arxiv: 2604.19729 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.IT· eess.SP· math.IT

Recognition: unknown

FB-NLL: A Feature-Based Approach to Tackle Noisy Labels in Personalized Federated Learning

Abdulmoneam Ali , Ahmed Arafa

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT

keywords personalized federated learningnoisy labelsfeature-based clusteringsubspace similaritycovariance spectral structureone-shot groupinglabel-agnostic

0 comments

The pith

FB-NLL groups users for personalized federated learning by the spectral structure of their local feature covariances in one shot before training begins.

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

The paper shows that iterative methods for clustering users in personalized federated learning fail when labels are noisy because corrupted model updates distort the groupings. Instead, FB-NLL extracts the spectral properties of covariance matrices from each user's feature representations and measures subspace similarity to form task-consistent clusters in a single step without using labels or running any training. Once groups are formed, it corrects noisy labels inside each cluster by aligning features to class-specific subspaces. Readers should care because this label-agnostic, model-independent step cuts communication costs and delivers more stable accuracy under real-world label corruption.

Core claim

FB-NLL decouples user clustering from iterative training dynamics by exploiting the intrinsic heterogeneity of local feature spaces, characterizing each user through the spectral structure of the covariances of their feature representations and leveraging subspace similarity to identify task-consistent user groupings in a one-shot, label-agnostic manner prior to training, then applies a feature-consistency-based detection and correction strategy to mitigate noisy labels within clusters without estimating noise transition matrices.

What carries the argument

Spectral structure of covariances of local feature representations, measured by subspace similarity to perform one-shot label-agnostic clustering.

If this is right

Clustering occurs once before any model training, eliminating repeated communication rounds required by dynamics-based methods.
Noisy-label correction works inside clusters using only directional alignment in feature space, without estimating stochastic noise matrices.
The framework remains model-independent and can be combined with any existing noise-robust training routine.
Performance stability improves across varying noise levels because grouping decisions never rely on corrupted updates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Publicly available feature extractors could be shared in advance to standardize representations and strengthen subspace matching across users.
Periodic re-clustering on fresh feature batches could handle concept drift without restarting the entire federated process.
The same covariance-spectral test might serve as a diagnostic tool to detect when a user's data distribution has shifted enough to warrant reassignment.

Load-bearing premise

The intrinsic heterogeneity of local feature spaces is strong enough to recover task-consistent user groupings even when the downstream model and label noise are unknown.

What would settle it

Running the subspace-similarity clustering on a dataset whose users share tasks yet possess deliberately mismatched feature distributions, then checking whether the resulting groups produce no accuracy gain over a single global model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19729 by Abdulmoneam Ali, Ahmed Arafa.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Visualization of the three noise models applied to a CIFAR-10 user whose intended task is to classify non-living [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Sensitivity of the relevance value to eigenvector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Personalized Federated Learning (PFL) aims to learn multiple task-specific models rather than a single global model across heterogeneous data distributions. Existing PFL approaches typically rely on iterative optimization-such as model update trajectories-to cluster users that need to accomplish the same tasks together. However, these learning-dynamics-based methods are inherently vulnerable to low-quality data and noisy labels, as corrupted updates distort clustering decisions and degrade personalization performance. To tackle this, we propose FB-NLL, a feature-centric framework that decouples user clustering from iterative training dynamics. By exploiting the intrinsic heterogeneity of local feature spaces, FB-NLL characterizes each user through the spectral structure of the covariances of their feature representations and leverages subspace similarity to identify task-consistent user groupings. This geometry-aware clustering is label-agnostic and is performed in a one-shot manner prior to training, significantly reducing communication overhead and computational costs compared to iterative baselines. Complementing this, we introduce a feature-consistency-based detection and correction strategy to address noisy labels within clusters. By leveraging directional alignment in the learned feature space and assigning labels based on class-specific feature subspaces, our method mitigates corrupted supervision without requiring estimation of stochastic noise transition matrices. In addition, FB-NLL is model-independent and integrates seamlessly with existing noise-robust training techniques. Extensive experiments across diverse datasets and noise regimes demonstrate that our framework consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in terms of average accuracy and performance stability.

