Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Federated Learning-Distillation Alternation for Resource-Constrained IoT

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that alternating federated learning and federated distillation (FLDA) outperforms either method alone, reaching target accuracies with up to 98% less energy than FL in energy-harvesting IoT networks.

desk verdict FLDA is a plausible alternating FD/FL extension with a compelling simulation story, but the uplink throughput analysis in Eq. (22) mis-models user-user collisions and the evaluation lacks error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20456 v1 pith:X74MS3KW submitted 2025-05-26 eess.SP cs.LG

Rafael Valente da Silva , Onel L. Alcaraz López , Richard Demo Souza This is my paper
classification eess.SPcs.LG
keywords federatedlearningdistillationenergyharvestingmultichannelslottedALOHAbackgroundtrafficnon-IIDdataresource-constrainedIoT
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 proposes FLDA, a training schedule that alternates between federated learning (FL) and federated distillation (FD) for IoT devices that harvest energy and share a wireless channel with unrelated traffic. The authors try to establish that this alternation outperforms both methods used alone: higher accuracy than FL or FD, faster convergence than FL, and much lower energy consumption for reaching practical accuracy targets, in one case up to 98% less energy than FL. If true, this matters because FL's full-model updates are too large and energy-hungry for battery-limited devices, while FD's tiny class-averaged outputs alone produce weak models on skewed data. FLDA would give a low-complexity protocol that needs no public or synthetic dataset.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the alternation schedule: a cycle of $\gamma$ iterations, of which a fraction $\alpha$ are FD and $1-\alpha$ are FL, repeated multiple times. FD shares class-averaged logits, which are cheap and robust to background traffic but low-fidelity; FL shares the full model, which is expensive but keeps all local models aligned with the global model. The uplink throughput expression determines how many updates actually reach the server and explains why the FD phase keeps communication going when FL packets are lost.

What would settle it

Run the simulation with user-user collisions affecting subpackets independently, decoding a packet whenever at least $D$ of $F$ subpackets arrive collision-free; if FLDA's accuracy and energy advantages over FL shrink or disappear, the current throughput formula is carrying the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that repeatedly alternating between FD and FL phases, rather than committing to either, makes collaborative learning practical in energy-harvesting IoT settings. On a non-IID MNIST classification task with 20 devices using multichannel slotted ALOHA, the proposed FLDA is reported to reach higher final accuracy than pure FL and pure FD, converge faster than FL, use less energy to reach target accuracies (up to 98% less than FL at the 60% target under heavy background traffic), and degrade less under interference. The argument is carried by the observation that FD exchanges small class-averaged outputs and keeps updates flowing when full-model FL transmissions collide, while periodic FL rounds re-anchor users' divergent local models to the global model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a collision between two users on any subpacket destroys the whole update, even though the stated protocol decodes a packet whenever at least $D$ of $F$ subpackets arrive collision-free.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FLDA reaches a 60% accuracy target with up to 98% less cumulative energy than FL under heavy background traffic, and an 80% target with about 51% less energy, so energy-harvesting devices can stay in collaborative training much longer.
  • Because the FD phase transmits only class-averaged logits, FLDA retains most of FD's communication benefit and fits within BLE-sized payload constraints that cannot carry full FL models.
  • FLDA converges faster than FL, which in time-limited energy-harvesting scenarios means useful model accuracy appears earlier, before batteries drain.
  • FLDA is less sensitive to background traffic than FL, making it usable in shared unlicensed spectrum where unrelated transmissions are common.
  • The method requires no public or synthetic dataset, avoiding a common limitation of many existing FD approaches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper fixes $\alpha=0.5$ and $\gamma=100$ for most experiments; a natural extension is to adapt $\alpha$ to traffic load and data skew, since FD costs less per iteration and FL phases are most useful when channel conditions are good.
  • The reported savings are for one task and one network configuration; the alternation idea should transfer to other model families and channel models, but that remains untested.
  • If user-user collisions are modeled per subpacket instead of per whole packet, the analytical advantage of FLDA could change, so a per-subpacket collision model would be a sharper test of the mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FLDA, a federated learning-distillation alternation scheme for energy-harvesting IoT networks with multichannel slotted-ALOHA and background traffic. The authors formulate an analytical uplink throughput model, propose the alternation method, and evaluate it via simulations on MNIST with a non-IID split, reporting improved accuracy, faster convergence, and up to 98% energy savings relative to FL. The central claim is that FLDA balances the communication efficiency of FD with the accuracy of FL.

