Ensuring Zero Trust in GDPR-Compliant Deep Federated Learning Architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep Federated Learning (DFL) revolutionizes machine learning (ML) by enabling collaborative model training across diverse, decentralized data sources without direct data sharing, emphasizing user privacy and data sovereignty. Despite its potential, DFL’s application in sensitive sectors is hindered by challenges in meeting rigorous standards like the GDPR, with traditional setups struggling to ensure compliance and maintain trust. Addressing these issues, our research introduces an innovative Zero Trust-based DFL architecture designed for GDPR compliant systems, integrating advanced security and privacy mechanisms to ensure safe and transparent cross-node data processing. Our base paper proposed the basic GDPR-Compliant DFL Architecture. Now we validate the previously proposed architecture by formally verifying it using High-Level Petri Nets (HLPNs). This Zero Trust-based framework facilitates secure, decentralized model training without direct data sharing. Furthermore, we have also implemented a case study using the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets to evaluate the existing approach with the proposed Zero Trust-based DFL methodology. Our experiments confirmed its effectiveness in enhancing trust, complying with GDPR, and promoting DFL adoption in privacy-sensitive areas, achieving secure, ethical Artificial Intelligence (AI) with transparent and efficient data processing.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".