosis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4RZDJZAH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19654}
}
read the original abstract

Geographic health disparities pose a pressing global challenge, particularly in underserved regions of low- and middle-income nations. Addressing this issue requires a collaborative approach to enhance healthcare quality, leveraging support from medically more developed areas. Federated learning emerges as a promising tool for this purpose. However, the scarcity of medical data and limited computation resources in underserved regions make collaborative training of powerful machine learning models challenging. Furthermore, there exists an asymmetrical reciprocity between underserved and developed regions. To overcome these challenges, we propose a novel cross-silo federated learning framework, named FedHelp, aimed at alleviating geographic health disparities and fortifying the diagnostic capabilities of underserved regions. Specifically, FedHelp leverages foundational model knowledge via one-time API access to guide the learning process of underserved small clients, addressing the challenge of insufficient data. Additionally, we introduce a novel asymmetric dual knowledge distillation module to manage the issue of asymmetric reciprocity, facilitating the exchange of necessary knowledge between developed large clients and underserved small clients. We validate the effectiveness and utility of FedHelp through extensive experiments on both medical image classification and segmentation tasks. The experimental results demonstrate significant performance improvement compared to state-of-the-art baselines, particularly benefiting clients in underserved regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19654 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Client accuracy comparison between client-wise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Averge client accuracy of two ablation studies on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of 2D and 3D segmentation tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Abalation study results on segmentation task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    Jiaqi Wang, Chenxu Zhao, Lingjuan Lyu, Quanzeng You, Mengdi Huai, and Fenglong Ma. 2024. Bridging Model Heterogeneity in Federated Learning via Uncertainty-based Asymmetrical Reciprocity Learning. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 235), Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter,...

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Dumilah Ayuningtyas, Dwi Hapsari, Rika Rachmalina, Vilda Amir, Riani Rach- mawati, and Dian Kusuma. 2022. Geographic and socioeconomic disparity in child undernutrition across 514 districts in Indonesia. Nutrients 14, 4 (2022), 843

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Liwei Che, Jiaqi Wang, Yao Zhou, and Fenglong Ma. 2023. Multimodal federated learning: A survey. Sensors 23, 15 (2023), 6986. KDD ’25, August 3–7, 2025, Toronto, ON, Canada Wang et al

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Noel CF Codella, David Gutman, M Emre Celebi, Brian Helba, Michael A Marchetti, Stephen W Dusza, Aadi Kalloo, Konstantinos Liopyris, Nabin Mishra, Harald Kittler, et al. 2018. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: A challenge at the 2017 international symposium on biomedical imaging (isbi), hosted by the international skin imaging collaboration ...

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Nathan J Doogan, Megan E Roberts, Mary Ellen Wewers, Erin R Tanenbaum, Elizabeth A Mumford, and Frances A Stillman. 2018. Validation of a new con- tinuous geographic isolation scale: A tool for rural health disparities research. Social Science & Medicine 215 (2018), 123–132

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xi- aohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Alireza Fallah, Aryan Mokhtari, and Asuman Ozdaglar. 2020. Personalized fed- erated learning with theoretical guarantees: A model-agnostic meta-learning approach. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 3557– 3568

    2020

  8. [7]

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 (2015)

    arXiv 2015

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

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

    2022

  2. [9]

    Fatih Ilhan, Gong Su, and Ling Liu. 2023. ScaleFL: Resource-Adaptive Federated Learning With Heterogeneous Clients. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 24532–24541

    2023

  3. [10]

    Hirofumi Inaguma, Tatsuya Kawahara, and Shinji Watanabe. 2021. Source and Target Bidirectional Knowledge Distillation for End-to-end Speech Translation. In 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologi...

    2021

  4. [11]

    Meirui Jiang, Holger R Roth, Wenqi Li, Dong Yang, Can Zhao, Vishwesh Nath, Daguang Xu, Qi Dou, and Ziyue Xu. 2023. Fair Federated Medical Image Seg- mentation via Client Contribution Estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogniti...

