FBChain: A Blockchain-based Federated Learning Model with Efficiency and Secure Communication

Although federated learning can build a global model without sharing training data, a large number of model parameters need to be exchanged during the construction process. Jakub Konecný et al. [18] proposed two ways to reduce the uplink communication costs: structured updates and sketched updates. Yunlong Lu et al. [19] proposed a blockchain-empowered federated learning scheme in digital twin edge networks to strengthen communication security and data privacy protection. Su Liu et al. [20] proposed an efficient-communication approach, which consists of three parts, provides a customized local training strategy for vehicular clients to achieve convergence quickly through a constraint item within fewer communication rounds. K. Li et al. [21] proposed a coreset-based FL (CBFL) framework to improve communication efficiency in federated learning. Instead of training model on full datasets with a regular network model, CBFL uses a much smaller well-matched evolutionary network model on coreset. Qing Han et al. [22] proposed PCFed, a novel privacy-enhanced and communication-efficient FL framework to provide higher model accuracy with rigorous privacy guarantees and great communication efficiency. Wei Liu et al. [23] proposed a general DFL framework, which implements both multiple local updates and multiple inter-node communications periodically, to strike a balance between communication efficiency and model consensus.

During the communication of parameters of the federal learning model, the communication may under malicious attack, and the model parameters may be tampered with or leaked. Jiaqi Zhao et al. [24] proposed a privacy protection and verifiable decentralized co-learning framework called PVD-FL, which can realize secure deep learning model training under a decentralized architecture. Zhe Peng et al. [25] proposed VFChain, a verifiable and auditable joint learning framework based on the blockchain system. Yuanhang Qi et al. [26] proposed a blockchain-based joint learning framework to realize decentralized, reliable, and safe joint learning without a centralized model coordinator.

During the transmission of parameters of the federal learning model, the data may be tampered with or leaked.Jiaqi Zhao et al. [24] proposed a privacy protection and verifiable decentralized co-learning framework called PVD-FL, which can realize secure deep learning model training under a decentralized architecture.Zhe Peng et al. [25] proposed VFChain, a verifiable and auditable joint learning framework based on the blockchain system. Yuanhang Qi et al. [26] proposed a blockchain-based joint learning framework to realize decentralized, reliable and safe joint learning without a centralized model coordinator. Jungjae Lee et al. [27] proposed a layered blockchain system, using public blockchain for a joint learning process without a trustworthy curator. This can prevent model poisoning attacks and provide security updates for the global model. Xiaoyuan Liu et al. [28] proposed a privacy-enhanced FL (PEFL) framework, which uses homomorphic encryption as the basic technology and provides a channel for the server to punish the poisoned by extracting the effective gradient data of the number function.

In cryptography, encryption methods can be divided into two categories of cryptographic algorithms based on the characteristics of the key: symmetric encryption and asymmetric encryption. Symmetric encryption algorithms are a type of encryption algorithm in cryptography. In this type of algorithm, the same key is used for both encryption and decryption, or two keys that can be easily calculated from each other are used. In symmetric encryption algorithms, because the same key is used for encryption and decryption, both parties in communication must jointly select and keep the same key. Each party must ensure the privacy and security of the symmetric key in order to achieve the confidentiality and integrity of the data. Symmetric encryption has the advantages of fast speed and simple algorithm, but it also has the disadvantages of complex key distribution and management, high cost, and inability to be used for digital signatures. Asymmetric encryption algorithms contain two different keys, the public key $k_{p}$ and the private key $k_{s}$. $k_{p}$ can be made public to other nodes, while $k_{s}$ can only be kept by oneself. It is easy to calculate $k_{p}$ from $k_{s}$, but it is difficult to calculate $k_{s}$ from $k_{p}$. Asymmetric encryption algorithms have the following characteristics:

• 1.

  Encryption and decryption are performed respectively by $k_{p}$ and $k_{s}$, $k_{p}\neq k_{s}$.

  Asymmetric encryption: $X\rightarrow Y:Y=Enc(X,k_{p})$.

