Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

FNBench: Benchmarking Robust Federated Learning against Noisy Labels

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under unified benchmark settings, no federated noisy-label method consistently outperforms the others, and a decorrelation regularizer generally improves robustness.

desk verdict A genuinely useful unified benchmark for federated noisy-label learning, but the SVD-loss booster claim is not reproducible as written and needs a serious revision before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06684 v1 pith:WH3JBL2D submitted 2025-05-10 cs.CV cs.AI

Xuefeng Jiang , Jia Li , Nannan Wu , Zhiyuan Wu , Xujing Li , Sheng Sun , Gang Xu , Yuwei Wang
show 2 more authors
Qi Li Min Liu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords federatedlearningnoisylabelsbenchmarklabelnoiserobustnessdimensionalcollapserepresentationregularizationnon-IIDdataSVDloss
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

FNBench is the authors' attempt to settle, under one set of experimental conditions, how well existing methods really cope with mislabeled data in federated learning. The paper puts eighteen methods from four research lines—general FL, byzantine-robust aggregation, centralized noisy-label learning, and federated noisy-label learning—through three noise regimes: synthetic flips, real human annotation errors, and systematic web-collection noise. Its central conclusion is that no method consistently wins across non-IID partitions and noise patterns, and that adding a simple representation decorrelation regularizer (SVD loss) generally improves most methods' robustness. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that the field needs a shared evaluation protocol before claims of superiority can be trusted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the SVD loss, a representation decorrelation regularizer: within each local batch, the model subtracts the mean, normalizes feature dimensions, computes the correlation matrix of the representation matrix, and penalizes the mean squared off-diagonal entries. This discourages different representation dimensions from correlating and stops the singular-value spectrum from collapsing toward lower rank, countering the dimensional collapse the paper observes under label noise. The benchmark itself is the other piece of machinery: three label-noise patterns (synthetic, human-annotation, systematic), two image datasets plus a text dataset, and eighteen baselines under shared hyperparameters.

What would settle it

Re-run the CIFAR-10 symmetric-noise (0.0–0.4) comparison with per-method grid search over forget rate, kappa, and warm-up ratio, and compare rankings to the paper's tables; if, for example, a tuned FedLSR or RFA overtakes FedNoRo and FedELC on several settings, the paper's relative-robustness claims would not survive as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under a unified protocol with three non-IID partitioning schemes and four synthetic label-noise patterns on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, plus CIFAR-10/100-N human-annotation noise and Clothing1M systematic noise, the authors find that no evaluated method dominates across all settings. Simpler FL methods (FedAvg, FedProx, FedExP) are comparatively robust at low noise rates, co-teaching-style loss-based sample selection and the FNLL methods FedNoRo and FedELC are among the more robust, byzantine-robust aggregation methods—especially Krum—perform poorly on distributed label noise, and methods like FedLSR and RFL degrade sharply on the 100-class datasets. The paper further shows noisy labels induce dimensional collapse of learned representations, and reports that adding an SVD-based decorrelation loss to local training improves F1 for nearly every method, with only FedELC showing negligible change.

Load-bearing premise

The rankings assume that one fixed hyperparameter setting per method, chosen from original papers or mild defaults, is equally fair to all eighteen methods across every noise pattern and non-IID partition; if some methods are systematically undertuned, the relative robustness conclusions could be artifacts of configuration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any future claim that a new federated noisy-label method is state of the art should be measured against this benchmark's settings; at present no method has a universal advantage.
  • Byzantine-robust aggregation methods, particularly Krum, should not be assumed to handle distributed label noise simply because they tolerate adversarial clients.
  • Loss-based sample selection (Co-teaching, FedNoRo, FedELC) is a more promising robustness pattern than centroid-based or self-regularization approaches in high-class-count regimes.
  • Adding SVD loss is a cheap, generally positive modification for most existing methods, suggesting representation regularization should be a standard component in future federated noisy-label designs.
  • Smaller local batch sizes improved performance under limited communication rounds in the paper's ablations, so batch size deserves explicit reporting in comparisons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the absence of a single winner implies benchmark reports should present per-setting rankings or average ranks rather than a single best method, since any headline 'best' will be setting-dependent.
  • Editorial inference: the consistent gains from SVD loss suggest that label-noise robustness in federated learning is substantially a representation-quality problem; a testable extension would be to combine SVD loss with label-correction methods on CIFAR-100-N, where the paper finds both ideas individually effective.
  • Editorial inference: because per-method hyperparameters were fixed, rankings could shift under tuning; a natural follow-up is a sensitivity analysis reporting each method's performance variation across reasonable hyperparameter ranges.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. FNBench is a benchmark study of federated learning (FL) methods under label noise. It compares eighteen methods from four families (general FL, Byzantine-robust FL, centralized noisy-label learning, and federated noisy-label learning) across five image datasets and one text dataset, covering synthetic label noise, human annotation noise (CIFAR-10/100-N), and systematic noise (Clothing1M). The paper reports per-dataset F1 tables under multiple Non-IID partitionings and noise patterns, and it adds two analyses: (i) observations on memorization and dimensional collapse in FL, and (ii) an SVD-based representation regularizer that is combined with existing methods. The main claims are that no single method consistently dominates across settings and that the proposed SVD loss generally improves robustness.