Significance. If the empirical results are reproducible, FLDA is a practically relevant and simple idea: alternating inexpensive distillation updates with full-model updates is a natural way to trade off communication cost and accuracy in energy-constrained IoT. The paper provides a detailed and mostly standard energy and communication model, and the simulation setup is transparent. However, the analytical throughput contribution contains a modeling error in Eq. (22) that affects the claimed formulation, and the empirical evaluation lacks statistical rigor (no seeds, no error bars, and a cherry-picked energy comparison in Table III). These issues need to be fixed before the paper can be accepted. The paper does not provide code or machine-checked proofs, so the contributions rest on the correctness of the derivations and the completeness of the simulations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (22)] Equation (22) does not match the decoding rule described in Section III-A. In that model, each subpacket is transmitted independently with probability p, and a packet is decoded if at least D of F subpackets are received collision-free. The per-subpacket success probability is therefore s = p_a p_s, and the packet success probability should be p_MA = sum_{z=D}^{F} C(F,z) s^z (1-s)^{F-z}. Equation (22) instead writes p_a times a binomial in p_s alone, which treats a user-user collision on any subpacket as destroying the entire packet while background collisions are treated per-subpacket. For the Table II parameters (F=4, D=2, p=0.2, K=20, M=4, lambda=3), Eq. (22) gives p_MA ≈ 0.049, whereas the correct formula gives ≈ 0.007, an overestimate by about a factor of 7. Since p_MA feeds the throughput rho in Eq. (23) and motivates the FLDA design in Section V, this error undermines the analytical contribution claimed in Contribution 1.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (24)] Equation (24) sums the harvested energy over ceil(N/q) slots, but the frame duration is not ceil(N/q) time slots. From Eq. (10), the number of subpacket slots is F = ceil(ceil(N/N_s)/q), where D = ceil(N/N_s) is the number of information subpackets. The summation limit in Eq. (24) should be F, not ceil(N/q), which is dimensionally inconsistent because N is measured in bits and q is a unitless code rate. This affects P_active in Eq. (25) and hence the active-user count K̂ in Eq. (26) and the throughput in Eq. (23). The simulation results are not affected because they use the battery recursion in Eq. (11), but the analytical model needs to be corrected.
  3. [Section VI, Table III and Figs. 4-7] The central quantitative claims--higher accuracy, faster convergence, and up to 98% energy savings--are based on a single simulation scenario without any indication of statistical variability. No number of random seeds, error bars, or confidence intervals are reported for the accuracy-time curves, the battery curves, or the energy-consumption numbers. Moreover, the energy savings in Table III are obtained by scanning gamma from 100 to 1400 and reporting only the gamma value giving the highest savings for each accuracy target, which is a selection that can inflate the reported savings. Please provide the number of independent runs and the standard deviation or confidence intervals, and either report energy consumption for a pre-specified gamma or show the full gamma sweep for the energy comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'networ ksubject' should be 'network subject'.
  2. [Section VI, Fig. 4] In Fig. 4, the legend lists 'FLDA', 'FD', 'FL', and then 'λ = 0' and 'λ = 3', but it is not immediately clear which curve style and color correspond to which combination of method and traffic load. Please use separate line styles or a more explicit legend entry for each method and λ pair.
  3. [Section II-B, Eq. (8)] In Eq. (8), the regularization term is written inside the sum over the mini-batch samples, but the notation would be clearer if the dependence of the local output vector L_k,n on the model weights w_k(t) were made explicit, since the regularization loss phi(L, G) is differentiated with respect to w_k(t) through L.
  4. [Section III-C, Eq. (19)] Equation (19) models the reception energy using the same size N as the local update, but for FD the downlink global update is the averaged output vector G, whose size may be much smaller than N_FD. Please clarify whether N in Eq. (19) refers to the local update size or to the actual downlink message size, and justify the approximation if the two are treated as equal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central accuracy, convergence, and energy-savings claims are produced by simulations under stated hyperparameters, and the analytical throughput derivation is independent of those target results.

