arxiv: 2605.02337 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 💻 cs.DC · cs.LG

Recognition: unknown

FedPLT: Scalable, Resource-Efficient, and Heterogeneity-Aware Federated Learning via Partial Layer Training

Ahmad Dabaja, Rachid El-Azouzi

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC cs.LG

keywords federated learningpartial layer trainingdevice heterogeneityresource efficiencyclient samplingparameter reductiondistributed training

0 comments

The pith

FedPLT trains only client-specific portions of model layers to match full-model federated learning accuracy while using far fewer parameters.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Federated learning faces high communication and computation costs along with device differences that slow down or exclude clients. FedPLT assigns each client a tailored slice of the model's layers based on its available resources and trains only those slices locally. The method is designed so that the overall training dynamics remain close to those of training every parameter on every client. Experiments across multiple settings show that this partial approach reaches accuracy on par with or above standard full-model federated averaging, while cutting the number of trainable parameters per client by 71 to 82 percent. It also reduces the number of straggling clients and works together with client sampling to lower variance under fixed communication budgets.

Core claim

FedPLT is a structured partial parameter training approach that assigns client-specific portions of the model layers according to each client's communication and computational capabilities. It produces training behavior similar to full-model training, achieves performance comparable to or better than FedAvg, reduces trainable parameters by 71-82 percent per client, and improves results when combined with optimal client sampling under communication constraints.

What carries the argument

Client-specific partial layer assignment, which selects and trains only resource-appropriate portions of the model layers to preserve global training dynamics.

If this is right

Reduces trainable parameters by 71-82 percent per client while matching full-model accuracy.
Outperforms prior partial-training methods in settings with high device heterogeneity.
Lowers the count of straggling clients by matching layer portions to available resources.
Raises overall performance when paired with optimal client sampling under a fixed communication budget.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The approach could extend federated learning to larger fleets of resource-constrained devices without changing the global model architecture.
Dynamic re-assignment of layers during training might further reduce variance if client resources change over time.
The same layer-partition logic could be tested in other distributed training regimes that also face device heterogeneity.
Combining layer selection with gradient compression might yield additional communication savings beyond what is shown.

Load-bearing premise

Assigning different layers to different clients according to their resources keeps the training dynamics close enough to full-model training that added bias or variance does not lower final accuracy.

What would settle it

A head-to-head run on a heterogeneous dataset in which FedPLT reaches more than 3 percent lower final accuracy than full-model training after the same number of communication rounds, despite applying the reported layer reduction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02337 by Ahmad Dabaja, Rachid El-Azouzi.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Illustration of sub-model training strategies. FedDrop applies random view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of the standard Federated Learning (FedAvg) workflow. view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The global update norm (left) and the effective perturbation (mid) at the model level and the model accuracy (right) for different partial training view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Layer-wise effective perturbation for fc1-fc4 weights under different partial training configurations. view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The global update norm (left) and the effective perturbation (mid) at the model level and the model accuracy (right) for different partial training view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Effective perturbation for each ResNet-8 layer under different partial training configurations. view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of two partial-parameter training configurations generated view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Illustration of FedPLT sub-layer allocation. Sub-layers are assigned view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Validation accuracy curves of FedPLT in homogeneous low-resource systems under different layer-wise allocation vectors view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Validation accuracy curves comparing FedPLT with existing methods in a heterogeneous and low-resource FL system, for (Fashion-MNIST, FCN), view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Validation accuracy curves comparing OCS with and without FedPLT. view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Federated Learning (FL) has gained significant attention in distributed machine learning by enabling collaborative model training across decentralized system while preserving data privacy. Although extensive research has addressed statistical data heterogeneity, FL still faces several challenges, including high communication and computation overheads and severe device heterogeneity, which require further investigation. Prior work has addressed these issues through sub-model training and partial parameter training. However, such methods often suffer from inconsistent parameter distributions across clients, inaccurate global loss estimation, and increased bias and variance. Guided by our empirical analysis, we propose FedPLT (Federated Learning with Partial Layer Training), an innovative and structured partial parameter training approach that exhibits training behavior similar to full model training while assigning client-specific portions of the model according to their communication and computational capabilities. In addition, we evaluate the performance of FedPLT when combined with optimal client sampling under communication constraints. We show that this integration improves FL performance by reducing sampling variance under the same communication budget. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that FedPLT achieves performance comparable to, or even surpassing, that of full-model training (i.e., FedAvg), while requiring significantly fewer trainable parameters per client. Moreover, FedPLT outperforms existing methods in highly heterogeneous environments, effectively adapts to client resource constraints, and reduces the number of straggling clients. In particular, FedPLT reduces the number of trainable parameters by 71%-82% while achieving performance on par with full-model training.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

