Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchMachine learning

analiza aiqbench

This research identifies "structural negative transfer" in federated graph neural networks, where clients with divergent graph topologies suffer significant accuracy drops despite sharing model weights. The study finds that while degree divergence correlates with this harm, causal interventions suggest the effect is not solely driven by topology but involves complex interactions that current normalization mechanisms only partially address. For practitioners deploying federated learning on heterogeneous graph data, these findings highlight the need for robust pre-training diagnostics before joining a federation to prevent performance degradation in structurally atypical clients.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Structural Negative Transfer in Federated Graph Neural Networks: Diagnosis, Causal Investigation, and the Limits of Divergence-Aware Mitigation

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2609.16977v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Federated learning lets multiple participants train a shared model without pooling raw data, by exchanging locally trained model updates instead. Federated averaging assumes that averaging local models is a reasonable way to solve one shared problem when participants' data are broadly similar. Work on non-IID federated learning has shown that this assumption can withstand differences in label and feature distributions. We ask whether it survives a different strain specific to graph neural networks, where client graphs differ not in label or feature distribution but in structure itself, requiring the same shared weights to operate over fundamentally different topologies. We call the resulting harm structural negative transfer. In a federation of real citation networks and synthetic structural proxies, a structurally atypical client lost more than half its achievable accuracy simply by joining. In an initial six-client federation, two label-free structural statistics computable before training were strongly associated with this harm. Expanding to twenty clients showed that degree divergence remained associated with harm, although more weakly, and survived removal of domain contrast. Spectral divergence did not replicate, which we trace to a confound caused by the composition of the reference pool used for leave-one-out statistics. A causal intervention isolating topology found no significant effect. A degree-normalization mechanism held across twenty-four seeds but did not explain the harm when corrected. The best of five candidate fixes beat a tuned baseline only until a matched, structurally blind control was applied, after which the gain disappeared. What survives is a modest, partially replicated, degree-specific signal that is not yet a validated predictor at scale.

Abstract:Federated learning lets multiple participants train a shared model without pooling raw data, by exchanging locally trained model updates instead. Federated averaging assumes that averaging local models is a reasonable way to solve one shared problem when participants' data are broadly similar. Work on non-IID federated learning has shown that this assumption can withstand differences in label and feature distributions. We ask whether it survives a different strain specific to graph neural networks, where client graphs differ not in label or feature distribution but in structure itself, requiring the same shared weights to operate over fundamentally different topologies. We call the resulting harm structural negative transfer. In a federation of real citation networks and synthetic structural proxies, a structurally atypical client lost more than half its achievable accuracy simply by joining. In an initial six-client federation, two label-free structural statistics computable before training were strongly associated with this harm. Expanding to twenty clients showed that degree divergence remained associated with harm, although more weakly, and survived removal of domain contrast. Spectral divergence did not replicate, which we trace to a confound caused by the composition of the reference pool used for leave-one-out statistics. A causal intervention isolating topology found no significant effect. A degree-normalization mechanism held across twenty-four seeds but did not explain the harm when corrected. The best of five candidate fixes beat a tuned baseline only until a matched, structurally blind control was applied, after which the gain disappeared. What survives is a modest, partially replicated, degree-specific signal that is not yet a validated predictor at scale.

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

arXiv:2609.16977 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.16977v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.16977 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.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 359 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe