Federated Learning (FL) enables a group of clients to collaboratively train a model without sharing individual data, but its performance drops when client data are heterogeneous. Clustered FL tackles this by grouping similar clients. However, existing clustered FL approaches rely solely on either data similarity or gradient similarity; however, this results in an incomplete assessment of client similarities. Prior clustered FL approaches also restrict knowledge and representation sharing to clients within the same cluster. This prevents cluster models from benefiting from the diverse client population across clusters. To address these limitations, FedDAG introduces a clustered FL framework, FedDAG, that employs a weighted, class-wise similarity metric that integrates both data and gradient information, providing a more holistic measure of similarity during clustering. In addition, FedDAG adopts a dual-encoder architecture for cluster models, comprising a primary encoder trained on its own clients' data and a secondary encoder refined using gradients from complementary clusters. This enables cross-cluster feature transfer while preserving cluster-specific specialization. Experiments on diverse benchmarks and data heterogeneity settings show that FedDAG consistently outperforms state-of-the-art clustered FL baselines in accuracy.
Figures & tables
Algorithm
Technique
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
PACFL
Data (D)
90.45 ± 0.30
94.41 ± 0.31
CFL
Gradient (G)
72.80 ± 0.66
86.97 ± 0.23
IFCA
Gradient (G)
89.68 ± 0.17
94.03 ± 0.09
FedDAG (Ours)
D + G + Global Feature Sharing
94.53 ± 0.12
96.82 ± 0.18
Table 1: Accuracy (%) of FedDAG vs. clustering baselines under non-IID label skew (20%) and quantity shift (Dirichlet α′=1 ).
Figure 1: Overview of FedDAG . Clients compute principal vectors and gradients to build an adjacency matrix and a graph indicating which clusters can supply features for cross-cluster sharing. Training proceeds in two phases: (1) the primary encoder and classifier are trained on each cluster’s local data; (2) the secondary encoder of a requesting cluster is trained on source cluster’s data
Algorithm
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
FedAvg
42.87 ± 0.36
42.68 ± 0.49
37.93 ± 0.39
FedBR
62.41 ± 0.28
82.81 ± 0.17
80.12 ± 0.22
FedSoft
64.34 ± 0.38
75.89 ± 0.15
76.35 ± 0.40
PACFL
59.82 ± 0.22
78.42 ± 0.35
78.82 ± 0.12
CFL
61.48 ± 0.15
82.73 ± 0.23
79.15 ± 0.36
CFL-GP
66.74 ± 0.28
84.71 ± 0.13
82.38 ± 0.13
Table 2: Exp 5: Performance comparison for concept shift across datasets.
Algorithm
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
CIFAR-100
FedDAG †
88.79 ± 0.20
92.61 ± 0.31
91.95 ± 0.25
70.28 ± 0.38
FedDAG ∗
88.67 ± 0.18
92.75 ± 0.22
91.87 ± 0.26
70.37 ± 0.33
FedDAG
90.76 ± 0.12
93.82 ± 0.20
93.91 ± 0.23
72.84 ± 0.30
Table 3: Exp 3: Ablation study of cross-cluster representation sharing under 20% label skew (Dirichlet α′=0.25 ), comparing FedDAG , FedDAG † (dual encoder w/o GRS), and FedDAG ∗ (single encoder).
Figure 2: Exp 2: Clustering score vs cluster α and number of clusters for finding optimal clustering.
20% Label Skew
30% Label Skew
Algorithm
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
CIFAR-100
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
CIFAR-100
FedAvg
42.02 ± 1.17
53.11 ± 0.31
69.79 ± 0.51
47.16 ± 0.91
54.24 ± 0.08
72.86 ± 0.40
64.15 ± 0.64
50.99 ± 1.35
FedProx
43.98 ± 0.17
53.61 ± 0.20
74.75 ± 0.27
50.56 ± 0.70
54.99 ± 0.20
68.22 ± 0.16
64.80 ± 0.25
48.66 ± 0.80
PerFedAvg
81.09 ± 0.35
86.51 ± 0.19
89.20 ± 0.05
65.59 ± 0.02
77.45 ± 0.24
89.77 ± 0.15
88.23 ± 0.31
57.38 ± 0.10
FedMix
77.94 ± 0.26
83.55 ± 0.31
83.12 ± 0.29
60.33 ± 0.24
76.90 ± 0.33
81.96 ± 0.27
82.21 ± 0.34
53.55 ± 0.30
FedBR
81.62 ± 0.28
85.32 ± 0.23
84.05 ± 0.30
61.61 ± 0.37
81.48 ± 0.37
84.12 ± 0.25
84.78 ± 0.38
56.32 ± 0.33
Table 4: Exp 1: Performance comparison for Data Distribution I with a high degree of quantity shift (Dirichlet α′ = 0.25)
α′=0.25
α′=1.0
Algorithm
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
FedAvg
66.48 ± 0.21
47.26 ± 0.28
46.13 ± 0.48
41.78 ± 0.73
85.48 ± 0.36
81.89 ± 0.31
FedSoft
71.08 ± 0.26
83.75 ± 0.26
85.67 ± 0.19
73.83 ± 0.42
87.85 ± 0.31
85.92 ± 0.13
PACFL
73.91 ± 0.43
85.93 ± 0.12
87.23 ± 0.20
80.52 ± 0.15
93.31 ± 0.28
92.17 ± 0.23
CFL
67.46 ± 0.12
85.18 ± 0.17
85.19 ± 0.25
78.94 ± 0.18
83.16 ± 0.26
82.75 ± 0.28
CFL-GP
73.84 ± 0.28
86.43 ± 0.14
88.04 ± 0.19
83.57 ± 0.15
92.21 ± 0.23
91.67 ± 0.19
Table 5: Exp 5: Performance comparison under LDA skew ( α′=0.25 and α′=1.0 ).
