Integration of federated learning with IoT for smart cities applications, challenges, and solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past few years, privacy concerns have grown, making the financial models of businesses more vulnerable to attack. In many cases, it is hard to emphasize the importance of monitoring things in real-time with data from Internet of Things (IoT) devices. The people who make the IoT devices and those who use them face big problems when they try to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques in real-world applications, where data must be collected and processed at a central location. Federated learning (FL) has made a decentralized, cooperative AI system that can be used by many IoT apps that use AI. It is possible because it can train AI on IoT devices that are spread out and do not need to share data. FL allows local models to be trained on local data and share their knowledge to improve a global model. Also, shared learning allows models from all over the world to be trained using data from all over the world. This article looks at the IoT in all of its forms, including "smart" businesses, "smart" cities, "smart" transportation, and "smart" healthcare. This study looks at the safety problems that the federated learning with IoT (FL-IoT) area has brought to market. This research is needed to explore because federated learning is a new technique, and a small amount of work is done on challenges faced during integration with IoT. This research also helps in the real world in such applications where encrypted data must be sent from one place to another. Researchers and graduate students are the audience of our article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".