FedRIR: Rethinking Information Representation in Federated Learning

Yi Zhang; Yongqiang Huang; Zerui Shao; Zexin Lu; Ziyuan Yang

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 51 references

FedRIR: Rethinking Information Representation in Federated Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FedRIR claims that masked client-specific learning plus mutual-information distillation lets a federated model improve global generalization and local personalization at the same time.

desk verdict FedRIR is a solid, incremental pFL paper with extensive experiments and a plausible but not rigorously grounded information-theoretic story; the empirical method works, but the vCLUB justification needs rework. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00859 v2 pith:LMS5XHCU submitted 2025-02-02 cs.LG cs.DC

Yongqiang Huang , Zerui Shao , Ziyuan Yang , Zexin Lu , Yi Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.DC

keywords FederatedLearningPersonalizedInformationRepresentationDistillationMaskedMutualStatisticalHeterogeneityvCLUB

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 learning under heterogeneous client data has traditionally forced a choice between building one well-generalized global model and giving each client a personalized model. FedRIR argues this trade-off is not necessary: a client can maintain both a client-specific feature extractor, trained with masked reconstruction, and a global feature extractor, purified by minimizing its mutual information with the client-specific features. The paper reports that combining the two feature sets for classification improves accuracy by up to 3.93 percentage points over prior methods across pathological, practical, and real-world heterogeneity, while keeping communication cost comparable to FedAvg. If correct, the method offers a concrete recipe for simultaneously improving personalization and generalization without extra communication overhead.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage feature separation: in the MCSL stage, a masked autoencoder (a VAE turned into a denoising autoencoder by random masking) extracts client-specific features $f_{cs}^i$ via reconstruction loss $\|G^i(F^i_{cs}(x^i_{masked})) - x^i\|^2$. In the ID stage, an Information Distillation Module implements the variational CLUB upper bound, a contrastive log-ratio upper bound on mutual information estimated by a jointly trained neural network $q_\theta(f_g|f_{cs}^i)$, and minimizes it, so the global features $f_g$ are cleaned of information already carried by the client-specific branch. The classification head consumes the concatenated features. This machinery is what, in the paper's argument, lets the global aggregate become more general and the local representation stay personalized.

