FIDAL: Diversity-Aware Federated Active Learning Under Real-World Distribution Shifts
Authors: David Dueñas Gaviria, Shadi Albarqouni
Organizations: University of Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany
Federated learning enables collaborative model training across institutions without centralizing data, yet high annotation costs, domain shifts, and class imbalance remain major obstacles, especially when irrelevant out-of-distribution (OOD) samples dilute the labeled data. Existing active learning methods target uncertainty or diversity within in-distribution (ID) data and overlook unknown samples in federated clinical settings. We propose FIDAL, an open-set federated active learning framework that combines calibrated global-local evidential uncertainty, support-set diversity weighting, and adaptive OOD rejection. The rejection gate thresholds a foundation-model Gaussian-coverage signal per client and per round with Otsu's criterion, so that highly informative ID samples are queried while irrelevant outliers are excluded without any hand-tuned threshold. Evaluated on three multi-center medical imaging benchmarks (dermatology, histopathology, and mammography with organically occurring artifacts) in realistic open-set scenarios, FIDAL outperforms detector-based open-set methods by up to about 12 percentage points of balanced accuracy and is the only method on the accuracy-ID purity Pareto front of all three benchmarks. At an equal query budget it spends at least 1.3 times fewer annotations on OOD samples than every accuracy-matched baseline, saving an estimated 7-29 hours of expert reading on the mammography benchmark. By labeling only a fraction of the data pool, it matches or exceeds fully supervised performance across modalities. These results highlight the value of integrating uncertainty, diversity, and OOD rejection in open-set federated active learning for medicine.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of FIDAL. Calibrated uncertainty, diversity-aware sampling, and explicit OOD rejection are unified within a federated learning framework, enabling multi-center medical imaging models to approach centralized performance while reducing wasteful annotations on OOD artifacts.
Figure 2: Accuracy versus OOD queried. Each method is placed at its headline operating point (Table 1 ): the classification metric it attains (BMA for FedISIC/FedEMBED, ACC for FedCamelyon) against the cumulative number of OOD samples it sent for annotation to reach that round (fewer is better), summed over clients and averaged over 3 seeds; error bars are ±1 std. FIDAL (blue star) occupies the top-left corner of every dataset. Because methods peak at different rounds, the plotted counts span different numbers of query rounds and are not directly comparable with the matched-round counts of Section 4.3 .
Method
FedISIC (OOD)
FedCamelyon (OOD)
FedEMBED (OOD)
Avg.
BMA
ID Purity
ACC
ID Purity
BMA
ID Purity
Metric
ID Purity
Random
65.83 ± 2.66 (R5)
61.1
96.53 ± 0.13 (R10)
61.8
67.94 ± 0.57 (R9)
87.2
76.77
70.0
Entropy [ 44 ]
68.96 ± 1.11 (R5)
46.9
96.63 ± 0.04 (R10)
40.2
68.19 ± 0.40 (R10)
82.0
77.93
56.4
BADGE [ 2 ]
69.29 ± 2.23 (R5)
49.0
96.60 ± 0.09 (R10)
40.9
68.43 ± 0.64 (R10)
84.6
78.11
58.2
FEAL [ 9 ]
67.73 ± 0.75 (R5)
47.6
96.49 ± 0.09 (R10)
38.8
53.72 ± 0.21 (R10)
81.1
72.65
55.8
PAL [ 53 ]
59.77 ± 0.18 (R4)
61.7
95.67 ± 0.39 (R10)
69.9
60.06 ± 0.94 (R9)
88.0
71.83
73.2
Table 1: Headline three-dataset comparison: classification metric (BMA for FedISIC and FedEMBED, ACC for FedCamelyon binary classification; %, mean ± std across 3 seeds) at each method’s best AL round (in parentheses) and the cumulative ID purity (%) at that round. FedISIC B=500 / E=100 ( R≤5 ); FedCamelyon B=500 / E=100 ( R≤10 ); FedEMBED B=500 / E=50 ( R≤10 ). Best per-column score / ID purity in bold / underlined .
