Retail search systems serve diverse geographic regions with distinct query patterns, vocabularies, and product preferences, creating significant data heterogeneity that challenges both privacy-preserving training and model personalization. Federated learning offers a natural solution for privacy, but standard FL methods produce global models that sacrifice regional performance, while existing personalized FL approaches operate at the parameter level and catastrophically collapse on modern transformers (below 10% accuracy on T5) due to tied embeddings and LayerNorm interactions. We introduce RegionFed, an \textit{architecture-robust} federated learning framework that sidesteps this failure by operating entirely at the gradient level. RegionFed uses the ℓ2 conflict between regional and global gradients as a unified signal that (i) diagnoses heterogeneity, (ii) routes each region to the cheapest sufficient personalization strategy, and (iii) adaptively controls personalization strength. Because it treats models as differentiable black boxes, RegionFed deploys on T5-Small, T5-3B, RoBERTa, and CNN with zero code changes, providing large gains on transformers (where parameter-level methods collapse) and consistent improvements on CNNs. Across three public datasets (Amazon ESCI, Amazon Reviews, LEAF-FEMNIST) and four architectures, RegionFed-Meta achieves 92.27%, closing the gap to the privacy-violating centralized upper bound (Centralized + Regional Weighting: 92.04%, Δ=0.23pp, within 1σ) while providing (ε≈0.60)-differential privacy and O(1/T) convergence.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: RegionFed architecture: three-layer hierarchy with global server, regional coordinators ( M regions), and local clients. Blue bidirectional arrows show gradient/model exchange; right panel shows adaptive components (strategy selection, golden section ρ optimization, adaptive αr weights).
Table 1: Overall performance across datasets and architectures (50 rounds, 5 seeds). Bold : best federated; underline : second-best. Red : collapsed ( < 10%). RF-Meta closes the gap to the centralized upper bound ( Δ =0.23pp) while parameter-level methods collapse on transformers but not CNN.
RRS by αD
Method
1.0 (Low)
0.3 (Med)
0.1 (High)
Deg. ↓
Reg. SD ↓
RRS ↑
FedAvg
89.1
80.04
67.5
21.6
2.98
80.04
FedProx
89.5
67.13
69.2
20.3
3.40
67.13
Reg-Aware FedAvg
89.8
83.21
71.3
18.5
2.54
83.21
Local FT
90.2
79.53
78.3
11.9
3.21
79.53
FedBABU
89.8
84.12
72.4
17.4
2.18
84.12
Table 2: Robustness to heterogeneity and regional equity
Region
Query
Task
Predicted
Best
Global
Gain
Electronics
apple tv
Intent
brand_lookup
92.3%
84.5%
+7.8%
Fashion
butter avlable
Spell
butter available
91.3%
83.6%
+7.7%
Home
tv cost
NER
PRODUCT O
91.4%
85.8%
+5.6%
Sports
need yoga mat
Intent
product_search
91.9%
84.1%
+7.8%
Beauty
supplements on sale
Intent
price_comparison
93.4%
87.2%
+6.2%
Table 3: Query-level case studies: RegionFed produces correct personalized predictions with 5–8% gain over the global (non-personalized) baseline across regions and tasks.
Figure 2: Convergence over 50 rounds. Full y-axis (0–96%) shows SCAFFOLD’s collapse ( ∼ 9%); inset zooms into top methods (83–93%) to differentiate converged performance. RegionFed plateaus above 91% by round 5; FedAvg reaches ∼ 82% by round 20. The persistent gap confirms additional rounds cannot compensate for lacking regional personalization.
Appendix figures & tables23 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Metric
Value
Total / Train / Test Samples
20,000 / 16,000 / 4,000
Regions / Clients per Region
8 / 10 (80 total)
Vocabulary Size / Max Query Length
5,000 words / 20 tokens
Intent Classes / Entity Types
8 / 6 (5 + O tag)
Product Categories
24
Dirichlet αD / Regional Bias
0.3 / 70%
Appendix
Table 4: Amazon ESCI Benchmark Statistics
ID
Region Type
Focus
Top Categories
0
Urban Tech
Tech
Electronics, Gaming
1
Young Demo.
Fashion
Fashion, Apparel
2
High-Income
Premium
Fashion, Electronics
3
Price-Conscious
Value
Grocery, Food
4
Active Lifestyle
Outdoor
Sports, Fitness
5
Business Prof.
