Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

HLF-FSL. A Decentralized Federated Split Learning Solution for IoT on Hyperledger Fabric

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A permissioned blockchain can coordinate federated split learning without a central server, matching centralized accuracy.

desk verdict A plausible HLF-coordinated FSL system with a real prototype, but the data plane as described cannot work because Fabric transient fields are not retrievable by TxID — the paper must be revised to say how activations and gradients are actually exchanged. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07637 v1 pith:SIHYPX4X submitted 2025-07-10 cs.LG

Carlos Beis Penedo , Rebeca P. Díaz Redondo , Ana Fernández Vilas , Manuel Fernández Veiga , Francisco Troncoso Pastoriza This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords federatedsplitlearningHyperledgerFabricpermissionedblockchainchaincodeorchestrationprivatedatacollectionsdecentralizedaggregationprivacy-preservingmachineIoT
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

This paper tries to show that federated split learning (FSL), which normally depends on a central server to host part of the model and aggregate updates, can run instead on a permissioned blockchain called Hyperledger Fabric. The proposed system, HLF-FSL, uses Fabric's smart contracts (chaincode) to orchestrate the training rounds, with raw data and intermediate activations exchanged through transient fields and private data collections so they never persist on the ledger. On CIFAR-10 the authors report 94.14% test accuracy versus 94.7% for a centralized FSL baseline, and an average epoch time of 30m38s versus 1h25m for an Ethereum-based split-learning system. The point of the claim is that enterprise users in regulated domains could get the privacy and auditability of a blockchain without sacrificing learning quality or paying public-blockchain latency and gas costs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the chaincode-driven, client-executed aggregation protocol, culminating in the endGlobalModel consensus rule: each client independently computes FedAvg over the same retrieved parameter set and submits a hash, and the chaincode accepts a new global model only if more than two-thirds of submitted hashes match. This replaces a trusted aggregator with a hash-consensus check. Privacy is carried by Hyperledger Fabric's transient fields for ephemeral activations and gradients and by Private Data Collections for access-controlled hashes of intermediate data, client updates, and the global model, with large parameters stored off-chain and only references on the ledger.

What would settle it

Instrument the endGlobalModel chaincode to record, across all aggregation rounds, how often fewer than two-thirds of submitted global-model hashes match; any such round reverts to the previous model, and a realistic run where clients use different numerical libraries or summation orders would show whether the consensus rule actually holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a permissioned blockchain can replace the central coordinator in federated split learning without hurting accuracy and with better per-epoch time than public-blockchain approaches. In HLF-FSL, clients run the client-side submodel $f_c$ and the server entity runs $f_s$, while Hyperledger Fabric's chaincode manages model registration, activation and gradient hash exchange, and aggregation triggers. Clients compute the FedAvg global model off-chain, submit hashes of their results, and chaincode commits a new global model only when more than two-thirds of submissions match. The paper reports 94.14% final test accuracy on CIFAR-10 (centralized FSL: 94.7%; Ethereum-based SL: 90.25%), 99.43% on MNIST, graceful degradation under non-IID Dirichlet partitions, and stable SDK latencies as clients scale from 1 to 25.