Figure 3: Pareto view: classification metric versus ID purity. Each path is one method’s federation-wide (ID purity, BMA/ACC) trajectory across AL rounds 0→Rmax ( Rmax=5 for FedISIC, 10 otherwise), one panel per dataset; top-right is best. The same view decomposed by client is given in Supplementary Fig. S1.
Figure 4: How the FM-coverage gate works, per dataset. Top: UMAP of the raw FM features, ID (blue, shaded by class) versus OOD (red); PanDerm and CHIEF separate them, MammoCLIP overlaps. Middle: the per-client coverage signal G(x) , ID (blue) versus OOD (red); for each rule the shaded band spans the per-client thresholds and the line is the median cut. Bottom: per-client R=0 comparison of four automatic gates (pct-20 / Otsu / GMM / KDE): OOD caught (recall, red) versus ID lost (error, blue), one bar per client, with the mean over clients annotated above each cluster. Otsu gives the best recall at minimal ID loss and reproduces the deployed per-client gate ( ≈ 90% OOD caught at ≤2% ID loss on FedISIC/FedCamelyon).
Figure 5: Component ablation. BMA versus cumulative ID purity ( ±1σ over 3 seeds; red circle: adopted FIDAL ). Left: FedISIC OOD ( R=5 , base (0.5,0.5) ): FIDAL is Pareto-optimal; removing the coverage gate drops ID purity ≈ 13 pp, removing diversity costs ≈4.9 pp BMA. Right: FedEMBED OOD ( R=7 , base (0.5,5.0) ): FIDAL tops BMA ( 69.49 %) at near-top ID purity, but variants remain within ≈ 1 pp at the label-noise ceiling; the one clear signal is w/o SOOD dropping ID purity 92.3→87.6 %, motivating λOOD=5 .
Figure 6: Per-class recall on FedISIC in the OOD setting at four budgets B∈{50,150,300,500} ( E=100 , 4 clinics), all at AL round R=3 . The axes represent the 8 ID skin-lesion classes; blue annotations show the per-class gap (pp) between FIDAL and the best non-FIDAL baseline, averaged over 3 seeds.
Figure 7: Mean BMA trajectories across AL rounds on FedISIC OOD for FIDAL and the eight baselines under local-epoch variation E∈{2,10,50,100} at fixed B=500 . Solid lines show the mean across 3 seeds, and blue annotations show the per-round gap between FIDAL and the best non-FIDAL baseline when the gap exceeds 0.1 pp. The dashed black line marks the fully supervised BMA reference ( ≈67.71% ). Budget-variation results at E=100 are reported in Supplementary Table S3.
Figure 8: FIDAL sensitivity to (λdiv,λOOD) on a 5×5 grid. Top : heatmaps of BMA (left) and ID purity (right); the red box marks the adopted headline cell. Bottom : BMA-versus-ID purity Pareto scatter (color = λOOD , size = λdiv ; red dashed line = frontier). (Left) FedISIC at R=5 ; (Right) FedEMBED at R=7 . The selected headline cells are FedISIC (0.5,0.5) (all components active, smallest seed spread) and FedEMBED (0.5,5.0) (on the ID purity Pareto frontier, with headline BMA 0.05 pp below the supervised reference).
Figure 9: Qualitative exemplars selected or gated by FIDAL at the final AL round. Rows correspond to datasets. The first three columns show Easy ID, Hard OOD, and Diverse ID samples selected by FIDAL , together with their scores. The last two columns show ground-truth ID and OOD samples rejected before querying by the FM-coverage Otsu gate, together with the coverage signal G(x)∈[0,1] . Blue frames denote ground-truth ID samples, red frames denote OOD samples that passed the gate and were queried, and green frames denote OOD samples correctly rejected by the gate.
