Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Incentivizing Inclusive Contributions in Model Sharing Markets

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A market for AI models where every participant gains and liars lose

desk verdict Interesting mechanism, but the central individual-rationality theorem fails as stated under finite over-reporting of data size, which is a self-reported variable. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02462 v1 pith:TSEAI3AE submitted 2025-05-05 cs.AI cs.CLcs.GT

Enpei Zhang , Jingyi Chai , Rui Ye , Yanfeng Wang , Siheng Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.GT
keywords personalizedfederatedlearningincentivemechanismmodelsharingmarketindividualrationalitytruthfulnesscollaborationgraphgametheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the privacy and incentive barriers to pooling decentralized private data can be overcome by turning federated learning into a model-sharing market: participants trade model parameters rather than raw data, and a neutral server prices every collaboration. It claims that its iPFL mechanism guarantees individual rationality, meaning no client ends a round with negative utility, and truthfulness, meaning over-reporting private cost cannot improve a client's utility, while matching or beating standard personalized federated learning on model accuracy. The payoff, if the claims hold, is that institutions with different purposes—pure buyers, pure sellers, traders, and even attackers—can coexist in one training loop, with prices set from the buyer's marginal gain and the seller's model difference. The guarantees rest on a specific concave gain function and a threshold-based graph-learning rule, so they hold within that model of how clients value data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of a directed collaboration graph $A$ and a concave collaboration gain $G_i(a_i)=\sqrt{K_i/N_i}-\sqrt{K_i/(N_i+\sum_j a_{ij}N_j)}$, where $K_i$ is client $i$'s eagerness for data and $N_i$ its data volume. The mechanism's working part is a greedy threshold rule: for each potential collaborator $j$, the server computes a threshold $N_j^{\mathrm{Th}}$ by solving $g_i(N_j^{\mathrm{Th}})-g_i(N_j^{\mathrm{Th}}-N_j)=c_j+\lambda (N_j/N_i)d(\theta_i,\theta_j)$, and client $i$ imports the collaborator with the largest threshold until the accumulated data reaches it. The payment for an import is the marginal gain minus the model-difference penalty, so the same graph serves as both the training topology and the billing ledger; that coupling is what makes the individual-rationality and truthfulness proofs go through.

