Optimizing Value of Learning in Task-Oriented Federated Meta-Learning Systems

Bibo Wu; Fang Fang; Xianbin Wang

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 16 references

Optimizing Value of Learning in Task-Oriented Federated Meta-Learning Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A value-of-learning metric with a task-level fairness weight, solved by a parameterized deep Q-network, lets a NOMA-based federated meta-learning system beat uniform, OMA, DDPG, and random baselines.

desk verdict A coherent, workmanlike FML-over-NOMA scheduling paper with genuinely new VoL/TLW metrics, but the optimization drops the hard per-device time/energy budgets stated as mandatory, so the headline gains may rest on infeasible schedules. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03448 v1 pith:24O7G5GQ submitted 2025-01-07 cs.LG

Bibo Wu , Fang Fang , Xianbin Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords federatedmeta-learningnon-orthogonalmultipleaccessvalueoflearningtask-levelweightparameterizeddeepQ-networkdeviceschedulingresourceallocationtask-oriented

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

This paper tries to show that a wireless federated meta-learning system should schedule devices and allocate power and computing resources according to each device's individual task needs, not uniformly. It introduces a metric called value of learning (VoL) that rewards reaching a device's required accuracy and penalizes time and energy spent, and a task-level weight (TLW) that combines task requirements with a fairness term based on how long ago each device last contributed. The resulting joint scheduling and resource-allocation problem is a non-convex mixed-integer program, and the paper proposes a parameterized deep Q-network (PDQN) to solve it with hybrid discrete and continuous actions. Simulations over a non-IID CIFAR-10 setup show the proposed scheme reaching higher test accuracy and higher total VoL than DDPG, OMA, equal-weight, and random-allocation baselines. If correct, this provides a concrete way to make federated meta-learning task-aware in resource-constrained wireless networks.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the VoL-TLW objective together with the PDQN solver. VoL, written as $V_n = \varepsilon_n z_n (\eta_1 V^A_n - \eta_2 V^T_n - \eta_3 V^E_n)$, turns a device's accuracy requirement and its time and energy budgets into a single scalar that the scheduler maximizes. TLW, $\varepsilon_n = 1/(\lambda_1 T^{\max}_n + \lambda_2 E^{\max}_n - \lambda_3 A^{\mathrm{req}}_n) + a^n_t/\sum_i a^i_t$, combines task importance with update staleness so devices are not starved. PDQN combines a parameterized actor network for continuous power and frequency variables with a Q-actor network for the binary scheduling decisions, which is what lets one policy handle the hybrid action space of the MINLP.

What would settle it

Run the same FML simulation with task requirements drawn from real application traces instead of uniform ranges and with the VoL/TLW weights swept over a grid; if a baseline that ignores VoL/TLW matches or beats the proposed policy on test accuracy and total VoL for any plausible weight setting, the claimed advantage is an artifact of the chosen parameters rather than a property of the framework.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that maximizing the sum of TLW-weighted VoL across devices is the right objective for task-oriented federated meta-learning, and that the PDQN algorithm can effectively optimize it. VoL for each device is defined as eta1 times the ratio of achieved to required accuracy (capped at 1) minus eta2 times the ratio of the global round time to the device's maximum tolerable time minus eta3 times the ratio of the device's energy consumption to its maximum tolerable energy. TLW weights each device by the inverse of a weighted combination of its time and energy budgets minus its required accuracy, plus an age-of-update fairness term. The paper argues that this formulation captures individual requirements better than the common-model FL objective, and its simulations indicate that the PDQN-based policy over NOMA outperforms DDPG, OMA, equal-weight scheduling, and random resource allocation in both FML accuracy and accumulated VoL.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation's uniform ranges for required accuracy, time and energy budgets, and the hand-chosen weights in the VoL and TLW formulas, adequately represent realistic diverse tasks; if they do not, optimizing the reported VoL may not reflect true task value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If VoL is the right objective, devices with high required accuracy and tight time and energy budgets should be scheduled before devices with larger budgets, even when the latter have better channels.
Because the reward function is the sum of TLW-weighted VoL, any improvement in NOMA's spectral efficiency directly raises the objective by lowering transmission time and energy penalties.
The age-of-update fairness term ensures that devices with low task importance are not permanently starved, since their TLW grows as their last update ages.
The PDQN solver, which handles both discrete and continuous actions, is the reason the proposed scheme outperforms DDPG, which must round continuous actions and loses accuracy.
The same TLW-based VoL objective can be applied to other wireless multiple-access schemes; the OMA benchmark already uses PDQN and ranks second in VoL.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's VoL definition assumes achieved accuracy, time, and energy fully capture a task's value; for tasks where data distribution or risk profile matters, the metric would need extra terms.
One immediate testable extension is to learn the weights eta and lambda from data rather than fixing them, so the scheduler can adapt to unknown task utilities.
Another extension is to replace the uniform ranges for required accuracy, time, and energy budgets with traces from real applications; the claimed gains would be stronger if they survive that replacement.
The framework's reward clamps non-positive VoL to zero, which may encourage the agent to ignore low-value devices entirely; a different clamping or regularization could change scheduling behavior.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is worth a look if you work on DRL-based scheduling for wireless federated learning. What's actually new: the Value of Learning (VoL) and Task-Level Weight (TLW) metrics in Eqs. (13)-(20), and the application of PDQN to a NOMA-based FML resource allocation problem. The MDP formulation is coherent, the hybrid discrete/continuous action space is handled cleanly, and the non-IID CIFAR-10 setup is relevant. The authors also cite the right prior work, including the JSAC paper by Yue et al. I see no overt mathematical errors.