  Asymmetric decryption: $Y\rightarrow X:X=Dec(Y,k_{s})=D(E(X,k_{p}),k_{s})$.

  Hence, X is the content to encrypt, Y is the ciphertext, $Enc$ is the encryption function, $Dec$ is the decryption function.

• 2.

  Can’t get $k_{s}$ from $Enc$ and $k_{p}$.

• 3.

  Both $k_{p}$ and $k_{s}$ can be used as encryption key and decryption key. $Y\rightarrow X:X=D(E(X,k_{p}),k_{s})=E(D(X,k_{s}),k_{p})$

The advantages of asymmetric encryption algorithms are that key distribution and management are simple, and it is relatively easy to implement digital signatures and key exchange. The disadvantage is that the algorithm is more complex and the encryption and decryption speed is slower.

One of the fundamental problems in distributed systems is how to ensure that the data of all nodes in a distributed system cluster are completely identical and can reach consensus on a proposal. Consensus algorithms focus on studying the process of distributed nodes reaching consensus. How to make all nodes in a distributed system cluster reach consensus in a complex, open, and untrusted Internet environment is still one of the challenges in the field of distributed computing.

The Proof of Stake (PoS) consensus algorithm using stake as witness nodes selection criteria, nodes with the highest stake, rather than the highest computing power, are awarded the right to record transactions. The stake is reflected in the node’s ownership of a specific amount of currency, called Coin days. The PoS consensus algorithm has advantages such as high efficiency and low resource consumption.

In the FBChain model, we use blockchain to store $GM$, and the hash values of $LM$, the $r$ round block is $\mathbb{BK}_{r}$, $LT$ get $\mathbb{BK}_{r}$ to continue next step training. During model aggregation, $PA$ receives $P_{L}^{\delta,e}$ directly from $LT_{\delta}$. Before transmitting $P_{L}^{\delta,e}$ to $PA$, $LT_{\delta}$ stores its hash value on the blockchain and compresses $P_{L}^{\delta,e}$ into a compressed file. This file is then encrypted symmetrically, and the encryption key is encrypted asymmetrically using $PA$’s public key to prevent tampering during transmission. Once $PA$ receives the encrypted data, it decrypts the symmetric encryption key using its private key and then decrypts the data itself. The resulting local model compared to the hash value stored on the blockchain to ensure that the model wasn’t tampered with. If the hash values match, it means that $P_{L}^{\delta,e}$ was transmitted without tampering, ensuring consistency and tamper resistance during data transmission. We introduce the credit score in FBChain, where nodes with poor local model training results will have their credit scores deducted, and credit scores less than a threshold will limit how often the node participates in global model aggregation. The process of the FBChain model is as follows:

Initialize Local Model. Utilize the $PoWLS$ consensus algorithm to choose $\alpha$ nodes, excluding the $LT$ node, from the blockchain network, considering their weighted link speeds. These selected nodes form the package nodes list ($PAL$). $LT_{\delta}$, $\delta\in[1,\beta]$ in blockchain network will initialize $LM$ by model weight random generation, $P_{L}^{\delta,1}=Random(GM_{structure})$, where $GM_{structure}$ is global model structure.

Process Updated Local Model. After $\eta$ epochs of local training, $LT_{\delta}$ obtains a locally updated model, denoted as $P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}$. $LT_{\delta}$ then calculates the hash value of $P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}$, denoted as $\mathbb{HASH}_{P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}}$, and adds it to a transaction, denoted as $Trans(\mathbb{HASH}_{P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}})$. The transaction is broadcast on the blockchain network.

$LT_{\delta}$ serializes and transforms $P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}$ into a serialized data format, denoted as $SEL_{P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}}$, and compresses it to reduce the communication data size. The compressed serialized data is denoted as $CMPS(SEL_{P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}})$. $LT_{\delta}$ then initializes a symmetric encryption key, denoted as $SEC|KEY_{LT_{\delta}}^{e}$, which is $LT_{\delta}$’s symmetric encryption key in round $e$. $LT_{\delta}$ encrypts $CMPS(SEL_{P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}})$ with $SEC|KEY_{LT_{\delta}}^{e}$ using a symmetric encryption algorithm, denoted as $Sy\_ENC$, to obtain a symmetrically encrypted compressed model, denoted as $SEC_{CMPS}^{P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}}$.

