Enhancing Split Learning with Sharded and Blockchain-Enabled SplitFed Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative and distributed learning techniques, such as Federated Learning (FL) and Split Learning (SL), hold significant promise for leveraging sensitive data in privacy-critical domains. However, FL and SL suffer from key limitations—FL imposes substantial computational demands on clients, while SL leads to prolonged training times. To overcome these challenges, SplitFed Learning (SFL) was introduced as a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of FL and SL. Despite its advantages, SFL inherits scalability, performance, and security issues from SL. In this paper, we propose two novel frameworks: Sharded SplitFed Learning (SSFL) and Blockchain-enabled SplitFed Learning (BSFL). SSFL addresses the scalability and performance constraints of SFL by distributing the workload and communication overhead of the SL server across multiple parallel shards. Building upon SSFL, BSFL replaces the centralized server with a blockchain-based architecture that employs a committee-driven consensus mechanism to enhance fairness and security. BSFL incorporates an evaluation mechanism to exclude poisoned or tampered model updates, thereby mitigating data poisoning and model integrity attacks. Experimental evaluations against baseline SL and SFL approaches show that SSFL improves performance and scalability by 31.2% and 85.2%, respectively. Furthermore, BSFL increases resilience to data poisoning attacks by 62.7% while maintaining superior performance under normal operating conditions. To the best of our knowledge, BSFL is the first blockchain-enabled framework to implement an end-to-end decentralized SplitFed Learning system.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".