Prof.
Apparel, Books
Appendix
Table 5: Regional Shopping Preferences and Product Focus
Figure 3: Intent Distribution Across 80 Clients. Heatmap showing the proportion of each intent category across all 80 clients organized into 8 regions (blue dashed lines). Darker colors indicate higher specialization, demonstrating non-IID distribution from Dirichlet α=0.3 . Bottom panel shows samples per region.
Figure 4: Regional Product Category Distribution. Top: client-level category heatmap (80 clients × 24 categories). Bottom: regional preference matrix validating the 70% bias formulation. Each region concentrates on designated categories ( Cr ) while maintaining 30% cross-regional diversity.
Table 7: Strategy comparison: complexity, memory, and use cases
Region
FedAvg
FedTP
Grad
Interp
Meta
Dyn.
Electronics
82.1
92.0
91.9
84.6
92.3
91.9
Fashion
78.5
91.0
91.3
83.6
91.2
90.8
Home
81.3
91.8
91.2
85.8
91.4
91.1
Grocery
77.2
91.5
91.1
85.5
91.0
78.2
Sports
80.8
91.2
91.8
84.1
91.8
91.9
Books
82.4
90.5
90.4
85.4
90.3
90.3
Appendix
Table 8: Regional Performance Breakdown by Strategy (%)
Figure 5: Regional Performance Comparison Across Strategies. Line plot showing accuracy trends for Grad (pink), Interp (yellow), Meta (green), and Dynamic (cyan) across eight product category regions. Interp consistently underperforms, while Grad/Meta maintain competitive performance with region-specific advantages. Dynamic’s anomalous drop in Grocery reflects the challenge of automated strategy selection.
Figure 6: Optimal Adaptation Intensity by Strategy and Region. Line plot showing ρ values for Grad (pink), Interp (yellow), and Meta (green) across regions. Grad and Meta converge to constant ρ=0.0344 (optimized for efficiency), while Interp exhibits variable ρ (0.10-0.34) reflecting its sensitivity to regional data characteristics.
Region
Query
Task
Predicted
Grad
Meta
Interp
Dynamic
Gain
Electronics
apple tv
Intent
brand_lookup
91.9
92.3
84.5
91.9
+7.8
Fashion
butter avlable
Spell
butter available
91.3
91.2
83.6
90.8
+7.7
Home
tv cost
NER
PRODUCT O
91.2
91.4
85.8
91.1
+5.6
Grocery
find laptop deals
Intent
brand_lookup
91.1
91.0
85.5
78.2
+5.6
Sports
need yoga mat
Intent
product_search
91.8
91.8
84.1
91.9
+7.8
Books
wrench discount
Intent
price_comparison
90.4
90.3
85.4
90.3
+5.0
Appendix
Table 9: Query-Level Case Studies: Multi-Task Performance with Actual Predictions
Round
Strategy
Accuracy
Diagnosis
1
grad
91.1%
✓ Correct selection
2
interp
86.6%
△ Performance degraded
3
interp
78.2%
× Catastrophic drop
4
interp
86.2%
△ Partial recovery
5
interp
78.0%
× Final collapse
Appendix
Table 10: Dynamic Strategy Selection for Grocery Region Across Rounds
Intent
Spell
NER
Method
Low
Med
High
Low
Med
High
Low
Med
High
FedAvg
95.2
90.1
78.2
76.3
68.3
49.1
95.8
88.6
75.0
FedProx
95.3
90.7
80.1
76.9
69.2
51.3
96.1
89.5
76.2
Reg-Aware FedAvg
95.6
91.3
81.5
77.1
69.8
53.2
96.3
90.1
79.3
Local FT
96.1
93.2
85.7
77.8
72.1
62.4
96.8
94.1
86.8
FedTP
96.5
93.8
87.1
78.5
73.8
65.2
98.5
97.5
94.0
Appendix
Table 11: Per-Task Performance Under Data Heterogeneity (Accuracy %)
Figure 7: Performance gap heatmap: RF-Meta vs other methods. The gap widens from Low (0.6–2.9%) to High (3.4–18.0%) heterogeneity.
