Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

The study finds that evaluation protocol choices, such as predictor selection, client-level resampling, and which validation round is reported, shifted discrimination in federated mortality models more than the choice of aggregation algorithm did. The SCAFFOLD lead over the other six strategies was small (at most 0.008 AUC-ROC), so rankings between federated optimizers may be less robust than published comparisons suggest. Readers building clinical federated systems should treat protocol standardization as a prerequisite for meaningful benchmarks.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Protocol Choices Matter More Than the Aggregation Algorithm: Federated Learning for In-Hospital Mortality Prediction in Care-Unit and Multi-Hospital Federations

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2610.17265v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Federated learning allows hospitals to train a shared mortality model without pooling their records, but published comparisons of aggregation strategies rarely control the evaluation protocol. This study compared seven strategies (FedAvg, FedProx, SCAFFOLD, FedAdagrad, FedAdam, FedYogi and FedCluster) on two federations built with one pipeline: 12 care units of a hospital in MIMIC-IV and 49 hospitals in eICU-CRD. Each strategy was tuned and selected on validation data by the same rule, and every comparison was repeated across 10 seeds with Friedman and Holm-corrected tests. SCAFFOLD ranked first in both federations (AUC-ROC 0.886 and 0.819) and in 17 of 18 variants, but its margin over the runner-up never exceeded 0.008, and a control sharing its local optimizer attributed most of its margin over FedAvg to drift correction. On the multi-hospital federation, federated training matched centralized training. In the care-unit federation, three protocol choices changed discrimination by more than the choice of strategy did: discharge-coded predictors (+0.038 in AUC-ROC), client-level SMOTE (up to -0.074), and evaluating the last instead of the best validation round (up to -0.084). Platt scaling on validation data repaired the risks distorted by imbalance corrections without loss of discrimination. Studies should therefore fix the protocol before ranking algorithms.

Abstract:Federated learning allows hospitals to train a shared mortality model without pooling their records, but published comparisons of aggregation strategies rarely control the evaluation protocol. This study compared seven strategies (FedAvg, FedProx, SCAFFOLD, FedAdagrad, FedAdam, FedYogi and FedCluster) on two federations built with one pipeline: 12 care units of a hospital in MIMIC-IV and 49 hospitals in eICU-CRD. Each strategy was tuned and selected on validation data by the same rule, and every comparison was repeated across 10 seeds with Friedman and Holm-corrected tests. SCAFFOLD ranked first in both federations (AUC-ROC 0.886 and 0.819) and in 17 of 18 variants, but its margin over the runner-up never exceeded 0.008, and a control sharing its local optimizer attributed most of its margin over FedAvg to drift correction. On the multi-hospital federation, federated training matched centralized training. In the care-unit federation, three protocol choices changed discrimination by more than the choice of strategy did: discharge-coded predictors (+0.038 in AUC-ROC), client-level SMOTE (up to -0.074), and evaluating the last instead of the best validation round (up to -0.084). Platt scaling on validation data repaired the risks distorted by imbalance corrections without loss of discrimination. Studies should therefore fix the protocol before ranking algorithms.

23 pages, 6 figures, 10 tables. Code: this https URL

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing (cs.DC)

I.2.6; J.3; C.2.4

arXiv:2610.17265 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.17265v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.17265 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 317 words

Related coverage