Load-bearing premise

The aggregation rule assumes every client computes a byte-identical FedAvg result from the same parameters, so that matching hashes are a dependable consensus signal; if numerical libraries or summation orders differ, hashes may diverge and training can stall.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Centralized FSL accuracy can be preserved when coordination moves to a permissioned blockchain: 94.14% versus 94.7% on CIFAR-10.
  • Per-epoch training time drops relative to Ethereum-based split learning on the same task: 30m38s versus 1h25m.
  • The architecture degrades gracefully under non-IID data, with Dirichlet partitions tracking the IID convergence curve.
  • Off-chain storage of parameters and on-chain hash references keep ledger growth small, on the order of 145 KB of references per epoch in the N=10 run.
  • MNIST results (99.43% accuracy, 7m20s per epoch) suggest the mechanism transfers to simpler models and datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The hash-consensus rule generalizes to any off-chain computation that is deterministic across participants, so the same pattern could verify other multi-party computations, not just FedAvg.
  • A testable extension is measuring how often client-computed FedAvg hashes actually diverge across organizations using different numerical libraries or summation orders; the paper does not report this.
  • The privacy claim is about hiding intermediate artifacts from the ledger, not mathematical confidentiality; coupling with differential privacy or homomorphic encryption, named as future work, would be needed for stronger guarantees.
  • Validation on image classification could extend to NLP or object detection, since the orchestration logic is not vision-specific.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 HLF-FSL, a decentralized Federated Split Learning (FSL) architecture built on Hyperledger Fabric, removing the central coordinator by using chaincode for orchestration, transient fields and Private Data Collections (PDCs) for privacy, and client-executed FedAvg for aggregation. The authors report CIFAR-10 accuracy of 94.14% versus 94.7% for centralized FSL, MNIST accuracy of 99.43%, an average CIFAR-10 epoch time of 30m38s versus 1h25m for their prior Ethereum-based SL system, and scalability experiments for up to 25 clients. The paper claims these results demonstrate enterprise-grade viability for collaborative learning in sensitive domains.