What would settle it

A direct test is to simulate a client whose true gain from importing a collaborator's data is much larger than the concave volume-based $G_i$ predicts, for instance a small high-quality dataset that exactly answers the buyer's task; if the buyer's true gain exceeds $G_i$, the payment $r_{ij}$ undercharges the seller and the seller's utility can become negative, breaking individual rationality. The paper's own Table 2 already varies reported data size and cost; running the same table with a lying report of $K_i$ would settle whether the truthfulness guarantee extends beyond $c_i$, since the theorem does not cover $K_i$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that economic incentives and personalized model training can be driven by the same object: a directed collaboration graph $A$ in which $a_{ij}=1$ means client $i$ imports client $j$'s model, with each row chosen to balance model similarity, sharing cost, and a concave data-gain $G_i(a_i)=\sqrt{K_i/N_i}-\sqrt{K_i/(N_i+\sum_j a_{ij}N_j)}$. The server learns that graph with a greedy threshold rule and then bills each client the difference between the marginal benefit of each imported model and the model-distance penalty. Under that rule the paper proves that every client's utility is non-negative in every round (Theorem 1), that over-reporting one's cost $c_i$ cannot raise utility (Theorem 2), and that a client reporting an infinite data amount is never imported (Theorem 3). Empirically, across nine classification settings and two instruction-tuning scenarios, iPFL reports the highest economic utility with accuracy comparable to or better than FedAvg, FedProx, Ditto, FedAMP, CFL, FedFomo, and pFedGraph, including a 49% higher economic utility and 9% higher model utility than the best baseline in the LLM instruction-tuning case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a client's true value for imported data is fully captured by the concave function $G_i(a_i)=\sqrt{K_i/N_i}-\sqrt{K_i/(N_i+\sum_j a_{ij}N_j)}$ with a single reported scalar $K_i$, and that the only strategic degrees of freedom are the reports of cost $c_i$ and data size $N_i$; if institutions value content rather than just data volume, or can profitably misreport $K_i$ or $N_i$, the threshold selection and payment rule can lose their individual-rationality and truthfulness guarantees.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, institutions with purely financial motives and institutions with purely accuracy motives can share one federation without one subsidizing the other.
  • A server that does not see any client's raw data can still set prices that leave every client with non-negative utility each round.
  • Over-reporting private cost becomes self-defeating, so the mechanism gives clients a reason to reveal their true unwillingness to share.
  • Attackers who upload poisoned or infinite-data models are structurally isolated through the model-difference and threshold rules rather than by a separate verification step.
  • The same mechanism extends to instruction-following language-model training, where the reported gains are 49% in economic utility and 9% in model utility over the best baseline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's truthfulness theorem is stated for over-reporting the cost $c_i$; its experiments also test lying on data size, but a formal truthfulness guarantee for $K_i$ and $N_i$ is not derived, so the honesty result is cost-specific as proved.
  • Because the gain function counts only total imported data volume, the mechanism implicitly rewards quantity over content quality; a testable extension is to weight each collaborator's data by quality and check whether the greedy threshold rule still runs in $O(m)$ time.
  • The Discussion concedes the federation is assumed static; a natural extension is to add refund or escrow rules so buyers who exit before round $T$ are not charged for model value they never received.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes iPFL, a personalized federated learning framework coupled with a model-sharing market. Clients report their data size N_i, sharing cost c_i, and data eagerness K_i; a neutral server learns a collaboration graph (Algorithm 2) from model similarities and reported quantities, and charges payments defined by Eq. (10) as marginal collaboration gain minus model-difference cost. The paper claims that iPFL satisfies individual rationality and truthfulness, is robust to malicious model/data-size reports, and achieves higher economic utility than several PFL baselines across classification and instruction-tuning tasks.