    2023

  5. [12]

    Shivam Kalra, Junfeng Wen, Jesse C Cresswell, Maksims Volkovs, and HR Tizhoosh. 2023. Decentralized federated learning through proxy model sharing. Nature communications 14, 1 (2023), 2899

    2023

  6. [13]

    Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. (2009)

    2009

  7. [14]

    Wonbin Kweon, SeongKu Kang, and Hwanjo Yu. 2021. Bidirectional distillation for top-K recommender system. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 . 3861– 3871

    2021

  8. [15]

    Daliang Li and Junpu Wang. 2019. Fedmd: Heterogenous federated learning via model distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03581 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

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

    2021

  10. [17]

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

    2020

  11. [18]

    Quande Liu, Cheng Chen, Jing Qin, Qi Dou, and Pheng-Ann Heng. 2021. Feddg: Federated domain generalization on medical image segmentation via episodic learning in continuous frequency space. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 1013–1023

    2021

  12. [19]

    Ruixuan Liu, Fangzhao Wu, Chuhan Wu, Yanlin Wang, Lingjuan Lyu, Hong Chen, and Xing Xie. 2022. No one left behind: Inclusive federated learning over heterogeneous devices. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 3398–3406

    2022

  13. [20]

    Jun Ma, Yuting He, Feifei Li, Lin Han, Chenyu You, and Bo Wang. 2023. Segment Anything in Medical Images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12306 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Xiaosong Ma, Jie Zhang, Song Guo, and Wenchao Xu. 2022. Layer-wised model aggregation for personalized federated learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 10092–10101

    2022

  15. [22]

    Neil J MacKinnon, Vanessa Emery, Jennifer Waller, Brittany Ange, Preshit Am- bade, Munira Gunja, and Emma Watson. 2023. Mapping health disparities in 11 high-income nations. JAMA network open 6, 7 (2023), e2322310–e2322310

    2023

  16. [23]

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep net- works from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics . PMLR, 1273–1282

    2017

  17. [24]

    Matias Mendieta, Taojiannan Yang, Pu Wang, Minwoo Lee, Zhengming Ding, and Chen Chen. 2022. Local learning matters: Rethinking data heterogeneity in federated learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 8397–8406

    2022

  18. [25]

    Jean Ogier du Terrail, Samy-Safwan Ayed, Edwige Cyffers, Felix Grimberg, Chaoyang He, Regis Loeb, Paul Mangold, Tanguy Marchand, Othmane Mar- foq, Erum Mushtaq, et al. 2022. FLamby: Datasets and Benchmarks for Cross-Silo Federated Learning in Realistic Healthcare Settings. Adv...

    2022

  19. [26]

    Peihan Qi, Xiaoyu Zhou, Yuanlei Ding, Zhengyu Zhang, Shilian Zheng, and Zan Li. 2022. Fedbkd: Heterogenous federated learning via bidirectional knowledge distillation for modulation classification in iot-edge system. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 17, 1 (...

    2022

  20. [27]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learni...

    2021

  21. [28]

    Sashank Reddi, Rama Kumar Pasumarthi, Aditya Menon, Ankit Singh Rawat, Felix Yu, Seungyeon Kim, Andreas Veit, and Sanjiv Kumar. 2021. Rankdistil: Knowledge distillation for ranking. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 2368–2376

    2021

  22. [29]

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. 2015. U-net: Convolu- tional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceeding...

    2015

  23. [30]

    Jennifer Prah Ruger and Hak-Ju Kim. 2006. Global health inequalities: an inter- national comparison. Journal of epidemiology & community health 60, 11 (2006), 928–936

    2006

  24. [31]

    Ertong Shang, Hui Liu, Zhuo Yang, Junzhao Du, and Yiming Ge. 2023. FedBiKD: Federated Bidirectional Knowledge Distillation for Distracted Driving Detection. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    Yiqing Shen, Yuyin Zhou, and Lequan Yu. 2022. Cd2-pfed: Cyclic distillation- guided channel decoupling for model personalization in federated learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 10041–10050

    2022

  26. [33]

    Dianbo Sui, Yubo Chen, Jun Zhao, Yantao Jia, Yuantao Xie, and Weijian Sun

  27. [34]

    Canh T Dinh, Nguyen Tran, and Josh Nguyen. 2020. Personalized federated learning with moreau envelopes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 21394–21405

    2020

  28. [35]

    Minxue Tang, Xuefei Ning, Yitu Wang, Jingwei Sun, Yu Wang, Hai Li, and Yi- ran Chen. 2022. FedCor: Correlation-based active client selection strategy for heterogeneous federated learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 10...

