Federated low-rank adaptation (LoRA) enables collaborative fine-tuning of large language models without centralizing private client data. Its factorized update, however, creates a structural mismatch in federated averaging: averaging the two LoRA factors separately does not equal averaging their products. Existing exact methods resolve this issue mainly by freezing an entire factor or alternating factors across rounds, but none can update factors simultaneously without aggregation errors or expanding communication ranks. To address this fundamental problem, we present \texttt{CFLoRA}, a federated LoRA scheme that partitions latent LoRA channels into two complementary sets in every communication round. By ensuring that columns and rows are complementary across factors, we eliminate bilinear terms in matrix multiplications, making federated aggregation exact. Crucially, our framework also supports clients with heterogeneous rank budgets. Convergence analysis validates \texttt{CFLoRA} achieves O(1/T) convergence rate of the \textit{original} LoRA objective in homogeneous-rank cases. Extensive experiments with RoBERTa on the GLUE benchmark and with LLaMA-3.2-3B-Instruct on commonsense reasoning tasks demonstrate that \texttt{CFLoRA} achieves superior performance and training efficiency compared to state-of-the-art federated LoRA baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The illustration of the proposed CFLoRA framework. CFLoRA separates two decisions: which factor may change on each latent channel and which channels a client can afford to train. A shared complementary selection mask ensures exact factor aggregation, while client-specific supports accommodate heterogeneous ranks.
Method
QNLI
MRPC
CoLA
MNLI-M
MNLI-MM
QQP
Avg.
FedIT
86.61 ± 0.26
72.27 ± 2.32
70.49 ± 0.90
79.10 ± 2.21
79.89 ± 2.28
71.75 ± 1.35
76.69
FFA-LoRA
88.49 ± 0.23
70.58 ± 1.56
73.81 ± 1.74
72.42 ± 3.27
73.39 ± 3.08
73.26 ± 1.38
75.33
RoLoRA
87.60 ± 2.21
73.16 ± 2.11
74.40 ± 0.89
72.01 ± 1.55
72.50 ± 3.56
73.47 ± 0.41
75.52
AS-LoRA
88.26 ± 0.67
72.30 ± 1.06
73.57 ± 2.15
71.41 ± 1.88
72.60 ± 1.51
75.23 ± 2.57
75.56
FLoRA
89.27 ± 0.20
71.46 ± 1.24
76.81 ± 2.74
70.56 ± 0.82
71.52 ± 0.21
76.43 ± 2.74
76.01
CFLoRA
90.61 ± 0.25
73.53 ± 1.59
78.95 ± 1.48
79.16 ± 1.22
79.85 ± 1.01
76.30 ± 0.36
79.73
Table 1: Test accuracy for fine-tuning the RoBERTa model on the GLUE benchmark under homogeneous client ranks.
Method
QNLI
MRPC
CoLA
MNLI-M
MNLI-MM
QQP
Avg.
FedIT
70.34 ± 2.01
69.60 ± 2.43
73.56 ± 3.67
58.34 ± 1.03
58.22 ± 0.93
73.12 ± 1.41
67.20
FFA-LoRA
86.86 ± 2.15
70.67 ± 2.31
73.09 ± 2.97
63.74 ± 5.02
64.04 ± 4.88
75.91 ± 1.01
72.39
RoLoRA
84.87 ± 3.10
68.46 ± 3.12
73.14 ± 3.40
51.19 ± 3.95
51.60 ± 2.84
74.73 ± 1.29
67.33
AS-LoRA
80.71 ± 2.52
71.12 ± 1.33
73.09 ± 2.97
63.60 ± 4.86
63.95 ± 5.94
70.73 ± 1.94
70.53
FLoRA
87.35 ± 1.84
69.80 ± 1.71
75.75 ± 1.34
72.22 ± 1.26
70.97 ± 1.14
76.61 ± 0.53
75.45
FlexLoRA
86.66 ± 1.55
71.92 ± 1.19
77.60 ± 0.58
71.35 ± 1.49
72.25 ± 1.48
76.40 ± 1.32
76.03
Table 2: Testing accuracy for fine-tuning the RoBERTa model on the GLUE benchmark under heterogeneous client ranks.
