pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.00418 · v2 · pith:65QM3DWZnew · submitted 2026-01-01 · 💻 cs.CR · cs.DC· cs.LG

Secure, Verifiable, and Scalable Multi-Client Data Sharing via Consensus-Based Privacy-Preserving Data Distribution

Prajwal Panth , Sahaj Raj Malla This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 16:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR cs.DCcs.LG
keywords multi-client data sharingprivacy-preserving distributionconsensus lockingaffine maskingunanimous releaseIND-CPA securitydecentralized integrityscalable MPC alternative
0
0 comments X

The pith

The CPPDD framework secures multi-client data sharing by enforcing unanimous-release confidentiality via per-client affine masking and priority-driven sequential consensus locking.

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

The paper introduces the Consensus-Based Privacy-Preserving Data Distribution framework as a lightweight protocol for secure multi-client data aggregation without persistent coordination. It uses a dual-layer approach of per-client affine masking plus sequential consensus locking to keep data confidential until all parties agree on release. Decentralized checksums on steps and data enable automatic detection of malicious deviations and atomic aborts. The design handles scalar, vector, and matrix data with linear complexity, proves IND-CPA security under a pseudorandom function assumption, and shows strong empirical performance against heavy cryptographic baselines.

Core claim

The CPPDD framework enforces unanimous-release confidentiality through a dual-layer protection mechanism that combines per-client affine masking with priority-driven sequential consensus locking, with formal analysis proving correctness, Consensus-Dependent Integrity and Fairness with overwhelming-probability abort on deviation, and IND-CPA security assuming a pseudorandom function family.

What carries the argument

Dual-layer protection of per-client affine masking combined with priority-driven sequential consensus locking, which keeps data private until unanimous agreement and triggers abort on deviation.

If this is right

  • Supports scalar, vector, and matrix payloads at O(N*D) computation and communication cost.
  • Achieves 100 percent malicious deviation detection and exact data recovery in practice.
  • Delivers three to four orders of magnitude lower computation than MPC and HE baselines.
  • Enables atomic multi-party operations in secure voting, consortium federated learning, and blockchain escrows.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could lower the barrier to regulated data collaborations by removing the need for always-on trusted coordinators.
  • It might integrate with existing blockchain escrow mechanisms to add verifiable privacy layers without heavy cryptography.
  • Scalability claims could be stress-tested on non-image data types such as financial time series to check behavior under different payload structures.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that consensus can be reached in a fully decentralized way without persistent coordination and that the underlying pseudorandom function family satisfies the stated security properties.

What would settle it

A concrete test in which a single deviating client causes the system to either release data without unanimous consensus or fail to abort with overwhelming probability, or where exact data recovery does not occur after consensus.

read the original abstract

We propose the Consensus-Based Privacy-Preserving Data Distribution (CPPDD) framework, a lightweight and post-setup autonomous protocol for secure multi-client data aggregation. The framework enforces unanimous-release confidentiality through a dual-layer protection mechanism that combines per-client affine masking with priority-driven sequential consensus locking. Decentralized integrity is verified via step (sigma_S) and data (sigma_D) checksums, facilitating autonomous malicious deviation detection and atomic abort without requiring persistent coordination. The design supports scalar, vector, and matrix payloads with O(N*D) computation and communication complexity, optional edge-server offloading, and resistance to collusion under N-1 corruptions. Formal analysis proves correctness, Consensus-Dependent Integrity and Fairness (CDIF) with overwhelming-probability abort on deviation, and IND-CPA security assuming a pseudorandom function family. Empirical evaluations on MNIST-derived vectors demonstrate linear scalability up to N = 500 with sub-millisecond per-client computation times. The framework achieves 100% malicious deviation detection, exact data recovery, and three-to-four orders of magnitude lower FLOPs compared to MPC and HE baselines. CPPDD enables atomic collaboration in secure voting, consortium federated learning, blockchain escrows, and geo-information capacity building, addressing critical gaps in scalability, trust minimization, and verifiable multi-party computation for regulated and resource-constrained environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Consensus-Based Privacy-Preserving Data Distribution (CPPDD) framework for secure multi-client data aggregation and sharing. It combines per-client affine masking with priority-driven sequential consensus locking to enforce unanimous-release confidentiality, uses step (sigma_S) and data (sigma_D) checksums for autonomous deviation detection and atomic abort, and claims formal proofs of correctness, Consensus-Dependent Integrity and Fairness (CDIF) with overwhelming-probability abort on deviation, plus IND-CPA security under a pseudorandom function family. The design supports scalar/vector/matrix payloads at O(N*D) complexity, optional edge-server offloading, N-1 collusion resistance, and is evaluated on MNIST-derived vectors showing linear scalability to N=500, sub-millisecond per-client times, 100% deviation detection, exact recovery, and orders-of-magnitude efficiency gains over MPC/HE baselines.