The soft spots are real but fixable. The biggest is that Section II-C says total time and energy 'must not exceed' T_max and E_max, yet the optimization problem (21) never enforces that. The objective penalizes V_T and V_E softly, but those are not constraints, and V_T is based on the system-wide max time, not per-device time. So the agent can pick schedules that blow through a device's budget, and the reported VoL gains may be computed for infeasible solutions. The paper doesn't say whether the baselines respect the budgets either, which makes the comparison unfair regardless of direction. That's a load-bearing problem for the 'significantly outperforms' claim, and it needs to be addressed head-on: either add hard constraints to (21) or explicitly justify why soft penalties are acceptable and show the resulting schedules still respect the stated limits.

Second, the empirical evaluation is thin. No error bars, no statistical tests, no hyperparameter values for the PDQN or the baseline DDPG. The baseline set is weak: DDPG with rounding, OMA, RRA, and equal-weight rotation are not strong contemporary baselines. A comparison to a recent FML-over-wireless optimizer, like the JSAC one, would be more informative. Third, the reward is the VoL objective itself, so reporting VoL improvement is partly circular. That said, the test accuracy in Fig. 4 is an independent metric and it does favor the TLW scheme, so the circularity burden is mild.

Who is this for? Researchers in wireless FL/FML resource allocation who care about task-aware scheduling. It's a conference-level paper with a potentially useful metric, but the constraint omission and evaluation gaps need revision before the central claim is credible. I'd send it to peer review rather than desk-reject it: the flaws are serious but not fatal, and the core idea deserves referee scrutiny.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a task-oriented federated meta-learning (FML) framework over NOMA networks. It introduces two metrics, Value of Learning (VoL) and Task-Level Weight (TLW), to capture per-device training value and task importance, and formulates a mixed-integer nonlinear program (Problem 21) that jointly optimizes device scheduling, transmit power, and computation frequency. A parameterized deep Q-network (PDQN) is developed to handle the hybrid discrete-continuous action space. Simulations on non-IID CIFAR-10 report that the proposed scheme outperforms OMA, equal-weight, DDPG, and random-resource-allocation baselines in both FML accuracy and total VoL.

Significance. If the claims are validated, the framework is a useful task-aware design for wireless federated meta-learning, and the VoL/TLW metrics plus the PDQN solution are a coherent way to handle diverse device requirements. The paper gives a clear system model and MDP formulation, and the use of test accuracy (Fig. 4) as an independent performance metric is a positive feature. However, the empirical evidence is currently insufficient: the central comparative claim relies on simulations without error bars, seed counts, statistical tests, or hyperparameter details, and the optimization problem omits the hard per-device time and energy constraints stated in the system model. These issues are fixable but require substantial revision.

major comments (4)

