Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Reputation-driven Cooperation in Lattice-based Decentralized Federated Learning through Evolutionary Game Theory

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A reputation-based reward-and-punishment term in a lattice evolutionary game flips decentralized federated learning from near-total defection to near-total cooperation, lifting average accuracy from about 70% to 82%.

desk verdict A plausible combination of spatial EGT and reputation for DFL, but the simulation is so underspecified that the central quantitative claims are unverifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01197 v1 pith:PSV3WZSV submitted 2026-08-02 cs.AI cs.CRcs.DCcs.GTmath.DS

Phuc Hoang Truong Huynh , Dung Tran Vinh , Khoa Duc Anh Lam , An Nghiem Nguyen Truong , Uyen Nha Tran Bui , Khang Nguyen Dinh , Bao Nguyen Le Gia , Minh Le Nguyen Nhat
show 4 more authors
Manh Hong Duong The Anh Han Thi Ai Thao Nguyen and Le Hong Trang
This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CRcs.DCcs.GTmath.DS
keywords decentralizedfederatedlearningevolutionarygametheoryreputationmechanismfree-ridinglatticetopologyFermiimitationcooperationincentivespayoffmatrix
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a reputation-based reward-and-punishment term added to an evolutionary game can eliminate free-riding in decentralized federated learning (DFL) run on a square lattice, and that this yields both higher and more uniform model accuracy. In its baseline simulation, nodes on a 50×50 lattice interact only with four neighbors, choose to cooperate (train locally and share) or defect (skip training and only absorb neighbors' updates), and imitate better-performing neighbors. Without reputation, the population collapses to below 5% cooperation because, as the global model converges, the marginal accuracy gain from cooperating becomes too small to justify training and communication costs. The paper's central claim is that, with reputation multipliers scaling payoffs, cooperation instead rises to near 100%, average accuracy climbs from about 70% to 82%, and accuracy variance drops from about 0.40 to 0.002—meaning the result is both better and more stable. If correct, this offers a purely local, server-free mechanism for sustaining cooperation in DFL.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reputation-adjusted payoff matrix $\tilde{\pi}^{(t)}_{ij}$ of Eq. (13), which multiplies each interaction's payoff by $R^+$ for cooperative acts and $R^-$ for defection, so that repeated cooperation compounds into a larger reward while defection compounds into a penalty. It is paired with the Fermi imitation rule of Eq. (20)—a stochastic social-learning rule in which a node copies a randomly chosen neighbor's strategy with probability depending on the payoff difference—and with the gossip-averaging mixing matrix $W^{(k)}$ of Eq. (4), which propagates model weights across the four-neighbor lattice. The three together convert local, pairwise interactions into a p

What would settle it

Reproduce the simulation with the stated lattice size $n=50$, costs $T=3$, $O=0.5$, Fermi $\beta=0.3$, $\delta_{\max}=1.5$, $\delta_{\min}=0.5$, and $r=0.1$, and measure the cooperation ratio and model accuracy over 50 rounds on a standard image-classification task. If the cooperation frequency does not approach 100% or the average accuracy does not rise from about 70% to 82% with variance falling to about 0.002, the claim fails. Before running, the reputation multipliers $R^+$ and $R^-$ in Eq. (13) must be derivable from the paper's definition of $R(x_{ij})$; the current text defines $\delta_

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that adding a reputation term to the pairwise payoff matrix reverses the evolutionary fate of a decentralized federated learning population. In the baseline, defection eventually dominates: as the shared model converges, the marginal model-quality gain $\Delta Q$ shrinks until it no longer covers training cost $T$ and communication cost $O$, so the Fermi imitation rule spreads defection. With reputation multipliers—$R^+_{C}$ for cooperators, $R^-_{D}$ for defectors—cooperative nodes accumulate a bonus that outweighs the shrinking $\Delta Q$. The claimed outcome: the lattice population converges to near-100% cooperation, average accuracy rises from a