Significance. If the architecture operated as described, the paper would make a useful contribution: it provides a permissioned-blockchain alternative to centralized FSL, ships an open-source prototype, and reports measured accuracy and latency rather than fitted predictions. The comparison to centralized FSL and to an Ethereum baseline is appropriate. However, the core data-exchange mechanism and the client-aggregation consensus rule are not implementable as written, and the experimental tables lack the error bars promised by the text. These issues affect the central claims of privacy, decentralization, and scalability, so the significance can only be assessed after a substantive revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-B, IV-C, Algorithm 1 (lines 5-20)] The described use of transient fields for activations and gradients is not implementable in Hyperledger Fabric v2.5. Transient data exists only in the transaction proposal during chaincode execution; after commit, peers discard it and no API retrieves it by TxID. Therefore Algorithm 1 line 10 ('fetches actual zi from Transient map (using TxID from event)') and line 20, as well as the corresponding text in Section IV-B, describe an operation that cannot execute a single training round. If the prototype actually stores activations and gradients in off-chain storage (OCS/IPFS), the paper must state this explicitly, because the claimed privacy contribution based on transient fields would not be what was evaluated, and the overhead results in Table VI would need to be reinterpreted.
  2. [IV-C (endGlobalModel) and Algorithm 1 (lines 27-33)] The client-executed aggregation consensus rule assumes that every client computing FedAvg over the same retrieved parameter list obtains a byte-identical parameter vector, so that a two-thirds majority of equal hashes is meaningful. This requires identical numerical libraries, data types, serialization order, and summation order across all client organizations. The manuscript does not state or test this assumption, and the only fallback when hashes diverge is to revert to the previous global model, which could stall training indefinitely. The paper should either specify a canonical arithmetic/serialization protocol and experimentally verify hash agreement across heterogeneous clients, or replace hash-based consensus with an error-tolerant verification mechanism.
  3. [VI-A, Table III] Section V states that experiments 'were repeated to report mean and standard deviation, ensuring statistical rigor,' but no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or number of runs are reported in Tables III, IV, V, or VI. The central accuracy-parity claim (94.14% vs. 94.7%) relies on a 0.56% difference that may be within run-to-run noise for N=10 clients, so the claim is not currently assessable. The authors should report means with standard deviations and the number of repeated runs for all reported metrics.
  4. [VI-C, Table V] The server fs batch processing times in Table V are non-monotonic: N=10 yields 3.25s, N=15 yields 1.85s, N=20 yields 13.48s, and N=25 yields 26.32s. This non-monotonicity is inconsistent with the scalability conclusion that the system operates efficiently with an elevated number of simultaneous clients, and no explanation or error bars are provided. The authors should clarify whether this reflects uncontrolled batching order, resource contention, or measurement artifacts, and should provide variance information before drawing scalability conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [V] The text reports 'PyTorch (v3.9)', but PyTorch does not have a version 3.9; the authors should specify the PyTorch version and the Python version separately.
  2. [II-B] There are typos: 'mmonetary payment, knownn as gas fee' and 'prohibitevely expensive' should be corrected.
  3. [III-B] The citation [29] is mismatched: the text refers to 'Lu et al., 2022' survey of blockchain FL schemes, but reference [29] is a different paper on smart contracts; the intended survey should be identified and cited correctly.
  4. [VI-B, Figure 7] The text states Dirichlet concentration parameters alpha in {0.1, 0.5, 0.9}, while the Figure 7 caption mentions {0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.9}; these should be reconciled.
  5. [IV-C (triggerClientAggregation)] The description says triggerClientAggregation is 'invoked periodically or by a designated coordinator role', which reintroduces a central coordinator and contradicts the paper's claim of no central coordinator; the caller of this function should be specified in a way consistent with the decentralization claim.
  6. [Table VI] The reported average zi size of approximately 48-49 MB per transaction is difficult to reconcile with the claim that activations are passed via transient fields; if such data were placed in a transaction proposal, it would create enormous network and memory overhead, while if it is stored off-chain, the table should report the off-chain transfer cost rather than per-transaction size.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: accuracy and latency are measured outcomes; the only self-citation is a legitimate external baseline.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical, not derived from fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. The reported final accuracy (94.14% on CIFAR-10) and per-epoch training time (30m 38s) are measured results presented in Section VI, compared against a centralized FSL baseline (94.7%, 5m 50s) and the authors' prior Ethereum-based split learning system from reference [11] (90.25%, 1h 25m). The comparison to [11] is a self-citation, but it is used as an external baseline with independently reported measurements, not as a premise that logically forces the paper's measured outcomes. The aggregation protocol implements the standard FedAvg equation (Eq. 1) and the hash-based consensus rule is an empirically testable protocol assumption, not a quantity predicted from itself. There is no step where a 'prediction' reduces to a fitted value, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The skeptic's concern about Hyperledger Fabric transient fields being non-retrievable after commit is an implementability or correctness issue about the described data plane, not a circularity in the derivation chain. Therefore, no circular steps are identified and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. The free parameters are protocol constants chosen by hand. The domain assumptions concern the behavior of Hyperledger Fabric and the determinism of client-side computation, both of which are load-bearing for the consensus-based aggregation.

free parameters (2)
  • consensus_threshold = 2/3
    Hand-chosen threshold in endGlobalModel that requires more than two-thirds of participating clients to submit an identical global model hash. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • aggregation_interval = unspecified (predefined intervals)
    The paper states aggregation is triggered at predefined intervals but never specifies the interval or its effect on convergence and training time. Chosen by hand, not reported.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Hyperledger Fabric's transient fields are not persisted to the ledger and PDC access policies are enforced as documented.
    The privacy claims rely on Fabric's documented behavior, which is an external platform assumption not verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption All clients compute byte-identical floating-point results when performing FedAvg on the same input parameters.
    The aggregation consensus requires identical hashes; the paper does not discuss numerical non-determinism across client software.
  • domain assumption SHA-256 hashing of model parameters provides a collision-resistant integrity check, so matching hashes imply identical parameters.
    Standard cryptographic assumption used for on-chain integrity verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HLF-FSL. A Decentralized Federated Split Learning Solution for IoT on Hyperledger Fabric." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SIHYPX4X

@misc{pith2026250707637,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HLF-FSL. A Decentralized Federated Split Learning Solution for IoT on Hyperledger Fabric},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SIHYPX4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07637}
}
read the original abstract