Significance. The idea of combining personalized federated learning with a graphical game and a payment mechanism is genuinely interesting, and the experimental scope is broad. However, the central theoretical claims are not supported as stated: the individual-rationality guarantee fails under finite overreporting of N_i, the truthfulness theorem covers only c_i, and the economic-utility comparison is partly circular because the same utility function is both the objective optimized by iPFL and the evaluation metric. The proofs of Theorems 1-3 are deferred to an appendix that is not present. If the mechanism could be repaired to handle strategic reports of N_i, the framework would be a useful contribution; with the current text, the headline incentive guarantees are falsified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Theorem 1 (with Algorithm 2 and Eq. (10))] The unconditional individual-rationality statement is false when a participant overreports N_i by a finite factor. Concrete counterexample: a buyer has N_b=100, K_b=1, so G_b(x)=sqrt(1/100)-sqrt(1/(100+x)); a seller has true N_s=1, c_s=0.05, and d=0, lambda=0. If the seller reports N_s=1000, Algorithm 2's threshold equation G_b(T)-G_b(T-1000)=0.05 has a solution T around 1055, which exceeds 1000, so the buyer imports the seller's model. Eq. (10) then charges r_bs=G_b(1000)-G_b(0)=sqrt(1/100)-sqrt(1/1100)≈0.0699, while the true marginal gain from the seller's actual one data point is G_b(1)-G_b(0)≈0.0005. The honest buyer's utility is therefore about -0.0694, violating Theorem 1, and the seller gains about +0.0199. Because N_i is a self-report in Algorithm 1, finite overreporting is a strategic option, not merely an adversarial extreme; Theorem 3 only excludes N_i to infinity and does not cover this case. The theorem needs an explicit honesty assumption or, more importantly, the mechanism needs a payment rule that is robust to finite misreports of N_i.
  2. [Sec. 2.1 and Eq. (4)] The economic-utility comparison is circular. The utility function in Definition 1, Eq. (1)-(4), is the social-welfare term SW(A) that iPFL explicitly optimizes in Eq. (4), and the same utility is then used in Section 2.1 as the evaluation metric for 'economic utility'. Consequently, iPFL is being evaluated on the objective it is designed to maximize, while the baselines optimize different training objectives and do not use this payment/utility model at all. The finding that iPFL 'consistently achieves the highest economic utility' is therefore partly by construction and does not by itself demonstrate a superior market outcome. A fair comparison would evaluate all methods under a common, externally specified utility or welfare metric that is not the training objective of one of the methods.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, proofs of Theorems 1-3] The text states that the proofs of Theorems 1-3 are in the Appendix, but the manuscript as provided contains no appendix. Since these theorems carry the paper's central incentive and robustness claims, the absence of the proofs is a blocking omission: the reader cannot verify the conditions under which individual rationality, truthfulness, and robustness actually hold. Even without the counterexample above, the theoretical contribution is unverifiable in the submitted text.
  4. [Sec. 4.3, Theorem 2 and the abstract's truthfulness claim] The truthfulness guarantee is narrower than the abstract's claim. Theorem 2 only addresses overreporting of c_i, while the paper itself acknowledges in Section 4.3 that clients can exaggerate N_i to extract extra payment. The counterexample in my first comment shows that the mechanism is not truthful in N_i for finite overreports, and Section 2.2's Table 2 only tests lying about data size and cost at a few ratios in one setting, not a strategic equilibrium analysis over the full report space. The abstract's statement that iPFL adheres to 'truthfulness' therefore overstates the proven and demonstrated property.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The payment r_ij can be negative when the model-difference penalty lambda*(N_j/N_i)*d(theta_i,theta_j) exceeds the marginal collaboration gain, which would mean the seller pays the buyer for importing its model. The paper does not discuss negative transfers, whether they are allowed, or how they affect the individual-rationality argument.
  2. [Algorithm 2] The pseudocode does not specify how to break ties when multiple clients have the same maximal threshold NTh_j, and it does not define what happens if the threshold equation has no solution for every j; the statement 'Set NTh_j = 0' covers the former but the loop's arg max over zero-valued thresholds is still underspecified.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, Table 2] The rows for lying on cost show utility exactly 0.00 for lying ratios 2, 5, and 10. It would be helpful to clarify whether this is because the liar is no longer selected as a collaborator, a boundary effect of the payment rule, or an artifact of the experimental setting; the current table does not explain why utility is exactly zero rather than merely lower.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, Fig. 4] The robustness experiments appear to use a single run per attack type, with no reported variance. Given the claim that only iPFL reduces the attacker's utility while preserving benign clients' accuracy, some measure of variability across multiple runs or seeds would strengthen the claim.
  5. [Sec. 2.1, Fig. 2 labels] The horizontal-axis labels such as '50 0 50 100' appear to be misformatted tick labels; the reader cannot tell whether utilities are negative or positive without reading the figure more carefully. Rewriting the axis labels and adding a legend would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Highest-utility result partly re-states the iPFL objective; inclusive-market roles are hard-coded; theoretical IR/truthfulness claims remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1 (Performance Evaluation); Section 4.1, Definition 5 and Eq. (4)]
    "To evaluate the economic performance of iPFL, we introduce the utility function, as defined in definition 1. It consists of three components: collaboration gain (eq. (2)) with preference K, the sharing cost with individual unwillingness c and accumulated payment (eq. (10)) in all rounds."

    The 'economic utility' used as the headline evaluation metric is Definition 1's U_i, and Definition 5 defines social welfare as SW(A^t) = Σ_i U^t_i. The iPFL training objective in Eq. (4) explicitly includes −SW(A), so iPFL is constructed to maximize exactly the quantity later reported as 'average utility.' Thus 'iPFL consistently achieves the highest economic utility' is partly a restatement of the optimization target rather than an independent external outcome. The model-accuracy comparisons (CIFAR, instruction tuning, HumanEval) are external and do provide independent content.

