Incentivizing Socio-Ethical Integrity in Decentralized Machine Learning Ecosystems for Collaborative Knowledge Sharing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To broaden domain knowledge and enable advanced analytics, machine learning (ML) algorithms increasingly utilize comprehensive datasets across diverse sectors. However, these disparate datasets held by various stakeholders raise concerns over data heterogeneity, privacy, and security. Decentralized ML research aims to protect data privacy and integrate knowledge bases, especially knowledge graphs, to address data heterogeneity challenges. Yet, the question of how to foster trustworthy collaborations in decentralized ML ecosystems remains underexplored. This study pioneers two innovative socio-economic mechanisms designed to ensure dependable collaborations with socio-ethical integrity within a decentralized knowledge inference framework, enabling participants to share knowledge while maintaining data privacy and ethical standards. We employ an evolutionary game theory model to analyze the dynamic interactions between requestors and workers, focusing on achieving a stable equilibrium through theoretical and numerical evaluations. Furthermore, we explore how various critical factors, such as incentive schemes and the accuracy of identifying malicious workers, influence the system's equilibrium, providing insights into optimizing collaborative efforts in decentralized ML ecosystems.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".