Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China · School of Information Science and Engineering, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430081, China · School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
Remote sensing image segmentation (RSIS) in federated environments has gained increasing attention because it enables collaborative model training across distributed datasets without sharing raw imagery or annotations. Federated RSIS combined with parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) can unleash the generalization power of pretrained foundation models for real-world applications, with minimal parameter aggregation and communication overhead. However, the dynamic adaptation of pretrained models to heterogeneous client data inevitably increases update uncertainty and compromises the reliability of collaborative optimization due to the lack of uncertainty estimation for each local model. To bridge this gap, we present FedEU, a federated optimization framework for fine-tuning RSIS models driven by evidential uncertainty. Specifically, personalized evidential uncertainty modeling is introduced to quantify epistemic variations of local models and identify high-risk areas under local data distributions. Furthermore, the client-specific feature embedding (CFE) is exploited to enhance channel-aware feature representation while preserving client-specific properties through personalized attention and an element-aware parameter update approach. These uncertainty estimates are uploaded to the server to enable adaptive global aggregation via a Top-k uncertainty-guided weighting (TUW) strategy, which mitigates the impact of distribution shifts and unreliable updates. Extensive experiments on three large-scale heterogeneous datasets demonstrate the superior performance of FedEU. More importantly, FedEU enables balanced model adaptation across diverse clients by explicitly reducing prediction uncertainty, resulting in more robust and reliable federated outcomes. The source codes will be available at https://github.com/zxk688/FedEU.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: The framework of FedEU. The local network is a typical encoder-decoder framework with a segmentation head and an evidential uncertainty (EU) head. Furthermore, the CFE module is introduced to enable each client to assign personalized attention to different channels and calibrate its feature representations accordingly through dynamic parameter update. In the local training, the local model generates predictive evidential uncertainties via the EU head. In the global aggregation, the Top- k uncertainty-based weights are used to guide model parameter aggregation on the server side.
Fig. 2: Illustration of the CFE module, which is inspired by [ 55 ] . It employs a personalized channel attention mechanism by embedding domain identifiers into the feature representations and three MLP layers are adopted to perform gated channel attention. The layer parameters are updated via an element-wise strategy considering the dynamics of the training process.
Dataset
Clients
Fine-tuning samples
Test samples
GF-7
6
75 / 43 / 43 / 44 / 45 / 58
101
GLH
5
30 / 30 / 30 / 30 / 30 / 30
250
GVLM
6
71 / 93 / 141 / 81 / 161 / 72
208
TABLE I: Description of the experimental setups about clients and samples with an image size of 512 × 512 .
Fig. 3: Visual comparison of building extraction results from various FL algorithms on the GF-7 dataset. (a) Original image. (b) Ground truth. (c)-(h) The segmentation results obtained by (c) FedAvg, (d) FedProx, (e) FedSeg, (f) FedTGP, (g) Per-FedAvg, (h) FedBN and (i) FedEU. True positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives are denoted by white, black, red, and blue, respectively.
Method
Chongqing
Guangzhou
Lanzhou
Ningbo
Shenzhen
Tianjin
Total
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
FedAvg [ 47 ]
45.39
89.37
46.46
88.97
47.00
84.67
50.67
87.19
46.16
86.87
56.19
90.42
48.66
88.18
FedProx [ 48 ]
55.27
93.17
41.67
88.52
42.71
85.97
55.84
90.07
45.33
87.30
52.63
90.32
49.73
89.68
FedSeg [ 50 ]
52.19
90.49
49.54
90.00
57.40
91.31
52.86
89.24
48.21
88.67
52.49
90.32
52.11
90.49
FedTGP [ 58 ]
52.03
92.09
47.83
89.66
49.21
87.04
56.67
90.33
51.22
89.03
55.77
91.02
52.29
90.72
Per-FedAvg [ 24 ]
50.90
93.79
56.22
90.90
49.80
91.35
54.07
89.34
45.35
90.26
54.09
89.35
51.74
91.06
TABLE II: The test accuracies (%) on the GF-7 dataset.
