Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A Blockchain-Monitored Agentic AI Architecture for Trusted Perception-Reasoning-Action Pipelines

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A permissioned blockchain interposed between AI reasoning and action enforces safety policy, preserves traceability, and adds only ~0.4 s per decision.

desk verdict Useful integration blueprint, but the 'prevents unauthorized practices' claim outruns the evidence because the blockchain never checks whether the MCP executor actually did what was approved. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.20985 v1 pith:HR6ANPYB submitted 2025-12-24 cs.AI cs.MA

Salman Jan , Hassan Ali Razzaqi , Ali Akarma , Mohammad Riyaz Belgaum This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.MA
keywords blockchainagenticAIHyperledgerFabricsmartcontractspolicyenforcementauditabilityMCPLangChain
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that agentic AI systems — AI that perceives, reasons, and acts autonomously — can be made trustworthy by routing every decision through a permissioned blockchain before execution. The architecture places smart contracts between the reasoning layer and the action layer so that policy checks happen at decision time, not after the fact. The authors build a three-layer pipeline (perception, conceptualization, action) with LangChain agents, Hyperledger Fabric smart contracts, and MCP-based executors, and test it on inventory, traffic-signal, and healthcare scenarios. Their results claim the governed pipeline blocks all 14 unsafe actions that an ungoverned baseline accepted, while keeping mean latency at 1.82 s and throughput about 45 tx/s. If true, this offers a template for high-stakes autonomous AI that is both autonomous and auditable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Blockchain Governance Layer, a set of Hyperledger Fabric smart contracts (Action Registry, Policy and Usage Control, Evaluation Contract) placed between the LangChain reasoning layer and the MCP action layer. The Evaluation Contract implements the core gate: Algorithm 1 checks that the agent ID is whitelisted, that the proposed parameters satisfy safety bounds retrieved from key-value policies, and only then commits the transaction and emits "ActionApproved." Hashed input anchors tie raw observations to downstream decisions, and status codes/effect hashes are logged to close the evidentiary loop.

What would settle it

Replace the simulated MCP services with real production systems and submit a new set of unsafe actions generated independently of the 14 hand-crafted rules; if any policy-violating action is approved, or if end-to-end latency exceeds the claimed 1.82 s mean at scale, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a permissioned blockchain can act as an active policy-enforcement and audit layer for an agentic AI pipeline rather than a passive record-keeper. Each perception–conceptualization–action cycle is cryptographically anchored: observations are hashed, the agent's proposed action is submitted to smart contracts that check agent identity and safety bounds, approved actions are executed through MCP connectors, and outcomes are logged back to the ledger. In a 50-trial experiment across three domains, the blockchain layer rejected all 14 policy-violating actions that the no-blockchain baseline accepted, added about 0.40 s to mean decision laten