[Section II-C and Eq. (21)] The system model states that "the total time and energy consumed by each device during model training must not exceed its specified maximum limits," but Problem (21) contains no constraints of the form T_cmp^n + T_com^n <= T_max^n or E_cmp^n + E_com^n <= E_max^n. The objective only includes soft penalties V_T^n and V_E^n, and since T in Eq. (15) is the global maximum over all devices, the penalty for device n does not even equal its own time consumption. The PDQN can therefore select actions that violate the stated per-device budgets, and the reported VoL advantage over baselines may be an artifact of infeasible schedules. Please add explicit hard constraints, or justify why the soft penalties suffice and report the fraction of actions that violate the stated limits.
[Section II-D, Eq. (17)] The requirement factor of TLW is epsilon_req^n = 1 / (lambda1 * T_max^n + lambda2 * E_max^n - lambda3 * A_req^n). With the simulation ranges T_max in [0.1,10] s, E_max in [0.01,1] J, and A_req in [0.7,1.0], the denominator can be negative or zero for reasonable weight choices, making epsilon_req^n negative and inverting the intended task-priority ordering. The paper does not specify the weight values, nor does it impose any positivity constraint or normalization. This is load-bearing because the objective (21a) maximizes a sum of TLW-weighted values, and negative TLW would make the objective no longer represent a meaningful value. Please specify the weights, constrain or normalize them to keep the denominator positive, and provide a sensitivity analysis.
[Section IV, Figs. 3-5] The central claim that the proposed scheme "significantly outperforms" baselines is not supported by the reported experimental evidence. The figures appear to show single runs: there are no error bars, no number of random seeds, no statistical tests, and no table of DRL hyperparameters (learning rates, mini-batch size M, buffer capacity G, discount factor kappa, soft-update coefficient zeta, exploration noise schedule, or network architecture). The baseline set is also limited to DDPG, OMA, EW, and RRA, with no comparison to an optimal or exhaustive solver on small instances. To substantiate the comparative claim, please report mean +/- standard deviation over multiple seeds, provide all hyperparameter values, run significance tests, and discuss whether the accuracy levels in Fig. 4 are consistent with typical CIFAR-10 results for the chosen architecture.
[Section III-A3 and Fig. 4] Using the objective (21a) directly as the DRL reward (Eq. (22)) means that the VoL curves in Fig. 5 largely restate the very function being optimized. The independent evidence for learning quality is Fig. 4, which reports test accuracy, but the meta-learning setup is not described in enough detail: no model architecture, no local update steps, no meta-learning rates alpha and beta, and no fine-tuning procedure. Without these details, it is hard to judge whether the absolute accuracy levels are meaningful or whether the comparison to the OMA and EW schemes is apples-to-apples. Please document the complete FML training configuration and report the VoL results alongside actual resource-feasibility statistics.

minor comments (6)

[Section III-A1] In the state-space description, the text says "We define the agent's action space from two aspects" but then lists the state components h_n and epsilon_n. This appears to be a typo: it should say "state space."
[Eq. (26)] The target Q-value formula uses both S_m and \tilde{S}_m with inconsistent notation; the next state should be S_{m+1} consistently, and the max over discrete actions should be made explicit. Please correct the formula.
[Eq. (13)] The indicator function notation in Eq. (13) is not defined clearly; the symbol "/BD" is confusing and should be replaced with a standard indicator notation such as \mathbb{1}{...}.
[Algorithm 1] In Algorithm 1, line 9 says "if reach G"; this should be "if the replay buffer is full" or "if buffer size reaches G," and the update condition should be specified precisely.
[Section V] In the conclusion, "PQDN" is a typo and should be "PDQN." Also, the final sentence says "simulation results demonstrated" but no error bars or statistical tests are given, so "demonstrate" overstates the evidence.
[Table I] Several simulation parameters that are essential for reproducibility are missing, including the number of devices' data samples, the non-IID distribution parameters, the number of local SGD steps, and the number of global rounds used in Fig. 4. Please add them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: VoL and TLW are explicitly defined objectives rather than fitted predictions; the VoL reward identity is standard RL evaluation, and the independent test-accuracy result in Fig. 4 supports the central claim.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The VoL metric (Eqs. 13-16) and TLW (Eqs. 17-20) are introduced by definition as weighted functions of accuracy, time, energy, and task requirements; the optimization problem (21) then maximizes their sum. The algorithm's reward (Eq. 22) is set equal to this objective, so the VoL curves in Fig. 5 restate the optimized quantity. However, this is not a circular reduction in the sense of a prediction being forced by a fitted input: all trained baselines (DDPG, OMA-PDQN) receive the same reward signal, so the relative VoL ordering is an empirical algorithmic result, and RRA is a random control. More importantly, Fig. 4 evaluates test accuracy, a metric not present in the reward, and shows the TLW scheme improves FML accuracy over OMA and EW; this provides independent content for the central claim. The only self-citation is Ref. [2], used for the generic statement that FL preserves privacy, which is not load-bearing for any of the paper's contributions. The skeptic's concern about Eq. (21) omitting hard time/energy budget constraints is a modeling/correctness issue, not circularity: V_T and V_E appear as soft penalties, but nothing in the derivation defines the predicted improvement in terms of the omitted constraints. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard FML meta-gradient model from prior work, ideal wireless assumptions (perfect SIC, synchronous aggregation, one-step local updates), and the paper's own heuristic VoL and TLW metrics with unspecified weighting parameters. The metrics have no independent validation, and most numerical constants that determine the reward are arbitrarily chosen in simulation.

