Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Federated learning servers combine client models with a fixed aggregation rule, and each rule in common use is designed for one kind of heterogeneity."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Ali Mohammadi Ruzbahani, Abbas Yazdinejad, Hadis Karimipour
Published
Nov 5, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
35% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Nov 5, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Federated learning servers combine client models with a fixed aggregation rule, and each rule in common use is designed for one kind of heterogeneity. We study whether a large language model (LLM) that inspects the client models can choose the rule itself, without any training on the server. In FedReason, the LLM is called every ten rounds. It analyses the weights by running code in a restricted server-side sandbox, sees only the printed results, may score a few candidates on a 500-image proxy set, and submits a short Python aggregation program. The server applies the program until the next call and falls back to FedAvg whenever its output is invalid. Full weight tensors never leave the server. We evaluated FedReason with Claude Opus 5.5 on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 with ResNet-18 under Dirichlet label skew, width-heterogeneous sub-models and Byzantine clients, in 168 runs against 14 baselines. Across 12 paired label-skew runs it beat FedAvg by 1.26 percentage points on average (10 wins), and a control that spends the same per-round proxy budget on choosing among standard rules by 1.08 points. It was the strongest server-side rule on CIFAR-100 but did not beat SCAFFOLD, which changes client training. With three of ten clients malicious, it excluded all sign-flipping clients from the first round and stayed about one point below FLTrust without training a root model. Without proxy feedback, accuracy fell from 73.8% to 38.8% in one seed. A 60-round run cost 0.79 USD in API fees on average.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Federated learning servers combine client models with a fixed aggregation rule, and each rule in common use is designed for one kind of heterogeneity."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Federated learning servers combine client models with a fixed aggregation rule, and each rule in common use is designed for one kind of heterogeneity."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Federated learning servers combine client models with a fixed aggregation rule, and each rule in common use is designed for one kind of heterogeneity."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Federated learning servers combine client models with a fixed aggregation rule, and each rule in common use is designed for one kind of heterogeneity."
Accuracy
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"Without proxy feedback, accuracy fell from 73.8% to 38.8% in one seed."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
Federated learning servers combine client models with a fixed aggregation rule, and each rule in common use is designed for one kind of heterogeneity.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
Detected: accuracy