Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Xi’an, Xidian University, China · College of Intelligence and Computing, Tianjin, Tianjin University, China · Medical College, Tianjin University; Peng Cheng Laboratory, Tianjin, China · University of Southern California, Los Angeles, US
Although Federated Learning has been widely studied in recent years, there are still high overhead expenses in each communication round for large-scale models such as Vision Transformer. To lower the communication complexity, we propose a novel Federated Block Coordinate Gradient Descent (FedBCGD) method for communication efficiency. The proposed method splits model parameters into several blocks, including a shared block and enables uploading a specific parameter block by each client, which can significantly reduce communication overhead. Moreover, we also develop an accelerated FedBCGD algorithm (called FedBCGD+) with client drift control and stochastic variance reduction. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first work on parameter block communication for training large-scale deep models. We also provide the convergence analysis for the proposed algorithms. Our theoretical results show that the communication complexities of our algorithms are a factor 1/N lower than those of existing methods, where N is the number of parameter blocks, and they enjoy much faster convergence than their counterparts. Empirical results indicate the superiority of the proposed algorithms compared to state-of-the-art algorithms. The code is available at https://github.com/junkangLiu0/FedBCGD.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. The diagram of the proposed FedBCGD framework, where S≥N , S and N are the numbers of clients and parameter blocks, respectively.
Algorithm
Strongly convex Communication complexity
Non-convex Communication complexity
Client sample
Stochastic Gradient
Floats sent per round
FedAvg ( McMahan et al., 2017 )
O(μSTϵσ2+G2+μϵσ+G+μβlogϵ1)
O(TSϵ2βσ2+ϵ23βG+Tβσ+ϵFβ)
Yes
Yes
d
FedBCGD (ours)
O(μSTϵσ2+G2+αμNϵσ+G+μNβlogϵ1)
O(TSϵ2βσ2+Nϵ23βG+Tβσ+NϵFβ)
Yes
Yes
d/N
SCAFFOLD ( Karimireddy et al., 2020b )
O(μSTϵσ2+μϵσ+(SM+μβ)logϵ1)
O(TSϵ2βσ2+ϵ23Tβσ+ϵβF(SM)32)
Yes
Yes
2d
FedLin ( Mitra et al., 2021 )
O(μβlogϵ1)
——
No
No
2d
S-Local-GD ( Gorbunov et al., 2021 )
O(μβlogϵ1)
——
No
No
2d
CE-LSGD ( Patel et al., 2022 )
——
O(Mϵ23GFτ)
Yes
Yes
3d
Table 1. Comparison of the communication complexities and communication overheads of different algorithms in the μ -strongly convex setting, where σ is the variance of stochastic gradients, G is heterogeneity due to client data distribution, S is the number of participating clients, K=S/N , K is the number of clients involved in each parameter block, N is the number of parameter blocks, and T is the number of local training iterations. The number of floats sent per round by FedAvg is d , and O describes the worst-case complexity of different algorithms, where α=1−λ1 . In non-convex settings, τ is the second-order heterogeneity (see ( Karimireddy et al., 2020a ) ), G is the first-order heterogeneity, F:=f(x0)−f⋆ , and f⋆ is a minimum value of Problem (1) below.
Figure 2. The client parameter block allocation in FedBCGD. For the sake of convenience, we suppose S=N⋅K clients are sampled and divided into N client blocks, i.e., K clients for each client block. The clients in the i -th client block are responsible for optimizing the upload parameter block i .
