Enhancing QoS in Edge Computing through Federated Layering Techniques: A Pathway to Resilient AI Lifelong Learning Systems

Chengzhuo Han

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 15 references

Enhancing QoS in Edge Computing through Federated Layering Techniques: A Pathway to Resilient AI Lifelong Learning Systems

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Federated layering lets small AI models match large-model accuracy while using fewer resources and preserving privacy.

desk verdict A plausible idea with no supporting math or experiments; desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20444 v1 pith:OCVDDQPP submitted 2025-07-28 cs.AI

Chengzhuo Han This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords FederatedLayeringTechniquessmallmodelcollaborationedgecomputingQualityofServiceprivacyprotectionanomalydetectionlifelonglearning6Gnetworks

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

Federated Layering Techniques (FLT) aim to make small AI models behave like one large model in resource-constrained edge computing by splitting each model into layers, federating the layer weights, and letting the small models negotiate and debate before deciding. The paper argues this raises learning efficiency and reasoning accuracy, lowers communication and computation costs, and protects the privacy of edge nodes through encryption and homomorphic methods. If correct, the approach would give 6G-era edge systems a way to keep lifelong learning models continuously updated without shipping raw data or large models to the edge. The paper also claims a common-layer variance signal detects poisoned parameter updates more reliably than classical federated-learning anomaly detection, and presents experiments with one to four collaborating models as evidence.

What carries the argument

The central object is FLT, the Federated Layering Technique: a model is a stack of layers $M_i=\{L_{i1},\dots,L_{in}\}$, and training proceeds by layer-wise federated aggregation $\mathrm{Aggr}(L_j)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_i L_{ij}$ followed by local training, layer-wise loss computation, and a collaboration phase of knowledge sharing and negotiation/debate. The load-bearing identity is Lemma 1's claimed ordering $d_c\le d_{ce}\le d_p$ of distances to a benchmark for common, complete, and private layer weights; Theorem 1 converts that ordering into relative-deviation inequalities that make a common-layer detector appear more sensitive to poisoning. Privacy is carried by the privacy-preserving parameter security mechanism, which encrypts parameters and uses homomorphic encryption so that computation can proceed without exposing raw weights.

What would settle it

Run a non-IID federated training run (for example, splitting ImageNet by class across clients) and, each round, measure the benchmark distances $d_c$, $d_{ce}$, and $d_p$ for common, complete, and private layer weights; the ordering claim is falsified at the first round where $d_c>d_{ce}$ or $d_{ce}>d_p$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that layering is the lever: each model $M_i$ is represented as $\{L_{i1},\dots,L_{in}\}$, the common layers are aggregated across clients while private layers stay local, and the resulting collaborative small-model system reaches accuracy close to a standalone large model while using fewer resources. The anomaly-detection claim is stated as an inequality: for a malicious device's poisoned weights, the relative deviation from the benchmark is largest for common-layer weights, smaller for classical federated-model weights, and smallest for private-layer weights, so monitoring common layers catches poisoning earlier. The paper reports that accuracy improves as the number of collaborating models grows from one to four, that privacy loss falls with more collaboration, and that the FLT detector outperforms the compared methods in anomaly-detection accuracy, model accuracy, and latency.

Load-bearing premise

The anomaly-detection advantage rests on the claim that common-layer weights stay closer to a benchmark than private-layer or whole-model weights throughout training, which the paper supports with a qualitative argument rather than a derivation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A resource-constrained edge deployment could run several small models instead of one large model and still expect comparable accuracy while spending less on computation and bandwidth.
Increasing the number of collaborating small models is claimed to reduce privacy loss over training rounds, which would make larger collaborative ensembles more attractive for sensitive edge data.
The common-layer anomaly detector should catch poisoning attacks earlier and with better accuracy than classical federated-learning detectors, reducing the impact of malicious edge devices.
Lifelong learning systems could keep updating at the edge without centralizing raw data, supporting quality-of-service targets for latency and privacy in 6G-era networks.