full rationale

The paper's main claims about FLDA improving accuracy, converging faster than FL, and saving up to 98% energy are obtained from the numerical simulations in Section VI, not derived from the analytical throughput formula. The throughput model in Section IV is an independent derivation from the stated multichannel slotted-ALOHA model, background-traffic Poisson process, and error-correction subpacket structure; it is not fitted to reproduce the accuracy or energy results. The FLDA scheme in Section V is a design choice rather than a fitted parameter, and the parameters alpha and gamma are configurable hyperparameters varied in the evaluation, not constants calibrated to force the claimed outcomes. There are self-citations to the authors' prior works ([19] and [20]), but these appear only in related-work context and as parameter sources, not as load-bearing justification for the central contribution. The acknowledgment and related-work passages do not assert any limitation or circular dependency. The packet-success expression in Equation (22) may be internally inconsistent with the subpacket-level decoding rule stated in Section III-A, but that is a modeling-correctness concern, not a circularity concern, because the result is not assumed in its own derivation and does not feed back into the simulation-based accuracy claims. Overall, no step in the paper reduces to its own inputs by definition, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical results rest on a chain of standard modeling assumptions about collisions, Poisson background traffic, per-subpacket access, and energy harvesting. The only hand-tuned hyperparameters that affect the headline energy-savings number are alpha and gamma, with gamma selected post hoc in Table III. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = 0.5
    Proportion of FD iterations in each cycle; chosen by hand, not optimized, and directly controls the tradeoff between communication efficiency and accuracy.
  • gamma = 100 (varied 100-1400 in Table III)
    Number of iterations per cycle; the energy savings table reports only the values with the highest savings, making this a tuned hyperparameter for the headline result.
  • beta(t) = 1
    Regularization gain in the FD loss; fixed to a constant, not justified by analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hard collision model: any overlap in transmissions causes all involved packets to fail.
    Section III-A states this assumption; it is a standard simplifying assumption for ALOHA analysis.
  • domain assumption Background traffic follows a Poisson distribution with rate lambda per slot and each subpacket chooses a channel uniformly.
    Section III-A; used in Eq. (21) to derive p_s = exp(-lambda/M).
  • domain assumption Each subpacket of a user's local update is transmitted independently with probability p in each slot.
    Section III-A, channel access step; this is the model used in Eqs. (20)-(22) and in the simulation.
  • domain assumption The computation energy for FD and FL iterations is equal.
    Section III-B; the regularization term in FD is assumed not to change the FLOP count significantly.
  • domain assumption Energy harvesting follows a compound Poisson process with mean energy income rho; average harvested power is held constant across methods.
    Section III-D; this fairness assumption sets FD harvested energy proportional to its frame duration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Federated Learning-Distillation Alternation for Resource-Constrained IoT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X74MS3KW

@misc{pith2026250520456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Federated Learning-Distillation Alternation for Resource-Constrained IoT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X74MS3KW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20456}
}
read the original abstract