As $SEC|KEY_{LT_{\delta}}^{e}$ is important, $LT_{\delta}$ performs asymmetric encryption on it using $PAL_{\iota}$’s asymmetric encryption public key, denoted as $\mathbb{PK}_{PAL}^{\iota}$. The asymmetrically encrypted symmetric encryption key is denoted as $AEC_{SEC|KEY}^{LT_{\delta}^{e}}=As\_ENC(SEC|KEY_{LT_{\delta}^{e}},\mathbb{PK}_{PAL}^{\iota})$, where $As\_ENC$ is an asymmetric encryption algorithm.

By storing only the hash value of local models on the blockchain, we can reduce the storage space and block size required. This approach can help reduce block propagation delays and ensure the integrity and confidentiality of local models during transmission.

Local Model transmission. In FBChain, we use the credit score $CR$ to assess the performance of nodes, and set a threshold $CR_{TH}$ for local model transmission from nodes to $PA$, limiting nodes with poor $CR$ communication time. This helps to reduce the communication of models with poor performance and improve communication efficiency.

Before transmitting the local updated model $P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}$ to $PAL_{\iota}$ in round $e$, FBChain checks $LT_{\delta}$’s $CR$, denoted as $CR_{\delta}$. If $CR_{\delta}$ meets the threshold requirement ($CR_{\delta}\geq CR_{TH}$), $LT_{\delta}$ can transmit $P_{L}^{\delta,e}$ to $PAL_{\iota}$ without limitation. Otherwise, if $CR_{\delta}$ is lower than $CR_{TH}$, $LT_{\delta}$ is limited to transmitting $P_{L}^{\delta,e}$ to $PAL_{\iota}$ only once every $\kappa$ rounds.

Assuming that there are $\lambda$ nodes ($LT$) that can transmit to $PAL_{\iota}$, $LT_{\mu}$, where $\mu\in[0,\lambda]$, transmits an asymmetrically encrypted symmetric encryption key , $AEC_{SEC|KEY}^{LT_{\mu}^{e}}$, a compressed and symmetrically encrypted local updated model, $SEC_{CMPS}^{P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}}$, and a nonce of symmetric encryption, $Sy\_ENC_{LT_{\mu}}^{nonce}$, which is a unique random number used during symmetric encryption.

$PAL_{\iota}$ performs asymmetric decryption on $AEC_{SEC|KEY}^{LT_{\mu}^{e}}$ using its private key ($\mathbb{SK}_{PAL}^{\iota}$) to obtain the symmetric encryption key of $LT_{\mu}$ in round $e$ . $PAL_{\iota}$ then performs symmetric decryption on $SEC_{CMPS}^{P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}}$ using $SEC|KEY_{LT_{\mu}^{e}}$ and $Sy\_ENC_{LT_{\mu}}^{nonce}$ to obtain the compressed serialized $P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}$, $CMPS(SEL_{P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}})=Sy\_DEC(SEC_{CMPS}^{P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}},SEC|KEY_{LT_{\mu}}^{e},Sy\_ENC_{LT_{\mu}}^{nonce}).$ After decompressing $CMPS(SEL_{P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}})$, we obtain the serialized $P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}$, $SEL_{P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}}=Decompress(CMPS(SEL_{P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}}))$ , which can be loaded to obtain the original $P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}$, $P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}=Deserialize(SEL_{P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}})$

Local Model Verify and Global Model Aggregate. After receiving the locally updated model $P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}$ from $LT_{\mu}$, $PAL_{\iota}$ checks if its hash value equals $\mathbb{HASH}_{P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}}$ in $Trans(\mathbb{HASH}_{P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}})(\mu=\delta)$. If the hash value matches, it indicates that the model has not been tampered with during transmission.

