Learning From Static Context in Federated Time Series Forecasting
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
arXiv:2608. 01290v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Time-series foundation models (TSFMs) such as Chronos have demonstrated strong forecasting capabilities across domains, yet adapting them to institutionally fragmented settings, where data cannot be centralized due to regulatory, competitive, or sovereignty constraints, remains unexplored.
arXiv:2608. 04695v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Federated adaptation of time-series foundation models (TSFMs) is attractive for building energy forecasting because meter data are private, distributed, and highly non-IID.
arXiv:2607. 04170v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Federated Learning (FL) enables decentralized training without data sharing, but suffers from statistical heterogeneity across clients, leading to client drift, poor generalization, and sharp minima compared to centralized training.
Federated adaptation of time-series foundation models (TSFMs) is attractive for building energy forecasting because meter data are private, distributed, and highly non-IID. However, a single parameter-sharing strategy is unlikely to serve all pretrained TSFMs or building clients: fully shared adapters can suppress building-specific temporal behavior, while fully local adaptation discards cross-building transfer.
arXiv:2608. 14654v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Federated Learning (FL) is a collaborative paradigm that enables multiple devices to train a global model while preserving local data privacy.
The paper introduces Smooth‑L1 regularized Echo State Networks (SL1ESN) that encourage sparsity in the readout layer while remaining differentiable for gradient‑based training. Using a twice‑differentiable Smooth‑L1 approximation, SL1ESN is trained centrally and via a second‑order federated aggregation scheme, achieving 75–95% sparsity across seven time‑series classification benchmarks. The resulting sparse models reduce storage, inference cost, and communication overhead, with only minor accuracy loss compared to dense baselines.