    2022

  29. [36]

    Philipp Tschandl, Cliff Rosendahl, and Harald Kittler. 2018. The HAM10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions. Scientific data 5, 1 (2018), 1–9

    2018

  30. [37]

    Jiaqi Wang, Qi Li, Lingjuan Lyu, and Fenglong Ma. 2024. pFedClub: Controllable Heterogeneous Model Aggregation for Personalized Federated Learning. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2024

  31. [38]

    Jiaqi Wang and Fenglong Ma. 2023. Federated learning for rare disease detection: a survey. Rare Disease and Orphan Drugs Journal 2 (2023), 22

    2023

  32. [39]

    Jiaqi Wang, Cheng Qian, Suhan Cui, Lucas Glass, and Fenglong Ma. 2022. Towards federated covid-19 vaccine side effect prediction. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases . Springer, 437–452

    2022

  33. [40]

    Jiaqi Wang, Xiaochen Wang, Lingjuan Lyu, Jinghui Chen, and Fenglong Ma

  34. [41]

    Jiaqi Wang, Xingyi Yang, Suhan Cui, Liwei Che, Lingjuan Lyu, Dongkuan Xu, and Fenglong Ma. 2023. Towards Personalized Federated Learning via Heterogeneous Model Reassembly. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  35. [42]

    Jiaqi Wang, Xingyi Yang, Suhan Cui, Liwei Che, Lingjuan Lyu, Dongkuan DK Xu, and Fenglong Ma. 2024. Towards personalized federated learning via hetero- geneous model reassembly. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Xiaosong Wang, Yifan Peng, Le Lu, Zhiyong Lu, Mohammadhadi Bagheri, and Ronald M Summers. 2017. Chestx-ray8: Hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classification and localization of common thorax diseases. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference...

    2017

  37. [45]

    Xiaochen Wang, Jiaqi Wang, Houping Xiao, Jinghui Chen, and Fenglong Ma

  38. [46]

    Yanping Wang, Jun Zhu, Chunhua He, Xiaohong Li, Lei Miao, and Juan Liang

  39. [47]

    Jennifer Weisent, Barton Rohrbach, John R Dunn, and Agricola Odoi. 2012. So- cioeconomic determinants of geographic disparities in campylobacteriosis risk: a comparison of global and local modeling approaches. International journal of health geographics 11 (2012), 1–16

    2012

  40. [48]

    FEDKIM: Adaptive Federated Knowledge Injection into Medical Foun- dation Models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Asymmetrical Reciprocity-based Federated Learning for Resol...

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Liping Yi, Gang Wang, Xiaoguang Liu, Zhuan Shi, and Han Yu. 2023. FedGH: Het- erogeneous Federated Learning with Generalized Global Header. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13137 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Sixing Yu, Wei Qian, and Ali Jannesari. 2022. Resource-aware Federated Learning using Knowledge Extraction and Multi-model Fusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07978 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Huaao Zhang, Shigui Qiu, and Shilong Wu. 2021. Dual knowledge distillation for bidirectional neural machine translation. In 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 1–7

    2021

  44. [52]

    An Xu, Wenqi Li, Pengfei Guo, Dong Yang, Holger R Roth, Ali Hatamizadeh, Can Zhao, Daguang Xu, Heng Huang, and Ziyue Xu. 2022. Closing the generalization gap of cross-silo federated medical image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pa...

    2022

  45. [53]

    Yao Zhou, Jun Wu, Haixun Wang, and Jingrui He. 2022. Adversarial robustness through bias variance decomposition: A new perspective for federated learning. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 2753–2762

    2022

  46. [54]

    Weiming Zhuang, Chen Chen, and Lingjuan Lyu. 2023. When foundation model meets federated learning: Motivations, challenges, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15546 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Yimeng Zhuang and Mei Tu. 2023. Pretrained Bidirectional Distillation for Ma- chine Translation. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Toronto, Canada, 1132...

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Xu Zhang, Yinchuan Li, Wenpeng Li, Kaiyang Guo, and Yunfeng Shao. 2022. Per- sonalized federated learning via variational bayesian inference. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 26293–26310

    2022

  49. [2012]

    Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition 97, 4 (2012), F285–F290

    Geographical disparities of infant mortality in rural China. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition 97, 4 (2012), F285–F290

    2012

  50. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP)

    Feded: Federated learning via ensemble distillation for medical relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP). 2118–2128

    2020

  51. [2024]

    In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    FEDMEKI: A Benchmark for Scaling Medical Foundation Models via Federated Knowledge Injection. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

Pith tools

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