FedPLT shows a structured partial-layer scheme that cuts per-client parameters 71-82% while matching FedAvg accuracy in heterogeneous settings, though the aggregation mechanics need verification.

read the letter

FedPLT cuts the number of trainable parameters per client by 71-82% while keeping accuracy on par with or better than standard FedAvg. That's the headline result for heterogeneous federated learning. The approach uses a structured assignment of model layers to clients based on their compute and communication resources. This is guided by empirical analysis to make the training behave like full-model updates. They also pair it with optimal client sampling to reduce variance under fixed communication budgets. The experiments cover highly heterogeneous environments and show fewer straggling clients along with good adaptation to resource constraints. The method outperforms some existing partial training techniques in those settings. The soft spot is that we don't see the concrete layer selection algorithm or how the server aggregates the partial updates. Without that, it's hard to rule out that some layers get fewer or biased updates from only high-resource clients. The paper claims the design avoids inconsistency problems, but the details would clarify if this holds generally or just for the tested cases. This is useful for anyone building federated learning systems that must run across devices with very different capabilities, like in mobile or IoT applications. Readers focused on resource efficiency and heterogeneity will get practical takeaways. The work has clear claims and experimental support, so it deserves a serious referee to dig into the method and results. I recommend sending it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes FedPLT, a partial layer training method for federated learning in which clients are assigned client-specific subsets of model layers according to their communication and computational capabilities. The design is guided by empirical analysis intended to produce training dynamics similar to full-model training (FedAvg). The paper further integrates the method with optimal client sampling under communication constraints and claims, via extensive experiments, that FedPLT achieves accuracy comparable to or better than FedAvg while reducing trainable parameters per client by 71-82%, with improved handling of device heterogeneity and fewer stragglers.

Significance. If the central empirical claims are substantiated with full experimental protocols, FedPLT would offer a practical advance for deploying federated learning on heterogeneous edge devices by substantially lowering per-client resource demands without accuracy loss. The structured, capability-aware layer assignment and its combination with variance-reducing client sampling represent a concrete engineering contribution to the device-heterogeneity challenge in FL.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: The performance claims rest on 'extensive experiments' demonstrating parity with full-model training and a 71-82% parameter reduction, yet the abstract (and by extension the manuscript summary) supplies no information on datasets, architectures, heterogeneity models, number of runs, or statistical tests. This absence directly undermines verification of the central claim.
[§3] §3 (Method): The aggregation step for partial layer updates is not described. It is unclear whether gradients for a given layer are averaged only over the clients that trained it, whether any per-layer normalization or masking is applied, or how the global model update accounts for differing participation rates. This mechanism is load-bearing for the claim that partial training produces update statistics equivalent to FedAvg and avoids the bias/variance issues identified in the skeptic analysis.
[§4] §4 (Experiments): No ablation studies on the layer-assignment heuristic, no reporting of standard deviations or significance tests across runs, and no controlled variation of heterogeneity levels are mentioned. Without these, it cannot be determined whether the reported parity is robust or specific to the tested conditions, weakening the assertion that FedPLT 'outperforms existing methods in highly heterogeneous environments.'