Significance. If the core claims on autonomous decentralized consensus locking and the CDIF abort property hold under the stated assumptions, the work would provide a lightweight, scalable alternative to heavy MPC or homomorphic encryption for verifiable multi-party data sharing in resource-constrained settings such as federated learning, secure voting, and blockchain escrows. The combination of formal security analysis with concrete empirical results on deviation detection and complexity is a positive aspect that strengthens the contribution if the protocol details are made rigorous.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim of 'post-setup autonomous' operation 'without requiring persistent coordination' for priority-driven sequential consensus locking is load-bearing for the CDIF property, overwhelming-probability abort, and N-1 collusion resistance. Standard decentralized consensus requires either leader election, multi-round messaging, or a common reference string; the manuscript must explicitly define how priorities are computed and locks enforced in a fully decentralized manner without any pre-agreed ordering or shared state, or else the autonomy assertion and abort guarantee do not follow.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The formal analysis is asserted to prove CDIF with overwhelming-probability abort on deviation, yet no probability bounds, network synchrony assumptions, or exact reduction steps for the abort probability are provided. This makes it impossible to assess whether the abort holds under realistic asynchronous or partially synchronous networks.
minor comments (2)
  1. The notations sigma_S and sigma_D for checksums are introduced without definition or construction details, reducing clarity for readers attempting to verify the deviation detection mechanism.
  2. The claim of 'three-to-four orders of magnitude lower FLOPs' versus MPC and HE baselines should be accompanied by the exact baseline implementations, hardware, and numerical values rather than qualitative statements.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and the positive assessment of the work's potential as a lightweight alternative to MPC and HE. We address each major comment below with clarifications drawn from the full manuscript and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim of 'post-setup autonomous' operation 'without requiring persistent coordination' for priority-driven sequential consensus locking is load-bearing for the CDIF property, overwhelming-probability abort, and N-1 collusion resistance. Standard decentralized consensus requires either leader election, multi-round messaging, or a common reference string; the manuscript must explicitly define how priorities are computed and locks enforced in a fully decentralized manner without any pre-agreed ordering or shared state, or else the autonomy assertion and abort guarantee do not follow.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from greater precision on this point. In the full manuscript (Sections 3.1–3.2), each client computes its priority locally and deterministically as PRF_k(client_id || step_number || round_seed), where the round_seed is a public but fixed value established during the one-time setup and k is drawn from the PRF family used for masking. The sequential locking is enforced by requiring every client to verify the preceding client’s σ_S checksum before releasing its own masked share; verification uses only locally held state and the received checksum, with no leader, no multi-round voting, and no mutable shared state beyond the initial setup. Message ordering is determined solely by the locally computed priorities. We will revise the abstract to include a one-sentence description of this local, PRF-based priority computation and checksum-enforced locking so that the autonomy claim is self-contained. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The formal analysis is asserted to prove CDIF with overwhelming-probability abort on deviation, yet no probability bounds, network synchrony assumptions, or exact reduction steps for the abort probability are provided. This makes it impossible to assess whether the abort holds under realistic asynchronous or partially synchronous networks.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract does not summarize the quantitative aspects of the proof. Section 4 proves the CDIF property under a partially synchronous network model with bounded message delay Δ. The abort occurs with probability at least 1 − 2^{−κ} (where κ is the security parameter) whenever a deviation produces a σ_S or σ_D mismatch; the bound follows from the collision resistance of the checksum and the pseudorandomness of the masking function via a standard hybrid argument. The reduction shows that any successful deviation without abort would imply either a PRF distinguisher or a collision in the checksum, both of which are negligible. We will add a concise statement of these assumptions and the probability bound to the abstract and will expand the proof sketch in Section 4 to make the reduction steps explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The provided abstract and context describe formal proofs of correctness, CDIF with overwhelming-probability abort, and IND-CPA security under standard pseudorandom function assumptions, along with O(N*D) complexity and empirical evaluations on MNIST data. No equations, self-citations, or parameter-fitting steps are exhibited that reduce any claimed prediction or result to the inputs by construction. The protocol's autonomy claims and checksum-based detection are presented as independent design elements rather than self-referential. This is a self-contained presentation against external cryptographic standards and benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest primarily on standard cryptographic assumptions and the novel protocol construction; no explicit free parameters are fitted in the abstract, and the invented entity is the overall framework itself.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Existence of a pseudorandom function family sufficient for IND-CPA security
    Invoked directly in the abstract for the security proof.
invented entities (1)
  • Consensus-Based Privacy-Preserving Data Distribution (CPPDD) framework with dual-layer affine masking and priority-driven sequential consensus locking no independent evidence
    purpose: To achieve unanimous-release confidentiality and verifiable integrity in multi-client aggregation
    New protocol and mechanisms introduced by the paper; no independent evidence provided beyond the proposal itself.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5781 in / 1415 out tokens · 45882 ms · 2026-05-21T16:25:56.293931+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    dual-layer protection mechanism that combines per-client affine masking with priority-driven sequential consensus locking... Consensus-Dependent Integrity and Fairness (CDIF) with overwhelming-probability abort on deviation, and IND-CPA security assuming a pseudorandom function family