Load-bearing premise

The safety guarantee depends on the completeness and correctness of the hand-written policy rules; a dangerous action not covered by those rules will be approved and immutably recorded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-impact AI deployments can get a per-decision audit trail: every observation-to-action relationship is on-chain, so regulators and operators can verify what happened after the fact.
  • Policy violations can be stopped at runtime rather than detected post-hoc: the smart-contract gate rejects actions that exceed safety bounds before they reach actuators or APIs.
  • The measured overhead (≈400 ms per decision, 18% throughput reduction) suggests the approach is viable for applications that tolerate latencies around two seconds, such as inventory replenishment, traffic-signal adjustment, and health alerts.
  • The three-contract separation (registry, policy, evaluation) gives a modular template for extending the same governance pattern to other agentic domains.
  • The architecture implies that the same policy can be enforced uniformly across heterogeneous MCP-connected systems, since the contract layer is the single point of policy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same smart-contract gate could enforce learned or dynamically updated policies, not just hand-written rules; the immutable-ledger property then cuts both ways — wrong rules become permanently enforced, so policy authoring becomes the key operational task.
  • The latency budget shows the reasoning model (900–1200 ms) dominates the blockchain overhead (350–450 ms); swapping in a faster or smaller reasoning model would make the ledger cost relatively larger but the absolute latency lower, suggesting the practical bottleneck for near-real-time use is the AI model, not the ledger.
  • Because the architecture routes every action through a single policy gate, it could be extended to cross-organizational settings where multiple parties share one auditable decision log; the permissioned nature means the trust anchor is organizational rather than algorithmic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a four-layer architecture for agentic AI: perception, LangChain-based conceptualization, a Hyperledger Fabric blockchain governance layer, and an MCP-based action execution layer. The governance layer authenticates agents, validates proposed actions against key–value policy rules via smart contracts, records approved actions and reported effects, and thereby claims to prevent unauthorized practices, provide immutable traceability, and maintain acceptable latency. Experiments simulate traffic-signal control, healthcare monitoring, and inventory management, reporting a mean decision latency of 1.82 s, throughput of about 45 tx/s, and the blocking of 14 unsafe actions relative to a baseline without blockchain. The paper frames the approach as a universal architecture for high-impact agentic AI applications that are autonomous yet responsible.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, this would be a valuable reference design for auditable agentic AI: the concrete integration of LangChain, Hyperledger Fabric, and MCP is useful, and the quantitative reporting of latency and throughput would inform practitioners. The core idea of interposing a governance layer between reasoning and actuation is coherent and worth publishing. However, the current significance is materially limited by the gap between the claims and the demonstration: the architecture verifies action proposals, not actual executions, and the experiments are simulated and confounded. The work would be genuinely significant if the evaluation isolated the blockchain's contribution and if the execution-verification gap were addressed or the claims appropriately narrowed.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-E, VI-D, VI-F] The claim that blockchain governance 'prevents unauthorized practices' is not supported by the implemented flow. Algorithm 1 (Section V-D) and Section IV-D check agent identity and parameter bounds on the proposed action only. Section IV-E's Action Execution Agent sends the approved specification to MCP and later hashes the returned status/effect, but nothing compares the actual executed effect with the approved action. A misconfigured, buggy, or malicious MCP connector or external service can execute a different action and report a plausible success; the ledger immutably records that self-report. The experiments in Section VI-D exercise the proposal-rejection path only, and Section V-C states that the MCP services were simulated. The authors should either add an effect-verification mechanism (e.g., signed attestations or independent confirmatory sensing) or revise the abstract and Secti
  2. [VI-D, VI-F, Table I] The with/without-blockchain comparison is not an ablation of the blockchain layer. The 'No BC' baseline removes the entire policy-gate module along with the ledger, so the 14 blocked actions demonstrate that policy checks reject some hand-coded unsafe proposals; they do not isolate blockchain-specific properties such as immutability, consensus, or tamper resistance. The construction of the 14 unsafe actions is also not described: which policies, which parameter ranges, and how much variation exists across the cases. Please report the generation procedure and add conditions that keep the policy checker active without the ledger, and use the ledger without policy checks, so that the outcomes can be attributed to the blockchain layer.
  3. [VI-B, VI-G] Latency and scalability reporting is too thin to support the operational conclusions. The mean decision cycle is based on 50 trials, with no hardware configuration, no Fabric consensus parameters beyond 'three peers, one ordering service,' no transaction size, and no description of concurrent load other than '5 to 50 agents' (Section VI-G). 'Stable throughput' and '+11–18%' are not accompanied by a table, error bars, or per-condition statistics. Please provide the experimental setup, distribution of measurements, and per-condition results, and state whether the simulated MCP service latency is representative of real traffic, healthcare, or inventory APIs.
  4. [V-D, VI-D] The safety demonstration is a self-consistency test of the hand-written policy rules, not independent evidence of safety. The 14 rejected actions are rejected by exactly the CheckSafetyBounds logic defined in Algorithm 1; the experiment confirms that the contracts match their own policy rules, but it does not show that the policy covers the real safety requirements of high-impact applications. To support the 'responsible autonomous operation' claim, the policy rules should be derived from documented safety requirements, and the test suite should include adversarial or edge-case actions beyond obvious parameter violations. Alternatively, Section VI-D should be explicitly framed as a functional test of contract enforcement rather than a safety validation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [V-A] 'We trained LangChain 0.2 on a multi-agent architecture' is imprecise; LangChain is a framework, not a trained model. Rephrase as 'We built the multi-agent reasoning engine using LangChain 0.2.'
  2. [Table I] The footnote for Success Rate is confusing: the baseline's 100% success counts unsafe executions as successes. Clarify that success is execution success, not safety compliance.
  3. [V-C] 'More conveniently simulated service' is informal. Please specify what was simulated, why it is convenient, and what aspects of real services are omitted.
  4. [Algorithm 1] The input line has inconsistent spacing ('P arams'), and ObsHash is not used in any validation step. Clarify how ObsHash enters the contract logic or the audit trail.
  5. [References] Several references are listed as unpublished, accepted, or 'to appear' (e.g., [4], [21], [23], [26]). Where possible, provide DOIs or publication venues so the claims can be checked.
  6. [IV-A] The phrase 'circumventing agentic AI with blockchain' is unclear; 'complementing' or 'governing' would better reflect the proposed design.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'prevents unauthorized practices' result is largely self-confirming: the 14 unsafe actions are rejected by the same hand-written policy that defines 'unsafe,' and the baseline comparison removes the policy layer along with the blockchain.