Federated learning (FL) faces significant challenges in Internet of Things (IoT) networks due to device limitations in energy and communication resources, especially when considering the large size of FL models. From an energy perspective, the challenge is aggravated if devices rely on energy harvesting (EH), as energy availability can vary significantly over time, influencing the average number of participating users in each iteration. Additionally, the transmission of large model updates is more susceptible to interference from uncorrelated background traffic in shared wireless environments. As an alternative, federated distillation (FD) reduces communication overhead and energy consumption by transmitting local model outputs, which are typically much smaller than the entire model used in FL. However, this comes at the cost of reduced model accuracy. Therefore, in this paper, we propose FL-distillation alternation (FLDA). In FLDA, devices alternate between FD and FL phases, balancing model information with lower communication overhead and energy consumption per iteration. We consider a multichannel slotted-ALOHA EH-IoT network subject to background traffic/interference. In such a scenario, FLDA demonstrates higher model accuracy than both FL and FD, and achieves faster convergence than FL. Moreover, FLDA achieves target accuracies saving up to 98% in energy consumption, while also being less sensitive to interference, both relative to FL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20456 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distributed learning procedures: (a) FL iteration, (b) FD with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Communication system model. The illustrated scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of FLDA. Furthermore, 𝑝MA depends on the number of information subpackets 𝐷, which are different for FL and FD. As a result, the behavior of 𝑝MA in response to background traffic depends on the adopted learning system. To achieve a balance in this regard, we propose a new strategy described in the next section, which allows greater information sharing than FD and increases the robustness to background traf… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean test accuracy as a function of time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean test accuracy as a function of time with the time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean test accuracy as a function of 𝛾 with the time fix at 150 s for FL and the FLDA curves. constant. In this case, the mean accuracy of the models on the devices decreases as 𝛾 increases. This decline occurs because the devices spend more time performing FL iteration…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Computation-aware Energy-harvesting Federated Learning with Pipelined Cyclic Scheduling

    cs.LG 2025-11 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A cyclic scheduling framework for energy-harvesting federated learning that claims large energy savings, with a convergence analysis that appears internally inconsistent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Blockchain meets federated learning in healthcare: A systematic review with challenges and opportunities,

    R. Myrzashova, S. H. Alsamhi, A. V . Shvetsov, A. Hawbani, and X. Wei, “Blockchain meets federated learning in healthcare: A systematic review with challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 10, no. 16, pp. 14 418–14 437, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Federated learning with fair incentives and robust aggregation for UA V-aided crowdsens- ing,

    Y . Wang, Z. Su, T. H. Luan, R. Li, and K. Zhang, “Federated learning with fair incentives and robust aggregation for UA V-aided crowdsens- ing,” IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering , vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 3179–3196, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Massive wireless energy transfer: En- abling sustainable IoT toward 6G era,

    O. L. A. L ´opez, H. Alves, R. D. Souza, S. Montejo-S ´anchez, E. M. G. Fern´andez, and M. Latva-Aho, “Massive wireless energy transfer: En- abling sustainable IoT toward 6G era,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 8816–8835, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Energy-sustainable IoT connec- tivity: Vision, technological enablers, challenges, and future directions,

    O. L. A. L ´opez, O. M. Rosabal, D. E. Ruiz-Guirola, P. Raghuwanshi, K. Mikhaylov, L. Lov ´en, and S. Iyer, “Energy-sustainable IoT connec- tivity: Vision, technological enablers, challenges, and future directions,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , vol. 4, pp. 2609– 2666, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Zero-energy Devices for 6G: Technical Enablers at a Glance

    O. L ´opez et al. , “Zero-energy devices for 6G: Technical enablers at a glance,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09244

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Communication-efficient on-device machine learning: Federated distillation and augmentation under non-IID private data,

    E. Jeong, S. Oh, H. Kim, J. Park, M. Bennis, and S.-L. Kim, “Communication-efficient on-device machine learning: Federated distillation and augmentation under non-IID private data,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11479

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Mix2FLD: Downlink federated learning after uplink federated distillation with two- way mixup,

    S. Oh, J. Park, E. Jeong, H. Kim, M. Bennis, and S.-L. Kim, “Mix2FLD: Downlink federated learning after uplink federated distillation with two- way mixup,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 2211– 2215, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Federated knowledge distillation,

    H. Seo, J. Park, S. Oh, M. Bennis, and S.-L. Kim, “Federated knowledge distillation,” in Machine Learning and Wireless Communications , Y . C. Eldar, A. Goldsmith, D. G ¨und¨uz, and H. V . Poor, Eds. Cam- bridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2022, ch. 16, pp. 457–485

    work page 2022

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Convergence time optimiza- tion for federated learning over wireless networks,