Load-bearing premise

The entire result rests on the reputation multipliers $R^+$ and $R^-$ being well-defined and producing the claimed payoff ordering, yet the paper never states their values nor how they follow from the reputation score $R(x_{ij})$; the simulation parameters and the machine-learning task behind the reported accuracy are likewise unspecified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Free-riding can be suppressed in fully decentralized federated learning without a central server, using only local payoff signals, reputation scores, and neighbor imitation.
  • Model quality becomes more uniform across the network: the reported variance drop from about 0.40 to 0.002 means nodes converge to nearly the same accuracy, not just the same model weights.
  • Cooperation is self-sustaining across the learning curve: early on it is driven by accuracy gains, and later by reputation rewards that outgrow the shrinking marginal accuracy benefit.
  • The lattice structure is load-bearing: spatial clustering of cooperators is what allows reputation-backed cooperation to spread from small clusters to the whole population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The reported accuracy gain is not tied to any specified dataset, so the exact figures (70% to 82%, variance 0.002) are likely optimistic; the durable claim is the qualitative shift from defection to cooperation, which should be tested on named benchmarks before being treated as a general result.
  • Editorial inference: With $\beta=0.3$ the Fermi rule is noisy; a deterministic limit ($\beta \to \infty$) would make the population converge to whichever strategy gets ahead early, possibly making the reputation mechanism less decisive. A sweep over $\beta$ and over the cost ratio $T/O$ would map where the near-100% cooperation regime lives.
  • Editorial inference: Since reputation saturates at $\delta_{\max}=1.5$, an implicit prediction is that cooperation remains stable after saturation; if the mechanism's force depends on unbounded reputation accumulation, the model would behave differently near the cap, which is testable by raising $\delta_{\max}$.
  • Editorial inference: Real DFL networks are not regular lattices; on scale-free or small-world topologies, hubs would accumulate reputation faster, so the cooperation frequency may spread more quickly or, conversely, powerful defectors may resist imitation. Extending the lattice result to heterogeneous graphs is a direct next test.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a decentralized federated learning (DFL) framework on a square lattice in which nodes are modeled as boundedly rational evolutionary-game players choosing between cooperation (sharing model parameters) and defection (free-riding). A payoff matrix (Eq. 10) incorporates training cost, communication cost, cooperative synergy, and free-riding benefit; strategy updates follow Fermi imitation. A reputation mechanism (Eq. 13) multiplies cooperative payoffs by R+ and defective payoffs by R− to reward and punish nodes. The authors report simulations on a 50×50 lattice showing that the reputation mechanism raises cooperation from below 5% to near 100%, increases average accuracy from about 70% to 82%, and reduces accuracy variance from about 0.40 to 0.002, thereby improving convergence and stability.