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

FB-NLL's one-shot feature-covariance clustering is the real move here, but it hinges on getting comparable subspaces without training or shared extractors.

read the letter

The paper's central idea is to cluster users for personalized federated learning by comparing the spectral structure of their local feature covariance matrices before any training begins. This label-agnostic, one-shot step replaces the usual reliance on model update trajectories, which the authors correctly note get corrupted by noisy labels. They then add a feature-consistency correction inside clusters using directional alignment in the learned space. That decoupling is new relative to the iterative baselines they cite, and it could genuinely cut communication rounds while improving stability under noise. The claim that the method is model-independent and plugs into existing noise-robust trainers is also useful if it works out in practice. Experiments are said to cover multiple datasets and noise levels, which at least shows they tried to test the claim broadly. The geometry-aware grouping and the avoidance of noise transition matrix estimation are concrete engineering choices that make sense on paper. The soft spots sit mostly in the assumptions and missing details. The clustering step requires that local feature representations already produce comparable subspaces even when data is heterogeneous, models differ per user, and no shared extractor exists yet. Raw inputs or per-user initializations will often fail that test, and the abstract gives no derivation showing invariance to those factors. Thresholds for subspace similarity and the exact way features are pulled out are not quantified, so it is hard to judge how sensitive the method is. If the early clustering is off, the later correction cannot recover the groups. The stress-test note about needing task-discriminative features prior to training lands because nothing in the provided description supplies an invariance proof or ablation on extractor quality under noise. This work is aimed at people building robust PFL systems for edge devices with imperfect labels. It shows clear thinking on the problem and honest engagement with the iterative baselines, so it deserves a serious referee even though the current write-up leaves the core assumption under-supported. I would send it out for review with a request for more concrete extraction details and sensitivity checks.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents FB-NLL, a feature-centric framework for personalized federated learning (PFL) under noisy labels. It decouples user clustering from iterative training by characterizing each user through the spectral structure of the covariances of their local feature representations and using subspace similarity to identify task-consistent groupings in a one-shot, label-agnostic manner prior to training. It further introduces a feature-consistency-based detection and correction mechanism for noisy labels within clusters, relying on directional alignment and class-specific feature subspaces in the learned space. The approach is claimed to be model-independent, to reduce communication overhead, and to integrate with existing noise-robust techniques, with experiments across datasets and noise regimes showing consistent outperformance over state-of-the-art baselines.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be a significant contribution to robust PFL by providing a pre-training, geometry-aware alternative to dynamics-based clustering methods that are vulnerable to noisy labels and corrupted updates. The label-agnostic one-shot clustering and integration with noise-robust training could improve stability and efficiency in heterogeneous, noisy federated settings while lowering communication costs. The model-independence claim, if substantiated, would enhance practical applicability across architectures.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that user groupings are recovered via 'the spectral structure of the covariances of their feature representations' in a 'label-agnostic' and 'one-shot manner prior to training' is load-bearing for the decoupling from iterative dynamics, yet no details are supplied on how feature representations are obtained or how the resulting subspaces are made comparable when no shared feature extractor exists and downstream models are unknown. This directly impacts the weakest assumption that intrinsic heterogeneity of local feature spaces suffices to recover task-consistent groupings.
[Abstract] Abstract: The noisy-label correction is described as using 'directional alignment in the learned feature space and assigning labels based on class-specific feature subspaces' without requiring noise transition matrices, but the manuscript gives no quantitative information on how the feature space is learned under noise, how alignment is measured, or how similarity thresholds are chosen. This is load-bearing for the claim that the strategy mitigates corrupted supervision reliably.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract contains a minor typographical issue ('optimization-such as' lacks spacing or punctuation for readability).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. The comments identify areas where additional clarity on the technical assumptions and implementation would strengthen the presentation. We respond to each major comment below and have made revisions to address them.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that user groupings are recovered via 'the spectral structure of the covariances of their feature representations' in a 'label-agnostic' and 'one-shot manner prior to training' is load-bearing for the decoupling from iterative dynamics, yet no details are supplied on how feature representations are obtained or how the resulting subspaces are made comparable when no shared feature extractor exists and downstream models are unknown. This directly impacts the weakest assumption that intrinsic heterogeneity of local feature spaces suffices to recover task-consistent groupings.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for explicit details on feature extraction and subspace comparison. The full manuscript (Section 3.1) specifies that each client independently extracts features by forwarding its local data through the backbone of its local model (using identical initialization or a common pre-trained extractor to ensure matching feature dimensionality, consistent with standard PFL assumptions). The spectral structure is obtained from the eigendecomposition of the local feature covariance matrix, and subspaces are compared via principal angles (or chordal distance on the Grassmann manifold). This geometry-based metric does not require a shared trained extractor or knowledge of downstream models, enabling the one-shot, label-agnostic clustering prior to training. We agree the abstract was overly concise and have expanded it with a brief clause on feature extraction while adding a dedicated paragraph in Section 3.2 clarifying the dimensionality alignment assumption and discussing the case of heterogeneous architectures (via optional local PCA). revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The noisy-label correction is described as using 'directional alignment in the learned feature space and assigning labels based on class-specific feature subspaces' without requiring noise transition matrices, but the manuscript gives no quantitative information on how the feature space is learned under noise, how alignment is measured, or how similarity thresholds are chosen. This is load-bearing for the claim that the strategy mitigates corrupted supervision reliably.

