Federated learning over decentralized networks inherently trades off the suppression of local finite-sample noise through collaboration against the bias that collaboration introduces between heterogeneous nodes. We study this tension by performing a large-dimensional analysis of Generalized Total Variation Minimization with least-squares models. Using tools from random matrix theory, we show that Lipschitz observations of the global GTVMin solution concentrate in large dimensions, universally for any underlying network structure. We provide exact analytic expressions for the asymptotically precise performance under both i.i.d. and non-i.i.d. Gaussian mixture distributions on a fixed network. For the latter, these expressions quantify how regularization balances local adaptation against collaboration. Our theoretical results are confirmed by experiments on synthetic and real-world data.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Homogeneous data and concentration, with common Σ=Ip and μ=e1 . Left: node-average test error with N=6 , p=60 and ni=150 . Path, cycle and complete graphs each have total edge weight 6. Lines: theoretical predictions; points: Monte Carlo means. Right: standard deviation of the unit-norm observable f(w)=N−1/2∑i=1Ne1⊤w(i) on an unweighted cycle, with N∈{2,4,8} , p∈{24,48,96} , ni=2.5p and α=0.3 . The p−1/2 guide is anchored at N=4 , p=24 . Points use 240 independent training draws; error bars are 95% intervals, with bootstrap intervals for the standard deviations.
Figure 2: Heterogeneous three-node path with p=80 , ni=200 , μ(1)=1.4e1 , μ(2)=−0.4e1+e2 and μ(3)=−0.7e2+0.8e3 . Covariances are diagonal: entries of Σ(1) and Σ(2) are evenly spaced from 0.5 to 1.5 and from 1.4 to 0.6 , respectively; Σ(3) has half its diagonal entries equal to 0.4 and half equal to 2 . Left: predicted and measured node-average test error. Right: node-specific quadratic noise terms. Lines: Theorem 4 ; points and 95% intervals: 240 independent training draws, shared across values of α .
Figure 3: Six nodes with p=60 , ni=150 and Σ(i)=Ip . Nodes 1,2,3 have mean e1+0.8e2 (blue), and nodes 4,5,6 have mean e1−0.8e2 (orange). Unit-weight cycles follow the orders (1,2,3,4,5,6) and (1,4,2,5,3,6) , giving identical Laplacian spectra but two and six edges between different tasks, respectively. Lines: Theorem 4 . Points: means over 240 independent training draws, shared across graphs and values of α , with 95% intervals.
Figure 4: Real-data predictions. Each node’s data are split into a pool (70%) and a held-out test set (30%). Predictions use the signed-observation moments of the pool; measured errors average 100 independent training draws from it, shared across the α grid. (a) Predicted versus held-out test error for all 55 settings and grid values. (b) Largest gap to ( 22 ) versus the spread of whitened squared norms relative to its Gaussian value (index 1). Feature, partition and graph details are given in Appendix E and the code.
Gap (pp)
Regret (pp)
Group
#
Gauss
test
med.
max
i.i.d. splits
9
0.8
1.8
0.07
0.17
Dirichlet, a=100
6
1.0
2.0
0.12
0.18
Dirichlet, a≤0.5
12
1.1
2.5
0.06
0.25
Rotations
12
2.1
2.3
0.05
0.24
Task alignment
4
1.1
2.2
0.02
0.18
Table 1: Prediction gaps and tuning regrets on 55 real-data settings, in percentage points (pp). Gap: median across settings of the largest absolute prediction error over the α grid. “Gauss” evaluates ( 22 ) on the fitted coefficients with pool moments; “test” uses held-out classification error. Regret: extra held-out error at the theory-selected α relative to the lowest mean error on the grid, summarized by its median and maximum. Predictions use pool moments.
Method
MNIST rot.
FMN. rot.
CIFAR subp.
CIFAR Dir.
HAR users
Adult silos
Local
10.97
22.32
17.35
15.41
20.77
25.77
Consensus
18.43
21.88
12.19
11.43
14.85
23.15
Fine-tuning
9.44
17.58
11.88
10.65
14.49
23.44
Mixture
9.08
17.35
11.84
10.58
14.74
23.56
GTVMin, α chosen by
CV (5-fold)
8.47
17.90
11.64
10.52
14.37
23.51
Table 2: Test error (%) on six real-data settings, averaged over 20 training draws. Plug-in theory uses training-sample means and Ledoit–Wolf covariance estimates; oracle theory uses pool moments. Fine-tuning starts from consensus; mixture is the global/local method of Hanzely and Richtárik (2020) . The 95% intervals are at most ±0.4 , except ±0.7 for local HAR. Bold: lowest reported error excluding hindsight, which gives the lowest measured GTVMin error on the tested grid. Fore the setup details, see Appendix E .
Table 3: The 55 real-data settings. Unless stated otherwise, N=6 , p=100 and ni=250 . Tasks are written as positive vs. negative class. Dirichlet partitions use a∈{0.1,0.5,100} . Complete graphs have total edge weight 6 for random splits, 5 for rotations and N otherwise; all other graphs have unit weights. #: number of settings.
Method
MNIST rot.
FMN. rot.
CIFAR subp.
CIFAR Dir.
