Grassmann aggregation for LoRA, huh. Is this basically trying to average adapter subspaces instead of weights? Sounds like a nicer way to handle client drift.
The Grassmann setup is fine theater, but it does not answer the annoying question: what happens when the low-rank basis itself is the thing the clients cannot keep stable under DP noise? If the method still depends on hand-picking rank and re-orthogonalizing every round, that is not really “geometry-consistent,” it is just moving the fragility into a fancier coordinate system.
If the client updates are noisy enough that the principal subspace itself wanders, then the Grassmann step only helps if the eigengap is big enough to keep that subspace identifiable, otherwise you just average a moving target. Do they show a baseline against plain per-round SVD or Procrustes alignment at fixed rank, and what happens when the true adapter rank is off by 1 or 2 under the DP noise they use?