Significance. The benchmark makes a useful contribution to the federated noisy-label learning community: it is open-source, covers a wider set of methods and noise patterns than prior evaluations, includes real-world annotation noise and a text modality, and its negative result (no method dominates across all Non-IID and noise settings) is a valuable caution for practitioners. The dimensional-collapse observation, if reproducible, provides a plausible diagnosis for why noisy labels impair FL. The representation-aware regularizer is the most novel positive claim, and current evidence for it is promising but incomplete because the exact loss scale and regularization coefficient are not reported. If the reproducibility gap is fixed, the paper would provide a solid comparative baseline and a cheap robustness booster for existing methods.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V-B, Eq. (1) and Algorithm 1] Eq. (1) defines L_SVD(X) = (1/d^2)||K_X||_F^2, but Algorithm 1 computes the mean of squared off-diagonal entries of the correlation matrix divided by batch size B, with no scaling by 1/d^2 and no coefficient lambda. The ratio between these two formulations depends on feature dimension d and batch size B, and is not a constant offset. Since Table IX reports '+SVD loss' gains without stating lambda or specifying which formulation was used, the claim that this regularizer 'generally improves robustness' is not reproducible from the manuscript. Please report the exact coefficient applied to L_SVD in the combined loss, specify whether Eq. (1) or Algorithm 1 was implemented, and ideally provide the code or a pointer to the exact file.
  2. [Section VI-A, Tables II–IX] The implementation details state that all experiments are averaged over 3 seeds, but no standard deviation or variance is reported in any table. Several differences that underlie the qualitative conclusions are small (e.g., Table II Dirichlet beta=1.0 symmetric 0.0-0.4: FedAvg 73.38 vs FedExP 73.17; Table IX FedProx +0.03 gain). Without dispersion measures, the claims that 'no method consistently outperforms the others' and that SVD loss 'generally improves' performance cannot be distinguished from seed noise. Please add standard deviations, error bars, or a paired statistical test across the three seeds for at least the main synthetic tables and Table IX.
  3. [Section IV-C and Section VII limitation (ii)] The benchmark fixes one hyperparameter configuration per method across all settings (forget rate 0.2, Krum/TrimmedMean kappa 0.3, warm-up 20% of rounds, FedLSR gamma_e=0.3 and gamma=0.4). The limitation (ii) acknowledges that more careful tuning could improve some methods. Since the central negative result is that no method dominates under unified settings, the rankings (for example, FedLSR struggling on CIFAR-100, or FedNoRo and FedELC being robust) could be artifacts of the fixed defaults rather than intrinsic properties. Please add a sensitivity analysis that varies at least the forget rate, kappa, and FedLSR gamma parameters on one representative dataset/noise pair, or report per-method tuning ranges, to demonstrate that the qualitative conclusions are stable to reasonable hyperparameter choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table VII] Table VII reports 'Best Test Accuracy' while all other results are reported as average F1 score; please clarify why this metric differs for Clothing1M and, if possible, also report F1 for consistency.
  2. [Table V] The header 'FedExp' for the general FL method should be 'FedExP' to match the main text and other tables.
  3. [Table IV] DivideMix, FedLSR, and FedRN are listed as '-' without explanation in the caption; please add a note that these methods are excluded because they are tailored for image tasks.
  4. [Section II-E, reference [62]] The Median aggregation method is cited as [62] (Ditto), but Ditto is a personalization method, not the median aggregation baseline; please cite the appropriate median-aggregation reference.
  5. [Section V-B] The text discusses singular values of the covariance matrix, while Eq. (1) is stated in terms of the correlation matrix K_X; please clarify explicitly how the covariance and correlation matrices are related in the implementation and why the correlation matrix is used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: benchmark conclusions are empirical measurements against external methods and datasets, and the regularization claim is an application of an external technique.

full rationale

FNBench's central claims are empirical benchmark conclusions obtained by running eighteen externally published methods under unified settings on external datasets (CIFAR-10/100, CIFAR-10/100-N, AGNews, Clothing1M). No method ranking is derived from a fitted parameter; each F1 score is measured and averaged over seeds. The dimensional-collapse observation is an independent measurement of representation covariance, and the SVD regularization is explicitly adopted from FedDecorr [15], an external source with no author overlap, then applied as a local training term whose effect is measured in Table IX. The paper's self-citations (FedLSR, FedELC) identify baselines and prior observations; they do not supply the benchmark's evidence. The missing coefficient for L_SVD and the inconsistency between Eq. (1) and Algorithm 1 noted in the skeptical reading are reproducibility and correctness concerns, not circularity: they do not make any prediction equal to an input by construction. Therefore no circular step is identified.

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

The benchmark's conclusions rest on standard supervised learning assumptions plus a set of hand-selected hyperparameters, not on new mathematical axioms. The main domain assumptions are representativeness of noise patterns, adequacy of three seeds, and fairness of fixed hyperparameters across methods.

free parameters (6)
  • Krum/TrimmedMean robustness ratio kappa = 0.3
    Section IV-C selects kappa=0.3 because the true proportion of high-noise clients is unknown; this hand-set value affects robust aggregation baselines.
  • Co-teaching forget rate = 0.2
    Section IV-C sets forget rate 'mildly' to 0.2 for Co-teaching, Co-teaching+ and RFL across all noise levels; different rates can change sample selection.
  • FedLSR hyperparameters gamma_e and gamma = 0.3 and 0.4
    Section IV-C fixes these regularization strengths from the original paper; the authors later note sharpening can hurt with many classes.
  • FedProx mu = 0.1
    Section IV-C fixes the proximal term, which affects local update behavior under Non-IID noise.
  • FedExP epsilon = 1e-3
    Section IV-C sets the extrapolation step; minor but part of the protocol.
  • SVD loss weight lambda
    Algorithm 1 and Section V-B give L_SVD but no total loss formula or coefficient; this is a hand-set hyperparameter that is missing from the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The selected datasets and noise injection protocols are representative of real-world noisy label scenarios in FL.
    Section IV-A chooses three noise patterns and six datasets; conclusions generalize only if these cover realistic conditions.
  • domain assumption Three seeds without reported variance are sufficient to rank methods.
    Section VI-A averages over 3 seeds, but Tables II-IX report only point estimates.
  • domain assumption Configuring every method with defaults from its original paper is a fair comparison protocol.
    Section IV-C fixes hyperparameters 'favorably' and 'mildly'; Section VII limits (ii) acknowledges tuning could change results.
  • domain assumption The FedDecorr decorrelation loss transfers unchanged to noisy-label FL settings.
    Section V-B applies L_SVD from [15] to models trained on noisy labels without a new derivation; proof is cited to [15].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FNBench: Benchmarking Robust Federated Learning against Noisy Labels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WH3JBL2D