Reading between the lines

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

The same common-layer variance signal would transfer to other federated settings—medical, financial, or mobile—where private layers must never be exposed, so the detector could become a general-purpose poisoning check rather than an edge-computing-specific tool.
The four-model accuracy gains could come from ensembling rather than from negotiation and debate; an ablation that runs the same layer averaging without the debate step would separate those effects.
If more models always reduce privacy loss, as the figures suggest, then a monotone privacy-versus-collaboration scaling law is a testable prediction the paper does not state explicitly.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read of arXiv:2507.20444.

The paper is essentially a proposal dressed as a full study. The one idea with legs is that in federated learning, the variance of common-layer weights across clients stays smaller than that of private-layer or whole-model weights, and that poisoning attacks show up more clearly in that lower-variance channel. That is a plausible direction and worth one research note. But the paper doesn't prove it and doesn't show numbers for it.

The novelty is minimal. Eq (16) is layer-wise FedAvg, Eq (9) is an average of negotiation outputs, Eqs (25)-(29) are leave-one-out variance scoring, Eq (14) is standard homomorphic encryption. The paper presents these as a new scheme without a working formalization.

The load-bearing problems, in order:

Lemma 1 is the foundation of Theorem 1 and it's just asserted. The 'proof' is a paragraph saying non-IID data increases private weight variance and federated aggregation transfers diversity. No derivation, no conditions. If that inequality doesn't hold, the common-layer detection advantage over vanilla FL monitoring disappears. Theorem 1 then follows mechanically from the lemma, so the detection guarantee is unsupported.

The convergence analysis in Section III.C is a list of assumptions (bounded losses, bounded gradients, learning-rate series conditions, compatibility constraints) and then (24) declares the derivative of the Lyapunov function is negative proportional to the function itself. That's not a proof; that's a restatement of the goal.

Section IV has no quantitative results. The text says accuracy improves, privacy loss decreases, and that FLT beats Isolation Forest, LOF, FL-MGVN, and DIoT, but there are no numbers, no error bars, no hyperparameters, no dataset splits. The figures are described qualitatively. The central QoS claim is thus unverifiable.

There is also a notation clash in Eq (3) where D is both the data volume and the distance, and the anomaly detector is defined as flagging deviations from the mean, so Theorem 1's conclusion is partially built into the rule.

What the paper does well: it identifies a real operational problem and the collaborative small-model framing has some rhetorical value. The writing is clear enough to follow the intended architecture. That's about it.

This is not ready for peer review as is. A serious referee would have nothing to evaluate. My call: desk reject. If the authors come back with actual measurements and a real proof of the lemma, it could become a decent workshop paper.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Federated Layering Techniques (FLT) for improving QoS in edge computing, combining small-model collaboration, a cloud-edge architecture, privacy-preserving parameter transmission, and a common-layer anomaly detection method. It claims convergence to stationary points and superior poisoning detection via Lemma 1 and Theorem 1, and reports experiments on ImageNet, OpenSubtitles, and CommonCrawl with qualitative comparisons against Isolation Forest, LOF, FL-MGVN, and DÏot. As submitted, the mathematical derivations are not established and the experimental section contains no numerical results, so the central claims are unsupported.

Significance. If the claims were established, the paper would address a relevant problem in edge federated learning: collaborative small models matching large-model accuracy with lower resource consumption, and detecting poisoning attacks through layer-wise parameter variance. The idea of using common-layer variance for anomaly detection is interesting and worth studying. However, the manuscript provides no reproducible code or data, no numerical experimental results, and no rigorous derivations; the theoretical results are either assumed or asserted. The paper therefore does not substantiate its stated contributions.

major comments (5)

