Beyond performance-wise Contribution Evaluation in Federated Learning

Balazs Pejo
2/25/2026
cs.LGcs.CR

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Federated learning offers a privacy-friendly collaborative learning framework, yet its success, like any joint venture, hinges on the contributions of its participants. Existing client evaluation methods predominantly focus on model performance, such as accuracy or loss, which represents only one dimension of a machine learning model's overall utility. In contrast, this work investigates the critical, yet overlooked, issue of client contributions towards a model's trustworthiness -- specifically, its reliability (tolerance to noisy data), resilience (resistance to adversarial examples), and fairness (measured via demographic parity). To quantify these multifaceted contributions, we employ the state-of-the-art approximation of the Shapley value, a principled method for value attribution. Our results reveal that no single client excels across all dimensions, which are largely independent from each other, highlighting a critical flaw in current evaluation scheme: no single metric is adequate for comprehensive evaluation and equitable rewarding allocation.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{pejo2026beyond,
  title  = {Beyond performance-wise Contribution Evaluation in Federated Learning},
  author = {Balazs Pejo},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2602.22470},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22470v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2602.22470.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2602.22470)

Discussion