Taming Preconditioner Drift: Unlocking the Potential of Second-Order Optimizers for Federated Learning on Non-IID Data
Authors: Junkang Liu, Fanhua Shang, Hongying Liu, Jin Liu, Weixin An, Yuanyuan Liu
Organizations: College of Intelligence and Computing, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China · Medical School, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China · Peng Cheng Lab, Shenzhen, China · School of Cyber Engineering, Xidian University, Xi’an, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, Xidian University, Xi’an, China
Second-order optimizers can significantly accelerate large-scale training, yet their naive federated variants are often unstable or even diverge on non-IID data. We show that a key culprit is preconditioner drift: client-side second-order training induces heterogeneous curvature-defined geometries (i.e., preconditioner coordinate systems), and server-side model averaging updates computed under incompatible metrics, corrupting the global descent direction. To address this geometric mismatch, we propose FedPAC, a preconditioner alignment and correction framework for reliable federated second-order optimization. FedPAC explicitly decouples parameter aggregation from geometry synchronization by: (i) Alignment (i.e.,aggregating local preconditioners into a global reference and warm-starting clients via global preconditioner); and (ii) Correction (i.e., steering local preconditioned updates using a global preconditioned direction to suppress long-term drift). We provide drift-coupled non-convex convergence guarantees with linear speedup under partial participation. Empirically, FedPAC consistently improves stability and accuracy across vision and language tasks, achieving up to 5.8% absolute accuracy gain on CIFAR-100 with ViTs. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/FedPAC-8B24.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) In non-IID FL, first-order methods converge slowly, inducing little client drift. (b) Second-order methods converge faster locally and thus drift toward local optima, causing the aggregated global model to deviate from global optimum. (c) FedPAC corrects local second-order updates, yielding faster convergence and a global model closer to the global optimum. (d–f) FedPAC accelerates Sophia, Muon and SOAP to train ResNet-18 on CIFAR-100. The x-axis denotes the number of communication rounds, and the y-axis denotes test accuracy.
Figure 2: The x-axis denotes communication rounds, and the y-axis is test accuracy. (a, c): In FL on IID data, second-order optimizers converge significantly faster than SGD and AdamW for training ResNet and Transformer. (b),(d): However, on non-IID data, second-order optimizer (e.g., Local Muon) converges much more slowly and can even underperform first-order methods such as Local SGD.
Figure 3: Performance and Preconditioner Drift of Local SOAP, FedPAC_SOAP . For SOAP, we compute the preconditioner drift in a layer-wise manner by measuring the spectral norm of the difference between each client’s left/right preconditioner and the aggregated global preconditioner. Our FedPAC_SOAP substantially reduces the preconditioner drift of Local SOAP and accelerates convergence in (a,b), reaching 40% test accuracy in fewer rounds, as shown in (c) and (d).
Figure 4: An illustration of preconditioner drift, which corrects client drift through local-global alignment.
Figure 5: Test accuracy versus communication rounds. The x-axis denotes communication rounds and the y-axis denotes the test accuracy. Panels (a–d) correspond to training with ResNet-18 , while panels (e–h) correspond to training with ViT-Tiny .
Method
ResNet-18
ViT-Tiny
CIFAR-100
Tiny-Imagenet
CIFAR-100
Tiny-Imagenet
Dir-0.1
Dir-0.05
Dir-0.1
Dir-0.05
Dir-0.1
Dir-0.05
Dir-0.1
Dir-0.05
FedAvg
60.17
56.75
47.48
43.80
27.24
23.42
15.68
14.05
SCAFFOLD
60.69
56.43
47.76
43.92
26.86
23.23
15.70
14.21
FedCM
66.61
62.65
41.16
36.00
16.95
14.74
8.88
8.15
Local AdamW
59.23
55.24
44.01
40.00
37.57
36.06
24.31
21.35
Table 1: Test accuracy of each method on CIFAR-100 and Tiny-Imagenet using ResNet-18 and ViT-Tiny over 300 communication rounds under Dir-0.1 and Dir-0.05 (100 clients, 10% participation, batch size 50, K=50 ).