  1. self definitional [Section V-D (Algorithm 1) and Section VI-D]
    "{Step 2: Check Policy Constraints} P olicy←GetP olicy(ActionID) if CheckSaf etyBounds(P arams, P olicy) == F alse then ... return Rejection(”Saf etyBoundsExceeded”) ... Smart contracts effectively blocked 14 unsafe or unreasonable actions, which proves that blockchain validation can prevent high-impact autonomous actions that are not monitored."

    The 'unsafe' label is defined by the same key-value Policy that Algorithm 1 reads via GetPolicy and checks via CheckSafetyBounds. The 14 test actions are rejected because they violate that exact hand-written policy, and no independent safety specification is used. The demonstration therefore reduces to the contract executing its own definition: an action is unsafe iff it violates the policy the authors encoded. It provides no evidence that the architecture would stop unanticipated, adversarial, or mis-specified actions.

  2. other [Section VI-F, Comparative Evaluation (Table I)]
    "We contrasted the direct MCP agentic system (baseline) with the blockchain-based architecture (Table I). Blockchain incurs≈400 ms of latency per decision, but offers a life-saving benefit, preventing 14 unsafe actions that occurred in the baseline system."

    The 'No BC' baseline removes not only blockchain but also the entire Algorithm 1 policy gate. The 14 unsafe actions were chosen to violate that policy, so the +14 blocked-actions delta is guaranteed by the experimental design. The comparison measures presence versus absence of the hand-written policy, not any blockchain-specific property such as consensus or immutability; the safety benefit is an input to the experiment, not an emergent finding.

full rationale

The paper contains genuine independent engineering content: a LangChain multi-agent stack, Hyperledger Fabric contracts, MCP integration, and latency/throughput measurements are real and self-contained. However, the central safety claim—'blockchain-security verification is efficient in preventing unauthorized practices'—is supported only by a test whose outcomes are determined by the same hand-coded policy (Algorithm 1) used to define 'unsafe.' The with/without-blockchain comparison is likewise forced because the baseline deletes the policy layer, not just blockchain. Additionally, the execution loop only hashes the MCP-reported effect (Sections IV-E, V-C) and never compares the performed action against the approved specification, so the 'prevention' claim remains unsubstantiated for misconfigured or malicious executors; this is a support gap rather than a circular step. Self-citations are pervasive but not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem or prior derivation is invoked to force the architecture. Score 6 reflects that the main prevention result reduces to construction, while traceability, latency, and throughput results retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes an architecture, not a theory, so the central claims rest on assumptions about policy correctness, the trustworthiness of the permissioned blockchain, the fidelity of simulated services, and the reliability of the LLM planner. There are no fitted free parameters; the latency and throughput numbers are measurements, not fits. No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hyperledger Fabric provides tamper-evident, immutable records in this permissioned setting.
    Assumed in Sections IV-D and VI-A; no formal verification of immutability or consensus behavior is provided.
  • domain assumption The hand-written policy rules (Algorithm 1, Section V-D) correctly and completely encode the safety requirements of real high-impact applications.
    The 14 blocked actions are defined relative to these rules; no evidence is given that the rules generalize beyond the test cases.
  • ad hoc to paper The simulated MCP services accurately represent real-world traffic, healthcare, and inventory systems.
    Section V-C states the services are 'more conveniently simulated'; latency and outcome results are assumed to transfer to production.
  • domain assumption The GPT-4o-mini planner generates sensible candidate actions that the policy layer can meaningfully evaluate.
    Section V-A uses an LLM planner; its reasoning quality is not evaluated beyond the policy checks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Blockchain-Monitored Agentic AI Architecture for Trusted Perception-Reasoning-Action Pipelines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HR6ANPYB

@misc{pith2026251220985,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Blockchain-Monitored Agentic AI Architecture for Trusted Perception-Reasoning-Action Pipelines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HR6ANPYB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.20985}
}
read the original abstract

