Abstract
Federated learning lets multiple parties train a shared model without pooling their data, but a client with far less data than the others can end up poorly served even when the group's average accuracy looks fine. We ask whether the choice of pretrained backbone affects this under LoRA fine-tuning, and whether per-word perplexity on the target text predicts which backbone helps the worst-off client before federated training starts. We ran 313 experiments across three text-classification datasets and three similarly sized backbones (RoBERTa, BERTweet, PubMedBERT), each compared against a task-specific baseline on identical data splits. Lower-perplexity backbones consistently produced larger gains for the worst-performing client, with a rank correlation of -0.87 across nine dataset-backbone pairs; a backbone held out of the analysis confirmed the pattern. Personalization with Ditto recovered only 4-12% of the gap between training alone and full federation, and removing aggregation entirely erased the benefit. A client's update also showed no sign of conflicting with the group's update; the two are close to orthogonal, ruling out one proposed explanation for this failure. Practically: measure perplexity on a sample of task text before choosing a backbone, and do not rely on personalization to protect a data-poor client. We release our code, predictions, and full results for others to test.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.23463