Figure 8: Loss landscape under high heterogeneity ( α=0.1 ). (a) Regional loss contours show conflicting optima. (b) FedAvg’s aggregated loss shows gradient cancellation; regional optima ( △ , ∇ ) are suboptimal globally, forcing a compromise ( ⋆ ). (c) RegionFed finds region-specific optima ( ⋆ ) independently.
Method
4 Reg.
8 Reg.
16 Reg.
Deg. ↓
FedAvg
83.41 ± 0.38 %
80.18 ± 0.31 %
74.92 ± 0.52 %
8.49%
FedProx
70.53 ± 0.47 %
67.18 ± 0.42 %
60.84 ± 0.61 %
9.69%
Reg-Aware FedAvg
85.27 ± 0.33 %
83.47 ± 0.29 %
79.13 ± 0.44 %
6.14%
FedTP
92.08 ± 0.21 %
91.54 ± 0.22 %
89.41 ± 0.35 %
2.67%
RF-Grad
92.14 ± 0.24 %
91.92 ± 0.25 %
89.73 ± 0.31 %
2.41%
RF-Meta
92.58 ± 0.22 %
92.27 ± 0.31 %
90.14 ± 0.38 %
2.44%
Appendix
Table 12: Scalability Analysis: Performance with Increasing Region Count (all experimental)
Region Assignment
Acc.
Δ
Description
Semantic (default)
92.3%
–
Category-coherent
Geographic proxy
91.1%
–1.2%
By location, mixed categories
Random assignment
88.1%
–4.2%
Uniform random
Adversarial
86.7%
–5.6%
Maximally heterogeneous
FedAvg (no regions)
80.2%
–12.1%
Baseline
Appendix
Table 13: Region Misspecification Analysis (RegionFed-Meta, 8 Regions)
Configuration
Acc.
Δ
Baseline (Regional Only)
88.5%
–
Reg-Aware FedAvg (no adaptive α )
83.5%
–
+ Hierarchical Personalization
89.4%
+0.9%
+ Golden Section ρ
88.9%
+0.5%
+ Adaptive α
89.6%
+1.1%
+ Hier. + ρ
89.8%
+1.4%
Appendix
Table 14: Ablation Study: Component Contributions
τ
Overall Acc.
RRS
Reg. σ
0.5
91.1%
90.8%
1.21
0.75
91.8%
91.3%
1.05
1.0
92.3%
91.6%
0.97
1.5
91.9%
91.2%
1.08
2.0
91.0%
90.5%
1.34
Appendix
Table 15: Temperature Sensitivity ( τr=τu )
μr Setting
Overall Acc.
αr Range
Δ
0.5×μrcal
91.5%
[0.68, 0.95]
–0.8%
0.75×μrcal
91.9%
[0.61, 0.92]
–0.4%
μrcal (calibrated)
92.3%
[0.53, 0.88]
–
1.25×μrcal
92.0%
[0.51, 0.82]
–0.3%
1.5×μrcal
91.6%
[0.50, 0.76]
–0.7%
Fixed μr=0
90.1%
[0.82, 0.97]
–2.2%
Appendix
Table 16: Sensitivity to μr Perturbation (RegionFed-Meta)
α Range
Overall Acc.
Δ
[0.0,1.0]
89.1%
-3.2%
[0.25,1.0]
90.8%
-1.5%
[0.5,1.0]
92.3%
–
[0.75,1.0]
91.4%
-0.9%
Appendix
Table 17: Effect of Minimum Personalization Weight αmin
C
ϵ
Overall Acc.
RRS
αr Range
Effect
0.1
0.60
89.14%
88.52%
[0.50, 0.54]
Severe clipping bias
0.5
0.60
91.48%
90.87%
[0.51, 0.72]
Moderate clipping
1.0
0.60
92.27%
91.62%
[0.53, 0.88]
Balanced (default)
5.0
0.60
91.82%
91.15%
[0.50, 0.94]
High noise variance
∞
∞
92.53%
91.85%
[0.50, 0.96]
No DP (upper bound)
Appendix
Table 18: DP Clipping Threshold C Sensitivity (RegionFed-Meta, σdp=4.0 )
Figure 9: Per-region αr trajectories across training rounds. High-conflict regions (Electronics, Grocery) maintain αr≈0.85 , while low-conflict regions (Books, Health) settle near αr≈0.55 . All regions stabilize after round 2.
