Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 93 references

Topology-Aware Knowledge Propagation in Decentralized Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 In decentralized learning, out-of-distribution knowledge propagates poorly along arbitrary network topologies; weighting aggregation by degree or betweenness centrality fixes much of the gap, raising OOD accuracy 123% on average.

desk verdict A credible but narrow empirical study: centrality-weighted aggregation speeds propagation of a backdoor-style OOD signal, and the paper deserves peer review with serious pressure on the OOD proxy and missing baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11760 v1 pith:3OZO2BWK submitted 2025-05-16 cs.LG cs.AIcs.DC

Mansi Sakarvadia , Nathaniel Hudson , Tian Li , Ian Foster , Kyle Chard This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.DC
keywords decentralizedlearningknowledgepropagationout-of-distributiongeneralizationnetworktopologyaggregationweightsgraphcentralitybackdoortriggers
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

Decentralized learning trains a separate model on each device in a network, and models learn about distant data only by repeated averaging with their immediate neighbors. The paper argues that out-of-distribution (OOD) knowledge—knowledge that is rare or foreign to most devices—is systematically harder to push through such a topology than ordinary IID knowledge, and that how well it spreads depends on where in the graph the OOD data live and on the graph's own structure. It proposes a small change to the aggregation rule: weight each neighbor's model by that neighbor's degree or betweenness centrality, scaled by a softmax temperature, rather than weighting all neighbors equally. In experiments with five datasets and 36 topologies, these topology-aware rules improve OOD test accuracy by 123% on average over topology-unaware baselines, without hurting IID accuracy. A sympathetic reader would take away that a purely local, graph-informed choice of averaging weights can close much of the OOD propagation gap in decentralized learning.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the aggregation step of decentralized learning: $m^{t+1}_i \leftarrow \sum_{j \in N_i} C_{i,j} m^{t+\frac12}_j$, where $C_{i,j}$ is the weight device $i$ places on neighbor $j$'s model. Normally $C_{i,j}$ is uniform, proportional to data count, or random. The paper's innovation is to set $C_{i,j} = e^{R_j/\tau} / \sum_{k \in N_i} e^{R_k/\tau}$, with $R_j$ the degree or betweenness centrality of neighbor $j$ and temperature $\tau=0.1$ in the experiments. This single coefficient choice is what carries the argument: it makes hubs (or bridges) absorb and re-emit more knowledge each round, accelerating the hop-by-hop spread of the OOD signal through the topology.

What would settle it

Take the same protocol but replace the backdoor trigger with a natural OOD shift—for example, hold out one CIFAR-10 class entirely and place it on a single node as its local data—then measure OOD test accuracy across all nodes under Degree/Betweenness versus Unweighted aggregation. If the topology-aware advantage of 123% does not appear (or shrinks to noise), the claim that centrality-weighted aggregation accelerates general OOD knowledge propagation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that OOD knowledge does not propagate through decentralized topologies the way IID knowledge does: when a single node holds data that is out of distribution for the rest of the network, models on nodes far from that origin learn the OOD signal far worse after 40 aggregation rounds, even though IID accuracy is roughly uniform across the topology. The location of the OOD data matters—placing it on high-degree nodes spreads it much further than placing it on low-degree nodes—and so does the topology: higher average degree helps, higher modularity (tightly clustered communities) hurts. The paper's proposed remedy is to replace uniform or data-count-based aggregation weights with weights derived from graph centrality: each node aggregates its neighbors' models in proportion to $e^{R_j/\tau}$ where $R_j$ is neighbor $j$'s degree or betweenness centrality and $\tau$ is a temperature. With these topology-aware weights, OOD test accuracy rises by 123% on average across models in a topology compared to topology-unaware baselines, and IID accuracy is not degraded.

Load-bearing premise

The experiments assume that a single device holding 10% backdoored data (a red-square trigger on images, or a forced token sequence in language) is a faithful stand-in for out-of-distribution knowledge, and that accuracy on backdoored test data measures how well that knowledge spread; if real OOD knowledge behaves differently than such an easily detectable trigger, the conclusions may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The aggregation change costs no extra communication at training time: each device needs only precomputed centrality values for its neighbors, so adopting the strategy is a drop-in replacement for uniform averaging.
  • OOD knowledge seeded on high-degree nodes spreads much further than on low-degree nodes under every strategy, so placing rare or safety-critical data on well-connected devices is itself a propagation lever.
  • Higher modularity (tight communities) slows OOD spread; topology-aware weights shrink but do not eliminate that penalty, so operators of community-structured networks should expect more rounds before distant devices learn rare knowledge.
  • Because the same weighting also speeds propagation of malicious or erroneous model updates, safeguards for detecting unwanted knowledge should accompany any deployment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the result generalizes beyond the backdoor proxy—say a genuinely new class or a natural distribution shift introduced at one device—then centrality-weighted aggregation could serve as a communication-only fix for OOD generalization in edge networks; the paper does not test this directly.
  • The reported metric is accuracy AUC over 40 rounds, which averages final level and arrival time; a natural test is to measure how many rounds are needed to reach a threshold OOD accuracy, since centrality weighting plausibly accelerates the early phase of propagation even when final AUC is similar.
  • The softmax temperature $\tau$ is fixed at 0.1 in all experiments; varying $\tau$ interpolates between uniform averaging ($\tau\to\infty$) and winner-take-all ($\tau\to0$), so a sweep could reveal whether the 123% gain is robust or concentrated in this one operating point.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies decentralized learning over static communication topologies, where each node trains locally and aggregates with neighbors. It claims that out-of-distribution (OOD) knowledge is systematically harder to propagate than IID knowledge, that propagation depends on OOD data location and topology, and that topology-aware aggregation weights based on degree or betweenness centrality (softmax-scaled with temperature tau) accelerate OOD knowledge propagation, improving OOD test accuracy by 123% on average relative to topology-unaware baselines. The evidence base is broad: five datasets, three topology families, 36 topologies, four OOD locations, and three seeds, with code released on GitHub. The OOD notion is operationalized exclusively as a backdoor trigger (a red square on one node's images, or token-forcing in a language task; Appendix B.2.2).