CIFAR100
LeNet-5 (40%)
VGG-11 (48%)
ResNet-18 (54%)
VGG-19 (45%)
Centralised SGD
53.7±0.2
56.3±0.3
62.2±0.1
58.9±0.1
FedAvg ( McMahan et al., 2017 )
41.2±0.2(558d)
48.7±0.4(720d)
54.2±0.2(927d)
47.6±0.1(735d)
FedAvgM ( Hsu et al., 2019 )
48.2±0.5(277d)
51.7±0.6(299d)
61.8±0.8(398d)
56.0±0.3(403d)
FedAdam ( Reddi et al., 2020 )
46.2±0.8(391d)
50.9±0.5(597d)
53.9±0.4(∞)
58.7±0.2(367d)
SCAFFOLD ( Karimireddy et al., 2020b )
50.3±0.2(214d)
47.9±0.2(∞)
52.3±0.2(∞)
58.3±0.5(556d)
FedDC ( Gao et al., 2022 )
53.2±0.3(302d)
48.2±0.2(956d)
46.6±0.1(∞)
56.8±0.4(321d)
Table 2. Comparison of the average testing accuracy (%) on CIFAR100, where the heterogeneity parameter is ρ=0.6 , total communication floats are 1000d , and the number of blacks is N=5 . The number in brackets indicates the number of communication floats to reach the target accuracy. Note that centralised SGD refers to using SGD to train models on a single machine.
CIFAR10
LeNet-5 (78%)
VGG-11 (83%)
ResNet-18 (88%)
VGG-19 (84%)
Centralised SGD
83.1±0.2
87.4±0.3
90.1±0.1
88.6±0.1
FedAvg ( McMahan et al., 2017 )
79.6±0.3(498d)
83.3±0.7(630d)
89.0±0.5(698d)
84.9±0.7(499d)
FedAvgM ( Hsu et al., 2019 )
81.1±0.6(360d)
83.7±0.4(830d)
89.1±0.7(882d)
87.4±0.5(252d)
FedAdam ( Reddi et al., 2020 )
78.3±1.2(860d)
85.4±1.1(478d)
81.1±1.3(∞)
87.5±0.9(298d)
SCAFFOLD ( Karimireddy et al., 2020b )
82.8±0.7(540d)
86.9±0.6(278)
89.0±0.4(747d)
85.5±0.5(358d)
FedDC ( Gao et al., 2022 )
83.0±0.2(280d)
83.1±0.6(866)
88.0±0.6(1985d)
78.0±0.9(∞)
Table 3. Comparison of the average testing accuracy (%) over the last 10% rounds of each algorithm on CIFAR10, where the heterogeneity parameter is ρ=0.6 , total communication floats are 1000d , the number of blacks is set to N=5 .
Figure 3. The convergence comparison of our FedBCGD and FedBCGD+, and other baselines on the CIFAR10 and CIFAR100 datasets with different neural network architectures, where, in 100 clients, partial (10%) clients are used, ρ=0.6 .
Figure 4. The acceleration comparison of FedBCGD with different numbers of blocks.
Figure 5. Accuracy comparison of FedBCGD with LeNet-5 on CIFAR10 (a) and CIFAR100 (b), where heterogeneity is ρ=0.6 . FedBCGD_freezing_nonshare is updated by using the local freezing parameter algorithm without the shared block. FedBCGD_freezing_share is FedBCGD_freezing algorithm with shared parameters. FedBCGD_nonshare trains all parameters locally and only transmits parameter blocks without shared parameters. FedBCGD_share has shared parameters. FedBCGD_share_momentum (i.e., FedBCGD) has momentum acceleration.
ρ=0.1
CIFAR100 (45%)
CIFAR10 (78%)
FedAvg ( McMahan et al., 2017 )
45.8±0.3(741d)
78.1±0.4(952d)
FedAvgM ( Hsu et al., 2019 )
48.3±0.6(769d)
78.6±0.8(997d)
FedAdam ( Reddi et al., 2020 )
49.9±0.5(610d)
71.4±1.1(∞)
SCAFFOLD ( Karimireddy et al., 2020b )
44.3±0.3(∞)
76.3±1.4(∞)
FedDC ( Gao et al., 2022 )
46.6±0.8(278d)
79.1±0.8(948d)
FedBCGD (ours)
59.5±0.3(147d)
86.2±0.9(212d)
Table 4. Comparison of each algorithm on CIFAR100 and CIFAR10. Heterogeneity is ρ=0.1 , total communication floats are 1000d , and the number of blocks in ResNet-18 is N=5 .