free parameters (4)

lambda1, lambda2, lambda3 (TLW cost weights)
Weights in Equation (17) balancing Tmax, Emax, and Areq. No values or sensitivity analysis are reported, and they directly set task importance.
eta1, eta2, eta3 (VoL trade-off weights)
Weights in Equation (21a) balancing accuracy, time, and energy. Described as scenario-dependent but never specified, and they define the reward function.
Meta-learning rates alpha and beta
Learning rates in Equations (1) to (3) control local update quality and therefore the achieved accuracy An. No values are given.
PDQN hyperparameters (kappa, zeta, G, M, exploration noise)
Discount factor, soft update parameter, replay buffer capacity, mini-batch size, and exploration noise are required to reproduce the DRL results but are not reported.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The MAML meta-gradient update (Equations 1 to 6), including unbiased estimates with independent batches, is valid for all non-IID task distributions.
Borrowed from references [4], [7], and [11]. Assumes loss smoothness for the Hessian term and independence of the three data batches.
domain assumption Perfect SIC and channel-gain-ordered decoding at the NOMA receiver (Section II-B) are achievable.
An idealized assumption that removes interference cancellation errors from the model.
domain assumption Total per-round time equals the maximum device time due to synchronous aggregation, and downlink transmission can be ignored.
Assumes synchronous FL and a server broadcast with negligible cost, as justified by reference [12].
domain assumption One-step local meta-update (Section II-B) sufficiently represents FML training dynamics.
This simplification may understate per-round computation and communication costs in real deployments.
ad hoc to paper VoL (Equations 13 to 16) and TLW (Equations 17 to 20) correctly quantify learning value and task importance.
No external validation is provided; the definitions are heuristics with arbitrary combining weights.
ad hoc to paper The weights lambda1, lambda2, lambda3, eta1, eta2, eta3 keep the denominators positive and behave appropriately across devices.
No constraints ensure that epsilon_req_n in Equation (17) is positive or that the objective has the intended monotonic behavior.
domain assumption Randomly generated Areq_n, T_max_n, E_max_n and the non-IID CIFAR-10 split are representative of real task-oriented FML deployments.
Evidence is simulation-only; no real-world data, task taxonomy, or field trial is used.

invented entities (3)

Value of Learning (VoL) metric
purpose: Quantifies each device's training need as an accuracy ratio minus normalized time and energy costs (Equations 13 to 16).
No independent benchmark shows VoL correlates with task success; it is the paper's own objective.
Task-Level Weight (TLW) metric
purpose: Ranks device priority from task requirements and AoU fairness (Equations 17 to 20).
Heuristic sum of an inverse-cost term and a fairness term; no calibration or user study is provided.
Age-of-Update fairness factor
purpose: Increases priority of devices that have not contributed recently (Equations 18 and 19).
Adapted from staleness literature [15], but the specific normalization is introduced here without validation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Value of Learning in Task-Oriented Federated Meta-Learning Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24O7G5GQ

@misc{pith2026250103448,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Value of Learning in Task-Oriented Federated Meta-Learning Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24O7G5GQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03448}
}