What would settle it

Train FedRIR on a synthetic dataset where the client-specific features are the only signal for a second classification task while the global features carry the original labels; if the IDM penalty reduces true redundancy, the global-only classifier's accuracy should be unaffected, but if the penalty discards shared discriminative information, the global classifier's accuracy should drop. A more direct check is to estimate the true mutual information $I(f_{cs}; f_g)$ by histogram on a held-out set and compare FedRIR with and without IDM; if the true MI does not decrease even as the vCLUB penalty is minimized, the mechanism claimed for IDM is not what drives the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that separating representation into a client-specific branch and a global branch, then actively de-correlating the two, lets personalized federated learning improve both objectives at once. Masked Client-Specific Learning (MCSL) treats each client's data as the input to a denoising autoencoder: random masking forces the client-specific extractor $F^i_{cs}$ to encode the client's idiosyncratic structure rather than copying the input. The Information Distillation Module (IDM) then minimizes the vCLUB upper bound of the mutual information $I(f_{cs}^i; f_g)$ between the frozen client-specific features and the global features, pushing the global extractor $F_g$ to drop client-specific redundancy. The personalized representation is the concatenation $[f_{cs}^i, f_g]$, classified by a client-specific head. The paper argues this yields a purer global model whose server-side aggregation generalizes better, while the client-specific branch retains the local nuances needed for personalization.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method relies on the assumption that minimizing the vCLUB upper bound of the mutual information between client-specific and global features really removes redundant client-specific information from the global features, and that this does not also discard shared class-discriminative information.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If FedRIR is correct, a single personalized federated learning algorithm can beat the state of the art on both global generalization and local personalization, so future pFL designs need not treat the two as a zero-sum trade-off.
The recipe of mask-then-purify is transferable: any split of representation into private and shared components could benefit from an explicit mutual-information penalty between the branches.
Because FedRIR transmits only the global feature extractor, like FedAvg, its accuracy gains come without extra communication overhead, making the approach practical on bandwidth-limited edge devices.
The performance gap over baselines widens as the number of clients grows (from +4.01 points at 10 clients to +5.73 at 100), suggesting the benefit increases with federated scale and fragmentation.
In real-world domain-shift settings (OfficeCaltech10, DomainNet), FedRIR improves accuracy by 3.57 and 2.90 points over best baselines, indicating usefulness when client data come from different acquisition conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not analyze where the information bound is loose; a natural extension is to measure the true $I(f_{cs};f_g)$ and check whether vCLUB minimization actually reduces it, or whether the gain comes from a regularizing side effect.
The masking-ratio tuning at $r=0.6$ is dataset-dependent; an adaptive masking schedule or masking in feature space rather than input space could make the method more robust across clients with different data volumes, a testable variant the paper does not explore.
The same feature-separation architecture might transfer to non-federated multi-domain settings, e.g., domain generalization, where a shared encoder and per-domain private encoders are trained with the same de-correlation penalty.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Three things to know. First, the architecture is genuinely new for pFL: a masked client-specific autoencoder (MCSL) plus a vCLUB mutual-information penalty (IDM) to separate global and personalized features. Each ingredient is borrowed, but the combination is not in the cited literature. Second, the experiments are unusually thorough for a conference paper: eleven baselines, pathological/practical/real-world settings, scalability to 100 clients, client dropout, ablations, and t-SNE. The gains are consistent and the communication cost stays essentially equal to FedAvg. Third, the theory is the weakest part: the vCLUB upper bound in Eq. (7) assumes q_theta approximates the true conditional p(f_g|f_cs), but the training objective in Algorithm 1 just minimizes L_id = I_vCLUB jointly with the feature extractor. That does not enforce the approximation, so the bound can be invalid and the claim that IDM provably purifies global features is unsupported. The stress-test note has this right. But this is not fatal: the empirical results stand on their own, and the IDM ablation shows a consistent gain except on OfficeCaltech10, where it slightly hurts. The extra network and loss could be acting as a regularizer; the paper never rules that out. Other soft spots in proportion. Eq. (10) omits the reconstruction loss L_recon that Algorithm 1 optimizes; that is a one-line fix. The mask ratio r=0.6 is selected after seeing test accuracy on the benchmark datasets, which is mild circularity. Several standard deviations are exactly zero across three seeds (e.g., FedRIR 97.51 plus or minus 0.00, FedBABU 98.92 plus or minus 0.00, FedALA 95.56 plus or minus 0.00), which is suspicious and deserves a footnote. The PDF contains a corrupted section with /uni000000 tokens in the hyperparameter and t-SNE figures; likely a rendering bug, but it makes verification harder. The citation pattern is honest, and the code is linked. This is a practical pFL method that people in the field would want to know about. It deserves a serious referee, but a referee should push on the MI claim and ask for a comparison where q_theta is trained first to maximize conditional likelihood and then frozen before applying the vCLUB penalty. I would send it to review with a request for revision, not reject it. If the authors reposition IDM as an empirical regularizer instead of a guaranteed information bottleneck, the paper is essentially sound.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FedRIR, a personalized federated learning method that decomposes learned representations into client-specific features, obtained by a masked denoising autoencoder (MCSL), and global features, purified by an Information Distillation Module (IDM) that penalizes a vCLUB estimate of mutual information between the two feature sets. The features are concatenated and classified by a local head; only the global extractor is communicated and aggregated with FedAvg-style weighting. The authors report accuracy improvements over eleven baselines on pathological, practical, and real-world heterogeneity benchmarks, plus scalability, stability under client dropout, and communication cost comparisons.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, FedRIR offers a simple and communication-efficient way to improve both personalized and global representations simultaneously, which would be a useful result for personalized federated learning. The paper's strengths include extensive benchmarking with 11 methods, ablations of both modules, a mask-ratio ablation, scalability up to 100 clients, stability under random participation, and released code; the paper reports means and standard deviations over three runs. The main weaknesses are theoretical and methodological: the vCLUB bound used in IDM is not guaranteed to hold under the training procedure, the global generalization claim is not supported by a direct global-model evaluation, and the mask ratio and loss weights are selected on the same evaluation benchmarks, which makes the magnitude of the claimed gains partly a product of test-set tuning.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.3, Eq. (7), Algorithm 1 step 10] The vCLUB inequality I_vCLUB >= I(f_cs; f_g) holds only when q_theta is a valid conditional distribution that equals or closely approximates p(f_g|f_cs). Training q_theta by minimizing L_id jointly with F_g and H_i does not enforce this condition, so the paper's claim that minimizing L_id reduces the true mutual information is not established. The authors should report estimates of I(f_cs; f_g) before and after training and check the bound's tightness, or explicitly reframe IDM as a heuristic regularizer. As written, the 'purer global representation' story is unsupported, and the IDM ablation gain in Table 5 could be a regularization effect.
[Eq. (10) versus Algorithm 1] Eq. (10) defines the overall loss at client i as L_id + L_cls, but Algorithm 1 step 7 explicitly optimizes F_cs and G_i by minimizing L_recon. This makes the reported total loss incomplete and inconsistent with the algorithm. Please correct Eq. (10) or clarify that L_recon is optimized in a separate MCSL stage and is not part of the combined loss in Eq. (10).
[Section 4.4.1 and Table 1] The paper claims FedRIR simultaneously enhances global generalization and local personalization, but Table 1 reports only the accuracy of the personalized model. Comparing this number against FedAvg's global-model accuracy is apples-to-oranges, since FedAvg does not use personalized heads. The t-SNE visualizations in Figure 3 are qualitative and do not quantify global feature quality. To support the global-generalization claim, the authors should report a direct evaluation of the aggregated global extractor (e.g., the global model's accuracy on a server-side or fixed-head test set) for all methods.
[Section 4.7.1, Figure 4, Eq. (10)] The mask ratio r=0.6 is selected via a hyperparameter sweep on the same datasets (Cifar10, Cifar100, OfficeCaltech10, etc.) that are later used for the main comparisons in Table 1, and the loss balance weights in Eq. (10) are set to 1 with no sensitivity analysis. This means the reported gains include the effect of fitting two hyperparameters to the evaluation benchmarks. A nested validation split or a sensitivity analysis with training-only selection would be needed to rule out circularity; the statement that r=0.6 is universally optimal is stronger than the evidence supports.