ρ=0.6
CIFAR100 (88%)
Tiny Imagenet (70%)
Centralised SGD
81.5±0.3
76.7±0.2
FedAvg ( McMahan et al., 2017 )
90.4±0.1(24d)
71.2±0.1(67d)
FedAvgM ( McMahan et al., 2017 )
88.7±0.3(32d)
76.7±0.4(10d)
FedAdam ( Reddi et al., 2020 )
87.6±0.2(∞)
65.5±0.6(∞)
SCAFFOLD ( Karimireddy et al., 2020b )
88.2±0.3(88d)
56.8±1.1(∞)
FedDC ( Gao et al., 2022 )
85.8±0.4(25d)
55.0±1.2(∞)
Table 5. The test accuracy comparison of each algorithm with ViT-Base on CIFAR100 and Tiny ImageNet. Heterogeneity is ρ=0.6 , total communication floats are 100d , N=6 .
ρ=0.6
CIFAR100 (40%)
CIFAR10 (70%)
FedAvg ( McMahan et al., 2017 )
35.4±0.1(∞)
73.2±0.1(133d)
TOP-k ( Aji and Heafield, 2017 )
42.2±0.5(112d)
74.5±0.4(92d)
FedPAQ ( Reisizadeh et al., 2020 )
43.3±0.2(110d)
75.2±0.4(121d)
FedBCGD (ours)
48.7±0.2(91d)
77.2±0.2(65d)
FedBCGD+ (ours)
49.6±0.3(89d)
80.6±0.2(57d)
QSGD ( Alistarh et al., 2017 ) +FedBCGD (ours)
52.2±0.4(61d)
82.6±0.1(32d)
Table 6. The test accuracy comparison of each algorithm with LeNet-5 on CIFAR100 and CIFAR10. Here, the heterogeneity is ρ=0.6 , total communication floats are 200d , N=5 .
Figure 6. The test accuracy varies with the communication floats with ViT-Base on the CIFAR100 and Tiny ImageNet datasets, where E=1 and ρ=0.6 , N=6 .
Figure 7. Test accuracy (a) and training loss (b) with ResNet-18 on CIFAR100, where E=5 and ρ=0.6 , N=5 .
Figure 8. Logistic regression with E=1 and ρ=0.1 , N=5 .
Figure 9. (a) Logistic regression with E=1 and ρ=0.1 . (b) The problem with non-convex loss, where E=1 and ρ=0.1 . The number of blocks is set to N=5 .
Parameter Block
Network Layers
Number of parameters
Block 1
conv3-64
4800
Block 2
conv3-64
102400
Block 3
FC-1600
614400
Block 4
FC-384
73728
Block 5
FC-192 (share)
1920
Table 7. The parameters block division of the LeNet-5 network.
Parameter Block
Network Layers
Number of parameters
Block 1
conv3-64
1728
Block 1
conv3-128
73728
Block 2
conv3-256
294912
Block 2
conv3-256
589824
Block 3
conv3-512
1179648
Block 3
conv3-512
2359296
Table 8. The parameter block division of the VGG-11 network.
Parameter Block
Network Layers
Number of parameters
Block 1
conv3-64
1728
Block 1
conv3-64
36864
Block 1
conv3-64
36864
Block 1
conv3-64
36864
Block 1
conv3-64
36864
Block 2
conv3-128
73728
Table 9. The parameters block division of the ResNet-18 network.
Parameter Block
Network Layers
Number of parameters
Block 1
conv3-64
1728
Block 1
conv3-64
36864
Block 1
conv3-128
73728
Block 1
conv3-128
147456
Block 1
conv3-256
294912
Block 1
conv3-256
589824
Table 10. The parameters block division of the VGG-19 network.
