# Benchmarking Federated Learning and Knowledge Distillation for Point Cloud Classification

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01272 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.01272/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Detection and dense prediction distillation, one of 12 directions in Knowledge distillation.
- Builds on 9 of its 61 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- Knowledge distillation / [Detection and dense prediction distillation](https://mlsanity.com/distill/detection-and-dense-prediction-distillation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1503.02531/) (2015)
- [FitNets: Hints for Thin Deep Nets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6550/) (2014)
- [Paying More Attention to Attention: Improving the Performance of Convolutional Neural Networks via Attention Transfer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.03928/) (2016)
- [Adaptive Federated Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.00295/) (2020)
- [Measuring the Effects of Non-Identical Data Distribution for Federated Visual Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06335/) (2019)
- [Contrastive Representation Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10699/) (2019)
- [FedBN: Federated Learning on Non-IID Features via Local Batch Normalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.07623/) (2021)
- [Federated Learning Based on Dynamic Regularization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.04263/) (2021)
- [Non-IID data in Federated Learning: A Survey with Taxonomy, Metrics, Methods, Frameworks and Future Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.12377/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Deploying 3D point cloud analysis in privacy-sensitive, resource-constrained settings faces two barriers: data cannot be centralized, and models must run on limited edge hardware. We present a multi-seed benchmark jointly evaluating federated learning (FL) and knowledge distillation (KD) for 3D point cloud classification. It spans 13 FL algorithms and 10 KD objectives (a 130-pair cross-product) across 504 training runs, evaluated on ModelNet40 and a clinical craniosynostosis dataset. We report three findings. First, under extreme non-IID label skew, standalone FL degrades sharply: on ModelNet40, the strongest method reaches 76.32% against a 92.26% centralized reference; on clinical data, the best reaches 75.83% against 100%. Second, distillation successfully compresses the teacher into a student 74.51% smaller and roughly twice as fast at inference, often matching or surpassing the teacher. Third, the combined pipeline exposes an evaluation pitfall: when distillation keeps a hard-label cross-entropy term on a labeled proxy split, a collapsed federated teacher (8.50%) paired with Logit-MSE still yields a 92.94% student. This 84.4-point gap reflects the proxy labels rather than the federated model, reusing the very labels whose privacy motivated federation. Objectives without hard labels instead track teacher quality (r ≈ 0.99) and collapse when the teacher does. We therefore recommend evaluating FL-KD pipelines with label-free distillation so reported accuracy reflects the federated teacher, not the proxy.