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
tg
CIFAR-10
SVHN
FMNIST
1
80.81 ± 0.59
84.82 ± 0.24
93.18 ± 0.11
2
83.34 ± 0.52
90.05 ± 0.16
93.18 ± 0.11
3
83.34 ± 0.52
90.05 ± 0.16
93.18 ± 0.11
Appendix
Table 6: Test accuracy for different values of local training rounds tg (with 10 local steps per round) across datasets, evaluated under Data Distribution I with 30% class skew and Dirichlet α′=1 .
δ
CIFAR-10
SVHN
FMNIST
0.2
87.51 ± 0.18
91.74 ± 0.08
91.79 ± 0.08
0.4
87.51 ± 0.18
91.74 ± 0.08
92.21 ± 0.09
0.6
87.95 ± 0.13
91.91 ± 0.13
92.21 ± 0.09
0.8
87.95 ± 0.13
91.91 ± 0.13
92.21 ± 0.09
1.0
87.95 ± 0.13
91.91 ± 0.13
92.21 ± 0.09
Appendix
Table 7: Accuracy metrics for various values of weight range δ under Data Distribution I (Dirichlet α′=0.25 , 20% class skew).
k
CIFAR-10
SVHN
FMNIST
1
90.85 ± 0.13
97.09 ± 0.08
97.71 ± 0.05
2
91.02 ± 0.12
97.19 ± 0.04
98.36 ± 0.10
3
90.95 ± 0.16
97.01 ± 0.07
98.57 ± 0.08
4
90.96 ± 0.21
96.78 ± 0.12
98.41 ± 0.11
Appendix
Table 8: Accuracy for different values of top- k retained in the complementarity graph H under Data Distribution I (Dirichlet α′=1 , 30% class skew).
Sparsity (entries kept)
CIFAR-10
SVHN
FMNIST
0.1%
82.52±0.60
89.23±0.25
92.81±0.14
0.5%
83.34±0.52
90.05±0.16
93.18±0.11
1%
83.34±0.52
90.05±0.16
93.18±0.11
2%
83.34±0.52
90.05±0.16
93.18±0.11
20%
83.34±0.52
90.05±0.16
93.18±0.11
Appendix
Table 9: Test accuracy (%) as a function of the gradient sparsification ratio with only gradient similarity and singel encoder (fraction of coordinates retained in Δ~i ) under Data Distribution I ( 30% label skew, α′=1 , tg=2 ).
20% Label Skew
30% Label Skew
Algorithm
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
CIFAR-100
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
CIFAR-100
FedAvg
46.20 ± 0.97
57.12 ± 0.30
74.61 ± 0.36
51.34 ± 0.78
57.48 ± 0.17
77.17 ± 0.24
68.34 ± 0.45
53.13 ± 1.46
FedProx
46.77 ± 0.14
56.81 ± 0.16
77.23 ± 0.45
53.38 ± 0.86
57.80 ± 0.23
73.87 ± 0.25
69.65 ± 0.19
53.97 ± 0.85
PerFedAvg
84.68 ± 0.19
91.18 ± 0.21
92.34 ± 0.13
69.43 ± 0.22
82.83 ± 0.14
94.74 ± 0.17
91.48 ± 0.29
60.70 ± 0.30
FedSoft
77.42 ± 0.21
87.64 ± 0.35
90.48 ± 0.24
65.98 ± 0.37
76.94 ± 0.38
89.56 ± 0.37
84.86 ± 0.45
56.61 ± 0.31
PACFL
90.45 ± 0.30
94.41 ± 0.31
94.96 ± 0.12
70.35 ± 0.36
87.01 ± 0.38
97.28 ± 0.24
94.36 ± 0.19
63.91 ± 0.76
Appendix
Table 10: Exp 1: Performance comparison for Data Distribution I with 20% and 30% non-IID label skew under low quantity shift (Dirichlet α′=1 ).