@misc{pith2026250506684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FNBench: Benchmarking Robust Federated Learning against Noisy Labels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WH3JBL2D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06684}
}
read the original abstract

Robustness to label noise within data is a significant challenge in federated learning (FL). From the data-centric perspective, the data quality of distributed datasets can not be guaranteed since annotations of different clients contain complicated label noise of varying degrees, which causes the performance degradation. There have been some early attempts to tackle noisy labels in FL. However, there exists a lack of benchmark studies on comprehensively evaluating their practical performance under unified settings. To this end, we propose the first benchmark study FNBench to provide an experimental investigation which considers three diverse label noise patterns covering synthetic label noise, imperfect human-annotation errors and systematic errors. Our evaluation incorporates eighteen state-of-the-art methods over five image recognition datasets and one text classification dataset. Meanwhile, we provide observations to understand why noisy labels impair FL, and additionally exploit a representation-aware regularization method to enhance the robustness of existing methods against noisy labels based on our observations. Finally, we discuss the limitations of this work and propose three-fold future directions. To facilitate related communities, our source code is open-sourced at https://github.com/Sprinter1999/FNBench.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Clients in FL are of various noise rates. Clients of higher noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The training paradigm of FL [3], [4]. Local datasets are often Non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Noise transition matrices for CIFAR-10/100-N. Human-annotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Noise transition matrices of different synthetic noise types (using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Noisy labels cause dimensional collapse on both (a) IID clients’ data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Test accuracy curves on both IID and Non-IID data. (a) illustrates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Singular values of the covariance matrix of representations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Not All Pixels Are Equal: Pixel-wise Meta-Learning for Medical Segmentation with Noisy Labels

    cs.CV 2025-11 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    MetaDCSeg improves medical segmentation under noisy labels by combining meta-learned pixel weights with a dynamic boundary-distance attention module.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Tackling noisy clients in federated learning with end-to-end label correction,

    X. Jiang, S. Sun, J. Li, J. Xue, R. Li, Z. Wu, G. Xu, Y . Wang, and M. Liu, “Tackling noisy clients in federated learning with end-to-end label correction,” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2024, Boise, ID, USA, October 21-25, 2024 , E. Serra and F. Spezzano, Eds. ACM, 2024, pp. 1015–102...

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions,

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 50–60, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2020.2975749

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2017, 20-22 April 2017, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, A. Singh and X....

    2017

  4. [5]

    Fedeye: A scalable and flexible end-to-end federated learning platform for ophthalmology,

    B. Yan, D. Cao, X. Jiang, Y . Chen, W. Dai, F. Dong, W. Huang, T. Zhang, C. Gao, Q. Chen, Z. Yan, and Z. Wang, “Fedeye: A scalable and flexible end-to-end federated learning platform for ophthalmology,” Patterns, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 100928, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2024.100928

    arXiv 2024

  5. [6]

    Fednoro: Towards noise-robust federated learning by addressing class imbalance and label noise heterogeneity,

    N. Wu, L. Yu, X. Jiang, K. Cheng, and Z. Yan, “Fednoro: Towards noise-robust federated learning by addressing class imbalance and label noise heterogeneity,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2023, 19th-25th August 2023, Macao, SAR, China . ijcai.org, 2023, pp. 4424–4432. [Online]. Availab...

    doi:10.24963/ijcai.2023/492 2023

  6. [7]

    A knowledge transfer- based semi-supervised federated learning for iot malware detection,

    X. Pei, X. Deng, S. Tian, L. Zhang, and K. Xue, “A knowledge transfer- based semi-supervised federated learning for iot malware detection,” IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2127–2143,

  7. [8]

    Spotting anomalies at the edge: Outlier exposure-based cross-silo federated learning for ddos detection,

    V . Pourahmadi, H. A. Alameddine, M. A. Salahuddin, and R. Boutaba, “Spotting anomalies at the edge: Outlier exposure-based cross-silo federated learning for ddos detection,” IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 4002–4015, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2022.3224896

    arXiv 2023

  8. [10]

    Fedict: Federated multi-task distillation for multi-access edge computing,

    Z. Wu, S. Sun, Y . Wang, M. Liu, Q. Pan, X. Jiang, and B. Gao, “Fedict: Federated multi-task distillation for multi-access edge computing,” IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. , vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 952–966,

Show all 119 references
  1. [12]

    Heterogeneous federated learning: State-of-the-art and research challenges,

    M. Ye, X. Fang, B. Du, P. C. Yuen, and D. Tao, “Heterogeneous federated learning: State-of-the-art and research challenges,” CoRR, vol. abs/2307.10616, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2307.10616

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [13]

    Fedbiad: Communication-efficient and accuracy-guaranteed federated learning with bayesian inference-based adaptive dropout,

    J. Xue, M. Liu, S. Sun, Y . Wang, H. Jiang, and X. Jiang, “Fedbiad: Communication-efficient and accuracy-guaranteed federated learning with bayesian inference-based adaptive dropout,” in IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, IPDPS 2023, St. Petersbu...

