Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 29, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Clients observing different parts of a prediction task may learn locally equivalent models with incompatible behavior outside their observed support. We study whether redundant models permit local low-loss paths toward a compatible shared model. CovFedAvg retains local models and curve controls on clients, fits a common endpoint through aggregated gradient contributions, and selects an actual candidate model using distributed training losses. No centralized calibration examples or client-to-client sample exchange are required. Exact selection guarantees no higher evaluated training loss than the previous model and the current-round FedAvg candidate; this is not a global-optimality, stationarity, generalization, or differential-privacy guarantee. We state conditional client-compatibility and approximate-selection bounds and retain corrected transformation identities and a separate full-gradient safeguard theorem for reference algorithms. A complementary input-support example recovers the shared absolute-value regression, while matched direct fine-tuning also solves it. Across a synthetic support task, recorded activity-recognition subjects, and participating and future gas-sensor batches, we evaluate five methods, five seeds, two network widths, and 20 rounds without calibration data. At width 16, CovFedAvg raises participating-Gas macro balanced accuracy from FedAvg's 88.88% to 89.84%; matched distributed fine-tuning reaches 91.65%. Results support feasibility and modest gains over FedAvg, but do not establish a curve-specific advantage over equally costly optimization. Exact-sum numerical experiments establish data flow; end-to-end privacy requires additional mechanisms and analysis.