The application of agentic AI systems in autonomous decision-making is growing in the areas of healthcare, smart cities, digital forensics, and supply chain management. Even though these systems are flexible and offer real-time reasoning, they also raise concerns of trust and oversight, and integrity of the information and activities upon which they are founded. The paper suggests a single architecture model comprising of LangChain-based multi-agent system with a permissioned blockchain to guarantee constant monitoring, policy enforcement, and immutable auditability of agentic action. The framework relates the perception conceptualization-action cycle to a blockchain layer of governance that verifies the inputs, evaluates recommended actions, and documents the outcomes of the execution. A Hyperledger Fabric-based system, action executors MCP-integrated, and LangChain agent are introduced and experiments of smart inventory management, traffic-signal control, and healthcare monitoring are done. The results suggest that blockchain-security verification is efficient in preventing unauthorized practices, offers traceability throughout the whole decision-making process, and maintains operational latency within reasonable ranges. The suggested framework provides a universal system of implementing high-impact agentic AI applications that are autonomous yet responsible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.20985 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed blockchain-governed agentic AI architecture integrating perception, LangChain-based reasoning, blockchain evaluation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Layered agentic AI architecture governed by a permissioned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Blockchain Empowered Trustworthy Agent Networks: Foundations, Taxonomy, and Future Directions

    cs.CR 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey proposing a five-dimensional taxonomy of trust crises in open AI agent networks and analyzing blockchain's role as a shared trust infrastructure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Integrity and privacy-aware, patient-centric health record access control framework using a blockchain,

    R. A. Abutaleb, S. S. Alqahtany, and T. A. Syed, “Integrity and privacy-aware, patient-centric health record access control framework using a blockchain,”Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 1028, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Secure healthcare record sharing mechanism with blockchain,

    T. Butt, T. A. Syed, M. Nauman, S. Jan, and S. Anwar, “Secure healthcare record sharing mechanism with blockchain,”Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 5, p. 2307, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Blockchain-enabled healthcare system in dis- tributed cloud networks,

    Q.-U.-A. Mastoi, R. Shah, T. A. Syed, Z. Memon, and A. Lakhan, “Blockchain-enabled healthcare system in dis- tributed cloud networks,”International Journal of Energy, En- vironment and Economics, vol. 33, no. 2, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Enhancing healthcare data security and accessibility through federated biometric authenti- cation and blockchain integration: The cloud aura model,

    T. A. Syed, A. Ali, and S. Jan, “Enhancing healthcare data security and accessibility through federated biometric authenti- cation and blockchain integration: The cloud aura model,” 2025, unpublished manuscript / accepted for publication

    2025

  5. [5]

    Forensictransmonitor: A comprehensive blockchain approach to reinvent digital forensics and evidence management,

    S. S. Alqahtany and T. A. Syed, “Forensictransmonitor: A comprehensive blockchain approach to reinvent digital forensics and evidence management,”Information, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 109, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Integrating blockchain and deep learning for enhanced mobile VPN forensics: A comprehensive framework,

    ——, “Integrating blockchain and deep learning for enhanced mobile VPN forensics: A comprehensive framework,”Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 11, p. 4421, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    A data-driven approach to theft crime analysis: Enhanc- ing digital forensics with blockchain and data mining,

    ——, “A data-driven approach to theft crime analysis: Enhanc- ing digital forensics with blockchain and data mining,” inProc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Innovation of Emerging Information and Communication Technology (ICIEICT 2024), ser. Signals and Communication Technology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2025, pp. 81–99

    2024

  8. [8]

    Integrity verification and behavioral classifica- tion of a large dataset applications pertaining smart OS via blockchain and generative models,

    S. Jan, S. Musa, T. Ali, M. Nauman, S. Anwar, T. A. Tanveer, and B. Shah, “Integrity verification and behavioral classifica- tion of a large dataset applications pertaining smart OS via blockchain and generative models,”Expert Systems, vol. 38, no. 4, p. e12611, 2021

    2021

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Employing Takaful islamic banking through state of the art blockchain: A case study,

    M. A. R. Abdeen and T. A. Syed, “Employing Takaful islamic banking through state of the art blockchain: A case study,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Ap- plications, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 100–108, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Blockchain-based smart-IoT trust zone measurement architecture,

    T. A. Syed, M. Abdeen, and M. Y . Khan, “Blockchain-based smart-IoT trust zone measurement architecture,” inProc. Int. Conf. on Smart Internet of Things, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    BlockTrack-L: A lightweight blockchain-based provenance message tracking in IoT,

    T. A. Syed, M. Y . Khan, and M. Abdeen, “BlockTrack-L: A lightweight blockchain-based provenance message tracking in IoT,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Smart IoT, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    A transparent and trusted property registration system on permissioned blockchain,