Schedule
QNLI
MRPC
CoLA
MNLI-M
MNLI-MM
QQP
Avg.
p=0.3
87.80 ± 0.02
70.83 ± 1.73
73.33 ± 2.37
71.15 ± 1.07
72.73 ± 1.03
72.45 ± 1.39
74.72
p=0.5
90.64 ± 0.25
72.43 ± 2.50
78.72 ± 1.73
77.82 ± 0.49
78.00 ± 0.12
74.57 ± 0.43
78.70
p=0.7
90.69 ± 0.24
72.55 ± 2.06
79.81 ± 1.52
77.47 ± 0.61
78.02 ± 0.65
74.52 ± 1.43
78.84
p=0.9
90.61 ± 0.25
73.53 ± 1.59
78.95 ± 1.48
79.16 ± 1.22
79.85 ± 1.01
76.30 ± 0.36
79.73
p=1.0
88.61 ± 0.27
70.47 ± 1.54
73.89 ± 1.77
72.36 ± 3.23
73.54 ± 3.13
73.17 ± 1.39
75.34
Table 3: Ablation study on selection probability p for RoBERTa on GLUE tasks under homogeneous client ranks.
Schedule
QNLI
MRPC
CoLA
MNLI-M
MNLI-MM
QQP
Avg.
p=0.3
88.31 ± 0.99
68.79 ± 0.35
71.46 ± 1.27
68.78 ± 0.49
69.66 ± 1.29
73.21 ± 1.15
73.37
p=0.5
91.16 ± 0.10
73.98 ± 2.26
76.90 ± 2.38
76.37 ± 1.02
76.85 ± 1.30
77.16 ± 1.28
78.74
p=0.7
91.41 ± 0.87
74.13 ± 1.04
77.32 ± 0.85
76.74 ± 1.37
77.51 ± 0.73
79.61 ± 1.07
79.45
p=0.9
91.29 ± 0.45
74.86 ± 0.69
77.80 ± 1.26
76.82 ± 0.80
77.32 ± 1.14
79.34 ± 0.87
79.57
p=1.0
89.90 ± 1.39
73.00 ± 2.02
74.51 ± 1.42
75.25 ± 1.57
75.81 ± 0.91
73.63 ± 1.95
77.02
Table 4: Ablation study on selection probability p for RoBERTa on GLUE tasks under heterogeneous client ranks.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Quantity
Standard federated LoRA
CFLoRA
Active adapter parameters
1
1
Trainable adapter parameters
1
1/2
Forward MACs
1
1
Input-gradient MACs
1
1
Factor-gradient MACs
1
1/2
Total adapter MACs per step
1
5/6
Appendix
Table C.1: Normalized cost comparison at the same local rank for square projections between standard federated LoRA and our CFLoRA . MAC counts assume that input gradients are required and only selected factor gradients are computed. Communication assumes compact transmission at equal precision. Control information is negligible, which is excluded.
Figure C.1: Test accuracy versus communication costs of CFLoRA (Ours) and federated LoRA baselines on the MNLI and QNLI datasets.
Setting
RoBERTa / GLUE
LLaMA-3.2-3B-Instruct / commonsense reasoning
Total clients
25
25
Client participation ratio q
0.4
0.4
Communication rounds T
200
100
Local steps K
50
40
Batch size
8
8
Learning rate
1×10−4
2×10−4
Appendix
Table D.2: parameter settings.
Method
ARC-c
ARC-e
BoolQ
OBQA
PIQA
SIQA
Avg.
