Organizations: Arizona State University · Member, IEEE · California State University, Dominguez Hills · University of California, Irvine · Johns Hopkins University
Federated instruction fine-tuning enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to adapt to decentralized, privacy-sensitive data without requiring data sharing. Recent Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) LLMs are particularly attractive for federated learning because their sparse activation reduces computation and communication while scaling model capacity. However, existing federated MoE methods primarily focus on parameter aggregation and personalization, overlooking the routing behavior of MoE models as a source of information for client collaboration. Under heterogeneous instruction distributions, indiscriminate aggregation can lead to negative transfer, highlighting the need to identify which clients should collaborate during federated optimization. We propose ClientMorpher, a routing-aware, personalized federated instruction fine-tuning framework that leverages routing signatures from pretrained MoE models to organize client collaboration prior to aggregation. We investigate two complementary clustering strategies: ClientMorpher-C, which directly clusters clients using expert activation profiles, and ClientMorpher-E, which first clusters experts based on their cross-client usage signatures and then derives client collaboration groups. We evaluate ClientMorpher for federated instruction fine-tuning on the Databricks Dolly-15K dataset, using pathological and Dirichlet-based heterogeneous client distributions across multiple instruction-following tasks. Experimental results show that routing-aware collaboration consistently improves personalized performance compared to conventional federated averaging and local training, while maintaining the same communication cost. Furthermore, our study shows that client-centric and expert-centric clustering provides an effective and scalable approach for personalized federated instruction fine-tuning of sparse MoE LLMs.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Motivation for ClientMorpher. (a) Local training provides personalization but no collaboration. (b) FedAvg aggregates all MoE experts across clients, ignoring expert usage patterns. (c) ClientMorpher clusters clients using sparse expert activation profiles and performs cluster-wise aggregation of shared parameters.
Fig. 2: The end-to-end workflow of the ClientMorpher Framework.
Fig. 3: The depiction of router-guided client clustering for MoE-LLMs.
CC
EC
K-Means input
Client profiles
Expert signatures
Input shape
N×E
E×N
Output
Client labels ai
Expert labels ze
Assignment
Direct ( ai )
argmaxk∑eui,eMe,k
Aggregation
Cluster-wise FedAvg
Cluster-wise FedAvg
TABLE I: Comparison of the two clustering strategies.
Method
CLF
CQA
IE
SUM
Avg.
Comm.%
Local
0.6036
0.4096
0.5087
0.4075
0.4824
0.00
MoE-FedAvg (LoRA)
0.6299
0.4232
0.5085
0.4090
0.4927
0.0878
ClientMorpher-C
0.5937
0.3785
0.5243
0.3960
0.4731
0.0878
ClientMorpher-E
0.6411
0.4254
0.5099
0.4181
0.4986
0.0878
TABLE II: 4-client pathological split. All federated methods exchange identical LoRA parameters (0.0878% of model/round).
α=0.1
α=1.0
Client
Task
Local
MoE-FedAvg
Client Cluster
Expert Cluster
Task
Client Cluster
Expert Cluster
C0
QA
0.4679
0.5175
0.4732
0.4702
CLS
0.4833
0.4748
C1
IE
0.4660
0.5215
0.5085
0.5129
Summ
0.5174
0.4953
C2
Summ
0.3179
0.3552
0.3849
0.3798
Summ
0.4253
0.4269
C3
CLS
0.5383
0.5529
0.5472
0.5327
CLS
0.5648
0.5835
C4
QA
0.4013
0.4294
0.4767
0.4875
IE
0.4781
0.4766
TABLE III: Comparison of Local Training, MoE-FedAvg, Client Clustering, and Expert Clustering under different Dirichlet concentration parameters ( α ). Client IDs remain fixed across experiments, while task assignments may differ under different α values. ROUGE-L is reported for each client (higher is better).