  2. self definitional [Section 2.3 (Inclusive Market), Fig. 5]
    "These are achieved by setting the profiles of clients: we set the level of data eagerness as a random positive value for traders and buyers, while zero for sellers and attackers; we set the cost as a random positive number for traders, +∞ for buyers, zero for sellers and attackers; see details in supplementary material."

    The roles in the 'inclusive market' simulation are not emergent: setting K_i=0 makes G_i(a_i)=0 in Eq. (2), so sellers and attackers have zero demand for imported models by construction; setting c_i=+∞ for buyers makes the threshold equation in Algorithm 2 unsolvable, so no other client imports them. Observing in Fig. 5 that traders trade, buyers only buy, sellers only sell, and attackers are isolated is a direct consequence of these parameter choices, not an independent validation of inclusivity.

full rationale

The central theoretical mechanism---individual rationality and truthfulness---is presented as theorems with proofs in the appendix and is not shown in the main text to reduce to its own assumptions. The payment rule in Eq. (10) is deliberately decoupled from the reported cost c_i, so Theorem 2 reflects a designed incentive property rather than a circular use of the theorem. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. The circular component is confined to evaluation design: the economic-utility metric is the same welfare term that iPFL's objective maximizes, and the inclusive-market demonstration hard-codes participant roles into the K_i and c_i parameters that drive the mechanism. These make parts of the empirical claims true by construction, but the model-performance results are measured against external benchmarks, and the theoretical incentive statements have independent content. I also note correctness gaps, not circularity: Theorem 3 only handles N_i→+∞ while finite over-reports of N_i remain strategic, and the paper itself acknowledges that under-reporting c_i 'risks selling his model at a low price' without a guarantee. These affect soundness but do not turn the derivation into a tautology.

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

The mechanism depends on reported scalars K_i and c_i and on the chosen hyperparameter lambda; none of these are derived from first principles. The paper introduces no new physical entity, only a market abstraction over existing personalized federated learning.

free parameters (4)
  • K_i (data eagerness) = reported by each client, not fitted
    Defines the concave gain function G_i in Eq. (2); the entire mechanism assumes this scalar truthfully captures a client's desire for more data.
  • c_i (sharing cost or unwillingness) = reported by each client, not fitted
    Sets the minimum price and selection threshold in Algorithm 2; the truthfulness claim is about over-reporting this value.
  • lambda (collaboration-similarity weight) = not reported in main text
    Global scalar weighting model-similarity loss versus social welfare in Eq. (4); no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • eta (proximal step size) = not reported in main text
    Optimization step size in Eqs. (6) and (7); standard but unspecified in the visible text.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Clients are rational and only manipulate the reported scalars K_i, c_i, and N_i; they do not collude or use other strategic behavior beyond the studied attacks.
    The truthfulness theorem only covers over-reporting c_i, and the experiments only test single-liar scenarios.
  • ad hoc to paper The benefit of a collaborator is a concave function of total imported data volume, rather than of data content or task relevance beyond the model-similarity penalty.
    Eq. (2) imposes this specific concave form, and the individual-rationality proof relies on diminishing returns.
  • domain assumption The server is neutral, trusted, and able to compute the collaboration graph and payments correctly without leaking model information.
    The market mechanism assumes a central server; no cryptographic or differential-privacy guarantee is provided.
  • domain assumption Sharing model parameters instead of raw data preserves privacy.
    The paper's privacy story is based on model sharing, but gradients and models can leak information; no formal privacy analysis is included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Incentivizing Inclusive Contributions in Model Sharing Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSEAI3AE

@misc{pith2026250502462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Incentivizing Inclusive Contributions in Model Sharing Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSEAI3AE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02462}
}
read the original abstract