[II.A.3, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) uses the symbol D for both the amount of transmitted data and the distance between cloud and edge, and the expression Latency(C,E) = Σ_D D/R + D/R is dimensionally inconsistent: the first term is data divided by rate (time) and the second is distance divided by rate (also time, but summing a data amount and a distance over the same index is not meaningful). This undermines the latency formulation that is part of the QoS objective in Eq. (1).
[II.E, Lemma 1] Lemma 1 asserts dc ≤ dce ≤ dp, claiming that common-layer weights stay closer to a benchmark than private-layer or complete-model weights. The proof is only the qualitative statement that non-IID diversity increases wp variance and that 'federal aggregation can transfer this diversity'; no derivation is given. Since Theorem 1 depends entirely on this lemma, the detection advantage claimed for common-layer variance is not proven.
[III.C, Eqs. (20)–(24)] The convergence theorem is not actually proved. It assumes bounded losses and gradients (Eqs. (20)–(21)), learning-rate summability (Eq. (22)), compatibility thresholds (Eq. (23)), and a Lyapunov decrease V'(t) ≤ −εV(t) (Eq. (24)). None of these conditions is derived from the FLT update rules in Algorithm 1 or 2; in particular, the Lyapunov inequality is precisely the kind of descent property that a convergence proof must establish, not assume. The theorem therefore reduces to an assertion that if the algorithm converges, then it converges.
[III.D, Eqs. (25)–(29), Theorem 1] The anomaly detection rule flags a parameter when its variance deviation va_xj exceeds θ times the mean deviation va_xmean, i.e., it flags points that deviate most from the average. Theorem 1 then concludes that this method detects poisoning more effectively than alternatives. This is largely circular: the detection rule is defined as outlier detection relative to the mean, and the proof assumes malicious deviations are larger than average (δ_c_avg ≤ δ_ce_avg ≤ δ_p_avg) without an independent characterization of poisoning or a threat model. The claimed superiority over other anomaly detectors is therefore not established by this argument.
[IV.B–IV.D] The experimental validation reports only qualitative descriptions of figures. No numerical values are given for accuracy, convergence rounds, privacy loss, detection latency, false positives, or resource consumption; no hyperparameters, dataset splits, or error bars are provided; and no quantitative comparison with Isolation Forest, LOF, FL-MGVN, or DÏot is reported. Consequently, the abstract's claims that the strategy 'enhances learning efficiency and reasoning accuracy' and 'effectively protects the privacy of edge nodes' cannot be checked, reproduced, or falsified from the manuscript.

minor comments (5)

[II.A.3] The notation D in Eq. (3) is overloaded; it should be replaced with distinct symbols, e.g., data amount d and distance l, and the summation indices should be clarified.
[II.E] There is a typo: 'dection data set' should be 'detection data set.'
[III.A–III.B] The symbol α is used for the learning rate in Algorithms 1 and 2, but α and β are also used as knowledge-sharing weights in Eq. (7) and β as a trade-off parameter in Eq. (18). These conflicting uses should be disambiguated.
[IV.A] The experimental configuration lists datasets but not dataset sizes, splits, preprocessing, or evaluation protocols; this information is necessary for reproducibility.
[Various] The paper cites many 6G survey papers but few recent works on federated learning security, poisoning attacks, or differential privacy; the related-work context for the claimed novelty is thin.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The two central formal results — FLT convergence and the anomaly-detection advantage — are each assumed in their own premises; Theorem 1 restates Lemma 1, and the convergence theorem restates Eq. (24).

self definitional [Section III.C, 'Convergence Analysis', Eq. (24) and the Convergence Theorem]
"5) Convergence Criteria: Utilize the Lyapunov function to demonstrate that the objective function decreases over time. V(t) = X_i L_i(t) with V′(t)≤−ϵV(t). The convergence theorem establishes that the algorithm reaches a stationary point where the loss functions stabilize."

The theorem's claimed conclusion (convergence to a stationary point) is exactly the assumed differential inequality V′≤−ϵV. An exponential Lyapunov decrease directly implies the stated convergence, so Eq. (24) already contains the theorem. The proof outline does not derive Eq. (24) from the bounded-loss, bounded-gradient, or learning-rate conditions in Eqs. (20)-(23); it merely asserts it as the 'convergence criteria.' Thus the convergence result reduces by construction to its own premise.
other [Section III.D-III.E, Eqs. (25)-(29), Lemma 1, and Theorem 1]
"Anomalies are flagged based on the deviation of v a xj from a predefined threshold θ. If v a xj surpasses θv a xmean, the parameter is marked as suspicious. ... Theorem 1 ... The CLMD method will more effectively detect the poisoning device, i.e., |δc m−δc′ avg|/δc′ avg > |δce m−δce avg|/δce′ avg > |δp m−δp′ avg|/δp′ avg. Proof: ... Lemma 1 indicates δc avg≤ δce avg≤ δp avg, leading to ..."