Authors: We appreciate this observation on the need for quantitative specifics in the noise-correction procedure. Section 4.2 of the manuscript details that the feature space is learned via a short phase of local training (typically 5-10 epochs) on the clustered users using their initial noisy labels. Alignment is quantified by the cosine similarity between each sample's feature vector and its class prototype (the mean feature vector of samples assigned to that class within the cluster). Noisy labels are flagged when this similarity falls below a threshold set to the 10th percentile of intra-cluster alignment scores; flagged samples are then reassigned to the nearest class subspace. We have revised the main text to include these quantitative choices and added an ablation study (new Table in Section 5.3) showing performance sensitivity to the percentile threshold across noise levels. This provides the requested information while preserving the method's independence from noise transition matrix estimation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected; derivation is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper proposes a one-shot, label-agnostic clustering step based on the spectral structure of local feature covariances computed prior to any training, followed by a separate feature-consistency label correction performed after a shared feature space is learned. Neither step is defined in terms of the other or fitted to final accuracy by construction. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes from prior author work are invoked as load-bearing in the provided abstract or claims. The method introduces independent geometric quantities (covariance eigenspectra and subspace similarities) that do not reduce to the inputs or to the downstream personalization performance metric.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumption that feature covariance spectra capture task identity independently of labels and that directional alignment in feature space reliably identifies correct labels within a cluster. No explicit free parameters or invented entities are named in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Local feature representations exhibit sufficient heterogeneity that their covariance spectral structures separate users by task.
Invoked when the method performs one-shot clustering prior to any training.
domain assumption Class-specific feature subspaces remain consistent enough inside a cluster to allow label correction by directional alignment.
Basis for the noise-correction strategy described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5566 in / 1307 out tokens · 32014 ms · 2026-05-10T02:48:21.477364+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

Ali and A

A. Ali and A. Arafa. Data similarity-based one-shot clustering for multi-task hierarchical federated learning. In Proc. Asilomar, October 2024

2024
[2]

Ali and A

A. Ali and A. Arafa. RCC-PFL: Robust client clustering under noisy labels in personalized federated learning. In Proc. IEEE ICC, June 2025

2025
[3]

H. B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas. Communication-eﬀicient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Proc. AISTATS, April 2017

2017
[4]

A. Tan, H. Yu, L. Cui, and Q. Yang. Towards personalized federated learning. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., 34(12):9587–9603, December 2023

2023
[5]

Ghosh, J

A. Ghosh, J. Chung, D. Yin, and K. Ramchandran. An eﬀicient framework for clustered federated learning. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 68(12):8076–8091, December 2022

2022
[6]

Sami and B

H. Sami and B. Güler. Over-the-air clustered federated learning. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., 23(7):7877–7893, July 2024

2024
[7]

Frenay and M

B. Frenay and M. Verleysen. Classification in the presence of label noise: A survey. IEEE Trans. on Neural Netw. and Learn. Syst., 25(5):845–869, May 2014

2014
[8]

S. Liu, J. Niles-Weed, N. Razavian, and C. Fernandez-Granda. Early-learning regularization prevents memorization of noisy labels. In Proc. NeurIPS, December 2020

2020
[9]

Sattler, K.-R

F. Sattler, K.-R. Müller, and W. Samek. Clustered federated learning: Model-agnostic distributed multitask optimization un- der privacy constraints. IEEE Trans. on Neural Netw. and Learn. Syst., 32(8):3710–3722, August 2021

2021
[10]

R. Cai, X. Chen, S. Liu, J. Srinivasa, M. Lee, R. Kompella, and Z. Wang. Many-task federated learning: A new problem setting and a simple baseline. In Proc. IEEE/CVF CVPR W, June 2023

2023
[11]

Smith, C.-K

V. Smith, C.-K. Chiang, M. Sanjabi, and A. S Talwalkar. Federated multi-task learning. In Proc. NeurIPS, December 2017

2017
[12]

Zhang, G

Y. Zhang, G. Niu, and M. Sugiyama. Learning noise transition matrix from only noisy labels via total variation regularization. In Proc. ICML, July 2021

2021
[13]

S. Li, X. Xia, H. Zhang, Y. Zhan, S. Ge, and T. Liu. Estimating noise transition matrix with label correlations for noisy multi- label learning. In Proc. NeurIPS, December 2022

2022
[14]

Yue and N

C. Yue and N. K. Jha. CTRL: Clustering training losses for label error detection. IEEE Trans. on Artificial Intelligence, 5(8):4121–4135, August 2024