read the original abstract

Federated Learning (FL) has gained significant attention in recent years due to its distributed nature and privacy preserving benefits. However, a key limitation of conventional FL is that it learns and distributes a common global model to all participants, which fails to provide customized solutions for diverse task requirements. Federated meta-learning (FML) offers a promising solution to this issue by enabling devices to finetune local models after receiving a shared meta-model from the server. In this paper, we propose a task-oriented FML framework over non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) networks. A novel metric, termed value of learning (VoL), is introduced to assess the individual training needs across devices. Moreover, a task-level weight (TLW) metric is defined based on task requirements and fairness considerations, guiding the prioritization of edge devices during FML training. The formulated problem, to maximize the sum of TLW-based VoL across devices, forms a non-convex mixed-integer non-linear programming (MINLP) challenge, addressed here using a parameterized deep Q-network (PDQN) algorithm to handle both discrete and continuous variables. Simulation results demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms baseline schemes, underscoring the advantages of the proposed framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03448 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Federated meta-learning system model. Given ∇˜ ln (ω) and ∇˜ 2 ln (ω), the estimated meta-function gradient ∇˜Ln (ω) can be given by ∇˜Ln (ω) = I − α∇˜ 2 ln ω, D˜ ′′ n × ∇˜ ln ω − α∇˜ ln ω, D˜ n , D˜ ′ n , (6) where D˜ n, D˜′ n and D˜′′ n are independent data batches [7]. Subsequently, edge devices upload their updated local model parameters to the server via wireless networks. The global model is upd… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Training framework of PDQN. devices. The reward function of agent at time slot j is given by rj = V j total, if V j total > 0, 0, if V j total ≤ 0, (22) where V j total represents the objective function in (21) at time slot j. B. PDQN-based Algorithm Since the formulated MDP model involves hybrid discrete and continuous actions, common DRL algorithms like deepQ learning (DQN) and deep deterministic policy gradien… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Convergence of PDQN and DDPG algorithms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FML performance on non-IID CIFAR-10 dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: VoL performance versus episode. inferior communication efficiency and a lack of device priority, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

Wireless communi cations for collaborative federated learning,

M. Chen, H. V . Poor, W. Saad, and S. Cui, “Wireless communi cations for collaborative federated learning,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 48–54, 2020

2020
[2]

Client s election and cost-efﬁcient joint optimization for NOMA-enabled hie rarchical federated learning,

B. Wu, F. Fang, X. Wang, D. Cai, S. Fu, and Z. Ding, “Client s election and cost-efﬁcient joint optimization for NOMA-enabled hie rarchical federated learning,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , pp. 1–1, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Federate d learning and meta learning: Approaches, applications, and directio ns,

X. Liu, Y . Deng, A. Nallanathan, and M. Bennis, “Federate d learning and meta learning: Approaches, applications, and directio ns,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 571–618, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Federated meta- learning with fast convergence and efﬁcient communication,

F. Chen, M. Luo, Z. Dong, Z. Li, and X. He, “Federated meta- learning with fast convergence and efﬁcient communication,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07876, 2018

arXiv 2018
[5]

Improvin g feder- ated learning personalization via model agnostic meta lear ning,

Y . Jiang, J. Koneˇ cn` y, K. Rush, and S. Kannan, “Improvin g feder- ated learning personalization via model agnostic meta lear ning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.12488, 2019

arXiv 1909
[6]

Inexact-ADMM based federated meta-learning for fast and continual edge learni ng,

S. Y ue, J. Ren, J. Xin, S. Lin, and J. Zhang, “Inexact-ADMM based federated meta-learning for fast and continual edge learni ng,” in Proc. 22nd Int. Symp. Theory, Algorithmic F ound., Protocol Desig n Mobile Netw. Mobile Comput. , 2021, pp. 91–100

work page 2021
[7]

E fﬁcient federated meta-learning over multi-access wireless netwo rks,

S. Y ue, J. Ren, J. Xin, D. Zhang, Y . Zhang, and W. Zhuang, “E fﬁcient federated meta-learning over multi-access wireless netwo rks,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1556–1570, 2022

work page 2022
[8]

Communication-efﬁcient personalized federated meta-learning in edge networks,

F. Y u, H. Lin, X. Wang, S. Garg, G. Kaddoum, S. Singh, and M. M. Hassan, “Communication-efﬁcient personalized federated meta-learning in edge networks,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1558– 1571, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 16 references

[9]

Efﬁcient wireless tr afﬁc prediction at the edge: A federated meta-learning approach,

L. Zhang, C. Zhang, and B. Shihada, “Efﬁcient wireless tr afﬁc prediction at the edge: A federated meta-learning approach,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1573–1577, 2022

2022
[10]

A blockchain-based reliable federated meta-learning for me taverse: A dual game framework,

E. Baccour, A. Erbad, A. Mohamed, M. Hamdi, and M. Guizan i, “A blockchain-based reliable federated meta-learning for me taverse: A dual game framework,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 22 697– 22 715, 2024

