Federated learning (FL) under data heterogeneity remains challenging: existing methods either ignore client differences (FedAvg), require costly cluster discovery (IFCA), or maintain per-client models (Ditto). All degrade when data is sparse or heterogeneity is multi-dimensional. We propose conditioning a single global model on locally-computed PCA statistics of each client's training data, requiring zero additional communication. Evaluating across 97~configurations spanning four heterogeneity types (label shift, covariate shift, concept shift, and combined heterogeneity), four datasets (MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100), and seven FL baseline methods, we find that our method matches the Oracle baseline -- which knows true cluster assignments -- across all settings, surpasses it by 1--6% on combined heterogeneity where continuous statistics are richer than discrete cluster identifiers, and is uniquely sparsity-robust among all tested methods.
Figures & tables
Exp.
Config
FedAvg
Oracle
Cond
Best Other
E1
CIFAR-10 K=5
.325
.927
.929
.906 (IFCA)
E2a
CIFAR-10 K=3
.943
.979
.981
.972 (DAC)
E2b
FMNIST rot. K=4
.789
.900
.895
.868 (DAC)
E3a
FMNIST sem. Rich
.671
.950
.950
.943 (IFCA)
E3b
CIFAR-10 perm. K=2
.408
.795
.808
.773 (DAC)
E4a
MNIST+FM Rich
.939
.957
.955
.953 (IFCA)
TABLE I : Summary of representative results across all experiments E1–E4. Bold indicates best non-Oracle method. Conditional consistently matches or exceeds Oracle.
Fig. 1 : Client-conditional pipeline for client i . Green boxes are client-local; orange boxes involve the federation. Prepare : PCA eigenvalues si are computed once from the training data. Train : model updates are computed locally and aggregated via federated learning to produce the shared model θ . Infer : the client uses the shared model θ and its own si for predictions.
Fig. 2 : Four FL paradigms under data heterogeneity. (a) FedAvg: one global model, no personalization. (b) Clustered: K separate models with iterative cluster discovery. (c) Personalized: N per-client models fine-tuned from a shared model. (d) Ours: a single shared model conditioned on locally-computed statistics si , requiring no cluster discovery and no additional communication.
MNIST
Fashion-MNIST
CIFAR-10
Method
K=2
K=3
K=5
K=10
K=2
K=3
K=5
K=10
K=2
K=3
K=5
K=10
Local
.991
.992
.997
1.00
.908
.920
.945
1.00
.767
.784
.856
1.00
FedAvg
.986
.978
.933
.522
.902
.886
.745
.412
.735
.554
.325
.172
Gossip
.982
.983
.892
.560
.895
.899
.825
.560
.745
.755
.533
.566
Ditto
.993
.994
.996
1.00
.910
.915
.933
.999
.826
.822
.843
1.00
IFCA
.995
.995
.999
1.00
.922
.932
.945
1.00
.847
.766
.906
1.00
TABLE II : E1: Label shift accuracy. Conditional matches Oracle across all dataset– K combinations. FedAvg collapses at high K while Conditional maintains Oracle-level performance.
Method
C=2 (4 cl.)
C=3 (6 cl.)
C=4 (8 cl.)
Mean
Local
.818
.854
.886
.853
FedAvg
.754
.743
.764
.754
Gossip
.775
.789
.786
.783
Ditto
.868
.880
.906
.885
IFCA
.752
.740
.892
.795
DAC
.888
.854
.896
.879
TABLE III : E4b: Combined heterogeneity on CIFAR-10. Conditional consistently exceeds Oracle because continuous statistics capture multi-dimensional variation that a discrete cluster ID cannot. C = covariate clusters per concept group; total clusters = 2C .
Fig. 3 : Conditional exceeds Oracle on complex heterogeneity. Left: E3b label permutation on CIFAR-10 ( K sweep). Right: E4b combined heterogeneity (concept + covariate shift). Continuous statistics provide richer conditioning than discrete cluster IDs.
MNIST
Fashion-MNIST
CIFAR-10
Method
K=2
K=3
K=4
K=5
K=2
K=3
K=4
K=5
K=2
K=3
K=4
K=5
Local
.981
.977
.973
.969
.877
.863
.854
.845
.668
.618
.579
.558
FedAvg
.495
.332
.295
.306
.454
.330
.278
.257
.408
.304
.285
.282
Gossip
.691
.798
.568
.585
.619
.677
.477
.484
.545
.583
.429
.401
Ditto
.982
.980
.975
.970
.877
.854
.833
.815
.767
.725
.685
.661
IFCA
.990
.985
.982
.844
.892
.593
.659
.705
.411
.535
.717
.574
TABLE IV : E3b: Label permutation ( K sweep). Conditional exceeds Oracle on all three datasets, with the largest gains on CIFAR-10.