    2023

  3. [14]

    Survey of knowledge distillation in federated edge learning,

    Z. Wu, S. Sun, Y . Wang, M. Liu, X. Jiang, and R. Li, “Survey of knowledge distillation in federated edge learning,” CoRR, vol. abs/2301.05849, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2301.05849

    2023 doi arXiv

  4. [15]

    Understanding and mitigating dimensional collapse in federated learning,

    Y . Shi, J. Liang, W. Zhang, C. Xue, V . Y . F. Tan, and S. Bai, “Understanding and mitigating dimensional collapse in federated learning,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 2936–2949, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3338063

    2024

  5. [16]

    CLC: A consensus-based label correction approach in federated learning,

    B. Zeng, X. Yang, Y . Chen, H. Yu, and Y . Zhang, “CLC: A consensus-based label correction approach in federated learning,” ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. , vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 75:1–75:23,

  6. [17]

    FOCUS: dealing with label quality disparity in federated learning,

    Y . Chen, X. Yang, X. Qin, H. Yu, B. Chen, and Z. Shen, “FOCUS: dealing with label quality disparity in federated learning,” CoRR, vol. abs/2001.11359, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001. 11359

    2001 arXiv

  7. [18]

    Robust federated learning with noisy labels,

    S. Yang, H. Park, J. Byun, and C. Kim, “Robust federated learning with noisy labels,” IEEE Intell. Syst. , vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 35–43, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2022.3151466

    2022

  8. [20]

    Fedrn: Exploiting k-reliable neighbors towards robust federated learning,

    S. Kim, W. Shin, S. Jang, H. Song, and S. Yun, “Fedrn: Exploiting k-reliable neighbors towards robust federated learning,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, Atlanta, GA, USA, October 17-21, 2022 , M. A. Hasan and L. ...

    2022

  9. [21]

    Co-teaching: Robust training of deep neural networks with extremely noisy labels,

    B. Han, Q. Yao, X. Yu, G. Niu, M. Xu, W. Hu, I. W. Tsang, and M. Sugiyama, “Co-teaching: Robust training of deep neural networks with extremely noisy labels,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 20...

    2018

  10. [22]

    Federated learning on non-iid data silos: An experimental study,

    Q. Li, Y . Diao, Q. Chen, and B. He, “Federated learning on non-iid data silos: An experimental study,” in 38th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2022, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 9-12, 2022 . IEEE, 2022, pp. 965–978. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/...

    2022

  11. [23]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2016, Las Vegas, NV , USA, June 27-30, 2016. IEEE Computer Society, 2016, pp. 770–778. [Online]. Available: https://doi...

    2016 doi

  12. [24]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,

    A. Krizhevsky, G. Hinton et al. , “Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,” 2009. [Online]. Available: http: //www.cs.toronto.edu/∼kriz/cifar.html

    2009

  13. [25]

    Fedcrac: Improving federated classification performance on long-tailed data via classifier representation adjustment and calibration,

    X. Li, S. Sun, M. Liu, J. Ren, X. Jiang, and T. He, “Fedcrac: Improving federated classification performance on long-tailed data via classifier representation adjustment and calibration,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 482–499, 2025. [Online]. Available: https:/...

    2025

  14. [26]

    Federated learning on non-iid data: A survey,

    H. Zhu, J. Xu, S. Liu, and Y . Jin, “Federated learning on non-iid data: A survey,” Neurocomputing, vol. 465, pp. 371–390, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.07.098

    2021 doi

  15. [28]

    Agglomerative federated learning: Empowering larger model training via end-edge-cloud collaboration,

    Z. Wu, S. Sun, Y . Wang, M. Liu, B. Gao, Q. Pan, T. He, and X. Jiang, “Agglomerative federated learning: Empowering larger model training via end-edge-cloud collaboration,” pp. 131–140, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM52122.2024.10621254

    2024

  16. [29]

    Federated skewed label learning with logits fusion,

    Y . Wang, R. Li, H. Tan, X. Jiang, S. Sun, M. Liu, B. Gao, and Z. Wu, “Federated skewed label learning with logits fusion,” CoRR, vol. abs/2311.08202, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2311.08202

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [30]

    Fedlf: Adaptive logit adjustment and feature optimization in federated long-tailed learning,

    X. Lu, P. Li, and X. Jiang, “Fedlf: Adaptive logit adjustment and feature optimization in federated long-tailed learning,” in Asian Conference on Machine Learning, 5-8 December 2024, Hanoi, Vietnam, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, V . Nguyen and H. Lin, Eds., vo...

    2024

  18. [31]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,” in Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems 2020, MLSys 2020, Austin, TX, USA, March 2-4, 2020 , I. S. Dhillon, D. S. Papailiopoulos, and V . Sze, Eds....

    2020

  19. [32]

    Fedexp: Speeding up federated averaging via extrapolation,

    D. Jhunjhunwala, S. Wang, and G. Joshi, “Fedexp: Speeding up federated averaging via extrapolation,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023 . OpenReview.net, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.n...

    2023

  20. [33]

    Mopro: Webly supervised learning with momentum prototypes,

    J. Li, C. Xiong, and S. C. H. Hoi, “Mopro: Webly supervised learning with momentum prototypes,” in 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021 . OpenReview.net, 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //openreview.net/fo...

    2021

  21. [34]

    Learning from massive noisy labeled data for image classification,

    T. Xiao, T. Xia, Y . Yang, C. Huang, and X. Wang, “Learning from massive noisy labeled data for image classification,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2015, Boston, MA, USA, June 7-12, 2015 . IEEE Computer Society, 2015, pp. 2691–2699. [Onli...

    2015

  22. [35]

    The open images dataset V4,

    A. Kuznetsova, H. Rom, N. Alldrin, J. R. R. Uijlings, I. Krasin, J. Pont-Tuset, S. Kamali, S. Popov, M. Malloci, A. Kolesnikov, T. Duerig, and V . Ferrari, “The open images dataset V4,” Int. J. Comput. Vis. , vol. 128, no. 7, pp. 1956–1981, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://d...