FedIT
67.72 ± 0.45
84.48 ± 1.10
62.44 ± 0.27
74.53 ± 0.47
70.51 ± 2.39
66.47 ± 1.89
71.03
FFA-LoRA
67.45 ± 0.10
80.62 ± 0.29
64.17 ± 0.04
63.37 ± 1.93
70.39 ± 3.89
71.69 ± 0.54
69.62
RoLoRA
69.60 ± 1.93
86.78 ± 0.12
64.18 ± 0.07
73.73 ± 2.45
69.61 ± 3.88
69.73 ± 2.27
72.27
AS-LoRA
67.53 ± 0.06
80.75 ± 0.26
64.12 ± 0.01
63.60 ± 1.70
70.30 ± 3.03
71.95 ± 0.69
69.71
FLoRA
70.65 ± 0.16
83.67 ± 0.03
65.26 ± 1.10
72.07 ± 0.75
72.67 ± 1.34
72.67 ± 1.41
72.83
CFLoRA
70.67 ± 1.39
85.55 ± 1.05
64.24 ± 0.11
75.60 ± 0.90
75.73 ± 1.27
73.88 ± 0.58
74.28
Appendix
Table D.3: Testing accuracy for fine-tuning the LLaMA-3.2-3B-Instruct on the commonsense reasoning tasks under homogeneous client ranks.
Method
ARC-c
ARC-e
BoolQ
OBQA
PIQA
SIQA
Avg.
FedIT
67.04 ± 0.32
80.13 ± 0.97
62.37 ± 0.81
71.33 ± 1.40
70.24 ± 2.13
68.32 ± 1.37
69.91
FLoRA
66.98 ± 1.20
84.18 ± 0.42
63.55 ± 1.94
76.00 ± 0.57
74.27 ± 1.63
70.63 ± 1.88
72.60
FlexLoRA
67.45 ± 0.74
82.84 ± 1.03
62.35 ± 0.97
74.02 ± 0.55
73.31 ± 0.86
69.59 ± 1.64
71.59
FSLoRA
69.88 ± 0.27
84.51 ± 0.49
64.21 ± 0.75
73.80 ± 0.92
74.96 ± 1.50
71.83 ± 1.69
73.20
CFLoRA
69.51 ± 0.12
85.82 ± 0.77
66.51 ± 0.35
75.40 ± 0.39
78.73 ± 1.45
76.20 ± 1.52
75.36
Appendix
Table D.4: Testing accuracy for fine-tuning the LLaMA-3.2-3B-Instruct on the commonsense reasoning benchmark under heterogeneous client ranks.
Method
ARC-c
ARC-e
BoolQ
OBQA
PIQA
SIQA
Avg.
p=0.3
65.98 ± 1.67
84.71 ± 0.44
62.54 ± 0.50
70.40 ± 0.57
72.33 ± 1.79
72.25 ± 2.07
71.37
p=0.5
69.51 ± 0.96
84.87 ± 0.15
63.62 ± 0.67
74.63 ± 0.65
74.53 ± 1.48
73.26 ± 0.62
73.40
p=0.7
68.65 ± 0.14
85.64 ± 1.24
64.17 ± 0.13
75.09 ± 0.41
75.74 ± 2.00
73.63 ± 1.31
73.82
p=0.9
70.67 ± 1.39
85.55 ± 1.05
64.24 ± 0.11
75.60 ± 0.90
75.73 ± 1.27
73.88 ± 0.58
74.28
p=1.0
67.56 ± 0.13
80.54 ± 0.24
64.31 ± 0.08
64.25 ± 1.39
70.15 ± 2.44
71.63 ± 0.73
69.74
Appendix
Table D.5: Ablation study on selection probability p for LLaMA-3.2-3B-Instruct on the commonsense reasoning benchmark under homogeneous client ranks.
Method
ARC-c
ARC-e
BoolQ
OBQA
PIQA
SIQA
Avg.
p=0.3
68.81 ± 0.16
82.78 ± 0.76
62.25 ± 0.11
74.97 ± 0.61
71.47 ± 3.24
73.44 ± 0.20
72.29
p=0.5
68.89 ± 0.45
83.76 ± 0.71
65.25 ± 0.44
75.50 ± 1.13
76.93 ± 0.46
75.61 ± 0.07
74.32
p=0.7
69.10 ± 0.60
84.53 ± 0.66
66.18 ± 0.50
75.82 ± 0.57
78.88 ± 4.90
76.01 ± 0.17
75.09
p=0.9
69.51 ± 0.12
85.82 ± 0.77
66.51 ± 0.35
75.40 ± 0.39
78.73 ± 1.45
76.20 ± 1.52
75.36
p=1.0
69.13 ± 0.38
83.65 ± 0.73
62.34 ± 0.23
67.73 ± 0.94
73.33 ± 0.63
74.12 ± 0.34
71.72
Appendix
Table D.6: Ablation study on selection probability p for LLaMA-3.2-3B-Instruct on the commonsense reasoning benchmark under heterogeneous client ranks.