Fig. 4 : Sparsity robustness on E1 Label Shift ( K=2 ). Conditional and Oracle maintain flat accuracy as data decreases 20-fold (from ∼6,000 to ∼200 samples/client). All other methods degrade, with Gossip collapsing to near-random.
Rich
Med.
Sparse
V. Sparse
S. Sparse
Δ
(4000)
(2000)
(800)
(400)
(200)
Local
.767
.713
.606
.526
.446
− 41.9%
FedAvg
.709
.577
.421
.472
.434
− 38.8%
Gossip
.752
.694
.532
.431
.211
− 72.0%
Ditto
.825
.780
.695
.575
.496
− 39.9%
IFCA
.852
.824
.765
.715
.631
− 25.9%
TABLE V : E1 sparsity sweep on CIFAR-10 ( K=2 ). Conditional maintains near-constant accuracy across a 20 × reduction in data per client. Δ : relative degradation from Rich to Super Sparse.
Appendix figures & tables32 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Reference models
Conditional models
Task
Global
Cluster
Client
Ens
MLP
Lin
Linreg (RMSE ↓ )
14.901
0.100
0.106
0.104
0.134
0.127
Logreg (acc ↑ )
0.700
0.997
0.944
0.989
0.985
0.964
Appendix
TABLE VI : MCDC synthetic tasks: 3 clusters, 100 clients each, 10 features. Lower RMSE is better for linear regression; higher accuracy is better for logistic regression. Best reference model and best conditional model in bold.
TABLE VIII : MCDC EMNIST: effect of number of PCA components ( nc ) used for conditioning. A single component suffices; additional components provide no further benefit.
Fig. 5 : MCDC EMNIST: per-character accuracy for digits, uppercase, and lowercase character subsets (1 PCA component). The global model struggles with similar looking characters that appear in multiple subsets (e.g., lowercase ‘o’ vs uppercase ‘O’ vs digit ‘0’), while the conditional model resolves these ambiguities internally without having to identify peer clusters.
Group
Char
Global
Client
Cluster
Cond
o/O/0
o (lower)
.000
.578
.933
.917
O (upper)
.517
.927
.978
.975
0 (digit)
.824
.965
.993
.994
l/I/1
l (lower)
.227
.952
.965
.959
I (upper)
.490
.895
.967
.968
1 (digit)
.882
.988
.996
.996
Appendix
TABLE IX : MCDC EMNIST: accuracy on visually confusable characters across subsets. Characters are grouped by visual similarity; the global model fails on lowercase characters with cross-subset overlap, while the conditional model resolves these using client characteristic statistics only.
Fig. 6 : MCDC EMNIST: accuracy on confusable character pairs across subsets. The global model (rightmost) shows systematic failure on lowercase characters with cross-subset visual ambiguity, while the conditional model matches the cluster oracle.
MNIST
FMNIST
CIFAR-10
Method
K=2
K=3
K=5
K=10
K=2
K=3
K=5
K=10
K=2
K=3
K=5
K=10
Local
.991
.992
.997
1.00
.908
.920
.945
1.00
.767
.784
.856
1.00
FedAvg
.986
.978
.933
.522
.902
.886
.745
.412
.735
.554
.325
.172
Gossip
.982
.983
.892
.560
.895
.899
.825
.560
.745
.755
.533
.566
Ditto
.993
.994
.996
1.00
.910
.915
.933
.999
.826
.822
.843
1.00
IFCA
.995
.995
.999
1.00
.922
.932
.945
1.00
.847
.766
.906
1.00
Appendix
TABLE X : E1: Label Shift Accuracy vs Number of Clusters (K)
Fig. 7 : E1: Test accuracy vs. number of clusters (K) for label shift heterogeneity across four datasets. Conditional (our method) matches Oracle performance across all settings.