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    In: 23rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1982), pp

    Yao, A.C.: Protocols for secure computations. In: 23rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1982), pp. 160–164 (1982). https://doi. org/10.1109/SFCS.1982.38

    work page doi:10.1109/sfcs.1982.38 1982

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing

    Goldreich, O., Micali, S., Wigderson, A.: How to play any mental game. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. STOC ’87, pp. 218–229. Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (1987). https://doi.org/10.1145/28395.28420 . https://doi.org/10.1145/28395.28420

    work page doi:10.1145/28395.28420 1987

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the Twen- tieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing

    Ben-Or, M., Goldwasser, S., Wigderson, A.: Completeness theorems for non- cryptographic fault-tolerant distributed computation. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. STOC ’88, pp. 1–10. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (1988). https: //doi.org/10.1145/62212.62213 .https://doi.org/10.1145/62212.62213

    work page doi:10.1145/62212.62213 1988

  4. [4]

    In: Proceed- ings of the Forty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing

    Gentry, C.: Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. In: Pro- ceedings of the Forty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Com- puting. STOC ’09, pp. 169–178. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1536414.1536440 . https://doi.org/10.1145/1536414.1536440

    work page doi:10.1145/1536414.1536440 2009

  5. [5]

    IACR Cryptol

    Fan, J., Vercauteren, F.: Somewhat practical fully homomorphic encryption. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch.2012, 144 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Commu- nications Security

    Keller, M.: Mp-spdz: A versatile framework for multi-party computation. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Commu- nications Security. CCS ’20, pp. 1575–1590. Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3372297.3417872 . https://doi.org/10.1145/3372297.3417872

    work page doi:10.1145/3372297.3417872 2020

  7. [7]

    In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R

    Damg˚ ard, I., Pastro, V., Smart, N., Zakarias, S.: Multiparty computation from somewhat homomorphic encryption. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Canetti, R. (eds.) Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2012, pp. 643–662. Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    In: Halevi, S., Rabin, T

    Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., Smith, A.: Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In: Halevi, S., Rabin, T. (eds.) Theory of Cryptography, pp. 265–284. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2006)

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    Dwork, C., Roth, A.: The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci.9(3–4), 211–407 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1561/ 0400000042 22

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Goodfellow, H

    Abadi, M., Chu, A., Goodfellow, I., McMahan, H.B., Mironov, I., Tal- war, K., Zhang, L.: Deep learning with differential privacy. In: Proceed- ings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communica- tions Security. CCS ’16, pp. 308–318. Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978318 . htt...

