Organizations: State Key Laboratory of Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China · Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Agnostic federated learning (AFL) seeks a model that performs reliably across m heterogeneous workers, but communication remains a bottleneck. We improve communication efficiency by reducing the number of synchronization rounds via faster convergence and the communication cost per round via compression. We first propose AFL-BR, which updates the dual weights over workers using online mirror ascent with KL divergence and blockwise restarts. It achieves an O((logm)1/4T−1/8) stationarity rate after T update rounds, reducing the m-dependence of the synchronization rounds required for convergence from polynomial to logarithmic order. Building on AFL-BR, we develop AFL-Com by applying bidirectional compression with error feedback (EF). Instead of compressing local gradients, workers apply EF to their dual-weighted gradients, enabling direct control of the aggregated compression error under time-varying weights. We then establish an O((δ−1+(logm)1/4)T−1/8) stationarity rate for AFL-Com under general δ-approximate compressors and improve the δ-dependence from δ−1 to δ−1/2 for additive-and-idempotent compressors with shared randomness (SR). With suitable compression levels, AFL-Com retains the same convergence rate as AFL-BR at a lower per-round communication cost, yielding reductions in total communication complexity by factors of (logm)1/4 with Top-k and (logm)1/2 with Rand-k and SR. Experiments validate the improved synchronization and communication efficiency of our methods.
Figures & tables
Algorithm
Technique
Synchronization rounds for ε -stationarity
Communication cost per round
Communication complexity
SGDA ⋆
–
O(m7/2ε−8)
O(dm)
O(dm9/2ε−8)
DRFA ♣
Local updates
O(ε−12+m2ε−8)
O(dm)
O(dmε−12+dm3ε−8)
Fully synchronized
O(m2ε−8)
O(dm)
O(dm3ε−8)
AFL-BR (Algorithm 1 )
–
O((logm)2ε−8)
O(dm)
O(dm(logm)2ε−8)
AFL-Com (Algorithm 2 )
Compression (Top- k ) §
O((logm)2ε−8)
O(dm(logm)−1/4)
O(dm(logm)7/4ε−8)
Compression (Rand- k with SR) ∗
O((logm)2ε−8)
O(dm(logm)−1/2)
O(dm(logm)3/2ε−8)
Table 1: Comparison of nonconvex AFL methods using Top- k and Rand- k as examples. d is the model dimension and m the number of workers. Definitions of compressors are provided in Appendix B.1 . ⋆,♣ Hidden m -dependence is made explicit; see Appendices C.1 and C.2 . \lx@sectionsign Set k=Θ(d(logm)−1/4) in Theorem 2 . ∗ Set k=Θ(d(logm)−1/2) with SR in Theorem 3 . Parfenov et al. (2026) is omitted since it relies on a Minty-inspired condition with a different criterion.
Figure 1: Synchronization rounds versus m on FEMNIST.
Figure 2: Worst-worker test accuracy. The top and bottom rows correspond to Fashion-MNIST and CIFAR-10, respectively. From left to right, the columns report performance against update rounds, synchronization rounds, and cumulative communication cost.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Maximum worker test loss. The top and bottom rows correspond to Fashion-MNIST and CIFAR-10, respectively. From left to right, the columns report performance against update rounds, synchronization rounds, and cumulative communication cost.
School of Computer Technologies, RMIT University Melbourne, VIC, Australia · School of Science, Computing and Engineering Technologies, Swinburne University of Technology Hawthorn, VIC, Australia