    M. Chen, H. V . Poor, W. Saad, and S. Cui, “Convergence time optimiza- tion for federated learning over wireless networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 2457–2471, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    On the convergence time of federated learning over wireless networks under imperfect CSI,

    F. Pase, M. Giordani, and M. Zorzi, “On the convergence time of federated learning over wireless networks under imperfect CSI,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  3. [11]

    Adaptive heterogeneous client sampling for federated learning over wireless networks,

    B. Luo, W. Xiao, S. Wang, J. Huang, and L. Tassiulas, “Adaptive heterogeneous client sampling for federated learning over wireless networks,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 9663–9677, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Node selection toward faster convergence for federated learning on non-IID data,

    H. Wu and P. Wang, “Node selection toward faster convergence for federated learning on non-IID data,” IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering , vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 3099–3111, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Communication-efficient federated learning with compensated overlap-FedAvg,

    Y . Zhou, Q. Ye, and J. Lv, “Communication-efficient federated learning with compensated overlap-FedAvg,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 192–205, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Communication-efficient federated edge learning via optimal proba- bilistic device scheduling,

    M. Zhang, G. Zhu, S. Wang, J. Jiang, Q. Liao, C. Zhong, and S. Cui, “Communication-efficient federated edge learning via optimal proba- bilistic device scheduling,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communica- tions, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 8536–8551, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    From 5G to 6G: Has the time for modern random access come?

    F. Clazzer, A. Munari, G. Liva, F. Lazaro, C. Stefanovic, and P. Popovski, “From 5G to 6G: Has the time for modern random access come?” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.03063

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Federated learning with massive random access,

    S. Xia, Y . Shi, Y . Zhou, Y . Wu, L. F. Yang, and K. B. Letaief, “Federated learning with massive random access,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 13 856–13 871, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Multiple access in the era of distributed computing and edge intelligence,

    N. G. Evgenidis, N. A. Mitsiou, V . I. Koutsioumpa, S. A. Tegos, P. D. Diamantoulakis, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Multiple access in the era of distributed computing and edge intelligence,” Proceedings of the IEEE , pp. 1–30, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Federated learning with multichannel ALOHA,

    J. Choi and S. R. Pokhrel, “Federated learning with multichannel ALOHA,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 499–502, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Energy-aware federated learning with distributed user sampling and multichannel ALOHA,

    R. Valente da Silva, O. L. A. L ´opez, and R. D. Souza, “Energy-aware federated learning with distributed user sampling and multichannel ALOHA,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 2867– 2871, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Multichan- nel ALOHA optimization for federated learning with multiple models,

    R. V . da Silva, J. Choi, J. Park, G. Brante, and R. D. Souza, “Multichan- nel ALOHA optimization for federated learning with multiple models,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 2180–2184, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Decentralized federated learning over slotted ALOHA wireless mesh networking,

    A. Salama, A. Stergioulis, A. M. Hayajneh, S. A. R. Zaidi, D. McLernon, and I. Robertson, “Decentralized federated learning over slotted ALOHA wireless mesh networking,” IEEE Access , vol. 11, pp. 18 326–18 342, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Cost-efficient distributed optimization in machine learning over wireless networks,

    A. Mahmoudi, H. S. Ghadikolaei, and C. Fischione, “Cost-efficient distributed optimization in machine learning over wireless networks,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) , 2020, pp. 1–7

    2020

  15. [23]

    Wireless federated distillation for distributed edge learning with heterogeneous data,

    J.-H. Ahn, O. Simeone, and J. Kang, “Wireless federated distillation for distributed edge learning with heterogeneous data,” in IEEE 30th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC) , 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  16. [24]

    Distillation-based semi-supervised federated learning for communication-efficient collaborative training with non-IID private data,