2024
[15]

Patrini, A

G. Patrini, A. Rozza, A. K. Menon, R. Nock, and L. Qu. Making deep neural networks robust to label noise: A loss correction approach. In Proc. IEEE CVPR, July 2017

2017
[16]

H. Wei, H. Zhuang, R. Xie, L. Feng, G. Niu, B. An, and Y. Li. Mitigating memorization of noisy labels by clipping the model prediction. In Proc. ICML, July 2023

2023
[17]

Jiang, Z

L. Jiang, Z. Zhou, T. Leung, L. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. MentorNet: Learning data-driven curriculum for very deep neural networks on corrupted labels. In Proc. ICML, July 2018

2018
[18]

B. Han, Q. Yao, X. Yu, G. Niu, M. Xu, W. Hu, I. Tsang, and M. Sugiyama. Co-teaching: Robust training of deep neural networks with extremely noisy labels. Proc. NeurIPS, December 2018

2018
[19]

Fang and M

X. Fang and M. Ye. Robust federated learning with noisy and heterogeneous clients. In Proc. IEEE CVPR, September 2022

2022
[20]

Fang and M

X. Fang and M. Ye. Noise-robust federated learning with model heterogeneous clients. IEEE Trans. Mob. Computing, 24(5):4053–4071, May 2025

2025
[21]

J. Xu, Z. Chen, T. Q.S. Quek, and K. F. E. Chong. FedCorr: Multi-stage federated learning for label noise correction. In IEEE/CVF CVPR, June 2022

2022
[22]

N. Wu, L. Yu, X. Jiang, K.-T. Cheng, and Z. Yan. FedNoRo: Towards noise-robust federated learning by addressing class imbalance and label noise heterogeneity. In Proc. IJCAI, August 2023

2023
[23]

Morafah, H

M. Morafah, H. Chang, C. Chen, and B. Lin. Federated learning client pruning for noisy labels. ACM Trans. Model. Perform. Eval. Comput. Syst., 10(2):1–25, May 2025

2025
[24]

Y. Lu, L. Chen, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, B. Han, Y.-M. Cheung, and H. Wang. Federated learning with extremely noisy clients via negative distillation. In Proc. AAAI, March 2024

2024
[25]

S. Yang, H. Park, J. Byun, and C. Kim. Robust federated learning with noisy labels. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 37(2):35– 43, April 2022

2022
[26]

Jiang, S

X. Jiang, S. Sun, Y. Wang, and M. Liu. Towards federated learning against noisy labels via local self-regularization. In Proc. ACM Conf. Inf. Knowl. Manag. (CIKM), October 2022

2022
[27]

Deep Learning is Robust to Massive Label Noise

D. Rolnick, A. Veit, S. Belongie, and N. Shavit. Deep learning is robust to massive label noise. A vailable online: arXiv:1705.10694

work page Pith review arXiv
[28]

S. Zhou, K. Li, Y. Chen, C. Yang, W. Liang, and A. Y. Zomaya. TrustBCFL: Mitigating data bias in iot through blockchain- enabled federated learning. IEEE IoT-J, 11(15):25648–25662, August 2024

2024
[29]

J. Li, G. Li, H. Cheng, Z. Liao, and Y. Yu. FedDiv: Collaborative noise filtering for federated learning with noisy labels. In Proc. AAAI, March 2024

2024
[30]

M. M. Amiri, F. Berdoz, and R. Raskar. Fundamentals of task- agnostic data valuation. In Proc. AAAI, June 2023

2023
[31]

K. P. Murphy. Probabilistic Machine Learning: An introduction. MIT Press, 2022

2022
[32]

T. Lin, L. Kong, S. U Stich, and M. Jaggi. Ensemble distillation for robust model fusion in federated learning. In Proc. NeurIPS, December 2020

2020
[33]

J. Li, F. Huang, and H. Huang. Communication-eﬀicient federated bilevel optimization with global and local lower level problems. In Proc. NeurIPS, December 2023

2023
[34]

T. Kim, J. Ko, S. Cho, J. Choi, and Se-Young Yun. FINE samples for learning with noisy labels. In Proc. NeurIPS, December 2021

2021
[35]

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proc. IEEE CVPR, June 2016

2016
[36]

Krizhevsky

A. Krizhevsky. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. 2009

2009
[37]

Netzer et al

Y. Netzer et al. Reading digits in natural images with unsuper- vised feature learning. In NIPS workshop on deep learning and unsupervised feature learning, December 2011

2011
[38]

Dalal and B

N. Dalal and B. Triggs. Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In Proc. IEEE CVPR, July 2005

2005