Method
CIFAR-100
Tiny-ImageNet
Test Acc
Loss
Test Acc
Loss
FedAvg
89.28
0.332
86.97
0.421
SCAFFOLD
89.35
0.328
86.85
0.432
FedCM
87.44
0.592
84.24
0.708
Local AdamW
90.10
0.281
86.65
0.252
Local Sophia
90.21
0.275
86.16
0.188
Table 2: Comparison of test accuracy and training loss for Vision Transformer (ViT-Base) under Dir-0.1 with 100 rounds (50 clients, 10% participation, batch size 16, K=50 ).
Method
C4 (Train Loss)
LLaMA 60M
LLaMA 130M
LLaMA 350M
FedAvg
4.156
4.258
4.354
SCAFFOLD
4.028
4.238
4.365
FedCM
4.231
4.356
4.426
Local AdamW
3.213
3.418
3.519
Local Sophia
3.201
3.389
3.521
Table 3: The train loss of each method on C4 data using LLaMA 60M , LLaMA 130M , LLaMA 350M over 100 communication rounds (20 clients, 20% participation, batch size 16, K=50 ).
Model, Dataset, β
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
ResNet-18, CIFAR-100
62.05
62.35
63.10
63.57
63.75
64.16
63.75
61.75
61.70
58.86
ViT-Tiny, CIFAR-100
44.56
45.28
45.63
46.22
46.84
47.55
46.86
46.59
46.05
45.66
Table 4: Impact of β on FedPAC_SOAP with ViT-Tiny and ResNet-18 on CIFAR-100 under Dir-0.05.
Variant
ResNet-18
ViT-Tiny
Local SOAP
58.16
41.68
w/o preconditioner alignment ( Θˉ )
61.12
43.67
w/o preconditioner correction ( ΔG )
62.05
44.56
FedPAC_SOAP (full)
64.16
47.55
Table 5: Ablation on FedPAC_SOAP components under Dir-0.05 on CIFAR-100. We report test accuracy after 300 rounds.
Aggregation
Acc
CommCost
CompCost
Local SOAP
41.68
22.8 MB (1 × )
5.56 s
FedPAC_SOAP
47.55
68.4 MB (3 × )
5.85 s
FedPAC_SOAP_light
46.75
25.1 MB (1.1 × )
5.91s
Table 6: Communication-efficient preconditioner aggregation for SOAP on CIFAR-100, ViT-Tiny under Dir-0.05. CommCost denotes communication cost per round (MB), and CompCost denotes computation time per round (s).
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
#Classes
Image Size
Train
Val
Test
Total
Train / class
CIFAR-100
100
3×32×32
50,000
—
10,000
60,000
500
Tiny ImageNet
200
3×64×64
100,000
10,000
10,000
120,000
500
Appendix
Table 7: A detailed summary of 100 and Tiny-ImageNet: number of classes, image size, and dataset splits.
Method
Local Optimizer
Local LR
β
β1
β2
Weight Decay
FedAvg (Local SGD)
SGD
0.1
—
—
—
0.001
SCAFFOLD
SGD
0.1
—
—
—
0.001
FedCM
SGD
0.1
0.9
—
—
0.001
Local AdamW
AdamW
3e-4
—
0.9
0.999
0.01
Local Sophia
Sophia
3e-4
—
0.9
0.99
0.01
Local Muon
Muon
3e-2
—
0.9
0.95
0.01
Appendix
Table 8: Hyperparameter configuration of ResNet-18 and Vit-Tiny (CIFAR100, Tiny-ImageNet) across different algorithms.
Method
Local Optimizer
Local LR
β
β1
β2
Weight Decay
FedAvg (Local SGD)
SGD
0.1
—
—
—
0.001
SCAFFOLD
SGD
0.1
—
—
—
0.001
FedCM
SGD
0.1
0.9
—
—
0.001
Local AdamW
AdamW
1e-4
—
0.9
0.999
0.01
Local Sophia
Sophia
1e-4
—
0.9
0.99
0.01
Local Muon
Muon
1e-2
—
0.9
0.95
0.01
Appendix
Table 9: Hyperparameter configuration of ViT-Base fine-tuning across different algorithms.