The detector's score v is defined, in Eqs. (25)-(29), as the distance of each parameter from the leave-one-out mean benchmark, and flagging compares this score to its mean. Theorem 1's detection-effectiveness inequality is the same normalized score applied to the malicious node. The only bridge from the detector definition to the theorem's conclusion is Lemma 1's ordering dc≤dce≤dp, whose 'proof' is a qualitative assertion about non-IID diversity and federal aggregation, not a derivation. Consequently the advertised detection advantage is the assumed variance ordering restated as a theorem, not an independently derived property of poisoning.

full rationale

No self-citations are load-bearing; the references are external. However, the paper's two central formal claims are not independent derivations. The convergence theorem assumes the exponential Lyapunov decay that already constitutes convergence, and the anomaly-detection theorem imports Lemma 1 — itself an unproved qualitative claim — to convert the detector's own score statistic into a performance guarantee. The experimental section (Section IV) reports only qualitative figure descriptions with no numerical metrics, so the claimed QoS, accuracy, and privacy advantages cannot be separately validated from the supplied data. The privacy-encryption component (PPPSM) and the empirical figures have some independent content, but the core theory is substantially self-supporting rather than derived. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the central 'predictions' reduce by construction, while not every part of the paper is circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces several tunable coefficients and assumptions that carry the load of the claims; none are fitted, derived, or validated.

free parameters (5)

alpha (knowledge-sharing weight)
Eq (7) weights Experience vs Expertise in knowledge sharing; no value or tuning is given.
beta (knowledge-sharing weight)
Eq (7) second weight, also no value; Eq (18) reuses beta for resilience trade-off, so the symbol is overloaded.
gamma (privacy/efficiency balance)
Eq (13) balances encryption strength vs transmission efficiency; no value is given.
theta (anomaly threshold)
Section II.D flags parameters when the variance distance exceeds theta times the mean; no value or selection method is provided.
beta (poisoning benchmark)
Section II.D benchmarks accuracy difference; no threshold value is provided.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The training and test sets are identically distributed, and data distributions of different parties are different but have some similarity.
Section II.E; used to argue personalized models can learn from each other and to support Lemma 1.
domain assumption The loss function for the local model on each terminal device is convex.
Section II.E; needed for the claimed convergence via gradient descent; convexity is a strong assumption not verified for deep models.
ad hoc to paper Loss functions Li are bounded (0 ≤ Li ≤ B) and gradients are bounded (‖∇Li‖ ≤ G), with learning rates satisfying summability conditions.
Section III.C, Eqs (20)-(22); these are assumed, not derived from the algorithm, and they are exactly what a convergence proof would need to establish.
ad hoc to paper The Lyapunov function V(t) satisfies V'(t) ≤ -εV(t).
Eq (24); the exponential decrease condition is stated without justification; this is the conclusion of convergence, not a premise.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing QoS in Edge Computing through Federated Layering Techniques: A Pathway to Resilient AI Lifelong Learning Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OCVDDQPP

@misc{pith2026250720444,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing QoS in Edge Computing through Federated Layering Techniques: A Pathway to Resilient AI Lifelong Learning Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OCVDDQPP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20444}
}