Figure 3: Exp 6: Accuracy vs. number of comm. rounds, Data Distribution I, non-IID (30%), α′ =1.
Algorithm
CIFAR-10-C
Tiny ImageNet -C
PACS
Office-Caltech-10
FedAvg
30.73 ± 0.36
18.43 ± 0.43
38.47 ± 0.28
46.12 ± 0.31
PerFedAvg
60.39 ± 0.13
25.54 ± 0.31
70.82 ± 0.22
67.34 ± 0.23
FBLG
60.25 ± 0.30
29.91 ± 0.23
72.38 ± 0.37
68.44 ± 0.14
FedBR
61.09 ± 0.32
30.83 ± 0.25
73.83 ± 0.32
71.37 ± 0.18
FedMix
60.11 ± 0.14
30.71 ± 0.24
73.25 ± 0.41
70.56 ± 0.23
PACFL
63.62 ± 0.22
33.53 ± 0.38
76.63 ± 0.19
73.31 ± 0.14
Appendix
Table 11: Exp 8: Performance comparison of various SOTA algorithms and FedDAG under combined feature skew and label skew (Data Distribution IV). Feature skew arises from corruption types on CIFAR-10-C and Tiny ImageNet -C, and from domains on PACS and Office-Caltech-10.
Dataset
FedAvg
PACFL
CFL
FedGWC
IFCA
FedDAG
Google Landmarks
36.53±0.24
54.74±0.21
45.29±0.28
51.51±0.31
51.97±0.16
58.23±0.15
Appendix
Table 12: Performance on the large-scale real-world Google Landmarks dataset.
Algorithm
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
FedAvg
55.38 ± 0.15
74.93 ± 0.22
66.86 ± 0.28
PerFedAvg
80.92 ± 0.10
92.62 ± 0.17
90.00 ± 0.15
FedSoft
74.98 ± 0.27
87.45 ± 0.22
83.59 ± 0.12
PACFL
85.33 ± 0.15
95.17 ± 0.24
92.76 ± 0.08
CFL
69.97 ± 0.11
83.64 ± 0.13
78.94 ± 0.17
FedGWC
84.30 ± 0.13
94.53 ± 0.10
91.56 ± 0.06
Appendix
Table 13: Test accuracy of newcomer clients, Data Distribution I with 30% label skew and α′=1 .
Method
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
FedDAG ∗ -Grad (gradient-only)
83.79±0.50
91.26±0.38
89.05±0.19
FedDAG ∗ -Data (data-only)
85.03±0.33
91.82±0.25
89.52±0.21
FedDAG ∗ -Data+Grad (combined)
86.95±0.21
92.18±0.15
90.97±0.13
Appendix
Table 14: Ablation on combining data and gradient under Data Distribution I (label skew 30%, Dirichlet α′=0.25 ).
Method
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
FedDAG ∗ -Grad (gradient-only)
64.52±0.45
83.88±0.32
81.17±0.21
FedDAG ∗ -Data (data-only)
67.10±0.23
85.74±0.28
83.15±0.14
FedDAG ∗ -Data+Grad (combined)
67.79±0.27
86.03±0.21
83.73±0.19
Appendix
Table 15: Ablation on similarity design under Data Distribution II (concept shift).
Algorithm
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
FedDAG ∗ (single encoder)
67.79 ± 0.27
86.03 ± 0.21
83.73 ± 0.19
FedDAG † (dual encoder, no sharing)
67.51 ± 0.22
85.91 ± 0.15
83.65 ± 0.24
FedDAG (dual encoder + sharing)
69.13 ± 0.23
88.79 ± 0.19
85.06 ± 0.26
Appendix
Table 16: Ablation of cross-cluster representation sharing under concept shift (Data Distribution II in § 5 ), comparing the single-encoder baseline ( FedDAG ∗ ), a dual-encoder variant without cross-cluster sharing ( FedDAG † ), and full FedDAG .
Figure 4: Effect of the federated-aware clustering loss on the adaptive clustering mechanism under Data Distribution I ( 30% label skew, Dirichlet α′=0.25 ) for CIFAR-10 and SVHN.
Encoder Initialization Method
CIFAR-10
FMNIST
SVHN
Main (warm-start) (see § 4 )
90.76±0.12
93.82±0.20
93.91±0.23
Random init+regularizer (§ A.11 )
90.93±0.16
93.76±0.17
93.86±0.10
Appendix
Table 17: Comparison of dual-encoder initialization strategies in FedDAG (Data Distribution I).