Center
Total OOD
Artifact breakdown
Blood
Blur
Bubbles
Tissue damage
client 1
4,754
3,185 (25.8%)
591 (4.8%)
438 (3.5%)
540 (4.4%)
client 2
2,791
1,855 (25.6%)
360 (5.0%)
261 (3.6%)
315 (4.3%)
client 3
6,803
4,201 (23.8%)
1,312 (7.4%)
648 (3.7%)
642 (3.6%)
client 4
10,385
6,353 (23.5%)
2,150 (8.0%)
918 (3.4%)
964 (3.6%)
client 5
11,736
7,144 (23.4%)
2,384 (7.8%)
1,079 (3.5%)
1,129 (3.7%)
Table S1 : Composition of the injected OOD pool for FedCamelyon across the five centers. OOD is injected at 38.5% of each center’s pool.
Client (scanner)
Total OOD
Specific artifact breakdown
Implants
Compression
Devices
Triangle
Circle
Selenia Dimensions
33,804 (13.12%)
7,341 (2.85%)
239 (0.09%)
680 (0.26%)
3,705 (1.44%)
21,839 (8.48%)
Senograph 2000D ADS
1,421 (11.06%)
761 (5.92%)
71 (0.55%)
36 (0.28%)
212 (1.65%)
341 (2.65%)
Lorad Selenia
1,258 (12.37%)
424 (4.17%)
8 (0.08%)
29 (0.29%)
200 (1.97%)
597 (5.87%)
Clearview CSm
382 (4.83%)
1 (0.01%)
0 (0.00%)
7 (0.09%)
6 (0.08%)
368 (4.65%)
Table S2 : Distribution of organic OOD artifacts across FedEMBED clients. Values are reported as count (ratio %); ratios are computed over each scanner’s total image count. The heterogeneous distribution demonstrates the non-IID nature of clinical OOD.
Figure S1 : Per-client Pareto: classification metric versus ID purity. Each path is one method’s (ID purity, BMA/ACC) trajectory across AL rounds 0→Rmax ( Rmax=5 for FedISIC, 10 otherwise), decomposed by client (one panel per client, one block per dataset); upper-right is better. The aggregate gain of main-text Fig. 3 is not driven by a single center.
Figure S2 : FedISIC OOD ( B=500 , E=100 , 3 seeds). Per-method cumulative labeled-pool composition across AL rounds R=1…5 (the final acquisition is logged under R=4 and shown here as R=5 , matching main-text Table 1): stacked ID (blue shades) and OOD (red), summed across the 4 clients. The number above each bar is the total count; in-bar percentages give the ID / OOD share. Above each bar, blue ID N and red OOD N give the cumulative number of ID and OOD samples that method has sent for annotation up to that round; their sum is the cumulative labeled pool, which is identical across methods except where a client exhausts its local pool ( EOAL on FedEMBED). The dashed rule marks the canonical AL control Random : a red segment beginning above the rule means the method acquired more ID, and wasted less budget on OOD, than Random at that round. Higher blue and lower red at the same total height is the desired behavior.
Figure S3 : FedCamelyon OOD ( B=500 , E=100 , mean across 3 seeds). Per-method composition of the cumulative labeled pool across AL rounds R∈{1,3,5,7,10} ; layout and annotations as in Fig. S2 . Only two ID classes ( Normal , Tumor ) plus OOD.
Figure S4 : FedEMBED OOD ( B=500 , E=50 , mean across 3 seeds). Per-method composition of the cumulative labeled pool across AL rounds R∈{1,3,5,7,10} ; layout and annotations as in Fig. S2 . Four BI-RADS density classes ( A , B , C , D ) plus OOD. Because organic OOD prevalence is low ( 4.8 – 13.1% across clients), the red segments are thin and the ID / OOD differences between methods are correspondingly smaller than on the controlled benchmarks.
Method
Budget variation ( E=100 )
Local-epoch variation ( B=500 )
Avg.