minor comments (7)

[Abstract] The phrase 'without transfer private data' should read 'without transferring private data'.
[Section 4.4.1 heading] The heading 'Global Generization Effectiveness' contains a typo; it should be 'Global Generalization Effectiveness'.
[Section 3.3, Eq. (7)] The term 'Variational Constrastive Log-ratio Upper Bound' contains a typo; it should be 'Variational Contrastive Log-ratio Upper Bound'.
[Algorithm 1] Step 8 freezes F_cs, but the status of G_i during the information distillation stage is not stated; please clarify whether G_i is also frozen or simply unused.
[Figure 4] The caption and axis labels of Figure 4 appear as corrupted Unicode glyph sequences in the manuscript, making the mask-ratio hyperparameter analysis difficult to read; this should be fixed in the camera-ready version.
[Table 1, 'Δ SOTA' row] The 'Δ SOTA' row is not defined; please clarify that it denotes the improvement of FedRIR over the best baseline in each column.
[Section 3.1.1] The terms 'Information Distillation Model' and 'Information Distillation Module' are used interchangeably; please standardize the terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: FedRIR's MCSL and IDM are implemented variational objectives, and the reported gains rest on empirical comparisons rather than on equations that assume the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. MCSL justifies client-specific features through the Barber-Agakov lower bound and a masked reconstruction loss (Eqs. 2-5), and IDM uses the vCLUB bound from Cheng et al. (Eqs. 6-8) to penalize redundancy between f_cs and f_g. Neither objective is defined in terms of the claimed accuracy or communication benefits, and the paper contains no self-citations carrying a load-bearing premise. The concerns raised by the skeptic (the vCLUB inequality requires q_theta to approximate p(f_g|f_cs), and the mask ratio r is selected after inspecting test-set results) are validity and test-set-selection concerns, not cases where a prediction reduces to its input by construction. Table 5 ablates MCSL and ID independently against external baselines, so the central empirical claim is self-contained and falsifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism relies on two heuristics beyond standard learning assumptions: masked reconstruction isolates client-specific features, and minimizing the vCLUB bound of I(f_cs; f_g) purifies global features. Both are validated only by ablation, not by theory. The mask ratio is a free parameter tuned on the evaluation benchmarks.

free parameters (2)

Mask ratio r = 0.6
Selected via hyperparameter sweep on the same datasets used for final results (Section 4.7.1, Figure 4); part of the reported gain is tuned to the test distribution.
Loss balance weights = 1 for L_id and L_cls; implicit for L_recon
Set to 1 by hand (Section 3.3). The reconstruction loss L_recon is optimized in Algorithm 1 but omitted from the stated total loss Eq. (10), so its effective weight is unspecified.