Significance. The topic is timely: free-riding is a recognized obstacle in decentralized federated learning, and evolutionary game theory on structured populations is a reasonable modeling lens. If the claims were fully supported, a simple decentralized reputation mechanism that nearly eliminates free-riding and improves both accuracy and consistency would be a meaningful contribution. However, the manuscript ships no code or data, leaves the central reputation multipliers R+ and R− undefined, provides no real machine-learning task, and reports no numerical accuracy results in the body text. As submitted, the proposed framework is not a well-defined algorithm and the main empirical claims are not verifiable. The significance can therefore only be provisional.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (13), Table 3] Eq. (13) is the core mechanism, yet R+,(t)_Ci and R−,(t)_Di are never defined. The preceding 'Reputation' paragraph introduces R(x_ij) with x_ij undefined and gives a δ_n recursion, but it does not connect δ_n to R+ or R−, and Table 3 lists only r=0.1, δ_max=1.5, δ_min=0.5. Without numeric values or functional forms for R+ and R−, the simulation is not replicable; for any fixed positive R+ sufficiently large relative to R−, cooperation dominates under Fermi imitation regardless of the FL dynamics. This is load-bearing for the headline '70% to 82% accuracy' and 'near-100% cooperation' claims.
  2. [§5.1, §5.2] The experimental setup is critically underspecified. Section 5.1 gives lattice size, T=3, O=0.5, β=0.3, δ bounds and r=0.1, but no dataset, model architecture, data partition, training procedure, evaluation protocol, random seeds, or number of independent runs. The abstract's numbers (70%, 82%, variance 0.40→0.002) do not appear in Section 5.2; Figures 6 and 7 show only qualitative strategy snapshots. No accuracy-versus-round curves or error bars are reported. The central empirical claims therefore cannot be checked or reproduced.
  3. [§3.1 vs. Table 1 and Eq. (10)] The model of defection is internally inconsistent. Section 3.1 defines a defector as a node that skips local training (c_i=0) and sends stale weights, giving P_i(D) > P_i(C). But Table 1 and the note under it, together with Eq. (10) for the (D,C) interaction, assign defectors costs −T_Di and −O_Di and have the defector perform local updates on the received model. This contradicts the free-riding definition and makes the baseline comparison in Section 5 ambiguous: the payoff advantage of defection is not the one derived in Section 3.1.
  4. [§4.2, Eqs. (10), (13), Table 3] The observed cooperation is to a large extent inserted by construction. The δ_n recursion rewards cooperation and punishes defection, and Eq. (13) then multiplies cooperative payoffs by R+ and defective payoffs by R−. With the free parameters T, O, β, α, the free-riding fraction β, and the reputation bounds left unjustified and without sensitivity analysis, the simulation does not demonstrate a robust emergent property. The authors should vary R+, R−, T, O, and the selection intensity independently and report whether near-100% cooperation and the accuracy gain persist.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (20) vs. Eq. (9)] The Fermi update in Eq. (9) is written with denominator 1+exp((P_i−P_j)/K), while Step 6 and Algorithm 1 use 1+exp(−β(f_j−f_i)). The sign and parameter names differ; make the relationship explicit.
  2. [Throughout] The symbol β is overloaded: it is the free-riding fraction in Eq. (10), the Fermi selection parameter in Table 3, and the selection pressure in Eq. (20). This is confusing and should be disambiguated.
  3. [Table 3] Table 3 labels the row 'Synergy coefficient' but gives δ_max=1.5 and δ_min=0.5, whereas Section 4.2 uses α for synergy and δ_n for reputation. Align the terminology.
  4. [§4.3, Step 3] The text says 'ÈFL' in the opening sentence of Section 4.3; this appears to be a typo for EGT-DFL or similar.
  5. [Figures 6 and 7] The figures show strategy distributions but no quantitative accuracy or variance curves. Please add plots with axis labels and legends, and report the abstract's numbers in the body text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Cooperation 'prediction' is hard-wired into Eq. (13): reputation multipliers reward C and penalize D before the Fermi update, and the reported ≈100% cooperation restates that payoff construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, Eq. (13)-(16); Section 5.2]
    "When reputation is incorporated (Table. 2), let R+,(t) Ci denote the positive reputation modifier associated with cooperative behavior, and let R−,(t) Di denote the reputation modifier associated with defective behavior. The reputation-adjusted pairwise payoff is defined as ... eπ(t)ij(C,C)=R+,(t)Ci π(t)ij(C,C), (14) eπ(t)ij(C,D)=R+,(t)Ci π(t)ij(C,D), (15) eπ(t)ij(D,C)=R−,(t)Di π(t)ij(D,C). (16) ... the proposed matrix directly assigns the reputation-dependent term R−,(t)Di to this interaction."

    The reputation mechanism is defined as multiplying all cooperative payoffs by R+ and defective payoffs by R−; the Fermi update then compares exactly these reputation-adjusted fitnesses. Thus whether cooperation is "more profitable" is set by the relative magnitudes of R+ and R−, which the paper never fixes. Section 5.2 presents the resulting dominance of cooperation as an emergent result ("cooperation remains the more profitable strategy despite the reduced marginal learning benefit"), but that statement is simply a restatement of the payoff construction in Eq. (13): with sufficiently large R+ relative to R−, cooperators are guaranteed higher fitness and imitation spreads C. The ≈100% cooperation frequency is therefore a direct consequence of the chosen/invented reputation multipliers, not

full rationale

The central circular step is the reputation payoff itself: Eq. (13)-(16) reward cooperation and punish defection inside the fitness measure used for strategy imitation, and Section 5.2 reports near-universal cooperation as the finding. That part of the claim reduces by construction. The accuracy improvement (70%→82%) and variance drop (0.40→0.002) are downstream of this forced cooperation, but they are not themselves circular; however, they are not verifiable because neither R+/R− values nor the ML task/dataset/model are specified. The self-citations to Duong et al. [5] and Bashir et al. [2] are motivational and not load-bearing, and there is no imported uniqueness theorem. Overall: one core prediction (cooperation frequency) is encoded in the payoff matrix, so the circularity score is moderate-high; the paper's quantitative claims are additionally under-specified, which reinforces the concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model rests on hand-picked payoff parameters, an incompletely defined reputation multiplier, and a leave-one-out quality estimate that is only sketched. These are modeling assumptions rather than validated facts, and several central parameters (alpha, payoff beta, R+ and R-) are not assigned values, so the actual simulation configuration is underdetermined.