    T. A. Syed, M. Abdeen, and Y . Khan, “A transparent and trusted property registration system on permissioned blockchain,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Emerging Technologies in Computing, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    A novel blockchain-based frame- work for vehicle life cycle tracking: An end-to-end solution,

    T. A. Syed and M. Y . Khan, “A novel blockchain-based frame- work for vehicle life cycle tracking: An end-to-end solution,” inProc. Int. Conf. on Advances in the Emerging Computing Technologies, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    A blockchain-based framework for efficient water management and leakage detection in urban areas,

    Q.-U.-A. Mastoi, Z. Ali, R. Shah, T. A. Syed, M. F. Memon, A. Jamil, and A. Lakhan, “A blockchain-based framework for efficient water management and leakage detection in urban areas,” inIntelligent Sustainable Systems: Enabling Technolo- gies, Smart Devices, and Communication,...

    2023

  7. [15]

    A blockchain-based value added tax (V AT) system: Saudi arabia as a use-case,

    T. A. Syed and A. Alzahrani, “A blockchain-based value added tax (V AT) system: Saudi arabia as a use-case,” inProc. Int. Conf. on Emerging Technologies in Computing, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    SIMDTE: A simulation- driven multi-agent digital-twin environment,

    S. Jan, T. A. Syed, and A. K. Jilani, “SIMDTE: A simulation- driven multi-agent digital-twin environment,” inProc. Interna- tional Conference on Business and Digital Technology, 2025, to appear

    2025

  9. [17]

    Agentic AI for demand fore- casting and planning: Autonomous market sensing and adaptive planning,

    T. A. Syed, S. Jan, and A. Ali, “Agentic AI for demand fore- casting and planning: Autonomous market sensing and adaptive planning,” inProc. International Conference on Business and Digital Technology. Bahrain: Springer Nature, 2025, to appear

    2025

  10. [18]

    Integrating IoT, blockchain, and vision transformers for enhanced security and efficiency in smart home and healthcare systems,

    S. Jan, T. A. Syed, and A. Ali, “Integrating IoT, blockchain, and vision transformers for enhanced security and efficiency in smart home and healthcare systems,” 2025, accepted for publication

    2025

  11. [19]

    Blockchain-powered health- care: A secure and cost-efficient decentralized system,

    R. Shah, M. F. Memon, Z. Ali, A. Lakhan, Q.-U.-A. Mastoi, T. A. Syed, and A. Alshahrani, “Blockchain-powered health- care: A secure and cost-efficient decentralized system,”Interna- tional Journal of Energy, Environment and Economics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 417–432, Jun. 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Z notation formalization of blockchain healthcare document sharing based on CRBAC,

    T. A. Syed, S. Jan, and M. Nauman, “Z notation formalization of blockchain healthcare document sharing based on CRBAC,” Journal of ICT Research and Applications, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 16–29, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Deep convolu- tional generative adversarial networks for intent-based dynamic behavior capture,

    T. A. Syed, S. Jan, A. Ali, and M. Nauman, “Deep convolu- tional generative adversarial networks for intent-based dynamic behavior capture,” 2025, unpublished manuscript / submitted for publication

    2025

  14. [22]

    Agentic AI framework for individuals with disabilities and neurodiver- gence: A multi-agent system for healthy eating, daily routines, and inclusive well-being,

    S. Jan, T. A. Syed, A. Akarma, and A. Ali, “Agentic AI framework for individuals with disabilities and neurodiver- gence: A multi-agent system for healthy eating, daily routines, and inclusive well-being,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Business and Digital T...

    2025

  15. [23]

    Integrating digital twins and artificial intelligence multi-modal transformers into water resource management: Overview and advanced pre- dictive framework,

    T. A. Syed, S. Jan, Q. U. A. Mastoi, and A. Ali, “Integrating digital twins and artificial intelligence multi-modal transformers into water resource management: Overview and advanced pre- dictive framework,” 2025, unpublished manuscript / accepted for publication

    2025

  16. [24]

    Agentic AI framework for cloudburst prediction and coordinated response,

    T. A. Syed, S. Khan, S. Jan, G. Ali, M. Nauman, A. Akarma, and A. Ali, “Agentic AI framework for cloudburst prediction and coordinated response,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Business and Digital Technology. Bahrain: Springer Nature, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Enhancing deepfake content detection through blockchain technology,