assumptions (4)

standard math Barber-Agakov bound and vCLUB upper bound are valid variational bounds for mutual information.
Used in Eq. (3) and Eq. (7) to derive the tractable objectives; standard results from Barber & Agakov (2004) and Cheng et al. (2020).
ad hoc to paper Masking the input and reconstructing with a denoising autoencoder yields meaningful client-specific features rather than trivial copying.
Section 3.2; heuristic imported from MAE/DAE literature (He et al. 2022, Vincent et al. 2010), assumed to transfer to the federated setting.
ad hoc to paper Minimizing the vCLUB estimate of I(f_cs; f_g) produces a global representation that generalizes better after FedAvg aggregation.
Section 3.3; core assumption of the Information Distillation Module, supported only by ablation and t-SNE, no theoretical guarantee.
domain assumption A single shared global feature extractor can be aggregated across clients while client-specific extractors and heads remain local.
Standard model-splitting assumption in pFL (FedRep, FedPer, FedCP); inherited without re-derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FedRIR: Rethinking Information Representation in Federated Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LMS5XHCU

@misc{pith2026250200859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FedRIR: Rethinking Information Representation in Federated Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LMS5XHCU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00859}
}

read the original abstract

Mobile and Web-of-Things (WoT) devices at the network edge generate vast amounts of data for machine learning applications, yet privacy concerns hinder centralized model training. Federated Learning (FL) allows clients (devices) to collaboratively train a shared model coordinated by a central server without transfer private data, but inherent statistical heterogeneity among clients presents challenges, often leading to a dilemma between clients' needs for personalized local models and the server's goal of building a generalized global model. Existing FL methods typically prioritize either global generalization or local personalization, resulting in a trade-off between these two objectives and limiting the full potential of diverse client data. To address this challenge, we propose a novel framework that simultaneously enhances global generalization and local personalization by Rethinking Information Representation in the Federated learning process (FedRIR). Specifically, we introduce Masked Client-Specific Learning (MCSL), which isolates and extracts fine-grained client-specific features tailored to each client's unique data characteristics, thereby enhancing personalization. Concurrently, the Information Distillation Module (IDM) refines the global shared features by filtering out redundant client-specific information, resulting in a purer and more robust global representation that enhances generalization. By integrating the refined global features with the isolated client-specific features, we construct enriched representations that effectively capture both global patterns and local nuances, thereby improving the performance of downstream tasks on the client. The code is available at https://github.com/Deep-Imaging-Group/FedRIR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00859 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The data distribution on FMNIST and Cifar10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** t-SNE visualization of global features extracted by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The impact of different mask ratios on the perfor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: t-SNE visualization of client-specific features ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

Manoj Ghuhan Arivazhagan, Vinay Aggarwal, Aaditya Kumar Singh, and Sunav Choudhary. 2019. Federated learning with personalization layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00818 (2019)

arXiv 2019
[2]

David Barber and Felix Agakov. 2004. The im algorithm: a variational approach to information maximization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 16, 320 (2004), 201

work page 2004
[3]

Mohamed Ishmael Belghazi, Aristide Baratin, Sai Rajeshwar, Sherjil Ozair, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Devon Hjelm. 2018. Mutual information neural estimation. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 531–540

work page 2018
[4]

Qi Chang, Hui Qu, Yikai Zhang, Mert Sabuncu, Chao Chen, Tong Zhang, and Dimitris N Metaxas. 2020. Synthetic learning: Learn from distributed asynchro- nized discriminator gan without sharing medical image data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 13856–13866

work page 2020
[5]

Hong-You Chen and Wei-Lun Chao. 2021. On bridging generic and personalized federated learning for image classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00778 (2021)

arXiv 2021
[6]

Pengyu Cheng, Weituo Hao, Shuyang Dai, Jiachang Liu, Zhe Gan, and Lawrence Carin. 2020. Club: A contrastive log-ratio upper bound of mutual information. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 1779–1788

work page 2020
[7]

Liam Collins, Hamed Hassani, Aryan Mokhtari, and Sanjay Shakkottai. 2021. Exploiting Shared Representations for Personalized Federated Learning. In Pro- ceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 139) , Marina Meila and Tong Zhang (Eds.). PMLR, 2089–2099. https://proceedings.mlr.press/...

work page 2021
[8]

Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, 248–255

work page 2009

Show all 51 references

[9]

Ruijun Deng, Xin Du, Zhihui Lu, Qiang Duan, Shih-Chia Huang, and Jie Wu
[10]

Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[11]

Sanket S Dhruva, Joseph S Ross, Joseph G Akar, Brittany Caldwell, Karla Childers, Wing Chow, Laura Ciaccio, Paul Coplan, Jun Dong, Hayley J Dykhoff, et al. 2020. Aggregating multiple real-world data sources using a patient-centered health- data-sharing platform. NPJ digital me...