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper delivers a simple and practically appealing result: replacing uniform or data-size aggregation weights with graph-centrality-based weights can substantially improve dissemination of non-IID knowledge in decentralized systems with no degradation of IID accuracy. The study is unusually broad in topology and dataset coverage, and the authors release code and report energy/carbon accounting, which supports reproducibility. However, significance is currently tempered by three gaps: the OOD phenomenon is measured through a single backdoor artifact, the IID-vs-OOD comparison is confounded with single-source placement, and the strongest non-IID baselines are absent. Each of these gaps narrows the scope of the claim that 'OOD knowledge' generally propagates poorly and that the proposed methods beat existing decentralized learning strategies.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Appendix B.2.2] The operationalization of OOD knowledge is a single backdoor trigger: a red n x n square relabeled to a fixed class (Def. B.1) or token-forcing (Def. B.2). All OOD accuracy, AUC, and the abstract's 123% figure measure the model's accuracy on backdoored test inputs only. A backdoor is a highly salient, low-capacity artifact, and its propagation may follow different dynamics than the propagation of a new class, a covariate shift, or a semantic shift. The paper's title and abstract make a general claim about OOD knowledge, but the evidence supports only 'backdoor-trigger knowledge.' To make the central claim load-bearing, the authors should either (a) add at least one alternative OOD construction (e.g., a new class present on a single node, or a style/rotation shift), or (b) explicitly narrow the claims and title to backdoor knowledge propagation. This is the paper's key correctness-risk point.
  2. [Section 3, Fig 2, Appendix B.2.1] The comparison of IID vs OOD propagation is confounded by data placement. IID data are distributed across all nodes (Section B.2.1, alpha_l = alpha_s = 1000), whereas the OOD data are placed on a single node only (Section B.2.2, Q = 10% of one node's data). Thus the OOD knowledge must travel from one source while the IID knowledge is already present everywhere; the observed gap in Fig 2 may reflect single-source propagation rather than an intrinsic difficulty of OOD knowledge. The paper should include a control condition in which an equally sized 'IID' dataset is also placed on a single node (or, conversely, OOD data are spread across all nodes). Without this control, the first contribution ('OOD knowledge is more difficult to propagate') is not established.
  3. [Section 5.1, Appendix B.3, Related Work [74]] The baseline set omits strong non-IID methods, most notably RelaySum, which is cited in Related Work as [74] and is specifically designed for decentralized learning on heterogeneous data. RelaySum is topology-aware in the sense that it weights neighbors based on the rooted-tree distance, so it is the natural competitor to test the claim that 'topology-aware aggregation strategies outperform ... existing decentralized learning strategies' (abstract, contribution 3). The four baselines used (Unweighted, Weighted, Random, FL) are all topology-naive for the non-IID setting. Adding RelaySum (and, if feasible, other non-IID baselines such as consensus-control methods) is needed before the paper can claim superiority over existing strategies. Alternatively, the claims should be restricted to comparisons against these particular baselines.
  4. [Abstract, Section 5.1, Fig 4] The headline improvement of '123% on average across models in a topology' is not defined anywhere. There is no equation or description of how the percentage is computed: the numerator and denominator (e.g., relative increase in OOD AUC of Degree vs Unweighted?), the averaging set (across datasets? topologies? seeds? nodes?), and whether it is a mean of per-node percentages or a ratio of means. Moreover, all plotted results (Figs 4, 5, 6) show only three-seed means with no error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests. Given the centrality of this number and the small number of seeds, the authors must provide the exact calculation and some measure of variability. This is a load-bearing quantitative claim and cannot be checked in its current form.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.2] The first sentence says 'This experiment is identical to that of Section 4'; it should refer to Section 5.1, since Section 4 is the proposed method, not an experiment.
  2. [Fig 2] The y-axis 'OOD vs IID AUC % Diff.' is not defined; the text should state whether this is (AUC_IID - AUC_OOD)/AUC_IID or another formula, and confirm it is averaged over nodes and then over topologies.
  3. [Appendix B.3, item 3] The Random baseline is defined with a softmax temperature tau, but the experiments (e.g., Section 5.1) do not report the value of tau used for Random; please state it explicitly and, if it is set to 0.1, say so.
  4. [Section 5.1, 'Result & Discussion'] There is a typo: 'prorogation' should be 'propagation.'
  5. [Appendix B.2.2, Table 1, Figs 4-5] For the TinyMem language dataset, the evaluation metric is described as testing whether the next tokens match the backdoored suffix, but it is not explained how this is converted into the 'OOD AUC' values plotted in Figs 4-5; please clarify the scoring procedure and how accuracy is accumulated over rounds.
  6. [Appendix C.2, Figs 15-18] The heatmap axes for the row/column strategies are not labeled in the figure panels; labels such as 'OOD node rank' and aggregation strategy names would make the numeric tables interpretable without cross-checking the caption and main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the aggregation strategies are evaluated on held-out backdoor test sets, the softmax temperature is fixed rather than fitted, and the only self-citation (TinyMem/language backdoor) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper contains no analytic derivation whose conclusion is equivalent to its assumptions; all central claims are empirical. Aggregation coefficients in Eq. (2) and Section 4 are computed directly from graph degree or betweenness centrality, and are not fitted to the reported OOD accuracies. The softmax temperature is fixed at tau=0.1 for all experiments; there is no statement that it was selected on the held-out backdoor test sets. The OOD operationalization in Appendix B.2.2 (red-square trigger for images, token-forcing for TinyMem) is a measurement choice: both the injected OOD training knowledge and the test metric are generated from the same backdoor construction, which limits how broadly the word 'OOD' can be read, but it does not make the comparative results true by construction, since giving a hub more aggregation weight does not by itself guarantee higher backdoor test accuracy under nonconvex optimization. The one self-citation, Sakarvadia et al. [68], supplies the TinyMem benchmark and the language backdoor definition; because the same qualitative findings are reproduced with the external BadNets [18] trigger on four vision datasets, this self-citation is not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely relabeled. Therefore the paper is not significantly circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on a hand-set softmax temperature, a backdoor-based proxy for OOD, and a synchronous static topology model. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Softmax temperature tau = 0.1
    Hand-chosen for Degree and Betweenness aggregation (Section 4, Section 5). It controls how sharply centrality differences translate into weights; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • OOD fraction Q = 10%
    The backdoor fraction on the OOD node and on the test data is 10% (Appendix B.2.2); results may depend on this chosen magnitude.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A single node holding 10% backdoored data is a valid worst-case proxy for OOD knowledge propagation.
    All experiments measure propagation of this one backdoor type (Section B.2.2); no other OOD generation is tested.
  • domain assumption Static, synchronous communication with equal local epochs is representative of decentralized learning.
    Algorithm 1 assumes synchronous rounds and static topology (Section 2); dynamic or asynchronous networks are not covered.
  • ad hoc to paper Degree and betweenness centrality are the relevant location statistics for knowledge propagation.
    The proposed weighting scheme assumes degree and betweenness predict knowledge-spreading utility, an unproven heuristic (Section 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topology-Aware Knowledge Propagation in Decentralized Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3OZO2BWK