free parameters (6)
  • Training cost T = 3
    Chosen by hand in Table 3; directly changes the payoff balance between cooperation and defection.
  • Communication cost O = 0.5
    Chosen by hand in Table 3; another hand-set payoff parameter.
  • Fermi selection parameter beta = 0.3
    Chosen by hand in Table 3; controls the strength of strategy imitation, but the same symbol beta is also used for the free-riding fraction in Eq. (10), creating ambiguity.
  • Reputation bounds delta_max, delta_min and increment r = 1.5, 0.5, 0.1
    Chosen by hand in Table 3; drive the reputation update rule that is central to the cooperation result.
  • Synergy coefficient alpha in Eq. (10) = not specified
    Referenced in the payoff matrix as alpha > 1, but no value is given in Table 3, so the actual payoffs used in the simulation are unknown.
  • Free-riding fraction beta in Eq. (10) = not specified
    Used in the (D,C) payoff, but no distinct value is provided; the same symbol is used for Fermi selection, making the simulation configuration ambiguous.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Agents are boundedly rational and update strategies using the Fermi imitation rule (Eq. 9 and Eq. 20).
    The paper assumes this evolutionary update captures real device behavior in DFL; this is a modeling choice, not a proven fact.
  • ad hoc to paper The payoff matrix in Eq. (10) and Eq. (13) correctly represents the costs and benefits of cooperation and defection in DFL.
    The specific functional forms, linear costs, leave-one-out quality increments, and reputation multipliers are chosen by the authors without empirical calibration.
  • domain assumption Leave-one-out model quality contribution Delta Q is computable by each node from neighbor-returned weights.
    The definition assumes nodes can evaluate the marginal contribution of each neighbor, which is not demonstrated under the gossip-averaging protocol.
  • standard math The gossip-averaging protocol on the lattice converges to the global average model.
    This follows from the doubly stochastic mixing matrix property, cited from reference [12], and is standard consensus theory.
  • ad hoc to paper The reputation update rule in Section 4.2 defines a valid model of social reputation.
    The rule is incompletely specified (R+ and R- are undefined) and is a paper-specific design, not a validated social mechanism.
invented entities (1)
  • Reputation multiplier R(xij) with positive and negative branches (R+ and R-)
    purpose: To adjust each node's payoff by rewarding cooperation and punishing defection, thereby deterring free-riding.
    This is a mechanism design choice introduced by the paper. The rule is not fully defined in the text (the R(xij) formula is garbled) and there is no independent empirical or theoretical validation that reputation evolves this way in real DFL systems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reputation-driven Cooperation in Lattice-based Decentralized Federated Learning through Evolutionary Game Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSV3WZSV

@misc{pith2026260801197,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reputation-driven Cooperation in Lattice-based Decentralized Federated Learning through Evolutionary Game Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSV3WZSV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01197}
}
read the original abstract

Decentralized Federated Learning (DFL) has emerged as an optimal privacy-preserving solution; however, it remains vulnerable to opportunistic behaviors due to the absence of a central coordinator. While Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) serves as a powerful framework for analyzing such behaviors, existing studies often assume that agents possess perfect rationality and maintain static strategies. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a novel EGT framework designed to analyze strategic evolution and enhance overall system performance. The primary contributions of this work are threefold: First, we model peer-to-peer (P2P) interactions on a lattice network structure under the assumption of bounded rationality. Second, we formulate a comprehensive payoff matrix incorporating training costs, communication overhead, and cooperative rewards, while tailoring a strategy update rule that captures spatial propagation dynamics. Third, we integrate a reputation-based reward-and-punishment mechanism to effectively deter free-riding behaviors. Simulation results demonstrate that the framework significantly outperforms the baseline. Specifically, it increases average accuracy from approximately 70% to 82%, elevates cooperation frequency to approach 100% (compared to below 5% in the baseline), and drops accuracy variance from around 0.40 to 0.002, thereby accelerating uniform convergence and ensuring system stability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01197 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall architecture of the proposed lattice-based decentralized feder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Payoff-based strategy assessment of a focal node when interacting with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. End-to-end workflow of the proposed EGT-enabled DFL architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of node strategies across successive generations under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolutionary process of strategy distribution with reputation and no [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of strategy distribution over time with no reputation mech [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of strategy distribution over time with reputation mecha [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Security & Privacy17, 49–58 (2018)