2020
[12]

Kaijian Ding, Xiang Feng, and Huiqun Yu. 2024. To be global or personalized: Gen- eralized federated learning with cooperative adaptation for data heterogeneity. Knowledge-Based Systems 301 (2024), 112317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys. 2024.112317

2024
[13]

Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xi- aohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv prepri...

2020 arXiv
[14]

Alireza Fallah, Aryan Mokhtari, and Asuman Ozdaglar. 2020. Personalized Fed- erated Learning with Theoretical Guarantees: A Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning Approach. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. ...

2020
[15]

Yuxin Fang, Wen Wang, Binhui Xie, Quan Sun, Ledell Wu, Xinggang Wang, Tiejun Huang, Xinlong Wang, and Yue Cao. 2023. Eva: Exploring the limits of masked visual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

2023
[16]

Muhammad Ghifary, David Balduzzi, W Bastiaan Kleijn, and Mengjie Zhang
[17]

Hao Guan, Pew-Thian Yap, Andrea Bozoki, and Mingxia Liu. 2024. Federated learning for medical image analysis: A survey.Pattern Recognition (2024), 110424

2024
[18]

Filip Hanzely, Slavomír Hanzely, Samuel Horváth, and Peter Richtárik. 2020. Lower bounds and optimal algorithms for personalized federated learning. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 2304–2315

2020
[19]

Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick
[20]

Yutao Huang, Lingyang Chu, Zirui Zhou, Lanjun Wang, Jiangchuan Liu, Jian Pei, and Yong Zhang. 2021. Personalized cross-silo federated learning on non-iid data. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35. 7865–7873

2021
[21]

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

2020 arXiv
[22]

Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. 2013. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013)

2013 arXiv
[23]

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

2009
[24]

Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. 1998. Gradient- based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE 86, 11 (1998), 2278– 2324

1998
[25]

Jintang Li, Ruofan Wu, Wangbin Sun, Liang Chen, Sheng Tian, Liang Zhu, Changhua Meng, Zibin Zheng, and Weiqiang Wang. 2023. What’s Behind the Mask: Understanding Masked Graph Modeling for Graph Autoencoders. In Pro- ceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Disco...

2023
[26]

Qinbin Li, Bingsheng He, and Dawn Song. 2021. Model-contrastive federated learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 10713–10722

2021
[27]

Tian Li, Shengyuan Hu, Ahmad Beirami, and Virginia Smith. 2021. Ditto: Fair and Robust Federated Learning Through Personalization. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 139) , Marina Meila and To...

2021
[28]

Tian Li, Anit Kumar Sahu, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. 2020. Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 37, 3 (2020), 50–60

2020
[29]

Mi Luo, Fei Chen, Dapeng Hu, Yifan Zhang, Jian Liang, and Jiashi Feng. 2021. No fear of heterogeneity: Classifier calibration for federated learning with non-iid data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 5972–5984

2021
[30]

Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep net- works from decentralized data. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . PMLR, 1273–1282

2017
[31]

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

2021
[32]

Daisuke Niizumi, Daiki Takeuchi, Yasunori Ohishi, Noboru Harada, and Kunio Kashino. 2022. Masked spectrogram modeling using masked autoencoders for learning general-purpose audio representation. In HEAR: Holistic Evaluation of Audio Representations. PMLR, 1–24. WWW ’25, April ...

2022
[33]

Jaehoon Oh, SangMook Kim, and Se-Young Yun. 2022. FedBABU: Toward Enhanced Representation for Federated Image Classification. In International Conference on Learning Representations . https://openreview.net/forum?id= HuaYQfggn5u

2022
[34]

Xingchao Peng, Qinxun Bai, Xide Xia, Zijun Huang, Kate Saenko, and Bo Wang
[35]

Canh T Dinh, Nguyen Tran, and Josh Nguyen. 2020. Personalized federated learning with moreau envelopes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 21394–21405

2020
[36]

Yue Tan, Guodong Long, Lu Liu, Tianyi Zhou, Qinghua Lu, Jing Jiang, and Chengqi Zhang. 2022. Fedproto: Federated prototype learning across hetero- geneous clients. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 36. 8432–8440

2022
[37]

Pascal Vincent, Hugo Larochelle, Isabelle Lajoie, Yoshua Bengio, Pierre-Antoine Manzagol, and Léon Bottou. 2010. Stacked denoising autoencoders: Learning useful representations in a deep network with a local denoising criterion.Journal of Machine Learning Research 11, 12 (2010)