@misc{pith2026250511760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topology-Aware Knowledge Propagation in Decentralized Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3OZO2BWK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11760}
}
read the original abstract

Decentralized learning enables collaborative training of models across naturally distributed data without centralized coordination or maintenance of a global model. Instead, devices are organized in arbitrary communication topologies, in which they can only communicate with neighboring devices. Each device maintains its own local model by training on its local data and integrating new knowledge via model aggregation with neighbors. Therefore, knowledge is propagated across the topology via successive aggregation rounds. We study, in particular, the propagation of out-of-distribution (OOD) knowledge. We find that popular decentralized learning algorithms struggle to propagate OOD knowledge effectively to all devices. Further, we find that both the location of OOD data within a topology, and the topology itself, significantly impact OOD knowledge propagation. We then propose topology-aware aggregation strategies to accelerate (OOD) knowledge propagation across devices. These strategies improve OOD data accuracy, compared to topology-unaware baselines, by 123% on average across models in a topology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11760 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Topology-(un)aware aggregation for IID vs. OOD knowledge propagation. CIFAR10 is distributed across 64 nodes: OOD data placed on node with the fourth highest degree. Aggregation strategy for topology-unaware is Unweighted and topology-aware is Degree. Green indicates higher test accuracy on the respective dataset after 40 rounds of training; white indicates the opposite. Our proposed topology-aware method (right) ac… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. IID vs. OOD knowledge propagation. Data distributed in each topology as described in Appendix B.2.1, with OOD data located on the node with the fourth highest degree in the respective topology. We report average percent difference in test accuracy AUC between IID and OOD data over 40 rounds of training across all devices in a topology; averaged again over all topologies and seeds. Lower percent difference indicates … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual comparison of a single node’s topology-unaware (Unweighted) vs. topology￾aware (Degree, Betweenness) aggregation coefficients. Neighboring nodes colored and sized by their aggregation coefficients determined via the aggregation strategy. Gray nodes are not involved in aggregation for the aggregating node. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: OOD knowledge propagation in three different decentralized topologies. In each case, OOD data are located on node with highest degree. Left to right: Experiments with MNIST, FMNIST, TinyMem, CIFAR10, CIFAR100. Green indicates node with OOD data. We vary the aggregation…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of OOD data location on OOD data spread. OOD data location is varied across the four highest degree nodes in each topology (we successively place the OOD data on nodes with lower degree). Left to right: Experiments on MNIST, FMNIST, TinyMem, CIFAR10, CIFAR100. W…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact of topology degree, modularity, node count on aggregation strategy perfor￾mance. From left to right: we plot the impact of topology degree, modularity, and node count on the OOD test accuracy AUC. Experiments done on CIFAR10 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: OOD knowledge struggles to propagate in more modular topologies. CIFAR10 distributed across 33 node SB topologies with OOD data located on the node with fourth highest degree within a given topology. From left to right: SB topology becomes less modular. Green indicates…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Hypothetical data distributions for the MNIST dataset, distributed across ten workers under varying αs and αℓ conditions. Top left is the most heterogeneous (non-IID) data distributions across all ten devices. Bottom right is the most homogeneous (IID) data distributio…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Image backdoor. Example of a backdoored image from the CIFAR10 dataset [39]. We assess whether a model has memorized backdoored image Ib by prompting the model with Ib, and testing whether the produced label is lb. In our experiments, we backdoor Q = 10% of a given dev…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Topology-Aware Aggregation strategies outperform Topology-unaware strategies. Average test accuracy for IID vs. OOD knowledge averaged across all models in a topology after R = 40 rounds of training. Averaged across 3 Barabási-Albert topologies with preferential attac…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Barabási-Albert topologies. Preferential attachment parameter p = 2 for all topologies. Left to right: topologies have n ∈ {8, 16, 33, 64} nodes. Top to bottom: seeds ∈ {0, 1, 2}. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Stochastic Block topologies. Each topology has three communities with varying levels of modularity. Each topology has n = 33 nodes. Left to right: the probabilities of edges existing between communities mi to mj are pi,j : if i = j, pij = 0.5, if i ̸= j, then we varie…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Watts-Strogatz topologies. Each topology has k = 4, u = 0.5. Left to right: topologies have n ∈ {8, 16, 33} nodes. Top to bottom: seeds ∈ {0, 1, 2}. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Barabási-Albert topologies. Each topology has n = 33 nodes. Left to right: topologies have preferential attachment parameter p ∈ {2, 1, 3}. Top to bottom: seeds ∈ {0, 1, 2}. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Impact of topology degree on aggregation strategy performance. Experiments performed across Barabási-Albert topologies with n = 33 nodes and p ∈ {1, 2, 3}. Higher p means higher degree. Results averaged across three seeds. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Impact of modularity on aggregation strategy performance. Experiments performed across Stochastic Block topologies with n = 33 nodes and three communities with varying levels of modularity. The probabilities of edges existing between communities mi to mj are pi,j : if…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Impact of topology node count on aggregation strategy performance. Experiments performed across Barabási-Albert topologies with p = 2, n ∈ {8, 16, 33, 64} nodes. Results averaged across three seeds. We exclude experiment for CIFAR100 on BA topologies w/ n = 64 due to …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Impact of topology node count on aggregation strategy performance. Experiments performed across WS topologies with k = 4, u = 0.5, and n ∈ {8, 16, 33, 64} nodes. Results averaged across three seeds. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Impact of topology degree, modularity, node count on aggregation strategy perfor￾mance. From left to right: we plot the impact of topology degree, modularity, and node count on the OOD test accuracy AUC. Higher is better (indicates higher propagation of OOD knowledge)…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Barabási-Albert vs. Watts-Strogatz degree distributions. Histograms show the relative degree distributions show the relative degree distributions of both the BA and WS. Both topologies have n = 33 nodes. BA has p = 1. WS has k = 4, u = 0.5. BA has a power-law degree d…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [74]