Method
q=0.2
q=0.4
q=0.6
q=0.8
q=1.0
Avg.
FedIT
85.01 ± 0.23
86.61 ± 0.26
88.90 ± 0.26
93.06 ± 0.90
90.02 ± 0.46
88.72
FFA-LoRA
86.13 ± 0.35
88.49 ± 0.23
90.94 ± 0.33
94.09 ± 0.32
91.42 ± 0.19
90.21
RoLoRA
86.52 ± 0.27
87.60 ± 2.21
92.60 ± 0.46
93.23 ± 0.14
93.10 ± 0.46
90.61
AS-LoRA
87.13 ± 0.35
88.26 ± 0.67
91.28 ± 0.38
92.71 ± 0.17
92.46 ± 1.03
90.37
FLoRA
88.83 ± 0.24
89.27 ± 0.20
90.69 ± 0.41
92.93 ± 0.44
91.41 ± 0.35
90.63
CFLoRA
88.95 ± 0.06
90.61 ± 0.25
92.98 ± 0.31
93.59 ± 0.06
93.93 ± 0.34
92.01
Appendix
Table D.7: Testing accuracy for fine-tuning the RoBERTa model on the QNLI dataset under homogeneous client ranks with varying client participation.
Method
q=0.2
q=0.4
q=0.6
q=0.8
q=1.0
Avg.
FedIT
68.01 ± 4.58
70.34 ± 2.01
85.89 ± 0.37
90.03 ± 3.26
88.22 ± 2.36
80.50
FLoRA
70.97 ± 4.32
87.35 ± 1.84
87.75 ± 3.21
92.67 ± 0.72
91.77 ± 2.35
86.10
FlexLoRA
78.41 ± 5.10
86.66 ± 1.55
86.81 ± 1.36
93.11 ± 1.25
94.02 ± 0.95
87.80
FSLoRA
73.68 ± 4.01
86.68 ± 2.27
86.92 ± 1.48
89.40 ± 2.45
88.54 ± 1.60
85.04
CFLoRA
76.84 ± 3.73
91.29 ± 0.45
91.46 ± 2.10
93.60 ± 0.38
93.39 ± 0.91
89.32
Appendix
Table D.8: Testing accuracy for fine-tuning the RoBERTa model on the QNLI dataset under heterogeneous client ranks with varying client participation.
Method
QNLI
MRPC
CoLA
MNLI-M
MNLI-MM
QQP
Avg.
FedIT
90.02 ± 0.46
70.30 ± 0.39
75.16 ± 0.15
82.40 ± 0.44
82.19 ± 0.33
80.98 ± 1.05
80.18
FFA-LoRA
91.42 ± 0.19
73.20 ± 0.42
74.16 ± 0.45
84.79 ± 0.16
84.78 ± 0.16
81.89 ± 1.05
81.71
RoLoRA
93.10 ± 0.46
73.86 ± 1.26
73.93 ± 0.29
85.76 ± 0.43
85.84 ± 0.53
81.25 ± 0.38
82.29
AS-LoRA
92.46 ± 1.03
72.44 ± 0.67
75.04 ± 0.94
82.79 ± 0.33
86.76 ± 0.35
80.95 ± 1.67
81.74
FLoRA
91.41 ± 0.35
76.34 ± 0.80
77.26 ± 0.25
83.66 ± 0.77
83.88 ± 0.66
82.79 ± 0.32
82.56
CFLoRA
93.93 ± 0.34
80.83 ± 0.85
76.74 ± 0.46
86.54 ± 0.40
86.71 ± 0.26
84.15 ± 0.53
84.82
Appendix
Table D.9: Testing accuracy for fine-tuning the RoBERTa model on the GLUE benchmark under homogeneous client ranks with full participation.
Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) enables efficient federated fine-tuning of large language models, but its factorized parameterization creates a tension between accurate aggregation of local updates and continuity of locally optimized factors. Factor-wise aggregation incurs aggregation mismatch but better preserves factor continuity, whereas product-space reconstruction reduces this mismatch at the cost of greater factor-level initialization mismatch from newly reconstructed factors. We propose FedPA-LoRA, a product-aligned federated LoRA framework that jointly addresses these limitations and provably converges under both homogeneous and heterogeneous client ranks. Each client preserves its local factors across communication rounds and aligns its product toward a rank-specific global reference, maintaining local optimization continuity while promoting global consistency under data heterogeneity. The server aggregates heterogeneous-rank updates in the common product space and efficiently reconstructs a rank-constrained global adapter without forming the dense aggregate. This design supports client-specific computation and communication budgets. Experiments on natural language understanding and generation tasks show that FedPA-LoRA consistently outperforms representative baselines across varying levels of data heterogeneity and homogeneous- and heterogeneous-rank settings, with up to a 6.82 percentage-point improvement in average GLUE accuracy under heterogeneous client ranks.
Federated LoRA fine-tuning enables parameter-efficient adaptation of pre-trained models without sharing private data, but suffers from two fundamental mismatches under heterogeneous client data: a structural aggregation mismatch caused by independently averaging LoRA factors, and a statistical collaboration mismatch caused by enforcing a single global adapter across divergent clients. To address these issues, we propose CF-LoRA, a clustered federated LoRA fine-tuning framework that combines decoupled factor aggregation with adaptation-aware client clustering. CF-LoRA first learns a globally shared A factor while retaining personalized Bi factors, then identifies clients with similar adaptation patterns based on the cosine similarity of their learned Bi factors, and finally performs intra-cluster B-factor aggregation with a frozen A factor. By decoupling LoRA factor aggregation, CF-LoRA preserves the low-rank structure and mitigates the structural aggregation mismatch, while adaptation-aware clustering promotes collaboration among clients with similar adaptation patterns and reduces negative transfer caused by statistical heterogeneity. Experiments on four language tasks and four vision datasets with RoBERTa and ViT show that CF-LoRA achieves the highest average accuracy in both modalities while communicating only one LoRA factor per optimization round.
Mengjun Yi, Langxing Yang, Suhan Guo +2
State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology · School of Artificial Intelligence School of Electronic Science and Engineering Nanjing University
Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) has emerged as a powerful tool for parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs). This paper studies LoRA under a federated learning setting, enabling collaborative fine-tuning across clients while preserving parameter efficiency. We focus on a highly heterogeneous regime in which clients share only partial structure and a substantial subset may be contaminated. We propose Collaborative Low-rank Alignment and Identifiable Recovery (CLAIR), a contamination-aware framework that relies only on preliminary local estimators. Its formulation applies broadly, from linear regression to neural network and LLM modules, whenever local adaptation can be represented by matrix-valued updates. CLAIR recovers the shared LoRA subspace and detects contaminated clients via a structured low-rank plus block-sparse decomposition. We prove exact recovery of the shared LoRA subspace in the noiseless case, stable recovery under preliminary estimation error, and consistent collaborative-set recovery under mild separation conditions. We further quantify the gain from CLAIR refinement: it reduces off-subspace estimation error through cross-client averaging while preserving client-specific variation within the shared LoRA subspace, thus improves over local fine-tuning whenever this oracle gain outweighs the costs of subspace estimation and benign-client heterogeneity. Empirically, we demonstrate the benefits of CLAIR by fine-tuning a Transformer architecture on a text-copying task. The results show accurate contamination detection and improved benign-client performance compared with local fine-tuning and non-robust federated averaging.
Shuaida He, Liwen Chen, Long Feng
School of Computing & Data Science, The University of Hong Kong