B=50
B=150
B=300
B=500
E=2
E=10
E=50
E=100
Random
42.28 ± 3.21 (R5)
54.74 ± 2.50 (R5)
60.97 ± 3.09 (R5)
65.83 ± 2.66 (R5)
58.25 ± 2.89 (R4)
65.72 ± 1.77 (R5)
65.15 ± 1.41 (R4)
65.83 ± 2.66 (R5)
58.99
61.9
60.6
61.3
61.1
60.9
61.1
60.9
61.1
61.1
Entropy
30.47 ± 0.72 (R3)
48.10 ± 1.58 (R5)
60.44 ± 2.56 (R5)
68.96 ± 1.11 (R5)
59.03 ± 1.27 (R5)
64.11 ± 1.35 (R5)
66.73 ± 0.98 (R5)
68.96 ± 1.11 (R5)
56.83
17.0
20.3
35.8
46.9
44.3
45.0
46.2
46.9
36.5
BADGE
45.87 ± 4.38 (R5)
56.45 ± 4.40 (R5)
64.58 ± 2.90 (R5)
69.29 ± 2.23 (R5)
59.94 ± 1.64 (R4)
65.10 ± 1.90 (R5)
67.02 ± 1.51 (R5)
69.29 ± 2.23 (R5)
61.18
Table S3 : FedISIC OOD budget and local-epoch variation: best-AL-round BMA (%, top of each cell with peak round in parentheses) and cumulative ID purity (%, bottom). Mean ± std across 3 seeds. FIDAL at (λdiv,λOOD)=(0.5,0.5) . Best BMA / ID purity per column in bold / underlined . Avg. averages over the seven distinct configurations.
Method
Budget variation ( E=100 )
Local-epoch variation ( B=500 )
Avg.
B=50
B=150
B=300
B=500
E=2
E=10
E=50
E=100
Random
91.55 ± 0.28
94.40 ± 0.32
95.82 ± 0.05
96.53 ± 0.13
88.80 ± 0.32
92.50 ± 0.38
95.41 ± 0.12
96.53 ± 0.13
93.57
62.3
59.9
60.9
61.8
61.8
61.8
61.8
61.8
61.5
Entropy
91.49 ± 0.26
93.85 ± 0.03
95.38 ± 0.07
96.63 ± 0.04
89.20 ± 0.29
92.49 ± 0.19
95.42 ± 0.31
96.63 ± 0.04
93.49
45.1
43.2
41.1
40.2
49.2
49.2
43.1
40.2
44.4
BADGE
91.43 ± 0.70
94.08 ± 0.20
95.50 ± 0.12
96.60 ± 0.09
88.68 ± 0.26
92.32 ± 0.38
95.53 ± 0.17
96.60 ± 0.09
93.45
Table S4 : FedCamelyon OOD budget and local-epoch variation: best-AL-round ACC (%, top of each cell) and cumulative ID purity (%, bottom). Mean ± std across 3 seeds. FIDAL at (λdiv,λOOD)=(1.0,1.0) . Best ACC / ID purity per column in bold / underlined .
Method
Budget variation ( E=50 )
Local-epoch variation ( B=500 )
Avg.
B=50
B=150
B=300
B=500
E=2
E=10
E=25
E=50
Random
61.55 ± 1.01
65.47 ± 1.00
66.56 ± 0.22
67.19 ± 0.57
64.82 ± 1.65
66.73 ± 1.01
67.77 ± 1.30
67.19 ± 0.57
65.73
86.9
87.5
87.3
87.0
87.0
87.0
87.0
87.0
87.1
Entropy
59.27 ± 2.01
64.28 ± 0.24
66.96 ± 0.28
68.19 ± 0.40
65.95 ± 0.48
68.19 ± 1.45
68.07 ± 0.81
68.19 ± 0.40
65.84
77.7
74.3
79.4
82.0
84.9
82.8
82.0
82.0
80.4
BADGE
64.02 ± 1.44
64.44 ± 1.28
66.41 ± 0.74
68.43 ± 0.64
65.82 ± 0.50
67.50 ± 0.54
67.69 ± 1.50
68.43 ± 0.64
66.33
Table S5 : FedEMBED budget and local-epoch variation: final-AL-round ( R=10 ) BMA (%, top) and cumulative ID purity (%, bottom). Mean ± std across 3 seeds. FIDAL at (λdiv,λOOD)=(0.5,5.0) . Best BMA / ID purity per column in bold / underlined at the final round R=10 .