    Relaysum for decentralized deep learning on heterogeneous data

    Thijs V ogels, Lie He, Anastasiia Koloskova, Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Tao Lin, Sebastian U Stich, and Martin Jaggi. Relaysum for decentralized deep learning on heterogeneous data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:28004–28015, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Community detection and stochastic block models: recent developments

    Emmanuel Abbe. Community detection and stochastic block models: recent developments. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(177):1–86, 2018

    2018

  3. [2]

    Aurora at Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, 2025

    ALCF. Aurora at Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, 2025. URL https://www.alcf. anl.gov/aurora

    2025

  4. [3]

    The new science of networks.Cambridge MA

    Albert-László Barabási. The new science of networks.Cambridge MA. Perseus, 2002

    2002

  5. [4]

    Scale-free networks: a decade and beyond.science, 325(5939): 412–413, 2009

    Albert-László Barabási. Scale-free networks: a decade and beyond.science, 325(5939): 412–413, 2009

    2009

  6. [5]

    Emergence of scaling in random networks.science, 286(5439):509–512, 1999

    Albert-László Barabási and Réka Albert. Emergence of scaling in random networks.science, 286(5439):509–512, 1999

    1999

  7. [6]

    Decentralized federated learning: Fundamentals, state of the art, frameworks, trends, and challenges.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 25(4):2983–3013, 2023

    Enrique Tomás Martínez Beltrán, Mario Quiles Pérez, Pedro Miguel Sánchez Sánchez, Ser- gio López Bernal, Gérôme Bovet, Manuel Gil Pérez, Gregorio Martínez Pérez, and Alberto Huer- tas Celdrán. Decentralized federated learning: Fundamentals, state of the art, frameworks, trends, and challenges.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 25(4):2983–3013, 2023

    2023

  8. [7]

    How to estimate carbon footprint when training deep learning models? A guide and review.Environmental Research Communications, 5(11):115014, 2023

    Lucía Bouza, Aurélie Bugeau, and Loïc Lannelongue. How to estimate carbon footprint when training deep learning models? A guide and review.Environmental Research Communications, 5(11):115014, 2023

    2023

Show all 93 references
  1. [8]

    Federated learning with hierarchical cluster- ing of local updates to improve training on non-iid data

    Christopher Briggs, Zhong Fan, and Peter Andras. Federated learning with hierarchical cluster- ing of local updates to improve training on non-iid data. In2020 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), pages 1–9. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  2. [9]

    LEAF: A benchmark for federated settings

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

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Fedsoup: improving generalization and personalization in federated learning via selective model interpolation

    Minghui Chen, Meirui Jiang, Qi Dou, Zehua Wang, and Xiaoxiao Li. Fedsoup: improving generalization and personalization in federated learning via selective model interpolation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 318–...