    A. Ali, S. Jan, T. A. Syedet al., “Enhancing deepfake content detection through blockchain technology,”International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 48–56, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Smart water management with digital twins and multimodal transformers: a predictive approach to usage and leakage detection,

    T. A. Syed, S. Jan, A. Ali, and Q. U. A. Mastoi, “Smart water management with digital twins and multimodal transformers: a predictive approach to usage and leakage detection,” 2025, unpublished manuscript / submitted for publication

    2025

  19. [27]

    Design and implementation of an efficient framework for behaviour attestation using n-call slides,

    T. A. Syed, R. Ismail, S. Musa, and M. Nauman, “Design and implementation of an efficient framework for behaviour attestation using n-call slides,” inProc. of a future international conference, 2025, to appear

    2025

  20. [28]

    A comparative analysis of blockchain archi- tecture and its applications: Problems and recommendations,

    T. A. Syed, A. Alzahrani, S. Jan, M. S. Siddiqui, A. Nadeem, and T. Alghamdi, “A comparative analysis of blockchain archi- tecture and its applications: Problems and recommendations,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 176 838–176 869, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    An extended access control model for permissioned blockchain frameworks,

    M. Y . Khan, M. F. Zuhairi, T. Ali, and T. Alghamdi, “An extended access control model for permissioned blockchain frameworks,”Wireless Networks, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 4943–4954, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    BlockU: Extended usage control in and for blockchain,

    M. Y . Khan, T. A. Syed, M. Fariz, F. Moreira, F. Branco, J. Martins, and R. Gonc ¸alves, “BlockU: Extended usage control in and for blockchain,”Expert Systems, vol. 37, no. 3, p. e12507, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Permission and usage control for virtual tourism using blockchain-based smart contracts,

    M. S. Siddiqui, T. A. Syed, A. Nadeem, W. Nawaz, and A. Alkhodre, “Permission and usage control for virtual tourism using blockchain-based smart contracts,”International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 501–509, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Towards secure IoT communi- cation with smart contracts in a blockchain infrastructure,

    T. A. Syed and M. Nauman, “Towards secure IoT communi- cation with smart contracts in a blockchain infrastructure,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Internet of Things, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    A sense of others: Behavioral attestation of UNIX processes on remote platforms,

    T. A. Syed, R. Ismail, S. Musa, M. Nauman, and S. Khan, “A sense of others: Behavioral attestation of UNIX processes on remote platforms,” inProc. 6th ACM Int. Conf. on Ubiqui- tous Information Management and Communication (ICUIMC), 2012, pp. 51:1–51:7

    2012

  26. [34]

    An automated permission selection framework for Android platform,

    T. A. Syed, Y . Khan, T. Ali, S. Faizullah, T. Alghamdi, and S. Anwar, “An automated permission selection framework for Android platform,”Journal of Grid Computing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 547–561, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Trustworthy clustering for wireless energy sharing in vehicular systems for consumer applications,

    K. A. Awan, I. U. Din, T. A. Syed, and K. Cengiz, “Trustworthy clustering for wireless energy sharing in vehicular systems for consumer applications,”IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 2025, early access

    2025

  28. [36]

    TALB – trust-aware load balancing technique for improved communication in consumer IoT,

    A. U. Rehman, I. U. Din, K. A. Awan, M. A. Khan, and T. A. Syed, “TALB – trust-aware load balancing technique for improved communication in consumer IoT,”IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 2025, to appear

    2025

  29. [37]

    Advancing DDoS attack detection with hybrid deep learning: Integrating convolutional neural networks, PCA, and vision transformers,

    J. Shaikh, T. A. Syed, S. A. Shah, S. Jan, Q. U. Ain, and P. K. Singh, “Advancing DDoS attack detection with hybrid deep learning: Integrating convolutional neural networks, PCA, and vision transformers,”International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems, vol. 17, ...

    2024

  30. [38]

    AgHealth+: An agentic AI-enabled IoT healthcare framework for integrated and privacy-aware recommendations,

    T. A. Syed, S. Khan, S. Jan, G. Ali, M. Nauman, A. Akarma, and A. Ali, “AgHealth+: An agentic AI-enabled IoT healthcare framework for integrated and privacy-aware recommendations,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Business and Digital Technology. Bahrain: Sprin...

    2025

  31. [39]

    Agentic AI framework for smart inventory replenishment,

    T. A. Syed, S. Jan, G. Ali, A. Akarma, A. Ali, and Q. ul Ain Mastoi, “Agentic AI framework for smart inventory replenishment,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Business and Digital Technology. Bahrain: Springer Nature, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.