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.