    2023

  4. [11]

    Finding community structure in very large networks.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 70(6): 066111, 2004

    Aaron Clauset, Mark EJ Newman, and Cristopher Moore. Finding community structure in very large networks.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 70(6): 066111, 2004

    2004

  5. [12]

    Introducing Sage: Cyberinfrastructure for sensing at the edge

    Scott Collis, Pete Beckman, Eugene Kelly, Charles Catlett, Rajesh Sankaran, Ikay Altintas, Jim Olds, Nicola Ferrier, Seongha Park, Yongho Kim, et al. Introducing Sage: Cyberinfrastructure for sensing at the edge. InEGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, page 12320, 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Mitigating data heterogeneity in federated learning with data augmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.09979, 2022

    Artur Back de Luca, Guojun Zhang, Xi Chen, and Yaoliang Yu. Mitigating data heterogeneity in federated learning with data augmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.09979, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research [best of the web].IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29(6):141–142, 2012

    Li Deng. The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research [best of the web].IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29(6):141–142, 2012. doi: 10.1109/MSP.2012. 2211477

    2012 doi

  8. [15]

    URLhttps://app.electricitymaps.com/map

    ElectricityMaps, 2025. URLhttps://app.electricitymaps.com/map. 10

    2025

  9. [16]

    A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness.Sociometry, 1977

    LC Freeman. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness.Sociometry, 1977

    1977

  10. [17]

    De- centralized learning for wireless communications and networking

    Georgios B Giannakis, Qing Ling, Gonzalo Mateos, Ioannis D Schizas, and Hao Zhu. De- centralized learning for wireless communications and networking. InSplitting Methods in Communication, Imaging, Science, and Engineering, pages 461–497. Springer, 2017

    2017

  11. [18]

    Badnets: Identifying vulnerabilities in the machine learning model supply chain.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06733, 2017

    Tianyu Gu, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt, and Siddharth Garg. Badnets: Identifying vulnerabilities in the machine learning model supply chain.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06733, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Out-of-distribution general- ization of federated learning via implicit invariant relationships

    Yaming Guo, Kai Guo, Xiaofeng Cao, Tieru Wu, and Yi Chang. Out-of-distribution general- ization of federated learning via implicit invariant relationships. In Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett, editors, Proce...

    2023

  13. [20]

    Gossip learning as a decentralized alternative to federated learning

    István Heged˝ us, Gábor Danner, and Márk Jelasity. Gossip learning as a decentralized alternative to federated learning. InDistributed Applications and Interoperable Systems: 19th IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference, DAIS 2019, Held as Part of the 14th International Federated...

    2019

  14. [21]

    Using pre-training can improve model robustness and uncertainty

    Dan Hendrycks, Kimin Lee, and Mantas Mazeika. Using pre-training can improve model robustness and uncertainty. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 2712–2721. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  15. [22]

    Pretrained transformers improve out-of-distribution robustness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.06100, 2020

    Dan Hendrycks, Xiaoyuan Liu, Eric Wallace, Adam Dziedzic, Rishabh Krishnan, and Dawn Song. Pretrained transformers improve out-of-distribution robustness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.06100, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Stochastic blockmodels: First steps.Social networks, 5(2):109–137, 1983

    Paul W Holland, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey, and Samuel Leinhardt. Stochastic blockmodels: First steps.Social networks, 5(2):109–137, 1983

    1983

  17. [24]

    The non-IID data quagmire of decentralized machine learning

    Kevin Hsieh, Amar Phanishayee, Onur Mutlu, and Phillip Gibbons. The non-IID data quagmire of decentralized machine learning. In Hal Daumé III and Aarti Singh, editors,Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 ofProceedings of Machine Lear...

    2020

  18. [25]

    A framework for edge intelligent smart distribution grids via federated learning

    Nathaniel Hudson, Md Jakir Hossain, Minoo Hosseinzadeh, Hana Khamfroush, Mahshid Rahnamay-Naeini, and Nasir Ghani. A framework for edge intelligent smart distribution grids via federated learning. In2021 International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN),...

    2021

  19. [26]

    Smart edge- enabled traffic light control: Improving reward-communication trade-offs with federated re- inforcement learning

    Nathaniel Hudson, Pratham Oza, Hana Khamfroush, and Thidapat Chantem. Smart edge- enabled traffic light control: Improving reward-communication trade-offs with federated re- inforcement learning. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Smart Computing (SMART- COMP), pages 40–4...

    2022

  20. [27]

    A linear speedup analysis of distributed deep learning with sparse and quantized communication

    Peng Jiang and Gagan Agrawal. A linear speedup analysis of distributed deep learning with sparse and quantized communication. In S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, volu...

    2018

  21. [28]

    Advances and open problems in federated learning.Foundations and trends® in machine learning, 14(1–2):1–210, 2021

    Peter Kairouz, H Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aurélien Bellet, Mehdi Bennis, Ar- jun Nitin Bhagoji, Kallista Bonawitz, Zachary Charles, Graham Cormode, Rachel Cummings, et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning.Foundations and trends® in machine learning, 14(1...

    2021

  22. [29]

    Decentralized federated learning through proxy model sharing.Nature communications, 14(1): 2899, 2023

    Shivam Kalra, Junfeng Wen, Jesse C Cresswell, Maksims V olkovs, and Hamid R Tizhoosh. Decentralized federated learning through proxy model sharing.Nature communications, 14(1): 2899, 2023. 11

    2023

  23. [30]

    Efficient decentralized deep learning by dynamic model averaging

    Michael Kamp, Linara Adilova, Joachim Sicking, Fabian Hüger, Peter Schlicht, Tim Wirtz, and Stefan Wrobel. Efficient decentralized deep learning by dynamic model averaging. InMachine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2018, Dublin, Ir...