Schedule (Primary : Secondary)
CIFAR-10
SVHN
Full FedDAG ( both )
89.87 ± 0.19
92.65 ± 0.11
1 : 1
80.34 ± 0.44
86.26 ± 0.32
5 : 1
87.65 ± 0.28
91.31 ± 0.22
10 : 1
87.25 ± 0.31
91.46 ± 0.20
15 : 1
86.54 ± 0.35
90.87 ± 0.27
Appendix
Table 18: Accuracy of FedDAG under different primary:secondary training scheduling patterns (Data Distribution I, 80 comm. rounds). “Full FedDAG ” updates both encoders every round.
CIFAR-10
SVHN
α
#clusters
LC
#clusters
LC
1.000
1
0.770
1
0.675
0.950
1
0.770
1
0.675
0.900
2
1.000
1
0.675
0.850
3
1.000
1
0.675
0.800
3
1.000
2
0.866
Appendix
Table 19: Number of clusters and clustering loss LC as a function of the distance threshold α for CIFAR-10 and SVHN in the inherent high-cluster (i.e., 11) distribution setting.
Figure 5: Behavior of FedDAG ’s adaptive clustering mechanism in a setting with inherent high number of clusters (e.g,. >10 ) ground-truth distributions.
Federated Learning (FL) enables collaborative model training across distributed clients without sharing raw data, yet its performance deteriorates under statistical heterogeneity. Clustered Federated Learning addresses this challenge by grouping similar clients and training separate models per cluster. However, existing clustering strategies often rely on raw data statistics, model parameters, or heuristic similarity measures that fail to capture class-level semantic structure across heterogeneous domains and frequently require iterative coordination. We propose FMCL, a one-shot, class-aware client clustering framework that leverages foundation model representations to construct semantic client signatures. Using a frozen foundation model, FMCL computes class-level embedding prototypes for each client and measures similarity via cosine distance between their class-aware representations. Clustering is performed once prior to training, introducing no additional communication during federated optimization and remaining agnostic to the downstream model architecture. Extensive experiments across heterogeneous benchmarks demonstrate that FMCL improves federated performance and yields more stable clustering behavior compared to existing clustering-based methods under non-identically distributed data partitioning.
Mahad Ali, Laura J. Brattain
University of Central Florida, Orlando FL 32816, USA
Federated Learning (FL) enables collaborative model training across multiple clients without sharing their private data. However, data heterogeneity across clients leads to client drift, which degrades the overall generalization performance of the model. This effect is further compounded by overemphasis on poorly performing clients. To address this problem, we propose FedVG, a novel gradient-based federated aggregation framework that leverages a global validation set to guide the optimization process. Such a global validation set can be established using readily available public datasets, ensuring accessibility and consistency across clients without compromising privacy. In contrast to conventional approaches that prioritize client dataset volume, FedVG assesses the generalization ability of client models by measuring the magnitude of validation gradients across layers. Specifically, we compute layerwise gradient norms to derive a client-specific score that reflects how much each client needs to adjust for improved generalization on the global validation set, thereby enabling more informed and adaptive federated aggregation. Extensive experiments on both natural and medical image benchmarking datasets, across diverse model architectures, demonstrate that FedVG consistently improves performance, particularly in highly heterogeneous settings. Moreover, FedVG is modular and can be seamlessly integrated with various state-of-the-art FL algorithms, often further improving their results. Our code is available at https://github.com/alinadevkota/FedVG.
Alina Devkota, Jacob Thrasher, Donald Adjeroh +2
West Virginia University · University of Aberdeen · Fogsphere (Redev.AI)
Federated learning (FL) is a decentralized approach that enables collaborative model training without exposing raw data. Instead of transferring sensitive data, it allows devices to share only model weights, keeping personal data locally and secure. However, in real world settings, the data held by devices is often not evenly distributed and devices mostly differ in computing power and memory capacity. These differences make FL harder to maintain consistent performance across the system. To address these issues, we propose FedMTFI, a novel architecture that combines multi-teacher knowledge distillation (MTKD) with feature importance to improve the FL process in heterogeneous environments. In FedMTFI, clients are clustered based on similar hardware and model types. Each cluster trains a specific model on not independently and identically distributed (non-IID) data. Within a cluster, every client updates that model using only its own local private data. The server then aggregates the locally trained models in each cluster using FedAvg to form multiple prototype models. Then these prototypes serve as teacher models to train a global generalized student model using MTKD. What makes FedMTFI more unique is the integration of Shapley values (SHAP) to emphasize important features during distillation, which enhances both accuracy and interpretability. Experimental results show that FedMTFI achieves higher accuracy than traditional FL algorithms and performs more effectively under non-IID data conditions.