    1956 doi

  23. [36]

    Image- based recommendations on styles and substitutes,

    J. J. McAuley, C. Targett, Q. Shi, and A. van den Hengel, “Image- based recommendations on styles and substitutes,” in Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Santiago, Chile, August 9-13, 2015 , R. Baeza...

    2015

  24. [37]

    Pervasive label errors in test sets destabilize machine learning benchmarks,

    C. G. Northcutt, A. Athalye, and J. Mueller, “Pervasive label errors in test sets destabilize machine learning benchmarks,” in Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021, December 2021, virt...

    2021

  25. [38]

    Robustfed: A truth inference approach for robust federated learning,

    F. Tahmasebian, J. Lou, and L. Xiong, “Robustfed: A truth inference approach for robust federated learning,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, Atlanta, GA, USA, October 17-21, 2022 , M. A. Hasan and L. Xiong, Eds. AC...

    2022

  26. [39]

    Incentive mechanism for horizontal federated learning based on reputation and reverse auction,

    J. Zhang, Y . Wu, and R. Pan, “Incentive mechanism for horizontal federated learning based on reputation and reverse auction,” in WWW ’21: The Web Conference 2021, Virtual Event / Ljubljana, Slovenia, April 19-23, 2021 , J. Leskovec, M. Grobelnik, M. Najork, J. Tang, and L. Zi...

    2021

  27. [40]

    Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council. [Online]. Available: https://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON DEPENDABLE AND SECURE COMPUTING 14

    2016

  28. [41]

    Federated learning with unreliable clients: Performance analysis and mechanism design,

    C. Ma, J. Li, M. Ding, K. Wei, W. Chen, and H. V . Poor, “Federated learning with unreliable clients: Performance analysis and mechanism design,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 8, no. 24, pp. 17 308–17 319,

  29. [42]

    A closer look at memorization in deep networks,

    D. Arpit, S. Jastrzebski, N. Ballas, D. Krueger, E. Bengio, M. S. Kanwal, T. Maharaj, A. Fischer, A. C. Courville, Y . Bengio, and S. Lacoste-Julien, “A closer look at memorization in deep networks,” in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML...

    2017

  30. [43]

    Learning from noisy labels with deep neural networks: A survey,

    H. Song, M. Kim, D. Park, Y . Shin, and J. Lee, “Learning from noisy labels with deep neural networks: A survey,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 8135–8153, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3152527

    2023

  31. [44]

    How does disagreement help generalization against label corruption?

    X. Yu, B. Han, J. Yao, G. Niu, I. W. Tsang, and M. Sugiyama, “How does disagreement help generalization against label corruption?” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA, ser. Proceedings ...

    2019

  32. [45]

    Joint optimization framework for learning with noisy labels,

    D. Tanaka, D. Ikami, T. Yamasaki, and K. Aizawa, “Joint optimization framework for learning with noisy labels,” in 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2018, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, June 18-22, 2018 . Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE Computer...

    2018

  33. [46]

    SELFIE: refurbishing unclean samples for robust deep learning,

    H. Song, M. Kim, and J. Lee, “SELFIE: refurbishing unclean samples for robust deep learning,” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, K. Cha...

    2019

  34. [47]

    Symmetric cross entropy for robust learning with noisy labels,

    Y . Wang, X. Ma, Z. Chen, Y . Luo, J. Yi, and J. Bailey, “Symmetric cross entropy for robust learning with noisy labels,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2019, Seoul, Korea (South), October 27 - November 2, 2019. IEEE, 2019, pp. 322–

    2019

  35. [48]

    Robust loss functions under label noise for deep neural networks,

    A. Ghosh, H. Kumar, and P. S. Sastry, “Robust loss functions under label noise for deep neural networks,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 4-9, 2017, San Francisco, California, USA , S. Singh and S. Markovitch, Eds. AAAI P...

    2017 doi

  36. [49]

    Generalized cross entropy loss for training deep neural networks with noisy labels,

    Z. Zhang and M. R. Sabuncu, “Generalized cross entropy loss for training deep neural networks with noisy labels,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2018, NeurIPS 2018, December 3-8, 2018, Montr ´...

    2018

  37. [50]

    Dividemix: Learning with noisy labels as semi-supervised learning,

    J. Li, R. Socher, and S. C. H. Hoi, “Dividemix: Learning with noisy labels as semi-supervised learning,” in 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020 . OpenReview.net, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://openre...

    2020

  38. [51]

    mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization,

    H. Zhang, M. Ciss ´e, Y . N. Dauphin, and D. Lopez-Paz, “mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization,” in 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings . OpenReview.net,

    2018

  39. [52]

    Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning,

    D. Berthelot, N. Carlini, I. J. Goodfellow, N. Papernot, A. Oliver, and C. Raffel, “Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 201...

    2019

  40. [53]

    Early-learning regularization prevents memorization of noisy labels,

    S. Liu, J. Niles-Weed, N. Razavian, and C. Fernandez-Granda, “Early-learning regularization prevents memorization of noisy labels,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December ...

    2020

  41. [54]

    Learning with noisy labels,

    N. Natarajan, I. S. Dhillon, P. Ravikumar, and A. Tewari, “Learning with noisy labels,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26: 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2013. Proceedings of a meeting held December 5-8, 2013, Lake Tahoe, ...

    2013

  42. [55]

    Fedcorr: Multi-stage federated learning for label noise correction,

    J. Xu, Z. Chen, T. Q. S. Quek, and K. F. E. Chong, “Fedcorr: Multi-stage federated learning for label noise correction,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022 . IEEE, 2022, pp. 10 174– 10 183. [Onli...