Method
Local Optimizer
Local LR
β
β1
β2
Weight Decay
FedAvg (Local SGD)
SGD
0.1
—
—
—
0.001
SCAFFOLD
SGD
0.1
—
—
—
0.001
FedCM
SGD
0.1
0.9
—
—
0.001
Local AdamW
AdamW
3e-4
—
0.9
0.999
0.01
Local Sophia
Sophia
3e-4
—
0.9
0.99
0.01
Local Muon
Muon
3e-2
—
0.9
0.95
0.01
Appendix
Table 10: Hyperparameter configuration of LLAMA (C4) across different algorithms.
Method / Strategy
Communication
CommCost
Compute-Cost (s)
Acc(%)
FedAvg
∣x∣
22.8 MB
4.56 s
27.24
SCAFFOLD
2∣x∣
45.6 MB
5.22 s
26.86
FedCM
∣x∣
22.8 MB
4.68 s
16.95
Local AdamW
∣x∣
22.8 MB
4.89 s
37.57
Local Sophia
∣x∣
22.8 MB
4.92 s
34.05
Local Muon
∣x∣
22.8 MB
5.14 s
44.00
Appendix
Table 11: Per-round communication cost of different momentum aggregation strategies. Here ∣x∣ denotes the number of model parameters (in floats), and CommCost is per-round communication cost, Compute-Cost is per-round computation time. (ViT-Tiny, R=300 , Dir-0.1, K=50 )
Method
CIFAR-100 (ResNet-18)
Tiny-Imagenet (ResNet-18)
iid
Dir-0.5
Dir-0.1
Dir-0.05
iid
Dir-0.5
Dir-0.1
Dir-0.05
FedAvg
65.04
65.07
60.17
56.75
53.88
52.55
47.48
43.80
SCAFFOLD
66.04
65.51
60.69
56.43
54.49
53.36
47.76
43.92
FedCM
71.12
69.85
66.61
62.65
46.51
44.06
41.16
36.00
Local AdamW
64.37
63.58
59.23
55.24
51.06
49.97
44.01
40.00
Fed-Sophia
62.56
60.62
57.29
51.02
49.86
47.62
41.89
36.65
Appendix
Table 12: Test accuracy, training loss of each method on CIFAR-100 and Tiny-Imagenet using ResNet-18 over 300 communication rounds under IID Dir-0.5, Dir-0.1, Dir-0.05 (100 clients, 10% participation, batch size 50, K=50 ).
Method
CIFAR-100 (ViT-Tiny)
Tiny-Imagenet (ViT-Tiny)
iid
Dir-0.5
Dir-0.1
Dir-0.05
iid
Dir-0.5
Dir-0.1
Dir-0.05
FedAvg
32.97
33.66
27.24
23.42
18.61
18.03
15.68
14.05
SCAFFOLD
32.29
33.01
26.86
23.23
18.32
18.36
15.70
14.21
FedCM
21.97
22.02
16.95
14.74
10.23
11.66
8.88
8.15
Local AdamW
41.27
41.21
37.57
36.06
27.94
26.82
24.31
21.35
Fed-Sophia
38.34
38.56
34.23
32.27
23.56
24.46
23.85
22.17
Appendix
Table 13: Test accuracy, training loss of each method on CIFAR-100 using ViT-Tiny over 300 communication rounds under IID, Dir-0.5, Dir-0.1, Dir-0.05 (100 clients, 10% participation, batch size 50, K=50 ).
Family
What is synchronized (server ↔ clients)?
Extra cost (comm./state)
Main issue it targets
FedAvg / Local-SGD
Model parameters/updates x only
≈∣x∣ per round
General FL baseline; does not explicitly correct non-IID induced drift
FedOpt (server adaptive; e.g., FedAdam/FedYogi)
x only; optimizer state (moments) kept on server (not shared as a common client geometry)
≈∣x∣ (no extra client-side sync)
Improves global update scaling/adaptivity, but does not align heterogeneous client metrics
x only; each client maintains local preconditioner state Θ but does not synchronize it
≈∣x∣ per round
Fails under non-IID due to preconditioner drift (mismatched curvature-induced geometries)
FedPAC (ours)
x + preconditioner state Θ (geometry / metric) : server aggregates Θ and broadcasts a global reference (Alignment); local steps are corrected using a global preconditioned direction (Correction)
≈∣x∣+c∣Θ∣ (e.g., c=1 for Muon/Sophia, c=2 for SOAP; light variants use low-rank upload such as 0.05∣Θ∣ – 0.1∣Θ∣ )
Targets preconditioner drift directly by synchronizing the metric (Alignment) and suppressing long-term drift (Correction)
Appendix
Table 14: Positioning of FedPAC. Unlike FedOpt and control-variate methods that synchronize only parameter/first-order states, FedPAC explicitly synchronizes the curvature-defined geometry (preconditioner state Θ ) to mitigate preconditioner drift under non-IID data. Here ∣x∣ denotes per-round model communication in our accounting and ∣Θ∣ denotes the size of the optimizer preconditioner state.