MNIST
FMNIST
CIFAR-10
Method
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Local
.991
.986
.976
.963
.940
.909
.893
.866
.839
.798
.767
.713
.606
.526
.446
FedAvg
.986
.980
.950
.824
.738
.902
.884
.837
.784
.718
.709
.577
.421
.472
.434
Gossip
.982
.967
.873
.698
.151
.895
.855
.752
.633
.083
.752
.694
.532
.431
.211
Ditto
.993
.990
.978
.948
.916
.910
.891
.851
.786
.743
.825
.780
.695
.575
.496
IFCA
.994
.992
.985
.964
.935
.925
.906
.872
.824
.771
.852
.824
.765
.715
.631
Appendix
TABLE XI : E1: Label Shift Accuracy vs Sparsity (K=2, clients per cluster: 5/10/20/50/100)
Fig. 8 : E1: Method performance vs. data sparsity (K=2) for label shift. Conditional maintains Oracle-level accuracy across all sparsity levels.
Method
Accuracy (K=20)
Local
.543
FedAvg
.143
Gossip
.193
Ditto
.566
IFCA
.635
DAC
.651
Appendix
TABLE XII : E1: CIFAR-100 Label Shift Accuracy (K=20 superclasses)
Fig. 9 : E1: Complete results heatmap across all datasets and K values. Conditional (our method, bold) consistently matches Oracle performance.
MNIST
FMNIST
CIFAR-10
Method
K=2
K=3
K=4
K=2
K=3
K=4
K=2
K=3
K=4
Local
.995
.996
.997
.996
.996
.998
.944
.955
.948
FedAvg
.989
.981
.981
.992
.986
.980
.956
.943
.923
Gossip
.988
.985
.980
.989
.988
.989
.946
.952
.932
Ditto
.996
.996
.996
.995
.993
.997
.960
.969
.961
IFCA
.997
.996
.989
.992
.996
.999
.954
.943
.961
Appendix
TABLE XIII : E2a: Covariate Shift (Subsampling) Accuracy vs K
Fig. 10 : E2a: Accuracy vs. K for covariate shift (subsampling). With local test evaluation, Conditional matches Oracle across all datasets.
MNIST
FMNIST
CIFAR-10
Method
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Local
.995
.992
.987
.980
.967
.995
.994
.992
.990
.989
.946
.926
.906
.881
.863
FedAvg
.988
.986
.977
.932
.847
.992
.988
.986
.985
.984
.956
.945
.932
.924
.916
Gossip
.988
.981
.897
.505
.504
.989
.988
.987
.600
.600
.951
.933
.907
.854
.833
Ditto
.997
.995
.989
.968
.928
.995
.993
.991
.990
.988
.961
.946
.936
.915
.892
IFCA
.998
.996
.991
.981
.958
.992
.989
.986
.986
.984
.954
.948
.933
.922
.915
Appendix
TABLE XIV : E2a: Covariate Shift Sparsity Sweep (K=2, clients per cluster: 5/10/20/50/100)
Fig. 11 : E2a: Accuracy vs. data sparsity (K=2) for covariate shift. Conditional is perfectly sparsity-invariant, while Gossip collapses at sparse settings.
MNIST
FMNIST
Method
C1
C2
C3
C4
C1
C2
C3
C4
Local
.981
.976
.972
.971
.877
.860
.852
.851
FedAvg
.976
.962
.940
.965
.876
.836
.789
.821
Gossip
.968
.965
.931
.949
.859
.810
.718
.773
Ditto
.985
.976
.971
.979
.880
.846
.823
.837
IFCA
.990
.981
.977
.983
.880
.872
.860
.855
Appendix
TABLE XV : E2b: Rotation-Based Covariate Shift across four configurations
Fig. 12 : E2b: Rotation-based covariate shift results across all four configurations. Conditional closely tracks Oracle across all rotation settings.
MNIST
FMNIST
CIFAR-10
Method
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Local
.985
.979
.966
.948
.915
.930
.919
.901
.880
.854
.829
.774
.741
.707
.676
FedAvg
.793
.791
.785
.768
.713
.671
.661
.639
.628
.636
.762
.746
.742
.733
.727
Gossip
.871
.866
.506
.502
.500
.774
.746
.535
.500
.500
.804
.771
.716
.693
.649
Ditto
.988
.983
.963
.910
.765
.928
.918
.868
.815
.697
.878
.837
.804
.756
.718
IFCA
.992
.988
.962
.767
.714
.943
.934
.905
.876
.798
.759
.747
.740
.734
.726
Appendix
TABLE XVI : E3a: Semantic Concept Shift Accuracy (Sparsity Sweep, K=2, clients per cluster: 5/10/20/50/100)
Fig. 13 : E3a: Semantic concept shift sparsity sweep. Conditional maintains near-Oracle performance while other methods degrade significantly.