read the original abstract

In the context of the rapidly evolving information technology landscape, marked by the advent of 6G communication networks, we face an increased data volume and complexity in network environments. This paper addresses these challenges by focusing on Quality of Service (QoS) in edge computing frameworks. We propose a novel approach to enhance QoS through the development of General Artificial Intelligence Lifelong Learning Systems, with a special emphasis on Federated Layering Techniques (FLT). Our work introduces a federated layering-based small model collaborative mechanism aimed at improving AI models' operational efficiency and response time in environments where resources are limited. This innovative method leverages the strengths of cloud and edge computing, incorporating a negotiation and debate mechanism among small AI models to enhance reasoning and decision-making processes. By integrating model layering techniques with privacy protection measures, our approach ensures the secure transmission of model parameters while maintaining high efficiency in learning and reasoning capabilities. The experimental results demonstrate that our strategy not only enhances learning efficiency and reasoning accuracy but also effectively protects the privacy of edge nodes. This presents a viable solution for achieving resilient large model lifelong learning systems, with a significant improvement in QoS for edge computing environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20444 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** 6G communication networks architecture based on FLT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The Workflow of Anomaly Detection Process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Privacy Preservation in Multi-Model Collaboration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Trade-offs Between Resource Efficiency and Performance Across AI Model Configurations Our findings demonstrate the significant advantages of federated layering and small model collaboration in a 6G network context, achieving enhanced accuracy, improved privacy, and […

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Anomaly Detection Accuracy in Federated Learning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Accuracy with Different Anomaly Detection Algorithms E. Experimental Validation and Future Perspectives The research conducted in this paper is supported by experimental results that demonstrate significant progress in learning efficiency, reasoning accuracy, and priva…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Anomaly Detection Latency Across Federated Learning Nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Impact of Anomaly Detection on Federated Learning System [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

A taxonomy of ai techniques for 6g communication networks

Karan Sheth, Keyur Patel, Het Shah, Sudeep Tanwar, Rajesh Gupta, and Neeraj Kumar. A taxonomy of ai techniques for 6g communication networks. Computer communications, 161:279–303, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Federated learning meets blockchain in edge computing: Opportunities and challenges

Dinh C Nguyen, Ming Ding, Quoc-Viet Pham, Pubudu N Pathirana, Long Bao Le, Aruna Seneviratne, Jun Li, Dusit Niyato, and H Vincent Poor. Federated learning meets blockchain in edge computing: Opportunities and challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 8(16): 12806–12825, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Big AI Models for 6G Wireless Networks: Opportunities, Challenges, and Research Directions

Zirui Chen, Zhaoyang Zhang, and Zhaohui Yang. Big ai models for 6g wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and research directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06250, 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[4]

User-centric interactive ai for distributed di ffusion model-based ai-generated content

Hongyang Du, Ruichen Zhang, Dusit Niyato, Jiawen Kang, Zehui Xiong, Shuguang Cui, Xuemin Shen, and Dong In Kim. User-centric interactive ai for distributed di ffusion model-based ai-generated content. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11094 , 2023

arXiv 2023
[5]

Shift to 6g: Exploration on trends, vision, requirements, technologies, research, and standardization efforts

Suresh Chavhan et al. Shift to 6g: Exploration on trends, vision, requirements, technologies, research, and standardization efforts. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 54:102666, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

A vision on the artificial intelligence for 6g communica- tion

Tareq B Ahammed, Ripon Patgiri, and Sabuzima Nayak. A vision on the artificial intelligence for 6g communica- tion. ICT Express, 9(2):197–210, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

Federated learning for medical applications: A taxonomy, current trends, challenges, and future research directions

Ashish Rauniyar, Desta Haileselassie Hagos, Debesh Jha, Jan Erik Håkegård, Ulas Bagci, Danda B Rawat, and Vladimir Vlassov. Federated learning for medical applications: A taxonomy, current trends, challenges, and future research directions. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2023

work page 2023
[8]

Towards 6g internet of things: Recent advances, use cases, and open challenges

Zakria Qadir, Khoa N Le, Nasir Saeed, and Hafiz Suli- man Munawar. Towards 6g internet of things: Recent advances, use cases, and open challenges. ICT Express, 9(3):296–312, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 15 references

[9]

Emerging technologies for 6g communication networks: Machine learning approaches

Annisa Anggun Puspitasari, To Truong An, Mo- hammed H Alsharif, and Byung Moo Lee. Emerging technologies for 6g communication networks: Machine learning approaches. Sensors, 23(18):7709, 2023

2023
[10]

Artificial intelligence applications and self-learning 6g networks for smart cities digital ecosystems: Taxonomy, challenges, and future directions