Collaborative machine learning in sensitive domains demands scalable, privacy preserving solutions for enterprise deployment. Conventional Federated Learning (FL) relies on a central server, introducing single points of failure and privacy risks, while Split Learning (SL) partitions models for privacy but scales poorly due to sequential training. We present a decentralized architecture that combines Federated Split Learning (FSL) with the permissioned blockchain Hyperledger Fabric (HLF). Our chaincode orchestrates FSL's split model execution and peer-to-peer aggregation without any central coordinator, leveraging HLF's transient fields and Private Data Collections (PDCs) to keep raw data and model activations private. On CIFAR-10 and MNIST benchmarks, HLF-FSL matches centralized FSL accuracy while reducing per epoch training time compared to Ethereum-based works. Performance and scalability tests show minimal blockchain overhead and preserved accuracy, demonstrating enterprise grade viability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07637 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of distributed learning architectures: (i) Federated Learning, where clients share model updates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Global overview of the Hyperledger Fabric Federated Split Learning (HLF-FSL) architecture, illustrating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Model lifecycle workflow encompassing server registration, model publication, and client binding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: End-to-end training workflow showing iterative split learning phases (inner loop) and periodic federated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a) Test accuracy vs. global epoch for HLF-FSL (aggregated global model, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MNIST: HLF-FSL global model test accuracy convergence over epochs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Non-IID Robustness: Accuracy and Loss convergence of the HLF-FSL global model under IID conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Split learning for collaborative deep learning in healthcare,

    M. G. Poirot, P. Vepakomma, K. Chang, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, R. Gupta, and R. Raskar, “Split learning for collaborative deep learning in healthcare,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.12115 , 2019

    arXiv 1912

  2. [2]

    Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data,

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y. Arcas, “Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, A. Singh and J. Zhu, Eds., vol. 54. PMLR, 20–22 Apr 2017, pp. 1273–1282....

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Model inversion attacks that exploit confidence information and basic countermeasures,

    M. Fredrikson, S. Jha, and T. Ristenpart, “Model inversion attacks that exploit confidence information and basic countermeasures,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security , 2015, pp. 1322–1333

    2015

  4. [4]

    Deep leakage from gradients,

    L. Zhu, Z. Liu, and S. Han, “Deep leakage from gradients,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Tackling the non-iid issue in heterogeneous federated learning by gradient harmonization,

    X. Zhang, W. Sun, and Y . Chen, “Tackling the non-iid issue in heterogeneous federated learning by gradient harmonization,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Distributed learning of deep neural network over multiple agents,

    O. Gupta and R. Raskar, “Distributed learning of deep neural network over multiple agents,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 116, pp. 1–8, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1084804518301590

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Privacy and efficiency of communications in federated split learning,

    Z. Zhang, A. Pinto, V . Turina, F. Esposito, and I. Matta, “Privacy and efficiency of communications in federated split learning,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data , vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1380–1391, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Data leakage threats and protection in split learning: A survey,

    N. D. Pham and N. Chilamkurti, “Data leakage threats and protection in split learning: A survey,” in Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Its Emerging Applications , 2023, pp. 141–147

    work page 2023

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Splitfed: When federated learning meets split learning,

    C. Thapa, P. C. Mahawaga Arachchige, S. Camtepe, and L. Sun, “Splitfed: When federated learning meets split learning,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 8485–8493, Jun. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains,

    E. Androulaki, A. Barger, V . Bortnikov, C. Cachin, K. Christidis, A. De Caro, D. Enyeart, C. Ferris, G. Laventman, Y . Manevich et al., “Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains,” in Proceedings of the thirteenth EuroSys conference , 201...