    S. Itahara, T. Nishio, Y . Koda, M. Morikura, and K. Ya- mamoto, “Distillation-based semi-supervised federated learning for communication-efficient collaborative training with non-IID private data,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 191– 205, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    FedMD: Heterogenous federated learning via model distillation,

    D. Li and J. Wang, “FedMD: Heterogenous federated learning via model distillation,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.03581

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    FedED: Federated learning via ensemble distillation for medical relation extraction,

    D. Sui, Y . Chen, J. Zhao, Y . Jia, Y . Xie, and W. Sun, “FedED: Federated learning via ensemble distillation for medical relation extraction,” in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), B. Webber, T. Cohn, Y . He, and Y ...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Selective knowledge sharing for privacy- preserving federated distillation without a good teacher,

    J. Shao, F. Wu, and J. Zhang, “Selective knowledge sharing for privacy- preserving federated distillation without a good teacher,” Nature Com- munications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 349, Jan 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    FedDTG: Federated data-free knowledge distillation via three-player generative adversarial networks,

    Z. Zhang, T. Shen, J. Zhang, and C. Wu, “FedDTG: Federated data-free knowledge distillation via three-player generative adversarial networks,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.03169

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Digital twin enhanced federated reinforcement learning with lightweight knowledge distillation in mobile networks,

    X. Zhou, X. Zheng, X. Cui, J. Shi, W. Liang, Z. Yan, L. T. Yang, S. Shimizu, and K. I.-K. Wang, “Digital twin enhanced federated reinforcement learning with lightweight knowledge distillation in mobile networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 41, no. ...

    2023

  22. [30]

    MNIST handwritten digit database,

    Y . LeCun and C. Cortes, “MNIST handwritten digit database,” 2010. [Online]. Available: http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/

    2010

  23. [31]

    Energy- optimal mobile cloud computing under stochastic wireless channel,

    W. Zhang, Y . Wen, K. Guan, D. Kilper, H. Luo, and D. O. Wu, “Energy- optimal mobile cloud computing under stochastic wireless channel,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 4569–4581, 2013

    2013

  24. [32]

    Wirelessly powered federated edge learning: Optimal tradeoffs between convergence and power transfer,

    Q. Zeng, Y . Du, and K. Huang, “Wirelessly powered federated edge learning: Optimal tradeoffs between convergence and power transfer,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 680– 695, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Batteryless machine-type communications with average channel state information energy beamforming,

    R. Scaciota, O. L. A. L ´opez, G. Brante, R. D. Souza, A. A. Mariano, and G. L. Moritz, “Batteryless machine-type communications with average channel state information energy beamforming,” IEEE Access , vol. 10, pp. 129 676–129 686, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Federated learning over energy harvesting wireless networks,

    R. Hamdi, M. Chen, A. B. Said, M. Qaraqe, and H. V . Poor, “Federated learning over energy harvesting wireless networks,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 92–103, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    A 0.5 V BLE transceiver with a 1.9 mW RX achieving -96.4 dBm sensitivity and -27 dBm tolerance for intermodulation from interferers at 6 and 12 MHz offsets,

    M. Tamura et al., “A 0.5 V BLE transceiver with a 1.9 mW RX achieving -96.4 dBm sensitivity and -27 dBm tolerance for intermodulation from interferers at 6 and 12 MHz offsets,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 3376–3386, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Federated learning with non-IID data in wireless networks,

    Z. Zhao, C. Feng, W. Hong, J. Jiang, C. Jia, T. Q. S. Quek, and M. Peng, “Federated learning with non-IID data in wireless networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1927– 1942, 2022

    1927

  29. [37]

    Cybertwin assisted wire- less asynchronous federated learning mechanism for edge computing,

    Y . Xu, H. Zhou, J. Chen, T. Ma, and S. Shen, “Cybertwin assisted wire- less asynchronous federated learning mechanism for edge computing,” in 2021 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) , 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  30. [38]

    Energy-efficient federated edge learning with joint communication and computation design,

    X. Mo and J. Xu, “Energy-efficient federated edge learning with joint communication and computation design,” Journal of Communications and Information Networks , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 110–124, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.