    2018

  24. [31]

    Reliable federated learning for mobile networks.IEEE Wireless Communications, 27(2):72–80, 2020

    Jiawen Kang, Zehui Xiong, Dusit Niyato, Yuze Zou, Yang Zhang, and Mohsen Guizani. Reliable federated learning for mobile networks.IEEE Wireless Communications, 27(2):72–80, 2020

    2020

  25. [32]

    Scaling laws for neural language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361, 2020

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

    2001 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Impact of network topology on the convergence of decentralized federated learning systems

    Hanna Kavalionak, Emanuele Carlini, Patrizio Dazzi, Luca Ferrucci, Matteo Mordacchini, and Massimo Coppola. Impact of network topology on the convergence of decentralized federated learning systems. In2021 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  27. [34]

    Decentralized stochastic optimization and gossip algorithms with compressed communication

    Anastasia Koloskova, Sebastian Stich, and Martin Jaggi. Decentralized stochastic optimization and gossip algorithms with compressed communication. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3478–3487. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  28. [35]

    Decentralized deep learning with arbitrary communication compression

    Anastasia Koloskova*, Tao Lin*, Sebastian U Stich, and Martin Jaggi. Decentralized deep learning with arbitrary communication compression. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=SkgGCkrKvH

    2020

  29. [36]

    A unified theory of decentralized sgd with changing topology and local updates

    Anastasia Koloskova, Nicolas Loizou, Sadra Boreiri, Martin Jaggi, and Sebastian Stich. A unified theory of decentralized sgd with changing topology and local updates. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5381–5393. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  30. [37]

    Consensus control for decentralized deep learning

    Lingjing Kong, Tao Lin, Anastasia Koloskova, Martin Jaggi, and Sebastian Stich. Consensus control for decentralized deep learning. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5686–5696. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  31. [38]

    One weird trick for parallelizing convolutional neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.5997, 2014

    Alex Krizhevsky. One weird trick for parallelizing convolutional neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.5997, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images.(2009), 2009

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

    2009

  33. [40]

    Fully decentralized federated learning

    Anusha Lalitha, Shubhanshu Shekhar, Tara Javidi, and Farinaz Koushanfar. Fully decentralized federated learning. InThird workshop on bayesian deep learning (NeurIPS), volume 2, 2018

    2018

  34. [41]

    A review of applications in federated learning

    Li Li, Yuxi Fan, Mike Tse, and Kuo-Yi Lin. A review of applications in federated learning. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 149:106854, 2020

    2020

  35. [42]

    A survey on federated learning systems: Vision, hype and reality for data privacy and protection

    Qinbin Li, Zeyi Wen, Zhaomin Wu, Sixu Hu, Naibo Wang, Yuan Li, Xu Liu, and Bingsheng He. A survey on federated learning systems: Vision, hype and reality for data privacy and protection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(4):3347–3366, 2021

    2021

  36. [43]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks.Proceedings of Machine learning and systems, 2:429–450, 2020

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

    2020

  37. [44]

    Xiangru Lian, Ce Zhang, Huan Zhang, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Wei Zhang, and Ji Liu. Can decentralized algorithms outperform centralized algorithms? a case study for decentralized parallel stochastic gradient descent.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  38. [45]

    Asynchronous decentralized parallel stochastic gradient descent

    Xiangru Lian, Wei Zhang, Ce Zhang, and Ji Liu. Asynchronous decentralized parallel stochastic gradient descent. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3043–3052. PMLR, 2018. 12

    2018

  39. [46]

    Zhuotao Lian, Qinglin Yang, Weizheng Wang, Qingkui Zeng, Mamoun Alazab, Hong Zhao, and Chunhua Su. Deep-fel: Decentralized, efficient and privacy-enhanced federated edge learning for healthcare cyber physical systems.IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, 9(5):3...

    2022

  40. [47]

    Wei Yang Bryan Lim, Jer Shyuan Ng, Zehui Xiong, Jiangming Jin, Yang Zhang, Dusit Niy- ato, Cyril Leung, and Chunyan Miao. Decentralized edge intelligence: A dynamic resource allocation framework for hierarchical federated learning.IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed ...

    2021

  41. [48]

    Towards out-of-distribution generalization: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.13624, 2021

    Jiashuo Liu, Zheyan Shen, Yue He, Xingxuan Zhang, Renzhe Xu, Han Yu, and Peng Cui. Towards out-of-distribution generalization: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.13624, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Client-edge-cloud hierarchical federated learning

    Lumin Liu, Jun Zhang, SH Song, and Khaled B Letaief. Client-edge-cloud hierarchical federated learning. InICC 2020-2020 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  43. [50]

    Edgeslice: Slicing wireless edge computing network with decentralized deep reinforcement learning

    Qiang Liu, Tao Han, and Ephraim Moges. Edgeslice: Slicing wireless edge computing network with decentralized deep reinforcement learning. In2020 IEEE 40th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pages 234–244. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  44. [51]

    Optimal complexity in decentralized training

    Yucheng Lu and Christopher De Sa. Optimal complexity in decentralized training. InInterna- tional conference on machine learning, pages 7111–7123. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  45. [52]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

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

    2017

  46. [53]

    Centrality-aware gossiping for distributed learning in wireless sensor networks

    Joannes Sam Mertens, Laura Galluccio, and Giacomo Morabito. Centrality-aware gossiping for distributed learning in wireless sensor networks. In2022 IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  47. [54]

    Edge intelli- gence in smart grids: A survey on architectures, offloading models, cyber security measures, and challenges.Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, 11(3):47, 2022

    Daisy Nkele Molokomme, Adeiza James Onumanyi, and Adnan M Abu-Mahfouz. Edge intelli- gence in smart grids: A survey on architectures, offloading models, cyber security measures, and challenges.Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, 11(3):47, 2022

    2022

  48. [55]

    A survey on security and privacy of federated learning.Future Generation Computer Systems, 115:619–640, 2021

    Viraaji Mothukuri, Reza M Parizi, Seyedamin Pouriyeh, Yan Huang, Ali Dehghantanha, and Gautam Srivastava. A survey on security and privacy of federated learning.Future Generation Computer Systems, 115:619–640, 2021

    2021

  49. [56]

    Equivalence between modularity optimization and maximum likelihood methods for community detection.Physical Review E, 94(5):052315, 2016