σdp
1.0
2.0
4.0
8.0
16.0
ϵ (approx.)
2.40
1.20
0.60
0.30
0.15
FedAvg
80.85
80.52
80.18
78.93
74.21
RF-Meta
92.54
92.41
92.27
91.48
88.15
Δ (RF-Meta − FedAvg)
+11.69
+11.89
+12.09
+12.55
+13.94
Appendix
Table 19: Privacy-utility tradeoff: accuracy (%) at varying privacy budgets
Federated learning (FL) is a practical framework that can train models on distributed user data while guaranteeing data privacy; however, due to heterogeneity in which each user has a different data distribution, problems frequently arise where both global and personalization performance deteriorate simultaneously. This dissertation presents methodologies for building efficient personalized models by identifying which strategies are effective in the global training stage and by showing how to preserve global knowledge while securing user-specific performance during local adaptation. First, we show that as data heterogeneity increases, the collapse of feature vectors is a more fundamental bottleneck than classifier weights, and propose a method that directly mitigates the discrepancy in representation magnitude between local and global models. Second, we analyze that a training approach that strengthens local alignment can induce forgetting of global knowledge (e.g., categories not observed locally), and propose a method that achieves both local alignment and global knowledge preservation by combining feature distillation based on the global model's feature vectors. Third, in federated personalized reward model learning with preference heterogeneity, we empirically verify the conventional belief that "increasing the number of global models yields better initialization," and we show that when sufficient local fine-tuning is allowed, a single global initialization can instead provide stronger personalization performance. This study redefines the role of global initialization under data and preference heterogeneity and provides practical training strategies that simultaneously satisfy global knowledge preservation and personalization.
Seongyoon Kim
한국과학기술원 Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 산업및시스템공학과
Federated parameter-efficient fine-tuning enables clients to adapt pre-trained models without sharing raw data or communicating the full model, but statistical heterogeneity makes a single global adapter insufficient for personalized prediction. Existing personalized methods typically use the same low-rank structure for both shared and private adaptation, overlooking their distinct requirements for aggregation and personalization. We propose FedLAFP, a role-aware framework that couples a compact, globally aggregated LoRA branch with a client-private, full-rank-capable RandLoRA branch. The shared branch provides an efficient interface for transferring common knowledge, whereas the private branch combines fixed random low-rank bases with learned scaling coefficients to provide expressive client-specific adaptation without additional communication. Client- and layer-specific mixing coefficients jointly fuse the two branches, and only the shared LoRA parameters are exchanged. A controlled linear study supports this role assignment: LoRA yields more aligned client updates and lower aggregation error, while RandLoRA more accurately recovers client-specific residuals. Experiments across four visual recognition benchmarks show that FedLAFP consistently outperforms local-only and federated LoRA baselines, achieving an average personalized accuracy of 86.93% and exceeding the best baseline average by 1.30 percentage points.
Mengjun Yi, Huaian Gu, Yinghao Ai +2
State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology · School of Artificial Intelligence · School of Computer Science +1
Personalized federated learning (PFL) with foundation models has emerged as a promising paradigm enabling clients to adapt to heterogeneous data distributions. However, real-world scenarios often face the co-occurrence of non-IID data and long-tailed class distributions, presenting unique challenges that remain underexplored in PFL. In this paper, we investigate this long-tailed personalized federated learning and observe that current methods suffer from two limitations: (i) fine-tuning degrades performance below zero-shot baselines due to the erosion of inherent class balance in foundation models; (ii) conventional personalization techniques further transfer this bias to local models through parameter or feature-level fusion. To address these challenges, we propose Federated Learning via Gradient Purification and Residual Learning (FedPuReL), which preserves balanced knowledge in the global model while enabling unbiased personalization. Specifically, we purify local gradients using zero-shot predictions to maintain a class-balanced global model, and model personalization as residual correction atop the frozen global model. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FedPuReL consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving superior performance on both global and personalized models across diverse long-tailed scenarios. The code is available at https://github.com/shihaohou/FedPuReL.
Shihao Hou, Chikai Shang, Zhiheng Yang +5
Key Laboratory of Multimedia Trusted Perception and Efficient Computing, Ministry of Education of China, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China · Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom · School of Computer Science and Technology, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, China