Using the untampered $P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}$, $PAL_{\iota}$ performs an accuracy verification on a self-test dataset. If the test accuracy in $PAL_{\iota}$ is greater than $P_{G}^{\epsilon,{e-1}}$ or within a certain threshold $Acc_{threshold}$, $P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}$ can be added to the available local model update group, $ALMG$. Otherwise, if the test accuracy of $P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}$ in $PAL_{\iota}$ is lower than the accuracy of $P_{G}^{\epsilon,{e-1}}$ minus $Acc_{threshold}$, $P_{L,update}^{\mu,e}$ is added to the unavailable local model update group, $ULMG$.

Finally, $PAL_{\iota}$ aggregates the locally updated models received from $LT$ to obtain the global model $P_{G}^{\iota,{e}}=\sum_{\omega=1}^{\beta}(P_{L,update}^{\omega,e})/{\beta}$.

Block Package. After aggregating the local updated models and verifying their accuracy, $PAL_{\iota}$ packages the transaction of local model hash value $Trans(\mathbb{HASH}_{P_{L,update}^{\delta,e}})$ and the aggregated global model $P_{G}^{\iota,{e}}$ into a block $BK_{e}$, which is then broadcasted to $LT$ and $BP$. $LT$ retrieves $P_{G}^{\iota,e}$ from $BK_{e}$, and performs the next round of local updates based on $P_{G}^{\iota,e}$ until the training round limit is reached or the expected results are achieved.

In the FBChain model, we introduce a consensus algorithm called Proof of Weighted Link Speed (PoWLS). PoWLS takes into account the weighted value of nodes when selecting package nodes. For each node $Node_{\psi},0\leq\psi\leq\rho$, we calculate weighted value, $WV$, based on the node’s link speed, $D_{\psi}$, and transmission delay, $TD_{\psi}$. Nodes with higher $WV$ are more likely to be selected as $PA$. By comprehensively considering the network conditions of nodes and selecting nodes with better network conditions and high transmission efficiency, PoWLS improves the efficiency of parameter network transmission in federated learning.

The consensus algorithm process is as follows:

Weighted Link Speed Calculate. Calculate the $WV$ of $Node_{\psi}$ based on Equation 1 in the blockchain network except for the local training node, and sort them in descending order.

Among them, $\upsilon$, $\phi$ represent the weights of $Node_{\psi}$’s $D,TD$ respectively.

Choose Global Model Aggregation Packaging Nodes. Select the top $\tau$ nodes with high $WV$ to enter $PAL$, and nodes in $PAL$ are $PA$. $PA$ will broadcast transactions received between $PAL$, and aggregate global model separately, the $PA$ with highest $WV$ will add its packaged block into blockchain.

If the $WV$ of the $\tau$th and $(\tau+1)$th nodes are equal, and only the first $\tau$ nodes are selected to enter $PAL$, the nodes are chosen to join the packaging queue in order of priority based on their $D$, $TD$.

Package Blocks. For the local update models from $LT$, the $PA$ in $PAL$ take turns aggregating these models. After aggregation, $GM$ will be packaged into a transaction and added to the block with other transactions in the blockchain network during this period.

Credit Score and Token Reward. Nodes in the blockchain network receive $CR$ and token rewards based on their performance. $LT$ nodes in the active local model group (ALMG) are rewarded with $CR^{r}$ while $LT$ nodes in the unselected local model group (ULMG) are punished with $CR^{p}$, where $CR^{r}$ and $CR^{p}$ are positive and negative real numbers, respectively. Token rewards, denoted as $TR$, are distributed to nodes based on the contribution of their local model to the global model. The total token reward for each round of federated learning is fixed and $LT_{\psi}$ splits it with other $LT$ nodes. If $P_{L}^{\psi,e}$ performs better than other local models, $LT_{\psi}$ receives a larger share of the token reward, denoted as $TR_{\psi}$, which is calculated using Equation 2.