    Mark EJ Newman. Equivalence between modularity optimization and maximum likelihood methods for community detection.Physical Review E, 94(5):052315, 2016

    2016

  50. [57]

    Federated learning for internet of things: A comprehensive survey.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 23(3):1622–1658, 2021

    Dinh C Nguyen, Ming Ding, Pubudu N Pathirana, Aruna Seneviratne, Jun Li, and H Vincent Poor. Federated learning for internet of things: A comprehensive survey.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 23(3):1622–1658, 2021

    2021

  51. [58]

    Seog-Chan Oh, Dongwon Lee, and Soundar R.T. Kumara. Effective web service composition in diverse and large-scale service networks.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 1(1): 15–32, 2008. doi: 10.1109/TSC.2008.1

    2008 doi

  52. [59]

    Multivariate beta distributions and independence properties of the wishart distribution.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pages 261–269, 1964

    Ingram Olkin and Herman Rubin. Multivariate beta distributions and independence properties of the wishart distribution.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pages 261–269, 1964

    1964

  53. [60]

    The effect of network topologies on fully decentralized learning: a preliminary investigation

    Luigi Palmieri, Lorenzo Valerio, Chiara Boldrini, and Andrea Passarella. The effect of network topologies on fully decentralized learning: a preliminary investigation. InProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Networked AI Systems, pages 1–6, 2023

    2023

  54. [61]

    Impact of network topology on the performance of decentralized federated learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18606, 2024

    Luigi Palmieri, Chiara Boldrini, Lorenzo Valerio, Andrea Passarella, and Marco Conti. Impact of network topology on the performance of decentralized federated learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18606, 2024. 13

    2024 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Rethinking architecture design for tackling data heterogeneity in federated learning

    Liangqiong Qu, Yuyin Zhou, Paul Pu Liang, Yingda Xia, Feifei Wang, Ehsan Adeli, Li Fei- Fei, and Daniel Rubin. Rethinking architecture design for tackling data heterogeneity in federated learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognit...

    2022

  56. [63]

    Language models are unsupervised multitask learners.OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners.OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019

    2019

  57. [64]

    Citation networks.Models of science dynamics: Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences, pages 233–257, 2011

    Filippo Radicchi, Santo Fortunato, and Alessandro Vespignani. Citation networks.Models of science dynamics: Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences, pages 233–257, 2011

    2011

  58. [65]

    Homogenizing non-iid datasets via in-distribution knowledge distillation for decentralized learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04326, 2023

    Deepak Ravikumar, Gobinda Saha, Sai Aparna Aketi, and Kaushik Roy. Homogenizing non-iid datasets via in-distribution knowledge distillation for decentralized learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04326, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Braintorrent: A peer-to-peer environment for decentralized federated learning, 2019

    Abhijit Guha Roy, Shayan Siddiqui, Sebastian Pölsterl, Nassir Navab, and Christian Wachinger. Braintorrent: A peer-to-peer environment for decentralized federated learning, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.06731

    2019 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Moshpit sgd: Communication-efficient decentralized training on heterogeneous unreliable devices

    Max Ryabinin, Eduard Gorbunov, Vsevolod Plokhotnyuk, and Gennady Pekhimenko. Moshpit sgd: Communication-efficient decentralized training on heterogeneous unreliable devices. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:18195–18211, 2021

    2021

  61. [68]

    Mitigating memorization in language models

    Mansi Sakarvadia, Aswathy Ajith, Arham Khan, Nathaniel Hudson, Caleb Geniesse, Kyle Chard, Yaoqing Yang, Ian Foster, and Michael Mahoney. Mitigating memorization in language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https:// openreview.net/forum...

    2025

  62. [69]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition.arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition.arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  63. [70]

    On generalization of decentralized learning with separable data

    Hossein Taheri and Christos Thrampoulidis. On generalization of decentralized learning with separable data. In Francisco Ruiz, Jennifer Dy, and Jan-Willem van de Meent, editors, Proceedings of The 26th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume ...

    2023

  64. [71]

    Decentralized federated learning for healthcare networks: A case study on tumor segmentation.IEEE access, 10:8693–8708, 2022

    Bernardo Camajori Tedeschini, Stefano Savazzi, Roman Stoklasa, Luca Barbieri, Ioannis Stathopoulos, Monica Nicoli, and Luigi Serio. Decentralized federated learning for healthcare networks: A case study on tumor segmentation.IEEE access, 10:8693–8708, 2022

    2022

  65. [72]

    Evading the simplicity bias: Training a diverse set of models discovers solutions with superior ood general- ization

    Damien Teney, Ehsan Abbasnejad, Simon Lucey, and Anton Van den Hengel. Evading the simplicity bias: Training a diverse set of models discovers solutions with superior ood general- ization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pag...

    2022

  66. [73]

    A hybrid approach to privacy-preserving federated learning

    Stacey Truex, Nathalie Baracaldo, Ali Anwar, Thomas Steinke, Heiko Ludwig, Rui Zhang, and Yi Zhou. A hybrid approach to privacy-preserving federated learning. InProceedings of the 12th ACM workshop on artificial intelligence and security, pages 1–11, 2019

    2019

  67. [75]

    Beyond spectral gap: The role of the topology in decentralized learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 15039–15050, 2022

    Thijs V ogels, Hadrien Hendrikx, and Martin Jaggi. Beyond spectral gap: The role of the topology in decentralized learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 15039–15050, 2022

    2022

  68. [76]

    Cooperative sgd: A unified framework for the design and analysis of local-update sgd algorithms.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(213):1–50, 2021

