Adaptive and Robust Cost-Aware Proof of Quality for Decentralized LLM Inference Networks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.21189v1
• Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 02:39:40 GMT
• Title: Adaptive and Robust Cost-Aware Proof of Quality for Decentralized LLM Inference Networks
• Authors: Arther Tian, Alex Ding, Frank Chen, Simon Wu, Aaron Chan,
• Abstract summary: We extend a cost-aware Proof of Quality mechanism by adding adversary-resilient consensus formation.<n>We quantify evaluator reliability and show strong variance across evaluators, including task-dependent misalignment that can invert correlations.<n>These findings motivate robust consensus as a default component for cost-aware Proof of Quality.
• Score: 2.621929201001929
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Decentralized large language model inference networks require lightweight mechanisms to reward high quality outputs under heterogeneous latency and cost. Proof of Quality provides scalable verification by sampling evaluator nodes that score candidate outputs, then aggregating their scores into a consensus signal that determines rewards. However, evaluator heterogeneity and malicious score manipulation can distort consensus and inflate payouts, which weakens incentive alignment in open participation settings. This paper extends a cost-aware Proof of Quality mechanism by adding adversary-resilient consensus formation. We study robust aggregation rules, including median and trimmed mean, and an adaptive trust-weighted consensus that updates evaluator weights from deviation signals. Using question answering and summarization workloads with a ground truth proxy for offline analysis, we quantify evaluator reliability and show strong variance across evaluators, including task-dependent misalignment that can invert correlations. We then evaluate robustness under four adversarial strategies, including noise injection, boosting, sabotage, and intermittent manipulation, across a sweep of malicious ratios and evaluator sample sizes. Our results show that robust aggregation improves consensus alignment with the ground truth proxy and reduces sensitivity to noisy and strategic attacks compared with simple averaging. We further characterize the operational trade-off introduced by evaluator sampling, where larger evaluator sets reduce evaluator rewards and increase payoff variance while inference rewards remain relatively stable in our configuration. These findings motivate robust consensus as a default component for cost-aware Proof of Quality and provide practical guidance for selecting evaluator sampling parameters under adversarial risk and resource constraints.

Related papers

• A Multi-Dimensional Quality Scoring Framework for Decentralized LLM Inference with Proof of Quality [2.621929201001929]
  We propose a multi-dimensional quality scoring framework that decomposes output quality into modular dimensions.<n>We show that seemingly reasonable dimensions can be task-dependent and even negatively correlated with reference quality without calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T13:05:46Z)
• DREAM: Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics [21.555357444628044]
  We propose DREAM (Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics), a framework that makes evaluation itself agentic.<n> DREAM structures assessment through an evaluation protocol combining query-agnostic metrics with adaptive metrics generated by a tool-calling agent.<n>Controlled evaluations demonstrate DREAM is significantly more sensitive to factual and temporal decay than existing benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T19:14:31Z)
• Uncertainty and Fairness Awareness in LLM-Based Recommendation Systems [3.937681476010311]
  This paper studies how uncertainty and fairness evaluations affect the accuracy, consistency, and trustworthiness of large language models (LLMs)<n>We quantify predictive uncertainty (via entropy) and demonstrate that Google DeepMind's Gemini 1.5 Flash exhibits systematic unfairness for certain sensitive attributes.<n>We propose a novel uncertainty-aware evaluation methodology for RecLLMs, present empirical insights from deep uncertainty case studies, and introduce a personality profile-informed fairness benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T17:18:13Z)
• Rubric-Conditioned LLM Grading: Alignment, Uncertainty, and Robustness [4.129847064263056]
  We systematically evaluate the performance of Large Language Models for rubric-based short-answer grading.<n>We find that alignment is strong for binary tasks but degrades with increased rubric granularity.<n>Experiments reveal that while the model is resilient to prompt injection, it is sensitive to synonym substitutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-21T05:22:04Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• Revisiting Reliability in the Reasoning-based Pose Estimation Benchmark [27.134554623769898]
  The reasoning-based pose estimation (RPE) benchmark has emerged as a widely adopted evaluation standard for pose-aware large language models (MLLMs)<n>We identified critical and benchmark-quality issues that hinder fair and consistent quantitative evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T17:33:11Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases.<n>We find that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features.<n>We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• The Comparative Trap: Pairwise Comparisons Amplifies Biased Preferences of LLM Evaluators [31.520403357740317]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators for natural language generation tasks.<n>LLMs display biased preferences, such as favoring verbosity and authoritative tones.<n>We introduce PRePair, which integrates pointwise reasoning within a pairwise framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T06:43:04Z)
• VALID: a Validated Algorithm for Learning in Decentralized Networks with Possible Adversarial Presence [13.612214163974459]
  We introduce the paradigm of validated decentralized learning for undirected networks with heterogeneous data. VALID protocol is the first to achieve a validated learning guarantee. Remarkably, VALID retains optimal performance metrics in adversary-free environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-12T15:55:43Z)
• Noisy Correspondence Learning with Self-Reinforcing Errors Mitigation [63.180725016463974]
  Cross-modal retrieval relies on well-matched large-scale datasets that are laborious in practice. We introduce a novel noisy correspondence learning framework, namely textbfSelf-textbfReinforcing textbfErrors textbfMitigation (SREM)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-27T09:03:43Z)
• From Adversarial Arms Race to Model-centric Evaluation: Motivating a Unified Automatic Robustness Evaluation Framework [91.94389491920309]
  Textual adversarial attacks can discover models' weaknesses by adding semantic-preserved but misleading perturbations to the inputs. The existing practice of robustness evaluation may exhibit issues of incomprehensive evaluation, impractical evaluation protocol, and invalid adversarial samples. We set up a unified automatic robustness evaluation framework, shifting towards model-centric evaluation to exploit the advantages of adversarial attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T14:55:20Z)
• GREAT Score: Global Robustness Evaluation of Adversarial Perturbation using Generative Models [60.48306899271866]
  We present a new framework, called GREAT Score, for global robustness evaluation of adversarial perturbation using generative models. We show high correlation and significantly reduced cost of GREAT Score when compared to the attack-based model ranking on RobustBench. GREAT Score can be used for remote auditing of privacy-sensitive black-box models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T14:58:27Z)
• Exploiting Sample Uncertainty for Domain Adaptive Person Re-Identification [137.9939571408506]
  We estimate and exploit the credibility of the assigned pseudo-label of each sample to alleviate the influence of noisy labels. Our uncertainty-guided optimization brings significant improvement and achieves the state-of-the-art performance on benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-16T04:09:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.