    2022

  43. [56]

    Learning cautiously in federated learning with noisy and heterogeneous clients,

    C. Wu, Z. Li, F. Wang, and C. Wu, “Learning cautiously in federated learning with noisy and heterogeneous clients,” in IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, ICME 2023, Brisbane, Australia, July 10-14, 2023 . IEEE, 2023, pp. 660–665. [Online]. Available: https:/...

    2023

  44. [57]

    On the number of components in a gaussian mixture model,

    G. J. McLachlan and S. I. Rathnayake, “On the number of components in a gaussian mixture model,” WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 341–355, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1135

    2014 doi

  45. [58]

    Federated learning with extremely noisy clients via negative distillation,

    Y . Lu, L. Chen, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhang, B. Han, Y . Cheung, and H. Wang, “Federated learning with extremely noisy clients via negative distillation,” in Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2024, Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovative Applications of Ar...

    2024

  46. [59]

    Fedelr: When federated learning meets learning with noisy labels,

    R. Pu, L. Yu, S. Zhan, G. Xu, F. Zhou, C. X. Ling, and B. Wang, “Fedelr: When federated learning meets learning with noisy labels,” Neural Networks , vol. 187, p. 107275, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107275

    2025

  47. [60]

    Agrevader: Poisoning membership inference against byzantine-robust federated learning,

    Y . Zhang, G. Bai, M. A. P. Chamikara, M. Ma, L. Shen, J. Wang, S. Nepal, M. Xue, L. Wang, and J. K. Liu, “Agrevader: Poisoning membership inference against byzantine-robust federated learning,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, WWW 2023, Austin, TX, USA, 30 April...

    2023

  48. [61]

    Robust aggregation for federated learning,

    K. Pillutla, S. M. Kakade, and Z. Harchaoui, “Robust aggregation for federated learning,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 70, pp. 1142–1154, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP. 2022.3153135

    2022

  49. [62]

    Ditto: Fair and robust federated learning through personalization,

    T. Li, S. Hu, A. Beirami, and V . Smith, “Ditto: Fair and robust federated learning through personalization,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, M. ...

    2021

  50. [63]

    Byzantine-robust distributed learning: Towards optimal statistical rates,

    D. Yin, Y . Chen, K. Ramchandran, and P. L. Bartlett, “Byzantine-robust distributed learning: Towards optimal statistical rates,” in Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholmsm ¨assan, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018 , ser. ...

    2018

  51. [64]

    Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent,

    P. Blanchard, E. M. E. Mhamdi, R. Guerraoui, and J. Stainer, “Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, ...

    2017

  52. [65]

    FedScale: Benchmarking model and system performance of federated learning at scale,

    F. Lai, Y . Dai, S. Singapuram, J. Liu, X. Zhu, H. Madhyastha, and M. Chowdhury, “FedScale: Benchmarking model and system performance of federated learning at scale,” in Proceedings of IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON DEPENDABLE AND SECURE COMPUTING 15 the 39th International Conference on...

    2022

  53. [66]

    Fedml: A research library and benchmark for federated machine learning,

    C. He, S. Li, J. So, M. Zhang, H. Wang, X. Wang, P. Vepakomma, A. Singh, H. Qiu, L. Shen, P. Zhao, Y . Kang, Y . Liu, R. Raskar, Q. Yang, M. Annavaram, and S. Avestimehr, “Fedml: A research library and benchmark for federated machine learning,” CoRR, vol. abs/2007.13518, 2020....

    2007 arXiv

  54. [67]

    LEAF: A benchmark for federated settings,

    S. Caldas, P. Wu, T. Li, J. Kone ˇcn´y, H. B. McMahan, V . Smith, and A. Talwalkar, “LEAF: A benchmark for federated settings,” CoRR, vol. abs/1812.01097, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1812.01097

    2018 arXiv

  55. [68]

    How asynchronous can federated learning be?

    N. Su and B. Li, “How asynchronous can federated learning be?” in 30th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Quality of Service, IWQoS 2022, Oslo, Norway, June 10-12, 2022 . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–11. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/IWQoS54832.2022. 9812885

    2022

  56. [69]

    Fedlab: A flexible federated learning framework,

    D. Zeng, S. Liang, X. Hu, H. Wang, and Z. Xu, “Fedlab: A flexible federated learning framework,” J. Mach. Learn. Res. , vol. 24, pp. 100:1–100:7, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://jmlr.org/papers/v24/ 22-0440.html

    2023

  57. [70]

    Fednoisy: Federated noisy label learning benchmark,

    S. Liang, J. Huang, D. Zeng, J. Hong, J. Zhou, and Z. Xu, “Fednoisy: Federated noisy label learning benchmark,” CoRR, vol. abs/2306.11650, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2306.11650

    2023 doi arXiv

  58. [71]

    Communication efficient distributed machine learning with the parameter server,

    M. Li, D. G. Andersen, A. J. Smola, and K. Yu, “Communication efficient distributed machine learning with the parameter server,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2014, December 8-13 2014, Montre...

    2014

  59. [72]

    Character-level convolutional networks for text classification,

    X. Zhang, J. J. Zhao, and Y . LeCun, “Character-level convolutional networks for text classification,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, December 7-12, 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada , C. C...

    2015

  60. [73]

    Learning with noisy labels revisited: A study using real-world human annotations,

    J. Wei, Z. Zhu, H. Cheng, T. Liu, G. Niu, and Y . Liu, “Learning with noisy labels revisited: A study using real-world human annotations,” in The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022 . OpenReview.net, 2022. [On...

