MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408590657 · doi:10.1109/comst.2025.3552524

Advances and Open Challenges in Federated Foundation Models

2025· article· en· W4408590657 on OpenAlexaff
Chao Ren, Han Yu, Hongyi Peng, Xiaoli Tang, Baihe Zhao, Liping Yi, Alysa Ziying Tan, Yulan Gao, Anran Li, Xiaoxiao Li, Zengxiang Li, Qiang Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Computer scienceData sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of Foundation Models (FMs) with Federated Learning (FL) presents a transformative paradigm in Artificial Intelligence (AI). This integration offers enhanced capabilities, while addressing concerns of privacy, data decentralization and computational efficiency. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of the emerging field of Federated Foundation Models (FedFM), elucidating their synergistic relationship and exploring novel methodologies, challenges, and future directions that the FL research field needs to focus on in order to thrive in the age of FMs. A systematic multi-tiered taxonomy is proposed, categorizing existing FedFM approaches for model training, aggregation, trustworthiness, and incentivization. Key challenges, including how to enable FL to deal with high complexity of computational demands, privacy considerations, contribution evaluation, and communication efficiency, are thoroughly discussed. Moreover, this paper explores the intricate challenges of communication, scalability and security inherent in training/fine-tuning FMs via FL. It highlights the potential of quantum computing to revolutionize the processes of training, inference, optimization and security. This survey also introduces the implementation requirement of FedFM and some practical FedFM applications. It highlights lessons learned with a clear understanding of our findings for FedFM. Finally, this survey not only provides insights into the current state and challenges of FedFM, but also offers a blueprint for future research directions, emphasizing the need for developing trustworthy solutions. It serves as a foundational guide for researchers and practitioners interested in contributing to this interdisciplinary and rapidly advancing field.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.013
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications Surveys & TutorialsSame topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207