    Jianyu Wang and Gauri Joshi. Cooperative sgd: A unified framework for the design and analysis of local-update sgd algorithms.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(213):1–50, 2021. URLhttp://jmlr.org/papers/v22/20-147.html. 14

    2021

  69. [77]

    Adaptive federated learning in resource constrained edge computing systems

    Shiqiang Wang, Tiffany Tuor, Theodoros Salonidis, Kin K Leung, Christian Makaya, Ting He, and Kevin Chan. Adaptive federated learning in resource constrained edge computing systems. IEEE journal on selected areas in communications, 37(6):1205–1221, 2019

    2019

  70. [78]

    Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks.nature, 393(6684):440–442, 1998

    Duncan J Watts and Steven H Strogatz. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks.nature, 393(6684):440–442, 1998

    1998

  71. [79]

    A sur- vey on federated learning: challenges and applications.International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 14(2):513–535, November 2022

    Jie Wen, Zhixia Zhang, Yang Lan, Zhihua Cui, Jianghui Cai, and Wensheng Zhang. A sur- vey on federated learning: challenges and applications.International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 14(2):513–535, November 2022. ISSN 1868-808X. doi: 10.1007/ s13042-022-01647-...

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    CKN: An edge AI distributed framework

    Sachith Withana and Beth Plale. CKN: An edge AI distributed framework. In2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on e-Science (e-Science), pages 1–10. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  73. [81]

    Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

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

    2017 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Towards a theoretical framework of out-of-distribution generalization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:23519–23531, 2021

    Haotian Ye, Chuanlong Xie, Tianle Cai, Ruichen Li, Zhenguo Li, and Liwei Wang. Towards a theoretical framework of out-of-distribution generalization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:23519–23531, 2021

    2021

  75. [83]

    Heterogeneous federated learning: State-of-the-art and research challenges.ACM Computing Surveys, 56(3):1–44, 2023

    Mang Ye, Xiuwen Fang, Bo Du, Pong C Yuen, and Dacheng Tao. Heterogeneous federated learning: State-of-the-art and research challenges.ACM Computing Surveys, 56(3):1–44, 2023

    2023

  76. [84]

    On the linear speedup analysis of communication efficient mo- mentum sgd for distributed non-convex optimization

    Hao Yu, Rong Jin, and Sen Yang. On the linear speedup analysis of communication efficient mo- mentum sgd for distributed non-convex optimization. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2019. URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:150373664

    2019

  77. [85]

    Parallel restarted sgd with faster convergence and less communication: demystifying why model averaging works for deep learning

    Hao Yu, Sen Yang, and Shenghuo Zhu. Parallel restarted sgd with faster convergence and less communication: demystifying why model averaging works for deep learning. InProceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-First Innovative Applica...

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    A survey on federated learning.Knowledge-Based Systems, 216:106775, 2021

    Chen Zhang, Yu Xie, Hang Bai, Bin Yu, Weihong Li, and Yuan Gao. A survey on federated learning.Knowledge-Based Systems, 216:106775, 2021

    2021

  79. [87]

    Edge computing and networking: A survey on infrastructures and applications.IEEE Access, 7: 101213–101230, 2019

    Yongli Zhao, Wei Wang, Yajie Li, Carlos Colman Meixner, Massimo Tornatore, and Jie Zhang. Edge computing and networking: A survey on infrastructures and applications.IEEE Access, 7: 101213–101230, 2019. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2927538

    2019

  80. [88]

    Federated learning in heterogeneous networks with unreliable communication.IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 23(4):3823–3838, 2023

    Paul Zheng, Yao Zhu, Yulin Hu, Zhengming Zhang, and Anke Schmeink. Federated learning in heterogeneous networks with unreliable communication.IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 23(4):3823–3838, 2023

    2023

  81. [89]

    Robust decentralized stochastic gradient descent over unstable networks.Computer Communi- cations, 203:163–179, 2023

    Yanwei Zheng, Liangxu Zhang, Shuzhen Chen, Xiao Zhang, Zhipeng Cai, and Xiuzhen Cheng. Robust decentralized stochastic gradient descent over unstable networks.Computer Communi- cations, 203:163–179, 2023

    2023

  82. [90]

    Privacy- preserving federated learning in fog computing.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(11): 10782–10793, 2020

    Chunyi Zhou, Anmin Fu, Shui Yu, Wei Yang, Huaqun Wang, and Yuqing Zhang. Privacy- preserving federated learning in fog computing.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(11): 10782–10793, 2020

    2020

  83. [91]

    DRLE: Decentralized reinforcement learning at the edge for traffic light control in the IoV.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 22(4):2262–2273, 2020

    Pengyuan Zhou, Xianfu Chen, Zhi Liu, Tristan Braud, Pan Hui, and Jussi Kangasharju. DRLE: Decentralized reinforcement learning at the edge for traffic light control in the IoV.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 22(4):2262–2273, 2020

    2020

  84. [92]

    Decentralized p2p federated learning for privacy-preserving and resilient mobile robotic systems.IEEE Wireless Communications, 30(2):82–89, 2023

    Xiaokang Zhou, Wei Liang, I Kevin, Kai Wang, Zheng Yan, Laurence T Yang, Wei Wei, Jianhua Ma, and Qun Jin. Decentralized p2p federated learning for privacy-preserving and resilient mobile robotic systems.IEEE Wireless Communications, 30(2):82–89, 2023. 15

    2023

  85. [93]

    popularity

    Zhi Zhou, Xu Chen, En Li, Liekang Zeng, Ke Luo, and Junshan Zhang. Edge intelligence: Paving the last mile of artificial intelligence with edge computing.Proceedings of the IEEE, 107(8):1738–1762, 2019. A Appendix / Supplemental Material B Experiment Setup We conduct experimen...

    2019

Pith tools

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