    2018

  3. [11]

    Blockchain support for verifiable split learning,

    C. Beis-Penedo, R. P. Díaz-Redondo, A. Fernández-Vilas, F. Troncoso-Pastoriza, and M. Fernández-Veiga, “Blockchain support for verifiable split learning,” in 2024 4th Intelligent Cybersecurity Conference (ICSC) , 2024, pp. 95–102

    2024

  4. [12]

    Block-fest: A blockchain-based federated anomaly detection framework with computation offloading using transformers,

    Z. Batool, K. Zhang, Z. Zhu, S. Aravamuthan, and U. Aivodji, “Block-fest: A blockchain-based federated anomaly detection framework with computation offloading using transformers,” in 2022 IEEE 1st Global Emerging Technology Blockchain Forum: Blockchain & Beyond (iGETblockchain...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey,

    Z. Zheng, S. Xie, H.-N. Dai, X. Chen, and H. Wang, “Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey,” International journal of web and grid services , vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 352–375, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Blockchain smart contracts: Applications, challenges, and future trends,

    S. N. Khan, F. Loukil, C. Ghedira-Guegan, E. Benkhelifa, and A. Bani-Hani, “Blockchain smart contracts: Applications, challenges, and future trends,” Peer-to-peer Networking and Applications , vol. 14, pp. 2901–2925, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Wait or not to wait: Evaluating trade-offs between speed and precision in blockchain- based federated aggregation,

    H. Nguyen, T. Nguyen, L. Lovén, and S. Pirttikangas, “Wait or not to wait: Evaluating trade-offs between speed and precision in blockchain- based federated aggregation,” in2024 IEEE 44th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW). IEEE, 2024, ...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Advances and open problems in federated learning,

    P. Kairouz, H. B. McMahan, B. Avent, A. Bellet, M. Bennis, A. N. Bhagoji, K. Bonawitz, Z. Charles, G. Cormode, R. Cummings et al., “Advances and open problems in federated learning,” Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , vol. 12, no. 1–3, pp. 1–210, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    A transactional perspective on execute-order-validate blockchains,

    P. Ruan, D. Loghin, Q.-T. Ta, M. Zhang, G. Chen, and B. C. Ooi, “A transactional perspective on execute-order-validate blockchains,” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data , 2020, pp. 543–557

    2020

  10. [18]

    Private Data Collections,

    “Private Data Collections,” Hyperledger Fabric Documentation, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/ latest/private-data/private-data.html

    2025

  11. [19]

    Split federated learning: Speed up model training in resource-limited wireless networks,

    S. Zhang, W. Wu, P. Hu, S. Li, and N. Zhang, “Split federated learning: Speed up model training in resource-limited wireless networks,” in 2023 IEEE 43rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 985–986

    2023

  12. [20]

    Edge-assisted u-shaped split federated learning with privacy-preserving for internet of things,

    S. Zhang, Z. Zhao, D. Liu, Y . Cao, H. Tang, and S. You, “Edge-assisted u-shaped split federated learning with privacy-preserving for internet of things,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 262, p. 125494, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Introducing edge intelligence to smart meters via federated split learning,

    Y . Li, D. Qin, H. V . Poor, and Y . Wang, “Introducing edge intelligence to smart meters via federated split learning,”Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 9044, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Eluding secure aggregation in federated learning via model inconsistency,

    D. Pasquini, D. Francati, and G. Ateniese, “Eluding secure aggregation in federated learning via model inconsistency,” in Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , 2022, pp. 2429–2443

    2022

  15. [23]

    Can we use split learning on 1d cnn models for privacy preserving training?