    2022

  61. [74]

    Labeling chaos to learning harmony: Federated learning with noisy labels,

    V . Tsouvalas, A. Saeed, T. Ozcelebi, and N. Meratnia, “Labeling chaos to learning harmony: Federated learning with noisy labels,” ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. , vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 22:1–22:26,

  62. [75]

    Learning with symmetric label noise: The importance of being unhinged,

    B. van Rooyen, A. K. Menon, and R. C. Williamson, “Learning with symmetric label noise: The importance of being unhinged,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, December 7-12, 2015, Montreal, Q...

    2015

  63. [76]

    Security-preserving federated learning via byzantine-sensitive triplet distance,

    Y . Lee, S. Park, and J. Kang, “Security-preserving federated learning via byzantine-sensitive triplet distance,” CoRR, vol. abs/2210.16519,

    arXiv

  64. [77]

    Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization,

    C. Zhang, S. Bengio, M. Hardt, B. Recht, and O. Vinyals, “Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization,” in 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net, 2...

    2017

  65. [78]

    Understanding dimensional collapse in contrastive self-supervised learning,

    L. Jing, P. Vincent, Y . LeCun, and Y . Tian, “Understanding dimensional collapse in contrastive self-supervised learning,” in The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022 . OpenReview.net, 2022. [Online]. Availabl...

    2022

  66. [79]

    SA-SVD: mitigating bias in face recognition by fair representation learning,

    J. Li and H. Zhang, “SA-SVD: mitigating bias in face recognition by fair representation learning,” in 27th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, CSCWD 2024, Tianjin, China, May 8-10, 2024 , W. Shen, J. A. Barth `es, J. Luo, T. Qiu, X. Zhou,...

    2024 arXiv

  67. [80]

    Model-contrastive federated learning,

    Q. Li, B. He, and D. Song, “Model-contrastive federated learning,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021 . Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2021, pp. 10 713–10 722. [Online]. Available: https://openaccess.thecvf.c...

    2021

  68. [81]

    Correlated-pca: Principal components’ analysis when data and noise are correlated,

    N. Vaswani and H. Guo, “Correlated-pca: Principal components’ analysis when data and noise are correlated,” pp. 1768–1776,

  69. [82]

    An O(n3) algorithm for the frobenius normal form,

    A. Storjohann, “An O(n3) algorithm for the frobenius normal form,” pp. 101–105, 1998. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/ 281508.281570

    1998

  70. [83]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3626242

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3626242

    doi

  71. [84]

    Unsupervised ensemble learning with noisy label correction,

    X. Zou, Z. Zhang, Z. He, and L. Shi, “Unsupervised ensemble learning with noisy label correction,” in SIGIR ’21: The 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Virtual Event, Canada, July 11-15, 2021, F. Diaz, C. Shah, T. Suel...

    2021

  72. [85]

    Understanding and utilizing deep neural networks trained with noisy labels,

    P. Chen, B. Liao, G. Chen, and S. Zhang, “Understanding and utilizing deep neural networks trained with noisy labels,” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA , ser. Proceedings of Machine ...

    2019

  73. [86]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.16519

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.16519

    doi arXiv

  74. [87]

    Bag of tricks for efficient text classification,

    A. Joulin, E. Grave, P. Bojanowski, and T. Mikolov, “Bag of tricks for efficient text classification,” in Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers , Jan 2017. [Online]. Available: http:/...

    2017 doi

  75. [88]

    Overcoming noisy labels in federated learning through local self-guiding,

    D. Bai, S. Wang, W. Wang, H. Wang, C. Zhao, P. Yuan, and Z. Chen, “Overcoming noisy labels in federated learning through local self-guiding,” in 23rd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Internet Computing, CCGrid 2023, Bangalore, India, May 1-4, 2023, Y . Si...

    2023

  76. [89]

    Self-filtering: A noise-aware sample selection for label noise with confidence penalization,

    Q. Wei, H. Sun, X. Lu, and Y . Yin, “Self-filtering: A noise-aware sample selection for label noise with confidence penalization,” in Computer Vision - ECCV 2022 - 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23-27, 2022, Proceedings, Part XXX , ser. Lecture Notes in Co...

    2022 doi

  77. [90]

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. (2009) Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. IEEE. [Online]. Available: https://wayback.stanford.edu/was/20180311070624mp / http://vision.stanford.edu/pdf/ImageNet CVPR2009.pdf

    2009

  78. [91]

    T. Kim, D. Kim, and S.-Y . Yun. (2024) Flr: Label-mixture regularization for federated learning with noisy labels. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Z8A3HDgS0E

    2024

  79. [92]

    Robust heterogeneous federated learning under data corruption,

    X. Fang, M. Ye, and X. Yang, “Robust heterogeneous federated learning under data corruption,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6,

    2023

  80. [93]

    Quantifying and mitigating the impact of label errors on model disparity metrics,

    J. Adebayo, M. Hall, B. Yu, and B. Chern, “Quantifying and mitigating the impact of label errors on model disparity metrics,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON DEPENDABLE AND SECURE COMPUTING 16 ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda...

    2023

  81. [94]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, S. Chintala, G. Chanan, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, Z. Lin, A. Desmaison, L. Antiga, and A. Lerer. (2017) Automatic differentiation in pytorch. [Online]. Available: https://pytorch.org

    2017

  82. [95]

    Fedrgl: Robust federated graph learning for label noise,

    D. Li, H. Qian, Q. Li, Z. Tan, Z. Gan, J. Wang, and X. Li, “Fedrgl: Robust federated graph learning for label noise,” CoRR, vol. abs/2411.18905, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2411.18905

    2024 doi arXiv

  83. [96]

    Feda3i: Annotation quality- aware aggregation for federated medical image segmentation against heterogeneous annotation noise,

    N. Wu, Z. Sun, Z. Yan, and L. Yu, “Feda3i: Annotation quality- aware aggregation for federated medical image segmentation against heterogeneous annotation noise,” in Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2024, Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovative Appl...