Parameter Block
Network Layers
Number of parameters
Block 1
ViT-Block 1
14299520
Block 2
ViT-Block 2
14299520
Block 3
ViT-Block 3
14299520
Block 4
ViT-Block 4
14299520
Block 5
ViT-Block 5
14299520
Block share
FC-100
153600
Table 11. The parameters block division of the VGG-19 network.
Federated learning (FL) is an emerging distributed machine learning paradigm that enables local devices to jointly train a global model while keeping data decentralized and private. We propose a variance-reduction based algorithm, VRA-FedSGD, for FL in the presence of heavy-tailed gradient noise and communication noise, where these noises are prevalent in large-scale machine learning over wireless networks and Internet of Things deployments. VRA-FedSGD employs a momentum variance reduction technique together with a nonlinear mapping to mitigate heavy-tailed gradient noise, and uses a variance-reduced aggregation mechanism to suppress heavy-tailed communication noise. In the mean sense, VRA-FedSGD achieves a convergence rate of {\smallO(K−(p−1)/(2p−1))} for nonconvex objective functions, where p is the tail index of heavy-tailed noise. In the almost sure sense, VRA-FedSGD achieves a convergence rate of O~(K−(1−1/(p−ε))) for strongly convex objective functions, where ε is an arbitrarily small constant. Simulated experiments on a logistic regression problem with real-world data verify the effectiveness of VRA-FedSGD.
Shengchao Zhao, Yongchao Liu
School of Mathematics, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China · School of Mathematical Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
Federated learning (FL) enables collaborative model training without sharing raw patient data, but standard approaches such as FedAvg treat each client as a black box and provide no mechanism for isolating an adversarial contributor, auditing per-client influence, or honoring a departed participant's right to be forgotten. We present Fed-FBD (Federated Functional Block Diversification), a modular federated architecture that decomposes a ResNet backbone into six functional blocks (the stem, four residual groups, and the classification head) and maintains a warehouse of N color variants, each assembled from independently tracked and contributor-stamped blocks. Fed-FBD provides three capabilities absent in FedAvg: (i) architecturally guaranteed block-level isolation, so that an adversarial or mislabelled client cannot contaminate the clean colous; (ii) privacy-by-design, where membership inference advantage is already indistinguishable from chance before any privacy mechanism is applied; and (iii) surgical machine unlearning of a departed participant's contribution at sub-second cost and without retraining. Experiments on six MedMNIST-2D datasets, PathMNIST at 224x224, and CIFAR-10 show that Fed-FBD trades a modest 0.3%-3.1% IID accuracy gap on the adequately sized datasets for these guarantees, remains within 0.8%-4.0% of FedAvg at Dirichlet alpha=1.0 on three of four datasets, and confines all six adversarial attacks we study to the poisoned client's own blocks with at most +/-0.01 AUC drift on the clean colors.
Weijie Chen, Alan B. McMillan
Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin–Madison
Federated training of foundation models is constrained by client memory and communication costs. LoRA-based methods reduce these costs through low-rank adapters, but their fixed rank budget can limit adaptation. Gradient low-rank optimization offers greater flexibility, yet independently chosen client subspaces create a problem we term subspace fragmentation: local projections interact with data heterogeneity to bias aggregated directions, while aggregation can increase update rank and communication cost. Thus, accurate local gradient compression need not preserve global descent. We propose FedLore, which shares a low-rank optimization basis within each round and refreshes it across rounds. The shared basis enables exact aggregation in low-rank coordinates and eliminates the identified projection bias. Subspace refresh allows the accumulated model update to exceed the per-round rank budget. We characterize the aggregation bias and establish an O(T−1/2) stationarity bound for the projected-SGD variant under a global-gradient coverage condition and standard smoothness and variance assumptions, with bounded gradient heterogeneity. Experiments on vision and language tasks, including federated pre-training, show that FedLore outperforms the evaluated low-rank adapter baselines and matches or exceeds full-parameter training, while reducing communication and optimizer-state memory.