Blockchain-Empowered Lifecycle Management for AI-Generated Content (AIGC) Products in Edge Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content (AIGC) has brought daunting challenges regarding service latency, security, and trustworthiness. Recently, researchers presented the edge AIGC paradigm, effectively optimize the service latency by distributing AIGC services to edge devices. However, AIGC products are still unprotected and vulnerable to tampering and plagiarization. Moreover, as a kind of online non-fungible digital property, the free circulation of AIGC products is hindered by the lack of trustworthiness in open networks. In this article, for the first time, we present a blockchain-empowered framework to manage the lifecycle of edge AIGC products. Specifically, leveraging fraud proof, we first propose a protocol to protect the ownership and copyright of AIGC, called Proof-of-AIGC. Then, we design an incentive mechanism to guarantee the legitimate and timely executions of the funds-AIGC ownership exchanges among anonymous users. Furthermore, we build a multi-weight subjective logic-based reputation scheme, with which AIGC producers can determine which edge service provider is trustworthy and reliable to handle their services. Through numerical results, the superiority of the proposed approach is demonstrated. Last but not least, we discuss important open directions for further research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".