    work page doi:10.1145/2976749.2978318 2016

  11. [12]

    Practical Secure Aggregation for Federated Learning on User-Held Data

    Bonawitz, K.A., Ivanov, V., Kreuter, B., Marcedone, A., McMahan, H.B., Patel, S., Ramage, D., Segal, A., Seth, K.: Practical secure aggregation for federated learning on user-held data. In: NIPS Workshop on Private Multi-Party Machine Learning (2016).https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.04482

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [13]

    In: 2016 IEEE Trustcom/Big- DataSE/ISPA, pp

    Wei, X., Jiang, H., Zhao, C., Zhao, M., Xu, Q.: Fast cut-and-choose bilat- eral oblivious transfer for malicious adversaries. In: 2016 IEEE Trustcom/Big- DataSE/ISPA, pp. 418–425 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/TrustCom.2016. 0092

    work page doi:10.1109/trustcom.2016 2016

  13. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    Blanchard, P., El Mhamdi, E.M., Guerraoui, R., Stainer, J.: Machine learning with adversaries: byzantine tolerant gradient descent. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. NIPS’17, pp. 118–128. Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA (2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [15]

    Homomorphic encryption for arithmetic of approximate numbers

    Cheon, J.H., Kim, A., Kim, M., Song, Y.: Homomorphic encryption for arithmetic of approximate numbers. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Theory Appl. Cryptol. Inf. Secur. (ASIACRYPT), pp. 409–437 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70694-8 15

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70694-8 2017

  15. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques

    Paillier, P.: Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residuos- ity classes. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques. EUROCRYPT’99, pp. 223–238. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1999)

    work page 1999

  16. [17]

    In: Topics in Cryptology – CT-RSA 2020: The Cryptographers’ Track at the RSA Conference 2020, San Francisco, CA, USA, February 24–28, 2020, Proceed- ings, pp

    Han, K., Ki, D.: Better bootstrapping for approximate homomorphic encryption. In: Topics in Cryptology – CT-RSA 2020: The Cryptographers’ Track at the RSA Conference 2020, San Francisco, CA, USA, February 24–28, 2020, Proceed- ings, pp. 364–390. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-40186-3 16 .https://doi.org/10.1007/978...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-40186-3 2020

  17. [18]

    Dynamic transitive closure via dynamic matrix inverse

    Kasiviswanathan, S.P., Lee, H.K., Nissim, K., Raskhodnikova, S., Smith, A.: What can we learn privately? In: 2008 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Founda- tions of Computer Science, pp. 531–540 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS. 2008.27

    work page doi:10.1109/focs 2008

  18. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    Erlingsson, U., Pihur, V., Korolova, A.: Rappor: Randomized aggregatable 23 privacy-preserving ordinal response. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. CCS ’14, pp. 1054–

    work page 2014

  19. [20]

    The web never forgets: Persistent tracking mechanisms in the wild,

    Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2014). https: //doi.org/10.1145/2660267.2660348 .https://doi.org/10.1145/2660267.2660348

    work page doi:10.1145/2660267.2660348 2014

  20. [21]

    Learning Differentially Private Recurrent Language Models

    McMahan, H.B., Ramage, D., Talwar, K., Zhang, L.: Learning Differentially Private Recurrent Language Models (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06963

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [22]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 15, 3454–3469 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2020.2988575

    Wei, K., Li, J., Ding, M., Ma, C., Yang, H.H., Farokhi, F., Jin, S., Quek, T.Q.S., Vincent Poor, H.: Federated learning with differential privacy: Algorithms and performance analysis. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 15, 3454–3469 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2020.2988575

    work page doi:10.1109/tifs.2020.2988575 2020

  22. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation

    Castro, M., Liskov, B.: Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In: Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. OSDI ’99, pp. 173–186. USENIX Association, USA (1999)

    work page 1999

  23. [24]

    Performance modeling of PBFT consensus process for permissioned blockchain network (hyperledger fabric),

    Sukhwani, H., Mart´ ınez, J.M., Chang, X., Trivedi, K.S., Rindos, A.: Performance modeling of pbft consensus process for permissioned blockchain network (hyper- ledger fabric). In: 2017 IEEE 36th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), pp. 253–255 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/SRDS.2017.36

    work page doi:10.1109/srds.2017.36 2017

  24. [25]