Federated active learning (FAL) seeks to reduce annotation cost under privacy constraints, yet its effectiveness degrades in realistic settings with severe global class imbalance and highly heterogeneous clients. We conduct a systematic study of query-model selection in FAL and uncover a central insight: the model that achieves more class-balanced sampling, especially for minority classes, consistently leads to better final performance. Moreover, global-model querying is beneficial only when the global distribution is highly imbalanced and client data are relatively homogeneous; otherwise, the local model is preferable. Based on these findings, we propose FairFAL, an adaptive class-fair FAL framework. FairFAL (1) infers global imbalance and local-global divergence via lightweight prediction discrepancy, enabling adaptive selection between global and local query models; (2) performs prototype-guided pseudo-labeling using global features to promote class-aware querying; and (3) applies a two-stage uncertainty-diversity balanced sampling strategy with k-center refinement. Experiments on five benchmarks show that FairFAL consistently outperforms state-of-the-art approaches under challenging long-tailed and non-IID settings. The code is available at https://github.com/chenchenzong/FairFAL.
Chen-Chen Zong, Sheng-Jun Huang
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China
Deploying medical AI across resource-constrained institutions demands data-efficient learning pipelines that respect patient privacy. Federated Learning (FL) enables collaborative medical AI without centralising data, yet real-world clinical pools are inherently open-set, containing out-of-distribution (OOD) noise such as imaging artifacts and wrong modalities. Standard Active Learning (AL) query strategies mistake this noise for informative samples, wasting scarce annotation budgets. We propose PromptGate, a dynamic VLM-gated framework for Open-Set Federated AL that purifies unlabeled pools before querying. PromptGate introduces a federated Class-Specific Context Optimization: lightweight, learnable prompt vectors that adapt a frozen BiomedCLIP backbone to local clinical domains and aggregate globally via FedAvg -- without sharing patient data. As new annotations arrive, prompts progressively sharpen the ID/OOD boundary, turning the VLM into a dynamic gatekeeper that is strategy-agnostic: a plug-and-play pre-selection module enhancing any downstream AL strategy. Experiments on distributed dermatology and breast imaging benchmarks show that while static VLM prompting degrades to 50% ID purity, PromptGate maintains >95% purity with 98% OOD recall.
Adea Nesturi, David Dueñas Gaviria, Jiajun Zeng +1
University of Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, 53127 Bonn, Germany
Federated learning (FL) enables multiple clinical institutions to collaboratively train a shared disease classifier without centralizing patient data. In practice, however, each institution annotates only the pathologies within its area of expertise, so the federation operates under task heterogeneity: each client holds labels for a strict subset of the target disease categories while the remaining classes are entirely unobserved at that site. Existing gradient-based FL methods fail under this setting because they require hundreds of communication rounds to converge and because missing class labels introduce systematic false-negative bias that the model cannot correct without a principled mechanism. We propose an analytic federated learning framework for multi-label medical image classification under task heterogeneity. The proposed method replaces iterative gradient optimization with three closed-form operations: a balanced label projection that neutralizes class-imbalance bias by normalizing positive and negative contributions to equal total mass; a per-class absolute aggregation law that independently assembles the optimal ridge-regression classifier for each disease category from the sufficient statistics uploaded by its annotating clients; and an optional analytic pseudo-label refinement round that propagates missing-class knowledge from a confidence-filtered teacher classifier to non-annotating clients. The entire procedure requires at most two communication rounds, irrespective of the degree of task heterogeneity or the number of participating clients. Experiments on ChestXray14 under four progressively severe missing-class configurations demonstrate that the proposed method consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art federated multi-label method FedMLP by up to 18.44 BACC points and 13.24 AUC points, while reducing the communication.
Afsaneh Mahanipour, Hana Khamfroush
Department of Computer Science University of Kentucky Lexington, KY, USA