In this paper, we present Federated Robust Curvature Optimization (FedRCO), a novel second-order optimization framework designed to improve convergence speed and reduce communication cost in Federated Learning systems under statistical heterogeneity. Existing second-order optimization methods are often computationally expensive and numerically unstable in distributed settings. In contrast, FedRCO addresses these challenges by integrating an efficient approximate curvature optimizer with a provable stability mechanism. Specifically, FedRCO incorporates three key components: (1) a Gradient Anomaly Monitor that detects and mitigates exploding gradients in real-time, (2) a Fail-Safe Resilience protocol that resets optimization states upon numerical instability, and (3) a Curvature-Preserving Adaptive Aggregation strategy that safely integrates global knowledge without erasing the local curvature geometry. Theoretical analysis shows that FedRCO can effectively mitigate instability and prevent unbounded updates while preserving optimization efficiency. Extensive experiments show that FedRCO achieves superior robustness against diverse non-IID scenarios while achieving higher accuracy and faster convergence than both state-of-the-art first-order and second-order methods.
Yuanqiao Zhang, Tiantian He, Yuan Gao +5
Key Laboratory of Collaborative Intelligence Systems of Ministry of Education, Xidian University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China · Centre for Frontier AI Research, Institute of High Performance Computing, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore · State Key Laboratory of ISN, School of Cyber Engineering, Xidian University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China +2
Adaptive preconditioners accelerate model training, but heterogeneous client geometries can bias federated updates even when gradients are evaluated at the same model. Round-start synchronization alone cannot prevent this mismatch from reappearing during local training. We propose FedMIX-P, which mixes shared and local preconditioners at every local step, retaining local adaptation while reducing mean-squared operator mismatch by a factor of λ2. For smooth nonconvex objectives with stochastic gradients and partial participation, we establish an O(R−1/2) stationarity bound using suitable stepsizes and a horizon-dependent mixing weight, without requiring local preconditioners to converge to one another. A two-client counterexample shows that fixed positive mixing can preserve a nonstationary fixed point. The theory covers bounded linear symmetric positive-definite preconditioners. Experiments with SOAP, Sophia, and Muon variants across vision and language tasks show improvements over corresponding local optimizers, including accuracy gains of up to 19.47 percentage points and lower validation loss for 60M--350M language models. Full nonlinear and momentum-based updates require separate analysis.
Federated Learning (FL) enables distributed model training on edge devices while preserving data privacy. However, clients tend to have non-Independent and Identically Distributed (non-IID) data, which often leads to client-drift, and therefore diminishing convergence speed and model performance. While adaptive optimizers have been proposed to mitigate these effects, they frequently introduce computational complexity or communication overhead unsuitable for resource-constrained IoT environments. This paper introduces Federated Zero Mean Gradients (FedZMG), a novel, parameter-free, client-side optimization algorithm designed to tackle client-drift by structurally regularizing the optimization space. Advancing the idea of Gradient Centralization, FedZMG projects local gradients onto a zero-mean hyperplane, effectively neutralizing the "intensity" or "bias" shifts inherent in heterogeneous data distributions without requiring additional communication or hyperparameter tuning. A theoretical analysis is provided, proving that FedZMG reduces the effective gradient variance and guarantees tighter convergence bounds compared to standard FedAvg. Extensive empirical evaluations on EMNIST, CIFAR100, and Shakespeare datasets demonstrate that FedZMG achieves better convergence speed and final validation accuracy compared to the baseline FedAvg and the adaptive optimizer FedAdam, particularly in highly non-IID settings.
TelSiP Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, School of Engineering, University of West Attica, Ancient Olive Grove Campus, 250 Thivon Str., GR-12241 Athens, Greece