Trust-Centric Federated Learning Using Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contracts: An Analysis of Data Privacy, Model Integrity, and Decentralized AI Governance

Federated Learning (FL) allows multiple data possessors to collaboratively train a shared model without transferring any raw data outside their local administration limits. However, conventional server orchestrated FL is vulnerable to trusted-server reliance, black-box contribution auditability, malicious model updates, and weak accountability. This article proposes a trust-based federated learning framework in which a smart contract enabled by blockchain oversees client registration, model update logging, hash-based integrity verification, trust score calculation, malicious node penalization, aggregation approval, and decentralised audit logging.
The paper uses a clearly labelled simulated experimental setup involving 16 clients having a non-IID Fashion-MNIST classification task. Three of these 16 clients are malicious and submit either poisoned updates or updates having hash mismatches. The proposed trust-centric blockchain federated learning configuration is compared with traditional federated averaging based on parameters such as model accuracy, verification rate, malicious-update identification, F1-score, transaction cost, and governance traceability. Based on the simulation results, the new framework enhances the global accuracy from 79.6% to 86.8% under the attack setting. Further hash-verification coverage is complete for submitted updates. Likewise, the simulation rejects the three malicious submissions in the simulated round. Lastly, the provenance records become immutable via incurring additional latency of 121.3 ms per update. The paper contributes a technically defined, IEEE-style framework for federated learning, smart-contract trust scoring, model-integrity verification, and decentralized AI governance. The outcomes are not offered as evidence of real-world deployment but as a reproducible academic design and evaluation framework for future empirical real-world deployment.

Federated learning, blockchain, smart contracts, decentralized artificial intelligence, data privacy, model integrity, trust management

1. H. B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. Aguera y Arcas, "Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data," in Proc. 20th Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), PMLR, vol. 54, pp. 1273-1282, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Q. Yang, Y. Liu, T. Chen, and Y. Tong, "Federated machine learning: Concept and applications," ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., vol. 10, no. 2, Article 12, pp. 1-19, 2019, doi: 10.1145/3298981. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. P. Kairouz et al., "Advances and open problems in federated learning," Found. Trends Mach. Learn., vol. 14, no. 1-2, pp. 1-210, 2021, doi: 10.1561/2200000083. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. T. Li, A. K. Sahu, A. Talwalkar, and V. Smith, "Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions," IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 50-60, 2020, doi: 10.1109/MSP.2020.2975749. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. K. Bonawitz et al., "Towards federated learning at scale: System design," in Proc. MLSys, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. H. Xiao, K. Rasul, and R. Vollgraf, "Fashion-MNIST: A novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms," arXiv:1708.07747, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. K. Bonawitz et al., "Practical secure aggregation for privacy-preserving machine learning," in Proc. ACM SIGSAC Conf. Computer and Communications Security (CCS), pp. 1175-1191, 2017, doi: 10.1145/3133956.3133982. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. M. Abadi et al., "Deep learning with differential privacy," in Proc. ACM SIGSAC Conf. Computer and Communications Security (CCS), pp. 308-318, 2016, doi: 10.1145/2976749.2978318. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. K. Wei et al., "Federated learning with differential privacy: Algorithms and performance analysis," IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security, vol. 15, pp. 3454-3469, 2020, doi: 10.1109/TIFS.2020.2988575. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. P. Blanchard, E. M. El Mhamdi, R. Guerraoui, and J. Stainer, "Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent," in Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), vol. 30, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. E. Bagdasaryan, A. Veit, Y. Hua, D. Estrin, and V. Shmatikov, "How to backdoor federated learning," in Proc. AISTATS, PMLR, vol. 108, pp. 2938-2948, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. M. Fang, X. Cao, J. Jia, and N. Z. Gong, "Local model poisoning attacks to Byzantine-robust federated learning," in Proc. 29th USENIX Security Symp., pp. 1605-1622, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. H. Kim, J. Park, M. Bennis, and S.-L. Kim, "Blockchained on-device federated learning," IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1279-1283, 2020, doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2019.2921755. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Y. Li, C. Chen, N. Liu, H. Huang, Z. Zheng, and Q. Yan, "A blockchain-based decentralized federated learning framework with committee consensus," IEEE Netw., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 234-241, 2021, doi: 10.1109/MNET.011.2000263. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. S. K. Lo, Y. Liu, Q. Lu, C. Wang, X. Xu, H.-Y. Paik, and L. Zhu, "Toward trustworthy AI: Blockchain-based architecture design for accountability and fairness of federated learning systems," IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 3276-3284, 2023, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2022.3144450. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. R. Kumar et al., "Blockchain-federated-learning and deep learning models for COVID-19 detection using CT imaging," IEEE Sens. J., vol. 21, no. 14, pp. 16301-16314, 2021, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2021.3076767. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. A. Qammar, A. Karim, H. Ning, and J. Ding, "Securing federated learning with blockchain: A systematic literature review," Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 3951-3985, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10462-022-10271-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. W. Ning et al., "Blockchain-based federated learning: A survey and new perspectives," Appl. Sci., vol. 14, no. 20, Article 9459, 2024, doi: 10.3390/app14209459. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. K. Christidis and M. Devetsikiotis, "Blockchains and smart contracts for the Internet of Things," IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 2292-2303, 2016, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2566339. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. V. Buterin, "Ethereum: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform," Ethereum White Paper, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. E. Androulaki et al., "Hyperledger Fabric: A distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains," in Proc. 13th EuroSys Conf., pp. 1-15, 2018, doi: 10.1145/3190508.3190538. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), NIST AI 100-1, Jan. 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence, Official Journal of the European Union, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. M. Brundage et al., "Toward trustworthy AI development: Mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims," arXiv:2004.07213, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Impact of AI Tools on Student Learning
• Repogent: An Autonomous Multi-Agent System for End-To-End Repository Maintenance
• Can AI Care? Rethinking Ethics, Clinical Integrity, and Professional Responsibility in the Digital Age of Mental Healthcare