HAR users
Adult silos
Local
10.97 ± 0.23
22.32 ± 0.42
17.35 ± 0.31
15.41 ± 0.36
20.77 ± 0.72
25.77 ± 0.34
Consensus
18.43 ± 0.24
21.88 ± 0.24
12.19 ± 0.13
11.43 ± 0.17
14.85 ± 0.22
23.15 ± 0.18
Fine-tuning
9.44 ± 0.20
17.58 ± 0.27
11.88 ± 0.20
10.65 ± 0.20
14.49 ± 0.34
23.44 ± 0.26
Mixture
9.08 ± 0.18
17.35 ± 0.22
11.84 ± 0.20
10.58 ± 0.21
14.74 ± 0.37
23.56 ± 0.22
GTVMin, α chosen by
CV (5-fold)
8.47 ± 0.21
17.90 ± 0.29
11.64 ± 0.14
10.52 ± 0.19
14.37 ± 0.27
23.51 ± 0.30
Appendix
Table 4: Test error (%) of Table 2 with 95% confidence intervals over 20 training draws.
Figure 5: Random splits into N=6 nodes with p=100 and ni=250 , on a path, a cycle and a complete graph with total edge weight 6. Lines: Theorem 4 . Dots: held-out test error with 95% intervals over 100 draws. Crosses: Gaussian formula ( 22 ) for the path. As in Corollary 3 , the error decreases towards that of the pooled model.
Figure 6: Rotation shift: node k sees the images rotated by 30(k−1) degrees, N=6 , p=100 , ni=250 , on a unit-weight path and a complete graph with total weight 5. Lines, dots and crosses as in Figure 5 . The best α is intermediate, and on MNIST full collaboration is worse than local training.
Figure 7: Graph–task alignment on real data, with the two cycles of Figure 3 . Left: MNIST 3 vs. 5, with nodes 1–3 upright and nodes 4–6 rotated by 90∘ . Right: CIFAR-10, nodes 1–3 separate airplanes and ships from birds and frogs, nodes 4–6 automobiles and trucks from cats and dogs. Both cycles have the same Laplacian spectrum and use the same training draws. The grouped cycle, with two edges between different tasks instead of six, has the lower error, as predicted.
Figure 8: Natural partitions. HAR: 10 nodes of 3 users each, p=30 , ni=75 . Adult: 6 employment sectors or 5 age groups, p=40 , unequal ni . Complete graphs with total weight N , and k -NN graphs built from pool statistics ( k=3 for HAR, k=2 for Adult). Lines and dots as in Figure 5 .
Figure 9: Theorem 1 on real data: standard deviation over 200 training draws of the unit-norm observable N−1/2∑ie1⊤w(i) , for random splits of Fashion-MNIST (pullover vs. coat) and CIFAR-10 (automobile vs. truck). Unweighted cycle, α=0.3 , ni=2.5p , bootstrap 95% intervals. The fitted slopes, given in the legend, are close to −1/2 for every N .
We study federated soft clustering over federated learning (FL) networks of devices that each hold a private local dataset and fit a personalized Gaussian mixture model (GMM). Generalized total variation minimization (GTVMin) couples the local maximum likelihood problems through a graph regularizer that penalizes a discrepancy between the models of connected nodes. The choice of discrepancy measure is a key design decision: we compare a squared Euclidean distance between model parameters, which requires component matching, with two measures that compare the local model distributions directly and hence need no matching: a Monte-Carlo approximated Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence and a closed-form maximum mean discrepancy (MMD). All three resulting GTVMin instances are optimized by synchronous projected gradient updates; for the smooth MMD instance we provide a convergence guarantee to stationary points. We characterize their computational cost and evaluate their robustness to data heterogeneity.
Shamsiiat Abdurakhmanova, Alexander Jung
Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
Federated learning (FL) is an emerging distributed machine learning paradigm that enables local devices to jointly train a global model while keeping data decentralized and private. We propose a variance-reduction based algorithm, VRA-FedSGD, for FL in the presence of heavy-tailed gradient noise and communication noise, where these noises are prevalent in large-scale machine learning over wireless networks and Internet of Things deployments. VRA-FedSGD employs a momentum variance reduction technique together with a nonlinear mapping to mitigate heavy-tailed gradient noise, and uses a variance-reduced aggregation mechanism to suppress heavy-tailed communication noise. In the mean sense, VRA-FedSGD achieves a convergence rate of {\smallO(K−(p−1)/(2p−1))} for nonconvex objective functions, where p is the tail index of heavy-tailed noise. In the almost sure sense, VRA-FedSGD achieves a convergence rate of O~(K−(1−1/(p−ε))) for strongly convex objective functions, where ε is an arbitrarily small constant. Simulated experiments on a logistic regression problem with real-world data verify the effectiveness of VRA-FedSGD.
Shengchao Zhao, Yongchao Liu
School of Mathematics, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China · School of Mathematical Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
Federated learning enables a population of clients to collaboratively train machine learning models without exchanging their raw data, but standard algorithms such as FedAvg suffer from slow convergence and high communication and memory costs in heterogeneous, resource-constrained environments. We introduce FedSLoP, a federated optimization algorithm that combines stochastic low-rank subspace projections of gradients, thereby reducing the dimension of communicated and stored updates while preserving optimization progress. On the theoretical side, we develop a detailed nonconvex convergence analysis under standard smoothness and bounded-variance assumptions, showing that FedSLoP is guaranteed to converge to a first-order stationary point at a rate of O(1/NT). On the empirical side, we conduct extensive experiments on federated MNIST classification with heterogeneous data partitions, showing that FedSLoP substantially reduces communication volume and client-side memory while achieving competitive or better accuracy compared with FedAvg and representative sparse or low-rank baselines. Together, our results demonstrate that random subspace momentum methods such as FedSLoP provide a principled and effective approach to communication- and memory-efficient federated learning. Codes are available at: https://github.com/pkumelon/FedSLoP.git.