    Al-Rubaie, M., Chang, J.M.: Privacy-preserving machine learning: Threats and solutions. IEEE Security & Privacy17, 49–58 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 210, 118728 (2026)

    Bashir, A., Shamszaman, Z.U., Song, Z., Perc, M., Han, T.A.: Strategic commit- ments shape collective cybersecurity under ai inequality. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 210, 118728 (2026)

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    Blanchard, P., Mhamdi, E.M.E., Guerraoui, R., Stainer, J.: Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantinetolerantgradient descent.In:Neural InformationProcessing Systems (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    ArXivabs/1812.01097(2018)

    Caldas, S., Wu, P., Li, T., Konecný, J., McMahan, H.B., Smith, V., Talwalkar, A.: Leaf: A benchmark for federated settings. ArXivabs/1812.01097(2018)

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals211, 118843 (2026)

    Duong, H.N., Nguyen, T.D., Nguyen, H.T., Song, Z., Duong, M.H., Trang, L.H., Han,T.A.,etal.:Beyondcooperationandcost:Welfare-optimalincentivesinstruc- tured populations. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals211, 118843 (2026)

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Ferenczi,A.,Bˇ adicˇ a,C.:Fullydecentralizedprivacy-enabledfederatedlearningsys- tem based on byzantine-resilient consensus protocol. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 136, 102987 (2024) Reputation-Driven Cooperation in Lattice-Based EGT-DFL 23

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    IEEE Access11, 145747–145762 (2023)

    Goh, E., Kim, D.Y., Lee, K., Oh, S., Chae, J.E., Kim, D.Y.: Blockchain-enabled federated learning: A reference architecture design, implementation, and verifica- tion. IEEE Access11, 145747–145762 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    IEEE Transactions on Big Data10, 194–213 (2024)

    Hallaji, E., Razavi-Far, R., Saif, M., Wang, B., Yang, Q.: Decentralized federated learning: A survey on security and privacy. IEEE Transactions on Big Data10, 194–213 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Hofbauer, J., Sigmund, K., et al.: Evolutionary games and population dynamics, vol. 1. Cambridge university press Cambridge (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    ArXivabs/1908.07782(2019),https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:201124492

    Hu, C., Jiang, J., Wang, Z.: Decentralized federated learning: A segmented gossip approach. ArXivabs/1908.07782(2019),https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:201124492

    1908 arXiv

  3. [11]

    IEEE Internet of Things Journal6, 10700–10714 (2019),https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:203178529

    Kang, J., Xiong, Z., Niyato, D., Xie, S., Zhang, J.: Incentive mechanism for reliable federated learning: A joint optimization approach to combining reputation and contract theory. IEEE Internet of Things Journal6, 10700–10714 (2019),https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:203178529

    2019

  4. [12]

    Koskela, A., Kulkarni, T.: Differential privacy analysis of decentralized gossip av- eraging under varying threat models (2026),https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19969

    2026

  5. [13]

    In: ACM Trans

    Lamport, L., Shostak, R.E., Pease, M.C.: The byzantine generals problem. In: ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. vol. 4, pp. 382–401 (1982)

    1982

  6. [14]

    Nature521(7553), 436–444 (2015)

    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G.: Deep learning. Nature521(7553), 436–444 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    In: Guyon, I., Luxburg, U.V., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus, R., Vishwanathan, S., Garnett, R

    Lian, X., Zhang, C., Zhang, H., Hsieh, C.J., Zhang, W., Liu, J.: Can de- centralized algorithms outperform centralized algorithms? a case study for de- centralized parallel stochastic gradient descent. In: Guyon, I., Luxburg, U.V., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus, R., Vishwana...