    2024

  84. [97]

    Mixed precision training,

    P. Micikevicius, S. Narang, J. Alben, G. F. Diamos, E. Elsen, D. Garc´ıa, B. Ginsburg, M. Houston, O. Kuchaiev, G. Venkatesh, and H. Wu, “Mixed precision training,” in 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3,...

    2018

  85. [98]

    Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=r1gs9JgRZ

    [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=r1gs9JgRZ

  86. [99]

    Augmentation strategies for learning with noisy labels,

    K. Nishi, Y . Ding, A. Rich, and T. H ¨ollerer, “Augmentation strategies for learning with noisy labels,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021 . Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2021, pp. 8022–8031. [Online]. Ava...

    2021

  87. [100]

    Sample-level data selection for federated learning,

    A. Li, L. Zhang, J. Tan, Y . Qin, J. Wang, and X. Li, “Sample-level data selection for federated learning,” in 40th IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, INFOCOM 2021, Vancouver, BC, Canada, May 10-13, 2021 . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–10. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10....

    2021

  88. [101]

    Fednoil: A simple two-level sampling method for federated learning with noisy labels,

    Z. Wang, T. Zhou, G. Long, B. Han, and J. Jiang, “Fednoil: A simple two-level sampling method for federated learning with noisy labels,” CoRR, vol. abs/2205.10110, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.10110

    2022 doi arXiv

  89. [102]

    Smote-variants: A python implementation of 85 minority oversampling techniques,

    G. Kov ´acs, “Smote-variants: A python implementation of 85 minority oversampling techniques,” Neurocomputing, vol. 366, pp. 352–354,

  90. [103]

    Unleashing the potential of regularization strategies in learning with noisy labels,

    H. Kang, S. Liu, H. Huang, J. Yu, B. Han, D. Wang, and T. Liu, “Unleashing the potential of regularization strategies in learning with noisy labels,” CoRR, vol. abs/2307.05025, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.05025

    2023 doi arXiv

  91. [104]

    Communication-efficient robust federated learning with noisy labels,

    J. Li, J. Pei, and H. Huang, “Communication-efficient robust federated learning with noisy labels,” in KDD ’22: The 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA, August 14 - 18, 2022 , A. Zhang and H. Rangwala, Eds. ACM, 2022, pp. 914–...

    2022

  92. [105]

    4997–5007

    IEEE, 2023, pp. 4997–5007. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1109/ICCV51070.2023.00463

    2023

  93. [106]

    Self-supervised representation learning: Introduction, advances, and challenges,

    L. Ericsson, H. Gouk, C. C. Loy, and T. M. Hospedales, “Self-supervised representation learning: Introduction, advances, and challenges,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 42–62,

  94. [107]

    A differentially private federated learning model against poisoning attacks in edge computing,

    J. Zhou, N. Wu, Y . Wang, S. Gu, Z. Cao, X. Dong, and K. R. Choo, “A differentially private federated learning model against poisoning attacks in edge computing,” IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1941–1958, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/1...

    1941

  95. [108]

    Refining distributed noisy clients: An end- to-end dual optimization framework,

    X. Jiang, P. Li, S. Sun, J. Li, L. Wu, Y . Wang, X. Lu, X. Ma, and M. Liu, “Refining distributed noisy clients: An end- to-end dual optimization framework,” Jan. 2025. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.173707406.66001019/v1 Xuefeng Jiang is currently a P...

    2025

  96. [110]

    Sampler design for implicit feedback data by noisy-label robust learning,

    W. Yu and Z. Qin, “Sampler design for implicit feedback data by noisy-label robust learning,” in Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2020, Virtual Event, China, July 25-30, 2020 , J. X. Huang, Y...

    2020

  97. [111]

    Feddshar: A dual-strategy federated learning approach for human activity recognition amid noise label user,

    Z. Lin, X. Jiang, K. Zhang, C. Fan, and Y . Liu, “Feddshar: A dual-strategy federated learning approach for human activity recognition amid noise label user,” Future Gener. Comput. Syst. , vol. 166, p. 107724, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. future.2025.107724

    2025

  98. [119]

    Fair text-to-image diffusion via fair mapping,

    J. Li, L. Hu, J. Zhang, T. Zheng, H. Zhang, and D. Wang, “Fair text-to-image diffusion via fair mapping,” in AAAI-25, Sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, February 25 - March 4, 2025, Philadelphia, PA, USA , T. Walsh, J. Shah, and Z. Kol...

    2025 doi

  99. [121]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2021.3134634

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2021.3134634

    2021

  100. [122]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations,

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. E. Hinton, “A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations,” in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learnin...

    2020

  101. [330]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV .2019.00041

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV .2019.00041

    2019

  102. [1204]

    Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2013/ hash/3871bd64012152bfb53fdf04b401193f-Abstract.html

    [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2013/ hash/3871bd64012152bfb53fdf04b401193f-Abstract.html

    2013

  103. [1607]

    Available: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/chen20j

    [Online]. Available: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/chen20j. html

  104. [2016]

    Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2016/ hash/ef4e3b775c934dada217712d76f3d51f-Abstract.html

    [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2016/ hash/ef4e3b775c934dada217712d76f3d51f-Abstract.html

    2016

  105. [2018]

    Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=r1Ddp1-Rb

    [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=r1Ddp1-Rb

  106. [2019]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.06

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.06. 100

    2019 doi

  107. [2021]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2021.3079472

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2021.3079472

    2021

  108. [2022]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3519311

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3519311

    doi

  109. [2023]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2022.3173664

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2022.3173664

    2022

  110. [2024]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2023.3289444 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON DEPENDABLE AND SECURE COMPUTING 13

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2023.3289444 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON DEPENDABLE AND SECURE COMPUTING 13

    2023

  111. [2382]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583542

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583542

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.