Fig. 14 : E3a: Gap to Oracle across sparsity levels (personalized methods only). Conditional stays closest to Oracle (negative gap = better than Oracle).
MNIST
FMNIST
CIFAR-10
Method
K=2
K=3
K=4
K=5
K=2
K=3
K=4
K=5
K=2
K=3
K=4
K=5
Local
.981
.977
.973
.969
.877
.863
.854
.845
.668
.618
.579
.558
FedAvg
.495
.332
.295
.306
.454
.330
.278
.257
.408
.304
.285
.282
Gossip
.691
.798
.568
.585
.619
.677
.477
.484
.545
.583
.429
.401
Ditto
.982
.980
.975
.970
.877
.854
.833
.815
.767
.725
.685
.661
IFCA
.990
.985
.982
.844
.892
.593
.659
.705
.411
.535
.717
.574
Appendix
TABLE XVII : E3b: Label Permutation — K Sweep
Fig. 15 : E3b: Label permutation K sweep. Conditional consistently outperforms Oracle on CIFAR-10, demonstrating the value of continuous statistics over discrete cluster assignments.
MNIST
FMNIST
CIFAR-10
Method
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Rich
Med
Sparse
V.Sp
S.Sp
Local
.981
.973
.954
.929
.880
.878
.854
.814
.768
.715
.668
.576
.467
.406
.349
FedAvg
.494
.492
.481
.461
.399
.456
.440
.419
.388
.367
.411
.391
.354
.322
.286
Gossip
.691
.683
.107
.107
.106
.621
.584
.493
.100
.100
.544
.497
.425
.307
.207
Ditto
.983
.976
.949
.897
.766
.877
.848
.781
.737
.663
.769
.719
.612
.494
.394
IFCA
.990
.986
.970
.936
.869
.892
.873
.816
.774
.721
.412
.739
.675
.591
.502
Appendix
TABLE XVIII : E3b: Label Permutation — Sparsity Sweep (K=2, clients per cluster: 5/10/20/50/100)
Fig. 16 : E3b: Label permutation sparsity sweep (K=2). Gossip collapses to random at sparse settings; Conditional remains the best practical method.
Federated learning (FL) commonly involves clients with diverse communication and computational capabilities. Such heterogeneity can significantly distort the optimization dynamics and lead to objective inconsistency, where the global model converges to an incorrect stationary point potentially far from the pursued optimum. Despite its critical impact, the joint effect of communication and computation heterogeneity has remained largely unexplored, due to the intrinsic complexity of their interaction. In this paper, we reveal the fundamentally distinct mechanisms through which heterogeneous communication and computation drive inconsistency in FL. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first unified theoretical analysis of general heterogeneous FL, offering a principled understanding of how these two forms of heterogeneity jointly distort the optimization trajectory under arbitrary choices of local solvers. Motivated by these insights, we propose Federated Heterogeneity-Aware Client Sampling, FedACS, a universal method to eliminate all types of objective inconsistency. We theoretically prove that FedACS converges to the correct optimum at a rate of O(1/R), even in dynamic heterogeneous environments. Extensive experiments across multiple datasets show that FedACS outperforms state-of-the-art and category-specific baselines by 4.3%-36%, while reducing communication costs by 22%-89% and computation loads by 14%-105%, respectively.
Shudi Weng, Chao Ren, Ming Xiao +1
Division of Information Science and Engineering, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 11428 Stockholm, Sweden
Statistical heterogeneity limits federated learning when a single global classifier cannot represent client-specific label distributions. In this work, we propose Personalized Federated Knowledge Distillation with Head Adaptation (pFedKDH), which aggregates only the shared backbone, keeps persistent client-specific heads, and uses a recalibrated global head as a teacher during local training. Across MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR10, and CIFAR100 under class-wise Dirichlet partitions, pFedKDH obtains the best accuracy in most settings, with accuracy gaps up to 37.67% over the weakest baseline and consistently low standard deviation across repetitions. Component-wise diagnostics and convergence results support the role of persistent heads and distillation-guided local optimization under label-skewed data.
Polycarpo Souza Neto, José Mairton Barros da Silva Júnior, Charles Casimiro Cavalcante
Universidade Federal do Cear´a, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil · Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
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