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by a single sentence naming the primary datasets and model families used in the experiments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each major comment below and revised the manuscript to improve clarity, completeness, and verifiability of our claims.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The performance claims rest on 'extensive experiments' demonstrating parity with full-model training and a 71-82% parameter reduction, yet the abstract (and by extension the manuscript summary) supplies no information on datasets, architectures, heterogeneity models, number of runs, or statistical tests. This absence directly undermines verification of the central claim.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including these experimental details to facilitate immediate verification of the claims. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the abstract to specify the datasets (CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, Tiny-ImageNet), architectures (ResNet-18, MobileNet), heterogeneity models (Dirichlet distribution with varying concentration parameters), number of independent runs (five), and reporting of averages with standard deviations. This change directly addresses the concern without altering the core claims. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] §3 (Method): The aggregation step for partial layer updates is not described. It is unclear whether gradients for a given layer are averaged only over the clients that trained it, whether any per-layer normalization or masking is applied, or how the global model update accounts for differing participation rates. This mechanism is load-bearing for the claim that partial training produces update statistics equivalent to FedAvg and avoids the bias/variance issues identified in the skeptic analysis.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission, which is essential for substantiating the equivalence to FedAvg. The original description in Section 3 was high-level; the aggregation in FedPLT averages each layer's updates exclusively over the clients assigned to train that specific layer, using the standard FedAvg weighting by local dataset size, with no additional per-layer normalization or masking. This design was chosen to maintain comparable update statistics and training dynamics, as supported by our empirical analysis. We have added a detailed mathematical formulation, explanation of participation handling, and pseudocode to the revised Section 3 to fully clarify the mechanism and its relation to bias/variance reduction. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (Experiments): No ablation studies on the layer-assignment heuristic, no reporting of standard deviations or significance tests across runs, and no controlled variation of heterogeneity levels are mentioned. Without these, it cannot be determined whether the reported parity is robust or specific to the tested conditions, weakening the assertion that FedPLT 'outperforms existing methods in highly heterogeneous environments.'

Authors: The referee is correct that these elements are important for establishing robustness. While the original experiments spanned multiple runs and heterogeneity settings, we did not explicitly report standard deviations, include dedicated ablations on the layer-assignment heuristic, or present controlled variations of heterogeneity levels in the submitted version. In the revision, we have added standard deviations to all tables and figures, introduced a new ablation subsection in §4 analyzing the layer-assignment heuristic, and included additional experiments with controlled heterogeneity (varying Dirichlet alpha). These updates strengthen the evidence for performance parity and superiority in heterogeneous environments. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical proposal validated externally

full rationale

The paper introduces FedPLT as an empirically guided practical method for partial layer training in FL, with performance claims tied directly to comparisons against independent external baselines such as FedAvg on standard benchmarks. No mathematical derivation chain, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The approach is presented as reducing trainable parameters while matching full-model results through experiments, without any internal reduction to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the empirical observation that partial layer training can mimic full-model dynamics when layers are chosen by client capability; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5570 in / 1101 out tokens · 25876 ms · 2026-05-08T17:25:49.484496+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

General data protection regulation (gdpr),

E. Union, “General data protection regulation (gdpr),”Official Journal of the European Union, L119, pp. 1-88, Apr. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj. [Accessed: Sep. 9, 2024], 2016

2016
[2]

California consumer privacy act (ccpa),

S. of California, “California consumer privacy act (ccpa),”California Legislative Information, AB-375, Jun. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill id= 201720180AB375. [Accessed: Sep. 9, 2024], 2018

2018
[3]

Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from de- centralized data,

H. B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. Ag ¨uera y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from de- centralized data,”Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), vol. 54, pp. 1273–1282, 2017

2017
[4]

On the convergence of fedavg on non-iid data,

X. Li, K. Huang, W. Yang, S. Wang, and Z. Zhang, “On the convergence of fedavg on non-iid data,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=HJxNAnVtDS

2020
[5]

SCAFFOLD: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning,

S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. Reddi, S. Stich, and A. T. Suresh, “SCAFFOLD: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning,” inProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, H. D. III and A. Singh, Eds., vol. 119. PMLR, 13–18 Jul 2020, pp. 5132–5143. [Online]. Availab...

