TrustChain: A Blockchain Framework for Auditing and Verifying Aggregators in Decentralized Federated Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The serverless nature of Decentralized Federated Learning (DFL) requires allocating the aggregation role to specific participants in each federated round. Current DFL architectures ensure the trustworthiness of the aggregator node upon selection. However, most of these studies overlook the possibility that the aggregating node may turn rogue and act maliciously after being nominated. To address this problem, this paper proposes a DFL structure, called <monospace xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">TrustChain</monospace>, that scores the aggregators before selection based on their past behavior and additionally audits them after the aggregation. To do this, the statistical independence between the client updates and the aggregated model is continuously monitored using the Hilbert-Schmidt Independence Criterion (HSIC). The proposed method relies on several principles, including blockchain, anomaly detection, and concept drift analysis. The designed structure is evaluated on several federated datasets and attack scenarios with different numbers of Byzantine nodes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it