    S. Abuadbba, K. Kim, M. Kim, C. Thapa, S. A. Camtepe, Y . Gao, H. Kim, and S. Nepal, “Can we use split learning on 1d cnn models for privacy preserving training?” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM Asia conference on computer and communications security , 2020, pp. 305–318

    2020

  16. [24]

    Baffle: Blockchain based aggregator free federated learning,

    P. Ramanan and K. Nakayama, “Baffle: Blockchain based aggregator free federated learning,” in 2020 IEEE international conference on blockchain (Blockchain). IEEE, 2020, pp. 72–81

    2020

  17. [25]

    Openfl: A scalable and secure decentralized federated learning system on the ethereum blockchain,

    A. Wahrstätter, S. Khan, and D. Svetinovic, “Openfl: A scalable and secure decentralized federated learning system on the ethereum blockchain,” Internet of Things , vol. 26, p. 101174, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Enhancing privacy preservation and trustworthiness for decentralized federated learning,

    L. Wang, X. Zhao, Z. Lu, L. Wang, and S. Zhang, “Enhancing privacy preservation and trustworthiness for decentralized federated learning,” Information Sciences, vol. 628, pp. 449–468, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Proof-of-authority-based secure and efficient aggregation with differential privacy for federated learning in industrial iot,

    M. A. P. Putra, R. N. Alief, S. M. Rachmawati, G. A. Sampedro, D.-S. Kim, and J.-M. Lee, “Proof-of-authority-based secure and efficient aggregation with differential privacy for federated learning in industrial iot,” Internet of Things , vol. 25, p. 101107, 2024. [Online]. Ava...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Federated learning optimization: A computational blockchain process with offloading analysis to enhance security,

    S. Shitharth, H. Manoharan, A. Shankar, R. A. Alsowail, S. Pandiaraj, S. A. Edalatpanah, and W. Viriyasitavat, “Federated learning optimization: A computational blockchain process with offloading analysis to enhance security,” Egyptian informatics journal , vol. 24, no. 4, p. ...

    2023

  21. [29]

    A systematic literature review on blockchain-based smart contracts: Platforms, applications, and challenges,

    R. Singh, A. Gupta, and P. Mittal, “A systematic literature review on blockchain-based smart contracts: Platforms, applications, and challenges,” Distributed Ledger Technologies: Research and Practice , 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Blockchain-based federated learning with homomorphic encryption for privacy-preserving healthcare data sharing,

    M. Firdaus, H. T. Larasati, and K. Hyune-Rhee, “Blockchain-based federated learning with homomorphic encryption for privacy-preserving healthcare data sharing,” Internet of Things , vol. 31, p. 101579, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ p...

    2025

  23. [31]

    A hyperledger fabric-based blockchain architecture to secure iot-based health monitoring systems,

    F. P. Oikonomou, J. Ribeiro, G. Mantas, J. M. C. Bastos, and J. Rodriguez, “A hyperledger fabric-based blockchain architecture to secure iot-based health monitoring systems,” in 2021 IEEE international Mediterranean conference on communications and networking (MeditCom). IEEE,...

    2021

  24. [32]

    A blockchain system for clustered federated learning with peer-to-peer knowledge transfer,

    H. Wu, X. Zhu, and W. Hu, “A blockchain system for clustered federated learning with peer-to-peer knowledge transfer,” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 966–979, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Blockbench: A framework for analyzing private blockchains,

    T. T. A. Dinh, J. Wang, G. Chen, R. Liu, B. C. Ooi, and K.-L. Tan, “Blockbench: A framework for analyzing private blockchains,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM international conference on management of data , 2017, pp. 1085–1100

    2017

  26. [34]

    Latency performance modeling and analysis for hyperledger fabric blockchain network,

    X. Xu, G. Sun, L. Luo, H. Cao, H. Yu, and A. V . Vasilakos, “Latency performance modeling and analysis for hyperledger fabric blockchain network,” Information Processing & Management , vol. 58, no. 1, p. 102436, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Cifar-10 (canadian institute for advanced research),

    A. Krizhevsky, V . Nair, and G. Hinton, “Cifar-10 (canadian institute for advanced research),” Canadian Institute for Advanced Research ,

  28. [36]

    The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research,

    L. Deng, “The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 141–142, 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  30. [2010]

    Available: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~kriz/cifar.html

    [Online]. Available: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~kriz/cifar.html

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.