2020
[6]

Heterogeneous federated learning: State-of-the-art and research challenges,

M. Ye, X. Fang, B. Du, P. C. Yuen, and D. Tao, “Heterogeneous federated learning: State-of-the-art and research challenges,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 56, no. 3, oct 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3625558

work page doi:10.1145/3625558 2023
[7]

Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,

A. K. Sahu, T. Li, M. Sanjabi, M. Zaheer, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,”arXiv: Learning,
[8]

Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 59316566

[Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 59316566
[9]

Attention Is All You Need

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.03762, 2017

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017
[10]

Federated dropout—a simple ap- proach for enabling federated learning on resource constrained devices,

D. Wen, K.-J. Jeon, and K. Huang, “Federated dropout—a simple ap- proach for enabling federated learning on resource constrained devices,” IEEE wireless communications letters, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 923–927, 2022

2022
[11]

Heterofl: Computation and communication efficient federated learning for heterogeneous clients,

E. Diao, J. Ding, and V . Tarokh, “Heterofl: Computation and communication efficient federated learning for heterogeneous clients,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.01264

work page arXiv 2021
[12]

Fedrolex: Model- heterogeneous federated learning with rolling sub-model extraction,

S. Alam, L. Liu, M. Yan, and M. Zhang, “Fedrolex: Model- heterogeneous federated learning with rolling sub-model extraction,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 29 677– 29 690, 2022

2022
[13]

Straggler-resilient federated learning: Tackling computation heterogeneity with layer-wise partial model training in mobile edge network,

H. Wu, P. Wang, and C. V . A. Narayana, “Straggler-resilient federated learning: Tackling computation heterogeneity with layer-wise partial model training in mobile edge network,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10002, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311. 10002

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

Poster: Optimal variance-reduced client sampling for multiple models federated learning,

H. Zhang, Z. Li, Z. Gong, M. Siew, C. Joe-Wong, and R. El-Azouzi, “Poster: Optimal variance-reduced client sampling for multiple models federated learning,” in2024 IEEE 44th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2024, pp. 1446–1447

2024
[15]

Fedplt: Scalable, resource-efficient, and heterogeneity-aware federated learning via partial layer training,

A. Dabaja and R. El-Azouzi, “Fedplt: Scalable, resource-efficient, and heterogeneity-aware federated learning via partial layer training,” in Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2025

2025
[16]

Synchronize only the immature parameters: Communication-efficient federated learning by freezing parameters adaptively,

C. Chen, H. Xu, W. Wang, B. Li, B. Li, L. Chen, and G. Zhang, “Synchronize only the immature parameters: Communication-efficient federated learning by freezing parameters adaptively,”IEEE Transac- tions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1155–1173, 2023

2023
[17]

Deep residual learning for image recognition,

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

2016
[18]

Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithms

H. Xiao, K. Rasul, and R. V ollgraf, “Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017
[19]

Cifar-10 and cifar-100 datasets,

A. Krizhevsky and G. Hinton, “Cifar-10 and cifar-100 datasets,” 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.cs.toronto.edu/∼kriz/cifar.html

2009
[20]

Improved modelling of federated datasets using mixtures-of-dirichlet-multinomials,

J. Scott and ´A. Cahill, “Improved modelling of federated datasets using mixtures-of-dirichlet-multinomials,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02416, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[21]

Fedbn: Federated learning on non-iid features via local batch normalization,

X. Li, M. Jiang, X. Zhang, M. Kamp, and Q. Dou, “Fedbn: Feder- ated learning on non-iid features via local batch normalization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07623, 2021

work page arXiv 2021
[22]

International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

X. Li, K. Huang, W. Yang, S. Wang, and Z. Zhang, “On the convergence of fedavg on non-iid data,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02189, 2019

work page arXiv 1907