Fig. 4: Visual comparison of water extraction results from various FL algorithms on the GLH-water dataset. (a) Original image. (b) Ground truth. (c)-(h) The segmentation results obtained by (c) FedAvg, (d) FedProx, (e) FedSeg, (f) FedTGP, (g) Per-FedAvg, (h) FedBN and (i) FedEU. True positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives are denoted by white, black, red, and blue, respectively.
Method
Client 1
Client 2
Client 3
Client 4
Client 5
Total
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
FedAvg [ 47 ]
62.16
80.12
76.19
89.66
71.51
88.29
81.38
90.77
51.80
72.81
64.00
81.17
FedProx [ 48 ]
62.67
79.96
75.98
89.52
73.25
88.98
82.00
91.40
51.52
72.80
64.13
81.98
FedSeg [ 50 ]
62.37
79.41
71.40
87.82
72.53
88.41
83.31
91.95
53.97
73.78
63.95
81.56
FedTGP [ 58 ]
71.74
85.98
82.48
92.86
84.14
93.87
87.74
94.02
55.70
74.39
70.22
85.34
Per-FedAvg [ 24 ]
77.45
88.41
91.22
96.52
93.13
97.42
95.69
97.99
68.19
86.42
80.40
91.11
TABLE III: The test accuracies (%) on the GLH dataset.
Fig. 5: Visual comparisons on the GVLM dataset. (a) Original image. (b) Ground truth. (c)-(h) The segmentation results obtained by (c) FedAvg, (d) FedProx, (e) FedSeg, (f) FedTGP, (g) Per-FedAvg, (h) FedBN and (i) FedEU. True positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives are denoted by white, black, red, and blue, respectively.
Method
Vietnam
China
India
Chile
Kyrgyzstan
Georgia
Total
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
IoU
OA
FedAvg [ 47 ]
83.06
99.67
47.63
98.29
35.45
98.86
71.62
90.76
82.52
97.60
66.75
95.26
59.26
96.24
FedProx [ 48 ]
83.68
99.69
47.24
98.29
35.65
98.83
71.64
90.76
82.11
97.53
66.42
95.14
59.36
96.25
FedSeg [ 50 ]
84.10
99.69
46.71
98.26
35.31
98.87
71.92
90.85
81.54
97.51
66.35
95.19
58.89
96.61
FedTGP [ 58 ]
83.58
99.68
47.39
98.28
66.55
99.46
71.31
90.66
82.70
97.62
47.79
91.80
64.90
96.06
Per-FedAvg [ 24 ]
84.64
99.70
51.13
98.16
64.90
99.37
93.54
98.12
85.24
97.99
73.93
96.49
72.45
98.13
TABLE IV: The test accuracies (%) on the GVLM dataset.
CFE
TUW
CQ
GZ
LZ
NB
SZ
TJ
Total
55.46
57.92
59.81
55.67
50.69
55.85
52.46
✓
54.45
60.65
60.33
55.87
51.78
56.80
53.28
✓
54.19
59.36
60.44
56.25
51.70
56.82
54.07
✓
✓
57.62
61.09
61.50
55.91
52.75
55.15
55.32
TABLE V: Ablation studies (%) of key components in FedEU on the GF-7.
Fig. 6: Analysis of the weight μ in the EU head on the prediction performance. (a) to (f) are results in the clients of Chongqing, Guangzhou, Lanzhou, Ningbo, Shenzhen and Tianjin, respectively.
Fig. 7: Training performance with uncertainty constraints using the GF-7 dataset. (a) to (f) are results in the clients of Chongqing, Guangzhou, Lanzhou, Ningbo, Shenzhen and Tianjin, respectively.
Fig. 8: Visual analysis of the distributions of evidential uncertainty and prediction errors with different ablations on the GF-7 dataset. (a) Original image. (b) Ground truth. (c)-(d) FedEU. (e)-(f) w/o CFE. (g)-(h) w/o TUW.
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Technische Universität Berlin, 10587 Berlin, Germany · BIFOLD - Berlin Institute for the Foundations of Learning and Data, 10587 Berlin, Germany
BIFOLD - Berlin Institute for the Foundations of Learning and Data, 10587 Berlin, Germany · Technische Universität Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany · Orion Lab, School of Rural, Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15772 Athens, Greece +2