While data plays a crucial role in training contemporary AI models, it is acknowledged that valuable public data will be exhausted in a few years, directing the world's attention towards the massive decentralized private data. However, the privacy-sensitive nature of raw data and lack of incentive mechanism prevent these valuable data from being fully exploited. Addressing these challenges, this paper proposes inclusive and incentivized personalized federated learning (iPFL), which incentivizes data holders with diverse purposes to collaboratively train personalized models without revealing raw data. iPFL constructs a model-sharing market by solving a graph-based training optimization and incorporates an incentive mechanism based on game theory principles. Theoretical analysis shows that iPFL adheres to two key incentive properties: individual rationality and truthfulness. Empirical studies on eleven AI tasks (e.g., large language models' instruction-following tasks) demonstrate that iPFL consistently achieves the highest economic utility, and better or comparable model performance compared to baseline methods. We anticipate that our iPFL can serve as a valuable technique for boosting future AI models on decentralized private data while making everyone satisfied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Inclusive PFL market and our iPFL. a. The clients have different purposes for entering a PFL system. A client can be: i) a trader who simultaneously buys model and sells their model; ii) a buyer who only buys a model and never shares its own model; iii) a seller who only sells its own model and never buys models; iv) an attacker who intends to ruin the system. b. In an inclusive market system, the model and money tr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of average utility and accuracy in scatter under di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The utility distribution of clients with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The change of average benign clients’ performance (%) and malicious client utility after 4 di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The transaction graph of market simulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485–5551, 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling

    Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027, 2020

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Laion-400m: Open dataset of clip-filtered 400 million image-text pairs

    Christoph Schuhmann, Richard Vencu, Romain Beaumont, Robert Kaczmarczyk, Clayton Mullis, Aarush Katta, Theo Coombes, Jenia Jitsev, and Aran Komatsuzaki. Laion-400m: Open dataset of clip-filtered 400 million image-text pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02114, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:25278–25294, 2022

    Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Wortsman, et al. Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:25278–25294, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Nee- lakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  6. [6]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

    Long Ouyang, Je ffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730–27744, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent di ffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent di ffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE /CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Zero-shot text-to-image generation

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea V oss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8821–

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Gpt-4 technical repor

    OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical repor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Scaling laws for neural language models

    Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Je ffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361, 2020

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Will we run out of data? an analysis of the limits of scaling datasets in machine learning

    Pablo Villalobos, Jaime Sevilla, Lennart Heim, Tamay Besiroglu, Marius Hobbhahn, and Anson Ho. Will we run out of data? an analysis of the limits of scaling datasets in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.04325, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Scaling data-constrained language models

    Niklas Muennighoff, Alexander M Rush, Boaz Barak, Teven Le Scao, Nouamane Tazi, Aleksandra Piktus, Sampo Pyysalo, Thomas Wolf, and Colin Raffel. Scaling data-constrained language models. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Bloomberggpt: A large language model for finance

    Shijie Wu, Ozan Irsoy, Steven Lu, Vadim Dabravolski, Mark Dredze, Sebastian Gehrmann, Prabhanjan Kambadur, David Rosenberg, and Gideon Mann. Bloomberggpt: A large language model for finance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17564, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Towards expert-level medical question answering with large language models

    Karan Singhal, Tao Tu, Juraj Gottweis, Rory Sayres, Ellery Wulczyn, Le Hou, Kevin Clark, Stephen Pfohl, Heather Cole-Lewis, Darlene Neal, et al. Towards expert-level medical question answering with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09617, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources

    Yizhong Wang, Hamish Ivison, Pradeep Dasigi, Jack Hessel, Tushar Khot, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, David Wadden, Kelsey MacMillan, Noah A Smith, Iz Beltagy, et al. How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04751, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Pointgpt: Auto-regressively generative pre-training from point clouds

    Guangyan Chen, Meiling Wang, Yi Yang, Kai Yu, Li Yuan, and Yufeng Yue. Pointgpt: Auto-regressively generative pre-training from point clouds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11487, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    The eu general data protection regulation (gdpr).A Practical Guide, 1st Ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 10(3152676):10–5555, 2017

