Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 15, 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.
Federated learning lets multiple participants train a shared model without pooling raw data, by exchanging locally trained model updates instead. Federated averaging assumes that averaging local models is a reasonable way to solve one shared problem when participants' data are broadly similar. Work on non-IID federated learning has shown that this assumption can withstand differences in label and feature distributions. We ask whether it survives a different strain specific to graph neural networks, where client graphs differ not in label or feature distribution but in structure itself, requiring the same shared weights to operate over fundamentally different topologies. We call the resulting harm structural negative transfer. In a federation of real citation networks and synthetic structural proxies, a structurally atypical client lost more than half its achievable accuracy simply by joining. In an initial six-client federation, two label-free structural statistics computable before training were strongly associated with this harm. Expanding to twenty clients showed that degree divergence remained associated with harm, although more weakly, and survived removal of domain contrast. Spectral divergence did not replicate, which we trace to a confound caused by the composition of the reference pool used for leave-one-out statistics. A causal intervention isolating topology found no significant effect. A degree-normalization mechanism held across twenty-four seeds but did not explain the harm when corrected. The best of five candidate fixes beat a tuned baseline only until a matched, structurally blind control was applied, after which the gain disappeared. What survives is a modest, partially replicated, degree-specific signal that is not yet a validated predictor at scale.