2024
[11]

Personalized federated learning with theoretical guarantees: A model-agnostic me ta-learning approach,

A. Fallah, A. Mokhtari, and A. Ozdaglar, “Personalized federated learning with theoretical guarantees: A model-agnostic me ta-learning approach,” in Proc. NIPS , vol. 33, pp. 3557–3568, 2020

2020
[12]

Federated learning over wireless n etworks: Convergence analysis and resource allocation,

C. T. Dinh, N. H. Tran, M. N. H. Nguyen, C. S. Hong, W. Bao, A . Y . Zomaya, and V . Gramoli, “Federated learning over wireless n etworks: Convergence analysis and resource allocation,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 398–409, 2021

2021
[13]

Processor design for por table systems,

T. D. Burd and R. W. Brodersen, “Processor design for por table systems,” J. VLSI Sig. Proc. Syst. , vol. 13, no. 2-3, pp. 203–221, 1996

1996
[14]

A survey on non-orthogonal multiple access for 5 G networks: Research challenges and future trends,

Z. Ding, X. Lei, G. K. Karagiannidis, R. Schober, J. Y uan , and V . K. Bhargava, “A survey on non-orthogonal multiple access for 5 G networks: Research challenges and future trends,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. , vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 2181–2195, Oct. 2017

2017
[15]

Toward understanding the impact of staleness in distributed machi ne learning,

W. Dai, Y . Zhou, N. Dong, H. Zhang, and E. P . Xing, “Toward understanding the impact of staleness in distributed machi ne learning,” ArXiv, vol. abs/1810.03264, 2018

2018 arXiv
[16]

A PDDQNLP algorithm for energy efﬁcient computation ofﬂoadi ng in UA V-assisted MEC,

N. Lin, H. Tang, L. Zhao, S. Wan, A. Hawbani, and M. Guizan i, “A PDDQNLP algorithm for energy efﬁcient computation ofﬂoadi ng in UA V-assisted MEC,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 8876–8890, 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Wireless communi cations for collaborative federated learning,

M. Chen, H. V . Poor, W. Saad, and S. Cui, “Wireless communi cations for collaborative federated learning,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 48–54, 2020

2020

[2] [2]

Client s election and cost-efﬁcient joint optimization for NOMA-enabled hie rarchical federated learning,

B. Wu, F. Fang, X. Wang, D. Cai, S. Fu, and Z. Ding, “Client s election and cost-efﬁcient joint optimization for NOMA-enabled hie rarchical federated learning,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , pp. 1–1, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Federate d learning and meta learning: Approaches, applications, and directio ns,

X. Liu, Y . Deng, A. Nallanathan, and M. Bennis, “Federate d learning and meta learning: Approaches, applications, and directio ns,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 571–618, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Federated meta- learning with fast convergence and efﬁcient communication,

F. Chen, M. Luo, Z. Dong, Z. Li, and X. He, “Federated meta- learning with fast convergence and efﬁcient communication,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07876, 2018

arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

Improvin g feder- ated learning personalization via model agnostic meta lear ning,

Y . Jiang, J. Koneˇ cn` y, K. Rush, and S. Kannan, “Improvin g feder- ated learning personalization via model agnostic meta lear ning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.12488, 2019

arXiv 1909

[6] [6]

Inexact-ADMM based federated meta-learning for fast and continual edge learni ng,

S. Y ue, J. Ren, J. Xin, S. Lin, and J. Zhang, “Inexact-ADMM based federated meta-learning for fast and continual edge learni ng,” in Proc. 22nd Int. Symp. Theory, Algorithmic F ound., Protocol Desig n Mobile Netw. Mobile Comput. , 2021, pp. 91–100

work page 2021

[7] [7]

E fﬁcient federated meta-learning over multi-access wireless netwo rks,

S. Y ue, J. Ren, J. Xin, D. Zhang, Y . Zhang, and W. Zhuang, “E fﬁcient federated meta-learning over multi-access wireless netwo rks,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1556–1570, 2022

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Communication-efﬁcient personalized federated meta-learning in edge networks,

F. Y u, H. Lin, X. Wang, S. Garg, G. Kaddoum, S. Singh, and M. M. Hassan, “Communication-efﬁcient personalized federated meta-learning in edge networks,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1558– 1571, 2023

work page 2023