    2017

  8. [16]

    IEEE Communi- cations Surveys & Tutorials25(4), 2983–3013 (2023).https://doi.org/10.1109/ COMST.2023.3315746

    Martínez Beltrán, E.T., Pérez, M.Q., Sánchez, P.M.S., Bernal, S.L., Bovet, G., Pérez, M.G., Pérez, G.M., Celdrán, A.H.: Decentralized federated learning: Fun- damentals, state of the art, frameworks, trends, and challenges. IEEE Communi- cations Surveys & Tutorials25(4), 2983–...

    2023

  9. [17]

    In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (2016)

    McMahan, H.B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., y Arcas, B.A.: Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Nature359, 826–829 (1992),https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4328667

    Nowak, M.A., May, R.M.: Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature359, 826–829 (1992),https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4328667

    1992

  11. [19]

    In: 2025 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN)

    Röder, M., Geiger, F., Schleif, F.M.: Driving cooperation in federated learning via evolutionary game theory. In: 2025 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Sagduyu, Y.: Free-rider games for federated learning with selfish clients in nextg wireless networks. pp. 365–370 (10 2022).https://doi.org/10.1109/CNS56114. 2022.9947274

    2022

  13. [21]

    Sun, T., Li, D., Wang, B.: Decentralized federated averaging (2021),https:// arxiv.org/abs/2104.11375

    2021 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Physical Review E58, 69–73 (07 1998).https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.58

    Szabo, G., Tőke, C.: Evolutionary prisoner’s dilemma game on a square lattice. Physical Review E58, 69–73 (07 1998).https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.58. 69 24 Phuc Hoang et at

    1998 doi

  15. [24]

    Physics Reports446(4-6), 97–216 (July 2007).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2007.04.004,http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2007.04.004

    Szabó, G., Fáth, G.: Evolutionary games on graphs. Physics Reports446(4-6), 97–216 (July 2007).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2007.04.004,http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2007.04.004

    2007 doi

  16. [25]

    IEEE Trans- actions on Cognitive Communications and Networking8, 1566–1593 (09 2022)

    Tu, X., Zhu, K., Nguyen, C., Niyato, D., Zhang, Y., Li, J.: Incentive mechanisms for federated learning: From economic and game theoretic perspective. IEEE Trans- actions on Cognitive Communications and Networking8, 1566–1593 (09 2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCCN.2022.3177522

    2022

  17. [26]

    MIT press (1997)

    Weibull, J.W.: Evolutionary game theory. MIT press (1997)

    1997

  18. [27]

    Neurocomputing621, 129259 (2025)

    Xu, J., Zhao, Y., Li, X., Zhou, L., Zhu, K., Xu, X., Duan, Q., Zhang, R.: Teg-di: Dynamic incentive model for federated learning based on tripartite evolutionary game. Neurocomputing621, 129259 (2025)

    2025

  19. [28]

    Neurocomput- ing557, 126739 (2023)

    Yang, P., Zhang, H., Gao, F., Xu, Y., Jin, Z.: Multi-player evolutionary game of federated learning incentive mechanism based on system dynamics. Neurocomput- ing557, 126739 (2023)

    2023

  20. [29]

    IEEE Internet of Things Journal11, 34617–34638 (2023)

    Yuan, L., Sun, L., Yu, P.S., Wang, Z.: Decentralized federated learning: A survey and perspective. IEEE Internet of Things Journal11, 34617–34638 (2023)

    2023

  21. [30]

    Zeng, R., Zeng, C., Wang, X., Li, B., Chu, X.: A comprehensive survey of incentive mechanism for federated learning (2021),https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15406

    2021 arXiv

  22. [31]

    IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing10(2), 1035–1044 (2022).https://doi.org/10.1109/TETC.2021

    Zhan, Y., Zhang, J., Hong, Z., Wu, L., Li, P., Guo, S.: A survey of incentive mechanism design for federated learning. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing10(2), 1035–1044 (2022).https://doi.org/10.1109/TETC.2021. 3063517, publisher Copyright:©2013 IEEE

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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