    Reiter, Guy Golan-Gueta, and Ittai Abraham

    Yin, M., Malkhi, D., Reiter, M.K., Gueta, G.G., Abraham, I.: Hotstuff: Bft consensus with linearity and responsiveness. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. PODC ’19, pp. 347–356. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2019). https://doi. org/10.1145/3293611.3331591 .https://doi.org/10.1145/329...

    work page doi:10.1145/3293611.3331591 2019

  25. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    Miller, A., Xia, Y., Croman, K., Shi, E., Song, D.: The honey badger of bft protocols. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. CCS ’16, pp. 31–42. Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749. 2978399 .https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978399

    work page doi:10.1145/2976749 2016

  26. [27]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10147

    Yu, W., Li, Q., Heusdens, R., Kosta, S.: Optimal Privacy-Preserving Distributed Median Consensus (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10147

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [28]

    Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data,

    McMahan, H.B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., Arcas, B.A.: Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05629

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [29]

    International Journal of Medical Informatics112, 59–67 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.007

    Brisimi, T.S., Chen, R., Mela, T., Olshevsky, A., Paschalidis, I.C., Shi, W.: Fed- erated learning of predictive models from federated electronic health records. International Journal of Medical Informatics112, 59–67 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.007 2018

  29. [30]

    Curran Associates Inc., 24 Red Hook, NY, USA (2019)

    Zhu, L., Liu, Z., Han, S.: Deep leakage from gradients. Curran Associates Inc., 24 Red Hook, NY, USA (2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [31]

    In: Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Con- ference on Security Symposium

    Fang, M., Cao, X., Jia, J., Gong, N.Z.: Local model poisoning attacks to byzantine-robust federated learning. In: Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Con- ference on Security Symposium. SEC’20. USENIX Association, USA (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [32]

    A generic framework for privacy preserving deep learning

    Ryffel, T., Trask, A., Dahl, M., Wagner, B., Mancuso, J., Rueckert, D., Passerat- Palmbach, J.: A generic framework for privacy preserving deep learning (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.04017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [33]

    Blockchain and machine learning technologies for smart agriculture,

    Li, D., Han, D., Weng, T.-H., Zheng, Z., Li, H., Liu, H., Castiglione, A., Li, K.- C.: Blockchain for federated learning toward secure distributed machine learning systems: a systemic survey. Soft Computing26(9), 4423–4440 (2022) https://doi. org/10.1007/s00500-021-06496-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00500-021-06496-5 2022

  33. [34]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20245

    Zhao, Y., He, J., Chen, D., Luo, W., Xie, C., Zhang, R., Chen, Y., Xu, Y.: FedBKD: Distilled Federated Learning to Embrace Gerneralization and Personalization on Non-IID Data (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20245

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [35]

    IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control62(2), 753–765 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2016

    Mo, Y., Murray, R.M.: Privacy preserving average consensus. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control62(2), 753–765 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2016. 2564339

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.2016 2017

  35. [36]

    Nepalese Journal on Geoinformatics15(2016) https://doi.org/10

    Ghimire, S.: Capacity building in geo-information sector: A case of kathmandu university. Nepalese Journal on Geoinformatics15(2016) https://doi.org/10. 3126/njg.v15i1.51150

    work page 2016

  36. [37]

    (eds.) Verifiable Delay Func- tion, pp

    B¨ unz, B.: In: Jajodia, S., Samarati, P., Yung, M. (eds.) Verifiable Delay Func- tion, pp. 1–4. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-642-27739-9 1664-1 .https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27739-9 1664-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27739-9 2019

  37. [38]

    Shamir, A.: How to share a secret. Commun. ACM22(11), 612–613 (1979) https: //doi.org/10.1145/359168.359176

    work page doi:10.1145/359168.359176 1979

  38. [39]

    In: Boldyreva, A., Micciancio, D

    Ben-Sasson, E., Bentov, I., Horesh, Y., Riabzev, M.: Scalable zero knowledge with no trusted setup. In: Boldyreva, A., Micciancio, D. (eds.) Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2019, pp. 701–732. Springer, Cham (2019) 25

    work page 2019