arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 3 min read

Evaluating Federated Pre-Training: On the Reliability of Downstream Fine-Tuning and Intrinsic Evaluation

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2607.28658 (cs)
[Submitted on 20 Jul 2026]

Title:Evaluating Federated Pre-Training: On the Reliability of Downstream Fine-Tuning and Intrinsic Evaluation

View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating Federated Pre-Training: On the Reliability of Downstream Fine-Tuning and Intrinsic Evaluation, by Claudia Grosser and 3 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Federated pre-training offers a way to train foundation models on private or distributed data without centralizing the underlying datasets. However, evaluating federated pre-training remains challenging because differences in client participation and local data availability can make directly comparable evaluation difficult. Moreover, pre-training test perplexity is tied to the pre-training distribution, while downstream benchmarks introduce task-specific adaptation that may not faithfully reflect the test perplexity established during pre-training. In this work, we study which evaluation protocol more reliably reflects federated pre-training quality. Using a controlled set of centralized and federated-trained models of a 16M parameter transformer model trained on identical client data, we assess evaluation protocols by whether they preserve a reference ranking established on the same pre-training testset. We compare downstream fine-tuning on GLUE, including full, head-only, and reduced-data variants, with next-token prediction on GLUE text as an intrinsic evaluation signal. Our results show that downstream fine-tuning does not reliably preserve the pre-training ranking, whereas direct next-token prediction exhibits a strong correspondence with the pre-training test perplexity. These findings suggest that downstream fine-tuning alone can be misleading when comparing federated pre-trained models, and that evaluation signals closer to the original pre-training objective deserve greater attention.
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
Cite as: arXiv:2607.28658 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2607.28658v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.28658
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Claudia Großer [view email]
[v1] Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:14:12 UTC (489 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating Federated Pre-Training: On the Reliability of Downstream Fine-Tuning and Intrinsic Evaluation, by Claudia Grosser and 3 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

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.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language