    Paul V oigt and Axel V on dem Bussche. The eu general data protection regulation (gdpr).A Practical Guide, 1st Ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 10(3152676):10–5555, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Advances and open problems in federated learning

    Peter Kairouz, H Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aurélien Bellet, Mehdi Bennis, Arjun Nitin Bhagoji, Kallista Bonawitz, Zachary Charles, Graham Cormode, Rachel Cummings, et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 14(1–...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Privacy in the age of medical big data

    W Nicholson Price and I Glenn Cohen. Privacy in the age of medical big data. Nature medicine, 25(1):37–43, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    An exhaustive survey on security and privacy issues in healthcare 4.0

    Jigna J Hathaliya and Sudeep Tanwar. An exhaustive survey on security and privacy issues in healthcare 4.0. Computer Communications, 153:311–335, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Improving information security behaviour in the healthcare context

    Debra Box and Dalenca Pottas. Improving information security behaviour in the healthcare context. Procedia Technology, 9:1093–1103, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Differentially private knowledge transfer for federated learning

    Tao Qi, Fangzhao Wu, Chuhan Wu, Liang He, Yongfeng Huang, and Xing Xie. Differentially private knowledge transfer for federated learning. Nature Communications, 14(1):3785, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    End-to-end privacy preserving deep learning on multi-institutional medical imaging

    Georgios Kaissis, Alexander Ziller, Jonathan Passerat-Palmbach, Théo Ryffel, Dmitrii Usynin, Andrew Trask, Ionésio Lima Jr, Jason Mancuso, Friederike Jungmann, Marc-Matthias Steinborn, et al. End-to-end privacy preserving deep learning on multi-institutional medical imaging. N...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Federated machine learning: Concept and applications

    Qiang Yang, Yang Liu, Tianjian Chen, and Yongxin Tong. Federated machine learning: Concept and applications. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 10(2):1–19, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Mechanisms that incentivize data sharing in federated learning

    Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Wenshuo Guo, and Michael I Jordan. Mechanisms that incentivize data sharing in federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04557, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A federated graph neural network framework for privacy-preserving personalization

    Chuhan Wu, Fangzhao Wu, Lingjuan Lyu, Tao Qi, Yongfeng Huang, and Xing Xie. A federated graph neural network framework for privacy-preserving personalization. Nature Communications, 13(1):3091, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Personalized federated learning with moreau envelopes

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

    2020

  20. [28]

    Personalized federated learning with theoretical guarantees: A model-agnostic meta-learning approach

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

    2020

  21. [29]

    Personalized federated learning with inferred collaboration graphs

    Rui Ye, Zhenyang Ni, Fangzhao Wu, Siheng Chen, and Yanfeng Wang. Personalized federated learning with inferred collaboration graphs. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 39801–39817. PMLR, 2023. 14 A preprint - May 6, 2025

    2023

  22. [30]

    Ditto: Fair and robust federated learning through personalization

    Tian Li, Shengyuan Hu, Ahmad Beirami, and Virginia Smith. Ditto: Fair and robust federated learning through personalization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6357–6368. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Personalized cross-silo federated learning on non-iid data

    Yutao Huang, Lingyang Chu, Zirui Zhou, Lanjun Wang, Jiangchuan Liu, Jian Pei, and Yong Zhang. Personalized cross-silo federated learning on non-iid data. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, pages 7865–7873, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Clustered federated learning: Model-agnostic distributed multitask optimization under privacy constraints

    Felix Sattler, Klaus-Robert Müller, and Wojciech Samek. Clustered federated learning: Model-agnostic distributed multitask optimization under privacy constraints. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 32(8):3710–3722, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Boosting geoscience data sharing in china