2010
[38]

Haozhao Wang, Yabo Jia, Meng Zhang, Qinghao Hu, Hao Ren, Peng Sun, Yong- gang Wen, and Tianwei Zhang. 2024. FedDSE: Distribution-aware Sub-model Extraction for Federated Learning over Resource-constrained Devices. In Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 2902–2913

2024
[39]

Kaibin Wang, Qiang He, Feifei Chen, Chunyang Chen, Faliang Huang, Hai Jin, and Yun Yang. 2023. Flexifed: Personalized federated learning for edge clients with heterogeneous model architectures. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference

2023
[40]

Chuhan Wu, Fangzhao Wu, Lingjuan Lyu, Yongfeng Huang, and Xing Xie. 2022. Communication-efficient federated learning via knowledge distillation. Nature Communications 13, 1 (2022), 2032

2022
[41]

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

2017 arXiv
[42]

Liping Yi, Gang Wang, Xiaoguang Liu, Zhuan Shi, and Han Yu. 2023. Fedgh: Heterogeneous federated learning with generalized global header. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 8686–8696

2023
[43]

Jianqing Zhang, Yang Hua, Hao Wang, Tao Song, Zhengui Xue, Ruhui Ma, Jian Cao, and Haibing Guan. 2023. Gpfl: Simultaneously learning global and person- alized feature information for personalized federated learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Co...

2023
[44]

Jianqing Zhang, Yang Hua, Hao Wang, Tao Song, Zhengui Xue, Ruhui Ma, and Haibing Guan. 2023. Fedala: Adaptive local aggregation for personalized federated learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 37. 11237–11244

2023
[45]

Jianqing Zhang, Yang Hua, Hao Wang, Tao Song, Zhengui Xue, Ruhui Ma, and Haibing Guan. 2023. Fedcp: Separating feature information for personalized federated learning via conditional policy. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Minin...

2023
[46]

Jiayun Zhang, Shuheng Li, Haiyu Huang, Zihan Wang, Xiaohan Fu, Dezhi Hong, Rajesh K Gupta, and Jingbo Shang. 2024. How Few Davids Improve One Goliath: Federated Learning in Resource-Skewed Edge Computing Environments. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 2976–2985

2024
[47]

Jianqing Zhang, Yang Liu, Yang Hua, Hao Wang, Tao Song, Zhengui Xue, Ruhui Ma, and Jian Cao. 2023. PFLlib: Personalized Federated Learning Algorithm Library. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04992 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[2016]

IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 39, 7 (2016), 1414–1430

Scatter component analysis: A unified framework for domain adaptation and domain generalization. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 39, 7 (2016), 1414–1430

2016
[2019]

In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

Moment matching for multi-source domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 1406–1415
[2022]

In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 16000–16009
[2023]

In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS)

HSFL: Efficient and privacy-preserving offloading for split and federated learning in IoT services. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). IEEE, 658–668

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Manoj Ghuhan Arivazhagan, Vinay Aggarwal, Aaditya Kumar Singh, and Sunav Choudhary. 2019. Federated learning with personalization layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00818 (2019)

arXiv 2019

[2] [2]

David Barber and Felix Agakov. 2004. The im algorithm: a variational approach to information maximization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 16, 320 (2004), 201

work page 2004

[3] [3]

Mohamed Ishmael Belghazi, Aristide Baratin, Sai Rajeshwar, Sherjil Ozair, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Devon Hjelm. 2018. Mutual information neural estimation. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 531–540

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Qi Chang, Hui Qu, Yikai Zhang, Mert Sabuncu, Chao Chen, Tong Zhang, and Dimitris N Metaxas. 2020. Synthetic learning: Learn from distributed asynchro- nized discriminator gan without sharing medical image data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 13856–13866

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Hong-You Chen and Wei-Lun Chao. 2021. On bridging generic and personalized federated learning for image classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00778 (2021)

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Pengyu Cheng, Weituo Hao, Shuyang Dai, Jiachang Liu, Zhe Gan, and Lawrence Carin. 2020. Club: A contrastive log-ratio upper bound of mutual information. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 1779–1788

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Liam Collins, Hamed Hassani, Aryan Mokhtari, and Sanjay Shakkottai. 2021. Exploiting Shared Representations for Personalized Federated Learning. In Pro- ceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 139) , Marina Meila and Tong Zhang (Eds.). PMLR, 2089–2099. https://proceedings.mlr.press/...

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, 248–255

work page 2009