Leila Ismail and Rajkumar Buyya. Artificial intelligence applications and self-learning 6g networks for smart cities digital ecosystems: Taxonomy, challenges, and future directions. Sensors, 22(15):5750, 2022

2022
[11]

Out-of-distribution detection- assisted trustworthy machinery fault diagnosis approach with uncertainty-aware deep ensembles

Te Han and Yan-Fu Li. Out-of-distribution detection- assisted trustworthy machinery fault diagnosis approach with uncertainty-aware deep ensembles. Reliability En- gineering & System Safety, 226:108648, 2022

2022
[12]

Similarity-measured isolation forest: Anomaly detection method for machine monitoring data

Changgen Li, Liang Guo, Hongli Gao, and Yi Li. Similarity-measured isolation forest: Anomaly detection method for machine monitoring data. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , 70:1–12, 2021

2021
[13]

Anomaly detection of vehicle data based on lof algorithm

Mengjia Yang and Daji Ergu. Anomaly detection of vehicle data based on lof algorithm. Frontiers in Signal Processing, 4(1):678–694, 2020

2020
[14]

Fl-mgvn: Federated learning for anomaly detection using mixed gaussian variational self-encoding network

Dongmin Wu, Yi Deng, and Mingyong Li. Fl-mgvn: Federated learning for anomaly detection using mixed gaussian variational self-encoding network. Information processing & management, 59(2):102839, 2022

2022
[15]

Dïot: A federated self-learning anomaly detec- tion system for iot

Thien Duc Nguyen, Samuel Marchal, Markus Mietti- nen, Hossein Fereidooni, N Asokan, and Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi. Dïot: A federated self-learning anomaly detec- tion system for iot. In 2019 IEEE 39th International conference on distributed computing systems (ICDCS) , pages 756–767. ...

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A taxonomy of ai techniques for 6g communication networks

Karan Sheth, Keyur Patel, Het Shah, Sudeep Tanwar, Rajesh Gupta, and Neeraj Kumar. A taxonomy of ai techniques for 6g communication networks. Computer communications, 161:279–303, 2020

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Federated learning meets blockchain in edge computing: Opportunities and challenges

Dinh C Nguyen, Ming Ding, Quoc-Viet Pham, Pubudu N Pathirana, Long Bao Le, Aruna Seneviratne, Jun Li, Dusit Niyato, and H Vincent Poor. Federated learning meets blockchain in edge computing: Opportunities and challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 8(16): 12806–12825, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Big AI Models for 6G Wireless Networks: Opportunities, Challenges, and Research Directions

Zirui Chen, Zhaoyang Zhang, and Zhaohui Yang. Big ai models for 6g wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and research directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06250, 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

User-centric interactive ai for distributed di ffusion model-based ai-generated content

Hongyang Du, Ruichen Zhang, Dusit Niyato, Jiawen Kang, Zehui Xiong, Shuguang Cui, Xuemin Shen, and Dong In Kim. User-centric interactive ai for distributed di ffusion model-based ai-generated content. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11094 , 2023

arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

Shift to 6g: Exploration on trends, vision, requirements, technologies, research, and standardization efforts

Suresh Chavhan et al. Shift to 6g: Exploration on trends, vision, requirements, technologies, research, and standardization efforts. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 54:102666, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

A vision on the artificial intelligence for 6g communica- tion

Tareq B Ahammed, Ripon Patgiri, and Sabuzima Nayak. A vision on the artificial intelligence for 6g communica- tion. ICT Express, 9(2):197–210, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Federated learning for medical applications: A taxonomy, current trends, challenges, and future research directions

Ashish Rauniyar, Desta Haileselassie Hagos, Debesh Jha, Jan Erik Håkegård, Ulas Bagci, Danda B Rawat, and Vladimir Vlassov. Federated learning for medical applications: A taxonomy, current trends, challenges, and future research directions. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Towards 6g internet of things: Recent advances, use cases, and open challenges

Zakria Qadir, Khoa N Le, Nasir Saeed, and Hafiz Suli- man Munawar. Towards 6g internet of things: Recent advances, use cases, and open challenges. ICT Express, 9(3):296–312, 2023

work page 2023