    Xin Li, Guodong Cheng, Liangxu Wang, Juanle Wang, Youhua Ran, Tao Che, Guoqing Li, Honglin He, Qiang Zhang, Xiaoyi Jiang, et al. Boosting geoscience data sharing in china. Nature Geoscience, 14(8):541–542, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    A learning-based incentive mechanism for federated learning

    Yufeng Zhan, Peng Li, Zhihao Qu, Deze Zeng, and Song Guo. A learning-based incentive mechanism for federated learning. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(7):6360–6368, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

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

    2009

  29. [37]

    Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms

    Han Xiao, Kashif Rasul, and Roland V ollgraf. Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Deeper, broader and artier domain generalization

    Da Li, Yongxin Yang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Timothy M Hospedales. Deeper, broader and artier domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 5542–5550, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Leaf: A benchmark for federated settings

    Sebastian Caldas, Sai Meher Karthik Duddu, Peter Wu, Tian Li, Jakub Koneˇcn`y, H Brendan McMahan, Virginia Smith, and Ameet Talwalkar. Leaf: A benchmark for federated settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01097, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Www’18 open challenge: Financial opinion mining and question answering

    Macedo Maia, Siegfried Handschuh, André Freitas, Brian Davis, Ross McDermott, Manel Zarrouk, and Alexandra Balahur. Www’18 open challenge: Financial opinion mining and question answering. Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Twitter financial news sentiment

    Neural Magic. Twitter financial news sentiment. https://huggingface.co/datasets/zeroshot/twitter-financial-news- sentiment, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Data-centric fingpt

    Hongyang Yang. Data-centric fingpt. open-source for open finance. https://github.com/ AI4Finance-Foundation/FinGPT, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Code alpaca: An instruction-following llama model for code generation

    Sahil Chaudhary. Code alpaca: An instruction-following llama model for code generation. https://github. com/sahil280114/codealpaca, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

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

    2017

  37. [45]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks

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

    2020

  38. [46]

    Personalized federated learning with first order model optimization

    Michael Zhang, Karan Sapra, Sanja Fidler, Serena Yeung, and Jose M Alvarez. Personalized federated learning with first order model optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08565, 2020. FedFomo, weighted combination method, heterogeneity, exchange all

    2012 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott G...

    2021

  40. [48]

    Federated learning with matched averaging

    Hongyi Wang, Mikhail Yurochkin, Yuekai Sun, Dimitris Papailiopoulos, and Yasaman Khazaeni. Federated learning with matched averaging. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    Bayesian nonparametric federated learning of neural networks

    Mikhail Yurochkin, Mayank Agarwal, Soumya Ghosh, Kristjan Greenewald, Nghia Hoang, and Yasaman Khazaeni. Bayesian nonparametric federated learning of neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 7252–7261. PMLR, 2019. 15 A preprint - May 6, 2025

    2019

  42. [50]

    Federated learning based on dynamic regularization

    Durmus Alp Emre Acar, Yue Zhao, Ramon Matas, Matthew Mattina, Paul Whatmough, and Venkatesh Saligrama. Federated learning based on dynamic regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Fake it till make it: Federated learning with consensus-oriented generation

    Rui Ye, Yaxin Du, Zhenyang Ni, Siheng Chen, and Yanfeng Wang. Fake it till make it: Federated learning with consensus-oriented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05966, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Incentive mechanism for reliable federated learning: A joint optimization approach to combining reputation and contract theory

    Jiawen Kang, Zehui Xiong, Dusit Niyato, Shengli Xie, and Junshan Zhang. Incentive mechanism for reliable federated learning: A joint optimization approach to combining reputation and contract theory. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(6):10700–10714, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    A comprehensive survey of incentive mechanism for federated learning

    Rongfei Zeng, Chao Zeng, Xingwei Wang, Bo Li, and Xiaowen Chu. A comprehensive survey of incentive mechanism for federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.15406, 2021. 16

    2021 arXiv

  46. [8831]

    13 A preprint - May 6, 2025

    PMLR, 2021. 13 A preprint - May 6, 2025

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.